首页 > 最新文献

Asia Policy最新文献

英文 中文
What's in an Indo-Pacific Concept? Shared Visions and Varied Approaches 印太概念是什么?共同愿景和多样化方法
IF 1.3 Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI: 10.1353/asp.2023.a903867
Alison Szalwinski
B eginning in the late 2000s, the United States, as well as two of its allies in Asia—Japan and Australia—began to articulate variations of the geopolitical concept of the “Indo-Pacific.” The idea of linking the Pacific and Indian Oceans into a broader geographic region was not entirely new, but the accompanying strategic overlay, which was introduced as part of the “free and open Indo-Pacific” concept, imbued the idea with new and significant implications for how these three countries would approach foreign policy, economic coordination, and military posture in the region and within their broader national strategies. As each of these three democracies elected new leaders over the next two decades, subsequent administrations across political parties generally reaffirmed and built on the idea of the “Indo-Pacific,” refining their visions for a free, open, prosperous, and secure two-ocean region in contrast with China’s increasingly assertive behavior. By 2022, many countries in the Indo-Pacific region and elsewhere—including France, Indonesia, South Korea, and the United Kingdom—had announced their own version of an Indo-Pacific vision, concept, or strategy, as had both the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the European Union. At present, the United States, South Korea, and France have all published official policy documents identifying an Indo-Pacific Strategy. Japan refers to its “free and open Indo-Pacific” vision or plan, while Indonesia has an Indo-Pacific concept. Perhaps most surprisingly, Australia lacks any dedicated government document or policy speech outlining an Indo-Pacific vision, instead electing to articulate its approach within its broader national security, foreign policy, and defense strategy papers. The United Kingdom similarly has outlined its thinking on an Indo-Pacific tilt within defense policy documents, while the Pacific Island countries and territories eschew “Indo-Pacific” as a defining construct but identify as a “Blue Pacific Continent” and have clarified regional security interests and priorities in the Boe Declaration on Regional Security.
始于21世纪末,美国及其在亚洲的两个盟友——日本和澳大利亚——开始阐述“印太”地缘政治概念的变体。将太平洋和印度洋连接到一个更广阔的地理区域的想法并不完全是新的,但随之而来的战略重叠,这是作为“自由开放的印度-太平洋”概念的一部分提出的,为这三个国家如何在该地区及其更广泛的国家战略中处理外交政策、经济协调和军事态势注入了新的重要意义。在接下来的二十年里,随着这三个民主国家各自选出新的领导人,随后各政党的政府普遍重申并建立在“印太”的理念之上,完善了他们对自由、开放、繁荣和安全的两洋地区的愿景,这与中国日益自信的行为形成了鲜明对比。到2022年,印太地区和其他地区的许多国家——包括法国、印度尼西亚、韩国和英国——已经宣布了自己版本的印太愿景、概念或战略,东南亚国家联盟(东盟)和欧盟也是如此。目前,美国、韩国和法国都发布了确定印太战略的官方政策文件。日本指的是其“自由开放的印太”愿景或计划,而印度尼西亚则有印太概念。也许最令人惊讶的是,澳大利亚没有任何专门的政府文件或政策演讲来概述印太愿景,而是选择在其更广泛的国家安全、外交政策和国防战略文件中阐明其方法。同样,英国在国防政策文件中概述了其对印太倾斜的想法,而太平洋岛国和领土则避免将“印太”作为一个定义性结构,而是将其视为“蓝色太平洋大陆”,并在《Boe区域安全宣言》中阐明了地区安全利益和优先事项。
{"title":"What's in an Indo-Pacific Concept? Shared Visions and Varied Approaches","authors":"Alison Szalwinski","doi":"10.1353/asp.2023.a903867","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/asp.2023.a903867","url":null,"abstract":"B eginning in the late 2000s, the United States, as well as two of its allies in Asia—Japan and Australia—began to articulate variations of the geopolitical concept of the “Indo-Pacific.” The idea of linking the Pacific and Indian Oceans into a broader geographic region was not entirely new, but the accompanying strategic overlay, which was introduced as part of the “free and open Indo-Pacific” concept, imbued the idea with new and significant implications for how these three countries would approach foreign policy, economic coordination, and military posture in the region and within their broader national strategies. As each of these three democracies elected new leaders over the next two decades, subsequent administrations across political parties generally reaffirmed and built on the idea of the “Indo-Pacific,” refining their visions for a free, open, prosperous, and secure two-ocean region in contrast with China’s increasingly assertive behavior. By 2022, many countries in the Indo-Pacific region and elsewhere—including France, Indonesia, South Korea, and the United Kingdom—had announced their own version of an Indo-Pacific vision, concept, or strategy, as had both the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the European Union. At present, the United States, South Korea, and France have all published official policy documents identifying an Indo-Pacific Strategy. Japan refers to its “free and open Indo-Pacific” vision or plan, while Indonesia has an Indo-Pacific concept. Perhaps most surprisingly, Australia lacks any dedicated government document or policy speech outlining an Indo-Pacific vision, instead electing to articulate its approach within its broader national security, foreign policy, and defense strategy papers. The United Kingdom similarly has outlined its thinking on an Indo-Pacific tilt within defense policy documents, while the Pacific Island countries and territories eschew “Indo-Pacific” as a defining construct but identify as a “Blue Pacific Continent” and have clarified regional security interests and priorities in the Boe Declaration on Regional Security.","PeriodicalId":53442,"journal":{"name":"Asia Policy","volume":"30 1","pages":"100 - 96"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45447090","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Assessing a Range of Approaches to Data Privacy and Security 评估数据隐私和安全的一系列方法
IF 1.3 Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI: 10.1353/asp.2023.a903870
Emily S. Weinstein
{"title":"Assessing a Range of Approaches to Data Privacy and Security","authors":"Emily S. Weinstein","doi":"10.1353/asp.2023.a903870","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/asp.2023.a903870","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":53442,"journal":{"name":"Asia Policy","volume":"30 1","pages":"161 - 164"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43185598","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Indonesia's Indo-Pacific Aspirations and the Reality of Its (Non)strategy 印尼的印太诉求及其(非)战略的现实
IF 1.3 Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI: 10.1353/asp.2023.a903863
Natalie Sambhi
A mid the rapidly evolving environment characterized by multipolarity, increased geopolitical rivalry, accelerated military modernization, changing economic fortunes, and complex environmental pressures, Indonesia has endeavored to remain optimistic about its place in the region. To this end, its leaders have formulated the country’s own interpretation of the Indo-Pacific, the geopolitical construct spanning the Indian and Pacific Oceans, to maximize Indonesia’s role in shaping this environment within its means and values. While Indonesia strives to play an active role in the region and be a leader in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), it does so guided by principles and domestic interests rather than a strategy. Many of its Indo-Pacific multilateral efforts are extensions of domestic imperatives. It is expected that states will pursue foreign policy objectives that serve national affairs; however, in Indonesia’s case, its deep-seated attachment to ASEAN centrality as well as its upcoming election have shaped, if not constrained, its ability to breathe life into its Indo-Pacific construct. Because the country also lacks strong military power and economic heft, its regional approach is reliant on diplomacy and norms.1 So far, this Indo-Pacific approach has been developed and tested under only one president, Joko Widodo (also known as Jokowi), so it remains to be seen whether it becomes part of Indonesia’s legacy.
在以多极化、地缘政治竞争加剧、军事现代化加速、经济命运变化和复杂的环境压力为特征的迅速变化的环境中,印度尼西亚努力对其在该地区的地位保持乐观。为此,印尼领导人制定了该国对印度-太平洋地区(横跨印度洋和太平洋的地缘政治结构)的自己解读,以最大限度地发挥印尼在其手段和价值观范围内塑造这一环境的作用。虽然印度尼西亚努力在该地区发挥积极作用,并成为东南亚国家联盟(ASEAN)的领导者,但它这样做是受原则和国内利益而不是战略的指导。它在印太地区的许多多边努力都是国内当务之急的延伸。预计各国将追求服务于本国事务的外交政策目标;然而,就印尼而言,它对东盟中心地位的根深蒂固的依恋,以及即将到来的选举,即使没有限制,也影响了它为印度-太平洋建设注入活力的能力。因为这个国家也缺乏强大的军事力量和经济实力,它的地区策略依赖于外交和规范到目前为止,这种印太战略只在一位总统佐科·维多多(Joko Widodo)的领导下发展和测试过,因此它是否会成为印尼的遗产,还有待观察。
{"title":"Indonesia's Indo-Pacific Aspirations and the Reality of Its (Non)strategy","authors":"Natalie Sambhi","doi":"10.1353/asp.2023.a903863","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/asp.2023.a903863","url":null,"abstract":"A mid the rapidly evolving environment characterized by multipolarity, increased geopolitical rivalry, accelerated military modernization, changing economic fortunes, and complex environmental pressures, Indonesia has endeavored to remain optimistic about its place in the region. To this end, its leaders have formulated the country’s own interpretation of the Indo-Pacific, the geopolitical construct spanning the Indian and Pacific Oceans, to maximize Indonesia’s role in shaping this environment within its means and values. While Indonesia strives to play an active role in the region and be a leader in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), it does so guided by principles and domestic interests rather than a strategy. Many of its Indo-Pacific multilateral efforts are extensions of domestic imperatives. It is expected that states will pursue foreign policy objectives that serve national affairs; however, in Indonesia’s case, its deep-seated attachment to ASEAN centrality as well as its upcoming election have shaped, if not constrained, its ability to breathe life into its Indo-Pacific construct. Because the country also lacks strong military power and economic heft, its regional approach is reliant on diplomacy and norms.1 So far, this Indo-Pacific approach has been developed and tested under only one president, Joko Widodo (also known as Jokowi), so it remains to be seen whether it becomes part of Indonesia’s legacy.","PeriodicalId":53442,"journal":{"name":"Asia Policy","volume":"30 1","pages":"46 - 55"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48903003","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Author's Response: Reactions to Trafficking Data Reflect Debates about Global Data Security Risk 作者回应:对非法交易数据的反应反映了关于全球数据安全风险的争论
Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI: 10.1353/asp.2023.a903873
Author's Response:Reactions to Trafficking Data Reflect Debates about Global Data Security Risk Aynne Kokas (bio) Global data governance is highly fragmented, and policy debates about it reflect intense disagreements about the expected role of corporations, the state, and civil society. The impact of data governance practices remains unsettled both within and across nations. Most central to these policy debates, and at the core of how new technologies develop domestically and internationally, is the notion of what constitutes risk and how best to prevent or mitigate it—by either taking a precautionary approach to data governance or attempting to abate data governance problems once they occur. I feel fortunate to engage in this debate. A major focus of my book Trafficking Data: How China Is Winning the Battle for Digital Sovereignty is on how the United States, China, and other developed digital economies perceive and respond to risks differently. Whereas Trafficking Data urges a precautionary approach, the reviews of this book reflect the robust debate about when and how to address the risks inherent in our increasingly digital world. I want to thank Emily S. Weinstein, Kendra Schaefer, Paul Triolo, and Asia Policy for the opportunity to engage on the book's themes with thinkers from the academic research, consulting, and think tank worlds. The issues that Trafficking Data raises concern many people, from journalists and regulators to investors and everyday citizens. Writing about U.S.-China relations in the current moment presents a challenge due, at least in part, to heightened domestic tensions in both countries. Using critiques of the United States' data governance system first, followed by critiques of China's approach, Trafficking Data argues that both approaches exploit users in their own distinctive ways. Indeed, interactions between the tech and data oversight practices of China and the United States present a worst-case scenario for users globally. [End Page 175] One area of seeming agreement among all three reviewers and the book is the importance of more comprehensive data oversight in the United States. Disagreement about what this might look like and the appropriate level of risk underscores one of the central points of the book and, indeed, in contemporary debates about data governance: Should countries follow an approach based on risk regulation or precautionary principles when responding to data gathering, integration, and movement?1 That is, does it make more sense to prepare for potential harm or to make policies that respond to harms that have already occurred or are knowable? This is not just a difference among specialists on China's tech policy; it is a raging debate among tech analysts more broadly. Policymakers that rely on the precautionary principle, which is most common in European lawmaking, do not wait for harm to happen or for uncertainty to be resolved.2 Rather, this approach recommends, at minimum, to avoid inactio
作者回应:对非法交易数据的反应反映了对全球数据安全风险的争论。全球数据治理是高度分散的,关于它的政策辩论反映了对公司、国家和公民社会预期角色的强烈分歧。数据治理实践的影响在国家内部和国家之间仍然不确定。这些政策辩论的最核心,也是新技术如何在国内和国际上发展的核心,是什么构成风险以及如何最好地预防或减轻风险的概念——要么采取预防性的数据治理方法,要么在数据治理问题发生时试图减轻它们。能参与这场辩论,我感到很幸运。我的书《贩运数据:中国如何赢得数字主权之战》的一个主要焦点是美国、中国和其他发达数字经济体如何以不同的方式感知和应对风险。虽然《贩运数据》敦促采取预防措施,但本书的评论反映了关于何时以及如何应对日益数字化的世界所固有风险的激烈辩论。我要感谢Emily S. Weinstein、Kendra Schaefer、Paul Triolo和Asia Policy让我有机会与来自学术研究、咨询和智库界的思想家就本书的主题进行交流。贩卖数据引发了许多人的关注,从记者、监管机构到投资者和普通公民。当前撰写中美关系的文章面临挑战,至少在一定程度上是由于两国国内紧张局势的加剧。《贩运数据》首先对美国的数据治理体系提出批评,然后对中国的方法提出批评,认为这两种方法都以自己独特的方式剥削用户。事实上,中国和美国的技术和数据监管实践之间的互动为全球用户带来了最坏的情况。三位审稿人和这本书似乎在一个方面达成了一致,那就是在美国进行更全面的数据监管的重要性。关于这可能是什么样子以及适当的风险水平的分歧强调了本书的一个中心观点,事实上,在当代关于数据治理的辩论中:在应对数据收集、整合和移动时,各国应该遵循基于风险监管或预防原则的方法?也就是说,是为潜在的危害做准备更有意义,还是制定政策应对已经发生或已知的危害更有意义?这不仅是中国科技政策专家之间的分歧;在更广泛的科技分析师中,这是一场激烈的辩论。政策制定者依靠预防原则,这在欧洲立法中是最常见的,他们不会坐等伤害发生或不确定性得到解决相反,这种方法建议,至少要避免对潜在风险不采取行动,最多要进行监管,“直到明确没有严重危害的危险为止”。在日本、澳大利亚、印度和其他美国的盟友和合作伙伴,也有明确的政策努力来预防数据传输的风险。相比之下,基于风险的监管在美国更常见,并对美国当前的监控资本主义制度负责,它更接受已知和未知的风险,以换取经济和社会效益在本书的前言中,我讨论了与气候政策相关的数据贩运,这并非巧合,气候政策是预防性政策制定的先驱之一。在气候政策方面,欧洲、日本、澳大利亚以及美国的其他盟友和合作伙伴也采取了与美国不同的做法,采取行动保护本国公民免受风险影响,而不是等到风险出现后再寻求缓解措施。在数据监管方面,预防性监管和基于风险的监管之间的争论不仅是美中科技关系的核心,也是美国和其他国家如何应对从可再生人工智能到生物工程等一系列新技术的核心,这些技术的风险很大,但不可预测。尽管我很欣赏其中两位评论者的观点,他们认为这带来的全部风险……
{"title":"Author's Response: Reactions to Trafficking Data Reflect Debates about Global Data Security Risk","authors":"","doi":"10.1353/asp.2023.a903873","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/asp.2023.a903873","url":null,"abstract":"Author's Response:Reactions to Trafficking Data Reflect Debates about Global Data Security Risk Aynne Kokas (bio) Global data governance is highly fragmented, and policy debates about it reflect intense disagreements about the expected role of corporations, the state, and civil society. The impact of data governance practices remains unsettled both within and across nations. Most central to these policy debates, and at the core of how new technologies develop domestically and internationally, is the notion of what constitutes risk and how best to prevent or mitigate it—by either taking a precautionary approach to data governance or attempting to abate data governance problems once they occur. I feel fortunate to engage in this debate. A major focus of my book Trafficking Data: How China Is Winning the Battle for Digital Sovereignty is on how the United States, China, and other developed digital economies perceive and respond to risks differently. Whereas Trafficking Data urges a precautionary approach, the reviews of this book reflect the robust debate about when and how to address the risks inherent in our increasingly digital world. I want to thank Emily S. Weinstein, Kendra Schaefer, Paul Triolo, and Asia Policy for the opportunity to engage on the book's themes with thinkers from the academic research, consulting, and think tank worlds. The issues that Trafficking Data raises concern many people, from journalists and regulators to investors and everyday citizens. Writing about U.S.-China relations in the current moment presents a challenge due, at least in part, to heightened domestic tensions in both countries. Using critiques of the United States' data governance system first, followed by critiques of China's approach, Trafficking Data argues that both approaches exploit users in their own distinctive ways. Indeed, interactions between the tech and data oversight practices of China and the United States present a worst-case scenario for users globally. [End Page 175] One area of seeming agreement among all three reviewers and the book is the importance of more comprehensive data oversight in the United States. Disagreement about what this might look like and the appropriate level of risk underscores one of the central points of the book and, indeed, in contemporary debates about data governance: Should countries follow an approach based on risk regulation or precautionary principles when responding to data gathering, integration, and movement?1 That is, does it make more sense to prepare for potential harm or to make policies that respond to harms that have already occurred or are knowable? This is not just a difference among specialists on China's tech policy; it is a raging debate among tech analysts more broadly. Policymakers that rely on the precautionary principle, which is most common in European lawmaking, do not wait for harm to happen or for uncertainty to be resolved.2 Rather, this approach recommends, at minimum, to avoid inactio","PeriodicalId":53442,"journal":{"name":"Asia Policy","volume":"160 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135711474","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Trafficking in Assertions on Data in China Lacks Explanatory Power 中国贩卖数据缺乏解释力
IF 1.3 Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI: 10.1353/asp.2023.a903872
Paul Triolo
T he issue of China and data, including Chinese government access to data, has become one of the most discussed topics in U.S.-China relations. News on this issue seems to emerge on a daily basis—whether it is the Montana governor banning TikTok, claims that Chinese drones are sending data back to Beijing, or headlines claiming that China is blocking outbound data flows due to national security concerns. In her new book Trafficking Data: How China Is Winning the Battle for Digital Sovereignty, Aynne Kokas offers a sweeping view of the data landscape and its nexus with China, from TikTok to WeChat to the Digital Silk Road. There is much to say about the evolution of China’s data governance, which has progressed substantially since its Cybersecurity Law was enacted in 2016 and implemented in 2017, as well as about successful Chinese apps such as TikTok and WeChat. While well-researched in places, the book, like many articles on China and data, makes initial assumptions, and then builds theories of risks on top of a largely unexamined set of theses about the Chinese government, its ability and intention regarding data handling, and how it interacts with private-sector companies that dominate the data space in China. Kokas seems to accept, somewhat uncritically, that the Chinese government demands and can access all data collected and processed by Chinese technology platforms. The book also argues that the Chinese government seeks to put together bits of information from different Chinese and Western sources under the concept of “mosaic theory,” which holds that such data points, when taken together, present risks to individuals or companies (see p. 147). Both of these approaches assume that China has grand designs to control all data and leverage it for nefarious ends. But on closer examination, the validity of building further constructs upon these assumptions looks quite dubious. The standard assessment of China’s national security and intelligence laws (including the Cybersecurity Law) as mandating companies to turn over data to the government is inaccurate on several levels (see p. 120).
中国和数据问题,包括中国政府获取数据的途径,已成为美中关系中讨论最多的话题之一。关于这个问题的新闻似乎每天都在出现——无论是蒙大拿州州长禁止TikTok,声称中国无人机正在向北京发送数据,还是声称中国出于国家安全考虑正在阻止出境数据流的头条新闻。在她的新书《贩卖数据:中国如何赢得数字主权之战》中,安妮·科卡斯(Aynne Kokas)全面介绍了数据格局及其与中国的关系,从TikTok到b微信再到数字丝绸之路。自2016年颁布《网络安全法》并于2017年实施以来,中国数据治理的演变取得了重大进展,TikTok和b微信等成功的中国应用程序也有很多话可说。虽然在一些地方进行了充分的研究,但与许多关于中国和数据的文章一样,这本书做出了初步的假设,然后在一套基本上未经检验的论文的基础上建立了风险理论,这些论文涉及中国政府、其处理数据的能力和意图,以及它如何与主导中国数据空间的私营企业互动。Kokas似乎不加批判地接受了中国政府要求并可以访问中国技术平台收集和处理的所有数据。该书还认为,中国政府试图在“马赛克理论”的概念下,将来自不同中国和西方来源的信息拼凑在一起,该理论认为,当这些数据点放在一起时,会给个人或公司带来风险(见第147页)。这两种方法都假设中国有宏伟的计划来控制所有数据,并利用这些数据达到邪恶的目的。但经过更仔细的检查,在这些假设的基础上建立进一步结构的有效性看起来相当可疑。对中国国家安全和情报法(包括《网络安全法》)强制要求公司向政府提交数据的标准评估在几个层面上是不准确的(见第120页)。
{"title":"Trafficking in Assertions on Data in China Lacks Explanatory Power","authors":"Paul Triolo","doi":"10.1353/asp.2023.a903872","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/asp.2023.a903872","url":null,"abstract":"T he issue of China and data, including Chinese government access to data, has become one of the most discussed topics in U.S.-China relations. News on this issue seems to emerge on a daily basis—whether it is the Montana governor banning TikTok, claims that Chinese drones are sending data back to Beijing, or headlines claiming that China is blocking outbound data flows due to national security concerns. In her new book Trafficking Data: How China Is Winning the Battle for Digital Sovereignty, Aynne Kokas offers a sweeping view of the data landscape and its nexus with China, from TikTok to WeChat to the Digital Silk Road. There is much to say about the evolution of China’s data governance, which has progressed substantially since its Cybersecurity Law was enacted in 2016 and implemented in 2017, as well as about successful Chinese apps such as TikTok and WeChat. While well-researched in places, the book, like many articles on China and data, makes initial assumptions, and then builds theories of risks on top of a largely unexamined set of theses about the Chinese government, its ability and intention regarding data handling, and how it interacts with private-sector companies that dominate the data space in China. Kokas seems to accept, somewhat uncritically, that the Chinese government demands and can access all data collected and processed by Chinese technology platforms. The book also argues that the Chinese government seeks to put together bits of information from different Chinese and Western sources under the concept of “mosaic theory,” which holds that such data points, when taken together, present risks to individuals or companies (see p. 147). Both of these approaches assume that China has grand designs to control all data and leverage it for nefarious ends. But on closer examination, the validity of building further constructs upon these assumptions looks quite dubious. The standard assessment of China’s national security and intelligence laws (including the Cybersecurity Law) as mandating companies to turn over data to the government is inaccurate on several levels (see p. 120).","PeriodicalId":53442,"journal":{"name":"Asia Policy","volume":"30 1","pages":"170 - 174"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48175237","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
The United States: A Comprehensive Strategy with Challenges Ahead 《美国:面临挑战的全面战略
Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI: 10.1353/asp.2023.a903859
Jeffrey W. Hornung
The United States:A Comprehensive Strategy with Challenges Ahead Jeffrey W. Hornung (bio) The importance of the Indo-Pacific region to the United States stretches back to the founding of the American republic. For over two centuries, political, diplomatic, commercial, and people-to-people ties with Asian countries have helped the United States build the country. World War II demonstrated that conflict and instability in the Indo-Pacific region can have a direct impact on the United States. The war, as well as subsequent others, reinforced the United States' security interests in the region, which have since been strengthened through decades of treaty alliances with key regional actors. In February 2022, the Biden administration released its Indo-Pacific Strategy, which advocates freedom and openness through regional connectivity, trade, investment, and deeper bilateral and multilateral partnerships. In this strategy, the Biden administration follows in the footsteps of its predecessors. The Obama administration, though, was the first to declare a U.S. pivot—later rebranded a "rebalance"—to Asia, which followed the Bush administration's push for greater cooperation with Japan and India and closer engagement with China. In 2019, the Trump administration issued its "free and open Indo-Pacific" strategy.1 It is with this last effort that President Joe Biden's strategy shows the greatest continuity. Not only does Biden's strategy maintain the focus on a free and open Indo-Pacific—a concept directly adopted from Japanese policy—but the core tenants of the strategy essentially remain the same as Donald Trump's strategy. Despite their varied approaches to the Indo-Pacific, these Republican and Democrat administrations maintain a shared consistency in their understanding of the region's relative importance, one that places an emphasis on allies and partners and—particularly since Obama—advocates the goal of keeping the region free from coercion and [End Page 7] open to trade, investment, and ideas.2 Collectively, this suggests that, despite centuries of engagement with the region, U.S. strategy toward the Indo-Pacific has been formalizing over the past twenty years, with the Biden administration's policy being the most recent iteration. This essay seeks to assess Biden's Indo-Pacific Strategy by examining what it is and where potential challenges in its implementation lie. What Is the United States' Indo-Pacific Strategy? Despite President Biden's critique of the Trump administration's approach to the Indo-Pacific, both Biden and Trump pursued strategies that were more similar than different. The strategy contains five key objectives that the United States intends to pursue with its allies, partners, and regional institutions. These objectives are (1) advance a free and open Indo-Pacific, (2) build connections within and beyond the region, (3) drive regional prosperity, (4) bolster Indo-Pacific security, and (5) build regional resilience to transnational
美国:面临挑战的全面战略杰弗里·w·霍农(Jeffrey W. Hornung)(生物)印度-太平洋地区对美国的重要性可以追溯到美利坚共和国的建立。两个多世纪以来,与亚洲国家的政治、外交、商业和民间联系帮助美国建设了这个国家。第二次世界大战表明,印太地区的冲突和不稳定可能对美国产生直接影响。这场战争,以及随后的其他战争,加强了美国在该地区的安全利益,此后,通过与该地区主要国家几十年的条约联盟,美国的安全利益得到了加强。2022年2月,拜登政府发布了《印度-太平洋战略》,主张通过地区互联互通、贸易、投资以及深化双边和多边伙伴关系实现自由和开放。在这一战略中,拜登政府追随了前任政府的脚步。然而,奥巴马政府是第一个宣布美国将重心转向亚洲的政府——后来更名为“再平衡”战略——紧随布什政府推动与日本和印度加强合作,并与中国加强接触。2019年,特朗普政府发布了“自由开放的印太战略”乔·拜登(Joe Biden)总统的战略正是在这最后一项努力中显示出最大的连续性。拜登的战略不仅保持了对自由开放的印太地区的关注——这一概念直接来自日本的政策——而且该战略的核心租户本质上与唐纳德·特朗普的战略保持一致。尽管共和党和民主党政府对印太地区的态度各不相同,但他们对该地区相对重要性的理解是一致的,即强调盟友和合作伙伴,特别是自奥巴马政府以来,他们主张保持该地区免受胁迫,并对贸易、投资和思想开放总的来说,这表明,尽管美国与该地区进行了几个世纪的接触,但美国对印太地区的战略在过去20年里一直在正规化,而拜登政府的政策是最近的一次迭代。本文试图通过分析拜登的印太战略是什么以及在实施过程中面临的潜在挑战,来评估拜登的印太战略。美国的印太战略是什么?尽管拜登总统对特朗普政府的印太政策提出了批评,但拜登和特朗普都采取了相似而非不同的战略。该战略包括美国打算与其盟友、伙伴和地区机构共同追求的五个关键目标。这些目标是:(1)推进一个自由开放的印度-太平洋地区;(2)建立地区内外的联系;(3)推动地区繁荣;(4)加强印度-太平洋地区的安全;(5)建立地区应对跨国威胁的能力。为实现上述每一项目标,该战略确定了以下任务:•推进一个自由开放的印度-太平洋地区:投资于民主机构、新闻自由和充满活力的公民社会。改善财政透明度。确保本地区的海洋和天空按照国际法进行管理和使用。对关键技术和新兴技术、互联网和网络空间采取共同措施。•建立区域内外的联系:4°加深区域条约联盟。加强与区域伙伴的关系(特别提到印度、印度尼西亚、马来西亚、蒙古、新西兰、太平洋岛屿、新加坡、台湾和越南)。加强四方会谈(即由澳大利亚、印度、日本和美国组成的安全对话小组)。加深与东南亚国家联盟(ASEAN)的合作(特别提到东盟的中心地位)。与太平洋岛国合作,优先与《自由联合契约》(cofa)谈判。扩大美国的外交存在(特别提到东南亚和太平洋岛屿)。在印度-太平洋地区和欧洲-大西洋地区之间建立联系。•推动地区繁荣:6°提出一个印度-太平洋经济框架(提及贸易、数字经济和数据流治理以及供应链的新方法)。通过亚太经济合作组织(APEC)促进自由、公平、开放的贸易和投资。通过与七国集团成员的“重建更美好的世界”伙伴关系,缩小本地区的基础设施差距。•支持……
{"title":"The United States: A Comprehensive Strategy with Challenges Ahead","authors":"Jeffrey W. Hornung","doi":"10.1353/asp.2023.a903859","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/asp.2023.a903859","url":null,"abstract":"The United States:A Comprehensive Strategy with Challenges Ahead Jeffrey W. Hornung (bio) The importance of the Indo-Pacific region to the United States stretches back to the founding of the American republic. For over two centuries, political, diplomatic, commercial, and people-to-people ties with Asian countries have helped the United States build the country. World War II demonstrated that conflict and instability in the Indo-Pacific region can have a direct impact on the United States. The war, as well as subsequent others, reinforced the United States' security interests in the region, which have since been strengthened through decades of treaty alliances with key regional actors. In February 2022, the Biden administration released its Indo-Pacific Strategy, which advocates freedom and openness through regional connectivity, trade, investment, and deeper bilateral and multilateral partnerships. In this strategy, the Biden administration follows in the footsteps of its predecessors. The Obama administration, though, was the first to declare a U.S. pivot—later rebranded a \"rebalance\"—to Asia, which followed the Bush administration's push for greater cooperation with Japan and India and closer engagement with China. In 2019, the Trump administration issued its \"free and open Indo-Pacific\" strategy.1 It is with this last effort that President Joe Biden's strategy shows the greatest continuity. Not only does Biden's strategy maintain the focus on a free and open Indo-Pacific—a concept directly adopted from Japanese policy—but the core tenants of the strategy essentially remain the same as Donald Trump's strategy. Despite their varied approaches to the Indo-Pacific, these Republican and Democrat administrations maintain a shared consistency in their understanding of the region's relative importance, one that places an emphasis on allies and partners and—particularly since Obama—advocates the goal of keeping the region free from coercion and [End Page 7] open to trade, investment, and ideas.2 Collectively, this suggests that, despite centuries of engagement with the region, U.S. strategy toward the Indo-Pacific has been formalizing over the past twenty years, with the Biden administration's policy being the most recent iteration. This essay seeks to assess Biden's Indo-Pacific Strategy by examining what it is and where potential challenges in its implementation lie. What Is the United States' Indo-Pacific Strategy? Despite President Biden's critique of the Trump administration's approach to the Indo-Pacific, both Biden and Trump pursued strategies that were more similar than different. The strategy contains five key objectives that the United States intends to pursue with its allies, partners, and regional institutions. These objectives are (1) advance a free and open Indo-Pacific, (2) build connections within and beyond the region, (3) drive regional prosperity, (4) bolster Indo-Pacific security, and (5) build regional resilience to transnational ","PeriodicalId":53442,"journal":{"name":"Asia Policy","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135711475","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
An Excellent Point Lost in Execution 在执行过程中失去了一个很好的点
IF 1.3 Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI: 10.1353/asp.2023.a903871
Kendra Schaefer
I n Trafficking Data: How China Is Winning the Battle for Digital Sovereignty, Aynne Kokas does what so many books addressing China’s data governance regime fail to do: she urges U.S. policymakers to “look to thine own house first.” This book’s key argument is that the failure of U.S. policymakers to pass federal, cross-sector legislation protecting the data of U.S. citizens leaves the door open for any malicious actor—state-sponsored or otherwise—to abuse and exfiltrate it. Without a federal data privacy law or a centralized, cross-agency, and cross-sector framework for oversight of data security, U.S. government bodies seeking to protect the privacy of their citizens from competing countries are left combating threats on a whack-a-mole, case-by-case basis, which is both ineffective and ultimately unsustainable. Trafficking Data successfully draws attention to these important issues and highlights a multitude of gaps in the current U.S. policy approach that are worthy of consideration by policymakers. However, Trafficking Data is less successful in accurately describing the nuances of China’s data and network policy, the mechanisms through which the Chinese state and private actors collect and employ data, and the structure and functions of the Chinese government. The result is that the specific nature of the threat presented by data trafficking may be misrepresented. One such misrepresentation made repeatedly is that China’s 2017 Cybersecurity Law requires “Chinese or foreign firms operating in China [to] legally store their data in Chinese government-run servers” (p. 4, also pp. 51 and 209). For example, the book notes:
在《贩运数据:中国如何赢得数字主权之战》一书中,Aynne Kokas做了许多关于中国数据治理制度的书所没有做的事情:她敦促美国政策制定者“先看看自己的房子”,保护美国公民数据的跨部门立法为任何恶意行为者——无论是国家支持的还是其他方面——滥用和泄露数据敞开了大门。如果没有联邦数据隐私法,也没有集中、跨机构和跨部门的数据安全监督框架,寻求保护其公民隐私免受竞争国家侵犯的美国政府机构只能根据具体情况与威胁作斗争,这既无效又最终不可持续。贩运数据成功地引起了人们对这些重要问题的关注,并突出了当前美国政策方法中值得决策者考虑的许多差距。然而,《贩运数据》在准确描述中国数据和网络政策的细微差别、中国国家和私人行为者收集和使用数据的机制以及中国政府的结构和职能方面并不成功。结果是,数据贩运带来的威胁的具体性质可能被歪曲。其中一个反复出现的虚假陈述是,中国2017年的《网络安全法》要求“在中国经营的中国或外国公司[合法]将其数据存储在中国政府运营的服务器中”(第4页,也是第51和209页)。例如,该书指出:
{"title":"An Excellent Point Lost in Execution","authors":"Kendra Schaefer","doi":"10.1353/asp.2023.a903871","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/asp.2023.a903871","url":null,"abstract":"I n Trafficking Data: How China Is Winning the Battle for Digital Sovereignty, Aynne Kokas does what so many books addressing China’s data governance regime fail to do: she urges U.S. policymakers to “look to thine own house first.” This book’s key argument is that the failure of U.S. policymakers to pass federal, cross-sector legislation protecting the data of U.S. citizens leaves the door open for any malicious actor—state-sponsored or otherwise—to abuse and exfiltrate it. Without a federal data privacy law or a centralized, cross-agency, and cross-sector framework for oversight of data security, U.S. government bodies seeking to protect the privacy of their citizens from competing countries are left combating threats on a whack-a-mole, case-by-case basis, which is both ineffective and ultimately unsustainable. Trafficking Data successfully draws attention to these important issues and highlights a multitude of gaps in the current U.S. policy approach that are worthy of consideration by policymakers. However, Trafficking Data is less successful in accurately describing the nuances of China’s data and network policy, the mechanisms through which the Chinese state and private actors collect and employ data, and the structure and functions of the Chinese government. The result is that the specific nature of the threat presented by data trafficking may be misrepresented. One such misrepresentation made repeatedly is that China’s 2017 Cybersecurity Law requires “Chinese or foreign firms operating in China [to] legally store their data in Chinese government-run servers” (p. 4, also pp. 51 and 209). For example, the book notes:","PeriodicalId":53442,"journal":{"name":"Asia Policy","volume":"30 1","pages":"165 - 169"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43369773","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
South Korea's Indo-Pacific Strategy: More than Strategic Clarity and toward Becoming a Global Player 韩国的印太战略:不仅仅是战略清晰度,而是走向全球参与者
IF 1.3 Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI: 10.1353/asp.2023.a903861
J. Hwang
I s the region we live in called the “Asia-Pacific” or the “Indo-Pacific”?1 Many countries around the world are currently formulating their positions toward the United States’ Indo-Pacific Strategy, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, actively or passively, and regardless of whether they support it. In the case of South Korea, at a summit with U.S. president Joe Biden in May 2022, President Yoon Suk-yeol agreed to strengthen cooperation with the United States with the goal of promoting a free and open IndoPacific region.2 This move by the newly inaugurated Yoon signified that South Korea, which until that point had been debating whether to use the term “Asia-Pacific” or “Indo-Pacific,” had determined decisively to go all in on the latter. Then, on December 28, the administration officially unveiled its Strategy for a Free, Peaceful and Prosperous Indo-Pacific Region, in which it pledged to transform South Korea into a “global pivotal state” that contributes to the freedom, peace, and prosperity of the international community.3 South Korean foreign minister Park Jin not only described the strategy as a “turning point in the history of South Korea’s foreign policy” but also announced that it would serve as the “foreign policy doctrine of the Yoon Suk-yeol government.”4 This essay argues that the Yoon administration’s Indo-Pacific strategy plays a crucial role in realizing the president’s vision of South Korea as a
我们生活的地区叫“亚太”还是“印太”?1 .目前,世界上许多国家都在制定自己对美国印太战略的立场,无论是自愿还是非自愿,主动还是被动,无论是否支持。2022年5月,韩国总统尹锡烈在与美国总统拜登的首脑会谈中,就加强与美国的合作达成了协议,目标是促进自由开放的印度-太平洋地区尹永宽的这一举动表明,在此之前一直在争论“亚太”还是“印太”的韩国,已经果断地决定全力以赴。然后,在12月28日,政府正式公布了“自由、和平与繁荣的印度-太平洋地区战略”,其中承诺将韩国转变为“全球枢纽国家”,为国际社会的自由、和平与繁荣做出贡献外交通商部长官朴振表示,这是“韩国外交历史上的转折点”,并表示将成为“尹锡烈政府的外交方针”。4本文认为,尹总统政府的印太战略在实现总统的韩国愿景方面发挥了至关重要的作用
{"title":"South Korea's Indo-Pacific Strategy: More than Strategic Clarity and toward Becoming a Global Player","authors":"J. Hwang","doi":"10.1353/asp.2023.a903861","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/asp.2023.a903861","url":null,"abstract":"I s the region we live in called the “Asia-Pacific” or the “Indo-Pacific”?1 Many countries around the world are currently formulating their positions toward the United States’ Indo-Pacific Strategy, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, actively or passively, and regardless of whether they support it. In the case of South Korea, at a summit with U.S. president Joe Biden in May 2022, President Yoon Suk-yeol agreed to strengthen cooperation with the United States with the goal of promoting a free and open IndoPacific region.2 This move by the newly inaugurated Yoon signified that South Korea, which until that point had been debating whether to use the term “Asia-Pacific” or “Indo-Pacific,” had determined decisively to go all in on the latter. Then, on December 28, the administration officially unveiled its Strategy for a Free, Peaceful and Prosperous Indo-Pacific Region, in which it pledged to transform South Korea into a “global pivotal state” that contributes to the freedom, peace, and prosperity of the international community.3 South Korean foreign minister Park Jin not only described the strategy as a “turning point in the history of South Korea’s foreign policy” but also announced that it would serve as the “foreign policy doctrine of the Yoon Suk-yeol government.”4 This essay argues that the Yoon administration’s Indo-Pacific strategy plays a crucial role in realizing the president’s vision of South Korea as a","PeriodicalId":53442,"journal":{"name":"Asia Policy","volume":"30 1","pages":"26 - 34"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42273009","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Introduction 介绍
IF 1.3 Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI: 10.1353/asp.2023.a903858
J. Hwang, Jeffrey W. Hornung
I n May 2022, South Korea saw a new government, led by Yoon Suk-yeol, come to power. Part of the defining characteristics of the new government has been a more forward-looking approach in engagement with countries in the region, illustrated, in part, by the release of an Indo-Pacific strategy. This strategy’s release sparked debate within South Korea and abroad, not only regarding its vision and implementation challenges but also regarding its content, feasibility, and alignment with reality. Amid this active debate, the Institute for Global Strategy and Cooperation hosted an international conference on the Indo-Pacific in Seoul in March 2023. Entitled “The Path of Korean Diplomacy in the Era of the Indo-Pacific,” the conference brought together over one hundred participants from twenty-two countries, including experts from sixteen countries, ambassadors and diplomatic representatives in Seoul from thirteen countries, the deputy speaker of the National Assembly of South Korea, and parliamentarians from four countries. The conference highlighted the fact that interest in the Indo-Pacific has transcended any one country and become an integral part of regional policy approaches. Indeed, many countries today have their own Indo-Pacific strategies. However, these strategies are not in lockstep with one another. Indo-Pacific strategies mean different things to different states. And yet, for most, the defining characteristic of the growing interest in the Indo-Pacific region appears to be a looming showdown between China and the United States. The competition between the two nations is fierce, and many countries feel forced to choose sides despite the desire to maintain positive relations with both powers. This roundtable seeks to build upon the proceedings in Seoul and invite additional regional voices to explore how countries in the Indo-Pacific perceive the growing U.S.-China competition, how these states plan to
2022年5月,韩国由尹锡悦领导的新政府上台。新政府的部分决定性特征是在与该地区国家接触时采取了更具前瞻性的方法,这在一定程度上体现在印度-太平洋战略的发布上。该战略的发布在韩国国内外引发了争论,不仅涉及其愿景和实施挑战,还涉及其内容、可行性和与现实的一致性。在这场激烈的辩论中,全球战略与合作研究所于2023年3月在首尔主办了一次印度洋-太平洋国际会议。这次会议题为“印度-太平洋时代的韩国外交之路”,来自22个国家的100多名与会者参加了会议,其中包括来自16个国家的专家、来自13个国家的驻首尔大使和外交代表、韩国国会副议长和来自4个国家的议员。会议强调,对印太地区的兴趣已经超越任何一个国家,成为地区政策方法的组成部分。事实上,今天许多国家都有自己的印太战略。然而,这些策略并不步调一致。印太战略对不同的国家意味着不同的东西。然而,对大多数人来说,对印太地区日益增长的兴趣的决定性特征似乎是中美之间即将摊牌。这两个国家之间的竞争非常激烈,尽管许多国家都希望与这两个大国保持积极的关系,但他们还是感到被迫选边站队。本次圆桌会议旨在以首尔会议为基础,邀请更多地区声音探讨印太地区国家如何看待日益激烈的美中竞争,以及这些国家计划如何
{"title":"Introduction","authors":"J. Hwang, Jeffrey W. Hornung","doi":"10.1353/asp.2023.a903858","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/asp.2023.a903858","url":null,"abstract":"I n May 2022, South Korea saw a new government, led by Yoon Suk-yeol, come to power. Part of the defining characteristics of the new government has been a more forward-looking approach in engagement with countries in the region, illustrated, in part, by the release of an Indo-Pacific strategy. This strategy’s release sparked debate within South Korea and abroad, not only regarding its vision and implementation challenges but also regarding its content, feasibility, and alignment with reality. Amid this active debate, the Institute for Global Strategy and Cooperation hosted an international conference on the Indo-Pacific in Seoul in March 2023. Entitled “The Path of Korean Diplomacy in the Era of the Indo-Pacific,” the conference brought together over one hundred participants from twenty-two countries, including experts from sixteen countries, ambassadors and diplomatic representatives in Seoul from thirteen countries, the deputy speaker of the National Assembly of South Korea, and parliamentarians from four countries. The conference highlighted the fact that interest in the Indo-Pacific has transcended any one country and become an integral part of regional policy approaches. Indeed, many countries today have their own Indo-Pacific strategies. However, these strategies are not in lockstep with one another. Indo-Pacific strategies mean different things to different states. And yet, for most, the defining characteristic of the growing interest in the Indo-Pacific region appears to be a looming showdown between China and the United States. The competition between the two nations is fierce, and many countries feel forced to choose sides despite the desire to maintain positive relations with both powers. This roundtable seeks to build upon the proceedings in Seoul and invite additional regional voices to explore how countries in the Indo-Pacific perceive the growing U.S.-China competition, how these states plan to","PeriodicalId":53442,"journal":{"name":"Asia Policy","volume":"30 1","pages":"2 - 6"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49154759","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
UK Policy on the Indo-Pacific: Balancing Global Ambition in an Era of Resource Scarcity and Rising Insecurity 英国的印太政策:在资源短缺和不安全加剧的时代平衡全球雄心
IF 1.3 Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI: 10.1353/asp.2023.a903866
John Nilsson-Wright
T he United Kingdom’s formal articulation of its policy toward the Indo-Pacific dates from 2021 and is associated with two key policy documents: Global Britain in a Competitive Age: The Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy (hereafter the Integrated Review), which articulated a position for “global Britain in a competitive age,” and the government’s Defence Command Paper Defence in a Competitive Age, also published in 2021.1 The review advocated a “tilt” toward Asia, with a focus primarily on engaging economically and politically with the region and secondarily on advocating for an expanded UK military role in addressing critical security issues in the region. This essay examines the origins, rationales, and policies set forth in the UK government’s tilt toward the Indo-Pacific; addresses the UK’s areas of strength operating in the region; assesses challenges toward actualizing the tilt’s objectives; and concludes with recommendations for UK policy.
英国对印太政策的正式阐述始于2021年,与两份关键政策文件有关:《竞争时代的全球英国:安全、国防、发展和外交政策综合审查》(以下简称《综合审查》),该评论阐述了“竞争时代的全球英国”的立场,以及同样于2021.1发表的政府国防司令部文件《竞争时代的国防》。该评论主张向亚洲“倾斜”,主要关注与该地区的经济和政治接触,其次是倡导扩大英国在解决该地区关键安全问题方面的军事作用。本文探讨了英国政府向印太倾斜的起源、理由和政策;阐述英国在该地区的实力领域;评估实现倾斜目标的挑战;最后对英国的政策提出了建议。
{"title":"UK Policy on the Indo-Pacific: Balancing Global Ambition in an Era of Resource Scarcity and Rising Insecurity","authors":"John Nilsson-Wright","doi":"10.1353/asp.2023.a903866","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/asp.2023.a903866","url":null,"abstract":"T he United Kingdom’s formal articulation of its policy toward the Indo-Pacific dates from 2021 and is associated with two key policy documents: Global Britain in a Competitive Age: The Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy (hereafter the Integrated Review), which articulated a position for “global Britain in a competitive age,” and the government’s Defence Command Paper Defence in a Competitive Age, also published in 2021.1 The review advocated a “tilt” toward Asia, with a focus primarily on engaging economically and politically with the region and secondarily on advocating for an expanded UK military role in addressing critical security issues in the region. This essay examines the origins, rationales, and policies set forth in the UK government’s tilt toward the Indo-Pacific; addresses the UK’s areas of strength operating in the region; assesses challenges toward actualizing the tilt’s objectives; and concludes with recommendations for UK policy.","PeriodicalId":53442,"journal":{"name":"Asia Policy","volume":"30 1","pages":"82 - 95"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49337799","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
期刊
Asia Policy
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1