The Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC) at Stanford University is pleased to announce that political scientist Charles Crabtree has been appointed as a visiting assistant professor with the Japan Program.

Crabtree is an assistant professor in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College. During the 2021-22 academic year, while on leave from Dartmouth, Crabtree will research fairness in politics, with applications to areas including the study of repression, human rights, policing, and immigration. He will also collaborate with Kiyoteru Tsutsui, director of the Japan Program and senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute, on several forthcoming publications and seminars that generate fresh perspectives on Japanese political, economic, and societal issues.

"Charles is an excellent academic partner, and I am delighted to have him with us at Stanford this year,” said Tsutsui. “His research into the normatively important issue of discrimination makes unique contributions to public evaluations of institutional legitimacy across regimes, especially in the context of Japanese politics, where it is insufficiently studied.”

Crabtree’s research focuses on the politics, sociology, and economics of discrimination across countries in Asia, particularly in Japan, where out-group discrimination continues to mar the lived experiences of many. He examines the consequences of discrimination and evaluates various means of reducing it in politics, the workplace, and everyday life. His book on this subject, Studying Discrimination: An Experimental Approach, is under contract with Cambridge University Press.

Methodologically, Crabtree is interested in research design, experiments, and applying computational tools to better understand the social world. He has published his research in journals such as the American Journal of Political Science, the British Journal of Political Science, the Journal of Politics, and Political Analysis. As someone who deeply believes in the value of public scholarship, he regularly writes on issues related to Japan for The Hill and about American and Japanese politics for outlets such as Foreign Policy, the Japan Times, the South China Morning Post, The Atlantic, and the Washington Post.

Crabtree holds a doctorate in Political Science from the University of Michigan and master’s degrees from Pennsylvania State University and Northwestern University.

This commentary was first published by The Lowy Institute.

Two recent naval exercises demonstrate the potential for Russia-China cooperation in the Indian Ocean, and how the two present a much greater threat to a continued US role and influence in the region than either would individually.

Last year, South Africa hosted a maritime exercise with Russia and China, the first-ever trilateral exercise among the three countries. Exercise Mosi was designed, according to the South African Navy, to “enhance interoperability and maritime security“ and showed the three countries’ willingness to work together to counter security threats at sea, such as terrorism and piracy. There were the obligatory social and cultural activities, and then military maneuvers that focused on a surface gunnery exercise, helicopter cross-deck landings, boarding operations and disaster control exercises.

China and Russia followed this up in December 2019 with another trilateral maritime exercise with Iran in the Gulf of Oman called Exercise Marine Security Belt. The exercises included live-fire drills and an anti-piracy exercise involving Iranian commandos. According to the Iranian naval commander, the exercises’ message was that “Iran cannot be isolated.” A Chinese spokesman stated: “The naval drills aim to deepen exchange and cooperation among the navies of the three countries, and display their strong will and capability to jointly maintain world peace and maritime security”.

Both China and Russia have gradually been increasing their presence in the Indian Ocean. Russia recently announced it would establish a naval facility in Port Sudan on the Red Sea. China opened its first overseas base in Djibouti in 2017, and China’s navy has increased operations in the Indian Ocean region over the past three decades.

Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive our experts' analysis and insights.

The Covid-19 crisis may have slowed further moves towards cooperation this year. Moscow just hosted the 12th BRICS summit virtually, which doesn’t lend itself to deep military engagement. But the trilateral exercises are notable because they signal Moscow’s and Beijing’s desire to cooperate in the region. And more importantly, they reveal that regional powers such as South Africa and Iran, as well as other countries, welcome the increased role of China and Russia.

Relations between South Africa and the United States were already strained when Pretoria agreed to the trilateral exercises last year. Under the Trump administration, the United States grew critical of South Africa’s UN voting record. Washington also declined to exempt the country from hikes in tariffs on US imports of steel and aluminum. In contrast, China has pledged the most investments of any country in South Africa. Russia has followed in its footsteps in building political, military and trade ties across sub-Saharan Africa.

Iran has even more reason to build relations with China and Russia. Since the US withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, Iran has strengthened its ties to China and Russia, using multi-billion-dollar loans from the two countries to resist US sanctions and deepening defense cooperation and intelligence sharing.

Smaller countries can also find the Russia-China nexus useful. According to a Chinese-language source, Sudan, a long-standing regional partner of China, first proposed hosting a Russian base in 2017 as a counterbalance “against aggressive acts of the United States”.

In other words, China and Russia together may be better equipped to compete with the United States and its allies in the Indian Ocean region for influence, for several reasons.

Moscow may be more willing than Beijing to play the ringleader role in organizing and directing opposition against the United States, but it doesn’t have the economic heft to make such cooperation a winning proposition for Indian Ocean states.

While China has considerable resources, it is more concerned about provoking the United States and potentially worsening already poor relations. China often argues that it is a different type of great power, one that does not engage in hegemonic behavior such as alliance formation. China is also keen to avoid sparking a countervailing coalition against it.

For these reasons, Beijing often tones down its rhetoric about the nature of its relationship with Russia. China claimed the Indian Ocean exercises do “not target any third party”. For Russia, however, overtly undermining the United States is a key component of its strategy and plays well domestically for Putin.

On the other hand, China has the economic resources to wield influence and invest heavily in Indian Ocean countries. In Pakistan alone, Beijing has pledged an estimated $87 billion in funding and completed roughly $20 billion worth of projects. Recently, Beijing and Tehran reportedly agreed to a 25-year deal to expand China’s investment in Iranian banking, telecommunications, ports and railways in exchange for oil.

While China and Russia are nowhere near dominating the Indian Ocean region militarily, their combined influence may promise trouble for the United States and its partners. The two countries will likely work together to inure their partners to international pressure, including over human rights violations. And those partners will receive security benefits (such as military access) and economic benefits (such as preferential economic ties) in return. Although it seems a bit exaggerated, there is some truth to Iranian Admiral Hossein Khanzadi’s declaration that strategic coordination with Russia and China means “the era of American free action in the region is over”.

China and Russia may be slow in enhancing their strategic coordination in the Indian Ocean slowly, but the intent is there. The United States and its allies may still be dominant militarily. But we should be careful not to fall under the illusion that this guarantees influence. With China and Russia presenting themselves as strong alternative powers, the United States and like-minded countries have to work that much harder to promote sustainable economic development, protect international rules and norms, and ensure peace and security in the region.

The period in U.S. policy toward China that was broadly described as ‘engagement’ has come to an end, said Dr. Kurt M. Campbell, deputy assistant to the President and coordinator for Indo-Pacific affairs at the National Security Council, speaking at Shorenstein APARC’s 2021 Oksenberg Conference. “The dominant paradigm is going to be competition. Our goal is to make that a stable, peaceful competition that brings out the best of us,” he added.

This year’s Oksenberg Conference examined President Biden’s China strategy, how it might differ from that of the Trump administration, and how the United States can best pursue its values and interests amidst China’s rise in the Indo-Pacific. Campbell headlined the online event along with Laura Rosenberger, special assistant to the President and senior director for China and Taiwan at the National Security Council. Following their remarks, Campbell and Rosenberger joined the Freeman Spogli Institute Director Michael McFaul for a fireside chat. Watch their statements and discussion:

[Sign up for APARC's newsletters to receive the latest updates from our events and guest speakers]

Shifting Strategic Focus

The lion share of history in the twenty-first century will be written in Asia, noted Campbell, and for the first time the United States is earnestly shifting its strategic focus, economic interests, and military might to the Indo-Pacific. America’s approach to the region has been underpinned by the post-WWII narratives of a U.S.-led international order centered around deployed engagement to preserve stability and peaceful conflict resolution, economic openness, and multilateralism. Now this U.S.-led ‘operating system of the Indo-Pacific’ is challenged.

Over the past several years, Beijing has signaled its determination to play a more assertive role on the international stage. Across the board, said Campbell, we have witnessed examples of China’s shift to “harsh power, or hard power” and its strategically destabilizing impacts — from the conflict on India’s northern border to an “undeclared economic campaign” against Australia, “wolf warrior” diplomacy, stepped-up military interactions in the South China Sea, regular military actions across the Taiwan Strait, and increasing pressure on Japan.

“We all understand that China, as a rising power, takes issue with certain elements of the existing, dominant system and wants to revise them,” Campbell said. “We believe that the best way to engage a more assertive China is to work with allies, partners, and friends.”

Granted, no country is eager to pick sides in the U.S.-China rivalry, he added, and, in the post-Trump era, “one of the biggest challenges of the Biden administration is to try and underscore and reassure allies and friends that we’re going to continue our stabilizing role.”

Three Pillars of U.S. China Policy

Working with allies and partners, which is one of the three pillars of the Biden administration’s China policy, is not about building an anti-China coalition, emphasized Laura Rosenberger. “What we are seeking to do is to show that democracies deliver” and work for the benefit of the American people and the world’s people. “That provides a competitive counteroffer” to China’s more coercive ways of engagement with its counterparts and its efforts to reshape rules in ways that threaten democracies.

Another pillar of the Biden administration’s China policy, Rosenberger explained, is investing at home and strengthening ourselves domestically. The need to do so is especially urgent not only due to the health and economic devastation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic but also in response to intractable challenges in American society — such as economic disparities and the cracks in our democracy — and to the imperative to out-innovate and outperform China in the technology space, where much of the competition between the two powers lies.

The third aspect of U.S. policy towards China, said Rosenberger, is “Countering China where we need to and cooperating with China where it is in our interest to do so. We think this is how we can manage competition in a way that will prevent us from moving into conflict but that will allow us to maximize cooperation.” She noted that this approach has already played out in the initial high-level engagements of the Biden team with Beijing.

The Quad and Beyond

Still, Campbell admitted, the United States will need to recreate elements of its power, dispel fears of American decline in the international arena, and convince the entire Indo-Pacific of its determination to continue to play a leading role on the international stage. It also must have a positive economic vision for its engagement in the region. 

“The operating system of the Indo-Pacific is under substantial strain,” he said. It will need to be reinvigorated not just by the United States but also by other countries that use it, including Japan, South Korea, Australia, and countries in Europe that want to do more in Asia.

“Our goal is to enhance deterrence,” concluded Campbell, and to bring other countries into the effort. “We’re ambitious about the Quad,” he said, noting that the Biden administration is looking to convene an in-person meeting of its Quad partners in the fall and underscoring the administration’s willingness to welcome into its efforts “other countries that believe that they’d like to engage and work with us.”

Media Coverage of the Conference

• Bloomberg Politics
• Bloomberg News
• Forbes
• Reuters
• Japan Times
• South China Morning Post
• CNA
• NPR
• The Diplomat
• The Straits Times

About the Oksenberg Conference

Sponsored by Shorenstein APARC and led by the China Program, the annual Oksenberg Conference honors the legacy of the late Professor Michel Oksenberg. A renowned China scholar who urged the United States to engage with Asia in a more considered manner, Oksenberg was a senior fellow at APARC and FSI and served as a key member of the National Security Council when the United States normalized relations with China. In his tribute, the Oksenberg Conference recognizes distinguished individuals who have advanced the understanding between the United States and the nations of the Asia-Pacific.

A Long History of Hate

Like many racialized groups, Asians often face a variety of overt and covert attacks. As identified in the 2021 Stop AAPI Hate National report, overt violence and harassment of Asians includes acts such as yelling, bullying, physical attacks, and the use of racial slurs. Physical assaults increased from 10.2% of the total hate incidents reported in 2020 to 16.7% in 2021, while online hate incidents increased from 5.6% in 2020 to 10.2% in 2021.

For Min Zhou, these numbers are the most current evidence of a reoccurring cycle of violence and antagonism against Asians that reaches back to the earliest history of Asian communities in the United States.

“Historically, Asians have been considered an existential danger to the Western world and to American culture,” she explains. “They have been seen as a threat to the American working class and their struggle for labor dignity and rights.”

The first large migration of Asians into America was in the mid-1800s when workers from China joined laborers in the western United States in the booming mining and railroad building sectors. Initially praised as “useful workers” for their work ethic and willingness to endure backbreaking hours, Asian immigrants were quickly scapegoated as sources of vice and division when work became scarcer in the post-boom, contracting economy. Labor movements successfully codified discrimination against Asians in the 1875 Page Laws and 1882 federal Chinese Exclusion Act, and continued codifying systemic discriminatory practices in the Immigration Act of 1917.

Zhou explains that this kind of targeted discrimination against Asians resurfaces whenever Western society has felt cultural or economic competition with Eastern countries, citing the internment of Japanese Americans between 1942 and 1945 and the increase of violence against Asians following rising economic competition between East Asian and American auto manufacturers in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

“Anti-Asian racism today is nothing new,” cautions Zhou. “It is part of a longstanding history of systemic racism in the U.S.”

Understanding the Current Moment

But history is only one context for understanding violence against Asians. As Gabrielle Hecht, the chair of the REDI Task Force reiterates, “[There is] a tremendous variety of racists tropes, practices, and violence that run through American society that need to be addressed specifically as well as systemically.”

In the case of Asian discrimination, this includes dismantling the perceptions of the Asian American community as either a “model minority” or conversely as “perpetual foreigners.” As Eujin Park explains, both of these characterizations circumscribe Asian experiences into a framework of white supremacy and institutional violence.

Being seen as perpetual foreigners creates a narrative in which it is impossible for Asians to be authentically American or fully assimilate. The perception of being a model minority both upholds the myth that the U.S. is a race-neutral meritocracy and often fuels the perception that violence against Asians is limited to discrete personal experiences rather than part of a pattern of systemic and intersectional problems.

Examining how racialization intersects with sexualization, classism, ageism, and the broader Black-white paradigm of American race relations is crucial to understanding the very different experiences and varying types of discrimination within the Asian American experience. As a group, Asians are incredibly diverse, representing over 30 distinct countries of origin and innumerable cultural and ethnic groups. Over 60 and sometimes upwards of 70 percent of Asian communities in the U.S. are immigrants.

Looking to the Future

These overlapping and complicated realities of demographics, experience, and history mean that truly impactful advocacy against anti-Asian American violence will require equally interconnected and thoughtful partnerships and proactivity.

“This current moment is a significant opportunity for Asian Americans and our allies to expand our understanding of the violence that shapes Asian American lives and to turn our attention toward state and institutional violence,” says Eujin Park.

As for the particular responsibilities the Stanford community has in countering rising anti-Asian hate and violence, APARC Director Gi-Wook Shin, the moderator for the discussion counsels:

“It is not easy to participate in rational and constructive conversations, particularly those that are politically sensitive and involve many emotional components. Still, it is our duty as an academic community to confront these uncomfortable realities and engage ourselves in dialogue and discussions.”