The Obama administration’s policy of “re-balance” toward Asia, that began as early as 2009, is now increasingly under stress, as those in the region question American staying power and China emerges as a challenger to U.S. dominance. As the territorial disputes in the East and South China Seas in recent months have demonstrated, China’s relations with the region and the United States have become visibly strained, bringing the U.S. re-balance policy into question and raising concerns about security tensions and the danger of conflict. 

U.S.-China relations are heading, for the foreseeable future, into “a very scratchy time,” predicted Kenneth Lieberthal, a respected senior China scholar at The Brookings Institution, in his keynote speech delivered at the annual Oksenberg Lecture on June 3 at the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center.

Lieberthal told a standing room audience in Encina Hall that while the U.S. attempt to temper its relations with China and others has “worked quite well over time,” now, “at a geostrategic level, we seem to be sliding with increasing speed toward an inflection point in U.S.-China relations.”

Lieberthal was joined by a panel of China experts, including Cui Liru of the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations (CICIR), and Stanford’s Karl Eikenberry and Thomas Fingar, distinguished fellows at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, and Jean C. Oi, director of the Stanford China Program.

The discussion was part of the Oksenberg Lecture, an annual dialogue that functions as a policy workshop on U.S.-Asia relations, named in honor of late professor and senior fellow Michel Oksenberg (1938–2001). Oksenberg was a noted China specialist, who served as a senior member of the National Security Council and is credited as the architect of the normalization of relations with China under the Carter administration in the late 1970s.

Points of tension in the U.S.-China relationship have been increasingly visible. Senior American officials have assailed China for its aggressive actions toward its neighbors over the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands and in South China Sea, including its latest altercations with Vietnam and the Philippines. The United States recently indicted five members of China’s People’s Liberation Army for carrying out cyber espionage against U.S. technology companies.

Incidents like these have prompted both countries to throw harsh words at each other, leading to a situation of brinkmanship. However, Lieberthal pointed out that tense relations between the United States and China are certainly not new. Most notably, relations took a nosedive in 1989 when China cracked down on democratization protests at Tiananmen Square, in 1999 after the accidental bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Serbia, and in 2008, in response to the global financial crisis.

The U.S.-China relationship has been riddled with periods of distrust in the past. But now, “the speed and scale of China’s economic growth, especially over the last two decades, has also increased concerns, on all sides, that the evolving distribution of power may create new frictions and suspicions,” Lieberthal said.

Yet, refusing to work with each other is not an option, the senior scholar, who also served in the Clinton administration, told the audience. Without the United States and China in conversation, progress in multilateral areas such as climate change and trade would falter, he argued. Given the two countries’ position as the world’s largest economies, the international system would effectively be constrained if the two were entrenched in long-term bitterness.

Lieberthal recognized the common admonition, “if we treat China as an enemy, it will surely become one,” saying this warning could be applied to both sides. China and the United States must make greater efforts to manage and mitigate tensions.

“The question is whether we can prevent bad things, not only specific conflicts, but the political tensions and politics that make cooperation on major issues very, very difficult at best.”

He then outlined a few steps that could help China and the United States sort out their disputes. His recommendations began with the need for strong determination on the part of top political leaders to move things forward and the importance of clear, consistent use of vocabulary when discussing issues.

As a final point, but one that was offered as a contingent factor to success, Lieberthal said U.S.-China relations and both countries’ roles in greater Asia will depend on “how effective each of us is in dealing with domestic reforms,” because, “that will determine how dynamic, how vibrant, how innovative, and how secure we feel.”

______________________________________________________ 

During the lecture, Ret. Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry shared his observations from the Shangri-La Dialogue, an inter-governmental security forum held from May 30 – June 1 in Singapore. The Dialogue has in recent years become a gathering of premiere defense ministers to discuss security issues in Track I and “quasi-track” meetings.

Afterward, Eikenberry talked with Shorenstein APARC about key highlights and implications that emerged from the Dialogue:

 

Photo credit: Flickr/The International Institute for Strategic Studies 

Media reported a tense environment overlaid the Dialogue. What was the general atmosphere there?

The remarks at the Shangri-La Dialogue by Japanese Prime Minister Abe and U.S. Defense Secretary Hagel on the one hand, and Chinese General Wang Guanzhong, made clear very different views on the causes for tension surrounding various maritime sovereignty claims in the East and South China Seas. Still, if you read the full text of all three speeches and the Q&As that followed, there is still great emphasis placed on dialogue and common interests. And in the many meetings that took place between national delegations on the margins of the conference events, the emphasis was on cooperation. 

What revelations at the Dialogue were surprising?

I think the degree to which dissatisfaction with China’s assertive behavior in pursuing its maritime claims was expressed by many of the participants – not just the United States and Japan. Vietnam, the Philippines and India were explicit. Analysts have said the only China (through threatening behavior) could contain China by catalyzing a counterbalancing response. From the results of the Dialogue, I think this is correct.   

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe emphasized values and international law throughout his keynote speech. What is your take on this?

The Prime Minister did emphasize both democracy and rule of law during his prepared remarks and answers to questions from conference participants. He was drawing an obvious distinction between Japan’s and China’s political systems and commitment to approaches to resolving territorial disputes. I think the Prime Minister is trying to establish Japan as a leader in East and Southeast Asia, and wanted to make clear what he views as important differences between the Japanese and Chinese “models.” 

U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel referenced China’s suspension of the U.S.-China Cyber Working Group. What direction do you think the cybersecurity dialogue will go now?

It was unfortunate that China suspended its participation in the U.S.-China Cyber Working Group after the U.S. Government’s indictment of five People’s Liberation Army officers for alleged cyber theft. The U.S. Government has been providing the PRC Government with evidence of cyber theft being conducted by entities in China and has failed to receive any meaningful response so the indictments seem warranted. It would seem that the Cyber Working Group is precisely the forum to discuss this matter and the many related to managing the cyber domain with agreed rules and procedures. Working Groups provide a forum to address disagreement and disputes. I think China’s response was counterproductive and hope the government will indicate a willingness to resume the dialogues in the near future.

Where do you see the regional security conversation heading next?

The risk is that security dialogues will be divided into two camps – one led by the United States and its close allies and partners, and the other by China – somewhat isolated at this time but seeking to entice Asian nations to bandwagon to its side. Perhaps further regional economic integration can facilitate a more common approach to security, but this year’s Shangri-La Dialogue is perhaps a warning that trends, for now, are not heading in a positive direction.

Sociologist Xueguang Zhou is no stranger to Stanford. He studied here as a doctoral student and returned to campus in 2006. He is now the Kwoh-Ting Li Professor in Economic Development and a senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies.

Zhou says it is a joy to be teaching in the very place he himself was intellectually trained. Recently, he spoke with the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center about his route to the Farm and his research focus on China’s urbanization and bureaucracy. 

How did you come to Stanford and the Center?

I completed my PhD in sociology at Stanford so it was a very easy and natural decision to come back as a professor. After graduating, I went to Cornell University and Duke University as well as spending two years in Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, but I always missed the exciting intellectual environment at Stanford. I have a lot of admiration for the faculty and research that takes place here. In 2006, the sociology department and Shorenstein APARC recruited me. I began to focus on China as a major research area after I had completed my Ph.D. My dissertation was actually centered on American universities. My joint appointment as a professor and as a senior fellow at Shorenstein APARC has been very complimentary. I teach in my trained area of sociology and explore my substantive interests in Chinese bureaucracy. I combine my teaching and research nicely to bridge the two sides. Additionally, this year, I will teach a summer graduate seminar at Stanford Center at Peking University.

What are the most pressing issues of China’s urbanization?

Urbanization processes in China have been underway for the last 10-20 years, in particular, the government is pushing very hard to accelerate this process. Suddenly, people have been pushed from rural to urban areas. Many are being forced to abandon their land and assume a new life away from their farming activities. This process raises many important questions, and is a main area of what I study. Chinese culture (way of life, organization, problem solving) is heavily drawn from rural tradition. Inherently urbanization has created tensions between tradition and the modern idea of Chinese society. Now we see a lot of contentious politics in China. Resistance, revolt and social movements are in part caused by this disruption of the social norms and tradition that had historically held the Chinese society together. Patterns of interaction between social groups have changed. So, what does this mean for society? And further to that, what is the new governance structure that emerges out of this? In rural China, governance in the past was based on kinship and local institutions, but the future is unclear. We need to research and understand the emergent governance structure in China. 

What impact has recent bureaucratic restructuring had on Chinese society? 

Right now, it is hard to say what effects the recent changes put forth at the Third Plenum will have on society. It is too soon to see any major effects on the long-term trend. My research focuses on the fundamental basis of Chinese structures and bureaucracies. Over the past two years, I have pursued analyzing Chinese bureaucracy through a historical lens. If we take a step back and observe these recent policy shifts in a greater timeline, we can see that local-level fluctuations are only temporary phenomena. For example, China’s new leadership recently launched a huge anti-corruption campaign. As a result, people in local-level bureaucracies have suddenly become much more careful about their behavior. But, how long will this behavior last? It is unlikely to last for very long. If we look at it from a longer perspective, we can see clear policy rhythms between centralization and decentralization over time. There may be short-term policy efforts to strengthen the central authority, but systematic institutional shifts are less likely.

Can you tell us about your methods and approach to your research on Chinese personnel structures?

I analyze archival data and conduct fieldwork in China to understand changes in bureaucracy. A primary way I conduct my fieldwork is participatory observations in a township-level government in China. When I visit this township government, I stay in a guestroom in the government building, and interact with local officials on a daily basis, observe their work and eat meals with them. Basically, I get to know them, their views and way of life. I also go to the nearby villages to interact with locals to gather their opinions about bureaucracy and the policy implementation processes. I also meet with other Chinese colleagues who conduct research on government behaviors, and we share and discuss our observations. Often times, they take me to different localities to visit government bureaus and to chat with local officials. All of these interactions give me great opportunities to learn about the Chinese bureaucracy. Close observations are key for me to identifying current issues in governance and bureaucratic structures, which I then compare to the historical legacy. This line of research is also connected to a project in collaboration with graduate students, analyzing the flow of bureaucrats in an entire province using public data. 

Tell us something we don’t know about you.

One aspect of my personal experience that I cherish is that, like many in my generation, I was sent to work in rural China after high school during the Cultural Revolution.  There I became a “team leader” in a village, responsible for organizing collective activities of over 200 villagers (about 50 households) and several hundreds “mu” of farming land, when I was only 17. This experience gave me a much deeper understanding of rural life in China.

The Faculty Spotlight Q&A series highlights a different faculty member at Shorenstein APARC each month giving a personal look at his or her scholarly approaches and outlook on related topics and upcoming activities.

Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center faculty and scholars have published a variety of publications in early 2014, covering topics from the Japanese fiscal condition to disability policy in North Korea. 

Publications are often products of long-standing research projects led by Center affiliates. New Challenges for Maturing Democracies in Korea and Taiwan, coedited by Shorenstein APARC Director Gi-Wook Shin and Center on Democracy, Development and Rule of Law Director Larry Diamond, emerged from the Stanford Korea Democracy Project, which seeks to understand social movements in South Korea.

Postdoctoral fellows who reside at Shorenstein APARC for a year of vigorous study and engagement in Center activities also support research publications. Former visiting scholar Dominik Müller, now at Goethe-University Frankfurt, published Islam, Politics and Youth in Malaysia: The Pop-Islamist Reinvention of PAS. Müller examined the religious bureaucracy of Malaysia at Shorenstein APARC in 2013.

Shorenstein APARC manages an active publishing program with Stanford University Press and the Brookings Institution Press. Center affiliates also publish extensively in external peer-reviewed academic journals and books, as well as in a working paper series led by the Asia Health Policy Program.

Publications released in recent months include: 

Comparative Institutional Analysis: Theory, Corporations and East Asia. Selected Papers of Masahiko Aoki, Masahiko Aoki, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014

The volume is a collection of 22 articles that span the course of Aoki’s 45-year academic career. The essays cover a wide range of topics from the comparative perspective including corporate governance, institutional change and mechanism design in Japan, China and South Korea. The articles suggest policy responses for industry and governments.

 

Confronting Memories of World War II: European and Asian Legacies, Eds. Daniel Chirot, Gi-Wook Shin, Daniel C. Sneider, University of Washington Press, 2014

Comparing the European and Asian legacies, the book provides insight into the influence that World War II continues to have on contemporary politics and attitudes. The collection gathers a variety of perspectives that compare how Europe and Asia handle memories and reflections of guilt, and how wartime experiences are reinterpreted and used for domestic and international purposes.

 

“Defying Gravity: How Long Will Japanese Government Bond Prices Remain High?” Takeo Hoshi, Takatoshi Ito, Economic Policy, January 2014

The article examines the fiscal regime of Japan and considers if the country can withstand its high debt to GDP ratio. The paper shows that Japan’s fiscal situation is unsustainable through various simulations, and suggests that sufficiently large tax increases and/or expenditure cuts would put government debt on a sustainable path.

 

“Facts, Minds, and Formats: Scholarship and Political Change in Indonesia,” Donald K. Emmerson, Cornell University Press, March 2014

Indonesia has changed dramatically in recent decades, and a wealth of literature highlights divergent interpretations and perspectives surrounding those dynamics. The article considers the demise of liberal democracy, the rise of President Sukarno in 1959, and the latter’s replacement by General Suharto in 1965. The essay is part of the larger volume, Producing Indonesia: The State of the Field of Indonesian Studies.

 

“The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster and the DPJ: Leadership, Structures, and Information Challenges During the Crisis,” Kenji E. Kushida, Japanese Political Economy, Spring 2014

The Fukushima nuclear disaster was a critical event that shook Japan’s political economy, society and national psyche, as well as the world’s perspectives on nuclear energy policy. The article examines how the nuclear disaster unfolded and analyzes the response undertaken by the Democratic Party of Japan under Prime Minister Naoto Kan. Kushida is the Takahashi Research Associate at Shorenstein APARC.

  

“Japan-Korea Relations: Time for U.S. Intervention?” Daniel C. Sneider, National Bureau of Asian Research, January 2014

The paper describes current relations between South Korea and Japan, recognizing that their relationship has noticeably deteriorated in recent months. While the United States has attempted to promote dialogue, its hesitant intervention is unlikely to change the overall dynamic of the Japan-Korea relationship. Sneider suggests that a more active U.S. mediation role could encourage reconciliation and normalization of relations.

 

“People with Disabilities in a Changing North Korea,” Katharina Zellweger, Shorenstein APARC, 2014 

The working paper details the environment that people with disabilities face in the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea. Despite its reputation as a repressive, closed society where human rights are routinely abused, there are in fact a number of institutions that work to address the needs of the disabled. Zellweger writes from a perspective of a senior aid worker with over thirty years of experience in Asia; she was the Pantech Fellow at Shorenstein APARC from 2011­–13.

 

To view the full listing of publications, as well as reviews and purchasing information, please consult the Publications page on Shorenstein APARC's website.

The China-U.S. relationship requires the attention of each country’s leadership and can be improved by a shared approach of building new public goods, said Kevin Rudd, Australia’s prime minister (from 2007 to 2010, 2013) and scholar on Chinese relations.

“The future use of Chinese power, either inside or outside the international rules based system, that is either used multilaterally or unilaterally, is the critical question which both presidents Xi Jinping and [Barack] Obama must address for the future,” Rudd said at a lecture delivered on April 16 in the Bechtel Conference Center.

“It is possible to carve out a common future for these countries based on constructing what I describe as new global public goods together,” he said, proposing a relationship focused on mutual advancement of international goals.

Rudd said the United States and China could develop “new rules of the road,” in theory effectively deescalating tensions and adding to the net interests of both countries. He highlighted cybersecurity, climate change and regional security as communal problems they could address together.

Rudd suggested regional tensions in Asia may also be improved by building a culture of common security and changing institutions, including transforming the East Asia Summit into a wider Asia Pacific Community.

The lecture was part of the Asia-Pacific Leaders Forum at the Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center in the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, a series that convenes senior policymakers, business executives and others to share experiences and vision on critical issues facing Asia and the United States.

The full video and written remarks from this event are available below.

Southeast Asia Forum Director Donald K. Emmerson talks with media about the recent confrontations between Vietnam and China in the South China Sea, and what role ASEAN may play in managing the issues.