Three years into the Trump administration, “the United States and the People’s Republic of China find their bilateral relationship at a dangerous crossroads,” write Orville Schell of the Asia Society and Susan Shirk of the University of California San Diego (UCSD), co-chairs of the Task Force on U.S.-China Policy, at the opening of a recently published report, Course Correction: Toward an Effective and Sustainable China Policy. The report features the second set of findings issued by the Task Force, a group comprising China specialists from around the United States, which is convened by Asia Society’s Center on U.S.-China Relations and UCSD’s 21st Century China Center and which includes Karl Eikenberry, director of APARC’s U.S.-Asia Security Initiative.

In its first report, issued in 2017, the Task Force identified the fundamental interests of the United States in its relationship with China. Since then, more stresses and strains have beset the bilateral relations between the two countries. But while “Beijing’s recent policies under Xi Jinping’s leadership are primarily driving this negative dynamic” and the “Trump administration is justified in pushing back harder against China’s actions, note Schell and Shirk, “pushback alone isn’t a strategy. It must be accompanied by the articulation of specific goals and how they can be achieved.” The new report propose a strategy to that end, which the Task Force calls “smart competition.”

APARC caught up with Ambassador Eikenberry to learn more about the report and its recommendations.

Note: the following has been edited for clarity.

How does the February 2019 report by the Task Force on U.S.-China Policy differ from its 2017 report? 

Since our Task Force’s first report was published in February 2017, the Trump Administration’s China policy has developed significantly, its defining characteristics being demonstrated in trade and economic policy and in security strategy. Our new Task Force study takes stock of the current state of U.S.-China relations and focuses on policy analysis and policy prescription. It seems clear that President Trump’s shift from a strategy of engagement to one of more explicit competition was overdue. This report suggests the best organizing principles for the management of what will likely be an increasingly competitive U.S.-China relationship in the coming years.

How does this report frame Sino-American relations?

The report underscores the fact that this is not a zero-sum game. Emphasis is placed on finding ways and means to cooperate with China when mutually advantageous—and there are many issue areas where this is or might be possible, such as climate change and denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. But the report also makes clear that in the domains of economic exchange, security, and political values—such as individual freedom and the primacy of the rule of law—America needs to work with like-minded allies and partners to ensure the global system that has benefitted all for over seven decades is not overturned by those seeking unilateral advantage.

Several of the report’s Task Force members were also involved in the recent China report from the Hoover Institution, Chinese Influence and American Interests: Promoting Constructive Vigilance. Where do you think these two publications intersect and part ways?

There was some overlap among the contributors to the two reports—full disclosure, I had the opportunity to participate in both projects. I think the studies are actually complementary—the portion of Course Correction devoted to PRC overseas influence activities drew upon the findings published in Chinese Influence and American Interests.

What development is of greatest concern to you as you think about the future of Sino-American relations?

I’m most concerned about the blurring of the management of economic exchange (trade and investment issues) and security competition (which includes maintaining a technological advantage over one’s competitors). The proliferation of technologies with military applications is complicating efforts of those trying to maintain robust economic relations between China and the United States. If our economies decouple, we will have a new Cold War

An air of uncertainty remains prevalent in the Indo-Pacific region. The South China Sea continues to be in contention, with six governments exerting claims on overlapping areas. The threat of a full-blown trade war between China and the United States puts the stability of the regional (and global) economy in question. Meanwhile, the Korean peninsula appears to swing between the brink of conflict to the possibility of dramatic diplomatic breakthroughs. It was in the midst of this precarious period for the region that the third annual gathering of the U.S.-Japan Security and Defense Dialogue Series took place in Tokyo from January 30 to February 1.

The 2019 meeting was co-sponsored by the Sasakawa Peace Foundation and APARC’s U.S.-Asia Security Initiative (USASI). For the past three years, the series has convened senior Japanese and American policymakers, military leaders, scholars, and regional experts to discuss Japan's security strategy and the alliance between Japan and the United States. Support for the workshop came from the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Since its inception in 2016, the dialogue series has provided a venue for in-depth discourse on contemporary Asia-Pacific security issues, and has helped build bridges between American and Asian academics, government and military officials, and other defense and security policy specialists. “We have continued to expand the range of attendees from the Japanese and U.S. government and military,” said USASI Director Karl Eikenberry. “This has ensured for our dialogue even greater policy relevance with each iteration.”

“The U.S.-Japan security dialogue is unique because it combines civilians and military officers, both retired and serving, which simply does not take place elsewhere,” observed Stanford Lecturer in International Policy Daniel Sneider, a regular participant. “It also avoids the sometimes-empty rhetoric about our alliance in favor of an operational, but strategically informed, approach that gets at not only what is being accomplished, but where the gaps exist in our alliance.”

Threats, Challenges, and the Appropriate Responses

L to R: Amb. Karl Eikenberry and Lt. General Noboru Yamaguchi (Workshop Co-Chairs)

The 2019 dialogue opened with a day of discussions on many of the challenges facing the U.S.-Japan security alliance, including an assessment of the latest security trends in the Indo-Pacific, as well as Japan’s new National Defense Program Guidelines (NDPG). Passed by the Japanese Cabinet only a month earlier, the NDPG was the focus of two sessions on day one, including a discussion of its implications for Indo-Pacific security, as well as a session on the guideline’s ramifications for concepts of Integrated Air and Missile Defense and Archipelagic Defense

“Unsurprisingly, the global rise of China—along with the U.S. and Japan’s separate and combined responses to PRC strategy in the Indo-Pacific Region—helped shape both our agenda and the selection of participants,” observed Eikenberry. “We were specifically interested in the implications for the maritime domain and certain operational aspects of the U.S.-Japan security alliance.”

The day one closing ceremony featured remarks from the U.S. Ambassador to Japan, the Honorable William Hagerty.

Developing Policy Recommendations, Meeting with Policymakers

L to R: Major Rodger Welding and Colonel Daniel Munter (United States Pacific Air Forces), and Lt. Colonel Yuka Nakazato, (Japan Air Self-Defense Force)

Days two and three were designed for small group sessions. Referred to as “Core Group”, its U.S. and Japanese members met the morning of January 31 to review the preceding day’s workshop and develop corresponding policy recommendations. The quality and depth of the conversations underscored just how great an impact the expanded range of participants had on the resulting policy.

“Participants weren't afraid to address sensitive, big-picture questions,” said Phillip Lipscy, a Center Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford, “like the slow growth of Japanese military spending in the face of increasing regional threats and the challenges posed by unpredictable US administration policies.”

“Even as an expert of Japanese politics, I found the dialogue extremely informative and stimulating,” shared Lipscy.

Sneider agreed as well. “One thing that stood out this year, in contrast to the previous years, was a greater willingness on the part of our Japanese colleagues to air their sense of unease about and even opposition to the direction of American foreign and security policy under the Trump administration,” he said. “In the past, the American participants were much more open about their criticism of their own government, the Japanese tended to be polite—not so much this year, which made for a lively exchange on many issues.”

In the afternoon, core U.S. participants again met with the US Ambassador, along with his embassy team, as well as with senior Cabinet Office officials from the government of Japan.

Field Testing Ideas

During the second annual gathering in 2018, the dialogue began including a visit by the core workshop participants to a combined U.S. military—Japanese Self Defense facility. As part of the 2019 dialogue, the Core Group spent their third and final day visiting Yokota Air Base, the headquarters of both United States Forces Japan and Japan Air Self Defense Force Air Defense Command.

“ “These visits allow us to better understand Alliance operational challenges in the field,” noted Eikenberry. “Just as importantly, it affords us an immediate opportunity to test out some of the very ideas discussed during the preceding days.”

Yokota Air Base, Japan

Chatham House Rules applied to the dialogue, but a workshop report is forthcoming.

View the reports from the first and second annual workshops.

The U.S.-Asia Security Initiative is part of Stanford University’s Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC). Led by former U.S. Ambassador and Lieutenant General (Retired) Karl Eikenberry, USASI seeks to further research, education, and policy relevant dialogues at Stanford University on contemporary Asia-Pacific security issues.

(L to R: Karl Eikenberry, Michael McFaul, Major Marcus Morgan (U.S. Army LNO to Japan Ground Self Defense Force Northern Army and Stanford University Center for East Asian Studies MA ’18), Phillip Lipscy, Daniel Sneider)

President Trump caught the world by surprise once again yesterday with a decision not to sign a deal with his North Korean counterpart, Chairman Kim Jong-un, in Hanoi, Vietnam. While walking away is a common tactic in working-level negotiation, what happened in Hanoi was a rare case and the least expected outcome.

Read the full article on Axios.

Trump and Kim share a common desire for development.

At first glance U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un seem like an unlikely pair. A few years back they were calling each other “Rocket Man” and a “dotard,” and tension between the United States and North Korea was escalating rapidly in 2017. But in a few days they are slated to meet for the second time, and according to Trump they had “fallen in love” not long after their first encounter. What could have created such intimate bond between the two? The common interest that brings the two together is the desire for development — economic development in the case of Kim and property development in the case of Trump.

Read the full article on The Diplomat.

This post was originally published on Axios.

Where it stands: Trump and Kim each face immense pressure, both international and domestic, to make progress.

• Trump needs to earn political trust back in Washington to continue negotiating with North Korea. His strategy so far has been to convince Kim that North Korea’s denuclearization would bring the country a “bright future.”
• At the same time, Trump must address Kim’s concerns about whether any agreement reached with his administration will withstand the Democrat-controlled House and survive the post-Trump era.

Between the lines: Successful diplomacy sometimes entails purposeful ambiguities, and the ambiguities of the first Trump-Kim summit might indeed have been strategic. At this critical juncture, however, a failure on Trump’s and Kim’s part to commit to defined objectives could hurt the bilateral relationship.

The bottom line: Trump and Kim need support more than ever to advance their diplomatic endeavors. While spectators have good reason to be skeptical, and one can only be cautiously hopeful with North Korea, a return to confrontation or "strategic patience" is in no one’s interest.

Gi-Wook Shin is the William J. Perry Professor of Contemporary Korea and director of the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center at Stanford University.