Thomas Wright, an expert on international relations, says the “great dramas of the 21st century will play out in Asia rather than Europe.”

Mr. Wright is the executive director of studies at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and previously served as the senior researcher for the Princeton Project on National Security. I interviewed Mr. Wright about soft power in Asia, rising powers and international institutions.

He says that China has been a “responsible power but its rise makes its neighbors nervous” and as long as East Asian countries “want a significant US presence in the region the United States will remain a major Asian power.” With the global financial crisis, the “US led international order is facing the first great internally induced crisis in its history.” While the US-China relationship is “incredibly important” in addressing transnational threats, the “vital thing is to disaggregate the various challenges and tailor multilateral solutions that suit each.”

The recent survey conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs on Soft Power in Asia found that the United States “is the region’s undisputed soft-power leader.” Despite China’s rise and perceived decline in America’s influence, the United States still ranked above China in soft power. Are you surprised by these findings? What is the significance of the relative soft powers in Asia?

I am personally not surprised by these findings although they do go against the conventional wisdom. The United States has long played a constructive role in Asia.  It supports the status quo, and is democratic, open and far enough away not to be threatening. On the other hand the rise of China introduces a great unknown into regional politics. China has been a responsible power but its rise makes its neighbors nervous.

Soft power in East Asia matters because it tells us about what countries in the region want and as long as they want a significant US presence in the region the United States will remain a major Asian power.

Some argue that hard power is easier to measure than soft power. Do you agree? How can soft power be effectively evaluated?

It is true that hard power is easier to measure than soft power but only to a certain degree. While it is obviously easier to count tanks and aircraft carriers than measure the power of attraction we also know from wars like Iraq and coercive diplomacy like US-North Korea relations, that it is often difficult to predict how effective the instruments of hard power will be once they are employed.

To measure the soft power of the four major powers in Asia, the Chicago Council’s survey examined the attractiveness of different national cultures and values, the effectiveness of nations as regional leaders and problem-solvers, their attractiveness as trade partners, levels of human capital, the emergence of regional identities, as well as perceptions of growing economic and political integration in East Asia and the impact this has on underlying regional tensions.

You commented that the “center of gravity in international politics is moving from the Atlantic to the Pacific.” What are the implications for US foreign policy?

The implications are enormous because it implies that the great dramas of the 21st century will play out in Asia rather than Europe. Let me just focus on two implications that don’t get as much attention as they should.

The first has to do with strategic culture. The United States is used to great power politics in the Atlantic area and most US foreign policy experts have learned their trade from studying that experience. The United States must be careful not to assume that the lessons learned from that are transferable to Asia. India-China-Japan relations will not necessarily play out like Germany-France-Britain relations in the 19th century. So it will be important for the US foreign policy community to appreciate and understand the specific context of great power relations in the 21st century. Given that strategic misunderstanding and misperceptions can heighten the risk of conflict, it is tremendously important that America gets this right.

The second has to do with worse case scenarios. East Asia is probably the only place on the planet where one could imagine a major war or struggle on a par with the conflicts of the 20th century. Regional multipolarity, volatility in economics, rising nationalisms, historic animosities and grievances, legitimate differences of interests and dramatic power transitions make East Asia unique in the modern world. It falls to the United States, as the world’s strongest power and as a Pacific nation, to take the lead in managing this situation, reassuring all nations, dissuading and deterring aggression and guiding them to a mutually beneficial future. This may be America’s greatest foreign policy challenge of the next half century.

How important is the bilateral relationship between the United States and China for addressing transnational threats (climate change, nuclear proliferation, etc.)?

The US-China relationship is incredibly important in a wide range of areas. One is preserving peace and stability in East Asia. Another is the global economy and unwinding the massive financial imbalances that may have contributed to the international financial crisis. And then there are transnational threats although we should be careful not to lump them all in together. The US-China relationship will determine whether or not we are successful in tackling climate change although it may be more peripheral to non-proliferation where relations with Russia and Pakistan are probably more important. The vital thing is to disaggregate the various challenges and tailor multilateral solutions that suit each.

You have written several pieces on rising powers and international institutions. Last year, in a paper with G. John Ikenberry, you argued that the global order is “easier to join and harder to overturn.” In a recent brief for the Stanley Foundation, you wrote that “reform of international institutions should bring about more effective international cooperation on critical challenges in a way that does not inadvertently worsen tensions with other states.” What are your impressions of the recent G20 summit in London?

The G20 summit in London went better than expected but it was still not good enough. The US led international order is facing the first great internally induced crisis in its history. The global economy may be in a tailspin. Meanwhile, fundamental problems, like the financial imbalances between the United States and China, went ignored at the G20 as leaders focused on what united them. This is not the time to be papering over differences. We should be identifying where major countries disagree on important matters and then encouraging intensive diplomacy to reach some understanding about the path forward. This will probably mean multiple and flexible multilateral arrangements, some with a very small number of members, that allow a deepening of cooperation that ultimately works to the benefits of all countries.

“I’m confident in the future but I’m not content with the present,” said President Barack Obama on his 100th day in office. Two public events were organized to mark the “Hallmark holiday” and Obama emphasized that the administration is “off to a good start, but it is just a start.”

When Obama was elected President of the United States, many commentators felt that it was the twilight of American hegemony. The international balance of power was shifting and other nations were emerging and resurging. People wondered if Obama could change the trajectory and restore US global leadership.

After only 100 days, analysts and pundits are passing out grades and listing achievements and failures. It’s too early to measure the success of the administration’s domestic initiatives and foreign policy actions, but it’s a promising beginning. President Obama softened America’s image and reassured the world.

Believe it or not, this was the easy part and the next 100 days are critical. Not enough has changed, but hope remains.

Image from the Economist.

Swine flu is all the rage in the press these days it seems.  And Mexico is suffering.  The entire country has been placed under a virtual economic shut down as public assemblies have been banned and many open areas quarantined.  Exports are now looked at with caution and US trade is likely to decline significantly.  So what does this mean for the other major economy in Latin America: Brazil?

There are 2 diverging opionions on the issue:

1. Swine flu will hurt Brazil, even if the disease doesn’t reach South America.  The concern comes mainly from the agricultural sector, and particularly pork producers.  Reuters reports that Pedro de Camargo Neto, chairman of the Brazilian Industry Association of Pork Meat Production and Exports, has asked the World Health Organization stop calling the outbreak “Swine Flu”.  He thinks he’s got a better suggestion: “Mexican Flu”.  Pork producers have just cause to be worried.  Yesterday, the share price of JBS, one of the world’s largest meat producers, dropped 12% over fears that meat consumption would decrease because of fear of pork products.
2. Swine flu will be a boon to Brazil’s economy. Bloomberg reports that yesterday, Analyst’s at France’s Credit Agricole announced that Brazilian bonds will increase in value as investors view Brazil as less risky than Mexico.  One analyst said that swine flu leaves Brazil as the “sole strong power in Latin America.”

No matter what the case, Brazil will be an interesting case to watch to see how it continues to respond to the disease outbreaks to its north.

Graphic: Meat International.

To mark the 60th anniversary of the People’s Liberation Army Navy, China paraded its naval fleet in the northern port city of Qingdao last week. China flaunted its ambitions as a global power by displaying nuclear submarines, destroyers, an amphibious-assault ship and fighter bombers.

To allay fears of China’s burgeoning military might, the official theme of the festivities was “harmonious ocean” and foreign navies were invited to take part. The naval review included vessels from 14 other nations. Chinese President Hu Jintao told international guests, “For now and in the future, China would never seek hegemony, nor would it turn to military expansion or arms races with other nations.” Despite the theme and attempts to reassure its neighbors, several countries still wonder if China will be a friend or foe.

China has active maritime disputes with Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines and the Chinese navy could arguably use its strength to force concessions over the contested sea borders. China’s growing ability to project its naval power has sent ripples of unease over the region’s waters.

While there was no mention of China acquiring an aircraft carrier during the events, an announcement is expected soon. The United States Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Gary Roughead, recently commented that “if it is not clear what the intent of the use of the aircraft carrier is, I would say that it may cause concern with some of the regional navies and nations.”

Photo from AFP and clip from the BBC.

Despite opposition from top military generals, Russia is moving ahead with an overhaul of the country’s armed forces. 35,000 officers will be fired in 2009 to streamline the military.

The shrinking numbers are part of Russia’s wider military reforms and modernization. Moscow wants to trim the force below one million by 2012 (the Soviet Army included four million members and today there are 1.13 million troops) and the cuts are not limited to officers.

Those who stand in the way of the changes risk being swept aside. On Friday, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev replaced Gen Valentin Korabelnikov, director of the military intelligence agency. Gen Korabelnikov reportedly resisted the Kremlin’s planned reforms.

Photo from Joao Silva for The New York Times.

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute released a report today detailing the global arms trade. The United States, Russia, Germany, France and the United Kingdom are the five biggest suppliers of major conventional weapons. The US and Russia account for over half of all exports.

Two rising powers – China and India – are the world’s largest recipients of arms, with Russia supplying the vast bulk to both countries. In the last two years, however, transfers of major weapons systems to China fell dramatically. China is shifting its “focus to domestic procurement” and did not place any “new ‘big ticket’ orders for combat aircraft or naval vessels with Russia in 2007 and 2008.”

Image from the Economist.

Scoreboard on Central Asian energy:
Russia: 0
Europe: +2
Turkmenistan: +10

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and Turkmen President Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov. Source: Wikimedia Commons.

Euraisanet reported on Friday that Russia maintained a huge loss to its energy portfolio at a recent two-day energy security conference in Ashgabad, Turkmenistan.  Turkmenistan, a very energy rich Central Asian dictatorship and former Soviet republic, is undoubtedly close to Moscow for historic reasons.  Gazprom has a virtually exclusive monopoly over all Turkmen natural gas.  On Friday, Turkmen President Gurbanguly Berdymukhamedov set about putting an end to that.  Berdymukhamedov stated:

“Today we are looking for conditions to diversify energy routes and the inclusion of new countries and regions. Turkmenistan must create a new system of relations with Europe. In the current situation, the diversification of energy routes could help to stabilize the global economy.”

Berdymukhamedov’s new position was undoubtedly met with much celebration in Washington. US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Krol welcomed the statement, saying:

“We want to support partnerships throughout Eurasia, and we will advocate for those partnerships that respect the sovereign states in the region at the conference, a rare international meeting in Turkmenistan.  We strongly support the diversification of energy markets and transit routes, both among Central Asian states and between this region and broader international markets.”

All this means good news for the planned Nabucco Pipeline which would supposedly connect Turkmen gas with routes under the Caspian Sea, to Azerbaijan, then through the Caucasus (Azerbaijan and Georgia), and then via Turkey and the Balkans to Vienna.  Turkmenistan’s stated willingness to diversify means that someone in Brussels working on Nabucco is doing his work.

This also spells bad news for the competition: Russia’s South Stream Pipeline, planned for a route under the Black Sea to avoid Ukraine’s tempermental transit.  On Friday, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin cancelled at the last minute on a gas summit in Sofia, Bulgaria.  Reports allege that he boycotted the summit in protest of the Nabucco plans. Putin’s boycott seemed to hurt Russia even more, resulting in Bulgaria’s postponement of participation in the South Stream.

South Africa’s governing party, the African National Congress, romped to victory in the country’s national and local elections. (With over half of the votes counted, it remains unclear if the ANC will reach the two-thirds majority needed to change the constitution.) The ANC’s win paves the way for Jacob Zuma to assume the presidency.

Some experts believe that South Africa’s internal concerns will curtail the country’s regional sway. “We are going into a period where we don’t have a continent-wide heavyweight,” says Princeton N. Lyman, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Alex Vines, head of the Africa program at Chatham House, argues that due to the international ambitions of previous presidents South Africa needs “time for internal reflection.”

This may be true, but only to a point. South Africa is the continent’s largest economy – it provides more than a third of sub-Saharan Africa’s total GDP – and sole member in the Group of 20 major economies. With the country’s relative strength, Jacob Zuma’s influence will stretch beyond South Africa’s borders.

Photo from the Times UK and graphic from the Economist.

23. In a symbol of China’s growing influence around the world (albeit a small and indirect sign), only 23 countries maintain formal relations with Taiwan. Beijing contends that there is “one China” and Taiwan is an inalienable part of China. Through political power and pocketbook diplomacy, Beijing pressures the international community to disavow Taiwan’s statehood – more than thirty countries have switched their allegiances to China over the past three decades.

Regardless, Beijing currently enjoys warmer ties with Taipei.

Photo from Nir Elias/Reuters.

Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, C. Fred Bergsten and others are pushing for the United States and China to jointly tackle issues of global concern. The thinking goes that the so-called G2 partnership is central and the relationship should be strengthened. In the current issue of Foreign Affairs, Elizabeth C. Economy and Adam Segal, both senior fellows at the Council on Foreign Relations, counter this opinion in The G-2 Mirage (subscription only).

“A heightened bilateral relationship may not be possible for China and the United States, as the two countries have mismatched interests and values,” write Economy and Segal. “Washington should embrace a more flexible and multilateral approach.”

“Although the United States needs to coordinate with China to respond to global challenges, elevating the bilateral relationship is more likely to lead to a quagmire, with recriminations flying back and forth, than to a successful partnership. To escape this downward spiral, Washington must solicit the help of the rest of the world. The United States is not alone in recognizing that China affects all the critical issues of the day or in seeking more from China as an emerging global power. Throughout the world, countries are realizing that the issues that currently define their relationships with Beijing cannot simply be negotiated bilaterally.”

Photo from Saul Loeb-AFP/Getty Images.