June 15, 2021

WORKING PAPER / Jon Paris Oses, Jokin de Carlos Sola and Túlio Dias de Assis

ABSTRACT

South Korea finds itself in the middle of the geopolitical ambitions of regional giants, while at the same time addressing their own conflictive relationship with their northern counterpart. Because of that, a global and also a peninsular overview of their characteristics from an international relations perspective has been analysed, with the objective in mind of identifying the main dynamics and driving factors that strategically influence South Korea in the present times with an eye into the future. Pursuing that analysis, a global perspective and an inter-Korean perspective were suitable to better address the main issues, with special attention to the influence of the two big powers in relation with Seoul, the US and China, as well as the constant uncertainty North Korea generates in the relations between both Koreas. Findings regarding key aspects such as the US military presence in South Korean soil, or the possibility of a Korean reunification suggest the primacy of continuity and controlled stability for the next ten years, as the stakes are too high for the actors involved to take high-risk high-benefit decisions. The main conclusions follow the same direction, with stagnation as present condition South Korea will have to find its way, always with the inter-Korean relations in mind, if it wants to survive and develop its own path under the shadow of two giants.

[Download the document]

WORKING PAPER / Jokin de Carlos Sola

ABSTRACT

During and after the fall of the Soviet Block the three countries of Germany, Denmark and Sweden saw an opportunity to increase their influence on the region that centuries before they had possessed. They did this through diplomatic support of the opposition and communication strategies and once the new countries were either independent or liberal democracies, they used their economic and political power to attract them. This was done by buying and investing in the new privatized assets of these countries, soft power and in some cases diplomatic pressure. By this way Germany, Sweden and Denmark did not only got new investment hubs and markets for their products but also support in the Governance of the European Union.

 [Download the document]

Ships of the US, India and Japan in the Bay of Bengal during exercise Malabar 2017 [US Navy].

JOURNAL / Shahana Thankachan

[Document of 6 pages. Download PDF] [Document of 6 pages. Download PDF]

INTRODUCTION

There can be no objective and singular definition of the Indo-Pacific, one can only provide an Indian definition, a Japanese definition, a US definition, an ASEAN definition, etc. This is not to say that there are no common grounds in these definitions, there are as many commonalities as there are differences, and this is what makes this topic so hot and dynamic. The geopolitical reality of the Indo-Pacific perfectly represents a great power rivalry at the systemic level and also a perfect regional security complex. In this complex matrix, this paper will seek to focus on the Indo-Pacific from the perspective of India. While the term "Indo" in the Indo-Pacific does not mean India, it does refer to the Indian Ocean and India is the most important power in the Indian Ocean. Therefore, it is very important to fully understand the Indian perspective. The paper will begin by outlining the origin of the concept and thereafter the challenges in the Indian approach to the Indo-Pacific and the future prospects.

Chinese fortification on small disputed islands [CSIS satellite images].

JOURNAL / Fernando Delage

[8-page document. download in PDF].

INTRODUCTION

The idea of the "Indo-Pacific" has burst into the discussion on international relations in Asia. For just over a decade now, various governments have been using the term as the framework of reference letter in formulating their foreign policy towards the region. If the then Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe began popularizing the expression in 2007, Australia formally took it up in its 2013 Defense White Paper; a year in which the Indian government also resorted to the concept to define the regional environment. As administrative assistant of State of the United States, Hillary Clinton similarly used the term in 2010, although it was as of late 2017, under the Trump administration, that it became the official designation of the region employed by Washington.

Although related, "Indo-Pacific" has two different connotations. It represents, on the one hand, a geographical reconceptualization of Asia; a readjustment of the map of the continent as a consequence of the growing interaction between the two oceans and the simultaneous rise of China and India. The idea appears to be linked, on the other hand, to a strategy designed as a response to China's rise, whose most visible instrument is the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD), an informal group composed of the United States, Japan, India and Australia. This is why Beijing is wary of the term and prefers to continue using "Asia-Pacific" to describe its neighborhood, although its actions also respond to this new perspective: as the Australian analyst Rory Medcalf has pointed out, the Maritime Silk Road is nothing more than "the Indo-Pacific with Chinese characteristics".

The prominence of the major powers in the origin and use of the expression seems to have relegated the role of ASEAN and its member states. Despite their lesser economic and military weight, they are nevertheless not without relevance. In addition to being located at the intersection of the two oceans - Southeast Asia is, in fact, the center of the Indo-Pacific - disputes over the South China Sea place the subregion in the midst of the rivalry between China and the United States. While the former extends its influence through its economic diplomacy while unsettling neighboring states over their maritime claims, the Trump administration chose to directly oppose this increased Chinese economic and military power. ASEAN does not want to be caught up in the confrontation between Washington and Beijing, nor does it want to be marginalized in the ongoing reconfiguration of the regional structure. Its member states want to benefit from the opportunities for their development provided by China, but they also want external support to act as a strategic counterweight to the People's Republic. Although these circumstances explain its reservations about a concept that puts its cohesion and identity as an organization at risk, ASEAN ended up adopting in 2019 its own "Indo-Pacific Perspective," an official document that reveals its efforts to maintain its independence.

Map of the U.S. Pentagon's Indo-Pacific Command [USINDOPACOM] area skill

JOURNAL / Juan Luis López Aranguren

[6-page document. download in PDF].

INTRODUCTION

The international tectonic shift that is taking place with the crystallization of the Indo-Pacific as a major global axis is not lost on the internationalists of the last 150 years. Already at the end of the 19th century, the naval historian and strategist Alfred Thayer Mahan predicted that "whoever dominates the Indian Ocean will dominate Asia and the fate of the world will be decided in its waters". Some time later, in 1924, Karl Haushofer predicted the coming of what he called "the Pacific Age". Later, Henry Kissinger stated that one of the most drastic global changes to occur in this century would be the shift of the center of gravity of international relations from the Atlantic to the Indian and Pacific Oceans. And it was in the 1980s, during the mythical meeting between Deng Xiaoping and Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, that Deng declared that only when China, India and other neighboring nations collaborate could we speak of an "Asia-Pacific century".

In any case, historical experience indicates that unity and partnership between different social Structures (be they nations, ideologies or civilizations) can coexist with competitive relations between them, causing the scenario where they interact and compete to become one of the geopolitical axes of the planet. The Mediterranean was the point of union, communication and trade of the classical cultures to which its waters irrigated for millennia, but also a space of diplomatic competition and struggle for resources, influence and expansion of colonies, as described by Thucydides in his Peloponnesian War. Similarly, since the 15th century, the Atlantic was also the field of strategic competition in the progressive projection of the European whales or maritime powers towards America and West Africa, overlapping the political, economic, religious and cultural dimensions. And the 18th century witnessed the intense conflict in the Indian Ocean between France, the United Kingdom and the Indian Maratha Empire for the control of its waters and coasts.

Ultimately written request, the seas and oceans are the vector that allows terrestrial powers to expand and project their strong or soft power beyond the limitations of their territorial scope. The sea thus becomes the realm where the tree of possibilities of nations is maximized. Ian Morris already explained this by pointing out that the reason why Europe had become a global power from the 15th century onwards, expanding its civilization all over the planet, was precisely that Europe was a peninsula of peninsulas, and this offered easy access to the sea for any idea, product, military force and revolution to be exported and imported. The sea has been, therefore, an accelerator of social evolution in those civilizations that had the strategic advantage of easy access to it. Therefore, approaching the future evolution of global dynamics from a maritime rather than a terrestrial perspective may be more practical in defining possible future scenarios. This leads us to the conclusion that it is perhaps more appropriate to speak of an Indo-Pacific Era rather than an Asian land century, as these oceans resemble a canvas where old and new, regional and global, collectivist and individualist, powers vie for the projection of their interests, spheres of influence and identities to global reach.

Xi and Trump during the U.S. president's only visit to China, in 2017 [White House].

JOURNAL / Florentino Portero

[10-page document. download in PDF].

INTRODUCTION

The West admired Deng Xiaoping and understood that China, the millenary empire, was entering a new stage that would have to be carefully followed, for whatever path was finally chosen, the resulting China would determine the evolution of the planet as a whole.

The Central Empire had not known or wanted to understand the historical dimension of the First Industrial Revolution and thus entered an impasse with no other way out than international humiliation and the end of its political regime. Japan experienced similar circumstances, but was able to react. Thanks to the Meiji Revolution, it changed its strategy and tried to understand and adapt to the new circumstances. China would end up suffering the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and the imposition of humiliating conditions by the Western powers. Finally, the Empire was overthrown, giving way to a civil war that would be complicated by World War II and the Japanese attempt to impose itself as the power of reference letter in the Far East. In that complex process of decomposition and reconstruction of a deeply rooted political culture, China lost the opportunity to understand and join the Second Industrial Revolution.

The victory of the Chinese Communist Party in the civil war put an end to the process of decomposition and ushered in a new period in its history. Once again a strong power, in this case a totalitarian one, was imposed in Beijing, which rebuilt and endowed the state with great energy. The new rulers, with Mao Zedong at their head, tried to impose an alien culture, transforming many of the characteristic elements of the old Empire. It was a great attempt at social engineering, which led to a widespread loss of freedom and poverty, while corruption permeated the various layers of the party. China was back, endowed with a strong state and a cohesive leadership willing to assume great responsibilities. However, ideology won out over realism and China lost the Third Industrial Revolution, depriving its people of welfare and its Economics of a viable model of development .

Map of the Japanese vision of the Free and Open Pacific [MoFA].

JOURNAL / Carmen Tirado Robles

[8-page document. download in PDF].

INTRODUCTION

The Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP) concept is said to date back to article by Indian naval officer Captain Gurpreet Khurana, who first wrote about this geopolitical concept in early 2007, in a paper graduate "Security of Sea Lines: Prospects for India-Japan Cooperation". At that time, the free and open Indo-Pacific was primarily a geographical concept describing the maritime space stretching from the East African and West Asian littorals, across the Indian Ocean and the western Pacific Ocean to the East Asian coasts. At the same time, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe presented his foreign policy plan based on democratic values from which he proposed "I will engage in strategic dialogues at the leader's level with countries that share fundamental values such as Australia and India, with a view to widening the circle of free societies in Asia as well as in the world", which together with the consolidation of relations with the United States ("The times demanded that Japan shift to proactive diplomacy based on new thinking. I will demonstrate the 'Japan-U.S. Alliance for Asia and the World' even further, and to promote diplomacy that will actively contribute to stalwart solidarity in Asia"), creates the concept of Quadrilateral or Quad, as opposed to a Sino-centric view of Asia.

The idea of the Quad joins the FOIP when Abe, in August 2007, in his speech before the Indian Parliament, based on the "Confluence of the Indian and Pacific Oceans" and "dynamic coupling as seas of freedom and prosperity" of Asia's largest geographical region and later, already in his second term, he presented at the VI Tokyo lecture on development of Africa, which took place in Nairobi (Kenya) on August 27, 2016 (TICAD VI), the new Indo-Pacific geopolitical framework .

WORKING PAPER / María del Pilar Cazali

[Download the document]

ABSTRACT

The Brexit deal has led to a shift in the UK's relationship not only with the European Union but also with other countries around the world. Africa is key in the new relationships the UK is trying to build outside from the EU due to their historical past, the current Commonwealth link, and the important potential trade deals. This article looks to answer how hard the UK will struggle with competition in the African country as an individual state, no longer member of the EU. These struggles will be especially focused on trading aspects, as they are the most important factors currently for the UK in the post-Brexit era, and it's also the strongest focus of the EU in Africa.

▲ Vision on mineral extraction on an asteroid, from ExplainingTheFuture.com [Christopher Barnatt].

GLOBAL AFFAIRS JOURNAL / Mario Pereira

[14-page document. downloadin PDF]

INTRODUCTION

The American astrophysicist Michio Kaku recalls that when President Thomas Jefferson bought Louisiana from Napoleon (in 1803) for the astronomical sum of 15 million dollars, he spent a long period of time in deep fear. The reason for this lay in the fact that he did not know for a long time whether the referenced territory (mostly unexplored) hid fabulous riches or, on the contrary, was a wasteland of no great value... The passage of time has more than proved the former, just as it proved that it was then that the march of the American pioneers began: those people who - just like the "Adelantados" of Castile and Extremadura in the 16th century - set out for the unknown in order to obtain fortune, discover new wonders and improve their social position.

The Jeffersons of today are the Musks and Bezos, American businessmen, owners of huge financial, commercial and technological emporiums, who, hand in hand with new "pioneers" (a mix between Jules Verne/Arthur C. Clark and Neil Armstrong/John Glenn) seek to reach the new frontier of Humanity: the commercial and mining exploitation of Outer Space.

Faced with such a challenge, there are many questions that we can (and should) ask ourselves. Here we will try to answer (at least briefly) whether the existing international and national rules and regulations regarding the mining of the Moon and celestial bodies, constitutes -or not-, a sufficient framework for the regulation of such projected activities.

▲ proposal of lunar base for obtaining helium, taken from ExplainingTheFuture.com [Christopher Barnatt].

GLOBAL AFFAIRS JOURNAL / Emili J. Blasco

[8-page document. downloadin PDF]

INTRODUCTION

The economic interest in space resources, or at least the reasonable expectation about the profitability of obtaining them, explains to a large extent the growing involvement of private investment in space travel.

Beyond the industry related to artificial satellites, of great commercial strength, and also that which serves scientific and defense purposes, where the state sector continues to play a leading role, the possibility of exploiting high-value raw materials present in celestial bodies - from entrance, in the asteroids closest to the Earth and on the Moon - has awakened a kind of gold rush that is encouraging the new space degree program .

The epic of the new space barons -Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos- has monopolized the public narrative, but alongside them there are other New Space Players, with varied profiles. Behind all of them there is a growing group of capitalist partners and restless investors willing to risk assets in the expectation of profits.

To speak of a fever is certainly exaggerated because the real economic benefit that can be achieved from space mining - obtaining platinum, for example, or lunar helium - has yet to be demonstrated, because although the technology is becoming cheaper, which financially allows us to take new steps in outer space, bringing tons of materials to Earth has a cost that in most cases detracts from the monetary sense of the operation.

It would be enough, however, that in certain situations it would be profitable to increase the issue of space missions, and it is assumed that this traffic by itself would generate the need for an infrastructure abroad, at least with stations where to refuel fuel - so expensive to raise to the firmament -, manufactured from subject raw material found in space (the water of the lunar poles could be transformed into propellant). It is this expectation, with a certain basis of reasonableness, that fuels the investments being made.

In turn, the increased space activity and the skill to obtain the sought-after resources project beyond our planet the geopolitical concepts developed for the Earth. The location of countries (there are particularly suitable locations for space launches) and the control of certain routes (the succession of the most convenient orbits for flights) are part of the new astropolitics.