Journal of Political Risk, Vol. 6, No. 1, January 2018
By Arthur Waldron
I have some thoughts about the “year of doom” 2018 that appeared on the web yesterday. They are as follows:
(1) China has undertaken her dangerous policies for internal reasons. That is how China is. She has no pressing or other need for Scarborough Shoal in the Philippines EEZ, for example.
(2) We know (1) is true because Xi Jin Ping goes on an on about loyalty, reshuffles the army, creates the most boring flag raising ceremony in history, and was reported to get in a fight with a general about whether the army should be made national instead of party. Who after all is going to take a bullet for Xi? We need to get to the root of this domestic phenomenon, but how is an almost impossible question.
(3) China’s tactics have sought to win without fighting by overawing small countries (and not-so-small countries, like India and Indonesia) using their awesome military as no more than a threat and their awesome economy likewise. The problems are (a) even the Philippines is not overawed and China is very much on the wrong side of international law and (b) this is important: China overestimates her own achievements. Maoism was a cesspool. She has gotten out rinsed off, and started some large but financially dodgy corporations. Skyscrapers have sprouted and tilted.
Group of People’s Liberation Army (PLA) soldiers in China. Credit: Getty Images.
Journal of Political Risk, Vol. 5, No. 6, June 2017
By Dave Schroeder
This issue is a lot more complex than people suspect for many deemed to be denying the facts.
What many people disagree on in good faith with respect to climate change is not that it’s occurring, nor what the impacts are, or what they may be in the future. Rather, it is what the collective response of the United States should be, and what other concerns — economic, national security, energy policy, diplomatic, etc. — that response should rightly be weighed against.
Should it be a response that decimates our economy and cripples us as a nation, while serving no discernible purpose, because China, India, Russia, and Brazil do essentially nothing, with the excuse that they are developing nations?
Journal of Political Risk, Vol. 5, No. 5, May 2017
By Sannie Evan Malala
Sannie Evan Malala is a small farmer in the Philippines.
Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte revealed on Friday, May 19, that Chinese President Xi Jinping had threatened war if the Philippines forced its claims in the South China Sea. Duterte and Xi had a restricted meeting last May 15 during the Belt and Road Forum in Beijing. There Duterte expressed his plan to drill oil in the South China Sea, as he claimed. And he said the response was “we’re friends, we don’t want to quarrel with you, we want to maintain the presence of warm relationship, but if you force the issue, we’ll go to war.” (I think I’m familiar with this pulling of words.) This is clear lawlessness.
Journal of Political Risk, Vol. 5, No. 2, February 2017
By James E. Fanell
Below are the critical comments I provided to Dr. Orville Schell, the co-chair of the recent Asia Society and University of California, San Diego report US POLICY TOWARD CHINA: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A NEW ADMINISTRATION. While there are sections of the work that I agree with, I still fundamentally disagree with the overall foundation of the document’s recommendations which I believe are designed to sustain the past 40 year of a policy that promotes unconstrained “engagement” with the PRC. As such, I’ve gone through the entire document and extracted several statements and paragraphs that I disagree with and a few that I agree with. While I will provide comments for each specific reference issue, I can summarize my dissent of the report in the following major themes:
1. Unconstrained Engagement. Engagement with China is asserted to be the primary goal of US relations with China without providing evidence for that assertion. Or worse, suggesting things are actually going well, contrary to all objective evidence.
2. “The Relationship” is the #1 Priorty. “The relationship” is prioritized as being equal to or more important than U.S national security. There is no clear articulation that U.S. National security should be the #1 national security priority for the US and that our relationship with China should be judged through that lens, not through the lens of sustaining “the relationship” at all costs.
3. Do Not Provoke. America should not “provoke” China, but again, there is no evidence to support why this position will benefit U.S. national security interests.
4. Dissent Not Welcome. While I appreciate inclusion of Ambassador Lord’s dissenting opinion on North Korea, clearly the study did not value, or include, dissenting opinions, especially in the Asia-Pacific Regional Security and Maritime Dispute sections.
Iranians wave Islamic flags while chanting against the al-Qaida inspired Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, ISIL, during a rally in central Tehran, Iran, Tuesday, June 24, 2014. (AP Photo/Ebrahim Noroozi)
Journal of Political Risk, Vol. 2, No. 7, July 2014.
In this July 20 interview with the Journal of Political Risk, Dr. Yeganehshakib discusses how the present conflict in Iraq will affect Iran’s role in the Middle East and its relations with the United States.
Reza Yeganehshakib holds a Ph.D. in history with a specialization in World and Middle Eastern history at the University of California, Irvine (UCI). He received a B.S. degree in Chemical Engineering from Iran Azad University, and an M.A. in history from UCI, where he serves as a Research Associate at the Samuel Jordan Center for Persian Studies. Dr. Yeganehshakib is a member of the Middle East Studies Association and the International Society for Iranian Studies. He is affiliated with the Persian Language Institute at California State University, Fullerton and was previously affiliated with the National Iranian Oil Company. Continue reading →
A Serbian police officer guards a mass grave site in the village of Rudnica, 280 kilometers (170 miles) south of Belgrade, Serbia, Thursday, April 17, 2014. The mass grave is believed to contain at least 250 bodies of Albanian victims killed during the Kosovo war. (AP Photographer: Darko Vojinovic)
Journal of Political Risk, Vol. 2, No. 4, April 2014.
By Raquel Montes Torralba
With Serbia seeking to join the European Union (EU), as did Croatia in July 2013, European officials have advanced a pre-condition to be resolution of major disputes with Kosovo. In April 2014, Serbia and Kosovo celebrate the first anniversary of an agreement meant to normalize relations. Positive developments include the March 2014 election of a pro-EU majority in Serbia’s parliament, local elections in North Kosovo held in a generally peaceful manner, as well as progress on technical issues such as border control and police transfer. Nevertheless, the political context for 2014 could be derailed by upcoming general elections in Kosovo, the creation of a Kosovo Army, and establishment of a war crimes court for Kosovo’s ethnic Albanian rebels. More particularly, all these factors could impact the creation of a Community of Serb Municipalities, the keystone of the Serbia-Kosovo Agreement. Continue reading →
Journal of Political Risk, Vol. 6, No. 1, January 2018
By Arthur Waldron
I have some thoughts about the "year of doom" 2018 that appeared on the web yesterday. They are as follows:
(1) China has undertaken her dangerous policies for internal reasons. That is how China is. She has no pressing or ot