An Early Indication of China's Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB)

The AIIB, China's new multilateral development bank, held its first annual meeting over the weekend. As is well known, last spring, the Obama Administration received flak for opting out of the AIIB and pressuring its allies also not to join. As explained in the Diplomat, two concerns prompted the U.S. to remain leery of the AIIB:

 "1) Its voting structure gives China a disproportionate voting share, which means it can effectively manipulate the bank to further its own economic and strategic goals in the region; 2) The AIIB will not follow the same high standards as existing financial institutions when deciding which projects to fund, forgoing important criteria like environmental protection, human rights, and anti-corruption."

Source: Xinhua/Li Xin

Moreover, there were concerns that the AIIB would become yet another regional institution (along with the One Belt One Road and the Maritime Silk Road initiatives) used to strengthen China's influence in Asia, undermining the work of existing multilateral banks, if not the broader liberal international order. Such concerns continue to linger as the AIIB sets its sights on bringing in new members and financing projects outside of Asia (i.e. Latin America and Africa).

An early look at the AIIB following its first annual meeting suggests that some of the concerns, at least regarding the AIIB's institutional design, may be unfounded. An article published last weekend in the Washington Post headlined, "Asia’s new infrastructure bank is out to prove it’s not China’s pawn." reports that the AIIB is actually co-financing 3 of its 4 initial projects with other multilateral banks, including the World Bank. According to a British VP at the AIIB, this collaboration is only possible if the AIIB meets standards adopted by other multilateral banks. In terms of voting power, China is the largest shareholder at 26%, but it does not give China an outright majority to impose its preferences.

What does this mean for Asia' growing institutional architecture? Contrary to notions of "rival regionalism" or "institutional balancing," institutional overlap may actually foster positive global goods for the region. Despite the potential redundancies of overlapping institutions, they can facilitate greater interaction among states and help fill in governance gaps. Perhaps the AIIB can complement existing institutions such as the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and World Bank. I wouldn't be surprised to see if the U.S. comes around to the AIIB in the near future if it can find some face saving way to do it.

Revisiting the Rebalance to Asia

Joshua Kurlantzick of CFR posted an interesting graphic of US security assistance to Southeast Asia, indicating a net decrease in resources to Southeast Asia between 2010 and 2015 by $34.5 million. Meanwhile assistance to the Middle East and North Africa rose by about $1.3 billion during the same period. The statistics imply that the rebalance to Asia is more rhetoric than actual policy.

However, security assistance and military aid is only one aspect of the rebalance. And it certainly does not factor economic (i.e. TPP) and diplomatic initiatives in the region promoted by the U.S. Aside from security assistance, the rebalance also calls for strengthening bilateral partnerships, both old and new; encouraging the growth of intra-network alliances, and actively participating in multilateral regional forums and dialouges.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter gave his own remarks at CFR on the rebalance. Three things stood out about his remarks. First, India, often seen on the periphery of U.S. Asia policy, is factored more significantly in Washington's conception of Asia's regional architecture. Second, Asia is fine, and perhaps better off, without a formal alliance structure like NATO. Third, the U.S. envisions the regional architecture less as a formal structure, and more as a network.

On this last point, Carter made the following remarks:

America’s bilateral relationships remain the bedrock of our presence and engagement in the Asia-Pacific. But in a large and interconnected region, especially one with so many strong, capable, and dedicated players, it makes sense to network and link relationships and produce gains for all....  

Regional security, stability, and prosperity have required nations working together less formally. And the United States has been an important builder, cement, and participant in this arrangement. Today, as the region changes, the United States is augmenting our bilateral relationships and alliance with trilateral and multilateral arrangements. We’re weaving these partnerships together to more effectively bolster American and regional security. This network, with its shared values, habits of cooperation, and compatible and complementary capabilities, will expand the reach of all, responsibly share the security burden, and help ensure peace and stability in the region for years to come. 

This burgeoning networks builds in three ways. First, the Department of Defense is strongly emphasizing trilateral mechanisms to bring together like-minded allies and partners to maximize individual contributions to regional peace and security, and link together nations that previously worked with us mostly separately. .. Second, to improve regional security, we’re encouraging our allies and partners to actively develop their own interconnected security relationships...Third, we’re helping create an interconnected regional architecture, from one end of the region to another, through engagement and activities in multilateral fora, such as the ASEAN Defense Ministers Meeting ...It’s important to remember that our bilateral, trilateral, and multilateral relationships, and the developing network they comprise, is not aimed at any particular country. Rather, it demonstrates that the region wants cooperation, not coercion; and a continuation, not an end, of decades of stability, peace, and progress. The network’s not closed. It excludes no one. We want cooperation and shared leadership so that other nations who want to contribute to regional stability and security, they can work with the other nations of the region to do so... By operationalizing the rebalance, by transforming old alliances and new partnerships, and by networking security, we can . . . promote and defend the principles that have allowed so many in the region to rise and prosper for so long.

Given constant crises unfolding in the Middle East and Europe, the rebalance to Asia may seem like an after thought to the White House. Of even if one accepts the rebalance at face value, the graphics above may suggest that the U.S. is conducting Asia policy on the cheap. That's a fair assessment in a period of tightened budgets. But that should not mean that the rebalance itself is not built on "smart power" principles in which military, economic, and diplomatic elements are channeled to address long term regional goals.

Japan-Korea Relations and Comfort Women

(Jung Yeon-Je/AFP/Getty Images)

I have an unfinished blog post discussing Brad Glosserman and Scott Snyder's recent book, The Japan-South Korea Identity Clash. Unfortunately, I can't resurrect it at the moment because its on my old laptop.

Anyway, in light of last month's comfort women "resolution" I'm putting links to two good articles assessing where things stand at the moment. The first appears in CFR's Asia Unbound blog where Scott Snyder commends President Park and Prime Minister Abe's "act of political leadership and statesmanship" but then lays out challenges for both governments in maintaining forward momentum. The biggest and most immediate challenge related to satisfying the comfort women themselves, who were shut-out of the process (for not entirely bad reasons contrary to what activists might claim) and the removal of the comfort woman statue in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul. The second is from Celeste Arrington who highlights the perspective of the comfort women and their advocacy movement since the 1990s, shedding additional insight on the challenge in satisfying victims' grievances.

March for Life: Catholics and Evangelicals

For years, Catholic University students have supported March for Life, the pro-life (or anti-abortion if you're on the other side of the debate) rally held annually in Washington DC. Several of my students informed me they would be participating on Fri. and thus absent from class. I decided to cancel class for Fri, although mother nature later took care of this.

One difference this year is the prominent participation of evangelical Christians in the March for Life. One would assume evangelicals would embrace the movement given their opposition to abortion, but Washington Post reporter Michelle Boorstein offers: "the reasons evangelicals haven’t been joining Catholics in public activism recently are theological, cultural and political." Pro-life advocate and Liberty University faculty Karen Swallow Prior probes deeper:

"Evangelical Protestants were deeply anti-Catholic . . .Some thought, whatever Roman Catholics were for, we should be . Evangelicals are more politically conservative and come at abortion opposition with a different language. Catholics have long spoken of abortion as a 'social justice' cause not unlike fighting poverty, while evangelicals saw the issue through an individual morality lens and were wary of Catholic language that to them sounded liberal."

The recent joining of Evangelicals and Catholics is a reminder that "religion" neither necessarily divides or unites potential activists. Mobilization strategy and political opportunity in this case outweigh religious identity/ideology.

Business in North Korea

There's a debate among North Korea observers about the wisdom, viability, and profitability of doing business in the most isolated country in the world. Some see North Korea as an untapped and potentially ripe market for business ventures. Others see such ventures as an exercise in futility, citing the country's unpredictable legal infrastructure for foreign businesses. If some see business as a means of engaging North Korea and encouraging leaders to pursue reforms, others will view such activities as morally reprehensible, providing the regime with hard currency and cash.

A couple years ago I blogged about the rapid rise of cell phone users in North Korea. The numbers continue to rise (close to 3 million now). But from the standpoint of Orascom, the Egyptian telecom company which owns a 75% stake in Koryolink, its business venture under the Kim regime has not fared well. As Andrei Lankov writes in NKNews

In late November the Egyptian building and telecom company Orascom finally admitted what had been known in narrow circles for two years: that its North Korean state partners had taken over the joint Koryolink cellphone network, and that Orascom had been unable to reap any profit from its seemingly successful investment in North Korea.

The Wall Street Journal provided further details.

Koryolink, which now accounts for 85% of Orascom’s revenue and profit, says it hasn’t been able to send any funds out of North Korea in 2015 due to local currency controls and international sanctions targeting Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program...The setback [for Orascom], underscores the risk of doing business in North Korea, where foreign firms have complained that property and profits have been appropriated by the government.

It could be possible that industries such as telecommunications which have implications for regime control, or mining which relates to security, may be more restricted than other industries. On the whole then, foreign business in NK, while no cake walk, has potential given Kim Jong-Un's desire in recent years to boost investments through special economic zones. As if to counter negative press on Orascom, the Pyongyang Times claimed to have "hundreds" of foreign investors. Likewise, a credible source mentioned that 2015 was a pretty good year for North  Korean tourism, ,despite the Ebola ban barring travel to North Korea the first few months. In fact, Uri Tours has organized snowboarding trip to Masikryong ski resort, even bringing professional snowboarders to accompany tourists. In short, there's no conclusive evidence to argue that business ventures are either good or bad for investors.

Content Analysis of Donald Trump Tweets

I am no fan of Donald Trump who is bad news for the Republican Party (and US politics more generally) so I hesitate to give his candidacy any more attention. He is entertaining, however, and I thought I'd post this content analysis of his tweets below as a pedagogical example of how one goes about conducting content/discourse analysis, and in particular, gauging "tone" (something I also do for my own research on Congressional statements on the North Korean regime). 

Faith, Christsianity, and the Meaning of Christmas

Christians get bashed for being intolerant, closed-minded, and ignorant. Some of this is deserved by Christians who reflect the values of Christ poorly. But this Christmas season, it was refreshing to see news stories and editorials reflect on the beauty and centrality of the Christian faith and its importance in this broken world.

Michael Gerson's piece centered on German theologian and Nazi resistor Dietrich Bonhoeffer was at the heart of this message. Here's Gerson quoting Bonhoeffer:  "He [God] takes what is little and lowly and makes it marvelous. And that is the wonder of all wonders, that God loves the lowly. . . . He loves the lost, the neglected, the unseemly, the excluded, the weak and broken.”

Gerson then reminds us that amidst the oppression and violence:

In the Christian view, the door was swung open by the incarnation, by a God who somehow became a defenseless child, a refugee, a teacher of good, a victim of injustice, left alone, tired, in doubt, to face a humiliating death. A God who — strangely, paradoxically, mysteriously — at the end felt abandoned by God. A God on our side. 

“God wants to always be with us,” Bonhoeffer said, “wherever we may be — in our sin, in our suffering and death. We are no longer alone: God is with us. We are no longer homeless; a bit of the eternal home itself has moved unto us.”This, despite all our fears and doubts, is Christmas: a God secretly revealed as love.

This article set the tone for an editorial which repeated a frequent theme this Advent season connecting the Syrian migrant crisis to Christ's birth by reflecting on Jesus as a displaced person, his parents fleeing from Egypt upon King Herod's decree to kill all children under the age of  two. I quote the last section of the editorial here which ended in a verse from Matthew 25:35:

 But the word “Christian” is often misused in our times, in a way that implies some allegiance to a particular political party, economic doctrine or set of moral strictures that are not representative of large numbers of true Christians. (The media are often complicit in this confusion.) There is a broader concept of the term, one that is succinct, relevant and all but imperative in this season when we face a humanitarian crisis that tests our character and our compassion. It comes from the Gospel of Matthew and is stated as an ideal voiced by Jesus: “I was hungry and you gave me food.I was thirsty and you game me drink.I was a stranger and you welcomed me.”

Finally, last week's Washington Post featured a story headlines, "The quiet impact of President Obama’s Christian faith." Part of the article described Obama's thought process in drafting the eulogy of Rev. Clementa Pinckney following the mass shooting murder at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, SC. The shooter, a white man, was welcomed by black church members to join their Bible study when an hour into the study he stood up and went on a shooting spree. As author Greg Jaffe writes, Obama observed that " the Charleston parishioners had demonstrated their faith when they welcomed the killer into their Bible study. The families of the dead had passed God’s test when they faced down despair and found the grace to forgive." In essence, the President wanted to set the response of Emanuel church members as an example for a polarized nation.  As Obama quoted, “There’s all this goodness and decency and common sense on the ground, and somehow it gets translated into rigid, dogmatic, often mean-spirited politics.”

I don't see President Obama always as a man of faith, so it was a refreshing to hear how he thinks and struggles to apply Christian teaching to his politics. The lesson here (particularly for Christians) is that even if we fundamentally disagree on principles and policy, there's a way to be civil in our discussion and at least attempt to understand the other's position.

Overall, I'm pleased to see a mainstream newspaper like the Washington Post publishing stories which address issues of faith and Christianity without resorting to simple caricatures of Christians.