Global Economies

This November, Beijing will be abuzz as China hosts the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Leaders’ Meeting. The APEC Leaders’ Meeting is one of the few marquee events where world leaders in the Asia-Pacific region can meet. This year’s meeting has the potential to host two critical summits. The first summit, between U.S. President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping, has been arranged and is a much awaited follow-up to the Xi-Obama visit in Sunnylands, California last summer. The second summit, between Xi and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, remains a moving target as Beijing and Tokyo jockey for the necessary conditions and backdrop for a potential meeting.

There are a number of reasons why these two potential meetings should be looked at together. First, with regard to the U.S.-China summit, there remains an underlying discomfort in Washington about properly managing the much bandied-about term “major-power relations” in reference to the U.S.-China relationship.  Daniel Russel, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, has tried to remove any lingering ambiguity on the Obama administration’s understanding of the concept: “The phrase that now adorns coffee mugs and t-shirts all over Washington—‘a new model of relations between major powers’—is a catchphrase that the Chinese are very fond of but that we also endorse. What we mean by a new model is not the notion of some sort of G2 condominium, but rather a conviction that the U.S. as an enduring power and China as a rising and important nation—certainly in the region and on a global scale as well—that these two countries are not condemned to some sort of mechanistic standoff.”

Indeed, the “major-power relations” era has confused some of Washington’s allies in Asia including Japan, which felt that the Obama administration had effectively given a free pass to China. Therefore, Obama’s follow-up meeting with Xi—along with any statement that comes out of that meeting—will have to consider the messaging not only to Beijing, but also to Tokyo, Manila and others. While focussing on cooperation on a range of international economic and security issues, including North Korea, Obama should also stress to Xi that one key element to “major power relations” is the adherence to international norms and laws in the maritime domain.

This meeting really sets the stage for a potential landmark encounter between Abe and Xi in Beijing. The two leaders of Asia’s biggest economies have not met since Abe took office in late 2012. China and Japan have been in a diplomatic standoff since Abe’s predecessor purchased three of the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu islands from a private buyer in September 2012. Despite a tough line on Chinese assertiveness in the East China Sea, the Abe administration has been working hard to arrange a summit with Xi for the past year and appears close to its goal for a meeting at APEC. The nature of any summit remains undetermined but it could range from a simple handshake to an informal meeting. At this point, even a handshake meeting would be welcome and could re-energize back-channel diplomatic efforts already underway.

The basis for a meeting remains uncertain, but there are reports out that Japan has more or less negotiated terms for the summit. While Abe has consistently voiced his desire to meet Xi, he has also publicly denounced the idea that such a meeting should be based on certain preconditions. Meanwhile, China has indicated that Japan needs to “show sincerity” on issues relating to history and territory. Essentially, Beijing is looking for a two-pronged pledge from Japan before re-engaging at the head-of-state level. First, China wants a guarantee—even if not public—that Abe will not visit the controversial Yasukuni shrine again while in office. Second, Beijing is demanding an acknowledgement from Japan that there is an active dispute in the East China Sea. On face-value, both concessions are politically very difficult for Japan but with the proper amount of nuance from Tokyo and compromise from Beijing it might be possible for both sides to agree on a middle path that would allow an informal summit at APEC.

If there is an Abe-Xi meeting, we should not expect anything significant to come directly out of the meeting. Yet, this encounter would be important, due to its symbolism, alongside quietly improving diplomacy at the working level between both countries. Over the past four months, tensions in the East China Sea have been gradually lowering and there has been a recent resumption of maritime crisis management talks between respective authorities in China and Japan. Moreover, there have been a number of visits to Tokyo and Beijing by senior government and former government officials over the past few months in an effort to reinvigorate “shuttle diplomacy” and set the stage for a resumption of sound bilateral ties. A successful Xi-Abe meeting would be the first official sign for more robust diplomatic engagement at the working level.

Jonathan Berkshire Miller is an EWI fellow with the China, East Asia and United States Program

Among other discussions, the panel "reiterated the need for progress on the political front, highlighting the political-economic-security nexus amid a backdrop where Afghanistan, and the whole region, can benefit from strategic cooperation rather than competition." The event took place at the United Nations Headquarters.

To read the report, click here. 

Political disagreements between the United States and Russia over Ukraine should not hamper their cooperation in search of strategic solutions to the issue of Afghan drugs production and trafficking. This was a key conclusion drawn by the EastWest Institute’s project team following a three-day meeting of its U.S.-Russia experts steering group on Afghan narcotrafficking, held in Moscow at the end of June. Co-chaired by EastWest’s vice president, David Firestein, and the institute’s Russia office director, Vladimir Ivanov, the meeting in Moscow was convened specifically to assess the implications of the current systemic crisis in Russia’s relations with the West on the security situation and counternarcotics efforts in and around Afghanistan. 

The meeting involved leading experts from the EastWest Institute’s bilateral Joint U.S.-Russia Working Group on Afghan Narcotrafficking: Ilnur Batyrshin, head of the Russian Federal Drug Control Service’s research center; Ivan Safranchuk, associate professor at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations; Konstantin Sorokin, advisor at the International Training and Methodology Centre for Financial Monitoring; Ekaterina Stepanova, head of the Peace and Conflict Studies Unit at the Institute of the World Economy and International Relations; George Gavrilis, visiting scholar at the Institute for Religion, Culture and Public Life at Columbia University; and Austin Long, assistant professor at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs. The steering group meeting also included Patricia Nicholas, project manager in the International Program at the Carnegie Corporation of New York, whose generous contribution makes possible the work of this EastWest Institute experts group on Afghan narcotrafficking.

Participants discussed the effect of the drawdown in Afghanistan of NATO International Security Assistance Force troops after 2014, with many noting that poppy cultivation and exports of illicit drugs from the country are likely to increase and that a basic precondition to solving this problem in the longer term would be political reconciliation and increased stability and functionality of the Afghan government at both the central and local levels. Discussion also focused on possible measures for managing the situation in the interim, such as continued international assistance to help raise the capacity of Afghan military and security forces as well as enhanced efforts to secure the borders around Afghanistan to counter both illicit drugs exports and the possible spillover of violent extremism to the neighboring countries. In this context, it was pointed out by some participants that even if U.S.-Russian counternarcotics cooperation continues at the operational level in this post-Crimea-sanctions environment, this is not enough to effectively address the complexity of Afghan drugs and security issues. 

The steering group devoted one full meeting day entirely to consultations with key regional players that contribute to shaping security and counternarcotics strategies around Afghanistan. The consultations involved senior diplomats from the embassies in Moscow of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and Kazakhstan as well as the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Secretariat of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). Ambassador Zamir Kabulov, Special Envoy of the Russian Federation President for Afghanistan, also addressed the group. 

The outcome of the steering group meeting in Moscow made it clear that the EastWest Institute’s leadership of this dialogue is particularly important against the backdrop of the recent challenges in the U.S.-Russia relationship at the governmental level. The steering group concluded that increasing efforts to engage regional players in this project could be an effective step towards helping restore regular communication between the Russian and U.S. counternarcotics communities.