This commentary was first published by The Lowy Institute.

Two recent naval exercises demonstrate the potential for Russia-China cooperation in the Indian Ocean, and how the two present a much greater threat to a continued US role and influence in the region than either would individually.

Last year, South Africa hosted a maritime exercise with Russia and China, the first-ever trilateral exercise among the three countries. Exercise Mosi was designed, according to the South African Navy, to “enhance interoperability and maritime security“ and showed the three countries’ willingness to work together to counter security threats at sea, such as terrorism and piracy. There were the obligatory social and cultural activities, and then military maneuvers that focused on a surface gunnery exercise, helicopter cross-deck landings, boarding operations and disaster control exercises.

China and Russia followed this up in December 2019 with another trilateral maritime exercise with Iran in the Gulf of Oman called Exercise Marine Security Belt. The exercises included live-fire drills and an anti-piracy exercise involving Iranian commandos. According to the Iranian naval commander, the exercises’ message was that “Iran cannot be isolated.” A Chinese spokesman stated: “The naval drills aim to deepen exchange and cooperation among the navies of the three countries, and display their strong will and capability to jointly maintain world peace and maritime security”.

Both China and Russia have gradually been increasing their presence in the Indian Ocean. Russia recently announced it would establish a naval facility in Port Sudan on the Red Sea. China opened its first overseas base in Djibouti in 2017, and China’s navy has increased operations in the Indian Ocean region over the past three decades.

Sign up for APARC newsletters to receive our experts' analysis and insights.

The Covid-19 crisis may have slowed further moves towards cooperation this year. Moscow just hosted the 12th BRICS summit virtually, which doesn’t lend itself to deep military engagement. But the trilateral exercises are notable because they signal Moscow’s and Beijing’s desire to cooperate in the region. And more importantly, they reveal that regional powers such as South Africa and Iran, as well as other countries, welcome the increased role of China and Russia.

Relations between South Africa and the United States were already strained when Pretoria agreed to the trilateral exercises last year. Under the Trump administration, the United States grew critical of South Africa’s UN voting record. Washington also declined to exempt the country from hikes in tariffs on US imports of steel and aluminum. In contrast, China has pledged the most investments of any country in South Africa. Russia has followed in its footsteps in building political, military and trade ties across sub-Saharan Africa.

Iran has even more reason to build relations with China and Russia. Since the US withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, Iran has strengthened its ties to China and Russia, using multi-billion-dollar loans from the two countries to resist US sanctions and deepening defense cooperation and intelligence sharing.

Smaller countries can also find the Russia-China nexus useful. According to a Chinese-language source, Sudan, a long-standing regional partner of China, first proposed hosting a Russian base in 2017 as a counterbalance “against aggressive acts of the United States”.

In other words, China and Russia together may be better equipped to compete with the United States and its allies in the Indian Ocean region for influence, for several reasons.

Moscow may be more willing than Beijing to play the ringleader role in organizing and directing opposition against the United States, but it doesn’t have the economic heft to make such cooperation a winning proposition for Indian Ocean states.

While China has considerable resources, it is more concerned about provoking the United States and potentially worsening already poor relations. China often argues that it is a different type of great power, one that does not engage in hegemonic behavior such as alliance formation. China is also keen to avoid sparking a countervailing coalition against it.

For these reasons, Beijing often tones down its rhetoric about the nature of its relationship with Russia. China claimed the Indian Ocean exercises do “not target any third party”. For Russia, however, overtly undermining the United States is a key component of its strategy and plays well domestically for Putin.

On the other hand, China has the economic resources to wield influence and invest heavily in Indian Ocean countries. In Pakistan alone, Beijing has pledged an estimated $87 billion in funding and completed roughly $20 billion worth of projects. Recently, Beijing and Tehran reportedly agreed to a 25-year deal to expand China’s investment in Iranian banking, telecommunications, ports and railways in exchange for oil.

While China and Russia are nowhere near dominating the Indian Ocean region militarily, their combined influence may promise trouble for the United States and its partners. The two countries will likely work together to inure their partners to international pressure, including over human rights violations. And those partners will receive security benefits (such as military access) and economic benefits (such as preferential economic ties) in return. Although it seems a bit exaggerated, there is some truth to Iranian Admiral Hossein Khanzadi’s declaration that strategic coordination with Russia and China means “the era of American free action in the region is over”.

China and Russia may be slow in enhancing their strategic coordination in the Indian Ocean slowly, but the intent is there. The United States and its allies may still be dominant militarily. But we should be careful not to fall under the illusion that this guarantees influence. With China and Russia presenting themselves as strong alternative powers, the United States and like-minded countries have to work that much harder to promote sustainable economic development, protect international rules and norms, and ensure peace and security in the region.

The political quarterly Democracy Journal recently published a four-essay collection, titled The Stakes in Asia, on the future of U.S.-Asian relations. APARC's Southeast Asia Program Director Donald K. Emmerson contributed to this collection the essay Southeast Asia: China’s Long Shadow. The other contributors included Glen Fukushima, former Deputy Assistant United States Trade Representative for Japan and China, Sheena Chestnut Greitens, Associate Professor at the University of Texas at Austin, and Duyeon Kim, Adjunct Senior Fellow with the Indo-Pacific Security Program at the Centre for New American Security.

On June 30, 2021, Democracy hosted a panel discussion, moderated by journalist and Asia expert Steve Clemons, that brought all four experts together to examine the latest developments in Asia and how the United States might successfully engage with the region in the years to come. Watch here:

"Haley's thesis is a critical analysis of the human rights discourse on North Korea. She notes that the human rights abuses are indisputable; but she finds a degree of tone-deafness around human rights activism that she traces to an absence of definition of terms," says Dafna Zur, Associate Professor, Korean Literature and Culture and Director of the Center for East Asian Studies. “Her inquiry led to two threads of analysis: the first is a deconstruction of some of the assumptions made by human rights' actors (and her exposure of their sometimes contradictory approaches); and the second is her reading of North Korean fiction as a way of understanding the relationship between the individual and the state. Haley's thesis brings a fresh perspective on what is typically a highly charged topic, and leaves room for possible policy adjustments.”

In Gordon's own words: "My thesis explores the contentious conversation surrounding North Korean human rights. If there is widespread agreement that North Korea’s human rights situation is appalling, then why is there still such heated disagreement over how best to improve it? What exactly are we talking about when we say ‘human rights’ in the context of North Korea? By way of answering these questions, I argue that the various governments, NGOs, activists, and international bodies that have a stake in the human rights conversation prioritize different historical goals and motives—denuclearization, reunification of the Korean Peninsula, regime change, etc.— that then shape their approaches to human rights.”

“I argue that it is also important to examine how human rights are conceived of within North Korea, in order to better understand—although not condone—the country’s ongoing abuses.” Gordon comments, “In the absence of an open and honest rights dialogue within the DPRK, I analyze state-sanctioned works of fiction, looking at how human rights, as manifested in the relationship between the state and individual, are presented to the North Korean populace. These stories illuminate a concept of human rights that prioritizes the right to survival of the North Korean nation itself; one that is very much at odds with the goals of other stakeholders."

Sponsored by the Korea Program and the Center for East Asian Studies, the writing prize recognizes and rewards outstanding examples of writing by Stanford students in an essay, term paper or thesis produced during the current academic year in any discipline within the area of Korean studies, broadly defined. The competition is open to both undergraduate and graduate students.

Past Recipients:
9th Annual Prize (2020)
8th Annual Prize (2019)
7th Annual Prize (2018)
6th Annual Prize (2017)
5th Annual Prize (2016)
4th Annual Prize (2015)
3rd Annual Prize (2014)
2nd Annual Prize (2013)
1st Annual Prize (2012)

Despite tensions in the summit lead-up, the two leaders were overly cordial in their remarks after the meeting. Rose Gottemoeller, lead US negotiator for the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), joined The World's host Marco Werman to offer insight.

Read the rest at The World

In a congratulatory note written to the graduating cohort, Tom Fingar, the Shorenstein Fellow at the Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC), similarly encouraged the students to lean into the unique perspective they’ve gained from their experiences during this year.

“This year was extraordinary in many ways, but the disruptions and coping mechanisms of the COVID pandemic may be more indicative of the world you will inherit than the one we are leaving behind. Discovering new ways to do normal things has prepared you for whatever comes next as well as or better than any other experiences and accomplishments might have. Go forth with confidence that you are ready for whatever lies ahead.”

For most of the MIP graduates, what lies ahead are careers in government, the military, technology, clean energy, law, diplomacy, and research which will take them afield to Washington D.C., New York, Los Angeles, Texas, Florida, the United Kingdom, Ukraine, Belgium, Sudan and the United Arab Emirates in the coming months. For some, there are a few more years of school as they work to complete joint degrees in additional areas of policy and governance.

For all, the shared experiences of the last fifteen months have created a unique bond. Corie Wieland, a graduating second-year student and the president of the International Policy Student Association, affirmed to her fellow graduates that, “Whether in one month, one year, or ten years, all of us will always be merely a Zoom call or group chat away. No matter the time zone or the country, our friendships have already proven true.”

That commitment and gratitude to the MIP community is shared throughout the Class of ‘21. Anna Nguyen Yip, a specialist in cyber policy and security, says that despite the upheaval of the past year, she feels prepared to move out of the classroom and into the world. 

“As I am graduating from Stanford, I am more confident than ever to embark on the next chapter of my career,” said Nguyen Yip. "This has been the perfect opportunity to combine my passions in education, frontier technologies, and public policy. I will be eternally grateful for the amazing experience I had at MIP.”

U.S. President Joe Biden and Russian President Vladimir Putin held a short summit yesterday in Switzerland that both sides described as substantive, efficient, and without rancor. Did the meeting advance Biden’s objective of building a stable and predictable U.S.-Russia relationship? The short answer: too early to tell.

The meeting took place at a time when U.S.-Russia relations are at their lowest point in 30 years. Unlike his four predecessors, Biden did not enter office with the goal of building a positive relationship with Russia. Stable and predictable are his administration’s watchwords. The White House accordingly sought to keep summit expectations modest.

In the event, the atmospherics at the Geneva lakeside villa appeared encouraging. When meeting with foreign leaders, Putin has a bad habit of arriving late — sometimes hours late — but he showed up on time for this U.S. president. That provided a good start. In his post-summit press conference, the Russian president seemed to go out of his way to express respect for Biden.

That said, whether the meeting qualifies as a success will depend on what happens in the coming months. Biden administration officials have since January talked about their readiness to push back and hold Russia to account for unacceptable actions in tandem with their readiness to cooperate where U.S. and Russian interests converge. In his separate post-meeting press conference, Biden said he had made no threats but did tell Putin that interference in American politics and certain cyber actions were out of bounds and would provoke an American response. With regard to the latter, he alluded to significant U.S. government cyber capabilities.

In his press conference, President Putin took no responsibility for interference in U.S. politics or cyberattacks, but no one expected he would. The big question now: Does the Kremlin continue those activities? That will offer one metric by which to judge the success of yesterday’s summit.

President Biden said the United States would continue to speak out on democracy and human rights, calling that part of America’s DNA. He specifically raised the case of regime opponent Alexei Navalny, whose name Putin avoids, referring instead to “the gentleman in question.” We will see what happens, but the Kremlin takes the view that what happens inside Russia is Russia’s business alone. Putin deflected questions about domestic repression, resorting to his trademark “whataboutisms.” (Biden rejected the Russian leader’s attempt to equate demonstrations for democratic rights in Russia with the January 6 assault on the Capitol.)

The two presidents issued a single joint statement, worked out in advance, in which they reiterated Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev’s formula that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought.” The statement noted their agreement to launch an “integrated bilateral Strategic Stability Dialogue… to lay the groundwork for future arms control and risk reduction measures.” Biden told the press that he and Putin had discussed next steps in arms control.

Washington and Moscow should get the Strategic Stability Dialogue underway soon. These are discussions that can cover a broad range of questions, including those on which one side or the other may not be prepared to negotiate. The bigger issue will be how long it will take U.S. and Russian officials to work out the mandate (or mandates) for specific negotiations. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has talked about the U.S. interest in a negotiation that would cover and limit all U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons, strategic and non-strategic — a logical follow-on to the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START). While not necessarily rejecting that, Russian officials focus on other issues, including missile defense and long-range, precision-guided conventional strike weapons. Reconciling the different priorities may not prove simple.

The presidents discussed cyber activities, on which the sides agreed to conduct bilateral consultations. However, Washington and Moscow may come to that dialogue with different perspectives as to what constitutes a cyber “problem” and on how to fix it. Adding a layer of complexity is that fact that both sides use, and presumably intend to continue using, cyber means for intelligence-gathering purposes.

Biden and Putin identified other questions — including Afghanistan, keeping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, the Arctic, and climate change — where the two countries arguably share interests. How discussions on those questions develop remain to be seen.

The two presidents touched on tough issues, foremost Russia’s conflict against Ukraine. Biden said he communicated U.S. support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. They agreed that the Minsk process offers the way forward for settling the simmering conflict in Donbas, though they clearly differ as to how the Minsk agreements should be implemented.

The presidents decided that their ambassadors should return to their respective embassies, a sensible step since following up on Geneva will require a fair amount of bilateral diplomacy.

All in all, White House officials and the president should be pleased with the mini-summit in Switzerland and Biden’s press conference. The meeting accomplished what they said they wanted to do: lay out what egregious Russian behavior would cross red lines, triggering a punitive response, and identify areas, particularly related to strategic stability, on which the United States and Russia might cooperate. The hard work of building on the presidents’ discussions will shortly begin. That will determine, likely months down the road, whether Geneva qualifies as a success for U.S. interests.

Originally for Brookings

Presidents Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin will meet in Geneva on June 16, at a time when US-Russian relations have hit a post-Cold War nadir. Biden can use the meeting to make clear the kinds of Russian actions that he considers unacceptable and for which there will be consequences while opening cooperative channels on the few issues where US and Russian interests converge. The White House seeks to keep expectations modest, correctly so.

Biden’s offer in April of a summer summit caught many by surprise, likely including Putin himself. Although the Kremlin played coy about agreeing to meet, the Russian president would not pass up the opportunity, if for no other reason than a meeting with the American president plays to his sense of his and Russia’s importance on the world stage.

While the previous four American presidents came to office expressing hopes of building a positive relationship with Russia, Biden administration officials have set a more limited objective: a stable and predictable relationship. They have made clear their intention to hold the Kremlin to account for egregious misbehavior but also expressed readiness to work with Moscow where interests overlap. In its first four months, the administration applied sanctions against Russia for interfering in the 2020 US presidential election and the SolarWinds hack while agreeing to extend the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty to 2026.

When they meet in Switzerland, Biden should address three sets of issues. First, he should candidly describe to Putin the kinds of Russian actions that he will regard as unacceptable and to which the administration will respond, either with sanctions or in other ways. Interference in American domestic politics should top the list. State-sponsored cyberattacks that sabotage US government systems or private-sector controls for critical infrastructure should also rank high on the list, as should the actions of cyber criminals if allowed to continue to operate freely in Russia against US targets. Although it will be anathema to the Russian president, Biden should note the sorts of human rights violations that will draw US sanctions.

Putin will deny interfering in US politics or conducting cyberattacks, asserting that Washington has no proof, while rejecting the legitimacy of US concerns about what happens within Russia. Biden should not waste time arguing. He should aim instead to ensure that Putin has a clear understanding of what conduct is out of bounds. If American reactions are predictable in Moscow, that could affect cost-benefit calculations when the Kremlin weighs potential actions—perhaps even swaying the decision in some cases.

The second set of issues includes those areas where bilateral cooperation appears possible. One such area is arms control, in which both countries have expressed an interest. The presidents might agree to an early round of bilateral strategic stability talks, which could usefully bring together senior officials to discuss the range of nuclear arms and related issues, including missile defense, third-country nuclear forces, precision-guided conventional strike systems, and the space and cyber domains. The talks could also address nuclear doctrines and steps the two militaries might take to reduce the risk of conflict by accident or miscalculation.

Launching formal negotiations will require more time. The Biden arms control team is not yet fully in place, and the administration will want to conduct at least the first part of a nuclear posture review to underpin its negotiating approach. The more difficult problem, however, stems from the two sides’ different priorities. Washington wants negotiations that will produce limits on all US and Russian nuclear arms, including non-strategic nuclear weapons. Russian officials, on the other hand, seem to attach priority to limiting missile defense and long-range conventional strike systems. Reconciling these different priorities may not prove easy. If Moscow chooses to link questions, an early tough decision could confront the Biden administration: Is the US interest in limiting and reducing all nuclear arms so intense that it would be prepared to countenance some constraints on missile defense?

There may be other specific areas where cooperative discussions make sense. US and NATO military forces will depart Afghanistan by September. Neither the United States nor Russia has an interest in that country plunging into chaos or the Taliban returning to power—and troubles in Afghanistan would be 5,000 miles closer to Moscow than Washington. Climate change could offer an area, though the seriousness of the Kremlin’s intent to tackle that challenge remains unclear.

The third set of questions are those where US and Russian interests clash and no early resolution appears possible. The biggest is Russia’s conflict with Ukraine. Washington wants to see Ukraine develop as a stable, independent, democratic state free to choose its own foreign policy course. Moscow wants to pull Ukraine back into Russia’s sphere of influence or, failing that, it seeks to pressure and destabilize Kyiv so as to frustrate efforts at reform and building a modern European state.

Biden should underscore US support for Ukraine; note that the Russia-Ukraine conflict poses the biggest obstacle to moving the US-Russia relationship back to something approaching “normal;” and make clear that, for starters, the Kremlin needs to make a major change in its course on Donbas, a region in eastern Ukraine where an ongoing conflict has claimed the lives of more than 13,000 people. He might offer to engage more directly—with Kyiv, not over the heads of the Ukrainians—if that would promote a settlement in Donbas. Putin will claim Russia is not a party to the conflict. Biden should reply—perhaps not the only time in this meeting—that a working relationship between the two requires that neither treat the other like an idiot.

The meeting is worthwhile and can modestly advance US interests. It will be useful for Putin to hear clearly and directly what Russian actions cross the line and will merit a response. Push-back and sanctions against Moscow’s misbehavior should be complemented by a degree of engagement, and the summit could set in motion a process to reopen serious US-Russian arms negotiations after a decade’s absence. But genuine gains will come only well down the road. The meeting in Geneva is not about achieving a reset or breakthrough; it is about better management of a difficult relationship that will remain troubled for the foreseeable future.

Originally for Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists