Showing posts with label US-South Korea Alliance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US-South Korea Alliance. Show all posts

Sunday, July 5, 2026

Asia Policy Events, Monday July 6, 2026

Asia Policy Point is not publishing a newsletter this week, Congress is in recess, and President Trump will attend the NATO Summit the 7th and 8th in Turkey. Apart from NATO's 32 members, Ukraine will attend along with four of NATO's Indo-Pacific partner states -- Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand -- as well as Middle East partners Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. On the 8th, the IMF will release an update of its World Economic Outlook.

JAPAN’S AI START-UP ECOSYSTEM AND TRENDS IN VENTURE INVESTMENT. 7/6, Noon-1:00pm (BST), 7:00-8:00am (EDT), VIRTUAL. Sponsor: Japan Society-London. Speakers: James Riney, Founding Partner and CEO, Coral Capital; Jesper Koll, Expert Director, Monex Group and Japan Catalyst Fund; Bill Emmott, Visiting Fellow, Tokyo College, University of Tokyo.

A NEW ERA FOR OLD ALLIANCES: CHINA-NORTH KOREA AND US-SOUTH KOREA TIES IN 2026. 7/6, 9:00am (EDT), VIRTUAL. Sponsor: National Committee on North Korea (NCNK). Speaker: Dr. Chung-in Moon, Former Special Advisor for Foreign Affairs and National Security to South Korean President Moon Jae-in.

PRESERVATION AS CONTINUITY: PROTECTING JAPANESE BUILT CULTURAL HERITAGE. 7/6, 6:45pm (BST), IN PERSON ONLY. Sponsor: Japan Society-London. Speaker: Andrea Carlson, Founder, Kominka Collective.

CRITICAL MINERALS AND THE FUTURE OF KOREAN INDUSTRY. 7/7, 10:00-11:00am (EDT), IN PERSON ONLY. Sponsor: Korea Inter-Parliamentary Exchange Center (KIPEC). Speaker: Meredith Schwartz, Associate Fellow, Critical Minerals Security Program, CSIS.

Sunday, December 7, 2025

Alliance Burden Sharing in Asia

South Korea Redefines Alliance Burden Sharing 

After Trump’s Asia Visit

by Daniel Sneider, lecturer in East Asian studies at Stanford University, non-resident distinguished fellow at the Korea Economic Institute of America, and APP Member. First Published November 11, 2025 on the Peninsula Blog of the Korea Economic Institute.


South Korea’s Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit showcased a tightening defense partnership with the United States. The U.S. push for allies to shoulder greater security burdens converged with South Korean efforts to deepen autonomy and prepare for long-term uncertainty about U.S. commitments, creating a mix of deeper operational integration and quiet hedging.

The Trump administration, under the umbrella of “alliance modernization,” is pushing for increased South Korean defense spending and a shift in U.S. focus from solely countering North Korea to “strategic flexibility,” which would allow U.S. forces in South Korea to assume regional missions aimed mainly at China. South Korea is expanding defense investment, accelerating transfer of wartime operational control (OPCON), and pursuing nuclear fuel capabilities, all while reiterating that it will not be dragged into a broader confrontation with China.

The upshot is a more capable, forward-leaning alliance that is also more transactional, competitive, and sovereignty-driven. The question for policymakers is whether this becomes the new normal of the alliance or the first phase of a more fragmented Indo-Pacific.

Another Layer
A similar tightening of ties occurred in parallel between President Donald Trump and new Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, as well as her surprisingly warm meeting with Korean President Lee Jae Myung on the sidelines of APEC. Beneath this official narrative of drawing closer, however, there is another layer to security developments.

“Both Korea and Japan are trying to keep the Americans locked in while they are preparing for the day when America doesn’t care enough to protect you,” says a Seoul-based observer familiar with the thinking of both Korean and Japanese senior officials, who preferred to comment on background. “The trade and investment deal components of this are ultimately protection money,” he added. “They wouldn’t be doing it if there wasn’t the risk of losing security guarantees from the U.S.”

The trade pressures may reinforce the need to tighten security ties, but they also undermine confidence in the alliance, some experts believe.

“U.S. expressions of support for allies are in the context of helping them to assist the U.S. coalition against China,” says Bruce Klingner, senior fellow at the Maureen and Mike Mansfield Foundation and former CIA analyst. “Yet, that effort is undermined by Trump’s arbitrary, protectionist tariffs, which pummeled allies worse than opponents.

The United States, Klingner added, forced South Korea “into a disadvantageous trade deal” that violates the U.S.-South Korea free trade agreement (KORUS FTA).

Nuclear Submarines?
The centerpiece of an apparent new level of U.S.-South Korea security cooperation is an agreement for joint production of nuclear-powered submarines at a South Korean-owned shipyard in Philadelphia.

“South Korea will be building its Nuclear Powered Submarine in the Philadelphia Shipyards, right here in the good ol’ U.S.A.,” Trump proclaimed in a October 29 post on Truth Social. “Shipbuilding in our Country will soon be making a BIG COMEBACK.”

Some experts claimed this was a breakthrough toward strategic interdependence.

“This move dismantles the old anmi-gyeongjung (security with the United States, economy with China) framework,” wrote Seong-Hyon Lee, a senior fellow at the George H.W. Bush Foundation for U.S.-China Relations, in The Interpreter. “South Korea is no longer merely buying American security; it is integrating its industrial base with that of the United States to form a single, strategic-economic bloc,” argued Lee.

But subsequent developments call this into question. Senior executives at Hanwha, the South Korean firm that has taken ownership of the Philly Shipyard, admitted that the facility is not capable of building a nuclear-powered submarine, not only technically but also because of insufficient security to conduct such secret work.

Senior South Korean officials have since told the National Assembly that the intention is, in fact, to build those submarines in South Korea, with the clear goal of enhancing the country’s defense capabilities, independently of the United States.

“Investing in a submarine facility at the Hanwha Philly Shipyard would not be realistic, and neither would it be realistic to contract with an American company like General Dynamics to build the submarines,” National Security Advisor Wi Sung-lac told the National Assembly’s House Steering Committee. While paying due respect to the alliance, “we’re emphasizing defense autonomy as we seek to take on a bigger role and make greater contributions,” Wi said.

The Greater Prize
Behind the nuclear submarine agreement lies a deeper, and more significant, agenda for the Lee administration: a revision of the civilian nuclear cooperation agreement, known as the 123 Agreement, to give South Korea the ability to enrich nuclear fuel and reprocess spent fuel, both of which are important to the expansion of the country’s nuclear power industry but also needed to operate submarine reactors. While the submarine agreement has gotten most of the media attention, the 123 Agreement’s revision is the greater prize.

South Korea has long sought this goal but has been blocked by the United States, which saw this as a doorway to potential nuclear weapons proliferation. By framing this as an issue of civilian nuclear power development, however, South Koreans in both conservative and progressive camps saw this as a means of acquiring near-threshold capability to go nuclear, without yet crossing the line—what some refer to as nuclear latency.

South Korean officials, in this view, understood that an appeal to build their nuclear power industry was not going to appeal to President Trump and his senior officials. But it could gain support if packaged as part of taking more responsibility for their own defense.

“Mr. Trump either did not understand the implications, or did not care,” wrote The Economist. “South Korea’s moves toward an insurance policy betray great unease about the future of its alliance with America.”

If the president did not understand what he signed off on in Seoul, national security officials in Washington with long experience on these issues are apparently aware of the Pandora’s box that was being opened. According to Korean media reports, the delay in publishing a written joint document detailing the agreements reached on tariffs and national security issues is due to an internal review in Washington.

A senior official in the South Korean government told the Hankyoreh newspaper that “the US Department of Energy is apparently upset with how many concessions Korea received in regard to the two countries’ nuclear energy agreement.”

OPCON transfer and the China question
The delay in issuing a joint statement following the Security Consultative Meeting between U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and South Korean Minister of National Defense Ahn Gyu-back, along with senior officials, may have partly been due to a lack of detailed agreement on key issues.

The two sides discussed the transfer of wartime OPCON, based on a previous plan that set out three phases to verify the operational capabilities of a future Combined Forces Command under a South Korean commander. The transfer has been stalled due to delays in U.S. verification and the lack of urgency by the previous conservative government.

In the joint meeting and in a direct meeting between Hegseth and Lee, the South Korean leader expressed his desire to complete the second phase by 2026 and move rapidly toward finalizing the transfer. Lee pitched this as a gesture toward the Trump administration’s expressed desire to shift its defense role.

“The early recovery of wartime operational control within my term will be an important opportunity to further deepen and develop the South Korea-U.S. alliance,” Lee reportedly told Hegseth. “If our military capabilities are significantly strengthened and we take the lead in defending the Korean Peninsula, the U.S. defense burden in the Indo-Pacific region will also be reduced.”

Hegseth made no specific commitments on concluding the verification process on South Korea’s desired timetable. There was similar ambiguity on the issue of “strategic flexibility,” an issue that has long been discussed between the two allies. The term refers to the idea that U.S. forces based in South Korea might be deployed out of the peninsula for missions other than the defense against North Korean aggression.

The two sides have sidestepped this issue by agreeing in general terms that U.S. forces can be moved wherever the U.S. commander-in-chief wants, while retaining the understanding that those forces are there to defend South Korea against a North Korean attack. South Korea has long insisted that the 28,500 U.S. forces based in South Korea are essential for the defense against a potential North Korean attack, but also as the trigger for deploying massive U.S. forces committed under joint operational plans.

Behind this issue lies South Korean concerns that the Trump administration might seek a peace deal with North Korea that could lead to the withdrawal of U.S. forces from South Korea. Hegseth and senior U.S. military officials have pledged to maintain the force commitment in South Korea. But he also alluded to their use in contingencies beyond the Korean Peninsula, most likely around Taiwan.

“At the same time, we need to enhance flexibility to respond to other contingencies in the region,” Hegseth said following the security talks. He called for deeper coordination between the two countries to expand the strategic flexibility of U.S. Forces Korea (USFK).

South Korea, however, is not committed to a wider confrontation with China. Lee, while shoring up ties with the United States, has cultivated closer relations with China, particularly in the realm of economic cooperation. The APEC sideline meeting between Lee and Chinese leader Xi Jinping reportedly featured extensive discussions and personal warmth. It was notably different in tone from the brief thirty-minute meeting between Xi and Takaichi, which was clearly frosty.

“There will be disagreement between the U.S. and South Korea on China policy, but a greater similarity of views on North Korea because both Trump and Lee want to engage North Korea,” observes Klingner. “On China, Lee will still try to straddle the fence.” The meeting with Xi focused on the restoration of economic relations and a plea to Xi to encourage North Korea to resume engagement.

The goal of pairing security ties with the United States and economic ties with China has been a consistent feature of South Korean foreign policy, including under the previous conservative Yoon Suk Yeol administration, which was also careful about offering overt support for military contingencies around Taiwan.

“As the role of U.S. Forces Korea expands, it is crucial to establish safeguards through sufficient consultation to ensure that South Korea is not drawn into regional conflicts against its will,” Donga Ilbo commented.

Multilayered Policy
The effort by South Korean leaders to balance the competing demands of their ally, the United States, and the pursuit of national interests in Northeast Asia is not new. The goal of greater defense self-reliance has also been long-standing, particularly by progressive South Korean administrations. The difference now lies mostly in the volatile nature of the Trump administration and uncertainty about its policy direction. That drives South Korea and Japan, and other U.S. allies, to increasingly think about lessening dependency on the United States.

“Unpredictability makes everyone nervous, and it leads them to consider other alternatives,” says Klingner.

Thursday, October 16, 2025

Korea's Most Important Province

CONFERENCE

Gyeonggi Province

The Engine that Leads the U.S.–Korea Partnership

Wednesday, October 29, 2025

9:00am to 4:30pm (EDT)


Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill

400 New Jersey Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20001

Sponsored by

Center for the National Interest ● Gyeonggi Research Institute

Korean Association for Policy Studies ● Reischauer Center ,Johns Hopkins SAIS

Highlighting the Gyeonggi Province's leadership in the multi-dimensional partnership between the U.S. and South Korea. The Province is the country's hub for advanced technology R&D and manufacturing. U.S. Army Garrison Camp Humphreys, the largest U.S. military installation outside the continental United States is also located in the Province.


AGENDA

Four sessions covering Renewable energy ● Tariff policy ●

Peacebuilding on the Korean Peninsula ● Advanced technology and biotechnology


REGISTER HERE

SPEAKERS INCLUDE

  • Governor Dong Yeon Kim of Gyeonggi Province, former Finance Minister and Deputy Prime Minister

  • Members of the Korea Caucus on Capitol Hill

  • Paul Saunders, President, Center for the National Interest

  • Seong Cheon Kang, President, Gyeonggi Research Institute

  • Hyung Jun Park, President, Korean Association for Policy Studies

  • Kent Calder, Director, Reischauer Center for East Asian Studies, Johns Hopkins SAIS

  • Rob Atkinson, President of Information, Technology and Innovation Foundation 

  • Taek Goo Kang, Senior Research Fellow, Korea Environment Institute

  • Christian Whiton, Senior Fellow, Center for the National Interest

  • Byung Won Woo, Professor of International Relations, Yonsei University

  • Jill Homan, Deputy Director of Trade & Economy Policy, America First Policy Institute

  • Yun Young Jo, Professor of Political Science, Chung Ang University

  • Sydney Seiler, Senior Adviser, the Center for Strategic and International Studies

  • Sang Kyu Kim, Senior Fellow, Gyeonggi Research Institute 

  • Robert Gallucci, Distinguished Professor in Practice of Diplomacy at Georgetown University’s Walsh School of Foreign Service

  • Seok Hwan Lee, Professor of Public Administration, Kookmin University

  • Mark Esser, President of Paul and Diane Manning Institute of Biotechnology, the University of Virginia and former Vice President of AstraZeneca

  • Joseph Kim, President of Agenta and former CEO and President of Inovio

Thursday, August 14, 2025

Trump-Lee Summit

Security Agenda for Trump-Lee Summit May Renew Abandonment Concerns

First Published August 13, 2025 in The Peninsula Blog of the Korean Economic Institute.

By Daniel C. Sneider, non-resident Distinguished Fellow at the Korea Economic Institute of America, a lecturer in East Asian Studies at Stanford University and APP member.

The upcoming summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and newly elected South Korean President Lee Jae Myung is shaping up to be a crucial moment in the more than seventy-year-long alliance.

The two leaders inked a vague agreement on trade and investment late last month, which appears to have opened the door to good relations, and President Lee has eagerly sought this meeting to strengthen his legitimacy and demonstrate his diplomatic skills.

But the summit also has the potential to imperil the alliance. While some economic issues remain—not least the U.S. tariffs on automobiles and semiconductors—the meeting is more likely to focus on a range of contentious security issues, including U.S. demands for greater South Korean contributions to defense costs and pressures for South Korea to commit to join military contingencies in Taiwan and subordinate its policies to an aggressive U.S. stance toward China.

All of these issues are now joined under two broad policy umbrellas the Trump administration calls “alliance modernization” and “strategic flexibility.”

Both concepts embody the idea of shifting the alliance away from its sole focus on deterring North Korea toward a broader regional approach that prioritizes confrontation with China, including the use of U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) in a Taiwan contingency. China is the number one strategic threat to the United States, and allies and partners must “do more,” according to an interim strategic guidance document the U.S. Department of Defense issued in July.

“Strategic flexibility” means that in the event of a clash with China, U.S. military forces based in South Korea will be withdrawn and deployed elsewhere. It demands that South Korea take on the preponderant burden of defense against potential North Korean aggression.

USFK Commander Xavier Brunson recently stated that the “USFK must be able to move to other locations and perform other missions at any time” and that South Korea must “play a great role in responding to North Korea, and USFK demonstrate flexibility to perform other missions.”

General Brunson acknowledged South Korea’s desire to connect any moves in this direction with the completion of a plan to reform the current system of operational control (OPCON), which places South Korea’s military under U.S. command during wartime. OPCON transfer to South Korea has been a long-standing goal for South Korea, particularly under progressive administrations. If the United States shifts its focus, then “the transition of wartime operational control in which South Korea leads the defense of the Korean Peninsula, must also be expedited,” argued the progressive Kyunghyang Shinmun.

But Brunson pushed back against accelerating this process, telling reporters that “taking shortcuts to expedite the transfer of wartime operational control could jeopardize the readiness of the Korean Peninsula’s military.”

This has not stopped the Trump administration from preparing to push for South Korea’s acquiescence to their demands. An early draft of a U.S.-South Korea agreement sets a goal for the upcoming talks to compel South Korea to “issue a political statement supporting flexibility for USFK force posture to better deter China while continuing to deter [North Korea],” according to the Washington Post. This is to be paired with pressures to boost South Korea’s defense spending to 3.8 percent of GDP—up from 2.6 percent last year—and to vastly increase its support for the cost of basing U.S. forces.

Defense planners linked to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have pushed more specific plans to drastically cut the number of U.S. troops based in South Korea from the current level of 28,500 to 10,000. This would be done by effectively removing all ground troops from South Korea, leaving only air units that can easily be deployed elsewhere.

The United States has maintained the right to deploy its forces anywhere, and reductions in troop levels are hardly unprecedented. But in return, the United States accepted the South Korean stance that “it shall not be involved in a regional conflict in Northeast Asia against the will of the Korean people.”

More profoundly, the United States’ plans undermine the basic pledge to defend South Korea in a war—a commitment that underlies the 1953 Mutual Defense Treaty between the two countries. The presence of U.S. ground forces is the famously labeled “tripwire” to guarantee the U.S. commitment.

“The continued presence of US troops at existing levels on the Korean Peninsula is more important than documents discussing ‘strategic flexibility’ or ‘modernized alliance,’” Senior Fellow at the Mansfield Foundation Bruce Klingner told this writer. “Maintaining U.S. troops in South Korea is a tangible manifestation of American commitment to the defense of its treaty partner. As such, they continue to be an integral part of Combined Forces Command and United Nations Command. In a conflict with North Korea, the American public and Congress would not allow a U.S. president to abandon them, particularly after casualties.”

The Trump administration faces resistance not only from South Korea but also from Congress, where support for the U.S. presence on the Korean Peninsula and opposition to downsizing the current troop levels remain strong, even among Republicans. The National Defense Authorization Act, which was passed by the Senate Armed Services Committee on July 9, prohibits a reduction in the U.S. military posture or a change in wartime OPCON until the secretary of defense certifies to Congress that “such action is in the national interest.” It also directs the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Indo-Pacific Command, and USFK to carry out an independent assessment of any such changes.

The North Korea Connection
The push to refocus the U.S. regional presence away from North Korea and toward China could potentially be linked to another sensitive issue shaping the upcoming Trump-Lee summit—relations with North Korea.

Rumors and hints of a resumption of talks between Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un have surfaced again in recent weeks. The Lee administration is supportive of such dialogue, as such moves are consistent with its desire to ease tensions with North Korea and revive serious engagement. But such talks are likely to only take place if Trump is heading seriously toward the withdrawal of U.S. forces from South Korea and acceptance of Kim’s demand that North Korea be recognized as a nuclear-weapon state.

“At some point, the ROK is going to pay a price for U.S.-DPRK dialogue if the U.S. under Trump decides to accept North Korea as a de facto nuclear state,” former senior Department of State official and Korea expert Evans Revere told KEI.

“The deeply progressive government in Seoul cannot possibly give the U.S. what it wants — agreement that the ROK will support the U.S. militarily in a China- or Taiwan-related contingency and agreement to allow the U.S. to use Korea-based forces against China,” argues Revere, who is now a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “And the U.S. does not wish to give the ROK what it wants — an open-ended commitment that Korea-based U.S. forces will be solely dedicated to the defense of the ROK against DPRK aggression.”

Summit Disasters of the Past
The possibility that the upcoming summit could lead to a serious clash is well understood in Seoul, based on past experience and the much-publicized Oval Office encounters between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and other world leaders. In the case of South Korea, the 1993 meeting between presidents Bill Clinton and Kim Young-sam and the 2001 summit between presidents George W. Bush and Kim Dae-jung are representative examples of what could happen if things go wrong.

“In both cases, the meeting went badly because of North Korea,” recalls former U.S. Ambassador to South Korea Thomas Hubbard, who was a key participant in both summits. “In my mind they went badly because the Koreans failed to prepare carefully and understand where our president was.”

There are lessons for Lee Jae Myung, Hubbard told this writer in an interview. North Korea is not the problem now, as both Trump and Lee want to engage with North Korea. “The issue this time will be security relations, host nation support, and I don’t think anyone really knows where Trump is going to come down on troop levels in Korea. Lee Jae Myung is a progressive who wants to reach out to China but I think he is afraid Trump is going to make demands on troop reductions that will undercut him in Korea.”

Trump’s belief that there is no rationale to keep U.S. forces in South Korea is long-standing and unchanged. It is not hard to imagine a moment in the upcoming summit when Trump will once again raise this issue.

“I never took the strategic flexibility dispute seriously,” says Ambassador Hubbard, “but the danger is we push them too hard on Taiwan, on the relations with China, and at the same time raise questions about our strategic commitment.”

That could put the United States on a slippery slope toward abandoning its ally—something no South Korean leader would want to happen.

###

PREVIEW OF THE TRUMP-LEE SUMMIT. 8/18, 9:30-10:15am (EDT), VIRTUAL. Sponsor: Korea Chair, CSIS. Speakers: Victor Cha, President, Geopolitics and Foreign Policy Department and Korea Chair, CSIS; Sydney Seiler, Senior Adviser (Non-resident), Korea Chair, CSIS; William Alan Reinsch, Senior Adviser and Scholl Chair Emeritus, Economics Program and Scholl Chair in International Business, CSIS; Timothy Martin, Korea Bureau Chief, Wall Street Journal. https://www.csis.org/events/impossible-state-live-podcast-preview-trump-lee-summit

TRILATERALISM THROUGH TRANSITION: PROSPECTS OF STRENGTHENING U.S.-SOUTH KOREA-JAPAN PARTNERSHIP. 8/18, 11:00am-12:15pm (EDT), HYBRID. Sponsor: Korea Economic Institute. Speakers: Zack Cooper, Senior Fellow, AEI; Eun A Jo, Assistant Professor of Government, William and Mary; Shihoko Goto, Senior Fellow, Mansfield Foundation. https://keia.org/event/trilateralism-through-transition-prospects-of-strengthening-u-s-south-korea-japan-partnership/

Monday, June 10, 2024

Monday Asia Events June 10, 2024

ALL RECONSTRUCTION IS LOCAL: A FORUM ON THE EVE OF THE UKRAINE RECOVERY CONFERENCE. 6/10, 1:30-6:30pm (CET), HYBRID. Sponsor: German Marshall Fund  of the United States. Speakers: Alina Inayeh, Non-Resident Fellow, Bucharest office; Andrew Friendly, Vice President of Government Affairs and Public Policy, Autodesk; Andriy Moskalenko, First Deputy Mayor, Deputy Mayor for Economic Development, City of Lviv; Bogdan Zawadewicz, Head of Geopolitical Risk Analysis, Polish Development Bank; Bruce Stokes, Visiting Senior Fellow, Washington, D.C. office; Filiep Decorte, Chief, Programme Development Branch, UN-Habitat; Garry Poluschkin, Consultant, Country Coordinator for Ukraine, German Economic Team; Heather A. Conley, President, German Marshall Fund of the United States, Washington, D.C. office; Henrik Winther, Director, EU Neighborhood Policy Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Denmark; Jacob Kirkegaard, Senior Fellow, Bucharest office; Josh Rudolph, Senior Fellow, Head of the Transatlantic Democracy Working Group Washington, D.C. office; Larysa Marchenko, Partner, Strategy, Transactions, Ukraine Reconstruction International Lead, EY; Maksym Svysenko, Advisor, Chairman, Dnipro Regional State Administration; Marcus Lippold, Team Leader, Green Deal Ukraine Service; Mark D. Simakovsky, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Europe and Eurasia, USAID; Martina Boguslavets, Head, Founder, MEZHA Anti-Corruption Center; Mark Speich, State Secretary for Federal, European, International Affairs, State of North Rhine-Westphalia; Meg Platt, Senior Development Manager, Washington, D.C. office; Nathanael Liminski, Minister for Federal, European, International Affairs, Media, State of North Rhine-Westphalia; Nataliia Katser-Buchkovska, Energy security, transition expert, Former Member of Parliament of Ukraine; Natalie Jaresko, Managing Director, Turnaround, Restructuring Strategy Practice, EY-Parthenon; Oleksiy Povolotskiy, Head Office, Energy Infrastructure Recovery, Supervisory Board Member, DTEK; Oleksandr Syenkevych, Mayor, City of Mykolaiv, Ukraine; Paul Costello, Senior Program Manager, GMF Cities, Berlin office; Penny Pritzker, Special Representative for Ukraine Recovery and Reconstruction; Sergiy Orlov, Deputy Mayor of Mariupol, Ukraine; Taras Byk, Board Member, Agency for Recovery and Development; Valeriia Ivanova, Deputy Head, State Agency for Reconstruction and Development of Infrastructure of Ukraine; Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff, Guido Goldman Distinguished Scholar, Berlin office; Viktor Pavlushchyk, Head, National Agency, Corruption Prevention of Ukraine. 

AVOIDING WORLD WAR III: MANAGING THREATS FROM RUSSIA, CHINA, AND AI. 6/10, 10:00-11:00am (CDT), 11:00am-Noon (EDT), HYBRID. Sponsor: Chicago Council on Global Affairs. Speakers: Ian Bremmer, President, Eurasia Group & GZERO Media; Kevin Rudd, Australian Ambassador to the US; Zeenat Rahman, Executive Director, Institute of Politics.

U.S.-ROK BILATERAL DIALOGUE FOR STRENGTHENING U.S.-ROK ALLIANCE. 6/10, 1:00-2:40pm (EDT), HYBRID. Sponsor: CSIS, Korea National Diplomatic Academy. Speakers: Victor Cha, Senior Vice President for Asia and Korea Chair; Park Cheol Hee, Chancellor, Korea National Diplomatic Academy; Lee Moon-hee, Senior Executive Director, Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security; Yoo Ji Yeong, Senior Specialist, Center for Economic Security and Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Emily Benson, Director, Project on Trade and Technology and Senior Fellow, Scholl Chair in International Business; Ellen Kim, Deputy Director, Senior Fellow, Korea Chair.

UNDER PRESSURE: CHINA'S COERCIVE CAMPAIGN IN THE TAIWAN STRAIT. 6/10, 1:00-2:00pm (EDT), IN PERSON ONLY. Sponsor: Project 2049 Institute. Speakers: Ben Lewis, PLA Tracker; Dan Blumenthal, American Enterprise Institute; Allison Schwartz, House Foreign Affairs Committee; Project 2049 Institute Chairman Randall G. Schriver; Project 2049 Senior Director Michael Mazza .

DEFINING TAIWAN AND BEING TAIWANESE: THE EVOLVING NATURE OF TAIWANESE IDENTITY & ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE POLICY. 6/10, 4:00-6:00pm (PST), IN PERSON ONLY. Sponsor: Institute of East Asian Studies, UC Berkeley. Speakers: Evan Dawley, Associate Professor of History, Goucher College; Christine Lin, Director of Training & Technical Assistance, Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS), University of California College of the Law, San Francisco; Chiaoning Su, Associate Professor, Oakland University; Director, Barry M. Klein Center for Culture and Globalization, Oakland University; James Lee, Assistant Research Fellow, Institute of European and American Studies, Academia Sinica (Taiwan), Affiliated Researcher, UC Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation.

Monday, December 11, 2023

Mondy Asia Events December 11, 2023

THE ISRAELI-HAMAS WAR: INTELLIGENCE, STRATEGY AND THE DAY AFTER. 12/11, 9:00-10:00am (EST), VIRTUAL. Sponsor: Carnegie. Speakers: Efraim Halevy, former director, Mossad; Admiral (ret). Ami Ayalon, former director, Israeli Security Agency; Aaron David Miller, senior fellow, Carnegie. 

THE ROK-U.S. ALLIANCE AT 70: EXPANDING DIPLOMATIC HORIZONS THROUGH PUBLIC DIPLOMACY. 12/11, 10:00-11:30am (EST), HYBRID. Sponsor: Korea Economic Institute (KEI). Speakers: H.E. Hyundong Cho, Ambassador, Republic of Korea to the U.S.A; Amb. Yuri Kim, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs, U.S. Department of State; Amb. Donald Heflin, Executive Director, Edward R. Murrow Center for Global Diplomacy; Amb. Maureen Cormack, Former U.S. Ambassador to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Former U.S. Embassy, Seoul Spokesperson; Amb. Jie-ae Sohn, ROK Ambassador for Cultural Cooperation. 

5G/6G TECHNOLOGY AND THE FUTURE OF GLOBAL SECURITY. 12/11, Noon-1:00pm (EST), VIRTUAL. Sponsor: CSIS. Speakers: Brendan Carr, Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission; Keith Krach, Founder, Krach Institute for Tech Diplomacy; Roslyn Layton, Senior Vice President, Strand Consult, Advisor, Krach Institute for Tech Diplomacy; Clete Johnson, CSIS Senior Fellow. 

BEYOND THE SCIF: COUNTERING CHINESE INFLUENCE OPERATIONS ON AMERICAN SOIL. 12/11, 12:30:1:30pm (EST), HYBRID. Sponsor: Hudson Institute. Speakers: John P. Walters, President and CEO; Miles Yu, Senior Fellow and Director, China Center; John Lee, Senior Fellow; Craig Singleton, China Program Deputy Director, Senior Fellow, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

BOOK EVENT| SUHARTO'S COLD WAR: INDONESIA, SOUTHEAST ASIA, AND THE WORLD. 12/11, 4:00-5:30pm (EST), VIRTUAL. Sponsor: Wilson Center. Speakers: Mattias Fibiger, Assistant Professor of Business Administration in the Business, Government, and International Economy Unit, Harvard Business School; Su Lin Lewis, Associate Professor in Modern Global History, University of Bristol; Bradley Simpson, Public Policy Scholar, Associate Professor of History and Asian Studies, University of Connecticut. 
PURCHASE BOOK: https://amzn.to/46y2WJE 

BOOK EVENT| *HUMAN-CENTERED ECONOMICS: THE LIVING STANDARDS OF NATIONS. 12/11, 5:00-6:00pm (EST), VIRTUAL. Sponsor: CSIS. Speaker: author Richard Samans, Director, Research Department, International Labour Organization (ILO). PURCHASE BOOK: https://amzn.to/46YxS5H


Sunday, October 17, 2021

Monday Asia Events October 18, 2021

MEI DEFENSE LEADERSHIP SERIES WITH NATO MENA DIRECTOR GIOVANNI ROMANI. 10/18, 10:00-11:00am (EDT), WEBINAR. Sponsor: Middle East Institute (MEI). Speaker: Giovanni Romani, Head of Middle East and North Africa, Political Affairs and Security Policy Division, NATO.

A ROADMAP TO END THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC. 10/18, 11:00am-Noon (EDT), WEBCAST. Sponsor: International Monetary Fund (IMF). Speakers: Elizabeth Schulze Multi-Platform Reporter, ABC News; Gita Gopinath, Chief Economist and Director, Research Department, IMF; Ruchir Agarwal, Senior Economist, Research Department, IMF.

IRANIAN PUBLIC OPINION AS RAISI TAKES THE STAGE. 10/18, Noon-1:30pm (EDT), ZOOM WEBINAR. Sponsor: Future of Iran Initiative, Atlantic Council. Speakers: Nancy Gallagher, Director, Center for International and Security Studies, University of Maryland; Kevan Harris, Assistant Professor, Sociology, UCLA; Azadeh Zamirirad, Iran Researcher and Deputy Head of the Africa and Middle East Division, German Institute for International and Security Affairs; Moderator: Barbara Slavin, Director, Future of Iran Initiative, Atlantic Council. 

CHINA’S WAR ON RELIGION. 10/18, Noon-1:00pm (EDT), WEBINAR. Sponsor: Hudson. Speakers: Xiaoxu Sean Lin, Director of Communications, Falun Dafa Association; Robert A. Destro, Professor of Law, Catholic University; Nury Turkel, Senior Fellow, Hudson; Moderator: Nina Shea, Senior Fellow and Director, Center for Religious Freedom, Hudson.
 
MAXIMIZING MILITARY POWER BY MINIMIZING BUREAUCRATIC BARRIERS. 10/18, 2:00-3:00pm (EDT), WEBINAR. Sponsor: Atlantic Council. Speakers: Gen. James L. Jones (Ret.), Executive Chairman Emeritus, Atlantic Council; MajGen Arnold Punaro (Ret.) , CEO, Punaro Group; Frederick Kempe, President and CEO, Atlantic Council; Moderator: Missy Ryan, Staff Writer and Pentagon Correspondent, Washington Post.

THE MOSAIC APPROACH: A CRITICAL MINERALS SUPPLY CHAIN REPORT. 10/18, 2:00-3:00pm (EDT), WEBINAR. Sponsor: Wilson Center (WWC). Speakers: Peter Harrell, Senior Director for International Economics and Competitiveness, White House National Security Council; Jane Nakano, Senior Fellow, Energy and National Security Program, CSIS; Moderator: Duncan Wood, Vice President for Strategy and New Initiatives, Wilson Center. 

FUTURE FOREIGN POLICY SERIES FEATURING REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO. 10/18, 3:30-4:30pm (EDT), WEBCAST. Sponsor: Atlantic Council. Speakers: Hon. Joaquin Castro, Member, United States House of Representatives; John Hudson, National Security Reporter, Washington Post; Emma Ashford, Senior Fellow, New American Engagement Initiative, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security; Moderator: Aude Darnal, Associate Director, New American Engagement Initiative, Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security. 

COVID-19 IN CHINA’S TWITTER DIPLOMACY' WITH GUEST SPEAKER WENDY LEUTERT. 10/18, 4:30-6:00pm (EDT), ZOOM WEBINAR. Sponsor: Weatherhead East Asian Institute, Columbia University. Speaker: Wendy Leutert, GLP-Ming Z. Mei Chair of Chinese Economics and Trade, Columbia University. 

JAPAN UNDER PRIME MINISTER KISHIDA: THE LDP PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND THE UPCOMING HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTION. 10/18, 4:00-5:00pm (PDT), WEBINAR. Sponsor: Freeman Spolgi Institute for International Studies, Stanford University. Speakers: Rieko Kage, Professor of Political Science, University of Tokyo; Dan Smith, Gerald L. Curtis Visiting Associate Professor of Modern Japanese Politics and Foreign Policy, Columbia University; Moderator: Kiyoteru Tsutsui, Director of the Japan Program and Deputy Director of Shorenstein, Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, Stanford University. 

THE FUTURE OF THE U.S.-ROK ALLIANCE. 10/18, 5:00pm (PDT), ZOOM WEBINAR. Sponsor: Korea-Pacific Program, School of Global Policy and Strategy, UC San Diego (UCSD). Speakers: Ko Yunju, Director General, North American Affairs Bureau, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Korea; Stephan Haggard, Professor and Director, Korea-Pacific Program, School of Global Policy and Strategy, UCSD. 

A GEOECONOMIC ALLIANCE: THE POTENTIAL AND LIMITS OF ECONOMIC STATECRAFT. 10/18, 6:30-7:30pm (EDT), WEBINAR. Sponsor: United States Study Centre (USSC) Australia. Speakers: Dr. Stephen Kirchner, Director of International Economy, USSC; Christine McDaniel, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center; Dr. Ben Herscovitch, Research Fellow, Australian National University; Moderator: Susannah Patton, Research Fellow of Foreign Policy and Defence, USSC. 

RETHINKING JAPAN’S RESPONSE TO THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC. 10/18, 8:00-9:00pm (EDT), WEBINAR. Sponsor: Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University. Speakers: Kenji Shibuya, Director, Soma COVID Vaccination Medical Center, Soma City, Fukushima, Research Director, Tokyo Foundation for Policy Research; Moderator: Christina L. Davis, Director, Program on U.S.-Japan Relations; Professor of Government, Susan S. and Kenneth L. Wallach Professor, Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, Harvard University. 

Friday, July 2, 2021

Does Biden have a North Korea Policy?

Not Really

By Daniel Sneider : Lecturer, International Policy at Stanford University and APP member

Toyo Keizai, June 29,2021

Speculation about a resumption of negotiations between North Korea and the United States is once again in the air. While senior American officials talk about “interesting signals” from Pyongyang, the North Koreans rush to say, not so fast, let’s see what you have to offer. The newly appointed American North Korea special envoy, Sung Kim, was received like visiting royalty in Seoul.

Is this the beginning of the much-awaited North Korea policy of the Biden administration, a prelude to talks, or perhaps to provocations designed to up the pressure for concessions?

Reading between the lines, and based on recent conversations with senior South Korean and U.S. officials, it is clear that in reality, there is no North Korea policy in Washington. There is a China policy, and the priority is to strengthen alliances to build a broad front against China.

When it comes to the Korean peninsula, the Biden administration is focused on keeping South Korea inside the alliance camp. Senior administration officials ended their review concluding there is little to be gained from negotiations with Pyongyang.

They assess that the North Koreans are only prepared to offer what they put on the table at the failed Hanoi summit between Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un – an exchange of a limited freeze of some nuclear facilities in exchange for lifting the sanctions which continue to undermine the regime’s survival.

“The Americans are probably not that interested in talking to the North,” Andrei Lankov, a leading authority on North Korea based on Kookmin University, told Toyo Keizai.

“The only result such talks are going to produce might be some refined version of the ‘Hanoi compromise’, and such a deal is not going to sell well with the U.S. Congress, U.S. public and U.S. media. So, President Biden, fully understanding that no spectacular victory is possible in dealing with North Korea, seemingly prefers to concentrate on more important issues –above all, China.”

Veteran American policy makers on North Korea share that understanding, and see mainly efforts to offer the progressive South Korean government of President Moon Jae-in nominal support for its almost desperate pursuit of a progress toward the goal of engagement with the North.

“The essence of the Biden policy approach is to maximize your options,” says Evans Revere, former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and the Pacific and a veteran of talks with North Korea.

“That requires them to talk about the goal of denuclearization, to beat their breast about sanctions, but also to tell the North Koreans that we are prepared to talk. It also explains why they are working so hard to keep the South Koreans on board and happy.” Meanwhile, however, “we have bigger fish to fry – the Chinese, the Russians, the Iranians.”

From that perspective, the summit meeting in late May in Washington between Moon and Biden was a great success. In the negotiations on the joint statement issued by the two leaders, led on the U.S. side by White House Indo-Pacific director Kurt Campbell, the U.S. was mainly concerned with getting Seoul to line up on the China issues.

South Korean senior officials acknowledge there was heavy pressure to get them to echo the language of the joint statement with Japan on Taiwan and human rights issues, though they point to some softening of the wording and their insistence not to name China in the document.

President Moon went into the summit eager to shore up his sagging domestic standing, following tough local election losses and increasing fears that conservatives could mount a comeback victory in next year’s presidential vote.

According to senior American officials, the Blue House priority going into Washington was not to discuss North Korea policy but to get help on the supply of vaccines to counter rising Covid-19 infection rates. And Washington delivered in the form of half a million doses, targeted at the South Korean military.

Moon also wanted badly to convey the optics of a close and friendly relationship with the new administration, which is popular back home. South Korean senior officials emerged almost gushing about the Moon-Biden relationship, marked by more than 5 hours of talks and personal chemistry.

They contrast that to the last meeting between Moon and Trump, in September 2019, described as “simply awful.” Trump apparently spent the entire time complaining about the level of South Korean contribution to shared defense costs, berating Moon for not yielding to his outrageous demands for a five-fold increase in South Korea’s contribution.

South Korean officials insist there was significant dialogue and understanding reached on how to handle North Korea. Largely that was a matter of the White House bending over backwards to at least convey their readiness to talk to Pyongyang, while retaining the familiar stance of seeking denuclearization and maintaining sactions pressure until there are real concessions. The decision to appoint Amb Sung Kim as the new special representative for North Korea was made only days before the White House summit, a response to pleading from Seoul.

Kim, who notably will retain his ‘day job’ as the U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia, is a tough, seasoned Korea expert. He served as Amb to South Korea, ran North Korea policy in the last years of the Obama administration, and led the working level talks with the North Koreans leading up the Singapore Summit.

He has few illusions about the prospects for negotiations with Pyongyang, and that view is shared by his deputy, Jung Pak, a former Central Intelligence Agency analyst who came over from the Brookings Institution think tank.

The Moon administration is pressing for Washington to approve steps to ease sanctions against the North, hoping that will bring Pyongang to the table. Unification Minister Lee In-young is the voice for this in Seoul, calling for a “flexible application of sanctions.” His views, however, are not shared by the Foreign Ministry, which tends to mirror the American position.

The visit of Kim and Pak to Seoul provided a glimpse into the power struggles within the Moon administration on North Korea policy. The Unification Ministry demanded and won direct meetings with the Americans and the dissolution of a joint working group that had enforced tough sanctions, to the dismay of the progressives in Seoul and the North Korean regime.

The South Koreans have one open channel to the North, well informed sources say, and claim to be receiving encouraging messages from Pyongyang about resuming talks.

“Moon would like to have talks with North Korea, but only as long as these talks do not annoy the U.S. too much and do not constitute an open violation of the sanctions regime,” says Lankov, who is a Russian-educated North Korea expert.

For now, agrees Revere, the South Korean government is content. “As long as Washington is making positive noises about dialogue and engagement with North Korea, as long as Washington continues to do things that underscore Washington’s interest in dialogue, then South Korea can remain hopeful during the remaining months of Moon’s administration there is some hope for resumption of dialogue,” the former senior official told Toyo Keizai.

North Korea and China in the game

In Pyongyang, Kim Jong Un seems to have read these tea leaves quite well. He too very deliberately keeps the door open to dialogue but makes it clear that there must be something substantial in it for him.

He let loose his somewhat unconventional sister, Kim Yo Jong, to rudely brush off the vague talk from U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan about ‘interesting signals’ from the North, followed up by the North Korean Foreign Minister’s statement that they have no interest in talks “which would get us nowhere, only taking up precious time.”

The regime meanwhile is admitting serious internal problems, such as food shortages, reflected in unusual inflationary spikes for basic goods on the country’s semi-free markets.

There remains a deep fear of potential spread of Covid in the North, leading the regime to continue tight border controls, despite the severe economic impact. Some analysts suggest that this might make Kim Jong Un ready for an elusive deal to significantly rollback the nuclear and missile program in exchange for economic assistance.

Despite unease over dependency on China, Kim Jong Un can still rely on his powerful neighbor and treaty ally as a safety valve if things get worse.

“If the North Koreans are willing to accept Chinese food aid, they can easily get it,” says Lankov. “As long as the North Koreans decide to relax their irrationally tough quarantine regime and start getting Chinese aid, China will give them as much as they need.”

Relations between North Korea and China are now in an upswing, manifested in a flood of effusive propaganda celebrating their alliance and the Chinese role in the Korean war.

Lately, the Chinese have put a priority on that partnership over the goals of denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. With the Biden administration’s focus on confronting China, there is even more incentive for Beijing to keep North Korea alive and well.

The price, for now, may be that North Korea not raise tensions with Washington by carrying out missile or nuclear tests designed to force talks on its terms.

But the Chinese will also have little interest in resolving the underlying security issues or in enforcing tight sanctions. The Biden administration’s new version of ‘strategic patience,’ as the Obama administration’s policy was labeled, is always subject to North Korea’s own readiness to maintain the status quo. Certainly, in Pyongyang, uneasy lies the head that wears the crown, but no one in Washington, or in Seoul or Tokyo, can sleep well either.

Sunday, May 23, 2021

Monday Asia Events, May 24, 2021


CHINA AND THE PARIS CLUB.
 Noon-1:00pm (EDT), ZOOM WEBINAR. Sponsor: Chinese Foreign Policy Project, China Program, Stimson. Speakers: Scott Morris, Director of the US Development Policy Initiative, Co-Director of Sustainable Development Finance, and Senior Fellow, Center for Global Development; Lex Rieffel, Non-Resident Fellow, East Asia Program, Stimson; Yun Sun, Senior Fellow and Co-Director, East Asia Program, Stimson. 

THE NEXT PHASE: COVID-19. Noon-1:00pm (EDT), WEBINAR. Sponsors: Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS); Bob Schieffer College of Communication, Texas Christian University (TCU). Speakers: Julie Louise Gerberding, Executive Vice President and Chief Patient Officer, Merck; Gary Edson, President, COVID Collaborative; J. Stephen Morrison, Senior Vice President and Director, Global Health Policy Center, CSIS; Moderator: H. Andrew Schwartz, Chief Communications Officer, CSIS. 

MALCOLM GLADWELL, AUTHOR, THE BOMBER MAFIA: A DREAM, A TEMPTATION, AND THE LONGEST NIGHT OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR.1:00pm (EDT) LIVE STREAM. Sponsor: Washington Post Live. Speakers: Malcolm Gladwell, author with Washington Post columnist David Ignatius. PURCHASE BOOK: https://amzn.to/2Slh0p8

BUILDING THE ALLIANCE BACK BETTER: TAKEAWAYS FROM THE BIDEN-MOON SUMMIT. 2:00pm (EDT). LIVESTREAM. Sponsor: Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI). Speakers: Mark Tokola, Vice President, KEI; Troy Stangarone, Senior Director and Fellow, KEI; Kyle Ferrier, Fellow and Director of Academic Affairs, KEI; Juni Kim, Senior Manager for Operations and Technology, KEI; Moderator: Yong Kwon, Director of Communications, KEI.

SUPPLY CHAIN RISKS: HUMAN RIGHTS: HOW TO NAVIGATE BUSINESS RISKS AND OPPORTUNITIES IN THE SUPPLY CHAIN—A BUSINESS AND LEGAL PERSPECTIVE. 18:00-19:30 (JST). WEBINAR. Sponsors: Institute of Contemporary Asian Studies (ICAS), Temple University Japan (TUJ); Beasley School of Law, TUJ. Speakers: Akiko Sato, Japan Representative and Researcher, Business and Human Rights Resource Center, and Founder and Steering Committee Member, Business and Human Rights Lawyers Network, and Deputy Secretary-General, Human Rights Now; Romain Caillaud, Principal, SIPA Partners, and Associate Fellow, Myanmar Studies Programme, ISEAS; Takayuki Kitajima, General Counsel, Business Integrity Officer, Unilever Japan Holdings, K.K.; Moderator: William J. Swinton, Director of International Business Studies, TUJ. ibs@tuj.temple.edu

Sunday, April 25, 2021

Monday Asia Events, April 26, 2021


ENERGY EFFICIENCY BUILDINGS AS A PATHWAY TO CARBON NEUTRALITY IN THE US AND CHINA.
 9:00-10:15am (EDT), WEBCAST. Sponsor: China Environment Forum, Wilson Center (WWC). Speakers: Clay Nesler, Global Lead, Buildings and Energy, WRI Ross Center for Sustainable Cities; Carolyn Szum, Program Manager, Lawrence Berkely National Laboratory; Jing Hou, Director, International Cooperation Department and Assistant to the Secretary-General, China Association of Building Energy Efficiency and Associate Researcher, Doctor of Management Science and Engineering; Luke Sherlock, Head, China Engagement, C40 Cities; Moderator: Jennifer L. Turner, Director, China Environment Forum and Manager, Global Choke Point Initiative. 

A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO PREVENT AND MITIGATE THE RISK OF DIVERSION. 9:15-10:45am (EDT). ZOOM WEBINAR. Sponsors: Stimson Center; Small Arms Survey; Conflict Armament Research; United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research; Mission of Sierra Leone to the United Nations in Geneva. Speakers: Ambassador Lansana Gberie, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Sierra Leone, Geneva; Hayley Gill, Conflict Armament Research; Himayu Shiotani, Programme Head of the Conventional Arms Programme, United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research; Rachel Stohl, Vice President, Stimson Center; Moderator: Paul Holtom, Senior Researcher, Small Arms Survey.

U.S.-ROK RELATIONS: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES UNDER THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION. 10:00-10:45am (EDT), ZOOM WEBINAR. Sponsors: Institute for Korean Studies and East Asia National Resource Center, George Washington University (GW). Speakers: Congressman Andy Kim, Member, U.S. House of Representatives (D-NJ); Moderator: Jisoo M. Kim, Korea Foundation Associate Professor of History, International Affairs, and East Asian Languages and Literatures, Director, Institute for Korean Studies and Co-Director, East Asia National Resource Center, GW.

US-CHINA COMPETITION: A DISCUSSION WITH KEITH KRACH. 11:00am-Noon (EDT), WEBINAR. Sponsor: CSIS. Speakers: Keith Krach, former Undersecretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment; Daniel F. Runde, Senior Vice President and William A. Schreyer Chair and Director, Project on Prosperity and Development.

SCHIEFFER SERIES: THE FUTURE OF VOTING IN AMERICA. 12:30-1:30pm (EDT). WEBCAST. Sponsor: CSIS. Speakers: Andy Bernstein, Executive Director, HeadCount; Aditi Juneja, Counsel, Protect Democracy; Amber McReynolds, Chief Executive Officer, National Vote At Home Institute; H. Andrew Schwartz, Chief Communications Officer, CSIS. 

THE FUTURE OF AFGHANISTAN. 1:00-2:00pm (EDT), ZOOM WEBINAR. Sponsor: School of International Service (SIS), American University (AU). Speakers: Rahmatullah Nabil, former Head, National Directorate of Security; Bruce Valentine, former Associate Deputy Director of the CIA for Operations (ADDO); Eric J. Novotny, Hurst Senior Professorial Lecturer and Director of the MA programs in Comparative and Regional Studies (CRS), Global Governance, Politics & Security (GGPS), and US Foreign Policy and National Security (USFP), SIS, AU.

THE FUTURE OF US EXPORT CONTROLS. 2:00pm, WEBCAST. Sponsor: GeoEconomics Center, Atlantic Council. Speakers: Matt Borman, Acting Assistant Secretary for Export Administration, Bureau of Industry and Security, United States Department of Commerce; Chris Chew, Head of Export Control Policy, Export Control Joint Unit, the United Kingdom’s Department for International Trade; Kit Conklin, Director of Global Client Engagement, Kharon; Annie Simpson Froehlich, Director and Senior Counsel for Sanctions and Export, Carrier Corporation, and Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Atlantic Council; Moderator: Julia Friedlander, C. Boyden Gray Senior Fellow and Deputy Director of GeoEconomics Center, Atlantic Council.

RUSSIAN AGGRESSION IN THE BLACK SEA: REGIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL RESPONSES. 2:00-3:00pm (EDT), ZOOM WEBINAR. Sponsor: Middle East Institute (MEI). Speakers: Gen. (ret.) Philip Breedlove, Distinguished chair, Frontier Europe Initiative, MEI; Yörük Işık, Non-resident scholar, Frontier Europe Initiative, MEI; Iulia Joja, Senior fellow, Frontier Europe Initiative, MEI; Mamuka Tsereteli, Non-resident scholar, Frontier Europe Initiative, MEI; Moderator: Gönül Tol, Director, Turkey Program and Senior Fellow, Frontier Europe Initiative, MEI.  

OPEN-SOURCE ANALYSIS OF IRAN'S MISSILE AND UAV CAPABILITIES. 3:00-4:00pm (BST), WEBINAR. Sponsor: International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). Speakers: Mark Fitzpatrick, Associate Fellow and former Executive Director of IISS–Americas and Interim Manager, Non-Proliferation and Nuclear Policy Programme, IISS; Douglas Barrie, Senior Fellow, Military Aerospace; John Krzyzaniak, Research Analyst, Non-Proliferation and Nuclear Policy, IISS; Fabian Hinz, Independent OSINT Expert and Consultant, IISS. 

VULNERABILITY AND RESILIENCE: THE FUTURE OF EAST ASIAN SUPPLY CHAINS. 8:00-9:00pm (EDT), WEBCAST. Sponsor: Brookings. Speakers: Tain-Jy Chen, Professor Emeritus, National Taiwan University; Etel Solingen, Distinguished Professor, University of California, Irvine; Kristin Vekasi, Associate Professor, University of Maine; Moderator: Mireya Solís, Director and Senior Fellow, Center for East Asia Policy Studies, Brookings. 

RULE OF LAW AND GRAY ZONE ACTIVITIES IN THE EAST AND SOUTH CHINA SEAS. 8:30-10:00pm (PDT). WEBINAR. Sponsors: Pacific Forum; Yokosuka Council on Asia-Pacific Studies; Maritime Programs. Speakers: Yurika Ishii, Associate Professor, National Defense Academy of Japan; Cmdr. Jonathan G. Odom, Military Professor of Int'l Law, Marshall Center for Security Studies; Moderator: Jeffrey Ordaniel, Director, Maritime Programs, Pacific Forum.