On June 23, the United Kingdom voted in favor of a referendum for the country to leave the European Union (EU). The 52-48 split vote in support of “Leave” panicked global financial markets and prompted a wave of largely negative reactions from world leaders who had previously urged British voters to “Remain.” Once the British Parliament ratifies the referendum, the country would exit the EU in two years. With U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron resigning in October after leading the effort to stay in the EU, the world watches how these events unfold and whether others, including Scotland and Northern Ireland, now pursue their own independence from Britain.
In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from India, China, Japan, South Korea, and Russia (who reveled in the vote’s outcome) examining what the vote means for the future of Britain and the EU.
Given the historical linkages between India and the United Kingdom, the “Brexit” – or British Exit – referendum vote was closely followed by leaders in New Delhi and the Indian public. There are 800 Indian companies across multiple sectors like pharmaceuticals, financial services, and IT operating in the U.K. and employing over a million people. (more…)Continue Reading →
With Britain’s June 23 referendum on whether to remain in the European Union (EU) fast approaching, debates about the future of the United Kingdom and Europe have gained attention across the world. Many observers worry about the potential economic and political consequences of Britain’s decision to exit – or “Brexit” – the EU. With polls showing the public split nearly 50-50 on the referendum, President Barack Obama traveled to Britain and urged British voters to stay in the EU. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from China, India, Russia, and Japan on the U.K. referendum.
Chinese President Xi Jinping urged the British public to vote in favor of a strong and united European Union. With over $61 billion in trade deals announced during Xi’s recent visit to the United Kingdom, he hoped “Britain, as an important member of the EU, can play an even more positive and constructive role in promoting the deepening development of China-EU ties.” At risk is a deal between Beijing and London in October 2015 where China would build a nuclear energy plant at Hinkley Point, the “largest inward investment in” U.K. history.
Commentators debated whether the Brexit decision could have a negative impact on growing economic ties between the United Kingdom and China. (more…)Continue Reading →
Greece slipped deeper into its financial crisis at midnight Tuesday after it became the first developed economy to default on a loan with the International Monetary Fund. Greece will hold a referendum on Sunday, asking citizens to decide whether to accept the austerity demands of its international lenders in return for more cash. In this Policy Alert, we examine reactions from Russia, India, China, Japan, and South Korea to the ongoing Greek financial crisis.
Russian officials expressed concern about Greece’s financial crisis while simultaneously dispelling rumors that Russia might offer Greece a bailout. (more…)Continue Reading →
Economic integration in Asia has progressed further and enjoys broader support than political integration. Whether economic integration requires political integration in order to survive, and the nature of the relationship between interdependence and conflict, remain open questions. That is the case in general as well as in the particular case of key contemporary rising powers: China and India. These questions will play an important role in understanding the prospects for conflict or cooperation in Asia. This Policy Commentary outlines the general debate on these questions and applies it to China and to India.
The Interdependence Debate
The main argument linking economic integration and peace is as follows. Increasing trade and international investment facilitates economic efficiency by allowing for economies of scale, and for countries to take advantage of the benefits of specialization and exchange. Once international economic links are established, governments do not want to interrupt them and suffer an economic loss. They consequently pursue stable and peaceful relations with their trading partners.
The counterargument is that economic integration can increase the likelihood of conflict in two principal ways. First, integration can lead to trade disputes. For example, trade imbalances can lead to complaints by the country that is experiencing a trade deficit. Inflows of foreign investment can lead to concerns about excessive influence by foreigners. (more…)Continue Reading →