Blogs

Asia Unbound

CFR fellows and other experts assess the latest issues emerging in Asia today.

Latest Post

U.S. President Donald Trump and Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim hold up trade deal documents during a bilateral meeting at the 47th Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on October 26, 2025.
U.S. President Donald Trump and Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim hold up trade deal documents during a bilateral meeting at the 47th Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on October 26, 2025. Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters

The White House Transformed Asia in 2025: Expect Much More in 2026

In 2025, the second administration of U.S. President Donald Trump dramatically changed the trajectory of U.S. engagement with Asia through its tariff-heavy approach, a trend that seems set to continue in the year ahead. 

Read More
China
A Land Grab Epidemic: China’s Wonderful World of Wukans
A few days ago, the Global Times posted a brief opinion piece that questioned the West’s preoccupation with the Wukan village uprising last year and concluded: “China cannot be understood by focusing on the small details, something Western media would do well to appreciate.” Despite this sage advice, I’ve always liked details and found myself captivated by a just-released survey of 1,791 Chinese farming households across 17 provinces. Conducted by Landesa Rural Development Institute, Renmin University, and Michigan State University, the survey explored issues surrounding rural land use and retention. The survey is especially valuable because it has been conducted five times since 1999, thereby providing a sense for whether conditions have been improving or worsening over time. Some of the most striking findings: There has been a steady increase since 2005 in the number of “land takings” or compulsory state acquisitions, and about 43 percent of the villages surveyed have been subjected to such land takings over the past decade. The mean compensation that the local government paid to the farmers was approximately $17, 850 per acre. When it was resold by local authorities, mostly to commercial property developers, the mean price was $740,000 per acre. When farmers are relocated or “urbanized,” only a bit more than twenty percent gained an urban hukou or registration; 13.9 percent received urban social security coverage; 9.4 percent received medical insurance; and only 21.4 percent had access to schools for their children. Every year, local governments appropriate land from 4 million rural Chinese. None of this is a good deal for the farmers, and the result, according to Chinese researchers, is that land conflicts are the source of 65 percent of the more than 180,000 protests China experiences annually. Premier Wen Jiabao, who never misses an opportunity these days to push for a bit more political reform, made the issue of farmers’ rights a central point in his early February 2012 visit to Guangdong. He noted, “The root of the problem is that the land is the property of the farmers, but this right has not been protected in the way it should be.” Wen also noted, “We must certainly protect the voting rights of farmers, and be unwavering in properly carrying out village self-governance and direct election of village committees.” Despite Wen’s best efforts, without a real system of official accountability or the rule of law, there seems little likelihood that farmers will gain the upper hand any time soon. The Global Times notwithstanding, the details of the survey data say it all: more Wukans are on China’s horizon.
Asia
Can Suu Kyi Make the Shift from Icon to Politician?
For two decades spent mostly under house arrest, Aung San Suu Kyi was the icon of the Burmese democracy movement, and one of the most famous figures in the world. Jailed in her house, and with the regime totally in control, she had little chance to even engage in politics, and as an icon she remained almost completely above criticism. It was rare that any Burmese democracy advocates, inside or outside of the country, would voice even the mildest criticism of the Nobel Peace Prize laureate. But over the past year, as she has been released from house arrest and returned to leadership of the National League for Democracy, Suu Kyi has had to make the shift from icon to working politician, a difficult transition that even some of history’s greatest figures, like Nelson Mandela, took time to master. In the London Review of Books, I analyze this transition, and discuss how — and why— Suu Kyi is no longer above criticism in her movement. You read the entire piece here.  
China
China, Hong Kong and Taiwan: Running Dogs, Democracy, and More
Kong Qingdong has gone viral. The Peking University professor of literature and descendant of Confucius has become an overnight celebrity with his televised rant against Hong Kong. In a televised interview, Kong rails against non-Mandarin speaking Hong Kongers, denounces their rule of law system, and calls them “running dogs,” a Maoist-era epithet that typified the class warfare of the 1950s and 60s. What induced this attack was a momentary interchange on a Hong Kong subway between a Hong Kong resident and a mainland woman, in which the Hong Konger told the woman that her child should not be eating on the subway. While these two events may pass quickly into the Internet ether, what they signify will not—namely how will Hong Kong, China, and even Taiwan come to terms? By all reports, Hong Kong is being flooded by mainland tourists—a good thing if you want to keep your economy buoyant in these difficult times, not such a good thing if these “tourists” are overwhelming your public transportation, schools, hospitals, and more because those things don’t work as well where they come from. So resentment, for obvious reasons, is rising. At the same time, many in Hong Kong are concerned about their freedoms. Despite “one country, two systems,” the right to vote, freedom of expression, and the rule of law all seem perpetually at risk as a result of Beijing’s own political insecurities. The mainland, in turn, views Hong Kong with a mixture of admiration and envy for its world class services and well-run bureaucracy as well as occasional irritation with the island’s ongoing complaints about mainland rule. When a 2011 University of Hong Kong poll revealed that Hong Kong residents identified more closely as Hong Kong citizens than as Chinese citizens, mainland officials and the media launched a broadside against the poll and its backers. At the time of the handover, there was much speculation over whether the mainland would change Hong Kong or Hong Kong would act as a model for the mainland. Almost fifteen years on, it seems that neither is the case. Instead, both Hong Kong and the mainland talk about another model—Taiwan. Its recent presidential election caused a stir in the mainland, forcing even the mainland’s nationalistic Global Times to admit, however grudgingly, that the election “touched a nerve of the Chinese mainland,” and the questions that “overwhelmed the Internet” was: “Why can’t the same style of elections be held here?” The Global Times answered its own question by saying the price for stability and unity is a lack of democracy or more to the point, you can’t have everything. Still, not everyone is convinced. Wealthy mainland businessmen who observed the elections in Taiwan were favorably impressed, with one reporting "This is an amazing idea, to be able to choose the people who represent you." And with up to 250 million mainland microbloggers watching the election and all chattering on the Internet, Taiwan may well become the tail that wags that running dog.    
  • China
    China’s Wukan Protest: The Story’s Not Over
    It was easy to get swept up in the Wukan moment. A committed band of protestors stands up to corrupt officials and seizes control of the village. They demand that the officials return ill-gotten land, call for free and fair elections, and seek the body of one of their leaders they believe has been beaten to death while in official custody. After a several-day standoff, senior provincial officials swoop in and hand the villagers an unequivocal victory: Land, elections, and their leader’s body. Only not quite. Now that the focus of world attention has moved elsewhere, so too, apparently, has the need for Chinese officials to do the right thing. According to a recent report from the Straits Times (paywall), the body of the protest leader Xue Jinbo has yet to be returned to his family; authorities reportedly want to send the body directly to a cemetery. No elections have been scheduled, and the discussions over the land issues have stalled. Perhaps of greater concern, one villager has committed suicide, reportedly after having been harassed relentlessly by authorities who believed he had been part of the protests. More bad news comes from outside Wukan. Zheng Yanxiong, the uncompromising top party official in Shanwei county (which oversees Wukan) who said pigs would fly before the foreign media could be trusted, has amassed more power after being named the head of the local legislature. Still, the cloud over Wukan may have a silver lining. The village has become lodged in the political consciousness of the Chinese people. The director of the Political Science Department at the Central Institute of Socialism Wang Zhanyang has used Wukan to call publicly for democratic reform, including the separation of government and party, not only at the village but also at the county level. Cloaking part of his long discourse in Deng Xiaoping-speak, Wang has brought Wukan into the mainstream of Chinese political debate. Wang’s argument would no doubt resonate as well with many in the broader Chinese public. Earlier this week, tens of thousands of netizens rallied against a local People’s Congress deputy from Foshan, a large city not too far from Wukan, who said—in apparent reference to Wukan—that the public can be unruly when it was spoiled and that just as it was difficult to make a spoiled child obedient, ordinary civilians should be disciplined, not given preferential treatment. It is too easy to assume that the initial resolution of a problem in China represents the last word. That’s almost never the case. Now we know that we should continue to pay attention to what happens in Wukan.  It matters a lot—not only for the people of Wukan but also for our understanding of the evolving debate and real potential for wide scale political change in China.
  • China
    Asia Behind the Headlines
    Jared Mondschein looks at the key stories in Asia behind the headlines. Using “strength to gain friendship” - The recently released U.S. defense strategy is pretty clear on U.S. policy toward China: “the growth of China’s military power must be accompanied by greater clarity of its strategic intentions in order to avoid causing friction in the region.” China’s response? It’s only been two days since the strategy was released, so Beijing hasn’t officially responded yet. However, an editorial in the government-linked Global Times listened and responded transparently: “Since [China] has become a firm strategic target of the US, its efforts to improve Sino-US relations have proved incapable of offsetting US worries over its rise. China can only use its strength to gain friendship from the US from now on.” Over the past year, China’s use of “strength” in its own backyard hasn’t garnered many friends. Maybe it’s a translation problem. Beijing clears the air – While everyone knew that the reality of Beijing’s air quality bore little resemblance to the official reporting, it took the U.S. Embassy to bring clarity to the situation by tweeting the real numbers. After a month-long uproar among Beijing netizens over the unwillingness of the Beijing Municipal Environmental Protection Bureau (EPB) to match the U.S. Embassy efforts, the government relented. According to Xinhua, the EPB will soon put hourly readings of the finer pollution particles on their website. Chalk up another win to China’s virtual political system. It’s also campaign season in China – Reminiscent of “red” versus “expert,” Chongqing Party Secretary Bo Xilai and Guangdong Party Secretary Wang Yang are “campaigning” for seats on the new Politburo Standing Committee in the fall of 2012 on radically different platforms. The “red” Bo Xilai has brought about a Maoist revival, with grand-scale campaigns, major gang-busting, and Mao-esque pet projects.  “Expert” Wang, often seen as the anti-Bo, was most recently lauded for his peaceful handling of the Wukan protests. Though adversarial for obvious reasons, the two recently had a get-together where they had nothing but nice words for each other. Why? Perhaps they were “pushed” by Beijing, or maybe they realized that united they stand and divided they fall. Whichever the case, expect some real fireworks if both make it to the top. Super energy ministry for Beijing – Beijing is at it again with another attempt to make bureaucratic sense of its rapidly proliferating energy interests. Reuters reports that Beijing plans to create a “super-ministry” that will both replace the current National Energy Administration (NEA) and gain energy-related portfolios from other parts of the government. While the NEA was created for similar bureaucratic reasons, it has appeared adrift for much of its short tenure. Unless and until someone can take on the powerful National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), which in various incarnations has guided the Chinese economy for decades and refuses to give up its energy portfolios, any new institution seems destined for the same fate as the beleaguered NEA.
  • China
    The Republicans on China: Who Knows What’s Up and Who Doesn’t
    Republican presidential candidates stand at attentiond during the singing of the national anthem during the CNN GOP National Security debate on November 22, 2011. (Jim Bourg / Courtesy of Reuters) Truth be told, I don’t think that foreign policy—other than matters related to war—is likely to play a significant role in this year’s presidential election. Moreover, as decades of U.S. electoral politics have demonstrated, whatever candidates say about China is likely to bear little resemblance to what they actually do once they are in the Oval Office. Nonetheless, as a matter of character and competence, it is fascinating to look at what each of the Republican candidates has to say about China. Even though I have followed the Republican race fairly closely, I was surprised—both pleasantly and not—by what I found. Talk the talk but don’t walk the walk: Rick Perry breathes fire on China: “Communist China is destined for the ash heap of history because they are not a country of virtues. When you have 35,000 forced abortions a day in that country, when you have the cyber security that the PLA has been involved with, those are great major issues both morally and security-wise that we’ve got to deal with now.” Well maybe, but exactly how Perry is dealing with them by courting Huawei to invest in Texas is unclear. The U.S. government has three times denied China’s telecom giant business opportunities in the United States because of security concerns related to spying and the People’s Liberation Army. Mr. Perry, however, has praised Huawei’s “really strong worldwide reputation.” The end result of candidate Perry’s China policy to date? Huawei has a corporate headquarters just outside Dallas. Make love not war: Ron Paul appears to recognize all the challenges in the U.S. – China relationship from trade to security to human rights, but his response is basically “go along to get along”: stop spy plane missions, reconsider the Taiwan Relations Act, and drop the idea of a tariff on Chinese goods in retaliation for Beijing’s currency manipulation. Laissez-faire rose to new heights when he opposed a congratulatory congressional resolution for Liu Xiaobo on the Nobel Peace prize. Candidate Paul leaves no doubt that he would be Beijing’s pick for top dog. It’s all about the economy, stupid: Mitt Romney ‘s China policy is all about trade—keeping counterfeit goods out, aggressively pursuing intellectual property infringement cases, levying tariffs and sanctions on Chinese industry that have unfair trade practices, designating China a currency manipulator, and imposing countervailing duties. And much of it sounds reasonable. However, Romney will face some pretty stiff opposition from at least half of the U.S. business community that imports from China (e.g. Wal Mart). After all, a lot of Americans benefit from those cheap Chinese goods as well. And he doesn’t really address the potential impacts of a trade war from his tough new China trade policy. Of course, achieving all of Mr. Romney’s enforcement goals will require a steep increase in the financial and human capital devoted to trade enforcement. Does “Big Government” still play in the Republican Party? Where’s the beef?: Try as I might, I couldn’t really find any China-related policy prescriptions from Rick Santorum. He denigrates President Obama’s foreign policy as allowing “other powers like Russia and China to have more influence in this world.” (He must have missed three months worth of “Pivot” headlines this past summer.) And he calls for going “to war with China” to “make America the most attractive place in the world to do business.” I am not sure what that means, but my guess is he’s not either. Hopefully his foreign policy staff will up their China IQ as the race progresses. Nuance but not in the race: No real surprise that the greatest nuance in China policy arises from former U.S. Ambassador to China John Huntsman and former history professor Newt Gingrich. Huntsman has all his facts in line. You can agree or disagree with his opposition to a China currency bill or his desire to engage to promote political change in China—but he knows his stuff. Gingrich has seemingly refrained from too much China-bashing, and basically called on the United States to do the right thing and take action on the home front in order to be more competitive. Hard to argue with that either. The fact that neither appears to be in for the long haul will be a loss for future election-year debates over foreign policy. Ignorance is bliss: Anyone looking for confirmation that Michelle Bachman was right to drop out of the race probably doesn’t need to look much further than her comments on China in which she suggested that we follow China’s example with regard to social welfare policy. She claimed that “if you look at China, they don’t have food stamps…They save for their own retirement security, they don’t have AFDC, they don’t have the modern welfare state, and China’s growing.” Yes, but what they do have is 150 million people living on less than US $1 per day, a level of income inequality that exceeds that of the United States, and roughly 180,000 mass demonstrations. Is that really what she wants the United States to look like?