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
Climate Change
Assessing John Kerry’s Visit to Jakarta
Secretary of State John Kerry’s visit this weekend (U.S. time) to Jakarta was brief, packed into his whirlwind Asia trip. His short stay in Jakarta was understandable—I think Kerry, despite criticism that he has focused too much on the Middle East, has put in enough of the face time in Asia to justify his claim that he has continued the administration’s policy of re-engagement with Southeast Asia. The fact that Kerry chose to give a speech in front of an audience of students at a cultural center highlighted some of the American embassy in Jakarta’s soft power efforts in the archipelago. And I certainly would agree with most of what Kerry said in his speech on climate change and the threat of global warming—that climate change is a near-apocalyptic threat to the world, that the science about global warming is settled, that Indonesia is one of the developing nations most likely to be affected by climate change, that global warming could prove a death blow to many parts of the archipelago. Kerry had some notable lines in his Jakarta speech, like calling climate change “perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.” I also do not question Kerry’s personal commitment to combating climate change, since it has been an important issue for him for many years, and he was one of the first leaders on global warming in the Senate. The trouble with the speech was not the science on climate change and its effects but rather the style and framing of the speech and the disconnect between it and the lack of American action. Calling for developing nations like Indonesia to shoulder some of the burden of reducing global warming while offering few concrete steps the United States will take simply is not going to work. People in developing nations, including Indonesia, resent being lectured to on global warming by American politicians, and they resent it even more forcefully when the United States has no clear strategy for addressing global warming. Previous speeches by other American leaders in developing nations, including in Asia, have been poorly received precisely because the United States appeared to be lecturing while avoiding the heavy lifting on climate change, and I am surprised that Kerry seemingly did not study the reception to previous similar talks. The fact that developing nations, including China and Indonesia, have now become some of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases is not going to change the perception that the United States has been the biggest emitter for decades and that the United States needs to be the global leader on addressing the problem. By the way, I don’t consider “a new agreement [with China] on an enhanced policy of dialogue that includes the sharing of information and policies” on global warming significant leadership on climate change. And at home in the United States, the Obama administration has done even less than “an enhanced policy of dialogue.” Just telling countries like Indonesia that they are now big emitters and so they should take a stand will not work. (Kerry said “I call on all of you in Indonesia and concerned citizens around the world to demand the resolve that is necessary ... Make a transition towards clean energy the only plan that you are willing to accept.") And offering people in developing nations bland platitudes on global warming may well cause them to be even more insulted. To wit: The United States is ready to work with you in this endeavor. With Indonesia and the rest of the world pulling in the same direction, we can meet this challenge, the greatest challenge of our generation, and we can create the future that everybody dreams of.
China
Friday Asia Update: Top Five Stories for the Week of February 14, 2014
Lauren Dickey, Darcie Draudt, Charles McClean, Will Piekos, and Sharone Tobias look at the top stories in Asia today. 1. Secretary Kerry visits South Korea, China, and Indonesia on Asia tour. U.S. secretary of state John Kerry’s trip marks his fifth to Asia during his first year in office. In Seoul, he met with South Korean president Park Geun-hye and Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se to discuss the South’s relations with North Korea, including efforts to facilitate reunions between family members on the divided peninsula. Secretary Kerry arrived in Beijing on Friday, where he met with Chinese president Xi Jinping and other senior officials to address issues ranging from nuclear disarmament talks with North Korea to climate change to regional tensions in the East and South China Seas. His Asia trip will wrap up in Indonesia, where he will deliver a speech on climate change. Secretary Kerry’s trip coincides with this week’s White House announcement that U.S. president Barack Obama will travel to Asia in April. 2. China and Taiwan hold historic talks, but Chinese president Xi Jinping declines to meet with Taiwanese president Ma Ying-jeou. China and Taiwan held their first formal high-level talks since China’s civil war ended in 1949. As expected, the talks in Nanjing yielded no concrete agreements and were considered to be mainly a confidence-building exercise. The meeting between the two top cross-strait officials had no flags on display and officials’ nameplates had no titles or affiliations. However, after the talks, China rejected President Ma’s offer of a meeting between Ma and President Xi at the annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in October. The meeting could only take place if Ma participates as the president of the Republic of China, which Beijing does not recognize as a nation. 3. Bangladeshi factory owners charged in country’s worst factory fire turn themselves in. The owners of Tazreen Fashions, Delwar Hossain and his wife Mahmuda Akter, gave themselves up to a court in Dhaka on Sunday and have been jailed for homicide. They are charged with culpable homicide in the November 2012 factory fire that resulted in the deaths of 112 workers, many of whom were ordered to keep working as alarms rang. Investigators originally stated that there was not enough evidence to prosecute the couple, but the country’s High Court ordered a deeper investigation following a petition from activists and lawyers. Bangladesh is the world’s second-largest apparel exporter after China, and its powerful garment industry is often above the law.  4. New premier elected in Nepal. Nepal’s parliament elected Sushil Koirala, a longtime democracy activist, as the country’s new prime minister on Monday. His election was made possible after Nepal’s two primary parties, the Nepali Congress and the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist-Leninist, or CPN-UML), signed a seven-point accord, ending the post-civil war political paralysis that had plagued Nepal since 2006. After elections last November, Mr. Koirala’s party, the Nepali Congress, emerged with the most seats in the country’s Constituent Assembly. Mr. Koirala was sworn into office one day after winning this week’s election, but now faces the potential for more political gridlock; his party’s main coalition partner, CPN-UML, will not join the government because Mr. Koirala did not give it the home minister profile. 5. North Korea agrees to move forward with family reunions. North and South Korea are moving forward in the new year, as officials from the two nations met on Friday for a second round of high-level talks to secure the planned family reunions for separated Korean families, scheduled for February 20 to 25. Following the talks at the border village of Panmunjom, North Korea rescinded its earlier threat to cancel the reunions; last week Pyongyang had asserted that regularly scheduled U.S.-South Korean military drills—planned for February 27 through March 9—constitute “a reckless act of war” that make proceeding with the reunions impossible. Seoul plans to send a team to North Korea on Saturday to prepare for the reunions, said a government spokesperson. The last reunion of separated families occurred in 2010, and Friday’s talks were the highest level talks between the two Koreas since 2007.  Bonus: India’s athletes can now compete for their country after snafu; China derides Western criticism of Olympics. The International Olympic Committee lifted a ban on India as a competing nation, the first time a ban has been lifted during an Olympic Games. India was suspended last year over the election of an official convicted of corruption to a top post; Indian athletes marched as “independent Olympic athletes” instead of under their own flag at the opening ceremony. In other Olympic news, China’s Global Times published an op-ed deriding “Western bigotry” for criticizing human rights abuses at the Sochi Olympics, saying, “The noises around the Sochi Games have once again shown the narrow mind of the West.”
Regional Organizations
John Kerry’s Visit to Jakarta
At the end of his current trip to Asia, Secretary of State John Kerry will be stopping in Jakarta and meeting with Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Secretary-General Le Luong Minh. Although his visit in Jakarta will be short, Kerry will undoubtedly emphasize the same themes he is hitting throughout the visit, including pushing to restart talks on North Korea’s nuclear program and prodding China to work more seriously with Southeast Asian nations on a real code of conduct for the South China Sea. Matthew Lee of the Associated Press, traveling with Kerry, has a thorough summary of the trip’s agenda here. At the ASEAN Secretariat, Kerry surely will find a welcoming audience for a speech about a South China Sea code of conduct; although he has thus far taken pains to play the role of regional statesman, ASEAN’s Secretary General does hail from Vietnam, one of the two Southeast Asian nations most involved in disputing areas of the Sea with China. Still, it is hard to see what Kerry can say about a code of conduct that would be new in any way, or that would exert more pressure on Beijing than other strategies tried by the administration. Indeed, Kerry might eventually have better luck getting Kim Jong Un to make a deal on his nuclear program than on getting Beijing to agree to a real and binding code of conduct. (The Secretary also will sign two Memorandums of Understanding with Indonesia’s Foreign Minister. These will deal with more modest issues like working together to help other developing countries improve their human rights records.) Despite the short amount of time Kerry is spending in Jakarta, and the focus on ASEAN and regional issues, it would be valuable for him to dip his toe, slightly, into domestic Indonesian politics. He should meet with Jakarta governor Joko Widodo, or Jokowi, who is almost sure to be the next president of Indonesia, and who provides an excellent counter-example to failing democracy in Thailand and Cambodia and Malaysia—an accountable, successful, and democratically elected Southeast Asian leader. [
  • India
    The Limits of Speech in India
    India is the world’s largest democracy, with possibly the world’s largest number of political parties (six national, twenty-two regional, and 1500+ official unrecognized parties), and what must surely be the most disputatious and argumentative broadcast media. Anyone who has ever watched the myriad prime time talk shows, with six to ten guests shouting at each other (sometimes the host, too), would know what I mean. It has also been my experience over the last nearly twenty-five years traveling to and engaging with India, that people love a good argument. You can have a fierce debate over a meal, and over very serious ideas, but by the time sweets come around you’ve moved on to something else—even if you still disagree. One of the great things about India, in my view, is the wonderful acceptance of vigorous disagreement. So the announcement on February 11 that Penguin India had decided to withdraw from the market Wendy Doniger’s book, The Hindus: An Alternative History, came as sad news. Penguin also announced that they would destroy any remaining copies of the book. These actions represent the terms of an out-of-court settlement resulting from civil and apparently criminal proceedings against the book led by an NGO, the Shiksha Bachao Andolan. (Mint has an excellent profile here). The Wall Street Journal has made the settlement terms available online, which clarify that in exchange for the withdrawal of the book from India, “all the civil and criminal cases / complaints and any other actions initiated under the relevant laws” would be withdrawn. From Professor Doniger’s statement, it appears that the criminal cases were a decisive factor in Penguin’s decision to settle out of court rather than continue a long legal battle, as it had been doing since 2011. Professor Doniger cited a paragraph from the suit which referenced the section 295A of the Indian Penal Code as the crime the Shiksha Bachao Andolan accused her book of committing. It’s worth taking a closer look at how Indian law treats speech to better understand the issues at stake. While the Indian constitution provides for “freedom of speech and expression” in the Fundamental Rights, it does so with caveats that such freedoms should not impinge upon laws providing for “reasonable restrictions” in the “interests of of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality, or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.” And the Indian Penal Code, which dates back to 1860 (use search tool here for official text), particularly section 295A, explicitly criminalizes “Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs.” A related section, 298, criminalizes “Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings.” 295A is punishable with up to three years in prison. So speech is free in India, as long as no one feels outraged or wounded specifically with respect to their religion. The Doniger settlement comes on the heels of other book withdrawals or bans, such as a recent book on Air India, Joseph Lelyveld’s book on Gandhi, the scholar James Laine’s book about Shivaji, and of course the paradigmatic case, Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses back in 1988—to name just a few. Noting the larger context of what seems to be a growing list of books eliminated, a number of thoughtful writers have argued in the wake of the Doniger decision in defense of a free marketplace of ideas: Pratap Mehta, Nikhil Inamdar, Ashok Malik, Kenan Malik, Tunku Varadarajan, and others. All have expressed concern at the ease with which books have been subject to elimination in India due to the power of their ideas to offend, and what this narrowing of the bookshelves portends for India’s liberal values. (Here, the word “liberal” denotes not political partisanship, but rather commitment to the values of democracy, pluralism, and tolerance). The list is growing longer, and as Inamdar notes, there are implications for online speech as well. The worrisome aspect of erring on the side of protecting feelings rather than the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression lies in its inherent arbitrariness: many may have taken great offense at Professor Doniger’s work, no doubt. But many may not. The Shiksha Bachao Andolan, along with the signatories of an online petition, found The Hindus offensive in what appear to be at least three ways: first, that the book allegedly contained factual inaccuracies; second, that Professor Doniger used psychoanalytic concepts to analyze Hinduism, and wrote at length about sexuality, which petitioners found derogatory to their faith; and third, that she stated one of the great Indian epics, the Ramayana, was “created by human authors” and therefore a “work of fiction.” These are all criticisms deserving of intensive debate, review, thorough explication, perhaps shouting to make oneself heard over the din, and certainly as many close written critiques as needed. Professor Doniger would be the first to listen to her critics, and has always been ready for a good debate. But threats of criminal penalties for scholarly interpretations? Disagreements and offense are an inevitable part of the fabric of any intellectual life, and there will always be someone somewhere whose sentiments are bruised. But one thing’s becoming clear: it is getting harder to reconcile the India that symbolizes robust democracy, pluralism on a grand scale, and the lessons of tolerance, with another India tiptoeing to avert hurt feelings.  Follow me on Twitter: @AyresAlyssa
  • China
    Getting at the Heart of China’s Resource Quest
    It all begins with courtship. The Chinese president arrives in the resource-rich country to woo the local leader with a large entourage of government and state-owned enterprise officials, bearing gifts of trade, aid, and investment. Love—or at least great friendship—is in the air, and a match is made. As Carly Simon says, “Nobody Does It better.” Or do they? As my colleague Michael Levi and I explore in our new book By All Means Necessary, Beijing can lay out the plan of action, but the follow-through is often less than spectacular. Since 2007, realized Chinese investment in Brazil, for example, is roughly 30 percent of what has been announced. Often times as well, the brain signals one thing and the body does another. Just last month, China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC)—which lays out the basic plan for these vast resource deals—announced that Chinese steel makers needed to continue to take new stakes in iron ore deposits abroad. The NDRC wants the iron ore for “speaking rights” at the global trading table and “strategic security.” Yet some of the steel makers—faced with significant overcapacity—are balking, stating that they have no intention of seeking more iron ore investments. Meanwhile, even as Beijing seeks to force state-owned enterprises to do its bidding, vast numbers of independently thinking Chinese are heading out to distant lands to mine resources without any direction from the Chinese government. They are out to make money and in the process, inadvertently often make trouble. For example, in July 2013, the government of Ghana rounded up over 4,500 independent and illegal Chinese gold miners and told Beijing to take them home. While these miners weren’t part of any resource deal Beijing had struck with Accra, the Ghanaians believed that it was Beijing’s responsibility to account for them. (Chinese officials, meantime, argued that it was Ghana’s responsibility to enforce its own laws and to prevent the miners from taking stakes in the gold-rich areas to begin with.) Just a lover’s spat, no doubt. And lest one think that China, with its vast investment might, always comes out on top in these resource deals, in 2013, a senior Chinese mining official announced that nearly 80 percent of Chinese overseas mining investments had “largely failed.” These rather surprising outcomes of China’s investment strategy speak to one of the six myths that Michael Levi and I debunk in our book, namely that Beijing is a far more sophisticated and able matchmaker than anyone else—capable of developing long-term, highly integrated relationships among all parts of the Chinese economy and that of the resource-rich country. In fact, our research suggests that in many cases, once the initial courtship is over, the bloom is quickly off the rose. Of course, everyone deserves a second chance, and Beijing, as well as its companies, is learning how to do things differently—but that gets to a different myth.