Why does the United States seek military superiority in Asia? This chapter compares evidence from US Asia strategy during the Obama and Trump administrations with general indicators of a primacy strategy. It finds little evidence to support the claim that the United States seeks primacy in Asia, and proposes that for the United States, military superiority is an issue of force structure planning, involving long-term capability development. The ability for the United States to prevail in plausible conflicts against Asia’s next-strongest power is essential for a range of grand strategies that are more modest in scope and intention than one of primacy. The distinction is important because if President Trump or any future US administration does decide to seek primacy in Asia, it would mark a significant break from, not continuation of, US strategic and foreign policy traditions in the region.
Washington faces a trilemma in its management of relations with North Korea. From the perspective of U.S. policymakers, North Korea is a deterrence challenge, a nuclear proliferation threat, and a challenge to regional stability in Northeast Asia. The problem is that no set of policies can address all three frames; each introduces different policy priorities and favors different tools of statecraft to pursue them. This is why all three threat types endure without resolution, and rivalry conditions between the United States and North Korea remain frustratingly durable: The complexity of the situation presents hard choices, which successive U.S. presidents have preferred to avoid, even though doing so has allowed the problem to grow worse and more disadvantageous for the United States over time.
Vivek Shandas, Anandi van Diepen, Jackson Voelkel and Meenakshi Rao
In this chapter the authors argue for using coproduction as a model for urban resilience, based on a recent collaborative project between planners and researchers. They review the findings of four collaborative workshops of neighborhood-scale climate adaptation, using spatial and statistical analyses, as well as posit the conceptual framework underlying the project’s collaborative rationality. Their assessment is from two perspectives: (1) an academic, phenomenological lens; and (2) a pragmatic lens. They argue that, in order to understand resilience, we must first ask the question “Resilience to what and for whom?” To that end, they consider what characterizes those communities that are affected by two major urban environmental hazards, namely air pollution and urban heat, in the city of Portland, Oregon in the Pacific Northwest of the United States. Empirically, the authors explore neighborhood-level exposure to air pollution and extreme heat, as well as these spatially defined communities’ physiological sensitivity to the two hazards, and their social capacity to adapt to them. Phenomenologically, the authors argue that this collaboration is an effort in coproduction, encapsulating cooperation between scientific experts and governmental authorities in the production of knowledge toward a socially determined goal in the public interest.