North Korean Missile Test Launches Debate Among Rising Powers

Policy Alert #118 | February 12, 2016

One month after conducting a nuclear test, North Korea successfully launched a long-range rocket on February 7th from its Sohae Satellite Launching Station. Pyongyang claimed the launch was a peaceful earth observation satellite, but the United States, South Korea, and other powers quickly condemned it as a provocative and destabilizing ballistic missile test in violation of UN resolutions. U.S. National Security Advisor Susan Rice called on the “international community to stand together and demonstrate to North Korea that its reckless actions must have serious consequences.” China, however, remains unwilling to back stronger sanctions against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and prefers a return to the negotiation table. In this Policy Alert, we explore the reactions of South Korea, China, Japan, Russia, India, and Brazil to the launch and their proposals to resolve nuclear weapons and missile challenges on the Korean Peninsula.

SOUTH KOREA

President Park Geun-hye strongly criticized the missile launch as an “intolerable provocation,” positing the North’s missile program is “all about maintaining the regime” in Pyongyang. Park’s deputy chief of national security, Cho Tae-yong, pledged “the government will continue to put necessary pressure on North Korea so that North Korea has no other choice but to change.” South Korean intelligence agencies reportedly have evidence North Korea plans another nuclear test in the near future.

With the National Assembly passing a resolution denouncing the launch, officials in Seoul outlined their response to the latest DPRK move.

Korean newspapers debated the government’s response to the missile launch.

  • The Korea Times supported the suspension of the Kaesong Industrial Complex, saying the North’s provocation left the South “no other choice.” This will not only give President Park “maneuvering room” against the North, the paper wrote, but also pressure the United States and China to follow suit.
  • The Korea Herald agreed, suggesting the suspension will “make the North realize that it has to pay a high price for its unwarranted provocations.” It also supported the THAAD deployment, calling it “inevitable” for national defense. China “should understand” it is a matter of South Korean strategic necessity even if Beijing worries the system could be used against Chinese missiles.
  • Oh Young-jin, The Korea Times‘ chief editorial writer, questioned whether the U.S. nuclear umbrella is sufficient to deter the North, asking whether a preemptive strike is necessary to destroy North Korean nuclear and missile capabilities before it is too late.
  • Hankyoreh opposed these countermeasures, calling the closing of Kaesong a “mistake” since it will hurt South Korean companies and accomplish nothing other than raising tensions. The paper further argued THHAD deployment will antagonize Pyongyang, Beijing, and Moscow while reviving and perpetuating “Cold War confrontation” between this bloc and a coalition of South Korea, United States, and Japan.
  • “No matter how severe they are, sanctions won’t resolve the nuclear and missile issues,” reasoned JoongAng Ilbo. The “only way forward” is to stop the countermeasures in return for a nuclear moratorium, establish diplomatic relations between North Korea and the United States, and form a peace treaty to replace the armistice.
  • Kwon Seijin, a professor at the KAIST, said North Korea with only nuclear weapons is “not that intimidating,” but if they possess both long-range rockets and nuclear warheads, “it becomes a global issue.”

CHINA

In the lead up to the launch, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lu Kang warned North Korea that while it had a “right to make peaceful use of space,” Pyongyang was still “subject to restrictions of the Security Council resolutions” and a missile test would destabilize the region. He stressed Beijing would neither “allow war or instability on the Peninsula” nor “allow any country to pursue its selfish gains while the international community is working for the target of denuclearization.” Chinese President Xi Jinping spoke with his counterpart in South Korea and called on all parties to solve the crisis through dialogue and consultation.

Several commentators condemned the rocket launch as dangerous for the region and counterproductive for North Korea, though a number of experts doubted even China could bring Pyongyang around to this view.

  • “The launch is part of North Korea’s military plan as it has to enhance its ability to miniaturize nuclear weapons and advance missile carriers,” said Gao Fei, a professor of Russian studies at the China Foreign Affairs University. Nevertheless, Gao did not expect the United States and its allies go beyond issuing tough statements due to the risks conflict would entail for Seoul.
  • Lu Chao, professor at Liaoning Academy of Social Sciences, wondered if China could have ever stopped the DPRK’s latest effort to become a more established nuclear weapons state, especially in the lead-up to the seventh Congress of the Workers’ Party of Korea later this May where Kim Jong-un wants to strengthen his hold on power. Zhang Liangui, a professor at the Party School of the Central Committee, seconded this.
  • The Global Times cautioned Pyongyang against continuing its nuclear and missile programs because “it is too weak to direct how the situation will evolve. If it does spiral out of control, North Korea will be the first to be crushed.” The editorial concluded the DPRK will “face a depressing situation for a long time to come” without ever achieving its strategic and national goals.
  • Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said China was “deeply concerned” at the announcement of talks to expand U.S. theater missile defense systems in South Korea, saying the deployment could escalate tensions on the Korean Peninsula and destabilize the situation. Foreign Vice-Minister Liu Zhenmin, retired colonel Yue Gang, China Arms Control and Disarmament Association senior research Xu Guangyu, and The Global Times echoed this viewpoint and argued Chinese missiles would be inevitably be targeted for interception by the U.S. defenses.

Others debated the possibility and value of further Chinese sanctions on its historical ally.

  • Liu Jieyi, China’s ambassador to the United Nations, maintained crippling sanctions were not a priority for Beijing and instead pushed for a UN resolution to “do the work of reducing tension, of working toward denuclearization, of maintaining peace and stability, and of encouraging a negotiated solution.”
  • When asked if the latest missile test was a “slap in the face” of sanctions opponents like China, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lu Kang countered that “the DPRK started nuclear testing and conducted them over and over again” despite previous calls for sanctions in the Six Party Talks. “In this sense,” he said, “the DPRK did slap the relevant country across the face. As to whose face the DPRK slapped, the country itself knows well.”
  • In contrast, The Global Times sensed Chinese society “supports the government to strengthen sanctions over North Korea” and thus pressed leaders in Beijing to “strike a balance between sanctions and preventing a Pyongyang collapse.”

A number of media outlets and Chinese analysts questioned whether the latest rocket launch would actually help the DPRK advance nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

JAPAN

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe condemned the rocket launch as “totally intolerable.” After placingits armed forces on high alert, the government issued new unilateral sanctions and called for a new UN Security Council resolution against the Kim regime. The defense chiefs for United States, South Korea, and Japan agreed to enhance the sharing of intelligence and the coordination of security efforts in response to North Korea’s nuclear weapons and missile programs.

Japanese newspapers unanimously criticized the missile test and discussed potential countermeasures.

  • Given the history of North Korea’s repeated nuclear tests and missile launches, “[i]t is obvious that previous sanctions are not sufficient,” claimed Yomiuri Shimbun. “China should no longer avoid imposing sanctions on North Korea… and should cooperate with the UN Security Council to adopt strong sanctions.” Furthermore, the newspaper held Washington needs to adjust its policy of “strategic patience” toward Pyongyang and “exercise its leadership.”
  • The Japan Times expressed a similar view, arguing Beijing and Washington “need to seriously consider what has been lacking in their approaches toward North Korea.” Sankei Shimbun also criticized Beijing and Moscow for blocking stronger UN sanctions.
  • Editorials in Yomiuri ShimbunNikkei Shimbun, and Sankei Shimbun showed support for additional sanctions by the Japanese government and the UN Security Council. They also called for strengthening U.S.-Japanese-South Korean trilateral defense cooperation, particularly on missile defense systems and the exercise of Japan’s collective self-defense rights.
  • Yoichi Shimada, a professor at Fukui Prefectural University, argued Japan “cannot rely” on the United States to address the threat posed by North Korea to Japan. Instead, the island’s self-defense force must take unilateral measures, including the acquisition of sea-launched cruise missiles to preemptively attack North Korean missile launchers in the event of a crisis.
  • “Sanctions are necessary, but such measures alone would not prevent North Korea from taking reckless actions,” contended Mainichi Shimbun. “It is necessary to encourage Pyongyang to participate in multilateral consultations and discourage the country from taking provocative acts.”
  • Asahi Shimbun agreed, emphasizing Japan, South Korea, and the United States must use both dialogue and pressure to influence North Korea’s actions.

RUSSIA

The Russian Foreign Ministry criticized the missile launch as an “unacceptable” violation of international law that could lead to “serious aggravation” on the Peninsula. However, the ministry stressed “the need to refrain from any unilateral steps that could lead to further development of tensions in the region.”

Russian officials commented on ways to resolve the crisis and responded to allegations of collaborating with North Korea.

  • Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov met with his Japanese counterpart, Fumio Kishida, emphasizing “the importance of political and diplomatic settlement.”
  • Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov also shared Russia’s official view with China’s ambassador to Russia, Lee Huei, saying “any response measures should not lead to the deterioration of the situation. This is our position and we share it with our Chinese partners. We have identical approaches to this problem with China, there are no gaps between us.” The two governments also confirmed they share approaches to the issue of denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula.
  • Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin denied allegations made by South Korean media that Russia provided North Korea with rocket production technology as “complete nonsense.”
  • Russia’s ambassador to Seoul, Alexander Timonin, stressed Russia is opposed to the deployment of the U.S. THAAD system in South Korea, saying such deployment could destabilize the region’s security. The Russian Foreign Ministry said the placement could “provoke an arms race in Northeast Asia.”

Russian military experts and officials were at odds with the imminence of the North Korean threat.

  • Aleksey Podberyozkin, head of the Military-Political Center at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, warned the flight path of the North Korean missiles is so “unpredictable” that “there are still no effective means of intercepting” them. He added any additional sanctions by the UN “will have no effects on Pyongyang” because the North Korean public will still remain loyal to the regime.
  • Army General Yuri Baluyevsky downplayed the North Korean threat. “I believe that in Pyongyang there are no crazies who would dare launch a nuclear warhead with an experimental missile,” he said. According to his estimation, “Pyongyang currently has the lowest level nuclear weapon of the kind the Soviet Union had back in the late 1950s.”

INDIA

India’s External Affairs Ministry expressed “deep concern” about the DPRK’s rocket launch and called on Pyongyang to refrain from these types of actions that “adversely affect peace and stability in the region.” Recognizing every nation’s “right to exploit outer space for peaceful purposes,” the ministry underscored the need for launch activity to “be in accordance with international obligations.”

BRAZIL

The Brazilian government joined the international community in condemning North Korea’s rocket launch.

  • Itamaraty, the Brazilian Foreign Ministry released a statement “urging the DPRK to refrain from actions which prevent the option of dialogue and diplomatic negotiation” before calling on Pyongyang “to retake the Six-Party Talks and to reintegrate itself as soon as possible back into the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty framework” and to “sign and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Taiwan’s Presidential Election Provokes Reactions in Asia

Policy Alert #117 | January 28, 2016

On January 16, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate Tsai Ing-wen defeated the incumbent Kuomintang Party (KMT) to become the first female president of Taiwan. The DPP also won a majority in the Legislative Yuan and vowed to start a “new era” in Taiwan with an improved economy and a relationship with China based on “dignity and reciprocity.” The United States congratulated Tsai on her victory and expressed its desire for continued peace and stability in the cross-straits. China – who pined for a KMT victory – and other powers responded to the news with a mix of cautious optimism and diplomatic tightrope walking. In this Policy Alert, we look at reactions in Taiwan, China, Japan, South Korea, and India on what the election holds for the region.

TAIWAN

While not entirely a surprise, the landslide victory for Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) transformed the balance of political power on the island. It has also forced the Kuomintang Party to do some soul searching when it votes in March for a new leader after its 2016 candidate and former chairman, Eric Chu, resigned. Furthermore, the new DPP majority promised new legislation to strip the KMT of its multi-million assets through party finance and property reforms, which may make it more difficult for the KMT to mount an electoral comeback.

Taiwanese policymakers remained cautious in the handling of post-election cross-strait relations. Continue reading “Taiwan’s Presidential Election Provokes Reactions in Asia”

Rising Powers Respond to North Korean Hydrogen Bomb Test

Policy Alert #116 | January 14, 2016

On January 6, North Korea announced it conducted its forth nuclear test, claiming the successful explosion of a hydrogen bomb. As experts work to verify the claim, the international community unanimously condemned Pyongyang with the UN Security Council planning to impose further sanctions on the Kim Jung-un regime for taking an action South Korea called an “unpardonable provocation.” In a display of strength and support for allies in the region, the United States flew a nuclear-capable B-52 bomber over Seoul, which prompted North Korea to vow further tests. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from South Korea, China, Japan, India, Russia, and Brazil on the latest North Korean nuclear test.

SOUTH KOREA

As expected, South Korean President Park Geun-hye denounced the test as a “serious threat” to national security and warned “our military is at a state of full readiness, and if North Korea wages provocation, there will be firm punishment.” Along with resuming broadcasts of propaganda messages across the north-south border, South Korea urged the international community to work together on sanctions to inflict “bone-numbing pain” on its northern neighbor, specifically calling on China to prove Beijing is serious about improving ties with Seoul.

Newspapers in South Korea focused on how the country and the international community should response to this latest development by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK).

  • “It is regretful that South Korea has no effective ways to punish the North,” lamented theJongAng Ilbo. “Resuming the propaganda broadcasts at the border won’t even make Kim blink. There is no option for Seoul other than sitting at the unappealing table of the UN Security Council to adopt sanctions.” At the minimum, the paper insisted South Korea “mustreinforce its intelligence on North Korea.”
  • The Hankyoreh critiqued the resumption of the broadcasts as a “wrong response” that “works against” the international community’s efforts.
  • The Korea Herald disagreed, calling the propaganda broadcasts “one of the few options the South has that can inflict real pain on the unruly regime.” The editorial continued that “the broadcasts target the North’s Achilles’ heel – the young leader’s lack of legitimacy and ruthless leadership style.” The Chosun Ilbo also supported the resumption of the broadcasts.
  • “Dialogue is the only feasible alternative… to have Pyongyang to yield its nuclear weapons program,” argued the JongAng Ilbo, saying “U.S.-China cooperation is key” to solving the problem. “The United States should abandon its rigid North Korean policy, which is now considered ‘strategic ignorance’ rather than ‘strategic patience’… No international action to punish Pyongyang is possible without the participation of Beijing.” The Korea Times echoed this view (here and here).
  • The Dong-A Ilbo believed China was “unlikely to impose strong sanctions on North Korea” so therefore “Seoul should consider using the South Korea-U.S.-Japan regional security cooperation system to put pressure on China… us[ing] as leverage the proposed deployment of a U.S. missile defense system in South Korea and Seoul’s possible start of nuclear armament.” The Korea Herald shared a similar view.
  • The Hankyoreh called for “a fine-tuned international response” to “lead the North to realize the problems and dangers of possessing nuclear weapons so that it comes to the right decision on its own.”

Several in South Korean even discussed the possibility of acquiring a nuclear arsenal to counter the North Korea’s threat, a proposal made by some policymakers with the Saenuri Party.

  • The Hankyoreh called the proposal “inappropriate” as not only “impractical for South Korea to acquire nuclear weapons, but the very proposal itself makes things worse on the Korean Peninsula and stokes public fears about national security.”
  • The Dong-A Ilbo criticized that the idea is “not feasible given that it goes against the consensus of denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and that it might lead to diplomatic and economic isolation of South Korea. Seoul is neither in a position to choose nuclear over KOR-US alliance.

CHINA

Despite being one of North Korea’s closest allies, it appears North Korea did not notify China in advance of the nuclear test. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying decried the test and stated “China is steadfast in its position that the Korean Peninsula should be denuclearized and nuclear proliferation should be prevented to maintain peace and stability in Northeast Asia.” The government ramped up radiation monitoring activities near the border with North Korea, but it did not expect the test would have an environmental impact on the mainland.

Many analysts and media outlets voiced outrage at North Korea.

  • China Daily said there “should be no tolerance and compromise” on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The paper rejected Pyongyang’s claims the test would improve its security position and urged a restart of the six-party talks with regional powers and the United States aimed at finding a solution to the nuclear impasse.
  • Zhang Lian’gui, professor of international strategy studies at the Central Party School, said the DPRK was using Washington as “an excuse” for its dangerous actions to try and “exploit the differences between China and the U.S.”
  • The Global Times worried problems in northeastern China near the border with North Korea would “hurt social stability” and pose a “big challenge to the Chinese government.”

Others turned the focus on the United States and its allies in the region, characterizing them as aggressors who have mishandled the crisis.

  • The Global Times pushed back on calls in the West – specifically from Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump – for China to be the ones to solve the DPRK nuclear issue. Arguing the United States should “bear more responsibility to alleviate tensions in the Peninsula,” the paper saw the problem stemming from Pyongyang’s security anxieties caused by Washington, Seoul, and Tokyo.
  • Ren Weidong, associate research fellow at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, expressed a similar opinion and noted the joint military exercises by these three countries as legitimate threats to North Korea.
  • Xinhua’s Wang Haiqing criticized the B-52 flyover as dangerous “pressure tactics” that will “hardly succeed in subduing Pyongyang’s nuclear ambition” and instead will “harden” the country’s resolve.
  • Dr. Fan Jishe, senior fellow of the Institute of American Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, concluded President Barack Obama’s strategy of “Strategic Patience” on the DPRK nuclear challenge has been a “great failure,” one that will haunt his foreign policy legacy.

Several commentators highlighted the risks for China should North Korea continue its nuclear weapons and nuclear testing programs.

  • Wang Junsheng, associate professor at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, observed “Pyongyang is misjudging its own strength and hopes the international community might eventually accept its ‘rightful’ possession of nuclear weaponry.” China feels a “rather palpable threat” from the nuclear test “because it leads to a new vicious cycle on the Korean Peninsula.”
  • Zheng Jiyong, professor on Korean Peninsula studies at Fudan University, questioned the authenticity of the hydrogen test but counselled the nuclear program would “push [North Korea] into a security dilemma, instead of making it more secure.”
  • The United States may use the latest nuclear test to “strengthen its military presence” in South Korea, according to Gao Cheng, researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Gao Cheng also worried the test may give Japan another reason to build its own nuclear program, undermining Chinese security interests. Indeed, some of the South Korean commentators mentioned above suggest these lines of arguments.

Many observers presented their views on how China could help achieve the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula or at least prevent further escalation.

  • The Global Times affirmed “nuclear weapons are not the solution to [North Korea’s] domestic woes” and urged engagement with the outside world if the hermit kingdom was “determined to develop its economy.”
  • Wang Hui, senior writer with China Daily, pushed for a resumption of the six-party talks based on the “flexibility and continuous diplomatic efforts” of the international community when crafting the recent Iran nuclear deal. However, he worried the so-called U.S. “pivot to Asia” may have poisoned the well of cooperation in the Asia-Pacific and made this arrangement more difficult than it was on Iran.
  • Wang Junsheng advised Chinese leaders to be a responsible major player in the region by stabilizing “its relationship with Pyongyang to alleviate its worries about the imbalanced geopolitical structure.”
  • Peking University professor Wang Dong blamed the U.S.-India civilian nuclear energy cooperation deal for complicating Chinese efforts to bring North Korea back to the non-proliferation regime.
  • Gao Cheng counseled China to block U.S. and Japanese efforts to “exploit” the tense situation and urged Russia to “exert more pressure on the DPRK.”

JAPAN

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe branded the test a “grave security threat” that demanded robust international action. Japan’s proximity to North Korea puts it in range of the country’s missile barrage and has led Tokyo to pursue further unilateral sanctions against Pyongyang as well as coordinate a response to the nuclear test with the United States and South Korea.

Japanese newspapers offered different views on the rationales behind the nuclear test.

  • The test was a “complete surprise,” said the Yomiuri Shimbun. “Making any rational predictions regarding the Kim regime has become ever more difficult.”
  • The Mainichi Shimbun explained Kim Jong-un “wanted to demonstrate the success of the hydrogen bomb test to the North Korean public to show him as a leader who is capable ofopening a new era ahead of a convention of the ruling Korea Workers’ Party due to be held in May for the first time in 36 years.”
  • The Nikkei Shimbun opined the nuclear test was designed to consolidate the North Korean regime, which is suffering from international isolation and economic struggles.
  • The attempt to maintain the regime by further nuclearization is a “complete mistake” and “will only backfire and bring about the regime’s ruin,” claimed the Asahi Shimbun. TheMainichi Shimbun expressed a similar view, calling North Korea’s strategy a “misguided idea.”
  • Tetsuro Kosaka, a senior staff writer for the Nikkei Shimbun, described the nuclear test as a “desperate attempt to bring the U.S. to the negotiating table.”

The newspapers were at odds with how the international community should respond to the test.

  • Making an analogy to the failure of British appeasement toward Nazis Germany that led to WWII, the Sankei Shimbun argued the United States, Japan, South Korea, and other powers must firmly respond by strengthening sanctions against North Korea. The Yomiuri Shimbunalso called for “stern action” against North Korea.
  • The Nikkei Shimbun argued China must play a key role in sanctioning North Korea, including the termination of its energy supply. As a nonpermanent member to the UN Security Council, Japan must also lead the diplomatic efforts, reinstalling its unilateral sanctioning measures that have been temporarily lifted for the ongoing negotiation on the abduction of Japanese citizens.
  • The Asahi Shimbun emphasized the need for a “new strategy” for dealing with North Korea, pointing out the U.S. policy of refusing to start serious talks with the Kim regime “has failed to work.” Starting dialogue with Pyongyang under the framework of the six-party talks will be a possible step. Mainichi Shimbun echoed this view.
  • The Japan Times disagreed, saying the international community must firmly respond “to let Pyongyang know its gamble [to resume dialogue by conducting a nuclear test] won’t be rewarded.”

INDIA

India’s External Affairs Ministry Spokesperson Vikas Swarup said the test was a “matter of deep concern” and a “violation of its international commitments.” He called on North Korea “to refrain from such actions which adversely impact on peace and stability in the region.”

Several commentators put the nuclear test in the context of India’s rivalry with Pakistan and whether Pyongyang posed a threat to South Asia.

Other media outlets and experts debated possible ways out of the nuclear impasse in the Koreas, whether through an Iran style deal or with greater pressure on North Korea from its ally China.

  • While Kim may be angling for “an Iran-like deal where he could swap his country’s nuclear arsenal for international recognition and economic partnership,” The Hindu worried the test could nevertheless disrupt regional stability and “pose dangerous portents for the world.”
  • Happymon Jacob argued the United States has “summarily failed to address the North Korean nuclear challenge” and needs to re-engage Pyongyang and Moscow to get the six party talks started up again.
  • Although The Hindu doubted the extent of Beijing’s influence over Pyongyang as “Kim does not seem to be particularly interested in the ‘China-ally’ tag,” it insisted China has a “historical responsibility to lead the efforts to solve the crisis” just as Russia did with the Iran deal. NIAS analysts echoed this view and added China’s failings could “strengthen the U.S. position vis-à-vis the China-Korea-U.S. dynamic.”

RUSSIA

Russia’s permanent representative to the United Nations denounced the test as a “clear violation of international law” that necessitated the resumption of the six-party talks. Moscow and Beijing issued ajoint statement reflecting a similar view. Russia borders North Korea, and the head of the Federation Council’s international affairs committee said “any activity of the DPRK in this direction directly affects national security of our country.” President Vladimir Putin directed his government to closely study seismic and radioactivity monitoring stations along the border to verify the authenticity of the test and prevent dangerous environmental spillover effects.

Russian policymakers and experts expressed different opinions on the threat posed by the nuclear test.

  • Alexei Pushkov, head of the foreign affairs committee in the lower house of the Russian Parliament, posited North Korea will not give up its nuclear ambition as leaders view the program as their only security guarantee after U.S.-led invasions of Iraq and Libya.
  • An official at the Russian Foreign Ministry remained optimistic. “The situation is complicated but it is not hopeless… We hear different belligerent statements, and it is important not to allow the situation to get out of control.”
  • Georgy Toloraya, director of the Center for Russia’s Strategy in Asia at the Russian Academy of Sciences, offered a similarly optimistic but also cynical view. “I don’t expect a full-blown conflict because no one is interested in it and no one is ready for it… [The easing of the tension] is most likely to happen in two or three months, somewhere in late April, after the end of the U.S.-South Korean military drills – the traditional exercises that always cause tension – and after the UN passes its resolution and North Korea responds to it in a corresponding negative way.”
  • Andrei Lankov, professor of Korean Studies at Kookmin University, said “the world does not have effective levers to pressure North Korea… The international community will only go as far as making tough statements, the world has other business on its mind other than North Korea.” He accepted “North Korea is a nuclear empire and will remain this way.”

BRAZIL

The nuclear test was a major news story in Brazil, a country that voluntarily abandoned its nuclear weapons program in the 1990s. Brazil’s foreign ministry, Itamaraty, expressed “grave concern” about North Korea’s test and “vehemently condemned” the country’s actions. The earthquake following the nuclear test was picked by seismic monitoring stations even as far as Brazil.

Commentators in the Brazilian government and the media reacted negatively to the test and called on the DPRK to exercise restraint.

  • Itamaraty also accused North Korea of violating its obligations under the United Nations and called for a return to the six-party talks.
  • Estado de São Paulodescribed the test as “once again showing the fragility of international controls in the face of an authoritarian country” that “does not care about the wellbeing of its own population or regional stability.” It mentioned Brazil’s stance and outlined the possible lines of action before concluding that China is the key player who must support sanctions like it did in 2013.

We Have a Climate Deal: India and China React to the Paris Agreement

Policy Alert #115 | December 21, 2015

On December 12, leaders from more than 190 countries reached a consensus on how to combat climate change after two weeks of intense negotiations and years of diplomatic wrangling. The Paris Agreement will succeed the expiring Kyoto protocol and seeks to keep the average global temperature from rising above two degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels through reductions in greenhouse emissions, changes in energy policies, shifts in agriculture and livestock production, and other far reaching measures. Countries outlined their plans to reach these targets and pledged to share funding and technology to poorer states needing to adapt to and mitigate the impacts of climate change. This Policy Alert is a companion to Policy Alert #114 and illustrates the reactions on the final deal within India and China, two rising powers central to the negotiations and future success or failure of the accord.

INDIA

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi praised the outcome in Paris where “every nation rose to the challenge, working towards a solution” that “has no winners or losers” save for the preservation of “climate justice” and “a greener future.” While many analysts worried India could play a “spoiler” in the negotiations due to its developing economy’s reliance on coal, New Delhi ultimately agreed to the final deal.

Several commentators and news outlets expressed trepid but hopeful optimism about the accord.

  • India’s minister for the environment, Prakash Javadekar, said the “historic” deal gave the planet “a new hope, a new lease of life” but should have insisted developed countries take on more of the burden of emissions reductions and funding.
  • Shyam Saran, former foreign secretary and previous special envoy on climate change, considered the Paris agreement inferior to the more ambitious 1992 consensus on climate change adopted in Rio, but the deal at least offered some benefits for India.
  • Researchers Sujatha Byravan and Sudhir Chella Rajan hailed India’s positive role in the Paris talks, acting as an efficient liaison between developed and developing countries and producing a deal had “something for everyone, though not nearly enough to satisfy anyone fully.” A member of the Indian parliament, Chetan Chauhan, expressed similar views.
  • Professor Lavanya Rajamani of the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi thought the deal, “while far from perfect,” struck a balance on all the major issues “few thought possible even a week ago.” This sentiment was echoed by The Economic TimesThe Pioneer, Council on Energy, Environment, and Water CEO Arunabha Ghosh, and the former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change RK Pachauri.
  • Navroz Dubash, senior fellow at the Centre for Policy Research, considered the deal on balance to be a positive for India as it prevented majoring restrictions on economic growth while establishing a “more robust domestic process for energy planning and policy.”

Others doubted whether the deal would truly benefit India and other developing countries as they experience climate change disasters such deforestation, flooding, pollution, droughts, and other environmental predicaments.

Looking ahead, several commentators discussed whether the deal will alter India’s economic and environmental plans.

  • One line in the final text about global financial flows being directed toward green energy sources dismayed Indian negotiators as limiting India’s plans to rely on coal for the foreseeable future.
  • India also reluctantly agreed to submit a revised emissions target and updated data every five years as part of the agreement’s transparency framework.
  • Indian economist Nitin Desai predicted India would only meet its carbon reduction targets if “both the government and corporate sector are investing at scale in research, design, and development” of coal, hydropower, nuclear energy, solar power, and other necessary technologies.
  • Ashwani Kumar, a Member of the Indian Parliament and chairman of its committee on Science & Technology, Environment, Forests, and Climate Change, called on the environment minister to actually “walk the talk” on India’s pledges to promote clean energy, emissions and pollution reductions, and carbon sink through enhanced forest cover.
  • K. Kavitha, another Member of Parliament and a leader in the Indian chapter of GLOBE International, urged a “bottom-up” implementation approach where state governments in India declare their own emission reduction targets and plans to reach the goals laid out by the Paris agreement.

CHINA

Unlike when many analysts blamed China for the failed 2009 climate talks in Copenhagen, Beijing was generally commended for its part in the Paris round, something U.S. President Barack Obama expressed his appreciation for in a call with his counterpart Xi Jingping. China’s chief negotiator, Xie Zhenhua, strove for a “powerful, ambitious, and legally binding deal” reflecting “common but differentiated responsibilities” of all nations to tackle climate change. After the agreement was announced, Xie called it “not perfect,” but concluded it did “not stop us from moving one historical step forward.” Through its Intended Nationally Determined Contribution, China promised to have its emissions peaks by 2030. While China was unable to succeed in its goal of making the broader agreement legally binding, it was able to maintain its status of being a “developing country,” which means Beijing’s pledge to contribute $3 billion to the deal’s climate adaptation fund is voluntary.

Most commentators and news outlets were pleased with the final deal and highlighted Beijing’s role in the negotiations.

  • China’s Foreign Ministry declared the outcome “comprehensive, balanced, and ambitious” and praised its delegation’s “important role” in the talks.
  • China Daily called the deal a “historical step toward low-carbon future,” once considered “unthinkable” but all the more urgent with China’s pollution and environmental crises. The paper urged “all policymakers to spare no efforts to ensure as early and full as possible implementation of the Intended Nationally Determined Contribution of all nations, large or small, developed or developing.”
  • Xinhua declared the agreement a “particularly sweet victory for China, which emerged to take a leading role in the deal.”
  • The deal will help Chinese businesses adapt to climate change and shift away from a fossil fuel driven economy, according to Xiaochen Zhang, associate director of Climate Change at Business for Social Responsibility, and Qimin Chai, deputy director of Strategy and Planning Department of the National Center for Climate Change Strategy and International Cooperation.

On the other hand, several expressed a more lukewarm response to the agreement and its ability to address climate change in a meaningful way.

  • Fu Jing, China Daily chief correspondent, concluded the deal could stem the effects of climate change only if the national commitments – or as Fu Jing puts it, “agreed promises” – are followed up with real action by all parties.
  • Similarly, analysts at the London School of Economics felt China “under-promised” at the Paris talks in the hopes it could “over-deliver” on the implementation stage.
  • John Sayer, director of Carbon Care Asia and a member of the Hong Kong NGO delegation to the Paris talks, pressed Hong Kong to stop being a “laggard” on carbon emission reductions and start being a “leader” on growing a green economy.
  • Dan Steinbock, a visiting fellow at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies, warned “energy profiteers” in the United States and China could derail the agreement’s implementation. He called for Chinese leadership on the issue to fight against these obstacles.

Looking ahead, some commentators discussed what the deal meant for China’s future diplomatic and economic strategies, including plans in 2017 to launch a national carbon emissions trading market. China is trying to balance its goal of becoming a leader in renewable energy technologies such as nuclear and solar with its own significant use and global export of coal-fired power plants.

  • Vice Minister Liu Zhenmin said China’s positive role in the talks proves it could “constructively engage in global governance and it serves as a reference for us to participate more actively in global governance in other areas.”
  • After the “champagne moment” has passed, Xinhua wrote it was time for the “even harder mission: implementation” of the deal. Otherwise, the news agency argued “a Paris hangover without concrete actions will only spoil the hard-won deal.”
  • China’s climate change efforts will have “‘spill-over’ and ‘model’ effects globally” for other developing countries, said Zhang Haibin, a professor with Peking University

COP21: Rising Powers Seek Solutions for Climate Change

Policy Alert #114 | December 10, 2015

COP21, a UN climate change conference, opened last week in Paris, a city that experienced horrific terrorist attacks just weeks before. In his opening address, French President Francois Hollande noted “I can’t separate the fight with terrorism from the fight against global warming. These are two big global challenges we have to face up to.” World leaders from about 150 countries are expected to reach a new greenhouse gas reduction framework to replace the Kyoto Protocol expiring in 2020. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from China, India, Russia, Japan, South Korea, and Brazil on the climate change meeting.

CHINA

China and the United States – the two largest emitters of greenhouse gases – laid the ground work for the Paris talks with joint commitments this past year to address climate change. President Xi Jinping was the first Chinese head of state to attend a climate summit when he outlined his country’s plans to see a peak in carbon emissions by 2030 and for its emissions intensity of GDP to decline by 60 to 65 percent. Likewise, China has promised increases in energy efficiency and a shift toward to natural gas, hydropower, wind, and solar energy.

Several voices urged China to show it is a “responsible major country” and lead by example.

  • President Xi presented his vision of a new globally binding agreement, a move Fudan University Professor Shen Dingli said “reflects [China’s] genuine intent to cooperate with other countries to make the planet a sustainable place.”
  • China Daily called on Chinese and other world leaders to “seize the opportunity in Paris” and not repeat the letdown of the 2009 Copenhagen summit. This was also echoed by Xinhua.
  • Fu Jing, China Daily’s chief correspondent in Brussels, saw the Paris talks as a chance for world leaders to “demonstrate solidary in their willingness and ability to protect the global village” in the wake of terrorist attacks and regional disputes.
  • Scholars from the Asia Global Institute in Hong Kong expected China’s reign as G-20 president would benefit from a legally binding global agreement coming out of Paris and further demonstrate Beijing’s “commitment to becoming a more responsible global stakeholder.”

After China offered to contribute $3 billion to the China Climate South-South Cooperation Fund, several commentators discussed the responsibilities of developed and developing economies in the climate change negotiations.

Others underscored the harmful impacts of climate change around the globe.

A number of editorials linked China’s recent pollution and environmental difficulties to the issue of clean energy and climate change.

  • China Daily saw “the confidence, optimism, and sense of urgency Xi is delivering to Paris” has having the “support of a widening domestic consensus driven home by practical needs for clear air, clean water and safe soil.”
  • The Global Times noted the difficulty in balancing China’s economic development and environmental protection complicates efforts to reduce both smog and carbon emissions.

Growing China’s green energy sector and improving energy efficiency was raised by many commentators as a key element of China’s climate change policies.

INDIA

As the third largest emitter of greenhouse gases, India is a center of attention during the Paris Climate Change summit. India voluntarily pledged to reduce the emissions intensity of its GDP by 33 to 35 percent by 2030 but has largely resisted efforts to create new legally binding measures or reduce its reliance on coal for energy.

Commentary out of several India-based news outlets viewed the climate talks through the lens of how a final agreement would impact developing economies.

  • In contrast to China, Shyam Saran, a former foreign secretary who served as the prime minister’s special envoy on climate change, maintained India needed to “stand its ground till the end” if the Paris talks try to establish legally binding measures on emissions reductions and limits on coal.
  • The Hindu called on “rich nations” to grasp the climate moment with a “just and equitable agreement” since poorer countries “who are not responsible for the problem are being asked to share the burden equally.” This opinion was also expressed by Business Standard and Frontline.
  • Rather than unequally distributing the costs of climate change solutions, The Times of India proposed “the whole world should be invested in” clean energy plans “with financial and technology transfers.” This clean energy drive was seconded by the Economic Times.
  • Sunita Narain at the Centre for Science and Environment reminded industrialized nations that they have already “overused their carbon quota” and may try to use the talks to “appropriate” even more.
  • The Hindu cautioned that monitoring and verification challenges awaited any final deal and that access to funding for developing countries is essential to succeed. This was also raised by Frontline and The Hindustan Times.
  • In contrast, Vikram Mehta, former CEO of Shell India, observed the Paris talks were “the first time that the developed and developing countries have read from the same ‘climate change’ script.

On the other hand, several voices called on India to do more on climate change, arguing the risk of doing nothing outweighed standing firm against hypocrisy.

Though proposals such as increasing renewable energy and developing forests in India were discussed, Indian negotiators have been reluctant to reduce the country’s reliance on coal.

  • Arvind Subramanian, the Indian government’s chief economic advisor, declared that “shunning coal is not viable for India,” but rather the world needs a Manhattan Project for coal to “make it cleaner.” This view was echoed by Shyam Saran.
  • The Hindu noted while “China has won plaudits with its pledge to peak coal use in 2020,” this pledge was “something that India cannot” duplicate. This view was echoed by The Times of India, who wrote “the demands of a growing economy leave it with little choice” but to expand the use of coal.
  • V Ranganathan, a former Professor of Economics & Energy at IIM Bangalore, warned India against following U.S.-Chinese plans to reduce greenhouse emissions by “uncritically” following the green path of solar and wind energy. Instead, New Delhi should boost its electricity capacity with more coal while simultaneously increasing its renewables portfolio through large-scale hydropower projects.
  • Urmi Goswami praised Prime Minster Modi’s announcement in Paris of the International Solar Alliance, an effort to ensure “un-served and under-served populations” have access to “adequate, predictable, and clean energy” and to promote social welfare and economic activity.
  • D. Raghunandan of the Delhi Science Forum criticized India’s proposed solution to plant more trees to absorb carbon emissions as inadequate and misleading. “Contrary to the rosy picture,” he argued, the “government is pursuing policies for dismantling environmental regulations, especially pertaining to forests.”

RUSSIA

Russia emphasized its efforts to combat climate change, while environmental activists raised concerns about the government’s plans.

  • President Vladimir Putin assured that Russia will not block an agreement that has the backing of other major countries and pledged to “reduce carbon emissions by 70 percent compared to the basis year of 1990.” He added that the country will make breakthroughs in energy conservation by utilizing its nanotechnologies, while emphasizing the importance of Russia’s forest resources as the “planet lungs” for absorbing greenhouse gas.
  • Sergei Komlev, head of price formation and contract structuring at Gazprom Export, emphasized the role Russia’s natural gas plays in reducing emissions. “Russia and Gazprom can support Europe in achieving its goal of reducing emissions by continuing to supply natural gas.” This view was shared by Alexei Grivach, deputy director general of gas projects at Russia’s National Energy Security Fund, who argued Europe needs to buy more Russian natural gas to reduce the use of coal.
  • Russian environmental activists criticized the government’s climate policy as a “smokescreen, arguing Russia is hiding behind a dramatic fall in emissions following the collapse of the Soviet Union, when much of its carbon-heavy industry went obsolete.”
  • Discussion of global warming has been muted in Russia because of its economic and political ramifications, according to prominent Russian environmental activist Yevgenia Chirikova. Since Russia’s economy heavily relies on oil and gas, efforts to reduce the use of fossil fuels are often viewed as a “direct threat to national security.”

JAPAN

Japanese newspapers called for more action by both developed and developing countries.

  • In his speech at COP21, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe pledged to provide ¥1.3 trillion ($10.57 billion) of public and private climate finance by 2020. The fund will constitute 10 percent of $100 billion climate aid per year to developing countries, a goal that was made at COP15.
  • “Global warming and terrorism are threats of great urgency that no country can handle alone in this 21st century world,” declared the Asahi Shimbun, because “global warming provides a ‘breeding ground’ for terrorism and strife” by creating poverty and political instability.
  • The situation has changed greatly” from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol whereby only developed nations accepted obligations to cut back greenhouse gas emissions, wrote the Yomiuri Shimbun.
  • The Mainichi Shimbun yearned for measures to support both developed and developing nations such as the Joint Crediting Mechanism whereby developed countries offer advanced low-carbon technology to developing countries and in return receive a reduction in their own emission targets.
  • The Nikkei Shimbun called for establishing a post-Kyoto-Protocol scheme with all parties pledging the most robust emission goals possible, but not necessarily a “strongly legally binding” agreement with obligatory targets or punishment mechanisms.

SOUTH KOREA

The South Korean government and media noted the business potentials in addressing climate change.

  • In her address at COP21, President Park Geun-hye maintained the response to climate change presents new energy business chances and “an opportunity to secure a new growth engine, not a burden.” Lee Hoe-sung, the new chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, offered a similar view.
  • “Korea will have to make the most of this opportunity for growth by responding to the upcoming changes with technology development and investment in infrastructure,” wrote The Dong-A Ilbo.
  • Chung Tae-yong, a professor at Yonsei University Graduate School of International Studies, stressed it will be best for Korea to contribute to the global climate efforts via technology transfer. “Korea has been uniquely nurturing technologies that integrate renewable energy and energy storage technology, as well as developing smart grid technology.”
  • The Korea Herald criticized government plans as “not sufficient” to meet increase the use of renewable energy with only 1.9 percent of its power currently coming from renewable energy sources.

BRAZIL

The COP21 conference is of particular importance to Brazil and its leaders due to Brazil’s unique position as the home of the Amazon Rainforest and its capabilities as a supplier of clean energy to a decarbonizing world.

  • The Brazilian government expressed its desire to reach an “ambitious” agreement in Paris, one that President Dilma Rousseff said should have “a universal character whose objective should be to consolidate the commitments to limiting the rise in global temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius.” She also elaborated on the challenges facing Brazil, including broken dams, toxic pollution, droughts, and flooding.
  • In October, Minister of Mines and Energy Eduardo Braga affirmed Brazil has the capacity to reduce emissions to their 2005 levels by 2025 due to Brazil’s extensive development and implementation of renewable energy sources and biofuels.
  • While the government expressed a great deal of optimism heading into the conference, Giovana Girardi, a climate reporter for Estado de São Paulowrote how these climate change meetings have come to feel like Groundhog Day with the same issues coming up over and over again without being resolved.
  • O Globo argued if COP21 was serious about reducing emissions and achieving the goal of limiting the change in temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius that “the nuclear option” must be considered. Even after the Fukushima disaster, the editorial declared nuclear power was safe and getting safer and pointed to France, a country whose “GDP per capita is 20th in the world yet whose emissions are barely 50th,” as an example of how effective nuclear energy can be in generating cleaner energy.

Paris Terrorist Attack Provoke Reactions from Rising Powers

Policy Alert #113 | November 18, 2015

The terrorist attacks in Paris by the Islamic State (IS) last Friday killed at least 129 people, leaving France and the world in great horror and sorrow. French President Francois Hollande responded by calling the attacks “an act of war” and pleading to wage a “merciless” fight against terrorism. U.S. President Barack Obama condemned the terrorist act an “attack on all of humanity and the universal values we share.” In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from China, Russia, India, Japan, South Korea, and Brazil on the Paris terrorist attacks.

CHINA

Chinese officials unanimously condemned the attacks and extended their condolences to France.

  • Chinese president Xi Jinping on Saturday expressed deep condolences for the victims of the attacks. Foreign Ministry Spokesman Hong Lei said, “China is greatly shocked by the terrorist attacks that have caused massive casualties. China strongly condemns these attacks.”
  • Chinese Premier Li Keqiang sent a message of condolence to his French counterpart Manuel Valls. “In firm opposition to any form of terrorism, China is willing to work with France and the international community to confront the challenge and threat posed by terrorism to secure global peace,” Premier Li said.
  • China will intensify counter terrorism security measures following the Paris attacks, according to Chinese minister of public security Guo Shengkun. The high profile attack in Paris could be a pattern that may be repeated elsewhere, “so China must be on high alert to combat terrorism,” according to a ministry statement.
  • Feng Zhongping, vice-president of the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, said the border policy within Europe has provided room for terrorist activities. “To address this is beyond the capacity of France alone,” Feng noted.
  • “China is facing the same threats from IS as France and must prepare for similar terror attacks, which were well-planned and targeted multiple locations at the same time with different firearms and equipment,” added Li Wei, anti-terrorism expert at the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations.

RUSSIA

Russian officials expressed their condolences to the French people and urged the global community to take unified action against terrorism.

  • Russian president Vladimir Putin extended his condolences to the people of France and affirmed that Russia is ready to assist France in investigating the attacks.
  • In a media briefing following the G20 summit that took place this weekend, Putin stressed that he is certain the Islamic State should be suppressed before discussing reform in Syria. “What we should do first thing is to pool our efforts in the struggle against terror and terrorist organizations and to agree political reform on that basis,” he told the media.
  • Russia’s presidential aide Yuri Ushakov added that “strategic Russian and American goals regarding the fight against Islamic State- they are quite similar, but they still differ as far astactics are concerned.”
  • “President Vladimir Putin is constantly urging close cooperation in fighting this threat, which today is really the most serious mankind faces. However, the reaction from many states is still unwarrantably slow. They might voice support for this idea, but they don’t hurry to take any practical steps. The tragedy in Paris is one more signal for politicians and state officials that it is time to take joint steps in countering terrorism,” Federation Council chair Valentina Matviyenko said in an interview with Izvestia daily.
  • Andrey Klimov, deputy chairman of the international affairs committee of Russia’s Federation Council, argued that while politicians have developed deeper awareness of the problem of “scattered terrorism” and “sleeping cells” of the Islamic State, “the world has not displayed greater unity in the struggle against terrorist threats.”

INDIA

Indian newspapers were at odds with how the West should respond to the Paris attacks.

  • “‘Act of war’ [by the IS] demands a swift, ruthless response,” argued The Pioneer, observing that as France “seems to be framing the Paris attack as its own 9/11, the possibility of a NATO-led full-scale military intervention against the Islamic State is strong.”
  • The Times of India criticized the West’s “dithering” response to terrorism: “It’s unable to decide whether its goal is to topple IS or Syria’s Assad”; the U.S. carries out airstrikes but remains “averse to ‘boots on the ground,'” and the West fails to counter the IS’ propaganda “when it should be easy to get Syrian refugees to recount the horrors they’ve witnessed on IS-held territory and thus turn the narrative around.”
  • The Economic Times argued that to annihilate the IS, “[o]uster of Syria’s Assad will have to be abandoned as an immediate goal,” and that this requires defeating the group’s ideology by “clarifying distortions at the level of theology, cutting off the funding of organizations and media outlets spreading hatred and, toughest of all, removing the material root grievances that terrorists exploit to nurture resentment.”
  • While condemning the terror attacks, The Hindu also criticized France’s Syria policy that destabilized the West Asian country and “created circumstances for the rise of groups such as IS.” France didn’t use “its influence to facilitate a political settlement in Syria that would restore statehood in the war-ravaged country and eventually strengthen the war against IS…and thereby helped escalate the conflict.”
  • The Business Standard warned against the rise of anti-Muslim xenophobia and pervasive security measures in response to the Paris attacks. “A more comprehensive solution must lie in preventing the further radicalization of some in Europe’s Muslim communities, not in creating states that push more deprived young men further down a path to fundamentalism and violence.”
  • By framing the Paris attacks as a retaliation against France’s airstrikes in Syria, the IS “is attempting to restrain Western campaigns in Syria while at the same time pushing Western nations to formulate a coherent, vigorous military response in order to precipitate a confrontation that fits in with its apocalyptic worldview,” posited the Hindustan Times. “Mr. Hollande and other leaders cannot back down nor act in a way that fulfils the ISIS’ fantasies.”

JAPAN

Media outlets in Japan unanimously condemned the terror attacks, calling for a united anti-terrorism effort by the international community.

  • Prime Minister Shinzo Abe emphasized that Japan will “closely cooperate with France and other members of the international community in striving to prevent acts of terrorism.”
  • “The international community must be more firmly united in its renewed efforts to prevent barbarous acts by terrorist organizations,” the Yomiuri Shimbun argued, stressing a “pressing need to reconsider the security precautions taken for” the UN meeting on climate change scheduled at the end of this month in Paris.
  • The Japan Times claimed that “A united front is the only solution” for the fight against terrorism. The fight “is a battle against extremism: a fight against those who behead civilians, would deny all rights – and in some cases are prepared to exterminate – those with different religious beliefs and who believe that there can be no coexistence with nonbelievers. This is indeed a war and we must be prepared for more such acts of horror.”
  • The Nikkei Shimbun agreed, saying that “this is not a problem only for France.” As the IS has expanded its attacks beyond its territories in Iraq and Syria, the international community, including Japan, must take preventive measures against the trans-border networks of terrorism.
  • The Asahi Shimbun observed that as the attacks highlighted the vulnerability of civilian facilities, or “soft targets,” “we are faced with a dilemma, whereby stepping up control over human mobility could erode the principles of a liberalist society.” “We should remain level-headed and steady in taking countermeasures without compromising the principles of freedom.”
  • The Mainichi Shimbun expressed concerns that the Paris attacks will strengthen “calls to toughen regulations on refugees [from Syria] in order to prevent extremists from…gaining entry into Europe,” urging for “careful policies that will not interfere with humanitarian aid.”

SOUTH KOREA

Korean newspapers emphasized the need for the international community to prop up its fight against terrorism.

  • International society must “form a united front…to deter ISIS’ violent challenge against the civilized world,” argued The Dong-A Ilbo. “Korea cannot afford to remain indifferent towards situations in France,” and the ruling and opposition parties must work together to legislate an anti-terrorism act.
  • “U.S. President Barack Obama takes pride in keeping ISIS’s clandestine activities at bay. But the massacre in Paris shows he is wrong,” the JoongAng Ilbo claimed. “The terrorist group has already crossed the line. The United States, the champion of freedom and democracy over the past two centuries, needs to counter them more proactively than ever before, including the idea of sending ground troops to the troubled area.”
  • The Korea Herald agreed, calling on world leaders to “translate their words into action” and unite the world in fighting terrorists whose “attacks are crimes against all of humanity, wherever they are perpetrated.”
  • The Korea Times raised concerns that “the fight against IS appears to be developing into a clash of civilizations, or maybe even the Third World War,” and criticized “the lack of coordination among Western leaders” in the war on terror. It is important to “use the latest Paris attack for leading Western countries to set aside their differences and make this their collective top priority.”

BRAZIL

Much like with the Charlie Hedbo attacks in January, the tenor of the response in Brazil was one of shock and solidarity with the victims of the attack.

  • President Dilma Rousseff, in Turkey at a BRICS meeting, tweeted out a message Saturdaymorning: “Apalled by this act of barbarous terrorism. I want to express my repudiation of this violence and share my solidarity with the people and government of France.
  • Brazil joined the other BRICS nations in supporting an international action to combat ISIS, with Dilma expressing that, “the atrocities require urgent action together with the entire international community to combat terrorism.”
  • In Brazil, several commentators noted the effect the attacks would have on Brazil’s preparations to prepare for the Olympics in Rio de Janeiro next summer. The Minister of Justice elaborated that Rio already has a well-developed security plan, and expressed that the government is looking to further improve that by intensifying international cooperation before the Olympics. O Globo reported that these increased security measures could increase the security costs for the games by as much as 15 percent.
  • In the newspaper, Estado de São Paulo, Eliane Cantanhêde took a more pessimistic view, noting that while Brazil is lucky to not be on the front lines of the war against ISIS, hosting the Olympics will strain Brazil’s ability to maintain security in this new reality, where even the most powerful countries in the world with can fall victim to terrorist attacks.

China-Taiwan Historic Summit: Reactions from Asian Powers

Policy Alert #112 | November 11, 2015

On Saturday, November 7, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Taiwanese counterpart Ma Ying-jeou held the first China-Taiwan summit meeting since the two countries separated in 1949. The two leaders reconfirmed the “1992 Consensus” based on the principle of “One China” and agreed on further improvement of cross-Strait relations. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from China, Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea on this historic summit.

CHINA

Chinese officials and media declared the summit a success, expressing hope for continued progress in cross-Strait relations.

  • President Xi Jinping cast the China-Taiwan dispute as a family feud in his opening speech. “We are brothers connected by flesh even if our bones are broken, we are a family whose blood is thicker than water,” Xi said. “History has left some bad memories, but the strait cannot prevent relatives and friends from missing each other.”
  • “The outcome of the meeting showed that the two sides shared many concerns and have reached consensus on several key issues, for instance, the 1992 Consensus and common commitment to the revival of the Chinese nation,” said Cheng You-ping, head of the political and economic research center of Taipei University in an interview with Xinhua.
  • Ling Dequan, a researcher at Xinhua‘s Center for World Affairs Studies, named the Xi-Ma meeting as one of “this year’s top ten news stories,” and urged both sides to “deepen exchanges, boost the well-being of people on the two sides, make joint efforts for the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, and enable both sides to share the glory of national rejuvenation.”
  • The People’s Daily praised Ma for his willingness to have the meeting. It also noted that “The opposition camp in Taiwan has made immediate objections, hoping to control public opinion. But they should be aware that the historic meeting is supported by the whole world, including the US, and they are displaying jiggery-pokery from a small circle. Such extremism is bound to be stigmatized.”
  • “The November 7 meeting is truly significant, yet no one should assume that the differences between the two sides of the Taiwan Straits will be solved at one meeting or quickly,” warnedChina Daily writer Chen Weihua.

TAIWAN

Taiwanese commentary expressed mixed views on the summit, noting the impact the summit might have on Taiwan’s upcoming elections.

  • “The leaders displayed a high level of empathy,” observed Chao Chun-Shan, president of the Foundation on Asia-Pacific Peace Studies in Taipei. “Both sides showed sincerity and willingness to focus on common ground and shelve the differences for the moment.”
  • News channel Focus Taiwan noted that China Central Television (CCTV) blacked out Ma’s image and voice every time he spoke, drawing strong criticism from many Chinese netizens who blamed CCTV for being “narrow-minded“.
  • The independence-leaning Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in Taiwan accused Ma of trying to revive the chances of the governing Kuomintang (KMT) in Taiwan’s upcoming elections with the surprise summit. Nonetheless, an opinion poll conducted by Taiwan’s Cross-Strait Policy Association on Sunday showed Taiwan’s opposition presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen retaining a large lead over the KMT candidate Eric Chu, despite the historic summit.

JAPAN

The Japanese government voiced hope that the summit will ensure peace and stability in East Asia.

  • “While we expect movements between China and Taiwan such as this (Saturday’s meeting) tocontribute to regional peace and stability, we would like to closely watch developments going forward,” said Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga.
  • Suga dismissed views that the summit may affect Tokyo’s relations with Taipei, emphasizing that “Japan and Taiwan share basic values and are important partners with close economic ties.”

Japanese newspapers expressed concerns about the future of China-Taiwan ties.

  • The Yomiuri Shimbun questioned President Ma’s attempt to use the summit to garner public support for the upcoming presidential election in January next year. “An overwhelming majority of Taiwan’s residents want to maintain the status quo, neither unifying with China nor becoming independent. The summit this time will not necessarily benefit the Kuomintang (KMT) in the presidential electoral campaign. On the contrary, the Xi-Ma meeting may backfire.”
  • The Mainichi Shimbun warned that given the popular opposition against unification in Taiwan, any attempt by either side to hasten unification will “destabilize” the bilateral relations, and that both sides must focus on a stable relationship in the long term, not an electoral concern in the short term.
  • The question is what happens after President Ma retires,” stressed the Nikkei Shimbun. As the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate, Tsai Ing-wen, who criticizes President Ma’s rapprochement vis-à-vis China, is expected to win the next presidential election, the cross-Strait relations will depend on how Beijing will react to the election result.
  • “Beijing should be willing to hold sincere dialogue with any leader of Taiwan who has been chosen through a fair election, whether the leader belongs to the KMT or the DPP,” argued theAsahi Shimbun. “The Xi administration cannot hope to win the hearts and minds of the Taiwanese people if it refuses to hold talks with opponents to its Taiwan policy.”
  • The Sankei Shimbun criticized the summit as China’s attempt to undermine U.S. influence and pro-independence voices in Taiwan, arguing that Beijing must first pledge not to use force over the cross-strait relations before speaking of unification.

SOUTH KOREA

Korean media discussed the summit’s implications for cross-Strait relations as well as inter-Korean relations.

  • The Korea Times posited that China’s motive behind the summit was “to reinforce its one-China policy by regarding Taipei as a renegade province.” “Xi met Ma in order to stymie the independent-minded opposition Democratic Progressive Party’s candidate in January’s presidential election.”
  • The newspaper warned that the Beijing’s rapprochement vis-à-vis Taipei “may significantly affect the current regional order.” “Above all, if Xi goes on with a charm offensive to woo Taiwanese across the straits, for example, over an international standoff over the South China Sea, it would deal a blow to the U.S.-Japan effort to contain Beijing’s influence in general.”
  • Lim Dong-won, former Unification Minister and a key architect of South Korea’s Sunshine Policy toward North Korea, drew an analogy between that policy and China’s economic engagement with Taiwan. “Cross-Strait relations have made some amazing progress over the past few years thanks to a pragmatic approach of separating government and economic issues and putting the economy first in the name of ‘respecting differences while striving for common goals.'”
  • The Dong-A Ilbo contrasted the progress in the cross-strait relations and the lack thereof in the inter-Korean relations. “We envy cross-Strait relations, considering that only about 500 separated families met for only three days last month” while more than ten million people are expected to travel across the strait this year.

TPP Sparks Reactions from Rising Powers

Policy Alert #111 | November 2, 2015

Earlier this month, twelve Pacific Rim countries, including the United States and Japan, reached a final agreement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the largest regional trade pact in history with its member states accounting for nearly 40 percent of global GDP. The pact also constitutes a cornerstone of President Obama’s “rebalance” toward Asia. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from China, Russia, Japan, South Korea, and India on the trade deal.

CHINA

Chinese commentary urged the government to push forward with the China-led Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) while downplaying the potential impact of the TPP for China.

  • He Yafei, vice-minister of the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office of the State Council and a former vice foreign minister, described TPP as both a challenge and opportunity for China as it comes at a critical moment when China tries to engage more deeply and widely in global governance. “The TPP could even provide impetus for China’s efforts to deepen its economic reforms,” he wrote on the China-US Focus website.
  • Xu Man, a researcher at the Ministry of Commerce’s International Trade and Economic Cooperation Institute highlighted the breadth of China’s regional FTAs and noted that “China is pushing for a quick realization of the RCEP” in response to the TPP.
  • Zhang Jianping, director of the International Economic Cooperation Institute of the National Development and Reform Commission echoed Xu’s thoughts in the China Daily.
  • “It seems somewhat farfetched to suggest that the US can stop China’s development merely by achieving the TPP agreement. China has already been a leading economy globally…there is no way China can be isolated from international economic cooperation,” opined Eddy Li, president of the Chinese Manufacturers’ Association of Hong Kong.
  • Jia Wenshan, a professor at the International Academy for Intercultural Research at Renmin University of China, said that the US would accept China in the TPP only if it met certain conditions. Jia said those conditions favor multinational corporate interests and global capital and undermine the traditional notions and interests of nation-states, unlike the WTO, which maintains a balance between free trade and national autonomy. “My interpretation is that such an invitation could be understood as a veiled challenge to China or as an intent to shape China’s future development in the US-preferred direction, as China is still in the final phase of national unification,” he said.

RUSSIA

Russian officials expressed serious doubts about the TPP, citing the secrecy surrounding trade agreement’s negotiations as a point of concern.

  • Moscow is alarmed over the secrecy of the economic Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and hopes the agreement will become public at some point, according to Alexander Shchetinin, the director of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Latin American Department. “We haven’t read what’s been signed and basically no one’s read it. Therefore, in order to assess this, we need to know what it’s about. We believe that since no one knows anything about it to be an extremely negative factor. We are alarmed by the fact that the rules of international trade are beginning to be broken up into regional agreements instead of universal rules of international trade and this mosaic is being created from completely different trade relations without any sort of unified denominator,” he told RIA Novosti in an interview.
  • Russian Economic Development Minister Alexei Ulyukayev called the TPP trade agreement “a serious challenge for all countries including Russia.” He added that the establishment of preferential and non-preferential trade associations should be the response to the TPP.

JAPAN

Japanese newspapers remained at odds with the strategic goals and economic benefits of the TPP.

  • The Sankei Shimbun welcomed the conclusion of the TPP as a foundation for a “new economic order” based on freedom and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific, designed to check China’s economic and military “hegemonic” ambitions in the region.
  • Describing the TPP as “a tool for the U.S. to counter China’s growing economic and military influence in the Asia-Pacific region,” the Nikkei Shimbun stressed that the trade pact should “unite Asia-not divide it.” Increased flows of goods, investment, people, and information “would reinforce the TPP’s role as a basis for Asian peace and stability, rather than a tool of U.S. geopolitical strategy.”
  • The Asahi Shimbun claimed that as the U.S. and China “are competing fiercely for hegemony” in the Asia-Pacific, it is “crucial” to get Beijing involved in the trade deal to “promote political stability in the region.” The newspaper also emphasized the need to provide protective measures for Japan’s vulnerable agricultural products, such as rice, beef, and pork.
  • “The government should step up efforts to enhance the agricultural industry’s international competitiveness instead of pork-barreling,” contended the Mainichi Shimbun. Instead of handing out subsidies, the government must promote structural reforms and “take advantage of the growing popularity of Japanese food overseas in efforts to establish Japanese agricultural products as an international brand.”
  • The Yomiuri Shimbun argued that trade liberalization under the TPP “should be utilized to expand growth” with an expected increase in Japan’s exports of its industrial products, such as automobiles and electronics. As for domestic oppositions to the trade deal concerning agricultural products, the newspaper noted that the country “has won the largest number of exceptional measures” keeping the tariff-free rate at 81 percent, the lowest rate among the twelve member states.
  • While the trade deal was “crucial for deepening the alliance with the U.S.,” “this should not cloud the assessment of what Japan will gain and lose economically,” warned The Japan Times. The expected increase in Japan’s export “might need to be taken with a grain of salt,” as “many Japanese manufactures have shifted their production offshore” while the weak yen since 2012 “has not boosted export volume as much as expected.”

SOUTH KOREA

Despite its initial decision not to join the TPP, the Korean government showed interest in participating after the agreement was reached.

  • During her trip to Washington earlier this month, President Park Geun-hye expressed desire to join the TPP. “Korea welcomes the TPP agreement reached last week…Having already signed trade agreements with 10 of the 12 TPP member countries, I believe Korea is a natural partner for the TPP.”
  • Prior to the visit, Minister of Strategy and Finance Choi Kyoung-hwan said on October 6 that Seoul plans to “consider participating in the TPP in some way.”

Many Korean newspapers criticized the government for not joining the TPP.

  • The Dong-A Ilbo criticized Korea’s non-participation in the TPP as a “strategic mistake.” “Korea could be left alone in establishing the new global economic order due to its absence in the TPP.” Non-participation “would cost high price not just in its economy but in diplomatic security as well,” because the TPP “is not just a multilateral economic pact but also a diplomatic security alliance…against China’s growing influence.” For the U.S., the TPP is a test whether Korea is its “value ally” or “unfaithful ally that only takes ambiguous positions worrying about how China would react.”
  • “Simply put, for Korea, an export-driven economy with middle power status, being left out of the…TPP or any international grouping of significance means bad business and worse diplomacy,” criticized The Korea Times.
  • “Korea should join the TPP as soon as possible,” claimed The Chosun Ilbo. “If Korea is to join the ranks of the world’s advanced economies, it needs to stop dragging its feet over opening its markets out of fear of opposition from various interest groups.”
  • “The government does not have to hurry to decide on the TPP as it will take a while for the deal to go into effect,” argued the JoongAng Ilbo. “As we have already struck FTA deals with most of the 12 TPP member nations, substantial benefits from joining the pact are not guaranteed.”
  • Ajou University economics professor Kim Han-sung suggested that it would “take a long time for the TPP to establish itself as the new norm for the Asia-Pacific region.” “Rather than overstating the short-term and medium-term losses and paying a steep entrance fee to join the TPP, we ought to adopt a more circumspect approach where we consider the different discussions on other multilateral trade orders.”

INDIA

Indian commentators viewed the TPP as a new challenge for India’s economy.

  • Jayanta Roy, a former economic advisor for the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, called the TPP a “wake-up call” for India. Given its continuing slump in export, the nation “has no choice but to ensure that it is not left out of this large group that constitutes its major trading partners… [as] Indian exports will gain $500 billion a year by being an active member of [the] TPP.”
  • The Economic Times argued that India “must join” the TPP, and that the country needs to “join the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation as a necessary stepping stone to joining the TPP” and carry out domestic reform, including cutting tariffs and reducing import duties.
  • Calling the TPP “the advent of new trade challenges for India,” The Times of India stressed that the country “must push domestic reform” and play a more active role in other ongoing trade talks such as the China-led Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).
  • Indian businesses must recognize the “new global realities and challenges” posed by mega trade deals such as the TPP, claimed TNC Rajagopalan, a trade analyst. These trade deals “will erode existing preferences for Indian products in established traditional markets such as the US and the European Union (EU), benefiting the partners to these agreements…[and] are likely to develop a rules architecture which will place greater burden of compliance on India’s manufacturing and services standards for access to the markets of the participating countries.”
  • The Hindu cast doubt on the trade deal, showing concerns that it would benefit only large corporations, especially American big pharmaceuticals, and reduce access to generic medicines in developing countries, and that its strategic motive to create a U.S.-centered economic order encircling China “could turn counterproductive,” as Beijing is countering by setting up its own order with new institutions such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).

The Rising Powers Initiative Policy Alert project identifies and tracks the world views of major and aspiring powers in Asia and Eurasia. RPI acknowledges support from the MacArthur Foundation for research on maritime security that contributed to this report.

Russian Airstrikes in Syria Provoke Reactions from Rising Powers

Policy Alert #110 | October 15, 2015

Russian airstrikes in Syria since September 30, portrayed by the Kremlin as an attack against the Islamic State (IS), have been met with widespread criticism. The United States has accused Russiaof targeting U.S.-backed rebel groups against the Assad regime and refused to cooperate with Moscow. European foreign ministers have called on Russia to end its attacks. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from Russia, China, India, and Japan on Russian intervention in the Syrian conflict.

CHINA

Chinese commentary generally supported Russia’s role in Syria.

  • “My personal opinion is that Russia assesses the situation in Syria very well and takes decisions in accordance with this assessment. The West should realize that Russia is capable of defending its interests and the interests of its allies abroad,” stated Wan Cheng Cai, research fellow at the World Affairs Research Center of Xinhua news agency.
  • Zhao Jianming, associate professor of the Institute of International Relations at Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences observed, “The division of the international community toward the IS stems from two prominent features of the terrorist group: terrorism is both a threat to everyone and also the most prominent opposition to Assad. The more successful Russia is in combating the IS, the more it proves the inaction or incompetence of the Western countries, particularly the US.”
  • “Russia needs more prudence to launch military actions in Syria, and to strictly target the IS. Russia could not afford the price if it ‘accidentally’ bombed a hospital controlled by Syria’s rebels backed by some Western countries,” warned the Global Times. 
  • “Unless Moscow can convince the US-led West that it is helping fight the IS group rather than helping Assad combat the rebel Syrian forces, distrust between the two sides will only deepen,” predicted China Daily. Whether Russia and the US-led international coalition can better coordinate their moves and cooperate against the IS group is also a question that needs to be answered.”

RUSSIA

Russian media discussed how Russia’s involvement in Syria affects the balance of power and what sort of coordinated action should be taken to fight IS.

  • Russia’s air strikes in Syria spell a U-turn in the global balance of power, according to former Defense Ministry official Leonid Ivashov. “We’ve just been witnesses to the demise of themonopolar world,” he stated in an interview. “There will soon be a long line of states eager to join the Russian coalition in the Middle East. The United States will eventually join it, too.”
  • “Islamic countries should become key participants of coalition against the Islamic State terrorist organization,” according to Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov. “”We are ready to unite efforts in the fight against terrorism with all countries on the basis of international law.”
  • “That the tonality of US and EU politicians’ statements regarding Russia’s participation in Middle Eastern affairs has changed for the better is a hard fact,” opined chairman of Russia’s Foreign and Defense Policy Council Fyodor Lukyanov. “Although the United States is adamant in its wish to see the regime of the Syria’s President Bashar Assad leave the political scene, US politicians have been saying in informal conversations Assad’s resignation today is not a high priority. This means that the process of developing coordinated decisions for struggle against the Islamic State is underway.”
  • Sergey Markov, director of the Institute for Political Studies stated that the negative responses by the United States and its partners in the international coalition are “an absolutely coordinated campaign aimed at forcing Russia to stop addressing world issues. The Middle East is the “world’s gasoline pump” that provides fuel for most advanced economies. Therefore, the purpose of the United States and its partners in the international coalition is to oust Russia from the Middle East, to upset its operation against the Islamic State in Syria and to tighten their grip on the region.”

Others focused on the future of Syria’s political system after a victory over the IS has been achieved, with Bashar Assad’s future as head of state figuring prominently in the discussion.

  • Aleksandr Ignatenko, president of the Religion and Politics Institute, believes that “while the struggle against the radical Islamists continues, it might be possible for the ruling coalition and the opposition to meet for talks, conferences and round-table discussions, in other words, to continue the Geneva process with the aim to find a way out of the dead end.” “The probability is high the Syrian people will elect a different man, not Bashar Assad, as their president,” he predicted.
  • Boris Dolgov, research fellow at the Oriental Studies Institute at the Russian Academy of Sciences, argued that Assad’s statement he would resign, if that helped settle the crisis in Syria was nothing but “rhetoric.” “Who is the man Assad will be able to hand power over to? There is no worthy personality on Syria’s political landscape at the moment. As for the Syrian opposition abroad…it represents nobody but itself and has no forces inside the country to rely on,” Dolgov told TASS.

INDIA

Indian commentators discussed Russia’s motives behind its attacks and its rethinking of Western policies toward the Assad regime.

  • Abhijit Iyer-Mitra, Coordinator of the National Security Programme at the Observer Research Foundation, Delhi, posited that the Russian attack “marks a decisive shift back to Cold War-style zero sum games, high value-high risk standoffs.” Just like NATO’s intervention in the Ukraine crisis was designed to contain a bellicose Russia, Moscow has now changed the geopolitics in its favor by successfully deterring any NATO or Israeli attacks against Syrian government facilities, which are protected by Russian troops.
  • Putin aims “to protect Moscow’s interests in western Syria and to put pressure on the regional powers to rein in their proxies,” namely Ahrar as-Sham (Turkey) and Jaish al-Islam (Saudi Arabia), opined Vijay Prashad, the Chief Editor at LeftWord Books, New Delhi. He “is aiming to use its military presence to drive a diplomatic process amongst Syria’s regional adversaries – Turkey and Saudi Arabia.”
  • Sandhya Jain, a political analyst and independent researcher, argued that the Russian military intervention “has given a leash of life” to the Assad regime and “has forced Washington to reconsider regime change as the cornerstone of its foreign policy architecture” in Syria.
  • T. J. S. George, a prominent writer and political columnist, criticized U.S. policies of training rebel groups against Assad as “counterproductive,” while submitting that “Putin’s intervention was successful enough to make the U.S. concede that perhaps Assad could be allowed to stay on as an interim measure while the IS threat was tackled as the immediate priority.”
  • Rudroneel Ghosh, a journalist for The Times of India agreed, “Russia is right when it says that the Assad regime must remain for the time being. Washington’s refusal to work with Assad – who’s the legitimate head of the Syrian government – is what led to this mess in the first place.”
  • “The strategy should be for the West to abandon the maximal agenda of ousting Assad and replace it with one in which he shares power with Sunnis (and Kurds, never mind Turkey’s objections),” argued The Economic Times. “This is the only way to rope in Iran and isolate the Islamic State, which poses a real threat of radicalization at home for Russia – and India, too.”
  • Sanjiv Shankaran, another journalist for TOI, expressed a dissenting view, rejecting the idea that Assad is “a bulwark against IS and the sole representative of Syria’s Alawites” and claiming that he “is neither the first nor only line of defense.”

JAPAN

Japanese media critiqued Russia’s actions and urged Moscow to cooperate with the West in Syria.

  • The Sankei Shimbun criticized Russia’s action as an opportunistic move to exploit the chaos in the Middle East and to increase its influence in the region, arguing that Moscow must stop its airstrikes and cooperate with Western powers on the war against IS.
  • The Yomiuri Shimbun, while condemning the Russian airstrikes, argued that Obama’s Syrian strategy “has reached a deadlock” and that negotiations with Assad “might be unavoidable.” “Pressing ahead with diplomacy that curbs any increase in the strength of ISIL while also anticipating a transition to a new regime – this will be a difficult process, but unless the United States and Russia, the two major powers, act in concert, the situation in Syria will not improve.”
  • Masayuki Yamauchi, Professor of History at Meiji University, Tokyo, opined that Russia’s intervention aims not only to keep the Assad regime in place but also to keep a check on Iran’s potentially increasing influence in the region, as Tehran has provided Syria with $26 billion for its defense and is now expected to rise as a regional power in light of the lifting of Western economic sanctions following the nuclear deal in July.

President Xi Jinping in U.S.: Reactions from Rising Powers

Policy Alert #109 | September 29, 2015

The summit between President Xi Jinping and President Barack Obama last Friday produced mixed results. Both sides reached an agreement on climate change and on cyberattacks, following the recent Chinese attacks against American businesses and government agencies, but made little progress on the maritime security issues in the South China Sea. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from China, Japan, India, and South Korea on Xi’s visit to the U.S.

CHINA

Chinese officials and media regarded the summit as highly successful, noting that Xi’s visit purportedly assuaged U.S. concerns regarding a rising China. 

  • Chinese President Xi Jinping described his visit to the United States as “fruitful,” calling on the U.S. and China to strengthen mutual trust. “I believe that as long as our two sides join hands and make unremitting efforts, we will continue to open up new phases for China-U.S. ties and better benefit peoples of the two countries and the world as a whole,” he noted.
  • “When China and the U.S join hands, the world benefits,” declared China Daily. “Xi’s visit was about mutual assurance and served that purpose well…the visit was nothing but a success – a big one from Beijing’s perspective.”
  • Yi Fan, an analyst with the Foreign Ministry of China pointed to one-on-ones held between Presidents Xi and Obama over the past few years as intimate environments for “unscripted talks between the leaders of the world’s two largest economies” that have boosted cooperation and mitigated tension.
  • China and the U.S. are in a better place to avoid “strategic miscalculation” as a result of the summit, posited one Global Times editorial.
  • Zhao Minghao, an adjunct fellow at the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University of China, stated, “It’s clear that China has tremendous goodwill in developing relations with the US, which merits recognition. However, establishing stable and positive China-US relations requires the efforts of both countries. Obama has often said that the US welcomes a peaceful and prosperous rise of China. Beijing hopes Washington walks the talk.”

INDIA

Indian commentators discussed the implications of the U.S.-China summit for world order and Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to America this week, and encouraged more openness to the United States.

  • “[T]he relationship between the two superpowers has entered an era of tensions,” emphasized Claude Smadja, President of Smadja & Smadja, a strategic advisory firm. “This is bound to be the case as China…will continue grow in stature and will have more international interests to defend in the period ahead. The challenge for [Washington]… is to find the right balance between accepting that the era of a US-dominated world order is coming to an end while promoting a new global institutional framework” that reflects the interests of both Western and rising powers.
  • “The unfolding dynamic between Washington and Beijing is similar to the one between America and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, when they confronted each other around the world but also carefully regulated their military competition,” posited C. Raja Mohan, distinguished fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, Delhi. The cyber security agreement reached at the summit “may well go down as the first arms-control agreement of the cyber era.” And Xi’s meeting with American businessmen in the West coast shows that China’s “cyber diplomacy is not limited to his engagement with Obama.”
  • Mohan added, “Delhi must come to terms with the fact that China and America compete and cooperate at the same time” and ask itself “If China, whose cyber philosophy is fundamentally different from that of the U.S., can cut deals with Washington and American businesses, why has India been so reluctant to seize the opportunities for a deeper digital partnership with the U.S.? Why does India, despite shared democratic values with America and the deep links between Bangalore and Silicon Valley, play second fiddle to China and Russia in global debates on cyber issues?”
  • The Indian Express shared a similar view in light of Modi’s visit to the U.S. this week. He “has to work harder to convince U.S. businessmen – whom he is meeting in large numbers in New York and California – that the NDA (National Democratic Alliance) can deliver on reforms to make it easier for foreigners to do business in India.”

JAPAN

Japanese newspapers remained at odds with their assessments of the summit’s outcome.

  • The Nikkei Shimbun posited that the summit demonstrated the “deep root” of the U.S.-China confrontation over maritime security, noting the absence of China’s reclamation activities in the South China Sea in the official statements. The newspaper called on Washington to strengthen its pressure against Beijing to promote its “responsible action.”
  • The Sankei Shimbun claimed that the summit showed China’s unwillingness to stop its provocative actions in its neighboring waters, emphasizing the need for further security cooperation between Washington and Tokyo to deter Beijing’s revisionism.
  • “It will be impossible for China to build what it calls a ‘new type of great power relations’ with the United States as long as it continues to challenge international order through self-justified conduct,” said the Yomiuri Shimbun, criticizing Beijing’s maritime assertiveness.
  • The Mainichi Shimbun argued that China must stop its revisionist actions over the maritime disputes in the East and South China Seas to avoid a confrontation with the U.S., but also warned against the too much emphasis of a “China threat” in Japan’s security debate and urged the Japanese government to double its efforts on dialogue with Beijing.
  • The Asahi Shimbun expressed a positive view on the U.S.-China agreement on cyber security, urging both governments to build on this effort to establish an international norm over the Internet governance.

SOUTH KOREA

Korean media emphasized the need for the U.S. and China to reconcile their differences and work together.

  • The Korea Times argued that the two superpowers must “work jointly on the establishment of a new world order with the goal of bringing the world back onto a stable, progressive and peaceful path.” In order to “pave the way for peaceful coexistence,” Washington needs to overcome its reluctance to “accept China on equal footing,” as in its opposition to other countries joining the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, and Beijing must show that it is “no bully” by further cooperating with the U.S. and the world.
  • Oh Young-jin,chief editor for The Korea Times, urged the two superpowers to revisit the principles embedded in the 1972 Shanghai Communique, which restored the bilateral relations by admitting differences and finding common ground, such as respect for the sovereign and territorial integrity of all states, nonaggression against other states, noninterference in the internal affairs of other states, equality and mutual benefit, and, finally, peaceful coexistence.

The Rising Powers Initiative Policy Alert project identifies and tracks the world views of major and aspiring powers in Asia and Eurasia. This project is supported by a grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. RPI also acknowledges support from the MacArthur Foundation for research on maritime security that contributed to this report.

European Refugee Crisis Provokes Reactions from Rising Powers

Policy Alert #108 | September 16, 2015

Europe is currently witnessing a massive refugee influx as millions of people flee war-torn countries such as Syria, Iraq, and Libya. While Germany has taken on leadership by welcoming 800,000 migrants this year, European countries have yet to come up with a unified EU policy to address the refugee issue. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from China, Russia, India, Japan, South Korea, and Brazil on the ongoing refugee crisis.

CHINA

Chinese commentary blamed the United States and the European Union for causing the refugee crisis as a result of U.S. intervention in the Middle East.

  • “The ongoing refugee crisis is the bitter fruit of the US-led West’s interventionist policy in the Middle East,” argued one China Daily editorial. “Western countries, the United States in particular, should shoulder their due responsibilities in both preventing the humanitarian disaster from worsening and restoring peace and stability in the Middle East.”
  • “If the US and the EU want to cool down the refugee crisis and prevent a new crisis, they will need to strive to reduce the sources of regional chaos and military conflicts,” added theGlobal Times.
  • Liu Deshou, research fellow at the Institute of American Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, pointed out that “it wasn’t until Thursday that the Obama administration agreed to accept 10,000 Syrian refugees in the fiscal year 2016. This is merely a fraction of the hundreds of thousands of refugees from Syria. There is no doubt that Europe is disappointed at U.S. flinching.”
  • The international community should address the root cause of the refugee crisis as soon as possible; otherwise, the influx to Europe will only go from bad to worse,” opined the China Daily. It added, “The United States needs to shoulder its responsibilities in this regard and put more energy and resources into combating the IS group…And it should rethink its Middle East policy, which has largely led to the ongoing refugee crisis.”
  • An Huihou, former Chinese ambassador to Egypt, Tunisia, Lebanon, and Algeria wrote, “It seems all sides are making efforts to eliminate the IS but still differ on how it could be done best. Let’s hope they settle their differences soon, because as long as chaos continues in Syria and Iraq, more refugees will flee to Europe.”

RUSSIA

Reactions to the refugee crisis evoked mixed commentary in Russia. Some used it as an opportunity to blame the United States, while others criticized Russia’s involvement in Syria.

  • Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated, “We expect that for the most part that expenditures [for dealing with refugees] will fall on the countries linked to causing thecatastrophic situation.” Asked whether Russia would join any program to help refugees, Peskov replied: “It’s hardly likely.”
  • Alexander Golts, deputy editorof the online newspaper Yezhednevny Zhurnal criticized Russia’s involvement in Syria. “the Kremlin risks involving Russia in yet another grueling conflict. It is a not-so-clever attempt to save face by starting a new war as a cover for pulling out of the current war in Ukraine. Not having finished the first major conflict, the Kremlin will get itself involved in a second. And as everyone knows, it rarely ends well for those who fight a war on two fronts.”
  • Journalist Natalia Antonova wrote in the Moscow Times, “You can’t have a multipolar world by being reactive. You must be proactive. Russia has an opportunity to be proactive on the refugee crisis. It could do wonders for Russia’s image abroad.”
  • “At first sight the United States’ official stance looks paranoid,” assistant professor Andrey Fenenko, of the Moscow State University’s world politics department, told TASS. “In other words: we wish to fight against the IS but at the same time to oust Assad, who is the Islamic State’s main opponent. One has the impression they do not realize that should Assad step down, the Islamic State will be in Damascus the next day.”

INDIA

Newspapers in India critiqued the lack of response from European and other countries to the crisis.

  • The Indian Express argued that European powers “must follow” Germany’s example in welcoming refugees and reach a consensus on an EU-wide refugee policy. “Europe’s politicians have no time to lose. If they do not reach a consensus soon, they will be guilty of failing to live up to European values.”
  • The Hindu criticized European countries for constantly calling the crisis a “migrant” crisis. “By referring to those reaching Europe’s shores as migrants, the European Union’s leaders are trying to mislead the public about the real nature of the crisis.”
  • Dhananjay Tripathi, assistant professor at Department of International Relations in South Asian University, New Delhi, blamed the series of Western interventions in West Asia as the “root” of the crisis, arguing that Western countries have “all responsibility” to help the refugees.
  • The Business Standard claimed that “the biggest tragedy” of the refugee crisis is that “it is being perceived as a European problem,” as this perception detracts our attention from the fact that Turkey, Egypt, Jordan-countries that are suffering severe economic problems just like the Europeans-have welcomed the refugee influx without complaint, while richer countries, including the Gulf states, Australia, and the U.S., have offered little help.
  • What did the rich Arab nations like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates do for these [Muslim] refugees, most of whom are Muslims themselves?” commented The Daily Pioneer, noting that some of these countries have contributed to the worsening of the Syrian civil war by funding and arming rebel and Islamist factions fighting the Assad regime.

JAPAN

Japanese newspapers called for the strengthening of humanitarian efforts by European countries and by Japan to help the refugees.

  • The refugee crisis “tests EU solidarity and human rights principles” as European countries disagree over refugee quotas, posited the Yomiuri Shimbun, while emphasizing that it is “necessary to differentiate between refugees seeking protection from persecution and illegal migrants seeking jobs in EU countries.”
  • “The most important task is eliminating the instabilities that force people to flee. That means tackling more aggressively the civil war in Syria, the continuing deterioration in Libya and the chaos in Iraq,” argued The Japan Times. “Europe has kept its distance from those crises…The result has been the creation of new crises within Europe itself, however.”
  • The Mainichi Shimbun criticized the Japanese government’s reluctance to accept Syrian refugees, citing its “extraordinary low” refugee acceptance rate-only 11 out of 5,000 asylum seekers were accepted last year.
  • The Asahi Shimbun called the refugee crisis a “test” of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s “proactive pacifism” diplomatic strategy, urging the administration to “fulfill its international responsibility” to help the refugees.
  • Hiroaki Ishii, executive director at Japan Association for Refugees, claimed “By exclusively providing monetary aid, the image of Japan as having a frosty attitude toward refugees is becoming even stronger…Political decisions need to be made to relax existing restrictions on refugee acceptance.”

SOUTH KOREA

Korean media outlets argued for the need for a more unified response by EU countries and a more active involvement by the Korean government.

  • The JoongAng Ilbo argued that the EU “must come up with guidelines to appropriate acceptance of refugees among member states. Germany’s leadership is needed, in particular.”
  • “As the crisis unfolds in Europe, Korea should think about how it can contribute,” claimedThe Korea Herald. “While two Syrians have been granted refugee status so far, a more practical measure can be taken in the form of greater assistance for countries such as Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan in supporting the Syrian refugees.”
  • In remembrance of Aylan Kurdi, a three-year-old toddler who was washed up on a Turkish shore, The Korea Times emphasized that the tragedy reminds us not to become “a tourist in other people’s reality.” “For a crisis that threatens lives of fellow human beings, we can no longer remain reduced to being a tourist because the big reality is that it belongs to all of us.”

BRAZIL

The refugee crisis in Europe received significant coverage in the Brazilian media and provoked a response from the government.

  • President Dilma Rousseff declared in an Independence Day message that Brazil “will have our arms open to receive refugees” and continued by emphasizing the diverse origins of Brazil’s population and the contributions of immigrants to the country.
  • On September 8, Beto Vasconcelos, the president of National Committee for Refugees in Brazil said in an interview that the committee would hold special meetings to investigate the actions the Brazilian government could take to assist refugees. He noted there is no quota for refugee admittance, only the government’s capacity to process documentation. He added that Brazil, “with its history of receptiveness, a history built upon inflows of migrants, a mixed society, has every ability to receive” refugees.
  • In an op-ed published in the New York Times, Oliver Stuenkel, an assistant professor at the Fundação Getúlio Vargas, argued that Brazil should increase the number of refugees it receives from the current 8,000 and claimed that it could receive up to 50,000 refugees without risking a surge in xenophobia while having a positive economic impact on the country. He called for all of the large economies in Latin America to do more, saying that “the refugee crisis in the Middle East is not regional, but global, requiring a broad response.”

Rising Powers React to ‘Black Monday’

Policy Alert #107 | August 26, 2015

A near-9 percent dive in China shares sent world stocks and commodity prices tumbling on Monday amidst deepening concerns about a China-led global economic slowdown and crashing commodities prices. This Policy Alert examines reactions from China, India, Russia, South Korea, Japan, and Russia to the ‘Black Monday’ stock turmoil.

CHINA

Following a poor week that saw an 11-percent drop in its market value, Chinese stocks nosedived again on Monday with the benchmark Shanghai Composite Index plummeting 8.49 percent to close at 3,209.91 points, the sharpest decline in more than eight years.

  • China’s central bank on Tuesday cut its benchmark interest rates and the amount of cash banks must keep on hand, the latest stimulus aimed at boosting the world’s second-largest economy as it battles a collapse in share prices. The People’s Bank of China (PBoC) announced on its website that it was reducing lending and deposit interest rates by 0.25 percentage points each and its reserve requirement ratio (RRR) by 0.50 percentage points. China’s “economic growth rate remains under pressure”, the PBoC said in a statement, adding the cuts were meant in part to “support the real economy to continue to develop healthily.”
  • “Given the dire consequences of panic sales that could wreak worse havoc than expected on investors as well as the national economy, it is absolutely necessary for the Chinese authorities to come up with more and stronger supportive measures to arrest the downward spiral of share prices,” argued China Daily senior writer Zhu Qiwen. “Yet, while emergency measures are well justified to stop the hemorrhaging of the stock market, it does not mean policymakers should shore up equity prices at any cost. Instead, policymakers should try to find a workable middle path after first identifying the real causes behind the plunge of share prices.”
  • Andrew Sheng, distinguished fellow of the Asia Global Institute at the University of Hong Kong, stressed that “If China is to avoid the deflation trap, revive investment, bolster competitiveness and accelerate long-term growth, it must continue its quest to foster the animal spirits of innovation and entrepreneurship.”
  • “China has bid goodbye to double-digit economic growth, and has entered the “new normal” of growth on a medium-to-high level. But compared with the other major economies in the world, China’s performance is still one of the best,” opined the state run Global Times.
  • China’s economic slowdown and a sharp fall in its stock market herald not a crisis but a “necessary adjustment” for the world’s second largest economy, according to Carlo Cottarelli, a senior official at the IMF.

INDIA

India’s benchmark Sensex bourse plummeted 1,624.51 points – almost 6% – Monday to its lowest level since August 2014 at 25,741.56, while the country’s rupee currency fell to its lowest in 23 months at 66.64 against the U.S. dollar. Nonetheless, commentators remained optimistic over India’s ability to withstand shock in the global stock market.

  • Asserting that the global market turmoil is not a cause of worry for India, Finance Minister Arun Jaitley said the crisis should be converted into an “opportunity” for India to speed up reforms.
  • Minister of State for Finance Jayant Sinha noted that the weakening of the Indian rupee against the US dollar is a market response to China devaluing its yuan to ensure that Indian business remains competitive. “We have this period of adjustment and re-adjustment which we are going through and that will naturally create some turbulence in the market. Thankfully, we in India are well positioned to get through this turbulence,” he stated.
  • The Indian economy can withstand the fallout of Monday’s stock market plunge with the reform measures taken by the Indian government and Reserve Bank of India (RBI), according to RBI deputy governor S.S. Mundra.  Mundra said the current problems are transient, driven by interconnectedness of the world economies, and that India is capable of dealing with any kind of external shocks.
  • An op-ed in the Hindu argued, “For India, the Chinese collapse might actually provide anopportunity…India has a low current account deficit (CAD), the fiscal deficit is manageable, inflation is moderating and short-term foreign currency liabilities are low. Despite a downward revision by global rating agencies in the growth forecast, growth is still fairly robust compared to other major economies.”
  • The Indian Express pointed out that “a depreciation in the rupee in line with the devaluation of the yuan will help Indian exporters stay competitive, and help attract foreign direct investment into the country.”

SOUTH KOREA

South Korea’s benchmark stock price index, KOSPI, dropped 2.47 percent on Monday. The continuous sell-off by foreign investors is a major concern for Korea’s stock market, as foreigners account for 32 percent of total stock holdings. Foreign investors have sold off 3.2 trillion won ($2.7 billion) worth of Korean stocks in the last two weeks. Analysts in Seoul are also monitoring the Chinese economy, which is closely linked with South Korea.

  • Hong Seung-pyo, an analyst at Samsung Securities compared the difference between the current stock turmoil and the 2008 financial crisis. “Back then, the companies suffered from lowered corporate credit lines and had to sell assets. Now, the problem is an overall slowdown in the global economy.” Hong expects that even if the selling continues, the size of the exodus will be smaller than in other emerging markets.
  • “Problems in China are having a direct impact on South Korea since the country is heavily dependent on its neighbor for trade,” a government insider told the Korea Observer. China is South Korea’s largest export market.
  • “South Korea is currently being confronted by a host of tough challenges all at once,” said Jee Man-soo, a research fellow at the Korea Institute of Finance. He predicted for the time being, problems facing China will not easily die down and could escalate downside risks for South Korea and other countries.
  • The JoongAng Ilbo warned that “we must be fully ready for all possible scenarios” given that “investors at home and outside have lost confidence in the Chinese government’s interventionist policy… experts as well as investors mostly believed that the Chinese authorities had the capacity to control the economy and finance. But skepticism now prevails due to the disastrous fallout from interventionist policy that aggravated market volatility.”

JAPAN

After a roller-coaster ride, stocks closed sharply lower again on the Tokyo Stock Exchange on Tuesday, pushing down the benchmark Nikkei average below 18,000 to the lowest level in more than six months.

  • While the market turbulence may stabilize at some point, Japan should brace for a “China shock” to the global economy, particularly in view of the growing dependency of its economy on Chinese demand – including the spending spree by the record numbers of Chinese tourists who are visiting the country, warned the Japan Times.
  • Yoshihiro Ito, chief strategist at Ikasan Online Securities Co. likened the fall in Japanese stocks to an “equity clearance sale.” “Selling is spurring more selling in a vicious cycle. Individuals have been watching to see how things pan out in the U.S. and China and now think selling won’t stop. What happens next all depends on the U.S.”

RUSSIA

The Russian ruble plunged 2.3 percent on Monday to hit a seven-month low amid a further drop in oil prices, the country’s key export. The ruble traded at 70.7 to the dollar in early trading in Moscow, its lowest level since January 30, when Russian markets were hit by a combination of low energy prices and Western sanctions. Despite the drop, coverage of ‘Black Monday’ in Russian media remained scant.

BRAZIL

With Brazil’s economy already suffering from the slowdown in Chinese demand for its commodity exports, further signs of weakness in the Chinese economy made the stock market plunge a major news story.

  • In an interview with O Globo, President Dilma Rousseff, suffering from rock-bottom approval rates amid a concurrent weakening economy and major corruption scandal, placed the “Chinese crisis” in the context of a general slowdown in Brazil’s international outlook saying, “there is a situation of an international deceleration , and we are going to have to deal with that. And not just us.”
  • Folha de São Paulo reported that President Rousseff’s advisors are worried that increased turmoil in China could heighten the risk of Brazil’s current recession–which is already its longest since the 1930s–continuing into 2016, further limiting the government’s ability to implement the fiscal adjustments considered necessary by most analysts.
  • Following a cabinet meeting, Minister of Planning Nelson Barbosa said in a statement that Brazil possesses two elements that will help it weather the crisis in China. “We have an elevated stock of international reserves that give Brazil the security and capacity to adjust to currency fluctuations without generating financial problems. We also have a fiscal agenda for the short, medium and long term that will guarantee a consistent fiscal policy and the stability of the public debt in the medium term.”
  • The newspaper
  • Estado de São Paolo used ‘Black Monday’ to criticize President Rousseff for failing to adjust the economy to deal with slowing Chinese demand. According to the editorial board, “More attentive governments understood the urgency required for adjusting the composition of their exports, and especially their dependence on China. The Brazilian government, on the other hand, continues privileging South-South trade and giving little mind to the problems of productivity and competitiveness of Brazilian industry.”

ASEAN Meetings Spark Reactions from Asian Powers

Policy Alert #106 | August 26, 2015

A series of ASEAN meetings including the 22nd ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) and the 48th ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ Meeting (AMM) took place from August 1-6 in Kuala Lumpur. Concerns over territorial disputes in the South China Sea came under the spotlight at these meetings, with ASEAN’s foreign ministers struggling until the eleventh hour to issue a joint statement. In this Policy Alert, we examine reactions from China, Russia, India, Japan, and South Korea to last week’s ASEAN meetings.

CHINA

Chinese media defended accusations by other nations regarding China’s land reclamation activities in the South China Sea.

  • The China Daily wrote, “disputes should be directly resolved between China and claimant parties through peaceful negotiations, and any attempt to enlist support from outside forces or deviate from the disputes themselves will be counterproductive.”
  •  The Global Times accused Washington and Manila of conflating “all the issues related to the South China Sea and instigate ASEAN countries to confront China. They intend to isolate and embarrass China, rather than actually solve the problem.”
  • Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi accused the Philippines and Japan for teaming up to attack China’s South China Sea policy. He stated, “First off, the situation in the South China Sea is generally stable, and there is no possibility of a major clash…China opposes any non-constructive words and acts which widen division, exaggerate antagonism or create tensions.”
  • Liu Zhenmin, Vice- Foreign Minister, added, “Sensitive subjects such as the South China Sea issues should be avoided in the discussions at multilateral forums, which are designed to promote international cooperation. Besides, non-ASEAN nations such as the US are not supposed to interfere, and will face strong opposition from China if they do.”
  • Zhao Gancheng, a researcher at the Shanghai Institute for International Studies commented, “Showing excessive zeal for sovereignty and territorial disputes, the US and the Philippines are diverting attention away from other important topics, such as the extensive cooperation between China and the ASEAN. The truth is, Beijing never shirks its responsibility to maintain stability in the South China Sea.”
  • “Japan has been cooperating with the United States to hype up the ‘China threat‘, making noise for their alliance to interfere in the South China Sea,” Su Xiaohui, a senior researcher at the Foreign Ministry-backed China Institute of International Studies, wrote. “This is not beneficial to regional peace and stability.”

RUSSIA

Russian commentary expressed hope for the continued growth in ASEAN-Russian relations.

  • Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov participated in the ASEAN-Russia Ministerial Meetings and the ASEAN Regional Forum in Kuala Lumpur. . Security-related matters, such as the dangers posed by ISIS and tensions in the Korean peninsula, featured prominently in theASEAN-Russia Ministerial Meetings.
  • Lavrov also invited ASEAN countries to consider greater integration with the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).  “An agreement on a free trade zone between the Eurasian Economic Community (EAEU) and Vietnam was signed in May,” Lavrov was cited by Russian news agency TASS as saying. “We’re ready to make it a pilot project for a general liberalization (of trade and investment) between the EAEU and ASEAN.”
  • Sergei Luzyanin, acting head of the Institute of Far Eastern Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, argued that Russia needs to frame a concrete and clear policy when it comes to ASEAN. According to Luzyanin, Russia’s current economic ties with ASEAN are small, but growing.  He added that countries from the grouping not only look at Russia as a source of oil and gas, but are interested in Russian high technologies, especially in  civil nuclear, aviation and space.
  • Timur Sadykov, political counsellor at the Russian embassy in Malaysia, said Moscow considers ASEAN a “very important partner in the region” and that “business communities from both sides should continue to further explore trade and economic potential.”

INDIA

Indian officials affirmed India’s commitment to boost engagement with ASEAN.

  • Minister of State for External Affairs VK Singh echoed statements by the United States and several ASEAN countries against China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea, stating, “We share the concerns expressed by our ASEAN colleagues about the evolving situation in the South China Sea. Freedom of navigation in international waters including in the South China Sea, the right of passage and overflight, unimpeded commerce and access to resources in accordance with the principles of international law… are issues of concern to us all.”
  • Singh also stressed the importance of India-ASEAN relations.  “India’s relationship with ASEAN is one of the cornerstones of our foreign policy and the foundation of our ‘Act East Policy’…Given the synergy and chemistry between India and ASEAN countries, I have no doubt that our relations are set to soar high and will quicken the realisation of an Asian century,” he said.

JAPAN

Japanese officials pressed China to cease its land reclamation activities in the South China Sea.

  • Minoru Kiuchi, Senior Vice Foreign Minister, expressed serious concern over “unilateral attempts to change the status quo and heighten tensions through large-scale reclamation work in the South China Sea.”
  • Japan’s Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida and his Chinese counterpart Wang Yu met on thesidelines of the ASEAN meetings on Thursday to lay the groundwork for a possible visit to China by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in September.
  • The Yomiuri Shumbun pressed for China to “fulfill its responsibility to ensure the region’s peace and stability” and argued that China is “responsible for the strained situation in the South China Sea… Japan, in cooperation with such countries as the United States and the Philippines, must press China repeatedly to help draw up an effective code of conduct as early as possible and suspend the projects to militarize the reefs in the South China Sea.”

SOUTH KOREA

South Korean media focused on the attendance of North Korean Foreign Minister Ri Su-young at the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) on Thursday.

  • NK diplomat steals spotlight in regional forum,” ran a Korea Times headline, noting that the ARF is the only meeting that involves all members of the six-party talks on North Korea’s nuclear program among the series of ASEAN-related ministerial meetings held last week.
  • Ri Tong-il, a spokesman for North Korea’s foreign ministry, spoke to reporters on the sidelines of the ARF on Thursday and warned that “If the U.S. continues to misuse [North Korea] as a pretext for strengthening military alliances, including a massive arms buildup, it will invite responsibility for leading to the outbreak of a second Korean War.”
  • South Korean Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se urged Southeast Asian nations to take a firm stance against North Korea’s nuclear weapons program in a meeting with his counterparts last Wednesday. Yun stressed the need for ASEAN to send a strong message to North Korea with one voice and requested ASEAN’s active cooperation, according to a press release issued by his ministry. The ASEAN ministers agreed, citing the need for North Korea to abide by the U.N. resolutions and a 2005 agreement signed within the framework of the six-party talks aimed at ending its nuclear program, the ministry said.

The Rising Powers Initiative Policy Alert project identifies and tracks the world views of major and aspiring powers in Asia and Eurasia. This project is supported by a grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. RPI also acknowledges support from the MacArthur Foundation for research on maritime security that contributed to this report.

“PHILIPPINES V. CHINA”: The Next Round of Energy and Maritime Disputes in the South China Sea

Policy Alert #105 | August 4, 2015

The launch of a UN arbitration tribunal on the China-Philippines maritime dispute has Asian powers watching closely as these debates unfold. From July 7 to 13 at The Hague, the Philippine delegation argued China violated the Philippines’s rights to exploit waters within a 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) as established by the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The treaty – which set rules on countries’ exercise of maritime activities – counts China, the Philippines, ASEAN countries, and many others as member-states. Sea-lanes through the South China Sea account for $5 trillion in trade every year. Therefore, the case could have a significant impact on many Asian nations, including Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam who attended the hearing as formal observers.

While Beijing refused to formally participate in the UN Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) – the chosen UNCLOS dispute resolution mechanism – Chinese officials have taken opportunities to state their case through formal and informal channels, raising legal questions about whether China can dip its toes in the water without getting drowned by the tribunal’s verdict. Before the tribunal can begin to consider the case, the PAC will first decide if it has jurisdiction over the dispute in question before a later possible hearing to determine the legal merits of the Philippine complaint.

This Policy Alert — written by Timothy Westmyer, the program and research assistant at the Sigur Center, is part of our series on Energy and Maritime Security for the Rising Powers Initiative’s new project: The Linkages between Energy Security and Maritime Strategies in the Indo-Pacific. The research effort looks at how energy security debates shape and influence maritime strategies and vice-versa in China, India, Japan, the Philippines, and Vietnam and the implications of these linkages for U.S. policy toward the region.

BACKGROUND

The Philippine case against China challenges Beijing’s so-called “nine-dash line” claim over large parts of the South China Sea. The nine-dash line concept is a leftover of the 1940s KMT government in China drawing a line of sovereignty around hundreds of islands, reefs, and atolls in the region. Last year, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Danny Russel testified the use of the “nine-dash line” concept would be “inconsistent with international law.”

According toThe Diplomat’s Asia Geopolitics podcast, the tribunal examines three basic issues: (1) the validity of the nine-dash line claim; (2) the nature of legal entitlements and effects of features China is building in the region such as low tide rock formations, reefs, and artificial islands; and (3) the legitimacy of allegations China restricts Philippine activity in the region such as oil and gas exploration and fishing. The PCA has vowed to deliver a verdict on whether it has jurisdiction before the end of this year or “as soon as possible.”

ENERGY SECURITY LINKAGES

In addition to Manilla’s claims that China has “irreversibly damaged the regional marine environments” and threatened the livelihood of the Filipino fishing industry, the role of energy security and potential energy resources in the region have become a central part of this debate:

  • Philippine Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio noted as his country’s primary gas field will run out in 10 years, the country desperately needs to develop the Recto Bank (Reed Bank) natural gas field in the South China Sea. However, the Chinese coast guard, according to Carpio, harasses Philippine survey teams and his country will “lose the entire Reed bank if we lose this case to China.”
  • In an op-ed for The Philippine Inquirer, political commentator Bernie V. Lopez saw China “in despair for energy” and will soon establish naval bases in disputed waters to defend its claims.
  • In contrast to Philippine President Benigno “Noynoy” Aqunio III, Vice President Jejomar Binay called for joint Sino-Philippine development of natural resources in the region.
  • Responding to calls for Manila to “simply agree to joint use” and “revenue sharing in case oil is struck” in the islands, The Philippine Star columnist Ana Marie Pamintuan retorted the massive size of China’s reclamation beyond its shores proves “there is no stopping Beijing impunity in doing whatever it pleases.”
  • In its position paper submitted to the tribunal, China declared “indisputable sovereignty” where it was “the first country to discover, name, explore and exploit the resources of the South China Sea Islands.”

CHINA

Dr. Wu Shicun, president and senior fellow of the National Institute for South China Sea Studies, denoted the South China Seas “a natural line of defense for Chinese national security, an important strategic waterway, and a strategic must-have for it to become a maritime power.”

Since Manila announced intentions to bring a case before the UNCLOS in 2013, Chinese officials have been public about their refusal to participate in the hearing and demanded the Philippines return to bilateral talks to resolve their core sovereignty and territorial disputes. China has until August 17 to formally respond to the tribunal on arguments presented by the Philippines.

Even though China did not appear at the jurisdiction hearing, as a party to the UNCLOS, Beijing has already granted its consent to the proceedings should the tribunal determine it has jurisdiction. In order to make its case, however, China has expressed itself through a number of formal and informal outlets:

A fleet of Chinese media outlets and commentators viewed the Philippine case as outside the arbitration tribunal’s jurisdiction since the real central issue – disputes over sovereignty claims in the South China Sea – is outside the mandate of the UNCLOS, which focuses on managing maritime activities:

  • Dr. Sienho Yee, the Changjiang Professor of International Law at Wuhan University’s China Institute of Boundary and Ocean Studies, argued “it is clear the Tribunal has no jurisdiction” on territorial sovereignty disputes, military components of China’s activities, or questions of “delimitation or historic bays or titles,” issues Yee said are specifically excluded by the UNCLOS. This view was also espoused by China DailyXinhua and The Global Times.

Others pushed back against the specific merits of the case advanced by the Philippines:

Some criticized the involvement of Washington in Manila’s maritime dispute with China:

  • China’s defense ministry hoped “the U.S. will abide by its promise not to take sides over South China Sea issues.”
  • Wu Shicu wrote in China-US Focus that the United States is supporting the Philippines’s case at the UN is to maintain the advantageous China-Philippines territorial dispute, which “facilitates its rebalancing to the periphery of the South China Sea and supports its military deployments against China.” This view was backed by Shen Dingli.
  • Ruan Zongze, vice-president of the China Institute of International Studies, believed the heavy involvement of western lawyers on the Philippine delegation “pointed toward a U.S. stake in the case.”
  • The Global Times mocked the idea Washington could exert more than “limited influence” in the region through surveillance missions, which “would only be the illusion of small number of Americans and Filipinos.” This newspaper and Xinhuadoubted the United States would directly square off with China or else risk trade and security dilemmas.

While the arbitration is unenforceable, some analysts questioned whether a ruling against China could force Beijing to at least clarify its vague nine-dash claims:

  • Ankit Panda and Prashanth Parameswaran at The Diplomat argued a Philippine victory at court might lead to Beijing issuing a “face saving explanation of the nine-dash line” to further clarify the extent of its claims within the region, though unlikely a specific delineation of the geographical boundaries of its claim.
  • On the other hand, Lan Nguyen, formerly at the Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam, did not expect Beijing to expand on its views concerning the substantive, non-jurisdictional issues of the case given “China’s long-standing policy of ‘deliberate ambiguity’ surrounding its claims in the South China Sea.”

PHILIPPINES

Before arriving at The Hague, Malacañang Palace (the office of the Philippine president) was optimistic it had a “strong case” against China. The Philippines hired a senior group of western lawyers to argue its case in front of the tribunal, including Paul Reichler, a lawyer the Philippine president’s office called a “giant slayer of public international law” after his successful case on behalf of Nicaragua against the United States at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The full delegation comprised representatives from the executive, legislative, and judiciary branches of government. The Philippines filed a 4,000-page brief in March 2014 and a 3,000-page supplemental docket in support of its case.

Without permission from China, the Philippines were unable seek a ruling at the International Court of Justice on the central sovereignty disputes. Needing to go through the PCA instead, Manila required a way to avoid the tribunal dismissing the case as outside its jurisdiction, which does not include sovereignty or territorial questions. Therefore, Manila pursued a creative strategy to indirectly challenge China’s nine-dash line territorial claims by seeking a ruling on China’s maritime activities and exclusive use of the region.

Beyond the tribunal’s ruling, the Philippine government proposed spending a record $757 million in 2016 to acquire new frigates, surveillance planes, and advanced radars to operate in the South China Sea. Before appearing before the tribunal, the Philippines have pushed for a binding Code of Conduct in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

Several commentators lauded the Philippine government for garnering international support on its approach:

  • Presidential spokesperson Herminio Coloma said “there are additional voices supporting our move for a peaceful resolution,” citing the European Union, Australia, Japan, and ASEAN.
  • In The Philippine Star, columnist Elfren Cruz noted while it initially appeared Manila “would stand alone” without even ASEAN support at the tribunal, the Philippines have now received international support. He credits the country’s president for refusing “to bow under all these pressures” and making the “China threat” an issue in the upcoming elections in the United States. The Philippine Inquirer echoed this conclusion and called the case a “boon to the Philippines” that “provides sympathetic states a more diplomatic way to find common cause with it.”
  • Ma. Ceres P. Doyo, in The Philippine Inquirer was disappointed other South China Sea claimants such as Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam, and Taiwan declined to formally join the tribunal case, but thought a Philippine “victory can be their victory against a bully.”
  • On the other hand, Ana Marie Pamintuan doubted countries would “jeopardize their political survival for puny Philippines” in the face of losing a “healthy cash flow and unfettered trade” with China. Similarly, Lucio Blanco Pitlo III, a member of the Philippine Association for China Studies, predicted in China-U.S. Focus that the “minimal and unenthusiastic” ASEAN support for Manila “may lessen the perceived value attached to this regional body.”

In contrast, several media outlets and politicians openly criticized the Noynoy Administration’s rejection of China’s offer to negotiate on a bilateral basis and urged Manila to improve ties with China:

  • The issue of China and maritime disputes is a primary topic in the early-2016 presidential elections in the Philippines. According to Lucio Blanco Pitlo III, many candidates including Vice President Binay and Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte expressed interest in joint oil and gas exploration with China. Binay seeks broader engagement with China while Duterte pushes for a stronger indigenous military for the Philippines – as well as the return of U.S. bases – to defend against Chinese aggression.
  • The Tribune lambasted President Noynoy for doing “everything the American way” resulting “in parts of the contested territories being lost to China,” who “wanted to engage in bilateral talks” before being provoked by Manila. This call for bilateral talks was seconded by The Philippine Star’s managing editor Tony Katigbak.
  • Herman Tiu Laurel, Tribune columnist and former assembly candidate, doubted “a ‘victory’ by the Philippine junket team at The Hague” would “matter an iota” to China. Furthermore, he urged bilateral talks and joint ventures with China as a “win-win.”

Other commentators and media outlets focused on the role of the United States in the South China Sea:

  • Ana Marie Pamintuan felt the decision by the new commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, Admiral Scott Swift, to spend his first overseas trip on a spy plane surveilling the South China Sea was aimed at reassuring Manila of U.S. commitment to the region. Still, Pamintuan concluded “trust in the U.S. military muscle and security commitment has been shaken” and “it’s better for us to develop our own minimum credible defense capability.”
  • On the other hand, The Tribune was pessimistic on whether the case could limit China’s assertiveness, leaving Manila with no choice but to “run to the US, which it seems to be the grand plan in it all.” In another editorial, The Tribune considered Noynoy “to be starstruck by the Americans by doing its bidding through irritating China.”
  • Lucio Blanco Pitlo III observed the failure of U.S. and Japan to deter Chinese aggression and island-building activities “may have serious implications in the reckoning of aspiring Philippine leaders as it showed the possible limits of what the U.S. can do for a Mutual Defense Treaty Ally.”

VIETNAM

Vietnamese envoys were in attendance at the PCA hearing. This follows Hanoi’s submission of a formal statement to the tribunal last year criticizing China’s maritime activities:

Last year, Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung said Hanoi was considering legal action of its own with the UNCLOS against Beijing over a disputed Chinese oil rig in the South China Sea:

  • Dung underscored that “Vietnam will resolutely defend its sovereignty and legitimate interests because territorial sovereignty, including sovereignty of its maritime zones and islands, is sacred.”
  • Rommel Banlaoi, vice president of the Philippine Association for Chinese Studies, saw Vietnam as reaching a tipping point after China provided “a pretext for key countries in Southeast Asia to unite in pushing harder for the immediate conclusion of the Code of Conduct in the South China Sea.”
  • In response, Chinese officials warned Hanoi against filing legal action and criticized Dung for “distorting the facts.”

INDIA

Indian officials have indicated a preference for international arbitration to settle disputes in the South China Sea:

Raghavendra Mishra, a research fellow at the National Maritime Foundation in New Delhi, saw the “the road ahead for [South China Sea] claimants and the court is not only uncertain but also complex.”

  • Furthermore, he warned that any escalation of crisis in the South China Sea would “potentially result in system effects” due to the high volume of sea-trade and natural resources (oil, gas, and strategic minerals) in the disputed waters.

JAPAN

Despite the fact that Japan has no territorial claims in the South China Sea, Tokyo envoys attended the UNCLOS tribunal as an observer. This follows several Japanese signals of support for the Philippine case:

The Rising Powers Initiative Policy Alert project identifies and tracks the world views of major and aspiring powers in Asia and Eurasia. RPI acknowledges support from the MacArthur Foundation for research on maritime security that contributed to this report.

Asian Powers React to Iran Nuclear Deal

Policy Alert #104 | July 17, 2015

After long, fractious negotiations, world powers and Iran struck a historic deal on Tuesday to curb Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for billions of dollars in relief from  international sanctions. This Policy Alert examines reactions from China, India, Russia, South Korea, and Japan to the Iranian nuclear deal.

CHINA

Chinese media expressed cautious optimism for the nuclear deal and predicted a surge in trade between Iran and China as a result of the deal.

  • Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi urged all parties involved in the Iranian nuclear deal to honor the promises they made in the landmark agreement. He added that the agreement could serve as a positive reference for the handling of other regional hot spots, including the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue.
  • “China has always played a constructive part in resolving the decade-long dispute, had an objective, fair and responsible attitude toward the issue, and stood ready to work with other countries to uphold the international non-proliferation regime,” lauded the People’s Daily.
  • China Daily reported that the agreement is expected to enable a revitalized, sanction-free Iran to boost trade and cooperation with China. An Huihou, a former Chinese ambassador to Egypt, said Iran has a strong desire to participate in China’s Silk Road initiatives amid Tehran’s ambitious plans to revive its economy.
  • Li Shaoxian, an expert in Middle East studies at Ningxia University, said the reopening of the Iranian market would increase economic competition between China and Western countries.
  • The People’s Daily urged the international community to “stay sober-minded, as the road leading up to an out-and-out settlement of the Iranian nuclear issue is no less challenging than the strenuous negotiating process.”

INDIA

Indian commentators expressed universal optimism that the Iran nuclear deal will yield positive outcomes for India’s economy and trade.

  • The Economic Times predicted that the nuclear deal is “likely to be positive” for India in several ways. “India’s finances will improve because of a possible drop in oil prices, while the rupee may become less volatile…Various Indian companies with business links to Iran, which has the world’s fourth-largest oil reserve and second-largest gas reserve, may be revitalized by this deal.”
  • “As the Middle East becomes more complex and demanding, India’s options in Central Asia and Afghanistan are likely to expand rapidly as Tehran’s isolation ends,” predicted C. Raja Mohan, distinguished fellow at the Observer Research Foundation in New Delhi. “Iran’s role as India’s gateway to Central Asia, amidst Pakistan’s reluctance to offer overland transit facilities, has already begun to acquire renewed salience for the Modi government.”
  • Iran is central to India’s plan for physical access to Central Asia and beyond,” wrote Dipanjan Roy Chadhury, Economic Times reporter. The lifting of sanctions against Iran will enable Indian firms to participate in road and rail projects connecting the Indian-built Chabahar port in Iran with the road India has built in Afghanistan.
  • India’s exports to Iran are expected to catapult Iran to India’s top 10 export destinations from its current 24th position, according to Anupam Shah, chairman of the Engineering Export Promotion Council of India (EEPC). Shah pointed out that the Iran nuclear deal will also help improve India’s trade with the Middle East, which accounts for approximately seven per cent of the country’s total export shipments.
  • India’s return to Iran faces some challenges, warned Times of India diplomatic editor  Indrani Bagchi. “Engagement with Iran came down while India enhanced ties with Iran’s rivals Saudi Arabia and Israel. Having balanced Iran and the U.S. all these years, New Delhi will now balance its relations with Tehran and Tel Aviv, and Tehran and Riyadh. Second, China’s a bigger player; Beijing’s pushed a high-speed rail project from Tehran to Isfahan and development of the Chabahar port on a scale and speed India will find impossible to match. Third, India has way fewer citizens working in Iran than it does in the Gulf emirates and Saudi Arabia.”

RUSSIA

Russian officials welcomed the agreement, while others questioned whether the deal will positively or negatively impact Russia’s struggling economy.

  • Russian President Vladimir Putin welcomed the agreement, saying that “today the world has breathed a sigh of great relief,” while the Russian Foreign Ministry declared that “the political-diplomatic approach to solving the problem has prevailed, one that Russia had always defended,” and expressed hope that the agreement will strengthen the regime of nuclear non-proliferation.
  • Radjab Safarov, director of the Russian Center for Modern Iran Studies, explained that besides energy, the cancelation of the sanctions would give Russian companies a series of opportunities in Iran in the fields of chemical industry, information technology, railroad construction and several other sectors of the economy.
  • “Moscow sees the deal, which offers Iran relief from sanctions in exchange for curbing its nuclear program, as opening the way to selling Tehran missile defense systems and winning lucrative new nuclear energy contracts. However, the deal also creates uncertainty for Moscow as the reintroduction of Iranian oil onto world markets could push down global prices and cause further damage to Russia’s struggling economy, which is heavily dependent on oil exports,” reported the Moscow Times.
  • Global intelligence firm Stratfor said this month the increase in Iranian oil reaching world markets could reduce Russia’s ability to use energy as a political weapon against Europe, which depends heavily on Russian supplies. “Russia’s influence in the Middle East is fading rapidly at the same time Europe is starting to wriggle out of Russia’s energy grip. And as Russia’s options are narrowing, U.S. options are multiplying in both the Middle East and Europe. This is an uncomfortable situation for Putin, for sure,” it said.

SOUTH KOREA

Commentary in South Korea stressed enhanced business opportunities for Korean companies in Iran while questioning whether the Iran nuclear deal could also be a path forward in resolving tensions on the Korean peninsula.

  • A number of editorials called on Washington to play an active role in resolving the North Korea issue, while others warned that differences between Iran and North Korea warrant different solutions.
    • The Joongang Daily celebrated the Iranian nuclear deal as both a “political and economical boon” for Korea and emphasized the deal as an opportunity for the United States and South Korea to also address the North Korea issue. The editorial added, “Washington has been dragging its feet on the North Korean nuclear issue citing strategic patience.”
    • “After the Iran nuclear problem has been solved, only North Korea remains,” former Unification Minister Jeong Se-hyun said. “In order to draw North Korea into the international community – rather than leaving the task to China, which is not likely to do the bidding of the United States – South Korea has to step forward. And for this, a paradigm change in policy is needed from the South Korean government to resolve inter-Korean relations.”
    • “Unlike Iran, categorized at best as a ‘threshold nuclear state,’ North Korea has long been called a virtual nuclear power. Resource-rich Iran has suffered significantly from economic sanctions, but the impoverished North has little left to lose. Many countries can expect economic benefits from Teheran’s economic freedom, but Pyongyang offers few such incentives,” observed a Korea Timeseditorial. It opined, “The U.S. administration…has not much capacity left to start another nuclear bargaining marathon.”
  • Korean companies welcomed the lifting of sanctions, eagerly seeking new trade opportunities in Iran.
    • Kim Sung-wook, head of the state-run Korea Trade Investment Promotion Agency’s (KOTRA) office in Tehran, noted that an increase in Iran’s oil production “would trigger demand for large-scale offshore oil rigs or shipbuilding, in which Korea has world-class skills.” Other promising export items to Iran include auto parts, home appliances (particularly refrigerators), and cosmetics, according to Hong Jeong-hwa, a researcher at the Korea International Trade Association (KITA).
    • An unidentified official from Korea’s finance ministry told the Korea Times even with the nuclear agreement, there must be follow-up measures and verification processes that will all take time to sort out before Korean companies resume doing business in Iran. The source stressed the government plans to keep close tabs on what measures will be taken, speculating that broad economic and financial sanctions may be lifted late this year.

JAPAN

Japanese editorials welcomed the deal with cautious optimism.

  • The Japan Times reported several Japanese companies eyeing opportunities in Iran after the nuclear accord, including major resources developer Inpex Corp, plant engineering company Chiyoda Corp., as well as several automakers. It noted that some companies remain cautious, reflecting uncertainties on the road to lifting economic sanctions against Iran.
  • “Obviously, it is too early to become overly optimistic, as the two nations have only just started chipping away at their decades-long structure of confrontation. But this is all the more reason why international solidarity is indispensable to keeping the momentum going,” wrote an Asahi Shimbun editorial.

The Rising Powers Initiative Policy Alert project identifies and tracks the world views of major and aspiring powers in Asia and Eurasia. This project is supported by a grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York.