Type: Policy Alerts

Policy Alerts inform U.S. policymakers and media professionals of the ongoing debates in Brazil, China, India, Japan, South Korea, and Russia on current issues and events relevant to American foreign policy.

Greece Financial Crisis Draws Reactions from Asian Powers

Policy Alert #103 | July 2, 2015

Greece slipped deeper into its financial crisis at midnight Tuesday after it became the first developed economy to default on a loan with the International Monetary Fund. Greece will hold a referendum on Sunday, asking citizens to decide whether to accept the austerity demands of its international lenders in return for more cash. In this Policy Alert, we examine reactions from Russia, India, China, Japan, and South Korea to the ongoing Greek financial crisis.

RUSSIA

Russian officials expressed concern about Greece’s financial crisis while simultaneously dispelling rumors that Russia might offer Greece a bailout.

  • “Moscow is watching developments in the European Union very closely in the context of the financial crisis in Greece,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told a conference call. “We are concerned about the possible negative consequences for the whole of the EU,” Peskov said. Peskov also added that finding a solution to Greece’s debt crisis is not a matter for Russia but for Athens and its creditors.
  • Russian Envoy to the EU Vladimir Chizhov said that Moscow is prepared to help Greece out economically, including economic cooperation in privatizing the country’s infrastructure.”Russia is ready to cooperate with Greece. As far as I know, Greece has not turned to Russia for direct financial aid. We have the ability of increasing our economic cooperation, in particular Greece has the ability of privatizing, including railroads and the port [in Thessaloniki],” Chizhov told RIA Novosti in an interview.
  • Despite concerns that Greece might turn to Moscow for financial assistance, Russian Deputy Finance Minister Sergei Storchak reported, “There have been no requests [for help from Greece]…There are no resources [in our budget to provide money].”
  • “The Greek debt crisis shows that Russia must carefully think about how high its own state debt burden is, Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov told reporters on Wednesday. “We are not tied to Greece by any financial obligations so the effect (of the crisis) on Russia will be negligible. Indirectly it may affect Russian financial markets,” Siluanov said.

INDIA

Indian media and experts were divided on whether or not the Greece crisis will have a major impact on the Indian economy.

  • Finance secretary Rajiv Mehrishi said the economic crisis in Greece may trigger capital outflows from India and the government is consulting the Reserve Bank of India to deal with the situation.
  • Commerce secretary Rajeev Kher said exports from India would be impacted negatively if the European Union is hit from the Greece crisis, although he ruled out any major direct impact of the prevailing Greek situation. “India does not have large exposure of Greece as far as trade is concerned,” he said.
  • Greece will be better off without the euro, according to the top economist at India’s biggest bank. “We believe that a possible Grexit from Euro will be good for Greece and also good for India,” Soumya Kanti Ghosh, chief economic adviser, State Bank of India, wrote in a report on Wednesday. “Reckless fiscal austerity imposed on Greece will continue to remain a non-starter… For the emerging economies including India, Greece provides a lesson that following extreme fiscal austerity blindly without considering the inherent structural characteristics can cause more harm than good.”
  • India is well prepared to handle any situation that may arise out of the Greek crisis, according to Arvind Panagariya, Vice Chairmain of Delhi-based think tank NITI Aayog. “Inflation is in check and the current account deficit is at its lowest in recent times. At $355 billion, our foreign exchange reserves are at an all-time high. So macro-economically, we are in a sound position and extremely well prepared to handle any situation that may arise,” he said.
  • Rajiv Kumar, Senior Fellow at the Delhi-based Centre for Policy Research agreed, stating “India has marginal direct exposure to Greece. A global or even a European contagion from a probable ‘Grexit’ looks unlikely…the Greek drama will hopefully prod us into re-examining India’s position in the global economy  and take necessary steps to exploit the opportunities offered by global markets.”
  • “Our macro fundamentals are strong, current account deficit is under control, foreign exchange reserves have touched a record high and rupee continues to be stable, all of which provide the economy with the requisite strength to withstand any adverse fallout from the Greece crisis,” Confederation of Indian Industry Director General Chandrajit Banerjee said.

CHINA

China, preoccupied with its own stock market volatility, had little to say on the Greek financial crisis beyond expressing hope that China and the EU can continue to work together.

  • “As a major customer and supplier of the 28-nation EU, and a responsible long-term holder of Eurobonds, China’s confidence in and commitment to a strong eurozone offers EU leaders the necessary support to look at the Greek crisis from a broader and longer perspective…China wants to see the EU maintain its integrity and a forward trajectory,” wrote the China Daily.
  • “If Greece withdraws [from the eurozone], it will not embrace Russia or China to seek economic support in particular, as the two countries are not Greece’s inevitable choices,” said Feng Zhongping, vice president of the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations. Instead, Athens is likely to take a “multi-faceted diplomatic strategy,” said Shen Jiru, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Standing by Russia is contrary to the fiscally-fragile country’s interests, as Greece, which still heavily depends on the EU, will be isolated if it turns to Russia, Shen said.

JAPAN

The Greek financial crisis spurred commentators to examine Japan’s own debt-to-GDP ratio, which stands at 230% in 2014, compared to Greece’s 189%.

  • “Greece raised taxes and cut spending but as a result has seen tax revenues fall for three straight years…Greece was doing what it thought was necessary. In fact, it pulled itself into further suffering with its economy shrinking,” said Japan’s economic minister Akira Amari. “Greece’s case demonstrates how growth is vital. We shouldn’t make the same mistake,” he added.
  • Japan’s top government spokesman said on Monday it was “very regrettable” that Greece was unable to reach a deal with the IMF and Europe over the weekend. Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga told a news conference he had instructed the government to cooperate closely with the Bank of Japan over the Greek turmoil.
  • Japanese Finance Minister Taro Aso told reporters Monday that he doesn’t think declines in Japanese stocks will spread or that the yen will unexpectedly spike in the wake of the Greek debt crisis.  He opined that it if Greece exited the euro zone, there might be a big impact on world financial markets. However, if Athens merely defaulted but chose to stay in the euro zone, Aso predicted smaller waves.

SOUTH KOREA

South Korea is actively monitoring developments in the Greek crisis and bracing for impact on its own economy, which is still recovering from the after effects of the Middle East Respiratory Syndrom (MERS) outbreak last month.

  • The JoongAng Daily, warning that the Korean economy is already suffering from the effects of the MERS outbreak that occurred last month, cautioned that although it  [Greece] takes up a mere 1.3 percent of the EU gross domestic product, its downfall has the potential to shake the global financial market.”
  • South Korea is beefing up market monitoring over concerns that Greece may default on its debt, and is ready to take appropriate measures to reduce fallout, a senior government official said Monday. Vice Finance Minister Joo Hyung-hwan said the government has various contingency plans to cope with any trouble that may arise if a settlement is not reached between Athens and its international creditors. He stated the government has set up a joint inspection team made up of officials from the finance ministry, the Bank of Korea (BOK), the Financial Services Commission and the Financial Supervisory Service to monitor developments in the Greek crisis.
  • “The main impact on Korea from heightened global uncertainty related to Greece would be export growth, with shipments to Europe possibly slowing and revenues being impacted by a weaker euro,” Frederic Neumann, a senior economist at HSBC told The Korea Times.

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.

South China Sea Disputes is at Center of Debates by Asian Powers

Policy Alert #102 | June 26, 2015

As the United States and China meet this week for the Strategic and Economic Dialogue, territorial disputes in the South China Sea will be near the top of the agenda. This event follows last month’s Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore where U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and several other Asian powers expressed strong concerns over China’s now completed island-building reclamation efforts in disputed waters.

This Policy Alert is the first in a 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.

UNITED STATES

Secretary Carter’s address to the Shangri-La Dialogue presented his vision for a “regional architecture” to tackle five major challenges: “long-standing rules and norms, strengthening our institutions, modernizing alliances, enhancing capabilities and improving connectivity.”

The tense security environment has driven many U.S. allies and other powers in the Asia-Pacific to increase their purchase of U.S. defense technologies and equipment.

CHINA

While several countries in the past have constructed artificial islands in South China Sea, China’s efforts are on a massive scale with “more new island surface [in the last 18 months] than all other nations have constructed throughout history.” During the Shangri-La Dialogue, however, Chinese Admiral Sun Jianguo pushed back against those who painted a negative picture of China’s maritime deeds:

  • The admiral argued “the situation in the South China Sea is on the whole peaceful and stable, and there has never been an issue with the freedom of navigation.”
  • China’s first white paper on military strategy released in late-May stated an “active defense” whereby “we will not attack unless we are attacked, but we will surely counterattack if attacked.” This characterization was echoed by Zhao Xiaozhuo, a researcher with the Chinese Army’s Academy of Military Science, who stressed “China’s great restraint” in the face of outside pressure.

While Chinese officials rejected calls to stop its reclamation project at the Singapore summit, Beijing later clarified on June 16 that it would soon end island-building activities in the South China Sea but not development of military and civilian facilities on the existing sites:

In response to outside pressure, several media outlets and China-based scholars turned the focus on the United States and the actions of its allies in the region:

  • Wang Hui, senior writer at China Daily, protested U.S. involvement in the disputed waters as “counterproductive” and ultimately risking military confrontation. This view was echoed by China’s ambassador to the United States, Cui Tiankai.
  • The Global Times editorialized that Carter’s remarks were “tarnishing China’s image to scare ASEAN” in hopes of driving “a wedge into the cooperation between China and the ASEAN countries.”

INDIA

When Carter visited Indian leaders in early June, one of the top items on the agenda was the mounting tensions in the South China Sea, a continuation from President Obama’s January trip to the country and an October 2014 India-U.S. joint statement on “rising tensions over maritime territorial disputes” in the South China Sea.

Several local media outlets and commentators noted India’s low level of participation in the Shangri-La Dialogue and questioned New Delhi’s commitment to responding to China:

JAPAN

Tokyo has closely followed China’s activities in the disputed waters and made efforts at several international fora to keep the issue in the spotlight:

  • While at the recent G-7 meeting, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe sought to raise Asia’s importance on the agenda and achieved a joint statement by leaders calling for a “rules-based maritime order and achieving maritime security.” At the Shangri-La Dialogue, China’s Admiral Sun Jianguo and the Director General of the Japanese Defense Policy Bureau Hideshi Tokuchi expressed interest in a Memorandum of Understanding on a “maritime and aerial crisis liaison mechanism” to diffuse tensions in the region such as the Diayou/Senkaku Islands dispute.

The United States, Japan, and the Philippines held joint maritime exercises this week near the disputed waters. Several commentators provided their thoughts on these regional security efforts:

  • The Yomiuri Shimbun encouraged Japanese legislators to “enhance deterrence by expanding the roles of the [Self Defense Force]” against “China’s military buildup and maritime defense.” The Asahi Shimbun editorialized that while Japan needs to adjust its security strategies to “reflect changing global energy landscape,” the “world oil market is not driven by concerns about security threats posed by China.”
  • On the other hand, The Mainichi pushed back on calls for the expansion of the Japan’s military mission, warning U.S.-led containment strategies against China may further mistrust between Tokyo and Beijing and harm economic growth. The Asahi Shimbun noted the “worrisome” expansion of Southeast Asian states’ naval power in response to China and how U.S. military operations could “further exacerbate tensions in the area.”

PHILIPPINES

Several commentators and media sources in the Philippines expressed anxiety about China’s actions in the region and the U.S. response:

  • Ana Marie Pamintuan, editor-in-chief for The Philippine Star, reported on how Beijing’s “expansive territorial claims” could one day disrupt critical ASEAN trade and supply lines. Elfren S. Cruz, a columnist for The Philippine Star, wrote that if the United States backs down to China’s “core interests of becoming the superpower in Asia,” then America “will lose its superpower position.” He warned some “countries – Japan, Vietnam, Philippines, Australia – will form a defensive alliance to protect themselves.”
  • Godofredo Roperos, a columnist for the Sun Star Cebu, hoped the Philippines would receive a “favorable ruling from [the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea in early 2016]” as it will “be a big victory diplomatically even if China will not recognize the decision.”

In contrast, other commentators warned that the Philippines would suffer in any U.S.-China conflict if Manila continued its own aggressive posture:

  • The Tribune lamented that the Philippines were “moving based on which string the U.S. pulls that mostly consists of further incensing China and contributing to the already heated situation.”
  • The Manila Times scolded Philippines President Benigno Aquino for issuing an “unnecessary provocation of China” and argued the “disputed territories issue should not define our relations with China” since the country has “more to gain from befriending China than by antagonizing it.”

VIETNAM

At the Shangri-La Dialogue, Vietnam’s Deputy Defense Minister attributed the elevated profile of the disputed waters on the agenda to China’s recent flurry of activity, which prompted a range of responses:

  • Vietnam’s Rear Admiral Le Ke Lam stressed that his country considers “China’s act of turning the reefs of Vietnam that it illegally occupies into military outposts is very dangerous, seriously affecting security in the region and the world.”
  • In an interview with VietNamNet Bridge, Tran Cong Truc, former chief of the Government’s Border Committee, warned the risk of escalation in the region was “pretty high, especially when China is now ignoring all multilateral and bilateral political agreements.”

In an interview with Vietnam’s Youth Online [article in Vietnamese], RPI project scholar Alexander Vuving compared China’s actions to the philosophy behind Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, naming that the supreme art of war is to “subdue the enemy without fighting”:

  • He argued Beijing’s island reclamation efforts and legal maneuvering aim to create new conditions in the South China Sea where it can claim an exclusive economic zone and maintain control without resorting to military force.

Before traveling to India, Ashton Carter used his first trip to Vietnam as defense secretary to urge all countries in the region – including his host nation – to halt their land reclamation projects:

  • Carter and Vietnam’s General Phung Quang Thanh signed a Joint Vision Statement whereby the United States pledged support for Hanoi’s peacekeeping training and operations.
  • Furthermore, Vietnam’s Major General Le Van Cuong, former director of the Strategy Institute, welcomed the “strong” U.S. response, which “makes China more shy when doing brazen actions.”

 

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.

 

MERS Outbreak in South Korea Sparks Reactions from Asian Powers

Policy Alert #101 | June 16, 2015

The Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) virus in South Korea has killed 16 people and infected nearly 150 in the largest outbreak outside of the Middle East. In this Policy Alert, we examine reactions from South Korea, China, Japan, and Russia to the MERS outbreak.

SOUTH KOREA

South Korean authorities have placed more than 5,200 people nationwide under isolation to impede the transmission of the virus. Meanwhile, one of South Korea’s largest hospitals has suspended many of its services after being identified as the source of almost half the cases. South Korea’s economy has also suffered from the outbreak, with over 100,000 canceled tourist visits to the country and decreased department and retail store sales.

  • The Korean health ministry predicted at a press conference held this Monday that the MERS outbreak in South Korea is expected to end in late June unless any “super spreader” emerges further.
  • Song Jae-hoon, director of Samsung Medical Center, one of Korea’s largest and best hospitals, announced the suspension of non-emergency surgeries and the closure of its emergency ward until June 24 after one patient at the hospital infected at least 60 others. “The fact that Samsung now has a MERS patient who was a transfer agent is a very serious matter, which says a lot about its inability to control potential exposures,” said Lee Jae-gap, professor of infectious disease at Hallym University Medical Center.
  • Korea Times writer Jung Min-ho criticized Samsung Medical Center for failing to “stick to the basic rules of containing the infectious disease,” despite being regarded by many as the nation’s finest hospital.
  • The Korea Herald editorialized, “government officials botched their response, failing to contain the Middle East respiratory syndrome outbreak in its early stages. Most of all, authorities’ insistence on withholding crucial information – like the names of hospitals affected by the virus – fanned the spread of the contagious disease.”
  • Lee Jong-koo, director of the Center for Global Medicine at Seoul National University stated that, “one of the big reasons for Korea’s MERS outbreak growing so fast and far is that the government failed to act swiftly on the release of information,” adding that “Regional governments also failed to anticipate the MERS outbreak, which prompted public disorder.”
  • A Joongang Daily editorial noted Korea’s unique medical environment which may have promoted the spread of MERS: “People who feel sick bounce from hospital to hospital, usually trying to get into one of the big ones. When they get admitted, their family members move into the hospital room with them to provide care. The country also has a peculiar ward setup in which one room is shared by several patients except cases involving serious infectious illnesses.”
  • Another Joongang Daily editorial criticized the MERS outbreak in Korea as “inevitable,” due to the countries neglect in “building its expertise in preventive medicine and infectious diseases.”
  • Choo Moo-jin, president of the Korean Medical Association, urged the Korean government to take a series of countermeasures to address the outbreak including a thorough quarantine to separate patients and suspected patients from the public, and improved crisis management communication to provide information to the public on how to prevent the continued spread of MERS.

CHINA

China increased its alert against the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome over the past week, updating and improving its guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of MERS cases.

  • The Chinese government asked medical institutions to “strengthen monitoring of fever and pneumonia cases with unidentified causes in order to detect, diagnose and isolate MERS patients as early as possible.” China’s civil aviation regulator also ordered all airline companies to strengthen prevention and control of the MERS for flights between China and South Korea.
  • China’s quarantine and inspection, health and tourism authorities renewed a joint circular to prevent MERS cases from entering the country last Tuesday. The circular requires those from countries or regions with MERS outbreaks to report actively to quarantine and inspection authorities if they are experiencing fever, coughing or having breathing difficulties.
  • Chinese and American scientists have jointly developed a new antibody targeting the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) virus. Fudan University, which worked with US National Institutes of Health to develop the antibody, said on Monday that tests on animals had seen “very effective” results and called for immediate clinical trials.
  • Judging from the current situation, the possibility of isolated MERS cases in China cannot be ruled out, but an epidemic is not likely, said Jin Qi, director of the Institute of Pathogen Biology of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences. “Having gone through SARS, China now has a high awareness of potential epidemics and its monitoring and testing technologies are significantly improved,” he added.

JAPAN

Japanese officials have ramped up public health measures to keep the regional outbreak of MERS at bay.

  • Japan’s health ministry has asked those who came into contact with MERS patients and developing a fever after arriving in Japan to notify a public health care center and undergo further checks. “The spread of the infection was mainly seen inside medical institutions in South Korea, so there is a low possibility that Japan will see an outbreak now. But we are strengthening our measures as a precaution,” a health official said.
  • Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga told a news conference earlier last week that “all quarantine institutions in Japan have been instructed on steps to be taken in case of suspected infections.”

RUSSIA

Russia began taking health control measures late last week to prevent the spread of MERS into the country.

  • Passengers flying into the Russian Far Eastern cities of Vladivostok, Khabarovsk and Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk from South Korea will be screened for MERS, following a warning from Russia’s state health watchdog, Rospotrebnadzor, that the disease could spread to the country. Medical officers will also screen passengers coming into the Russian Far East by train and ship.
  • “The risk of any infection being spread to any country in the world exists due to intensive migration within the population…only if someone is completely isolated could one say that there is total protection, and there are no such states,” stated Anna Popova, head of Rospotrebnadzor.

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.

PM Narendra Modi’s China Visit Draws Reactions in Asia

Policy Alert #100 | May 19, 2015

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi paid his first visit to China since taking office a year ago. The much anticipated three day trip began May 14 and yielded 26 deals worth $22 billion between the two countries spanning a wide range of industries including renewable energy, power infrastructure, and steel. Prime Minister Modi began his trip in Xi’an, the capital of Shaanxi province and the hometown of Chinese President Xi Jinping, followed by meetings in Beijing and Shanghai. This Policy Alert covers reactions to Modi’s visit from India, China, and South Korea.

INDIA

Media coverage on Modi’s visit spanned a wide range of topics including addressing the India-China trust deficit, the trip’s emphasis on soft power diplomacy, and Modi’s capacity to expand Sino-Indian ties.

  • In a speech delivered at Tsinghua University in Beijing, Modi argued, “We can be more certain of a peaceful and stable future for Asia if India and China cooperate closely. Asia’s voice will be stronger and our nations’ role more influential, if India and China speak in one voice – for all of us and for each other.”
  • In a conversation with the media, Foreign Secretary S. Jaishankar said that in Mr. Modi’s visualisation of the relationship with China, “there is no question of going back, but standing still is also not an option. The only way is to move forward.”
  • Rather than choosing between the West and China, Atul Aneja, China correspondent for The Hindu, suggested an alternative: ” While it is tempting to enmesh in security arrangements that have Japan, Australia and the United States as the major players, a more prudent and bolder course that the Prime Minister can pursue is to propose and push for an integrated dialogue that involves all the major players in the region on a single dialogue platform.”
  • Ram Madhav, the general secretary of Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party, said: “The greatest impediment in India-China relations is the trust deficit. By engaging with each other swiftly, the two leaders demonstrated that they are determined to address and reduce the trust deficit. “Managing a number of contradictions is the real challenge for the governments. In the given geostrategic and geopolitical situation, enhancing mutual trust and establishing a strong working relationship at various levels right up to the top is of utmost importance, which the two leaders seem to realize.”
  • Shiv Sena, a nationalist political party, accused China of pursuing a policy of “hugging from the front and stabbing from behind.” The Sena mouthpiece Saamana wrote, “On one hand they gave a grand welcome to Prime Minister Modi during his visit to China, and on the other, wiped off Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh from India’s map,” referring to China’s state-owned television, CCTV, showing an India map without Jammu & Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh as part of its territory.

Several editorials took note of Modi’s decision to join Chinese microblog site Weibo the week before his visit and praised Modi’s soft power diplomacy.

  • The Hindu commended Modi’s soft power push accompanying his trip to China- leveraging “social media, Bollywood and yoga to reach out to ordinary Chinese citizens.” Modi’s Weibo account recorded 11.2 million hits within a week.
  • Nirupama Rao, former Indian ambassador to the United States and Jawaharlal Nehru Fellow at the Jawaharlal Nehru Memorial Fund, New Delhi, also praised Modi’s soft power push. “Even if it does not move mountains, it will awaken millions of Chinese, the young and educated especially, to an interest in India. We need that awakening. As a leader of the free world, Mr. Modi’s can be a powerful presence in China.”
  • “By joining the microblogging site, Weibo, a week before he heads out to China, Prime Minister Narendra Modi is persisting with a bold effort to loosen up a relationship that has been in a straitjacket for too long,” wrote C. Raja Mohan, consulting editor on foreign affairs for The Indian Express. Mohan outlined three themes that have emerged out of Modi’s effort to reframe India’s China relationship: widening the basis of engagement with Beijing to expand trade, putting culture at the center of the new engagement with China, and preventing India’s relationships with other countries- namely, the U.S. and Pakistan- from coming in the way of finding common ground with China.
  • “In the 12 past months, Mr Modi has travelled to as many as 18 countries, participated in a bunch of multilateral summits and hosted several world leaders at home. He has energised a moribund foreign office, unshackled Indian diplomacy from stiff protocols, and talked up the India Story. He hasn’t really made any major policy turnarounds but his assertive and out-of-the-box approach to diplomacy has made all the difference,” wrote Mayuri Mukherjee in The Pioneer.

Several articles in The Hindu presented Prime Minister Modi as uniquely qualified to shape Sino-Indian relations.

  • Amit Baruah, The Hindu‘s editor examined a meeting in 1954 between Jawarhawal Nehru and Mao Zedong, urging present leaderships in the two countries to consider that the founders of both nations had “wished for a future where their mutual rise was a possibility.”
  • Jabin Jacob, Assistant Director & Fellow, Institute of Chinese Studies, New Delhi, argued, “In fact, despite – or perhaps because of – [Modi’s] differences in world views and how he has gone about understanding China, he is probably the first Prime Minister after Jawaharlal Nehru capable of shaping a unique approach to China.”

CHINA

Modi’s visit dominated Chinese news coverage on all fronts. The majority of the news coverage expressed hope for continued improvement in Sino-Indian relations and expansion in trade and investment.

  • State-run Xinhua news agency asserted that the visit is a “chance for the two Asian neighbors to consolidate trust. The world’s two largest developing countries should become global partners for strategic coordination and jointly strive for a just and equitable international order.”
  • Xu Changwen, researcher at the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation, identified “huge potential” for Sino-Indian cooperation in infrastructure development and power generation. “As big energy consumers, the two countries should deepen their cooperation in new energy, such as wind power and solar power, while exploring ways to work together in the traditional energy sector.”
  • A Global Times editorial opined, “It is obvious that the Western elite doesn’t want to see India and China drawing closer to each other, because it will confront their vision for Asia’s future. As rising powers in this region, China and India, as partners or rivals, will make a huge difference to the geopolitical interests of the West.”
  • Zhao Gancheng, an expert on South Asian studies at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies, said deciding how to deal with China is a challenging yet important issue for the Indian government. “The elites in India have reached a consensus that to achieve peaceful development, India has to handle the relationship with China well,” Zhao added.
  • “Modi is considered as a state leader with strategic insights. He may become a Nixon-style statesman because of his pragmatism and capacity to resolve major contradictions between China and India and to tackle the common challenges of development,” wrote Liu Zongyi,assistant research fellow at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies

A few editorials cast aspersions on how far Sino-Indian relations could progress, given the differences between the two countries.

  • China’s state-owned television station CCTV aired a map of India that excluded Arunachal Pradesh and Kashmir while reporting on Modi’s visit. China and India have ongoing territorial disputes over Arunachal Pradesh and parts of Jammu and Kashmir.
  • Hu Zhiyong, research fellow with the Institute of International Relations at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences took a scathing tone to Sino-Indian relations.  “Due to the Indian elites’ blind arrogance and confidence in their democracy, and the inferiority of its ordinary people, very few Indians are able to treat Sino-Indian relations accurately, objectively and rationally…Deepening bilateral relations requires concerted efforts of politicians from both sides. Modi should seize the chance of his China visit to enhance bilateral cooperation.”
  • Ding Gang, senior editor of the Global Times argued that mistrust between China and India exists because there is “more competition than complementarity” in economic relations. To address this, he posited that “China can make well-planned and targeted industrial transfers in accordance with the development and investment ability of its enterprises and set up production bases in India to make use of its cheaper labor force. China can also invest more in training selected Indian workers.”

SOUTH KOREA

Following Modi’s three-day visit to China, Modi passed through Mongolia over the weekend and arrived in Seoul on Monday morning for a two-day visit. Media coverage in South Korea focused on strengthening Indian-Korean relations, although Modi’s trip was overshadowed by media coverage of an overlapping visit by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.

  • South Korean President Park Geun-hye and Prime Minister Modi agreed to elevate the level of bilateral ties to a “special strategic partnership” and start negotiations to revise a comprehensive economic partnership agreement, which is equivalent to a free trade deal, by June next year. “It is meaningful to make the two countries’ relationship a step closer to each other,” said President Park Geun-hye at the summit. “I hope to see the two countries’ cooperation strengthen not only in economic affairs, but also in politics and national security.”
  • The Korea Times regarded Modi’s visit to South Korea as a “welcome development” and suggested “the two countries are highly likely to strengthen their mutually beneficial and complementary partnership. Seoul can find new growth momentum by capitalizing on the huge Indian market – the country as a population of 1.2 billion. New Delhi, for its part, can take inspiration from Seoul’s successful industrialization and modernization.”

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.

Nepal Earthquakes Spark Responses from Rising Powers

Policy Alert #99 | May 6, 2015

A massive earthquake in Nepal on April 25 has claimed thousands of lives and left many survivors camped in the streets for fear of aftershocks. International humanitarian aid has poured into the country as the victim toll continues to rise. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from India, China, Russia, Japan, and South Korea on the humanitarian disaster in Nepal.

INDIA

The Indian government responded to the earthquake by sending 300 disaster-response personnel and a mobile hospital. Newspapers in India praised the country’s swift response, while noting the lack of regional cooperation.

  • The Pioneer hailed India’s response to the disaster as “the most laudable achievement of the Modi Government,” which demonstrated the country’s “ability to respond to tragedies abroad on a scale that very few countries except the United States, Russia and China, can match.”
  • The newspaper added that the disaster presents “a chance to reconstruct a new Kathmandu, able and willing to withstand future shocks, as well as a new Nepal which federally connects the centre and the periphery to ensure a more balanced and equitable development. It is also India’s chance to reincarnate the special relationship with Nepal.”
  • Soutik Biswas, Delhi correspondent for the BBC, posited that the swift response from India and China to the Nepal disaster shows how the two countries “vie for influence” in Nepal and the region as a whole. “India, clearly, wants to minimize Chinese influence in the neighborhood. No wonder then that the pace and scale with which Mr. Modi reacted to the tragedy was rather unprecedented.”
  • “India scores on aid diplomacy, China lags…Now, China, which overtook India as Nepal’s largest foreign investor in 2014, is busy trying to catch up with New Delhi’s humanitarian diplomacy,” declared  The Times of India.
  • “It is a matter of time before politics intrudes on the management of the aftermath,” warned C. Raja Mohan, a distinguished fellow at the Observer Research Foundation. The Indian government “must avoid any real or seeming violation of Nepal’s sovereignty… [and]…insulate its relief effort from India’s domestic politics… [since] Nepal has long been a tempting theatre for various Indian groups to play their own political games.”
  • The Hindu criticized the Nepal government’s “incapacity” to implement swift rescue and relief efforts, blaming on its inability to complete the Constitution-writing project started in 2008 due to its factional politics. “Nepal’s political class ought to use this juncture as a spur to finalize a Constitution. This should allow its citizenry to be better prepared for any more such tragedies in the seismically fragile zone they inhabit.”
  • Mahendra P. Lama, an economics professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University, critiqued the lack of response from the SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) Regional Food Bank, a regional disaster relief framework agreed in 2006. He contended that India, the largest contributor (63%) to the food bank, should “unilaterally invoke the provisions of this agreement and start supporting Nepal earthquake victims.”
  • Gopalkrishna Gandhi, a former high commissioner to Sri Lanka and ambassador to Iceland, also emphasized the role of the SAARC in disaster relief. “[W]e must follow up the splendidly reflexive first-aid response to Nepal’s trauma by inaugurating an abiding SAARC earthquake management regime. The very fragility of the Himalayas can give the SAARC a defining stability.”

Indian media also debated India’s own preparedness for earthquakes.

  • “India is not really ready for the big earthquake,” warned science writer Prakash Chandra. Due to the incompetence of the National Disaster Management Authority, the country “still doesn’t have a robust disaster management and mitigation plan for earthquakes.”
  • The Hindustan Times argued that “Indian authorities have been too lax for far too long,” pointing out the lack of quake-proof building codes and safety drills in the country.
  • “The tragedy [in Nepal] must serve as a reminder that India and its neighbors are living on borrowed time,” emphasized The Business Standard. “Haphazard urban planning, poor quality construction and a lack of standards and regulation cannot last forever.”
  • Swaminathan Aiyar, a consulting editor for The Economic Times, argued that India and Nepal must learn from Japan’s reconstruction efforts after the 1995 Kobe earthquake and “build structures that can withstand nature’s ravages,” since “[c]reating and implementing quake-proof building codes…is the only way quake damage can be minimized.”

CHINA

According to the Chinese embassy in Nepal, China has sent more than 300 rescuers and medical staff to Nepal and over 30 flights carrying relief supplies. Chinese media praised Chinese relief teams, who were among the first to reach quake-hit areas in Nepal.

  • As of last Friday, China has earmarked two rounds of humanitarian aid worth 60 million yuan (9.7 million USD) for Nepal. “The Chinese government and the Chinese people are standing with Nepal and its people at this time of great difficulty,” said  Wu Chuntai, Chinese ambassador to Nepal.
  • “A senior Nepal politician told me that the Chinese rescue team is outstanding among all international rescue teams because they performed professionally and efficiently. More important, they handle everything, like their accommodation and food needs, all by themselves,” added Ambassador Wu.
  • Zhou Yongsheng, an international relations professor at China Foreign Affairs University, said he was impressed by China’s coordinated evacuation of Chinese citizens and its quick response when sending help.
  • Yu Jun, an international relations expert at the Chinese Academy of Governance, argued that the “undeniable fact is that China is more engaged in international disaster-relief work,” as a result of China’s growing global role.
  • The state run Xinhua reported that all buildings funded and constructed by China in the capital of Kathmandu remain nearly undamaged from the earthquake. Moreover, Kathmandu Stadium, which China helped Nepal repair and maintain, has also withstood major damage.
  • Taiwan’s initial offer to send search and rescue teams to Nepal after the earthquake wasdeclined by the Nepalese government, according to Taiwan’s Foreign Ministry. Observers have speculated that China’s significant presence in Nepal has factored into the government’s decision to turn away Taiwan’s help.

RUSSIA

Russia’s emergencies ministry sent a team of 90 rescuers and rescue equipment following Nepal’s earthquake.

  • Rossotrudnichestvo, Russia’s foreign aid agency, is providing assistance to citizens of the Russia-led Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) in Nepal. The agency’s head, Lyubov Glebova, said many of those at the camp are “dealing with the aftermath of the earthquake” by clearing debris and helping victims. Russian authorities in Nepal are working with the Nepalese government to locate all “fellow countrymen who need evacuation.”
  • Glebova added that “Russia’s representatives in Kathmandu did not differentiate a citizen of what country a person speaking Russian was. “If he applies for help, he will get it,” she said.
  • More than 40 Russians, including two diplomats, are unaccounted for in Nepal following the devastating 7.8-magnitude earthquake, reported The Moscow Times Wednesday. “I’m sure they are alive and well, it’s simply that communications are down there and it’s difficult to contact anyone,” state news agency TASS cited Emergency Situations Minister Vladimir Puchkov as saying.

JAPAN

Japanese newspapers noted the lack of anti-earthquake measures in Nepal, urging the Japanese government to offer help based on its experience with earthquakes.

  • The Asahi Shimbun lamented the lack of disaster preparedness in Nepal: “‘Earthquakes don’t kill people. Dangerous buildings kill people‘… Disaster preparedness measures were slow to be implemented, perhaps because people were so caught up in their own lives than on possible future catastrophes.”
  • The Yomiuri Shimbun agreed, saying “The country lags behind greatly in its measures against earthquakes. Having no major industries other than tourism, the country’s fiscal foundations are fragile, leaving the Nepalese government unable to pay much attention to disaster prevention efforts…Taking account of the characteristics of areas with soft ground in and around Katmandu, it is important to move ahead with measures to reduce disaster risk, such as making buildings more quake-resistant.”
  • Noting the fact that researchers from Japanese universities and the Japan International Cooperation Agency are currently working to assist Nepal, the newspaper argued, “Japan has overcome a number of natural disasters. Its knowledge gained through these disastersshould be utilized for Nepal.”

SOUTH KOREA

Newspapers in South Korea criticized the lack of disaster preparedness in Nepal, while urging the Korean government to review its disaster measures.

  • The Korea Herald noted that “it is the buildings that kill people in an earthquake, not the earthquake itself. The high death toll in Nepal is largely attributed to the high population density and unsafe buildings.”
  • “In fact, the latest disaster was just waiting to happen,” added the newspaper. “Seismologists have known that earthquakes in Nepal occur in roughly 75-year cycles. For that matter, a week before Saturday’s earthquake, 50 earthquake specialists had convened in Kathmandu for a seminar on preparation for the ‘big one.’ Although scientists warned of the need to prepare for such earthquakes, Nepal, struck by poverty and lack of an efficient government, did not have the resources to prepare itself.”
  • “The Nepali quake should be a wake-up call to Korea,” emphasized The Korea Times. “Of course, Korea has remained unscathed from earthquakes so far, but it’s true [that] the frequency of quakes has increased since the 1980s…Korea is no longer safe from the threat of earthquakes. All this explains why Korea should do its utmost to hammer out viable anti-quake measures, including making it obligatory for builders to adopt earthquake-resistant designs.”
  • In response to the government’s dispatch of 40 search and rescue workers to Nepal, the newspaper argued that “[o]ur officials need to be more attentive in sending rescuers, keeping in mind that our improvised teams contributed little to rescue operations and made much ado about nothing when a devastating earthquake struck Haiti in 2010.”

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.

Rising Powers React to U.S.-Cuba Diplomatic Normalization

Policy Alert #98 | April 21, 2015

After decades of Cold War hostility and economic embargoes, President Barack Obama held a historic meeting with Cuban President Raul Castro on April 11, marking an important step toward diplomatic normalization between the two nations. At a news conference, President Obama emphasized that “it was time to try something new…to engage more directly with the Cuban government and the Cuban people. And as a consequence, I think we are now in a position to move on a path towards the future.” In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from China, Japan, South Korea, and Brazil on the U.S.-Cuba diplomatic normalization.

CHINA

Chinese media reflected positively on the normalization of U.S.-Cuba relations. 

  • China Daily senior writer Wang Hui praised the normalization between the two nations, arguing that “Washington’s relationship with South American countries has been greatly dented by both the US embargo on Cuba and its interventionist and hegemonic behavior in the region. Despite the US’ efforts to consolidate its power and presence in a region it considers its backyard, its ‘carrot and stick’ policy has by and large run into a stone wall as Latin American nations have shown growing solidarity and greater determination in defending their sovereignty and independence.”
  • “China will continue to support Cuba’s political system and road of development. [Our] policy of developing friendly relations with Cuba will not be changed no matter how the international situation changes,” Qin Gang, a spokesperson for China’s foreign ministry said.
  • Normalizing U.S.-Cuba relations will not threaten China’s long-term relationship with Cuba, but instead further open up Cuba and make it a better place for China to do business, according to a number of Chinese experts:
    • “China and Cuba set up a solid foundation a long time ago that will not be easily shaken,” said Xu Shicheng, a research fellow in Latin American studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
    • “On the other hand, Western countries like the US will better understand socialist countries through the re-established relations with Cuba, which is helpful for strengthening Sino-US relations,” said Shen Dingli, director of the Center for American Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai.

JAPAN

Japanese newspapers discussed the implications of the U.S.-Cuba diplomatic normalization for America’s diplomacy and influence in Latin America and beyond.

  • The Sankei Shimbun welcomed the “historic transformation” in the U.S.-Cuban relations marked by the summit. It urged the Republican-controlled Congress to approve the diplomatic effort, emphasizing that the deepening of the bilateral economic relationship will promote Cuba’s democratization.
  • “Normalizing diplomatic ties with Cuba will be an important touchstone for whether the United States can regain sound leadership in this region,” argued the Yomiuri Shimbun, noting the fact that China recently has been expanding its influence in Latin America and the Caribbean, which America sees as its “traditional area of dominance,” via projects such as the $50 billion Nicaragua Grand Canal construction.
  • “By moving to normalize relations with Cuba, the U.S. is testing a strategy [of engagement] in the new Cold War, a reality the world is beginning to recognize [in light of Russian annexation of Crimea and Chinese assertiveness over the East and South China Seas],” posited The Nikkei Shimbun. “With its international standing and finances weakened by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the financial crisis, the U.S. is no longer the superpower that can overwhelm adversaries. Instead, it has chosen to prod democratization and market liberalization through political and economic engagement.”

SOUTH KOREA

South Koreans focused on the prospect of potential dialogue between the United States and North Korea following the U.S.-Cuba diplomatic normalization.

  • The Hankyoreh emphasized that the U.S.-Cuba diplomatic normalization, combined with the recent Iranian nuclear deal, “leaves North Korea as the only country to remain isolated of the three countries (North Korea, Cuba, and Iran) with whom U.S. President Obama promised to shake hands with when he took office in 2009… Given this trend, it would seem that we could expect Obama to turn to North Korea as the final target of his legacy building before his presidency effectively wraps up at the end of next year.”
  • “Obama could have a diplomatic trifecta if he can solve the North Korean nuclear crisis after normalizing relations with Cuba and settling the Iran nuclear problem,” noted the Joong-Ang Ilbo.
  • Lee Byong-chul, director for Nonproliferation Centre at the Institute for Peace and Cooperation, Seoul, argued that President Obama should “repeat to North Korea what he did to Cuba lately, instead of applying Iran-like sanctions to North Korea. The continuation of the current U.S. coercive approach toward the unpredictable regime is a recipe for hastening the regime to solidify its nuclear status in the world.”
  • “[T]he Obama administration will not be ready to cut a deal with Pyongyang as it focuses on gaining cooperation from the Republican-controlled Congress in sealing accords with Iran and Cuba,” contested The Korea Herald. “Under these circumstances, South Korean officials need to be more adroit and proactive in inducing the North to take the course of securing its survival by bolstering its crumbling economy with support from the international community in return for discarding its nuclear arsenal — in a gradual manner if necessary.”
  • “It is highly unlikely the Obama administration will be interested in diplomatic engagement with the North. Pursuing normalization with Cuba and continuing negotiations with Iran and with members of the U.S. Congress will be a full-time job,” posited Katharine Moon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Center for East Asia Policy Studies. However, she added, “if in the future, Pyongyang is genuinely interested in substantive negotiations, Washington should extend to North Korea the open hand and good will that President Obama extended to Tehran.”

BRAZIL

As in the rest of Latin America, the rapprochement between the US and Cuba was received positively and with a sense of relief and optimism for the future of relations between the U.S., Cuba and the rest of the region.

  • Speaking at the Summit of the Americas in Panama on April 11th, President Dilma Rousseff celebrated the rapprochement, calling it the end to “one of the last vestiges of the Cold War.” In the same speech, she expressed her desire that the U.S. would soon end the economic embargo on the island.
  • Rousseff was also critical of U.S. sanctions on officials accused of human rights abuses in Venezuela, Cuba’s closest ally in Latin America. Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro’s promised response to the sanctions at the Summit threatened to derail the historic encounter between Barack Obama and Raúl Castro; however, reporting from the Summit revealed that former U.S. Ambassador to Brazil Thomas Shannon was able to meet with Venezuelan officials with the backing of Brazil to diffuse the situation.
  • Merval Pereira, a blogger for O Globo outlined the importance of better U.S.-Cuban relations to Brazil. Specifically, according to him, the $1 billion in loans from Brazil’s development bank BNDES to Cuba to refurbish and modernize the port of Mariel was a major impetus for Brazil pressuring Cuba to reestablish relations with the U.S., especially as the Venezuelan economic situation worsens, putting the Cuban economy at risk.
  • In an editorial, Estadão declared the successful meeting of Raúl Castro and Barack Obama as a major blow to the anti-Americanism of the Latin American left that had been so strongly tied to the Cuban Revolution and revitalized with the rise of the “Pink Tide” led by Hugo Chávez over the past decade. According to them, “Raúl’s gesture breaks the logic of [the anti-American] discourse” in Latin America.
  • Former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva also praised the U.S. for removing Cuba from the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism, adding that there is no reason for the U.S. economic embargo to continue because “there is no more honest people than the Cubans.”

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.

Iran Nuclear Deal Sparks Reactions from Rising Powers

Policy Alert #97 | April 6, 2015

Last Thursday, the 18-month-long negotiations between the UN Security Council plus Germany (P5 + 1) and Iran finally reached a framework agreement designed to curtail the Iranian nuclear program in return for the lifting of sanctions against the country. President Barack Obama called the deal a “historic understanding” between Washington and Tehran, urging Congress, U.S. allies in the Middle East, and the Iranian regime to work toward a final agreement by a June 30 deadline. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from China, Russia, India, South Korea, Japan, and Brazil on the Iran nuclear deal.

CHINA

  • The nuclear deal with Iran was “also good for boosting relations between China and the United States“, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said in a telephone call with US Secretary of State John Kerry. China and the United States, both taking on major responsibilities in safeguarding the international nuclear non-proliferation system, maintained good contact with each other during the negotiations, while instilling “positive energy” into bilateral relations, according to Wang.
  • “The deep-rooted cause of the Iranian crisis is a lack of political trust between Tehran and Washington, while prospects for a final solution remain murkier, factoring in the tremendous domestic pressure from both Iran and the United States,” observed Xinhua editor Yamei Wang.
  • Xinhua writer Ma Mengli applauded China for its active participation in the negotiations and for putting forward “constructive proposals at many critical junctures of the talks.” Noting that a “significant step in the right direction has been made,” Ma added that “it is imperative now to lose no time in pushing ahead with the negotiations and displaying the utmost sincerity in order to clinch a final agreement that provides a comprehensive and final solution.”

RUSSIA

Reactions to the deal in Russia were largely positive, in part due to the large potential economic gains Russia will see as a result of the deal.

  • The lifting of sanctions against Iran will allow Tehran to make full payments on its deal with Russia’s Rosatom State Nuclear Energy Corporation, bringing in billions to the Russian budget Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told Rossiya Segodnya news agency’s director general, Dmitry Kiselev, in an exclusive interview on Monday.
  • In Moscow, the Russian Foreign Ministry said the framework nuclear agreement will havepositive impact on the situation in the Middle East. “There is no doubt that agreements on Iran nuclear program will have a positive impact on the overall security situation in the Middle East, including the fact that Tehran will be able to take a more active part in the resolution of a number of existing regional problems and conflicts,” RIA Novosti quoted the ministry as saying.
  • The success of talks between the UN Security Council’s permanent members plus Germany became a “victory for everybody and proved that international mechanisms really work,” according to Russian Federation Council’s International Affairs Committee head Konstantin Kosachev.
  • Alexander Golts, deputy editor of online newspaper Yezhednevny Zhurnal questioned the deal in the Moscow Times, asking, “How can the international community guarantee that the Ayatollah will not use the agreement as a breather before quickly reversing course, building atomic weapons and making Iran immune to future attack or external pressures?”
  • “”Reaching an agreement on Iran’s nuclear problem was a matter of honor for the U.S., because the economic blockade of Iran should be ended under guarantees that Tehran will not develop nuclear weapons and threaten American ally Israel. The EU supported the United States. Moscow, in its turn, wanted the sanctions against Tehran to be lifted in order to develop trade and economic relations with Iran. So, all sides in the negotiations were interested in the positive result of negotiations,” stated Alexey Malashenko, scientific council member at Moscow Carnegie Center.

INDIA

Indian newspapers welcomed the nuclear agreement, focusing on potential benefits for India, including its oil trade with Tehran.

  • The Hindustan Times hailed the nuclear deal as “historic” and “transformative,” but raised some concerns. “All this can still be scuttled by intransigent politicians in the U.S. Congress. The world hopes that they will rise beyond partisan politics and look at the bigger picture…The alternative, as Mr. Obama implied, is either war or a nuclear arms race in West Asia. Backing the deal is a no-brainer.”
  • The Hindu welcomed the agreement as “a significant breakthrough that will have long-lasting implications globally… [and] ease the long-standing hostile ties between the U.S. and Iran eventually helping to change at least some equations in the conflict-ridden West Asian region.”
  • The Pioneer commented that the agreement “will bring much benefit to India,” as the country now can resume its oil trade with Tehran, its second-largest oil supplier until 2006, before Western sanctions were put in place.
  • “Cheering the march towards a final nuclear settlement will be India, which will gain from the easing of sanctions on Iran and the corresponding benefits of unhindered oil imports from the latter,” predicted Sreeram Caulia, Professor and Executive Director of the Centre for Global Governance and Policy at the Jindal School of International Affairs, Jindal Global University. “Unlike Israel and Sunni Arab countries, India does not accept the vilification of Iran as a ‘terrorist state’. Instead, we appreciate Tehran for countering Sunni jihadist fundamentalism that threatens India in its extended neighborhood.”
  • Given the uncertainty of the deal’s success and the continuing instability in the Middle East, India “cannot depend on the resumption of supply from Iran,” The Business Standard argued. “Solutions such as asking the U.S. to step in are naïve given that the U.S. does not and is unlikely to permit oil exports. Reviving India’s relations with Russia may be a more practical (and cheaper) solution. In fact, that is exactly what China has done.”

SOUTH KOREA

Media outlets in South Korea debated the implications of the Iran deal for the North Korean nuclear negotiation.

  • “Now, it is time for the five permanent UNSC members to focus on North Korea,” argued theDong-A Ilbo, urging President Barack Obama to “extend his hand to the North.” “Now that the Iran nuclear deal has left him with more room, he should now turn his eyes to North Korea. Just as his administration agreed to normalize relations with Cuba through secret negotiations, it should now have a change of thoughts to attract Pyongyang to the negotiating table even with secret contacts.”
  • The Hankyoreh emphasized that following the Iranian deal, “North Korean nuclear talks must quickly begin,” and that the South Korean government “must lead” on a dialogue with the North by building upon the existing six-party framework.
  • “The remaining nuclear challenge is North Korea,” declared the JoongAng Ilbo. “Obama could have a diplomatic trifecta if he can solve the North Korean nuclear crisis after normalizing relations with Cuba and settling the Iran nuclear problem.”
  • The Korea Times offered a rather pessimistic view. “Despite -or rather because of- the nuclear breakthrough with Iran, it could become even more difficult to resolve the North Korean nuclear crisis in part because Pyongyang may demand the same flexible conditions as those which the ‘five-plus one’ group has allowed for Tehran and because President Barack Obama will be busy selling the Iran deal to his opponents in and outside of the U.S.”

JAPAN

Japanese newspapers commended the nuclear agreement, but remained cautious about its implementation.

  • The Yomiuri Shimbun welcomed the agreement as “an important milestone to prevent nuclear proliferation in the Middle East,” but argued that the final comprehensive deal, expected at the end of June, must create a system in which the international community can “constantly keep an eye on Iran.”
  • “The United States must have a balanced policy on Middle East affairs,” the Yomiuri added, as U.S. allies, including Israel and Saudi Arabia, “have expressed caution about Iran’s expanding international role” while Americans seek cooperation with Iranians on the nuclear issue, as well as the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant militant group.
  • The Sankei Shimbun also argued that the U.S. need to “seek understanding” from its Middle Eastern allies about the nuclear deal, and that compromise is “by no means acceptable” on the issue of “unconditional and comprehensive” monitoring on Iran’s nuclear facilities.

BRAZIL

The framework deal was met with general approval in Brazil.

  • Itamaraty, the Brazilian foreign ministry, released a statement celebrating the framework agreement. The statement “saluted the disposition of the governments of Iran and the P5+1… to persevere in their efforts to reach a satisfactory agreement for all parties.” The statement went on to reiterate the Brazilian government’s position that “there is no alternative to a negotiated solution to this issue” and that the agreement be fully used “to arrive at a long-lasting solution.”
  • In an editorial, Tribuna Hoje criticized the way the deal was reached, noting that in 2010, Brazil and Turkey had negotiated a deal more far-reaching that was “sabotaged by Western countries.” It further went on to argue that the new, inferior deal was evidence that former president Lula was correct that the Brazil-Turkey deal was rejected because “they (rich countries) don’t want a new actor.”

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.

Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank Sparks Debates in Asia and Beyond

Policy Alert #96 | March 24, 2015

Decisions by America’s European allies-the U.K., Germany, France, and Italy-to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), a new China-led multilateral development institution for Asia, generated debates about Beijing’s potential challenge to existing global financial institutions, such as the IMF, the World Bank, and the Asian Development Bank (ADB), and about Washington’s response to this challenge. Despite its initial opposition to the Chinese initiative, the Obama administration recently reversed its position, proposing to co-finance projects with the AIIB by utilizing existing multilateral institutions. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from China, Japan, and South Korea, as well as the United States and European countries on the AIIB.

CHINA

Responding to U.S. concerns regarding the bank’s standards of governance, some Chinese media brushed over these concerns, instead urging the United States to ‘get on the boat.’

  • “China-proposed AIIB is a gift to world,” proclaimed one China Daily headline. Responding to concern from the United States regarding the new bank’s standards, the article retorted that such a response “perplexes China because the U.S. government has been urging China to exercise leadership compatible with its growing strength by providing more resources for development and other global goals…Rather than standing outside frowning, the U.S. might as well consider the choice of getting on the boat to share its rich experience in managing international banks.”
  • Another China Daily stated, “It is of little help to worry about the AIIB’s possibility to erode multilateral institutions and to re-create world power structures as the bank is nothing but a nice complement to the system of global governance.” However, the editorial added, “It is high time for those who are still hovering outside the new-born international financial body to get on the boat.”
  • “Washington can hardly complain about its sideline status. It was invited to take part in the AIIB. Not joining it is a choice made by the US government. But the US has not only refused to play, it has lobbied Australia, the Republic of Korea, Indonesia, as well as European countries not to join in,” criticized yet another China Daily op-ed.
  • “Many people are worried that China’s diplomatic environment may be manipulated by the US, but the evolution of the AIIB shows that China is its own master. Perhaps the U.S. may become a member of the AIIB one day,” wrote the Global Times.

Other articles took a more conciliatory approach, insisting that the AIIB is an open platform for inclusive development.

  • When asked whether China would be willing to cooperate with the U.S. on the AIIB, Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei stated in a press conference Monday that China upholds an open and inclusive attitude in the building and operation of the AIIB. Lei added that the Obama administration’s proposal of a formal partnership between the AIIB and Western development institutions reported Sunday shows the AIIB’s mission of funding infrastructure projects in Asian countries has gained wide recognition.
  • “Concerns about the new bank’s standards of governance and environmental and social safeguards can also be dispelled as China has envisioned the AIIB to be an open and transparent multilateral organization,” reported the state-run Xinhua.
  • “The establishment of the AIIB will be complementary to the ADB and other multilateral financial institutions, including the World Bank,” stated Jin Liqun, secretary-general of the Multilateral Interim Secretariat for Establishing the AIIB.

Several commentaries pondered how the AIIB’s development will influence China’s international status

  • “China is already a major power, but the AIIB grants it for the first time a leadership rolein the world’s financial affairs. Among the countries that have applied, there are big European powers as well as those that China has territorial disputes with. It tests China’s wisdom and flexibility in handling different opinions and demands,” wrote the Global Times.
  • “It is unrealistic to wish for no rivalry between China and the US. But the rivalry can be positive and interesting. A new type of major power relations will sooner or later face a rising China, which is the foundation for both countries to adopt innovative ways to handle their competition,” opined another Global Times editorial regarding the AIIB’s rise.

JAPAN

Japanese officials remained cautious about joining the AIIB, raising concerns about its governance and transparency.

  • Japan may join the AIIB if certain conditions are met, said Finance Minister Taro Aso. “Who will decide on extending loans through the AIIB? If reviews of loan applications are not strictly conducted, it could have a negative impact on the International Monetary Fund and the Asian Development Bank… If those concerns are resolved, Japan may join talks to discuss the proportion [each nation will invest in the AIIB].”
  • Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga also expressed concerns, saying that Japan “remains cautious about joining [the AIIB]. Aso shares this stance, so his remarks probably indicate [that Tokyo] will never participate unless all concerns are settled.”
  • The Sankei Shimbun showed support for the government’s decision not to join the AIIB, warning against a possible “arbitral governance” by China and lack of transparence in the institution.
  • The Japan Times offered a different view pushing for the U.S. to work with the AIIB. “Washington appears to be rejecting a Chinese initiative that meets an important regional need, merely because it is a Chinese initiative… The U.S. should reconsider and be ready to push for reform within the AIIB, rather than from a distance.”

SOUTH KOREA

The South Korean government has only indicated that it is “considering” joining the AIIB. Korean newspapers debated whether the country should sign up for the Chinese-led initiative.

  •  “[T]he U.S. is becoming more and more isolated internationally in regard to the question of joining the AIIB. Not only the UK but also France, Germany, and Italy are moving toward joining the bank, and there is increasing support for joining inside the U.S. as well,” The Hankyoreh posited.
  • The Hankyoreh continued, “The situation is such that there is no reason for South Korea to delay joining either. If South Korea continues to hesitate out of concern for what the U.S. will think, it is likely to damage the national interest by reducing South Korean influence in the bank. The practical way to address concerns such as China’s domination of the control structure is by participating in the bank.”
  • “Strategically and economically, Korea’s participation in the AIIB is an obvious move,” contended the JoongAng Ilbo. Since the country suffered a great deal when accepting the painful reforms demanded by the IMF and the U.S. during the Asian financial crisis, “[i]t is better to have rivals, Washington vs. Beijing, the NDB (New Development Bank led by BRICs) and the AIIB against the IMF and ADB.”
  • The Chosun Ilbo attacked the government’s indecisiveness, arguing that it has been “wishy-washy about joining multilateral trade initiatives in the Asia-Pacific region,” including the AIIB, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. “It is deplorable for an export-dependent country like Korea to show such a lack of initiative.”

WESTERN COUNTRIES

  • IMF chief Christine Lagarde said that the IMF would be “delighted” to cooperate with the AIIB, and that the two institutions have “massive” room for cooperation.
  • “Any new initiative that will mobilize funding in order to fill infrastructure gap is certainly welcome. The World Bank really welcomes the AIIB initiative,” World Bank managing director Mulayani Indrawati commented in an interview with Xinhua.
  • “The story of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is turning into a diplomatic debacle for the U.S. By setting up and then losing a power struggle with China, Washington has sent an unintended signal about the drift of power and influence in the 21st century,” wrote Financial Times chief foreign policy columnist Gideon Rachman.
  • The New York Times called the issue surrounding the AIIB “a problem of America’s own making.” The U.S. has blocked China from taking more leadership by not welcoming the Chinese for the top posts at the IMF, the World Bank, and the ADB, and by not ratifying IMF reforms demanded by Beijing. It has also failed to work with its allies to negotiate with the Chinese in establishing the AIIB.
  • Reforming the IMF to allow greater Chinese influence “now would be probably too little too late to reverse the AIIB’s momentum,” argued The Washington Post. “Mr. Obama’s best bet is to redouble efforts to shore up World Bank funding, and to win congressional approval for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free-trade arrangement…while establishing a regional economic framework built on Western-style economics rather than Chinese mercantilism.”

RPI acknowledges support from the MacArthur Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation of New York for its activities.

U.S. Fight against Islamic State Spurs Reactions from Rising Powers

Policy Alert #95 | March 6, 2015

Last month, President Barack Obama held a world anti-terrorism summit in Washington, D.C., calling on more than 60 nations to join the fight against “violent extremism.” During the summit, he reiterated his position not to call war against Islamic State (IS) as a religious one and emphasized the need to address the social origins of terrorism, such as twisted interpretations of Islam, local economic grievances, and IS propaganda. This followed a series of terrorist attacks in Paris, Sydney, Copenhagen, and Ottawa, and the White House’s request to Congress for a new war authorizationagainst the terrorist group. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from China, Russia, India, South Korea, and Japan on the recent development on the fight against IS.

CHINA

Chinese editorials expressed dissatisfaction in the way the United States has dealt with terrorism.

  • “Uncle Sam: anti-terror leader or terrorist breeder?” asked one People’s Daily headline. “Washington paid little attention to exploring the root causes of terrorism, which should be deemed intriguing, as the latest villain on its black list, the Islamic State (IS) extremist group originated not in Iran or the DPRK, both “enemies” of Washington, but in Iraq, a state ‘freed’ and ‘democratized’ by the U.S. itself.”
  • “Although terrorism is growing rapidly for the moment, IS is an extremist organization with alimited appeal. Thus, there is little chance they will spread their influence across the globe, despite that their growth and threat in the Middle East will persist,” predicted Global Times reporter Li Aixin
  • A Xinhua editorial criticized the inability of the U.S.- led coalition to bring an end to terrorist activity. “Not unexpectedly, the terrorist threat to international security is still increasing despite the ongoing U.S. counter-terrorism operations…This has raised serious questions about the viability of Washington’s ‘international coalition,’ which looks rather like apatchwork of assorted countries with different interests.
  • “The war against Islamic State is a global fight, not simply a battle to be waged by the people of Iraq and Syria with a scattering of U.S. and Arab air support…Only through leadership and governments working together than the scourge be eliminated,” wrote the South China Morning Post. It concluded, “Those attributes have been lacking in the U.S.-led alliance.”

RUSSIA

Russian analysts argued that IS poses as much of a threat to Russia as it does to the West, but acknowledged that Russia and the United States have different views on how to tackle the problem.

  • “The Islamic State poses just as much of a threat to Russia as it does to the West,” argued Ilya Rogachev, director of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s department of new threats and challenges. Rogachev blamed the West for the drop-off in cooperation with Moscow.
  • Leonid Isayev, senior lecturer in the department of political science at Moscow’s Higher School of Economics argued, “American policy in the Middle East lacks a systematic approach. Having not destroyed al-Qaeda in Iraq, the U.S. switched to Libya, then, having quit what it started, intervened in the Syrian conflict.”

Several articles questioned the motives of Russian citizens that have left to fight for IS:

  • Alexander Bortnikov, head of Russia’s Federal Security Service estimated that as many as1,700 Russians are currently fighting in Iraq alongside Islamic State.
  • Vladimir Sotnikov, research fellow at the RAS Institute of Oriental Studies, argued that “onlypreventive efforts by secret services as well as effective measures to fight youth unemployment in the North Caucasus can stem the growth in the number of Russians fighting for the IS.”
  • “Laws must be tightened against destructive groups, whatever ideology they may be following, and human rights activities promoted with the aim to protect not the rights of religious minorities, but the main majority of beliefs from the influence of sects. Human rights activities must be geared to the protection of the majority, which, in contrast to the radicals, do not constitute a threat,” said Galina Khizriyeva, senior research fellow at the Russian Institute of Strategic Studies.

INDIA

Indian media outlets and commentators debated the nature of the IS threat and Western response to that threat.

  • The Hindu argued that President Obama “deserves credits for outlining a nuanced view of the social origins of terrorism, and a more humane, long-term and inclusive approach.” But it also added that “it would be unrealistic to expect a radical shift in U.S. foreign policy,” with the recent intensification of drone attacks in Syria and Iraq.
  • Regarding the controversy surrounding the labeling of IS as “violent extremism,” Claude Smadja, president of Smadja & Smadja, a strategic advisory firm, argued that “this is definitely not a war against-or a confrontation with-Islam as such, but a war against Islamic radicalism.” There are no way for the West to “come to terms with radical Islamism,” as “[these radicals’] rage towards the Western world is not caused by the actions-or lack of action-from Western societies, but by what these societies are, what they represent.”
  • Political commentator Ali Khan Mahmudabad argued against the notions that “we understand IS,” and that it is “a coherent ideological group with clear theological precedents grounded in historical fact.” In its fight against the terrorist group, the world “needs to make sure that we do not mindlessly just accept their propaganda as fact and therefore contribute to their own myth-making.”
  • The Hindustan Times expressed a grim view that the fight against IS “will be a long battle,” as the jihadi group “appears a far more formidable foe than the Afghan Taliban,” with its abundant financial resources and weapons, and the U.S. struggles to muster political support for more firepower both at home and abroad.

SOUTH KOREA

Korean commentators questioned the effectiveness of the West’s military approach to IS.

  • Chung-in Moon, a political science professor at Yonsei University, argued that “direct military intervention by the West has its limits. Hasty intervention is a shortcut to rationalize the justification that IS members are jihadists who fight against 21st century crusaders. That will only empower IS, and its supporters will grow exponentially.”
  • “IS has placed its roots down in wretched societies in failed countries like Syria, Libya, Iraq and Yemen. Therefore, eradicating IS depends on how fast those countries can be normalized and effectively exercise their public authority,” Moon added.
  • He concluded, “In the end, the key is left in the hands of Arab countries and the Muslim communities there…Leaders of the Arab world and in Islam must find a way to isolate and diminish the presence of these extremist groups. They must remove IS with their own hands, as these people came from their society.”

Meanwhile, Korean media debated the country’s anti-terror law in the wake of the recent recruitment of an 18-year-old Korean man, named Kim, by the jihadist group.

  • Government officials said that Kim could be subject to prosecution under the criminal law for joining IS, although a foreign affairs official admitted that “Because there is no precedent for punishing an individual joining a terrorist organization in a foreign country, there may be differences in legal interpretations.”
  • The Korea Times argued that existing laws are not adequate to stop Korean nationals from joining the terrorist group, urging the government to pass “an anti-terror law [that] will allow for preventive actions such as blocking access to IS-related websites and tracing the movement of terrorists.”
  • “Now that it has become apparent that IS is not such a distant threat, the government must come up with preemptive and proactive measures to deal with the group’s penetration into our country,” argued the JoongAng Ilbo. “The threat of punishment can hardly stop the violent group from reaching the nation, so the government must enact a terror prevention law before it’s too late.”

JAPAN

Despite the support for the global anti-terrorism efforts, the recent hostage crisis involving two Japanese journalists has raised questions about the country’s involvement in the fight against IS.

  • Noting the fact that Middle Eastern countries traditionally have fostered a pro-Japanese sentiment because of its economic assistance, left-leaning Asahi Shimbun asked, “Is it that Japan’s support to the U.S.-led war against terrorism and deployment of Self-Defense Force troops to Iraq have affected the local sentiment toward Japan in a negative way?”
  • Opposition lawmakers have criticized Prime Minister Shinzo Abe that his speech in Egypt announcing a $200 million aid package to Middle East countries provoked the Islamic State militants.
  • The Mainichi Shimbun opined that the hostage crisis could negatively affect the Abe administration’s security policy agenda, as the Diet currently debates security bills regarding foreign deployment of Self-Defense Force and collective self-defense.

BRAZIL

Coverage and reactions to IS in Brazil by both the media and the government were largely muted. Apart from a few isolated incidents, the government has opined very little about the situation, and the media has mainly relied on outside reporting.

  • In September, President Dilma Rousseff was heavily criticized when she called for dialogue with IS during her speech at the United Nations. Rousseff was forced to defend her comments which came right when IS seemed poised to massacre thousands of Yazidis in Iraq, and led many to criticize her as naïve.
  • In Brazil’s congress, one evangelical backbench senator harshly criticized Itamaraty–Brazil’s foreign ministry–during a session in February for its lack of clear position regarding IS. He likened the government’s relative silence to having an anti-democratic stance.
  • Two Brazilians–both living in Europe–have been arrested while trying to travel to join IS.One has a Brazilian mother and was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison by a Belgian court. The other had been living in Spain and was caught in Bulgaria trying to cross the border into Turkey.

RPI acknowledges support from the MacArthur Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation of New York for its activities.

Rising Powers Debate Ukraine Ceasefire Deal

Policy Alert #94 | February 20, 2015

After sixteen-hours of diplomatic talks in Minsk last week, leaders from Russia, Ukraine, France, and Germany reached a ceasefire agreement, which German Chancellor Angela Merkel described as a “glimmer of hope” for the longstandng military conflict in Eastern Ukraine. Although the ceasefire came into effect on Sunday, there have already been reports of fire by pro-Russian rebels in some towns. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from Russia, China, Japan, and India on the ceasefire agreement and the future of the Ukraine crisis.

RUSSIA

Russians took a cautious wait-and-see approach to the ceasefire, with some pondering the casefire’s implications for the global and regional order.

  • Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov urged all confronting parties in eastern Ukraine to stop hostilities everywhere in line with the Minsk agreements reached last week. The minister also slammed US Vice President Joe Biden for his “threats” to introduce more sanctions against Moscow, using Debaltsevo as an excuse. “This is one more proof of Washington’s non-constructive stance,” Lavrov said.
  • Vladimir Zharikhin, first deputy director of the CIS Countries Institute, told the state-owned TASS news agency, “Despite all of the flaws in this agreement – and it is certainly a compromise solution – the situation has been evolving in a positive fashion for the time being.”
  • “There is no guarantee that the agreement will be long-lived, because the fresh agreement, to some extent, is a replica of the September deal,” said Igor Korotchenko, editor-in-chief of Russia’s National Defense magazine.
  • RPI author Andrew Kuchins weighed in on the Minsk agreement, stating that “”[T]he [Minsk] agreement is reasonable and fair enough under the circumstances, but obviously the key variable will be sustainability of political will on all sides for effective implementation, and on that we will just have to wait and see.”
  • Political analyst Georgy Bovt wrote in the Moscow Times, “The main difference between the current Minsk agreement and the one reached in September is supposedly that now the two new powerful players, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande, will put pressure on Kiev… That is partly true, but so is the fact that Europe is slowly but surely growing tired of Ukraine…There is another land mine that is potentially more powerful than all of the others combined – the fact that the United States was not directly involved in any way with the settlement negotiated in Minsk. Washington continues to view Ukraine as a stage for countering Putin, whom it believes wants to change the global rules of the game.”
  • Another Moscow Times op-ed posited that the Ukraine issue is exposing a “lack of European unity,” pointing out the wide range of views on the crisis. “Countries as different as Austria and Greece have raised objections to sanctions against Russia, the former because of the Russian money parked in its banks, the latter because of historic ties to its fellow Orthodox nation and its rage over the effects of northern-mandated austerity. Even among countries with a seeming community of interest – like Hungary and Poland, both newly-minted eastern EU members – there is a radical divergence in their views.”
  • Moscow Times journalist Ivan Sukhov wrote, “The vague presentiment that something terrible is about to happen on the domestic front [in Russia] makes Russian leaders peer through their window on the world with a similar sense of impending doom. But the view from Debaltseve is even worse: From that vantage point, it seems that something really is not working in the world if the major powers cannot stop the killing.”

CHINA

Chinese officials stressed the importance of finding a political solution to the Ukraine issue, while media regarded the ceasefire with skepticism.

  • Liu Jieyi, China’s permanent representative to the United Nations stated, “China has been of the view that in addressing the Ukrainian issue, we must stay the course of a political solution…A fundamental and long-time solution of this issue must both accommodate the legitimate interest and concerns of all the ethnic groups throughout Ukraine and address the legitimate concerns of all relevant parties so that a balance of interest can be achieved”
  • The state run Global Times published a cartoon depicting a dove sitting on two smoking guns with the caption “Nervous peace.”
  • One China Daily op-ed sarcastically posed a question: “The Minsk agreement has indeed come as a boon for the battered and shattered people of Ukraine. But how can any agreement to end the Ukraine crisis, or for that matter most of the crises around the world, work without the United States being a party to it? Doesn’t the US have a finger in every global and regional pie?“

JAPAN

Newspapers in Japan expressed relatively grim views on the ceasefire agreement as well as the future of the conflict in Ukraine.

  • The Sankei Shimbun argued that while the ceasefire presents “a step toward” the resolution of the Ukraine crisis, “international society must continue demanding Russia to return Crimea while calling for peace in Ukraine.”
  • The Asahi Shimbun expressed concerns over “the prospect of the United States and Russia starting a ‘surrogate war,'” in response to reports that the U.S. may supply arms to Ukraine, depending on what President Vladimir Putin would do.
  • The Japan Times characterized the ceasefire deal as “a pause, not peace,” as it “locks in Russia’s ability to meddle in Ukrainian affairs, to turn up the heat as it sees fit to destabilize that government as well as the European governments that support Kiev.”
  • The ongoing conflict shows that the U.S. and Europe “miscalculated Russia’s true intentions over Ukraine,” posited the Mainichi Shimbun, a miscalculation that “they could explore the possibility of co-existence and co-prosperity with Russia.”
  • The Yomiuri Shimbun argued that the real challenge for Ukraine is not only to stop the military confrontation but also to “reconcile deep-seated confrontation between its eastern regions, where there are many pro-Russia elements, with the other areas, which have strong antipathy toward Russia. Reconciliation must be achieved by granting autonomy to areas controlled by pro-Russia groups and the reconstruction of residents’ lives and the economies of the regions that have seen conflict.”

INDIA

Indian newspapers debated what gains parties made via the ceasefire agreement.

  • “Russia and the rebels are makingtactical gains, with the Ukrainian military having to give up its current line of control and Kiev compelled to introduce a new constitution allowing rebel regions to form their own police, appoint their judges and conduct trade with Russia,” posited The Indian Express.
  • However, the newspaper also emphasized the ceasefire agreement also benefits Ukraine overall, as it “upholds Ukrainian sovereignty, with full control of rebel-held areas and the border with Russia set to return to Kiev by end-2015, post a full political settlement. Also, the IMF’s $17.5 billion reform package would enable Kiev to reopen banks and transfer pensions to the east. So, Ukraine may be the strategic winner.”
  • The Hindu warned that “the fluid situation on the ground” in Eastern Ukraine may drive a wedge between the United States and Europe: while Washington considers supplying arms to Ukraine troops, European powers insist on a peaceful resolution due to their economic and energy interdependence with Moscow.

RPI acknowledges support from the MacArthur Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation of New York for its activities.

President Obama’s Trip to India Prompts Reactions from Rising Powers

Policy Alert #93 | February 2, 2015

U.S. President Barack Obama’s three-day trip to India last week concluded with a lengthy, 59-paragraph-long joint statement containing agreements on a variety of issues, from much awaited progress on India’s nuclear liability law, to the strengthening of defense ties involving technology trade, to U.S. $4-billion investment in Indian businesses, to counterterrorism and climate change cooperation, along with an expansive strategic vision for the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean region. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from India, China, and Japan on the recent summit between President Obama and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

INDIA

Indian newspapers and critics welcomed President Obama’s visit as a “new chapter” in U.S.-India relations.

  • Former foreign secretary Shyam Saran called the summit “a milestone event” in bilateral relations, as the symbolism of the “personal chemistry” between the two leaders was matched with the substance of the bilateral agreements.
  • Indian political commentator Ashok Malik stated that the agreements reached “have gone well beyond expectations.” “Modi has pushed ahead with much of what Singh started, including the nuclear deal, or wanted to start (serious defense cooperation, the India-Pacific thrust) but was blocked from doing by naysayers in his own party and government.”

However, there was some skepticism about the content of the bilateral agreements.

  • “On the business side, there were no significant outcomes to talk about except for the resolve to expand trade ties and a $4-billion commitment from the U.S. in investment and loans,” said The Hindu, comparing the U.S. commitment to Japan’s $35-billion investment package agreed on during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s last visit to Tokyo, and noting the fact that Washington is “unhappy with the ‘Make in India’ policy, especially in the renewable energy sector where it sees great prospects for its own companies,” and where the half of the U.S. investment will be spent.
  • The newspaper also called for more openness in the bilateral nuclear deal. “[T]he Indian public must be informed about exactly what assurances have been given to U.S. officials in return for their acceptance of the Indian liability law, and what the added costs would be.”
  • The Indian Express expressed skepticism about the nuclear deal, arguing that some tweaks in the rules and definitions of India’s liability law may not be able to stand domestic legal scrutiny. The newspaper concluded that the government eventually needs to amend the law.
  • “On defense cooperation, the results are less than impressive, given the hype built around the Defense Technology and Trade Initiative,” said former foreign secretary Kanwal Sibal. “The four projects announced are supposed to be ‘pathfinders.’ No big-ticket item is included. The technologies mentioned may be significant, but do not seem cutting edge.”
  • M.M. Bahadur, a retired Air Vice Marshall and Fellow at the Centre for Air Power Studies, New Delhi, also noted the limited nature of defense cooperation. “Presently, despite the large number of defense exercises that are conducted, the Indo-U.S. defense interaction is limited to one between a buyer and seller…India sees improved defense ties as means of acquiring cutting edge technologies…[to] retain its strategic autonomy.”

Commentators also discussed the implications of the summit for India-China relations.

  • Indian journalist Jhinuk Chowdhury called the summit “a clear statement that India is finally shedding ambiguity from its foreign policy and making tough choices, a stance that’s putting Beijing on guard.” Having expressed concerns about the region’s “rising tensions over maritime territorial disputes” in the joint statement, “India wants to regain its lost importance in the region, especially in Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean region. It has made a clear choice who it wants to partner with for this.”
  • Hardeep S. Puri, former permanent representative to the United Nations, dismissed the interpretation of President Obama’s visit as anti-China. “India clearly is undertaking a multi-aligned approach. Both India and the US want to engage a new and rising China in the interest of global economic and political well-being.”
  • Prashant Jha, associate editor for the Hindustan Times, called the summit India’s “balancing act” between the two superpowers. The Modi government “now subscribes to the theory thatcloser engagement with the U.S. may well open up more possibilities with Beijing,” as it sees the U.S.-India relations as “an insurance policy” in engaging with China.
  • The Hindu warned that strengthening the U.S.-India relationship “should not come at the cost of other relationships. The vision statement on the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean region is likely to have a more lasting impact on relations with China, as it seeks to portray an India-U.S. front against diplomatic, economic and security challenges in the region.”

CHINA

Chinese media expressed unease at the strategic implications of President Obama’s visit to India on Sino-Indian relations while simultaneously downplaying the significance of U.S.- India relations.

  • At a regular press conference, Chinese spokesperson Hua Chunying stated that, “It is hoped that the development of U.S.-India relations will help promoted mutual trust and cooperation among countries in the region, and safeguard peace, stability, and prosperity of the region.”
  • “A zero-sum game is not what China and India are asking for, but under Western influence,India is sliding into it,” stated Global Times journalist Wen Dao. “Putting aside debates over specific issues, China and India must keep in mind that their relations cannot take a life-or-death struggle as a foothold.”
  • Another Global Times op-ed by report Sun Xiaobo expressed skepticism towards the fanfare of President Obama’s visit. “The seemingly enthusiastic approaching of the U.S. and India and the bromance between the two leaders do not suggest any substantial improvement in the bilateral ties of the two countries…India intends to maximize its interests from the important relationship with the U.S., but it has its own strategies to follow and carefully measures its critical relations with other big powers such as China.”
  • “The Obama trip in India may succeed in propelling the U.S.-India relationship forward, but it could hardly change the ground reality that India also needs China as a crucial cooperation partner,” wrote writer Wang Haiqing in the state-run Xinhua.
  • “No matter how successful the trip, it should not come at the expense of relations with other countries, China among them,” warned an editorial in the South China Morning Post.

JAPAN

Japanese newspapers mainly focused on the security implications of President Obama’s trip.

  • The Nikkei Shimbun attributed the success of the trip to “the great personal chemistry” between President Obama and Prime Minister Modi, noting a shift in India’s foreign policy that has traditionally “kept a certain distance” from the United States.
  • The “top priority” of President Obama’s visit was to create an “encirclement” of China involving New Delhi, explained the Nikkei, as India plays an important role in maintaining the stability of the Asia-Pacific region.
  • The Mainichi Shimbun posited that the strengthening of the U.S.-India relations was driven by concerns over the rise of China and its increasing maritime assertiveness in the region.
  • The newspaper also concluded that India achieved more accomplishments than the U.S., because the summit met many of New Delhi’s demands-the nuclear deal, further defense and economic cooperation, and counter-terrorism efforts concerning Pakistan-but not Washington’s demands on climate change, such as specific greenhouse gas reduction goals.

 

 

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.

Rising Powers React to Charlie Hebdo Attack

Policy Alert #92 | January 21, 2015

The terrorist attack on French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, which killed 12 people including the editor and four other cartoonists, generated a public outcry against terrorism and a controversy surrounding freedom of speech in France, Europe, and the world. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from China, Russia, India, Japan, South Korea, and Brazil on the terror attack.

CHINA

Chinese media unanimously cautioned that free speech has limits and suggested that the limit was pushed too far in the case of Charlie Hebdo.

  • Xinhua writer Deng Yushan argued, “Although there is no “but” in the articles enshrining the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press in constitutions, there is always one between the lines. Words have consequences, and in a variety of cases what one says cannot be warranted by free speech…Needlessly offensive reportage that only worsens misunderstanding between cultures and exacerbates mistrust between civilizations is in no way conducive to the well-being of mankind, and thus is in all its forms on the wrong side of the baseline.”
  • Xiao Chengsen, executive editor of Satire and Humor, China’s only caricature focused newspaper, told the Global Times, “While freedom of expression is something every author chases after, respect for others demands that some rules not be broken. “We… avoid making jokes at the expense of disadvantaged groups. We don’t have very clear rules when it comes to this, but it is a form of self-regulation that authors should follow.”
  • Likening the Charlie Hebdo attacks to terrorist activity in China’s Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region, Xinhua editor Shi Xiaomeng called for “countries to not only stand as one, but act as one in countering terrorism.”
  • The state-run China Daily wrote, “On the question of religion and culture, the press should promote harmonious communication and amiable dialogue between different religions and cultures, rather than causing problems for the peaceful coexistence between peoples.”
  • Hu Xingjian, associate professor of political science and law at China’s Southwest University stated that, “Since laws alone cannot resolve [cultural conflicts among different ethnic and religious groups], every member of society has to determine the extent to which he/she can go in criticizing, satirizing or lampooning a country, a group or an individual.”

RUSSIA

The majority of Russian media remained silent on the issue of protecting freedom of speech.

  • Russia’s communications watchdog Roskomnadzor issued a formal warning to the country’s media against publishing religious-themed cartoons, saying their publication could be classified as a crime. The agency also said the publication of religion-themed satirical content contradicted “ethical and moral norms formed over a century of cohabitation” between people of different backgrounds and faiths in Russia.
  • Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov attended a 1.5 million-person solidarity march in Paris last Sunday, along with representatives from 83 foreign states, to honor the victims. Critics questioned Lavrov’s presence at the march, complaining that foreign delegates from states with poor human rights and press freedom track records had no place at the event.
  • Despite Lavrov’s participation in the march in Paris, “No high-ranking Russian officials have spoken out about the imperative of protecting freedom of expression, a leitmotiv of Western observers’ commentary on the attack,” observed the Moscow Times.
  • Nezavisimaya Gazeta published an editorial opining that the peace march was a decorous civil act that underscored the extent to which Europeans value active citizenship, and how much in this regard Russians can learn.
  • Izvestia‘s Leonid Shakhov called on journalists to be responsible. The right to ‘draw and say what you think is necessary’ is indisputable,” Shakhov said. “No one says it serves them right. But, face it, any artist or journalist, assuming he’s not a complete idiot, on finding a less than enthusiastic public response to his nonchalant attacks against the cherished ideas and beliefs of others, whoever they may be, must, if not apologize, then at least not exacerbate the ‘sin of provocation’.”

INDIA

Many Indian newspapers and commentators expressed concerns about anti-Islam voices in France and raised questions about Charlie Hebdo’s ‘right to offend’.

  • While condemning the attack, The Hindu warned that “it would be most unfortunate if the attack on Charlie Hebdo were to give rise to a backlash against French Muslims. That would result in precisely what Islamist groups want—an alienated Muslim population that would become a recruiting ground for their violent cause.”
  • “In the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo episode, it is Islamophobic violence, as much as Islamist terror, that has emerged as the real and looming threat to French security,” the Pioneer argued, noting a number of anti-Muslim incidents that followed the massacre and urging French society to accommodate the country’s Muslim community that “does not quite feel at home” due to inequality and discrimination.
  • The Times of India consulting editor Sagarika Ghose questioned the French magazine’s decision to caricature Prophet Mohammed, saying “The killing of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists was unacceptable, no one has any right to gun down a critic. Yet beyond the tragic deaths, perhaps it’s best when the cartoon remains a cartoon: a weapon of laughter and thought, not a weapon of war against religious beliefs. After all, a bellyful of laughter always dignifies both the prankster and his target.”
  • Indian writer, critic, and literary historian Rakhshanda Jalil expressed a similar view. “As the pressure mounts…to claim ownership of Charlie Hebdo, and by extension, all forms of radical expressions of dissent, freedom of speech and the right to offend, I must say in equally clear terms: ‘I am not Charlie Hebdo and I am not a terrorist.’ I cannot have a choice forced upon me. I cannot be deliberately offensive. And I refuse to revel in puerile ways of ridiculing the [Islam] ‘other.’”
  • Commenting on the anti-terrorism march in Paris that involved millions of participants, including many world leaders, the Business Standard welcomed the global solidarity against extremism. “[T]he universal condemnation of murder, even when the murder is that of individuals whom some might have reckoned blasphemers against Islam, shows that things are not all dark. Indeed there is ground for some cautious optimism.”

JAPAN

While condemning the terrorist attack, Japanese newspapers raised concerns about anti-Muslim sentiments in French society.

  • The Asahi Shimbun strongly condemned the massacre as “a grave, threatening challenge to freedom of speech, an essential element of the foundation of a democratic society.”
  • But it also expressed reservations about the country’s “excessive” reactions, saying that “France should ask itself whether it is making a well-reasoned, advisable response to what happened if its top government officials are whipping up public sentiment against Muslim extremists by using the word “war” and immediately launching a military action overseas.”
  • The Japan Times cautioned against “a very real risk of a rise in intolerance and reprisals against Muslim communities,” denouncing extreme rhetoric such as one by Marine Le Pen, head of the ultra-right National Front party, that “the Islamists have declared war against France.”
  • The Yomiuri Shimbun also emphasized the limits of free speech. “As crucial as freedom of speech is…the general view in Japan is that if such expression goes against public welfare, it should not be accepted unreservedly. Media organizations must carry articles and other content only after carefully considering their possible social impact. The spirit of respecting the various values held by those on the receiving end of such expressions is itself the foundation of a mature democracy.”
  • The Mainichi Shimbun expressed a similar view, arguing that “Freedom of expression should be protected to achieve a society in which diverse values are respected. To that end, it is important for members of society to respect not only their own values but also other people’s values. If expressions that offend and discriminate against others were to be permitted without limits, society could lose diversity and tolerance.”
  • The Sankei Shimbun disagreed, insisting that caricatures constitute an important element of freedom of speech in European society, and that self-censorship in such publications equates to a “surrender” to the fear of terrorism and “playing into the terrorists’ hands.”

SOUTH KOERA

South Korean officials and media outlets criticized the terrorist attack and expressed support for France’s war on terror.

  • Noh Kwang-il, the Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman, strongly condemned the attack against the French newspaper. “The shock from the Jan. 7 act of terror on the Charlie Hebdo headquarters in Paris that has sacrificed the lives of many, including police, is unfathomable.”
  • He added that “Our government is of the firm position that terrorism is an anti-society, anti-humanity criminal act that must be eradicated,” and that Seoul “will be active in the global community and United Nations’ efforts to eliminate terrorism.”
  • The Korea Herald showed support for French responses to the massacre, arguing that the terrorists “should realize that last week’s attack has united the people to take a stand against acts of terrorism and that people will continue to live their lives undeterred, enjoying the cherished right to freely express themselves.”
  • “The freedom of expression does have its limits,” admitted the Dong-A Ilbo, however adding that such freedom should not be undermined by religious holiness. “Modern media is based on the spirit that even Jesus and Mohammed can be lampooned. Forming solidarity with people fighting against those who refuses to accept it is the spirit of ‘Je suis Charlie (I am Charlie)’… The moment we have absolute religious holiness that we are not allowed to criticize, we would fall into the danger of going back to the pre-modern world.”

BRAZIL

Reactions to the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Brazil were a mix of revulsion at the attacks and a full-throated defense of the virtues of free speech.

  • President Dilma Rousseff released a statement following the attacks expressing her sadness and indignation at the “bloody and intolerable terrorist attack” and declared it “an unacceptable attack on one of the fundamental values of democratic societies—freedom of the press.”
  • Folha de São Paulo published an editorial defending the magazine and harshly criticizing the Secretary of Justice in São Paulo state, Toledo César for Facebook comments he made regarding his “indignation at the poor use of freedom of expression by the French cartoonists.”
  • In the newspaper Estado de São Paulo, prominent columnist José Nêumanne praised the mobilization of Europeans and their leaders in defense of free speech, concluding that “in this crucial moment for the human race, Europe revealed itself to be fully capable of delivering civilization from the risks of barbarianism…”

Sony Hack Sparks Reactions from Rising Powers

Policy Alert #91 | January 14, 2015

The hacking attack allegedly conducted by North Korea against Sony Pictures Entertainment led the company to temporally cancel the Christmas day release of its controversial film The Interview, a movie about an assassination of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. This cyberattack generated worldwide discussions on freedom of speech and cyber security. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from China, Japan, South Korea, Russia, India, and Brazil on the hacking incident.

CHINA

Chinese officials urged restraint from both North Korea and the United States. Continue reading “Sony Hack Sparks Reactions from Rising Powers”

SAARC Summit Spurs Debates on Regional Integration in South Asia

Policy Alert #90 | December 9, 2014

On November 26-27, leaders from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka gathered in Kathmandu to attend the 18th South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) summit. Under this year’s theme of “regional integration,” leaders sought to conclude three much-expected, showpiece agreements concerning road, rail, and power connectivity, aimed to boost the intra-regional trade for the energy-starved region. However, they fell short of expectations and were only able to agree on the energy deal. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from India and China on the outcomes of the SAARC summit.

INDIA

Expectations for the SAARC summit were high in India given Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s surprise invitations to the leaders of SAARC member states to his inaugural ceremony in May, a decision that has stood out as a “game changer.” Indian commentators especially focused on the summit’s economic promises for South Asia, whose intra-regional trade is less than 5% of its total trade and accounts for less than 2% of its GDP.

  • “South Asia has the world’s largest working-age population and a quarter of middle-class consumers. With greater regional integration, seamless connectivity, and removal of trade and investment bottlenecks, the region has the potential to break out,” argued Chandrajit Banerjee, the Director General of the Confederation of Indian Industry.
  • “For Prime Minister Modi, who has sought to establish a strong foreign credential in his first six months in office, this [the Summit] will be his biggest, diplomatic test,” wrote The Pioneer.

The failure of the summit to meet these expectations, however, raised disappointments from Indian newspapers.

  • The Times of India bashed the summit as just “a talking shop” and “another unproductive SAARC summit.”
  • In an editorial titled “The Fading SAARC Initiative,” The Hindu lamented, “It is…disappointing to see that…the meeting between the South Asian leaders did not produce much more than a few face-saving agreements forged at the last moment.”
  • “The South Asian forum which turns 30 next year has largely been a disappointment, if not an entirely failed project. Look at it any which way you want but there is no denying that SAARC has been unable to deliver on two of its basic promises: Prevent war between its member states and encourage greater economic cooperation among them,” wrote Mayuri Mukherjee, Senior Assistant Editor at The Pioneer.

Criticisms against the summit’s failure were targeted not only toward Pakistan, which rejected road and rail connectivity agreements on the grounds of lack of sufficient “internal processes” and advocated for China’s accession from an observer to member state status, but also toward India, whose rivalry vis-à-vis Islamabad stifled negotiations.

  • Former Indian ambassador Neelam Deo blamed Pakistan and host country Nepal, saying that “realistic expectations for connectivity were belied by perennial India-Pakistan dissonances and the joint Pakistan and Nepali push for observer China to become a SAARC member, knowing India’s reservations precluded any positive outcome.”
  • She added, “The failed summit has clarified that Modi’s ambitions for greater connectivity must be focused on India’s North, East and South, regrettably leaving Afghanistan physically cut off from the rest of SAARC. This is an appropriate admission of the difficulties inherent in Pakistan’s stubborn rivalry with India; that it repeatedly sacrifices its own economic interests for an illusory equality with India.”
  • The Times of India agreed, arguing, “nothing prevents New Delhi from pursuing… cooperation with eastern neighbors such as Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar and Bangladesh -as well as Sri Lanka to the south- an area where it too has been tardy. If all of south Asia minus Pakistan becomes thriving and prosperous, then the incentive for Pakistan to join would be enormous.”
  • The newspaper also criticized India, saying that “It’s not just Pakistan that plays a spoiler at SAARC summits, India too hasn’t taken this regional grouping seriously enough in the past. And other countries may just be tired of endless territorial quarrels between India and Pakistan usurping everything else at SAARC.”
  • “India fancies itself as a global power. However, its claims to leadership have always been undercut by the fact that it has failed to deliver on its home turf in South Asia…India, its Pakistan problems notwithstanding, has also failed  in its role as the group’s natural leader,” seconded The Pioneer.
  • “That Modi held bilateral discussions on the sidelines with leaders of all countries except Pakistan was…an indication that India and Pakistan were drifting away from each other, which might pose a grave challenge to smooth functioning of SAARC in future,” lamented Ashok Behuria, Coordinator and Fellow at the South Asia Centre, Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses, New Delhi.

Meanwhile, Indian newspapers discussed India’s challenges posed by China, which has promised $30 billion investments in the region over the next five years and sought membership status in SAARC.

  • Srikanth Kondapalli, Professor in Chinese Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University, warned that “China’s ancient strategy of hexiao kongda [cooperate with the small countries to counter the big] was implemented in South Asia to counter India.”
  • Sheel Kant Sharma, former Secretary General of SAARC, critiqued Chinese economic involvement. “China does not belong to South Asia. China’s own trade with all SAARC members is heavily skewed against them. Its promised investments on infrastructure are not likely to balance trade.”
  • The Hindu expressed a more moderate view, claiming “India would do well to counterpoise China’s economic weight by engaging its neighbors more deeply to formulate a consensus, instead of being seen as obstructing a closer SAARC-China engagement.”

CHINA

China has held observer status with SAARC since 2006 and pledged to increase engagement with the bloc at the summit.

  • Liu Zongyi, an assistant research fellow at Shanghai Institutes for International Studies, wrote an op-ed in the Global Times criticizing India for blocking China’s entry to SAARC. New Delhi is “is afraid that an anti-India group will take shape once China joins SAARC,” according to Liu.
  • Another editorial in People’s Daily added that India is “apprehensive that China’s entry will undermine its political and economic clout in the grouping” and that “India’s biggest concern is that once China enters the grouping, its dominance in the region would be shaken, and also that smaller countries in the grouping will find a countervailing force in China and settle scores with India.”
  • Debate over whether to restrict China to its observer status or allow it to play a more active role in SAARC intensified during the summit, with Dr. Nischal Nath Pandey, director at the Center for South Asian Studies in Nepal observing that the “EU and China are the most active observers to the SAARC. We cannot lump them up with other observers, some of whom have not done anything.”
  • “China has put forward a series of initiatives, (including) increasing trade between South Asia and China to 150 billion US dollars and investment to 30 billion US dollars in the next five years,” announced Liu Zhenmin, Chinese Deputy Foreign Minister and head of the Chinese delegation.
  • “China hopes the SAARC will “contribute more to regional peace, stability and development” and that China will “continue dialogue and cooperation with the SAARC in this direction,” according to Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu at a regular press briefing.

Ferguson Protests Spark Reactions from Rising Powers

Policy Alert #89 | December 3, 2014

Protests erupted in Ferguson, Missouri, and spread across the country after a grand jury on November 24 decided not to indict white police officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of black teenager Michael Brown. This triggered nationwide discussions about racism in American society. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from China, Russia, India, Japan, and Brazil on the Ferguson incident.

CHINA

China, a frequent target of US criticism over its human rights record, used the Ferguson incident to blast the United States for what the Chinese media deemed “human rights violations.”

  • “Racial tensions cut deep in the US, a country that always points its fingers at other countries on the issue,” wrote Xinhua writer Li Li.
  • “Unfortunately, the Ferguson incident is, rather than being isolated, only a dot in a string of injustice events that stains America’s reputation as “the champion of human rights,” critiqued Lu Jiafei, a Xinhua writer.
  • The state-run People’s Daily slammed the Ferguson decision as a “miscarriage of justice and a violation of human rights.”
  • “It’s no surprise anymore to walk into many American communities and schools these days to be reminded that de facto segregation still exists widely in a nation which lauds itself for upholding human rights,” commented Chen Weihua, deputy editor of China Daily USA.

RUSSIA

Russian officials and media covered the Ferguson protests heavily, criticizing President Obama’s inability to “handle his own domestic affairs” and the US administration’s failure to “protect human rights.”

  • Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Alexander Lukashevich criticized that “The US authorities are demonstrating sham care for protestors in foreign countries but do not stop short of using force to crack down on internal protests.”
  • Russian Foreign Ministry’s human rights envoy Konstantin Dolgov stated that the violent protests in Ferguson “reflect simmering US tensions over racial discrimination that could undermine the country’s stability.” He added, “We may only hope that US authorities seriously deal with those issues and other serious challenges in the human rights field in their own country and stop what they have been doing all along recently- playing an aggressive mentor lecturing other countries about how to meet human rights standards.”
  • A statement issued by the Russian Foreign Ministry chimed in on the criticism, “The latest events in Ferguson are just another, very worrying signal for the American government that it is finally time to focus on their large-scale internal problems in the sphere of upholding human rights…rather than engaging in baseless and futile mentoring and propagandistic moral preaching to other countries.”
  • State-run news agency RIA Novosti reported that protestors in Ferguson torched a caroperated by journalists from Rossiya Segodnya news group, which owns RIA Novosti.

INDIA

Indian newspapers and commentators expressed grim views on the state of racism in the United States while debating President Obama’s response to the Ferguson incident.

  • The incident “holds up a mirror unto the troubling state of race relations in America,” positedThe Hindu. “African-Americans of all backgrounds…face a daily, ongoing threat to their lives and security, given the toxic mix of historical prejudice and law enforcement’s gun culture.”
  • Narayan Lakshman, a correspondent for The Hindu wrote, “The Ferguson episode shows hownothing has changed for the African-American community since Abraham Lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation into law in 1863.”
  • He rebuked the St. Louis County prosecutor, Robert P. McCulloch for his handling of the case: “If the country’s juridical proceedings can thus be manipulated to undercut minority communities seeking justice, then a quiet undercurrent of racist stereotyping in the wider society perpetuates the notion that these communities are legitimate, even deserving, targets of malign official power.”
  • The Times of India columnist Renuka Bisht criticized that President Barack Obama’s “detached” message since the Ferguson verdict-respect law and order, protest peacefully, don’t break the law to protest miscarriage of law-“has little connect with the sense of anger in Ferguson.” This is “[w]hy black kids are feeling let down by black president Barack Obama.”
  • The Pioneer expressed a different view, arguing that “President Barack Obama has done well, despite being goaded, not to add his voice to the controversy by taking sides. Had he waded into the issue, things could have taken a turn for the worse.”

JAPAN

Japanese media outlets voiced concerns on the problem of racism in America.

  • The Asahi Shimbun called the Ferguson case “a modern-day lynching,” noting the “disheartening” history of racism against black Americans and quoting Mark Twain, who, in his 1901 commentary titled “The United States of Lyncherdom,” condemned lynching as an “epidemic of bloody insanities” that formed a shameful chapter in U.S. history.
  • The Sankei Shimbun lamented that the problem of racism still persists in the United States even after half a century, pointing out that the black community feels “laws are not being fairly enforced.”
  • The newspaper argued that American society must strive for President Obama’s vision of “one America” that transcends political and racial divides.

BRAZIL

Coverage in Brazil focused on the Ferguson protests themselves and  the history of racism in the United States. In some circles, it led to introspection and criticism of the Brazilian police, which are often disproportionately violent toward Brazil’s black communities.

  • Many of the largest media outlets, including O Globo and Folha de São Paulo, focused their coverage on the history and legacy of American racism. The O Globo editorial warned that “Brazil is making a mistake adopting racialized American policies, like quotas [affirmative action], derived from that culture.”
  • Civil society groups examined the racialized violence of Brazilian police. Mônica Francisco, a civil rights activist, wrote in Jornal do Brasil that in Brazil, similar to Ferguson, a black majority lives within institutions controlled by whites, where police often kill with impunity.
  • In an interview with the online portal Favela 247, Átila Roque, the head of Amnesty International Brazil, declared that “what happened in Ferguson happens every day in Brazil.” She elaborated that of the 30,000 people between 15 and 29 who die each year in Brazil, 77 percent are black.
  • Mac Margolis, an American writer for Bloomberg View based in São Paulo, sounded a similar note in a piece also published in Folha de São Paulo, discussing the significantly higher rates of police violence and impunity in Brazil.
Viewing Message: 1 of 1.
 Notice

This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. Visit GW’s Website Privacy Notice to learn more about how GW uses cookies.