China and India React to Secretary Clinton’s Visit to Burma/Myanmar

Policy Alert #42 | December 29, 2012

US policy toward Myanmar is shifting from one of isolation to engagement, as underscored by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s three day visit to Myanmar in early December. In this Policy Alert, we highlight how this change is viewed in India and China, two major Asian powers with potentially competing interests in Myanmar. 

INDIA

Of the diverse range of Indian commentaries on this topic, a generally shared opinion is that this liberalization of relations with Myanmar shows that India’s policy of engagement since the mid-1990s has been the right approach all along.

On the geopolitical implications of US engagement with Myanmar, many see this as an opportunity for India to counterbalance China through strengthened relations with Myanmar. See, for example,commentary by Shyam Saran, the former Indian ambassador to Myanmar.

  • The “Liberal Globalist” perspective is more optimistic about cooperating with the US. Sreeram Chaulia, Vice Dean of the Jindal School of International Affairs, argues that an “India-US team” with common geopolitical interests “can tilt Myanmar decisively away from authoritarianism and Chinese stranglehold.”

A critical question is whether India’s relations with Myanmar should take into account the country’s progress in political liberalization.

  • Support for the democracy agenda was expressed in an Indian Express editorial and Hindustan Times editorial.
  • In contrast, C. Raja Mohan believes that “India has no reason to tail the Western debate on democratic change in Myanmar,” and further suggests that by making engagement conditional on democracy and human rights issues, “Washington finds itself certainly constrained.”

CHINA

The state and party owned press characterize Clinton’s visit as yet another example that the US is trying to contain China.

Considerable commentary was devoted to the Myanmar government’s recent decision to suspend the Chinese-supported Myitsone hydroelectric dam project.

  • Citing widespread public concern over the dam’s environmental effects and consequences for local communities, President Thein Sein halted work on the dam in late September. According to the Global Times, this suspension “brought massive losses” to China Power Investment Corp, the corporation responsible for construction of the dam. China “welcomes the opening-up of Myanmar, but firmly opposes it stepping on China’s interests.”
  • “Myanmar is the pivot of China’s grand strategy to achieve its economic growth goal,” says Li Xiguang, director of the International Center for Communication at Tsinghua University. For this reason, he argues that US moves to encircle China make even more urgent the opening of trade and transport routes between southwestern China and Myanmar.

As U.S. Fiscal Cliff Looms, Asian Powers Keep a Close Watch

Policy Alert #41 | December 29, 2012

As the United States confronts a looming fiscal cliff, whether and how it is resolved will have an impact on the global economy and on Asian economies. Today’s Policy Alert highlights recent Indian, Chinese and South Korean commentary on the U.S. economy, reflecting anxiety and impatience.

INDIA

CHINA

  • The People’s Daily seized the chance to lash out at US leadership as a great power. In a commentary titled “U.S. has no right to frequently disturb the world,” the paper said that “Although the U.S. is unlikely to really fall off the fiscal cliff, it has frequently disturbed the globalized world due to domestic political infighting, which reflects the problems concerning the U.S. political system and lack of responsibility as a major power.”
  • In less emotive terms, another analysis in the paper predicted that if the U.S. does fall off the fiscal cliff, turbulence in global markets will induce depreciation of the Chinese yuan.

SOUTH KOREA

  • In South Korea, investors are taking a “wait-and-see” approach to the U.S. budget talks:
  • Lee Seung-woo, an analyst at Daewoo Securities stated, “The fiscal cliff woes have widely dominated the stock market…investors are afraid of another double-dip recession stemming from a possible fiscal cliff. Therefore, the index will move up and down in accordance with the negotiations in Washington.”
  • The South Korean central bank has increased its gold holdings, aimed at “diversifying foreign reserves and investment risks,” according to Lee Jung, head of the investment strategy team at the Bank of Korea’s reserve management group. He added that gold makes it possible to effectively counter rapid changes in international financial markets.
  • The Joongang Daily questioned how effective American foreign policy could be, given its inability to resolve the impending fiscal cliff. “The deepening political polarization in the U.S. and a possibility of administrative paralysis stemming from extreme rifts in the overall political spectrum raises a serious question about the efficiency of America’s democracy to the world.”

Return of Japan’s LDP and Shinzo Abe Draws Mixed Reactions from Asian Powers

Policy Alert #40 | December 29, 2012

Shinzo Abe of Japan’s conservative Liberal Democratic Party is set to be the country’s next prime minister, after leading his party to a landslide election win this past Sunday. This Policy Alert rounds up post-election commentary in Japan, then highlights South Korean and Chinese expressions of unease at this return of conservatism to Japanese politics. In contrast, Indian commentators are enthusiastic about the reelection of Abe, whom they consider strongly pro-India.

JAPAN

In Japan, commentators warned the LDP to accept its landslide victory with humility and urged leaders to govern Japan pragmatically and responsibly.

  • Reflecting on the election, the Asahi Shimbun stated that the “biggest reason for the poor public enthusiasm for this election was probably the lack of a party that could really represent the will of the people after they became disillusioned with the DPJ.” Japan’s failure “to make effective policy responses to the economic and diplomatic challenges confronting the country…prompted many commentators both at home and abroad to talk about ‘Japan’s decline’ as a nation.”
  • The LDP has called for revising Article 9 in Japan’s constitution, which renounces war in favor of the right to exercise collective self-defense. The Japan Times cautioned that the LDP’s posture on revising Article 9 would “arouse suspicions about Japan’s true intentions among neighboring countries, thus destroying the international community’s trust in Japan. It could also lead to a fierce arms race and destabilization of relations in East Asia, endangering Japan’s security.”

On Japan’s foreign relations, editorials called for stability and continued support for the U.S.-Japan alliance.

  • Another editorial in The Mainichi added that the frequent changing of Japan’s prime ministers is “seen not only as a problem domestically, but also in terms of having an international voice.” It encouraged the Abe administration to “use the solid Japan-U.S. alliance as a springboard to stabilize Tokyo’s relations with Beijing in a strategic manner” and to “deter China’s provocative acts.” At the same time, “Japan should be wise enough to avoid creating situations that allow China to blame Japan for intensifying the bilateral conflict over the issue.”

SOUTH KOREA

In South Korea, officials and commentators expressed concern about the implications of Abe’s election for Korea’s economy and the Asia region.

  • We cannot but worry about the course of Japan under the leadership of nationalist Shinzo Abe,” said the Joongang Daily. “According to his security and foreign affairs positions, no relationship matters to Abe other than ties to the United States.” Citing Abe’s nationalistic views on economic, historical, and territorial issues, the editorial predicted that if his plans are carried out, “the country could seriously damage the geopolitical and trade climate in Northeast Asia.”
  • A senior official from Korea’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade expressed concern over the new Japanese leadership’s rightward shift. “We hope the new LDP leadership puts emphasis on the importance of improving relations with neighboring countries and hope Korea and Japan will jointly contribute to promoting peace and prosperity in the region.”
  • Korean businesses are watching the Japanese yen with a wary eye, as Abe’s return to power is likely to appreciate the Korean won against the Japanese yen. During his campaign, Abe pledged to ease credit in an unlimited manner to boost the Japanese economy, which would weaken the value of the yen and thus hurt Korean firms’ competitive edge over Japanese firms.

CHINA

The state-run media interpreted the LDP’s electoral victory as a sign of rising right-wing nationalism in Japan.

  • Abe must be more than an angry leader,” ran the headline of a Global Times editorial. At the same time, the paper argued, China should take a firm stance on the island disputes with Japan, because “only with such pressure will Abe hold China in esteem, otherwise he will think China is in a weak position.”
  • Similarly, a Xinhua commentary urged Abe to reiterate pacifism, lest Japan “raise further suspicions among its neighbors if the current political trend of turning right is not stopped in time.”A pre-election editorial had called for long-term pragmatism in Japanese foreign policy and a repair of strained ties with neighbors.

In contrast, Zhou Yongsheng of China Foreign Affairs University was more optimistic about the new Japanese leader. “Abe’s regaining of power is expected to help heal the chilly bilateral relationship as he is a pragmatic politician who will not let the tension further damage Japan’s interests.”

INDIA

Across the political spectrum, Indian newspapers are optimistic that Abe’s reelection bodes well for future India-Japan relations. Many commentators point to Abe’s track record as prime minister in 2006-2007, during which he espoused the concept of a “Broader Asia” and advocated strengthening ties between Japan and India on the basis of strategic interests and shared democratic values.

  • The Pioneer, a right-leaning nationalist publication, called Abe “one of the most pro-India Asian leaders at this point in time.” Its editorial said Abe’s hardline against China “must be welcomed by India, especially as New Delhi too attempts to contain China’s growing belligerence in the region.”
  • In the left-leaning Hindu, Sanjaya Baru of the International Institute for Strategic Studies said India and Japan are “truly natural partners in Asia” because they have a “shared vision of a Rising Asia and a strong commitment to democratic values.”

On specific policy issues, commentators expected progress on civil nuclear cooperation and enhanced defense and security ties, such as the removal of some Indian companies from Japanese export controls. The two countries also stand to benefit from each other economically, with India offering markets and manpower, and Japan providing technology and investment.

The only concern that some expressed was the resurgence of nationalism across the region in Japan, South Korea and China, as Brahma Chellaney of the Center for Policy Research argued. An editorial in the Indian Express also noted that “the surge of nationalism in both China and Japan…bodes ill for regional integration in Asia and stabilization of the global economy.”

With Obama’s Re-election, Asian Powers Ponder Future Relations with US (Part III)

Policy Alert #39 | November 29, 2012

For months, Asian powers have been closely following the US presidential election campaign. With President Barack Obama now re-elected, this post highlights views from Russia, India, South Korea, Japan and China on what this means for bilateral relations with the United States.

RUSSIA

Obama’s victory generated sighs of relief among Russian leadership, despite dissenting opinions among some observers.

Russia’s ruling elite broadly welcomed Obama’s reelection:

  • Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for President Vladimir Putin, stated, “The Kremlin greets the information about Barack Obama’s election victory very positively. We hope to develop and improve the positive initiatives in bilateral relations between Russia and the US in the interests of internal security and stability on the world stage.”
  • Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev expressed open relief that Russia wouldn’t have to deal with Mitt Romney. “I am pleased that the president…will not be someone who considers Russia as enemy number one,” referencing statements made by Romney on the campaign trail.

Despite well-wishes from Russian officials, some analysts and opposition leaders remained skeptical about the level of progress that can be made. US plans to build a missile defense shield in Europe, the ongoing civil war in Syria, and the future of the US-Russia “reset” figured prominently in their calculations for  the future.

  • Fyodor Lykyanov, editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs, wrote that “The two countries must realize that they will never enjoy linear relations – they will neither be unequivocal foes or genuine allies…a desire to achieve full clarity, in whatever field, undermines all attempts to create a solid foundation for relations, whereas a willingness to be flexible on current issues makes it possible to achieve concrete results.”
  • Russia Times observed that “There is growing evidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin is turning away from the US and looking eastwards as part of his new Asia-Pacific doctrine and Eurasian project…Moscow and Washington now seem like an old married couple: Weary, bored and disillusioned, too tired for either a stormy divorce or a for a new honeymoon.”
  • Vladimir Zhirinovsky, leader of the Liberal Democratic Party and a staunch nationalist, wrote, “America is doomed to stagnation” for the coming four years. “What will Obama do now? Nothing. He has no third term…he will travel abroad and won’t solve domestic problems.”

INDIA

The Indian press has been awash with commentary on the outcome of the US election. By and large, pundits across the political spectrum look forward to the continuity that Obama’s re-election bodes for the future of India-US relations.

  • Even The Hindu, usually more skeptical of US ambitions in the region, published an op-ed arguing that “India and the US have a meeting of minds on most global trends.” The author expressed confidence that the bilateral relationship has matured enough to handle ongoing disagreements on civilian nuclear cooperation, work visas and Indian retail markets, issues that other commentators also cited in publications of a different political stripe, such as The Business Standard and The Pioneer.

This lament of the weakness of India’s foreign policy establishment was also expressed in broader terms on the state of India’s democracy. Many analyses of the election pointed to lessons that India should learn from US politics, particularly the importance of leaders with an “inclusive vision of society” and the need to overcome political gridlock.

There has also been extensive analysis on the demographic changes in America, not only for their impact on the election outcome but also for how they could affect America’s standing in the world.

  • The Times of India expressed worry that the alienation of Republican voters could deepen partisanship and accelerate America’s relative decline. On the other hand, its sister paper, The Economic Times, strongly welcomed Obama’s re-election as an endorsement of inclusive values and respect for diversity, “soft power that…influences values and politics in other countries.”
  • Unbounded optimism was voiced in the editorial pages of The Hindustan Times, which characterized Obama’s re-election as a renewal of audacity and hope. “No world leader probably has as much goodwill behind him across the world than Mr. Obama. He can fulfill these great expectations by completing the task of restoring theUS to its original greatness.”

SOUTH KOREA

Korean newspapers congratulated Obama on his re-election, predicting continuity in the US-ROK relationship while expressing hope for cooperation and peace in US-China relations and on the Korean peninsula.

  • The Joongang Daily predicted “continuity” in the US-ROK alliance as a result of Obama’s reelection. It attributed deepened ties between Seoul and Washington since 2008 to the signing of the US-ROK free trade agreement, cooperation onNorth Korea, and the “unlikely” friendship between President Obama and Korean President Lee Myung-bak. As the ROK gears up for its presidential elections in December, Chun Chae-sung, professor of international relations at Seoul National University, noted, “Future relations between Korea and the US depend on who takes office in Korea rather than the foreign policy direction of Obama’s second administration.”
  • The Hankyoreh Shinmun, despite expressing cautious optimism for Obama’s victory, tasked Korean leaders with the responsibility to “offer independent and constructive solutions” on issues such as North Korea, rather than  “just following along with US policies.”

JAPAN

In Japan, editorials unanimously called on Obama to demonstrate strong leadership on domestic and foreign issues in his second term.

  • Officials expressed interest in deepening the US-Japan alliance to deal with “China’s ambitions to increase its dominance.” Pointing to increased tensions between Japan and China, Chief Cabinet Secretary Osamu Fujimara told reporters: “The security environment in East Asia is severe, so the importance of the Japan-US alliance has increased.”

CHINA

Contrary to earlier warnings that campaign rhetoric aimed at China would damage Sino-US relations (see RPI Policy Alert #37 and #38), post-election analyses in the Chinese media are expressing cautious optimism about future bilateral ties.

Zhang Jiadong of Fudan University was even more optimistic: “Sino-US relations will get better in the next four years. This is not only because of the reelection of Obama, but also because some conflicts of interest…have already been resolved.”

First US Presidential Debate Evokes Reflections from Asian Powers (Part I)

Policy Alert #38 | October 29, 2012

The US presidential election is being closely watched by Asia’s rising powers. This Policy Alert highlights Indian, Chinese, and Russian commentary on last week’s debate and the upcoming election between President Barack Obama and Republican candidate Mitt Romney.

INDIA

Describing the first debate as “a low-key, at times pedantic, exchange,” The Hindu anticipated that in the next debate on foreign policy issues, “Washington’s disastrous policies in West Asia and Afghanistan may be examined, forays that neither Mr. Obama nor his challenger seems to know how to handle.”

On a different note, columnist Tavleen Singh in The Indian Express used the occasion to “brood over how many Indian political leaders could hold their own in such a debate,” lamenting the dynastic nature of Indian politics and the failure of political leaders to “sell India a new dream.”

CHINA

Chinese commentators took issue with the extent of campaign rhetoric that has been critical of China:

  • “Admittedly, presidential candidates’ comments on China are aimed at winning the election,” said Yan Xuetong, director of Tsinghua University’s Institute of Modern International Relations. “However, objectively, they will have a negative impact on Sino-US relations.”

RUSSIA

In his speech accepting the Republican nomination for president, Mitt Romney vowed to take a hard line in dealing with Russia. Earlier in the campaign, Romney cited Russia as “our number one geopolitical foe.” Such comments have led to a wide array of responses from Russian officials:

  • Last month, Vladimir Putin’s press secretary, Dmitry Peskov, blasted Romney’s anti-Russian statements, saying relations between the two countries must not become hostage to individual ambitions to win an election.
  • In a recent interview, Putin praised US-Russia relations with the Obama Administration, despite ongoing differences over missile defense. He noted that “There have been more reasons to be optimistic about our bilateral relations,” and that “My feeling is that he [Obama] is a sincere man and that he sincerely wants to implement positive change.” On Romney, President Putin commented that, “As for Mr. Romney’s position, we understand that this is to a certain extent motivated by election campaign rhetoric, but I also think that he was obviously wrong, because such behavior on the international arena is the same as using nationalism and segregation as tools of US domestic policy.”
  • Alexei Pushkov, head of the Duma’s International Affairs Committee, warned that Romney’s anti-Russian messages won’t win him the White House. “Romney is now trying to play on the deep frustration of part of US public troubled by the fact that the center of power, primarily economic, is increasingly shifting to China, i.e. from the Western world to Asia,” he said.

US Presidential Election and Views from Asian Powers (Part II)

Policy Alert #37 | October 29, 2012

This Policy Alert is the RPI’s second installment of a three-part series on the US presidential election. We examine reactions in India, China, Japan, South Korea and Russia to the foreign policy issues addressed in the televised debates between President Barack Obama and Republican candidate Mitt Romney.

INDIA

Across the spectrum of India’s media landscape, commentary took note of the striking similarity between Obama and Romney on foreign policy.

  • Some think this can be a positive development for India. “The good news for both sides is that US-India ties have transcended electoral politics,” wrote Chidanand Rajghatta, a Times of Indiacolumnist. Moreover, the lack of any mention of India in the debate just shows that America is “absorbed in managing its own decline,” leaving India in the “happy position of being geopolitically close to the US and yet able to maintain strategic autonomy.”

CHINA

As was noted in RPI Policy Alert #37, Chinese views on the US election continue to criticize the anti-Chinese rhetoric by both candidates.

  • Coverage in the state-run press, as well as Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei, were not happy with Romney’s calling China a “currency manipulator” during the second debate.

Campaign rhetoric aside, however, the sluggish US economy, Sino-US trade competition, and America’s strategic mistrust of China are three larger factors indicating that “China-US relations will unlikely turn rosy after the election,” analyzed a People’s Daily editorial.

JAPAN

Japanese analysis of the debates looked for signs of the candidates’ positions on security issues in Asia.

  • The Daily Yomiuri noted that “[Romney] displayed a harder line toward Beijing than Obama did,” but that Obama also “reconfirmed that the US would attach importance to Asia.” Both positions were “welcome news to Japan,” said the paper’s editorial.
  • On the other hand, The Mainichi lamented what it considered an excessive focus on Middle East affairs in the third debate, attributing this to the pro-Israeli lobby in the US. “The two presidential candidates did not discuss intensifying Japan-China friction or North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. Although the debate is for U.S. voters…it is regrettable that the debate failed to dispel concerns that U.S. diplomacy focuses excessively on the Middle East.”

SOUTH KOREA

Political commentary these days is focusing on South Korea’s own upcoming presidential election in December.

More generally, an op-ed in the Korea Joong-Ang Daily lamented the lack of policy contestation in the Korean election. “American voters are better off than Korean voters since the two parties have clearly distinctive policy directions and they can vote for what they believe in.”

RUSSIA

Although Obama and Romney debated their views on Russia, this did not generate much commentary in the Russian media. Instead, Russia Times as well as Voice of Russia devoted significant coverage to the debate between candidates of the Constitution, Green, Justice and Libertarian parties, with theRussia Times commenting that “there’s a blackout by the mainstream media and US political elite on coverage of third parties.”

Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) Summit Draws Reactions from India, Russia, and China

Policy Alert #36 | September 29, 2012

The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) recently convened in Tehran for its 16th Summit, drawing attention to the relevance of the NAM, members’ relations with Iran, and the ongoing turmoil in Syria. This post highlights commentary on the summit in the Indian, Russian and Chinese press.

INDIA

The NAM summit drew considerable attention and commentary in India, due to both India’s status as a founding member of NAM and the bilateral meetings that PM Manmohan Singh had with leaders of Iran and Pakistan on the sidelines of the summit.

  • The Hindu, known for its mix of leftist and soft-nationalist viewpoints, printed an editorial hailing the NAM’s significance and outlining two reasons why the summit was important for India: Singh’s public opposition to intervention in Syria was India’s “clearest statement of differences with the US on this issue,” and his meetings with the Iranian leadership demonstrated that “New Delhi’s relations with Tehran would not be dictated by the U.S.”
  • C. Raja Mohan, known for his great-power realist views in his Indian Express column, dismissed the “utter incoherence of the NAM as a collective political entity.” According to Mohan, the real winner at the NAM summit was Egypt’s new president Mohamed Morsi, whose attendance defied America’s wishes and whose public statement in support of the Syrian opposition riled the Iranian host.

RUSSIA

Russian officials welcomed the NAM summit as an opportunity to counter US influence amidst strained relations with Washington over new, wide-ranging US sanctions against Iran introduced in August.

  • Gennady Yevstafiev, retired Lieutenant General of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, stated, “Given the fact that the meeting of the heads of the NAM is taking place in Tehran, it is an extremely big achievement of the present Iranian leadership and a rather serious blow to the aspirations of Israel and the US.” He added that while some members of the NAM, like India, Brazil, South Africa, and Indonesia will “play an important role as centers of influence,” the NAM is unlikely to emerge as a new center of power, given the diversity of attitudes and aspirations of its members.

 CHINA

The limited Chinese commentary on the NAM reflected an identification with the Global South school of thought, but for the most part the Chinese press was more preoccupied with other foreign policy issues, such as island disputes with neighbors (see RPI Policy Alert #34). China is an observer to the NAM.

Island Disputes and Economic Fallout: Views from Japan and China

Policy Alert #35 | September 29, 2012

As tensions continue to escalate between Japan and China over disputed island territories, it remains to be seen whether and how their economies will be affected in the short and long-term. China is Japan’s largest trade partner, while Japan is China’s fourth largest trade partner; bilateral trade volume was over $340 billion US dollars in 2011.

Following our Aug. 31 post on island tensions in Northeast Asia, In this Policy Alert we focus on Japanese and Chinese commentary on the economic dimensions of this crisis.

JAPAN

Officials in Japan urged both countries to act with restraint, while Japanese companies in China began looking for ways to reduce their dependence on China amidst declining sales across various sectors.

  • Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda warned China on Tuesday that demonstrations in China over the territorial dispute could weaken China’s economy by scaring away foreign investors. PM Noda encouraged both countries to “behave with restraint’, and urged the Chinese government to protect the safety of Japanese nationals and Japan-affiliated companies.
  • Japanese automakers Toyota and Nissan announced on Wednesday that they are cutting back production in China and have dampened their sales outlook for 2012. Koji Endo, auto analyst at Advanced Research Japan, stated that “For the time being I think you’re going to see Japanese automakers’ sales in China down by 20 to 30 percent. The last time we had protests like this in 2010, the effects only lasted about a month, but I think this time is going to be different.”
  • Meanwhile, the Asahi Shumbun reported that Japanese businesses are looking for ways to reduce their dependence on China for rare earth elements, a vital component in several areas of manufacturing. China accounts for more than 90 percent of the global output of rare earth elements and is the main supplier for Japan. Following a disruption of imports in 2010 during another East China Sea dispute, the Japanese government began subsidizing corporate development to reduce or eliminate the use of rare earths.

CHINA

A Xinhua editorial expressed concern that the island dispute “is starting to take a toll on bilateral economic and trade ties,” and reported on several recent developments in the economic sector, including flight cancellations, spontaneous consumer boycotts of Japanese goods, and the absence of Japanese firms at a commerce fair in Chengdu.

At the same time, it appears that government officials are trying to avoid fanning the flames. Although on Sept. 13 Vice Minister of Commerce Jiang Weizeng expressed support for the consumer boycotts, at a later Sept. 21 press conference, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hong Lei avoided a question about the possibility of economic sanctions against Japan.

Some commentary in the officially-sanctioned press, while asserting China’s usual stance on the islands, thinks that economic ties will help the two countries avert outright conflict.

  • “One certain thing is that war is unlikely in the Asia-Pacific….With global economic integration, the expanding of armed conflicts will be no good to any country involved,” wrote Han Xudong, professor at the PLA University of National Defense.
  • In an interesting twist, a Global Times editorial expressed concern about China’ internal stability: “We may be easily united in opposing Japan’s public opinion, but if some Chinese people suffer economic losses due to less cooperation with Japan, we may have to face internal conflicts….What determines who will win the long-term struggle is the unity of society.”

U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue: Views from the Indian Media

Policy Alert #34 | August 29, 2012

At the Third U.S.-India Strategic Dialogue held last Wednesday (June 13) in Washington, U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and Indian Minister of External Affairs Shri S.M. Krishna announced in a joint statement several agreements on strategic cooperation, security, energy, trade, and education. This post examines the key issues that garnered the most attention in the Indian media. 

Overall assessments of the high-level bilateral talks took note of India’s usual strategic restraint and desire for autonomy.

  • The left-leaning Hindu observed that this Strategic Dialogue ” lacked the energy” of the previous round, with Washington pre-occupied with the upcoming election. On the other hand, The Indian Express faulted Delhi’s coalition government for its weak domestic support and hence inability to deliver on international expectations.

Media coverage focused on two main developments: Washington’s announcement prior to the Strategic Dialogue that it will exempt India from sanctions related to importing oil from Iran, and the U.S.-India decision to begin holding formal trilateral consultations with Afghanistan.

Another issue that garnered much attention in the Indian press but minimal coverage in the U.S. media was India’s ongoing request to gain access to two suspects in the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks, currently in U.S. custody. The Hindu asked,  is India’s request “falling on deaf ears?”

Sentiments from Asia’s Rising Powers on Winning & Losing at the Olympics

Policy Alert #33 | August 29, 2012

The London 2012 Summer Olympics concluded this weekend after much fanfare and excitement. Our latest post highlights howAsia’s rising powers fared at the Games and their reactions.

CHINA

China left the Olympic Games with more medals than any other country with the exception of the United States. Chinese coverage of the events reflected highly nationalistic views that focused on foreign media bias against China as a reflection of their antagonism to China’s rise.

Numerous editorials accused Western countries of bias against China:

  • Olympics reporter Chen Ziao encouraged greater international coverage of the Olympic Games by Chinese media. By doing so, the Chinese media can “seize international discourse power.”

The Chinese media expressed outrage over accusations of doping by gold medal victory of 16-year-old Ye Shiwen in the 400m individual medley.

  • “Accusing the Chinese swimmer of doping…reflects broader ill-will of those people towards China’s achievements and rising strength,” wrote Xinhua columnist Lu Hui. Another writer characterized the accusations as “a kind of hysteria fanned by some Western media.”

Others noted the parallels between China’s global rise and its Olympic successes:

RUSSIA

Team Russia came fourth in the overall medal count with 24 gold, 25  silver, and 33 bronze medals, triggering comparisons between the Chinese and Russian sports management systems. Meanwhile, Russian officials took careful notes on the London games in preparation for the 2014 Winter Olympics, which will be held in Sochi,Russia.

  • The Russian daily Sports Express observed that Russian sports are “frozen” between the Chinese and American systems, blaming a shortage of state funding and lack of oversight and control over national sports federations. “It’s very far from China, where the watchful Communist Party is eyeing the selection process starting from the kindergarten stage, builds giant sports arenas…and harshly demands results,” the paper said. “We must admit that we stand even further from the American model, and the distance keeps growing. Because it would be deadly if we end state involvement in sports as they did. Sports industries that will feed themselves are simply absent in our country.”
  • Russian Communist party (KPRF) head Gennady Zyuganov expressed dissatisfaction with Russia’s final medal count, recalling the USSR’s former athletic prowess and blaming “the current power—the government and Putin” for the country’s Olympic setbacks.
  • China is the undisputed leader of the Olympic Games in the beginning of the 21st century and in the coming years will continue to improve the preparation of its athletes,” predicted an editorial in Pravda. “The reality is that Western countries andRussia will sooner or later have to think seriously about changing the system of training their Olympic athletes not to remain in the shadow of the power of sports inChina.”

INDIA

India a global force, but not at the Olympics,” ran a Hindustan Times article, accurately reflecting India’s performance at the Games. India went home with six medals—its best showing at the Olympics so far—but 55th out of 79 in the overall rankings. Indeed, the source of India’s “Olympic futility” was a point of discussion in both the Indian and American press.

  • “In India, the sports administrators are largely politicians. They don’t know how sport is run,” said Sukhwant Basra, national sports editor for the Hindustan Times.
  • The Wall Street Journal  noted that “a total of six medals for India averages to one medal for roughly every 207 million inhabitants” and cited a lack of financial and institutional support for Indian athletes, while The Atlantic observed that “India as a country and Indians as individuals just have other priorities.”
  • The Hindu sportswriter Nirmal Shekar had a different theory: “We are a one-sport nation,” he wrote, referring toIndia’s passion for cricket.India’s Olympic failures are to be expected because “we don’t care about them for three years and eleven-and-a-half months.”
  • At the state level, frustrations with India’s performance lead Congress to demand the resignation of Sukhbir Badal, Sports Minister of Punjab. “The failure of sportsmen from Punjab clearly reflects on the poor sports policy of the state government and its Minister Sukhir Badal,” said former Congress MLA Sukhpal Khaira. Congress also ordered Badal to deposit the entire expenditure incurred by his London delegation back into the public exchequer.

SOUTH KOREA

Besides China, Korea was the only other Asian nation to finish in the top ten medal count, a point the media proudly highlighted.

  • The Joongang Daily published a rearranged world map in accordance with the number of medals won at the Olympics. On a standard world map, South Korea ranks 109th in land mass; on the “medal map,” the ROK is one-third the size ofChina after its ninth place finish in the overall medal count.

JAPAN

Japan fell short of its gold-medal target at the Olympics, but still finished with a record haul of 38 medals. Japan Today hailed Team Japan’s success as a “boost to the country’s recovery from last year’s quake-tsunami disaster.” While generally pleased with the results, Japan Olympic Committee Secretary General Noriyuki Ichihara has repeatedly stressed the need to spend far more funds on athletes’ training. “To develop internationally competitive athletes…it will be necessary to nurture coaches and provide promising athletes with steady training and guidance from an early age.”

Rising Tensions in Northeast Asia: Views from China, Japan, and South Korea on Territorial Disputes

Policy Alert #32 | August 29, 2012

Tensions have flared again in Northeast Asia over disputed islands, with Japan in the middle of two territorial controversies over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands and the Takeshima/Dokdo Islands with China and South Korea, respectively. Recent developments have especially strained the relations between China and Japan. This post examines commentary in China, Japan and South Korea. 

CHINA

While the anti-Japanese protests in China reflect what RPI experts David Shambaugh and Ren Xiao call a fiercely nationalistic or Nativist viewpoint, the deluge of commentary in the officially-sanctioned media have expressed a Realist view that focuses on major power competition in the region.

  • While the Global Times expressed support for concurrent Chinese military exercises in the East China Sea, saying they have “come at the right time,” it also stressed that “Chinese need to be clear that China cannot retrieve the [Diaoyu] Islands now. This would mean a large-scale war, which is not in China’s interests.”

JAPAN

Editorials in Japan uniformly called for Japanese leaders to deal with the dispute in a calm, rational manner, rather than falling prey to “nationalistic sentiments,” reflecting to some extent a “Balancer” school of thought, as characterized by RPI experts Narushige Michishita and Richard J. Samuels.

  • Hitoshi Tanaka, a retired Japanese diplomat, stated that China and South Korea’s growing economic might has weakened Japan’s leverage in the island disputes. He urged stakeholders to handle the territorial flare-ups with “cool professionalism.” “For bureaucrats, this means proposing only rational policies; for politicians, it means making only sensible decisions and accounting for them to the public; and the media must at all costs avoid sensationalism and extremist thinking.”
  • The Asahi Shimbun agreed, noting that leaders in both countries should “grow up” and discuss the island disputes in a calm manner, rather than exchanging tit-for-tat measures that only serve to provoke the issue further.

SOUTH KOREA

Opinion in Korea varied between blaming Japan for heightened tensions and calling for meetings to discuss the territorial disputes.

  • The conservative Chosun Ilbo called for a calm but firm response, while placing the blame for escalating tensions on Japan. “Japan must surely realize that the reason for heightened diplomatic tensions between the two countries is its stubborn refusal to do what it needs to do…But the Korea government too must not fall into the mode of thinking that it can say whatever it wants to say, because that inevitably exacerbates conflict.”

Asian Powers React to Territorial Disputes at ASEAN Forum

Policy Alert #31 | July 29, 2012

Ongoing tensions over territorial disputes in Asia were brought to the foreground last week by several events. ASEAN foreign ministers for the first time failed to agree on a final communiqué at their annual meeting, due to divisions amongst members over how to handle disputes in the South China Sea. Meanwhile, tensions between Japan and China flared up over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands. On the sidelines of the forum, South Korea, Japan, and the US met to discuss strengthening mechanisms for national security cooperation amidst stalled progress on the Korean peninsula. Our latest post highlights commentary in China, India, Japan, Russia, and South Korea on these developments.

CHINA
Official Chinese rhetoric at the ASEAN meeting expressed support for formulating a Code of Conduct to address disputes in the South China Sea, while commentary in the state and party-owned newspapers were less accommodating, blaming Vietnam, the Philippines, and more broadly the United States, for the region’s tensions:

On Sino-Japanese relations, the People’s Daily called the Japanese government’s recent proposal to purchase islands a “farce,” saying that “if it develops unchecked, it will surely result in the issue of the Diaoyu Islands spiraling out of control.”

INDIA
It was widely reported in the Indian press that Vietnam’s decision to extend an oil exploration contract to an Indian company was a sign that Vietnam wants a continued Indian presence in the South China Sea. General commentary on the ASEAN meeting, however, was relatively sparse.

  • Srikant Kondapalli, a China scholar at Jawaharlal Nehru University, reflecting a “Soft Nationalist” school of thought, said that India does not want to be caught in the middle of US-China rivalry in Southeast Asia. “India’s strategy in the ASEAN region is to expand economically, but not antagonize any other power as it does so.”

JAPAN
Commentary in Japan uniformly called for a moderate approach to the Senkaku/Diaoyu Island dispute with China, but was mixed on what role the US should play in these issues. Several editorials also recognized ASEAN’s growing importance in resolving maritime disputes.

  • The Yomiuri Shimbun, reflecting a desire to hedge with the US against Chinese power, or a “Balancer” viewpoint, argued that the US-Japan alliance plays the most important role in deterring China, and stated that “Japan must call on China through diplomatic channels to exercise self-restraint and at the same time establish systems to deal with China’s provocations.”
  • Ukeru Magosaki, a Foreign Ministry diplomat, on the other hand expressed what the RPI has termed a “Bandwagoner” perspective that prioritizes the importance of Sino-Japanese ties, and urged Japan to “table” the Senkaku Island dispute, arguing that “if Japan should take a hard-line stand, China will also be forced to take a similar stand,” adding that “it is overly optimistic to believe that the U.S. will protect Japan under the security treaty…we will have to ask if the United States would really choose a course of all-out-war with China for the sake of Japan.”

RUSSIA
Dmitry Mosyakov, Director of the Southeast Asia, Australia, and Oceania Centre at the RAS Oriental Studies Institute, assessed Sino-American competition for control in Southeast Asia and argued that there is a growing wish in the region to see the US protect ASEAN countries against Chinese expansion. However, China’s burgeoning economic ties with ASEAN give Beijing significant leverage over the region. Espousing a “Great Power Balancer” point of view, he observed that “as the confrontation between the USA and China sharpens, each side assigns ASEAN an important role and is trying to pull the states of the region on to its side,” he observed. Meanwhile, Mosyakov warned that “Russia, which has assumed a wait-and-see position, risks being sidelined in this dynamic region.”

KOREA
The ASEAN forum renewed calls for “peaceful dialogue” on the Korean Peninsula to ease tension and rebuild confidence amid security jitters over North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs. The foreign ministers of South Korea, the US, and Japan agreed to establish a working group to “discuss issues such as peacekeeping, disaster relief, and development cooperation.”

China’s Economic “Soft Landing”? Views from China and the United States

Policy Alert #30 | July 29, 2012

This month, the International Monetary Fund published a report projecting that China’s economy is heading toward a “soft landing.” Although growth is expected to remain around 8% at least this year, the report created a stir. This Policy Alert summarizes recent Chinese and American commentary on China’s economic prospects.

CHINA

The main message in the officially-sanctioned press is that China’s economic slowdown is a normal result of ongoing efforts to restructure the Chinese economy and stimulate domestic demand.

  • There is “no need to panic about slowdown in China,” ran the headline of a People’s Dailyeditorial, while the more Hard Nationalist Global Times prescribed the following: “China’s economy must create more jobs, boost consumption by increasing individual incomes, and improve social harmony my reducing income disparity.”

UNITED STATES

U.S. opinion on the Chinese economy varied, with some predicting a fall of “apocalyptic” proportions, while others took a more optimistic stance.

Several experts took the IMF’s “soft landing” forecast one step further, predicting a “hard landing” as outlined in a recent article in Barron’s:

  • Edward Chancellor, a global strategist for the global investment management firm GMO, added that “I can’t tell you precisely when the downturn will hit. No one can. All I know is that China has all the earmarks of a classic mania that will end badly-a compelling growth story that seduces investors into ill-starred speculation, blind faith in the competence of Chinese authorities to manage through any cycle, and over-investment in fixed assets with inadequate returns facilitated by an explosion in credit.”
  • “Businesses are taking fewer loans. Manufacturing output has tanked. Interest rates have unexpectedly been cut. Imports are flat. GDP growth projections are down, with some arguing that China might already be in recession,” contended an article entitled “Five Signs of the Chinese Economic Apocalypse” in this month’s Foreign Policy magazine.

Nonetheless, others remained optimistic about China’s growth prospects.

Steve Rattner, former counselor to the Treasury secretary, noted that “China’s economy still pulsates with the confidence of its growing entrepreneurial spirit, an important factor that doesn’t fit neatly into statistical models.”

Reflections on the G20 Summit from China, India, and Russia

Policy Alert #29 | June 29, 2012

The Seventh G20 Summit concluded last Tuesday (June 19) in Los Cabos, Mexico. Convened against the backdrop of the Eurozone crisis, world leaders emphasized growth and employment, and agreed to uphold free trade. BRICS nations also pledged to increase their contributions to the International Monetary Fund. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary on the G20 from China, India, and Russia.

CHINA

Coverage of the summit and related commentary convey the overall message that China is poised to play a constructive role in multilateral forums, and that the G20 is surpassing the G8’s role in global governance.

  • This view was expressed by Chen Youjun of the Shanghai Institute for International Studies (SIIS) in an interview, as well as Liu Youfa, vice president of the China Institute of International Studies, in an article.
  • However, Ye Jiang, Director of Global Governance at SIIS, expressed skepticism that the G20 will replace the G8 anytime soon.

The most strident critique of the distribution of power in global financial governance came from a Global Times editorial. Besides economic clout, financial influence is also determined by a country’s political credibility and military power, the paper stressed. It also argued that “China should have the courage to do highly risky things such as RMB internationalization.”

INDIA

The G20 Summit generated mixed views on India’s role in global financial governance, as well as the overall relevance of the forum. India’s pledge to increase its contribution to the IMF by $10 billion took place in the context of Standard and Poor’s decision to downgrade India’s rating from stable to negative, citing slow growth, lack of reforms and weak public finances.

  • While acknowledging that India’s economic prospects are intertwined with developments in the eurozone, an editorial in the Indian Express pointed out that ” India must pull itself out of the rut at home,” emphasizing the urgency of domestic reforms. Even the usually liberal-globalist Times of India, which expressed support for India’s IMF contribution, made a point of printing an opposing critique alongside its editorial.
  • Cynical views of the G20’s relevance were printed in the Hindustan Times, both in an op-ed and in readers’ letters to the editor. This view also lamented “the lack of coherent leadership” in the Indian government.
  • On the other hand, The Hindu, a left leaning nationalist paper,  took pride in India’s role in pushing the G20 to emphasize growth, jobs and investment in developing economies.

RUSSIA

Russian coverage of the G20 Summit revolved heavily around statements made by President Vladimir Putin and speculation on the direction of U.S.-Russia relations.

  • Russian President Vladimir Putin met with U.S. President Barack Obama for over two hours on the sidelines of the G20 summit in what observers described as a “tense” exchange. “The bilateral relationship has certainly witnessed less challenging times,” noted Russia Today, pointing to Washington’s efforts to build a missile defense system in Eastern Europe and disagreement on the deteriorating situation in Syria as sources of conflict in the U.S.-Russia relationship.
  • At the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, which began several days after the summit, Putin reflected on the G20 meetings. He cited the need for “urgent coordinated action in order to restore and reinvigorate global finance” and called for “strengthening the role of the so-called developing countries …in the elaboration and adoption of steps shaping the global economic order.” Putin also emphasized the need for “a reform that will reflect the new economic balance of power” and stated that as the host for next year’s G20 meetings, he would make this a top priority issue.

Blind Chinese Activist Chen Guangcheng’s Case: Views from China and India

Policy Alert #28 | May 29, 2012

Earlier this month, Washington was riveted by the escape of blind Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng to the US Embassy in Beijing and the intense US-China negotiations that ensued. In this Policy Alert, we highlight how the Chinese press has covered and commented on these events, and note some contrasting reactions from India.

CHINA

Significant coverage and commentary in the officially sanctioned Chinese media portrayed Chen Guangchen in a very different light from Western media accounts.

On China-US relations, the China Daily echoed the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s stance that the US had violated international law and should apologize, but also cast Chen as a “one-man show” who was “just a distraction.”Regarding the concurrent Strategic Dialogue with the US, editorials stressed the problem of strategic mistrust between the two nations:

INDIA

Indian coverage of Chen Chuangchen drew mostly from Western news agencies and media organizations such as the New York Times, though there was some domestic commentary:

  • Sreeram Sundar Chaulia, professor at the Jindal School of International Affairs, wrote in the Times of India that “A country which spends more on internal surveillance than on its military defence, and which has the largest number of political prisoners in the world has a lot to hide…The saga of Chen Guangcheng is thus not only a prickly issue in the US-China diplomatic relations but also a mirror of the distortions and myths imposed on Chinese society under a long spell of dictatorship.”
  • An article in the Hindustan Times drew attention to  several other imprisoned dissidents in China, and noted that “as the leadership of the Communist Party of China gears up for a once-in-a-decade change of leadership this autumn, the government seems to be increasingly sensitive towards critical opinion.”