Policy Alerts – Page 4 – Rising Powers Initiative

Revisiting the World Order under a Pandemic

Policy Alert #208 | May 11, 2020

As the COVID-19 pandemic drags on, debate over the pandemic’s effects on the world order have started to take shape. Will the spread of the pandemic deal a deathblow to the liberal world order by undermining support for globalization? How is the virus affecting states’ sources of material power? Does the states’ ability to respond and contain the virus complicate our understandings of state capacity? Are donations of aid a successful strategy for a soft power blitz?

In this Special Series of RPI Policy Alerts, we provide digests of the debates over how the pandemic is calling to question our existing conceptions of power and whether or not the pandemic is providing an opportunity for aspiring powers to rise. This first Policy Alert in the Series starts with an overview of scholars’ and analysts’ reactions to the pandemic in this light. Our subsequent Policy Alerts will spotlight these debates as they are playing out more specifically in China, India, Japan, Russia, and South Korea.

A note to our readers: Many of the pieces below have been published by journals that maintain paywalls for full access to their content. We would like to remind our student readers that they may have full access to these journals through their universities’ digital collections or by logging on to their universities’ virtual private networks (VPNs).

Collapse of the Liberal Order and Globalization

The outbreak of the pandemic comes against a backdrop of a rise in right-wing populism across most of the states that make up the liberal order and has strengthened domestic calls for states to pull themselves away from the globalized economy. The authors below weigh in on what, if anything, the pandemic means for the liberal order.

In an op-ed for the center-right Wall Street Journal, former US Secretary of State and National Security Advisor Henry A. Kissinger warned that the pandemic is stoking domestic calls to withdraw from the liberal order: “The founding legend of modern government is a walled city protected by powerful rulers, sometimes despotic, other times benevolent, yet always strong enough to protect the people from an external enemy. […] The pandemic has prompted an anachronism, a revival of the walled city in an age when prosperity depends on global trade and movement of people.”
In an op-ed responding to Kissinger in the centrist The Hill, Bradley A. Thayer, professor of political science at the University of Texas – San Antonio, and Lianchao Han, vice president of Citizen Power Initiatives for China, asserted that the pandemic is only widening openings policymakers in liberal states themselves opened: “An element of this defense must include calling to account those in the West who caused us to be in our current situation, especially those who proclaimed themselves to be ‘strategists’ who advanced and supported China’s ambitions.”
In an article for Foreign Affairs, Kurt M. Campbell, Chair and CEO of the Asia Group and former US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, and Rush Doshi, Director of the Brookings Institution’s China Strategy Initiative and a Fellow at Yale Law School’s Paul Tsai China Center, warned that the US is faltering in its role as the leader of the liberal order: “The status of the United States as a global leader over the past seven decades has been built not just on wealth and power but also, and just as important, on the legitimacy that flows from the United States’ domestic governance, provision of global public goods, and ability and willingness to muster and coordinate a global response to crises.”
Alexander Cooley, Director of Columbia University’s Harriman Institute and the Claire Tow Professor of Political Science at Barnard College, and Daniel Nexon, associate professor of political science at Georgetown University, explained in an article for Foreign Policy that while the pandemic adds fuel to populist movements to withdraw from the liberal order and to view aid from China and Russia that comes without regard for democracy or human rights more favorably, the long-term effects might be quite different: “It’s one thing to use exit options to reduce external liberalizing pressure, but it’s another when new patrons start calling in favors.”
Salbatore Babones, associate professor at the University of Sydney, asserted in a piece for Foreign Policy that because the real theater of interest for changes in the world order is the Indo-Pacific, there is little cause for concern: “Political pundits tend to prefer the good feelings of NATO’s Article 5 commitment to collective defense, but it’s the East Asian allies who most consistently support American global leadership.”

State Capacity

Chinese media outlets like the state-directed China Daily and nationalist Global Times published editorials hailing China’s “institutional advantages” and its “astonishing mobilization ability and solidarity” as key to its apparent success in containing the outbreak. On the other hand, op-eds like Atlantic staff writer George Packer’s have characterized the US’s response as a “failure.” The articles below assess what’s missing from our conception of state capacity and if regime type is relevant.

In an op-ed for the center-left Atlantic, Francis Fukuyama, Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and Mosbacher Director of the Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law at Stanford University, countered assertions that state capacity to handle the pandemic is a function of regime type: “What matters in the end is not regime type, but whether citizens trust their leaders, and whether those leaders preside over a competent and effective state.”
In an article for Foreign Policy, Mark Lawrence Schrad, associate professor at Villanova University, pointed out that states that have managed the pandemic well share high levels of public trust in government: “If anything, China’s competent—if heavy-handed—response seems to have both benefited from and bolstered Chinese trust in government.”
Rachel Kleinfeld, Senior Fellow in the Democracy, Conflict, and Governance Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, similarly pointed out in a commentary that the success of state responses has less to do with regime type and more to do with the adoption of scientifically-sound strategies: “The laws of science have a logic that belies ideology.”

Sources of Power

While the pandemic may have provided an opening for a shift in the world order, has it disrupted states’ sources of power enough to enable them to seize the opportunity?

Joseph S. Nye, Jr., argued in a commentary in Foreign Policy that the pandemic will ultimately not produce “seismic shifts” in the world order given that the US will maintain its preponderance of financial capital, energy sources, and military forces over China. Nye also dismissed concerns of China’s aid to foreign countries undermining US soft power abroad: “[M]uch of Beijing’s effort to restore its soft power has been treated with skepticism in Europe and elsewhere. […] The best propaganda is not propaganda.”
Barry R. Posen, in an article for Foreign Affairs that weighed the possibility of a “Pax Epidemica,” pointed out that the pandemic has been affecting great and middle powers “more or less equally” in terms of economic damage and weakening of military forces: “For the duration of the pandemic, at least, and probably for years afterward, the odds of a war between major powers will go down, not up.”

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

Coronavirus Tightens Its Grip on Rising Powers

Policy Alert #207 | April 8, 2020

As the number of confirmed coronavirus COVID-19 cases worldwide surges past the one million mark, containing the pandemic has overshadowed most other issues in both national and international politics. Emergency teleconferences of leaders of the Group of 7 (G7) and the Group of 20 (G20) have attempted to coordinate their efforts to combat the pandemic and salvage the world economy from a virtual shutdown in the wake of widespread social distancing and quarantine policies, but to little avail. In this RPI Policy Alert, we review how the Rising Powers are responding to the pandemic.

CHINA
As China reports that its number of new coronavirus infections are on the decline, it has begun to focus its efforts on providing assistance abroad amdist charges of it being politcally driven. On March 20, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs reported that aid has so far been sent to 82 countries, the World Health Organization, and the African Union. A New York Times op-ed from Chinese Ambassador to the United States Cui Tiankai estimated that five million masks, 200,000 test kits, and 180,000 gloves had been donated to the US alone. In his speech during the G20 emergency teleconference, President Xi Jinping emphasized the need to for the G20 to work together to not only fight the virus, but protect the global economy: “I want to call on all G20 members to take collective actions – cutting tariffs, removing barriers, and facilitating the unfettered flow of trade. Together, we can send a strong signal and restore confidence for global economic recovery.” At a press conference, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson Hua Chunying was critical of claims that China’s aid to other countries has political motivations: “Recently I have been hearing some people in the West raising the issue of Chinese ‘political propaganda’, and I would like to ask what on earth are they referring to? Do they want China to sit idle and do nothing while other countries are braving the pandemic with so many people suffering and the number of casualties climbing higher with each passing day?” In response to a question regarding Taiwan’s donations of masks and other supplies to the US, Europe, and other countries, Spokesperson Hua suggested it was Taiwan that was pushing a political agenda: “[I]f my memory serves me right, when the epidemic first broke out in China’s mainland, Taiwan authorities banned the export of masks. Now as we can see, the situation in the US is very severe, Chinese provinces, cities and businesses have been providing assistance to the American people. If the Taiwan region can and wants to help, I believe we are all glad to see it. But if anyone in Taiwan seeks to politicize the pandemic, I would advise them to think twice and act prudently.” When a reporter from RIA Novosti, a Russian media outlet, asked for more details about a recent donation from China to Russia, Spokesperson Hua made a point to first thank the Russian press for “widely and accurately covering the Chinese government’s effective epidemic response with professionalism and dedication”. Chinese Ambassador to India Sun Weidong announced in a tweet that a donation of coronavirus test kits from Chinese business magnate Jack Ma and Alibaba Foundations had been delivered to the Indian Red Cross Society on April 3.

The People’s Daily, the official newspaper of the Communist Party of China, dismissed accusations of ulterior motives in providing aid to other countries to fight the virus in a rather arrogant tone: “To be honest, the accusations and attacks from Western media against China are not unusual. Certain people will always find fault with whatever China does. The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the unhealthy mindset of certain people in the West, who just can’t accept the fact that China has prevailed over the virus while their own country has become a virus battlefield.”
The state-supported China Daily similarly condemned comments between US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg as an effort to “revive the Cold War”: “Their remarks are an opportunistic attempt to put more bricks in the wall they are trying to build between the West and its self-imagined enemies. [..A]ll they are doing is tilting at windmills.”
The nationalist Global Times characterized the virus as an equalizer and called on the US to abandon any political ambitions in its response: “The COVID-19 pandemic clearly shows that the biggest threat to the US is no longer from geopolitics, but from the natural world, as it is the case to all people. […] As long as the US faces up to this fact, it can concentrate its strength to launching a decisive battle against the coronavirus.”

INDIA
After calling for Indians to self-enforce social distancing guidelines and observe a daily curfew on March 19, Prime Minister Narendra Modi issued a nationwide stay-at-home order for 21 days that began on March 24: “India is at a stage where our current actions will determine how much we are able to minimize the impact of this disaster. […] This is the time for patience and discipline. Until the lockdown situation remains, we must keep our resolve, we must keep our promise.” With India’s population of 1.3 billion people, this marks the largest social “lockdown” in the world. Roll-out of the policies has been bumpy: millions of migrant workers have attempted to return home as their employers shuttered, truck drivers were left essentially stranded as inter-state travel restrictions began, and health workers have suffered resistance to the setting-up of hospitals to treat COVID-19 and assault by panicked locals in their efforts.

The liberal Hindustan Times expressed support for the government’s decision to prioritize aid to the country’s most vulnerable first, but emphasized that relief was needed elsewhere as well: “While it is only understandable that the government look to the most vulnerable first, some reassurance of forthcoming relief for businesses wouldn’t have hurt. […] Businesses, small and large, self-employed professionals, the salaried (and tax-paying) middle-class, all need help.”
The left-leaning Hindu emphasized individuals’ responsibility to cooperate with government efforts to fight the virus, including sharing travel information with local authorities: “Humanitarian crises such as pandemics invoke the worst among men and women, but also their best. The latter is eminently possible, as long as people believe that the enemy is the pandemic, and act responsibly.”
The centrist Times of India called for more help for migrant workers: “A high degree of inter-state cooperation is indeed the need of the hour. To save citizens from one disease we cannot let hunger, exhaustion and other diseases prey on them.”
The pro-government Daily Pioneer outlined the lessons to be learned from China, Japan, and South Korea in their response to the outbreak in order to prevent the health system from being overwhelmed: “Like us, all these countries have high population densities with a high propagation possibility. And like us, they all belong to an Asian culture. It is from these examples that we can draw as, though we are frail on health infrastructure, we can leverage technology to work out enforceable pre-emptive protocols.”

JAPAN
Prime Minister Abe emphasized two key points that needed to be included in the G20’s response to the virus: accelerate the process of developing antiviral medicines through cooperation between the respective governments as well as actors in the private sector and for the Group to “implement bold and large-scale economic and fiscal policies.” Although the National Diet passed an amendment to the Act on Special Measures for Pandemic Influenza and New Infectious Diseases Preparedness and Response to allow the government to implement “various measures to prevent the wide spread [sic] of infection and maintain societal functions” on March 13, 2020, a state of emergency was not declared until April 6 and applies only to Tokyo, Osaka, and five prefectures.

The progressive Asahi Shimbun criticized the government’s patchwork of measures to offset the effects of the virus so far as insufficient: “[T]here are still vulnerable elements in the system, including a large number of non-regular workers. […] The government needs to provide sufficient financial support to businesses that have been shut down and workers who have seen their incomes drop.”
The left-leaning Mainichi also characterized the government’s response as “blunt and slow” and lamented that any efforts to protect the economy now would be too little, too late: “[W]e are now at the point in this pandemic when preventing the virus’ spread must take greater priority than stimulating economic activity. Building a policy around boosting demand is unlikely to have much effect right now.”
The center-right Japan Times instead focused its attention on the government’s need to communicate the threat of the virus with the public and build trust to ensure compliance for social distancing measures: “To gain such public support, the Japanese government must disclose information and data about the current situation as well as its future strategy to tackle the pandemic. After all, to bring everyone on board, trust in the government is indispensable.”
While the conservative Yomiuri Shimbun also advocated for more government support in its recent editorials, its call for the Self-Defence Forces to prepare for more widespread mobilization to fight the pandemic set it apart: “The SDF must shape an action plan under the declaration of a state of emergency, assuming various situations. It is necessary to flexibly operate ground, maritime and air forces nationwide.”

RUSSIA
In a public address on April 2, 2020, President Vladimir Putin announced that the initial “non-work week” would be extended until at least April 30, but emphasized that regional and local governments could decide to strengthen or relax current policies depending on the “objective situation” locally. As the combined economic pain produced by a reduced demand for oil due to coronavirus and OPEC’s retaliatory surge in production to drive prices down following a dispute with Russia has continued to take its toll on the Russian economy, President Putin held a teleconference with relevant Russian officials to ask for “advice on what actions we should take and how we should hold consultations with our partners to work out a concerted approach.”

Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova was dismissive of a report by Reuters that an internal European Union document warned of a fake news campaign originating from Russia: “I think the allegations that Russia is spreading disinformation and fake news about the coronavirus in Europe and the world are perfect examples of disinformation and fake news.” Regarding claims that Russian aid to Italy were made with ulterior geopolitical motives, Zakharova replied: “[T]his is real, burning jealousy that a country that is not tied to Italy by any blocs or alliances is developing friendly relations with it against all odds and is ready to offer help during one of the most dramatic moments of recent Italian history, without regard for the political context or views on the development of international relations in Europe, but out of a recognition of how the Italians are suffering”. At one press conference, Zakharova highlighted how the response to the coronavirus has helped strengthen ties between Moscow and Beijing: “At the most acute stage of China’s fight against the spread of the coronavirus epidemic, Moscow was one of the first to come to the aid of its Chinese friends. Now we are getting assistance from Beijing.”

Spokesperson Zakharova also provided a reprieve from an otherwise heavy press conference by offering a lighthearted response to a fake news piece on the government’s methods to encourage social distancing: “[T]he joke you quoted from the internet that Russian President Vladimir Putin will release tigers and lions on the streets is actually funny: not because it couldn’t happen, but because traditionally we set bears loose on the streets – they are more effective.”

Government-funded RT is one of the sources of fake and misleading news, as op-eds with suggestive headlines claim that the economic crisis is behind the EU’s decision to approve foodstuffs produced from insects (the effort to change these regulations began years ago), that government responses to the virus are evidence of a plot by left-wing extremists to “abolish the family,” and that climate change activists see the virus as “an instrument for realising the dream of a society that runs according to climate alarmists’ dogma.”

State-owned Sputnik News published an interview with Iztok Preszelj, Chair of Defence Studies and a member of Defence Research Centre at the University of Ljubljana, who argued that the pandemic is an opportunity to “melt” relations between Russia and NATO. Sputnik also highlighted a report from University of Tehran American studies and postcolonial literature professor Sayyed Mohammad Marandi that Iran’s handling of the pandemic has been “significantly better than in the US” despite operating under economic sanctions.

In an op-ed for the independent, Dutch-based Moscow Times, former digital director of the New York-based Russian language RTVI channel Ilya Klishin suggested that President Putin’s decision to delegate the handling of the pandemic to local officials was an effort to preserve his image: “Putin has a reputation for not liking to associate himself directly with measures that citizens find harsh or unpleasant, so he probably delegated the task to Sobyanin and essentially gave the mayor carte blanche — knowing that he could always correct whatever missteps [Moscow Mayor Sergei] Sobyanin might make.”
In his op-ed for the Moscow Times, Director of the Carnegie Moscow Center Dmitry Trenin argued that the global response to the pandemic is solidifying the Russian government’s worldview: “[T]he Kremlin sees some effects of the outbreak as validating the correctness of its worldview. The fragility of globalism has been underscored as the international community grows more fractious and the liberal order recedes.”

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

The Oil Price War between Russia and OPEC Rages On In the Midst of War on COVID-19

Policy Alert #206 | March 23, 2020

In response to reduced demand for oil due to the coronavirus pandemic, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) proposed capping production among member states to stabilize crude oil prices. OPEC called on Russia, which is in a three-year agreement with the organization to coordinate global oil supply that expires at the end of March 2020, to abide by the new caps. Russia refused, and OPEC, led by Saudi Arabia, retaliated by increasing production. By flooding the market with oil, prices for crude oil plummeted to an eighteen-year low of $20.06 per barrel on March 18th. To protect oil producers in the United States from this price shock, President Donald Trump ordered the Department of Energy to purchase 77 million barrels of US-produced oil for the US Strategic Reserve.

Although a drop in crude oil prices would ordinarily be a godsend for economic growth, the uncertainty of how long the dispute between Russia and OPEC will last, the substantial disruption in planning for smaller oil-producing countries and those in the process of shifting to renewable energy sources, and the mounting economic damage of the coronavirus pandemic are widely believed to negate any economic benefits. For many countries, a long stand-off could not come at a worse time. In this RPI Policy Alert, we review the Rising Powers’ responses to the crisis.

RUSSIA
Russian Prime Minister Mikail Mishustin argued that the collapse of negotiations with OPEC was no fault of the Russian side: “We did not initiate the withdrawal from the agreement [OPEC+ deal]. On the contrary, we proposed to extend the agreement on the existing terms, at least until the end of the second quarter or for a year, so as not to complicate the situation that has developed with the spread of coronavirus.” Responding to questions of whether or not Russian President Vladimir Putin planned to resume talks with OPEC, Presidential Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov replied that while there were no plans for a meeting with OPEC+ members, such a meeting “if necessary, […] will be immediately arranged.” Peskov noted that officially, however, there is no price war to address: “I want to recall that Riyadh [Saudi Arabia] itself has denied reports that there is any kind of price war, especially against Russia.”

The flurry of coverage from Sputnik News included numerous interviews with international experts for their thoughts on the price war. An article analyzing Saudi Arabia’s potential strategies in the price war features University of Oxford energy analyst Justin Dargin, Dubai bureau chief at Energy Intelligence Oliver Klaus, and international oil economist and visiting professor of energy economics at ESCP Europe Business School Mamdouh G Salameh. Géopolia think tank founder Philippe Sebille-Lopez argued that the US’s consistent history of capitalizing on OPEC’s efforts to cut production was the root of the tiff and would need to be addressed to assure long term price stability. Energy market expert and think tank advisor Cyril Widdershoven, on the other hand, urged the US to stay out of the matter.
The independent, Dutch-based Moscow Times featured an op-ed by Andrey Movchan, senior associate and director of the Economic Policy Program at the Carnegie Moscow Center, who argued that the oil war could end badly for Russia: “It’s possible that Russia will choose to fight until the bitter end. The Kremlin is accustomed to using force as a prelude to negotiations and typically refuses to make face-saving concessions.”
In his op-ed for the Moscow Times, Chris Weafer, Macro-Advisor for the Berlin-based bne IntelliNews (formerly Business New Europe), cast his lots with Russia coming out on top. But Weafer also made a point to quash claims that the price war was a coordinated effort between Russia and OPEC to weaken the US oil industry: “Both Russia and the major OPEC producers have been openly annoyed with the refusal of the US producers to participate in past production cuts, and the fact that the US industry has been the major beneficiary of the price support mechanisms. It is a stretch to say that Moscow and Riyadh are in any sort of cooperation to try and reduce US oil production, [..b]ut if a price war results in some US casualties and a greater reluctance by investors and lenders to fund future US marginal production, then Moscow and OPEC will be relieved.”

CHINA
In response to a question about the sudden decrease in crude oil prices, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Geng Shuang emphasized concerns about the stability of prices given the effects of COVID-19 on the economy: “China is a major energy importer and consumer. We hope the international energy market will remain stable. Faced with the COVID-19 epidemic, countries have various outlooks on the world economy. At this particular time, a stable global energy market is of special significance.”

The government-directed China Daily featured highlights from interviews with China Institute of International Studies researcher Xia Yishan, Head of the China Institute for Studies in Energy Policy at Xiamen University Lin Boqiang, and associate research fellow at the Institute of International Relations at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences Sun Xia. The experts emphasized that the risks associated with uncertainty of the price war outweigh any potential benefits from lower crude prices.
In an editorial, the independent South China Morning Post offered a similar warning: “Of course, falling oil prices need not be a bad thing for importing countries such as China and Japan as well as consumers. But what the markets crave is price stability. Unless the Russians and Saudis come to their senses, the world economy, already reeling from a health crisis with no end in sight, is in for an even wilder ride.”

INDIA
The press release on Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s phone call with Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman did not mention the oil price war as a topic the two leaders discussed. However, the Indian government hiked taxes on petroleum and diesel by 3 rupees per liter on March 13th, which offset any significant changes to the retail price of the goods despite the falling crude oil price.

Ahead of the implementation of the tax hikes, the liberal Indian Express argued that it might be necessary for the government to seize the opportunity of the lower crude prices to fill its coffers for the long slog through the coronavirus pandemic: “[W]hile lower oil prices could provide a boost to the flagging economy, it is likely to be offset by disruptions in economic activity due to the coronavirus. The government must carefully assess the situation, monitor the sectors that are likely to be affected the most by disruptions in supply, and craft the necessary policy response.”
While the liberal Hindu agreed that there were benefits to the plunging crude price, it was wary of the potential fallout for the global markets if the price war continues: “While a fall in prices is good news for major consumers such as India and China which depend on imports for a major part of their oil needs, it may be bad news for the big oil companies and the smaller shale oil players who are highly leveraged. A collapse of these shale oil producers may set off defaults in the bond markets, setting off its own non-virtuous spiral starting with the US markets.”
The pro-government Daily Pioneer was supportive of the government’s prudence, but urged that the taxes should be reduced once the crude oil prices inevitably increase: “[T]his excise duty hike must be a temporary step only as this can start pinching customers when Saudi Arabia and Russia start playing nice with each other again. While taking advantage of the situation to raise some money in tough times is not a bad thing to do, this must just be a stopgap.”
In an op-ed for the Hindustan Times, Executive director of the Energy Forum Shreerurpa Mitra argued that while the price war began as a tiff between OPEC and Russia, if it is not solved soon, the outcome will be out of their hands: “Crude prices will be determined by global factors, thus limiting Opec+’s power even if the alliance pulls through the present existential crisis.”

JAPAN
As Japan is in the thick of battling the coronavirus, the government and mainstream media outlets have been relatively quiet on the oil price war.

In an op-ed for business-oriented Nikkei Asia Review, founder of Singapore-based Vanda Insights Vandana Hari argued the price war could not come at a worse time, as lower oil prices are of little use to the economies of Asian countries paralyzed by coronavirus and may cause long-term economic drags by disrupting energy supply chains and plans for transitioning to renewable energy sources. More directly, other states are crippled in the gamble of whether or not Russia and OPEC will wage the price war for the long haul or will return to the negotiating table: “The two outcomes could produce vastly different results, a difference of $30 or more in crude prices. Governments in Asia, already grappling with the unknowns of the coronavirus, have been left clueless on the oil price levels to factor into their budgets.”

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

US Democratic Primary Spills into Rising Powers

Policy Alert #205 | March 12, 2020

With the 2020 presidential election cycle in the United States underway, even the media in the Rising Powers cannot ignore the pageantry of the Democratic Party’s primary elections. Following former Vice President Joe Biden’s sweeping success on Super Tuesday, analyses began to churn out that attempted to explain the candidate’s appeal vis-a-vis contender Senator Bernie Sanders and what the emergence of such polar opposite candidates in the Democratic Party mean for the state of American politics. In this RPI Policy Alert, we share the buzz around the primary in the Rising Powers.

CHINA

Although the government-supported China Daily has not weighed in on the elections specifically, it had tough words for US politicians from both parties in editorials condemning Republican Senator Josh Hawley’s announcement to introduce legislation to ban the use of China-based social media app TikToK on government devices and Democratic Congressman David Cicilline’s Taiwan Allies International Protection and Enhancement Initiative Act of 2019, which has now passed in both the Senate and House of Representatives. The China Daily warned US politicians to abandon their “ideological bias against China” and that “Washington’s increasing use of Taiwan as a pawn in its game may not only create further troubles in cross-Straits ties, but also derail the overall China-US relationship for good.”
In response to the tit-for-tat limitations on journalists between China and the US that began with a Wall Street Journal op-ed, the nationalist Global Times questioned the degree to which the media in Western countries is truly independent: “[S]ince the 2020 presidential campaign began, Western media have quickly turned to different camps of the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. They have turned into tools for different candidates. Western media is run by capitalists, who profit by providing news services to the public.”
The independent South China Morning Post cautioned that with the impending elections, there is a grave risk that campaign rhetoric, especially from President Donald Trump, will have negative consequences for ties between China and the US: “At home, Trump faces internal criticism over an increasingly authoritarian style, including highly divisive meddling in the justice system. If he faces a domestic political backlash and implementation of the trade deal is lagging, China-bashing could serve as a distraction for voters. That would do nothing for prospects of a badly needed wider trade deal.”
Shi Tian, a contributor to the Global Times, criticized US politicians’ use of the coronavirus outbreak to further election ambitions: “The urgent task for the two parties and all politicians in the US should be to reach a consensus and work together to fight the virus. After all, if the epidemic spins out of control in the country, all their efforts to win votes will be fruitless.”

INDIA

In an op-ed, Contributing Editor at the liberal Indian Express Pratap Bhanu Mehta analyzed the popularity of candidates like Bernie Sanders and President Donald Trump along a different dimension than the capitalists-versus-socialists dichotomy: “It could be argued that at this point in many countries across the world, the ‘Left-Right’ dimension does not quite capture what is at stake in contemporary politics. What is at stake is not just equality of distribution, but the relationship between democracy and capitalism. […] The issue is between those who think that capitalism is the problem, and those who think democracy is the problem.”
The liberal Hindustan Times responded to Joe Biden’s sudden surge as evidence that the Democratic Party is prioritizing independent voters and centrist Republicans at the expense of members of their own party: “The Democrats prefer a candidate who can save the Oval Office over a candidate who can save America. […] But Mr Biden would do well to take a closer look at the policy agenda of the Democratic left if he wants to stitch together a winning platform.”
The center-right Times of India similarly speculated about Joe Biden’s appeal as a presidential candidate to run against Trump: “[K]eeping aside untenable conspiracy theories, what the formerly fragmented Democratic field coalescing around Biden suggests is that his pitch has greater traction: People don’t want revolution, they want results and the revival of decency. […] Back in 1988 Biden had asked voters to choose him as a candidate who can ‘let America catch its breath.’ That message may have a lot of appeal today.”

JAPAN

The progressive Asahi Shimbun Vox Populi, Vox Dei scholar Kazuo Watanabe’s characterization of the paradox of tolerance “Being intolerant of intolerance would defeat the spirit of tolerance itself.” “In Japan as well as in the United States, there are instances of politicians displaying such utter lack of dignity or common decency that are enough to drive us to despair. And I don’t think it’s a coincidence that they are happening in both countries.”
The center-right Japan Times featured an op-ed by Yoichi Funabashi, chairman of the Asia Pacific Institute think tank, the implications if the election in November is between two populist politicians “In fact, a victory for either Trump or Sanders will raise anxieties in Japan. The U.S., it is feared, may treat Japan as a strategic bargaining chip should Trump prevail, or grow even more inward-looking if Sanders does. The sort of polarizing populism exemplified by Trump, Sanders and several other current world leaders may present Japan and the international order with their biggest challenge of the postwar era.”
The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun expressed doubt that the Democratic Party would be able to close the gap between Sanders’ and Biden’s supporters: “As long as the Democrats continue to be shaken, it will be a rough road for the party to regain the White House.”

RUSSIA

The op-ed section of government-funded RT is saturated with pieces promoting cynicism behind the US election process by characterizing the process as a Ponzi scheme, lampooning Facebook’s attempts to stifle the spread of fake news, arguing that the Democratic efforts are futile against Trump, alleging the US media’s efforts to promote rampant Russophobia in their coverage of the elections, and pushing conspiracies behind Biden’s sudden surge in the Super Tuesday primaries.
Election coverage of state-owned Sputnik News has so far included articles that attempt to undermine claims of Russian interference in the 2020 election process and encourage conspiracy theories behind Biden’s sudden surge in the Democratic primary.
In an op-ed for the independent, Dutch-based Moscow Times, Gennady Rudkevich, assistant professor of international relations at Georgia College, offered an analysis of the Russian interference already underway in the US elections following reports that Russia is attempting to support both Sanders and Trump in its meddling: “What all of the movements receiving Russian social media assistance have in common is not their pro-Russian positions — though most of them do have that — but their opposition to the establishment.”

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

Lights, Cameras, and Little Action at Modi-Trump Meeting

Policy Alert #204 | February 28, 2020

On February 24-25th, US President Donald Trump made his first visit to India, where he was welcomed by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and an estimated 100,000 attendees at a “Namaste Trump” rally held in his home province of Gujarat. While the two-day visit did not conclude with an agreement to end an ongoing trade tiff that began in 2018, the leaders announced India’s plans to buy US military equipment, including Apache and MH-60 Romeo helicopters, in a deal valued at $3 billion. While President Trump and Prime Minister Modi exchanged compliments, they remained silent on a wave of violence that broke out in Delhi as Hindu nationalists attacked a group of Muslim activists who were protesting the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) that was passed in December. Indian National Security Advisor Ajit Doval surveyed the situation in Delhi in the late evening of the 25th, but Prime Minister Modi didn’t acknowledge the violence until after Trump’s departure, and did so through a pair of tweets.

INDIA

In his speech concluding the welcome rally for President Trump, Prime Minister Modi emphasized two topics on which the US and India agree–combatting terrorism and maintaining stability in the Indo-Pacific: “I am clear that India and America are natural partners. We can make an effective contribution not only in the Indo-pacific region but in the peace, progress and security of the whole world. The commitment of America and the leadership of President Trump to defeat terrorism have served humanity. And that’s why I believe that a unique leader like President Trump and the unique friendship of India, coming to India at the beginning of this decade is a huge opportunity.”

The liberal Indian Express emphasized the reciprocity between Modi and Trump in exciting their domestic audiences: “Underlying the bonhomie is the recognition that they can help each other’s political fortunes. Trump is facing re-election in November and would be happy to see his warmth towards Modi and India translate into valuable support from the Indian American community. Trump, too, is lending some political cover for Modi, who is facing considerable international criticism for his government’s recent moves on Kashmir and the amendment of citizenship laws. That Trump avoided any direct criticism of Modi on these issues will be noted around the world.”
The liberal Hindustan Times was optimistic that Trump’s performance in India was indicative of his willingness to abide by the foreign policy recommendations of the US Department of State and Department of Defense with regards to the Indo-Pacific region more broadly: “What India can now assume is that it can work with the US on the Indo-Pacific strategy without worry of presidential interference. Mr Trump has absorbed and accepted that on terrorism and great power rivalry, India is on the right side of the ledger — even if its tariffs are too high.”
The pro-government Daily Pioneer also analyzed the mutual support between the leaders, and argued that Trump’s visit was a win for Modi’s government: “For Modi, the ceremonial genuflection is intended for the same reason, to prove that his leadership has the endorsement of none other than the US President and that for all the opposition by both political parties and civil society at home, he has the US-sanctioned trust and a broader silence on Kashmir, no matter the pyrrhic bursts of angst.”
The center-right Times of India, on the other hand, kept a critical eye on the leaders’ inability to resolve substantive problems between them: “[W]here the India-US synergy is failing to deliver is on trade. That even a mini-trade deal could not be worked out during Trump’s visit shows how far apart the two sides are on this issue.”
In an op-ed for the Indian Express, former ambassador and director general of the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses offered an optimistic review of Trump’s behavior during the trip: “That he did not utter a single word in Motera about recent political developments in India reflects Trump’s political maturity and the importance attached to a deeper engagement with India.”

CHINA

The state-directed China Daily published two editorials that attempted to discredit Trump’s visit. The first called on India to maintain its non-alignment policy: “[S]o far New Delhi has maintained strategic ambiguity which, in the final analysis, speaks of the South Asian giant’s intention to strike a strategic balance with all major players in the region, including the US, China and Russia. For New Delhi, such a strategic balance is a wise choice which would give it both strategic and diplomatic flexibility.” The second questioned India’s willingness to serve as a stage for Trump’s domestic political interests: “[W]hy would New Delhi forsake its time-honored, broadly respected non-aligned policy to assume the degrading role of being someone else’s pawn?”
Mu Lu, a contributor to the nationalist Global Times, urged the Chinese government to be weary of the seemingly superficial trip: “Although Trump is a real estate tycoon, he doesn’t care about petty gains but aims at reshaping global relations, which is part of the US Indo-Pacific Strategy. Such a situation is undoubtedly detrimental to China, which needs stable surroundings for its peaceful development.”
The China Daily also featured an op-ed by Swaran Singh, professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University and adjunct senior fellow at the Charhar Institute, that argued the “hard economics” between India and the US will continue to complicate their bilateral relationship despite the flashy optics of Modi and Trump’s meeting.

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

Rising Powers’ Politics Not Stopped by Coronavirus (Yet)

Policy Alert #203 | February 14, 2020

An outbreak of novel coronavirus, now classified by the World Health Organization (WHO) as COVID-19, began in Hubei Province in China late last year and is shaking the global community as it spreads across borders. In this RPI Policy Alert, we review how the Rising Powers are responding to the political dimensions of the outbreak.

CHINA
The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs began holding its press conferences online as a precautionary measure. Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chungying had tough words for the US and other developed countries, which Hua alleged were “inappropriately overreacting” by banning Chinese nationals from traveling to their countries and barring entry of flights and passenger ships arriving from China. In press conferences over the last two weeks, the Chinese government has expressed thanks to Algeria, Australia, Belarus, Egypt, France, Germany, Hungary, Indonesia, Italy, Iran, Kazakhstan, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Korea, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom. The Foreign Ministry highlighted the fact that Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif was “the first foreign minister to publicly support and encourage China, which in itself demonstrates the sincere and traditional friendship” between the two countries, providing a positive review of Iran’s diplomacy in the wake of last month’s tensions between Iran and the US. Pakistan made a powerful demonstration of solidarity with China by advising its citizens in China–and even in Wuhan specifically–to stay put.

The status of Taiwan at the World Health Organization (WHO) became a point of contention as Taiwanese travelers were barred entry to other countries given the island’s status under the One China Policy and reported complications for the island’s government to coordinate efforts to contain the virus with WHO. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the Taiwanese government lambasted WHO for ignoring the issue on Twitter, while some government leaders, in particular Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and the US House of Representatives, voiced support for allowing Taiwan observer status in the organization. In response to a question on the matter, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua replied: “I would like to reiterate that the WHO is a special UN agency consisting of sovereign states. The Taiwan region’s participation in the activities of international organizations such as the WHO must be arranged through cross-strait consultations under the one-China principle. […] We hope certain individuals in the Taiwan region and the US will stop all political hype-up and manipulation using the epidemic as an excuse.”

The government-supported China Daily condemned US Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross for suggesting that the coronavirus outbreak would be beneficial for spurring job growth in the US: “In Chinese culture, taking advantage of another’s misfortune is the last thing a gentleman is expected to do, which is why Ross’ remarks have sounded so heartless and irritating to Chinese ears. Such remarks do nothing except erase the bonhomie generated by the recent [trade] deal. They show that the two countries still have some work to do to manage their competition.” The nationalist Global Times defended the Chinese government against criticisms of its handling of the outbreak: “Nobody should underestimate China’s ability to fight a public health crisis. Since we can take measures that many countries cannot take, we can also quickly recover vitality after the crisis. Some countries should not be too short-sighted.” Another editorial specifically claimed that the Chinese system of government was uniquely suited for handling the matter. The Global Times also criticized the Taiwanese government for its diplomatic maneuvering in the crisis as evidence that “the well-being of the Taiwanese government means nothing” to its leaders.
The independent South China Morning Post meanwhile warned against the xenophobia that is spreading alongside the virus: “Xenophobia has no place in a health crisis and can distract from the serious effort to fight illness and disease. At this critical time, there is every need for international cooperation, not a fanning of anti-China flames.”

INDIA
In response to the virus, Prime Minister Narendra Modi reportedly sent a letter of support and condolence to Chinese President Xi Jinping. India cancelled all visas issued to Chinese nationals before February 5th, except from those with passports issued in Hong Kong, Macau, or Taiwan, along with other limitations of foreign nationals who recently travelled to the country, but also lifted an export ban on personal protection equipment to help ease the supply shortage in China as it battles the virus.

The liberal Indian Express argued that the wave of travel bans–which the WHO did not support–are less effective in the long-term battle against the epidemic than effective sharing of information and coordinated effort toward developing a vaccine and treatment: “In a globalised world, the urgency of such preventive steps cannot be overstated. Quarantines and travel bans can, at best, be short-term responses.”
The pro-government Daily Pioneer warned that the Chinese government’s response to the virus was nothing to admire: “While the authoritarian system allows for unprecedented mobilisation of resources, it also fosters a dangerous culture of auto-denying “bad news” that allows a problem to prolong itself longer than it would normally have, had the issue been tabled in all transparency. The invocation of ‘patriotism’ to cover up tragedies is the bane of all single-party regimes.”
The center-right Times of India instead focused on how India needs to prepare: “In most parts of India, public health is in shambles and can hinder effective response to disease outbreaks. In this context, roping in private hospitals, all registered medical practitioners and even ASHA workers, who are often the only point of contact between citizens and public healthcare in rural areas, becomes very important.”

JAPAN
Following a question during a session of the National Diet, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe made waves by calling for Taiwan to be granted observer status at the World Health Organization and promising that the Japanese government would advance this cause: “It will be difficult to maintain health and prevent further infections in this region if (Taiwan) is excluded for political reasons. […] We will continue to make our country’s stance clear at the WHO.” At a press conference, Japanese Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi expressed his country’s thanks to China for assisting in the repatriation of its nationals: “[A]midst China’s own earnest efforts toward halting the spread of the novel coronavirus, Japan highly appreciates China’s cooperation for all aspects for the repatriation of Japanese nationals living in Hubei Province.” The Japanese public’s response to the virus, which has included private donations of personal protection equipment sent with messages of support and words of encouragement posted online, prompted a warm thanks from the Chinese Foreign Ministry.

The progressive Asahi Shimbun lambasted the government’s lack of preparedness when repatriating Japanese nationals without designated accommodations and lamented the outbreak’s effects on the economy: “The government and the Bank of Japan must scrutinize the latest trend with an open mind and disclose the findings. They need to prepare countermeasures based on developments, paying close attention to the financing needs of businesses and other factors.”
The left-leaning Mainichi also expressed its concern over the economic effects of the virus: “As the Japanese economy strongly depends on China’s, Tokyo should look into taking swift responses in anticipation of a further economic downturn in China, while keeping a close watch on the trends of coronavirus infections.”
The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun criticized the Chinese government’s handling of the epidemic: “In this latest outbreak, the Communist Party’s centralized administrative system and controls of speech have emerged as obstacles in the response to the crisis. […] Such an authoritarian system conflicts with measures that a government should take when responding to an emergency, such as sharing information within the government, promptly releasing information and transferring authority to local governments.”

RUSSIA
Russian President Vladimir Putin commended China’s efforts to contain the virus: “The Chinese authorities take decisive and vigorous measures to stop the epidemics.” Russia sent six specialists from the Ministry of Health and Federal Service for Consumer Rights Protection and Human Well-Being to China to exchange information with officials to better coordinate assistance efforts. In a press briefing, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova explained that the Russian government was in close communication with China, but also reassured Russian nationals still in Hubei: “Hubei Province can help provide foreigners with everything they need, including medical aid.”

In a press-review by state-owned TASS, news outlet Izvestia reported widespread pessimism about the virus’s potential effects on the Russian economy.
State-owned Sputnik News interviewed Olga Karpova, Doctor of Biological Sciences and Head of the Department of Virology at Moscow State University, who urged calm despite the media’s focus on the virus: “Every year, from 500 thousand to 2.5 million people die of the flu and its complications; and, of course, these figures can’t be compared with the deaths caused by the 2019-nCov coronavirus.”

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

Rising Powers Freeze Out Davos

Policy Alert #202 | January 31, 2020

Officials from governments around the world, business leaders, environmental activists, and social media influencers converged in Davos, Switzerland for the 2020 World Economic Forum Annual Meeting January 21st to 24th under the theme “Stakeholders for a Cohesive and Sustainable World.” While influencers like Priyanka Chopra Jonas and activists such as Bollywood superstar Deepika Padukone made waves at the forum, the Rising Powers were largely absent as they tended to domestic affairs.

CHINA
In his speech at the forum, Chinese Vice-Premier Han Zheng maintained that globalization and free trade is essential for economic growth and that his country was dedicated to promoting it: “Despite the protectionist and unilateral moves by some countries, China will not stop pursuing higher-quality opening-up, and will not follow their footsteps to move in the opposite direction of globalization” (a written summary of Han’s speech is available here). Chief Executive of Hong Kong Carrie Lam led a delegation to Davos and was interviewed by CNN’s Fareed Zakaria as part of the WEF program.

The state-directed China Daily hailed Vice-Premier Han’s speech: “[T]he global governance system remains underdeveloped compared with the market-based industrial and technological collaboration, which is almost seamless. This has resulted in the mismatch between power distribution and dividend allocation […]. That’s why Vice-Premier Han Zheng’s call for multilateralism, inclusiveness, openness and balance in his speech at the forum, echoing President Xi Jinping’s historic speech at the same venue three years ago, has hit the nail on the head.”
The nationalist Global Times argued that amidst the “economic nationalism and trade protectionism” challenging globalization, “China has been like fresh air in Davos since it first participated in 1979. As China’s national strength grows, the country has played an increasingly more positive role in Davos. The 50 years of Davos reflects the process of China integrating into the world and how the country and the world have mutually shaped each other. China probably can and has brought more certainty than Trump to the world.”

INDIA
While the Indian government sent a delegation of union ministers to the WEF led by Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal, it was Indian influencers who stole the show at Davos. Actress Deepika Padukone and World Health Organization Director General Tadros Adhanom Ghebreyesus gave a talk on dispelling the stigma around mental illness. Padukone was one of four WEF Crystal Award Winners for her work on raising mental health awareness. Yogi Sadhguru was one of the six speakers announcing the WEF’s initiative to plant one trillion trees by 2030 to combat climate change. YouTube star Bhuvan Bam attended the meet and posted about his experience extensively on his social media accounts.

C. Raja Mohan, director of the Institute of South Asian Studies at the National University of Singapore and contributing editor on international affairs for the liberal Indian Express urged India in an op-ed to be a leader rather than a bystander at Davos: “Given its growing stakes in the global economic order, Delhi ought to be at the leading edge of the current debate on the future of capitalism. India, though, seems too preoccupied sorting out the persistent legacies of feudalism. But sooner than later, India must find ways to take advantage of the new opportunities from the unfolding rearrangement of the global capitalist system.”
Center-right Times of India focused on the young environmentalists’ efforts to spur action on climate change: “[M]any first world leaders – whose countries are historically responsible for global emissions – remain unmoved and continue to deny the science linking emissions and climate change. […] Thunberg and global youth are trying to awaken world leaders from their stupor. For the sake of humanity, the latter must take action before it is too late.”

JAPAN
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and his Cabinet were engaged with the opening of this year’s ordinary session of the National Diet on January 20th and subsequent hearings in which they faced continuing criticism from opposition lawmakers for a number of scandals, including Abe’s invitation to supporters to a state-funded cherry blossom viewing party last spring, alleged campaign law violations by Upper House members of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, and the arrest of another LDP lawmaker for accepting bribes from a Chinese gambling company for his efforts to legalize casinos in select areas. In a speech before the Diet, Prime Minister Abe reiterated his call for constitutional reform to be completed by the end of 2020, which includes amending Article 9 to remove limitations on Self-Defense Force activities. Meanwhile, talks between the Congressional Democratic Party of Japan (CDPJ) and Democratic Party for the People (DPFP) to merge broke down before the session’s opening.

The progressive Asahi Shimbun called on the opposition parties not to lose sight of their responsibility to hold the Abe administration accountable despite their failure to merge: “The two parties should not allow the breakdown of the talks to hamper their cooperation so that they can unite to confront the Abe administration in their joint efforts to rebuild the nation’s democracy.”
The left-leaning Mainichi condemned Abe’s uncooperative answers to questions from members of the House of Representatives: “It seems the prime minister mistakenly thinks that by reiterating his position he can say he has provided the careful and detailed explanations he is supposed to present to the legislature and the public. […] The prime minister, who has failed to answer key points in Diet questions, is responsible for the deterioration of Diet debate.”
The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun, on the other hand, took aim at the apparent dysfunction amongst the opposition parties: “If the opposition parties continue floundering as they are, the political world will lack a healthy sense of tension. The opposition parties must take their responsibilities to heart.”

RUSSIA
Given the recent shake-up in the Russian government, it is hardly surprising that the WEF did not garner much attention in the Russian press. In his Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly on January 15th, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed sweeping changes to the Russian constitution that outside observers criticized as a strategy to maintain power over his successor after the 2024 election. President Putin’s amendment bill was passed unanimously by the Russian State Duma on January 23. As part of the process, the government resigned, though former Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev was given the newly established position of Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of Russia, and four ministers retained their positions, including Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu. Foreign Minister Lavrov defended one of the proposed amendments, which formally gives priority to the Russian constitution over international law, against foreign criticism: “This is not a unique occurrence; there are similar legal norms active in Western states, namely in Germany and the UK. The US basically says that international law is insignificant, and this is how they treat it in practice.” Senator and Chairman of the Federation Council Foreign Affairs Committee Konstantin Kosachev similarly condemned outside media coverage of the shake-up: “The reaction of what can be described as ‘Collective West’ is taking the form of a hostile and aggressive campaign against Russia, which is bordering on interference in our domestic affairs.”

In an interview with state-owned TASS, Chairman of the Board of the Foundation for Development and Support of the Valdai Discussion Club Andrei Bystritsky argued that the resignation of the government “will not affect the foreign policy” of Russia.

Government-funded RT interviewed Carnegie Moscow Center head Dmitry Trenin for his analysis of the situation: “It’s clear that the new president cannot inherit Putin’s authority and influence. His constitutional powers will also be [more] limited.”

The independent, Dutch-based Moscow Times published a flurry of op-eds on the matter. Ilya Klishin, former Digital Director of the New York-based Russian language RTVI channel and founder of KFC Consulting, was pessimistic about the outcome of the reforms: “Every single Russian can now honestly say that the future does not depend on them. Elections and selection processes have long been a sham, games with predetermined results that admit only Kremlin-approved players.”

In his op-ed for the Moscow Times, Director of Research at the School of Law and Politics at Cardiff University Sergey Radchenko tried to find a silver lining to the changes: “[E]ven the modest reforms that Putin has called for will help put in place a framework that will in theory allow for better checks and balances in the system. The president evidently hopes that by spreading the power, he will have more opportunities to pull the right strings if he ever actually decides to retire. That may be true. But once he passes from the scene altogether, the checks and balances could well continue checking and balancing on their own, without Putin’s invisible hand.”
Tatyana Stanovaya, founder of the political analysis project R.Politik and a nonresident scholar at the Carnegie Moscow Center, argued in the Times that Putin’s pivot to domestic matters was a matter of course: “For years, Putin has focused on foreign policy and largely ignored domestic policy. Now it seems he has returned to the fray in order to secure his own future.”

Rising Powers Rattled by Eruption of Conflict in the Middle East

Policy Alert #201 | January 13, 2020

The New Year began with an attack on the United States embassy in Baghdad on New Year’s Eve by protestors opposing US airstrikes against an Iranian-backed militia operating in Iraq and Syria, which was quickly followed by a US drone strike near the Baghdad International Airport targeting Islamic Revolutionary Guard Major General Qasem Soleimani. The assassination of the Iranian general resulted in the Iraqi Parliament passing a resolution to expel the US military from the country as well as Iranian missile attacks on US bases in Iraq. The tension has spilled into the civilian sphere, as well: the US denied a visa for Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif to attend a meeting of the United Nations Security Council regarding the conflict, and a Ukrainian Airlines flight from Tehran was mistakenly shot down by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard in its anticipation of reprisal from the US. The Iranian government further announced its plans to “discard” the component of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (also referred to as the Iran Deal) which places limits on the number of centrifuges it uses in the production of nuclear power, to the ire of the remaining supporters of the deal following the US’s abrupt and unilateral exit in May 2018. Amidst the sudden escalation of the situation between Iran and the US, China and Russia boldly vetoed a resolution condemning the attack on the US embassy in the wake of the US’s airstrike.

CHINA
Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson Geng Shuang condemned the US strike on General Soleimani: “We oppose the use of force in international relations and believe that all sides should earnestly abide by the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and the basic norms governing international relations. Iraq’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity must be respected, and peace and stability of the Gulf Region in the Middle East must be upheld. We urge the relevant parties, the US side in particular, to remain calm and restrained and avoid further escalating the tensions.” China’s call for calm was later extended to Iran following its strikes against US bases in Iraq: “We call on relevant sides to exercise restraint and believe that they should resolve disputes properly and peacefully through dialogue and negotiation on the basis of mutual respect, and jointly uphold regional peace and stability.” As US President Donald Trump encouraged the remaining members of the JCPOA to pull out from the deal in the wake of the unrest, China argued that US behavior in the Middle East, and especially its unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA, “are the root cause of current tensions.”

The People’s Daily, the official newspaper of the Communist Party of China (CPC), criticized the US for its decision to launch an airstrike in Iraq to target General Soleimani without prior warning: “Every country shoulders the responsibility to safeguard international peace and security. Any abuse of power or risky military act is not acceptable for the international society.”
The China Daily, a state-supported newspaper, voiced its support for the veto of the UN Security Council statement condemning the attack on the US embassy in Baghdad in the wake of the US airstrike: “If the UN Security Council issues a statement, it is duty bound to ensure it explains the full circumstances surrounding its release. Which in this instance should also include Iraq calling on it on Monday to condemn the US for staging the assassination on its soil. […] Although both Iran and Iraq have exercised considerable restraint in their responses so far, the alerts the US administration and military have put themselves on, and the universal worries expressed by the international community, mean that further consequences are anticipated.”
The nationalist Global Times warned that the stigma of backing down may compel the two sides to escalate the conflict despite a lack of actual interest to do so: “Historical experience has shown that waging wars were often not the belligerents’ actual will. Many wars were pushed step by step by particular ways of interaction between different governments as well as between governments and their peoples. […] Politically, it is the simplest option for the US and Iran to get trapped in retaliation. Concessions are much harder – this is exactly the reason why it can reflect courage and wisdom.”
As tensions appeared to calm late last week, the independent, Hong Kong based South China Morning Post remained vigilant: “The risk of all-out war have receded. […] But the conditions that took the nations to the brink remain as dangerous. […] The Middle East is no less a tinderbox; diplomacy and dialogue are the only way to resolve the region’s challenges.”

INDIA
In response to the US strike, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) published a press release calling for restraint: “The increase in tension has alarmed the world. Peace, stability and security in this region is of utmost importance to India. It is vital that the situation does not escalate further. India has consistently advocated restraint and continues to do so.” In a series of tweets, Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar reported that he was in direct communication with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and that he and Minister Zarif “agreed to remain in touch.”

The liberal Indian Express encouraged Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to assist in mediating between Iran and the US, but not without assistance: “India’s high stakes in the Gulf […] demand that Modi try his hand at regional peace. Doing it in partnership with other regional countries like Saudi Arabia and like-minded powers like Europe and Japan might yet make some difference to the political outcomes in the Gulf.”
The liberal Hindustan Times, on the other hand, argued that “mediation” is only possible if the two sides are willing to come to the table: “India cannot play mediator given neither the US nor Iran have shown real interest in such a role, but there is a place for a messenger. New Delhi is in a position to talk to both countries. At the least, it should investigate whether there is mutual interest in India playing such a role. The idea is not peace making but mistake avoidance.”
The left-leaning The Wire carried an op-ed by journalist and foreign policy expert Sujan Dutta who warned of new challenges for Indian cooperation with the US in any future Iran crisis given the juxtaposition of divergent policy views and recent Indo-US defense pacts.
The right-leaning Times of India emphasized the importance of stability in the region for India’s own economic well-being given the country’s dependence on oil imports: “While what happens in the Middle East may not be in New Delhi’s control, government must try to insulate the economy from external shocks by offering a big economic vision in the upcoming budget. That’s India’s lifejacket here.”
In an op-ed for the liberal Indian Express, contributing editor on foreign affairs and director of the Institute of South Asian Studies at the National University of Singapore C. Raja Mohan argued that despite the blistering rhetoric between US President Donald Trump and Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the two face considerable political hurdles at home that will reduce the risk of actual escalation of conflict: “While there is always the danger of miscalculation by one or more of the actors, it would be unwise to assume they are irrational.”

JAPAN
During a press conference, Japanese Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi explained the steps his country was taking in response to the Iranian attack on US bases in Iraq: “The Government of Japan has urged all parties to make utmost diplomatic efforts to ease tensions. It is deeply regrettable that this recent attack nevertheless took place. Any further escalation of the situation must be avoided. The Government of Japan will continue to closely monitor the situation in the Middle East with a high level of vigilance. Japan will continue to engage in diplomatic efforts towards the easing of tensions in the Middle East and the stabilization of the situation, while working together with the relevant countries. Various circumstances permitting, I intend to visit the United States next week and engage in consultations on this matter.” Following Iran’s announcement that it would not abide by the JCPOA limits on centrifuges, Minister Motegi called for Iran to reconsider: “Japan supports the JCPOA which contributes to strengthening the international non-proliferation regime and thereby to the stability of the Middle East. We are strongly concerned about Iran’s latest announcement. It is regrettable that Iran made such an announcement despite our persistent diplomatic efforts to strongly urge Iran not to take measures that may undermine the JCPOA. Japan once again strongly urges Iran to comply with the JCPOA, and to immediately return to its commitment under the JCPOA.”

The progressive Asahi Shimbun argued that the current tension in the region should be a sign to the government to reconsider its deployments of the Maritime Self-Defense Force (SDF) in the Gulf: “Dispatching the SDF to the Middle East is not what Japan, which depends on the region for most of the oil it consumes, should do now. Instead, Tokyo should capitalize on its friendly ties with Tehran to make diplomatic efforts to ensure effective communications among countries involved.”
The liberal Mainichi echoed concerns over the appropriateness of continuing with the SDF deployment despite the fact that “the preconditions for the deployment have changed.”
The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun, meanwhile, focused on the threat to the international economy that prolonged conflict would raise: “The turmoil in the Middle East will cause a rise in crude oil prices, adversely affecting the global economy. All pertinent nations, including Japan, should perceive the seriousness of the situation and strive to end the current circumstances.”

RUSSIA
Following the US strike targeting Soleimani, the Russian Foreign Ministry reported that in a phone call between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Lavrov “stressed that the purposeful actions of a UN member state on eliminating officials of another UN member state, especially on the territory of a third sovereign state without giving it prior notice, blatantly violate the principles of international law and should be condemned.” In a later call between Foreign Minister Lavrov and his Chinese counterpart, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, the two leaders “stressed that the use of force in violation of the UN Charter is unacceptable.” In the wake of Iran’s announcement to stop abiding by limits on centrifuges as outlined in the JCPOA, the Russian Foreign Ministry reiterated its commitment to the deal. In response to a question regarding Russia’s decision to veto the proposed UN Security Council statement condemning the attack on the US embassy in Baghdad, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova replied: “The Russian Federation invariably and consistently upholds the principle of inviolability and security of diplomatic missions. We were ready to work on the US draft this time as well. But a few hours later, the US military delivered a strike at Baghdad’s civilian airport, which killed several people, including Major General Qassem Soleimani of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, commander of its Quds Force. […] Against this background, the US attempts, in subsequent days, to promote their UN Security Council draft statement turned into a search for justifications for their unlawful and violent action. In this specific case, the UN Security Council’s approval of the proposed statement would have amounted to a display of disregard for the use of force in violation of the UN Charter and for the principle of respect on the part of all countries for sovereignty and territorial integrity of states.”

In an op-ed for the independent, Dutch-based Moscow Times, Leonid Bershidsky, Bloomberg Opinion’s Europe columnist and founding editor of the Russian business daily Vedomosti and op-ed website Slon.ru, provided analysis of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s calculus in prioritizing a meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan regarding the recent instability in the region over Syrian President Bashar al-Assad: “Putin, for his part, never wanted to own the Syrian crisis, but rather to prop up forces willing to consider Russia’s economic and military interests ahead of U.S. ones. That meant maintaining the status quo — and from Moscow, the Axis of Resistance, not just the Assad regime, was the status quo.”
In her op-ed for the Moscow Times, Marianna Belenkaya, Arab affairs expert and journalist at the Kommersant publishing house, focused on potential gains for Russia in the Middle East: “Trump’s lashing out at the government in Iraq, which was until recently loyal to Washington, might persuade other Middle Eastern countries to strengthen their relationship with Russia. The question is whether Moscow is ready: not only to catch the wave, but also to invest major resources and effort in developing a long-term policy for the Middle East.”

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

Rising Powers End 2019 on Shaky Ground

Policy Alert #200 | December 30, 2019

The year 2019 was a tumultuous one for the Rising Powers. China and the United States waged a war of words and economics as trade negotiations dragged on until December, India faced an unprecedented flare up in tensions with neighboring Pakistan early in the year from which relations have still to recover, and Japan’s attempts to normalize its relations with Russia over disputed island territories proved unsuccessful. They collectively faced major US foreign policy changes, such as its escalation in antagonizing Iran and withdrawal from Syria. In the last few weeks, China and India have been rattled with major political protests which have complicated their foreign relations, while Japan and Russia again handled another snag in their territorial dispute. On the other hand, China and Japan have managed to finalize their trade agreements with the US, and Russia has just put its first hypersonic missile regiment into service. In this RPI Policy Alert, we review how the Rising Powers stand as they head into 2020.

CHINA

For China, the end of 2019 has been marked with a number of reprisals by Western countries. Protests in Hong Kong, concern over “re-education camps” for ethnic minority Uyghurs in Xinjiang, and renewed demonstrations of support for Tibet appear to have eroded diplomatic gains from maintaining support for free trade agreements and overshadowed the conclusion of a new trade deal with the United States. In a statement to commemorate International Human Rights Day earlier this month, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo criticized China: “The Chinese government continues to repress members of religious and ethnic minority groups in Xinjiang, Tibet, and elsewhere, as well as to undermine the freedoms guaranteed to Hong Kongers under the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. […] In order for countries such as China, Iran, Syria, and Venezuela to regain moral authority in the eyes of freedom-loving nations, they must rededicate themselves to protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms.” The US House Committee on Foreign Relations also passed the Tibetan Policy and Support Act of 2019. The European Parliament adopted a resolution condemning China’s treatment of Uyghurs in Xinjiang that includes potential “targeted sanctions and freeze assets […] against the Chinese officials responsible for severe repression of basic rights in Xinjiang.” At a press conference, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson Hua Chunying responded to Secretary Pompeo’s comments: “What the US says reminds me of the foolish emperor in Andersen’s fairy tale ‘the Emperor’s New Clothes’. It cannot be more ironic that a naked man is so proud of his imaginary clothes. The US today is in no position to talk about human rights or morality with China.” Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Geng Shuang provided a similar rebuttal to the European Parliament’s resolution: “[S]ince Xinjiang affairs are domestic affairs, we firmly oppose the interference of anyone or any force under the pretext of Xinjiang-related issues. I believe Xinjiang residents and other Chinese people have greater say in Xinjiang’s actual situation than those who live in Europe and have never been to Xinjiang.”

The state-supported China Daily responded to foreign countries’ scrutiny of the Chinese government’s response to unrest in Hong Kong with a pointed comparison of how the same countries are relatively silent on the Indian government’s crackdown on protesters: “[T]here has so far been little, if not no response at all from the self-claimed human rights guardians in the West in regard to what is happening in Assam. […] But then, in the eyes of the West, India remains the world’s largest democracy and shares the same values with the West. China, on the other hand, is an ‘undemocratic’ country and therefore anything it does is fair target for defamation and denigration.”
The nationalist Global Times similarly condemned the “double standard” against China regarding its treatment of protestors.
The independent South China Morning Post took stock of China’s recent foreign policy gains and losses and concluded: “China has grown more confident about its international presence and is now willing to confront foreign criticism and media reporting perceived as biased or unfair. But that more forceful approach is putting at risk its considerable investment in improving its image through soft power promotion of language, culture and the arts and boosting exchanges of people. […] For the sake of perception, Beijing needs to be more mindful of getting the right balance.”

INDIA

Despite its diplomatic successes this year, India has similarly faced scrutiny in the wake of the passage of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA, previously referred to as the Citizenship Amendment Bill or CAB), which provides that “any person belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Pakistan” who arrived in the country before December 31, 2014, will not be treated as an illegal migrant. The passage of the CAA and the proposal of a National Register of Citizens (NRC) resulted in massive protests across India as the actions were seen as efforts by the ruling BJP government to marginalize Muslims and undermining the secular foundation of the Indian constitution. In response, the Indian government suspended internet access in some areas and cracked down on protestors, resulting in more than 1,500 arrests and at least twenty-two deaths. While India’s “2+2” Foreign and Defence Secretary Dialogues with Australia and the US were completed earlier this month, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, leader of the fourth corner of the Indo-Pacific “security diamond,” postponed his planned trip to India and meeting with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi due to security concerns in the wake of the protests. Even the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) rebuked India’s actions, prompting a terse response from Ministry of External Affairs Spokesperson Raveesh Kumar: “The position articulated by USCIRF is not surprising given its past record. It is, however, regrettable that the body has chosen to be guided only by its prejudices and biases on a matter on which it clearly has little knowledge and no locus standi.” Prime Minister Modi took to Twitter to call for calm: “I want to unequivocally assure my fellow Indians that CAA does not affect any citizen of India of any religion. No Indian has anything to worry regarding this Act. This Act is only for those who have faced years of persecution outside and have no other place to go except India.”

The left-leaning Hindu criticized the government’s response to the unrest: “[S]ince 2015, [internet] shutdowns have been rising — 134 in 2018 — and the NDA [National Democratic Alliance] seems unwilling to change course. It seems to matter little that blunt interventions make the ambitious goal of growing into a $5-trillion economy even more unrealistic, or that India is losing face as a democracy because it chooses to sit with authoritarian regimes. That is the wrong road to take.”
The liberal Hindustan Times condemned the government’s handling of the protests as a “great harm to India’s democratic stability and its international image.” The Indian Express, another liberal paper, argued that “the world’s largest democracy cannot look like it cannot accommodate its young who disagree, it cannot afford to signal that it is so ill at ease with itself.”
The pro-government Daily Pioneer carried an op-ed by conservative commentator Swapan Dasgupta who argued that the CAB was “not regressive.”
The center-right Times of India highlighted the effects of international condemnation of the CAB and voiced its support for peaceful protests. The Times also argued that while the “2+2” between India and the US demonstrated that New Delhi and Washington are moving forward in their strategic partnership, their economic relationship remains out-of-step in the wake of US tariffs: “To make the India-US relationship the defining partnership of the century, a comprehensive trade deal must be expedited.”

JAPAN

The Japanese press has focused on Japan’s apparent hypocrisy in its efforts to reduce carbon emissions in the wake of the stunning outcries at the United Nations Climate Summit. Although Japan was a leading force for reducing emissions at the time of the adoption of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, it has become increasingly reliant on coal and natural gas for energy after the triple disaster in March 2011 led to reduction of nuclear power production. The end of 2019 also brought a frustrating complication to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s efforts to normalize relations with Russia as twenty-one Japanese fishing vessels were seized in disputed territory north of Hokkaido. In response to questions about the government’s efforts to have the ships released, Minister of Foreign Affairs Toshimitsu Motegi explained: “Currently, the people in charge of negotiations for both sides are seeking a mutually-acceptable solution. […] I will persistently conduct negotiations under the basic policy of fundamentally resolving the attributions [sic] issue and concluding a peace treaty”. The issue of the ships remained unresolved at the meeting between Minister Motegi and Minister Lavrov, however, the ships were later released on December 24 after paying fines to the Russian government for overfishing. In another diplomatic upset, Prime Minister Abe’s planned trip to India was postponed due to security concerns related to on-going protests.

The progressive Asahi Shimbun lobbed critiques of the Abe administration’s refusal to cooperate with opposition leaders on terms of the US-Japan trade deal concluded earlier this year. The Asahi Shimbun also called for a reassessment of current plans to deploy Aegis Ashore defense systems purchased from the US in Akita and Yamaguchi Prefectures: “The Abe administration is eager to introduce the Aegis Ashore systems at least partly because of strong pressure from U.S. President Donald Trump for Tokyo’s purchases of many expensive U.S.-made weapons. But it is vital for Japan to make its own cool-headed, well-reasoned decisions concerning the plan. The nation’s fiscal crunch demands that the government evaluates afresh the appropriateness and effectiveness of the plan more rigorously.”
The liberal Mainichi criticized the government’s vague proposals to reduce its coal-fired power generation program at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Madrid earlier this month: “Japan must not settle for the status quo, but instead opt for a path in which it can strive to achieve the goal of phasing out of coal-fired power. That is the minimum responsibility that an advanced country ought to fulfill.” Noting increased instability in the region with North Korea and China, the Mainichi nevertheless questioned the government’s large purchases of defense equipment from the US without any prior plans of how to use it: “The United States, which has strengthened its policy of putting itself first, is therefore likely to demand that its allies bear a heavier military burden. […] But officials should realize that Japan’s ad hoc responses to such demands are reaching their limit.”

- The centrist Japan Times called for a reassessment of Japan’s efforts to reduce the carbon emissions of its energy production through the use of nuclear energy: “The government should take the cue from the slow restart of nuclear reactors to review its energy plan and place greater emphasis on renewable energy. […] The government needs to make an honest assessment of the situation surrounding nuclear power in this country and reconsider whether its nuclear energy plan is feasible.”

The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun argued that the issue with the increased defense spending was the government’s unwillingness to negotiate for better terms with the US: “The [Ministry of Defense] must negotiate with Washington tenaciously to work toward lowering acquisition prices, besides getting commissions reduced or exempted.”

RUSSIA

Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov visited the US to meet with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Following the meeting, Minister Lavrov reported that despite the increased tensions between the two countries, “[W]e agreed that it would not be the right thing to do to put our relations on the backburner, suspend or postpone contacts on the key issues the world is facing today. We are ready to engage in practical efforts on all matters of mutual interest and act proactively as long as it suits our American partners.” Responding to a question about the possible renewal of the New START Treaty to reduce offensive arms between the two states, Lavrov responded: “President Vladimir Putin has recently reaffirmed yet again Russia’s readiness to agree to an extension for the New START Treaty in order to ease international tension over the termination of the last arms control instrument between the Russian Federation and the United States. We are ready to do so even today. The ball is in the court of our US partners.” Lavrov’s visit coincided with the impeachment proceedings in the US House of Representatives, and in response to reports that House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff criticized the closed-door format of the meeting with Pompeo, Lavrov quipped: “[T]he Russian media were not allowed to attend either, so it was not just about the US media. If [House Intelligence Committee Chair] Adam Schiff describes routine contacts between foreign ministers and the fact that a visiting foreign minister was received by the host country’s president as a ‘triumph of Russian diplomacy,’ maybe the next thing we know is that our diplomats, like our athletes, are being accused of taking dope and are then prosecuted.”

Following his meeting with Japanese Foreign Affairs Minister Toshimitsu Motegi, Minister Lavrov updated the press regarding Russia’s position on the issue of the Japanese fishing vessels: “We have touched upon issues related to the implementation of the 1998 Agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Government of Japan on Certain Issues related to the Harvesting of Living Marine Resources. We asked our Japanese neighbours to take measures through their relevant government agencies to ensure that Japanese fishermen strictly abide by this Agreement and refrain from contravening the declared and permitted catch volumes.”

Russia had much to say regarding the summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in London earlier this month, as well. Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova called for the security alliance to change course: “Covering its connivance with Washington’s scrapping of the INF Treaty, the Alliance continues to spread unproven accusations against Russia and to avoid meeting Russia halfway in its efforts to maintain predictability and restraint in the missile area. The European countries’ acquiescence to this destructive US approach only encourages Washington’s purported plans to deploy intermediate- and shorter-range missiles, which is fraught with the obvious risk of destabilising the situation and an arms race in Europe and other regions.” The Russian military closed out the year with an announcement that its first regiment of Avangard hypersonic missile systems “assumed duty” on December 27th.

While the government-supported media outlets avoided discussing domestic issues, columnists for the independent Moscow Times pointed to potential cracks in support for the Russian government. Leonid Bershidsky, Bloomberg Opinion’s Europe columnist and founding editor of Russian business daily Vedomosti, for example, argued that this last year has demonstrated that Putin is “increasing reliance on the stick as the carrot harvest fails to come in.”
In another Moscow Times op-ed, Konstantin Gaaze, sociologist as guest expert at the Moscow Carnegie Center, and Alexandra Prokopenko, an independent journalist and former columnist at Vedomosti, were pessimistic about the potential for the Russian economy to grow given its performance this year: “There is no point in hoping that an improved economic situation on global markets will help to lift the Russian economy out of its stagnation in the next few years: on the contrary, external markets are where the main economic risks are coming from.”

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

Is BRICS 2019 a Photo-Op or Is There More?

Policy Alert #199 | November 21, 2019

November 13-14, 2019, heads of state from Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa gathered in Brasilia for the Eleventh BRICS Summit and the close of the bloc’s first ten years of formal, high-level meetings. Originally coined as potential investment markets by Goldman Sachs analyst Jim O’Neil in 2001 (with South Africa added in 2003), lackluster economic growth in Brazil, Russia, and South Africa, as well as tense bilateral relations between member states has raised questions about the bloc’s relevance. India recently opted out of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership due to concerns about opening its market to Chinese goods, and Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh visited territory claimed by both China and India during the summit. As the summit opened, there was speculation about how much the bloc could agree on economic matters, given that Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who served as chair for this year’s summit, has been an outspoken critic of multilateralism as well as Brazil’s economic relationship with China. China, India, and Russia are at odds with Brazil regarding the ongoing political unrest in Venezuela. The summit successfully concluded with the signing of the Brasilia Declaration, which emphasized the members’ commitment to multilateralism, but also to “the principle of sovereignty.”

CHINA
In his speech at the BRICS Summit, Chinese President Xi Jinping called upon the member states to “foster a security environment of peace and stability,” “pursue greater development prospects through openness and innovation,” and “promote mutual learning through people-to-people exchanges.” President Xi also reiterated his country’s commitment “to an independent foreign policy of peace and to the path of peaceful development” in accordance with China’s Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. To a question from the press regarding the utility of BRICS, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Geng Shuang responded: “This summit adds stability to the international landscape at a critical juncture, points the way forward for the international system undergoing profound transformation, injects positive energy into the concerned international community and provides new impetus to deepening practical BRICS cooperation.” Regarding reports that Indian Minister of Defence Rajnath Singh visited an area claimed by both India and China during the BRICS Summit, Spokesperson Geng emphasized his country’s position on the issue: “The Chinese government never ever recognizes the so-called ‘Arunachal Pradesh’. We firmly oppose Indian leaders’ and senior officials’ activities there. We urge the Indian side to respect China’s interests and concerns, stop taking any moves that may complicate the boundary issue, and maintain peace and tranquility in the border region with concrete actions.”

State-run Xinhua’s coverage of the summit highlighted glowing reviews from various experts from BRICS member countries as well as observer states.
The state-supported China Daily focused on the bloc’s role in the global economy: “The global economic landscape is gloomy under the threat of a protectionist upsurge. As economic globalization faces headwinds, the BRICS economies should identify the difficulties and pain points that hinder trade and investment among them and come up with practical solutions.”
The nationalist Global Times pushed back against Western media coverage that dismissed the BRICS framework given the slowing economic growth of the member states: “The long-term factors driving BRICS’ economic growth have remained unchanged, and the dynamic mechanisms of BRICS countries as emerging markets have remained unchanged. Their influence in regions and the world has not diminished. They are still on the frontline of world development and changes.”
In an op-ed for the China Daily, Shi Xiaohu, dean of the School of International Studies at the Beijing International Studies University, called for the BRICS members to coordinate their efforts in international organizations’ frameworks, such as the United Nations and G20: “By working under the UN framework, BRICS countries can enjoy a bigger say in key international issues, promote a new type of international relations, and build a community with a shared future for mankind. […] BRICS countries should protect the interests of developing countries by increasing their say in global governance.”

INDIA
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi urged the member states to be steadfast in its commitments as the BRICS platform enters it second decade: “Now we have to consider the direction of BRICS, and mutual cooperation to be more effective in the next ten years. Despite success in many areas, there is considerable scope to increase efforts in some areas. We must make BRICS mechanisms and processes more efficient and outcome-driven to meet the challenges of the global economy.” One issue of particular concern for Modi is the small size of intra-BRICS trade, currently valued at just fifteen percent of global trade despite the countries’ forty-percent share of the global population, which he proposed remedying by establishing a $500 billion trade target. Prime Minister Modi also emphasized the issue of terrorism, which is a perennially thorny issue in China-India relations given China’s closeness of Pakistan. On the heels of the BRICS Summit, Indian Minister of Defense Rajnath Singh visited the state of Arunachal Pradesh on the India-China border which China claims as part of Tibet. In a press release following a side-line meeting between Prime Minister Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs reported that the two leaders “noted that the Special Representatives will have another meeting on matters relating to the Boundry [sic] Question and reiterated the importance of maintaining peace and security in the border areas.”

In an editorial, the left-leaning Hindu echoed Modi’s call for an increase in intra-BRICS trade: “Going forward, it is greater connectivity and more trade that will allow the BRICS countries to claim their rightful space, and provide the leadership and energy that the global economic order needs urgently.”
The liberal Indian Express was cynical in its review of the summit, and pointed to power imbalances and rivalries between the members–especially China and India–in other areas: “India’s gains from the BRICS are not obvious. Nor is it evident if India’s interests are in alignment with the declared policies of the BRICS. Consider, for example, the thundering BRICS declaration on defending multilateralism. Many of India’s problems in the multilateral domain are rooted in Beijing’s opposition — it stalled efforts to join the UNSC as a permanent member and the Nuclear Suppliers Group. On trade, while it is easy to demonise President Trump’s protectionist policies, Delhi’s biggest trade deficit is with China. India has cited China’s economic threat for not joining the Asian trading bloc — RCEP [Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership]. On countering terrorism, which is a major foreign policy priority for India, China views the problem through Pakistani eyes.”
Rajiv Bhatia, former High Commissioner to South Africa and Distinguished fellow at Gateway House, wrote in an op-ed for The Hindu urging the BRICS members to act on their commitment to “project the perspectives of developing economies,” while being careful to avoid getting ahead of themselves with their New Development Bank (NDB): “It needs to start extending loans for projects in non-BRICS countries to create a solid constituency of supporters. Also, is such a plethora of meetings really essential? Do the results justify the expenditure? India’s representatives should ask, do they help the poor and vulnerable sections of the BRICS community? Finally, BRICS should ponder if in the short term it needs to focus on fulfilling existing commitments instead of taking on new ones.”

RUSSIA
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s speech at the summit emphasized the bloc’s political role as a representative for developing economies in the international community: “Together we speak in favour of strict compliance with the norms of international law and the central role of the United Nations in international affairs. Our countries promote the influence of developing countries in the global management system, as well the establishment of a more just global order.” At a press conference following the signing of the 2020 BRICS Declaration, President Putin responded to a question about the relevance of the BRICS platform: “As for increasing its influence, we are not pushing it or trying to turn the group into a closed alliance. However, the role of BRICS will definitely increase in the context of global changes. Colleagues, I invite you to take a look at the economy. Just look at the figures. This year BRICS has surpassed the G7 in terms of GDP PPP [gross domestic product parity purchasing power] by 12 percent, I believe. And next year we will have $50 trillion more than the G7 countries. Is there anyone who does not see this? It is a very real and substantial factor of international affairs, and it will continue to grow.” Russia will host the next BRICS Summit in St. Petersburg, which is planned for the summer of 2020, and Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov announced Russia’s intention to promote space cooperation among other topics.

In an op-ed for government-funded RT, Fyodor Lukyanov, editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs and chairman of the Presidentium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, asserted that the BRICS bloc remains important despite lackluster growth given that “[t]he vast majority of countries are getting increasingly confused” about US intentions and policies in trade: “[I]t makes perfect sense, particularly today. The global system is undergoing a deep transformation. […] What the underlying principles for a new architecture will be remains to be seen. That is why an association of countries that will be shaping the world order under any scenario is worth maintaining. At least, until we can finally discern the contours of the new order.”
Leonid Bershidsky, Bloomberg Opinion’s Europe columnist and founding editor of Russian business daily Vedomosti and opinion website Slon, penned an op-ed for the independent, Dutch-based Moscow Times which took stock of BRICS accomplishments in the past decade. While noting that Goldman Sachs analyst Jim O’Neill’s economic predictions for the bloc in 2001 and 2003 have not come to fruition, Bershidsky argues that BRICS nevertheless developed as an important political platform: “These nations — as well as other populous and often economically dynamic countries in Africa and Asia — are still, like in 2001, outsiders in the global financial system. That is still run by the U.S. and Europe, to a greater degree than their shrinking share of global output would appear to warrant. In that sense, O’Neill’s old idea is still highly relevant. If he failed to predict exactly which countries would outperform on growth, he had the right idea about developing nations’ quest for a bigger role in global decision-making.”

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

India Gets Cold Feet at RCEP Summit

Policy Alert #198 | November 8, 2019

On November 4, 2019, at the 35th ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) Summit in Bangkok, Thailand, representatives from the ten members of ASEAN (Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam) as well as Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea met for final negotiations on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which has been in the works since 2012. Fifteen of the sixteen states announced that they “have concluded text-based negotiations for all 20 chapters and essentially all their market access issues; and tasked legal scrubbing by them to commence for signing in 2020.” India, however, opted out of the agreement due to “significant outstanding issues,” chiefly, its concern that Chinese imports through the deal will increase its trade deficit and harm its national economy. In this RPI Policy Alert, we review the Rising Powers’ responses to the finalization of RCEP and India’s decision to stay on the sidelines.

CHINA

In response to a question about the RCEP proceedings at a press conference, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Geng Shuang answered: “Important progress has been made in the RCEP negotiations. […] We understand that the progress achieved doesn’t quite meet all parties’ expectations, but it is still inspiring that all parties made principled commitments on signing an agreement next year. It’s an encouraging message of East Asian countries’ support for multilateralism and free trade when faced with unilateralism and protectionism. Here we call on all parties concerned to continue constructive negotiations, work toward the shared goal, and achieve substantive, final results as soon as possible.”

The state-supported China Daily hailed the progress made on RCEP at the summit: “This is East Asia and the broader region’s collective answer to the rampant unilateralism and protectionism coming from the other side of the Pacific Ocean. There is no better illustration of the countries’ unshakable commitment to multilateralism and free trade. There is no better way to help the region overcome the tide of troubles originating from the trade war between China and the United States.”
In an op-ed, contributor for the nationalist Global Times Ai Jun blamed India’s political system for its failure to garner enough domestic support for joining RCEP: “Joining the RCEP could help India further integrate into the regional and global industrial chain, gain more economic profits by taking advantage of its large population as well as markets, and promote its domestic economic reforms. [Indian Prime Minister] Modi knows this. So does [Indian Commerce and Industry Minister] Goyal. But they are helpless in the face of domestic political pressure. India’s potential is trapped by its system.”
The independent, Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post advocated leaving India to its own devices: “Stalling progress would result in the loss of real GDP gains. The 15 nations that have signed have left the door open to India; they need to push forward regardless to ensure they can reap the benefits amid so much economic uncertainty.”

INDIA

In a media briefing at the summit, Ministry of External Affairs Secretary (East) Vijay Thakur Singh explained India’s position on RCEP: “India conveyed its decision at the summit not to join the RCEP agreement. This reflects both assessment of the current global situation as well as of the fairness and balance of the agreement. India had significant issues of core interest that remained unresolved. In his remarks on the subject Prime Minister [Narendra Modi] highlighted that he was guided by the impact it would have on the lives and livelihoods of all Indians especially vulnerable sections of society. He spoke of Mahatma Gandhiji’s advice on recalling the face of the weakest and the poorest and then ask if the steps are of any use to them. India has participated in good faith in the RCEP discussions and has negotiated hard with a clear-eyed view of our interests. In the given circumstances we believe that not joining the agreement is the right decision for India. We would continue to persevere in strengthening our trade, investment and people-to-people relations with this region.”

The left-leaning Hindu criticized the decision to stay out of the deal: “[T]he fallout of India’s decision is that it has burnished its image as a protectionist nation with high tariff walls. With a market of 1.3 billion people, there is bound to be more pressure on India to open its gates. The smart way to handle this is to initiate reforms on the export front, bring down costs in the economy and, simultaneously, increase efficiencies.”
In an op-ed in the liberal Indian Express, V.S. Sheshadri, vice chairman of Research and Information System for Developing Countries in New Delhi, warned that Indian foreign policy would weaken without RCEP: “Joining the RCEP would have given more substance to our Act East policy. The economic pillar of this policy has remained weak compared to those pertaining to political ties, strategic and security aspects and people to people relations. Opting out of the RCEP implies there is need for greater exertion now on strengthening connectivity, trade and investment bilaterally. Concepts like Indo-Pacific will otherwise lose traction for us.”
The liberal Hindustan Times was more forgiving waiting it out, but argued that the country needed to make progress to join the agreement eventually: “Protectionism is good as long as it serves the objective of boosting competitiveness. Thus far, India’s record on this isn’t great. Its high walls have usually served to make Indian industry and the economy complacent at best and downright uncompetitive at worst. That will have to change.”
The center-right Times of India similarly called for the government to catch up and join the agreement: “India’s decision to withdraw from RCEP is the best possible course at this moment. However, two things need to be kept in mind. Isolationism in economic matters will only lead to stagnation. The RCEP option remains on the table as other members have made clear that India can join at a later date. Therefore, the government now needs to work on a set of reforms which will make the Indian economy, including agriculture which records a trade surplus, more competitive.”
The pro-government Daily Pioneer welcomed Prime Minister Modi’s choice to walk away: “Critics may argue that not being a part of the bloc is tantamount to not having an even footing in terms of preferential access and losing export competitiveness. Yet the fact remains that we cannot ignore our interests. […] India would not get too large a slice of the cake under China’s neo-imperial designs. It must, therefore, strengthen sub-regional cooperation like the BIMSTEC [Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation]. Pragmatism doesn’t mean we are shy, it means measuring our chances wisely.”

JAPAN

At a press conference, Japanese Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi announced Japan’s response to the RCEP proceedings: “[A]t the Third RCEP Summit Meeting held in Bangkok, Prime Minister [Shinzo] Abe expressed the determination to continue to play a leading role to aim to achieve the world’s largest free and fair economic sphere that is future-oriented by the early conclusion of the negotiations with the [sixteen] countries, and realize the signing of the RCEP in 2020. […] Based on the Joint Leaders’ Statement, Japan will continue to play a leading role toward having the RCEP agreement signed with [sixteen] countries in 2020.”

The centrist Japan Times equated Indian Prime Minister Modi to US President Donald Trump over his protectionist stance: “Couched in domestic terms, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s hesitance makes some sense. He faced harsh criticism by the opposition in India. But Modi just won national elections and his position is strong. He styles himself an economic reformer and a diplomatic activist. Turning his back on RCEP undermines both objectives. Like Trump, ASEAN now looks at him as less engaged with the region and inclined to big words rather than action. If New Delhi seeks to shape regional rules and order, it must be part of such deals. This is a retreat from that high profile.”
The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun highlighted Japan’s interest for India to join the agreement: “Participation in the RCEP would likely boost India’s efforts to expand its exports in the field of information technology, which include software, an area in which it enjoys an advantage. There is also the possibility that participation would lead to Indian business operations in overseas markets, utilizing domestic personnel with IT-related expertise. It is important for Japan to emphasize such advantages and tenaciously urge India to return to the RCEP talks. […] If the RCEP takes effect without India, there are concerns that China will increase its influence in East Asia.”

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

US Withdrawal from Syria Reverberates in Rising Powers

Policy Alert #197 | October 30, 2019

The Syria-Turkey border crisis triggered by the US continues to create political reverberations in the rising powers. On October 7, 2019, United States President Donald Trump abruptly announced that he intended to withdraw US troops from Syria: “[I]t is time for us to get out of these ridiculous Endless Wars [sic], many of them being tribal, and bring our soldiers home. […] Turkey, Europe, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Russia and the Kurds will now have to figure the situation out”. At a press conference later that day, President Trump confirmed his plans as “a firm decision.” Two days later, Turkey launched an assault on Syria, with plans to clear a stretch of land to resettle Syrian refugees. This action confirmed fears that the US withdrawal left its Kurdish allies at risk. On October 17, US and Turkey brokered a 120-hour ceasefire to allow Kurdish forces time to withdraw. As the ceasefire was due to expire on October 22, Russian President Vladimir Putin met with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Moscow and successfully negotiated a longer ceasefire set to expire on October 29, which was supported by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Reports of violations of the ceasefire remain rampant, however. Despite the US’s announcement to withdraw from the region, on October 27, the US raided a compound in northwestern Syria and killed Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, a key leader of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) terrorist organization. In announcing the outcome of the raid, Trump thanked “the nations of Russia, Turkey, Syria and Iraq, and […] the Syrian Kurds” for their support in the operation.

CHINA

In response to Turkey’s mobilization in Syria on October 9, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Geng Shuang emphasized the need for “the Turkish side to exercise restraint”: “China holds that Syria’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity must be respected and upheld.” As the fighting escalated, China’s response strengthened through another statement from Spokesperson Geng: “China opposes the use of force in international relations. […] We call on Turkey to stop its military actions and come back to the right course of political settlement.” China welcomed Russia’s efforts to mediate the situation through an agreement with Turkey negotiated on October 22: “China hopes this agreement between Russia and Turkey will contribute to de-escalation in the region. We hope all relevant parties will work together, earnestly respect and safeguard Syria’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity, create favorable conditions for more progress in the political settlement of the Syrian issue, and make concerted efforts in fighting terrorism.”

The state-supported China Daily expressed sympathy for the Kurds in regards to the deal between Russia and Turkey: “Ironically, the voice of the Kurdish people in northern Syria whose fate is to be directly shaped by the deal has not been heard. They were the key US allies in fighting against the Islamic State terrorist group in Syria over the past five years, at the cost of thousands of their fighters’ lives. Now dubbed by Ankara as terrorists because of their presumed links to Kurdish insurgents in Turkey, they have 150 hours starting at noon Wednesday to leave almost the entire northeastern border.”
The nationalist Global Times condemned the US’s sudden decision to withdraw: “Is the US really going to abandon the Middle East? If so, Washington should pull itself from the region smoothly and avoid wrecking havoc in the region or making its people suffer. The US should be blamed for the chaos after withdrawing from the northern Syria.”
The independent South China Morning Post pointed out that the disruption of the US’s withdrawal and Turkey’s offensive would benefit terrorists: “An obvious mistake in abandoning Kurds and allowing Turkey to attack them is that they are holding an estimated 12,000 Isis fighters and their families in prisons. If the Kurds are killed or forced to flee, jailbreaks and resumption of terrorism are likely. […] The president has to listen to the advice and keep American troops engaged.”

INDIA

The Indian Ministry of External Affairs expressed concern with Turkey’s offensive into Syria in a press release on October 10: “We are deeply concerned at the unilateral military offensive by Turkey in north-east Syria. Turkey’s actions can undermine stability in the region and the fight against terrorism. Its action also has the potential for causing humanitarian and civilian distress. We call upon Turkey to exercise restraint and respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria. We urge the peaceful settlement of all issues through dialogue and discussion.”

The left-leaning Hindu criticized the Trump administration not for withdrawing, but for “the way in which it is abruptly disengaging itself and the potential consequences.”
The liberal Indian Express, meanwhile, pointed out that the Indian government’s response to the Turkish offensive was likely motivated by Turkey’s own criticism of India’s decision to end the special status of Jammu and Kashmir this past August: “The statement on Turkey may be part of the “with us, or against us” style of diplomacy that has taken hold in South Block in recent years, where a country must profess loyalty to India and be critical of Pakistan to make the cut. This would be all very well if India was an economic powerhouse. But to be struggling along in terms of growth rate, and to make enemies of other nations in this manner, is not the wisest thing to do.”
The liberal Hindustan Times argued that with the decision to withdraw, “the US has reinforced the sense that its strategic commitment to West Asia continues to fade, its interventions intermittent and short-lived.”
The centrist Times of India supported the Indian government for its criticism of Turkey: “To be clear, what Turkey is doing is ethnic cleansing of Syrian Kurds. Yet it has the temerity to talk about the plight of Kashmiris. […] New Delhi should stand firm and continue exposing Ankara’s double standards.”
The pro-government Daily Pioneer predicted that the recent jostling in the region will only stir up more trouble: “The Syrian territory, now in Turkish control, may fall into the hands of the ISIS which has been emboldened by the US withdrawal and SDF’s [Syrian Democratic Forces] scheduled departure. Moreover, if Turkey leaves northeastern Syria without giving control to an able force, it can only lead to further destablisation in the region.”

JAPAN

The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded to the Turkish offensive: “Japan is deeply concerned that the latest military operation would make the settlement of Syrian crisis more difficult and cause further deterioration of the humanitarian situation. Japan once again underscores its position that the Syrian crisis cannot be solved by any military means. Japan hopes that all parties concerned will play a constructive role in improving the humanitarian situation in Syria and in advancing the UN-led political process. Japan will continue to work closely with the international community toward the settlement of the crisis in Syria.”

The left-leaning Mainichi condemned President Trump’s announcement to withdraw from Syria in an editorial: “This is a measure that will further destabilize the situation in the already conflict-ridden Middle East.”

RUSSIA

At a regular press conference, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova responded to the Turkish offensive: “[W]e urge all parties on the ground to exercise restraint and carefully consider their actions in order to prevent a further escalation of tension. We are convinced that achieving sustainable and long-term stabilisation and security in this region of Syria, that country and the region in general is possible only on the basis of restoring its sovereignty and territorial integrity. This means the ultimate transfer of all national territories, including the border with Turkey, under control [sic] of the legitimate Syrian Government.” In a speech at the Academic Board of the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of World Economy and International Relations, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov clarified his country’s position: “The consequences of reckless activities by the US and its allies remain to be overcome. As you know, we are tackling this issues, first and foremost, by facilitating efforts to root out terrorism in Syria, resolve the country’s humanitarian problems, promote the return of refugees and launch a political process, which we expect to begin with the start of the Constitutional Committee’s activities in Geneva later in the week.”

Military commentator for government-funded RT, Mikhail Khodarenok provided his interpretation of the events of the last month and thoughts for the Russian government moving forward: “Here is the scope of what Russia should be doing from here on out: continue working with the Kurds, continue working with Damascus, control the Syria-Iraq border by deploying Syrian border patrol units, restore Syrian governing institutions in the liberated regions, and raise Syrian flags.”
RT senior writer Nebojsa Malic, meanwhile, criticized President Trump’s announcement that “a small number of US troops will remain in the area where they [Syria] have oil” as “self-defeating”: “[T]he oil gambit is not about IS, but about blocking the government in Damascus from using its own natural resources to rebuild. Already under a blockade by the US and its EU allies, Syria desperately needs the oil to help its people survive the winter.”
State-owned Sputnik News featured interviews with Alexander Azadgan, editor-at-large with the United World International analytical center, as well as former CIA counter-terrorism specialist Philip Giraldi, US military veteran and security analyst Mark Sleboda, and political analyst Christopher Assad.
Writing for the independent, Dutch-based Moscow Times, Alexei Khlebnikov, Middle East expert at the Russian International Affairs Council, “It is to be expected that the Kremlin will soon ask Ankara to completely leave northeast Syria. Once Kurdish withdrawal and disarmament are completed, there will be no need for Turkey to stay in Syria, and Moscow will surely push this narrative in order to restore Syrian territorial integrity.”

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

The Leaders of Asia’s Two Rising Powers Meet in Chennai: Does It Amount to a Reboot?

Policy Alert #196 | October 18, 2019

The dates were announced late and the meeting was dubbed an informal summit, but on October 11-12, 2019, Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi met for their second such meeting in Chennai, India. The meeting was President Xi’s first trip abroad since the celebrations of the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China on October 1. The first informal summit was held in April 2018 in Wuhan, China, following the tense stand-off between the two rising powers at the disputed border in Doklam in August 2017. While their bilateral ties got a small boost from the face-to-face discussions, a number of issues remain unresolved, including the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, China’s support of Pakistan over the Kashmir dispute at the United Nations Security Council, and the conditions of ASEAN’s Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) multilateral trade agreement, which India had delayed joining due to domestic opposition.

CHINA

Prior to the meeting between President Xi Jinping and Prime Minister Modi, China hosted Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan October 9-10, 2019. In a press release, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs reported that the Pakistani delegation “briefed the Chinese side” on the ongoing territorial dispute with India in Jammu and Kashmir, to which “[t]he Chinese side responded that it was paying close attention to the current situation in Jammu & Kashmir and reiterated that the Kashmir issue is a dispute left from history, and should be properly and peacefully resolved based on the UN Charter, relevant UN Security Council resolutions and bilateral agreements. China opposes any unilateral actions that complicate the situation.” The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which India opposes as it is planned to run through Pakistani-occupied Kashmir, was also a point of discussion.

Following the summit with Prime Minister Modi, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a statement that outlined President Xi’s remarks. Of note, Xi recommended that “China and India should practically improve military and security exchanges and cooperation,” and “enhance cooperation in international and regional affairs” through multilateral platforms such as BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and G20.

The People’s Daily, the official newspaper of the Communist Party of China, featured an op-ed by contributor Hua Yisheng that hailed the meeting’s success and the potential for their cooperation to “safeguard the common interests of developing countries and promote the process of multi-polarization and economic globalization”: “The talks between Xi and Modi have enhanced mutual understanding, drawn a beautiful blueprint for China-India relationship development in the future, and injected stability and positive energy to [a] world full of uncertainties.”
Ahead of the summit, the state-directed China Daily was optimistic about the meeting’s potential given the progress the two leaders have made since the stand-off in Doklam two years ago: “Despite their historical disputes over some sections of their boundaries, which sparked the Doklam standoff in August 2017, Beijing and New Delhi have by and large done a good job preventing such issues from marring the “big picture” of bilateral relations. […] While it remains to be seen what Xi and Modi can accomplish in Chennai, the potential of greater bilateral engagement certainly supports a relationship that is far more positive than one that is just stable.”
The nationalist Global Times, meanwhile, took aim at critics in India: “People with even a slight political sense know why the US and the West do not want China and India to be close to each other, and why they hope to see a fight between the Chinese dragon and Indian elephant, because the two emerging powers could consume their energies while the West gains strategic benefits. Although some Indian media tend to make impulsive statements from time to time, Indian policymakers have maintained strategic rationality and geopolitical sense.”
The independent South China Morning Post noted that while India still has not signed on to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, the establishment of a high-level economic and trade dialogue mechanism is a step in the right direction: “Putting aside suspicion and building trust through trade, investment and cooperation is the best place to start.”

INDIA

On the second day of the summit, Prime Minister Narendra Modi proclaimed that the event had launched a “New Era of Cooperation” between the two countries: “We have decided that we would prudently manage our differences without letting them turn into disputes, that we would be sensitive to each others’ concerns and that our relations strive towards World Peace and stability. […] The Wuhan Summit has given a new momentum to our bilateral relations. Today with our Chennai Connect a new era of cooperation has begun in the relations of our two countries.” The Office of the Prime Minister released a summary of the informal discussions held between Modi and Xi, which noted that, “Both agreed that it is important to support and strengthen the rules-based multilateral trading system at a time when globally agreed trade practices and norms are being selectively questioned,” and that “[t]hey also agreed on the importance of concluding negotiations for a mutually-beneficial and balanced Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.”

While the left-leaning Hindu gave the summit good marks, it warned the two governments to keep their relationship bilateral: “India often sees China through the prism of its ties with Pakistan, while China looks constantly for an American role in Indian actions. Both the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor and the U.S.-India joint Indo-Pacific vision have further derailed bilateral trust. It is thus necessary to remove the worry of ‘third parties’ from the room if New Delhi and Beijing are to move beyond laying the foundations of engagement and building atmospherics to actually resolving the serious issues they have in territorial, economic and strategic areas. Only when they see each other as independent and autonomous decision-makers will the leaders realise their vision of an Asian century where the ‘elephant and dragon’ learn to dance.”
C. Raja Mohan, director of the Institute of South Asian Studies at the National University of Singapore and contributing editor on foreign affairs at the liberal Indian Express, instead focused on President Xi’s stop in Nepal following the meeting with Prime Minister Modi: “While Delhi will debate the issues generated by China Nepal Economic Corridor for some time to come, it also needs to pay attention to an equally important dimension of China-Nepal relationship — the deepening of bilateral security cooperation.”
The liberal Hindustan Times was dubious about references to joint efforts to counter terror activity in the region, “at least until China shows it is willing to ask its all-weather ally Pakistan to tackle this issue decisively.” Still, the Hindustan Times argued: “The biggest take-away from the meeting was the creation of the economic and trade dialogue mechanism as it will allow the two sides to tackle a range of issues of concern, from India’s ballooning trade deficit to the tricky negotiations on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement. If nothing else, the two leaders have once again provided some strategic guidance that can help both sides rebalance their ties and get down to addressing the more contentious matters.”
The center-right Times of India emphasized the shadow of the imbalance in trade and military strength between the two countries that hung over the summit: “While the Indian side may lay a lot of store by sentiment, sentimental evocations of a shared past are unlikely to move China. India must seek to outstrip China in terms of economic growth rates, so that rather than being a vanishing blip in Beijing’s rear view mirror (as is the case now) New Delhi reduces the gap between the two. Unfortunately, as India’s economy hits the skids, the government is unable to project any comprehensive vision of how to move it forward. As long as this situation continues expect not to be taken too seriously by Beijing, which may continue to throw a few summits our way.”

JAPAN

The Nikkei Asian Review featured an op-ed by Aakriti Bachhawat, researcher at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, in which she argued that despite the summit, India appears more interested in strengthening ties with the security “Quad” with Australia, Japan, and the US than moving much closer to China.

RUSSIA

Government-funded RT published an op-ed by Sreeram Chasulia, professor and dean at the Jindal School of International Affairs, that provided a background for the summit.
State-owned Sputnik News featured an interview with Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) Distinguished Fellow Sanjaya Baru regarding the roles of Pakistan and the United States in relations between China and India.

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

Rising Powers at UN Stand Together on Climate Change and Not on Much Else

Policy Alert #196 | October 2, 2019

The 74th Assembly of the United Nations General Assembly opened on September 17, 2019, with the high-level debates following on September 24. The first Youth Climate Summit and Climate Action Summit convened ahead of the high-level debates, and Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg’s impassioned speech to world leaders at the Climate Action Summit set the stage for heated debate both at the UN and domestically over the issue. United States President Donald Trump kicked-off high-spirited exchange with his international counterparts with his speech to the General Assembly, in which he asserted that “The future does not belong to globalists. The future belongs to patriots,” critiqued the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) classification of China as a developing country, and criticized China for its handling of protests in Hong Kong and Iran for its “violent and unprovoked aggression.” In this Rising Powers Policy Alert, we review the developments in bilateral and multilateral cooperation and discord at the largest annual meeting of world leaders that concluded September 30.

CHINA
At the Climate Action Summit, Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi reiterated his country’s commitment to “faithfully fulfill” its obligations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement. One primary means China plans to combat climate change is through its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI): “We will continue to promote joint building of a green Belt and Road. We are implementing the Belt and Road South-South Cooperation Initiative on Climate Change, and mobilizing stronger support for international cooperation against climate change through the BRI International Green Development Coalition and other platforms.” Councilor Wang’s speech to the General Assembly countered President Trump’s by expressing support for open trade: “Development is the master key to solving all problems. […] We need to build an open world economy and help developing countries better integrate into the global industrial and value chains.” Responding to a question from the press regarding President Trump’s attacks on China in his speech, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Geng Shuang said: “The General Debate of the United Nations General Assembly is a key platform for UN members to voice opinions and exchange views on major issues bearing on world peace and development, and an important opportunity for the international community to discuss how to uphold multilateralism, settle international and regional hotspot issues and address global challenges, rather than an occasion for verbal attack and interference in others’ internal affairs.” Spokesperson Wang also expressed China’s support for Russia’s decision to join the Paris Agreement. Regarding Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s assertion that China should be considered a developed country for WTO purposes, which was later repeated by President Trump, Spokesperson Wang responded, “China is still a developing country, which is a broad consensus of the international community. By adhering to its developing country status, China is standing for the basic rights of fellow developing countries and maintaining international fairness and justice.” Spokesperson Wang further dismissed Trump’s call for China to honor the Sino-British Joint Declaration in its dealings with Hong Kong: “We have repeatedly stated our position on issues relating to Hong Kong. I stress again that Hong Kong affairs are purely China’s internal affairs. No foreign government, organization or individual has any right to interfere.”

The state-directed China Daily criticized the US for its inaction on climate change: “The complementarity of countries, in technology, environmental capacity and funds, should be coordinated and tapped to make the fight a joint campaign, rather than a lone fight. But as long as the US insists on transplanting its belief in exceptionalism to the climate cause, the dire warnings of not just activists such as Thunberg but also scientists from around the world will continue to be a lullaby for those who prefer to doze than act.”
In response to the suggestion that China is a developed country, the nationalist Global Times countered: “The power of a country is often showed in terms of the GDP, but the real life of ordinary people is shaped more by GDP per capita. China with a huge population occupies a rare position in international relations: its comprehensive national strength is rising relatively fast compared to other countries, while the modernization of people’s real life needs more time to improve. […] The Chinese people have the right to continue to improve their living standards. If the West does not mistake China for a developed country, it is conducive to support this right of the Chinese.”
The independent, Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post supported Thunberg’s efforts at the Climate Action Summit: “Her fury is largely justified; it is the activism of young people that has spurred the world into fresh action. […] The world has a road map and many tools and technology [to address climate change]; now it also needs the will.”
He Yin, board member of the United Nations Association of China and an associate professor at the China Peacekeeping Police Training Center, Chinese People’s Police University, penned an op-ed for the China Daily that praised his country’s contributions to the United Nations peacekeeping operations: “China sometimes find itself caught in a dilemma: if it shies away from international affairs, some may accuse it of not shouldering its global responsibilities, and if it takes [sic] active part in international affairs, some may accuse it of being ‘assertive’ and trying to reshape the world order. Nevertheless, as its strong support for UN peacekeeping shows, China is determined to shoulder its global responsibilities. And with the United States retreating from the international organizations, China’s efforts to strengthen the UN system and other global and multilateral bodies will help strengthen and sustain the world order.”

INDIA
In his speech to the UN General Assembly, Prime Minister Modi highlighted India’s contributions to the fight against climate change, including providing one million US dollars to fund the installation of solar panels onto the UN building. On the sidelines of the General Assembly, Modi met with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and “reiterated India’s support for giving priority to diplomacy, dialogue and confidence building in the interest of maintaining peace, security and stability in the Gulf region, which is of vital importance for India.” In a press conference with President Trump at the UN, Modi tiptoed around Trump’s suggestion that the US could become involved in the Kashmir dispute between India and Pakistan.

Although the left-leaning Hindu “welcomed” Prime Minister Modi’s comments at the UN Climate Action Summit, the editorial board pointed out the irony of the PM’s strong words against the recent decision to open coal mining to foreign direct investment and the aged National Plan on Climate Change: “Advancing the national climate agenda in the spirit of Mr. Modi’s action-over-words idiom requires the Central government to come up with a strong domestic action plan.”
Ajay Vir Jakhar, chairman of the Bharat Krishak Samaj charity for farmers, encouraged the Indian government to address the agricultural sector’s role in climate change in an op-ed for the liberal Indian Express: “Unrestrained profiteering by agri-businesses is expediting climate change. Starved of funds, the exhausted public research system has taken a similar and easier path to maximise farm yields by monocropping and use of chemicals, encouraging agricultural practices that emit human-induced greenhouse gases. […] Present practices extract a heavy environmental footprint, completing a vicious circle that makes agriculture more problematic while agriculture itself also intensifies climate change, compelling yields to be maximised.”
The centrist Times of India supported the efforts of the UN Climate Action Summit and encouraged G20 members to do more in not only in terms of mitigation, but also in adaption: “Low income countries need help in adaptation, or ways to address the impact. This is an area where countries which make up a forum such as G20 should do a lot more.”
C. Raja Mohan, director of the Institute of South Asian Studies at the National University of Singapore and contributing editor of foreign affairs at the Indian Express, “The PM is aware that cutting a trade deal with Trump, will make it a lot easier to deal with his administration on a range of issues including terrorism, Kashmir and the unfolding crisis in Afghanistan. […] A new trade agreement must be about preparing India for profound changes in the global economic order, buffeted by Trump’s politics as well as the unfolding technological disruption. […] Getting India’s most important trade relationship right in the near term and charting a bold course for a mutually beneficial commercial partnership with the US over the long term are urgent and worthy goals in themselves.”

JAPAN
In his address to the UN General Assembly, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe made a pitch for Japan’s election to the Security Council: “For the UN, which has now come three quarters of a century since its founding, structural reform, especially that of the Security Council, is absolutely imperative. We aim for the early realization of such reform. In addition, Japan is standing in the 2022 election. By once again receiving the support of numerous countries, we wish to serve as a non-permanent member of the Security Council and make our best efforts towards the further realization of the principles of the UN.” On the sidelines of the UN, Prime Minister Abe and President Trump signed a joint statement announcing that they “confirm and welcome final agreement on the United States-Japan Trade Agreement and the United States-Japan Digital Trade Agreement,” the details of which are outlined by a US Trade Representative Fact Sheet.

The progressive Asahi Shimbun criticized the Abe administration for doing so little to combat climate change: “The nation plans to build many coal-fired thermal power plants at home and abroad, and the government’s carbon emissions reduction target is uninspiring at best. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe sat out the summit, and Environment Minister Shinjiro Koizumi announced no plans to enhance the nation’s countermeasures. It would be totally understandable if the rest of the world was left wondering whether Japan shares any sense of crisis.” The Asahi further took the government to task for the opacity in trade negotiations with the US: “The Japanese public has been given no detailed account of what the two governments have actually discussed and how they have reached this ‘final agreement,’ which is marked by major Japanese concessions. Will the U.S. tariffs on Japanese cars and car parts really be eliminated? What other issues will the two countries negotiate? Abe needs to fulfill his responsibility to answer these and other questions about the trade agreement, which he has failed to do so far […].”
The liberal Mainichi Shimbun, too, called out Prime Minister Abe for the poor optics of his lack of action at the summit: “[Japan] has been criticized by countries across the world for relying on coal-fired power plants to supply its energy. Around 70 world leaders attended the Climate Action Summit, but Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was not one of them.” Regarding the recent trade deal, the Mainichi described the deal as “far from a ‘win’ for Japan,” and demanded that the Diet read the final deal closely before ratifying it: “The Japanese government has explained that the Japan-U.S. joint agreement signed by both Trump and Abe includes a provision that will avoid any additional tariffs. However, the phrasing only goes as far as to adhere to the joint statement that was released in September of last year. Considering how unpredictable President Trump is, it’s hardly a safeguard. […] Legislators should thoroughly deliberate whether the draft pact benefits Japan.”
The centrist Japan Times celebrated the efforts of young people for their worldwide protests to fight climate change ahead of the Youth Climate Summit, but noted that the way forward is hardly an easy one: “Japan should play a leading role in this effort. It has spearheaded environmental action in the past, helping produce the Kyoto Protocol, the Nagoya Protocol and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. That activism has waned, however, as Japan struggles with its own energy plans in the wake of the shutdowns of most nuclear power plants following the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident.”
The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun lauded the announcement of a finalized trade deal, but expressed hope that there would be more to the deal than has already been announced: “As long as Japan concedes on agricultural imports, it is reasonable for the United States to work toward eliminating tariffs on car imports from Japan. Tokyo should persistently work on Washington to achieve that goal.”

RUSSIA
In his speech at the 11th Conference on Facilitating Entry into Force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov took a moment to lambast the US government for failing to supply visas to members of the Russian delegation in a timely manner before launching into a critique of recent US policy failures related to nuclear proliferation: “Regrettably, our conference was overshadowed by an outrageous incident linked with the failure of the US to fulfil its commitments on the timely issuance of visas for members of the delegations coming to work at the UN. Almost every member of the Russian delegation that was declared to take part in today’s conference failed to receive visas even though we complied with all the required procedures. Apparently, it is time to consider moving these conferences from New York to more stable venues where the host country treats its commitments responsibly.” As part of his introductory remarks during a meeting with Japanese Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, Foreign Minister Lavrov thanked the Japanese Embassy in Moscow for successfully interceding to the US on Russia’s behalf in acquiring a visa for one of their translators: “[W]e will come to you if there are any additional problems between us and our Amercian friends.” As the UN General Assembly convened in New York, in Moscow, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev announced that Russia would pursue accession to the Paris Agreement.

Kirill Martynov, political editor at Novaya Gazeta, penned an op-ed for the independent Moscow Times that analyzed why Russian reception of Greta Thunberg’s speech was so negative: “Ever since the end of the Soviet experiment, we have been a nation of individualists that avoids public service at any cost — our memories of endless Communist party meetings are too raw. […] Perhaps the emergence of a powerful ecological movement in our country — which is still demoralized by a post-Soviet imperial complex and is still trying to ‘eat to its heart’s content’ — will be the prologue to a new Russian democracy.”
The nationalist Pravda Report featured an op-ed by UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for the Climate Action Summit Luis Alfonso de Alba that praised for youth activists’ efforts at the Youth Climate Summit.

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

Rising Powers Rattled by Attack on Saudi Oil Facility

Policy Alert #194 | September 20, 2019

On September 14, 2019, a large oil processing facility in Saudi Arabia was incapacitated in a drone attack. The Saudi Aramco facility in Abqaiq is one of the world’s largest processing centers for crude oil, with some estimates of its capacity at five million barrels per day. Houthi rebels based in Yemen claimed responsibility for the attack and called for an end to the ongoing civil war in the country, in which the Houthi rebels are backed by Iran and the Yemeni government are supported by Saudi Arabia. Despite the claim, both Saudi Arabia and the United States have accused Iran of perpetrating the attack. With tensions in the region already running high with the US’s withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and reinstatement of economic sanctions against Iran and its trade partners, the Rising Powers are bracing themselves for ripple effects.

CHINA
Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying expressed China’s resolute disapproval of the attack, regardless of who was responsible: “China condemns the attacks on Saudi Arabia’s oil facilities. We are against any attack on civilians and civil facilities.” In response to a question about the US’s accusation against Iran, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying called for cooler heads to prevail: “We don’t think it is responsible to assert who is responsible before a conclusive investigation. China is against any move that will aggravate conflict. We call on relevant sides to refrain from actions leading to escalation of the tensions in the region.” At a later press conference, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Geng Shuang dodged a question from the press regarding whether or not China would address the attack in the United Nations Security Council, instead restating China’s condemnation of the attack.

The state-supported China Daily criticized the US’s accusation against Iran as part of a larger trend of unnecessarily stirring the pot: “To be fair to Iran, it is not responsible for the current situation. The main cause of the tensions is the US’ withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal despite the International Atomic Energy Agency saying Teheran had fully complied with the multilateral deal.”
The nationalist Global Times condemned the US, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, for immediately blaming Iran without compelling evidence: “The world needs order, and should not encourage a superpower’s secretary of state to declare a country guilty so easily. Iran has maintained good ties with Yemen’s Houthi rebels. But this does not mean Iran is the country that launched the drone attacks.”
The independent South China Morning Post called for “diplomacy, not war,” and for the issue to be taken up by the United Nations, which begins its 74th General Assembly next week: “Political hawks in the US and Iran could too easily push their nations into an unwanted conflict, worsening instability in the Middle East and putting global energy supplies at risk. […] The international community has to prevent conflict; the United Nations General Assembly this week is an opportunity to push for dialogue and peace.”

INDIA
Following the attack, Indian Ministry of External Affairs Spokesperson Raveesh Kumar voiced his country’s disapproval of the attack: “We condemn the attacks of September 14, 2019 targetting [sic] Abqaiq oil processing facility and Khurais oil field in Saudi Arabia. We reiterate our resolve to oppose terrorism in all its forms and manifestations.”

The left-leaning Hindu expressed concerns about the attack’s disruption of India’s supply of petroleum products, given that two-thirds of its oil is imported from West Africa, but also laid blame across all sides in the dispute: “The sudden disruption of global crude oil supply is the unintended consequence of the unravelling of the painstakingly crafted P5+1+EU-Iran [JCPOA] nuclear deal, the Saudis’ reckless adventure in Yemen and the Iranian empowerment of its proxies in West Asia as a response. […] The government should be prepared to handle the fallout with steps such as re-evaluating the excise duties on petroleum products.”
The liberal Indian Express similarly described the current “lose-lose” situation as the result of a confluence of miscalculations by the involved parties, and called for India to help smooth over the conflict as Japan and European countries are: “The current lose-lose situation should open the door for sensible compromises all around. India, which is friends with all the actors in the Middle East, can easily do more than being a passive observer.”
The liberal Hindustan Times focused on what the conflict means for India’s longer term energy security strategy: “New Delhi still has little ability to influence the geopolitics of the Gulf, and should buffer itself for further bad news in that part of the world. India should do much more at home in terms of diversifying its energy sources, gasifying its baseload power and increasing its strategic oil reserves — the latter remain at criminally low levels.”
The centrist Times of India insisted the government prepare to insulate the economy from any negative effects of the dispute: “One of the highlights of India’s economic performance over the last few years is a durable reduction in the rate of inflation. A softening of crude price has contributed to it; this will be under threat if the geopolitical situation in West Asia deteriorates. If crude prices do harden and stay at elevated levels, there is a strong economic case to lower elevated taxes on retail petro products to ensure consumption demand is not dampened further.”
The pro-government Daily Pioneer echoed concerns about India’s economic and energy security, but claimed the attack had one more lesson for the government as well: “As we learnt when the Gatwick Airport in London was shut down for almost a week, thanks to drones overflying the runways, precision strikes do not need to be fiery and violent to damage the economy. […J]ust as the Saudis will learn from this lapse, so should India.”

JAPAN
The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned the attack, and specifically cited the economic threat of such tactics for the region and the world in its statement: “The peace and stability in the Middle East is extremely important for the peace and stability of the entire international community. Stable oil supply from the Middle East region is indispensable for the stability and prosperity of the global economy including Japan. The Government of Japan strongly denounces such terror attacks.”

The left-leaning Mainichi called for Iran and the US to bury the hatchet for the sake of stabilizing relations in the Middle East: “Tensions between Washington and Tehran will only bring political and economic losses across the world. All the more for that, the international community should encourage the two countries hold talks to settle their dispute.”
The centrist Japan Times highlighted the economic stakes for Japan in the dispute, noting that Saudi Arabia is one of Japan’s largest suppliers of oil and that Japan is Saudi Arabia’s second largest source of foreign capital, and called for the Japanese government to brace itself for more trouble: “Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s offer to mediate between Iran and the U.S. also inserts this country into regional developments. While any option that increases prospects for peace is to be pursued [..,] Tokyo must be prepared for frustration and blowback if factions in Iran opposed to negotiations want to deter its involvement.”
The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun called for the parties in the dispute to act “level-headedly,” and for the government to properly release necessary stockpiles of its oil reserves to protect the economy from any supply disruptions: “The government needs to make absolutely sure that energy sources will be stably supplied, while keeping an eye on the trend of crude oil prices.”

RUSSIA
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called for a thorough investigation into the attack before the situation escalates: “It’s important to make sure that the process is impartial because unsubstantiated accusations won’t help matters, they are only heightening already existing tensions in the region.” Mikhail Ulyanov, Russia’s permanent representative to international organizations located in Vienna, meanwhile expressed dismay at the latest round of retaliatory sanctions against Iran and what it will mean for ongoing negotiations with the country regarding its nuclear program: “Isn’t it clear that nobody benefits from this sanctions/ reductions race? Non-proliferation and security in Persian Gulf are victims.”

State-owned TASS reported that a source in the Russian Defense Ministry characterized the attack as evidence of a weakness in the US’s air defense capabilities, given that Saudi Arabia relies on US-manufactured systems: “The question arises how come such a strong air defense let through dozens of drones and cruise missiles? There can be only one reason for this: the much-advertised US systems Patriot and Aegis fall short of the officially declared parameters. Their effectiveness against small air targets and cruise missiles is low.” TASS further reported on Mike Pompeo’s efforts to “play down” this failure.
State-owned Sputnik News featured an interview with Mohammad Marandi, a lecturer on American studies at the University of Tehran, in which he questioned how the next steps by Saudi Arabia and the US will be motivated by an impetus to avoid embarrassment that the attack was even possible: “The Saudis have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on American and Western weaponry, and if they cannot track drones…then what’s that weaponry for? And Americans […]: if they cannot monitor the air space in the region in a decent manner with all the equipment and expensive technology that they’ve brought with them, then what is their military doing in the Persian Gulf region in the first place?”
Nebojsa Malic, a senior writer at state-supported RT, echoed concerns expressed by political anthropologist Negar Razavi that the US foreign policy is driven by partisan “think-tank factories” rather than actual area specialists and argued that this lack of expertise is driving missteps by the US abroad: “The result of this unholy alliance of tanks and think-tanks has been decades of mis-shapen US foreign policy, with arguably disastrous results – from trillions in squandered treasure to millions of deaths around the world.”
Leonid Beshidsky, Bloomberg Opinion’s Europe columnist and founding editor of the business daily Vedomosti and opinion website Slon, wrote an op-ed for the independent, Dutch-owned Moscow Times that contextualized Russian President Vladimir Putin’s renewed efforts to sell Saudi Arabia air defense systems in the wake of the attack as part of Russia’s larger strategy in the Middle East: “Russia’s bid to replace the US as the go-to problem solver in the Middle East is based on the success of its relatively low-cost but highly effective intervention in Syria […]. Putin’s foray in Syria was meant, in part, as a sales demonstration to Middle Eastern regimes: Russia will, if asked, intervene on the side of the incumbent ruler in the interest of stability, and it will do so quickly and without political strings attached. The US offers neither of these advantages.”

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