Policy Alerts – Page 5 – Rising Powers Initiative

G7 Leaves Rising Powers Frustrated

Policy Alert #193 | September 6, 2019

Heads of state from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States convened in Biarritz, France, for the annual Group of Seven (G7) summit August 24-26, 2019. Following last year’s tumultuous summit in Canada, in which US President Donald Trump refused to sign the summit’s joint communique, French President Emmanuel Macron appeared determined to restore order to the G7. In lieu of the traditional communique, a one-page Leaders’ Declaration briefly outlined the members’ shared positions on the state of global trade, crumbling relations with Iran over its nuclear program, ongoing tension between Russia and the Ukraine, conflict in Libya, and protests in Hong Kong. To these ends, Macron met with Russian President Vladimir Putin ahead of the G7 Summit and invited Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif to Biarritz in a failed attempt to facilitate talks with the US. Nevertheless, the summit wrestled with sideline drama that included President Trump’s off-the-cuff suggestion that Russia rejoin the group, as well as his grandstanding on US-China trade negotiations, and a tense exchange with Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro over raging wildfires in the Amazon. In this RPI Policy Alert, we review the Rising Powers’ reactions to the 2019 G7 Summit.

CHINA
Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Geng Shuang faced numerous queries in his regular press conferences regarding claims by President Trump that “China called, last night, our top trade people, and said, ‘Let’s get back to the table.’ So, we’ll be getting back to the table. And I think they want to do something,” and his suggestion that Chinese Vice Premier Liu Hua was party to this direct communication with the US. Spokesperson Geng denied being aware of any high-level dialogues. In response to the G7’s statement regarding the ongoing protests in Hong Kong, Geng said: “We deplore and firmly oppose such wanton comment in the G7 joint statement. As we’ve emphasized time and again, Hong Kong affairs are China’s internal affairs. No foreign governments, organizations or individuals have any right to interfere.” He further explained that China believes that the “ultimate purpose” of the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration was to “to affirm China’s recovering of Hong Kong and resumption of exercise of sovereignty over it.” Regarding the efforts to improve ties with Iran, Geng noted that Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif met with Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi shortly after his stop in France, and that “China understands Iran’s legitimate demands and believes that its continued fulfillment of the deal should be properly rewarded. China is committed to continue working with relevant parties to uphold and implement the JCPOA to facilitate the political and diplomatic settlement of the Iranian nuclear issue and play a constructive role in reducing tensions in the Gulf region.”

The state-supported China Daily highlighted the “unity” of the G7’s support for “trade peace”: “Let us hope [Trump’s] talks with the European leaders have helped the US leader appreciate that the interconnectedness of the US and Chinese economies also benefits the US, and that a trade deal is in everyone’s best interests, the US included.” Regarding the tense exchange over the wildfires in the Amazon, the Daily acknowledged that while Brazilian President Jair Bolsanaro “has reason to argue that the fires are an ‘internal issue’ of Brazil and countries directly involved,” because “the consequences [of the fires] will be felt far beyond those countries[.., i]t is no exaggeration to address it as an ‘international crisis.’”
The nationalist Global Times meanwhile argued that the apparent dysfunction of the G7 members to tackle issues of inequality, trade, and peace with Iran were evidence that “although the G7 remains an important intergovernmental economic organization, estrangement is more than apparent. With various internal contradictions and the rise of emerging powers, the global influence of G7 as a whole and all its members is declining fast.”
The independent South China Morning Post criticized Trump for “add[ing] to trade war confusion” with his inaccurate claims and mercurial positions: “In the course of a day, he retreated from a threat to order US firms out of China, said he was having ‘second thoughts’ about a new round of tariffs on Chinese goods – interpreted as a softening – and then backflipped again, saying second thoughts meant he regretted not having raised tariffs any higher. It was typical Trump negotiating style, which still owes more to real estate salesmanship than statesmanship.”

RUSSIA
In response to French President Emmanuel Macron’s suggestion that “the resolution of this conflict [with the Ukraine]” is a magic wand that will open the door for Russia to return to the G7 club, and the G7 can turn into the G8,” Russian President Vladimir Putin quipped, “As for the G8, which you mentioned, it does not exist. How can I return to an organisation that does not exist? It is called the G7 today. Regarding a possible eight-country format, we do not reject anything. It was Russia’s turn to host a G8 summit, but our partners did not come. We look forward to seeing our partners anytime, but within the G7 framework.” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov conveyed Russia’s disinterest to do so as well: “We are working actively and productively within the framework of other formats, such as BRICS, the SCO, the integration associations created in the post-Soviet space and the G20, not to mention the UN. Never during that time have we raised the idea of relaunching the G8 in our contacts with anyone.”

In its regular press review in English, government-owned TASS focused on the Russian media’s responses to President Trump’s suggestion that Russia rejoin the G8.
Igor Ogorodnev, a correspondent for state-supported RT, described the G7’s focus on the wildfires in the Amazon as an “info war to sink Bolsonaro”: “What we are witnessing this month is the culmination of a deliberate campaign – call it propaganda, information war or fake news – executed at the highest level. […] Rather than consulting with Brazil, the world’s fifth most populous country and eighth biggest economy, the G7 club unilaterally declared what they thought was best for it.”
Government-owned Sputnik featured interviews with Tehran University professor Seyed Mohammad Marandi and senior researcher at the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences Irina Fedorova for their analyses of Macron’s effort to invite the Iranian Foreign Minister to the G7 Summit.
The nationalist Pravda Report featured op-eds by Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey and Stephen Lendman that criticized Brazilian President Bolsonaro for his inaction on the wildfires in the Amazon, the former of which advocating a boycott of Brazilian products.
In an op-eds for the independent Moscow Times regarding discussion of Russia’s return to the G8, Russian political analyst Vladimir Frolov argued that “For Russia […] what really counts is the discussion surrounding Russia’s returning to the G7, not the actual re-entry to the club. It increases Western pressure on Ukraine to accept Russia’s conditions and creates leverage for Moscow on a host of other issues.”

JAPAN
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe attended the G7 Summit and kept busy forging bilateral ties with G7 members and observer states such as Australia and Chile. Prime Minister Abe offered an optimistic update on trade negotiations with US President Donald Trump: “[W]e successfully reached consensus with regard to the core elements of both the agricultural and industrial products of our bilateral consultations.” Abe also expressed his interest to “set the goal of signing this Japan-US trade agreement” at an upcoming bilateral summit meeting planned on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly later this month.

In its Vox Populi op-ed, the progressive Asahi Shimbun lamented the lack of progress made at the G7 Summit on relations with Iran and North Korea, climate change, and international trade due to the threat of President Trump’s behavior as a “bull in a china shop”: “Nowadays, it appears that any summit is to be deemed a success so long as this unruly bull of a man-child is kept in line and not allowed to act up.”
The centrist Japan Times commended Prime Minister Abe’s efforts to temper President Trump’s comments regarding the tentative Japan-US trade deal, but echoed the Asahi’s frustration with both Trump and the G7: “Last year’s post-summit fracas is a reminder that little things can set Trump off and declaring the meeting ‘a success’ — no matter how low the bar — is still premature. Issues that dominated the discussion, the need to shore up the global economy as headwinds mount in particular, remain daunting. The contributions that the G7 can make to that end appear to be shrinking.”
The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun similarly voiced concern about the US president’s effect on the G7, especially given that Trump will host next year’s summit: “It is essential to bind Trump to a framework of international cooperation while also preventing a change in the nature of the G7 countries. Noting his relationship of trust built with the U.S. and European leaders, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe should grapple with this difficult task.”

INDIA
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi held bilateral meetings with G7 members as part of a diplomatic trip to France. In a press conference with US President Donald Trump, Prime Minister Modi dodged Trump’s suggestion that he would like to help mediate between India and Pakistan over ongoing tension in the disputed Kashmir region: “India and Pakistan have — all the issues are of bilateral nature. And we do not want to give pains to any country in the world — to, in fact, try to do anything in this, because these issues are bilateral. And I trust that before 1947, when we were one country, that even afterwards we can find solutions through discussions.”

The liberal Hindustan Times commended Modi “for beating off yet another unwanted diplomatic advance” regarding Trump’s offer to mediate with Pakistan, but noted that Modi’s government has more diplomatic battles to fight over Kashmir: “Kashmir will become a unilateral concern of India’s, and if there will be anything to discuss, it will solely be the terrorism infrastructure Pakistan maintains. This new status quo will take time for the international community to accept and India’s large neighbours are already putting up as much interference as they can. Deep sixing Trump’s mediation effort may come to be seen as relatively minor accomplishment if the domestic Kashmir policy starts to go off the rails. New Delhi must brace for further unwanted attention regarding Kashmir, but recognise that its ultimate defence will lie in what it does on the home front.”
C. Raja Mohan, Director of the Institute of South Asian Studies at the National University of Singapore and contributing editor on foreign affairs for the liberal Indian Express, noted in an op-ed that while Trump’s “breath-taking disruption of the current global economic and political order” is difficult to manage, it nevertheless provides opportunity: “[A]n India that quickly adapts to the new dynamic can easily elevate its place in the new global pecking order that is bound to emerge when the dust settles from the current world turmoil. If India gets its economic house in order and returns to a high growth path, Delhi might discover that there was no better time than now to change the rules of the game on Kashmir as well as on the two state parties to the problem — Pakistan and China.”

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

Rising Powers Change the Power Equation in Afghanistan Peace Process

Policy Alert #192 | July 29, 2019

On July 10-11, 2019, representatives from China, Russia, and the United States convened in Beijing to discuss and coordinate their efforts in the Afghan Peace Process–the third such meeting between the three countries on the issue. The meeting also follows failed negotiations between the Afghan government and the Taliban hosted by Moscow in May, and a more successful meeting hosted by Germany and Qatar in Doha earlier this month. Notably, Pakistan was also invited to join this most recent round in Beijing, which prompted concerns that India was being purposefully snubbed from the process. The Afghanistan government itself sits precariously, waiting for the big powers to kickstart the intra-Afghan dialogue. Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump’s outburst on July 22 that he could have Afghanistan “wiped off the face of the Earth” led to consternation in Kabul about US commitment to enduring peace in the country. Rising powers China and India had the most commentary on what the new equation of countries involved in the peace process means, with China ostensibly gaining ground.

CHINA
At a press conference, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Geng Shuang emphasized the consensus between the participants that the peace process must be “Afghan-led”: “China and the other three sides all support the ‘Afghan-led, Afghan-owned’ reconciliation process that is extensive and inclusive. We agreed to step up communication and coordination for Afghanistan’s peace, reconstruction and reconciliation process.” In response to a direct question about “why India was not included” in the meeting, Spokesperson Geng explained that although India was not at this particular meeting, it is not being shut out: “China has been in close communication and coordination on the Afghan issue with all relevant sides including India. […] Based on our consensus through communication, China and those countries agreed to hold the meeting. We are willing to keep in close communication and coordination with other relevant parties for an early political settlement of the Afghan issue.”

The independent South China Morning Post interviewed several analysts in China for their thoughts on the country’s efforts in the Afghan Peace Process, including Li Lifan, a Central Asian affairs expert at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, and Zhang Weiting, an Afghan affairs specialist at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies. Both experts cited China’s interest in protecting the Belt and Road Initiative’s (BRI) China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), and Zhang noted the BRI’s potential to improve relations between the Afghan government and Taliban: “China could offer Afghanistan financial support and build more infrastructure projects that involve both the Taliban and the Afghan government, and that may help reduce hostilities between the two sides.”

INDIA
In a press conference following the latest meeting on Afghanistan, Ministry of External Affairs Spokesperson Raveesh Kumar was asked how concerned India was about being left out. Kumar underlined that India was “a close neighbor and an important stakeholder” and shared that “We are regularly briefed by the US special envoy Mr. Khalilzad on the talks. We are also in regular consultation with other partners Russia, Afghanistan, Iran, China and Saudi Arabia on this issue.” He stressed that the process needs to be “Afghan led, Afghan owned and Afghan controlled” and the outcome “should not lead to any ungoverned spaces where terrorists and their proxies can relocate.”

Center-right Times of India diplomatic editor Indrani Bagchi characterized India’s absence as being the result of being “elbowed out of the Afghanistan peace talks.” Bagchi noted that India disapproves of postponing Afghanistan’s upcoming election as part of the peace process, and featured comments from former Indian ambassador to Afghanistan Amar Sinha that support a more “proactive” Indian effort on the issue.
In the Indian news portal Rediff.com, former Indian diplomat M.K. Bhadrakumar termed India’s absence a “policy failure” and blamed Delhi for having an “obsessive focus on the proxy war,” and being “impervious to other ground realities.” He suggested that “Afghanistan comes under the Chinese orbit for the first time in the history of our region,” and warned that “a long haul lies ahead for India now to regain the lost influence in Kabul.”
The liberal Indian Express was less critical of India’s “marginal” role in the talks: “What matters in the end […] is not India’s diplomatic presence at various peace initiatives, but Delhi’s quiet but sustained engagement with all the Afghan political formations, including the Taliban. As an important phase in India’s north-western frontiers comes to a close, Delhi will remain relevant so long as it can make a difference to the internal political balance in Afghanistan and effectively contribute to the nation’s strategic autonomy.”
The liberal Hindustan Times, meanwhile, called on the Indian government to be pragmatic about its handling of the peace process: “India should begin to work on policy options that presume a much greater Pakistani influence in Afghanistan. New Delhi lacks the finance, the weapons and geographical proximity to sustain the Kabul regime. But it should consider breaking earlier taboos like reaching out to the Taliban, many of whom are wary of Islamabad. […] It should also give thought to the security and military fallout of a Pakistan that feels it has […] secured its western flank. The game is not over yet, but the rules are being rewritten and India, despite its many limitations, should seek to influence the process as much as possible.”

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

Rising Powers Convene in Osaka for G20: What’s the Scorecard?

Policy Alert #191 | July 2, 2019

On June 28-29, 2019, delegations from the member states of the Group of Twenty (G20) convened in Osaka, Japan, for their annual summit amidst heightened tensions between various members over tariffs, territorial disputes, accusations of meddling in domestic elections, and the United States’ unilateral efforts to dissolve the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran. Bilateral and multilateral meetings on the sidelines of the event included meetings of the BRICS bloc (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), three corners of the Indo-Pacific Quad (India, Japan, and the United States), as well as much-anticipated bilateral meetings between China and the US, Russia and the US, and Russia and Japan. In this RPI Policy Alert, we review the Rising Powers’ scorecards from this year’s G20 Summit.

JAPAN

Japan served as host for this year’s G20 Summit, and notably opted to schedule the event ahead of the Group of Seven (G7) meeting that will convene in France later this year. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and US President Donald Trump met to reaffirm the “critical importance of their trilateral cooperation in efforts to maintain and promote a free and open Indo-Pacific region, sharing their understanding of an increasingly complex security situation” and express their support for the G20 Principles for Quality Infrastructure Investment, which appears to be motivated by criticism of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. In a separate meeting, Abe and Modi expressed their plans to schedule a 2+2 Ministerial Meeting to coordinate their efforts in improving regional connectivity through quality infrastructure and multilateral security and defense, including US-2. Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono met with his Indian counterpart, Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar for a strategic dialogue in which Kono expressed Japan’s expectation to conclude the stalled negotiations of the ASEAN Framework for Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). The meeting between Abe and Russian President Vladimir Putin ended without a successful resolution to the territorial dispute between the two countries over the Kuril Islands.

The progressive Asahi Shimbun was critical of Prime Minister Abe’s foreign policy priorities, or at least his strategy in playing host, and noted that Abe snubbed South Korean President Moon Jae-In and was unsuccessful in convincing President Trump to return of the principle of anti-protectionism to the summit’s leaders’ declaration, a tradition which Trump broke at the 2018 G20 Summit. “We cannot help but wonder what his diplomacy is all about. If his foreign policy agenda is aimed more at bolstering his political standing than pursuing a long-term national strategy, it could lead to dangerous situations for the nation,” the Asahi concluded.
The left-leaning Mainichi criticized Abe’s “misfire” in his unsuccessful meeting with President Putin: “The latest meeting was the 26th between Abe and Putin. The prime minister attempted to rely for progress on “mutual trust” he believed the two leaders have nurtured, but it is clear that depending on their personal relationship has its limits. […] Japan obviously needs to rework its comprehensive strategy for winning the return of the Northern Territories.”
The centrist Japan Times conceded that even if the summit did not produce huge changes, Abe did manage to garner domestic support ahead of elections next month: “If the G20 was not the unquestioned success that Abe had hoped, it cannot be called a failure either. The results of last week’s meeting were probably the most that can be expected from a group as disparate as this that is dealing with profound, structural problems that demand big solutions. The prime minister’s handling of this event will burnish his credentials in the election to be held later this month and that may ultimately prove to be the most important outcome for him.”
The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun similarly critiqued the state of affairs between the G20’s members: “The G20 major economies, which together account for more than 80 percent of the global GDP, should go back to the starting point and regain their unity. Japan should play a leading role in helping the G20 achieve this goal, while pursuing its own national interests.”

CHINA

In a speech at the summit, President Xi Jinping highlighted the dangers of protectionism directly and advocated for reform of the World Trade Organization (WTO): “The G20 should continue to take the lead in making the world economy open, inclusive, balanced and beneficial for all. We must strengthen the multilateral trading system and pursue WTO reform as necessary. The goal of the reform is to bring the WTO up to date and make it better able to deliver its mandate of enhancing market openness and boosting development, and the results should be conducive to upholding free trade and multilateralism and to narrowing the development gap.” President Xi and President Trump met on the sidelines of the summit and announced that the stalled trade negotiations between the two countries would resume. In a meeting between BRICS members, Xi reportedly called upon the bloc to “to firmly uphold multilateralism, safeguard the international order based on international law and the international system with the UN at its core, advocate extensive consultation, joint contribution and shared benefits, and oppose illegal unilateral sanctions and long-arm jurisdiction.” President Xi also had a meeting with Prime Minister Abe, in which he welcomed Japan’s participation in the Belt and Road Initiative.

In response to the meeting between Xi and Trump, the state-supported China Daily noted that “things are still very much up in the air”: “Striking a badly needed trade deal is proving arduous enough. A remodeled China-US relationship featuring coordination, cooperation, and stability as its keynotes, as Xi proposed in Osaka, is going to require even greater shared resolve to engineer.” The Daily also credited Japan for taking “concrete actions over the past two years to bring ties with China back onto a healthy track” and expressed optimism for the two countries “work[ing] together in defense of multilateralism and economic globalization.”
The nationalist Global Times was cautious on the outcome of the meeting between Xi and Trump, and argued that China was ready to ride the choppy waters until the trade negotiations are completely settled: “Chinese society has grown mature enough to deal with any profound changes there might be in the China-US relationship. Chinese people are well-prepared for any possible uncertainty in future trade talks. The path of China’s development will not always be smooth and that is accepted by the Chinese public. Chinese people will not be surprised by any potential turmoil in China-US economic and trade relations, and they know China will handle it accordingly.”
The independent South China Morning Post also focused on the Xi-Trump meeting, and acknowledged that the Chinese side had more movement to make to fulfill the promises Xi made at the G20 Summit. Nevertheless, the Post was optimistic that pragmatism would prevail: “So long as personal relations between Xi and Trump remain above the fray, hope is never lost. Despite fundamental differences, as Xi observed at the summit, the two countries can only benefit from pragmatic cooperation or lose from confrontation.”

INDIA

In a meeting with fellow BRICS leaders, Prime Minister Narendra Modi highlighted the need for the bloc to promote multilaterialism, ensure energy security and stable prices of oil and gas, improve social and physical infrastructure to increase economic growth, ease restrictions on the movement for skilled workers between countries, and combat terrorism. Modi’s scheduled meeting with President Trump was complicated by the US leader’s eleventh-hour tweet criticizing Indian retaliatory tariffs.

The liberal Indian Express argued that India was moving away from its previous foreign policy of non-alignment given the country’s efforts to improve security ties with Japan and the US, and that India’s participation in the BRICS block was merely pragmatic. The Express also called for the government to reassess its current “data nationalism,” given how out-of-step India’s abstention from the meetings on international data flows was with the apparent consensus of the G20: “[G]iven the growing centrality of the digital economy for India’s growth and Modi’s visible isolation at Osaka, Delhi must take a fresh look at the assumptions behind its current approaches to data governance.”
The left-leaning Hindu similarly chided Modi for avoiding Abe’s pet project and compared it to the US’s refusal to allow an anti-protectionism clause in the leaders’ declaration. Noting that India will host the 2022 G20 Summit, the Hindu warned: “The G-20 is an important platform to discuss pressing issues, and it must not be detracted from its original purpose of promoting sustainable growth and financial stability by grandstanding by one or two members.”
The liberal Hindustan Times lamented that the G20 members would most likely focus on issues of tariffs and trade rather than the root cause of recent discord between them: “These governments should instead have been wondering how to balance the increasingly disparate economic policies being taken by key governments and central banks. China seems set to continue down the path of debt-driven stimuli to hold up its economy. The US and most developed countries have been unable to wean themselves off easy money to keep their economies afloat. With demand struggling everywhere, it is clear a new policy framework is needed. Populist pushes from both the right and left in most major economies are only making clear policy making more difficult.”

RUSSIA

At a joint press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Russian President Vladimir Putin hailed their efforts to improve ties and highlighted Japan’s increased role in the Russian economy through trade and infrastructure improvement projects. Regarding the state of the territorial dispute between the two countries, Putin appeared optimistic that progress was being made: “[I]t is noteworthy that we have succeeded in making some progress in launching joint economic activity on the islands. We approved business models for two out of the five areas identified by Mr Abe and myself. A number of pilot projects are to be carried out in the near future.” In a meeting with fellow leaders from the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) bloc, President Putin advocated the members pursue reform at the World Trade Organization rather than calling for its dismantling. In a trilateral meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi as the “RIC” subgroup of the BRICS bloc, President Putin explained that their cooperation in the United Nations, Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, and G20 has been fruitful: “In a broader context, our cooperation in the RIC format could become a model for establishing an up-to-date, just and multipolar world order that rejects protectionism, the policy of unilateral actions and illegitimate sanctions.” President Putin also met with US President Donald Trump, in which the latter appeared to playfully joke about alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US elections.

The nationalist Pravda Report featured an op-ed by journalist Stephen Lendman which critiqued the empty showmanship between President Xi and President Trump: “Trump and Xi smiles, handshakes, and friendly remarks in Osaka left major structural issues unresolved. Bilateral discussions will likely continue in the weeks and months ahead, resolution remaining unattainable unless the US side softens its position.”
State-owned Sputnik News featured interviews with John Kirton, founder and co-director of the G20 Research Group at the University of Toronto, for his thoughts on this year’s event, and Fabio Massimo Parenti, professor of economic and political geography at the Lorenzo de’Medici Italian International Institute in Florence, Italy, regarding the summit’s effects on US-Russia relations. Sputnik also spotlighted criticism of Ivanka Trump’s efforts to participate in the G20 events.

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

China and US Spar at Shangri-La Dialogue

Policy Alert #190 | June 11, 2019

On May 31-June 2, 2019, the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) hosted the eighteenth Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore. The annual meeting serves as a forum for Asian leaders, especially defense ministers, to gather to discuss pressing issues in regional security. Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong tackled the looming elephant in the room by addressing the tension between China and the United States head-on in his keynote speech at the dialogue: “Our world is at a turning point. Globalisation is under siege. Tensions between the US and China are growing and, like everyone else, we in Singapore are anxious. We wonder what the future holds and how countries can collectively find a way forward to maintain peace and prosperity in the world.” With the stage set, Acting US Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan fired the first shots in a tense exchange of critiques between the two countries by hinting at the US’s commitment to Taiwanese self-determination in his speech at the event. Although officials from Australia, Canada, the European Union, France, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, the United Kingdom, and Vietnam were present to weigh-in on other topics, the drama between China and the US appeared to steal the show. With the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and Group of Twenty (G20) Summits fast-approaching, how are the Rising Powers responding to the Shangri-La Dialogue fracas?

CHINA

State Councilor and Minister of National Defence General Wei Fenghe attended the dialogue this year, marking the first attendance by a Chinese Defense Minister in eight years. General Wei’s speech at the Dialogue drew much attention for his resolute dismissal of Acting Defense Secretary Shanahan’s comments: “If anyone dares to split Taiwan from China, the Chinese military has no choice but to fight at all costs for national unity. Hereby, I have a message for the Democratic Progressive Party [DPP] authorities and the external forces. Firstly, no attempts to split China would succeed. Secondly, any foreign intervention in the Taiwan question is doomed to failure. […] Thirdly, any underestimation of the [People’s Liberation Army]’s resolve and will is extremely dangerous. We will strive for the prospect of peaceful reunification with utmost sincerity and greatest efforts, but we make no promise to renounce the use of force. Safeguarding national unity is a sacred duty of the PLA.” Following the Dialogue, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Geng Shuang offered support for Defense Minister Wei’s efforts at the event and detailed the Foreign Ministry’s position: “The pursuit of peace, development and win-win cooperation is an unstoppable trend of the times and the shared aspiration of people all over the world. Any proposal on regional cooperation by any country should be in line with this trend and aspiration, or it will not gain universal support. By hyping up military undertones and confrontation, a country will only end up hurting itself. We hope the US will consider its own interests and the common interests of regional countries and contribute to regional peace, stability and development.”

The state-supported China Daily praised Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s opening speech for encouraging the global community to accommodate China’s rise, but noted that the message was falling on deaf ears in Washington: “[I]t seems such reasonable voices are far from enough to talk sense into the US president and his like-minded ideologues. Conscious that the unipolar moment of pre-eminence enjoyed by the US is on the brink of ending, they are doing all they can to delay that moment.”
The nationalist Global Times had tough words for the ruling Democratic Progressive Party in Taiwan amidst the hubbub over Acting Secretary Shanahan’s comments: “The Taiwan Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) authorities are acting recklessly on the US’ ‘Indo-Pacific Strategy.’ From last year to this year, the frequency of American warships crossing the Taiwan Straits has increased, and the US has passed a series of Taiwan-related anti-China acts. Here in particular, we should warn the Taiwan authorities not to assume that now is their chance to achieve a strategic breakthrough by becoming the political and military pivot of the US’ ‘Indo-Pacific Strategy.’ That would be very dangerous for Taiwan.”
The independent South China Morning Post was optimistic about the dialogue’s effectiveness despite the drama: “The US has a challenging task convincing governments in Asia and the Pacific to side with it rather than China given Trump’s erratic actions. Less uncertain, though, is the desire by the nations’ militaries to keep politics from their dialogue and ensure relations remain cordial. Priorities were right in Singapore; although there was posturing, the trade and tech wars were set aside by China and the US so that they could work for a better communications channel to raise issues and improve understanding.”

INDIA

India was notably absent from this year’s dialogue, given Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s speech at last year’s event. Modi was the first Indian leader to attend the event. This year, however, Modi was busy with his own swearing-in ceremony following his party’s landslide victory in recent elections. As the Economic Times reported, IISS sought the attendance of a senior official this year, but the timing of the event–only a day after the government resumed office–left little time to prepare.

Commodore Somen Banerjee, Senior Fellow at the Vivekananda International Foundation, was pessimistic about India’s foreign policy outlook in the wake of the dialogue: “[The] Shangri-La Dialogue 2019 preempts an ominous future for the Indo-Pacific region. Neither China nor the U.S. has the intent to resolve disputes amicably between them or with others in the region. […] To balance China, India would have to nurture its strategic partnership with the U.S. But leaning too much towards the U.S. might draw India into a Thucydides trap. Thus, India needs to support status-quo in the region while looking for opportunities in the ongoing trade-war and strategic competition, without getting embroiled with them.”
Harsh V. Pant, Director of Studies at the Observer Research Foundation (ORF) and Professor of International Relations at King’s College, and Premesha Saha, associate fellow at ORF, penned an op-ed for the left-leaning Hindu that linked Modi’s speech last year to a recent bureaucratic shake up in the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) to reorganize itself to fit the Prime Minister’s Indo-Pacific framework: “There are still challenges for India, especially how it will integrate the Quadrilateral initiative which got revived in 2017 with its larger Indo-Pacific approach. It will also be important for the new MEA division to move beyond security and political issues and articulate a more comprehensive policy towards the region. Commerce and connectivity in particular will have to be prioritised if India is to take advantage of a new opening for its regional engagement.”

JAPAN

Japanese Defense Minister Takeshi Iwaya offered a speech during a session on Korean Security, but prefaced his comments with a demonstration of support for Acting US Defense Secretary Shanahan, at least with regards to US policy on the Indo-Pacific: “Before moving on to my discussion about Korean Security, I note Acting Secretary of Defense Shanahan’s comprehensive speech about the security of the Indo- Pacific region. I welcome the strong U.S. commitment to the vision of the Free and Open Indo-Pacific, or FOIP, as evident in the overview of the ‘Indo-Pacific Strategy Report’ in the previous session. I am most confident that all those present here today share the same vision.”

The centrist Japan Times noted the lackluster outcomes of the dialogue this year–especially given the current strained relations between Japan and South Korea–but also took a jab at China’s efforts to create an alternative forum to the Shangri-La Dialogue: “The Shangri-La Dialogue’s emergence as the region’s premier security forum rankles some. That a European think tank convenes this meeting prompted China to create and promote the Xiangshan Forum, now in its ninth year, as an alternative, Asian-run platform for defense discussions. It is a revealing that Beijing felt compelled to establish its own forum to ensure that it sets the agenda. It affords another indication of what a Beijing-centered order would look like. Regional observers would do well to compare the two.”
The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun supported Acting US Defense Secretary Shanahan’s comments at the dialogue, and had harsh criticism for China’s showing: “China will not be allowed to change the order of the Indo-Pacific region in disregard of international rules. The administration of Chinese President Xi Jinping must listen to the concerns of the international community and rectify its coercive behavior.”

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

Rising Powers Respond to Modi’s Landslide Victory

Policy Alert #189 | May 29, 2019

The 2019 Indian elections concluded last week with a landslide victory for incumbent Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata party (BJP). The BJP secured a majority in the lower house with 302 seats. Modi joins Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin in achieving a fresh mandate to craft his country’s foreign policy for the foreseeable future. In this RPI Policy Alert, we survey the Rising Powers’ response to the outcome of the Indian elections.

INDIA

In his victory speech, Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his intent to strengthen India: “For the next five years, every Indian will have to pledge to transform India into a strong nation. The mission will require the same spirit as the one witnessed during the freedom struggle. We can make India a strong nation by 2022, before we completed 75 years of Independence.”

Describing the election as a “mandate for continuity,” the liberal Hindustan Times praised Modi’s foreign policy: “[T]he Modi government’s foreign policy, especially with regard to important powers, deserves praise. It navigated a complex international dynamic between conflicting powers — for instance, between the United States (US) and Russia, the US and Iran, or Saudi Arabia and Iran — while managing to keep good ties with all of them. This deftness should continue.”
In an editorial, the center-right Times of India took note of the snub against Pakistan by the lack of invitation to Prime Minister Imran Khan to Modi’s swearing-in ceremony.
The conservative Daily Pioneer hailed Modi’s past diplomatic success, but noted there was more to be done: “The new Government also needs to work hard to formulate a clear foreign policy, especially with an eye on the neighbourhood. […] Undoubtedly, our relations with the US, China, Japan, European Union and other powerful nations and blocks have shown marked improvement. This policy needs successful upgrading to position us as a superpower in the making.”
C. Raja Mohan, director of the Institute of South Asian Studies at the National University of Singapore, advocated for the Modi government to pursue stronger ties with Taiwan as part of its foreign policy in an op-ed for the liberal Indian Express: “What the bilateral relationship now needs is high-level political attention in Delhi to make things happen and quickly. Expanding the engagement with Taiwan can’t be a tactical game; it should be an important part of Delhi’s effort to come to terms with all corners of Greater China that looms so large over India’s future.”
Brahma Chellaney, professor of strategic studies at the Center for Policy Research, described the re-election as “a fresh mandate for change” in an article for the liberal Hindustan Times: “The new government’s most pressing challenges relate to internal and external security, including a deepening strategic nexus between China and Pakistan — a dangerous combination of an ascendant great power and an implacably hostile neighbour. New Delhi also needs to effectively counter Chinese inroads in its maritime backyard and in countries long symbiotically tied to India.”
Yahwant Raj, US correspondent for the Hindustan Times, called for Modi to address trade relations with the United States in the wake of its ongoing trade war with China: “Trade has been one of the most intractable differences dogging relations between the two countries, defying the growing convergence that generally defines the relationship. And knowing how focused President Trump is on trade — and he has signalled his irritation by repeatedly raising the issue of Harley-Davidson — Prime Minister Modi might use his new and massive mandate to resolve these issues.”

CHINA

Chinese President Xi Jinping offered a message of congratulations to Prime Minister Modi: “Thanks to the joint efforts of the two sides, China-India relations are gaining strong momentum in recent years, and the two countries maintain sound coordination and cooperation on such major issues as promoting world multipolarization and economic globalization, and safeguarding multilateralism. I attach great importance to the development of China-India relations, and stand ready to work with you to ensure bilateral relations advance in the right direction, enhance political mutual trust, expand practical cooperation, and continuously uplift the closer development partnership between the two countries.”

The nationalist Global Times contributor Li Qingqing praised Modi’s policies as being generally sound, and expressed hope for the continuation of his efforts to improve ties with China: “Modi’s reelection benefits the continuity of his policies toward China and the two countries’ mutual trust. India is China’s important neighbor and the China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative has created beneficial results in South Asia. We hope New Delhi can join in the progress and work together with Beijing for the development of India and the region.”
The independent South China Morning Post echoed this optimism with an eye for the potential economic gains for improved relations: “With the election behind, the economy is bound to become a pressing issue for Modi and China has an important role to play. There is much scope for boosting trade and investment and joining the belt and road will provide much-needed infrastructure and jobs. There is every reason for China and India to move closer.”

RUSSIA

According to the Kremlin’s press service, Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke with Modi over the telephone to offer his congratulations, and the two leaders “confirmed their readiness to fully contribute to the strengthening of friendship between the people of Russia and the people of India and the development of privileged strategic partnership, as well as to continue closely coordinating their activities on the international stage.”

In an interview with state-owned TASS, Alexei Kupriyanov of the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of World Economy and International Relations offered his analysis of what’s to come in India-Russia relations.
Government-funded RT featured an op-ed by Brahma Chellaney, professor of strategic studies at the Center for Policy Research in New Delhi, that provides an overview of his expectations for Modi’s second-term foreign policy with an eye for how India is navigating its ties between China, Russia, and the US.

JAPAN

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe offered a congratulatory message to Modi and “stated that he would like to closely work with Prime Minister Modi hand in hand toward strengthening Japan-India relations and realizing a free and open Indo-Pacific.”

Although the centrist Japan Times critiqued Modi’s apparent fanning of Hindu nationalism, it praised the Prime Minister’s foreign policy on the whole: “His 360-degree diplomacy embraces not just Japan but also the United States, Australia, Southeast Asia, China and Russia, as well as Iran. It is, in many ways, more of the same after his first term — now, however, Modi should do it better.”

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

Rising Powers Wary over Escalation in Iran Deal Dispute

Policy Alert #188 | May 13, 2019

On April 22, 2019, United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the US would cease granting exemptions to countries that import oil from Iran as part of its effort to unravel the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) from which it withdrew last year: “[W]e will no longer grant any exemptions. We’re going to zero – going to zero across the board. We will continue to enforce sanctions and monitor compliance. Any nation or entity interacting with Iran should do its diligence and err on the side of caution. The risks are simply not going to be worth the benefits.” Many prominent US allies and trade partners, such as India, Japan, South Korea, and member states of the European Union, continued their trade with Iran in the last year under the waiver program, as have rising powers China and Russia. In response to this action, Iran announced that it would restart part of its nuclear program. The US has since deployed an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf. While the two sides escalate tension, the Rising Powers are airing their frustrations with being caught in the middle.

CHINA
Answering questions at a regularly scheduled press conference, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Geng Shuang expressed China’s support of Iran: “China applauds Iran’s faithful implementation of the JCPOA so far. We will continue to work with all parties to uphold and implement the JCPOA, safeguard the international non-proliferation regime, peace and stability in the Middle East and the lawful and legitimate rights and interests of Chinese companies.”

The state-owned China Daily urged the US to utilize diplomatic channels to remedy its frustrations with Iran rather than saber rattling: “Instead of submitting, as is its wont, to mindlessness born of arrogance, Washington should engage Teheran in dialogue, which is the only viable way to ease the spiraling tensions and usher in the right atmosphere for resolving the Iranian nuclear issue in a calm and rational manner.”
The nationalist Global Times criticized the US’s actions as grandstanding by the Trump administration: “Credit, morality and justice can be trodden underfoot in Washington’s partisan politics. […] The undisguised overbearing and capricious manner of the US has affected the world. Such behavior is targeted at Iran today, and it may be another country tomorrow.”
The independent South China Morning Post acknowledged that while both the US and Iran are at fault for escalating the dispute, the US will bear more responsibility for disrupting the international economy: “When the world needs a more stable Middle East, the US approach is the surest way to destabilise Iran, rather than bring it back to the negotiating table. Tehran is not blameless, but Trump bears a lot of responsibility for pushing its back to the wall. If destabilisation impacts on oil prices it could affect the global economy and increase manufacturing costs in China when credit-driven economic recovery is finely balanced.”

INDIA
In a press briefing on April 23, 2019, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs acknowledged it was preparing to abide by US policy: “Government has noted the announcement by the US Government to discontinue the Significant Reduction Exemption to all purchasers of crude oil from Iran. We are adequately prepared to deal with the impact of this decision. Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas has already issued a statement in this regard. Government will continue to work with partner nations, including with the US, to find all possible ways to protect India’s legitimate energy and economic security interests.”

The left-leaning Hindu criticized the government for not resisting US pressure: “In the larger picture, India isn’t just testing its traditional ties with Iran, but also giving in to President Donald Trump’s blatant bullying after his administration withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal. Instead of engaging in what appear to have been fruitless negotiations with the U.S. over the past year, India, China, the EU and other affected entities could have spent their time more productively in building a counter with an alternative financial architecture, immune to the U.S.’s arbitrary moves.”
The liberal Indian Express meanwhile took aim at Iran’s efforts to pressure the European Union into taking sides: “Iran’s hopes of exploiting the cracks among the great powers are looking increasingly unreal as the actions of Europe, China and Russia have not matched their words. Iran’s ‘strategic patience’, in the words of President Hassan Rouhani, is wearing thin. […] With neither side ready to step back, the conflict between the US and Iran might well be headed for a costly showdown.”
The centrist Times of India focused on the economic impact of the increased price of crude oil due to the US’s sanctions, and suggested that India create a “buyers’ bloc” with China: “When they negotiate together, their combined influence in the oil market will help them get a good deal. It is important to keep in mind that even if other oil producers like the US raise their output to offset the loss of Iranian crude, India still loses out. This is because Iran offered favourable terms when it came to overall pricing. This disadvantage can be offset only if India joins hands with China in negotiating with oil suppliers.”
The left-leaning Hindustan Times lamented that US foreign policy was provoking instability at India’s doorstep: “The US’ gamble is based on the assumption that its pressure would lead to a regime change. The risk is that a more hardline regime might come to power and double down on the nuclear weapons programme. […] Whatever happens, the action will happen too close to India for comfort.”

JAPAN
At press conference, Deputy Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasutoshi Nishimura emphasized Japan’s cooperative relationship with Iran: “We note that Iran denies it is withdrawing from the nuclear deal. We intend to contribute to regional peace and stability, utilizing our traditional friendly relations with Iran.”

The centrist Japan Times called for both sides to back down: “All parties must step up efforts to de-escalate tensions as the prospects for conflict rise.”
The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun echoed the demands for cooler heads to prevail for the benefit of regional stability and the security of the international economy: “Destabilization of the situation surrounding Iran will further intensify turmoil in the Middle East and have an adverse effect on the world economy. Self-restraint is called for on the part of both the United States and Iran.”

RUSSIA
The Russian Foreign Ministry condemned the US’s actions in the dispute: “[N]ot only did it withdraw from the JCPOA a year ago, not only did it blatantly and defiantly impose unilateral sanctions on Iran later on in violation of UN Security Council’s Resolution 2231, but it attempts to exert economic and political pressure in order to force other states not to implement the above-mentioned resolution and to impede their normal economic cooperation with Iran.” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov urged the European signatories of the agreement to hold fast against US threats: “Let me stress once again that specific obligations were assumed there. Russia is committed to honoring them in full. We expect our counterparts, primarily Europeans, who expressed their willingness to find a solution to the problem created by the Americans, to keep their promises as well.”

Nebojsa Malic, a contributor for government-funded RT took the opportunity to critique Trump’s political rivals for their apparent hypocrisy: “President Donald Trump seems to be making Americans hate the empire again, by embracing war – or maybe only pretending to do so – against Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea and who knows where else. One thing to keep in mind about Trump is that his critics tend to instinctively oppose anything he is for, regardless of what they may have thought in the past.”
State-owned Sputnik News featured an interview with Alexander Azadgan, senior geopolitical analyst and Editor-at-Large of United World International in which Azadgan linked the dispute between Iran and the US to the current situation in Venezuela: “Washington is engaging in economic terrorism and it has taken a toll on the Iranians. And you know, that is how they are trying to foment regime change in Iran. There may not be a war, we are not forecasting a war, but they are going to economically crumble Iran and they are going to expect that. When that happens, the Iranian people will rise and have a regime change, very much similar to what is happening in Venezuela right now. This is why the Venezuelan case is absolutely crucial. They just pick somebody to become the next president; Washington picks somebody to be the next president.”

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

Rising Powers’ Mixed Response to Beijing’s Belt and Road Forum Once Again

Policy Alert #187 | April 30, 2019

April 25-27th, Beijing hosted the Second Belt and Road Forum (BRF) to promote its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) regional connectivity project. Notably absent were representatives from China’s regional neighbors: India and South Korea did not send official delegations, and Japan was represented by a special envoy rather than a high-ranking official. The United States, too, did not participate. Nevertheless, heads of state from thirty-six countries and attendees from over a hundred more showed up for the unveiling of new programs under the BRI, such as a Debt Sustainability Framework for participating countries, a Green Silk Road Envoys Program to train environmental officials, and a Legal Cooperation Research and Training Program to combat corruption. Participants also signed numerous bilateral and multilateral documents and established new multilateral cooperation mechanisms, such as the Multilateral Cooperation Center for Development Finance which will aid in coordination between key investment banks working in participating regions. Still, the Forum appeared to be more of a photo op with symbolic exchanges rather than a substantive meeting.

CHINA

In his speech at the opening ceremony of the BRF, Chinese President Xi Jinping vowed that China would continue its process of “major reform and opening-up” in the years to come by expanding its market access for foreign investment, improving the protection of intellectual property, increasing its imports of goods and services, and expanding its engagement in international economic policy coordination. “We are convinced that a more open China will further integrate itself into the world and deliver greater progress and prosperity for both China and the world at large,” Xi concluded.

State-owned Xinhua became the media hub of the forum, and featured an extensive array of interviews with visiting officials, such as United Nations General Assembly President Maria Fernanda Espinosa Garces, as well as attending experts and business leaders.
The People’s Daily, the official newspaper of the Communist Party of China, offered a glowing review of the BRF: “With pragmatic cooperation, the BRI has created great opportunities for the people along the BRI routes, forging closer ties among people of different cultural backgrounds.”
In its reviews of the Forum, the nationalist Global Times took aim at the United States’ refusal to participate and its open critiques of the Belt and Road Initiative: “Lying, being farfetched [sic], and holding such opinions will not have any real influence. […] The initiative has shown such powerful growth that even the greatest of obstacles cannot block.” “The America First policy has disturbed most global multilateral cooperation platforms. Thus, the BRI may be more attractive because countries only have the goodwill of reciprocity within the framework,” observed another editorial.
The independent South China Morning Post called for more Western countries to sign on to the Initiative, and praised Italy’s role as the “first major Western economy” to join: “There is no better approach to growth and development or way to counter rising protectionism through promoting multilateralism, globalisation and openness.”

INDIA

As with the First Belt and Road Forum in 2017, India boycotted the event to demonstrate its opposition to the Belt and Road Initiative. One of the key projects of the Initiative, the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), passes through Pakistan-occupied areas of the Kashmir region which India claims.

The center-right Times of India supported the government’s decision to sit out of the Forum: “[T]he BRI is nothing more than an instrument for China to export its own massive debt while simultaneously increasing its influence in recipient nations. [..T]here is no good reason for New Delhi to oblige Beijing.”
The liberal Hindustan Times critiqued the lackluster results of alternatives to the BRI that have been pitched by India and its liberal allies in the two years since the first BRF in 2017: “[V]ision is not the same as execution. […] India, along with Japan, the US and Australia, have moved ahead to provide better quality alternative to the BRI, but much remains to be achieved on this front.”
Ahead of the Forum, Atul Aneja, China correspondent for the left-leaning Hindu, suggested that India “pull a leaf out of Japan’s play book” to improve ties with China without undermining its official position against CPEC: “Prime Minister Narendra Modi can also tap an influential party heavyweight to lead an Indian non-official delegation to the BRF, along with business leaders and reputed scholars. A mature and pragmatic Indian response, which keeps the door open for a future partnership with the BRI, may help keep afloat the reset achieved last year following the informal summit between Mr. Modi and Mr. Xi in Wuhan.”
Ananth Krishnan, visiting fellow at Brookings India, penned an op-ed for the South China Morning Post explaining that Sino-Indian relations are currently dominated by “pragmatism.” Despite India’s official position of opposing the BRI, Krishnan explained that “at least for the moment, New Delhi and Beijing appear content to agree to disagree,” rather than actively undermining each other’s programs.

RUSSIA

Russian President Vladimir Putin represented his country at the Forum. At a roundtable discussion, President Putin outlined his country’s investments in transportation and communication infrastructure as part of its larger efforts to improve connectivity: “Russia is committed to active joint work with all interested partners in seeking new growth drivers, boosting relations in the Eurasian continent, and achieving many other common goals. I am confident that by taking joint efforts we will succeed for the benefit of our nations and all Eurasian states.” When asked about how the BRI benefits Russia at a news conference following the roundtable, Putin replied, “Does this meet our interests? Absolutely.”

Ahead of the BRF, Director General of state-owned TASS Sergei Mikhailov was optimistic about the event in an interview with Xinhua, “I am confident that the second Belt and Road forum will allow Russia and China to find new integrating points when carrying out a number of new joint projects.”
State-owned Sputnik News featured interviews with Indian scholars about the costs of leaving India out of the deal and coverage of the European Union’s efforts to join the BRI as a group rather than in bilateral agreements.

JAPAN

Secretary-General of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party Toshihiro Nikai served as an envoy to the BRF and presented a cordial letter from Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to President Xi. Abe, meanwhile, met with US President Donald Trump in Washington as part of ongoing trade negotiations on April 26th.

Former Japanese Prime Minister and member of the International Advisory Panel of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) Yukio Hatoyama was featured in an interview with China’s state-owned CGTN ahead of the BRF. CGTN reported that Hatoyama advocated for Japan to “play a more positive role in the BRI and offer its experience in multilateral international cooperation.”
The business-focused Nikkei Asian Review featured an op-ed by James D.J. Brown, an associate professor of political science at Temple University in Tokyo, that called for the Abe administration to “be bolder” in defining its Free and Open Indo-Pacific concept and criticized the government’s lack of a coherent plan of action: “If managed correctly, FOIP has the potential to offer an attractive liberal alternative to China’s BRI. The concept is also an opportunity for Japan to demonstrate its continued importance to regional development and its growing willingness to take a leadership role.”

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

Rising Powers Silent on India’s Anti-Satellite Defense Milestone

Policy Alert #186 | April 10, 2019

On March 27, India successfully conducted its Mission Shakti anti-satellite (ASAT) missile test, in which it destroyed one of its Low Earth Orbit satellites. Prior to India’s test, only the United States, Russia, and China had demonstrated this capability. The US and the Soviet Union developed the technology during the Cold War, while China’s entry to this select club came in January 2007. Despite the importance of this milestone for space security and the salience of space in international security, India’s test received little attention abroad. Although the US’s National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) initially criticized the test for creating debris near the International Space Station and suspended its cooperation with the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO), the decision to resume activities in less than a week was made “based on guidance received from the White House.” In this Policy Alert, we dig into the Rising Powers’ views on India’s new capability.

INDIA

Prime Minister Narendra Modi hailed the test as a “moment of pride” for India, given that the “Mission was accomplished using an indigenously developed ASAT missile,” and tried to assure the international community that the test was not meant to be demonstrative of ill-will: “I also want to assure the international community that the new capability we have developed is not directed against anyone. India has no intention to threaten anyone. This is an effort to secure a fast growing India. India has always been opposed to the weaponisation of space and an arms race in outer space, and this test does not in any way change this position.” The Ministry of External Affairs published a frequently asked questions guide to the test which outlines the context of the test within India’s broader space program and the country’s policies regarding the peaceful development of space.

The left-leaning The Hindu took issue with the context of the upcoming elections: “[W]ithin India, the timing of the test, when the country is already in election mode, does raise concerns whether this was aimed at the domestic constituency. […] Ideally, the test should not have been a matter for a partisan political debate, but given the hypernationalist political plank of the Bharatiya Janata Party, Mission Shakti might have more reverberations on the ground than it has had in space.”
The liberal Hindustan Times explained why India was spared the criticism China faced for its test in 2007. One explanation the Times offered: “[U]nlike China, India is seen as a more responsible country that respects international laws and institutions. New Delhi has done well to exploit this image to enlist itself into this elite space powers club.”
The liberal Indian Express meanwhile recommended that the country not get ahead of itself: “Delhi’s explicit demonstration of space weapon capabilities is welcome, but it must be part of a clearly articulated military space doctrine that identifies India’s political objectives and technological goals in outer space and the strategy to realise them.”
The pro-government Daily Pioneer offered some support for Prime Minister Modi’s decision to issue a national address following the test, despite the risk that it would violate election campaign laws (the Election Commission ultimately found that the statement did not): “Prime Minister Narendra Modi resorted to a national address to assuage fears that this was not just an aggressive design to weaponise outer space but a confident move to enhance the bouquet of our national security. That India, as a signatory to all major international treaties relating to outer space, would be responsible for honouring them and was committed to no-first use. […] Perhaps, this assurance needed heft, one that was provided by the Prime Minister as the elected head of a democracy.”
The center-right Times of India juxtaposed the technological feat of the test against India’s failure “to create a vibrant military-industrial complex” on the ground: “India may have achieved A-Sat capability, but it will continue to be vulnerable to cross-border terrorism from Pakistan unless it focuses on the basics, unfetters innovation, and boosts the economy.”

CHINA

China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not address the test in its weekly press conference or in a press release, however, it offered a written response to an inquiry by the Press Trust of India: “We have noticed reports and hope that each country will uphold peace and tranquility in outer space.”

Citing the flak China endured for its test in 2007 and the silence on India’s test, the nationalist Global Times mused that “The Chinese people are getting used to the US and Western countries’ obvious double standards on China.” The Times assured its readers that India’s new skill is little threat to China: “China is not concerned about India’s rising military strength, because it hasn’t shown a trend of surpassing China. India understands that if it attacks China, Beijing’s retaliation will be unbearable. […] We hope Indian society clearly understands this.”
Guo Yanying, an expert at the Second Research Institute of China Aerospace Science and Industry Cooperation, meanwhile examined to NASA’s initial criticism of the test in an op-ed for the Global Times: “There is no other country as reliant on satellites as the US. Hence, Washington must be capable of protecting its space assets from enemy attacks. […] Therefore, the US is strongly opposed to other countries carrying out ASAT tests, in spite of itself sparing no effort in testing and developing such weapons. Only when US satellites are left in space will Washington feel very safe. This is also in line with what the US army and politicians seek.”
The independent, Hong-Kong based South China Morning Post featured an op-ed by Ankit Panda, senior editor of The Diplomat, which criticized the US and India for their role in pushing technology before international regulations on space have caught up: “What India’s test does suggest is that it is now too late for a full-scale ban on the testing of anti-satellite weapons. There were multilateral efforts in that direction in the aftermath of China’s 2007 test, aimed at averting a repeat, but while neither the US nor India have caused that scale of orbital debris with their respective tests, they both have contributed to the abandoning of any norm against these weapons.”

RUSSIA

The Russian government was so tight-lipped about its thoughts on India’s ASAT test that even state-owned TASS seemed perplexed. The outlet reported that the Russian Presidential Spokesman Dmitry Peskov deflected inquiries about the Indian test by saying, “This question should be addressed to military specialists and not to the presidential administration.” When asked about US reports earlier this year that Russia might be pursuing new ASAT technology, he responded, “You should address this question to US intelligence, the Americans should explain what they mean.” The Indian media outlets reported that the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement that acknowledged India’s efforts to avoid sparking conflict: “We highlight the non-directedness of this test against any specific country declared by the Indian leadership, as well as the reassurance of the continuity of New Delhi foreign policy to prevent the deployment of weapons in outer space and thereby the development of an arms race in it.” State-owned Sputnik News reported that in a similar commentary by the Foreign Ministry in which Russia criticized the US for its role in the current lack of arms control in the international arena: “We have to note that this step is in many respects the result of the deteriorating situation in the field of arms control. Russia has repeatedly warned that the destructive actions of the United States to undermine the entire architecture of international security and strategic stability, including the one-sided and unlimited expansion of the global US missile defence systems, as well as Washington’s reluctance to abandon plans for deploying weapons in space, make other states think about improving their own similar potentials in the interests of strengthening their national security.”

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

Rising Powers Condemn Christchurch Terror Attack

Policy Alert #185 | March 22, 2019

On March 15, an Australian-born, white-supremacist attacked two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand. The death toll stands at fifty, with dozens more still in hospital with injuries. In addition to the scope of casualties, the gunman live-streamed the assault on Facebook, and the video quickly spread across other social media platforms despite efforts to remove it. New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern condemned the attack and called for unity: “What has happened in Christchurch is an extraordinary act of unprecedented violence. It has no place in New Zealand. Many of those affected will be members of our migrant communities – New Zealand is their home – they are us.” In this RPI Policy Alert, we review the Rising Powers’ responses to the attack.

CHINA

At a press conference, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lu Kang explained China’s response to the attack: “China condemns this incident. We express our condolences to the victims and sincere sympathy to the bereaved families and the injured. On March 15, President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Keqiang sent messages of condolences to New Zealand Governor-General Patsy Reddy and Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern respectively […] State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi also expressed condolences to New Zealand Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Winston Peters.”

The attack in Christchurch came just days after the United States Department of State published its 2018 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, in which China faced harsh criticism, especially for its treatment of Muslim minority groups in the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. In his remarks on the release of the reports, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo commented that China was “in a league of its own when it comes to human rights violations.” Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Geng Shuang rebuked the allegations: “China firmly opposes such groundless accusations and has made stern representations with the US side.” The State Council Information Office published a white paper titled “The Fight Against Terrorism and Extremism and Human Rights Protection in Xinjiang” on March 19.

The state-owned China Daily published several editorials following the shooting. Regarding the spread of the video of the attack, the Daily advocated for more control of online content: “Internet providers, the online platforms and governments must work together as a matter of urgency to tackle the toxicity festering on the web to prevent more atrocities in the future.” The Daily also tied the attack to “China’s contribution to international anti-terrorism efforts” through its activities in Xinjiang: “The tragedy in New Zealand should remind countries that they should look within themselves and take action to prevent divisions forming along racial, ethnic or religious lines. Hate speech of any kind should not be tolerated, and hate crimes should be severely punished.” The Daily further condemned the rise of white supremacy in Western countries: “The attacks in New Zealand are only the latest testimony to the social and ideological splits that have become evident in Western countries. If they continue to indulge anti-immigration and anti-Muslim sentiments and allow intolerance and ethno-nationalism to ferment, such violent acts will only become more frequent, especially since the attacks were broadcast live on social media via wearable cameras attached to the attackers.”
The nationalist Global Times similarly had lots to say on the shooting. The Times hailed China’s regulation of internet content: “China is one of the countries that has made a firm resolution on internet governance in recent years. […] Which country does a better job will be tested by its internet economy’s achievements and comprehensive fulfillment of the nation’s economic and social development.” The Global Times published two additional editorials that claimed the terrorist attack “exposed Western flaws” and symptomatic of “taking Western superiority for granted.”
The independent South China Morning Post focused instead on New Zealand’s gun laws, noting that despite changes in regulations following shootings in Australia and Scotland in 1996, “successive governments have since failed to substantially improve safety and, in the wake of the massacre, efforts have to be renewed.”

INDIA

The Ministry of External Affairs reported that Prime Minister Narendra Modi “expressed his deepest condolences to the families bereaved in this dastardly attack, offered heartfelt prayers for the speedy recovery of the injured and underscored India’s solidarity with the friendly people of New Zealand at this difficult time” in a letter to Prime Minister Ardern. Prime Minister Modi further “stressed India’s strong condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, and of all those who support such acts of violence,” which seemed to tie the attack to the suicide bombing in Indian Kashmir region last month.

The left-leaning Hindu saw the attack as a warning of the rise of right-wing nationalism: “Societies worldwide should wake up to the growing danger right-wing racist terrorism poses, and not view it as mere isolated, irrational responses to Islamist terror. It has to be fought politically, by driving a counter-narrative to white supremacism, and by using the security apparatus, through allocation of enough resources to tackle all threats of violence.”
The pro-government Daily Pioneer condemned the attack, and offered a moment of self-reflection on how India handles acts of terror on its own soil: “Terror has no religion and anyone who wants to kill innocents on the streets, in schools and in religious places has to be labelled a terrorist, no matter what his motivation. [..T]he concept of acting on behalf of ‘my people’, as the gunman said he was doing, must also be condemned. As India knows too well, terrorism exists because of the apologia of political leaders and the law turning a blind eye.”
The center-right Times of India hailed Prime Minister Ardern’s response to the attack in contrast to Prime Minister Modi’s Janus-faced behavior: “Ardern has embraced the migrant and refugee community as New Zealand’s own while rejecting those perpetrating violence. […] Some Indians may be wistful that their prime minister who they see abroad is not the same PM they see at home, where too hate and divisiveness run amok but condemnations are few and far between […]. Preventing lone wolf attacks isn’t always possible but leaders like Ardern show capacity for the healing touch – which deserves emulation in India too.”
Nintin Pai, director of the independent Takshashila Institution, argued that combatting acts of terror requires undermining the theatricality of the attacks: “What can we do about it? One option is to ban social media, censor information and become a China-like authoritarian state. Terrorism will not be effective if information is restricted, surveillance is pervasive and people are politically powerless. Another option is to ensure that our society continues to identify with the victims, and abhors political violence of any kind. The former is undesirable and the latter is perhaps unattainable in practice. We need to look for better options.”

JAPAN

Following the attack, both Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and Foreign Minister Taro Kono offered their condolences to New Zealand. Prime Minister Abe, writing to his counterpart Prime Minister Ardern, noted that “Japan firmly condemns the atrocious shooting carried out in Christchurch on 15th March. On behalf of the Government and people of Japan, I extend my sincere condolences to those who lost their lives and express heartfelt sympathy for their bereaved families and those injured. Japan expresses its sincere solidarity with the people of New Zealand in overcoming this difficult time. Terrorism cannot be justified for any reason. In close cooperation with New Zealand and the international community, Japan is determined to resolutely stand up against terrorism.” Foreign Minister Kono’s correspondence to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Winston Peters read: Japan firmly condemns the atrocious terrorist attack carried out in Christchurch, New Zealand on 15th March. I extend my sincere condolences to those who lost their lives and their bereaved families and express sympathy for those injured. The people of Japan share the same pain that the people of New Zealand are feeling. Such brutal act of terrorism cannot be justified for any reason.

In response to the shooting, Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison published an open letter to Prime Minister Abe requesting talks on strengthening regulation of social media platforms to be scheduled for the upcoming G20 Summit which will be held in Osaka in June 2019. When questioned about the request, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga and Foreign Minister Kono declined to respond directly.

The Vox Populi column of the progressive Asahi Shimbun called for cooler heads to prevail following the attack: “When terrorism makes inroads into a region that was considered safe, it arouses the very terror on which terrorism feeds and grows in strength. And this can be averted only with stern action and cool objectivity.”
The centrist Japan Times similarly critiqued lax gun laws, social media platforms’ inaction in handling content, and media coverage of attacks, but it also called for more action by ordinary citizens: “Ordinary citizens have a role to play as well. They too must denounce hate speech, rather than turning away or suffering in silence. They must take the offensive when needed, reporting suspect individuals or comments.”

RUSSIA

Russian President Vladimir Putin reportedly sent a message of condolence to Prime Minister Ardern that called for swift justice: “It was brutal and cynical attack on civilians who had gathered for prayers. I expect that all those involved in this crime will receive the punishment they deserve.” In a statement to the press, President Putin assured his countrymen that the government would act to prevent such an attack in Russia: “We certainly condole over victims in New Zealand following this terrible terrorist act, which was definitely aimed to undermine the situation in the country. We will do everything possible to prevent such situations in our country.” The Ostankino Tower in Moscow went dark for an hour on March 16 to honor the victims of the attack.

Lyuba Lulko, a contributor at the nationalist Pravda Report, pointed to the bitter irony of the attacker’s logic: “New Zealand, just like Australia and many other countries of the world, used to be a British colony. Anglo-Saxons had colonised those countries and did their best to exterminate indigenous populations. They colonise half of the world, use humans as slaves and then complain of immigrants and call them invaders.”
In its coverage of the attack, state-owned Sputnik News featured interviews with Honorary Professor at the University of Auckland and Honorary Officer of the Religious Diversity Centre of Aotearoa New Zealand Douglas Pratt, New Zealand labor union leaders Dennis Maga and Mike Treen, social media law expert Laura Bliss, Massey University Professor of Politics Richard Shaw, former chair of the Australian National Coalition for Gun Control Rebecca Peters, and founding director of the Sydney School of Public Health’s GunPolicy.org Philip Alpers. Sputnik also took aim at the rise of US right-wing groups and white supremacists in interviews with executive director of the One People’s Project Daryle Lamont Jenkins.

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

Rising Powers Wary on India-Pakistan Tension

Policy Alert #184 | March 8, 2019

On February 14th, 40 Indian Central Reserve Police Force personnel were killed in a terrorist attack in the Pulwama district on the Indian side of the disputed region of Kashmir. Pakistan-based militant group Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) claimed responsibility, leading initially to an exchanged of barbed remarks between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan with the former charging that the attack was carried out with the support of the Pakistani government and the latter denying the allegations. While many eyes were on the second summit between US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, tensions between India and Pakistan continued to escalate as India retaliated with an airstrike inside Pakistan at a purported militant training camp. Pakistan responded with its own airstrikes and an aerial engagement over the Line of Control in which an Indian pilot was captured, who was later released. In addition to the concerns over the two countries’ ongoing rivalry and nuclear armaments, the two sides’ use of aircraft procured from Russia, China, and–allegedly in the case of Pakistan–the US, highlighted the Rising Powers’ intertwined interests in the Indo-Pacific.

INDIA

Following the terrorist attack, the Ministry of External Affairs “condemn[ed] in the strongest possible terms the cowardly terrorist attack.” The MEA further “demand[ed] that Pakistan stop supporting terrorists and terror groups operating from their territory,” and “reiterated its appeal” for the Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM) Chief Masood Azhar to be designated as a terrorist under United Nations Security Council (UNSC) protocol–a move that has been blocked by China in the past. Prime Minister Narendra Modi gave “full freedom to the security forces” to respond as necessary and warned, “I want to tell the terror outfits and those aiding and abetting them that they have made a big mistake. They will have to pay a very heavy price for their actions.” Following the attack, the MEA reported that US National Security Advisor John Bolton told his Indian counterpart Ajit Doval that the US supported “India’s right to self-defence against cross-border terrorism [and] offered all assistance to India to bring the perpetrators and backers of the attack promptly to justice.” In response to Pakistani Prime Minister’s comments on the attack, the MEA offered a lengthy rebuke that expressly denied India’s strikes were motivated by the upcoming General Elections: “India rejects this false allegation. India’s democracy is a model for the world which Pakistan would never understand. We demand Pakistan to stop misleading the international community and take credible and visible action against the perpetrators of Pulwama terrorist attack and other terrorists and terror groups operating from areas under their control.”

The left-leaning Hindu hailed the government’s double-pronged approach to handling the crisis and offered high praise to those who led the diplomatic charge that strengthened international support for India’s military response. “The government must, however, also assess what it has actually achieved in strategic terms, and the consequences of the ‘new normal’ it has sought to create with Pakistan,” The Hindu warned, taking stock of strategic matters of concern and the limits of the diplomatic victories.
In an op-ed for the liberal Indian Express, former civil servant and secretary general of the Lok Janshakti Party Abdul Khaliq took to task those who have been inciting calls for conflict: “It is frightening to hear the WAR (wise after retirement) veterans […] spewing venom and cheerleading for strong military action and war if necessary, careless of the consequences.” Khaliq cited the appeals of a widow of one of the Indian service members killed in the counterstrikes: “We do not want a war. You do not realise the damage a war inflicts on people.”
The pro-government Daily Pioneer has printed an onslaught of editorials since the initial terrorist attack. The Pioneer took issue with the politicization of the strikes against Pakistan, especially while the Indian pilot was still held by Pakistan: “[T]he barrage with each party listing what it had foregone in favour of national interest, one which quickly descended into a noisy game of charges and counter-charges as to who was the better Indian. What none of them realise is that India, at this point of time, cannot trivialise its fight against terror, one that has cost us civilians and soldiers in numbers bigger than the casualties of conventional wars, and make it seem as subservient to political interests.” Since the return of the pilot, the Pioneer argued that “We have to be on the ball and extremely vigilant about a Pakistani offensive. We could do so without brashness and bluster, instead consolidate our diplomatic offensive and build on the gains made so far.” The Daily Pioneer seemed to take exceptional pride in reports that Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi slapped the wrist of his Pakistani counterpart by explaining that China “is unwilling to see acts violating the norms governing international relations.”
Amidst the exchange of airstrikes, the center-right Times of India called on the political parties to set aside their campaigns for a show of unity: “The government […] must be restrained and not try to make political capital out of the situation, as that inherently invites opposition comebacks and rebuttals. Pakistan knows it cannot defeat India in direct conflict, but hopes to take advantage of India’s fractious polity at a time when the Lok Sabha election is coming up.” Citing the diplomatic momentum behind India, the Times also encouraged the country to pursue its interests by maintaining support outside the region: “India should work closely with the US, other Western powers and Russia to ensure Pakistan gives up terror safe havens.”

CHINA

Following the attack, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Geng Shuang offered his country’s condolences: “We express our deep sympathy and condolences to the bereaved families and the injured. China firmly opposes and strongly condemns all forms of terrorism and hopes that relevant countries in the region could make joint efforts to combat terrorism and preserve regional peace and security.” In response to questions about the strikes by both countries, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lu Kang maintained that, “Our concern is that India and Pakistan, two important countries in South Asia, will maintain good neighborliness and that South Asia will maintain peace and stability.” The Ministry of Foreign Affairs reported that in a phone call with Pakistani Foreign Minister Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi, Foreign Minister Wang Yi assured his counterpart of China’s efforts to promote peace talks and “reiterated that the Chinese side hopes both Pakistan and India will exercise restraint and earnestly fulfill their commitment to preventing the aggravation of the situation. Meanwhile, Wang Yi stressed that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries should be earnestly respected, and that the Chinese side is unwilling to see acts violating the norms governing international relations.” Vice-Foreign Minister Kong Xuanyou was reportedly dispatched to Islamabad to assist with creating an “enabling atmosphere” and “promote dialogue.” On the thorny question of China’s continued support to keep JeM leader Masoon Azhar off the list of designated terrorists by the UNSC, centrist Pakistani newspaper Dawn reported that Pakistan’s Information Minister Fawad Chaudhry said that “We won’t test our friends either,” in a reference to Beijing.

In response to the exchange of fire, the state-supported China Daily called for cooler heads to prevail, especially on the Indian side: “The anger over the heavy casualties is understandable. But using warplanes to bomb targets deep inside another sovereign country’s territory has only aggravated the situation. As has the rhetoric of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who is keen to present a strong image ahead of the coming elections. It is worth noting that shortly after Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan assumed power last year, he invited Modi for dialogue, although the invitation was rejected by New Delhi.”
The nationalist Global Times took the Indian media to task for implicating China in the attack. The Times noted while the Indian government “didn’t link” the attack to China, “[S]ome Indian media groundlessly targeted China, showing radical nationalism. Nationalism is easily fanned in India and it’s fair to say spoiled by the West, India is one of the most arrogant nationalist countries in Asia. [..W]e hope the Indian media will abandon radical nationalism, objectively view China-India relations and promote rational development of bilateral relations.”

JAPAN

In a statement following the terrorist attack, Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono issued a statement to Indian Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj: “I extend my sincere condolences to those who lost their lives and their bereaved families in the terrorist attack carried out in Pulwama of Jammu and Kashmir on February 14th. Such act of terrorism cannot be justified for any reason and Japan firmly condemns it. Japan expresses its solidarity with India in combating terrorism.” The Foreign Minister of Pakistan Makhdoom Shah Mahmood Qureshi met with Kono in Tokyo February 24 to 27th “to exchange views on Japan-Pakistan relations and regional issues.” Ahead of the meeting, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs explained that “Pakistan has a traditional friendly relationship with Japan. The Ministers’ visit to Japan is expected to further deepen the friendly relations between Japan and Pakistan.” As tensions escalated, Minister Kono further clarified Japan’s position on February 28th: “Japan is concerned about the deteriorating situation in Kashmir. Japan strongly condemns the terrorist attack on 14 February 2019 for which the Islamic extremist group ‘Jaish-e-Mohammad’ claimed responsibility. Japan urges Pakistan to take stronger measures to counter terrorism.”

The left-leaning Mainichi called for the two countries to exercise “self-restraint,” but also called for more to be done by third parties: “The international community should strengthen its unity to urge India and Pakistan to exercise self-restraint. The United States and China have already encouraged the two countries to hold dialogue and prevent the situation from worsening. U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres is poised to mediate between the two countries. The Japanese government should also get involved in the process toward settling the dispute.”
The centrist Japan Times outlined the greater geopolitical aims that are complicating resolution of the conflict and emphasized, “Decision-makers in both [countries] must remain acutely aware of the potential consequences of miscalculation — and their friends, allies and partners must continually reinforce the message that their disputes must be resolved peacefully.”
The business-focused Nikkei Asian Review put the blame on terrorist cells and encouraged India and Pakistan to work together to solve their shared problem: “To their credit, Modi and Khan have displayed a genuine openness to mending bilateral ties. The fact is, however, that repeated terrorist incidents in Kashmir are driving the neighbors further apart. As a first step toward a brighter future, the two sides need to rise above their mutual distrust and join hands to stop terrorism.”

RUSSIA

On March 1, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reportedly offered to assist with mediation between India and Pakistan in a phone call with Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi.

State-owned TASS featured an interview with editor-in-chief of magazine National Defense Igor Korotchenko, who touted the capabilities of the Russian-manufactured MiG-21s used by India against Pakistan’s F-16s, manufactured by the US: “The MiG-21, upgraded by Russia has an onboard radar and a wider range of guided air-to-air missiles. By its combat capabilities and flight parameters it is an equal of the F-16 version at the disposal of Pakistan’s Air Force.”
Retired Colonel Mikhail Khodarenok, in an op-ed for government-funded RT similarly offered high praise of Russian aircraft, but in the context of the Aero India 2019 exhibition which the Indian Ministry of Defense is using as part of its assessment for new procurements.

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

Rising Powers’ Hopes for Hanoi

Policy Alert #183 | February 26, 2019

On February 27 and 28, 2019, United States President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un will meet in Hanoi, Vietnam for the second US-North Korea Summit. While the pair’s historic first meeting last year was hailed as a major milestone, the results were lackluster. After nearly a year of continued negotiations, concrete steps to reducing both North Korea’s nuclear arsenal and US economic sanctions on the country have yet to be seen. The Rising Powers, meanwhile, are holding their breaths for the second round.

SOUTH KOREA

As part of a regular meeting with aides, South Korean President Moon Jae-in said, “Should North Korea’s economy be opened, neighboring countries, international organizations and global funds will take part. In the process, we must not lose our leadership,” and, in a phone call with President Trump, reportedly offered to resume cross-border economic cooperation with North Korea alongside any US measures to reduce the sanction burden on the country.

The liberal Hankyoreh called for the US to be proactive and flexible in negotiations, and supported President Moon’s proposal: “The White House did offer a vague incentive about exploring ways to encourage investment in the North by US partners, improve infrastructure, promote food security and more, but it needs to have the flexibility to offer a more proactive and specific plan for easing sanctions on the North. […] If the US is unable to move directly because of its political situation at home, it’s time to actively consider taking advantage of Moon’s proposal.”
The liberal Kyunghyang Shinmun was optimistic about the upcoming summit: “We hope that the two leaders can bear fruit with candid and productive dialogue. We hope to see Chairman Kim demonstrate his commitment to denuclearization with concrete measures and President Trump to respond by boldly easing sanctions.”
Park Jin-ho, chief of staff to Representative Baek Seung-joo of the opposition Liberty Korea Party, penned a scathing critique of the “serious lack of coordination between Seoul and Washington” in an op-ed for the liberal Korea Times. “When looking at the patterns of diplomatic negotiations with North Korea, uncertainty begets uncertainty. In both Seoul and Washington, the North’s denuclearization has been mainly dealt with and driven by political leadership concerning domestic politics,” Park asserted.
The centrist Korea Herald summarized its hopes for the summit: “The second US-North Korea summit must produce better results than the first one.”
The conservative Chosonilbo lamented reports that President Moon pledged to step-up cross-border economic cooperation with North Korea: “[T]here is absolutely no reason to volunteer for that task before the North has given even a hint that it will get rid of its nukes. All Moon has done is deliberately and recklessly relinquished his leverage in the denuclearization process.”

JAPAN

In preparations for the Hanoi Summit, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe reportedly called President Trump to urge him to raise the abduction issue with North Korean officials. Following a speech regarding border security, President Trump claimed Abe had nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to negotiate with North Korea: “Prime Minister Abe of Japan gave me the most beautiful copy of a letter that he sent to the people who give out a thing called the Nobel Prize. He said, ‘I have nominated you…’ or ‘Respectfully, on behalf of Japan, I am asking them to give you the Nobel Peace Prize.’ I said, ‘Thank you.’ Many other people feel that way too. I’ll probably never get it, but that’s okay.” When questioned about the comment, Abe replied, “I’m not saying it’s untrue,” but declined to comment further, citing the standard practice of the Nobel Committee to wait fifty years before revealing who made nominations.

The progressive Asahi Shimbun took aim at reports that Prime Minister Abe nominated President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize: “Abe has been consistent in his quest to please Trump. It is still surprising that Abe has gone so far as to nominate Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. Think how his action will look to the international community.”
The liberal Mainichi Shimbun also took issue with the Nobel incident. “If President Trump wants to brag about his nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize, he should win an agreement from Chairman Kim that makes Pyongyang discard nuclear weapons and missiles, eases hostilities between the two countries and brings about stability to the region and the rest of the world,” the Mainichi said and called on the Japanese government to pressure Washington for “concrete results.”
The centrist Japan Times criticized President’s Trump’s lack of a clear timetable for North Korean denuclearization as a “deeply flawed approach” to the negotiations: “Bold and sweeping pledges are no longer sufficient. Specific progress and benchmarks are required. Japan cannot entrust its security to empty promises.”
The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun called for meaningful action to be achieved in Hanoi: “Tokyo and Washington have been taking great pains to maintain international pressure on Pyongyang. It cannot be overlooked that Seoul gives inter-Korean cooperation precedence over denuclearization and is impatient to provide rewards that would be exceptions to sanctions.”

CHINA

During a regular press conference, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Spokesperson Geng Shuang offered China’s hopes for Hanoi: “The Chinese side believes that the direct engagement and dialogue between the DPRK and US leaders are the key to resolving the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue, and we have been supporting the DPRK and the US in resolving issues through dialogue and negotiation. […] We hope the second DPRK-US summit will be held successfully with positive outcomes and inject new impetus into the realization of denuclearization and lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula. The Chinese side will continue its efforts to contribute to achieving this goal.”

The state-supported China Daily offered well-wishes for the summit and noted China’s role: “It has not been easy for the Korean Peninsula peace process to have got this far, and China has been making great efforts to sustain the momentum that had been threatening to stall. Trump acknowledged this in a tweet on Sunday when he said Xi has ‘been very helpful in his support’ of the Hanoi meeting. China hopes Pyongyang and Washington will seize this opportunity to further promote peace and stability on the peninsula.”
In an editorial, the nationalist Global Times similarly hailed China’s efforts to promote the breakthrough and was optimistic about the meeting: “China welcomes the second Kim-Trump summit. Chairman Kim’s travel through China from the north to south by train is meaningful. China has played a constructive role in Pyongyang’s new routes. Beijing is both a promoter and a stakeholder in this summit. We hope that the second summit will achieve new breakthroughs. Although the peninsula issues are complex, peace is obviously a good thing. Nothing is impossible to overcome.”
The independent South China Morning Post featured an op-ed by Deng Yuwen, a researcher at Chinese Strategy Analysis Inc. and former deputy editor of the Central Party School’s journal Study Times, that analyzed the political stakes for Trump and Kim. Regarding China’s position, Deng argued that, “China is displeased with North Korea for pursuing a nuclear programme against Chinese advice and endangering Chinese interests. From this perspective, although China will not take the initiative and exert pressure on North Korea, it is quite happy for the US to disarm the North.”

Rising Powers’ Security Weigh-Ins

Policy Alert #182 | February 12, 2019

The failed negotiations over the 1987 Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) between the United States and Russia spiked concerns in rising powers about their own security as well as global stability. The long-standing Treaty effectively dissolved as US President Donald Trump announced that his country would “suspend its obligations under the INF Treaty effective February 2, 2019” and gave Russia 180 days to remedy alleged violations on its side. Russian President Vladimir Putin responded in kind, however; Putin emphasized that his country’s actions would only be to “mirror” actions taken by Washington first (official statement in Russian here). Although the treaty was a bilateral agreement, President Trump’s demands to include China as a member state and growing uncertainty in the Indo-Pacific from other sources of tension have led to domestic discussions of how each country is measuring up to its neighbors. In this Policy Alert, we catch up on the Rising Powers’ weigh-ins.

CHINA
In response to the US’s announcement that it was suspending its observation of the INF Treaty, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Geng Shuang responded to inquiries that “China finds this move regrettable. […] China is opposed to the US withdrawal and urges the US and Russia to properly resolve differences through constructive dialogue.”

The state-funded China Daily criticized plans for US deployments of a new radar system in Japan that will strengthen its ability to intercept intercontinental ballistic missiles. The Daily noted that the system was specifically oriented against attacks from China, Russia, and North Korea, the latter of which seeming particularly “out of place” given ongoing negotiations for North Korea’s denuclearization. “History proves that seeking unilateral and absolute security at the cost of the security of other countries will only trigger an arms race, which in return will cause more instability and make the world a more dangerous rather than a safer place,” the Daily warned.
In the wake of the dissolution of the INF Treaty, the nationalist Global Times urged China to resist US efforts to rope China into a multilateral nuclear arms deal: “Without the restraints of the treaty, the US may intensify its deployment of offensive missiles and anti-missile systems around China, further increasing China’s strategic security challenges. Beijing will never accept the treaty becoming a multilateral agreement. It must reject any request from the US on the issue. Instead of relying too much on land-based missiles for national security, China must diversify its strategic nuclear deterrence.”
Yang Yucai, professor at the National Defense University of the People’s Liberation Army, took aim at rumors that the “Five Eyes” intelligence alliance composing of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and the US, is courting Germany and Japan as potential new members. In an op-ed for the Global Times, Yucai urged the government to invest more in efforts to mitigate the threat: “If Japan gets into the Five Eyes fold, they will together build a system of intelligence exchange mechanism against China. […] China should improve its information security mechanism, develop intelligence and research work, and try its best to defuse the threat that the Five Eyes alliance will pose to China.”
Zhou Yongsheng, deputy director of the Japanese Studies Center at China Foreign Affairs University, penned in an op-ed for the Global Times that assessed Japan’s recent efforts to finalize Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreements (ACSAs) with Canada and France, in addition to prior ACSAs with Australia, India, the United Kingdom, and the US: “Japan’s ambition is to become a global political power. But political and diplomatic means alone cannot support Japan’s global ambitions. A military presence at the global level is needed if Japan is to expand its political clout. […The ACSAs are] part of an overall plan to influence economics, politics, military and culture, which is a long-term strategic mindset of the Japanese government.”
Ruan Zongze, executive vice president and senior research fellow at the China Institute of International Studies, was more confident in China’s ability to rise peacefully by pursuing a path of cooperation: “[While] some major countries are exhausting all their resources to build up their military, China keeps development as the central task. [While] some countries are building a wall at border, China is constructing bridges. As China grows stronger, the world will also become more peaceful and prosperous.”

JAPAN
Following a report by Reuters in October 2018 that Japan and Germany were being courted as a potential new members to the “Five Eyes” intelligence sharing group between Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and the US, the Japanese government appears to have made significant efforts to cement an official invitation. The Nikkei Asian Review reports that since the New Year, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe paid a visit to British Prime Minister Theresa May last month, discussed the ongoing tensions between China and Canada over the arrest of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and hosted German Chancellor Angela Merkel during an official visit to Tokyo. The bungling of the INF Treaty negotiations between the US and Russia has put Japan between a rock and a hard place, however: following Japan’s tepid endorsement of the US withdrawal, Russia warned Japan’s ongoing efforts to improve bilateral ties were under threat.

The centrist Japan Times offered a mixed response to ongoing negotiations between the US and South Korea to renew their Special Measures Agreement (SMA), the contract of cost-sharing for maintaining the US military presence. While solidifying the US presence on the peninsula is a comfort to Japan, US demands for South Korea to increase its share to $1.6 billion from $800 million per year and the reduction of the SMA’s period of effectiveness from five years to one year are ominous signs for the renegotiation of Japan’s SMA in 2021: “Tokyo should not hesitate to remind Washington that the U.S. military presence here is not just for Japan’s benefit, and matters greatly to U.S. power and influence in the region. This is, after all, an alliance, and like the one with South Korea, both partners gain significantly from their partnership.” In another editorial, Times also criticized the US and Russia for the current disagreement over the INF Treaty, and highlighted the potential consequences for Japan.
On the issue of the INF Treaty, the conservative Yomiuri Shimbun called for Prime Minister Abe to help mediate resolution: “It is important for the United States and Russia to steadfastly maintain the existing framework, and also for China to be brought into the arms reduction efforts. The U.S. administration must deepen its cooperation with its allies and work out its strategies toward Russia and China. […] Prime Minister Shinzo Abe must beef up his approaches to both the United States and Russia.” Regarding Chancellor Merkel’s visit, the Yomiuri expressed relief that Germany was shifting away from its “excessively China-leaning stance” in the region and looking to bolster ties with Japan in the wake of strained relations with the US: “Japan and Germany must demonstrate leadership and promote the framework for international cooperation.”
Business-focused Nikkei Asian Review featured an op-ed by Hudson Institute senior fellow Arthur Herman that advocated for Japan to become the “Sixth Eye” in the multimember intelligence sharing group between Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, and the US. In addition to increasing “interoperability” with the armed forces of the member countries, Herman claimed the move could be a political windfall for Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe: “[A] formal membership would cap his efforts to build the “special relationship” with the U.S. similar to the one the oldest Five Eye member, the U.K., already enjoys. It would also earn him the laurels as Japan’s most significant prime minister in the postwar era.”

INDIA
India’s sense of security was rattled by a series of high-profile crashes in the Indian Air Force. Although several occurred throughout 2018, having two crashes on January 28 and February 1 of this year left the public in doubt of the Air Force’s capabilities. In addition to wariness of the INF Treaty’s impact on the region, another source of concern for the India is the report that the US is pursuing negotiations with the Taliban as part of its withdrawal from nearby Afghanistan.

The liberal Indian Express expressed concern with the US’s involvement with the Taliban, but admitted that while India is currently pursuing its interests in dialogue with China, Iran, and Afghani leadership, “[t]he day may not be far when India has to consider what has seemed unthinkable as yet — reaching out to the Taliban, at least sections of it that are independent minded.”
The pro-government Daily Pioneer condemned the “unacceptable and needless loss of human life” from the Indian Air Force crash in Bengaluru, and called for the main political parties to carefully weigh the issue of national security in the context of the upcoming elections: “With elections nearing and the need to fund social sector schemes to alleviate poverty gaining momentum despite two well-armed neighbours and constant threats, India finds itself in a bind that few other nations do when it comes to security in the region. India has to be prepared for the eventuality of a two-front war and that needs investment in new military equipment and better management of existing resources. While affording equipment is a challenge, we cannot afford to lose lives needlessly. The next Government and the Opposition have to keep this in mind.”
The center-right Times of India cited the aging air force fleet and problems with the scale and quality of domestic production of aircraft and replacement parts: “This ‘jugaad’ approach simply cannot continue. It undermines our defence preparedness and puts our servicemen at risk. We need to ramp up indigenous production and create an American-style military-industrial complex. This requires greater participation of the private sector.”
In response to the INF Treaty debacle, left-leaning The Hindu criticized the US for opening the gates for a potential arms race for little gains: “[I]n pulling out of the INF, Washington is effectively throwing away leverage it may have had with Russia on an issue of global concern.”
S.D. Pradhan, former chairman of India’s Joint Intelligence Committee and former deputy national security adviser, weighed the consequences of the INF Treaty’s dissolution for the Indo-Pacific region with a wary eye toward China: “Pragmatism demands greater push to achieve objectives of the free, open and inclusive Indo –Pacific Vision before the new tensions exacerbate the situation in India’s neighbourhood.”

RUSSIA
Following the aforementioned exchange between the United States and Russia regarding the INF Treaty, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov asserted that the US was guilty of violations of the accord: “According to our information, the United States started violating that undated treaty in 1999 when it began trials of combat unmanned flying vehicles with specifications similar to those of ground-launched cruise missiles banned by the Treaty. Later it started using target missiles, ballistic target missiles, for testing its missile defense system, whereas starting 2014 it began deploying in Europe launching pads for its positioning areas of missile defense – MK 41 launching pads, which may absolutely be used without any changes and to launch Tomahawk medium-range cruise missiles.” Further, Minister Lavrov explained that Russia tried “to do everything to save the INF Treaty, considering its importance for preserving strategic stability in Europe and globally.”

In its coverage of the INF Treaty dissolution, state-owned Sputnik News featured interviews with honorary Vice President of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) Bruce Kent, nonprofit Beyond Nuclear’s “Radioactive Waste Watchdog” Kevin Kamps, senior research associate at the Delhi-based Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses Rajiv Nayan, and foreign affairs analyst Rakesh Krishnan Simha. The interviews all emphasized the destabilizing effects the end of the INF Treaty will bring.

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

No Shows at Davos?

Policy Alert #181 | January 29, 2019

The 2019 World Economic Forum (WEF) opened in the Swiss town of Davos last week to muted response. Many western media outlets, such as CNN, Forbes, The Guardian, and The Independent, focused on the absent parties. United States President Donald Trump canceled his planned trip and eventually pulled the plug on a US delegation led by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin amidst the partial government shutdown (Pompeo later delivered a video address to the Forum). British Prime Minister Theresa May and French President Emmanuel Macron similarly skipped the event to deal with domestic issues. Even the Rising Powers seemed content to sit it out: Chinese President Xi Jinping, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and Russian President Vladimir Putin focused their attention elsewhere.

Despite lacking star power, Davos was hardly devoid of drama. Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro attended in his international debut following his election in October 2018. Chinese delegate Fang Xinghai’s comments about democracy sparked buzz abroad as American billionaire George Soros sharply criticized China in a speech during a private dinner on the sidelines of the WEF. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, meanwhile, did his best to champion the benefits of globalization. In this RPI Policy Alert, we examine the stories you may have missed from this year’s WEF.

CHINA
Chinese Vice-President Wang Qishan offered a special address to the WEF that defended globalization and free trade while also acknowledging the difficulty in balancing “efficiency” with “equity”: “What we need to do is make the pie bigger while looking for ways to share it in a more equitable way. The last thing we should do is to stop making the pie and just engage in a futile debate on how to divide it. Shifting blame for one’s own problems onto others will not resolve the problems.” Fang Xinghai, Vice-Chairman of China Securities Regulatory Commission, participated in a panel entitled “When Global Orders Fail” in a personal capacity. Fang’s comment, “Democracy isn’t working very well,” made waves in western media coverage. It should be noted, however, that the context was in reference to co-panelist and Columbia University Professor Adam Tooze’s earlier comments and moderator Martin Wolf’s question about China’s rise. Wang’s full comment was: “In Western countries, you’re experiencing tremendous domestic difficulties, and democracy–as you [Tooze] described–isn’t working very well. You have to realize this and you need political reforms in your countries. I say that in all sincerity. You cannot just turn your attention to other countries to paper over all the difficulties you’re experiencing” (21:05-26:09). Both Wang and Fang addressed the news of China’s lower than expected growth rate for the last year, which was announced by China’s National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) just two days prior to the WEF. Following the scathing criticism of China by George Soros at a sideline event, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded: “It is meaningless and worthless to refute these words made by [a] certain individual that call white black and confuse right and wrong.”

In an editorial, the state-directed China Daily praised Vice-President Wang’s speech as “[r]eaffirming the pro-globalization, pro-multilateralism stance that President Xi Jinping put forward” in his Davos address in 2017, but also quipped: “Since the US delegation didn’t attend this year’s forum due to that country’s government shutdown, it is to be hoped that the message does not get distorted in relaying.” Trade negotiations between the two countries are scheduled later this week.
Ahead of the WEF, nationalist Global Times focused its energies on reassuring its readers that despite the NBS report, “China’s economy and future are promising.” “The China-US trade war in 2018 obviously had negative effects on China’s economy, but the effects would have been much more serious if this had happened 10 years ago. China today can bear the consequences of the trade war. It would be nice if the two countries could ease trade tensions, but China can also get by if they fail,” the Times claimed.
Cissy Zhou, a contributor to the independent South China Morning Post, examined the effect of Vice-President Wang’s reassuring comments on the rate of China’s economic growth on foreign market watchers.

JAPAN
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe gave a speech entitled “Defeatism about Japan Is Now Defeated,” to the Forum that touted the improvements his administration has made to both the Japanese and international economy: “Japan is determined to preserve and committed to enhancing the free, open, and rules-based international order. […] Japan, now reinvigorated and revitalized, with your embrace, will continue to be one of the foremost open, democratic, and law-abiding contributors to peace and growth in the world.” Abe’s speech referenced need for better data management practices worldwide, which was indubitably included due to the recent data management scandal in the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. On the sidelines of the Forum, the mood was less optimistic. In an interview with Reuters, chief executive officer of Suntory Holdings Ltd. and senior economic adviser to the prime minister Takeshi Niinami, argued that the scheduled increase in Japan’s consumption tax to ten percent was necessary as the current spending plan was “unsustainable,” and that he did not anticipate Japan hitting its two percent inflation target: “We’re not in deflation…but there is still inertia. There’s still a deflationary mindset.” Hiroshige Seko, Minister of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI), and Hiroaki Nakanishi, Chairman of Hitachi, meanwhile met tough questions on recent news of flailing nuclear energy projects in Turkey and the United Kingdom, respectively.

The progressive Asahi Shimbun offered a scathing overview of the data management scandal in the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare the day after Abe’s speech: “The findings of such a lax investigation and the disciplinary action based on them do not justify bringing an end to efforts to uncover the facts.”
The Japan Times featured a political cartoon mocking Abe’s promotion of responsible data management in his speech at the WEF against the data scandal. In the cartoon, Abe is depicted tumbling down a ski slope of “public trust.”
Kenji Kawase, chief business correspondent for the business-focused Nikkei Asian Review, noted in his coverage of the Forum that China sent its largest delegation to date to Davos in a show of force, and noted that, “With US President Donald Trump a no-show, the spotlight was China’s to take.”

INDIA
An interview with Chief Minister of the state of Madhya Pradesh Kamal Nath demonstrated that the campaign cycle in India is well underway. On the sidelines of the WEF, Chief Minister Nath met with members of the Indian press and accused the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of participating in horse-trading tactics as well as boasting that BJP legislative assembly members were asking to join his party. Gopal Bhargava, leader of the BJP in Madhya Pradesh, responded: “It is highly objectionable to misuse an international platform against the BJP. Chief Minister Kamal Nath is trying to malign the image of the country and the state. He is also violating international visa norms by raising political issues during an international summit.”

The liberal Hindustan Times took advocacy organization Oxfam to task for its global report on inequality, which it publishes to coincide with the lavish WEF every year: “Privatisation of social sector services are making people poorer and eating into their chances of upward mobility. Rise of finance compared to green field economic activity has made economic growth more skewed. The solution to these problems requires coordinated, long-term policy actions and not Robin Hood-type solutions which a cursory reading of Oxfam’s drastic conclusions might suggest.”
In the business-oriented Economic Times, Namrata Rana, director of customer experience company Futurescape, and Dr. Utkarsh Majmudar, a columnist for the Times, called for the global elites at WEF to protect consumers from misuse of their personal data and the spread of fake news: “Recent events have shown that the promise of a technology driven world may not be goodness and bright, happy, shining people but something far darker and disturbing. Can we come together to create a better future or will forever be victims who did nothing when it was time to end the game? Can Davos create the language of balance?”
The Press Trust of India’s coverage of Davos included interviews with foreign business leaders at the WEF regarding their reactions to India’s new regulations on e-commerce in the country.

RUSSIA
Russian Minister for Economic Development Maksim Oreshkin dismissed US billionaire George Soros’s comments on China as symptomatic of “trouble at home”: “The problems are within the US. An external enemy, which impedes them and causes all the trouble in the US – whether Russia or China – is just substitution of concepts.” In a speech at the WEF, head of state-owned Sberbank German Gref addressed the issue of economic sanctions: “I don’t think that we can see the positive consequences of these sanctions. What has changed? The introduction of these sanctions, especially against large countries, leads to the fact that these problems become chronic, and the country against which sanctions were imposed simply cannot give way. This becomes not a matter of rational behavior, but a matter of dignity.”

Lyuba Lulko, a contributor for the nationalist Pravda Report, asserted that Russia’s lower profile at the Forum was due to a mix of hostility from organizers and ambivalence about the venue: “Russia is not interested in the Davos forum from the point of view of strategic prospects, because the forum is devoted to outdated economic models, which Russia should leave behind.”
In his coverage of the WEF, Denis Bolotsky of state-owned Sputnik News claimed the event was “facing a transformation, with more nationalist politicians bring their ‘country first’ agenda to the venue, angering the mainstream media and NGOs, but making these leaders even more popular at home.” One such case was Brazilian President Bolsonaro’s first speech at the Forum, which Bolotsky characterized as a “baptism by fire.”

BRAZIL
The WEF was the first international commitment of Brazilian President Jair Messias Bolsonaro, who was sworn in on January 1, 2019. Accompanied by a robust delegation of officials, Bolsonaro went to Davos to present his administration’s liberal and pro-growth agenda to world leaders and to make clear the new position of Brazil on the world stage. The absence of prominent leaders increased the expectations surrounding Bolsonaro’s debut, which culminated in a short address to the Forum, even though he was the first head of state to address the audience.

The left-wing newspaper El Pais reported that President Bolsonaro’s short speech disappointed the international community. Although he had a thirty minute period reserved for him, he barely used fifteen minutes, including his speech and the question and answer session. Bolsonaro repeated a general discourse to stimulate investors to expect a completely different Brazil, free of corruption and committed to economic and trade liberalization. El Pais emphasized that the lack of details on concrete measures to be implemented by the government, especially regarding key promised reforms, such as the social security and the tax reform, and frustrated analysts who have been paying great attention to the biggest Latin America economy under this new leadership.
The right-oriented magazine Veja lamented the cancelation of the delegation’s scheduled press conference on January 23. Despite the reason for the cancelation being Bolsonaro’s fatigue, none of the three other ministers scheduled to attend came either. Veja classified the last-minute cancelation as a serious break in protocol, even though Bolsonaro has experienced delicate health since he was victim of a life-threatening knife attack during a campaign event in the State of Minas Gerais.
The Folha de Sao Paulo newspaper reported that in a parallel meeting during the Davos summit, Brazil’s Minister of Economy, Paulo Guedes, delivered an enthusiastic and optimistic message to over a hundred attendees, among which there were businessmen, investors and bankers. He reassured the audience about the government’s the reformist agenda and its commitment to privatize state-owned enterprises as a source of revenue to tackle Brazil’s fiscal deficit.
The online portal Poder 360 published Minister of Justice Sergio Moro’s statement regarding corruption allegations involving Bolsonaro’s eldest child, Flavio Bolsonaro, who was elected a Federal Senator in last October’s general elections. Moro affirmed that the investigations are still at a preliminary stage and that there is nothing conclusive at this point. He also emphasized that the case is under the state prosecutors’ jurisdiction and their work will proceed at a normal pace and is safe from interference from the federal government.

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

Rising Powers’ New Year Resolutions

Policy Alert #180 | January 10, 2019

After a tumultuous 2018 that saw the beginning of a trade war, US withdrawals from treaties on nuclear missiles and Iran, and historic summits with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, the Rising Powers are gearing up for another eventful year. China is already facing cross-strait tensions with Taiwan, while Japan prepares for a summit with Russia later this month and India braces for passionate general elections later this year. In this Rising Powers Policy Alert, we sample the Rising Powers’ resolutions, forecasts, and concerns for 2019.

CHINA

In his New Year’s Speech, Chinese President Xi Jinping reaffirmed his commitment to his country’s security and development initiatives abroad: “Looking at the world at large, we’re facing a period of major change never seen in a century. No matter what these changes bring, China will remain resolute and confident in its defense of its national sovereignty and security. And China’s sincerity and goodwill to safeguard world peace and promote common development will remain unchanged. We will continue to push ahead with the joint construction of the Belt and Road Initiative, and continue to advocate for the development of a community of shared future for mankind. And we will work tirelessly for a more prosperous and beautiful world.” The previous year marked the anniversary of China’s “opening up” in 1978, and 2019 brings the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China under the Communist Party of China (CPC) and the 40th anniversary of the issuance of the “Message to Compatriots in Taiwan” from the Standing Committee of the Fifth National People’s Congress in 1979 that ceased routine bombardments of the island.

Across the strait, Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen addressed the issue of reunification head on and ignited fury from the mainland with her New Year’s address: “I am calling on China that it must face the reality of the existence of the Republic of China (Taiwan); it must respect the commitment of the 23 million people of Taiwan to freedom and democracy; it must handle cross-strait differences peacefully, on a basis of equality; and it must be governments or government-authorized agencies that engage in negotiations. These ‘four musts’ are the most basic and crucial foundations that will determine whether cross-strait relations develop in a positive direction.” Tsai’s bold statement appeared to be bolstered by US President Donald Trump’s signing of the Asia Reassurance Initiative Act of 2018 (ARIA) a day earlier, which reiterates the US’s commitment to Taiwan and includes a provision that encourages “regular transfers of defense articles to Taiwan.” Xi subsequently responded in his speech at an event commemorating the 40th anniversary of the issuance of the “Message to Compatriots in Taiwan”: “We are willing to create broad space for peaceful unification, but will leave no room for any form of separatist activities.”

The People’s Daily, the official media outlet for the CPC, marked the end of 2018 and beginning of 2019 with guest op-eds from former diplomats commemorating the anniversary of China’s opening up, such as former Dutch ambassador Dirk Jan van den Berg, former US Assistant Secretary of State and former US ambassador J. Stapleton Roy, and former Malaysian ambassador Datuk Abdul Majid Ahmad Khan.
The state-sponsored China Daily was optimistic about the future of relations with the US as negotiations to end the trade war continue: “As long as both sides bear in mind the larger picture of bilateral ties and opt for dialogue and negotiations to resolve their differences, there is no reason why their relations cannot continue the general trend of increasing engagement that has benefited both countries over the past 40 years. […] It is to be hoped the two sides can now demonstrate the political wisdom that will enable them to deliver on the welcome sense of optimism that prevails as we enter 2019.” In response to Tsai’s defiance, the Daily darkly warned that residents of Taiwan should “pay heed to how Tsai, in her refusal to accept reality, is willing to let them pay the price while she and those similarly inclined negligently seek to live out a fantasy.”
The nationalist Global Times countered assertions that China’s 2019 would be dictated by the outcome of trade negotiations with the US by arguing that those with such opinions “must not overlook th[e] possibility, where China would have no choice but to strive for development by exploring internal driving forces and effectively render any pressure from the US irrelevant. The Chinese people must be aware that the country has already bid farewell to the era when Beijing’s decisions were defined by the whims of international pressure.” Regarding the Taiwan issue, the Times asserted that reunification is inevitable: “If the Chinese mainland was determined to resort to force, the Taiwan question would have ended long ago. Peaceful reunification is based on goodwill, and it has turned into solid confidence and specific policies as the Chinese mainland strengthens its power.”
The independent, Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post expects 2019 to be “another roller-coaster year of global brinkmanship” given the uncertainty of US-China trade negotiations and the British exit from the European Union. “A failure in the first would test global business and investor confidence; failure in the second would be a leap into the unknown for Britain, the world’s fifth largest economy. […] Trade conflict, fear of China’s rise and a surge in populist intolerance and nationalism could fuel dangerous times,” the Post warned.
South China Morning Post featured an op-ed by political consultant Alice Wu who juxtaposed President Xi’s call for Taiwan to adopt a “one country, two systems” framework against the reality of its implementation in Hong Kong: “Hong Kong is not exactly a shining example of ‘one country, two systems’. Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council has been keeping count of the alleged instances of China failing to honour Hong Kong’s Basic Law, so Xi’s mention of Hong Kong was never going to convince Taiwan. […] And yet, ‘one country, two systems’ remains the take-it-or-leave-it solution to the Taiwan Problem.”

JAPAN

In his New Year’s Reflection, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe outlined his country’s busy diplomatic schedule for 2019: “This year we will […] take on immense challenges on the diplomatic front. As we encounter major turning points such as the U.S.-North Korea summit meeting, Japan-Russia peace treaty negotiations, and the arrival of a new era in Japan-China relations, we will resolutely advance a total reassessment of Japan’s postwar diplomacy. Japan holds the presidency of the G20, and we will welcome to Osaka President Donald Trump, President Vladimir Putin, President Xi Jinping, and other top leaders from around the world. This will truly be a year in which Japan shines on the world’s center stage.” Editorials in Japan reflected not only on the last year, but the whole of the Heisei period, which began in January 1989 with the ascendance of the current emperor, who will abdicate to his son in April 2019.

The left-leaning Mainichi Shimbun cynically juxtaposed the current state of international relations against those at end of the Cold War in 1989: “With the advent of the Trump administration, consideration for minorities or the needy has disappeared and behavior driven by naked desire has surged to the forefront. Some people, with no regard for the truth, began to push for ‘alternative facts,’ and assert that news reporting that is inconvenient to them is ‘fake news.’ [..I]f Washington, Beijing and Moscow compete to seek hegemony, the world will be torn apart and deteriorate into a vicious cycle of confrontation and hatred. […] We would like to reconfirm the ideal of coexistence, and find a way leading to reconciliation and cooperation.”
Kuni Miyake, President of the Foreign Policy Institute and Research Director at Canon Institute for Global Studies, offered his geopolitical predictions for 2019 in an op-ed for the centrist Japan Times. Miyake argued that China will continue to resist making concession to the US and that India will not become a major US ally. “While New Deli [sic] considers China’s ‘Belt and Road’ initiative as a means to contain India, it may not want to contain China with the U.S. India is mainly concerned about China’s naval activities in the Indian Ocean,” he explained. As for Japan, Miyake does not expect to see any major political changes.
The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun described Japan’s diplomacy as “entering a difficult phase” due not only to tensions between the US and China, but also upcoming negotiations with Russia and North Korea. The Yomiuri thus voiced its support for the revision of the Japanese constitution to allow greater flexibility in the use of the Self-Defense Forces, which are presently limited by Article 9 of the current constitution: “Abe sets a goal of enforcing a new constitution in 2020. […] The international situation and Japan’s social system have both undergone dramatic transformations since the immediate postwar period in which the Constitution was established. It is reasonable to aim for the establishment of a constitution to fit a new era.”

INDIA

Prime Minister Narendra Modi opted not to issue a formal address for the New Year, but instead tweeted well wishes. His hour-and-a-half long New Year’s Day interview with news outlet ANI was largely seen as the first shots in campaigning for India’s 2019 general election, which will take place in April and May. In the interview, Modi defended himself against criticisms of his “photo-op” diplomacy: “I try that India’s voice reaches the world. I try to meet maximum people in my trips. Earlier, when PM used to go, nobody used to notice at the place they would arrive, even the place from where they departed from. My visits are noticed because I interact with people and take decisions.” The Prime Minister also countered allegations that he was being “deceived” by China, given the border skirmish at Doklam last year despite his frequent meetings with Chinese President Xi: “India should be judged on the basis of its response in Doklam. And nothing has happened with India that can be considered as deceit. But our principled position has been that we want friendly relations with neighbours. All Indian governments have maintained this.”

The pro-government Daily Pioneer’s New Year’s Day editorial took up the issue of the coming election: “One thing is for certain, this will be a vicious and extremely negative election campaign, possibly with calls to violence on religious and ethnic lines, much of it fired up by irresponsible people masquerading as public leaders and maybe even some journalists. It is up for all of us to maintain civility and decorum in the public discourse, possibly by switching off news television and taking with a large dose of salt the lies and misinformation spread on social media and the internet.”

The Hindu, a left-leaning newspaper, featured a political cartoon on New Year’s Day that depicted Prime Minister Modi’s slowly deflating “Achche Din” (“good days”) balloon landing him on the jagged earth of 2019 in reference to his prospects in the coming election.

Anil Wadhwa, former ambassador and distinguished fellow at the Vivekananda International Foundation public policy think-tank, anticipates that although the US’s newly-passed Asia Reassurance Initiative Act of 2018 (ARIA) defines the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue between the US, India, Australia, and Japan as “vital” to “a free and open Indo-Pacific,” “India will move to strengthen relations not only with the US but also with Japan and Australia using a bilateral, rather than a multilateral approach, with emphasis on building its relationship with Japan.”

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

Winter Summits: Rising Powers Tie Up Loose Ends at G20

Policy Alert #179 | December 7, 2018

On November 30th and December 1st, the Group of Twenty (G20) Summit convened in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Unlike the stalemate at the APEC Summit, the G20 managed to pass a declaration championing “fair and sustainable development,” however, the omission of a clause criticizing protectionism did not go unnoticed. In this RPI Policy Alert, we examine how well the Rising Powers’ bilateral blitzes culminated in success at the G20 Summit.

CHINA

In his speech to fellow G20 leaders, Chinese President Xi Jinping urged, “We should firmly uphold free trade and the rules-based multilateral trading system.” In this regard, China came away from the Summit with a number of successes. President Xi and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe agreed to accelerate negotiations in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), in which China and India are key holdouts, and Xi expressed his pleasure “that China-Japan relations have taken on a new look.” Xi’s meeting with US President Donald Trump “had provocative and fruitful discussions on trade and economy,” which ultimately resulted in the US agreeing to delay the scheduled increase in tariffs on Chinese goods from ten to twenty-five percent to facilitate ongoing negotiations between the two countries.

The state-supported China Daily celebrated the success of the G20 Summit: “The recent APEC meeting was notable for the spoiling efforts of the United States, with US Vice-President Mike Pence striking a divisive note that was at odds with the solidarity of purpose shown by the other participants. The G20 meeting was more realistic – and pragmatic – with the leaders showing they are willing to shelve differences to engage in constructive dialogue.” In response to the announcement of the ceasefire in the trade war, the Daily put the ball in the US court: “China has said that it will work to resolve the US rational concerns－and it has backed up its words with actions by agreeing to expand US imports－but a lasting improvement in bilateral relations is still dependent on the sincerity of the US to engage in equal-footed consultations with China, bearing in mind the reality of China’s situation.”
The nationalist Global Times appealed to the economic wellbeing of small and middle income countries who are excluded from the forum: “The world should by no means give up on multilateralism. The international system, which is based on multilateralism, is the umbrella that protects middle-sized and small countries.” Following the successful meeting between Xi and Trump, the Times appeared to call for a spirit of reconciliation among its Chinese readers: “The Chinese public needs to keep in mind that China-US trade negotiations fluctuate. China’s reform and opening-up’s broad perspective recognizes that the rest of the world does things differently. As that picture is getting bigger, we can accept those differences while acknowledging them peacefully, and be more active and open-minded in solving problems through interaction.”
The independent South China Morning Post compared the G20 to last month’s gridlocked APEC: “[T]he G20 agreement can be seen as an achievement in itself, that sets the direction for the officials and their political masters responsible for putting the multilateral world trading system on a free and fair path.” The Post noted, however, the omission of a clause calling for members to ‘fight protectionism.’”

JAPAN

In addition to his meeting with President Xi, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe met with President Trump, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Despite tension between Russia and European powers over the country’s seizure of Ukranian naval vessels in late November, ties between Russia and Japan continue to improve. Abe and Putin announced that their Foreign Ministers, Taro Kono and Sergey Lavrov, respectively, would negotiate a formal peace treaty before Abe’s trip to Russia early next year. During his meeting with Argentine President Mauricio Macri, Abe outlined his goals for the next G20 Summit, which he will host: “At the G20 Osaka Summit next June, I will set our goal to materialize a free, open, and inclusive and sustainable future society and promote efforts to this end, through our development efforts centered on the Sustainable Development Goals and contributions to addressing global issues, along with driving the world economy through the promotion of free trade and innovation as well as simultaneously achieving economic growth and inequality correction.”

The left-leaning Mainichi Shimbun echoed concerns about the glaring omission in the G20 declaration: “The latest G-20 summit in Buenos Aires could not include ‘anti-protectionism’ in its final statement due to U.S. opposition. Tokyo bears a heavy responsibility to mediate between the U.S. and China toward rebuilding international cooperation.”
The centrist Japan Times expressed concern that President Trump might look for a new target for tariffs: “There is concern in Tokyo that Washington will increase pressure on Japan next year when bilateral trade talks begin in earnest; the truce in the dispute with China has also raised fears that Trump will turn his full attention to the relationship with Japan. […] Abe must help restore the commitment to free and fair trade and to multilateralism.”
The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun hailed Abe’s efforts at G20: “Japan must clearly spell out its policy to counter protectionism and boost free and fair trade. […] Abe’s summit talks with the leaders of the United States and China on the sidelines of the G20 meeting were a well-timed response to this issue.” In response to the truce in the US-China trade war, the Yomiuri called for the spirit of cooperation to continue: “It is crucial for the United States and China to avoid an escalation in their rivalry for supremacy and any accidental clash, but instead to strive to stabilize the Asia-Pacific region.”

INDIA

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi participated in a first-ever JAI (Japan, America, and India) trilateral meeting on the sidelines of the G20 in addition to the BRICS session and a separate RIC meeting with President Putin and President Xi. Modi appeared to characterize the JAI as a counter to the China-led platforms, stating that “the JAI is dedicated to democratic values.” In a press conference following the JAI session, Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale explained that “[A]ll agreed that a free, open, inclusive, and rules based order is essential for the [Indo-Pacific] region’s peace and security.” In his speech at the BRICS Leaders’ Informal Meeting, Modi similarly raised the issue of “rules-based” growth and interactions: “To ensure a rule-based world order we have to work together with multilateral institutions like UN, WTO, UNFCC, World Bank, so as to maintain their relevance and they also reflect the realities of current time.” At India’s request, Italy forfeited its hosting of the 2022 G20 Summit in order for India to host during its 75th anniversary of independence.

The liberal Indian Express praised Modi’s ability to “sit down with the leaders of the US and Japan […] and, soon after, parley with the presidents of China and Russia” as a welcome sign that India can maintain its policy of “nonalignment” while still flexing its diplomatic muscle: “All major powers are engaging each other and Delhi must do the same without any inhibitions. If India’s strategic opportunities with the major powers are real, Delhi’s main weakness has been the inability to fully translate this extraordinary political leverage into substantive economic and military gains.”
The Hindustan Times, another liberal paper, instead focused on two substantive issues of the G20 Summit: climate and trade. The Times described the former as a “failure” of the Summit and called for India to “speak out, even if it is the only voice doing so, on climate.” On the latter, the Times advocated for the country to “focus on building an alternative to multilateralism.”

RUSSIA

Russian seizure of three Ukrainian naval vessels in the Black Sea late last month loomed over Russia’s efforts at the G20, as evidenced in a press conference by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. However, Russia’s diplomacy with its Asian neighbors appeared to weather the storm. Following a meeting with Prime Minister Abe, President Vladimir Putin announced a planned bilateral summit in Russia early next year, and suggested, “Maybe I will get a chance to visit Japan as well.” President Xi accepted Putin’s invitation to the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum in 2019, and reciprocated with an invitation for Putin to attend the second Belt and Road Forum in April 2019.

State-owned Sputnik News highlighted commentary from foreign scholars and analysts regarding the G20 Summit, with a special interest in the US’s political maneuvering. US political analyst Scott Bennett and Princeton University Professor of Politics and International Affairs Richard Falk covered the current state of US-Russia relations as a context for the US officials’ refusal to meet with their Russian counterparts, while Renmin University Professor of Finance Zhao Xijun, offered insight to the US-China trade war ceasefire.
Ahead of the Summit, Dutch-owned independent Moscow Times featured an op-ed by Alexander Gabuev, senior fellow and chair of the Russia in Asia-Pacific Program at the Carnegie Moscow Center, that outlined Russia’s main objectives at the G20. On Russia’s ties with China, Gabuev argued, “Ties between Russia and China are very unlikely to deteriorate in the foreseeable future. […]The Kremlin doesn’t fully trust China, but it knows that the national interests of both countries coincide in many areas and that China will be a predictable and pragmatic partner for years to come. By contrast, Moscow sees U.S. leaders as unpredictable and untrustworthy.”

BRAZIL

Brazil convened with other members of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) platform on the sidelines of the G20 Summit. Notably, the joint declaration of the informal meeting concluded with the leaders expressing that they “look forward to the 11th BRICS Summit to be hosted by Brazil in 2019 and extend our full support to Brazil as the incoming BRICS Chair.” Although current President Michel Temer has championed multilateralism and Brazil’s alignment with China, his successor, President-Elect Jair Bolsonaro ran on a policy platform to return to unilateralism and closer ties with the US.

The Valor Economico business newspaper reported the minor role played by Brazil in the Buenos Aires G20 Summit, either due to current President Temer’s poor approval ratings or the great uncertainty regarding the new government to be led by the president-elect Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro did not attend or send any representatives to the Summit. The article also highlighted the low number of bilateral meetings on Temer’s schedule, which would signal the low capacity of the country to engage partners in discussions parallel to the Summit official events.
The El Pais Brasil emphasized President Temer’s “silent participation” in Buenos Aires in contrast to the lively performances by the South American giant in previous summits. In addition to minimal sideline talks, Temer did not have an official bilateral event with Argentina, an important trade partner. El Pais Brasil reported that Temer was bidding farewell to the China-aligned multilateral forums he supported, particularly BRICS.
The Nexo online portal interviewed University of San Paulo Professor of International Affairs Guilherme Casaroes, who opined that from 2019 onwards Brazil may adopt a more conservative approach regarding sensitive topics, such as migration, sustainability, and corporate governance, that aligns with the US government diplomacy in order to establish close ties with Donald Trump–a key campaign platform for President-Elect Bolsonaro.

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