Policy Alerts – Page 6 – Rising Powers Initiative

Winter Summits: Rising Powers Assemble at ASEAN and APEC

Policy Alert #178 | November 27, 2018

The Rising Powers gathered in Singapore November 11th-15th for the 33rd Summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). At the ASEAN Summit, the East Asia Summit subgroup and continuing negotiations of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) multilateral free trade agreement also convened. The Economic Leaders’ Meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum met on the heels of ASEAN November 17th-18th in Papua New Guinea. For the first time since APEC’s annual Economic Leaders’ Meetings began in 1993, no joint declaration was issued, which many observers attributed to tensions between China and the United States. Instead, Papua New Guinea’s Prime Minister and Chair of this year’s APEC Forum Peter O’Neill issued the Era Kone Statement to conclude the proceedings. In this RPI Policy Alert, we catch up on the developments in the Rising Powers’ whirlwind multilateral summit tours.

CHINA

Chinese Premier Li Keqiang attended the ASEAN Summit while Chinese President Xi Jinping attended the APEC Meeting. Addressing the ASEAN Plus Three (China, Japan, and South Korea) members, Premier Li hinted that the region’s economies needed to stay the course on free trade: “We should remain committed to economic globalization, multilateralism and free trade, and work to advance regional economic integration and build an open world economy.” At APEC, President Xi reiterated China’s position: “We need to firmly uphold the rules-based multilateral trading system and say no to protectionism.” US Vice President Mike Pence’s address at APEC directly criticized China for “unfair trade practices” such as engaging in “quotas, forced technology transfer, intellectual property theft, and industrial subsidies on an unprecedented scale” and indirectly took a stab at projects financed by China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) as “unsustainable and of poor quality.” The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs argued the “principal” reason for the failure to agree to a joint declaration at APEC was that a “certain economy insisted on imposing its own texts on other parties, excusing protectionism and unilateralism, and refusing to accept reasonable revisions from the Chinese and other parties.”

The People’s Daily, the official media outlet of the Communist Party of China, offered a measured response to Pence’s barbs: “China respects the wills of South Pacific island countries on the issue of foreign aid. It never interferes in the countries’ internal affairs, never imposes its will on them, and attaches no political conditions, which is widely welcomed and recognized in the South Pacific region.”
The China Daily, a state-sponsored newspaper, praised the success of ASEAN, and specifically the progress in RCEP negotiations: “The efforts to realize the RCEP, along with concurrent efforts to facilitate talks on the Code of Conduct in the South China Sea, show the region is standing together to reject a beggar-thy-neighbor approach in favor of equitable and rule-based free trade and international cooperation that helps each country and its neighbors to prosper alike.”
The nationalist Global Times took aim at the US’s behavior at APEC in two editorials. “It’s delusional of some US elites to think that China is the largest beneficiary of the international system since they mistakenly blame China for the US’ own problems. China has realized its development through hard work, not by taking advantage of the international system,” one argued. To Pence’s apparent references to the BRI, the Times retorted, “The most prominent feature of China’s international assistance and cooperation is that it comes with no political strings attached. Is there a better way than this to show respect for others’ sovereignty?.”
The independent South China Morning Post hailed President Xi’s trips to Brunei and the Philippines as evidence of the countries’ ability to manage their territorial disputes peacefully: “There can be disagreements in all friendships, but pragmatism will help calm stormy seas.”

JAPAN

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe met with Vice President Mike Pence on November 13th in Tokyo ahead of the summits, and Abe attended both the ASEAN and APEC Summits. Officials from the “Quad” or “security diamond” states–Japan, India, Australia, and the US–met on the sidelines of ASEAN and offered a brief statement reaffirming their “shared commitment to maintain and strengthen a rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific in which all nations are sovereign, strong, and prosperous.” At the East Asian Summit at ASEAN, Prime Minister Abe reiterated that a free and open Indo-Pacific for the development of this region.” However, Abe also noted the recent progress in China-Japan relations and added that “realizing a free and open Indo-Pacific does not exclude any countries.” Responding to reporters at a press conference, Foreign Minister Taro Kono expressed Japan’s commitment to free trade: “Japan has continued to raise the banner of free trade towards the entry into force of the TPP11 [Trans-Pacific Partnership] Agreement. Japan has also reached an Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) with the European Union (EU), and we are now just waiting for the ratification procedures. Regrettably, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) negotiations will likely continue into next year. We will advance negotiations on such major free trade agreements, while also proactively pursuing Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with small economies one by one.” On the sidelines of ASEAN, Prime Minister Abe and Russian President Vladimir Putin discussed accelerating negotiations on a peace treaty. Despite having formally ended the “state of war” and normalizing ties with the Soviet Union in the 1956 Joint Declaration, relations between Japan and Russia have been complicated by the unresolved territorial dispute over the Kuril Islands.

Following the meeting between Abe and Pence, the left-leaning Mainichi Shimbun warned the government against bungling the progress made with China: “[I]ntensifying a confrontational approach alongside the U.S. toward the [BRI] will damage Japan-China ties. Tokyo needs to strike an acceptable balance between Japan, the U.S. and China, and prevent Japan-U.S. and Japan-China ties from becoming mutually incompatible.”
In response to the failure at APEC, the centrist Japan Times agreed: “Some see [Japan] playing a role as mediator, or bridge, between Washington and Beijing. That is too ambitious. Those two governments do not need Tokyo to facilitate their talks. Rather, Japan should stake out its own role.”
The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun instead suggested Japan has other bilateral ties to broker: “Japan must exercise leadership even in the RCEP process and serve as a bridge between India and China, which are cautious about liberalization, and other nations.”

INDIA

Prime Minister Narendra Modi attended the ASEAN Summit, and participated in the EAS, RCEP, and Quad meetings. Despite the size of India’s economy and its geographic relevance, it is not a member of APEC. According to a press release from the Ministry of External Affairs, Modi “underlined the centrality of trade and investment in enhancing prosperity and security of the Indo-Pacific” and “emphasized that India remains committed to the early conclusion of a balanced and comprehensive RCEP” at EAS.

The center-right Times of India called for the Quad members, especially India, to do more to balance against China: “[I]f it is to provide strategic hedge against an assertive China – which has basically imposed itself on the South China Sea through its island-building activities – the Quad needs to get its fundamentals right. Here, New Delhi is guilty of unnecessary timidity.”
The liberal Hindustan Times similarly lamented the lack of progress in India’s efforts to counter China’s influence in the region: “India could take a page out of China’s playbook by speeding up work on long-gestating connectivity projects, such as the India-Myanmar-Thailand trilateral highway, and building new trade and transport linkages with all the Asean states. Stronger strategic and security relations that are underpinned by equally strong economic ties will create greater inter-dependence between India and the Asean members and serve as an effective counter to China’s growing clout in the region.”
Regarding India’s role in holding up the conclusion of RCEP negotiations, the Times of India urged its government to get a move on: “RCEP should be seen as an opportunity to rectify earlier mistakes. A successful trade deal offers enough benefits to all partners to risk the costs.”

RUSSIA

Russian President Vladimir Putin attended ASEAN and made his first state visit to Singapore while Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev headed to APEC. This year marked the first time Russia joined EAS as a full member and the finalization of Russia’s permanent mission to ASEAN. In his speech to the Russia-ASEAN Summit attendees, President Putin celebrated the 35 percent increase in trade between Russia and ASEAN member states in 2017, and affirmed that “Russia pays great attention to the development of relations with ASEAN based on mutual respect and consideration for each other’s interests.” Prime Minister Medvedev similarly charmed APEC members to take Russia’s efforts to strengthen economic ties seriously through an invitation to participate in the 2019 Eastern Economic Forum: “We have tried to create the most comfortable environment for the business activity that can be compared with all best analogues in the world.” Responding to questions about the developments in negotiations with Japan for a peace treaty, Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Maria Zakharova suggested the progress was modest: “It is unclear how the military alliance between Japan and the United States may affect the agreements that will be achieved during the talks. These are just some of the questions that come to mind. Clearly, there’s much to be done to improve mutual understanding and trust, and to create a new quality of Russian-Japanese relations that would help us resolve the most challenging bilateral problems.”

Maria Osipova, an economist at the Centre for the Study of Southeast Asia, Australia, and Oceania at the Russian Academy of Sciences explained the role of US and European Union sanctions in Russia’s shift to Asia in an interview with the nationalist Pravda Report, “Under the current conditions of sanctions, Russia simply has no choice but to expand its influence in the East and look for new partners there. In Southeast Asia, people like and respect not only the Russian language, but also the Russian culture.”
In an interview with state-owned TASS, Georgy Toloraya, Director of the Asian Strategy Center at the Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, forecasted that the “APEC format as a political platform is probably on the decline and will continue to work exclusively as an economic tool” while the “center of influence is now shifting towards the East Asia Summit (EAS) and other events associated with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).”

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

Rising Powers Bilateral Blitz Continues ahead of ASEAN and G20 Summits

Policy Alert #177 | November 7, 2018

As the ASEAN and G20 Summits approach, the Rising Powers have continued to focus on their bilateral ties. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe made an official visit to China on October 25th and 26th, breaking a seven year period without one. Upon his return to Tokyo, Abe hosted Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi on October 28th and 29th. Meanwhile, China rolled out the red carpet for the first China International Import Expo in Shanghai, and Brazil elected its own “Trump of the Tropics.” In this RPI Policy Alert, we continue to cover developments in the Rising Powers’ diplomatic efforts.

CHINA

Prime Minister Abe’s visit to Beijing coincided with celebrations of the fortieth anniversary of the Sino-Japanese Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which normalized ties between the two countries during China’s “opening up” period. Chinese President Xi Jinping hinted at plans for increasing cooperation in regional development programs: “With concerted efforts by both sides, China-Japan ties are back on track and gaining positive momentum. This is worth cherishing. […] Under the new situations, China and Japan, increasingly interdependent in bilateral areas, also share more common interests and concerns on multilateral occasions.”

China’s attention shifted to the inaugural CIIE on November 5th: however, media reports emphasized that Japanese companies were the most numerous in attendance. In his keynote address, Xi promised China’s commitment to free trade: “China will never stop its steps toward pushing for a higher-quality opening up!”

The state-directed China Daily glowingly praised the fruits of Abe’s visit: “[I]n reaffirming their commitment to peace and friendship, China and Japan have signaled to the world that they will stand together and strive to take to a new level a free and fair trading system.”
The nationalist Global Times was optimistic about the meeting, but warned that interference from the United States remains a major hurdle to solidifying ties: “Washington’s intervention in the relationship is sometimes overt and sometimes imperceptible. One of the tasks of the US’ East Asia policy is to prevent closer Sino-Japanese ties in order to consolidate Washington’s own political and military presence in the region.”
Cary Huang, a senior writer at the independent South China Morning Post, compared Japanese Prime Minister Abe’s meetings with President Xi and Prime Minister Modi in an op-ed: “This week’s events and the increasingly close Tokyo-New Delhi partnership are sure to stoke Chinese anxieties. The world is witnessing an emerging alliance of ‘like-minded’ free democracies, led by the US, to counter-check China’s so-called challenge to the liberal-capitalist international order.”
Gao Hong, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, highlighted the potential for cooperation between the two countries in an op-ed for the China Daily: “In the field of economic collaboration, China and Japan’s pledge to expand cooperation in third party markets is quite significant. By cooperating in this way, the two countries will have a new way to strengthen ties.”
The official media outlet for the Communist Party of China, the People’s Daily, hailed the CIIE: “China has transformed itself from a beneficiary of opening up into a performer of international responsibilities, a provider of global public goods, as well as a contributor and an advocate for economic globalization and trade liberalization.”
TheGlobal Times fired back at “fault-finding reports” that claimed the CIIE was an effort to offset the effects of the US-China trade war: “We believe that the CIIE, if held regularly, will help China enhance the quality of its imports and balance its imports and exports. China doesn’t need to care what the outside world thinks of the expo, nor should it intentionally enhance the volume of transactions as a proof of kindness.”
In the wake of President-Elect Jair Bolsonaro’s victory in Brazil, the Global Times assured its readers in an editorial that despite his China-bashing rhetoric during the campaign, “It’s inconceivable that the new Bolsonaro government would give up on the Chinese market,” and emphasized that the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) forum is evidence of political parity between the two countries.

JAPAN

In his meeting with President Xi, Prime Minister Abe expressed his optimism for the future: “It is hoped that through this visit, the two sides will usher in a new era when ‘competition is transformed into coordination.” Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono accompanied Abe to Beijing and met with his counterpart, Foreign Minister Wang Yi. During their meeting, the two “reaffirmed their determination to make the East China Sea a ‘Sea of Peace, Cooperation, and Friendship.’” China and Japan’s territorial dispute in the area, which flared in late 2010 and continued to worsen through 2013, is largely blamed for the tension between the two countries in recent years.

Abe’s meetings with Prime Minister Modi resulted in the signing of a new vision document and twenty-five memorandums of understanding and cooperation (detailed summaries available here), as well as an Exchange of Notes Concerning Yen Loans to India which amount to over 316.4 billion yen (approximately USD 2.79 million). Abe notably invited Modi to an informal dinner at a private venue overlooking Lake Yamanaka, providing a stark contrast to the strictly formal ceremonies with President Xi.

The left-leaning Mainichi Shimbun was cynical about Abe’s efforts in China: “We have to wonder about how sincere the handshakes between the leaders actually were even though they appeared pretty firm.”
The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun meanwhile called for the government not to back down against China, arguing that it was Japan’s responsibility “to frankly point out to Beijing problems about China and repeatedly urge the country to observe international rules.”
Regarding Modi’s visit, the centrist Japan Times urged the two countries not to isolate China: “Japan and India do not need to pursue closer relations to serve as a counterweight to China. Japan should seek deeper cooperation with India as part of a diverse and broad-based diplomacy in Asia.”
The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun, on the other hand, was supportive of Japan and India’s efforts to “balance” against China’s “self-serving actions”: “Japan, which is Asia’s second-largest economy, and India, which is its third-largest, share common values such as freedom and the rule of law. It is understandable that both Japan and India, by reconfirming their partnership, aim at maintaining the balance between itself and China.”

INDIA

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi met with Prime Minister Abe in Japan on October 28th and October 29th. At a press conference with Abe, Modi characterized the relationship between India and Japan as being “based on the shared commitment to democratic values, independence, and rule of law” and as “expanding continuously.” In addition to the aforementioned agreements between India and Japan, Modi and Abe agreed to pursue an acquisition and cross-servicing agreement (ACSA) for strengthening security cooperation.

The center-right Times of India praised the outcomes of the Modi-Abe meeting: “The vision document signed by the two prime ministers reinforces the idea of a rule based world order and rejection of Chinese expansionism, visible both in the South China Sea and through ambitious moves like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).”
Retired naval chief of staff Arun Prakash called for expectations of the Modi-Abe meeting to “remain anchored in reality” in his op-ed for the liberal Indian Express: “There is […] a sense of dissatisfaction in New Delhi that the Indo-Japanese relationship has remained below potential, and that Japan does not accord due importance to India in its security calculus.”
Former Indian Ambassador to South Korea Vishnu Prakash highlighted one potential area for improvement in an op-ed for the liberal Hindustan Times: “Despite a CEPA [Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement], bilateral trade has dipped 6.21% to $13.61 billion in 2016-17. A correction may be difficult given India’s diffidence in upgrading trade pacts with partner nations.”
With regards to the outcome of the Brazilian election, the Times of India offered words of caution: “In country after country we have seen that divisive and authoritarian rhetoric can help win elections but not reduce inequality or grow opportunities in society. That requires genuine reforms. It is this that the world’s eighth biggest [sic] economy deserves and Bolsonaro should provide.”
The left-leaning Hindu was similarly cynical about the new president: “Mr. Bolsonaro brings to high office the promise to reduce regulation and tax and boost investor confidence, and also the threat to more extensively exploit Brazil’s vast natural resources, including the Amazon rainforest; he has proposed to build a highway through it. This, along with his disdain for the Paris climate change accord, could mark a disturbing departure from Brazil’s historical sensitivity to keeping its precious environmental resources intact.”

BRAZIL

The far-right candidate Jair Bolsonaro beat the Workers’ Party candidate Fernando Haddad in the runoff election for the Brazilian presidency on October 28th. Bolsonaro’s victory has called to question how Brazil’s foreign policy will shift given his nationalist platform, especially in terms of the country’s ties with the US, which became strained with US President Donald Trump’s tariffs under the previous administration, and China, which had close ties to the previous administration but was a frequent target of Bolsonaro’s campaign rhetoric.

In an interview with BBC News Brazil, Thomas Shannon, former US Ambassador to Brazil, provided optimistic insight to how Brazil’s bilateral ties with the US could be improved under Bolsonaro’s presidency. On trade, Bolsonaro advocates for a greater opening of the Brazilian market to US investment.
Steve Bannon, Trump’s former chief strategist, also served as a political strategist for Bolsonaro and declared to the Folha de Sao Paulo newspaper that the “enlightened capitalism,” “economic nationalism,” and “far-right populism” to be promoted by Bolsonaro’s government plan will be a complement to the United States. Bannon argued that Brazil can serve as a nationalist, populist bastion in the region in contrast to the challenges faced by neighbors Venezuela and Argentina.
G1’s online portal reported that Bolsonaro has confirmed that he will honor a controversial campaign promise to move the Brazilian Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
In an editorial, political scientist Matias Spektor provided analysis on the potential disruptions to the Brazil-China relationship. Bolsonaro vowed a major shake-up in Brazil’s bilateral interactions with China, with the aim of slowing the Asian giant’s dominance in the country through privatization of state-owned enterprises.

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

Rising Powers Condemn US Exit from INF Treaty

Policy Alert #176 | October 30, 2018

On October 19th, the New York Times reported that the United States was preparing to announce its exit from the 1987 Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) ahead of US National Security Advisor John R. Bolton’s visit to Moscow. US President Donald Trump raised the issue at a campaign rally in Nevada on October 20th: “Russia has violated the agreement. They have been violating it for many years. And we’re not going to let them violate a nuclear agreement and go out and do weapons and we’re not allowed to.” Speaking to reporters, Trump claimed that one of the reasons for the withdrawal was China’s lack of participation, even though the INF Treaty was a bilateral agreement between the US and Russia. At a press conference in Moscow on October 23rd, Bolton explained that the US’s concerns began during the previous administration of President Barack Obama and emphasized the discussion of withdrawal was motivated by Russian violations: “The problem is there are Russian INF-violating missiles in Europe now. The threat is not American withdrawal from the INF Treaty; the threat is the Russian missiles already deployed.” At the press conference, Bolton confirmed that the US would file its official withdrawal “in due course.”

RUSSIA

During his meeting with Bolton, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin quipped, “As I recall, there is a bald eagle pictured on the US coat of arms: it holds 13 arrows in one talon and an olive branch in the other as a symbol of peaceful policy: a branch with 13 olives. My question: has your eagle already eaten all the olives leaving only the arrows?” Kremlin Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov denied US allegations that Russia was in violation of the treaty: “We absolutely disagree that Russia violates the INF Treaty. Russia was and remains committed to this treaty’s provisions.” Spokesperson Peskov also expressed Russia’s objection to terminating the treaty without a viable substitute: “Certainly, there are bottlenecks. But ruining the treaty in a situation where even hints at concluding a new one do not exist is something that we do not welcome.” In response to concerns about the fate of the renewal of the 2010 US-Russia New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), which is due to expire in 2021, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov explained his country’s efforts to initiate renewal negotiations: “We have expressed more than once, including through the statements by President Vladimir Putin, our readiness, as is stipulated by the Treaty itself, to extend its effect after 2021, when the first ten years of its operation expire.”

Retired Colonel Mikhail Khodarenok called for calm in an op-ed for government-funded RT. Khodarenok pointed out that past withdrawals from nuclear agreements have not resulted in nuclear war, such as the US exit from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABMT): “It has been over 16 years since they did withdraw from it, back in June 2002. Still no sign of Armageddon.”
State-owned Sputnik News highlighted objections to the move from scholars and politicians outside Russia, including President of the Pacific Forum at the Center for Strategic Studies Ralph Cossa, Members of the European Parliament, President of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University Peter Kuznick, and Director of the Arms Control Association Daryl Kimball.
Dmitry Sudakov, a contributor at the nationalist Pravda Report, echoed the call for cooler heads to prevail. Sudakov argued that Russia has repeatedly confirmed its commitment to retaliatory strikes only and pointed out the country’s limitations in any new arms races: “One cannot say that the Russian economy is much more stable than the Soviet one. Another arms race for Russia is just as dangerous now as it used to be for the Soviet Union, especially if oil prices go down again.”
The independent, Dutch-owned Moscow Times featured an op-ed by Lenoid Bershidsky, Bloomberg Opinion columnist, founding editor of both the Russian business daily Vedomosti and opinion website Slon. Bershidsky dismissed Trump’s efforts as outdated, both in terms of strategic utility and international norms: “Even if Trump still lives in the 1980s, the rest of the world has moved on. New times no longer favor blunt instruments like indiscriminate spending. Diplomacy is potentially more useful.”

CHINA

During a press conference on October 22, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying offered a carefully worded statement of disappointment in the US’s intended withdrawal from the INF Treaty that also communicated Beijing’s desire to be left of out the discussion, given that it is not party to the Treaty: “Unilaterally withdrawing from the treaty will cause many negative effects. What needs to be stressed is that making an issue out of China on withdrawing from the treaty is totally wrong. We hope that the relevant country can cherish the hard-won outcomes achieved over the years, prudently and properly handle the issues related to the treaty through dialogue and consultation and think twice before pulling out.”

The China Daily, a state-directed media outlet, pointed out the flawed logic of the Trump administration’s references to China in its reasoning for withdrawal: “Despite it being a bilateral treaty, Trump cited China among the reasons he was pulling the US out of the agreement. The hostility he has adopted toward China means that it will also feel the need to enhance its missile deployment. […] But that has nothing to do with the US-Russia INF Treaty, and should be handled independently. Mixing the two essentially unrelated matters will do nothing except worsen strategic mistrust and breathe further life into a new Cold War.” A China Daily political cartoon echoed concerns that the US withdrawal from the INF Treaty is merely the first move in the US’s efforts to unleash a nuclear arms race by depicting New Start as the next line to be cut.
Diao Daming, an associate professor of international relations at Renmin University of China, argued that Trump’s calculus in the decision was motivated by the upcoming midterm elections in the US and the need to posture against Russia “to gain the upper hand on Syria and Iran.” Diao criticized the move, however: “It should be noted that the US is seeking the upper hand at the cost of Europe’s sense of security and amid escalating conflicts between NATO and Russia. Besides, the move might have a domino effect and damage the international society’s faith in achieving nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. Thus there is good reason to call Trump’s move ‘dangerous.’”
Zhao Minghao, a senior research fellow with The Charhar Institute and adjunct fellow at the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University of China, penned an op-ed for the nationalist Global Times that was less optimistic about US intentions: “The withdrawal may be just a prelude to the US destruction of global nuclear disarmament and arms control systems. The Pentagon is stepping up research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons and comprehensively upgrading US nuclear arsenal. The Trump administration has made it clear it will significantly reduce the threshold for nuclear weapons use, which will inevitably increase the risk of nuclear conflict. […] Apart from the trade war, the Taiwan question and the South China Sea issue, the potential disruption of strategic stability may become a new source of friction between Beijing and Washington.”

JAPAN

In a press conference on October 22nd, Chief Cabinet Secretary of Japan Yoshihide Suga expressed his country’s regret at the US’s decision and emphasized that the potential threat to Japanese security: “Changes in the international security environment are crucial to the peace and stability of our country. We will carefully observe the moves of the US and Russia, and would also like to hold diplomatic discussions between Japan and the US.” The worsening of US-Russian relations over the INF Treaty may also complicate Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s attempts to improve Japan’s ties with Russia.

The left-leaning Mainichi Shimbun lamented the US withdrawal and grimly considered the consequences for the renewal of New START: “Abolishing these two treaties, which are among the few instruments preventing nuclear arms races, would kick-start military buildups observed during the Cold War, and a new nuclear state might emerge out of the struggle. Washington’s departure from the INF treaty will only undercut its efforts to denuclearize North Korea. […] Washington, Moscow and Beijing, the latter of whose nuclear forces are far more powerful than 30 years ago, should pursue serious negotiations to reduce their nuclear arms.”
The centrist Japan Times urged the US to pursue preservation of the INF Treaty to maintain the current stability in Asia: “Russia is likely cheating on the INF, but that is no reason to abandon the treaty yet. […] Japan was rightly concerned at the time of its negotiation that the INF agreement would allow Russia to withdraw weapons from Europe and redeploy them to Asia. Russia has largely chosen not to do so but if the INF is abandoned, Moscow would have no incentive to restrain deployments in Europe and Asia.”
The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun was more forgiving of the Trump administration’s efforts: “Even if the United States complies with the spirit of the treaty, if Russia and China continue their military buildup, it would become difficult for the United States and its allies to maintain their deterrence. The global security order that has been formed under U.S. leadership could also collapse. It is understandable for Trump to harbor such a sense of crisis.” Nevertheless, the Yomiuri called for the Japanese government to “move realistic nuclear disarmament forward” through diplomacy.

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

Rising Powers Turn to Bilateral Ties

Policy Alert #175 | October 15, 2018

In the past few weeks, attention within the Rising Powers has been on strengthening–or at least soothing–bilateral relations. The common motivating factor: the United States. Vice President Mike Pence stoked fury from China with his scathing comments about China in a speech at the Hudson Institute in Washington, D.C., on October 4th that accused the country of a variety of ills, including sponsorship of “the wholesale theft of American technology” and plans to interfere in the upcoming midterm elections. India diversified its strategic partnerships with a five billion dollar deal with Russia amidst uncertainty about the US’s intentions and commitments. Debates in Japan over the US military bases in Okinawa have flared again as the country seeks to strengthen ties with regional partners as the US stands on the sidelines. Meanwhile, Brazil’s presidential election has entered a run-off between far-right Jair Bolsonaro and the liberal Fernando Haddad, who have opposing foreign policy platforms. In this week’s Policy Alert, we lend an ear to the Rising Powers’ frustrations and hopes.

CHINA

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo arrived in China on October 8th under the shadow of increased tensions between the two countries. In addition to the ongoing trade war and Pence’s remarks, Chinese and American naval destroyers came within 45 yards of each other in the South China Seas on September 30th. In response to Pence’s speech, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying stated, “The relevant speech made unwarranted accusations against China’s domestic and foreign policies and slandered China by claiming that China meddles in US internal affairs and elections. […] We are committed to joining hands with the US to work for non-conflict, non-confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation. We urge the US to correct its wrongdoing, stop groundlessly accusing and slandering China and harming China’s interests and China-US ties, and take concrete actions to maintain the sound and steady development of China-US relations.” At a press conference with Pompeo, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi reiterated his country’s frustrations and hopes for resolution: “[A]s the United States continuously escalates trade frictions with China, it has also taken a series of actions that undermine China’s rights and interests regarding Taiwan and other issues, and made groundless accusations against China’s domestic and foreign policies. We believe such practice directly impacts our mutual trust. It casts a shadow over the prospects of China-U.S. relations and completely runs against the interests of the peoples of both countries. We ask the United States to stop these kinds of erroneous practices.”

The People’s Daily, the official paper of the Communist Party of China, dismissed Pence’s claim that China’s development “was driven by American investment in China” as “hilarious” in a blistering editorial: “China’s development is by no means ‘driven by US investment in China,’ as some US politicians claim. It has been achieved by more than a billion Chinese people who have worked hard. Even when it comes to investing in China, […d]ata shows that since the 1980s, US investments in China only account for 7 percent to 10 percent of foreign investment. On the contrary, the US has made a lot of money from investing in China.”
The nationalist Global Times maintained a relatively tempered response in its editorials. Criticisms of US policy focused on China’s right to self determination: “[T]he US should respect China’s right to development. It’s morally despicable to stop 1.4 billion people from marching toward prosperity and it is impossible to do so in reality.” However, the Times maintained that the best course of action was to synergize, rather than compete: “As great countries, China and the US should become the driving force for human society rather than fighting with each other. Such rationality should become the mainstay of China-US relations during their ups and downs.”
The China Daily, a state-supported newspaper, offered some conciliatory remarks on Pompeo’s efforts: “It was heartening […] after Pence’s rant, that Pompeo said that US does not oppose China’s development, has no intention of blocking China, nor does it have a comprehensive policy to contain China. As he acknowledged, it is important that the two sides strengthen communication, enhance trust and strengthen their cooperation on the basis of rules.”

INDIA

Russian President Vladimir Putin visited India on October 4th, and the two countries agreed to space cooperation, Russian support for a new nuclear power plant, and a five billion dollar contract for India to buy five S-400 Triumf missiles for its air defenses. Following a question about the deal, US President Donald Trump warned that India “will soon find out” how the US will respond to the seeming violation of the 2017 Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA). In a press statement with President Putin, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi offered warm words for the strength of the two countries’ ties: “India and Russia are unanimous in strengthening multi-polarity and multilateralism in this rapidly changing world. Both our countries have common interests in cooperating on terrorism, developments in Afghanistan and Indo-pacific, climate change, regional organizations like SCO, BRICS and multilateral organizations like the G20 and ASEAN. We have agreed to continue our beneficial cooperation and coordination in international institutions.” The Chinese Embassy in New Delhi also hosted a press conference to answer inquiries about trade tensions with the US in which Counselor Ji Rong called for India and China to “deepen their cooperation to fight trade protectionism.”

The left-leaning Hindu supported India’s resistance to pressure to put “all its eggs in one strategic basket” by both agreeing to the Russian deal despite the threat of CAATSA and limiting the deal to the five missiles, but warned that such maneuvers will become more difficult: “New Delhi’s assertion of ‘strategic autonomy’ and desire for multipolarity will be seriously tested in the coming months. […] It is one thing to reinforce long-standing and close friendships as Mr. Modi did during his annual summit with the Russian President this month, and with the Iranian President earlier this year, or with the U.S. President last year — the situation can be much more complex when friends expect you to choose between them.”
The center-right Times of India echoed its approval for the deal, however, it argued against riling the US further by getting involved in the US-China trade war: “[I]ndia must exhibit caution in its response to Chinese overtures now that Beijing is in trouble. It must not unsettle its newly established strategic relationship with the US for minimal gains, even as China’s offer to ease some non-tariff barriers looks currently appealing.”
The liberal Hindustan Times, on the other hand, supported Indian cooperation with China: “India has a larger responsibility to protect an equitable multilateral trade order that helps its growth and the economic development of other countries in South Asia. Cooperating with China could be part of such efforts, although India will have to take care to ensure it is not seen as a member of some sort of club led by China. It should do everything to retain its options and strategies for independent action even as it works with other countries to protect and defend free trade.”

JAPAN

Japan has been busy bolstering bilateral ties in recent weeks. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe hosted the Tenth Mekong-Japan Summit Meeting with his counterparts from Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, and Vietnam on October 9th. Foreign Minister Taro Kono and Defense Minister Takeshi Iwaya meanwhile met with their Australian counterparts for a two-plus-two security dialogue on October 10th. The joint statement reaffirms the two countries’ interests in cooperating on enhancing maritime security and regional connectivity in the Indo-Pacific. Prime Minister Abe and Foreign Minister Kono also met with Secretary Pompeo in Tokyo on October 6th in preparation for Pompeo’s next stop in North Korea. Secretary Pompeo’s visit was largely overshadowed by the results of Okinawa Prefecture’s gubernatorial election, however. Denny Tamaki, the successor-designate of the late Governor Takeshi Onaga, won the election and intends to continue Onaga’s activism against US military bases in the prefecture.

Regarding the Mekong-Japan Summit, the conservative Yomiuri Shimbun praised the Abe administration’s “intention to assist” Myanmar in resolving the Rohingya issue through housing construction and participation in an independent investigation: “It is imperative for Japan to sustain Myanmar, which is isolated from the international community, and encourage it to steadily advance democracy.” The Yomiuri gave credit to Japan and Australia for securing “the stability of Asia”: “The necessity for Japan and Australia to broaden their cooperation with each other in the sphere of security, and deepen their connections, has grown further” in the wake of US foreign policy that puts the US economy first.
The Japan Times was supportive of the Abe administration’s efforts to woo the countries of the Mekong River, however, it reminded the government not to forget its commitment to liberal values: “None of them are strong democracies and their governments instinctively lean toward Beijing on questions of governance and human rights. Japan cannot ignore those principles to engage these countries. Rather it must work with them and help them realize their value. Turning a blind eye will only undermine Japan’s position in those countries and in the world.”
Takayasu Endo of the Mainichi Shimbun’s Naha Bureau, citing Tamaki’s unexpected, landslide victory that was akin to Onaga’s victory in 2014, called for the current efforts to relocate US Marine Corps Air Station Futenma to another area of Okinawa to be revisited: “The central government and mainland Japan should no longer disappoint Okinawa people.”
The left-leaning Asahi Shimbun criticized the government for “creat[ing] a deep rift among Okinawa’s population with its political approach of treating those who obey kindly but snubbing those who object” to the bases. The Asahi called for the government to seriously pursue the renegotiation of the Japan-US Status of Forces Agreement that includes meaningful dialogue with Okinawan residents, which was a platform supported by both Governor Tamaki and his opponent who was backed by the Abe administration.

BRAZIL

The far-right presidential candidate Jair Bolsonaro, who won the first round of the Brazilian elections held on October 7th, intends to restore political and trade alliances with the United States, according to the Folha de Sao Paulo newspaper. In addition to being a strong supporter of President Trump, Bolsonaro has repeated his intentions to strengthen ties with developed countries. Nevertheless, there are concerns that the U.S. would not reciprocate such an agenda.
The opposing presidential candidate Fernando Haddad plans to prioritize increasing the collaboration with the Latin American neighbors and reactivating “south-south” cooperation, if elected. Haddad’s trade policy aligns with the previous Worker Party’s presidential terms under Dilma Rousseff and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s governments. O Globo featured Haddad’s other prospective projects in a recent editorial.
The business newspaper Valor Economico covered the criticism made by President Donald Trump against Brazil during the official announcement of the new US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) trade deal that will replace NAFTA. The newspaper argued that Trump will be displeased with Brazil’s unfair treatment of US companies, as the country allegedly taxed American products without objective parameters. Valor Economico suggested that revised tariffs and other measures should be taken to correct the unbalanced bilateral relations between the two countries.

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

Rising Powers Brace for Latest Shots in US Trade War

Policy Alert #174 | September 27, 2018

The United States’ latest round of tariffs against China took effect on September 24th, clocking in at approximately $200 billion worth of goods. The tariff will begin at 10 percent, then rise to 25 percent on January 1, 2019. As the battle wages on, are the Rising Powers feeling the heat?

CHINA

China held low-level trade talks with the US late last month amidst smaller tariffs entering into effect, but the effort was unsuccessful in achieving a ceasefire. Ahead of the new sanctions, the Information Office of the State Council published a white paper on US-China trade relations (full text available from Xinhua here) that praises the two countries’ prior economic relations and reiterates China’s positions in the current dispute.

The People’s Daily, the official paper of the Communist Party of China, echoed the sentiments of the white paper with a careful emphasis on cooperation rather than competition: “The economic and trade relations between the two countries concern the well-being of the two peoples as well as world peace, prosperity, and stability. To deal with China-US economic and trade frictions and promote reasonable solutions, it is important to enhance mutual trust, promote cooperation, and control differences. Cooperation is the only right choice, and a win-win situation can and will lead to a better future.”
Amidst the state-directed China Daily’s flurry of editorials responding to the new tariffs, the paper reaffirmed its support for resisting the US: “The trade conflict will not force China to succumb to US pressure. Instead, given its economic resilience, it will squarely face those challenges, find the right solutions, and emerge stronger.”
The nationalist Global Times called for China to stay the course on international cooperation and free trade, asserting that the US will eventually succumb to the ills of its protectionist policies: “China should continue cooperating with the Western world and the US on climate change, anti-terrorism, nuclear nonproliferation, global poverty and stabilizing the financial situation. As long as China keeps its development momentum, the US is doomed to lose the trade war.”

JAPAN

On Wednesday, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe met with US President Donald Trump on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly. The meeting resulted in the announcement that Japan and the US would begin negotiating a bilateral free trade agreement.

Prior to the announcement, the conservative Yomiuri Shimbun encouraged the government to take the high road and work to resolve Japan’s own trade concerns with the US diplomatically: “Japan must not let its bilateral conflict with the United States devolve into a quagmire, as China’s did. It is important to make the Japan-U.S. negotiations a venue for constructive discussion, which would contribute to the economic growth of both countries.”
The Japan Times lamented the continuation of the US-China trade tensions: “[A]s trade between the U.S. and China slows, Japanese companies that produce in China or sell in the U.S. will be severely impacted. It is a recipe for a slow-motion catastrophe, one that we hope can be contained. At this moment, the outlook is bleak.”
The liberal-leaning Mainichi Shimbun was similarly pessimistic about the ramifications a prolonged trade war between the US and China: “It is possible that Trump could trigger a global recession that would deal a serious blow to his own people and U.S. companies. […] Washington should seek a solution through dialogue. Meanwhile, Japan should work together with Europe and others to call for restraint by the warring parties.”

INDIA

The center-right Times of India attempted to find a silver lining for India amidst the escalation of the trade dispute: “[T]he fallout of the trade war between US and China provides a country like India opportunities which didn’t exist a few months ago. As US and EU companies with a large manufacturing base in China seek to de-risk their operations by shifting some of it out, India must be in the game. So far, it’s the more nimble Vietnam and other southeast Asian nations which have cornered benefits.”
The left-leaning Hindu, on the other hand, focused on the effects for the international community, which was less rosy: “[E]ven if countries can avoid some of the punitive costs of this battle, global institutions such as the WTO and a myriad other multilateral rule-making bodies will wither away, losing their authority. […] This would, in the much-longer term, be a loss for the world community of nations, many of whom have worked hard to establish and credentialise the post-World War order precisely in order to stave off the dark forces of parochialism that engendered the horrors of that period.”

RUSSIA

Vasily Amirjanov, contributor to the nationalist Pravda Report, mused in an op-ed on the US’s growing list of sanctions and tariff targets that “the Statue of Liberty will have to be dismantled when the USA imposes sanctions on all countries of the world in an effort to counter its adversaries.”
State-owned Sputnik News featured interviews with Zhao Xijun, a finance professor with the Renmin University of China, and Guan Zhisheng, an assistant professor of economics at Sun Yat-sen University, in which the scholars asserted that despite the trade dispute, China would avoid restricting investment and business operations of US companies in China.

Rising Powers’ Economic Engagement Picks Up Speed-and More Questions

Policy Alert #173 | September 13, 2018

This month marks the fifth anniversary of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), initially announced as the New Silk Road Economic Belt in September 2013. As China celebrated the BRI at a special forum on August 27th, and wooed its African partners at the 2018 Beijing Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) days later, economic ministers of the members of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which includes China, India, and Japan, met in Singapore to iron out details before its planned launch by the end of this year. In this RPI Policy Alert, we catch up on the recent developments in the Rising Powers’ efforts to improve connectivity and trade in the Indo-Pacific ahead of our panel “The Indo-Pacific and Regional Trends: Towards Connectivity or Conflict?” later this month.

CHINA

At the celebration of the Belt and Road Initiative, Chinese President Xi Jinping claimed that the BRI’s defining characteristic is its unprecedented inclusiveness: “[The BRI] does not differentiate countries by ideology nor play the zero-sum game. As long as countries are willing to join, they are welcome.” The highlight of the 2018 FOCAC was the announcement of $60 billion of financing to African countries for eight major initiatives. In addition to projects to improve infrastructure and trade, China will also be assisting with green development, healthcare, and human capacity improvements, which closely mirrors the goals of India and Japan’s Asia-Africa Growth Corridor, which was announced in May 2017. Xi emphasized China’s “five-no” approach in China’s relations with Africa, which seemed to be a counter to foreign criticism of the country’s alleged exploitation of BRI recipient countries.

An editorial in the People’s Daily, the official paper of the Communist Party of China, hailed the FOCAC as a success, and called for support of Xi’s efforts: “It is not only an important move to implement Xi’s thought on the diplomacy of socialism with Chinese characteristics for a new era, but also a centennial project in the history of international relations and exchanges with human civilizations.” One article in the People’s Daily explained how infrastructure projects through the BRI are already benefiting African countries. Coverage of the BRI anniversary heavily featured the project’s purported success in bringing European goods to China and vice versa.
The state-supported China Daily went out of its way to describe China’s approach to aid in Africa as uniquely beneficial for recipient countries: “China is not the only one making promises to Africa. But what is special about those from Beijing is, they are not made with the intention of imposing its will on African countries. […] In a show of good faith, Xi simultaneously wrote off inter-government interest-free debts due at year’s end that are owed by the least developed and heavily indebted poor countries”.
The China Daily also featured an op-ed by Evaristus M. Irandu, associate professor at the University of Nairobi, in which he praised China’s “five-no” policies: “By not interfering in the internal affairs of African states or attaching conditions for financial assistance, and letting them choose the path of development that best suits their national conditions, Xi has re-affirmed that China is a real ‘friend in need’ for Africa.”
Nationalist Global Times meanwhile pushed back against criticism abroad of China’s programs in Africa. “Although Western media has made groundless accusations on the relationship, Africa’s evaluation has been decisive. When Africa welcomes Chinese investment, the high volume of opposition fades into noise,” one proudly claimed. Another took offense to the suggestion that China was participating in “neocolonialism”: “Some Westerners made up rhetoric about Chinese colonialism in Africa. They accused China of plundering resources in Africa and leading countries into a debt trap. But African countries are sniffing at such accusations.”
The independent South China Morning Post was cautiously supportive of the BRI and China’s investments in Africa, but alert to reservations from Africa. In one editorial, the Post praised Xi’s “pledge to expand imports beyond resources needed to fuel China’s industrial economy” in response to South African President Cyril Ramaphosa’s warning that China’s trade relationships were imbalanced. Post contributor Kinling Lo reported on US-based AidData’s findings that China’s BRI investments correlate strongly to measurable growth in gross national product, whereas World Bank projects do not. However, Post journalist Sarah Zheng also reported government censors furiously removing criticisms of the country’s investments in Africa on online forums such as Weibo. One comment from Zheng’s reporting read, “You should first raise your own children. My God, there have been so many natural and man-made casualties recently, can you please take a look at our low-income people?”

INDIA

The left-leaning Hindu called on the government to maintain its commitment to the RCEP despite the issues that remain, namely, the current trade deficit with China and what a free trade agreement that includes the country would mean for India: “[Leaving the RCEP talks] would cut India out of the rules-making process for the RCEP and give China further space in the regional trade and security architecture. At a time when the US has broken from the global concord on multilateral trade agreements, an Indian walkout would endanger the united message that RCEP countries […] would like to send out. It would also be a sharp departure from India’s ‘Act East’ slogan and its extended outreach to ASEAN.”
Former Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran echoed these concerns in an op-ed for the liberal Hindustan Times. In response to those who speculated that India should leverage its size for more amenable treatment, such as the gradual opening of its markets, Saran put foreign policy first: “Regional economic integration is an indispensable component of the Act East policy. India cannot sustain an expanding political and security role in the Indo-Pacific with a shrinking economic role. […] Opting out of RCEP may push India irretrievably on the margins of Asia.”
Ahead of the bilateral meeting between the Indian and Chinese Defense Ministers in late August, the pro-government Daily Pioneer called for the US-Australia-India-Japan “quad” to form a formal alliance with clear policies in order to “counterbalance” China as its influence in the Indo-Pacific spreads: “Whatever our views on Beijing’s domestic policies, structures and governance model, the fact is that global real-politik and the national interests of all four countries in the Quad require the proto alliance to confine its dynamic to engaging exclusively for the foreseeable future with China’s external policies — its expansionist impulse, desire to gain strategic depth as a rising world power and quasi-hegemonic ambitions. To do that, members of the Quad also need to control anti-Beijing hotheads within precisely because a conformation with China is in nobody’s interest while international cooperation with an effectively contained Beijing certainly is.”

JAPAN

In its review of the Belt and Road Initiative’s first five years, the center-right Japan Times acknowledged the allegations that China is ensnaring recipient countries into “debt traps” and securing “unfair advantages” to its businesses, but ultimately advocated for Japan and other major players in the region to cooperate: “The truth […] is that Asia’s infrastructure needs greatly exceed that which any single government or country can provide. A cooperative, coordinated effort is the only practical response. Japan, the U.S. and Australia, along with European governments, should be working with China in various international financial institutions to fill local needs while promoting international best practices.”
The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun criticized China’s current development aid practices in Africa and described Xi’s “five-no” policies as “problematic.” However, the Yomiuri supported Japan’s efforts to lead by example and encourage better practices from China through cooperation: “There are likely many elements of Japan’s assistance that China should adopt in its own. Japan, which is not as strong as China in terms of financial power, is avoiding excessive rivalry with China over winning [infrastructure] orders, while also exploring ways to cooperate with that country. Japan is calling on China to participate in Japan-led projects, such as one to build major roads linking West African countries.”
Regarding the ministerial meeting for RCEP, the Yomiuri advocated for Japan to “exercise leadership in the RCEP talks” given its success in resuscitating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) following the US’s hasty exit. The Yomiuri also cautioned against allowing negotiations to water down the agreement: “[P]referential treatment cannot be given even to China and India, both large economies. It is necessary to avoid an agreement whose level has been lowered just so it can be concluded in a hurry, and a move that would reduce the advantages of reaching such an accord.”

RUSSIA

Aydin Mehtiyev, a correspondent for the nationalist Pravda Report, claimed that China’s BRI investments in the Middle East and Central Asia are a threat to both Russia and the US’s strategic interests in the region: “China’s ultimate goal is to oust Russia and the United States from the Middle East by creating a gigantic financial web that will put the countries of the Middle East […] in economic dependence on China.”
Lyuba Lulko, another Pravda Report contributor, meanwhile argued that Russia has better things to do than work with the US to counter China: “Washington cannot wage a war on two fronts either financially or morally, but the Americans still try to do it. A normal dialogue in the US-Russian relations can begin only after the White House and Congress understand that Russia is one of the world’s poles of power with its rights and interests, rather than a geopolitical supporter for ‘deterring China.’”
State-owned Sputnik News interviewed Ekaterina Arapova, a researcher at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, for her thoughts on what the driving motivations are behind RCEP: “[T]he recent actions by the US administration, including the sanctions war against Russia and the US withdrawal from the TPP, indicate, first and foremost, that the present system of global trade regulation, led by the World Trade Organization (WTO), does not exercise its functions. In these conditions, other players, especially such large countries as China, are concerned about the chaos that has engulfed the world trading system. Therefore, they are trying to find some alternative mechanisms for global or regional trade regulation.” Sputnik’s article characterized RCEP as China’s “new powerful tool to counter Trump’s trade offensive” and suggested that other states, such as Japan, are late comers to the agreement. However, RCEP was a mutually announced endeavor by the ten member states of ASEAN and its six free trade agreement partners at the 21st ASEAN Summit in 2012.

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

First Wave of Iran Sanctions Trigger Objections from Rising Powers

Policy Alert #172 | August 14, 2018

On August 6, 2018, the United States re-imposed the first set of economic sanctions on Iran as part of its exit from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). These initial sanctions included the ban of transactions with Iran using US banknotes, precious metals, passenger aircraft, and Iranian-made products like carpets and automobiles. The second wave of sanctions, which will include penalties to companies in third countries that continue to do business with Iran and sanctions against Iranian oil, is scheduled to take effect on November 4, 2018. In response, the European Union (EU) issued an updated Blocking Statute “to protect EU companies doing legitimate business with Iran from the impact of US extra-territorial sanctions.” The Blocking Statute allows affected EU companies to sue the US for damages, but also allows suits against EU companies that back out of Iran. Although the EU’s countermeasures have taken the spotlight, the Rising Powers aren’t taking the development lying down.

CHINA

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) strongly disapproved of the US’s re-imposition of sanctions on Iran. Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lu Kang said that China opposed unilateral sanctions and “long-arm jurisdiction,” and stressed China’s own transparent and normal relations with Iran. The MFA reiterated its stance that US and Iran should resolve their issues through normal channels: “China always believes that reckless imposition of sanctions or threatening to use them will not help solve the issues. The only viable way out of the issues is through dialogue and negotiation.”

An editorial in the state-directed China Daily expressed consternation with the sanctions: “The US does not regard and treat other countries as deserving of respect. With such a mentality, the US government believes it can do whatever it pleases as it considers itself to be exceptional and above others.” Another Daily editorial argued that “the unilateral action by Washington at a time when Iran has not violated its nuclear deal lacks a moral basis and legal justification.”
The nationalist Global Times characterized the re-imposition of sanctions as “an end to the era of solving problems through peaceful negotiations in the Middle East.”
The independent South China Morning Post called for the international community to resist the US’s efforts to undermine the JCPOA: “As long as Tehran complies with the accord by limiting its nuclear activities and allowing UN inspections of facilities, signatories should do their best to thwart the sanctions.”
Wang Jin, a research fellow at the Charhar Institute and Northwest University, penned an op-ed for state-owned CGTN which stated that, “With the unyielding and steadfast adherence of China, Russia and European states’ commitment to the JCPOA, Iran is not alone in the international arena.[…] New sanctions might bring economic hardship to Iran, but not make Iran succumb to Donald Trump’s wishful expectations.”

INDIA

Following the India-Iran Foreign Office Consultations on July 15, 2018, the Ministry of External Affairs published a press release that among other topics, “Views were […] exchanged on regional and international issues of mutual interest, including the efforts being made by various Parties to address issues that have arisen over the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.” The press release also announced the two countries’ intentions to hold another Joint Commission meeting in Iran in November 2018.

Vikram S. Mehta, Chairman of Brookings India, wrote in an op-ed for the liberal Indian Express that India can securely “stay true to its principles” on Iran because “Trump’s demand is not grounded in law; nor does it have the support of the international community; nor is there any evidence that Iran has failed to comply with the conditions of the JCPOA. [..I]t is not even clear if Trump will stay with his position. He may do a flip-flop once he has appeased his political base”.
In the left-leaning The Hindu, International Affairs Editor Stanly Johny juxtaposed the US’s recent outreach to North Korea against its hostility toward the JCPOA: “[T]he Trump administration is punishing the country which agreed to scuttle its nuclear programme and engaging with the country that built nuclear weapons. The U.S. President is proving Iran’s hardliners right. How will they trust America again?”
Pranab Dhal Samanta, editor of the business-focused Economic Times, called for the Indian government to craft its own plan for dealing with the Iran sanctions to avoid “a very tricky situation in November.” Samanta suggested India do what it could to symbolically comply to minimize the effects of the sanctions domestically, but “it must not allow Washington the comfort to think that it will go with the US all the way. India’s early bird gesture must carry stiff conditions […] because any concession on Iran has a direct bearing on India’s regional strategic environment.”

JAPAN

On August 2, 2018, Foreign Minister Taro Kano reported that he had “welcomed Iran’s continuous execution of the nuclear agreement and stated that Japan would continue to support the nuclear agreement and that the actions and role requested of Iran are critical for realizing regional stability” during a meeting with his Iranian counterpart on the sidelines of the Japan-ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ Meeting. At a press conference following a Cabinet meeting on August 7, 2018, Minister of Economy, Trade, and Industry Hiroshige Seko replied to questions regarding the Iran sanctions that Japan would tenaciously continue its dialogue with the US on the issue to limit adverse effects to Japanese business (Japanese only).

The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun criticized Trump’s actions as being “devoid of proper strategy,” and urged the Japanese government to pursue an exemption waiver: “While cooperating with countries concerned, Japan should continue calling on the United States to exempt it from the sanctions, so Japan can continue importing crude oil from Iran.”
The left-leaning English paper The Japan Times lambasted the US’s action: “Tehran is now theoretically free to disregard the JCPOA and resume its nuclear weapons program. Trump’s unhappiness with the Iran deal is no reason to tear it up — especially when he has no real alternative.”
In an interview with the Nikkei Asian Review, Keio University professor and Iran expert Koichiro Tanaka advised that “the Japanese government should pursue its own diplomatic efforts to secure Iranian crude for companies that can’t make their own moves, instead of following the U.S., which violated the nuclear deal.”

RUSSIA

In a press release, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said that Russia was “deeply disappointed” with the US decision to impose sanctions on Iran: “This is a graphic example of Washington’s continued violation of UN Security Council Resolution 2231 and trampling upon the norms of international law. We denounce any unilateral sanctions in circumvention of the UN Security Council’s decisions, all the more so if they have exterritorial applications and affect the interests of third countries, as is the case with the current US restrictions against Iran. […] We will do everything possible in the interests of preserving and effectively implementing the JCPOA in full measure.”

Lyuba Lulko, a correspondent with the nationalist Pravda Report predicted that the US would eventually “choke on its sanctions” given the global resistance to Washington’s unilateral action. Lulko argued that the EU’s Blocking Regulations to protect the JCPOA and the euro’s place as the second largest reserve currency was evidence that the US had “bitten off more than it could chew” on the issue.
Government-funded RT featured an article by British analyst John Laughland that characterized the EU’s response as demonstrative “that the 28-nation bloc is little but a bumbling old fool in international politics” due to the limits of Blocking Regulations, and another by Irish journalist Finian Cunningham that criticized US narratives on Iranian regime change “as if it’s their divine right.”
State-owned Sputnik News also featured foreign experts in its coverage of the sanctions. German journalist Dr. Ludwig Watzal was “skeptical about the ability of the Europeans to save the deal in the long run” and London-based analyst Lawk Ghafuri suggested that “China and India are the biggest winners in the Iranian sanctions” due to their ability to increase trade with Iran despite the sanctions.

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

Summer of Summits: Rising Powers Convene at BRICS 2018

Policy Alert #171 | August 1, 2018

On July 25-27, 2018, delegations from Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa met in Johannesburg for the 10th BRICS Summit. The resulting Johannesburg Declaration placed a heavy emphasis on trade relations, multilateralism, and the bloc’s commitment to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran, in a stark juxtaposition against recent US foreign policy shifts. The summit included a joint session with delegations from eighteen invited African states as well as sideline bilateral meetings with Argentina, Jamaica, and Turkey, in an apparent continuation of China’s BRICS-Plus format when it hosted the 9th BRICS Summit in September 2017. Despite official statements reiterating the strength and relevancy of the bloc, reception of BRICS in the member Rising Powers remains mixed.

CHINA

In a speech at the BRICS Business forum, Chinese President Xi Jinping expressed high hopes for the bloc’s development initiatives and cooperation: “We BRICS countries should firmly promote an open world economy, be resolute in rejecting unilateralism and protectionism, promote trade and investment liberalization and facilitation, and jointly steer the global economy toward greater openness, inclusiveness, balanced growth and win-win outcomes for all. We should ensure that economic globalization will deliver more benefits. We should help emerging markets and developing countries, African countries and the least developed countries in particular, fully involve themselves in international division of labor and share in the benefits of economic globalization.” Ahead of the BRICS Summit, Xi took the opportunity to visit the United Arab Emirates, Senegal, Rwanda, South Africa, and Mauritius for his first overseas trip following his reelection as president earlier this year, demonstrating China’s commitment to the region through its Belt and Road Initiative.

In an editorial, the nationalist Global Times praised China’s “cooperative” democracy and condemned Western states’ “discriminatory attitudes toward Africa”: “Chinese society deems Africa as a continent full of opportunities and countries there as diplomatic partners. Chinese sincerely believe every African country deserves to be treated cordially and valued. […] Western powers either still treat African countries as their colonies or think them too far away for modernization efforts or national politics.”
The state-directed China Daily hailed President Xi’s efforts at BRICS and in his tour of African states: “China, as a leading beneficiary and proponent of free global trade and multilateral international cooperation, has a particular interest in helping Africa prosper because of its long-standing friendships with African countries.” The Daily also featured op-eds by scholars from other BRICS member states, including Sikhumbuzo Zondi and Evandro Menezes de Carvalho, regarding the bloc’s potential for expanding free trade agreements.
In an op-ed for the People’s Daily, the official newspaper for the Communist Party of China, researchers He Wenping and Hisham Abu Bakr Metwally echoed Xi’s calls for a BRICS-Plus platform to expand cooperation with other developing countries: “The BRICS Plus model is likely to go beyond the boundaries of the current BRICS framework, creating a new platform for cooperation among countries across different continents. Cooperation among the BRICS’ new circle of friends can extend the use of national currencies to overseas investments and bilateral and multilateral trade, thus reducing dependency on the US dollar.”
Wang Yongzhong, research fellow at the Institute of World Economics and Politics at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, argued that while intra-BRICS trade has been limited, increased US tariffs should serve as an impetus to act: “To achieve deeper cooperation on trade, Chinese industry associations and chambers of commerce at different levels will have to go abroad and establish branches in other BRICS countries. […] Eventually, products from other BRICS members will fill gaps in the Chinese market left by US products. For example, China can encourage farm product associations to go to Brazil, energy associations to look at Russia and renewable energy associations to study India.”

INDIA

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi attended the BRICS Summit following short trips to Rwanda and Uganda. In its official press release, India’s Ministry of External Affairs affirmed that “Africa has been the top priority of India’s Foreign Policy. The visit of Prime Minister to Rwanda, Uganda and South Africa will further strengthen our relations with the African continent.” At the summit, Prime Minister Modi highlighted recent challenges to multilateralism and rules-based international order, reportedly characterizing BRICS as “a rock of stability and development” according to an Indian Ministry of External Affairs’ spokesperson. In an address during the Africa Outreach session at the BRICS Summit, Modi also highlighted trade issues: “After the financial crisis of 2008, the dark clouds of protectionism are hovering over the fundamental aspect of globalization.”

Ahead of the BRICS Summit, Swaran Singh, Professor of International Relations at Jawaharlal Nehru University, commented that expansion of BRICS could be a double-edged sword for India, especially regarding its foreign policy initiatives on terrorism and security: “Such an expanded audience bodes well for Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s genre of diplomacy. But as this summit sees BRICS expanding its reach and launching new initiatives, it poses an uphill task for the Indian team that needs to surpass the high benchmark of the Xiamen Declaration which was celebrated last year as a victory for Indian diplomacy.”
Abhijnan Rej, Senior Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, argued in an op-ed with online news website The Quint, that BRICS should avoid blanket anti-West rhetoric in its pursuit to reshape the world order: “The BRICS must coordinate at the UN and other forums to check American unilateralist impulses, by framing common position on this, and other global governance issues.”
In an article for the left-leaning The Hindu, Observer Research Foundation researchers Harsh Pant and Abhishek Mishra highlighted Modi and Xi’s respective charm offensives in the region to promote India and Japan’s Asia-Africa Growth Corridor and the China-led Belt and Road Initiative. “There are significant differences in their approaches, and the challenge for them would be to develop partnerships with African nations in a way that makes Africa a part of their growth stories too,” they concluded.

RUSSIA

At a press conference following the summit, President Vladimir Putin celebrated the success of the multilateral gathering: “The summit sent a powerful signal in favour of preserving the WTO, against protectionism and changing the rules of world trade. Inter-governmental memorandums were signed on cooperation in regional aviation and environmental protection, and an agreement on establishing a new Development Bank office in Sao Paulo, Brazil.” President Putin also highlighted Russia’s commitment to Africa during a joint meeting with delegations from invited non-member states, and placed special emphasis on “the development of the national energy sector” through oil, gas, and nuclear energy projects. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov expressed Russia’s support for the expanded BRICS-Plus platform and “advocates a greater coordination of the five BRICS countries within major international platforms, such as the UN, G20, WTO, IMF, World Bank, as well as other multilateral organizations and fora.” Russia also suggested the institution of a “BRICS mini-Olympics” to showcase member states’ national sports and requested support in Russia’s bid to host the 2025 World Expo. Despite the Russian delegation’s enthusiasm for the BRICS Summit, the Russian media had little to say regarding the event.

Government-funded RT interviewed Bob van Dijk, CEO of South Africa-based media group Naspers, regarding the economic weight of the BRICS bloc, and emphasized President Putin’s report at the summit that Russian trade with member states has increased by “almost 30 percent” in the last year.

State-owned Sputnik News coverage of the summit spotlighted academics from BRICS member states, including Charles Pennaforte, Srikanth Kondapalli, and Daniel Bradlow. Sputnik’s interviews with the scholars emphasized the bloc’s commitment to free trade and the detriment of recent US tariffs.

BRAZIL

According to Professor David Fleischer in his Brazil Focus analysis, Brazil had tough words of its own for other BRICS member states’ unfair tariffs on its exported goods. To this end, Brazilian President Michel Temer met with President Xi to negotiate Chinese tariffs on Brazilian sugar and chicken.
Época Magazine took interest in the political motivations behind the location of the BRICS Summit in the province of Gauteng. Época explained that the province is home to a concentrated portion of the South African middle class, and the region accounts for nearly one-third of South Africa’s gross domestic product. For these reasons, the Época argued, the political efforts of the current president and the National African Congress party are often hosted in Gauteng.
Folha de São Paulo took note of the disconnect between President Temer’s speeches and statements at the summit calling for increased integration between Brazil and African countries, and his hard-to-miss early exit from Johannesburg and absence at panels with African observer states.

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

Rising Powers Review Russia’s Performance at Home and Helsinki

Policy Alert #170 | July 19, 2018

Eyes were trained on Russia for the last month as the country hosted the 2018 FIFA World Cup, but the spotlight followed Russian President Vladimir Putin to Helsinki as he met with US President Donald Trump in the pair’s first official bilateral summit. Many analysts were apprehensive about the tournament given Russia’s strained relations with many Cup-qualifying countries, and expectations for the Helsinki Summit were mixed given the ongoing investigations into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential elections, the suspicious nerve-agent poisoning of Russian double spy Sergei Skripal, his daughter, and two unrelated civilians in the United Kingdom, and ongoing disagreements about Crimea and Syria. In this RPI Policy Alert, the Rising Powers offer their reviews of Russia’s performance as host to the World Cup and negotiator in Norway.

RUSSIA

During a press conference at the Helsinki Summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed his American counterpart’s participation: “We had good conversation with President Trump. I hope that we start to understand each other better. I’m grateful to Donald for it. Clearly, there are some challenges left — we were not able to clear all the backlog. But I think that we made the first important step in this direction.” In a later interview with Russia’s Channel One TV, Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed his pleasant surprise at the summit’s usefulness: “I had no expectations as it was our first substantive meeting. Initially it was seen as a kind of warming-up to speak in more specific terms during our future contacts. […] But things went the other way–the conversation was really very substantive.” President Putin continued to deny “Russia’s mythical interference into US elections” following calls for Trump to cancel the meeting by both Democrat and Republican lawmakers due to fresh indictments against 12 Russian intelligence officers as part of the ongoing investigation into Russian manipulation of the 2016 US presidential election.

During a press conference at the summit, which followed the conclusion of the World Cup, Putin gave Trump an official 2018 World Cup soccer ball saying, “Mr. President, I give this ball to you, and now the ball is in your court.” The statement appeared to be a thinly veiled double innuendo, given that Putin paused the discussion of the two country’s policies regarding Syria and that the US will be hosting the 2026 tournament.

Coverage of the meeting by state-owned Sputnik News tended to spotlight US academics and analysts responses to the meeting that were marginally more positive than most found in the US media, such as Retired US Army Major Todd Pierce, Denis Rancourt, and Nicolai N. Petro. One article representative of the bunch began with the preface “Members in of US Congress in league with the mainstream media have tried to portray President Donald Trump’s talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin as a treasonous scandal in order to disrupt cooperation between the United States and Russia, analysts told Sputnik,” even though quotes from the interviewees were significantly less sensational. Following Trump’s “walk back” on his comments at the summit regarding alleged Russian meddling in the US election, Sputnik interviewed Peter Kuznick, Director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American University, who said that the move “is ultimately going to be a setback in US-Russia relations.”
In an interview with stated-owned TASS, Valery Garbuzov, Director of the Institute for US and Canadian Studies at the Russian Academy of Science, was confident that the meeting had been fruitful: “Issues discussed included Ukraine, Syria and sanctions, and the parties made the most progress in paving the way for cooperation in resolving the Syria issue. […] Judging from the statements Putin made at the final press conference, there are plans to take joint steps to provide assistance to refugees.” However, Garbuzov warned that, “Significant forces in the US political elite, first and foremost the Democrats, were against the meeting. This may torpedo the hope that normal people place on this initial meeting.”
TASS reported on the glowing results from surveys of foreign tourists by the “Young Guard of Russia” youth wing of the United Russia party regarding their experience in Russia. Anna Rogacheva, a spokesperson for the group, reported to journalists at a press conference that “73% of those surveyed said that they would like to visit Russia again.” According to the Young Guard of Russia survey, while 64% of newcomers have had negative stereotypes about Russia, “88% ended up disagreeing with the stereotypes.
Nationalist Pravda Report meanwhile appeared to defend the deployment of Russian warships to international waters around Finland, explaining that “The Putin-Trump Summit in Helsinki was held under the protection of the Northern Fleet of Russia.” Unnamed officials from Russia’s General Office reportedly told Pravda that such deployments were a “normal and well established practice.”
Dmitry Sudakov, a staff writer for Pravda Report, hailed the World Cup as a success: “The majority of foreigners […] were thrilled with what they saw and experienced in the country. They were thrilled to see [a] Russia that was so much different from what their media was making them to [sic] believe.” Sudakov lamented that “the number of European visitors was unexpectedly low,” and blamed “the media” for having “zombified” British and French fans into staying home. Pravda Report also reported that despite the 883 billion rubles price tag of preparing for the World Cup, Russia’s net earnings topped 184 billion rubles, or approximately 2.9 billion US dollars.
Political scientist Akelsei Mukhin explained in an interview with Pravda Report that the gain of having changed so many foreign guests’ views of Russia outweighed the staggering cost of hosting the Cup: “The presentation of Russia in foreign media has been utterly negative recently. A distorted image of Russia was created – an evil and corrupt country. However, many foreign tourists who come to Russia for the games are stunned with what they can see here. This enormous exposure that the World Cup brings will play into our hands, because it will be harder for foreign media to lie about Russia afterwards.”
Sputnik News trumpeted foreign guests’ positive perceptions of Russia counter to negative “propaganda” by “Western media.” One article reviewed former UK soccer player Ian Wright’s interview with Russian sports channel Match TV in which Wright said, “There was a massive propaganda campaign. People believed it would be hard here for those with a different skin color, as well as homosexuals. Russia was said to be lingering in the dark ages. However, when I came here, I saw nothing of that kind.” In an interview with Sputnik, editor-in-chief of German news magazine ZUERST, predicted that visitors would change their countrymen’s perception of Russia upon returning home: “I’m convinced that the vast majority of the international football fans coming to Russia come back and they’ll spread the news about a country with great hospitality, with great people, and with a very harmonic way of conducting the World championship. That is, of course, at the same time [rejecting] the mainstream media and also in some part, mainstream politics’ criticism of Russia.”

CHINA

Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying said that China welcomed the meeting between the leaders of Russia and the US in Helsinki. Hua expressed optimism that the meeting would improve Russia-US relations. “As permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and major countries commanding global influence, Russia and the US shoulder important responsibilities for global peace and security,” Hua told reporters. The spokesperson also commented on China’s relations with Russia and the US respectively: “We are fully confident in the China-Russia comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination, and the China-Russia relations will not be affected by any external factor. Our stance on the development of the China-US relations is also consistent and clear-cut.”

State-directed China Daily took a measured stance on the Trump-Putin meeting, and opined that improvements in US-Russian relations from the summit was unlikely: “their longtime enmity, which can be traced back to the Cold War era, and their opposite positions on some critical international issues and their power wrestling in Syria and Crimea, indicate the contention between the two big countries will not vanish any time soon.”
The nationalist Global Times was critical of the Helsinki meeting and argued that it was impossible for Trump to make any meaningful change to the international system’s status quo: “The US-Russian relationship can hardly be significantly improved. The fundamental reason is that Washington is still immersed in its hegemonic mindset and is not willing to replace such an attitude with treating all on an equal footing. Trump’s ‘America First’ reinforced Americans’ consciousness of the privileged and he has become a new practitioner of US hegemonism.”
The independent South China Morning Post argued that while a genuine shift in US-Russian relations would be welcome, Trump’s methods undermined the credibility of the summit: “There is nothing wrong with seeking peace with a rival, but it is the manner in which he went about it by apparently ignoring thorny issues like Russian meddling in US elections, the Salisbury poisonings, Ukraine and the war in Syria that sparked criticism.”
Official state news service Xinhua’s coverage emphasized the unprecedented backlash against Trump following the summit with interviews from US political analysts and former officials.
On the topic of the World Cup, the China Daily highlighted the success of Chinese companies in spite of the Chinese team’s absence: “The national team wasn’t there but that didn’t stop Chinese companies orchestrating an advertising bonanza of unprecedented proportions at the recently concluded FIFA World Cup.”
State-owned news channel CGTN aired a documentary on China’s budding soccer ambitions, and explained that the frenzy caused by the World Cup was increasing welcome enthusiasm for football camps in China: “China wants to become a ‘world football power’ by 2050, with plans to get 50 million people playing in two years.”
Li Tao of the South China Morning Post covered the frenzy itself, “indicating the level of football fever in the country and despite China not having a national team at the tournament.” On online streaming platform Youku, the final match between Croatia and France drew 24 million unique viewers, while competitor Migu reported the final match had been viewed over 200 million times through its platform.

JAPAN

Japan’s national team, the Blue Samurai, and its fans charmed the World Cup’s audiences with their impeccable manners. Fans from Japan and Senegal set the standards high following their teams’ matches on June 19th, in which videos and photos of the spectators methodically cleaning up the stadiums went viral on social media. Following the Blue Samurai’s defeat, not only did Japanese fans do their part, but the team left the locker room spotless with a note of thanks for their Russian hosts.

The Japanese government had little to say regarding the Trump-Putin Summit. An unnamed official responding to questions from Russian media outlet TASS said, “As for the Russian-US Summit, we will refrain from commenting on other countries’ interactions with each other. However, generally speaking, Russia is an important global player and we believe that Russian-US dialogue is important for resolving serious global issues, particularly those concerning North Korea and Syria.” Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, however, has pursued improved ties with Russia since taking office. Abe met with officials from the European Union to sign an economic partnership agreement in Tokyo on July 17th, providing a stark juxtaposition to Trump’s behavior at the NATO Summit and his meeting with Putin. Abe’s planned trip to the Europe earlier this month was delayed due to massive flooding and landslides in western Japan following Typhoon Maria.

Left-leaning Mainichi was cynical about the Trump-Putin Summit. “The event […] lacked any sort of concrete outcome that the international community could praise,” the Mainichi argued, speculating that meaningful discussions about North Korea and Syria were set aside in order to discuss the allegations of Russian interference in the US presidential election in 2016. Trump’s performance, when coupled with his behavior at the NATO Summit preceding his arrival in Helsinki, left much to be desired, the Mainichi concluded: “Trump should change his heavy-handed approach and promote diplomacy and politics in which allied countries can have confidence.”
The Japan Times praised the Japan-EU economic partnership agreement as “a free trade message” to the US following the chaos at the NATO Summit and Trump’s abandonment of its EU allies in his meeting with Putin: “At a time when the United States under the Trump administration’s ‘America First’ agenda is rapidly abandoning its leadership roles in international affairs, Japan and the EU together should be able to push a global agenda forward.”
The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun was equally distressed by the US leader’s behavior. “It is worrying that Trump has been showing a stance of appealing to sell out US principles by giving top priority to building a personal relationship of trust with Putin,” it said. Prior to the meeting, the Yomiuri urged the US to read with caution following Trump’s “arrogant remarks and behavior” at the NATO Summit: “This could pave the way for Russia to take advantage of the division between the United States and European countries and strengthen its hegemonic moves.” The Yomiuri ultimately gave the point to Putin for achieving his goals in the summit: “Putin was successful in conveying the impression that his country has broken out of its international isolation. Putin is apparently aiming to reconstruct the Russian economy by exploiting the summit with Trump to ease and remove US and European sanctions.”
In an interview with The Japan Times regarding what the Helsinki Summit held for Japan, James D. J. Brown, an associate professor at Temple University in Tokyo, responded that, “For the most part, Abe will be pleased about Trump’s decision to meet with Putin in Helsinki. This is because it can be seen as a vindication of Abe’s own policy toward Russia.” The Abe administration favors improving ties with Russia, including the resolution of the territorial dispute over the Kuril Islands through joint development.
Kuni Miyake, president of the Foreign Policy Institute and research director at the Canon Institute for Global Studies, tried to make sense of US deviations from its foreign policy from a broader historical view. Miyake suggested that Trump may be symptom of “the centuries-old inferiority/superiority complex of North America–the New World–vis-a-vis the Old World of Europe.” Miyake noted that this explanation then raises questions about Trump’s seeming subordination to Putin during the summit: “The only logical answer that I can imagine here in Tokyo is this: Putin must have something–like a trump card in his pocket to play–that Trump personally cannot resist. […A]t this moment we can only pray for the Western alliance, of which Japan is also a part.”
Regarding the World Cup, the unnamed writer behind the Asahi Shimbun’s “Vox Populi, Vox Dei” daily column admitted that “the praise heaped on Japanese supporters at the World Cup was rather hyperbolic.” The author expressed amusement with foreign theories of why the Japanese were so tidy, and explained that the norm of tidying up was developed ahead of the 1964 Tokyo Olympics to conquer “streets [that] were overflowing with trash.” Nevertheless, the author was “simply tickled and [felt] proud of them for earning the admiration of the international community.” Regarding the Blue Samurai’s performance in the match with Poland, however, was criticized as “pseudo soccer,” given that the team simply played a lackluster game of keep-away in the last ten minutes of the match. The author also took notice of the overwhelming number of Chinese advertisements on display at the World Cup: “There was a time when Japanese companies practically dominated the World Cup advertising scene. […] It felt as if this symbolized Japan’s decline, and I could not help feeling a bit sad.”
The Japan Times instead discussed what the lessons the success of diverse soccer teams in the tournament had for Japan, especially the victory of France’s Les Bleus. Japan itself is debating the merits of increased immigration in the face of labor shortages and a shrinking population. The Times argued that it is inappropriate to merely view the victories as a message of “tolerance and acceptance,” given that many immigrant players are subjected to discrimination and racial hostility: “The broader message from France’s record is that societies must be ready to welcome and integrate immigrants, not just soccer players. Japan has choices to make about its readiness to do so and the price it is prepared to pay not just for sports trophies but for a more diverse society.”

INDIA

The liberal Hindustan Times declared President Putin victor in the Helsinki Summit: “Mr Trump’s brand of diplomacy, based more on personal rapport and his instincts than the sage advice of the mandarins at the state department, was left looking weak and ineffectual. And Mr Putin, who has been blamed by western intelligence set-ups of personal involvement in the meddling in the polls in the US and other countries, emerged much stronger.”
Indian Express, another liberal publication, warned that while the Trump-Putin meeting had little to do with India directly, the country must nevertheless prepare for the possible instability resulting from Trump’s disruption to the decades-old world order: “India has no reason to take sides in America’s internal contestation about Russia and burden-sharing within Western alliances. But Delhi must strain every nerve to cope with the consequences of this debate that has the potential to rearrange the international system constructed after the Second World War.”
The center-right Times of India urged its government to seek exemptions from the US’s Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) despite Trump’s efforts to improve US-Russian relations. “While Trump thinks he can get along with Putin, US Congress has a very different perception of Moscow. […] India is in talks to acquire Russian S-400 missile defence systems. The purchase would attract CAATSA sanctions unless exemptions are granted by the US. Indian diplomacy needs to step up to the plate and ensure the latter,” the Times concluded.
Harsh V. Pant, professor at King’s College, London and distinguished fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, argued in an op-ed for the Hindustan Times that a successful Helsinki Summit would be beneficial for India, given the country’s relationship with Russia: “Deteriorating US-Russia ties have put considerable strain on Indian diplomacy. The most recent example being the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act, which can lead to sanctions being imposed on countries that engage in ‘significant transactions; with any of the listed 39 Russian companies. India has close defence ties with Russia and Indian armed forces remain highly dependent on Russia for strategic technologies and supply of spares and maintenance.” Trump’s “disruption” of the status quo has the potential to “open up new possibilities for India,” Pant concluded.
Raja Mohan, director of the Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore, urged India to change its diplomatic strategy to cope with the “troubling times” Trump has manufactured. In addition to adopting a “transactional approach” to diplomacy, “Equally important is the need for India to come to terms with Trump’s deconstruction of the ‘West’. […] Through the 20th century, India’s foreign policy has been shaped by the impulse to stand up against the West — initially against colonialism and later against Western security alliances. In the 21st century, India’s efforts to construct closer relations with the US, have been slowed by the presumed political centrality of retaining ‘strategic autonomy’ from the West. […] Obsession with ‘strategic autonomy’ makes little sense when the post-War geopolitical categories are breaking down,” Mohan explained.
Rudroneel Ghosh, a journalist for the Times of India, took no issue with Trump’s primary goal of improving ties with Russia, but offered a critique of Trump’s method of trying to forge his own path unilaterally: “[W]here Trump is missing a trick is in striking out on his own and trying to establish new equations bilaterally. He thinks this will help him get a better deal for America. But that stems from the assumption that the US still has the capacity to exert enough pressure in a bilateral set up. But the reality is that may no longer be the case. With the rest of the world catching up economically and militarily, the US can’t wholly dominate in one-on-one scenarios. Therefore, a better approach would be to work through rules-based multilateral institutions that the US itself helped create.”
The Indian press had warmer words for the World Cup. The Hindustan Times attributed the World Cup victory of France’s Les Bleus to the members’ “collective” mindset despite the theatrics and solo stardom that is endemic to the sport: “They are a side full of bona fide stars, but without a single diva. The stardom and celebrity of some of the finest footballers in the world is secondary to the ideal of everything coming together for the team. […] Never dour, but always disciplined, they were often criticised for not putting on more scintillating displays. There was no showboating, no genuflecting at the altar of a single star.”
The Indian Express praised the Cup’s “style and substance” for providing a cause for unity in countries consumed with divisiveness and shattering stereotypes: “What politicians and liberals have failed to do for a decade, this World Cup has done in a month — by a bunch of young men playing entertaining football. It united England, a country sweating over Brexit and over the definition of Englishness. It united Croatia, a small nation amid demographical and financial crisis, whose football administration had alienated the people. It united Belgium, the country deemed least patriotic in Europe with its language divisions and regionalism. It made Kosovo, not even in the tournament, swell with pride because of two hand eagle signs by men who now play for another country. It made Africans smile even though all African teams were knocked out. It made Asians joyous to see Japan make a strong statement. Above all, the stereotype of cold, indifferent, harsh Russians disintegrated.”
The Hindu and the Daily Pioneer had brief editorials exalting this World Cup’s entertainment factor. The Pioneer raved about the final match’s nail-biting action, noting that the game was only the second finals match since 1998 that exceeded more than two goals, and accredited the excitement of the Cup to the new generation of footballers: “The 2018 edition will be remembered for heralding a new generation that leapfrogs the maestros of the game.” The Hindu also praised Russia for its hospitality: “Russia put on a great show as host, its people warm and welcoming as fears of racist behaviour proved unfounded.”
The Times of India, on the other hand, took a nuanced look at the power dynamics at play in the world of soccer, and mused that “[t]he gap between the elites and the rest remains, but the margin has been substantially reduced” given the relative success of newer teams like Croatia against “football’s nobility.” The Times also discussed the troubling trend of recruitment in the sport: “It is evident that globalisation is at work in football. But with European club spotters cradle snatching the finest talents in Latin America and Africa, the impact on local leagues in Africa, Latin America and Asia also needs a closer look.”

BRAZIL

The business newspaper Valor Economico remarked that the Trump-Putin Summit left the international community with only one certainty: we will never not be surprised by Trump’s statements. According to the article, Trump’s behavior at the meeting was the most subservient that a US president has ever had before a Russian leader, launching the West in an existential crisis. However, the author believes that the chances for triggering an impeachment proceeding due to the event are considerably low.
The online portal of the Jornal do Brasil highlighted Trump’s backpedaling on his comments the day following the summit, in which he said that he respects the conclusions reached by the U.S. intelligence agencies regarding Russia’s interference in the 2016 presidential elections. This reversal revealed the high level of inconsistency linked to his official pronouncements. The Jornal do Brasil noted that depending on the audience Trump is addressing, his discourse can change dramatically.
As the decisive quarter-finals matches of the 2018 FIFA World Cup between Belgium and Brazil approached, the newspaper Extra highlighted the Brazilian team’s net worth, which was 50 million US dollars more than the Belgian team. However, the economic value of the team was not predictive of the match: Brazil was beaten by Belgium with score of 1 to 2.
Referring to the 2018 FIFA World Cup, the magazine Veja took aim at Brazilian fans who shamed their country in Russia with a sexist video that spread on social media. The video depicted a group of Brazilians men tricking Russian women into making crude remarks in Portuguese on camera. While the women seemed to be having fun, it was clear that she couldn’t understand the meaning of the words she was repeating. The incident generated anger worldwide and was strongly repudiated by the Brazilian authorities.

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

The Rising Powers Strike Back at US Tariffs and Sanctions

Policy Alert #169 | July 5, 2018

Despite international outcry, the United States is continuing its pursuit of protectionist trade policies and dismantlement of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) regarding Iran’s nuclear program. As negotiations over new US tariffs have soured and the Trump administration announced secondary sanctions against countries that continue to import Iranian oil after November 4, 2018, the calls for resistance–and outright retaliation–by the Rising Powers are growing louder.

CHINA

New US tariffs against Chinese products are scheduled to take effect on July 6th, but China’s $34 billion in retaliatory tariffs will only begin after Washington’s move. “The Chinese government’s position has been stated many times. We absolutely will not fire the first shot, and will not implement tariff measures ahead of the United States doing so,” Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lu Kang announced at a press conference. In an earlier press conference, Kang told reporters that although China does not want a trade war, when “confronted by such short-sighted act that hurts both US itself and others, China has no choice but to fight back forcefully, to firmly safeguard the interests of the nation and its people and uphold economic globalization and the multilateral trading system.” Kang continued that American trade measures not only hurt Sino-American trade relations, but would also affect global trade, which China firmly opposes. Ministry of Commerce Spokesperson Gao Feng reinforced China’s opposition to protectionism and the system of tariffs: “The US has many structural problems of its own, but it always regards other countries as a scapegoat for its own problems and makes unwarranted charges.”

China is also standing firm on the Iran deal. On the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in June 2018, Chinese President Xi Jinping met with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and declared: “The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is an important achievement of multilateralism, and is conducive to promoting peace and stability in the Middle East, as well as upholding the international nonproliferation regime.” Spokespersons Feng and Kang reiterated China’s support of the Iran deal as well. Feng told reporters, “The government of China has always opposed unilateral sanctions by any country based on its domestic laws against other countries. China will continue to maintain normal economic and trade ties with Iran under the prerequisite of not violating its international obligations.” Kang, meanwhile, asserted that “the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of one country should be fully respected” and that China believed that “the political system and development path a country chooses should be determined by its own people.”

The state-directed China Daily decried American economic hegemony as a threat to world economy. The Daily pointed to past instances in which the US had accused China of “unfair” trade practices and claimed the US of starting the trade war in order to keep China down: “It has frequently waged wars against other sovereign countries and made use of the dominant influence of the US dollar in the international markets to fleece other countries. Now it is attempting to resort to an all-out trade and economic war to hold back China’s normal development.” China Daily columnist Chen Weihua criticized US’ withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal as indicative of the US “going rogue”: “If withdrawing from the Iran deal that was endorsed by the UN Security Council has made Trump’s America a rogue nation, then the fresh threat it issued on Tuesday to impose sanctions against governments that don’t cut imports of Iranian oil to ‘zero’ by Nov 4 would make it a ‘rogue superpower.’” The China Daily also expressed its concerns over Washington’s threats to sanction European companies conducting business with Iran: “It is a threat of extraterritorial sanctions to block trade and financial activities by non-US parties that he has extended to other countries doing business with Iran — something that the international community should resolutely oppose as it breaches the sovereignty of other states.”
The nationalist Global Times condemned the US tariffs and cited the influence of US President Donald Trump’s “radical diplomatic ideas” in mobilizing American support for a trade war with China. Furthermore, the Times observed that “Trump’s threat of a trade war panders to some Americans’ dissatisfactions and anxieties.” The article also emphasized China’s ability to withstand a trade war: “China stresses principles. It neither escalates tensions nor makes unprincipled concessions. It’s impossible for China to completely shield itself from the trade war, but the country will not be the only victim and will not be a common target.” Regarding the Iran sanctions, the Global Times interviewed Lin Boqiang, director of the China Center for Energy Economics Research at Xiamen University, who said that China could find oil easily in Russia or the Middle East to offset the loss without resorting to increasing imports from the US: “The situation is that if the US escalates the trade war, it will hurt Chinese companies; but it will hurt US companies as well. So I don’t think the US will let things worsen significantly.“
In the independent South China Morning Post, Deng Yuwen, a researcher from the Charhar Institute, contended that China’s reactive measures against US tariffs indicated that China’s readiness to enter into the Trade War. Deng wrote in his op-ed that “China and its leaders have already come to a conclusion about America’s trade war: they see it as the first step of a US plan to curb the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.”
The China Daily carried an editorial on the Iran deal from the Beijing Youth Daily, an official newspaper for the Communist Youth League in Beijing. The editorial claimed the US’s ulterior motive to the Iran sanctions was to increase demand for US oil, but that the scheme would fail given the increase in trade tensions: “The rising oil prices and the growing US oil exports are something the Trump administration will be happy to see and also something it has worked for. But once the oil price rebounds above $100 per barrel, the economy’s operating costs will necessarily rise, that’s when the US policies will backfire. Also, if China cuts its oil imports from the US if a trade war breaks out, the development of the global oil market will not be as predictable as the US envisions.”

INDIA

In response to the US tariffs, India filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization (WTO) in May 2018, and on June 21, 2018, announced new tariffs on 29 US products valued at $235 million. The tariffs are not scheduled to go into effect until August 4 to provide time for the two countries to work through an alternative. Meanwhile, the eagerly anticipated “2+2” meeting between Indian Minister of Defense Nirmala Sitharaman, Minister of External Affairs Sushma Swaraj, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that was scheduled for July 6 was cancelled abruptly on June 27. This initially prompted concern that the cancellation was related to the tariff dispute; however, it was revealed that Secretary of State Pompeo cancelled the meeting to travel to North Korea as a follow-up to last month’s summit.

India has also taken a hardline stance against the US threat of secondary sanctions for continuing trade with Iran. In response to a question on the issue at a press conference on May 29, 2018, Minister Swaraj replied, “We only recognise UN sanctions. We do not recognise any country-specific sanctions. […] We don’t make our foreign policy under pressure from other countries.” Following a visit by US Ambassador Nikki Haley on June 29, 2018, MEA Spokesperson Shri Raveesh Kumar responded to questions related to Ambassador Haley’s comments on Iran that India “feel[s] that Iran is a very traditional partner. We have historical and civilizational linkages with Iran. We have also communicated our views on Iran’s JCPO and the withdrawal of the US ambassador. Ambassador Nikki Haley has her views and of course our view on Iran is very clear.” Despite the government’s position, two Indian banks, IndusInd and UCO, have reportedly asked members to finish their business in Iran by August 6th.

An editorial in the Economic Times regarding the what the Reserve Bank of India should do in response to the devaluation of the rupee, the Economic Times laid some of the blame for the rupee’s plight on US economic policy: “Trade war tensions have sent some capital deployed in emerging markets back to the US, in its traditional flight to safety in times of uncertainty. This has strengthened the dollar, besides the decision of the US monetary policy authority, the Fed, to raise rates.” The Economic Times ultimately argued against the RBI intervening.
Economic Times contributor Kaustubh Sharma contextualized the US’s protectionist policies against broader trends in global governance in his article: “[T]he world is keenly observing the US’ new approach towards global trade, and the global community’s actions combine to send one signal: the US economy will contract. […] With the US surrendering its political and economic influence, China has an opportunity to dominate the global economy.”
The center-right Times of India advocated calm in response to the US’s reneging on the Iran deal, asserting that the US would eventually have to back down given international support for the JCPOA: “[W]ith European nations, Canada and China also upping the ante on the trade front – targeting Trump’s core constituencies in middle America – this is a battle the US can’t win. […] India would do well to wait it out and weather the US storm. It should act in concert with the rest of the world and keep reminding the US that playing zero sum games helps no one.” The Times took a sterner stance with regards to the tariffs imposed on India, however: “While US President Donald Trump’s decision to adopt trade countermeasures against China is understandable given Beijing’s track record on intellectual property and non-tariff barriers […] it would be a serious mistake to place a struggling and pacific India in the same category as a hyper aggressive China that works counter to US interests. […] Trump may well be sticking to his ‘America First’ political framework but he should also know that he can’t have a strategic partnership with India and simultaneously engage in a trade war with it.”
Liberal Hindustan Times flatly stated that the US has exhausted its welcome in India regarding the Iran deal: “Mr Trump should realise that other countries too have the right to put their own interests first. The US should also pause to consider the fact that other signatories to the Iran nuclear deal have chosen to stick with efforts to salvage the accord instead of backing the solitary path it has adopted.”
Milind Deora, former Minister of State under the opposition Congress government, penned an op-ed for the Economic Times to warn India against unwittingly falling prey to the same economic “anxieties” that fueled Trump’s rise: “The India-China trade deficit is cause for new anxieties and as it widens, it creates a political space that’s up for grabs. It’s not long before ‘Trumpian’ fears translate into a similarly compelling political narrative in India. […] India needs to learn and grow from China’s experience to rectify its manufacturing paucity if it wants to prevent a boundless ‘politics of the wall’ from being unleashed in the country.”

JAPAN

In a session of the National Diet, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said of the US tariffs on Japanese goods that “It’s hard for Japan to understand and we cannot accept it.” On the sidelines of the G7 Summit last month, Japanese Minister of Finance Taro Aso responded to media questions that Japan was “considering” filing a complaint with the WTO about the tariffs, and voiced his country’s commitment to free trade: “Inward-looking policies involving one-sided, protectionist measures benefit no country. It’s important to achieve high global growth through free and fair trade.”

On the issue of sanctions against Iran, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs reported that officials from the US and Japan had consulted with each other regarding sanctions against Iran on June 19, 2018, however, given the nature of the report, it does not seem that any meaningful progress was achieved: “Both sides exchanged views on possible impacts of the reinstating of US sanctions on Iran. In addition, both sides also agreed to continue consultation on this issue going forward.” At a news conference on June 28th, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga explained that the government is working to reduce oil imports from Iran gradually and is attempting to work with the US on the issue: “We’d like to hold thorough consultations with the United States to prevent the move from adversely affecting Japanese companies.”

The liberal Mainichi Shimbun praised Japan’s promotion of multilateral free trade agreements to “counter protectionist pressure from the United States.” However, the Mainichi noted that the Japanese government was attaching more weight to its Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and dragging its feet on the China-led Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), and therefore urged its government to “do its utmost to form consensus on the partnership agreement at an early date.” The Mainichi had tough words for the Trump administration’s threat of economic blackmail to motivate more countries to reinstate an embargo on Iranian oil: “If Washington were to be using its huge influence on the global financial market to forcibly try to cause the deal to collapse, the country would deserve criticism that it is too autocratic.” The Mainichi thus urged its government to “resolutely reject the U.S. demand for an embargo on oil imports from Iran, and urge Washington to reconsider its decision to impose sanctions on Tehran.”
The Japan Times, a center-right paper, criticized the international community for doing little more than retaliating against President Trump’s tariff threats rather than solve structural issues in the world economy, namely addressing the US’s trade deficit: “To denounce such statements as self-serving — which they are — is not enough. Concerned governments must fix problems that all agree exist and which give Trump the basis for poorly conceived and executed policies.” The Times also criticized the Trump administration’s attempts to use secondary sanctions against countries that continue to trade with Iran as such sanctions would “hurt U.S. allies as much as it does Iran” even though “sanctions are unlikely to bring about changes in Iranian behavior.”
The Yomiuri Shimbun, a conservative paper, referenced the US’s tariffs in two recent editorials. The first hailed the National Diet’s passage of a law to implement the new TPP as a “counter” to “the self-serving United States”: “Reinforcing economic ties with many countries under fair rules and reciprocally enjoying the benefits of free trade […] To transmit this principle of the TPP to the world and exert pressure on the United States is another serious obligation Japan should fulfill.” The second, which addressed the “sluggish” economic growth in the last quarter, reiterated that “The government must continue to explain to the United States the adverse effects of protectionism.” The Yomiuri cautiously called on its government to pursue multilateral cooperation with other countries threatened by the prospect of secondary sanctions for continuing business with Iran, but stopped short of criticizing the US’s own reinstatement of sanctions against Iran: “Although the U.S. government intends not to allow any exemptions [to secondary sanctions], Japan should cooperate with the EU and others in persistently urging the United States to grant them exemptions.”

RUSSIA

Minister of Economic Development Maxim Oreshkin warned in late June 2018 that his country would take action against the US in response to the tariffs: “Because the US continues to apply protective measures in the form of additional import duties on steel and aluminum and refuses to provide compensation for Russia’s losses, Russia is using its WTO rights and introducing balancing measures with respect to imports from the United States.” A complaint with the WTO was formally filed on July 2nd.

Russian Ambassador to the US Anatoly Antonov took the opportunity to address his country’s concerns about the US’s exit from the Iran deal at a US State Department event celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the signing of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons: “We’re alarmed by the future of JCPOA. We call on all the [signatory] countries to act on their obligations clearly and unambiguously.” Minister of Energy Alexander Novak vowed that Russia would pursue its legal options with regards to the US’s planned secondary sanctions: “The memorandum [with Iran] that we signed in 2014 is still in force. We will analyze this situation from the point of view of the legal basis.”

Government-funded RT emphasized the escalating discord between the US and the European Union in its coverage of the tariffs. July 2nd was particularly busy, as RT covered both the European Union’s threat to slap $300 billion in tariffs on American cars and President Trump’s assertion that “the EU is possibly as bad as China” in an interview with US media outlet Fox News.
Nationalist Pravda Report similarly kept its eyes trained on European leaders’ harsh “ultimatum” in response to the US tariffs.
State-owned Sputnik News busily interviewed Russian experts on how Russia should respond to the growing divide between the US and European Union. Dmitry Abzalov, director of the Center for Strategic Communications in Moscow, suggested that Russia should take the opportunity to reach out to the EU and use its position to resolve various diplomatic issues in its favor: “The EU could put Nord Stream 2 on the list of its strategic projects. A similar status for the Turkish Stream would not hurt either. If Germany and France want to work closer with Russia and will use their leverage in Ukraine, the very reason for the [anti-Russian] sanctions would be gone.” Director of the Russian Council for International Affairs Andrei Kortunov Russian echoed this prospect: “The very state of international affairs calls for a rapprochement because Moscow and Brussels see eye to eye on things like the Iranian nuclear deal and the relocation of the US embassy to Jerusalem.” Institute of Strategic Studies expert Azhdar Kurtov and Institute of Oriental Studies expert Irina Fyodorova expressed skepticism that Japan, South Korea, China, and India were in any “rush” to accommodate Washington, which would provide further leverage to Russia.
In an op-ed for the Moscow Times, political analyst Vladimir Frolov meanwhile speculated that “Moscow will work tactically to drive the wedge between the U.S. and the EU even further” rather than take sides in the trade disputes, even though Russia has endorsed the EU’s commitment to the JCPOA. The latter move, Frolov argued in early May 2018, “weakens the U.S. position in the run-up to a highly anticipated Trump-Putin meeting, the details of which are still in the works.”

BRAZIL

The Estadão newspaper published a statement released by the Brazilian government affirming that dialogue and respect, the two most powerful tools of diplomacy, are the only viable solution to the issues arising from the Iran nuclear deal and its termination by the U.S. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs explained that Brazil truly believes that the integrity of the regime and avoiding the proliferation of nuclear weapons are in the interests of the entire international community and must be maintained.
The Folha de São Paulo newspaper reported that because Trump’s tariffs on steel will not apply to Brazil, the government decided to accept the tariffs on the aluminum and will not impose any retaliatory tariffs against US goods. Brazilian authorities evaluated the situation and concluded that the current tariffs are less damaging to the economy than those that may result in an escalation of the situation.
A group of scholars and economists interviewed by the Agência Brasil analyzed the impact on Brazil of the the US withdrawal from Iran nuclear deal. Of the many ways the exit from the Iran deal will affect Brazil, the effects on the oil and gas market were of particular concern. The interviewees explained that because of the US’s dominant role in the international economy, such actions will generate instability in global oil and gas supply lines which could be devastating for Brazil, one of the world’s largest producers of oil and gas.

Summer of Summits: Are the Rising Powers Optimistic or Pessimistic on Trump-Kim Summit?

Policy Alert #168 | June 21, 2018

US President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Chairman Kim Jong Un met in an unprecedented summit on the island of Sentosa in Singapore June 11-12, 2018. The resulting joint statement expresses the intentions of both countries to normalize relations and to work toward denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Optimists pointed to acts of goodwill by both sides, such as North Korea’s commitment to repatriation of the remains of US soldiers and the US’s cancellation of the Freedom Guardian joint exercises with South Korea, as evidence that the summit marked the beginning of a new chapter in US-North Korea relations. Pessimists, meanwhile, argue that the joint statement does not go far enough and that the US is sacrificing its allies’ security for little more than a photo op. In this RPI Policy Alert, we continue our coverage of this year’s summer summits and perspectives from the Rising Powers.

SOUTH KOREA
At a press conference with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, South Korean President Moon Jae-In offered glowing praise for the summit: “There are various opinions about the achievements of the summit, but what is more important than anything else is that it has enabled Americans, Japanese, Koreans and other people around the world to break away from the threats of war, nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. The summit was of tremendous value even only with this factor. I believe it was truly a historic feat for the Korean Peninsula and the rest of the world to depart from the age of war and hostility to move toward an era of peace and common prosperity.”

The liberal Kyunghyang Shinmun put an optimistic spin on the sudden announcement that the US was cancelling its August joint military exercises with South Korea at the North’s insistence: “One apparent factor is that the suspension of the ROK-US combined military exercises can encourage denuclearization. We also cannot ignore the fact that North Korea strongly demands it. It is common sense to refrain from military actions that provoke the opponent in a negotiation. North Korea has suspended nuclear tests and the test launch of ballistic missiles for six months, and we need to take measures in response to such actions. In addition, North Korea expressed their ‘good will’ several times […], but the U.S. has failed to take a single action in response.“
The Hankyoreh, another liberal paper, offered a similar silver-lining to the US setting aside its initial demands for complete, verifiable irreversible denuclearization (CVID) during negotiations: “It can be said that the greatest triumph of the North Korea-US summit on June 12 was the fact that Trump and Kim personally signed a joint statement that contains the promise of complete denuclearization and a guarantee of regime security. Along with this, the two leaders agreed to ‘establish new US-DPRK relations.’ The very fact that a joint statement under the names of Trump and Kim contained these terms should be enough for the summit to go down as a success.” In response to the news that denuclearization was expected to take two and a half years or longer, the Hankyoreh emphasized that the timeline was consistent with many analysts’ predictions of what a realistic schedule would be: “The important thing is straying away from normative and impractical demands. It is much more critical to move forward with a definite step-by-step process of denuclearization based on trust between North Korea and the US. From that perspective, it is not right to attack and disparage the North Korea-US summit in Singapore for not having gotten any results.“
Following an initial warm review of the summit, the liberal Korea Times condemned President Trump’s cancelation of the joint military exercises and abandonment of the CVID: “the CVID formula should not have been compromised under any circumstances.”
The Korea Herald was more measured in its response to the summit’s lackluster outcome: “The summit fell short of expectations of a road map for denuclearization, but the issue of dismantling the North Korean nuclear program and assuring the security of its regime […] are as difficult to solve as a tangled knot. […] The summit in Singapore is just a beginning. The North Korean nuclear issue cannot be solved at a single stroke.” The Herald warned, however, that South Korea’s alliance with the US must remain strong and that economic assistance to the North must not be given “blindly.” Following the cancellation of the joint military exercises, the Korea Herald swiftly condemned the development: “a drastic change to the status of the US forces in South Korea should never be made before achieving the complete, verifiable and irreversible dismantlement of the North’s nuclear capability and a significant reduction in threat from the North’s conventional forces.”
The conservative Dong-A Ilbo consistently called for caution in dealing with North Korea in its editorials. The Dong-A Ilbo pointed out that Washington’s interest in denuclearizing North Korea may end up on the “back burner” in favor of limiting the country’s intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBMs) technology, which is a more direct threat to the US: “[W]e need to keep our eyes wide open to the follow-up meeting between Pyongyang and Washington.” This concern was repeated after the cancellation of the joint military exercises: “North Korea is already using current developments in its offensive towards the South, as evidenced by the North’s delegate taking a high-handed attitude during the recent inter-Korean military talks. […] We must not forget that now is the time to strive to solidify our national defense.” The Dong-A Ilbo further called for the international community to be “careful” in easing economic sanctions against North Korea to avoid forfeiting its primary bargaining chip: “If international sanctions against the North, which is the essence that changed North Korea and the only method, is alleviated when we have not even started shoveling, the driving force of denuclearization itself is bound to become weak.“
The JoongAng Daily, another conservative paper, aired its frustration at the North’s “eagerness” in calling for the South to participate in arms reduction despite the slow pace of denuclearization: “[R]econciliation and dialogue are important. But it can’t outpace the timetable of denuclearization.” The JoongAng also took aim at South Korean officials for leaving the public in the dark despite the concerning developments: “[O]ur defense and foreign ministers do not address growing public anxiety. […] If the government reacts in such shadowy ways, the peace process will face a strong backlash. President Moon must vow to safeguard our security. Moon must explain what’s going on and seek the public’s understanding and support.” Upon hearing of the cancellation of the joint exercises, the JoongAng warned: “The two governments must not forget that, if they get it wrong this time, distrust in Washington and Pyongyang will augment, and the argument for South Korea going nuclear may gain ground.“
The conservative Chosun Ilbo had strong words for President Trump’s apparent use of the summit for his own political agenda without any regard for South Korea’s security: “The agreement signed by Trump and Kim […] came as a shock, which only got worse as Trump rambled on during the ensuing press conference. The sole goal of this summit was the dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear weapons, and the key gauge would have been a commitment to doing it “completely, verifiably and irreversibly” and a date to do it by — for example 2020, when Trump’s term ends” The Chosun had pointed critique of the cancellation of the joint military exercises: “The only time they were halted was back in 1992, to coax the North into scrapping its nuclear program, and everyone knows how successful that was.“

CHINA
Following the US-DPRK summit, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi told reporters that China welcomed the “history making” summit and would continue to play a constructive role in the building peace in the Korean Peninsula. Wang Yi stated that “China hopes that the leaders of the DPRK and the US will remove disruptions, build mutual trust, overcome obstacles, and reach basic consensus on and take substantive steps towards promoting and realizing the denuclearization and establishing the peace mechanism of the Peninsula.” Foreign Ministry Spokesman Geng Shuang reiterated Chinese optimism following the meeting and highlighted China’s role in suggesting the “dual track approach”: “The facts have proven that the China-proposed ‘suspension for suspension’ initiative has been materialized and now the situation is also moving forward in the direction of the ‘dual-track’ approach.” When questioned about the lifting of international sanctions on North Korea, Foreign Ministry Spokesman Geng Shuang told reporters that while China strictly followed the DPRK related resolutions, it firmly believed that “sanction itself is not the end, and the Security Council’s actions should support and conform to the diplomatic dialogue and the endeavour for the denuclearization of the Peninsula at this point, and promote the political settlement of the Peninsula issue.” At a press conference after his meeting with Chairman Kim on June 19, 2018, Chinese President Xi Jinping reiterated China’s support for North Korea: “No matter how the international and regional situations change, the firm stance of the CPC and the Chinese government on consolidating and developing the relations with the DPRK remains unchanged, the Chinese people’s friendship with the DPRK people remains unchanged, and China’s support for the socialist DPRK remains unchanged.”

The state-directed China Daily expressed cautious hope that the summit would become the “the defining moment in history it was being billed as.” “While no one should expect the summit to have ironed out all the differences and erased the deep-seated mistrust between the two long-time foes, it has ignited hopes that they will be finally able to put an end to their hostility and that the long-standing peninsula issues can finally be resolved. These hopes should not be extinguished,” the editorial read.
The nationalist Global Times hailed the summit as evidence that new norms in international relations are taking hold: “Mutual respect for others’ core interest and care for each other’s major concerns is now at the top of global political rules.” The Times pointed to North Korea’s acts of apparent goodwill as evidence for this: “To further promote denuclearization on the Peninsula, it is necessary to keep injecting momentum into the process. Boosting North Korea’s enthusiasm is crucial. Washington used to be very skeptical about Pyongyang, but this year, North Korea has been very consistent. It has taken unilateral steps to release three US hostages and demolished its nuclear test site. It is time to consider alleviating sanctions against Pyongyang.“
Zhang Yun, associate professor at National Niigata University in Japan and senior fellow at the Institute of Advanced Area Studies and Global Governance, Beijing Foreign Studies University, suggested that “US President Donald Trump deserves the biggest applause for the very occurrence of the summit” in his op-ed for The Global Times. Zhang explained that Trump’s “unique style of doing things” allowed him to act despite domestic bipartisan consensus against engaging so cordially with North Korea.
Coverage of the summit by the independent South China Morning Post included an article that surveyed Chinese analysts for their takeaways. The Post concluded that “[a]lthough Beijing was not officially involved in the landmark talks, China’s influence over the reclusive North Korean regime had still been felt.“

JAPAN
From Tokyo, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe thanked President Trump for raising the abduction issue in his talks with Chairman Kim and described the summit as “a step in a comprehensive resolution.” Foreign Minister Taro Kono, in an interview with national public broadcasting organization NHK, was optimistic that the North would meet its end of the bargain, explaining that, “In North Korea, a promise of the supreme leader has special significance, especially if given in a written form. The domestic announcement of full denuclearization is also important. I think that in a situation like this, North Korea will stick to its promise.”

The progressive Asahi Shimbun expressed its support for the “historic” summit, but noted that North Korea still has a “long way to go” before it can be considered an “honored member of the global community,” namely regarding actual follow through on denuclearization and improving human rights conditions, which the Asahi said were not adequately addressed by the summit. The Asahi concluded that “Japan must strive to work closer with China, South Korea and Russia and explore means for constructive engagement with North Korea.”
The Japan Times was cynical in its response to the summit: “It was a historic meeting, if by “historic” we mean that it was the first meeting of a sitting president of the United States and a North Korean leader. Apart from that very particular definition, it was exceptionally ordinary, yielding a document that offered nothing new. By every measure the encounter was notable more for what it did not do, rather than what it did.” The Times also called for the government to maintain pressure on North Korea until the abduction issue is solved. The Japan Times also reported that a government source claimed a summit between Abe and Kim later this year is in the works.
In an op-ed for The Japan Times, former ambassador Masamichi Hanabusa suggested that expectations for resolution of the abduction issue needed to be tempered: “With regard to the so-called abduction issue, at the time of former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi’s visit to Pyongyang in September 2002, North Korea acknowledged the issue and apologized for it at the government level. Bearing this in mind, it is important for Japan to solve this issue in as quiet and moderate a fashion as possible in the direction of satisfying the expectations of the related families. The Japanese people need to restrain their emotional reactions, so that they will not end up reducing the totality of the Japan-North Korea relationship to the single issue of abduction.”
The Mainichi Shimbun expressed its disappointment in the summit in two editorials as “more was expected” from the summit: “[W]e are worried about the lack of thoroughness on the part of the Trump administration. In the post-summit press conference, President Trump stressed his trust of Chairman Kim, but offered no concrete reason for that. Moreover, the statement made no mention of verification, the most important element in denuclearization. We are also left in the dark over how the issue concerning Japanese victims of North Korean abduction will be settled,” the first explained. The second characterized the summit as little more than “a piece of political theater.” The Mainichi called for the Abe administration to act transparently in its pursuit of normalized relations with North Korea as well: “Improvements in Tokyo’s ties with Pyongyang are vital for Japan’s security. Therefore, the Abe administration should display its enthusiasm about the issue by, for example, holding a meeting of the leaders of ruling and opposition parties in an effort to share the government’s policy on North Korea.“
The Yomiuri Shimbun, a conservative paper, called on its government to cooperate with the US and South Korea, but also argued that “To realize denuclearization, it is vital for North Korea to declare its nuclear arms, nuclear materials and related facilities and then abandon them, which will be followed by verification by such organizations as the International Atomic Energy Agency. It is essential to hammer out a roadmap specifying concrete steps and deadlines and press Pyongyang to implement it.“

INDIA
In a statement, India’s Ministry of External Affairs offered these kind words for the summit, “India welcomes the United States-DPRK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) Summit held in Singapore. This is a positive development. India has always supported all efforts to bring about peace and stability in the Korean Peninsula through dialogue and diplomacy,” while including a thinly veiled reference to Pakistan’s ties to North Korea: “We also hope that the resolution of the Korean Peninsula issue will take into account and address our concerns about proliferation linkages extending to India’s neighbourhood.”

Left-leaning newspaper The Hindu commended the two leaders for the summit’s success: “The two whimsical leaders deserve full credit for this thaw in relations, given the decades of hostility and the quick diplomacy that pulled the Korean peninsula back from the brink of war. [..B]eing unpredictable and impulsive, Mr. Trump and Mr. Kim must also stare down hardline elements in their respective administrations. This bold beginning must not be wasted.“
In an editorial, the liberal Hindustan Times echoed concerns that the summit will not result in any substantive change: “It is welcome that there will be more talks between the US and North Korea as this will surely reduce the chances of a nuclear confrontation and help to ease the isolation of the regime in Pyongyang, the Trump administration must do much more to tie the North Korean leadership to a verifiable, time-bound and irreversible programme for denuclearisation. Without that, the summit in Singapore could go down in history as just a grand photo-op.”
Vishnu Prakash, a former diplomat and foreign affairs analyst for the Hindustan Times, was enthusiastic in his review of the summit: “Sceptics would aver that Kim managed to sell Trump a lemon, but that may be somewhat uncharitable. Trump was bold enough to accept a realistic arrangement. Whether or not it will hold, only time will tell. The portends, however, look positive!“
In his analysis for The Indian Express, C. Raja Mohan, Director of the Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore, was similarly optimistic that “Trump and Kim may have begun to move the Korean Peninsula into uncharted but hopefully calmer waters” given their commitment to three guiding principles in the Singapore summit statement and accompanying political gestures of goodwill.
Pratap Bhanu Mehta, Vice Chancellor, Ashoka University, in New Delhi, also provided insight in The Indian Express, but focused his attention on making sense of Trump’s “disruptions” in his foreign policy more broadly, as exemplified by his behavior at the G7 and Singapore summits: “Trump’s three disruptions – the end of the West, the accommodation with authoritarian great power rivals and therefore signalling the end of Pax Americana, and his attack on globalisation – have an odd coherence to them. The traditional foreign policy establishment thought it could hold on to these ideas without paying the price for the pathologies that went with them: Western privilege, imperial overreach, and inequality.“

RUSSIA
During a press conference at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit two days before the Singapore summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed his country’s support for the event and highlighted China’s role in its fruition: “Russia welcomes the upcoming US-North Korean summit and points to China’s great contribution to resolving the Korean Peninsula crisis.” In a scheduled press conference, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov responded to questions about the summit “The very fact of a direct contact taking place between the leaders of the United States and the DPRK deserves support. Indeed, the Russian-Chinese road map, which was put together a little less than a year ago, called for an end to bellicose rhetoric and provocative actions on both sides at its first stage, and establishing direct contact and the beginning of a discussion of all the issues and concerns that both parties have, at its second. It appears that Washington and Pyongyang are moving precisely towards this end.” Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova expressed Russia’s support for the easing of economic sanctions against North Korea in light of the positive developments: “We are convinced that one of the major components in the normalisation process in the region can and should be modification the UN Security Council sanctions regime against North Korea, particularly given that respective sanction resolutions have repeatedly reaffirmed the Security Council’s commitment to this kind of adjustment, taking into account progress in the situation.” However, Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov later clarified that Russia would not pursue lifting the sanctions until “the situation on the Korean Peninsula develops in a positive direction.”

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

Summer of Summits: The Rising Powers at G7 and SCO

Policy Alert #167 | June 14, 2018

It’s not even halfway through the month of June and the Rising Powers have already had a busy month of summits with their counterparts. The Group of Seven (G7) met in Quebec, Canada, June 8-9, 2018, while the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) convened in Qingdao, China, June 9-10, 2018. The G7 includes Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States. SCO’s membership comprises China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, as well as ten other observer and partner states in Eurasia. As many analysts note, the two blocs exhibit a striking contrast between the predominantly Western, industrialized powerhouses in international politics and a growing coalition of rising states whose interests have not been served by the status quo. In this first part of RPI’s coverage of the Rising Powers’ summer summits, we examine domestic responses to the successes, failures, and unprecedented personal dramas of the G7 and SCO.

CHINA

As host to this year’s SCO, Chinese President Xi Jinping served as chair during the summit. Whether intentional or not, Xi’s speech benefited greatly from the behavior of US President Donald Trump at the G7 and his commitment to maintaining tariffs against US allies: “While hegemony and power politics still persist in this world, the growing call for a more just and equitable international order must be heeded. Democracy in international relations has become an unstoppable trend of the times. While various traditional and non-traditional security threats keep emerging, the force for peace will prevail, for security and stability are what people long for. While unilateralism, trade protectionism and backlash against globalization are taking new forms, in this global village of ours where countries’ interests and future are so interconnected, the pursuit of cooperation for mutual benefit represents a surging trend. While we keep hearing such rhetoric as the clash of civilizations or the superiority of one civilization over another, it is the diversity of civilizations that sustains human progress. Indeed, mutual learning between different cultures is a shared aspiration of all peoples.” President Xi also announced that his country will set up an RMB 30 billion (USD 4.6 billion) lending facility within the SCO Inter-Bank Consortium to assist member states’ development.

The state-run People’s Daily directly weighed the outcomes of the G7 and SCO summits in its editorial: “Why did the G7 summit end in disarray […] while the SCO summit was full of enthusiasm and ambition? The key lies in that the Shanghai Spirit, featuring mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality, consultation, respect for cultural diversity and pursuit of common development, echoes the theme of the era, in which unilateralism can hardly prevail.” The People’s Daily further attributed growing interest in the SCO as the result of “[b]igotry of a few Western countries” that has led “emerging countries in Eurasia to explore a new, adaptable type of international cooperation.” Another People’s Daily editorial, published in English by the China Daily, further hailed the summit as a testament to multilateral cooperation: “The SCO Summit in Qingdao is testimony that humankind really can rally positive energy to promote world peace, stability, development and prosperity if all countries respect each other, pursue equality, justice and win-win cooperation, and discard obsolete zero-sum mindsets.”
In a personal editorial, People’s Daily writer Zhong Sheng reported that there exists “a consensus that the China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative is propelling regional integration and boosting the cooperation among the SCO member states,” while omitting the fact that India made a point to withhold its support for the BRI in the communique.
An editorial covering the G7 summit by state-directed China Daily characterized the outcome of the summit as a loss for not only the member states, but the entire international community: “[T]he acrimonious meeting in Quebec is bad news for the group, which is trying to resurrect its waning clout in the world economy, but also for those hoping it would deliver a positive message on global trade.” The Daily called on the international community to “rally and reject the self-oriented closed-door policies of the US.”
China Daily writer Liu Wanli explained the stunning contrast between the outcomes of the G7 and SCO as attributable to the latter’s “Shanghai Spirit”: “It is mainly because of the continuous upgrading of the SCO’s guidelines that the organization has enjoyed impressive growth and become a model for building the China-championed new type of international relations, which features mutual respect, fairness and justice, and win-win cooperation.” The Daily’s expansive coverage of the SCO also included a collection of op-eds from SCO member states’ ambassadors to China as well as analysis from several Chinese scholars.
The independent South China Morning Post also compared the G7 and SCO summits. The Post characterized President Trump’s tweets following his early exit from the G7 as having “shattered the facade of consensus in a joint communique following a quarrelsome G7 of rich nations in Quebec,” against the SCO’s “perfect example of the way to do multilateralism and how not to.” The editorial made special note of the attendance and participation by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, despite tensions over the disputed territory in Doklam last year, and observers from Iran, which was slighted by the US’s reinstatement of economic sanctions last month.

INDIA

In his speech at the SCO, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi repeatedly emphasized the imperative for respect of member states’ sovereignty, most notably in his “SECURE” acronym, no doubt in reference to India’s objection to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor that runs through parts of disputed Kashmir territory. India was the only member of SCO to withhold endorsement of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in the joint communique.

The pro-government Daily Pioneer offered its strong support for Prime Minister Modi’s “red line” on the BRI: “In nuancing its opposition to [BRI], New Dehli has done well to decouple the need for greater cooperation within and economic integration of the region and the countries that will be served by [BRI] from the issue of each nation’s sovereign rights, which has a major implication in the projection of power in the region. After all, if sovereignty is chipped away in the name of future prosperity of the existing regional hegemon is only the gainer in geopolitical terms.” In its take on the outcomes of the G7 summit, the Daily Pioneer juxtaposed President Trump’s “dichotomies” of “blowing the global trade order from Air Force One” en route to meet with North Korean leader Chairman Kim Jong Un following his early exit from the G7 summit. “Make no mistakes, Donald Trump is more shrewd than most of the world gives him credit for […T]he way he plays chess is not classical, it is brute force chess. But that is the same way computers play chess and nowadays, computers always win at that game. […] Trump may be onto something,” the Pioneer suggested.
The center-right Times of India, meanwhile, focused its attention on President Trump’s swipe at India’s tariffs on American products in his Twitter storm following the G7 summit. The Times called on the Indian government to pursue bilateral agreements with other countries, especially China, to “minimize the collateral damage created by President Trump’s ‘America First’ policies.” Regarding the SCO summit, however, the Times lauded Prime Minister Modi’s singular refusal to endorse China’s Belt and Road Initiative: “[T]his shouldn’t be read as India getting isolated. India needs to stand up for its own interest, which nobody else is going to articulate on its behalf. […] If Beijing is really keen on securing India’s support for BRI, it must also see a few things from New Delhi’s perspective.”
Harsh V. Pant, Distinguished Fellow and Head of the Strategic Studies Programme at Observer Research Foundation, argued that while the SCO remains largely symbolic and its impact has been limited so far, it fits in with a larger trend for states to be looking for alternatives to Western-dominated leadership: “At a time when America is looking inward, and Europe is struggling to come to terms with multiple domestic crises, major powers are looking at multiple coalitions to manage an international order in a high degree of fluidity. New Delhi is no exception. India’s substantive engagement with wider Central Asia will be key to its growing aspirations in a rapidly evolving Eurasian landscape.”
Rajeshwari Krishnamurthy, deputy director at the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, New Dehli, explained in her op-ed for First Post the consensus between China, India, and Russia–which are also members of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa)–not to impose sanctions on Iran and the need for a multipolar order in the international system. While SCO was a Chinese-led project, Krishnamurthy suggested that it might serve as a useful platform for its neighbors to “check” its influence in the region: “Overall, a regional consensus seems to be emerging in favour of an inclusive, broad-based collective that represents regional interests. The SCO has certainly become much broader than it was when it began, and regional countries may now be evaluating the SCO’s potential of being a prospective alternative framework/platform for engagement on matters relevant to the regional order. Nonetheless, irrespective of the regional countries’ increased engagement (existing or sought) with China, the nature and the extent to which they are comfortable with accommodating an ‘enthusiastic’ China remains to be seen.”
In the Business Standard, Sana Hashmi, from the East Asian Centre, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, argued that “the SCO is coming of age and is proving itself to be pan-regional forum which has showed increasing resilience and also finding a modus vivendi for members of the group” due to its sheer size in terms of the world population and global GDP, the salience of China’s BRI, and Russia’s wariness of Chinese dominance over the group and its own Eurasian Economic Union group. The role of the newest members, then, is to balance out the organization: “India’s entry into the SCO as a member, alongside Pakistan, would bring in new elements of regional dynamics. While it is an open secret that India’s entry will act as a natural balancer to regional equilibrium, it is also true that such an act throws open significant strategic challenges before India. Entry of the other new member, Pakistan, also exposes SCO to hidden challenges. Terrorism, trans-regional energy supplies, and infrastructure connectivity projects are to name a few.”

RUSSIA

Russia is the only state that has participated in both the G7 and SCO. It was welcomed into the expanded Group of Eight (G8) in 1997, but was shunned from the organization with the sudden cancellation of the planned 2014 summit in Sochi following its annexation of Crimea from Ukraine. Although President Trump called for Russia to rejoin the group, Russian officials sounded uninterested. Russian President Vladimir Putin, at an SCO press conference, expressed his support for groups like the SCO instead: “If we take per capita numbers, the G7 countries are richer but the economy in the SCO is larger. [..T]he population numbers are also much bigger–half the world’s population.” In an interview on Russia’s Channel One, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov offered a nearly identical statement: “[Russia has] never begged to come back. […W]e are working perfectly in other formats, such as the SCO, BRICS, and especially the G20, where our partners share our approaches.” Spokesman Dmitry Peskov further suggested that the relevance of the G-7 is fading: “Over the years, this forum has been losing its importance because given the changing political and economic situation, other platforms, such as the G20, where Russia is an active member, have been becoming more important.”

In an editorial, the nationalist Pravda Report argued that “[t]he Group of Seven is a product of the past. This is a legacy of a certain period, when the West tried to integrate Russia into its structure and make the country accept Western (European) rules. […] Russia does not need to go there again.”
Government-funded RT echoed comparisons between the “robust show of unity” on display at SCO with “the calamitous G7 meeting” in its editorial by explaining what makes the SCO different from other multilateral groups. In the piece, RT cited President Putin’s comments about the size of the SCO membership in terms of population and economic weight, as well as the group’s consensus in how best to solve issues of terrorism, instability in Syria and Afghanistan, and its commitment to cooperation in trade, especially in the wake of President Trump’s ‘America First’ protectionist tariffs.
Sputnik News correspondent Denis Boltsky asserted in his coverage of both summits that the “Western TV and newspapers seemed to have been totally consumed with ‘the clash of the Titans’ at the G7” while “[t]he SCO summit barely made it into the western MSM’s [mainstream media] headlines, even though the Shanghai pact’s influence is growing annually.” Boltsky also claimed that in Qingdao there were “no wailing sirens, no tear gas or masked radicals in the streets, as often happens during G20 or NATO summits. Instead, dozens of locals gathered to film the motocades of the Russian, Chinese, and Belarusian presidents or take pictures of the freshly planted flower beds.”

JAPAN

Following the G7 summit, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe noted the “intense debate” during the meeting, but argued that, “For the G7 to have exchanges of measures that restrict trade will not be in the interests of any country.”

The left-leaning Asahi Shimbun criticized the Abe administration for relying on “a foreign policy agenda fully dependent on the Trump White House.” “The Abe administration now needs to take a hard look at the effectiveness and limitations of its diplomatic approach and hammer out a new strategy firmly tethered to the new reality. […] Abe should confront and act on the obvious fact that Japan cannot protect its own interests by simply following the United States,” the Asahi asserted. In another editorial, the Asahi lamented the irony that the SCO, whose membership includes states that favor “autocratic policies and disrespect for international law,” “came across as a more positive force for the world in contrast to the G-7, which once acted as a bulwark against improper conduct by some countries. The Canada summit showed it to be in its worst moral shape in history.”
The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun lamented the G7’s “failure” and “functional disorder” at the summit in Quebec, but expressed its support for the group’s unanimous statement regarding North Korea. Regarding President Trump’s suggestion that Russia be invited back to the group, the Yomiuri strongly disagreed: “If Russia rejoins the G-7 group just at a time when the relationship among G-7 countries remains fragile, it could only deepen the antagonism between them.”
The Japan Times instead focused on the G7 members efforts to make progress despite the US and supported Abe’s efforts to pursue the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership and brokering a bilateral trade agreement with the European Union: “To their credit, other G7 leaders are trying to step up and fill the vacuum created by the US retreat. […] Japan is right to demand adherence to global rules and Abe is to be applauded for his determination to strengthen them.”

Rising Powers Hold Their Breath for Trump-Kim Summit

Policy Alert #166 | May 29, 2018

The Rising Powers are undoubtedly recovering from whiplash following the off-again-on-again saga of the summit between the US and North Korea scheduled to take place in Singapore on June 12, 2018. Preparations for the Summit soured following a series of ill-timed demonstrations of strength, such as the joint military exercises between the US and South Korea and sabre-rattling rhetoric in North Korea in response, despite acts of goodwill, like North Korea’s demolition of its nuclear test site and US President Donald Trump’s apparent softening of some demands following a meeting with South Korean President Moon Jae-In. Both North Korea and the US threatened to pull out of the Summit in recent weeks, but ultimately it was President Trump who announced that the meeting “will not take place” in an open letter to North Korean leader Chairman Kim Jong Un. Following President Trump’s announcement, President Moon met with Chairman Kim in the unscheduled Second Inter-Korean Summit along the border between the two countries and a US delegation met with North Korean officials in Pyongyang. For now, all signs point to the Summit meeting as planned, but analysts in the Rising Powers had tough words for both sides’ role in the drama.

SOUTH KOREA

In a press release, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs quoted President Moon’s comments on his discussion with Kim: “Chairman Kim made clear once again his intentions to completely denuclearize the Korean Peninsula, as he did in the Panmunjeom Declaration. He expressed his willingness to work together to promote peace and prosperity as well as to put an end to the history of war and confrontation through the success of a North Korea-United States summit.” The press release also emphasized that North and South Korea had also committed to reconvening high-level talks on June 1.

The liberal-leaning Korea Times characterized President Trump’s announcement as a “surprise” to “the world,” but expressed hope that the Summit could be salvaged. To do so, the Times called for both sides to meet each other’s non-negotiable demands: “[T]he North should accept the U.S. demand for complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization. Likewise, Washington needs to accommodate Pyongyang’s calls for security guarantees and economic assistance in return for abandoning its nuclear program.” The Times later celebrated President Moon’s sudden, unannounced meeting with Chairman Kim in apparent response to Trump’s announcement: “The consecutive meetings between Moon and Kim give assurance to Koreans that the President is doing a good job in managing inter-Korean relations even under negative circumstances surrounding the peninsula, such as the unforeseen announcement regarding the planned U.S.-North Korea summit in Singapore.”
The Hankyoreh, another liberal-leaning outlet, offered glowing reviews of President Moon’s role in getting the Summit “back on track” in two editorials covering his initial meeting with President Trump on May 22nd and his meeting with Chairman Kim following the cancellation announcement on May 25th.
The Korea Herald responded to the news of Trump’s cancellation with the cautious optimism that diplomacy could overcome nerves: “[W]e look forward to seeing a grand deal come at the last minute. Seoul must resume brokering, and Pyongyang must refrain from tit-for-tat provocative words and deeds.” After Trump’s signalling that the Summit will probably go as planned, the Herald offered a lecture to both leaders: “What both Trump and Kim should realize is that the game they are playing now is about a nuclear crisis and is too important to be swayed by their usual thinking and behavior, not least lack of restraint and rashness. We don’t expect the two men to behave as statesmen, but they could at least be a little more sensible.”
Following Trump’s announcement, the conservative JoongAng Daily mused that “Brinkmanship has always played a pivotal part in deal-making. Trump knows how to play the game.” The JoongAng suggested “Seoul should mediate and Pyongyang should refrain from tit-for-tat verbal attacks” to revive the Summit. After news of the Summit’s revival, the JoongAng echoed calls for North Korea and the US to mutually meet each other’s non-negotiable terms: “If Pyongyang wants solid assurances of regime security, it must first agree to total denuclearization. The United States also needs to present North Korea with detailed action plans to satisfy its need for regime safety.”
The conservative Chosun Ilbo, meanwhile, took aim at President Moon’s “repeated” suggestions that the US and South Korea “alter” their previously scheduled joint military exercises to show goodwill toward North Korea and suggestions that the joint exercises be altered or ended if denuclearization is successful: “Of course they should not continue for all eternity if there is no enemy left, but the decision can easily be made once it is certain that South Korea is safe, the North Korean nuclear program has been completely abolished and a peace treaty has been signed.[…] Jettisoning the U.S.-South Korea alliance that has maintained peace for the last 65 years is not a matter to be considered on the spur of the moment.” In response to the cancellation and revival of the Summit, the Chosun Ilbo had harsh words for its own government: “At a time like this, Seoul should stand shoulder to shoulder with Washington in pressuring Pyongyang to scrap its nuclear weapons. Playing the role of a muddling intermediary could have catastrophic consequences.”

CHINA
In response to questions regarding the possibility of the cancellation of the Summit, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lu Kang said, “[T]he dialogue and détente on the Korean Peninsula at this point are hard-won, we strongly hope that all relevant parties will cherish that and earnestly speak and act in a way that is conducive to ensuring smooth dialogue and achieving positive outcomes. To this end, it is necessary for all relevant parties, the US and the DPRK in particular, to actively meet each other halfway, send out goodwill, and enhance mutual trust.” After President Trump’s formal announcement of his intention to cancel the Summit, Spokesperson Lu was questioned about the suggestions that China played a role in North Korea’s “change in attitude” that prompted Trump’s action. Spokesperson Lu reiterated China’s positions: “China has always played a positive and constructive role on the Korean Peninsula issue without any ulterior motive at all. China stays committed to the goal of the denuclearization of the Peninsula, upholding the peace and stability on the Peninsula and resolving the Peninsula issue through dialogue and negotiation. This position remains unchanged all along. This is what we said more than 10 years ago and keep saying until today; we said so to the leader of the US as well as of the DPRK. At the same time, the political settlement of the Peninsula nuclear issue through dialogue calls for all the relevant parties, especially the directly concerned parties, to meet each other halfway and send goodwill to each other. Relevant parties shall think about how they are doing in this regard.”

The state-supported China Daily responded to the news of President Trump’s announcement by supporting continued dialogue: “After 65 years some maneuvering is to be expected, but all parties need to keep in contact and work toward the same goals.” Upon Trump’s “180” on the matter, the Daily called for both sides to remain committed to the Summit’s success: “The momentum for peace on the peninsula has never been stronger, and it should not be abused. Pyongyang and Washington need to confirm their shared will to meet face-to-face and instill confidence that they will be talking in good faith when they do.”
In an op-ed for The China Daily, Zhu Feng, Dean of the School of International Relations at Nanjing University, called for the US to sincerely consider North Korea’s interests as part of the diplomatic maneuvering necessary for successful denuclearization. “Since the DPRK has strongly refused to denuclearize under any external pressure, Washington should ease or lift part of its sanctions against the DPRK and provide it with some economic compensation in return for taking some denuclearizing measures,” Zhu suggested. He also urged North Korea “to take concrete actions for denuclearization, complete with a timetable, to convince the US that it is sincere about denuclearization.”
The nationalist Global Timesimmediately called for “restraint” and “calm” on both sides following Trump’s announcement, and highlighted the possibility that North Korea may misinterpret the US’s intentions given that the cancellation followed the North’s demolition of the Punggye-ri nuclear test site even though the timing was more likely the result of the time differences. In response to the meeting between Chairman Kim and President Moon, the Times was optimistic for the Summit’s success, but warned Washington that “it should respect North Korea’s legitimate security concern rather than arrogantly trying to bring Pyongyang to its knees.” The Times also took the opportunity to hail China’s role in the denuclearization process in response to “the claim that China is being marginalized” in media reports “in South Korea and the West” by asserting in an editorial that “China is a crucial driving force of the progress on the peninsula. […] China’s strength and geopolitical position is obvious to all.”
In an op-ed for the Global Times, Wang Peng, associate research fellow at the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies, Renmin University of China and the Charhar Institute, asserted that, “Trump’s unpredictable diplomacy strengthens China’s say over the peninsula issue. Although the US-North Korea summit will likely be held, the twist has largely dampened the enthusiasm of the international community, including North Korea’s anticipation. […] The decision to waffle over the meeting has brought more harm than benefit to US interests and the Trump administration. Trump’s reckless backtracking has dented the US’ international strategic credibility, which is vital to the US being a superpower.”

JAPAN
At a press conference on May 23, 2018, Japanese Foreign Press Secretary Norio Maruyama reiterated Japan’s support for President Trump’s hardline after being questioned about Trump’s suggestion that the Summit be postponed following his meeting with President Moon: “Japan highly values the strong determination shown by President Trump in seeking to elicit concrete actions by North Korea. Japan will continue to firmly convey its views to the United States ahead of the upcoming U.S.-North Korea Summit Meeting and advance preparations with the U.S. side.”

The progressive Asahi Shimbun cynically observed in an editorial that “Trump’s foreign policy posture remains as unpredictable as Pyongyang’s is inflexible,” and called for China, South Korea, and Japan to “put more diplomatic pressure” on both sides to keep the dialogue moving forward.
The Japan Times claimed that the Summit seemed doomed from the start and that President Trump’s announcement was “no great surprise.” The Times warned that North Korea’s neighbors must “brace for a return to antagonism,” and lamented that, “Maintaining the coalition will be difficult if the governments in Beijing and Seoul, which seek to engage Pyongyang, believe that the breakdown in talks and the loss of diplomatic momentum are Washington’s fault, a view encouraged by Trump’s impulsiveness.”
The Mainichi Shimbun argued that cancellation of the Summit would provide “a chance to start over.” The Mainichi noted the substantial progress that has been made by both sides as part of the process, but also that “It is important to take time to organize a fruitful summit meeting instead of hastily arranging talks for the talks’ sake.” Ultimately, however, the Mainichi placed the responsibility of the Summit’s success on North Korea: “If Pyongyang clarifies that it will completely abandon its nuclear weapons program and pursue economic growth while receiving assistance from Japan and the United States, it will lead to a fruitful U.S.-North Korea summit.”
Following President Trump’s initial suggestion of cancelling the Summit, the conservative Yomiuri Shimbun expressed its support for US demands for complete denuclearization: “It is important to stick to the principle of demanding North Korea’s ‘complete, verifiable, and irreversible nuclear dismantlement,’ without being swayed by Pyongyang.” After Trump’s formal announcement, the Yomiuri conceded that Trump’s strategy was risky, but asserted that “The North Korean side is to blame for causing turmoil over the summit.”
Kuni Miyake, president of the Foreign Policy Institute and research director at the Canon Institute for Global Studies, penned an open letter to President Moon in the Japan Times which implored Moon to improve relations between Japan and South Korea as part of his maneuvering for denuclearization: “Mr. President, the next few months will be critical in your endeavor to achieve peace and prosperity in the peninsula which the entire Korean nation deserves. You have successfully connected Pyongyang with Washington. Now it is high time for you to reconnect Seoul with Tokyo.”

INDIA

In an editorial, left-leaning The Hindu urged both sides to focus on the acts of good faith they have already made and commit to the diplomatic process: “Both Mr. Trump and Mr. Kim should keep in mind the larger goal of de-escalation of tension, if not outright denuclearisation, on the peninsula and work to reschedule the summit. The only sound way to address the Korean nuclear crisis is diplomacy.”
The business-focused Economic Times argued that India could “serve as a neutral broker” between North Korea and the US given its interest in preserving stability in East Asia as well as its own sympathy with “North Korea’s desire to be seen as a member of the nuclear-enabled countries.”
The Indian Express, a liberal paper, described President Trump’s announcement as more of the same: “With the Iran deal off, and the renewed turmoil in Palestine over the US embassy’s relocation from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, the talks with North Korea were to be Trump’s big opportunity to make history, and appear more presidential and more statesmanlike than he has in all his 18 months in office.” The Indian Express noted that there was still hope that the Summit would take place as scheduled, and suggested that “the least the two leaders can do now as they rethink their options, is to stay away from calling each other names and sending out nuclear threats on Twitter.”
The center-right Times of India responded tepidly to the news of President Trump’s cancellation announcement by asserting that “even if the summit had taken place, it wasn’t clear what substantive results would be achieved apart from the optics of the two leaders meeting.” Following Trump’s tweet suggesting that the Summit would occur as planned, the Times chided the US leader for his disruptive mercuriality: “Trump might consider himself the ultimate dealmaker, but blowing hot and cold only adds to confusion. […] The only way a deal can be made with Pyongyang now is through building trust from scratch. And that requires a consistent and coherent diplomatic approach on Washington’s part.”

RUSSIA
In a meeting with editors-in-chief from the state-owned media outlet TASS, Russian President Vladimir Putin argued that high-level meetings between the US and North Korea were essential for the process of denuclearizing the peninsula. President Putin also expressed the need to give North Korea more incentive to cooperate in negotiations: “To my mind, North Korea should be given guarantees of sovereignty and inviolability in order to talk about complete denuclearization of North Korea. […] They are guarantees of an opportunity to decide on their own future.” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Pankin echoed these concerns to TASS in an interview: “If we take into account how delicate and sensible the North Korean situation is, this may exacerbate tensions and set back [sic] relations to how they had been several months ago. [That is] when there were talks of worsening military and political tensions, carrying out strikes, estimating the number of victims and other apocalyptic scenarios, which, as we all know, couldn’t just remain local.”

BRAZIL

According to an analyst from the O Globo newspaper, even though Trump’s move to cancel the meeting with Kim Jong Un was brusque, it was a similar way of reacting to North Korea’s hostile statements made against the U.S. in the last few days – such as the criticism issued by the North Korean vice chancellor, calling US Vice President Mike Pence “a dumb politician”. It however would not represent an energetic rejection of the debate among the two countries.
The left-oriented online portal Carta Capital highlighted that the decision made by President Trump to call off the meeting with Kim Jong Un came out in the same day that North Korea announced the demolition of an important nuclear complex of the country, although the supposed demolition has not been accompanied by the international press or other independent parties, but only by “invited people.”
The supposed ambience of peace that had been established between the U.S. and North Korea was replaced by a succession of various disagreements and controversial pronouncements by authorities from both sides that culminated in the U.S. government cancellation of the meeting with the dictator Kim Jong Un, according to the right-oriented magazine Veja.

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

Rising Powers Condemn US Exit from Iran Deal

Policy Alert #165 | May 10, 2018

On May 8, 2018, US President Donald Trump announced that the United States would pull out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and reinstate economic sanctions on Iran. “America will not be held hostage to nuclear blackmail. We will not allow American cities to be threatened with destruction, and we will not allow a regime that chants ‘Death to America’ to gain access to the most deadly weapons on Earth,” Trump said in his speech to the press. European leaders, including British Prime Minister Theresa May, French President Emmanuel Macron, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, have emphasized their commitment to the JCPOA despite the US withdrawal. In a phone call with President Macron, Iranian President Dr. Hassan Rouhani expressed his country’s frustration with follow through of the JCPOA, but reiterated Iran’s commitment to the agreement: “The Islamic Republic of Iran is fully committed to its obligations in the JCPOA and will pursue its interests as it has so far, but unfortunately, the other side has not demonstrated a satisfactory performance. […] If we reach a clear decision on the JCPOA within a limited time, we can witness broader interaction between Iran and Europe.” US allies in the region, most notably Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Syrian opposition leadership, have praised the move. The Rising Powers, meanwhile, have nothing but tough words for the US.

CHINA
During a regularly scheduled press conference, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Geng Shuang responded to questions about the announcement of the US withdrawal from JCPOA: “China regrets the decision made by the US side. The JCPOA is a multilateral agreement reached by the P5+1, the European Union and Iran through negotiations and endorsed by the UN Security Council Resolution 2231. All relevant parties should implement the JCPOA in good faith and ensure its integrity and sanctity. This will contribute to upholding the international non-proliferation regime and peace and stability in the Middle East and will play an exemplary role for the political settlement of hot-spot issues.”

The official state-run Xinhua characterized the announcement as a “huge blow to peace and security in the Middle East.”
The China Daily, a state-backed media outlet, asserted, “[Trump’s] decision is not only a blow to the agreement itself but also renounces the multilateral efforts that secured the compact.” The Daily cited the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reports that show Iran has been compliant with the conditions of the JCPOA, and echoed concerns that the move could jeopardize not only peace in the Middle East but also upcoming negotiations with North Korea.
The nationalist Global Times asserted that the move was motivated by the US losing its place as a superpower in the wake of increased cooperation and unity between states: “Crippling Iran seems to be Washington’s main intent. Iran has long been the US’ major target in the Middle East. The White House doesn’t want to reconcile with the country and perhaps regards Iran as a tool to further split the Middle East and so expand American clout in the region.”
The independent South China Morning Post acknowledged the “problematic” nature of the JCPOA, but nevertheless urged the US to back down from Trump’s “dangerous” and “reckless” decision: “There are ways of strengthening the pact without tearing it up. To ignore what it has achieved would increase instability in the Middle East and imperil future deals and cooperation.”

INDIA
Indian officials chose to say little publicly on the issue. The Ministry of External Affairs issued the following response to media inquiries: “India has always maintained that the Iranian nuclear issue should be resolved peacefully through dialogue and diplomacy by respecting Iran’s right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy as also the international community’s strong interest in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program. All parties should engage constructively to address and resolve issues that have arisen with respect to the JCPOA.”

The left-leaning The Hindu argues that Trump’s move was not motivated by security concerns, but rather pressure to cater to its allies in the region: “[t]he bigger concern for Mr. Trump as well as Washington’s closest allies in West Asia — Israel and Saudi Arabia — is Iran’s re-accommodation in the global economic mainstream.”The Hindu was cautiously optimistic that the JCPOA would hold, but expressed its concern that the other signatories would “buckle under American pressure. If they do cave in, West Asia will be a lot more dangerous.”
Suhasini Haidar, Diplomatic Editor of The Hindu, offered words of calm in response to the announcement: “Despite United States President Donald Trump’s decision to pull out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the nuclear deal itself won’t be scrapped as long as Iran and the other signatories: the U.K., France, Russia, China, Germany and the European Union remain committed to it.” Haidar’s article surveys five ways the US withdrawal from the JCPOA could affect India.
The business-focused Economic Times criticized the move in an editorial, and called for India not to follow in the US’s footsteps: “India would do well to take a stand that can be justified on principle, rather than go by the number of defence contracts the country has with Israel and the US, the two main protagonists in a tiny camp that will face Europe, Russia, China and most of the rest of a disapproving world.”
Economic Times editor Amit Mudgill speculated that, “Donald Trump’s hardline action on Tuesday to pull out of the nuclear treaty with Iran is giving Modi probably the biggest headache at a time when his government faces elections in about half-a-dozen key states.” The announcement of the US withdrawal is believed to have contributed to crude oil prices jumping to a three-year high, which Mudgill suspects will negatively impact the incumbent Bharatiya Janata Party at the polls.
The pro-government Daily Pioneer highlighted the similarities between India and Iran regarding the threat of sanctions over pursuit of nuclear technology: “India, a country that has faced sanctions following its nuclear tests in 1998, in principal does not support economic sanctions on such issues. At the same time, India has expressed its deep commitment to non proliferation of nuclear weapons and supported use of nuclear power only for civil and peaceful purpose.” The Pioneer emphasized the bilateral economic agreements between the two countries that should withstand the US exit from the JCPOA “as long as European countries do not follow suit.”
The centrist-right Times of India argued that the US withdrawal was undermining two key US policy interests by potentially undermining North Korea’s faith in US commitments at the upcoming Trump-Kim summit and reestablishing Pakistani influence on Afghanistan. “In South Asia, Iran has emerged as an important channel through which Pakistan’s strategic hold over Afghanistan is being offset. India’s investment in Iran’s Chabahar port, for example, serves that purpose,” the Times explained.
Devirupa Mitra, deputy editor and diplomacy correspondent at the left-leaning digital news outlet The Wire, noted how India was blindsided by the announcement: “There is also the question of India’s strategic investment in Chabahar port in Iran which is critical for connectivity with Afghanistan and Central Asia. During the visit of the now former US secretary of state Rex Tillerson, India had got assurances that it could go ahead with its cooperation with Iran on the project. This year, India has also been looking forward to accelerating the implementation of the International North South Transport Corridor (INSTC).”

RUSSIA
In an official statement following President Trump’s announcement, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressed its “grave concern” for the US acting contrary to the consensus of the international community: “The decisions announced on May 8 are a new confirmation of Washington’s intractability. They also show that the US objections to Iran’s absolutely legal nuclear activity are nothing but a smokescreen for settling political scores with Iran. Washington’s newly unveiled position is a significant violation of the JCPOA. A joint commission of the JCPOA member states must promptly and scrupulously consider and assess this situation using the established procedures. Russia is open to further cooperation with the other JCPOA participants and will continue to actively develop bilateral collaboration and political dialogue with the Islamic Republic of Iran.” In an interview with the press, Acting Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov alleged that the action was merely a “cover” for protectionist policies: “It is actually protectionism in disguise since these steps run totally counter to the WTO’s rules.”

State-owned Sputnik News featured soundbites from academics, peace activists, and retired US and French military officials in its coverage of the US exit from JCPOA.
Lyuba Lulko, a correspondent for the nationalist Pravda Report, grimly forecasted that the US withdrawal from JCPOA is the beginning of World War III. With Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey restarting their nuclear programs in response to one another, and Israel’s own stockpile, Lulko argued that, “[W]e will see four nuclear powers in the Middle East in a few years, where ISIS is still struggling to survive. North Korea will be willing to revisit its nuclear ambition as well, and the principle of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons will go down in history forever.”

JAPAN
Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Kono issued the following statement in response to the US announcement of withdrawal: “The United States announced on May 8th that it will withdraw from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and begin reinstating US sanctions on Iran.It would be discouraging should the announcement have a major impact that makes the continuation of the JCPOA difficult. Japan, however, continues to support the JCPOA which contributes to the strengthening of the international non-proliferation regime and stability of the Middle East, and hopes for constructive actions by relevant parties. Japan will remain in close communication with relevant parties to maintain the JCPOA. Japan pays close attention to the situation while carefully analyzing possible influence that this announcement may cause.”

The left-leaning Mainichi Shimbun “welcomed” Trump’s attempt to clearly demonstrate his intentions to seek a “strict agreement” with North Korea, but argued that the execution may have undermined the negotiations before they even began: “[T]he latest decision by Trump could be viewed as an example of how the United States does not hesitate to easily break agreements reached through serious negotiations with other countries. Such practices could damage the international community’s trust in the United States.”
The Japan Times condemned Trump’s announcement as “a blow to U.S. leadership, a rebuke to its allies and threatens to unleash a regional arms race.” The Times also took aim at the Japanese government’s “muted” response despite the risk that the increased economic ties with Iran will become “yet more collateral damage in a misguided decision by the U.S. president.”
The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun, meanwhile, mirrored the Japanese government’s moderate calls for calm and reconciliation: “It is vital that the nuclear deal does not collapse, and that the central components relating to the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activities remain intact. […] Japan supports the continuation of the nuclear deal, from the perspective that it contributes to the enhancement of the international nuclear nonproliferation system and stability in the Middle East. The government needs to urge both Washington and Tehran to prevent the situation from deteriorating.”

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

Inter-Korean Summit: Promise of Peace or Peril for Rising Powers?

Policy Alert #164 | May 2, 2018

The Inter-Korean Summit in the Joint Security Border between North and South Korea on April 27, 2018, resulted in the Panmunjeom Declaration for Peace as well as the shocking photo-op of North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un stepping into the South Korean side of the border. The Summit followed a series of surprise announcements, such as North Korea’s promise to halt nuclear and ballistic missile tests until the Trump-Kim Summit later this year, and secret meetings, such as Kim’s visit to see Chinese President Xi Jinping in late March 2018 and newly-confirmed US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s stealthy preparatory visit to North Korea as then-Director of the CIA in early April 2018. With all the cloaks being tossed over the negotiating process, many watchers in the Rising Powers are wary of potential daggers. In this RPI Policy Alert, we sample the reactions to the recent developments on the Korean Peninsula.

SOUTH KOREA
In a press statement following the signing of the Panmunjeom Declaration for Peace, President Moon announced that “Chairman Kim Jong Un and I reached a crucial agreement after holding a historic meeting in accordance with the aspirations of the 80 million Korean people who wish for peace. We declared that there will be no more war on the Korean Peninsula and thus a new era of peace has begun. We could stand here because we have believed that we are able to prevail over the pain and sorrow of longstanding [sic] division.”

The liberal-leaning Korea Times was cautiously optimistic in its responses to the news by juxtaposing the potential for mutually beneficial changes with warnings and caveats. One editorial, which outlined how increased trade with North Korea would provide a boost to the South Korean economy, also warned, “[W]e should not make haste for or be too optimistic about such cooperation because it might weaken the international sanctions against the North before its complete denuclearization. Thus, the Moon administration needs to take a cautious approach in order to make sure Kim gives up his nuclear ambitions before seeking peace and economic co-prosperity on the peninsula.” In response to skepticism within South Korea and abroad over the sincerity of North Korea’s commitment to denuclearization, one Times editorial explained the promising steps the North has already taken, but called for North Korea to stay the course, as well: “North Korea should fully do its part for a peaceful Korean Peninsula by honoring the Panmunjeom declaration with concrete measures for denuclearization.” Another offered examples of humanitarian and cultural exchanges with the North to strengthen ties between the two countries: “The two countries should expedite exchanges in diverse fields, such as music, tourism and academia, among others. Since the two Koreas share the same history, a great synergy effect can take place among scholars of the two countries with joint research into ancient history. Joint projects will be helpful in regaining our identity as one people.”
Another liberal-leaning paper, The Hankyoreh, shared these sentiments in its responses to the success of the Kim-Moon summit. The Hankyoreh accredited the groundbreaking summit to President Moon’s persistence to pursue peace: “This inter-Korean summit was made possible by the persistent effort of the South Korean government. Since his inauguration in May 2017, Moon has continually made overtures of peace to the North. […] Even while North Korea and the US were trading barbs about ‘fire and fury,’ Moon held to the firm and unwavering principle of peace.”
In an editorial for The Hankyoreh, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Professor Emeritus Lee Jang-Hee called for the South and North Korean governments to create a “peace regime” with new institutions to ensure the successful normalization of relations, rather than stopping with a peace treaty to end the war. “[A] traditional peace treaty is less desirable than a peace regime that takes into account legal issues including the cessation of the war and the normalization of relations, a mechanism for building military trust; and the geo-political angle. Considering the circumstances on the Korean Peninsula, it would be more practical to have a peace regime including a legal document that declares the end of war and normalizes relations in the legal realm, the establishment of a commission to manage peace on the demilitarized zone and to guarantee the building of military trust, and an international organization […] to guarantee that the aforementioned two elements are carried out. The reason is history offers countless cases, too numerous to list here, in which a peace treaty alone has failed to guarantee peace.”
The Korea Herald was less trusting of Kim’s “performance” and suggested that the Kim-Trump summit would be more revealing of North Korea’s sincerity: “The Kim-Trump talks will also give other clues as to the real face of a man who, until the Panmunjeom summit, had been more known for his ruthless dynastic dictatorship and pursuit of dangerous weapons than for openness and rationality. We all know which way is better for North Korea and the world. To adopt Trump’s cliche, we will see.” The Herald called for the South Korean government to not repeat past mistakes by taking “a position consistent with the US” and easing economic sanctions “only when substantial progress is made in denuclearizing the North.” “Agreements to reduce military tension and promote peace are absolutely needed, but prudence and cool-headedness must be maintained until they become a reality. When it comes to security, better safe than sorry,” another Herald editorial explained.
The conservative Chosun Ilbo was careful to contextualize the denuclearization process as a long road with many opportunities for things to go wrong–or right: “There is no reason to be pessimistic, but blind optimism is uncalled for. What is needed is calm and patience.”
The Dong-A Ilbo, another conservative paper, called for a firm timeline of the denuclearization processed and warned the South Korean government against being “seen as attempting to rush for diplomatic success or crack international cooperation.” The same editorial expressed hope that Trump “will serve as an honest mediator in ushering in a new order in Northeast Asia and an earnest negotiator in leading a creative diplomacy.”
The conservative Joongang Daily was more cynical about the prospect of denuclearization, and argued that, “North Korea cannot fundamentally change, as seen in Sunday’s Rodong Sinmun [a North Korean newspaper], which lambasted U.S. democracy. We must not accept Kim’s charm offensive as a transformation. We must not be overly optimistic. It is time for cool heads, along with warm hearts.” The Daily echoed the calls for clear plans of denuclearization and to maintain economic sanctions “until we see progress”: “We are making a strong demand for a complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization because the North’s nuclear and missile abilities have advanced far more than in the past and are threatening us. Without addressing the denuclearization issue, no talks between the two Koreas can be meaningful.”

CHINA
At a regularly scheduled press conference following Chairman Kim’s unexpected visit to China, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lu Kang explained China’s support for denuclearization efforts: “General Secretary Xi commended the important efforts made by the DPRK for those positive changes that took place on the Korean Peninsula since this year, reiterated China’s relevant principled position and China’s will to continue with its constructive role. Going forward, we stand ready to work with the DPRK and other parties to, in combination with China’s dual-track approach and other parties’ useful advice, strive for the denuclearization, peace and stability of the Peninsula and the long-term peace and stability of this region and the world at large.” Following the Inter-Korean Summit, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs “extended its congratulations” to the two countries for the successful outcome and reiterated that “China stands ready to continue to play its positive role to this end.”

The state-run People’s Daily hailed the Kim-Xi Summit as a success for both the restoration of ties between China and North Korea and getting peace talks back on track: “As long as we grasp the new opportunity created by this historic meeting, intensify communication and mutual trust, we will certainly push China-DPRK relations toward a healthy development path in the long run, inject more energy to solving the Peninsula issue and make new contributions to regional peace, stability and development.”
The China Daily, a state-supported paper, was optimistic about the potential success of denuclearization while also warning that the process requires patience and flexibility on all sides and that it would be unreasonable to expect North Korea to change overnight: “[C]omplete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization will not happen unless Pyongyang feels confident it is safe without nuclear weapons.” The Daily called for all sides to do their part to keep the ball rolling: “It would be in the interest of all parties, therefore, to keep the positive momentum going, so that no untoward incident prevents permanent peace and prosperity from being restored not only on the peninsula but also in the region and beyond.”
The nationalist Global Times was quick to warn the US and its allies against undermining the success of the summit: “International society, first of all, the US, South Korea, Japan and the West, should rid themselves of their stereotyped view about a ‘demon’ North Korea and deal with it as a normal country to push it to abandon its nuclear programs. Washington should not regard North Korea’s halt to nuclear and missile tests as a result of its maximum pressure.” Two other Times editorials praised South Korea for acting somewhat independently of the US. One urged the South “to stick with its pursuit instead of being overly obedient to Washington like in the past.” The other argued that, “South Korea and China should push Pyongyang to move toward denuclearization while at the same time pressure Washington, preventing the latter messing up the peninsula issue. Washington should respect the views of countries on or surrounding the peninsula regarding how to solve the North Korea nuclear issue and achieve a permanent peace.”

JAPAN
In response to North Korea’s announcement to end nuclear and ballistic missile tests, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe issued a statement that read: “I welcome the statement by North Korea as a positive step. But the important point is whether or not it will lead to the complete, verifiable and irreversible abandonment of North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs as well as other weapons of mass destruction. We will monitor the situation closely.” At a meeting with family members of Japanese citizens abducted by North Korea, Prime Minister Abe vowed to “absolutely seize these opportunities to take steps forward on this issue.” Following the Inter-Korean Summit, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs restated that the Summit would not result in any changes in Japanese foreign policy: “The position of the Government of Japan remains unchanged that Japan seeks to normalize its relations with North Korea through comprehensive resolution of outstanding issues of concern, such as the abductions, nuclear and missile issues, as well as settlement of the unfortunate past in accordance with the Japan-DPRK Pyongyang Declaration. The Government of Japan continues to closely cooperate among Japan-US-ROK.”

The progressive Asahi Shimbun suggested the Japanese government prepare itself in the midst of changing dynamics on the Korean Peninsula: “It is important for Japan to start readying itself for possible negotiations to establish a formal diplomatic relationship with North Korea while keeping pressure on the Kim regime to abandon its nuclear arsenal.” The Asahi also urged the Japanese government to assert its positions while it has the chance: “Japan must get actively involved in the efforts to persuade Pyongyang to abandon its nuclear arms and become part of the international community. Whether Japan will be sidelined in the process depends on its own diplomacy.”
The Japan Times was wary of Kim’s “charm offensive” and previous attempts to denuclearize North Korea, and called on the US and South Korea to maintain economic sanctions until denuclearization is achieved: “There is a danger that Trump will be so blinded by his fixation on doing the unprecedented, showing up his predecessors and striking a deal, that he will focus on the words that Kim uses and not on their meaning. […] The immediate danger is that South Korea will be seduced by Kim’s approach and Moon will leave his meeting convinced of the need to resume economic ties to build on the diplomatic momentum.”
The Mainichi Shimbun encouraged its readers to be open to genuine change on the part of North Korea rather than dismissing the recent events as showmanship: “Looking back on what has happened in the past, it is hard to have faith in North Korea. It is only natural to harbor suspicions that the country will not act in accordance with agreements it signs with other countries. […] It is important to be wary of North Korea, but we must be sensitive to any hints of change.” The Mainichi expressed its concern, however, that Japan is being left out of the denuclearization process despite its stake in the issue: “It is important for Japan to be actively involved, including with the rebuilding of a framework for the Six-Party talks in the future.”
The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun similarly praised the G-7 announcement to maintain economic sanctions for the time being, “The pressure of sanctions should not be eased until after such developments as an inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the dismantling of nuclear arms and ballistic missiles, and the transporting of nuclear materials abroad are actually seen.” To this end, the Yomiuri called on Prime Minister Abe to take the initiative and keep Trump on track: “Tokyo and Washington need to assess the real intentions of Kim by analyzing his words and actions during the summit. Encouraging Trump to make an adequate policy judgment would be a pivotal role for Abe.”

RUSSIA
In a phone call with President Moon, Russian President Vladimir Putin assured Moon that Russia would continue to do its part in reducing tensions on the peninsula and stressed the “importance of further efforts of all parties involved [in a] political and diplomatic solution.” Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Konstantin Kosachev noted the encouraging turn of inter-Korean dialogue in an interview with TASS, saying, “The resumption of a direct dialogue is encouraging as there is no alternative to it and attempts to talk to each other from a position of strength are bound to fail.”

Government-funded RT published an article that reported on President Moon’s involvement in the 1976 “axe-murder incident” in the Joint Security Area. RT also highlighted a documentary by its correspondent Anya Parampil on the division of the peninsula and “how some Western countries contributed to the deepening wedge between the rival Koreas.”
State-owned TASS reported on the South Korean Ambassador’s statements that reiterated the South’s interest in cooperating with Russia over North Korea’s denuclearization following a statement by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov that assured the news agency that Russia was not “falling out” of the process despite not being mentioned in the Panmunjeom Declaration.
State-owned Sputnik News coverage of the Inter-Korea Summit included an article on South Korean polling company Realmeter’s finding of high levels of trust South Koreans have for North Korea’s promise of denuclearization.
An otherwise dry report by Dmitry Sudakov, a columnist for the nationalist Pravda Report, was published with the suggestive title “South and North Koreas united: Daydreaming in an ivory tower.”

INDIA
The Indian Ministry of External Affairs issued the following statement in response to the Inter-Korean Summit’s success: “India welcomes the inter-Korean Summit meeting held at Panmunjom on 27 April 2018. We hope that such engagement will help in reducing tensions and pave the way for lasting peace and reconciliation in the Korean Peninsula. India supports all efforts to bring about peace and stability in the Korean Peninsula through dialogue and diplomacy. We hope that all efforts to find resolution of the Korean Peninsula issue will also include addressing concerns about the proliferation linkages of DPRK’s nuclear and missile programme.”

An editorial in the pro-government Daily Pioneer acknowledged that despite his words of conciliation, Chairman Kim “holds the aces for now.” The Pioneer urged President Moon to “keep his powder dry” while engaging diplomatically.
The opposition-supporting Hindustan Times featured an op-ed by the South Korean Ambassador to India Shin Bongkil which explained the success of the Inter-Korea Summit.
Former Ambassador of India and Director-General of the Kerala International Centre T.P. Sreenivasan provided analysis of North Korea’s strategy in comparison to India’s own denuclearization negotiations with the US in the 1990s in an op-ed for The Hindu.

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