Policy Alerts – Page 7 – Rising Powers Initiative

Strike on Syria Unsettles Rising Powers

Policy Alert #163 | April 19, 2018

On April 7, 2018, a suspected chemical attack occurred in the Syrian town of Douma, which was held by rebel forces at the time. The Syrian government, with strong support from Russia, has denied the allegations that it was behind the attack. Citing their own evidence of Syrian responsibility, the United States, United Kingdom, and France went ahead and fired over one hundred missiles on “three distinct Syrian chemical weapons program targets.” Inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) are finally entering the area, after charges and countercharges regarding reasons for the delay. In this RPI Policy Alert, we assess the Rising Powers’ responses to the crisis.

RUSSIA

Russia supports the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and has strongly condemned the “illegitimate” and “aggressive” strikes. President Vladimir Putin condemned the US-led strikes as “an act of aggression.” Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Vasily Nebenzya berated the “Western trio” for their alleged efforts to topple the Assad regime: “We’re astonished by the hypocritical behavior on the part of the US, the UK, and France in recent days. […] By their act of aggression, the trio and those who supported it have expressed solidarity with a party to the conflict.” Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova hit back at accusations that Russia was impeding the investigation by OPCW, “We call on Western countries that staged the illegitimate strike on Syria to stop manipulating public opinion and meddling with the work of international organizations. […] It was Russia that called for an immediate inspection.” In another press conference, Zakharova emphasized Russia’s concern with rebel stockpiles of chemical weapons: “major international media outlets and official representatives of foreign capitals remain silent on the discovery of large stockpiles of chemical weapons in warehouses of the terrorists in liberated parts of Eastern Ghouta.” Defense Ministry Spokesman Major-General Igor Konashenkov claimed that, “The true targets of the strike delivered by the US, the UK, and France on April 14 were both facilities in Barzeh and Jaramani and Syrian military facilities, including airfields.” In an interview with the BBC, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov asked, “Can you explain to me why strike the day before OPCW is going to move there and to verify the fact which, they assert, was a fact?”

In state-owned TASS, Alexander Rodionov, specialist of Russia’s radiation, chemical, and protection force in Syria, claimed the Russian team found a chemical weapons laboratory and warehouse in Douma, and concluded that the weapons were “used by illegal armed formations”. The TASS article emphasized that the Russian Foreign Ministry labeled reports that the Syrian government dropped chemical weapons as “fake news” and classifies the White Helmets as “an unreliable source, notorious for disseminating falsehoods.” Another article reiterated the Russian government’s’ claims that it did not participate in anti-missile defense during the US-led strike: “[None] of the missiles appeared in the zone of responsibility of Russian air defense systems in Tartus and Hmeymim. Russian missile defense systems were not used.”
Lyuba Lulko, a correspondent for the nationalist Pravda Report, argued that “the West” intends to “grab pieces of Syria, its raw materials, territories, and zones of influence” and was undermined by its own “inability to analyze or pure cowardice”: “The attack yielded no geopolitical victory for the West at all.”
Government-funded RT‘s Nebojsa Malic argued that, “The US likes to present itself as the foremost guardian of the ‘rules-based international order,’ blaming Russia and China for flouting these rules or seeking to change them. Yet in practice it is Washington and its allies that trample on the rules at nearly every occasion.”

INDIA

India’s Ministry of External Affairs is “closely following the situation,” and issued a carefully worded statement on the recent developments in Syria: “The alleged use of chemical weapons, if true, is deplorable. We call for an impartial and objective investigation by the OPCW to establish the facts. In the meantime, we urge all Parties to show restraint and avoid any further escalation in the situation.”

An editorial by the liberal Indian Express was cynical that the strikes would have any effect in curbing “the tragedy in Syria,” explaining that the limited nature of the strikes “underlines the fact that the West is no longer interested either in ousting Assad from power or joining Russia in imposing regional peace. […] Assad seems to have no incentive for internal reconciliation.” It lamented that “The Middle East in general and Syria in particular have become victims of renewed great power rivalry, intensifying regional conflict and the breakdown of the internal political order in many countries.”
The Hindustan Times, another liberal-leaning paper, was also pessimistic about the West’s commitments to peace in Syria. “The Western Powers, especially the US, appear to have no real strategy to cope with the complex situation in Syria or to force an end to the fighting. […A] regime change, which some Western powers appear to be pushing for, isn’t the real solution.” Foreign affairs editor Pramit Pal Chauduri, focused on the dominance of the “Russia-Iran axis” in the area due to the fading influence and commitment of the Western powers: “Expect the various regional players to just continue where they left off before the strike.”
C. Uday Bhaskar, Director of the Society for Policy Studies, New Delhi, provided an analysis of the orchestration of narratives in the US, UK, France, and Russia surrounding the alleged chemical attack and retaliatory strikes in the Indian Express. Bhaskar argues that “what is at play is the battle for the more compelling and persuasive narrative about April 7 and Douma, even while the actual facts have been buried. […] It appears that the 21st century has uneasily and perhaps unwittingly transmuted from the certitudes of the previous century (Cold War, bipolarity) into post-fact world order.”
Left-leaning The Hindu criticized the the strikes: “While the use of chemical agents against civilians cannot and must not go unpunished [..t]he U.S. undertook the strike before [OPCW] even began its investigation in Douma to ascertain if chemical weapons had in fact been used. […] By acting merely on the basis of inputs from their intelligence agencies, the U.S.-led alliance flouted international law.”

CHINA

Foreign Minister Wang Yi emphasized that “Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity should be maintained and respected,” and that any action “should be within the framework of the UN and in accordance with the purposes of the UN Charter as well as the basic norms of international relation[s].” Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lu Kang later defended China’s abstention from a UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution regarding the use of chemical weapons in Syria by clarifying China’s position on the use of chemical weapons: “It is the clear and consistent position of China that we oppose the use of chemical weapons by any country, organization, or person for any purpose and under any circumstance. China condemns the suspected chemical weapons attack in Syria.” Lu explained that China believes “the unity of the UN Security Council is crucial to the settlement of the Syrian issue,” and did not support the resolution because it did not achieve a consensus between all UNSC members.

The government-supported China Daily featured two political cartoons on the US-led airstrikes: one which depicts a battered dove protecting a Syrian sheep from the wolf-United States, and another illustrates US President Donald Trump shooting a slingshot into a wasp nest.
The China Daily repeatedly condemned the US-led strikes in several editorials. Two characterized the action as a repeat of the US’s 2003 invasion of Iraq and suggested that “[t]he arbitrary and abrupt military action by the [US] and its allies will likely complicate the possibility of political solutions to the settlement of other hotspot issues” such as the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Another supported the need for an investigation to be concluded before any further action is taken, and argued that “any action should be done in accordance with the UN Charter and international law, as UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres urged.” However, the China Daily also placed some blame on Russia, and described the continued conflict in Syria as “a shadow clash between Washington and Moscow.” The Daily also featured analysis from Zhao Guangcheng, a researcher at the Institute of Middle Eastern Studies, Northwestern University, and Wang Jinglie, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
The nationalist Global Times predicted that the recent strikes “will have a negative impact on the upcoming talks between the two Korea and the Trump-Kim summit” given that they reiterate the “willfulness and recklessness” of the Trump administration. In another editorial, the Times warned that the Western states would do well to stop “mocking” Russia in their narratives as an “evil” state on a “dark path”: “Russia is capable of launching a destructive retaliatory attack on the West. […] That the West provokes Russia in such a manner is irresponsible for world peace.”
Zhao Minghao, a senior research fellow at the Charhar Institute and adjunct fellow at the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University of China, described the Syrian civil war as “a complicated proxy war” between the US, Russia, and Iran: “The US got involved in the Syrian issue with the primary goal of combating [the] Islamic State and other terrorist forces, but now, its strategic calculation has become more prominent in containing Iran and Russia’s influence in the region.”
Li Haidong, professor at the Institute of International Relations at China Foreign Affairs University, pointed to the domestic political strife in the US, UK, and France as another motivator for the strikes as a distraction. “Although there is no clear evidence proving the relationship between the chemical attacks and the Assad government, news and reports in Western newspapers instigated public support for the military action,” Li asserted.
The independent South China Morning Post lamented that “[t]he world has once again failed Syria’s people” as external powers’ vying for dominance delayed international efforts to investigate and help the victims of the attack.

JAPAN

Foreign Press Secretary Norio Maruyama issued a response to the alleged chemical attacks that expressed Japan’s “deep concern” over the reports, condemnation of the use of chemical weapons, and call for “relevant countries and organizations to promptly investigate the situation.” The Ministry of Foreign Affairs posted the G7 Leaders’ Statement on Syria to its website in response to the US-led missile strikes days later, in which signatories expressed their “full support” of the strikes to “degrade the Assad regime’s ability to use chemical weapons and deter any future use” and defended the action as “taken only after exhausting every possible diplomatic solution to uphold the international norm against the use of chemical weapons.”

An editorial by the Japan Times weighed the costs and benefits of the US-led strike. The Times acknowledged that the willingness of the US and its allies to strike may act as a deterrent for North Korea in similar circumstances, but resolved that it is “far better to have U.N. authorization for such strikes.” The Times also took the opportunity to preemptively chide Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe for letting Russia’s actions slide as part of his effort to strengthen relations. “Japan cannot do business with a regime that not only turns a blind eye to, but actually enables, such horrific acts. It should join the West in demanding genuine sanctions against Syria and help develop a strategy that goes beyond punishment.”
The conservative-leaning Yomiuri Shimbun targeted its attention on President Trump and the US in its editorial that warned the country against abandoning its duties: “It will become inevitable for Russia and Iran to fill the power vacuum if the United States withdraws from Syria. There would no longer be any brakes to stop inhuman acts by Assad government forces. Trump should not abandon, on the pretext of advocating ‘America first’ policies, the duties the United States has assumed for the peace and stability of the Middle East.”

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

Rising Powers Unnerved by Cambridge Analytica Scandal

Policy Alert #162 | April 11, 2018

On March 17, 2018, the New York Times and Observer broke the news on Cambridge Analytica’s use of an estimated 85 million Facebook users’ personal information that was “scraped” without authorization in its public relations services–specifically in its dealings with political campaigns. Although the lion’s share of impacted users were American, according to initial Facebook’s estimates, over 560,000 Indian and 443,000 Brazilian users’ data was leaked. The scandal has prompted new debates on individuals’ rights to privacy as well as their governments’ roles in protecting them from violations. In this week’s Policy Alert, we survey this ongoing dialogue within the Rising Powers.

INDIA

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the opposition Congress Party have reportedly been “trading barbs” regarding which had ties to SCL Group–Cambridge Analytica’s parent company–after it was vaguely announced that the company had done work for a “national party.” The Cambridge Analytica scandal coincides with the Information and Broadcasting Ministry Press Information Bureau’s (PIB) failed crackdown on fake news. After announcing changes, the PIB withdrew its directive in a brief statement the next day after facing immediate outcry from journalists and press organizations, as well as a reprimand by the Prime Minister’s Office.

In an editorial, the business-focused Economic Times called upon the Indian Election Commission to “mandate all political advertisements online to disclose the identity of those paying for political ads, alongside the ad itself. And the expenditure on ads must count as part of a party’s poll expenditure.”
The liberal Hindustan Times demanded regulations to protect personal information: “For India, the big message from all this is the pressing need for a comprehensive and contemporary data-protection and privacy law. Data is the new oil, but the emergent digital business can do without robber barons.”
The pro-government Daily Pioneer argued that “machines are truly taking over democracy.” Although the Pioneer admitted that politicians and their campaign managers in India “have always had access to” any information that might be useful, the impact was mitigated by the reliance on “manual” human labor to be useful. In another article, the Pioneer took aim at Facebook co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerburg, who has been personally criticized for his company’s initial silence to the breaking of the scandal: “Facebook needs to be regulated, not just in India but across the [sic] world and maybe just maybe, Facebook’s board needs to find a better person to run the company.”
The centrist Times of India also had plenty to say about the scandal. The paper echoed calls for increased regulation of tech platforms, “The time has come for India to take more control of its digital infrastructure and ensure Indian tech companies have a level playing field, rather than leave it to monopoly foreign platforms. This might mean paying for some services, or relying on open-source models. It will definitely require regulators to step up, and ask technology companies to be more transparent about their code, their privacy practices as well as where they pay their taxes.” The Times used the topicality of fake news to criticize Science and Technology Minister Harsh Vardhan for “falling into the fake news trap” regarding his comments that the “Vedas might contain a theory superior to Albert Einstein’s famous equation E=mc2”: “Vardhan, as science and technology minister, should himself be educating people about fake online information.” The Times lambasted the PIB’s “misguided war on ‘fake news’,” arguing that “Eliminating fake news entirely is a utopian project, and attempts to establish utopias in real life result in totalitarian dystopias.”

CHINA

The Chinese media was relatively silent on the scandal, no doubt due to the issue’s irrelevance in the country, as China currently blocks access to Facebook.

The nationalist Global Times hailed Chinese “management” of the internet as a success, “China has made tremendous efforts over internet supervision with fruitful results. The rampant disorder and anarchy on the internet has been reined in. Relevant laws are being made and national core values are being applied online. China’s internet governance will have to keep pace with internet development. Getting high scores in this respect will be a long-term and arduous task.”
The independent South China Morning Post featured columns by foreign contributors on the issue, including Bhavan Jaipragas, the SCMP’s South and Southeast Asia correspondent, Stuart Hargraves, professor in the Faculty of Law at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and David Black, owner and managing editor of Singapore-based polling company Blackbox.

RUSSIA

Cambridge Analytica first faced public scrutiny back in December 2017 when Special Counsel Robert Mueller requested information from the data firm as part of his investigation into alleged collusion between the presidential campaign of US President Donald J. Trump and the Russian government. The whistleblower who provided evidence to the New York Times and Observer, Christopher Wylie, recently speculated in an interview with American news outlet NBC that the records of affected users may be stored in Russia. The firm’s ties to the Russian government remain unclear, however, and the Russian government has not yet commented on the matter.

Government-funded RT has led the Russian press with its coverage of the scandal and took aim at foreign governments’ credibility in the ruckus. RT highlighted the rumors on social media platform Reddit that the United Kingdom’s BBC was purposefully “dropping” coverage of the scandal, and emphasized Facebook’s other shady enterprises, such as a proposed project that would entail “collect[ing] anonymized personal details, which could be then matched up with user data from the social network.” RT explained that the project was cancelled after the scandal with Cambridge Analytica broke, but warned that Facebook’s “Building 8” which led the effort, “continues to work and expand.” RT also took the opportunity to cover the unrelated allegations that Germany’s Christian Democratic Party–which backs German Chancellor Angela Merkel–bought voter data from the Deutsche Post within the context of political groups’ questionable methods of collecting private information.

JAPAN

The Japan Times urged its readers to remain vigilant in protecting their data online even though they were not directly impacted by the scandal: “It is tempting for Japanese to dismiss such practices as distant concerns. Japanese politics is much more personal, and the campaign advisers and the techniques they have exported to other countries do not seem to be much valued in Japan. That thinking is too complacent.” The Times explained that the efforts by the US and UK governments to get Facebook to surrender their records have been ineffective, which further demonstrates the need for users to advocate for themselves: “One of the most important issues of the digital economy is ownership of that information: Only when individuals assert their right to that data will the abuses stop.”
The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun similarly advocated that users be cautious when sharing personal information online: “There are also many social media service users in Japan. With the enforcement of the revised Private Information Protection Law, use of personal information is widely controlled. Nevertheless, social media users are required to recognize the present situation in which the data on them is used for business purposes and assume a stance of thinking carefully about the information they provide.”

BRAZIL

The online portal Uol reported that Cambridge Analytica executive staff admitted that the firm established a branch in Brazil in 2017 and was planning to begin operations in 2018 with the intention of working as part this year’s country elections in October. However, after the release of the scandal, the Brazilian consulting firm that was associated to Cambridge Analytica stated that they ended up their partnership.
The O Globo newspaper emphasized the scale of the leak for Brazil’s 443,000 impacted users and the allegations that the firm used this illegally obtained data in the 2016 US presidential election. O Globo cited a statement by a Facebook spokesperson that all impacted users are expected to be notified regarding the issue.
An editorial in Epoca magazine pointed to the international turbulence involving Facebook and Cambridge Analytica and concluded that the role of digital media and user data in political campaigns is a trend that will remain and will undoubtedly change the traditional means by which politicians strategize in electoral races.

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

Rising Powers Prepare for Possible Trade War

Policy Alert #161 | March 27, 2018

On March 8, 2018, US President Donald J. Trump ordered a 25 percent tariff on imported steel and a 10 percent tariff on imported aluminum from all countries which went into effect on March 23. Initial exemptions were granted for Canada, the US’s largest supplier of aluminum and steel, and Mexico, and later expanded to include other US allies such as the European Union, Australia, and Brazil. On March 22, Trump ordered an additional $50 to 60 billion in tariffs against Chinese imports for its alleged lack of action on intellectual property rights infringement, with additional tariffs rumored to be announced on March 27.

The tariffs took disproportionate aim at the Rising Powers. According to the US Department of Commerce, in 2017, 14% of steel imports come from Brazil, 10% from South Korea, 8% from Russia, 5% from Japan, and 2% from China. In 2017, China was the second-largest supplier of aluminum, followed by Russia as third-largest, India as eighth, and Japan as fifteenth. How are the Rising Powers responding to the possible first shots in a trade war?

CHINA

In response to the US’s tariffs, the China’s Ministry of Commerce announced on Friday that it would be imposing $3 billion in tariffs on US products. In its statement, the Ministry said that, “China urges the United States to resolve China’s concerns as soon as possible, resolve bilateral differences through dialogue and consultation, and avoid damage to the broader array of Chinese-U.S. cooperation,” and expressed its intention to take legal action through the World Trade Organization (WTO) (original announcement in Chinese here). Minister of Commerce Wang Shouwen also highlighted his country’s efforts to address intellectual property rights infringement and expressed his hope that “China and the US can sit down and try to resolve trade disputes under the WTO framework.” At a press conference, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang warned that, “A trade war does no good to anyone. There is no winner.” At the annual China Development Forum, Vice Premier Han Zheng similarly cautioned that, “The readoption of trade protectionism leads nowhere.”

In the official, state-run People’s Daily, “China urge[d] the US to pull back the decision before it is too late and make a prudent and cautious decision, so as to avoid dragging bilateral economic and trade ties, global trade and world economy into crisis. The US should never underestimate China’s resolution and capability to safeguard its legitimate rights and interests” and warned that, “A backfire is what the US side deserves for its reckless move. Under no circumstances will China sit idly and allow its legitimate rights and interests to be undermined.” Another editorial observed that “the White House has seemingly failed to note that China happens to have its own domestic politics,” and emphasized the domestic consequences of the announcement: “Hours after President Trump’s tariff announcement, China Iron and Steel Association issued a statement asking the Chinese government to take measures against US steel products. On China’s more outspoken social media platforms, resentment could be seen rising rapidly.”
The nationalist Global Times has responded to the announced tariff with a flurry of editorials. One called for readers to “prepare” for a “large-scale trade war with the US” as “Washington needs to be taught a real lesson and such a lesson can only be taught by China, the world’s second largest economy. Some people think China should tolerate trade frictions and let other countries take the lead. But as a world trade powerhouse, China has to strive for its own interests.” Another editorial laid out China’s strengths that will contribute to its victory, emphasizing China’s “unity” against American “division”: “Chinese society will be more united than American society in the face of the trade war. Most Chinese will firmly support every countermeasure the Chinese government makes because they know this is essential to safeguarding their interests. The US is already divided on the issue. This opposition will rise when the US suffers more from the trade war.” One called for China to take the opportunity of the coming trade war to counterbalance against US hegemony: “China should win over Europe when conflicts break out with the US, and try to isolate the US instead of being isolated. The overall objective is to strike a blow to the Trump administration’s reckless trade policy against China, and make Washington think twice whenever it has the urge to act tough against China.”
In his speech at the Forum on Sino-American Relations hosted by ChamAm in New York, Wang Wen, executive dean at the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University of China, tried to contextualize the accusations the Trump administration made. Wang acknowledged the existence of a trade surplus, but argued that “The large amount of quality goods imported at modest prices from China not only helps to keep inflation low, but also increases the real purchasing power of the American people, especially the middle and low income groups.” He also highlighted the Chinese government’s efforts to balance the “astronomical trade deficit,” such as its plan to “hold an international import fair in November 2018 to set up an new open platform for cooperation in international trade, which is conducive to promoting balanced development of bilateral trade between China and the US.”
Lian Peng and He Fei, a chief economist and senior researcher, respectively, at the Bank of Communications, made recommendations of strategies China can use in its coming trade war with the United States. “[I]t’s necessary for China to set the stage for a ‘reasonable, beneficial, and restrained’ battle, adamantly hitting back over US provocation. When it comes to choosing the industries and products for retaliatory moves, China can consider launching antidumping probes into or raising tariffs on US farm producers, aircraft and cars, among other that are highly reliant on the Chinese market. […] Trump might not be able to endure the resulting impact on US exports, employment and votes.”
Li Haidong, professor at the Institute of International Relations at China Foreign Affairs University, similarly predicted that the tariffs will do little more than damage the US’s own economy. Li asserted that Trump’s tariffs demonstrate that “US government misunderstands globalization and ignores Americans’ demand for better employment and higher personal income. Such short-sighted economic nationalism will cause chaos in the US and hurt global economic order. This may also lead to the stagnation of US economy.”
Wang Xiangwei, advisor and former editor-in-chief of the South China Morning Post, contextualized the trade spat as only one of many facets in the relationship between the US and China that may not result in negative ties in the long-term: “For the short term, a nasty fight is inevitable but as the Chinese saying has it: out of blows, friendship grows. Hopefully, a period of friction and confrontations can help the two countries find the new equilibrium needed to get their relations back on track and moving forward.”
Lawrence J. Lau, Ralph and Claire Landau Professor of Economics at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, painted a more nuanced picture of the current trade deficits between China and US and offered alternative courses of action that would benefit both countries, rather than resorting to a trade war: increasing US exports to China, rather than attempting to cut imports, would “lead to genuine improvement in economic well-being in both nations.” “US producers and exporters will benefit, as will Chinese importers and consumers and producers who use the new imported goods and inputs. As long as the trade is voluntary, both countries will benefit in the aggregate,” Lau explained.

SOUTH KOREA

The South Korean government agreed to caps on steel exports to the United States and to open its market to US automobiles in exchange for an exemption to the tariffs on Monday, March 26. “The best result from a negotiation is when both sides leave the table feeling like they didn’t get everything they wanted. If the result is too lopsided in favor of one side, there may be renegotiation later. […] In my view, the risk [for renegotiation] will continue as long as President Trump remains in office,” Minister Kim said following the announcement. The Moon administration, however, was more optimistic, and characterized the outcome as a “perfect win-win.”

The liberal-leaning Korea Times warned that Trump’s tariffs pose a threat to South Korea not just because of their effect on Korean exports, but also because a trade war between China and the US could wreak havoc on global markets. “The export-oriented Korean economy will find it hard to avoid unpredictable consequences if a trade war becomes reality. The country should find measures to protect its interests and minimize the effects of a tit-for-tat trade showdown.”
The conservative Dong-A Ilbo criticized Trump’s inclusion of South Korea in the tariffs despite being “blood-bonded allies”: “Considering the significance of South Korea’s contributions to the United States as an ally, it is rather natural that South Korea be excluded from the nations subject to the tariffs” as the US is framing the tariffs as necessary to protect its national security interests. In response to the additional tariffs imposed on China, the paper also lamented South Korea’s position between two of its largest trading partners. “In present circumstances, what South Korea needs is a flexible approach through which it can actively support the international order of free trade while seeking its interest in negotiating with the United States,” the paper advocated.
The Korea Herald called for South Korea’s steel and aluminum producers to look for other potential buyers and for the government to amp up its efforts to secure a country-wide exemption: “For the moment, the domestic steel industry pins hope on the government seeking to contact the Trump administration for negotiations over the tariffs. In the long term, it needs to push for further market diversification and consider relocating their mills to the US as a way to skirt the tariffs. Though losses appear inevitable, steel mills had better brace for a situation that they cannot but curtail exports to the US, including their transshipment of Chinese products, to be spared the tariffs. […] With the Trump administration expected to keep pushing trade protectionism, the government must beef up its trade diplomacy.”
The conservative JoongAng Daily lamented that “Korea could get caught in the crossfire” between China and the US: “China exports finished goods based on Korean parts and intermediate materials. Korean producers will take a heavy toll. […] The Trump administration is [also] pressing for concessions on automobiles and other protected areas, using a temporary reprieve on steel tariffs as leverage. The Korean government must come up with a careful strategy to defend national interests from the trade war between the United States and China.” The JoongAng also criticized the US’s decision to include South Korea in the tariffs despite being a close security partner: “[South Korea] is one of the United States’ strongest security allies and a champion of free trade. Moreover, the two nations must not let any difference get in the way ahead of the historical inter-Korean and Pyongyang-Washington summit meetings. The two nations must demonstrate that their alliance is stronger than ever.” The paper featured two political cartoons of the tariffs, one as yet another foreign policy “bomb” for President Moon Jae-In to juggle, and the other as a steel beam borne by the US’s major partners but not Trump.
The liberal Kyunghyang Shimbun acknowledged the South Korean government’s initial plan to pursue its interests through the WTO, but called on the government to do more, including allying itself with other countries subjected to the tariffs: “The government needs to present various and comprehensive measures. In the case of steel exports, the government could consider cooperation with China, which has also been subject to high retaliatory tariffs. The government also needs to strengthen efforts to engage in direct talks with Washington.” Ultimately, the paper argued, “the Trump administration needs to change its attitude.”
The liberal-leaning Hankyoreh expressed its frustration with the Trump administration’s efforts to exaggerate the “inequality” between the two countries’ trade relationship and spread misinformation, such as Trump’s “unverified claim” that the shuttering of a GM Korea factory in Gunsan meant jobs were returning to Detroit. “While the Trump administration takes every opportunity to launch attacks about the trade imbalance between South Korea and the US in the manufacturing sector, it disregards the fact that the US has a much greater surplus in the balance on services. Meanwhile, Trump behaves with overt arrogance, making rude remarks without showing any concern for South Korea” despite the countries’ “blood brothers” relationship, the Hankyoreh protested.
The conservative Chosun Ilbo, meanwhile, placed its critique squarely on the shoulders of the Moon administration for its lack of action. The Chosun Ilbo noted that the US Commerce Department began researching tariffs of this sort in April 2017: “What has the government been doing since then? How much interest does it have in this issue? Perhaps the government should focus more on bread-and-butter matters instead of fixating on grand populist schemes that are fooling nobody.”

JAPAN

On the sidelines of a meeting at the European Commission, Japanese Minister of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) Hiroshige Seko expressed cautious optimism that the effects of the tariffs Japanese steel and aluminium would be minimal. “I think there is a high chance that Japanese steel and aluminum products would be exempted from the new tariffs on a per-item basis, as they contribute greatly to U.S. industries and many of them have little substitute,” Minister Seko said, and explained that US companies are being encouraged to apply for item-specific exemptions. However, he vowed that METI “will continuously and tenaciously” seek a country-wide exemption.

The Japan Times lambasted Trump’s assertion that “trade wars are good and easy to win”: “There are no good trade wars and there are no winners.” The Times characterized the move as indicative of the “breakdown in the White House decision-making process” in the midst of “one of the most chaotic [weeks] of his tenure, with all evidence highlighting dysfunction and scandal in the administration.” The Times expressed hope that “the prospect of a damning verdict in the November midterm elections could sober him and block his worst impulses.”
The liberal-leaning Mainichi Shimbun called for Japan to take action against the tariffs, not just for the sake of Japanese businesses, but to protect free trade in principle as the United states abandons its “responsibility to initiate and foster global collaboration” as a “world leader.” “Japan […] should not only be concerned about getting its products exempt from stiff U.S. tariffs. It also has a responsibility to maintain the free trade framework as a major power. The Japanese government should join the EU and other parties to urge the U.S. to rescind its new tariffs,” the Mainichi argued.
The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun echoed these sentiments by criticizing the tariffs as “extremely irresponsible.” The Yomiuri urged the Japanese government to “have the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement among 11 countries, excluding the United States, take effect,” as it “would provide a foundation for the United States to return to the free trade framework.” The Yomiuri also called upon the government to utilize the US-Japan Economic Dialogue for high-level negotiations to end the tariffs.
The Nikkei Asian Review, a conservative, business-oriented paper, called for Trump to “drop this plan immediately” as it “is an extremely dangerous move that threatens both rules-based international trade and global growth.” “Unilaterally imposing high tariffs on steel imports as the U.S. intends to do would only undermine the concerted international effort to persuade China to address its unfair practices,” the Nikkei explained. Instead, the Nikkei argued that cooperation between Japan, the US, and other countries to collectively urge China to change its policies would be more effective and less damaging to the global economy.

INDIA

Although India will not be directly impacted by the recent steel and aluminum tariffs, it has been involved in tit-for-tatting with the US over duties for luxury goods and, most notably, Harley-Davidson motorcycles. While India reduced the duties on US-made motorcycles from 75 percent to 50 percent, Trump threatened to institute “reciprocal taxes” on Indian imports if the country imposes any tariffs on US products. The Indian government is proposing its own increases in tariffs on luxury goods and electronics, the latter of which is intended to shield India’s own manufacturing sectors as part of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s “Make-in-India” initiative. The move prompted disapproval from the US State Department and Republican lawmakers.

Left-leaning The Hindu expressed its lukewarm support for the recently ratified Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPATPP) that was successfully brokered without the United States. “Amid palpable fears of a global trade war, the survival of a free trade agreement despite the sudden pullout of the U.S. offers some respite to the supporters of free trade,” The Hindu explained. However, the paper urged the CPATPP members to “address” points of concern, such as the involvement of special interest groups and “massive” regulatory guidelines, in order to attract more members.
Anti-establishment Indian Express argued that although India will not lose much due to the recent tariffs, it should serve as “a wake-up call” to governments worldwide to prepare for instability in the markets due to the US’s sudden policy changes. The Express urged the government to focus on “increased policy support and backing for industry to make it more competitive going beyond the government’s current stance of providing preference to locally manufactured iron and steel products besides aluminium.”
Pro-BJP Daily Pioneer mocked the counter-intuitive logic of the Trump administration’s protests of India’s tariffs on Harley Davidson motorcycles as “reciprocal stupidity.” “Donald Trump appealed to the nativistic tendencies of those who feel that globalisation is bad. But America has also gained immensely from globalisation and attacking the global trade system will hurt Donald Trump’s base the most in the end,” the Pioneer predicted.
The centrist Times of India called for calm and for the Indian government to “keep a low profile” as the tariffs fly: “A smart strategy would be to let economic heavyweights like the US, the European Union and China slug it out and allow the dust to settle, instead of taking up an activist position. […] India is a trade midget and would be on the losing side of a trade war with, say, the US. But if the US manages to change China’s mercantilist approach that wouldn’t be a bad outcome from India’s point of view; after all, Beijing imposes stiff barriers to Indian imports too.”
Davashish Mitra, a professor of economics and Cramer professor of global affairs at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University, penned an op-ed for The Indian Express, assured readers that India has little to lose in the recent tariff drama: “While WTO rules don’t seem to constrain Trump’s actions, India should feel safe and derive comfort from the fact that it is on the right side of the WTO rules and loses relatively little from the new metal tariffs,” Mitra said, citing the statistic of $0.3 billion in losses that Chad P. Bown of the Peterson Institute for International Economics calculated.

RUSSIA

Contributor Lyuba Lulko of the nationalist Pravda Report characterized the tariff announcement as a sign that “America’s power is declining,” and that the shift in the balance of power is a boon for Russian business. “Trade wars between the US and China will cause damage to transnational companies. Many production chains will be broken, which will force business to look for new sustainable investment options. It is no [coincidence] that shares of Russian companies are in great demand now,” Lulko asserted.
Pravda Report also featured an interview with Vladimir Rozhankovsky, an analyst with management company Horizon, about the tariffs. Rozhankovsky claimed that American consumers are uninterested in domestically manufactured goods because they do not offer “innovations,” and thus the tariffs will do little to benefit US manufacturers. “In the last 20 years, America has been engaged in its financial sector, which was thrown off the pedestal in 2008. There was practically no competition in production. It was very painstaking for the Americans to reanimate the dying General Motors. Airbus sells twice as many aircraft as Boeing,” he explained. “The preferences of the American consumer are obvious.”
State-owned news agency TASS reported that Russian aluminum producer Rusal was confidant that it would be exempted from the tariffs. “Our subsidiary Rusal America in State of Delaware has been operating since 1999. We supply to the US market products with low carbon footprint, which are marketable, though scarce. We assume that Russia should be exempted from tariffs for protecting American consumers from price growth, and for ensuring that the American manufacturing industry remains competitive,” a spokesman told TASS in an interview.
An earlier TASS article surveyed Russian steel producers Severstal and NLMK as well. NLMK reported that they “will be looking for a way out within the limits of legislation,” while Severstal explained that the US market only accounted for 2 percent of the company’s sales.

BRAZIL

The right-oriented magazine Veja remarked that many countries promised a hard reaction against the Trump new tariffs after the release of the measures. Among these countries were traditional allies of the United States, such as Canada, Australia and some nations of the European Union.
The online portal Uol Economia reported that the tariffs on imported aluminum and steel imposed by President Donald Trump came into force on March 22nd. According to the article, after a strong international reaction of its most strategic allies (for instance Canada and Mexico), the US decided to exempt them from the new policy.
Highlighting the advantages Brazil may gain from the raise of tariffs the Trump administration announced, the Folha de Sao Paulo newspaper mentioned that the export of pork to China may increase. The association of meat producers estimates that the sales revenue of the product may far exceed the $100 million registered on 2017.

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

Rising Powers Ask If End of Term Limits in China Presages More Global Assertiveness

Policy Alert #160 | March 8, 2018

The Communist Party of China (CPC) presented its recommendations for several substantive amendments to the country’s constitution to the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress at the end of February 2018. Most notably, the term limits for the country’s president and vice-president were removed, leading many–both domestically and abroad–to question President Xi Jinping’s future career plans. The foreign press emphasized reports that Chinese censors were cracking down on criticism of the changes on online platforms and speculated that the Chinese press purposefully attempted to downplay the move. Although the governments of the Rising Powers have kept mum on the subject, their presses have not.

CHINA

The official state-run People’s Daily has been busily pushing for domestic support for the proposal in its editorials over the last week. One called for “the Chinese people to closely unite around the CPC Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at the core, be guided by Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, make new achievements and victories, and march toward the great goal of national rejuvenation.” Another editorial claimed that, “It has been proved [sic] over history that a leadership structure in which the top leader of China simultaneously serves as the President, the head of the Party, and the commander-in-chief of the military is an advantageous and adoptable strategy.” In explaining that “proper amendments” to the constitution are “necessary,” the People’s Daily contextualized the changes as part of an overall commitment to improving China: “The proposed amendments are of profound significance to fully implementing the spirit of the 19th CPC National Congress and the Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, deepening the law-based and Constitution-based governance, upholding and developing socialism with Chinese characteristics on the track of rule of law, and extensively mobilizing and organizing the people of all ethnic groups to strive for great victory of socialism with Chinese characteristics.” Additionally, it characterized Xi’s contribution to the constitution as a “guarantee that China will finish the building of a moderately prosperous society in all respects by 2020, basically achieve modernization by 2035, and grow into a great modern socialist country in every dimension by mid-21st century.” The inclusion of specific year benchmarks may be a way to quell rumors that Xi plans on serving as president for life, which other Chinese publications have also dismissed or down-played.
Many editorials were vague in their glowing support for the amendments more generally, or focused on bolstering Xi’s image by emphasizing the addition of his “Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics” to the constitution. China Daily contributor Xuan Li’s piece fell into the latter category, describing Xi’s piece as “the latest development of Marxism in China, is the crystallization of the collective wisdom of the Party and Chinese people through practices.” A China Daily editorial praised “structural changes” to the Chinese Communist Party and Chinese government, but made no specific mention of the elimination of presidential term limits. A Global Times editorial noted that the changes were facilitated by the fact that “absolute authority has been established by the CPC Central Committee with Xi Jinping at the core,” but did not expressly mention the presidential term limit change.
The nationalist Global Times focused its efforts on responding to critical foreign media response. One took aim at the privilege afforded to Western-style democracy: “[A]lthough China has stunning economic might, it has not yet become a leading power in terms of ideology and information. The most influential value system in the world now is the Western value system established by the US and Europe. It has shaped and affected quite a few Chinese people’s mind-sets. But some key parts of the Western value system are collapsing. Democracy, which has been explored and practiced by Western societies for hundreds of years, is ulcerating.” Another editorial by the Global Times described the attacks on the amendments as a symptom of fragile egos abroad: “[T]he rise of China has reached a critical point where some Westerners cannot psychologically bear it any longer. They wish to see misfortune befall the country. Even if it might hurt their own interests, they are willing to see China crumble first. Such hysteria by some people in the West will subtly influence the way their countries interact with China. It will increase the risks Beijing faces while emerging, and complicate communication between Chinese society and the outside world.”
The independent South China Morning Post discouraged comparisons between Mao and Xi: “There is a difference between one-man rule of nearly a fifth of humanity in a closed society, and one-man rule of an outward-looking, rising global economic and military superpower. […]Xi will be taking everything on his shoulders in a nation and a world that is unrecognisable compared with Mao’s times. When things go wrong, as they do from time to time, he will have to bear the responsibility.”
Yujing Lu, a staff writer for the SCMP, set the announcement against the longer terms served leaders in democratic countries abroad, such as Japan and Germany, while her colleague, Nectar Gan, surveyed foreign “China watchers” on their reactions and interpretations of Xi’s move.

INDIA

Left-leaning The Hindu lamented that “Mr. Xi risks taking China back to the days of personality cults, internal power struggles and possibly chaotic successions.”
The liberal Indian Express warned that China’s neighbors need to prepare for aggressive posturing in the region: “Xi’s consolidation of power is […] symptomatic of a structural weakness. By setting term limits under Deng, the CPC tried to send out the message that China’s politics, though not liberal or democratic, was nonetheless governed by structures. The edifice that was built by Mao, the argument went, did not need great leaders to flourish. For India, which had to deal with an aggressive China in Doklam, and manoeuvre against its rising influence in South Asia, the lack of checks and balances on Xi Jinping is a worrying sign.”
The Pioneer, which supports Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s BJP party, framed the announcement in terms of India’s own political system. “[..I]n India, where there is no limit to the terms a Prime Minister can serve but there is a vibrant if fractious democratic tradition extant Narendra Modi, criticized for being ‘dictatorial’, will have to pull out all the stops to win again in 2019, with the possibility of a non-Modi face to head a BJP-led coalition if the party falls short being discussed openly. China rules, anyone?”
A Times of India editorial speculated about the connection between China’s political system and its preference in trade partners, and what that means for India’s choices in trade and security partnerships. “Perhaps China finds large democracies like India threatening and in need of restraint, while semi-autocracies like Pakistan look more manageable. If that’s how the cookie crumbles, India will have to coordinate more with the US, Japan and Western democracies. In the battle of political ideas, lines may get sharply drawn as Xi consolidates power in his hands. India will not be able to sit that one out with its erstwhile ‘non-aligned’ template.”
In an op-ed, Senior Assistant Editor of the Economic Times Dipanjan Roy Chaudhury theorized that “[a] stronger Xi […] suggests that China may not shy away from displaying its muscular foreign and defence policy in either Indo-Pacific or Indian Ocean Region or along the Line of Actual Control, posing challenges to India’s security.” Chaudhury expressed concern with the possibility of strengthened ties between China and Pakistan, as well as China “pushing deeper” into neighboring Bhutan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan.
The pro-BJP The Pioneer featured an article by India-based French analyst Claude Arpi speculating that the decision to remove term limits was less motivated by Xi’s own political ambitions than by an internal struggle to maintain stability: “Though not always apparent, the Chinese state is terribly instable; the change from a totalitarian to a quasi dictatorship should be seen in this perspective.”
The FirstPost, meanwhile, sampled reactions in editorials of India’s neighbors to assess the region’s feelings on the matter.

JAPAN

The progressive Asahi Shimbun noted that domestic support for a “strong-man” model in China may have, in fact, been the result of recent dramas within Western democracies: “Unfortunately, many Western countries have long been plagued by dysfunction of politics and other problems. The United States has provided a prominent example of how a democratically elected leader can cause confusion.This grim reality has led to a proliferation of views praising the Chinese system of governing in Chinese media.” The Asahi called on Chinese leadership to nevertheless protect its citizens civil rights: “China’s leaders should pursue politics based on self-restraint in exercising their ruling power and an agenda designed to expand the citizens’ rights to speak and vote while seeking to gradually form a consensus.”
The left-leaning Mainichi expressed skepticism that the “national oversight panel” established as part of the amendments to the Chinese constitution would be able to act as a check on “absolute power” that “will certainly become corrupt in the end.” The Mainichi warned that “If harmful effects of iron-fist rule were to appear not only in China’s domestic affairs but also in its diplomatic policy, it would intensify the country’s friction with Japan and the United States as well as its neighboring countries.”
The Japan Times was equally doubtful in Xi’s ability to govern “a country of China’s size.” “Time will tell, but Japan and other governments must prepare to deal with a system of centralized power and a leader full of self-confidence,” the Times urged.
“Xi’s objective is to make China a ‘great power’ on par with the United States by the middle of this century,” the conservative Yomiuri Shimbun speculated. “It is essential for neighboring countries, including Japan, to keep an eye on China’s moves that could escalate the regional tension.”
The right-wing paper Sankei called for increased cooperation between countries that share the democratic principles enshrined in the US-Japan Alliance to protect the peace and security of the region to counter any threats posed by Xi’s expanded power.

SOUTH KOREA

In its editorial, the conservative Dong-A Ilbo compared Xi to Yuan Shikai, a warlord appointed as Imperial Resident of Seoul by the Qing government and the first–and short lived–president of the Republic of China, whose name was one of many search terms blocked by Chinese censors following the constitution: “Yuan Shikai was notorious for his arrogance and tyranny in the late Joseon Dynasty. It is worrisome that if his specter is revived in the 21st century with Xi Jinping’s ascension to the throne, it might bring disaster to the Korean people once again.”
JoongAng Ilbo, another conservative paper, suggested that recent Chinese violations of Korean airspace were linked to Xi’s consolidation of power. “China’s ramped-up aggression comes amid suspicion of Chinese President Xi Jinping trying to stretch his rule beyond 10 years. […] Xi has promised to build the most powerful military by 2050. This military buildup could raise tension in the region. We must respond boldly and keep a close watch on Beijing to see its intentions and build resilience against Chinese ascension,” the paper asserted.
Seo Kyung-Ho, an editorial writer at JoongAng Ilbo, expressed his concern that “South Korea increasingly finds itself surrounded by strongmen going against the global trend of democracy,” noting that Xi joins Russian President Vladimir Putin and North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il.
The Korea Times meanwhile featured a guest op-ed by Hong Kong journalist Frank Ching who explained the threat of uncertainty the constitutional amendment has introduced, noting that the term-limits “provided greater predictability and meant that no one had to die for there to be a change in leadership. By abolishing term limits, the party is resurrecting the problem of succession. One day, Xi will be replaced. But how will that happen? Who will replace him?”

RUSSIA

In his article for nationalist Pravda Report, Russian-American contributor Andre Vltchek claimed “Chinese democracy is alive and well” even if it does not fit a “Western multi-party/corporate model”: “There is no other country on Earth, which is changing lives of its ordinary people for better, so rapidly and with such determination. And it is happening because of the system, because of the Communist Party’s leadership, and because of the NPC [National People’s Congress]. Some people ask me: ‘Do you think China’s democracy, or the political system of Party’s leadership, and NPC can improve people’s livelihood?’ I always answer: ‘Not only they can, but they do; day by day, year by year!’”
Government-funded RT coverage of the announcement was framed around the backlash against US President Donald Trump’s “Maybe we’ll give it a shot” comment. RT also explained that in China, the press was emphasizing that the expansion does not necessarily mean Xi will buck the tradition of retiring at 68.

BRAZIL

Turning Xi Jinping into an emperor brings a huge challenge for Brazil and the rest of the Western countries, the newspaper Folha de Sao Paulo asserted. According to its article, the latest decision of the Communist Party of China to propose the removal of the term limit for president expresses a movement that has been under development over recent years and gives Beijing’s highest office an imperial character.
The left-oriented Carta Capital emphasized that the exaltation of the president Xi Jinping was the main outcome of the Party Congress held in October of 2017. The editorial added that Xi is considered the most important Chinese leader in recent decades and that there is no one who could be pointed as his substitute.

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

Rising Powers Calculate Strategic Interests in the Unfolding Crisis in the Maldives

Policy Alert #159 | February 22, 2018

Ahead of upcoming elections in the Maldives, the Maldivian Supreme Court overturned the highly contested convictions of exiled Former President Mohamed Nasheed and nine Members of Parliament from his political party on February 2nd. In defiance of the court order, President Abdulla Yameen suspended parliament, declared a state of emergency, and ordered the arrest of several political rivals, including two of the Supreme Court Justices. The crackdown has sparked protests from opposition supporters, concentrated in the country’s capital, Male. The Maldives, a small collection of islands in the Indian Ocean, are of strategic importance to both India and China, and both countries have been closely monitoring the situation. In this Policy Alert, RPI explores the Rising Powers’ stakes in the crisis as allegations of intervention fly on all sides.

MALDIVES
In an interview with The Indian Express, Maldives Ambassador to India Ahmed Mohamed clarified his government’s intentions in reaching out to “friendly nations.” The Maldives sent special envoys to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and China following the declaration of emergency, but the lack of a meeting with India left many to speculate that the government was purposefully excluding India. Ambassador Mohamed explained that the Maldives had actively sought a bilateral meeting, but the Indian side that had declined due to scheduling conflicts: “During Thursday’s meeting between Indian Ambassador Akhilesh Mishra and our Foreign Secretary Ahmed Sareer, we once again requested India for a bilateral visit by a special envoy from our President. Unlike last time, when we had requested for a visit by a special envoy on a specific date, this time it has been kept open-ended, at a time convenient to the Indian government.” Mohamed also attempted to quell rumors that his government had requested military assistance from China, “The Indian envoy was told that the special envoy has not asked for any military intervention from China or any other country.” The ambassador further clarified his government’s concern for international appeals for foreign intervention in his country, and expressed concern that prominent Indian politicians, such as Yashwant Sinha, were advocating for India to intervene as it had in 1988.

Exiled Former President Mohamed Nasheed, who remains leader of the opposition Maldivian Democratic Party (MDP), called for India to intervene in the crisis: “We would like the Indian government to send an envoy, backed by its military, to free the judges and the political detainees, including former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, from their detention and to bring them to their homes. We are asking for a physical presence.” In a tweet, Nasheed requested a “physical presence” by the Indian government and military and for the US to freeze the financial assets of the current regime’s leadership. The former president accused Yameen of allowing China to conduct a massive “land grabbing” scheme in which the country had already attained sixteen Maldivian islands in an interview with the Nikkei Asian Review: “Without firing a single shot, China has grabbed more land than the East India Company at the height of the nineteenth century.” MDP Member of Parliament and lawyer Ali Hussain described the situation as dire for members of the opposition: “There is an imminent threat. […] The military takeover of the Parliament house and the Supreme Court shows that the President may order just anything he wants to be carried out.”

INDIA
In an official statement issued on February 6th, India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) expressed India’s concerns with the political crisis in the Maldives: “We are disturbed by the declaration of a State of Emergency in the Maldives following the refusal of the Government to abide by the unanimous ruling of the full bench of the Supreme Court on 1 February, and also by the suspension of Constitutional rights of the people of Maldives. The arrest of the Supreme Court Chief Justice and political figures are also reasons for concern.” Following Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent phone call with US President Donald Trump, a White House press release mentioned that “[b]oth leaders expressed concern about the political crisis in Maldives and the importance of respect for democratic institutions and rule of law,” but there has not been an official release by the MEA regarding the conversation. On February 20th, the date on which the state of emergency was scheduled to be lifted, the MEA “expected” that the state of emergency would not be extended and advocated that the Maldives “quickly returns to the path of democracy and the rule of law so that the aspirations of Maldivian people are met and the concerns of the international community are assuaged.” Following the announcement that the state of emergency was extended, the MEA reiterated India’s concern with the crisis: “We are deeply dismayed that the Government of Maldives has extended the State of Emergency for a further 30 days. The manner in which the extension of the State of Emergency was approved by the Majlis in contravention of the Constitution of Maldives is also a matter of concern. […] It is important to ensure that all democratic institutions are allowed to function in a fair and transparent manner in accordance with the Constitution.”

Unnamed sources in the MEA reportedly explained to The Hindu that while it was true that India could not host a an envoy from the Maldives due to schedule conflicts, namely that Prime Minister Narendra Modi and External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj were not in the country on the requested dates, the slight was also motivated by frustration with the current government’s handling of the crisis. “We have not seen any real action on the concerns stated by the international community and India,” the MEA source said. “Democratic institutions and the judiciary continue to be undermined and concerns ignored. These issues need to be properly addressed.”

Following the release of a Reuters article that described a possible deployment of Chinese naval ships toward the Maldives based on an article published by the Chinese outlet Sina, many Indian news sources erupted in alarm. In response, the Indian Navy explained that the movement was “routine in nature” and remained 2,500 nautical miles from the Maldives. Indian Navy Spokesperson Captain D.K. Sharma assured the press that they are closely monitoring the situation: “[The] Indian Navy has a robust maritime domain awareness and we have a clear picture of the happenings in the Indian Ocean Region.”

Yashwant Sinha, a senior leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (currently out of favor with the government), addressed the press outside his home and called for the government to intervene: “We need not ask any nation before we act. Like in Bangladesh’s case we have seen, if we act, world respects you. But if you don’t, they will take you as weak and you keep taking advice. […]That Chinese should come and right under our nose, in our backyard, play these games, India should not remain a mute spectator.”
Happymon Jacob, Associate Professor of Disarmament and National Security at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, argued in his op-ed for The Hindu that India should stay out of the crisis. “New Delhi has very little moral, legal and political locus standi to justify an intervention in the Maldives. It’s at best an interested party whose best bet is diplomacy and persuasion,” Jacob explained.
Former Foreign Secretary Kanwal Sibbal expressed concerns about China’s role in the crisis, but urged patience: “There is a strong political case for intervention but not a legal one as yet. In the immediate future, political and economic pressure on Maldives should be put by like-minded countries that are already building understandings on security issues in the Indo-Pacific region in the background of China’s maritime ambitions, namely, India, US, Japan and Australia. With pressure, patience is needed.“
C. Raja Mohan, Director of Carnegie India and consulting foreign affairs editor of The Indian Express, predicted that action in the crisis “would involve political mediation between the government and Opposition, the use of coercive diplomacy, and ultimately force, to restore order in Maldives.” “Such an intervention is likely to get considerable international support and some Chinese criticism. The moment, then, may indeed be ripe for a decisive Indian intervention in the Maldives,” Mohan concluded, and justified intervention by asserting that the responsibility to maintain order is “the burden of all major powers, especially in their own regions.”

CHINA
Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Geng Shuang repeated China’s position of non-interference during a regular press conference on February 7th: “[W]hat is happening now in the Maldives falls within the internal affairs of that country. China has always adhered to the principle of non-interference in other’s internal affairs. [..T]he international community should play a constructive role on the basis of respecting the sovereignty of the Maldives rather than take actions that may further complicate the situation.” In an interview a few days later, Geng Shuang reassured a journalist with The Hindu that, “China will not interfere in the internal affairs of the Maldives.”

Xinhua condemned Former Maldivian President Nasheed’s allegations that China was participating in “land-grabbing” activities in the country: “The ‘land grabbing’ rhetoric is not only fictitious but also irresponsible. […] China’s efforts and contribution to promoting the transition and upgrade of the Maldives’ economy and the improvement of the Maldivian people’s livelihoods have been greatly appreciated and welcomed by the Maldivian people.” Xinhua’s article cited glowing statements from current Maldivian officials about China’s investments and corrected statistics Nasheed had used.
The nationalist Global Times took aim at Indian discourse that advocated intervention in the Maldives: “Political struggles are supposed to be internal affairs, and New Delhi has no justification to intervene in Malé’s affairs.”
Sina, a technology conglomerate that includes the Chinese social media platform Weibo, published an article through its news service that boasted of the People’s Liberation Army Navy’s supremacy over the Indian Navy as it covered the deployment of several ships to the Indian Ocean. (The Reuters article summarizing the post in English is available here.)
The independent South China Morning Post ran an editorial celebrating recent developments in China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Although the article does not mention the Maldives crisis specifically, the country signed both a bilateral free trade agreement with China and Memorandum of Understanding regarding the BRI in December 2017. The editorial’s closing lines appear to be a warning to New Dehli: “Countries that eye China’s growing power warily are bound to be cautious or even critical. Realising the plans will also not be easy. But Beijing has the resources and know-how, will and determination. By working together for a shared vision, all nations will benefit.“
Another SCMP editorial criticized “unnecessarily provocative” actions by the navies of the United States and United Kingdom ahead of the anti-submarine frigate HMS Sutherland‘s “freedom of navigation” mission in the South China Sea scheduled for March 2018. The SCMP called on the UK and US to abandon their intimidation efforts: “A third of the world’s trade passes through the South China Sea, but China has never challenged cargo or passenger vessels. Foreign naval vessels aimed at flexing military muscle and able to spy are quite another matter. Britain and the US should give up their foolish adventurism and instead look to the example set by Southeast Asian countries, which have agreed with China on a framework for a code of conduct so that mishaps at sea can be avoided.”
The China Daily colorfully echoed frustrations with the HMS Sutherland’s upcoming voyage by characterizing the UK as “a faithful poodle […] once again come barking to heel” for the US.

JAPAN
Following the initial declaration of a state of emergency in the Maldives, Japanese Foreign Press Secretary Norio Maruyama released a statement assuring the public that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was closely monitoring the situation and the safety of Japanese nationals in the country and Japan’s hope that “the situation will be resolved peacefully without resorting to violence.” In an interview with local press during his January 2018 trip to the Maldives, Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs Taro Kono highlighted the Maldives as a key partner in promoting maritime security in the region: “Japan intends to further strengthen its relations with the Maldives, a maritime nation, under the ‘Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy’ which aims at making free and open maritime order, based on the rule of law in the Indo-Pacific region, international public goods to bring stability and equality for all countries. Specifically, Japan will work further to strengthen regional connectivity through quality infrastructure development and cooperation on maritime security.” In a joint training exercise between the coast guards of Japan and India that aimed to improve anti-piracy tactics in January, the Maldives and Sri Lanka participated as observers. Japan Coast Guard Commandant Satoshi Nakajima hailed the multilateral participation in the exercise: “Improved cooperation among the various nations will lead to saving the lives of Japanese citizens.” Admiral Katsutoshi Kawano, meanwhile, raised concern over the security implications of China using docks in island nations like the Maldives and Sri Lanka for nuclear submarines: “By investing money in facilities surrounding India…China is steadily expanding the network of its military bases. […] Our vital sea lanes run through the Indian Ocean as well as the South China Sea.”

In an editorial, The Japan Times lamented that Foreign Minister Kono had apparently not clearly articulated Japan’s “values” during his visit in which he and Maldivian Foreign Minister Dr. Mohamed Asim “agreed on the importance of the rule of law to regional peace and prosperity and promised to promote bilateral cooperation in maritime security and safety. They also agreed to launch a dialogue to advance cooperation in a variety of fields. Democracy and the rule of law was likely not on that list; given the centrality of values to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s foreign policy that is a sad oversight.“
The right-leaning Yomiuri Shimbun noted the relevance of massive amounts of Chinese investments in islands in the Indo-Pacific as “China seems to have the ulterior motive of utilizing the rights and interests tied to such ports and others for military purposes, thereby accelerating the oceanic deployment of the Chinese military.” The Yomiuri advocated for Japan to “demonstrate its presence by deepening its engagement in the country,” without any specific policy recommendations. Japan’s Self-Defense Force is limited in its ability to participate in overseas conflicts, but can provide non-combat support to its allies. On this matter, the Yomiuri observed that “India is highly nervous” regarding China’s posturing during the crisis and that India had been in contact with President Trump to coordinate their handling of the situation.

RUSSIA
Russia’s response to the crisis was limited to a travel advisory for the islands that recommended Russian nationals to “thoroughly consider if they should travel to the Maldives before the state of emergency is lifted.”

SputnikNews interviewed Alexei Kupriyanov, a Moscow-based foreign policy expert, on India’s dilemma in the crisis. Kypriyanov described India’s options as a no-win situation: “It could either resort to military force and alienate regional neighbors Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal and face an international backlash, or it could try to seek a peaceful deal with Yameen and then try to get rid of him during the next elections. In either case, India’s image would suffer.“
In an article covering Nasheed’s appeals for intervention, SputnikNews emphasized the charges that led to the former president’s arrest and eventual exile, “According to the official charge, Nasheed committed a number of offenses under the law on terrorism. The arrest and imprisonment of the former president sparked condemnation from the international community, which believes that the procedure did not comply with the standards of adjudication.“

PAKISTAN
The Prime Minister’s Office issued a press release of the meeting between Pakistani Prime Minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi and Foreign Minister Asim: “The Prime Minister stated that Pakistan firmly adheres to the policy of non-interference in the affairs of other countries and will continue to adhere to the principles of the UN charter in this regard.”

SAUDI ARABIA
The Maldivian President’s Office reported that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates had released a joint statement that “notes that these events are an internal matter and that the Governments of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates hope for peaceful solutions to the current situation, through internal political dialogue between the parties concerned, without any external interference and within the Maldivian Constitution.”

UNITED STATES
The US State Department released a statement expressing its “disappointment” in the extension of the state of emergency. “The United States continues to call on President Yameen to end the state of emergency, uphold the rule of law, permit the full and proper functioning of the Parliament and the judiciary, restore constitutionally guaranteed rights of the people of Maldives, and respect Maldives’ international human rights obligations and commitments,” it read.

This Policy Alert is part of a project at the Rising Powers Initiative exploring the linkages between energy security and maritime strategies in the Indo-Pacific that is supported by the MacArthur Foundation.

Rising Powers Balance Domestic Politics and International Economy at Davos

Policy Alert #158 | February 7, 2018

World leaders, celebrities, activists, and business moguls rubbed elbows at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland, under the theme “Shared Future in a Fractured World.” Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi gave the opening speech of the forum, while US President Donald Trump provided the closing remarks. Despite the forum’s lofty goals of international cooperation and development, some representatives of Rising Powers struggled to balance their domestic policy initiatives as well.

INDIA
In his speech, Prime Minister Modi used the opportunity to unabashedly promote India for foreign direct investment amidst his prescription for preventing and healing fractures between nations. “If you want wealth with wellness, work in India; If you want peace with prosperity, live in India; If you want health with whole life, be in India.”

Columnist Tavleen Singh at the liberal Indian Express critiqued Modi’s efforts to appeal to foreign investors. “What puzzles me is why his government has not made half as much effort to encourage Indians to invest in India. Is the Prime Minister not aware that real jobs will only come when Indian entrepreneurs, big and small, are persuaded to invest in new businesses?”
Nisha Agrawal, CEO of Oxfam India, echoed these sentiments by pointing out the irony of Modi’s speech at Davos. “PM Modi is expected to address a special plenary today on ‘Creating a Shared Future in A Fractured World’. But it does not seem that the one per cent of India are sharing anything with anyone,” she argued.
Jyoti Malhotra, Consulting Editor of The Indian Express, predicted that despite Modi’s grand aspirations to promote India, “[t]he China Factor will definitely be the elephant in the room in Davos,” given that China was already wooing French President Emmanuel Macron in Beijing and former British Prime Minister David Cameron added star power to the Shanghai International Ball and Leader’s Forum as the forum opened.
Ahead of the WEF’s opening, Gulshan Sachdeva, Jean Monnet Chair at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, argued that “To be more effective, the PM’s focus in the inaugural keynote speech should be about much more than just showcasing India’s readiness for business. This job is best left to ministers and bureaucrats. He must outline India’s growing role in the evolving economic and security architectures in Asia and beyond. He has to outline Indian approach to ‘creating a shared future in a fractured world’, the theme of this years’ forum.”
Gaurav Dalmia, Chairman of Dalmia Group Holdings, commended Modi for encouraging the leaders at Davos to also “welcome India’s leadership on the world stage.” “In a strange twist of fate, India, very much like it’s [sic] Asian brethren, was evangelising the case for optimism to a rather gloomy western world. Irrespective of political leanings, it was a proud moment for all Indians at the World Economic Forum’s meeting in Davos,” he said.
Mihir Swarup Sharma, fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, was more critical of Modi’s approach. “[W]e got yet another speech that climaxed with talk of the GST [goods and service tax] and doing business rankings. Don’t get me wrong: those are important to us as an economy, and they should be important to us Indians as voters. But can Modi ever be a global leader of the sort that he and his die-hard partisans want him to be unless he has something more to offer the world than Sanskrit slogans and yoga? The cultural nationalism might satisfy his own voters. It won’t in any way satisfy the rest of the world.”
Diplomatic editor of the center-right Times of India Indrani Bagchi hailed Modi’s speech: “The Chinese president, who was the plenary speaker at Davos in 2017, brought his own brand of snake oil: globalisation with Chinese characteristics. Xi was salve to the western soul, hurting from a Trumpian blow they had not anticipated, a monstrous anathema to the entire ‘liberal’ edifice they had built. It was Xi who told them globalisation was not dead, it had a new home in the Chinese consciousness. […] A year later, the world is treated to a kinder, gentler vision of a new global order – ‘a cooperative, harmonious, sharing and caring world’ – as Narendra Modi took the dais in Davos this week.”
The business-oriented Economic Times noted that while Modi’s pitch was “most welcome,” “India would also be under greater pressure to live up to the expectations aroused by the grand vision outlined at Davos. The steady rise in import tariffs that India has been effecting [sic] of late, on things ranging from steel and mobile phones to solar panels, sporadic outbursts of vigilante violence that feeds alienation of the kind terror feeds on, and state governments reneging on power purchase agreements with renewable energy producers are out of sync with such a vision.”
Times of India had similar points, and argued that, “Much is needed, however, by way of follow-up action at home. Modi is right to extend the notion of ‘ease of business’ to ‘ease of living’. But both are peremptorily affected when citizens reel under dubious economic disruptions such as demonetisation, suffer from a plethora of bans, vigilantes and moral policing, or live and work in polluted cities and villages […]. Delivery needs to match the oratory, else the latter may well go waste.”

CHINA
Liu He, member of the Chinese Communist Party Political Bureau and right-hand advisor of Chinese President Xi Jinping, gave a talk on the “three critical battles China is preparing to fight,” as a follow-up to Xi’s opening remarks last year that promised economic opening in China: “I want to stress that China is a force for world peace, development and the international order. China remains a developing country despite its economic progress. We will run our own business well, and on that basis, we are ready to work with the rest of the international community to champion a vision for global governance that features extensive consultation, joint contribution and shared benefits. Together, we will stand firm for multilateralism, for the multilateral trading regime, and for common development and progress.”

Jane Kai, contributor to the independent South China Morning Post, provided insight to Davos attendees’ reception of Liu’s speech, finding that most were unimpressed. “[I]n his more than half an hour speech the 66-year-old director of the Office of the Central Leading Group for Financial and Economic Affairs, failed to provide any details of what form […] opening up might take,” she explained. “Instead, the man on course to become China’s vice-premier in charge of economic and financial affairs – his appointment is expected to be announced at the country’s legislative sessions in March – largely repeated what the top leadership said last year.”
Deng Yuwen, researcher at the Charhar Institute think tank, conceded that “[w]hat Liu said was nothing new,” but pointed out that “global analysts and investors were right to pay attention,” given the factors driving Beijing to open up its markets.
Meanwhile, Wang Xiangwei, editorial adviser to the independent South China Morning Post, took aim at China’s “propaganda machine” that was “stuck in a time warp” as government-associated media outlets “prais[ed] the wisdom of Xi’s Davos speech on its one year anniversary” at the expense of covering “what really happened at this year’s Davos” and the vagueness of the Chinese delegation’s remarks this time. “Unless China soon rolls out concrete measures that exceed expectations, it is likely to lose its moral high ground at Davos next year.”
The state-directed China Daily and the nationalist Global Times were sources of some of the nostalgic pieces reminiscing about Xi’s speech last year. One editorial characterized Indian Prime Minister Modi and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s speeches as a fruition of “the simple truth that much of the rest of the world is keenly feeling the same worries President Xi Jinping expressed at last year’s event.” The Daily also featured an article entitled “A Year of Success since Xi’s Speech,” by WEF’s Circular Economy Initiative Team member James Pennington. The Global Times claimed that “In 2017, many countries came to learn about and consider [Xi’s] proposal of building a community with shared future for mankind, which has been increasingly welcomed and accepted in international society.”
The China Daily criticized President Trump’s speech for “offering nothing new” at Davos. “[R]ather than sharing with his audience American solutions, he used the podium as an opportunity to promote his achievements at home and sell the US as the best place for foreign investment. [..T]here was no clue as to what goals and dreams his administration wants others to share, aside from others helping to make the US great again.”
The Global Times had strong words for Trump’s rhetoric of “economic nationalism” in his speech. “Trump has been substituting the concept of ‘free trade’ with ‘fair trade.’ […] His fairness is for the US to benefit. Trump must know that, in Davos, China’s reputation as a supporter of free trade and globalization is sounder than that of the US. Germany too has a better reputation. If Washington wants to pick a fight with Beijing or Berlin on fair trade in Davos, it picked the wrong place.”
The Global Times also featured an illustration by staff cartoonist Liu Rui, depicting India as a “Jealous Jumbo” taking the stage at the World Economic Forum.

JAPAN
After US President Trump’s suggestion that the US was interested in returning to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) multilateral trade agreement in an interview on the sidelines of Davos, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe responded positively to the news. “I will call on President Trump to ensure that the United States leads free and open TPP rules with Japan in a steady manner,” Abe said in a House of Councillor Budget Committee meeting.

The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun was dubious of Trump’s “real intentions” regarding his off-handed remark, “Is it merely a strategy typical of US President Donald Trump, changing his attitude several times and stirring up other countries? […] It should be noted that a change is not expected in Trump’s pet theory that places importance on bilateral negotiations.” A follow-up editorial further explained that Trump’s motivations were probably linked to “heavy pressure coming from US agricultural groups,” given that, “[it] seems Trump made such remarks [on the TPP] on purpose, rather than on impulse.”
The liberal-leaning Mainichi Shimbun offered a similar take on Trump’s sudden interest in returning to the TPP, noting that his his motivation “may simply be hinting at the move to hold back China, with which the US has its largest trade deficit.” In another editorial, the Mainichi mused on the “irony” of Trump’s attendance, given that he is “the main figure in fractures across the world” who appeared to have imposed emergency import tariffs on solar panels and washing machines from China and South Korea “as if to issue a challenge” to the spirit of Davos. “The world economy is currently healthy, but if a policy of putting one’s own country first runs rampant and fractures appear in the global economy, then growth will stop and jobs will be lost. […] Japan must join with other countries in raising a voice against protectionism,” the Mainichi advocated.
Staff writer Takeshi Kawanami at the conservative, business-oriented Nikkei echoed the uneasiness in his coverage of the episode: “The future actions of Trump, who calls himself a deal-maker, are hard to predict. And there are uncertainties over how the remaining TPP members will react to a potential US return.” Kawanami explained that although US participation would be a boon to the group’s motivation to counter China, the process of renegotiation with domestic industries would be costly and time-consuming.
The progressive Asahi Shimbun featured a commentary on Japan’s economic policies by Makiko Eda, who will take over as chief representative officer of the World Economic Forum’s Japan office on April 1st. While her article was largely a glowing review of Japan’s economic performance under Abe-nomics, Eda highlighted Japan’s role as “the canary in the world’s post-industrial coal mine” with its rapidly aging population. The solution, she says, is improving women’s standing in the workforce. “If Japan is serious about driving innovation and achieving economic growth, it has a lot more to do in order to truly embrace diversity and inclusion,” Eda urged.

RUSSIA
Economic Development Minister Maksim Oreshkin was optimistic about foreign investment in Russia in an interview at Davos. “We see a positive trend in foreign direct investment in the past several years. This volume exceeded $20-25 billion in 2017,” he said. Other Russian leaders had warm words for the efforts of the Russian delegation at the event. Deputy Prime Minister Arkady Dvorkovich commented that, “The Russia House has become an effective place to work, hold meetings, and promote Russia’s interests around the world.” Anton Kobyakov, advisor to President Vladimir Putin, described Russia House as “a major attraction for Russian and foreign representatives of the business elite, representatives of the state authorities, business and scientific circles, and opinion leaders.”

State-owned media outlet TASS covered both the opening events and closing remarks of the Russia House for the forum. TASS reported that in the four days of the forum, the venue “hosted more than 1,000 guests from 60 foreign countries in addition to more than 120 media representatives,” marking a successful first year for the program.
Columnist Ivan Danilov of the state-owned SputnikNews gave a blistering response to billionaire George Soros’s criticism of Trump at Davos. “There are three politicians continuously targeted by Soros and the organizations financed by Soros: the Hungarian Prime-minister [sic] Viktor Orban, the Russian President Vladimir Putin, and the US President Donald Trump. What do these politicians have in common? All of them are status quo disruptors. All of them are populists, in the sense that they try to cater to the ideals and interest of the common people and not the global financial elite.”
SputnikNews contributor Denis Bolotsky surveyed the “many conflicts within global elites and between different powerful world players” and concluded that the goal of this year’s forum may be out of reach.
Sputnik also highlighted commentary by Polish President Andrzej Duda and Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko on their battles against “fake news” during a joint session at Davos. Sputnik described the forces the leaders were battling as “the current success of populists and Euroskeptics.”

SOUTH KOREA
South Korean Foreign Minister Kang Kyung-wha attended the forum to promote the 2018 Winter Olympics being held in PyeongChang. In an interview with Reuters on the possibility that North Korea could undertake provocative actions despite the Olympics and success of recent talks, Kang assured the public that, “We approach these talks with all contingency scenarios in mind and are prepared to deal with whatever may happen.” The Ministry of Foreign Affairs also reported that in a closed-door debate at the forum, Kang advocated for governments to “harness new technology and innovation” in order to raise private financing for UN development goals.

The conservative-leaning Dong-A Ilbo called for the South Korean government to protest the US’s emergency import tariffs at the WEF. “Korea should raise its voice together with other states against US protectionism, and at the same time, brace itself for a prolonged trade war by diversifying markets and developing premium products that will withstand price hikes.”
Conservative-leaning JoongAng Daily warned that “Korea Inc. must brace for a currency battle on top of heavier trade barriers,” given the comments by US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin at Davos in which he indicated that the Trump administration prefers a weak US currency for the purposes of trade.
The liberal-leaning Korea Times called on the government to keep a close eye on the country’s household debt given the “pessimistic forecast” given by speakers at Davos on the issue who warned that bad debts are accumulating worldwide and may lead to another economic crisis. “The Moon Jae-In administration must not overlook economic danger signals, from within and without, by being lost in the bright growth outlook. Instead, it ought to bear in mind the warning from the Davos forum and take timely and proper steps to deal with the aftermath of the abundant liquidity.”

BRAZIL

The center-right business newspaper Valor Economico used the headline “Temer goes to Davos and Asia to ‘sell’ Brazil and soothe relations” to speculate on the primary intention of Brazilian President Michael Temer’s participation in the World Economic Forum and who would try to benefit the most from the interaction with the world’s financial and corporate elites in Davos.
JOTA, a magazine focused on legal topics, remarked that the advantages of the new digital technologies, such as the Fintechs and crypto currencies, were under discussion during the Forum. During a meeting held on January 26th, experts pointed out that initiatives involving operations through online or peer-to-peer platforms and cryptocurrencies often bring a viable alternative to markets that the traditional banking system can not reach: the so-called “unbanked” public.
Catraca Livre, a left oriented online portal, emphasized that Davos warns on lack of progress in sustainable development, as nations have been negligent with respect to global and pressing environmental challenges. The article also mentions that since Davos enabled the return of a Brazilian head of state in 2014, none have shown up until now.

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

Looking Back on 2017: Rising Powers Review Trump’s First Year

Policy Alert #157 | January 30, 2018

The release of the Trump administration’s National Security Strategy (NSS) at the end of 2017, the publication of an expose of the inner-workings of the Trump White House ahead of the anniversary of his inauguration, and startling results from a Gallup survey on global support of US leadership left columnists and policy experts abroad with plenty of food for thought as they ruminated on the US president’s performance in 2017 and how their governments should respond. In this RPI Policy Alert, we survey the Rising Powers’ report cards for Donald Trump’s first year in office.

CHINA

In its review of Sino-American relations in 2017, the nationalist Global Times asserted that “Among all the major powers apart from the US, China has been standing the most steadily in the face of shock waves from Washington thanks to Beijing’s own strength and firm diplomatic principles,” and attributed the uncertainty in the international system in the wake of Trump to the over reliance on Western countries for leadership and decision-making.
Zhang Tengjun, an assistant research fellow at the China Institute of International Studies, analyzed the development of “Trumpism” and what it means for the rest of the world in an article for Global Times. “Trumpism is the most important transformation that the US has faced since the end of the Cold War and its influence will go beyond Trump’s four or eight year presidency,” Zhang explained. “How to understand the new norm of US politics and handle Trumpism will be a major research subject for the whole world.”
In light of the recent Gallup poll that found global support of Chinese leadership had surpassed that of the US in 2017, the state-directed China Daily featured an analysis by three experts on the survey. Yang Mian, a professor at Communication University of China, was cautiously optimistic about the results, urged readers not to ignore the fact that “support for China’s leadership was only 1 percentage point more than that of the US, which dropped a record 18 percentage points” and reminded readers that “one survey result cannot be taken as gospel truth.” Wang Honggang, head of the World Politics Institute at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, attributed the drop in support for US leadership to a combination of the fallout of the 2008 financial crisis and Trump’s failure “to realize even part of his promise to make ‘America great again’, with the 69-hour government shutdown adding to the US administration’s woes.” Wang Fan, vice-president of China Foreign Affairs University, juxtaposed “China’s rising influence [in] its promotion of globalization” against the “US’ protectionist policies and withdrawal from multilateral mechanisms such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement and the 2015 Paris climate accord.” Wang further advocated for China to “deepen its cooperation with other countries to improve global governance” and continue to improve its domestic economy in order to “contribute to the development of the world.”
Ma Shikun, a senior journalist at the China Daily, criticized the labeling of China and Russia as “revisionist” and “strategic competitors” in the US’ National Security Strategy, instead arguing that “given his reckless rewriting and ‘re-evaluation’ of the international status quo in his first year in office, Trump himself could more rightly be called ‘revisionist.’”
The independent South China Morning Post featured an op-ed by Will Saetren, a research associate at the Institute for China-America Studies, that reviewed Trump’s first year of “incoherent foreign policy” in the Asia-Pacific and its ramifications for security in the region. Saetren asserted that, “For decades, American power and prestige has been the bedrock of strategic stability.[…] In one year, Trump has taken a sledgehammer to these policies and shaken strategic stability to its core.”

INDIA

The conservative, pro-government newspaper The Pioneer had kinder words for the US president, contending that “On the whole, the year of Trump has not been as bad as many would have you believe.” It noted that “the US’ relationship with India under Trump has improved, which may not have been the case under Hillary Clinton.” One example of this was another editorial that praised Trump’s first tweet of the year that targeted Pakistan, in which The Pioneer hailed, “President Donald J Trump is fast-emerging as the best thing that could have happened of India since readymade chapatis, as it were.”
Vivek Wadhwa, Distinguished Fellow at Carnegie Mellon University, found a silver lining to “the irony of America’s rising nativism and protectionism” that has left “around 1.5 million skilled workers and their families stuck in immigration limbo.” “With his constant tirades against immigrants […], Donald Trump is giving many countries the greatest gift of all: causing the trickle of returning talent to become a flood.”
The center-right Times of India reviewed the National Security Strategy (NSS) to see what consequences the “most important American policy document of the year” has for India. The Times noted that that crucial to the actual outcomes is that “Trump is known to be unpredictable, and may not follow through on all elements of the NSS.” India would benefit from “cooperation between Washington and Moscow” despite the “tough line” against Russia in the NSS, while it would be against India’s interest “if Washington dropped the ball on pressuring Pakistan for nursing terror militias.”
The liberal Indian Express found both promise and peril in Trump’s stands: “the policy challenge for Delhi is two-fold. One is to seize the opportunities that Trump is offering in countering terrorism and promoting peace and stability in Afghanistan and, more broadly, the Indo-Pacific. The other is to prepare for the unprecedented changes in America’s international relations under Trump.”

JAPAN

The liberal Asahi Shimbun featured an editorial on Trump’s first year in office and its implications for Japan. The Asahi warned that, “America today is becoming a symbol of uncertainty and unpredictability,” and that, “Diplomacy that is conducted solely on the basis of the Japan-U.S. alliance is precarious at best. […] Japan had better establish its own view and philosophy of the world and hone its diplomatic skills as a peace-seeking economic giant.”
The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun conceded that Trump’s foreign policy in the Asia Pacific region has “leaned in a more realistic direction” since his inauguration, and praised “strengthening the U.S. military by clearly expressing his intent to increase military spending under the slogan ‘peace through strength.’” Nevertheless, “Attention must be paid to the fact that Trump is from the business sector and lacks a consistent diplomatic strategy. Moreover, his awareness of the importance of respecting the international order and universal values such as democracy and human rights is low. Relevant countries need to keep an eye on possible ‘deal diplomacy,’” the Yomiuri cautioned.
The Mainichi meanwhile took aim at Trump’s protectionist trade policies in the last year, namely the US’s withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and Trump’s threat to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The Mainichi criticized Trump for his “abandonment of his responsibility as the leader of a major economic power to put the world economy on a stable growth track,” and expressed concern that the US’s “more important responsibility” of “leading international cooperation based on universal values including democracy and rule of law” is being neglected.

SOUTH KOREA

The conservative Dong-A Ilbo focused on the allegations that Trump is unfit for office in the recent expose Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House alongside the US president’s “nuclear button” tweet exchange with North Korean President Kim Jong-Un. “[The] U.S. president is the most influential figure in the world who can choose between peace and war in all different areas on conflict. […] Do we have to worry about President Trump’s mental health as well as Kim Jong-Un’s?”
Liberal-leaning Kyungghyang Shinmun asserted that amidst the tensions on the Korean Peninsula as well as the publication of the NSS, “Trump seeks a road toward confrontation seeing China and Russia as rival states,” at a time when “[t]he U.S. and China are likely to clash in their competition for hegemony in Northeast Asia.” In the wake of Trump, the Kyungghyang urged the South Korean government “to display strategic thinking and a sense of balance” in its own handling of North Korea.
The liberal Korea Times echoed these concerns, and lamented that in his foreign policy in East Asia, “there has been much evidence the Trump administration has been favoring the military option and the likelihood is increasing.” Instead, “Trump needs to find a peaceful way to resolve the regional conflict without resorting to the military option which will lead to total disaster for all concerned.”

RUSSIA

Government-backed RT contributor Alexandre Antonov offered a scathing review of Trump’s first year in office, but pointed out that the resulting decline of global support for the US may be beneficial to the rest of the world in the long term. “The world’s distrust puts in question whether Washington’s exceptionalism can be salvaged after the Trump presidency. America enjoyed free rein to topple foreign governments through subterfuge or outright military action, operate the dollar, decide on how global trade should work and much else besides on two presumptions. One – that its leadership was ultimately making the world a better place, regardless of the damage done in the process. And two – that it was an adequately competent leader,” he asserted.

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

Looking Back on 2017: A Rising Power Story You May Have Missed

Policy Alert #156 | January 19, 2018

While China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) grabbed international headlines last year, another major infrastructure plan floated by two other key Asian countries hardly got much overseas coverage. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s announcement of India and Japan’s Asia-Africa Growth Corridor (AAGC) at the African Development Bank Meeting in May 2017 represented the culmination of Indo-Japanese efforts for meaningful, bilateral action in the Indo-Pacific region. But it also symbolized an attempt to promote an attractive alternative to the BRI, with the two countries emphasizing the AACG’s commitment to development cooperation, quality infrastructure and institutional connectivity, and people-to-people partnership. The AAGC’s primary goals are to promote sustainable projects and growth and to coordinate the development priorities among countries and sub-regions of Asia and Africa.

Japan and India began a dialogue on Africa in 2010 to promote “African empowerment” and “African ownership.” In May 2016, Prime Minister Modi and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe “expressed their intention to work jointly and cooperatively with the international community to promote the development of industrial corridors and industrial network in Asia and Africa” in a joint statement during Modi’s visit to Japan.

Japan committed $30 billion in public and private support for development in Africa and $10 billion for infrastructure projects in conjunction with the African Development Bank. The Keidanren (Japanese Business Federation) identified Africa as an area for new economic growth. The Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) established ten Human Resource Development Centers to provide vocational training and co-financed $2 billion with the African Development Bank to promote investment in Africa with private-sector assistance.

India began its India-Africa Forum Summit in 2008, pledged $10 billion in concessional credit to African countries in 2015, and has expanded its economic ties to Africa by promoting its private and public sector companies operating there. India, along with the United States, has also been collaborating with African countries in agricultural development, energy security, health, women’s empowerment, and peacekeeping training.

The AAGC provides Japan and India a platform from which to emphasize the importance of the freedom of navigation in the Indo-Pacific region as well. Prime Minister Abe has talked about the need for a maritime security “diamond” of democracies between Japan, India, Australia, and the United States. Japan’s military base in Djibouti was completed in 2011 as part of its anti-piracy campaign around the Horn of Africa, and Indo-Japanese security cooperation has strengthened over the past year. Thus, the close alignment between Japan and India’s strategic and economic interests could provide a solid foundation for the AAGC as a new type of regional political and economic architecture for the 21st century.

Commentary below from India and Japan show mixed reviews for the AAGC despite the enthusiastic push by Abe and Modi. Chinese opinion is uniformly negative, citing various reasons.

INDIA
After openly opposing the BRI in May 2017, Indian Foreign Minister Jaishankar explained India’s rationale for pursuing a quadrilateral partnership with Japan, the US, and Australia instead, “Many of the concerns we articulated in the summer have become broader international concerns. We hear it in Japan, US and Europe … India has been a pioneer of connectivity in many ways […] We have more ownership of Silk Road than anyone else.” At a consultative meeting before Abe’s visit to India in September 2017, Jaishankar pointed out that a defining characteristic of the AAGC was “a strong sense of local ownership.” “Our activities must fully conform to balanced ecological and environmental protection and preservation standards. And, I am compelled to add, respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity,” he added, highlighting India’s frustration with the BRI’s inclusion of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) without India’s consultation. In the joint statement during Abe’s visit to India, Prime Ministers Modi and Abe promised to “work together to enhance connectivity in India and other countries in the Indo-Pacific region, including Africa,” and “underlined the importance of all countries ensuring the development and use of connectivity infrastructure in an open, transparent and non-exclusive manner based on international standards and responsible debt financing practices, while ensuring respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, the rule of law, and the environment.” This was a clear rebuke to China’s BRI which has been widely criticized for its lack of transparency and financial practices.

Times of India coverage of the AAGC featured a criticism of an article published by the Chinese Global Times that advocated for India to align its African development strategies with BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), rather than the AAGC. The Times of India urged the country to stay strong in the AAGC, arguing that in working through BRICS, India’s influence would “get diluted.” Indrani Bagchi, diplomatic editor of the Times, added that, “China’s aggressive march towards becoming a 21st century totalitarian power should not go uncontested.”
Former Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran called on India to step up its game in the AAGC and suggested that “In order to make an impact, India will need to revamp its delivery system, ensure quick implementation and match Japanese efficiency in every aspect.”
Rakesh Sood, a former diplomat and Distinguished Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, echoed these sentiments in an op-ed for The Hindu, encouraging India “to change its style of implementing projects abroad, most of which have been plagued by cost and time over-runs” in order to make the AAGC beneficial to the Indo-Japanese relationship.
C. Raja Mohan, Director of Carnegie India, similarly analyzed the strengthening relationship between India and Japan in the Indian Express. On the AAGC, Mohan points out that “[w]hile all this is impressive, skeptics will argue that without a significant defence relationship, the talk of an alliance between India and Japan remains meaningless.”
In its comparisons of the joint statement issued during Abe’s 2017 visit and the one from the prior year, the Indian Express noted that discussion of the AAGC refocused the effort to Africa, even though Middle Eastern countries had been given prominence the previous year.
The Economic Times asserted that the AAGC “is fast finding favour in resource-rich Africa, where China’s push, ostensibly for capacity building, is receiving bad press for being hard and exploitative,” and featured commentary on China’s alleged exploitative activities in Africa, including treatment of workers as “slaves” and rampant overfishing by Chinese companies. The newspaper ran another op-ed on Abe’s 2017 lower house election win as a victory for Modi as well, explaining, “Apart from China’s increasing military presence in Indian Ocean, another worry for Modi is China’s One Belt One Road (OBOR) project which gives it economic and strategic footholds across Asia. With Abe with him, Modi can counter China.”
Rajesh Basrur and Sumitha Narayanan Kutty, professor and associate researcher, respectively, at the S. Rajaratnam School for International Studies, Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, argue that “Japan […] is becoming [India’s] primary collaborator in developing its economic sinews and for building a geostrategic network that offers Indian Ocean states an alternative to dependence on China.“
The Hindu offered words of caution on India’s rush to collaborate in partnerships that primarily serve to “counter” Chinese influence: “While India has objections to the BRI, it wouldn’t be ideal to bracket the country in a counter camp, but rather it should balance its outreach in accordance to national interests and its own terms. After all, the very countries which are pushing India into alliances are deeply intertwined with China in terms of trade. Excessive dependence on multilateral frameworks to fulfil national objectives may seem lucrative in the short term but could prove to be a costly mistake in the long term and comprise Indian sovereignty.”

JAPAN
While the Indian press has followed the AAGC project with close attention as an alternative to China’s BRI and the potential of a partnership with Japan as a counterbalance to Chinese influence in the Indo-Pacific, it has been less of a priority in the Japanese press. Indeed, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe recently announced his willingness to cooperate with China’s BRI. “I believe Japan will be able to cooperate well with China, which has been putting forward its One Belt, One Road Initiative. […] Meeting robust infrastructure demand in Asia through cooperation between Japan and China will contribute greatly to the prosperity of Asian people, in addition to the economic development of the two countries,” he said at a two-day summit between Chinese and Japanese entrepreneurs in Tokyo. Abe also expressed his hope that Chinese President Xi Jinping would visit Japan “as early as possible.”

Liberal Democratic Party lawmaker and former regional revitalization minister Kozo Yamamoto was criticized for his use of a racialized term while referring to Africa during a political and economic lecture co-hosted by fellow lawmaker Asahiko Mihara, who leads a legislative group promoting ties to African countries. The Mainichi Shimbun scorched Yamamoto in a blistering editorial for “trampl[ing] on the efforts that Japan has made to promote Japan-Africa relations over the years.”
The liberal Asahi Shimbun called on Japan to continue to pursue cooperative ties with China. The Asahi argued that the AAGC “should not be promoted only as a rival to Xi’s ‘One Belt, One Road’ new Silk Road economic zone initiative,” but rather that, “Japan and China should hold talks to explore possibilities of cooperation concerning these two proposals.”
The Japan Times commentary on the Indo-Japanese partnership was covered primarily by Ramesh Thakur, Professor in the Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University. Following Abe’s visit to India and US President Donald Trump’s first Asia tour, Thakur argued that on Abe’s to-do list to restore Japan’s position in “the great game of East Asia major power relations” was to “build an entente cordiale of cooperative dialogues and arrangements with like-minded countries with shared values and convergent interests in the larger strategic frame of the Indo-Pacific region.” He also noted that the US adoption of the term “Indo-Pacific” was a win for Japan as the Japanese government adopted the term years ago to include “India into its strategic frame.”
The business-focused Nikkei Asia Review also highlighted Trump’s seeming “buy in” to the AAGC through his use of “Indo-Pacific” during his tour. The Nikkei explains that the AAGC would provide access to “ports [that] have military as well as economic value and the AAGC provides a cover for Washington to gain access to these facilities in the same way that BRI facilitates Chinese access to ports.”

CHINA
Although there has been no formal statement on the Chinese government’s position regarding the AAGC, commentary in state-owned and state-directed media outlets are generally critical of the AAGC as it provides competition to China’s BRI and efforts to include African countries through BRICS-Plus, which China introduced as host of last year’s BRICS Summit.

Global Times reporter Wang Jiamei predicted that the AAGC would likely fail as the Sino-Japanese relationship is more important to Japan, both politically and economically, than its ties with India. “Countries like India are indeed big partners to the Japanese economy, but the importance of the Sino-Japan economic relationship is incomparable. Economic interests will eventually lead Japan to make the right choice.” Hu Weijia, another Global Times correspondent, made vague allusions to India’s partnership with Japan while calling for the need for BRICS member states to “work in unison in their engagement with African countries.”
Liu Dian an assistant research fellow at the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University of China asserts that “the ‘stress-inspired’ union” between India, Japan, the US, and Australia to counter China’s influence through the BRI may “prematurely end” due to the dynamics between the four partners. On India and Japan’s roles, Liu explains, “India’s non-aligned tradition and longstanding strategic autonomy make it hard for this country to participate deeply in the team. Japan, the most passionate participant of the union, will ultimately fail to accomplish anything if it lacks strong support from the other three nations.“
Long Xingchun, a senior research fellow at the Charhar Institute, and director of the Center for Indian Studies at China West Normal University, urged India to “be wary of being misled by Japan in confronting China, while Tokyo benefits from New Delhi’s face-off with Beijing,” noting that Japan “benefited” by participating in Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation in May while India boycotted the event.
China Daily criticized India’s “mixed signals” following the end of the territorial standoff at Doklam by aligning itself with Japan diplomatically and engaging in joint military exercises with the US despite China’s “sincerity” in maintaining strong relations. The Daily encouraged India to “learn from the standoff, and help China to build sound bilateral ties” rather than play into the “US-Japan game.”

Mr. Trump’s Vietnam and Philippines Visits: How are a “Quasi-Ally” and an Ally Responding?

Policy Alert #155 | November 14, 2017

As part of RPI’s special coverage of US President Donald Trump’s first trip to Asia, we now examine the second leg of the tour in Vietnam and the Philippines, overlapping with the 2017 APEC Summit, the US-ASEAN Summit, and East Asia Summit. Both countries are crucial to the resolution of the ongoing maritime disputes in the South China Sea. Since coming to power, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has added an unpredictable element to the political equation while Vietnam’s position has been steadier.

How is the Trump visit affecting thinking in Vietnam and the Philippines on this regional dispute and other bilateral matters?

VIETNAM
President Trump’s visit to Vietnam began with attending APEC Summit before formally meeting with Vietnamese officials in Hanoi. Secretary General of the Communist Party of Vietnam Nyugen Phu Trong expressed his support of President Trump’s visit for promoting bilateral ties between the two nations, while Prime Minister Nyugen Xuan Phuc hailed the success of the loosening of trade restrictions between the two countries.

Covering the arrival of Chinese President Xi Jinping, The Hanoi Times emphasized the economic ties and cooperative undertakings in sectors such as agriculture, healthcare, and transportation between Vietnam and China. Ahead of the visit, however, the Times highlighted Dr. Nyugen Hong Tao’s recent lecture at a workshop in the United Kingdom regarding territorial disputes in the South China Sea, in which he argued that “Vietnam has legal basis to dismiss any proposal for joint exploration illegally enabling violations to her continental shelf,” an indirect criticism of efforts by China’s activities in the area.
Viet Nam News, the English news publication by the state-run Vietnam News Agency, highlighted a ceremony in which President Trump and President Tran Dai Quang oversaw the signing of an estimated $12 billion in trade deals. The news agency explained the relationship between Vietnam and the US: “Positive strides have been recorded in bilateral relations in all spheres since the countries established a comprehensive partnership in July 2013 on the basis of respecting each other’s territorial integrity, political regime and development path, for the sake of their own interests and for regional peace, stability and development co-operation.”
In its coverage of President Trump’s arrival, Tuoi Tre News, the paper for the Ho Chi Minh Communist Youth Union and the most widely-read paper in Vietnam, featured several photos of Vietnamese lining the streets “to welcome” the US president as his motorcade as it passed through Hanoi. Tuoi Tre emphasized that this was the fourth consecutive state visit by a US president since the normalization of ties in 1995.
Tuoi Tre also noted President Trump’s offer to President Quang to use his negoiating skills in the maritime territorial dispute between Vietnam and China. “If I can help mediate or arbitrate, please let me know… I am a very good mediator,” Trump said.
Musician and activist Mai Khoi displayed an anti-Trump banner as the US president’s motorcade passed, and was later evicted from her apartment over the disruption. Khoi criticized Trump’s silence on Vietnam’s human rights violations, saying, “His politics, his philosophy, is so different from me and is so harmful, and he doesn’t support the human rights, and he doesn’t care about activists.”
In an interview with The Diplomat, dissent activist Nyguyen Quang A explained that despite the Vietnamese government’s record of human rights abuses, it is vital for Hanoi and Washington to strengthen their partnership. “We have to resist [China’s] expansion policy, and I think that if Vietnam can have the support of others–the Japanese, Americans–that would be good,” he said.

PHILIPPINES
The Philippines hosted both the US-ASEAN Summit and East Asia Summit back-to-back. At the supposed request of the US President, Philippine President Rodrigo Duerte took to the stage to sing a duet at the ASEAN gala dinner in which he hosted 1,300 attendees. On his meeting with Trump, Duerte explained that Trump had “said something about, ‘You know, you handle it very well…’ I do not want to brag. These are the things that you do not brag about: the [typhoon] Marawi and then the drugs – words of encouragement,” but did not mention the extrajudicial killings occurring as part of Duerte’s “war on drugs,” as “they are not true […] we do not do it.”

In later interviews, President Duerte expressed his disinterest in engaging with China over the South China Sea dispute, saying, “Today China is the number one economic powerhouse, and we have to be friends. The other hotheads would like us to confront China and the rest of the world for so many issues. […] The South China Sea is better left untouched. Nobody can afford to go to war,” and, when recounting his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, “I have stated before and I was not lying, I would not entertain talks about military or anything except that I had to thank Mr. Xi Jinping for the timely and crucial help that he extended to our country when we were fighting the siege of [typhoon] Marawi.”

Retired diplomat Jaime Bautista urged the government use its chairmanship of ASEAN to assert its award granted under the arbitration case against China. “It is in the interest of the Philippines to mention the arbitration tribunal award and include it as part of the strategic discourse in the [ASEAN] and related summits. The award favors not only the Philippines but Malaysia, Vietnam and other countries that have exclusive economic zones. The issue with respect to the Common Heritage of Mankind and the freedom of navigation affects all countries, especially the major maritime powers in the region and other dialogue partners of [ASEAN].”
Ahead of the US-ASEAN Summit and East Asia Summit in the Philippines, the Manila Times assessed the government’s hopeful policy outcomes against the shadow of human rights violations in the country. The Times featured interviews from officials at Amnesty International’s branch in the Philippines. “We will be extremely disappointed if Trump does not raise it,” director Jose Noel Olano said of the extrajudicial killings. Amnesty researcher Rachel Chhoa-Howard highlighted other human rights abuses in the region being swept under the rug, “From the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar, to a sweeping crackdown on all forms of dissent in Cambodia to the thousands killed in Philippines, human rights are under siege across Southeast Asia.”
The Philippine Star similarly featured an interview with Secretary General of human rights NGO Karapatan Cristina Palabay ahead of the visit. Palabay minced no words on the suggestion that President Trump would address human rights issues, “We expect Trump to talk about human rights with such a record? This is a different level of shamelessness, hypocrisy and pretense. The Trump administration is allocating more for the destruction and plunder of nations.”
Save the Nation head and former undersecretary Antonio “Butch” Valdes was optimistic that although the ASEAN’s initiatives to resolve the maritime territorial disputes between member states and China was “less relevant,” the recent visits and dialogue between US President Trump and Chinese President Xi “may pave the way into improved relations “between the two superpowers and a future resolution of our territorial issues.”
Philippine Star writer Federico D. Pascual Jr., meanwhile, called for readers to consider the real power dynamic behind the diplomatic displays. “It so happens that the real factor in the power equation in the South China Sea is not Duterte himself, but the Philippines,” due to the island’s’ strategic position, according to Pascual. Given that the US’s real “fear” is “that the mad man toying with nuclear-tipped missiles in Pyongyang might just press the red button and ignite the Last World War,” it is in the US’s best interest to remain allied with the Philippines and maintain its positions in East Asia, he argued.
Babe Romualdez, another Philippine Star contributor, praised the preparations and Filipino hospitality on display during the respective summits’ ceremonies, and shot at those who criticized the use of resources on such displays. “This milestone event will bring in large returns in terms of tremendous goodwill as we can demonstrate that the country is politically stable, our democratic institutions are very much alive and at work, and that the government is working hard to make the Philippines an attractive investment destination as seen in the ambitious infrastructure agenda of the administration,” Romualdez said.
Columnist Carmen N. Perdosa had warm words of praise for President Duerte’s initiative that took the country from “being a mere patsy of US foreign policy in the region” to “a leader in the region and carry a heavy responsibility to the strengthening of ASEAN in world affairs.”
Yen Makabenta, in an editorial for the Manila Times, observed that “[t]he most striking spectacle at the APEC forum this week, is that the United States, by dint of Trump’s policies, is being relegated to the sidelines. Take his decision to withdraw the US from the far-reaching Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). It has not dented one whit [sic] the push for freer trade in the region, especially in Vietnam.” Makabenta continued by assessing the possibility of a new TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) agreement, and talks to establish a larger Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)–both without US involvement.

This supplemental Policy Alert on Vietnam and the Philippines is part of a project at the Rising Powers Initiative exploring the linkages between energy security and maritime strategies in the Indo-Pacific that is supported by the MacArthur Foundation.

Mr. Trump Goes to Asia: Are Rising Powers Wary or Welcoming?

Policy Alert #154 | November 7, 2017

US President Donald Trump began his second tour abroad and first tour in Asia on Sunday. Between November 5th and 12th, Trump will visit Japan, South Korea, China, Vietnam, and the Philippines ahead of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit. Trump visits amidst the continued tensions on the Korean Peninsula, recent improvements in Sino-Korean relations over South Korea’s deployment the terminal high altitude area defense (THAAD) missile defense system, and renewed controversy over the so-called “comfort women” issue between South Korea and Japan.

Ahead of his first stop in Tokyo, Trump managed to ruffle the feathers of some of his hosts before arrival. In an interview with Fox News, the US President gave a harsh warning on the issue of North Korea’s continued nuclear and missile tests, saying, “Japan is a warrior nation, and I tell China and I tell everyone else that listens, I mean, you’re gonna have yourself a big problem with Japan pretty soon if you allow this to continue with North Korea.” Although his comments were directed at China, the suggestion of Japan’s remilitarization, especially in the wake of the conservative Liberal Democratic Party’s electoral win, South Korean commenters were taken aback at the suggestion that their former colonizer would again mobilize. In this policy alert, we assess the Rising Powers’ response to the first half of Trump’s Asia visit.

JAPAN
In an interview ahead of Trump’s arrival, Prime Minister Abe said that he and Trump would “make the bond of the Japan-US alliance even stronger, building on our friendship and relationship of trust.” He presented Trump with matching caps embroidered with “Donald & Shinzo Make the Alliance Greater” before the two took to the greens for a round of golf. Despite the warm language regarding the security alliance at the meeting, Trump criticized the current economic ties between the two countries, saying, “Right now our trade with Japan is not fair and it’s not open, but I know it will be soon.” He was dismissive of Japan’s attempts to rekindle the Trans-Pacific Partnership, instead advocating for a new bilateral trade agreement.

In an editorial reviewing the policy challenges Prime Minister Abe faces during his third term, The Japan Times characterized Abe as having “thrown Tokyo’s full support behind the US administration of President Donald Trump.” The Times called on Abe to weigh the move–and his goal to revise Japan’s pacifist constitution by 2020–carefully, as the “energy and resources” they require could be better spent on the social and economic issues facing the country.
Tetsuo Kotani, a senior fellow at the Japan Institute of International Affairs, called on Trump to take an “Allies First” approach regarding the North Korean threat. Although “coercive diplomacy now makes sense” in the North Korean case, Trump must acknowledge that in the event of military engagement with North Korea, “Japan and South Korea might suffer massive damage, and if the damage resulted from Washington’s provocative actions, the US would lose its alliances — the cornerstones for US strategy in Asia — with them.”
Ahead of Trump’s arrival, the conservative Yomiuri Shimbun, asserted that, “To restrain China’s self-righteous maritime advances while properly dealing with the threat from North Korea, it is indispensable for Japan, the United States and Southeast Asian nations to strategically cooperate with one another,” and called on Abe to remind Trump that despite Xi’s aspirations to “make China a military and economic power” in Asia, it is “the Japan-US alliance [that] has underpinned the regional peace and prosperity of Asia.” The Yomiuri also had tough words for the South Korean government using the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) “as anti-Japan propaganda.” South Korea submitted “documents on comfort women” for inclusion in UNESCO’s Memory of the World Register, which recently shelved the issue, in an effort that “blatantly runs counter to the spirit of the Japan-South Korea agreement reached in 2015 to resolve the issue of comfort women.” UNESCO registered documents on the Nanjing Massacre, a historical controversy between China and Japan, in 2015.
The liberal Asahi Shimbun, meanwhile, called on Abe to “tell Trump–in plain and clear language–what the president needs to hear,” namely, “to avoid taking any military action against North Korea,” and to face the “realities concerning the bilateral security alliance” such as the hardships faced by the residents of Okinawa prefecture, which hosts the bulk of US forces in Japan.

KOREA
In Korea, thousands of protesters and counter-protesters gathered in Seoul ahead of President Trump’s arrival, to oppose and support the US president’s handling of the North Korea issue. Korean President Moon Jae-in has pursued a more measured response. Koh Yu-hwan, head of the advisory group to the National Security Council, highlighted Moon’s efforts to prepare for Trump’s visit by doing “maintenance activities” in South Korea’s own foreign relations by “reaching agreement over THAAD [with China] and inviting the North to the [Winter Olympic] Games.” Commenting on President Trump’s visit, Nam Gwan-pyo, deputy chief of South Korea’s Security Council, hailed Trump’s stop at the relocated US military base Camp Humphreys as “an opportunity to show President Trump that South Korea is making significant contributions to the alliance.” South Korea funded over 90 percent of the base’s $10 billion cost. Although the issue of North Korea looms over the visit, President Trump has made it clear that he does not feel the US allies are shouldering their fair share of the costs of the alliance, and that he considers the Korea-US Fair Trade Agreement to be a “horrible deal.”

Kim Hong-gul, chairman of the Committee for National Unity at the Democratic Party of Korea and son of the late President and Nobel Peace Laureate Kim Dae-jung, said of the visit, “I hope President Trump will realize how close Seoul is to the inter-Korean border and how dangerous it is for people when a conflict arises. […] I wish the President will study more and speak less to see how the possible military option would devastate the country.” Kim advocates for a diplomatic solution to the tensions with North Korea by reopening dialogue through initiatives like the Sunshine Policy, and for transparency between South Korea, the US, and China over military strategies in the region, such as South Korea’s deployment of the THAAD missile defense system, to prevent misunderstandings and conflict.
The Korea Times featured an interview with Balbina Hwang, a North Korea expert and former special advisor to the US State Department, in a three-part series on the nuclear crisis with North Korea. Hwang assured the interviewer that “Trump’s tweets and other utterances should be interpreted within the context they are meant as rhetorical statements that may reflect his personal feelings at any given time, but are not necessarily reflective of official US policies.” Ultimately, she added, the source of rising tensions is Pyongyang’s actions, not US rhetoric or policies. Hwang asserts the diplomatic solution “to secure peace is to bring the Korean War to a permanent end” by revising and expanding the 1955 Armistice into a true peace treaty.
With regards to the current tensions between South Korea and Japan over the renewed controversy of the so-called “comfort women” issue regarding the Japanese Imperial Army’s sexual enslavement of young women during the Pacific War and Japanese Prime Minister Abe’s plan to revise the constitution to expand its military capabilities, chief editorial writer for liberal The Korea Times Oh Young-jin proclaimed “It is imperative to let the rest of the world know about what Japan’s latest turn will mean, and ring the alarm about what disaster the war criminal nation can bring about again.”
Tong Kim, US correspondent for The Korea Times and fellow at the Institute for Korean-American Studies, explains that although improved ties with Beijing can be seen as a positive development, in light of “China’s more aggressive search for global leadership” from the events at the 19th Communist Party of China Congress, President Moon “must seek what’s best for Korea, but without weakening the alliance with the US.”
The conservative Dong-A Ilbo demanded President Trump visit the demilitarized zone to “send a clear message to North Korea,” as all of his predecessors since President Ronald Reagan–except President George H.W. Bush–have done. Currently, Trump is scheduled to tour the relocated US base Camp Humphreys instead. “It will be a worthwhile and necessary thing to show the US president, who has wrong ideas about sharing of defense costs between the two countries, that South Korea has shouldered 94 percent of the expenses to build the modern US military base in Pyeongtaek. Nevertheless, it will be even more meaningful and symbolic for the US commander in chief to stand at the DMZ and show his determination to protect the lives and property of the Korean people.” The paper was also critical of the anti-US groups preparing to protest Trump’s visit, as the “ROK-US alliance should not be shaken.” “Law enforcement should be prepared, from beginning to end, to prevent any unexpected accidents or negative influences on the bilateral relationship. The government should persuade representatives of these groups to refrain from violent and aggressive actions. If necessary, President Moon or Prime Minister Lee Nak-yeon should directly deliver a message to them,” the paper urged.
The Korea Herald also had tough words for the protesters, criticizing them for forgetting that the US alliance was “the decisive factor in driving out the North’s invaders in the Korean War and further deterring another.” “What good will it do the nation to provoke a visiting foreign head of state and his fellow compatriots?” the editorial demanded. Claiming that the protesters are supporters of President Moon, the Herald called on the president to “issue a personal appeal to have them to behave themselves this time.” That said, the Herald also called attention to the fact that South Korea will be the shortest stop on his tour, scheduled to last only about twenty-four hours, and that the short stay “raised eyebrows among the country’s political circles.”
The conservative JoongAng Daily echoed these sentiments, criticizing President Moon’s administration for being “overly laid-back” about the “potentially violent protests.” “Japan welcomed Trump wholeheartedly. It will make a sharp contrast if he is not treated well in Korea,” it warned. “Without our alliance with the US, we can hardly deal with the North Korean nuclear threat.”
The liberal Hankyoreh, meanwhile, called for the South Korean government to “boldly refuse to accept any unreasonable demands” if attempts are made to renegotiate the Korea-US Free Trade agreement rather than continue to be “constantly pushed around by the US” on the issue. Staff writer Jung E-gil condemned the decision to allow Trump to address the National Assembly during his visit, noting that “Trump’s typical positions and remarks create a headache for Seoul.” “Even granting that South Korea plays a subordinate role in its relationship to the US, as long as South Korea continues to act like a subordinate, that relationship will not change, and South Korea will end up suffering even more from the US’s domineering behavior,” he said.

CHINA
When Trump’s visit to China was first announced in September, Chinese President Xi Jinping had warm words of welcome, saying, “I believe that President Trump’s upcoming visit to China means an important opportunity for the further development of China-US relations. […] And I believe his visit will be a special, wonderful and successful one.” Following his success of the 19th Party Congress last month, Xi recently directed the People’s Liberation Army to improve its readiness for war as part of his policy objectives. “The CMC [Central Military Commission] should lead the armed forces to be ready to fight and win wars, and to undertake the missions and tasks of the new era entrusted to them by the Party and the people,” he said. These efforts to strengthen its military might have complicated China’s relations with its neighbors, many of which are key US allies in the Asia-Pacific.

Editorials in the state-directed China Daily were cautiously optimistic about President Trump’s visit, but noted that “much has changed” since President Barack Obama’s rebalancing efforts, such as the pending Code of Conduct in the South China Sea scheduled to be adopted by China and ASEAN later this month. “Any attempt to derail this process would be unwelcome and likely trigger a backlash,” the Daily warned.
Xu Man, an assistant research fellow at the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation, called for the US and EU to “appreciate” China’s recent efforts to cut steel overcapacity and to use cooperation to solve the friction in trade relations. President Trump asked the Department of Commerce to investigate whether foreign imports of steel compromise US national security in April.
Ahead of the 80th anniversary of the 1937 Nanjing Massacre by the Japanese Imperial Army and the start of President Trump’s tour, Chi Wang, president of the US-China Policy Foundation, argued that while the US does not pose a security threat to China, a remilitarized Japan may. He asserted that “Japan’s modern-day actions must be interpreted through the lens of the second world war [sic],” and expressed his hope that Trump “will not encourage Abe to rely further on militarisation.”
The independent, Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post expressed cautious optimism about the outcomes of the visit, but noted that despite diplomats’ efforts to ensure the meeting is a success, “It remains to be seen whether the two sides are on the same page on Friday, or have managed expectations well enough to put a positive spin on outcomes,” due to “Trump’s unpredictability” and his “volatile relationship with the media.”
As part of its coverage of the visit, the state-run People’s Daily featured interviews with trade and security experts about the likely outcomes of Trump’s visit.
The China Daily covered other important diplomatic developments ahead of the APEC Summit in Vietnam. The Daily welcomed the recent improvements in Sino-Korean relations over the THAAD missile defense system. It was optimistic that “the thaw in China-ROK ties will hopefully be a shot in the arm to efforts to forge regional solidarity and cooperation at the upcoming Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Leaders’ Meeting” later this week. Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev’s visit to China was hailed as further step in “cement[ing] the all-round strategic partnership between the two countries” that is “not just in their own interests, but also the interests of the world.” The paper took shots at Japan, however, by criticizing Japan’s announcement of a “strategic dialogue” with the US, India, and Australia to “counter China’s expanding influence.” It is inappropriate for Japan continuously “confront[s] China over issues of regional and international significance even though China’s stance on these issues is fair and reasonable,” the paper argued.

RUSSIA
Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev visited China on a two-day tour October 31st to November 1st. In a speech in Beijing, Prime Minister Medvedev congratulated President Xi on the successful conclusion of the Communist Party of China’s 19th Party Congress, saying, “We understand how important these decisions are for the development of friendly China [sic] and we hope that our partnership, multidimensional and strategic interaction will become even more functional because of these decisions.” President Vladimir Putin is scheduled to attend the 2017 APEC Summit in Da Nang, Vietnam later this week, amidst speculation of a sideline meeting with President Trump.

Government-run RT has been following Trump’s Asian tour closely, and published articles on the US’s deployments of additional bombers, stealth aircraft, and aircraft carriers to the Pacific ahead of ahead of Trump’s arrival, “despite repeated appeals to avoid escalating tensions” from Moscow and Beijing. RT’s coverage included the protests in Seoul over Trump’s visit, and a comparison of two speeches by Trump over North Korea, one in which he praised North Koreans as “warm, much warmer than the world really knows or understands,” and his more belligerent speech to rally troops stationed at Yokota Air Base, saying, “No dictator, no regime, no nation should ever underestimate American resolve.”
Nationalist Sputnik analyzed Trump’s “cryptic remarks” regarding Japan’s possible handling of the North Korean threat against the US president’s previous comments that Japan should handle North Korea on its own.
State-owned TASS highlighted Trump’s comment that he wants “Putin’s help on North Korea,” ahead of his Asia tour, and speculated about the outcomes of a meeting between the Russian and US presidents on the sidelines of APEC.

INDIA
Although not on President Trump’s itinerary, mention of India has thus far been ample by his emphasis on the US’s strategy and interests in the “Indo-Pacific region” when discussing cooperation with Japan, India, and Australia to secure freedom of navigation in the East and South China Seas. An official traveling with Trump explained that the use of the phrase instead of “Asia-Pacific” was intentional, “We have strong and growing ties with India. We talk about ‘Indo-Pacific’ in part because that phrase captures the importance of India’s rise.” The phrasing was also picked up by the Japanese media in the Asahi Shimbun’s coverage of Trump in Japan.

The Hindustan Times was optimistic that President Trump would meet with President Narendra Modi on the sidelines of the 2017 APEC Summit in Vietnam later this week, reporting that, “It will be their first meeting since Trump unveiled his South Asia policy urging India to play a larger role in Afghanistan. New Delhi will focus almost exclusively on development and economic help, but Pakistan has thrown a tantrum expectedly, arguing, without any success, that India be denied a role.”
The Economic Times published an editorial expressing support after Japanese Prime Minister Abe’s win in the lower house elections last month. The “political space” to amend the constitution to allow Japan to “acquire a normal military,” “will help improve the security in the region, especially in the context of an expansionist and aggressive China, a North Korea bent on nuclear blackmail and unresolved disputes that serve as flashpoints in the South China Sea and elsewhere.”
Vikram S. Mehta, chairman of the Brookings Institution India, wrote that India must “track” China’s moves in the Middle East to secure oil resources “assiduously” in an op-ed for The Indian Express. Mehta argues that India must protect its “major strategic interests in the Middle East,” which include not only energy resources but also “eight million citizens who remit approximately $70 billion annually” in the wake of China’s maneuvering in the region.

BRAZIL

In Brazilian media coverage of President Trump’s visit to Asia, the newspaper O Globo highlighted the protests in South Korea generated by Trump’s visit. O Globo described the primary divide between the protestors as war veterans who exhibit strong confidence on Trump’s decisions and civilians that blame him for taking the Korean peninsula to the brink of war. According to the article, in a meeting with President Trump South Korean President Moon Jae-in would defend his support for maintaining an opening policy with North Korea as a solution for the continued conflict.
Andre Soares, author of a weekly column on China in the business newspaper Valor Economico predicts that the potential involvement of China in the conflict with North Korea and even the recent visit of the president of Taiwan to the US may be discussed during Trump’s visit. However, Soares notes that there has been only a limited mention of the details of President Trump’s economic agenda he plans to negotiate with Chinese officials, and even less has been said about which points of this agenda are of direct interest to Brazil.

Rising Powers Anticipate and Respond to China’s Party Congress

Policy Alert #153 | October 25, 2017

The 19th Congress of the Communist Party of China convened on October 18th. The Congress meets only once in five years to set the guiding policies for China. While there was a good deal of anticipation by the Rising Powers, President Xi Jinping’s consolidation of power was a forgone conclusion. Meanwhile, the controversial snap elections during this time called by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe ensured that commentators in Japanese and even South Korea trained their attention on Abe’s motivations.

CHINA
President Xi Jinping opened the Congress with a marathon three and a half hour speech. His “Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era” was added as an amendment to the Constitution of the Communist Party of China, incorporating the Belt and Road Initiative, the fight against corruption, and other high priority items from the Xi administration into the party’s guiding document. In addition to electing new members of the party’s Central Committee, a new Central Commission for Discipline Inspection was established as part of the crackdown on corruption within the government. Response from fellow political leaders in China was overwhelmingly positive, although some members were reserved in their comments.

In coverage of international media’s interest in the Congress, Xinhua editor Hou Qiang highlighted the effort to increase transparency of the Congress, quoting visiting American journalist Sara Wendt’s comparison of the openness of the Congress to the “media-averse” atmosphere in the Trump administration in the United States.
The nationalist Global Times advocated for the West to adopt a “correct understanding” of the Communist Party of China as a legitimate, disciplined, and rational political party. In another editorial, the Global Times asserted that although “[p]eople in the West may not be able to understand a concept of a community with a shared future for mankind,” China will strive to replace the West’s “zero-sum game” of security and development into one of cooperation.
In response to President Xi’s emphasis on the “one country, two systems” policy in his comments at the Congress, the South China Morning Post asserted that “the reunification and well-being being of Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan form part of the China dream and rejuvenation championed by Xi,” and urged the people of Hong Kong and Macau to “chart the course accurately” as they prepare for stronger assertions of authority by Beijing.
Commentator Cary Huang took a more critical stance against the Congress in his op-ed in the independent Hong Kong newspaper South China Morning Post, criticizing its “resurrection of strong-man politics” in which President Xi has become a “chairman of everything.”
Wu Guobao, Director of the Center of Policy Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, responded to President Xi’s emphasis on poverty eradication with a glowing overview of the progress in China on this issue, noting that China’s “comprehensive organization and institutional system of precision poverty alleviation” have “yielded remarkable results.”
Commentator Chen Yang was optimistic that Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who emerged victorious in Japan’s snap election on October 22nd, may seek to improve Sino-Japanese relations. “Given the special atmosphere of the normalization anniversary and the fortieth anniversary of the China-Japan Peace and Friendship Treaty next year, it is highly possible Abe will push for improved relations with China,” he said, noting that Prime Minister Abe spent the evening before the election at the Chinese Embassy in Tokyo to participate in commemorative activities celebrating the anniversary and China’s National Day.

JAPAN
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe solidified his support with the Liberal Democratic Party’s overwhelming victory in the snap elections for the Diet’s lower house on October 22.

The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun lambasted the 19th Congress in China, taking issue with the Congress’s hypocrisy between its rhetoric and actions in maritime territorial disputes, “It [is] nothing but hegemonism to assert that the country will make light of such universal values as the rule of law and instead rely more on strength.” The Yomiuri warned that by the Communist Party of China abandoning its rule of collective leadership in consolidating power of President Xi, “autocracy and social repression may advance under the Xi administration.”
The Japan Times raised a similar critique of its own government, calling for limits on the prime minister’s ability to call for snap elections at will. It noted the backlash against the timing of this particular snap election characterizing Abe as “abusing his power to his and his Liberal Democratic Party’s advantage–to call a snap election while his opponents were still unprepared and to forestall further Diet grilling of his administrations over scandals that had damaged its popular support.” The Times advocated for the consideration of limiting the prime minister’s ability to call for elections to times when he or she is faced with a no-confidence vote in the Diet, similar to the rules in the United Kingdom’s Parliament.
In the lead up to the election, the liberal Asahi Shimbun criticized Abe for “seeking to use the threat posed by North Korea to boost public support for his leadership so that he can bolster both the SDF and Japan’s security alliance with the United States,” and called for voters to restore “politics of reason, which requires respect for the Constitution and the democratic process as well as serious efforts to build a broad consensus through debate involving a wide range of people including those with dissenting voices.”

SOUTH KOREA

The conservative Joongang Daily characterized the Liberal Democratic Party’s win in the Japanese election as “a de facto confidence referendum on Abe and his rightist agenda proposing to rewrite Japan’s postwar pacifist constitution and reinforce the country’s military beyond a self-defense role.” The paper noted that the primary reason for the win was the Japanese people’s concern for their safety under the threat of North Korea. “In the long run, China and Japan could wage an arms race and heighten tensions in the region,” the Joongang Daily warned. “North Korea and China may have to answer one of these days for turning the region into a danger zone.”
The liberal Hankyoreh, meanwhile, was not optimistic about relations with China improving after the conclusion of the Congress. It was especially critical of the contradiction between the emphasis on China’s “great power diplomacy and its current efforts to deescalate tension with North Korea: “As far as the North Korean nuclear issue goes, the ‘great power diplomacy’ thing to do would be to stop saying ‘Why are you asking us to solve the problem?’ and take a more active approach to contributing to peace and stability in Northeast Asia.”

INDIA

Gaurav Misra, a Research Fellow at the government affiliated Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, foresaw President Xi’s hardening of control stating that, “President Xi has amassed much control and his predominance is clearly established in the Chinese political spectrum. He is now regarded as the most powerful leader in decades after Mao. He has taken charge of most of the portfolios and ruling through the leading small groups and has placed his key aides at various nerve centres,” Misra points out this is happening despite the fact that, “the communique of the sixth plenum of the 8th Congress clearly insists that the principles of collective leadership must always be followed and should not be violated by any organisation or individual under any circumstances or any reasons.”
Jagannath Panda, also a Research Fellow and Centre Coordinator for East Asia at the Institute for Defence studies and Analyses, characterized the CPC’s foreign outlook as self-serving. “Beijing, under Xi’s stewardship, is trying to make it clear that no other country, other than China, is the leader of the developing world,” Panda argues. “Xi’s emphasis that China would like to continue to emerge as a leader of the developing world comes as a conflicting subject matter since the intent is to deny India the requisite space to lead the developing world groupings.”
Ahead of the Congress, Srikanth Kondapalli, professor of international studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University, warned that even the anticipated “pithy statements [made by the party secretary] provide guidance to the foreign policy establishment of China for the next five years and beyond,” as India has learned through the years. He highlights the fact that although President Xi’s comments to not sacrifice China’s “core interests” in the international arena in the 18th Party Congress were largely dismissed as “assuaging nationalist domestic constituents” at the time, “India has gradually noticed that China’s armed forces and border guards have been ramping up their nibbling activities on the undefined border, in addition to claiming vast swathes of territory in the South China Sea and Japanese-claimed Senkaku islands.”
The Economic Times cautioned that although the Party Congress attempted to “eschew any expansionism,” “New Delhi should praise Xi and keep the powder dry, lots of it and very, very dry.”
The liberal Hindustan Times likewise called for more vigilance on India’s part, saying that “if Xi continues to believe an assertive, unilateralist foreign policy must remain inherent to a new China, then countries like India will have no choice but to keep a wary eye that the Chinese dream does not mean sleepless nights for the rest of the world.”

RUSSIA

The Russian press emphasized President Xi’s commitments to modernize and strengthen the Chinese military. State-owned TASS’s coverage of the Congress was limited to a piece highlighting President Xi’s “vow to modernize and expand [China’s] military might.”
The nationalist Sputnik News contextualized President Xi’s comments against the “one China, two systems” principle and its need to counter separatism and extremism in Xinjiang Province. It added that the Chinese government links the separatist groups in the province to international terrorist organizations, such as al-Qaeda, that are also banned in Russia. Sputnik also made sure to prominently feature President Xi’s policy of non-expansion, saying that “Beijing will never engage in expansion and will not pursue its development at the expense of other state’s interests.”

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

Rising Powers Respond to Las Vegas Mass Shooting

Policy Alert #152 | October 10, 2017

On October 1, 2017, a shooter rained bullets from his hotel window at the Mandalay Bay Casino and Resort upon tens of thousands of attendees at the Route 91 Harvest Festival in Las Vegas, NV. At least 59 people were killed and over 500 were wounded in one of the deadliest shootings in United States history. US President Donald Trump termed the attack as “an act of pure evil.” This week, we review the responses of the Rising Powers and other Asian states to this American tragedy.

JAPAN
In a phone call to President Trump, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe offered his condolences for the victims of the shooting and their families, and reiterated that Japan is standing with the United States “one-hundred percent.” The Japanese media overwhelmingly condemn the country’s lax gun laws, a pattern that has persisted since the high-profile shooting death of a teenage Japanese exchange student in 1993.

The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun criticized the “substantial gap between sensible arguments and the claims made by conservatives” regarding gun ownership and weapons regulations in US politics. The paper argued that US conservatives’ use of the Second Amendment as a defense for maintaining lax gun laws is inappropriate. “It is unreasonable that the provision, adopted under circumstances involving militias and the War of Independence, is used to justify the possession of arms for self-defense in a modern, advanced country where the military and police are well developed.”
The liberal Mainichi Shimbun pointedly described the shooting as a “an indiscriminate act of terrorism” in which the shooter was playing a “murder game.” The Mainichi warned that the United States is cultivating “an environment susceptible to ‘lone wolf’ terrorist attacks” thanks to the country’s gun laws that allow “ordinary citizens being able to purchase the type of guns that are used in war.”
The progressive Asahi Shimbun minced no words in its editorial on the shooting, saying “it is simply mind-boggling that such dangerous weapons still remain readily available in the United States.” The paper expressed its disgust with the continued success of gun lobbies in the US, despite the “many school shooting incidents and firearm accidents involving children and even toddlers.”
In a Japan Times article that compared the differences between US and Japanese gun laws and rates of gun violence, Shigeo Sugawara, an advisor at the Technical Museum of the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force’s Ordnance School, took an opposing view. He argued that Japan’s requirements for hunting licenses were too strict, equating police interviews of an applicant’s family and friends to “almost [a] violation of human rights.”

CHINA
Chinese President Xi Jinping expressed his “deep sympathy to the US government and people” for the attack and sent wishes of “quick recovery to the injured” victims. The Chinese press highlighted the efforts of Chinese tourists and residents to help in the aftermath of the attack. Xinhua also provided wide coverage of other countries’ responses to the attack, including Indonesia, Poland, Iraq, Sri Lanka, and Cambodia.

The nationalist Global Times lambasted the US government’s continued “let-it-slide” attitude toward mass shootings, and argued that the continued cycle of mass shootings is “the result of a system lacking firm or confident force required to reform its gun laws” against pro-gun lobbying groups.
Deputy Editor of the state-directed China Daily Chen Weihua called for Americans to begin “soul-searching about the deep-rooted gun culture” in the wake of the tragedy. He also emphasized that US gun violence is repeatedly cited as a human rights violation in China’s State Information Office’s annual report on human rights abuses. Chen also warned that Chinese citizens are growing increasingly concerned with the state of gun violence in the US as more Chinese travel, work, and study in the country.
The People’s Daily reported that restaurant owner Gui Tianyu and his wife, provided over 200 free meals to blood donors the day after the attack. The China Daily, meanwhile, interviewed tourists Zhuan Zhi and Chen Zhu, who took time out of their vacation to Salt Lake City to drive to Las Vegas to donate blood, and tour bus driver Henry Liu, who helped transport victims to area hospitals.

INDIA
Indian President Ram Nath Kovind offered his condolences in a tweet, “Distressed to hear about the shooting and deaths in Las Vegas. Condolences to bereaved families and prayers for the injured.The Las Vegas shooting grabbed Indian media headlines, with many noting and detailing the long series of previous mass killings in the United States. Several outlets contemplated the veracity of the initial claims by ISIS that the shooter was associated with it. Most of all, Indian commentary blamed the lack of gun control in the United States for gun violence, with some highlighting the role of gun culture in the country as an obstacle.”

Times of India US-based editor Chidanand Rajghatta offered a pessimistic view in his article, “Massacre in Las Vegas: Gambling on Gun Advocacy, US Loses Big Time as 59 Die in Carnage.” He criticized the “lax gun laws which allow people to own powerful automatic weapons that even law enforcement in many countries are not allowed to possess.” Rajghatta argued that the likelihood of any change in the wake of the attack was nil, even if “[t]here will be more agonizing over Second Amendment and gun control before matters recede, just like they do with fires and stampedes and railway accidents in India.”
The liberal Indian Express gave a sweeping historical overview of American sentiment on guns beginning with pre-colonial days. Sonakshi Aswathi’s article noted that, “The shooting in Las Vegas has once again triggered a massive debate over gun control in the US.” However she pointed out that “Despite this trend, President Donald Trump signed a resolution that overturned the 2016 rule passed by Barack Obama which prevented thousands of people, having mental disorders, from owning firearms.”
The left-leaning Hindu ran an editorial criticizing President Trump for pandering to pro-gun lobbies during his campaign through “fear-mongering.” The editorial team blamed the mass shooting on America’s lack of gun control. But it saw a broader cultural reason for the lack of success in curbing gun ownership: “The gun lobby’s multi-generational success in this regard is built upon a cultural proclivity for gun ownership rooted in the Second Amendment of the constitution. Until Americans apply reasonable, if not stringent, restrictions to gun ownership, they are unlikely to escape the regular visitation of such mass tragedies.”
The liberal Hindustan Times in an editorial focused even more closely on the cultural element of guns in America. It pointed out that “The US’ love affair with the gun mystifies other developed nations. Americans, roughly 5% of the world’s population, own an estimated 35-40% of the planet’s entire civilian weapons.” It then went on to link the lack of progress on gun control to the cultural narrative of the white working class, Donald Trump’s support base. According to the editorial team, for the white working class, “The logic of gun control is irrelevant. This class opposes the idea because it is seen as an attempt to further disempower them in a country where they feel increasingly marginalized.” It then went on to warn that unless this is addressed, “ the right to bear arms and presidents like Mr. Trump will remain fixtures of the US’ political landscape.”

RUSSIA
In a ceremony to welcome new US Ambassador Jon Huntsman, Russian President Vladimir Putin told him, “I would like to express my utmost and sincere condolences to the people and the administration of your country on this horrendous tragedy.” Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev posted on his Facebook page, “Russia shares the grief of those who lost their next-of-kin and conveys words of sympathy and support. We wish an early recovery to the injured.” The Russian media were particularly interested in rates of US gun ownership and inaction by the government to curtail gun violence.

In an interview with government-funded RT, Member of Parliament (MP) Anatoly Vyborny of the United Russia party argued that the United States’ “‘let survivors live’ path is not for us” and called for the creation of a single database of gun owners and registered weapons in Russia. MP Vyborny also reported that the Russian National Guard was drafting a bill to require the registration, but not licensing, of air guns as a “restraining and disciplinary factor.”
State-owned Sputnik News was particularly unforgiving of US gun laws. In one article, Sputnik highlighted statistics of US gun ownership: that US gun owners account for 42% of all civilian firearm owners in the world, and that American “super owners” account for almost 50% of all guns in the US, averaging 17 firearms each. The news organization also interviewed Georgia State University law professor Timothy Lytton, University of Pittsburgh professor of international affairs Michael Brenner, and University of Illinois professor of law Francis Boyle to discuss why changes to US gun ownership laws are unlikely.
The nationalist news organization Pravda utilized, and retained, the misleading headline, “Las Vegas Concert Goers killed by Islamic State Warrior” in one of their early reports on the shooting. Terrorist organization ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack, but the FBI has not found evidence of a connection.

BRAZIL
EBC Brazil Agency published the official statement released by the Brazilian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in response to the attack. According to the statement, the country condemns this act of violence and expresses consternation and regret at the families of the victims, extending their wishes for full and speedy recovery to the wounded”. The journal pointed that there were no Brazilians among the victims and that an official phone number was made available for further clarification.

The growth of violence in all regions of Brazil, notably the succession of events that the citizens of Rio de Janeiro experienced a few weeks ago and related to the gang dispute for control of drug trafficking in the “Rocinha” favela, has fueled the debate on the legalization of gun possession in Brazil. News outlets focused on the obstacles that gun control advocates in the US are likely to face.

The Exame Magazine noted that President Trump may face new arguments against the trade of firearms. It reminded that Trump was supported in the election campaign by the largest American organization that defends the right to own firearms, the National Rifle Association (NRA): “You have a true friend in the White House (…). You supported me, I will support you,” he said, one hundred days after he became the leader of the nation in an unusual appearance by a sitting president at the NRA.
São Paulo’s daily newspaper Estadão reported that recent public opinion polls indicate that most Americans are in favor of tightening the legislation that regulates the purchasing of guns. Citing the speech of the Democratic Senator Chris Murphy, from Connecticut, where another gun shooting occurred in 2012, it emphasized that the members of the U.S. Congress usually avoid taking part in the dispute due to the power of the lobbyists from the gun industry and that such behavior may now be considered unacceptable.

CAMBODIA
Although he offered his condolences for the victims of the shooting, Cambodian Prime Minister Samdech Techo Hun Sen also expressed his frustration with the United States’ foreign policies regarding his country. In mid-September, the US State Department issued a warning to American travelers heading to Cambodia due to “increased anti-American rhetoric.” “When the US ambassador called for Americans to be careful in Cambodia, it did not happen in Cambodia but on US soil. Yet the US is the one who made the appeal. This is the mocking of fate,” he said. Prime Minister Hun Sen also warned Cambodians in the US to be careful as the country was “not secure or stable.”

SOUTH KOREA
South Korean President Moon Jae-In sent a message of condolence to President Trump, “Representing the Republic of Korea and the Korean people, I express our deepest condolences for the tragic and shocking shooting incident in Las Vegas that left so many innocent people dead.” The Korean media was relatively unconcerned with the shooting, focusing its attention instead on the missteps between President Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson over the handling of escalating tensions between North Korea and the United States.

SOUTH AFRICA
The Department of International Relations Cooperation reported that South African President Jacob Zuma “extended the country’s condolences to the government and the people of the United States of America.”

TURKEY
Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan took to Twitter to respond to the attack. “I condemn in the strongest terms possible today’s terror attack in Las Vegas. I sincerely hope that such attacks won’t happen in the future. On behalf of the Turkish people, I offer my condolences to the families and loved ones of the victims and all Americans.”

INDONESIA
Indonesian President Joko Widodo condemned the “act of terror that left so many people dead and wounded,” and expressed his confidence that the US government would be “strong in the face of such a terror act.”

SRI LANKA
Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena tweeted that the Las Vegas “shooting is a heinous act. My sympathies are with loved ones of the victims and the people of United States in this hour of grief.”

THAILAND
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of Thailand issued a statement of condolence to the United States over the shooting. “The Government and the people of the Kingdom of Thailand extend our deepest condolences to the innocent victims of the heartless mass shooting in Las Vegas and their families. We stand with them and the American people in this difficult time and pray for the speedy recovery of those injured.”

PHILIPPINES
Presidential Spokesperson Ernesto Abella offered condolences from the Philippines. “We join the peace-loving people of the international community in denouncing this latest act of violence,” and “extend our deepest condolences to the families of a more than 50 victims who died because of the mass shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada. We likewise pray for the speedy recovery of the more than 500 people who are reported injured.”

MALAYSIA
Malaysia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs posted a statement in response to the shooting. “The government of Malaysia extends its deepest condolence to the government and people of the United States of America, and especially to the families of the victims.”

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

Rising Powers at UN Tackle North Korean Crisis and Other Priorities

Policy Alert #151 | September 26, 2017

The 72nd Session of United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) opened on September 19th amidst continued tensions on the Korean Peninsula and joint military drills between China and Russia as well as South Korea, the US, and Japan. US President Donald Trump’s fiery, controversial words in his first speech at the United Nations set the tone of other world leaders’ responses to these crises during the three day event. President Trump had a tough message for North Korea and he also challenged the UN: “The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea. Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and his regime. The United States is ready, willing, and able, but hopefully this will not be necessary. That’s what the United Nations is all about; that’s what the United Nations is for. Let’s see how they do.”

SOUTH KOREA
Prior to the opening ceremonies of the UNGA, South Korea participated in joint military drills with the US and Japan as North Korea to continued its missile tests. In his speech to the UN General Assembly, President Moon Jae-In expressed his appreciation for the continued efforts by the UN Security Council to pressure North Korea to abandon its nuclear program, while also reiterating the need for a peaceful solution and that South Korea is “ready to assist North Korea together with the international community” if it abandons its nuclear ambitions.

Before the UNGA kicked off, liberal-leaning Hankyoreh advocated for President Moon to “convince world leaders that solving the nuclear problem with dialogue and peaceful approaches […] is in accordance with the global interest” during his time at the UN.
The Korea Herald took another track and criticized President Moon’s assertion that South Korea need not develop its own nuclear weapons to deal with North Korea’s threat, arguing that “it is an undeniable truth that nuclear weapons can only be deterred only by nuclear weapons.” Korea Institute School of Public Policy and Management Professor Kim Byoung-Joo echoed these pro-nuclear sentiments, arguing that although China would undoubtedly oppose South Korea’s nuclearization, it was time for China to “face the true price for acquiescing to North Korea.”
The conservative-leaning Korea Jooang Daily also chided President Moon for his cabinet’s “indecisive response” in the face of the threat from North Korea in which Moon vowed for “maximum pressure” against the regime while offering Pyongyang humanitarian aid. It urged an “unflinching alliance with Washington” over “dialogue with rogue states.”

JAPAN
North Korea fired two missiles over Japan in the last month. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe reiterated in his address to the UNGA that the answer to the North Korea problem is “not dialogue, but pressure,” and that Japan supports the US position on the matter. Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga “greatly appreciate[d] President Trump’s approach to changing North Korea’s policy stance.”

The conservative-leaning Yomiuri Shimbun, citing Japan as the second largest contributor to the UN general budget, called for reforms to eliminate “wasteful expenditures [and] unnecessary departments and operations,” to prevent UN agencies, such as UNESCO, from being used for political purposes, and to expand the permanent membership of the UN Security Council. It also supported President Trump’s strong denouncement of North Korea’s “outrageous acts” and his inclusion of the issue of Japanese abductees in his speech.
An editorial in the left-leaning Mainichi responded to calls for Japan and the US to double-down on their security efforts with a warning that doing so would increase the likelihood of an accidental outbreak of conflict and reiterated the need for the UN Security Council to “reconfirm whether its past resolutions have been implemented in an effective way.”
The progressive Asahi Shimbun criticized the Japanese government’s current line, arguing that “Japan cannot claim to be making every diplomatic effort to resolve the situation if all it does is advocate stronger pressure on the North,” and instead called on the government to take a stronger diplomatic role to resume negotiations with North Korea.

CHINA
In his speech at the general debate of the General Assembly, Minister for Foreign Affairs Wang Yi emphasized China’s commitment to regional stability and peace, and appeared to indirectly reply to criticisms of China’s actions in the South China Sea and its handling of North Korea’s recent provocations. He urged all party states to seek a diplomatic solution to tensions on the Korean Peninsula, arguing that “negotiation is the only way out and deserves every effort.” Minister Wang also asserted that “China has no genes of aggression and record of plunder” and reiterated Chinese President Xi Jinping’s promise that “China will never seek hegemony.”

Foreign ministers of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) met on the sidelines of the UNGA. Wang called on BRICS members to “uphold the banner of multilaterialism” at the UN.

The nationalist Global Times argued that the best way to handle the North Korean crisis was to allow the sanctions time to take effect and to “leave the door open to talks.”
In several articles over the past week, state-directed China Daily has emphasized that the “world must stay calm” and “poised” in the face of North Korean provocations. It also reiterated that “pressuring China ‘to solve’ [the] conflict will not work” and that the solution lies in international cooperation.
In an op-ed, Jilin University Professor Yao Lu complained that the US’s strategic actions in the region, such as the joint military drills with South Korea, and continued “frontal attacks” on the regime through increased sanctions and belligerent criticism has exacerbated the Kim’s belligerence by “adding fuel on the fire.”
Renmin University Professor Jin Canrong, on the other hand, called for the continuation of a “stable Beijing-Washington relationship.” In his column for The Global Times, he asserts that China has been “vital” to stability in the region, and that the US is routinely “stirring up trouble” in the South China Seas and using North Korea’s nuclear ambitions as a pretext for increasing its military presence in the region.
In an article for the South China Morning Post, Lingnan University Professor Zhang Baohui advocated that “Beijing needs to insist on the US committing to dialogue with North Korea as a condition for supporting any more sanctions,” as sanctions “cannot address the root cause of North Korea’s nuclear ambition.”
Li Kaisheng, a Research Fellow at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, urged the Chinese government to continue to act as a “spokesperson for developing countries” in international organizations, despite the country’s transition to a developed economy.

RUSSIA
Just prior to the UNGA, Russia participated in military exercises with China near the North Korean border. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov welcomed some points in President Trump’s speech, noting his commitment to not “impose [the US] way of life on others” was “a very welcome statement.”

An editorial by Sputnik News, a government-funded news outlet, criticized the US for “demonstrating inflexibility and openly blackmailing Beijing” to solve the crisis at its own expense, and expressed support for China and Russia’s emphasis on the need for a “double freeze” in hostility between the US and North Korea.
Russian political analyst Andrei Manoylo said in an interview with Radio Sputnik that “North Korea will weather [the] sanctions with ease,” and should be instead “be presented with opportunities for cooperation.”
Government-owned TASS praised the Russian delegation for walking out during Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite’s speech at the UNGA in which she allegedly “continued her ungrounded verbal attacks on Russia” regarding its military drills with Belarus.

INDIA
Indian Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj delivered a forceful 22 minute speech at the UNGA for which she received high praise from Prime Minister Narendra Modi in several tweets. She called for action on global challenges and Indian priorities ranging from climate change, proliferation, UN Security Council reform, maritime security, poverty, and terrorism. But she trained her greatest attention to Pakistani Prime Minister Shahid Khakan Abbasi’s earlier remarks at the UNGA accusing India of human rights violations. In a blistering attack, the Indian Foreign Minister mockingly asked, “Why is it that today India is a recognised IT superpower in the world, and Pakistan is only recognised as the pre-eminent export factory for terror?”

A series of sideline meetings by the Foreign Minister were particularly important for Indian interests.

Sushma Swaraj discussed women’s entrepreneurship with Ivanka Trump, daughter and special advisor of President Trump, ahead of the Global Entrepreneurship Summit in India in November where she will be representing the United States.
Minister Swaraj also met with Bhutanese Prime Minister Tshering Tobgay to discuss “bilateral cooperation” just three weeks after the end to the standoff between India and China in the Himalayas at Dokham, a contested tri-junction meeting point.
In a trilateral meeting with the US and Japan, India condemned the recent provocations by North Korea and urged that “its proliferation linkages must be explored and those involved must be held accountable,” with External Affairs Ministry Spokesman Raveesh Kumar insinuating they were referring to Pakistan’s past engagement with the reclusive regime.

Indian press commentary was mostly limited to Sushma Swaraj’s critique of Pakistan.

In the lead up to the UNGA, C. Raja Mohan, Director of Carnegie India and top foreign affairs expert, had urged Minister Swaraj to not “let the inevitable bickering with Islamabad on Kashmir” distract from pursuit of other policy objectives at the UN. He hailed what he sees as the shift from naysaying to leadership in international affairs under the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, especially in India’s efforts to generate consensus at the 2015 Paris climate talks. He also praised New Delhi for increasing attention to the UNGA meeting to find “common ground on specific issues with the US, China, Japan, Europe, and Russia in smaller plurilateral fora.”
Following Sushma Swaraj’s speech, the editorial team in the leading business daily, Economic Times, argued that India needed to go beyond the inevitable attempt to counter Pakistan at the UNGA and declared that “it is time for New Delhi to broaden its world view. Over the years and successive administrations, Pakistan has come to dominate India’s UNGA address.” It reminded the government that while Pakistan needed to be countered, “The UNGA is the forum for India to step up to shape the global dialogue. India needs to leverage the UNGA better.”

BRAZIL
Since the 10th session of the United Nations General Assembly in 1955, Brazil’s head of state has always given the opening speech followed by the United States. This tradition is not part of any official statute of the U.N., but it honors Brazil as one of the founders of the organization and its then Foreign Minister, Oswaldo Aranha, who played a key role in the negotiations leading to its establishment. On September 18, President Temer dined with U.S. President Donald Trump.

At the UNGA, Brazilian President Michel Temer declared that Brazil was carrying out a series of reforms to make the country more “open” to the world, and that it is on track to achieve fiscal responsibility and launch a vibrant phase of economic growth.

President Temer emphasized that Brazil was proud to govern over the largest rainforest in the world, and reported that in the last year deforestation had dropped by twenty percent. His statement came after many environmental advocacy groups accused the government of trying to destroy forest reserves through his executive order to open up the RENCA National Reserve to mining.

Porto Alegre’s liberal daily Zero Hora noted the Brazilian president’s support for a treaty banning all nuclear weapons. Temer reminded the General Assembly that Brazil’s authoritative stance stemmed from its own mastery over nuclear technology and decision to forego nuclear weapons. He argued that North Korea’s recent nuclear weapon tests represent a grave threat to world peace, and urged the international community to define a peaceful resolution to the stand-off. President Temer pointed to Venezuela’s current crisis and highlighted how Brazil was responding by welcoming the recent inflow of immigrants and refugees.
The left-leaning Carta Capital focused reporting on Brazil’s signing of the Treaty to Ban Nuclear Weapons. The treaty was drafted during the past year with Brazil, South Africa, Austria, Ireland, Mexico and Nigeria leading the way. The magazine reports that 42 member-states signed the treaty on September 20, with 50 needed to enact the treaty. The report emphasized that the treaty has taken on greater importance given the recent North Korean nuclear tests and stand-off with the US.
Laura Carvalho of the Folha de São Paulo questioned Temer’s appearance at the U.N. General Assembly and concluded that he had lowered Brazil’s credibility, especially after announcing a drop in Amazonian deforestation. She reported that Temer’s claim of a 20 percent fall was not fully backed up by data provided by the Brazilian government’s own National Institute for Space Research (INPE). She cited that Temer’s claim and credibility are also undermined by Norway’s decision to withdraw funding from the Brazil Fund and the government’s own actions that undermine efforts to preserve the Amazon. She noted the repeated allegations of corruption surrounding the president and his government as other factors that undermine Brazil’s credibility.

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

Rising Powers Face Dark Backdrop at 9th BRICS Summit

Policy Alert #150 | September 7, 2017

India, China, and Russia joined Brazil and South Africa at the 9th BRICS Summit in Xiamen, China, on September 3 -5 under the theme “Stronger Partnership for a Brighter Future.” Formal goals for the Summit included securing peace, common development, diversity, and improved global economic governance.

Security tensions between and involving the member states prior to the Summit took center stage, including the conflict in Syria, continued missile launches by North Korea, and most pointedly, the Doklam border standoff between India and China. In spite of this dark backdrop to the Summit, the Joint Declaration highlighted the member states’ commitment to cooperation.

INDIA
Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s “Ten Noble Commitments” set the tone for India’s efforts to get a clearer statement on terrorism from BRICS. Prior to the BRICS Summit, Modi took a clear shot at Pakistan at the G-20 Summit in July with his eleven point proposal regarding terrorism. The inclusion of Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Muhammed, and the Haqqani Network in this year’s BRICS Joint Statement prompted Pakistan’s Foreign Office to reiterate that it “is also seriously concerned about the threat posed by terrorism and extremism in the South Asian region,” and Defense Minister Khurram Dastagir Khan denied that any groups benefited from a “safe haven” within the country.

The liberal paper Hindustan Times views the dissipation of tension over the Doklam border issue and China’s deference on including the Pakistani terror groups as evidence that “the potential for cooperating more and confronting less remains considerable” between India and China.
Well known strategic analyst C. Rajamohan is less sanguine on bilateral relations between the two BRICS giants, arguing in the liberal left Indian Express that India now needs to construct a “multipolar Asia” as much as a “multipolar world.”
The center-right Times of India warns that while the inclusion of Pakistani terror outfits was a “breakthrough,” it is “wrong to see the declaration as a diplomatic ‘victory’ for India.”
The pro-government Pioneer gave the Chinese credit for including the specific terrorist groups and applauded the BRICS forum for going beyond economics to the more difficult security issues.

CHINA
As host of this year’s Summit, China initiated “BRICS Plus” and invited Thailand, Egypt, Mexico, Guinea, and Tajikistan as part of a commitment to South-South cooperation. In his closing ceremony speech, President Xi Jinping called for BRICS members to “push for a more just and reasonable international order.” In response to Pakistan’s reaction to the BRICS Joint Statement, Deputy Chinese Head of Mission in Islamabad Lijian Zhao seemed to justify this move by pointing out via Twitter that the groups included in the Joint Statement had also been named by the United Nations Security Council.

The nationalist Global Times was upbeat on China-India relations, asserting that the quick resolution of the Doklam border standoff was indicative of the spirit of BRICS to “reach beyond differences in political systems and ideologies and seek win-win development.” But it also struck a cautious note stating that with Donald Trump’s “America First” policy, “if both developed and emerging economies continue to turn more inward-looking and back away from coordinating their macro-economic policies, the flickering flame of global economic recovery could be snuffed out.”
The official state-run People’s Daily was optimistic, heralding the economic successes of the BRICS members’ cooperation and “increasingly influential role in international affairs,” especially through the prospect of expanding membership through BRICS Plus.

RUSSIA
In an article published before the Summit, President Vladimir Putin gave special prominence to the conflict in Syria, tensions on the Korean Peninsula, and economic cooperation. Russian Minister of Economic Development Maxim Oreshkin was quoted as saying that BRICS was “much more constructive” than the G-20 as all members “listen to each other’s positions” and “come to a common point of view.”

An editorial published by RT, a government-funded media network, framed the current tension between North Korea and the United States as a “test for how much the BRICS have succeed in forging a multipolar world,” in which Russia and China, with the support of other member states, would be able to add weight to their calls for a “double freeze” in escalating behavior.
Nationalist news site Pravda illustrated BRICS as a means to resist Western imperialism. A review of Putin’s goals for the Summit hailed the undertaking as “a first step towards the creation of a New World Order.” Pravda also took liberties in its commentary of a speech by Chinese President Xi Jinping, insinuating he argued the BRICS organization had ended the “domination of the West.”
In an editorial on Sputnik News, a news outlet established by government-owned agency Rossiya Segodnya, it was argued that BRICS “can replace the US in the role of a global hegemon.”

BRAZIL
The embattled Brazilian President Michel Temer met with Chinese President Xi Jinping before the BRICS summit to sign a number of bilateral accords. During the summit, the Brazilian President emphasized the opportunity to deepen cooperation among the BRICS member-states.

The São Paulo based Estadão reported that Chinese President Xi Jinping requested a more open economic relationship between BRICS countries, criticizing protectionism and defending globalization. He also suggests a bigger investment in infrastructure to allow better integration among the countries. While in China, President Temer recognized the challenges due to the devaluation of commodities along with financial risks, and mentioned that the lower unemployment rate in Brazil is due to the labor reform that was recently approved by the Brazilian Congress.
The Rio de Janeiro based O Globo stated that President Temer advocated greater business relationships among the BRICS countries. The president spoke about the concession program and highlighted the way that Brazil offers extraordinary business opportunities. Foreign Relations Minister Aloysio Nunes reaffirmed that Brazil is willing to host a New Development Bank agency in Rio de Janeiro or São Paulo.

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

Rising Powers React to the Qatar Crisis

Policy Alert #149 | August 9, 2017

As the Qatar crisis drags on into its third month, this Policy Alert looks back to see the reactions of rising powers and how their positions have evolved over time. On June 5th, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Bahrain imposed far reaching sanctions on Qatar, severing all land, sea and air links to the nation. Though a wealthy country, it does not produce its own food and relies heavily on imports from Saudi Arabia. Qatar’s neighbors justified their move alleging Doha’s support to the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran (Saudi Arabia’s rival). This stunning step ushered in the worst crisis for the region since the creation of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in 1981. Since June, the original quartet has been joined by a handful of small countries including Yemen, Maldives, Mauritania, Comoros and Senegal.

The price of lifting the boycott is that Doha meet a list of 13 demands, including permanently shutting down the politically influential Al Jazeera TV network and closing a Turkish military base. Qatar also currently hosts the largest US military base in the Middle East. The expectation that the boycott would bring Doha quickly to its knees seems misplaced as the crisis turns into a stalemate. Indeed, on August 6, Qatar and Turkey wrapped up “Iron Shield,” a joint military exercise held in Doha.

India and China are two important rising powers with high stakes in the region and have directly weighed in, with some official commentary by Russia.

INDIA
There are 600,000 Indian nationals working in Qatar, out of a total population of 2.2 million.

Within hours of the diplomatic crisis, Indian Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj stressed that the row is “an internal issue” of the GCC countries and that her main worry was about Indian nationals who may be caught in between the rival countries given the travel ban on Qatar. She also reassuringly commented that “When Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power, many thought that the West Asian region would not be our priority since they comprise Muslim-majority countries. But today, if there is one region where India has best relations, it is the West Asian region.”

The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) released a statement on the Qatar crisis within a week, urging all states involved to base conflict resolution on well-established international principles of mutual respect, sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. It noted that peace and security in the Gulf are of paramount importance for prosperity of the countries in the region. But it added that extremism and intolerance, on the other hand, pose a grave threat and must be confronted by all countries in a coordinated and comprehensive manner. The MEA also highlighted India’s friendly ties with all GCC countries and its support for the over eight million expatriates living in the region.

An editorial in late June in The Pioneer, a nationalist newspaper supportive of the ruling Bharatiaya Janata Party government, made the case for a realistic compromise and stated that unreasonable demands will not make Doha capitulate, adding that “no sovereign state could accept the demands that Saudi Arabia and its friends have made.” It called on the boycotting countries to concentrate on achievable demands that are satisfactory to them and also “provide a face-saver for Qatar to wriggle out of the crisis.” Regarding Qatar’s next move, the authors suggested they “offer hints that it is willing to discuss with an open mind some of the more reasonable conditions put forth.”

Rudroneel Ghosh of the Times of India argued in early July that the hostility towards Qatar is rooted in power politics rather than opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood or terrorism: “Riyadh wants to teach Doha a lesson for having the temerity to support groups it does not approve of – like in Syria – trying to build up strategic depth within GCC – with moves such as allowing Turkey to set up a military base in Qatari territory – and taking a less hostile position towards Iran and groups associated with political Islam.” According to him, The Muslim Brotherhood and the news channel Al Jazeera is seen as a threat to Arab monarchs, and Qatar, in a way, “holds up an uncomfortable mirror to other GCC members.”

CHINA
Rich in hydrocarbon resources, Qatar is China’s number one foreign source of natural gas. Sino-Qatari financial ties are deep, with Doha having set up a clearinghouse for the Chinese renminbi in 2015. This rift within the Sunni Arab world could impact China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative which seeks to link regional economic corridors.

Shortly after the crisis began, Wang Yiwei, director of the Institute of International Affairs at Renmin University in China, said in an interview with the nationalist Global Times that the crisis in Qatar will pose negative effects on the Belt and Road initiative and will weigh heavily against the Free Trade Negotiations with the GCC. The isolation of Qatar makes it difficult for China to conduct negotiations with the GCC as a unit. Also interviewed was Tang Zhichao, a research fellow with the Institute of West Asian and African Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, who suggested China better not take sides on the issue and should play an active role in the mediation of the crisis. Both contributors highlighted the negative impact on China’s energy supply.

In an article for the state news agency China News Service in mid-June, Mei Xinyu, a researcher at the International Trade and Economic Cooperation Institute of the Ministry of Commerce, argued that the Qatar conflict stems not only from Riyadh’s effort to maintain dominance in the GCC, but also from the Saudi government trying to present to the outside world a more resolute image in the wake of President Donald Trump’s changing policy toward the Middle East. However, despite the diplomatic row, he believes that the Arab countries are not likely to use force against each other, and mediation and talks will become the ultimate means to settle the dispute. According to him, one reason is that “the West has long seen Qatar as a reformist representative of Arab countries and thus does not want to see Saudi Arabia, which has a stronger religious inclination, overpower it.” Another reason is that, “Saudi Arabia will refrain from using military means, because Qatar is home to the US Central Command in the Middle East.”

In early July, China’s U.N. ambassador Liu Jieyi emphasized that the best way to resolve the Qatar crisis is for the involved nations to work out a solution among themselves, adding that he does not see an alternative to that. He emphasized that China would welcome a peaceful resolution and “neighborly” relations in the region.

In late July, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi called on Qatar and the four Arab nations to resolve their diplomatic crisis through talks within the Gulf Cooperation Council. Wang made the remarks after meeting with his Qatari counterpart in Beijing, a day after he held talks with a top official from the United Arab Emirates, one of the nations at odds with Doha.

RUSSIA

Just days after the row began, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with Qatari Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani in Moscow. In Lavrov’s opening remarks, he highlighted his concern with the escalation of the crisis. He voiced dismay with Russian partners fighting and stated that Russia is ready to do everything in its power to help resolve the crisis and pointed out that unity is needed to fight terrorism.

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