Russia as a Global Power: Contending Views from Russia

April 22, 2013

The collapse of the Soviet Union generated a wide range of contending views in Russia on the nation’s place in the world and its relationship with the West. In more recent years, however, Russian foreign policy can be largely characterized as one shaped by a pragmatic approach to balance of power politics and economic development. This outlook and its policy manifestations, along with dissenting views, were the theme of a recent conference on “Russia as a Global Power,” organized by the Rising Powers Initiative at the Elliot School of International Affairs.

Russian worldviews since 1991 can be categorized into roughly three schools of thought, argue Andrew Kuchins and Igor Zevelev in Worldviews of Aspiring Powers. The “Pro‐Western Liberals” stress a European identity and favor closer integration with Europe through collective security and economic liberalization, but they have fallen out of favor since their brief rise in the early 1990s. The “Nationalists” see Russia as a distinct civilization apart from the West, and advocate the use of military power to secure Russia as an independent center of power in Eurasia. In contrast to the regional perspective of the Nationalists, the “Great Power Balancers” believe that Russia should have global aspirations in a multipolar world where international status is attained through both economic and military strength. The three Russian experts featured at the conference roughly reflected this spectrum of worldviews in their discussions on a wide range of topics including Syria’s ongoing conflict, the creation of a Eurasian Customs Union, and Russian relations with China and India.

This Policy Brief is based on the discussions at the conference on “Russia as a Global Power: Contending Views from Russia,” co‐organized by the Sigur Center for Asian Studies and the Institute for European, Russia, and Eurasian Studies on March 18, 2013 in Washington, DC. The event featured the following Russian panelists:

  • Vladislav Inozemtsev, Centre for Post‐Industrial Studies
  • Fyodor Lukyanov, Russia in Global Affairs & Council on Foreign and Defense Policy
  • Andranik Migranyan, Institute for Democracy and Cooperation

Read the rest of the Policy Brief here (PDF)

By Amy Hsieh, PhD Candidate, Department of Political Science, The George Washington University 

China as a Global Power: Contending Views from China

December 22, 2012

There is no doubt about China’s rising stature in the world, but plenty of uncertainty about exactly what kind of global power China will become. Not only do American policymakers have different opinions on China’s rise, even within China there is a range of viewpoints on this question, from the stridently nativist camp to the multilaterally-oriented globalist position. Across this spectrum of thought, multiple voices contend for influence by shaping the discourse behind China’s foreign policy decision making.

This Policy Brief is based on the discussions at the conference on “China As a Global Power: Contending Views from China,” co-organized by the Sigur Center for Asian Studies and the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars on November 15, 2012 in Washington, D.C. The event featured the following Chinese panelists:

  • Shen Dingli (Fudan University)
  • Zhu Chenghu (PLA National Defense University)
  • Zhu Liqun (China Foreign Affairs University)

Read the rest of the Policy Brief here (PDF).

By Amy Hsieh, PhD Candidate, Department of Political Science, The George Washington University

Asia Identities and Their Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy

May 22, 2012

Understanding the identities of Asian nations could help American policymakers develop better policies toward its counterparts in the region. Identity encapsulates a nation’s historical experiences as well as its aspirations for the future, setting the stage for the country’s normative orientations toward questions of power and security in its external relations. Identities of major Asian countries, therefore, could have important implications for prospects of regional cooperation or conflict. This Policy Brief highlights some of the key insights on what this means for U.S. foreign policy toward Asia, as was discussed at a recent conference organized by the Rising Powers Initiative on April 16, 2012 in Washington, D.C.

Whereas Americans “have come to see security issues in predominantly military and coercive terms,” Asian countries may have a very different view, said Chas W. Freeman, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. In his keynote address to the conference, Freeman pointed out that U.S. military presence in Asia “is only one aspect of national security and influence,” and that “concepts of both power and security in and around Eurasia are far less unidimensional.”

By probing the multiple dimensions of national identities in Asia, U.S. policymakers might be able to set more realistic expectations in their interactions with their Asian counterparts, as seen in the cases of bilateral relations with India and the possibility of multilateral cooperation with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. A country’s identity may also point to opportunities for policy promotion and innovation, as illustrated by U.S. trade relations with Japan. However, in countries where identities are less stable, one should be also be wary of drawing premature conclusions about identity’s influence on policy, such as in China and South Korea.

Read the rest of the Policy Brief here (PDF).

By Amy Hsieh, PhD Candidate, Department of Political Science, The George Washington University

Indian and U.S. Experts Exchange Mixed Views on India as a Global Power

February 22, 2012

India’s foreign policy has become increasingly contested in domestic Indian politics, calling into question some of the assumptions and expectations that American policymakers may have about the future of US-India relations. This divergence in opinion was highlighted at the “India as a Global Power: Contending Views from India” conference.

The speakers from India at the conference disagreed on a wide range of issues, one of which was the question of India’s threat environment. Bharat Karnad, Professor at the Center for Policy Research in New Delhi, identified China’s military build-up and proliferation activities as the top threats to Indian security. Former Indian Foreign Secretary Lalit Mansingh also expressed grave concern over China’s naval presence in the Indian Ocean, though he did not consider it an imminent threat.

In contrast, Mani Shankar Aiyar, Member of the Indian Parliament, was more optimistic that India could forge cooperative solutions with China on issues of common interest, such as freedom of the seas. He instead argued that Pakistan remains the most prominent threat to India. T.N. Ninan, Chairman and Chief Editor of the Business Standard, while concurring on both the Chinese and Pakistani threats, emphasized economic development as India’s top priority and said energy security and international pressure to act on climate change could hinder India’s growth trajectory. Whether or not India could or should become a global power appeared to frame the debate on threats to national security. Karnad discussed India’s threat environment in the context of balance-of-power politics. Aiyar on the other hand argued that India should “eschew the quest for dominance” and instead “use diplomacy to pursue peaceful coexistence.” While Mansingh said “the world is large enough for both [India and China] to grow and prosper” and that the issues at stake were not about dominance, he did stress India’s “right to exist as a nation,” implying the need for vigilance in the face of external challenges to its economic development.

This Policy Brief is based on an international conference on “India as a Global Power: Contending Views from India,” held at the Elliott School of International Affairs on Monday, January 23, 2012. The conference was co-sponsored by the Sigur Center for Asian Studies and the Center for a New American Security and featured Nirupama Rao, Indian Ambassador to the U.S. Participants included:

  • Mani Shankar Aiyar (Rajya Sabha)
  • Doug Bandow (Cato Institute)
  • Sadanand Dhume (American Enterprise Institute)
  • Richard Fontaine (Center for a New American Security)
  • Bharat Karnad (Centre for Policy Research , New Delhi)
  • Lalit Mansingh (Indian Foreign Service)
  • Henry R. Nau (GWU)
  • TN Ninan (Business Standard)
  • Deepa Ollapally (GWU)
  • George Perkovich (Carnegi Endowment for International Peace)
  • Daniel Twining (German Marshall Fund)

Read the rest of the Policy Brief here (PDF).

By Amy Hsieh, PhD Candidate, Department of Political Science, The George Washington University

Worldviews of Rising Powers: What Does Their Policy on the Libyan Intervention Tell Us?

April 22, 2011

Upon first glance, China, Russia and India appear to be reacting rather similarly to developments in the Middle East and North Africa, and to US policy responses in the region. Take Libya for an example. All three of these major powers supported the initial sanctions on Libya, abstained on the UN Security Council resolution that authorized military intervention, and then criticized the subsequent military actions. This is consistent with the sensitivities of these countries over issues of sovereignty and non-intervention. However, a closer examination of the domestic policy orientations of these three countries shows that the variation in their motives has important implications for US policy in managing its interests in the region and its bilateral relations with these major powers.

This Policy Brief is based on a briefing on “Foreign Policy Debates within Rising Powers: Current Implications for the US,” held at the Elliott School of International Affairs on March 2, 2011. The public event was moderated by Henry R. Nau, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University, and featured the following experts:

  • Andrew Kuchins (Center for Strategic and International Studies)
  • Deepa Ollapally (Sigur Center for Asian Studies)
  • David Shambaugh (The Elliott School of International Affairs)

Read the rest of the Policy Brief here (PDF),

By Amy Hsieh, PhD Candidate, Department of Political Science, The George Washington University

Russia’s Foreign Policy Debates: Perspectives on Rising Powers

December 22, 2010

At the heart of Russian foreign policy debate today is the question of Russian identity. Who or what is Russia? What does it mean to be Russian?  Is Russia a part of European civilization, a part of Asian civilization or a separate civilization? The answers to these fundamental questions define the spectrum of the foreign policy discourse in Russia and shape the direction of its foreign policy.

This Policy Brief uses Russian identity as a reference point for examining foreign policy schools of thought in Russia. It draws on a series of seminars held in Moscow, Russia, in November 2010. The seminars are part of an international research project called the “Worldviews of Aspiring Powers,” sponsored by the Carnegie Corporation and directed by the Sigur Center for Asian Studies at the Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University. The Brief examines different foreign policy schools in Russia, compares their assessments of the challenge of rising powers in the Eurasia region, and discusses some of the possible scenarios of future relations between Russia and the other rising powers.

Read the rest of the Policy Brief here (PDF).

By Anna Lowry, Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Political Science, Indiana University – Bloomington

Back to the Future? A Revival of Realpolitik in Asia and Eurasia

November 22, 2010

In each of three key Asian and Eurasian powers, China, India, and Russia, a realpolitik approach plays a larger role in the foreign policy outlook today than it did in the period following the end of the Cold War. This Policy Brief describes this trend and addresses its implications for the future of the region.

China, India, and Russia all posses the key traditional attribute of great powers: size. All three countries are among the largest in the world in both territory and population. While size is a necessary prerequisite of great power status, it is not a sufficient one. Size creates potential which political capacity and economic efficiency can activate. Over the past decade (and longer in the case of China), all three countries have tended to benefit from a remarkable economic dynamism. This dynamism was due in large part to economic liberalization in the case of China and India, and to high global energy prices in the case of energy-rich Russia. Assuming these trends continue, all three of these states are likely to play an important role in shaping the future of Eurasia. It is of great importance to understand their foreign policy outlook, and the nature of the balance between realist and idealist thinking within that outlook.

Is the foreign policy of these countries marked more by realist features of geography, military power, alliances and security, by liberal internationalist features of economic modernization, globalization and regional/ global multilateralism, or by idealist features of cultural, ideological or religious assertiveness that meshes with or challenges the existing Western, liberal model of transparent military relations, open markets and open societies? How is the relative importance of these schools of thought changing over time? The next section of the Policy Brief addresses those questions in the context of China, India and Russia.

This Policy Brief is based on a briefing on “Worldviews of China, India and Russia: Power Shifts and Domestic Debates,” held at the Elliott School of International Affairs on Sept. 22, 2010. The event was moderated by Henry R. Nau, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University, and featured the following experts:

  • Andrew Kuchins (Center for Strategic and International Studies)
  • Deepa Ollapally (Sigur Center for Asian Studies)
  • David Shambaugh (The Elliott School of International Affairs)

Read the rest of the Policy Brief here (PDF).

By Nikola Mirilovic, Research Associate, Sigur Center for Asian Studies, The George Washington University