Type: Policy Alerts

Policy Alerts inform U.S. policymakers and media professionals of the ongoing debates in Brazil, China, India, Japan, South Korea, and Russia on current issues and events relevant to American foreign policy.

Asian Powers Re-Assess U.S. “Rebalance” as President Obama Travels the Region

Policy Alert #72 | April 28, 2014

As President Barack Obama wraps up his week-long trip to Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, and the Philippines, Asian powers are re-assessing the U.S. economic and security commitment to the region. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from Japan, South Korea, China, and India on U.S. foreign policy in Asia.

JAPAN

Japanese newspapers discussed the “mixed” results of the U.S.-Japan summit.

  • At the summit, President Obama explicitly stated for the first time that the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty covers the disputed Senkaku Islands and supported the Abe administration’s move toward revising the constitutional interpretation of the right to collective self-defense.
  • The Yomiuri Shimbun welcomed the strengthened U.S. security commitment as “a milestone achievement” in bilateral relations. The Sankei Shimbun agreed, urging the Abe administration to allow collective self-defense rights and to assume a more active security role in order to deter China.
  • The U.S.-Japan alliance alone is “not enough” to check Chinese provocations, argued the Mainichi Shimbun, calling on Prime Minister Abe to utilize not only military might but also diplomatic engagement. The Asahi Shimbun also contended that Abe should “take a first step toward mending Japan’s ties with its neighbors” in light of the recent history disputes.

The bilateral summit produced few results on the economic front, however, as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiation failed to reach an agreement.

  • The Yomiuri Shimbun remained pessimistic, saying that “there is not much room for optimism heading into the final phase of negotiations,” as both governments face domestic opposition in making compromises.
  • Both countries must reach an agreement not only for economic interests but also for regional security, argued the Mainichi Shimbun. “By sharing transparent and fair economic rules, the scheme aims to keep China in check-even embracing the emerging communist country in the future.”
  • The Nikkei Shimbun agreed, saying that the TPP negotiations will “test [the] allies’ solidarity… [and] shape the future of an Asia-Pacific region facing an ascendant China.”

SOUTH KOREA

Korean media outlets remained critical of the “rebalance” policy to Asia, which President Obama re-emphasized during the bilateral summit in Seoul.

  • The Hankyoreh criticized the summit for coming up short on solutions to resolve North Korean nuclear issues, claiming that the current hardline stance lacks diplomatic flexibility and is unlikely to bring North Korea back to the Six-Party talks.
  • The U.S. rebalancing policy is “limited” because “American officials do not fully grasp the layers of history between Japan and the rest of East Asia,” argued Kim Young-ho,  professor emeritus at Kyungpook National University. “If the United States focuses too much of its efforts on Japan, China will be provoked by old grudges, further pursue its military ambitions, and quite possibly seek to reinforce its alliance with Russia.”
  • The Korea Times warned that President Obama’s endorsement of Tokyo’s right to collective self-defense may lead to Japan’s military resurgence without repentance of the past. The “‘pivot to Asia’ will get nowhere if he fails to persuade-or force-Japan to own up to its past misdeeds before reasserting itself.” The Hankyoreh shared similar concerns.
  • “If Washington calls for a pivot to Asia only in words and thinks that Asia issues can be left in the hands of Japan, it could aggravate the already entangled situation in the region. If the U.S. wants to properly pursue the pivot to Asia, it should clear the fundamental issue of Japan’s history distortion,” argued the Dong-A Ilbo.

CHINA

Commentators in China expressed skepticism about the U.S. commitment to security in Asia.

  • “For the United States and its allies in the region, they need to make a convincing case about their proclaimed commitment to regional stability,” opined Xinhua writer Luo Jun.
  • “One of the main aims of Barack Obama’s trip is to assure the U.S.’ allies and partners in the region that the U.S. stands behind them. However, when it comes to the real threats to Asia’s security, especially Japan’s turn to the right, the U.S. finds it difficult to articulate a clear policy,” said the China Daily.

Regarding President Obama’s visit to Japan and affirmation of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty, Chinese newspapers expressed concern.

  • China Daily wrote, “Since he [Obama] has voluntarily bound his country to Abe’s war chariot…he might want to start considering how he is going to untie the knots and tame the adventurous Japan under Abe, or prepare to be dragged into an unwanted conflict.”
  • Liu Tian and Feng Wuyong, editors at the state-run Xinhua said, “with an unscrupulous Abe going further down the road to challenge post-war international order and make Japan a ‘normal state’, Obama’s defense commitment would leave the United States hijacked by Japanese rightwing forces and turn Japan-U.S. military alliance into a war machine that threatens peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region and the rest of the world.”

INDIA

Indian newspapers and commentators discussed the implications of President Obama’s trip for India’s security and the U.S. rebalance to Asia.

  • India-Japan-U.S. trilateral talks are now “on a higher plane,” opined the Times of India, as the Japan-U.S. joint statement highlighted a trilateral dialogue between Japan, India and the U.S. for “peace and economic prosperity in the Asia-Pacific and around the globe.”
  • “Obama’s strategic problem now is to reassure East Asian allies of the strength of American commitment to them without provoking an unwanted conflict between the U.S. and China,” explained C. Raja Mohan, a distinguished fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, Delhi. “If they are convinced that no great power is willing or capable of balancing China, many Asian states might come to believe that strategic deference to Beijing is the only option they have.”

Ukraine Crisis Sparks Reactions from Rising Powers

Policy Alert #71 | March 28, 2014

The hope for peace following the Sochi Olympics was overshadowed by mounting conflict in Ukraine after Russia sent its troops to Crimea, despite growing international pressure. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from Russia, China, India, Japan, South Korea, and Brazil on the Ukraine crisis.

RUSSIA

Commentary in Russia expressed divided views on Russia’s involvement in the Ukrainian crisis.

  • The Russian Foreign Ministry slammed a U.S. State Department report claiming that facts cited by President Vladimir Putin in a news conference on Ukraine were false. “Obviously, Washington is unable to adequately perceive events using standards other than the American ones,” the statement said.
  • “The Kremlin believes that the current Ukrainian leadership will manipulate the elections planned for May 25 to install a single leader or coalition government,” wrote Sergei Markov, director of the Institute of Political Studies in Moscow. “…Ukraine could easily become a radicalized, anti-Russian state, at which point Kiev will fabricate a pretext to justify taking subversive action against Moscow.”
  • An op-ed in the Moscow Times criticized Putin for destabilizing Ukraine and carrying out a “creeping annexation…Russia’s move into Crimea will undermine the post-Cold War political system in the region and make former Soviet satellites, already apprehensive of Russia, extremely nervous.”
  • Another editorial in the Moscow Times identified Ukraine as a “zero-sum game for Putin from the beginning. When it became clear that events in Ukraine had turned against Moscow’s interests, it instinctively attributed it to Western interference…it is inconceivable to Moscow that Ukrainians could revolt against their rulers without foreign instigation.”

CHINA

Chinese media uniformly supported China’s impartial stance in the Ukraine crisis, encouraging “consultation and dialogue” within the international community to resolve the conflict.

  • “Based on the fact that Russia and Ukraine have deep cultural, historical and economic connections, it is time for Western powers to abandon their Cold War thinking, stop trying to exclude Russia from the political crisis they have failed to mediate, and respect Russia’s unique role in mapping out the future of Ukraine,” said one state-run Xinhua commentary.
  • Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang reiterated China’s support for settling the crisis through political and diplomatic channels.
  • In an China.org op-ed, Zhao Jinglun observed, “the conflict is a proxy fight between major powers on opposite sides of the globe, backed by Russia on the one hand and the United States and EU on the other.”

INDIA

Indian newspapers unanimously condemned Russia’s military action, calling for a peaceful settlement in Ukraine.

  • The Hindustan Times criticized Russia’s military intervention as a clear sign of its inability to “put behind its past as a great power…[and] accept Ukraine as an independent and sovereign State.”
  • The Indian Express urged Russia and the West to exercise restraint and focus on their common interest in “forestalling a civil war in the heart of Europe.”
  • The Times of India agreed, calling all parties to dial down their “Cold War rhetoric” and for Russia to withdraw its troops and join the international community in drawing up a road map for Ukraine’s future.
  • The Business Standard bashed the indecisive reactions of the US, EU, and UN to Russia’s aggression as the “impotence of the world’s major powers since the Cold War.” The newspaper warned that if President Putin gets away with impunity in Ukraine, this may encourage China to “unilaterally extend its sphere of influence.”

JAPAN

The Ukraine crisis has placed Japan in a difficult position, as Tokyo joined other G7 countries in criticizing Moscow amidst recent efforts to promote economic relations and solve the territorial dispute with Russia.

  • Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was careful to tone down his criticism against Russia, saying “I strongly hope that the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine will be respected.”
  • Asked whether Japan will keep expanding economic and political ties with Russia, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga avoided the question, stating, “Our country hopes all the parties involved will behave carefully with self-restraint and responsibility.”
  • The Mainichi Shimbun noted that Japan “is placed in a difficult position,” but added that the country “should stand by the principles of international law that territorial disputes should never be settled by the use of force and call upon Russia to refrain from military intervention.”
  • Toshihiro Nakayama, Professor of American Politics and Foreign Policy at Aoyama Gakuin University, explained Japan’s move as targeted toward China’s military aggression in the East China Sea. “Abe’s administration has been diplomatically reinforcing a law-based international order [in response to the Senkaku Islands dispute]. Therefore, it judged the violation of [Crimea’s] sovereignty unacceptable.”
  • The Yomiuri Shimbun took a firmer stance, calling Russia’s military intervention “absolutely unacceptable.” The newspaper strongly urged President Putin “to listen to voices from the international community and do his utmost to avoid the chaos and bloodshed that could be brought about by military intervention.”

SOUTH KOREA

South Korean media remained critical of Russia’s incursion into Crimea.

  • The JoongAng Ilbo argued that Moscow must “exercise reason and restraint,” urging President Putin to seek diplomatic solutions to ensure the safety of Russian-origin citizens in Crimea. The newspaper added that both the West and Russia must help Ukraine “rebuild itself through the democratic process.”
  • The Dong-A Ilbo criticized President Putin’s handling of the Ukraine crisis, claiming “The ambition of a Great Russia, which was displayed through the Winter Olympics, should not be extended to Ukraine.”

BRAZIL

Brazilian press argued that a divided Ukraine is not of interest to Ukrainians.

  • Estadão cited a host of economic and cultural evidence describing the degree to which each region of Ukraine is more reliant on exports to the EU than Russia, including heavy ethnic Russian regions such as the Crimea. Additionally, it suggested that most Ukrainians are more interested in strengthening these ties between EU nations rather than Russia. While there do exist ethnic differences, the paper claimed that “it is likely these are being highly overestimated.”

 

 

Rising Powers Respond to Crimea Crisis

Policy Alert #70 | March 28, 2014

Earlier this week, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the annexation of Crimea, two days after a referendum that declared the region’s separation from Ukraine. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from Russia, China, India, Japan, South Korea, and Brazil on the Crimea crisis.

RUSSIA

On Thursday March 20, Russia’s lower house of parliament overwhelmingly approved a treaty to annex Crimea from Ukraine. Numerous officials and other public figures have voiced support for Crimea’s annexation, while others have remained cautious.

  • Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of Russia in Global Affairs, wrote, “If Russia loses the Ukraine gamble, it would be a shock of unpredictable proportions…the risk of loss is considerable, but the prize is undeniably attractive.” Regarding economic sanctions on Russia, he noted, “There is no experience of enacting effective sanctions against a nuclear superpower that occupies a large part of Eurasia, retains influence all over the world and has an enormous wealth of resources.”
  • Vladimir Ryzhov, a State Duma deputy from 1993 to 2007, was critical of Crimea’s annexation. “Moscow has violated the principle of the inviolability of its neighbor’s borders. This will prompt other former Soviet republics to revise their own military and strategic policies and to seek additional security guarantees from countries other than Russia.”
  • Terming the Ukrainian crisis a potential “geopolitical Cold War,” Sergei Markov, director of the Institute of Political Studies in Moscow explained the Kremlin’s thought process: “Moscow does not see the revolution in Ukraine as an attempt to create a more democratic or law-based society. Instead, it sees the events in Kiev as an attempt to make Ukraine as anti-Russian as possible.”

CHINA

Chinese officials and media outlets urged outside countries to remain impartial and encouraged resolution of the Crimean issue through dialogue.

  • Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said in a press briefing, “China has always respected the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of other countries. The issue of Crimea should be solved politically under a framework of laws and regulations.”
  • An editorial in the People’s Daily deemed Ukraine the “final battlefield in the ‘cold war'” and concluded that “a geostrategic conflict leads to the tragedy of big-power politics.”
  • Another editorial in the Global Times predicted that “once the confrontation between the West and Russia goes out of control, it is China that will suffer. Many countries will change their strategies, which will lead to changes to China’s external strategic surroundings.”

INDIA

The Indian government remained distant from the West in condemning Russia, making it clear that it will not support any “unilateral measures” against Moscow. Indian newspapers offered differing assessments of the crisis and the government’s response.

  •  The Hindustan Times supported the government’s response in light of India’s traditional stance of non-interference in the affairs of other countries. “[T]he wisest course for India, for now at least, would be not to involve itself in the geopolitics of the region and maintain a distance from both Mr. Putin and the West.”
  • The Hindu questioned the effectiveness of the Western sanctions against Russia, saying that “no Western bloc may be able to stop the dismemberment of Ukraine and prevent the start of a new Cold War.”
  • The Economic Times agreed that these sanctions may be “toothless,” warning that the Crimea crisis could mark the “dawn of a new Cold War era.”
  • Sreeram Sundar Chaulia, Dean of Jindal School of International Affairs, Jindal Global University, argued that the West “cannot claim to be on a moral high ground” to condemn Russia, since the West has repeatedly used military means and bypassed international laws in countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.

JAPAN

Japan imposed somewhat modest sanctions on Russia, which reflected Tokyo’s difficult position in improving its bilateral relations with Moscow despite an international crisis.

  • Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida stated that Japan does not recognize the outcome of Crimea’s referendum to split from Ukraine, and that “we cannot overlook Russia’s attempt to change the status quo by force.”

Japanese newspapers unanimously criticized Russia’s annexation of Crimea.

  • The Yomiuri Shimbun condemned the referendum under Russia’s de facto military control as “unacceptable,” urging the United States and the EU to maintain pressure through sanctions while searching for a peaceful diplomatic solution.

SOUTH KOREA

South Korean media discussed the implications of the Crimea crisis for the Korean Peninsula.

  • The JoongAng Ilbo warned that the crisis will encourage North Korea to further develop its nuclear weapons, as Russia invaded Crimea despite the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which was supposed to protect Ukraine’s sovereignty in return for the abandonment of its nuclear program.
  •  The newspaper also argued that what Ukraine will do in the future has implications for a potential unification between two Koreas, questioning whether a unified Korea would be able to maintain relations with the United States and China amidst their geostrategic rivalry.

BRAZIL

History and East-West tensions figured prominently in Brazilian reactions to the crisis.

  • Assessing the conflict culminating between the former rivals of the East and West over Russia’s occupation of Crimea, the Estadao de Sao Paulo believes Putin is attempting to instigate further reactions from the West and thus offer an opening for broader military actions to reclaim lands formerly controlled by Russia. Estadao termed these actions as “fraught with risks,” calling it “a minefield.”
  • The history of wars dating back to the 1850s including disastrous conflicts between the U.K, France, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire weighed heavily in the interpretation of events made by Folha de Sao Paulo. The paper described the current encounter between Obama and Putin as “a new battle of wills…resonant [of] very old and very unhappy precedents.

Rising Powers Celebrate as Curtain Falls on Sochi Olympics

Policy Alert #69 | February 20, 2014

The 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics ended on Sunday night after bringing countless cheers and tears to spectators around the world. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from Russia, China, India, Japan, South Korea, and Brazil on their performances and controversies that emerged in the world’s largest sports festival.

RUSSIA

Host nation Russia won the medal count, bringing home 33 medals (13 gold, 11 silver, and 9 bronze). Despite concerns of a terrorist attack in the build-up to the Games, the Olympics were lauded by IOC president Thomas Bach as an event that “delivered all that it promised,” drawing in record numbers of television viewers across the globe. Russian commentary condemned the West’s negative portrayal of Sochi and contemplated Russia’s future following the Olympics.

  • In an op-ed for Russia Times, Andranik Migranyan, director of the Institute for Democracy and Cooperation, blasted Western media for never aspiring to “give objective coverage to events unfolding in Russia.”  He concluded that “with their anti-Russian, anti-Putin, and anti-Olympic campaign, the Western media actually helped Putin’s triumph, Russia’s triumph, and the success of the Sochi Olympics.”
  • Edward Lozansky, president of American University in Moscow, denounced  Western media for “doing its damnedest to broadcast across the world any fault or mishap at the Games…frequently in a grossly inflated form to enhance the effect.”
  • “Influential outsiders do not want to admit that Russia has overcome its domestic crises and is progressing along a path of development,” wrote Sergei Markov, vice rector of Plekhanov Economic University in Moscow.
  • The Moscow Times outlined two possibilities for Russia’s future following the Olympics. “Putin could become swell-headed from the success of the Games and feel emboldened to act in an even more authoritarian manner, or his new-found sense of pride might free him from the need to see an enemy in every critic and in every foreign-supported NGO an agent of sedition.”
  • Boris Nemtsov, co-chairman of the liberal opposition party RPR-Parnas, predicted that “repressions will increase in direct proportion to the decline of [Putin’s] rating” following the Olympics.

CHINA

China finished 12th in the overall medal count with nine total medals. Commentators looked ahead to the 2022 Winter Olympics, which China is launching a bid to host.

  • Chinese media regarded the Olympics on the whole positively, noting that, “the close rapport between China and Russia demonstrates to the rest of the world that it is possible for major world powers to coexist peacefully and harmoniously.”
  • The state-run Xinhua credited Chinese Olympic debutants for “keeping the country in the upper-middle of the medals table,” expressing content with the growth of China’s young talent. “The good news is we are still the best in Asia,” commented Xiao Tian, China’s Olympic deputy chef de mission.
  • China thanked Russia for the country’s support of China’s bid for the 2022 Winter Olympic Games and said it would “draw experience” from the Sochi Olympics. Beijing launched a joint bid with neighboring city Zhangjiakou City to host the 2022 Winter Olympics last November.

INDIA

India’s participation in the Olympics was overshadowed by Indian Olympic Association’s (IOA)corruption scandal that led to India’s decommission from the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and a ban on the use of the Indian flag in the Games.

  • India became the first nation to win readmission to the Olympic family during an ongoing Games, as the IOC lifted the ban on February 11 following the election of new IOA President N. Ramachandran. Ramachandran thanked IOC President Thomas Bach for the quick decision, saying: “For us having been out for 15 months and to come back within two days after our elections is something I could not believe.”
  • The Hindustan Times bemoaned that “India’s sporting reputation…is skating on thin ice as it earned the distinction, definitely dubious, of becoming the first nation to be allowed by the IOC to fly its flag after the Games had commenced.”
  • Sushil Kumar, the 2008 and 2012 Olympics gold medalist wrestler, responded to the IOC decision: “It’s a great day for all the athletes who put their blood, sweat and tears to represent the country under the Indian tri-color and win medals…My humble request to all the officials is we don’t want a repeat of the Sochi Olympics. The ban should not have happened at all in the first place. All this brought disrepute to our country.”

JAPAN

Japanese athletes won a total of eight medals-one gold, four silver, and three bronze-marking the second-best performance on record for Japan. Among all the athletes, it was two-time world champion figure skater Mao Asada who  attracted most public attention, despite her 6th place in the ladies figure skating competition.

  • Asada’s 16th place, error-filled short program received unexpected criticism from Yoshiro Mori, former Prime Minister and chairman of the 2020 Tokyo Olympics organizing committee, who said that Asada has a habit of “always falling at the most critical time” of a competition.
  • Asada’s personal best-score performance in the free skate, however, won the Japanese people’s hearts. The Asahi Shimbun dedicated a column titled “Mao Asada’s legacy more colorful than Olympic medals.” Komei Party’s secretary general, Yoshihisa Inoue, responded to Mori’s remark, lauding Asada for “always succeeding at the most critical time.”
  • Former Prime Minister Mori also faced public resentment for criticizing Japan’s ice dance pairing, Cathy and Chris Reed, who, being born in the U.S. to a Japanese mother, surrendered their American citizenship as young adults. Mori said “They live in the U.S. We let them be part of the Japanese team because they are not good enough” to represent the U.S.

SOUTH KOREA

South Korea secured the 13th place in the total medal count, winning three gold, three silver, and two bronze. Korean newspapers discussed the controversial silver medal won by figure skater Kim Yu-na while shifting attention to the 2018 Pyeongchang Winter Olympics.

  • Despite a near flawless performance, Kim Yun-a earned a silver medal next to Russian gold medalist Adelina Sotnikova raising controversy about the judges’ impartiality. An online petition demanding an investigation of judging irregularities has gathered over 2 million signatures. The Chosun Ilbo questioned whether Kim Yu-na was “robbed of a rightful Olympic gold.”
  • Despite the controversies, Korean media unanimously lauded Korea’s “figure skating queen.” The JoongAng Ilbo concluded that Kim Yu-na “transcends medals,” adding that “[h]er farewell performance was very graceful, flawless and miraculous, even if the seemingly biased panel of judges at the Sochi Olympics did not think so.”
  • With the next Winter Olympics in sight, the JoongAng Ilbo argued that the 2018 Pyeongchang Games “could make more history” than the 1988 Seoul Summer Olympics, which it called “the first major international competition that brought athletes from the two sides of the cold war.” The Chosun Ilbo urged the Koreans to strive for this “another milestone” in the nation’s history.

BRAZIL

Brazil’s performance bolstered hopes of improving results in future Winter Olympics.

  • Folha de Sao Paulo reported: “Again, there were no medals. But in its seventh participation in a Winter Olympics, Brazil finished for the first time with some top finishes, enough for leaders to praise the country’s campaign.”
  • Additionally, the country which has yet to medal in a Winter Olympics is investing greater amounts in athlete training hoping to yield better results. The paper further reported that Brazil “will have real results by 2026. You can count on it.”

Rising Powers Assess 2013 and Give Expectations for 2014

Policy Alert #68 | January 28, 2014

2013 was rife with diplomatic challenges to the world order, including: increasing tensions in the East China Sea, China’s new air defense zone, Japan’s new active security policy under Prime Minister Abe,the U.S. government shutdown, Russia’s takeover of Syria’s chemical weapons deal, and the NSA spying scandal. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from China, Russia, India, Japan, South Korea, and Brazil on their assessment of international developments in 2013 and prospects for 2014.

CHINA

Commentary in China characterized 2013 as a year of internal reform and envisioned continued domestic and international growth for China in 2014.

  • An op-ed by People’s Daily editors Liang Jun and Yao Chun aptly summarized 2013 for China: “China has promoted integration between the ‘Chinese Dream,” with the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation as its core, and the ‘World Dream,’ proposing a strategy of mutual benefit and a commitment to maintaining a just position on diplomatic interests.” As for 2014, Liang and Yao stated, “China will create a closer relationship with countries on its periphery…and raise pragmatic cooperation with the U.S., Russia, and the EU, and with other emerging countries, to a new level.”
  • Chinese president Xi Jinping, in his New Year’s Day address, defined 2013 as a time of “comprehensively deepening reform and [laying] out a grand blueprint for future development.” For 2014, he envisioned “advanced reforms with the fundamental purpose of making our nation stronger and more prosperous.”
    • o   China Daily praised these reforms, noting that “the fact that 18 officials at vice-minister level or above had been placed under investigation for abuse of power in 2013 alone has demonstrated the top leadership’s resolve to root out corruption.”
  • On January 1, 1979, China and the United States established formal diplomatic ties. China Daily raised the importance of continuing to strengthen U.S.-China relations, while another editorial warned that “some [countries] have tried to maintain their leading role in world affairs through reorganization of old powers in the name of equilibrium of power, which will only trigger an even more serious imbalance in world order.”

RUSSIA

Russian media characterized 2013 as one of “stunning foreign policy achievements” and eagerly anticipated the upcoming 2014 winter Olympics in Sochi.

  • The Moscow Times praised Putin for “settling” on Russia’s international image in 2013: “He began to more clearly position Russia as a country whose legitimacy derives from its strict adherence to the letter of international law and as a conservative state professing traditional values.”
  • Dr. Alexander Yakovenko, Russian Ambassador to the UK, attributed Russia’s success in Syria as stemming from “Russian diplomacy [that] has proceeded from the need to respect the people’s right to determine their own future, without outside interference.”
  • Fyodor Lukyanov, editor-in-chief of the journal Russia in Global Affairs, noted that “The accepted view on Russia in general, and on President Vladimir Putin’s Russia in particular, is of a country pursuing an archaic foreign policy…Russia believes that in the final analysis- no matter what people say about various new types of power, good old ‘hard power’ will always prevail.” He argued that Moscow’s approach has worked well, particularly in 2013, because it is “abiding by a certain methodology that sets Russia apart from other major players.”

INDIA

Indian media and commentators gave severe verdicts on the country’s international standing in 2013, discussing potential ways to achieve diplomatic successes in 2014.

  • The Times of India called 2013 “India’s most disastrous foreign policy year in a very long time,” citing its damaged relationships with Sri Lanka due to the prime minister’s cancelled trip to CHOGM, with Bangladesh due to its reluctance to support Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina for her upcoming reelection, with the United States due to the Devyani Khobragade incident, and with China due to the border dispute. The Indian Express shared a similar view that “in 2013, India failed to manage important bilateral relationships.”
  • The Times of India, however, took a positive note of the new, “transformational” India-Japan strategic partnership based on the mutual distrust of Sino-centric order that took flight last year, while suggesting India should recalibrate its China strategy based on “what kind of a power China is likely to become.”
  • C. Raja Mohan, a distinguished fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, also emphasized the importance of Japan-India relations, arguing that “India…must come to terms, like the rest of the region, with Tokyo’s determination to shape the Asian security order.”
  • Arvind Gupta, director general of the Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses, claimed that India’s 2014 foreign policy must become bolder, not only “looking east” to strengthen its economic and defense ties with East Asian countries and the United States but also “looking west” to enhance its political, economic engagement in West Asia and the Gulf.

JAPAN

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe delivered a New Year Reflection that promised to “restore a strong Japan” through revitalizing the economy under his economic policy known as Abenomics and strengthening defense and promoting world peace under his strategy called “proactive pacifism.” Japanese newspapers expressed diverse opinions on Abe’s vision of a strong Japan.

SOUTH KOREA

Reflecting upon 2013’s security developments, such as North Korea’s execution of Kim Jong Un’s uncle and renewed provocation, Japan’s militarization under Prime Minister Abe, and China’s announcement of a new ADIZ, South Korean media outlets predicted a challenging year for the country, debating policies to weather through the year ahead.

  • The Hankyoreh warned that given the intensifying security environment surrounding the Korean peninsula, the country “is in danger of being pulverized in a conflict between larger powers…If we are to safely navigate the turmoil of international conflict, it is imperative that we maintain internal stability and forge a cooperative relationship with North Korea.”
  • The Dong-A Ilbo called for the country to unite and develop strategies based on strong alliance with the U.S. and close strategic cooperative partnership with China, concluding that “keeping [such] a balance among powerful nations was and is the way to go for Korea.”
  • The Korea Joongang Daily argued that in order to overcome the diplomatic quagmire, the government must first put the economy back on track by redirecting its “creative economy” policy toward protecting entrepreneurship and improve inter-Korean relations by activating the Korean Peninsula Trust Process.

BRAZIL

The Snowden NSA wiretapping revelations and June riots made 2013 a pivotal year for Brazil on the global stage. The economic slowdown in 2013, after years of optimism and growth has caused many to become frustrated with their system of government and look towards the future with a dose of skepticism.

Rising Powers Respond to Security Concerns at Upcoming Sochi Winter Olympics

Policy Alert #67 | January 28, 2014

A series of suicide bombings last month in the southern Russian city of Volgograd raised questions about the security of the upcoming Sochi Winter Olympics, exposing the challenges the country faces in the upcoming Olympic Games. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from Russia, China, India, Japan, and Brazil on security concerns and preparations for the Olympic Games.

RUSSIA

Russian officials have expressed completed confidence in the security measures being taken in the lead up to the Olympics.

  • In an interview with Russian and foreign journalists, Russian president Vladimir Putin said Russia has a clear understanding of the security threat at the Olympic Games and knows how to combat it. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov echoed Putin’s confidence in Russia’s security preparations.
  • Addressing those calling to boycott the Games, President Putin deemed such behavior as a “remnant of the old way of thinking.”
  • “Terrorism is a global threat, and for terrorism there are no boundaries, no territories, but here in Sochi from the very beginning of the construction phase the state authorities did their utmost to prepare special measures, starting from the screening of raw materials…and preparing far-reaching security measures to provide the safest ever environment,” said Dmitry Chernyshenko, Chairman of the Sochi Organizing Committee.
  • Nikolai Petrov, a professor of political science at the Higher School of Economics predicted that Moscow will employ a “firm hand” to restore order in the North Caucasus after the Olympics when Russia is out of the global spotlight.

CHINA

Criticizing the West for being “unfair on Sochi security,” several Chinese editorials voiced confidence in Russia’s Olympic security preparations.

  • “We believe that the Russian side can ensure the security and make the Winter Olympics agreat success,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said at a daily news briefing.
  • In a show of support for Russia and in reciprocation of Russian president Vladimir Putin’s attendance at the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Chinese president Xi Jinping announced that he will attend the Sochi opening ceremonies. Xi’s upcoming trip “underscores the importance China attaches to the development of Sino-Russia ties,” wrote Xinhua editor Zhu Ningzhu.

INDIA

Indian newspapers, while sharing concerns about the security of the Olympic Games in light of the recent terrorist attacks, were at odds with how to address the terrorist threats.

  • The Hindu characterized the Sochi Winter Olympics, which were meant to be “a showpiece for Russia’s pacification of the Chechen jihadist movement,” as a demonstration of “how hard it can be to stamp out terrorism.” “[T]he Russian case shows states that unleashing maximum force against terrorists don’t necessarily succeed in stamping out their problems. Nor do efforts to buy out discontent through development or expedient political deals.”
  • Sudhir Hindwan, a Chandigarh-based professor of political science and an expert on strategic affairs, argued that the Russian government “must recognize the unrest in Chechnya.” “[N]either the withdrawal of security forces from Chechnya nor its complete occupation is tenable. A continuing military operation is unsustainable. It is high time Russia recognizes the seriousness of the problem.”
  • The New Indian Express demanded a more aggressive counterterrorism measure, calling for “a united global response” to eliminate terrorist havens in Russia’s neighborhood, including Chechnya and Dagestan. “Calling off the Games [because of terrorist attacks], which the western world may be contemplating, would not be a solution. It will only encourage the perpetrators.”

JAPAN

Japanese media outlets voiced concern about the security of the Olympic Games, while remaining skeptical of the Russian government’s repressive approach to terrorism.

  • The Yomiuri Shimbun, while urging the Russian government to “absolutely ensure the security of the Sochi Winter Olympic Games,” questioned President Putin’s “high-handed political stance” against Islamic extremists and other minorities. “[I]t is difficult for force alone to end terrorism and solve the fundamental problem.”
  • The Sankei Shimbun agreed, claiming that “it is undeniable that terrorism resulted from the Russian government’s coercive stance against Muslims and its lack of measures against human rights and poverty. Oppression alone cannot maintain order.”

Meanwhile, Japanese leaders saw the international sports event as a chance to improve Russia-Japan relations.

BRAZIL

Security concerns have kept some would be attendees from traveling to Russia for the upcoming Games.

  • Folha de Sao Paulo reported that some of Brazil’s competing athletes are deciding to leave family members behind due to security concerns. In particular, athletes expressed concerns about the areas outside of the Olympic village and are avoiding any unnecessary travel beyond  these high security areas.
  • Globo TV network also reported that recent terrorists attacks and threats were creating a “climate of tension” surrounding the games.

China’s New Air Defense Zone Triggers Flurry of Activity from Asian Powers

Policy Alert #66 | December 28, 2013

On November 23, China announced the establishment of an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) over disputed parts of the East China Sea and declared that it would scramble “emergency defense responses” to aircraft that entered the zone without first informing China. Several countries in the region expressed immediate outrage, and the ADIZ became a major topic during Vice President Joseph Biden’s three-leg tour to Asia.

As tensions heat up, this Policy Alert examines the reactions of China, Japan, South Korea, and India to these emerging developments.

CHINA

Chinese editorials uniformly supported establishment of the ADIZ as “defensive” in nature while simultaneously lambasting Japan and the United States for holding double standards in their views of air defense identification zones:

  • The state-run People’s Daily argued, “The air defense identification zones of other countries were established in the name of safeguarding national security…But when China establishes its first air defense identification zone, it suddenly becomes ‘unnecessarily inflammatory’ in the eyes of some…The abrupt change fits into the pattern of Washington’s double standards and Tokyo is only too happy to dance to Washington’s tune.” Zhou Yongsheng, deputy director of the Japan Study Center at China Foreign Affairs University, echoed similar sentiments.
  • A China Daily editorial stated that for the U.S. and China to “get their relationship right,” “the two countries must address their conspicuous ‘trust deficit.’ The U.S. reaction to China’s ADIZ is only the latest reminder of how difficult it is for the two nations to overcome their distrust.”
  • Another China Daily editorial commented on Biden’s visit to the region, accusing the United States of taking “Japan’s side.” “Our timely visitor needs to be told: it is Japan that has unilaterally changed the status quo. From its regular patrols of the Diaoyu Islands to the establishment of its new ADIZ, China is just responding to Japanese provocations.“
  • The Global Times seemed unconcerned about how the ADIZ will affect U.S.-China relations. “The strategic significance of Sino-U.S. cooperation will not be overshadowed by their discrepancy over a certain matter.”

JAPAN

Japan’s Minister for Foreign Affairs expressed “deep concern” that China’s “profoundly dangerous acts” “unilaterally change the status quo in the East China Sea, escalating the situation, and that may cause unintended consequences in the East China Sea.” In defiance of China’s claims, Japan allowed its major airlines to fly through the disputed zone.

Media outlets and commentators in Japan overwhelmingly criticized the Chinese move:

  • The Asahi Shimbun demanded China withdraw its “unacceptable air defense zone,” which is “tantamount to a Chinese declaration that the country is willing to take military action against Japanese aircraft over the Senkaku Islands.” Nikkei Asia Reviewvoiced related ideas.
  • The Japan Times declared the move a “dangerous provocation” targeting Japan, potentially resulting in “an unanticipated military incident” between Japanese and Chinese military aircraft. Mainichi Shimbun expressed similar concerns.

Media outlets offered their take on what caused China to announce the ADIZ:

  • The Japan Times suggested “Beijing may be trying to draw the attention of the Chinese public away from domestic economic and social problems by taking a hard-line stance on the Senkaku Islands.”
  • The Yomirui Shimbun said China’s decision “embodies its military strategy of enclosing the East China Sea and other Asian maritime areas as its zones of influence to deny access by the U.S. military.”

Commentators suggested several actions to end the dispute:

  • The Asahi Shimbun directed Japanese leaders to “conclude an agreement on operational rules to avoid trouble through talks between their defense authorities.” This approach was echoed by The Japan Times and The Asahi Shimbum.
  • The Asahi Shimbun called on Biden to “speak clearly” to China about the U.S. objection, andYomiuri Shimbun beckoned Washington and Tokyo to reinforce their alliance – along with Seoul – to build a “broad consensus” “ensuring China abides by international rules.” This advice was seconded by Yuki Tastumi – the former special assistant for political affairs at the Japanese Embassy in Washington – as well as the Mainichi Shimbun and Nikkei Asia Review.

SOUTH KOREA

To “protect national interests,” South Korea announced plans to expand its own ADIZ to cover Socotra Rock – a disputed reef called Ieodo by Korea and claimed by both South Korea and China – several days after Beijing put the region in its own ADIZ. South Korea also sent planes through the ADIZ in protest.

Commentators discussed the fine line South Korean officials are walking with China, as Seoul has sought to improve relations with Beijing in recent years:

  • The Korea Herald noted South Korea had refrained from military cooperation accords with Japan and joining U.S.-led missile defense programs to “avoid provoking China.” The paper felt Seoul should have “made a more prompt and resolute response” immediately after China’s ADIZ.
  • The Chosun Ilbo criticized what it saw as a “feeble response to China’s airspace grab” when the government took “two full days to respond, and then it only summoned the Chinese military attaché in Seoul to lodge a protest,” a “the low-key diplomatic approach” which will be “read as weakness and an excuse to disregard Korea’s opinions and positions.”

INDIA

According to the Hindustan Times,the Indian government has thus far refrained from publicly commenting on China’s ADIZ, though it has recently engaged with “regional countries that don’t see Beijing’s rise as benign.” As former foreign secretary Lalit Mansingh said, “India has its own set of problem with China. It’s better not to take positions on other countries’ problems with China.”

Nevertheless, several commentators decried the ADIZ as a dangerous move that could start a conflict on India’s periphery:

  • In an op-ed for The Japan Times,Brahma Chellaney, professor of Strategic Studies at the Center for Policy Research in New Delhi, remarked “China’s growing geopolitical heft is emboldening its territorial creep in Asia,” raising the “odds of armed conflict” with Japan and India and “contributing to Asian insecurity.”
  • C. Raja Mohan predicted that “non-aligned India will be drawn, whether it likes it or not, into the multiple realignments as Asia copes with the rise of China.”
  • Pramit Pal Chaudhuri from the Hindustan Times noted China’s attempt to assuage India that “an ADIZ could not be established on the Indian border.” However, Arvind Gupta, Director General of the government funded Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses (IDSA),wondered how New Delhi would respond “if tomorrow the Chinese declare an ADIZ over Arunachal Pradesh” along the India-China border.

Some analysts blamed the United States for failing to resolve the crisis and back up its so-called pivot to Asia:

  • The Business Standardsensed Washington showed “weakness” in advising commercial airlines to report flight plans to China, concluding the “much-publicized ‘pivot’ to Asia” was “little more than words.”
  • Mohan recognized “frequent divergence” in how the United States and its allies in Asia respond to Chinese power, such as how “Washington has asked its airlines to submit flight plans to authorities in Beijing, while Tokyo told the Japanese airlines to refuse.”

Some observers debated why China chose to establish the ADIZ now:

  • Rudroneel Ghosh, The Times of India, wrote the ADIZ came “at an important crossroads” for “new Chinese leadership” “seeking to assert itself and generate domestic support for its ambitious plans on the economic front.” To dodge criticism that these reforms betray China’s socialist roots, Ghosh expects “the current leadership under President Xi will increasingly play the nationalist card on territorial disputes.”
  • Chaudhuri saw Beijing attaching tremendous symbolic importance to the ADIZ since planes notifying China of their flight plans would “be a symbolic acceptance of some sovereign control over that airspace.”

Others provided their ideas on how to resolve the conflict or how India can take advantage of the crisis:

  • Instead of confrontation, Ghosh hoped China follows Taiwan’s approach toward joint-economic development of the disputed region.

Rising Powers Mourn the Death of Nelson Mandela

Policy Alert #65 | December 28, 2013

On December 5, former South African President Nelson Mandela, died at age 95. Mandela served 27 years in prison for anti-apartheid activities and led his country into a new era of freedom and democracy. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from China, Russia, India, South Korea, Japan, and Brazil on the legacy of one of the greatest political leaders in history.

CHINA

The media and government officials praised Mandela for his contributions to South Africa’s development. Mandela’s death dominated major Chinese TV channels, while Baidu, the largest Chinese search engine, turned its search page background all-gray in mourning for Mandela.

  • Chinese president Xi Jinping lauded Mandela as a “world-renowned statesman” and an active champion of Sino-South African friendship and cooperation.
  • “Mandela was not perfect, and the country he leaves behind still faces many problems. But despite his shortcomings, he leaves the world an inheritance to treasure,” wrote China Daily.
  • The government-run Global Times said, “One of Mandela’s points of significance is that both the West and the East identify with him. This consensus is very precious for this conflict-ridden world.”
  • “Mandela’s extraordinary global appeal has been attributed to [his] unaffected forgiveness, along with charisma and self-deprecating humor. It is hard to imagine that anyone less exceptional could orchestrate the painful national reconciliation that enabled peaceful transition to majority rule, under which he became the country’s first black president,” lamented the South China Morning Post.

RUSSIA

Russian dignitaries expressed an outpouring of sympathy and regret at the loss of Nelson Mandela.

  • Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed condolences and admiration at Mandela’s strength of character. “A brave man and a wise leader, Nelson Mandela rightfully earned great respect at home and high prestige abroad,” Putin wrote. “The memory of Nelson Mandela will forever remain in the hearts of millions of Russians.”
  • Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov wrote in the South African Embassy’s Condolence Book, “Mandela devoted his life to the struggle for the freedom of the country and every South African citizen. The strength of mind, moral and the power of conviction were his main instruments.”
  • “His memory, memory of his life, his choice, his courage, his manliness in the most difficult situations, of his true love for his country, should remain forever in our hearts,” remarked Mikhail Margelov, head of the international affairs committee of the Federation Council’s upper house.

INDIA

Indian leaders and media outlets paid tributes to Nelson Mandela, who was remembered as “South Africa’s Gandhi” for his embodiment of Mahatma Gandhi’s values and ideals.

  • Prime Minister Manmohan Singh hailed Mandela as “a true Gandhian.” “He represented the conscience of the world. He was a beacon of hope for those struggling against oppression. A giant among men has passed away. This is as much India’s loss as South Africa’s.”
  • Bharatiya Janata Party’s prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi said the world has lost an “apostle of peace” in Mandela’s demise. “Many of us are not fortunate to see Gandhi alive. We are blessed to see the life of Nelson Mandela, who embodied his values and ideals.”
  • The Economic Times lauded Mandela as “a message of peace and hope, a moral authority and guide whose presence and life seemed to reassure us that a better world is yet possible.”
  • The Indian Express joined the praise, saying that “He taught us how to be human and humane and how to use political power to this end.”
  • The Business Journal took a critical view on Mandela’s often overlooked economic legacy, which it characterized as “too timid Keynesianism.” His “center-left economic policies that displayed an uncharacteristic lack of vision have yet to produce the prosperity and decline in inequality the great man must have hoped for.”

JAPAN

Japanese leaders and newspapers mourned the death of Nelson Mandela, as Crown Prince Naruhito left for South Africa to attend the funeral service.

  • Prime Minister Shinzo Abe hailed Mandela as a “great leader…who fought a strong will to eliminate apartheid and achieved a great deal by putting national reconciliation at the center of his nation-building.”
  • Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida offered his condolences: “I express from my heart respect for the achievements of the former South African president and hope that the government and people of South Africa will get over their grief and proceed to develop their country.”
  • The Asahi Shimbun praised Mandela as “a truly great leader who preached forgiveness to the people, as would an affectionate father to his children,” emphasizing the importance of hisphilosophy of peaceful coexistence to today’s world, which still continues to be plagued by various kinds of conflict driven by hatred and distrust.
  • The Sankei Shimbun also drew a lesson from Mandela’s vision of forgiveness, reconciliation, and optimism for bringing about peaceful political transition in many parts of the world that are facing internal conflict and difficult political transformation.

SOUTH KOREA 

South Korean leaders joined the rest of the world in mourning the demise of Nelson Mandela.

  • President Park Geun-hye offered her condolences, calling him “a great statesman who peacefully ended the apartheid that divided South Africa for a long time.” “His profound contributions will be the cornerstones of world peace and forever cherished in our hearts.”
  • Rep. Choi Kyoung-hwan, the floor leader of the ruling Saenuri Party, expressed his respect for the African leader. “A great star of mankind who symbolized democracy and a peaceful campaign for human rights has fallen.”
  • Kim Han-gil, the chief of the main opposition Democratic Party, also extended his condolences. “Mandela’s ideal of a democratic and free society where people live harmoniously with equal opportunities will remain in our hearts for a long time.”

BRAZIL

Mandela was remembered in Brazil as the “greatest person of the 20th century.”

  • Folha reported the government’s official statement: “The Brazilian government and people are saddened to receive the news of Nelson Mandela’s death. The greatest person of the 20th century, Mandela led with passion and intelligence one of the most important human being emancipation efforts in modern history.”
  • President Rousseff is one of six heads of state who spoke at the former South African leaders funeral. Former presidents Lula Inacio da Silva, Fernando Cardoso, Fernando Collor and Jose Sarney also attended.

NSA Spying Provokes Reactions from Rising Powers

Policy Alert #64 | November 28, 2013

Recent revelations of the U.S. National Security Agency’s (NSA) wiretapping of world leaders have generated enormous skepticism and criticism of the United States across the globe. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from India, China, Brazil, Russia, Japan, and South Korea.

INDIA

The Indian government chose not to join the chorus of international criticism against the United States. It stated that there is “no cause for concern” that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has been a target of NSA monitoring because he “doesn’t use a mobile phone and he doesn’t have an email account.”

  • This contrasted sharply from the government’s later announcement that it will unveil a new email policy devised for all government officials to avoid major service providers-such as Gmail, Yahoo! or Outlook.com – that have their servers in the United States.
  • In fact, according to the Hindu, of the five BRICS nations, the NSA spied on India the most. Overall, India ranked as the fifth most targeted country by U.S. wiretapping.

Indian media uniformly criticized the U.S. for its intelligence gathering, calling for the Indian government to take a firmer stance on the issue.

  • The Hindu critiqued that U.S. soft power “has lost moral credibility” in the light of NSA wiretapping, adding, “just as Brazil has made it clear to the U.S. that its government must be treated with respect…India should send a strong signal to the U.S. of its disapproval of these reprehensible tactics that in effect violate the country’s sovereignty.”
  • Arun Mohan Sukumar, assistant editor of the Hindu, argued that India must capitalize on the “rare consensus” that has emerged among the BRICS countries regarding concerns on NSA surveillance. He urged these nations to devise multilateral diplomatic measures to curb “excessive” U.S. spying.
  • The Times of India criticized the U.S. for “reckless and excessive” spying in the name of a global war against terrorism, calling for legislation in the U.S. that would regulate government intelligence gathering activities.

CHINA

Chinese commentary lambasted the United States for its “unchecked spying,” attributing the wiretapping to an act of American arrogance and predicting the United States’ eventual demise.

  • Shi Yinhong, a senior expert on U.S. studies at Renmin University wrote, “Perceiving itself as a superpower, the U.S. holds the arrogant attitude that it is not a big deal to steal other countries’ information.”
  • Li Haidong, an American studies researcher at China Foreign Affairs University agreed, adding that the “NSA’s extensive surveillance activities regardless of friends or foes reflect its desperation to secure its global supremacy. The damage caused has prompted the world to question the legitimacy of U.S. leadership.”

BRAZIL

The Brazilian government has announced an official decree establishing a new government email system to safeguard the privacy of government communications. This follows the September cancellation of Dilma’s Rousseff’s planned state visit to the White House. Most recently, government officials are responding to allegations of its own espionage program against foreigners residing in Brazil.

  • The Government’s Diario Official (Official Diary)  decreed that all official Government communications will be required to use a new government email service which will be created by government entities without bidding for national security interests.
  • Folha de São Paulo reported that Brazil’s Minister of Justice José Eduardo Cardozo defended the actions of its Government, stating  that the actions were undertaken as “counterespionage” and is a “completely different situation” from the U.S. wiretapping of foreign leaders.

RUSSIA

The Russian media focused on the role of former NSA contractor Edward Snowden in the wiretap revelations. Snowden was granted asylum by the Russian government in August.

  • The Moscow Times wrote, “Russia’s enthusiastic support for NSA leaker Edward Snowden… seems to be paying generous dividends for the Kremlin.” Noting that Russia’s intelligence gathering abilities lags severely behind the United States, the editorial opined that the Kremlin views Snowden’s cyber-vigilantism as a ‘payoff’ because Russia still adheres to a Cold War-era, zero-sum game: what is bad for the United States is good for Russia.”
  • “Wiretapping of EU officials by U.S. intelligence services is a manifestation of double standards,” stated Konstantin Dolgov, Attorney of the Russian Foreign Ministry.

JAPAN

The Japanese government remained silent in the midst of the NSA scandal, only stating that “Japan has continuously been conducting various communications with the U.S.” Japan’s newspapers expressed somewhat sympathetic views on the U.S. wiretapping.

  • The Yomiuri Shimbun argued, “the United States should review the methods of its intelligence gathering activities both at home and abroad,” but maintained that “Intelligence gathering is vital to ensuring national security…it is essential that diplomacy be conducted based on this premise.”
  • The Sankei Shimbun agreed. “While the reinforcement of anti-terrorism measures is necessary, the United States should revise them if there are excesses such as wiretapping on its allies’ leaders.”

SOUTH KOREA

The South Korean government requested the U.S. to confirm whether NSA wiretapped the Korean Embassy in Washington or eavesdropped on Korean presidents. Washington only replied so far that it will “review” its intelligence-gathering activities.

  • The Joongang Daily bashed Washington’s response as “a de facto admission of the suspicion,” urging the South Korean government to “sternly raise a complaint and demand an apology” through presidential level concerns.
  • Acknowledging that “spying is a fact of life between friends and foes,” the Chosun Ilbointerpreted NSA wiretapping as a wake-up call for the Koreans. “South Korea is a hotspot for North Korean agents, and there can be no doubt that China, Japan and other countries are snooping on Seoul. It is the government’s job to guard against electronic eavesdropping, which can target anyone at any time.”

India’s Mars Mission Sparks Reactions from BRIC Countries

Policy Alert #63 | November 28, 2013

On November 5, 2013, Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) successfully launched its first unmanned Mars-bound spacecraft Mangalyaan. If the mission succeeds, India will become the first Asian nation to follow the United States, Russia, and Europe in conducting a successful Mars expedition. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentaries from India, China, Russia, and Brazil on the implications of this new development.

INDIA

Soon after the successful launch of Mangalyaan, congratulatory notes started pouring in from political leaders, praising the ISRO and its scientists.

  • Prime Minister Manmohan Singh hailed the launch as a “historic achievement,” congratulating ISRO scientists for the significant milestone.
  • Congress President Sonia Gandhi expressed a sense of exhilaration, remarking, “Every Indian is proud of this outstanding scientific feat by our great scientists.”
  • Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office V. Narayanasamy praised the successful launch calling it a historic moment for the country. “India is the fourth country in the world to take up the Mars expedition and our scientists deserve congratulation for it.”

Amidst such excitement, however, there were questions about the mission’s $72 million price tag for a country still dealing with widespread hunger and poverty.

  • Jean Drèze, an influential development economist, bluntly critiqued the mission. “I don’t understand the importance of India sending a space mission to Mars when half of its children are undernourished and half of all Indian families have no access to sanitation.”
  • K. Radhakrishnan, Chairman of the ISRO, forcefully defended the space program, insisting that “the Mars mission is a historical necessity, since after having helped find water on the moon, looking for signatures of life on Mars is a natural progression.”
  • U. R. Rao, former ISRO head, joined the defense. “India spends around $800 million on Diwali purchases (fireworks for Hindu New Year festival) and $72 million to reach Mars is affordable.”
  • Former ISRO chief G Madhavan Nair disagreed from a more practical perspective, claiming that the Mars mission “is not a big priority” at this stage for India, which, instead, should have devoted time and energy on its human space flight program as “the immediate priority.”

Meanwhile, India’s Mars mission has sparked a debate on a potential “space race” between India and China, but Indians were quick to dismiss such concerns.

  • ISRO chairman Radhakrishnan assured that India is “not engaged in a space race with China.” “There is no race with anybody. Everybody has their own direction. So, I find no need to race with them.”
  • Former ISRO head G. Madhavan Nair admitted that India lags behind China in space. “India and China were almost equal five years ago…In the last five years, while India was sleeping, the Chinese steadily surged forward…[T]hey are going to have an upper hand in space not only in the Asia Pacific region but globally as well.”
  • The Hindu shared a similar view. “If India does triumph with its Mars mission, it will havestolen a march on its Asian rivals. But it will not mean that this country has pulled ahead of Japan or China, which have far more advanced capabilities in many areas of space technology.”

CHINA

Chinese editorials downplayed the Mangalyaan achievement while touting China’s own space capabilities.

RUSSIA

Commentary in Russia focused on the Soviet legacy and its influence on the development of India’s space program.

  • Journalist Vladimir Gubarev traced India’s space story back to its earliest stages in Pravda, concluding, “Frankly, I am glad that India is striding to space by leaps and bounds and becoming one of the leading space powers…this is a great thing- the Indian industry built with the help of the Soviet Union that greatly helped India.”
  • A Russia Times editorial contrasted the perceived “space race” between China and India with that of the Soviet Union and the United States. “Unlike in the Cold War era, when the USSR and the US engaged in a spectacular tit-for-tat space race while remaining economically and politically estranged from each other, China and India today have a booming trade relationship and are not engaged in any outright ideological confrontation.”

BRAZIL

The launch in India caused some evaluation of Brazil’s existing space program which was stunted by a 2003 explosion.

U.S. Government Shutdown Provokes Reactions in Asia

Policy Alert #62 | October 28, 2013

On October 1, the U.S. government shutdown for the first time in seventeen years, generating enormous anxieties over a potential default on U.S. debts and its consequences for the world economy and U.S. foreign policy. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from China, Russia, India, Japan, and South Korea on the U.S. government shutdown.

CHINA

Chinese newspapers focused on the October 17 debt ceiling deadline, calling on the United States to resolve the government gridlock and ensure the safety of China’s investments in the U.S.

  • Vice-Minister of Finance Zhu Guangyao called on the United States to “solve the political impasse and stay solvent to ensure the safety of massive Chinese assets.” Zhu added that it is “the U.S.’s responsibility” to protect the interest of its creditors, namely, China.
  • Noting President Obama’s cancellation of a planned trip to Asia for the APEC summit this week, the South China Morning Post contrasted Obama’s no-show with Chinese President Xi Jinping’s ongoing first trip to Southeast Asia. Whereas Xi is receiving “serious face time” across Asia, Obama’s absence “does not bode well for the so-called pivot, or rebalance in U.S. policy, towards Asia.”

RUSSIA

In Russia, observers noted America’s increasingly isolationist behavior as its preoccupation with domestic issues continue, while looking ahead to the October 17 deadline on raising the debt ceiling and assessing the potential impact on Russia’s economy.

  • Fyodor Lukyanov, editor-in-chief of the Russia in Global Affairs journal, predicted a return to a more isolationist U.S. foreign policy as Washington increasingly focuses on domestic issues. He wrote, “The fact that many countries are striving to achieve a multipolar world is not an indication of anti-Americanism, but a desire to reduce dependence on the U.S. as the world’s sole power.”
  • The Moscow Times predicted that if both houses of Congress fail to strike an agreement to increase the debt ceiling later this month, “Such a default could send shockwaves through global markets, including Russia.”

INDIA

Indian newspapers were at odds with the effects of the U.S. government shutdown on India’s economy, while expressing concerns on America’s new isolationist orientation.

  • Anupam Shah, chairman of India’s largest engineering exporters’ body Engineering Export Promotion Council, expressed alarm that “Indian exports to America face the demurrage threat due to U.S. shutdown in the world’s largest economy.”
  • The Economic Times disagreed, predicting that the U.S. shutdown does not mean much for India’s economy unless it is prolonged, and adding that “analysts do not believe this will draw out into the long term.”
  • The Hindustan Times analyzed the government shutdown as a sign of new U.S. isolationism: “The world should live with the fact that the sole superpower will remain inwardly focused for a few more years…Washington will need a few more years to work out the populist poison that has infected its body politic since the subprime crisis. Until then, expect the U.S. to seemingly act like an emerging economy or an isolationist nation: shutting down at home and shutting out the world.”

JAPAN

Japanese newspapers remained critical of the budgetary upheaval in the United States, voicing anxieties on its implications for the global economy and the U.S. “pivot” to Asia.

  • The Japan Times warned that “This game of legislative chicken [over Obamacare] could ruin the global economy as U.S. debts become suspect,” criticizing Republicans’ “anti-democratic” strategy to undo the already adapted healthcare law at the cost of U.S. creditworthiness.
  • The Sankei Shimbun shared a similar concern, calling on the United States “not to threaten the world economy with its political wrangling,” but to “recognize its responsibility as a superpower.” Sankei added that this political wrangling will jeopardize U.S. global leadership and its “pivot” to Asia, as President Obama had to cancel a trip to the APEC and ASEAN summits.
  • The Yomiuri Shimbun predicted that the canceling of President Obama’s trip to Asia “will certainly cast a shadow” over the APEC summit meeting, questioning the prospect of concluding the free trade negotiations by the end of this year.

SOUTH KOREA

Korean media expressed fears that the country’s economy could be hit by a potential U.S. default, but remained optimistic that the budgetary battle in the United States will not affect its military presence in South Korea.

  • The Korean JoongAng Daily, quoting the U.S. Treasury that the U.S. economy “could plunge into a downturn worse than the Great Recession if the U.S. Congress drags its feet on raising the debt ceiling,” cautioned that the export-oriented Korean economy will significantly suffer from such consequences.
  • The Chosun Ilbo reassured Koreans that the U.S. will maintain its military presence in South Korea despite budgetary upheaval at home, quoting Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, who was on a four day trip to South Korea. He promised that the Pentagon would maintain the 28,500 troops in South Korea regardless of budgetary constraints.

Asian Powers Re-Assess Roles in the Face of Declining U.S. Leadership

Policy Alert #61 | October 28. 2013

The United States’ prolonged budget upheaval has cast doubts on America’s role as a leader in Asia. Would a decline in U.S. power create new opportunities for Chinese leadership in Asia? In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from China, Russia, India, Japan, and South Korea on the prospects of a potential leadership reconfiguration in Asia in light of ongoing U.S. domestic struggles.

CHINA

In China, newspapers uniformly criticized the United States for failing to quickly resolve the government shutdown and called on China to reduce its dependence on the U.S. economy.

  • “U.S. fiscal failure warrants a de-Americanized world,” ran the headline of a scathing commentary published in government-run Xinhua. “Instead of honoring its duties as a responsible leading power, a self-serving Washington has abused its superpower status and introduced even more chaos into the world by shifting financial risks overseas.”
  • Shen Dingli, Associate Dean of the Institute of International Studies at Fudan University, noted President Obama’s absence at the APEC forum last week, writing, “No one wants the U.S. to stay away from East Asia- but if it cannot manage the task, perhaps it should stay focused on the problems within its own borders.” Predicting “an imminent downgrade for the U.S. debt,” Li Daokui, former advisor to China’s central bank noted that “the fundamental issue remains unsolved; a crisis like this could happen again.” A number of commentaries agreed, calling on China to diversify its foreign exchange portfolio:
  • Liu Chang, a writer for Xinhua, characterized recent events as “an opportunity to move faster and more resolutely on the track of internationalizing China’s RMB currency, so that it can move gradually away from the dangers posed by a troubling U.S. fiscal mechanism.”

RUSSIA

While Russia seemed unconcerned about what a U.S. debt default might mean for its own economy, it questioned what recent events might mean for the United States’ leadership role.

  • “Will China ‘de-Americanize’ the world?” asked the Russia Times. Highlighting Xi Jinping’s successful tour of Asia last week, RT outlined Beijing’s ‘de-Americanization’ strategy: “Beijing’s game, in a nutshell, is to bypass the US dollar by all means available. That’s the idea behind setting up currency swaps with over 20 of its top trading partners – from BRICS countries to African commodity producers and strategic energy partner Iran. China is slowly but surely driving the progressive global flight from the US dollar.”

INDIA

Indian commentators discussed the implications of the U.S. budget upheaval on the “great game” between the United States and China over global hegemony.

  • Manoj Joshi, a distinguished fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi, observed that China is now wining the “Great Game” with the United States. “In contrast to a flagging American foreign policy, China is hitting all the right notes in forging relationships and configuring partnerships [in Asia]…that will help China assume its rightful place as a world power of consequence.”
  • Rajesh Rajagopalan, RPI author and professor of international politics at Jawaharlal Nehru University took a different view. Because China needs the United States in the region as a security provider for smaller countries, he argued, “much of the fevered commentary about America’s decline in the region and China’s concurrent rise is misplaced.” Rajagopalan added that Washington “needs to relearn” a simple truth: that great powers do not have the luxury of opting out of the “great game.”

JAPAN

Japanese newspapers expressed pessimism about the relative decline of U.S. presence in Asia, noting China’s increasing influence and the need for Japan to expand its leadership in the region.

  • The Yomiuri Shimbun voiced “serious doubt” concerning the effectiveness of U.S. diplomacy towards Asia. The Yomiuri also observed that China is expanding its influence in the region via a new conciliatory “smiling diplomacy” based on increased economic cooperation with Southeast Asian countries.
  • The Sankei Shimbun argued that given a declining U.S. presence, Japan must expand its security role in the region. In contrast to China’s rapid military expansion and growing maritime assertiveness, Japan must assume such a role by championing “rule of law” and “common values” such as freedom and democracy.

SOUTH KOREA

Korean media were at odds with the ramifications of a perceived U.S. decline and China’s subsequent leadership role in Asia.

  • The Chosun Ilbo expressed worries that despite its declaration of “pivot” to Asia, the Obama administration’s attention has “pivoted away” from the region, adding that in the absence of the United States, China has gained influence.
  • The Dong A Ilbo remained more optimistic, arguing that anxieties over the further intensification of strategic competition between China and the U.S. are overemphasized. “Chinese leaders are only focusing on economic reform, while keeping an indifferent eye on the U.S. offensives of rebalancing in the Asia-Pacific region. In order to achieve its rise, the world’s most populous country is taking a strategic tactic to only focus on its own agenda.”

 

Asian Powers Respond to Potential Military Action in Syria

Policy Alert #60 | September 28, 2013

Following alleged chemical attacks on Syrians last month, U.S. President Barack Obama has called for punitive military strikes against Syria, generating enormous debate in both the United States and the international community on how to respond. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from Russia, China, India, Japan, and South Korea on the implications of possible U.S. military action against Syria.

RUSSIA

Opposing U.S. military strikes against Syria without UN approval, the Russian government urged Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control, stressing the need for a diplomatic, political solution. Commentators generally supported the government’s decision to seek a diplomatic solution, but were at odds over whether negotiations will succeed.

  • President Vladimir Putin argued that American policy makers “are basically trying to legitimize aggression,” adding that “only the UN Security Council can authorize the use of force against a sovereign state” and all other reasons that “would justify the use of force against an independent and sovereign state” would be unacceptable.
  •  President Putin remained optimistic about his proposal to Syria, stating that he hopes the Syrians “will agree to have their chemical weapons placed under international control, moreover, that they will agree to have it disposed of and will join the international chemical weapons convention.”
  • Sergei Rogov, director of the Institute of U.S. and Canada Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences, said U.S.-Russia cooperation “may bring about a breakthrough in settling the Syrian crisis,” as “it is up to Russian and U.S. specialists to put Syrian chemical warfare agents under control, because the United Nations’ ‘blue helmets’ do not have such experience.”
  • General Viktor Yesin, former head of Russia’s strategic missile force staff, expressed reservations about Russia’s proposal, predicting “the chance of putting Syrian chemical weapons under international control is fifty-fifty.” President Assad “cannot ignore this proposal from Russia—its sole influential ally,” but “he is afraid of losing his sole potential weapon against the potential aggressors—the United States and Turkey.”
  • A Moscow Times op-ed by Andrei Tsygankov, professor of international relations and political science, noted that disagreements between the United States and Russia stem from “a disagreement between national elites over the emerging world order.” Whereas the Kremlin focuses “on the West’s limited ability to project global power,” Washington still believes that it is “institutionally superior to Russia and rising powers.” Tsygankov predicted that the gap in perceptions “will shape disagreements for years to come.”
  • In light of this divide between Russia and the West, Alexander Shumilin, director of the Center for the Analysis of Middle East Conflicts at the Russian Academy of Sciences, declared farewell to the “irrelevant” UN Security Council. He wrote, “The UN Charter requires concrete action [in Syria], but, as happened in 2003, the Security Council is paralyzed and doomed to inaction.” Therefore, “it is once again necessary to bypass the increasingly irrelevant Security Council and form a ‘coalition of the willing.’”

CHINA

Voicing concerns that the Syrian crisis can only be resolved through a political solution, China backed Russia’s plan to avoid punitive U.S. air strikes by placing Syria’s chemical weapons under international control.

  • The state-run Xinhua criticized President Obama’s push for military action against Syria, arguing that Obama administration “ought to realize that it was not his military threat” but rather “the diplomatic efforts by countries like Russia and China that made the Syrian government willing to turn over its chemical weapons to international control.”
  •  The China Daily concluded that U.S. military action “lacks a legal basis” without UN authorization, adding, “The United States’ unilateralism and defiance of international law are really weakening its claims to global leadership.”
  •  The Global Times likened the U.S. response to Syria as a replay of the Libyan case—“aiding the opposition in the name of democracy, and using air strikes to help them wrest away political power.” Critiquing this strategy as a means to “get rid of Washington’s geopolitical enemies,” the Global Times urged China to condemn Washington’s “misdeeds.”

INDIA

On August 31st, Indian Foreign Minister Salman Khurshid stated that India will not support military action against Syria without UN approval. Indian media remained silent on India’s potential role in the crisis, but a wide spectrum of opinion supported the government’s calls for a political and diplomatic solution.

  • In an editorial titled “Delay is good,” The Indian Express wrote, “Obama gains some time before embarking on a no-win military venture in Syria…He must use it to explore diplomatic options.”

JAPAN

At the G-20 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia last week, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe agreed to cooperate with President Barack Obama over Syria. Despite this development, many Japanese newspapers questioned Washington’s justification for military action, while taking different views on the chemical attack itself.

  • The liberal-leaning Mainichi Shimbun noted that it “remains to be seen” whether the UN will obtain conclusive evidence of the use of chemical weapons by government forces, adding that “it is desirable to settle the conflict through diplomacy.”

SOUTH KOREA

Worried that impunity for Assad might embolden North Korea, Korean Defense Minister Kim Kwan-jin pushed U.S. counterpart Chuck Hagel to take sanctions against Syria over the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime.

  • Korean newspapers shared Defense Minister Kim’s concerns. The Joongang Daily opined that Obama’s “too-discreet attitude” over Syria has put “U.S. credibility on the line,” and has “serious implications for South Korea, which relies heavily on the U.S. security commitment.”

U.S.-Russia Agreement on Syria’s Chemical Weapons Spark Reaction in Asia

Policy Alert #59 | September 28, 2013

On September 14, the United States and Russia reached a sweeping deal that called for Syria’s chemical weapons to be removed or destroyed by the middle of 2014, ending a political gridlock over American airstrikes that severely divided Washington and the international community. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from Russia, China, India, Japan, and South Korea on the U.S.-Russia agreement and Russia’s role in the negotiation process.

RUSSIA

Earlier in the month, President Putin’s New York Times op-ed to Americans on the Syrian crisis and U.S. Senator John McCain’s response to Putin in Russian newspaper Pravda evoked a flurry of analysis and opinion.

  • The Moscow Times reported that at the Valdai Discussion Club held last Thursday, Putin’s article was “almost universally seen as a major image boost for Putin.” At the same time, an audience member noted that the article has made him “hostage to the arrangement,” because if the Syria deal fails, Russia may have to answer for it.
  • Responding to Senator McCain’s statement that Russia deserves a better leader than Putin, the Russian president acknowledged that while McCain is entitled to his own views, “the fact that he chose to publish his article in Pravda” attested that “he is not well-informed about our country,” since the prestige of Communist newspaper Pravda was mostly lost with the Soviet Union.
  • Alexei Pushkov, head of the State Duma’s committee for international affairs also dismissed Senator McCain’s article. “Senator McCain was unwilling to give answers to all these important questions set forth in Putin’s article – quite possibly, he has nothing to say in response,” Pushkov concluded.

A majority of Russian commentators lauded Russian President Vladimir Putin’s role in developing a solution to the Syrian chemical weapons crisis.

  • Russian political analyst Andrey Sushentsov characterized Russia’s treatment of the Syria crisis as a “cautious and sensible approach” and noted that “The West interprets the Russian initiative proposing a path to end the Syrian crisis as Moscow’s diplomatic victory, while Russia perceives it as the United States getting back to common sense in international relations.”
  • “The local success of Moscow’s Syrian initiative does not negate the systemic problems of Russia’s foreign and domestic policy, warned online politics and business newspaper Gazeta.ru. Despite Russia’s participation in solving the Syrian question, the editorial opined that “Russia still does not know what kind of country it wants to be or what place to take in the modern world.”
  • “Western countries are more focused on exercising their political dominance than finding a solution to Syria’s chemical weapons crisis,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in an interview with Russia’s Channel One TV.

CHINA

The Chinese government and commentators supported the framework agreement reached by the United States and Russia, pledging to play a “positive and constructive role” at the United Nations in helping resolve the crisis over Syria’s chemical weapons.

  • Chen Weihua, deputy editor of China Daily, commented that while most consider the deal on Syria a win for President Putin, the deal is also a win for Obama. “The timely deal has given him a face-saving way out of his pursuit of domestically unpopular military action, a path he was forced to take in order to defend his statement that the use of chemical weapons would cross a red line.”
  • The Global Times was cautiously optimistic about prospects for Syria: “Getting rid of chemical weapons in conflict ridden Syria will be a complex undertaking, with the devil in the details. The upside is that hopefully a deterrent is put in place to spare the Syrian people of further such atrocities.”

INDIA

India welcomed the U.S.-Russia agreement on Syria. Foreign Ministry spokesman Said Akbaruddin called it a “step towards the reinvigoration of peace efforts towards a political solution to the Syrian conflict.” Indian newspapers expressed favorable opinions on the agreement and Russia’s role in the negotiation.

  • Calling the U.S.-Russia deal “a game-changer” that proves the power of diplomacy, The Hindu declared “a stunning victory” for Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has been calling for a diplomatic settlement. “His attempt marks one of the most politically savvy gestures by a head of state to reach across the aisle to a foreign audience in recent years.”
  • Comparing Russia with China and India’s passive involvement in Syria, C. Raja Mohan commended President Putin’s active diplomatic initiatives that reclaimed Russia’s role as a global power. “If the rising powers of Asia showed that they are not ready to involve themselves in conflicts far from their borders, Russia, widely presumed to be a declining power, showed that, with Putin at the helm, Moscow cannot just be counted out of the Middle East.”

JAPAN

Following the U.S.-Russia agreement on September 14, Japanese Foreign Minister Humio Kishi swiftly showed support, stating that “Japan welcomes this agreement.” While viewing the agreement as a positive development, Japanese newspapers called for increasing international pressure against the Syrian regime to fulfill its promise.

  • The Yomiuri Shimbun emphasized that the agreement “should not permit [the] Syrian regime to buy time,” claiming that “strong pressure, including the threat of military strikes, is essential to ensure the Assad regime abides by the agreement to eliminate chemical weapons.”
  • The Sankei Shimbun agreed, demanding Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “responsible action” as the proposer of the agreement, including passing UN Security Council resolution that includes the potential use of force based on Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

SOUTH KOREA

Korean newspapers disagreed whether the U.S.-Russia agreement would succeed, while discussing its implications for the issue of North Korea’s nuclear program.

  • The Hankyoreh remained optimistic that “there is a fair chance that this agreement will actually be carried out,” adding that the successful fulfillment of the U.S.-Russia agreement will have a positive influence on efforts to resolve the issue of North Korea’s nuclear program. “It could serve as a helpful precedent in which countries affected by an issue get actively involved to seek a compromise, find a solution, and put it into practice.”
  • The Korea Joongang Daily disagreed. “The plan probably won’t work,” wrote the newspaper, calling it “an astonishing victory” for President Assad, who has secured his power by making himself indispensable in the disarmament process, and also for President Putin, who “made himself into the new power player of the Middle East” through his handling of the crisis.

Asian Powers Reflect on 60th Anniversary of Korean War Armistice

Policy Alert #58 | August 28, 2013

Last Sunday marked 60 years since the signing of the Korean War Armistice Agreement. The truce ended hostilities, but the underlining conflict along the 38th parallel remains unresolved today. As Pyongyang celebrated with a massive military parade, international observers reflected on the occasion. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from Korea, China, Japan, and India on the war and its meaning for the Korean Peninsula today.

SOUTH KOREA

Editorials in South Korea overwhelmingly noted that while the armistice should be celebrated, current relations with North Korea remain tenuous at best:

  • An editorial in the Joongang Daily remarked, “Commemorating the end of the war and pledging to not repeat such a tragedy is necessary and meaningful. At the same time, though, we should not forget the standoff still goes on…we haven’t finished the job yet.”
  • Ra Jong-yil, national security advisor to former South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun, wrote an op-ed for China Daily where he laments that no one has taken responsibility for the Korean War, which “is still going on behind the scene in clandestine operations and in exchange of words.”
  • Lee Chang-sup, executive managing director of The Korea Times, argued that the two Koreas are still “battling with the past. They have yet to agree on whether they are friends, foes, or strangers…Bringing up the past is justifiable when our intention is to learn from or discover previous wrongdoings. However, too much preoccupation with the past distracts us from realizing our future.”
  • Song Ho-keun, professor of sociology at Seoul National University, wrote in the Joongang Dailythat even 60 years after the Armistice, “Korea’s fate hasn’t changed a bit.” He pointed to Japan’s 3/11 disaster and the subsequent rise of earthquake and disaster prevention research institutes in response to calls for improvement and preparedness. Questioning whether South Korea might be prepared for war with the DPRK, Song contrasted the Japan example with Korea, noting that the ROK “doesn’t have renowned war or peace research institutes.”

CHINA

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un was joined at the parade by Chinese Vice-President Li Yuanchao, the only notable outside representative to participate. Kim paid tribute to Chinese soldiers that died in defense of the North and commentary in China noted Beijing’s role as an intermediary in peace and denuclearization talks:

  •  Deng Yushan wrote in Xinhua that the “presence of a 60-year-old truce makes painfully conspicuous the absence of real peace” where the “two Koreas” are still “haunted by the shadow of war” rather than “celebrating the birth of peace.” He counseled that China’s role as an “active mediator of dialogue” demonstrates Beijing is “committed to maintaining stability in and restoring peace to the region.
  •  The Global Times editorialized that it is not worth second-guessing China’s decision to defend its long-time ally. The outcome of the war, which shaped “the strategic power structure of East Asia” and influenced China’s development today, is too engrained to change and leaders should focus on improving conditions on the peninsula.

Another media outlet pondered the status of Chinese veterans of the Korean War:

JAPAN

Japanese editorials unanimously pointed out that “peace” has yet to be achieved on the Korean peninsula, and noted that impetus for change on the peninsula lies with Pyongyang:

  •  “The armistice is not a peace agreement; it is only a cessation of hostilities,” the Japan Timeswrote. “There is little Japan can do to influence the situation on the Korean Peninsula. But what it can do is refrain from acting in a manner that increases tensions and inflames sentiments…Japan should instead strive to oppose North Korea’s irresponsibility and demand that Pyongyang respect international rules and norms. Most importantly, Japan should stand with its partner South Korea…and back the Seoul government as it tries to forge a relationship with Pyongyang that will be the cornerstone of any enduring peace on the Korean Peninsula. Such a peace will be the best way to truly remember the Korean War.”
  •  An editorial in the Asahi Shimbun questioned the DPRK’s recent attempts to engage in dialogue, pointing to Pyongyang’s erratic behavior in the past. The editorial encouraged the opportunity for talks nonetheless, emphasizing “the two Koreas and all other countries concerned should not overlook the fact that an unstable situation of truce-not peace has continued for as long as 60 years.”

INDIA

A commentator in India provided observations on the Korean War where the Indian army provided medical assistance to the United Nations Command:

  • B. Muralidhar Reddy in The Hindu contrasted how parties were marking the anniversary: North Korea with a “celebration of ‘victory'” and South Korea with “a show of gratitude to the 16 countries [including India] which fought the war.”

 

Viewing Message: 1 of 1.
 Notice

This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. Visit GW’s Website Privacy Notice to learn more about how GW uses cookies.