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.

Launch of Indigenous Indian Aircraft Carrier Prompts Reactions from Asian Powers

Policy Alert #57 | August 28, 2013

On August 12, India launched its first indigenous aircraft carrier INS Vikrant, joining the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Russia in the elite club of nations capable of building similar ships. The INS Vikrant, along with progress on India’s indigenous nuclear submarine fleet, supports India’s broader naval strategy toward a blue-water navy. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from India, China, and Japan on the implications of these developments for international security across the seas in Asia.

INDIA

In his Independence Day address, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh applauded “the Navy on its successes.” While the Vikrant is not expected to be battle-ready before 2020, some commentators praised the launch as a major step forward for India’s naval strategy:

  • In a Business Standard column, Premvir Das, a former Commander-in-Chief of the Eastern Naval Command, wrote that these “watershed events in the life of a Navy” were a “matter of great pride for our countrymen” as these new “capabilities at sea” will be necessary in India’s future security.
  • Writing for the Nationalist leaning The Indian Express, Manu Pubby called Vikrant a “37,500-ton defense statement” that can carry 36 aircraft as India demonstrates its “self-reliance in this field.”

Others threw cold water on this optimism, citing gaps in India’s naval capabilities and the rising capabilities of its neighbors. Besides, India’s submarine fleet ended up experiencing both a success and a tragedy in August. On August 10, the INS Arihant’s nuclear reactor reached criticality – a significant step to becoming battle-ready – helping to replace India’s aging fleet of conventional diesel-electric submarines. But on August 14, kilo-class submarine INS Sindurakshak suffered a series of explosions that killed 18 sailors in India’s worst peacetime naval accident.

  • Business Standard editorialized that the “Navy’s plan to field three aircraft carriers remains a pipe dream.” The paper continued that “when INS Vikramaditya gets here from Russia, it will be more than five years late. The vintage INS Viraat is to be decommissioned by 2018-19” and the “Navy continues to dither over the specifications of the Vikrant’s successor.”
  • Great-Power Realist C. Raja Mohan in his Indian Express column looked beyond INS Vikrant and warned about the end of India’s monopoly over naval airpower in the region. As Australia, China, Japan, Russia, and South Korea expand their airpower capabilities, Raja Mohan expected “much jockeying for positions of advantage in the waters of Asia.”
  • T.S. Subramanian, Associate Editor for the left-leaning/Nationalist Frontline, opined that the INS Arihant means New Delhi “can assert that it has mastered the technology of developing and manufacturing nuclear propulsion for driving submarines” and will soon acquire “the status of a blue-water navy.”

Several outlets commented on how the Sindurakshak submarine tragedy could impact India’s naval ambitions:

  • Quoted in the Liberal-Globalist leaning The Times of India, India’s Defense Minister, A K Antony, pronounced the accident as the “greatest tragedy in recent times.” Chief of Naval Staff Admiral D.K. Joshi said “a dent” was left in “Indian Navy’s submarine capabilities for the time being.”
  • In the Liberal Globalist Economic Times, Akrun Prakash, former chief of the Indian Navy, argued that “chronic deficiencies in our defense planning and management” are responsible for the accident, including the Indian military’s dependence on imported weapons and lack of expertise on defense matters in government.
  • Sushil Kumar, another former Indian naval chief, wrote in The Times of India that the accident highlights the “unacceptable depletion of the navy’s force levels, particularly its submarine arm which is the most potent component of any blue-water navy globally.

CHINA

In China, views on the INS Vikrant were mixed, with some assuring that its launch would not incite a regional arms race and others questioning what the carrier means for the region’s balance of power. Commentary contrasted India’s INS Vikrant launch with that of Japan’s Izumo helicopter carrier, which was launched on August 6.

  • The Global Times contrasted India’s aircraft carrier launch with that of Japan’s helicopter carrier, praising India for adopting “a different attitude than Japan toward territorial disputes with China.” Noting that India’s overall national strength lags behind that of China, the editorial concluded that “China perceives Japan rather than India as its biggest neighboring threat.”

Several editorials were quick to dispel the notion that the INS Vikrant launch might spur an arms race between China and India:

  • “There is no arms race between China and India,” added the Global Times.

Others remained wary over how India’s newfound naval strength will affect the region’s balance-of-power:

  • Zhang Junshe, Vice-President of the People’s Liberation Army Military Studies Research Institute, said that “India’s first self-made carrier, along with reinforced naval strength, will further disrupt the military balance in South Asia,” adding that India is very likely to quicken its pace to steer eastward to the Pacific.
  • “By the end of this year, India will become the only country in Asia to have two aircraft carriers. This will enhance their overall capabilities, especially the power projection capabilities of the Indian Navy,” Zhang added.
  • Espousing a Realist view, Liu Zongyi, a research fellow at the Center for Asia-Pacific Studies, Shanghai Institutes for International Studies wrote, “Peace in the Asia-Pacific region must be guaranteed by military balance. The launches of the two carriers in Japan and India serve as a warning for China.” Liu added that while “China’s rise is mainly an economic one, India’s emergence is more prominent in the military sphere.”
  • Citing the Izumo and INS Vikrant, the China Daily urged the Chinese navy to develop itself to “a level that matches its rising status in the international community” and is “capable of safeguarding its national security and increasing development interests.” More importantly, the state-run paper warned that China should “not be distracted by the pace of other countries’ naval buildup and remember to timely publicize relevant information on its navy’s modernization plan to give lie to the ‘China threat’ theory.”

JAPAN

On August 6, Japan introduced a new 19,500-ton helicopter destroyer, Izumo, the largest Japanese military vessel ever built since the Pacific War. The flurry of ship-building activity in China, India, and Japan prompted veteran correspondent Donald Kirk to write in Forbes of an “Asian aircraft carrier race” in the region.

 

Asian Powers Comment on Turmoil in Egypt: 2011 Versus Now

Policy Alert #56 | July 28, 2013

The Egyptian military’s deposition of former President Mohamed Morsi has observers around the globe reflecting on how events have changed since the Arab Spring in 2011. This Post compares domestic viewpoints expressed then – from China, India, Russia, and Japan – to opinions in these countries now on the unfolding story in Egypt. 

Read our 2011 Policy Alert for additional comparative views. 

CHINA

While China’s Foreign Ministry said it would ultimately respect the decision of the Egyptian people, media commentary echoed doubts expressed in 2011 that these kinds of “revolutions” could ever lead to democratic change in Egypt:

Then:

  • “Color revolutions will not bring about real democracy,” ran the headline of an editorial in theGlobal Times. “Whether the [democratic] system is applicable in other countries is in question, as more and more unsuccessful examples arise,” said the Communist Party-sponsored English daily.

Now:

  • The Global Times remained cynical about the “prospects of revolutions” bringing about real democracy, especially when it leads to the copying of “a Western-style democratic system.”The editorial predicted the Egyptian people will “soon get sick of the army” and how events play out will be a test of “whether a country can escape from post-revolution chaos.”

Additional sources shared these pessimistic concerns:

  • A China Daily editorial felt the coup d’état “ignited deep worries that the most populous Arab country may plunge deeper into political crisis and social unrest.” The paper worried “divides and even hatred between different forces and factions will still exist after Morsi’s ousting” and will make reconciliation “difficult in the short term.”
  • The South China Morning Post wondered why the Egyptian public was so quick to praise the army for deposing Morsi after decrying the military as “thugs” when it aided the collapse of former President Mubarak’s regime. Unless “all sides keep their bargain and are tolerant and understanding,” the paper declared “Egypt’s future will be bleak.”

INDIA

Editorials in leading newspapers did not express the same optimistic outlook they espoused after the end of Mubarak 30-year rule:

Then:

  • The Hindu said “the Egyptian state has lost all legitimacy” and that “we are almost certainly witnessing a transformative moment in the modern history of West Asia.”

Now:

  • The Hindu called the recent coup an “ominous development” after the Arab Spring seemed to “herald a genuinely democratic future for Egypt.” The editorial hoped that the military – despite its “long record of corruption and other abuses of power” – will “quit politics” or “else gains of the Tahrir Square revolution will be tragically lost.” This concern was shared in a Business Standardop-ed by Una Galani.

Then:

  • The Indian Express characterized the Egyptian uprising as “a re-emergence of the Arab tradition of liberalism.”

Now:

Other media sources were more optimistic that the military coup was just a bump along Egypt’s path toward democracy:

 

Then:

  • The Economic Times wrote, “This could well be the moment when democracy gets its chance in the Arab nations, India, the US and all other democracies should embrace the change in Arabia.”

Now:

  • The Economic Times argued that Egypt is at another critical moment in its young democracy. If the military stays neutral and holds fresh elections, the paper thought that “democracy is poised to advance in Egypt.” The Hindustan Times also saw a “silver lining” in recent events, because “Islamicist politics has overplayed its hand across the Muslim world” and now sees “a zero-sum game between winning popular support and imposing the Sharia.”

Then:

  • One op-ed in The Times of India said “Western governments, as well as India, should commit themselves to the establishment of full democracy in Egypt.” Another commentator saw this as a reaffirmation of India’s democracy, which has been key to domestic stability because it “allows for oppositional voice.”

Now:

RUSSIA

In contrast to the low-key reactions of 2011, Russian editorials and official reactions responded smugly to Morsi’s ousting and blamed American involvement for the recent turn in events:

Then:

Now:

Russian authorities expressed worry that Morsi’s overthrow would spur instability in the Middle East:

  • “The main consequence for Russia here will be that violence in the Middle East will be prolonged, with a civil war in Egypt becoming a real possibility,” said Geidar Dzhemel, chairman of the Islamic Committee of Russia and a well-known Middle East analyst.
  • Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed, adding, “Syria is already engulfed in a civil war, and no matter how sad it may sound, Egypt is also moving in the same direction.”
  • “The Arab Spring has only led to chaos in Egypt and a bloody foreign-backed drama in Syria, war in Libya, a mess in Tunisia, and war in Mali,” tweeted Alexei Pushkov, the chairman of the State Duma’s International Affairs Committee.

JAPAN

Similar to 2011, the Japanese press appeared preoccupied with Japan’s domestic politics, paying little attention to the events in Egypt:

  • In 2011, the Asahi Shimbun called for President Hosni Mubarak to resign immediately. This time, its editors wrote, “The fundamental rules of democracy dictate that a popularly elected administration can only be replaced by popular vote. Whatever spin the military may put on what it has done, it is a coup d’état, plain and simple.”

Zimmerman Verdict Prompts Commentary in Asia on Race Relations in the U.S.

Policy Alert #55 | July 28, 2013

Earlier this month, a jury in Florida acquitted George Zimmerman in the 2012 shooting death of 17-year old African-American Trayvon Martin. The contentious trial and long-awaited verdict roused a range of opinions by the international press with much of the commentary focused on the role of race in the shooting and ensuing response. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from China, India, and Russia on race relations in the United States.

CHINA

The opinion pages on most Chinese media sources were quiet on the verdict, choosing instead to cover subsequent protests in the United States:

China’s own unique demographics – over 50 ethnic minority groups, though Han Chinese comprise around 91 percent of the population – provide an interesting perspective on race relations:

  • In an April 2012 Global Times op-ed, Rong Xiaoqing noted that racial tensions in the heterogeneous United States are often more complex than they appear at first glance. Unlike “Hollywood movies where good guys and bad guys are so clearly labeled,” he wrote that a multitude of factors mean the real world “isn’t a question of black and white, but of shades of grey.”
  • Covering racial tensions in Los Angeles today, Xinhua acknowledged progress in easing conflict but declared “there are still problems that need to be addressed at a communal level 20 years after the Los Angeles riots.”

INDIA

Media outlets in India commented on legal structures in the United States and the raw emotional impact of the verdict on African-American families:

  • In an op-ed for International Business Times, Palash Ghosh empathized with the sadness and deep emotions he saw at protests in the United States after the verdict. He wrote that for “black people, particularly for black parents with sons, the tragedy of Trayvon Martin strikes at the very heart of their worst insecurities, fear and anxieties.”

RUSSIA

Russian commentary on the Zimmerman verdict was largely silent due to preoccupation with U.S. fugitive Edward Snowden, but some outlets contrasted protests in the United States with recent demonstrations in Moscow:

  • Natalia Antonova, editor-in-chief of The Moscow News, remarked that protests in the United States following the verdict were “an amazing show of self-restraint – as opposed to the nationalism-fueled protest that took place on Manezhnaya Square in Moscow when football fan Yegor Sviridov was shot dead by a man from Russia’s North Caucasus region following an argument on the sidewalk.”
  • The death of Kimani Gray in March 2013 – an African-American teenager shot by two NYPD officers – elicited strong criticism in a Russia Times op-ed, pointing to Gray’s death as evidence of the imperfect model the United States sets as a global leader. “Kimani Gray’s murder has become a symbol of America in the ‘Age of Obama’ – a country that presents itself as the protector of justice and righteousness while perpetrating injustice and genocide at home and abroad. Whether killed by a New York cop or a Predator drone, a neighborhood watch coordinator or a U.S. Marine, countless innocents are being killed by the United States and its machinery of death and oppression.”

 

Asian Powers Comment on Shangri-La Dialogue

Policy Alert #54 | June 28, 2013

One year after the United States officially unveiled its strategic pivot to the Pacific, the 12th annual IISS Asia Security Summit, otherwise known as the Shangri-La Dialogue, convened defense leaders from nearly 30 Asia-Pacific states to exchange views on pressing national security challenges. Named after the Shangri-La Hotel in Singapore where the forum has been held since 2002, the May 31-June 2 gathering was attended by defense ministers, heads of ministries, and military chiefs. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from China, Japan, South Korea, and India on the Summit.

CHINA

At the forum, China’s delegation pursued a “charm offensive” aimed at expressing “a new sense of openness at a time when Beijing is making strident claims to territory across Asia’s seas.”

  • Lt. Gen. Qi Jianguo, deputy chief of general staff of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and head of the Chinese delegation, underscored China’s security concept in a China Daily editorial: China has “legitimate rights and interests in maritime territorial disputes in the South and East China seas,” but Beijing wants to seek a “win-win development and cooperation in the region and the world at large.”
  • Lt. Gen Qi added that concerns about Chinese cyber-attacks raised by U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel at the Summit and other venues were “unwarranted accusations” that “neither help solve the issue, nor help build strategic mutual trust between the two countries.”  After the Summit, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hong Lei, announced Beijing was willing to hold “constructive discussions” on these issues under the framework of the China-U.S. Strategic Security Dialogue.

The U.S. pivot was the focus of several Chinese media editorials.

  • In commentary for Xinhua – the online wing of the government’s official Xinhua News Agency – writer Chen Jipeng argued that the U.S. pivot gives “misperceptions to other countries in the region that they should either side with the United States or China.” This is a false choice because “interdependency between them far outweighs the competition.” An editorial in The Global Times– a leftist state-owned paper with a strong international presence – argued that the U.S. strategic rebalance will not hinder China’s rise, which “stems from economic growth, a trend that cannot be impeded by the relocation of American warships.”

Soon after the Shangri-La Dialogue, Chinese President Xi Jinping will travel to the United States to attend a summit with President Barack Obama on June 7-8. Several op-ed pieces in the Chinese media have previewed the summit, which aims to cover a wide range of pressing bilateral issues and other international challenges.

  • Yang Yi, a rear admiral and former director of the Institute for Strategic Studies at the PLA National Defense University, wrote in China Daily – one of China’s more left leaning and most widely circulated English-language newspapers – that the meeting “will help find a way for Beijing and Washington to work with each other, not against each other” on “regional geopolitics, and global peace, stability and development.” He added that major differences on Taiwan’s independence, China’s military budget, the U.S. pivot, and other issues do not lock both powers into a zero-sum game and doom their efforts to build a “harmonious world.”
  • Shen Dingli, a professor at Fudan University, echoed these sentiments in the China Daily. He argued the upcoming summit could “pave the way for constructing a new type of relationship,” ease U.S. concerns about China’s “emerging challenge” in space, maritime, and cyberspace, and assuage China’s suspicions of the U.S. pivot to the Pacific.

JAPAN

Japan used the Summit as an opportunity to dispel concerns that Tokyo is tilting toward the right under the Abe administration.

  • Japanese Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera made an unusual attempt to address the issue in his remarks to other defense officials, stating, “We sometimes hear criticism that Japan is abandoning its identity as a ‘peace-loving nation’ and is attempting to challenge the existing international order. However, these views are a total misperception.” Onodera added that “such tasks are aimed at a more active and creative Japanese contribution to stability of the region”

However, Onodera’s remarks were met with skepticism both at home and overseas:

  • “Abe should realize that action speaks louder than words,” ran the headline of an Asahi Shimbun editorial. “If it claims that international criticisms about its policy stance are based on “a misperception,” the Abe administration must prove its assertion with actions. In particular, the government should take effective steps to bring about a thaw in Japan’s chilly relations with China and South Korea so that there will be constructive dialogue between the neighbors.”
  • More noticeably, South Korea agreed to a trilateral meeting of defense chiefs of Japan and the United States on the sidelines of the summit, but not to a bilateral meeting with Onodera, despite an earlier request from Japan.

SOUTH KOREA

In several bilateral and trilateral dialogues that took place on the sidelines of the Summit, South Korean officials highlighted the need for coordination on North Korea policy.

  • In a meeting with Chinese Lt. Gen. Qi Janguo, South Korean Defense Minister Kim Kwan-jin praised China’s support for additional U.N. sanctions for Pyongyang’s third nuclear test in February.

News outlets across the spectrum noted that the proposal for a new joint command structure for US and ROK forces was not included for the meeting between Defense Minister Kim and U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel at the Shangri-La Dialogue. If the proposal is accepted, the United States military will be under command by another country’s military for the first time.

INDIA

Commentary on the Summit noted how various countries in the region signaled their attitudes towards China’s increasing assertiveness in territorial disputes and the U.S. pivot toward the Pacific. In a column for The Indian Express – an independently owned, slightly nationalist newspaper contributing editor C. Raja Mohan noted that “inviting the Vietnamese premier [Nguyen Tan Dung] to deliver the key-note address” highlighted “the growing strategic importance of Hanoi in Asian geopolitics.”

  • On the U.S. pivot, Mohan contrasted Beijing’s characterization of Washington as an “interloper in Asia” with Dung’s label of the United States as a “Pacific power.” During his keynote, Dung stated, “no regional country would oppose the strategic engagement of extra-regional powers if such engagement aims to enhance cooperation for peace, stability and development.”
  • Mohan concluded that while India “struggles to make sense of the recent military tensions on the border with China,” Vietnam’s alignment with the United States demonstrates a “selfassured pursuit of a complex balance of power strategy” that “could be a model for other medium powers in Asia who are deeply concerned about the rise of China, want Washington to balance Beijing, but are reluctant to become formal military allies of the United States.”

Disclosures on U.S. Surveillance Prompt Reactions from Asian Powers

Policy Alert #53 | June 28, 2013

Earlier this month, The Guardian UK reported on classified U.S. intelligence gathering operations that collected information on phone records and other internet user data around the globe. Edward Snowden, a former contractor working for CIA, revealed himself as the source of these reports, provoking a diverse set of reactions within the U.S. and international press. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from China, India, and Russia on these disclosures.

CHINA

While China’s foreign ministry declined to comment directly on Snowden’s case due to diplomatic sensitivities, Chinese media outlets expressed a range of views on the story.

Some praised Snowden as a whistleblower exposing the ‘hypocrisy’ in U.S. criticism of China’s cyberspace activities:

  • Xinhua columnist Xu Peixi called PRISM – one of the NSA internet surveillance tools – “the bleakest moment yet in the history of the Internet.” Xu added that Snowden “offers us a rare chance to reexamine the integrity of American politicians and the management of American-dominant Internet companies” such as Google, which provided the NSA with data on its users.
  • The Chinese military’s official newspaper, the People’s Liberation Army Daily, termed PRISM“frightening” since it refuses to accept the privacy of non-U.S. citizens. The editorial added that”U.S. intelligence agencies are habitual offenders with regards to network monitoring andespionage.” Global Times also pushed its leaders to “explicitly demand a reasonable explanation from the U.S. government” on its monitoring operations against China. The editorial declared that “China is a rising power, and it deserves corresponding respect from the U.S.”

Several stressed that these reports may hamper efforts to improve Sino-U.S. relations:

  • In Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post, Wang Xiangwei wrote that a top foreign policy adviser to the Chinese leadership hinted “Beijing would handle the Snowden case discreetly and had no interest in turning the event into a political case.”
  • Global Times argued that “diplomatically, Snowden has cast a shadow over the new Sino-US relationship right after the Xi-Obama meeting. The sooner the incident is wrapped up, the better the ties between the two countries will be.”

Others defended the surveillance operations as appropriate intelligence gathering tools:

  • In a letter to the South China Morning Post, Oren Tatcher and Sheung Wan contended that PRISM is a “perfectly legitimate program of self-defense” and that critics “don’t seem to understand” the “nature of electronic intelligence gathering.”
  • China Daily opined that President Obama should work to “convince the American people as well as global Internet users that the spying is a must and helps in a direct way to safeguard public safety from clear and present dangers.”

Finally, several debated the appropriate course of action for dealing with Snowden:

  •  “The optimal solution” would be for China to “provide necessary assistance for Snowden to go to a third country,” wrote Wang Xiangwei.
  • Xu Peixi argued that “China, despite the fact that it does not have a good reputation as far as Internet governance is concerned, should move boldly and grant Snowden asylum.” Global Times conceded that “China’s growing power is attracting people to seek asylum in China. This is unavoidable and should be used to accumulate moral standing.”

INDIA

According to Snowden, India is the fifth most tracked country by American intelligence agencies, which used a tool called Boundless Informant to collect over 12 billion pieces of metadata from India. New Delhi’s External Affairs Ministry’s official response: “We are concerned and surprised about it. We will find it to be unacceptable if Indian laws relating to the privacy of information of Indian ordinary citizens have been violated.” Indian media outlets commented on the story.

The Hindu offered praise for Snowden:

  • Snowden must “take a bow” and “be lauded for his decision to bear scrutiny and criticism from fellow citizens, the curtailment of whose freedoms he saw as unacceptable.”

Others said these disclosures offer lessons for India and its own privacy protections:

  • According to editorials by The Times of India, the leaks provide “important lessons for democratizing states like India where the potential for the wanton abuse of laws protecting people’s privacy is great.” The paper called on Parliament to “make the safeguards regime [against these programs] more robust and foolproof.”
  • In an op-ed for The Economic Times of India, Pranesh Prakash wrote that Indian citizens should be concerned that “the U.S. government refuses to acknowledge non-Americans as people who also have a fundamental right to privacy.”
  • Pratap Bhanu Mehta warned in The Indian Express that these NSA programs will “legitimize other liberal governments who clamp down on the rights of their citizens. India, never the most exemplary state in this respect, has seen a major regression on civil liberties in the last few years, justified in much the same terms.”

Edward Snowden’s current predicament prompted Julian Assange, Wikileaks founder and current resident of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, to suggest that India grant Snowden asylum. “It was because of Snowden that India came to know how U.S. was snooping on them,” he stated in an interview with the International Business Times.

RUSSIA

Commentary in Russia was generally sympathetic towards Snowden:

  • In an interview with Russia Today, President Vladimir Putin stressed that Snowden revealed “nothing we didn’t know before,” adding that surveillance is “becoming a global phenomenon in the context of combatting international terrorism,” and that “such methods are generally practicable. As long as it is exercised within the boundaries of the law that regulates intelligence activities, it’s alright. But if it’s unlawful, then it’s bad”
    • Alexei Pushkov, chairman of the State Duma’s International Affairs Committee, wrote on Twitter: “Promising Snowden asylum, Moscow takes upon itself the defense of people persecuted for political reasons. By tapping telephones and conducting surveillance on the Internet, the U.S. security services have violated the laws of their own country. In this sense Snowden, like Julian Assange, is a rights defender.”

 

India and China Assess Ties as Border Dispute Raises Tensions Ahead of High-Level Visits

Policy Alert #52 | May 28, 2013

Chinese Premier Li Keqiang’s upcoming visit to India next Monday has been overshadowed by recent tensions  over the two countries’ border dispute in the Ladakh region, which had flared up since late April. In this Policy Alert, we examine the evolution of Indian and Chinese views on this crisis and the future of their bilateral relationship.

INDIA

In the past few weeks, Indian media and politics have seen a deluge of commentary on this border dispute and India’s relationship with China. During the initial confusion when it was reported that Chinese troops had set up camp in Ladakh on April 15, many called for a stern Indian response , while others urged restraint .

With the withdrawal of troops on May 6 and the visit of Indian external affairs minister Salman Khurshid to Beijing on May 9, the stand-off was temporarily relieved. Commentary then focused on explaining China’s motives and assessing the Indian government’s handling of the crisis.

  • According to Ananth Krishnan, journalist for The Hindu, Indian analysts have attributed Chinese actions in Ladakh to one of four factors : 1) a general trend of growing Chinese assertiveness; 2) Chinese President Xi Jinping’s need to consolidate support from the military; 3) China’s anxieties over India’s recent build-up of infrastructure at the border; and 4) moves by local PLA commanders.
  • Many speculated on what prompted the Chinese to with draw troops. Some analysts, such as Manoj Joshi at the Observer Research Foundation, praised the government’s “patient diplomacy”   and “symmetrical non-threatening military response by Indian forces.”

Looking ahead to Li Keqiang’s visit, there is much contemplation of future India-China ties, reflecting a wide range of opinion. In the short-term, some commentaries lament the loss of face  and fiercely advocate retaliatory measures, including in areas of trade.  In the longer-term, some are advocating greater caution in dealing with China, strengthened military capabilities, and closer ties with other countries in the region.

  • “A rising China, conscious of the shifting balance of power, has become more assertive in its territorial disputes with all neighbours,” wrote the Indian Express.  “On the face of it, the prospects for the expansion of economic and political bilateral cooperation look good. But without Chinese flexibility on settling the boundary dispute, Delhi might fall flat on its face , if it tries to construct an ambitious cooperative agenda with Beijing.”

CHINA

In contrast to the Indian press, the Chinese media was noticeably more subdued on the border dispute. According to The Hindu, journalists at Chinese media outlets were told to downplay the incident . From the commentaries that were available, initially the Indian media was blamed for hyping the incident.

As the crisis toned down, the focus turned to touting the importance of China-India ties and extending an olive branch .

Moreover, commentaries pointed to the West and Indian domestic politics for exacerbating problems in Sino-Indian relations:

  • “With the US ‘rebalancing’ toward the Asia-Pacific, the Sino-Indian relationship is seeing subtle changes these days,” wrote Liu Zongyi of the Shanghai Institute for International Studies in the Global Times. “Within India, the so-called China threat is a trick by Indian political figures to fool their people and Western countries . By making waves about China, Indian politicians can avoid domestic problems, bolster up national morale, and raise votes. And on the international level, India can obtain advanced weaponry and technologies from Western countries.”

 

Shinzo Abe’s Foreign Policy and Reactions from Asian Powers

Policy Alert #51 | May 28, 2013

Since taking office as Japan’s Prime Minister for the second time, Shinzo Abe’s foreign policy posture has been under close scrutiny. Most have been concerned about his proposal to revise the Japanese Constitution, and how he has handled various expressions of nationalist sentiment from members of his ruling coalition. Some are also taking note of Abe’s recent visits to Russia and the Middle East. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentaries from Japan, China, South Korea, Russia and India. 

JAPAN

Opinion is sharply divided on the question of revising Japan’s constitution to allow the country’s Self-Defense Forces to strike hostile nations if Japan comes under threat.

  • Liberal-leaning papers have been strongly opposed to such constitutional revisions. “We are alarmed by this move,” worried the Asahi Shimbun. “Isn’t it more likely to aggravate, rather than ease, regional tensions and lead to an arms race?”
  • The Mainichi News was more moderate in its criticism, saying that “the question of the SDF’s use of weapons in U.N. peacekeeping operations should be considered separately from operations to protect Japanese nationals.” It also voiced concern that procedural changes which would make it easier to initiate constitutional amendments risked undermining parliamentary democracy.

The positions of the Asahi and Mainichi were also reflected in their criticism of revisionist interpretations of Japan’s role as an aggressor in WWII, as exemplified in comments by Abe and other senior members of his ruling Liberal Democratic Party.

The papers were more similar in their criticism of Osaka mayor Toru Hashimoto, who recently remarked that sex slaves during WWII were necessary and that U.S. troops currently in Okinawa should use legal prostitutes.

On other foreign policy fronts, Japanese commentary welcomed Japan-Russia cooperation in economic and security affairs, and looked forward to making steady progress on negotiating territorial disputeswith Moscow. Regarding Japan’s diplomacy in the Middle East, some frowned upon Abe’s efforts to export Japan’s nuclear technology, arguing that “in its rush to grab business opportunities offered by surging demand for nuclear power, the Japanese government is showing no sign of giving thoughtful consideration” to the “urgent and formidable challenge” to prevent nuclear proliferation.

CHINA

Chinese commentary has lambasted Abe and his party for their nationalistic comments.

  • “These are clear signs of militarism rearing its head in Japan,” argued a Nankai University professor in a China Daily op-ed. “By following this path, Abe is making a fool of himself….It’s time he realized that his lamentable lack of foresight and right-wing zeal will sour Japan’s relations with its neighbors and bring utter disgrace on the country.”

The Global Times ran a series of editorials suggesting how China should respond:

SOUTH KOREA

Editorials in South Korea were also harshly critical of the Abe Administration’s right-wing tendencies.

  • The Chosun Ilbo expressed strong fear and anger at recent Japanese rhetoric: “Japanese politicians are trying to win votes…by appealing to populist, rightwing sentiment with their attempts to whitewash the unimaginable atrocities and slaughter…committed by Japanese troops during World War II. Nobody dares to counter that dangerous lurch to the right, in which Abe is a leading figure. That is why the country cannot be allowed to revise its pacifist constitution and arm itself again.”
  • “We are seriously concerned about the right-leaning path of Japanese politicians,” wrote theJoong Ang Daily. “Abe seems to be hallucinating, blinded by the success of the low yen and the support of extreme rightists.”

RUSSIA

During Abe’s visit to Moscow in late April, the two countries agreed to prioritize Russian-Japanese trade, economic, investment and energy cooperation. Following Abe’s visit, a number of major Russian energy firms now seek to expand their relations with Japan:

INDIA

Indians have been much less concerned about Abe’s nationalistic rhetoric and more interested in the strategic and material interests behind Abe’s foreign policy ventures.

  • C. Raja Mohan, renowned expert in security studies and a columnist for the Indian Express, highly commended Abe for “pushing Japan into a rare moment of creative diplomacy.” Known as a great-power realist, Mohan praised the “new strategic imagination” in Tokyo’s efforts to reach out diplomatically and economically to Russia, improve ties with the Middle East, and revive its nuclear energy sector through exports.

 

Rising Powers in Asia Express Divergent Views on Future of BRICS Group

Policy Alert #50 | April 28, 2013

The leaders of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa met in Durban last week for the 5th BRICS Summit, where the group appeared to make some progress on the idea of a BRICS development bank. In today’s Policy Alert, we examine and contrast Russian and Chinese optimism in BRICS, with the much more cautious and cynical views from India and South Korea.

RUSSIA

Commentary in Russia uniformly praised the BRICS countries for establishing a “polycentric system of international relations,” and noted the importance of Russia-China relations within the BRICS framework.

  • “BRICS has transformed itself from a political idea into a tangible symbol of a multipolar world,” said Vadim Lukov, the Russian foreign ministry’s special envoy to BRICS. Lukov also highlighted the importance of Russia-China relations within the BRICS. “China’s approach to BRICS is characterized by a deep understanding of the significance of creating a new multi-polar international system. Russia-China cooperation within BRICS is one of the important engines of its development.”
  • The absence of consensus on a BRICS development bank, initiated during the previous summit in India, elicited mixed views from Russian experts:
    • Leonid Gusev, expert at Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO), predicted that making progress on the bank is unlikely, noting that the BRICS economies, particularly China and India, are too closely integrated with the American market for significant changes to take place.
    • Sergei Katyrin, chairman of Russia’s Chamber of Commerce and Industry, was more optimistic, stating that “while no ultimate decisions have been made on the bank’s quantitative parameters, its authorized capital, its contributors and the volume of contributions…I think this project will eventually take shape.”

INDIA

Most Indian views on the BRICS were either skeptical that the bloc can have any real impact, or were wary of China dominating a BRICS bank in the future.

The proposal to create a $100 billion BRICS bank drew sharp criticism by many newspaper editorials.

The exception in criticism was an editorial by The Hindu, in which the paper’s leftist and nationalist stance lent support to this possible alternative to the current Bretton Woods financial system. Calling the bank “a great idea,” the paper acknowledged China’s likely dominance but argued that it “should not detract from the merits of the BRICS bank, especially its development orientation and stress on infrastructure financing.”

CHINA

Chinese commentary on the BRICS expressed confidence in the bloc’s political and economic potential, with mixed messages about the extent to which China will play a dominant role.

Scholars also expressed high hopes for the BRICS on a range of issues.

SOUTH KOREA

In South Korea, a number of reports have suggested that the BRICS influence is fading, accounting for skepticism and lack of coverage regarding the BRICS summit.

Earlier this year, a report by the Korea Trade-Investment Promotion Agency suggested that “BRICS are giving way to VIPs,” referring to Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines as “major markets for Korean exporters.” The report noted that while the VIP countries are just starting to grow, the BRICS countries are already seeing their growth levels fall, making the former a better bet for local exporters.

Boston Marathon Bombings Elicit Mixed Reactions from Asian Powers

Policy Alert #49 | April 28, 2013

In this Policy Alert, we examine the contrasting reactions of Russia, China and India to last week’s bomb attacks on the Boston Marathon. Commentaries from these Asian powers reflect the differences in their attitudes on how to define and respond to problems of terrorism.

RUSSIA

Editorials expressed mixed views on how the Boston bombings may impact US-Russia security relations while also using the incident to criticize US actions and policies against terrorism.

President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin confirmed their commitment to strengthen US- Russia security coordination in a recent telephone conversation. However, others expressed skepticism:

  • Though Russia’s Federal Security Service and the FBI have promised to focus on “all aspects of the challenge,” intelligence sharing efforts are “hampered by mistrust, bureaucracy, and self-interest,” said Russian intelligence expert Andrei Soldatov.
  • Duma Deputy Speaker and Liberal Democratic Party member Vlidimir Zhirinovsky predicted that the U.S. faces a grim future of repeated attacks. “There is a clash of civilizations. The United States bombs the Islamic world, and what can they do in return? As long as Islamic countries are being bombed, attacks will occur in London and New York.”

Several editorials criticized the U.S. for holding double standards regarding terrorism:

  • The Nezavisimaya Gazeta observed that “Western countries and their partners in the Near East support some terrorists as much as they can, while trying to expose, bring to account, and sentence others to the longest possible sentences, and in some cases, even to use the death penalty against them… Until we stop dividing extremists and terrorists into friends and foes, the war against this evil will be reminiscent of tilting at windmills.”
  • “Anyone that the US backs in their war, in the US agenda, they are considered freedom fighters. Anyone who is against the US is seen as terrorists, or fundamentalists,” added theRussia Times.
  • “Hopefully, Russia’s own war on terror…may now get at least more understanding, less bias and prejudice in the US and the West as a whole,” wrote journalist Sergei Strokan.

CHINA  

Besides expressing condolences to the victims and condemning the perpetrators of the bombing, Chinese commentary drew attention to differences between China and the US in defining terrorism, particularly with regard to groups in Xinjiang. Similar to the Russian view on this, the Chinese criticized the US for its double standards:

In the Chinese view, the bombing also underscored a similarity between China and the US: the need to maintain domestic stability:

  • “Public security is the basis for social harmony,” argued the Global Times. “Expenditure on domestic social stability is something that both the US and China share.” However, greater public awareness and vigilance are necessary to fight terrorism: “While the [Chinese] government is implementing all kinds of identification and tracking systems, the public almost invariably links them to effects on democracy and freedom, and few think about social security issues.”

There was also criticism that “respect for life in the media appears to have different grades,” given the disproportionate media coverage of the Boston bombings while other acts of terrorism were also occurring around the world. An editorial in the People’s Daily specifically pointed to recent bombings in Somalia, Iraq and Pakistan as examples.

INDIA

In contrast to the Russian and Chinese criticism of double standards, the Indian press focused mostly on India’s own problems with terrorism and praised America’s official and civilian response to the bombings as a model for India to emulate.

Editorials in papers from across the political spectrum lamented the way that Indian government and society have dealt with terrorism.

  • Even more important than the efficiency of response, however, is the level of “civic trust” across sectors in society, argued The Business Standard. The editorial commended US law enforcement for withholding any speculation of the attackers’ identity and motives, and praised the co-operation between the citizenry and police.

Critics of the US at this moment were rare, with exceptions such as Kamal Mitra Chenoy of Jawaharlal Nehru University, whose op-ed in The Pioneer said “the inevitable happened” because since 9/11, “the number of countries and people now hating America could fill up a medium-sized continent.”

On the international implications of the bombings, The Hindu called for called for US-Russia cooperation in the next stage of investigation. “Among the many lessons from Boston is that international co-operation on fighting terror needs to be taken more seriously, irrespective of the nature of relations between two countries.”

 

Asian Powers React to Hugo Chavez’s Death

Policy Alert #48 | March 29, 2013

Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela, died of cancer last week.  In this Policy Alert, we examine Russian, Indian and Chinese reactions to the death of this legendary and controversial icon in contemporary Latin American politics.

RUSSIA

Russian leaders sent warm condolences to Venezuela, praising Chavez for strengthening Russo-Venezuelan ties during his presidency and expressing hope for continued partnership.

  • Referring to Hugo Chavez as “a dear friend of Russia,” Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed hope on Thursday that Moscow and Caracas will continue developing friendly bilateral relations, while Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev commended Chavez for his life’s devotion to “justice and equality.”
  • Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov praised Chavez for helping Moscow to reach a new level of partnership with Latin American countries.

Members of the business community expressed concern over the future of Russia’s oil contracts in Venezuela despite assurances of continuity by Venezuelan Vice President Nicolas Maduro. Russian companies are involved in five major oil projects in Venezuela, and Rosneft, the Russian state-owned oil company, is the leading oil investor in Venezuela since Chavez renationalized the oil sector.

  • Georgy Bovt, a political analyst with the Moscow Times, criticized Russia for putting “all of its eggs in Chavez’s basket,” and noted that since Chavez is gone, “the one factor that has always worked against Russia- its lack of technological innovation- will play an even larger role in Venezuela turning to China instead of Russia for military and technical cooperation.”
  • “Everything will depend on whether contracts with international companies will be reconsidered,” said Maria Shishkina, an oil analyst for Russ-Invest.

INDIA

In an official statement, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh lamented the passing of Chavez, saying “Venezuela has lost a charismatic and immensely popular leader in President Chavez who leaves a legacy of striving for social justice.President Chavez also made a tremendous contribution to the development of closer relations among the countries of the developing world.”

Most of the popular press, however, commented on Chavez’s mixed legacy and speculated whether his welfare policies, supported by the country’s oil wealth, will be sustainable in the near future.

  • As the Hindustan Times wrote in an editorial, “The real test of any leader is whether the institutions he builds survive him. Unfortunately, this is unlikely…. His failure to invest sensibly in Venezuela’s oil and gas sector will mean financial hardship in the years ahead.” Similarly, the Times of India pointed out, since Chavez left “no institutions built up to buttress his uplift of Venezuela’s socio-economically disadvantaged, his good work may not outlive him by much.”
  • The “lesson for India,” commented the Business Standard, is that “expensive employment and food distribution schemes…must be yoked to economic growth, and predicated on solid institutional and political reform.”

In contrast, the left-leaning paper The Hindu, was a lone voice in its praise for the late Venezuelan leader: “Chávismo, as this approach came to be called, infuriated the United States, which had long dominated Latin America through brutal dictatorships and oligarchical democracies….It is the better life which millions of Venezuelans enjoy today that will serve as the first line of defence for Chávismo as the U.S. and its allies try to turn the clock back.”

CHINA

Chinese leaders Hu Jintao and Xi Jinping sent condolence messages to Venezuelan Vice President Nicolas Maduro, according to the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman at a regular press briefing.

In the state-sponsored media, some commentary effused praise for the “Latin American hero” who had been “demonized by Western opinion.” In a slight twist, China Network Television (CNTV) said Chavez was “good at anti-US rhetoric, but just as good at superficial policies,” because he never translated his rhetoric into substantial actions.

Other analyses, in contrast, were not marked by the usual ideological concerns.

  • Sun Hongbo of the Institute of Latin American Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences expressed optimism in the future of US-Venezuelan relations.  “Despite its declining influence in Latin America, the US is not likely to interfere much in Venezuela because the latter does not pose any substantial threat to US national security and its political transition is taking place under a democratic framework.” As for Venezuela, concerns for economic stability and oil security may prompt the new government to “ease its anti-US stance, drawing a similar response from Washington.”
  • China-Venezuelan relations also have good prospects, argues Jiang Shixue, Vice President of the Chinese Association of Latin American Studies. “Economic cooperation between China and Venezuela is legally based on government contracts and agreement, [and] the economic relationship between the two countries is win-win. Consequently, the nature of this kind of partnership will not significantly change even if the opposition wins the election in the post-Chavez era. This continuity of Venezuela’s foreign policy towards China will certainly be beneficial for both sides.”

 

Lessons from Cyprus: Rising Powers Comment on the Bank Bailout and Financial Globalization

Policy Alert #47 | March 29, 2013

The banking crisis in Cyprus has generated a fierce outcry in Russia, while also highlighting the problem of tax havens in a globalized economy. This post examines Russian and Indian commentary on these questions. 

RUSSIA

In Russia, the EU-Cyprus agreement to seize a part of large deposits in its two main banks, including those belonging to Russian nationals, was decried as grossly unfair to Russian interests.  Russian companies and individuals reportedly hold over $30 billion- about a third of all deposits– in Cyprus’ banks.

  • Characterizing the bailout as “legalized theft,” Yury Pyanykh, president of the Association of Russian Businessmen in Cyprus asserted that “this violates a number of fundamental international treaties” and threatened to take legal action.
  • “The European Union…is beating up on the Russians, who have no voice in Europe, and on Cyprus because it has friendly relations with Russia,” wrote Dmitry Afanasiev, chairman of the law firm Egorov, Puginsky, Afanasiev and Partners.
  • “It is difficult to imagine the EU proposing to confiscate part of bank deposits in any other country,” said Fyodor Lukyanov, editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs. “But the presumption that “dirty” Russian money allegedly constitutes the bulk of Cyprus’s assets encouraged the EU to insist on that unprecedented measure. Europe claimed that foreign crooks, rather than honest Europeans, would suffer as a result. This is a vivid example of dirty political technologies being put to use.”

INDIA

Besides underscoring the global interconnectedness of financial markets, the crisis in Cyprus is prompting comparisons to the role of Mauritius in India’s economy.

  • As a commentary in the Economic Times points out, “Cyprus is to Russia what Mauritius is to India – an offshore financial haven for Russian companies and wealthy individuals to avoid high corporate taxes at home and legalise billions obtained in kickbacks and unaccounted deals.”

Asian Powers Comment on the Pope’s Resignation

Policy Alert #46 | February 27, 2013

Pope Benedict XVI’s decision to resign has evoked much surprise and commentary in the Western media. But in Asia, a region where Catholicism is a minority religion, the reactions have been more subdued. This Policy Alert compares the responses of South Korea, India and China.

SOUTH KOREA

In a country where close to 8% of the population is Catholic, members of Korea’s Catholic community thanked the Pope for his service:

  • “People have a conservative image of Pope Benedict XVI. But through his resignation announcement, I believe he has shown a liberal and reformist mind,” said Priest Lee Kyung-sang of the Archdiocese of Seoul, who teaches church law at the Catholic University of Korea.
  • In a statement by the Catholic Bishops Conference of Korea, Rev. Peter Kang U-il said, “We cannot hide our surprise at the Pope’s abrupt decision to step down, but we know the Pope’s heart is filled with love and care for the church…he has also shown deep interest for people in North Korea and sought to help them through economic aid…we accept his brave and spiritual decision with great respect.”

INDIA

With 17.3 million Catholics in India, the pope’s resignation has generated some commentary in the press.

It was also reported that the election of the next pope will include votes by five Indian cardinals.

  • As Kerala Catholic Bishops’ Council Fr Stephen Alathara pointed out, “This is perhaps the first time in the two-millennia history of the Church that five cardinals from India have qualified to attend the conclave and vote for electing the Pope.”

CHINA

In China, which is officially atheist, the government used this opportunity to comment on China-Vatican relations.

Asian Powers Comment on French Intervention in Mali

Policy Alert #45 | February 23, 2013

France’s military intervention in Mali has evoked mixed reactions from major Asian countries. In this Policy Alert, we highlight commentary from China, India, Japan and Russia.

CHINA

Chinese reactions have been called “at most tepid and reserved” by Yun Sun, a Chinese visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution.

  • Officially, the Chinese Foreign Ministry has expressed support for the deployment of the African-led International Support Mission to Mali, in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 2085.
  • French intervention, however, is evoking concern. As He Wenping, director of African Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, wrote in a Global Times op-ed: “China has certain interests in Mali through its investment projects. It is not necessarily a bad thing for China if France’s decision to send in troops can stabilize the situation in this West African country. However, despite all the potential benefits, there is one possible cause for alarm – French forces’ involvement in Mali will provide the case for legalization of a new interventionism in Africa.”

INDIA

In contrast, Indian commentary has (uncharacteristically) mostly supported French intervention and larger efforts to combat terrorism.

  • The Hard Nationalist Pioneer praised the French military effort at the end of last month as “seem[ing] to be a hugely successful effort to push back the Islamists and destroy their latest terror haven.
  • The Times of India also emphasized the need to tackle terrorism: “North Africa hasn`t become another Afghanistan as yet. It is the African people that must ultimately fight the battle against Islamist militancy and strengthen democratic institutions. The international community must consolidate its efforts towards that end and provide aid and material support to the people of Mali and other north African nations to fight the scourge of terrorism.”
  • The Indian Express, however, sounded a cautionary note: “As Iraq and Afghanistan have taught the US, interventions risk military mission creep and stalemate. Yet, this French adventurism is interesting at a time when the US, under the “Obama Doctrine”, seems reluctant to plunge in. The backlash, arguably, might be worse than the problem.””
  • On a related note, French President Francois Hollande is scheduled to visit India this week, and an op-ed in The Hindu pointed to his decision on Mali as a sign of a strong leader. The Indian Express also reports that France has kept India informed of its actions in Mali, ahead of Hollande’s visit.

JAPAN

In retaliation against France’s intervention in Mali, militants in Algeria seized dozens of hostages at an international managed gas field in late January, leading to the death of 10 Japanese employees amongst others.

  • The deaths triggered mixed views on Japan’s role in North Africa and on the global stage
    • Toshio Tamogami, a retired general, argued that it is time to “drop the legal constraints that prevent Japan’s military from foreign intervention.”
    • Naoto Amaki, Japan’s former ambassador to Lebanon, opposed Japan taking up arms against Islamic radicals. “An armed response to terrorists will elevate the dangers and…adopting a tough stance will spawn more risks.”
  • The Asahi Shimbun described the stabilization of Mali as “indispensable,” but warned that “for the African continent to move toward sustainable development, dealing with the Mali conflict must not set off a new negative chain reaction of terrorism and violence.” Another article added that “Japan’s contributions to the elimination of the breeding ground of terrorism will improve the nation’s security in the long run.”

RUSSIA

In Russia, editorials noted that the Malian conflict provides Russia with an opportunity to strengthen its presence in the region.

  • The state-run RIA Novosti cited a deeply-rooted Soviet legacy in Mali as cause for Russian interest in the current conflict. For decades, the Soviet Union trained Mali’s officials and intelligentsia, developing local infrastructure and mapping the country’s abundant natural resources. Among those educated in the Soviet Union include the interim president of Mali, Dioncounda Traore, and his predecessor, the ousted Amadou Tomani Toure. “Time is running out: As Soviet-educated elites reach retirement age, the new generation of Malian leaders and officials may not be as amenable to cooperation with Russia.”
  • Alexander Yakovenko, Russian ambassador to the United Kingdom, wrote, “Russia strongly condemns the actions of the extremists and separatists in Mali who are destabilizing the whole region” and added, “the military operation in Mali should be accompanied by the launch of apolitical dialogue in order to ensure constitutional order is restored.”
  • Russian-daily Kommersant reported that “Experts believe that the discontent that certain African leaders feel regarding the West’s interference in military and political crises in Africa gives Moscow a chance to strengthen its geopolitical influence in the region.”

Asian Powers Expect South Korea’s New President to Improve Bilateral Relations

Policy Alert #44 | January 29, 2013

Last month, voters in South Korea elected Park Geun-Hye as their next president. This Policy Alert summarizes commentary in the South Korean press, as well as Japanese and Chinese expectations of how the new president will shape future bilateral relations. 

SOUTH KOREA

In South Korea, editorials urged President-elect Park Geun-Hye to focus on a variety of issues, reflecting conflicting interests on what direction the ROK should move towards.

  • “It is the wish for the country’s economic revival that gave Park a mandate” in the election, saidYonhap News Agency. “One of the important tasks now is to raise the country’s growth potential, which experts worry could dip below the 2 percent line in the coming 10 years.”
  • Another Yonhap editorial emphasized that “National unity should be the name of the game as we mark the new year. It would be no exaggeration that the country’s fate depends on whether it can overcome conflicts along ideological, regional, and generational lines and advance its national unity and harmony.”
  • Commentary was mixed on the direction of South Korea’s foreign policy. “Take charge of US-Korea relations,” urged an op-ed in the Joongang Daily. While Korea has made great strides on the global stage, the essay argued that Korea’s ability to elevate its standing with the US has been hampered by a lack of understanding of Washington’s subculture; an insufficient lobbying presence; and a persistent subservient attitude. Yet another column in the paper cautioned Park to “walk a fine line with North [Korea]” and move discreetly in order not to ruin any renewed mood between the two Koreas.

JAPAN

In Japan, editorials expressed hope that Park will work towards improving relations between Japan and South Korea.

  • The Asahi Shimbun declared, “We cannot be too optimistic. Park has also taken a tough stance against Japan regarding territorial and history issues…but the people of both countries know the importance of cooperation through a history of hardships. The two countries must refrain from provocative acts.“

CHINA

Chinese commentary also outlined anticipation of improved relations between China and South Korea.

  • Park Geun-Hye is expected to take “a moderate stance,” said the Global Times, contrasting Park’s campaign platform with the hardline stance of Lee Myung-bak’s administration. “If Seoul is serious about its strategic partnership with Beijing, it should show that goodwill with actions rather than mere lip service.”

Heightened Tensions in the East China Sea: Reactions from China and Japan

Policy Alert #43 | January 29, 2013

Earlier this month, after China repeatedly flew surveillance aircraft into disputed airspace with Japan and prompted Tokyo to send F-15s in response, China sent fighters of its own into the East China Sea on January 10th. This post highlights commentary from China and Japan on this area fraught with contention between the two countries.

CHINA

Chinese commentary provided scathing criticism of Japan’s actions in the dispute, blaming the Shinzo Abe administration and the United States for escalation in tensions.

  • Li Qingsi, a professor at the School of International Studies, Renmin University of China, added that “China has been earnestly persuading Japan to reflect on its war crimes, but its efforts have not resonated with the international community, especially the US, which believes an anti-China Japan will be conducive to its ‘return to Asia’ strategy.“
  • The China Daily wrote, “In recent years, countries like Japan, the Philippines and Vietnam have not only lodged unwarranted claims over China’s territorial waters and islands in the East China Sea and the South China Sea…they have also tried to enlist support from countries outside the region for their ill-grounded claims. Their reckless moves have brought more risks and challenges to China’s security environment and prompted China to respond and react in a timely and effective manner.” Therefore, China’s patrols in the East and South China Sea should be regarded as a normal performance of duty for “safeguarding sovereignty.”

JAPAN

In Japan, editorials expressed a more nuanced view of the crisis, cautioning leaders on both sides to act with restraint.

  • Yoshibumi Wakamiya, editor-in-chief of the Asahi Shimbun, stated that “It is easy for the leader of one nation to criticize another. But what is expected of all true leaders is the wisdom and courage to stop any chain reaction of dangerous and misguided nationalism by firmly warning their own people against it.”
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.