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.

Rising Powers at the 12th G-20 Summit: Staying the Course?

Policy Alert #148 | July 13, 2017

America’s U-Turn on climate change and Donald Trump’s disregard for globalization and multilateralism loomed ominously for rising powers ahead of the 12th G-20 summit at Hamburg, Germany on July 7-8. Themed “Shaping an Interconnected World,” the lack of any real political cohesion among rising powers also put a question mark on the summit, despite a BRICS confab on the sidelines. Do rising powers view the Hamburg summit as a success or just perfunctory? How was the performance of their own leadership rated?

The final declaration of the summit spotlighted the isolation of the United States on climate change and stated, “We take note of the decision of the United States of America to withdraw from the Paris Agreement,” and added, “Leaders of the other G20 members state that the Paris Agreement is irreversible.” In a nod to developing countries, it says, “We reaffirm our strong commitment to the Paris Agreement, moving swiftly towards its full implementation in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances…”

CHINA

  • Wang Weidong, China’s commercial counselor in Germany maintained that “(The summit) on the one hand maintains the G20 as an important platform for global economic governance to ensure that the G20 continues to play an active role. On the other hand, it shows the unity of the G20 in the face of crisis and difficulties and sends a positive message.” According to him, bilateral meetings held on the sidelines further emphasized the need for free trade and globalization and emphasized that China is committed to sustaining its own growth to remain a “stabilizer” and “ballast stone” of the world economy.
  • An op-ed in the nationalist Global Times by Wang Huiyao, president of the Center for China and Globalization sees G20 as more evidence of China’s growing importance. He stressed that while the overall theme of the G20 summit was unity and inclusiveness, the delicate diplomatic waltz didn’t hide the stormy discord between world leaders. As he puts it, “Europe needs close engagement with China on the global management of climate change and the preservation of an open trading system, while the US needs China to deal with North Korea. This multi-polar relationship puts China at the very heart of the international system, with an essential role in framing the international agenda while assuming new responsibilities.”  He gives high marks to his country and concludes that “China has successfully safeguarded globalization and showed its strong power to shepherd the world economy in the right direction while supporting globalization…”

INDIA

  • The Pioneer, a pro-ruling party newspaper, penned an editorial arguing that “A good part of the credit for the G20 leaders’ statement against terrorism must go to Prime Minister Narendra Modi,” pointing to his 11-point Action Plan to fight terrorism submitted at Hamburg which placed militant outfits such as the Laskhar-e-Tayyeba (LeT), the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), the Islamic State (IS) and the Boko Haram on an equal footing. Applauding the statement issued by leaders of the summit that “There should be no safe haven for terrorist financing anywhere in the world,” the editorial urged more “action.”
  • Even the left leaning Hindu, like a number of other outlets, was upbeat about India’s improving status at the G-20, particularly with the special acknowledgement that India got in the Hamburg Action Plan for the steps the country has taken in the financial sector. The Hindu noted that the Modi government has stated its intent to get India into the ranks of the top 50 countries in terms of ease of doing business.
  • An editorial in the liberal Hindustan Times decried the US stand on the Paris climate deal, arguing that it was “unbecoming of its superpower status.”  It pointed out that it was the first time the G20 failed to have a full consensus on their joint declaration.  It went on to conclude that, “The future of multilateralism itself is now unclear. Talk of a German-Chinese axis or some other combination of middle powers taking a global leadership role proved overblown.”
  • The Indian media gave a good deal of attention to Donald Trump’s apparently impromptu “interaction” with Narendra Modi on the one hand, and on the other hand, whether there was or was not a meeting between Modi and Xi Jinping on the sidelines given the India-China continuing border standoff in the Himalayas.  The Indian and Chinese media appeared to differ on how to describe the Modi-Xi encounter, with the latter heavily downplaying it. As for the Modi-Trump talk, Arvind Panagariya, sherpa for India at the Summit, tweeted about it, along with pictures of the two leaders and others.

JAPAN
Japan will host a summit meeting of the G-20 for the first time in 2019, according to a joint declaration issued after the two-day summit.

  • An editorial in the left leaning Japan Times focused on fears that the U.S. would turn its back on the world in pursuit of narrowly defined nationalism and concluded that “If last week’s Group of 20 meeting in Hamburg is any indication, the worst fears are justified. Trump has no interest in global leadership, and is prepared to endure international isolation as he doggedly follows his instincts and his agenda.” It also criticized the G-20 communique for not mentioning North Korea, “a stunning omission in light of the long-range missile test that occurred days before the summit…”  Still, it sounded a hopeful note given that President Donald Trump, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and South Korean President Moon Jae-in met trilaterally on the sidelines to confirm their cooperation to address the North Korean threat. Abe and Moon also held a bilateral sit-down at which they agreed to build “future-oriented” bilateral relations. The editorial worried that although other world leaders such as Abe are trying to fill the gap “created by Trump’s myopia,” ultimately, “A G-19 is, despite the math, much smaller than a G-20.”

RUSSIA

  • The government controlled Sputnik News focused its coverage of the G20 summit on the much anticipated meeting between Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. It noted that the meeting originally scheduled for 30 minutes, lasted for over two hours and applauded that Trump and Putin agreed on Friday to enforce a new ceasefire across southern Syria that will come into effect within two days. It pointed out that for the first time ever, Trump committed the United States to active involvement in implementing the Minsk Accord on Ukraine. For Sputnik, these agreements sparked optimism as the main sources of conflict between Russia and the former Obama administration were Syria and Ukraine. The meeting is seen as a boost to US-Russia relations.

BRAZIL
Most of the Brazilian media coverage of the G-20 summit focused on the Brazilian political crisis and Brazilian President Michel Temer’s late decision to attend. The reporting focused on corruption charges leveled at the president and the Brazilian Congress’ deliberations to vote to seek his removal from office. The coverage summed up his attendance as inconsequential and poorly planned, and noted that he did not schedule any bilateral meetings with any of the world leaders during the summit and exited before the final proceedings ended.

  • Exame.com reported that President Michel Temer decided at the last moment to participate in the summit. The outlet reports that officials at the foreign ministry, known as the Itamaraty, strongly encouraged the president to attend despite his evident problems in Brasilia. At the meeting, Temer repeated that there is not a crisis in Brazil. Exame.com quoted a former Brazilian diplomat, Luís Fernando Panelli, that Temer’s trip was unnecessary given that Temer’s participation could only be marginal given his very tenuous status. Former Brazilian ambassador to Washington, Rubens Barbosa, suggested that a decision not to attend would have been worse. Temer’s participation and the reduced role of Brazil at the G-20 summit has raised questions about the future of Brazilian foreign policy and how best to move forward given the political crisis in Brasilia.

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

Rising Powers Assess First-Time Trump-Modi and Trump-Moon Summits

Policy Alert #147 | July 7, 2017

The week of June 26 was unusually busy with rising powers politics in Washington. Donald Trump met India’s Narendra Modi and South Korea’s new leader Moon Jae-in, both for the first time. Though personal chemistry loomed particularly large aside from substantive issues, Trump left little doubt that trade was his common priority across India and Korea as the US has a trade deficit with both. How are relations between America and its “quasi-ally” India, and America and its treaty ally South Korea, being viewed by rising powers after the meetings? Are relations under Trump headed for a bumpier ride or not?

TRUMP-MODI SUMMIT
The Trump-Modi discussions on June 26 were followed by a dinner at the White House, the first for a foreign leader in the Trump administration. Ahead of meeting Prime Minster Modi, the President tweeted: “Look forward to welcoming India’s PM Modi to @WhiteHouse on Monday. Important strategic issues to discuss with a true friend” Trump’s “true friend” characterization and Modi’s well known “bear hugs” set the tone for visibly cordial personal relations.

The Indian Prime Minister seemed to play it safe by not bringing up difficult topics like H1B visas for Indians, whereas President Trump was less restrained in his remarks, pointing to the need to create “a trading relationship that is fair and reciprocal,” and  to reduce our trade deficit with your country.” Attention to terrorism, defense sales to India, and Asian regional strategic convergence however ensured an ostensibly smooth summit.

INDIA
Indian analysts were mostly congratulatory but with a dose of skepticism regarding future progress.

  • Chintamani Mahapatra, professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University, had high praise for the summit in the pro-BJP newspaper, The Pioneer, and declared that “The joint statement has silenced the critics, converted the doubters, and has cautioned two of India’s neighbors-China and Pakistan-to refrain from destabilizing activities and to be more law-abiding.”
  • An editorial in the left leaning Hindu also concluded that “PM Modi and President Trump exceed the muted expectations for their first meeting…All things considered, a good beginning appears to have been made…”
  • Jayanth Jacob, columnist in the liberal Hindustan Times too found much encouragement in the growing convergence on the Indo-Pacific, defense and counter-terrorism. But he cautions that it remains to be seen “how far the Trump administration will go in nudging Pakistan, still a frontline state of the US, in walking the talk on terrorism.”
  • Opposition Congress Party spokesperson Manish Tewari was dismissive of the summit: “The joint statement between India and the US is disappointing to say the least. It was old hat. There was no big idea in the relationship.” He also noted that “President Trump’s interpretation of Islamist terror is very different from the interpretation that we have of cross border terrorism which is being sponsored by Pakistan.”
  • The Pioneer also carried an article by Gopalan Balachandran, Distinguished Fellow at the government supported Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses in New Delhi, who expressed strong reservations. He attributed much of the success of the summit to the Indian side’s “precautions to exclude subjects that may be of interest to India such as climate change, H1B visas issues, but on which Trump has taken an active dislike.” He warned against giving “uncritical welcome to the joint statement.”

CHINA
Chinese commentary was initially rather muted on the meeting between Trump and Modi, but with Sino-Indian border tensions rising in recent days, the tone in the media has become more strident.

  • Ni Feng, deputy director of the Institute of American Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, was quoted in an article in the nationalist Global Times giving mixed reviews of the summit. According to Ni, “Even though US-Indian relations have been improving in the past decade, Trump’s attitude towards India had been unclear before this meeting, and he has given it a positive spin.” According to him, “Unlike his predecessor Barack Obama, who had many ideas on using India to restrain China, Trump considers India a big power that requires his attention, but not as much as China and Russia.”
  • The same article cited Hu Zhiyong, a research fellow at the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences and the Vice-Director and Secretary-General of China’s Central and South Asia Security Council who argued that “Though India and the US are trade partners, cooperation between them is never balanced…Sino-US trade is far superior, so Trump, being a practical businessman, considers China issues more important.” Hu concluded that. “All in all, China, as India’s neighbor, is always happy to see better US-India relations, because they could also benefit China.”
  • Liu Zongyi, senior fellow of Shanghai Institutes for International Studies downplayed India’s importance to Trump: “Trump’s face-to-face meeting with Modi came after his meetings with over 20 heads of state.”  According to Liu, “Trump differs remarkably from his predecessors, in that he is adept at making deals and values real benefits and strength. Despite Trump’s respect for Modi, an India that lags far behind the US and China in national strength is unlikely to win Trump’s affection.”
  • An op-ed in Global Times went further and asserted that “India cannot afford a showdown with China on border issues. It lags far behind China in terms of national strength and the so-called strategic support for it from the US is superficial.”  It added that “Maintaining friendly ties with New Delhi is Beijing’s basic policy. But this must be based on mutual respect.”

TRUMP-MOON SUMMIT
With President Moon Jae-in, Trump began with a state dinner at the White House on June 29 ahead of official meetings the next day. Right after dinner, Trump tweeted: “Just finished a very good meeting with the President of South Korea. Many subjects discussed including North Korea and new trade deal!”

Trade and North Korea dominated the summit agenda. The two leaders discussed the increasing threat from North Korea and, despite differences, agreed to cooperate on the matter. President Trump highlighted his concerns regarding the increasing US trade deficit since implementation of the KORUS FTA. Also addressed was the US deployment of THAAD launchers, a project about which President Moon has reservations.

SOUTH KOREA

  • Showing an inordinate attention to the optics of the meeting between Presidents Trump and Moon, the liberal Korea Times reported that “When the two leaders first met before dinner, they shook hands, although Trump did not show his usual powerful grip. They instead tapped each other’s shoulder and arm lightly in a friendly manner.” However, the article pointed out that it was the first time that Trump has hosted a state dinner for a foreign leader.
  • The conservative leaning  Korea Joongang Daily applauded a successful summit between President Donald Trump and President Moon Jae-in and concluded that “The dove and hawk got along better than many expected…Moon passed his first test on the international stage.” The op-ed noted that the two nations agreed to cooperate in fighting the growing threat from North Korea’s nuclear program. It suggested that while no concrete solutions to complex issues were found, the leaders seemed to have built personal trust and a promising bond.
  • Columnist Tong Kim in Korea Times praised President Moon Jae-in’s first visit to Washington, an unexpected result given political differences regarding North Korea, THAAD deployment, and trade. But he noted that while agreeing to cooperate on North Korea, “Moon still puts more weight more on talks and Trump more on sanctions,” and pointed out that there were no concrete details on how the two allies will proceed to curb Pyongyang’s weapons programs. Besides, President Trump vowed to leave all options on the table, including a military response. Kim anticipates challenges ahead with the two countries having to fashion a response to North Korea at the same time as renegotiating the issues of trade and defense burden sharing.
  • Days after the summit, the conservative Dong-A Ilbo reported that “Trump officially notified his intent to begin renegotiation on the free trade agreement between South Korea and the U.S… The South Korean government is reviewing a trade balance level of each item against trade and investment destined to the US.”

CHINA

  • Ahead of the summit, the state-directed China Daily highlighted that President Donald Trump and President Moon Jae-in have an interest in building a positive relationship. While this relationship can be strengthened by their agreement on North Korea, the article argued that it could just as well be strained by their tensions over trade. On THAAD, the article expected hurdles, and described Moon as expressing “shock late last month upon learning that four more launchers for the controversial system had been brought into the country [and] ordered a probe after his Defense Ministry failed to inform him of the move.”
  • The nationalist Global Times reiterated the potential for both cooperation and conflict, but concluded that South Korea-US ties were strengthened through the summit. Moreover, South Korea was able to get American understanding regarding their security concerns, and is apparently expected to invest more heavily in Republican governed states.

JAPAN

  • The conservative Japan News focused mainly on the potential for cooperation regarding North Korea. The article praised Presidents Trump and Moon for agreeing to apply maximum pressure on North Korea via sanctions, but also to keep a door open for dialogue with North Korea if they choose the “right path.” However, it worried that “Moon has shown eagerness for dialogue and economic cooperation to resume between the two Koreas, even amid North Korea’s repeated provocative actions. Japan and the United States have taken the position that “pressure, not dialogue, is needed now over North Korea. Moon must keep in step.” It reiterated that Japan agrees with the US on the necessity of pressure, rather than dialogue at this stage and that Moon’s policies regarding THAAD deployment, which has caused delays, were also a concern for Japan.
  • The left oriented Asahi Shimbun focused on the mixed nature of South Korea-US relations, pointing out that Trump “emphasized the importance of their alliance but took aim on trade and sharing the cost of defense.”  The report saw a sharp rebuke and noted:  “To rub it in, Trump called on his top economic officials to address their grievances to Moon in front of journalists.” According to the article, even on North Korea, “it remains unclear how Trump will find a way forward…” despite the “touch rhetoric.”

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

Three Rising Powers at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Summit: Pursuing Connectivity and Anti-Terrorism, but Different Pathways?

Policy Alert #146 | June 23, 2017

This year’s summit of the Shanghai Cooperation (SCO) was held in Astana, Kazakhstan June 8-9, 2017 amidst speculation on what the induction of India and Pakistan as full members would mean for the organization. The summit took place just three weeks after China’s massive Belt and Road Forum held in Beijing which India had boycotted.

Founded in 2001 by eight states including China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, SCO’s primary concern is security cooperation and stability along its borders. Following the summit, China took over the rotating presidency from Kazakhstan. 

The 2017 meeting placed declaratory emphasis on combating terrorism and extremism, but the Eurasian group, which now comprises half of the world’s population, will increasingly have to contend with the complexities of energy security, infrastructure connectivity, and trade relations-all against the backdrop of underlying regional geopolitical unease and global uncertainty.

CHINA
In his speech at Astana, President Xi Jinping highlighted the importance of cooperation in times of uncertainty. He stated that “Security is the prerequisite for development” and underlined the need to fight terrorism which he viewed as a long term effort. According to him, “Recent acts of terrorism in this region show that the fight against these forces remains a long and arduous task. We should continue to give priority to the SCO’s commitment to maintain regional security and stability.”  Xi pointed to China’s proposal for the SCO to draw up a 5-year implementation plan of the Treaty on Long-term Good Neighborliness, Friendship and Cooperation.

  • The state-run China Daily was upbeat, arguing that the addition of India and Pakistan will make the SCO better at responding effectively to challenges confronting the world. It editorialized that the organization will not only be more representative with almost half the world’s population, it will be able to combat extremism, separatism and extremism through security coordination and provide regional stability through economic cooperation. It claimed that China, along with the member states, could create a “new model of international security relations.”
  • The nationalist Global Times expressed some concern about the potential of internal conflict with the addition of India and Pakistan, though training its focus on the former. The editorial noted that “India has relatively close relations with Russia, and has kept its distance from China in recent years. How India’s participation in the SCO will influence the organization’s internal leadership has been discussed a lot.” The editorial then argued that the SCO should avoid “leadership competition,” and urged the Indian media in particular to “embrace new patterns of regional cooperation.”
  • The editorial also took up India-Pakistan hostility but felt that “…the organization can create more shared interests by fostering multilateral cooperation, laying the foundations for solving divergences. It won’t be an easy job. However the organization must face such tests as it expands.” In a swipe at the US and Europe, the commentary described SCO’s differences to the “geopolitics-centered” organization NATO and argued that the SCO is built on “equal footing” and focuses on collective regional goals.

INDIA
In his inaugural remarks at Astana, Prime Minister Narendra Modi stated that connectivity with the SCO countries was a priority for India but that projects need to respect “territorial integrity and sovereignty” of countries to gain acceptance and be successful. This was an unstated allusion to the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor project under China’s Belt and Road Initiative which cuts through territory located in Pakistan controlled Kashmir that India disputes.

Modi and Xi met on the sidelines of the two-day summit which was closely watched in India given the recent downturn in relations. Foreign Secretary S. Jaishankar described the meeting between Modi and Xi as cordial and very positive and said, “There was an understanding that where we have differences, it is important that differences should not become disputes.” Indeed, Modi himself expressed his appreciation to China, noting that “It would not have been possible for India to become a member of SCO without China’s backing.” Modi put heavy emphasis on India’s core interest of combating terrorism, while reassuring the member states that they can count on India’s cooperation in the SCO.

  • In an op-ed in the pro-ruling party newspaper Pioneer, Nalin Mohapatra, professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, emphasized the significance of the SCO for India. He argues that participation in the SCO will provide India an opportunity to strategize its relationship with member states.  With India’s participation, he suggests that issues will be addressed more democratically within the group, and in the process, checkmate growing Chinese clout in the SCO. Moreover, he believes India could take advantage of the SCO economically, as it pushes for further economic connectivity, including the operationalization of the International North South Transport Corridor project, linking India with Eurasia via Iran.
  • Stobdan, former Indian ambassador to Kyrgyzstan penned an op-ed in The Wire, a left leaning news site, arguing that India can raise its standing in the SCO by roping in countries like Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan in New Delhi’s “effort to project Chabahar as India’s gateway to Eurasia.”He urged India to “use the SCO atmosphere for building better convergences with China and Russia as well as to minimize the intensity of China-Pakistan alignment which actually undercuts India’s direct access to Eurasia.”
  • Suhasini Haidar in the center-left Hindu took a more critical stand, questioning the sustainability of some of India’s key foreign policy positions as a member of the SCO. She argues that while membership may look beneficial on a superficial level, India’s reservations on the Chinese BRI for example, contradicts the views of other SCO leaders who all endorse it.  Moreover, the SCO’s reputation as the “Anti-NATO” contradicts India’s close military ties with the US.

RUSSIA
President Vladimir Putin declared that “The expansion of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization will undoubtedly help it become more powerful and influential…”  Russia had pushed for India’s inclusion whereas China had backed Pakistan’s entry. Putin identified security and stability as his nation’s priority for the summit and gave special attention to terrorism in his speech:  “An unprecedented surge in terrorism and extremism all over the world has given this task special importance,” and went on to call for stepped up efforts to provide political and diplomatic settlements in the Middle East and Syria. He also suggested that the SCO work more actively to find a political resolution in Afghanistan, and specifically urged the resumption of “the work of the SCO-Afghanistan Contact Group, which was suspended in 2009.”

From an economic standpoint, Putin stressed the potential of coordination between the SCO and the Eurasian Economic Union, Association for Southeast Asian Nations and China’s One Belt One Road Initiative.

  • The state-owned news organization Russia Beyond the Headlines, put a geopolitical spin on the newly expanded SCO asserting that the induction of India could help Russia challenge China’s power within the grouping. As one commentator put it, “With India’s accession, the situation changes radically. The combined economies of Russia and India may not be as big as China’s economy, but adding the political (and military) weight, the two may form a considerable counterweight to China’s dominance.” He added that India’s participation could move forward the International North South Transport Corridor – initiated by Russia, India, and Iran – by providing connectivity via the SCO countries.

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

Mixed Reactions from Rising Powers to China’s Ambitious Belt and Road Forum

Policy Alert #145 | June 23, 2017

The first ever Belt and Road Forum showcasing China’s immensely ambitious global infrastructure vision, which many other countries view as having underlying strategic impulses as well, concluded on May 15 in Beijing. It drew the largest number of foreign dignitaries since the 2008 Olympics Games, with 28 heads of state and at least another 30 representatives from more countries. The United States and Japan which had been equivocating, ultimately sent delegations. The Belt and Road Forum (which the Economist, tongue in cheek, noted has the unfortunate acronym BARF), was an impressive diplomatic show, but the extent to which it accomplished much beyond optics, is being questioned. President Xi Jinping has already announced that a second Forum will be hosted in 2019.

CHINA
Commentators in the host nation saw the Forum as a major step to accelerate and facilitate the implementation of the colossal Belt and Road scheme, something they promote as first and foremost as economic in nature.

  • According to Liu Xingguo and Shen Guiping of the state backed China Daily, China has made cooperation with the economies along the Belt and Road a top priority. They argue that Chinese manufacturing investments abroad are insufficient and that Chinese enterprises should increase their participation in the Belt and Road Initiative. They note the huge opportunities for China and other participants, noting that many of the latter are at the beginning stages of industrialization and are unable to satisfy domestic demand, while China has the investment capacity.
  • Yu Hongjun, former vice minister of the International Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, explained in the nationalist Global Times that the Belt and Road Initiative is China’s effort to further expand and mobilize economic globalization while moving China closer to the center of the international stage. He highlighted the possibility of integrating the ASEAN nations as well. The Global Times also referred to Li Yafang, president of the Beijing Review, who emphasized President Xi’s speech at National University of Singapore in November 2015 where he underlined the importance of China’s neighbors as core participants of the Belt and Road Initiative and the ones who stand to benefit most.

INDIA
Sending a strong signal of displeasure with China’s inclusion of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (which runs through Pakistani occupied Kashmir territory that India disputes) in the Belt and Road Initiative, New Delhi chose to be conspicuously absent from the Forum. The decision of Narendra Modi government’s to skip the meeting was received with widespread support from commentators and the media, though many sought answers about how India might or might not engage with other elements of the Initiative moving forward.

  • Commenting in The Hindu, a left leaning national daily, Suhasini Haider explained that India had been expressing reservations to China about CPEC ever since it was announced in 2015, but that China was largely insensitive. She notes that China’s apparent last minute gesture to assuage Indian concerns with the Chinese Ambassador to India laying out a four point plan to improve bilateral relations in a speech to a military think thank ten days before the Forum, came too late to make any difference. Looking ahead, she points out that India will officially join the Shanghai Cooperation Organization as a member next month. SCO has endorsed the Belt and Road Initiative and Haider wonders whether Xi will have anything to offer India to allay its fears.
  • The Pioneer, a right of center newspaper supportive of the Bharatiaya Janata Party (BJP) in power, carried an opinion piece by well-known analyst Ashok Malik of the Observer Research Foundation who did not mince words: “The end-goal of OBOR is to establish Chinese mastery over oceans and connectivity routes across Asia and between Asia and Europe.” He went to caution that even without the offending CPEC, the very foundational principles of OBOR offers a strategic challenge to Indiaand called the argument of some analysts in favor of working with China minus CPEC as a “ridiculous” idea.
  • Another commentator in The Pioneer Ravish Bhatia, urged Indians to take a more realist approach to the Initiative, invoking the classic Indian political treatise Arthashastra from 2,000 years ago. Indeed, Bhatia was encouraged to find “a hint of confidence” in the Indian government’s position referring to remarks made by Arun Jaitley, currently in charge of both Defense and Finance Ministries. Jaitley had commented that, “I have no hesitation in saying we have some serious reservations about it, because of sovereignty issues.” At the same time, Bhatia pointed to the Chinese Ambassador’s courting of India and his new four point agenda, and writes that “Though India is justified in proceeding cautiously, it needs to come up with an alternative.”
  • The Indian Express, a left of center national daily featured an opinion piece from on of India’s leading strategic analysts, C. Rajamohan. Rajamohan declared that the   Belt and Road Initiative was “a wake-up call for India: geography is tied to economics and strategy.” As he put it,  “President Xi appears to have shaken India out of its geopolitical stupor.” Rajamohan goes on to enumerate a series of steps that India needs to take to improve its own connectivity in the region to carve out a better position for itself.

JAPAN
While the Japanese government is wary of the China-led Belt and Road Initiative, it sent a delegation to the Forum. This was most likely as insurance given President Donald Trump’s rejection of the Trans Pacific Partnership and his apparent softening toward Beijing in recent days. Tokyo seems to have chosen engagement due to some concerns about becoming isolated.

  • Koya Jikibi of Nikkei Asian Review, a center-right business paper, saw the Belt and Road Initiative assymbolic of China’s attempt to establish itself as the regional hegemon– a plan Japan is opposed to. He stressed that Japanese President Shinzo Abe chose not attend the Belt and Road Forum. However, many key targets of President Abe’s diplomacy were in attendance, including Putin and Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte, which raised the stakes for Japan. This seems to explain why the Secretary General of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party headed up the Japanese delegation.
  • The Japan Timeseditorialized that the One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative is an assertion of China’s leading role in Asia and as a bid to fill the vacuum left by President Trump’s America First policies. The editorial argued that while skeptics of China’s initiative see OBOR as driven by China’s stagnating economy, the project would not only increase demand for Chinese companies, but would also enhance Chinese leadership – a double-win for China. It pointed out that Japan and the US are worried about the long-term design and content of the OBOR plan, and cited that the harshest critics go so as far to accuse China of “neo-imperialism.”

SOUTH KOREA
The South Korean government sees the Chinese invitation to the Forum as marking the beginning of a new era of “summit diplomacy.” One article noted how Lee Hae-chan, special envoy to China, emphasized that Chinese President Xi’s attitude in a phone conversation with new Korean president Moon Jae-in was positive and upbeat, something that Seoul hopes to maintain through participation in the Forum.

  • Sarah Kim of the conservative Korea Joongang Daily shared the optimistic expectations of the South Korean delegation, and considered these meetings an opportunity to improve South Korea-China relations. According to her though, despite the new hope, Chinese disappointment with Korean policies regarding the U.S. are still visible.
  • Rachel Lee of the Korea Times regarded the Belt and Road Forum as an opportunity to mend frayed ties between Seoul and Beijing over the deployment of a U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), to which China is fiercely opposed. She pointed out that China initially excluded South Korea but then extended an invitation in the hope that South Korea might reverse its position under the new government.
  • The liberal Korea Times argued that Korea should stay involved in China’s “One Belt and One Road” project that will encompass 68 countries and account for 40 percent of the world’s combined gross domestic product. It described western criticism as mostly “sour grapes,” but conceded that it is legitimate for the U.S. to feel that China is going to reestablish itself as a colonial superpower. Moreover, as a democratic and western allied country, the newspaper felt South Korea should consider taking western concerns regarding deals with authoritarian countries like Russia and Turkey seriously. Regardless, the Korea Times considers this opportunity is too big for South Korea to pass up, as it would connect Koreans with nations that are landlocked via China and establish the country as a terminus for goods shipped from the Americas and Oceania.

RUSSIA
President Vladimir Putin enjoyed special treatment in Beijing, given the honor of being the second speaker at the opening ceremony, right after Xi Jinping. The Russian government seized the summit as a rare opportunity to highlight the benefits of Russia as an international partner.

  • Vita Spivak, the coordinator of the “Russia in Asia-Pacific Region” program at the Carnegie Moscow Center expressed her views in the state-owned paper Russia Beyond the Headlines (RBTH). Spivak and Russian officials viewed the summit as yet another stepping stone in solidifying the Sino-Russian strategic friendship. Russia’s gains were seen as mostly political: President Putin was able to emphasize on an international stage the Greater Eurasia project and promote Russia as an equal partner of the Belt-Road Initiative. In terms of economic gains, Russia’s main success was the promotion of the China-Russia Regional Cooperation Development Investment Fund to promote cooperation between China’s Northeast and Russia’s Far East. However, the commentator emphasized the difficulties involved in attracting Chinese investors to Russia, and the fierce competition for their attention.
  • Geopolitical analyst Pepe Escobar in the government backed RT noted how Putin was able to promote a possible symbiosis between the One Belt One Road/ Belt and Road Initiative and the Russia driven Eurasian Economic Union(comprising Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Armenia). Russia could take advantage of cooperating with a wide range of countries and building a larger Eurasian partnership. He echoed President Putin on the prospects of creating an alliance from the Atlantic to the Pacific (in which Russia would be a key member), thanks to investments by Moscow to improve transportation links.

BRAZIL
Given Brazil’s political crisis and deep recession, the Brazilian press did not report on the government’s role at the Belt and Road Summit or position regarding China’s motivations and goals. Rather, press reports focused on the scope of this project for deepening global economic cooperation and integration. O Globo covered the opening ceremony of the Forum and noted its historic ambitions as well as comments from foreign leaders. The report did not include comments from the Brazilian government, but quoted the Chilean President, Michelle Bachelet, speech at the summit. O Globo noted Bachelet’s observation that “in this moment of worldwide protectionism and weak global growth, it is the right time to find new horizons for development.” She noted that Chinese President Xi Jinping’s vision is of the largest economic project in the world today, providing everyone with a path forward.

  • The Carta Maior editorial stated that the Beijing meeting could become a   game changer   in the global political economy and represented the only global framework for development introduced in this century by any global power. The editorial concludes that China and its BRI represent the new motor of global development.
  • BBC Brazil offered up an analysis of the five most important infrastructure projects associated with the BRI and quoted the President of the World Bank, Jim Yong Kim, who noted that China’s $900 billion plan to connect the world will “shake up the world.”

The Rising Powers Initiative Policy Alert project identifies and tracks the world views of major and aspiring powers in Asia and Eurasia. RPI acknowledges support from the MacArthur Foundation for research on maritime security that contributed to this report.

Rising Powers Welcome French Election Results After Unprecedented Political Tumult

Policy Alert #144 | May 10, 2017

The resounding victory of centrist business friendly Emmanuel Macron over right wing Marine Le Pen in the French presidential elections on May 7 was greeted with widespread approval in most rising powers except Russia.

CHINA

Beijing reportedly “heaved a sigh of relief at Emmanuel Macron’s decisive ­victory in France’s presidential election.” Chinese President Xi Jinping sent a congratulatory message to President-elect Macron. In his message, Xi reportedly said “France was the first major Western country to have established diplomatic ties with the People’s Republic of China” and that “China-France relations, which have significant strategic importance and international influence, have been developing steadily, healthily and consistently in recent years.”

After the first round

  • The official English-language website of China News Service (CNS), China’s second largest state-owned news agency, described the French presidential election as “a choice between globalism and nationalism.”
  • A CNS commentator expected Macron to win in the runoff against Le Pen and claimed that the European Union seems safe – for now. However, the commentator continued, “this is no time for complacency” because “unless Europe addresses flaws in growth patterns and pursues urgent reforms, the longer-term risks to its survival will almost certainly continue to mount.” The commentator argued that “EU-level action on immigration is needed and the EU may need to modify the free movement of people for a period of time.”
  • The nationalist Global Times editorial anticipated that “the impact a Macron presidential victory would have on Europe would be nothing short of far-reaching.” The commentator opined, “Macron is young and energetic, an image of reform and change. He has vowed to break the country’s political establishments while standing in line with mainstream French values. Macron could be an exemplary and inspirational force for other European politicians to follow.”

After the second round

  • The Global Times commentator was certain that “populism in Europe will survive the Le Pen defeat.” The commentator continued, “The pro-EU camp cannot afford to lose any of the upcoming elections in Europe. Regardless, France’s position to remain in the EU will play a pivotal role in its survival.” The commentator concluded by calling on the readers to wish France and Europe the best of luck.
  • According a CNS op-ed, Macron’s victory “signals a stop in a series of populist surprises embodied by the Brexit and the election of Donald Trump.” The commentator is optimistic about the France-China relations stating, “On free trade, multilateralism, global governance and climate change France and China stand in a moment of convergence which offers a unique opportunity to take the relations between the two countries at another level.”
  • An op-ed in China Daily, an English-language newspaper directed by the state, took the opportunity to highlight an important commonality between the EU and China: determination to stand up in support of globalization and the multilateral system. The commentator also noted that China “recognises the growing importance of the EU not only as a major market for its goods but also as a strong pillar of the multilateral system” and that with the “new confidence” after Macron’s victory, “the EU now looks forward to the EU-China summit this year as an opportunity to further deepen relations.”
  • According to South China Morning Post, a Hong Kong newspaper, Chinese analysts are uncertain “over whether France’s new president will be able to push through his pro-EU and globalization agenda.”

RUSSIA

Russian President Vladimir Putin congratulated Macron on his victory and wished him “strong health” for the job ahead. Putin in particular stressed the need for Russia and France to “overcome mutual mistrust” and to work together to address the threat of terrorism and to secure regional stability and security.

After the first round

After the second round

INDIA

Prime Minister Narendra Modi congratulated President-elect Emmanuel Macron. In his congratulatory message, Modi describe the election as “an emphatic victory.”

After the first round

After the second round

JAPAN

In his congratulatory message to the French President-elect, Japanese Prime Minister Abe called Macron’s win a “symbolic victory against inward-looking and protectionist moves, and a mandate for the European Union” and stated, “I want to work together with (you) for world peace and prosperity at a time of continued challenges to the international order.”

The first round had created deep apprehension in Japan

  • An editorial in The Asahi Shimbun stated, “As many industrial nations are facing common challenges posed by the trend, we want to see in-depth, nuanced debate between the two candidates on how France should navigate through the dangerous shoals in this globalized world.” The commentator opined that the path that Le Pen offered, “her xenophobic campaign platform, including restrictions on immigrants” is “worrisome” and that “Macron should convince voters to back global cooperation.”
  • In an editorial titled “A Political Earthquake Rocks France,” The Japan Times commentator said that the results from the first round were “a rejection of the political mainstream in France.” The commentator also noted that the mainstream candidates rallying around Macron as soon as the results were clear is “one reason to breathe a bit easier.” Additionally, the possibility that the National Front could be repeating history (making it to the second round and then losing the election), is “especially comforting” to the commentator.

BRAZIL

The Estadão reported on Emmanuel Macron’s second round victory with 65.8% of the vote. The São Paulo based daily noted that Macron’s victory is also a big win for the European Union in the face of last year’s Brexit and the United States presidential election of conservative nationalist Donald Trump.

O Globo reprinted a pre-election story from El Pais suggesting that Emmanuel Macron is impatient and focused on immediate results while others are still considering their options. Veterans of French politics considered Macron too young and inexperienced to win the presidency. As late as three years ago few aside from his inner circle knew of his work or could recognize his face. Many worried that he was too close to the financial sector, and others considered his pro-market, socially liberal credentials a liability. The Globo story traced the mystery behind Macron, son of doctors and the husband to a woman decades older. The story reported of his tremendous success in the financial services sector and his rise to riches. A regular contributing author to the philosophical journal, Espirit, Macron often wrote of “great narratives.”

Carta Capital highlighted the election of centrist Emmanuel Macron and his promise to combat the divisions that undermine confidence in the country while also reconstructing the relationship between citizens and Europe.Clovis Rossi, columnist for the Folha de São Paulo, commented on two features of Macron’s victory that have gone under reported in the media. First, Macron’s newly established centrist party, En Marche, is a movement that came from the bottom up, and that is very rare if not unprecedented. Secondly, En Marche was successfully because the liberal middle class embraced the movement as it gave up on traditional politicians and the political paralysis that held the nation hostage. En Marche is not an anti-systemic movement, but a liberal political expression that seeks economic reforms within the European Union framework. Macron’s victory behind the force of En Marche provides a historic opportunity to weave together alternative policy proposals of both the left and the right to guide a reformist government in the years to come.

SOUTH KOREA

Reaction to the French election was fairly muted in both official government circles and in South Korean media, with most outlets devoting more attention to their own country’s turbulent presidential election underway.

 

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

Trump’s Missile Strike in Syria Continues to Reverberate in Rising Powers

Policy Alert #143 | April 26, 2017

CHINA

On April 12, 2017, the UN Security Council voted on a resolution which aimed to condemn the reported use of chemical weapons in northern Syria on April 4 and to demand that all parties provide speedy access to investigation. China abstained from voting on the UN resolution. Liu Jieyi, China’s Ambassador to the UN, said, “China opposes the use of chemical weapons by any state, organization and individual under any circumstances.” China also has not made any rebuke over the US military operation against Syria which was carried out on April 4; China-US Focus reported, “Pending the outcome of an independent investigation of the alleged ‘use of chemical weapons,’ China will not render unconditional support to the US position.”

Despite the careful and hesitant reaction from the Chinese government, Chinese commentators expressed an array of opinions on the situation in Syria.

  • On China-US Focus, Liu Haiyang, a research fellow at Nanjing University, questioned the legality of the US’ action.
  • A Global Times op-ed asserted that “The US’ decision to attack the Assad government is a show of force from the US president. He wants to prove that he dares to do what Obama dared not.” Furthermore, the commentator argued that “the US military strikes could lead to a “falling out” between the US and Russia. Neither Russia nor Iran will remain silent on the attack nor sit idly by and accept the fallout.”
  • According to He Wenping, Senior Fellow at Chahar Institute, the US military strike “exposed the recklessness, impulsiveness and lack of sophistication of the Trump team in the diplomatic arena.” She continued, “On the domestic front, the airstrikes could help Trump distance himself from the sticky allegations that he has unusually close ties with Russia” and “on the international front, it could be helpful in shaping and polishing Trump’s image and prestige as a “tough man”, and in showing US’ global leadership in terms of morality, values and military prowess.” However, overall, “The US airstrikes, which angered Russia, Syria and Iran, are obviously detrimental to the cooperation within the global anti-terror alliance, and probably, the IS terrorists were the only ones who were actually cheering amid the explosions of Tomahawk cruise missiles.”

Several commentators in Global Times, a nationalist newspaper, pondered the implications of US intervention in Syria on North Korea.

INDIA

The Indian government has yet to officially comment on the US missile strike in Syria.

  • Regarding the silence from the Indian government, incommented “India has retired from the world, even as it seeks greater visibility in global forums and aspires to superpower status. It no longer lays claim to a moral voice that may be heard beyond its borders.”
  • Riad Abbs, ambassador of Syria in India, reportedly said Syria is happy with India’s “balanced” stand on the crisis.

Several commentators expressed opinions on the crisis in Syria itself.

Overall, Indian commentators were critical of the US missile strike in Syria.

  • An editorial on The Hindu, a left-leaning newspaper, called the US missile attack on Syria “a reckless intervention.” The commentator also raised questions of the legality of the strike: “The UN Charter clearly states that any attack on another country needs Security Council approval unless it is an act in self-defense… Mr. Trump could have waited for the UN to complete its probe into the chemical attack before initiating military action, while simultaneously working to build a consensus on Syria at the UN Security Council.”
  • For The Times of India, a center-right newspaper, “the latest US military action makes the Syrian mess worse.” The commentator asserted that “Washington now finds itself in a position where it is fighting both the Islamic State terror group and government forces.”
  • An Indian Express commentator thought the US strike on Syria was “unguided” and argued that “strikes aren’t likely to achieve much.” Besides, the writer noted that “President Vladimir Putin… will … benefit among Russian hawks, for whom will be further evidence that their country is waging a long war against jihadists secretly supported by the West.”

A few commentators argued that the action from US was meant to boost America’s image in the international as well as domestic arenas rather than to help resolve the crisis.

  • The Indian Express published a column titled “It’s About US, not Syria,” which presented a critical analysis of American action. According to the columnist, “The US does not have the political will or wherewithal to engage in full-scale war or induce regime change in Syria, at least not alone. But it cannot be seen not to be doing nothing. So the default option is a variety of “low cost” options…” Furthermore, the columnist argued that “America’s strikes aim at maintaining its ideological self-image, not solving a major humanitarian crisis.”
  • A columnist in The Pioneer, pro-ruling party newspaper, argued that “it would have been better for the truth to have been fully established before any action was taken.” Given that the US struck without a clear conclusion regarding the responsible party, the columnist said, “If President Donald Trump wanted to send out the message that he would not sit back and watch as his predecessor did even if the ‘red line’ was crossed, perhaps he has managed to impress his constituents back home.”

Some commented on how US intervention may have impacted other states.

  • A week after the American intervention in Syria, an editorial in Hindustan Times reported “Russia and US ties are going downhill, despite Trump’s initial bonhomie.”
  • According to The Wire, “The impunity with which the US has been able to fire 59 missiles from ships sitting in the international waters off the Syrian coast” should make China very nervous. The commentator continued, “What must make Trump’s action even more alarming to Beijing is the casual insouciance with which it was taken, a quick visit to the ‘situation room’ at Mar Del Lago, virtually between soup and the first course, as he was entertaining Chinese President Xi Jinping in Florida.” The commentator thought that, “In Beijing’s eyes, this has vindicated it’s decision to declare the entire South China Sea a core security region, seek to impose an identification protocol on all military planes and warships entering the region, and build a military runway on Fiery Cross reef.”

JAPAN

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe reportedly said “Japan highly values President Trump’s strong commitment to maintenance of the international order and to the peace and security of its allies and the world.”

Several editorials in The Japan Times expressed frustration with the Trump administration for the lack of a coherent and consistent policy agenda.

Relations with Russia was also a point of focus for a few commentators.

RUSSIA

A spokesperson for Russian President Vladimir Putin said Putin considers the U.S. air strikes “an aggression against a sovereign country violating the norms of international law, and under a trumped-up pretext at that.” Russian media widely pointed to the contradiction between Trump’s actions in Syria and his campaign rhetoric, while some did criticize Russia’s initial reaction to the chemical attacks in Idlib. Overall, the intervention in Syria was viewed as a bad omen for the future of Russia-US cooperation on areas such as counter-terrorism.

SOUTH KOREA

Although Korean newspapers reported on the events in Syria, only a few published opinion pieces. An examination of those op-eds indicates that most of the Korean commentators analyzed the air strikes in Syria with North Korea in mind.

BRAZIL

Brazil’s media has been reporting on the Syrian-US developments since early April.

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

Key Rising Powers Warily Take Note of the Trump-Xi Summit

Policy Alert #142 | April 11, 2017

President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart Ji Xinping met for the first time amidst an air of expectancy and great uncertainty last week. American attack on a Syrian airbase as the two leaders were sitting down to dinner on April 6 however overshadowed this summit with the world’s attention re-directed to American policy in Syria. This Policy Alert discusses how important actors in rising powers anticipated the summit and previews the underwhelming outcome.

CHINA

The Chinese side was imbued with optimism ahead of the meeting with the U.S. President Donald Trump and this sense of optimism continued after the meeting concluded. In anticipation of the meeting, the Chinese President Xi Jinping said, “There are a thousand reasons to make the China-US relationship a success, and not a single reason to break it.” Xi also stated, “cooperation is the only correct choice for China and the US, and our two countries have every reason to become very good cooperation partners.” At the conclusion of the summit, Xi also spoke positive words: “We have engaged in deeper understanding, and have built a trust ― a preliminary working relationship and friendship …we will keep developing in a stable way to form friendly relations …For the peace and stability of the world, we will also fulfill our historical responsibility.”

Most Chinese not only expected the meeting to be a success but also emphasized its importance for China and the U.S. as well as for the world.

  • According to a commentator from China Daily, the official state run newspaper, “the very fact that the Xi-Trump meeting is taking place in the first 100 days of the new American administration indicates that both sides have realized that coordination and cooperation between the two are indispensable.” However, the commentator also noted that the two presidents have opposing mottos: one has “America First” vision while the other’s is “community of shared destiny for mankind.”
  • Another commentator from China Daily contended that “the two countries have the right conditions to expand and deepen their win-win cooperation and trade to create more success stories that will benefit not only their own economies, but also the world economy.”
  • China News Service, the second largest state-owned news agency, echoed the optimistic message expressed in China Daily: “The upcoming meetings at Mar-a-Lago have the power to send a positive signal to the world. Guided by the principle of upholding non-conflict, non-confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation, China is ready to work with the U.S. side to expand cooperation and manage their differences.”
  • According to a commentator from Global Times, a nationalist newspaper, “The Xi-Trump meeting in Florida has served as an indicator that the China-US relationship is still very much on course since the Trump administration took office in January.” After referencing Trump’s One-China policy debacle in the earlier days of his presidency, the commentator continued, “The world’s anxieties over uncertainties can now find a level of solace through optimistic expectations.” For this commentator, “this transition is a masterpiece of erudite political wisdom. Mutual communication is increasing at a faster pace rather than the fomenting of some divulgences DIVERGENCES? that can stymy the strongest of relationships. This is a fortunate time for all of humanity, something more beyond the China-US dynamic.”
  • Global Times also published an article titled “Xi-Trump summit transcends Sino-US ties” and reiterated that “the meeting will have enormous ramifications not only for Sino-US relations, but also for international politics.”

Some commentators took the opportunity to compare Trump to his predecessors.

As for policy matters, the commentators anticipated the North Korean issue to be an important item on the agenda.

JAPAN

The optimism expressed in the Chinese newspapers was altogether absent from the Japanese ones. Most Japanese commentators expressed a rather gloomy outlook in anticipation of the meeting and highlighted “a series of unexpected events” that “overshadowed” the summit.

  • An editorial from The Asahi Shimbun, a liberal leaning and the second largest daily circulation in Japan,  welcomed “the early realization of the Trump-Xi summit.” It recognized that “in any area, global stability cannot be discussed without the involvement of the United States and China, and thus hoped “the two leaders will be fully aware of their heavy responsibility and proceed with constructive dialogue.”
  • A commentator from Nikkei Asian Review, a conservative, center-right newspaper, expected trade, North Korea and South China Sea to be the main issues on the agenda for the summit. But the commentator expected that the two leaders have “unbridgeable differences over the three most important issues in U.S.-China relations” and said, “ Trump may be right to call the upcoming summit ‘very difficult.’”
  • A Nikkei Asian Review commentator expected that “the real friction will be over how to handle Pyongyang” because “Trump is going to Mar-a-Lago looking for concrete Chinese actions to ratchet up the pressure on North Korea, and threatening to go it alone if Xi balks. And Xi will be looking to cooperate on bilateral economic issues to hold off a potential trade war, but is unlikely to bend much when it comes to using its economic influence on Pyongyang.” The commentator concluded that “That is not the recipe for a summit success. It has all the makings of a stalemate.”
  • A Nikkei Asian Review contended that Xi’s primary goal for the summit was to seek a new beginning for his “major powers” initiative. But he got off to a rather rocky start” because “the summit was overshadowed by a series of unexpected events.” The commentator noted that “Xi must have felt quite awkward” because he was “right next to the commander in chief who had just ordered a bombing campaign in a politically sensitive region of the world, happily smiling and talking without knowing anything about the assault.”

SOUTH KOREA

At last week’s regular news briefing, South Korea’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Cho June-hyuck  said, “We expect the forthcoming US-China summit will provide a critical chance in the international community’s efforts to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue.”

The South Korean newspapers also focused on how North Korea would be handled by the two leaders and contemplated on whether Korean voices will be taken into account by the two leaders.

INDIA

Although the Indian newspapers were muted in editorializing on the meeting between the Chinese and American leaders, they nevertheless followed the event closely.

  • The Times of India, a center-right newspaper, highlighted that, “Trump ordered the Syrian air strike before dinner with Xi Jinping.” The article referenced Reuters which reported that the “summit took a backseat to the top-secret briefing by US National Security Adviser HR McMaster, and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis…”
  • The Pioneer, a pro-ruling BJP newspaper, reported that “China on Friday refrained from joining Russia in condemning the US missile strikes in Syria after being caught by surprise amid President Xi Jinping’s first summit meeting with his American counterpart Donald Trump in the US.” This brief story was titled, “China downplays US missiles strikes.”

POST SUMMIT PREVIEW

SOUTH KOREA

According to Korea Herald, “There seems to have been no progress, however, in their discussions on North Korea’s nuclear and missile threats, which Trump and his aides had said would be a top agenda item.” Because of this perceived lack of progress, the commentator noted, “Barking dogs seldom bite. US President Donald Trump lived up to that idiom as he apparently did not push — or failed to — Chinese President Xi Jinping over North Korea as hard as he had said would.”

RUSSIA

Russian commentators had very little to say about the Xi-Trump summit, and the commentaries were mostly related s to operations in Syria.

BRAZIL

Brazilian media outlets had limited reportage of President Trump and Xi Jinping’s summit.

The Rising Powers Initiative Policy Alert project identifies and tracks the world views of major and aspiring powers in Asia and Eurasia. RPI acknowledges support from the MacArthur Foundation for research on maritime security that contributed to this report.

North Korea’s Missile Firings Trigger Reactions from Rising Powers

Policy Alert #141 | March 31, 2017

North Korea’s failed missile test on March 22 followed on the heels of four test firing of missiles, three of which landed in Japan’s exclusive economic zone. These triggered sharp and diverging commentary from rising powers in the region.

SOUTH KOREA

There was a variety of responses from South Korean officials. South Korea’s National Assembly Speaker Chung Sye-kyun reportedly “called for reopening dialogue with North Korea to stop its provocations,” and said “sanctions alone can neither solve the nuclear issue nor make the situation any better.” The Speaker continued, “it is important to acknowledge North Korean leader Kim Jung-un as a negotiation partner.” South Korean Minister of Foreign Affairs Yun Byung-se in turn affirmed that Seoul and Washington are on the same page with regard to North Korea’s provocations.

There was also extensive and nuanced commentary from South Korean newspapers. Many called for international cooperation and emphasized the need for South Korea to step up its role.

  • An editorial in The Hankyoreh, a liberal leaning newspaper, said, “Unless South Korea, the US, and China can find common ground on their North Korea policy sometime soon, the nuclear issue is only to get worse, and the security framework in Northeast Asia more uncertain.” The commentator added, “Seoul must steer other countries toward a resolution to North Korea nuclear issue.”
  • The Kyunghyang Shinmun, another liberal leaning paper, thought “A preemptive strike on North Korea can lead to an all-out war.” Therefore, the South Korean government “should also remind the U.S. that a North Korea policy that goes against the views of South Korea, particularly a preemptive strike on the North as a preventive measure is unacceptable.”
  • At least one commentator thought that it was “time to engage North Korea.”

Some commentators expressed disappointment and even dismay in South Korea’s handling of the North Korean threat.

While there was unanimous agreement regarding the importance of China as a major player, some worried that China might be a spoiler.

Some commented on the role of the US and Trump administration as well.

  •  A commentator from The Korea Times opined, “The US should realize that what is driving the North Korean nuclear effort is precisely fear of a military attack. Threatening such an attack is unlikely to cause Pyongyang to abandon its efforts but rather have the opposite effect.”
  • An editorial in The Korea Herald was optimistic that the Trump administration will address the North Korean problems with utmost seriousness. Although the commentator noted that President Trump has not laid out concrete plans for his administration’s future course of action, Trump calling the North “a big, big problem” and a “really, really important” subject, and saying that he would deal with it “very strongly” and missile threat is “a very, very high priority” for him seemed to have convinced the commentator, as he stated, “these expressions are strong enough to make one believe that the Trump administration will be proactive.”

JAPAN

North Korea’s missile tests have hit Japan particularly hard. According to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s advisor, the Prime Minister “plans to bolster Japan’s capabilities to counter increased threats from North Korea.” There were also reports of other Japanese politicians expressing a desire for the ability to better protect Japan.

Japanese media voiced multiple concerns.

  • According to an editorial in The Mainichi, a liberal leaning and third ranked daily circulation in Japan, “the [North Korean] launch may be a noisy protest against joint military exercises by the United States and South Korea that began on March 1.” But it thinks that such a reaction can backfire for North Korea because it may lead the Trump administration to alter the American policy of “strategic patience” toward North Korea, and bring “a dark cloud over North Korea’s relations with Southeast Asia, a region with many countries hitherto friendly to the isolated nation.” The newspaper also noted that “the launch is likely to have left Beijing incensed,” especially since “the launch took place during the National People’s Congress, an important political event in China, and accordingly caused China to lose face.”
  • A Kyodo News commentator expressed pessimism regarding maintenance of peace and stability in northeast Asia. It stated, “North Korea’s growing nuclear and missile capabilities are already an existential threat to South Korea and Japan and will soon be a direct threat to the continental United States. Washington should make unambiguously clear that it will deter, defend and if necessary defeat the North Korean military threat to ourselves and our allies.”
  • Nikkei Asian Review, a conservative, center-right business paper, published an opinion piece titled “Trump’s North Korea credibility crisis.” The commentator argued that despite Trump’s tough talk on North Korea, if Trump were to launch a preemptive strike against North Korea, “he would need to convince the American people, and the world, that U.S. intelligence about the North’s nuclear capabilities was solid, that a threat from Pyongyang was imminent, that all other non-military options were exhausted, and that he had a plan for success.” However, given the credibility gap Trump currently faces, the commentator was not convinced that Trump’s tough talk would have much impact on North Korean behavior.

CHINA

North Korea’s recent provocative actions seems to have gone too far even for China as Beijing announced in February a ban on all coal imports from North Korea until the end of the year. Commentators say that such action shows “Beijing’s resolve to implement UN Security Council resolutions punishing North Korea over its nuclear program.” Alongside expressing an intention to comply with the UNSC resolutions, China has reportedly “implemented high trade barriers against [South] Korean companies, virtually banned Chinese tour agencies from offering group tours to Korea, and restricted Korean cultural content” in retaliation for THAAD deployment. However, “the Chinese government officially denies that it is employing any retaliation.”

Regarding the recent North Korean missile launches, several Chinese commentators blamed the US for the provocation.

Global Times featured many editorials which debated what the role of China is in dealing with and taming North Korea.

RUSSIA

It was noted that “Russia’s delegation to the U.N. reported Moscow is fulfilling its obligations under U.N. Security Council Resolution 2321,” which is aimed at North Korea. TASS reported that after talking with Japanese foreign and defense ministers, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said “We are unanimous with our Japanese partners that North Korea should rigorously comply with all UN Security Council resolutions…We believe that the UN sanctions imposed on Pyongyang should be seen not as a punishment tool but as an incentive to bring the situation back to the political and negotiation track.”

Nationalist media urged caution in dealing with North Korea.

BRAZIL

There has been little official reaction to North Korea’s missile tests since the foreign ministry’s denunciation of the North Korean missile and nuclear weapons programs in September of 2016. The foreign ministry stated that the North Korean nuclear weapon program was “unacceptable” and that as a “firm defender of a nuclear free world, Brazil condemns attitudes that violate the pertinent resolutions of the United Nations Security Council and increase tensions on the Korean peninsula.”

More recent media stories have reported on worldwide reactions to the recent ballistic missiles launches by North Korea.

  • Globo reported on the North Korean launch of four missile tests in the direction of Japan and noted the international outrage. It also reported that while China condemned the launch, Beijing also pointed out that U.S. and South Korean military forces were conducting exercises in the region.
  • The Journal do Brasil reported on the United States Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s recent trip to Seoul where he stated that the U.S. “strategic patience” had run out and called for the complete denuclearization of North Korea. He also defended the deployment of the U.S. anti-missile defense system, THAAD, in South Korea despite Chinese opposition.

Donald Trump’s First Congressional Address Draws Mixed Reviews from Rising Powers

Policy Alert #140 | March 8, 2017

President Trump’s much anticipated speech to a joint session of Congress on February 28 received positive reviews from nearly 7-in-10 American viewers according to a CNN/ORC poll of speech watchers. Reactions from rising powers were far more ambivalent.

CHINA

In his address to the Congress, the President said, “we’ve lost 60,000 factories since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001.” On March 1, Geng Shuang, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, responded, “Since joining the WTO, China has actively carried out cooperation that not only promotes the growth of its foreign trade, but also promotes the growth of world trade, making important contributions to global economic development.” Shuang continued, “Win-win and mutual benefits define China-U.S. economic relations. A report by the United States-China Business Council shows that bilateral trade and investment created about 2.6 million jobs for the U.S in 2015. We would like to work together with the U.S to keep deepening and expanding China-U.S. economic cooperation. This will benefit the two peoples and the world.” The mention of China as a source of the loss of U.S. manufacturing job in the President’s speech became the focal point for several commentators.

  • People’s Daily, the official state run newspaper, reacted with a commentary titled “Why China Won’t Accuse America of ‘Stealing Jobs.’” The commentator stated that China has also been experience factory losses and that “one of the hottest economic topics in China is the loss of jobs to the United States.” “However, China is not in the habit of finger-pointing for ‘steading jobs.’” The commentator continued, “We are not jealous of others’ success; and we will not complain about others who have benefited so much from the great opportunities presented by China’s development.” The commentator concluded by channeling a classic American line, “We will open our arms to the people of other countries and welcome them aboard the express train of China’s development.”
  • South China Morning Post, a Hong Kong paper, quoted several experts’ views. Wang Huiyao, president of the Centre for China and Globalisation and an adviser to the State Council, thought that “China’s contribution to the creation of new US jobs and to maintaining low consumer prices for years has been ignored” in the speech. Huo Jianguo, vice-chairman of the Ministry of Commerce’s China Society for WTO Studies, said “Beijing should be mentally and practically prepared for the coming trade friction with the US, which was only a matter of time and scale.”

Another aspect of the President’s address that caught attention in China was his proposal for a 10 percent increase in the country’s military spending.

  • Shanghai Daily, along with several other newspapers, reported that Fu Ying, spokeswoman for the National People’s Congress, pointed out the President’s proposition for military spending to explain that China’s defense budget would expand by about 7 percent.

INDIA

The shooting of two Indian engineers in Kansas framed much of the Indian commentary, eliciting a diverse range of view.

  • A Hindustan Times column thought that Trump “began the hour-long oration with a reference to ‘last week’s shooting in Kansas’ in part because “his administration has been listening to the anguish expressed by New Delhi.”
  • An editorial in The Pioneer, the pro-BJP Party newspaper, opined that “the President hit the right notes” his address to the Congress. The President appeared “calm, comforting, peaceful and mature.” The commentator especially appreciated the President’s acknowledgement of the racially-motivated Kansas killing of an Indian engineer and noted “there was a sense of genuineness in his condemnation.” Thus, the commentator thought the President also “struck a chord with Indians.”
  • Business Standard said of the address, “Just a speech, however good, can’t make America great.”
  • A column in Hindustan Times said of the killing of an Indian engineer in Kansas, “Once again the price of hate in America has been paid with the blood of an Indian worker.” The columnist thought that “Trump should share the blame for hate crimes in US.”

For many commentators the inaccuracies in the speech stood out.

  • An op-ed in The Indian Express, a pro-Congress Party newspaper, said, “The joint address to Congress by Trump was filled with inaccuracies, rhetoric and exaggerations and after a fact-check, it seems clear that he may have just read a half-researched speech off the teleprompter.”
  • An editorial in the left-leaning The Hindu, found President Trump’s address to the Congress to be “unusual” due to its “less combative” tone. The commentator also noted the President “refrained from his melodramatic oratorical strategy of painting America as a nation facing a dark future in a dangerous world.” The commentator was dismayed by the President’s “apparent lack of interest in factual accuracy and specificity on details.”
  • For The Economic Times, the President’s address sent mixed signals regarding immigration and immigrants. It states, “Many are now drawing comfort from the US President’s seeming willingness to adopt a merit-based immigration policy” but the President still emphasizes his “hire Americans” vision. Furthermore, the President “does not quite assuage concerns over immigration” because of “his continuing demonisation of immigrants as criminals and terrorists.”

JAPAN

The President’s address to Congress was widely covered in the Japanese newspapers. The commentators reflected on several facets of the address. A point of convergence for several commentators was the apparent vagueness and lack of substance in the address.

  • The Japan Times, conservative leaning with the largest circulation, published an editorial titled “Trump gets presidentia” Still, the commentator noted that “there was little indication of how Trump will structure the many priorities he identified in his remarks.”
  • A commentator in the Japan Times also thought that although the President “refrained from extreme assertions and appealed for the reinforcement of measures to fight terrorism and vitalize the economy, … crucial, concrete paths toward realizing such pledges have been left undefined.” This individual suggested “Trump should quickly show a road map for how he will translate this series of policies into reality.”
  • According to an editorial in the Asahi Shimbun, the second largest daily circulation in Japan, “U.S. President Donald Trump again wasted a great opportunity to lay out a clear vision of the role the United States will play in the world under his leadership.” It continued, “Trump offered no definitive answers to such vital questions as how America will relate to the rest of the world and how it will work to secure a stable international order under his presidency.”

Another theme the commentators picked up from the President’s address was its degree of accuracy.

A few also commented on some worrisome aspects of the address.

  • The emphasis on defense budget did not go unnoticed in the Japanese papers. An editorial in The Mainichi said, “Trump appears to believe it necessary to boost U.S. military capabilities to counter threats posed by North Korea and the growth of Chinese military power. However, the Trump government attaches excessive importance to building up the U.S. military.” The commentator thought “Trump should prioritize diplomatic power over military build up and believes “the latest address is highly unlikely to lead to reconciliation between the Trump administration and media outlets.”
  • A writer in The Japan Times opined that President Trump has a “strikingly narrow conception of leadership.” The commentator expected that foreign audiences will be most concerned by Trump’s assertion that “my job is not to represent the world. My job is to represent the United States of America.”

RUSSIA

Several Russian papers reported that “the Kremlin [was] not surprised by the fact that Trump did not mention Russia in his address to Congress.” The Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov reportedly said “He (Trump) is president of the United States of America, so it is natural that he tackles the American issues” just as “Putin tackles the Russian issues” in Russia. Surprisingly, hardly any of the newspapers that normally publish opinion pieces commented on the President’s address to the Congress. Some coverage came from the nationalistic government backed Sputnik and RT.

  • A Sputnik article gave a rundown of an analysis of the President’s speech by Vzglyad, a Russian language online newspaper. One main point it saw was the idea of “Make his home country stronger and bring business to the US military industrial complex.” Another key point it made was that some of the higher military expenditure will be for developing the US Navy with the aim of “containment of China.”
  • The President’s address is described as “‘knock it outta the park’ speech” in RT. The op-ed gave glowing reviews from several commentators who were “impressed” by the speech. One in particular thought Trump was “magnificent.”

BRAZIL

President Trump’s address enjoyed some favorable reviews in Brazilian media. Discussing aspects from Trump’s tone, to the ‘revival’ of the suffragette movement, media outlets deviated their focus from Trump’s effect on foreign policy and mostly focused on fact-checking the President and analyzing the content and rhetoric of his speech.

  • The Deutsche Welle for Carta Capital reported on President Trump’s ‘optimistic’ and ‘decisive’ tone, a far cry from his ‘dark’ inauguration speech on January 20th. Furthermore, the news outlet discussed the danger of Trump’s ‘America first’ attitude, which is ‘very different from what the United States has done so far’. Carta Capital also reported that sixty six Democrat Congresswomen wore white during Trump’s address as a form of silent protest and as a reminder of the suffragette movement in the United States.
  • Columnist Nelson de Sa wrote an opinion piece for Folha de Sao Paulo discussing the two versions of President Trump: ‘Teleprompter Trump’ and ‘Twitter Trump’. While ‘Teleprompter Trump’ is far more ‘collected’ and contained than his ‘Twitter Trump’ version, his ‘Twitter Trump’ is still an inherent part of who President Trump is, and most importantly, what he thinks and acts upon.

O Globo reported that, although Trump maintains a very clear ‘nationalist agenda’, his tone was surprisingly ‘conciliatory’, calling on all Americans to work together for the country’s ‘aspirations’. O Globo also published a fact-check on President Trump’s claims on immigration statistics, poverty, and Obamacare.

 

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

Rising Powers Assess National Security Advisor Michael Flynn’s Fall From Grace

Policy Alert #139 | February 22, 2017

National Security Advisor Michael Flynn’s sudden resignation from the Trump administration on February 13, 2017 after reports of having misled White House officials regarding his contacts with Russian ambassador to the US, Sergey Kislayak, is leading to questions and concerns in rising powers about national security decisionmaking under the new government.

RUSSIA

Given that Flynn’s resignation from his position as the National Security Advisor in the Trump administration was precipitated from a questionable contact with a Russian official, the Kremlin expressed its preference not to comment on the matter. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov reportedly told journalists, “This is a domestic issue of the Americans and the Trump administration, not ours.” However, Russian officials vigorously defended Flynn and are sympathetic to the Trump administration.

  • Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee at the Federation Council, the upper chamber of Russia’s parliament wrote on his Facebook page, “To expel the National Security Advisor for his contacts with the Russian ambassador, which is a usual diplomatic practice, is something far worse than paranoia.” Kosachev suggested that “Russophobia has already infected the new administration from top to bottom.”
  • Alexey Pushkov, a member of the State Duma, the Russian parliament’s lower house, said “Flynn fell victim to an aggressive media campaign that aims to exploit anti-Russian sentiments to undermine Trump’s presidency.”
  • Vladimir Jabbarov, a Russian Senator, stated that “US media accusations of President Donald Trump administration’s alleged contacts with Russian intelligence aim to impeach Trump.”

Commentators at the government supported nationalistic media outlets RT and Sputnik  followed suit and even gloried Flynn as the only man who could have made headway in the US-Russia relations; despite extensive reporting on the resignation itself, other news outlets refrained from publishing opinion pieces.  A general consensus seems to be that Flynn’s resignation signals further cooling of U.S.-Russia relations.

INDIA

Although the Indian government was silent on Flynn’s resignation, commentators used the resignation as a springboard to discuss the competence and efficacy of the Trump administration and that of President Trump.

  • A column in Business Standard claimed that “Trump administration has been a comic opera of buffoons.” The columnist also noted the “incompetence, nepotism and arrogance” of the Trump White House.
  • An editorial in The Indian Express, a Congress Party leaning newspaper, further noted Trump’s less than conventional performance. It stated, “Trump has had bizarre conversations with world leaders, attacked Nordstrom for failing to buy from his daughter’s firm, chosen ill-qualified cabinet members, attacked the judiciary for shooting down his ban on travel from seven Muslim-majority countries.” The author continued, “ All these, though, pale into insignificance with the resignation of his national security advisor, Michael Flynn.”
  • A column titled “The Trump White House is becoming a global headache” in Hindustan Times opined that General Flynn’s contact with the Russian ambassador was “inappropriate.” Furthermore, it claimed that Flynn’s action and the subsequent resignation highlight “the amateurish nature of how some of his [Trump’s] appointees have approached governance.” The author suspects that in addition to immaturity, the “unsettled nature of the administration will worry many around the globe who are invested in security ties with the US, including India.”

Because the performance of Trump’s administration thus far suggests incompetence to some commentators, they questioned Trump’s appointment making judgement.

  • After discussing the preeminent role that the United States plays in the international system and security, and how the position Flynn held is especially important for Trump, “a president who has no experience of government,” editorial in The Indian Express claimed that the “casualness” with which Trump could have made such a critical appointment suggests “he ill-understands the responsibilities of the position he now holds.”
  • In a similar tone, an editorial in the left leaning The Hindu stated, “Mr. Trump could learn some lessons from the Flynn episode. He could use better judgment when he chooses his next NSA. He should set his house in order and formulate a cohesive approach towards domestic and foreign policy issues… If not, his administration could well be trapped in crisis mode.”

A column in The Pioneer, a pro-BJP party newspaper expressed some sympathy toward the Trump administration.

  • It stated, “While Flynn’s departure is an embarrassment to the Trump Administration, it’s not the disaster that the President’s critics are making it out to be. Wrong choices are often made; it’s important they are corrected at the earliest.”
  • Not only was the column sympathetic toward the Trump administration, it criticized the Democrats for giving Trump a hard time putting together his team in place. It claimed, “Democrats have been less than helpful, seeking to delay, if not altogether block the clearance of his nominees…It’s also not fair on the Democratic Party’s side to create hurdles in President Trump’s effort to have his team in place. He has been elected in a free and fair poll process and the Democrats must respect the verdict.”

JAPAN

According to an article in The Japan News, the largest daily circulation, Flynn “has an understanding about the Japan-U.S. alliance. He responded favorably to Japan’s concerns about security issues. The U.S. side’s remarks that the Senkaku Islands are covered by the Japan-U.S. security treaty were well received. It is said that Japanese Ambassador to the United States Kenichiro Sasae has already built relations with both Jared Kushner and Flynn to the extent that they are mutually contactable at any time when necessary.” That said, some Japanese commentators weighed in on the impact of Flynn’s resignation on Japan-U.S. relations.

  • An article in The Mainichi, a liberal-learning newspaper and the third largest daily circulation, stated that Flynn’s resignation “represents a blow for Japan because he was predicted to become an effective intermediary between the two countries.”
  • Despite losing Flynn as the key intermediary, a commentator from Nikkei Asian Review, a center-right business paper, anticipated progress in the relationship between Shinzo Abe and Trump due to their shared interest. The commentator stated, “In his keen pursuit of warmer relations with Russia, Trump had found a kindred spirit in Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, a recent guest and golfing partner at the president’s Florida retreat, who has launched his own friendly efforts for detente with Moscow.”

An editorial in The Japan News also commented on the relations between the Trump administration and Russia in general.

  • The commentator thought that the Trump administration has had “unprincipled approach to Russia.” It opined that “Trump’s conciliatory moves toward Russia should be avoided for now.”

SOUTH KOREA

Like the Japanese commentators, the South Korean counterparts also seemed to view Flynn as an asset to U.S.-Korea relations.

  • Korea Joongang Daily, a conservative newspaper, reported that “Flynn has previously expressed strong support for the U.S. alliance with South Korea and prioritized the Pyongyang issue.” Thus, “there is concern on the impact his resignation will have on security affairs.”
  • Given Flynn’s alleged illicit interaction with a top Russian official and the subsequent resignation as well as related allegations regarding Trump’s team members, an op-ed in The Dong-A Ilbo, a conservative-leaning paper, opined that “the improper Russia dealings scandal” is “gradually strangling” President Trump.

CHINA

During a recent press conference, the Foreign Ministry spokesman Geng Shuang declined to comment because the resignation was an internal US affair. Commentaries from the Chinese newspapers and experts showed disappointment with the Flynn’s resignation.

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

Trump’s Travel Ban Draws Ire From Rising Powers

Policy Alert #138 | February 8, 2017

President Donald Trump’s executive order banning travelers and refugees from seven predominately Muslim countries was almost uniformly condemned across rising powers, with the exception of Russia. Many commentators expressed dismay at the discriminatory tone of the ban and the likelihood that it would increase, rather than decrease, terrorism.

RUSSIA

The reactions to Trump’s “Muslim” ban in the Russian newspaper was a mix of defense for Trump and conspiracy.

  • According to an op-ed in Sputnik, Trump’s executive orders aren’t unusual or exceptional; what is unusual is the reaction to the ban. The author claimed, “It looks strange that Barack Obama’s extensive bombing of seven Muslim-majority nations in 2016 failed to provoke similar concerns among US media pundits.” In a similar vein, Russian lawmaker Alexander Chepa “believes that there is more to the fuss over Trump’s executive order than meets the eye.”
  • An RT article pointed out the “hypocrisy” of American public with regards to the American’s reaction to the ban. It continued, “You don’t have to be a Trump supporter to acknowledge that ‘Barack O’Bomber’ and his predecessors in the White House have got off very lightly.” The author believed that the reaction has been overblown “if we compare it to the non-reaction to far worse things US governments have done.”
  • Another RT op-ed repeated the same message: “most of his policies are crass and unsophisticated, but they pale in comparison to the horrors previous administrations have fronted.”
  • A Pravda column agrees with views expressed above: “putting President Trump’s measures into context, they neither violate the law, nor are they intended to be discriminatory, nor are they of a permanent nature.”
  • An op-ed in RT suggested that Trump’s ‘Muslim ban’ could be part of a strategy to begin a war with Iran rather than an attempt to control the refugee flow.

Not all the newspapers were defensive of Trump’s travel ban.

INDIA

While many Indian newspapers reacted to the “Muslim” ban, their focus was on the H-1B visa, which is a non-immigrant visa that allows US firms to employ skilled foreign workers, more than on the ban itself. Nevertheless, haunted by visions of rejected H-1B applications and useless green cards, Indians expressed solidarity with the American protesters.

  • According to an op-ed in Hindustan Times, a pro-Congress Party newspaper, Trump’s executive order is “only the latest twist of dark threads that have long been present in America. The executive order is not unprecedented. It is evolutionary.”
  • Most of the Republicans in the US Congress have taken no official position on the travel ban, and a Hindustan Times columnist said such a resounding silence is cowardice.
  • An op-ed in Hindustan Times pointed out some glaring similarities between India and US’ current state of affairs. For example, India’s Citizenship (Amendment) Bill 2016 “openly discriminates among illegal migrants on religious grounds” and India has already completed 82% of a planned 3,326 km-long fence along the Bangladesh border, supported by all political parties, scheduled to be finished in 2019.
  • An editorial in The Times of India, a center right newspaper, thinks “India must prepare for a situation where there is a clampdown on US visas for Indian businesses, professionals and passport holders.”
  • Additionally, it called on the government to “take advantage of any American ban to speed up the reform process and lure American companies to ‘Make in India’.” In a similar manner an editorial in Hindustan Times argued that “the government should consider how to entice more highly-skilled Indians to give up on their American dream and return home.”

JAPAN

Not many Japanese newspapers published opinion pieces on Trump’s “Muslim” ban. But those that spoke about the topic expressed overwhelmingly negative views and agreed that the ban is a reminder of the Japanese-Americans who were sent to internment camps during the World War II.

The Mainichi reported that the Japanese government has dodged criticizing Trump immigration order. Shinzo Abe reportedly said of Trump’s executive order, “It expresses the thinking of the U.S. government, so I am not in a position to comment on it.” However, refugee support groups in Japan “are taking a stand against U.S. President Donald Trump’s new refugee restrictions, and calling on the Japanese government to do the same.”

CHINA

Although the Chinese newspapers reported on the ban, the editorials and op-eds are mostly concerned with the Trump administration’s Asia policy, specifically the South China Sea policy, and prospects for security and trade relations. None tackled the ban itself while a few addressed the ban and the executive orders in general. Those pieces expressed the following views:

  • Global Times, a newspaper with nationalistic leanings, published an op-ed titled, “Trump’s executive orders have lasting harm.” The author did not expect the immediate effect of the ban to lower the risk of terrorist attacks, but predicts that it will actually end up widening “the gaps and creating more resentment between ‘we’ and ‘they.’”
  • A professor and associate dean of Institute of International Studies at Fudan University stated, “He [Trump] has already caused much damage in his first 10 days, threatening the core checks-and-balances of US democracy.

SOUTH KOREA

On January 30, Prime Minister and acting President Hwang Kyo-ahn and President Trump had their first telephone conference since Trump took office. Despite the worrisome comments Trump made during the campaign trail, Trump was reported to have assured Hwang that “the US would stick with South Korea 100% at all times and that the relationship between the two countries would be better than ever.” Although prospects for the US-Korea relationship seems to be positive, Trump’s executive orders raised serious concerns in Korea.

  • An editorial in Korea Joongang Daily was concerned that the Koreans living or working in the Middle East may be affected by the discriminatory U.S. policy just because it is an ally. Thus, it urged the Korean government to look out for those Koreans and also to work towards defending the rights of the 230,000 ethnic Koreans who live in the U.S. without permanent residency.

Overall, the Korean newspapers were highly critical of Trump’s “Muslim” ban.

  • An editorial in Korea Joongang Daily, a conservative leaning newspaper, declared the ban is a “nonsensical immigration policy,” “defamatory,” and “stigmatizes people from a certain group of nations.”
  • An editorial in the DONG-A-ILBO claimed that “Trump’s actions to close doors to foreigners, and restore black jails and torture is reminiscent of the Nazi domination in the 1930s.” Additionally, it warned of American decline saying, “The Roman empire declined as it lost generosity for colonies for the sake of Roman people.”
  • An editorial in The Kyunghyang Shinmun, a liberal leaning newspaper, expressed concern that the S. did not consult Iraq or other countries prior to the order.

According to The Korea Herald, “Isolationism and unilateralism, which run under the ban, will hurt relations between the US and its allies” and “risks spurring anti-American sentiment and giving a pretext for retaliatory terrorist attacks.”

BRAZIL

Although President Trump’s travel ban did not include the South American countries, repercussions have hit  visa applications across  the country. Correio Braziliense offered insight on a few changes that have been instituted throughout U.S consulates, including mandatory interviews for “anyone who has had their American visa expire for over a year.” Now, only children under the age of fourteen and senior citizens over the age of 79 can waive the interview.

Zero Hora reported that several tourist visa seekers in Porto Alegre had their visas rejected because interviews can only be conducted in consulates and the U.S only offers four consulate locations in Brazil. The news outlet also reported that there was “no official alert issued regarding the matter”, and that travelers were only notified of this new policy “when arriving at the center”.

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

Rising Powers React Vigorously to Donald Trump’s Inauguration

Policy Alert #137 | February 8, 2017

Donald Trump’s inauguration as the 45th U.S. president on January 20 evoked strong and even fiery reactions in rising powers. Much of the commentary was critical, fearing threats to the global liberal economic order and the existing security architecture in Asia. There was also some concern about a possible reversal of democratic values in the U.S. under the new administration and implications abroad. In this Policy Alert, we offer views from Japan, Russia, China, India, South Korea and Brazil on Trump’s ascendancy to power.

JAPAN

“America first” rhetoric in Trump’s inaugural address was a point of focus and concern for Japanese commentators.

  • In response to Trump’s “America first” and isolationist policies, an editorial in The Asahi Shimbum, a liberal leaning paper, contended that “America’s allies and friends now need to enhance their engagement with the United States in order to prevent Trump from leading the country into a cocoon of isolationism. As a champion of the values of democracy and freedom, Japan has a major role to play in such efforts.”
  • An editorial in The Japan News, a more conservative paper, said of Trump’s inaugural address, “There was almost no mention of freedom, democracy, or rule of law. It is inevitable that the values of the United States will be shaken.”

RUSSIA

There was a thorough coverage of not just Trump’s inauguration but also of the first few days of Trump’s presidency, including the Women’s March, in the Russian newspapers. Although not all the Russian newspapers presented a positive view of Trump’s inauguration, most nevertheless praised and defended Trump.

  • According to a Sputnik op-ed, “Trump’s speech has become a shining example of US presidential rhetoric.” Press secretary of the Russian president, Dmitry Peskov, said “It must be the biggest mistake by western analysts, by some of our political analysts to consider him [Trump] being our man.”
  • A Pravda column said, “those boycotting Donald Trump’s presidential inauguration come across as childish spoilsports who are going to exclude themselves from the fun. To date, Donald Trump has made a lot of sense, has shown himself to be a shrewd communicator and has called a spade, a spade.
  • An RT op-ed likened Trump’s presidency to a circus, “Cirque du Trump.” The author claims that “like the tightrope walker, he [Trump] will leave everyone one the edge of their seats with his death-defying (hopefully) foreign, military and economic policy. Like the clown, he will amuse and offend millions with his defensive midnight tweet storms. Like the acrobat, he will astound and amaze with his ability to politically contort and contradict himself, sometimes even in the span of a single sentence.”

CHINA

Even before assuming the office of President, Trump and his team have already managed to provoke China over its core interests and sensitive issues such as the Taiwan question and the South China Sea disputes. There was overall a negative impression of Trump’s inaugural address and a grave concern that China and the U.S. may have an agitated relationship, and possibly a trade war, under Trump.

  • A China Daily editorial said of Trump’s inaugural address, “aspiring to unite a politically divided nation with an essentially divisive rallying call — an inaugural speech that was anti-tradition, anti-establishment, anti-globalization, anti-free-trade and virtually anti-everything pre-Trump.” South China Morning Post also noted that the speech was at odds with reality and that “not before has a US president given an inauguration address as filled with nationalism, isolationism and protectionism as did Donald Trump.”
  • Global Times published several editorials on uncertainty, dramatic changes, and lingering fears regarding the Trump era. One in particular noted that Trump’s inaugural address “launched a sweeping criticism of US domestic and foreign policies over the past decades” and that “Trump seemed less than gracious to ignore how his predecessors and political dignitaries might feel insulted by his criticism.”
  • Regarding Trump’s presidency, Wu Zhenglong, a Research Fellow at China Foundation, contended that “after Trump takes office, China and the US will see more trade frictions between them. The new president is likely to take harsher moves against China on such issues as tariffs and exchange rates. Bilateral relations may get rocky to a certain degree.” This outlook was also shared by Zha Daojiong, a Peking University professor, who said, “Active conflict between China and the United States over Taiwan seems less distant a prospect.”

INDIA

Many commentators expressed overwhelmingly negative views of Trump’s inauguration speech.

  • An editorial in the left leaning The Hindu, opined that Trump’s inauguration speech was “resonant of campaign rhetoric rather than one that should have been a vision statement for a united future under his leadership.” It also said the speech had remarkable omissions such as “the humility that American Presidents usually embrace in their first address,” “the historical emphasis on American values” and “word of thanks for the work of his predecessor.” In a similar manner, an editorial in Business Standard thought Trump’s speech “dissed the four former presidents with whom he shared the podium and painted a grossly inaccurate picture of America.”
  • Unlike most editorials and op-eds which expressed critical views of Trump’s “America first” emphasis in his inaugural address, a column in the conservative nationalist minded The Pioneer was more sympathetic than not. The columnist states that “the new President has every reason to ensure primacy to his nation’s citizens in job opportunities.” But the columnist also recognized that “the new US President cannot afford to take his country into a shell because that will leave the space open for China to occupy.”

Some commentators spoke about expectations regarding Trump’s presidency itself.

  • According to an editorial in The Economic Times, the Trump presidency promises “changeability and uncertainty.” Not only has Trump taken contrary and contradictory stands on the same issue time and again, but “his nominees to key posts in his administration have contradicted their chief ’s stand on a number of key subjects.”
  • Another editorial in The Economic Times pondered, “Can Donald Trump become a catalyst for Asia’s century?” That is because as the author contended, “If the US does indeed go ahead and disengage partially in Asia, the result would be for China to move in to occupy the strategic space vacated by the US. If Japan and South Korea are egged on to acquire military capability to compensate for a smaller American defence umbrella, India’s own strategic capability would have to be scaled up much faster.”

SOUTH KOREA

Given the recent presidential impeachment in South Korea, the coverage of Trump’s inauguration by the country’s newspaper was a mixed of commentary on Trump and his policies and a recognition of an urgent need for a stable political leadership in Korea.

  • Regarding the inaugural address, an editorial in DONG-A-ILBO noted Trump’s excessive use of “dystopian words.”
  • Another editorial in DONG-A-ILBO argued that “the absence of a leader [in South Korea] should not continue for a long time” because Korea needs “a stable leadership so as not to lag behind in the midst of changes in the international community that is trying to find its own ways to survive in the Trump era.”
  • Given Trump’s presidency, an editorial in The Hankyoreh, a liberal leaning paper, contended that “there is now a greater imperative [for South Korea] to step up its own balanced diplomacy efforts.” The author continued, “We would also be better off taking action ourselves on alliance and trade issues… rather than letting ourselves get caught in a climate where the US takes the helm.”

BRAZIL

Most articles in the Brazilian press focused on how Trump’s protectionist policy tendency was a potential threat to economic recovery in Brazil. Some commentators also warned about rising nationalism and illiberal democracy.

  • Folha de São Paulo reported that the incoming government’s protectionism could pose a threat to Brazil and trade liberalization. The report quoted several Brazilian trade specialists, such as Josino Mierelles of the Brazilian Industries Coalition headquartered in Washington, who asserted that while the new U.S. administration has not offered a concrete trade agenda, the Brazilian government should engage the White House and Congress with its own national interests in mind.
  • O Globo made an inventory of the economic achievements of the former President Obama, but continued with a focus on Trump’s proposals to increase tariffs on China and disrupt the international trading system. It noted that such a new U.S. trade policy could undermine Brazilian exports to China and around the world. Also, the report deduced that such a policy could lead to higher U.S. interest rates that could lessen foreign investment in Brazil and trigger increases in Brazilian interest rates.
  • The weekly Veja interviewed Monica Baumgarten de Bolle, professor of economics at Pontefical Catholic University, in which she cautioned that Trump government’s trade policies could increase U.S. interest rates and thereby pressure the Brazilian Central Bank to raise interest rates, undermining the conditions of economic recovery. She also warned that Trump and the Republican dominated Congress could lower business taxes and impose a “Border Adjustment Tax (BAT)” which would serve as a new tariff on imports.
  • The Estadão led its reporting with an article detailing a “new era of nationalism” in the United States and compared Trump to Russia’s Putin, India’s Modi, and Turkey’s Erdogan among other populists around the world.
  • The weekly, Carta Capital, published several stories on Trump and the threats he represents to democracy in the United States and around the world. One of the articles asserted that Trump was able to reveal and effectively denounce these defects of liberal democracy to offer up an alternative to the political system’s “fraud and deceit,” and the liberals and the political left were unable to match Trump’s rise with a convincing vision and policy platform.

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

Rising Powers Ponder the Impeachment of South Korean President

Policy Alert #136 | December 15, 2016

On December 9, the South Korean National Assembly voted to impeach President Park Geun-hye following a scandal that drove millions to protest throughout the country. While Park offered to step down or shorten her term to avoid an impeachment vote, her opposition in the legislature moved to impeach by a vote of 236 to 56. Park has been under fire with allegations she let a family friend, Choi Soon-sil, have undue influence over her administration with accusations that Choi extorted donations from businesses to curry favor with Blue House and had access to classified government documents.

Prime Minister Hwang Kyo-ahn will assume the presidency until the country’s Constitutional Court rules whether Park must permanently step down, a decision that may take up to six months. Should this happen, South Korea will hold another presidential election within 60 days but it remains uncertain whether the ruling Saenuri Party will be able to maintain its hold on power. In this Policy Alert, we review the reactions within South Korea, China, India, and Japan to Park’s downfall and South Korea’s future.

SOUTH KOREA

President Park said she was “gravely accepting parliamentary and public voices” and wished the “current turmoil comes to a stable end.” A Gallup opinion survey had her approval rating at just 4 percent with other polls showing 80 percent in favor of her impeachment. Even 62 members of her own political party voted against Park. This was just the second time a president has been impeached since the Republic of Korea (ROK) became a full-fledged democracy in the late 1980s.

Most editorials and op-eds in the South Korean press did not express much sympathy for President Park. In fact, some outright said “she does not deserve any sympathy.”

  • Korea Times accused Park of having “been negligent of the people’s voices, only sticking to her own point-of-view.”
  • Hankyoreh regretted Park was “getting ready to fight the people” and ignore the voices of millions of South Koreans who stood vigil against her presidency.
  • Another Korea Times editorial claimed her “greatest crime that is not transcribed onto the official list of charges is the destruction of trust in the office of the presidency, and the subsequent sense of hopelessness among the people that may take a great deal of time to heal.” Nevertheless, the paper reminded that “all those involved, including the President, remain innocent until they are proven guilty.”

Several liberal and conservative leaning papers called for pro-Park members – who “ruined the party” – to “step down along with President Park.”

President Park’s scandal prompted several newspapers to revisit the Park government’s slow and controversial response to the Sewol ferry tragedy in 2014 that resulted in the death of 304 passengers and crew members.

Some are hopeful that better days for the South Korean democracy are still ahead if political leaders and the public continue to fight for it.

  • Hankyoreh saw the impeachment as signaling a “new dawn” for democracy in the country with the vote “not the final stop in the Choi Sun-sil scandal but rather the first stop toward a new future for the Republic of Korea. This is an opportunity not merely to remove the people who appropriated state resources for themselves but to replace the obsolete systems, conditions, and structures that made such appropriation possible.”
  • The Chosunilbo appealed to the “rule of law” as the guiding force toward “an honorable outcome” as Korea enters “uncharted waters.”
  • The Dong-A Ilbo called on acting president Hwang Kyo-ahn to “remain politically neutral and cooperate with the National Assembly to become a successful acting president.” The paper also urged opposition parties to show him “due respect” during this political transition. The Chosunilbo echoed this position.

CHINA

While avowing that China has a principle of not interfering in the domestic affairs of other countries, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lu Kang hoped South Korea could soon restore stability and develop good relations with China. Beijing has been harshly critical of South Korea’s plans to deploy the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) – an anti-missile system targeting North Korea but one that China believes could disrupt its own nuclear deterrent – and will watch closely to see whether the new ROK leadership will continue the program.

Most of the media and expert commentary in China portrayed the embattled Park as unnecessarily impairing Sino-ROK relations and considered her downfall a direct result of these anti-China policies.

  • After leading “her country astray from the normal path,” Global Times blamed her fall from power on a “reckless and capricious” “180-degree change in foreign policy” with “hysteric criticism of China” and THAAD deployment having “seriously violated China’s national interest.” The paper alleged Park’s moves toward the United States and Japan pushed “South Korea back to the shadows of the Cold War.”
  • Liu Jiangyong, professor of international relations at Tsinghua University, admitted the uncertain political situation in South Korea might have “adverse consequences for China-ROK ties as well as for the Korean Peninsula.” Liu saw Japan moving in to take advantage of this chaotic period to sign a military agreement that may harm Beijing’s interests.
  • A major trilateral summit between China, Japan, and South Korea originally scheduled for this month has now been postponed to 2017. Huang Dahui, director of the Center for East Asian Studies at Renmin University of China, lamented this delay and urged South Korea to adopt a “more balanced diplomacy between China and Japan,” especially as President Donald Trump may “change policy toward the Asia-Pacific.”
  • Korean studies expert Zhang Liangui of the Party School of the Communist Party of China Central Committee predicted the THAAD deployment will move ahead since “nobody will stand up to say no” during the leadership transition. Cai Jian, professor of the Center for Korean Studies at Fudan University, blamed South Korea’s political turmoil on the THAAD deployment.
  • Lu Chao, research fellow at the Liaoning Academy of Social Sciences, urged China and South Korea to “remain composed and avoid populist sentiments in economic, cultural, and people-to-people exchanges” at this time. Lu saw THAAD and Park’s efforts to have a “bigger presence of U.S. military forces” as worsening “inter-Korean relations in every aspect.”
  • Zhao Lixin, director of the Department of International Political Science at Yanbian University, questioned if the Trump Administration will redefine the U.S.-ROK alliance with Seoul becoming “humbler while the U.S. tougher.”

INDIA

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Park have personally made efforts in recent years to build closer ties, including boosting trade and enhancing cooperation on counter-terrorism and maritime security. Bilateral trade between India and South Korea has “consistently increased over the past decades” with a target of $40 billion in annual trade.

Indian media debated Park’s legacy.

  • The Hindu concluded Park’s “record in office was far from exemplary” with slower than expected economic growth, poor relations with China, a controversial THAAD deployment, and an inability to calm tensions with North Korea. The paper wanted Park to have resigned to spare the country from months of political uncertainty as the Constitutional Court issues a final decision.
  • In the days leading up to the impeachment, The Hindu criticized Seoul’s strategy of “picking winners” among competing industrial groups after allegations of extortion and corruption emerged during Park’s political scandal.

JAPAN

While Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga insisted Tokyo “has not been affected so far” by the impeachment vote, a senior foreign ministry official admitted turmoil in South Korea and a possible inward-looking President Trump benefits Russia, North Korea, and China at the expense of Japan.

Many papers in Japan recognized that a prolonged turmoil is inevitable for the ROK. Most of the apprehensions seem to be about the impending power vacuum and the opposition parties’ stance on South Korea’s relationship with its neighbors, including Japan.

  • As of early December, The Japan News said “it is worrying that the opposition parties seeking to win back power harbor reconciliatory tendencies toward North Korea.”
  • Following the Parliament’s approval to impeach President Park, The Japan News also expressed concern over the South Korean opposition parties’ stance on South Korea’s relationship with its neighbor. “It is necessary to closely watch whether South Korean opposition parties will inflame national sentiment by taking advantage of issues related to the perception of history to change Japan-South Korea relations for the worse,” the paper said.
  • Nikkei Asian Review proclaimed that Park’s impeachment left “Japan fretting over power balance” in Asia working in favor of China and North Korea.
  • Asahi Shimbun opined “the country’s lawmakers need to use the challenging process of dealing with the current political confusion to push through serious political reform.”
  • Mainichi worried about the looming leadership vacuum and urged South Korea to not allow a lengthy leadership vacuum during the Court’s deliberation period since “South Korea will face difficulties building up good relations with the next U.S. administration” and other important regional security issues. The paper moaned that “uncertainty in South Korea’s political situation has discouraged companies from investing in the country.”
  • Asahi Shimbun also argued President Park “effectively destroyed herself with her utter ineptitude at responding to the crisis of her own making.” Furthermore, the paper thought the political turmoil surrounding President Park seriously undermined the South Korean people’s trust in politics.

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

Rising Powers Reflect on the Passing of Fidel Castro

Policy Alert #135 | November 29, 2016

On November 25, Fidel Castro, the long-serving revolutionary leader of Cuba, passed away at the age of 90. After assuming power in 1959, Castro’s efforts to transform the Republic of Cuba into a communist country faced fierce opposition, economic blockades, and a myriad of assassination attempts from the United States. Throughout the Cold War, Castro inserted himself into global affairs – including the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis and his close bonds with the Soviet Union and China – to a degree that outstripped the relatively small size of his island nation.

While his death was a moment of celebration for many Cuban-Americans, Cuban exiles, and U.S. politicians, several rising powers in Asia and Latin America took time to praise Castro’s leadership in fighting for the rights of developing countries. Fidel’s younger brother, Raúl, will remain as president – a position he has held since 2006 – until 2018 when he pledged to step down. In this Policy Alert, we survey the reactions from China, Brazil, India, Russia, Japan, and South Korea to the passing of Fidel Castro and the future of Cuba.

CHINA

In offering his condolences to Cuba, President Xi Jinping called Castro a “great figure of our times” who made “immortal historic contributions to the world socialist development” and was a “close comrade and sincere friend” to China. Premier Li Keqiang praised Castro’s contributions to the bilateral relationship between China and Cuba and that Beijing was “willing to work with Cuba to inherit and carry on the traditional friendship.”

The vast majority of China’s media and expert commentary mourned Fidel Castro’s passing and noted the strong Sino-Cuban ties under his rule.

  • To China Daily, Castro’s death was a “reminder the Cold War is already over,” and now it is time for world leaders to focus on joint cooperation between developed and developing countries based on “peace and development instead of confrontation.” The paper, which also ran a detailed biography of Fidel and his ties with China, concluded “the world cannot afford to relive the Cold War.”
  • Xinhua’s Chen Shilei called his death a “great loss to the Cuban and Latin American people as well as to the world socialist development.” Castro protected Cuba’s “national sovereignty and dignity against the long-time U.S. isolation and embargo,” and his “glorious image and great achievements” will be “remembered forever.”
  • Hailing Castro as an “old friend to the Chinese people,” Global Times said Cuba “never wanted to make enemies and sour U.S.-Cuba relations to a large extent were caused by” the United States.
  • Han Han, general secretary of the Center of Cuban Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, saw “time and history” having “vindicated and awarded Fidel Castro’s hard fight to uphold Cuba’s sovereign integrity and independence.” China and Cuba have a “comradely relationship” with China teaching the island how to open up to the world and achieve reform while staying true to its socialist roots.
  • Global Times did not think Fidel’s death would have “political ramifications globally” since power has already transferred to Raúl Castro, but his passing “stirs ideology clash in China.” On Chinese social media, some Chinese youth have attacked Castro as being too close to the Soviet Union instead of China during the Cold War. The paper argued, however, these views were misguided as Castro was a “good friend” to China.

BRAZIL

Brazil’s interim president Michel Temer released a public statement regarding Fidel Castro’s death, calling the Cuban a “leader of conviction, who marked the second half of the 20th century with a firm defense of his beliefs.” It appears that the Brazilian president has no plans of attending the funeral services for Fidel.

Brazilian news sources focused particularly on the global repercussions of Fidel’s death, what should be expected or not from the regime after his death, Cuban reaction on both the island and in Miami, and analyses of the historical impact of Fidel and his revolution.

  • Estadão published a piece that analyzes the many changes undergone by Cuba during the past five decades after the revolution. The article extensively covers the differences between Fidel’s and Raúl’s governance and reforms, such as the rise in autonomous workers and expansive tourism. Nonetheless, Estadão questions the future of U.S.-Cuba relations after the election of Donald J. Trump in the United States.
  • Folha de São Paulo covered the diplomatic issues and critiques behind sending representatives from different countries to attend Fidel’s funeral services in Cuba. The source reported Michel Temer, following the lead of German president Angela Merkel, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzō Abe, will send Minister of Foreign Affairs José Serra and Minister of Culture Roberto Freire to attend the services as his representatives.
  • G1- Globo reported former Brazilian president Luis Inácio “Lula” da Silva’s heartfelt condolences to Fidel. With a history of camaraderie, Lula declared Fidel’s death felt “like losing an older brother, an irreplaceable companion, who I will never forget.” Former President Dilma Rousseff also said Fidel “believed in building a fraternal and just society, free from hunger and exploitation, a Latin America united and strong.”
  • Jornal O Globo reported on the emotional reactions to the news Fidel Castro’s death both in Cuba and in Miami. While O Globo reported an overwhelming sensation of celebration and joy in Miami, the mood in Havana was much more somber and mournful amongst those who lost their commander.
  • Huffpost Brasil ran an op-ed by historian and Latin America expert Roberto Moll where he questions whether Castro is a hero or a villain. Moll affirms, with certainty and hope, that Cubans should take this opportunity to continue to trace their country’s path while “conserving the conquests of the revolution.”

INDIA

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi tweeted to extend his “deepest condolences” on the “sad demise of Fidel Castro,” and “India mourns the loss of a great friend.” This sentiment was echoed by Indian President Pranab Mukherjee. Home Minister Rajnath Singh and other Indian politicians will attend Castro’s funeral in Cuba.

Several media outlets and experts in India praised Castro for his prominent role in history and his closeness to Indian leaders.

  • Vijay Prashad, chief editor of LeftWord Books, wrote in The Hindu that Castro was a “voice of the Third World” that fought against the Non-Aligned Movement’s (NAM) eagerness in early-1980s to take on greater debt offered by the International Monetary Fund and instead pushed a NAM “debt strike.” While his idea wasn’t followed, Prashad celebrated Castro’s resistance to imperialism and his support of aspirations in the developing world.
  • Sundheendra Kulkarni, aide to former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, described Castro as a “superhero” who exerted his heroic influence on a global scale despite his “reluctance to introduce economic and political reforms.”
  • Kallol Bhattacherjee, journalist with The Hindu, recounted how Fidel Castro saved India “from a major international embarrassment” when he convinced Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to stay at a NAM summit hosted by New Delhi. The author said Castro was a friend to Indian leaders – including Indira Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru – because they shared “common view points on world affairs.”

Other commentators expressed a more mixed reaction to Castro’s passing, noting his accomplishments and charisma but hoping Cuba and the United States will now move past Fidel’s major failings.

  • After highlighting Castro’s influential role in NAM, The Hindu hoped President-elect Donald Trump will pursue President Barack Obama’s “process of resumption of diplomatic ties between Havana and Washington.
  • The Times of India compelled Cuba to “leave behind the shackles of the past and integrate faster with the global order.”
  • The Indian Express contended Castro’s “record in suppressing dissent and free speech, discrimination against sexual minorities, was no different from that of many Third World despots,” but the Cuban people trusted him as their quality of life generally improved.
  • Castro’s death evoked “mixed feelings” in India, wrote the Hindustan Times. His “Third World Robin Hood” image endeared him to many “Indians of a certain age,” but the paper recalled his legacy of “inflicting the worst ideas of Communism, from collective farming to suppression of thought, on his free-spirited people.”
  • Portraying Castro as a polarizing figure who stood strong against the U.S. “Goliath”, Economic Times predicted the Cuban revolution will now “disintegrate, with the pace accelerating when Raúl resigns in 2018. However, Cuba will make “Castro proud” since the country is “better prepared than most nations for broad-based capitalist growth” due to its high quality healthcare and education programs.

RUSSIA

For decades, Fidel Castro was Moscow’s communist ally in the United States’ backyard and a symbol of defiance to U.S. influence abroad. The news of his death saddened many in Russia, leading many to pile flowers outside the Cuban ambassador’s residence in Moscow. Putin praised Castro as a “wise and strong person” who was a “symbol of a whole era of modern world history” and a “sincere and reliable friend of Russia.” He declared a “free and independent Cuba built by him and his colleagues became an influential member of the international community and has served as an inspiring example for many countries and peoples.”

Russian newspapers and establishment politicians in general had a positive and glowing view of Castro’s legacy with most repeatedly citing Castro’s as a “hero holding out against the U.S. empire.”

  • A columnist at Pravda remarked “Castro will enter the annals of history as a Hero of Humanity.”
  • Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev thought Castro “stood up for and strengthened his country at the time of the toughest American blockade” and “all the same he led his county” onto the “road of independent development.”
  • John Wright, commentator with RT, wrote that “though his detractors may celebrate his death, truth will always prevail. And the truth, when it comes to Fidel Castro, is that he led and inspired a revolution that today ensures the only place you will find homeless Cuban children in the world is Miami.”
  • RT ran a collection of analysts from around the globe warning “those dancing on Fidel’s grave” and hoping for Cuba to become a Western style democracy “may soon be disappointed.”
  • Alexei Pushkov, former head of the State Duma’s International Affairs Committee, said “Castro has proven that you can spend 55 years being a target of pressure and economic war from the USA and stand up to it. And now the head of the USA is going to Havana, and not the other way round.”

Some media outlets and opposition politicians pushed back on this praise for Castro.

  • Contrary to the opinion held by the establishment politicians, opposition leader Alexei Navalny said Castro’s legacy was one of “POVERTY, RUIN, EMBEZZLEMENT.” Fellow opposition leader Vladimir Milov compared the GDP per capita of Cuba ($7,000 USD) and the Puerto Rico ($29,000 USD) to declare “they started off from the same level. So much for your Castro.”
  • Kommersant promised Castro would be remembered as a “divisive figure” with people debating whether “Castro became ‘a bloody dictator’ or ‘a great fighter against American imperialism’ – just as they now argue about Joseph Stalin or Ivan the Terrible.”
  • Russian blogger Ilya Varlamov declared that “Castro ruined his own country, he brought down a once-rich region to the state of the poorest African nations. Medicines and foodstuffs are still in short supply here.” Varlamov remarked “people are working for peanuts and the only joy is to steal something.”

JAPAN

Abe expressed his “sincere condolences” to Cuba on the passing of Fidel Castro. Abe was “impressed to hear Castro talk about world affairs passionately.” When Castro visited Hiroshima in 2003, he commented on his country’s experience during the Cuban Missile Crisis and how close Cuba came to being nuclear bomb victims as well.

Japanese media and political leaders reflected on Castro’s life and his affinity for Japan.

  • Japanese Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida promised to continue to deepen Cuban-Japanese bilateral ties even after Castro’s death.
  • Keiji Furuya, chief strategist within the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, remarked on Castro’s interest in pursuing closer ties with Japan. Keiji will attend Castro’s funeral in Cuba as an envoy of Abe.
  • In the Asahi Shimbun, Castro was remembered as a “charismatic leader, who left a mark in world history” for resolutely resisting American “colonialism,” and for promoting “development of farming villages and industrialization,” but also for “mercilessly executing opponents as dictator.”
  • Although recognizing his mixed legacy, Japan Timesspoke sympathetically of Castro. The paper recounted how “Castro visited the U.S. in the months after the revolution, but President Dwight Eisenhower refused to meet him. Nationalization followed, which prompted U.S. oil companies to place an embargo on Cuba, driving the country into the armed of the Soviet Union…” Thus, the author wondered whether Castro’s role in turning Cuba into a communist dictatorship was fated.
  • An article inThe Japan News fondly commemorated Castro for his denouncement of the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The author recalled Castro “criticized a speech U.S. President Barack Obama delivered when he visited Hiroshima in May, saying that the speech lacked an apology for killing a number of people with the atomic bomb.”

SOUTH KOREA

The Foreign Ministry offered the government’s sympathies to Cuba after Castro’s death despite the two countries not having official diplomatic ties. This may change in the coming years with South Korea looking to normalize relations after Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se’s historic visit to Cuba this past summer. In contrast, Pyongyang plans to send a delegation to express their condolences in person, in addition to a three-day mourning period within North Korea and flags flown at half-mast.

While the South Korean newspapers recognized Castro’s mixed legacy, their primary focus was juxtaposition between him and the Kim family in North Korea, which led them to view Castro in a positive light.

  • Dong-A Ilboeditorial writer Song Pyeong-in compared the legacy of Castro to that of Kim Il Sung of North Korea and remarked that “both people were dictators, but while Kim maintained his regime with an awe-inspiring sentiment, Castro did so with friendliness.” It noted that unlike Kim, Castro did not set up statues of himself nor did he stop people complaining about his regime from leaving the country, which made Cuba less fearful than North Korea.”
  • Dong-A Ilbo editorial writer Han Ki-heung further pointed out that “neither did Castro pass down his power to his son and grandson, nor did he force his people to worship him like Kim Il Sung.”

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

Rising Powers React to President-Elect Donald J. Trump

Policy Alert #134 | November 10, 2016

Donald J. Trump will be the 45th President of the United States. After the polls closed and the votes were counted in a nail biter of an election on November 8, the Trump campaign won enough electoral college votes to defeat Hillary Clinton and retake the White House. Along with a GOP majority in the Senate and the House, President-Elect Trump and Republicans will have free rein over the instruments of American government. As demonstrated by previous Policy Alerts on the nominating conventions and the debates, rising powers have been closely watching the U.S. presidential election to understand how the next administration might change U.S. foreign policy and the global economy. In this Policy Alert, we explore the reactions from China, Russia, India, Brazil, Japan, and South Korea to the surprise conclusion of the 2016 race for the White House.

CHINA

Chinese President Xi Jinping expressed congratulations to President-elect Trump and his desire to work closely together to “manage differences in a constructive way, in the spirit of non-conflict, non-confrontation, mutual respect, cooperation and win-win.”

Several commentators in China worried Trump’s presidency might have a negative effect on U.S.-China relations and could complicate Beijing’s economic and foreign policy ambitions.

  • China Daily saw Trump’s victory as the “logical outcome of the prevailing anti-establishment feelings” in a deeply divided U.S. society. China will have to adapt to “Trump at the helm” and see if his threats to slap a 45 percent tariff on Chinese exports to the United States and withdraw from the Paris Accord on climate change were just campaign rhetoric or a promise.
  • Shi Yinhong, director of the Center for American Studies at Renmin University, foresaw Beijing being more assertive in its dealings with Washington with Trump’s China policy having “negative effects on Sino-U.S. economic cooperation.”
  • Lin Hongyu, scholar at Huaqiao University, credited Trump’s win with the campaign riding a current of anti-globalization to the degree that the election result did “not come as a surprise at all” to those not blinded by the media and elites.
  • Shen Dingli, professor of international relations at Fudan University, predicted if Trump “indeed removes the troops from Japan, the Japanese may develop their own nuclear weapons.” He worried “South Korea may also go nuclear if Trump cancels the missile deployment and leaves the country alone facing the North’s threats. How is that good for China?”

Others were less worried about Trump’s victory either because China can adapt or that Trump will be constrained at home.

  • Mei Xinyu, research fellow with the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation, thought Trump’s victory would “create a chance to end the ‘self-damaging competition’” between China and the United States.
  • On whether Trump would continue Obama’s “Pivot to Asia,” China Daily predicted that while the next administration will not “roll back the U.S. presence in the region,” it matters “a huge difference how the Trump-led” White House “goes about it.”
  • Global Times guaranteed China was “strong enough to cope” with President Trump, who is “not as bold enough to really change” the United States.
  • Jin Canrong of Remin University considered it “unlikely” Trump will be able to fulfill his foreign policy promises as he is restrained by other conservatives and a pluralistic democracy. Lin Hongyu voiced a similar viewpoint.
  • “Democracy is the loser in U.S. Vote,” declared China Daily while criticizing the level of personal attacks and “nasty aspects” of American style democracy. The People’s Daily made a similar claim.

RUSSIA

The Kremlin was ecstatic over Trump’s victory. Russian President Vladimir Putin was the first world leader to personally congratulate Trump and pledged Russia would “fully restore relations” with the United States “from its deep crisis under the Obama administration.” When the State Duma was told of Trump’s victory, it “broke into applause” with a celebration complete with champagne, sweets, and sausages.

  • In spite of the Kremlin’s excitement, there is concern over Trump’s foreign policy positions precisely because they are not fully fleshed out. Moscow Times’ Vladimir Frolov supposed “Trump’s impulsiveness and unpredictability, particularly his penchant for going personal, unnerve the Kremlin,” as “having an equally unpredictable partner in Washington may actually limit Moscow’s freedom of maneuver.”
  • On the other hand, Frolov said Trump will lead to an economic “full-blown crisis,” and with the United States “occupied with its own issues,” Washington “will not bother Putin.” He saw a geopolitical “window of opportunity” for Russia to regain control over the former Soviet Union and the Middle East. “What is there not to like?” he asked.
  • Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev hoped that with close ties between Trump and Putin, “the Russian-American relationship could get significantly better.”
  • Mikhail Fishman, Moscow Times’ editor-in-chief, expressed concern over the effect of Trump’s victory on Kremlin. Although “there was a fresh sense in the air that the [Russian] regime might start loosening its grip,” he urged that the unpredictability and messiness that the Trump presidency brings would make “taking advantage of the disorder looks much more rational as a strategy.”
  • RT op-eds drew a parallel between Trump’s victory and the U.K.’s Brexit vote as they both sent “an unmistakable message to the elite that [the people] are tired of business as usual.”

INDIA

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi applauded Trump on Twitter with a message saying “we appreciate the friendship you have articulated toward India in your campaign.”

Many commentators in India worried about the prospects of Trump’s surprise win.

  • The Times of India saw “opportunities and dangers for India” in President Trump. Closer U.S.-Russia ties would benefit Indian interests and a U.S. split with Pakistan could pressure Islamabad on its support for terror. However, Trump-style protectionism “could unleash trade wars and pile up unstainable debt,” hurting the U.S. and Indian economies.
  • Srinivasan Ramani, deputy national editor at The Hindu, wanted the U.S. election to “make American normal again,” but he was left disappointed.
  • Hindustan Times said Trump’s victory was evidence of an “inward looking America” and one more internally divided over the next several years.
  • Business Standard saw Trump’s win as adding greater uncertainty to the global order.

Others tried to explain the election results and show that fears about the Trump White House are overblown.

  • The Hindu explained the “Trumpocalypse” saw voters “throw a metaphorical grenade” at the country’s political and financial elites. Comparing the election to Brexit, the paper hoped Trump’s “conciliatory” victory speech could help heal the nation and continue the U.S. tradition of lending “strength to the global order.”
  • Economic Times urged its readers to “beware, don’t fear, President Trump” because no one has any “reliable” guide to what he will actually do in office. The paper welcomed the constraints that would be placed on the Trump administration, including a Republican Congress that favors U.S. engagement in the world.
  • Sanjaya Baru, director for Geo-Economics and Strategy at the International Institute of Strategic Studies, mocked U.S. political commentators who showed an ignorance of the “yawning gap between ivory tower analysts and grass roots politicians.”

BRAZIL

Brazilian President Michel Temer assured nothing has changed for U.S.-Brazilian relations: “when one assumes power, they must govern for all the people.” He said he intends to work with President-elect Trump to achieve the best relations possible. Brazilian media outlets quickly responded to the surprising results of the United States elections with many of the reports focusing on the immediate impacts upon the financial markets and the longer term prospects for the U.S. economy and trade policy overall.

  • Folha de São Paulo ran a detailed article of Donald Trump’s surprising victory and characterized his rise as improbable and a challenge to both the conventional wisdom and the political class in Washington.
  • Folha de São Paulo also noted a majority of economists conclude Trump’s stated intentions of cutting taxes and imposing strict immigration rules could throw the country into recession. The story asserted Trump could complicate international affairs given his derogatory comments against Mexicans, Muslims, Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans among other nationalities.
  • The financial periodical Valor Econômico reported an immediate drop in value for the São Paulo stock exchange. Several Brazilian financial market analysts claimed it will take a while to understand how Trump’s campaign statements might translate into concrete action and policy. These analysts, including Julio Zamora of Citi, forecast a 5 to 10 percent drop in stock values throughout Latin American markets, but others argued Trump will be favorable to business and stimulate greater interest over time in buying stocks than selling them.
  • Lucianne Carneiro of O Globo thought Trump’s isolationist tendencies foretold the United States entering into a more ‘protectionist’ trade policy and the decline of free trade globalization. The article quoted Mark Langevin, director of the Brazil Initiative and research professor at the Elliott School of International Affairs, who reminded readers the U.S. presidency is less powerful than its Brazilian’s counterpart, and that the next president will need to negotiate with Congress to approve of any big changes in fiscal or trade policy.

JAPAN

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe conveyed his “heartfelt congratulation” to Trump “as a very successful businessman with extraordinary talents.” Furthermore, he predicted “America will be made even greater” under Trump’s “strong” leadership even after Trump’s statements on the campaign indicated a willingness to pull back U.S. military support for Japan without economic concessions. Abe underscored that peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region is “a driving force of the global economy” and security for the United States. The two leaders are expected to meet while Abe is in New York next week.

There was overwhelming concern and uncertainty expressed in Japanese newspapers with headlines like “Trump’s White House Victory Sends Shock Through World” in The Japan Times and “Global Concern Over Trump’s victory” in The Mainichi. The apprehension was not just for Japan and the international arena but the possibility of a surge of exclusion and discrimination against minorities in Trump’s America.

  • Takeshi Yamawaki, U.S. bureau chief of The Asahi Shimbun, saw Trump’s victory as an indication the United States “has become disengaged and inward-looking in an unprecedented way.”
  • The Asahi Shimbun stated “Donald Trump’s victory in the U.S. presidential election amounts to a huge political earthquake that will shake the postwar world order to its core.” The paper hoped Trump will learn quickly what role the America should play and how cooperation with allies serves the interests of the United States and the world as a whole.
  • The Japan Times questioned what Trump’s vague promises to “make America great again” and of “winning” mean in terms of policy implications and concluded “the Trump victory means that U.S. politics and policies have entered vast and uncharted waters.”
  • As news of Trump’s victory was reported, the Nikkei Stock Average plunged and the appreciation of the yen against the dollar progressed. Japan’s finance ministry and central bank held an emergency meeting Wednesday after wild trading in Japan’s stock market and currency unleashed by the U.S. election.
  • “The question is whether you will continue to be involved in international affairs as a dependable ally to your friends and allies,” argued Kunihiko Miyake, a former Japanese diplomat and professor at Ritsumeikan University. “If you stop doing that, then all the European, Middle Eastern and Asian allies to the United States will reconsider how they secure themselves.”

SOUTH KOREA

In a phone conversation with South Korean President Park Geun-hye, Trump pledged to maintain Washington’s “firm, strong” security commitment to Seoul. Despite moments during the campaign where Trump questioned the cost of the U.S. alliance with South Korea, Park expected they “can strengthen and develop the alliance down the road for the shared interest in various areas,” including on North Korea which she urged was “the greatest threat” facing the two nations.

Trump’s victory was described as a “dark event” by many in the South Korean press. Like the Japanese papers, South Korean papers also highlighted uncertainty. And Korea’s business community appeared as shocked by the news of Donald Trump’s victory as everyone else.

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

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.