Policy Alerts – Page 9 – Rising Powers Initiative

U.S. Presidential Debates through the Eyes of Rising Powers

Policy Alert #133 | October 20, 2016

The first U.S. presidential debate between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump had over 80 million people tune in to watch in the United States. Over the last month, tens of millions more around the world followed the three presidential debates (September 26, October 9, and October 19) and the vice presidential debate (October 4). Though most of the debate time was spent with candidates arguing about the other’s scandals, rising powers have been watching to see whether Asia, Eurasia, and South America found their way onto the agenda. Two of our previous Policy Alerts covered how rising powers witnessed the Democratic and Republican conventions. In this Policy Alert, we explore commentary from China, Russia, India, Brazil, Japan, and South Korea on the U.S. presidential debates as the November 8 election date approaches.

CHINA

China found itself as the focus of discussion at several of the debates. For example, China Daily reported the second debate saw Clinton accuse Beijing of orchestrating an “illegal dumping” of cheap steel in the United States and that “Trump is buying it to build things.” Being the center of debate is not a position that many commentators in China appreciated.

Pushing back against claims by Trump and Clinton that China was manipulating its currency, China Daily ran an entire story quoting a “top U.S. economist” who disagreed with that view.
Global Times argued Trump’s “particularly arrogant” comments about China has “spread the mentality that the U.S. has suffered losses from its relations with China,” a view that “poses potential threats to global stability.”
China Daily noted that neither of the vice presidential candidates – Senator Tim Kaine nor Governor Mike Pence – took “radical positions regarding China” when they were governors or congressmen, but they have shifted their views once they joined their respective tickets.
After the third debate, China Daily’s reporting pushed back on Clinton’s criticisms of women’s rights in China and accusation of dumping cheap steel on the market.
One light-hearted way some Chinese netizens (an avid internet user) responded to criticisms of their country was by posting joking images of the town hall debate on China’s social media platforms like Weibo making it appear Clinton and Trump were engaged in a musical duet.

The Chinese government tried to block access to online streams of the U.S. presidential debates. As a result, commentary in China mostly came from the official press, which addressed the issues (or lack thereof) discussed at the events, how the debates reflect poorly on American style democracy, and the future of U.S. politics after the election.

After the first debate, Xinhua reported neither candidate did enough to convince undecided U.S. voters to move into their camp. In China, however, views on the candidates appear to have shifted by some measures. Last May, an online survey by Global Times reported 83 percent of Chinese respondents thought Trump would win the election. However, after the first debate, a poll on Weibo said Clinton won the debate by a score of 48 percent to 29 percent. In fact, Global Times was censured by the Chinese government for its editorializing on Trump.
Zhang Guoxi, Ph.D. candidate at Beijing Foreign Studies University, characterized the first debate as an “international spectacle” and a “spectator sport” highlighting the “troubling state of U.S. politics” divided against itself.
Zhang Zhixin of the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations said the Trump’s campaign and his debate approach has “irreversibly damaged U.S. democracy” but also “highlighted the inconvenient truth” of discrimination, bias, and economic disparities in the United States. This view was seconded by Charhar Institute researcher Zhao Minghao.
The People’s Daily declared the personal attacks at the debates and other election chaos “exposes [a] flawed political system” and that it was time for America to “take a close, honest look at its arrogant democracy.” Global Times and Guancha.cn agreed.
Global Times wrote the “ugly unity” of the U.S. media’s debate coverage went overly negative against Trump. The paper felt China is treated just as unfairly by a U.S. press who ignores China’s progress on human rights.
Following the second debate, Xinhua’s commentary centered on the “bad blood” between the debaters. Shenzhen News said that divided “Americans are still torn” on who won the town hall. Beijing News said the debates have “left many Americans with a grim outlook on the future of their country.”
Chinese social media was enamored of the final debate moderator, Fox News’ Chris Wallace, for being the son of Mike Wallace, a “tough interrogator” famous for conducting popular interviews with then Chinese president Jiang Zemin in the early 2000s.
Ed Zhang, editor-at-large at China Daily, worried that the only thing the candidates seem to agree on is to “backpedal” on free trade, a “setback for globalization” that will hurt Chinese citizens.
Trump is winning the “massive endorsement from the middle and lower classes” while facing resistance from the elites, remarked Global Times. Whatever the result on November 8, the paper foresaw the “rebellion” from his supporters “against the elites will not die down.”

INDIA

In the lead up to the first debate, Deepalakshmi K. compiled for The Hindu a collection of the biggest moments in past U.S. presidential debates broadcasted on television and their importance in elections. When the first debate was over, commentators in India had a lot to say.

Ashok Malik, distinguished fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, set the stage for the first debate with a discussion on why “Trump voters are unwilling to trade with Asia [and India], but willing to go to war to defend it.” The answer: “the impulses of the Republican/Trump backer identify the same villain – China.”
The Hindu felt that while the first debate “lived up to the hype,” Trump’s very presence on the debate stage “hints at continuing nationwide disenchantment over political dysfunction in Washington.”
The Hindu journalist Varghese K. George thought Trump’s emphasis in the debates on the need to fight “radical Islam” align him closely with the Indian government’s recent “surgical strikes” against terrorist groups in Pakistan.
Hindustan Times said the exchange between the candidates “revealed that only one, Hillary Clinton, is genuinely presidential” with her showing a strong grasp of policy details and an “embarrassing” lead over Trump on foreign policy matters.

The VP debate was held on October 4, but most of the commentary in India centered on the second and third Clinton-Trump debates.

The second debate on October 9 was a “do or die” moment for Trump’s campaign, reported Press Trust of India.
Shraddha Jandial in IndiaToday gave the first debate win to Clinton but thought the second “was all jibes and insults.” The Times of India reporter Shailaja Neelakantan, however, said “Trump did better than expected.”
Shalabh Kumar, an Indian-American with the Republican Hindu Coalition, declared the Republican candidate the winner of the second debate, saying “Sixer in cricket… Home Run in Baseball.” Trump recently held a rally with the group where he said “no relationship will be more important” than U.S.-India ties and that he would be willing to arbitrate the India-Pakistan dispute over Kashmir.
Tarishi Verma, editor at The Indian Express, said the second debate proved Trump was “an indubitable sexist and misogynist” who would “take America to great heights, the great heights of ruins.” The Indian Express reported Clinton won the third debate overwhelmingly.
The BJP leaning The Pioneer wrote that “barring a miracle, Donald Trump will lose the U.S. presidential election.” However, the paper saw Clinton as a candidate who “doesn’t inspire hope or change.” The paper reported on Trump’s praise for India’s GDP growth as a talking point to criticize the U.S. economy.
The Times of India panned the debates as being of “poor quality” too focused on “political coarseness” and not enough on the issues. Nevertheless, the paper endorsed Clinton as being “modern in outlook” and unlike Trump, being “capable of upholding dignity of office.”
After the VP debate, Varghese K. George noted two “substantive exchanges” between the candidates on Russia and the role of faith in politics.
Hindustan Times, a Congress Party leaning newspaper, praised the third debate for focusing on the issues because “this race is not about Donald the Cad and Hillary the Cynic. It is about who runs the world’s most powerful nation and how.” A columnist with paper, Sushil Aaron, gave the third debate to Clinton as an “easy” win, though he worried Trump would be a “nuisance to America and the world long after November 8.”

RUSSIA

There is deep tension between Washington and Moscow after their disagreements over Syria and Ukraine and after the White House accused Russia of trying to influence American election through the hacking of Clinton campaign emails and the Democratic National Committee. Russian President Vladimir Putin accused Clinton and the White House of using “scaremongering” to manipulate the American electorate. According to Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov, although the Kremlin does not watch the race “with bated breath,” it remains attentive to the candidates’ statements.

Trump’s admiration for Putin did not go unnoticed by the Russian press. Overall, there seemed to be a more pro-Trump sentiment in the Russian newspapers.

According to Nikolai Shevchenko of Russia Beyond the Headlines, “overall, Russian media downplayed the candidates’ rare references to Russia during the debate, with only few publications highlighting Clinton’s ‘confrontational’ attitude to Moscow.”
Shevchenko also reported that while some media organizations questioned the objectivity of the CNN poll naming Clinton the winner of the first debate, “most Russian mass media outlets concluded” she beat her Republican opponent.
A report in Sputnik stated “the pro-Clinton media sources have even gone so far as to dub Trump and Putin ‘soul-mates.'” It continued that Clinton is “playing the Russia card to win the hearts and minds of American voters and demonize her opponent.”
Vladimir Zhirinovsky, Russian ultra-nationalist ally of President Vladimir Putin, said “Americans voting for a president on Nov. 8 must realize that they are voting for peace on Planet Earth if they vote for Trump. But if they vote for Hillary it’s war. It will be a short movie. There will be Hiroshimas and Nagasakis everywhere.”
At the third debate, Kommersant reported on the candidates’ debating whether Trump was a puppet of Russia and how Clinton’s idea for a no fly zone in Syria might lead to an accident with the Russian air force.
After the third and final debate wrapped up, RT declared that it was “thankfully the last one because it can’t get much worse.”

BRAZIL

The Brazilian press continues to report on the elections and the debates, including stories that directly involve Brazilians who support or oppose Trump. Much of the reporting has centered on Trump’s bombast and most recent suggestions that the elections are “rigged.” In the past, the Brazilian media have often framed stories of U.S. presidential elections around the question of which candidate would be better for Brazil. This year the media has touched on this issue, but continues to focus on the tension between the two candidates and the provocative nature of Trump’s statements on immigrants, Clinton’s fitness for office, and the legitimacy of the elections themselves.

Globo’s report reviewed the structure and rules of the three United States presidential debates and concluded that the most polemical issues were Trump’s questioning of the legitimacy of the elections and Clinton’s private e-mails.
EBC Agencia Brasil reported on the observable tension between the two candidates during their last presidential debate in Las Vegas and led with the accusation made by Hillary Clinton that Trump would be a puppet of Putin. The report focused on Trump’s promise to deport millions of undocumented immigrants and his claim that the presidential election is “rigged” despite the moderator’s efforts to caution the candidate against making such a provocative claim.
Terra point to the policy differences explored in the last debate and contrasted the candidates’ personal perspectives on issues ranging from the Islamic State to Women’s rights. Following the U.S. press, Terra reported on Trump’s provocative declaration that he would reserve judgment on the legitimacy of the elections themselves.
Duda Teixeira of Veja published a story that evaluates the two nominees in relation to Brazilian interests. The story is largely based on an interview with John Hudak of The Brookings Institution who claims that Clinton would likely be a much more dynamic policymaker that her opponent, based on her prior experience and time in the White House as First Lady. The report quotes Hudak’s suggestion that Clinton would maintain better relations with Brazil and that if a Trump presidency followed the nominee’s rhetoric then relations with Brazil would likely worsen.
Veja also reported that “Juntos para Brasil” organized a pro-Trump rally in SÃ£o Paulo with over 500 people. According to group, Trump represents nationalism and patriotism and will work to save capitalism from the socialists and communists that are protected by the Democratic Party. The event also associated Hillary Clinton as the North American version of the recently impeached Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff.

JAPAN

Japanese press has deemed the 2016 presidential debates as abnormal and potentially an ample alarm for Japanese leaders, primarily due to Trump’s candidacy.

The Japan Times reported “the Japanese government was slower to take Trump seriously. It was not until March that Prime Minister Shinzō Abe announced he instructed his Foreign Ministry to look into Trump’s policies.”
After the first debate, Mainichi said “it is hard to say that important issues such as the Syrian civil war, counterterrorism measures and the South China Sea conflict were given sufficient discussion during the debate.”
The Japan Times lamented that Trump diminishes “our partnership” to nothing more than a business transaction. However, the editorial praised Clinton’s reassurance to the U.S. allies as something “the world expects from the U.S. president.”
Nikkei Asian Review expressed concern over the Republican and Democratic nominees’ apparent unfavorable stance at the debates on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal and warned that turning back on TPP wouldn’t be good for the United States because it “stands to gain more than it loses from the progress of free trade.”
After recounting tabloid-like details of the current campaign, such as the leaked videos of Trump and how he held a press conference before the second debate with women who accused his opponent’s husband victimizing them, Mainichi remarked Trump’s “transgression of lowering the quality of the presidential election to this level is serious indeed.” The Japan Times said of Trump’s claims of rigged election, “it is hard to imagine a statement more corrosive for U.S. democracy.”
After the final row, The Japan Times wrote “in the end, the third debate did not offer much solace to Tokyo in terms of the future of the 12-nation free trade framework [TPP], as Clinton rejected it in the strongest terms.”

SOUTH KOREA

As in the Japanese media, Trump’s accusations about other countries getting a “free ride” on national security was a central issue in the South Korean press. As can be expected, the candidate’s policy toward North Korea was also a highly cited issue.

The Dong-A Ilbo compared the 2016 US presidential election to an “annoying” soap opera that people stick around with in order to see how it ends and “expecting shocking twists.” The paper also reported the twists and turns of the election including “long nights of tweet wars at early dawns.”
Regarding the first debate, The Hankyoreh thought “it was a far cry from the proper sense of an election as a well-intentioned battle to choose the better leader,” but South Korea should nevertheless pay attention to it because the debate shows the United States “is divided in terms of basic values and the country’s future, and these divisions are reflected in its foreign policy.”
The Dong-A Ilbo notes the U.S.-South Korea alliance and North Korea’s nuclear issue came to the table at the first debate and that given “North Korea’s latest nuclear test, the Korean Peninsula is likely to be put at the center of the next U.S. administration’s foreign policy.”
The Dong-A ILBO reported Michael Flynn, national security adviser to Trump, said the North Korea regime should not “exist for a long time.” The paper said “it is the first time that a senior officer of the Trump Camp said the Kim Jong Un regime cannot exist. It means that the U.S. can no longer tolerate North Korea’s provocations that can threaten the U.S. as well as East Asia.”

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

Rising Powers Explore Prospects for Peace in Colombia

Policy Alert #132 | October 12, 2016

On October 2, voters in Colombia narrowly rejected a negotiated peace deal between the government and rebel forces that would have ended a five decade long conflict. After four years of talks, President Juan Manuel Santos and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) signed an agreement in late-September to disarm the rebels and integrate them into the political system. The referendum was widely expected to pass, but voters who considered the truce too lenient on FARC surprised everyone and defeated the deal by a margin of 50.21 percent for “No” to 49.78 percent for “Sí.” While leaders promised to return to the negotiating table to work out a new deal, rising powers were left wondering whether violence would break out again. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from China, Russia, India, Brazil, Japan, and South Korea on the breakdown of the peace deal and its future prospects in Colombia.

BRAZIL

The Brazilian media shared the widespread disappointment with the outcome of the Colombian vote to ratify the peace agreement between the government of President Juan Manuel Santos and the FARC revolutionary forces. The media also applauded President Santos’ efforts and the recognition provided by the Nobel Peace Prize committee. This focus included both the sentiments of Brazilian President Michel Temer as well as governments and political leaders around the world.

Much of the media drew attention to the very small winning margin for the “No” vote and the concurrent high voter abstention rate to call into question whether the ballot result was truly representative of the sentiments of a majority of Colombians.

Globo, the major Rio de Janeiro daily and multimedia news outlet, asked how it was possible a country suffering from a half a century of armed conflict at the cost of more than 200,000 lives could reject negotiated peace agreement? The report emphasized the very close vote totals and, even more importantly, the historically large abstention rate at 63 percent. Globo quoted journalist Ana Cristina Restrepo Jiménez that the Colombian voter was motivated by “fear” and just could not take the next step toward peace.
Folha de São Paulo also noted the high abstention rate but focused on the arguments of the “No” campaign. The São Paulo daily newspaper quoted the leader of the “No” campaign and former Colombian President Álvaro Uribe saying “our national democracy overcame the government’s efforts to impose a “yes” vote for the peace agreement.”
The Porto Alegre daily Zero Hora reported on the international repercussions of the failure to ratify the peace agreement. The coverage also included a joint press conference between the presidents of Argentina and Brazil in Buenos Aires where Argentine President Mauricio Macri argued the slim vote margin indicated many Colombians support peace and efforts should be made to find a solution. Temer added that the abstention rate was so high as to encourage further efforts to reach an acceptable peace agreement.
The weekly Exame conveyed the economic implications of the vote against ratification.
Brasil de Fato provided detailed coverage of the peace process in Colombia and focused on the FARC’s reaction to the winning “No” vote. This media outlet quoted FARC leader, Timelón Jiménez, who criticized the hatred expressed by the winning voters, but also reaffirmed his organization’s dedication to return to civilian politics

CHINA

When the deal was announced in August, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lu Kang congratulated the parties in Colombia on reaching a peace deal after four years of negotiations. In response to the ‘no’ vote, however, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said “China supports Colombia’s peace process and respects the choice made by the Colombian people.” He argued an end to war in the country is an “irresistible trend and the expectation of the people” and that China hopes the parties “find a path to realize ultimate peace.”

China’s official media outlets were generally quiet on the referendum vote – partially due to the National Day holiday celebrations – but some commentators expressed hope for the peace deal and disappointment in its final result.

Xinhua reported the referendum failed because voters thought “the hard-negotiated deal” was “too lenient on the rebels.” The paper compared the peace agreement vote to this year’s Brexit vote for the U.K. to leave the European Union.
Xinhua also reported the role of former Colombian president and current senator Alvaro Uribe in rallying voters against the referendum. The paper also published a detailed chronology of the peace process.
Han Han, a general secretary at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, observed Chinese Premier Li Keqiang’s recent travel to Latin America “deepens Chinese ties” to the region and praised Cuba’s role as intermediary between the Colombian government and FARC.
Jairo Muñoz, a researcher at the Andean Institute for Political Studies with a degree from Peking University, argued the peace deal could have transformed Colombia into “a country open to diplomacy and foreign investment” that “leaves a window open for China” to be an “active partner in developing Colombia’s economy and infrastructure.”
Since former Chinese President Hu Jintao’s visit to Latin America in 2004, China has tried to make inroads into the region as to trade Chinese manufactured goods and Latin American commodities. China is Colombia’s second largest trading partner and second only to the United States.
This arrangement has greatly benefited the region (except for Paraguay, which recognizes Taiwan), but as China’s economy slowed in recent years, countries such as Brazil and Colombia have felt the pinch of lower Chinese demand.

INDIA

India was closely watching the referendum vote and the peace process as it has expanded its commercial ties with the country in recent years. In 2013, for example, Colombia exports to India stood at $4.29 billion and at least 30 Indian businesses have investments in the country. Colombia’s ambassador to India, Monica Lanzetta Mutis, believed the Latin American country’s GDP could grow at double its current pace should the peace deal succeed.

Commentators in India welcomed the peace deal when it was announced and warned against voters rejecting it.

When the deal was announced, The Indian Express praised the “historic treaty” as disarming FARC and ending the 52-year old conflict. The paper questioned why FARC decided to “quit its jungle life and try capitalism’s stolid delights,” suggesting it might have been because of Indian spiritual leader Sri Sri Ravi Shankar “who visited Colombia to spread his healing touch.”
The Pioneer, which tends to favor the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, urged Colombian voters to “say no to the ‘La Violencia’ once and for all” by accepting the truce, but it predicted a “thorny” road ahead for the government with the referendum. If FARC feels it is being left aside, the paper thought the rebel group “may get back to violent struggle.”
Hari Seshasayee, Latin America specialist at the Confederation of Indian Industry, wrote an article for the India-based think tank Gateway House thought the “comprehensive” peace deal negotiated over “half a century” could “herald the end of era” in the country. If the treaty was rejected, Seshasayee though “both parties are unlikely to get back to the negotiation table.”
Writing in The Times of India, journalist Shantanu Guha Ray praised the role of India and Shankar in the negotiation process. Colombia’ s chief negotiator Humberto de la Calle thanked Shankar for his role, saying “the best way to end the war is sitting down to discuss the peace and this was possible because Sri Sri Ravi Shankar travelled all the way from India to explain the benefits of living peacefully.”
Last year, even Prime Minister Narendra Modi commended Shankar for his peace efforts in Colombia.

After the referendum failed to pass, Indian media and experts expressed their disappointment.

“Colombia has missed, narrowly, an opportunity to end its five-decade-long civil war,” wrote the left leaning newspaper The Hindu. While the editorial sympathized with “popular anger against FARC,” it concluded the deal was “the best opportunity in decades to end” the conflict, and that “it is not clear what options they have but to renegotiate a fresh deal and put it to another referendum.”
After the vote, Shankar urged FARC to not return to violence and instead “follow the Gandhian principle of non-violence” as the public takes the time to understand the benefits of the peace deal.

JAPAN

During meetings at the United Nation last month, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzō Abe praised Santos on “reaching a historic peace agreement” with FARC and that Japanese businesses were eager to seek opportunities in Colombia. Abe signaled the two countries were in a “final stage” on a bilateral free trade agreement.

The Japanese press closely followed the Colombian peace process and republished many Reuters and AP pieces. In general, the Japanese newspapers themselves indicated some mixed expectations with regards to the peace process.

When the deal was announced, The Japan Times stated “while approval is not guaranteed – there is great bitterness among parts of Colombian society – the agreement should be passed. It is long past time to end this bitter struggle.” However, it also speculated that “while Colombians are weary of war, passage is by no means guaranteed,” and that “even approval does not guarantee peace.”
After Colombian President was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, some expressed a glimmer of hope for the peace process in Colombia. Asahi Shimbun, the second largest Japanese daily circulation, thought “the decision to award this year’s Nobel Peace Prize to Colombia’s leader should breathe new, vigorous life into the faltering peace process to end the long-running civil war in the country.”
In a similar manner, Mainichi, the third ranked Japanese daily circulation, deemed that the Nobel Peace Prize “has sent a strong message, urging the world to support the country’s efforts to achieve peace.”

SOUTH KOREA

While media outlets in South Korea did not cover the peace deal on its editorial pages, several newspapers republished commentary from outside the country, including op-eds by the Chicago Tribune, a professor at Carthage College in Wisconsin, and by Colombian Air Force Commander Tito Saul Pinilla Pinilla, which expressed a range of views from early optimism in the truce to disappointment after the referendum failed to pass. A free trade pact between South Korea and Colombia entered into force in July with Korean businesses looking to sell cars and auto parts to the Latin American nation and gain access to Colombia’s coffee and oil exports. Felipe Jaramillo, president of Colombia’s export promotion agency, said the deal with South Korea was a means to pull his country’s economy out of its slump by diversifying its trade partners.

RUSSIA

When the peace deal was announced, the Foreign Ministry voiced it was “in favor of peace settlement of the years-long domestic armed conflict in friendly Colombia in the interests of further socio-economic development of that Latin American country.” Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov applauded Colombia and pledged to be ready to “help with the implementation process” on “on the international stage and also to further advance bilateral relations, including in light of new opportunities during the post-conflict reforms in Colombia.”

Just before the peace deal was signed, Russia Today, also known as RT, released its documentary – Fine Art of ReConciliation – on the Colombian civil war, why the rebels fight, and why parties were seeking peace.
RT reporting on the truce also accused the CIA of funding the 52-year old conflict and that the spy agency “may need to find another enemy in Colombia.”
Similarly, a feature in Sputnik News blamed U.S. foreign policy for creating FARC and “social divide in Colombia” that threatens the peace deal.
Vladimir Sudarev, deputy director of the Institute of Latin America of the Russian Academy of Sciences, saw the referendum going down in defeat since he doubted the Colombian pubic would approve the deal nor could the former guerrillas transition to civilian life. He reasoned “the key problem is how to convince an ordinary Colombian that his or her neighbor who has been fighting for the last 50 years is innocent.”
Looking ahead, Sudarev questioned whether the renewed peace talks would result in a different outcome in Colombia despite the support of neighboring states.
Russia-Direct blamed deteriorating U.S.-Russian relations over Ukraine and the Middle East as reasons the international community will struggle to support peace efforts in Colombia.

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

Rising Powers React to Collapse of Ceasefire in Syria

Policy Alert #131 | September 26, 2016

On September 19, the Syrian army declared the end of a weeklong ceasefire brokered by the United States and Russia. The Syrian regime accused rebels of violating the truce, Russia blamed a U.S. airstrike that killed dozens of Syrian troops, and the United States condemned an attack on a UN aid convoy as being conducted by Russian forces. Many observers hoped the ceasefire might lead to a longer break in fighting with a goal of finally ending the civil war that has been raging since 2011. However, airstrikes by the Syrian government and Russia against rebel targets in Aleppo have resumed at a steady pace.

While U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry argued “the ceasefire is not dead” yet, rising powers reacted to the deal’s apparent collapse. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from Russia, China, India, and Brazil on the current situation in Syria and the breakdown of the ceasefire agreement.

RUSSIA

According to some reports, Russian military leaders in Syria and within the Defense Ministry held an “unusually skeptical attitude toward the deal” and predicted the deal would collapse because of Syrian rebels and U.S. violations. In seeking blame for the ceasefire’s breakdown, the Russian Ministry of Defense accused the United States of being “‘preferred to fully distance itself‘ from keeping in touch with the Russian Armed Forces, ignoring their inquiries and not answering the phone.” Once the deal collapsed, the Kremlin said the chances of restoring the ceasefire were “weak.”

For the breakdown of the ceasefire itself, some directly and indirectly blamed the U.S.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov scolded Washington for not doing enough to control Syrian rebels under its guidance, adding that “Syrian government troop withdrawals had not been matched with rebel retreats.”
One senior lawmaker in the upper house of Russian parliament, Franz Klintsevich, claimed “Washington is trying to shift the blame for an attack on a humanitarian convoy in Syria on Russia.” He added, “if the [United States] does indeed seek peaceful settlement in Syria, it needs to really cooperate with Russia rather than make unfounded accusations.”
Pravda published an op-ed titled “U.S. Massacre of Syrian Anti-ISIS Soldiers,” which made note of the U.S. “stubborn refusal to cooperate against terrorists.”
John Wight, a political commentator for Sputnik, stated “if the Americans genuinely and sincerely held the wellbeing of the Syrian people as a priority in this conflict, they would have already joined with Russia, the Syrian government, and its allies in defeating Daesh, Nusra, and the various other groups of religious and sectarian fanatics.”
Sputnik reported the United States further strained the U.S.-Russia relationship “as both countries, distrustful of each other and their local allies, try to salvage the fragile peace process in Syria and breathe life into the” ceasefire agreement.

Russian officials and journalists all expressed some level of skepticism over the original ceasefire deal:

Vanessa Beeley, analyst and journalist, said “there is no guarantee the radical groups backed by the United States, the Gulf states and Turkey will respect the upcoming ceasefire.”
Russian political analyst Vladimir Frolov agreed with the pessimistic outlook of the deal and explained that “a gaping lack of trust between Moscow and Washington, unruly and suspicious local proxies, unhappy outside players in Iran and in the Gulf states, a hodgepodge of legal loopholes and lack of viable enforcement mechanisms” make “a successful implementation” quite “hard to fathom.”
Looking ahead, Russia announced it would send its aircraft carrier to Syria’s coast for use against ISIS and other groups fighting in the country. Kerry has asked Russia to ground its warplanes in order to save the ceasefire.

CHINA

China supported the ceasefire deal when it was announced with Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lu Kang appealing to “all parties involved to enhance coordination and cooperation to continue to carry out the ceasefire in Syria, as well as make joint efforts to help restart Syria Peace Talks and provide humanitarian aid smoothly and effectively.” At the United Nations, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang offered $100 million in humanitarian aid to address the refugee crisis stemming from Syria and other war zones.

Chinese media and experts debated the country’s efforts in Syria and why the ceasefire failed, largely blaming the United States.

Last month, Rear Admiral Guan Youfei of the PLA Navy visited with Syrian and Russian senior military officials and pledged medical training for Assad’s forces. This marked an increased level of Beijing’s engagement in Syria from its usual stance of non-interference.
China’s newfound interest in the Syrian civil war and general support for Assad may be related to “the presence of the Turkistan Islamic Party,” an insurgent group with ties to one Beijing linked to violence in Xinjiang after 9/11. Chaos in Syria spilling over to the broader Middle East also puts China’s “One Belt, One Road” investments in the region at risk.
Analysis published in Xinhua declared the errant U.S. airstrike on the Syrian military as “one of the main reasons behind the faltering efforts to resume a recently-established ceasefire.”
Xinhua writer Chen Shilei said China’s investment in developing countries have improved economic conditions to reduce “people’s pressures to leave home” and called on the “international community” to “act urgently and strongly in unity to more effective respond to the issue.” This view was echoed by Chinese Ambassador La Yifan.
The Global Times singled out the United States and Europe for having “hastily pushed for Western-style democracy in the Middle East, contributing to the inflow of refugees” and the ongoing crisis. Chen echoed this view as well.

INDIA

The Indian government has largely refrained from taking a strong position on the Syrian civil war as New Delhi seeks closer ties with the Gulf Cooperation Council states as well as Israel. In August, the Indian Minister of State for External Affairs M.J. Akbar met with Assad to restart several business deals – including a $320 million power plant project and investments in the Syrian oil industry – suspended at the start of the civil war due to safety risks for Indian workers. The two countries discussed their “common problem of cross-border terrorism” with support for India’s position on Kashmir and plans for further cooperation on counterterrorism.

When the ceasefire was announced, several India media outlets expressed hope the deal would lead to a lasting peace in the war torn country.

Left leaning The Hindu said it was “the best opportunity for a solution to the five-and-a-half-year old civil war” due to its support by the “rebels and the regime” as well as Moscow and Washington.
The Pioneer – a newspaper favorable to the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party – called the ceasefire “Syria’s chance for peace” though “obstacles remain” such getting Russia to push Assad toward an “honorable exit” or “devises a comprehensive framework under which the major opposition parties are brought under one head.”
The ceasefire should evoke “cautious optimism” wrote The Times of India, though the paper did not think the agreement would “solve Syria’s long-term problems” such as who will lead the country.

BRAZIL

The Brazilian media covered the cease-fire in Syria, its collapse, and recent negotiations between Russia and the United States to reestablish a truce. While Valor Econômico covered the Brazilian government support for the initial cease-fire, there has been few follow-up reports on President Temer’s position and associated efforts regarding the United Nation’s sponsored efforts to broker a temporary peace. Brazilian Foreign Minister José Serra remarked that Syria is a “sister” nation and Brazil supports efforts to reach a final peace. However, the Brazilian government has not played any demonstrable role in the conflict aside from calling for dialogue.

Much of the Brazilian media covered accusations that blamed Russia and the United States for the collapse of the cease-fire. Several media outlets drew from Sputnik, the Russian news agency, to report on Russian allegations that the U.S. Department of Defense was to blame.

Valor Econômico, the prominent Brazilian economic and financial media outlet, reported Foreign Minister José Serra’s remarks that “the cease-fire serve as a positive step forward toward a resolution of the Syrian conflict through dialogue.” Serra also insisted that all parties comply with the UN Security Council’s resolutions aimed at impeding the flow of weapons to those forces associated with the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda.
Veja.com, the popular Brazilian news magazine, reported on Russian allegations that the United States did not comply with the terms of the cease-fire, quoting Russian Ministry of Defense spokesperson Igor Konachenkov saying “it seems that the objective of Washington’s nebulous rhetoric is to hide the fact that the U.S. government is not complying with the conditions of the cease-fire.”
Sputnik Brasil, the Russian government media outlet for the Brazilian audience, claims than an unnamed Turkish diplomat suggested that the recent bombings of Aleppo were carried out by the United States Department of Defense, the Pentagon, and that there as a split between the White House and the U.S. armed forces
Globo reported on efforts to reestablish the Syrian cease-fire and the recent meeting of the International Syria Support Group. The Rio de Janeiro paper summarized the meeting as long, painful, and very disappointing in the words of the UN Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura.
The weekly magazine Istoé recounted the failure to restart the cease-fire and Kerry’s call for a suspension of all aerial bombardments while efforts continue to reach a renewed cease-fire agreement.
Portal Vermelho, a popular media outlet of the Brazilian left, drew from the Russian outlet Sputnik to summarize an Associated Press story quoting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that the United States intentionally bombed Syrian government forces as the cease-fire collapsed.

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

Rising Powers Converge in China for G-20 Summit

Policy Alert #130 | September 13, 2016

From September 4-5, China hosted this year’s G-20 Summit in Hangzhou, a city known for beautiful scenery and its historical West Lake. Launched in response to the 2008 global recession, the forum was an opportunity for the world’s 20 largest economies to convene and discuss major challenges. Although commentary in China and Russia was quite positive about the Summit’s results, others in India, Japan, and South Korea were less enthusiastic. The gathering was also part of Barack Obama’s last trip to Asia as president and was closely watched by rising powers for signs of what the future might have in store for the international political and economic order. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from China, Russia, India, Brazil, Japan, and South Korea on the G-20 Summit.

CHINA

China’s theme for the Summit was “Toward an Innovative, Invigorated, Interconnected and Inclusive World Economy.” As the host leader, Chinese President Xi Jinping urged leaders to avoid “empty talk” and instead seek “concrete actions to implement joint plans on sustainable development, green financing, and anti-corruption.” At a business focused event on the sidelines of the Summit, Xi promised China does “not seek to rewrite the international rulebooks” but instead wanted to “refine the existing mechanisms to facilitate global win-win cooperation.”

Most commentary in China hailed the Summit as a success and a clear sign of China’s rising economic and political strength on the world stage.

Wang Peng, associate researcher at Fudan University, identified a “Hangzhou Consensus” emerge from the Summit with leaders recognizing the need to “revitalize globalization” in a “more comprehensive, innovative, and inclusive manner.”
China Daily thought the host country left “its stamp on the G-20” by demonstrating “unswerving commitment to globalization,” expanding the existing global market system, fighting off protectionism, and aligning the G-20 agenda with UN development goals.
Global Times declared “multiple victories” for China at the Summit, including recognition of Chinese soft power in spite of Western criticisms.
Global Times blamed Western media outlets for making a “fuss over trifling issues” such as an awkward confrontation between Chinese officials and U.S. journalists/White House staff as Air Force One arrived in China.
China Daily praised Hangzhou’s tour as host city and proving “how China has become a leader of growth, as the city is home to many new businesses and new management models.”

Continue reading “Rising Powers Converge in China for G-20 Summit”

Rising Powers Compete at Rio Olympics for Medals and National Pride

Policy Alert #129 | August 26, 2016

From August 5-21, Brazil hosted the 2016 Summer Olympics in Rio de Janeiro and saw more than 11,000 athletes converge to represent their nations. As a developing country with economic and political turmoil at home, Brazil used the opportunity to showcase its unique history and personality to a global audience. Several rising powers in Asia found success during the Games with South Korea and Japan in line to host the next Winter and Summer Games respectively.

For the first time, a team comprised of refugees without a permanent home was able to compete in the Games. Though there were controversies related to accusations of Russian systemic doping violations, environmental and pollution concerns in Rio, and health worries stemming from the Zika virus, Rio received generally high praise for its hosting duties. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from Brazil, China, India, Japan, and South Korea on the Games of the XXXI Olympiad.

BRAZIL

Rio 2016 was bittersweet for Brazilians. In 2009, Rio de Janeiro’s bid to host the games was successful and reflected a growing global recognition of Brazil’s emerging influence on the world stage. Seven years later, the country is paralyzed by a deep economic recession, a game-changing investigation and growing set of convictions related to the political corruption surrounding Petrobras kickback schemes, and the impending impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff. Brazil is a mess, but the Rio Olympics exceeded the expectations of many Brazilians, thrilled international tourists and spectators around the world, and provided an engaging platform to mix athleticism with the best party in the world. Most importantly for some, the Brazilian men’s football team won the gold medal against Germany, inspiring national pride and redeeming the team losing when the Brazil hosted the 2014 World Cup.

A growing consensus is also emerging that the organization of the games in Rio and the public transportation projects will leave a lasting and positive legacy for the games among most of the city’s six million residents.

Folha de São Paulo explored the evident gap between commentary and reporting around Brazil and the world during the run up to the games and the observable success of the host city. Furthermore, the paper argued the Rio games were nearly perfect, especially if one were factor in that this mega-event was held in a poor, unequal, and democratic developing country. Despite Rio’s lack of resources, the city was able to improve public transportation and expand infrastructure for sport and schools without excessive spending.
Globo News reviewed the expansion of Rio de Janeiro’s infrastructure related to the Olympic Games and noted that the city had advanced the concept of “nomadic architecture” through the design of the Olympic Village. The Olympic Aquatic Center pools will be broken down and transplanted next year to Madureira Park in areas of working poor populations such as the North and Campo Grande Park in west Rio. The other arenas in the village will be transformed into a concert hall, a national athletic training center, and Arena Carioca #3 will be transformed into a public school.
Josué Medeiros discovered the political edges to the Rio Olympic Games in the pages of Carta Capital, suggesting these international mega-event unleash complex political impacts that evident until years later. He argued the Games posed a particular challenge for the Brazilian Left, reeling from Dilma’s impeachment and very critical of Rio’s planning of the games. For Medeiros, the roar of the crowds and the spectacular performances handed out by the athletes quickly silenced the Left’s rejection of this mega-event.
Medeiros also explored the geopolitical dimensions of the Rio games to recognize that Rio’s winning bid grew from a broader, regional political development wherein “progressive” and Left leaning governments ruled in many of the South American nations during the past decade, including Brazil. In part, Medeiros argued Brazil’s soft power, its vibrant democracy, and the attraction of its economic development and social inclusion since the election of the first Workers Party government in 2002 created the conditions for the first South American Olympics. For Medeiros the Rio games served as a promising moment of reflection for the Brazilian left, a place and time to understand how far Brazil has come and what it might take to win gold in the future.

Others were less overwhelmingly positive when looking to the future of Rio and Brazil after the Olympians head home.

Istoé recognized the successful hosting of the Rio Olympics, but asked the question: was it worth it? Brazilian sports analyst Juca Kfouri proclaimed the “biggest legacy of the Rio games was the party hosted by the people of Rio who will never forget this special moment, but the bill for the Olympic gala will be high.” The glory days of 2009 are long gone as a cloud of pessimism hangs over the heads of most Brazilians.
Reinaldo Azevedo, the bombastic commentator for Veja, declared the Rio games a success, but warned that business in terms of crime as usual may return to the streets as soon as the limelight fades.
Good or bad, interim president Michel Temer was booed at the opening ceremony and remained distant for the rest of the Games. For Azevedo, the absence of Temer worked to highlight the people of Rio who really stole the show with their hospitality, happiness, and endless parties.

CHINA

China sent its largest-ever delegation to the Rio games and ended with the second highest total medal total. This success was not enough for some in China, however, because it was a slight drop from the country’s totals in 2008 and 2012; the United Kingdom inched by China with a higher gold medal count in 2016. China has traditionally viewed its “sporting prowess” as an important element of the nation’s soft power.

Several media outlets and experts praised for Brazil and harkened back to the Beijing 2008 Games.

China Daily praised Brazil for a “mesmerizing, inspiring, and thoroughly entertaining” opening ceremony in spite of the country’s economic and political troubles and the high bar set by Beijing 2008 and London 2012. The paper also welcomed the inclusion of the refugee team and the spirit of the competition shown by Chinese athletes.
Ding Gang, senior editor at The People’s Daily, thought Rio’s “party spirit” proved the “Olympic Games can be a success in both meticulous countries like China and relaxed ones such as Brazil.”
China’s netizens should be proud of how well the country’s hosted the 2008 games in Beijing, but Global Times challenged readers to refrain from displaying “confrontation and arrogance” when discussing Rio’s difficulties that “run counter to the Olympic Spirit.” Noting that China and Brazil are both developing countries, the paper reminded that China experienced similar “censure” from the West in the run up to 2008.

Others debated whether the country’s relative medal count decline should be seen as a disappointment or a welcomed change in Chinese beliefs toward the purpose of the Games.

Xinhua called China’s second place finish in the medal count the country’s “worst Olympic flop.” After being leapfrogged by the United Kingdom in the gold medal count, the Beijing News said China was simply outspent by the British investments into their sport programs.
Chinese television censors briefly shutdown BBC World coverage of the gymnastic competitions when the British station was showing a piece on China’s medals struggles.
Xu Guoqi, author of Olympic Dreams: China and Sports, said the British “performance this time is a terrible bitter pill for the Chinese regime to swallow” and a “huge embarrassment for the regime and President Xi Jinping who has clearly linked his ‘China dream’ with the dream of China as a sporting powerhouse.”
David Yang, editor of China Sports Review, hoped China’s third-place finish would be an opportunity to push reforms needed to improve the country’s sports programs, but he predicted resistance as the effort would reduce central authority and jobs for senior officials.
On the other hand, China Daily writer Zhang Zhouxiang remarked on the changing attitudes in other parts of Chinese society toward their athletes. For example, after Chinese short-track speed skater Zhou Yang won gold at Vancouver 2010, she thanked her parents and coaches, prompting the deputy director of China’s sports body to decry that “she should thank the State first.” In Rio, Zhang saw Chinese officials and the public as more open and tolerant when Olympians expressed their opinions or failed to end up on the medal platform.
Shanghai Daily and China Daily reported on the Chinese public’s surge of support for swimmer Fu Yuanhui’s “pure enjoyment” after learning she set a personal best even though she did not win gold or silver.
China Daily cheered this attitudinal shift, insisting the country to “bid farewell to the past obsession with gold medals and shift more resources to the development of sports for ordinary people.” Global Times voiced similar views.
Nevertheless, with China’s regional rival Japan hosting the 2020 Games in Tokyo, Gracenotes Sports analyst Simon Gleave expected there to be more pressure China’s young athletes to improve on the medal tally.

A few controversies and unconventional stories dominated sports coverage in China.

China Daily published a story on how the Traditional Chinese Medicine technique of “cupping” – using heat and local suction of the skin thought to draw out toxins, increase blow flow, and soothe muscle pain – became popular with Rio Olympians, including U.S. swimmer Michael Phelps.
Journalist Wang Yiqing criticized the Australian swimming team for its accusations that Chinese gold medal swimmer Sun Yang was a “drug cheat,” declaring the comments against the spirit of the Games and designed to “provoke controversy” and psyche out the competition. Global Times hit Australia for its need to “effuse its white supremacy” over Asian countries and applauded China for supporting its swimmers.
China Daily’s Li Yang criticized the track and field committee’s decision to grant the U.S. 4×100 women’s relay team a solo redo of their race after interference from Brazil caused the Americans to drop the baton. The appeal resulted in the U.S. team knocking China out of the finals, prompting a backlash in China with accusations the “overpowering influence of the U.S.” prevents “fair competition.”

INDIA

The Indian delegation to Rio – the largest-ever squad at 120 athletes – was optimistic about the country’s medal prospects after their success at the 2012 London Olympics where they won six medals after winning just seven individual medals total in prior Games. Indeed, The Times of India hoped Rio would “herald a revolution in Indian sport.” Although India left Rio with just two medals, Prime Minister Narendra Modi congratulated India’s athletes for giving “his or her best.” He singled out P.V. Sindhu for winning a silver medal in badminton and Sakshi Mailk for a bronze in wrestling.

Most of the buzz after the Rio Games in Indian media was on whether the country had a real “sports culture” and how to make further progress in future Olympics.

The Hindu considered the team’s showing “no doubt underwhelming from the largest contingent of Indian athletes at the Olympics ever” and questioned whether the country had the “sporting culture” and infrastructure necessary to win big at the Games. This view was echoed by Congress MP Mani Shankar Aiyar in The Indian Express.
Abhinav Bindra, India’s only individual gold medalist after winning the Men’s 10-meter air rifle in Beijing 2008, urged New Delhi to follow the British example of investing more public funding for athletes that resulted in such success in 2016.
The Economic Times blamed the lack of a non-cricket “sporting culture” – not the government – for “Indian being the world’s worst per capita Olympic medal-gatherer.” The paper called on Indians to not just cheer and wave the tricolor flag, but to “lay out a modern, professional sporting system while gritty, talented individuals keep giving their best.”
For The Times of India, the allegation that medal contending wrestler Narsingh Yadav used performance enhancing drugs was proof India’s athletic federations “simply can’t take care of our athletes” and “see their position as an opportunity to disburse patronage and feather their own nests.” The Daily Pioneer called Yadav “foolish” for his part in actions that earned him a four year ban from competition. The Indian Express’s Ronojoy Sen contended that the use of performance enhancing drugs is a byproduct in societies that “link sporting excellence with national pride.”
To remedy this situation, sports journalist Joy Bhattacharjya advised Indians to follow sports as a whole – not just its superstars – while supporting student athletes and local leagues.
On the other hand, Anil Dharker, columnist for The Indian Express, believed India should focus on sports “where our strength lies” like wrestling, shooting, archery, and weight-lifting while pushing aside other events even if they may occasionally produce stars like gymnastic vault finalist Dipa Karmakar. The Daily Pioneer agreed and wanted more support to help India’s prior medal winners to keep up their success.

Others discussed the success of India’s female Olympians against the situation of women in the country.

The Hindu praised Sakshi Malik for winning a bronze medal in 58-kg freestyle wrestling and showing the government should “provide its young the opportunity to train and compete.” The Daily Pioneer gave similar treatment to P.V. Sindu. In contrast, Economic Times was hard on India’s women archers for having “suffered a meltdown” in Rio.
While India’s female Olympians were praised in the media for having the country’s best showing in Rio, Journalist Sandip Roy remarked that some of the athletes like Sakshi Malik “comes from a part of India especially hostile to its daughters.” Roy wanted the country to respect all women, not just those who win medals.
Writing for The Wire, Priyansh, a scholar studying the sociology of sport at Loughborough University, argued that raising up female medal winners as “India’s daughters” was a harmful approach. “If a female athlete needs to accomplish extraordinary tasks in order to be acknowledged as ‘India’s daughter’,” Priyansh wrote, “then what status does she enjoy before that? A pariah? A burden?”

Several outlets and experts praised Brazil’s handling of the pressure as a host and their use of the Olympics as a global platform.

In the lead-up to Rio, N. Sudarshan, journalist with The Hindu, observed the Olympics were a tool for Brazil to showcase its “soft power” and put a “mirror to the world and unto itself” to debate economic inequalities, crime, and the international order.
Siddharth Saxena, reporter for Times of India, criticized the West for “gleefully” mocking Brazil’s ability to host the Games, adding that “if you wanted the Olympics to be perfect, the First World would host it all the time, but no one would remember. If it’s for a memory, Rio – centre of the world’s soul – will hand it to you.” The Indian Express agreed with this sentiment.
Lalitha Sridhar, a columnist for The Hindu, advanced the long-standing idea of having permanent venues for the Olympics as a “logical solution to a massive and recurrent problem” of host countries going into debt after the last medal is awarded.

JAPAN

With Tokyo hosting the next Summer Olympics in 2020, Japan closely watched how Rio handled the Games. Japan won a record number of medals (41 total including 12 gold) at the Rio Olympics. During the portion of the closing ceremony when the host nation hands over the Games to the next country, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe made a surprise appearance dressed as the popular video game character Mario arriving via his trademark green pipe. “Next, it is our turn to provide the excitement,” Abe declared.

Many media outlets were generally positive on how Brazil hosted the 2016 Games though some controversies were present with the Olympics as a whole.

Asahi Shimbun praised Rio for hosting a relatively cost efficient Games and a model Tokyo can use to host a “budget- and eco-friendly” Olympics.
The Olympic team made up of refugees should serve as a lesson for Japan to learn how to be more accepting of refugees, wrote Asahi Shimbun. Japan has one of the strictest refugee and immigration programs in the world. Mainichi concurred, adding that it was time to “take the issue seriously.”
Mainichi demanded the IOC “not overlook the responsibility” of the Russian Olympic Committee in the doping violations and their lack of independence from the Russian government. Yomiuri Shimbun thought the Russian doping violations “cast a shadow over the Olympics.”
With violence on-going in Syria’s civil war, Asahi Shimbun mocked the idea of an “Olympic Truce” – a tradition dating back to ancient Greece whereby nations would lay down their weapons during the Games.

Others focused on the lessons the Rio Games should have for Tokyo as they prepare for their turn as the host city.

Mainichi demanded the 2020 Games follow Rio’s example of prioritizing environmental protection both in terms of the opening ceremony theme and the resource and energy intensive logistics of hosting.
Asahi Shimbun was excited to see who will be the “next superstar to unleash immense power” at Tokyo 2020 now that Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt has retired.
Mainichi called for an investigation into how funds might have been used as bribes to secure the votes necessary for Tokyo to host the 2020 Olympics and Paralympics. Similar accusations emerged about Japan’s bid for the 1998 Winter Games in Nagano.
Asahi Shimbun wanted Tokyo to follow Rio’s example and have signs at the venues in Chinese and Korean in addition to Japanese and English as “an ideal opportunity for shrinking the emotional distance between Japan and its ‘close but ‘distant’ neighbors.”
Yuriko Koike, the current governor of Tokyo and former defense minister, wrote an op-ed in The Japan Times promising to strive for an affordable and “cleaner, corruption-free games” in 2020.

SOUTH KOREA

South Korea exceeded its initial expectations by finishing eighth in the medal count with 21 medals in Rio, including nine gold. One memorable moment in Rio saw gymnasts Lee Eun-Ju from South Korea and Hong Un-jong from North Korea pose for a “selfie” photo on the sidelines of their competition. The photo reminded some journalists of when the countries marched together as a joint Korean delegation during the opening ceremony of the 2000 Sydney Olympics.

Commentators remarked on the South Korea’s success at the Rio Games and drew lessons from the proceedings for South Korea as it hosts the Winter 2018 Olympics in Pyeongchang.

Park Shing-Hong, deputy editor of Eye24, profiled taekwondo gold medalist Oh Hye-ri who after struggling with prior injuries and several near misses finally reached the top of the medal podium in Rio.
Dong-A Ilbo praised the Korean golf team – Park In-bee won the gold medal – for “showing the world that Korean golf is the best.” Still, the paper urged Korea to “strengthen the foundation of the basic sports” such as swimming, gymnastics, and track and field to compete with China and Japan in future Olympics.
Despite geopolitical disputes with Japan, North Korea, and China, Korea JoongAng Daily hoped the “power of sports diplomacy” could calm tensions and bring nations together.
On a related note, the Korea Economic Institute reported on North Korea’s use of sports as “a tool of the regime’s propaganda to enhance its status in the world and to distract public discontent rising from economic failure.”
Rio’s difficult experiences in preparing for the Games was “an opportunity to check our own proceedings” two years away from the Pyeongchang Games, said The Korea Times. The paper, worried whether the city’s Olympic committee could handle the task, complained about unexciting and passé white tiger and black bear mascots with names “too long and hard to understand, even for Koreans.”

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

What Rising Powers Saw at the Democratic Convention

Policy Alert #128 | August 10, 2016

From July 25-28 in Philadelphia, the Democratic National Committee held its convention to nominate Hillary Clinton as their party’s candidate for president. One week after the Republican Convention, rising powers tuned in to watch how the other major U.S. political party responded and outlined its policy platform. China remained largely skeptical of Clinton’s campaign. Observers in Brazil, India, Japan, and South Korea applauded her nomination, but worried about her recent shift toward free trade protectionism. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from China, India, Brazil, Japan, and South Korea on the DNC Convention and the prospects of a Hillary Clinton presidency. Our previous Policy Alert covered the Republican Convention.

CHINA

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton’s “pivot to Asia” strategy incensed China as a means to contain the country. Her prioritization on human rights – especially gender equality – and her more hawkish views on the South China Sea have left Chinese leaders uneasy about her candidacy. Tao Xie, professor at Beijing Foreign Studies University, suspected “many Chinese have a very unfavorable view of her.” One online poll conducted in March 2016 by Global Times showed a preference for Trump over Clinton with 54 percent in support of the GOP candidate.

Given this view of Clinton, several China media voices and commentators explored her candidacy and the prospects for her campaign in the general election.

The hacking of thousands of emails from the servers at the Democratic National Committee (DNC) – showing the preferences of ostensibly neutral staffers for Clinton as the nominee – and their leak just before the convention “ruins U.S. democracy myths,” according to Global Times. The paper also said the “scandal is devastating enough to bury Clinton’s presidential dream and political career,” though it expected less than severe actual consequences.
In a 2013 report, Global Times declared Hillary Clinton the “most hated” American political figure in China dating back to her 1995 speech on women’s rights as human rights at the World Conference on Women in Beijing.
In contrast, Shi Yinhong, professor of international relations at Renmin University and adviser to the Chinese cabinet, insisted Chinese leaders would still prefer Clinton in the White House to a “volatile” Trump. “The worst situation is instability,” he argued, especially as China’s economy – heavily linked to the United States – continues its slow growth rates.
Xinhua writer Zhu Lei saw the imprint of the campaign of Senator Bernie Sanders — the runner-up in the primary — on the Democratic Party’s policy platform, which was described by party officials as “the most progressive” in history.
Chen Weilhua, reporter for China Daily, highlighted thousands of Sanders and Green Party supporters who protested at the Democratic Convention against Clinton’s nomination. Likewise, Qiu Zhibo, consultant at the UN and Global Times columnist, questioned whether “disappointed Bernie supporters” will vote for either Clinton or Trump.

INDIA

Many media outlets in India noted the historical significance of a major U.S. political party nominating a woman, but they also focused on whether the convention unified Democrats for the general election.

Left leaning The Hindu newspaper praised Clinton’s campaign as representing “a more inclusive, democratic and efficient America.” In addition to celebrating the nomination of a woman at the top of the ticket, the paper predicted her campaign would win as long as “the message of unity” is “true and sustainable.”
On the other hand, The Pioneer, a BJP leaning news outlet, said the historical nature of Clinton’s victory might be lost on South Asia as they’ve already seen scores of women heads of Government in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and India. The Pioneer also criticized Clinton for “her controversial record as Secretary of State, her penchant for secrecy and unaccountability, and being the unofficial establishment candidate.”
Hindustan Times thought a convention with an “uplifting tone” would benefit Clinton and draw stark contrasts to the GOP event.
Believing that elections in “powerful nations do matter to the rest of the world” due to globalization, Economic Times endorsed Hillary Clinton because of her support for international economic, trade, and environmental systems India uses to its benefit.
The Times of India pointed out Clinton’s sole mention of India in her convention speech – part of a line attacking anti-trade Trump for making his branded picture frames in India – and was left wondering who American would tell “You’re fired” in November on election day.
Varghese K. George, Washington-based journalist for The Hindu, wondered if the DNC email leak would prevent the party from bringing Sanders supporters into the Clinton tent.

Others commentators warned that the election would come down to the wire.

C. Raja Mohan, columnist for The Indian Express, thought the U.S. election will be a close one. After Senator Bernie Sanders pushed the Clinton campaign to the limit, Mohan remarked that the Democratic nominee will need to find a way to unite the party, address Trump’s broad cross-cutting support, and respond to the Republican’s criticism of her trade policy and national security strategies.
The Pioneer was disappointed with both parties’ candidates and sensed Clinton and Trump had the “feeling of being one-term candidates” that will win in 2016 based on people’s dislike of the other side, not the love of their own nominee. The close race is “not an election one would want to predict.”

BRAZIL

Most Brazilian media outlets focused on the historic nature of Hillary Clinton’s nomination to be the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate. Many featured comparisons between Clinton and Trump, but also noted the fierce dispute between Clinton and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders for the nomination. Most recognize that while Ms. Clinton does not inspire, she also does not pose a threat to constructive regional relations around the Western hemisphere.

Most of the reporting focused on the domestic electoral dynamics of Ms. Clinton’s nomination, her campaign strategy, and the duel between her and Trump as expressed in the public opinion polls.

Folha de São Paulo warned that Trump would be bad for the world and Veja noted that Latin Americans were largely opposed to Trump’s candidacy.
Globo celebrating the historic moment, but it also reported on the protests of her nomination by Bernie Sanders supporters and questioned whether voters would favorably associate her candidacy with her husband, former President Bill Clinton.
Globo’s Gazetaweb outlet reported on the Latino edge to the Democratic Party’s nominating convention. The story placed emphasis on the Spanish fluency of her selection for Vice President, Senator Tim Kaine, and the number of Latino elected officials who actively support Clinton’s candidacy such as rising Democratic star Joaquín Castro.
Terra followed up on the DNC email scandal by reporting Hillary Clinton and DNC officials claimed that Russian hackers were behind the leaks. Terra also quoted the Russian president who claimed that Trump “was a brilliant person.”
Veja conducted a comparison of Clinton and Trump on issues concerning Latin America with the most notable difference found on immigration. The paper concluded that while Clinton promised only minor modifications in her foreign policy toward the hemisphere, Trump’s anti-immigrant pronunciations and disparaging remarks have earned him visceral opposition among a majority of Latin American citizens.
Folha de São Paulo printed an unprecedented editorial on July 30 questioning the high negative ratings of both Clinton and Trump, mentioning that United States voters were not excited about the “mechanical” candidacy of Clinton. However, the Folha’s editorial board stated Trump represents an international risk based on his lack of preparation and provocative xenophobia.
Carta Capital explored an entirely different dimension of Clinton’s nomination by focusing on the candidate’s relationship with the traditional press corps. According to Carta Capital, Clinton blames the traditional media on her loss to Barack Obama in 2008, and thus the campaign’s strategy is to minimize any risks to Clinton by relying on media that campaign managers can control, especially social media

JAPAN

Japan’s leaders have been closely following the U.S. election as the island nation is often raised in debates about the future of traditional U.S. security alliances. For example, Donald Trump has said the relationship is too one-sided and costly to maintain indefinitely without major changes. In contrast, Clinton has made the continuance of the U.S. alliance a regular talking point in the foreign policy sections of her stump speech.

While the Democratic convention received less attention in Japan than the Republican edition, a couple of outlets debated what a President Clinton would mean for the U.S.-Japan relationship.

Yomiuri Shimbun saw a clear contrast in the election between the GOP candidate’s “America First” policy and the Democrat’s “commitment to reinforce alliances” like with Japan. The newspaper noted Secretary Clinton’s belief that the Senkaku Islands “are covered by Article 5 of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty,” obligating Washington to come to Tokyo’s defense.
Yomiuri Shimbun also acknowledged her foreign policy team – specifically Kurt Campbell – for having knowledge of Japan’s security needs and urged the Japanese Diet to approve the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement in order to make it easier for Washington to ratify the accord under the next president.
Japan Times worried about the implications of Russian backed hackers trying to influence the U.S. presidential election and disrupt Clinton’s campaign momentum. The paper warned Democrats to “prepare for more embarrassment” with similar hacking and email leaks in the future.

SOUTH KOREA

Another traditional security ally of the United States, South Korea, is waiting to see how the presidential election shakes out as the new president could reshape the next stage of relations between Seoul and Washington. Although Clinton supported the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KOR-US FTA) as Secretary of State, she opposed the deal in her 2008 presidential campaign.

While some commentators have welcomed Clinton’s nomination, many debate whether she has changed her trade policy in ways that might hurt South Korea.

Describing Clinton’s nomination as a “story of resilience and perseverance,” The Korea Times said she “has the character to lead” the United States. However, the paper couldn’t deny the “uphill battle against Trump’s energetic campaign” that will face Clinton in the coming months, particularly after what it dubbed a “dull” DNC convention.
Dong-A Ilbo praised the speech by first lady Michelle Obama and Sanders and hoped to “see such moving scenes in Korean politics, too.” The paper thoughts Sanders’ endorsement would be enough to bring his supporters onboard the Clinton campaign.
In another editorial, however, Dong-A Ilbo observed that “whoever wins, the next U.S. president will bring about a major change in policies on Korea,” whether on North Korea, the KOR-US FTA, or the security alliances. This trade deal uncertainty and Clinton’s new protectionist tendencies were echoed by The Korea Herald and Joong-A Ilbo.
Joong-A Ilbo called both conventions a “pitiful portrait of U.S. politics” and dreaded the United States being turned into a “narrow-minded and self-centered” country. The paper concluded that South Korean President Park Geun-hye “must have a contingency plan at hand” should the U.S.-Korea security alliance “abruptly end” in the next administration.

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

What Rising Powers Saw at the Republican Convention

Policy Alert #127 | August 8, 2016

From July 18-21 in Cleveland, the Republican National Committee held its convention to nominate Donald Trump as their party’s candidate for president. With the U.S election season now in full swing, rising powers are closely watching to see how the Trump campaign’s foreign and economic policies might shape the future direction of the United States. While some in China have welcomed his willingness to disengage America from the Indo-Pacific, others in India, Japan, Brazil, and South Korea are anxious to reevaluate the fundamentals of their relationships with Washington. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from China, India, Brazil, Japan, and South Korea on the RNC Convention and the prospects of a Trump presidency. In the next Policy Alert, we will cover reactions to the Democratic Party’ convention in Philadelphia.

CHINA

Trump’s nomination has surprised Chinese government officials. Just last September, foreign ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying dismissed Trump’s harsh views of Beijing since China only concerns itslef with policies held by “the mainstream opinion of the U.S. people.” Nonetheless, many in China have grown into Trump supporters over the course of the campaign, especially when compared to Hillary Clinton whose “pivot to Asia” strategy as Secretary of State incensed China as a means to contain the country. An online poll conducted in March 2016 by Global Times showed a preference for Trump over Clinton with 54 percent in support of the GOP candidate, citing the nominee’s image as a successful businessman, his foreign policy views, and the popularity of The Apprentice and the Trump family brand in China.

Continue reading “What Rising Powers Saw at the Republican Convention”

After Brexit – Rising Powers React to Surprise British Vote to Leave EU

Policy Alert #126 | June 29, 2016

On June 23, the United Kingdom voted in favor of a referendum for the country to leave the European Union (EU). The 52-48 split vote in support of “Leave” panicked global financial markets and prompted a wave of largely negative reactions from world leaders who had previously urged British voters to “Remain.” Once the British Parliament ratifies the referendum, the country would exit the EU in two years. With U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron resigning in October after leading the effort to stay in the EU, the world watches how these events unfold and whether others, including Scotland and Northern Ireland, now pursue their own independence from Britain.

In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from India, China, Japan, South Korea, and Russia (who reveled in the vote’s outcome) examining what the vote means for the future of Britain and the EU.

INDIA

Given the historical linkages between India and the United Kingdom, the “Brexit” – or British Exit – referendum vote was closely followed by leaders in New Delhi and the Indian public. There are 800 Indian companies across multiple sectors like pharmaceuticals, financial services, and IT operating in the U.K. and employing over a million people.

Most commentary in India was surprised at the Brexit outcome and warned it could have severe implications for the United Kingdom.

The Hindu declared that Britain now faced a big “scale of unknowable consequences,” especially as the financial markets, Scotland and Northern Ireland independence, and other “international ramifications” play out.
Sunanda K Datta-Ray, global affairs commentator and editor of The Statesman, said Modi should be wary of the U.K.’s future outreach to India because the “Britain’s Asian strategic perceptions are not India’s” and the anti-immigration stance underlying Brexit shows “Britain may want India but doesn’t want Indians.”
Rishabh Bhandari, London-based lawyer, expected the vote to “spark an upsurge of support” for right-wing movements unless the EU confronts these failings.
Hindustan Times worried “India will lose a close ally in the EU,” even though Brexit supporters argued the vote would boost ties between New Delhi and London.

Others tried to look at the positive aspects of the vote’s outcome.

India should be “insulated from collateral damage” stemming from the vote, argued The Economic Times, because the two year window before Britain formally leaves the EU would give Indian companies enough time to adjust their European investments.
Chandrashekhar, president of an Indian software association, predicted that the Indian IT industry “is robust to withstand some of the initial pressures” of Brexit, which may be the “tipping point” in favor of a deeper U.K.-India “strategic partnership” free from EU restrictions.
Sanjeev Sanyal, Indian economist, dismissed the short-term economic impacts of Brexit since “such historic events occur once in a generation and cannot be judged in terms of GDP growth rates.” He concluded the vote was “neither good nor bad for India. It’s mostly about how the country responds to the new situation.”

Some outlets tried to make sense of why Britain voted “Leave” instead of “Remain.”

S. Panneerselvan, editor with The Hindu, noted many of the claims from Brexit supporters in the lead-up to the vote were “the product of deliberate lies, calculated propaganda, the whipping up of xenophobic fears, and demonizing the other.” This kind of fact-checking was also done by The Indian Express.
The Hindu blamed growing “nationalist sentiments,” public anger over the economic status quo, and immigration “fear-mongering” for the vote’s outcome. This opinion was shared by The Economic Times and the Daily Pioneer.
Meghnad Desai, Indian-born Labour Party politician in the U.K. Parliament, said the vote will have generation-long consequences that will change the “future unity of the U.K. itself.”
Pratap Bhanu Mehta, president of the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi, demurred that the vote will not solve the U.K.’s troubles, which were never caused by immigration or the EU. The Hindu echoed this view of “hollow” arguments blaming migrants for the country’s economic woes and predicted dire consequences for the U.K. in coming years.

Looking ahead, several observers explored the bearing of the vote on a global stage and the future of British and Indian economic policies.

The Hindu concluded the “vote also holds a lesson for democracies elsewhere” – the “recklessness of populist policies” and the potential of “anti-establishment campaigns.”
In a separate editorial, The Hindu suggested Britain negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU or follow the Norwegian model of buying access to the European marketplace, though these options have their own problems and will still leave the U.K. at an economic disadvantage.
Dinesh Unnikrishnan remarked that Brexit makes Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s pick for the next head of the Reserve Bank of India all the more important as that individual will need to “deal with a life amid extreme volatile markets.”
The Indian Express wished Brexit would be a “time of introspection and renewal – not retreat” into xenophobia and isolation.

CHINA

The Chinese government reacted negatively once polls closed on the referendum. During a trip to London last year, President Xi Jinping wanted “to see a prosperous Europe and a united EU” and hoped “Britain, as an important member of the EU, can play an even more positive and constructive role in promoting the deepening development of China-EU ties.” After the vote, Premier Li Keqiang argued the vote raised global uncertainty and that “against the backdrop of globalization, it’s impossible for each country to talk about its own development discarding the world economic environment.” Brexit has led some Chinese leaders to re-evaluate Beijing’s relationship with London. At least officially, foreign ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying stressed “China respects the choice made by the British people and attaches great importance to bilateral relations” with the United Kingdom.

Several outlets in China debated the economic repercussions of the vote on China’s slowing economy.

The People’s Bank of China devalued the yuan to head off an expected decline in economic growth from the collapse of the British Pound.
The Brexit vote quickly became a leading topic of debate this week at the World Economic Forum meeting in northern China even though the Chinese economy may be “less exposed to the impact of the referendum” than others countries. One outside observer writing in Forbes, however, worried China could be the “most important” casualty of Brexit as it disrupts Beijing’s economic and diplomatic plans in Europe.
Fu Jing, deputy chief of China Daily’s European edition, worried the vote might obstruct global financial markets and economic growth, especially if other EU members are prompted to “negotiate special terms” in trade deals by “warning that they too would exit.”
In the lead-up to the vote, Global Times mused that if Brexit succeeds, “then the country will have acted like a show-off tightrope walker who unfortunately fell with no safety belt fastened.”
On the other hand, China Daily assumed the immediate consequences would be bad, but “it is not the end of the world” as the “global economy will not remain in panic mode for long.”

Another thread of commentary looked at what lessons the vote has for the international system and governance at home.

Li Daokui, professor of economics at Tsinghua University, said “China is now observing the Brexit event” closely with its leaders planning to use the vote as evidence against a “path of referendum, of separatism” to avoid “chaos not only for China but for the rest of the world.”
Global Times thought the vote signaled Britons’ disinterest in its empire and that citizens prefer the country “to shut itself from the outside world.”
China Daily hoped the EU could find a way to “offset centrifugal tendencies” as China and the world “needs a healthier, unified EU.”
Xinhua said the show of hands reduces the EU’s “influence and capability as a whole in dealing with global and regional issues” and will “thwart its longtime efforts toward European integration.”
In Global Times, freelance journalist Sofie Chen dismissed accusations that the “Leave” camp exploited voters with false information, noting that the 72 percent turnout demonstrated the British public’s clear rejection of the country’s economic inequalities.
While Europe was in political turmoil, Global Times did not see a “direct political impact on Russia and China.” Yet, the paper expects “the Chinese people, who are at a critical time to learn about globalization and democracy,” will continue to watch the Brexit story develop.

JAPAN

Before the vote, Japan urged British voters to remain in the EU. After the vote, the Japanese yen rapidly climbed in value, prompting concerns this may hurt exports and “hamper Japan’s path toward ending deflation.” Japanese Prime Minister Shinzō Abe told his finance minister to “ever more closely” watch the international currency market and take steps as necessary to sustain the Japanese economy. There are 1,000 Japanese firms operating in the United Kingdom, which Tokyo viewed as a “gateway to the EU.”

Most media commentary in Japan lined up against the Brexit vote’s outcome.

Asahi Shimbun pulled no punches about the vote, saying the “stunning decision could turn out to be the biggest tectonic shift in the world order since the end of the Cold War.”
“Seduced by the siren song of isolation,” The Japan Times admitted that when thinking about the impact of the vote on the rest of the world, the “omens are not good”
Mainichi said the vote was a reminder to the “international community that it is difficult for countries and ethnic groups to be free from historical nostalgia and yokes.”
The Japan News called the vote a “disappointment that will shake the world” with the country’s future and the stability of Europe left in doubt.
Yomiuri Shimbun worried the vote could “unleash a wave of populism” in Europe, Asia, and the United States.
Mainichi was troubled by the potential for Brexit to hurt Japan’s interests in the South China Sea and in other security arenas since Britons “may forget” about its bond with Japan as they seek further isolation.

Others focused on what Britain and Japan should do next.

Asahi Shimbun urged Japan as part of the G-7 to “play the leading role in securing emergency policy coordination to calm the unnerved markets.”
In the immediate future, The Japan Times said the biggest task “is healing the internal rifts” in British society that emerged during the campaign, particularly along “age, class, and geography” lines.
“Japanese businesses will be required to reexamine their overseas strategies while closely watching the negotiation process between Britain and the EU,” argued The Japan News.

SOUTH KOREA

Immediately after the British vote to leave the EU, South Korean Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se called for a new bilateral free-trade deal with the United Kingdom. With South Korea the third-largest export market for Britain in Asia, Seoul was anxious to avoid losing potential trade once the EU split is made official.

The primary focus in South Korea was how the vote would impact the Korean economy.

Lee Jong-myung, head of the Korea Chamber of Commerce & Industry’s economic policy team, said the Brexit decision would have a negative effect on his country’s export-driven economy. He also fretted the vote signals “discussions in earnest for the EU’s disintegration.”
The decision “might end up whittling Great Britain down to Little England,” considered Korea JoongAng Daily. The paper advised leaders to prepare for an “era of neo-isolationism” that will shift the foundation of Korean policy for decades.
In contrast, The Korea Herald believed that “despite the big external shock and a sort of panic in investor sentiment, there are some positive factors in the local market” in the wake of Brexit.
Similarly, Hong Sung-il at the Federation of Korean Industries, contended that while the vote affects global financial markets, the decision could have a small impact on Korea’s “real-sector economy as bilateral trade is not that big.”

Several commentators offered their ideas on how South Korea could avoid the worst case scenarios.

Prime Minister Hwang Kyo-Ahn said his country would seek “creative endeavors for innovation” to “pre-emptively respond to the Brexit impact.”
Dong-a Ilbo advised Seoul to avoid being “too complacent” in response to Brexit and instead pursue free trade deals and adjustments to the national budget and currency evaluations. This view was echoed by Korea JoongAng Daily.
The Hyundai Economic Institute urged leaders to “set aside an extra budget to cushion shock on the domestic economy” as Korea is currently undergoing industrial restructuring and is vulnerable to Brexit’s impact on the global marketplace.
The Korea Times urged Seoul to “closely guard against volatility” in the financial markets, which “could result in adverse effects for Korea, whose economy is heavily dependent on exports.” The paper also said Korea should “forge stronger regional coordination, through platforms like [China’s] Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, to jointly deal with global economic uncertainties.”
Korea JoongAng Daily likened the British anger to Koreans in “their 20s and 30s with no jobs and houses” whose discontent “is on the brink of explosion” and pressed Korean President Park Geun-hye to “pay heed to the deepening public exasperation” or else risk similar outcomes at home.

RUSSIA

In contrast to other rising powers, many in Russia welcomed the Brexit vote outcome as it may weaken EU sanctions against Russia and create new leverage for Moscow in trade and energy deals. While Russia never tried to “interfere” or “influence” the vote, President Vladimir Putin said the outcome “point[s] to the British Government’s self-assuredness and supercilious attitude to life-changing decisions in their own country and Europe.” Despite the financial market’s immediate commotion, Putin was “sure that everything will fall into place in the very near future.”

Other voices in Russia reiterated the President’s enthusiasm for the electoral results.

Vladimir Zhirinovsky, leader of the nationalist and populist Liberal Democratic party said “rural, provincial, working Britain said ‘no’ to the union, which was created by the financial mafia, globalists and all others.” He later predicted “after the British leave, NATO will collapse” along with the Schengen Area and the Euro.
Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin tweeted that “without Britain in the European Union, there is no-one to so eagerly defend sanctions against us.”
Gennady Zyuganov, chief of the Community Party, hailed the vote as a precursor to a chain reaction on the continent with France, Italy, and the Netherlands next in line to exit the EU.
Alexei Pushkov, head of the Russian Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee, tweeted the vote was “a defeat of the opponents of Brexit. And the personal failure of Barack Obama.”
RT, a Russian government-funded television network, has been a proponent of the Leave campaign with several features over the past year. Other Russian television stations hailed the vote as a victory for “Little England” and a “real nightmare for Brussels.”

A few voices, however, pushed back on this Brexit glee, saying the costs may be deleterious for Russia’s fragile economy.

Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak was anxious that crude oil prices – a key source within the Russian economy – may fall further after the vote if EU economies continued to slow down.
Senator Konstantin Kosachyov, head of the Federation Council’s International Relations Committee, saw the vote as proof the EU had “failed to solve the fundamental problem: to become understandable and convenient for the population at large.” He also feared a ripple effect as the “EU gets weight down in its own problems,” these troubles will “affect our trade relations.”
Herman Gref, head of Russia’s largest bank Sberbank, thought the vote could curtail Russia’s economic recovery efforts as stocks and bonds take a beating.

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

Rousseff Under Siege – Rising Powers Debate Brazil’s Future

Policy Alert #125 | June 29, 2016

Brazil’s Senate voted earlier this month to suspend President Dilma Rousseff while she awaits a trial to determine if corruption charges will result in her impeachment. Rousseff called the move a “coup” and vowed to fight the charges. Interim President Michel Temer now has to weather this political turmoil amid the on-going Zika virus outbreak, an economic recession, and preparations for the Summer Olympics just months away. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from Brazil, India, China, Russia, and Japan on the South America powerhouse’s future.

BRAZIL

On May 12, the Brazilian Senate voted 55-22 in favor of trying President Dilma Rousseff for impeachment for using accounting tricks to improve the 2014 budget outlook (pedaladas, in Portuguese) in violation of budgetary laws. This followed a 367-137 vote in the Chamber of Deputies on April 17. As a result, Rousseff is suspended from office for 180 days while she is tried in the Senate. An interim government will take her place either until she returns to office in the unlikely event she is not convicted in the Senate, or until the end of her term in 2018.

The interim president, Michel Temer, had been Dilma’s vice president though he is a member of the PMDB, which was the former coalition partner that spearheaded the impeachment process against her. Public opinion and several media outlets remain sharply against Temer.

The temporary leader is unpopular with Brazilians in general, with polls indicating he would receive a scant two percent of the vote in the first round of a presidential election. While Brazilians overwhelmingly supported impeaching Dilma, a similarly large majority of 58 percent also want Michel Temer impeached.
Moreover, Temer has been implicated by witnesses in the Lava Jato investigation, though he is currently not under investigation, and is ineligible to run for office for eight years as punishment for breaking campaign finance laws, though this does not affect his ability to assume the presidency.
The mostly-white, all-male composition of Temer’s cabinet immediately drew harsh criticism both within and outside of Brazil as it was interpreted by many as a sign that Temer’s government will be a throwback to previous governments that were far less representative of Brazil’s diversity.
The cabinet came under further scrutiny as it came out that at least five are currently under investigation under the massive Lava Jato corruption investigation that played a large, if technically indirect role in Rousseff’s impeachment and that one member was even under investigation for his role in an attempted murder.

Dilma Rousseff has labeled the impeachment process against her a “coup” and has frequently pointed out that, unlike many of those voting to impeach her that are under investigation or even indictment for corruption, she has not even been implicated.

In a speech outside the Planalto the day after the Senate vote, Rousseff vowed to use all her legal recourse to fight her impeachment and declared that “I might have committed errors, but I did not commit any crimes.”
Conforming to the “coup” narrative, Eduardo Cunha, former Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies and leader of the impeachment process, was removed from office by the Supreme Court less than two weeks after the vote in the Chamber of Deputies when he was indicted on corruption charges. Cunha had been an ally of Rousseff’s government, but initiated the impeachment process within hours of the vote against him.
On Monday, news broke in Brazil of recording made in March by Sérgio Machado, a former government official currently negotiating a plea bargain for his role in Lava Jato, of Romero Jacá, the new planning minister and a senator who voted to impeach Rousseff, promising that impeachment would lead to a “change” in the government and a “national pact” that would “stop the bleeding.” This has been widely interpreted to referring to using impeachment as a means to stop the Lava Jato investigations.
This will likely set off a firestorm as polls show that 66 percent of Brazilians believe that the Lava Jato investigations are positive and 77 percent believe that other parties are responsible than just Rousseff’s Workers Party (PT). For his part, Michel Temer has promised to let the Lava Jato investigations continue.

INDIA

India and Brazil are emerging economies with close trade and political ties since the 1960s that have worked together in associations such as BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), India-Brazil-South Africa (IBSA) group, and Brazil-South Africa-India-China (BASIC).

Several media outlets harshly criticized Rousseff’s ousting and doubted the move would solve any of the country’s mounting challenges.

The Hindu called the impeachment “a coup by another name” and worried the political crisis occurred “at time when the country needs a stable administration to cope with the enormous” economic and corruption challenges. The paper had several problems with the impeachment charges, but reluctantly urged Brazil to hold “fresh elections” to find a president with a clear mandate to address the country’s real issues.
Stanly Johny, The Hindu’s international affairs editor, said the impeachment vote “is unlikely to solve any of the problems Brazil is now facing.”
Krishnan Srinivasan, former Indian foreign secretary, co-authored an op-ed lamenting how Brazil’s “highly partisan” and illegitimate political crisis has been “damaging” to global politics and the “efficacy of BRICS, IBSA, and BASIC, due to Brazil’s geographical and political leadership.
Deepak Bhojwani, former Indian Ambassador to Colombia, Venezuela, and Cuba, explained how India had a “major stake in Brazil’s stability and prosperity” and the current “political soap opera” will be closely watched by New Delhi to see how “this tussle for legitimacy plays itself out.”

Looking ahead, commentators pressed Brazil to quickly find a solution to their severe economic and political difficulties.

Srinivasan argued India will “have to wait for a successor leader to emerge” – hopefully one with an “unimpeachable record of public service and a similar proactive attitude toward Third World solidarity” – though that “wait may prove to be a long one.”
While Bhojwani urged Brazil to “repair its badly damaged political system,” he noted Rousseff’s successor is someone who would not have been elected to the presidency and is seen by many as more corrupt than the deposed leader.

CHINA

China is Brazil’s largest trading partner, but the recent slowdown in the Chinese economy hurt Brazil. Interim president Michel Temer swore his country would rely on strengthening trade and investment with China to boost the Brazilian economy. According to Xinhua, Brazilian Senator Helio Jose thought “China is the most important economic entity in the world with a huge investment in Brazil” and “Brazil is very much interested in enhancing” trade with China.”

Media outlets in China focused on Rousseff’s future and what the impeachment could mean for future Sino-Brazil relations.

Xinhua editor Yao Chun predicted Rousseff’s chance at staying in power was “slim” and did not expect a “smooth” path for her successor.
Earlier this year, the Financial Times reported the total volume of containerized exports from China into Brazil fell by half due to the Latin American country’s economic troubles.
On the other hand, Lyu Chang, writer for China Daily, noted that despite Brazil’s “looming recession,” Chinese hydropower companies see the South American country’s “humongous water resources like the might Amazon” as a market for Chinese built dams and power stations.
During an interview with The People’s Daily, University of São Paulo José Medeiros da Silva sensed Brazil’s new leaders will “certainly be able to understand the importance of the strategic partnership with China.”
The lesson to draw from Brazil’s seemingly endless political crisis, according to The Global Times, is that the “practice of Western democracy requires strong support from the country’s cultural traditions toward the rule of democracy.” Without this support and a strong economy, the paper concluded “the process to become a democratic state will be filled with turmoil.”

RUSSIA

Russian officials emphasized the country has no intentions to interfere in Brazil’s domestic politics and that other countries should follow the suit. These statements came out as Russian press issued reports and editorials suspecting the U.S. government, CIA, and NSA supported the “coup” against Rousseff and that Termer was “just another puppet of the U.S. imperialism in Latin America.”

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov stated “we are closely watching the developments and insist that any decisions should be taken exclusively within the framework of the law, the constitution. Naturally, we think that any attempts at external interference with these processes are inadmissible.”
“Undoubtedly, we don’t have any intentions to interfere in the situation in Brazil,” emphasized Alexander Shchetinin, director of the Latin American department at Russia’s foreign ministry. He wanted the international community to “display tact and delicacy so that Brazilians should have a possibility to decide their internal affairs independently.”
“We want to see a stable, democratic, and of course dynamically developing Brazil, which could play a vital role in the international arena,” said Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova. She vowed “Russia regards Brazil to be a vital foreign policy partner in Latin America and the whole world. We actively cooperate at the United Nations, BRICS and G-20.”

JAPAN

Japanese newspapers remained apprehensive about Brazil’s future.

The impeachment is a reflection of Brazil’s long-lasting economic slump and corruption scandals surrounding state-owned oil companies and of the increasing public distrust in the government, opined Nikkei Shimbun.
Nishi Nippon Shimbun expressed concerns about the ramifications for the Summer Olympics. The political turmoil, combined with the economic recession, could increase crime rates and decrease public safety. Should this affect the management of the Olympic Games, “Brazil’s international reputation as a model for rising powers will be damaged.”
Sankei Shimbun took a more alarmist view, calling Brazil’s public safety issues “a state of war” between the police and criminal organizations. With the current political and economic crises, as well as the recent lay-offs of police officers due to government financial problems, the situation is becoming worse, raising serious concerns for the Summer Olympics.

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

Asia Rethinks South China Sea Disputes in Wake of Presidential Election in The Philippines

Policy Alert #124 | May 12, 2016

In a landslide victory on May 9, Davao City mayor Rodrigo Duterte was elected to be the next president of the Philippines. The 71-year-old Duterte – who has been called the “Donald Trump of the Philippines” for his propensity to spark controversy – pledged to reverse the current government’s foreign policy by engaging China in talks to resolve escalating maritime disputes in the South China Sea. Both China and the Philippines claim ownership over parts of the Scarborough Shoal and the Spratly Islands.

Duterte also promised to ride a jet ski to China-administrated islands and personally stake his country’s claims should negotiations fail to produce a resolution, so the world is closely watching to see how this potential flashpoint develops. In this Policy Alert, which is part of a series under the Sigur Center’s Energy and Maritime Security project, we explore the reactions of China, the Philippines, Japan, India, and Vietnam to Duterte’s electoral victory and its implications for U.S. policy toward Asia.

CHINA

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lu Kang hoped the new government would “meet China halfway, taking concrete measures to properly deal with [maritime] disputes so as to put the ties of the two countries back on the track of sound development.” Lu touted a historical friendship between Beijing and Manila that has been “hit by major setbacks in recent years, due to reasons known to all,” an indirect reference to U.S. support for the Philippines challenge to China’s maritime claims.

During the campaign, Duterte advocated multilateral talks with China to settle these claims. Lu said China continued to reject this approach in favor of bilateral negotiations with the relevant parties. Should those multilateral talks fail to produce an outcome within two years, Duterte promised he would consider bilateral talks directly with Beijing. He also signaled he was open to joint oil and gas exploration with China if Beijing agrees to treat the disputed waters as a “mutual corridor.”

Several commentators traced today’s strained relations between the Philippines and China to the U.S. foreign policy and the outgoing administration of President Benigno Aquino III.

Eager for the Philippines to elect a president willing to “improve Beijing-Manila ties, which have been plagued by rising tensions over the maritime disputes,” Yang Danzhi, researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, expected the new government to nevertheless “hedge its bets” by “simultaneously seeking Washington’s protection and enhancing the economic and political closeness with Beijing.”
Blaming Aquino for “souring” Beijing-Manila ties by full-heartedly endorsing the U.S. “pivot to Asia,” Chen Qinghong, researcher in Southeast Asian studies at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, hoped the new government would “recalibrate its China policy.
Xu Liping, senior researcher of Southeast Asia at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, predicted the new government would “adjust its policy on the South China Sea issue no matter which candidate is elected, because the policy of the Aquino administration runs counter to the country’s interests and threatens regional security.”
Another scholar at the academy, Jia Duqiang, agreed and expected “the new president will exercise restraint.”
The Global Times declared the Philippine public was “fed up with Aquino’s lopsided South China Sea strategy – siding completely with Washington which brought no advantage to Manila.”

Others debated the role maritime disputes had on the electoral results.

The Global Times reported voters were mostly concerned with their economic well-being and showed “little interest in the South China Sea issue,” blaming the government and the media for hyping up the controversy.
Wang Xiaopeng, maritime scholar at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, alleged that “nationalist speeches on this issue from some Philippine netizens were also often used by the Western and Philippine media, but they do not represent all the voters.
Gu Xiaosong, an expert at Guangxi Academy of Social Science remarked “Filipinos hope for proper domestic and foreign policies that can improve their livelihood.”

A number of Chinese experts and media outlets offered policy recommendations for Duarte to adopt in order to restore better relations.

Xinhua writer Luo Jun stressed that if the new president stopped being a “pawn” to U.S. interests, Manila could take advantage of China’s Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, its Belt and ROAD Initiative, and other economic opportunities to improve the lives of people on the island.
In The Global Times, Chen also warned further U.S. interference in the South China Sea would limit the new government’s room to change course on maritime rows. The author suggested Mayor Duterte’s “limited political influence on the whole nation” could mean supporters of the more aggressive anti-China Aquino policy will “exert influence on the new government and force it to accept the final verdict of the arbitration.”
The People’s Daily thought the “Philippines will eventually have no choice but to return to equitable negotiation and dialogue” since many China-friendly ASEAN members and others nations such as Russia, India, Pakistan, and Poland have backed Beijing’s bilateral talks approach over the UN arbitration panel.
The Global Times sensed Duterte’s “concept of foreign policy differs greatly” from Aquino as he “opposes the idea of going to war with China” and wants direct negotiations on maritime issues.
Yang urged the new leader to “properly respond to Beijing’s honest move to improve bilateral relations” by dropping the UN arbitration case on the South China Sea.

PHILIPPINES

In addition to human rights concerns, the United States has viewed Duterte’s rise as worrisome. He pledged “if I become president, I’m going to reach out to the Chinese and talk to them alone without American intervention.” In addition to publicly opposing the Visiting Forces Agreement with the United Sates and the related Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, Duterte alleged he rejected a U.S. request to use Davao for a drone base.

Virginia Watson, a scholar on the Sigur Center’s Energy and Maritime Security project and a professor at the Asia Pacific Center, argued Duterte was a “fresh face, fresh perspective” who held appeal because “people are sick and tired of the same old, same old.” Furthermore, Watson doubted the new president could slow the momentum underway in the Philippine armed forces to modernize its fighting forces.

Most of the immediate coverage in Philippine media of Duterte’s victory focused on his reputation and allegations of vote suppression by the Aquino administration.

Ana Marie Pamintuan of The Philippine Star said Duterte’s election was a “resounding slap” and a “repudiation” of the Aquino administration policies. Another writer for the paper called the vote a “primal scream” expressing profound anger at the economic policies of the ruling elite.
The Daily Tribune wrote that Duterte was the “overwhelming choice of the Filipino nation,” which has given him the “strongest mandate ever for a president.” The newspaper also compared Duterte to both Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
In contrast, columnists for The Rappler said Trump and Duterte were “actually polar opposites” except for their language proclivities since Duerte is a socialist who lives in a humble home and dresses simply.
Bong Wenceslao, a columnist at Sun Star, argued Duterte “should be given the benefit of the doubt,” but wanted the press to stay vigilant of the excesses and abuse of power” that may come during the “wild ride” of his presidency.
The Inquirer was encouraged by the high turnout of voters and quick reporting of results and hoped this would calm fears about election fraud and lead to a period of unity within the country.

Duterte spokesperson Peter Laviña said the next administration will be willing to “form partnerships with China to extract gas and oil deposits that are believed to be in the sea.” Philippine scholars and media outlets debated the future direction of the country’s foreign policy under the new government and what this meant for Washington.

“Foreign relations has been a major gap in Duterte’s published platform to date,” said Jay Batongbacal, director of the University of the Philippines’ Institute for Maritime Affairs and Law of the Sea. He argued Duterte and “his team have yet to publicly define their approach to the South China Sea.”
Richard Javad Heydarian, assistant professor at De La Salle University, warned Duterte needed to be cautious if he went ahead with joint development or bilateral talks with China. “Given strong domestic anti-China sentiment and institutionalized security ties with America,” he argued, “Duterte will have to keep Washington – a key strategic partner – on its side.”
Babe Romualdez, columnist for The Philippine Star, said Duterte felt “American influence is too strong, that we’re too dependent on U.S. intervention in anything we do.”
The Daily Tribune warned Duterte’s “pledge for a peaceful and orderly nation under his term is nothing but a myth” as the Philippines will experience “strife and turmoil” in the coming years.

JAPAN

Japanese newspapers showed concerns about Duterte’s presidency.

Pointing out the lack of specific policy proposals made by President-elect Duterte, Yomiuri Shimbun warned his populist measures will “undo” the achievements of sitting President Aquino’s economic policy. The editorial also showed concerns about Duterte’s pro-China stance, emphasizing he “must not forget the importance of continued maritime security cooperation with the United States and Japan for the region’s stability.”
Sankei Shimbun shared a similar view, urging Duterte to take a firm stance against China over the South China Sea and maintain Aquino’s legal approach of using the rule of law and international courts to resolve the territorial disputes.
Duterte needs to focus on infrastructure, employment, and poverty, argued Asahi Shimbun, now that the country, with its GDP per capita reaching $3,000, faces a “moment of truth” in transforming its economy.
Drawing a comparison between Duterte and Trump, Mainichi Shimbun posited Duterte’s victory reflects a larger “worrying” global trend of electoral demands for “high-handed” method of government. Sankei Shimbun was also troubled by the Philippine public’s desires for “charismatic” and even “dictatorial” leadership, stressing the similarities between Duterte and former President Ferdinand Marcos, a dictator ousted by the 1986 People Power Revolution.

INDIA

Earlier this year, U.S. Pacific Commander Admiral Harry Harris announced joint naval exercises by India, Japan, and the United States in the Philippine Sea near the East and South China Seas. The January 2015 U.S.-India joint strategic vision for the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean region signaled support for “freedom of navigation and over flight throughout the region, especially in the South China Sea.”

While Indian media commentary on the Philippines’ election was sparse, some writers likened Duterte to Indian politicians while trying to understand his appeal.

Peter Kammerer, a senior writer for South China Morning Post, compared Duterte’s rise with others politicians seen by their publics as a strongman “who can get things done,” such as India’s Narendra Modi and Japan’s Shinzo Abe.
Outlook India previewed the election of Duterte who had “hypnotised millions with profanity-laced tirades promising brutal but quick solutions to the nation’s twin plagues of crime and poverty.”
New Delhi Times characterized Duterte as a “foul-mouthed, crime-busting mayor” and reported at least 15 people were killed in elections-related violence.

VIETNAM

Like the Philippines, Vietnam disputes some of China’s maritime activities in the South China Sea, including a Chinese oil rig that has prompted an increase in Vietnamese maritime patrols in the waters. Vietnam’s ambassador to the United States recently asked President Obama to lift the U.S. lethal arms embargo so Vietnam as a sign of support for Hanoi’s efforts to resist China. According to the Thanh Nien News, Duterte expressed consternation at the Vietnamese coastguard seizing a ship trying to refuel illegal Chinese fishing boats in the Gulf of Tonkin since these moves threatened his “envisioned regional peace.”

In the past, Vietnam has supported Aquino’s strategy of bringing its maritime clashes with China to The Hague, a policy Duterte signaled he will change. After his victory, Duterte urged multilateral talks “probably this year” between China, Vietnam, the Philippines, the United States, and other South China Sea powers to negotiate a resolution of maritime disputes. Writing in The Diplomat, U.S. Army Captain John Ford predicted the “moment Duterte enters bilateral talks with China, the Philippines will be undercutting Vietnam” and the “unified diplomatic front [against China] will crumble. Duterte seems oblivious to this.”

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 React to Potential U.K. “Brexit” from European Union

Policy Alert #123 | April 27, 2016

With Britain’s June 23 referendum on whether to remain in the European Union (EU) fast approaching, debates about the future of the United Kingdom and Europe have gained attention across the world. Many observers worry about the potential economic and political consequences of Britain’s decision to exit – or “Brexit” – the EU. With polls showing the public split nearly 50-50 on the referendum, President Barack Obama traveled to Britain and urged British voters to stay in the EU. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from China, India, Russia, and Japan on the U.K. referendum.

CHINA

Chinese President Xi Jinping urged the British public to vote in favor of a strong and united European Union. With over $61 billion in trade deals announced during Jinping’s recent visit to the United Kingdom, he hoped “Britain, as an important member of the EU, can play an even more positive and constructive role in promoting the deepening development of China-EU ties.” At risk is a deal between Beijing and London in October 2015 where China would build a nuclear energy plant at Hinkley Point, the “largest inward investment in” U.K. history.

Commentators debated whether the Brexit decision could have a negative impact on growing economic ties between the United Kingdom and China.

Yu Jie, China Foresight Project Manager at the London School of Economics IDEAS think tank, believed China would “diminish the hope of both the British and the Chinese in placing the [United Kingdom] as an entry point to the European market.” She concluded “only a partnership with London that is firmly rooted in the European Union can allow China to play a greater role in the international arena.”
The Global Times interviewed China-scholar Martin Jacques about whether Brexit could “influence U.K. policy toward China and the U.K.-China relationship.” Jacques said the Conservative Party’s positive views of China are “not quite representative in the country,” though public opinion may be shifting toward warmer ties.
Philippe Le Corre, visiting fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institute, observed Chinese stakeholders are “becoming increasingly vocal” about their opposition to Brexit. While “highly unusual for China to be this overt about its opinions on another country’s domestic affairs,” Le Corre concluded “money (investment) talks” and progress toward a Sino-British “special relationship” could be “tarnished” if Brexit comes to pass.
On the other hand, Wang Hongzhang, chairman of China Construction Bank, told the BBC last year “whether the [United Kingdom] will stay in the EU or not will not do any harm to trade and economic ties or financial relations between” the United Kingdom and China.
Despite the looming Brexit vote, Fu Jing, deputy editor of China Daily’s European edition, urged negotiations between the EU and China on a free trade agreement to commence as soon as possible.

INDIA

While India Prime Minister Narendra Modi declined to comment on the Brexit vote directly during a visit to the United Kingdom late last year, according to the International Business Times, Modi “hinted that he was in favor of avoiding a Brexit after describing the [United Kingdom] as India’s ‘entry’ point” to the EU. India is the third-largest source of foreign direct investment into the United Kingdom.

Most media and policy commentators were not pleased with the potential for the United Kingdom’s potential exit from the EU with some noting India’s unique colonial history with the British Empire.

The Hindu thought it didn’t require “a visiting U.S. President to puncture the arguments of eurosceptic Britons,” but the paper sensed these critics’ fondness for the island’s imperial past prevents them from seeing the benefits of staying in the EU: influence on Europe’s economic policies, its status as a global financial hub, benefits of immigration, and a “special relationship” with the United States.
Parvathi Menon in The Hindu reported on polling suggesting “ethnic minorities in the [United Kingdom], including those from India, are likely to vote for the country to stay in the European Union.” Nevertheless, many “well-to-do Indians shifted political allegiances from the Labour to the Conservatives” after May 2005 election, including Indian-origin Conservative cabinet minister Priti Patel who now supports Brexit.

The Brexit debate is already having an impact on the Indian economy.

Officials close to negotiation on the proposed India-European Union Free Trade Agreement report talks have been delayed due to the possibility the Brexit vote succeeds.
Kunal Nathwani, a former scholar at the India-based think tank Gateway House, said if Britain votes to leave the EU, foreign direct investment (FDI) from India may fall over time as Indian businesses look to alternative “gateways to Europe” such as Germany. However, Nathwani noted once outside the EU, the United Kingdom could negotiate bilateral trade deals with India with less “stringent EU regulation” and lower costs.
On the other hand, many Indian businesses – led by the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FICCI) – warn that Brexit “could harm investment by Indian businesses” in Britain despite “growing U.K.-India trade” being a priority for both governments.
Nigel Farage, one of the leading Brexit supporters, proposed increased trade with India as an alternative to make up for lost economic activity with the European Union, but Dr. A. Didar Singh, secretary general of the FICCI, responded by arguing “we firmly believe that leaving the EU, would create considerable uncertainty for Indian businesses” and “would possibly have an adverse impact on investment and movement of professionals” to the island.”

RUSSIA

Several experts and commentators in Russia discussed the potential security and economic consequences of a Brexit for Moscow.

A post-Brexit Britain will further “lean on” the United States, “which will inevitably translate into a more pro-American foreign policy with its well-entrenched anti-Russian phobias,” predicted Yelena Ananiyeva, head of the Center for U.K. Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Europe.
“As part of the EU, Britain simply looks more predictable and responsible as far as Moscow is concerned,” opined Russia Beyond the Headlines. “Without the EU system of checks and balances” in foreign policy conducts, the editorial warned, there will be no mechanism for preventing London from “making erratic and irresponsible moves out of its longstanding antipathy toward Moscow.”
This anti-British sentiment among the Russians surged when the U.K. Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Amber Rudd opposed a Brexit on the ground that leaving the EU would enable Russia to “hijack” European energy security and “bring Europe to its knees.” The Russian Embassy in London officially protested, accusing Rudd for “misrepresenting” the situation.
Andrey Sushentsov, associate professor at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, warned a Brexit could create a divide in Europe, with the Anglo-Saxon alliance taking a further anti-Russian stance while the core EU countries normalizing ties with Russia.
Pavel Kanevskiy, associate professor of political science at Moscow State University, shared a similar view, saying a Brexit would lead to “regional separatism” and impede concerted efforts to promote peace and stability between Russia and the EU.
Danila Bochkarev, senior fellow at the East-West Institute, offered a more optimistic perspective, saying “despite often harsh rhetoric and serious political disagreements the financial link between the [United Kingdom] and Russia is strong and will get stronger in case of a Brexit.”

JAPAN

Many Japanese corporations expressed preferences for Britain to stay in the EU, though they remained cautious about moving their businesses out of a non-EU Britain.

Hiroaki Nakanishi, chairman and chief executive of Hitachi, called the idea of a Brexit “ridiculous,” but added the company would keep investing in a non-EU Britain. Hitachi recently opened a new $120 million railway plant, and is planning a multi-billion dollar investment in a new nuclear power plant, in the country.
Toyota’s chief executive Akio Toyoda assured the firm will “keep making cars at its plant in the English Midlands even if the [United Kingdom] votes to leave the European Union.”
Carlos Ghosn, chairman and chief executive of Nissan, stated their “preference as a business is, of course, that the [United Kingdom] stays within Europe – it makes the most sense for jobs, trade and costs.”
According to Chris Bryant, antitrust and competition partner at the international law firm of Berwin Leighton Paisner, “Generally [the approach of Japanese firms] is one of concern about the uncertainty, leading to the postponing of decisions that can be postponed, but I’ve seen no evidence of them saying they would leave” from Britain.
Nick Woodford, partner responsible for PwC’s Japanese business network in Britain, posited many Japanese firms would find it difficult to relocate from Britain, since their major investments are often in heavy industry, all costing money to close or move. For those Japanese conglomerates that operate management and ownership hubs in London, he said, they could keep their London headquarters while redirecting investments from the United Kingdom to the rest of Europe.

Panama Papers Leak Proves Taxing for Rising Powers

Policy Alert #122 | April 14, 2016

On April 3, an international coalition of journalists released information on thousands of tax shelters created by the Panama-based firm Mossack Fonseca. Global reactions to the leak of over 11 million documents, also known as the Panama Papers, have been swift with condemnations directed at individuals named as shareholders and directors of the shell companies, including politicians, business leaders, athletes, and celebrities in more than 200 countries. Among them are 12 national leaders, such as the prime ministers of Iceland, the United Kingdom, and Pakistan, the presidents of Argentina and Ukraine, and the king of Saudi Arabia. The list also links to individuals with connections to Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping.

While the use of these offshore companies to avoid taxes at home is not illegal, they remain controversial to many who consider the practice as cheating taxpayers and creating opportunities for fraud, money laundering, and drug trafficking. Several countries in Eurasia were identified as hubs for this type of financial activity or saw their political leadership included in the allegations. This Policy Alert highlights reactions in China, India, Russia, Japan, and South Korea to the emerging global shell game.

CHINA

After the Panama Papers cited at least eight current and former Chinese top-ranking officials of having links to Mossack Fonseca, the Communist party ordered the country’s media outlets to censor all references to the story. Foreign Affairs Ministry spokesperson Hong Lei refused to comment on “groundless accusations” when pressed by journalists. Chinese law does not prohibit its citizens from creating overseas entities, but according to Chun Han Wong in the Wall Street Journal, party leaders are sensitive to allegations, including some directed at relatives of President Xi Jingping, that may “add fuel to perceptions of double standards in Beijing’s efforts to fight graft.”

Hong Kong was said to be home to the most active and highest number – over 2,000 – of the shell corporations set up through Mossack Fonseca. Zhang Xiaodong, named as the firm’s primary contact on the island, pushed his clients to set up offshore accounts to purchase stocks abroad due to “overseas countries’ hostility to the rising Chinese economic power.” When a media outlet did cover the leaks, its criticism was directed at foreign powers. The Global Times questioned the real motives behind the leak, which the paper said has “basic political targets,” and how the information is being spun by “the Western media” to minimize information negative to the United States and give “extra spin” to the “exposure of non-Western leaders, such as Putin.”

INDIA

In response to The Indian Express’s reporting on 500 Indians named in the Panama Papers, Prime Minister Narendra Modi ordered the formation of a multi-agency group to investigate. Modi had previously established a Special Investigation Team (SIT) on Black Money to explore how wealth is held overseas away from Indian tax collectors, but investigators are pessimistic about their chances at finding the over $505 billion in lost tax revenue that left India from 2004-2013. Justice M.B. Shah, chairman of the SIT, said if the Panama Papers accusation were true, “then the persons cannot easily avoid punishment under the Black Money Act of 2015.”

Many commentators and media outlets focused on how the use of tax havens and the information contained in the leaks were negatively affecting India’s economy and political leadership.

The Hindu noted the problem of overseas tax havens remains an issue for India despite the Reserve Bank of India’s attempts to provide guidelines deterring the practice. The papers called on leaders – not just in India – to coordinate a global response to increase transparency and set “a zero tolerance approach to illegal transfers.”
The Economic Times demanded India “strengthen its ability to digest the data yielded by such increasingly frequent leaks and take appropriate action” in coordination with global partners to “revamp the tax system.”
The Times of India praised Modi for seizing the leak’s opportunity to set up the multi-agency probe and fight against black money.
On the other hand, N Sundaresha Subramanian, associate editor at Business Standard, criticized the BJP government for failing to make progress on its campaign promise to reign in these money stashing schemes.
The leaks prove tax havens are “used overwhelmingly for secrecy and dissimulation” and not legitimate purposes, according to Dikshit Sengupta with National Institute of Public Finance and Policy, New Delhi. He highlighted similar practices in the country of Mauritius where many Indian businesses and wealthy individuals shield their assets and end up eroding India’s tax base.
A.S. Panneerselvan, journalist and Executive Director of Panos South Asia, saw the impact of the Panama Papers leak as extending beyond the financial realm into an “inevitable way to reboot the news media” through an unprecedented level of collaboration between international media organizations.

Several political parties and pundits discussed how the Panama Papers are being used as a political weapon in India.

Opposition parties such as the Congress Party and the Aam Aadmi Party urged the ruling BJP leadership to avoid becoming involved in tax haven investigations due to their closeness to people named in the leaks, including sports promoter Lokesh Sharma. BJP officials refuted the allegations, however, and called the Congress Party “singularly responsible” for the existence of tax loopholes in India.
One of India’s most prominent actors with a potential political role, Amitabh Bachchan, was named in the Panama Papers leak. While he denied having money in offshore accounts, it has raised questions about his future in politics.
Prashant Bhushan, founder of the political organization Swaraj Abhiyan, said the country needed “to see swift and visible action on the Panama Papers” to undo the damage to Prime Minister Modi’s credibility on financial reforms.
Pratap Bhanu Mehta, president of the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi, predicted the rise of “angry populism” in many liberal democracies in response to the news. However, Mehta expected a “muted” reaction in India due to elites giving each other a “free pass” on their respective financial dealings and because the Indian tax base is small and unlikely to feel cheated by these revelations.

Not everyone in India, however, was upset about the leaks with several defending the use of tax havens for economic growth.

Raghuram Rajan, Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, advised the public against attacking the “entrepreneurial wealth of self-made people,” a “dangerous” trend he believed could harm economic growth. Rajan promised his agency, which the government appointed to lead an investigation into the Panama Papers’ claims, will discover what really happened and provide opportunities for people to determine the legitimacy of wealth earned through these financial setups.
Dinesh Kanabar, CEO of Dhruva Advisors, traced the rise in India of overseas money to the country’s formerly high tax rates, a historical lack of income accounting, and previous “difficulties faced by Indians in sending money abroad.” However, Kanabar argued these drivers no longer exist in India and pressed his readers to better understand the legitimate uses of offshore accounts and the troubling fact massive amounts of financial data was breached and leaked.
The Daily Pioneer encouraged readers to avoid moving to “tar the reputation of people” named in the leaks until an investigation concluded.
Naushad Forbes, president of the Confederation of Indian Industry, thought it was wise to take advantage of legal tax loopholes since those incentives were created to attract investment and economic activity. Forbes believed there were already laws on the books for India to “deter corporate wrongdoing.”
Professor Illa Patnaik of the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy maintained there was a distinction between illegal tax evasion and more legitimate tax avoidance strategies even as both methods employ tax havens. She argued India needed a simpler “tax regime with lower compliance costs” to sort out the thin line between legal and illegal activities.

RUSSIA

Vladimir Putin has been accused of hiding $2 billion in offshore accounts. A cellist named Sergei Roldugin, reportedly a close friend of Putin, is viewed as being at the center of the tax evasion scheme. Twelve other Russian politicians and businessmen with close ties to the president are also listed in the leak.

Putin flatly denied the allegation, calling it “an attempt to shake the situation [in Russia] from within, make us more compliant, and tar us the way they want.”
Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said “Putinophobia” in the West “reached a point where to speak well about Russia, or about some of its actions and successes is impossible…While Putin does not appear anywhere backed by any facts, it is obvious to us that the main target behind such ‘leaks’ has been and still is our president, especially in the context of the upcoming parliamentary and… the presidential election in two years’ time.”
The spokesman of Russia’s Prosecutor-General’s Office, Alexander Kurennoi, said the office will check information on Russians with offshore accounts, although he added the revelation “wasn’t a story about Russia. It was a story about the offshore world.”
Russian bank officials and politicians, including VTB Bank CEO Andrey Kostin and Minister of Economic Development Alexei Ulyukayev, have denied any involvement in the scandal.

Some liberal opposition newspapers, such as Novaya Gazeta and Kommersant, ran investigative stories that covered the Panama Papers. In contrast, state-owned media characterized the story as “anti-Russian” and dismissed allegations against Putin, shifting the focus to Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and his Panamanian company.

Russia Times editorialized in defense against “mainstream media’s latest attacks” that its coverage of the Panama Papers “hasn’t been primarily focused on Vladimir Putin.”
Russia’s Channel One emphasized “no cases of wrongdoing have been confirmed. The administration of the Russian president has no illusions about the real purpose of this information attack.”
State Duma opposition deputy Dmitry Gudkov criticized the lack of Russian media coverage, saying “it is paradoxical that major Russia mass media channels do not have a reaction and report on the event exclusively with regard to foreign politicians or don’t report it at all.” According to Gudkov, the Panama Papers send a signal to Kremlin that if “they continue to escalate, there will be more consequences. When these things are revealed, they can be investigated by security services in the United States or other countries.”

Unlike Iceland, where thousands of protesters gathered in front of the parliament and forced the prime minister to resign, there have been no major protests in Russia, except two people who decided to demonstrate in front of parliament before being detained.

Natalya Zorkaya, a leading scientific collaborator for the department of social-political investigations at the Levada Center pollster, explained “there have been many corruption scandals in Russia – with the prosecutor general, the defense minister. Many things happened that one would think would have offended the people. But this does not push our people onto the streets because we don’t have the inclusiveness that exists in European democracies, in those where society understands that mass demonstrations can have an effect. Unfortunately we still haven’t reached this state.”
The Russians “do not expect formal rules to be real or facts to be unequivocally true,” posited Maxim Trudolyubov, Senior Fellow at the Kennan Institute and the Editor-at-Large of Vedomosti, an independent Russian daily. They understand “business is always murky and politics is always dirty,” and “do not believe… they would be able to exert any real influence on the country’s policies.”

JAPAN

The Panama Papers contained 24 companies and 360 shareholders in Japan, raising concerns offshore tax havens are being used for criminal activities. There is no evidence politicians or public officials have been involved, although some doctors and businessmen reportedly attempted to acquire offshore accounts.

Japanese media outlets unanimously voiced criticism.

Tax avoidance by political leaders are a “betrayal of people’s trust” and “shakes the foundation of democracy,” claimed Mainichi Shimbun. The editorial posited the revelation by the Panama Papers will only exacerbate the public anger that has been fueling since the 2008 financial crisis and the subsequent public attention to inequality. Asahi Shimbun agreed, criticizing these leaders for failing to fulfill their “moral responsibility” as elected officials.
Sankei Shimbun also condemned the use of tax havens by politicians, calling it a hindrance to the international efforts to regulate such offshore accounts for preventing money laundering by criminals and terrorists.
The editorials by Yomiuri Shimbun and Nikkei Shimbun called for further international efforts to eliminate the use of tax havens, citing as an example the multilateral framework of bank account information sharing recently proposed by the OECD and approved by the G-20 summit. The articles urged the participation of tax haven countries, including Panama, which has yet to join the framework.
“It is tempting to dismiss all shell companies as vehicles for tax avoidance, money laundering, or drug trafficking. But those businesses can also be used to shield assets from corrupt governments, where the rule of law is not enshrined and private property is not protected,” cautioned The Japan Times. “Shell companies not only protect against extortion, but also against attempts by authoritarian governments to strip their opponents of assets through the court system.”

SOUTH KOERA

Roh Jae-heon, the eldest son of South Korea’s former President Roh Tae-woo, was found to be running three paper companies in a tax haven region. Newstapa, the only South Korean media agency involved in the ICIJ’s investigation, first reported the story and wrote “we have yet to ascertain the flow of money, but considering that Roh Jae-heon was at risk of having to make his assets public in divorce proceedings, these companies appear to be linked to an attempt to conceal Roh Tae-woo’s slush fund.”

In a statement, Roh rebutted all allegations, saying “I set up the companies for business in China but it was not carried out as planned. I did not open any bank accounts either. I am ready to explain (everything) if relevant authorities ask. They have nothing to do with tax evasion or creating a slush fund.”
South Korea’s National Tax Service and Financial Supervisory Service announced they will investigate the 195 individuals mentioned in the Panama Papers, including Roh Jae-heon.

Korean newspapers called for vigorous official investigations.

Dong-A Ilbo argued the government “should realize taxation justice by opening the ICIJ data to the public and conducting strong investigation against the individuals and businesses in the list.”
The Panama Papers “should give a timely boost” to the tax authorities’ “war on offshore tax evasion,” said The Korea Herald.
The “195 cheaters are just the tip of an iceberg,” claimed Joong-Ang Ilbo, noting the fact the National Tax Service collected $1.12 billion-the largest amount ever-from 223 offshore tax evaders last year. The Korea Times shared a similar view, urging the tax authorities to “vigorously” crack down on the “rampant” offshore tax evasion by the Koreans.

An American President in Cuba: Reactions from Rising Powers

Policy Alert #121 | March 30, 2016

On March 20, President Barack Obama became the first sitting president to visit Cuba since 1928. The trip marked a pivotal moment in the efforts to normalize bilateral relations that have been long characterized by mutual enmity. Obama called on Cuba to open its economy and political system while Cuban President Raúl Castro urged the U.S. Congress to lift the trade embargo. In this Policy Alert, we highlight the reactions of rising powers to the trip and steps made toward normalized relations, including commentary in China, Brazil, Russia, India, Japan, and South Korea.

CHINA

As two of the few remaining Communist countries in the world, China’s foreign ministry said its “continued mutually beneficial cooperation with Cuba” is not dependent on the action of third-parties such as the United States. The ministry welcomed the normalization of relations between Cuba and the United States and pressed the U.S. Congress to completely lift the trade embargo. Chinese President Xi Jingping traveled to Cuba in 2014 and visited the barracks where Fidel Castro launched his revolution.

While Chinese media welcomed Obama’s trip as further support for China’s engagement-driven foreign policy strategy, they nearly all criticized the United States for its trade embargo and its historical role in the region.

China Daily praised Obama’s policy shift as evidence “engagement can work a miracle where confrontation can’t.” The paper expected the thaw in relations to be a “prominent part of Obama’s legacy,” but Washington still needs to lift the embargo and “control its impulse to impose its will on Havana” to have a lasting impact. Xinhua also cited the trip as a “bold gambit” to shape Obama’s foreign policy legacy.
Jia Xiudong, distinguished research fellow with the China Institute of International Studies, concluded Obama’s visit was a political move to cement his liberal legacy abroad at a time when Republican opposition prevents him from doing so at home. Furthermore, he insisted the United States “take responsibility for the significant role its actions play in the evolution of international relations” and anti-American sentiment around the world.
Despite the trip’s rosy outlook, Zhu Dongyang, a writer with Xinhua, wrote “ultimate rapprochement with Cuba requires the United States to refrain from imposing its ideology on others and to treat others as equals.”

Others doubted whether Obama’s relaxed policies on Cuba will outlast his presidency, depending on who occupies the White House next year.

Zhong Bu, a former journalist at China Daily, noted many in the U.S. Congress were “appalled” by the trip. He thought the renewed ties between Cuba and the United States disproportionately benefits Cuba and any real improvement in relations “pretty much depends on who is moving into the White House.” Xinhua echoed this view and observed the trip “triggered an enormous backlash from U.S. demagogic presidential contenders.”
The Global Times maintained “Cuba will probably face a lot of tests after it opens,” but Havana has already “shown extraordinary courage and determination” in its recent moves. The editorial wished Cuba good luck on this path but warned “Washington will resume its hawkish attitude” if Obama’s legacy is abandoned by the next president.
On the other hand, The South China Morning Post declared “isolating Cuba has failed” and Obama’s “engagement brings results” since “speaking to Cubans on their own soil about free markets and expression has every chance of bringing about change.”
Xinhua reported Cuba expected an increase in U.S. investment on the island in renewable energy, oil, and tourism. Several U.S., European, and Chinese tourist firms have “scramble[d]” to take advantage of Cuba’s tourist infrastructure.

BRAZIL

Although President Obama’s trip to Cuba was widely reported in the Brazilian press, it generated relatively little commentary and no official reaction. President Dilma Rousseff did not make any official statement regarding the visit, but both she and Itamaraty – Brazil’s Foreign Ministry – have expressed support for improved relations between the United States and Cuba in the past and called for the United States to end the embargo on the island.

Some media outlets in Brazil explored the reasoning behind the improvement in relations between the two countries and the role Brazil has played in bringing about this détente.

Estado de São Paulo published an editorial describing the motives of both Obama and Castro, including looking at the role the U.S. embargo plays as both a major impediment, as well as a source of leverage for the United States by using ending it as a means to draw concessions from the Cuban government. It observed “even more than the political and diplomatic pressuring, this appears to be Obama’s big bet to get Cuba to slowly abandon the suffocating bonds of Communism. The facts are in his favor. Even the modest reforms implemented by Raúl Castro were sufficient to bring 1 million Cubans – 20 percent of the workforce – into the private sector.”
In a blog post for Brasil 247, Walter Santos, publisher of the Northeast journal, praised the visit for overcoming the legacy of the ideological clash between capitalism and communism. He also commended the role of former Brazilian president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva for his work during his two terms pursuing dialogue between the two countries.
Santos closed by drawing comparisons between the U.S.-Cuba rapprochement and the need for Brazil’s highly polarized society to learn to work together, particularly for the center and right parties to accept the legitimacy of the Workers Party and other leftist parties.

RUSSIA

The Russian government showed support for the normalization of U.S.-Cuba relations and said the normalization does not contradict Russia’s interests.

Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Russia “welcomed the establishment of the American-Cuban dialogue straight from start” and “this process should be equal and should certainly proceed on the basis of mutual respect without imposing any models of political and socio-economic development and certainly without patting somebody’s shoulder.”
The spokeswoman added “the lifting of the trade, economic, and financial blockade of Cuba, including the unilateral U.S. sanctions, is the prime objective. It is odious that the United States is preserving the Guantanamo military base, which in fact has been turned into an illegal prison.”
The foreign ministry dismissed reports Moscow may consider reopening its Soviet-era military bases and radar center in Cuba. However, Alexander Shchetinin, director of the foreign ministry’s Latin America department, did not rule out the possibility Russia may discuss with Latin American countries the establishment of the Russian Navy’s logistics centers on their territory.

Russian experts emphasized U.S.-Cuba diplomatic rapprochement does not necessarily lead to competition between Russia and the United States.

Mikhail Belyat, an expert on Latin America and a researcher at the Russian State University for the Humanities, assured U.S. activity in the region “does not threaten” Russia’s interests since Moscow has only “modest” policy toward Cuba and Latin America.
Vladimir Davydov, director of the Institute of Latin America at the Russian Academy of Sciences, predicted Cuban leaders would not fully embrace the United States as they seek to preserve their positions and political system. This is where Russia should act as a “counterweight” and seek further engagement with Cuba. In fact, Moscow has been slowly restoring its ties with Havana, writing off Cuba’s $32 billion debt to Russia in 2014 andproviding a $1.36 billion loan for power plants construction in 2015.
“The main economic competitor in Cuba for the U.S. will not be Russia, but China,” said Vladimir Sudarev, professor of the Department of History and Politics of Europe and America at the MGIMO University. Beijing’s trade with Havana increased by 57 percent during the first three quarters of 2015, and China is now Cuba’s second largest trade partner, only behind Venezuela.

INDIA

As a leader in the Non-Aligned Movement, India has a history of warm relations with Cuba when many countries would not even meet with Fidel Castro. Several commentators in India celebrated the historic nature of the trip, but cautioned against over optimism in the face of domestic opposition and outside pressures.

The Hindu hailed the trip as a “remarkable moment in global diplomacy” and credited the “blunted opposition of the Cuban American community” and “big farming” interests as drivers for the new Obama policy. Nevertheless, the paper expected “full normalization of ties will take time” and will be determined by the next U.S. president.
Times of India saw the visit as “a historic pivot in U.S.-Cuba Relations,” but one whose long-term success depends on the next president. Still, the editorial praised Obama for showing he can “overturn shibboleths of foreign policy when they don’t serve U.S. interests.”
The Indian Express did not believe the trip “put the final nail in the coffin of the last legacy of the Cold War,” but it was a good start and time for Havana to begin reciprocating Washington’s flexibility.
Contending “U.S. overtures to Havana” must make China “leery,” Chidanand Rajghatta, a writer for The Times of India, accused China of hypocrisy when Xinhua wrote “rapprochement with Cuba requires the United States to refrain from imposing its ideology on others.” He retorted, “Yeah, right. China never imposes its ideology on others and treats everyone as equal.”
Raghubansh Sinha in Hindustan Times characterized Obama’s change in policy toward Cuba as an “uncharacteristically adventurous” move on the part of the typically cautious president. He argued this bold stroke, however, would not result in the lifting of the trade embargo, which requires “Cold warriors” in Congress to give up their fight. Daily Pioneer pronounced a similar view.

Others in India over the past year have focused on the opportunities for Indian businesses once Cuba joins the international marketplace.

Last summer, Dipanjan Roy Chaudhury, an editor with The Economic Times, suggested India play a role in the evolving ties between Washington and Havana due to New Delhi’s positive relationship with both countries. He noted India’s long history of coming to “Havana’s help” during “several difficult moments in Cuban history” and Cuba’s support for India’s claim for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
In a similar op-ed last year, Anjana Menon urged Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Indian companies to take advantage of the “right mix of opportunity, nostalgia, and friendship” to “put a firm foot through the door” once Cuba opens up to international markets.

JAPAN

The Japanese government hailed President Obama’s visit, expressing hope U.S.-Cuba relations “will deepen and contribute to the stability, peace, and prosperity in the region.” Media outlets in Japan also unanimously welcomed the visit.

Asahi Shimbun opined “two ‘interests’ served as a lever for Cuba and the United States to end their long history of mutual enmity: Cuba’s interest lies in rebuilding its economy, while Obama’s is to leave a major legacy of his presidency.” The editorial urged further ties and overcoming thorny issues such as the U.S. economic embargo and Cuba’s human rights violations.
Nikkei Shimbun showed hope the success of diplomatic and economic engagement in Cuba could have positive ripple effects across Latin America, where many anti-American populist regimes still hold power. This could also have geopolitical implications, the article continued, as China and Russia have been engaging with these countries to curtail America’s influence in the region.
While showing support for the normalization efforts, Sankei Shimbun criticized the visit as “ceremonial,” lacking any progress in stopping Cuba’s human rights violations or lifting the economic embargo.

SOUTH KOERA

South Korean newspapers debated the implications of President Obama’s trip to Cuba for North Korea.

“Many South Koreans are wondering what North Korean leader Kim Jong-un thinks about Cuba’s normalized relations” with the United States, opined The Korea Times, calling on Pyongyang to follow the suit by engaging in “authentic and credible” talks.
North Korea “must learn a lesson from… the Cuban style of reconciliation,” argued JoongAng Ilbo. Just as Cuba has avoided nuclearization and achieved normalized relations with the United States, “North Korea must realize that it can sustain its regime without nuclear weapons.”
Dong-A Ilbo expressed hope the United States can play a role as a “game changer” on the Korean Peninsula. “If Kim Jong-un decides to stop hostile policies against South Korea and the U.S. and return to the negotiating table, the U.S. may reward by doing the same thing they did to Cuba – establishing diplomatic relations with the North without requiring regime change.”

Zika Epidemic Raises Public Health Concerns among Rising Powers

Policy Alert #120 | March 11, 2016

Last month, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a global public health emergency in response to the outbreak of the Zika virus in Brazil and other Latin American countries. The WHO estimates the virus has spread to 52 countries to date and can infect up to 4 million people by year’s end. While the symptoms of the virus are moderate, it is “strongly suspected” the disease causes brain damage in newborns. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from Brazil, China, India, Russia, Japan, and South Korea on the Zika outbreak.

BRAZIL

Brazil has been the country most affected by the Zika outbreak so far. The outbreak coincides with a concurrent political and economic crisis in the country and has catapulted Brazil’s public health capacity into the global spotlight just months before Rio de Janeiro is set to host the Olympic Games.

The Brazilian government has taken increasingly drastic steps to slow the spread of the disease, including deploying 220,000 soldiers along with public health experts to teach Brazilians how to eliminate breeding grounds for mosquitoes.

President Dilma Rousseff met in late-February with the director of the World Health Organization, Margaret Chan, to discuss Brazil’s efforts so far and strategies for combating the disease as it spreads across the Americas.
The Zika crisis has emerged amid Brazil’s most severe recession since the Great Depression and an ongoing fiscal consolidation which threatened efforts at combating the virus. On February 19th, the Minister of Planning Valdir Simão and the Secretary of Social Communication Edinho Silva, both promised that budget cuts would not affect Zika fighting efforts, with Simão declaring “there will be no shortage of resources for fighting Zika or Aedes aegypti [the mosquito that carries the virus]”.

Some commentators explored the link between the Zika and the country’s poverty, abortion policies, and upcoming Olympic games.

Alex Cuadros, an American journalist for Bloomberg based in Brazil, examined the roleinequality has played in the spread of Zika in Brazil. In particular, he noted how not only are wealthier Brazilians better able to protect themselves from the disease by being able to afford basic things like screens on windows and insect repellant, they can access high-quality private healthcare facilities while the poor end up in overwhelmed public hospitals.
The apparent link between Zika and brain damage in newborns known as microcephaly has reignited the debate over abortion in Brazil, a country with some of the strictest abortion restrictions in the world. Feminist groups in the country have attempted to leverage the possibility of these birth defects to liberalize abortion laws or, at a minimum, carve out a specific exception. However, public opinion remains largely against these moves and some conservative members in Brazil’s Congress have proposed legislation increasing punishments for women receiving abortions.
With the Olympics coming up in July in Rio de Janeiro, the government emphasized Zika will not affect the event. President Rousseff said “we will achieve, up through the Olympics, a considerable success in exterminating these mosquitoes.”
According to the BBC, Brazilian health ministry officials believe the relatively cooler, drier winter temperatures during the Olympics will significantly reduce any risk posed by Zika and other mosquito-borne illnesses, such as dengue or chikungunya.

CHINA

As of March 7, a dozen cases of the Zika virus have been reported in China, many after individuals returned from travel to South America. The National Health and Family Planning Commission warned the further “spread of the illness cannot be ruled out in some regions where the mosquito population will increase as the weather warms.”

The Chinese government has tried to alleviate public concerns and demonstrate the situation is under control.

Li Bin, Chair of National Commission on Health and Family Planning, said China was moving on a campaign to clear public areas of conditions that allow viruses like Zika to flourish. The government also promised quarantines for the infected and urged citizens to declare themselves if they suspect there are symptoms present. There are reports that travel agents in China are warning tourists traveling abroad to be wary of the Zika virus especially during the 2016 Olympics in Rio.
On the other hand, Dr. Peter Piot, a virologist and Director at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, cautioned Taiwan and southern China could see an outbreak of Zika due to the high concentration of the disease-carrying Aedes aegypti mosquito and the warmer season ahead.

Several commentators highlighted China’s contributions to the Zika response and how the crisis fits into Beijing’s overall international strategy.

Last month, scientists at the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention sequenced the genome of the country’s first imported case of the Zika virus, promising a better understanding of the disease’s variations and developing means to fight it.
Xi Zhiyong, professor at Sun Yat-sen University, noted China’s role in battling the disease, saying “the technology we have researched and developed can be used to prevent and control all mosquito-borne diseases, including Zika, malaria, dengue, and yellow fever.”
Xinhua contended international crises such as the spread of the “Zika virus have affirmed the validity of the ‘common destiny’ theory” and support China’s diplomatic effort to “build global community.”

INDIA

The Union Minister for Science and Technology in India, Dr. Harsh Vardhan, said India already has a robust integrated disease surveillance network that will prevent a major outbreak of Zika in the country. Nevertheless, the Indian health ministry reported the “potential for further international spread given the wide geographical distribution of the mosquito vector.” India has been long aware of the Zika virus with studies done as far back as the 1950s with a vial of the pathogen stored at an institute in Pune.

Although there have been no reported cases of the Zika virus in India – according to Health Minister J.P. Nadda – several commentators debated the threat posed to India.

Dr Shelly Singh, senior consultant, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Primus Hospital, Delhi was optimistic, saying “Zika is not life-threatening like dengue and chikungunya, and it is a self-remitting disease, so – at this point – there is nothing to panic about.”
At the International Congress on Infectious Diseases held in India earlier this month, Soumiya Swaminathan, director general of the Indian Council of Medical Research, was less concerned about Zika than other infectious diseases in India. This view was echoed by Ramanan Laxminarayan of the Public Health Foundation of India.
However, Lawrence Madoff of the Department of Public Health at Massachusetts thought India was at risk of Zika due to the frequency of other mosquito-borne diseases such as dengue and chikungunya.
K.H. Vasudeva Naidu, Microbiology head at Sri Venkateswara Medical College, warned the Rayalaseema region of India could be a “sitting duck” for an outbreak, specifically due to the prevalence of the Aedes Aegypti mosquito that can serve as a vector for disease.

Others narrowed in on what India should do moving forward to prevent an outbreak.

The WHO reported U.S. government scientists and an Indian biotechnology firm (Bharat Biotech) were “currently front-runners in the race to develop a vaccine” to the virus.
Vivek Gupta, a Member of Parliament from the Trinamool Congress and editor of the SANMARG newspaper, questioned if the India government was waiting for an outbreak to take place in the country before finally taking steps to act.
The Indian Medical Association recommended the New Delhi adopt Brazil’s Zika virus awareness model to fight other diseases carried by mosquitoes such as dengue.
One biotechnology firm based in Maharashtra, GBIT, has been trying to breed genetically modified mosquitoes to slow the growth of diseases such as Zika. Others, however, doubt whether these would serve as a “silver bullet.”
NK Ganguly, visiting professor at the Policy Centre for Biomedical Research, Translational Health Science, and Technology Institute, called on India to “seize this opportunity to impress upon the various stakeholders the critical role of vaccination as a comprehensive preventive healthcare strategy that may be needed more and more in the years to come.”

RUSSIA

Russia confirmed one Zika infection case. Health Minister Veronika Skvortsova ensured the Zika epidemic “does not threaten” Russia, because the country does not have mosquitoes to spread the disease. The Russian government has taken countermeasures, including development of pilot samples of vaccines which it says “could be very effective in a specific therapy” for the virus.

Health Minister Skvortsova claimed it is “quite realistic” to create “bio-molecular markers that could be applied for preventive purposes.” She also said, “we believe that the virus danger is being hyperbolized. I do not think that any of the athletes or countries are likely to cancel their trips to the Olympics.”
Russian Deputy Prime Minister Olga Golodets said the Russian government was discussing with the WHO the implementation of diagnostics of the Zika virus developed by Russian scientists during the Olympic Games.
Gennady Onishchenko, Russia’s former chief sanitary doctor, suggested “demarcation zones can be created around accommodation centers and competition venues” to protect the athletes during the Olympics.

JAPAN

Japan had one case of the Zika virus since the latest outbreak. Minister of Health, Labor, and Welfare Yasuhisa Shiozaki reassured the Japanese public the risk of an epidemic is “extremely low,” since mosquitoes are not active now. The Japanese government announced $1 million in emergency aid to the WHO to contain the outbreak while strengthening quarantines at airports and warning people – particularly pregnant women – not to visit endemic areas.

Newspapers in Japan discussed the country’s countermeasures against Zika.

Asahi Shimbun argued because there is no available vaccine for the virus, the “most effective defense against the disease” is to refrain from traveling to affected areas and “preventing bites by mosquitoes carrying the virus.” A “fundamental solution to the problem,”Asahi claimed, is to raise “public health standards in developing countries that tend to be the birthplaces of infectious diseases.”
The possibility of a Zika epidemic in Japan “cannot be ruled out,” claimed Mainichi Shimbun, “because the virus can spread through Asian tiger mosquitoes that inhabit Japan, like the dengue fever virus.”
Sankei Shimbun warned the risk of an epidemic in Japan will increase during the summer. The “most realistic countermeasures for the time being” is preventive mosquito controls, such as removing pools of water, where mosquito larva grow.

SOUTH KOREA

South Korea has confirmed no Zika virus cases so far. The Ministry of Health and Welfare dismissed fears about the spread the virus in Korea, saying the country does not have its main mode of transmission, Aedes aegypti mosquitoes. The Korean government has designated the virus as a legal infection disease and implemented countermeasures, such as airport quarantines and mosquito control programs.

Korean experts and media, however, remained cautious and debated the impact of Zika on the national health policies.

The Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC) advised Zika epidemics “cannot be completely ruled out” on the Peninsula. “Even if we check the body temperatures of incoming visitors at airports, many would not show symptoms due to the latency period,” said Jun Ki-suk at the KCDC.
“Korea, which had 186 patients who were infected with MERS and 38 deaths last year, cannot afford to consider the Zika crisis as if it is none of its business,” claimed Dong-A Ilbo. In light of the Korean government’s failure during the MERS crisis, the paper wrote “the public can hardly trust the authority about its ability to block the Zika virus from entering the country through watertight preparedness.”
The Korea Times argued the “best” countermeasure, in the absence of vaccine for the Zika virus, is to prevent mosquito bites. JoongAng Ilbo agreed, recommending state and local governments to “sterilize all waterways and drains and double-check areas for mosquitoes before the weather warms.”
The Zika outbreak has also sparked national debates on abortion in Korea, where abortion after the first 24 weeks of pregnancy is illegal. Neither the Ministry nor the KCDC has commented on possible legal revisions to create an exception for mothers infected with Zika.

China’s New Missiles in South China Sea Stir Debate at U.S.-ASEAN Summit

Policy Alert #119 | February 22, 2016

With South China Sea debates already on the agenda at last week’s U.S.-ASEAN summit, new satellite images showing China deployed missiles to a disputed island tested ASEAN’s ability to manage the maritime domain. A joint statement at the close of the gathering did not mention China by name, but it outlined support for “mutual respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, equality, and political independence of all nations” as well as for “ensuring maritime security and safety, including the rights of freedom of navigation and overflight.” As host for the summit, the role of the United States in these maritime disputes was also center stage with President Barack Obama calling for “tangible steps” from all sides to resolve the region’s evolving maritime disputes “peacefully and through legal means,” including a “halt to further reclamation, new construction, and militarization of disputed areas.”

On February 17, Taiwan’s Ministry of Defense broke the news China deployed two batteries of eight advanced surface-to-air missile launchers and a radar system in recent weeks. Taiwan provided satellite images showing the HQ-9 missile systems with a range of 125 miles now located on Woody Island – called Yongxingdao by China – in the Paracel Islands chain, which has administrated by Beijing since 1974 but is also claimed by Vietnam and Taiwan. The Pentagon confirmed the presence of the missile systems and considered the moves to be “increasing tensions in the region and are counterproductive.” Secretary of State John Kerry pledged to have a “very serious conversation” with China about U.S. concerns Beijing is militarizing the South China Sea.

This Policy Alert covers the reactions in China, India, Japan, the Philippines, and Vietnam to these developments and is part of our series on Energy and Maritime Security for the Rising Powers Initiative’s project exploring the linkages between energy security debates and maritime strategies in the Indo-Pacific.

CHINA

During a visit to the White House last September, Chinese President Xi Jinping said his country would not seek to militarize its claims in the South China Sea. While Beijing, ASEAN members, and the United States differ on what it means to “militarize” an island, China maintains its stance does not preclude setting up defenses like the missile deployments to protect its interests.

After Taiwan’s accusations were made public, the Chinese Ministry of Defense disputed the charges as “hype by certain Western media outlets.” Beijing refused to confirm or deny the existence of the specific missile systems in question, but Chinese naval and air forces have been on these islands for “many years.” Hong Lei, a spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, held that China’s efforts to strengthen its territory is “totally justified” and has “nothing to do with so-called militarization.”

Commentary in Chinese media outlets chastised ASEAN for putting South China Sea disputes on the U.S.-ASEAN summit agenda held in Sunnylands, California on February 15-16.

Xinhua regretted the “South China Sea issue” used by United States to push “ASEAN as a counterweight to China’s increasing influence” and embolden others to “engage in military provocation and to internationalize disputes.
China Daily mocked the summit’s attempt to address the South China Sea since the “issue is not an ASEAN priority” and “no matter how anxious Washington and Manila are to make a case, only a minority of ASEAN members are claimants in the disputes.
Yu Xiang, director of American Economic Studies at the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, predicted new governments in the Philippines and Vietnam will be less likely to confront China on maritime disputes.

Others defended the missile placements as a necessary response to U.S. naval activities in the South China Sea.

Leaders in Beijing criticized the presence of U.S. warships in the disputed waters during recent freedom of navigation patrols near the Paracels and promised “consequences” for the “deliberate provocation.” Mira Rapp-Hooper, an analyst with the Center for a New American Security, thought the missiles were “probably China’s effort to signal a response to the freedom of navigation operations.”
Raising a distinction between island chain in the South China Sea, Zhu Feng of Nanjing University said President Xi promised to not militarize the Spratly Islands, not the Paracels which are closer in proximity to the Chinese mainland. Zhu expected the missile systems would protect China’s new naval bases at Sanya that will station submarines and an aircraft carrier in the future.
Zhou Bo, a fellow at the Academy of Military Science, argued U.S. naval patrols could lead to Beijing needing to “increase its own military presence” and making South China Sea militarization a “self-filling prophecy.”
Ni Lexiong, a naval expert at Shanghai University, defended China’s missile deployments because “deploying surface-to-air missiles on our territory is completely within the scope of our sovereign rights. We have sovereignty there, so we can choose whether to militarize it.”
Global Times called the HQ-9 a legitimate “defensive weapon” on Chinese territory necessary to respond to threats posed by the U.S. navy.

JAPAN

Japanese Defense Minister Gen Nakatani criticized the missile deployment, saying the “unilateral move by China to change the status quo cannot be overlooked.” Given its territorial dispute with China over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands and its dependence on sea-lanes of communication in the South China Sea, the Japanese government said it has taken proactive steps to counter Chinese assertiveness. Tokyo strengthened security cooperation with the Philippines and Vietnam via military training, joint exercises, and the transfer of patrol and surveillance equipment.

Several newspapers and experts in Japan called for more countermeasures to deter China.

Yomiuri Shimbun argued “it is essential for U.S. warships to sail [in the South China Sea] regularly.” The inclusion of ASEAN members into the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the editorial claimed, “would help restrain China, which is taking hegemonic actions in economic fields as well.”
Tetsuo Kotani, senior fellow at the Japan Institute of International Affairs, warned “the deployment of anti-air missiles isa big step toward an ADIZ (Air Defense Identification Zone) in the South China Sea.” Though this “is still too early due to China’s insufficient air-domain awareness,” China’s control of these waters and airspace “would make the military balance more favorable for China” and impact “U.S. extended deterrence and the security of Japan.”
Sankei Shimbun strongly criticized the lack of firm responses from the United States. Short of referring to China’s reclamations in the South China Sea, the U.S.-ASEAN joint statement, the newspaper argued, was “extremely inadequate” to deter China.
Nikkei Shimbun shared a similar view, saying the lack of U.S. actions would only “encourage Chinese assertiveness.”

Others emphasized the importance of diplomacy in solving the territorial disputes.

Mainichi Shimbun hailed the U.S.-ASEAN joint statement “a great achievement” for the Obama administration as it calls for “a peaceful resolution to disputes” and “cooperation to address common challenges in the maritime domain.” The latest U.S.-ASEAN summit, the editorial claimed, “should be the starting point for” promoting dialogue among the claimant states to solve the territorial disputes.
The Chinese missile deployment is an attempt to “stop the U.S. Freedom of Navigation operations in the South China Sea,” posited Asahi Shimbun. However, China “must realize” its own behavior is fueling distrust and U.S. countermeasures. Upon this realization, China needs to pursue “peaceful talks” with other countries.

PHILIPPINES

Manila sharply denounced China’s latest move in the South China Sea or what it calls the “West Philippines Sea.” Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin said the missile deployment “increases tensions in the South China Sea.” Similarly, Vice Admiral Alexander Lopez said the “stability in the region is being threatened,” and China intends to use the missiles to challenge civilian aircraft passing through the area. Last fall, Manila appealed to a U.N. arbitration panel to determine if China’s maritime activities violate the Philippine right to exploit its own territorial waters. The panel declared it had jurisdiction on the case and is expected to issue a ruling in May 2016. The Philippines is also in the midst of a presidential election where the country’s future relationship with China is an intense part of the national debate.

Several analysts and media outlets in the Philippines expressed concern about China’s missile deployments.

Richard Javad Heydarian, assistant professor at De La Salle University in Manila, thought China was sending a clear signal it won’t tolerate any American military presence close to its occupied land features. He said the United States and its allies were running out of time to stop China without a more robust response, including strengthening the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force.
Although Manila has no claim over the Paracels, The Philippine Star noted the country “remains protective of the resource-rich waters” and hoped the U.N. Convention of the Law of the Sea would be used to resolve disputes.
Neri Colmenares, a congressmen running for senate in the Philippines, declared the missile deployments to be an “act of war.” He pledged solidarity with the “Vietnamese people on this fight” since a “threat to them is a threat to the Philippines.”

Several questioned the willingness and ability of ASEAN to resolve Manila’s maritime disputes with China.

In The Philippine Star,Elfren Cruz asked if ASEAN could survive in light of China’s assertiveness. While the Philippines pushed for a final summit communiqué to shame China by name and support international arbitration as a solution to the maritime disputes, Cruz correctly predicted pro-China Laos and Cambodia would block this effort.
Federico Pascual, Jr., an writer with The Philippine Star, was disappointed with the U.S.-ASEAN summit having “tiptoed around the China issue” and settling on “making only oblique mention of the rule of law, freedom of navigation.”
The Philippine Inquirer doubted ASEAN’s consensus-building approach could result in “actual progress on the Code of Conduct” in the South China Sea due to objections by Cambodia and Laos.

On the other hand, some commentators urged Manila to pull back its criticisms of China and rely less on the U.S. military to protect its interests.

Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte said the Philippines “cannot fight the China military” nor rely on the United States as an ally. He concluded Manila needed to rely on international courts to resolve the dispute with China.
Rommel Banlaoi of the Philippine Association for Chinese Studies hoped the resignation of pro-American and anti-China Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario would lead to improved ties between Beijing and Manila over their maritime disputes.

VIETNAM

News of the missile deployments came as Vietnam marked the 37^th anniversary of its border war with China, prompting anti-China demonstrations in Hanoi. During the ASEAN summit, outgoing Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung urged the United States to use “a stronger voice and more practical and more efficient actions requesting termination of all activities changing the status quo.” He also asked Obama to lift the arms embargo on Vietnam to “strengthen political trust” between Vietnam and Washington and to give Hanoi additional tools to defend its interests in the maritime domain. President Obama will make an official trip to Vietnam later in May.

Commentary in Vietnam pressed leaders to stay strong in the face of China’s maritime activities and bolster the country’s military and diplomatic power.

Alexander Vuving, professor at the Center for Security Studies Asia and a scholar on the Sigur Center’s energy and maritime security project, argued the South China Sea dispute would be a significant challenge for Vietnam, but also an opportunity for its leadership to defend the country’s interests with a stronger military and closer ties with Washington.
Nguyen Khac Giang, senior researcher at the Viet Nam Institute for Economic and Policy Research, saw China’s recent move as “part of China’s grand strategy to actively control the South China Sea” and a challenge for the pro-China and recently re-elected General Secretary Nguyen Phu Trong.
Earlier this year, Vietnam publically objected to a Chinese oil rig in the same waters where a similar dispute in 2014 erupted in violent anti-China protests in Vietnam. Nguyen Hung Cuong, maritime analyst at Vietnam’s Scientific Research Institute of Sea and Islands, argued the oil rig looked to be an intentional escalation by China.
In recent years, Vietnam has tried to build-up its intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets and its naval forces – including the procurement of several Kilo-class submarines from Russia – to secure its claims in the South China Sea. Nam Nguyen, a warfare officer in the Royal Australian Navy, questioned whether the submarines would allow Vietnam to control the seas during a potential conflict.

INDIA

Noting the importance of sea-routes for India’s economy, External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj called the South China Sea one of the “pathways to our prosperity and security.” A department spokesperson, Vikas Swarup, counseled all states to avoid unilateral actions in South China Sea that might escalate tensions in the region. Last year, the United States and India issued a joint vision statement calling for “safeguarding maritime security and ensuring freedom of navigation” throughout the Asia-Pacific. China has voiced opposition to several oil and natural gas exploration projects by Indian companies in the resource-rich South China Sea.

Commentary in India on China’s latest missile deployments was largely muted, but several outlets discussed the move within the context of India’s evolving maritime quarrels with China.

Rather than an “unexpected escalation,” Hindustan Times saw the missile placements as part of China’s predictable effort to “push” the United States out of the area so China could “become the dominant power in the western Pacific.” The newspaper warned if Beijing succeeds in capturing the South China Sea, “it has only two other remaining territorial disputes – and one of them is with India.”
After China put several of its submarines on patrol in the Indian Ocean – including docking in Pakistan and Sri Lanka –India is building up its anti-submarine warships and demonstrating its ability to project naval power into China’s backyard as well.
In response to reports the United States and India held “informal discussions” on joint naval patrols in the South China Sea, the Chinese Foreign Ministry said “countries from outside the area must stop pushing forward the militarization of the South China Sea, cease endangering the sovereignty and national security of littoral countries in the name of ‘freedom of navigation’ and harming the peace and stability of the region.” For its part, India’s defense ministry characterized the news as “highly speculative” as the country does not conduct joint patrols unless under a U.N. mandate.