Policy Alert #73 | April 28, 2014

Last week, world leaders from over 50 countries attended the third Nuclear Security Summit (NSS) in The Hague, Netherlands to discuss nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism while holding side meetings over the Ukraine crisis and other issues. In this Policy Alert, we examine commentary from Russia, China, India, Japan, South Korea, and Brazil on the outcomes of these diplomatic meetings.

RUSSIA

While Russia and the United States agreed to strengthen international cooperation to address nuclear terrorist threats, the Ukraine crisis still loomed large at the summit.

• Moscow “is concerned about the unjustified accumulation of weapons-grade fissile materials in some countries that possess no nuclear weapons” and hopes the United States will play a “more active role” in solving this issue, said Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

• Despite such concerns, Russia, along with China and sixteen other countries, rejected a separate initiative of the U.S., the Netherlands, and South Korea at the summit to incorporate the International Atomic Energy Agency’s security guidelines into national rules.

• In response to the claims of a Ukrainian delegate at the summit that Russia is allegedly threatening the security of nuclear sites in Ukraine, the Russian Foreign Ministry dismissed the accusations “a pure and simple attempt to shift the blame.”

• The Ministry further criticized Ukraine for pushing forward a domestic legislative initiative of its secession from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and putting the treaty in “serious danger.”

CHINA

Chinese officials and commentators unanimously called for further international cooperation on nuclear security.

• President Xi Jinping called for “a fair, cooperative, and win-win international nuclear security system” in which countries not only honor their international obligations but also respect each other’s “right to adopt nuclear security policies and measures best suited to their specific conditions.”

• Foreign Minister Wang Yi, explaining that nuclear security is linked with the “Chinese dream” that calls for “universal security,” emphasized that China is committed to addressing the issue through multi-layered international cooperation.

• China and the U.S. have “common interests” in strengthening nuclear security, argued Liu Rui, a research fellow at the Institute of American Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. “[I]t’s time for the two great powers to do their utmost to understand each other, dissolve mutual mistrust, and cooperate on world peace.”

• Xinhua editor Zhu Dongyang argued that developed countries with mature experience in nuclear security “need to be more generous and forthcoming in sharing their expertise.”

INDIA

The Indian government showed support for the international nuclear security initiative.

• Nuclear terrorism and clandestine proliferation poses “a serious threat to international security,” warned External Affairs Minister Salman Khurshid. “We should together deny terrorists what they seek and eliminate the risks of sensitive materials and technologies falling into their hands.”

• Reshmi Kazi, associate fellow at the Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses, New Delhi, argued that the “renaissance of civil nuclear energy” in Asia has increased the threat of nuclear terrorism, and urged India to cooperate with China and Pakistan to improve nuclear security in the region.

In The Hague, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh joined the rest of BRICS leaders in opposing a ban on Russia’s attendance at the G20 meeting in Australia later this year.

• The Times of India explained that the move reflected India’s stance that “[a]ll attempts to isolate Russia over Ukraine will be counterproductive.”

• The Hindu questioned the G7’s decision at The Hague to suspend Russia’s G8 membership, arguing that the move was “less principled than it might look, and Western legislatures must scrutinize their respective executives closely over their handling of the Ukraine crisis.”

JAPAN

At the summit, Japan announced a bilateral agreement to hand over several hundred kilograms of its highly enriched uranium and plutonium to the United States.

• Prime Minister Shinzo Abe pledged to enhance domestic and international nuclear measures, saying “Japan has a responsibility to lead efforts to strengthen nuclear security” in light of the nuclear incident in Fukushima.

• The international community must cooperate to “prevent the nightmare of nuclear terrorismfrom becoming a real-world tragedy,” argued the Mainichi Shimbun.

• The Yomiuri Shimbun expressed concerns with the little progress made thus far in the reduction of nuclear arms, adding that “China must stop its military buildup with nuclear arms…and reduce its nuclear arms together with other nuclear powers.”

Japanese media also focused on the U.S.-Korea-Japan trilateral talks at the summit, a meeting arranged by Washington to bring together Seoul and Tokyo despite their history disputes.

• The Mainichi Shimbun called the meeting “a step in the right direction,” urging the three countries to further cooperate to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula and to make sure that “China’s growing power and push into the Pacific does not lead to attempts to redraw the map in East Asia in the way that Russia has done in Ukraine.”

• The talks were a “message” for China’s military adventurism, said the Yomiuri Shimbun. “Japan, South Korea and the United States hold a common view that any attempt to change the status quo by force will not be tolerated.”

SOUTH KOREA

Korean newspapers discussed the implications of the Nuclear Security Summit and the U.S.-Korea-Japan three-way meeting for Seoul-Tokyo relations and security cooperation in the region.

• During the trilateral talks in The Hague, President Park Geun-hye warned that North Korean nuclear materials “could end up in the hands of terrorists” and pledged to strengthen cooperation with the United States and Japan to deal with the issue.

• The Korean Herald argued that whether Korea-Japan relations will improve “depends entirely on Japan’s future actions,” expressing its hope that “Abe and the Japanese leaders show ‘sincerity’ by refraining from provocative activities.”

• The Chosun Ilbo agreed. “The ball is now [in] Japan’s court” to solve history disputes, including comfort women.

• South Korea must separate nuclear and security issues from other grievances in the bilateral relations to deal with North Korea, argued the JoongAng Ilbo. The newspaper, however, warned that Seoul must carefully manage U.S.-Korea-Japan security cooperation because of Beijing’s efforts “to counter Japan as a part of a battle for hegemony between the United States and China.”

BRAZIL

Brazilian Vice President Michel Temer declared that The Nuclear Security Summit is building ‘awareness’ for both participating and non-participating countries in achieving policy goals.

• Vice President Michel Temer attended the summit and highlighted the importance of people understanding the “necessity of increased security for nuclear material,” Exame reported. The Vice President added that the IAEA has the “capacity and competency to do this.”

• Michel Temer also emphasized the importance of achieving policy goals, not only for the 52 countries participating in the summit, but especially for “non-participating countries.”

 

03/2014- Policy Alert #72: Rising Powers Respond to Crimea Crisis

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

RUSSIA

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

• In a speech to Russia’s Federal Assembly, President Vladimir Putin declared, “Crimea is our common heritage and a major factor of stability in the region. This strategic area should be under strong, stable dominion, which, in fact, can only be Russian.”

• Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of Russia in Global Affairs, wrote, “If Russia loses the Ukraine gamble, it would be a shock of unpredictable proportions…the risk of loss is considerable, but the prize is undeniably attractive.” Regarding economic sanctions on Russia, he noted, “There is no experience of enacting effective sanctions against a nuclear superpower that occupies a large part of Eurasia, retains influence all over the world and has an enormous wealth of resources.”

• Vladimir Ryzhov, a State Duma deputy from 1993 to 2007, was critical of Crimea’s annexation. “Moscow has violated the principle of the inviolability of its neighbor’s borders. This will prompt other former Soviet republics to revise their own military and strategic policies and to seek additional security guarantees from countries other than Russia.”

• Terming the Ukrainian crisis a potential “geopolitical Cold War,” Sergei Markov, director of the Institute of Political Studies in Moscow explained the Kremlin’s thought process: “Moscow does not see the revolution in Ukraine as an attempt to create a more democratic or law-based society. Instead, it sees the events in Kiev as an attempt to make Ukraine as anti-Russian as possible.”

CHINA

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

• China Daily wrote, “Since the issue originated in the form of a Ukrainian domestic crisis and involved substantial Russian interests, its resolution rests ultimately on the domestic maneuvers inside Ukraine and diplomatic ones between Ukraine and Russia. Third-party intervention may help contain the crisis, but cannot solve it.”

• Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei said in a press briefing, “China has always respected the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of other countries. The issue of Crimea should be solved politically under a framework of laws and regulations.”

• An editorial in the People’s Daily deemed Ukraine the “final battlefield in the ‘cold war'” and concluded that “a geostrategic conflict leads to the tragedy of big-power politics.”

• Another editorial in the Global Times predicted that “once the confrontation between the West and Russia goes out of control, it is China that will suffer. Many countries will change their strategies, which will lead to changes to China’s external strategic surroundings.”

INDIA

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

•  The Hindustan Times supported the government’s response in light of India’s traditional stance of non-interference in the affairs of other countries. “[T]he wisest course for India, for now at least, would be not to involve itself in the geopolitics of the region and maintain a distance from both Mr. Putin and the West.”

• The Hindu questioned the effectiveness of the Western sanctions against Russia, saying that “no Western bloc may be able to stop the dismemberment of Ukraine and prevent the start of a new Cold War.”

• The Economic Times agreed that these sanctions may be “toothless,” warning that the Crimea crisis could mark the “dawn of a new Cold War era.”

• Sreeram Sundar Chaulia, Dean of Jindal School of International Affairs, Jindal Global University, argued that the West “cannot claim to be on a moral high ground” to condemn Russia, since the West has repeatedly used military means and bypassed international laws in countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.

JAPAN

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

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

Japanese newspapers unanimously criticized Russia’s annexation of Crimea.

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

• The Sankei Shimbun not only rebuked Russia’s move as a “serious challenge to the post-Cold War order,” but also attributed the unravelling of the order to President Obama’s “amateur diplomatic strategy” that abandoned the U.S. role as a world police and encouraged the rise of new challengers such as Syria and China.

SOUTH KOREA

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

• The JoongAng Ilbo warned that the crisis will encourage North Korea to further develop its nuclear weapons, as Russia invaded Crimea despite the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which was supposed to protect Ukraine’s sovereignty in return for the abandonment of its nuclear program.

•  The newspaper also argued that what Ukraine will do in the future has implications for a potential unification between two Koreas, questioning whether a unified Korea would be able to maintain relations with the United States and China amidst their geostrategic rivalry.

BRAZIL

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

• Assessing the conflict culminating between the former rivals of the East and West over Russia’s occupation of Crimea, the Estadao de Sao Paulo believes Putin is attempting to instigate further reactions from the West and thus offer an opening for broader military actions to reclaim lands formerly controlled by Russia. Estadao termed these actions as “fraught with risks,” calling it “a minefield.”

• The history of wars dating back to the 1850s including disastrous conflicts between the U.K, France, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire weighed heavily in the interpretation of events made by Folha de Sao Paulo. The paper described the current encounter between Obama and Putin as “a new battle of wills…resonant [of] very old and very unhappy precedents.