Policy Alerts – Rising Powers Initiative

Xi in Moscow and Kishida in Delhi & Ukraine—a One-Way Alliance vs Delicate Dancing

Policy Alert #254 | March 31, 2023

Last week, from March 20-22, 2023, Russian President Vladimir Putin hosted Chinese President Xi Jinping in Moscow for a three-day state visit. Both Putin and Xi published articles in each other’s national media before the visit, which ended with them penning and signing two joint statements “making plans and arrangements for the growth of the bilateral relations”.

Meanwhile Japanese Prime Minster Kishida’s visit to Ukraine hours after Xi arrived in Moscow, was painted as mirroring Xi’s to Moscow. The Japanese support to Ukraine was seen as the West’s response to China’s support of Russia, and was heavily criticized in Chinese media, which also took issue with Kishida’s visit to India just before Ukraine, adding to India’s difficulties in charting a course through troubled waters.

Russian media saw Xi’s visit as a mark of support from China and attacked critics, but Chinese media and Foreign Ministry statements were far more measured, which was seen as “a likely reflection of the unequal power balance within the alliance.” This contrast is similar to the discrepancy in analysis between Russian and Chinese national media that was observable after the September 2022 Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit in Samarkand. In both cases, Russians went further than their Chinese counterparts in drawing conclusions about how Russia and China were forming a block to oppose the US-led West. Significantly, Xi’s first words after landing in Moscow were to state that the China-Russia bilateral relationship was built “on the basis of no-alliance, no-confrontation and not targeting any third party”.

CHINA
As a whole, Communist Party of China (CPC) officials and media have insisted that China is not allied to Russia against the US, despite being strongly critical of the US in Ukraine and Xi essentially endorsing Putin for his reelection. The International Criminal Court in The Hague issuing a warrant for Putin did not stop Xi from making speeches vaunting “the international order underpinned by international law” while standing side-by-side with Putin.

However, despite the words extolling the deep friendship between the two countries and between the two leaders themselves, and while Putin showed an unusual level of deference towards Xi, Xi did not offer unequivocal support of Russia in Ukraine in return. He stood firm with the established line of China being the best possible peace broker and showcased the success of the Iran-Saudi Arabia negotiations as further evidencing this claim. That is not to say China made any steps towards the US. Back in Beijing, when asked if China was providing cover for Russia, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Wang Wenbin took his gloves off for a press conference’s last question and stated that the US have “been involved in virtually all the conflicts and wars in Europe”.

Chinese media covered the visit extensively, with hundreds of articles for the three-day event just in major publications. All painted a vibrant picture of the China-Russia relationship. Many restated China’s “objective and impartial position” over the Ukraine “issue” and put forward the Chinese peace plan Some voiced critics of the West through op-eds, including some written by American citizens. Official declarations only pointed to a “third party”, but state media featured numerous articles that showed more teeth, overtly criticizing NATO, Japanese PM Kishda’s trip to Ukraine’s, or depicting the US as a “warmonger rattling its sword”.

In all its condemnation of belligerence, China did not condemn Russia for its invasion and avoided the term entirely, instead preferring “crisis” or “issue” and on March 27th, China voted in favor of Russia at the UN Security Council. Officials stated that “China maintains communication with all sides”. In addition to vaunting the peace plan, Chinese media remarked that “Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has responded more positively to China’s position paper” and hoped to convince the international community to support the plan, which would isolate the US as “standing in opposition to the vast majority of international community“. Some articles also pointed to the increasing gap between the US and European countries on this question, and interpreted European leaders visiting China as direct support for Chinese policy, indirectly inferring that Xi’s trip to Russia was less impartial than claimed if an official visit is equated as a show of support.

The independent South China Morning Postdownplayed the potential of China’s peace plan for Ukraine.
The Global Times, a Chinese nationalist newspaper run under the official newspaper of the CPC, published prolifically about the visit which was deemed a globally significant success for Xi, unlike Kishida’s visit to Ukraine, deemed “self-calculating” and a “show”. Similarly, Kishida’s visit to India was deemed an “attempt to push bloc-confrontation politics and zero-sum games” and Japan was denounced for turning the G7 meeting it invited India to into a “geopolitical weapon that targets China, Russia”.
Xinhua, the official state news agency, published a dedicated landing page for the visit, with over a hundred articles detailing every aspect of the visit. This included several editorials which hammered down Xi’s main talking points during the visit: the Chinese pursuit of multipolarity, refusal of the Cold War mentality, and insisted that the “China-Russia relationship is not targeted at any third party”.

INDIA
Indian media had more diverse takes on the state visit, some articles saw the visit as Xi making concessions to Putin, while others called Xi’s visit to Moscow a “shot in the arm” for Putin. Indian media was not overall critical of the event and played down the negative impact for Russia-India ties, supported by Russian Ambassador to India Denis Alipov, who stated that the growing Russia-China ties were not “harming the Russia-India strategic alignment”.

Indian media overall also did not share the perspective that the meeting was sealing an alliance between the two countries, dismissing this “Western” notion. There were diverging voices, such as former Indian Ambassador to France Mohan Kumar, who thought the visit “could have the effect of pushing India to align itself more to the West“. Despite some debate over the consequences and how meaningful the visit was, Indian media in general agreed that stronger ties between Russia and China are difficult for India to accept amidst tensions with China. India has placated Russia for over a year by not overtly denouncing the war in Ukraine and adhered to Russian requests to avoid the term “war”, instead saying “crisis” or “challenge”, but this did not stop Russia from fully embracing Xi and courting Chinese support.

Kishida’s visit to India was welcomed, especially after the absence of Japanese Foreign Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi from the G20 meeting. His visit was interpreted as an attempt to get India to side against Russia, an attempt that was not seen too harshly, perhaps because it was not expected to succeed.

The center-right newspaper Times of India published an opinion piece from former chairman of India’s Joint Intelligence Committee SD Pradhan, who disagreed that the visit displayed “China’s dominance over Russia” and pointed out tension areas between the two, which should prevent China from being able to “influence Russia to change its India policy”.
As Russia is increasingly entangled with China, The Daily Pioneer, a pro-BJP newspaper, honed in on other partners India has started to rely on to counter China, such as Australia and Japan.
The liberal Indian Express published a take correcting Western media about the intricacies of geopolitics among Asian rising powers, as well as a counterpoint aligning closer to Western media considering the growing ties between Russia and China to be detrimental to India. The coverage of the visit was completed by an overview of the different visits made by East Asian state leaders in March.

JAPAN
Japanese media viewed Xi’s visit to Moscow unfavorably, seeing the visit as “cementing ties” between China and Russia and creating a “united front against the U.S”. Japanese media also saw the visit as a quid pro quo, the visit was “a political boost” for Putin, and Xi “walked away with a statement of support on Taiwan “.

Kishida’s visit to India was more popular across the board, and Japanese media as a whole expressed support for stronger Japan-India cooperation, and noted that Japan would do well to focus more on India in addition to aligning with the US to counter China. While in India, Kishida promoted his “free and open Indo-Pacific” vision and pushed Modi to join Japan in condemning Russia over its invasion of Ukraine, even though India has increased its imports of Russian crude oil. Earlier in March, the Yomiuri Shimbun noted the US and Europe’s concern over the India-Russia relationship, but concluded that as an Asian country, Japan should build closer relations with India, “based on a different perspective from that of the United States and Europe”.

Regarding Kishida’s trip to Ukraine, Japanese media noted Chinese criticism of Kishida’s visit to Ukraine by Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin, as well as President Zelensky’s appreciation of the visit. Domestically, the visit was well perceived, including by Kenta Izumi, head of the main opposition party in Japan, except when it came to Kishida’s choice of gift to Zelensky.

The business-focused Nikkei Asia Reportnoted that Xi’s visit to Russia was not only a show of support to Putin, but also gained China Russia’s more explicit backing on Taiwan.
The Japan Times, a centrist newspaper, noted Zelensky’s speech to the Japanese Parliament as well as his later video expressing his appreciation of Japanese policy towards Ukraine.
The Yomiuri Shimbun published a column enjoining Japan to strike a balance between its support to the US and finding its own place as a regional leader.

RUSSIA

Russian media celebrated Xi’s visit to Moscow, calling it “historical”, a “tectonic geopolitical shift” and even the “most important, most great, and most gargantuan geopolitical, geo-economic, strategic-military events in the 21st century”. Xi’s avoidance of the term “alliance” was noted, but rather than considering it a sign of China’s reluctance of durably tying itself to Russia, it was rationalized by explaining that the Russia-China relationship is beyond mere geopolitics and is now a “holistic phenomenon”.

Beyond lauding Putin and Xi, Russian media put forward the Chinese peace plan through assertive op-eds which saw EU leaders announcing their future visits as endorsements of the Chinese peace plan, which could cause a “weakening of American influence over the EU”, though some analysts saw the US as the only driver in the West, while “the EU is but a passenger”, and a vassal to the US. At the same time, some columnists guessed that Xi will not want to meet Zelensky despite Chinese assurances that “China maintains communication with all sides”.

Kishida’s visits did not go unnoticed, the Russia-India relationship was covered by Russian media which sought to defend it against the idea that India would be rebuked by Russia tying the knot with China, a notion dismissed by Russia’s ambassador to India. When it comes to Kishida’s visit to Ukraine, Russian media took aim at Kishida for visiting the country, but rather than lamenting the consequences for Russia, painted the visit as a domestic political mistake for Kishida.

The Pravda Report, a nationalist newspaper, did not go for nuance when describing Xi’s visit, with titles such as “Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin change the world to multipolar in three days“. Another columnist penned an article which considered the visit to be a “beautiful revenge on Biden for Pelosi’s Taiwan visit”.
The independent Moscow Times was more skeptical of the result of the visit and also noted that while both leaders penned articles in their neighbor’s media, Xi’s article “was much more subdued in its praise for the strength of the Russo-Chinese friendship”.
Sputnik News, funded by the state, joined in on the chorus denouncing “Western hysteria”, while at the same time amplifying Putin’s comments about the West aiming to “create a new Axis“, in a reference to Nazi Germany.

By Gabriel Savagner, M.A. candidate in Security Policy Studies, Elliott School of International Affairs at GW. Research Assistant, Rising Powers Initiative.

Deadlock in Delhi & After: Rising Powers remain entrenched in their positions post Delhi G20 and Quad meetings

Policy Alert #253 | March 16, 2023

While the G20 Summit in New Delhi is only set to take place in September, it was already in the spotlight as of March, and not in the way that host country India had hoped. The Foreign Ministers’ Meeting on March 1^st and 2^nd in Delhi succeeded a joint G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors (FMCBG), and a Finance & Central Bank Deputies (FCBD) Meeting in Bengaluru in late February, with an ambitious agenda focused on multilateralism. However, the Foreign Ministers’ Meeting especially showcased divergences among G20 members despite an introductory speech by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi urging unity. Indeed, after one year of fighting in Ukraine, Rising Powers are still entrenched in their positions despite the fluctuations of the war. In fact, there seems to be less consensus as the war has gone on, as Russia’s military setbacks no longer elicit the same reactions from observers than the expected onslaught and initially rapid gains. While in Bali emerging powers seemed to side with the US, in Delhi they seemed to expect more about “seeking peace” rather than “defending Ukraine”.

The end result was that the acrimonious talks over Ukraine and whether the G20 was the appropriate venue to discuss security concerns overshadowed attempts to find consensus on multilateralism and development. Overall, the Foreign Minister’s Meeting appeared as a first major test for India ahead of the Summit in September, with pressure mounting as Russian President Vladimir Putin may attend the Summit in New Delhi. Similar turmoil at the Summit this September would be a disappointment to Modi, and a “chair’s summary will not do” for Indian diplomacy vying for international recognition.

CHINA

China decried the lack of unity at the Foreign Minister’s Meeting as the result of the US and European countries “using geopolitics to hijack the development agenda that G20 is supposed to focus on”. At the same time, China was careful to not blame India for this, or even downplay the event. Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Mao Ning deflected such concerns by stating that it was “an important event”, and Chinese media reported on the side talks between the foreign ministers of China and India where both “expressed their firm attitude to support multilateralism, oppose confrontation”. Chinese media praised Indian preparations and accused US and Western media of exaggerating the “divergences” between China and India.

At the same time, “Chinese experts” were quoted by the Global Times as questioning “whether India could really play a leading role”. In describing the event as a “test for India”, and then deploring the lack of success of the event, Chinese media also indirectly considered that India failed to lead the discussions towards its stated goals.

The China Daily, owned by the CPC, published an article by Swaran Singh, an Indian Professor of international relations, who shared an optimistic perspective about the meeting between China’s new foreign affairs minister Qin Gang and Indian minister of external affairs Jaishankar.
The South China Morning Post also reported on the bilateral talks between India and China, but concluded that while the event was symbolically important, it did not bring significant progress to the border dispute.
The Global Times, a Chinese nationalist newspaper run under the official newspaper of the Communist Party of China, featured the series of meetings in Delhi prominently. It anticipated the lack of consensus, considered the meetings to be a test for India, and deplored that US and some EU foreign ministers “instrumentalized and weaponized G20”.

INDIA

Indian media as a whole presented the meetings in a better light. Articles published before the Foreign Ministers Meeting disputed the apparent international consensus that it would follow in the footsteps of the FMCBG and FCBD meetings. After the meeting, Indian media highlighted limited progress rather than characterizing the event as a failure. At most, Indian newspapers suggested the event was “derailed by Western countries, and Russia-China”, while noting that Indian leadership was praised by both Russia and the US.

When it comes to the negotiations themselves, India voted in favor of the inclusion of paragraphs mentioning Ukraine in the joint statement, even though it avoided the term “war” and used the terms “crisis” or “challenge” instead. Despite appealing to both sides, Indian diplomats were not able to obtain concessions from Russia and China which refused to vote for these inclusions, while appeals to focus on development went unheeded by US and European diplomats.

Another element that was noted by the Indian Press before the meeting was the announced absence of Japanese foreign minister Yoshimasa Hayashi. His absence at the G20 was deplored and may have “cast some shadows over New Delhi-Tokyo ties”, though Foreign Secretary Vinay Kwatra said he “understood” that Hayashi was “not able to come because of his domestic compulsions” and looked “forward to a very active participation”. According to the Times of India, “Indian officials strongly denied that Hayashi’s likely absence was an intended snub”, adding that “Japan is sending one of the largest delegations to the meeting”. Hayashi’s presence a day later for the Quad meeting and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s visit to Delhi on March 20 served to reaffirm Japan’s commitment to its relationship with India.

The Economic Times noted Hayashi’s absence at the G20 meeting, in contrast to his presence at the Quad meeting, which reinforced the notion that Japan was prioritizing its G7 presidency and more exclusive groups such as the Quad.
The left-leaning The Hindu remarked that India had more success in finding consensus on Ukraine at the Quad meeting it hosted the day after the G20 Foreign Minister’s meeting, while also noting China’s “criticism of the Quad Grouping” objecting to its exclusivity.
The Pioneer, a pro-BJP newspaper, voiced Jaishankar’s comments on the success of the meeting, as there was “a large number of issues where there was agreement”

JAPAN

Japan’s participation in the G20 meeting was eclipsed by the debate about Hayashi’s absence from the Foreign Ministers meeting. Japanese Liberal Democratic officials said the sessions attended by Hayashi instead of the G20 were “extremely important” and “many lawmakers and citizens want to hear directly from the foreign minister“. Even members of the opposition Constitutional Democrats said it would be “unthinkable for the foreign minister not to be there”.

Japanese newspapers were not all fully supportive though as some gave voice to Japanese critics from the Constitutional Party of Japan while others wrote their own critical editorials on the topic. However, critics took issue with the Diet’s pressure and scheduling rigidity rather than with Hayashi himself. Interestingly, newspapers from both countries amplified critical voices from the other. Indian media had cited harsher Japanese critics, while the few pessimistic Indian outlooks about Hayasahi’s absence were cited in stronger terms than in Indian media. While the content of the G20 meetings were not delved into deeply, Hayashi’s participation to the Quad meeting was noted, and his “rare direct reference” to China was noticed.

The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun published the strongest criticism of Hayashi’s absence, arguing that it had “undermined Japan’s standing” and that the Diet needed to adapt to allow ministers to travel rather than tying them up in parliamentary debates.
The Japan Times, a centrist newspaper, provided a balanced take citing both supporters and critics of Hayashi’s absence, while also voicing slightly out of context Indian concerns.
The progressive-leaning Asahi covered the G20 meetings with a strong focus on the US-China relationship and also reported on Chinese criticism of the Quad.

RUSSIA

Russia stood firm against the recriminations of the rest of the G20 members, with the exception of China which backed Russia in voting against adopting language on Ukraine. Russian statements mirrored China’s, pinpointing the “bullying from US-led Western nations over the Ukraine situation” as the reason for the lack of consensus.

Russian media was careful with not blaming India for the G20’s deadlock, even praising India as a “credible global leader”, though it did not fully consider India to be on Russia’s side either, instead considering India as “caught in a diplomatic balancing act”.

Sputnik News, funded by the state, reached out to Indian observers who generally agreed that India is neutral before anything else, had divergent interests with the West, and blamed food and fuel shortages on sanctions rather than on the war itself.
The Pravda Report, a nationalist newspaper, did not cover the G20 meetings at all except to mention that side discussions in which “Indian officials discussed anti-Russian sanctions with their colleagues from the G7” led to India deciding to comply with Western-imposed oil price caps, a loss for Russia as the article also noted that “oil deals between Russia and India have threatened the dominance of the US dollar”
The Moscow Times, an independent publication, noted the meeting between U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on the sidelines of the G20 meeting, though the meeting was described as of little significance.

By Gabriel Savagner, M.A. candidate in Security Policy Studies, Elliott School of International Affairs at GW. Research Assistant, Rising Powers Initiative.

Rising Powers in 2022: a Year Under the “Sign” of the Russian Invasion of Ukraine

Policy Alert #252 | January 26, 2023

The relationships and power dynamics between China, India, Japan and Russia in 2022 were shaped by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The proximity between the Japanese and American stances towards the invasion was expected, and confirmed during Japanese Prime Minister Kishida’s meeting with U.S. President Biden on January 13. However, the way that India’s government under Prime Minister Modi would react was unknown. As such, his interactions with Russian President Putin were heavily scrutinized and the initial Indian declarations regarding the war carried a lot of weight. On the other side of the spectrum, China was not widely expected to side with the US. Instead, the interrogation resided in the level of support that Chinese President Xi Jinping would show towards Putin.

Another important factor in the quadrilateral balance, in addition to the evolution of each rising power’s relationship with Russia, was the state of the China-India relationship, in the midst of bloody border skirmishes in Ladakh. As such, a worsening relationship between China and India could prevent the two countries from aligning on a common position and presenting a united front. This was reinforced by domestic encouragement in both China and India for aggressive posturing and provocations, such as the invitation of border commander Qi Fabao at the NCPCC to celebrate his involvement in the June 15, 2020 skirmish in which 20 Indian soldiers were killed. In parallel, Japan announced a strengthening of Japan India military ties, which was seen by China as being encouraged by the U.S. as it tries to isolate Russia and China.

This policy alert will focus on media coverage of international meetings where heads of state met, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Summit, the COP 27, and G20. Coverage of other events, such as the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (NCPCC), Vostok 2022 military exercises in Russia, or ASEAN forums, also provided information and context to understand internal and external perceptions of each of these rising powers’ current stance towards the war in Ukraine, as well as the fluctuations of their relationships with each other.

RUSSIA

After February 2022, Russia looked for support among its neighbors and rising powers. Putin publicly advocated for a strengthening of the SCO during the Summit in Samarkand, pitting an aggressive and sanction-prone West against the developing countries of the Middle East and Central Asia. Russia also held the Vostok 2022 military exercises, in which Chinese, Indian, Laotian, Mongolian, and Syrian troops participated. Putin personally attended the exercises, highlighting their symbolic importance, and the importance he attached to presenting the appearance of a united front against the West. When covering the COP 27 meeting in Sharm el-Sheikh, Russian state media emphasized the divide between Asian and African developing countries and Western “rich countries”. Russia has been trying to build support against Western condemnations of the war in Ukraine by building coalitions or criticizing the West.

In particular, Russia is prioritizing the Russia-China relationship. Russia has issued strong statements in support of China over Taiwan and Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov has stressed that Russia and China are aligned and that there were “no discrepancies at all” between them. To push this point further, Xi and Putin closed the year 2022 by having a virtual meeting on December 30th, in which Xi emphasized BRICs cooperation against “hegemony and power politics” and Putin invited Xi to a state visit in Russia in early 2023.

Government-funded Russia Today published several articles and podcasts about the COP 27, stressing how developing countries diverge with the West over climate issues.
According to the Moscow Times, an independent publication, Russia was “pitiful and cynical” at the COP 27, ignoring the environment to focus on pushing other interests.
The Pravda Report, a nationalist newspaper, covered the SCO Summit by noting Putin’s support of China, and did not mention Chinese concerns about the war in Ukraine.

CHINA

Xi and his foreign policy towards Russia have remained ambiguous throughout 2022, despite their “no limit” partnership announced in 2021. Xi provided overt support for Russia in some settings, and slight admonition is others. Specifically, Xi’s uncharacteristic expression of concerns during the SCO Summit was the only rebuke of Russia and it was not confirmed during subsequent meetings. Indeed, during the latest meeting in date, Xi endorsed a Russian statement and commended Russia for trying to “resolve the conflict through diplomatic negotiations”.

Despite the context of the Covid-19 pandemic and unusual pressure on the CPC government from its own population. Xi won a decisive victory at the NCPCC. This cemented his “complete control” over Chinese foreign policy, setting aside concerns of diverging voices within China. However, it did not offer a clear idea of how strongly Xi, and by extent China, would support Putin. In 2022, various events and official declarations have led to media characterizations about the Chinese-Russia relationship either improving or deteriorating, depending on the circumstances, with some diverging interpretations over the same events.

One of the most commonly identified areas of friction is the competition for influence in Central Asia. While these seemingly competing efforts do not signify a shift in relationship, they did come at a time where Central Asian countries seemed to tun away from Russia. Simultaneously, Xi visited Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan and signed several deals, which with zero-sum thinking would indicate China is gaining influence to Russia’s detriment. Political posturing aside, China remains crucial to the survival of the Russian economy, and the war in Ukraine has at most tempered their partnership.

The China Daily a state-supported and CPC-owned newspaper, highlighted Lavrov’s support over Taiwan
The independent South China Morning Post devoted several articles to the China-Russia relationship, with conclusions ranging from faltering to a renewed partnership.

INDIA

Modi and his government also played a delicate exercise in diplomacy, being courted by Russia and the US, and showing overtures to both. Prime Minister Modi spoke out in a rare public rebuke of Russia at the SCO Summit, but then External Affairs Minister Jaishankar almost immediately walked back those remarks. In similar fashion, India participated in the Russian Vostok exercises and showcased the routine nature of the drills while acknowledging US concerns, and then planned to participate in exercises alongside the US.

India’s position towards Russia is different than China’s, despite its shared intentional ambiguity. India has shown less support to Russia than China and crucially, has played both sides, whereas China has remained staunchly critical of the US and the West. Coherently, the India-China relationship is inscrutable as China cannot condone Indian steps towards the US but will support India elsewhere, such as India hosting the 2023 SCO summit. At the COP 27, both countries shared a common position over the issue of loss and damage funding or opposing the carbon border tax. But after a brief détente, China contrasted these statements with actions seen by Indian media as “rubbing salt on wounds” or controversially sending a “spy ship” to Sri Lanka.

In contrast, India has made notable efforts to improve its relationship with Japan. It avoided tensions with Japan over Indian participation in the Russian Vostok exercises by electing not to participate in maritime drills, which were close enough to Japan to cause an issue. In late 2022, India and Japan also agreed to hold joint exercises of their own. Despite these clear steps towards a stronger relationship however, it cannot be ascertained that India is turning towards the West or here again playing all sides, only that India is determined to play a major role.

The left leaning The Hindu looked at India’s participation at the Vostok exercises through the lens of regional power competition, observing that India was placating Japan.
The Daily Pioneer took a strong position against China, whether over the removal of Hu Jintao at the NCPCC or China’s sending of a spy ship to Hambantota.

JAPAN

Japan has condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine repeatedly and in much stronger terms than either China or India. Its relationship with Russia was strained even before the war as both countries claim the Kuril Islands, and tensions have only increased as Russia deployed missile to them. Japan closed out 2022 by announcing a visit by Kishida to Washington, one of several stops of a diplomatic trip to several European partners, to which he reiterated Japan’s condemnation of Russia and also acknowledging tensions with China. In the span of a decade, China has gone from a strategic partner of Japan to “an unprecedented and the greatest strategic challenge in ensuring the peace and security of Japan”. Kishida has made reforming Japanese defense key to his administration, and this effort is targeted in large part towards deterring China.

This position is popular but not unanimous in Japan, as opposition parties and newspapers have called for accountability and criticized what is seen as a step away from diplomacy despite Japanese and US interest not always being aligned exactly. Japan has also improved its relationship with India, reinforcing links with a major regional partner which is not strictly aligned with the US.

The Japan Times, a centrist newspaper, soberly reported that Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev suggested Kishida should kill himself for his subservience to the US.
The business focused Nikkei published an opinion article noting Japan’s strong economic ties to Russian companies, despite talks of sanctions and diplomatic condemnation.

By Gabriel Savagner, M.A. candidate in Security Policy Studies, Elliott School of International Affairs at GW. Research Assistant, Rising Powers Initiative.

Drilling Down into Views in Japan and India on the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China

Policy Alert #251 | November 10, 2022

The 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (NCCPC) was heavily scrutinized in international media given the symbolic importance Chinese leadership has given it. Newly reelected President Xi Jinping was “long expected to secure a third term,” but the decisiveness of Xi’s victory, the manner in which the NCCPC “cemented Xi Jinping’s iron grip on the party” and the sometimes contentious tone of the event were revealing of a more resolutely assertive stance than anticipated by experts and observers. From former president Hu Jintao being physically removed to the importance Xi dedicated to military modernization, the 20^th NCCPC projected an image of a more dominant Xi in China, and a more hawkish China in the world.

India and Japan, two countries which have had increasingly fraught relations with China in the five last years since the 19^th NCCPC, observed with heightened interest, and their respective national media and commentators focused on how specific issues were addressed during the NCCPC, particularly border clashes and Xi’s “complete control” over Chinese foreign policy.

INDIA
As the Communist Party of China held its National 20^th Congress, India announced plans to participate in a series of military drills alongside the US, in proximity of Chinese borders. Indian committed to send a considerably larger force to these US led drills than it did in the Vostok 2022 drills in Russia. (See Policy Alert #249 for more on India’s participation in Vostok 2022.) Fittingly, Indian media and experts focused on the state of India-China relations and how they had deteriorated as of late.

Overall, the 20^th NCCPC was perceived negatively by Indian media, notably as a consequence of the public outcry over the appearance of border commander Qi Fabao at the NCPCC. Qi had been a part of the skirmish of June 15, 2020, in which 20 Indian soldiers were killed and dozens wounded, and his presence at such a high-profile event was seen as a provocation.

Far from a diplomatic faux pas, Qi’s presence at the Congress was deliberate and was anticipated as early as August 2022, as he was publicly announced to be one of 304 delegates from the PLA and People’s Armed Police Force. China could only anticipate this would cause tensions with India as Qi’s selection as an Olympic torchbearer had already caused an outcry in February 2022.

Despite this perceived provocation, Indian media and experts also showcased Chinese diplomatic efforts to play down tensions and appease India. Former Indian Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale pushed back on the enemy rhetoric, and instead identified that to China, India is a “significant neighbour with a troubled relationship that needs to be managed correctly.”

Despite tensions, the Times of India, a center-right publication, had a neutral description of the role the CPC gave to commander Qi, while the left leaning The Hindunoted the political significance of the move. Only the pro-BJP Pioneer had a stronger rebuttal of China’s symbolic provocation, characterizing Qi’s presence as “rubbing salt on wounds.”
The liberal Indian Expressand the left leaning The Hindu both commented on an exchange of conciliatory remarks made by Chinese Ambassador Li Jiming and Indian external affairs minister S Jaishankar, choosing to highlight instances of appeasement post-NCCPC.

JAPAN

A few weeks prior to the 20^th NCCPC, Chinese coast guard ships impinged on Japanese waters near the disputed Senkaku Islands, which tinted the perspective of Japanese media and experts who picked up on the recurring theme of militarization throughout Xi’s speeches. As Indian perspectives showed, Xi’s victory was not a surprise, though the amplitude of it was. For instance, Bonji Ohara, a Senior Fellow at the, Sasakawa Peace Foundation in Tokyo, “expected to see the concentration of power, but did not expect it to be done in such a forceful manner.”

Associate Professor Suzuki Takashi, from Aichi Prefectural University, pointed out that Xi’s decisive victory entails that Xi will “tighten his grip on power and exercise strong leadership to confront the international community.” At the same time, Xi’s victory may also mean that certain bellicose refrains may be dropped as they are no longer necessary as electoral motivators.

Indeed, according to Takashi Kawakami, a Professor at Takushoku University in Tokyo, Xi’s consecration at the 20th NCCPC may signal a decrease in the probability of an invasion of Taiwan as: “Xi had to keep talking about the goal of Taiwan’s unification in order to strengthen his own power.” Having achieved that, Kawakami assesses that “the possibility that he will attempt to take Taiwan by force has probably receded.”

The Japan Times, a centrist newspaper, summarized the intricacies of Xi’s power play, and the left leaning Manichi was precise and detailed about the specific individuals who were removed from senior leadership.
The progressive leaning Asahi noted the US reaction to the NCCPC while The Japan Times framed tensions as being between the US and China rather than Japan and China. It also echoed dissident voices in Japan that opposed espousing the US hardline policy, and supposed that a surge in China-US tensions could lead to “distancing Japan from the United States and its attempts to isolate China.”
The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun, the business-focused Nikkei, and The Japan Times all highlighted Hu’s departure, how it broke with the otherwise unified front that was displayed and choreographed at the event, and the resulting “speculation his departure was a political power play.”

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

Tricky Summitry as Rising Powers Meet at Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Samarkand

Policy Alert #250 | September 21, 2022

The 2022 Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Samarkand, which took place from September 15^th to 16^th, was much anticipated by international media, as it would provide the opportunity for Russian President Vladimir Putin to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping, as well as with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, for the first time since the beginning of the Russian war in Ukraine. As such, their encounters were heavily scrutinized, especially to assess the extent to which China and India would support Russia. Both China and India shared circumspection about the war and did not provide unconditional assurances of support. In fact, Prime Minister Modi spoke out in a rare public rebuke of Russia, while President Xi shared his concerns. Both China and India played a balancing act of not endorsing Russian actions while also not outwardly condemning them, with Chinese media criticizing the US for trying to seed dissent within the SCO while some Indian media saw this as a premise to nurturing India’s “growing ties with the US.” Russian media minimized the dissent within the SCO, and President Putin deflected criticism about the war in Ukraine, blaming continued hostilities on Ukrainian intransigeance. The most striking contrast in analysis of the SCO summit was between Russian and Chinese officials. Indeed, while Russian officials and state media argued that the SCO gave its member states tools to resist Western sanctions as a united bloc, and that the Samarkand summit contributed to building a new world architecture, Chinese officials resisted the notion of “China and Russia as a political and military bloc.”

CHINA

Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi described President Xi’s attendance as a “strategic move to break US’ “encirclement” of China.” President Xi himself warned of “interference in internal affairs” by “external forces.” Despite this open criticism of the US, Chinese officials were wary of fully embracing Russia and refuted the notion that China, Russia and the SCO as a whole were forming an anti-Western block. To that effect, Chinese official media put out very nuanced statements about the state of the Russia China relationship. “China-Russia relations are at their best in history” according to Yang Jin, an associate research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, but at the same time, “China has many friends in the world in addition to Russia.” Another round of negotiations this time only with Russia, the 17th China-Russia strategic security consultation, may yield more details about the Chinese-Russian security relationship in the context of the Ukrainian war.

Chinese media also addressed China-India relations, noting that while China supports India hosting the next SCO meeting, India is taking economic decoupling measures from China. Chinese social media users however, as well as the Chinese public, expressed support for India about its participation in the SCO as an independent power and lauded Modi for his successful balancing act.

The Global Times, a Chinese nationalist newspaper run under the official newspaper of the Communist Party of China (CPC), repeatedly introduced US-China tensions when discussing the SCO meeting, putting forward official criticism of the US and its policies, shortly before lambasting US president Biden for his statement in support of defending Taiwan.
The independent South China Morning Post also castigated “Anglo-American mainstream media” for its tendency to lump together China and Russia, ignoring the nuances of Chinese diplomacy. The SCMP also pointed out that the summit was not just about Russia and China, but provided indicators of the poor state of the India-China relationship as well.
The China Daily, owned by the CPC, deemed China the “undisputed leader of the region,” and the People’s Daily, (the CPC official newspaper) lauded the SCO meeting as a remarkable success for China, and echoed positive press from Pakistan.

INDIA

Indian Prime Minister Modi made a declaration rebuking Russia in public, asserting that the “era of war” is no more. India’s Foreign Secretary Vinay Kwatra clarified this statement and explained that it was India’s view that “hostilities should cease and the path to resolution is through diplomacy and dialogue.” Shortly after these statements, India voted in favor of “allowing Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to address the United Nations virtually” next week, reinforcing the perception that India refused to enter a firm alliance with Russia. Some Indian media also considered this a refusal to join a Chinese and Russian bid to challenge world order. In this, Indian media went further than Modi who did not denounce China, which itself shared with Russia its concern about the Russian war in Ukraine.

Modi’s rebuttal of Russia and balancing act is supported by Indian media, the absence of criticism from opposition media a tacit endorsement of Modi’s position, though the unimpeachable nature of the statements made by Modi against war in general made criticism inopportune. Indian media also highlighted news related to the India-Pakistan relationship, such as Pakistan’s reluctance to have India host the next SCO meeting or difficult transit trade access negotiations. Indian media also derided Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif for an earphone malfunction. Though the mishap itself was unimportant, the attention it was given is telling of tensions with Pakistan, while also contributing to it.

The center-right newspaper Times of India placed the summit back in the context of China-India border tensions in Ladakh, and also remarked that “significantly”, Putin met in private with Prime Minister Sharif of Pakistan after Modi put pressure on Russia to cease hostilities. The newspaper interpreted Modi’s remarks as a strong condemnation of Russia’s war against Ukraine and as a “wrench in Putin’s plan to rally Asian leaders.”
The Hindustan Times, a liberal publication, noted China’s support for India’s hosting of the 2023 SCO summit, and the Indian Express, another liberal publication, highlighted the positive reactions from the Chinese public, impressed that “India could pull-off such an intricate diplomatic manoeuvre in a heightened international crisis situation.”
The Pioneer, a pro-BJP newspaper, kept tabs on security talks held between China and Russia after the SCO summit ended, downplaying dissensions between the two states.

JAPAN

Japan is the only country in this policy alert that is not a part of the SCO, which is why there were no major statements by the Japanese government on the issue. Japanese media however considered the event to be significant and viewed speeches and declarations in the context of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and China-US tensions.

The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun saw the divide between China and Russia as a sign of the SCO’s weakness, and pointed out Russia’s struggle to keep its central Asia allies in its orbit.
The left-leaning Manichi saw Chinese and Indian declarations at the SCO as rebukes of Putin’s war in Ukraine, despite originally seeing the promotion of the Global Security Initiative as supportive of Moscow’s attack on Ukraine.
The business-focused Nikkei Asia Report found that China was placing itself in a position of strength within the SCO, as Russia’s prestige and international credibility was tarnished by the war in Ukraine, by both courting Kazakhstan and expressing “concerns” about Russia’s involvement in Ukraine. The newspaper also noted the slight rebuke from Indian Prime Minister Modi to Russian President Putin.
The Japan Times, a centrist newspaper, pointed out that while China had not made clear and explicit declarations of support of Russia over Ukraine, Russia made strong statements in support of China over tensions in the Taiwan Straits.

RUSSIA

Russian President Vladimir Putin acknowledged concern from China and India over the Russian-Ukrainian war, though he downplayed the opposition, stating that Russia will do “everything to ensure that this all stops as quickly as possible”. However, he blamed the Ukrainian government for the lack of negotiations, threatening to escalate Russian action against Ukraine, which indicates that a lack of support from China, India, and other SCO members are not enough to sway Russian strategy.

Putin made a point of advocating for a bigger and stronger SCO, for it to become a “platform for constructive and productive interaction.” Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov deflected Western media criticism of the SCO and of Sino-Russian cooperation especially by declaring that “cooperation agreements between Russia and China are not aimed at world domination.” Russian state-owned media, provided support to this narrative, presenting the SCO as a potential shield which could develop “mechanisms to act calmly and withstand […] pressure” from aggressive and illegitimate Western sanctions.

Russia Today, a government-funded outlet, noted that Turkey announced it would apply to join the SCO, marking the potential unprecedented arrival of a NATO country in the SCO. Russia Today kept with that theme and also published articles about SCO expansion both in terms of confirmed new member states and in terms of scope.
Sputnik News, funded by the state, echoed Putin and considered the summit to have led to significant decisions which will reinforce “irreversible” and ”fundamental transformations“ in the world’s architecture.
The Pravda Report, a nationalist newspaper, mentioned only the support Putin extended to China, omitting the concerns China expressed in return about the war in Ukraine.

A Tale of Two Indias? China and India from Hambantota to Vostok

Policy Alert #249 | September 8, 2022

On August 16 at 8:20 am local time, the Yuan Wang 5, a Chinese ship, docked in Hambantota port in Sri Lanka. It left after six days on August 22nd, but not without causing an international stir. Its docking had been delayed for a few days by Sri Lankan authorities as the ship came embroiled in controversy. Indeed, the ship arrived in Sri Lanka as India was testing new missiles, raising suspicions that the ship, which has the capacity to track ballistic missile and satellites, had been sent to collect data on Indian missile launches.

This incident comes in the context of the extended standoff between China and India along the Line of Actual Control in Eastern Ladakh. Weeks before the Yuan Wang 5 was scheduled to dock, India denounced it as a “dual-use spy ship,” an assessment that was shared by the US Department of Defense. China pushed back against this narrative, asserting that the ship was solely docking for replenishment and was a research ship, conducting marine scientific research, and that its docking was part of “normal exchanges and cooperation between China and Sri Lanka.”

However, the Chinese ship had barely left Sri Lanka before India joined the Vostok 2022 military exercises in Russia held September 1-7. These exercises are hosted by Russia but China is the second largest participant, having sent a 2,000 strong contingent from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). As part of these exercises, around 200 Indian troops drilled with contingents from other participant countries, and thus collaborated and trained with the Chinese military even as the controversy over the Yuan Wang 5’s docking near India was still fresh. India seems to be playing a delicate balancing act, drawing concern for different reasons from both the US and China.

What are the opinions in the region on these developments from Hambantota to Vostok?

CHINA

China has defended its use of Hambantota Port, with Chinese Ambassador to Sri Lanka Qi Zhenhong writing an article published in the Sri Lanka Guardian on August 26^th, in which he argues that “all the scientific research activities of “Yuan Wang 5” comply with the international law and common international practice.” Ambassador Qi was subsequently heavily criticized by Indian media and by the Indian High Commission in Colombo. Wang Wenbin, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson, highlighted that “China has always exercised the freedom of the high seas legally and fully respects the jurisdiction of coastal states for scientific research activities in the waters under their jurisdiction.”

Similarly, Zhang Xuefeng, a military deputy to the past 13th National People’s Congress, has stressed that Chinese PLA Navy ships in the Vostok 2022 exercises operate in waters allowed by international law. The Vostok exercises may lead to more regular visible military cooperation endeavors between China and Russia, with joint patrols expected to follow after the exercise is over.

The Global Times, a Chinese nationalist newspaper run under the official newspaper of the Communist Party of China, has published several articles critical of India and Indian media over this affair, characterizing Indian media as “firing unsubstantiated accusations on the scientific research vessel.” Articles heavily cite Chinese Ambassador Qi and journalists interviewed Chinese experts who see “no reason to make a fuss out of a lawful and reasonable port call by a Chinese ship.”The Global Times also denounces Western reactions to the Vostok exercises, predicting that Western media is likely “hype the matter again” to do the same once the joint patrol is formalized.

On the other hand, the independent South China Morning Post notes the “added significance” of Vostok 2022, held while war rages in Ukraine, and acknowledges that the exercises are meant, at least by some parties, as a direct and defiant message to the US and US allies.

INDIA

India pointed out the Chinese ship’s technical capabilities and expressed concern over the purpose of its docking in Sri Lanka. External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar conveyed India’s concerns about the announced docking to Sri Lanka’s foreign minister Ali Sabry as early as August 3rd during the 55th ASEAN Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. The main concern was the risk of “the ship’s tracking systems attempting to snoop on Indian installations.” The Indian government put pressure on the Sri Lankan government, resulting in a delayed docking, but avoided direct confrontation with China on the issue. However, Chinese statements critical of the way India handled the situation were strongly rebuked by the Indian High Commission in Colombo, which targeted Chinese Ambassador to Sri Lanka Qi Zhenhong for his violation of “basic diplomatic etiquette.”

India downplayed the significance of its participation in Vostok 2022. The Indian Army issued a statement narrowing the exercise’s aim to ”interaction and coordination amongst other participating military contingents and observers”, though this was not enough to fully assuage US concerns. India has been a participant of Russian exercises since it sent a contingent to Tsentr 2019, alongside other Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) members. Following remarks by White House Press Secretary Karine Jean Pierre, this is what Arindam Bagchi, the spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs chose to emphasize, declaring that “India has been regularly participating in multilateral exercises in Russia along with a number of other countries”.

Indian media in general viewed the Yuan Wang 5’s docking in Sri Lanka unfavorably, with the center-right newspaper Times of India pushing back against Chinese criticism, while the liberal Indian Express called the Yuan Wang 5 a “spy ship”, and focused on the more controversial statements by Ambassador Qi.
However, the recipient of this hostility was mainly China or Chinese diplomats, whereas Sri Lanka has been spared this ire, with Sri Lankan Tourism Minister Harin Fernado given a platform by the left leaning The Hindu to explain the situation Sri Lanka was put in.
Indian media overwhelmingly defended Indian participation in Vostok 2022, with the liberal Hindustan Times pointing out that India elected not to participate in maritime drills as to not cause tensions with Japan, while The Hindu highlighted the routine nature of the drills, while acknowledging US concerns.

JAPAN

Japanese media, from the left leaning Manichi to the conservative Yomiuri Shimbun, mirrored the Indian and American assertions that the Yuan Wang 5 is a “spy ship,” a “military ship” part of the “Chinese navy.” However, Japanese media was overall not overtly critical of China, and also pointed out the responsibility of Sri Lanka in fanning the flames of Sino-Indian tensions.

The Vostok exercises on the other hand present a larger to threat to Japanese interests, as a maritime component of Vostok 2022, including live fire exercises, was conducted in disputed territory. Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Hirokazu Matsuno expressed serious concern, noting that Japan would “take all possible measures to conduct warning and surveillance activities in the waters surrounding Japan.”

Departing from Indian media’s sparing of Sri Lanka, the Manichi considers that “Sri Lanka is playing with two fires at a diplomatic level.”
As The Japan Times, a centrist newspaper, points out, Vostok 2022 naval exercises were conducted in Etorofu and Kunashiri islands, as known in Japan, which are disputed territory.
The business focused Nikkei highlighted the incongruity of India participating alongside Chinese troops despite the “Himalayan standoff.”

RUSSIA

Russian media has covered the tensions that have stemmed from the Yuan Wang 5 docking in Hambantota superficially and without criticizing any of the states involved in the affair. Given the scope of the Vostok 2022 exercises, and their symbolic importance, Russia has been more vocal covering the exercises and defending their legitimacy. Putin attended the drills in person, and Russian Deputy Defense Minister Alexander Fomin stated that “The exercise is not directed against any specific states or military alliances and is purely defensive in nature,” anticipating the US reservations that came the next day.

Government-funded Russia Today presented the Hambantota issue chronologically, introduced India’s concerns and laid out the Chinese rebukes, without making a case for either antagonist. Its treatment of Vostok was similarly balanced, noting US concerns, especially over Indian participation, and highlighting the multinational nature of the exercises.
Sputnik News, funded by the state, remarked that the initial authorization for the ship to dock was given by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa only a day before he was forced to flee to Singapore by massive protests.
The Pravda Report, a nationalist newspaper, went another route. Rather than defending the Vostok 2022 exercises, it criticized the US for holding military drills with countries which are members of the SCO, while also addressing thinly veiled threats to Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan.

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

Russia’s Suspension from UN HRC: Voting Becomes More Mixed

Policy Alert #248 | April 11, 2022

On April 7, after graphic images emerged of civilian killings in the city of Bucha just outside Kyiv, the United Nations General Assembly voted to suspend Russia from the Human Rights Council over “gross and systematic violations and abuses of human rights.” Ukraine accused Russia of killing more than 300 civilians in Bucha, leading to an even greater condemnation of Russia from the international community, albeit with varying intensity across non-western rising powers. The resolution to eject Russia passed with 93 countries voting in favor, 24 voting against, and 58 abstaining. Notably, this represented a shift in Russia’s favor since the first UNGA vote to condemn Russia on March 2. The Ukraine-Russia conflict appears to be entering a new phase: Russia is preparing to launch another offensive, this time concentrating its attacks on the eastern part of Ukraine. Russia’s offensive is now proceeding on two primary fronts, according to Ukrainian officials, after forces shifted initial efforts to take Kyiv: against the southeastern port city of Mariupol and in Ukraine’s far east, especially the contested Luhansk region. Meanwhile, Russia and Ukraine have reportedly made significant progress on a tentative 15-point peace plan, according to five people briefed on the talks. The plan would involve Ukraine dropping its aspiration to join NATO and declaring neutrality, in return for a ceasefire and Russia’s army withdrawing. However, in a televised statement, Mykhailo Podolyak, one of Ukraine’s peace negotiators, claimed the tone of peace talks had forever changed after evidence of the mass killings in Bucha. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy claimed he is committed to pressing for peace despite Russian attacks on civilians but he renewed his plea for more weapons ahead of an expected surge in fighting in the country’s east.

Russia

Russia has denied Ukrainian allegations that it killed civilians in the Ukrainian town of Bucha, describing footage and photographs of dead bodies as a “provocation” and a “staged performance” by Kyiv. “All the photos and videos published by the Kyiv regime, allegedly testifying to the ‘crimes’ of Russian servicemen in the city of Bucha, Kyiv region, are another provocation,” Russia’s defense ministry said in a statement. It called the footage “another staged performance by the Kyiv regime for the Western media.” This comes after Russia claimed it would reduce the intensity of attacks against Ukraine in its northern regions in order to “boost mutual trust” and facilitate further negotiations. “Due to the fact that negotiations over an agreement on Ukraine’s neutrality and non-nuclear status and security guarantees are moving into a practical stage…the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation has taken the decision to drastically reduce combat operations in the Kyiv and Chernihiv areas,” a statement by Russian Deputy Defense Minister Alexander Fomin stated.

China

Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian claimed the decision to suspend Russia from the UN Human Rights Council “will only exacerbate the division among member states … and set a dangerous new precedent.” Explaining the reason for China’s abstention, China’s UN Ambassador Zhang Jun wrote, “Regrettably, the draft resolution… has not undergone full consultations within the whole membership… nor does it take full consideration the history and complexity of the current crisis…It does not highlight the importance of the principle of indivisible security, or the urgency of promoting political settlement and stepping up diplomatic efforts. These are not in line with China’s consistent positions.” Following an EU-China summit via video conference on April 1, when pressed about sanctions on Russia, Wang Lutong, Director-General of European Affairs at China’s Foreign Ministry, told reporters that China is contributing to the global economy by conducting normal trade with Russia. “China is not a related party on the crisis of Ukraine… We don’t think our normal trade with any other country should be affected,” Lutong conveyed. China has also denied being asked for, or supplying, any military support for Russia.

In an op-ed for the nationalist Global Times, Yi Xin outlines the ‘seven sins’ of the US in the Ukraine crisis, including its ‘double standards’ on human rights: “Self-portrayed as a human rights ‘defender,’ the US has, in reality, played a part in wars and chaos in… Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria.”
In an op-ed for the independent South China Morning Post, Lijia Zhang describes how the Ukraine crisis is hurting China’s soft power ambitions: “Its stance on Ukraine hasn’t helped and Beijing must now distance itself from Moscow, and seek to negotiate a peace deal, to avoid further damaging its reputation.”

India

Following the widely documented killing of civilians in Bucha, India, for the first time, has “unequivocally condemned” the killings and supported the call for an “independent probe.” On the resolution to suspend Russia from the UN Human Rights Council, this was India’s 11th vote at the UN where it abstained since Russia invaded Ukraine. India questioned the process by which the move to suspend Russia took place given that it happened before the international probe into the massacre. India also believed that it should have been brought before the Human Rights Council, not the UNGA.

In an op-ed for the liberal Indian Express, Shubhajit Roy claimed that despite India’s abstention, its evolution towards Ukraine has been gradual: “New Delhi sharpened its criticism of Russia by flagging three concerns: respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity of states, UN Charter, and international law. This was the first time India was invoking these three red lines.”
The business focused The Economic Times pointed out that India in its Explanation of Vote had no mention of the issue of territorial integrity and sovereignty: “This is the first time in the last two months that India has omitted this part.”

Japan

Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida lambasted what he called “brutal and inhumane acts” carried out in Bucha. Japan’s Foreign Ministry summoned the Russian ambassador and cited the killings of civilians in large numbers, calling them war crimes, the ministry said in a statement. During his visit to India on March 19, Kishida urged Narendra Modi to take a tougher line on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but a joint statement after talks in New Delhi fell short of condemning Moscow’s actions. On April 8, Kishida announced that Japan will phase out Russian coal imports, in a major shift toward cutting its reliance on Russia following renewed condemnation for its alleged atrocities.

One Month In, Rising Powers Tested as Ukraine Crisis Escalates

Policy Alert #247 | March 24, 2022

Today marks one month since Russia ordered a “special military operation” and advanced into Ukraine on February 24, 2022. At least ten million Ukrainians have been displaced internally or have fled abroad as refugees. Thousands more people were able to escape cities under attack this week, but many remain trapped as humanitarian corridors keep failing. Intense fighting continues over several key places, including the capital of Kyiv and the strategic southern port city of Mariupol. If Russian troops took control of Mariupol, they would hold most of the stretch between the Donbas region in the east and Crimea in the south.

NATO has rejected Kyiv’s request for a no-fly zone, reasoning that the step would provoke Russia into a waging a larger war that could pit the U.S. and its allies against the nuclear-armed country. In a video posted on social media, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy slammed NATO over the decision.

US President Biden arrived in Brussels on March 23 ahead of emergency meetings with NATO allies aimed at presenting a united front against Russia. The US and its European allies plan to announce new sanctions for Russia and new humanitarian aid for Ukraine. Biden also plans to talk to European partners about China’s ties to Russia. The US is concerned Beijing will provide economic or military aid to Moscow. Biden discussed this concern with Chinese President Xi Jinping in a virtual meeting on March 18. European Union leaders are planning their own summit with Xi on April 1.

Ukrainian and Russian negotiators discussed a proposed deal in full for the first time on March 14. The two sides have made significant progress on a tentative peace plan including a ceasefire and Russian withdrawal if Kyiv declares neutrality and accepts limits on its armed forces. Russian President Vladimir Putin conveyed some progress has been made, while the Kremlin stressed the conflict would end when the West took action to address Moscow’s security concerns. President Zelenskyy has raised hopes with recent statements that seem to accept that Ukraine will not be a part of NATO. But even a negotiated cease-fire seems a distant prospect, let alone a lasting peace.

Russia

In his latest comments, Putin sought to justify the war in Ukraine, repeating his assertion that he was seeking to defend Russian speaking communities there through “demilitarization and de-Nazification.” Responding to Western defense analysts’ allegations that the Russian military campaign was going less well than expected, Putin asserted, “Our army will fulfil all the tasks. I don’t doubt that at all. Everything is going to plan.”

Putin claimed the financial penalties imposed on Russia by the West amount to a “declaration of war.” “But thank God, we haven’t got there yet,” Putin added. The Russian President also stated that any attempt to install a no-fly zone in Ukraine would cause catastrophic consequences for Europe and the world: “The current leadership needs to understand that if they continue doing what they are doing, they risk the future of Ukrainian statehood.”

On March 21, in response to Japanese sanctions, Russia announced it was withdrawing from negotiations with Japan aimed at signing a formal World War II peace treaty. According to the Russian Ministry, Russia would not continue negotiations with Japan on a peace treaty “under current conditions,” citing Japan’s “openly unfriendly positions and attempts to damage the interests of our country.”

China

In response to news outlets purporting that China had signaled willingness to provide military assistance to Russia, the Chinese Foreign Ministry accused the US of spreading disinformation. Chinese Spokesperson Zhao Lijian underscored China’s commitment to provide humanitarian supplies to Ukraine, contrasting that with the actions of the US in providing weapons: “Which do the civilians in Ukraine need more, food and sleeping bags or machine guns and mortar rounds?” Russia has also denied asking Beijing for military help.

On March 18, President Biden and President Xi spoke over a two-hour video call, where both sides stressed the need for a diplomatic solution in Ukraine. Xi stated, “The top priorities now are to continue dialogue and negotiations, avoid civilian casualties, prevent a humanitarian crisis, and end the war as soon as possible.” In addition, Xi advocated for Russia-Ukraine dialogue and negotiations, and suggested Washington and NATO conduct talks with Russia to solve the “crux” of the Ukraine crisis and resolve the security concerns of both Russia and Ukraine.

Xi also warned against sanctions: “Sweeping and indiscriminate sanctions would only make the people suffer. If further escalated, they could trigger serious crises in global economy and trade, finance, energy, food, and industrial and supply chains, crippling the already languishing world economy and causing irrevocable losses.”

In an op-ed for the independent South China Morning Post, Maria Siow and Su-Lin Tan explain why the Quad’s is OK with India, not China, giving Russia economic support: “This is more than just a double standard… It reflects a desire among the US and its allies to preserve India’s position in the regional security framework and prevent Moscow getting closer to Beijing.”
In an op-ed for the nationalist Global Times, Zheng Yongnian, Research Professor at the National University of Singapore, believes we can regard the Russia-Ukraine conflict as a ‘preview’ of the US’ possible acts in Asia: “NATO will not stop its expansion in Europe, but will likely expand to Asia… unless there is another bloc that forms as a check and balance.”

India

India is the only Quad member not to have condemned Russia’s military actions in Ukraine. In a meeting with Japan on March 19, Modi refrained from commenting directly on Ukraine but noted that geopolitical incidents were “presenting new challenges.” At a virtual summit between India and Australia on March 21, Modi also avoided talking about the issue. India has abstained five times from condemning Russia at the UN.

India, the world’s biggest oil importer behind China and the US, has agreed to purchase 3 million barrels of Russian oil at a heavy discount. The Indian government is also exploring ways to maintain trade with Russia by reviving the rupee-ruble trade, which would let Indian and Russian firms do business while bypassing the need to use US dollars, and lowering the risk of potential US sanctions.

In the business focused The Economic Times, Sreeram Chaulia, Dean of the Jindal School of International Affairs, highlights India’s complicated history and relationship with Russia: “The scale and breadth of Indo-Russian ties have a long history and, despite India’s geopolitical recalibrations over the last 15-odd years, especially vis-à-vis the US and China, it still bears momentum.”
In an op-ed for the pro-ruling party Daily Pioneer, Bhopinder Singh, former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry, attests that the situation in Ukraine validates India’s mistrust of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT): “As Kyiv desperately beseeches Delhi to intervene, memories of Ukraine condemning India’s nuclear re-testing in 1998 is conveniently forgotten… India has delivered far more responsible outcomes than those of most NPT signatories.”
In an op-ed for the liberal Indian Express, Pratap Bhanu Mehta, Contributing Editor, claims that the self-serving stances of all the great powers make it more likely that the world will be marked by conflict: “Europe is now caught between its desire to send a strong message to Russia and sanctimonious moralizing… its credibility is impugned because it is not willing to pay even the minimal economic price for a strong stand.”
In the business focused The Economic Times, Swaminathan Aiyar, Consulting Editor, argues that the war gives India a golden chance to export record quantities of wheat: “Ukraine and Russia are among the world’s largest exporters of wheat. The war has sent global wheat prices soaring. If India acts quickly, Ukraine could hand it a $8 billion bonanza.”

Japan

On March 19, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida told Indian Prime Minister Modi that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine had shaken the “foundation of international order” and required a clear response. Japan’s Press Secretary Hikariko Ono informed the media that Kishida asked Modi to impress upon Putin the need to maintain free and open international order.

As Japan follows other countries’ lead in sanctioning Russia, ties between Russia and Japan have worsened. Japan reacted angrily after Russia withdrew from peace treaty talks with Japan and froze joint economic projects related to the disputed Kuril islands because of Japanese sanctions. Kishida strongly opposed Russia’s decision: “This entire situation has been created by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and Russia’s response to push this onto Japan-Russia relations is extremely unfair and completely unacceptable.”

Rising Powers React to Russian Military Actions in Ukraine

Policy Alert #246 | February 28, 2022

On February 21, Russian President Vladimir Putin formally recognized the independence of the southeastern Ukrainian regions of Donetsk and Luhansk. Known collectively as Donbas, the two territories have been led by pro-Russia separatists for nearly a decade. On February 24, Putin ordered a “special military operation” in Ukraine based on request from the heads of the Donbas regions to carry out what he called “peacekeeping functions.” Putin has invoked the idea of Donbas’s distinctive regional identity as a basis to “defend” its Russian-speaking people from a supposedly intolerant Ukraine. However, Russian forces continued to advance beyond Donbas into some of Ukraine’s largest cities.

Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba declared Putin had “launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.” Russia’s actions have been swiftly condemned by several nations, which have imposed devastating packages of sanctions and other economic measures to punish Moscow. The European Union for the first time will finance the purchase and delivery of weapons, in a show of support for Ukraine. The EU is also banning Russian planes from its airspace. Following pressure from the UK government, British energy giant BP said it would exit its nearly 20% stake in Russian government-controlled oil producer Rosneft. Western governments joined by Japan said they would cut off a number of Russian banks from the SWIFT network, an international payment system.

Citing “aggressive statements” by NATO and tough financial sanctions, Putin announced that he had put his nuclear deterrence forces into high alert. On February 27, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky revealed Ukraine and Russia would conduct the first diplomatic talks, with delegations from both countries meeting at the Ukrainian border with Belarus. The two countries would meet near the Pripyat River “without preconditions.”

Russia

Putin has made clear that Russia would never accept Ukraine’s membership of NATO, calling this a direct threat to Russian security and rejecting Western assurances that there were no plans for this anytime soon. In a televised speech on February 21, Putin claimed “Ukraine has never had its own authentic statehood.” Putin warned that Ukraine could develop its own nuclear weapons, calling this a “real threat,” claiming that the West was using Ukraine as a “theater of potential warfare” against Russia.

According to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Moscow is ready to hold talks at any moment once the Ukrainian Armed Forces lay down their arms. “No one plans to attack and oppress them, let them return to their families, and let us give the Ukrainian people a chance to decide their future,” Lavrov stated. At the same time, he emphasized that Russia had always called for negotiations. “There is no shortage of talks…,” Lavrov stressed, “But this time, it just went beyond all limits because it was accompanied by a continuous deterioration of the Russian-speaking population’s situation in Ukraine.”

Russia’s Defense Ministry reported that the Russian Armed Forces were not delivering strikes against Ukrainian cities. The ministry emphasized that the Ukrainian military infrastructure was being destroyed by precision weapons and there was no threat to civilians.

An editorial for The Moscow Times, an independent newspaper based in Moscow, highlights Russia’s praise for India’s “independent and balanced” position after Delhi abstained from a UN Security Council vote that condemned Moscow’s “aggression” against Ukraine. India, along with China and the UAE, did not vote on the resolution.

China

Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying called the US the “culprit” of current tensions surrounding Ukraine. According to Chunying, “the US has been sending weapons to Ukraine… creating panic” while, in stark contrast, “China has all along called on all parties… to resolve issues through negotiation and consultation.”

Chunying underscored the necessity of understanding “the whole story” on the Ukraine issue and the need to properly address each other’s legitimate security concerns. “Certain countries should ask themselves,” Chunying stated, “When the US drove five waves of NATO expansion eastward all the way to Russia’s doorstep and deployed advanced offensive strategic weapons in breach of its assurances to Russia, did it ever think about the consequences of pushing a big country to the wall?”

When asked if China would impose sanctions against Russia, Chunying responded: “Our position is that sanctions are never fundamentally effective means to solve problems. We consistently oppose all illegal unilateral sanctions.”

The state directed China Daily emphasized the Chinese Ministry’s warnings to Taiwan politicians against using the Ukraine crisis to draw attention to the Taiwan question and make provocations for “independence.”
In an op-ed for the nationalist Global Times, Zhang Hong, associate research fellow at the Institute of Russian, Eastern European & Central Asian Studies of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, calls the West’s diplomacy towards Russia a failure: “The West decided to treat some of Russia’s concerns with indifference, neglect, and even arrogance.”

India

India has refused to publicly condemn Russia’s military actions and has downplayed “sovereignty” and “territorial integrity” rhetoric it usually adopts to criticize China’s actions in the Indo-Pacific. India abstained from voting on a UN Security Council resolution demanding that Russia cease its actions in Ukraine. “We have not supported what Russia has done. We have abstained. It is the right thing to do under the circumstances,” reasoned G. Parthasarthy, a retired Indian diplomat. India’s abstention does not mean support for Moscow but reflects New Delhi’s reliance on its Cold War partner for energy, weapons and support in conflicts with neighbors.

Notably, more than 50% of India’s arms imports is Russian and it remains a key strategic partner to India. India is also exploring ways to set up a rupee payment mechanism for trade with Russia to soften the blow on New Delhi of Western sanctions imposed on Russia. For example, Indian officials are concerned that vital supplies of fertilizer from Russia could be disrupted as sanctions intensify, threatening India’s vast farm sector.

In the business focused The Economic Times, Sriparna Pathak, assistant professor at the Jindal School of International Affairs, India, writes that India is caught between a rock and a hard place on Ukraine: “While US and Indian interests are the same in the Indo-Pacific, India will have to balance the diplomatic tightrope between Washington and Moscow and seek a resolution by diplomatic means to the conflict now escalated to war.”

An editorial by the liberal Indian Express emphasizes the need for the US and Europe to scale down the conflict through diplomacy: “Putin’s concerns about the expansion of NATO and the lop-sided security architecture of Europe are not without basis. It is both unreasonable and irresponsible of the Western alliance to dismiss these concerns.”
In an op-ed for the liberal Indian Express, Pratap Mehta, president of Centre Policy Research, New Delhi, believes that the world must do more to put pressure on Russia: “The brutal truth is that despite outrage in the West, the appetite for doing what it takes to put pressure on Putin is not yet in evidence.”

Japan

Japan condemned Russia’s military actions “in the strongest terms,” according to an official statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Foreign Minister Hayashi Yoshimasa claimed Russia’s actions “clearly infringe upon the Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, constitute a serious violation of international law prohibiting use of force, and are a grave breach of the UN Charter.”

Japan said it would join the US and European Union in plans to cut off Russian banks from the SWIFT financial network and in sanctions on Russian officials including President Putin. Japan was the last member of the G7 nations to join the SWIFT sanctions.

Japan’s relations with Moscow have been shaped by its reliance on Russia for its energy needs. For Japan, the most immediate impact of the crisis is likely to be seen in rising fuel prices. Japan has about 240 days’ worth of crude oil reserves and reserves of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to last two to three weeks. Russia accounted for 9% of Japan’s total LNG imports in 2021 and 4% of total crude imports. President Kishida said Japan would do the utmost to limit the economic impact to its resource-poor nation, including by ensuring a stable supply of energy.

The Politics of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics

Policy Alert #245 | February 11, 2022

In the run-up to the Winter Olympics in Beijing, China had insisted on keeping politics and sports separate. But as the 2022 Olympics are now officially underway, the excitement of the sports is being largely drowned out by political tensions. Much of the criticism surrounding the Beijing Olympics has focused on China’s treatment of its minority Uyghurs. The opening ceremony appeared to meet this criticism head-on. It featured representatives of all 56 officially recognized Chinese ethnic groups, including Uyghurs, standing together and passing the Chinese flag across Beijing’s National Stadium.

Adding to the controversy, only one day before the opening ceremonies began, India joined the U.S.-led diplomatic boycott of the Olympics. This decision was made after China included a PLA soldier who was involved in a deadly border skirmish in 2020 with Indian troops in the torch relay ahead of the opening ceremonies.

In addition, just hours before the opening ceremonies, Chinese President Xi Jinping met with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who flew to China for the Games. It was the first face-to-face meeting Xi has had with another world leader in nearly two years. In a joint statement after the meeting, China and Russia declared a “no limits” partnership. Beijing supported Russia’s demand that Ukraine should not be admitted into NATO, while Moscow opposed any form of independence for Taiwan. The agreement marked the most detailed and assertive statement of Russian and Chinese resolve to work together.

China

In a press conference shortly after the Winter Games kicked off, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian condemned “the political hype with malicious smear” against China surrounding the Games. When asked directly about China’s decision at the opening ceremony to have the cauldron lit by a Uyghur torchbearer, Lijian boasted China’s “ethnic unity,” asserting, “We are glad to see athletes from all ethnic groups, including Dinigeer Yilamujiang, join the Chinese delegation.”

When asked about the decision to select the PLA commander in the wake of criticism from India, Lijian defended the move: “I want to stress that the torchbearers…are broadly representative. We hope that the relevant sides can view this in a rational and objective light and do not read too much into it from a political perspective.”

In terms of the meeting with Russia, according to Xinhua News Agency, Chinese President Xi “stands ready to work with Putin to chart the future and provide guidance for bilateral relations under new historical circumstances.”

The nationalist Global Times compares China’s progress between its two Olympics: “Back in 2008… the opening ceremony made a statement: China has arrived. In 2022, China no longer needs to prove its standing on the world stage… China is already ahead on the leader board.”
In an op-ed for the independent South China Morning Post, journalist Josh Ball observes Xi’s determination despite geopolitical challenges from the West: “Xi was expected to ride on the momentum of the Winter Olympics to push forward his development agenda for northern China.”

India

On February 3, 2022 after Beijing’s surprising move to pick a Chinese soldier involved in the Galwan incident as an Olympic torchbearer, India made the decision to boycott the Olympics at the diplomatic level. Until then, India had made it clear that it would not join the call for boycott though it was not going to send high level representation. The Indian Ministry of External Affairs official spokesperson Arindam Bagchi stated, “It is indeed regrettable that the Chinese side has chosen to politicize an event like the Olympics… India will not be attending the opening or the closing ceremony of the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics.” In addition, the chief of public broadcaster Prasar Bharti, CEO Shashi Shekhar Vempati, said that it “will not telecast live the Opening and Closing ceremonies of the Winter Olympics being held in Beijing.” India’s decision to boycott the games comes months after it adopted the BRICS joint statement in September last year, where it said, “We express our support to China to host the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games.”

In an op-ed for the pro-government Daily Pioneer, Bhopinder Singh, former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry, accuses China of “sports washing” or using a sporting event to distract from serious issues: “Despite its poor human rights record, China is trying hard to project that its world standing is unaffected and that the Games will be a success.”

Russia

Back in December 2021, Russia criticized the US for its diplomatic boycott of Beijing Winter Olympics. “Our position is that the Olympics Game should be free of politics,” Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told reporters according to AFP News Agency. Russia is still formally banned from competing in the 2022 Olympics, amid the fallout from Moscow’s massive state-sponsored doping scandal at the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics — but its competitors can take part under a neutral Olympic flag as Russian Olympic Committee athletes.

In his opening remarks to Xi carried by Russian television, Putin praised “unprecedented” close relations with China. Putin also highlighted close economic ties, including a new contract to supply China with 10 billion cubic meters of gas per year from eastern Russian.

In an op-ed for The Moscow Times, an independent newspaper based in Moscow, reporter Felix Light notes the pivotal role Russia has assumed in the Winter Olympics: “Putin’s presence at the opening ceremony is seen as a symbol of deepening Sino-Russian relations across a range of areas, including relations with the United States, cybersecurity and even Ukraine.”

Japan

Japan did not send any senior officials or cabinet ministers to the Winter Olympics – but stopped short of calling the decision a diplomatic boycott. Japan “believes that respect for human rights is important,” Chief Cabinet Secretary Hirokazu Matsuno said at a news conference. “We made a decision comprehensively. “In an attempt to strike a diplomatic balance in its relationships with both the US and China, Japan instead is sending Yasuhiro Yamashita, the president of the Japanese Olympic Committee, to attend the Games.

As the winter Olympics commenced, the Japanese parliament has added its voice to the global chorus of concern about human rights in China. The Resolution Regarding the Serious Human Rights Situation in Xinjiang Uighur and Other Areas passed almost unanimously on February 1, 2022. The Diet resolution made no direct reference to the People’s Republic of China, and yet there was no mistaking whose behavior this resolution was referring to. The Chinese Foreign Ministry reaction was swift, claiming Japan “has no authority whatsoever to make wanton remarks” about other countries’ human rights conditions.

According to the conservative Asia Nikkei, the policy chief of Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party criticized the government’s announcement that it would not send any government officials to the Beijing Olympics, saying it took too much time: “Tokyo should have swiftly decided on diplomatic boycott.”

Live Updates from Rising Powers on the Russian-Ukraine Border

Policy Alert #244 | January 28, 2022

As more than 100,000 Russian troops amass near Ukraine’s borders, tensions between Ukraine and Russia are heightening. Vladimir Putin has defended the troop buildup, calling it a mere “military exercise.” However, in 2014 Russia invaded Crimea, raising fears in the West that Putin’s recent actions are in preparation for another invasion.

On January 21, 2022, US and Russian diplomats met in Geneva to avoid conflict in Ukraine. No major breakthroughs were made but the two sides agreed to continue dialogue. “Based on the conversations we’ve had… I think there are… a means to address some of the mutual concerns that we have about security,” US Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated. But he also warned, “If any Russian military forces move across Ukraine’s border… it will be met with swift, severe and a united response from the United States and our partners and allies.”

Moscow issued Washington a set of demands, including guarantees that NATO will halt its eastward expansion, rule out membership for Ukraine and other former Soviet countries, and roll back its military deployments in Central and Eastern Europe. The US has delivered the written response Russia requested, in which Blinken confirmed that the US rejected Moscow’s central demand that NATO never admit Ukraine. A follow-up discussion with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is expected in the coming days now that the document is under review in Moscow.

Russia

In meetings with the US, Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov reaffirmed that Russia has “no intention to invade Ukraine” and that fears of an invasion are unfounded. Addressing the State Duma on January 26, 2022, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov denounced the US and its European allies, whose actions are seen as “efforts to contain our country.” Lavrov criticized the US’ unilateral sanctions, the supplying of lethal weapons to Ukraine, and its efforts to draw Ukraine into NATO’s orbit. “We reiterated our principled approach regarding the need to put an end to NATO’s endless eastward expansion,” Lavrov stated. “Many are asking why Russia has adopted such a principled position on the non-expansion of NATO. It’s because this bloc was created against the Soviet Union and continues to ‘work’ against the Russian Federation.”

On January 27, 2022, after receiving the US’ response to Russia’s security guarantee proposals, Lavrov stated the responses offer grounds for serious talks “only on matters of secondary importance.” “There is no positive response to the main issue, which is our clear stand on the continued NATO enlargement towards the east and the deployment of strike weapons that can pose a threat to the territory of the Russian Federation,” Lavrov conveyed.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Russia is currently analyzing the US’ and NATO’s responses. After an inter-agency coordination of their conclusions, they will be submitted to President Vladimir Putin, who will decide further actions.

The Russian news agency TAAS condemns Western countries’ anti-Russian media crusade: “The West’s claims of Russia’s alleged preparations for an invasion of Ukraine serve as an information cover-up in order to plot its own provocations.”

China

In a press conference on January 24, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian reaffirmed China’s position on the Ukraine issue: “We embrace a vision of… sustainable global security… efforts should be made to resolve differences through dialogue and consultation.” Both China and Russia have refuted a Bloomberg report which claimed that Chinese President Xi Jinping had allegedly asked Russian President Vladimir Putin not to invade Ukraine during the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympic Games. Addressing the report, Lijian stated, “It seeks not only to smear and drive a wedge in China-Russia relations, but also to deliberately disrupt and undermine the Beijing Winter Olympics.”

In an op-ed for the nationalist Global Times, editor Chen Qingqing rebukes misinformation about the Ukraine crisis widely circulating among some Western media that could affect China-Russia mutual trust: “This reflects the ‘ill intention’ of the Western forces trying to instigate divergences between Beijing and Moscow.”
In an op-ed for the state-directed China Daily, editor Zhao Huirong frames the Ukraine issue as part of a larger NATO-Russia struggle: “The strategies of the United States and the EU seem aimed at using Ukraine to contain Russia and rally other Eurasian countries support for the West.”
The independent South China Morning Post reveals that Moscow constantly updates Beijing on progress in security talks between the US and Russia, even though China is not related to the talks.

India

Delhi is yet to issue an official statement on the matter, choosing to closely monitor the developments as of now.

In an op-ed for the liberal Indian Express, editor Shubhajit Roy claims that closer Russia-China ties makes Delhi walk the ‘tightrope’ on Ukraine considering the India-China border conflict: “Almost 60 percent of India’s military supplies are Russian-manufactured …India won’t be inclined to rush in with any condemnatory statement against Russia.”
In an op-ed for the business-focused The Economic Times, editor Pranab Dhal Samanta believes India must prepare for the impact of possible military conflict in Ukraine: “A military conflict in Ukraine is undoubtedly strategically undesirable for India. What’s worse is that New Delhi can hardly do much to influence the course of events.”

Japan

On January 22, 2022, Japanese Prime Minister Kishida Fumio held a Japan-U.S. Summit Video Teleconference Meeting with US President Biden. According to a press release by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, “The leaders committed to work closely together to deter Russian aggression against Ukraine. Prime Minister Kishida pledged to continue close coordination with the United States… on taking strong action in response to any attack.” The Russian Foreign Ministry expressed “puzzlement” at the “inadmissibility and senselessness” of Japan’s warning that it was poised to take “strong actions” in light of Russia’s recent actions in Ukraine.

In an article for the US foreign policy magazine Responsible Statecraft, former Japanese ambassador Kazuhiko Togo, whose career was devoted to Russia, is critical of Japan’s policy. Togo judges that Tokyo should firmly present its view regarding the negative consequences of NATO’s 30 years of eastward expansion and the complexity of the Ukraine situation from a Russian perspective: “I believe we need to analyze Russia from a realist point of view. Therefore, the best balancing power structure in Europe is to accept Ukraine as a solid buffer zone between Russia and NATO.”

Rising Powers Face the Omicron Challenge

Policy Alert #243 | January 13, 2022

The Rising Powers have largely managed to keep the highly contagious Omicron at bay even as the variant rages in other parts of the world, but they are now bracing for what may be an inevitable surge.

China

On January 12, 2022, China reported 190 new confirmed coronavirus cases, down from 221 a day earlier, according to the National Health Commission. China is clinging to its “zero-COVID” strategy and further tightening restrictions as Omicron spreads. China quarantines those arriving from abroad for weeks, depending on the province, with three weeks being the most common.

Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian acknowledged the omicron variant will “pose some challenge… to prevent and control the virus.” However, Lijian conveyed his country’s confidence to host the Winter Olympics as scheduled, “smoothly and successfully.”

Xi’an, a city of 13 million people, has been on lockdown since December 22, 2021 after a delta outbreak. Recently, the city of Tianjin went under partial lockdown amid an Omicron outbreak. Beijing’s proximity – 80 miles northwest of Tianjin – is a particular concern for Chinese political leaders ahead of the Winter Olympics.

In an op-ed for the independent South China Morning Post, political economy reporter Ji Siqi scrutinizes China’s “zero-COVID-19 policy”: “While the strategy proved a success early in the pandemic, a more transmissible variant in Omicron, the rising costs of lockdowns, soft domestic consumption, a deteriorating fiscal situation, and increasing dissatisfaction among its population are causing diminishing benefits for China.”
The state-run China Daily vindicates the Chinese government’s zero-tolerance approach to COVID-19 amid the emergence of Omicron: “Efforts by some Western countries to reinstate COVID-19 restrictions have undermined their claims that the approach adopted by China is not sustainable.”

India

In India, which has been recovering from a devastating COVID-19 outbreak in 2021, Omicron is once again raising fears, with more than 700 cases reported. In December 2021, Prime Minister Narendra Modi urged the nation to be vigilant and follow medical guidelines. “The fight against the pandemic is not over…and the need for continued adherence to COVID safe behavior is of paramount importance even today,” the Prime Minister’s Office said in a statement. Arvind Kejriwal, Chief Minister of Delhi, swiftly introduced night curfews, shut down movie theaters, and slashed restaurants and public transport to half capacity in the new year.

In an op-ed for the business-focused The Economic Times, consulting editor Swaminathan Aiyar argues the biggest mistake India can make in fighting Omicron is imposing another lockdown: “Many in India will call for stringent lockdowns…. this would be a mistake. Many global studies…have concluded that lockdowns have more negative than positive effects and can deepen rather than alleviate misery.”
In an op-ed for the centrist Hindustan Times, journalist Poulomi Ghosh believes Omicron is not as much a cause for concern as other variants: “India will see a rise in COVID-19 cases, which may be termed as the third wave, but its impact will not be as severe as that of the first and the second waves.”
In an op-ed for the pro-ruling party Daily Pioneer, journalist Archana Jyoti warns the general perception that Omicron is ‘mild’ should not be taken at face value: “We cannot dismiss Omicron as mild since the sheer number of predicted cases may overwhelm the health system.”

Japan

Japan managed to delay the spread of Omicron for about a month largely thanks to its reimposition of entry restrictions. Prime Minister Fumio Kishida announced, “we will assume the worst and implement the greatest possible measures,” explaining that “it is better to do too much than too little.” But the first locally transmitted cases were confirmed in late-December 2021. Japan plans to maintain its strict border restrictions of barring almost all new entries by foreign nationals until late February.

The U.S. military forces in Japan have come under fire for their failure to conduct PCR tests before flying U.S. personnel to Japan. On January 6, 2022, a record total of 981 newly confirmed cases excluding those among U.S. service members were reported in Okinawa Prefecture. Okinawa Governor Denny Tamaki blasted the U.S. military for allowing Omicron to spill over to the civilian population. In a news conference on January 2, 2022, Tamaki expressed, “I am outraged because the sharp increase in the number of infected… suggests that their [U.S. military personnel] management is insufficient.” Japanese Foreign Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi held talks with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken on January 6, 2022 and asked him to strengthen measures at U.S. military bases, including restricting outings of people tied to the U.S. military.

In a commentary for the centrist Japan Times, contributing writer Brad Glosserman opines that Omicron is the price we pay for vaccine inequality: “Global divide between vaccine haves and have-nots will ensure future COVID-19 variants.”

Russia

Russia is set to face a new surge of coronavirus infections in the new year as Omicron sweeps through an under-vaccinated population. President Vladimir Putin stated Russia has just a “few weeks” to prepare for a new wave of infections. Just 46% of Russians are fully vaccinated as vaccine skepticism has been high since the country launched its mass vaccination campaign in December 2020. The Kremlin has frequently expressed frustration at the slow uptake of the domestically-made Sputnik V vaccine, with many citing distrust of the authorities and fear of new medical products.

Summit for Democracy 2021: Mixed Reviews from Rising Powers

Policy Alert #242 | December 13, 2021

On December 9-10, 2021, US President Joe Biden hosted the virtual Summit for Democracy focused on three pillars: countering authoritarianism, fighting corruption, and promoting respect for human rights. Biden kicked off the two-day gathering with a dire warning that democratic rights and norms are under threat around the world, including in the US. The exclusion of China and Russia drew swift reactions from the countries’ leaders, who rejected the US’ notion of who is a “democratic country” and who is not eligible for such status. The summit comes after the US decision to stage a diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing over human rights abuses in Xinjiang.

US officials have promised action following the gathering, but preparations were overshadowed by questions over some of the invitees’ democratic credentials. The event brought together democracies such as France and Sweden but also countries including the Philippines and Poland, where activists say democracy is under threat. In Asia, some US allies such as Japan and South Korea were invited, while others like Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam were excluded. An invitation was extended to Pakistan, although it did not attend. Hungary was the only EU country not to receive an invitation. An invitation to Taiwan outraged China, although it did not attend as a sovereign state.

China

The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a scathing press statement in response to the Summit for Democracy, accusing the US of turning democracy into a “weapon of mass destruction” to interfere in other countries’ affairs and openly provoke division and confrontation. China hastily convened its own International Forum on Democracy on December 10 that according to state media was joined by politicians and scholars from more than 120 countries.

The Chinese and Russian ambassadors to Washington penned a joint commentary in the National Interest denouncing the Summit for Democracy as “a product of cold war thinking” and claiming that their authoritarian states were simply other models of democracy. The Chinese government also published a white paper called “China: Democracy That Works” as well as a report titled “The State of Democracy in the United States,” in which it claims to “expose the deficiencies and abuse of democracy” in America.

China was irate that the US invited Taiwan to the Summit for Democracy. Interestingly, Pakistan pulled out of the summit after China was not invited. The decision was celebrated by Lijian Zhao, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson, who said on Twitter, “Pakistan declined to attend the democracy summit. A real iron brother!”

In an op-ed for the independent South China Morning Post, Chandran Nair, Founder of the Global Institute for Tomorrow, believes the US’ Summit for Democracy will backfire: “Washington’s Summit for Democracy has made half the world a pariah by defining as ‘authoritarian’ any country that does not share its choice of political system.”
In the nationalist Global Times, Xue Li, Research Fellow at the Institute of World Economics and Politics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, labels the summit as a symbol of the new ‘iron curtain’ of Neo-Westernism: “This… exclusive ‘new Western club’…so as to strike a blow against the so-called new Eastern countries such as China, Russia, Iran, and Hungary.”

India

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi “commended” the US for providing “a timely platform for furthering cooperation among democracies.” In his address to the summit, Modi affirmed the democratic spirit, arguing that respect for rule of law and pluralistic ethos, is “ingrained in Indians.” On Twitter, the PM tweeted, “Happy to have participated in the Summit for Democracy… As the world’s largest democracy, India stands ready to work with our partners to strengthen democratic values globally.”

In an op-ed for the liberal Indian Express, journalist Nirupama Subramanian warned India will be scrutinized at the Summit for Democracy: “Modi’s expected participation in the summit will come against a rather bleak backdrop of relativism, misinformation, confusion, obfuscation and polarization on issues of democracy, civil society and rights.”
In an op-ed for the center right Times of India, Indian journalist and politician Swapan Dasgupta claims Biden’s summit to ‘save’ democracy is “nothing more than virtue signaling.”

Russia

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov fired at the summit, insisting, “Although the event is dubbed the ‘Summit for Democracy,’ it’s not directly related to democracy. The title is no more than a hashtag and a slogan.” In addition to the joint commentary with the Chinese ambassador attacking the summit, Russia issued a separate 2,000-word statement detailing the failings of US democracy, covering corporate manipulation of the media, the illegal enforcement of democracy overseas, and the false charge that the 2020 election may have been stolen from Donald Trump.

The Russian news agency TASS claimed the summit’s goal was not to discuss democracy and human rights but to “fight to ensure the global dominance of the US and like-minded nations.”

Japan

In a speech at the summit, Prime Minister Fumio Kishida called for international solidarity in addressing human rights violations. “It is necessary for like-minded countries to be united in tackling actions that would undermine fundamental values such as freedom, democracy, and the rule of law,” Kishida stated.

COP26 and Surprise US-China Cooperation on Climate Action

Policy Alert #241 | November 16, 2021

The 26th session of the Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP26) came to an end on November 13, 2021. The main task for COP26 was to finalize the rules and procedures for implementation of the Paris Agreement. After two weeks of intense deliberations, nearly 200 countries adopted The Glasgow Climate Pact.

The most consequential change was arguably language that requests parties to attend COP27 in Egypt next year, with updated plans on how to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. The question now is, will countries actually do it? The Pact expressed “deep regrets” over the failure of developed countries to deliver on their $100 billion promise to help developing nations adapt to the climate crisis. The Pact has asked them to arrange this money urgently and in every year until 2025.

Notably, the Glasgow Climate Pact is the first UN climate deal to explicitly mention the need to move away from coal power and subsidies for fossil fuels. However, in the face of lobbying from top fossil-fuel-producing countries, this language was watered down during the negotiations. China and India successfully pushed for a last-minute change to the crucial phrase, saying they would agree only to “phase-down unabated coal,” rather than “phase out.”

In an unexpected development, the United States and China announced a Joint Declaration on Climate Change. US Climate Envoy John Kerry and Chinese climate envoy, Xie Zhenhua, were seen consulting with each other frequently on the sidelines of the conference. The world’s two largest greenhouse gas emitters cooperated with one another more than expected considering the strained ties between Washington and Beijing.

Many world leaders expressed disappointment with the climate deal that emerged in Glasgow. “We’re all well aware that, collectively, our climate ambition and action to date have fallen short on the promises made in Paris,” proclaimed Alok Sharma, President for COP26, after the last-minute change to the fossil fuels provision. But if governments follow through on commitments made during COP26 and ramp up ambition in the next few years, the goals of the Paris Agreement could be within reach.

In this Policy Alert, we examine the rising powers’ reactions to COP26.

China

In a press conference on November 15, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian lamented over the actions of developed countries, which “have not fully responded to the core concerns of developing countries such as adaptation, financing and technical support.” On the other hand, Lijian acknowledged newfound cooperation with the US, claiming “China and the US issued the Joint Glasgow Declaration on Enhancing Climate Action in the 2020s, which provided an important solution to bridging differences among parties.”

In the nationalist Global Times, Lin Boqiang, Director of the China Center for Energy Economics Research at Xiamen University, protests the West’s criticism of China and India for changing the wording of the coal deal: “It is unfair for developed countries, which have been relying on coal to fuel economic development, unrestrained for centuries, to ask developing countries, who just started an economic take off, to abandon coal completely.”
The nationalist Global Times labels the China-US climate declaration as a key step in the right direction: “It not only injected positive energy to global climate actions and success of COP26, but boosted confidence in future bilateral cooperation within the framework of APEC, and created a good atmosphere for the reported Xi-Biden virtual summit.”
In an op-ed for the independent South China Morning Post, Philip J. Cunningham, author of Tiananmen Moon, believes Biden’s criticism of Xi’s COP26 absence is inappropriate: “Given the pandemic, it’s reasonable for leaders to think carefully about international travel… More importantly… the UN climate event, which requires thousands of people to fly in, is hardly environmentally friendly.”

India

Prime Minister Modi declared India’s goal to achieve the net zero target of balancing the country’s energy consumption by 2070. He also laid out “Panchamrit” or five key points of heading towards this target, including increasing India’s non-fossil energy capacity to 500 gigawatts by 2030 and reducing its total projected carbon emissions by 1 billion tons. India’s new commitments generated positive attention the first two days in Glasgow. However, in the final day of the summit, Indian Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav insisted that the language on coal usage be changed to phased “down” instead of phased “out.” Defending his position, Yadav asserted, “How can anyone expect developing countries to make promises about phasing out coal and fossil fuel subsidies? Subsidies provide much needed social security and support.”

In an op-ed for the liberal Indian Express, Shyam Saran, Former Foreign Secretary of India, argues India’s introduction of an amendment to “phase down” instead of “phase out” coal played negatively with both the developed and developing countries: “It was inept diplomacy… India’s ill-considered amendment on the phasing out of coal pushed the positives of its position off the radar.”
The business-focused The Economic Times alleges that the visible resistance from India on the final text of the Glasgow Climate Pact helped conceal the role played by China and even the U.S. in the weakened outcome: “It was the U.S. and China who first embraced the term “phase-down” in their bilateral climate agreement, which was adopted in the middle of COP26… yet it was India left looking like the primary holdout on behalf of coal.”
The pro-government The Pioneer underlines Modi’s calls to ensure transparent climate finance on the sidelines of COP26: “India has been objecting to Chinese infrastructure building in its neighborhood under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Under the BRI, China and Pakistan are building many infrastructure projects, including in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.”

Japan

According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, Prime Minister Fumio Kishida “stated his own determination that Japan will be working in full force to take on climate change.” Japan pledged an additional $2 billion per year for the next five years to help developing countries adapt to the effects of climate change. However, Japan did not sign an agreement to phase out coal power at the UN climate talks because it needed to preserve all its options for power generation, officials claimed.

The centrist Japan Times quoted criticism directed at Japan, the world’s third-biggest importer of fossil fuels, in its failure to sign an agreement to phase out coal power: “Despite Prime Minister Kishida pledging to direct increased funding to climate finance… he failed to address… Japan’s dependency on coal.”

G20 Summit 2021 Leaves Uphill Battle for COP26

Policy Alert #240 | November 3, 2021

The Group of Twenty (G20) convened on October 30-31, 2021 for the Rome Summit, ahead of the UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) on October 31 – November 12, 2021. Leaders of the world’s 20 biggest economies – with the exception of China, Russia, Japan and Mexico – met for the first time in-person since the start of the pandemic. On the first day, health and the economy were top of the agenda, with the subsequent Rome Declaration notably establishing a global minimum tax rate, which will see the profits of large businesses taxed at least 15%. The more difficult climate discussions were saved for the second day but hopes the Rome Summit might pave the way to success in Glasgow have dimmed considerably. The G20 appeared to make few commitments to strong measures necessary to avert the threat of climate change. UN Secretary-General António Guterres summarized his thoughts on the G20 in a tweet: “While I welcome the #G20’s recommitment to global solutions, I leave Rome with my hopes unfulfilled — but at least they are not buried… onwards to #COP26 in Glasgow.”

China

President Xi Jinping attended the G20 Summit via video link while State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi attended the summit in-person as Xi’s special representative. Xi has not left China since January 2020, ostensibly due to COVID-19, though officials have not said so explicitly. In a press conference, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Wang Wenbin outlined Xi’s remarks, which provided a “formula pointing out that the international community should work in solidarity to combat COVID-19, take effective measures to promote world economic recovery and adopt long-term policies to improve global governance.” Wenbin underlined China’s commitment to “deeply participate in G20 cooperation,” and told reporters to “stay tuned” for information about China’s attendance at COP26.

On the sidelines of the G20, Wang Yi and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken met face-to-face, locking horns over Taiwan. While the U.S. accused China of aggressive action in the Taiwan Strait, Wang Yi urged the U.S. to “pursue a real one-China policy, instead of a fake one.” According to China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Blinken had reaffirmed that “the U.S. will keep insistence on the one-China policy.” The meeting was “exceptionally candid” but productive, according to one U.S. official, and will help lay the groundwork for a virtual Biden-Xi summit later this year.

In the nationalist Global Times, Xin Qiang, deputy director of the Center for American Studies at Fudan University, contrasts the diplomats’ Rome meeting to the Alaska meeting in March: “In contrast to the March meeting… when the Biden administration had not yet fully defined its China policy, the meeting in Rome focused on very specific issues… The main purpose… for the Chinese delegation was to warn the U.S. to be careful… on Taiwan.”
The independent South China Morning Post reports Biden had criticized Chinese and Russian contributions at the G20 amid the leaders’ absences: “Russia and… China basically didn’t show up in terms of any commitments to deal with climate. And there’s a reason why people should be disappointed in that. I found it disappointing myself.”

India

Prime Minister Narendra Modi was notably the only leader among the rising powers to attend the G20 Summit in-person. Modi discussed a wide range of issues in his address, including climate change and pandemic recovery, stating, “To fight the global corona pandemic, we have put forward the vision of ‘One Earth-One Health’ to the world. This vision can become a great strength for the world to deal with any such crisis in future.” He invited the member countries “to make India their trusted partner in their economic recovery and supply chain diversification.”

In addition, Modi held several bilateral meetings on the sidelines of the G20. In a press release regarding India’s bilateral meeting with French President Macron, the two leaders reaffirmed their commitment to a “free, open and rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific.” “I do recall that AUKUS came up but very tangentially in the conversation,” Foreign Secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla added. Furthermore, Modi made his first-ever visit to Pope Francis in Vatican City.

The liberal Hindustan Times laments that the message from Rome is simple: “Chances of a breakthrough at the Glasgow climate conference are slim.”
The pro-government The Pioneer argues that Modi’s invitation to Pope Francis to visit India is building India’s global image: “This should somewhat help Modi to shun his Hindu hardliner approach that the world is wary of… A little change in perception and approach can change the way the world sees India.”
In an op-ed for the liberal Indian Express, Tejal Kanitkar, associate professor at NIAS, Bangalore, warns that India’s efforts in the energy sector are evidence that it is punching far above its weight in climate action: “The pressure on developing countries to ‘do more’ and declare similar net-zero pledges as developed countries… is… shifting the burden of climate action onto the backs of the world’s poorest populations.”
The business-focused The Economic Times criticizes the leaders of the G20 for their “timid leadership” on climate and the economy: “The G20 agreed on the tax accord reached by 136 countries, for a minimum rate of corporate tax across nations…How tough is endorsing a done deal?”

Japan

Due to Japan’s general election on October 31, Fumio Kishida, Japan’s new prime minister, attended the G20 virtually. Kishida shared his economic policy in an online presentation during the Global Economy and Global Health session of the summit. The Japanese prime minister will be present in-person at COP26 in Glasgow, which marks his first overseas trip since becoming prime minister on October 4. Kishida told COP26 Japan would offer $10 billion over five years in additional assistance to support decarbonization in Asia. During his stay in Glasgow, Kishida is also scheduled to hold bilateral talks with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Vietnamese Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh.

The centrist Japan Times indicates Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s desire to partake in diplomatic activities amid China’s growing clout: “Kishida is set to pledge that Japan will play a leading role in putting Asia on a path to zero carbon emissions as he attends a UN climate summit… while seeking to network with countries sharing concerns over China’s assertiveness on the sidelines.”

Russia

Russian President Vladimir Putin did not attend the G20 Summit in-person, nor is he expected to attend the subsequent climate summit, but he took part via video link. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov conveyed Putin’s decision was driven by the pandemic. Putin complained about the lack of international recognition for its Sputnik V vaccine at the G20, urging leaders to discuss the mutual recognition of vaccines. During the G20 Summit, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov rejected U.S. allegations that Russia was not doing enough on climate change. Asked why Russia did not subscribe to net zero by 2050, Lavrov responded, “G7 negotiated the draft declaration… that is how the original declaration contained 2050 as a date… We do not like to go by…empty promises… We will reach carbon neutrality by.. 2060… but nobody has proven…2050 is something everybody must subscribe to.”