Policy Alerts – Page 17 – Rising Powers Initiative

10 Years After 9/11: What Key Asian States are Saying

Policy Alert #12 | September 11, 2011

This past weekend, the U.S. commemorated the ten year anniversary of the September 11 attacks. Across the globe, other countries also took a moment to reflect on this day. In this Policy Alert, we examine views from Russia, India, China and Japan.

RUSSIA

InRussia, commentators asserted thatU.S.unilateralism in the “war on terror” has interfered in the internal affairs of sovereign countries. At the same time, they concede that the Kremlin also lost an opportunity to deepen U.S.-Russian relations in the 9/11 aftermath.

The Russian Foreign Ministry stated that although the 9/11 attacks were “provocative and cruel,” they also led to broad international cooperation that has helped to bring global counter-terrorism cooperation to a higher level. The Foreign Ministry emphasized thatRussia supports an international coalition of nations, as opposed to some form of unilateralism, as the best mechanism for battling against the specter of terrorism.

Multiple commentaries described the 9/11 tragedy and subsequent global fight against terrorism as a missed opportunity for the Kremlin to boost ties with the West:

The Moscow Times, which tends to express opinion that the Rising Powers Initiative characterizes as Pro-Western Liberal, favoring modernization and integration with the West, noted that although U.S.-Russian cooperation got off to a strong start after 9/11, it quickly fizzled. “Moscow was counting on getting something in return fromWashington…butWashington simply tookMoscow’s assistance for granted, interpreting it as a response that any civilized country would have taken to support a partner hit by a major terrorist attack.”

Fyodor Lukyanov, editor-in-chief of the Russia in Global Affairs journal, corroborated this view, asserting that “good will and compromise on strategic issues are always the result of tough bargaining and never reciprocity.” Ultimately, Lukyanov concludes,Russia’s tough stance towards theU.S. was “the result of feeling that it had been betrayed,” leadingMoscow to conclude that “only power is respected in this world.”

Another editorial in The Moscow Times attributes the dramatic increase in opium production and drug addiction-related deaths in Russia as an offshoot of the decline in U.S.-Russian security cooperation. The author insists that Washington has a “moral responsibility” to help Moscow control the flow of drugs from Afghanistan.

RIA Novosti military commentator Konstantin Bogdanov remarked, “If there’s anything that the ten years of the ‘war on terror’ have demonstrated, it’s that the world leader is incredibly isolated. America is stubbornly and methodically trying to impose its own designs on a desperately recalcitrant world.” As the state news agency, RIA Novosti’s views are close to the current government position and reflect what the Rising Powers Initiative has identified as the Great Power Balancers viewpoint—those that seek great power status in relations with U.S. and China.

INDIA

In India, 9/11 was an occasion to reflect on the country’s own problems with terrorism, in the context ofAmerica’s war on terror over the past ten years.

“For India, the biggest change induced by 9/11 has been the world’s willingness to acknowledge jihadi terror as a common enemy, whether it targets Madrid or Mumbai,” says The Economic Times. The editorial criticizesIslamabad for allowing its armed forces to use terror tactics againstIndia, and says that “US funding ofPakistan is yet to come to terms with this reality.”

On the other hand, the Hindustan Times features an op-ed by a MP from the Communist Party of India, who says “we can only share the agony of our [Pakistani] brethren across the border,” where over 35,000 Pakistanis have been killed between 2004 and 2010. Citing civilian casualties inIraq andAfghanistan, he laments that “state terrorism unleashed by theUS and NATO and terrorism perpetrated by individual fundamentalist organizations only feed on each other.”

In contrast, an op-ed in The Hindu is more self-critical, reflecting a Neo-Nationalist perspective identified by the Rising Powers Initiative as primarily concerned with national stability and balanced growth. It points to “a larger political failure to transform a culture of exclusion that privileges religious and ethnic identity over citizenship.” The soul-searching piece continues, “India’s key failure since 9/11 has been the inability to hold honest national conversation about communal violence, and the ways it is embedded in our cultures.”

Reflecting on how America’s own culture has been affected by the terrorist threat over the past decade, an op-ed in The Times of India asks whether the US has overextended itself, both financially and in its moral ideals. The writer characterizes overseas CIA and JSCO operations as “a secretUS killing machine abroad” that is “unparalleled in the history of the land of the brave and home of the free,” while domestic surveillance work in theUnited States has been of “the kind [that] totalitarian regimes and dictatorships are pilloried for.”

CHINA

Chinese commentary was comparatively sparse, and where opinions were published, the tone was mild.

The Jiefang Daily, which usually expresses a Realist or even Nativist school of thought, published an op-ed that reflected the Major Powers School. The latter perspective has been identified by the Rising Powers Initiative as one that advocates diplomacy with the world’s major powers and blocs, rather than concentrating on national strengthening or closing China’s doors to the world. The op-ed discusses changes in the balance of world power since 9/11, and points out that the economic development of China, India and Brazil has “advanced the world’s multi-polarization process.” It further stresses that “the trend of peace and development [inEast Asia] is irreversible. However, the op-ed refrains from directly challenging theUS role inAsia, noting that US has a “stronger resilience and correction mechanism” and still has a “leading role in military, economic and technological areas.”

JAPAN

Commentary in Japan focused on the costs of the post-9/11 global fight on terrorism, both to the U.S.economy and to U.S.-Japan relations.

Citing various U.S.military engagements across the globe since 9/11, the Asahi Shimbun argued that “the quagmire of the war is hurting American society like a body blow.” Moreover, the editorial asserts, “Japan’s decision to support a war without cause, made under strong pressure from Washington, deeply damaged the [U.S.-Japan] bilateral relationship.”

The Yomiuri Shimbun describes America’s wars as “ruinous,” and adds that President Obama’s inward-focus on rebuilding the American economy “indicates he feels strongly the United States is in decline.” Meanwhile, “newly emerging countries have achieved a high level of economic growth during the same period. China, which has shown remarkable growth, surpassed Japan to become the No. 2 economy in the world, and has been beefing up its military strength.” For these reasons, the Yomiuri concludes that both countries must deepen the U.S.-Japan alliance in order to stabilizeAsia.

The U.S. Debt Impasse and Views from Greater Asia

Policy Alert #11 | July 29, 2011

With the deadline for a U.S. credit default just two weeks away, concern mounts over the consequences of a U.S. government delay or paralysis in resolving the debt ceiling crisis. Overseas, countries holding large sums of U.S. Treasury securities are watching the debate with heightened apprehension and scrutiny. In this Policy Alert, we examine Chinese, Russian, and Indian views on the U.S. debt impasse.

CHINA

As the U.S.’ largest creditor, China has repeatedly called for compromise in the debt talks while encouraging Washington to protect China’s investments in the U.S. debt market. Meanwhile, Chinese ratings agency Dagong placed the U.S. on negative watch for a possible downgrade, highlighting the increasing role of rating agencies as a political tool to influence the global financial system.

At a regular news briefing in Beijing, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei expressed hope that “the U.S. government adopts responsible policies and measures to guarantee the interests of investors.”

“I think there is a risk that the U.S. debt default may happen,” said Li Daokui, advisor to the People’s Bank of China. “The result of U.S. debt default is very serious and Republican lawmakers should stop playing with fire.” Li’s comments also underscored that China is constrained by its vast holdings of Treasuries, and that it is best protected against a U.S. debt default if it stands by the United States. “China can promise that we will not sell our holdings of U.S. debt, but the United States must also promise that you will not hurt our interests by guaranteeing the safety of our investment,” he said.

Dagong Global Rating Co. Ltd. announced that it is likely to downgrade the U.S.’ sovereign credit rating regardless of whether Congress reaches an agreement on raising its statutory debt limit. Dagong currently rates the U.S. at A+, but has threatened to downgrade its rating even further. The highest possible rating is AAA+. According to Guan Jianzhong, chairman and CEO of Dagong, the downgrading is really just “a matter of time and extent.”

RUSSIA

In Russia, commentary was cynical across the board with allusions to the massive financial disaster that may result in global markets should the U.S. government fail to raise the debt ceiling.

Harshly critical, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin accused the U.S. of ‘hooliganism’ over the U.S. government’s efforts to ease its financial problems by injecting hundreds of billions of dollars into the economy. He has come out as an “ardent supporter” for the creation of a new ratings agency, the Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC). “It’s madness to trust American rating agencies,” Sergei Glazyev, EurAsEC ‘s deputy general secretary argued. “The market is objectively interested in new reference points.”

“It is clear that the Republicans do not want to come to Obama’s aid…but it is unclear why they insist on keeping the rest of the world in suspense,” remarked political commentator Andrei Fedyashin in the state-run Ria Novosti. “In European eyes, these developments in the White House are a farce rather than a tragedy. It is something akin to taking the world’s financial and economic players hostage and making them the captive audience to an American soap opera that has evoked little but bewilderment and confusion.”

INDIA

India appears divided over the possibility and the implications of a potential debt default, with some expressing confidence that a U.S. default will be averted because the consequences will be too disastrous otherwise, while others encourage India to prepare for the worst.

“How can the U.S. be allowed to default?” asked an official at India’s central bank. “We don’t think this is a possibility because this could then create huge panic globally.” Indian officials noted that they have little choice but to buy U.S. Treasury debt because it is still among the world’s safest and most liquid investments. According to U.S. Data, it held $42.1 billion in U.S. Treasuries as of April 2011.

Financial Express commentator K Vaidya Nathan observed that even though the possibility of a substantial number of downgrades of triple-triple assets is low, the world should be better prepared for such shocks. Nathan notes that if the U.S. government loses its AAA credit rating, U.S. entities across the ratings spectrum would go down a grade as well.

Asian Views on the Next IMF Chief

Policy Alert #10 | June 29, 2011

Following the resignation of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the IMF’s June 30 deadline for choosing a new managing director is rapidly approaching. The only two candidates are France’s Finance Minister, Christine Lagarde, and Mexico’s Central Bank governor, Agustín Carsten. In this Policy Alert, we examine the domestic viewpoints of China, India, Japan and Russia on the upcoming selection.

CHINA

In China, commentators vigorously called for an open and competitive process for the new IMF head’s selection, with greater representation amongst emerging markets and developing members.

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu stated that the chief of the IMF should be chosen through “democratic consultation with a merit-based and transparent selection process.” Jiang said China has noticed that some countries have named their candidates, but she did not talk about China’s preference toward the candidates.
Editorials discredited the age-old convention of a European IMF managing director and an American World Bank president:
- The notion that a European IMF chief would be best suited to deal with the European crisis because he/she would understand the region better is a double-standard, argues Xinhua. “When East Asian countries suffered a debt crisis from 1997 to 1999 and the IMF’s main clients became Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea, no one argued that the IMF should be led by an Asian because he/she could understand the region’s problems more deeply.”
- “Europe should pass the IMF baton to Asia,” runs a China Daily headline. The IMF “should no longer function in a way that gives one continent such potent power over its functioning,” since such tactics are “zero-sum” and harmful to the entire world. “The rest of the world needs to tell the EU that its members will have to swallow the same bitter pills that people in Asia, Africa and South America have been subjected to for so long, rather than be accommodated and mollycoddled while the rest of the world is denied of its rights.”
- The China Daily noted that the recent joint statement made by the BRICS countries’ IMF executive directors is a much-needed example of coordination among emerging markets. “To properly reflect the growing role of developing countries, which are still under-represented in this [the IMF] and many other major international institutions, the BRICS countries should be more confident in asserting their common position, even if that may annoy others.”
- The Global Times argued that an increased Chinese presence at the senior management level will “reinforce the attention of the IMF to the emerging economies as well as improve the economic and trading relationship between developing and developed countries.”

INDIA

India appears resigned to the idea of Europe continuing its hold on the managing-director position, but has joined other emerging countries in criticizing the selection process.

The Economic Times noted that as a rising superpower, “India is in a far better position to understand the compulsions of borrowers and ground realities of countries under fiscal stress.”
The Hindu reports that French candidate Christine Lagarde received no assurance from the Indian leadership during a June 7 visit seeking support for her candidacy. Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee confirmed this, adding that “the selection of the managing director…should be on the basis of merit, competence, and (be made) in a transparent manner.” Following Mexican candidate Agustín Carsten’s visit a few days later, Mukherjee stated that he is in touch with his counterparts and that they will announce their decision at “an appropriate time.”

• Multiple observers point to the increasing role of the BRICS in multilateral institutions:

The India Express noted that regardless of the vote outcome, Lagarde’s lobbying in BRIC nations shows that “the West has stopped taking their past privileges for granted.” This is a welcome sign of change since, “the Brahmins of the global economic order are not known to go around the developing world desperately canvassing support to get elected.”
Regarding the First Deputy Managing Director position which will become vacant following the incumbent John Lipsky’s retirement in August, one commentator remarked that “since conventionally the IMF’s No. 2 position has always gone to an American, the first target should be this position. Once this is achieved, the prize positions will fall in no time.”
“Rework the fundamentals,” urged The Hindustan Times. “For a pertinent approach to the crises of the future, the IMF can only gain by infusing new blood…Asia’s export-led strategy, built on artificially low exchange rates, gives it an inordinately big voice in currency talks. Any impression that it is being denied entry into global institutions can exert a perverse pressure to dig deeper into entrenched positions on exchange and interest rates, to the detriment of world trade.”

JAPAN

The press appears preoccupied with Japan’s domestic politics, with little coverage on how it regards the vacant IMF position or who should fill it.
Dubbing Japan “The Silent IMF Partner,” the Japan Times noted the absence of response to the upcoming vote, despite the fact that Japan is still the number 2 shareholder in the IMF with 6.25 percent of the vote after the United States with 16.8 percent.

RUSSIA

Commentators warn that Russia needs to understand the changes underway in contemporary Europe in order to assess the opportunities and risks occasioned by a new reality.

• Russian leadership appears divided on what stance the Kremlin should take in the selection:

Vladimir Putin expressed strong support for Lagarde’s bid, saying that he considers her candidacy “quite acceptable” and that “the French candidate is undoubtedly very serious.”
Meanwhile, speaking on the opening day of the G8 summit, President Dmitry Medvedev said that the BRICS deserve better representation in the IMF’s top tiers, emphasizing that “new regulations for the functioning of the world economy should be drawn up by the widest possible international representation.”
“Better a Technocrat at the IMF,” declared one commentary in The Moscow Times, noting that the three politicians occupying the IMF’s top position in the past decade “have proved a disappointment.” The commentary also observes that “Medvedev, representing a historic European power, stands with one foot in the European camp and the other with his BRICS partners.”
Noting that “Europe’s privileges are diminishing as the world’s political and economic reality shifts away from the institutional design of the past century,” Fyodor Lukyanov, editor-in-chief of the Russia in Global Affairs journal warns that “although the guarantees on the Bretton Woods system are not as strong…the Old World is not going to give up without a fight.” He also suggests that “the idea of preserving the status quo at all costs is being fueled by external factors- from economic rivalry and migration pressure to the erosion of cultural identity. Politically, this has been reflected not only in an upsurge of right-wing populists but rather in a subtle paradigm shift wherein the entire mainstream has moved to the right.”

Reactions to Bin Laden’s Death

Policy Alert #9 | May 29, 2011

How is the Asian region responding to the death of Osama bin Laden? In this blog post, we examine the domestic viewpoints of India, Iran, Russia, China and Japan, especially their reflections on terrorism, U.S. presence in Afghanistan, and the role of Pakistan.

INDIA

In India, most commentaries focused on India’s relations with Pakistan and Afghanistan, while some reflected on the ongoing democratization processes in the Middle East.

The Hindu described the revelation of bin Laden’s presence in Pakistan as a “moment of truth…similar to the discovery that the 2008 Mumbai attacks were launched from its territory,” but it nevertheless urged restraint in Indian diplomacy: “While it may be tempting to see bin Laden’s killing at Abbottabad as confirmation of India’s worst fears, New Delhi must resist the temptation to crow, and must push ahead with the peace process with the civilian government of Pakistan.” The Indian Express had a similar view, saying “India has to continue to be innovative and largehearted in engaging with as large a section of the Pakistani establishment as it can.
The Times of India wondered whether the U.S. would accelerate its troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, and expressed deep worry that this could “easily lead to chaos with serious security ramifications for the region, including India.” The Indian Express urged more cooperation with the U.S. on Af-Pak peace: “The death in Abbottabad is a reminder of the realism needed to negotiate the new great game being played for Afghanistan after the drawdown of American troop presence….Given its limited leverage within Pakistan, India must also be engaged with the US and the international community on steps towards Af-Pak peace, to prevent the re-emergence of Afghanistan as a hotbed for extremism and also to enable political stability in Pakistan.
Other commentaries in the Hindustan Times, Economic Times, and Indian Express all noted that al-Qaeda had originally sought to overthrow the regimes of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, but now the pro-democracy movements of the “Arab spring” are showing the region’s disenfranchised youth an alternative to religious radicalism in pushing for political change.

IRAN

An analysis by Semira N. Nikou of the United States Institute for Peace notes that the general reaction in Iran “discounted Osama bin Laden’s death while at the same time calling for a faster U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, since the pretext for going to war was eliminated.”

Ramin Mehmanparast, the Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson, said the “US and their allies have no more excuse to deploy forces in the Middle East under pretext of fighting terrorism.” In a similar tone, defense minister Ahmad Vahidi emphasized the casualties from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, commenting that Americans had “inflicted much damage to the region to kill only one individual.”
Bin Laden’s death also provided a chance to highlight Iran’s view of terrorism. Mehmanparast also stated, “Iran, as one of the main victims of terrorism, strongly condemns any act of terror in the world including organized terrorism in the Zionist regime [of Israel].” Commenting on this issue from a different angle, member of parliament Kazen Jalali said the spread of terrorism across the region is “rooted in the United States presence in the area.”
There was also some speculation of motives for the killing. An editorial in Farda News, a website close to the conservative Tehran mayor, wrote: “Obama’s party needed to rectify the reputations of the Democratic Party and the U.S. military’s foreign policy with an apparent successful military operation.

RUSSIA

Official reactions used this chance to highlight Russia’s own problem with terrorism in the North Caucasus region, drawing parallels with the killing of Chechen leader Shamil Basayev and noting the historical connection between al-Qaeda and the North Caucasus.

The Kremlin released a brief statement on May 2: “Russia was one of the first countries to encounter the dangers of global terrorism, and, sadly, knows from first-hand experience what Al-Qaeda is all about.” It said Russia was ready to expand cooperation with international efforts to combat terrorism.
More than a week later, President Dmitry Medvedev commented for the first time on bin Laden’s killing: “The liquidation of terrorists, even on the level of … bin Laden, has a direct relationship to the level of security on the territory of our state…It is no secret that the well known terrorist network al-Qaida has regularly sent and continues to send its emissaries to the territory of our state.

At this sensitive time, it was noteworthy that Pakistan President Asif Ali Zardari’s first foreign visit since the killing of bin Laden was a trip to Moscow, on May 11.

In light of Zardari’s visit, foreign policy expert Fyodor Lukyanov analyzed Russia’s view on regional cooperation: “Neighboring countries don’t want U.S. bases permanently deployed in Afghanistan. Russia, China, India and Iran have all supported a vague “regional” solution, advocating a reliance on Kabul rather than on Western troops. One of Moscow’s ideas for a regional solution involves an enhanced role for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.” On the question of admitting new members to the SCO, “Russia would like to see India become a full member, while China prefers Pakistan. However, Moscow will only agree to that if India is also admitted.

CHINA

The government marked bin Laden’s death as a positive milestone, while defending its allyPakistan amid growing controversy surrounding the possibility that the Pakistani government had knowledge of bin Laden’s whereabouts. Other reactions are mixed, ranging from sympathetic to jubilant.

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu stated that bin Laden’s death is a milestone and a positive development for international anti-terrorism efforts. “China upholds that the international community should step up cooperation in working together to fight terrorism,” said Jiang. “China believes that it is necessary to seek both a temporary solution and a permanent cure in fighting terrorism and to make great efforts to eliminate the soil on which terrorism relies to breed.”
On another note, the Global Times wrote that “The US should not indulge in a new bout of narcissism over its hard power simply because bin Laden is dead.” While theUS has obtained a temporary peace, there is still a long way to go in eliminating terrorism and extremism.
Responding to a Wall Street Journal article describing the outpouring of sympathy for bin Laden’s death in the Chinese blogosphere, Gao Lei argued that fringe praise for Osama doesn’t represent the Chinese public. “The death of Bin Laden seems to have offered another perfect chance for some to demonize China by painting the country as a sympathizer with terrorists.”

JAPAN

Japan expressed continued support forU.S.counter-terrorism efforts while beefing up its own security at defense bases and camps.

Prime Minister Naoto Kansaid, “We welcome this significant progress in counter-terrorism measures, and I pay respect to the efforts by the officials concerned, including those in the United Statesand Pakistan.” He cautioned that continued international cooperation was necessary to combat ongoing terrorist threats.
Japan also tightened security at military facilities to guard against any potential retaliatory assaults from terrorist groups in the wake of bin Laden’s death. “We cannot presume what could happen in terms of retaliation, but we want to increase the frequency of patrols at camps and bases,” said Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa.

Military Intervention in Libya

Policy Alert #8 | March 29, 2011

China, Russia and India abstained on UN Security Council Resolution No. 1973, which authorized a no-fly zone over Libya and the use of force to protect civilians. As military intervention in Libya enters its sixth day, what are the Chinese, Russian and Indian views and reactions?

CHINA

Officially-sanctioned views, as reflected in the People’s Daily, lambast the military intervention in Libya and cast it as a Western initiative.

“How humanitarian is Western intervention in Libya?” asks one op-ed. “This so-called ‘humanitarianism’ is actually just the first step toward overthrowing of another country’s political power.”
They point to Libya’s oil resources as the underlying motive. “The military involvement of Western coalitions in the Middle East is closely associated with oil reserves and strategic interests. Iraq was invaded for oil. Now it is Libya.”
It is noteworthy that the criticism is generally directed at the “West,” and not specifically at the United States, since “the U.S. withdrew to the second line this time.” The U.S. position is understood to be “a compromise between the realism of the secretary of defense and the idealism of the secretary of state.”
The way to act responsibly, on the other hand, is to follow China’s example, says the People’s Daily. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, China voted in favor of sanctions on Libya but “did not block” the resolution on a no-fly zone because it took into consideration the positions of Arab countries and the African Union. “China once again insisted on consistent principles and showed the image of a responsible country.”

RUSSIA

Much attention in Russia is on the apparent split between President Dmitry Medvedev and Premier Vladmir Putin over the Libyan crisis.

Putin had called the military intervention in Libya a “medieval crusade,” and said that U.S. militarism had become a steady trend. Medvedev dismissed Putin’s language as “unacceptable,” and explained that the reason Russia did not veto the UN resolution was because it “broadly reflects our view of what is happening in Libya, although not across the board.”
This dispute between Medvedev and Putin, as well as Russia’s abstention on the UN resolution, have sparked heated debates over Russia’s role in global politics and the overall direction of its foreign policy.
According to Fyodor Lukyanov, Editor-in-Chief of Russia in Global Affairs, Medvedev reflects the view that Russia is a regional power whose vital interests are geographically limited, whereas Putin represents the belief that Russia should assert itself and resist US attempts at global hegemony.

Some argue that Russia’s ambiguous position is advantageous, because it allows Russia to “distance itself from hostilities that lead to civilian casualties” while staying on good terms with the West and being able to “retain its assets in Libya after the overthrow of the dictator.”
Others say that Russia cannot sit on the fence, because whether it positions itself as a regional or global power, “showing that its authorities lack a coordinated policy…is particularly damaging in view of the growing chaos in the world.”
Opinion is also divided on the implications for the “reset” in Russia-US relations. An op-ed in the Moscow Times says that Russia’s abstention shows quite clearly that the country is moving along a “Western-friendly course.” The more pessimistic view points to the Russian media’s depiction that the military operations are largely US-led, and that this “bitterness over Washington’s decision to go to war with Libya makes any fundamental changes in U.S.-Russian relations highly unlikely for the time being.”
General assessment of the military intervention also reflect diverse opinions. Alexei Arbatov, head of the International Security Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences, worries that Iran, Syria and other countries proliferating weapons of mass destruction will now think that Gaddafi should not have given up his nuclear program several years ago.
Lyudmila Alekseyeva, head of the Moscow Helsinki Group, Russia’s oldest human rights organization, believes that the military strike, under the auspices of the UN, is “the right thing to do” because it will stop the civil war in Libya.

INDIA

Commentary in India generally supports the country’s abstention on the UN resolution, while opinion of the military intervention ranges from worry and skepticism to outright denunciation.

The centrist Times of India sounds a cautionary note, for both the U.S. and the prospect of democracy in the region. While commending President Barack Obama for ruling out the involvement of American ground troops, the editorial urges the West to avoid a heavy-handed intervention at all costs, because that would “only provoke a nationalist backlash in the Arab world, putting at stake the democratic resurgence taking place in the region.”
Harsh criticism was voiced in an op-ed by Siddharth Varadarajan in The Hindu, the left-of-center paper: “The bombing of Libya by France, Britain and the United States demonstrates beyond doubt that these three imperial powers are a threat to international peace and security.“ Moreover, he says, the decision to attack Libya rests on “dubious legality” for violating the UN Charter, and because the “responsibility to protect” doctrine is not yet part of customary international law.
An editorial in the liberal-globalist Economic Times, as well as an Asian Age op-ed by Inder Malhotra, former editor of the Times of India, both criticize the double standard of intervening in Libya but not Bahrain, and speculate whether “the Western objective might be to partition Libya into eastern and western regions, between the east ruled by the rebels and the west by Col. Gaddafi and his sons.”
The Hindustan Times characterizes the US as a “reluctant player” that “went along because its European allies insisted and because some members of the Democratic administration were worried of accusations that it passively allowed a humanitarian crisis a la Rwanda.” On India’s abstention and its later denunciation of the air strikes, the paper commented, “India has continued its tradition of pleasing no one and sounding confused.”

Iranian Viewpoints on Istanbul Nuclear Talks

Policy Alert #7 | February 20, 2011

Talks over Iran’s nuclear program took place in Istanbul last weekend. In today’s Policy Alert, Iran expert Farideh Farhi assesses the domestic viewpoints in Iran on this issue.

Tehran’s hardliners have effectively outlined a new stance that rejects the West’s two track approach of engagement and pressure. Key features of this position include:

The P5+1 (five members of the UN Security Council plus Germany) structure of the negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program is obsolete.
Iran is no longer interested in talks in which it stands accused of violations of international norms and rules.
Prerequisites for further talks will need to include suspension of sanctions and acceptance of Iran’s treaty rights to enrichment.
Time is on Tehran’s side. Washington needs Iran’s cooperation on a range of issues affecting regional stability, and this will eventually lead to a change in its overall policy toward Iran.
Iran’s most prominent hard-line daily, Kayhan, criticizes the negotiation process during the reformist era as one that “resulted in significant harm to the country” and “turned into a concessionary path for the Iranian side.” If Iran is to re-enter an extensive negotiating process, “there has to be clarity about the purpose of these talks.” As Kayhan states in its editorial, “It is not as though Iran will sit in front of a table while still under pressure and while every day there is subversion against it.”

However, reformists and centrists still think that less bombastic rhetoric and more adept diplomacy can lead to results in the P5+1 format. They are skeptical that a hard-line stance will actually change the US position and sanctions. Nevertheless, their criticism comes in a much more muted fashion in today’s political environment in Iran.

Farideh Farhi is a expert on Iran, based at the University of Hawai’i at Manoa. The full text of her commentary can be read here.

Views from Asia on Turmoil in Egypt

Policy Alert #6 | February 1, 2011

As Washington is closely following developments in Egypt, what are other countries saying about events in Egypt and the Middle East? Read about the domestic viewpoints in Japan, China, Russia, Iran and India:

JAPAN

The press appears preoccupied with Japan’s domestic politics, paying surprisingly little attention to events in Egypt.

The Asahi Shimbun, however, has explicitly called for President Hosni Mubarak to “resign immediately.” It also points out that Japan is one of the main providers of foreign aid to Egypt, and urges the Japanese government to work with Western countries in pressing for a democratic transition in Egypt.

CHINA

The Chinese government has blocked keyword searches of Egypt on the internet, while official reporting and commentary are downplaying any prospects of democratic change.

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

Li Hongmei, editor and columnist of the People Daily’s online, predicts that a seizure of power by the Muslim Brotherhood would “spell a helpless nightmare for Washington’s Middle East policy,” and that “the U.S. must be playing with fire if its…will to usher in political reforms to the region turn out to set a political stage for the radical and even extremist forces.”

IRAN

Official rhetoric in Iran is spinning the Egyptian uprising as an Islamic movement, expressing solidarity with Egyptians while interpreting the fall of Mubarak as a sign of America’s loss of influence in the region.

One commentary in the Tehran Times says that “[Mubarak’s] dysfunctional regime has received the support of the United States for decades, to the dismay of most Egyptians,” and calls for the Egyptian president to step down.

Another op-ed paints the West as trying to take advantage of a domino effect of regime change in the Arab world: “The Western powers will allow the authoritarian regimes of the Arab world to collapse and attempt to replace them with fake democracies run by puppet rulers beholden to their masters in the West.”

RUSSIA

In Russia, the official reaction has been rather low-key. Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of Russia in Global Affairs, explains that “Russia does not have any special levers for influencing how the situation develops.” Other analysts attribute the Kremlin’s cautious stance to its worries that events in Egypt could spark similar movements in Eurasia.

Commentators, on the other hand, have voiced a range of opinions, from warnings that the Middle East may see the emergence of fundamentalist regimes, to insinuations that America bears some responsibility for the Egyptian uprising.

As for the impact on Russian domestic politics, a former State Duma deputy comments that Russia’s aging population and growing political apathy mean that an Egyptian-style, youth-led movement is not going to happen in Russia.

INDIA

In stark contrast, the world’s largest democracy is abuzz with excitement and optimism over change in Egypt.

Editorials in leading newspapers express strong support for democracy in Egypt: The Hindu says “the Egyptian state has lost all legitimacy” and that “we are almost certainly witnessing a transformative moment in the modern history of West Asia.” The Economic Times writes, “This could well be the moment when democracy gets its chance in the Arab nations, India, the US and all other democracies should embrace the change in Arabia.” The Indian Express characterizes the Egyptian uprising as “a re-emergence of the Arab tradition of liberalism.”

Salman Haidar, former Foreign Secretary, writes that even though the events in Egypt will have “little direct impact” on India, the shared “love of freedom as a basic value” means that “[Indians] can only rejoice when others choose to do the same, so their sympathies are closely engaged with the struggle of the mass of Arabs who have come out in defiance of seemingly immovable rulers in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and other parts of West Asia.”

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

However, there are also worries about the rise of an Islamist regime in Egypt and the impact on Indian domestic security. Ved Marwah, Professor at Centre For Policy Research, warns that if “if the Islamic forces succeed – like a repeat of the Iranian revolution – it could be a potentially dangerous situation. Such disturbing developments could impact not only our external relations with the Arab countries where we have vital interests but also our internal situation.”

Chinese Views on President Hu Jintao’s Visit to U.S.

Policy Alert #5 | January 29, 2011

Chinese President Hu Jintao will visit the United States next week from January 18 to 21. Read what the Chinese expectations are of this trip:

Ahead of Hu Jintao’s visit, the official tone is optimistic and confident, with editorials stressing the the shared interests of China and the United States, although other analysts take a more measured tone:

The People’s Daily, the official newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party, says that China should “seize the new momentum in Sino-US relations.” Citing the high volumes of trade and cultural exchanges between China and the U.S., the paper argues that “the space of mutual benefit and a win-win outcome” can be further expanded if the “US and China face challenges hand-in-hand.”

On military issues, several articles stress that China is not seeking to challenge the U.S., while making clear that China needs to and deserves to develop its military capabilities:

“Mutual tolerance means both sides acknowledge and never challenge each other’s legal space and interests, including the development of military forces. The People’s Liberation Army is not capable and could never attempt to challenge the United States’ advantage in regional and global military maneuvers, nor does China plan to seek regional military hegemony.”

In light of the visit to China by US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, these pieces also emphasize the long-term mutual benefit of strengthening bilateral military cooperation. An editorial in the Global Times, an affiliate of the People’s Daily, says that “Despite the need to step up its military buildup, China should not set a long-term goal of comprehensively surpassing the US. This is both impractical and even risky.”

However, commenting on US reaction to China’s development of a stealth jet, the Global Times also ran an op-ed titled, “World-class military not exclusive luxury.” It argues that “Raising its voices in certain international affairs, [China] risks being labeled as tough or overly assertive. But China can no longer forego its own basic rights.”

Individual experts provided the following commentary on China’s relations with the U.S.:

Jin Canrong, deputy director of the School of International Studies at Renmin University in Beijing: Declining U.S. power calls for a “recalibration” of Beijing’s ties with the U.S. It presents two sides of a coin, because “”It may be an opportunity for China – but, more importantly, it brings huge responsibility that China cannot easily handle.“

Yuan Peng, an expert on US studies with the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations: Beijing should maximize the ways in which it can cooperate with Washington on shared interests. “”By exploring cooperation with the US in the UN Security Council reform, the regularization of G20, post-Copenhagen configuration and nuclear disarmament, China can enjoy its rights while assuming its proportionate responsibility.”

Li Hongmei, editor and columnist of People Daily’s Online: The U.S. should show “more flexibility and sincerity” on working with China on North Korea, and “avoid using aggressive and hawkish language” on the South China Sea territorial issues. Taiwan remains a priority concern for not only the Chinese government, but also its citizens, whose anti-Americanism largely stems from “American involvement in Taiwan.” Furthermore, “many ordinary Chinese citizens view the U.S. demands to reevaluate the RMB as an attempt to contain China and limit China’s growth.”

Huang Renwei, vice-president of the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences further notes that China’s identity as an emerging power is shaped by its relations with the BRICS countries. Working with them and other major developing countries through bilateral and multilateral channels will “help stabilize China’s international environment and reassure powers such as India and Russia that a growing China will not threaten them or challenge their interests.”

Tensions on the Korean Peninsula- Chinese, Japanese and Russian Views on the Crisis

Policy Alert #4 | December 29, 2010

Tensions on the Korean Peninsula have flared up again since North Korea’s shelling of Yeonpyeong Island on November 23. Here is a round-up of Chinese, Japanese and Russian views on this latest crisis:

CHINA

The Global Times, the official English newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party, has been running daily editorials on the crisis:

It emphasizes that a peaceful Korean Peninsula is in the core of Chinese interests, and warns that tensions on the Korean Peninsula have “now reached a dangerous breaking point… What is happening is not a game. No one can guarantee the situation will not turn into a real war.”
The paper criticizes South Korea’s rejection of China’s proposal to restart the Six Party Talks, and says North Korea’s actions are proof of the “failure of the hard-line policies of the Lee Myung-bak administration.” South Korea should work with China and “reconsider its security strategy,” since “its alliance with the US cannot guarantee its security.” The headline of the Dec. 2 editorial says “the ball is now in South Korea’s court.”
There were also strong words for the US role in Asia:
- “The US and its allies seem to have a paradoxical attitude toward the role they expect China to play on the Korean Peninsula. On the one hand, they wish China to side with them pressing the North; meanwhile, they want China to exert special influence over Pyongyang”
- “Strategic trust is almost zero among the players involved. The efforts China makes in promoting regional stability are often offset by US strategic intentions in the western Pacific.”
- In the larger regional context, “one can surely see the shadowy hand of the US exerting its influence against China’s rise. The smart power diplomacy of the US is in full play around China”

Commentaries by scholars sounded a similar note:

Feng Zhaokui, a researcher with the Institute of Japanese Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, writes that since the end of the Cold War, the US has played up the North Korean threat as a means of convincing Japan that its security still depended on an alliance with the US.
Li Xiguang, professor at Tsinghua University, says “China should make it crystal clear that anyone who uses the Yeonpyeong incident as an excuse for further provocative actions is playing with fire.”
Piao Jianyi, professor of Korean affairs at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said in an interview that the cause of current tensions was South Korea’s more hawkish political strategy towards the North. “There are no simple solutions to solve the tensions, and only urgent six-party consultations could ease the situation to a certain extent.”

JAPAN

Editorials in the major Japanese newspapers have called North Korea’s actions “outrageous, reckless” and an “act of war.” In Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s words, it was an “abhorrent act of barbarity.”
There is speculation that this was a show of “succession-linked aggression.” The Japan Times says one of Pyongyang’s motives is to “convince the U.S. to engage in direct talks with it and to get Washington to accept the present North Korean regime and guarantee its continuation.”
The common view in the Japanese press is that China needs to rein in North Korea, and the Chinese proposal to hold Six-Party Talks at this stage was met with skepticism:
- The Asahi Shimbun comments, “We can well appreciate Beijing’s attempt to seize any opportunity to bring the situation under control. However, we are skeptical of this hastily proposed meeting producing any tangible results.”
- The Yomiuri Shimbun had harsher criticism: “China’s indulgence of North Korea has emboldened Pyongyang to the extent seen in recent developments. If China tacitly approves North Korea’s status quo, the degree of instability in the region will only grow.”
There are also calls for the United Nations Security Council to take action.
On Japan’s role, both the Yomiuri Shimbun and the Mainichi Daily News called for strengthened trilateral cooperation with the United States and South Korea, while the latter paper also expressed worry about the Kan administration’s ability to handle the crisis.

RUSSIA

The Moscow Times reported on Nov. 24 that Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said there is a “colossal danger” of escalation on the Korean Peninsula. “Those who started this bear a huge responsibility,” Lavrov said. “What is happening requires consultations.”
The state-owned news agency RIA Novosti reported that Lavrov expressed hope that the U.N. Security Council in the near future will make a statement on the conflict.
During Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s interview with Larry King on CNN, Putin characterized the Korean situation as “very acute and disturbing.” On the Six-Party Talks, Putin expressed support for continued dialogue, but disagreed that the onus was on China to influence North Korea.
Commentary by Andrei Volodin, head of the Centre for Oriental Studies of Russia’s Diplomatic Academy, highlighted the view that Russia and China had to be involved in any resolution of the North Korean situation. On who to blame for the tensions, he said, “News agencies reported that this incident was triggered by South Korea’s conduct. And therefore, I find all attempts to shift the responsibility for the tension on the Korean Peninsula to North Korea misguided.”
Fyodor Lukyanov, Editor-in-Chief of the Russia in Global Affairs journal, provided this analysis of the region’s geopolitics: “China’s protection of North Korea lies in pragmatism rather than in any sense of ethnic sympathy or ideology. China stands to benefit more from maintaining the status quo than from having a united U.S.-influenced Korea as its neighbor. A Korea united without U.S. influence would also be an unwelcome prospect, because of the many issues it has to raise with its neighbors, in particular China and Japan. Tokyo, which fears the unpredictable northerners, hates the idea of a united Korea.The United States is now busy trying to resolve problems of its own. It is irritated by North Korea’s invulnerability, with its enrichment centrifuges and missile tests. That said, it can use the North Korean factor to strengthen its military presence in Asia Pacific.”

Obama’s Visit to India

Policy Alert #3 | November 29, 2010

This week, President Obama will visit India for the first time since taking office. Read what commentators and experts in India are saying about this historic visit:

There is a sense of disappointment foreshadowing the visit, as it appears that the U.S. is more interested in an economic agenda rather than strengthening strategic ties with India.
The Indian Express reports that a personal letter from President Barack Obama to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh conveyed America’s expectations of the visit but did not mention issues important to India.
Commentators lament that China and Pakistan loom larger on the U.S. radar screen, and that the official visit has an undue business focus, when the private sector will carry on with expanding India-U.S. business ties anyway.
Nevertheless, the general public likes Obama. A spring 2010 survey by the Pew Research Center found that more than 70% of Indians have confidence in the American president, and about two-thirds express a favorable opinion of the United States.
Meanwhile, leftist parties and commentators are criticizing Obama’s visit as part of an imperialist strategy to open India’s markets and pit India against China; the Communist Party has called for nationwide protests.
There are widespread calls for US support of a permanent seat for India on the U.N. Security Council. However, C. Raja Mohan, security affairs editor of The Indian Express, sounds a word of caution: If India does secure a permanent UNSC seat, “Is Delhi prepared to accept the burdens that come with the rapid improvement of its international standing?” Not only is the Foreign Office lacking in resources and coordination, but India’s strategic outlook would have to shift from its longstanding “strategic autonomy” to a new global responsibility, says Mohan.
K. Subrahmanyam, prominent strategic affairs analyst in India, says that “Obama does not have much of an option but to make India its leading partner” because the two nations share the same democratic values. He believes that a “network of partnerships” between the U.S. and India is necessary to “counter a value system” consisting of the challenges of jihadism and China’s one-party authoritarianism.

Weak Japanese Leadership Prompts Calls for Stronger Ties with United States

Policy Alert #2 | November 29, 2010

Despite hosting the APEC summit this month, Japan’s leadership in the region is looking shaky. In this Policy Alert, we summarize what the Japanese press is saying about Japan’s diplomatic difficulties and the future of Japan-US relations:

Commenting on President Obama’s meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan in Yokohama, The Daily Yomirui says it was “unfortunate that Japan and the US missed a golden opportunity” to issue a joint declaration on the bilateral alliance’s 50^th anniversary, and blames this on the poor diplomacy of the current Japanese administration, led by the Democratic Party of Japan.

Earlier in the month, the visit of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev to Kunashir Island had also focused attention on Japan’s relations with the United States:

The Mainichi Daily News expressed worry that “the international environment around the Japanese archipelago is growing increasingly severe,” and that the Kan government should respond by “solidifying a comprehensive diplomatic strategy built on rebuilding Japan’s ties to the United States.”
The Japan Times says “the government must pay attention to the possibility that China and Russia are synchronizing their pressure against Japan.” The paper reports that security expert Takashi Kawakami thinks that the strained ties with the US over the Futenma base relocation “offered China and Russia an opportunity to challenge the security alliance.”

On economic issues, editorials across several newspapers support further trade liberalization to revitalize Japan’s economy, while noting that reform of the agricultural sector will be difficult. Specifically, there is support for joining the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Part of the motivation is to “regain ground lost to South Korea in free trade agreements.”

It is widely agreed that the DPJ government is weak. Editorials note that Japan’s recent troubles underscore the poor diplomacy and weak leadership of PM Kan and his predecessor Hatoyama. A poll by the Asahi Shimbun shows that PM Kan’s approval ratings are at 27%.

Asian Reactions to Gaddafi’s Death

Policy Alert #1 | October 29, 2010

Libyan leader Colonel Moammar Gaddafi’s death last Thursday sparked heated reactions from major powers in Asia. In this Policy Alert, we highlight the viewpoints coming out of Russia, China and India, many of which are highly critical of NATO’s role in Libya.

RUSSIA

Compared to China and India, reactions from Russia have been the most critical and extensive, including the official response. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said NATO actions preceding the death of Gaddafi should be scrutinized for their compliance with international law, and emphasized “they should not have killed him.”

Commentaries in the press have likewise been negative. A round-up of expert reactions was reported by the Moscow News:

Andrei Fedvashin, RIA Novosti political analyst: “No one gave NATO sanction to hunt Gaddafi and bomb the suburbs of Sirte under siege.”

Georgy Mirsky of the World Economy and International Relations Institute, however, thought that Russia was to some extent complicit in NATO’s actions in Libya: “If in March, Moscow did not abstain in the UN Security Council vote [that authorized the no-fly zone], then the colonel would still be in power now.”

Views on Libya’s future appear mixed:

Sergey Markov, director of the Institute for Political Research: the situation in Libya “will be more or less peaceful.” He expressed confidence that the new Libyan government would be able to unify the different tribal factions, including those who were dominant during Gaddafi’s rule.

Evgeny Minchenko, director of the International Institute for Political Enterprise, was less optimistic: “low-intensity civil war…is likely to continue for quite a while, same as…in Iraq and…the AfPak region.”

Fedor Lukyanov, editor of Russia In Global Politics, said Gaddafi’s death has removed the single unifying force in Libya, adding that he did not believe in the West’s and NATO’s abilities to manage the situation. Lukyanov was also skeptical of Russia’s future access to Libya’s oil resources, commenting that “The British, the French, the Italians did not risk their money, reputation, etc to then share the Libyan market with companies of the countries who did not take part in the operation.”

CHINA

In contrast to Russia, the official reaction from China struck a positive tone. Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Jiang Yu commented that “The history of Libya has opened a new page. We hope that Libya will swiftly launch the inclusive political process of transition.”

Commentary in the press, however, was more cynical:

Li Hongmei, editor and columnist of the online version of People’s Daily, expressed skepticism that Gaddafi’s death would bring peace to Libya. Aside from the challenge of how to govern the deeply divided country, Libya also needs to revive its oil production, which Li characterized as “Libya’s lifeline and also the only bait to fish Western power’s appetite and attention.“

A commentary in the Xinhua News sounded a similar note: “What’s also fueling the uncertainty about Libya’s future is the involvement of foreign powers, which may seek to have a hand in the post-Gaddafi era for their own benefit.”

Gaddafi’s death is “perceived as the end of strongman rule in the Middle East“,
said the Global Times. The editorial noted that “democracy will be further regarded as the general trend accepted by various regimes,” but then highlighted worldwide “dissatisfaction and doubt” over the ability of democratic governments to provide public services, as seen in the current global recession. Democracy “needs to needs to adapt to the reality of different countries.”

INDIA

The Economic Times reported that while “India refrained from reacting officially” to Gaddafi’s death, the government did issue a joint statement with France that expressed India’s willingness to work with France to help the National Transitional Council of Libya “to establish democratic institutions in a free Libya, to promote human rights, and to rebuild their country.” (A brief comment from the Indian Ministry of External Affairs is available here.)

In an accompanying editorial, the Economic Times urged India to “offer all possible assistance to Libya to make that transition, in the interests of democracy and also those of the large number of Indian workers formerly resident in the country.” The paper also said Gaddafi’s death “signal[ed] the end of an era in Arab countries,” and that “the regimes in Syria, Yemen and Bahrain…would do well to…comprehend the sweeping desire for democracy and make way for the opposition.”

In contrast, The Hindu ran an editorial with a markedly different viewpoint, strongly criticizing the way in which Gaddafi was killed and questioning the humanitarian justification for NATO’s intervention. Calling attention to the role of western powers and “this sorry saga of violent regime change,” the paper asks, “Does the West want democracy in Libya or just any friendly regime that will give it access to the country’s oil?” On India’s role, The Hindu also expressed its disappointment that the Indian government had not expressed concern at Gaddafi’s violent death.