Policy Alerts – Page 2 – Rising Powers Initiative

Rising Powers Face New Energy Crisis

Policy Alert #239 | October 25, 2021

Just as the Rising Powers are gearing up for a post-pandemic economic recovery, China, India and even Japan are finding themselves staring at a huge and unfolding energy crisis, mostly involving coal shortages. Given enormous Chinese demand for coal, authorities are taking extraordinary steps to intervene, ordering coal miners to spare no expense in boosting output. Chinese commentary went on the offensive regarding the country’s predicament, touting how well positioned it was to meet the challenge. China’s willingness to pay whatever it takes for energy supplies is bad news for the rest of Asia and Europe, which will face elevated gas and electricity prices in the winter as they compete with China for supply. On the other hand, some Indian officials sought to downplay the seriousness of the energy crisis as the domestic debate heated up about what went wrong. Further complicating the picture is mounting pressure on governments to accelerate the transition to cleaner energy as world leaders prepare for the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference in November.

Who’s blaming whom and what’s the prognosis for Rising Powers?

China

Indicating concern about the possible setback from the energy crisis, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang has vowed that every effort will be taken to maintain economic growth. On October 18, Chinese Vice Premier Han Zheng stressed the Belt and Road Energy Partnership (BREP) at the second Belt and Road Energy Ministerial Conference. Indeed, Beijing is deepening energy cooperation via the Belt and Road Initiative in the nuclear, new energy and smart energy sectors. Zheng declared that more should be done to “promote inclusive energy development and respect the rights of different countries to choose their own energy development strategies.”

The nationalist Global Times blamed western agencies for creating a negative image for China by “bad-mouthing” China’s economy and raising the alarm about its power rationing: “China’s capacity of power generation is abundant… our ability to control, address and mitigate problems is certainly better than most economies.”
In an op-ed for South China Morning Post, a Hong Kong-based newspaper, journalist Yujie Xue highlights the balancing act between China’s immediate needs and its ambitious decarbonization targets: “China is still on track to meet its 2025 goal of peak coal consumption… but the short-term reality is that China and many others have little choice but to increase coal consumption to meet power demand.”
The nationalist Global Times emphasized China’s need to bid farewell to the era of extensive power generation: “The problems caused by recent power curbs in Northeast China should increase the sense of urgency for Chinese society to implement sustainable development and strengthen the coordinating use of electricity.”

India

While governments in five states and the capital of Delhi have undertaken measures to reduce power consumption amid fears of blackouts, Union Power Minister RK Singh refuted reports of coal shortages. The minister blamed Tata Power and Gas Authority of India Limited for causing “unnecessary panic” about power outages. On October 10, the Ministry of Coal released a public statement, clarifying that coal availability is sufficient to meet power plant demands. Coal and Mines Minister Pralhad Joshi assured everyone in a tweet that there is “absolutely no threat of disruption in power supply,” claiming there is “sufficient coal stock of 43 million tons… equivalent to 24 days coal demand.”

There have been conflicting statements from the government about coal stocks. On October 9, the Power Ministry issued a public statement underlining the reasons for the depletion of coal stocks– an unprecedented demand of electricity and heavy rainfall in coal mining areas in September, among others. The situation of coal supply to power plants is likely to improve over the next few days, the ministry had said. However, last week, Union Power Minister RK Singh indicated that coal shortages in India could last six months.

In an op-ed for the liberal Indian Express, Madan Sabnavis, Chief Economist at CARE Ratings, conveys how the coal shortage can undermine recovery: “The October-December period is crucial because there are expectations of pent-up demand helping to accelerate growth… any disruption in the power supply can push back this process.”
In an op-ed for the pro-BJP Daily Pioneer, Subhash C Pandey, former Special Secretary, Indian Ministry of Commerce and Industry, tries to make sense of the power crisis debate: “Increased coal/power demand from China has set coal prices soaring high… for import-dependent India, it is costlier to import longer haul Australian coal than shorter haul Indonesian coal, which is getting diverted to China.”
The left-leaning The Hindu reports that during a public conversation at the Harvard Kennedy School on October 12, Indian Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman denied worries of a coal shortage: “There are not going to be any deficiencies which may lead to any shortfall of supply… we are now a power surplus country.”
In an op-ed for the liberal Hindustan Times, Rahul Tongia, Senior Fellow at the Centre for Social and Economic Progress, argues there is no simple answer about who to blame for India’s coal and power crisis: “We don’t have a proper system to get consumers to reduce their demand, which can be done much faster than supply can increase.”
In an op-ed for the liberal Indian Express, Partha Bhattacharyya, former chairman of Coal India Ltd, the largest coal producing company in the world, believes that CIL is unfairly made the “fall guy” for the power crisis: “The company has ramped up coal production despite the 1990s policy that took away coal blocks of 28 billion tons of reserves… it is time that the country recognizes the critical role of CIL.”

Japan

For Japan, which imports all but a tiny amount of its energy needs, higher oil, gas and coal prices are bringing back inflation, with wholesale prices at 13-year highs. Elevated electricity prices are also reviving memories of last winter when prices hit record highs and Japan’s grid nearly failed in the worst energy crisis for the country since the Fukushima disaster.

The Kyodo News reveals that Japanese companies operating in China are significantly worried about a supply shortage that could be triggered by electricity insufficiency: “Should industrial production become sluggish in China against a backdrop… of the power shortfall, Japanese firms would struggle to procure necessary components and be impelled to trim their output outlook.”
In an op-ed for the progressive Asahi Shimbun, staff writer Junichiro Nagasaki lays out the shortcomings of Japan’s new plan regarding renewable energy sources: “Despite the plan’s ambitious goal, Japan may have still left itself open to foreign criticism because of continued dependence on coal-fired thermal power plants.”

Russia

On October 20, Russian President Vladimir Putin offered an increase in supplies to Europe in a televised government meeting. He also chided the region for canceling many of its long-term gas contracts, saying the Kremlin was ready to negotiate new long-term contracts for gas sales. Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Dmitry Peskov denied claims from the West that Russia was purposefully holding back natural gas exports to Europe for political purposes. Nonetheless, Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak noted that the expected German certification of the controversial Nord Stream 2 pipeline could help cool prices.

Russia is also expected to increase its natural gas exports to not only Europe but also China, which has become a major consumer of Russian natural gas, just as Moscow and Beijing have grown closer in their great-power competition with the United States.

The government-funded RT purports the benefit of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which is awaiting EU certification, in helping Europe overcome its gas shortages: “We can say progress is possible… it is a purely commercial project… we’ve always been very clear that we are against the application of sanctions especially in a strategic territorial perspective.”

Rising Powers and Roadblocks to Restarting Travel Under COVID

Policy Alert #238 | October 15, 2021

Vaccination rates worldwide have shot up, but what about travel to and from rising powers?

Many countries have decided to open their borders and permit international travel for those who have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19. However, every country has the right to decide its own rules related to the types of vaccines it allows for travel, leading to travel woes. Among the rising powers, China, India, and Russia are all vaccine producers. But there is no reciprocity in vaccine acceptance between countries that produce them. Moreover, changes to travel regulations have caused disputes between some countries, as in the case of India and the U.K., when India initially failed to make the list for Britain’s most recent easing of travel restrictions.

As for the U.S., on September 20, the White House announced new rules to take effect in early November, saying it would lift restrictions on air travelers from 33 countries, including China, India, and most of Europe, if they show proof of vaccination. This long-awaited announcement raises the question as to which vaccines will be accepted. According to a CDC spokesperson, foreign tourists vaccinated with a drug approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or listed for emergency use by the World Health Organization (WHO) will meet the criteria. This includes Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer-BioNTech, the Oxford-AstraZeneca and Indian-made Covishield, and China’s Sinopharm and Sinovac. Russia’s Sputnik V vaccine is not currently on the accepted list, meaning that most Russians and others inoculated with Sputnik V may be prohibited from entering the U.S. The CDC will release additional guidance as travel requirements are finalized.

This is a fast-changing situation as countries are continuously updating their travel regulations.

What is the current travel scenario for rising powers’ citizens or visitors?

China

The Sinopharm vaccine, developed in China and shared mostly with developing nations, received emergency approval by the WHO in May. Sinopharm has been approved for travel by 71 countries. The Chinese Sinovac vaccine is now recognized by 50 countries. Notably, not as many European countries accept Sinopharm compared to India’s Covishield. India, Russia, and Japan all do not accept Chinese vaccines, nor does China accept vaccines made by India or Russia.

The Chinese embassy in the U.S. confirmed in April that travelers vaccinated with Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna or Johnson & Johnson would be eligible to enter China. Entry depends on having received two doses of COVID-19 vaccines at least 14 days prior to entry, and all travelers must present two negative tests, PCR and antibody tests, taken within 48 hours of travel. However, things can change fast in China, and regional lockdowns have been imposed every time there are new outbreaks of the virus.

Regarding the lower amount of protection that Chinese vaccines offer, Gao Fu, China’s top disease control official, claimed in a rare acknowledgment, “we will solve the issue that current vaccines don’t have very high protection rates.” However, Gao later conveyed he was misunderstood and merely talking in general terms about improving vaccine efficacy.
Just this week, the WHO confirmed that its Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE) recommended that anyone over 60 years old receiving the Sinopharm or Sinovac should be offered an extra dose, citing gaps in the data about the efficacy of the Chinese vaccines in people over 60.
The Chinese Consulate General in New York in May issued a notice that several U.S. universities, including Harvard and Columbia, have recognized China’s Sinopharm following the approval of the vaccine’s emergency use by the WHO.

India

There are currently 63 countries that accept the Indian-made Covishield vaccine, which is the United Kingdom’s AstraZeneca vaccine manufactured in India. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) does not recognize versions of the AstraZeneca vaccine that were made in India, but several EU countries recognize vaccines that are part of the WHO emergency use listing. The three vaccines that are most recognized in EU countries after the EMA ones are Covishield, Sinopharm, and Sinovac. Of these three, Covishield is most widely recognized within EU countries, such as France and Germany, although they do not accept India’s other widely used vaccine, Covaxin, which has not been approved by the WHO yet.

While the Indians recognize the Russian-made vaccine, there is no reciprocity as the Russians don’t recognize the Indian-made ones, and neither do China or Japan.

Initially, the U.K. did not recognize Covishield, instead requiring Indians to quarantine for 10 days upon arrival in Britain, even though Covishield was developed by AstraZeneca and identical to the doses given to Britons. This set off a firestorm of protests in India, which ironically has been the world’s largest vaccine-producer. In a retaliatory measure, India required British visitors to quarantine regardless of their vaccination status. Days later, the U.K. changed its foreign travel guidance to clarify that Covishield is an approved jab.

The U.K.’s initial refusal to recognize Covishield was labeled as discriminatory by prominent Indians, such as Rajya Sabha member Jairam Ramesh, who tweeted: “Absolutely bizarre considering Covishield was originally developed in the U.K. and the Serum Institute has supplied to that country too! This smacks of racism.”
After the UK’s decision to retract its mandatory quarantine for Indian visitors to the U.K. after India’s reciprocal measures, India journalist Kanchan Gupta noted in a tweet, “standing up to Britain worked.”
On October 11, Indian Prime Minister Modi and British Prime Minister Johnson held a telephone conversation four days after the U.K.’s decision to reverse its regulations on Covishield. Although the U.K. statement mentioned resolving the vaccine question, Modi’s tweet omits any reference to vaccines.

Russia

Russia’s Sputnik V has been recognized by 73 countries as valid proof of vaccination for travel. The Sputnik V vaccine, which Moscow has proudly proclaimed as the first coronavirus vaccine to be registered for use, hasn’t yet been approved by the EMA or WHO, meaning that the majority of the European countries do not accept the vaccine as valid proof of immunity. Moscow had applied for the WHO’s approval back in February, but the global health agency suspended its review process, citing concerns over manufacturing practices and production inside Russia. India is among the countries that permit entry to travelers with Sputnik V, although China and Japan are not.

The United States’ new travel guidelines set to take effect in November exclude those who received Russia’s Sputnik V. This not only affect Russians, but some 448 million Sputnik V doses that have been purchased worldwide, with many going to low-income nations. The Russian Embassy in Washington declined to comment on the new U.S. policy.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov pushed for mutual recognition by countries of COVID-19 vaccines approved by other states, stating at the UN General Assembly on September 25, “We support mutual recognition of vaccines approved by national oversight bodies, in the interests of lifting restrictions on international travel of citizens as soon as possible.”
According to Alexander Gabuev, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Moscow Center, though Sputnik V appeared to provide stronger protection than China-backed vaccines, Russia’s role as a vaccine exporter had been severely limited by production issues and China had emerged as a more reliable partner.

Quad Summit 2021: The Elephant in the Room?

Policy Alert #237 | September 29, 2021

On September 24, 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden hosted Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India, Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga of Japan, and Prime Minister Scott Morrison of Australia at the White House for the first-ever in-person Leaders’ Summit of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or Quad. In a joint statement, without naming China, the four leaders renewed their commitment to a free, open, and rules-based Indo-Pacific that is “undaunted by coercion.” The leaders expressed their resolve to “champion adherence to international law, particularly as reflected in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to meet challenges…in the East and South China Seas.” It is hard to miss the veiled references to China’s rising influence peppered throughout the joint statement from Quad leaders.

September has seen a number of major summits, including BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), capped off by the Quad, as well as the UN General Assembly. Moreover, the Quad meeting came just over a week after the announcement of AUKUS, a new three-way security pact among the U.S., U.K., and Australia centered on a deal to share highly sensitive nuclear submarine technology with Canberra. In Beijing, the angry reaction was swift and predictable; however, the agreement also created turbulence in U.S.-France relations, even as France is the only European country with territories and a military presence in the Indo-Pacific.

The Quad leaders have put forth ambitious initiatives that advance practical cooperation on 21st-century challenges: ending the COVID-19 pandemic, including by increasing production and access to safe and effective vaccines; promoting high-standards infrastructure; combatting the climate crisis; partnering on emerging technologies, space, and cybersecurity; and cultivating next-generation talent in the four countries. As Biden declared in his Quad remarks, “we are four major democracies with a long history of cooperation… we know how to get things done, and we are up to the challenge.” Although the Quad, unlike AUKUS, is not a military pact, establishing a unified front amid shared concerns about China is clearly topmost.

In this Policy Alert, we examine the Rising Powers’ response to the Quad Summit amid the announcement of AUKUS the previous week.

India

For India, the Quad comes on the heels of the SCO summit in Tajikistan on September 17, two very different summits with contrasting geopolitical agendas. Turning his attention to the Quad, Indian Prime Minister Modi announced at the meeting in Washington, “It gives me great pleasure to discuss with my friends wide-ranging topics from supply chains to global security, from climate action to COVID response, to cooperation in the field of technology.”

On September 24, Modi and U.S. President Biden also met for their first bilateral meeting. In his remarks, Modi voiced to Biden, “I find that under your leadership, the seeds have been sown for Indo-US relations to expand.” In a U.S.-India joint statement following the meeting, the two leaders committed to “renewing their close relationship and charting a new course to advance the partnership between the world’s largest democracies.” On Twitter, the Modi called Biden’s leadership on critical global issues “commendable” as they “discussed how India and USA will further scale-up cooperation… and overcome key challenges like COVID-19 and climate change.”

In an op-ed for the centrist Hindustan Times, Pramit Pal Chaudhuri, foreign editor, sees the Quad as having reached the status of a serious counterweight to China: “Quad…brings together most of the biggest (ex-China) powers of Asia… and seeks to show that whatever autocracies can do, multiparty governments can do better.”
In an op-ed for the left leaning The Hindu, Abhijit Singh, a senior fellow at the Observer Research Foundation and retired naval officer, was more skeptical about how strong the Indo-Pacific partnerships under U.S. leadership would be given the sudden announcement of AUKUS: “AUKUS has taken the focus away from the Quad…the agreement suggests preferential treatment on the part of Washington for a close Anglo-alliance partner.”
In an op-ed for the liberal Deccan Herald, Mohamed Zeeshan, foreign affairs columnist and host of DH‘s ‘The Z Factor,’ exhorts India to have a clearer policy as it navigates its role within rivals SCO and Quad: “…if you put your feet in two different boats – each trying to move in the opposite direction at the same time – you’re likely to get thrown overboard by both boats at some point.”

China

On September 24, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian denounced the Quad, proclaiming, “A closed, exclusive clique targeting other countries runs counter to the trend of the times and the aspirations of regional countries. It will find no support and is doomed to fail.” On September 27, after the conclusion of the Quad summit, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying expressed opposition to the so-called “China threat” by emphasizing three points: “First…China is a builder of world peace… and a provider of public goods…Second…most countries recognize…the international system…rather than the so-called “order” unilaterally defined by… US hegemony…Third…relevant countries should abandon the outdated Cold War zero-sum mentality and…promote…peace and stability.”

When asked to comment on AUKUS, Lijian called the new military pact “ill-conceived,” alleging that it will “gravely undermine regional peace” and “aggravate arms race.” Additionally, Chunying protested what China called the “double standards on the non-proliferation issue adopted by the U.S., U.K. and Australia,” professing concerns that AUKUS will undercut the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty and ASEAN countries’ efforts to build a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (NWFZ) in Southeast Asia.

In an op-ed for the nationalist state-run tabloid Global Times, reporter Zhang Hui denies that the Quad is capable of inflicting substantial harm to China: “The Quad…was at the stage of forging verbal consensus rather than signing substantial deals…US typical practice of abandoning its allies…in front of its interests will make Quad another NATO which is existing only in name.”
In an op-ed for South China Morning Post, a newspaper based in Hong Kong, Robert Delaney, North America Bureau Chief, suggests that by not moderating its assertive military posture in the Indo-Pacific, Beijing may be driving greater regional interest in the Quad: “Beijing’s reactions may be undermining its own interests by pushing the Quad into closer military coordination with other U.S. allies.”
In an op-ed for the state-directed China Daily, Hamzah Rifaat Hussain, former visiting fellow at the Stimson Center in Washington and former assistant researcher at the Islamabad Policy Research Institute, rejects the idea of AUKUS gaining universal acceptance in the Indo-Pacific: “Concerns regarding brazen proliferation and a probable deterioration in the deterrence equation in the region are well-founded, logical and principled.”

Japan

In his public remarks at the Quad, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga offered, “The Quad is an extremely significant initiative by four countries who share fundamental values, cooperating for the cause of realizing a free and open international order based on the rule of law in the Indo-Pacific.” In an overview presented by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, Prime Minister Suga “expressed serious concern for unilateral attempts to change the status quo by force and coercion” in the context of the East and South China Seas.

On September 22, during a Japan-U.S. Foreign Ministers’ Meeting, Japanese Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken agreed to continue to strengthen the Japan-U.S. alliance. In a press conference, when asked whether Japan supports AUKUS, Motegi conveyed that “Japan welcomes the launch of AUKUS in the sense of strengthening engagement in the Indo-Pacific region.”

In an op-ed for the business-focused Nikkei Asia, James Crabtree, executive director of IISS-Asia in Singapore, reveals how skepticism on AUKUS underlines the challenges the U.S. and its partners face as they simultaneously try to compete with Beijing and keep their own broad, often divided coalition together: “The job of developing new Asian security measures clearly cannot be outsourced to the old Anglosphere alone. The U.S. and its partners would be wise to continue to ensure buy-in elsewhere around Asia, including among the more nervous nations of Southeast.”
An editorial from the conservative Yomiuri Shimbun proposes that the Quad must maintain dialogue with Beijing and make clear that this is a non-military framework: “We welcome the White House…seeking closer engagement with Asia…However, should the shift be seen as greater efforts to contain China and if China reacts in retaliation, the conflict will only escalate.”
An editorial from the left-leaning The Mainichi considers the Quad’s normalization of summits amid China’s rise: “The move may suggest that the Quad, seen as a loose coalition of the four countries, is becoming more of a formalized group under the banner of advancing a “free and open” Indo-Pacific.”

Rising Powers at 13th BRICS Summit 2021: Together but Separate?

Policy Alert #236 | September 13, 2021

On September 9, 2021, the 13th BRICS Summit was held via videoconference, chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The theme of the Summit, chosen by India, was BRICS@15: Intra-BRICS Cooperation for Continuity, Consolidation and Consensus. The Summit saw the participation of all BRICS leaders – President Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil, President Vladimir Putin of Russia, President Xi Jinping of China, and President Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa. Several new initiatives included the first BRICS Digital Health Summit; the first BRICS Ministerial Joint Statement on multilateral reforms; a BRICS Counter-Terrorism Action Plan; an Agreement on cooperation in field of remote-sensing satellites; a virtual BRICS vaccine Research & Development Centre; and a BRICS Alliance on Green Tourism.

At the conclusion of the Summit, the leaders adopted the New Delhi Declaration, which placed an emphasis on COVID-19, strengthening and reforming the multilateral system, and peace, security, and counterterrorism, as well as economic and financial cooperation for sustainable development. Elaborating on these themes, the declaration highlighted the leading role that BRICS countries can play in the post-COVID global recovery through enhancing speed and accessibility of vaccination and diversifying pharma and vaccine production capacities beyond the developed world.

Meeting for the first time since the Taliban captured power, the BRICS leaders managed to cobble together some joint objectives on Afghanistan on paper even as their geopolitical divergences persist: “We stress the need to contribute to fostering an inclusive intra-Afghan dialogue so as to ensure stability, civil peace, law and order in the country…We underscore the priority of fighting terrorism, including preventing attempts by terrorist organization.”

India passes the baton to China as the next Chair of BRICS 2022.

In this Policy Alert, we examine the rising powers’ level of convergence at the 13th BRICS Summit 2021.

India

According to India’s Ministry of External Affairs’ official press release, Prime Minister Modi “expressed his appreciation for the cooperation received from BRICS partners during India’s Chairship this year.” During his address as chair, Modi cautioned “... (it is important that) we do not become too self-satisfied and we must ensure that BRICS is even more result-oriented in the next 15 years.” On Twitter, the Prime Minister “called for BRICS to contribute to post-COVID global recovery on the motto ‘Build-back Resiliently, Innovatively, Credibly, and Sustainably’.”

In an op-ed for the liberal Indian Express, Shubhajit Roy, associate editor, examines how this year’s BRICS statement on Afghanistan is different from the last: “At that time, the Moscow declaration — since Russia was the chair — called for ‘our unwavering support to the people of Afghanistan in its efforts toward building an… independent and prosperous sovereign State’. Words such as ‘independent and prosperous sovereign State’ are missing from the declaration this time…and there is no mention of the Afghan-led and Afghan-owned peace process.”
In an op-ed for the Congress party leaning The Hindustan Times, Rajiv Bhatia, former high commissioner to South Africa, warns that Beijing’s actions reveal the potential vulnerability of BRICS in their commitment to prevent terrorist organizations from using Afghanistan as a terrorist sanctuary: “The Achilles heel of this formulation is China’s apparent inclination… to recognise the Taliban government, support Pakistan… in all its misadventures, and turn a blind eye to whatever damage extremist Islamic groups cause to other countries as long as they stay away from its troubled Uyghur province.”
In an op-ed for the pro-BJP government The Pioneer, policy analyst Kumardeep Banerjee argues the importance of the BRICS Summit for India amid ongoing threats to its interests in the neighborhood: “It is … a crucial month for India’s outreach to global powers on issues vital for sustained growth and security in India and the neighborhood.”

China

In his speech at the summit entitled “Advance BRICS Cooperation to Meet Common Challenges Together,” Chinese President Xi Jinping put forward five lofty proposals invoking solidarity and mutual benefit on public health, equitable access of vaccines, economic, political and security cooperation, and increased people-to-people exchanges. President Xi also announced that China will donate 100 million COVID-19 vaccine doses to developing countries by the end of 2021. In a press conference on September 10, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian stated, “As China takes over the BRICS chairmanship next year, we look forward to working hand in hand with BRICS partners to deepen cooperation across the board.”

In an op-ed for the state-directed China Daily, Swaran Singh, Chairman of the Centre for International Politics, Organization and Disarmament, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, tries to re-energize the argument that coordination between China and India can go a long way in making BRICS effective: “The rapid economic growth of China…sharpened its contentions with the United States…This has pushed…India closer toward the US and its Indo-Pacific strategy, which in turn has turned BRICS’ economic agenda upside down.”
In an op-ed for the South China Morning Post, a newspaper based in Hong Kong, Owen Churchill, alumnus of SOAS in London and Fudan University in Shanghai, underlines President Xi’s efforts to make the BRICS an important alternative international force: “As well as unveiling the vaccine donation pledge, Xi used the platform to trumpet the BRICS coalition as an increasingly forceful player in global affairs and to deliver a veiled rejection of criticism from Western governments.”
In an op-ed for state-owned nationalist tabloid Global Times, Yang Sheng, chief reporter at the Global Times, points to the limitations of establishing effective cooperation on Afghanistan: “Although on the surface major powers worldwide share similar stances on Afghanistan, such as the need to restore peace and stability and to prevent the country from becoming a haven for terrorists again, they have different standards on identifying terrorist groups, so it’s hard for them to have effective counter-terrorism cooperation.”

Russia

In his speech at the BRICS Summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin raised Afghanistan as an issue that BRICS countries would have to pay special attention to. While not naming the U.S. or any other western country directly, he claimed the situation “is a direct consequence of irresponsible extraneous attempts to impose someone else’s values on the country and to build ‘democratic structures’ using socio-political engineering techniques, ignoring the historical and national specifics of other nations and the traditions by which they live. All of that leads to… chaos, after which the masterminds behind these experiments hastily retreat leaving their charges behind. The entire international community then has to face the consequences.”

In an op-ed for the government-funded RT, Jonny Tickle, a British journalist living in Moscow, echoes Putin’s criticism of certain countries’ actions in Afghanistan: “Moscow has approached the situation differently to most Western countries, with Russian President Vladimir Putin calling for the world to react based on the facts.”

Rising Powers React to Hasty U.S. Withdrawal and Taliban Control

Policy Alert #235 | August 30, 2021

Just last month during a White House press conference on July 8, U.S. President Joe Biden rejected the notion of a Taliban takeover being “inevitable.”^[1] But on August 15, the Taliban seized control of the country’s capital Kabul as the government collapsed and Afghan President Ashraf Ghani fled the country.^[2] The rapid takeover of the country by the Taliban caught the Biden administration off-guard and set in motion a chaotic evacuation in which some 2,500 American troops attempted to secure the Kabul airport.^[3] On August 16, during a UN Security Council Briefing on Afghanistan, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Linda-Thomas Greenfield urged nations that “together, we must do everything we can to help Afghanistan, to help Afghans who wish to leave and seek refuge. We in the international community stand ready to assist them.^[4]

On August 24, the Group of Seven agreed on conditions for recognizing and dealing with a future Taliban-led Afghan government, but President Biden refused to accede to the appeals of G7 leaders to extend the August 31 U.S. withdrawal date to allow more time for evacuations.^[5] Two days later, over 100 Afghans and 13 U.S. service members were killed in a suicide attack carried out by the ISIS-K, the Afghan affiliate of the Islamic State, at the Kabul airport. ^[6] President Biden denounced the attack, vowing, “To those who carried out this attack, as well as anyone who wishes America harm, know this: We will not forgive. We will not forget. We will hunt you down and make you pay.”^[7]

Going forward, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken in a press briefing on August 25 remarked, “If a future government upholds the basic rights of the Afghan people, if it makes good on its commitments to ensure that Afghanistan cannot be used as a launching pad for terrorist attacks directed against us and our allies and partners, and in the first instance, if it makes good on its commitments to allow people who want to leave Afghanistan to leave, that’s a government we can work with. If it doesn’t, we will make sure that we use every appropriate tool at our disposal to isolate that government, and as I said before, Afghanistan will be a pariah.”^[8]

In this Policy Alert, we examine the rising powers’ reactions to the Taliban taking power in Afghanistan as the U.S. leaves and how they view the future.

India

Indian officials have avoided commenting on the Taliban directly in public. The Indian Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ communications focused mostly on evacuation efforts for its embassy personnel in Kabul.^[9] On August 16, India’s ambassador to the UN, TS Tirumurti, noted the situation in Afghanistan had dramatically changed since the last Security Council meeting 10 days ago, and was of “great concern” to New Delhi.^[10] He reiterated India’s call for respecting the rights of Afghan women, children and minorities, and added, “If it is ensured that the territory of Afghanistan is not used by terrorist groups to threaten or attack any other country, then Afghanistan’s neighbours and the region would feel safer.”^[11]

On August 20, Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke virtually while inaugurating projects for the Somnath temple, saying “empires created out of terror can dominate for some time, but their existence is never permanent as they cannot suppress humanity forever.”^[12] On August 24, Modi spoke via telephone with Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss the unfolding situation in Afghanistan. They expressed the view that it was important for the two strategic partners to work together and instructed their senior officials to remain in touch.^[13] At an all-party briefing on August 26, Minister of External Affairs of India S Jaishankar noted the crisis in Afghanistan was “extremely critical” and reportedly said the Taliban “have not kept their word given in Doha.” He noted that India, at the moment, had adopted a “wait and watch” policy over the chaos in Afghanistan.^[14]

Soon after the Kabul suicide blasts, India officially condemned the attack, adding that the “attacks reinforce the need for the world to stand unitedly against terrorism and all those who provide sanctuaries to terrorists.”^[15]

In an op-ed for the liberal Indian Express, Sharat Sabharwal, former High Commissioner to Pakistan, believes that India must measure the Taliban by its actions and wait for an opening: “Going forward, if the Taliban build an inclusive and stable system, they may be able to win international recognition. If they stick to their old ways, they may end up generating opposition, violence and instability in the country.”
In an op-ed for the pro-BJP government The Pioneer, Ashok K Mehta, retired Lt General of the Indian Army, criticizes a “wait and watch” foreign policy: “It is impossible to shape Afghanistan’s environment by “wait and watch,” India’s cardinal strategy of strategic patience or masterly inactivity for most of the last two decades. India is stuck with a discredited America but has a Tajik-Pashtun friend in Abdullah Abdullah, the head of High Council on Peace and Reconciliation who interacted with the Taliban intermittently for two years. He may become part of the interim Government and India’s foot in the door.”

China

The Chinese Embassy in Kabul is one of the few still operating normally, illustrating China’s advantageous position. On July 28, State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi had met with an Afghan Taliban delegation in Tianjin. After the Taliban takeover, the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs sought to highlight security concerns and reassurance from the Afghan Taliban that they will not allow any force, especially the Eastern Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), to use Afghan territory to “engage in acts detrimental to China.”^[16] In a meeting of the UN Security Council on August 16, China’s deputy UN Ambassador Geng Shuang was even more emphatic, “Afghanistan must never again become a haven for terrorists. We hope that the Taliban… make a clean break with the terrorist organizations.”^[17]

Foreign Minister Wang Yi also commented on the U.S. withdrawal, calling it “hasty” and concluding that it “marks the failure of the U.S. policy toward Afghanistan.”^[18] Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying did not give a clear answer as to whether the Chinese government would recognize the Afghan Taliban government. However, Chunying noted China’s readiness to “develop good-neighborliness and friendly cooperation” and pointed out that “The Afghan Taliban said on multiple occasions that it hopes to grow sound relations with China, and looks forward to China’s participation in Afghanistan’s reconstruction and development.”^[19]

On August 18, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian responded when asked under what conditions will China recognize an Afghan Taliban government, “It is a customary international practice that the recognition of a government comes after its formation. We hope that Afghanistan can form an open, inclusive and broadly representative government that echoes the widely shared aspirations of its own people and the international community.”^[20] After the explosion outside the Kabul airport on August 26, Zhao Lijian stated, “China is shocked at and strongly condemns the explosions near Kabul airport which caused heavy casualties.”^[21]

In an op-ed for state-owned nationalist tabloid Global Times, Wang Jin, associate professor at the Institute of Middle Eastern Studies at Northwest University in China, believes that the Afghan’s government’s collapse undermines the credibility of the US: “The US did reflect upon itself by realizing that intervening in Afghanistan was a mistake. But such reflection did not prevent the US from making mistakes again and again… bringing more security challenges to Afghanistan and the international community.”
In an op-ed for South China Morning Post, a newspaper based in Hong Kong, well-known journalist Minnie Chan, suggests how the Afghan crisis drew China and Russia closer on Central Asian stability: “The flurry of military exercises comes as the two nations are drawn closer by a shared rivalry with the US and worries about stability in Central Asia in view of the worsening security situation in Afghanistan… now compounded by the Isis-K bombings in Kabul.”

Japan

On August 23, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga held a national security council meeting on the situation in Afghanistan, after which the Japanese Self-Defense Forces began sending aircraft to Afghanistan to evacuate Japanese nationals and local staff working for the Japanese Embassy.^[22]

After his meeting with G7 leaders, the Japanese Prime Minister said Japan would contribute humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, while he also pointed out that the international community needs to monitor Taliban’s behavior in respecting human rights, including the rights of women and to prevent the country from becoming a hotbed of terror.

In an op-ed for the center-right The Japan Times, Kuni Miyake, President of the Foreign Policy Institute, Research Director at Canon Institute for Global Studies, and special adviser to Suga’s Cabinet, argues forcefully that the failure of nation-building in Afghanistan should not deter the west from promoting political change in China: “What we have witnessed in Afghanistan over the past several centuries seems to tell us that the noble efforts of the west to modernize or democratize an underdeveloped nation in haste could backfire in the end… China is no Afghanistan and, therefore, has no excuse. It’s time for Beijing to change its authoritarian or dictatorial regime into one that practices more civilized democratic and rule-based governance. If the west can afford making efforts to democratize a developing nation, our target must be China, not the Taliban in Afghanistan.”
An editorial from the liberal Asahi Shimbun urges the U.S. to delay its Afghan exit in order to ensure all Afghan refugees are able to escape the country: “Washington declared war to defeat Muslim extremists, but it has only given birth to new extremist groups. U.S. forces are now rushing to leave Afghanistan, almost as if they are being chased out by groups hell-bent on attacking Americans… Hordes of people fearing for their lives under Taliban rule remain in the country. It is vital for the U.S. government to send a clear message of its commitment to ensure that all those seeking to escape from the Taliban can leave the country… Aside from working on ways to build a new regime, it is urgent to secure the safety of citizens.”

Russia

On August 16, Russian U.N. Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia said the Taliban’s quick defeat of government forces “took everyone by surprise.”^[24] “Currently we believe that there is no point in panicking… we urge all Afghan parties to refrain from hostilities and to foster a settlement peacefully,” Nebenzia stated at the UN Security Council.^[25]

Following the Taliban’s takeover of Kabul, Dmitry Zhirnov, Russia’s ambassador to Afghanistan, praised the Taliban’s conduct, saying “The situation is peaceful and… better than it was under Ashraf Ghani.”^[26] Zamir Kabulov, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s special representative on Afghanistan, claimed, “It’s not for nothing that we’ve been establishing contacts with the Taliban movement for the last seven years,” reflecting efforts by Russia to deepen already well-established ties with the Taliban while stopping short of recognizing them as the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan.^[27]

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov underlined his support for a “nationwide dialogue that will lead to forming a representative government which, with the support of the citizens of Afghanistan, will proceed to develop agreements on political arrangements in this multi-ethnic country.”^[28] On August 19, although not expressing approval of the change of government in Afghanistan, Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova claimed that the Taliban’s control is “a reality that the international community should certainly be mindful of when building relations with Afghanistan.”^[29] However, August 25 marked a shift in Russia’s stance on Afghanistan, after the attacks outside the Kabul airport. The Kremlin, citing the presence of Islamic State in Afghanistan as well as the Taliban, said that the terrorist threat was “very high.”^[30]

In an op-ed for The Moscow Times, an independent newspaper based in Moscow, Dmitry Trenin, director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, warns of the challenges to Russia and Central Asia after the U.S. withdrawal: “For Russia and the Central Asian countries, it is the refugee flows and the subversive transborder activity of IS-like organizations that constitute the main problem…Russia will need to do all it can to prevent extremist incursions across Afghanistan’s northern border.”

^[1]https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/07/08/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-drawdown-of-u-s-forces-in-afghanistan/

^[2]https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/16/middleeast/taliban-control-afghanistan-explained-intl-hnk/index.html

^[3]https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/biden-us-troop-withdrawal-afghanistan/2021/04/13/918c3cae-9beb-11eb-8a83-3bc1fa69c2e8_story.html

^[4] https://www.un.org/press/en/2021/sc14604.doc.htm

^[5] https://apnews.com/article/europe-afghanistan-g-7-summit-13631be5beba847935719ec4d8a4d5ce

^[6] https://apnews.com/article/bombings-evacuations-kabul-bb32ec2b65b54ec24323e021c9b4a553

^[7] https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/08/26/world/afghanistan-taliban-biden-news

^[8] https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-on-afghanistan/

^[9]https://www.mea.gov.in/press-releases.htm?dtl/34189/Press_Release_on_the_current_situation_in_Afghanistan

^[10]https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/region-will-feel-safer-if-afghan-soil-isn-t-used-by-terror-groups-india-at-unsc-meet-101629137847306.html

^[11]https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/region-will-feel-safer-if-afghan-soil-isn-t-used-by-terror-groups-india-at-unsc-meet-101629137847306.html

^[12]https://www.india.com/news/world/india-will-soon-know-talibans-capabilities-to-run-afghanistan-affairs-says-taliban-leader-shahabuddin-dilwar-4915702/

^[13]https://www.mea.gov.in/press-releases.htm?dtl/34199/Telephonic_Conversation_between_Prime_Minister_Shri_Narendra_Modi_and_President_of_the_Russian_Federation_HE_Mr_Vladimir_Putin

^[14]https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/jaishankar-says-afghan-situation-critical-evacuation-priority-at-all-party-meet-101629958228736.html

^[15]https://www.mea.gov.in/press-releases.htm?dtl/34203/India_strongly_condemns_the_bomb_blasts_in_Kabul

^[16] https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/2511_665403/t1895706.shtml

^[17]https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/un-chief-urges-security-council-protect-human-rights-afghanistan-2021-08-16/

^[18] https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/2511_665403/t1895706.shtml

^[19] https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/2511_665403/t1899785.shtml

^[20] https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/2511_665403/t1900256.shtml

^[21] https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/2511_665403/t1902496.shtml

^[22] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/08/23/national/afghanistan-japanese-evacuation/

^[24]https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/un-chief-urges-security-council-protect-human-rights-afghanistan-2021-08-16/

^[25]https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/un-chief-urges-security-council-protect-human-rights-afghanistan-2021-08-16/

^[26]https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-says-kabul-seems-safer-under-taliban-than-it-was-under-ghani-2021-08-16/

^[27]https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-says-kabul-seems-safer-under-taliban-than-it-was-under-ghani-2021-08-16/

^[28] https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/-/asset_publisher/cKNonkJE02Bw/content/id/4842045

^[29]https://www.mid.ru/en/press_service/spokesman/briefings/-/asset_publisher/D2wHaWMCU6Od/content/id/4842371#22

^[30]https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/russia-evacuate-more-than-500-citizens-afghanistan-interfax-2021-08-25/

Post-Olympic Quick Takes from the Rising Powers

Policy Alert #234 | August 11, 2021

Despite the protests and criticisms before the event,[1] the Tokyo Olympics overcame the threat of the raging Delta variant and came to a nuanced end on August 8.[2] While Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga thanked the Japanese people’s understanding and cooperation to “fulfill our responsibility as the host nation,”[3] Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi praised the country’s only gold medal winner[4] as the Olympic games concluded with relative success in maintaining the “Olympic bubble.”[5]

Among the Rising Powers, China walked away with the most medals at 88, ranking at second place behind the United States. Japan exceeds its own record at 58 medals in total. Despite having limited participation[6] while competing under the disguise of ROC (Russian Olympic Committee) as a consequence of the doping scandal, Russia was able to grab 70 medals. Meanwhile, India had its best ever Olympics games with 7 medals in total.

In this Policy Alert, we examine what conclusions Rising Powers are drawing from the widely scrutinized Tokyo Olympics.

Japan

An editorial from the liberal Asahi Shimbun calls for a full accounting of the government’s missteps throughout Olympics:

“A number of questions and concerns have since been raised, such as suspected bribery related to the Olympic bid and a breakdown of the expenses for the Games that only kept swelling… The same can be said of measures to contain COVID-19 cases centered on tests and isolation… The organizing committee has an obligation to present concrete data for sharing challenges and lessons with others, albeit somewhat belatedly, before the other nations of the world.”[7]

In an op-ed for the business-focused Nikkei Asia, William Pesek, a Tokyo-based journalist and author of Japanization: What the World Can Learn from Japan’s Lost Decades, argues that the Suga administration needs to pay more attention to domestic issues as the October election approaches:

“Were it not for the complete disarray of Japan’s opposition, Suga and his Liberal Democratic Party would almost certainly be the fourth post-Games political casualty… Now, as Suga’s government pivots to Taiwan, it is hard not to worry that there is no real domestic agenda… the LDP ought to know that real strength begins at home with a vibrant economy. Putting more naval vessels in the South China Sea matters less than Japan Inc. wowing the globe with new technologies and game-changing unicorns.”[8]

China

An editorial from the Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post applauds Tokyo’s effort to organize the Olympic games while navigating against the ongoing threat of COVID:

“Tokyo has all but pulled off an unlikely triumph. It seems to have confounded the worst fears of an outbreak, although we do not know for sure yet as athletes return home…These Games set the gold standard for organising mega events in unprecedented difficult circumstances. China, host of next year’s Winter Olympics, has much to reflect on.”[9]

An editorial from the nationalist tabloid Global Times attributes China’s success in the Olympics to the country’s recent reforms in state-led institutions while linking a country’s medal count to its level of modernization:

“China’s new type of whole nation system has proven its vitality through the Tokyo Games… the new iteration of this system has gone through various tests in the past years and has been in dynamic improvement… The US, China and Japan ranked top three on the Olympic Medal Count…This isn’t a coincidence. India’s delegation won only one gold and seven medals in total at Tokyo, reflecting there is still a long way ahead for the country to realize modernization.”[10]

India

In an op-ed for the liberal Hindustan Times, Manu Joseph, a journalist and award-winning novelist, gave a tongue in cheek appraisal of India’s lack of success in the Olympic games:

“Forget the medals, we do not even qualify yet to host the Games. A consortium of private and public federations does not consider us good enough to let us waste billions of our own money on an event that some wise cities around the world do not wish upon themselves… the Olympic message for Indians is that we do not need the Games to feel low. The Games are only a reflection of the prevailing world order, and our inferiority is certainly not quadrennial.”[11]

In an op-ed for the conservative The Pioneer, Prafull Goradia, a former member of the Indian upper house Rajya Sabha, proposes that local governments should provide more support for equal participation in sports:

“Except for a few privileged families, sport has not been regarded as integral to Indian society… Governments seldom took any interest and most sports bodies were treated by their members as little political arenas for self-promotion. As a result, regional representation was more important than players’ potential.… Odisha Government deserves hearty congratulations for patronising hockey… If other States could choose other games a la Odisha, it would be a great national service.”[12]

Russia

In an op-ed for independent newspaper The Moscow Times, Vitaly Gorokhov, a lecturer in the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration in St. Petersburg, sees a successful “rally around the flag” effect despite the restrictions of Russian participation in the Olympics due to the recent doping scandal:

“Russian media praise the ingenuity of officials for working around the ban and the heroism of their athletes triumphing in the face of adversity… U.S. athletes who complain about Russian doping are depicted as sore losers… Russia is not alone in treating the Olympics as a platform for displays of national pride and unity. Nationalism has been hard-wired into the Olympics since its foundation… The International Olympic Committee needs the backing of large countries to fund the ever-more-expensive Games, and if nationalism is needed to win their support, so be it.”[13]

[1] https://www.risingpowersinitiative.org/publication/rising-powers-quick-takes-on-the-tokyo-olympics/

[2] https://apnews.com/article/2020-tokyo-olympics-closing-ceremony-coronavirus-pandemic-2d67aa2775d4ba9716eedd432968ef91

[3] https://apnews.com/article/2020-tokyo-olympics-sports-health-japan-coronavirus-pandemic-6c88df67b31b7fbfe983c046d9f9441f

[4] https://twitter.com/narendramodi/status/1423982290296721411

[5] https://apnews.com/article/2020-tokyo-olympics-sports-entertainment-lifestyle-japan-olympic-team-a26c75d0bac84f0b6408b29c96354d2f

[6] https://apnews.com/article/europe-russia-2020-tokyo-olympics-olympic-games-sports-43f0a3ed1efe8dbad68070875ad66e4c

[7] https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14413071

[8] https://asia.nikkei.com/Opinion/Japan-s-Suga-faces-more-than-one-post-Olympics-curse

[9] https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3144305/despite-pandemic-world-can-be-proud-these-olympic-games

[10] https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202108/1230899.shtml

[11] https://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/india-should-not-even-try-to-host-the-olympics/story-pvAQCI2QJaK3WyIvFMqTlO.html

[12] https://www.dailypioneer.com/2021/columnists/india-at-the-olympics-over-the-decades.html

[13] https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/08/02/is-russia-cementing-an-olympic-win-a74669

Rising Powers’ Quick Takes on the Tokyo Olympics

Policy Alert #233 | July 26 2021

After a one-year delay due to COVID pandemic, the Tokyo Olympics finally opened on July 23 with a muted ceremony in an empty stadium of fewer than 1000 spectators.[1] Against protests by the public and warnings from the medical community[2] while Tokyo’s new virus cases nearly reached 2000 a day,[3] the Japanese government put the capital under state of emergency and pushed forward with the Olympic games as a broadcast-only event with no spectators.[4]

In this Policy Alert, we briefly examine the Rising Powers’ anticipations of the Tokyo Olympics.

Japan

In an op-ed for the conservative Yomiuri Shimbun, Takashi Mikuriya, Professor Emeritus in Japanese political history at the University of Tokyo, urges the Japanese government to maintain an accurate archive of its decision-making process throughout the Tokyo Olympics:

“The current administration has been exposed to strong criticism for its decision-making process regarding measures for the novel coronavirus pandemic and the Tokyo Olympic and Paralympic Games. When the early years of the Reiwa era are recalled in future, it will likely become clear that the recent decisions to declare a fourth COVID-19 state of emergency for Tokyo and hold most Games competitions without spectators were of great significance… It is natural for the Suga administration to have a sense of crisis as it is afraid that its approval ratings may turn from ‘gradual decline’ into ‘free fall.’ The administration, of course, has to have the relevant decision-making processes accurately recorded in writing. What is required of the Suga administration is to unambiguously explain to the nation once more why it has decided to hold the Tokyo Olympic and Paralympic Games in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.”[5]

China

In an op-ed for Hong Kong-based newspaper South China Morning Post, Syed Munir Khasru, Chairman of the Institute for Policy, Advocacy, and Governance (IPAG), an independent think tank with a presence in Dhaka, Delhi, Melbourne, Vienna, and Dubai, criticizes the decision to move ahead with the Tokyo Olympics as a disaster waiting to happen:

“The world’s best athletes are being left at the mercy of a government and an international organisation that are supposed to be looking after their well-being. Already, at least 55 people linked to the Olympics have reported positive Covid-19 tests since July 1… The challenges facing the organisers are real. The fear is that the Games could trigger an outbreak within the athletic community or even the city. An Olympic Covid-19 outbreak would not only test the limits of Japan’s health care system but could also possibly incubate a new Olympic variant.”[6]

India

In an op-ed for the liberal Indian Express, Shahid Jameel, a virologist at Ashoka University in Haryana, suggests that the spread of Delta variant and the low vaccination rate in Japan are the greatest threats to the Tokyo Olympics:

The Olympics are coinciding with a Delta variant surge in Japan. This variant is four to five times more infectious than the B.1 virus. Of the 334 AY.1 sub-lineage Delta plus sequences globally, 49 (or 14.7 per cent) are from Japan. These numbers and trends should be cause for worry… Another worry is the vaccination rate in Japan. By July 19, about 72 million doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine were administered, covering 34 per cent of Japan’s population with one dose and 28.4 million people (or 22.5 per cent) with both doses.”[7]

Russia

In an op-ed for the government-funded RT, Paul Nuttall, former Leader of the UK Independent Party, and former Member of the European Parliament, predicts that the Tokyo Olympics could be the most politicized since the 1936 Berlin games:

“Although back in April the IOC maintained that it would uphold Rule 50, which bans any ‘demonstration or political, religious, or racial propaganda,’ it bowed to pressure last week and relaxed the rule… As a result, Great Britain’s women’s football team have announced that they will be taking the knee before their matches. And American athletes will no doubt push this rule to its limit… [Tokyo Olympics] have the potential of being the most politically charged since the 1980s, or possibly even since the 1930s. Debates around identity politics, taking the knee and black power salutes could overshadow what is set to be an enthralling sporting spectacle.”[8]

[1] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/07/15/national/opening-ceremony-numbers/

[2] https://apnews.com/article/business-health-coronavirus-pandemic-olympic-games-2020-tokyo-olympics-dd49a7aaaa6c59defea9670c5b19475c

[3] https://apnews.com/article/2020-tokyo-olympics-sports-health-tokyo-coronavirus-pandemic-1f325200eb530168a9acc7bd5fab29a1

[4] https://apnews.com/article/tokyo-lifestyle-health-coronavirus-pandemic-olympic-games-5fe54df9b5c06abbc54a633cbd0d907e

[5] https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=news&id=urn:contentItem:636F-C231-DYX5-X3T8-00000-00&context=1516831

[6] https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3141806/amid-pandemic-tokyo-olympics-disaster-waiting-happen?module=perpetual_scroll&pgtype=article&campaign=3141806

[7] https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/should-we-cheer-or-fear-the-tokyo-olympics-7416007/

[8] https://www.rt.com/op-ed/529610-summer-olympics-tokyo-politics/

Rising Powers Consider U.S. Withdrawal from Afghanistan and What the Future Holds

Policy Alert #232 | July 1, 2021

On April 14, President Joe Biden’s policy review of the conflict in Afghanistan concluded with the decision to withdraw the remaining force of roughly 2,500 U.S. troops before September 11, 2021.[1] The withdrawal from Afghanistan means that Washington would need to find another location in the region to maintain U.S. military presence.[2] Potential replacement locations for U.S. military base include Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan.[3] However, in a Washington Post op-ed published on June 21, Prime Minister of Pakistan Imran Khan dismisses the possibility of hosting U.S. forces and argues that the presence of U.S. military base would increase the chance of terrorist attacks in Pakistan.[4]

After the announcement of the U.S. withdrawal, Taliban forces have made substantial gains in territories by seizing more than fifty districts, including the provincial capitals of Lashkar Gah, Kunduz, and Maimana.[5] On June 22, UN Security Council held an Open Debate to address the escalation of conflict in Afghanistan. During the meeting, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Linda-Thomas Greenfield promised that Washington would “use our full diplomatic, economic, and assistance toolkit to support the peaceful, stable future the Afghan people want and deserve. And we will continue to support the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces in securing their country.”[6] Three days later, President Biden hosted Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and chairman of the High Council for National Reconciliation Abdullah Abdullah at the White House and assured President Ghani of Washington’s continued financial, humanitarian and security assistance, with the latter coming in the form of MQ-9 Reaper drones stationed in the Persian Gulf.[7]

Despite the efforts of the international community, the prospect of the peace process in Afghanistan remains stagnant, whereas the ongoing conflict could see further escalation. In a press conference at the NATO command in Kabul, coalition commander General Austin S. Miller warned that “civil war is certainly a path that can be visualized if it continues on the trajectory.”[8] At the moment, the Taliban is perceived to have the upper hand. A recent U.S. intelligence report has concluded that the government of Afghanistan could collapse as soon as six months after U.S. military withdrawal from the country is completed.[9]

In this Policy Alert, we will examine the rising powers’ considerations on the state of the Afghan peace process and what U.S. military withdrawal could mean for the future.

China

On June 3, Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi met with his Pakistani and Afghan counterparts, Shah Mahmood Qureshi and Mohammad Haneef Atmar, on Afghanistan’s peace and reconciliation process.[10] The meeting of the Foreign Ministers led to an eight-point consensus that “call on all parties in Afghanistan to cease fire, stop violence and substantively advance inter-Afghan negotiations, and welcome the Taliban back to the political mainstream.”[11] A joint statement of the meeting calls “for responsible and orderly withdrawal of foreign troops to avoid deterioration of the security situation in the region” while stating that the withdrawal would “provide opportunities for the Afghanistan and the region to truly take the future of their countries and nations into their own hands.”[12]

During the UN Security Council meeting on June 22, Zhang Jun, China’s permanent representative to the UN, expressed China’s “deep concern” about the deterioration of the peace process in Afghanistan and noted that the “international community should…contribute more positively to the peace and reconciliation process in Afghanistan. No external forces shall be allowed to pursue narrow self-interests in Afghanistan and turn Afghanistan into an arena of a geopolitical game.”[13] In particular, Zhang commented on the U.S. withdrawal by stating that foreign troops “cannot come and go as they wish. China urges foreign forces to withdraw in a responsible and orderly manner…and enhance transparency with countries in the region to prevent the security situation from worsening, or even getting out of control.”[14]

In an op-ed for state-owned nationalist tabloid Global Times, Niu Song, Professor of the Middle East Studies Institute at Shanghai International Studies University, highlights Washington’s challenges in finding a new location for U.S. military base in the region: “Washington’s purpose is to ensure [a new military base] can still form a timely military deterrent against Afghanistan even if its troops are withdrawn from the war-torn country…Pakistan doesn’t want to be dragged into Afghan affairs and draw fire upon itself anymore… Central Asian countries have some security concerns… they need to take into account their relations with Moscow when coordinating their relations with Washington… If the US cannot find an appropriate alternative in Afghanistan’s periphery in time, the expected effects of its policy of withdrawing from Afghanistan will be significantly reduced.”[15]
In an op-ed for South China Morning Post, a newspaper based in Hong Kong, Raffaello Pantucci, Senior Associate Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute in London and Senior Fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore, questions China’s confidence in seeing the Taliban as a reliable partner: “China has received assurances that a Taliban government would be sure to insulate Beijing from problems that might emanate from Afghan territory…al-Qaeda has begun to champion a narrative of targeting China. It has praised Uygur militants for their battlefield actions and sought to harness some of the global anger against China for its treatment of Uygur minorities at home.…Beijing should be aware that there is little to show the Taliban has recanted or rejected al-Qaeda, or that al-Qaeda has been expelled from its territory.”[16]

India

In the beginning of June, in a significant reversal of the previous non-engagement policy, India for the first-time opened channels of communication with Taliban factions and leaders.[17] On June 21, Qatar’s Special Envoy for the Afghan peace process Mutlaq bin Majed al-Qahtani said that Indian officials made a “quiet visit” to Doha and spoke with Taliban leaders, but New Delhi declined to comment on al-Qahtani’s statement.[18]

On June 22, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar attended the UN Security Council meeting on Afghanistan and suggested that for “enduring peace in Afghanistan, terrorist safe havens and sanctuaries must be dismantled immediately, and terrorist supply chains disrupted.”[19] Without naming Pakistan, Jaishankar called for “zero tolerance for terrorism in all its forms and manifestations including its cross-border one” and suggested those “providing material and financial support to terrorist entities must be held accountable.”[20]

Two days later, National Security Advisor Ajit Doval met with his counterparts at a Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting and underlined the need to monitor new technologies used by terrorists.[21] Doval stated that India fully supports SCO Contact Group on Afghanistan while adding that top priority should also be given to the welfare of Afghans.[22] Doval also met with his Russian counterpart, Nikolai Patrushev, on the sidelines and exchanged views on the situation in Afghanistan and the Asia-Pacific region.[23]

In an op-ed for the liberal Hindustan Times, Avinash Paliwal, Lecturer in Diplomacy and Public Policy at the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London, outlines the benefits and risks of India’s outreach to the Taliban: “The Taliban acknowledges India’s constructive role in Afghanistan, and would not want a reduction in its diplomatic presence… Careful about not being caught between an India-Pakistan crossfire, the Taliban wants to distance itself from the Kashmir imbroglio… But the outreach is not risk-free…Taliban could go back on its promises and, with a nudge from Pakistan, target Indian interests… Taliban interlocutors India is engaging with (the same figures the US is talking to, such as Mullah Baradar) could be sidelined, or worse, replaced by pro-Pakistan hardliners such as the Haqqanis.”[24]
In an op-ed for The Print, Davood Moradian , Director of the Afghan Institute for Strategic Studies and former senior policy adviser in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, proposes that India has three policy options for Afghanistan – perseverance, bandwagon, and abandonment: “Staying the course of its Kabul-centric post-2001 policy would compel Delhi to leave its safe corner that allowed India to have a comfortable ‘developmental partnership’ while paying lip service to a ‘strategic partnership’ with the Afghan State… Delhi can also succumb to the early temptation and bandwagon others in treating the Taliban as the ‘government-in-waiting’… Abandoning Afghanistan is also a policy option for New Delhi; similar to the Tibet situation when in December 1962, India closed its consulate general in Lhasa, in the aftermath of its war with China.”[25]

Russia

During the UN Security Council meeting on June 22, Russian Deputy Permanent Representative to the UN Anna Yevstigneyeva expressed “regret that the peace process has stalled” amid “the withdrawal of foreign forces.”[26] Yevstigneyeva also added that “the degrading situation causes ever growing concerns” while “the balance of power today does not look promising.”[27] A day later, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov highlighted Russia’s concern over the unfolding of the situation in Afghanistan and the emergency of a new hotbed of tension at the border between Afghanistan and Tajikistan.[28]

On June 24, Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev said that Russia expects “an intensification of international terrorism” in the aftermath of U.S. withdrawal. Patrushev believed that the “degradation of the situation in Afghanistan, which is progressing as the US and NATO military contingents are withdrawn, will contribute to an increase in the terrorist activity of ISIL and al-Qaeda in that country.”[29] Moreover, Patrushev stated that “it is unacceptable to use the Afghan issue for solving geopolitical problems, including for building up non-regional players’ military presence in Central Asia.”[30]

In an op-ed for The Moscow Times, an independent newspaper based in Moscow, Temur Umarov, Consultant on China and Central Asia at Carnegie Moscow Center, predicts that Washington would face substantial challenge in relocating U.S. military base to Central Asia: “Washington, therefore, will have to prove to the Central Asian states that the financial and political benefits of cooperating with it would outweigh the inevitable losses that the host countries would sustain as a result of Moscow and Beijing’s displeasure… Beijing believes that Washington plans to destabilize the situation in Xinjiang, while Moscow suspects that the United States will keep sowing chaos around Russia’s borders. Russia and China will continue to fight against the U.S. presence—and will do so together and more actively than before.”[31]
In an interview with state-owned Sputnik News, Raghav Sharma, Associate Professor and Director of the Centre for Afghanistan Studies at O. P. Jindal Global University in India, sees the military withdrawal as a strategic defeat for Washington and expects a prolonged period of uncertainty in the region: “There are new national security threats and priorities for Washington such as China for instance. The reality is Afghanistan is no longer a priority for the West…We are likely to witness a prolonged escalation of violence in the country with the number of IDPs [Internally displaced people] and refugees growing. This would have delimitating consequences for the region in the long run.”[32]

[1] https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/biden-afghanistan-announcement/index.html

[2] https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Article/Article/2579584/us-plans-to-keep-threats-in-check-even-after-afghanistan-withdrawal/

[3] https://www.wsj.com/articles/afghan-pullout-leaves-u-s-looking-for-other-places-to-station-its-troops-11620482659

[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/21/afghanistan-pakistan-imran-khan-peace-security-cooperation-us/

[5] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/20/world/asia/afghanistan-kunduz-taliban.html

[6] https://usun.usmission.gov/remarks-by-ambassador-linda-thomas-greenfield-at-a-un-security-council-open-debate-on-afghanistan-2/

[7] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/25/us/politics/biden-afghanistan-withdrawal.html

[8] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/29/world/asia/afghanistan-civil-war-miller.html

[9] https://www.wsj.com/articles/afghan-government-could-collapse-six-months-after-u-s-withdrawal-new-intelligence-assessment-says-11624466743

[10] https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1881347.shtml

[11] https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1881351.shtml

[12] https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1881308.shtml

[13] http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2021-06/23/c_1310022303.htm

[14] http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2021-06/23/c_1310022303.htm

[15] https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202106/1225915.shtml

[16] https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3138926/why-china-cannot-afford-take-passive-role-post-us-afghanistan

[17] https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/in-a-first-india-opens-communication-channels-with-afghan-taliban-factions-101623165405972.html

[18] https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/indian-delegation-met-taliban-in-doha-says-qatari-official/article34895560.ece

[19] https://indianexpress.com/article/india/terrorist-safe-havens-must-be-dismantled-for-enduring-peace-in-afghanistan-india-7371017/

[20] https://indianexpress.com/article/india/terrorist-safe-havens-must-be-dismantled-for-enduring-peace-in-afghanistan-india-7371017/

[21] https://www.livemint.com/news/world/sco-meet-ajit-doval-underlines-need-to-monitor-new-tech-used-by-terrorists-11624548086739.html

[22] https://www.livemint.com/news/world/sco-meet-ajit-doval-underlines-need-to-monitor-new-tech-used-by-terrorists-11624548086739.html

[23] https://www.livemint.com/news/world/sco-meet-ajit-doval-underlines-need-to-monitor-new-tech-used-by-terrorists-11624548086739.html

[24] https://www.hindustantimes.com/opinion/engaging-with-the-taliban-is-necessary-101624803847518.html

[25] https://theprint.in/opinion/to-be-or-not-to-be-in-afghanistan-is-not-an-easy-question-for-india/684170/

[26] https://tass.com/world/1305987

[27] https://tass.com/world/1305987

[28] https://tass.com/politics/1306243

[29] https://tass.com/world/1306701

[30] https://tass.com/world/1306701

[31] https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/06/07/is-there-a-place-for-a-us-military-base-in-central-asia-a74127

[32] https://sputniknews.com/analysis/202106251083244301-afghanistan-no-longer-priority-for-west-so-us-troops-to-exit-despite-violence-reports-analysts-say/

Rising Powers Respond to the G7 Summit

Policy Alert #231 | June 16, 2021

On June 13, the leaders of G7 nations ended their three-day summit in southwest England. At his first in-person meeting with the leaders of the world’s most influential democracies, President Joe Biden took the opportunity to announce the U.S. “is back in the business of leading the world alongside nations who share our most deeply held values.”[1] Among a wide range of global issues, the ongoing COVID pandemic and the rising influence of China are at the center stage of the meeting. In the joint communique, G7 nations pledge to donate one billion COVID vaccines to developing countries while allocating $100 billion through the IMF, among other funding sources, to support the “Build Back Better World” initiative for global post-pandemic recovery.[2] Moreover, the communique calls for China to respect human rights in Xinjiang and freedoms in Hong Kong, while urging a transparent investigation of COVID origin in China, as well as underscoring the importance of peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait.[3] In addition to the communique, G7 nations also signed an Open Societies Statement with India, South Korea, and South Africa to reaffirm their “shared belief in open societies, democratic values and multilateralism.”[4]

In this Policy Alert, we examine the Rising Powers’ reactions to the outcomes of the G7 Summit.

China

On June 12, the Chinese Embassy in the United Kingdom commented that the “days when global decisions were dictated by a small group of countries are long gone…There is only one kind of multilateralism, that is, the genuine multilateralism based on the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and international law… not pseudo-multilateralism serving the interests of a small clique or political bloc.”[5]

Three days later, Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian criticized the G7 communique as “deliberately slandering China on issues related to Hong Kong, Xinjiang and Taiwan as well as maritime issues, and interfering in China’s internal affairs.” Zhao also stated China’s opposition to “the malign intentions of the US and a few other countries to create confrontation and widen differences and disputes” while suggesting “the US is ill and it’s bad” and advising “the G7 to save its prescription for the US.”[6]

An editorial from the South China Morning Post, a Hong Kong-based newspaper, sees division among G7 nations on countering China despite the strongly worded communique: “But while the G7 is more united with Biden at the helm of the United States, its leaders do not speak with one voice on China. The hawkish language of the US and Canada is not shared by Europe and Japan, which favor a practical approach towards the important trading and investment partner. They have divergent views on the depth of the Chinese challenge, apparent in disagreement over funding for the Belt and Road alternative ”[7]
In an op-ed for state-run nationalist tabloid Global Times, Liu Zongyi, Secretary General of the Research Center for China-South Asia Cooperation at Shanghai Institutes for International Studies, argues that the infrastructure support pledged by G7 for India is far from enough: “In case of the G7’s new infrastructure plan, how much funds supports will Western countries provide in actual implementation is still questionable…Even if the West plans to invest in India’s infrastructure, how much can they support India at a time when many of them are facing skyrocketing levels of debt and can barely finance their own domestic infrastructure?”[8]

India

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi attended the G7 Summit virtually as the lead speaker on the session for Open Societies while also speaking on the session for climate change. Modi said India is a natural ally of G7 in defending the shared values from a host of threats stemming from authoritarianism, terrorism and violent extremism, disinformation, and economic coercion.[9] At the same time, Modi highlighted the non-democratic and unequal nature of global governance institutions and called for the reform of the multilateral system as the best signal of commitment to the cause of Open Societies.[10]

In an interview after the G7 Summit, P. Harish, Additional Secretary of Economic Relations at the Ministry of External Affairs, said that for the first time, India has engaged in ministerial and working-level tracks as a guest country. Harish also stated that India’s engagement with G7 stands on its own and that the Indian government hopes to take forward the engagement in various initiatives.[11]

In an op-ed for the liberal Indian Express, C. Raja Mohan, Director of the Institute of South Asian Studies at National University of Singapore, sees India’s participation in G7 as a signal of deepening ties between India and suggests that China is the key factor driving the improving relations: “The frequent military crises at the northern frontiers – in 2013, 2014, 2017 and 2020 – have compelled Delhi to reevaluate its threat perceptions. Besides the threat to territorial security, India finds that its hopes for strong global cooperation with China – through such forums as the RIC (Russia-India-China), BRICS – have taken a big beating in recent years… The growing trade imbalance with China and the negative impact of Chinese imports on India’s domestic manufacturing saw Delhi walk away in 2019 from the Beijing-dominated RCEP.”[12]
An editorial from the pro-government The Pioneer questions the unity of G7 and the group’s ability to follow up on its pledges: “The G7 looked desperate to show how united they were… Its follow-up on its declarations has been rather lackluster. Its membership often completely ignores the emerging trends…President Joe Biden has pledged to restore the US’ historical commitment to multilateralism. But G7 did not show unity or firmness in Russia’s role in Syria, and Russian interference in the US and European elections.”[13]

Japan

On June 12, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga spoke with President Joe Biden on the sideline of the G7 meeting and discussed COVID-19, climate change, North Korea, China, and peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.[14] During the discussion, Biden affirmed Washington’s commitment to the U.S.-Japan alliance and support to the Tokyo Olympics. Suga also “accidently” ran into South Korean President Moon Jae-in and exchanged greetings, marking the first in-person meeting between the two leaders.[15] At the end of the Summit on Sunday, Suga said G7 nations will lead the international community in tackling the coronavirus pandemic and authoritarianism. Suga also added that all leaders gave “very strong support” for Japan’s Tokyo Olympics.

In an op-ed for the center-right The Japan Times, Brad Glosserman, Deputy Director of the Center for Rule-Making Strategies at Tama University, suggests that the outcome of the G7 Summit is clouded by the uncertainty over whether the nations will deliver on the underwhelming pledges: “While the pledge to provide over 1 billion vaccines to poorer countries sounds impressive, it was dismissed by campaigners for global equity… While activists hoped that the group would set a date to phase out the use of coal, the communique only called for ‘an overwhelmingly decarbonized power system in the 2030s’… For all the pomp and fine intentions, the G7’s influence is limited… The real instrument of international economic leadership is the G20, whose members account for some 80% of global GDP and two-thirds of the world’s population.”[16]
An editorial from the conservative Yomiuri Shimbun urges more multilateral cooperation among democracies to counter China’ assertiveness and reduce dependence on China in the global supply chain: “It is essential for the United States to be an active player in world affairs, bolstering the impression the U.S.-Japan-Europe cooperative system has been revived. The biggest focus of the summit is whether the G7 can provide a concrete road map for dealing with the challenges to the international order posed by China, Russia, and other such authoritarian nations… With Australia, India, South Africa, and South Korea invited to the G7 summit, a stable framework composed of democratic nations is desired.”

[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/06/13/remarks-by-president-biden-in-press-conference-2/

[2] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/06/13/carbis-bay-g7-summit-communique/

[3] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/06/13/carbis-bay-g7-summit-communique/

[4] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/50364/g7-2021-open-societies-statement-pdf-355kb-2-pages.pdf

[5] https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ce/ceuk/eng/PressandMedia/Spokepersons/t1883513.htm

[6] https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/t1884007.shtml

[7] https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3137260/biden-should-follow-g7-pragmatism-approach-china

[8] https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202106/1226219.shtml

[9] https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/india-natural-ally-of-g7-pm-modi-267915

[10] https://www.pmindia.gov.in/en/news_updates/on-the-second-day-of-g7-summit-pm-takes-part-in-two-sessions/?comment=disable

[11] https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/indias-engagement-with-g7-stands-on-its-own-govt-looking-forward-to-cop26-mea-101623592786855.html

[12] https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/g-7-virtual-meet-united-kingdom-india-and-the-west-relations-7348541/

[13] https://www.dailypioneer.com/2021/columnists/the-g7-world.html

[14] https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/06/12/readout-of-president-bidens-meeting-with-prime-minister-suga-yoshihide-suga-of-japan/

[15] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/06/13/national/suga-moon/

[16] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2021/06/15/commentary/japan-commentary/actions-words-make-break-g7/

Rising Powers React to the Israel-Palestinian Conflict

Policy Alert #230 | May 24, 2021

After weeks of rising tension, which started with the eviction of Palestinian families in East Jerusalem and resulted in several Palestinian deaths,[1] Israel raided the al-Aqsa Mosque, one of the holiest sites in Islam, causing more than 50 injuries.[2] On May 10, Hamas fired rockets toward Jerusalem for the first time since 2014, prompting Israel to retaliate with airstrikes.[3] As the violence escalated, United Nation’s Security Council had three attempts to issue joint statements condemning Israel and calling for ceasefire, all of which blocked by the United States.[4] After 11 days of fighting, which saw thousands of rockets fired from Gaza and hundreds of airstrikes on Palestinian territory, Israel and Hamas agreed to a ceasefire proposal brokered by Egypt on May 20.[5] The deadly conflict has led to more than 200 killed in Gaza, including more than 60 children, and at least 10 killed in Israel.[6]

In this Policy Alert, we examine the Rising Powers’ reactions to the latest round of violence between Israel and Palestine.

China

On May 15, State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi expounded on China’s position on the conflict during a phone call with Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi. Wang stated: “the root cause of the situation is that for a long time there has not been a just solution to the Palestinian question…China, as the presidency of the Security Council for May, has pushed the Security Council to hold two emergency consultations on the Palestine-Israel conflict…But regrettably, the Security Council has so far failed to reach an agreement, with the United States standing on the opposite side of international justice…an ultimate way out of the Palestinian question lies in the implementation of the two-state solution.”[7]

The next day, Wang held a United Nations Security Council meeting on the conflict, reiterating China’s position and urging for humanitarian assistance.[8] According to Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian, Chinese Special Envoy for the Middle East Zhai Jun “had telephone conversations with officials of the Palestinian and Egyptian foreign ministries respectively and conducted active mediation.”[9] After the ceasefire, Zhai “stressed that China welcomes the ceasefire between Palestine and Israel in conflict and hopes the two sides to restart peace talks as soon as possible on the basis of the two-state solution.”[10]

In an op-ed for South China Morning Post, a Hong Kong-based newspaper, Andrew Sheng, former central banker and current distinguished fellow at the Asia Global Institute in University of Hong Kong, argues that Israel’s devotion to science, technology, and military strength has been the key to their survival in the region: “[The West] have effectively monopolized five advantages: technologies; monetary and financial systems; access to natural resources; mass communication systems, and weapons of mass destruction. The Israelis understand this perfectly though, and have played the same game to succeed and survive.”[11]
In an op-ed for the state-run China Daily, Fan Hongda, a professor at the Middle East Studies Institute in Shanghai International Studies University, stresses the pivotal role of the U.S. in resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict: “Israel-Palestine ties worsened and the interests of Palestinians were grossly compromised during the administration of previous US president Donald Trump…Since US President Joe Biden claims to be different from Trump, the international community hopes his administration will fulfill its international responsibilities by not opposing international justice…and eventually reach an agreement to permanently settle the Israeli-Palestinian disputes.”[12]

Japan

On May 11, Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a statement on Tokyo’s position regarding the conflict: “It has to be said that the current situation goes against the efforts by the international community to seek for a two-state solution whereby the state of Israel and a future independent state of Palestine live side by side in peace and security, and the Government of Japan strongly condemns such acts of violence… In this regard, it must be pointed out that the potential ruling of Palestinian families’ evictions from their homes in East Jerusalem, including Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood, could exacerbate the situation… The Government of Japan once again urges the Government of Israel to reverse the above-mentioned decision and fully freeze its settlement activities.”[13]

On May 12, Japanese Deputy Defense Minister Yasuhide Nakayama wrote a controversial statement on Twitter, supporting the actions of Israel: “What would you do? One day, more than 300 rockets were suddenly shot by terrorists in 24 hours, robbing the lives of their beloved family and their homes. Israel has the right to protect itself from terrorists. Who was the first to shoot rockets at the citizens? Our heart is with Israel.”[14] Nakayama faced questions in the Diet on May 18 over the controversial tweet. Two days later, he deleted the tweet and apologized.[15]

An editorial from the conservative Yomiuri Shimbun proposes that the international community should take the opportunity of the ceasefire to initiate more negotiations for a lasting resolution of peace: “the international community has historically promoted a peace initiative in which a Palestinian state would be established in the future that would coexist peacefully with Israel. Israel’s recent expansion of Jewish settlements in the land it occupied in past Middle East wars is a move that runs against the spirit of coexistence… the United States, as one might expect, holds the key. This time, U.S. President Joe Biden supported the Egyptian cease-fire mediation and reportedly tried to persuade Netanyahu… Biden must also do his best to promote peace in the Middle East.”[16]
In an op-ed for the center-right The Japan Times, Kuni Miyake, President of the Foreign Policy Institute, Research Director at Canon Institute for Global Studies, and a special adviser to Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga’s Cabinet, defends Nakayama’s statements and argues that the Palestinian leadership has missed several opportunities to live in peace with Israel: “Nakayama’s comments were aimed at ending terrorism… While Israel has no right to kill Palestinian civilians, Hamas also has no right to kill ordinary Israelis, either. It is perfectly fine to express the view that Israel has the right to defend itself… [The Palestinians] may have believed at one time that they could defeat Israel, but that remains an unrealistic dream…[They] could have had an independent state twenty years ago. Unfortunately, neither Yasser Arafat nor Mahmoud Abbas have played their cards right. That was the real reason why the issue of Palestine is no longer an Arab cause.”[17]

India

During the United Nations Security Council meeting on the conflict, India’s Permanent Representative and Ambassador to the United Nations T.S. Tirumurti stated: “Immediate de-escalation is the need of the hour, so as to arrest any further slide towards the brink. We urge both sides to show extreme restraint, desist from actions that exacerbate tensions, and refrain from attempts to unilaterally change the existing status-quo, including in East Jerusalem and its neighborhood.”[18]

Tirumurti also condemned the “indiscriminate rocket firings from Gaza” and “the retaliatory strikes into Gaza,” along with expressing India’s strong support to the just Palestinian cause and its unwavering commitment for the two-state solution.[19]

An editorial from the left-leaning The Hindu praises India’s balanced approach to the conflict by reaffirming its traditional support for the Palestine cause without abandoning Israel: “While Israel ties are on a strong footing, India cannot ignore the Palestinians for historic, moral, legal and realist reasons. Historically, India, which went through the horrors of 1947, opposed the partition of Palestine… India’s Palestine policy had realist underpinnings too. India has been energy dependent on the Arab world. It cannot alienate the Arab voices or be isolated in the General Assembly, where most member-countries oppose the occupation.”[20]
In an op-ed for the liberal Indian Express, K M Seethi, Director of the Inter University Centre for Social Science Research and Extension at Mahatma Gandhi University in Kerala, warns that Palestinians are not only facing threats of violence, but also vulnerability to COVID: “Gaza was under intensified blockade by Israel for quite a long time, resulting in shortages in medical supplies and clinical capacity… The UN human rights agency had already reminded Israel that it’s their ‘responsibility to provide equitable access to Covid-19 vaccines for Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.’ But Israel turned down such a position.”[21]

Russia

On May 11, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Vershinin met with the ambassadors of Palestine and Jordan, during which the foreign diplomats “stressed inadmissibility of Israel’s plans to evict Palestinians from their homes in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah, and of its violent actions in the Al-Aqsa Mosque.” After the meeting, a Russian Foreign Ministry statement said “the Russian side reaffirmed readiness to further intensify efforts in this domain… In connection with the rapidly deteriorating security situation, a commonly shared opinion was expressed, about the need to end violence and resume a sustainable Israeli-Palestinian negotiation process as soon as possible.”[22] Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov also urged “both parties to show restraint” and stressed that “both parties should find the strength to settle the problem, proceeding from, above all, the effective resolutions of the UN Security Council.”[23]

Two days later, Russian President Vladimir Putin and UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres held a video conversation and discussed, among other things, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, voicing support for a two-state solution to the problem.[24] Meanwhile, Israeli Ambassador to Russia Alexander Ben Zvi said he had conducted working meetings with Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov and Sergei Vershinin. Ben Zvi hoped that hope that Russia’s relations with various Palestinian groups would make it possible for Moscow to have some influence on Hamas.[25]

In an op-ed for government-funded RT, Sreeram Chaulia, Professor and Dean at the Jindal School of International Affairs in India, cautions that extremists on both Israeli and Palestinian sides have been gaining influence, dimming the prospect of a near-term resolution: “Netanyahu sustains his centrality in Israeli politics thanks to radical right-wing allies who demand the hardest possible military response to Hamas, hold a maximalist conception of ‘greater Israel’ that requires annexation of whatever lands the Palestinians still have… Hamas, which is founded on jihadist ideology, is using its radical appeal of the complete obliteration of Israel and eternal hostility to Jews to outdo its rival Palestinian faction Fatah… External mediation, conflict resolution or normalisation of relations between Israel and Arab countries through the Abraham Accords cannot overcome the visceral schisms on the ground inside Israel and the occupied territories.”[26]
In an interview with state-owned Sputnik News, Avigdor Eskin, a conservative political activist based in Jerusalem, questions the prospect of engaging with Hamas and calls for disarming the organization: “the reason for the conflict is their raison d’etre – the destruction of Israel and killing of the Jewish people… Israel’s decision to dismantle Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip and completely withdraw from the region in 2005 did not end the violence… the disarmament of Hamas’ military wing as well as other jihadi militants in Gaza would have improved the odds of resolving the longstanding Israeli-Palestinian conflict and paved the way to peace in the region.”[27]

[1] https://forward.com/news/469256/from-tiktok-to-temple-mount-clashes-28-days-of-violence-in-jerusalem/

[2] https://apnews.com/article/israel-middle-east-west-bank-shootings-d5c6b1ed602844be69318bd1d1a334cf

[3] https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-israel-jerusalem-076a9ec7e2bd9c065882c64a4ab820a1

[4] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/5/17/no-us-action-after-third-unsc-meeting-on-israel-palestine

[5] https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinian-cease-fire-hamas-caac81bc36fe9be67ac2f7c27000c74b

[6] https://apnews.com/article/hamas-gaza-israel-middle-east-health-38b9a5235f1fae5927c8364bf8334457

[7] https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1876266.shtml

[8] https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1876263.shtml

[9] https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/t1877351.shtml

[10] https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/wjbxw/t1877879.shtml

[11] https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3134320/war-against-covid-19-or-israeli-palestinian-conflict-technological

[12] http://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202105/19/WS60a4494aa31024ad0babfd58.html

[13] https://www.mofa.go.jp/press/release/press4e_003001.html

[14] https://www.arabnews.jp/en/japan/article_46033/

[15] http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/14355153

[16] https://the-japan-news.com/news/article/0007423127

[17] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2021/05/20/commentary/japan-commentary/arab-state-palestinian-israeli-conflict/

[18] https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/india-at-security-council-calls-for-immediate-de-escalation-of-israel-palestine-hostilities/article34573922.ece

[19] https://indianexpress.com/article/india/immediate-de-escalation-need-of-the-hour-india-on-escalating-tensions-between-israel-and-gaza-7317832/

[20] https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/balancing-act-the-hindu-editorial-on-indias-stand-in-israel-palestine-conflict/article34608788.ece

[21] https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/for-palestinians-its-both-the-pandemic-and-the-threat-of-violence-explusion-7317762/

[22] https://tass.com/world/1288539

[23] https://tass.com/politics/1288751

[24] https://tass.com/politics/1289341

[25] https://tass.com/world/1289901

[26] https://www.rt.com/op-ed/524317-israel-palestine-extremists-leaderships-fail/

[27] https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/202105161082910198-israeli-publicist-how-could-jewish-state-strike-deal-with-those-who-dont-want-it-to-exist-/

Rising Powers React to Biden’s First 100 Days

Policy Alert #229 | April 30, 2021

Continue reading “Rising Powers React to Biden’s First 100 Days”

Rising Powers React to Biden-Suga Summit

Policy Alert #228 | April 20, 2021

Continue reading “Rising Powers React to Biden-Suga Summit”

Rising Powers React to Contentious U.S.-China Relations: A Roundup

Policy Alert #228 | March 25, 2021

Continue reading “Rising Powers React to Contentious U.S.-China Relations: A Roundup”

Rising Powers React to the First Quad Summit

Policy Alert #226 | March 18, 2021

The leaders of the Quad – a security dialogue that includes the U.S., India, Japan, and Australia –held their historic first summit level meeting on March 12. The summit is the latest signal indicating the Quad has gained considerable momentum amid the rising influence of China in the Indo-Pacific region. As the summit drew international attention, South Korea and the United Kingdom both expressed interest in joining the Quad.

According to U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, the four leaders discussed “the challenge posed by China, and they made clear that none of them have any illusions about China.” The Quad summit also covered a wide range of security issues including the East and South China Seas, cyber security, and the recent coup in Myanmar. Moreover, the U.S. and Japan both promised financial support to India’s vaccine production through the Quad Vaccine Partnership, while the four countries planned to establish closer cooperation in climate change and technological development through the Quad Climate Working Group and the Quad Critical and Emerging Technology Working Group.

After the summit, the leaders of the Quad issued a rare joint op-ed for the Washington Post, in which they pledge to “ensure that the Indo-Pacific is accessible and dynamic, governed by international law and bedrock principles such as freedom of navigation and peaceful resolution of disputes, and that all countries are able to make their own political choices, free from coercion.” Without referencing China, the leaders acknowledge that such a vision “has increasingly been tested,” but they agree that “those trials have only strengthened our resolve to reckon with the most urgent of global challenges together.”

In this Policy Alert, we examine how the Rising Powers are responding to the outcome of the first Quad summit.

China

After the Quad summit, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zhao Lijian responded to Sullivan’s comment in a regular press conference: “For quite some time, certain countries have been so keen to exaggerate and hype up the so-called ‘China threat’ to sow discord among regional countries, especially to disrupt their relations with China. However, their actions, running counter to the trend of the times of peace, development and cooperation and the common aspirations of the countries and peoples in the region, will not be welcomed or succeed.”

In an op-ed for South China Morning Post, a Hong Kong-based newspaper, Richard Heydarian, a Professorial Chairholder in Geopolitics at the Polytechnic University of the Philippines, foresees that an Asian NATO is becoming more likely under President Joe Biden’s multilateral approach, but U.S. long-term U.S. foreign policy remains unpredictable: “there are lingering doubts as to the trajectory of American foreign policy, especially if Biden ends up as a single-term president and Washington reverts to Trumpian unilateralism…There is also China’s ability to entice US allies with massive trade and investment initiatives, especially amid the post-pandemic economic fallout.”
An editorial from the state-run China Daily accuses the U.S. and its allies of reviving their Cold War strategies against China: “[A]lthough the Biden administration has vowed to avoid conflict and misjudgment with China, it seems intent on continuing the previous administration’s ‘maximum pressure’ strategy… [The U.S.] proclaimed itself the winner of the Cold War in the 1990s, declaring the end of history. Now it seems intent on copying an upgraded version of the mixture of its strategies against Japan and the Soviet Union in its dealings with China.”
In an op-ed for the nationalist state-run tabloid Global Times, Cheng Xiaohe, an associate professor with the School of International Studies, Renmin University of China and a senior researcher with the Pangoal Institute, suggests that South Korea’s strategic ambiguity over joining the Quad is changing: “[I]n order to persuade South Korea, the US will definitely include the signature of agreement on defense cost-sharing into the package deal and make Seoul believe that it will gain benefits…South Korea’s attitude toward the Quad used to be negative, and the major reason is that it was concerned about China’s reactions. Now, Seoul has changed its attitude because it may also enjoy balance between Beijing and Washington.”

India

During the summit, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi stated: “Our agenda today – covering areas like vaccines, climate change and emerging technologies – makes the Quad a force for global good. I see this positive vision as an extension of India’s ancient philosophy of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam, which regards the world as one family. We are united by our democratic values and commitment to a free, open and inclusive Indo-Pacific.”

After the summit, Indian Foreign Secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla said that the vaccine initiative “is the most pressing and valuable” takeaway and added that “India welcomes this initiative as it recognizes our own manufacturing capacities and capabilities. We look forward to wholehearted participation in this endeavor. This vaccine supply chain is built by trust and being built to convey trust.”

In an op-ed for the liberal Indian Express, Akhilesh Mishra, CEO of Bluekraft Digital Foundation, argues that India’s rising level of manufacturing capability offers strategic value for the Quad: “The strategic case for the Quad has, however, always faced a tactical hurdle. China was the factory of the world. It had become an almost indispensable cog in the global supply chain…As long as there was no equivalent manufacturing destination to rival China, the case for an ‘arc of democracies’ would remain confined to concept papers in think tanks…what has changed between 2007 and 2020 that Quad 2.0 has become viable? The answer is the globally visible rise in India’s manufacturing ability.”
In an op-ed for The Print, Rajesh Rajagopalan, a professor in International Politics at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, expects closer U.S.-India relations would push Russia toward China while nudging Russia away from India: “The source of divergence between Indian and Russian interests lies in the continuing problems that Russia faces in its relations with the US…Moscow has increasingly leaned on China both for support as well as a way to undermine American power. The military relationship between the two has become increasingly close…As the latest Quad summit demonstrates, despite Moscow’s opposition, India clearly sees the grouping as a necessary response to China.”
An editorial from pro-government The Pioneer questions whether the Quad has done enough to contain China’s growing influence and whether Washington will sustain the current policy in the long-run: “But the moot question is whether such docile attempts are enough to counter China? Will it work as a real deterrent to Beijing? What will be its repercussions…Biden hinted to it in his first diplomatic address when he pledged to counter China’s economic abuses and human rights violations but, on the other hand, asserted that he is ready to work with Beijing if it is in the US’ interest…India must also play its game cleverly else it would end up serving the interest of the superpower in the Indo-Pacific region at the cost of its own gains.”

Japan

During the summit, Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga stated: “In October, last year, we reached the stage of holding the foreign ministers meeting here in Tokyo. Less than half a year since then, we are now holding this first leaders’ summit…With the four countries working together, I wish to firmly advance our cooperation to realize a free and open Indo-Pacific and to make visible and tangible contribution to the peace, stability, and prosperity of the region, including overcoming COVID-19.”

An editorial from the conservative Yomiuri Shimbun sees the Quad advance beyond security dialogues and become a greater platform of international cooperation: “It is highly significant that the leaders of Japan, the United States, Australia and India, which share such values as democracy and rule of law, have agreed to tackle various problems that the world is facing. The four countries should work together to solve issues in the international community, not only those involving security but also in consumer-related fields.”
An editorial from the progressive Asahi Shimbun suggests that too much emphasis on the containment of China could escalate the tension and lead to more instability in the region: “[The Quad’s] cooperation would be pointless if it aggravates regional tensions and invites divisiveness… [S]hould the shift be seen as greater efforts to contain China and if China reacts in retaliation, the conflict will only escalate… The Quad will defeat its own purpose if it comes out too strong against China and creates internal dissent as a result. The group must maintain dialogue with Beijing and seek coexistence through cooperation while curbing China’s actions in defiance of the existing order.”
In an op-ed for center-right The Japan Times, Kuni Miyake, president of the Foreign Policy Institute and research director at Canon Institute for Global Studies, predicts that South Korea’s plan to join the Quad and influence U.S. policy toward North Korea may end up unfruitful: “Seoul may consider joining the Quad and hopefully influencing, if not convincing, the Biden administration to review its North Korea policy… If South Korea is interested in joining the Quad, it must first understand the concept of the Free and Open Indo-Pacific…South Korea may be destined to fail if it only tries to use the Quad for the purpose of persuading the Biden administration to accept and support [South Korean President] Moon’s personal agenda.”

Rising Powers React to Advances in Afghan Peace Process

Policy Alert #225 | March 12, 2021

The Afghan peace process was beginning to see signs of revival after the stalling of Doha talks in January and a surge of Taliban violence in early February. As the Biden administration reviews U.S. Afghanistan strategy, which includes how far the Taliban have fulfilled their commitments for a U.S. troop withdrawal, U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken spoke with Afghan President Ashraf Ghani in mid-February and expressed support for the peace process. The U.S. even released a draft peace agreement. However, the reveal March 7 of a letter from Secretary Blinken to President Ghani calling for a 90-day reduction in violence and a transitional government, coupled with a warning that a U.S. exit by May 1 remained possible, puts the contours of the peace process into some question. Still, the new twist by the Biden team to involve all regional players – Russia, Iran, India, Pakistan, China, U.S. – for a “unified” approach suggests an openness to even bolder options.

In this Policy Alert, we briefly update the Rising Powers’ reactions to advances in the Afghan peace process.

Russia

In mid-February, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova first presented the idea that additional efforts were needed to speed up the Afghan peace process: “Stalemate at the talks was among the focal points at consultations of Russian Special Presidential Representative Kabulov and a delegation of the Political Office of the Taliban Movement…The Russian side emphasized the necessity of an early start of substantive intra-Afghan dialogue. The Taliban side pledged that they remained interested in constructive talks with the delegation of Kabul and committed to the Doha agreement with the U.S.”

On March 9, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed that the peace conference on Afghanistan will take place on March 18 in Moscow. The meeting is expected to include representatives from Russia, China, the U.S., Pakistan, as well as the two sides in Afghanistan. Two days later, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that the Moscow meeting is not an attempt to compete with Qatar: “We do not speak here from positions that can be made the subject of some kind of jealousy…[The Moscow meeting] was initiated by the so-called Russia-US-China trio…It is aimed at encouraging the parties to be more cooperative through informal, free discussions and trust-based conversations.” Although India is not included in the March 18 Moscow meeting, a statement from Russian Embassy in New Delhi said India plays a “very important role” in Afghanistan, and its “eventual deeper involvement” is “natural.”

In an op-ed for RT, a government-funded news outlet, Tom Fowdy, an independent analyst based in the UK, foresees that Washington’s acceleration of the Afghan peace process is unlikely to be fruitful: “[E]ither Biden U-turns and the peace deal with the Taliban breaks down and the war continues, or little progress is made in Taliban-Afghan talks and the clock simply runs down, and again the war continues…Irrespective of ideas, the Taliban fighters’ goal is simple: they want their country back and are able to tap into the utter depravity of conditions in Afghanistan…Even if the ideologies are different, it’s very much the same scenario as in Vietnam.”

India

In January, Indian External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar and National Security Advisor Ajit Doval visited Afghanistan in two separate occasions and met with their Afghan counterparts. During the visits, the two sides discussed issues of strategic mutual interest, including synchronizing efforts to combat terrorism and build peace. New Delhi also promised more military assistance to Kabul, though the specifics of the support remained unclear.

In an op-ed for the liberal Indian Express, C. Raja Mohan, Director of the Institute of South Asian Studies at National University of Singapore, expects more Indian engagement in Afghan peace process under the Biden administration: “New Delhi will take a strong interest in the ambitious new US framework and the multiple challenges that are likely to come up in its implementation… Biden has underlined the American impatience with a war that has dragged on for far too long as well as his eagerness for an early settlement.”
In an op-ed for the liberal Hindustan Times, Vivek Katju, former Indian Ambassador to Afghanistan, questions the viability of Washington’s peace agreement draft and India’s refusal to accept the Taliban: “The larger strategic aspects of the India-US relationship and India’s utility to help move sections of the Kabul elite in a direction which the US would want is responsible for its inclusion. But India’s justified satisfaction over this development cannot mean that it should continue to turn its back on the Taliban, despite the unsavouriness of its ideological positions and the violence it perpetrates.”

China

On March 1, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Wang Wenbin responded to a question on the Afghan peace process by repeating the talking points from an earlier statement that was issued by the Chinese Embassy in Afghanistan before Washington’s recent actions: “China is following the implementation of the US and Taliban peace agreement and the progress of the intra-Afghan negotiations. We have noticed that relevant parties and the international community have expressed concerns about the current direction of the evolving situation in Afghanistan… China firmly supports the ‘Afghan-led, Afghan-owned’ process of peace and reconciliation that is extensive and inclusive. On the basis of respecting the wishes of all parties, China will act as a constructive party in upholding a fair and objective position and continuing to be a supporter, mediator and facilitator of the Afghan peace and reconciliation process.”

In an op-ed for South China Morning Post, a newspaper based in Hong Kong, Gulshan Rafiq, a research associate at the Islamabad Policy Research Institute, sees a mutually beneficial relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan in the Afghan peace process: “The current momentum in the Afghan peace process is already revealing some spoilers in the Afghan government and the Indian strategic community. They appear to feel that the trajectory of US policy in Afghanistan will leave little room for the Doval Doctrine to affect Afghanistan-Pakistan relations…The US withdrawal from Afghanistan permits it to redefine its interests in the region. It also presents Pakistan with opportunities to strengthen its strategic and economic ties with the US through effective implementation of the Afghan peace process.”

Japan

In a February 1 statement announcing the Japanese government’s $122.2 million humanitarian and development assistance to Afghanistan, Japanese Ambassador to Afghanistan Okada Takashi specifically mentions Tokyo’s contribution to the Law and Order Trust Fund for Afghanistan (LOTFA): “Enhanced security sector plays an essential role in the Afghan-led nation-building as we gaze at peace on the horizon. Our continuous contribution to LOTFA exemplifies Japan’s commitment for a peaceful Afghanistan, as LOTFA is a significant multi-donor program that plays a vital role in strengthening the country’s security sector.” In a call with his Afghan counterpart on March 2, Japanese Foreign Minister Motegi Toshimitsu expressed his deep concern about the ongoing violence across Afghanistan, and strongly condemned a series of recent terrorist attacks, while he also requested continued thorough investigation on the case of the murder of Dr. Nakamura Tetsu.

In an op-ed for center-right The Japan Times, James Stavridis, a retired U.S. Navy admiral and former supreme allied commander of NATO, urges the U.S. to keep troops in Afghanistan during the negotiation process with Taliban: “[Keeping troops] would permit U.S. forces to continue to provide intelligence and logistic support to the Afghan National Security Forces; ensure protection for the hundreds of U.S. diplomats and aid workers in the country; continue training programs for the ANSF, especially in aviation and special forces; and ensure compliance by the Taliban to the agreements negotiated.”