Policy Alert #202 | January 31, 2020

Officials from governments around the world, business leaders, environmental activists, and social media influencers converged in Davos, Switzerland for the 2020 World Economic Forum Annual Meeting January 21st to 24th under the theme “Stakeholders for a Cohesive and Sustainable World.” While influencers like Priyanka Chopra Jonas and activists such as Bollywood superstar Deepika Padukone made waves at the forum, the Rising Powers were largely absent as they tended to domestic affairs.

CHINA
In his speech at the forum, Chinese Vice-Premier Han Zheng maintained that globalization and free trade is essential for economic growth and that his country was dedicated to promoting it: “Despite the protectionist and unilateral moves by some countries, China will not stop pursuing higher-quality opening-up, and will not follow their footsteps to move in the opposite direction of globalization” (a written summary of Han’s speech is available here). Chief Executive of Hong Kong Carrie Lam led a delegation to Davos and was interviewed by CNN’s Fareed Zakaria as part of the WEF program. 

• The state-directed China Daily hailed Vice-Premier Han’s speech: “[T]he global governance system remains underdeveloped compared with the market-based industrial and technological collaboration, which is almost seamless. This has resulted in the mismatch between power distribution and dividend allocation […]. That’s why Vice-Premier Han Zheng’s call for multilateralism, inclusiveness, openness and balance in his speech at the forum, echoing President Xi Jinping’s historic speech at the same venue three years ago, has hit the nail on the head.”
• The nationalist Global Times argued that amidst the “economic nationalism and trade protectionism” challenging globalization, “China has been like fresh air in Davos since it first participated in 1979. As China’s national strength grows, the country has played an increasingly more positive role in Davos. The 50 years of Davos reflects the process of China integrating into the world and how the country and the world have mutually shaped each other. China probably can and has brought more certainty than Trump to the world.”

 

INDIA
While the Indian government sent a delegation of union ministers to the WEF led by Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal, it was Indian influencers who stole the show at Davos. Actress Deepika Padukone and World Health Organization Director General Tadros Adhanom Ghebreyesus gave a talk on dispelling the stigma around mental illness. Padukone was one of four WEF Crystal Award Winners for her work on raising mental health awareness. Yogi Sadhguru was one of the six speakers announcing the WEF’s initiative to plant one trillion trees by 2030 to combat climate change. YouTube star Bhuvan Bam attended the meet and posted about his experience extensively on his social media accounts. 

• C. Raja Mohan, director of the Institute of South Asian Studies at the National University of Singapore and contributing editor on international affairs for the liberal Indian Express urged India in an op-ed to be a leader rather than a bystander at Davos: “Given its growing stakes in the global economic order, Delhi ought to be at the leading edge of the current debate on the future of capitalism. India, though, seems too preoccupied sorting out the persistent legacies of feudalism. But sooner than later, India must find ways to take advantage of the new opportunities from the unfolding rearrangement of the global capitalist system.”
• Center-right Times of India focused on the young environmentalists’ efforts to spur action on climate change: “[M]any first world leaders – whose countries are historically responsible for global emissions – remain unmoved and continue to deny the science linking emissions and climate change. […] Thunberg and global youth are trying to awaken world leaders from their stupor. For the sake of humanity, the latter must take action before it is too late.”

 

JAPAN
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and his Cabinet were engaged with the opening of this year’s ordinary session of the National Diet on January 20th and subsequent hearings in which they faced continuing criticism from opposition lawmakers for a number of scandals, including Abe’s invitation to supporters to a state-funded cherry blossom viewing party last spring, alleged campaign law violations by Upper House members of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party, and the arrest of another LDP lawmaker for accepting bribes from a Chinese gambling company for his efforts to legalize casinos in select areas. In a speech before the Diet, Prime Minister Abe reiterated his call for constitutional reform to be completed by the end of 2020, which includes amending Article 9 to remove limitations on Self-Defense Force activities. Meanwhile, talks between the Congressional Democratic Party of Japan (CDPJ) and Democratic Party for the People (DPFP) to merge broke down before the session’s opening. 

• The progressive Asahi Shimbun called on the opposition parties not to lose sight of their responsibility to hold the Abe administration accountable despite their failure to merge: “The two parties should not allow the breakdown of the talks to hamper their cooperation so that they can unite to confront the Abe administration in their joint efforts to rebuild the nation’s democracy.”
• The left-leaning Mainichi condemned Abe’s uncooperative answers to questions from members of the House of Representatives: “It seems the prime minister mistakenly thinks that by reiterating his position he can say he has provided the careful and detailed explanations he is supposed to present to the legislature and the public. […] The prime minister, who has failed to answer key points in Diet questions, is responsible for the deterioration of Diet debate.”
• The conservative Yomiuri Shimbun, on the other hand, took aim at the apparent dysfunction amongst the opposition parties: “If the opposition parties continue floundering as they are, the political world will lack a healthy sense of tension. The opposition parties must take their responsibilities to heart.”

 

RUSSIA
Given the recent shake-up in the Russian government, it is hardly surprising that the WEF did not garner much attention in the Russian press. In his Presidential Address to the Federal Assembly on January 15th, Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed sweeping changes to the Russian constitution that outside observers criticized as a strategy to maintain power over his successor after the 2024 election. President Putin’s amendment bill was passed unanimously by the Russian State Duma on January 23. As part of the process, the government resigned, though former Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev was given the newly established position of Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of Russia, and four ministers retained their positions, including Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu. Foreign Minister Lavrov defended one of the proposed amendments, which formally gives priority to the Russian constitution over international law, against foreign criticism: “This is not a unique occurrence; there are similar legal norms active in Western states, namely in Germany and the UK. The US basically says that international law is insignificant, and this is how they treat it in practice.” Senator and Chairman of the Federation Council Foreign Affairs Committee Konstantin Kosachev similarly condemned outside media coverage of the shake-up: “The reaction of what can be described as ‘Collective West’ is taking the form of a hostile and aggressive campaign against Russia, which is bordering on interference in our domestic affairs.” 

 

• In an interview with state-owned TASS, Chairman of the Board of the Foundation for Development and Support of the Valdai Discussion Club Andrei Bystritsky argued that the resignation of the government “will not affect the foreign policy” of Russia.

• Government-funded RT interviewed Carnegie Moscow Center head Dmitry Trenin for his analysis of the situation: “It’s clear that the new president cannot inherit Putin’s authority and influence. His constitutional powers will also be [more] limited.”

• The independent, Dutch-based Moscow Times published a flurry of op-eds on the matter. Ilya Klishin, former Digital Director of the New York-based Russian language RTVI channel and founder of KFC Consulting, was pessimistic about the outcome of the reforms: “Every single Russian can now honestly say that the future does not depend on them. Elections and selection processes have long been a sham, games with predetermined results that admit only Kremlin-approved players.”

• In his op-ed for the Moscow Times, Director of Research at the School of Law and Politics at Cardiff University Sergey Radchenko tried to find a silver lining to the changes: “[E]ven the modest reforms that Putin has called for will help put in place a framework that will in theory allow for better checks and balances in the system. The president evidently hopes that by spreading the power, he will have more opportunities to pull the right strings if he ever actually decides to retire. That may be true. But once he passes from the scene altogether, the checks and balances could well continue checking and balancing on their own, without Putin’s invisible hand.”
• Tatyana Stanovaya, founder of the political analysis project R.Politik and a nonresident scholar at the Carnegie Moscow Center, argued in the Times that Putin’s pivot to domestic matters was a matter of course: “For years, Putin has focused on foreign policy and largely ignored domestic policy. Now it seems he has returned to the fray in order to secure his own future.”