Mains Ready By December. Smash Mains & Smash PYQ Admissions Open
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

GS Paper: GS2-18.Bilateral, regional and global groupings and agreements involving India and/or affecting India’s interests.

  • Role of ESCAP in the Asia-Pacific

    The United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) is one of the five regional commissions under the jurisdiction of the United Nations Economic and Social Council. This article examines the common challenges that ESCAP region faces- such as danger of pollution to the marine ecosystem, lack of data about ocean, connectivity issue faces by small island nations etc. Scope for the collaboration between ESCAP nations is explored.

    Strain on marine ecosystem and its implications

    • The Asia-Pacific seas provide food, livelihoods and a sense of identity, especially for coastal communities in the Pacific island states.
    • Escalating strains on the marine environment is threatening our growth and way of life.
    • In less than a century, climate change and unsustainable resource management have degraded ecosystems and diminished biodiversity.
    • Over-fishing has exponentially increased, leaving fish stocks and food systems vulnerable.
    • Marine plastic pollution originating from region’s rivers has contributed to most of the debris flooding the ocean.

    Lack of data for SDG 14: Life below water

    • Insights from ‘Changing Sails: Accelerating Regional Actions for Sustainable Oceans in Asia and the Pacific’, the theme study of this year’s Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), focuses a lot on the need of data collection in the region.
    • At present, data are available for only two out of ten targets for the Sustainable Development Goal 14, ‘Life Below Water’.
    • Due to limitations in methodology and national statistical systems, information gaps have persisted at uneven levels across countries.

    Challenges facing the region

    1. Plastic Pollution

    • Asia and the Pacific produces nearly half of global plastic by volume, of which it consumes 38%.
    • Plastics represent a double burden for the ocean:  1) their production generates CO2 absorbed by the ocean, 2) as a final product enters the ocean as pollution.
    • Need of the hour is effective national policies and re-thinking production cycles i.e. promoting a circular economy approach.
    • Economic incentives and disincentives are necessary for the adoption of these policies as well as for minimizing resource use.

    2. Decline in fish stocks

    • Region’s position as the world’s largest producer of fish has come at the cost of over-exploitation.
    • The percentage of stocks fished at unsustainable levels has increased threefold from 10% in 1974 to 33% in 2015.
    • Generating complete data on fish stocks, fighting illicit fishing activity and conserving marine areas must remain a priority.

    3. Connectivity of island nations

    • While the most connected shipping economies are in Asia, the small island developing States of the Pacific experience much lower levels of connectivity.
    • This leaves them relatively isolated from the global economy.
    • Closing the maritime connectivity gap must be placed at the centre of regional transport cooperation efforts.
    • We must also work with the shipping community to navigate toward green shipping. Enforcing sustainable shipping policies is essential.

    Areas of cooperation

    • Trans-boundary ocean management and linking ocean data in the region can be the starting step.
    • Harnessing ocean statistics through strong national statistical systems will serve as a compass guiding countries to monitor trends, devise timely responses and clear blind spots.
    • ESCAP by using Ocean Accounts Partnership can help to harmonise ocean data and provide a space for regular dialogue among nations.
    • Translating international agreements and standards into national action is the key here. Also ensuring capacity building among nations to do so.
    • ESCAP is working with member states to implement International Maritime Organization (IMO) requirements.

    Consider the question-“What are the challenges facing the nations of Asia-Pacific amid growing levels of pollution and climate change. How cooperation among the countries of the region mitigate the risks? “

    Conclusion

    Our oceans keep our economy and our lives above the waves. We must use the years ahead to steer our collective fleets toward sustainable oceans.

    Back2Basics: ESCAP- United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP)

    • India has been the founding member of ESCAP.
    • UNESCAP is the regional development arm of the United Nations in Asia and the Pacific, with a membership of 62 Governments, including 58 from the region.
    • Established in 1947 with its headquarters in Bangkok, Thailand.
    • UNESCAP serves as the highest intergovernmental regional platform to promote cooperation among member States for creating a more interconnected region working to achieve inclusive and sustainable economic and social development.
    • It carries out work in the areas of macroeconomic policy, poverty reduction and financing for development; trade and investment; transport; environment and sustainable development; information and communications technology and disaster risk reduction; social development; statistics, sub-regional activities for development; and energy.
    • UNESCAP also focuses on sub-regional activities to provide in-depth technical assistance to address specific key priorities, including poverty reduction and sustainable development, in the respective sub-regions.

    IMO- International Maritime Organisation

    • The IMO was established following agreement at a UN conference held in Geneva in 1948.
    • And the IMO came into existence ten years later, meeting for the first time in 1959.
    • As a specialized agency of the United Nations, IMO is the global standard-setting authority for the safety, security and environmental performance of international shipping.
    • Its main role is to create a regulatory framework for the shipping industry that is fair and effective, universally adopted and universally implemented.
    • IMO measures cover all aspects of international shipping – including ship design, construction, equipment, manning, operation and disposal – to ensure that this vital sector for remains safe, environmentally sound, energy-efficient and secure.

     

  • West Bank Annexation plans by US

    U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo met Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu to discuss plans to annex parts of the West Bank.

    The strategic location of Gaza strip, West Bank, Dead Sea etc. creates a hotspot for a possible map based prelims question.  Consider this PYQ from 2015 CSP:

    Q. The area known as ‘Golan Heights’ sometimes appears in the news in the context of the events related to:

    a) Central Asia
    b) Middle East
    c) South-East Asia
    d) Central Africa

    Where is West Bank Located?

    • The West Bank is located to the west of the Jordan River.
    • It is a patch of land about one and a half times the size of Goa, was captured by Jordan after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
    • Israel snatched it back during the Six-Day War of 1967 and has occupied it ever since.
    • It is a landlocked territory, bordered by Jordan to the east and Israel to the south, west, and north.
    • Following the Oslo Accords between the Israeli government and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) during the 1990s, part of the West Bank came under the control of the Palestinian Authority.
    • With varying levels of autonomy, the Palestinian Authority controls close to 40 percent of West Bank today, while the rest is controlled by Israel.

    Back2Basics: Gaza Strip

    • The Gaza Strip is a small boot-shaped territory along the Mediterranean coast between Egypt and Israel.
    • A couple of years later in 2007, Hamas, an anti-Israel military group, took over Gaza Strip. The militia group is often involved in violent clashes with the Israeli Defence Forces.
    • While Palestine has staked claim to both territories — West Bank and Gaza Strip — Israel’s objective has been to keep expanding Jewish settlements in these regions.

    For complete details on Israel-Palestine conflict, kindly refer:

    [Burning Issue] West Asia Peace Plan

  • India-Nepal dispute over Kalapani Region

    Nepal has protested against India’s inauguration of a Himalayan link road built in a disputed territory which falls at a strategic three-way junction with Tibet and China. Kathmandu claims the highly strategic areas of Limpiyadhura and Kalapani, although Indian troops have been deployed there since the 1962 war.

    Practice question for mains:

    Q. The India-Nepal bilateral relations these days are increasingly seen through the lens of China factor. Examine.

    Kalapani Region

    • Mapped within Uttarakhand is a 372-sq km area called Kalapani, bordering far-west Nepal and Tibet.
    • A treaty signed between Nepal and British India in 1816 determined the Makhali river, that runs through Kalapani, as the boundary between the two neighbours.
    • The Treaty of Sugauli concluded between British India and the Kingdom of Nepal in the year 1816, maps the Makhali river as the western boundary with India but different British maps showed the source of the tributary at different places which was mainly due to underdeveloped and less-defined surveying techniques used at that time.
    • However, the river has many tributaries that meet at Kalapani. For this reason, India claims that the river begins at Kalapani but Nepal says that it begins from Lipu Lekh pass, which is the source of most of its tributaries.
    • While the Nepal government and political parties have protested, India has said the new map does not revise the existing boundary with Nepal.
    • India claims that the river begins at Kalapani but Nepal says that it begins from Lipu Lekh pass, which is the source of most of its tributaries.

    Legal Dimension of Issue

    According to International Laws, the principles of avulsion and accretion are applicable in determining the borders when a boundary river changes course.

    • Avulsion: It is the pushing back of the shoreline by sudden, violent action of the elements, perceptible while in progress. Also it can be defined as the sudden and perceptible change in the land brought about by water, which may result in the addition or removal of land from a bank or shoreline.
    • Accretion: It is the process of growth or enlargement by a gradual buildup. It is the natural, slow and gradual deposit of soil by the water.

    If the change of the river course is rapid – by avulsion – the boundary does not change. But if the river changes course gradually – that is, by accretion – the boundary changes accordingly.

    Since, the Gandak change of course has been gradual, India claimed Susta as part of their territory as per international laws.

    • On several occasions, India has tried to resolve the issue through friendly and peaceful negotiations, but the Nepali leadership has always shown hesitation in resolving the issue.
    • In Nepal, the issue has become a tool for arousing strong public sentiment against India. Therefore, resolving the issue may not be in the best interest of Nepal’s domestic politics.

    Significance for India

    • The Lipu Lekh pass serves strategic importance for India as a key point to monitor Chinese troop movement.
    • The link road via Lipulekh Himalayan Pass is also considered one of the shortest and most feasible trade routes between India and China.
    • The Nepalese reaction would probably have triggered in response to Chinese assertion.

    An undefined boundary claimed by Nepal

    • Nepal’s western boundary with India was marked out in the Treaty of Sugauli between the East India Company and Nepal in 1816.
    • Nepali authorities claim that people living in the low-density area were included in the Census of Nepal until 58 years ago.
    • Five years ago, Nepali Foreign Minister Mahendra Bahadur Pande claimed that the late King Mahendra had “handed over the territory to India”.
    • By some accounts in Nepal, this allegedly took place in the wake of India-China War of 1962.

    Treaty of Saguali

  • Opportunity for India in changing global order

    The world is going through a transition phase. We are experiencing the rise of new powers and the decline of the old. India has to navigate its path through this changing order keeping its interests in mind. The double opportunity in current scenario for India is explained in the article. To know more about it, continue reading.

    The changing global stage

    • The world today is fragmenting and slowing down economically.
    • Asia-Pacific is the new economic and political centre of the world with the rise of China, India and other powers — Indonesia, South Korea, Iran, Vietnam.
    • Rapid shifts in the balance of power in the region have led to arms races and the US’s “America First” attitude has led to rising uncertainty.
    • China-U.S. strategic contention is growing, uninhibited so far by their economic co-dependence.
    • As China seeks primacy in a world so far dominated by the U.S., the world faces a destabilising power transition which may or may not be completed.

    What should India’s response be to the new situation?

    Alliance with the US?

    • Many experts advocate that India should enter into an alliance with the U.S in the wake of rising China.
    • But India is much greater and more resilient than these people think.
    • Also, the aim of foreign and security policies of India has been the pursuit of strategic autonomy for India.
    • Thus, in the present situation, India should retain the above initiative and not get entangled in others’ quarrels. (i.e. the US-China quarrel)
    • Also, India should focus on pursuing its own national interest in this disorganized and uncertain world by creative diplomacy and flexibility.
    • An alliance seems to be exactly the wrong answer.

    China challenge

    • One way to handle China could be to see whether the two countries can evolve a new modus vivendi.
    • This new modus vivendi shall replace the one that was formalised in the 1988 Rajiv Gandhi visit.
    • The old framework is no longer working and the signs of stress in the relationship are everywhere.
    • The more India rises, the more it must expect Chinese opposition.
    • So, India will have to work with other powers to ensure that its interests are protected in the neighbourhood, the region and the world.
    • The complexity of India-China relations suggests there is a scope for new modus vivendi.
    • This would require a high-level strategic dialogue between the two sides about their core interests, red lines, differences and areas of convergence.

    What India can do to keep the region multi-polar?

    • As U.S. is withdrawing from the world, it will no longer be the upholder of international, economic and political order.
    • There is uncertainty over how the US will choose to deal with China.
    • India must work with other powers to ensure that this region stays multi-polar and that China behaves responsibly.

    Double opportunity for India

    • 1. Opportunity in the US-China contention
    • US-China contention will continue in future. Hence, both China and the U.S. will look to put other conflicts (eg: conflicts with India on trade or border issue) and tensions on the back burner.
    • This effect is already perceptible in the Wuhan meeting between China’s President Xi Jinping and Mr. Modi in early 2018.
    • And the apparent truce and dialing back of rhetoric by both India and China.
    • 2. Opportunity to Change national security Structures
    • Today, India is more dependent on the outside world than ever before.
    • It relies on the world for energy, technology, essential goods like fertilizer and coal, commodities, access to markets, and capital.
    • Adding the new security agenda and the contested global commons in outer and cyberspace and the high seas to India’s traditional state-centred security concerns gives India a sense of insecurity.
    • So, India needs to adapt to the changes and avoid imitating China.

    Consider the question-“The global order is experiencing geopolitical churn, new powers are rising and older are staring at the decline. In such a scenario, examine the opportunities India can explore in the context of the US-China contention”.

    Conclusion

    India risks missing the bus to becoming a developed country if it continues business and politics as usual. The most important improvement that India needs to make concerns its national security structures and their work — introducing flexibility into India’s thinking and India’s structures. For change is the only certainty in life.

  • Global crisis and opportunities for India

    Multilateralism has been on the decline for some time now.  The corona pandemic has acted like a catalyst to heightene this crisis. China’s role in weaponising the interdependence of multilateralism would have far-reaching consequences to the world as we know it. Yet, the crisis presents India with some unique opportunities. What are these opportunities? How can we save multilateralism? or do we even need to? These questions and such other issues are discussed in the article.

    The basic Idea

    • Multilateralism has its benefits like to reduce the further spread of the virus, to develop effective medical treatments, and to curtail the worst effects of the inevitable recession- cooperation among nations will be necessary.
    • But the very foundation of multilateralism is shaking today.
    • The US faces multiple internal challenges like the divisive Presidential election in November and China is facing a global crisis of credibility.
    • Thus, India is uniquely positioned to help resuscitate multilateralism.
    • New Delhi can assume leadership in strengthening constructive transnational cooperation.
    • India may also help China: Through mediation to temper what is increasingly seen as Beijing’s unilateralist revisionism; revive the promise of the gradual socialisation of China into the international system; and its acceptance of the norms and rules that regulate the principal multilateral institutions.

    So, when did the crisis of multilateralism start?

    • The malaise that afflicts multilateralism is not new.
    • 1) The paralysis of all three functions of the World Trade Organization (WTO) — negotiation, dispute settlement, and transparency — was one sign of that deep-rooted malaise.
    • 2) The severely dented credibility of the World Health Organization (WHO) is just another more recent indicator.
    • The pandemic has heightened the crisis of multilateralism, not created it.
    • Pandemic has highlighted the misuse of international institutions (like WHO) and multilateralism is incapable of dealing with it.

    Weaponisation of the global supply chain by China

    • Post-war multilateral system was based on the idea of peace and prosperity.
    • It was expected that economic inter-mingling among various countries would lead to peace.
    • Most of the countries of were democratic and countries with a different system of governance were not part of this system.
    • Our multinational institutions were not designed to handle the situation in which one country starts misusing its dominant position in interdependence (ex. global supply chains).
    • The misuse of existing loopholes within the existing rules by China to gain an unfair advantage in trade relations was already attracting critique in the last years.
    • China has been accused of forced technology requirements, intellectual property rights violations, and subsidies.
    • But the pandemic has provided us with some even more alarming illustrations of how damaging the weaponisation of global supply chains can be.

    Examples of China weaponising interdependence

    • When India complained that test kits imported from China were faulty, China slammed it for “irresponsible” behaviour.
    • When Australia indicated that it would conduct an independent investigation of China’s early handling of the epidemic, China threatened it with economic consequences.
    • Several actors, including the EU and India, were alarmed at the prospects of predatory takeovers of their companies by China.

    Against this background, repeated calls by heads of governments and international organisations urging countries to remain committed to multilateralism ring hollow.

    So, what are remedies to save multilateralism?

    • 1. Policies with renewed commitment
    • There is the need for reassurance and policies that reflect a renewed commitment to the raison d’étre of multilateralism.
    • A “retreating” United States must demonstrate that it remains committed to strengthening global supply chains.
    • Global supply chains must be based on the promise of ensuring global stability and the attendant promise of peace and prosperity.
    • 2. Strategic separation of value chains
    • There is an urgent need for some strategic decoupling, handled smartly in cooperation with other like-minded countries.
    • It will undoubtedly cause considerable disruption to existing global value chains.
    • We will be less prosperous. But we will also be more secure.
    • 3. Closer integration with some distancing from others
    • A multilateralism that recognises the need for decoupling will necessitate closer cooperation with some and distancing from others.
    • Membership of such renewed multilateral institutions would not be universal.
    • Rather, one would limit deep integration to countries with which one shares values — such as pluralism, democracy, liberalism, animal welfare rights, and more.

    Opportunities for India

    • India is a country whose pluralism, democracy and liberalism have often been underestimated by the West.
    • As some constituencies in the West seek a gradual decoupling from China, they would be well served to look toward India.
    • To make use of the opportunities, for itself and for the provision of certain global public goods, India’s cooperation with like-minded actors will be key.
    • India could work closely with the Alliance for Multilateralism, an initiative launched by Germany and France, to shape both the alliance itself and the reform agenda at large.
    • Working together with a group of countries from the developed and developing countries could further amplify India’s voice.
    • China may recover faster than most economically, and its military might remains intact, its image as a reliable partner has suffered a huge dent.
    • India could lead a coalition to bridge the deficit of trust between China and the rest of the world.

    Consider the following question “Covid pandemic has been acting as a catalyst in precipitating the fall of global order and multilateralism. At the same time, we are well aware of the utility of the multilateralism. Examine the opportunities that falling global order provides for India in restoring it in the new form.”

    Conclusion

    The disruption in the global order provides India with a unique opportunity. One the one hand it has to steer the gradual decoupling with China and on the other hand, it has the opportunity to lead the coalition to bridge trust deficit with China. India should not squander these opportunities.

     

  • Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) Virtual Summit

    PM Modi has for the first addressed the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit since assuming office in 2014.

    Possible mains question-

    Q. Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) has lost its relevance in the new era of multipolar world. Comment.

    Highlights of the online summit

    • The online NAM Contact Group Summit on “United against COVID-19” was hosted by current NAM Chairman and Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev.
    • The NAM leaders announced the creation of a task force to identify requirements of member countries through a common database reflecting their basic medical, social and humanitarian needs in the fight against COVID-19.

    What is the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)?

    • The NAM is a forum of 120 developing world states that are not formally aligned with or against any major power bloc.
    • The group was started in Belgrade, Yugoslavia in 1961.
    • After the UN, it is the largest grouping of states worldwide.

    Its formation

    • NAM emerged in the context of the wave of decolonization that followed World War II.
    • It was created by Yugoslavia’s President, Josip Broz Tito, India’s first PM, Jawaharlal Nehru, Egypt’s second President Gamal Abdel Nasser, Ghana’s first president Kwame Nkrumah, and Indonesia’s first President, Sukarno.
    • All five leaders believed that developing countries should not help either the Western or Eastern blocs in the Cold War.
    • As a condition for membership, the states of the NAM cannot be part of a multilateral military alliance (such as the NATO) or have signed a bilateral military agreement with one of the “big powers” involved in Great Power conflicts.
    • However, its idea does not signify that a state ought to remain passive or even neutral in international politics.

    Terms of summits

    • Unlike the UN or the Organization of American States, the NAM has no formal constitution or permanent secretariat.
    • All members of the NAM have equal weight within its organization.
    • The movement’s positions are reached by consensus in the Summit Conference of Heads of State or Government, which usually convenes every three years.
    • The administration of the organization is the responsibility of the country holding the chair, a position that rotates at every summit.
    • The ministers of foreign affairs of the member states meet more regularly in order to discuss common challenges, notably at the opening of each regular session of the UN General Assembly.

    Its relevance today

    • One of the challenges of the NAM in the 21st century has been to reassess its identity and purpose in the post-Cold War era.
    • The movement has continued to advocate for international cooperation, multilateralism, and national self-determination, but it has also been increasingly vocal against the inequities of the world economic order.
    • On the contrary, from the founding of the NAM, its stated aim has been to give a voice to developing countries and to encourage their concerted action in world affairs.

  • Foreign Policy Watch: United Nations

  • BRICS’ fight against COVID

    “BRICS” is an acronym coined by Jim O’Neill in 2001. In the start of the 21st century, BRICS seemed like the future economic powerhouse. Somehow this picture faded a little with time. This article shows the resilience and potential demonstrated by BRICS in times of Covid-19. It throws light on the latest initiatives of BRICS like New Development Bank. Finally what lies in the future for BRICS?

    The “I” in BRICS

    • India has reinforced its reputation as a rapidly emerging pharmacy of the world.

    • As the world’s largest producer of hydroxychloroquine, India has exported the drug to many countries like Russia, Brazil, Israel, U.S,  SAARC and Gulf nations.

    • Pharma-alliance: The above developments have set the stage for India to forge an inclusive BRICS-driven pharma alliance, which could also actively explore the production of vaccines.

    The “C” in BRICS

    • Despite allegations, China has responded strongly in containing the pandemic, leveraging its position as the workshop of the world.

    • China, using it’s manufacturing capabilities, responded to the disease by providing the “hardware” — masks, gloves, coveralls, shoe covers and testing kits — to hotspots across the globe.

    • Under its Health Silk Road doctrine, the Chinese are reaching out to two of the worst global hotspots, Italy and Iran.

    • China has also rolled out a medical air bridge for Europe.

    The “R” in BRICS

    • Despite fighting the virus at home, Russia too has sent its doctors and virologists overseas including an air mission to Italy.

    • At the request of U.S. President Donald Trump, Russia offered help in the form of medical experts and supplies.

    The “S” in BRICS

    • South Africa, the current rotating head of the African Union, is engaged in framing a pan-African response to COVID-19.

    The “B” in BRICS

    • Only Brazil’s response may need a course correction.

    • In Brazil’s case resistance to breaking the infection chains through travel bans, lockdowns, isolation and testing appear to have led to an infection surge.

    Where does the NDB’s model fit in this picture?

    • The New Development Bank of the BRICS has already demonstrated the way forward to allocate financial resources to combat COVID-19.

    • In April, NDB announced that it is going to disburse a $1 billion emergency loan to China, and subsequently to India, South Africa and Brazil.

    • The NDB had the financial heft to provide $10 billion in “crisis-related assistance” to BRICS member countries.

    The next step for BRICS –  COORDINATION

    • BRICS has demonstrated their comparative strengths as providers of Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR).

    • BRICS countries now need to pool and coordinate their efforts, in partnership with the WHO, and Europe and North America, as part of a global assault on the virus.

    • BRICS countries also need to earmark resources and assets to combat a whole range of natural disasters, with special focus on the emerging economies and the global south.

    • The NDB’s financial model demonstrated to address the pandemic, can now become a template to address natural disasters.

    Bodies like BRICS have remained the favourite child of UPSC. Be it questions in prelims or mains. A question based on the regional grouping could be asked by the UPSC, for ex- “BRICS nations have proved to be more than merely an economic grouping. In light of the above statement, discuss the Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR) potential of the BRICS countries.”

    Conclusion

    BRICS in future can leverage the coordination among them to work on finding the vaccine and also build on the experience gathered from the pandemic to form a disaster response policy in the future.

    Back2Basics: BRICS

    • BRICS is the acronym coined for an association of five major emerging national economies: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.
    • Originally the first four were grouped as “BRIC” (or “the BRICs”), before the induction of South Africa in 2010.
    • The BRICS members are known for their significant influence on regional affairs; all are members of G20.
    • Since 2009, the BRICS nations have met annually at formal summits. China hosted the 9th BRICS summit in Xiamen on September 2017, while Brazil hosted the most recent 11th BRICS summit on 13-14 November 2019.

    New Development Bank and the Fortaleza Declaration

    • During the sixth BRICS Summit in Fortaleza (2014), the leaders signed the Agreement establishing the New Development Bank (NDB).
    • In the Fortaleza Declaration, the leaders stressed that the NDB will strengthen cooperation among BRICS and will supplement the efforts of multilateral and regional financial institutions for global development, thus contributing to collective commitments for achieving the goal of strong, sustainable and balanced growth.
    • The bank was established in July 2015 by the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa).
    • The aim of the bank is to mobilize funding for infrastructure and sustainable development.
    • Its ownership structure is unique, as the BRICS countries each have an equal share and no country has any veto power.
    • In this sense, the bank is a physical expression of the desire of emerging markets to play a bigger role in global governance.
    • NDB was created to help fill the funding gap in the BRICS economies and was intended to grow its global scope over time.
    • The bank, with its subscribed capital base of US$50bn, is now poised to become a meaningful additional source of long-term finance for infrastructure in its member countries.

  • Common problems of South Asia call for collective efforts against Covid-19

    The article discusses the various common features shared by the South Asians countries. One of them is the poor public healthcare infrastructure. So, the pandemic offers an opportunity to make the required policy changes. It also offers the opportunity for cooperation among the regional countries in dealing with Covid-19. These issues are discussed in the article.

    South Asian countries: Common features, common problems

    • South Asia, one of the world’s most populous regions, is also affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.
    • Both Karachi and Mumbai, among the world’s most densely populated cities, where we live and work, are being overwhelmed by cases.
    • While the death rate in these places may not be as alarming as in Europe and the U.S., the collateral damage of the lockdown is taking its own toll.
    • Common features of South Asia: While there are many differences amongst the countries of the region, there are also common features which impact the health of its people, some of them a result of our shared cultural and geopolitical history.
    • The collective experience of dealing with COVID-19 may provide important lessons, which transcend national boundaries.

    Poor healthcare system: a common problem

    • South Asian countries have invested very little in health.
    • This is reflected in our abysmally low health parameters.
    • It is interesting that Britain, which formulated our health policies before independence, went on to form one of the world’s strongest public health systems, the National Health Service.
    • Whereas its South Asian colonies chose to stray from that path.
    • This resulted in a dysfunctional public healthcare
    • Governments have also relinquished what ought to have been their primary duty, of health care provision, to the private sector.
    • Having become an industry, the focus of healthcare in the private sector is on profit rather than on people’s needs.
    • High treatment costs in private sector: Whilst privatisation has brought in advanced technology and expertise, the high costs of treatment in the private sector have resulted in impoverishment as most of the population has no insurance or third-party coverage, and pays out of pocket.
    • The sector has also been poorly regulated.
    • The result is that it is responsible for several excesses in its quest for profit.

    Other common features of the region

    • Hunger, malnutrition, poor sanitation and large-scale migration are features of this region.
    • Existing infectious diseases like TB, HIV and malaria have been worsened by emerging ones like dengue, chikungunya, healthcare-associated infections and antimicrobial resistance.
    • The region is also an epicentre of an epidemic of lifestyle diseases.
    • Conflicts and expenditure on defence: Constant internal and external conflicts in South Asia not only consume a large portion of national budgets but also divert the attention of the public and policymakers from healthcare needs.
    • Defence budgets take the largest share of national budgets, and obviously adversely impact social sector spending.
    • Underfunded public health is going to hinder region’s capacity to fight COVID-19.
    • The central role of religion: Religion continues to occupy a central space in the society and politics of the region.
    • Though it offers succour to many, religious dogma can impact health policy and health-seeking behaviour.
    • The refusal of devotees across Pakistan to avoid religious congregations during Ramadan despite the government’s orders has significantly fed the community spread of the virus.

    Opportunity for policy changes to address healthcare problems

    • COVID-19 has forced us to seriously reflect on our healthcare system.
    • This is welcome if it results in policy change.
    • Healthcare professionals and bodies must seize this opportunity to push our respective governments to address it seriously and not just as a pre-election strategy.
    • A long-term commitment to universal health care, with not only a national but also a regional and global focus, is needed.

    A question on this theme could be asked by the UPSC, for instance, “South Asian countries share the common problem of poor public healthcare infrastructure, which increases their vulnerability to the pandemic. But corona pandemic also offers an opportunity to improve the shortcoming in the health infrastructure and cooperation among the SAARC countries. Comment.”

    Regional strategy and cooperation needed

    • The SAARC heads of state have already offered help to one another.
    • A regional strategy has a better chance of controlling the pandemic than isolated national-level efforts.
    • The pooling of resources and sharing data may not only help flatten the curve but perhaps even develop into longer-term efforts towards effective treatment.
    • It is being speculated that our populations are behaving differently; that the BCG vaccine may be a protective influence.
    • Joint research into such areas can be a unifying point for SAARC.

    Conclusion

    It is in our collective interest to look at health security and not just national security. By the accident of their birth, South Asians have endured a lot. They merit better.

     

  • World at the edge of a new nuclear arms race

    The focus of this article is on the possible revival of the nuclear arms race among the US, China and Russia. In this context, the purpose and present status of the CTBT, which was aimed at ending the nuclear arms race is also discussed. The article ends by predicting the beginning of new arms race and possible demise of the CTBT.

    What were the findings of US compliance report?

    • State Department Report: In mid-April, a report was issued by the United States State Department on “Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments (Compliance Report).
    • Tests with low yields by China: The report raised concerns that China might be conducting nuclear tests with low yields at its Lop Nur test site.
    • And these tests are conducted in violation of its Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban treaty (CTBT)
    • Violation by Russia: The U.S. report also claims that Russia has conducted nuclear weapons experiments that produced a nuclear yield and were inconsistent with ‘zero yield’ understanding underlying the CTBT.
    • Though it was uncertain about how many such experiments had been conducted by Russia.
    • Russia and China have rejected the U.S.’s claims.
    • New nuclear arms race: With growing rivalry among major powers the report is a likely harbinger of a new nuclear arms race.
    • The demise of CTBT: This new nuclear arms race would also mark the demise of the CTBT that came into being in 1996 but has failed to enter into force even after a quarter-century.

    Background of the CTBT

    • Test ban-first step: For decades, a ban on nuclear testing was seen as the necessary first step towards curbing the nuclear arms race but Cold War politics made it impossible.
    • A Partial Test Ban Treaty was concluded in 1963 banning underwater and atmospheric tests but this only drove testing underground.
    • By the time the CTBT negotiations began in Geneva in 1994, global politics had changed. The Cold War had ended and the nuclear arms race was over.
    • The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or the USSR, had broken up and its principal testing site, Semipalatinsk, was in Kazakhstan (Russia still had access to Novaya Zemlya near the Arctic circle).
    • In 1991, Russia declared a unilateral moratorium on testing, followed by the U.S. in 1992.
    • By this time, the U.S. had conducted 1,054 tests and Russia, 715.
    • Negotiations were often contentious.
    • Eventually, the U.S. came up with the idea of defining the “comprehensive test ban” as a “zero yield” test ban that would prohibit supercritical hydro-nuclear tests but not sub-critical hydrodynamic nuclear tests.

    Make note of the points mentioned under “entry-into-force” provision given below. The reasons for India’s withdrawal from the negotiation are important from the UPSC perspective.

    “Entry-into-force” provision and India’s objections to it

    • Another controversy arose regarding the entry-into-force provisions (Article 14) of the treaty.
    • Why India withdrew from negotiations? After India’s proposals for anchoring the CTBT in a disarmament framework did not find acceptance, in June 1996, India announced its decision to withdraw from the negotiations.
    • Unhappy at this turn, the U.K., China and Pakistan took the lead in revising the entry-into-force provisions.
    • What is “entry-into-force” provision? The new provisions listed 44 countries by name whose ratification was necessary for the treaty to enter into force and included India.
    • India’s objection: India protested that this attempt at arm-twisting violated a country’s sovereign right to decide if it wanted to join a treaty but was ignored.
    • The CTBT was adopted by a majority vote and opened for signature.
    • Of the 44 listed countries, to date, only 36 have ratified the treaty.
    • Signed but not ratified: China, Egypt, Iran, Israel and the U.S. have signed but not ratified.
    • China maintains that it will only ratify it after the U.S. does so but the Republican-dominated Senate had rejected it in 1999.
    • Not signed, not ratified: In addition, North Korea, India and Pakistan are the three who have not signed.
    • All three have also undertaken tests after 1996; India and Pakistan in May 1998 and North Korea six times between 2006 and 2017.
    • The CTBT has therefore not entered into force and lacks legal authority.

    An organisation to verify CTBT

    • Even though CTBT has not entered into force, an international organisation to verify the CTBT was established in Vienna with a staff of about 230 persons and an annual budget of $130 million.
    • Ironically, the U.S. is the largest contributor with a share of $17 million.
    • The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO) runs an elaborate verification system built around a network of over 325 seismic, radionuclide, infrasound and hydroacoustic (underwater) monitoring stations.
    • The CTBTO has refrained from backing the U.S.’s allegations.

    The revival of the nuclear arms race

    • End of the unipolar world for the US: The key change from the 1990s is that the S.’s unipolar moment is over and strategic competition among major powers is back.
    • The U.S. now identifies Russia and China as ‘rivals’.
    • Its Nuclear Posture Review asserts that the U.S. faces new nuclear threats because both Russia and China are increasing their reliance on nuclear weapons.
    • The U.S., therefore, has to expand the role of its nuclear weapons and have a more usable and diversified nuclear arsenal.
    • The Trump administration has embarked on a 30-year modernisation plan with a price tag of $1.2 trillion, which could go up over the years.
    • Concerns of Russia and China: Russia and China have been concerned about the U.S.’s growing technological lead particularly in missile defence and conventional global precision-strike capabilities.
    • Russia has responded by exploring hypersonic delivery systems and theatre systems while China has embarked on a modernisation programme to enhance the survivability of its arsenal which is considerably smaller.
    • Cyber capabilities being increased: In addition, both countries are also investing heavily in offensive cyber capabilities.
    • The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) limits U.S. and Russian arsenals but will expire in 2021
    • And U.S. President Donald Trump has already indicated that he does not plan to extend New START.
    • Instead, the Trump administration would like to bring China into some kind of nuclear arms control talks.
    • But China has avoided such talks by pointing to the fact that the S. and Russia still account for over 90% of global nuclear arsenals.

    Context of the US backtracking from negotiated agreements

    • Both China and Russia have dismissed the U.S.’s allegations.
    • They pointed to the Trump administration’s backtracking from other negotiated agreements such as the Iran nuclear deal or the U.S.-Russia Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF)
    • Tensions with China are already high with trade and technology disputes, militarisation in the South China Sea and most recently, with the novel coronavirus pandemic.
    • The U.S. could also be preparing the ground for resuming testing at Nevada.

    In the context of the latest developments, a question can be asked by the UPSC, for ex- “In the light of the latest developments on the global platform which are pointing to the revival of the nuclear arms race, how far India’s decision to not sign the CTBT is justified?”

    Conclusion

    New rivalries have already emerged. Resumption of nuclear testing may signal the demise of the ill-fated CTBT, marking the beginnings of a new nuclear arms race. 

    Back2Basics: What is “zero-yield test?”

    • This means that the agreement prohibits all nuclear explosions that produce a self-sustaining, supercritical chain reaction of any kind whether for weapons or peaceful purposes.
    • The decision not to include a specific definition of scope in the Treaty was a deliberate decision by the negotiating parties, including the United States, made to ensure that no loopholes were created by including a highly technical and specific list of what specific activities were and were not permitted under the Treaty.
    • A thorough review of the history of the Treaty negotiation process, as well as statements by world leaders and the negotiators of the agreement, shows that all states understand and accept the CTBT as a “zero-yield” treaty.