💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (July Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: GS2-19.Effect of policies and politics of developed and developing countries on India’s interests, Indian diaspora.

  • Significance of UK labor party’s remarks on Kashmir

    The UK Labour party’s newly appointed leader Keir Starmer said Kashmir was a bilateral issue for India and Pakistan to resolve peacefully. These remarks were seen as an attempt to re-position his party’s stance on Kashmir and reach out to the Indian community in Britain.

    What was the Labour party’s stance before?

    • The party’s relations with the Indian diaspora have been strained, especially after its delegates passed an emergency policy motion in September 2019 criticizing India’s decision to revoke Article 370.
    • It maintained that the people of Kashmir should have self-determination rights.

    Why is the Labour Party’s relationship with the Indian diaspora important?

    • Indians are the largest ethnic community in the UK, numbering over 1.5 million people or accounting for over 2.3 per cent of the country’s population.
    • Therefore, they form a significant vote share for any party.
    • In the 2017 general elections, 50 per cent of the Indians living in the UK had voted for Labour.

    India in Labour Party (UK) manifestos

    Over the years, issues relating to India have found various mention in many election manifestos in the UK:

    • 1945: India’s freedom had been a campaign promise of the Labour party, its manifesto pledging “the advancement of India to responsible self-government”.
    • 1947: The Indian Independence Act, 1947, was passed when Attlee was Prime Minister.
    • 1949: all the Commonwealth Prime Ministers welcomed the free choice of India, Pakistan and Ceylon to join the Commonwealth as full and equal members.
    • 2019: Issue a formal apology for the Jallianwala Bagh massacre.

  • Afghan peace and India’s elbow room

    The article discusses India’s exclusion from the Afghan peace process. As India seeks to fight back its exclusion there are certain issues that need to be addressed. India’s reluctance to enter into talks with the Taliban in one such issue, which needs a rethink. And there are several areas in which India needs to continue working like-the goodwill in Afghanistan, participation in assistance work, bringing together the major leaders in that country.

    India left out of the meeting on peace in Afghanistan

    • Earlier this month, the United Nations Secretariat held a meeting of what it calls the “6+2+1” group on regional efforts to support peace in Afghanistan.
    • The group includes six neighbouring countries: China, Iran, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan; global players the United States and Russia, and Afghanistan itself.
    • India was conspicuous by its absence from the meeting on April 16, given its historical and strategic ties with Afghanistan.
    • This has not happened for the first time, India was left out form talks similarly in 2001 and 2010.
    • In both 2001 and 2010, however, India fought back its exclusion
    • At the Bonn agreement of 2010, India played a major role in Northern Alliance accepting Hamid Karzai as the Chairman of the interim arrangement that replaced the Taliban regime.
    • After the 2010 conference, New Delhi redoubled its efforts with Kabul, and in 2011 India signed the historic Strategic Partnership Agreement, which was Afghanistan’s first such agreement with any country.

    Reasons for not inviting India

    • In 2020, the reason given for keeping India out of regional discussions on Afghanistan was ostensibly that it holds no “boundary” with Afghanistan.
    • But in fact, it is because New Delhi has never announced its support for the U.S.-Taliban peace process.
    • As planners in South Block now consider their next steps in Afghanistan, they must fight back against the idea that any lasting solution in Afghanistan can be discussed without India in the room, while also studying the reasons for such exclusions.

    Following are the issues that Indian must consider and act on as it seeks to fight back its exclusion from the peace talks.

    India’s position on Afghan-led peace process and reality

    • India’s resistance to publicly talking to the Taliban has made it an awkward interlocutor at any table.
    • Its position that only an Afghan-led, Afghan-owned, and Afghan-controlled process can be allowed is a principled one but has no takers.
    • The Ashraf Ghani government does not lead, own or control the reconciliation process today, comprising the U.S.-Taliban negotiation for an American troops withdrawal, and intra-Afghan talks on power-sharing.
    • The U.S.-Taliban peace deal means that the Taliban, will become more potent as the U.S. withdraws soldiers from the country.
    • Taliban will hold more sway in the inter-Afghan process as well, as the U.S. withdraws funding for the government in Kabul.

    Two effects of India’s position

    • New Delhi’s decision to put all its eggs in the Ghani basket has had a two-fold effect:
    • 1) Its voice in the reconciliation process has been limited.
    • 2) It has weakened India’s position with other leaders of the deeply divided democratic setup in Kabul such as the former chief executive Abdullah Abdullah.

    India should not let its diplomatic strength weaken

    • India painstakingly built up its presence inside Afghanistan since 2001.
    • This presence is being threatened anew by terror groups such as the Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP).
    • ISKP is believed to be backed by Pakistan’s establishment.
    • Intercepts showed that the brutal attack, in March, that killed 25 at a gurudwara in Kabul was meant for the embassy in Kabul.
    • The government cleared out both of its consulates this month.
    • While the government has said that the novel coronavirus pandemic prompted its decision to clear out both consulates.
    • The truth is that a full security reassessment is under way for them.
    • Either way, India’s diplomatic strength in Afghanistan should not appear to be in retreat just when it is needed the most.

    Goodwill in Afghanistan and damage caused due to CAA

    • The government must also consider the damage done to the vast reservoir of goodwill India enjoys in Afghanistan because of recent events in the country, especially the controversy over the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.
    • The building blocks of that goodwill are India’s assistance in infrastructure projects, health care, education, trade and food security, and also in the liberal access to Afghans to study, train and work in India.
    • Above all, it is India’s example as a pluralistic, inclusive democracy that inspires many.
    • Afghanistan’s majority-Muslim citizens have felt cut out of the move to offer fast track citizenship to only Afghan minorities.
    • The damage was also done by reports of anti-Muslim rhetoric and incidents of violence in India.

    Regain upper hand in the narrative in Afghanistan

    • While many of these are problems of perception, New Delhi must move swiftly to regain the upper hand in the narrative in Afghanistan.
    • India has provided the assistance of more than $3 billion in projects.
    • Bilateral trade is about $1 billion.
    • A $20 billion projected development expenditure of an alternate route through Chabahar.
    • And support to the Afghan National Army, bureaucrats, doctors and other professionals for training in India should assure it a leading position in Afghanistan’s regional formulation.
    • Three major projects along with hundreds of small development projects (of schools, hospitals and water projects) have cemented that position in Afghan hearts nationwide, regardless of Pakistan’s attempts to undermine that position, particularly in the South.
    • The three major projects include 1) the Afghan Parliament, 2) the Zaranj-Delaram Highway, 3)the Afghanistan-India Friendship Dam (Salma dam).

     Pursue opportunities to fulfil its role in the peace efforts

    • India must also pursue opportunities to fulfil its role in the peace efforts in Afghanistan, starting with efforts to bridge the Ghani-Abdullah divide.
    • India could also play role in bringing together other major leaders with whom India has built ties for decades.
    • It would be an utter tragedy if the Taliban were to enter the government in Kabul as the U.S. deal envisages, to find the opposing front collapse as it did in 1996.
    • An understanding between Iran and the U.S. on Afghanistan is necessary for a lasting peace as well, and India could play a mediatory part, as it did in order for the Chabahar project.

    Return of the Taliban has several implications for India. In 2013, the UPSC asked a question related to developments in Afghanistan against the backdrop of the proposed withdrawal of the International Security Assistance Force. Similarly, a question based on the latest development can be asked, for ex-“The return of Taliban after the US-Taliban deal in Afghanistan is fraught with major security implications for the countries in the region. Examine in the light of the fact that India is faced with a plethora of challenges and needs to safeguard its own strategic interests.”

    Use UN call for peace to put hostilities with Pakistan on hold

    • Finally, New Delhi should use the United Nations’s call for a pause in conflicts during the novel coronavirus pandemic, to ensure a hold on hostilities with Pakistan.
    • This will be even more difficult than it sounds given the abyss that bilateral relations have fallen into in the past year over Kashmir.

    Conclusion

    It would be a mistake, at this point, to tie all India’s support in only to Kabul or the Ghani government; the government must strive to endure that its aid and assistance is broad-based, particularly during the novel coronavirus pandemic to centres outside the capital, even if some lie in areas held by the Taliban.

  • New global order in post-Covid-19 world

    The article discusses the changes that the world will experience in the global order in the aftermath of Covid-19. The major changes will be on the economic and geopolitical front. Various changes are discussed in the article. We have read some article on the same topic and the basic theme is the same. Role of China and the US, failure of the international institutions are some of the common themes.

    Failure of international institutions

    • The existing international institutions such as the United Nations, the United Nations Security Council and the World Health Organization (WHO) are seen to have failed to measure up to the grave challenge posed by the pandemic.
    • The UN Security Council is under attack for being slow in dealing with a situation that appears, at least on the surface, far graver than any military threat in recent decades.
    • The WHO has been tarred with the charge of bias and of grossly underestimating the nature of the epidemic.
    • That prestigious global institution should have been singled out for attack at this time speaks volumes about the mood prevailing across the world.

    Economic shock

    • There are many other aspects of the COVID-19 crisis that will drastically impact the globe.
    • Negative growth: On the economic front, the World Bank has already predicted negative growth for most nations. India’s growth forecast for the current fiscal year has been put at 5% to 2.8%.
    • Contraction of the economy and the loss of millions of jobs across all segments will further complicate this situation.

    One of the most important factors that we realised in the corona crisis in the role of the state. Take note of this factor. A question can be asked on the role of the state, for ex. “The COVID-19 pandemic has brought into focus the important role of the state in our lives. comment.”

    The important role of the state in focus

    • What is likely to change even more dramatically are certain other aspects relating to political management and security. Both terms are set to gain new meanings.
    • The role of the state as an enforcer of public goodwill almost certainly become greatly enhanced.
    • The dominant imperative would be to not put limits on the role of the state even where the situation may not be as grave as the present one.
    • Many pieces of legislation of yesteryears that had been relegated to the archives — they were perceived to be anachronistic in a modern democratic set-up — may get a new lease of life.
    • Some pieces of legislation such as the Disaster Management Act already reflect this reality today.
    • Other pieces of legislation could follow in its wake.
    • This trend is already becoming evident to some extent across the world. Europe has shown a willingness to sacrifice personal liberties in favour of greater state control.
    • Post COVID-19, the world may have to pay a heavy price in terms of loss of liberty. An omnipotent state could well become a reality.

    Following are the changes in geo-economics and geo-politics that post-covid world would see.

    Role of China under scrutiny

    • Far-reaching changes can also be anticipated in the realm of geo-economics and geopolitics. The world needs to prepare for a sea change.
    • One nation, viz. China, is presently seeking to take advantage of and benefit from the problems faced by the rest of the world in the wake of the epidemic.
    • Negligence on the part of China: China remains totally unfazed by the stigma that the current world pandemic owes a great deal to its negligence.
    • More importantly, it is seeking to convert its ‘failure’ into a significant opportunity.
    • This is Sino-centrism at its best, or possibly its worst.
    • China now seeks to benefit from the fact of its ‘early recovery’.
    • It wants to take advantage of the travails of the rest of the world, by using its manufacturing capability to its geo-economic advantage.
    • Seeking geopolitical advantage: Simultaneously, it seeks to shift from being a Black Swan (responsible for the pandemic), to masquerade as a White one, by offering medical aid and other palliatives to several Asian and African countries to meet their current pandemic threat.
    • In turn, it seeks to gain a geopolitical advantage by this action.

    Hostile takeover bids by China

    • There are enough reports of China’s intentions to acquire financial assets and stakes in banks and companies across the world amid crisis.
    • Shares in HDFC: India seems to have woken up only recently to this threat after the Peoples’ Bank of China acquired a 1% stake in India’s HDFC.
    • Across the world, meanwhile, the clamour against China’s hostile takeover bids is becoming stronger.
    • Several countries apart from India, such as Australia and Germany, have begun to restrict Chinese foreign direct investment in companies and financial institutions in their countries.
    • These countries recognised the inherent danger of a possible Chinese hostile takeover of their critical assets.

    China taking advantage of RCEP and Belt and Road initiative

    • Restricting hostile takeovers may not be adequate to checkmate China.
    • It is poised to dominate the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).
    • Which will enable China to exploit market access across the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, East Asian nations, Australia and New Zealand.
    • Together with its Belt and Road Initiative, China is ostensibly preparing the way for a China-centric multilateral globalisation framework.

    The diminishing role of the US’s and Europe

    • The geopolitical fallout of this pandemic could be still more serious.
    • One distinct possibility is that COVID-19 would effectively put paid to the existing global order that has existed since the late 1940s.
    • The United States which is already being touted in some circles as a ‘failing’ state, will be compelled to cede ground.
    • Weakened economically and politically after COVID-19 has ravaged the nation, the U.S.’s capacity to play a critical role in world affairs is certain to diminish.
    • The main beneficiary of this geopolitical turnaround is likely to be China, a country that does not quite believe in playing by the rules of international conduct.
    • Weakened Europe: Europe, in the short and medium-term, will prove incapable of defining and defending its common interests, let alone having any influence in world affairs.
    • Role of Germany: Germany, which may still retain some of its present strength, is already turning insular.
    • Both France and the post-Brexit United Kingdom will be out of the reckoning as of now.

    Problems in West Asia and the possible role of Israel

    • In West Asia, both Saudi Arabia and Iran are set to face difficult times.
    • The oil price meltdown will aggravate an already difficult situation across the region.
    • There may be no victors, but Israel may be one country that is in a position to exploit this situation to its advantage.

    India: Economic and geopolitical challenges

    • In the meantime, the economic downturn greatly reduces India’s room for manoeuvre.
    • In South Asia, India faces the prospect of being isolated, with the Chinese juggernaut winning Beijing new friends and contacts across a region deeply impacted by the economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic.
    • Likewise, India’s leverage in West Asia — already greatly diminished — will suffer further.
    • With oil prices going down and the Indian expatriate community (who are among the hardest hit by this downturn) out on a limb.
    • Reduction in remittances: Many of the latter may seek repatriation back to the host country, substantially reducing the inflow of foreign funds to India from the region.

    A question based on the changes in the global order in the post-pandemic world could be asked by the UPSC, for ex- “In the post-Covid-19 world, we are experiencing several changes. What are the changes in the geo-politics that are likely to affect India’s interests?”

    Conclusion

    In the post-Covid-19 world, we are about to see many changes on the economic and geopolitical front. India should prepare itself for the emerging challenges on various fronts.

  • 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.

  • Global recovery after the Covid-19

    This article discusses the various factors with geopolitical significance. These factors would shape the post-pandemic recovery on a global scale. Though these factors have been touched upon in the previous op-eds, they are dealt with in detail here.

    Post-pandemic strategic environment for the recovery

    • It’s the post-pandemic strategic environment that will dictate how soon the world recovers from this unexpected shock.
    • It must start with the international geopolitical angle, with many assumptions.
    • With some clarity in this domain, we can prepare ourselves better for the recovery phase of a near post-war situation.
    • Shortly, even as the world continues to reel under the pandemic threat, there will be more endeavours on enhancing human security through better strategic management of the world.
    • So, what will all that be about? It could be a major conference.
    • Major conference with agenda for revival: The situation is similar to the elusive efforts towards the creation of new world order after the end of the Cold War in 1989.
    • Will the world consider a major conference with the agenda being a revival after the coronavirus?
    • The 2015 Paris Summit of the United Nations, which was convened to save the world from the rapid impact of climate change, could not muster a consensus.
    • Will a potential 2020 “pandemic conference” succeed in getting big powers to jettison their geopolitical ambition?

    China’s role has significance for India. The UPSC asks questions touching the economic or security aspect of China for India. So, the role played by China in the post-pandemic world is important from Mains perspective. Take note of the issues discussed below.

    The US-China rivalry

    • The US-China rivalry will remain the core issue, with several other regions and nations aligning with the one who can bring them short to medium-term advantages.
    • Contingent upon how badly the US is finally affected, its current confused leadership is unlikely to inspire and its efforts at internal stabilisation may compromise US power.
    • A major turn in political fortunes in the US and its bumbling on pandemic management could throw open opportunities for others to exploit.
    • The US will perceive itself far more insecure than it was even after 9/11.

    Accusations over China’s role in the pandemic

    • There is likely to be a huge effort to slander China — accusing it of being the originator of the scourge — and isolate it economically and politically.
    • The allegations on the use of biological warfare are the ones which will cause turbulence in relationships.
    • Ironically, China is also in a unique position to help the world bounce back.
    • Against the backdrop of these accusations regarding culpability, we need to be ready for changes in the norms of international cooperation and behaviour.
    • Cold war situation: A cold war of sorts could well be on the cards for some time, hampering a full recovery.
    • It will be brutal in the cyber world — fake news on social media will prevent international cooperation in crucial fields such as scientific research, patents.
    • And this could perhaps even slow down the ability to prevent the next pandemic.

    The crucial role of the US

    • Subject to the US’s economic capability after the pandemic, the ability to find a consensus to put on hold defence spending for the sake of human security will be the key.
    • But the trust deficit between nations will probably hamper this to a great extent.
    • The key anchor of globalisation — the US-China trade relationship — will change even more.
    • China cannot be replaced by the US as a major industrial producer (even for the US market).
    • Other countries or blocs — ASEAN, Bangladesh and India — will all chip in but that will still not be enough.
    • Nor can any country buy as much grain from the US as China does.
    • So, an economic relationship will continue but will be politically fractured as both parties search for alternatives, which don’t exist on a scale that both of them need.

    The growing influence of China

    • China’s recovery is likely to be the fastest.
    • Its ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) may now go uncontested by the US-led efforts to create alternatives.
    • The Chinese ability to influence politics among smaller nations in Asia and Africa could bring it strategic advantages.
    • But this influence is unlikely to be enough to replace America unless the recession-hit US remains defensively oriented.
    • Potential for conflict: Knowing the US propensity to bounce back, China’s efforts will have to remain energetic and that is where the potential for conflict is likely to rise.
    • Of course, it is not as if the US would abandon its interests for an era of only-inward economic healing.
    • Its eye on the future will remain firmly in place.

    The decline in the credibility of the UN

    • Role of WHO: The UN has lost credibility with the World Health Organisation taking the worst hit any UN agency has suffered in years.
    • Its future is contingent upon how it manages the geopolitical fallout of the pandemic.
    • The sooner it can get the world leaders on board, the better.

    Instability in Iran and Afghanistan

    • The collapse of the economy: Iran has been hit badly and with the US unrelenting on sanctions, its economy could collapse with frightening results as far the Middle East is concerned.
    • The threat for peace in the region: A big nation in instability mode with internal turbulence and leadership challenges could spread greater threats of an undefined kind.
    • The US may abandon Afghanistan with less commitment towards keeping its economy sustainable.
    • Possibility of IS revival: It could be a sure recipe for internal instability, which could see the Islamic State emerge a major player.
    • Russian advantage: Everything in the Middle East points towards Russian advantage and domination.

    Opportunities for India

    • India without recession: Economically hit but probably one of the few nations without a recession, India’s strong central leadership could be a big advantage.
    • International cooperation: Prime Minister Narendra Modi would need to use all his influence to cobble together international cooperation to pull the world from the abyss it could sink into.
    • His credibility is already higher than most international leaders and could spell a leadership role for India not in conflict with China but in cooperation with it.
    • It is India’s established multilateral foreign policy that could eventually come to the assistance of the world.

    Conclusion

    Successful and swift recovery of the world hinges on international cooperation among the nation. This provides India with an opportunity to stitch together international cooperation in dealing with the aftermath of the crisis.

  • Beijing’s response to Covid underlines that the world needs more democracy, not less

    The article deals with the fundamental differences between democratic states and one-party state against the backdrop of response to Covid-19. The second part of the article focuses on post-Covid-19 scenarios like changes in the supply chains and the state of the China’s economy.

    Two aspects of Chine’s propaganda campaign

    • China, with the lack of transparency inherent in its one-party authoritarian system, contributed to the spread of Covid-19.
    • There is a desperate effort on the part of China to erase its culpability in unleashing COVID-19 across the world.
    • It has sought to overcome the damaging global public opinion which it has suffered by a subsequent sustained propaganda campaign.
    • This has two aspects.
    • 1. Highlighting the success: One highlights the success China claims to have achieved in arresting the pandemic within the country through drastic measures on a massive scale.
    • Thereby demonstrating the superiority of its authoritarian system.
    • This authoritarian system is contrasted with the delayed and often less-than-effective measures taken in democratic European countries and the US in particular.
    • 2. Publicity of assistance provided to other countries: The other seeks blanket publicity of much-needed medical equipment and medical teams to assist affected countries.
    • The main target is Europe, though assistance to other countries is also given prominence.
    • Chinese diplomats are using Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms to create an image of a benign China providing public goods to a grateful community of beleaguered nations.
    • In reporting on India, Chinese media has often highlighted the plight of migrant workers and the frequent violations of social distancing regulations.
    • It is true that India has sought and received much-needed medical supplies from China.

    What China would like us to believe?

    • China wants us to believe that COVID-19 virus did erupt in Wuhan, but it may not have originated in China.
    • That there may have been a delay in acknowledging the seriousness of the crisis, but this was due to missteps by the local leadership in Wuhan city and Hubei province.
    • Once the gravity of the situation was recognised, Chinese leaders promptly informed the WHO and shared the DNA sequence of the virus with it and other countries.
    • The unprecedented measures adopted by Chinese authorities bought valuable time for the rest of the world to get prepared to deal with the pandemic.
    • Having achieved notable success in arresting the spread of the virus, valuable assistance is now being provided to affected countries in the spirit of solidarity.
    • China’s economy is beginning to recover and this will contribute to the recovery of the global economy.

    China has been highlighting its success in dealing with Covid-19 as an achievement of its single-party system. So, it is important to understand why it is not entirely true. And UPSC can frame a question like “To what extent has democratic system helped India in dealing with the corona crisis? “. Following points highlight the advantages of democracy in this regard.

    Democracy Vs. One-party system

    • Has China demonstrated the superiority of China’s one-party system as compared to democracies? No!
    • There is no escaping the fact that COVID-19 may not have become a pandemic if China were a democracy.
    • With a free flow of information through an independent media and accountable political leadership, the rest of the world would have been alerted in time.
    • There are democracies which have done as well if not better than China without resorting to its sledgehammer tactics.
    • Notably, there is Taiwan, which is constantly bullied by China.
    • There is South Korea, which has even held parliamentary elections after having brought the pandemic under control.
    • Even in India, the government is providing daily updates on the spread of the virus.
    • Conclusion: The bottom line is that as a result of being a democracy, we have a better chance of knowing the true dimensions of the crisis.
    • With the democracy we have a better chance of being able to obtain constant feedback on people’s reactions and access the best advice from multiple sources.

    China’s assistance and resentment against it

    • One must acknowledge China’s assistance to affected countries despite reports of defective and low-quality materials.
    • But recipients have often been “persuaded” to express fulsome praise for China.
    • This accompanying publicity overdrive has caused resentment rather than gratitude
    • Then there have been reports from Guangzhou on racial discrimination against stranded African students.
    • This has led to a sharp reaction from African countries.
    • This will be difficult to live down.

    The revival of China’s economy

    • There is no doubt that economic activity in China is beginning to revive after a steep drop of 6.8 per cent (year on year) in GDP during the first quarter of 2020.
    • Latest estimates are that the Chinese economy is now functioning at about 80 per cent of the level last year, which is impressive.
    • Less dependence on export: China’s economy is not as export-dependent as it has been in the past.
    • Exports were 5 per cent of GDP in 2018 against 32.6 per cent in 2008.
    • But the external economic environment is critical for China’s globalised economy.
    • It is a significant node in the most important regional and global supply chains.

    Changes in supply chains in the future and opportunity for India

    • China’s position as a significant node will be impacted by countries re-shoring production or opting for shorter and closer-to-home supply chains.
    • Japan will spend $2.2 billion to assist Japanese companies to shift units from China back to Japan or relocate to South East Asia.
    • In 2012, when China-Japan tensions were at a peak, there was a similar move and India was seen as an alternative.
    • But that opportunity was lost. Perhaps India has a second chance.
    • Decoupling from the US economy: China will suffer from accelerated “decoupling” from the US economy with COVID-19 sharpening the already fraught bilateral relations.
    • In a sense, China was already decoupled from the US by denying entry to US tech giants, Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon.
    • This even while its own tech multinationals like Huawei and Alibaba have built markets in the West.
    • This cannot be sustained.
    • The winners in the more digital world which will emerge post-COVID-19 will be the American tech giants, even though the US is politically dysfunctional.
    • Democracies sometimes win even if their politics is frustrating.

    Conclusion

    Rather than express envy of Chinese authoritarianism, Indians should be thankful that we are a democracy. We need more democracy, not less, to overcome the COVID-19 challenge. India should also be ready to grab the opportunities in the post-Covid-19 era in the economic realms.

  • China manipulates the WHO, India needs to be cautious

    The article elaborates on the role played by China in manipulating WHO to its advantage and to the detriment of the rest of the world. India must take cognisance of the growing Chinese influence at various global platforms and act accordingly.

    China’s role in electing Director-General of WHO

    • Tedros was Ethiopia’s Minister of Health (2005—2012) and Minister of Foreign Affairs (2012 to 2016).
    • In 2017, China catapulted him to lead the WHO as its Director General (DG).
    • India, the world’s largest democracy, played second fiddle.
    • We will never know who gamed India inside and abroad, but tough questions must be asked.

    Pandemic as a wake-up call for India

    • Public health is a rights-driven developmental track for any country, especially for India.
    • The ministries of foreign, trade, information and broadcasting, home, finance, women and child development, law, infrastructure and industry, among others, should be part of the country’s health equation and decision-making on a daily basis.
    • Should the WHO be sitting in on high-level health ministry discussions given what we now know about its allegiance to all things Chinese?
    • China, an economic and military behemoth, now seeks the same power in public health.
    • India, with its double burden of disease and an uncritical alignment with the WHO, is fertile ground for data and dollars.

    Dependence on China for API

    • For now, India, like most countries, is at China’s mercy because of years of short-sightedness and corruption in the health sector.
    • While it is hailed as the pharmacy of the world and has sent drugs as humanitarian assistance, India relies heavily on raw materials from China.
    • Quick thinking and swift action can reverse this.

    The above points highlight the implications of Chinese dominance for India. Questions related to China is a recurrent theme in the UPSC papers. Next thing to note here is India’s dependence on China for APIs.

    The US’s stand on WHO funding

    • Some are blaming US President Donald Trump for contemplating cutting off funding for the WHO and not Tedros, for taking orders from China about the pandemic.
    • The war is not between an American President and Tedros.
    • It is between Tedros, a global public health head, and his subservience to China.
    • That ship of trust, the cornerstone of public health work that the WHO should have been leading, has long set sail.
    • Protecting Tedros is important as the WHO needs money to help poor countries with weak health systems.

    Last year, UPSC asked about UNESCO when the US and Israel withdrew from it. This year, WHO has been in focus for allegedly towing China’s line.

    Issue of funding and spending by the WHO

    • War chests are being mobilised to help the WHO help China disburse aid and assistance to dying people and gasping economies.
    • The recent announcement by the World Bank to fast track $1.9 billion for health systems to respond to Covid-19 also includes Ethiopia.
    • For the first time in its history, the WHO has opened its doors to private funding via a Solidarity fund and China is expected to keep an eye on this.
    • To keep track of how the money is spent is a problem.

    Conclusion

    India must decide if it wants to blindly follow the blind or lead by bringing the WHO back to its original promise. At stake is the country’s economic security of which public health is a key component. India can either be a part of history or pick up the pen even in these times of distress and rewrite it.

  • COVID-19 and the crumbling world order

    Theme of this article is the failure of the world order in mounting a collective fight against the epidemic that has become the global problem. Role of WHO has also come under the scanner. Functioning and reluctance of UNSC to discuss the pandemic have raised questions over its relevance. The issue of China’s growing influence and implications for the rest of the world are being discussed. In the past week, some newspaper articles have covered the same issue for instance-“The deep void in global leadership” in the Hindu.

    Failure of the world order and global institutions

    • The contemporary global order and institutions were a hegemonic exercise meant to deal with isolated political and military crises and not serve humanity at large.
    • COVID-19 has exposed this as well as the worst nativist tendencies of the global leadership in the face of a major crisis.
    • That the United Nations Security Council took so long to meet (that too inconclusively) to discuss the pandemic is a ringing testimony to the UN’s insignificance.

    The above para. indicates that global order we are living in was made for entirely different purpose i.e. to maintain the peace and they are not capable to deal with the Covid-19  like challenges. So, from UPSC mains point of view you must take note of this.

    Failure of regional groupings

    • Regional institutions haven’t fared any better.
    • Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s SAARC initiative, curiously resurrecting a practically dead institution, was short-lived.
    • The EU, the most progressive post-national regional arrangement, stood clueless when the virus spread like wildfire in Europe.
    • Its member states turned inward for solutions: self-help, not regional coordination, was their first instinct. Brussels is the loser.

    What these failures indicate?

    • These failures are indicative of a deeper malaise: the global institutional framework is unrepresentative, a pawn in the hands of the great powers, cash-strapped, and its agenda is focused on high-table security issues.
    • The global institutional architecture of the 1940s cannot help humanity face the challenges of the 2020s.
    • What can be the solutions? Nothing less than a new social contract between states and the international system can save our future.

    Here we come across  the reasons for the failure of the world order and institutions. UPSC has asked questions related to UNESCO in 2019, who knows next could be the WHO.

    Factors that will help China come out stronger from the pandemic

    • Reports indicate that China has now managed the outbreak of COVID-19, and its industrial production is recovering even as that of every other country is taking a hit.
    • The oil price slump will make its recovery even faster.
    • When the greatest military power found itself in denial mode and the members of the EU were looking after their own interests, China appeared to use its manufacturing power to its geopolitical advantage.
    • Beijing has offered medical aid and expertise to those in need; it has increased cooperation with its arch-rival Japan.
    • This will aid Beijing’s claims to global leadership, push Huawei 5G trials as a side bargain, and showcase how the Belt and Road Initiative is the future of global connectivity.
    • COVID-19 will further push the international system into a world with Chinese characteristics.

    As China comes to dominate the emerging world order, we must pay attention to things related to China. Here, we can note down the factors that could help China emerge out stronger from the corona crisis.

    Implications for globalisation: the rise of protectionism and hypernationalism

    • Neoliberal economic globalisation will have taken a major beating in the wake of the pandemic.
    • Economists are warning of a global recession.
    • How the world reacted? The first instinct of every major economy was to close borders, look inwards and
    • The pre-existing structural weakness of the global order and the COVID-19 shock will further feed states’ protectionist tendencies fueled by hypernationalism.
    • A more inclusive global political and economic order is unlikely any time soon, if ever.
    • Instead, as former National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon warns, “we are headed for a poorer, meaner, and smaller world.”
    • How this epidemic impact big corporations? The ability of big corporations to dictate the production, stocks, supply chains and backup plans will be limited by increased state intervention to avoid unpredictable supply sources, avoid geopolitically sensitive zones, and national demands for emergency reserves.
    • The profits of big corporations will reduce, and the demand for stability will increase.
    • Will the world after Covid-19 be more balance? State intervention in economic matters and protectionism are the easy way out, and that’s precisely what states will do once the crisis is over.
    • It would be a return of the ‘Licence Raj’ through the backdoor, not a push for inclusive and responsible globalisation with its associated political benefits.

    It is clear now that post-Covid-19 world would be different from the world we know today. Globalisation would take a significant beating. And globalisation is important topic from mains point of view. So, pay close attention to the points mentioned here.

    Will post-Covid-19 world lead to some positive controls?

    • Rise of state-led models: With the severe beating that globalisation has taken, state-led models of globalisation and economic development would be preferred over (big) corporates-led globalisation.
    • Will this enable some positive controls over the inherent deficiencies of globalisation? We will have to wait and see.
    • The relation between capitalists and the states: But the more important question is whether the state has any incentive to take on big capital.
    • Given the symbiotic relationship between the state and big capital, states have become used to protecting the interests of their corporations, often at the cost of the general public.
    • States preferred capital over health: Consider, for instance, that the first response of many Western states was to protect their capital markets than be concerned about public health.

    Rise of racism in post-Covid-19 world

    • Yet another undesirable outcome of the pandemic would be a spike in various forms of discrimination.
    • Globally, societies could become more self-seeking and inward-looking leading to further pushback against liberal policies regarding migration and refugees.
    • Implications for world trade: New questions are likely to be asked about the source of goods. More stringent imposition of phytosanitary measures by advanced states on products emanating from the less developed countries might become the new normal.
    • Lockdowns and travel restrictions could potentially legitimise the rhetoric around border walls in more conservative countries.
    • Tragically, therefore, while one answer to global pandemics is political globalisation, COVID-19 might further limit it.

    Conclusion

    The world order needs to wake up to new reality take measures to avoid the above listed undesired fallouts that could emerge in the post-Covid-19 world, and before that there is an urgent need for the global coalition to deal with the pandemic.

     

  • Sanctions and pandemic: On America’s Iran policy

    Context

    The US has refused to ease the sanction on Iran even as it is struggling hard to control the spread of the virus.

    Sanctions adding to the difficulties of Iran

    • Disregard to the humanitarian situation: America’s refusal to ease sanctions on Iran even when the West Asian country is struggling hard to contain the novel coronavirus spread with limited resources shows its total disregard for the humanitarian situation in the Islamic Republic.
    • Iran, the hardest hit by the pandemic in West Asia, has already seen 3,739 deaths and 62,589 infections.
    • Iran’s failure: To be sure, Iran failed on multiple fronts in the battle. The government was initially reluctant to enforce drastic restrictions on businesses, religious establishments and people.
    • As infections began spreading at an exponential pace, it was more than what Iran’s health-care system could handle.
    • Failures accentuated by sanctions: And during the crisis, the cash-strapped, isolated regime struggled to meet people’s needs. But what accentuated these failures are the American sanctions.
    • Last year, the sanctions, reimposed by President Trump after he unilaterally pulled the U.S. out of the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, shrank the country’s economy by 8.7%.
    • Oil price factor: The fall in oil prices and the pandemic have multiplied Iran’s woes.
    • The sanctions have also debilitated its ability to import even humanitarian goods.
    • Rejection by the US to ease sanctions: The U.S. rejected calls for easing sanctions, saying exports of these goods to Iran are already exempted. But it is not that easy.
    • Banks fearful of US action: Most global banks, fearing U.S. retaliation and legal consequences, stay away from doing business with Iran, which makes it difficult for the Islamic Republic to find a functional payment mechanism.
    • With the economy in dire straits, it also lacks the resources to make purchases.

    Why should the US ease sanctions?

    • The U.S., which has the most number of COVID-19 infections, should be in a better position to understand Iran’s woes than any other country.
    • Despite the U.S. being the world’s largest economy, and home to a gigantic health-care industry, authorities there appear clueless on quick containment.
    • Learning from its own tragedy, Washington should have suspended or at least eased the sanctions on Iran, allowing the country to import food, medicines and other humanitarian goods without restrictions.
    • Such a decision would also have provided an opportunity to both countries — on the brink of a military conflict early this year — to resume diplomatic engagement.
    • It is still not too late for Mr Trump to take a humanitarian decision and turn it into a diplomatic opening.

    What Iran should do?

    • The Iranian leadership should realise that this is not the time for America-bashing.
    • Focus on getting help: This is an hour of crisis, globally. Tehran’s focus should be on getting maximum help from abroad and beefing up its fight at home to save lives.
    • Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s recent comment that Iran “has the capability to overcome any kind of crisis and challenges” is far removed from reality.

    Conclusion

    Iranians need help and the U.S. should reconsider its policy of punishing them, at least in this time of a pandemic. This could open the diplomatic channel for the further talk between both the countries.

  • The wilting Sakura

    Context

    A resilient nation, Japan has risen from the ashes, phoenix-like, each time. It is now confronting COVID-19, which has wreaked havoc on global financial and economic systems and disrupted production, supply chains and markets.

    The cruise ship incident and no reprieve to the Japanese from Covid-19

    • COVID-19 received a high-rating televised start in Japan with the cruise ship, Diamond Princess, steaming into Tokyo Bay with 3,711 passengers on board and quickly being quarantined.
    • Over the next month, with more than 700 cases of infection on-board, it remained the single-largest cluster outside China.
    • Gradually, as numbers swelled exponentially elsewhere and the incidence of new cases remained low locally, the Japanese went back to their ways, with holiday crowds celebrating the annual Hanami (sakura viewing) season in idyllic spots
    • It seemed as if the Japanese had dodged the bullet even as it delayed until April 3 the blocking of tourists from 70-odd countries, including China, which accounted for nearly 9.6 million tourists in 2019, one-third of the total.
    • With new infections mounting in recent days, the reprieve, it seems, was as ephemeral as the bloom of the sakura.

    Postponing the Olympics

    • The biggest collateral damage of the fresh wave of COVID-19 infections in Japan is the belated decision to postpone the Tokyo Olympics to 2021.
    • It reminded the nation of the jinxed Olympics of 1940, which Japan was to host but fell victim to the Second Sino-Japanese War.
    • If the 1940 Olympics were intended to showcase Japan’s industrial and economic resurrection after the devastation of the 1923 Great Kanto earthquake, the 1964 Tokyo Olympics had symbolised the economic miracle in Japan after the ravages of the Second World War.
    • The 2020 Olympics, dubbed by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe as the “Recovery and Reconstruction Games”, were to demonstrate Japan’s mojo in the aftermath of the 2011 Triple Disaster.
    • Reports indicate that Japan has already spent $12.6 billion on the preparations for the Olympics.
    • Nikkei and Goldman Sachs estimate that the postponement of the games would easily set Japan back by another $5-6 billion.

    Impact on economy

    • Recession in the world: The pandemic could not have come at a worse time. The IMF has confirmed that COVID-19 has pushed the global economy into a recession, potentially much worse than the one in 2009.
    • The Japanese economy now faces the daunting prospect of a sharp contraction, with the OECD Report for March 2020 forecasting its GDP growth at 0.2 per cent in 2020.
    • Even before the global pandemic struck, Japan was dealing with the adverse effects on consumer spending of the hike in consumption tax from 8 per cent to 10 per cent.
    • Dwindling demand from China, where Japan has huge economic stakes, can only worsen the regional economic outlook already strained by US-China trade friction.
    • Abe’s decision this week to declare a month-long state of emergency in Tokyo and six other prefectures, alongside the release of a gargantuan stimulus package worth nearly $1 trillion, including cash doles and financial support to households and businesses, may help turn the tide.
    • However, providing healthcare to a rapidly ageing population in the face of an abrupt disruption in the sizeable inward flow of foreign care-givers will prove a daunting challenge.
    • Meanwhile, several prefectures that depend heavily on tourism from China and the Republic of Korea have suffered deep losses.

    Impact on Japan’s international commitments and initiatives

    • As one of the world’s richest countries, Japan can perhaps hope to cushion itself from such blows.
    • Whether the economic distress unleashed by COVID-19 also adversely impacts some of Japan’s commitments to its Official Development Assistance (ODA) or outlays for regional infrastructure and connectivity under flagship programmes such as the Expanded Partnership for Quality Infrastructure (EPQI), the Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD) and the Indo-Pacific Business Forum, including the Blue Dot Network and LNG projects, remains to be seen.
    • This could well be true of the US too, in the context of the International Development Finance Corporation under the BUILD Act, aimed at countering China’s expanding writ across the region.

    Implications for Indo-Pacific region

    • The pandemic could have broader implications for military postures in the Indo-Pacific.
    • As it was seen in the outbreak of the COVID-19 virus onboard the US Navy’s Theodore Roosevelt, which had sailed from San Diego in January for a scheduled Indo-Pacific deployment.
    • It is at the centre of a controversy involving the sacking of its captain and the vessel’s ill-advised port visit to Da Nang in Vietnam earlier in March despite the high risk of contagion.
    • Of course, China’s PLA Navy (PLAN) could well be grappling with similar problems out at sea but, unlike in the democratic world, these facts will be treated as “state secrets”.
    • Opportunity for China to further its influence: As China gradually recovers from the pandemic, relatively earlier and faster than the West, Beijing’s “charm offensive” and leveraging of its deep pockets may help it to further its geopolitical influence.
    • Its assistance to developing countries in mitigating the impact of COVID-19 will create new scope to proselytise its governance and development models.

    India-Japan relations

    • Japan-China relations: A high-profile casualty of the pandemic is Chinese President Xi Jinping’s long-pending visit to Tokyo.
    • But Japan’s “mask diplomacy” and generous assistance to China at the start of the pandemic augur well for Sino-Japanese ties, which have improved in recent years, their inveterate differences notwithstanding.
    • India visit by Japan: Abe’s postponed visit to India, earlier scheduled to take place at the end of 2019, will be hard to resurrect before the pandemic is completely under control.
    • Nevertheless, the fundamental convergence of interests and the extraordinary political capital invested in the relationship by both PM Modi and Abe in recent years ensures that the Special Strategic and Global Partnership between India and Japan will remain robust.
    • New vistas for India-Japan cooperation: The pandemic opens up new vistas for cooperation in healthcare, non-traditional security and global governance, including reform of the UN and affiliated bodies such as the WHO whose contributions in the battle against COVID-19 are moot.

    How Japan tackled the pandemic so far?

    • So far, Japan had relied on its customary discipline and prevention methods, with an exhortation to the public to avoid the “three Cs” — closed spaces, crowded places and conversations at close proximity.
    • No lockdown: Japan has shied away from taking the bold approach that Modi took in announcing a 21-day nationwide lockdown.
    • The declaration of a state of emergency covering the megacities of Tokyo and Osaka and some prefectures would give local governors in the hardest-hit areas greater legal authority to impose curbs, albeit without the power to impose penalties.
    • Japan’s case-by-case approach to the reopening of schools by regional authorities has been criticised.
    • There have been calls for a strict lockdown before it is too late to avert the same fate as Italy, Spain and the US.
    • In a race to develop vaccine: With formidable scientific prowess at its disposal, Japan remains at the forefront in the race to develop a vaccine against COVID-19.

    Conclusion

    Prime Minister Abe is viewed by voters as a leader capable of taking bold decisions. If Abe’s administration overcomes the COVID-19 crisis despite the odds and succeeds in staving off a recession, there is every chance that the LDP might again amend its rules to grant him a fourth term. After all, it is not easy for any of his political rivals to step into his shoes in the middle of such a crisis.