💥Mains Ready By December. Smash Mains & Smash PYQ Admissions Open

GS Paper: GS2-20.Important International institutions, agencies and fora- their structure, mandate.

  • China blocks Indian proposal to blacklist Pakistani terrorist at UN

    unsc

    Central Idea

    • China yet again blocked a proposal by India and the US at the United Nations to designate Pakistan-national Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist Sajid Mir as a global terrorist on the UN Security Council’s 1267 list..

    What is the UNSC 1267 list?

    • The UNSC resolution 1267 was adopted unanimously on 15 October 1999.
    • It came to force in 1999, and strengthened after the September, 2001 attacks.
    • It is now known as the Da’esh and Al Qaeda Sanctions Committee.

    What is UNSC 1267 committee?

    • It comprises all permanent and non-permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).
    • The 1267 list of terrorists is a global list, with a UNSC stamp.
    • It is one of the most important and active UN subsidiary bodies working on efforts to combat terrorism, particularly in relation to Al Qaeda and the Islamic State group.
    • It discusses UN efforts to limit the movement of terrorists, especially those related to travel bans, the freezing of assets and arms embargoes for terrorism.

    How is the listing done?

    (1) Submission of Proposal

    • Any member state can submit a proposal for listing an individual, group, or entity.
    • The proposal must include acts or activities indicating the proposed individual/group/entity had participated in the financing, planning, facilitating, preparing, or perpetrating of acts or activities linked to the said organizations.

    (2) Actual decision

    • Decisions on listing and de-listing are adopted by consensus.
    • The proposal is sent to all the members, and if no member objects within five working days, the proposal is adopted.
    • An “objection” means rejection for the proposal.

    (3) Putting and resolving ‘Technical Holds’

    • Any member of the Committee may also put a “technical hold” on the proposal and ask for more information from the proposing member state.
    • During this time, other members may also place their own holds.
    • The matter remains on the “pending” list of the Committee.
    • Pending issues must be resolved in six months, but the member state that has placed the hold may ask for an additional three months.
    • At the end of this period, if an objection is not placed, the matter is considered approved.

    Why is India furious this time?

    • Recently PM Modi and Xi Jinping attended the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit in Samarkand.
    • The grouping had agreed to take strong and consolidated action against terrorism in the region.
    • Despite this, China has exposed its double standards on the issue of terrorism for consistently stopping the listing of Pakistan-based terrorists.
    • This is again very surprising movement by China by putting a ‘Technical Hold’.

    Here is a timeline of how China disrupts the global efforts against terrorism:

    • 2009: After the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, India moved an independent terror designation proposal against Masood Azhar but China blocked the move.
    • 2016: After seven years, India proposes listing of Masood Azhar as a global terrorist and is supported by the US, the UK and France. China blocks the move again.
    • 2017: The trio moves a third proposal only to be blocked by China again.
    • 2019: After the attacks on the CRPF personnel in J-K’s Pulwama, India calls 25 envoys of different countries to highlight the role Islamabad plays in funding, promoting and strengthening global terrorism. India moves the fourth proposal demanding Masood Azhar’s listing. China lifted its technical hold.
    • June 2022: China blocked a proposal by India and the US to list Pakistan-based terrorist Abdul Rehman Makki as a ‘Global Terrorist’
    • August 2022: China blocks India-US joint proposal to list Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) deputy chief Abdul Rauf Azhar as UNSC designated terrorist.

    Conclusion

    • China’s actions expose its double speak and double standards when it comes to the international community’s shared battle against terrorism.
    • This clearly depicts its care for its vassal state Pakistan.

    Back2Basics: United Nations Security Council

    • The UNSC is one of the six principal organs of the United Nations and is charged with the maintenance of international peace and security.
    • Its powers include the establishment of peacekeeping operations, the establishment of international sanctions, and the authorization of military action through Security Council resolutions.
    • It is the only UN body with the authority to issue binding resolutions to member states.
    • The Security Council consists of fifteen members. Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, and the United States—serve as the body’s five permanent members (P5).
    • These permanent members can veto any substantive Security Council resolution, including those on the admission of new member states or candidates for Secretary-General.
    • The Security Council also has 10 non-permanent members, elected on a regional basis to serve two-year terms. The body’s presidency rotates monthly among its members.
  • Canada to quit China-led AIIB

    aiib

    Central Idea: Canada’s government has announced it will halt its work at the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).

    Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB)

    Established Multilateral development bank established in 2016.
    Headquarters Located in Beijing, China.
    Founding Members 57 countries that initiated the establishment of the AIIB.

    India is a founding member.

    Current Membership Over 100 countries have joined the AIIB since its inception.
    Capital Total capital of $100 billion for financing infrastructure projects.
    Largest Shareholder China holds the largest voting power and financial contribution.

    India holds the second-largest voting power within the AIIB, providing influence in decision-making processes.

    Focus Areas Provides funding for diverse sectors including transportation, energy, telecommunications, urban development, and rural infrastructure.
    Collaboration Partners with other multilateral development banks for co-financing projects and enhancing development outcomes.
    Environmental & Social Standards Adheres to environmental and social standards in project selection and implementation.

    Promotes sustainability and inclusiveness.

    Notable Projects Supports significant infrastructure projects such as Chennai Metro Rail and Assam’s road network.

     

    Try this PYQ from CSP 2019

    Q.With reference to Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), consider the following statements

    1. AIIB has more than 80 member nations.
    2. India is the largest shareholder in AIIB.
    3. AIIB does not have any members from outside Asia.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    (a) 1 only

    (b) 2 and 3 only

    (c) 1 and 3 only

    (d) 1, 2 and 3

    [wpdiscuz-feedback id=”s4nnnmx12v” question=”Please leave a feedback on this” opened=”1″]Post your answers here.[/wpdiscuz-feedback]

     

    Background of Canada’s Involvement in the AIIB

    • Canada, a founding member of the AIIB, joined the bank in 2016 with the objective of participating in its development finance activities in the Asian region.
    • The AIIB was seen as an opportunity for Canada to engage in infrastructure development projects and gain access to funding for its companies operating in Asia.

    Rationale behind Canada’s withdrawal

    • Allegations of Chinese Communist Party Control: Canada’s decision stems from the serious allegations made by Bob Pickard regarding the extent of Chinese Communist Party control within the AIIB.
    • Concerns about Autocratic Regimes: The decision also reflects Canada’s growing concerns, shared by other democratic countries, regarding the risks associated with reliance on autocratic regimes for economic cooperation and infrastructure financing.
    • Evaluating Multilateral Institutions: Canada’s move signals a desire to reassess its participation in multilateral institutions like the AIIB to ensure transparency, governance, and adherence to democratic principles.
    • Shifting Attitudes towards China: Canada’s decision reflects a broader trend of Western countries becoming more cautious about their engagements with China and re-evaluating their relationships.

    AIIB’s Role and Relation to Other Banks

    • Development finance: The AIIB was created to address the growing need for development finance in the region.
    • Rival of World Bank: It is often referred to as a rival to the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank (ADB), but this description exaggerates its capacities.
    • Limited interface: Many of the AIIB’s early projects were co-funded with the World Bank or the ADB, and its capacity to evaluate projects was initially limited. The share of co-funded projects has decreased over time.

    India’s Rationale for Joining AIIB

    • China’s renewed focus on Multilateralism: India was satisfied with the AIIB’s focus on multilateralism, transparency, and adherence to laws.
    • Developed countries joining: The UK and Germany joined the AIIB despite the US discouraging its partners and allies from doing so. The membership includes countries such as Russia, Germany, South Korea, Australia, France, and the UK.
    • Green initiatives: The bank has largely tried to avoid politics and has focused on promoting green projects in the region.
    • Symbolic distancing from BRI: India joined the AIIB but decided not to participate in the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

    Conclusion

    • Canada’s decision to halt its involvement in the AIIB highlights the importance of transparency and adherence to democratic principles in multilateral institutions.

    Back2Basics:

    Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB)

    World Bank (WB)

    International Monetary Fund (IMF)

    Asian Development Bank (ADB)

    Year Established 2016 1944 1944 1966
    Headquarters Beijing, China Washington, D.C., United States Washington, D.C., United States Manila, Philippines
    Membership 100+ countries 189 countries 190 countries 68 countries
    Purpose Infrastructure financing in Asia Global development assistance Economic stability and growth Economic and social development in Asia-Pacific
    Capital $100 billion Not applicable Over $1 trillion $153 billion
    Focus Areas Infrastructure, sustainable growth Poverty reduction, development Economic stability, balance of payments, capacity development Infrastructure, poverty reduction, climate change adaptation
    Financing Mechanism Loans, equity investments, guarantees Loans, grants, technical assistance Financial assistance, policy advice Loans, grants, technical assistance
    Collaboration Partners with other multilateral development banks Collaborates with various institutions and organizations Collaborates with member countries and international institutions Collaborates with other development institutions, governments, and civil society organizations
    Geographical Focus Asia and beyond Global Global Asia-Pacific
    India’s Involvement Founding member, significant involvement and benefits Active participant, recipient of funding and technical assistance Member, recipient of financial assistance and policy advice Active participant, recipient of funding and collaboration

     

     

     

  • Central Asia’s Multi-Vectored Foreign Policy: Lessons for Post-Soviet States

    Foreign Policy

    Central Idea

    • China recently hosted the inaugural C+C5 summit in Xi’an, which brought together the leaders of five Central Asian countries. The summit resulted in the signing of the ‘Xi’an Declaration’ and emphasized the Belt and Road cooperation as a new starting point for China-Central Asia relations. However, the central Asian countries have successfully implemented a multi-vectored foreign policy, balancing their engagements with various regional and international powers.

    What is C+C5 summit?

    • The C+C5 stands for China plus Central Asia, indicating the participation of both China and the five Central Asian nations, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.
    • The purpose of the C+C5 summit is to strengthen the relations and cooperation between China and these Central Asian countries.
    • The first C+C5 summit took place in Xi’an, China, and resulted in the signing of the ‘Xi’an Declaration,’ which outlines the shared vision and goals for China-Central Asia cooperation.

    Foreign Policy

    Facts for prelims

    G7 Summit Hiroshima

    • The 49th annual G7 Summit took place in Hiroshima. Japan hosted the summit in its capacity as the President of the G7.
    • Prime Minister Kishida’s commitment to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation was evident through the choice of Hiroshima as the host city.
    • Prime Minister Modi attended the summit at the invitation of the Japanese Prime Minister.
    • The participating leaders issued a leaders’ communiqué on the second day of the summit. The communiqué will be adopted officially at the end of the summit on the 21st.
    • Current Members: US, UK, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan

    Complex Regional Dynamics of Central Asian countries

    • Geopolitical Competition: China’s growing influence in Central Asia can be seen as a challenge to Russia’s historical dominance in the region. This geopolitical competition between the two powers shapes the dynamics of China-Central Asia relations.
    • Multi-vector Engagements: Central Asian countries pursue multi-vectored foreign policies, engaging with various regional and international powers. This approach allows them to maintain balanced relations and leverage different partnerships to their advantage.
    • Regional Cooperation Organizations: Central Asian countries are members of various regional cooperation organizations such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). These organizations influence the dynamics of regional interactions and shape cooperation initiatives.
    • Economic Interests: China’s economic investments and infrastructure projects in Central Asia, driven by the Belt and Road initiative, have both positive and complex implications for the region. Balancing economic benefits with potential dependencies and competition is crucial for the Central Asian countries.
    • Historical and Cultural Connections: Central Asia shares historical and cultural ties with both China and Russia. These historical connections influence the perceptions, interactions, and priorities of the countries involved, impacting regional dynamics.
    • Balancing Global Engagements: Central Asian countries navigate their relationships with major global powers, including the European Union, the United States, and regional actors such as Turkey. Balancing these engagements is necessary to safeguard their interests and maintain stability in the region.
    • Afghanistan’s Impact: The situation in Afghanistan has implications for regional dynamics in Central Asia. Stability and security concerns in Afghanistan directly affect neighboring countries and influence their interactions with external powers.

    Foreign Policy

    Significance of C+C5: Strengthening China-Central Asia Relations

    • ‘Xi’an Declaration: The C+C5 summit held in Xi’an, China, served as a platform for leaders from China and the Central Asian countries to discuss and strengthen their bilateral relations. The summit resulted in the signing of the ‘Xi’an Declaration,’ which laid out a blueprint for future cooperation.
    • Belt and Road Cooperation: The summit focused on the 10th anniversary of the Belt and Road initiative, emphasizing its role as a new starting point for China-Central Asia cooperation. The Belt and Road initiative aims to enhance connectivity and promote economic development through infrastructure projects.
    • Cultural Silk Road Program: The ‘Cultural Silk Road’ program was discussed during the summit, which aims to enhance cultural cooperation, preserve shared heritage, and promote cultural exchange between China and Central Asian countries.
    • China-Central Asia Summit Mechanism: The establishment of the China-Central Asia Summit mechanism during the summit paves the way for future biennial summits between the participating countries. This institutional framework ensures regular high-level engagement and facilitates ongoing cooperation.

    Foreign Policy

    Successes of a Multi-Vectored Foreign Policy

    • Diversified Economic Ties: Central Asian countries have successfully diversified their economic ties through a multi-vectored foreign policy. By engaging with multiple regional and international partners, they have expanded trade relations, attracted foreign investments, and accessed various markets.
    • Enhanced Diplomatic Influence: A multi-vectored foreign policy allows Central Asian countries to expand their diplomatic influence. By cultivating relationships with different actors, they can assert their interests, advocate for regional stability, and participate actively in international forums.
    • Balancing Regional Security: Central Asian countries have effectively balanced regional security concerns through multi-vectored foreign policies. By cooperating with different security organizations and partners, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), and Russia, they have successfully managed common security challenges, including terrorism, extremism, and drug trafficking.
    • Preserving Sovereignty: Pursuing a multi-vectored foreign policy allows Central Asian countries to maintain their sovereignty and independence. By engaging with multiple actors, they prevent overreliance on any single power and safeguard their decision-making autonomy in international affairs.
    • Regional Cooperation Initiatives: Central Asian countries have actively participated in regional cooperation initiatives and organizations, such as the SCO and the Central Asia Regional Economic Cooperation (CAREC) program.
    • Improved Resilience and Flexibility: Central Asian countries’ multi-vectored foreign policy has made them more resilient and adaptable in the face of changing geopolitical dynamics. By diversifying their partnerships, they can navigate shifting regional dynamics and respond effectively to evolving challenges and opportunities.
    • Peaceful Coexistence: The success of a multi-vectored foreign policy in Central Asia highlights the region’s ability to maintain peaceful coexistence among major regional and global powers. By pursuing balanced engagements, Central Asian countries contribute to stability, reduce tensions, and promote cooperation between different actors.

    Conclusion

    • The C+C5 summit and the successful implementation of a multi-vectored foreign policy by Central Asian countries highlight the importance of balanced regional engagements. As Georgia and Moldova strive for EU/NATO membership, they should embrace a multi-vectored approach to ensure regional stability and security. Only through this pragmatic path can lasting peace be achieved, despite existing challenges and geopolitical complexities.

    Also read:

    G-7 Japan Summit: Consolidating Approaches for Global Challenges in the Indo-Pacific

     

  • C-20: Preventing the Erosion of Civil Society Independence

    C-20

    Central Idea

    • The civil society process of G-20, known as C-20, which is meant to provide a platform for independent voices and hold governments accountable, has been co-opted by the ruling party in India. Critiques argue that under the guise of civil society representation, C-20 has become a tool to further a politico-religious vision and legitimize neoliberal economic policies. This distortion of C-20 raises concerns about its credibility and ability to serve as a counter-balance to undue business influence.

    What is C-20?

    • C-20 refers to the civil society process of the Group of Twenty (G-20) summit.
    • The C-20 process provides a platform for civil society organizations to engage with G-20 member governments, discuss relevant issues, and advocate for policy changes.
    • It aims to ensure that the voices and concerns of civil society are taken into account in the decision-making processes of G-20.
    • C-20 focuses on economic, social, and cultural issues, and its participants include non-governmental organizations, grassroots movements, and other civil society actors.

    Facts for prelims

    What is U20?

    • A city diplomacy initiative called the “Urban 20” (U20) was launched in December 2017 within G20 ecosystem.
    • It was meant to collectively raise critical urban issues of G20 cities during the G20 negotiations.
    • U20 specifically focuses on climate change, sustainable development, and socio-economic issues in connection with the Sustainable Development Goals.

    What is SAI20?

    • SAI20 stands for Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs) of G20 countries.
    • It is a forum where SAIs from G20 countries can engage with each other to share their experiences and expertise in auditing public policies and governance practices.
    • The group meets annually to discuss important issues related to public auditing and to develop joint initiatives to promote good governance and accountability in their respective countries.

    What are the concerns about C-20 ‘s credibility?

    • Politicization: The C-20 process in India has been co-opted by the party in power, using it as a platform to further its own politico-religious vision. This raises questions about the independence and neutrality of the civil society process.
    • Lack of diversity: The composition of C-20 has raised concerns about the overwhelming presence of members from a single religion, which goes against the principle of inclusiveness. The dominance of a particular religious group undermines the diversity and representation of civil society voices.
    • Censorship and suppression: There have been instances of censorship and attempts to control the narrative within C-20. Participants have been asked to refrain from making political statements about G-20 and C-20, limiting their ability to critically address policies and actions that may be detrimental to biodiversity and community interests.
    • Limited influence: The C-20 process, along with other engagement forums of G-20, has not been allowed to play an independent role in holding governments accountable or countering undue business influence. The influence of civil society in shaping G-20 decisions and policies remains limited.
    • Lack of transparency: The selection and decision-making processes within C-20 have been criticized for lacking transparency. The way the C-20 architecture is set up, with its Secretariat housed in a civil society organization linked to a particular political ideology, raises concerns about the independence and fairness of the process.

    Impact of using international engagement forums for political gains?

    • Undermining credibility: When international engagement forums, such as the G-20 and its civil society process, are used for political and electoral gains, it undermines their credibility and purpose. These platforms are meant for meaningful dialogue, collaboration, and decision-making on global issues, and politicizing them for short-term domestic interests erodes their legitimacy.
    • Diminishing trust and cooperation: Political exploitation of international engagement forums can lead to a breakdown of trust and cooperation among participating countries and civil society organizations. It creates an atmosphere of suspicion and undermines the spirit of mutual respect and collaboration that these forums are intended to foster.
    • Weakening global governance: The instrumentalization of international engagement forums for political gains can weaken global governance mechanisms. It hampers the ability of these forums to address pressing global challenges effectively and make informed decisions based on the common good, as decisions may be driven by narrow political considerations rather than sound policy-making.
    • Impact on international reputation: The misuse of international engagement forums can have a negative impact on a country’s international reputation. It may be seen as a breach of trust and an attempt to manipulate global platforms for domestic political purposes, damaging the country’s standing in the international community.
    • Impeding progress on global issues: When international engagement forums are exploited for political and electoral gains, the focus shifts from addressing global issues to advancing narrow domestic agendas. This can hinder progress on crucial matters such as climate change, sustainable development, poverty alleviation, and human rights, which require international collaboration and concerted efforts.
    • Alienating civil society: The politicization of international engagement forums can alienate civil society organizations and undermine their trust in the process. When civil society voices are co-opted or marginalized for political gains, it weakens their role as independent actors, reduces their influence, and stifles their ability to contribute meaningfully to global policy discussions.
    • Loss of long-term benefits: Prioritizing short-term political and electoral gains over the long-term benefits of meaningful international engagement can lead to missed opportunities for economic, social, and diplomatic advancements. It undermines the potential for constructive dialogue, knowledge sharing, and collaboration that can yield positive outcomes for the country and the global community.

    Way ahead: Addressing the concerns over C-20

    • Enhance transparency and inclusiveness: There should be greater transparency in the selection processes of C-20 members and the decision-making mechanisms. Efforts should be made to ensure diverse representation from different religions, ideologies, and sectors, fostering inclusivity and avoiding the dominance of any particular group.
    • Safeguard independence: Measures should be taken to ensure the independence of C-20 from government influence. The Secretariat and coordination should be entrusted to neutral and independent organizations or institutions that have a proven track record of upholding the principles of civil society engagement.
    • Strengthen civil society networks: Civil society organizations should strengthen their networks, collaborations, and solidarity to amplify their voices and advocate for meaningful engagement in the C-20 process. This can involve building alliances with other organizations, sharing information and resources, and collectively advocating for the principles of inclusiveness and accountability.
    • Promote critical dialogue: Open and constructive dialogue should be encouraged within C-20, allowing for diverse perspectives and critical analysis of G-20 policies and actions. Participants should have the freedom to raise concerns, offer alternative viewpoints, and contribute to the discourse without fear of censorship or reprisal.
    • Advocate for policy coherence: Civil society organizations should actively engage in advocacy and policy dialogue with both the government and international bodies like the G-20. They should highlight the need for policy coherence that integrates social, environmental, and economic dimensions, ensuring that biodiversity conservation, sustainability, and the rights of marginalized communities are prioritized.
    • Strengthen public awareness: Efforts should be made to increase public awareness about the G-20 and its civil society process, including C-20. This can involve disseminating information, organizing awareness campaigns, and facilitating public participation in discussions and decision-making processes.
    • International solidarity: Civil society organizations in India should foster collaborations and exchanges with international civil society networks and organizations working on similar issues. Sharing experiences, strategies, and best practices can strengthen the collective voice of civil society globally and exert pressure for more accountable and inclusive processes.

    Conclusion

    • The co-optation of C-20 by the ruling party in India has undermined its credibility as an independent civil society platform. Civil society organizations participating in C-20 must reflect on whether they will legitimize this distortion or challenge it, as their decisions will shape the future of this crucial platform for global dialogue and accountability.

    Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your personal mentor for UPSC 2024 | Schedule your FREE session and get the Prelims prep Toolkit!

    Also read:

    G20: India at Urban20 (U20)

     

  • Moving Beyond COVID-19: Need for Contextual Understanding

    COVID-19

    Central Idea

    • COVID-19 has transitioned from a population-level challenge to more of an individual health concern, and it is time for India to shift gears and apply the lessons learned from the pandemic.

    WHO Announcements on COVID-19

    • On January 30, 2020, COVID-19 was announced as a public health emergency of international concern.
    • On May 5, 2023, WHO declared that COVID-19 was no longer a public health emergency of international concern.

    Issues of misinformation during the second wave of COVID-19 in India

    • False claims about a third wave affecting children: In April-May 2021, there was a COVID-19 misinformation blitzkrieg that a third wave in India would affect children, leading to children being repeatedly asked to wear masks and deprived of schooling and learning.
    • Lack of scientific evidence: School closure and making masks mandatory for schoolchildren had their origin in nearly identical challenges of actions not being supported by scientific evidence.
    • Influencers’ impact on public discourse: Social media influencers, not necessarily subject experts, were shaping the public discourse, which was not effectively addressed by governments.
    • Disparate viewpoints: Disparate viewpoints existed among experts and influencers living in India and abroad, with the latter making more definitive and stronger arguments for school closure and mask wearing for children in India.
    • Failure to consider local context: The sub-groups of super-specialists and those staying abroad failed to factor in the local context while coming up with their opinions.
    • Dogmatic stands of self-proclaimed experts: Self-proclaimed experts and influencers have adopted a dogmatic stand and have been selectively and conveniently using emerging evidence and published literature to support their stand, often misguiding gullible followers.
    • COVID-foreverers: A group of disparate individuals and social media groups keep insisting on the enforcement of restrictions such as universal masking at ‘the drop of the hat’, often on frivolous grounds.

    What lessons were learned from the COVID-19 pandemic?

    • The importance of preparedness: The pandemic highlighted the importance of being prepared for future outbreaks and the need for robust public health infrastructure.
    • The role of misinformation: The pandemic showed how misinformation can spread rapidly and have serious consequences, highlighting the need for better education and awareness to combat misinformation.
    • The importance of local context: The pandemic demonstrated the importance of factoring in local context when making policy decisions, as different regions and countries may face different challenges and require different interventions.
    • The danger of dogmatic thinking: The pandemic showed how dogmatic thinking can be dangerous, and the need for an open-minded and evidence-based approach to decision-making.
    • The importance of nuance and context in epidemiology: The pandemic highlighted the need for nuanced understanding of epidemiology, and the importance of taking into account the broader context when interpreting scientific studies.
    • The need for a shift in focus: With COVID-19 transitioning from a population-level challenge to more of an individual health concern, there is a need to shift the focus from COVID-19 fixation to tackling other pressing health challenges.
    • The importance of integrating COVID-19 response with general health services: The pandemic showed the need for integration of COVID-19 response with general health services, and the importance of a balanced approach to public health.

    Way forward

    • Formal training courses on the principles and practice of epidemiology should be offered by the government to prepare India for more nuanced responses to outbreaks and epidemics and to curb misinformation.
    • The government needs to integrate the COVID-19 response to general health services.
    • India’s response to surges, outbreaks, and epidemics (of any infectious disease and not just COVID-19) should be guided by a nuanced understanding of epidemiology and not unduly derailed by social media influencers.
    • Schools should not be closed for a COVID-19 uptick, and wearing masks in order to attend school should never again be made mandatory, as children were never at risk from moderate to severe COVID-19.
    • It is time to drop the COVID-19 fixation and move on to tackle other more pressing health challenges in the country.

    Conclusion

    • The COVID-19 pandemic has presented numerous challenges and lessons for India and the world. The issues of misinformation and lack of context-based policy interventions have been major obstacles in effectively tackling the pandemic. It is time to apply the lessons learned and shift focus to other pressing health challenges while being prepared to respond to future outbreaks and epidemics with a nuanced understanding of epidemiology.

    Mains Question

    Q. During the COVID-19 pandemic, how did misinformation pose a significant challenge? Discuss what lessons have we learned from it?

    Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your personal mentor for UPSC 2024 | Schedule your FREE session and get the Prelims prep Toolkit!

    Also Read:

    Covid is no longer an Emergency: what changes?
  • Covid is no longer an Emergency: what changes?

    Central Idea: The World Health Organisation (WHO) has declared an end to the global emergency status for COVID-19. It had in 2020 declared the disease as Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC).

    Practical effects of WHO declaration

    • The classification of COVID-19 as a global emergency is meant to warn political authorities of an extraordinary event that could constitute a health threat to other countries and requires a coordinated response to contain it.
    • For the average person, the decision to end the global emergency classification will have no practical effect.
    • WHO’s emergency declarations are typically used as an international SOS for countries who need help or to spur countries to introduce special measures to combat disease or release extra funds.

    What is PHEIC?

    Definition: Under the International Health Regulations (IHR), a public health emergency is defined as “an extraordinary event which is determined, as provided in these Regulations: to constitute a public health risk to other States through the international spread of disease; and to potentially require a coordinated international response”.

    Emergencies declared so far

    • WHO has previously declared global emergencies for outbreaks of swine flu, Zika, Ebola, polio, and monkeypox.
    • Polio was declared nearly nine years ago, and its emergency status has persisted even as officials work to wipe out the disease from a shrinking number of countries.
    • MPOX was declared a global emergency last July but technically remains a global emergency.

    What criteria does the WHO follow to declare PHEIC?

    • PHEIC is declared in the event of some “serious public health events” that may endanger international public health.
    • The responsibility of declaring an event as an emergency lies with the Director-General of the WHO and requires the convening of a committee of members.

    Implications of a PHEIC being declared

    • There are some implications of declaring a PHEIC for the host country, which in the case of the coronavirus is China.
    • Declaring a PHEIC may lead to restrictions on travel and trade.
    • However, several countries have already issued advisories to their citizens to avoid travelling to China, while others are airlifting their citizens from it.

    Is COVID-19 still a pandemic?

    • Yes, COVID-19 is still a pandemic, as the virus is here to stay and thousands of people continue to die every week.
    • WHO chief Tedros warned that the risk remains of new variants emerging that cause new surges in cases and deaths.
    • Countries need to transition from emergency mode to managing COVID-19 alongside other infectious diseases.

    When will the COVID-19 pandemic end?

    • It is unclear when the COVID-19 pandemic will end, as the virus is still a public health threat and its continued evolution could cause future problems.
    • Pandemics only truly end when the next pandemic begins.
    • COVID-19 will continue to spread among people for a very long time but at a much lower level of threat that does not require extraordinary measures taken to try to curb the virus’ spread.

     

    Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your personal mentor for UPSC 2024 | Schedule your FREE session and get the Prelims prep Toolkit!

  • What is the Washington Declaration?

    washington

    Central Idea: The context is the recent visit of the South Korean President to the US to commemorate the 70th anniversary of US-South Korea bilateral relations. During the visit, the two countries signed the “Washington Declaration” as a nuclear deterrence strategy against North Korea’s regional aggression.

    Washington Declaration: Key Terms

    • Nuke deployment by US: According to the declaration, an American nuclear ballistic submarine would be deployed in the Korean peninsula.
    • Intel mechanism: A nuclear consultative group would be formed to formulate principles of joint response tactics, and South Korea would receive Intel from the US regarding nuclear advancements.
    • Joint training: The US will strengthen South Korea’s nuclear deterrence capabilities through joint military training programs and an annual intergovernmental simulation.
    • Deterrence creation: The declaration reaffirmed the Non-Proliferation Treaty implying that South Korea would not venture into the creation of its own independent nuclear capabilities and would instead focus on deterrence measures through an alliance-based approach.

    Implications of the treaty

    • Big power politics: While the existence of the agreement is based on the security needs of South Korea, the policy reflects big power politics where the interests of the larger power (US) takes precedence.
    • US proprietorship over the nukes: The US is the only ‘sole authority’ to use the nuclear arsenal of the US in the event of a nuclear confrontation.
    • Maintaining stability: The assurance that the US and its nuclear weapons would protect its allies by being responsible for maintaining stability in the region aligns with the larger goal of non-proliferation.

    US Stance on South Korea’s Nuclear Capabilities

    • Fouled the SK nuclear program: South Korea’s nuclear development programme supported by former president Park Chung Hee was hindered due to US pressure.
    • Strategic arms reduction: The US withdrew one hundred nuclear weapons from South Korea in the 1990s as part of their “Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty” to make North Korea unarm itself.
    • Renewed interest after North Korea’s Rise: The Nuclear Posture Review 2022 reflects a shift in the US narrative where it is now concerned about the progressing nuclear capacities of North Korea.

    Regional and domestic responses

    • China: It said it undermines the nuclear non-proliferation regime and the strategic interests of other countries.
    • North Korea: Kim Jong-Un’s sister warned that the declaration would only result in making peace and security of North-East Asia and the world be exposed to more serious danger.

    Conclusion

    • Overall, the Declaration is an important step in the direction of creating a more overt and close coordination among the US allies in the Indo-Pacific.
    • It seeks to deal with not only North Korea but also moves of China and Russia.

    Back2Basics: Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

    The NPT is an international treaty signed in 1968 that aims to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

    Key facts about the NPT include:

    • Members: There are currently 191 parties to the treaty, including the five recognized nuclear-weapon states (the US, Russia, China, France, and the UK).
    • Three main pillars: Non-proliferation, Disarmament and Peaceful use of nuclear energy.
    • Non-nuclear-weapon states: They are parties to the treaty agree not to acquire nuclear weapons and to accept International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards on their nuclear activities.
    • Nuclear-weapon states: They are the parties to the treaty agree not to transfer nuclear weapons or technology to non-nuclear-weapon states.
    • 5 year review: The treaty is reviewed every five years at a conference of parties, with the most recent review conference taking place in 2015.
    • Criticisms: NPT has been criticized for not doing enough to promote disarmament, and for perpetuating a system of haves and have-nots in which certain states have nuclear weapons while others do not. However, proponents argue that the treaty has helped to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and to promote peaceful use of nuclear energy.

     

    Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your personal mentor for UPSC 2024 | Schedule your FREE session and get the Prelims prep Toolkit!

  • EU’s Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act

    eu ai

    Central idea: The European Parliament has recently reached a preliminary deal on a new draft of the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act, after two years of drafting and negotiations.

    Regulating AI

    • The need for regulation of AI technologies has been highlighted worldwide.
    • EU lawmakers have urged world leaders to hold a summit to brainstorm ways to control the development of advanced AI systems.

    EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act

    • The aim of the AI Act is to bring transparency, trust, and accountability to AI technologies and to mitigate risks to the safety, health, fundamental rights, and democratic values of the EU.
    • The legislation seeks to address ethical questions and implementation challenges in various sectors, from healthcare and education to finance and energy.
    • It seeks to strike a balance between promoting the uptake of AI while mitigating or preventing harms associated with certain uses of the technology.
    • It aims to strengthen Europe’s position as a global hub of excellence in AI from the lab to the market and ensure that AI in Europe respects the 27-country bloc’s values and rules.
    • The Act delegates the process of standardization or creation of precise technical requirements for AI technologies to the EU’s expert standard-setting bodies in specific sectors.

    Details of the Act

    • Defining AI: AI is broadly defined as “software that is developed with one or more of the techniques that can, for a given set of human-defined objectives, generate outputs such as content, predictions, recommendations, or decisions influencing the environments they interact with.”
    • Four risk-category: The Act outlines four risk categories:
    1. Unacceptable: The use of technologies in the unacceptable risk category is prohibited with little exception, including real-time facial and biometric identification systems in public spaces, China-like systems of social scoring, subliminal techniques to distort behavior, and technologies that exploit vulnerabilities of certain populations.
    2. High: The focus is on AI in the high-risk category, prescribing pre-and post-market requirements for developers and users of such systems and establishing an EU-wide database of high-risk AI systems. The requirements for conformity assessments for high-risk AI systems must be met before they can make it to the market.
    3. Limited and minimal: AI systems in the limited and minimal risk category can be used with a few requirements like transparency obligations.

    Recent proposal on General Purpose AI

    • Recent updates to EU rules to regulate generative AI, including language model-based chatbots like OpenAI’s ChatGPT, are discussed.
    • Lawmakers are debating whether all forms of general-purpose AI will be designated high-risk.
    • Companies deploying generative AI tools are required to disclose any copyrighted material used to develop their systems.

    Reaction from the AI Industry

    • Some industry players have welcomed the legislation, while others have expressed concerns about the potential impact on innovation and competitiveness.
    • Companies are worried about transparency requirements, fearing that they may have to divulge trade secrets.
    • Lawmakers and consumer groups have criticized the legislation for not fully addressing the risks associated with AI systems.

    Global governance of AI

    • The US currently lacks comprehensive AI regulation and has taken a hands-off approach.
    • The Biden administration released a Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights (AIBoR) that outlines the harms of AI and five principles for mitigating them.
    • China has come out with some of the world’s first nationally binding regulations targeting specific types of algorithms and AI.
    • China enacted a law to regulate recommendation algorithms, with a focus on how they disseminate information.
    • While India is still stuck with the Personal Data Protection Bill.

     

    Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your personal mentor for UPSC 2024 | Schedule your FREE session and get the Prelims prep Toolkit!

  • Preparedness and Resilience for Emerging Threats (PRET) Initiative

    pret

    Central Idea: The World Health Organization (WHO) has launched a PRET initiative to be better prepared for future outbreaks of a similar scale and devastation as the COVID-19 pandemic.

    What is PRET Initiative?

    • The Preparedness and Resilience for Emerging Threats (PRET) initiative is launched by the WHO to prepare for future outbreaks of a similar scale and devastation as the COVID-19 pandemic.
    • It is aimed at providing guidance on integrated planning for responding to any respiratory pathogen such as influenza or coronaviruses.
    • The current focus of PRET is on respiratory viruses, but work is already underway to assess what should be the next group of pathogens to be mitigated under this initiative.
    • It can serve to operationalize the objectives and provisions of the Pandemic Accord, which is currently being negotiated by WHO Member States.

    Three-pronged approach of PRET

    • The three-pronged approach includes-
    1. Updating preparedness plans
    2. Increasing connectivity among stakeholders in pandemic preparedness planning, and
    3. Dedicating sustained investments, financing, and monitoring of pandemic preparedness.
    • The approach has a special focus on bridging the gaps highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic and ensuring community engagement and equity are at the centre of preparedness and response efforts.

     

    Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your personal mentor for UPSC 2024 | Schedule your FREE session and get the Prelims prep Toolkit!

  • International Aviation Safety Assessment (IASA) Program

    Central idea

    • The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of the US has retained the “Category 1” status for India’s aviation safety oversight following a review.
    • The FAA uses the International Aviation Safety Assessment (IASA) program to determine whether a country’s oversight of its airlines that operate or wish to operate to the US or enter into codeshare partnerships.

    What is the IASA Program?

    • The International Aviation Safety Assessment (IASA) program is conducted by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
    • The program evaluates the safety oversight of civil aviation authorities in countries worldwide.
    • It determines whether a country’s oversight of its airlines that operate or wish to operate to the U.S. or enter into codeshare partnerships with U.S. carriers comply with safety standards established by the UN International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).
    • The IASA program focuses on three broad areas, including personnel licensing, operation of aircraft, and airworthiness of aircraft.
    • Countries are rated as Category 1 if they comply with international safety standards, or Category 2 if they do not comply with international safety standards.
    • The IASA program is conducted over a one-year period, which includes physical audits and a further review.

    India’s commitment to aviation safety

    • The assessment by the ICAO as well as the FAA is a testimony to India’s commitment of having an effective safety oversight for its civil aviation system.
    • In November 2021, the ICAO conducted an audit, and India scored an Effective Implementation (EI) of 85.65%, an improvement from the previous EI of 69.95%.