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

Civilsdaily

Login

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

  • The China conundrum

    India-China border issue and the latest standoff in Ladakh has forced India to consider the lasting solution to the problem. This article explains China’s anti-India strategy. And options available with India in the face of aggression are also considered.

    LAC: the reason for frequent face-offs

    • The debate has persisted whether it was China’s National Highway 219 cutting across Aksai Chin or Nehru’s “forward policy” which constituted the actual reason for the Sino-Indian border-conflict of 1962.
    • After declaring a unilateral ceasefire on November 20, troops of the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) withdrew 20 kms behind what China described as the “line of actual control” (LAC).
    • The LAC generally conformed to the British-negotiated McMahon Line.
    • In the west, the Chinese stuck to their 1959 claim-line in Ladakh, retaining physical control of the 14,700 sq km Aksai Chin.
    • The 1962 ceasefire line became the de facto Sino-Indian border.
    • But in a bizarre reality, both sides visualised their own version of the LAC, but neither marked it on the ground; nor were maps exchanged.
    • This has inevitably led to frequent face-offs.

    So, what were the steps taken the resolve the border issue after 1962?

    • Post-conflict, it is customary for belligerents to undertake early negotiations, in order to establish stable peace and eliminate the casus belli.
    • Strangely, in the Sino-Indian context, it took 25 years and a serious military confrontation in 1987 to trigger a dialogue.
    • The dialogue led the two countries to sign the first-ever Sino-Indian Border Peace and Tranquility Agreement (BPTA) in 1993.
    • Indian diplomats claim that this has helped maintain “mutual and equal security”, while the bilateral relationship has progressed in other spheres.
    • And yet, the failure to negotiate a boundary settlement after 22 meetings of special representatives of the two countries cannot be seen as anything but a failure of statesmanship and diplomacy.

    Now, let’s analyse China’s anti-India strategy and how LAC and Pakistan problem fits into it

    • China’s post-civil war leadership had conceived an early vision of the country’s future.
    • Ambitious and realist in scope, this strategy visualised China attaining, in the fullness of time, great-power status and acquiring a nuclear-arsenal.
    • Since the vision saw no room for an Asian rival, neutralising India became a priority.
    • It was for this specific purpose, that Pakistan was enlisted in 1963 as a partner.
    • In China’s anti-India strategy, Pakistan has played an invaluable role by sustaining a “hot” border and holding out the threat of a two-front war.
    • In China’s grand-strategy, an undefined LAC has become a vital instrumentality to embarrass and keep India off-balance through periodic transgressions.
    • These pre-meditated “land-grabs”, blunt messages of intimidation and dominance, also constitute a political “pressure-point” for New Delhi.

    Possibility of escalation into shooting war

    • While Indian troops have, so far, shown courage and restraint in these ridiculous brawls with the PLA.
    • But there is no guarantee that in a future melee, a punch on the nose will not invite a bullet in response.
    • In such circumstances, rapid escalation into a “shooting-war” cannot be ruled out.
    • Thereafter, should either side face a major military set-back, resort to nuclear “first-use” would pose a serious temptation.

    What are the options available with India?

    • For reasons of national security as well as self-respect, India cannot continue to remain in a “reactive mode” to Chinese provocations and it is time to respond in kind.
    • Since India’s choices vis-à-vis China are circumscribed by the asymmetry in comprehensive national power, resort must be sought in realpolitik.
    • According to theorist Kenneth Waltz, just as nature abhors a vacuum, international politics abhors an imbalance of power, and when faced with hegemonic threats, states must seek security in one of three options: 1) Increase their own strength, 2) ally with others to restore power-balance, 3) as a last resort, jump on the hegemon’s bandwagon.

    India’s decision-makers can start by posing this question to the military: “For how long do you have the wherewithal to sustain a combat against two adversaries simultaneously?” Depending on the response, they can consider the following 2 options.

    1. Alliance with the USA

    • Nehru, when faced with an aggressive China in 1962, asked support from the USA.
    •  Indira Gandhi in the run-up to the 1971 war with Pakistan asked support from the USSR.
    • Both had no qualms of jettisoning the shibboleth of “non-alignment” and seeking support from the USA and USSR respectively.
    • Today, India has greater freedom of action and many options to restore the balance of power vis-à-vis China.
    • Xi Jinping has opened multiple fronts — apart from the COVID-19 controversy — across the South China Sea, South East Asia, Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Asia.
    • Donald Trump is burning his bridges with China.
    • In the world of realpolitik, self-interest trumps all and India must find friends where it can.
    • Given China’s vulnerabilities in the Indian Ocean and the real possibility of America losing its strategic foothold in Diego Garcia, India has a great deal to offer as a friend, partner or even an ally; with or without the Quad.

    2. Accommodation with China

    •  If ideological or other reasons preclude the building of a power-balancing alliance, coming to an honourable accommodation with China remains a pragmatic option.
    • Zhou Enlai’s proposal of 1960 — repeated by Deng Xiaoping in 1982 — is worth re-examining in the harsh light of reality.
    • The price of finding a modus vivendi [an arrangement or agreement allowing conflicting parties to coexist peacefully]for the Sino-Indian border dispute may be worth paying if it neutralises two adversaries at one stroke and buys lasting peace.

    Consider the question “In the harsh light of reality and faced with aggression from its neighbour, India has to ally with other powers to restore the balance of power. Examine.”

    Conclusion

    Neither option will be easy to “sell”. However, India cannot afford to continue with the current situation for long and must choose one of the options to end the to find the solution.

  • Taiwan makes new push for inclusion in World Health Assembly

    Following its successful containment of coronavirus outbreak, Taiwan has made a new push for inclusion in the World Health Assembly (WHA).

    Locate the seas and straits around Taiwan using your Atlas.

    What is World Health Assembly (WHA)?

    • The WHA, composed of representatives from all 194 member states, serves as the WHO’s supreme decision-making body.
    • The WHA convenes annually and is responsible for selecting the Director-General, setting goals and priorities, and approving the WHO’s budget and activities.
    • The first meeting of the WHA the WHO’s agency’s governing body, took place on 24 July 1948.
    • Its work began in earnest in 1951 following a significant infusion of financial and technical resources.

    Why Taiwan must be included in WHA?

    • Taiwan has been praised over its handling of the pandemic, despite being just a short flight from China where the virus was first detected late last year.
    • Taiwan since then has been in a state of constant readiness to the threat of emerging infectious disease.
    • Hence, its exclusion from the upcoming World Health Assembly would harm the global response to the coronavirus pandemic.

    Issues with Taiwan’s inclusion

    • Taiwan is claimed as part of Chinese territory by Beijing, which has excluded it from the United Nations and its subsidiary organisations.
    • China’s growing influence in the U.N. has made officials wary of crossing it, even while the U.S. has withdrawn from or suspended funding for some of its bodies, including WHO.
    • Beijing’s Communist leadership has increasingly shut Taiwan out of gatherings such as the World Health Assembly as part of a diplomatic and military drive to force Taiwan’s independence-leaning tendencies.

    Also read:

    [Burning Issue] World Health Organization (WHO) And Coronavirus Handling

  • India’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations

    Syed Akbaruddin, a fiery spokesperson, who is credited with effectively presenting India’s position on a range of crucial issues at the UN headquarters in New York for the last several years, has retired. A 1985-batch IFS officer T S Tirumurti, currently serving as Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs will succeed him.

    Permanent Missions to the United Nations

    • The Permanent Mission is the diplomatic mission that every member state deputies to the UN, and is headed by a Permanent Representative, who is also referred to as the “UN ambassador”.
    • Article 1 (7) of the Vienna Convention on the Representation of States provides for a permanent mission.
    • UN Permanent Representatives are assigned to the UN headquarters in New York City, and can also be appointed to other UN offices in Geneva, Vienna, and Nairobi.
    • The Mission in New York is housed in a 27-story building designed by the noted architect Charles Correa in 1993 and is decorated with MF Hussain paintings.

    The Indian Permanent Mission at the UN

    • According to the website of the Permanent Mission of India in New York, there are currently eight Indians in senior leadership positions at the UN at the levels of Under-Secretary-General and Assistant Secretary-General.
    • The first Indian delegates at the UN included statesman Arcot Ramasamy Mudaliar, and freedom fighters Hansa Mehta, Vijayalakshmi Pandit, and Lakshmi Menon.
    • Mehta and Pandit were among the 15 women members of the Indian Constituent Assembly.
    • India was among the select members of the United Nations that signed the United Nations Declaration at Washington on January 1, 1942.
    • India also participated in the historic UN Conference of International Organization at San Francisco from April 25 to June 26, 1945.

  • 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.

  • The WHO balance sheet

    The US has announced to halt the funding it gives to the WHO accusing it of mismanagement of the COVID-19 spread.

     

    WHO is facing the biggest pandemic in human history. For all the responsibility vested in the WHO, it has little power.  Whatever the causes of this disaster are, it is clear that the WHO has failed in its duty to raise the alarm in time. This shortfall of WHO is failure indicative of a deeper malaise: the global institutional framework is a pawn in the hands of the great powers, cash-strapped.

    About WHO

    • The WHO is a specialized agency of the United Nations responsible for international public health.
    • It is part of the U.N. Sustainable Development Group.
    • The WHO Constitution, which establishes the agency’s governing structure and principles, states its main objective as ensuring “the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health.”
    • It is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, with six semi-autonomous regional offices and 150 field offices worldwide.

    Where does WHO get its funding from?

    • It is funded by a large number of countries, philanthropic organisations, UN organisations etc.
    • Voluntary donations from member states (such as the US) contribute 35.41%, assessed contributions are 15.66%, philanthropic organisations account for 9.33%, UN organisations contribute about 8.1%; the rest comes from myriad sources.
    • India contributes 1% of member states’ donations.
    • Countries decide how much they pay and may also choose not to.

    Its expenditure

    • The WHO is involved in various programmes. For example, in 2018-19, 19.36% (about $1 bn) was spent on polio eradication, 8.77% on increasing access to essential health and nutrition services, 7% on vaccine preventable diseases and about 4.36% on prevention and control of outbreaks.
    • The Africa countries received $1.6 bn for WHO projects; and South East Asia (including India) received $375 mn.

    How does WHO prioritise its spending?

    • The annual programme of work is passed by the WHO’s decision-making body, the World Health Assembly.
    • It is attended by delegates from all member states and focuses on a specific health agenda prepared by the Executive Board.
    • The main functions of the Assembly, held annually in Geneva, are to determine WHO policies, appoint the Director-General, supervise financial policies, and review and approve the proposed programme budget.
    • The decision on which country gets how much depends on the situation in the countries.

    WHO and India

    • India became a party to the WHO Constitution on January 12, 1948.
    • The first session of the WHO Regional Committee for South-East Asia was held on October 4-5, 1948 in the office of India’s Health Minister, and inaugurated by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru.
    • The WHO India Country Cooperation Strategy (CCS) 2019-2023 has been developed jointly by the Health Ministry and the WHO India country office.
    • The CCS aims to address complex challenges such as the prevention of NCDs, the control of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), the reduction of air pollution, and the prevention and treatment of mental illnesses.
    • On the ground, the WHO has been a key partner in the immunisation programme, tackling TB and neglected diseases such as leprosy and kala azar, and nutrition programmes across states.

    Immediate reason for US withdrawal

    • The US contributes almost 15% of the WHO’s total funding and almost 31% of the member states’ donations, the largest chunk in both cases.
    • It receives $62.2 mn for WHO projects.
    • That is where most of the WHO funding comes from and the least of it goes.

    Impact

    • For the WHO, the loss of about 15% of its total funding is bound to have an impact on the world over.
    • However, unless other countries do the same as the US, the move may not severely hamstring WHO operations.

    Also read:

    [Burning Issue] World Health Organization (WHO) And Coronavirus Handling

  • 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.

     

  • OPCW blames Syria for chemical attacks

    The global chemical weapons watchdog, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has for the first time explicitly blamed Syria for chemical attacks.

    What did the report say?

    • President Bashar al-Assad’s air force used the nerve gas sarin and chlorine three times in 2017.
    • The findings came in the first report from a new investigative team set up by the OPCW to identify the perpetrators of attacks in Syria’s ongoing nine-year-long civil war.

    About OPCW

    • The OPCW is an intergovernmental organisation and the implementing body for the Chemical Weapons Convention, which entered into force on 29 April 1997.
    • The organisation is not an agency of the United Nations but cooperates both on policy and practical issues.
    • The OPCW, with its 193 member states, has its seat in The Hague, Netherlands, and oversees the global endeavour for the permanent and verifiable elimination of chemical weapons.
    • It promotes and verifies the adherence to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits the use of chemical weapons and requires their destruction.
    • It won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2013 for its work in Syria and says it has eliminated 97 per cent of the world’s chemical weapons.
    • The OPCW has the power to say whether chemical weapons were used in an attack it has investigated. In June 2018, it granted itself new powers to assign blame for attacks.

    Back2Basics: Syrian Crisis

    • The Syrian civil war is an ongoing multi-sided civil war in Syria fought between the Ba’athist Syrian Arab Republic led by Bashar al-Assad and various domestic and foreign forces opposing both the Syrian government.
    • Even before the conflict began, many Syrians were complaining about high unemployment, corruption and a lack of political freedom under Assad.
    • In March 2011, pro-democracy demonstrations erupted in the southern city of Deraa, inspired by the “Arab Spring” in neighbouring countries.
    • When the government used deadly force to crush the dissent, protests demanding the president’s resignation erupted nationwide. The unrest spread and the crackdown intensified.
    • Opposition supporters took up arms, first to defend themselves and later to rid their areas of security forces. Assad vowed to crush what he called “foreign-backed terrorism”.
    • The violence rapidly escalated and the country descended into civil war.

  • It’s time for the Red Berets

    Context

    The World Health Organisation (WHO) is not equipped to fight a pandemic of this proportion. The world needs a special UN force to fight COVID-19.

    Limits of WHO in the fight against COVID-19

    • The World Health Organisation (WHO) is not equipped to fight a pandemic of this proportion.
    • Its responsibility is to monitor threats to public health and inform and advise the member states. The fight against COVID-19 has to be on a war footing.
    • The need for the composite force: For this we need a composite force that has the capabilities of massive sanitisation, testing, hospitalisation and providing support systems.
    • Signs of conflict: Even the most powerful nations are not able to cope with the effort and there are signs of conflict on account of shortages of equipment and trained personnel.
    • The only UN body which has the training for assembling fighting forces for emergencies is the Department of Peace Operations.

    Pandemic as a threat to international peace and security

    • Contentions over pandemic: The UN Security Council (UNSC) stands paralysed because of petty battles on the name of the pandemic, its origin and the need for transparency.
    • It should hold an emergency meeting and authorise the UN Secretary-General to put together a force under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
    • Interpreting the mandate: The mandate of the Charter should be interpreted to emphasise that this is the greatest threat to international peace and security.
    • Possibility of conflict: Moreover, conflicts are possible on account of the fragility of the international system.
    • Member states should be requested to send not only troops but also police, health workers and equipment.
    • Deploying the peace force: In war situations, the Secretary-General is able to put together a force in about four months. This operation requires greater emergency.
    • There is some delicacy about deploying the army internally in different political systems, but UN forces have been acceptable in most countries.
    • Who should bear the cost? As for the cost, the responsibility for the deployment of forces for peacekeeping, peace-building and peace enforcement is that of the permanent members.
    • Instead of competing with each other for leadership of the post-COVID-19 world, let them help create a post-COVID-19 world.
    • Fear of devastation in the poor countries: So far COVID-19 has spread in relatively prosperous regions of the world, which have stable infrastructure and health systems.
    • We cannot trust that it will not spread to less equipped states, in which the devastation will be much more.
    • Only a UN force which can enforce social distancing and lockdowns can prevent a catastrophe.

    Resolution under Chapter VII

    • In which situation it is used: Most Chapter VII resolutions determine the existence of a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace, or an act of aggression in accordance with Article 39, and make a decision explicitly under Chapter VII.
    • A UNSC Resolution is considered to be ‘a Chapter VII resolution’ if it makes an explicit determination that the situation under consideration constitutes a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace, or an act of aggression, and/or explicitly/ implicitly states that the UNSC is acting under Chapter VII in the adoption of some or all operative paragraphs.
    • Chapter VII resolutions are very rarely isolated measures.
    • Often the first response to a crisis is a resolution demanding the crisis be ended. This is later followed by an actual resolution detailing the measures required to secure compliance with the first resolution.
    • Sometimes dozens of resolutions are passed over time to modify and extend the mandate of the first Chapter VII resolution.
    • The UN stands discredited today as the UNSC has not been able to meet.
    • It may take place, now that China has vacated the Security Council chair and Dominican Republic has taken over.
    • Several resolutions are in circulation, but none under Chapter VII.

    Way forward

    • The first step will be to pass a resolution to take action to end the crisis and authorise the Secretary-General to request member states to make personnel available.
    • Meanwhile, another resolution must spell out the modalities of the operation.
    • Red berets: The UN peacekeeping forces are called Blue Berets because of the colour of the caps that they wear. The health force can have caps of another colour, probably red. The launch of the Red Berets will be a historic action to be taken at a critical moment.

    Conclusion

    This is the right time for the UN to act for the collective action against the pandemic which in turn help in establishing the UN’s relevance.

     

  • China and WHO a new story

    Context

    The WHO leadership, especially its Director-General, has been accused of serving China’s interests rather than preparing the world against the spread of the virus.

    What is the basis of accusations?

    • The first basis for these charges is the WHO’s endorsement of the Chinese claim in mid-January that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission of the virus.
    • Second, consistent support for Beijing’s handling of the crisis.
    • Third, WHO’s criticism of other nations for imposing travel restrictions to and from China.
    • Critics also believe the WHO lulled the world into complacence by delaying the decision on calling it a global emergency.

    The new geopolitics of multilateralism

    • Whatever the merits of the above arguments, they point to the new geopolitics of multilateralism,
    • It also disproves the assumptions in both the West and India on China’s role in the UN.
    • It also underlines Beijing’s success in the leveraging of international organisations for its national advantage.
    • Nations working together against the trans-national threat: On the face of it, the sentiment that nations must work together against common trans-national threats is an eminently sensible one. But it does not easily translate into concrete actions.
    • Example of failure to act against a common threat: Take climate change. Attempts at developing collective solutions to the problem over the last three decades have foundered.
    • Most leaders agree on the problem and the solutions but are not willing to accept the framework — either the domestic or international — for distributing the costs associated with the solutions.
    • The US-China rivalry angle to the coronavirus outbreak: The problem of the cost-benefit distribution is compounded by great power rivalries. The coronavirus has shown up at a moment of deepening tensions between the US and China.
    • The grave collective challenge that the virus constitutes has only sharpened the conflict.
    • The blame game between the two: The US blames Beijing for letting this virus become a global monster and Beijing is doing all it can to deny that the virus came out of China.

    How the relationship between China and WHO has transformed over the years?

    • WHO’s actions in the past: Nearly two decades ago, during the SARS crisis, WHO was at the front and centre of pressing China to come clean on the unfolding pandemic.
    • In 2003, it had issued the organisation’s first travel advisory ever on travel to and from the epicentre of the pandemic in southern China.
    • As the SARS crisis escalated, Beijing’s traditional arguments about the centrality of state sovereignty yielded place to a new policy of working with the WHO and taking proactive steps to reassure neighbours in South East Asia.
    • Reasons for change in WHO’s stance: Some attribute the turnaround in the relationship between Beijing and WHO to China’s growing financial contributions.
    • China’s efforts to expand clout: Observers of the UN point to something more fundamental — a conscious and consequential Chinese effort to expand its clout in the multilateral system.
    • China, which was admitted to the UN system in the 1970s, was focused on finding its way in the 1980s, cautiously raised its profile in the 1990s, took on some political initiatives at the turn of the millennium and seized the leadership in the last few years.

    How India and the West are reacting to China’s rise?

    • Unprepared to deal with China’s rise at UN: Neither the West nor India have been prepared to deal with the impact of China’s rise on the UN system.
    • The US and its allies bet that China will be a “responsible stakeholder”. Put another way, they hoped that China will play by the rules set by the West.
    • China’s ambitions: China, of course, wants to set its own rules. Only the political innocents will be shocked by China’s natural ambition.
    • India’s past alignment with China: India, which considered US dominance over the international institutions in the 1990s as a major threat, chose to align with China in promoting a “multipolar world”.
    • Delhi convinced itself that despite differences over the boundary, Pakistan and other issues, there is huge room for cooperation with China.
    • Replacing the US as the dominant force: To their chagrin, the West and India are being compelled to respond to a very different environment at the UN. China wants to replace America as the dominant force in the UN.
    • The US is now fighting back. Last month, Washington went all out to defeat the Chinese candidate for the leadership of an obscure UN agency called the World Intellectual Property Organisation.

    Implications of China’s rise for India

    • Chinese hegemony vs. American primacy: Delhi discovered that Chinese global hegemony could be a lot more problematic than American primacy.
    • After all, it is China that complicates India’s plans for membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, protects Pakistan against international pressures on cross-border terrorism, and relentlessly pushes the UN Security Council to take up the Kashmir question.
    • India now turns to the US and its allies to pursue some of its interests in the UN.
    • Multilateralism not an end in itself: Political ironies apart, if there is one lesson that India could learn from China’s experience with WHO and the UN, it is that multilateralism is not an end in itself for major powers.
    • It is an important means to secure one’s national interest and shape the international environment.
    • As a nation battered by the Cultural Revolution, China used international cooperation and global institutions to rebuild itself in the last decades of the 20th century.
    • Ready to reorder global governance: Having developed its economy and advanced its scientific and technological base, China is now ready to reorder global governance and become a rule-maker.
    • The effects are visible in the arena of global health.
    • China’s expanding global engagement with the WHO, its substantive international health assistance programmes, and an impressive domestic health technology sector are poised to boost China’s ambition to build a “Global Silk Road for Health’.

    Conclusion

    On its part, Delhi needs to intensify the recalibration of India’s multilateralism, rewrite its diplomatic lexicon at the UN, and build new political coalitions that will simultaneously contribute to India’s internal modernisation and enhance its international influence. The corona crisis is a good moment to start writing a new script for India’s own health diplomacy.

  • Indian Ocean Commission

    India was accepted as an observer in the Indian Ocean Commission getting a seat at the table of the organization that handles maritime governance in the western Indian Ocean.

    Indian Ocean Commission

    • The Indian Ocean Commission is an intergovernmental organization that was created in 1982 at Port Louis, Mauritius and institutionalized in 1984 by the Victoria Agreement in Seychelles.
    • The COI is composed of five African Indian Ocean nations: Comoros, Madagascar, Mauritius, Réunion (an overseas region of France), and Seychelles.
    • These five islands share geographic proximity, historical and demographic relationships, natural resources and common development issues.

    Aims and Objectives of IOC

    • COI’s principal mission is to strengthen the ties of friendship between the countries and to be a platform of solidarity for the entire population of the African Indian Ocean region.
    • COI’s mission also includes development, through projects related to sustainability for the region, aimed at protecting the region, improving the living conditions of the populations and preserving the various natural resources that the countries depend on.
    • Being an organisation regrouping only island states, the COI has usually championed the cause of small island states in regional and international fora.

    India and IOC

    • India’s entry is a consequence of its deepening strategic partnership with France as well as its expanding ties with the Vanilla Islands.
    • India had made the application to be an observer. The IOC has four observers — China, EU, Malta and International Organisation of La Francophonie (OIF).

    Significance

    • For India, the importance of joining this organization lies in several things.
    • First, India will get an official foothold in a premier regional institution in the western Indian Ocean, boosting engagement with islands in this part of the Indian Ocean.
    • These island nations are increasingly important for India’s strategic outreach as part of its Indo-Pacific policy.
    • This move would enhance ties with France which is the strong global power in the western Indian Ocean.
    • It lends depth to India’s SAGAR (security and growth for all in the region) policy unveiled by PM Modi in 2015.
    • The move, India hopes, would lead to greater security cooperation with countries in East Africa.