Subject: Bilateral Relations

Twenty years later, the 9/11 terror attacks look a lot less epochal than they seemed in the heat of the moment.

Why was 9-11 a major breakthrough?

• One major inference in the wake of 9/11 was about the power of non-state actors — demonstrated by al Qaeda’s massive surprise attack on the world’s lone superpower at its zenith.
• Al Qaeda’s rise seemed to fit in with the age of economic globalization and the internet, which heralded the weakening of the state system and the arrival of a borderless world.
• Two decades later, though, the system of nation-states looks quite robust after enduring the challenge from international terrorism.

Implications of the attack

• The state system adapted quickly to the disruptions created by 9/11.
• There was much anxiety about terror groups gaining access to weapons of mass destruction or leveraging new digital technologies to increase their power over states.
• The state system has succeeded in keeping nuclear weapons and material away from terrorists.
• It has also become adept at using digital tools to counter extremism.
• If 9/11 made air travel risky, the states quickly developed protocols to de-risk it.

Humiliating end for the US everywhere

• Marking the 20th anniversary of 9/11 days after the humiliating US retreat from Kabul and domestic turmoil might suggest that Al-Qaeda and its associates did succeed in ending America’s unipolar moment.
• The choice of targets in the 9/11 attacks — the World Trade Center and the Pentagon — was not accidental.
• They were designed to strike at the very heart of American capitalism and its famed military power.
• American capitalism met its greatest threat not in 2001 but in the 2008 financial crisis that was triggered by the reckless ideology of deregulation.
• America lost in Afghanistan and the Middle East because it over-determined the terror threat and put security approaches above political common sense.

Today’s agenda for terror

• And the ambition of the jihadists — who organized the 9/11 attacks, to destroy America has risen to a higher extent:

1. To overthrow the Arab regimes
2. Unleash a war with Israel
3. Pit the believers against the infidels

• To be sure, terrorist organizations and the religious extremism that inspires them to continue to be of concern.

Age of ideological warfare

• Sectarian schisms, ideological cleavages, internecine warfare, and the messiness of the real world have cooled the revolutionary ardor that the world was so afraid of after 9/11.
• In the battle between states and non-states, the former have accumulated extraordinary powers in the name of fighting the latter.
• All nations, including liberal democracies, have curtailed individual liberty by offering greater security against terrorism.
• Abuse of state power has inevitably followed.

Security narratives by the US since then

• After 9/11, President George W Bush turned his attention to confronting an imagined “global axis of evil” — Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.
• None of the three countries was involved in 9/11.
• And the US rewarded Pakistan with billions of dollars in military and economic assistance that actively nurtured the Taliban and succeeded in bleeding and defeating the US in Afghanistan.

Threats earned by the US

• This blinded the US to an emerging challenger — China — on the horizon. Washington’s obsession with the Middle East gave Beijing two valuable decades to consolidate its rise without any hindrance.
• Although America’s unipolar moment may have ended, the US will continue to remain the most powerful nation in the world, with the greatest capacity to shape the international system.

What about the jihadist agenda for the Middle East?

• The Islamist effort to destroy the Gulf kingdoms spluttered quite quickly as the Arab monarchs cracked down hard on the jihadi groups.
• Many Arab states do not see al Qaeda and its offshoots as existential threats.
• They worry more about other Muslim states like Turkey, Qatar, and Iran that seek to leverage Islam for geopolitical purposes.
• These fears have pushed smaller Gulf kingdoms towards Israel and shattered the jihadi hope to trigger the final Islamic assault on the Jewish state.
• Developments in China and Pakistan reinforce the proposition that politics among nation-states is more significant than the power of the transcendental religious forces.

How did India Respond?

• India has been facing the problem of Pakistan-sponsored terrorism since 1989.  Unfortunately, the USA and the UK sided with Pakistan during this time.
• However, this changed after India’s 2^nd nuclear test and the 9/11 attack in the USA. Though the USA continued to rely on Pakistan, it considered Pakistan as an unreliable partner. This was further proved when Osama bin Laden was found hiding in Pakistan.
• Indian response to terror attacks had been that of “strategic restraint”.
• It was limited to diplomatic actions. This was evident in attacks on the Indian Parliament (December 2001) and the Kaluchak massacre (May 2002).
• However, now we witness that India has adopted a policy of imposing costs on Pakistan by striking across the border, e.g. Balalkot airstrikes.
• This capacity of India has been built over its strong economy and strong global linkages. Despite the economic disaster of 1991, India emerged stronger after LPG reforms.

Conclusion

• The trans-national nature of the new terror groups is now countered by better border controls and greater international cooperation on law enforcement.
• However, in the subcontinent, as elsewhere, violent religious extremism thrives only under state patronage.
• The answers to the challenges presented by the return of the Taliban and the likely resurgence of jihadi terrorism are not in the religious domain but in changing the geopolitical calculus of Pakistan’s deep state.

B2BASICS

Violent Non-state actors

• In international relations, violent non-state actors (VNSA), also known as non-state armed actors or non-state armed groups (NSAGs), are individuals and groups that are wholly or partly independent of governments and which threaten or use violence to achieve their goals.
• VNSAs vary widely in their goals, size, and methods. They may include narcotics cartels, popular liberation movements, religious and ideological organizations, corporations (e.g. private military contractors), self-defence militia, and paramilitary groups established by state governments to further their interests.

Both nations, India and Germany with innovative economies and many highly-trained people can tackle the climate challenge.

India-Germany Relations: A backgrounder

Freedom struggle: Subhas Chandra Bose, a prominent freedom fighter for Indian independence, made a determined effort to obtain India’s independence from Britain by seeking military assistance from the Axis powers. The Indische Legion was formed to serve as a liberation force for British-ruled India principally made up of Indian prisoners of war.

Diplomacy: India maintained diplomatic relations with both West Germany and East Germany and supported their reunification in 1990. Contrary to France and the UK, Germany has no strategic footprint in Asia.

Past contentions: Germany condemned India for liberating Goa from Portuguese rule in 1961 and supported Portugal’s dictatorial regime under Salazar against India. It was critical of India for intervening in the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War.  It rejected India’s 1998 nuclear tests.

Quest for UNSC: India and Germany both seek to become permanent members of the UNSC and have joined with Japan and Brazil to coordinate their efforts via the G4 collective.

Cultural ties: Germany has supported education and cultural programs in India. Germany helped establish the IIT Madras after both governments signed an agreement in 1956 and increased its cooperation and supply of technology and resources over the decades to help expand the institution

Trade and investment: Germany is India’s largest trading partner in Europe. Germany is the 8th largest foreign direct investor (FDI) in India.

Common concerns

• In South Asia and Europe, we have become used to extremely hot weather, flooding, dramatic depletion of groundwater tables, and drought.
• The EU has adopted an ambitious Green Deal to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 and to decouple economic growth from the consumption of natural resources.

Why the two?

• India is one of few countries that looks set to deliver on the national goals it set itself as part of the Paris agreement.
• Compared to other G20 countries, its per capita emissions are very low.
• Germany recently adopted laws on reducing greenhouse gases more quickly, achieving climate neutrality by 2045 and stopping the use of coal for electricity production by 2038.

Collaborated efforts to date

• In 2015, India’s PM and Germany’s Federal Chancellor agreed to further strengthen the two countries’ strategic partnership.
• On this basis, Germany and India have succeeded in building up a cooperation portfolio worth almost 12 billion euros.
• Already, nine out of 10 measures support climate goals and SDGs together.

Indo-German development cooperation focuses on three areas:

1. Transition to renewable energies
2. Sustainable urban development and
3. Sustainable management of natural resources

What does Germany have to offer?

• As a pioneer of the energy transition, Germany is offering knowledge, technology transfer, and financial solutions.
• The pandemic has shown global supply chains are vulnerable.
• Yet, when it comes to agriculture and natural resources, there are smart solutions that are being tested in India and Germany for more self-reliance, including agroecological approaches and sustainable management of forests, soils, and water.
• Experience in India has shown that these methods also boost incomes for the local population and make them less dependent on expensive fertilizers, pesticides and seeds.

UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

Context

The 13th BRICS summit is set to be held on September 9 in digital format under India’s chairmanship

Challenges and opportunities for BRICS

• The importance of BRICS is self-evident: it represents 42% of the world’s population, 30% of the land area, 24% of global GDP and 16% of international trade.
• Weathering geopolitical challenges: Member states have been carrying BRICS forward in an era of complex geopolitics.
• They have bravely continued holding dozens of meetings and summits, even as India-China relations were strained after Galwan valley incident.
• Internal challenges: There is also the reality of the strained relations of China and Russia with the West, and of serious internal challenges preoccupying both Brazil and South Africa.
• On the other hand, a potential bond emerged due to the battle against COVID-19.
• Challenges to trade ties: BRICS has been busy deepening trade and investment ties among its member states.
• The difficulty stems from China’s centrality and dominance of intra-BRICS trade flows.
• How to create a better internal balance remains a challenge, reinforced by the urgent need for diversification and strengthening of regional value chains.
• China’s aggression: Beijing’s aggressive policy, especially against India, puts BRICS solidarity under exceptional strain.
• Lack of support: BRICS countries have not done enough to assist the Global South to win their optimal support for their agenda.

Does BRICS truly matter?

• The grouping has gone through a reasonably productive journey.
• Acts as a bridge: It strove to serve as a bridge between the Global North and Global South.
• It developed a common perspective on a wide range of global and regional issues.
• It established the New Development Bank; created a financial stability net in the form of Contingency Reserve Arrangement; and is on the verge of setting up a Vaccine Research and Development Virtual Center.

Immediate goals: 4 priorities

• As the current chair, India has outlined four priorities.
• Reforms of multilateral institutions: The first is to pursue reform of multilateral institutions ranging from the United Nations, World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to the World Trade Organization and now even the World Health Organization.
• Reform needs global consensus which is hardly feasible in the current climate of strategic contestation between the U.S. and China and the devastation caused by COVID-19.
• Nevertheless, Indian officials rightly remind us that BRICS emerged from the desire to challenge dominance (by the U.S.) in the early years of the century, and it remains committed to the goal of counter-dominance (by China) now.
• Combating terrorism: Tragic developments concerning Afghanistan have helped to focus attention sharply on this overarching theme, stressing the need to bridge the gap between rhetoric and action.
• China, for example, feels little hesitation in supporting clear-cut denunciations of terrorist groups and supports Pakistan, which is host to several international terrorist groups.
• BRICS is attempting to pragmatically shape its counter-terrorism strategy by crafting the BRICS Counter Terrorism Action Plan.
• Counter Terrorism Action Plan contains specific measures to fight radicalisation, terrorist financing and misuse of the Internet by terrorist groups.
• Technology and digital solution: Promoting technological and digital solutions for the Sustainable Development Goals and expanding people-to-people cooperation are the other two BRICS priorities.

Conclusion

It is necessary for leaders, officials and academics of this grouping to undertake serious soul-searching and find a way out of the present predicament.

UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

Context

After the collapse of the government in Kabul, India has adopted a wait and watch approach in its dealing with the Taliban.

Taliban’s position in Afghanistan

• The Taliban grip over Afghanistan will only strengthen unless there is a popular revolt against it in the cities.
• The Panjshiri defiance is unlikely to go anywhere without considerable and abiding support from the US and a firm commitment from Tajikistan.
• After a talk between leaders of the extinguished Afghan Republic and the Taliban on central government formation, there has been no news of the process for more than a week.
• There is continuous pressure on Taliban leaders and Pakistan from the Western donor community for the formation of a government acceptable to it.
• Some Taliban leaders would want financial flows to continue to prevent a collapse of the Afghan economy.

The approach of the international community toward the Taliban

• Assurances would be sought from the Taliban not only by the West but also by Russia and China that there will be no attempt to put in place the 1990s practices of the Islamic Emirate on gender issues and the more medieval manifestations of the Sharia.
• Commitment to anti-terrorism: US will keep close scrutiny on the Taliban to honor its commitment to al Qaeda and will demand that it continues to cooperate on ISIS-K extermination, an objective shared by Russia.
• Diplomatic recognition of a Taliban government, including allowing it to occupy the United Nations seat in the forthcoming future will depend on its acceptability.
• However, the US and EU will not be reluctant to maintain open and direct contact with a Taliban government.

Issues with India’s wait and watch policy

• India continues to “wait and watch” Afghan developments.
• What is being overlooked is that “strategic patience” cannot be an alibi for inaction.
• The invocation of the British Raj policy of “masterly inactivity” by some scholars defies logic for it applied in a completely different context.
• Recognition v. legitimacy: Besides, while diplomatic recognition or its denial is a specific act of a country in inter-state relations, “legitimacy” is more applicable in the internal jurisdiction of countries.
• India “waited and watched” Afghan developments from the sidelines, at least since the US-Taliban deal.
• How long will India continue to “wait and watch”?

Way forward

• Establish open contact: To explore the Taliban’s approaches towards India there is an obvious need to establish open and direct contacts with it.
• That will also allow India to convey its red lines.
• This should not be confused with diplomatic recognition.
• Welcome Afghans: The establishment of open contacts with the Taliban will not be contradictory to actively welcome those Afghans, irrespective of their faith, who are closely connected with India.

Consider the question “What are the implications of the return of the Taliban in Afghanistan for India? What should be India’s approach in dealing with the Taliban controlled Afghanistan?”

Conclusion

It would damage India’s reputation greatly and into the future, if perceptions grow, as they are growing, that India has abandoned its friends in Afghanistan at the time of their need.