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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: International Relations

  • Farzad B Gas Field

    Iran gave the Farzad B gas field to a domestic gas producer in a setback move to India.

    Farzad B Gas Field

    • Farzad-B is an off-shore natural gas field 20 kilometres off Farsi Island in Iran.
    • The gas field was discovered in 2008 by a consortium of three Indian companies, led by the state-owned ONGC Videsh with a 40% stake; the other companies were Indian Oil Corporation (40%) and Oil India (20%).

    Deal soured after US sanctions

    • Negotiations between the consortium and the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) to develop the gas field stalled due to secondary sanctions against Iran by the US and the European Union in the early 2010s.
    • Following the lifting of sanctions after the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was signed in July 2015 the consortium was close to an agreement to invest $US5 billion to develop the gas field.
    • After the United States withdrawal from the JCPOA in May 2018, and the reinstatement of U.S. sanctions against Iran, the negotiations between the consortium and NIOC broke down.

    Consider the question “Balancing the contrasts has been the basis of India’s relations with Iran. Comment.”

  • The world cannot ignore the Palestinian question

    The article discusses the types of response the recent violence in the Israel-Palestine conflict would invoke across the world and also explains the perils of ignoring the conflict.

    Three types of responses

    • The deadly riots in Israel and the war in Gaza, is likely to evoke three kinds of responses: The indifferent, the imperial, the humanitarian.

    1) Moral indifference

    •  Instead of becoming the symbol of the unfinished tasks of decolonisation, and a human rights catastrophe, the Palestinian question is now mostly an occasion to vent cynicism.
    • The moral questions the oppression of Palestinians poses is avoided by claiming that in this conflict we can assigning rights and wrongs equally to both sides.
    • There is the spectacle of civilians on both sides living in terror.
    • There is the fanaticism of the right-wing in Israel and there is the fanaticism of Hamas and Fatah.
    • Blaming both sides also whitewashes the fact that there is a monumental injustice to the Palestinians at the heart of the problem.

    2) The imperial response

    • The events leading up to the recent clashes at the Al-Aqsa Mosque can be seen as part of a long pattern of pushing out Palestinians from territory Israel wants to claim.
    • American administration has not been able to significantly roll back this project of pushing the Palestinians out.
    • Palestine will once again be the site where the Biden administration’s liberal internationalism will face challenge.

    3) Humanitarian response

    • This third response is to dig beneath the politics and find bridges in shared humanity and suffering.
    • This is also the tack of the peace movements that use culture and a history of shared suffering to build bridges.
    •  They emphasise that dispossession and exile is something both communities share; they, of all the people, should be able to understand each other.
    •  Humanity and culture, even when deeply internalised, collapse quickly when subject to fear.
    • And they always fall short of acknowledging the core issue at stake: Political equality between two peoples.

    Geopolitical implications of conflict

    • The violence of Israel will beget more terrorist violence of Hamas and Fatah, with every world power from Russia to Iran influencing the chaos.
    • Israel needs to be reminded of the blowback of imperial politics: The ultimate consequence of trying to dominate a people is that you end up destroying the moral legitimacy of your own claims.
    • No amount of military capacity can compensate for the images of lynching, rioting, and provocations that we have seen this week.

    Conclusion

    We continually risk conflict if the Palestinian question is simply treated as an object of geo-political opportunism, not as a question of basic dignity and justice.

  • Cabinet clears MoU between ICAI and Qatar Financial Centre Authority

    Signing of MoU

    • The Union Cabinet approved the signing of a pact between the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) and the Qatar Financial Centre Authority (QFCA)
    • The ICAI has more than 6,000 members in the Middle East.

    Increase opportunities and enhance cooperation

    • The MoU would enhance cooperation between the institutes to work together to strengthen the accounting profession and entrepreneurship base in Qatar.
    • The MoU would provide the ICAI members in the entire Middle East better recognition, together with working to support Indian businesses desirous of doing business in Qatar
    • The MoU will endeavour to increase opportunities for ICAI members to provide professional services in Qatar in the areas of assurance and auditing, advisory, taxation, financial services and allied areas.

  • [pib] Goa Maritime Symposium (GMS) – 2021

    Fostering relations with maritime neighbours

    • Towards fostering friendly relations with its maritime neighbours, Indian Navy hosted ‘GMS-21’.
    • The event for the first time was hosted in virtual mode, with online participation of Naval representatives from 13 Indian Ocean Littoral countries.
    • The 13 countries included India, Bangladesh, Comoros, Indonesia, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritius, Myanmar, Seychelles, Singapore, Sri Lanka and Thailand.
    • The theme for GMS-21 was focused on “Maritime Security and Emerging Non-Traditional Threats: A Case for Proactive Role for IOR Navies,” with emphasis on capacity building amongst the IOR Navies to tackle emerging common maritime threats.

    Bringing together the stakeholders

    • With the Indian Ocean becoming the locus of 21st century strategic landscape, the symposium will play a constructive role in bringing together the stakeholders who have a role in evolving strategies, policies and implementation mechanisms on the issues of common interest in maritime domain.
    • In addition to presenting cooperative strategies for enhancing interoperability among partner maritime agencies, the event provided a forum for articulation of views on the crucial maritime issues, followed by theme based discussions.

  • Evaluate the Ladakh crisis

    The article highlights the need for a critical assessment of the stand-off with China last year and offers key lessons in managing the strategic competition with China.

    Year after stand-off

    • After over a year, the stand-off between Indian and Chinese troops in eastern Ladakh shows no signs of resolution.
    • More broadly, the India-China bilateral relationship has ruptured.
    • Reversing a long-held policy, India will no longer overlook the problematic border dispute for the sake of a potentially lucrative wider relationship.
    • Even if disengagement continues, the relationship will remain vulnerable to destabilising disruptions.
    • Therefore, the Ladakh crisis offers India three key lessons in managing the intensifying strategic competition with China.

    Three key lessons

    1) Military strategy based on denial are more useful

    •  Military strategies based on denial are more useful than strategies based on punishment.
    •  The Indian military’s standing doctrine calls for deterring adversaries with the threat of massive punitive retaliation for any aggression, capturing enemy territory as bargaining leverage in post-war talks.
    • But this did not deter China from launching unprecedented incursions in May 2020.
    • In contrast, the Indian military’s high-water mark in the crisis was an act of denial — its occupation of the heights on the Kailash Range on its side of the LAC in late August.
    • This action served to deny that key terrain to the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA), and gave the Indian Army a stronger defensive position.
    • A doctrinal focus on denial will give the Indian military greater capacity to thwart future land grabs across the LAC.
    • Over time, improved denial capabilities may allow India to reduce the resource drain of the increased militarisation of the LAC.

    2) Political cost matters more

    • China is more likely to be deterred or coerced with the threat of political costs, rather than material costs.
    • The material burden of the crisis would not disrupt its existing priorities.
    • In contrast, India successfully raised the risks of the crisis for China through its threat of a political rupture, not military punishment.
    • A permanently hostile India or an accidental escalation to conflict were risks that China, having achieved its tactical goals in the crisis, assessed were an unnecessary additional burden.
    • The corollary lesson is that individual powers, even large powers such as India, will probably struggle to shift Beijing’s calculus alone.
    • Against the rising behemoth, only coordinated or collective action is likely to be effective.

    3) India should accept more risk on LAC

    • India should consider accepting more risk on the LAC in exchange for long-term leverage and influence in the Indian Ocean Region.
    • From the perspective of long-term strategic competition, the future of the Indian Ocean Region is more consequential and more uncertain than the Himalayan frontier.
    • At the land border, the difficult terrain and more even balance of military force means that each side could only eke out minor, strategically modest gains at best.
    • In contrast, India has traditionally been the dominant power in the Indian Ocean Region and stands to cede significant political influence and security if it fails to answer the rapid expansion of Chinese military power.

    Conclusion

    As these three lessons show, the future of the strategic competition is not yet written. If India’s leaders honestly and critically evaluate the crisis, it may yet help to actually brace India’s long-term position against China.

  • What does US departure from Afghanistan mean for South Asia?

    The article highlights the important role played by the US in the geopolitics of the region and the impact of the US retreat on the region foreign policy landscape.

    How the US shaped the regional politics of South Asia

    • Since it replaced Britain as the major external power in Greater Middle East half a century ago, America has been the pivot around which the regional politics has played out.
    • Many regional actors sought alliances with America to secure themselves against ambitious or troublesome neighbours.
    • Others sought to balance against America.
    • Israel’s security, ensuring oil supplies, competing with other powers, making regional peace, promoting democracy, and stamping out terrorism are no longer compelling factors demanding massive American military, political and diplomatic investments in the region.

    Region now has to learn to live with neighbours

    • As America steps back from the Middle East, most regional actors either need alternate patrons or reduced tensions with their neighbours.
    • Although China and Russia have regional ambitions, neither of them bring the kind of strategic heft America brought to bear on the Middle East all these decades.
    • Turkey has figured that its troubled economy can’t sustain the ambitious regional policies.
    •  After years of challenging Saudi leadership of the Islamic world, Erdogan is offering an olive branch to Riyadh.
    • After years of intense mutual hostility, Saudi Arabia and Iran are now exploring means to reduce bilateral tensions and moderate their proxy wars in the region.
    • Saudi Arabia is also trying to heal the rift within the Gulf by ending the earlier effort to isolate Qatar. 
    •  These changes come in the wake of the big moves last year by some Arab states — the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan — to normalise ties with Israel.

    How India’s approach helped maintain ties in the region

    • India’s emphasis on good relations with all the regional actors without a reference to their conflicts has been vindicated by the turn of events.
    • Barring Turkey, which turned hostile to India under Erdogan, India has managed to expand its ties with most regional actors.
    • Hopefully, the new regional churn will encourage Turkey to take a fresh look at its relations with India.

    Effect on India-Pak relations

    • The regional reset in the Middle East has coincided with efforts by Delhi and Rawalpindi to cool their tensions.
    • The ceasefire on the Line of Control in Kashmir announced at the end of February appears to be holding.
    • The US withdrawal from Afghanistan poses major challenges to the Subcontinent.
    • India and Pakistan, for very different reasons, would have liked to see the US forces stay forever in Afghanistan.
    • For India, American military presence would have kept a check on extremist forces and created conducive conditions for an Indian role in Afghanistan.
    • For Pakistan, American military presence in Afghanistan keeps the US utterly dependent on Pakistan for geographic access and operational support.

    Challenge of terrorism

    • The prospect of trans-border links between the Taliban and other extremist forces in the region is a challenge that South Asian states will have to confront sooner than later.
    • Soaring levels of violence in Afghanistan and attack on the former president of Maldives, underlines South Asia’s enduring challenges with terrorism.
    • Unless the South Asian states collaborate on countering extremism and terrorism, every one of them will be weakened.

    Consider the question “How US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan will influence the regional geopolitics of the region?”

    Conclusion

    The region needs to focus on the peace and harmony in the region while resolving the bilateral issues through dialogue.

  • Israel-Palestine Clash

    Context

    On Monday, Israeli police stormed the Al-Aqsa mosque compound in East Jerusalem, leaving a reported 300 people injured. The stand-off came at the end of a week of tensions over the eviction of Palestinian residents from two neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem, Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan, to make way for Jewish settlers.

    Cause of the clashes

    • The Al-Aqsa is located on a plaza at Temple Mount, which is known in Islam as Haram-e-Sharif.
    • The Mount is also Judaism’s holiest site.
    • The most imposing structure on the compound is the Dome of the Rock, with its golden dome.
    • The Western Wall, also known as the Wailing Wall sacred to Jews, is one side of the retaining wall of the Al-Aqsa compound.
    • Soon after the 1967 Six-Day War ended, Israel gave back to Jordan the administration and management of the Al-Aqsa compound.
    • While non-Muslims have not been allowed to worship at Al-Aqsa, Jewish individuals and groups have made repeated attempts to gain entry to the Mount Temple plaza.
    • Since the late 1990s, around the time of the first intifada, such attempts began occurring with a regularity as Jewish settlers began claiming land in East Jerusalem and surrounding areas.
    • It has led to repeated clashes and tensions at Al-Aqsa.

    Rival claims over Jerusalem

    • Both Israel and Palestine have declared Jerusale their capital.
    • In July 1980, the Israeli Parliament passed the Jerusalem Law declaring it the country’s capital.
    • Palestinians declared Jerusalem the capital of the putative state of Palestine by a law passed by the Palestinian Authority in 2000.
    • The 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence also declared Jerusalem as the capital.
    • For the present, the Palestinian Authority has its headquarters in Ramallah.

    How the world is reacting

    • The Security Council held a meeting on the situation in Jerusalem, but did not make any statement immediately.
    • Last Friday, the US said it was “extremely concerned” .
    • The UAE, which recently recognised as Israel as a state and sealed a historic peace agreement to normalise relations with it, has “strongly condemned” the clashes and the planned evictions in Jerusalem over the past week.
    • Saudi Arabia said it “rejects Israel’s plans and measures to evict dozens of Palestinians from their homes in Jerusalem”.
    • Pakistan Prime Minister also condemned Israel for violation of international law.

  • India and EU relaunch FTA talks, sign connectivity partnership

    Resumption of FTA

    • Prime Minister of India interacted virtually from Delhi with EU chiefs.
    • India and the European Union agreed to relaunch free trade negotiations by resuming talks that were suspended in 2013 for the Bilateral Trade and Investment Agreement (BTIA).
    • The talks had run into trouble over market access issues, and tariffs by India on products like wine, dairy and automotive parts, as well as EU resistance over visas for Indian professionals.
    • In addition, Indian government’s decision to scrap all Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) in 2015 posed hurdles for new EU investments in India.

    Connectivity Partnership document

    • The EU-India leaders adopted a Connectivity Partnership document.
    • The India-EU connectivity partnership committed the two sides to working together on digital, energy, transport, people to people connectivity.
    • The partnership is seen as a response to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, and comes as the EU’s negotiations with China on their Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) have run into trouble.
    • The contract for the second tranche of $150 million from the EU for the Pune Metro rail project was also signed.

    No EU support for Covid-19 vaccine waiver

    • India failed to secure the support of the European leaders for patent waivers for Covid vaccine.
    • The support of a major bloc like the EU is crucial to passing the resolution at the WTO by consensus.

  • U.S. to support intellectual property waiver for COVID-19 vaccines

    US in support of TRIPS waiver

    • The United States announced its support to an initiative at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to waive Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) protection for COVID-19 vaccines.
    • The initiative was first floated by India and South Africa last October.
    • Over a 100 countries have supported the proposal, according to the Associated Press.

    Opposition to the move

    • Among the arguments proffered to retain IP protection are that biotech jobs will be transferred from the U.S. to foreign countries and that waiving IP still not does overcome bottlenecks like manufacturing capacity.
    • Twelve Republican Members of Congress wrote to Mr. Biden on Tuesday urging him to consider other means to increase vaccine access that did not involve weaking IP protections.
    • Weakening protections would hamper American competitiveness and innovation, they said.

  • The vaccine patent row

    What is the vaccine patent row about?

    • Medicines and other inventions are covered by patents which provide legal protection against being copied, and vaccines are no exception.
    • Patents give makers the rights to their discoveries as well as the means to make more money from them – which is an incentive to encourage innovation.
    • But these are not normal times.
    • Last autumn, developing nations led by India and South Africa proposed to the World Trade Organization (WTO) that the patents on vaccinations and other Covid-related items should be waived.
    • They argued that, given the extreme nature of the pandemic, the recipe for the life-saving jabs should be made widely available so they could be produced locally in bulk by other manufacturers.

    What’s the problem?

    • The proposals were met with immediate criticism from pharmaceutical companies and Western nations including the EU, UK and the US.
    • The obvious objection to lifting patents is that it could erode revenue and deter innovation.

    So, does this just come down to money?

    • The key argument from vaccine producers and their home countries is that waiving patents alone wouldn’t solve much. It would, they say, be like handing out a recipe without the ingredients or instructions.
    • The patent covers the bare bones of the blue print but not the precise production process. That’s crucial here. Vaccines of the mRNA type – such as Pfizer and Moderna – are a new breed and only a small number of people understand how to make them.
    • BioNTech, the German company which partnered with Pfizer, have said that developing the manufacturing process took a decade and validating production sites can take up to a year. The availability of the raw materials needed has also been an issue.
    • Industry bodies fear that without access to all the know-how and parts, a waiver could result in quality, safety and efficacy issues and possibly even counterfeits. They point out that Moderna has already said it would not prosecute those found to be infringing their patent – but no one has yet.

    What’s the alternative?

    • The EU says it is ready to talk, but it previously said the best short-term fix would be supply chain improvements and pushing richer countries to export more jabs.
    • The UK says it is one of the biggest donors to Covax, which is masterminding the rollout of vaccines to many poorer countries. It also favours voluntary licensing – such as collaborations between the Serum Institute of India and Oxford-AstraZeneca. It wants the WTO, which oversees the rules on global trade, to support more partnerships.
    • The WTO system allows for this licensing arrangement to go even further. Governments can impose compulsory licenses on vaccine makers, compelling them to share their know-how and overseeing the production process along the way. But those pharmaceutical companies would have to be compensated for doing so.

    Why did the US change its mind?

    The announcement came after the US Trade Representative Katharine Tai held meetings with the big vaccine makers in an effort to supercharge vaccine production.

    What happens next?

    • Now the discussions will continue at the WTO where decisions are made by consensus.
    • Without the backing of other key nations, the proposals may stall. But they may pave the way to a compromise that could boost production.
    • The key question is when – and by how much.

    Support grows for IP waiver

    • Attention is now turning to those richer nations, notably in the European Union — and France was the first to voice its support.
    • France joined the United States in supporting an easing of patent and other protections on COVID-19 vaccines that could help poorer countries get more doses and speed the end of the pandemic.
    • Russian President Vladimir Putin also said he supported the idea of a waiver on patent protections for coronavirus vaccines.