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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: International Relations

  • India-UK Relations

    The article highlights the factors that make building sustainable partnership with Britain hard for India and suggests the ways to find fresh basis for bilateral relationship.

    Need to tap potential for bilateral strategic cooperation

    • The long-scheduled summit between Prime Ministers of India and UK will take place with a digital conversation scheduled for Tuesday.
    • India and the UK must tap into the enormous potential for bilateral strategic cooperation in the health sector and contributions to the global war on the virus.
    • Foreign ministers of India, Japan and Australia would also join this meeting to set the stage for the “Group of Seven Plus Three” physical summit next month hosted by the British Prime Minister.

    Challenges in forming a sustainable partnership with Britain

    • Few Western powers are as deeply connected to India as Britain.
    • While India’s relations with countries as different as the US and France have dramatically improved in recent years, ties with Britain have lagged.
    • One reason for this failure has been the colonial prism that has distorted mutual perceptions.
    • The bitter legacies of the Partition and Britain’s perceived tilt to Pakistan have long complicated the engagement between Delhi and London.
    • Also, the large South Asian diaspora in the UK transmits the internal and intra-regional conflicts in the subcontinent into Britain’s domestic politics.

    Finding fresh basis for bilateral relationship

    • The two leaders are expected to announce a 10-year roadmap to transform the bilateral relationship that will cover a range of areas.
    • Both countries are on the rebound from their respective regional blocs.
    • Britain has walked out of the European Union and India has refused to join the China-centred Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.
    • Although both will continue to trade with their regional partners, they are eager to build new global economic partnerships.
    • While remaining a security actor in Europe, Britain is tilting to the Indo-Pacific, where India is a natural ally.
    • India needs as wide a coalition as possible to restore a semblance of regional balance.
    • Britain could also contribute to the strengthening of India’s domestic defence industrial base.
    • The two sides could also expand India’s regional reach through sharing of logistical facilities.
    • Both countries are said to be exploring an agreement on “migration and mobility” to facilitate the legal movement of Indians into Britain.
    • Both sides are committed to finding common ground on climate change.

    Consder the question “What are the factors that introduce friction in the sustainability of India’s bilateral relations with the Britain? Identify the areas in which both the countries can find fresh basis for the bilateral relations?”

    Conclusion

    If leaders of both the countries succeed in laying down mutually beneficial terms of endearment, future governments might be less tempted to undermine the partnership.

  • [pib] India-UK Virtual Summit

    India-UK Virtual Summit

    • Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi and The Rt Hon’ble Boris Johnson, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom held a Virtual Summit today.
    • An ambitious ‘Roadmap 2030’ was adopted at the Summit to elevate bilateral ties to a ‘Comprehensive Strategic Partnership’.
    • The two Prime Ministers launched an ‘Enhanced Trade Partnership’ (ETP) by setting an ambitious target of more than doubling bilateral trade by 2030.
    • As part of the ETP, India and the UK agreed on a roadmap to negotiate a comprehensive and balanced FTA, including consideration of an Interim Trade Agreement for delivering early gains.
    • The enhanced trade partnership between India and UK will generate several thousands of direct and indirect jobs in both the countries.

    Collaboration and partnerships

    • The UK is India’s second-largest partner in research and innovation collaborations.
    • A new India-UK ‘Global Innovation Partnership’ was announced at the Virtual Summit that aims to support the transfer of inclusive Indian innovations to select developing countries, starting with Africa.
    • Both sides agreed to enhance cooperation on new and emerging technologies, including Digital and ICT products, and work on supply chain resilience.
    • They also agreed to strengthen defence and security ties, including in the maritime, counter-terrorism and cyberspace domains.

  • G7 to consider mechanism to counter misinformation

    G7 considering rapid response mechanism

    • The G7 members are Britain, the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan and their combined gross domestic product is about $40 trillion – a little less than half of the global economy.
    • G7 will look at a proposal to build a rapid response mechanism to counter Russian propaganda and disinformation.
    • Speaking ahead of a G7 foreign ministers’ meeting in London British Foreign Secretary said the United Kingdom was getting the G7 to come together with a rapid rebuttal mechanism to counter Russian misinformation.
    • Britain has identified Russia as the biggest threat to its security though it views China as its greatest long-term challenge, militarily, economically and technologically.

    Britain to engage more in Indo-Pacific

    • Britain has invited India, Australia and South Korea to attend this week’s meeting and the full leaders’ summit in June.
    • There was no concrete proposal as yet about Britain joining Quad.
    • Britain has been looking at ways to engage more in the Indo-Pacific.

  • India-Japan relations

    The article discusses the areas in which India-Japan are cooperating and also highlight the areas in which both countries can expand cooperation.

    Issues discussed in US-Japan summit

    • The discussion focused on their joint security partnership given the need to address China’s recent belligerence in territorial disputes in the South and East China Seas as well as in the Taiwan Strait.
    • Both sides affirmed the centrality of their treaty alliance, for long a source of stability in East Asia, and pledged to stand up to China in key regional flashpoints such as the disputed Senkaku Islands and Taiwan.
    • Both sides acknowledged the importance of extended deterrence vis-à-vis China through cooperation on cybersecurity and space technology.
    • Discussions also touched upon Chinese ambitions to dominate the development of new age technologies such as 5G and quantum computing.
    • Given China’s recent pledge to invest a mammoth $1.4 trillion in emerging technologies, Washington and Tokyo scrambled to close the gap by announcing a Competitiveness and Resilience Partnership, or CoRe.
    • Both sides have also signalled their intent to pressure on China on violations of intellectual property rights, forced technology transfer, excess capacity issues, and the use of trade-distorting industrial subsidies.
    •  Both powers repeatedly emphasised their vision of a Free and Open Indo-Pacific.

    Issues that need to be discussed in Japan PM’s visit to India

    1) Continuation of balancing security policy

    • First, one can expect a continuation of the balancing security policy against China that began in 2014.
    • Crucially, India’s clashes with China in Galwan have turned public opinion in favour of a more confrontational China policy.
    • In just a decade, New Delhi and Tokyo have expanded high-level ministerial and bureaucratic contacts, conducted joint military exercises and concluded military pacts such as the Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement (ACSA) logistics agreement.
    • Both countries need to affirm support for a Free and Open Indo-Pacific and continued willingness to work with the Quad.
    • Both countries need to take stock of the state of play in the security relationship while also pushing the envelope on the still nascent cooperation on defence technology and exports.

    2) Expanding cooperation in various sectors

    • The two powers will look to expand cooperation in sectors such as cybersecurity and emerging technologies.
    • Digital research and innovation partnership in technologies from AI and 5G to the Internet of Things and space research has increased between the two countries in the recent past.
    • There is a need to deepen cooperation between research institutes and expand funding in light of China’s aforementioned technology investment programme.
    • Issues of India’s insistence on data localisation and reluctance to accede to global cybersecurity agreements such as the Budapest Convention may be discussed in the summit.

    3) Economic ties

    • Economic ties and infrastructure development are likely to be top drawer items on the agendas of New Delhi and Tokyo.
    • Though Japan has poured in around $34 billion in investments into the Indian economy, Japan is only India’s 12th largest trading partner.
    • Trade volumes between the two stand at just a fifth of the value of India-China bilateral trade.
    • India-Japan summit will likely reaffirm Japan’s support for key manufacturing initiatives such as ‘Make in India’ and the Japan Industrial Townships.
    • Further, India will be keen to secure continued infrastructure investments in the strategically vital connectivity projects currently under way in the Northeast and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

    4) Joint strategy toward key third countries

    • In years past, India and Japan have collaborated to build infrastructure in Iran and Africa.
    • Both countries have provided vital aid to Myanmar and Sri Lanka and hammer out a common Association of Southeast Asian Nations outreach policy in an attempt to counter China’s growing influence in these corners of the globe.
    • However, unlike previous summits, the time has come for India and Japan to take a hard look at reports suggesting that joint infrastructure projects in Africa and Iran have stalled with substantial cost overruns.
    •  Tokyo will also likely try to get New Delhi to reverse its decision not to join the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.

    Consider the question “Changes on the geopolitical horizon offers India-Japan relations multiple avenues to deepen their ties. In light of this, discuss the areas of cooperation and shared concerns for India and Japan.” 

    Conclusion

    Writing in 2006, Shinzo Abe, expressed his hope in his book that “it would not be a surprise if in another 10 years, Japan-India relations overtake Japan-U.S. and Japan-China relations”. Thus far, India has every reason to believe that Japan’s new Prime Minister is willing to make that dream a reality.

  • [pib] Agreement between India and UK on custom cooperation approved

    Background of the agreement

    • The Cabinet, chaired by Prime Minister has approved the signing and ratification of an Agreement with the UK on Customs Cooperation and Mutual Administrative Assistance in Customs Matters.
    • The Agreement would provide a legal framework for sharing of information and intelligence between the Customs authorities of the two countries.
    • It will also help in the proper application of Customs laws, prevention and investigation of Customs offences and the facilitation of legitimate trade.
    • The Agreement takes care of Indian Customs’ concerns and requirements, particularly in the area of exchange of information on the correctness of the Customs value, tariff classification and origin of the goods traded between the two countries.

    Impact

    • The Agreement will help in the availability of relevant information for the prevention and investigation of Customs offences.
    • The Agreement is also expected to facilitate trade and ensure efficient clearance of goods traded between the countries.

  • The Supply Chain Resilience Initiative (SCRI) formally launched

    Tackling the supply chain disruption through SCRI

    • The Supply Chain Resilience Initiative (SCRI) was formally launched on Tuesday by the Trade Ministers of India, Japan and Australia.
    • The three sides agreed that the pandemic revealed supply chain vulnerabilities globally and in the region and noted the importance of risk management and continuity plans in order to avoid supply chain disruptions.
    • Some of the joint measures they are considering include supporting the enhanced utilisation of digital technology and trade and investment diversification, which is seen as being aimed at reducing their reliance on China.

    How China reacted

    • China’s Foreign Ministry on Wednesday described the move as ‘unrealistic’.
    • The formation and development of global industrial and supply chains are determined by market forces and companies choices, it said.
    • It also said that the artificial industrial ‘transfer’ is an unrealistic approach that goes against the economic laws and can neither solve domestic problems nor do anything good to the stability of the global industrial and supply chains, or to the stable recovery of the world economy.

  • Iran, U.S. warships engage in a tense encounter

    What happened

    • An American warship fired warning shots when vessels of Iran’s paramilitary Revolutionary Guard came too close to a patrol in the Persian Gulf.
    • Footage released on April 27 by the Navy showed a ship commanded by the Guard cut in front of the USCGC Monomoy.
    • The incidents at sea almost always involve the Revolutionary Guard, which reports only to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

    Context of the nuclear deal

    • Some analysts believe the incidents are meant in part to squeeze President Hassan Rouhani’s administration after the 2015 nuclear deal.
    • The incident comes as Iran negotiates with world powers in Vienna over Tehran and Washington returning to the 2015 nuclear deal.
    • It also follows a series of incidents across the Mideast attributed to a shadow war between Iran and Israel, which includes attacks on regional shipping and sabotage at Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility.

  • An unquiet neighbourhood

    The article highlights the inherent difficulty in finding a solution to the two conflicts raging on in India’s neigbourhood.

    Tale of two conflicts in neighbourhood

    • Efforts to end two major conflicts in India’s neighbourhood have become intense.
    • To the west, a peace summit on Afghanistan, seeking to end decades of conflict there, was also scheduled to take place in Istanbul over the weekend.
    • To the east, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has produced a diplomatic opening with Myanmar’s military leadership.
    • Afghan conflict go back to the late 1970s; since then we have seen different phases of the conflict.
    • Although the crisis in Myanmar appears recent, the tension between civil-military relations is not new.
    • Back in 1988, the army annulled the huge mandate won by Aung San Suu Kyi and unleashed massive repression.

    3 Common Themes in the effort at peace and reconciliation

    1) Ending violence

    • The first is about ending violence.
    • In Afghanistan it has been near impossible to get a resurgent Taliban to agree to stop its attacks on government forces or the civilian population.
    • The ASEAN initiative in Myanmar calls for an immediate cessation of violence and utmost restraint from all sides.
    • The opposition demanding restoration of democracy might find this rather ironic, since it is the army that is employing violence and has shown scant restraint.

    2) Dialogue among all parties

    • The second theme in the ASEAN initiative — “constructive dialogue among all parties” to “seek a peaceful solution” — is also common to all peace processes.
    • The Taliban found all kinds of excuses to delay a dialogue with the Kabul government that it always saw as illegitimate. So far, it has avoided one.
    • In Myanmar, the army might be ready to engage the opposition in a prolonged dialogue and defuse international pressure; but it will be hard for the victims of the coup to accept a dialogue on the army’s terms.

    3) Third-party mediator

    • The Afghan conflict has long been internationalised.
    • All major powers, including regional actors and neighbours, have acquired stakes in the way the Afghan conflict is resolved.
    •  This unfortunately makes the construction of an internal settlement that much harder.
    • In Myanmar, the ASEAN has set the ball rolling by agreeing that a special envoy will be traveling to the region and will engage with all parties to the conflict.

    Cost-benefit in diplomacy

    • The US is hoping that the Taliban will moderate some of its hardline positions given its need for significant international economic assistance for reconstruction, political legitimacy.
    • In Myanmar, too, the international community will hope the military would want to avoid the risks of political isolation and economic punishment.
    • But how the Taliban and the Myanmar army calculate these costs and benefits could be very different.
    • Both have long experience of surviving external pressure and enduring sanctions.

    Conclusion

    Few civil wars have seen the kind of massive external effort to change the internal dynamics as in Afghanistan; but to no avail. In Myanmar, it is not clear how far the international community might go. The prospects for positive change in Afghanistan and Myanmar, then, do not look too bright in the near term.

  • Rohingya Deportation case

    The article highlights the issues with the order passed by the Supreme Court allowing the deportation of Rohingya refugees.

    Context

    • Recently, in its order in Mohammad Salimullah v. Union of India, the Supreme Court rejected an application to stay the deportation of Rohingya refugees to Myanmar.

    Principle of non-refoulement

    • The Supreme Court noted the petitioners’ reliance on a judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) dated January 23, 2020, which recorded the genocidal conditions that resulted in 7.75 lakh Rohingyas being forced to take refuge in Bangladesh and India.
    • The Supreme Court relied on the word of the government that the principle of non-refoulement, or forcible repatriation to a place where the refugee’s life is in danger, applies only to signatories to the UN’s Refugee Convention of 1951 or its 1967 Protocol.
    • It must be stated that a UN Special Rapporteur was not heard, as the Court felt that serious objections had been raised to her intervention.
    • The Supreme Court accepted that the right not to be deported flows not from the right to life and liberty under Article 21, which applies to all human beings, but from the right to reside and settle in India under Article 19(1)(g), which applies to citizens alone.

    Why the judgement needs reconsideration

    1) India has recognised genocide as an international crime

    • India is a signatory to the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (the Genocide Convention, 1948),
    • Acceding to the Convention in 1959, India has recognised genocide as an international crime, and that the principles of the Convention are “therefore already part of common law of India”.
    •  India has also ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) have a bearing on non-refoulement.
    • Article 6(1) of the ICCPR, which mirrors Article 21 of our Constitution.
    • A number of other UN conventions particularly those dealing with the rights of women (CEDAW) and children (CRC) also have a non-refoulment element in it and both of which have been declared by the Supreme Court to be part of our domestic legal framework.

    2) Prevention of genocide

    • The leitmotif of the Genocide Convention is prevention.
    • Prevention is also central to Article I, under which the contracting parties confirm that genocide is a crime under international law, “which they undertake to prevent and to punish”.

    3) Preemptory norm

    • It is increasingly accepted in public international law, that non-refoulement and other protections emanating from the Genocide Convention, are peremptory norms that apply to state parties as well as non-parties.
    • That non-refoulement is jus cogens, a norm from which there can be no derogation whatsoever. I
    • At least three high courts (Gujarat in 1998, Delhi in 2015, and Calcutta in 2019) have held that non-refoulement is part of the right to life and liberty protected by Article 21 of our Constitution.

    What should the Supreme Court do

    • There are two possible solutions.
    • The first is that in its interim order, the Court specifies that the Rohingya refugees may not be deported unless “the procedure prescribed for such deportation is followed”.
    • It is a long-held principle of Indian jurisprudence that the word “procedure” means “due process”, or a procedure that is just, fair, and reasonable.
    • The Supreme Court can, thus, suo motu clarify that due process requires that they not be deported as long as there exists a reasonable threat of persecution in Myanmar.
    • Alternately, since the order in question is an interim order, the Supreme Court could swiftly hear the main petition on its merits, and clarify the law on non-refoulement and Article 21. 

    Conclusion

    The order on the deportation of Rohingya refugees needs reconsideration by the Supreme Court considering the India’s treaty obligations on the genocide.

  • What the US’s recognition of killings of Armenians as genocide mean

    What is genocide

    • According to Article II of the UN Convention on Genocide of December 1948, genocide has been described as carrying out acts intended “to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group”.

    Why Armenians were targeted

    • In a way, the Armenians were victims of the great power contests of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
    • The resentment started building up after the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-78 in which the Turks lost territories.
    • In the Treaty of Berlin, big powers dictated terms to the Ottomans, including putting pressure on Sultan Abdülhamid II to initiate reforms “in the provinces inhabited by Armenians, and to guarantee their security against the Circassians and Kurds.”
    • The Sultan saw this as a sign of strengthening ties between the Armenians and other rival countries, especially Russia.
    • Post the treaty, there were a series of attacks on Armenians by Turkish and Kurdish militias.
    • In 1908, the Young Turks wrested control from the Sultan and promised to restore imperial glory.
    • Under the Turks, the empire became more and “Turkik” and persecution against the ethnic minorities picked up.
    • In October 1914, Turkey joined the First World War on the side of Germany.
    • In the Caucasus, they fought the Russians, their primary geopolitical rival.
    • But the Ottomans suffered a catastrophic defeat in the Battle of Sarikamish by the Russians in January 1915.
    • The Turks blamed the defeat on Armenian “treachery”.

    How the killings took place

    • As the War was still waging, the Ottomans feared that Armenians in eastern Anatolia would join the Russians if they advanced into Ottoman territories.
    • First, Armenians in the Ottoman Army were executed.
    • On April 24, the Ottoman government arrested about 250 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders. Most of them were later executed.
    • The Ottoman government passed legislation to deport anyone who is a security risk.
    • Then they moved Armenians, including children, en masse to the Syrian Desert. That was a march of death.
    • Before the First World War broke out in 1914, there were 2 million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire.
    • According to a study by the University of Minnesota’s Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, in 1922, four years after the War, the Armenian population in the region was about 387,800.
    • This has led historians to believe that up to 1.5 million Armenians were killed during the course of the War.

    What is Turkey’s response

    • Turkey has acknowledged that atrocities were committed against Armenians, but denies it was a genocide which comes with legal implications.
    • Turkey also challenges the estimates that 1.5 million were killed.
    • The Turkish Foreign Ministry has issued a strong statement to Mr. Biden’s announcement saying it doesn’t not have “a scholarly and legal basis, nor is it supported by any evidence”.
    • Turkey has called on the U.S. President to correct the mistake of recognition as genocide.