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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: International Relations

  • Multilateralism post COVID-19

    What is the future of multilateralism? This is the question we have come across many times recently. Given the chaos that we are witnessing in the global order, multilateral seems to be headed for either collapse or capture by China. But, the author of this article suggests that it would be a mistake to consider the choice as binary. Between the collapse and the capture, there are many stakeholders working for its sustenance. So, multilateralism will endure.

    International institutions performing below par

    • The COVID-19 outbreak has placed all international institutions under a magnifying glass.
    • By any measure, most have performed below par.
    • Such is the caution espoused that multilateralism today seems to have reverted to its version 0.1.
    • The General Assembly now passes resolutions through no-objection procedure.
    • The Security Council has been found wanting in no small measure.
    • The 75th session’s ‘leaders week’ runs the risk of being reduced to a video playback session.

    Pursuit of change by threatening to leave

    • It is true that functioning of multilateral institutions requires reform.
    • They need to adapt to new realities.
    • However, the pursuit of change by threatening to leave multilateral institutions is a phenomenon we witnessed only during the period of the League of Nations.
    • One state followed another in bidding goodbye, until the League’s final demise.

    Why post Second World War institutions survived departures

    • The post Second World War multilateral institutions have survived such departures.
    • The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in Paris and the Human Rights Council in Geneva have survived the departure of the U.S.
    • The United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) in Vienna continues despite the withdrawal of the U.S. and many others.
    • The World Health Organization (WHO), notwithstanding its visible shortcomings, will survive U.S. threats.
    • The reasons are simple.
    • Multilateral organisations serve desperately felt global needs of the vast membership.
    • The pandemic has reinforced the desire for greater global cooperation amongst most states.

    So, will the current multi-lateral order survive China’s onslaught?

    •  It is true that Chinese nationals head four multilateral organisations.
    • It is also true that Chinese nationals have failed in campaigns to head UNESCO and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
    • Despite contributing nearly 10% of the UN’s budget, Chinese nationals are not exactly over-represented in terms of staff positions.
    • China has certainly risen up the multilateral pantheon and is able to better promote its interests.
    • It has warded off attacks against it in multilateral fora, at times with the aid of the heads of these organisations.
    • However, it is yet to display an ability to set the multilateral agenda and dominate the discourse on an array of issues, in the manner that the U.S. once indispensably did.
    • China’s flagship venture, the Belt and Road Initiative, remains only on the fringes of multilateral fora.
    • Neither in monetary terms nor in substantive inputs are there portents of a ‘Chinese takeover’.
    • Amidst this, multilateral bodies are populated by a plethora of small and middle states quietly working to restore equilibrium, when the balance tends to shift.
    • The capture of the existing multilateral order by a new hegemon is antithetical to the ethos of multilateralism.
    • Multilateralism thrives on the notion of the Lilliputians tying up Gulliver — old or new.

    Evolving multilateralism is not a choice between collapse and capture

    • Between collapse and capture, there are other pathways.
    • Multilateral architecture places a premium on structures over functions, processes over substance.
    • It slows down the change of any sort.
    • The same processes that have stalled change in the past will militate against a takeover in the future.
    • Does that mean that multilateralism will meander meaninglessly?
    • It will meander, but perhaps not meaninglessly.
    • The ‘pluri-laterals’ and the emerging ‘mini-laterals’ each have their place in terms of international agenda-setting, but global norm-setting requires inclusivity that they lack.

    Opportunity for India

    • Being able to shape the discourse at an incipient stage is a good perch to be on.
    • Issue-specific ‘coalitions of the willing’ are catalysts.
    • As a growing power, India needs to avail of such avenues.
    • However, by themselves, these will not do justice to the depth and variety of India’s interests and our stakes in global cooperation.
    • Also, they are not holistic solutions in ensuring global acceptance of norms.

    Understanding the essence of multilateralism

    • Responses of states during the COVID-19 crisis point to more emphasis on sovereign decision making than before.
    • The imprimatur for acting on behalf of the global community is not going to be available easily.
    • On myriad issues, from sustainable development to the environment, from climate change to pandemics and cyberspace to outer space, the demands for ‘nothing about us without us’ are likely to increase.
    • Since stakeholders perceive that their stakes have risen, they will call for enhanced engagement.
    • Convening such stakeholders in pursuit of global goals is the essence of multilateralism.

    Consider the question “In the world afflicted by Covid, multilateralism seems to be headed for collapse or capture by a hegemon. Critically examine.”

    Conclusion

    We need to patiently promote reforms while building partnerships to avail opportunities which may arise for more fundamental change. We need to bide our time without hiding our intent.

  • Why did North Korea blow up a joint liaison office with Seoul?

    North Korea blew up the joint liaison office with South Korea in Kaesong, an industrial township on its side of the border, becoming one of the most serious incidents to have occurred between the two countries, without them actually going to war.

    Must read:

    What is the Korean Armistice Agreement?

    Practice question for mains:

    Q. What is the Korean Armstice Agreement? Discuss the concept of the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ)?

    What is this liaison office?

    • In 2003, North Korea and South Korea jointly set up a liaison office at Kaesong in North Korea.
    • It was set up in 2018 to facilitate communication between North Korea and South Korea.
    • The Kaesong Industrial Complex is a joint industrial zone where factories are operated and run by both North Koreans and South Koreans.
    • At its height, approximately 120 factories were operating in this industrial zone with more than 50,000 North Korean employees and several hundred managers.

    Why did Pyongyang demolish it?

    • Since the past week, tensions between the two countries had increased after Pyongyang objected to activists and defectors in South Korea sending anti-North Korean propaganda leaflets, rice and Bibles using balloons.
    • Experts believe that these moves come after North Korea’s frustrations at South Korea’s inability to revive inter-Korean economic projects under pressure from the US, along with UN sanctions.

    What’s next?

    • The demolition occurred just days after North Korean leader Kim Jong Un’s sister Kim Yo Jong had threatened to destroy the liaison office.
    • Following the demolition, North Korean said that it would be deploying troops in demilitarized areas, including in the Kaesong industrial zone.

    Are they heading towards war?

    • Observers say that these actions by North Korea have been the most provocative in recent years.
    • Experts believe these provocations may have occurred because Pyongyang is hoping to pressure Seoul into giving it more concessions that would be economically beneficial for North Korea that has been hit hard by sanctions.
    • Experts believe these actions, however provocative, are not severe enough for Seoul to contemplate military aggression in retaliation.

  • India-China Border Dispute: A Conflict that has been in the making for years

    This article chronicles the border dispute between the two countries. It began in 1914 and ever after more than a hundred years it still continues. But the latest clash was the deadliest after 1967. Let’s go through past incidents over the border issue.

    1914: A border China never agreed to

    • The conflict stretches back to at least 1914.
    • In 2014 representatives from Britain, the Republic of China and Tibet gathered in Simla to negotiate a treaty that would determine the status of Tibet and effectively settle the borders between China and British India.
    • The Chinese, unhappy at proposed terms that would have allowed Tibet to be autonomous and remain under Chinese control, refused to sign the deal.
    • But Britain and Tibet signed a treaty establishing what would be called the McMahon Line, named after a British colonial official, Henry McMahon, who proposed the border.
    • India maintains that the McMahon Line, a 550-mile frontier that extends through the Himalayas, is the official legal border between China and India.
    • But China has never accepted it.

    1962: India-China War and origin of LAC

    •  Tensions rose throughout the 1950s.
    • The Chinese insisted that Tibet was never independent and could not have signed a treaty creating an international border.
    • There were several failed attempts at peaceful negotiation.
    • China sought to control critical roadways near its western frontier in Xinjiang.
    • India and its Western allies saw any attempts at Chinese incursion as part of a wider plot to export Maoist-style Communism across the region.
    • By 1962, war had broken out.
    • Chinese troops crossed the McMahon Line and took up positions deep in Indian territory, capturing mountain passes and towns.
    • By November China declared a cease-fire, unofficially redrawing the border near where Chinese troops had conquered territory.
    • It was the so-called Line of Actual Control.

    1967: In Sikkim, India pushes China back

    • Tensions came to a head again in 1967 along two mountain passes, Nathu La and Cho La, that connected Sikkim — then a kingdom and a protectorate of India — and China’s Tibet Autonomous Region.
    • A scuffle broke out when Indian troops began laying barbed wire along what they recognized as the border.
    • The scuffles soon escalated when a Chinese military unit began firing artillery shells at the Indians.
    • In the ensuing conflict, more than 150 Indians and 340 Chinese were killed.
    • The clashes in September and October 1967 in those passes would later be considered the second all-out war between China and India.
    • But India prevailed, destroying Chinese fortifications in Nathu La and pushing them farther back into their territory near Cho La.
    • The change in positions, however, meant that China and India each had different and conflicting ideas about the location of the Line of Actual Control.
    • The fighting was the last time that troops on either side would be killed. — until the skirmishes in the Galwan Valley on Tuesday.

    1987: A crisis averted

    • In 1987, the Indian military was conducting a training operation to see how fast it could move troops to the border.
    • The large number of troops and material arriving next to Chinese outposts surprised Chinese commanders — who responded by advancing toward what they considered the Line of Actual Control.
    • Realizing the potential to inadvertently start a war, both India and China de-escalated, and a crisis was averted.

    2013: Stand-off at Daulat Beg Oldi

    • After decades of patrolling the border, a Chinese platoon pitched a camp near Daulat Beg Oldi in April 2013.
    • The Indians soon followed, setting up their own base fewer than 1,000 feet away.
    • The camps were later fortified by troops and heavy equipment.
    • By May, the sides had agreed to dismantle both encampments, but disputes about the location of the Line of Actual Control persisted.

    2017: Doklam Stand-off

    • In June 2017, the Chinese set to work building a road in the Doklam Plateau, an area of the Himalayas controlled not by India, but by its ally Bhutan.
    • Indian troops carrying weapons and operating bulldozers confronted the Chinese with the intention of destroying the road.
    • A standoff ensued, soldiers threw rocks at each other, and troops from both sides suffered injuries.
    • In August, the countries agreed to withdraw from the area, and China stopped construction on the road.

    2020: Ladakh stand-off

    • In May, melees broke out several times.
    • In one clash at the glacial lake Pangong Tso, Indian troops were badly injured and had to be evacuated by helicopter.
    • China bolstered its forces with dump trucks, excavators, troop carriers, artillery and armored vehicles, Indian experts said.
    • What was clear was that it was the most serious series of clashes between the two sides since 2017 — and a harbinger of the deadly confrontation to come.

    Consider the question “Examine the elements that make the border dispute between India and China difficult to resolve.”

    Conclusion

    Border dispute in two giants could easily escalate into a full-blown war. India has to recalibrate the policy approach after the recent clash and take steps that would prepare it for such an eventuality.

  • Changing Nepal and changing ties with India

    Of late, India’s bilateral relations with Nepal has been going south. The latest trigger has been the changes made by Nepal in the map. This article explores the transformation of Nepal and its impact on India-Nepal relations. Despite the efforts by Nepal to explore the options beyond India, ties are still robust between the two countries and this is reflected in more than one ways.

    Let’s map the changes in  Nepal with one constant factor: nationalism

    1. Democracy

    • The obvious change in Nepal is that it is now a democratic republic after nearly 250 years of being a monarchy.
    • The Nepali Congress and Maoist leader, Prachanda, claim democracy (1990) and the abolition of monarchy (2008) as their legacies.

    2. Societal change due to exposure to globalisation

    • More pervasive is the societal change from Nepal’s exposure to globalisation.
    • Geography, too, stands to change, with the Chinese now having the potential to bore through the Himalayas and exhibiting their presence in Kathmandu in economics and politics.

    3. Nationalism

    • The constant in Nepal is nationalism which is really a mask for anti-India sentiment.
    • Politicians use it for personal gain, and it is deeply ingrained in the bureaucracy, academia and the media.
    • Today, Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli is cementing his legacy as a nationalist by extending Nepal’s map into Indian territory.
    • The cartographic aggression and the embedding of the new map in the country’s national emblem and Constitution are untenable and should have been avoided under all circumstances.
    • In 2015, the Nepali Congress government adopted the new Constitution, ignoring India’s concerns.

    4. Identity politics

    • Identity politics with India is also visible within the country.
    • Nepali citizens from the Terai (Madhesis) feel discriminated as being “Indian”.

    To Nepal, their attitudes reflect the angst of a small state. To India, Nepal appears incorrigible.

    Let’s understand how globalisation changed Nepal

    • After democracy was restored in 1990, passports were more liberally issued, and Nepalis began looking for work opportunities globally, beyond just India.
    • West Asia and South-East Asia specifically became major destinations for labour migration.
    • Security uncertainties with the Maoist insurgency at home also propelled the trend of migration.
    • Students and skilled personnel began moving to Europe, the United States, Australia, Thailand and even to Japan and South Korea.
    • As of 2019, nearly a fifth of Nepal’s population, from all parts of the country, were reportedly overseas.
    • At an estimated $8 billion, global remittances account for nearly 30% of Nepal’s nominal GDP.
    • This makes Nepal one of the most remittance-dependent countries in the world.
    • Leftist ideology and the prominent presence of international non-governmental organisations — ostensibly there to resolve conflict and alleviate poverty — have added to Nepal’s exposure to the world.
    • Nepal’s 2011 Census shows that over 80% of its 28 million-strong population were Hindus, and since 1962, it had formally been a Hindu kingdom.
    • The new Constitution in 2015 makes Nepal a secular country.
    • The proliferation of communication technology has also spread a certain cosmopolitanism but without the accompanying metropolitanism.

    Nepal exploring options beyond India

    • Kathmandu has continued its long-standing efforts to spread Nepal’s options beyond India.
    • Multilateral development banks are by far the biggest lenders and players in the country’s development efforts.
    • And in fact, one of Nepal’s largest aid donors is the European Union.
    • India and China are not the only players for big projects either.
    • A long-delayed project to pipe water into Kathmandu was with an Italian company.
    • Major investments in the telecom sector are coming from Malaysia, and the largest international carrier in Nepal is Qatar Airways.

    Weakening of natural bond and responsible factors

    • The outward movement of students, along with with the growth of institutions of higher learning at home, has meant that most young people in Nepal, including emerging contemporary leaders in politics, business or academics, have not studied in India.
    • This lack of common collegiate roots removes a natural bond of previous generations that had provided for better understanding and even empathy.
    • While most Nepalis understand Hindi, because of the popularity of Bollywood, articulation is quite another matter.

    Robust ties with India, despite diversification

    • Despite Nepal’s efforts to diversify its options globally, its linkages with India remain robust.
    • Nepal’s trade with India has grown in absolute terms and continues to account for more than two-thirds of Nepal’s external trade of around $12 billion annually.
    • This clearly reflects the advantages of geography, both physical and societal.
    • India continues to be the largest aggregate investor in Nepal.
    • The massive under-construction Arun-III 900 MW hydro-electric project is slated to singly produce as much power, when completed in five years, as Nepal produces today.
    • Moreover, the peg with the Indian Rupee provides unique stability to the Nepali Rupee.

    Unique advantage to Nepal

    • Nepal’s per-capita income is just above $1,000.
    • While the huge remittance economy has brought a semblance of well-being, the country has a long way to go in reaching prosperity.
    • The relationship with India, with open borders and Nepalis being allowed to live and work freely, provides Nepal a unique advantage and an economic cushion.
    • The latter is particularly important today with COVID-19-caused global contraction positioned to pop the remittance bubble.
    • Neither the Chinese nor any others are likely to write blank cheques.
    • India for its part should also focus on developing its border areas with Nepal, with better roads and amenities of interest (such as shopping malls) to the burgeoning Nepali middle class.
    • This would have economic plusses for both sides and keep ties strong at the people’s level. It would also be an image makeover.

    Consider the question “Despite intermittent disagreements over certain issues, India-Nepal ties remain robust. In light of this, elaborate on the ties between the two countries and suggest ways to find the solution to the latest border dispute between the two countries.”

    Conclusion

    It is important that we update the prism through which we view our relationship with our Himalayan neighbour. We must not forget the past nor turn away from it but, instead, must be mindful of the realities of a changing India and a changing Nepal.

  • What lies behind China’s assertion in Ladakh

    The latest stand-off in Ladakh triggered a debate over the reasons for Chinese actions. While many attribute it to India’s decision to change the constitutional status of J&K, the author of this article points to the widening power differential. So, what are the implications of it? Read the article to know…

    What is argument from China’s side over growing Chinese assertiveness

    •  India’s decision to change the constitutional status of J&K is cited as the reason for Chinesé growing assertiveness in the Ladakh.
    • The Chinese arguments proffered on various occasions since last August have been summarised by Wang Shida, a Chinese scholar in Beijing.
    • Wang argues that India’s move last August has forced China into the Kashmir dispute.
    • The move stimulated China and Pakistan to take counter-actions on the Kashmir issue, and dramatically increased the difficulty in resolving the border issue between China and India.

    And what is India’s stand over this explanation

    • Official Delhi rejects the argument that India’s action has “posed a challenge to the sovereignty of China and Pakistan”.
    • It points out that the constitutional changes altered the nature of the relationship between Delhi and Kashmir within the Indian Union, and that it has no impact on the current territorial disposition with China and Pakistan.
    • The government’s renewed claim over Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir and China-occupied Aksai Chin is simply a restatement of long-standing Indian positions.

    China: Part of Kashmir dispute or not?

    • It might be baffling to hear the argument that Delhi has “forced” Beijing into the Kashmir dispute with Pakistan.
    • China is very much part of the Kashmir dispute.
    • After all, China occupies large parts of Kashmir, including Aksai Chin and parts of Ladakh and sits on the Shaksgam valley ceded to Beijing by Pakistan in 1963.
    • It is important to note a nuance in China’s articulation.
    • The competing claims of Delhi and Islamabad over Kashmir are rooted in their shared understanding that there was a princely state of Jammu and Kashmir in undivided India.
    • For Beijing, the territories it claims have never been part of J&K but belonged to Tibet and Xinjiang.

    Pakistan agreeing to China’s claim

    • That Pakistan has largely swallowed the Chinese argument is reflected in the 1963 agreement on the boundary between “China’s Sinkiang and the contiguous areas the defence of which is under the actual control of Pakistan”.
    • Not entirely surprising, since Pakistan’s primary focus is on getting the Indian-controlled areas of Kashmir rather than claim all the original lands of J&K.

    China’s changing approach to the Kashmir question

    • While its claim to be outside the dispute has been consistent, China’s approach to the Kashmir question has seen considerable variation over the last seven decades and more.
    • Some recent research has delved into Nationalist China’s active efforts to draw the Hunza region of the Gilgit district into a union with China during 1947-48.
    • The Mir of Hunza, Jamal Khan, opened negotiations with officials of Xinjiang, but in the end, opted to accede to Pakistan.
    • Communist China did not abandon the efforts of the Nationalist government and continued to show Hunza as part of its territory until the early 1960s.
    • In the 1950s, at the height of the “Bhai-Bhai” phase, China avoided taking a position on the Kashmir question.
    • After the 1962 war, China’s position aligned with Pakistan’s as Beijing called for “self-determination” in Kashmir.
    • After the Maoist era came to a close and Deng Xiaoping took charge in the late 1980s, China began to moderate its Kashmir position and find a better balance in its bilateral relations with India and Pakistan.
    • In the mid-1990s, in a significant setback to Islamabad, Beijing urged both India and Pakistan to put aside the Kashmir issue and focus on developmental cooperation.
    • But China’s position on the boundary dispute in general and the Kashmir question in particular tended to harden against India since the late 2000s.
    • That’s when Beijing became more conscious of the widening power differential with all its neighbours, including India.

    So, what explains China’s latest move?

    •  The ground reality has not been altered by India’s constitutional changes.
    • It is being changed by the PLA’s growing military capabilities and the political will to use them.
    • India’s constitutional changes might, in the end, look like a minor defensive move amid China’s continuing gains in Kashmir across the India-Pakistan divide.
    • Although Beijing has let Pakistan keep Hunza for now, it has not really given up its claims on the region under the 1963 agreement.
    • The CPEC, which enters Pakistan through Hunza, has laid the foundation for ever-larger Chinese economic influence in Gilgit-Baltistan.

    What is the implication of this in the future?

    • China’s ability to nibble away at the LAC in Ladakh will only grow as the military balance continues to shift in the PLA’s favour.
    • While India’s significant current military deployment to counter Chinese mobilisation may yet help persuade Beijing to step back, there is no escaping the longer-term trend.
    • If Delhi can’t redress the growing military imbalance and as Islamabad becomes even more dependent on Beijing, China will loom larger than ever on the entire Kashmir region.
    • That is the real message from the new Chinese affirmation that it is now part of the Kashmir question.

    Consider the question “Rather than Indian’s action in its internal matters, it’s China’s widening power differential with India that explains the Chinese assertive actions on the disputed border locations. Comment.

    Conclusion

    In raking up the issue at the UNSC, raising economic presence in the Northern Areas and probing India’s military and political vulnerabilities, China is highlighting its new salience for Kashmir. This is part of China’s growing geopolitical impact all across the Great Himalayas. And India must prepare itself to face this changing reality.

  • Why South China Sea matters to India

    What happens in the South China Sea has bearing on India. So far, the U.S. played a major role in the prosperity and security of the Indo-Pacific, but after the Covid, it may be forced to reconsider its stand over the region. So, what is at stake for India? And what are the options available with ASEAN countries and Indian in such a situation? Read to know…

    Dilemma the Indo-Pacific countries faces

    •  As the two most consequential powers of the world, the United States and China which are engaged in a fundamental transformation of their relationship rest of the countries in the region face a dilemma.
    • Almost nobody any longer thinks that China will conform to the US worldview, or that China’s rise from hereon will be unchallenged.
    • The Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s essay in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs cogently spells out this dilemma.

    How the U.S. contributed to the region’s prosperity

    • The Indo-Pacific has prospered under American hegemony for the previous 40 years not just because of their huge investments.
    • U.S. invested $328.8 billion in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) alone and a further $107 billion in China.
    • However, it’s not the investment but also because of the security blanket that it provides.
    • China might have replaced the US as the primary engine of growth in the last decade, but it has come with a cost — the assertion of Chinese power.
    • The benign American military presence has afforded countries the opportunity to pursue economic prosperity without substantial increases in their own defence expenditures or having to look over their shoulders.
    • No group of nations has benefitted more from the presence of the US than the ASEAN.

    How Chinese military posture is different from the U.S.

    • Chinese military postures, on the other hand, give cause for concern ever since they unilaterally put forward the Nine-Dash Line in 2009 to declare the South China Sea as territorial waters.
    • Their territorial claim itself is tenuous, neither treaty-based nor legally sound.
    • They act in ways that are neither benign nor helpful for long-term peace and stability.
    • In the first half of 2020 alone, Chinese naval or militia forces have rammed a Vietnamese fishing boat, “buzzed” a Philippines naval vessel and harassed a Malaysian oil drilling operation, all within their respective EEZs.
    • Since 2015, they have built a runway and underground storage facilities on the Subi Reef and Thitu Island as well as radar sites and missile shelters on Fiery Cross Reef and Mischief Reef.
    • They conducted ballistic missile tests in the South China Sea in June 2019 and continue to enhance naval patrols to enforce area denial for others.

    Fundamental choices the region faces

    • Going forward, the US and China face fundamental choices.
    • But then, so do the rest of us living in the Indo-Pacific.
    • America’s role in the preservation of the region’s peace and security should not be taken for granted.
    • As COVID imposes crushing costs on all economies, the US may also be weighing its options.
    • Finding justification for Chinese actions in the South China Sea, even as countries in the region help themselves to Chinese economic opportunities while sheltering under the US security blanket, is also fraught with risk.
    • Accommodation may have worked thus far but regional prosperity has come at a mounting cost in geo-strategic terms.
    • The South China Sea is effectively militarised. In the post-COVID age, enjoying the best of both worlds may no longer be an option.

    But, ASEAN won’t change the course suddenly

    • Nobody should expect that ASEAN will suddenly reverse course when faced with possibly heightened Sino-US competition.
    • China is a major power that will continue to receive the respect of ASEAN and, for that matter, many others in the Indo-Pacific, especially in a post-COVID world where they are struggling to revive their economies.
    • ASEAN overtook the European Union to become China’s largest trading partner in the first quarter of 2020, and China is the third-largest investor ($150 billion) in ASEAN.
    • The South East Asians are skilled at finding the wiggle room to accommodate competing hegemons while advancing their interests.
    • This does not, however, mean that they are not concerned over Chinese behaviour in the South China Sea.
    • They need others to help them in managing the situation.

    Validation of the US military presence and collective efforts of stakeholders

    • A robust US military presence is one guarantee.
    • A stronger validation by the littoral states of the South China Sea helps the US Administration in justifying their presence to the American tax-payer.
    • Others who have stakes in the region also need to collectively encourage an increasingly powerful China to pursue strategic interests in a legitimate way, and on the basis of respect for international law, in the South China Sea.
    • The real choice is not between China and America — it is between keeping the global commons open for all or surrendering the right to choose one’s partners for the foreseeable future.

    What is at stake for India?

    • How the South China Sea situation plays out will be critical for our security and well-being.
    • India must consider the following factors while calibrating its approach.
    • 1) The South China Sea is not China’s sea but a global common.
    • 2) It has been an important sea-lane of communication since the very beginning, and passage has been unimpeded over the centuries.
    • 3) Indians have sailed these waters for well over 1,500 years — there is ample historical and archaeological proof of a continuous Indian trading presence from Kedah in Malaysia to Quanzhou in China.
    • 4) Nearly $200 billion of our trade passes through the South China Sea and thousands of our citizens study, work and invest in ASEAN, China, Japan and the Republic of Korea.
    • 5)  We have stakes in the peace and security of this region in common with others who reside there, and freedom of navigation, as well as other normal activities with friendly countries, are essential for our economic well-being. In short, the South China Sea is our business.
    • We have historical rights established by practice and tradition to traverse the South China Sea without impediment.
    • We have mutually contributed to each other’s prosperity for two thousand years.
    • We continue to do so.
    • The proposition that nations that have plied these waters in the centuries past for trade and other peaceful purposes are somehow outsiders who should not be permitted to engage in legitimate activity in the South China Sea, or have a voice without China’s say, should be firmly resisted.

    India needs to be responsive to ASEAN

    • India needs to be responsive to ASEAN’s expectations.
    • While strategic partnerships and high-level engagements are important, ASEAN expects longer-lasting buy-ins by India in their future.
    • They have taken the initiative time and again to involve India in Indo-Pacific affairs.
    • It is not as if our current level of trade or investment with ASEAN makes a compelling argument for them to automatically involve us.
    • They have deliberately taken a longer-term view.
    • A restructuring of global trade is unlikely to happen any time soon in the post-COVID context.
    • Regional arrangements will become even more important for our economic recovery and rejuvenation.
    • If we intend to heed the clarion call of “Think Global Act Local”, India has to be part of the global supply chains in the world’s leading growth region for the next half-century.
    • It is worth paying heed to the words from Singapore’s prime minister, who writes that something significant is lost in an RCEP without India.
    • And urges us to recognise that the value of such agreements goes beyond the economic gains they generate.
    • Singapore is playing the long game. Are we willing to do so, even if it imposes some costs in the short-term?

    Consider the question “The South China Sea has been witnessing growing militarisation day by day. And how the South China Sea situation plays out will be critical for our security and well-being. In light of this, examine the basis on which India should contest China’s unilateral claims in the area and scope of engagement with the ASEAN countries in this regard.”

    Conclusion

    Indian is a stakeholder in the South China Sea. What happens there have implications for us. In such a scenario, India must form a partnership with other players in the region and should attempt to make China follow international laws and global order.

  • SIPRI Report on Nuclear Stockpiles

    All nations that have nuclear weapons continue to modernize their nuclear arsenals, while India and China increased their nuclear warheads in the last one year, according to a latest report by Swedish think tank Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

    About SIPRI

    • Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) is an international institute based in Sweden, dedicated to research into conflict, armaments, arms control and disarmament.
    • Established in 1966, the Stockholm based SIPRI provides data, analysis and recommendations, based on open sources, to policymakers, researchers, media and the interested public.

    Practice question for Mains:

    Q.“Nuclear disarmament of the world seems a distant dream”. Comment.

    Nuclear arsenals are on rise in ‘thy neighbourhood’

    • China is in the middle of a significant modernization of its nuclear arsenal.
    • It is developing a so-called nuclear triad for the first time, made up of new land and sea-based missiles and nuclear-capable aircraft.
    • China’s nuclear arsenal had gone up from 290 warheads in 2019 to 320 in 2020, while India’s went up from 130-140 in 2019 to 150 in 2020.
    • Pakistan’s arsenal was estimated to be between 150-160 in 2019 and has reached 160 in 2020.
    • Both China and Pakistan continue to have larger nuclear arsenals than India.

    A general decline across the globe

    • Together with the nine nuclear-armed states — the U.S., Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea — possessed an estimated 13,400 nuclear weapons at the start of 2020.
    • This marked a decrease from an estimated 13,865 nuclear weapons at the beginning of 2019.
    • The decrease in the overall numbers was largely due to the dismantlement of old nuclear weapons by Russia and the U.S., which together possess over 90% of the global nuclear weapons.

    Major issue in reporting: Low levels of disclosure

    • The availability of reliable information on the status of the nuclear arsenals and capabilities of the nuclear-armed states varied considerably, the report noted.
    • The U.S. had disclosed important information about its stockpile and nuclear capabilities, but in 2019, the administration ended the practice of publicly disclosing the size of its stockpile.
    • The governments of India and Pakistan make statements about some of their missile tests but provide little information about the status or size of their arsenals, the report said.

    New START seems to ‘STOP’ very soon

    • The U.S. and Russia have reduced their nuclear arsenals under the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) but it will lapse in February 2021 unless both parties agree to prolong it.
    • However, discussions to extend the New START or negotiate a new treaty made no progress with the U.S.’s insistence that China must join any future nuclear arms reduction talks, which China has categorically ruled out.
    • The deadlock over the New START and the collapse of the 1987 Soviet–U.S. Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (INF Treaty) in 2019 suggest that the era of bilateral nuclear arms control agreements between Russia and the U.S. might be coming to an end.
    • Russia and the U.S. have already announced extensive plans to replace and modernize their nuclear warheads and delivery systems.
    • Both countries have also given new or expanded roles to nuclear weapons in their military plans and doctrines, which marks a significant reversal of the post-Cold War trend towards the gradual marginalisation of nuclear weapons.

    Back2Basics: INF Treaty

    • Under the INF treaty, the US and Soviet Union agreed not to develop, produce, possess or deploy any ground-based ballistic and cruise missiles that have a range between 500 and 5,500 km.
    • It exempted the air-launched and sea-based missile systems in the same range.
    • The INF treaty helped address the fears of an imminent nuclear war in Europe.
    • It also built some trust between Washington and Moscow and contributed to the end of the Cold War.

    New START Policy

    • The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) pact limits the number of deployed nuclear warheads, missiles and bombers and is due to expire in 2021 unless renewed.
    • The treaty limits the US and Russia to a maximum of 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads and 700 deployed missiles and bombers, well below Cold War caps.
    • It was signed in 2010 by former US President Barack Obama and then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.
    • It is one of the key controls on superpower deployment of nuclear weapons.
    • If it falls, it will be the second nuclear weapons treaty to collapse under the leadership of US President Donald Trump.

  • International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

    The UN nuclear watchdog IAEA’s governing body began meeting as a row brews over Iran’s refusal to allow access to two sites where nuclear activity may have occurred in the past.

    Practice question for mains:

    Q. Discuss the role of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in enhancing nuclear accountability of the world.

    Concerns over Iran

    • The latest row over access comes as a landmark deal between Iran and world powers in 2015 continues to unravel.
    • If IAEA passes a resolution critical of Iran, it would be the first of its kind since 2012.
    • Even though the two sites are not thought to be key to Iran’s current activities, the agency says it needs to know if past activities going back almost two decades have been properly declared and all materials accounted for.

    About IAEA

    • The IAEA is an international organization that seeks to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy and to inhibit its use for any military purpose, including nuclear weapons.
    • The IAEA has its headquarters in Vienna, Austria. It was established as an autonomous organisation on 29 July 1957.
    • Though established independently of the UN through its own international treaty, the IAEA reports to both the UN General Assembly and UN Security Council.

    Functions of IAEA

    • The IAEA serves as an intergovernmental forum for scientific and technical co-operation in the peaceful use of nuclear technology and nuclear power worldwide.
    • The programs of the IAEA encourage the development of the peaceful applications of nuclear energy, science and technology, provide international safeguards against misuse of nuclear technology and nuclear materials, and promote nuclear safety (including radiation protection) and nuclear security standards and their implementation.

  • Indian Ocean Commission (IOC)

    India is looking to post Navy Liaison Officers at the Regional Maritime Information Fusion Centre (RMIFC) of IOC in Madagascar and also at the European maritime surveillance initiative in the Strait of Hormuz.

    Note the members of the IOC form map. One may get confused considering India as a permanent member.

    About Indian Ocean Commission (IOC)

    • The IOC is an intergovernmental organization that was created in 1982 at Port Louis, Mauritius and institutionalized in 1984 by the Victoria Agreement in Seychelles.
    • The IOC 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

    • IOC’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.
    • IOC’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 IOC has usually championed the cause of small island states in regional and international fora.

    India and IOC

    • India was accepted as an observer getting a seat at the table of the organization that handles maritime governance in the western Indian Ocean.
    • India’s entry is a consequence of its deepening strategic partnership with France as well as its expanding ties with the Vanilla Islands.
    • The IOC has four observers — China, EU, Malta and International Organisation of La Francophonie (OIF).

    Significance of IOC

    • 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.

  • A case for quiet diplomacy to resolve standoff

    Apart from the recent one, there had been several stand-offs between India and China over the border issue. The use of quiet diplomacy to diffuse the situation underlies all these stand-offs. However, politicisation of stand-off could make the situation difficult to resolve. This article explains the use of quiet diplomacy and problems posed by the politicisation of the stand-offs.

    Process to diffuse tension began but not at all points

    •  Both sides have agreed on a broad plan to defuse four of the five points of discord.
    • The situation at the fifth, Pangong Lake remains uncertain as also in Galwan valley and north Sikkim.
    • At Pangong Tso, the Chinese have entrenched their positions with tents and remain on India’s side of the LAC.
    • There is a major point of difference which will not be easy to resolve.

    Let’s look into the strategy used by India in the past to resolve stand-offs

    • The pattern of resolution of past stand-offs underlines the key role played by quiet diplomacy in unlocking complicated stand-off situations.
    • Both the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) and National Democratic Alliance (NDA) governments have followed an approach that has coupled quiet diplomacy with a strong military posture, while at the same time allowing the adversary a way out.
    • This has been the broad strategy in dealing with challenges from China across the LAC.
    • And this strategy has generally worked.

    Let’s look into three specific incidents

    1) 2013-Depsang plains

    • In 2013, when Chinese troops pitched tents on India’s side of the LAC on the Depsang plains, similar to Pangong Tso.
    • The UPA government was under fire, both for being weak on China and for its reticence.
    • While the government was being publicly attacked for doing nothing, it had privately conveyed to China that if the stand-off didn’t end, an upcoming visit by Premier Li Keqiang would be off.
    • If that demand had been made public at the time, China would have only dug in its heels, even if the government may have won the headlines of the day.

    2) Chumar stand-off

    • The government adopted a similar strategy during the 2014 stand-off at Chumar, which coincided with President Xi Jinping’s visit to India.
    • Mr. Xi’s visit went ahead, while India quietly but forcefully stopped the Chinese road-building and deployed 2,500 soldiers, outnumbering the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).
    • The PLA withdrew.
    • Both sides disengaged and followed a moratorium into patrolling into contested areas, which was observed for many months thereafter.

    Ultimately, in both cases, the objective was achieved. China, faced with firm resistance, was prevented from changing the status quo.

    3) Doklam stand-off in 2017

    • In 2017, the government came under particularly intense fire because it stayed studiously silent through a 72-day stand-off at Doklam.
    • Indian troops crossed over into Bhutan to stop a Chinese road construction on territory India sees as Bhutanese but China claims.
    • By extending the road, India argued, China was unilaterally altering the India-Bhutan-China trijunction.
    • Beijing demanded an unconditional withdrawal.
    • When both finally disengaged, neither divulged the terms.
    • It would later emerge that the deal struck involved India withdrawing first.
    • China then stopped construction, and the status quo at the face-off site was restored.

    Stand-off politics in the country

    • Politics over border stand-offs is not new.
    •  The Opposition and the media are certainly right to hold the government to account.
    • Indeed, neither the Opposition nor the media would be doing its job if they weren’t.
    • The tensions on the LAC are neither the first nor likely to be the last.
    • With every incident, they are, however, getting increasingly politicised in an environment where there is a 24/7 demand on social media for information — and unprecedented capacity for disinformation.
    • Rather than wish away this reality — and adopt a stand that it is above questioning — the government needs to come to terms with it. 

    Dealing with the politicisation of stand-offs

    •  First, it needs to keep the Opposition informed, which it is clear it hasn’t.
    • Second, it needs to proactively engage with the media, even if that may be through low-key engagement as was the case on June 9, that does not escalate into a public war of words.
    • At the same time, expectations of having a public debate about the intricacies of every border stand-off — or for the Prime Minister to weigh in even while negotiations are ongoing — need to be tempered.
    • This will only risk inflaming tensions, and reduce the wiggle room for both sides to find an off-ramp.
    • The broader objective shouldn’t get lost in political debates.
    • That objective is to ensure India’s security interests remain protected — and that the status quo on India’s borders isn’t changed by force.

    Consider the question “Border issue between India and China has several times resulted in the stand-off between the two countries but the use of quiet diplomacy helped defuse the tension. But the politicisation of such issue could complicate the situation in the future. Comment.

    Conclusion

    • Past incidents have shown that quiet diplomacy, coupled with strong military resolve that deters any Chinese misadventures, has been more effective than public sabre-rattling, even if we may be inhabiting a media environment that misconstrues loudness as strength, and silence as weakness.