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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: International Relations

  • What is the Korean Armistice Agreement?

    A United Nations investigation into a recent exchange of gunfire between North Korea and South Korea inside the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) has determined that both countries violated the armistice that ended the 1950-53 Korean War.

    Practice question for mains:

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

    The Korean Armstice Agreement

    • The Korean Armstice Agreement signed on 27 July 1953 is the armistice that brought about a complete cessation of hostilities of the Korean War.
    • It was not the end of a war, but only a cessation of hostilities in an attempt to negotiate a lasting peace.
    • Military commanders from China and North Korea signed the agreement on one side, with the US-led United Nations Command signing on behalf of the international community.

    What is the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ)?

    • The DMZ marks where the 1950-53 Korean War — when China and North Korea battled UN forces led by the United States — ended with an armistice, not a treaty.
    • It is a 2 km-wide buffer, stretching coast to coast across the peninsula, lined by both sides with razor wire, heavy armaments and tank traps.
    • It is 60 km from Seoul and 210 km from the North Korean capital of Pyongyang. Inside the DMZ is a Joint Security Area (JSA).
    • The so-called ‘peace village’ of Panmunjom, where the armistice that halted the Korean War was signed in 1953, is located in the 800-metre-wide and 400-metre-long JSA zone.
    • A Military Demarcation Line (MDL) marks the boundary between the two Koreas.

    Why it is significant?

    • Vast stretches of the DMZ have been no man’s land for more than 60 years, where wildlife has flourished undisturbed.
    • Last year, US President Donald Trump met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un at the demilitarized zone separating the two Koreas, in Panmunjom.

  • Analysing three-pronged strategy of China in Ladakh

    The article gives an in-depth analysis of the current border dispute between India and China in Ladakh. But the present dispute follows the pattern. China has been encroaching and gaining control over the disputed territory since the 1980s. And this dispute also fits into that pattern.

    China acting strategically in Ladakh

    • While India has pursued its core national interests in J&K, China’s response was strategic — a shift that may have a lasting imprint on geopolitics.
    • We have been harping on the “differing perception” theory of the LAC for decades.
    • But in reality China has been gaining control over a massive “disputed territory” in Eastern Ladakh since the 1980s.

    Major Chinese encroachment events

    • The Chinese first made encroachments into the 45-km long Skakjung pastureland in Demchok-Kuyul sector.
    • This resulted in local Changpas of Chushul, Tsaga, Nidar, Nyoma, Mud, Dungti, Kuyul, Loma villages gradually losing their winter grazing.
    • Ladakh’s earlier border lay at Kegu Naro — a day-long march from Dumchele.
    • Starting from the loss of Nagtsang in 1984, followed by Nakung (1991) and Lungma-Serding (1992), the last bit of Skakjung was lost in 2008.
    • The PLA followed the nomadic Rebo routes for patrolling in contrast to Indian authorities restricting Rebo movements that led to the massive shrinking of pastureland and border defence.
    • By the 2000s, the PLA’s focus shifted to desolate, inhospitable Chip Chap which remains inaccessible until end-March.
    • After mid-May, water streams impede vehicles moving across Shyok, Galwan, and Chang-Chenmo rivers leaving only a month and a half for effective patrolling by the Indian side.
    • No human beings inhabit here, a 1962 war site, an entry point into Ladakh for the Uyghurs and Tibetans.
    • Local Ladakhi personnel manned the posts here, but patrolling in the 972 sq km Trig Height area has been lax.
    • Easier accessibility allowed the PLA to intrude into Chip Chap with impunity during July-August — its regulars usually spent a few hours before crossing back.
    • But, during the 21-day Depsang stand-off in 2013, when Burtse became a flashpoint, the PLA set up remote camps 18-19 km inside Indian territory.
    • Chinese soldiers virtually prevented Indian troops from getting access to Rakinala near Daulat Beg-Olde (DBO) where the IAF reactivated the world’s highest landing strips in 2008.
    2008 Daulat Beg Oldi Stand-off
    • This plus the reopening of Fukche and Nyoma airbases perhaps provoked the PLA’s intrusion in Depsang.

    So, what is the current stand-off about?

    • Despite topographical challenges, the BRO has lately fast-tracked the 260 km long Shayok-DBO road construction.
    • That road construction probably triggered the PLA intrusion in early May sparking the current Galwan stand-off.
    • Towards the south at Pangong Tso, forces had physical scuffles over area-denial for patrolling at Sirijap on May 5-6 and on May 11.
    • The situation remains tense at Sirijap’s cliff spurs and also at the Tso, where troops are chasing each other in high-speed patrol boats.
    • Clearly, intrusions are part of China’s never-ending effort to push Indian troops westward of the Indus and Shyok rivers and reach the 1960 claimed line.

    Details of the disputed border in Ladakh

    • Out of the 857 sq km long border in Ladakh only 368 sq km is the International Border, and the rest of the 489 sq km is the LAC.
    • The two traditional disputed points included Trig Heights and Demchok.
    • At eight points, the two sides have differing perceptions.
    • But lately, China has raised two fresh dispute points at Pangong Tso 83 sq km and at Chumur where it claims 80 sq km.
    • The old dispute sites were at the end point of Pangong Tso and at Chushul — the 1962 battle-site.

    Three-pronged strategy

    • 1) The Sirijap range on the northern bank of the lake remains most contested, from which several cliff spurs jut out — the “finger series” 1 to 8.
    • India’s LAC claim line is at Finger-8, but the actual position is only up to Finger-4.
    • The Chinese are asserting further west to claim 83 sq km here.
    • The PLA has built a 4.5 km long road to prevent patrolling by Indian troops.
    • The PLA’s road network from here extends to Huangyangtan base located near National Highway G219.
    • 2) Further south in Demchok, China claims some 150 sq km.
    • The PLA has built massive infrastructure on its side, moved armoured troops into Charding Nalla since 2009.
    • Tibetan nomads pitch tents on Hemis Monastery’s land throughout 2018-2019.
    • 3)In Chumur, China claims 80 sq km and probably wants a straight border from PT-4925 to PT-5318 to bring Tible Mane (stupa) area under its control.
    • For India, holding of Chumur is critical for the safety of the Manali-Leh route.
    • PLA demanded removal of India’s fortified positions in Burtse (2013) and Demchok and Chumur (2014) for its retreat.

    What could be the implications for India?

    • Overall, the pattern shows the PLA’s desperate design to snatch the lake at Lukung through a three-pronged strategy of attacking from Sirijap in the north, Chuchul in the south and through the lake water from middle.
    • This is the key chokepoint from where the Chinese can cut off Indian access to the entire flank of Chip Chap plains, Aksai Chin in the east and Shayok Valley to the north.
    •  Which means that Indian control is pushed to the west of the Shyok river and south of the Indus river, forcing India to accept both rivers as natural boundaries.
    • And once China gets control of the southern side of the Karakoram it can easily approach Siachen Glacier from the Depsang corridor.
    • And meet at Tashkurgan junction from where the CPEC crosses into Gilgit-Baltistan.
    • That would be disastrous for Indian defence, leaving the strategic Nubra vulnerable, possibly impacting even India’s hold over Siachen.
    • China’s access to Changla-pass through Lukung and Tangtse would threaten the entire Indus Valley.
    • It is quite possible that China is eyeing the waters of the Shyok, Galwan and Chang-Chenmo rivers, to divert them to the arid Aksai Chin and its Ali region.

    Consider the question “What could be the strategic and security implications of China’s claim in Pangong Tso region for India?”

    Conclusion

    India should resist the Chinese design which could have disastrous consequences for India’s defence and strategic interests. This should involve diplomatic channels rather than skirmishes on the borders.

  • Looking beyond Taliban: Focus on the Pashtun Question

    The US-Taliban peace deal signals growing heft of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Pashtuns constitute nearly 42 per cent population of Afghanistan and the Taliban is essentially a Pashtun formation. Also,  remember Pakistan: just like the kid who is always up to something. The ethnic fragmentation and Pakistan’s meddling is a recipe for perpetual conflict zone in the region.

    The question of India’s engagement with Taliban

    • Taliban’s effective control of territory in Afghanistan expanded in recent years.
    • This led to the question of India’s direct dialogue with the Taliban gain some relevance.
    • It has acquired some immediacy after the US announced plans for a significant draw down of its forces from Afghanistan and signed a peace deal with the Taliban earlier this year.
    • Also, recently the US Special Envoy for Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, called on India to open a political conversation with the Taliban.
    • The interest was further amplified by a signal from the Taliban that it is eager for a productive relationship with India.

    So, what should India do?

    • Those calling for direct engagement with the Taliban say that Delhi can’t ignore such an important force in Afghan politics.
    • Opponents say there is no reason for Delhi to join the international stampede to embrace the Taliban.
    • If and when the Taliban becomes a peaceful entity and joins the quest for a political settlement with Kabul, they argue, Delhi should have no objection to direct talks.
    • So, opening a dialogue with the Taliban is a tactical issue focused on when, how and on what terms.

    Pashtun question and India’s enduring interest in Afghanistan

    • The Taliban remains an important sub-set of the larger and more strategic Pashtun question.
    • The Pashtun question holds the key to India’s enduring interest in Afghanistan: Promoting a peaceful, independent and a sovereign Afghanistan that is not a subaltern to the Pakistan army.

    2 Basic issues that will define the Pashtun question

    1. Forming unity among multiple ethnic groups

    • First is the problem of reconciling the interests of multiple ethnic groups in Afghanistan.
    • The Pashtuns constitute nearly 42 per cent of the population.
    • The sizeable Afghan minorities include 27 per cent Tajiks, 9 per cent each of Hazaras and Uzbeks.
    • Irrespective of the nature of the regimes in Kabul over the last four decades— constructing a stable internal balance has been hard.
    • That problem will acquire a new intensity as the Taliban stakes claim for a dominant role in Kabul.

    But has the Taliban learnt to live in peace with the minorities?

    • The Taliban, an essentially Pashtun formation, had brutally crushed the minorities during its brief rule in the late 1990s.
    • There are some indications that the Taliban is now reaching out to the minorities but it is some distance away from winning their trust.

    2. Pakistan’s meddling in Afghanistan

    • The problem of constructing internal balance in Afghanistan has been complicated by Pakistan’s meddling.
    • Pakistan would like to have the kind of hegemony that the British Raj exercised over Afghanistan.
    • Neither can Pakistan replicate that dominance nor are the Afghans willing concede it to the Pakistan army.

    What about the Pashtun minority in Pakistan?

    • There are more than twice as many Pashtuns living in Pakistan than in Afghanistan.
    • The Pashtun population is estimated to be around 15 million in Afghanistan and 35 million in Pakistan.
    • And as mentioned above, the Taliban is essentially Pashtun formation.
    • Although Pashtun separatism has long ceased to be a force in Pakistan, Islamabad finds the Pashtun question re-emerge in a different form.
    • Pakistan can’t really bet that the Taliban will not put Pashtun nationalism above the interests of the Pakistani state.
    • The Taliban, for example, has never endorsed the Durand Line as the legitimate border with Pakistan.
    • It is by no means clear if Pakistan’s construction of the Taliban as a conservative religious force has obliterated the group’s ethnic character.
    • Sufferings of Pakistani Pashtun People: Islamabad’s quest for control over Afghanistan over the last four decades has heaped extraordinary suffering on the Pashtun people on Pakistan’s side of the Durand Line.
    • As the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement seeks a peaceful redressal of its demands for basic human rights, Pakistan has unleashed massive repression.

    India’s importance in Afghanistan

    • That the Taliban wants to talk to India and Pakistan brands Pashtun leaders as Indian agents only underlines Delhi’s enduring salience in Afghanistan.

    Consider the question “After the US-Taliban peace deal, India is forced with a difficult prospect of opening the dialogue with the Taliban. Examine the implications of the return of Taliban in Afghanistan for India. What is your opinion on India starting the dialogue with Afghanistan?”

    Conclusion

    Pakistan’s expansive military and political investments in Afghanistan have not really resolved Islamabad’s security challenges on its western frontier. If an Afghan triumph eludes Pakistan, Delhi can’t escape the complex geopolitics of the Pashtun lands.

  • Importance of the Pangong Tso Lake

    (Note: No higher resolution is available for the image)

    The recent incidents at the Pangong Tso lake area between Indian and Chinese soldiers on the LAC involve a picturesque lake, mountains, helicopters, fighter jets, boats, eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation, fisticuffs and injuries.

    Apart from the geo-physical significance of the Pangong Tso for prelims, other general information should be necessarily known to aspirants, particularly for Personality Tests.

    The Pangong Tso Lake

    • Pangong Tso Lake in eastern Ladakh has often been in the news, most famously during the Doklam standoff, when a video of the scuffle between Indian and Chinese soldiers.
    • In the Ladakhi language, Pangong means extensive concavity, and Tso is a lake in Tibetan.
    • Pangong Tso is a long narrow, deep, endorheic (landlocked) lake situated at a height of more than 14,000 ft in the Ladakh Himalayas.
    • The western end of Tso lies 54 km to the southeast of Leh. The 135 km-long lake sprawls over 604 sq km in the shape of a boomerang and is 6 km wide at its broadest point.
    • The brackish water lake freezes over in winter and becomes ideal for ice skating and polo.
    • The legendary 19th century Dogra general Zorawar Singh is said to have trained his soldiers and horses on the frozen Pangong lake before invading Tibet.

    Tactical significance of the lake

    • By itself, the lake does not have major tactical significance.
    • But it lies in the path of the Chushul approach, one of the main approaches that China can use for an offensive into Indian Territory.
    • Indian assessments show that a major Chinese offensive if it comes, will flow across both the north and south of the lake.
    • During the 1962 war, this was where China launched its main offensive — the Indian Army fought heroically at Rezang La, the mountain pass on the southeastern approach to Chushul valley, where the Ahir Company of 13 Kumaon led by Maj. Shaitan Singh made its last stand.
    • Not far away, to the north of the lake, is the Army’s Dhan Singh Thapa post, named after Major Dhan Singh Thapa who was awarded the country’s highest gallantry award, the Param Vir Chakra.
    • Major Thapa and his platoon were manning Sirijap-1 outpost which was essential for the defence of Chushul airfield.

    Connectivity in the region

    • Over the years, the Chinese have built motorable roads along their banks of the Pangong Tso.
    • At the People’s Liberation Army’s Huangyangtan base at Minningzhen, southwest of Yinchuan, the capital of China’s Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, stands a massive to-scale model of this disputed area in Aksai Chin.
    • It points to the importance accorded by the Chinese to the area.
    • Even during peacetime, the difference in perception over where the LAC lies on the northern bank of the lake makes this contested terrain.
    • In 1999, when the Army unit from the area was moved to Kargil for Operation Vijay, China took the opportunity to build 5 km of a road inside Indian Territory along the lake’s bank.
    • From one of these roads, Chinese positions physically overlook Indian positions on the northern tip of the Pangong Tso Lake.

    Fingers in the lake

    • The barren mountains on the lake’s northern bank, called the Chang Chenmo, jut forward in major spurs, which the Army calls “fingers”.
    • India claims that the LAC is coterminous with Finger 8, but it physically controls area only up to Finger 4.
    • Chinese border posts are at Finger 8, while it believes that the LAC passes through Finger 2.
    • Around six years ago, the Chinese had attempted a permanent construction at Finger 4 which was demolished after Indians strongly objected to it.
    • Chinese use light vehicles on the road to patrol up to Finger 2, which has a turning point for their vehicles.
    • If they are confronted and stopped by an Indian patrol in between, asking them to return, it leads to confusion, as the vehicles can’t turn back.
    • The Chinese have now stopped the Indian soldiers moving beyond Finger 2. This is an eyeball-to-eyeball situation which is still developing.

    Confrontation on the water

    • On the water, the Chinese had a major advantage until a few years ago — their superior boats could literally run circles around the Indian boats.
    • But India purchased better Tampa boats some eight years ago, leading to a quicker and more aggressive response.
    • Although there are well-established drills for disengagement of patrol boats of both sides, the confrontations on the waters have led to tense situations in the past few years.
    • The Chinese have moved in more boats — called the LX series — in the lake after the tensions which rose in the area from last month.
    • The drill for the boats is agreed upon by the two sides, as per the Standard Operating Procedure.

    Out of bounds for tourists

    • Indian tourists are only allowed up to Spangmik village, around 7 km into the lake. This is where a famous movie climax was shot.
    • In fact, tourists were not allowed at all at Pangong Tso until 1999, and even today, you need to obtain an Inner Line Permit from the office of the Deputy Commissioner at Leh.

  • Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam on Nile and Various Issues

    Africa’s longest river, the Nile, has been at the centre of a decade-long complex dispute involving several countries in the continent who are dependent on the river’s waters. At the forefront of this dispute, however, are Ethiopia and Egypt.

    Note: You never know when UPSC might switch map based questions away from the Middle East and SE Asia.

    Considering this news, the UPSC may ask a prelim question based on the countries swept by River Nile/ various dams constructed/ landlocked countries in the African continent etc.

    Grand Ethiopian Rennaissance Dam (GERD)

     

    • GERD is a gravity dam on the Blue Nile River in Ethiopia that has been under construction since 2011.
    • At 6.45 gigawatts, the dam will be the largest hydroelectric power plant in Africa when completed, as well as the seventh-largest in the world.
    • Once completed, the reservoir could take anywhere between 5 and 15 years to fill with water, depending on hydrologic conditions during the filling period and agreements reached between Ethiopia, Sudan, and Egypt.

    Issues with the Dam

    • While the main waterways of the Nile run through Uganda, South Sudan, Sudan and Egypt, its drainage basin runs through other countries in East Africa, including Ethiopia.
    • Egypt has objected to the construction of this dam and in Sudan has found itself caught in the midst of this conflict.
    • Due to the importance of the Nile as a necessary water source in the region, observers are concerned that this dispute may evolve into a full-fledged conflict between the two nations.
    • The US has stepped in to mediate.

    How can this lead to conflict?

    • The mega project may just allow the country to control the river’s waters, and this is essentially what concerns Egypt because it lies downstream.
    • Egypt has objected to these plans and has proposed a longer timeline for the project because it does not want the water level of the Nile to dramatically drop as the reservoir fills with water in the initial stages.
    • For the past four years, triparty talks between Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan have been unable to reach agreements. Egypt isn’t alone in its concerns.
    • Sudan is hardly a passive observer caught in the conflict just because of its location.
    • It too believes Ethiopia having control over the river through the dam may affect its own water supplies.

    Why does Ethiopia want this dam?

    • Ethiopia believes this dam will generate approximately 6,000 megawatts of electricity when it is done.
    • 65% of Ethiopia’s population suffers due to lack of access to electricity.
    • This dam will reduce those shortages and help the country’s manufacturing industry.
    • The country may also be able to supply electricity to neighbouring nations and earn some revenue in exchange.
    • Neighbouring countries like Kenya, Sudan, Eritrea and South Sudan also suffer from electricity shortages.
    • If Ethiopia sells electricity to these nations, they may also reap benefits.

    What is happening now?

    • In the latest developments on this front, Egypt announced that it is willing to resume negotiations with Ethiopia and Sudan concerning the dam.
    • Ethiopia has however proceeded with the first stage of filling the dam saying that it does not need Egypt’s permission to fill the dam.
    • In the letter to the UNSC, Egypt also implied that the dam would cause armed conflict between the two countries.

    Back2Basics: River Nile

    • The Nile is a major north-flowing river in northeastern Africa.
    • It is the longest river in Africa and the disputed longest river in the world as the Brazilian government says that the Amazon River is longer than the Nile.
    • The Nile is about 6,650 km long and its drainage basin covers eleven countries: Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, South Sudan, Republic of Sudan, and Egypt.
    • In particular, the Nile is the primary water source of Egypt and Sudan.
    • The Nile has two major tributaries – the White Nile and the Blue Nile. The White Nile is considered to be the headwaters and primary stream of the Nile itself.

  • [Burning Issue] India-China Skirmish in Ladakh

    “Hindi Chini bhai bhai” – The tale of these brothers is filled with so much action and drama that it can give Bollywood writers a run for money. See, border issues is never easy to resolve, never has been and never will be. Pangong Tso or Doklam – All point to Troubled LAC and an aggressive neighbour, which is a tough combination for India. Let’s dive into this article to learn about the border skirmishes.

    Current Incidents

    On May 5, around 250 Indian and Chinese army personnel clashed with iron rods, sticks, and even resorted to stone-pelting in the Pangong Tso lake area of Ladakh, in which soldiers on both sides sustained injuries. In a separate incident, nearly 150 Indian and Chinese military personnel were engaged in a face-off near Naku La Pass in the Sikkim sector on May 9. At least 10 soldiers from both sides sustained injuries.

    After Chinese accusation of Indian Army’s border transgressions and strong Indian pushback, Ladakh has become a new festering point for the Sino-Indian relations.

    A deeper look into reasons of present tensions

    • The stand-off in Galwan valley, according to reports, was triggered by China moving in troops and equipment to stop construction activity by India.
    • Delhi claims that it was well within India’s side of the LAC. The LAC was thought to be settled in this area which has not seen many incidents in the past, but China now appears to think otherwise.
    • The northern bank of Pangong lake has, however, been a point of contention where there are differing perceptions of the LAC.
    • The Sikkim incident is unexpected as the contours of the LAC are broadly agreed to in this sector.
    • Unofficial reason: The broader context for the tensions appears to be a changing dynamic along the LAC, as India plans to catch-up in improving infrastructure there.

    Some old bruises in border relations

    • India and China do not have a well-defined border, and troop face-offs are common along its 3,500 km Line of Actual Control (LAC), though not a bullet has been fired for four decades.
    • After the 1962 Sino-Indian war, one of the longest standoffs between the Indian and Chinese armies happened at Sumdorongchu (near the Bhutan tri-junction) in 1986, when the troops had an eye-to-eye stalemate.
    • In 2017, at Doklam, near the same Bhutan tri-junction, the troops of India and China were engaged in a 73-day stand-off, triggering fears of a war between the two nuclear-armed neighbours.

    The Gandhi-Deng bargain

      • A year after a military skirmish between India and China in the Sumdorong Chu Valley in Arunachal Pradesh, then PM Rajiv Gandhi visited his counterpart Deng Xiaoping in Beijing to mend ties.
      • The two leaders agreed to establish a forward-looking relationship but border dispute were temporarily set aside.
      • The reason for this pragmatism was rooted in economic and strategic factors: Both China and India needed a stable external environment to promote domestic economic development.
      • China was already a decade into the dramatic economic reforms that Deng had initiated, while Gandhi’s India had also embarked on a similar path.
      • The Gandhi-Deng bargain paved the way for a number of border management agreements (including the 1993 and 1996 agreements related to confidence-building measures.

    Then, Why do face-offs occur so frequently?

    • Basic: Face-off and stand-off situations occur along the LAC in areas where India and China have overlapping claim lines. The LAC has never been demarcated.
    • The boundary in the Sikkim sector is broadly agreed but has not been delineated.
    • Face-offs occur when patrols encounter each other in the contested zones between overlapping claim lines.
    • Protocols agreed to in 2005 and 2013 detail rules of engagement to prevent such incidents, but have not always been adhered to.

    What are the various sectors on the India-China border?

    • The border can be broadly divided into three sectors—Western, Middle and Eastern.
    • The Western sector, which includes Ladakh, is governed by the Johnson Line, making Aksai Chin (controlled by China) in Jammu and Kashmir contested territory for India.
    • The Middle sector, consisting of Uttarakhand and Himachal, is relatively tranquil. Even map exchanges between the two countries have taken place, based on a broad understanding of borders.
    • In the Eastern Sector (where Indian controls territory based on the MacMahon Line), China claims Arunachal Pradesh as part of southern Tibet, while India contests it.
    • The MacMahon Line was drawn at the tripartite 1913-14 Simla Convention attended by British India, Tibet and China; the problem: Tibet is involved and China is not a signatory to this pact.

    LAC: Why no solution yet?

    • It’s not like nothing has been done!
    • Maps have been exchanged in the Middle Sector, but the exercise fell through in the Western Sector where divergence is the greatest.
    • China has rejected this exercise, viewing it as adding another complication to the on-going boundary negotiations.
    • India’s argument is rather than agree on one LAC, the exercise could help both sides understand the claims of the other, paving the way to regulate activities in contested areas until a final settlement of the boundary dispute.

    Also, Chinese transgressions are frequent: Dragon’s aggressiveness

    • A higher number indicates that the Chinese soldiers are coming to the Indian side more often, and their movements are being observed and recorded by the Indian soldiers.
    • This can be seen as an indicator of increased Chinese assertiveness.
    • Since 73-day Doklam standoff on Sikkim-Bhutan border in 2017 there had been no major standoff.
    • PM Modi and President Xi met in Wuhan, following the Doklam crisis, and passed some instructions.

    Wuhan Coziness turned sour

    • Modi and Xi had met for their first informal summit at Wuhan in April 2018, where the two leaders had issued strategic guidance to their respective militaries.
    • These guidelines aimed to strengthen communication in order to build trust and mutual understanding and enhance predictability and effectiveness in the management of border affairs.
    • They had also directed their militaries to earnestly implement various confidence-building measures agreed upon between the two sides, including the principle of mutual and equal security.
    • But the latest border issues show hollowness of such talks.

    International forces in this bilateral ties

    • In addition to the border dispute, some of the core issues in the Sino-Indian rivalry include Tibet (the presence of the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan government-in-exile), the burgeoning China-Pakistan partnership, and the two countries’ overlapping spheres of influence in Asia.
    • These issues have become more salient in the context of the two countries’ simultaneous but asymmetric rising power.
    • In addition to accruing power domestically, India is also building strong strategic partnerships with China’s other rivals, especially the US and Japan.
    • Meanwhile, a rising China has stabilized its northern borders with Russia and is working to undermine the US primacy in the East Asian maritime (particularly the South China Sea).
    • This basically leaves only one border issue with a rival unresolved: namely, the Sino-Indian border.
    • It is hardly surprising that it is exerting periodic pressure on India along this front—a trend that is only likely to escalate.

    India should not fear. Why?

    To be sure, China’s regional aggression is COVID-proof. From Japan to Malaysia, Vietnam, Philippines and Taiwan, everyone has had to push back against Beijing’s marauding missions.

    1) India can retaliate

    • India, while still under-resourced, is no longer a pushover, having emerged stronger and wiser from the Depsang incident of 2013, when Chinese troops pitched tents to establish their control over the area.
    • India and China are both nuclear-armed countries with strong militaries.
    • India has been building a road along the Galwan River to Daulat Beg Oldie that would improve India’s access to the Karakoram Highway, as well as 61 border roads with a total length of 3,346 km across the Himalayan frontier.
    • The Indian Air Force’s capabilities have improved as well.

    2) China is wooing its people

    • Presently, China is in the midst of its annual “2 Sessions” of the CPCC (Chinese People’s Political Consultative Process) and NPC (National People’s Congress), where the ruling sentiment is how China is being bold and tough.
    • Hong Kong was an example of that sentiment. It is likely the India moves may be related. No softening or reasonableness can be expected from China until the NPC ends.
    • China is, as usual, changing the ground realities to influence a future boundary agreement.

    The ground realities before we think settlement

    • India sees China as occupying 38,000 sq km in Aksai Chin. In the east, China claims as much as 90,000 sq km, extending all across Arunachal Pradesh.
    • A swap was hinted at by China in 1960 and in the early 1980s, which would have essentially formalized the status quo.
    • Both sides have now ruled out the status quo as a settlement, agreeing to meaningful and mutual adjustments.
    • At the same time, the most realistic solution will involve only minor adjustments along the LAC, considering neither side will be willing to part with territory already held.

    Way forward

    • India and China should grasp the current situation as an opportunity to revive the stalled process of clarifying the LAC.
    • Clarifying the LAC may even provide a fresh impetus to the stalled boundary talks between the Special Representatives.
    • Beyond the posturing, both sides know a final settlement will ultimately have to use the LAC as a basis, with only minor adjustments. Only a settlement will end the shadow boxing on the LAC.
    • With both countries in the midst of an unprecedented global pandemic, the time to push for a settlement to a distracting, protracted dispute is now.

    Conclusion

    • The issue is basically the fundamental difference in how both sides view the boundary question.
    • India insists that its relations with China won’t improve until the border dispute is resolved.
    • But China differs here.
    • In some sense, Beijing appears to view an unsettled border as holding some leverage with India, one of the many pressure points it could use to keep India off-guard.
    • But for now, India should resist the Chinese design which could have disastrous consequences for India’s defence and strategic interests. Lastly, Diplomatic channels is always a better option than skirmishes on the borders.

     

     

  • India Nepal Border issue: Colonial legacy or the Dragon’s Power Play

    India – Nepal relations are having its “see saw swing” moment. At one end, lies the 1950 treaty of peace and friendship, close people to people relations and India’s aid during 2015 earthquake. But on the other end lies the economic blockade and Madhesi protest. Another entry to the later side is the Border issue.

    • The inauguration of road from Dharchula to Lipu Lekh was done with great fanfare, at least on the Indian side.
    • The metalled road is a BIG relief for pilgrims and traders on the traditional route for the Kailash-Mansarovar yatra, who otherwise were stuck for days in the arduous walk.

    So, where is the issue?

    The issue lies in Nepal’s charge claiming that the stretch passes though Nepalese territory. This was displayed by some politicized moves like-

    • Intemperate remarks by Nepal’s PM in the Nepalese Parliament.
    • Manner (airdropped to the location by helicopters) and timing(why now?) of the Deployment of armed police at Chharung, close to Kalapani, in its Sudoor Paschim.
    • Finally, Nepalese government has raised the stakes further by authorizing a new map extending its territory across an area sensitive for India’s defence.

    The very beginning: The Sugauli Treaty

    • Before the 1816 Treaty of Sugauli, the Nepalese kingdom stretched from the Sutlej river in the west to the Teesta river in the East.
    • Nepal lost the Anglo-Nepalese War and with the signing of Sugauli Treaty was brought down to its present territories.

    The Sugauli Treaty stated that “[t]he Rajah of Nipal [Nepal] hereby cedes to the Honourable [the] East India Company in perpetuity all the under-mentioned territories”, including “the whole of the lowlands between the Rivers Kali and Rapti.” It elaborated further that “[t]he Rajah of Nipal [Nepal] renounces for himself, his heirs, and successors, all claim to or connection with the countries lying to the west of the River Kali and engages never to have any concern with those countries or the inhabitants there of.”

    • The present controversy arose with Nepalese contest that the tributary that joins the Mahakali river at Kalapani is not the Kali river. Nepal now contends that the Kali river lies further west to the Lipu Lekh pass.
    • But here’s the catch!
    • The British used the Lipu Lekh pass for trade with Tibet and China.
    • Even Survey of India maps since the 1870s shows the area of Lipu Lekh down to Kalapani as part of British India.
    • Even though the areas of Nepalgunj and Kapilvastu were restituted to Nepal as a reward for the military help rendered by Jung Bahadur Rana in quelling the 1857 uprising. The British did not return any part of Garhwal or Kumaon, including the Kalapani area, to Nepal.
    • Infact, both the Rana rulers of Nepal and the Nepalese Kings accepted the boundary and did not raise any objection with the government of India after India’s Independence.
    • True that India did not existed in 1816 when the Treaty of Sugauli was concluded.
    • But many borders of the world and India are colonial legacy, which we have to work out.

    The path to peace

    • The Nepal-India Technical Level Joint Boundary Working Group was set up in 1981 to resolve boundary issues, to demarcate the international border, and to manage boundary pillars.
    • By 2007, the group completed the preparation of 182 strip maps, signed by the surveyors of the two sides, covering almost 98% of the boundary, all except the two disputed areas of Kalapani and Susta.
    • Not able to solve the border issues in these disputed areas has left us hanging.

    India has successfully resolved far more intractable border issues with Bangladesh.

    • The land boundary settlement required an exchange of territories, including the transfer of population, and a constitutional amendment to give effect to the 1974 India-Bangladesh Land Boundary Agreement.
    • The maritime boundary issue with Bangladesh involved going to the Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration. Despite knowing well that if the Court applied the principle of equity, India would lose up to four-fifths of the disputed area. India lost but the government of India accepted the ruling.
    • Compared to what was accomplished between India and Bangladesh, the India-Nepal border issues appear more easily solvable.

    Respecting out Ties

    • India Nepal ties are unique.
    • Historical link between the nations.
    • Spirit of maintaining India’s close and friendly bilateral relations with Nepal.
    • The people-to-people relationship between India and Nepal is unmatched.

    What lies ahead?

    • This matter can be best handled bilaterally, through quiet diplomacy.
    • The Official Spokesperson of India’s Ministry of External Affairs, Anurag Srivastava, has said recently that India and Nepal have an established mechanism to deal with all boundary matters.
    • He has affirmed that India is committed to resolving outstanding boundary issues through diplomatic dialogue.
    • The remaining issues concerning the boundary i.e Kalapani and Susta are not difficult to resolve unless they are caught up in domestic or international concerns.
    • The next steps should be approval of the strip maps by the respective governments (that of the Nepalese Government is still awaited), the resolution of the differences of opinion over Kalapani and Susta, and speeding up the erection of damaged or missing border pillars.

    Consider the question “India-Nepal ties are unique. Both countries have many things in common. Yet, recent developments over the border dispute threaten to snap these ties. Examine the border issue between the two countries. What is India’s stand on the issue? Suggest ways to resolve the issue.”

    Conclusion

    The more the trouble festers, those who stand to gain by deteriorating India-Nepal relations will benefit. There is need for the two countries to lower the temperature and defuse the issue. They must invest time and effort to find a solution. Raking up public controversy can only be counterproductive to the relationship.

  • How China is seeking more control on Hong Kong?

    China has started pushing for an “improvement” in the Basic Law — the mini-constitution that defines ties between Hong Kong and Beijing — signalling a fundamental change in the way the highly autonomous city-state is run. The Chinese parliament is debating a controversial national security law for Hong Kong.

    Practice question for mains:

    Q. Democracy and authoritarianism cannot co-exist in the same country. Comment in context to the situation generated in Taiwan. How is the situation different from the withdrawl of special category status of Jammu and Kashmir.

    Chinese authoritarian grip on Hong Kong

    Hong Kong’s ‘Basic Law’

    • Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of China.
    • It has observed a “one country, two systems” policy since Britain returned sovereignty to China on July 1, 1997, which has allowed it certain freedoms, the rest of China does not have.
    • It is governed by a mini-constitution called the Basic Law — which affirms the principle of “one country, two systems”.
    • The constitutional document is a product of the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration.
    • Under this, China promised to honour Hong Kong’s liberal policies, the system of governance, an independent judiciary, and individual freedoms for a period of 50 years from 1997.

    Uproar in Hong Kong

    • China accuses that the Hong Kong SAR has not acted out its constitutional duty for national security in line with China’s Constitution and the Basic Law.
    • Since the handover, Hong Kong residents have time and again taken to the streets to protect their Basic Law freedoms, with the first major pro-democracy protest taking place in 2003.
    • In 2014, over one lakh city residents took part in the ‘Umbrella Revolution’ to protest against China’s denial of democratic reforms.

    Impact of the 2019 protests

    • The largest protests since the 1997 handover took place last year in 2019 when for months tens of thousands of Hong Kongers agitated against a proposed extradition law.
    • The protest continued with pro-democracy marches even after the legislation was withdrawn.
    • These protests were seen as an affront by mainland China, which under President Xi Jinping has increasingly adopted a more hardline approach to foreign policy and internal security issues in recent years.

    Rise of Taiwanese aspirations

    • The Hong Kong unrest is also believed to have left its mark on Taiwan, another prickly issue for Beijing which considers the island state as its own.
    • In this year’s presidential election, Taiwanese voters brought to power the Democratic Progressive Party, which openly opposes joining China.

    The National Security Law

    • Under Article 23 of the Basic Law, Hong Kong has to enact a national security law “to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, and subversion against the Chinese government.
    • When the Hong Kong government first tried to enact the law in 2003, the issue became a rallying point for the city-wide protests which occurred that year.
    • Since then, the government has steered clear of introducing the legislation again.
    • Beijing could now make the law applicable to Hong Kong by another route — by inserting the legislation in Annex III of the Basic Law.
    • The Chinese parliament is expected to vote on a resolution that will make way for the new law, which could be promulgated in Hong Kong.

    What could happen if such a law takes effect?

    • The new law would ban seditious activities that target mainland Chinese rule, as well as punish external interference in Hong Kong affairs.
    • Many expect a revival of the protests that rocked the city last year.
    • China, on the other hand, has sought support and understanding of India and other countries for its controversial decision as a precautionary measure.

  • U.S. set to exit the ‘Open Skies Treaty’ Copy

    The U.S. has given notice that it will exit the Open Skies Treaty (OST) in response to Russia who had allegedly violated the treaty.

    The New START, INF and now the OST …. Be clear about the differences of these treaties. For example- to check if their inception was during cold war era etc.

    Open Skies Treaty (OST)

    • OST is an agreement that allows countries to monitor signatories’ arms development by conducting surveillance flights over each other’s territories.
    • The idea behind the OST was first proposed in the early years of the Cold War by former U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower.
    • It came to existence decades later and was signed in 1992, during the George H.W. Bush presidency and after the Soviet Union had collapsed.
    • The OST came into effect in 2002 under the George W. Bush administration and it allows its 34 signatories to conduct unarmed reconnaissance flights over the territory of treaty countries.

    Issues with the OST

    • The U.S. has used the treaty more intensively than Russia.
    • Between 2002 and 2016, the U.S. flew 196 flights over Russia (in addition to having imagery from other countries) compared to the 71 flights flown by Russia.

    Significance

    • The U.S.’s exit last year from other arms deal the West had signed with Russia — the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty — as well as its imminent departure from the OST has raised the strong possibility that the Trump administration may not renew the New Start Treaty.
    • The New START Treaty was signed by the Obama administration with Russia that caps Russian and U.S. nuclear arsenal. The New Start Treaty is due to expire in February 2021.
    • The Trump administration has been worried that extending New START would negatively impact an arms deal with China and Russia.
    • It is concerned that China’s nuclear stockpile could be doubled if the New Start Treaty continued as is, without including China.

    Back2Basics: New START pact

    • 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.
    • In February 2019, the US withdrew from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), accusing Moscow of violating the agreement.

    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.

  • India to chair ‘WHO Executive Board’

    India would now be playing a more prominent role at the World Health Organisation (WHO), with Union Health Minister taking charge as chairman of the WHO Executive Board at its 147th session.  Dr Harsh Vardhan would succeed Dr Hiroki Nakatani of Japan.

    Practice question for Mains:

    Q. The World Health Organisation (WHO) had “missed the call” on the COVID-19 pandemic. Critically comment with context to the ongoing spat between the US and China.

    About WHO

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

    The WHO Executive Board

    • The WHO is governed by two decision-making bodies — the World Health Assembly and the Executive Board.
    • The Board is composed of 34 members technically qualified in the field of health, with members being elected for three-year terms.
    • The Health Assembly is the WHO’s decision-making body and consists of 194 Member States.
    • The Board chairman’s post is held by rotation for one year by each of the WHO’s six regional groups: African Region, Region of the Americas, South-East Asia Region, European Region, Eastern Mediterranean Region, and Western Pacific Region.

    Functions of the Board

    • The main functions of the Board are to give effect to the decisions and policies of the Health Assembly, to advise it and generally to facilitate its work.
    • The Board and the Assembly create a forum for debate on health issues and for addressing concerns raised by the Member States.
    • Both the Board and the Assembly produce three kinds of documents — Resolutions and Decisions passed by the two bodies, Official Records as published in WHO Official publications, and Documents that are presented “in session” of the two bodies.

    Back2Basics: India at the WHO

    • India became a party to the WHO Constitution on 12 January 1948.
    • The first session of the South East Asia Regional Committee was held on October 4-5, 1948 in the office of the Indian Minister of Health, and was inaugurated by Jawaharlal Nehru, the first PM.
    • The first Regional Director for South-East Asia was an Indian, Dr Chandra Mani, who served between 1948-1968.
    • Currently, the post has again been occupied by an Indian appointee, Dr Poonam Khetrapal Singh, who has been in office since 2014.
    • Since 2019, Dr Soumya Swaminathan has been the WHO’s, Chief Scientist.

    Also read:

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