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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: International Relations

  • World at the edge of a new nuclear arms race

    The focus of this article is on the possible revival of the nuclear arms race among the US, China and Russia. In this context, the purpose and present status of the CTBT, which was aimed at ending the nuclear arms race is also discussed. The article ends by predicting the beginning of new arms race and possible demise of the CTBT.

    What were the findings of US compliance report?

    • State Department Report: In mid-April, a report was issued by the United States State Department on “Adherence to and Compliance with Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments (Compliance Report).
    • Tests with low yields by China: The report raised concerns that China might be conducting nuclear tests with low yields at its Lop Nur test site.
    • And these tests are conducted in violation of its Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban treaty (CTBT)
    • Violation by Russia: The U.S. report also claims that Russia has conducted nuclear weapons experiments that produced a nuclear yield and were inconsistent with ‘zero yield’ understanding underlying the CTBT.
    • Though it was uncertain about how many such experiments had been conducted by Russia.
    • Russia and China have rejected the U.S.’s claims.
    • New nuclear arms race: With growing rivalry among major powers the report is a likely harbinger of a new nuclear arms race.
    • The demise of CTBT: This new nuclear arms race would also mark the demise of the CTBT that came into being in 1996 but has failed to enter into force even after a quarter-century.

    Background of the CTBT

    • Test ban-first step: For decades, a ban on nuclear testing was seen as the necessary first step towards curbing the nuclear arms race but Cold War politics made it impossible.
    • A Partial Test Ban Treaty was concluded in 1963 banning underwater and atmospheric tests but this only drove testing underground.
    • By the time the CTBT negotiations began in Geneva in 1994, global politics had changed. The Cold War had ended and the nuclear arms race was over.
    • The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or the USSR, had broken up and its principal testing site, Semipalatinsk, was in Kazakhstan (Russia still had access to Novaya Zemlya near the Arctic circle).
    • In 1991, Russia declared a unilateral moratorium on testing, followed by the U.S. in 1992.
    • By this time, the U.S. had conducted 1,054 tests and Russia, 715.
    • Negotiations were often contentious.
    • Eventually, the U.S. came up with the idea of defining the “comprehensive test ban” as a “zero yield” test ban that would prohibit supercritical hydro-nuclear tests but not sub-critical hydrodynamic nuclear tests.

    Make note of the points mentioned under “entry-into-force” provision given below. The reasons for India’s withdrawal from the negotiation are important from the UPSC perspective.

    “Entry-into-force” provision and India’s objections to it

    • Another controversy arose regarding the entry-into-force provisions (Article 14) of the treaty.
    • Why India withdrew from negotiations? After India’s proposals for anchoring the CTBT in a disarmament framework did not find acceptance, in June 1996, India announced its decision to withdraw from the negotiations.
    • Unhappy at this turn, the U.K., China and Pakistan took the lead in revising the entry-into-force provisions.
    • What is “entry-into-force” provision? The new provisions listed 44 countries by name whose ratification was necessary for the treaty to enter into force and included India.
    • India’s objection: India protested that this attempt at arm-twisting violated a country’s sovereign right to decide if it wanted to join a treaty but was ignored.
    • The CTBT was adopted by a majority vote and opened for signature.
    • Of the 44 listed countries, to date, only 36 have ratified the treaty.
    • Signed but not ratified: China, Egypt, Iran, Israel and the U.S. have signed but not ratified.
    • China maintains that it will only ratify it after the U.S. does so but the Republican-dominated Senate had rejected it in 1999.
    • Not signed, not ratified: In addition, North Korea, India and Pakistan are the three who have not signed.
    • All three have also undertaken tests after 1996; India and Pakistan in May 1998 and North Korea six times between 2006 and 2017.
    • The CTBT has therefore not entered into force and lacks legal authority.

    An organisation to verify CTBT

    • Even though CTBT has not entered into force, an international organisation to verify the CTBT was established in Vienna with a staff of about 230 persons and an annual budget of $130 million.
    • Ironically, the U.S. is the largest contributor with a share of $17 million.
    • The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO) runs an elaborate verification system built around a network of over 325 seismic, radionuclide, infrasound and hydroacoustic (underwater) monitoring stations.
    • The CTBTO has refrained from backing the U.S.’s allegations.

    The revival of the nuclear arms race

    • End of the unipolar world for the US: The key change from the 1990s is that the S.’s unipolar moment is over and strategic competition among major powers is back.
    • The U.S. now identifies Russia and China as ‘rivals’.
    • Its Nuclear Posture Review asserts that the U.S. faces new nuclear threats because both Russia and China are increasing their reliance on nuclear weapons.
    • The U.S., therefore, has to expand the role of its nuclear weapons and have a more usable and diversified nuclear arsenal.
    • The Trump administration has embarked on a 30-year modernisation plan with a price tag of $1.2 trillion, which could go up over the years.
    • Concerns of Russia and China: Russia and China have been concerned about the U.S.’s growing technological lead particularly in missile defence and conventional global precision-strike capabilities.
    • Russia has responded by exploring hypersonic delivery systems and theatre systems while China has embarked on a modernisation programme to enhance the survivability of its arsenal which is considerably smaller.
    • Cyber capabilities being increased: In addition, both countries are also investing heavily in offensive cyber capabilities.
    • The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) limits U.S. and Russian arsenals but will expire in 2021
    • And U.S. President Donald Trump has already indicated that he does not plan to extend New START.
    • Instead, the Trump administration would like to bring China into some kind of nuclear arms control talks.
    • But China has avoided such talks by pointing to the fact that the S. and Russia still account for over 90% of global nuclear arsenals.

    Context of the US backtracking from negotiated agreements

    • Both China and Russia have dismissed the U.S.’s allegations.
    • They pointed to the Trump administration’s backtracking from other negotiated agreements such as the Iran nuclear deal or the U.S.-Russia Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF)
    • Tensions with China are already high with trade and technology disputes, militarisation in the South China Sea and most recently, with the novel coronavirus pandemic.
    • The U.S. could also be preparing the ground for resuming testing at Nevada.

    In the context of the latest developments, a question can be asked by the UPSC, for ex- “In the light of the latest developments on the global platform which are pointing to the revival of the nuclear arms race, how far India’s decision to not sign the CTBT is justified?”

    Conclusion

    New rivalries have already emerged. Resumption of nuclear testing may signal the demise of the ill-fated CTBT, marking the beginnings of a new nuclear arms race. 

    Back2Basics: What is “zero-yield test?”

    • This means that the agreement prohibits all nuclear explosions that produce a self-sustaining, supercritical chain reaction of any kind whether for weapons or peaceful purposes.
    • The decision not to include a specific definition of scope in the Treaty was a deliberate decision by the negotiating parties, including the United States, made to ensure that no loopholes were created by including a highly technical and specific list of what specific activities were and were not permitted under the Treaty.
    • A thorough review of the history of the Treaty negotiation process, as well as statements by world leaders and the negotiators of the agreement, shows that all states understand and accept the CTBT as a “zero-yield” treaty.

  • What’s behind diplomatic tensions in the South China Sea?

    In the middle of the global coronavirus pandemic, China has been busy increasing its presence in the South China Sea.

    The dispute

    • In the past few years, China has stepped up military aggression and has created artificial islands for military and economic purposes in the South China Sea.
    • This has drawn criticism from neighbouring countries and other western powers.
    • Soon after, Chinese and Australian warships also entered the fray.
    • Following the arrival of American warships, regional observers expressed concern that the US’s presence may only serve to heighten tensions.
    • The US has no territorial claims in the South China Sea but is known to send its naval force into the waters each time there are provocative developments in the waters, particularly angering China.

    Map observations in the South China Sea are must-dos for the CSE aspirants. UPSC often toggles in the Middle East,  West and Central Asian region. This year we can expect a different region for a  map-based question.

    Why in news now?

    China’s advent for islands

    • This past week, Beijing unilaterally renamed 80 islands and other geographical features in the area, drawing criticism from neighbouring countries who have also laid claim to the same territory.
    • The focus of Chinese acquisitory attention is the two disputed archipelagos of the Spratly Islands and the Paracel Islands in the middle of the South China Sea waters.
    • They lie between the territory of Vietnam and the Philippines.
    • If the dispute were to aggravate, Asia-Pacific researchers believe it could have serious consequences for diplomatic relations and stability in the region.

    What is the Spratly Islands dispute about?

    • There has been an ongoing territorial dispute between China, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, and Malaysia concerning the ownership of the Spratly Islands archipelago and nearby geographical features like corals reefs, cays etc.
    • Since 1968, these nations have engaged in varying kinds of military occupation of the islands and the surrounding waters, with the exception of Brunei, that has contained its objections to the use of its maritime waters for commercial fishing.
    • Although the Spratly Islands are largely uninhabited, there is a possibility that they may have large reserves of untapped natural resources.
    • However, due to the ongoing dispute, there have been few initiatives to explore the scale of these reserves.

    Quest for Oil

    • Over the years, US government agencies have claimed that there is little to no oil and natural gas in these islands, but these reports have done little to reduce the territorial dispute.
    • In the 1970s, oil was discovered in neighbouring islands, specifically off the coast of Palawan. This discovery ramped up territorial claims by these countries.

    What is the Paracel Islands dispute about?

    • The Paracel Islands dispute is slightly more complex. This archipelago is a collection of 130 islands and coral reefs and is located in the South China Sea, almost equidistant from China and Vietnam.
    • Beijing says that references to the Paracel Islands as a part of China sovereign territory can be found in 14th century writings from the Song Dynasty.
    • Vietnam on the other hand, says that historical texts from at least the 15th century show that the islands were a part of its territory.
    • These islands also find mention in records starting from the 16th century by explorers who led expeditions to the East.
    • Colonial powers of the French-Indochina further accelerated the tensions with regard to the Paracel Islands due to their colonial policies in the 20th century.
    • By 1954, tensions had dramatically increased between China and Vietnam over the archipelago.

    What is the most recent dispute about?

    • Recent China established new administrative districts on both Spratly and Paracel Islands.
    • It also renamed those 80 islands, reefs and other geographical features around the two archipelagos with Chinese names.
    • The last time China had unilaterally engaged in a similar initiative was in 1983 where 287 geographical features had been renamed in the disputed chain of islands.

  • Why US’s offer of financial aid to Greenland has angered Denmark?

    Context

    • The US had last year sent a proposal to “purchase” Greenland from the Nordic nation.
    • This proposal follows plans by the US government to open a consulate in Nuuk, Greenland’s capital.
    • This move is being considered to be “extremely provocative” interference by the US.

    Go for a detailed map reading of the Arctic region. It has been in news for several times this year.

    Why is the US opening a consulate in Greenland?

    • The US is opening a consulate in Greenland after nearly seven decades of closing its first consulate after the Second World War.
    • Russia has been steadily expanding its military presence in the Arctic and China has done its bit on the economic front.

    US’s interests in Greenland

    1) Domestic interest

    • The US claims that its aid is to ensure “sustainable growth” in the autonomous island.
    • It also cited Russia’s “aggressive behavior and increased militarisation in the Arctic” and China’s “predatory economic interests” as reasons for the decision.
    • The US acquiring new territory under Trump would appeal to the nationalistic and imperialistic views of Americans.
    • Acquiring Greenland would also secure Trump’s position in US history of having been the third president to add land to the country’s territory.

    2) Strategic interest

    • Due to climate change, the Arctic ice is melting at an accelerated rate, opening up water routes for military and maritime trade.
    • This is in addition to global superpowers and regional players vying for control over Greeland’s vast untapped natural resources.

    3) Economic interest

    • Greenland is also a resource-rich landmass, strategically located between the Arctic Sea and the Atlantic Ocean, with some of the largest deposits of rare-earth metals, including iron-ore, uranium, and by-products of zinc, neodymium, praseodymium, dysprosium and terbium.
    • These rare-earth metals are used in the production of electric cars, mobile phones and computers.
    • For the longest time, China has been the world’s largest supplier of these rare-earth metals and has expanded its acquisitory plans by excavating mines across the African continent.
    • An acquisition of Greenland would make the US less reliant on China for these rare-earth metals.
    • Greenland, as a part of the Arctic region, also has large deposits of undiscovered oil and gas, resources that the US always wants more of.

    The US obsession

    • Trump’s interest in Greenland is almost an extension of his world view and US foreign policy in his administration.
    • Purchasing another country or territory is unusual, but the US government has done this twice before.
    • Erstwhile President Thomas Jefferson acquired Louisiana from the French in 1803 and the second time when President Andrew Johnson purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867.

    Back2Basics: Greenland

    • Greenland is the world’s largest island located between the Arctic and Atlantic oceans, east of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago.
    • It is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark.
    • Though physiographically a part of the continent of North America, Greenland has been politically and culturally associated with Europe
    • The majority of its residents are Inuit, whose ancestors migrated from Alaska through Northern Canada, gradually settling across the island by the 13th century.

  • Significance of Indian Ocean Commission for India

    India got an observer status at IOC (Indian Ocean Commission) in March. This article discusses the significance of IOC in the Western Indian Ocean. The IOC is also significant for India as India’s leadership is made clear in SAGAR (Security and Growth for All in the Region) which is “consultative, democratic and equitable”. There are things that India need to learn from IOC like-“bottom-up regionalism” and there are things that India can contribute to IOC like its expertise. These issues are discussed here.

    About Indian Ocean Commission (IOC)

    • Founded in 1982, the IOC is an intergovernmental organisation.
    • It comprises five small-island states in the Western Indian Ocean: the Comoros, Madagascar, Mauritius, Réunion (a French department), and Seychelles.
    • Though Réunion brings a major power, France, into this small-state equation, decisions in the IOC are consensus-based.
    • While France’s foreign policy interests are represented, the specifics of Réunion’s regional decision-making emerge from its local governance structures.
    • Over the years, the IOC has emerged as an active and trusted regional actor, working in and for the Western Indian Ocean and implementing a range of projects.

    Maritime security by IOC and India’s interests

    • More recently, the IOC has demonstrated leadership in the maritime security domain.
    • Since maritime security is a prominent feature of India’s relations with Indian Ocean littoral states, India’s interest in the IOC should be understood in this context.
    • However, India has preferred to engage bilaterally with smaller states in the region.
    • The IOC is a cluster of small states which do not seek a ‘big brother’ partnership.
    • The IOC has its own regional agenda.
    • The IOC has made impressive headway in the design and implementation of regional maritime security architecture in the Western Indian Ocean.

    MASE program and RMIFC to help maritime security

    • What is MASE program? The European Union-funded programme to promote Maritime Security in Eastern and Southern Africa and the Indian Ocean.
    • In 2012, the IOC was one of the four regional organisations to launch the MASE Programme
    • Under MASE, the IOC has established a mechanism for surveillance and control of the Western Indian Ocean with two regional centres.
    • RMIFC: The Regional Maritime Information Fusion Center (RMIFC), based in Madagascar, is designed to deepen maritime domain awareness by monitoring maritime activities and promoting information sharing and exchange.
    • The Regional Coordination Operations Centre (RCOC), based in Seychelles, will eventually facilitate joint or jointly coordinated interventions at sea based on information gathered through the RMIFC.
    • These centres are a response to the limitations that the states in the region face in policing and patrolling their often enormous Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs).
    • They deliver an urgently needed deterrent against unabating maritime crime at sea.
    • Which was only partly addressed by the high-level counter-piracy presence of naval forces from the EU, the Combined Maritime Forces, and Independent Forces.
    • Seven states in the region have signed agreements to participate in this multilateral maritime security architecture, and once ratified, will provide its legal foundation.
    • Many major powers have expressed interest in accessing the RMIFC.

    In 2013, a question based on the “strings of pearls” was asked by the UPSC. In 2014 question with respect to the  South China Sea and the freedom of navigation was asked. On similar lines, a question can be asked from the Western Indian Ocean region dealing with maritime security. Such a question would require information about IOC.

    What India can learn from IOC?

    • The IOC’s achievements offer an opportunity for India to learn, and also to support.
    • The IOC style of ‘bottom-up regionalism’ has produced a sub-regional view and definition of maritime security problems and local ownership of pathways towards workable solutions.
    • A 2019 policy brief published by the IOC ‘Strengthening Maritime Security in the Western Indian Ocean’, sets out how the counter-piracy response off the coast of Somalia delivered unprecedented regional and international cooperation in the domain of maritime security.
    • However, it resulted in multiple players, the duplication of actions, and regional dependence on international navies.
    • The IOC has been seeking more sustainable ways of addressing maritime security threats in the region, with the RMIFC and RCOC as part of this response.
    • Its regional maritime security architecture is viewed locally as the most effective and sustainable framework to improve maritime control and surveillance and allow littoral States to shape their own destiny.
    • Moreover, with proper regional coordination, local successes at curbing maritime threats will have broader security dividends for the Indian Ocean space.

    How India can contribute?

    • Nearly all littoral states in the Western Indian Ocean need assistance in developing their maritime domain awareness and in building capacity to patrol their EEZs.
    • All would benefit from national information fusion centres that can link to those of the wider region.
    • With its observer status, India will be called upon to- 1. Extend its expertise to the region. 2. Put its satellite imagery to the service of the RMIFC. 3. Establish links with its own Information Fusion Centre.
    • As a major stakeholder in the Indian Ocean with maritime security high on the agenda, India will continue to pursue its interests and tackle maritime security challenges at the macro level in the region.
    • However, as an observer of the IOC, a specific, parallel opportunity to embrace bottom-up regionalism presents itself.
    • There are those in the Western Indian Ocean who are closely watching how India’s “consultative, democratic and equitable” leadership will take shape.

    Conclusion

    India, with its principles of leadership made clear in SAGAR has an opportunity to learn from and partner with IOC to reinforce the maritime security in the Western Indian Ocean.

  • What is ‘Milk Tea Alliance’?

    The ‘Milk Tea Alliance’ is an informal term coined by social media users which are highly trending these days.

    The term though in news without any institutional backing is gaining popularity. It clearly shows the public outrage against Chinese agressiveness in Taiwan and Hong-Kong.

    What is the ‘Milk Tea Alliance’?

    • Thai social media users began calling for the sovereignty of Taiwan and Hong Kong, extending support to the two countries.
    • This spurred social media users from other Southeast Asian countries to join the call, in a rejection of China’s influence in the region for its own diplomatic and economic gains.
    • The ‘Milk Tea Alliance’ is an informal term coined by social media users because in the region, tea is consumed in many nations with milk, with the exception of China.
    • Memes were formed showing flags of the countries in the “Milk Tea Alliance” with China as a lone outsider.

    What started this online war?

    • The online battle started with a Thai twitter post that questioned whether coronavirus had emerged in a laboratory in Wuhan.
    • There were some related tweets by pro-Taiwanese and Hong Kong people.
    • Pro-China social media users then began attacking Thailand for being a “poor” and “backward” nation and also hurled insults at the Thai king and the Thai prime minister.

  • Global recovery after the Covid-19

    This article discusses the various factors with geopolitical significance. These factors would shape the post-pandemic recovery on a global scale. Though these factors have been touched upon in the previous op-eds, they are dealt with in detail here.

    Post-pandemic strategic environment for the recovery

    • It’s the post-pandemic strategic environment that will dictate how soon the world recovers from this unexpected shock.
    • It must start with the international geopolitical angle, with many assumptions.
    • With some clarity in this domain, we can prepare ourselves better for the recovery phase of a near post-war situation.
    • Shortly, even as the world continues to reel under the pandemic threat, there will be more endeavours on enhancing human security through better strategic management of the world.
    • So, what will all that be about? It could be a major conference.
    • Major conference with agenda for revival: The situation is similar to the elusive efforts towards the creation of new world order after the end of the Cold War in 1989.
    • Will the world consider a major conference with the agenda being a revival after the coronavirus?
    • The 2015 Paris Summit of the United Nations, which was convened to save the world from the rapid impact of climate change, could not muster a consensus.
    • Will a potential 2020 “pandemic conference” succeed in getting big powers to jettison their geopolitical ambition?

    China’s role has significance for India. The UPSC asks questions touching the economic or security aspect of China for India. So, the role played by China in the post-pandemic world is important from Mains perspective. Take note of the issues discussed below.

    The US-China rivalry

    • The US-China rivalry will remain the core issue, with several other regions and nations aligning with the one who can bring them short to medium-term advantages.
    • Contingent upon how badly the US is finally affected, its current confused leadership is unlikely to inspire and its efforts at internal stabilisation may compromise US power.
    • A major turn in political fortunes in the US and its bumbling on pandemic management could throw open opportunities for others to exploit.
    • The US will perceive itself far more insecure than it was even after 9/11.

    Accusations over China’s role in the pandemic

    • There is likely to be a huge effort to slander China — accusing it of being the originator of the scourge — and isolate it economically and politically.
    • The allegations on the use of biological warfare are the ones which will cause turbulence in relationships.
    • Ironically, China is also in a unique position to help the world bounce back.
    • Against the backdrop of these accusations regarding culpability, we need to be ready for changes in the norms of international cooperation and behaviour.
    • Cold war situation: A cold war of sorts could well be on the cards for some time, hampering a full recovery.
    • It will be brutal in the cyber world — fake news on social media will prevent international cooperation in crucial fields such as scientific research, patents.
    • And this could perhaps even slow down the ability to prevent the next pandemic.

    The crucial role of the US

    • Subject to the US’s economic capability after the pandemic, the ability to find a consensus to put on hold defence spending for the sake of human security will be the key.
    • But the trust deficit between nations will probably hamper this to a great extent.
    • The key anchor of globalisation — the US-China trade relationship — will change even more.
    • China cannot be replaced by the US as a major industrial producer (even for the US market).
    • Other countries or blocs — ASEAN, Bangladesh and India — will all chip in but that will still not be enough.
    • Nor can any country buy as much grain from the US as China does.
    • So, an economic relationship will continue but will be politically fractured as both parties search for alternatives, which don’t exist on a scale that both of them need.

    The growing influence of China

    • China’s recovery is likely to be the fastest.
    • Its ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) may now go uncontested by the US-led efforts to create alternatives.
    • The Chinese ability to influence politics among smaller nations in Asia and Africa could bring it strategic advantages.
    • But this influence is unlikely to be enough to replace America unless the recession-hit US remains defensively oriented.
    • Potential for conflict: Knowing the US propensity to bounce back, China’s efforts will have to remain energetic and that is where the potential for conflict is likely to rise.
    • Of course, it is not as if the US would abandon its interests for an era of only-inward economic healing.
    • Its eye on the future will remain firmly in place.

    The decline in the credibility of the UN

    • Role of WHO: The UN has lost credibility with the World Health Organisation taking the worst hit any UN agency has suffered in years.
    • Its future is contingent upon how it manages the geopolitical fallout of the pandemic.
    • The sooner it can get the world leaders on board, the better.

    Instability in Iran and Afghanistan

    • The collapse of the economy: Iran has been hit badly and with the US unrelenting on sanctions, its economy could collapse with frightening results as far the Middle East is concerned.
    • The threat for peace in the region: A big nation in instability mode with internal turbulence and leadership challenges could spread greater threats of an undefined kind.
    • The US may abandon Afghanistan with less commitment towards keeping its economy sustainable.
    • Possibility of IS revival: It could be a sure recipe for internal instability, which could see the Islamic State emerge a major player.
    • Russian advantage: Everything in the Middle East points towards Russian advantage and domination.

    Opportunities for India

    • India without recession: Economically hit but probably one of the few nations without a recession, India’s strong central leadership could be a big advantage.
    • International cooperation: Prime Minister Narendra Modi would need to use all his influence to cobble together international cooperation to pull the world from the abyss it could sink into.
    • His credibility is already higher than most international leaders and could spell a leadership role for India not in conflict with China but in cooperation with it.
    • It is India’s established multilateral foreign policy that could eventually come to the assistance of the world.

    Conclusion

    Successful and swift recovery of the world hinges on international cooperation among the nation. This provides India with an opportunity to stitch together international cooperation in dealing with the aftermath of the crisis.

  • Beijing’s response to Covid underlines that the world needs more democracy, not less

    The article deals with the fundamental differences between democratic states and one-party state against the backdrop of response to Covid-19. The second part of the article focuses on post-Covid-19 scenarios like changes in the supply chains and the state of the China’s economy.

    Two aspects of Chine’s propaganda campaign

    • China, with the lack of transparency inherent in its one-party authoritarian system, contributed to the spread of Covid-19.
    • There is a desperate effort on the part of China to erase its culpability in unleashing COVID-19 across the world.
    • It has sought to overcome the damaging global public opinion which it has suffered by a subsequent sustained propaganda campaign.
    • This has two aspects.
    • 1. Highlighting the success: One highlights the success China claims to have achieved in arresting the pandemic within the country through drastic measures on a massive scale.
    • Thereby demonstrating the superiority of its authoritarian system.
    • This authoritarian system is contrasted with the delayed and often less-than-effective measures taken in democratic European countries and the US in particular.
    • 2. Publicity of assistance provided to other countries: The other seeks blanket publicity of much-needed medical equipment and medical teams to assist affected countries.
    • The main target is Europe, though assistance to other countries is also given prominence.
    • Chinese diplomats are using Twitter, Facebook and other social media platforms to create an image of a benign China providing public goods to a grateful community of beleaguered nations.
    • In reporting on India, Chinese media has often highlighted the plight of migrant workers and the frequent violations of social distancing regulations.
    • It is true that India has sought and received much-needed medical supplies from China.

    What China would like us to believe?

    • China wants us to believe that COVID-19 virus did erupt in Wuhan, but it may not have originated in China.
    • That there may have been a delay in acknowledging the seriousness of the crisis, but this was due to missteps by the local leadership in Wuhan city and Hubei province.
    • Once the gravity of the situation was recognised, Chinese leaders promptly informed the WHO and shared the DNA sequence of the virus with it and other countries.
    • The unprecedented measures adopted by Chinese authorities bought valuable time for the rest of the world to get prepared to deal with the pandemic.
    • Having achieved notable success in arresting the spread of the virus, valuable assistance is now being provided to affected countries in the spirit of solidarity.
    • China’s economy is beginning to recover and this will contribute to the recovery of the global economy.

    China has been highlighting its success in dealing with Covid-19 as an achievement of its single-party system. So, it is important to understand why it is not entirely true. And UPSC can frame a question like “To what extent has democratic system helped India in dealing with the corona crisis? “. Following points highlight the advantages of democracy in this regard.

    Democracy Vs. One-party system

    • Has China demonstrated the superiority of China’s one-party system as compared to democracies? No!
    • There is no escaping the fact that COVID-19 may not have become a pandemic if China were a democracy.
    • With a free flow of information through an independent media and accountable political leadership, the rest of the world would have been alerted in time.
    • There are democracies which have done as well if not better than China without resorting to its sledgehammer tactics.
    • Notably, there is Taiwan, which is constantly bullied by China.
    • There is South Korea, which has even held parliamentary elections after having brought the pandemic under control.
    • Even in India, the government is providing daily updates on the spread of the virus.
    • Conclusion: The bottom line is that as a result of being a democracy, we have a better chance of knowing the true dimensions of the crisis.
    • With the democracy we have a better chance of being able to obtain constant feedback on people’s reactions and access the best advice from multiple sources.

    China’s assistance and resentment against it

    • One must acknowledge China’s assistance to affected countries despite reports of defective and low-quality materials.
    • But recipients have often been “persuaded” to express fulsome praise for China.
    • This accompanying publicity overdrive has caused resentment rather than gratitude
    • Then there have been reports from Guangzhou on racial discrimination against stranded African students.
    • This has led to a sharp reaction from African countries.
    • This will be difficult to live down.

    The revival of China’s economy

    • There is no doubt that economic activity in China is beginning to revive after a steep drop of 6.8 per cent (year on year) in GDP during the first quarter of 2020.
    • Latest estimates are that the Chinese economy is now functioning at about 80 per cent of the level last year, which is impressive.
    • Less dependence on export: China’s economy is not as export-dependent as it has been in the past.
    • Exports were 5 per cent of GDP in 2018 against 32.6 per cent in 2008.
    • But the external economic environment is critical for China’s globalised economy.
    • It is a significant node in the most important regional and global supply chains.

    Changes in supply chains in the future and opportunity for India

    • China’s position as a significant node will be impacted by countries re-shoring production or opting for shorter and closer-to-home supply chains.
    • Japan will spend $2.2 billion to assist Japanese companies to shift units from China back to Japan or relocate to South East Asia.
    • In 2012, when China-Japan tensions were at a peak, there was a similar move and India was seen as an alternative.
    • But that opportunity was lost. Perhaps India has a second chance.
    • Decoupling from the US economy: China will suffer from accelerated “decoupling” from the US economy with COVID-19 sharpening the already fraught bilateral relations.
    • In a sense, China was already decoupled from the US by denying entry to US tech giants, Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon.
    • This even while its own tech multinationals like Huawei and Alibaba have built markets in the West.
    • This cannot be sustained.
    • The winners in the more digital world which will emerge post-COVID-19 will be the American tech giants, even though the US is politically dysfunctional.
    • Democracies sometimes win even if their politics is frustrating.

    Conclusion

    Rather than express envy of Chinese authoritarianism, Indians should be thankful that we are a democracy. We need more democracy, not less, to overcome the COVID-19 challenge. India should also be ready to grab the opportunities in the post-Covid-19 era in the economic realms.

  • China manipulates the WHO, India needs to be cautious

    The article elaborates on the role played by China in manipulating WHO to its advantage and to the detriment of the rest of the world. India must take cognisance of the growing Chinese influence at various global platforms and act accordingly.

    China’s role in electing Director-General of WHO

    • Tedros was Ethiopia’s Minister of Health (2005—2012) and Minister of Foreign Affairs (2012 to 2016).
    • In 2017, China catapulted him to lead the WHO as its Director General (DG).
    • India, the world’s largest democracy, played second fiddle.
    • We will never know who gamed India inside and abroad, but tough questions must be asked.

    Pandemic as a wake-up call for India

    • Public health is a rights-driven developmental track for any country, especially for India.
    • The ministries of foreign, trade, information and broadcasting, home, finance, women and child development, law, infrastructure and industry, among others, should be part of the country’s health equation and decision-making on a daily basis.
    • Should the WHO be sitting in on high-level health ministry discussions given what we now know about its allegiance to all things Chinese?
    • China, an economic and military behemoth, now seeks the same power in public health.
    • India, with its double burden of disease and an uncritical alignment with the WHO, is fertile ground for data and dollars.

    Dependence on China for API

    • For now, India, like most countries, is at China’s mercy because of years of short-sightedness and corruption in the health sector.
    • While it is hailed as the pharmacy of the world and has sent drugs as humanitarian assistance, India relies heavily on raw materials from China.
    • Quick thinking and swift action can reverse this.

    The above points highlight the implications of Chinese dominance for India. Questions related to China is a recurrent theme in the UPSC papers. Next thing to note here is India’s dependence on China for APIs.

    The US’s stand on WHO funding

    • Some are blaming US President Donald Trump for contemplating cutting off funding for the WHO and not Tedros, for taking orders from China about the pandemic.
    • The war is not between an American President and Tedros.
    • It is between Tedros, a global public health head, and his subservience to China.
    • That ship of trust, the cornerstone of public health work that the WHO should have been leading, has long set sail.
    • Protecting Tedros is important as the WHO needs money to help poor countries with weak health systems.

    Last year, UPSC asked about UNESCO when the US and Israel withdrew from it. This year, WHO has been in focus for allegedly towing China’s line.

    Issue of funding and spending by the WHO

    • War chests are being mobilised to help the WHO help China disburse aid and assistance to dying people and gasping economies.
    • The recent announcement by the World Bank to fast track $1.9 billion for health systems to respond to Covid-19 also includes Ethiopia.
    • For the first time in its history, the WHO has opened its doors to private funding via a Solidarity fund and China is expected to keep an eye on this.
    • To keep track of how the money is spent is a problem.

    Conclusion

    India must decide if it wants to blindly follow the blind or lead by bringing the WHO back to its original promise. At stake is the country’s economic security of which public health is a key component. India can either be a part of history or pick up the pen even in these times of distress and rewrite it.

  • The WHO balance sheet

    The US has announced to halt the funding it gives to the WHO accusing it of mismanagement of the COVID-19 spread.

     

    WHO is facing the biggest pandemic in human history. For all the responsibility vested in the WHO, it has little power.  Whatever the causes of this disaster are, it is clear that the WHO has failed in its duty to raise the alarm in time. This shortfall of WHO is failure indicative of a deeper malaise: the global institutional framework is a pawn in the hands of the great powers, cash-strapped.

    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.

    Where does WHO get its funding from?

    • It is funded by a large number of countries, philanthropic organisations, UN organisations etc.
    • Voluntary donations from member states (such as the US) contribute 35.41%, assessed contributions are 15.66%, philanthropic organisations account for 9.33%, UN organisations contribute about 8.1%; the rest comes from myriad sources.
    • India contributes 1% of member states’ donations.
    • Countries decide how much they pay and may also choose not to.

    Its expenditure

    • The WHO is involved in various programmes. For example, in 2018-19, 19.36% (about $1 bn) was spent on polio eradication, 8.77% on increasing access to essential health and nutrition services, 7% on vaccine preventable diseases and about 4.36% on prevention and control of outbreaks.
    • The Africa countries received $1.6 bn for WHO projects; and South East Asia (including India) received $375 mn.

    How does WHO prioritise its spending?

    • The annual programme of work is passed by the WHO’s decision-making body, the World Health Assembly.
    • It is attended by delegates from all member states and focuses on a specific health agenda prepared by the Executive Board.
    • The main functions of the Assembly, held annually in Geneva, are to determine WHO policies, appoint the Director-General, supervise financial policies, and review and approve the proposed programme budget.
    • The decision on which country gets how much depends on the situation in the countries.

    WHO and India

    • India became a party to the WHO Constitution on January 12, 1948.
    • The first session of the WHO Regional Committee for South-East Asia was held on October 4-5, 1948 in the office of India’s Health Minister, and inaugurated by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru.
    • The WHO India Country Cooperation Strategy (CCS) 2019-2023 has been developed jointly by the Health Ministry and the WHO India country office.
    • The CCS aims to address complex challenges such as the prevention of NCDs, the control of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), the reduction of air pollution, and the prevention and treatment of mental illnesses.
    • On the ground, the WHO has been a key partner in the immunisation programme, tackling TB and neglected diseases such as leprosy and kala azar, and nutrition programmes across states.

    Immediate reason for US withdrawal

    • The US contributes almost 15% of the WHO’s total funding and almost 31% of the member states’ donations, the largest chunk in both cases.
    • It receives $62.2 mn for WHO projects.
    • That is where most of the WHO funding comes from and the least of it goes.

    Impact

    • For the WHO, the loss of about 15% of its total funding is bound to have an impact on the world over.
    • However, unless other countries do the same as the US, the move may not severely hamstring WHO operations.

    Also read:

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

  • COVID-19 and the crumbling world order

    Theme of this article is the failure of the world order in mounting a collective fight against the epidemic that has become the global problem. Role of WHO has also come under the scanner. Functioning and reluctance of UNSC to discuss the pandemic have raised questions over its relevance. The issue of China’s growing influence and implications for the rest of the world are being discussed. In the past week, some newspaper articles have covered the same issue for instance-“The deep void in global leadership” in the Hindu.

    Failure of the world order and global institutions

    • The contemporary global order and institutions were a hegemonic exercise meant to deal with isolated political and military crises and not serve humanity at large.
    • COVID-19 has exposed this as well as the worst nativist tendencies of the global leadership in the face of a major crisis.
    • That the United Nations Security Council took so long to meet (that too inconclusively) to discuss the pandemic is a ringing testimony to the UN’s insignificance.

    The above para. indicates that global order we are living in was made for entirely different purpose i.e. to maintain the peace and they are not capable to deal with the Covid-19  like challenges. So, from UPSC mains point of view you must take note of this.

    Failure of regional groupings

    • Regional institutions haven’t fared any better.
    • Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s SAARC initiative, curiously resurrecting a practically dead institution, was short-lived.
    • The EU, the most progressive post-national regional arrangement, stood clueless when the virus spread like wildfire in Europe.
    • Its member states turned inward for solutions: self-help, not regional coordination, was their first instinct. Brussels is the loser.

    What these failures indicate?

    • These failures are indicative of a deeper malaise: the global institutional framework is unrepresentative, a pawn in the hands of the great powers, cash-strapped, and its agenda is focused on high-table security issues.
    • The global institutional architecture of the 1940s cannot help humanity face the challenges of the 2020s.
    • What can be the solutions? Nothing less than a new social contract between states and the international system can save our future.

    Here we come across  the reasons for the failure of the world order and institutions. UPSC has asked questions related to UNESCO in 2019, who knows next could be the WHO.

    Factors that will help China come out stronger from the pandemic

    • Reports indicate that China has now managed the outbreak of COVID-19, and its industrial production is recovering even as that of every other country is taking a hit.
    • The oil price slump will make its recovery even faster.
    • When the greatest military power found itself in denial mode and the members of the EU were looking after their own interests, China appeared to use its manufacturing power to its geopolitical advantage.
    • Beijing has offered medical aid and expertise to those in need; it has increased cooperation with its arch-rival Japan.
    • This will aid Beijing’s claims to global leadership, push Huawei 5G trials as a side bargain, and showcase how the Belt and Road Initiative is the future of global connectivity.
    • COVID-19 will further push the international system into a world with Chinese characteristics.

    As China comes to dominate the emerging world order, we must pay attention to things related to China. Here, we can note down the factors that could help China emerge out stronger from the corona crisis.

    Implications for globalisation: the rise of protectionism and hypernationalism

    • Neoliberal economic globalisation will have taken a major beating in the wake of the pandemic.
    • Economists are warning of a global recession.
    • How the world reacted? The first instinct of every major economy was to close borders, look inwards and
    • The pre-existing structural weakness of the global order and the COVID-19 shock will further feed states’ protectionist tendencies fueled by hypernationalism.
    • A more inclusive global political and economic order is unlikely any time soon, if ever.
    • Instead, as former National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon warns, “we are headed for a poorer, meaner, and smaller world.”
    • How this epidemic impact big corporations? The ability of big corporations to dictate the production, stocks, supply chains and backup plans will be limited by increased state intervention to avoid unpredictable supply sources, avoid geopolitically sensitive zones, and national demands for emergency reserves.
    • The profits of big corporations will reduce, and the demand for stability will increase.
    • Will the world after Covid-19 be more balance? State intervention in economic matters and protectionism are the easy way out, and that’s precisely what states will do once the crisis is over.
    • It would be a return of the ‘Licence Raj’ through the backdoor, not a push for inclusive and responsible globalisation with its associated political benefits.

    It is clear now that post-Covid-19 world would be different from the world we know today. Globalisation would take a significant beating. And globalisation is important topic from mains point of view. So, pay close attention to the points mentioned here.

    Will post-Covid-19 world lead to some positive controls?

    • Rise of state-led models: With the severe beating that globalisation has taken, state-led models of globalisation and economic development would be preferred over (big) corporates-led globalisation.
    • Will this enable some positive controls over the inherent deficiencies of globalisation? We will have to wait and see.
    • The relation between capitalists and the states: But the more important question is whether the state has any incentive to take on big capital.
    • Given the symbiotic relationship between the state and big capital, states have become used to protecting the interests of their corporations, often at the cost of the general public.
    • States preferred capital over health: Consider, for instance, that the first response of many Western states was to protect their capital markets than be concerned about public health.

    Rise of racism in post-Covid-19 world

    • Yet another undesirable outcome of the pandemic would be a spike in various forms of discrimination.
    • Globally, societies could become more self-seeking and inward-looking leading to further pushback against liberal policies regarding migration and refugees.
    • Implications for world trade: New questions are likely to be asked about the source of goods. More stringent imposition of phytosanitary measures by advanced states on products emanating from the less developed countries might become the new normal.
    • Lockdowns and travel restrictions could potentially legitimise the rhetoric around border walls in more conservative countries.
    • Tragically, therefore, while one answer to global pandemics is political globalisation, COVID-19 might further limit it.

    Conclusion

    The world order needs to wake up to new reality take measures to avoid the above listed undesired fallouts that could emerge in the post-Covid-19 world, and before that there is an urgent need for the global coalition to deal with the pandemic.