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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: International Relations

  • The art of China’s legalpolitic

    Context

    A resolution has been moved in the US Senate calling on the international community to inquire into the origins of the virus in China’s Wuhan province. Delhi could learn a trick or two from Beijing on how to make international law the keystone of India’s diplomacy, especially in the multilateral domain.

    Fixing responsibility for the outbreak on China

    • Compensation demand: Lawyers and activists have begun to sue China in US courts demanding compensation. Politicians are not far behind.
    • The U.S. Senate resolution: A resolution has been moved in the US Senate calling on the international community to inquire into the origins of the virus in China’s Wuhan province, quantify the damage inflicted on the rest of the world, and design a mechanism of reparations from Beijing.
    • Basis of the demand for compensation: The case for China’s culpability is based on the principles of state responsibility and Beijing’s alleged failure to respect the obligation, under the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR), to notify the world on the outbreak of the epidemic.
    • Is the basis valid? Many international jurists dismiss these claims by citing the principles of sovereign state immunity, the lack of precedent in holding states to account for the spread of infectious disease beyond their borders and the absence of provisions for reparations under the IHR.

    The interplay between legality, moralpolitik and geopolitics

    • Gulliver and Lilliputs of the world: On the face of it, China is too much of a Gulliver to be tied down by legal Lilliputs.
    • The Legalpolitik: Before we dismiss international law as not real law, “legalpolitik” can put some real pressure on big nations and contribute to the power play among them.
    • Role of public opinion: As public opinion began to intrude into diplomacy over the last two centuries, legality and moralpolitik have become an integral part of geopolitics.

    Difficulty in proving the case against China

    • The cost of a pandemic: Most world leaders know, whether they say it aloud or not, the international costs of the pandemic could have been far lesser if China had acknowledged the spread of the virus from Wuhan early on and informed other countries.
    • It is one thing to know but entirely another to prove it under the law.
    • The pursuit of claims is a waste of time: Most governments believe the pursuit of claims against Beijing is a waste of time.
    • Political heft of China: If Beijing can make the World Health Organisation toe its line and prevent the rest of the world, including US President Donald Trump, from describing COVID-19 as the “China Virus”, it is unlikely to be impressed by a few legal impresarios from the West.
    • Precedence of defying the law: After all, China had dismissed the unanimous verdict of the International Court of Justice in 2016 on Beijing’s territorial claims over the South China Sea.
    • Beijing did not even bother to appear in the case filed by the Philippines.
    • China had simply declared that the ICJ has no jurisdiction in the matter.

    The relation between power and law in international relations

    • Power prevails: That power tends to prevail over law is certainly truer in international relations than domestic politics.
    • Law in the domestic domain: In the domestic domain, the state as the highest authority compels citizens to abide by the law, with force if necessary.
    • Law in the international arena: In the international arena, no single actor has a monopoly over the instruments of force.
    • We have multiple sovereigns but no “world government” that can compel deviant states to conform to rules.

    Role of the UNSC

    • In theory, the members of the UN Security Council can authorise coercion — in the form of economic sanctions or military force.
    • This, in turn, involves building a consensus among major powers, including the five permanent members of the UNSC who wield a veto.
    • In reality, then, the UNSC can’t act against one of the five permanent members.
    • Beijing, which was so eager to get the UNSC to discuss the situation in Jammu and Kashmir since last August, has simply blocked all suggestions for a discussion on the corona crisis in recent days.

    Are laws meaningless in the global arena?

    • Legal narratives have the weight of their own: While outcomes in international conflicts tend to be defined by power, the international discourse on any conflict today is framed in legal terms.
    • Whether it is a conversation between a state and its citizen or among governments or in a country’s outreach to the global society, legal narratives have a weight all of their own.
    • Delhi, for example, has struggled in recent days to counter the global interpretation of its domestic actions.
    • Importance of legal argument: Winning the legal argument, China has learnt from the history of great power relations, is very much part of great power jousting.
    • The negative lessons are from the Soviet Union that dismissed the Western legal arguments during the Cold War as based on the logic of capital and empire.
    • That did not convert many beyond the choir.
    • The positive lessons are from Great Britain and the United States.
    • The enduring Anglo-Saxon hegemony is rooted not just in economic and military power. It has always been underwritten by a powerful legal tradition that shapes the global narrative on most issues.
    • China developing own narrative: As it mounts a massive propaganda offensive against the US on the corona crisis, China’s state lawyers have filed a case in the Wuhan Intermediate People’s Court last week accusing various US government agencies of covering up the origin of the coronavirus.
    • China’s own narrative: It is no longer about China defending against a powerful international narrative; it is developing one of its own.

    Conclusions

    • 1. Make international law keystone of diplomacy: India has been at the receiving end of China’s legalpolitik — most recently on the quest for the membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the constitutional changes in Kashmir.
    • Delhi could learn a trick or two from Beijing on how to make international law the keystone of India’s diplomacy, especially in the multilateral domain.
    • 2. Reinvest in the geo-legal arts: If China could emulate US and Britain on leveraging legalpolitik for strategic ends, India should not find it too hard to reinvest in the geo-legal arts that Delhi inherited from the Anglo-Saxons but seems to have lost along the way.

  • The deep void in global leadership

    Context

    The coronavirus’s flight across the world at lightning speed has exposed the total void in collective leadership at the global level.

    No global plan of action to combat the virus

    • No plan of action: Three months into the catastrophic war declared by an invisible virus, there is as yet no comprehensive, concerted plan of action, orchestrated by global leaders.
    • The G20 meeting: The G20 has just had a virtual meeting, at the prodding of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
    • $ 5-trillion into the world economy: It is encouraging to learn that the G20 leaders have agreed to inject $5-trillion into the world economy to partially counter the devastating economic impact of the pandemic. This is indeed good news.
    • Need to do more: But taking collective ownership to fight a global war against the virus will require a lot more than writing cheques.

    SAARC meeting stands out in the world

    • Pandemic is not treated as a common enemy: World leaders are obviously overwhelmed with their own national challenges and do not appear inclined to view the pandemic as a common enemy against mankind, which it is.
    • Delay in reporting by China: China delayed reporting the virus to the World Health Organisation (WHO), and perhaps, contributed to the exacerbation of the spread of the virus across the globe.
    • Unilateral suspension of flight by the US: It was reported that the Trump administration did not even inform the European Union before it shut off flights from Europe.
    • Why the SAARC meeting stands out? It must be acknowledged that the initiative taken by Mr Modi in the early days to convene a meeting of South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation countries stands out in contrast to the pusillanimous leadership around the world.

    Need for leaders of nations to come together for collective global action.

    • Pandemic to persist: There is no evidence that, at the global level, the pandemic has abated yet and would be brought under control soon.
    • Massive lockdown, not a solution: To imagine that nations would be able to tame the virus soon with massive shutdowns might be just wishful thinking.
    • National shutdowns and physical distancing have been a challenge not only in the United States and some European countries, but it would also be more so in populous countries such as India.
    • At any rate, such lockouts come at enormous economic and social costs.
    • The utility of long suspension of international travel: As long as the virus is alive in some corner of the world, it would resume its travel across the world the moment international travel restrictions are relaxed.
    • Is it realistic to imagine that international travel will remain suspended until the last virus alive on this planet is extinguished?
    • This is a war. A good war against a bad enemy, and a common enemy, that respects no borders.
    • It is a global challenge to be fought by collective global leadership: If this global challenge is not a battle to be fought by a collective global leadership, nothing else is.
    • And yet, the typical response by all affected nations has been to impose ‘National distancing’ by closing borders.
    • While this is no doubt, a most appropriate response, there is a much bigger and emergent need for leaders of nations to come together for collective global action.

    Two reasons for the lack of collective global action

    • 1. Right-wing nationalism: The swing towards right-wing nationalism, as a guiding political ideology, in large swathes of the world, particularly in the U.S.
    • This ideology posits ‘global good’ being in conflict with and inimical to national interests.
    • 2. Ineffectiveness of the multilateral institutions: The United Nations was the outcome of the shared vision of the world leaders after World War II, that collective action is the only way forward to prevent the occurrence of another war.
    • That institution has notoriously failed to live up to its expectations to maintain peace among nations in the nearly 80 years since its formation.
    • Its affiliate organisations have, in several ways, failed to deliver on their lofty missions.
    • In particular WHO has proven to be too lethargic in reacting to pandemics in the past.
    • Its responses to COVID-19 has come under the scanner, not merely for incompetence, but also for lack of intellectual integrity.

    G-20 offers hope

    • A nimble outfit, not burdened with bureaucracy, is required to manage a global crisis of the nature that we are confronted with, today.
    • The G20, with co-option of other affected countries, itself might serve the purpose for the present.
    • What the global leadership must acknowledge: What is important is for the global leaders to acknowledge what every foot soldier knows: winning a war would require the right strategy, rapid mobilisation of relevant resources and, most importantly, timely action.
    • The following actions should come out of such a collective-
    • 1. Dealing with the shortages: The collective should ensure that shortages of drugs, medical equipment and protective gear do not come in the way of any nation’s capacity to contain or fight the pandemic.
    • Assistance from other countries: It is very likely that some nations that have succeeded in bringing the pandemic under control, such as China, Japan or South Korea, might have the capability to step up production at short notice to meet the increasing demand from other countries which are behind the curve.
    •  Development of information exchange: This would typically involve urgent development of information exchange on global production capacity, present and potential, demand and supply.
    • This is not to mean that there should be centralised management, which is not only infeasible but counterproductive, as the attendant bureaucracy will impede quick action.
    • A common information exchange could restrain the richer countries from predatory contracting of global capacities.
    • 2. Protocol among participant countries: Protocols might need to be put in place among participating countries to ensure seamless logistics for the supply chain for essential goods and services to function efficiently.
    • This might be particularly necessary in the context of controls on international traffic and national shutdowns.
    • There would need to be concomitant accord to eliminate all kinds of tariff and non-tariff barriers.
    • 3. Exchange of information: There needs to be an instantaneous exchange of authenticated information on what clinical solutions have succeeded and what has not.
    • A classic example is an issue relating to hydroxychloroquine, which is being used experimentally, bypassing the rigours of randomised clinical trials.
    • While there is no substitute to classic clinical proof, the more field-level information is shared within the medical community, the better will be the success rates of such experimentation.
    • 4.Cross country collaboration on the trials: This is a time to have cross-country collaboration on laboratory trials and clinical validation for vaccines and anti-viral drugs.
    • It must be acknowledged that WHO has already moved on this issue, although, perhaps, belatedly.
    • The best way to ensure speedy research is to pool global resources.
    • This attempt to collaborate might also bring in its wake an acceptable commercial solution that adequately incentivises private research while ensuring benefits being available to the entire world at affordable costs.
    • Such a framework might be necessary for sustained collaborations for future challenges.
    • 5. Easy movement of trained health professionals: There is a need to facilitate easy movement of trained health professionals across the world to train others and augment resources wherever there are shortages.
    • In other words, nations should come together to organise a global army to fight the pandemic, equipped with the best weapons and tools.
    • 6. The anticipation of food shortages: We must anticipate food shortages occurring sooner or later, in some part of the world, consequent to the national shutdowns.
    • Ironically, while we might have saved lives from the assault of the novel coronavirus, we might run the risk of losing lives to starvation and malnutrition, somewhere in the world if we do not take adequate precautions.
    • This requires not only coordinated global action; it would also turn out to be the test of global concern for mankind in general.

    Reconstruction of the global economy

    • Devastation no less than after the world war: Eventually, there is no doubt that human talent will triumph over the microscopic virus. But the economic devastation, that would have been caused as a result will be no less than the aftermath of a world war.
    • What should the reconstruction of economy involve? An orderly reconstruction of the global economy, which is equitable and inclusive, will eventually involve renegotiating terms of trade among key trading blocs, concerted action among central bankers to stabilise currencies, and a responsible way to regulate and manage global commodity markets.

    Conclusion

    Does India have the power to awaken the conscience of the Superpowers and catalyse collective global action? Remember, historically, it is always the weakling or the oppressed, who have caused transformational changes in the world order.

  • Terrorist attack in Kabul’s Gurudwara

    Context

    Attack on gurdwara underlines that the US-Taliban deal has brought Afghanistan no respite.

    The futility of US-Taliban deal highlighted

    • The attack on a gurdwara in Kabul, in which 25 people were killed, has shown that the coronavirus may well be vanquished by science, but human beings will continue to inflict barbarity upon each other.
    • Within hours, it was claimed by the Islamic State, which later also said it had carried it out in revenge for Kashmir.
    • The deal not leading to peace: If there were still doubts left on this score, it must be clear after this attack that the US-Taliban deal was not an arrangement to return Afghanistan to peace.

    Why the attack matters for India?

    • The gurdwara attack was the first strike after the agreement claimed by the IS.
    • A provision in pact: Under the pact, the Taliban have committed themselves to eliminate the Islamic State from Afghanistan.
    • Yet to start honouring commitment: If the IS claim is true, the Taliban have yet to begin honouring that commitment.
    • India’s reaction: Appearing to hint at something more sinister, the ministry of external affairs called the attack “diabolical” and condemned the “perpetrators and their backers”, a formulation usually reserved for attacks suspected to have emanated from or to have the backing of Pakistan.
    • Connection of attack with India: The Taliban’s operational leadership is now in the hands of Sirajuddin Haqqani of the Haqqani group, which has been blamed for several attacks on Indian targets, including the 2008 Indian Embassy bombing in Kabul.
    • The Taliban have denied having anything to do with the gurdwara attack, and Pakistan has condemned it strongly.
    • The question over IS in Afghanistan: Who, really, is the IS in Afghanistan is a question that security experts have been asking for some time now.

    COVID-19 outbreak in Afghanistan

    • Appeal for ceasefire: The UN Secretary-General made an appeal for an immediate ceasefire in theatres of conflict across the world, to enable governments, health workers and humanitarian aid agencies to access those who might be most vulnerable to COVID-19.
    • The epicentre of the outbreak is Herat, where over 1,00,000 Afghans recently crossed over from Iran.
    • After the number of confirmed cases rose to 58, the province has been placed under lockdown.
    • But the government is hobbled in its efforts to contain the disease, both by a contested election result — Afghanistan has two presidents — and the burden of an agreement that has brought it no respite.

    Conclusion

    With the recently concluded US-Taliban deal delivering no peace and coronavirus spreading unabated, Afghanistan faces two contagions, new and old — COVID-19 and the relentless violence.

  • [pib] Virtual Summit of G20 Leaders

    A Virtual G20 Leaders’ Summit was recently convened yesterday to discuss the challenges posed by the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and to forge a globally coordinated response.

    About G20

    • Formed in 1999, the G20 is an international forum of the governments and central bank governors from 20 major economies.
    • Collectively, the G20 economies account for around 85 percent of the Gross World Product (GWP), 80 percent of world trade.
    • To tackle the problems or the address issues that plague the world, the heads of governments of the G20 nations periodically participate in summits.
    • In addition to it, the group also hosts separate meetings of the finance ministers and foreign ministers.
    • The G20 has no permanent staff of its own and its chairmanship rotates annually between nations divided into regional groupings. 

    Aims and objectives

    • The Group was formed with the aim of studying, reviewing, and promoting high-level discussion of policy issues pertaining to the promotion of international financial stability.
    • The forum aims to pre-empt the balance of payments problems and turmoil on financial markets by improved coordination of monetary, fiscal, and financial policies.
    • It seeks to address issues that go beyond the responsibilities of any one organisation.

    Member Countries

    The members of the G20 consist of 19 individual countries plus the European Union (EU).

    • The 19 member countries of the forum are Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, United Kingdom and the United States.
    • The European Union is represented by the European Commission and by the European Central Bank.

     Who are the G20 Sherpas?

    • A Sherpa is the personal representative of a head of state or government who prepares an international summit, particularly the annual G7 and G20 summits.
    • Between the summits, there are multiple Sherpa conferences where possible agreements are laid out.
    • This reduces the amount of time and resources required at the negotiations of the heads of state at the final summit.
    • The Sherpa is generally quite influential, although they do not have the authority to make a final decision about any given agreement.
    • The name is derived from the Sherpa people, a Nepalese ethnic group, who serve as guides and porters in the Himalayas, a reference to the fact that the Sherpa clears the way for a head of state at a major summit.

  • China and WHO a new story

    Context

    The WHO leadership, especially its Director-General, has been accused of serving China’s interests rather than preparing the world against the spread of the virus.

    What is the basis of accusations?

    • The first basis for these charges is the WHO’s endorsement of the Chinese claim in mid-January that there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission of the virus.
    • Second, consistent support for Beijing’s handling of the crisis.
    • Third, WHO’s criticism of other nations for imposing travel restrictions to and from China.
    • Critics also believe the WHO lulled the world into complacence by delaying the decision on calling it a global emergency.

    The new geopolitics of multilateralism

    • Whatever the merits of the above arguments, they point to the new geopolitics of multilateralism,
    • It also disproves the assumptions in both the West and India on China’s role in the UN.
    • It also underlines Beijing’s success in the leveraging of international organisations for its national advantage.
    • Nations working together against the trans-national threat: On the face of it, the sentiment that nations must work together against common trans-national threats is an eminently sensible one. But it does not easily translate into concrete actions.
    • Example of failure to act against a common threat: Take climate change. Attempts at developing collective solutions to the problem over the last three decades have foundered.
    • Most leaders agree on the problem and the solutions but are not willing to accept the framework — either the domestic or international — for distributing the costs associated with the solutions.
    • The US-China rivalry angle to the coronavirus outbreak: The problem of the cost-benefit distribution is compounded by great power rivalries. The coronavirus has shown up at a moment of deepening tensions between the US and China.
    • The grave collective challenge that the virus constitutes has only sharpened the conflict.
    • The blame game between the two: The US blames Beijing for letting this virus become a global monster and Beijing is doing all it can to deny that the virus came out of China.

    How the relationship between China and WHO has transformed over the years?

    • WHO’s actions in the past: Nearly two decades ago, during the SARS crisis, WHO was at the front and centre of pressing China to come clean on the unfolding pandemic.
    • In 2003, it had issued the organisation’s first travel advisory ever on travel to and from the epicentre of the pandemic in southern China.
    • As the SARS crisis escalated, Beijing’s traditional arguments about the centrality of state sovereignty yielded place to a new policy of working with the WHO and taking proactive steps to reassure neighbours in South East Asia.
    • Reasons for change in WHO’s stance: Some attribute the turnaround in the relationship between Beijing and WHO to China’s growing financial contributions.
    • China’s efforts to expand clout: Observers of the UN point to something more fundamental — a conscious and consequential Chinese effort to expand its clout in the multilateral system.
    • China, which was admitted to the UN system in the 1970s, was focused on finding its way in the 1980s, cautiously raised its profile in the 1990s, took on some political initiatives at the turn of the millennium and seized the leadership in the last few years.

    How India and the West are reacting to China’s rise?

    • Unprepared to deal with China’s rise at UN: Neither the West nor India have been prepared to deal with the impact of China’s rise on the UN system.
    • The US and its allies bet that China will be a “responsible stakeholder”. Put another way, they hoped that China will play by the rules set by the West.
    • China’s ambitions: China, of course, wants to set its own rules. Only the political innocents will be shocked by China’s natural ambition.
    • India’s past alignment with China: India, which considered US dominance over the international institutions in the 1990s as a major threat, chose to align with China in promoting a “multipolar world”.
    • Delhi convinced itself that despite differences over the boundary, Pakistan and other issues, there is huge room for cooperation with China.
    • Replacing the US as the dominant force: To their chagrin, the West and India are being compelled to respond to a very different environment at the UN. China wants to replace America as the dominant force in the UN.
    • The US is now fighting back. Last month, Washington went all out to defeat the Chinese candidate for the leadership of an obscure UN agency called the World Intellectual Property Organisation.

    Implications of China’s rise for India

    • Chinese hegemony vs. American primacy: Delhi discovered that Chinese global hegemony could be a lot more problematic than American primacy.
    • After all, it is China that complicates India’s plans for membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, protects Pakistan against international pressures on cross-border terrorism, and relentlessly pushes the UN Security Council to take up the Kashmir question.
    • India now turns to the US and its allies to pursue some of its interests in the UN.
    • Multilateralism not an end in itself: Political ironies apart, if there is one lesson that India could learn from China’s experience with WHO and the UN, it is that multilateralism is not an end in itself for major powers.
    • It is an important means to secure one’s national interest and shape the international environment.
    • As a nation battered by the Cultural Revolution, China used international cooperation and global institutions to rebuild itself in the last decades of the 20th century.
    • Ready to reorder global governance: Having developed its economy and advanced its scientific and technological base, China is now ready to reorder global governance and become a rule-maker.
    • The effects are visible in the arena of global health.
    • China’s expanding global engagement with the WHO, its substantive international health assistance programmes, and an impressive domestic health technology sector are poised to boost China’s ambition to build a “Global Silk Road for Health’.

    Conclusion

    On its part, Delhi needs to intensify the recalibration of India’s multilateralism, rewrite its diplomatic lexicon at the UN, and build new political coalitions that will simultaneously contribute to India’s internal modernisation and enhance its international influence. The corona crisis is a good moment to start writing a new script for India’s own health diplomacy.

  • Test of regional solidarity lies ahead

    Context

    If PM Modi’s gesture to SAARC is to go some way towards a solution for the region, India, which will be picking up the pieces itself, must have something to offer to its neighbours.

    Background

    • Not a viable option: Since 2014, when the last SAARC summit was held in Kathmandu, India had made it more than clear that it no longer considers the South Asia grouping viable.
      • It was Islamabad’s turn to host the next summit in 2016, but the Uri attack intervened, and India refused to attend.
    • SAARC in limbo: Under the SAARC charter, the summit cannot be held even if a single nation stays away, and the grouping has remained in limbo since.
    • India’s increased engagement with other groups: In the last five years, India has actively sought to isolate Pakistan in the region.
      • India hyped up its engagement with other regional groupings such as-
      • BBIN (Bangladesh-Bhutan-India-Nepal), and
      • BIMSTEC (Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation), which includes Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Nepal and Bhutan.

    How to read the sudden resurrection of SAARC?

    • Officials denied revival speculation: Despite hopes that this might be a SAARC revival, officials have discounted such speculation. That would require India to climb down from its position that Pakistan has taken verifiable steps to address India’s concerns on terrorism. There is no evidence at all that Delhi is about to do that.
    • No hope of move from Pakistan: It would need Pakistan to turn over a new leaf, stop playing with free radicals to use against India, in Kashmir or elsewhere when the time is ripe. Neither is about to happen.

    No cooperative response in the works

    • First to call the neighbours: At a time when leaders across the globe appeared to be engrossed in the COVID-19 calamity of their own nations, Modi was the first to think of calling the neighbours.
    • Why cooperation among neighbours matter? Almost all South Asian countries are bound to each other by land borders and frequent inter-travel, and it is important that the region liaises to stop the disease from spreading across the Subcontinent.
    • Countries not willing to learn from each other: It was a trifle disappointing, therefore, that beyond the experience of witnessing a unique video summit, there is not much to suggest that a cooperative response is in the works.
      • There is no evidence that each country is willing to learn from the other’s experiences, or public health systems, or that we are tracking each other’s data and responses.
    • What were the proposals made in the summit? Two proposals were made:
      • One by India for a regional fund that Modi has generously offered to put aside $10 million for.
      • Pakistan proposed the setting up of a diseases surveillance centre for sharing real-time data. India has said it would prepare emergency response task forces to help out the member countries in need.
      • Delhi is said to be in the process of sending medical supplies worth $1 million to Nepal, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bhutan and Maldives, which sounds like a fraction of what they may eventually require.
      • Pakistan has said China will give it testing kits, protective gear and portable ventilators, as well as a cash grant for a state-of-the-art isolation centre.
      • Beijing, eager to live down its image as the point of origin for this global mayhem, will make the same offer to other South Asian countries soon.

    What were the lessons India need to learn from video-summit?

    • Indian need to go beyond Big Brother events: If the intention was to try and restore the aura Prime Minister Modi enjoyed in the region at the beginning of NDA-1, as some have not improbably suggested, it has to go beyond this Big Boss event.
      • The video summit saw polite attendance by all SAARC leaders, with the exception of Pakistan which sent its health minister.
      • But going by the scant media coverage that the summit, the first after six years, received in the neighbourhood, no one is holding their breath.
    • India has lost heft it once held: For many countries in the region now, India has lost the heft it used to have in the last century.
      • A proximate reason is that it is no longer an economic powerhouse nor holds the promise of being one in the near future.
      • The other reason is that it no longer offers itself as a model nation, pulling together its complex diversities, pluralism and political ideologies in a broad-minded vision.
    • CAA factor and changing the perception of India: The real damage to India’s standing was, of course, done by the badmouthing of the Muslim countries in the neighbourhood to justify the Citizenship (Amendment) Act 2019.
      • Larger image of themselves: Seen from the eyes of other countries in South Asia today, India is now just a larger version of themselves and their political and economic dysfunctions.
      • While additionally possessing and wielding the instruments to be vengeful and punitive in its foreign policy — including arm-twisting them now and then in its constant quest to isolate Pakistan.

    Conclusion

    • The real test for India lies ahead: The real test of Modi’s leadership of South Asia, and by extension of India’s, will come after the pandemic subsides, when each country has to deal with what remains of its economy.
      • The tourism economy of Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal and Sri Lanka would have been crushed by then. Pakistan will be worse off than it is now.
      • There will be more unemployment and hardship everywhere in the region.
      • Some of these countries will inevitably turn to China.
    • India must have something to offer as a solution: If Modi’s gesture is to go some way as part of the solution for the region, India, which will be picking up the pieces itself, must have something to offer to its South Asian neighbours six months to a year down the line.
      • Is there such a plan? Can India put aside the prejudices of its domestic communalism, and its own economic woes, demonstrate large-heartedness to all the countries of the region, irrespective of what religion its people follow, irrespective of its historical hostilities with at least one?
      • There may be more economic refugees knocking on India’s doors, apart from a host of other inter-regional problems.

  • Going regional

    Context

    Prime Minister Narendra Modi signalled a change in India’s rejection of SAARC as a platform for regional cooperation by inviting all heads of state and government of SAARC countries to a video summit to promote a region-wide response to the Covid-19 pandemic.

    SAARC in virtual deep freeze

    • Who attended the video conference? The video summit was attended by all SAARC leaders, except for Prime Minister Imran Khan of Pakistan, who deputed his special assistant for health to represent him.
    • Status of SAARC: SAARC has been in a virtual deep freeze since India conveyed it would not attend the 19th SAARC summit, to be hosted by Pakistan in 2017, in the wake of the cross-border terrorist incidents at Pathankot and Uri.
      • Other SAARC leaders also declined to attend.
      • The summit was indefinitely postponed.
    • Focus on BIMSTEC: Since then India has downgraded SAARC as an instrument of its “Neighbourhood First” policy and shifted the focus to the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) instead.

    Backdrop of SAARC revival

    • For his swearing-in ceremony in 2014, PM Modi had invited leaders of all SAARC countries including Pakistan.
    • For the swearing-in ceremony in 2019, it is BIMSTEC leaders who were the invited guests.
    • Soon after taking over as external affairs minister, S Jaishankar referred to SAARC having “certain problems” while BIMSTEC was described as having both energy and possibility and “a mindset which fits in with that very optimistic vision of economic cooperation that we want.”
    • Deliberate political message: Against this backdrop, Modi’s initiative in convening a SAARC video summit, instead of a BIMSTEC video summit, conveys a deliberate political message.

    Proposal of SAARC Covid-19 Fund and Health Ministers’ Conference

    • At the conference, Modi gave a call for the countries of SAARC “coming together and not going apart.”
    • A SAARC Covid-19 Fund has been proposed with India committing US$10 million.
    • Modi referred to the role which could be played by an existing SAARC institution, the Disaster Management Centre, in enabling a coordinated response to Covid-19.
    • Suggestions were made by several leaders, including the Pakistani representative, for a SAARC Health Ministers’ Conference to follow up on the summit. This is likely to be convened soon.

    Pakistan on defensive

    • India seen as undermining SAARC: Modi’s initiative has put Pakistan on the defensive. So far, it was India which was seen as undermining SAARC in which other South Asian countries have a keen interest.
    • BIMSTEC no alternative to SAARC: While there has been readiness on their part to participate in BIMSTEC, they do not consider the latter as an alternative to SAARC. In taking this initiative, Modi may be responding to these sentiments.
    • Onus on Pakistan: If Pakistan now drags its feet, then the onus will be on her for weakening the Association.
      • There is a new situation as a result of the abrogation of Article 370 relating to Kashmir, which has been denounced by Pakistan.
    • Difficulty for Pakistan: It would be difficult for Pakistan to accept cooperation with India under SAARC because this would compromise its stand on Kashmir.

    BIMSTEC not delivered expected results

    • Not yielded the expected result: It is also a fact that the focus on BIMSTEC has not yielded the results India may have expected.
    • Trade below the set target: Current trade among its members is US$40 billion, though the potential was set at $250 billion.
    • Act East policy stalled: India’s Act East policy, which involved a key role for India’s Northeast, has stalled.
    • RCEP factor: The Northeast is in political turmoil while India has opted out of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which would have added substance to BIMSTEC.

    Why India should revive SAARC

    1.BIMSTEC not a credible option to SAARC

    • Today it is difficult to see BIMSTEC as a credible and preferred alternative to SAARC.
    • Cooperation both through SAARC and BIMSTEC: In any case, it makes better sense for India to pursue regional economic cooperation both through SAARC as well as BIMSTEC rather than project them as competing entities.
    • SCO membership a contradictory position: If the argument is that regional cooperation involving Pakistan is a non-starter due to its ingrained hostility towards India, then being part of Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), where both are members, becomes a somewhat contradictory position.

    2.The China factor

    • China making inroad into the neighbourhood: In determining its position towards SAARC, India must also take into account the significant inroads that China has been making in its sub-continental neighbourhood.
    • BRI initiative: With the exception of Bhutan, every South Asian country has signed on to China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
      • A number of Chinese infrastructure projects are already in place or are being planned in each of our neighbours.
    • China likely to become a key player: With SAARC becoming inoperative and BIMSTEC not living up to its promise, China is likely to become a key economic partner for South Asia and India’s hitherto pre-eminent role will be further eroded.
      • On this count, too, it is advisable for India to advance regional cooperation both under SAARC as well as BIMSTEC. Both are necessary.

    3.Pakistan factor

    • Should not give up on Pakistan: Despite the frustration in dealing with Pakistan, India should not give up on its western neighbour.
    • Relation needs to be managed: Relations with Islamabad will remain adversarial for the foreseeable future but still need to be managed with two ends in mind.
      • One, to ensure that tensions do not escalate into open hostilities and,
      • two, to reduce leverage which third countries may exercise over both countries on the pretext of reducing tensions between them.
    • No compromise in position on terrorism: This does not in any way compromise our firm stand against cross-border terrorism emanating from Pakistan. The revival of SAARC could be an added constraint on Pakistan’s recourse to terrorism as an instrument of state policy.

    4.Afghanistan factor

    • Finally, the revival of SAARC would also support the Ashraf Ghani government in Kabul in navigating through a difficult and complex peace process involving a Pakistan-sponsored Taliban.

    Conclusion

    While these are essentially tactical considerations, there is a compelling reality which we ignore at our peril. Whether it is a health crisis like the Covid-19 or climate change, the melting of Himalayan glaciers or rising sea levels, all such challenges are better and more efficiently dealt with through regional cooperation. The Indian Subcontinent is an ecologically integrated entity and only regionally structured and collaborative responses can work.

  • World Happiness Report, 2020

     

    The World Happiness Report for 2020 has been recently released.

    The World Happiness Report

    • The WHR is an annual publication of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network.
    • It contains articles and rankings of national happiness based on respondent ratings of their own lives which the report also correlates with various life factors.
    • The 2020 report for the first time ranks cities around the world by their subjective well-being and digs more deeply into how the social, urban and natural environments combine to affect our happiness.

    Highlights of the 2020 report

    • Finland has been declared the world’s happiest nation for the third year running.
    • As in each of the previous seven reports, Nordic states dominated the top ten, along with countries such as Switzerland, New Zealand and Austria. Luxembourg also edged into the tenth spot for the first time this year.

    Why Finland?

    • People in Finland are said to be shy, away from spontaneous demonstrations of joy, valuing instead the quiet and solitude of the country’s vast forests and thousands of lakes.
    • The northern country’s long dark winters were reputed to be behind high levels of alcoholism and suicide, but a decade-long public health drive has helped cut rates by more than half.
    • Finland’s residents enjoy a high quality of life, security and public services, with rates of inequality and poverty among the lowest of all OECD countries.

    India’s dismal performance

    • India was at a 144 rank nestled between Lesotho and Malawi nations.
    • Pakistan, on the other hand, has been ranked 66.

  • [pib ] Indo-U.S. Science and Technology Forum

    Indian students will undertake a research internship at Viterbi School of Engineering, University of Southern California, LA, USA under the IUSSTF Program.

    What is IUSSTF?

    • IUSSTF is an acronym for the Indo-U.S. Science and Technology Forum.
    • It is established under an agreement between the Governments of India and the USA in March 2000.
    • It is an autonomous bilateral organization jointly funded by both the Governments that promote Sci-Tech, Engineering and Innovation through substantive interaction among government, academia and industry.
    • The Department of Science & Technology, Governments of India and the U.S. Department of States are respective nodal departments.

    About Viterbi Program

    • The Viterbi Program of IUSSTF was developed between IUSSTF and the Viterbi School of Engineering, University of Southern California (USC).
    • This program is a part of the Government’s endeavour to encourage research and development amongst the bright young Indian minds to create long-term, sustainable, and vibrant linkages between India and the US.

  • A revival of multilateralism, steered by India

    Context

    A leadership role by India in mobilising world collaboration would be in keeping with its traditional activism globally.

    Challenges and two aspects associated with it.

    • The COVID-19 pandemic has brought out in sharp relief the compelling reality that has been staring us in the face for the past several years.
    • This reality has two aspects.
    • First aspect: That most challenges confronting the world and likely to confront it in the future are cross-national in character. They respect no national boundaries and are not amenable to national solutions.
    • Second aspect: These challenges are cross-domain in nature, with strong feedback loops.
      • A disruption in one domain often cascades into parallel disruptions in other domains.
      • For example, the use of chemical fertilizers and toxic pesticides may promote food security but have injurious health effects, undermining health security.
      • Whether at the domestic or the international level, these inter-domain linkages need to be understood and inform policy interventions. The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) reflect this awareness.

    Rise in nationalism

    • Need for multilateral approach: The intersection of cross-national and cross-domain challenges demand multilateral approaches.
      • They require empowered international institutions of governance.
      • Underlying these must be a spirit of internationalism and solidarity, a sense of belonging to common humanity.
    • Moving in the reverse direction-Rise of nationalism: Over the past decade and more, the world has been moving in the reverse direction. There has been an upsurge in narrow nationalism, an assertion of parochial interests over the pursuit of shared interests and a fostering of competition among states rather than embracing collaboration.
    • The global challenge of COVID-19: COVID-19 has brought these deepening contradictions into very sharp relief. This is a global challenge which recognises no political boundaries. It is intimately linked to the whole pattern of large-scale and high-density food production and distribution.
    • Health crisis turned into economic crisis: It is a health crisis but is also spawning an economic crisis through disrupting global value chains and creating a simultaneous demand shock. It is a classic cross-national and cross-domain challenge.

    How countries are dealing with COVID-19 and possible outcomes

    • No coordination at the international level: But interventions to deal with the COVID-19 crisis are so far almost entirely at the national level, relying on quarantine and social distancing. There is virtually no coordination at the international level.
    • Blame game at the international level: We are also seeing a blame game erupt between China and the United States which does not augur well for international cooperation and leadership.
    • The hopeful outcome of international cooperation: While this is the present state of play, the long-term impact could follow alternative pathways.
      • One, the more hopeful outcome would be for countries to finally realise that there is no option but to move away from nationalistic urges and embrace the logic of international cooperation through revived and strengthened multilateral institutions and processes.
    • The depressing outcome of intense nationalist trends: The other more depressing consequence may be that nationalist trends become more intense, countries begin to build walls around themselves and even existing multilateralism is further weakened.
      • Institutions such as the United Nations and the World Health Organization which are already marginalised may become increasingly irrelevant.
      • There could be a return to autarkic economic and trade policies and an even deeper and more pervasive anti-globalisation sentiment.
    • Depression decade ahead: Unless there is a conscious effort to stem this through a reaffirmation of multilateralism, we are looking at a very depressing decade ahead.
      • This is when the world needs leadership and statesmanship, both in short supply.
    • Contrast with the financial crisis: This is in contrast to the U.S.-led response to the global financial and economic crisis of 2008 when the G-20 summit was born and a coordinated response prevented catastrophic damage to the global economy.

    Leadership role for India

    • Is there a role here for India which is a key G-20 country, the world’s fifth-largest economy and with a long tradition of international activism and promotion of rule-based multilateralism?
    • In this context, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s remarks at the recent Economic Times Global Business Summit are to be welcomed.
      • While speaking of the COVID-19 crisis, he said, “Like today, the world is facing a huge challenge in the form of Corona Virus. Financial institutions have also considered it a big challenge for the financial world. Today, we all have to face this challenge together. We have to be victorious with the power of our resolution of ‘Collaborate to Create’.”
      • He went on to observe that while the world today is “inter-connected, inter-related and also interdependent”, it has “not been able to come on a single platform or frame a Global Agenda, a global goal of how to overcome world poverty, how to end terrorism, how to handle Climate Change issues.”
    • From “Equal distance” to friendship with all: Modi lauded government’s policy of seeking friendship with all countries as contrasted from the earlier policy of non-alignment. He seemed to suggest that non-alignment was a defensive policy which advocated “equal distance from every country”.
      • Now, he claimed, India was still “neutral” — presumably meaning non-alignment — “but not on the basis of distance but on the basis of friendship”.
      • He cited India’s friendship with Iran and Saudi Arabia, and with the U.S. as well as Russia.

    India’s foreign policy

    • Non-alignment: Mr Modi may wish to distinguish his foreign policy from that of his predecessors, but what he describes as its “essence” is hardly distinguishable from the basic principles of Indian foreign policy since Nehru.
    • Non-alignment was not defensive: India’s non-alignment was anything but defensive. The international peace-keeping contribution that the Prime Minister referred to has its origins in Nehru’s sense of international responsibility.
    • Friendship with all: India has always professed its desire to have friendly relations with all countries but has been equally firm in safeguarding its interests when these are threatened.
    • Mutually beneficial partnership: India’s non-alignment did not prevent it from forging strong and mutually beneficial partnerships with major countries.
      • The India-Soviet partnership from 1960-1990 is an example just as the current strategic partnership with the U.S. is.
    • Foreign policy rooted in a civilisational sense: The foreign policy of his predecessors had been rooted in India’s civilisational sense, its evolving place in the international system and its own changing capabilities.
      • Their seminal contributions should be acknowledged and built upon rather than proclaim a significant departure.

    Move in line with traditional foreign policy

    • The Prime Minister’s plea for global collaboration to deal with a densely interconnected world is in line with India’s traditional foreign policy.
      • Move in keeping with traditional activism on a global scale: A leadership role in mobilising global collaboration, more specifically in fighting COVID-19 would be in keeping with India’s traditional activism on the international stage.
    • Commendable SAARC move: The Prime Minister has shown commendable initiative in convening leaders of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation nations for a regional collaborative effort on COVID-19.
      • International initiative: This should be followed by an international initiative, either through the G-20 or through the U.N.

    Way forward

    • Reformed and Strengthened U.N. should be India’s agenda: The Prime Minister made no reference to the role of the U.N., the premier multilateral institution, as a global platform for collaborative initiatives. There may have been irritation over remarks by the UN Secretary-General on India’s domestic affairs and the activism displayed by the UN Commissioner for Human Rights on the Citizenship (Amendment) Act controversy.
      • The U.N. Secretary General’s statement on India’s domestic affairs and activism by UN Secretary-General on India’s domestic affairs should not influence India’s long-standing commitment to the U.N. as the only truly inclusive global platform enjoying international legitimacy despite its failings.
      • If one has to look for a “single platform” where a Global Voice could be created, as the Prime Minister suggested, surely a reformed and strengthened U.N. should be on India’s agenda.
    • Opportunity for India in the pandemic: The COVID-19 pandemic presents India with an opportunity to revive multilateralism, become a strong and credible champion of internationalism and assume a leadership role in a world that is adrift. The inspiration for this should come from reaffirming the wellsprings of India’s foreign policy since its Independence rather than seeking to break free.