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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: International Relations

  • [op-ed snap] It’s not yet Howdy, Modi!

    Context

    Persistent in their efforts to remake their countries and their engagement with the world, Mr Modi and Mr Trump are shaking up the bilateral ties between the two countries, and the resultant flux could outlive their tenures.

    The emergence of both the leaders on similar promises

    • Improvements over the legacy of their predecessors: Both leaders continuously reiterate that their predecessors were incapable of protecting national interest.
      • The compulsion to reframe the national interest: Such premises commits them both to reframe the national interest, and both have articulated it with clarity and force.
      • For instance, Mr Modi, in Houston in September 2019 and Mr Trump in Davos this week, went great lengths to lay out figures that presented their respective regimes as the most effective guardians.
    • Both have cultural and economic agenda: Both dispensations believe that “the people” had been given a raw deal by earlier regimes.
      • Both have a cultural and economic agenda.
      • National awakening: They are now leading a national reawakening, and working hard for the hard-working people.
      • Both believe that cultural nationalism is a force for the good.
      • Securing borders and entry barriers: Both believe that national borders need to be strengthened by stricter monitoring and setting new bars for entry.
      • Renegotiating the treaties: Both leaders try to renegotiate the contract between the union and the States, and between citizens and the state within their respective countries.
      • The supremacy of executive: They assert the supremacy of the executive over the legislature and the judiciary.
      • Shared values: The notion of shared values of India and the U.S. has acquired a whole new meaning under Mr Trump and Mr Modi.

    Politics and governance

    • Hopes of status-quo in bilateral relations shattered: It was hoped that the stronger U.S.-India ties- that have autonomous drivers of convergence-would not be impacted by the nationalist politics of these two leaders.
      • But both leaders have been remarkably true to their politics in their governance.
      • Current tumult in the India-US ties: Shared values notwithstanding, national interests as perceived by these leaders have several points of divergence and therein lies in the current tumult in India-U.S. ties.
      • Opposition to the “world order”: Mr Trump has been outspokenly confrontational with the “world order” that he says has worked against American interests.
      • Dismantling the treaties: America under Mr Trump has wrecked treaties such as the Paris climate agreement and institutions such as the World Trade Organization and the United Nations, disrupting the “rule-based order”.
      • India’s relations with Bangladesh: India’s spirited outreach in the neighbourhood is still playing out. India’s historically warm ties with Bangladesh have been frayed after CAA.
    • India’s ambitions on the global level
    • The seat at the UNSC: India under continues to push for more space for itself in global affairs by seeking a permanent seat in the UN Security Council and membership.
    • NSG membership: India is also pushing for the membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group.
    • The US actions at global levels
      • Expansion of the principle of the pre-emptive strike: America expanded the principle of pre-emptive strike to include the assassination of a senior official of Iran.
      • Renegotiating the treaties: After dismantling the North American Free Trade Agreement, Mr Trump forced Mexico and Canada to accede to his demands in a new trade deal.
    • The India-US relations and impact of U.S. relations with other countries
      • Impact on India-US ties: India’s ties with the U.S. are impacted by America’s ties with India’s adversaries and neighbours, China and Pakistan.
      • Hopes of alignment in the Indo-US ties: Mr Trump’s bluster against both had lit hope that there would finally be a near-complete alignment between India and the U.S. on strategy.
      • US-Iran conflict: Despite Mr Trump’s avowed opposition to America’s endless wars in West Asia, the US is going against Iran headlong, which is not in India’s interest.
      • Relations with Gulf Countries: Trump and Mr Modi share a strong bonding with the Gulf Cooperation Council kings, but their courses in the region are diverging.
      • US-Pakistan coming closer once again: The American President’s impatience to get out of Afghanistan has already pushed his administration closer to Pakistan, which is now further necessitated by his adventurist Iran policy.
      • The US disregard for China’s expansionist policies: Mr Trump has been singularly focused on one question-trade. He cares little about China’s expansionism and at any rate that is not a factor in his ties with other Asian countries.

    India-US ties- Points of fission

    • On the trade front: Mr Trump has bracketed India and China as two countries that have duped his predecessors to gain undue advantage. Which is far from seeing India as deserving special concessions to counterbalance China as old wisdom demanded.
      • Ending GSP: The US ended India’s status under the World Trade Organization’s Generalized System of Preferences and took other punitive measures.
      • India trying to decrease the trade surplus: By increasing hydrocarbon imports from the U.S., the government is trying to reduce India’s trade surplus.
    • Restrictions on H1-B visa: The US has tightened the restrictions on the H1-B visa which is used by the Indian companies.
    • Decreasing bipartisan support in the US: The mobilisation of Indian diaspora in America by the government has resulted in the inevitable blowback.
      • Diaspora divided and bipartisan support waning: The diaspora has been divided, and the bipartisan support for India is now squandered. Progressive sections on the Democratic side and religious libertarians and evangelicals on the Trump side are both concerned over India’s actions back home.

    Conclusion

    Partnership with America is critical to India. India must take the steps to align the interest but whenever it diverges India must take measures to minimise its impact on India while furthering its interests.

  • [op-ed snap] As India prepares to honour Bolsonaro

    Context

    India has invited the Brazilian President to be a guest of honour for Republic Day 2020. It is also a good opportunity for focusing on intra-BRICS partnership and trade.

    Future of the BRICS

    • To move towards multi-polarity: This was set up as a move towards greater multi-polarity; hence the spread across three continents and both hemispheres.
      • Infirmities in the group: The BRICS combination accounts for about one-third of global output, but a glance at the GDP t and growth rates will show the infirmities of the group.
      • Differences in GDP: In terms of GDP, China occupies the second position; India the fifth; Brazil the ninth; Russia the 11th; and South Africa the 35th.
      • Differences in growth rate: In terms of growth rates, China grew at 6%; India at 4.5%, Russia 1.7%, Brazil 1.2% and South Africa 0.1%.
      • Both politically and economically, Brazil and South Africa have been the laggards in recent years. But there are certain similarities as well.
    • Similarities in the group: Each country has different economic and political leverage and its own burden of domestic and external issues.
      • Decision-making structure: They all share the benefits of autonomous decision making.
      • Non-affiliation: The members of the group have non-affiliation with any binding alliances.
      • Informal structure: The group’s informal structure is an advantage for coordination among the most influential non-Western countries.
    • Challenges to the survival of the group: The BRICS group can survive only if its members maximise their congruencies to the extent possible. Following are the challenges to the existence of the group-
      • The growing intensity of Sino-Russian ties.
      • The pro-American leanings in Brazil.
      • The socio-economic difficulties of South Africa after nine years under the controversial Jacob Zuma.
      • India’s many difficulties with China, including its abstention from the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.

    Achievement of the grouping

    • New Development Bank: The main achievement of BRICS is the New Development Bank, with each country contributing equally to its equity.
      • The bank has so far financed over 40 projects at a cost of $12 billion.
      • The BRICS countries are also developing a joint payments mechanism to reduce foreign trade settlements in U.S. dollars.
    • BASICS: An offshoot of the group, dealing with climate change, is BASIC (BRICS without Russia).
      • BASICS met at the Spain conference last month and reiterated its support to the Paris Agreement.
    • India’s lead role: India is taking the lead role in-
      • Digital health, Digital forensics
      • Film technology.
      • Traditional medicine.
      • Sustainable water management,
      • Internships and fellowships.

    Brazil-India relation

    • Visa waiver for Indians: Brazil declared the decision to waive visa requirements for Indian citizens.
    • Potential for investments: There is potential for Brazilian investments in the sectors of space and defence, agricultural equipment, animal husbandry, post-harvest technologies, and bio-fuels.
    • Low two-way trade: The total two-way trade is at a paltry $8 billion, and the prospect of closer economic ties, however desirable, would require considerable optimism.

    Conclusion

    Both India and Brazil need to further deepen the ties and increase cooperation in various areas of cooperation. BRICS, despite the various challenges, need to focus on congruencies between them and work towards greater cooperation.

    .

     

  • ICJ ruling on Rohingyas

     

    • The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that Myanmar must take effective measures to protect its Rohingya Muslims, including protecting evidence relating to allegations of genocide.
    • It is important to note that these directions are “provisional measures” until the ICJ can finally decide if Myanmar has been committing genocide against the Rohingya. The final verdict could take years.

    What is the case against Myanmar?

    • Last year, the Republic of the Gambia moved the ICJ against Myanmar over alleged violations of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
    • The Gambia urged the ICJ to direct Myanmar to stop the genocide, ensure that persons committing genocide are punished, and allow the “safe and dignified return of forcibly displaced Rohingya”.
    • The Gambia and Myanmar are parties to the Genocide Convention that allows a party to move the ICJ for violations.
    • Disputes between the Contracting Parties are settled according to Article 9 of the Genocide Convention.

    How did Myanmar respond?

    • Myanmar asked the ICJ to remove the case from its list, citing lack of jurisdiction of the court.
    • Myanmar alleged that the proceedings before the court were instituted by the Gambia, not on its own behalf, but rather as a “proxy” and “on behalf of” the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC).
    • Gambia is a member of the OIC, which includes 53 Muslim-majority nations.
    • Myanmar cited the Gambia’s reliance on OIC documents to allege genocide and said the Gambia did not point to specific violations of the Genocide Convention.
    • The court refused to accept Myanmar’s argument and said the fact that the Gambia “may have sought and obtained the support of other States or international organizations in its endeavour” does not take away from its right to bring a case against Myanmar.

    Does the ICJ ruling indict Myanmar?

    • Although a ruling against Myanmar dents its image internationally, the order of provisional measures does not translate into a finding against Myanmar.
    • While granting provisional measures, the court is not required to ascertain whether Myanmar violated the Genocide Convention.
    • The court found that it is sufficient at this stage “to establish prima facie the existence of a dispute between the Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfillment of the Genocide Convention”.
    • Myanmar leader Aung San Suu Kyi’s personal appearance before the ICJ to lead the defence of the military, however, shows the great stakes her country had in the case.

    Effects of non-compliance for Myanmar

    • For its part, Myanmar has denied that its military or paramilitary has participated in genocide of Rohingya and it is unlikely to alter its position.
    • Provisional measures are essentially a restraining order against a state when a case is pending and can be seen as, at most, a censure.
    • Provisional orders cannot be challenged and are binding upon the state.
    • However, limitations in enforcing decisions of the ICJ are widely acknowledged by law experts.

    What are these limitations?

    • As per Article 94 of the Charter of the United Nations, all member states are required to comply with decisions of the ICJ.
    • However, any action by a state can be secured only through consent of the state in international law.
    • When a state fails to comply, the Security Council has the power to impose sanctions against it and ensure compliance when international security and peace are at stake.
    • So far, the Security Council has never taken a coercive measure against any country to get an ICJ ruling implemented.
    • Even with the stepping in of the Security Council, there are several hurdles in enforcement of ICJ decisions.
    • Any one of the five permanent members of the Security Council with veto powers can block the enforcement of an ICJ decision against itself or its ally.

  • [op-ed snap] Same country, different script

    Context

    Pakistan is changing significantly, which is good for itself and its neighbour as well.

    Changing Pakistan

    • Major stakeholders in favour of peace: The civil society, the political parties, and even the military establishment of Pakistan have come to favour peaceful and cooperative relations with India.
    • Both the power-centre on the same page: Both Islamabad and Rawalpindi, Pakistan’s two centres of power, are now on the same page in seeking “honourable peace” with New Delhi on the basis of “sovereign equality”.
      • Heavy price paid by Pakistan: There is a broad consensus in Pakistani society and polity that their country has paid a very heavy price by supporting the forces of Islamist extremism and terrorism.
      • The futility of using terrorism as foreign policy: There is also consensus that using terrorism for achieving mistaken foreign policy ends in Afghanistan and India.

    Conducive conditions for dialogues

    • Four factors have influenced the welcome winds of change in Pakistan.
    • First-Realisation that Pakistan has suffered a lot:
      • Harm at home and to the global image: There is the across-the-board realisation that Pakistan has suffered a lot, both domestically and in terms of damage to its global image, by supporting religious extremism and terrorism.
      • A large number of casualties: Terrorists have killed a shockingly large number of civilians -certainly far many more than in India. Several thousand soldiers have lost their lives in the army’s “war on terror”-more than the number of casualties in all the wars with India.
      • The threat of FATF blacklisting: Furthermore, Islamabad is under relentless pressure from the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) to act decisively and irreversibly against terrorist organisations.
    • Second-Decrease in religious radicalisation in Pakistan
      • The decrease in the financial support to radicalism: What has contributed to the diminished importance of religious radicalism is also the shrinking inflow of petrodollars from Saudi Arabia and Gulf countries that promoted this agenda.
      • The ideological influence of religious radicalisation on Pakistan’s civil society is clearly declining.
      • Change in Saudi Government Policy: Export of Wahhabism is no longer a foreign policy priority of the Saudi Arabian government.
      • Changing policies in UAE: The United Arab Emirates has gone a step further, under the leadership of Abu Dhabi’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, it is pursuing inter-religious tolerance with a zeal that has surprised Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
    • Third-Interest of China
      • Rise of China as an economic and security partner: The third factor is China, which has emerged as Pakistan’s most important economic and security partner.
      • The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and BRI: The flagship projects under Beijing’s BRI has begun to modernise Pakistan’s infrastructure spectacularly, but its security is which could be threatened by terrorism is also the concern for China.
      • Connection with China’s Xinjiang Province: China has urged Pakistan’s ruling establishment to take firm steps to curb the activities of Islamist groups because they can easily foment trouble in China’s Muslim-majority Xinjiang province.
      • India-China relation factor: Beijing is also engaged in a steady effort to improve relations with New Delhi, in recognition of India’s rising economic and geopolitical stature in Asia and globally.
      • Possibility of India-China-Pakistan cooperation: China’s President Xi Jinping even mooted cooperation among China, India and Pakistan at Mamallapuram summit.
    • Fourth-Military establishment in favour of peace.
      • The military establishment seems to be fully convinced of the need for normalisation of India-Pakistan
      • Opening of Kartarpur Sahib Corridor: The opening of the Kartarpur Sahib Corridor, perhaps the greatest confidence-building measure between the two countries since 1947, is almost entirely due to Gen. Bajwa’s personal commitment to the project.
      • The economic crisis in Pakistan: Bajwa’s is also said to be convinced of the need to open the doors for economic and trade cooperation between the two countries given a serious economic crisis Pakistan is going through.
      • Discussion on the Kashmir issue: The Pakistan Army may also be ready to discuss a solution to the Kashmir issue on the basis of a formula Gen. Pervez Musharraf had discussed with PMs Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Dr Manmohan Singh.

    Conclusion

    India needs to seize the opportunity to resume the talks with Pakistan on all the contentious issues and try to resolve the disputes so that the improved relations could help both the countries and the neighbouring countries.

  • [op-ed of the day] Delhi-Davos disconnect-India must find ways to take advantage of new opportunities

    Context

    Given its increased heft in the global economic order, India ought to be at the leading edge of the current debate of the future of capitalism.

    The emergence of “stakeholder capitalism”

    • Interests of all shareholder: Klaus Schwab, who founded the World Economic Forum 50 years ago, wants capitalists to look beyond their shareholders and consider the interests of all the stakeholders.
      • Long overdue debate: Some hope that the debate on stakeholder capitalism is a long-overdue recognition of the capitalist excesses of recent decades.
    • Generating value for customers: Last August, the Business Roundtable in the US, which brings together some of the top American corporates, said American companies must now generate value for customers.
      • Invest in their employees.
      • Deal fairly with suppliers and support the communities in which they operate even as they service their shareholders.
    • Scepticism over “interests of all shareholders”: Sceptics say that this is a nice way of saying the right things, repackaging old ideas on corporate social responsibility and creating illusions about reforming capitalism.
      • Cynics insist that it will be business as usual for the world’s capitalists.
      • Reflection of deeper crisis: Beyond this divide between optimists and pessimists, the discourse on “stakeholder capitalism” is a reflection of the deeper crisis afflicting the global economy today.

    Three major challenges according to WEF

    • In its annual survey on global risks, the WEF has identified many challenges. Three of them stand out.
    • First Challenge: Polarised politics
      • In the US Trump is unlikely to be defensive.
      • While the dominant sentiments see Trump as the very embodiment of nationalism and populism that are polarising politics around the world.
      • Others point to the structural conditions that have bred these forces.
      • America’s working-class whose wages haven’t risen in decades, whose jobs are less secure than ever rallied behind Trump.
      • Politics in the US: Much the same happened in the British elections last year.
      • Tory leader Boris Johnson won a sweeping mandate by breaking into the working-class strongholds of the Labour Party.
    • Second Challenge: Trade war
      • Trump had a long record of denouncing free trade.
      • Many had hoped that Trump will moderate his anti-globalist rhetoric once in office.
      • Attack on a core principle of globalisation: Trump has taken a pickaxe to the core principles of the globalised economic order – free trade, open borders and multilateralism.
      • Renegotiating the treaties: The US has renegotiated a 25-year old trade agreement with America’s neighbours, Canada and Mexico.
      • The threat of all-out-trade war with China: Trump’s threat of an all-out trade war with China over the last couple of years has led to an interim agreement.
      • The agreement commits Beijing to reduce its trade surplus with the US by importing more.
      • The trade deficit of the US with EU: At Davos, Trump is expected to turn his ire on the EU, which has a near $200 billion trade surplus with the US.
    • Third challenge: Technology
      • War in technology domain: The trade wars among the world’s major capitalist centres is accentuated by the technological revolution, especially in the digital domain.
      • Need for coordination: The Davos report on global risks argues that the realisation of the full potential of new technologies depends on unprecedented coordination among all stakeholders.
      • Digital fragmentation: What is emerging instead is “digital fragmentation” marked by the extension of geopolitical and geo-economic rivalries into the new domain.
      • Digital issues have come to the front and centre of American arguments with Europe.

    Conclusion

    • India must find ways to take advantage of the new opportunities from the unfolding rearrangement of the global capitalist system.

     

  • [op-ed snap] Acting in concert

    Context

    The EU-India Strategic Partnership has come a long way in recent years. The relationship is based on long-standing shared values and interests. There are numerous opportunities to unleash the full potential of EU-India cooperation.

    India-EU Cooperation on Climate Change

    • The EU has committed to becoming carbon neutral by 2050.
    • But EU member states together only account for 9 per cent of global emissions.
    • Need to engage with the rest of the world:  EU-India cannot solve this problem unless they engage with the rest of the world to address it.
      • India’s commitment, as one of the biggest democracies in the world, is a key part of the solution.
      • The mixed outcome of the COP25 Climate Conference shows how much more remains to be done.
      • Clean Energy and Climate Partnership (CECP): In 2016 Prime Minister Narendra Modi and European leaders agreed on an EU-India Clean Energy and Climate Partnership (CECP).
      • EU and International Solar Alliance: In 2018, the EU joined efforts with the International Solar Alliance, headquartered in India.

    Cooperation in trade

    • Both are the members of WTO: India and EU both agree on the vital role of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the need to overcome the crisis of the dispute settlement system.
      • Ministerial dialogue: The launch of a regular ministerial dialogue on economic, trade and investment issues could give additional impetus to the relations.

    Cooperation on security

    • Indian Navy vessels are now escorting World Food Programme ships in the framework of the EU Atlanta operation against piracy off the coast of Somalia.
    • Cooperation on anti-terrorism: Counter-terrorism experts from Europe and India exchange experiences and best practices.
      • As a result, an enhanced working relationship between our police officers is taking shape.

    Digital economy and cyber

    • Need to deepen cooperation: EU and India should deepen cooperation to protect fundamental freedoms in cyberspace and the free flow of data – and counter the drift towards high-tech “de-coupling”.
    • India-EU does not want a split in cyberspace, forcing both to “choose sides” between competing systems and standards.
    • India and EU both believe in fair competition, based on global standards, for 5G, AI, big data and the internet of things.

    Conclusion

    There is much that the EU and India have accomplished in recent years. But there is even more to be done to further strengthen our dynamic dialogue and cooperation in all areas of mutual interest and as players on the world stage.

     

     

  • UAE declared ‘Reciprocating Territory’ by India

    Recently, the Ministry of Law and Justice issued an Extraordinary Gazette Notification, declaring the UAE to be a “reciprocating territory” under Section 44A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The notification also declared a list of courts in the UAE to be “superior Courts” under the same section.

    What is a ‘Reciprocating Territory’ ?

    • Essentially, orders passed by certain designated courts from a ‘reciprocating territory’ can be implemented in India, by filing a copy of the decree concerned in a District Court here.
    • The courts so designated are called ‘superior Courts’.

    What does Section 44 of the CPC say?

    Section 44A, titled “Execution of decrees passed by Courts in reciprocating territory”, provides the law on the subject of execution of decrees of Courts in India by foreign Courts and vice versa.

    Under Explanation 1 of S. 44A:

    • “Reciprocating territory” means any country or territory outside India which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a reciprocating territory for the purposes of this section; and “superior Courts”, with reference to any such territory, means such Courts as may be specified in the said notification.”
    • 44A (1) provides that a decree passed by “a superior Court” in any “reciprocating territory” can be executed in India by filing a certified copy of the decree in a District Court, which will treat the decree as if it has been passed by itself.
    • According to Explanation-2, the scope of the Section is restricted to decrees for payment of money, not being sums payable “in respect of taxes or other charges of a like nature or in respect of a fine or other penalty”.
    • It also cannot be based on an arbitration award, even if such an award is enforceable as a decree or judgment.

    Other countries with such status

    • Apart from Dubai, the other countries declared to be “reciprocating territories” are: United Kingdom, Singapore, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Trinidad & Tobago, New Zealand, the Cook Islands (including Niue) and the Trust Territories of Western Samoa, Hong Kong, Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Aden.

    Why such move?

    • The notification was the only remaining part of a 1999 agreement between the UAE and India related to cooperation in civil and commercial matters.
    • The decision is believed to help bring down the time required for executing decrees between the two countries.
    • With this, Indian expatriates in the UAE would no longer be able to seek safe haven in their home country if they are convicted in a civil case in the UAE.

  • [pib] UNCITRAL

     

    An International Arbitration Tribunal has dismissed all claims brought against  India in entirety. The arbitration arose out of the cancellation of Letters of Intent for the issuance of telecom licences to provide 2G services in five telecommunications circles by reason of India’s essential security interests.

    UNCITRAL

    • The UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) is a subsidiary body of the U.N. General Assembly responsible for helping to facilitate international trade and investment.
    • Established by the UNGA in 1966, UNCITRAL’s official mandate is “to promote the progressive harmonization and unification of international trade law” through conventions, model laws, and other instruments that address key areas of commerce, from dispute resolution to the procurement and sale of goods.
    • UNCITRAL carries out its work at annual sessions held alternately in New York City and Vienna, where it is headquartered.
    • The Tribunal constituted in accordance with the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules 1976 is seated at the Hague, Netherlands, and proceedings are administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration.

  • India-Pakistan Trade

    Tensions between India and Pakistan in 2019 have reduced the already low volumes of trade between the two countries to near zero.

    India-Pakistan trade, in the beginning

    • In 1948-49, about 56% of Pakistan’s exports were to India, and 32% of its imports came from India.
    • From 1948-65, India and Pakistan used a number of land routes for bilateral trade; there were eight customs stations in Pakistan’s Punjab province and three customs checkpoints in Sindh.
    • India remained Pakistan’s largest trading partner until 1955-56. Between 1947 and 1965, the countries signed 14 bilateral agreements on trade, covering avoidance of double taxation, air services, and banking, etc.
    • In 1965, nine branches of six Indian banks were operating in Pakistan.

    Close to vanishing

    • Following the terrorist attack on the CRPF convoy in Pulwama in February, India withdrew Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status for Pakistan and raised customs duty on Pakistani imports to 200% .
    • In April, India suspended cross-LoC trade to stop the misuse of this route by Pakistan-based elements.
    • Pakistan on its part closed its airspace to India for a prolonged period.
    • The decisions by both countries, while targeted at hurting the neighbour, have severely impacted the livelihoods of individuals and families involved in cross-border trading activities.

  • [op-ed snap] Seize the summit

    Context

    India announced that it will invite all heads of government of Shanghai Co-operation Organisation member countries, including Pakistan.

    Significance of the invitation

    • First since 2014: The summit will assume significance should Pakistan Prime Minister accept the invitation.
      • As it will be the first by a head of government or state of that country to India since former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif attended the swearing-in ceremony of Prime Minister in 2014.
    • Hopes belied: Nothing came from that meeting and hopes created by the invitation were belied.
    • Failed attempts to engage: Attempts to engage after that failed, including at a previous SCO summit at Ufa in 2015.

    Latest events that further reduced the engagement

    • Pulwama attack: First, there was the February 2019 Pulwama attack, India’s Balakot response, and Pakistan’s counter-response.
    • Article 370: After India did away with Jammu & Kashmir’s special status, India and Pakistan have downgraded even their diplomatic presence in each other’s countries.
    • Both the countries withdrew their high commissioners after the Article 370 issue.
    • Trade stopped completely: Bilateral trade, which had managed to survive earlier shocks to relations, has stopped completely.

    Opportunities presented by SCO summit

    • “Inputs of all stakeholders”: In deciding whether to accept the invitation, the Pakistan PM will have to take into consideration “inputs of all stakeholders”.
    • A polite way of saying that the final yes or no will rest with the Pakistan Army.
    • A chance for a high-level meeting: Even if Imran Khan stays away and sends a minister instead, it would still be a chance for a high-level bilateral meeting.
    • The world wants India and Pakistan to engage: The world wants India and Pakistan to engage, and this was evident in the way the UNSC refused to take up the Kashmir issue, saying it was not the forum for it.
    • Opportunity for India to make a start: India has declared several times recently that it wants to peel away from historical foreign policy baggage.
      • India should make a start with Pakistan by making it possible for such a meeting to take place.
    • Making acceptance of invitation easier: India can make it easier for the Pakistan Prime Minister to accept the invitation.
    • Resuming trade: A start could be made by resuming trade, which has ground to a dead halt
    • Sending High Commissioner back: India can start by sending India’s High Commissioner back to his office in Islamabad.

     Conclusion

    The SCO summit presents an opportunity for both the countries to end the long hiatus in the relations which is essential for both the countries to resolve the long-standing issues and progress of both the countries.