💥Mains Ready By December. Smash Mains & Smash PYQ Admissions Open
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: International Relations

  • 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.

     

  • The new multilateralism

    Context

    As the major global institutions — from the WHO to the WTO — are experiencing unprecedented turmoil India needs to be pragmatic and fleet-footed.

    Reorientation of India’s multilateral strategy

    • As many international institutions, including the World Health Organisation and the United Nations Security Council, come under great stress in the corona crisis, Delhi’s multilateral strategy is going through a rapid reorientation.
    • Realists in Delhi recognise that India’s engagement with the UN is not about the pursuit of some higher ideological calling, but the navigation of hardball geopolitics.

    China’s growing influence and implications for India

    • China’s role on Kashmir question: China repeatedly pressed the UN to discuss the Kashmir question after Delhi changed the constitutional status of the region last August.
    • China avoiding discussion on Covid crisis: But through last month, as the rotating chair of the UNSC, China blocked any discussion of the Covid crisis.
    • Beijing insisted that the crisis was not a matter of international peace and security that the UNSC ought to bother itself with.
    • A mere internal administrative change in Kashmir, Beijing continues to insist, is a grave threat to international peace and security.
    • With its veto power, Beijing can simply prevent the UNSC from doing anything against China.

    Why the credibility of the UN and WHO bureaucracy is under cloud?

    • Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, jumped quickly into the Indo-Pak arguments over Kashmir, and raised concerns over India’s Citizenship Amendment Act and the National Register of Citizens.
    • Guterres went on an extended visit to Pakistan in February and made an ostentatious public offer to mediate between Delhi and Islamabad on Kashmir.
    • But when it comes to China’s role in the spread of the coronavirus, Guterres can’t seem to find the words.
    • The situation at the WHO is a lot worse.
    • The Director-General of WHO, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus warns against the dangers of “politicising” the Covid crisis.
    • Many in Europe and the US think that is exactly what Tedros has done at the WHO in the last few months.
    • Breakdown of the multilateral system: What we are witnessing is the breakdown of the multilateral system that emerged from the ashes of the Second World War amidst the deepening contestation between the world’s foremost powers — the US and China.

    NEW MULTILATERALISM adopted by India

    • India’s new multilateralism — as a pragmatic response to external change — involves downplaying some past associations and strengthening new partnerships.
    • Take, for example, two innovations India has made since the end of the Cold War.
    • One was the BRICS forum with Brazil, Russia, China and South Africa and the other was the so-called Quad — a coalition of democracies with Australia, Japan and the US.
    • Actions of BRICS members with respect to India: As India reorders its multilateral priorities amid the corona crisis, the BRICS forum is losing some of its salience and the Quad is gaining traction.
    • Preventing discussion on COVID crisis: Two of India’s partners in BRICS — Russia and South Africa — had reportedly backed the efforts of a third, China, to prevent a discussion of the COVID crisis in the UNSC.
    • If Delhi were sitting in the UNSC right now as a non-permanent member, it would have had every interest in pressing for a discussion of the COVID crisis that has severely damaged India’s economic and social prospects.
    • Meanwhile, India is in regular consultations on managing the corona crisis with the “Quad Plus” grouping that draws in South Korea, Vietnam and New Zealand.
    • Neither the BRICS nor the Quad square with the conventional narrative on India’s multilateralism that was dominated in the past by the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and the G-77.
    • As circumstances change, India is finding new international partners to secure its interests.

    Context which gave rise to BRICS

    • It started out as a triangular coalition with Russia and China in the mid-1990s.
    • India’s interest in the RIC was borne out of fear of the unipolar moment and Russia’s relentless efforts to draw it into a “strategic triangle” that would resist “American hegemony”.
    • In the early 1990s, Delhi was rather wary of the Bill Clinton Administration’s plans to relieve India of its nuclear and missile programmes.
    • What made matters worse was the Clinton Administration’s formulation that “Kashmir is the world’s most dangerous nuclear flashpoint”.
    • This was not just a description; it was accompanied by a prescription for Delhi: Resolve the Kashmir question by sitting down with Pakistan and the Hurriyat.
    • If Delhi needs any help, Washington will be happy to chip in.
    • Balancing the US pressure: Going into a political tent with Russia and China seemed a sensible bet to ward off American pressures on the nuclear and Kashmir questions.

    Two decades after BRICS-Changes in circumstances

    • Two decades later, we are in a very different place.
    • Take the same two issues — Kashmir and the nuclear programme — that drove India into the BRICS.
    • China’s role on Kashmir issue: It is Beijing that wants the UNSC to take up the Kashmir question, and it is Paris and Washington that are preventing it.
    • NSG membership blocked by China: China has also resolutely blocked India’s effort to become a full member of the global nuclear order by joining the Nuclear Suppliers Group.
    • On the nuclear front too, it was France and the US that helped India break the nuclear blockade.
    • Shielding of Pakistan by China: China shields Pakistan from international pressures to end cross-border terrorism.
    • And it is India’s partners in the West and the Muslim world that are helping Delhi cope better with violent extremism.

    India’s engagement with Europe

    • India has also discovered the new possibilities for engaging Europe in the multilateral arena.
    • Europe as an important partner: If India’s definition of multilateralism — Afro-Asian solidarity — immediately after Independence was defined in opposition to colonial Europe, Delhi now sees Europe as a valuable partner in rearranging the global order.
    • India has joined the “alliance for multilateralism” initiated by Germany and supported by its European partners.

    Conclusion

    India needs all the pragmatism it can muster to pursue its interests in a world where all the major global institutions — from the WHO to the WTO — are experiencing unprecedented turmoil and are heading towards an inevitable restructuring.

  • The law cannot fall silent

    Context

    Amid the many developments in the wake of Covid-19 pandemic one of the facets that is also discussed is-How to read international law in the context of the pointers to the future?

    Constitutional duty regarding international laws

    • Respect for the norms and standards of international law is among the paramount constitutional duties of the state under Article 51 of the Constitution.
    • The duty is regardless of the quibbles on whether the language here refers only to treaty/obligations or also to customary international law.
    • International norms remain relevant: Despite US President Donald Trump’s recent threat of actions against the WHO, international norms, standards, and doctrines remain relevant to making national policy and law.

    Possibility of discussion over pandemic at UNSC

    • The difference between the United Nations as a site of normative discursivity and as a site of doing global power politics is sadly manifest even now in the accelerated pace of the pandemic.
    • Discussion extremely unlikely: President Trump’s insistence on calling it a “Chinese virus” renders it extremely unlikely that the pandemic will be discussed during the current monthly presidency of the UN Security Council by China.
    • Possibility of veto: The threat of veto by China and Russia will always loom large whenever the matter is placed for discussion.

    Role of the UN in the codification of law

    • The UN is also a site of systems of norm enunciation.
    • Along with the International Law Commission, it is responsible for the progressive codification of law.
    • The UN system has developed lawmaking and framework treaties as well as provided auspices for systems of “soft” law that may eventually become the binding law.
    • There are three types of international laws which are described below.

    1. The fundamental overriding principle of international laws

    • Jus cogens: Some of the norms of international law are robust and deeply relevant. For example, the peremptory jus cogens — a few fundamental, overriding principles of international law such as crimes against humanity, genocide, and human trafficking apply to all states.
    • And Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties goes so far as to declare that a “treaty is void if, at the time of its conclusion, it conflicts with a peremptory norm of general international law”.
    • And even when ingredients of genocide remain difficult to prove, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has held, in 2007, that states have a duty to prevent and punish acts and omissions that eventually furnish elements for the commission of crime of genocide.
    • Erga omnes: There also exist erga omnes rules prescribing specifically-determined obligations which states owe to the international community as a whole.
    • This was enunciated by the ICJ in 1970 for four situations — the outlawing of acts of aggression; the outlawing of genocide; protection from slavery; and protection from racial discrimination.
    • A great significance of this judicial dictum is that it lays down obligations which transcend consensual relations among states.
    • In addition, there are three other sets of international law obligations.
    • These are primarily derived from the no-harm principles crystallised in the International Law Commission’s 2001 Draft Articles on the Prevention of Transboundary Harm (DAPTH) and the Paris Framework Agreement on Climate Change, 2015.
    • The DAPTH has carefully developed norms of due diligence, stressing all the way that these may be adapted to contextual exigencies.
    • But due diligence obligations certainly extend beyond local and national boundaries, especially because the environmental problems have a transboundary impact.
    • Each state is obliged to observe these standards in the fight against COVID-19 as a matter of international law.

    2. International laws dealing with core human right measures

    • No law or policy to combat epidemics or pandemic can go against the rights of migrant workers, internally displaced peoples, and refugees and asylum seekers.
    • Respect for the inherent dignity of individuals in combating COVID-19 and for the rights of equal health for all, non-discrimination, and the norms of human dignity further reinforce accountability and the transparency of state and other social actors.
    • Panicky and sadist policing, including shoot-a- sight orders in collective exodus situations, and militaristic responses to food riots de-justify health lockouts and curfews.

    3. International humanitarian law

    • The third set of obligations arises out of international humanitarian law. The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) is pertinent here.
    • India did not subscribe to any conspiracy or racist theory about the origins of COVID-19 — in fact, India’s foreign minister rightly affirmed the BTWC obligations on March 26 (on the 40th anniversary of that Convention).
    • Surely, this global and non-discriminatory disarmament convention deserves applause because it outlaws a whole range of weapons of mass destruction.
    • India has, and rightly so, called for “high priority” to “full and effective implementation by all states parties”.

    Conclusion

    The starting point of a determined fight against COVID-19 has to be a full-throated repudiation of an ancient Latin maxim, inter arma enim silent leges (in times of war, the law falls silent). Combating this fearsome pandemic calls for re-dedication to nested international law obligations and frameworks.

  • OPCW blames Syria for chemical attacks

    The global chemical weapons watchdog, the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) has for the first time explicitly blamed Syria for chemical attacks.

    What did the report say?

    • President Bashar al-Assad’s air force used the nerve gas sarin and chlorine three times in 2017.
    • The findings came in the first report from a new investigative team set up by the OPCW to identify the perpetrators of attacks in Syria’s ongoing nine-year-long civil war.

    About OPCW

    • The OPCW is an intergovernmental organisation and the implementing body for the Chemical Weapons Convention, which entered into force on 29 April 1997.
    • The organisation is not an agency of the United Nations but cooperates both on policy and practical issues.
    • The OPCW, with its 193 member states, has its seat in The Hague, Netherlands, and oversees the global endeavour for the permanent and verifiable elimination of chemical weapons.
    • It promotes and verifies the adherence to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits the use of chemical weapons and requires their destruction.
    • It won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2013 for its work in Syria and says it has eliminated 97 per cent of the world’s chemical weapons.
    • The OPCW has the power to say whether chemical weapons were used in an attack it has investigated. In June 2018, it granted itself new powers to assign blame for attacks.

    Back2Basics: Syrian Crisis

    • The Syrian civil war is an ongoing multi-sided civil war in Syria fought between the Ba’athist Syrian Arab Republic led by Bashar al-Assad and various domestic and foreign forces opposing both the Syrian government.
    • Even before the conflict began, many Syrians were complaining about high unemployment, corruption and a lack of political freedom under Assad.
    • In March 2011, pro-democracy demonstrations erupted in the southern city of Deraa, inspired by the “Arab Spring” in neighbouring countries.
    • When the government used deadly force to crush the dissent, protests demanding the president’s resignation erupted nationwide. The unrest spread and the crackdown intensified.
    • Opposition supporters took up arms, first to defend themselves and later to rid their areas of security forces. Assad vowed to crush what he called “foreign-backed terrorism”.
    • The violence rapidly escalated and the country descended into civil war.

  • It’s time for the Red Berets

    Context

    The World Health Organisation (WHO) is not equipped to fight a pandemic of this proportion. The world needs a special UN force to fight COVID-19.

    Limits of WHO in the fight against COVID-19

    • The World Health Organisation (WHO) is not equipped to fight a pandemic of this proportion.
    • Its responsibility is to monitor threats to public health and inform and advise the member states. The fight against COVID-19 has to be on a war footing.
    • The need for the composite force: For this we need a composite force that has the capabilities of massive sanitisation, testing, hospitalisation and providing support systems.
    • Signs of conflict: Even the most powerful nations are not able to cope with the effort and there are signs of conflict on account of shortages of equipment and trained personnel.
    • The only UN body which has the training for assembling fighting forces for emergencies is the Department of Peace Operations.

    Pandemic as a threat to international peace and security

    • Contentions over pandemic: The UN Security Council (UNSC) stands paralysed because of petty battles on the name of the pandemic, its origin and the need for transparency.
    • It should hold an emergency meeting and authorise the UN Secretary-General to put together a force under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.
    • Interpreting the mandate: The mandate of the Charter should be interpreted to emphasise that this is the greatest threat to international peace and security.
    • Possibility of conflict: Moreover, conflicts are possible on account of the fragility of the international system.
    • Member states should be requested to send not only troops but also police, health workers and equipment.
    • Deploying the peace force: In war situations, the Secretary-General is able to put together a force in about four months. This operation requires greater emergency.
    • There is some delicacy about deploying the army internally in different political systems, but UN forces have been acceptable in most countries.
    • Who should bear the cost? As for the cost, the responsibility for the deployment of forces for peacekeeping, peace-building and peace enforcement is that of the permanent members.
    • Instead of competing with each other for leadership of the post-COVID-19 world, let them help create a post-COVID-19 world.
    • Fear of devastation in the poor countries: So far COVID-19 has spread in relatively prosperous regions of the world, which have stable infrastructure and health systems.
    • We cannot trust that it will not spread to less equipped states, in which the devastation will be much more.
    • Only a UN force which can enforce social distancing and lockdowns can prevent a catastrophe.

    Resolution under Chapter VII

    • In which situation it is used: Most Chapter VII resolutions determine the existence of a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace, or an act of aggression in accordance with Article 39, and make a decision explicitly under Chapter VII.
    • A UNSC Resolution is considered to be ‘a Chapter VII resolution’ if it makes an explicit determination that the situation under consideration constitutes a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace, or an act of aggression, and/or explicitly/ implicitly states that the UNSC is acting under Chapter VII in the adoption of some or all operative paragraphs.
    • Chapter VII resolutions are very rarely isolated measures.
    • Often the first response to a crisis is a resolution demanding the crisis be ended. This is later followed by an actual resolution detailing the measures required to secure compliance with the first resolution.
    • Sometimes dozens of resolutions are passed over time to modify and extend the mandate of the first Chapter VII resolution.
    • The UN stands discredited today as the UNSC has not been able to meet.
    • It may take place, now that China has vacated the Security Council chair and Dominican Republic has taken over.
    • Several resolutions are in circulation, but none under Chapter VII.

    Way forward

    • The first step will be to pass a resolution to take action to end the crisis and authorise the Secretary-General to request member states to make personnel available.
    • Meanwhile, another resolution must spell out the modalities of the operation.
    • Red berets: The UN peacekeeping forces are called Blue Berets because of the colour of the caps that they wear. The health force can have caps of another colour, probably red. The launch of the Red Berets will be a historic action to be taken at a critical moment.

    Conclusion

    This is the right time for the UN to act for the collective action against the pandemic which in turn help in establishing the UN’s relevance.

     

  • Sanctions and pandemic: On America’s Iran policy

    Context

    The US has refused to ease the sanction on Iran even as it is struggling hard to control the spread of the virus.

    Sanctions adding to the difficulties of Iran

    • Disregard to the humanitarian situation: America’s refusal to ease sanctions on Iran even when the West Asian country is struggling hard to contain the novel coronavirus spread with limited resources shows its total disregard for the humanitarian situation in the Islamic Republic.
    • Iran, the hardest hit by the pandemic in West Asia, has already seen 3,739 deaths and 62,589 infections.
    • Iran’s failure: To be sure, Iran failed on multiple fronts in the battle. The government was initially reluctant to enforce drastic restrictions on businesses, religious establishments and people.
    • As infections began spreading at an exponential pace, it was more than what Iran’s health-care system could handle.
    • Failures accentuated by sanctions: And during the crisis, the cash-strapped, isolated regime struggled to meet people’s needs. But what accentuated these failures are the American sanctions.
    • Last year, the sanctions, reimposed by President Trump after he unilaterally pulled the U.S. out of the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, shrank the country’s economy by 8.7%.
    • Oil price factor: The fall in oil prices and the pandemic have multiplied Iran’s woes.
    • The sanctions have also debilitated its ability to import even humanitarian goods.
    • Rejection by the US to ease sanctions: The U.S. rejected calls for easing sanctions, saying exports of these goods to Iran are already exempted. But it is not that easy.
    • Banks fearful of US action: Most global banks, fearing U.S. retaliation and legal consequences, stay away from doing business with Iran, which makes it difficult for the Islamic Republic to find a functional payment mechanism.
    • With the economy in dire straits, it also lacks the resources to make purchases.

    Why should the US ease sanctions?

    • The U.S., which has the most number of COVID-19 infections, should be in a better position to understand Iran’s woes than any other country.
    • Despite the U.S. being the world’s largest economy, and home to a gigantic health-care industry, authorities there appear clueless on quick containment.
    • Learning from its own tragedy, Washington should have suspended or at least eased the sanctions on Iran, allowing the country to import food, medicines and other humanitarian goods without restrictions.
    • Such a decision would also have provided an opportunity to both countries — on the brink of a military conflict early this year — to resume diplomatic engagement.
    • It is still not too late for Mr Trump to take a humanitarian decision and turn it into a diplomatic opening.

    What Iran should do?

    • The Iranian leadership should realise that this is not the time for America-bashing.
    • Focus on getting help: This is an hour of crisis, globally. Tehran’s focus should be on getting maximum help from abroad and beefing up its fight at home to save lives.
    • Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s recent comment that Iran “has the capability to overcome any kind of crisis and challenges” is far removed from reality.

    Conclusion

    Iranians need help and the U.S. should reconsider its policy of punishing them, at least in this time of a pandemic. This could open the diplomatic channel for the further talk between both the countries.

  • The wilting Sakura

    Context

    A resilient nation, Japan has risen from the ashes, phoenix-like, each time. It is now confronting COVID-19, which has wreaked havoc on global financial and economic systems and disrupted production, supply chains and markets.

    The cruise ship incident and no reprieve to the Japanese from Covid-19

    • COVID-19 received a high-rating televised start in Japan with the cruise ship, Diamond Princess, steaming into Tokyo Bay with 3,711 passengers on board and quickly being quarantined.
    • Over the next month, with more than 700 cases of infection on-board, it remained the single-largest cluster outside China.
    • Gradually, as numbers swelled exponentially elsewhere and the incidence of new cases remained low locally, the Japanese went back to their ways, with holiday crowds celebrating the annual Hanami (sakura viewing) season in idyllic spots
    • It seemed as if the Japanese had dodged the bullet even as it delayed until April 3 the blocking of tourists from 70-odd countries, including China, which accounted for nearly 9.6 million tourists in 2019, one-third of the total.
    • With new infections mounting in recent days, the reprieve, it seems, was as ephemeral as the bloom of the sakura.

    Postponing the Olympics

    • The biggest collateral damage of the fresh wave of COVID-19 infections in Japan is the belated decision to postpone the Tokyo Olympics to 2021.
    • It reminded the nation of the jinxed Olympics of 1940, which Japan was to host but fell victim to the Second Sino-Japanese War.
    • If the 1940 Olympics were intended to showcase Japan’s industrial and economic resurrection after the devastation of the 1923 Great Kanto earthquake, the 1964 Tokyo Olympics had symbolised the economic miracle in Japan after the ravages of the Second World War.
    • The 2020 Olympics, dubbed by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe as the “Recovery and Reconstruction Games”, were to demonstrate Japan’s mojo in the aftermath of the 2011 Triple Disaster.
    • Reports indicate that Japan has already spent $12.6 billion on the preparations for the Olympics.
    • Nikkei and Goldman Sachs estimate that the postponement of the games would easily set Japan back by another $5-6 billion.

    Impact on economy

    • Recession in the world: The pandemic could not have come at a worse time. The IMF has confirmed that COVID-19 has pushed the global economy into a recession, potentially much worse than the one in 2009.
    • The Japanese economy now faces the daunting prospect of a sharp contraction, with the OECD Report for March 2020 forecasting its GDP growth at 0.2 per cent in 2020.
    • Even before the global pandemic struck, Japan was dealing with the adverse effects on consumer spending of the hike in consumption tax from 8 per cent to 10 per cent.
    • Dwindling demand from China, where Japan has huge economic stakes, can only worsen the regional economic outlook already strained by US-China trade friction.
    • Abe’s decision this week to declare a month-long state of emergency in Tokyo and six other prefectures, alongside the release of a gargantuan stimulus package worth nearly $1 trillion, including cash doles and financial support to households and businesses, may help turn the tide.
    • However, providing healthcare to a rapidly ageing population in the face of an abrupt disruption in the sizeable inward flow of foreign care-givers will prove a daunting challenge.
    • Meanwhile, several prefectures that depend heavily on tourism from China and the Republic of Korea have suffered deep losses.

    Impact on Japan’s international commitments and initiatives

    • As one of the world’s richest countries, Japan can perhaps hope to cushion itself from such blows.
    • Whether the economic distress unleashed by COVID-19 also adversely impacts some of Japan’s commitments to its Official Development Assistance (ODA) or outlays for regional infrastructure and connectivity under flagship programmes such as the Expanded Partnership for Quality Infrastructure (EPQI), the Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD) and the Indo-Pacific Business Forum, including the Blue Dot Network and LNG projects, remains to be seen.
    • This could well be true of the US too, in the context of the International Development Finance Corporation under the BUILD Act, aimed at countering China’s expanding writ across the region.

    Implications for Indo-Pacific region

    • The pandemic could have broader implications for military postures in the Indo-Pacific.
    • As it was seen in the outbreak of the COVID-19 virus onboard the US Navy’s Theodore Roosevelt, which had sailed from San Diego in January for a scheduled Indo-Pacific deployment.
    • It is at the centre of a controversy involving the sacking of its captain and the vessel’s ill-advised port visit to Da Nang in Vietnam earlier in March despite the high risk of contagion.
    • Of course, China’s PLA Navy (PLAN) could well be grappling with similar problems out at sea but, unlike in the democratic world, these facts will be treated as “state secrets”.
    • Opportunity for China to further its influence: As China gradually recovers from the pandemic, relatively earlier and faster than the West, Beijing’s “charm offensive” and leveraging of its deep pockets may help it to further its geopolitical influence.
    • Its assistance to developing countries in mitigating the impact of COVID-19 will create new scope to proselytise its governance and development models.

    India-Japan relations

    • Japan-China relations: A high-profile casualty of the pandemic is Chinese President Xi Jinping’s long-pending visit to Tokyo.
    • But Japan’s “mask diplomacy” and generous assistance to China at the start of the pandemic augur well for Sino-Japanese ties, which have improved in recent years, their inveterate differences notwithstanding.
    • India visit by Japan: Abe’s postponed visit to India, earlier scheduled to take place at the end of 2019, will be hard to resurrect before the pandemic is completely under control.
    • Nevertheless, the fundamental convergence of interests and the extraordinary political capital invested in the relationship by both PM Modi and Abe in recent years ensures that the Special Strategic and Global Partnership between India and Japan will remain robust.
    • New vistas for India-Japan cooperation: The pandemic opens up new vistas for cooperation in healthcare, non-traditional security and global governance, including reform of the UN and affiliated bodies such as the WHO whose contributions in the battle against COVID-19 are moot.

    How Japan tackled the pandemic so far?

    • So far, Japan had relied on its customary discipline and prevention methods, with an exhortation to the public to avoid the “three Cs” — closed spaces, crowded places and conversations at close proximity.
    • No lockdown: Japan has shied away from taking the bold approach that Modi took in announcing a 21-day nationwide lockdown.
    • The declaration of a state of emergency covering the megacities of Tokyo and Osaka and some prefectures would give local governors in the hardest-hit areas greater legal authority to impose curbs, albeit without the power to impose penalties.
    • Japan’s case-by-case approach to the reopening of schools by regional authorities has been criticised.
    • There have been calls for a strict lockdown before it is too late to avert the same fate as Italy, Spain and the US.
    • In a race to develop vaccine: With formidable scientific prowess at its disposal, Japan remains at the forefront in the race to develop a vaccine against COVID-19.

    Conclusion

    Prime Minister Abe is viewed by voters as a leader capable of taking bold decisions. If Abe’s administration overcomes the COVID-19 crisis despite the odds and succeeds in staving off a recession, there is every chance that the LDP might again amend its rules to grant him a fourth term. After all, it is not easy for any of his political rivals to step into his shoes in the middle of such a crisis.

  • Preparing for SAARC 2.0

    Context

    A tweet by Prime Minister Narendra Modi resulted in the first-ever virtual summit of SAARC leaders on March 15. What has happened to this innovative exercise in health diplomacy since then?

    The follow-up after the video-conference of SAARC members

    • Considering that SAARC has been dormant for several years due to regional tensions, it is worth stressing that the fight against COVID-19 has been taken up in right earnest through a series of tangible measures.
    • First, all the eight member-states were represented at the video conference — all at the level of head of state or government, except Pakistan.
    • The Secretary-General of SAARC participated. They readily agreed to work together to contain the virus and shared their experiences and perspectives.
    • Second, India’s proposal to launch a COVID-19 Emergency Fund was given positive reception.
    • Within days, all the countries, except Pakistan, contributed to it voluntarily, bringing the total contributions to $18.8 million. Although it is a modest amount, the spirit of readily expressed solidarity behind it matters.
    • Third, the fund has already been operationalised. It is controlled neither by India nor by the Secretariat.
    • It is learnt that each contributing member-state is responsible for approval and disbursement of funds in response to requests received from others.
    • Fourth, in the domain of implementation, India is in the lead, with its initial contribution of $10 million.
    • It has received requests for medical equipment, medicines and other supplies from Bhutan, Nepal, Afghanistan, Maldives, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.
    • Many requests have already been accepted and action has been taken, whereas others are under implementation.
    • Fifth, a follow-up video-conference of senior health officials was arranged on March 26.
    • The agenda included issues ranging from specific protocols dealing with the screening at entry points and contact tracing to online training capsules for emergency response teams.
    • Technical cooperation: Steps are now underway to nurture technical cooperation through a shared electronic platform as also to arrange an exchange of all useful information among health professionals through more informal means.

    Is the fund sufficient to deal with the grave threat?

    • So far, South Asia has not exactly borne the brunt of the pandemic.
    • Of the total confirmed cases in the world that stood at 12,89,380 on April 6 (according to the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resources Center), SAARC countries reported only 8,292 cases, representing 0.64%.
    • Reasons of lower spread not known: Whether the low share is due to limited testing, a peculiarity of the strain of the virus, people’s unique immunity, South Asia’s climate, decisive measures by governments, or just good fortune is difficult to say.
    • But it is evident that India’s imaginative diplomacy has leveraged the crisis to create a new mechanism for workable cooperation.
    • It will become stronger if the crisis deepens and if member-states see advantages in working together. Seven of the eight members already do.

    Is it the sign of revival of SAARC?

    • To conclude that SAARC is now returning to an active phase on a broad front may, however, be
    • In the backdrop of political capital invested by New Delhi in strengthening BIMSTEC and the urgings it received recently from Nepal and Sri Lanka to resuscitate SAARC, India’s foreign minister said that India had no preference for a specific platform.
    • But India was fully committed to the cause of regional cooperation and connectivity.
    • The challenge facing the region is how to relate to a country which claims to favour regional cooperation, while working against it.
    • Clearly, India has little difficulty in cooperating with like-minded neighbours, as it showed by forging unity in the war against COVID-19.
    • This is diplomatic resilience and leadership at its best.

    Conclusion

    Given the grave threat posed by the pandemic and other benefits that the multilateral platforms such as SAARC offers Both New Delhi and its friendly neighbours need to start preparing themselves for SAARC 2.0.

  • Between nationalism and globalism

    Context

    Although all world leaders have acknowledged the global imperative in dealing with the virus, they have put the nation first without much consideration to the collective action.

    The middle path between extreme globalisation and hyper-nationalism

    • ‘Nation first’ approach: Although all world leaders have acknowledged the global imperative in dealing with the virus, they have put the nation first. Are all nations now for themselves? Not so fast.
    • Sovereignty is certainly back. Solidarity is under stress, but not dead. The drift is towards a middle path between extreme globalism and hyper-nationalism.
    • The last few decades have seen the growing awareness of “global problems” like climate change and the need for “global solutions”.
    • Lack of collective action: The corona pandemic certainly adds to that consciousness. But as in the case of climate change, collective action is not easy to come by.

    Closing of the borders and the idea of a “borderless world”

    • One of the first steps most governments took during the current crisis was to shut down their borders.
    • The idea of a “borderless world” had gained much acceptance in recent years but is now under serious questioning.
    • For example, how the US, Canada and Europe are outbidding each other in buying medical material from China.
    • They are ready to pay a hefty premium if Chinese suppliers break from an earlier commitment.
    • Nations banning medicines: Meanwhile, many nations, including India, have banned the export of much-needed medicines and equipment to combat the virus.
    • Washington, which initially criticised other countries for limiting exports of essential drugs, has had no option but to go down that path as the toll from coronavirus rose rapidly.
    • Donald Trump is angry with 3M, one of the leading American producers of masks, for exporting to other nations at a time of huge domestic shortfall.
    • The US ban on exports of medical supplies came just days after the G-20 affirmed that its member states “will work to ensure the flow of vital medical supplies, critical agricultural products, and other goods and services across borders”.

    Globalisation and related ideas under stress

    • A testing time for two ideas: The problem is not that governments are being hypocritical. They are simply trapped in a crisis that is testing two important assumptions that guided the world in the last three decades.
    • One is that globalisation, with its long and transborder supply chains, generates prosperity through economic efficiency.
    • The second was that economic globalisation based on the dispersal of production will serve the interests of all nations.

    Opposition to globalisation in the West

    • The new objections to economic globalisation are not coming from the traditional champions of sovereignty in the East and the South, but the West.
    • It was North America and Europe that had preached the virtues of unhindered economic
    • They also championed the idea of globalism that will transcend national sovereignty in terms of both institutions and values.
    • New converts to nationalism and sovereignty began to appear in the West well before corona crisis.
    • Brexit to take control own borders: Britain walked out of the European Union claiming the need to “take back control” of its borders.
    • Storming the White House against all predictions in 2016, Trump has sought to push Washington away from the trinity of America’s post-war political commitments-to open borders, free trade, and multilateralism.
    • Globalisation and corona crisis: For Trump and his team, the corona crisis is confirmation of the dangers of excessive globalisation.
    • This argument is finding some resonance in Europe.
    • Addressing workers at a factory that makes masks in France, President Emmanuel Macron echoed the same feelings.

    Arguments against globalisation

    • An argument against efficiency: The efficiency argument of the globalists has been countered in the West by many who say societies are not merely economic units; they are also political and social communities.
    • The disadvantage to working people: While expansive globalisation has helped generate super-profits for the capital, it has put the working people at an increasing disadvantage.
    • Uneven distribution of benefits: The uneven distribution of the benefits from the dispersal of production and free movement of labour has undermined political support for economic globalisation in the West.
    • Role of China: Reinforcing this downward trend is the belief that China is misusing global economic interdependence for unilateral political advantage.
    • There were indeed strategic consequences to China’s emergence as the world’s factory.
    • After all, China is not a passive territory; it is an ancient civilisation with ambitions of its own.

    Future of globalisation and the role of China

    • The peak of expansive globalisation is over: While economic interdependence among nations can’t be eliminated, we might be past the peak of expansive globalisation and hyper-connectivity.
    • Many countries are likely to move to the diversification of external production, short supply chains and stockpiles of essential materials to limit vulnerability during times of crises.
    • China-West relations may change: The palpable anger against China in the US and beyond, for keeping the world in the dark about the spread of the coronavirus, has been magnified by Beijing’s “mask diplomacy” and political triumphalism after it got in control of the situation in Wuhan.
    • This anger is bound to translate into long-term changes in the relations between China and the West and some rearrangement of multilateral mechanisms.

    Conclusion

    Out of this restructuring new international coalitions are likely to emerge. Even as world leaders put their own respective nations first, they will also explore new forms of solidarity. Like the instinct for self-preservation, solidarity too is part of human nature.