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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: International Relations

  • India-China: the making of a border

    Introduction

    The India–China boundary, stretching for about 3,488 km, is one of the longest disputed borders in the world. Unlike clearly demarcated international frontiers, this boundary runs through the Himalayas and remains unsettled in large parts. The two major areas of dispute are Aksai Chin in the western sector, occupied by China but claimed by India, and Arunachal Pradesh (particularly the Tawang tract) in the eastern sector, claimed by China but under Indian control. Rooted in the legacies of the British and Manchu empires, the boundary was never precisely defined. After independence, India relied on British-era maps while China pressed for historical and strategic claims. This divergence led to the 1962 war and continues to shape relations between the two Asian powers.

    Why the India–China border issue matters

    The unresolved India–China border remains a major geopolitical challenge in Asia. Unlike other international boundaries, this border runs through inhospitable Himalayan terrain where neither country historically maintained a permanent presence. The 1962 war, following India’s rejection of Chinese proposals, left scars of mistrust. Later attempts, such as Rajiv Gandhi’s 1988 Beijing visit, restored engagement but not resolution. The dispute is about sovereignty, strategy, and national prestige, making it a flashpoint with global implications.

    The imperial legacy and a contested border

    1. Colonial inheritance: The India–China border was a product of the British and Manchu empires, drawn imprecisely through the Himalayas.
    2. Absence of settlement: After independence, India relied on colonial maps and dismissed Chinese calls for negotiations.
    3. Strategic miscalculation: India’s faith in maps was not supported by control on the ground, leaving space for China’s proactive steps in Aksai Chin.

    The emergence of conflict in Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh

    1. Chinese presence in Aksai Chin: China constructed a highway from Xinjiang to Tibet through Aksai Chin, asserting de facto control.
    2. Indian assertion in Tawang: India occupied Tawang citing the 1914 Simla Convention and the McMahon Line signed with an independent Tibet.
    3. Proposals for compromise: In 1959, Beijing suggested a Line of Actual Control (LAC) with a 20 km troop pullback; in 1960, Zhou Enlai proposed a swap—Aksai Chin for Arunachal recognition.
    4. Breakdown and war: India rejected these offers; attempts to reclaim Aksai Chin triggered the 1962 war, where India lost ground in Ladakh but retained the McMahon Line in the east.

    Post-war developments and early engagement

    1. Dormancy period: After 1962, both sides avoided border contact for more than a decade.
    2. China Study Group: In 1975, India formed this high-level body to map the border with satellite imagery and direct patrolling.
    3. Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s outreach: In 1979, Vajpayee visited Beijing, the first senior Indian leader to do so since 1962, initiating cautious normalisation.
    4. Revival of Chinese proposals: Deng Xiaoping in 1980 reiterated Zhou’s swap idea, but India, led by Indira Gandhi, rejected it due to mistrust.

    The stalemate in negotiations during the 1980s

    1. Unproductive talks: From 1981, both sides engaged in negotiations—India sought sector-wise talks, while China insisted on a package deal.
    2. Demand for Tawang: By 1985, Beijing linked concessions in Ladakh with Indian concessions over Tawang, central to China’s Tibet policy.
    3. Operation Falcon: In 1986, India forward-deployed troops at Namka Chu, displaying improved military preparedness since 1962.
    4. De-escalation: Both sides eventually pulled back, but the demand for Tawang revealed fundamental divergence.

    Rajiv Gandhi’s 1988 visit and a new framework

    1. Strategic reset: Rajiv Gandhi’s visit to Beijing marked a shift from linking normalisation to border resolution.
    2. Framework for dialogue: Both sides agreed to restore relations while deferring the border issue to a Joint Working Group (JWG).
    3. Principle of accommodation: Premier Li Peng emphasised “mutual understanding and mutual accommodation (MUMA),” while Gandhi sought a “fair and reasonable” settlement.
    4. Peace as priority: Peace and tranquillity were prioritised, enabling cooperation in other fields despite the unsettled boundary.

    Conclusion

    The India–China border dispute is a story of missed chances, mistrust, and strategic recalibration. From Aksai Chin to Tawang, an imperial legacy evolved into a sovereignty dilemma. While Deng Xiaoping and Rajiv Gandhi shifted the relationship towards peace, fundamental differences endure. History shows that strategic patience, military preparedness, and calibrated diplomacy remain the keys to managing this difficult relationship.

    Value Addition

    Institutional Mechanisms

    1. China Study Group (1975): Established by India to monitor the border with satellite mapping and patrolling points.
    2. Joint Working Group (1988): Created after Rajiv Gandhi’s visit to sustain structured dialogue on the boundary issue.
    3. Later confidence-building agreements (1993, 1996, 2005): Though not in this article, they flowed from this trajectory and institutionalised border management.

    Policy Evolution

    1. Jawaharlal Nehru: Over-reliance on colonial maps and dismissal of negotiations.
    2. Atal Bihari Vajpayee: Cautious outreach to normalise ties in 1979 despite tensions.
    3. Indira Gandhi: Strong mistrust post-1962, refusal to accept “territorial swaps.”
    4. Rajiv Gandhi: Pragmatic reset in 1988, separating normalisation from boundary resolution.

    Line of Actual Control (LAC)

    1. Definition: The de facto boundary separating Indian and Chinese forces, first formally acknowledged in 1959 by China.
    2. Nature: Not mutually agreed or demarcated on the ground, leading to “differing perceptions.”
    3. Relevance: Key to understanding recurring standoffs such as Galwan (2020), though beyond this article’s timeframe.

    Case Study Relevance

    1. Aksai Chin: Illustrates how geography and strategic imperatives (road connectivity to Tibet) drive China’s claims.
    2. Tawang: Demonstrates cultural and religious dimensions (Tibetan Buddhism, Dalai Lama’s birthplace links).
    3. Operation Falcon (1986): A case study in how improved military readiness altered China’s calculus.
    4. Rajiv Gandhi’s 1988 visit: A model of pragmatic diplomacy—normalisation without immediate resolution.

    Way Forward

    1. Institutional strengthening: Reviving and empowering mechanisms like the Joint Working Group and Special Representatives dialogue.
    2. Confidence-building: Expanding agreements on patrolling norms, hotlines, and disengagement to avoid clashes.
    3. Strategic balance: Maintaining military preparedness (as shown in Operation Falcon) while keeping diplomacy open.
    4. Engagement beyond the border: Deepening cooperation in trade, technology, and multilateral forums to build trust.
    5. Mutual accommodation: Drawing from Deng Xiaoping and Rajiv Gandhi’s vision of a “fair, reasonable, mutually acceptable” settlement to guide long-term resolution.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2017] ‘China is using its economic relations and positive trade surplus as tools to develop potential military power status in Asia’, In the light of this statement, discuss its impact on India as her neighbor.

    Linkage: China’s occupation of Aksai Chin and insistence on Tawang show how strategic control is tied to economic leverage, such as road connectivity and infrastructure. Its trade surplus with India fuels military modernisation along the Line of Actual Control (LAC). For India, this creates a dual challenge of managing unresolved borders while countering China’s economic–military power projection in Asia.

  • In news: Strait of Malacca

    Why in the News?

    Singapore’s PM has acknowledged India’s intent to join the Malacca Straits Patrol (currently undertaken by Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, and Singapore).

    In news: Strait of Malacca

    About Strait of Malacca:

    • Location: Narrow waterway in Southeast Asia, between the Malay Peninsula (northeast) and Sumatra, Indonesia (southwest).
    • Length & Width: Extends about 800–900 km; width varies from 65 km in the south to 250 km in the north.
    • Depth: The southern end is narrow and shallow, usually less than 37 m deep, posing navigational challenges.
    • Geological Setting: Part of the Sunda Shelf formation, created after post-glacial sea level rise around 2.6 million years ago.
    • Key Ports: Hosts major hubs like Singapore, Port Klang, Penang, and Melaka, making it one of the busiest shipping lanes globally.

    Strategic and Economic Importance:

    • Global Chokepoint: Links the Indian Ocean (Andaman Sea) with the Pacific Ocean (South China Sea), forming a vital maritime chokepoint.
    • Trade Corridor: The shortest sea route between the Middle East/Africa and East Asia, critical for global commerce.
    • Volume of Trade: Handles about 60% of world maritime trade, including large-scale oil shipments from the Middle East to China, Japan, and Southeast Asia.
    • Economic Impact: Any disruption could severely affect supply chains and energy security worldwide.
    • Geopolitical Significance: Attracts competing interests of India, China, the US, and ASEAN states, making it a hotspot for regional and global strategic rivalry.
    [UPSC 2010] Which one of the following can one come across if one travels through the Strait of Malacca ?

    Options: (a) Bali (b) Brunei (c) Java (d) Singapore*

     

  • Highlights of the Global Peace Index, 2025

    Why in the News?

    India has ranked 115th in the Global Peace Index, 2025 published by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP).

    About Global Peace Index (GPI):

    • Publisher: Released annually by the Institute for Economics and Peace (IEP), Sydney.
    • Coverage: Ranks 163 countries/territories, representing 99.7% of world population.
    • Indicators: Based on 23 metrics grouped under three domains:
      • Societal Safety & Security (crime, terrorism, political stability).
      • Domestic & International Conflicts.
      • Degree of Militarisation (defence spending, arms imports, personnel).
    • Launch: First published in 2007; now a key global benchmark for peace, stability, and security.

    Key Highlights of GPI 2025:

    • Top 10: Iceland (1st), Ireland, New Zealand, Finland, Austria, Switzerland, Singapore, Portugal, Denmark, Slovenia.
    • India’s Position: Ranked 115th (score 2.229), an improvement from 116th in 2024 (+0.58%).
    • Neighbour Comparison:
      • Pakistan – 144th (much lower).
      • Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh – higher than India, reflecting stronger peace metrics.
    • Least Peaceful: Russia, Ukraine, Sudan, DR Congo, Yemen, hit by wars, humanitarian crises, and instability.
    • Regional Insights:
      • Europe dominates top ranks.
      • Singapore is only Asian country in top 10.
      • South America shows gains (Argentina, Peru).
      • South Asia, Middle East, Africa remain volatile.
    [UPSC 2023] Consider the following pairs:

    1. North Kivu and Ituri: War between Armenia and Azerbaijan

    2. Nagorno-Karabakh: Insurgency in Mozambique

    3. Kherson and Zaporizhzhia: Dispute between Israel and Lebanon

    How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

    Options: (a) Only one (b) Only two (c) All three (d) None*

     

  • Unmistakable shift (India signalled a change in foreign policy stance at SCO Summit)

    Introduction

    India’s foreign policy has historically oscillated between balancing great power politics and safeguarding its strategic autonomy. The 2025 SCO Summit in China witnessed a landmark moment: Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s first bilateral engagement with Chinese President Xi Jinping since the 2020 military standoff. The visit not only revived dormant dialogues but also underscored India’s shifting posture in a multipolar world marked by U.S. sanctions, instability in West Asia, and contestations within Eurasia.

    Significance of Indian Prime Minister’s Visit to China

    1. Seven-year gap: PM Modi had not travelled to China since 2017, making this a major diplomatic breakthrough.
    2. First bilateral since standoff: Meeting with Xi Jinping was the first since the 2020 military confrontation along the LAC.
    3. Three-year SCO absence: Modi’s return to SCO after three years shows India’s willingness to re-engage with a grouping seen as anti-Western.
    4. Optics of bonhomie: Images with Xi and Putin evoked memories of the inactive Russia-India-China trilateral, signalling recalibration.

    Revival of India-China Bilateral Engagement

    1. Troop disengagement: Both leaders endorsed the normalisation process initiated in October 2024.
    2. Boundary resolution: Agreed to fast-track talks between Special Representatives.
    3. Connectivity revival: Resumption of direct flights and visa facilitation announced.
    4. Economic ties: Leaders stressed on building trade relations to stabilise world commerce.
    5. Mutual trust rhetoric: Modi stressed ties based on “mutual trust, respect and sensitivity”, while Xi used the metaphor of “Dragon and Elephant” coming together.

    External Drivers of India’s Foreign Policy Recalibration

    1. U.S. tariffs and sanctions: American restrictions and mistrust of the Trump administration nudged India to diversify partnerships.
    2. Strategic compulsion: India managed to side-step concerns like China’s support to Pakistan during Operation Sindoor, UNSC/NSG opposition, and shielding of terrorists.
    3. Multipolar optics: India’s engagement at SCO signals balancing between West and Eurasia.

    Key Outcomes of the 2025 SCO Summit

    1. Tianjin declaration: Strong language against cross-border terrorism, including condemnation of the Pahalgam attack (India) and Balochistan attacks (Pakistan).
    2. West Asian crisis: SCO united on humanitarian crisis in Gaza and condemned U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran.
    3. China’s push: Xi proposed an SCO Development Bank.
    4. India’s push: Modi proposed a Civilisational Dialogue among SCO members.
    5. India’s reservation: Continued opposition to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) paragraph.

    Missed Diplomatic Opportunities at the Summit

    1. Skipped SCO Plus: Indian Prime Minister did not attend the extended “SCO Plus” Summit, limiting engagement with neighbourhood and Global South leaders.
    2. Regional bonding gap: While optics were strong, substantive regional outreach was diluted.

    Conclusion

    The SCO Summit underscored India’s willingness to recalibrate its foreign policy in a changing world order. Modi’s visit after years of distance marked a thaw with China, greater Eurasian engagement, and assertion of India’s independent foreign policy despite U.S. pressures. However, missed opportunities in broader outreach and unresolved trust deficits with China remain cautionary notes.

    Value Addition

    Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO)

    Historical Background

    1. Successor to: SCO is the successor to the Shanghai Five, formed in 1996 between China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Tajikistan.
    2. Formation: Established in 2001 in Shanghai by China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.
    3. Expansion: India and Pakistan joined as full members in 2017; Iran became a member in 2023.
    4. Observers & Dialogue Partners: Afghanistan, Belarus, Mongolia, and others engage as observers; several countries (e.g., Turkey, Sri Lanka) are dialogue partners.

    Strategic Importance of SCO for India

    1. Geopolitical Balancing: Provides a platform to engage with China and Russia while maintaining ties with the West (Quad, U.S.).
    2. Regional Security: Key forum for counter-terrorism cooperation, especially in light of cross-border terrorism and instability in Afghanistan.
    3. Eurasian Connectivity: Enhances India’s presence in Central Asia, a region rich in energy resources.
    4. Multipolar World Order: Strengthens India’s narrative of strategic autonomy and non-alignment in new form.

    Key SCO Mechanisms

    1. Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS): Headquartered in Tashkent, focuses on counter-terrorism intelligence sharing.
    2. Economic Cooperation: Proposals for SCO Development Bank, regional trade, and connectivity projects (though India resists BRI-linked initiatives).
    3. Cultural and Civilisational Dialogues: Shared platforms for people-to-people exchanges, education, and cultural diplomacy.

    India’s Challenges within SCO

    1. China Factor: Difficult to expand cooperation given border disputes and China’s Pakistan tilt.
    2. Pakistan Factor: Its membership often leads to diplomatic blockages on issues like terrorism.
    3. BRI Opposition: India consistently refuses to endorse the Belt and Road Initiative, creating friction.
    4. Russia-China Axis: Russia’s growing dependence on China may dilute India’s influence in the bloc.

    Contemporary Relevance

    1. Energy and Trade: Central Asia is crucial for energy diversification; SCO provides a gateway.
    2. Geopolitical Flux: With U.S.-China rivalry and West Asia instability, SCO’s role in Eurasian stability gains importance.
    3. Soft Power Opportunity: India uses SCO to promote civilisational dialogue, yoga, Ayurveda, and cultural diplomacy.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2021] Critically examine the aims and objectives of SCO. What importance does it hold for India?

    Linkage: The article directly illustrates the objectives of SCO—counter-terrorism (Tianjin declaration), multipolarity, and Eurasian stability. It highlights India’s balancing act—reviving ties with China, opposing BRI, and pushing for civilisational dialogue. Thus, the SCO Summit outcomes reflect both the scope and constraints of SCO’s importance for India in strategic, economic, and security domains.

  • In news: Sudan’s Darfur Region

    Why in the News?

    A landslide in Sudan’s western Darfur region reportedly wiped out a village, killing an estimated 1,000 people.

    In news: Sudan’s Darfur Region

    About Darfur Region:

    • Location & Size: Western Sudan; borders Chad, Libya, CAR; spans about 493,000 sq. km (nearly France-sized).
    • Geography: Predominantly arid/semi-arid; desert north, fertile south. Highly vulnerable to drought, desertification, and climate change.
    • Administrative Units: Divided into five states — North, South, West, Central, East Darfur.
    • Demographics: Mixed ethnic groups — Arab pastoralists and non-Arab farming communities.
    • Capital: El Fasher, main hub for administration, economy, and humanitarian operations.

    Ongoing Conflict & Crisis:

    • Origins of Uprising: Armed rebellion began in 2003 (SLM, JEM) against political and economic marginalization.
    • Janjaweed & RSF: Janjaweed militias, accused of genocide and ethnic cleansing, later evolved into Rapid Support Forces (RSF), now central to instability.
    • Humanitarian Crisis: Since 2003, region has seen mass killings, displacement, refugee flows, ranked among the worst global humanitarian crises.
    • Current Instability: Renewed 2023 violence between RSF and rival groups worsened agriculture, aid, and governance.
    • Regional Impact: Conflict spills into Chad and CAR, destabilizing the Sahel region.
    • Natural Disasters: Alongside conflict, disasters like the 2025 Darfur landslide (~1,000 deaths) add to human suffering.
    [UPSC 2024] Consider the following statements:

    Statement-I: There is instability and worsening security situation in the Sahel region.

    Statement-II: There have been military takeovers/coups d’état in several countries of the Sahel region in the recent past.

    Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statement?

    a) Both Statement-I and Statement-II are correct and Statement-II explains Statement-I

    b) Bothe Statement-I and Statement-II are correct, but Statement-II does not explain Statement-I

    c) Statement-I is correct, but Statement-II is incorrect

    d) Statement-I is incorrect, but Statement-II is correct

     

  • [26th August 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: India-Japan Ties, Old Partners, New Priorities

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC GS II] The time has come for India and Japan to build a strong contemporary relationship, one involving global and strategic partnership that will have a great significance for Asia and the world as a whole. Comment.

    Linkage: The question calls for examining India–Japan relations as a global and strategic partnership. The current visit, with Japan’s ¥10 trillion investment, defence cooperation, and Indo-Pacific focus, shows this vision materialising. It highlights how the partnership now goes beyond economics to shape Asian stability and world geopolitics.

    Mentor’s Comment

    PM Modi’s Japan visit signals India’s strategic clarity amid global flux. Japan’s unprecedented investment pledge, technology transfer, and defence cooperation position it as India’s most reliable Indo-Pacific partner when U.S. unpredictability and China’s mistrust loom large.

    Introduction

    India–Japan ties are deepening at a crucial juncture. With a ¥10 trillion ($68 billion) Japanese investment plan and renewed security cooperation, the partnership goes beyond economics. It reflects India’s balancing act between Tokyo, Beijing, and Washington, showcasing strategic autonomy in an uncertain world.

    Why is this visit significant?

    • Historic Japanese pledge: A ¥10 trillion ($68 billion) investment plan, among Tokyo’s most ambitious commitments to New Delhi.
    • Technology transfer: Includes next-generation E10 series Shinkansen for the Mumbai–Ahmedabad high-speed rail, reflecting economic plus technological collaboration.
    • Timing amid flux: Visit comes just before Modi’s participation in the SCO Summit in China, showcasing strategic balancing.
    • U.S. uncertainty: With Trump’s erratic second term, the visit highlights India’s recalibration of partnerships, reinforcing Japan as a dependable anchor.

    Japan’s Investment and Economic Partnership

    • Massive infrastructure push: ¥10 trillion investment spread across infrastructure, manufacturing, clean energy, and technology.
    • High-speed rail corridor: Japan’s E10 Shinkansen trains for Mumbai–Ahmedabad project symbolise trust and long-term collaboration.
    • Supply chain resilience: Economic Security Initiative expands cooperation on semiconductors, critical minerals, pharmaceuticals, and clean energy.
    • Digital partnership: Upgradation to cover artificial intelligence and startup ecosystems, placing India-Japan ties at the cutting edge of innovation.

    Strategic and Defence Cooperation

    • Security framework revision: 2008 Joint Declaration on Security Cooperation to be updated in line with today’s realities.
    • Indo-Pacific commitment: Reinforces shared vision of a free, open, and rules-based Indo-Pacific.
    • Maritime security and resilience: Japan remains central to India’s Indo-Pacific strategy amid an uncertain Quad trajectory.

    The China Factor and Strategic Balancing

    • Dual engagement: Modi’s Tokyo visit followed by Beijing trip reflects India’s ability to compartmentalise relations.
    • Confidence-building with China: Resumption of flights, visa relaxations, and trade measures post-Galwan.
    • Message of balance: India signals that deepening ties with Japan need not preclude dialogue with China.

    The U.S. Factor and Quad Challenges

    • Unpredictability under Trump 2.0: Threatens to erode years of steady New Delhi–Washington cooperation.
    • Quad dilution: U.S. disengagement risks weakening the grouping’s strategic coherence.
    • India-Japan partnership: Emerges as ballast to sustain Indo-Pacific momentum even when U.S. commitment wavers.

    Broader Political and Diplomatic Significance

    • Beyond economics: Japan’s engagement shows that consistent, long-term cooperation delivers real outcomes.
    • Diplomatic flexibility: India demonstrates ability to pursue multiple alignments without losing clarity.
    • Anchor role of Japan: Unlike Washington’s inconsistency or Beijing’s mistrust, Tokyo provides stability, resources, and shared values.

    Conclusion

    The Prime Minister’s Japan visit reflects one of the enduring features of Indian diplomacy, flexibility with clarity. By securing massive investment, strengthening defence ties, and reinforcing Indo-Pacific strategies, India positions Japan as its anchor partner in uncertain times. The visit sends a broader signal: India is capable of balancing great power politics while advancing its economic and strategic priorities. For UPSC, it is a live example of strategic autonomy in action.

  • In news: Donbas Region

    Why in the News?

    The mineral-rich Donbas region remains central to future of Russia-Ukraine peace talks.

    About Donbas Region:

    • Constituent Areas: Includes Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts in eastern Ukraine.
    • Geographical Position: Bordered by the Sea of Azov in the south, which connects to the Black Sea via the Strait of Kerch.
    • Industrial Hub: Known as Ukraine’s industrial heartland due to large mineral and energy resources.
    • Coal Reserves: Ukraine possesses ~32 gigatonnes of hard coal, most concentrated in Donbas (IEA estimate).
    • Shale Gas Potential: Yuzivska shale gas field (Donetsk–Kharkiv) holds 1.2–2 trillion cubic metres of gas in place, one of Europe’s largest untapped reserves.
    • Salt Production: Home to Artemsil, once among Europe’s largest salt mines, producing ~2 million tonnes annually until closed in 2022 due to conflict.

    Strategic Significance of the Region:

    • For Russia:
      • Resources: Rich in coal, shale gas, salt, and coal bed methane, enhancing its resource security.
      • Geography: Provides land link to Crimea and direct access to the Sea of Azov.
      • Demographics: Large Russian-speaking population offers political and cultural leverage.
    • For Ukraine:
      • Economy: Core to industrial base, especially steel production.
      • Energy Security: Control of Yuzivska shale gas could reduce reliance on imports.
      • Sovereignty: Represents a vital part of national unity and territorial integrity.
    • Geopolitical Dimension: Sea of Azov crucial for connecting Donbas resources to Black Sea trade routes.
    • Conflict Relevance: Since Crimea’s annexation (2014) and escalation in 2022, control of Azov and Kerch Strait vital for Russia’s naval dominance.
    [UPSC 2023] Consider the following pairs: Area of conflict mentioned in news : Country where it is located

    1. North Kivu and Ituri : War between Armenia and Azerbaijan

    2. Nagorno-Karabakh : Insurgency in Mozambique

    3. Kherson and Zaporizhzhia : Dispute between Israel and Lebanon

    How many of the above pairs are correctly matched?

    Options: (a) Only one (b) Only two (c) All three (d) None*

     

  • Canada will match U.S. exemptions to punishing tariffs, says Canadian official

    Introduction

    Canada has decided to drop retaliatory tariffs and mirror the U.S. exemptions on goods covered under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). This represents a success in preserving tariff-free trade for over 85% of Canada-U.S. commerce. But sector-specific tariffs like the 50% duties on steel and aluminium continue to hurt Canadian industries. The development is crucial, given Canada’s heavy reliance on the U.S. market, with more than 75% of its exports heading south.

    Significance of the News

    1. Tariff Alignment: Canada has chosen to align its tariff exemptions with those of the U.S., signaling a conciliatory move in contrast with earlier retaliatory tariffs.
    2. First-time Reset: For the first time since retaliatory duties were announced, Canada is rolling them back to match U.S. exemptions under USMCA, a notable policy reversal.
    3. Trade Dependence: With over 75% of Canadian exports going to the U.S., the stakes are extremely high, making tariff negotiations critical for economic stability.
    4. Striking Data: 85% of Canada-U.S. trade is still tariff-free, reflecting both success in negotiations and risks if the pact weakens.

    What is USMCA?

    1. USMCA Pact: Signed in 2020, it replaced NAFTA and provides preferential treatment for Canadian and Mexican goods entering the U.S.
    2. Carve-out Mechanism: Goods shielded under the agreement are protected from punitive tariffs, preserving market access.
    3. Upcoming Review : The pact is up for review in 2026, adding urgency to Canada’s attempt to preserve smooth trade relations.

    How does Canada benefit from this carve-out?

    1. Preferential Access: Canadian goods remain shielded from most punitive duties.
    2. Export Stability: With 75% of exports going to the U.S., the pact secures critical market access.
    3. Low Tariff Burden: U.S. average tariffs on Canadian goods remain among the lowest globally.

    What are the challenges despite tariff exemptions?

    1. 232 Tariffs: The U.S. has imposed sector-specific duties, including 50% tariffs on steel and aluminium, straining Canadian industries.
    2. Renegotiation Risk: U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has hinted at reopening USMCA talks, creating uncertainty.
    3. Dependence Dilemma: Canada retains some retaliatory tariffs, but its heavy reliance on U.S. markets weakens bargaining power.

    Why is this crucial for North American trade stability

    1. Export Dependence: More than 75% of Canada’s exports and 80% of Mexico’s exports head to the U.S., underlining their vulnerability.
    2. Regional Integration: The USMCA has reestablished tariff-free trade for the majority of goods, preventing economic disruption in North America.
    3. Geopolitical Context: At a time of growing global protectionism, North America’s internal trade pact provides a stabilising force, but also exposes Canada and Mexico to unilateral U.S. decisions.

    Conclusion

    Canada’s decision to align its tariffs with U.S. exemptions under USMCA reflects both pragmatism and vulnerability. While the pact secures tariff-free trade for the majority of goods, sector-specific tariffs and the looming threat of renegotiation highlight the fragile foundation of North American trade integration. For Canada, the challenge lies in balancing sovereignty with economic dependence, a dilemma increasingly relevant in today’s protectionist world.

    Value Addition

    United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA)

    Key Features (vs. NAFTA)

    1. Rules of Origin – Higher thresholds for auto production (75% North American content vs. 62.5% under NAFTA).
    2. Labour Provisions – Stronger labour standards; Mexico required to reform labour laws.
    3. Digital Trade – New rules on data flows, e-commerce, and IP rights absent in NAFTA.
    4. Sunset Clause – Agreement reviewed every 6 years; expires after 16 years unless renewed.
    5. Agriculture – U.S. gained greater access to Canadian dairy market.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2018] How would the recent phenomena of protectionism and currency manipulations in world trade affect macroeconomic stability of India?

    Linkage: The USMCA episode shows how U.S. protectionism through sectoral tariffs (like 50% on steel/aluminium) can destabilize even close trade partners like Canada. Such measures reflect the larger global trend of tariff wars and currency leverage, which disrupt supply chains and investment flows. For India, this highlights risks to macroeconomic stability via trade deficits, inflationary pressures, and exchange rate volatility.

  • Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) and Famine Declaration

    Why in the News?

    The United Nations has officially declared a famine in Gaza based on an Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) panel assessment.

    About Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC):

    • What It Is: A global standard tool to assess and classify the severity of food insecurity.
    • Established: In 2004 during the Somalia food crisis by FEWS NET (Famine Early Warning Systems Network) and partners.
    • Coordination: Led by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).
    • Purpose: Supports early warning, evidence-based decision-making, and coordinated response by governments, UN agencies, NGOs, and donors.
    • Partnership Model: Combines efforts of UN bodies, NGOs, academic institutions, and national governments.

    Key Features of the IPC:

    • Five-Phase Classification System:
      • Phase 1: Minimal
      • Phase 2: Stressed
      • Phase 3: Crisis
      • Phase 4: Emergency
      • Phase 5: Catastrophe/Famine
    • Methodology:
      • Uses convergence of evidence from food access, livelihoods, nutrition, and mortality.
      • Requires technical consensus among analysts for transparency and accuracy.
      • Allows real-time assessments and 6-month forecasts to support timely action.

    What is Famine and How is it Declared?

    • Definition: IPC Phase 5 – the most extreme level of food insecurity.
    • Criteria (All Must Be Met):
      • At least 20% of households face extreme food gaps.
      • At least 30% of children under five suffer acute malnutrition (wasting).
      • Death rate: 2 adults or 4 children per 10,000 people per day.
    • Declaration: Made by UN agencies, national governments, or authorized global bodies.
    • Purpose of Declaration:
      • Mobilize international aid and emergency operations.
      • Trigger food, health, and logistics support.
      • Raise global awareness and funding for urgent interventions.
    • Past Declarations:  Somalia (2011), South Sudan (2017, 2020), Darfur, Sudan (2024)
    [UPSC 2023] Which of the following countries has been suffering from decades of civil strife and food shortages and was in news in the recent past for its very severe famine?

    Options: (a) Angola (b) Costa Rica (c) Ecuador (d) Somalia*

     

  • In news: Lipulekh Pass

    Why in the News?

    India has rejected Nepal’s objection to resumption of India–China border trade through the Lipulekh Pass in Uttarakhand.

    About Lipulekh Pass:

    • Location: High-altitude Himalayan pass (~17,000 ft) near the trijunction of India, Nepal, and China (Tibet).
    • Connectivity: Links Uttarakhand’s Kumaon region with Taklakot in Tibet.
    • Cultural Role: Serves as the shortest route for the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra.
    • Trade Importance: Historic India–China trade route since 1954; disrupted during COVID-19 but later resumed.
    • Strategic Significance: Crucial for India due to its proximity to the India–China–Nepal border.

    What is Limpiyadhura–Lipulekh–Kalapani Dispute?

    • Origin: Rooted in the 1815 Treaty of Sugauli (Nepal–British East India Company), fixing Nepal’s western boundary at the Kali (Mahakali) River.
    • India’s Position: Claims Kali River originates near Lipulekh, placing Lipulekh and Kalapani within India.
    • Nepal’s Position: Claims Kali River originates at Limpiyadhura, extending Nepal’s boundary east to include Lipulekh and Kalapani.
    • Disputed Area: About 370 sq. km., under Indian administration since the 19th century.
    • Recent Development: In 2020, Nepal issued a new map showing Limpiyadhura, Lipulekh, and Kalapani as its territory; India rejected the claim citing lack of historical basis.

    Back2Basics: India–Nepal Border Disputes

    • Border Length: India and Nepal share a 1,770 km long open border across five Indian states – Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal, and Sikkim.
    • Key Disputes:
      • Kalapani–Lipulekh–Limpiyadhura (Uttarakhand): Discussed above.
      • Susta (Uttar Pradesh–Nepal border): Caused by Gandak River’s shifting course, leading to encroachments and overlapping claims.
    • Tensions: Despite close ties, disputes often cause diplomatic strains.
    • Positions: India relies on historical treaties and long-standing administration, while Nepal asserts sovereignty and constitutional recognition of disputed territories.

     

    [UPSC 2007] Which one of the following Himalayan passes was reopened around in the middle of the year 2006 to facilitate trade between India and China?

    Options : (a) Chang La (b) Jara La (c) Nathu La* (d) Shipki La