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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: International Relations

  • India and the Arctic

    Why in the News?

    The Russian Ambassador to India recently stated that Russia views India’s interest in the Arctic as a “stabilizing factor.”

    India-Russia Collaboration in the Arctic

    India and Russia have strengthened their cooperation in the Arctic, focusing on scientific research, energy resources, and shipping routes:

    • Energy Resources: Joint ventures in Arctic oil and gas extraction, particularly in the Dolginskoye oil field and Vostok oil cluster.
    • Northern Sea Route (NSR): India and Russia are working to improve shipping through the NSR, aiming to reduce shipping costs and improve connectivity.

    About India’s Arctic Policy

    • India’s Arctic Policy was launched by the Ministry of Earth Sciences in 2022, taking a comprehensive approach that involves multiple sectors, including scientific, environmental, economic, and strategic interests.
    • It focuses on sustainability, aiming to protect the environment while exploring opportunities in energy resources, shipping routes, and scientific collaboration.
    • The policy includes 6 key pillars:
    1. Science and Research: Focus on climate change, geosciences, and polar biology.
    2. Climate and Environmental Protection: Ensuring development does not compromise the Arctic ecosystem.
    3. Economic and Human Development: Exploring opportunities in energy extraction and shipping.
    4. Transportation and Connectivity: Enhancing access to Arctic shipping routes.
    5. Governance and International Cooperation: Strengthening ties with international partners like the Arctic Council.
    6. National Capacity Building: Developing expertise in Arctic research and polar navigation.
    • The policy acknowledges the geopolitical dynamics of the Arctic and seeks to balance scientific, economic, and strategic interests.

    India’s Mission to the Arctic

    • India’s Arctic mission began in 2007, with its first research mission focused on microbiology, atmospheric sciences, and geology. India also established its research base, Himadri, in the Arctic in 2008. Recent advancements include:
      • In 2023, India conducted winter expedition in polar night conditions to study climate change, sea-ice dynamics, and ocean circulation.
      • India collaborates with Russia, Norway, and other Arctic nations through research institutes and joint expeditions.
    • India’s focus is on understanding the Arctic’s impact on climate change and its effects on weather patterns, particularly in South Asia.

    Back2Basics: Arctic Council

    • The Arctic Council, established in 1996, is an intergovernmental forum for cooperation among Arctic states.
    • The Council includes 8 Arctic countries and permanent participants from indigenous Arctic communities. Its focus is on environmental protection, sustainable development, and scientific research.
    • India has been an observer since 2013, contributing to scientific research, climate change discussions, and policy frameworks.
    • The Council’s activities were suspended in 2022 due to rising tensions from militarization by NATO countries.
      • Despite this, India continues to engage constructively with the Council.
    • India’s participation in the Arctic Council highlights the global importance of Arctic issues, particularly regarding climate change and energy security.

     

    PYQ:

    [UPSC 2015] The term ‘IndARC’, sometimes seen in the news, is the name of:

    (a) an indigenously developed radar system inducted into Indian Defence

    (b) India’s satellite to provide services to the countries of Indian Ocean Rim

    (c) a scientific establishment set up by India in Antarctic region

    (d) India’s underwater observatory to scientifically study the Arctic region

    [UPSC 2018] Why is India taking keen in resources of Arctic region?

    [UPSC 2015] What are the economic significances of discovery of oil in Arctic Sea and its possible environmental consequences?

     

  • The assault on multilateralism and international law

    Why in the News?

    The US’s independent actions could lead to global pushback, but they also create an opportunity for non-Western nations to step up as leaders.

    What are the key multilateral institutions and agreements from which the U.S. has signalled withdrawal under the Trump administration?

    • World Health Organization (WHO): The U.S. announced withdrawal in 2020, accusing WHO of mishandling the COVID-19 pandemic and being overly influenced by China.
    • United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC): The U.S. exited in 2018, citing alleged bias against Israel and ineffective handling of human rights abuses.  
    • Paris Climate Agreement: The U.S. formally withdrew in 2020, arguing that the agreement unfairly burdened its economy while benefiting competitors like China and India. Example: The withdrawal slowed global climate efforts, as the U.S. is one of the largest carbon emitters.
    • International Criminal Court (ICC): The U.S. imposed sanctions on ICC officials in 2020, rejecting its authority over American troops and allies. Example: Sanctions were placed on ICC officials investigating alleged U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan.
    • World Trade Organization (WTO): The U.S. blocked appointments to the WTO Appellate Body, crippling its ability to resolve trade disputes. Example: This led to a breakdown in the global trade dispute resolution system, impacting countries like India and China.

    What is the DEFUND Act?

    The Disengaging Entirely from the United Nations Debacle (DEFUND) Act is a proposed U.S. legislation introduced by Senator Mike Lee. It seeks to completely withdraw the U.S. from the United Nations (UN), repeal key participation laws, cut all funding, and revoke diplomatic immunity for UN officials within the U.S.

    Why does the proposed DEFUND Act pose a threat to the legitimacy of the United Nations?

    • Financial Crisis for the UN: The U.S. is the largest financial contributor to the UN, funding around 22% of its budget. The DEFUND Act would halt all U.S. contributions, severely affecting UN operations. Example: The UN’s peacekeeping missions and humanitarian aid programs in conflict zones like Syria and Yemen would face funding shortages.
    • Weakening of Multilateral Cooperation: The Act would repeal key legislation like the United Nations Participation Act of 1945, severing U.S. engagement with the UN. This could encourage other nations to follow suit, undermining the UN’s credibility. Example: Without U.S. involvement, the UN Security Council may struggle to enforce resolutions, reducing its effectiveness in global crisis management.
    • Legal and Diplomatic Challenges: The Act would revoke the diplomatic immunity of UN officials in the U.S., disrupting UN functions and diplomatic activities. Example: The UN Headquarters in New York might face operational difficulties, making it harder to conduct international negotiations.

    How has the U.S. administration’s stance on the International Criminal Court (ICC) impacted global accountability for human rights violations?

    • Undermining International Justice Mechanisms: The U.S. imposed sanctions on ICC officials in 2020, accusing the court of targeting American personnel and allies. This weakened the ICC’s ability to investigate war crimes and crimes against humanity, particularly in conflict zones like Afghanistan and Palestine.
    • Encouraging Non-Cooperation with the ICC: The U.S.’s non-recognition of the ICC has emboldened other nations to ignore its rulings, reducing its global influence. Countries under investigation may refuse cooperation, limiting the court’s effectiveness in ensuring accountability.
      • Example: Israel rejected ICC jurisdiction in its war crimes probe in Palestinian territories, citing U.S. opposition to the investigation.
    • Weakening the Principle of Universal Justice: By discrediting the ICC and blocking investigations, the U.S. has set a precedent for selective justice, where powerful nations can evade accountability while weaker states remain subject to scrutiny.
      • Example: The ICC struggles to prosecute major powers like China or Russia, as the U.S.’s stance encourages a lack of enforcement in high-stakes human rights cases.

    What are the chances for non-Western nations to assume global leadership roles?

    • Expanding Economic and Political Influence – Emerging economies like China, India, and Brazil are increasing their global footprint through trade, technology, and strategic alliances.
      Example: China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) enhances its economic influence across Asia, Africa, and Europe.
    • Strengthening Regional and Multilateral Institutions – Non-Western nations are actively shaping global governance through regional organizations and alternative institutions.
      Example: The BRICS bloc (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) launched the New Development Bank (NDB) as an alternative to Western-led financial institutions.
    • Leadership in Global Crisis Management – Developing nations are taking initiative in addressing global challenges like climate change, health crises, and digital transformation.
      Example: India’s Vaccine Maitri initiative supplied COVID-19 vaccines to over 100 countries, reinforcing its role in global health diplomacy.

    What would be the impact on India?

    • Challenges to Multilateralism and Global Governance: The U.S. exit from key institutions like the UN, WHO, and WTO weakens the global rules-based order, making international cooperation more fragmented. India, which strongly supports multilateral diplomacy, may face difficulties in global negotiations, including trade, climate change, and security.
      • Example: The U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement (2017) reduced global climate finance commitments, impacting India’s renewable energy goals.
    • Opportunity for India to Assume Leadership: As the U.S. retreats, India can play a more prominent role in shaping multilateral decision-making, advocating for reforms in the UNSC and WTO, and positioning itself as a bridge between developing and developed nations.
      • Example: During the G-20 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting (2025), India emphasized the need for inclusive multilateralism, strengthening its diplomatic standing.

    Way forward: 

    • Strengthen Multilateral Leadership – India should actively engage in UN reforms, WTO negotiations, and climate diplomacy, positioning itself as a stabilizing force in global governance.
    • Diversify Strategic Alliances – India must deepen partnerships with EU, ASEAN, and African nations, enhancing trade, security, and diplomatic ties to counterbalance U.S. disengagement.

    Mains PYQ:

     Q “Critically examine the role of WHO in providing global health security during the Covid-19 pandemic. (UPSC 2020)

    Reason: The World Health Organization (WHO) has faced calls for withdrawal by certain nations, highlighting a challenge to multilateral institutions. This PYQ directly assesses the role and, by extension, the relevance and effectiveness of the WHO in a global crisis, which is pertinent to discussions on the assault on multilateralism.

  • Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative (IPOI)

    Why in the News?

    New Zealand has expressed its willingness to join the Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative (IPOI).

    About Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative (IPOI)

    • India launched the IPOI at the East Asia Summit in November 2019 to promote cooperation for a free, open, and rules-based Indo-Pacific.
    • The initiative aims to strengthen maritime security, stability, and development in the region by fostering multilateral engagement among Indo-Pacific nations.
    • It builds on India’s Security and Growth for All in the Region (SAGAR) vision, which emphasizes the importance of collaborative efforts in regional maritime governance.
    • The IPOI operates as a voluntary, non-treaty-based arrangement, relying on existing frameworks like the EAS mechanism, ensuring flexibility and adaptability in cooperation.
    • The IPOI is structured around 7 key pillars, with specific countries taking the lead in each area:
    1. Maritime Security: UK and India
    2. Maritime Ecology: Australia and Thailand
    3. Maritime Resources: France and Indonesia
    4. Capacity Building and Resource Sharing: Germany
    5. Disaster Risk Reduction and Management: India and Bangladesh
    6. Science, Technology, and Academic Cooperation: Italy and Singapore
    7. Trade, Connectivity, and Maritime Transport: Japan and the US

    Mandate of IPOI:

    • The IPOI seeks to establish a rules-based regional order in the Indo-Pacific, facilitating the free movement of goods, services, and people while respecting the sovereignty of nations.
    • The initiative enhances regional maritime security by fostering cooperation among countries to tackle shared challenges such as piracy, illegal fishing, smuggling, and other maritime crimes.
    • IPOI aims to boost regional capacity for disaster risk reduction and management, encouraging collaboration on disaster preparedness and response, thus minimizing the effects of natural disasters.
    • As a non-treaty, voluntary initiative, IPOI offers flexibility, allowing nations to participate according to common interests without adding new institutional responsibilities.
    PYQ:
    [UPSC 2011]     The strategic significance of South-East Asia lies in its:
    (a) It was the hot theatre during the Second World War.
    (b) Its location between the Asian powers of China and India.,
    (c) It was the arena of superpower confrontation during the Cold War period.,
    (d) Its location between the Pacific and Indian Oceans and its preeminent maritime character.

     

  • [19th March 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: What is happening in Balochistan?

    PYQ Relevance:

    Q How far are India’s internal security challenges linked with border management particularly in view of the long porous borders with most countries of South Asia and Myanmar?” (2013)

    Reason: The movement of non-state actors, the potential for cross-border terrorism, and the involvement of external actors in Balochistan could link to India’s internal security challenges and the complexities of managing its own borders.

     

    Mentor’s Comment:  Balochistan’s ongoing insurgency isn’t just a Pakistan issue—it’s a case study in how internal unrest, resource conflicts, and external interventions shape regional security. For UPSC aspirants, this article is crucial for understanding India’s border security challenges (GS3) and the broader geopolitical game involving China and Pakistan (GS2). The mention of the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), the hijacking incident, and Pakistan’s military response highlights patterns of insurgency and counterinsurgency—offering insights into how states manage separatist movements, a key aspect of internal security answers. Additionally, CPEC’s impact on local communities echoes concerns about economic imperialism and sovereignty, making this a relevant talking point in India’s foreign policy discourse.

    Today’s editorial discusses the challenges in Pakistan’s Balochistan province and how India can strategically respond. This analysis is relevant for GS Paper 2 (International Relations) and GS Paper 3 (Internal Security).

    _

    Let’s learn!

    Why in the News?

    Pakistan’s internal politics will shape the unrest in Balochistan. However, due to low trust in the military and government, meaningful talks between insurgents and the leadership seem unlikely.

    What are the key reasons behind the ongoing insurgency in Balochistan?

    • Historical Grievances and Forced Integration (1948): Many Baloch nationalists argue that Balochistan was forcefully incorporated into Pakistan in 1948 without the consent of its people. Example: Multiple insurgencies have occurred over the decades (1950s, 1960s, 1970s, mid-2000s) due to political and economic marginalization.
    • Political and Socio-Economic Marginalization: The region remains underdeveloped despite its vast natural resources (coal, copper, gold, gas). The Baloch people feel excluded from governance and decision-making. Example: Even with rich gas reserves, local communities face power shortages while other provinces benefit from Balochistan’s resources.
    • Military Suppression and Human Rights Violations: Pakistan’s military and intelligence agencies have employed heavy-handed tactics such as enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and crackdowns on dissent. Example: The mass protests led by Baloch women against custodial killings and forced disappearances highlight the ongoing repression.
    • China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) and Resource Exploitation: Large-scale infrastructure projects, like Gwadar Port, were developed without consulting local communities, causing displacement and demographic changes. Example: Chinese fishing trawlers have disrupted local fishermen’s livelihoods, leading to economic hardships and resentment.
    • Growing Insurgent Coordination and External Factors: Various Baloch insurgent groups (BLA, BLF, BRG) have improved their coordination, launching high-profile attacks on security forces and infrastructure. Example: The Baloch Raji Aajoi Sangar (BRAS) alliance has intensified attacks, including the March 2024 train hijacking and past assaults on Chinese workers and security installations.

    What is China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC)? 

    The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is a $62 billion infrastructure project linking China’s Xinjiang to Pakistan’s Gwadar Port, enhancing trade, energy, and connectivity but facing security, debt, and geopolitical concerns.

    cpec, balochistan

    How has the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) impacted the socio-political landscape of Balochistan?

    • Economic Disparities and Local Alienation: Despite promises of economic growth, local Baloch communities have seen minimal benefits from CPEC projects, leading to resentment. Example: Gwadar Port’s development has largely benefited Chinese and Pakistani investors, while local fishermen face economic hardships due to Chinese deep-sea fishing trawlers.
    • Increased Security Presence and Military Crackdown: To safeguard CPEC projects, Pakistan has intensified military operations in Balochistan, leading to human rights abuses and forced displacements. Example: The establishment of the Special Security Division (SSD) for CPEC has led to increased military checkpoints and reports of enforced disappearances.
    • Rise in Insurgency and Targeted Attacks: Baloch insurgent groups view CPEC as a form of exploitation, leading to increased attacks on Chinese nationals and Pakistani security forces. Example: The Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) has carried out multiple attacks, including the 2022 suicide bombing in Karachi targeting Chinese teachers associated with CPEC projects.
    • Demographic Changes and Marginalization of Locals: Large-scale infrastructure projects have led to an influx of outsiders, creating fears among Baloch communities about losing their cultural and economic dominance. Example: The settlement of non-Baloch workers in Gwadar has fueled protests, with locals demanding control over job opportunities and land rights.
    • Environmental Degradation and Livelihood Losses: Industrialization and large-scale construction under CPEC have led to pollution, water shortages, and destruction of marine ecosystems, affecting local livelihoods. Example: Gwadar’s water crisis has worsened due to excessive resource extraction for CPEC-related industries, forcing residents to rely on water tankers.

    How can India leverage this situation to its advantage?

    • Diplomatic Advocacy for Human Rights: India can raise concerns over human rights violations in Balochistan at international forums like the UN and human rights organizations, building pressure on Pakistan. Example: Indian Prime Minister’s 2016 Independence Day speech highlighted Balochistan’s struggles, signaling diplomatic support.
    • Strategic Engagement with Baloch Leadership: Engaging with Baloch exiled leaders and activists can strengthen India’s regional influence and counter Pakistan’s narrative on Kashmir. Example: India has provided a platform to Baloch leaders like Brahumdagh Bugti, who has sought asylum in India.
    • Intelligence and Strategic Operations: India can enhance intelligence-sharing and non-conventional tactics to counter threats emanating from Pakistan, especially along its western borders. Example: Reports suggest Indian agencies have been monitoring CPEC activities and Pakistan’s military actions in Balochistan.
    • Economic and Cultural Soft Power: India can support Baloch diaspora communities through scholarships, cultural exchanges, and humanitarian assistance to build goodwill. Example: Media outlets in India have amplified Baloch issues, increasing global awareness of Pakistan’s suppression.
    • Countering CPEC’s Strategic Influence: By highlighting the environmental and economic concerns of Balochistan, India can strengthen its ties with countries skeptical of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Example: India’s opposition to CPEC, citing sovereignty concerns over PoK, aligns with global criticisms of China’s debt-trap diplomacy, helping form strategic alliances.

    Way forward: 

    • International Advocacy and Strategic Alliances: India should continue raising the Balochistan issue in global forums while strengthening diplomatic ties with nations wary of CPEC and China’s growing influence. Example: Collaborating with the Quad (US, Japan, Australia) and EU on human rights and regional security concerns.
    • Balanced Engagement with Baloch Leadership: India can discreetly support Baloch nationalist movements through political dialogue, humanitarian aid, and economic initiatives, ensuring a calibrated approach without direct intervention. Example: Facilitating educational opportunities and cultural exchanges for Baloch youth to build long-term goodwill.

    Back to Basics: Importance of Balochistan

    • Strategic Location – Balochistan provides Pakistan access to the Arabian Sea, hosting Gwadar Port, a key part of CPEC, enhancing regional trade and connectivity.
    • Natural Resources – It holds rich mineral reserves, including natural gas, coal, gold, and copper (e.g., Reko Diq gold-copper project).
    • Energy Hub – Balochistan is crucial for Pakistan’s energy security, with major gas fields like Sui Gas Field, supplying the country since 1952.
    • Defense and Security – The province borders Iran and Afghanistan, making it vital for border security and counterinsurgency operations.
    • Fisheries and Maritime Importance – Its 1,000 km coastline supports Pakistan’s fishing industry, with Gwadar’s deep-sea port boosting maritime trade potential.

     

  • 30th Session of International Seabed Authority (ISA)

    Why in the News?

    The 30th Session of the International Seabed Authority (ISA) has officially commenced in Kingston, Jamaica, on March 17, 2025.

    About the International Seabed Authority (ISA)

    • ISA is an autonomous international organization created under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the 1994 Agreement relating to Part XI of the UNCLOS.
    • It regulates and manages mineral-resource activities in the “Area”—the seabed and ocean floor beyond national jurisdictions.
    • It is headquartered in Kingston, Jamaica
    • It has 168 Member States, including India, and the European Union
    • Mandate:
      • Regulate exploration and exploitation of deep-sea minerals.
      • Protect the marine environment from harmful effects of seabed activities.
      • Encourage marine scientific research and promote the sustainable use of oceans.
    • The ISA manages about 54% of the world’s oceans, ensuring activities are carried out for the benefit of all humankind and to protect the marine environment.

    Role in Regulating Deep-Sea Mining

    The ISA is responsible for enforcing the Mining Code, which governs all mineral activities in the International Seabed Area. It includes:

    • Regulation of Exploration: Grants exploration licenses for assessing mineral deposits in deep-sea areas, ensuring scientifically responsible activities.
    • Environmental Protection: Sets environmental standards and ensures impact assessments before mining starts.
    • Development of Mining Code: Continuously updates the Mining Code to address scientific, technological, and environmental concerns.
    • Oversight and Compliance: Monitors activities of contractors and member states, ensuring regulatory compliance and environmental safeguards.

    India and ISA

    • In January 2024, India submitted two exploration applications in the Indian Ocean for:
      • Polymetallic sulphides in the Carlsberg Ridge.
      • Cobalt-rich ferromanganese crusts in the Afanasy-Nikitin Seamount.
    • India holds two active exploration contracts for polymetallic nodules and sulphides in the Central Indian Ocean Basin and Ridge.
    • India seeks access to critical minerals for energy transition and technological growth, balancing economic needs with sustainable practices.
    • India actively participates in Mining Code negotiations, aligning its actions with international legal standards and environmental protocols.

    PYQ:

    [UPSC 2021] Consider the following statements:
    1. The Global Ocean Commission grants licences for seabed exploration and mining in international waters.
    2. India has received licences for seabed mineral exploration in international waters
    3. ‘Rare earth minerals’ are present on the seafloor in international waters.
    Which of the statements given above are correct?
    (a) 1 and 2 only
    (b) 2 and 3 only
    (c) 1 and 3 only
    (d) 1, 2 and 3

     

  • New Delhi’s perilous recalibration with the Taliban

    Why in the News?

    The Prime Minister of India may allow the Taliban regime to appoint a new envoy for its embassy in New Delhi.

    What are the key reasons behind India’s increasing engagement with the Taliban despite international concerns?

    • Strategic Influence in Afghanistan: India aims to maintain a presence in Afghanistan to safeguard its long-term geopolitical interests.Example: India reopened its embassy in Kabul in June 2022, ensuring diplomatic engagement.
    • Countering Pakistan’s Diminishing Influence: As Taliban-Pakistan relations sour, India sees an opportunity to reduce Islamabad’s sway over Kabul. Example: The Taliban’s refusal to act against Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) has strained ties with Pakistan, creating space for India.
    • Competing with China’s Expanding Role: China has accepted a Taliban envoy and is integrating Afghanistan into the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Example: China became the first country to accept a Taliban-appointed ambassador in 2023, prompting India to reconsider its approach.
    • Ensuring Regional Security and Counterterrorism: A stable Afghanistan is crucial to preventing it from becoming a hub for anti-India terror groups. Example: India seeks Taliban cooperation in curbing ISIS-K and groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) that threaten Indian interests.
    • Economic and Humanitarian Interests: Engaging with the Taliban allows India to continue developmental projects and provide humanitarian aid. Example: India has sent multiple consignments of wheat and medical supplies to Afghanistan under humanitarian assistance programs.

    Why is the recognition of a Taliban envoy in India considered a significant shift in diplomatic policy?

    • De Facto Recognition of the Taliban Regime: Accepting a Taliban-appointed envoy would signal India’s indirect recognition of the regime, despite its lack of international legitimacy. Example: Most countries, including the U.S. and EU members, have refused to recognize the Taliban due to human rights violations.
    • Departure from India’s Traditional Stand on Terrorism: India has consistently opposed regimes that support terrorism. Engaging with the Taliban contradicts its long-standing stance. Example: India had previously refused to engage with the Taliban, citing its ties to groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM).
    • Contradiction with India’s Human Rights Advocacy: The Taliban’s treatment of women and minorities has been widely condemned, and recognizing its envoy could weaken India’s credibility as a human rights advocate. Example: The UN has termed the Taliban’s policies as “gender apartheid,” which contradicts India’s global image as a democratic and inclusive nation.
    • Impact on Relations with Western Allies: Closer engagement with the Taliban may strain India’s relations with countries that have imposed sanctions on the Taliban. Example: The U.S. and European nations continue to restrict diplomatic ties and financial transactions with Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.
    • Risk of Setting a Precedent for Other Unrecognized Regimes: Accepting a Taliban envoy might encourage other unrecognized regimes to seek similar diplomatic treatment, complicating India’s foreign policy. Example: It could open debates on whether India should engage similarly with other disputed governments, such as Myanmar’s military junta.

    What are the major risks for India in engaging with the Taliban?

    • Security Threats and Terrorism: The Taliban’s ties with terror groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) pose a direct threat to India’s national security. Example: The 2001 Indian Parliament attack was linked to JeM, which has operated from Taliban-controlled areas in the past.
    • Growing Influence of the Islamic State (IS): The Islamic State-Khorasan Province (IS-K) has been expanding in Afghanistan, carrying out attacks even against the Taliban and its allies. Example: IS-K’s attack on the Moscow Crocus City Hall in 2024 and the bombing of a Kabul hotel housing Chinese nationals show Afghanistan’s instability.
    • Potential Diplomatic Backlash: Engaging with the Taliban could harm India’s relations with key allies like the U.S. and the EU, which refuse to recognize the Taliban due to human rights violations. Example: The U.S. and European nations maintain economic sanctions on Afghanistan, and aligning too closely with the Taliban could attract criticism.
    • Destabilization of India’s Western Borders: The Taliban’s alleged support for Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) has worsened Pakistan’s security situation, and any spillover could affect India. Example: TTP claimed 147 attacks in Pakistan in February 2024 alone, and instability in the region could have consequences for India’s border security.
    • Economic and Infrastructure Investment Risks: Any investments India makes in Afghanistan may not be secure due to the Taliban’s unstable governance and lack of financial transparency. Example: India’s $3 billion investments in Afghan infrastructure, including the Salma Dam and the Afghan Parliament, remain uncertain under Taliban rule.

    Way forward: 

    • Strategic, Conditional Engagement: India should engage with the Taliban on a case-by-case basis, ensuring its security interests are safeguarded while avoiding full diplomatic recognition. Example: Continuing humanitarian aid and infrastructure projects without legitimizing Taliban rule.
    • Regional and Multilateral Cooperation: India should collaborate with regional partners like Iran, Russia, and Central Asian states to ensure stability in Afghanistan while maintaining ties with Western allies. Example: Strengthening mechanisms like the Moscow Format Talks and UN-led initiatives to balance engagement and counter-terrorism efforts.

    Mains PYQ:

    Q Critically analyse India’s evolving diplomatic, economic and strategic relations with the Central Asian Republics (CARs) highlighting their increasing significance in regional and global geopolitics.(UPSC IAS/2024)

    Reason: India’s engagement with CARs is influenced by the situation in Afghanistan and the wider regional security scenario involving the Taliban.

  • Five Eyes Alliance (FVEY)

    Why in the News?

    Recently a White House official has proposed expelling Canada from the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing alliance. This comes as Donald Trump pressures Canada, even suggesting it could be transformed into the 51st U.S. state.

    About the Five Eyes Alliance (FVEY):

    • The FVEY is a global intelligence-sharing network comprising 5 Anglosphere countries: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom, and the United States.
    • Established in 1946 following the UKUSA Agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom, it is one of the most secretive and influential alliances in global intelligence and security.
    • The alliance primarily focuses on sharing intelligence, especially signals intelligence (SIGINT), and collaborates on security matters like counterterrorism, cybersecurity, and geopolitical monitoring.
    • It plays a pivotal role in global surveillance programs, such as ECHELON, and is a key player in shaping international intelligence policy.
    • Members of the FVEY:
      1. Australia: Plays a key role in monitoring the Asia-Pacific region and contributes to SIGINT and cybersecurity efforts.
      2. Canada: Contributes significantly to global communications intelligence, focusing on networks and signals intelligence.
      3. New Zealand: Has a relatively reserved role but provides valuable intelligence, particularly in the Pacific region.
      4. United Kingdom: Works closely with the United States and is instrumental in intelligence gathering across Europe and the Middle East.
      5. United States: The largest contributor of intelligence, particularly in global SIGINT, and leads the alliance in intelligence operations.
    • Mandate:
      • The Five Eyes primarily focuses on intelligence sharing, especially signals intelligence (intercepted communications, satellite data, etc.), but has expanded to include human intelligence (HUMINT), geospatial intelligence (GEOINT), and cybersecurity.
      • The alliance works on global surveillance programs, collecting data on adversarial governments, counterterrorism efforts, and counterintelligence operations.
      • A key principle of the alliance is the “no third-party rule,” meaning intelligence shared among member countries is not passed on to non-member states without permission.

    PYQ:

    [2020] “Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) is transforming itself into a trade bloc from a military alliance, in present times Discuss.”

     

  • India, New Zealand resume trade deal talks after decade

    Why in the News?

    After nearly 10 years, India and New Zealand have resumed talks on a free trade agreement (FTA) to strengthen economic relations.

    What is the main objective of resuming India-New Zealand FTA negotiations?

    • Enhancing Market Access & Trade Growth: The FTA aims to expand trade opportunities by reducing tariffs and trade barriers. Example: Bilateral trade surpassed USD 1 billion (April-January 2025), highlighting the potential for further growth.
    • Strengthening Supply Chain Integration: The agreement seeks to improve logistics and supply chain efficiency between the two countries. Example: New Zealand’s dairy and agricultural products could find structured entry into India, while India’s IT and pharmaceutical sectors could benefit from easier access to the New Zealand market.
    • Boosting Investment & Business Opportunities: The FTA will help attract investments and foster job creation in sectors like IT, services, and agriculture. Example: India seeks better mobility for skilled professionals, benefiting industries like software services and engineering.

    Why did the India-New Zealand trade talks stall in 2015?

    • Disagreements Over Dairy Market Access: New Zealand demanded greater access to India’s dairy market, but India resisted to protect its millions of dairy farmers. Example: India’s dairy imports from New Zealand were minimal (~$0.57 million), and India remained firm against allowing raw dairy imports.
    • Tariff Reduction Challenges: New Zealand had a low average tariff of 2.3%, while India had a higher average tariff of 17.8%, making tariff reductions challenging. Example: India was reluctant to lower tariffs on New Zealand’s dairy, meat, and wine exports, fearing a negative impact on domestic industries.
    • Limited Gains for India in Goods Trade: Since New Zealand already had low tariffs and duty-free access for many goods, India saw fewer advantages in an FTA. Example: Indian exports such as textiles, apparel, and pharmaceuticals already had significant access to the New Zealand market.
    • Concerns Over Skilled Labor Mobility: India wanted easier movement of skilled professionals in IT and services, but New Zealand was hesitant. Example: India sought better visa provisions for IT and engineering professionals, which faced resistance.
    • External Trade Pressures: India faced pressure from other countries like the U.S. to open its dairy and agricultural sectors, complicating negotiations. Example: Allowing New Zealand’s dairy products could have set a precedent for other trade partners demanding similar concessions.

    How does the tariff disparity between India and New Zealand pose a challenge to the negotiations?

    • Significant Difference in Average Tariff Rates: New Zealand’s average import tariff is only 2.3%, with over half of its tariff lines duty-free, while India’s average tariff stands at 17.8%. Example: Indian goods already have substantial access to the New Zealand market, making a traditional FTA less beneficial for India.
    • Limited Market Access Gains for India: Since New Zealand already imposes low or no tariffs on many products, India’s exporters may not gain significant new access. Example: Sectors like textiles, pharmaceuticals, and auto components already enter New Zealand with minimal restrictions, reducing the FTA’s potential benefits for India.
    • Pressure on India to Lower Tariffs on Sensitive Sectors: New Zealand is pushing for tariff reductions on dairy, meat, and wine exports, but India is reluctant to protect domestic farmers and industries. Example: India’s dairy sector supports millions of small farmers, making it difficult to allow imports that could undercut local production.
    • Imbalance in Reciprocal Concessions: If India significantly lowers its tariffs, New Zealand would gain more than India, creating an imbalance in trade benefits. Example: India would have to make greater tariff cuts, while New Zealand’s market access would remain largely unchanged.
    • Potential Precedent for Other Trade Partners: If India agrees to major tariff cuts for New Zealand, other countries in future FTAs may demand similar concessions, complicating trade policy. Example: Countries like Australia, the EU, and the U.S. could push India to open up its agriculture and dairy sectors, which India has traditionally protected.

    Way forward: 

    • Balanced Trade Concessions & Sectoral Safeguards: India and New Zealand should explore sector-specific agreements rather than blanket tariff reductions. Example: India can allow limited access to value-added dairy products while ensuring safeguards for domestic farmers. Similarly, New Zealand can offer better terms for India’s IT and services sector.
    • Enhanced Collaboration in Non-Tariff Areas: Both nations should focus on investment facilitation, technology exchange, and regulatory cooperation to maximize mutual benefits beyond tariff cuts. Example: Joint ventures in agritech, renewable energy, and pharmaceuticals can create new trade opportunities without tariff-related conflicts.

    Mains PYQ:

    Q Critically analyse India’s evolving diplomatic, economic and strategic relations with the Central Asian Republics (CARs) highlighting their increasing significance in regional and global geopolitics. (2024)

    Reason:  It highlights the importance of analyzing India’s evolving economic relations with other regions, which is similar to the context of resuming talks with New Zealand.

  • International Criminal Court (ICC)

    Why in the News?

    The International Criminal Court (ICC) has taken into custody former Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte on charges of crimes against humanity, linked to his infamous “war on drugs”.

    About the International Criminal Court (ICC)

    • The ICC is the world’s first permanent international court established to prosecute individuals responsible for the gravest crimes of global concern.
    • Founded under the Rome Statute in 1998, it became operational in 2002 and is headquartered in The Hague, Netherlands.
    • The ICC has jurisdiction over 4 core international crimes:
    1. War crimes
    2. Crimes against humanity
    3. Genocide
    4. Crimes of aggression
    • It has 125 member states, signatories to the Rome Statute, though major powers like India, the US, China, Russia, Israel, and Ukraine are NOT members due to concerns over sovereignty and political misuse.
    • The ICC’s budget, primarily funded by member states with additional voluntary contributions, for 2025 is approximately €195 million.
    • The ICC structure includes 18 judges elected for 9-year terms and an independent Office of the Prosecutor responsible for investigations and prosecutions.
    • Key bodies include the Trust Fund for Victims, a Detention Centre, and the Assembly of States Parties, which oversees its administrative functions.
    • The ICC lacks an enforcement mechanism and depends on member states’ cooperation for executing arrest warrants, gathering evidence, and enforcing sentences.

    Reach of an ICC Warrant:

    • Applicability:
      • Applies to crimes committed by nationals of member states or on member state territories.
      • Maintains jurisdiction over crimes committed before a state withdraws from membership.
    • State Obligations:
      • Member states must execute ICC arrest warrants under the Rome Statute.
      • Non-compliance can lead to reporting to the Assembly of States Parties and potential escalation to the UN Security Council (UNSC).
      • This applies particularly in cases involving UNSC-mandated probes, like Darfur and Libya.
    • Challenges to Enforcement:
      • Non-member states (e.g. US, Russia, China) are not bound by ICC warrants.
      • Political considerations lead to inconsistent compliance.
    • Special Mechanisms:
      • In 2016, the ICC formed an Arrest Working Group to improve intelligence-sharing and warrant execution.
    • Duterte Case Implications:
      • Even after Philippines’ withdrawal in 2019, the ICC retains jurisdiction for crimes committed from 2011-2019.
      • Duterte’s arrest highlights how domestic politics, such as the collapse of the Duterte-Marcos alliance, can influence warrant execution.

    PYQ:

    [2019] Consider the following statements:

    1.The International Criminal Court (ICC) has jurisdiction to prosecute nationals of even those States that have not ratified the Rome Statute.

    2. The International Criminal Court is a ‘court of last resort’ intended to complement national judicial systems.

    3. The United Nations Security Council can refer a situation to the Prosecutor of the ICC even if the State concerned is not a party to the Statute.

    Which of the statements given above are correct?

    (a) 1 and 3 only

    (b) 2, 3 and 4 only

    (c) 2 and 4 only

    (d) 1, 2, 3 and 4

     

  • [15th March 2025] The Hindu Op-ed: Modern day summitry, its perils and its prospects

    PYQ Relevance:

    Q)  The West is fostering India as an alternative to reduce dependence on China’s supply chain and as a strategic ally to counter China’s political and economic dominance.’ Explain this statement with examples. (2023)

    Mentor’s Comment: This question focused on India’s strategic positioning and alliances with the West, relates to the broader context of high-level summit diplomacy and strategic interactions between nations

    A strong leader is often seen as someone who holds significant power, shaping both government policies and their political party. This leadership style is debated, but many agree it can be useful in politics and diplomacy. Leaders like Donald Trump and Narendra Modi are considered strong leaders. Both actively engage in summit diplomacy, which has both advantages and risks. While decisive leadership can bring benefits, relying too much on personal judgment can lead to problems. Despite these challenges, summit diplomacy has become a key tool for powerful leaders in handling major global issues like war and peace.

    Today’s editorial highlights the importance of summit diplomacy and the key traits of a strong leader. This topic is useful for GS Paper 2 in the UPSC Mains exam.

    _

    Let’s learn!

    Why in the News?

    Despite unplanned meetings like Trump’s, summit diplomacy will remain important in global relations.

    What are the key characteristics of a “strong leader” in the context of modern politics and diplomacy?

    • Centralization of Power: A strong leader often consolidates power, making key policy and political decisions with minimal consultation. Example: Vladimir Putin’s centralized control over Russian politics and military decisions.
    • Assertive Foreign Policy and Summit Diplomacy: They engage directly in high-profile diplomatic negotiations, often prioritizing personal rapport over traditional diplomatic channels. Example: Donald Trump’s direct summits with Kim Jong-un to negotiate North Korea’s nuclear program.
    • Image Building and Popular Appeal: They craft a strong public persona through rhetoric, social media, and large-scale events to project authority and national pride. Example: Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s use of mass rallies and media control to consolidate power in Turkey.
    • Decisive but Controversial Decision-Making: They make bold decisions, sometimes bypassing institutional checks, which can lead to both positive reforms and authoritarian tendencies. Example: Xi Jinping’s removal of term limits in China, allowing him to rule indefinitely.
    Why is summit diplomacy considered both beneficial and problematic in resolving international conflicts?

    Benefits of summit diplomacy: 

    • Direct and Efficient Decision-Making: Summits allow leaders to bypass bureaucratic delays and make high-stakes decisions quickly. Example: The Cuban Missile Crisis (1962) saw U.S. President John F. Kennedy and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev negotiate directly, preventing nuclear war.
    • Confidence-Building and Diplomatic Trust: Face-to-face interactions help build mutual trust and diplomatic relationships between nations. Example: The Reagan-Gorbachev Summits (1985-1988) played a key role in reducing Cold War tensions and leading to nuclear arms reduction.
    • Breakthroughs in Long-Standing Disputes: Summit diplomacy has resolved historical disputes that traditional diplomacy failed to address. Example: The Camp David Accords (1978) led to peace between Egypt and Israel after decades of hostility.
    • Symbolic and Strategic Value: High-profile summits reinforce a country’s global leadership and strategic partnerships. Example: The Singapore Summit (2018) between Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un, which temporarily reduced tensions on the Korean Peninsula.
    • Crisis Management and De-escalation: Summits provide a platform for crisis diplomacy, helping to prevent conflicts from escalating into full-scale wars. Example: The Dayton Accords (1995) ended the Bosnian War by bringing together leaders of Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia for direct negotiations.

    Problems of summit diplomacy: 

    • Risk of Superficial Agreements: Leaders often prioritize political optics over substantive solutions, leading to vague or unenforceable agreements. Example: The Minsk Agreements (2014-2015) aimed at resolving the Ukraine conflict but lacked effective implementation mechanisms.
    • Personal Egos and Power Imbalances: Strong-willed leaders may focus more on personal victories rather than genuine conflict resolution. Example: The Trump-Zelenskyy Summit (2025), where public confrontations and political grandstanding overshadowed meaningful negotiations on Ukraine.

    How did the Trump-Zelenskyy exchanges highlight the complexities and risks of pseudo-summit diplomacy?

    • Blurred Lines Between Diplomacy and Personal Interests: Instead of focusing purely on state interests, pseudo-summit diplomacy can be influenced by personal or political gains. Example: The Trump-Zelenskyy phone call (2019) became controversial when Trump allegedly pressured Zelenskyy to investigate Joe Biden’s son, intertwining diplomacy with U.S. domestic politics.
    • Lack of Institutional Safeguards: Informal or direct leader-to-leader diplomacy can bypass traditional diplomatic channels, reducing oversight and accountability. Example: The absence of career diplomats in the Trump-Zelenskyy exchanges led to concerns over improper diplomatic conduct and potential abuse of power.
    • Vulnerability to Misinformation and Manipulation: Without structured diplomatic engagement, such interactions can be misused for propaganda or misinterpreted in ways that escalate tensions. Example: The impeachment inquiry against Trump was fueled by the whistleblower complaint alleging that the U.S. was leveraging military aid for political favors.

    What should India learn from this? (Way forward)

    • Institutionalize Diplomatic Processes: Informal leader-to-leader diplomacy should not replace structured diplomatic engagement involving foreign service professionals.
      • India should prioritize institutional mechanisms (e.g., MEA-led negotiations) to ensure consistency and avoid undue political influence in international relations.
    • Avoid Mixing Domestic Politics with Foreign Policy: Diplomatic engagements must remain separate from electoral or partisan interests to maintain credibility.
      • India must ensure that foreign policy decisions are not dictated by short-term political gains and avoid using international diplomacy for domestic political narratives.
    • Strengthen Transparency and Accountability: Diplomatic engagements should be conducted with oversight to prevent misuse or misinterpretation.
      • India should continue using parliamentary committees and professional diplomats to maintain transparency and avoid secretive deals that could lead to unintended consequences.