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

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: International Stories of Key Importance

  • Israel swears in ‘Unity Government’

    Israel’s Parliament swore in its new unity government led by PM Netanyahu and his former rival Benny Gantz, ending the longest political crisis in their nation’s history.

    The strategic location of Gaza strip, West Bank, Dead Sea etc. creates a hotspot for a possible map based prelims question.  Consider this PYQ from 2015 CSP:

    Q. The area known as ‘Golan Heights’ sometimes appears in the news in the context of the events related to:

    a) Central Asia
    b) Middle East
    c) South-East Asia
    d) Central Africa

    What is a Unity Government?

    • A national unity government, government of national unity (GNU), or national union government is a broad coalition government consisting of all parties (or all major parties) in the legislature.
    • Such a coalition is usually formed during a time of war or another national emergency.
    • A general coalition government is a form of government in which political parties cooperate, reducing the dominance of any one party within that “coalition”.

    Practice question for mains:

    Q. Discuss the role and significance of Leader of Opposition and the Opposition Party and their constructive criticism in a Parliamentary form of government.

    What is the Israeli deal?

    • Israel’s unity government starts work amid the coronavirus pandemic and after a political crisis that saw three inconclusive elections and left the country in political limbo for more than 500 days.
    • The coalition government was agreed last month between veteran right-wing leader Netanyahu and the centrist Gantz, a former army chief.
    • The incoming government has aimed to apply Israeli sovereignty over West Bank settlements.
    • The govt. now aims to push on with controversial plans to annex large parts of the occupied West Bank.

    Significance

    • Netanyahu said that it’s time to apply the Israeli law and write another glorious chapter in the history of Zionism citing the issue of Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory.
    • Such a move is seen likely to cause international uproar and inflame tensions in the West Bank.
    • The region is home to nearly three million Palestinians and some 400,000 Israelis living in settlements considered illegal under international law.

    Back2Basics

    West Bank Annexation plans

    U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo met Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu to discuss plans to annex parts of the West Bank.

    The strategic location of Gaza strip, West Bank, Dead Sea etc. creates a hotspot for a possible map based prelims question.  Consider this PYQ from 2015 CSP:

    Q. The area known as ‘Golan Heights’ sometimes appears in the news in the context of the events related to:

    a) Central Asia
    b) Middle East
    c) South-East Asia
    d) Central Africa

    Where is West Bank Located?

    • The West Bank is located to the west of the Jordan River.
    • It is a patch of land about one and a half times the size of Goa, was captured by Jordan after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
    • Israel snatched it back during the Six-Day War of 1967 and has occupied it ever since.
    • It is a landlocked territory, bordered by Jordan to the east and Israel to the south, west, and north.
    • Following the Oslo Accords between the Israeli government and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) during the 1990s, part of the West Bank came under the control of the Palestinian Authority.
    • With varying levels of autonomy, the Palestinian Authority controls close to 40 percent of West Bank today, while the rest is controlled by Israel.

    Back2Basics: Gaza Strip

    • The Gaza Strip is a small boot-shaped territory along the Mediterranean coast between Egypt and Israel.
    • A couple of years later in 2007, Hamas, an anti-Israel military group, took over Gaza Strip. The militia group is often involved in violent clashes with the Israeli Defence Forces.
    • While Palestine has staked claim to both territories — West Bank and Gaza Strip — Israel’s objective has been to keep expanding Jewish settlements in these regions.

  • Unanimity at WHO

    WHO has been in news recently for all the wrong reasons. This article focuses on wide-ranging support for the resolution calling for the inquiry into the origin of the novel coronavirus. With this resolution, WHO has a chance to redeem its credibility. Until recently China seemed to be in the control of the global narrative on the pandemic. And now we witness near-unanimous support to this resolution.

    Inquiry of the origin of the virus

    • International attention is riveted on the question of an inquiry into the origin of the corona-virus.
    • The call for an international investigation was first voiced formally by the Australian prime minister, Scott Morrison.
    • Beijing reacted with open threats of trade sanctions. But Canberra pushed the investigation ahead.
    • It is working with the European Union to promote a resolution at this week’s World Health Assembly (WHA), which brings ministers from all the member states of the WHO.
    • The resolution also calls for an “impartial, independent and comprehensive” evaluation into the international response to the corona pandemic.
    • The WHA has 194 members.
    • So, the entire international community — has a voice in addressing the key issues raised by the corona crisis by debating the resolution.

    Wide support to the resolution

    • According to media reports, the resolution is close to gaining support from two-thirds of the WHA’s 194 members.
    • Australia and the EU hope to have the resolution approved unanimously.
    • Since the resolution does not mention China by name, Canberra and Brussels hope Beijing will not oppose the resolution.
    • They also hope to persuade Washington, which wanted tougher language including references to China, to endorse the resolution.
    • Whatever the fate of the resolution, the wide-ranging support it has got amidst the vocal Chinese opposition is impressive.

    So, how effective is the resolution?

    • To be sure, the resolution was watered down to get the maximum possible backing at the WHO.
    • But it is said to have enough teeth to dig deep into the issues raised by the corona crisis.

    How China controlled the corona narrative until now?

    • A few weeks ago, it seemed China and the Director-General of WHO, had full control over the corona narrative on the issues involved.
    • The Trump administration’s aggressive questioning of China’s role and WHO DG’s role had not gone down well.
    • Nor did the US threat to cut off funding for the WHO.
    • Within the US itself, opposition Democrats and the foreign policy establishment has attacked Trump for trying to “divert attention”.
    • China’s success in quickly getting things under control at home and its expansive mask diplomacy seemed to give Beijing an upper hand at the WHO.
    • China’s growing clout in the developing world and bilateral economic levers against major developed countries, including in Europe, appeared to insure against any serious international questioning of its handling of the virus.
    • What factors played the role in the passing of the resolution?
    • 1) The public pressure from the US concentrated minds at the WHO.
    • 2) Some quiet diplomacy by middle powers, including India, appears to have created the political basis for learning the right lessons from the pandemic and preventing similar eruptions in the future.

    Is it a setback for China?

    • Some observers see a unanimous approval of the resolution as a diplomatic setback for Beijing.
    • Since limiting the demands for an external inquiry has been a major political priority for Beijing.
    • There are similar demands at home for an investigation into a crisis that led to an enormous loss of life in China and punishing those responsible.
    • The leadership in Beijing is not comfortable with these demands.

    Issues with the WHO that India must pay attention to

    1. International norms for early detection

    • There is the need to develop new international norms that will increase the obligations of states and the powers of the WHO in facilitating early detection and notification of pandemics.
    • This will involve finding ways to bridge the contested notions of state sovereignty and collective security.

    2. Funding of the WHO

    • If you have a club that depends on donations rather than membership fees, donors will inevitably set the agenda.
    • Over the decades, the WHO has become ever more reliant on voluntary contributions from governments and corporations rather than assessed contributions from the member states.
    • This is going to leave the WHO rather vulnerable to pressures.

    3. WHO’s focus should be on fewer objectives

    • India must also ask if the WHO is trying to do too many things.
    • The WHO’s initial successes came when it focused on a few objectives like combatting malaria and the elimination of smallpox.
    • A limited agenda might also make the WHO a more effective organisation.

    Way forward for India

    • India knows it is one thing to pass to a resolution and entirely another to compel a great power like China to comply.
    • Any current effort to understand the origin and spread of the COVID-19 virus and a long-term strategy to deal with future pandemics must necessarily involve more than a measure of Chinese cooperation.
    • Sustained engagement with Beijing, then, is as important for Delhi as deeper cooperation with Washington and the “Quad plus” nations.
    • India should also focus on more intensive engagement with the non-aligned nations in promoting a new global regime on preventing and managing pandemics.

    Consider the question “Corona pandemic and its handling by the WHO resulted in the loss of its credibility. But the collective efforts of the nations which resulted in the passage of the resolution for inquiry of the origin of the virus, could soften the blow the credibility of WHO had suffered. Comment.”

    Conclusion

    For India, the widespread support for the resolution is a vindication of its early call for transparency and accountability in the responses of China and the WHO to the pandemic. India should take initiative to ensure the reforms at WHO and the formation of global order for preventing and managing the global order.

  • Are the U.S. and China entering a new Cold War?

    Relations between the U.S. and China plunged to a new low in recent weeks. Ties between the two countries had started deteriorating well before the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Practice question for mains:

    Q. How will economic nationalism take a lead in the post-COVID-19 Asia? Discuss in context to the rising tensions between the US and China.

    Heading for a new Cold War

    • The US President has recently threatened to “cut off the whole relationship” with China over the COVID-19 pandemic, which originated in Wuhan.
    • Earlier this month, the U.S. imposed visa restrictions on the Chinese journalists working in the country, limiting their work period to 90 days.
    • Last week, Trump extended for one more year a ban on U.S. companies from using telecom equipment made by “companies positing national security risks” (Huawei and ZTE row).

    A new national policy

    • The rising tensions between the two superpowers have prompted many experts to warn of a new Cold War.
    • A chorus of American voices now argues that confronting China should become the organizing principle of U.S. foreign policy, akin to the Cold War against the Soviet Union.
    • Hawks in the Trump administration openly push for a more aggressive approach towards Beijing.
    • In 2017, the US’s National Security Strategy called China as “a revisionist power” seeking “to erode American security and prosperity” and “shape a world antithetical to U.S. values and interests”.

    Why is the US confronting China?

    • Competition rules the relationship, and flexibility and mature handling are in short supply on both sides.
    • Uncertainty prevails, whether it on the question of resolving trade problems, or on the maritime front in the East and South China Seas, on technology, or on mutual mud-slinging on COVID-19-related issues.
    • Record high temperatures have been recorded in Sino-U.S. relations in recent years and the pandemic is no exception to this.
    • COVID-19 appears to have aggravated the crisis, pushing both countries, already reeling under trade, technology and maritime disputes, to take a more hostile position towards each other.

    How has China responded?

    • China has frequently urged the United States to abandon its Cold-War mentality and zero-sum game mindset.
    • It has sometimes through the state-run media, hit back, calling Trump’s comments “lunacy” and Mike Pompeo, the U.S. Secretary of State, an “evil politician”.

    A reminder of the ‘Novikov telegram’

    • In early April, China’s Ministry of State Security sent an internal report to the country’s top leaders, stating that hostility in the wake of the coronavirus outbreak could tip relations with the U.S. into a confrontation.
    • Intelligence community sees the report as China’s version of the ‘Novikov Telegram’, referring to a report Nikolai Novikov, the Soviet Ambassador in Washington, sent to Moscow in September 1946.
    • Laying out his analysis of the U.S. conduct, the report, sent to Russia said that the U.S. is determined on world domination and suggested the Soviet Union create a buffer in Eastern Europe.
    • Novikov telegram was a response to the “Long Telegram”, the 8,000-word report sent by George Kennan, an official at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, to Washington.
    • It said that the Soviet Union was heavily armed and determined to spread communism, and peaceful coexistence was impossible.
    • Historians often trace the origins of the Cold War to these telegrams.

    Nationalist overdrive in US

    • The current crisis in relations clearly shows that tensions will not go away. This situation is unlikely to ease until the U.S. Presidential election.
    • Post-election, temperatures could decrease, but a deep-rooted antipathy towards China has gripped the popular and political imagination in the U.S.
    • In China, the leadership and public opinion are both on a nationalist overdrive and the Trump administration is seen as the prime antagonist.

    Relevance with the Cold War

    • There are similarities between the current crisis and the Cold War.
    • The political elites of both China and the U.S., like the Soviet Union and the U.S. back then, see each other as their main rivals.
    • We can also see this antagonism moving from the political elite to the popular perception — the targeting of ethnic Chinese professionals and others in the U.S. and of American individuals or entities in China is a case in point.

    Conclusion

    • We don’t see the kind of proxy conflicts between the U.S. and China which we did during the Cold War.
    • The world is also not bipolar any more. There are third parties such as the EU, Russia, India and Japan.
    • These parties increasingly have a choice whether or not to align with either power as they see fit and on a case by case basis.
    • This leads to a very different kind of international order than during the Cold War.

    Challenges ahead

    • The Cold War was out and out ideological between the communist and capitalist blocs.
    • For China, a country ruled by a communist party where the primary goal of all state apparatus is preserving the regime in power, it’s always been ideological.
    • The U.S. has started realizing this angle about China now. The Republican Party has ideological worldviews, too.
    • If Trump gets re-elected, the ideological underpinnings of the U.S.-China rivalry could get further solidified.

    Back2Basics: Cold War

    • During World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union fought together as allies against the Axis powers.
    • However, the relationship between the two nations was a tense one.
    • Americans had long been wary of Soviet Communism and concerned about Russian leader Joseph Stalin’s tyrannical rule of his own country.
    • For their part, the Soviets resented the Americans’ decades-long refusal to treat the USSR as a legitimate part of the international community as well as their delayed entry into World War II, which resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of Russians.
    • After the war ended, these grievances ripened into an overwhelming sense of mutual distrust and enmity.

  • India on the margins of Afghanistan diplomacy

    From economic, strategic to security, India has many interests in “future” Peaceful and Developed Afghanistan. But India was sidelined from the recently organised meeting on Afghanistan. This article analyses what went wrong in India’s foreign and security policy. Two factors are emphasised in the article- India’s reluctance to talk with the Taliban and the US’s desperation to get out of Afghanistan.

    India’s Rigid policy toward Afghanistan

    • Recent developments in Afghanistan demand a flexible approach.
    • But India’s foreign and security planners have lacked flexibility in their approach.
    • Right approach should have included seeking to establish open connections with all its political groups, including with those perceived to be in Pakistan’s pocket.
    • Instead, they continued to rigidly cling to Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani even as his influence diminished with each passing month.

    India’s support to Mr Ghani

    • Prime Minister Narendra Modi congratulated Mr Ghani for winning the elections, in December 2019 when the Afghanistan election commission had only announced the preliminary results.
    • And most countries had maintained a discreet silence then.
    • When the final result came it was rejected by Mr Ghani’s main rival, Abdullah Abdullah.
    • The international community ultimately supported Mr Ghani.
    • But qualified it with an insistence that he enters into a real power-sharing agreement with Mr Abdullah.

    India sidelined from meeting on Afghanistan

    • The United Nations Secretariat organised a meeting on Afghanistan where it invited the 6 current physical neighbours of Afghanistan—China, Pakistan, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.
    • In addition, invitations were extended to the United States, Russia and the Ghani government.
    • Obviously, Mr Ghani did not condition his participation on India’s inclusion.
    • The constructive role New Delhi has played in Afghanistan’s reconstruction since the Taliban were ousted from the country in 2001-2002 after 9/11 was neglected.

    US going along with India’s absence

    • The role and action of the US proved that the U.S. acts to promote its interests in Afghanistan.
    •  It obviously expects that if in doing so Indian interests are exposed, India will protect them as best as it can.
    • U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation said that ‘India should talk directly to Taliban, discuss terror concerns directly’.
    • He noted that despite India’s contributions to Afghanistan’s economic development — and these are undeniably significant covering large parts of the country, and are popular — as well as its long history of contacts with that country, it does not have a place in international diplomacy on Afghanistan.
    • He also said that when it comes to international efforts, India yet does not have a role that it could.
    • He patronisingly added that the U.S. wants India to have a more active role in the peace process.

    So, why India’s presence was not considered vital?

    • U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation thinks that by avoiding open contacts with the Taliban, India has reduced its role in international diplomatic efforts.
    • That the U.S. is currently crucially dependent on Pakistan for the successful implementation of its Taliban deal.
    • It is reminiscent of the time in the 1990s when, at Pakistan’s insistence, India was considered a problem and kept out of crucial global forums on Afghanistan.

    Way forward

    • In such a situation, it is essential for India to maintain its strong links with the Afghan government, built and support its traditional Afghan allies.
    • But India should also established open lines of communication with the Taliban.
    • This is important because they are informally conveying that India should not consider them as Pakistan’s puppets and also because they have gained international recognition.
    • Contacts and discussions do not mean acceptance of their ways but its still a step forward.
    • India should act keeping in mind that there are no countries on the horizon which are really opposed to the Taliban acquiring a major place in the Afghanistan’s formal power structures.

    In 2013, the UPSC asked a question related to developments in Afghanistan against the backdrop of the proposed withdrawal of the International Security Assistance Force. Similarly, a question based on the latest development can be asked, for ex-“The return of Taliban after the US-Taliban deal in Afghanistan is fraught with major security implications for the countries in the region. Examine in the light of the fact that India is faced with a plethora of challenges and needs to safeguard its own strategic interests.”

    Conclusion

    India needs to take corrective diplomatic action even at this late stage, and even in the time of COVID-19. It must begin openly talking to the Taliban and with all political groups in the country. It must realise that its Afghan policy needs changes.

  • Mapping: Baltic Travel Bubble

    The Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania have opened their borders to one another, creating a coronavirus “travel bubble” with an improvised idea to boost travel into their countries.

    Mark the following things on Map:

    1. Baltic Sea and its bordering nations

    2. Irben Strait

    3. Gulf of Riga

    4. Gulf of Finland

    Baltic Travel Bubble

    • The ‘Baltic travel bubble’ aims to facilitate the citizens of these three countries to travel within the region without hassles.
    • However, those who are coming from any other than these three countries would be required to follow self-isolation guidelines and stay in quarantine for exactly 14 days.
    • During the epidemic, Estonia and Lithuania closed their borders to non-citizens and all three nations placed mandatory quarantines for those entering for reasons related to non-work activities.
    • The region has been part of the European Union since 2004 and since 2007 has been a member of the European Schengen Free Travel Area.

    Significance of the travel ease

    • The Baltic nations have shown trust in each other’s healthcare system and have concluded that they have been able to tackle the coronavirus outbreak efficiently.
    • For Asian countries including India, these developments can provide interesting pointers when lockdown relaxations pertaining to travel and flights are being considered.

    Bonus: Try this question from CSP 2011

    Between India and East Asia, the navigation-time and distance can be greatly reduced by which of the following?

    1. Deepening the Malacca straits between Malaysia and Indonesia.

    2. Opening a new canal across the Kra isthmus between the Gulf of Siam and Andaman Sea.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    (a) 1 only

    (b) 2 only

    (c) Both 1 and 2

    (d) Neither 1 nor 2

  • West Bank Annexation plans by US

    U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo met Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu to discuss plans to annex parts of the West Bank.

    The strategic location of Gaza strip, West Bank, Dead Sea etc. creates a hotspot for a possible map based prelims question.  Consider this PYQ from 2015 CSP:

    Q. The area known as ‘Golan Heights’ sometimes appears in the news in the context of the events related to:

    a) Central Asia
    b) Middle East
    c) South-East Asia
    d) Central Africa

    Where is West Bank Located?

    • The West Bank is located to the west of the Jordan River.
    • It is a patch of land about one and a half times the size of Goa, was captured by Jordan after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War.
    • Israel snatched it back during the Six-Day War of 1967 and has occupied it ever since.
    • It is a landlocked territory, bordered by Jordan to the east and Israel to the south, west, and north.
    • Following the Oslo Accords between the Israeli government and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) during the 1990s, part of the West Bank came under the control of the Palestinian Authority.
    • With varying levels of autonomy, the Palestinian Authority controls close to 40 percent of West Bank today, while the rest is controlled by Israel.

    Back2Basics: Gaza Strip

    • The Gaza Strip is a small boot-shaped territory along the Mediterranean coast between Egypt and Israel.
    • A couple of years later in 2007, Hamas, an anti-Israel military group, took over Gaza Strip. The militia group is often involved in violent clashes with the Israeli Defence Forces.
    • While Palestine has staked claim to both territories — West Bank and Gaza Strip — Israel’s objective has been to keep expanding Jewish settlements in these regions.

    For complete details on Israel-Palestine conflict, kindly refer:

    [Burning Issue] West Asia Peace Plan

  • Seven trends in the geopolitics of the world

    The article examines 7 trends that have been emerging in the global order for quite some time now. The corona crisis has only accentuated these trends. So, what are these trends? read to know more.

    1. The rise of Asia

    • The first trend which became clear in the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis is the rise of Asia.
    • Economic historians pointed to its inevitability, recalling that till the 18th century, Asia accounted for half the global GDP.
    • The Industrial Revolution accompanied by European naval expansion and colonialism contributed to the rise of the West, and now the balance is being restored.
    • The 2008 financial crisis showed the resilience of Asian economies.
    • And even today, economic forecasts indicate that out of the G-20 countries, only China and India are likely to register economic growth during 2020.
    • Asian countries have also demonstrated greater agility in tackling the pandemic compared to the United States and Europe.
    • This is not limited to China but a number of other Asian states have shown greater responsiveness and more effective state capacity.
    • Consequently, Asian economies will recover faster than those in the West.

    2. Decline of the US

    • The second trend is the retreat of the U.S.after a century of being in the forefront of shaping the global order.
    • The U.S. played a decisive role in shaping the world, from the World Wars to the leadership of the western world during the Cold War, molding global responses to threats posed by terrorism or proliferation or climate change.
    • But recent examples show that interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq have become quagmires that have sapped domestic political will and resources.
    • President Donald Trump called for “America first” and during the current crisis, the U.S.’s efforts at cornering supplies of scarce medical equipment and medicines and acquiring biotech companies engaged in research and development in allied states, shows that this may mean “America alone”.
    • Moreover, even as countries were losing trust in the U.S.’s leadership, its mishandling at the home of the pandemic indicates that countries are also losing trust in the U.S.’s competence.

    3. Weakening unity of the EU

    • A third trend is the European Union’s continuing preoccupation with internal challenges.
    • This internal disruption is generated three factors: 1) EU’s expansion of membership to include East European states 2) Impact of the financial crisis among the Eurozone members 3) Ongoing Brexit negotiations.
    • Threat perceptions vary between old Europe and new Europe making it increasingly difficult to reach agreement on political matters e.g. relations with Russia and China.
    • Rising populism has given greater voice to Euro-sceptics and permitted some EU members to espouse the virtues of “illiberal democracy”.
    • Adding to this is the North-South divide within the Eurozone.
    • This divide was seen when austerity measures were imposed on Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal a decade ago by the European Central Bank.
    • These austerity measures were persuaded by the fiscally conservative Austria, Germany and the Netherlands.
    • The EU lacked solidarity when Italy was battling the pandemic alone.
    • Further damage was done when Italy was denied medical equipment by its EU neighbours who introduced export controls.
    • Schengen visa or free-border movement has already become a victim to the pandemic.
    • The EU will need considerable soul searching to rediscover the limits of free movement of goods, services, capital and people, the underlying theme of the European experiment of shared sovereignty.

    4. Rise of China

    • China’s growing economic role has been visible since it joined the World Trade Organization in 2001.
    • Its more assertive posture has taken shape under President Xi Jinping’s leadership with the call that a rejuvenated China is now ready to assume global responsibilities.
    • In recent years, the U.S.-China relationship moved from cooperation to competition; and now with trade and technology wars, it is moving steadily to confrontation.
    • A partial economic de-coupling had begun and will gather greater momentum.
    • The Belt and Road Initiative involves investing trillions of dollars in infrastructure building as a kind of pre-emptive move against any U.S. attempts at containment.
    • Even if Mr Xi’s leadership comes under questioning, it may soften some aggressive policy edges but the confrontational rivalry with the U.S. will remain.

    5. Failure of multinational institutions

    • With COVID-19, international and multilateral bodies are nowhere on the scene.
    • The World Health Organisation (WHO) was the natural candidate to lead global efforts against the health crisis but it has become a victim of politics.
    • The UN Security Council (UNSC), the G-7 and the G-20 are paralysed when the world faces the worst recession since 1929.
    • The reality is that these institutions were always subjected to big power politics.
    • During the Cold War, U.S.-Soviet rivalry blocked the UNSC on many sensitive issues and now with major power rivalry returning, finds itself paralysed again.
    • Agencies such as WHO have lost autonomy over the decades as their regular budgets shrank.
    • Budget constraints forced them to increasingly rely on voluntary contributions sourced largely from western countries and foundations.
    • The absence of a multilateral response today highlights the long-felt need for reform of these bodies but this cannot happen without collective global leadership.

    6. The oil prices

    • The two trends were changing energy markets: 1)Growing interest in renewables and green technologies on account of climate change concerns. 2) The U.S. emerging as a major energy producer.
    • Now, a looming economic recession and depressed oil prices will exacerbate internal tensions in West Asian countries which are solely dependent on oil revenues.

    7. Stability of West Asia

    • Long-standing rivalries in the region have often led to local conflicts but can now create political instability in countries where regime structures are fragile.

    Consider the question “The Corona crisis contributed to speeding the failure of a global order which had been faltering before the pandemic afflicted the world. Examine the trends that have been accentuated by the pandemic.”

    Conclusion

    The vaccine may end the corona crisis when it comes, but the unfolding trends in the geopolitics have been altering the world even before the corona crisis and continue to do so after a pandemic is over.

     

  • Mapping: Islands in the Pacific

    Approximately four months after COVID-19 was first detected, the South Pacific Islands have not yet reported any cases of the infectious disease.

    Closely observe the map. Note important islands. UPSC may shift its traditional focus from middle east/central asia to this region. These days, Pacific and Indo-Pacific region carry a decent importance.

    We can expect MCQs asking to arrange these islands in north-south / east-west direction.

    Which South Pacific islands have recorded cases of COVID-19?

    • Fiji recorded its first case of COVID-19 on March 19.
    • Guam, a territory of the US in the South Pacific, witnessed an outbreak among the staff of the US navy.
    • New Caledonia also recorded its first COVID-19 cases in mid-March, with links to overseas travel.
    • The Solomon Islands, the Cook Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, the Marshall Islands, Palau and Nauru have no recorded cases of COVID-19.

    What impact will COVID-19 have on Pacific island nations?

    • A widespread outbreak of COVID-19 will have a disastrous impact on these island nations.
    • Although these islands are popular with tourists, the outer islands and rural villages are home to indigenous populations.
    • Most of these areas have a very basic infrastructure for healthcare, with larger hospitals and medical centres located in bigger towns.
    • Even in everyday circumstances, these small medical centres struggle due to the lack of medical supplies.
    • The socio-cultural factors, like the prevalence of large families in this region, also make the individuals susceptible to community transmission.
    • There is also a lack of access to running water, making sanitation difficult.
    • Environmental factors like the seasonal tropical cyclone that swept through the region in April, led to the displacement of hundreds of people in the Solomon Islands, Fiji, Vanuatu and Tonga.

  • Taiwan makes new push for inclusion in World Health Assembly

    Following its successful containment of coronavirus outbreak, Taiwan has made a new push for inclusion in the World Health Assembly (WHA).

    Locate the seas and straits around Taiwan using your Atlas.

    What is World Health Assembly (WHA)?

    • The WHA, composed of representatives from all 194 member states, serves as the WHO’s supreme decision-making body.
    • The WHA convenes annually and is responsible for selecting the Director-General, setting goals and priorities, and approving the WHO’s budget and activities.
    • The first meeting of the WHA the WHO’s agency’s governing body, took place on 24 July 1948.
    • Its work began in earnest in 1951 following a significant infusion of financial and technical resources.

    Why Taiwan must be included in WHA?

    • Taiwan has been praised over its handling of the pandemic, despite being just a short flight from China where the virus was first detected late last year.
    • Taiwan since then has been in a state of constant readiness to the threat of emerging infectious disease.
    • Hence, its exclusion from the upcoming World Health Assembly would harm the global response to the coronavirus pandemic.

    Issues with Taiwan’s inclusion

    • Taiwan is claimed as part of Chinese territory by Beijing, which has excluded it from the United Nations and its subsidiary organisations.
    • China’s growing influence in the U.N. has made officials wary of crossing it, even while the U.S. has withdrawn from or suspended funding for some of its bodies, including WHO.
    • Beijing’s Communist leadership has increasingly shut Taiwan out of gatherings such as the World Health Assembly as part of a diplomatic and military drive to force Taiwan’s independence-leaning tendencies.

    Also read:

    [Burning Issue] World Health Organization (WHO) And Coronavirus Handling

  • Afghan peace and India’s elbow room

    The article discusses India’s exclusion from the Afghan peace process. As India seeks to fight back its exclusion there are certain issues that need to be addressed. India’s reluctance to enter into talks with the Taliban in one such issue, which needs a rethink. And there are several areas in which India needs to continue working like-the goodwill in Afghanistan, participation in assistance work, bringing together the major leaders in that country.

    India left out of the meeting on peace in Afghanistan

    • Earlier this month, the United Nations Secretariat held a meeting of what it calls the “6+2+1” group on regional efforts to support peace in Afghanistan.
    • The group includes six neighbouring countries: China, Iran, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan; global players the United States and Russia, and Afghanistan itself.
    • India was conspicuous by its absence from the meeting on April 16, given its historical and strategic ties with Afghanistan.
    • This has not happened for the first time, India was left out form talks similarly in 2001 and 2010.
    • In both 2001 and 2010, however, India fought back its exclusion
    • At the Bonn agreement of 2010, India played a major role in Northern Alliance accepting Hamid Karzai as the Chairman of the interim arrangement that replaced the Taliban regime.
    • After the 2010 conference, New Delhi redoubled its efforts with Kabul, and in 2011 India signed the historic Strategic Partnership Agreement, which was Afghanistan’s first such agreement with any country.

    Reasons for not inviting India

    • In 2020, the reason given for keeping India out of regional discussions on Afghanistan was ostensibly that it holds no “boundary” with Afghanistan.
    • But in fact, it is because New Delhi has never announced its support for the U.S.-Taliban peace process.
    • As planners in South Block now consider their next steps in Afghanistan, they must fight back against the idea that any lasting solution in Afghanistan can be discussed without India in the room, while also studying the reasons for such exclusions.

    Following are the issues that Indian must consider and act on as it seeks to fight back its exclusion from the peace talks.

    India’s position on Afghan-led peace process and reality

    • India’s resistance to publicly talking to the Taliban has made it an awkward interlocutor at any table.
    • Its position that only an Afghan-led, Afghan-owned, and Afghan-controlled process can be allowed is a principled one but has no takers.
    • The Ashraf Ghani government does not lead, own or control the reconciliation process today, comprising the U.S.-Taliban negotiation for an American troops withdrawal, and intra-Afghan talks on power-sharing.
    • The U.S.-Taliban peace deal means that the Taliban, will become more potent as the U.S. withdraws soldiers from the country.
    • Taliban will hold more sway in the inter-Afghan process as well, as the U.S. withdraws funding for the government in Kabul.

    Two effects of India’s position

    • New Delhi’s decision to put all its eggs in the Ghani basket has had a two-fold effect:
    • 1) Its voice in the reconciliation process has been limited.
    • 2) It has weakened India’s position with other leaders of the deeply divided democratic setup in Kabul such as the former chief executive Abdullah Abdullah.

    India should not let its diplomatic strength weaken

    • India painstakingly built up its presence inside Afghanistan since 2001.
    • This presence is being threatened anew by terror groups such as the Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP).
    • ISKP is believed to be backed by Pakistan’s establishment.
    • Intercepts showed that the brutal attack, in March, that killed 25 at a gurudwara in Kabul was meant for the embassy in Kabul.
    • The government cleared out both of its consulates this month.
    • While the government has said that the novel coronavirus pandemic prompted its decision to clear out both consulates.
    • The truth is that a full security reassessment is under way for them.
    • Either way, India’s diplomatic strength in Afghanistan should not appear to be in retreat just when it is needed the most.

    Goodwill in Afghanistan and damage caused due to CAA

    • The government must also consider the damage done to the vast reservoir of goodwill India enjoys in Afghanistan because of recent events in the country, especially the controversy over the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.
    • The building blocks of that goodwill are India’s assistance in infrastructure projects, health care, education, trade and food security, and also in the liberal access to Afghans to study, train and work in India.
    • Above all, it is India’s example as a pluralistic, inclusive democracy that inspires many.
    • Afghanistan’s majority-Muslim citizens have felt cut out of the move to offer fast track citizenship to only Afghan minorities.
    • The damage was also done by reports of anti-Muslim rhetoric and incidents of violence in India.

    Regain upper hand in the narrative in Afghanistan

    • While many of these are problems of perception, New Delhi must move swiftly to regain the upper hand in the narrative in Afghanistan.
    • India has provided the assistance of more than $3 billion in projects.
    • Bilateral trade is about $1 billion.
    • A $20 billion projected development expenditure of an alternate route through Chabahar.
    • And support to the Afghan National Army, bureaucrats, doctors and other professionals for training in India should assure it a leading position in Afghanistan’s regional formulation.
    • Three major projects along with hundreds of small development projects (of schools, hospitals and water projects) have cemented that position in Afghan hearts nationwide, regardless of Pakistan’s attempts to undermine that position, particularly in the South.
    • The three major projects include 1) the Afghan Parliament, 2) the Zaranj-Delaram Highway, 3)the Afghanistan-India Friendship Dam (Salma dam).

     Pursue opportunities to fulfil its role in the peace efforts

    • India must also pursue opportunities to fulfil its role in the peace efforts in Afghanistan, starting with efforts to bridge the Ghani-Abdullah divide.
    • India could also play role in bringing together other major leaders with whom India has built ties for decades.
    • It would be an utter tragedy if the Taliban were to enter the government in Kabul as the U.S. deal envisages, to find the opposing front collapse as it did in 1996.
    • An understanding between Iran and the U.S. on Afghanistan is necessary for a lasting peace as well, and India could play a mediatory part, as it did in order for the Chabahar project.

    Return of the Taliban has several implications for India. In 2013, the UPSC asked a question related to developments in Afghanistan against the backdrop of the proposed withdrawal of the International Security Assistance Force. Similarly, a question based on the latest development can be asked, for ex-“The return of Taliban after the US-Taliban deal in Afghanistan is fraught with major security implications for the countries in the region. Examine in the light of the fact that India is faced with a plethora of challenges and needs to safeguard its own strategic interests.”

    Use UN call for peace to put hostilities with Pakistan on hold

    • Finally, New Delhi should use the United Nations’s call for a pause in conflicts during the novel coronavirus pandemic, to ensure a hold on hostilities with Pakistan.
    • This will be even more difficult than it sounds given the abyss that bilateral relations have fallen into in the past year over Kashmir.

    Conclusion

    It would be a mistake, at this point, to tie all India’s support in only to Kabul or the Ghani government; the government must strive to endure that its aid and assistance is broad-based, particularly during the novel coronavirus pandemic to centres outside the capital, even if some lie in areas held by the Taliban.