The Peninsula Foundation

Category: Geopolitics & Geo-economics

  • To Become Atmanirbhar, Bharat Needs Strong R&D

    To Become Atmanirbhar, Bharat Needs Strong R&D

    India has gone full circle from Gandhi’s days of Swadeshi to Nehru’s vision of self-reliant India to New Economic Policies of indiscriminate opening of the economy to Atmanirbhar Bharat. In between lip service was paid to Swadeshi in 1998 but the government continue with the indiscriminate opening up of the economy. Even agriculture was not left untouched with the opening up of 1400 commodities after the Seattle round of negotiations in 1999.

    What is Atmanirbharta?

    What do we understand by atmanirbhar – is it at the narrow level of producing most things that we need ourselves or at the wider philosophical level? If the latter, it implies independence of thought and development of socially relevant knowledge. It could lead to an alternate vision of development and prosperity for the nation.

    In an open economy people will then buy the foreign produced cheaper goods. So, the more important aspect of atmanirbharta is the philosophical aspect.

    The idea of producing most things ourselves runs into a contradiction in a globalizing world which is premised on marketization. Most things are being produced cheaper and better somewhere else, including our cultural symbols such as gulal, diyas and ganesh statue. In an open economy people will then buy the foreign produced cheaper goods. So, the more important aspect of atmanirbharta is the philosophical aspect.

    Opening up the Economy

    In 1991, with the New Economic Policies we gave up the idea of ourselves producing most things that we need. Our global trade increased dramatically with the percentage of export plus import of goods and services in GDP rising from around 17% in 1991 to about 55.8% by 2013. In 2019 it is down to about 40%.

    With the evolution of Washington Consensus in the 1980s, based on the idea of marketization, the world started to integrate in the 1990s with all countries showing a sharp rise in trade to GDP ratio. China captured a large share of the world markets and built a huge trade surplus. Its foreign exchange reserves rose to over $3.5 trillion. This gave it enormous clout globally not only with developing countries but also with the developed countries.

    The idea of atmanirbharta or self-reliance underwent a change. It became a matter of global competition to gain market share globally. One imported more to export more. Growth was supposed to depend on this. South East Asia and China were given as examples of success of such openness and rapid improvement in the living standard of the population. China post-Mao successfully adopted such a strategy. It was a large economy so it could not even be said that India cannot do what Singapore can do.

    Globalization is all about development of technology and India has lagged behind in that.

    Lessons from China

    What are the lessons India can learn from China’s achievements in the last thirty years? Apart from the fact that it is an authoritarian state with a strong sense of nationalism, its advances in research are stupendous.

    China has invested huge sums in building a strong infrastructure and research base in Universities, Institutions and Industry. It has one of the highest investment and savings rate in the world at 44 per cent in 2019. India’s comparative figure for 2019 is around 30%. It has developed the 5G technology faster than others and is willing to provide it cheaper than its competitors. This is also the case with many other lines of production such as, electronics, pharmaceuticals, automobiles and toys. It has moved rapidly in various fields such as development of artificial intelligence and applications of internet for commerce and financial sectors.

    Globalization is all about development of technology and India has lagged behind in that.

    China has had the long term vision to develop this rapidly by investing heavily in Research and Development. After getting technology from foreign companies, it has advanced the same by mastering it. Unfortunately, India has not done so and has repeatedly imported the next level of technology.

    Need for strong R&D

    India’s investment in R&D has been minimal. The private sector has been investing little in technology development. And, the public sector has been hamstrung in technology development by lack of autonomy, bureaucratization and corruption.

    Global competitiveness requires rapid development of technology. It requires massive investment in both absorption and development of technology. Instead, India’s investment in R&D has been minimal. The private sector has been investing little in technology development. And, the public sector has been hamstrung in technology development by lack of autonomy, bureaucratization and corruption.

    Research and Development require autonomy for researchers and a long term vision. Of course resources are also required but autonomy and vision are crucial and these have been weak in India. The same Indian researchers are able to do well in foreign lands but when in India they are not able to deliver. Our research establishment are rather feudal in approach and work within rigid hierarchies so that often talent gets suppressed.

    a culture of promoting independent and critical thinking is largely missing and that reacts back on research and generation of new ideas.

    Universities are the places where autonomy is greater and a long term vision can flourish away from the immediate profit motive. But unfortunately most of our universities are also bureaucratized and do not give autonomy to the academics. The authorities largely with bureaucratized and feudal mindset see independent thinking as a threat to themselves and, therefore, put up road blocks in the path of the independent thinkers thereby frustrating them and making their functioning difficult. Often the independent minded are seen as trouble makers and a challenge to the domination of the authorities. This is true not only in social sciences but also in the case of sciences in most universities. Thus, a culture of promoting independent and critical thinking is largely missing and that reacts back on research and generation of new ideas.

    Imperatives of Strengthening R&D

    Atmanirbharta in the present day world does not imply closing the economy but having the strength to face the challenge from other nations. This has to be based on a long term vision and cannot be achieved in the short run or by ad hoc measures.

    It requires high quality education right from the school stage. Thus, the education budget has to be expanded and teaching paid much higher attention than given at present. The status of teachers has to be enhanced so that talented people come in to academia.

    The world has been globalizing for thousands of years with trade and exchange of knowledge across nations and across continents. But earlier it was a slow two way process. Colonization turned into a one way process with western knowledge and thought establishing its hegemony globally and more so in India. That killed the internal dynamism of Indian society. It reinforced feudalism in India and decimated the quest for socially relevant knowledge generation.

    There has to be a continuum in knowledge generation but with an Indian perspective. India has to have the self-confidence that it can move ahead without denying the last few hundred years. Denial is only a sign of weakness.

    As Gandhi suggested, there is need for Indian modernity. Achieving that is crucial. Can it be based on denying what has happened over the last 250 years and going to what existed prior to that? Such a gap would undermine our understanding of social developments in India. That would be a recipe for repeating our mistakes. There has to be a continuum in knowledge generation but with an Indian perspective. India has to have the self-confidence that it can move ahead without denying the last few hundred years. Denial is only a sign of weakness.

    Denial would prevent us from understanding the nature of globalization we are undergoing and therefore we would not be able to work out any correctives that are needed. It would lead to much confusion in society. For instance, we would not be able to understand why consumerism is sweeping the world, including the poor in India or why our research lacks dynamism. In brief, Atmanirbharta requires India to move with self-confidence and not be in denial.

     

  • BeiDou: China’s Space Flight to Global Dominance

    BeiDou: China’s Space Flight to Global Dominance

    Technological independence and Economic prowess define a ‘Great power’ in today’s Information Age. In an era of rapid technological advancements, China has emerged as an economic and technology juggernaut, rising in stature as a global superpower. Ever since the beginning of Deng Xiaoping’s modernisation strategy, China has invested heavily in its science and technology sector aiming to reduce its dependency on foreign technology. After nearly three decades of the relentless pursuit of technological competence, China has now established itself as a dominant force in innovation and technology. One such milestone because of its relentless pursuit is the establishment of its indigenous Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), The BeiDou Navigation Satellite System (BDS). BeiDou marks China’s entry into an elite club of GNSS systems, becoming one of only four global navigation systems worldwide. It cements China’s place as a prominent Space Power and as a potential suitor among countries for future space co-operation. BeiDou will directly rival the Global Positioning System (GPS) of the U.S. and its cheap costs with greater accuracy could bring an end to the monopoly of GPS in the global navigation systems arena.

    Military Objectives

    ‘National security’ is the primary reason for the development of the BDS navigation system. China’s ambition to build an indigenous satellite navigation system stemmed from the “embarrassment” it suffered during the Taiwan strait missile crisis in 1996[1]. It is believed that two of the warning missiles fired by the PLA, close to Taiwan’s Keelung military base, failed to hit the designated target due to the sudden disruption of the GPS. Missiles launched rely on Position Navigation and Timing (PNT) data, provided by a constellation of satellites, to navigate accurately to their designated target. With the BeiDou Navigation System (BDS) online, the Chinese military possesses a military and strategic autonomy and no longer requires to be dependent solely on the GPS for tracking and navigation. BeiDou aims to offer the Chinese PLA with precision-guided missile delivery systems, robust communication systems, enhanced cyber and drone warfare capabilities. Thus, integrating BeiDou into military systems and equipment will enable China to effectively bypass any constraints on GPS imposed by the U.S.[2].

    The BDS navigation system offers signals at a higher bandwidth, thus providing better accuracy than the GPS. Its global position accuracy is under 10 cm in the Asia-Pacific compared to the GPS’s 30cm [3]. BeiDou’s higher accuracy and affordable prices may encourage many countries to consider it as a viable alternative to GPS service provided by the U.S. Many militaries today fear manipulation of the navigation signals by the U.S. in times of conflict, as they are solely reliant on GPS for precision guidance and navigation. The BDS is compatible with GPS, GLONASS & GALILEO navigation systems, thus offering militaries with a fool-proof alternative. This dynamism will be a key strategic asset to any country during conflict situations[4]. One such example of countries moving away from GPS is Pakistan, which is all set to incorporate BeiDou into its civil and military domain as part of its defence and strategic cooperation with China. It gives Pakistan access to precise geospatial data for application in surveying and mapping, construction and scientific studies[5]. With Pakistan on a defence equipment buying spree from China, its military would gradually be fully integrated with the BDS navigation system soon, moving away from its reliance on GPS. This shows China’s pursuit of establishing its indigenous navigation system in the Asian region, putting an end to the GPS hegemony.

    Space Silk Road

    The BeiDou navigation satellite system is of critical importance to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The BDS navigation system will ensure accurate navigation capabilities that will complement the Land and Maritime Silk routes, which are a part of the larger Belt and Road Initiative of China. The Space Silk road aims to establish an array of space capabilities including a fully operational space station, ground infrastructure, launch services, satellites, aerospace industries and BDS related industries[6]. It offers a wider dimension to China’s ambitions for BRI and could promote greater growth and development of its space infrastructure and technology. It also promotes civil-military dual-use technologies and provides a platform for enhancing China’s indigenisation in communication, satellite navigation, aerospace and artificial intelligence[7]. It aims to provide the international community with credible alternative infrastructure and promote further cooperation in space-innovation and space-technology. China’s Space Silk Road legitimises its stake as a credible leader in space and a growing superpower in the international system.

    Over 30 countries including Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, Thailand, Laos and Indonesia have already signed agreements with China to integrate the BDS navigational system in the domestic sectors like transportation, communication, etc. They have also allowed the construction of ground stations, which would improve the accuracy and range of the BDS navigation system. The Space Silk road aims to tap into the lucrative satellite navigation industry, its system and components market enabling China to wield greater influence in third countries and their economy[8]. The BDS navigation satellite system is the centrepiece of the Space Silk Road under China’s Belt and Road Initiative and is of massive strategic and geopolitical importance in China’s ambition to establish itself as a global superpower.

    Economic Implications of BeiDou

    It is clear as day that any country that possesses an economic might wields greater influence in the world’s geopolitics. The U.S. has been the dominant force in the world economy until the turn of the 21st century, but not anymore. China’s meteoric rise to economic supremacy is deeply rooted in its aim to knock the U.S. right off their perch and take its place as a global leader in technology innovation and manufacturing. It aims to be the focal point of global manufacturing and offer nations credible and high-tech equipment and exercise a greater foothold in the global markets. ‘Made in China 2025’ espouses this ambition of China to cement its place as a global manufacturing leader in strategic industries like information technology, communication systems, a global navigation system, aerospace, railways, agricultural machinery etc. which are critical to the economic competitiveness and growth in the 21st century[9].

    A major cornerstone of the ‘Made in China 2025’ and the ‘13th 5-year plan’ is to fast-track the commercial applications of the BeiDou navigation satellite system. The Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) industry is estimated to be worth US$82.4 billion and is forecast to grow at an average rate of 7% p.a. through 2023 with over 3.6 billion GNSS devices currently in use worldwide. China aims to gain control of this lucrative market, which would give it economic superiority against the U.S. in the GNSS downstream industry and also aims to break the monopoly that the GPS enjoys in the satellite navigation industry. As of 2012, the U.S. led the GNSS downstream industry with a share of 31% followed by Japan 26%, the E.U. 25.8% and China with 7% share. China aims to capture 60% of the domestic GNSS downstream industry and 80% of important applications, becoming globally competitive by 2020. It envisions to build an industrial chain comprising all parts of the GNSS downstream industry ranging from chips, modules, antennae, receivers etc, all compatible with the BDS navigation system. China expects Beidou to have a global market penetration of 60% and attain worldwide coverage by 2020[10].

     In sheer numbers, it projects the GNSS market to grow by US$81.5 billion and have a compounded annual growth rate of 6.6%. Estimated at US$155.1 billion in 2027, the GNSS global market is expected to reach US$228.7 billion by 2027 growing at a CAGR of almost 6% between 2020-2027. The U.S. GNSS market is estimated to be worth US$42 billion in 2020 while China, being the world’s second-largest economy is likely to reach a GNSS market size worth US$47.8 billion in 2027 with a CAGR of 8.6%, effectively getting even with or overtaking the U.S. in the global GNSS market[11]. In a study carried out by a North Carolina based research organization RTI International, sponsored by the U.S. government’s National Institutes of Standards and Technology, between 1984-2017 GPS has generated economic benefits to the tune of US$1.4 trillion. The largest contributing sectors were the telecommunications industry with US$685.9 billion, telematics with US$325 billion and location-based services on smartphones with US$215 billion. It is estimated that losing GPS service business would have a US$1 billion per day impact on the economy[12].

    In a recent report published in the White Paper on the Development of China’s Satellite Navigation and Location Services Industry (2020), released by the GNSS and LBS Association of China, China’s satellite navigation and location-based services industry achieved an output of US$48.58 billion in 2019. The industry’s core sector associates with the development and implementing satellite navigation technology including chips, devices, algorithms, software, navigation data, terminal equipment and infrastructure. The BDS navigation system alone has contributed a whopping 80% of output value generated from these sectors[13]. The sheer scope and economic opportunity in the GNSS sector substantiate China’s dogged persistence to gain control of this industry. As the global navigation satellite systems move towards interoperability soon, BeiDou could lead the race to offer high-tech navigation systems and equipment compatible with GPS, GLONASS, GALILEO to the international community. Implementing the BDS navigation system has bolstered China’s standing in the international community as an economic powerhouse and stands as a testament to the country’s resilience and steadfast vision to become a global superpower and a leader in space.

    BeiDou’s Geopolitical Implications and the Future of Space

    The BeiDou Navigation Satellite System is an important strategic asset for China, in its ambitions to achieve global supremacy and establish itself as a leader in Space. China looks to use BeiDou’s scope and potential to achieve its larger geopolitical and strategic goals in the military and economic domain. On the economic front, this would negatively affect U.S. companies operating in the Chinese markets, as China has taken steps to reward its domestic sector to promote BeiDou and expand its GNSS industry. Effectively, U.S. suppliers would be driven out of the market by the local Chinese suppliers whose equipment would be on par or even better than equipment bought from the West. It would enable China to create a global industrial chain of satellite navigation and telecommunication equipment, which are of the highest quality and at affordable prices, wooing third countries and providing a credible alternative to the Western equipment. This serves well to two of China’s prominent strategic objectives of establishing itself as a leading global economy and driving the U.S. out of the Asian markets.

    Considering heightened U.S. presence in the highly contested South China Sea and China’s lingering territorial disputes with neighbouring countries, BeiDou’s initial deployment in South East Asia offers China strategic advantage and Area Access/Area Denial capabilities. Incorporating the BDS navigation system, possessing greater accuracy than GPS, in both ballistic and cruise missile systems offers China with precision-guided weapons capability, thus acting as an effective deterrent and strategic threat to the U.S. in the region. Greater precision and accuracy implies greater reconnaissance capabilities, digital espionage and enhanced tracking capabilities, thus countries like the U.S. feel BeiDou poses a critical security threat to their national security[14] With the BeiDou navigation satellite system going online, all roads lead to China realizing its dream of an Asia devoid of the West and attaining military autonomy over the U.S., especially in South East Asia.

    The BDS satellite navigation system is the third dimension of China’s strategic Belt and Road Initiative, aiming to achieve global coverage from all fronts. It is an effective foreign policy tool that China can utilise to garner international support and cooperation. With over 130 countries on board China’s BRI project, BeiDou would be a critical asset to attract more countries aboard its ambitious project. Achieving global coverage through BRI, supported by BeiDou, would increase China’s standing in the international community and mark another step towards the end of U.S. dominance in the global geopolitical arena.

    The global ambitions of China with its BeiDou navigation system bring with it a sense of caution and uncertainty in the geopolitical arena. Behind the veil of China’s good Samaritan measures, lie the desires of a power-hungry dragon. The BDS navigation system and its subsequent GNSS downstream industrial chain offer countries lucrative opportunities, but at what cost? Recent patterns would show clearly China’s cut-throat diplomacy with its BRI project. Deceived by vast sums of money in the BRI project, countries who were aboard the project were pushed into a debt-trap by the Chinese, ceding control over their markets and economy to China. BeiDou could be just another tool China could use to seize control of the third country’s markets and strong-arm them to bend to their will and desire.

    In the geopolitical arena of Space, China’s emergence as a space power would no longer give the U.S. leverage that it had been enjoying in the international institutions on discussions and matters on Space technology and governance. BeiDou could be China’s ticket to space superiority. It could give China the upper hand in GNSS discussions and the ability to wield greater influence in Space innovation and technology. History has taught us frequently that once a nation or group of nations achieve technology superiority in any sector, they monopolize it to safeguard their strategic interests and consolidate their position of power. A good example would be the discriminatory Non-Proliferation Treaty which, under the pretext of bringing order in the domain of Nuclear Technology, has only achieved to limit the capabilities and ambitions of aspiring nuclear states driving a wedge between haves and have-nots. The signatory parties themselves show no compliance with the guidelines of the Treaty. Today, there are nine countries having space launch capabilities. China’s place at the top in countries having space capabilities is fast becoming a reality, and its role in the politics of Space presents an interesting conundrum. China’s pattern of unilateral acts of aggression and its zero-sum approach could sow the seeds for its hegemony in Space. BeiDou could be the most important piece for China in the jigsaw of Space, setting the precedent for an interesting future in the geopolitics of Space, possibly tilting the fine margins of power in favour of the Dragon that is poised to take its decisive flight.

     

     

    References

    [1] Chan, Minnie. “‘Unforgettable Humiliation’ Led to Development of GPS Equivalent.” South China Morning Post [Hong Kong], 13 Sept. 2009, www.scmp.com/article/698161/unforgettable-humiliation-led-development-gps-equivalent

    [2] Sloane, Heath. “Precision Politics: China’s Answer to GPS Comes Online.” The Diplomat, 7 Apr. 2020, https://thediplomat.com/2020/04/precision-politics-chinas-answer-to-gps-comes-online/

     [3] Woo, Ryan, and Liangping Gao. “China Set to Complete Beidou Network Rivalling GPS in Global Navigation.” Reuters [Beijing], 12 June 2020, www.reuters.com/article/us-space-exploration-china-satellite-idUSKBN23J0I9

    [4] Xiaoci, Deng. “China Completes BDS Navigation System, Reduces Reliance on GPS.” Global Times, 23 June 2020, www.globaltimes.cn/content/1192482.shtml.

    [5] “Pakistan Military to Use Chinese Navigation System BeiDou to Improve Interoperability.” The Economic Times, 21 Aug. 2020, https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/pakistan-military-to-use-chinese-navigation-system-beidou-to-improve-interoperability/articleshow/77675471.cms?from=mdr

     [6]  Ibold, Sebastian. “China’s Space Silk Road.” Belt and Road Initiative, 12 Apr. 2018, www.beltroad-initiative.com/space-silk-road.

    [7] Aluf, Dale. “China’s Space Silk Road Reaches Mars and beyond.” Asia Times, 31 July 2020, https://asiatimes.com/2020/07/chinas-space-silk-road-reaches-mars-and-beyond/

    [8] China Briefing. Dezan Shira & Associates, www.china-briefing.com/news/made-in-china-2025-explained. Accessed 4 Nov. 2020.

    [9] United States Chamber of Commerce. “Made in China 2025: Global Ambitions Built on Local Ambitions”. Washington D.C.: 16 March 2017, https://www.uschamber.com/report/made-china-2025-global-ambitions-built-local-protections-0

     [10]  Wilson, Jordan. “China’s Alternative to GPS and its implications for the United States”, U.S. – China Economic and Security Review Commission. 5 January 2017. https://www.uscc.gov/research/chinas-alternative-gps-and-its-implications-united-states

    [11] “Global Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) industry.” ReportLinker, July2020, www.reportlinker.com/p05443565/Global-Global-Navigation-Satellite-System-GNSS-Industry.html?utm_source=PRN.

    [12] RTI International, “Economic Benefits of the Global Positioning System”. North Carolina. 31 May 2019. https://www.rti.org/publication/economic-benefits-global-positioning-system-gps

    [13] Global Times. “China’s Satellite Navigation Industry Turned up $49 Billion in 2019.” Global Times, 23 Sept. 2019, www.globaltimes.cn/content/1188659.shtml.

    [14]https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/Staff%20Report_China’s%20Alternative%20to%20GPS%20and%20Implications%20for%20the%20United%20States.pdf

  • International Institutions in post-Covid Era

    International Institutions in post-Covid Era

    Pandemic exposes inadequacies in the 21st century world

    At the Munich Security Conference 2020, the Indian External Affairs Minister stated that multilateralism has weakened, and attributed it to the inadequacy of international institutions, established seventy-five years ago, to cope with the challenges of 21st century. This was just before the coronavirus became a global pandemic. Today, among other aspects of society that are challenged by the pandemic, its impact on the world has exposed the inability of international organizations to develop a globally cooperative strategy. The September edition of the UNSC meeting held regarding the coronavirus pandemic saw the United States, China, and Russia fight bitterly over responsibility and responsiveness to the pandemic. Instead of building constructive solutions to face the challenge each country focused on accusing others. Similarly, although the Covid-19 global response pledging event secured 7.4 billion euros, their origins (whether new or retargeting of approved grants), method of fund application, proposed call for global research sharing platforms are either ambiguous or not yet set up. Hence, although international organizations have promoted dialogue, the jury is still out on their efforts towards alleviating the crisis or cushioning its impact. The pandemic thus leads to questions about their effectiveness and what post-covid international institutions might look like.

    Given the manner in which various nation-states represent, contribute to, and run international organizations it is definitive that the nature of international institutions is susceptible to change.

    Institutionalism and International Organisations

    International Organisations such as the United Nations and its predecessor the League of Nations mark the variety of multilateralism brought to life based on the theory of institutionalism. Institutionalism originated from the thought that if humans are fundamentally good but act otherwise it is because of anarchy in the international system, and through institutions fostering international cooperation anarchy can be countered to promote the fundamental good in human nature. The final goal of institutionalism stood to promote supranational organizations. However, there have been drawbacks in bringing practicality to this theory. These institutions are built on belief (an individual external factor to the institution itself brought by participants) and power in international institutions is extended when states surrender part of their sovereignty. The changes and differences in individual beliefs cause significant changes in institutions in both the way they operate and the consequences of their operations. Given the manner in which various nation-states represent, contribute to, and run international organizations it is definitive that the nature of international institutions is susceptible to change. Hence, better international coordination and responses to the past crisis such as the 2008 financial crisis, controlling the Ebola breakout in West Africa were also a result of the leftist individual beliefs of participants. However, with global politics inclining towards the right, with waves of hyper-nationalism sweeping across nations, efforts towards multilateralism have taken a back seat. Stephen Walt maintained that the pandemic will reinforce nationalism as the world retreats from hyper-globalization to reduce future vulnerabilities and will create a world that is ‘less open, less prosperous, and less free’. The pandemic has put the world on a trajectory towards the right with politicians becoming more authoritative, and thus multilateralism will see significant changes in the post-covid era.

    Rise of narrow Nationalism and Right Wing Politics

    Despite the rise of right-wing politics globally, the benefits of multilateralism cannot be foregone. Multilateralism in international institutions in past crises followed a model wherein the United States took the lead across various organizations and coordinated the world towards a united response. Since such leadership has been replaced with great power politics, multilateralism has taken an operational role instead of a supervisory role. The main difference between the two roles is that the latter had better potential to progress as a supranational organization while the former traverses as a platform offering supporting services to different countries. Examples of this are efforts led by NATO to use their airlifting capabilities to move vital medical equipment and food supplies, and WHO’s initiative to share guidelines and important research to countries who then took individual decisions. In the current trajectory, these changes in institutional consequences can lead towards three possibilities in the future of multilateralism:

    At the risk of sounding highly pessimistic, the institutional belief in multilateralism is likely to see a steep decline and sovereignty surrendered to international organizations will erode. The role of the UN and its organs may change focus on global data collection, analysis, and politically motivated discussions from the current (weakening) narrative of progress, development, conflict prevention, and resolution.

    • As Robert Kaplan argues, Coronavirus has become the watershed movement segregating the upcoming era as Globalisation 2.0 with the rise of autocracies, social and class divides, and new emerging global divisions. This image of globalization 2.0 can be used to reflect on what the next era of multilateralism will be. In the continuing trajectory with no clear international leadership, international institutions would reduce to becoming a platform of dialogue in great power politics with the initiative and effectiveness of resolutions substantially watered down. At the risk of sounding highly pessimistic, the institutional belief in multilateralism is likely to see a steep decline and sovereignty surrendered to international organizations will erode. The role of the UN and its organs may change focus on global data collection, analysis, and politically motivated discussions from the current (weakening) narrative of progress, development, conflict prevention, and resolution. For instance, the pandemic-induced embargo on the movement of people would in turn catalyse the degeneration of organs such as the UNHCR as the dialogue focuses on data collection and blame allocation instead of refugee crisis management. The international political narrative will shift from globalism to regionalism for effective conflict resolution.

     

    • As US-China rivalry hampers effective policymaking, relatively smaller powers will lead the narrative in these institutions. The foundations for this possibility are already evident. The United Kingdom and other European countries have been increasingly calling for global summits to promote multilateralism. Their efforts can be theorized to be an enmeshment strategy similar to that used by small states in ASEAN. The objective of this strategy is to alleviate the high risks of major powers directly competing by creating interdependence (if not directly between the great powers) among the various actors in the system through increased multilateral participation to an extent that great powers are tied down in this system and their interests are intertwined such that conflict would become costly. Thus smaller powers prevent the complete breakdown of international organizations by continuing to promote dialogue and ensure the persistence of multilateralism, albeit weaker, but prevent the division into two great-power blocs as with the first scenario. This approach where smaller states remain neutral to great power influences would in turn result in the latter’s effort to win over small states characterized by the exploitation of the cold war by small states. Although the US has so far managed to step away from this, with the oncoming elections it is likely that a change in administration would enable the enmeshment strategy to prevent an extreme global division.

     

    • Taking an optimistic view, the pandemic may catalyse the trajectory towards Ikenberry’s Multilateralism 3.0 where power in the institutions is more reflective of present-day world powers. Given the shift in American foreign policy and lack of initiative, the pandemic could become an important shaper for other Asian powers to get higher representation to balance China’s rise. Although this demonstrates an idealistic situation far from the rightist trajectory, Ikenberry concedes to the fact that in the short-run countries will be nationalistic but in the long run, democracies will break out from the authoritarian, nationalistic regimes to promote a pragmatic and protective internationalism. Ikenberry makes this interpretation based on the enlightenment world leaders had following the destruction and suffering from the world wars. Hence, the pandemic marks the starting point for the butterfly effect which will lead to wartime-like geopolitics, followed by enlightenment to build stronger international institutions with representations reflective of the new world order and better capable of dealing with issues the current institutions struggle to resolve.

    Conclusion

    Although international cooperation would be the sensible means to navigate through the pandemic and other crisis induced by the pandemic, due to factors external to the institution, such as domestically controlled participant change – multilateralism will see considerable weakening. Among the three possibilities identified for the future of international institutions, only time can tell which path the world will take. However, a combination of the second possibility in the short run progressing to the third over the long run is the most optimistic option to work upon for a better pathway to navigate through this crisis.

    Image: Pixabay

  • UAE-Israel Deal: An Analysis of its Regional Impact

    UAE-Israel Deal: An Analysis of its Regional Impact

    Introduction

    The recently brokered Abraham Accords Peace Agreement between the United Arab Emirates and Israel marks the beginning of the potential shift in West Asia’s existing power relations. Driven by their security interests, and in an attempt to amplify their power projections in the region, the two countries have come together, in what is being seen, as an opposition to the Iranian axis of influence. Although the normalization of relations with Israel marks a huge setback for the possibility of a Palestinian Statehood, several Arab countries are expected to jump on the bandwagon, with Bahrain having already concluded a treaty after UAE. This article highlights the eclectic mix of reactions from various players in West Asia and the potential opportunities and setbacks it brings with itself.

    Palestine

     Several countries held strongly pro-Palestine policies during the Cold War and decolonization period. However, in the last few decades, many have established ties with Israel; Egypt in 1979, and Jordan in1994 and now UAE and Bahrain in 2020. That being said, majority of the Arab and Gulf countries still officially do not recognize Israel. The United Arab Emirates announced its decision to normalize relations with Israel on 12th August 2020. There are many reasons why UAE and Bahrain decided to establish diplomatic relations with Israel; according to some analysts it is to counter Iran’s influence in the region, but for some it is also to establish trade and business contacts.

    However, do these developments indicate that countries in the Arab world are moving gradually into accepting Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands as ‘fait accompli’? A significant development that needs to be recognised is the fact that many West Asian countries no longer demand the return of Palestinian lands as a precondition to normalizing ties with Israel.

    The Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have strongly criticised the deal and see it as betrayal of their rights and cause by the international community.

    It is long-known that Israel will not return to pre-1967 boundaries; in May 2020 Benjamin Netanyahu explicitly stated his plan to annex the West Bank. He has, however, postponed the implementation of his decision, probably indefinitely, in the interests of the deal that is likely to benefit Israel greatly.

    The Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have strongly criticised the deal and see it as betrayal of their rights and cause by the international community.  Banners  displaying “Treason” and “No to normalization with the occupier’ have come up across the region.  The Palestinian Authority, in very obvious response, have rejected the deals. These accords, as they rightly fear, affect the future of Palestinian sovereignty and legitimize Israel’s occupation.

    Turkey  

     President Recep Tayyip Erdogan sees himself as the champion of Muslims ever since he came to power in 2002. Under Erdogan, Turkey has pursued a clear pro-Palestinian stance. Turkey has indeed provided aid to Palestine at various times, including during COVID-19. It has criticized Trump’s peace plan for the Israel-Palestine conflict, for ignoring Palestinians’ legitimate rights. Not surprisingly, Turkey is clearly unhappy with UAE’s and Bahrain’s steps to normalize ties with Israel. Turkey has threatened with the option of halting diplomatic relations with UAE over the deal.

    However, for Palestinians Turkey’s statements ring hypocritical and hallow. Turkey was one of the earliest and the first Muslim majority state to recognize Israel in 1949. Turkey and Israel have a long history of intelligence cooperation. Even in the current situation, Turkey is focused more on dealing with the UAE on this issue, rather than Israel. Nevertheless, speaking for Palestinian rights in the international forum is equally important. In that respect, Turkey’s voice in support of the Palestinian cause is an important one.

    Saudi Arabia

     Saudi Arabia, long seen as the champion of Islamic nations, particularly in view of the fact that it is home to the two holiest shrines of Islam. Therefore, this peace agreement is a shock to the conservatives who form the majority in the Kingdom. This move by the UAE is seen as going along with the Jewish regime that denies the rights of the Palestinian Muslims. However, the Foreign Minister, Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud said the deal could be seen as positive, but his country will not normalize relations until peace is signed with the Palestinians,  within the framework of the Arab Peace Initiative.  Saudi Arabia’s track record of its unwavering support to the Palestinian cause from the days of the Yom Kippur war, also known as Ramadan War, makes the nation’s stance on the ‘Abraham Accords’ more influential than any other Gulf country. The advocacy for Palestinian state runs deep in the Saudi people. As a result, Saudi leadership’s slightest inclination towards the agreement could spark unrest among its citizens.

    The current regime under the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), who is a very capable leader compared to his predecessors because of his broader outlook to mend diplomatic ties with the regional enemies, yields an element of uncertainty as he may be inclined towards the accord. The political and ideological differences between the people of Saudi and their leader might spark cynicism towards the government; hence, support for the accord is implausible in the short term.

    Israel, which shares the Red Sea coastline with the country and is a major player in technology innovations in the region, makes it an ideal ally for the Kingdom.

    The idea, however, is not wholly inconceivable because of MBS’s Vision 2030. Upon ascending the throne, the Crown Prince has constructed an elaborate plan to detach the Kingdom’s dependence on its natural resources and focus on bringing in diverse investments into the country. One of the main plans is to develop the Red Sea Coastline by exploiting its tourism prospects by building a smart city. Israel, which shares the Red Sea coastline with the country and is a major player in technology innovations in the region, makes it an ideal ally for the Kingdom. One of the other factors that could generate a coalition between Saudi Arabia and Israel is their common enemy, Iran.

    If MBS does accept the accord, it may not come as a surprise, but that does not warrant the fact that there is a high possibility of the decision shocking many conservative and religious establishments.  In retrospect, that could give birth to the “new” Saudi Arabia that the crown prince has promised to build.

    Qatar

    Qatar, which is considered the most developed state in the Gulf region, is in the middle of a diplomatic standoff with the regional players. Its dispute with the two major states, Saudi Arabia and UAE, has made the state go out of its way to establish diplomatic ties with parties that are not particularly approved by the GCC. The state has not given any official statement on the accord, but it’s closeness with Iran may be taken as an unofficial veto to the accord in itself. Qatar’s close relationship with the US and Iran has been a subject of debate ever since the Gulf crisis, but the state has somehow managed not to let the relationship cut across each other. This particular agreement with Israel orchestrated by the Trump government could pressure Qatar to push and resolve its issues with the UAE.

    Like any other Arab country, Qatar has advocated for the Palestinian state. It took it a little further by investing in the Gaza Strip, funding welfare payments to the coastal territory. One can suspect that the Emirati’s decision to form a coalition with the Israeli state will only deepen the ties between Qatar and Palestine.

    Though the Qatar government has been silent about the accord, Doha based news media, Al Jazeera has not shied away from raising concerns regarding the agreement. It even went to the extent of calling the accord ‘PR stunt’ initiated by the UAE. It’s support to Palestine and capitalisation of the hashtag ‘normalization as betrayal’ have received a lot of criticism from those countries that support the agreement. Qatar has always been hostile to Israel’s treatment towards the Palestinian state but has managed to have practical relations with Israel.

    Iran  

    As the world witnesses the coming together of the United Arab Emirates and Israel, two of the former adversaries, it comes as no surprise that Iran has been aggressively lashing out against the deal. With Iran still reeling under the economic pressure of the US sanctions, President Rouhani has called the deal a ‘betrayal’, aimed at satisfying the United States at a time when President Trump prepares himself to run in the national election in November. The leader of Iran-backed Hezbollah has also condemned the deal on similar grounds. Iran’s disapproval stems from two main factors – first, from its support for the Palestinian statehood; and second, more realistically, due to the increasing influence of Israel-United States nexus in the region and consequently its declining axis of influence. Iran’s insecurity is speculated to have stemmed from the confluence of actors that oppose the Islamic Republic’s attempts to establish its hegemony in the region. The confluence opens up the possibility of shifting the regional balance of power in favour of Israel, and Saudi Arabia, under the shadow of the United States. While Saudi Arabia and Israel do not yet have an official diplomatic relationship, various reports suggesting backdoor diplomacy between the two countries have surfaced over the years. The common factor bringing the two countries together has most often been assumed as the perceived threat from Iran.

    Iran and UAE, on the other hand, while maintaining a meaningful trade relationship, continue to have persistent sources of bilateral tension.

    On the other hand, while Iran and Israel have often been engaged in rhetoric of bellicose jingoism towards one another, it is essential to note that both the countries maintained a friendly relationship before the Iranian revolution of 1979, with Iran being the second Muslim country recognizing the state of Israel.

    Iran and UAE, on the other hand, while maintaining a meaningful trade relationship, continue to have persistent sources of bilateral tension, one of which is the unresolved territorial dispute over the islands of Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb, and Abu Musa, which lie near the critical Strait of Hormuz, providing access to key shipping lanes. Despite UAE’s historical claims over their sovereignty, the islands that were forcefully occupied by Iran continue to be a strain in the relationship between the two countries. A second irritant is a growing relationship between UAE and the United States, with the former becoming one of the largest importers of US weapons and providing the US with military bases and intelligence on Iran. Worried about the growing Iranian aggression, the country has maintained a strong security relationship with the United States and has often supported the UNSC resolutions to bar sensitive materials and technology to Iran.

    Yemen

    The conflict in Yemen that began to unravel with the spread of Arab Spring in 2011 has resulted in an unprecedented loss of civilian lives across the country, making Yemen one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises. The Israel-UAE deal, which reflects the beginning of normalization of ties between Arab countries and Israel, cannot be seen in isolation from the region’s larger volatile landscape. The Peace Treaty, as it is being termed, brings with itself a plethora of threats that seek to shift the existing power relations, without aiming at the cessation of violence. UAE’s increasing outreach must be looked at in the context of its increasingly interventionist policies, especially in Yemen. The deal may ultimately lead to more interference and militarization in Yemen, prolonging the prospects for conflict resolution, and sustaining hostile conditions.

    Varied responses to the deal can be seen with the Yemeni government, and the Houthis, an armed group championing Yemen’s Zaidi Shia Muslim minority, coming out in opposition to the deal in a bid to continue their support for Palestine. On the other hand, it comes as no surprise that members of the Southern Transitional Council (southern separatists), which gets its support from the UAE, have applauded the treaty to build cooperation between UAE and Israel.

    Interest and interference in Yemen are of tremendous strategic significance to both Israel and UAE.

    Interest and interference in Yemen are of tremendous strategic significance to both Israel and UAE. In a show of its strengthening military projection, UAE seized control of the Yemeni island of Socotra, located in the Indian Ocean,allegedly allowing Israel to establish its presence in the region. The archipelago sits at a crucial strategic position en-route to Bab el-Mandeb, providing access to key shipping lanes.

    On the other hand, while there exists no diplomatic relationship between Yemen and Israel, the latter has often been seen intervening in the ongoing conflict in Yemen, “under the pretext of defending its interests in the Red Sea and the Strait of Bab-El-Mandeb”. With a military base already constructed at Emba Soira in Eritrea, Israel continues to increase its strategic presence across the Strait. Further, as speculations about the possible Houthi-Iran cooperation spread across the region, Israel’s surveillance centres continue to monitor the armed group’s actions and other actors in Yemen.

    Conclusion

    Palestine is a very sensitive and rousing issue for most of the citizens in West Asia. It is a shared memory of betrayal and expulsion; indeed, many politicians in West Asia use Palestine as an element in their speech and citizens also use it during slogans referring to Palestine protests.

    That being said, these deals are coming at a time when Israel is increasing its hawkish behaviour towards the Palestinians. Once the annexation happens, one cannot help but wonder how it could change the landscape of West Asia. Thus far, the progress made is the mild indication of some major players in the region favouring the accord.  Analysts suspect that the support for the accord will gain momentum in the long-term side-tracking religious, cultural and social identities to maintain diplomatic relations for economic growth.  If all countries, therefore, become friendly with Israel, will the annexation only receive loud threats with no actions?

    This study is put together by Dharika Athray, Rupal Anand, and Vrinda Aiyaswamy. All of them are Research Interns at TPF.

  • Poverty, Inequality, and Marginalisation as Forms of Structural Violence in Pre-Conflict Syria

    Poverty, Inequality, and Marginalisation as Forms of Structural Violence in Pre-Conflict Syria

    The injustice and inequality built into the structural institutions of the Syrian society can be referred to, what has been called as the ‘structural violence’, by the well-known Norwegian sociologist, Johan Galtung.  

    The ongoing civil war in Syria that has resulted in large-scale loss of lives, and forced displacement of millions across the region, is being seen as one of the bloodiest conflicts of this century. While countries continue to witness the horrors of visible atrocities and war crimes, the underlying layers of structural and cultural violence continue to buttress the egregious brutality which is often more direct, and physical.

     

    Although the war is often seen as a result of the outburst of pro-democracy protests in 2011, a close examination of the country’s socio-economic structures would enable one to get a detailed insight into the underlying layers of frustration caused due to large-scale poverty, inequality, and marginalisation. One would also find that the relatively peaceful structure, which existed before the protests of 2011, was held intact largely due to the existence of single-party dominance, where one actor (Hafez al-Assad, and later Bashar al-Assad) held all power and authority, while those existing in lower ranks of society continued to lack resources, as well as opportunities to challenge the dominant power.

    The Syrian economic crisis has existed long before the commencement of the civil war.

    The injustice and inequality built into the structural institutions of the Syrian society can be referred to, what has been called as the ‘structural violence’, by the well-known Norwegian sociologist, Johan Galtung.  The violence, here, is reflective of a position “higher up or lower down in a hierarchy of exploitation-repression-alienation”, where the parties involved are determined either to keep the hierarchy intact or to completely obliterate it. In the case of Syria, the deprivation of the most basic and non-negotiable needs, which threatened the citizens’ need for survival, has been the primary cause for aggression to come into existence. The factors that, thus, led to the conflict in Syria can be seen rooted in years of repression, poverty, and lack of representative institutions, which manifested in the form of protests, or the Arab Spring of 2011.

    The Syrian economic crisis has existed long before the commencement of the civil war. Since the beginning of the economic crisis, Syria’s institutional structures have failed to meet the rising needs and rights of its population. In the 1980s, the country was trapped in a downward spiral of a fiscal crisis, as a result of large-scale drought, and due to both, domestic and external factors. The crisis led to high food deficit, and an increase in the cost of living, leading to a rise in patronage networks which provided small circles of elites with profitable businesses. These networks became increasingly popular in real estate and land management, leaving out large sectors of Syria underdeveloped.

    While the country witnessed a decreasing overall debt and a noticeable rise in the GDP in the 2000s, large sections of the population were excluded from benefitting from these growth rates due to differences in wage rates and declining job opportunities. Increasing inequality was reflected in a paper published by the UNDP, which claimed that 65.6% of all labour in Syria belonged to the informal sector in 2010, with Aleppo and Idlib ranking first with over 75% of their workforce belonging to the informal sector. Further, the four years of drought between 2006 and 2011, and the consequent failed economic policies led to a significant decline in the agricultural sector’s output, forcing 2 million to 3 million Syrians into abject poverty.

    Additionally, the oil revenues fell from more than 14% of GDP in the early 2000s to about 4% in 2010 due to depleting reserves. According to a report, overall poverty in Syria in 2007 impacted 33.6% of the population, of which 12.3% were estimated to be living under extreme poverty. Noting the degree of inequality in Syria in 1997, the report found out that the lower 20% of the population had a share of only 8% in expenditure, while the richest 20% of the population share about 41% of the expenditure. The degree of inequality further decreased in 2004. Moreover, the widely disputed region of North-Eastern Syria witnessed highest levels of inequality in 2007, in addition to deprivation of living standards, and worst levels of illiteracy, and access to safe water, just four years before the outbreak of the civil war. The unequal access to resources was also starkly reflected in the housing situation of the country before the war, where over 40% of the population lived under informal housing conditions, – through squatting, or on lands obtained without legal contracts.

    In addition to the economic crisis, Syrians have been the victims of decades-long political repression, in the form of restrictions on freedom of expression, torture, and enforced disappearances. The political institutions have historically been unstable, with three military coups taking place in 1949 alone, followed by one more in 1954, in addition to the Ba’athist-led coups of 1963 and 1966. The Syrian security forces (Mukhabarat) are known to have detained citizens without proper warrants even before 2010, many of whom have reportedly been tortured in prisons. In their attempts to keep the hierarchy of power relations intact, the centralised institutions are known to clamp down on any public demonstrations, with frequent arrests and employment of state violence.

    The conflict which started with citizens demanding their basic needs and rights has been sustained over the years by the involvement of foreign states, and increased state brutality which has been responded to by an increasingly similar, if not equal, force by the rebellion groups.

    Years of conflict have exacerbated the economic crisis, pushing both the state and its citizens, into chaos, with more than 80 per cent of the Syrian population living below the poverty line, with an unemployment rate of at least 55 per cent in 2018. With most of the business networks now being controlled by the selected few elites, the population at large continues to suffer the brunt of both structural, and direct violence.

    The conflict which started with citizens demanding their basic needs and rights has been sustained over the years by the involvement of foreign states, and increased state brutality which has been responded to by an increasingly similar, if not equal, force by the rebellion groups. The country, now, witnesses itself entangled in a cycle of conflict, where the war has led to steep economic deterioration, political repression, and physical violence, which in turn has led to further widespread cataclysm.

    Image Credit: Photo – Aleppo-Syria destruction in 2019 and  Syria Map – Adobe Stock

  • The Catalysing Effect of Covid-19 on the Changing World Order

    The Catalysing Effect of Covid-19 on the Changing World Order

    Contrary to the realist belief, international states co-exist in a world order of hierarchy rather than anarchy. Ikenberry presents this hierarchical world order and the cyclical rise and fall of hegemonic powers. Early 20th century witnessed the shift from Pax-Britannica to Pax-Americana that was complete by 1945, from which point the US defended its position during the Cold War with the erstwhile USSR. It exercised its hegemonic influence even more aggressively after the Cold War. However, US dominance of the world order has been diminishing owing to the Trump administration’s isolationist approach to foreign policy, and the increasing influence of China in world politics. This article examines the catalysing effect of Covid-19 and the rise of China on the current World Order.

    Trump’s policy of disregarding multilateralism and imposing its unilateralism on the world has catalysed into an involuntary retreat, protectionism, and isolationism for the USA with dire consequences for its foreign policy effectiveness.

    Trump’s policy of disregarding multilateralism and imposing its unilateralism on the world has catalysed into an involuntary retreat, protectionism, and isolationism for the USA with dire consequences for its foreign policy effectiveness. The net result is that the world is witnessing an abdication of leadership by America in a world disrupted by the Covid-19 pandemic. A clear pattern of isolationism can be seen in various actions of the Trump Administration since it’s assumption of the Office. In 2017, the US withdrew from the Paris Agreement, in 2018 it unilaterally reneged from the JCPOA, re-imposed sanctions on Iran and threatened sanctions on allies who supported Iran. In 2019, it withdrew troops from Syria, which led to subsequent Turkish incursion on Rojava Kurds, and in early 2020 it negotiated with the Taliban to enable withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. With the onset of Covid19 global pandemic, the Trump administration has accused the WHO of protecting China. In a unilateral action not endorsed by its allies, USA first stopped its funding for WHO and then terminated its relationship with the UN institution. This comes as a blow to multilateralism since the US was WHO’s largest donor, contributing about $440 million yearly. In addition to this, the US has failed to provide the lead in the global response to tackle the virus despite its initiatives in the past pandemics such as H1N1, Ebola and the Zika virus. The US was absent from the WHO initiative – Global Coronavirus Response Summit (before its withdrawal from the association). In addition, the US has been unable to provide external aid to combat the virus due to domestic shortages, which explains its restraint to guide an international response in the absence of a coherent domestic plan of action. Thus, the coronavirus pandemic has acted as a catalyst in increasing the pace of US isolationism from world politics.

    China has turned the tide on its previous missteps in containing the virus by publicising its governance model as the most effective way to combat the pandemic.

    Meanwhile, the pandemic has established firmly China’s rise in the international stage. Though China is facing backlash for suppressing details about the virus, it is battling to overcome this criticism by providing international aid and stepping up to lead a global response using Beijing’s success as a template to overcome the novel virus. China has contributed significantly to the global response by providing materials such as ventilators, respirators, masks, protective suits and test kits to Italy, Iran, Serbia, and the whole of Africa. Grabbing its opportunities to lead international responses, China hosted Euro-Asia conference, participated in the Global Coronavirus Summit where it pledged an emergency funding of $20 million to WHO, and pledged $ 2 billion to the WHO (equalling its annual budget) to be disbursed over the next two years, thus contrasting sharply with the US behaviour of withdrawing from the WHO. China has turned the tide on its previous missteps in containing the virus by publicising its governance model as the most effective way to combat the pandemic. It continues to highlight the inadequacies and shortfalls in healthcare systems of the western world as against the success of its governance model, Beijing Consensus, and variations of it in East Asia. It is clear that China has seized the Covid-19 pandemic as a huge opportunity to establish its global leadership.

    Taking advantage of the global disarray due to the pandemic, China has taken strong actions to deflect global criticism of its initial handling of the virus. Two prominent examples of this being, European Union watering down the report on Covid19 disinformation owing to pressure from Beijing, and the passing of the controversial Hong Kong security law. While the US has taken initiative in cracking down on China by repealing the special privileges to Hong Kong, other countries were cautious in retaliating against China significantly and limited their actions to sympathetic support for pro-democracy protestors. The exception to this was Britain, which offered UK citizenship to British National Overseas Passport holders in Hong Kong, despite seriously offending China. Despite the global backlash against Chinese diplomacy in the form of generous aids, international actors have expressed limited concerns through action against Chinese domination. This is due to the circumstantial mismatch in global balancing against China’s rise. The US uses unilateral actions and ‘expects’ its allies to follow, while its allies despite their serious concern over China’s rise, remain vary of following in the American footsteps. This is because US allies treat coronavirus as an immediate threat as opposed to China’s rise. The US being a status quo power is more threatened by China’s rise since it posits as a revisionist state. However, in view of China’s proactive efforts in leading global contributions to battle the coronavirus, US allies remain tolerant of China’s dominance.

    The passive and fractured response to China’s aggressive exploitation of the pandemic to establish its global leadership is a concern for India. The recent setting up of Chinese military camps in Indian controlled territory of Ladakh is a manifestation of China’s complex strategy. India has, true to its traditional policy, opted out of involving the United Statesin the ‘bilateral issue. However, it would be beneficial to be united in balancing against China’s rise. While it is necessary to work together to utilise Global Supply Chains (GSC) during the pandemic to battle the coronavirus pandemic, it is equally important to look at global balancing against China to ensure its compliance to rules-based world order. Since China’s power is derived from its economic strength, balancing strategy against China should focus on trade and economy. Chinese foreign policy depicts a pattern of economic coercion to reward or punish its counterparts. This can be tackled through concerted global action. India is, as one of the largest producer of pharmaceuticals, playing a crucial role in global efforts to fight the pandemic by providing Hydroxychloroquine globally. However, given that most raw materials are sourced from China, balancing against China requires a favourable movement of GSC diversification. US-China trade war has, encouraged companies to move production out of China and into Asian countries such as Vietnam and Taiwan. As a result of the coronavirus crisis and the global backlash, companies look to further diversify their resources and supply chains. India and other Asian countries could benefit from this if they adapt their policies suitably.

    Global backlash against China’s handling of the virus in Wuhan is still a challenge for China’s geopolitical strategy. Its foreign policy is seen more as displaying aggressive and coercive approach than persuasive diplomacy.

    It is difficult to estimate whether China would aspire for hegemonic leadership. Global backlash against China’s handling of the virus in Wuhan is still a challenge for China’s geopolitical strategy. Its foreign policy is seen more as displaying aggressive and coercive approach than persuasive diplomacy. Given the current volatile scenario most countries have, in the absence of US leadership, increased their dependence on China as it is now the largest provider of aid. While all this tips the scale in China’s favour, it’s hegemonic ambitions can be countered through trade strategies as its weakness stems from the fact that it is a hugely export driven economy. Global diversification of supply chains would reduce the world’s increasing dependency on Chinese manufacture and products. The world will need to be cautious as the pandemic has provided China an opportunity to tighten its grip on the global economy as the world’s workshop and technology provider. Here on, international efforts to bandwagon or balance will become a decisive factor in determining China’s rise to apex position in the world order.

     

  • POST COVID 19: RE-IMAGINING THE NEW WORLD ORDER

    POST COVID 19: RE-IMAGINING THE NEW WORLD ORDER

    As the world grapples, rather unsuccessfully so far, with its worst pandemic in a century, COVID 19, it would be an understatement that the world, as mankind has known for decades, will ever be the same again! The Coronavirus is not just a medical emergency which has afflicted the entire world, already caused over 125,000  fatalities and  with its rampage  continuing alarmingly,   the socio-economic-political consequences for the world, in the near future, are likely to be as horrendous as the employment of a weapon of mass destruction(WMD).

    Post COVID 19, whenever that period dawns, what the new world order or disorder would be is agitating the minds of governments and analysts the world over. Though it is rather premature today to crystal-gaze as to when the world can rejoice that COVID 19 is now part of history, it is equally imperative for governments and global institutions, the world over, to frankly analyse the ramifications of  the aftermath of such an apocalyptic event. It will be better to be prepared for the after-results now than be found ill-prepared as the world was when this pandemic struck in full surprise and ferocity.

    The onslaught of this coronavirus was indeed a Black Swan event and hence it found the world, including the most powerful nation on the earth, US and most of the technologically advanced nations, like in Europe, grossly under-prepared – a fact that will puzzle future historians. For the uninitiated, a Black Swan event is a metaphor for an unpredictable event that is beyond what is normally expected of a grave situation and is characterized by both extreme rarity and equally severity in occurrence. Events like the Black Death plague which had engulfed the world 600 years back and took a toll of 25 million lives, the Spanish Flu a hundred years back which took millions of lives, the atom bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan by the US Air Force at the near- end of World War II  or the 9/11 terrorist attack on the Twin Towers in the US could be categorized  as Black Swan events.

    Prior to ascertaining through the prism of uncertainty the contours of the “new normal” or the “next normal”, it will be in order to study what all went grievously wrong in the globe’s response to the pandemic. Firstly and, unquestionably, was the emerging superpower China’s total disdain for the fallout of the coronavirus. Reliable reports in the western media point out that as early as 17 Nov 2019, the virus was detected in the Wuhan laboratory in China’s Hubei province. It was attributed to the major animal market of Wuhan which sells dead bats, dogs, cats, fish, seafoods and many other forms of animal produce for the Chinese palate. Once the virus started spreading uncontrollably, it was only on 31 Dec 2019 that China cared to inform the WHO regards the spread of an “abnormal pneumonia”.

    From the beginning of Jan 2020, the pandemic rapidly spread its tentacles to the US and most nations of Europe with devastating effect. Amazingly and regrettably, the US and most nations were rather sluggish in their response mechanisms to combat this dreadful virus. No stringent lockdowns or social/physical distancing or curbs on travel or congregations was enforced—- the tragic results were for all to see with medical systems collapsing and no drugs/vaccines available, no hospital beds or ambulances, as  required, available. It was only that by end Feb/ mid-March some emergency measures were enforced—much too late though. The world expects all fellow nations to share critical information with each other in the event of such emergencies as such viruses do not recognize any international borders.

    In India too, there is a view that we may have been a bit late in enforcing lockdowns and other stringent measures. Nevertheless, PM Narendra Modi’s much awaited 21 days lockdown announced on 24 March (and its subsequent extension till 03 May 2020), though necessary, could have been better implemented with some advance planning. Though the centre and state bureaucracy did step up subsequently to resolve the teething problems, especially of migrant labour, many helpful interventions from well-meaning NGOs, gurdwaras, temples, the public and others, the humanitarian problems have been overcome to a large extent. Overall, the nation’s response, cutting across religious lines, to this medical emergency has been encouraging and embellished with humanitarianism.

    The other major fall-out of the COVID 19 pandemic will, in all certainty, be the catastrophic economic costs the world will have to bear. The IMF has stated that the current crisis is the most horrible in a century and will be likely worse than the “Great Depression” (1929-1939). It visualizes the global GDP to shrink by a whopping 3 percent though it forecasts that next year could witness an improvement. As observed all over the world, stock markets have tumbled to abysmally low levels, production facilities come to virtual shutdowns, staff laid off, air and rail travel shut, supply chains both international and intra-nation disrupted etc. In addition, oil prices have had a dangerously steep decline throwing the world trade and economy out of gear. The US with its financial muscle ultimately, despite being financially badly mauled, is expected to slowly bounce back. President Donald Trump, now in his crucial re-election year, may take some out-of-the box fiscal initiatives to bring the US economy back on track. The ongoing trade war between China and the US may witness contours of a rivalry not witnessed so far. Anyway, China needs to be globally chastised for its unethical practices.

    It will be a natural fall-out for most nations now to take a fresh look at their trade relations with China. Japan has already announced a US $ 2.2 billion package for their industrialists to pull out of China. Others like Taiwan may do so too. Some of the industries moving out of China may prefer to re-locate to India and here is a good chance for India to welcome them here and give a fillip to India’s currently near-stagnant “Make in India” programmes. However, the Indian establishment will have to shed its hollow big talk, traditional lethargic attitudes and genuinely encourage foreign investments into India. India’s private industry is modern, robust, and skilful enough to work together with foreign collaborators.

    The world now must rise and strengthen global institutions like the UN and its various agencies to combat global challenges. No country, however powerful, can exist as an island as witnessed now. Nations like China, notwithstanding its deep pockets, must be cautioned not to disturb the economic equilibrium of the world, most of which is reeking with poverty and under-development. China’s intransigent attitude not even allowing a discussion on the pandemic at the United Nations Security Council last fortnight is unacceptable to the world.

    In the coming years, it is certain that owing to the gruesome after-effects of COVID 19, nations, both the powerful and the poor, are going to take far more seriously their public health preparedness and emergency standard operating procedures. Medical infrastructures, rightly so, demand far greater thought, planning and investments than hithertofore.

    It is well on the cards that even the militarily powerful nations will look into the various nuances of biological warfare. It is now clear to the entire world that a virus can prove to be far more lethal than many megatons of explosives and modern weaponry. According to many western journalists, China may deny its botched-up bio warfare experiment, but it is a matter of time when the bitter truth will unravel. India as a signatory of the Geneva Convention of 1972 (effective since mid-1975) to eschew production and experimentation of  WMDs including bio weapons should not only  use its moral authority to make nations be sincere adherents of existing UN protocols  but, importantly, for its own safety put into place  adequate defensive mechanisms to thwart such challenges. The lessons to be drawn from COVID 19 must be taken seriously. In addition, the UN must draw up contingency plans to prevent, contain and manage and ultimately defeat such likely challenges in the future. It will have to be a synthesis of health, economic, political, and even military measures.

    The new world order, in all likelihood, will be drastically differing, more sobering, additionally fiscally prudent, and conservative and with nations becoming isolationist and inward looking. China’s image and its economy will certainly take a sound beating. Though the pandemic is world-wide and global problems, unquestionably, require global solutions, yet in the coming years we may witness the rise of hyper-nationalism and authoritarianism in most nations including democracies. Nevertheless, as India strives to do its bit to get its economy back on track and takes various prophylactic measures for the future, it must do its bit to strengthen global institutions.

    This article was published earlier in ‘USI – Strategic Perspectives‘. Views expressed are the author’s own.

    Image credit: Tehran Times

     

  • China Tightening its grip on Indian Ocean

    China Tightening its grip on Indian Ocean

    Category : International Affairs/China

    Title : China Tightening its grip on Indian Ocean

    Author : G Parthasarathy 10-02-2020

    In comparison to India, China has moved ahead to strengthen its maritime ties with countries across the Indian Ocean. With the expansion of its submarine fleet and commissioning of its aircraft carriers and fifth generation aircraft, China has augmented its naval strength significantly. Ambassador G Parthasarathy looks at China’s expanding profile in the Indian Ocean and India’s response.

    Read More

  • Tectonic shift in US’ Attitude

    Tectonic shift in US’ Attitude

    Category : International Affairs/ USA-Iran

    Title : Tectonic Shift in US attitude

    Author : Deepak Sinha 18-01-2020

    The targeted execution of a serving Iranian General and war hero, Qasem Soleimani, while on an official visit to Iraq raises serious questions of sovereignty, morality, ethical conduct and can never be justified in any civilised society. It is a blatant act of aggression in clear violation of international law and a war crime, made even more heinous because neither America nor Iran is at war with each other. Deepak Sinha comments on American motives and likely impact of this assassination.

    Read More

  • Strategic Autonomy and the Looming Oil Crisis

    Strategic Autonomy and the Looming Oil Crisis

    Kamal Davar                                                                                             May 31, 2019/Commentary

    The new Modi government will have to speedily contend with a serious foreign policy challenge on its hands.

    That this ordeal comes in the wake of some underplayed serious economy problems currently facing the nation will compound the problems for India which imports over 80 per cent of its burgeoning oil needs.

    Thus, if the looming crisis in the Persian Gulf between an arrogant US and an equally defiant Iran does not get resolved peacefully, ominous ramifications await the region, the world and all those nations which import crude oil from Iran.

    The genesis of the current crisis between the US and Iran has its roots in the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA) which was agreed upon by Iran and six western nations in 2015, led by the US, to curb Iran’s nuclear programme, which boils down to deterring Iran from developing nuclear weapons. But in May 2018, the US, under its mercurial President Donald Trump, chose to renege on this treaty as Trump felt that this was the “worst deal ever negotiated.”

    It is also a fact that Iran did not violate any norms of the law as regards this agreement.

    Meanwhile, the US allowed some nations, including India, which import oil from Iran a six-month waiver, which ended on May 2, 2019. As a consequence of the US action, oil prices the world over have jacked and soon its adverse effects will be felt in India as inflation will hit the already strained Indian economy. Over a 10 per cent hike in global oil prices has already taken place in the last one month and a crippling escalation in oil prices ahead is well on the cards.

    Notwithstanding any US pressure on India, the unalterable fact of Iran’s strategic significance to India in the region remains beyond question. India imported 24 million metric tonnes of crude from Iran in the 2018-19. India was Iran’s second largest buyer of crude last year, while Tehran was the third largest supplier to India after Iraq and Saudi Arabia (11 per cent of a total of India’s oil imports).

    Additionally, Iranian crude comes with a longer credit period and cheaper freight owing to Iran’s geographical proximity to India and, thus, Iranian oil remains the best option for India in more ways than one.

    Higher oil prices also make the Indian rupee weaker, making imports to India costlier. Importantly, that Iran-India collaboration in the development in the vital Chabahar Port in Iran will give India vital ingress to Afghanistan and the Central Asian Republics cannot be understated.

    Meanwhile, the US has rushed the formidable USS Abraham Lincoln carrier-borne Task Force to the Persian Gulf region and undertaken certain prophylactic steps in case war breaks out.

    The Iranians, too, have mounted some small-range anti-ship missiles on their warships. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani recently said that his nation is facing acute pressure from international sanctions, dubbing it a “war unprecedented in the history of the Islamic revolution.”

    The US has also branded Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards as a foreign terrorist organisation. A war of words has broken out, with President Trump declaring that if “Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran. Never threaten the United States again.”

    Replying back sternly, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif retorted that Iranians have stood tall for millennia against aggression and that “economic terrorism and genocidal taunts won’t end Iran.” He added that “never threaten an Iranian. Try respect it works.”

    Importantly, even US allies have steered away from of taking any partisan positions with either the US or Iran. Meanwhile, oil-producing nations like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Mexico and the US itself have been requested to step up their oil production to cater for Iranian oil shortfalls.

    How this oil crisis will shape up to meet global demands is anyone’s guess.

    It is a strategist’s nightmare in conjuring up a scenario concerning the ramifications of a war between Iran and the US. The Persian Gulf is easily one of the world’s critically significant strategic waterways through which one-third of the world’s oil is transported.

    In the event of a war, Iran will definitely close the vital Straits of Hormuz for commercial shipping purposes, throwing the region’s economy out of shape — an eventuality which, hopefully, should not ever take place.

    Preoccupied with its General Election, India, as a major regional player, has so far not reached out to its strategic partner, the US, to impress upon it to defuse the crisis.

    Recently, the Iranian Foreign Minister made a trip to India to explain their position to India on the current standoff.

    India, however, need not succumb to any US pressures or take sides. India has an adequate financial standing and moral stature to play a peacemaker’s role. India must conscientiously follow the time-honoured policy of zealously guarding its strategic autonomy. Respect for India from nations even adversarial to each other — as in earlier decades — will follow automatically and some of India’s economic tribulations will also get simultaneously addressed.

    Let the new government in New Delhi bear in mind Iran’s more than significant strategic value for India in the region.

    The author, Lt Gen Kamal davar is a former DGDIA and is visiting Distinguished fellow at TPF. 

    This article was earlier published in The Tribune.