The Peninsula Foundation

Category: Opinion/Commentary

  • Viability of Universal Healthcare in India: Case Study of Sonipat

    Viability of Universal Healthcare in India: Case Study of Sonipat

    The Covid-19 pandemic is a global catastrophe that has disrupted the economies and national health of countries and the livelihood millions across the world. In India, the impact in 2020 was presumably well controlled, and the beginning of 2021 saw the Indian government projecting prematurely the return of normalcy. This sense of normalcy led to a lowering of the precautions, and the month of April saw the rise of the second wave. The second wave was vicious, crippling the healthcare system and resulting in a huge number of deaths, primarily attributed to the shortage of oxygen supply in most states. This crisis exposed the shortcomings of the Indian healthcare system and the wide disparities that exist in access to healthcare between different sections of the society, a result of the shockingly low investment in healthcare and human resources. The catastrophe has led many to question the efficacy of the healthcare system and the level of expenditure incurred on it, and whether universal healthcare would have allowed the country to tackle these events. Analysis of the impact of universal healthcare requires insight into the structure and efficacy of healthcare in India, given our history and experiences.

    The principle behind universal healthcare states that every individual who is a citizen of the country must have access to essential health services, without the obstruction of financial hardship. Among the most efficient methods of ensuring that this principle is adhered to is bringing it under the constitutional mandate. Although the Supreme court has, in its various judgements, recognized health as a fundamental right, it is not yet recognized in the constitution. Article 21 of the constitution reiterates the right to life, with the landmark judgment of Maneka Gandhi v The Union of India specifying that the article also includes the right to live a dignified life and access to all basic amenities to ensure the same. This statement has been given a new context in light of the recent crisis, in which most of the fatalities caused were due to respiratory problems caused by the virus where providing oxygen availability became an essential requirement for the cure. In such a scenario, the oxygen availability constitutes part of basic amenities, which the government failed to supply in adequate quantity. The government fulfils its obligation towards healthcare in the form of government hospitals and healthcare centres, but their situation was synonymous with the private sector. The government claims that the hospitals under their control are sufficient, but the recent predicament has proven that the aforementioned claim is not true. The healthcare services provided by the government will be meaningful only if access to such hospitals is convenient for the common people and the hospitals are well-endowed with investment and human resources. An analysis of our constitution, especially Article 21, which guarantees protection of life and personal liberty, makes it evident that the principles on which our democracy is founded dictate that healthcare is one of the most important obligations of the government, and the most efficient method for fulfilling said obligation is the introduction of Universal healthcare in India.

    An attempt at examining the applicability of universal healthcare was made by the Planning Commission through the 12th Five-Year plan. The first-ever framework for universal health coverage was developed by a High-Level Expert Group, which planned to develop a system that was in accordance with the nation’s financial capabilities. The primary objective of these reforms was to reduce the out-of-pocket expenditures incurred by lower-income groups on healthcare services and increase the number of people covered under the Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana. Around this time the Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana was scrutinized by many due to its low enrolment rates, high transaction costs due to insurance intermediaries, and allegations that the government was using it as a pathway to hand over public funds to the private sector. The objective of reducing out-of-pocket expenditure even though expressly mentioned did not come to fruition because of the lack of extensively funded facilities, especially in rural areas which were covered by RSBY. These facilities were lacking not only in medical infrastructure but also the medicines required for treatment, which compelled the patient to bear the expenses of medicines on their own. The 12th Five-year Plan also proposed an increase in Budget allocation for health from 1.58% to 2.1% of the GDP, which was again criticized because it was very low in relation to the global median of 5%, despite the population size of the country. The healthcare reforms also failed to take note of the important role played by nutrition and the Public Distribution System in aiding the advancement of healthcare. The 12th five-year plan is not considered successful due to the poor implementation of the reforms introduced and provides valuable lessons for the implementation of universal healthcare coverage in the future.

    The need for implementation of universal healthcare coverage can be made evident through a case study of the town of Sonipat, which is near Delhi and is a rural area. The case study is done through the observation of a survey conducted by the Institute of Economic Growth in 2017. The table below shows the data that became available as a result of the last survey conducted.

    CDMO Office, Sonipat District (2017)

    CDMO Office, Sonipat District (2017)

    An analysis of the data portrays that even though the resources and infrastructure are adequate to the population of Sonipat, the facilities are lacking in human resources. The data shows that 6 posts for the Medical Officers (MO) were sanctioned, but only 3 were filled. Despite the high number of deliveries, there was no sanctioned post of a gynaecologist, which can probably be a reason behind the high number of maternal deaths in the area. It was also found that the Non-Communicable Disease (NCD) program was not functioning in the district for the past 2 years. O.P. Jindal University, which is in the heart of Sonipat, houses a total of 7482 individuals, and has an adequate number of facilities, with 5 in-house doctors and 10 nurses. It has an isolation facility ward for cases of communicable diseases. It has an ambulance and referral service to hospitals in the NCR. These facts show that there is an acute shortage of human resources for healthcare in the area. Even though an adequate number of posts were sanctioned, there was no qualified personnel to fill them, and there were no sanctions for important positions. The case of O.P. Jindal university shows that good healthcare requires good investment and incentive for the staff, which the Sonipat administration has failed to provide to the staff of healthcare centres owned by the state.

    The arguments mentioned above portray the acute necessity of universal healthcare in India. The ideals of our constitution implore for the right to health to be established, which gives universal healthcare constitutional support. The failure of the 12th Five-year Plan showcases the failures that can happen if the framework for such a plan is not well-thought-out or well-invested. The example of Sonipat further portrays the need for increased investment in healthcare, which can be achieved by the utilization of universal healthcare. Although there is no concrete data available for the crisis which the nation recently endured, it can be concluded that the approach of universal healthcare could have allowed us to endure this crisis better, as there would have been lesser chances of shortage of supplies like oxygen because of the increased investment. The first step towards the policy of universal healthcare should be to strengthen existing institutions of insurance and learn from the mistakes in the implementation of the RSBY.

     

    References

    1.http://iegindia.org/upload/uploadfiles/Sonipat%20Haryana%202017.pdf

    2.http://ijariie.com/AdminUploadPdf/RIGHT_TO_HEALTH__A_CONSTITUTIONAL_MANDATE_IN_INDIA_ijariie5596.pdf

    3.http://jsslawcollege.in/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/RIGHT-TO-HEALTH-AS-A-CONSTITUTIONAL-MANDATE-IN-INDIA.pdf

    4.http://nhsrcindia.org/sites/default/files/Twelfth%20Five%20Year%20Plan%20Health%202012-17.pdf

    5.https://www.hindustantimes.com/health/why-india-s-national-health-insurance-scheme-has-failed-its-poor/story-6TIXYO0A8CyxTfGYPRdkYK.html

     

    Image Credit: www.financialexpress.com

  • US Policy in the South China Sea since 2016 PCA Ruling

    US Policy in the South China Sea since 2016 PCA Ruling

    In the foreseeable future, ASEAN will become more divided over South China Sea issues in the Biden era. The conflicts brought about by geopolitical competitions and maritime disputes in the South China Sea will become more challenging and uncertain

     

    The US does not lay any territorial claim in the South China Sea and had not taken any position on sovereignty over islands, reefs, and features in the South China Sea. Its 2010 policy was of not taking “sides on the competing territorial disputes over land features in the South China Sea, we believe claimants should pursue their territorial claims and accompanying rights to maritime space in accordance with the UN convention on the law of the sea”. Towards that end, the US had consistently urged the contesting parties to settle disputes based on international law and without intimidation-coercion. Even in 2016, the US had encouraged claimants to resolve their disputes “free from coercion or the use or threat of force” after endorsing the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) award to the Philippines.

    However, in July 2020, the US revised its South China Sea policy through a Position Paper titled “U.S. Position on Maritime Claims in the South China Sea”. The Paper questioned China’s “claims to offshore resources across most of the South China Sea” and categorically stated that these are “completely unlawful, as is its campaign of bullying to control them,” This was in sharp contrast to the 2010 policy articulations.

    Since the publication of the Position Paper, South China Sea has appeared in Statements by respective US political leaders. For instance, at the G 7 summit on 11-13 June 2021, President Joe Biden was able to rally the leaders of the grouping and succeeded in a consensus over the critical necessity of a free and open Indo-Pacific and the G7 leaders also expressed concerns about the “situation in the East and South China Seas” and strongly opposed “any unilateral attempts to change the status quo and increase tensions”.

    There is continuity in US policy on the South China Sea since President Trump’s administration and the issue has figured prominently in US’ statements particularly in the context of coercion and intimidation of its smaller neighbours by China.  Secretary of State Mike Pompeo drew attention to the “trampling” of the “sovereign rights of its neighbours” and “destabilizing the region” as also causing “untold environmental devastation” of 3,000 acres of the sea space in the South China Sea; furthermore, “the United States will act until we see Beijing discontinue its coercive behaviour in the South China Sea, and we will continue to stand with allies and partners in resisting this destabilizing activity.” Also, he was uncompromising on US’ commitment to its ASEAN partners in safeguarding sovereign rights to “offshore resources, consistent with their rights and obligations under international law.”

    President Biden’s Administration has continued to pursue a similar policy as that of the predecessor. For instance, in his conversation with National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan on 1 July 2021 with Vietnamese Deputy Prime Minister Pham Binh Minh, they discussed the South China Sea, including the United States’ support for the 2016 arbitral tribunal award.

    It is not surprising that a Chinese commentator has observed that “Biden administration’s South China Sea policy has attached great importance to US allies within and outside the region, this precisely reflects its Cold War mentality” and is reflected in the US-Philippine Mutual Defence Treaty, which now applies to the South China Sea and freedom of navigation operations (FONOP)  in the South China Sea continues unabated. For instance, in 2017 there was one FONOP by the US, in 2018 there were three incidents, nine in 2019; 15 in 2020; and then this year four FONOPs have been reported. There is also a new emphasis on mini multilateralism in the form of Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) to support its “traditional strategy of relying on allies and partners” to “establish a new regional order dominated by the US”.

    The Chinese commentator’s assertion that “in the foreseeable future, ASEAN will become more divided over South China Sea issues in the Biden era. The conflicts brought about by geopolitical competitions and maritime disputes in the South China Sea will become more challenging and uncertain” merits attention.

    Last week, while speaking in a forum on global security issues at Tsinghua University in Beijing, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi said that the US’ Indo-Pacific strategy is aimed at countering Beijing and the strategy “should be dumped at a trash heap.” Wang also observed that China would oppose any framework of cooperation to “fuel rivalry” and “an action to accelerate division” ostensibly referring to Taiwan.

    Finally, a continuous war of words between political leaders of the US and China over the South China Sea can be expected to continue. Notwithstanding that ASEAN Member States can be expected to continue to engage China for a legally binding Code of Conduct and at the 19th Senior Officials’ Meeting on the Implementation of the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) held on June 7, 2021, in Chongqing, all “parties agreed to resume as soon as possible the second reading of the Single Draft COC Negotiating Text and strive for the early conclusion of negotiations”.

    Feature Image: USS Ronald Reagon in the South China Sea. Credit: asiatimes.com

  • New ‘Drone Rules’ is set to transform Drone business in India

    New ‘Drone Rules’ is set to transform Drone business in India

    Not many would know that Goldman Sachs has predicted that in the next five years the drone market will be worth over a hundred billion US dollars. India became an IT hub in the 1990s and Indian programmers were sought-after during the dot-com boom. This was not because of some great policy decisions that we took at that time but rather it was because of no policy on the subject. There were times when computers gathered dust in some ministries because the minister felt computers are sinister equipment that could take away people’s livelihood.

    ‘Drones’ are said to be the next big thing that the world has ever seen since IT and Dotcom in terms of technology disruption and touching the lives of people in all spheres. Traditional modes of transportation of goods, surveillance, survey, and foraying into newer areas like agriculture, marine et cetera are some areas where the drone is already making waves.

    The recent ‘Draft Drone Rules’, released for public comments by the civil aviation ministry, is a welcome change from the previous one which gave the impression that obtaining a license would be a herculean task. Some companies like AutomicroUAS Aerotech Pvt ltd and many others did obtain a license using provisions of the previous policy. The new draft policy is a more user and business-friendly drone policy. This is a very good and the first decision by the new civil aviation minister, Jyotiraditya Scindia, after assuming office.  Some of the highlights of the new drone policy are: –

    • Up to 500 kgs of drone Aircraft Rules, 1937 is no more applicable. This is a significant change because the Aircraft rules 1937 is specifically applicable for airplanes that carry humans and therefore, have been made with that purpose.
    • There are a significant number of people who fly nano and micro drones in India. Including operators of model aircraft. Ubiquitous drones include drones flying at marriage parties and increased use of drone shots in the entertainment field. These people now can fly these drones/model aircraft without having a drone pilot license. This singular step itself will bolster not only self-employment but also reduce unemployment in the country. Being a drone pilot is also looked at as one of the coolest things today.
    • Drone imports will still be controlled by DGFT (director-general foreign trade). This currently could be looked at as a bit of an impediment for those entrepreneurs who are dependent on imports of certain drone parts. However, in the long run, this provision could bolster making those parts in India and selling them abroad. Easing of import of drones/drone parts currently and bringing in stricter rules as time goes by would have been a better option. This aspect could be looked at by the government to promote innovators and children who are looking to learn, for who importing certain critical drone components is vital. It is highly recommended that drone imports controlled by DGFT be done away with for the time being.
    • The creation of a drone corridor is likely to change the face of the Indian Economy. Logistics Operation, last-mile connectivity, the short haul of goods between two towns, and the cost of connectivity between places are set to change dramatically. This change alone, in my opinion, is likely to bring a significant impact in times to come. Not many have realized the power of creating drone corridors and all that remains to be seen is how this rule is taken forward by the government in improving logistics connectivity and creation of drone highways in times to come.
    • The drone research and development Organisation as a provision in the rule is futuristic and is likely to change the face of the drone industry in India. Correctly harnessed and nurtured, this rule could enable the development of many centres of excellence of drones. The government needs to create an equivalence of ‘Silicon Valley’ for the drones so that organisations dealing with hardware, software, artificial intelligence et cetera can come together and take this endeavour forward.
    • There are several companies across the world that are working on unmanned traffic management (UTM) including an Indian company called Avianco. These companies now could collaborate with the government of India in providing unmanned traffic information and could work as a service provider for tracking of drones as well as providing drone operators with simple NPNT permission, which is one of the provisions in the new drone policy.
    • Third-party drone insurance could be adequate as specified in the rules. However, drones are costly equipment. Readers would be surprised to know that most of these drones are costlier than small hatchback cars. Therefore, owners of these drones may want to go for comprehensive insurance. This is a huge opportunity for insurance and insurance facilitation companies like TropoGo, in the area of drone insurance. In times to come, the number of drone insurance policies may well overtake the number of vehicle insurance policies in the world. Since drones are set to replace many of the traditional workforce and industries.
    • ‘Drone promotion Council’ as specified in these rules should have come up as of yesterday, but it’s never too late. Those countries who missed this ‘Drone-Bus’ may get left behind in the overall economic progress in times to come. Therefore, setting up the ‘drone promotion council’ is the need of the hour.
    • Highlights of the new ‘Draft Drones Rules’ are shown below:

     

    The new drone policy of India is a welcome change. It is a well-thought-out, simplified policy that India has seen in recent times. This policy aligns with Prime Minister Modi‘s vision for India in terms of reducing unemployment, improving ease of doing business, self-employment, making India go digital, and becoming a technology leader in the world. What the future holds will entirely depend on how these rules are interpreted and implemented efficiently without the usual horrors of the red-tapism of the past.

     

    Image Credit: www.geospatialworld.net

     

  • Drone Threats: Detecting and Countering Them

    Drone Threats: Detecting and Countering Them

    The drone attack at the Jammu airbase in the early hours of Sunday, June 27, was a first-of-its-kind in India. It has rattled the security forces, but more than that, it has shown how acts of terror can be perpetrated in the future. To get battle-ready, we need to understand the different kinds of drones, how they work and how lethal they can be.

    Size Matters

    Drones come in different sizes and shapes. Their major classification is fixed-wing and rotary-wing. They can be classified as per:

    1. Weight
    2. Function
    3. Area of application

    In India, the Ministry of Civil Aviation (MoCA) classifies them as per their weight. Drones weighing below 250 gms are called nano drones, above 250 gms but below 2 kgs are called micro drones, above 2 kgs but below 25 kgs are small drones. Anything above 25 kgs is a large drone, as per MoCA in India.

    Small toy drones can be classified as nano drones. Although these nano drones can be quite lethal in intelligence gathering, like armed drones without artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) (which would give it pinpoint accuracy), they aren’t lethal. Most countries have exempted these drones from the legal gamut because they largely fall in the toy category. However, swarms of these drones designed to explode and controlled by a mother ship can be quite lethal. And currently, no countermeasures to such drones exist. Recently, F/A-18 Hornet launched such a swarm to demonstrate the capability of such nano drones.

    Equation quickly changes in the micro drone category. As the weight of the drone increases, so does its lethality, and being a manageable size, these drones have found favour with many enthusiasts. These are the class of drones that were researched by the open source communities in the early 2000s. They indeed ushered in the age of drones. Designed well, they have an endurance limit of over 40 minutes and can travel in an autonomous mode for over 30 km one way. Mostly made of plastics, polymers, these drones can be difficult to detect and prosecute.

    Small drones are the ones that are increasingly being used by anti-national elements. Be it to drop contraband, weapons, or to carry out a Kamikaze-style attack. Even the low-end of small drones (up to 6 kgs) can carry an adequate amount of explosives to cause serious damage. These are also the drones that are used in helping humanity. These drones can be fixed-wing, rotary-wing, or hybrid.

    To own and fly a drone weighing more than 250 gms and less than or equal to 25 kgs, whether, for commercial or recreational purposes, one would need Operator Permit-I. To get this permit one needs to go through the due diligence process of the DGCA (Directorate General of Civil Aviation), MoCA.

    The same procedure applies if you want to become a drone pilot in India. The due diligence, examination, and certification process is similar to that of a manned aircraft pilot. The only difference, you just need to clear the 10th standard exams to become a drone pilot. The due diligence process includes paperwork like police verification, checking Aadhaar, and passport details, among other things. Therefore, only a bonafide citizen of India with no criminal record can become a drone pilot in India.

    How to Counter Drones

     Drones can be countered through three methods, namely:

    1. By jamming the drone controller frequency (2.4 GHz, 5.8 GHz, occasionally 433 MHz and 900 MHz).
    2. By jamming the GNSS or Global Navigation Satellite Systems, like GPS, GLONASS, GAGAN, the Indian Regional Navigation Satellite System, also known as NAVIC, etc.
    3. The hard kill option of shooting the drone down using guns, lasers, and electromagnetic guns always exists.

    To counter drones, you need to detect them first. It can be done in three ways, namely:

    1. Use drone radar: It works like a conventional radar, which sends out energy and looks for reflected energy to pick up these drones. Challenge however is that the reflected energy from the small drones is so low that it becomes impossible to pick nano and micro drones with drone radars.
    2. Pick up drone control signal: Picking up drone control signals is fairly easy because they operate in the ISM (industrial, scientific, and medical) band of frequencies. However, most WiFi and other equipment work on this frequency, and separating drone frequency signatures from these becomes a challenge.
    3. Pick up noise generated by the propeller tips: This is another method to pick up drones. In ideal conditions, it has proven effective in picking up drones at a very large range. However, the challenge is if the ambient noise is higher and ambient conditions are not suitable, drones don’t get picked up at all.

    Drones for Good

     Drones today are being used for a variety of services, beyond the military.

    1. Disaster relief and humanitarian assistance: Drones are proving to be indispensable in this area. Be it floods, forest fire, COVID assistance or locust control, drones are everywhere, doing what they do, silently.
    2. In scientific quest: Drones are doing a wonderful job in this area, be it marine applications, studying agriculture, soil/ water pollution, carrying out weather surveys, name an area and drones can be put to task.
    3. In the entertainment industry: Drones have replaced expensive helicopters, and today even the producer of a low-budget show can get a drone shot at minimum cost. As a result, drone shots are now seen in shows and movies more than ever.

    Tip of the Iceberg

    Drones for good far outweigh the application of drones for anti-national and terror activities. The drone industry needs to be nurtured if any country aspires to become an economic giant in the future. No wonder Goldman Sachs has said that the $100-billion drone industry is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of its business potential over the next five years.

  • Theatre Commands in India: Have We got it Backwards?

    Theatre Commands in India: Have We got it Backwards?

    As per a recent report by Nitin Gokhale, published on the Bharatshakti website, higher defence reforms are on track in India with the likely formation of two integrated commands by August 2021. Nitin also reiterates the reforms mandate to the CDS, General Bipin Rawat, to bring about jointness in communications, training, logistics & maintenance and support services, apart from operations, within three years while rationalizing the existing infrastructure to augment combat capabilities of the armed forces and reducing wasteful expenditure.

    The very fact of air defence being thought of as bringing just the SAMs and AD guns under one commander indicates a lack of such study and of military history as in Bekaa Valley in 1982.

    From the questions raised in this report itself on the conceptual framework of the Air Defence Command still requiring resolution, it becomes apparent that we are putting the cart before the horse in our haste to meet the given deadline. Surely, the senior leadership must have considered this issue of integration in all previous appointments and studied the experience of other nations, particularly the US being the largest in this field as a democracy, and formulated a plan to adapt their structure and best practices to our institutional and cultural environment instead of reinventing the wheel. The very fact of air defence being thought of as bringing just the SAMs and AD guns under one commander indicates a lack of such study and of military history as in Bekaa Valley in 1982.

    Even a cursory study would indicate that the essential initial steps for joint operations are training backed by the requisite secure communications integrating literally every fighting unit in the command loop to execute joint plans with the requisite flexibility in the fog of war, or in other words integrating sensors with shooters to minimize the OODA cycle in this era of informatized warfare. With all three services reportedly still using their individual communication networks which do not easily talk to each other, much less to the systems of other friendly nations that we regularly exercise with, the desired integration would remain a mirage. Just one example from the US would illustrate the importance of this issue. It may be recalled that the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986 created seven regional (theatre) combatant commands bringing all five US military services under unified, geographically organized command structures. Today, there are 11 including the recent Space Command. Even after five years, in Desert Storm, the Joint Air Component Commander, General Horner, could not electronically pass the Air Tasking Orders (ATOs) to the Carrier Groups of the US Navy and these had to be flown in manually every day. It took the air wings of the US Navy and the USAF almost another decade of cross-training till Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom to come together on a common platform and largely operate as one team, with some issues still to be resolved. In the case of the USAF and US Army, such a model was still being considered till 2007.

    35 years after the Goldwater-Nichols Act mandating unified commands, the USAF still operates eight separate commands, namely Air Combat Command, Air Education and Training Command, Material Command, Global Strike Command, Air Mobility Command, Space Command, AF Reserve Command and even an AF Special Operations Command. In addition, it has separate command organizations for Pacific Air Forces and USAF in Europe. When required to support operational missions, the Secretary of Defense directs the Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) to execute a Change in Operational Control (CHOP) of these units to a Regional Combatant Commander. With over 5300 aircraft currently, surely the USAF could have been parcelled out to various theatre commands if that was the most operationally effective integrated approach. However, it was not, based on the principles of unity of command and concentration of firepower. In the case of a much smaller IAF, with just about 30 combat squadrons, against a sanction of 45, and a handful of combat support elements, how is the reported division in the name of reforms even being thought of?

    Similarly, the US Navy operates nine major commands like Navy Expeditionary Combat, Military Sealift, Sea Systems, Air Systems, Naval Facilities Engineering Systems, Supply Systems, IW Systems, Strategic Systems Program and Naval Education & Training apart from Fleet Forces commands for each region. Despite operating more than 3700 operational aircraft, the US Navy also does not divide its aircraft or carrier groups but allocates these based on the situation while continuing to train for all contingencies. Even the US Army runs many major commands and five major surface component commands like Pacific, Europe and Africa, North, South and Central all headed by 3 or 4-Star Generals. As recently as 2018, necessity resulted in the formation of an additional Army Futures Command (AFC).

    Co-location has been cited by many in India as a pre-requisite for integration, jointness and economizing by shutting down some existing commands. Against this, even in the case of the US Army where it is possible to pre-position most forces in the area of envisaged operations due to their relative immobility and reaction time, three unified commands and their army components have headquarters outside their area of operations. CENTCOM’s is located at MacDill  AFB in Tampa, Florida with a forward headquarters at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar while the army component, ARCENT, is headquartered at Shaw AFB in South Carolina. Functioning is through efficient communications with the span of control of the commanders still a major consideration. Have we carried out a study on the actual savings versus operational effectiveness after the proposed closure and relocation of some commands?

    The Army also seems to work on its limited field of view by seeing the air force more as flying artillery for close air support, apart from air mobility, without the broader strategic vision of the Air Force.

    Unfortunately, in our case, the approach appears to be driven more by the numbers and vacancies for each service with the fixation of having the forces under command. The Army also seems to work on its limited field of view by seeing the air force more as flying artillery for close air support, apart from air mobility, without the broader strategic vision of the Air Force. Undeniably, the Air Force is the most technology-intensive service and a single platform today is capable of role switching and reacting in near real-time to emergent situations. Due to the roles and rapid strategic reach, it is also likely to be the first responder in most contingencies in our current geopolitical environment under a nuclear overhang. Based on this, it could be argued that the Air Force should lead most theatre commands duly assisted by component commanders from each service. In Desert Storm, General Norman Shwarzkopf wisely handed over the operations to the air component commander, General Charles Horner, to run a 1000-hour air campaign before a 100-hour ground campaign. Such maturity is unlikely in India without jointly educated and trained commanders and staff.

    It is also easier for an airman to understand surface operations than it is for a soldier to understand air operations. An example of a Corps Commander in 1989-91 later criticizing the non-use of Mi-25/35 attack helicopters in Kargil despite having had these helicopters under him in his Corps shows how limited their understanding of airpower is. The same General also talked of a certain number of fighter squadrons being authorized for close air support, once again displaying his ignorance on the use of multi-role fighters in particular and air power in general. The example of the Pakistani Army sending out a brigade, which was decimated by air at Longewala in 1971, without first achieving air superiority in that area further illustrates the thinking of soldiers in the sub-continent and strengthens the case for the air force.

    Training and communications issues, therefore, should have been first addressed and resolved before haste makes waste of our efforts at integration.

     

    This article was published earlier in The Sunday Guardian.

    Image Credit: Hindustan Times

     

  • Vietnam’s Future Strategy to fight COVID-19

    Vietnam’s Future Strategy to fight COVID-19

    Vietnam’s experiences with fighting the COVID-19 pandemic has been highlighted not only as a success story but a good model. It pursued an aggressive containment policy, rigorous contact tracing procedures and effective quarantine regimes. It successfully contained the three waves of the Pandemic that infected 9,635 Vietnamese people including 55 deaths and 3636 have recovered since February 2020.  The majority of these have occurred from April to June 2021. Besides, effective public communications and awareness campaign, and availability of testing kits were instrumental in limiting the spread of the virus.

    However, Vietnam is now witnessing the Fourth Wave which has impacted at least three major cities and some provinces. Perhaps the most worrying part of this wave is that new variants of the Coronavirus are being detected among people. This variant is known to spread more quickly especially in areas where there is a high concentration of people such as industrial parks.

    Given the severity of the Fourth Wave of Covid-19, there is visible concern among the political leadership, and Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh has called upon the entire political machinery and Vietnamese people to take extreme steps to “fighting the pandemic” similar to situations where they would be fighting an enemy.  Prime Minister Chinh did not shy away from warning the people that any deliberate attempts to disregard “national regulations on pandemic prevention and therefore, spread the virus to the communities, against the joint efforts of the whole nation and people, should be strictly punished.”

    It is now widely accepted that vaccine production is both technology-intensive and cannot be developed overnight. While the developing countries led by India and South Africa have been pushing for waving off Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) protection for COVID-19 vaccines, and have been supported by the U.S. and EU at the World Trade Organization, yet countries must build national capacities to produce vaccines. In this context, the Vietnamese government hopes to not only buy COVID-19 vaccines but set up a production plant and supply to other needy countries.

    There are four vaccines under development in Vietnam at (a) Nanogen Pharmaceutical Biotechnology JSC; (b) Institute of Vaccines and Medical Biologicals; (c)  Vaccine and Biological Production Company No 1’ and (d) Polyvac. The Vietnam Military Medical University is actively participating in COVID-19 vaccine development at home.

    Vietnam is also has a forward-looking vaccine import strategy pivoting on “patent-based production and local research and production”. This, it is believed would help the country achieve “herd immunity in late 2021 or mid-2022”. This strategy is significant given that Vietnam has nearly 100 million people including children who would require COVID-19 vaccination.  Nearly 30 million doses were acquired from the British-Swedish AstraZeneca vaccine and the vaccination programme started in March 2021. There are plans to acquire 20 million Russian Sputnik V vaccines; may buy 5 million doses from Moderna and 31 million from Pfizer. Meanwhile, Vietnam has also approved China’s Sinopharm for emergency use. Also, homegrown vaccines are expected to fill in the gap of 30 million doses.

    Similarly, vaccine production infrastructure is a financially demanding activity. The Vietnamese government plans to apportion VND 16 trillion for the vaccination program. It plans to procure 150 million doses of vaccines in 2021 to cover 70 per cent of its population and this is estimated to cost VND25.2 trillion ($1 billion). In June 2021, the government launched the Fund for Vaccination and Prevention of Coronavirus Disease 2019.

    As per the Finance Ministry’s state budget department,  in “addition to the [public] budget, it is necessary to mobilize more resources from the voluntary contributions of domestic and foreign organizations and individuals, to join with the state,”  During a live broadcast to launch the campaign for public participation in raising funds to acquire/locally produce Covid-19 vaccine, Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh called on the Vietnamese people to financially support a mass vaccination roll-out. This call has attracted a positive response and several companies, organizations and individuals have come forward. According to the Ministry of Finance, as of 05 June 2021, i.e., ten days since the announcement of the fund, as many as 950 organizations and more than 124,600 individuals had contributed VND 928 billion ($40.2 million). Besides domestic contributors, several foreign companies such as Hanwha Life Insurance and Daewoo of South Korea, Japan’s Tokio Marine and Taiwanese insurer Cathay Life have announced contributions. Minister of Finance Ho Duc Phoc has underscored transparency in the management of the fund and stated that his ministry is “committed to using this fund publicly and transparently,”

    Vietnam’s preference to import as also set up domestic infrastructure to set up production are indeed noteworthy; however, the challenge would be to run an accelerated mass vaccination program and achieve a high degree of herd immunity.

    Image Credit: www.dw.com

  • Bengal’s thinking is clear: will rest of India follow?

    Bengal’s thinking is clear: will rest of India follow?

    The second wave of Covid-19 began on February 10 when India reported 11,000 new cases. In the next 50 days, the daily average was 22,000 cases. In the following 10 days the daily average touched 89,800. We are now adding over 400,000 a day. India has never been engulfed by a crisis of this order.

    We are woefully short of hospital beds, oxygen, Remdesivir and Tocli-zumab, vaccines, ambulances and sadly even space in our crematoria. The growth and spread are expected to scale to almost a million a day. In two months, India has become the world’s basket case. Yet, on January 28 this year, speaking to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Prime Minister Narendra Modi showed a blissful and disturbing ignorance of the perfect storm looming. The committee of scientists monitoring the virus warned the PMO of the gathering storm. He was not interested. He was crowing about his perceived “achievement” of beating back the much-mutated “Chinese virus”. He was so wrong, and the country is paying a huge price. There is no Modi image of competence left.

     Prime Minister Modi’s inability to defend India against the second Covid-19 wave, and his inability to cajole the Chinese from withdrawing from areas they occupied in Ladakh now make him an easy target.

    The elections to the four states and Puducherry, which he was so focused on, have been his undoing. He began campaigning on February 5 and 7 in Assam and West Bengal. After that he addressed 20 more rallies in West Bengal and six more in Assam. He also addressed 10 rallies in Tamil Nadu, three in Kerala and one in Puducherry, in all around 40 giant rallies criss-crossing across in IAF Boeings. I wouldn’t even hazard the true cost to the exchequer, but I have heard it said the PM himself is liable to a charge of Rs 6 per air km. Other costs are borne by the PMO.  But the cost is not important. The time spent on huckstering is important. He lost almost a month campaigning, instead of managing the engulfing crisis. I always had a low opinion of his intellect, but even he could have surmised the risks posed to the nation by the renewed pandemic. Clearly, he factored winning West Bengal was more important and worth the cost. Mr Modi himself cheerfully paraphrased what Gopal Krishna Gokhale said almost 100 years ago: “What Bengal thinks today, India thinks tomorrow”!

    West Bengal has unambiguously expressed what it is thinking. It has rejected Mr Modi and his message and campaign-style, lock, stock and barrel. A subservient Election Commission helpfully broke up West Bengal’s polls into eight phases starting March 27 and closing April 29. During this period the daily Covid-19 cases rose in West Bengal from 812 to 17,403. Breaking it into eight phases didn’t help the BJP either. It lost in every phase and got double digits only in four. West Bengal has a sizable Muslim electorate and Mr Modi didn’t mince words in targeting them by making it appear they were Mamata Banerjee’s personal votebank. He didn’t bother to even conceal what he thought of them. His electoral style touched a new low, even by his standards and most certainly by the standards expected of a PM, when he jibed her by catcalling “Didi-O-Didi”. Urban Bengal responded to this by defeating the BJP soundly in all urban constituencies. There is a message here. All over the country the BJP and RSS have strong urban bases, but urban and urbane Bengal administered a resounding slap to gutter politics. With no record to show, Mr Modi’s politics are nothing but that now.

    There was no surprise in Assam. The BJP was returned by almost the same margin as in 2016, getting a majority with the AGP’s nine seats. The Congress lacked a visible local leadership who could match wits with the BJP’s Hemanta Biswa Sarma. Tamil Nadu was as expected. The two so-called national parties were clinging to crumbs thrown by the two so-called Dravidian parties. In Kerala, Pinrayi Vijayan showed why he’s India’s topmost and only surviving commissar. The DMK’s Stalin made no bones about what he thinks of Mr Modi’s Hindu and Hindi-centric politics. The Modi government used every means, including ED raids, to slow down Stalin. The ED even raided Stalin’s daughter.

    So where does our politics go from here? One clear conclusion is that both the BJP and Congress were dealt severe blows. It’s interesting the BJP’s campaigns were entirely shouldered by Narendra Modi and Amit Shah. None of the other top BJP leaders even bothered to show up anywhere. What shouldn’t be missed is that the Raksha Mantri, a former BJP president, was the first from the party to congratulate Mamata Banerjee. In Assam, Mr Sarma’s supporters have gone public crediting the victory to their leader. Mr Sarma has already fired a shot across Sarbananda Sonowal’s bow, saying he was no longer interested in being just a minister in someone’s Cabinet. The numbers might work for him, as he needs just a dozen MLAs to cross over and give Assam a new government. Mr Sarma was a Congress satrap till Rahul Gandhi insulted him by playing with his dog rather than listening to him. Rahul will be all ears now.

    Mamata Banerjee’s stunning victory puts her squarely on the centre stage of Opposition politics. Joining her there will be Lalu Prasad Yadav, released on bail by the Supreme Court despite the government’s strenuous objections. Tejashwi Yadav has shown he’s capable of leading a party when the RJD came so close to upstaging the BJP-JDU alliance in Bihar. Rajasthan’s Ashok Gehlot and Punjab’s Amarinder Singh have emerged as fairly independent Congress satraps. Uddhav Thackeray has shrugged off the Shiv Sena’s pariah status by providing Maharashtra with good leadership and a penchant for making politics the art of the possible. In Telangana, KCR has put the BJP in its place by a resounding win in Nagarjunasagar after its surprise showing in the Dubbaka and GHMC polls. YSRC scored a resounding win in Tirupati with the BJP candidate, a retired chief secretary, losing her deposit. The anti-BJP lineup now has seven chief ministers, excluding Naveen Patnaik. Seven CMs will mean the election and propaganda machines can be kept well-greased and the powder kegs dry and replenished. Prime Minister Modi’s inability to defend India against the second Covid-19 wave, and his inability to cajole the Chinese from withdrawing from areas they occupied in Ladakh now make him an easy target. The Gujarat model has been long exposed as bogus. There is light seen at the end of the tunnel.

    Image Credit: Patrika.com
  • Let’s do away with marks, grades, and this façade of examination

    Let’s do away with marks, grades, and this façade of examination

    The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) has cancelled examinations for Class 10 and postponed the one for Class 12. This adds to the uncertainty that had gripped the education sector ever since the pandemic broke out. Add to that the cascading effect it will have on entrance examinations and graduate courses.

    Currently, stakeholders, namely, the higher educational institutions such as colleges and universities, state governments, high courts, students and their parents, and the University Grants Commission (UGC), are also embroiled in the exams dilemma. This has to do with whether exams are to be held or not; and if yes, then in what way? Virtually or physically?

    The Examination Train

    The manifest justification for holding examinations are to test the pupils, award them marks/grades, rank them in an order of ‘merit’, or segregate them as per mediocrity. Away from the rather narrow confines of academics, who cares for marks/grades in the world outside? Hardly an organisation/institution gives any credence to marks awarded by colleges and universities. Public sector and private sector organisations, including the banks, the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), and what have you, conduct their own examinations/tests to recruit personnel.

    If nobody outside of the academic realm cares for marks/grades and recruiting organisations devise their own way of assessing graduates, why do we go through the examination rigmarole? 

    The only thing they look for is the minimum qualification. Generally, graduation, at the most. Also, they have their own in-house training, orientation/refresher courses or workshops. Significantly, the UPSC has prescribed just graduation as the minimum qualification for the highly-desired and coveted civil services, to recruit personnel for the foreign, administrative and police, and other allied central services.

    Even ardent followers of Mahatma Gandhi who have passionately and zealously travelled in the ‘Third Class’ all through their academic careers, are eligible to appear at the prelims or the CSAT (Civil Services Aptitude Test) that the UPSC conducts. These Gandhians as well as those who have a second class, qualify in large numbers, and are in no way inferior to the self-styled first class passengers of/on our examination trains.

    Cracks and Fissure

    There appears to be hardly any correlation between the marks/grades/class awarded by our colleges and universities and those who get through the CSAT and make it to the civil services. Are there, going by what is obtained above, any chinks in the system that is so highly-skewed in favour of rote-learning, examination-based structure of our educational set-up? Of course, there appear to be multiple cracks and fissures, to say the least.

    Just look at the countless students awarded A+ or O (outstanding) grades, lots having secured 90 to 95 percent at the Master’s level (MA/MSc/MCom) struggling, if not failing, to get through the National Eligibility Test (NET) to become eligible for an assistant professor’s job.

    The UGC, the overarching Big Brother that avidly extends its leash over the state and central universities (also the deemed ones), itself has very little faith in marks/grades awarded by its various constituents. There is ample empirical evidence to uphold the misgivings of the UGC on this count. Just look at the countless students awarded A+ or O (outstanding) grades, lots having secured 90 to 95 percent at the Master’s level (MA/MSc/MCom) struggling, if not failing, to get through the National Eligibility Test (NET) to become eligible for an assistant professor’s job.

    It is another matter that many state governments contrived their own ways to dilute the stronghold of the UGC’s NET by devising alternative routes called SET (State Eligibility Test) and SLET (State Level Eligibility Test), and have succeeded in browbeating the UGC as regards recruitment to teaching posts in state/central universities.

    The Merit Myth

    Years back, the UGC wrote to various universities that those with really high marks at the postgraduate examinations performed abysmally in the NET. Moral of the story is that in spite of the UGC lurking in the background and looking over the shoulder, its affiliated constituents have been happy in dispensing the largesse of grades/marks over-generously. Unfortunately, this is perceived as merit.

    The facade of examinations that has taken generations of students, parents, and society in general, for a ride needs a serious revisit.

    The facade of examinations that has taken generations of students, parents, and society in general, for a ride needs a serious revisit. If nobody, virtually nobody, in the real world outside of the academic realm cares for the marks/grades and classes dished out by our universities, and each recruiting organisation assiduously tests and devises its own way of assessing our graduates and postgraduates (and doctorates too), why do we go through the examination rigmarole?

    Marks to what avail?

    Why not just handover certificates, listing courses/papers taught/learnt and assignments completed. At the end of the required term just make them qualify for the degree sought by them sans the drama staged pertaining to examinations. Some educational institutions, such as the Ducere Global Business School, in Melbourne, Australia, award graduate and postgraduate degrees without exams. It has been pointed out that “assessment is articulated through solution finding, improvisation, interrogation, interaction, integration and imagination — all of which shape change”.

    The agencies interested in employing these candidates have their own manner of assessing them through written, oral and associated tests. That they have been doing, anyway, for years, even to those students who have obtained grade sheets and marks cards testifying that they have been placed in A+, or had 90 to 95 percent and have been rank holders, or have obtained a first class.

    Are we ready and willing to deliberate and debate examinations and allied issues at different levels? For a start we could wake up the UGC to shed its lethargy and set it on an examination reform and course correction path.

    This article was published earlier in www.moneycontrol.com
    Featured Image: thewire.in

     

  • China’s New Coast Guard Act: Vietnam could lead Response

    China’s New Coast Guard Act: Vietnam could lead Response

    China’s new Coast Guard Act has put the ‘cat among the pigeons’ and the South China Sea claimants Brunei, Malaysia, Philippines, Vietnam and Taiwan are visibly worried. The Act has also attracted international attention; for some, it is an act of war and for others, it violates the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

    The Act came into effect last month on 01 February. In its administrative content, the Act is the culmination of at least two reorganizations of the Chinese Coast Guard (CCG) that began in 2013 involving administrative and operational control of five closely associated national maritime law enforcement agencies, also referred to as the Five Dragons , that were brought under one umbrella. In 2018, CCG became part of the People’s Armed Police Force.

    Under the new Act, it is feared, the CCG would conduct operations just like the PLA Navy and would be directly controlled by the Chinese Communist Party Central Committee. The CCG is empowered with powerful ‘security and control measures’ and has the rights to take necessary actions to “restrain foreign military vessels and foreign vessels used for non-commercial purposes in waters under China’s jurisdiction from violating the laws or regulations of China” which is potentially in contravention to the 1982 UNCLOS.

    The Act has also attracted international attention; for some, it is an act of war and for others, it violates the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

    Under Article 20, the CCG may demolish “buildings, structures, and various fixed or floating devices” built by foreigners “in the sea areas and islands under our jurisdiction”, and Article 47 authorizes the agency to “directly use weapons if there is no time for warning or if there is a risk of serious harm after giving a warning.”

    It is the latter that prompted Japan to label the Act as “blatantly threatening” and “aimed directly at the Senkakus” raisingspeculation that the Japanese Coast Guard, which hitherto could “fire weapons directly at foreign vessels in cases of self-defence and emergency escape” may now “ fire on foreign official vessels under laws by regarding vessels aiming to land on the Senkaku Islands as committing violent crimes”.

    However, it is fair to say that some of the provisions contained in the Chinese Coast Guard Act are not extraordinary. Navies, Coast Guards and law enforcement agencies of many countries are administratively controlled by the ministries of national defence and routinely operate with the national navies albeit pursue different rules of engagements. Many maritime law enforcement agencies are also known to intercept and even sink foreign fishing vessels especially when these engage in IUU fishing. These naturally attract diplomatic protests from the affected countries including China.

    Be that as it may, the ASEAN and China signed the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea (CUES) in the South China Sea in 2016 under which both sides are committed to “maintaining regional peace and stability, maximum safety at sea, promoting good neighbourliness and reducing risks during mutual unplanned encounters in air and at sea, and strengthening cooperation among navies”. This agreement is for the navies and draws upon the CUES (voluntary and non-binding) adopted by the Western Pacific Naval Symposium (WPNS).

    The new Chinese Coast Guard Act may have created an opportunity for ASEAN and China to conceptualize CUES that is tailored to the mandate of the Coast Guards i.e. law enforcement. The issue can also be on the agenda of the Heads of Asian Coast Guard Agency Meeting (HACGAM), a grouping of 22 Member States and multilateral organisations, which aims at cooperative and proactive efforts to address maritime issues confronting the region.

    Among the ASEAN member countries, Vietnam is well placed to lead the initiative for at least three reasons.  First, it is a claimant and some of the features in the South China Sea are under its control; second, it has a larger Coast Guard when compared to the capabilities of the other ASEAN claimants; and third, the Vietnamese Communist Party maintains close contacts with their counterparts in China and this could be a useful channel to facilitate a dialogue.

    However, it remains to be seen if Beijing would allow debate and discussion on the Coast Guard Act particularly when it also involves contested areas such as the South China Sea. For that deft diplomacy by Vietnam could be a good idea.

    Feature Image: www.japantimes.co.jp

  • What Putin nemesis Alexei Navalny is, and what he is not

    What Putin nemesis Alexei Navalny is, and what he is not

    Anatol Lieven highlights America’s blundering tendency to view world personalities in typically American lens, ignoring the realities of them being citizens of their countries and focusing on their national interests . He uses the examples of Russia’s Navalny and Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi to make his point emphatically. His analysis is relevant to other countries as well. 

    This article was published earlier in Responsible Statecraft. 

    It is very human and natural to admire courage and resolution — these are qualities that Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny possesses to a quite remarkable degree. It is also natural to sympathize with suffering — and Navalny has suffered and very nearly died for his beliefs and goals. And of course it is natural to feel disgust with the increasingly criminal behavior of the Putin administration in Russia.

    However, admiration, sympathy and disgust are emotions, not arguments or analysis, and should be employed with great caution in the formulation of state policy.

    In his confirmation hearings, now-Secretary of State Anthony Blinken pledged Biden administration support for Navalny and called him “a voice for millions and millions of Russians.” Statements by the U.S. embassy in Moscow on the Navalny movement have come very close to calling for the end of the present Russian government.

    Recent weeks have seen a tremendous outpouring of American sympathy for Navalny and his movement against the Putin administration. In his confirmation hearings, now-Secretary of State Anthony Blinken pledged Biden administration support for Navalny and called him “a voice for millions and millions of Russians.” Statements by the U.S. embassy in Moscow on the Navalny movement have come very close to calling for the end of the present Russian government. The semi-official American Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty is openly and passionately supportive of Navalny’s movement. Richard Haas, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, proposed that Navalny be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

    Such overt U.S. support is not wise. In the first place, it may actually hurt the cause of progressive reform in Russia. The Russian government, like those of Iran and China, has relentlessly propagated the idea that the opposition is being backed if not bankrolled by Washington in order to weaken their countries; and indeed, Russian liberals have done themselves terrible damage by allowing themselves to be cast as representatives of the West, not of the Russian people.

    The second, very familiar problem is the hypocrisy involved. In the latest volume of President Obama’s memoirs, “A Promised Land,” he describes how Hillary Clinton — who relentlessly presented herself in public as an advocate of spreading democracy — argued that Washington should support Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s brutal 2011 crackdown on Arab Spring opposition protests on the grounds that he was a U.S. ally and his fall would lead to chaos and Islamist revolution. In her early public statements, as well, she warned against hastening Mubarak’s exit.

    In proposing Navalny for the Nobel Peace Prize, Haas seems to have forgotten the last time the honor was given to an opposition politician.

    An even greater problem presents itself when one looks at the actual politics of some of the opposition figures who draw such waves of American and Western enthusiasm. In proposing Navalny for the Nobel Peace Prize, Haas seems to have forgotten the last time the honor was given to an opposition politician. The award to Aung San Suu Kyi in 1991 was supposed to be for “her non-violent struggle for democracy and human rights… one of the most extraordinary examples of civil courage in Asia in recent decades.”

    After Suu Kyi joined the government in Myanmar she’s been damned in the West for her failure to prevent or condemn the savage state persecution of Myanmar’s Rohingya minority, and most of her human rights awards (though not the Nobel prize itself) have been revoked.

    After Suu Kyi joined the government in Myanmar she’s been damned in the West for her failure to prevent or condemn the savage state persecution of Myanmar’s Rohingya minority, and most of her human rights awards (though not the Nobel prize itself) have been revoked. What her previous Western admirers are not doing — what they almost never do — is to ask themselves why they so completely misunderstood her before.

    But she is a Burmese politician, not a Western democratic leader, and in building her up as a liberal heroine, the Western media and activists willfully ignored not just the political realities of Myanmar, but her own Burmese nationalist antecedents.  

    (Just in the last 48 hours, Suu Kyi has been detained in an apparent military takeover of her democratically elected government and Biden is predictably mulling over his options for reviewing sanctions and taking “appropriate action.”)

    Like Navalny, Suu Kyi is indeed an exceptionally brave and determined human being and in her way a fine leader; just as Navalny might make a fine Russian president. But she is a Burmese politician, not a Western democratic leader, and in building her up as a liberal heroine, the Western media and activists willfully ignored not just the political realities of Myanmar, but her own Burmese nationalist antecedents.

    There are two factors at work here. The first is a basic human one. Courage, like hard work and self-sacrifice, is a quality that it is humanly impossible not to admire, but the possession of it says absolutely nothing at all about the goals to which they are put. All the leaders of the ghastly totalitarian revolutions of the 20th century were exceptionally brave and determined men.

    The second factor relates to some enduring and seemingly incorrigible flaws in most Western reporting and analysis. One of them is the tendency to personalize issues, whereby “Putin” is used as a synonym for the whole Russian state, and “Navalny” is now being presented as a synonym for the entire, enormously disparate Russian opposition. The merest glance at the groups represented at the pro-Navalny demonstrations reveals that together with genuine liberal democrats, there are also numerous Communists and extreme nationalists whose anti-Western positions are much more extreme and reckless than those of Putin himself. As Aleksandr Baunov of the Carnegie Moscow Centre has written:

    “Saturday’s protests were undeniably anti-regime, anti-elite and anti-corruption but not necessarily liberal, pro-Western and pro-democracy. It’s not surprising that such protests frighten not only the authorities, but also successful members of society: even those who don’t consider themselves supporters of the regime.”

    In their blind demonization of Putin, and consequent sanctification of Navalny, Western commentators seem to be implicitly assuming that should Navalny win power (which he almost certainly will not), Russia’s foreign policy would change radically in a pro-Western direction. This is nonsense. Navalny’s supporters are backing him out of (entirely justified) fury at Russian state corruption, lawlessness, and economic failure, not to change foreign policy. Every independent opinion poll has suggested that Putin’s foreign and security policies have enjoyed overwhelming public support; and above all, there is very little in Navalny’s own record to suggest that he would change them.

    As a 2013 essay by Robert Coalson in The Atlantic documented, Navalny supported the Russian war with Georgia in 2008. He has expressed strongly ethno-nationalist attitudes towards the Caucasian minorities in Russia, and previously made opposition to illegal immigration a key part of his platform. In October 2014 he suggested to a reporter that if he became president he would not return Crimea, which was annexed by Russia earlier that year, to Ukraine (though he also said in that same interview that, “It’s not in the interests of Russians to seize neighboring republics, it’s in their interests to fight corruption, alcoholism and so on — to solve internal problems.”

    Rather like Donald Trump concerning American interventionism, Navalny has strongly condemned Russian military intervention in the Middle East on the grounds of cost and irrelevance to real Russian interests; but (as with Trump), that does not necessarily say much about what he would actually do if in power. Apart from anything else, Russia, like the U.S., has a foreign and security establishment “Blob” with firmly established and deeply held collective views on Russia’s vital interests.

    It is to remind Americans that he is a Russian politician, not an American one; that he will respond to Russian realities, not Washington fantasies; and that in the end, U.S. administrations will have to deal with whatever government is in power in Moscow.

    To recall this is not to condemn Navalny. It is to remind Americans that he is a Russian politician, not an American one; that he will respond to Russian realities, not Washington fantasies; and that in the end, U.S. administrations will have to deal with whatever government is in power in Moscow. Russian governments will defend Russian interests, along lines that are mostly quite predictable if one knows Russian history and culture. The sooner we realize this, and stop setting up plaster saints in the hope that they will perform miracles, the better for U.S. foreign policy overall.

     

    Feature Image – Protesters gather near a monument of Russian playwright Alexander Griboyedov during a protest against the jailing of opposition leader Alexei Navalny in St. Petersburg, Russia, Sunday, Jan. 31, 2021. www.arabnews.com
    Image –     Navalny and Putin: www.hilltimes.com
    Image – Aung San Suu Kyi: www.mmtimes.com