One shouldn’t presume that Beijing and New Delhi have always been on the opposite poles of the spectrum as serious attempts have always been made to facilitate discussion and promote diplomacy in its truest essence. From the Panchseel Agreement of 1945 to the recent Galway valley violence of 2020 – do these countries still believe in dialogue for peace’ as the belief that the Ministry of External Affairs holds or has– Hindi-Chinni Bhai-Bhai period already becoming into Hindi-Chinni bye-bye period.

While promising a stable bilateral relationship it is imperative to note how cross-cutting sensitive issues of the border dispute, country contours, diverging projections of geopolitical interest, security ties with other powers, close affiliations with Pakistan and the United States forces us to look at multiple vantage points in this already complicated affair – thus raising the burning questions whether as INDIA and China both take over the world stage are they willing to ‘confront’ and ‘concile’?

“Today, being the biggest developing countries in the world, China and India are both committed to developing their economy and raising their people’s living standards’’

– Li Peng

INTRODUCTION

The past 60 years of India- China relations have signalled that both countries have been making a concerted effort to embark on seeking mutually acceptable resolutions to the main contention relating to a boundary issue. The major provocations which confront this asymmetrical correspondence been to build mutual trust and confidence. The trust deficit which plagues both sides has decimated the robustness of bilateral relationships where the element of trust is an essential pillar in maintaining a sustained balance. Somehow, the lack of these essential components of confidence-building feigns grounds of hostility towards one – another and gives rise to biases dwelling on power dynamics.

The deepening of relations can be traced to the signing of the Strategic and Cooperative Partnership for Peace and Prosperity in 2005 and A Shared Vision for 21st Century in 2008 which serves as a reminder of our neighbourhood while laying foundations for a future that envisions us growing together; however it’s saddening to see how we are walking on eggshells now as our cordial relations reach a breakthrough.

Undoubtedly, India and China have emerged as the two rapidly growing economies and their bilateral relationship to a greater extent has assumed global and strategic relevance. The objective of this article will be to assess and analyze the broad overview of India-China relations, throwing light on issues that fragment them while we chart our future prospects of convergence. It is of utmost importance to questions what lies the way forward for both the ‘dragon’ and the ‘peacock’ as uncertain times dawn and reciprocal development is the need of the hour.

EVOLUTION OF RELATIONSHIP

Taking a glimpse of the past 70 years gone by, China-India relations have moved ahead despite wind and rain and have followed their own course of growth despite all odds. Since the 1950s, the leaders laid the stone to establish diplomatic relations between China and India, as they Cooperatively championed the ‘Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence.’

As consensus was maintained in the era of initial cordiality the Panchsheel Agreement was signed which ascribed the ‘guiding principles’ of India-China bilateral relationship as its ideals of ‘non-interference in each other’s internal affairs while respect for territorial unity, integrity and sovereignty’ coursed through both nations.

However, it was Zhou Enlai’s trip to India in June 1954 which was a mark of China’s intent to uphold it promises while also reinstating another historic event where a communist head of government was making a peacetime visit to a non-communist state.

The animosity and hostilities gained momentum during the decade of 1959 – 1976, where this rough patch resulted in the infamous war of 1962. During this period, there was a sharp shift in the perception of China where negative connotations of it being seen as an aggressive neighbour that sought to humiliate a democratic India garnered headlines. A dramatic transference of ideologies as well as values of peaceful and friendly consultation,

established strategic and cooperative partnership for peace and prosperity, while achieving all-round development of bilateral relations marked the much of 1980s.

In the post-1998 scenario after India detonated a nuclear device, China was a staunch critic of this development thus putting a roadblock in their relationship. However, the situation changed after the realisation set in about each other’s contribution to the global economy and to a greater extent started broadening the then-existing bilateral ties. The strain in the relationship was replaced by an era of cooperation in the economic sphere while disagreements on respective political fronts.

While tracing the genealogy of Sino – Indian relations we come across the phase commenced by the Chinese President Xi Jinping and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi by initiating the concept of “hometown diplomacy” which ranged from informal summits in Wuhan and Chennai to strategic communication on long-term issues of global and regional importance while agreeing to facilitate development and close partnership

Today’s achievements of China-India relations embody the concise and regular efforts of several generations from whom we need to draw inspiration from the past as experiences of the present tragically make us critical of each other’s intentions.

As we stand on the brink of a new starting point present-day decision-makers should draw wisdom from our thousands of years of civilisations and explore authentic ways to stay true to the essence of ‘ brotherhood’ envisioned years ago as we look forward towards; “enhancing mutual trust, focusing on cooperation, managing differences and seeking common development”.

CHALLENGES TO THE INDIA-CHINA PARTNERSHIP

Indian President Ram Nath Kovind and Prime Minister Narendra Modi often resonate with the philosophy, where the whole world is seen as a family of the whole rather than functioning in splinters, which runs parallel with the Chinese philosophical concept of “universal peace” and “universal love” thus reiterating the belief that the “Dragon-Elephant Tango” does hold the potential to create a new chapter in building a community with a shared future if they agree to make credible and foresighted peaceful endeavours towards the issues of contention like :

• To devise an early settlement of the border problem and to prevent the enduring stalemate from completely undermining the confidence that remains between the two nations
• To reconcile regional strategies in South Asia, Central Asia, ASEAN, and the Indian Ocean;
• To promote confidence-building measures and eliminate misperceptions while avoiding the misreading of each other’s strategic intentions,
• To envisage each other’s core interests and strategic sensitivities
• To reinforce the bolstering effect of vibrant trade, economic links and developmental ties in sustaining a stable bilateral relationship;
• To breathe more substance into the existing framework of the declared Sino-Indian strategic partnership.

THE WAY THAT LIES AHEAD

This journey of facilitating change and strengthening the relationship needs to be steered by mastering the four keys of “leading, transmitting, shaping and integrating” – the basics of enhancing trust and to instil confidence amongst one – another.

“Leading” pertains to reaching consensus and guide the direction of the development of bilateral relations under the guidance of leaders. “Transmitting” means to transmit the leaders’ consensus to all levels as they get translated into tangible cooperation and outcomes. “Shaping” refers to go beyond the mode of managing differences while accumulating the positive momentum of shaping bilateral relations. “Integrating” at the end concerns strengthening exchanges and cooperation while promoting convergence of interests and achieve common development.

There is no doubt in saying that the levels of engagement between India and China have increased certainly but India, at the same time, requires to move forward with a sophisticated approach to deal with the emerging strategic challenges being emanating from China. Power dynamics often remain at the core of weak reciprocal agreements however this holds no vitality in the context here as, despite the fact that China has become increasingly assertive not only at the regional level but also at the global level, India has not shown any displeasure so far in strongest terms.

In the current circumstances, it is obvious that trade has come to be viewed as an increasingly important facilitator of relations especially in the shadow of lingering political mistrust as issues ranging from the long-running protracted border dispute to China’s close affiliations with Pakistan to India’s cordial allegiance with the US defies the purpose of simplifying the conflict.

The signing of an Agreement on “Political Parameters and Guiding Principles for the Settlement of the Border Dispute”, by both India and China is a major stride in moving ahead in terms of reaching a consensus on this major irritant while also joining hands in a promise to maintain peace and tranquillity on the border front. But, at the same, it’s needless to highlight that this requires a careful assessment especially on the intent and declarations of outcomes.

China has always been a hardcore follower of following the tenets of the ‘Monroe Doctrine’. The attempt has always been to deny access to other powers in the region that it perceives as exclusively within its sphere of influence. As the time has come to breathe more substance into the existing framework of strategic partnership it is essential on the part of India to remind Beijing how these stipulated actions have been damaging the interests of other regions especially to the countries in the East and South-East Asia.

In the long term, neither Indian nor Chinese defence strategists can rule out the possibility of a renewed confrontation over the disputed territory (Tibet, Kashmir, Myanmar, or the Indian Ocean ) as China becomes the other alternative unchallenged power and India continues to increase its circumference of influence thus signalling that a Sino-Indian rivalry in southern Asia may well be a dominant feature of future Asian geopolitics of the twenty-first century thus compelling the regional actors to choose sides. The nature of the rivalry will be facilitated by how domestic political and economic developments, as well as internal mechanisms of these two countries, affect their power, their outlooks, and their foreign and security policies on the international platform. On the flip side, it can also be noted that while they are competitors for power and influence in Asia, China and India also share interests in maintaining regional stability as well as exploiting economic opportunities while promoting regional cooperation – all of which could act as indispensable factors in influencing their relationship.

Last but not least, there comes a pressing necessity where one under these idealistic terms of co-operation, unity and oneness must not forget the real question where countries wonder: ‘WHETHER CO-OPERATION AND COMPARATIVE ELEMENTS IN BETWEEN POWERFUL WORLD POWERS COEXIST ?’

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Keshab, Chandra & Ratha, (2014); ‘India-China Bilateral Relations “

Kumar, R. (2007), “Cultural and Economic Relations between India and China”

Nehru, J. (1946), “The Discovery of India”, Oxford University Press; pp 30-42 .

The post INDIA-CHINA BILATERAL RELATIONS: CONFRONTATION & CONCILIATION appeared first on WISER WORLD.

The Iranian regime has considered the United States to be a staunch adversary since the inception of the Islamic Republic in 1979. The killing of Fakhrizadeh was the last nail in the coffin. The Iranian leadership faces a perilous conundrum in a precarious environment.

With the recent election of Joe Biden as the forty-sixth president of the United States and Hassan Rouhani’s term drawing to an end in 2021, we must shed light on what the future holds for the adversaries. Recent months have recorded a tremendous increase in hostilities between the two countries. Within this highly complex geopolitical web, Iran though cornered has not lost all hope. There are two significant advantages that the regime enjoys in the region. There exists a general understanding in the Gulf that U.S allies, which includes Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, do not have the capacity to engage with Iran in a full out conflagration. The second advantage that Iran enjoys is its regional proxy networks.

The Iranian regime has aimed at executing a one state, two systems formula for conflict-ridden states. Through this strategy, Tehran does not wish to rebuild institutions in accordance with international convention, instead chooses an approach centred around a host of armed non-state actors, that help the regime establish networks and institutions that parallel national institutions. The presence of weak national institutions provides the regime with the opportunity to subjugate governing structures and political systems. With the election of Joe Biden to the Presidency of the United States, there is renewed optimism that real diplomacy and engagement will dictate relations between the US and Iran, as compared to wishful demands for Iran’s total capitulation.

The last four years under the Trump Administration has marked the most contentious period in US-Iran history since the 1980s. The fragile state of relations between the US and Iran is clear by the fact that the two countries have been on the brink of war twice. The first being in the aftermath of Iran shooting down a US drone in 2019 and the second being the start of 2020 when the US orchestrated the assassination of the Quads Force commander Qasem Soleimani. The situation under the Biden administration might be expected to take a veritable turn, as there could be a substantial reduction in tensions by easing sanctions on the Iranian economy, and a return to an approach involving multilateral diplomacy that initially led to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2015. But the question still remains, if the Biden White House can draw its European Allies-Britain, France, and Germany to rebuild a coalition, of a similar nature as seen during the Obama era.

However, there exist several hurdles in this entire process of renewed diplomacy that the Biden administration may or may not adopt towards the Iranian Regime. The first such obstacle that the United States faces is the lack of time. Iran is due to have its presidential elections in 2021, which would in all probability see Housan Rouhani step down. The Presidential election may act as a thorn for the United States government as there has been a substantial weakening of the pragmatic forces within the Iranian polity. According to Iranian-American scholar Mohamad Tabbar, Iranian politics has undergone a tectonic shift, which has resulted in the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps assuming the leadership of this change. The Iranian military is also preparing for the upcoming presidential elections and a veteran of the IRGC is likely to take over the executive branch. These perceived changes within the Iranian political structure gives the Biden White House, approximately six months to deal with and straighten out US’s relations with Iran. The Biden Administration is predicted to be faced with surmounting pressure from its allies in the Middle-Eastern Region, this opposition to US engagement with Iran is a result of the growing concern that this would lead to a broader rapprochement between Iran and the US, which could diminish the importance of American allies to Washington D.C.

Another significant challenge faced by the Biden administration will be shoring up support for the JCPOA within the country itself. The JCPOA has always faced tough criticism in Congress, members of the two houses never warmed up to the idea of an agreement with the Iranian regime. The biggest point of contention for parties and other actors in American politics has been varying expectations. Many believe that Iran should not be permitted to have a nuclear civil program, while many are of the opinion that the country needs to change its behaviour in the regime before a revised deal can be entered. Some believed that the provisions of the original JCPOA focused solely on the short term, and felt that it was necessary to tie down Iran’s nuclear ambitions in the long run. Getting Congressional support for a revised JCPOA is not going to be a cakewalk. More importantly, entering into a revised agreement with Iran, Biden will have to ensure that both Iran and the United States will be able to uphold the provisions without any margin of error.

Lastly, American relations with Iran rely a great deal on the other parties that were originally a part of the JCPOA. This includes the “P=5+1”, that is Russia, China, Britain, France, and Germany. Since the P-5 and Germany are all signatories to the JCPOA, the deal belongs to all of them. This essentially means that it is vital the United States can get each and every member on board with the revised provisions of a new agreement with Iran. However, this process of gaining support from European partners might be significantly more strenuous as compared to the last time, the countries agreed to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. This is mainly a result of a series of changes on the geopolitical stage. The U.K has now left the European Union, with the achievement of a trade deal. The Russians on the other hand have gotten more assertive. Whereas China seems to be at loggerheads with the Americans over its increasing presence in the Indo-Pacific.

Having assessed the current situation, it is evident that Iranians are relieved to have survived the last four years under Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure campaign”, and there exists a glimmer of hope that Biden’s election represents the opening of a new chapter. This, however, does not mean that Iran will be ready to compromise on America’s insistence. The regime will expect a revived JCPOA that recognizes the economic damage that has been caused over the past four years. There seems to be appearing a rift between the Iranian moderates and the hardliners. Amidst this confusion, it would be interesting to see how an agreement, if there is one, influences the Iranian Presidential elections. Moreover, in the event of a failure to achieve an agreement before the 2021 election, it would be difficult to ascertain the effect this might have on the two countries, and how the Biden White House would handle the Iranian Regime and what would be future of US-Iran relations.

The post US-IRAN: INCEPTION OF CORDIAL RELATIONS? appeared first on WISER WORLD.

Though there has been a lack of political enthusiasm, the common threat of irking China and structural issues that have acted as obstacles for blossoming Indo-Taiwanese relations, Taiwan has engaged silently diplomatically in India. PM Narendra Modi and President Tsai Ing-wen, have engaged in furthering the bilateral relationship.

Contextualising the Indo-Taiwanese Relationship

The Indo-Taiwanese relations were almost non-existent for more than four decades after the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was recognised by India. Marking the beginning of their ‘unofficial’ ties,  in 1992, the Taiwan External Trade Development Council (TAITRA) set up a liaison office in Mumbai and, in 1995, India opened its representative office in Taipei and named it the India-Taipei Association (ITA) for economic engagement. In a month, Taiwan opened its office in New Delhi and called it the Taipei Economic and Cultural Centre (TECC). Now, the TECC offices are operational in Chennai, Kolkata, and Mumbai. Although they were not formal diplomatic missions, they do function as de-facto representatives of their respective governments and carry out activities like issuing of visas, carrying out trade and economic relations and facilitating people-to-people contacts. This was the beginning of bettering bilateral relations between India and Taiwan in the sphere of trade and commerce, development and research, science and technology, education, people-to-people contacts, and other related fields and thus, in the post Cold-War period, this marked an important watershed moment in the history of Indo-Taiwanese relationship. This was a pointer towards India’s ‘Look East Policy’, enunciated by the then Prime Minister, Narasimha Rao and was a marker of Taiwan’s pragmatic diplomacy.

Taiwan’s ‘pragmatic diplomacy’ is also known as ‘flexible diplomacy’ and ‘substantive diplomacy’ and focuses on enhancing its international profile and facilitating its external engagements by using ‘unofficial’ and ‘non-diplomatic’ channels in the broader economic and cultural arenas, without attempting conventional state-to-state diplomacy, so as not to invite ire from the PRC. New Delhi, in this context, has emerged as a significant factor for Taiwan’s substantive diplomatic practices. Given their shared concerns vis-à-vis China and the commonality of their democratic values, especially during the current strategic uncertainty, this seems like the perfect ripe moment to enhance relations between the two.

In 2014, Taiwan’s representative to India had attended PM Modi’s swearing-in ceremony, and in 2016, India carefully well thought-out sending a representative to President Tsai’s inauguration but eventually decided against it. Most countries, including India, have found it challenging to balance the political and strategic implications of fostering closer relations with Taiwan due to the uncertainty of China’s reaction, leading to a complex diplomatic maze. In this context, Taiwan’s New Southbound Policy (NSP) under Tsai Ing-wen seeks to expand links with countries across South and Southeast Asia with a great emphasis on building economic, investment and people-to-people ties, as well as a greater focus on India especially while New Delhi “acts east”. Given the swaying relationship between India and Mainland China, it is practical for India to shift towards greater stress on soft balancing by cultivating a fruitful relationship with Taiwan. The Indian government’s ‘Act East Policy’ provides for greater engagement between India and Southeast Asia, making Taiwan important for India’s future economic growth.

In terms of increasing economic and commercial engagement, the TECC and the ITA formalized an MoU in 2017 on the “Promotion of Industry Collaboration”, preceded by twenty-one MoUs signed earlier that year by Taiwan’s Chinese National Federation of Industries and the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry. In 2018, the first India-Taiwan Trade Forum was convened in Taipei with the Taipei World Trade Center inaugurating its New Delhi office in conjunction with the debut of the Taiwan Expo (a business exposition) in South Asia over the summer of 2018 with New Delhi serving as its inaugural venue. Despite all these developments on the economic front, there have been domestic and structural problems in formalising the relationship, especially due to New Delhi’s position on acknowledging the ‘One-China policy’. New Delhi has overall remained ambiguous on the matter and the investment and trade have remained relatively modest but there have been efforts to increase investment by Taiwanese firms in India and notable joint initiatives and manufacturing clusters have been proposed under the ‘Make in India’ campaign.

Upgrading the Relationship: QUAD Angle

The need of the hour for India is focusing on a practical and long term pragmatic approach for fomenting better ties with Taiwan. We have to strategically balance the ‘One-China policy’ of Mainland China (based on one country, two systems model) and cultivating a beneficial and normal relationship with Taipei. New Delhi should not use Taiwan as a pressure point or Achilles Heel against the PRC as this hampers India’s goals and Taiwan’s development. The focal point for bettering the Indo-Taiwanese relationship should be based on enhancing people-to-people, cultural and business exchanges rather than focusing on the government-to-government gimmicks. Education, tourism and technological innovations can leverage the relationship. India should actively engage with Taiwanese NGOs to create an impact over the coming years and focus on roping in an international networking capacity. Small and medium-sized enterprises too can act as significant job creation initiatives and serve as great vehicles to exchange knowledge and human capital. Taiwan can also help in meeting India’s agricultural modernisation needs and its recent support during the pandemic in healthcare facilities is a pointer in the direction of up-gradation of the relationship in a pragmatic understanding. This soft power diplomacy through developmental assistance, cultural, healthcare, academic and tourist exchanges will surely benefit and give a thrust to long term robust India-Taiwan relations.

There have been under-utilised opportunities in the bilateral relationship. New Delhi needs to engage in proper policy approach to benefit most from a healthy relationship with the core area of the Chinese economy. The reshaping of the relationship with Taiwan has not only been a prerogative of New Delhi, the other three members of the QUAD (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue): USA, Australia and Japan have also upgraded their relations with Taipei.

Taiwan is significant for the QUAD countries as it is the core area that can be used to deter Chinese aggression due to its strategic location and partnership with the QUAD countries would act as a diplomatic weapon for both parties against the belligerent Dragon’s ever-rising provocations. Moreover, it is an important source of information on China, as evidenced in the case of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, the QUAD needs to protect Taiwan from diplomatic isolation and help it develop its military and defensive capabilities while also providing it opportunities for investment in a safe and incentive-based environment in the QUAD so that they can safely relocate their economic and investment ventures from Mainland China without incurring losses.

Conclusion

India needs to act in a strategic manner and shed its inhibitions and self-imposed restraint on engaging with Taiwan. The bilateral relationship is extremely rewarding if managed appropriately by both parties. They have to act more decisively and New Delhi has to formally acknowledge Taiwan as a development partner and the role it can play in steering the direction of Indo-Taiwanese relationship. It is an opportune moment, also thus for the QUAD to recognise Taiwan as a reliable partner and counter China’s growing footprint in South Asia that it wants to establish its hegemony over, through its bellicose and pugnacious ways.

References:

Karackattu, J. T. (2019). The Case for a Pragmatic India-Taiwan Partnership. Carnegie India.

Nagao, S. (2020, August 2). The Quad must strengthen and support Taiwan. Sunday Guardian Live.

Singh, D. T. (2019). The New Southbound Policy and India-Taiwan Relations. Vivekananda International Foundation.

Tien-Sze, F. (2014). Taiwan’s Relations with India: Issues and Trends. China Report.

Times Now Digital. (2020, October 10). Quad and beyond: Is it time for India to take a tougher stance on Tibet and Taiwan?

Featured Image Source: Google Images | Image by: Reuters

The post INDO-TAIWANESE RELATIONS AND ITS PROBABLE FUTURE TRAJECTORY appeared first on WISER WORLD.

Due to the globalisation and liberalisation of global economies coupled with the rapid advancement in science and communication technologies, there has been an intensification of their socio-economic, political and cultural ties with their countries of origin. Diasporas have attained due importance at the international level as well as in the domestic political and economic affairs of home countries in the present scenario. They have started acting as an ‘inevitable link’ between their home and host lands resulting in major political and economic implications for both.

Diaspora as a Tool of Diplomacy in India’s Foreign Policy

The use of diaspora as a tool of diplomacy in Indian Foreign Policy is a relatively new phenomenon. The Indian diaspora is a major component of these concomitant worldwide and has increasingly become more influential over India’s foreign policy, becoming a highly strategic asset for India in the recent decades. India has been making concerted efforts to engage and leverage upon its diaspora estimated to be about 25 million, the second largest in the world, ranging from a mere 20 in Albania to over 2.2 million in the United States, dispersed in 136 countries.

The efforts of PM Modi regarding Diaspora Diplomacy and in cultivating the relationship with Indian diaspora signifies the importance of soft power in the foreign policy initiatives of the present government. To be fair, diaspora cultivation is not exactly a new phenomenon in IFP; the former governments had also invested a good amount of capital in resolving the underlying obstacles in the implementation of effective interaction between Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) with the Indian government.  

The union government in the year 2000 established a high-level committee on Indian diaspora to review the status of People of Indian Origin (PIOs) and Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) looking at the laws and rules that are applicable to them. This was an initiative to look at the role NRIs and PIOs may play in the social, economic and technological development of India.  Better rules favouring the PIOs like the ease of travel and stay were implemented and new categories created amongst its diaspora in 2006 for the NRIs, PIOs and Overseas Citizen of India (OCIs). The Indian parliament in August 2005, passed the amendment of Citizenship Act of 1955, allowing certain sections of the diaspora to gain specific citizenship rights. Eventually, there is a growth in outreach activities for the Indian diaspora like conferences and seminars, Pravasi Bharatiya Divas (Day of Indians Abroad) amongst other initiatives which show a concerted effort by the Government of India to showcase India as a place that is welcoming of its diaspora.

Diasporas: Effective Instrument in India’s Foreign Policy

The importance of diasporas does not end with remittances alone. It extends to knowledge transfer, the sharing of resources, diasporas acting as unofficial Indian ambassadors and pushing for India’s interests abroad. The diaspora has also helped in improving India’s image globally and they undoubtedly have considerable stakes in India’s development.

Diaspora is the oxygen to PM Modi’s foreign policy. Since day one, he has addressed concerns related to the Indian diaspora and makes it a point to address a gathering of Indian diaspora at any foreign visit. The task of such an interaction is to convince the diaspora that they can engage as effective stakeholders in the problems faced by India and that their contribution is imperative for India’s economic development and its rise as a global power. This also acts as a subtle but powerful message to the governments of the host countries. This “Diaspora Diplomacy” is a classic example of how the diaspora can act as an effective instrument of diplomacy in international affairs in the era of globalisation. The diaspora can greatly contribute to domestic economic development and attract FDI to India. Modi’s idea of diaspora diplomacy is to ensure a collective Indian voice in the host countries where they are simultaneously loyal citizens. While the diaspora certainly do not determine policy, they can effectively shape it and act as “bridge-builders” between their home and host countries.

While looking at the effect of diaspora Diplomacy in Indian Foreign Policy, some examples can be cited as diaspora plays a decisive role in the improvement of India’s foreign relations. Historically, India has benefitted from its diaspora. Two instances stand out: lobbying for the US-India Civilian Nuclear Agreement Bill in 2008 and their remittance inflow. The Indo-American community had a significant role to play in improving the image of Indians in the American minds as well as the Indo-US rapprochement. The lobbying efforts of the US India Political Action Committee (USINPAC) helped to get the Indo-US Nuclear Deal passed by the US Congress. While Bollywood films since Independence have enjoyed great popularity in the Middle East, the development of geo-economics has made the Indian diaspora as an important instrument, interest and indicator of India’s soft power in the region. The Indian expats working in the region contribute significantly to the remittances India receives. PM Modi has capitalised on the need for Middle Eastern countries to look for large markets because of the Shale Revolution and US Retrenchment, increasing India’s engagement with the region. The most important tool for PM Modi’s Middle East adventures has been the Indian diaspora.

However, certain political developments taking place within India do sometimes negatively impact the diaspora, for example, the negative impact of the diaspora is that there are also groups and individuals within the diaspora who continue to support various insurgent groups operating within India, while lending them both moral and material support through hawala operations, money laundering etc. and this can prove to be a colossal security threat for the nation.

Nevertheless, India has a pivotal role to play in world affairs as it is a rising power and a key stakeholder in the security dynamics of South Asia and Southeast Asia. Its role in East Asia is taking shape and while India is still not an economic power, its military capabilities, shared interests and willingness to explore beyond its rhetoric have raised expectations banking on its capabilities and the role India can play as an Asian power, in the region and globally. The large populations of Indian expatriates in countries like Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia provide India with an opportunity to develop nurturing and more cooperative relations in the region. In the past, diaspora policies have been inconsistent and often poorly implemented, to say in the least. Over the years, however, the diaspora populations have become an increasingly important factor in international relations and politics. The Indian diaspora have a direct engagement and influence on the economies and polities of both the origin country and the host country. This provides for a ripe environment for India to tap on the potential they offer.

Conclusion

However, the present foreign-policy strategy of a strong outreach to the Indian diaspora stands out and must be nurtured. The diaspora can provide the requisite strategic impulse and strengthen strategic relations.  In the present times, the global reach of media and revolutionary changes in communication has helped create diaspora networks and instant connectivity with the motherland. It is important to constantly engage the diaspora and develop policies as the destinies of India and the diaspora are intertwined. Therefore, it serves the interest of both to develop a mutually beneficial relationship and is an important tool for India’s soft power diplomacy which would help India in achieving its aspirations to be a developed country and a knowledge superpower in the international arena.

References

Chaudhury, D. R., & Duttagupta, I. (2020). India steps up Gulf diplomacy for its diaspora. The Economic Times.

Haider, S. (2020). The ambit and the limits of ‘diaspora diplomacy’. The Hindu.

Ok, Y. E. (2018). “DIASPORA DIPLOMACY” AS A FOREIGN POLICY STRATEGY. IFAIR.

Rana, K. S. (2009). India’s Diaspora Diplomacy. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy.

The post DIASPORA DIPLOMACY AND INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY appeared first on WISER WORLD.

Some major updates to cover in today’s Indian Foreign Policy Report are as follow:

Ministerial Meeting of the Group of Friends of Victims of Terrorism

The Republic of India recently participated in the Ministerial meeting of the Group of Friends of Victims of Terrorism. The Indian delegation was led by Smt. Vijay Thakur Singh, Ministry of External Affairs. The virtual meeting began with the Indian Secretary conveying a word of gratitude to the Foreign Ministers of Spain and Afghanistan respectively, Co-Chairs of the group and also to the UN Office of Counter-Terrorism (UNOCT) for organising the meeting. The Secretary then went onto underscore the importance of dealing with terrorism as an international problem rather than an individual domestic one. She also highlighted that even though the world today has been brought to a standstill, terrorism still continues to pose a threat to International Peace and Security. Throughout the meeting, special emphasis was placed on the rights of the victims of terrorism to get justice for the crimes committed against them. Lastly, the secretary called for redressing deficiencies in the international efforts to ensure that perpetrators of terrorism are swiftly brought to justice. During the meeting, gratitude was also expressed towards the United Nations for establishing August 21 as the ‘ ̃International Day of Remembrance of and tribute to the Victims of Terrorism’.

Press Release of Russia-India-China Foreign Ministers

On the 10th of September, India released a joint press statement, along with the Foreign Minister of Russia, Mr Sergey Lavrov and State Councillor/Foreign Minister of China, Mr Wang Yi. The meeting kicked off with the three ministers expressing their resolve to strengthen the Russia-China-India trilateral cooperation and give importance to issues of international and regional importance. The minister laid emphasis on the fact that cooperation among the three countries is conducive and vital in promoting global growth, peace, stability and more importantly creating an environment of inclusive multilateralism and respect for universally recognized principles of international law. In terms of the recent challenges posed by the COVID- 19 world pandemic, the ministers concurred that the three countries, with strong scientific and industrial capacities, could make a significant contribution towards mitigating the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The External Affairs Minister of India and the Foreign Minister of China thanked the Foreign Minister of Russia for the chairmanship of RIC and the conferences organized during the past year. The Foreign Minister of Russia officially handed over the chairmanship of RIC to the External Affairs Minister of India.

13th India-Japan Foreign Ministers’ Strategic Dialogue

The 13th India-Japan Foreign Ministerial Strategic Dialogues was recently conducted between the Indian Foreign Minister, S. Jaishankar and his Japanese counterpart, H.E Mr Motegi Toshimitsu. The meeting was initiated with the two representatives reviewing the progress made in India-Japan Special Strategic and Global Partnership and discussing issues of mutual interests, ranging from maritime security to UN reforms. Having experienced the benefits of technology at a time when the world has experienced a veritable seismic shift towards technology, the two Foreign ministers finalised the text of the Cyber Security Agreement. The agreement looks at promoting cooperation in capacity building, research and development, security and resilience in the areas of Critical Information Infrastructure, 5G, Internet of Things (IoT), Artificial Intelligence (AI), among others. Lastly, the two Foreign Ministers turned to the issue of the Indo-Pacific that has the entire world riveted. India has time and again, emphasised its belief in establishing the Indo-Pacific as a free and inclusive region. The meeting also led to further discussions on the Supply Chain Resilience Initiative between India, Japan, Australia and other like-minded countries. Lastly, the Japanese side agreed to be the lead partner in the connectivity pillar of the Indo-Pacific Oceans’ Initiative (IPOI) and jointly take both countries’ respective visions for the Indo-Pacific forward.

Joint Press Release of the 7th Round of India-China Military Commander-Level Meeting

The 7th round of the Senior Commanders Meeting of India and China was held in Chushul. The meeting mainly focused on the disengagement along the Actual Line of Control in the Western Sector of the India-China border areas. After what was described as a positive and constructive meeting, both sides agreed to maintain dialogue and communication through their military as well as diplomatic channels. Lastly, both sides agreed to ensure that disagreements in the future do not turn into disputes, securing peace in the region, by maintaining tranquillity in the border areas.

2nd India-Australia-Japan-USA Ministerial Meeting

The Indian Foreign Minister, S. Jaishankar participated in the Second India-Australia-Japan-USA ministerial meeting in Tokyo. The meeting started with a follow up of the talks held in the previous year in September. The four countries called for a coordinated international response, spearheaded by the four nations. They further discussed the post-pandemic world order. The meeting mainly focused on the need to establish best practices to combat the virus, to increase the resilience of the supply chain and fortify the need to enhance the access to affordable vaccines, and medical equipment. Keeping in mind the emergence of the Quad and the importance of the Indo- Pacific, the Foreign Ministers exchanged views about regional and international issues of importance. The representatives re-emphasised their firm support to working towards realising a shared vision for the Indo-Pacific. Alongside the joint ministerial meetings of all the four nations, S. Jaishankar also met with H. E Micheal Pompeo, Secretary of State for the USA, and in the immediate future, will be meeting with the Foreign Ministers of Australia and Japan.

Appointments

The current Ambassador of India to the Republic of Indonesia, Shri Pradeep Kumar Rawat has been replaced by Shri Manoj Kumar Bharti, who served as the Special Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The following appointment comes as a result of Mr Rawat’s appointment as the next Indian Ambassador to the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Lastly, Shri Rahul Shrivastava, who currently serves as the Indian Ambassador of India to Romania, has been concurrently accredited as the next Ambassador to the Republic of Albania.

Conclusion

The world that we inhabit today is very different from the one that we experienced just over a year ago. Not only have we been dealing with an existential crisis at hand in the form of the COVID 19 pandemic, but as we step into a new decade of the 21st century, we find chaos and confusion governing the four corners of the world, with the coups in countries like Mali and the pitiable state that countries like Nigeria are in. However, the most anticipated event of the year, the US presidential elections are in a fortnight, and it’ll definitely be interesting to see how they shape global politics in the coming years.

Also Read: INDIAN FOREIGN POLICY REPORT — EDITION #6

The post INDIAN FOREIGN POLICY REPORT — EDITION #5 appeared first on WISER WORLD.

The strategic importance of the Korean Peninsula has enacted as the bridge between Asia mainland and Japan. It was believed that dominance over the Korean Peninsula signified influence over East Asia. It was during 1876 that diplomatic ties between both the countries were established. The Sino- Japanese War fought during 1894- 1895 must be analyzed from the perspective of Japanese imperialism or ‘Empire of the East’ countering the notion of western imperialism. However, the latter is not the only form of imperialism. Clearly, the aim of the Japanese government was to exercise political and economic control. Public opinion supported this action and clearly believed that Japan should play a pivotal role in helping Korea to free itself from the clutches of China. On the other hand, Qing China during the 1880s espoused the necessity to dominate over Korea. It is indeed true that nationalism and the trajectory of civilization have an intimate relationship as can be clearly seen by the case of Japan. Both the countries emphasized on their narratives to point out the righteousness in their actions (Sook, 2011, p: 39-74). Clearly, the Japanese government had manipulated the public opinion towards its aggressive foreign policy. Japan engaged in the discourse of civilization or bunmei kaika to present itself as a progressive nation which saw the light of Westernization (Darua, 2001, p: 99- 130). This altering contour emerged during the reign of the Meiji Restoration (1868-1912).  However, Russia’s emergence as a threat to Japan pushed the latter to be protective about Korea which led to the Russo-Japan War in 1905. 

Colonization of Korea (1905- 1945): Etched in Korea’s Collective Memory

Russia’s defeat was the stepping stone for Japan as Korea was formally annexed and become a part of the Japanese empire in 1905. Korea remained colonized till 1945 after which she was freed from Japan’s clutches with the latter’s defeat in the Pacific War. It was in 1912 that the Japanese Governor-General propagated laws that allowed the Japanese people to have ownership of land in Korea. A resettlement program was introduced by the government wherein many Japanese families settled in Korea before the end of the First World War. A large scale displacement took place. Additionally, 724,777 Korean workers had been sent to mainland Japan and Sakhalin as labourers in industries for mining, shipbuilding and construction. The Koreans were treated as second-class citizens and the Japanese government attempted to erase their culture by drawing up policies that would lead them to speak in the language of the colonizers. It was believed that Korean history and geography books were burned down by a nationwide search as well as confiscation of books of its independence and biographies of its national heroes was conducted by the government.

Not only that, gender-based violence on the Korean women was emerging as a disturbing issue during the Second World War. 20,000 Korean and Asian women were trafficked in military brothels to serve as ‘comfort women’ to the Japanese soldiers during the Asia-Pacific war. Comfort stations had been established in Indonesia, Indochina, Thailand, Okinawa, Korea and Taiwan. The women were treated as forced sexual slaves and must be analyzed from the perspective of gender-based violence. On the other hand, Japan had been the signatory of the International Convention for the Suppression of Traffic in Women and Children of 1921, yet Korea and Taiwan did not come under its purview. (Min, 2003, p: 938-957) The terminology of jugun inafu or comfort women was coined by the Japanese Government officials to cloak the reality of sexual slavery. Women who rebelled were brutally beaten up, raped and tortured.  It took 20 years before the former Korean President, Park Chung- Hee had agreed to normalize ties with Japan as collective memory etched on to its horrifying history.

Changing Contour of Republic of Korea and Japan Ties

The relations between South Korea and Japan can be examined from the point of view of a former suzerain state and colonizer since the 19^th century. Japan had argued that by the treaty of 1965 with South Korea, the former has provided compensation of $9.5 million for its sexual slavery as well as apologized in 1993. It was in 1952 that the first territorial dispute emerged between South Korea and Japan. Although Tokyo came under the jurisdiction of Korea, it had been administered by the latter for 41 years.  Kim Young- Sum’s Government declared the construction of a wharf facility in 1996 which was protested by the Hashimoto Government of Japan. However, on the face of North- Korean Teapeo- Dong Missile Crisis, Republic of Korea, President Kim and Japanese Prime Minister, Obuchi in 1998 signed the Joint Declaration and Action for a New Korea- Japan partnership in the 21st century. It was in 2015 that the former Foreign Minister of Japan, Fumio Kishida offered a formal apology and the Japanese Government stated that it would establish a Reconciliation and Healing Center which would care for the victims of sexual violence.  As Korea was in the process of democratization, civic organizations such as the Association of War Victims and Bereaved Families of Korean’s and Citizens Coalition for Economic Justice insisted that their Government must bring out a resolution to the colonial problems faced in South Korea. However, it cannot be denied that Japan was heralded as an economic partner. The post- Cold War period witnessed shifts in Korea- Japan relationship as security cooperation between USSR, North Korea, China and on the other hand, Japan, Republic of Korea and the USA broke down. Nonetheless, it cannot be forgotten that Japan and South Korea have espoused an anti-community narrative which is significant in their alliance as constructivism argues. These countries distinguish themselves from the other or Communism in this regard which is rooted in the perception of the self and other. The alliance is established when North Korea emerges as a common threat that leads them to shift from friction. It is imperative that the norms or a common ground must be shared for cooperation to flourish. Adding to that, the alliance did not last very long when in 2010 South Korea recalled the ambassador to Tokyo to protest against the approval of the Japanese Government of middle school textbooks written by the Society for Making New History Books, a Right- Wing intellectual group that aimed to conceal the atrocities of Japan’s wartime history. (Cho, 2008, p: 2-117) It clearly glorified Japanese militarism and fueled anti- Japanese sentiment in Korean public opinion. South Korean domestic policies have the impact of post-colonial history. The General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA) had been signed in 2016 which allowed Seoul and Japan to exchange information on North Korean missile which was supposed to expire in November. Ties experienced a downward spiral after the Supreme Court of South Korea in 2018 had ordered Japanese Firms to pay reparation for mobilizing Korean men and women as forced labours. Japan responded in July by removing South Korea from its list of trading partners as well as curbing exports namely fluorinated polyamides, photerists and hydrogen fluoride which are pivotal to the former’s semiconductor industry. The decision of not renewing the GSOMIA was upheld by Moon Jae’s government. The trade war that had been declared by both the countries has been perceived as a warning sign for USA and fear looms of the trilateral alliance breaking down.  

Portrayal of Japanese Media House Towards the Issue of Comfort Women

Journalism plays a pivotal role in bringing the truth to the public, yet this is determined by the coverage of the issue and if its portrayal is influenced by Government representation. ‘Sorrowful Homecoming’ was a Documentary which was released by the Korea Center of Investigative Journalism in 2016 that contained interviews of Korean women who were treated as sex slaves. This documentary had been created to raise awareness of the brutality done by the Japanese Imperial Army on Korean women and reconstruct the past human abuses. This has played an important role in building the collective memory of South Korea.  (Runquist, 2020, p: 2-17) On the other hand, Hirayasu Minzo, the Executive Editor of the Japan Times had criticized Reuters for not taking into account Japan’s viewpoint of colonization and refused to call comfort women as victims neither did he view Japan’s annexation of Korea as brutal.  Clearly, the Japan Times had refused to portray the horrifying Human Rights Violations that had occurred under the Meji regime in fear that it would be perceived as anti- Japanese by Shinzo Abe’s Government as it needed revenues from companies to survive and therefore had utilized the usage of such terminology. Although, Minzo had denied that his stance had altered due to external pressure, the fear of Abe’s Government ceasing the functioning of the paper could be viewed as one of the motives behind such an action. Indeed, the banner was, “All the news without fear or favor” has proved to be a farce as the truth has been denied. This has played a pivotal role in accentuating differences between the two countries. 

USA’s Role in South Korea-Japan Ties

The USA had perceived South Korea as its bulwark against Communism during the Cold War era. Yet, it cannot be denied that she built the foundation for democracy and it was the path that the Republic of Korea walked on. It was in 1953 that the Mutual Defense Treaty between the USA and the ROK was signed when Korean War had come to an end. The fervour to renew this alliance was pushed by George Bush’s Government during the 2000s. The USA, Japan and the Republic of Korea have been entangled in trilateral cooperation as North Korea’s advancement of nuclear missiles and China’s growing aggressiveness have led to the development of this alliance as these three countries share the standpoint of security. Nevertheless, this alliance has been embedded in the USA’s foreign policy. Nonetheless, an agreement between the Korean President, Park Geun- Hye and Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe was reached on 28^th December 2015 which could not have been possible without the pivotal role played by Obama’s administration which focused on the policy of “Rebalance to Asia”.

Conclusion

It is imperative for the Trump administration to sustain the trilateral cooperation as the ties between The ROK and Japan experience significant shifts due to the disturbing colonial past and atrocities embedded in the history of South Korea. As China’s aggressiveness becomes a warning sign for the USA as the ever so globalized world witnesses a re-emerging dawning Cold War era, the alliance can become the foundation for resistance if the economic partnership is facilitated. However, it must be kept in mind that the relationship of the Republic of Korea with Japan has been defined by the history of colonialism and collective memory.

The post DIPLOMATIC TIES BETWEEN REPUBLIC OF KOREA AND JAPAN: HOW JAPANESE COLONIALISM INFLUENCED THEIR POST COLONIAL RELATIONSHIP appeared first on WISER WORLD.

Historical Context

Observations have shown that with the onset of the Age of Discovery in Europe, increased interest of Russia and China in Central Asia somewhat led to the breaking away of India’s connections with the region. Even after Independence, India’s foreign policy majorly focused on its immediate neighbours, or solidarity-based relations with the African countries, or even robust economic ties with Russia — but, the partitioning of the Indian subcontinent and the distancing of the region geographically did play a role in the deterioration of the relations with the region from India.

Further, in the post-Cold War era, after the Soviet Union split Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan in the 1990s, India took upon the task of developing its relations with the resource-rich region while also undertaking its own domestic economic reforms of bringing about liberalisation, privatisation, and globalisation. Former Indian Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao visited four out of the five republics – Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan in 1993, followed by Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan in 1995. In addition to the collective values that India shared with the countries, collective development and economic growth, as well as formulating approached to combating common threats such as terrorism, religious extremism, and crime that these nations shared with India. A few experts also believe that the stage which was set by these conversations was even reflected in India’s Look North policy of recent times. 

Despite the historical links with the Central Asian Economies and India moving quickly to establish diplomatic ties with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan after their emergence as independent countries almost three decades ago, trade has not grown beyond $2 billion, with them. In recent years, foreign-affairs analysts have begun observing what they call the “New Great Game” in Central Asia — Russia, the US, European Union (EU), China, Turkey, Iran and India are all trying to assert their power and hegemony in the region. Not only does the region provide for a large market, but it also has prospects for developing hydropower, fossil fuel resources, and other lucrative prospects. According to experts, India, for its part, has so far chosen to take the ‘constructivist’ approach. This entails a strategy of, interests are not solely based on economic or strategic benefits but attempt to involve an intersectional and even culture-oriented involvement.

Current Developments

India’s continued interest in Central Asia can be attributed to the geopolitical relevance of the region due to three factors — Chinese presence and influx in the region through its expansionist infrastructure projects like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a continued historical context of Russia’s dominance in the region, and the overall regional security dynamic. Keeping these in mind, India had unveiled its Connect Central Asia Policy in Bishkek in 2012 in order to draw attention to the expansion of the region’s economic interests in congruence with India’s plans of integrating its external neighbourhood.

The lack of connectivity of India with the region of Central Asia has been a long withstanding issue in this context. For instance, the long-delayed Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline, backed by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), was first proposed in the mid-1990s and all four actors officially signed an intergovernmental agreement in 2010. But, since then, the project has been stalled due to the status of Afghanistan and mistrust between India and Pakistan.

To combat this connectivity gap, India has undertaken positive action in the past as well quite recently. India, Iran and Russia signed the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) agreement which aimed to offer connectivity between India and Central Asia through Iran. As is noted by this resource, while the INSTC is routed via Iran’s Bandar Abbas port, India has also explored the possibility of connecting with Central Asia via Iran’s Chabahar port and thereafter overland corridors passing through Afghanistan. The importance bestowed by India to the Chabahar port, despite the uncertainties which the US-Iran tensions bring to the conversation, can be accorded by the budgetary allocation to the project, which is amounting to INR 1 Billion in 2020-21 announcement.

Way Forward

Since China has been able to leverage its geography, finances and population to ensure that its projects can contribute toward making its dream of a new and improved Silk Road a reality, India is also committed to expanding the scope of its economic relations with the region. India has immense potential in developing small and medium scale industries in the region which is presently being provided through India’s program of ITEC (Indian Technical and Economic Cooperation). The ITEC programme covers information technology, management, journalism, diplomacy, entrepreneurship, and banking. New Delhi also signed the Strategic Partnership Agreements (SPA) with three of the five nations of the Central Asian Economies — Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan — in order to stimulate defence cooperation and deepen trade relations.

As a report in a Russian newspaper observed, “Indian presence in the region should balance the growing Chinese influence and prevent it from becoming the region of Beijing’s undivided dominance.” This idea can be brought to effect by India by leveraging its membership at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

India and the Central Asian Economies can prioritize energy, pharmaceuticals, automotive, agro-processing, education, urban infrastructure and transport, civil aviation, IT and tourism sectors to strengthen economic links. The Central Asian economies and India have had a long history of association which can be efficiently revived to mutual benefit by the means of strategic and economic cooperation and connectivity, both notions that can be leveraged by the stakeholders in a post-pandemic world.

The post INDIA’S TRYST WITH CENTRAL ASIAN ECONOMIES appeared first on WISER WORLD.

USA and its Historical Ties with the United Nations and its Subsidiaries

Starting from Franklin D Roosevelt in 1954, the USA has shown signs of solidarity with the UN and the United States’ voice in decisions of the UN has always played a pivotal role, especially since it is one of the P5 members. Conjointly, along with its allegiance to the United Nations, the US has been a significant actor in the projects carried out by the WHO. 

For decades the United States has been a committed partner of the World Health Organisation in aiding global health emergencies and has financially supported its prospects. The US was the number one donor for the 2016-2017 programme budget and for many previous years. Both state and individual donations combined, the total donations made to the WHO that rooted from the States has been a total of US$ 945.6 million in WHO for the 2016-2017 period. And the contributions from the United States were made up for over 76% of voluntary funding.

The United Nations was built upon the principle of global syndication and interdependence, however, with the USA’s interventions over the years and its weighty contributions have to some extent eroded the UN’s legitimacy. Although the foundation of the United Nations is that of a liberal idea with the notion of co-dependence and overall prosperity of both big and small state actors, it has been proven time and again that for many states, especially ones that are permanent members, like the US, have used the United Nations as a forum to further their neo-realist agendas wherein non-state actors are only a pathway to increase power and legitimacy and not multilateralism. 

China’s Participation and COVID

Although China’s funding in the United Nations has been increasing each year over the last decade, its contribution to the World Health Organization has especially seen a rise pertaining to the current Coronavirus pandemic which originated in China’s Hubei province. Hence, making China’s say in the matter that of much more significance in comparison to any other state. 

The WHO has appreciated China’s efforts and action towards this pandemic publicly and stated that their response made a major impact on the spread of the virus globally. However, there were many criticisms in regards to the same. Specifically by the US. 

The WHO’s sudden inclination towards China with the arrival of this pandemic was questioned by many and ticked off the US as a result. The role of the World Health Organization is to maintain diplomacy and be an advisory organ for states to act upon at their discretion. This has been the preliminary basis of debate over why the organisation is in the wrong for potentially siding with China and not criticising them for notifying other states much later than the first traces of the virus were found, in December 2019. In addition to this, China’s circulation of faulty safety kits also added to the narrative of China deceiving other nations and not painting a clear enough picture for states to act upon. 

The World Health Organisation’s backing towards China potentially has its roots in the increased funding by China to the UN as a whole. China is now the second-largest contributor to the United Nations funds amongst the G77 countries. This, therefore, makes it a notable member whose presence in the United Nations can not be forgone. 

President Trump’s Response

On the 7th of July, 2020, President Trump announced the USA’s withdrawal from the World Health Organisation. This decision faced a lot of opposition from opponent parties given the WHO’s role in fighting global health emergencies that the world is currently living through and the fact that the United States has one of the highest numbers of cases globally.

Not only will this move have a detrimental impact on the United States status as far as the number of cases goes, but this can also result in a global setback of vaccine development in which the US could have been a major stakeholder and contributor. While the Trump administration has already cut off all funding, the withdrawal process will take approximately a year. However, the 2020 presidential candidate, Joe Biden has vowed to reverse this action and be part of the organisation again. 

This decision further goes on to prove the USA’s intentions with non-state actors and how they are linked to notions of neorealism and are used as a tool to safeguard self-interest rather than build on global interdependence through collaborative measures. 

Furthermore, the decision to pull out of the WHO is also an indication of what US-China relations will be like post-COVID, as prior to this it was still an unclear picture. However, pulling out of the WHO as a result of backing China is a clear enough signal that at least under the Trump Administration these tensions will continue and are not going to change in the foreseeable future. 

Conclusion

Regardless of the gravitas of this situation, this move does not come as a shock after the US pulled out of the Paris Agreement. Inferring from the series of events that have taken place before and after this monumental decision issued by the US government, it is safe to assume that this is in relation to President Trump’s prolonged pattern of claiming that the United States is being taken advantage of by intergovernmental organisations such at WHO and NATO and this action is one of the biggest showcases of it. 

The post USA’S WITHDRAWAL FROM WHO appeared first on WISER WORLD.

Some major updates to cover in today’s Indian Foreign Policy Report are as follow:

India’s Mission Sagar in the Indian Ocean Region

With that spirit in mind, India has recently launched, ‘Mission Sagar’ on the 10th of May. The mission is India’s way of assisting nations in the Indian Ocean Region, in their fight against COVID-19. In this mission, assistance was provided by the INS Kesari, that sailed to the Maldives, Mauritius, Madagascar, Comoros, and Seychelles, to deliver material assistance and in particular, medical assistance to Mauritius and Comoros. The successful completion of the mission can be seen as a major milestone, in terms of India’s new foreign policy of increased engagement in the Indo-Pacific and the Western Sectors of the Indian Ocean. The mission is also in line with the Prime Minister’s policy of SAGAR (Security and Growth for all in the Region). Mission Sagar is one particular example of increased Indian activities in the spheres of maritime security, cooperation, and navigation security, as the country transitions from a passive maritime actor to an exceptionally active one, with an equally important say in the Indo-Pacific, one of the most coveted and disputed regions in the world.

Bi-annual Exchange of Prisoner List Between India and Pakistan

As India has constantly tried to increase its presence on the international stage, it has found itself at an impasse with its neighbours on a multitude of issues. However, amidst this highly taut and tense environment, India and Pakistan recently exchanged a list of prisoners on the 1st of July. The exchange of lists is in accordance with the 2008 agreement, where the nations exchange a list of prisoners bi-annually, which is on the 1st of January and the 1st of July. The Indian lists contain 265 Pakistani civilians and 97 fishermen. On the other hand, the list issued by Pakistan contains 54 Indian civilians and 270 fishermen. Furthermore, to expedite the process, the Indian government has provided the nationality verification details of 7 civilians and 106 fishermen. Lastly, to show India’s commitment to the bilateral process, the central government has asked the Pakistan authorities to confirm the nationality status of 88 Pakistani prisoners in Indian custody.

India-China Dialogue Between Special Representatives

As mentioned earlier, India finds itself in an extremely precarious position when it comes to both its neighbours. However, the statement is especially true regarding its relationship with China over the Actual Line of Control. The escalation in violence in the Galwan Valley and the loss of life of Indian and Chinese soldiers was the first since 1975. This extremely volatile situation has both the governments scratching their heads as to what needs to be done next to diffuse the simmering atmosphere. China has chosen to strike a blow against India when it is busy dealing with the surge in casualties as a result of the COVID pandemic. However, in the last few months, India has chosen to follow a hardline stance against the Chinese. This has visibly resulted in increased violence on the border regions and has led to a campaign within the Indian polity advocating the ban of all Chinese products and applications.

However, recently there was a dialogue between the special representatives of the two countries. During the conversation, Ajit Doval, India’s National Security Advisor and H.E Wang Yi, State Councillor and Minister of Foreign Affairs for China, had an in-depth exchange of views on the border issue. During the discussion, several important points were highlighted, the first among them being that peace and tranquillity were essential for the further development of bilateral relations. Hence, it was agreed upon to disengage and pull back all troops from the Line of Actual Control and complete de-escalation on the India-China border. Secondly, both sides agreed to respect the Line of Actual Control and vowed to not take any unilateral action in the region.

India-Russia Bilateral Relations

In a further effort to strengthen bilateral relations, the Indian Prime Minister had a telephonic conversation with the President of the Russian Federation, wherein they discussed several strategic topics of interest to both nations. Mr Modi also used this opportunity to congratulate the President on the successful completion of the parade, marking the 75th anniversary of the end of the Second World War. More importantly, Mr Modi felicitated President Putin on the recent constitutional vote, through which President Putin has consolidated his power till 2036. The Prime minster further recalled the participation of an Indian contingent in the parade in Moscow, as a sign of friendship. Lastly, the Indian Government expressed their enthusiasm for hosting President Putin, later in the year during the bilateral summit.

India’s Participation at the ‘Strengthening Consensus for Peace’ in Afghanistan

Afghanistan over the last many decades has been turned into a complete war zone, with the presence of uninvited international actors. However, in the last two years, there have been constructive steps taken by both the Afghan government and the United States of America to bring the Taliban to the negotiation table in an effort to end the violence and bring lasting peace to the region. Lately, the Islamic Republic hosted a regional meeting, by the name of, ‘ Strengthening Consensus for Peace’. The meeting was chaired by the Afghan President, H.E Dr Mohammad Ashraf Ghani. The conference recorded participation by 20 countries and international organizations. During the conference, India expressed support for establishing a constitutional order in Afghanistan and unequivocally stated the importance of putting an end to terrorist sanctuaries and safe havens for destructive forces in Afghanistan.

Indian Nomination to the United Nations Security Council

Lastly, India recently secured its position as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, with a vote of 184 out of 192. However, to fill in the seat of the Ambassador/Permanent Representative to the United Nations and other international organizations in Geneva, Shri Mani Pandey, who currently serves as the Additional Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs has been appointed.

Conclusion

Looking at India’s foreign policy from a macro perspective, we come to see that India has consistently tried to create an environment of inclusiveness then whether it be in the Indo-Pacific or the Western sectors of the Indian Ocean Region. India’s willingness to corporate and emerge as a regional power is a visible thought of its efforts in Afghanistan and its strategic partnerships with countries like the Russian Federation and France. In the last two decades, China has developed by leaps and bounds and has emerged not as a regional power but as a global hegemon. This has overshadowed nations like India, owing to China’s aggressive policies. Hence, while India tries to extend its reach globally, it has locked horns with China recently in the Galwan Valley region. The Indian and the Chinese sides seem to be ideologically clashing with each other over the Indo-Pacific, one of the most disputed regions of the world. It is India’s capabilities to fight off both the COVID 19 and the Chinese aggression, that will define the India that emerges in the near future.

Also Read: INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY REPORT – EDITION #2

The post INDIAN FOREIGN POLICY REPORT – EDITION #1 appeared first on WISER WORLD.