Background of the Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict

The region of Nagorno-Karabakh has for several decades been constantly buffeted by the winds of political instability, which emanated from the last days of the Soviet Union. Tensions originally arose when Armenias, which constitute a majority of the population in the region demanded a complete unification with the nation of Armenia. However, prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, when both Armenia and Azerbaijan were under the military-economic sway of the Soviet Union, the Armenian Parliament passed legislation, declaring the region of the Nagorno-Karabakh to be a part of Armenian territory. This was however categorically rejected by the Soviets, and led to a six-year-long war, which was only resolved in the early 1990s, by Russian intervention. In claim over the region, the Armenian authorities have cited the 1991 referendum, whereas the Azeri side has repeatedly highlighted the United Nations resolution that declares Nagorno-Karabakh, though a predominantly Armenian region, to be an integral part of Azerbaijan. As mentioned already, the region houses a majority of the Armenian population, owing to which several separatist movements have gained momentum, and have managed to declare the region as the ‘Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast’. Since the Six-Day War that recorded the killing of over 30,000 individuals, the conflict in the region has continued sporadically. However, what is unique in terms of the current conflict is the manner in which it has drawn in regional powers and has turned Nagorno-Karabakh into a region of Russian and Turkish interests.

Turkish Involvement in the Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict

In recent months, the Turkish Government of Recep Erdagon. has attempted to portray economic might and military prowess, through its increasing presence in the region. Through the perspective of the international community, as the conflict escalates, many actors have questioned the role played by neighbouring nations such as Turkey. However, in the current conflict, the Turkish Republic has been pinned down by allegations regarding the involvement of Syrian fighters through the Turkish backed militias. It has been ascertained that Syrians are being deployed on behalf of the Azeri army, in the form of shock troops to claw back scraps of land. The increasing deaths of Syrians in the conflict and the use of weapons produced and supplied by states like Israel has been questioned and brought under the scanner the issue that how the worsening of the decades-long conflict attracts outside regional powers to the region. Reporters have shed light on the use of Turkish, Russian, and Israeli produced weapons in the war, especially Azerbaijan’s assault on Stepanakert, the capital of the region which has included the use of cluster munitions. While on the Armenian side, the reports from international groups such as Amnesty International have confirmed the use of Russian manufactured rocket artillery systems in the bombardment of the Azeri city of Ganja. The deployment of the Syrian mercenaries has followed a pattern very similar to the conflict in Libya, where both Turkey and the Russian Federation have locked horns in a bitter battle. Turkish officials have chosen to portray their country’s expanding foreign engagements as part of the country’s promotion of its security and energy interests. Interestingly, another view that has been adopted and mainly by the critics is that Erdagon’s government has used international engagement as an excuse to divert people’s attention from domestic problems such as the crumbling economy, the problems facing the healthcare system, and the effort of the government to rally the country behind an external cause is one last attempt to shore up domestic support.

Russian Stakes in the Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict

As aforementioned, the Russian Federation has a long-established history with the region of Nagorno-Karabakh. The first war which lasted six years was brought to an end owing to Russian intervention, effectively defining the Line of Contact between the two neighbouring nations. Russia for long has played a rather confusing and contradictory role. When it comes to Russia’s relations with Armenia, it provides military assistance through bilateral ties and Collective Security Treaty Organisations. However, this assistance for Armenia does not expand to the region of Nagorno- Karabakh, since it is an internationally recognized part of Azerbaijan. In terms of the current crises, Putin’s government has chosen to tread a fine line in terms of diplomatic relations with the erstwhile Soviet satellite states, by selling arms and providing economic assistance to both states. The Federation has given out mixed signals of its willingness to intervene in the conflict, by citing the excuse that it has met its moral obligation to aid the two states and that its jurisdiction does not extend to the Nagorno-Karabakh region. Moscow has condemned Azerbaijan’s use of Turkish-backed Syrian mercenaries in the region, out of the fear of the conflict becoming the trigger for Islamist militants to establish a presence in the outer reaches of Russia. However, Russia has stepped into the conflict to bring an end to chaos once again, just like it did more than three decades ago. Unfortunately, this time introducing a mutually agreed ceasefire is not going to be a cakewalk for the Russian authorities. Even as Russia floated the idea of sending in ‘Military observers’, the suggestion wasn’t responded to by either of the two heads of states involved in the conflict. The fighting scene is the worst since the war in the early 1990s. Several international bodies warn of an emerging humanitarian crisis, which will only be aggravated by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

What Next?

It is crystal clear is that the current conflict can draw in regional powers especially NATO powers such as Turkey. In terms of closure to the conflict, the European Union Policy Chief, Josep Borrell, urged the two nations to carry out an immediate cessation of hostilities. While Iran, a strategic player in the region, also an ally of Armenia, offered to mediate. The region has already experienced war in the latter years of the 20th century which lasted a number of years, while on the other hand, 2016 skirmishes only lasted for a few days. Owing to such historical uncertainty it is difficult to chalk out a prediction for the near future. However, the situation may change significantly if a major power were to enter the conflict in the near future.

The post ARMENIA-AZERBAIJAN CONFLICT — EXPLAINED! appeared first on WISER WORLD.

War-torn Palestine

It is important in this regard to trace the genesis of the Israel- Palestine conflict and how it has had repercussions in the geopolitics of the changing contours of the Arab- Israel conflict. The terminology of Palestine was endowed by the Roman Empire, Hadrian in 135 CE after the defeat in the Battle of Bar Khhoba Revolt as he desired to erase Judea as it implied a long drawn connection with the Jews. Jews have continued to be victims of persecution, the emergence of which began at the dawn of Crusades. However, the Arabs had been under the authority of the Byzantine, Romans and later on the Ottoman Empire, the majority of Palestine was composed of its Muslim majority (Tessler, 1994, p: 42-44).

It was under Hitler’s autocratic rule during the Holocaust that complete annihilation of Jews was witnessed, whereby they were targeted to be the enemy of the Germans (Arendt, 1963, p: 36- 56). Yet, it cannot be denied that Jews have always felt that Palestine has been their homeland which the Arabs have laid a claim over, which Israeli historiography has espoused (Tessler, 1994, p: 74-128). The establishment of a State for the Jews would bring an end to years of persecution. Rather, the Zionist movement experienced an evolution as there was a demand to cleanse this holy land from Arabs or ‘Eretz Israel’ as known in Hebrew. It was in 1917 that Lord Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary, endorsed the idea of a Jewish State that soon turned into a violent response by the Palestinians, a colony under the British sphere of influence ceded by Ottoman Turkey after World War I. By 1937, the British Peel Commission agreed to partition Palestine which accentuated into the Arab-Israeli War (Pappe, 2007, p: 10- 17). In 1948, the United Nations played a pivotal role that altered the history of Palestine underlined by Resolution 181 of 29 September 1947 and the official recognition of the Jewish State by the U.S.A and the USSR.

Violation of Human Rights in Palestine

Leaflets were distributed in villages to warn of the disastrous consequences of collaborating with the Arab Liberation Army. The village of Deir Yassin was occupied by the Jewish military forces where the inhabitants were killed by gun spray (Pappe, 2007, p: 40-70). The IEZL or Irgun Zvai Leumi under the Israeli Prime Minister, Menachem Begin was known to have headed these forces and perpetrated the massacre of Palestinian Arabs. One of the testimonies published by the NGO Zochort that works towards Transitional Justice of the Israeli-Palestine Conflict states that he along with other men were ordered to evacuate the villages where Palestinian Arabs resided as deportation would be taking place. The massacre has been bestowed with the horrifying nomenclature of Nakba or catastrophe to designate the ethnic cleansing that took place in 1948. Possession of Palestinian property violates the International Law (Human Rights Council, 2017). Women were victims of rape, firstly because of their sex and secondly because of their Palestinian-Arab identity. Women have been epitomized as embedding honour of the family. By the Israeli Citizenship Law, the Palestinians citizens were construed as Israeli citizens as passed on 1st April 1952. The same trajectory has been drawn in the History of India as the Partition of 1947 must be perceived from the lens of a watershed that gave birth to two nation-states, India and Pakistan, the latter which has been believed to be a product of a failed democracy as post-colonial historians would argue. The commonality in the history of India and Palestine is that both countries experienced the discourse of Partition violence. Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982 was targeted against the Palestine Liberation Army and Syria as the surface to air missiles were deployed by the latter in Lebanon, whereas the PLO employed Israel with artillery shells (Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs, 2012, Volume: 3). President Roland Regan introduced the Regan Plan and affirmed USA’s decision of not supporting Israel’s dominance over the Gaza Strip and West Bank. The United Nation Resolution 242 was implemented by the Regan Plan which stated that a solution must be reached of the existing refugee crisis as well as the Security Council to position a Special Representative in the Middle East. The aim of the Oslo Accords was to elect a Palestine Interim Government as well as a Council to govern the Palestinian people with authority been transferred from the Israeli Military Government. Therefore, Abraham Accords has been perceived in terms of a harbinger of peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict (United Nations Security Council:1993). The Oslo Accords signed in 1995 signed between the Palestine Liberation Army and the State of Israel had failed as Israel’s decision was to annex West Bank.

Perception of Turkey and Bahrain on UAE-Israel Deal

On the other hand, it is significant to evaluate the response of Turkey and Bahrain on the perception of Abraham Accords. Prince Recep Tayyip Erodgan, the President of Turkey stated that the normalization of ties between UAE and IS was rather the latter’s betrayal of trust and undermining the cause for Palestine. The Arab Peace Plan of 2002 was established by the Crown Prince, Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at the Beirut Summit which underlined the recognition of the State of Israel as and stated that she must withdraw from the Golan Heights as well as the creation of Lebanon since 1967. The plan clearly espoused the creation of a sovereign independent Palestine with East Jerusalem as the capital as highlighted in the Council of the Arab States at the Summit Level which has been forgone as Erodgan argued. The Kingdom of Bahrain has equally welcomed Abraham Accords and perceived this as the path that would pave peace building.

The post UAE-ISRAEL DEAL: HARBINGER FOR PEACE? 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.