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.

GameStop stock prices is not a vindication of the company’s health rather it is a reflection of the battle of the investors. What basically happened is that investors on the WallstreetBets bought in all the shares when the smart money was shorting to a level that there were no shares left in the market to be traded. The hedge funds(Melvin Capital and Citron) had borrowed the shares that they sold in the hope that eventually when the price of the stock falls, they would purchase them at a lower price and so the difference would have been their profit margin. Instead, what happened is that subreddit WallstreetBets investors kept on buying the shorted shares until a time when the loaned shares that must be returned were greater in number than the actual shares for trade in the market. Now, this has lead to a Reddit v Wall Street battle where the ‘short-sellers’ are helpless since, the longer the WallstreetBets investors hold on to their shares, the higher the prices of GameStock will be. (Good, 2021)

QAnon: The Start of an Era in Anonymity

The QAnon is basically a chain of posts that were made anonymously and posted on 4chan, a message board. The person who posted this series had signed off as ‘Q’ and hence the name QAnon. These posts were known as ‘breadcrumbs’ and were pro-trump posts. QAnon army believes that Donald Trump is waging a war against the paedophiles of the government, media and business. They describe themselves as “people who love the country”. (Wendling, 2021)

The main concern with online forums like 4chan is anonymity. Since people can post anything and not be held accountable for it, they forget the difference between right and wrong. It has led to mass manipulations by such people who in the darkness of such online forums can put forth their destructive and unproductive opinions and influence atleast hundreds of thousands of people. In this age of social media influencers and the over accessibility of internet, the people are easily distracted and mislead in a lot of ways.

The QAnon posts and its supporters were eventually banned from many big social media platforms, but the harm was already done till then. QAnon has created many unproven conspiracy theories which are believed by many supporters of QAnon without having asked questions about its authenticity.

QAnon supporters create abusive hashtags and posts against people that they perceive as enemies or people who they do not consider as the true people of the nation, mostly important politicians, journalists etc. This is not only an online threat but also an offline threat to the life of many such people. Many QAnon supporters have also been arrested after such hateful posts. The QAnon supporters are relentlessly posing threat to the society in general and one of the main reasons of doing so is that Mr. Donald Trump had himself retweeted some posts of QAnon, which shows that in some way or the other QAnon has got the support from Trump and even his son had posted QAnon memes during the elections. (Wendling, 2021)

Another QAnon supporter, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia was elected in the US Congress in November. It is rather shocking that such extreme posts and hashtags are being supported by influential people in the US which can perhaps lead to mass destruction of the community as a whole.

All of this could have been controlled if online forums like 4chan did not have the feature of posting anything anonymously. It gets especially difficult to culminate a wrong action if people cannot be held accountable easily for their actions.

GameStop Shares Sold by Robinhood: An Intentional Mishap

Robinhood is a stock trading platform founded in 2013. Recently, Robinhood was in controversy as a number of its users accused the platform to have sold their shares without taking permission from them.

During the last week, many customers of Robinhood posted screenshots on Twitter and other social media platforms claiming that the trading company automatically sold their shares at a low price lower than the price list. (Eric, 2021)

On 28^th January 2020, two users of Robinhood claimed that it had restricted the transactions of GameStop. Robinhood had basically restricted investors to buy shares of GameStop so as to facilitate short selling hedge funds in their tiff with WallstreetBets. Robinhood had further stopped the users to trade on stocks of AMC, GameStop, Blackberry, Bed Bath & Beyond, Nokia etc. Customers who owned shares of these companies were only given an option of selling their existing shares.

These claims have resulted in negative reviews of the trading company on google which lead to a fall in its rating from 4.2 to 1. Later google deleted a good amount of negative reviews to restore its rating at 4.2. There is already a lawsuit filed against Robinhood which claims that the trading company has tried to manipulate and therefore control the market through its actions and that it’s a clear violation of the functioning of the market. (Mathur, 2021)

On the other hand, Robinhood denied of all these claims and the spokesperson of Robinhood has claimed that they had to sell some of the shares to reduce risk since the shares were bought at the margin, whereas the investors have claimed that they bought the shares outright and planned to hold on to them.

Billions of Dollars at Risk: Who Faced the Actual Loss?

As developed from the above, the investors who have faced the loss is perhaps Melvin Capital. This is because they sold the borrowed shares that actually have to be returned at a price that they thought is higher than at what price they would have to buy. But the opposite happened. So here is the fiasco we are talking about. Now they have no option other than buying all the shorted shares in order to return what they borrowed. But since even that is not possible the other option is to sell off everything in the open market. (Good, 2021)

So, Melvin Capital had to take up a huge loss when they closed up their short position on the 27^th of January. Although the exact loss is not known the investor had taken a cash infusion of $2.75 billion from two investment banks to keep itself away from dissolving in the US stock market.

Citadel to the Rescue After the Loss Incurred by Melvin Capital

Citadel funds have invested $2 billion and the rest $750 million will be invested by Point72 Asset Management. They have planned to invest in Melvin Capital in return of a non-controlling revenue share in the hedge fund. Although many investors had given up on short-selling bets, Gabe Plotkin, the owner of Melvin Capital still has his hopes for short selling, even though he has had a bad time in it this year. Ken Griffin, the founder of Citadel has rather shown his confidence in Gabe Plotkin as he says in one of his statements that “Gabe Plotkin and the team have delivered exceptional results over the history of Melvin,”.

Plotkin has shown great interest in working harder with his team to live up to the expectations and the confidence shown to him by both his investors. (Burton, 2021)

Citadel’s Association With Robinhood Receives Scrutiny

Robinhood has spent years to form a relationship with the big market investors called the ‘market makers’ to receive real-time information about their investors and which stocks its users are buying or selling. The online trading app receives a large number of revenues from Citadel Securities. However, after the entire fiasco of short selling, the relationship between citadel and Robinhood is under scrutiny or rather a criticism. (TORBATI, 2021)

This scrutiny has happened after Robinhood has limited trading of certain stocks, namely GameStop stocks. Several Reddit users have accused Citadel founder Ken Griffin to have pressurized Robinhood to limit trading of GameStop shares in order to prevent further losses incurred by the short-sellers. This is because Citadel is an investor of Melvin Capital, the short seller here in context, to avoid any losses further. Reddit users have taken on to Twitter to accuse Robinhood of giving in under the pressure of its big business partner, Citadel as Robinhood does not charge its users so its revenue highly depends on such big companies as Citadel. (TORBATI, 2021)

Since Robinhood is not directly involved in the trading of shares but it provides information to its partners in return of a small fee and privilege to give its users the best prices for trading in the market. However, later in a post, Robinhood has denied the accusations and said that it was a risk management decision to limit trading of shares.

However, it has also taken a political turn as congress has decided to examine Citadel’s agreement with Robinhood and if there is any manipulation of the stock market by the two business partners. Critics have also said that there is a possibility of hidden tax in this entire context. Overall, the recent developments in the stock market of the US has led to increase in the scrutiny of such business relationships to check if such partnerships are hurtful for the average investors in the market. (TORBATI, 2021)

Conclusion: How Can This GameStop Story Probably End?

The entire issue occurred due to the expectation of one investor based on the normal trading behavior of other investors. The stock market simply works on the lines that there will perhaps be a priced to the share than an investor cannot say no to and eventually one has to lose or win. But here the WallstreetBets investors were refusing almost any price to it. In such situations, the other party has to only go through losses. What can perhaps be taken care of, is a better look at the market and opportunities since human behavior can perhaps be very unpredictable.

References

Burton, K. (2021). Citadel, Point72 Back Melvin With $2.75 Billion After Losses. Yahoo! Finance.

Eric, J. (2021). Users accuse Robinhood of automatically selling shares. Insider Paper.

Good, O. S. (2021). GameStop’s stock market explosion, explained. Polygon .

Kastrenakes, J. (2021). Robinhood denies claims that it sold GameStop shares out from under its traders. The Verge.

Mathur, C. (2021). Robinhood reportedly sells GameStop shares without permission from traders. NewsBytes.

TORBATI, D. M. (2021). Robinhood and Citadel’s relationship comes into focus as Washington vows to examine stock market moves. The Washington Post.

Wendling, M. (2021). QAnon: What is it and where did it come from? BBC News.

The post REDDIT v WALL STREET: THE GAMESTOP FIASCO, EXPLAINED! 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.

The Company’s shares began trading on the Tadawul stock exchange on 11 December 2019. The shares rose to 35.2 riyals, giving it a $1.88 trillion market capitalization, and reached the $2 trillion mark on the second day of trading.

Global Positioning

Being a major supplier of oil globally, the company holds a special value in the global supply market. Hence, disruptions in the production process or any other hindrance impacts the global economy as a whole. Saudi Aramco has been attacked twice in the last decade. The 2012 cyber-attack involved several computer systems of the company being hacked. Yet again in 2019, another event took place.

Saudi pipelines, oil installations, and tankers had occasionally been attacked over the past two years, but analysts say what happened in eastern Saudi Arabia in the early hours of Saturday morning is a much larger escalation: a hit to the jugular of the kingdom’s oil industry. At 3.31 am and 3.42 am on Saturday, loud explosions erupted at Khurais oilfield and Abqaiq processing facility, both owned by Saudi Aramco, the country’s state-owned oil company, often described as the kingdom’s crown jewel. The explosions set off fires that took several hours to douse and appear to have caused significant damage. Saudi oil ministry sources said the production had been disrupted by about 5m barrels a day – nearly half the kingdom’s estimated output of 9.7m barrels and 5% of global production.

Economic Implication

Saudi Aramco lost on its a huge portion of crude oil supplies due to the attacks. Eventually, the supply side of the oil market’s demand-supply mechanism changed. With limited oil refining and other activities, the supply decreased keeping the demand the same or slightly increased. These actions led to a new equilibrium where the prices of oil surged with a rise in the stock prices. Eventually, the stocks became overvalued shaking the financial markets with the soaring high prices of oil. The price of a Brent oil rose to almost $72 (£58, up from $60 an oil) by 20 percent early on Monday. That’s a massive jump — the biggest step since the 1980s contract was established.

It then fell down to around $66 a barrel after Donald Trump vowed to unleash some of America’s oil reserves, to make up for Saudi Arabia’s deficit. That’s a two-month record, 10 percent more than Friday night.  Higher oil prices have the potential to pull global growth. It pushes up transportation costs and petroleum-based goods prices. That fuels inflation, leaving less disposable income for consumers.

With appropriate measures and repairs, the oil supply was brought back to normal.

Impact of COVID & Price War with Russia on Oil Prices

With the advent of COVID-19, Saudi Aramco has faced another challenge with profits plunging more than 50% than expected in the first and second quarters. To understand the impact, we again need to consider the demand and supply mechanism. The major demand for oil is from the transportation sectors, business closures, domestic and international travel that kept on declining due to lockdown. This immensely declined the demand, shifting it inwards. A sharp decline in domestic consumption and a possible decline in new investments, declines in tourism and business travel, the spillover of weaker demand to other sectors and economies through trade and production linkages, supply-side disruptions to production and trade, and shifts in healthcare expenditure are just some of the channels through which the pandemic affects the demand side in the market.

Responding to this, Saudi Arabia decided to reduce the supply of oil so as to keep the prices at a moderate level. The proposal was although refused by the Russian’s and what followed was a price war. Saudi Arabia entered a price war with Russia on 8 March 2020, encouraging a 65 percent quarterly decline in oil prices. In the first few weeks of March, US oil prices plummeted by 34 percent, crude oil dropped by 26 percent, and Brent oil dropped by 24 percent. In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, the price war was caused by a break-up in the dialogue between the (OPEC) and Russia over potential cutbacks in oil supply. Russia walked out of the agreement and the OPEC alliance collapsed. Oil prices had already declined by 30% due to the reduced demand, but with the price war, the result came out to be a global stock market crash.

Saudi Arabia and Russia agreed to slash oil supply in early April 2020, and again in June 2020. On April 20, the price became negative. It should be noted that oil production can be slowed down but not totally halted, and even the lowest possible level of production resulted in higher supply than demand; those holding oil futures became willing to pay to offload contracts for oil they expected to be unable to store.

Current Scenario and Investment Prospects

Lockdowns were lifted in some of the countries including Saudi Arabia in June along with a set of instructions to be considered and followed. Thus Saudi Aramco has seen considerable growth after the oil price crash and managed to earn considerable profits but less than expected. As a result, Saudi Aramco has been reviewing its plans to expand at home and abroad in the face of sharply low oil prices and a heavy dividend burden.

One of the projects that are likely to face the axe or the pause button from the oil major may be its proposed investment in a $44 billion mega refinery project at Ratnagiri in Maharashtra. It is a 50:50 partnership between state-run Indian oil companies and Aramco. It would either exit the investment or would review it again once the market improves, putting it at a halt for the time being. However, Sources said Aramco has already made its stance known on refinery investments in China and a Texas, USA factory. It is also slowing on its planned investments in Pakistan. In India too, the privatization proposal for state-owned refiner BPCL has been delayed by three times so far, in the absence of any firm investment pledge from Saudi Aramco and other investors.

However, it is still working on the $15 billion stakes in Reliance Industries Ltd.’s refining and chemicals business, although lower oil prices are forcing it to slash investment spending. A deal with Reliance would help Aramco join the ranks of top oil refiners and chemical manufacturers. Aramco is already a major crude supplier to India while Reliance sells petroleum products to the kingdom, including gasoline.  The Reliance transaction will help Aramco achieve its target of more than doubling its refining capacity to between 8 million and 10 million barrels per day; At the end of last year, the Saudi corporation had a refining capacity of 3.6 million barrels per day, including wholly-owned plants and joint venture holdings. The gross capacity of the facilities with stakes in Aramco was 6.4 million barrels per day.

State oil company Saudi Aramco has discovered two new oil and gas fields in the northern regions, the kingdom’s energy minister said on Sunday, state news agency SPA reported. The fields haven’t been pinpointed as of now but are already producing oil, condensates, and gas. The two new fields have the potential to contribute to its non-hydrocarbon oil. The Kingdom has been striving for the same as an important aspect of its diversification efforts. A lot of the oil provided by Aramco is used locally for power production, and the business — and the government — are trying to minimize this by replacing gas oil. Moreover, this would also ensure that oil is freed up for exports, leading to an even better dominance over other nations as well.

Conclusion

The Saudi Arabian Oil Company plays an integral part in the world economy as a major supplier and producer of petroleum and its products, natural gas, and crude oil. Amongst many other companies and even countries, Aramco seems to have stabilized quite well considering the aftermath of several incidents that completely changed the market scenario. Moreover, Saudi Arabia relies heavily on its oil and petroleum industries as they are a major source of their income. Hence, how Aramco performs reflects directly on the country’s economy.

Despite the concerns regarding the oil market, analysts predicted that Aramco was better prepared to weather market volatility, owing to its size and scale, its low production cost, and solid free cash flow generation in a weak oil price environment. This is good news for its investment plan for Asia.

The post SAUDI ARAMCO AND ITS ECONOMIC PROSPECTIVE appeared first on WISER WORLD.

Background of the coup

Mali, a Francophone country, has not for the first time experienced an unconstitutional transition of power. The year 2012, has been a watershed moment in the country’s political history. The coup in 2012 led to the election of the just-deposed President Keita. Once in office, Keita’s true colors started to surface, and he was soon regarded as an ineffective leader, who had failed to provide the economic stability and physical security that the country needed. Mali’s almost decade long experience of political upheaval started with the coup in 2012, as it created a power vacuum, which was effectively exploited by Islamic fundamentalist groups, by aligning themselves with ethnic militias and capturing territories in the North of the country. The country’s civilian and military leadership have spent the better half of the decade keeping a check on rising Islamic tendencies. Unfortunately, the violence has only risen over the years, resulting in mounting casualties and forced internal and external displacement of people. 

The country has also noted a manifold increase in contentious activities, most common of them being protests in large cities. One of the immediate causes leading to a string of protests around the country was the decision by the constitutional court to overturn the provisional results of March’s legislative elections, which led to Keita’s party winning 10 more seats in Parliament. What is astonishing is that unlike coups, in general, the Junta seems to have the support of the country’s citizenry. Looking back at the last decade and the political and economic struggles that the people have endured, such a trend is to be expected. However, less enamoured by the coup is the United Nations that had 15,000 peacekeeping troops in the country, France which has about 5,000 military personals in the country, and the ECOWAS, which has taken drastic decisions to impose border restrictions and halt all financial and monetary dealings with the country. 

Effect on Peace and Security

Apart from the obvious domestic ramification that followed the recent transition of power in the country, one of the greatest concerns is regarding the future of peacekeeping operations in Mali. The country under the reign of Keita was home to several international troops from France, America and at the same time, transnational bodies such as the United Nations Peacekeeping force. In the case of France, the new developments offer a dilemma, whether the French government will find a favourable partner in the new Malian leadership or whether they will choose to conduct their operations independent of the Junta’s control and influence. However, what has got international actors and scholars worried about is America’s redefined role in Mali’s future. America has been the linchpin of all counter-insurgency operations in Mali. By law, the US is not supposed to provide military assistance in the form of aid and troops to any government formed as a result of a coup d’etat. This raises questions as to whether the superpower will cease all efforts to assist Mali, or will bypass its laws to ensure an end to rising Islamic fundamentalism. 

The greatest impact of the events that unfolded on the 18th of August has been on the G5 Sahel Joint Force, which is made up of troops from Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritius, and Niger. The member states are considering placing sanctions on Mali and following in the footsteps of the ECOWAS. The current situation has also made us reflect on the refugee situation. Mali houses close to 45000 refugees and has recorded an internal displacement of about 250000 citizens. How the country develops and strengthens its relationship with partner nations in Europe and Africa will be instrumental in deciding the manner in which Mali will deal with its vulnerable population. For European nations, Mali’s security and stability is important as it curtails refugee flows to the southern borders of the continent. However, no concrete decision can be taken until the provisional government highlights its plan for future engagement with countries. 

Conclusion and what is next in store for the country

As the clouds of uncertainty gather over the republic, there is an air of uncertainty. There is widespread disagreement, regarding the reinstatement of Keita as the head of state. His ineffective leadership skills have led many to believe that a move of the following nature, will only plunge the country into further chaos. However, of late many have pointed towards Mahmoud Dicko, the leader of the protests as the next in line to lead the country. His widespread support among the civilians and his far-reaching influence over the politics of the country have resulted in him being the de facto ‘kingmaker’. The military leadership that initiated the coup has highlighted its three-year plan to shift to democratic rule and have requested international stakeholders such as the United States and France to continue aiding the country through this difficult time. Countries find themselves in a moral dilemma, as to whether to help the African nation or not. Many have emphasized the point that it is in the best interests of nations to assist Mali, because the last time the country underwent an unconstitutional transition of power, it provided Islamic fundamentalists with a chance to sow the seeds of discord and instability. 

The post UNDERSTANDING MALI’S TRANSITION OF POWER 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.

Background of the Problem

The first warning signs of trouble were visible on the horizon when the banks decided to reduce the amount permitted per withdrawal, and the country experienced anti-government protests. Delving slightly deeper into the root cause of the trouble and studying the previous economic trends, we can trace back the problem to the government’s decision to make up for Lebanon’s lack of dollars due to the complete absence of export production, by accepting investments and deposits from wealthy investors. To attract greater investments, the government offered higher rates, whose yields could only be met with newer deposits. The following policy was dubbed as a  ‘State-Sponsored Ponzi- Scheme’. Seeing the unsustainable nature of the same, many investors started pulling out. This essentially plunged the nation into not only a severe shortage of dollars but also severely affected millions of citizens. The World Bank predicted the poverty increase from 30% to 50%, and at the same time, the Human Rights Watch advised the government to act swiftly, or else millions of Lebanese and the excess of one million Syrian and Palestinian refugees would face severe hunger at the time of the lockdown initiated to avoid the spread of the deadly virus.

How has the Economy Survived for so long?

While analyzing the reason for Lebanon’s economy surviving for so long, one happens to notice an economic tendency of depending mainly on foreign remittances. Lebanon’s economic policy can be seen as an amalgamation of migration and geopolitics. These sums of remittances coming into the country from Lebanon’s large immigrant population, provided the backbone for the country’s banks to lend to the government. As mentioned earlier, due to the unsustainable nature of these policies and an array of other reasons, the current inflows of funds have dried up drastically. These reductions have mainly been due to the declining oil prices and the Syrian War that has made Lebanon less attractive for investment purposes.

Internal Factors

We cannot turn Nelson’s eye towards internal factors when it comes to analyzing the current economic crisis. The country has some of the worst economic fundamentals in place. It is one of the most indebted nations, so much so that the total debt amounts to 155% of the Gross Domestic Product. Since the country lacks a strong export sector, it invariably imports more goods and services, as a result of which the budget deficit is set to reach 10% of the Gross Domestic Product. The banks rely on wealthy Lebanese to deposit their money in Beirut. However, the enormous interest rates earned by these depositors flow into very few pockets. It is estimated that around 1% of all accounts are said to hold roughly half of the total deposits. At the center of Lebanon’s unproductive economy are the banking and real estate sectors, which have led to a great amount of income inequality. Top 10% of Lebanese income earners captured 57% of the total incomes earlier in 2014, while the bottom 50% accounted for a mere 11% of the income.

Protests over the Economic Crises

The country and in particular the capital city of Beirut, experienced major protests regarding the surging cost of living, as a result of the worst economic crisis the country has faced since 1975-1990. The recent clashes that began with young men blocking trucks carrying produce to Syria, saw more than a hundred people getting injured as a result of the police’s decision to fire tear gas on the protesters. This action forced the crowd to retaliate by throwing stones and using firecrackers at the law enforcers. In Martyrs’ Square in Beirut, demonstrators dressed in black, with their faces whitened, carried a coffin draped with the Lebanese flag in a symbolic funeral of their country. The government has condemned the protests and the ensuing violence, terming the efforts as a ‘coup’. Protests spread to other corners of the country as well, with protestors coming together in cities such as Saida and Kfar Roummane, in the South.

Conclusion

In the absence of clear leadership for the protests and the large number of demands they encapsulate, it has become all the more difficult to respond to them. There seems to be no sign of a breakthrough in the ongoing difficulties the country is facing. Recent suggestions included the formation of a technocratic cabinet. The idea, however, did not gain momentum, as the suggestion failed to gain support both of the political elite and the common citizens. Financial support from countries such as the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar may be extremely instrumental in pulling Lebanon out of the crisis. With no alternative political leadership or real opposition to the ruling party, protests are said to continue at the current pace and the country may be in for a prolonged period of unrest. 

The post LEBANON ECONOMIC CRISIS – EXPLAINED! appeared first on WISER WORLD.

Relations Post COVID Pandemic

The ongoing pandemic has created a time of uncertainty, but one certain thing is that once the pandemic ends, there will be an air of distrust in the global market towards China, and their economic, as well as political prowess, will take a hit. This is seen as an advantage for India and a favourable condition for the USA in a cold conflict which has been going on for the better part of the last two years. This has been fueled further by Donald Trump who has continuously referred to COVID as the ‘Chinese Virus’ in his official briefings.  Trump has been asking his allies within Europe to take a similar stance of blaming China for the health and economic distress. India has played the ball with caution and not followed suit by joining America’s call for blaming the situation fully on to China. Rather, India had been in close contact with health officials from both China and the USA during the early stages of the pandemic. This aligned with India’s long-existing value of international cooperation.  Nonetheless, some things need to be kept in mind when India will be forming their policy about the two countries after the pandemic ends, or possibly slows down. First of all, one needs to expect that the relationship between China and the USA will remain sour. This comes from a simple deduction that China has ambitions that go far beyond India, Russia or South Asia for that matter. China is trying to take up the position of a superpower in the international community as is understood by the international community. Further, the USA has already noticed this ambition and has been trying to keep it in check. Whether it is in the form of a trade war or simple political jargon, the USA is trying to retaliate. India, in this scenario, needs to keep its patience. There is no doubt that India has economic interests in both countries, but it will not be hard to argue that India tends to side with America, when it comes to making a choice between the two. An important aspect of post-COVID relations is the economy. For now, we see that China has already started recovering from the pandemic in economic terms as China has started recovering the losses it incurred during the early months of the pandemic. The same cannot be said about India or even the USA. Even though it is clear that the two countries are still going through the pandemic and have not reached their respective peaks, the current signs show that it won’t be soon that they start to recover economically. As Modi has always claimed that the purpose of foreign policy will be to achieve economic prowess, it can be argued that India needs to make use of its foreign policy to economically recover from COVID. A point for worrying is that India will not be able to compete with China in terms of economic recovery on its own because of the simple lack of skill labour capacity. China’s labour socialism has developed labour skill at a level which India, at this point cannot compare with, statistically speaking. Global economists agree that national labour capacity will be the key for recovery post COVID. Even though Modi’s use of the term ‘Atma-Nirbhar’ may be good for showing a certain national self-dependence, on the ground, India cannot compare with China. Similarly, the USA is in a stronger position in terms of labour capital than India, but it is too early to judge that against China. On the other hand, various international politics scholars also believe that India’s bargaining power will increase in a more than likely limited cold war between USA and China, post-COVID. This stems from the simple fact that India has a huge consumer market in which both countries would want to invest in. Therefore, India needs to make use of its market. Lastly, in a post COVID world, India needs to focus on the global flow of labour and capital, with its established strategic partners in Europe, Middle East and South-East Asia. The USA might not be as equally dependent but they too will need to foreign cooperation. A few days back PM Modi invited American investment in India and that is a positive move. Since India has been trying to move away from China, in terms of economic dependence at least, Modi makes the right move by inviting increased cooperation and investment from America.

Defence Alliances Post the Galwan Clash

The ‘Boycott China’ movement of Indians may reflect that Indians might want to move towards self-dependence but such transformation is to be considered as a long term solution. The crux remains that India needs to maintain its economic relation with China as long as it practically can. If things boil beyond control, India needs to think of an economic plan while at the same time it thinks about its border measures.

Conclusion

India, China and the USA will become a much more interesting international dynamic in the coming years with China’s growing ambition. Nonetheless, India’s priority has to be to economically recover from COVID. Improving economic ties with the West is the clear cut answer to that along with an increased focus on entrepreneurial self-dependence. Moving on, a closer defensive relation with the US also seems to be the way ahead, without severing economic ties with China, for as long as possible. India needs to be more vigilant on the border if it doesn’t want to be walked over by China again. Such strategic partnerships will help India to grow economically, as well as maintain its existing influence over South Asia and possibly expand upon it, in the years to come.

The post INDIA, USA AND CHINA: A COMPLICATED TRIAD appeared first on WISER WORLD.

The US-China Dispute

The Red Dragon and Uncle Sam have a lengthy history of being at loggerheads. The US initially refused to recognise China as a sovereign state and indulged in many ministrations to displace the latter’s communist roots.  It was only in the 1970s that diplomatic relations took flight with the US acceptance of One China Policy. Still, their relations were fraught with friction, especially over human rights. When China entered the world economy and began opening up its economy, its engagement enhanced, with China going on to become America’s largest trading partner. With a few hiccups, the relationship seemed to be aiming for cooperation. However, it all radically changed in 2018 when the Trump government’s tariffs targetted China, setting off a vicious trade war that is still ongoing. What started out as a trade dispute couple of years ago has now turned into a full-blown show of might, branching into other areas as well.

In late 2018, the US signaled its hardline approach towards the eastern giant. The Huawei issue only intensified the same, and the US has done everything in its power to kick the Chinese MNC out of the 5G race on charges of spying. By 2019, the trade war had intensified, with both countries levying hefty tariffs on the other, and placing various other sanctions as well. Early 2020 saw the signing of a trade deal which provided a brief breather for the economic world, but the respite period remained short. The onset of the Covid-19 pandemic sent the global economy tumbling. America faced multi-faceted effects: its capitalist system suffered a downfall and the health system was brought to its knees. This tension had the hegemon accusing China of mismanaging the pandemic and causing harm to the world, eventually pulling out of WHO due to the latter’s support of China. China obviously, did not take the accusations well. But it was the new security law imposed in Hong Kong that proved to be the last nail in the coffin. Trump went on to strip the city of its special status, reducing its credibility as a world economic and financial hub. China accused America of interfering in its domestic affairs, and everything has been downhill since.

The Asian Playground

Due to the deterrence that comes with two giants battling each other, the countries are unlikely to engage in an all-out war, even if relations have diminished to a new low. Their historical animosity played out in the Asian region much like the proxy wars that dominated the global landscape during the Cold War. Both nations have tried to expand the ambit of their influence by espousing Asia-centric policies. Obama’s presidency saw a more active role in the region coupled with an enhanced military presence. China on the other hand relies on its geo-economic power to bind Asia to it. The Belt and Road initiative, the String of Pearls approach, ADB Bank and increasing economic investment promises financial advancement for the region. South Asia in one of the most populous regions in the world, yet intra-regional trade is quite fragmented (just 5%), which reduces the economic benefits it can reap. Thus China’s meteoric economic rise has proved to be a fundamental driver of economic growth. 

US security cover coupled with economic benefits from China has helped in the advancement of many countries, resulting in the expectation that Southeast Asia will become the fourth-largest economy in the world, overtaking the European Union and Japan by 2050. Therefore for Southeast Asian nations, especially the ASEAN market is a key area for both America and China. The US is now frantically looking to shift Asian loyalties to its side as it perceives the rising Chinese aggression and economic strength as a threat.  That is why it has taken a strong position against China’s assertions in the South China Sea and has tried to play on the insecurities of the latter’s neighbours regarding the same. This ‘harbinger of justice’ role has helped the nation gain influence in the region, which was a difficult task because of China’s proximity to it. America is also banking on its military and technological investment to gain the region’s unequivocal support. 

Since the beginning of the Sino-American trade war, Southeast Asia has been an undisputed winner on account of the benefits it is reaping. The high American tariffs on Chinese goods have led to a shift in manufacturing processes to the region. In 2019 Chinese acoustics manufacturer Goertek announced that it will shift its Apple’s Airpods wireless headphones production to Vietnam because of the ongoing trade dispute. Similarly, Cambodia has bagged bicycle production for a high-value US firm, and Thailand has become a hub of vehicle assembly plants. According to Forbes, a survey of U.S. firms manufacturing in China found that 18.5% had either moved production to Southeast Asia or were considering it.

Usually, ASEAN countries have been able to maintain a delicate balance between American geopolitics and Chinese geo-economics. But as both countries increase the heat, it is difficult to predict if the future will force the region to choose sides. For now, Southeast Asia is having a good ride!

The Indian Factor

India has been facing a sudden increase in tensions with China too. The border dispute has led to a fresh impasse, the first one since Doklam. But this time the costs have been higher, with multiple skirmishes and martyred soldiers lining the situation. In response, India, akin to America, has tried to economically isolate China by banning 59 Chinese apps and making calls for being ‘Aatmanirbhar’. But it is easier said than done, for the mammoth amount of trade between the two is skewed in China’s favour. Some would think it is natural for India to lean on the US, especially in view of the latter’s vocal support of India in the afore-mentioned border dispute. It is to an extent true too: India has gained around $755 million in US exports since the trade war disrupted relations. India is also the only country capable of countering China’s influence in a disintegrated Asia. It also has a large youthful population capable of rapid mass production which it could use to its advantage in view of the trade war. 

But the path is not as smooth as it looks. There are multiple factors that weigh India down as compared to Southeast Asia when it comes to being business-savvy. The country has a massive supply of cheap labour but lags glaringly in other areas. Poor infrastructure to accommodate foreign production, inadequate technology, complicated labour laws and red-tapism of a sloth-like bureaucracy have tainted the country’s hopes of attracting foreign investment. That is why despite improving its Ease of Doing Business rankings by 37 places, it still is only the ninth-largest trading partner of the USA. Its tedious land-acquisition laws coupled with hostile neighbourhoods have not done much to attract investors. In addition to this, India’s decision to not be a part of the trade agreement with ASEAN called Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) has put it on the back foot. It passed up on a chance to economically seal the deal with the fastest growing economic region and its markets.

In view of these shortcomings, Southeast Asia proves to be a better region to direct investments to. In fact, India is not extremely affected by the trade war as it has not gained much from it. 

Conclusion

The United States of America and China are the two hegemons that balance the current multi-polar world. This grandiosity of sorts, coupled with their mutual interdependence in terms of trade and technology makes it difficult for them to inflict real-time damage on each other, or indulge in an all-out confrontation. That being said, the current animosity between the two is different from their usual spats. In this pandemic-riddled world their tensions have been aggravated by blame-game, allegations of spying, erosion of Hong Kong’s democratic rights and of course, the rejuvenated trade-war. Many Asian countries have benefitted from this fallout and gained increased investment from the US and more come-hither offers by China. It is now to see how their balancing act will progress. However, India has a long way to trudge before it can fully reap the benefits of the clash and needs to work on its internal infrastructure and policies to attract any advantages.

The post THE SOUTHEAST ASIAN BALANCING ACT 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.