<img src="https://discussion.policharcha.in/1614953193426" alt="History of Myanmar: Transformation from Military rule to Disciplined Democracy." style="float:none;height: auto;width: auto"/>

The military once again hold the reins in Myanmar. Citing constitutional provisions that give the military control in national emergencies, on February 1, army officers had detained government leaders, including state counsellor and popular national leader Aung San Suu Kyi. An announcement on military television said the move was in response to “fraud” during last year’s general election. A spokesman said power has been handed to the army’s commander-in-chief, General Min Aung Hlaing, who would hold power for one year, and after which there would be new elections.
<a href="https://policharcha.com/article/internationalrelations/3d515a59-a107-451d-8e0d-8806375eaba6/india-needs-to-be-cautious-about-china-while-dealing-with-myanmar" target="_blank">Why this event has become a geopolitical issue worth creating instability in the South Asian region? </a> Is it the debate all about military rule being ‘bad’ and democracy ‘good’? China termed the coup as ‘cabinet reshuffle’, while Biden’s statement took us back to the debate between military regimes and democracy (in American terms).
<ins>West Imposition?</ins>
President’s Biden first response in the aftermath of coup in Myanmar displays US’ historic desperation to impose, rather than peacefully propagate democracy on every nation-state present on the world map. He announced that he will sanction Myanmar’s military leaders for staging a coup in South Asian country, and said “we are going to impose strong exports controls. We are freezing US assets that benefit the Burmese government, while maintaining our support for health care, civil society groups, and other areas that benefit the people of Burma directly.”
Throughout the western world, but particularly and most obviously in the United States, political rhetoric and practice are based upon four seemingly unexceptionable propositions:
<ol>
<li>Democracy is an intrinsically good thing.</li>
<li>It has the truest democracy.</li>
<li>It is morally legitimate to impose democracy on others.</li>
<li>It can effectively do so.</li>
</ol>
What are these above mentioned propositions denote or try to convey to the world? Democracy is inherently good, but is US entitled to impose it on others? Or perhaps US thinks itself to be the truest democracy, so it has some right to dictate it to others?

Also read: <a href="https://policharcha.com/article/nation/203170c0-7305-4852-99d5-91fe035d8189/breakdown-of-preamble-of-indian-constitution-meaning-of-democracy" target="_blank">Meaning of democracy in Indian context</a>&nbsp;

United States assumes that it represents the apotheosis of democracy when it has some basic flaws in its democratic system – citizens of the United States do not directly elect their head of the State, meaning it does not have a direct mandate of the majority; resources required to run for office effectively disbar the majority from a political career as politics is a costly business; media and corporate interests, biases, propagandas control the electoral process and outcome in American politics to a very large extent. Apparently, these conclusions stand far away from any plausible notion of rule by the people and for the people.
Democracy is a polymorphous concept which may take numerous forms and in each case be equally a bona fide instance of democracy just like gardening or teaching. Gallie (1955) long ago termed democracy as “equally contested” concept, and what constitutes a true democracy is forever open to argument.
There are no prior grounds for assuming that the particular form of democracy that takes place in the United States (or anywhere else) is ‘truer than’, ‘more democratic than’, or ‘superior to’ various other forms that it has taken historically or takes today in other places.&nbsp;
Does it mean democracy is an abstract concept floating around the world since the Athenian democratic city-state in ancient times, and since the establishment of American constitution, or with the end of French revolution in modern times?
Do nation-states politically democratised just to go with the flow because western nations adopted it? Or the economically powerful, the so-called first world, give these nation-states a chance to enter into the club?
Obviously No! There is a minimal descriptive content that sets limits on what can count as democracy, but countries like US still vouch for it, and sometimes even go to war to establish this political system.
More or less ‘democracy’ means ‘government by the people or by their elected representatives, who are accountable for their actions’. This assertion is contrasted with a government led by either an individual ruler or a minority group which in either case is not answerable to the people as a whole. It is an assumption that individual leader does not or inadequately represent the whole population, violate the rights of one community for others, curtail basic human rights to remain in the power, is not regularly accountable to public, and influences the state’s institutions maliciously.
These assumptions are arrived from historical examples in reality, and not just the perception of reality, but believing that a political system of one-man rule equates to a military regime, and one such example is Myanmar, or what US still calls, Burma.
<ins>Military Regime</ins>

<img src="https://discussion.policharcha.in/1614953862669" alt="History of Myanmar: Transformation from Military rule to Disciplined Democracy." style="float:none;height: auto;width: auto"/>

Military regime, in layman terms, defined as a ‘system of government governed by the military’, is a form of authoritarian rule, but is distinguished from both democracy, and other forms of authoritarianism.
Robert Dahl’s concept of polyarchy has suggested the “procedural minimum” definition of democracy which includes four key attributes – free, fair, and competitive elections, full adult suffrage, broad protection of civil liberties (freedom of speech, press and association), and the absence of non-elected “tutelary authorities” that limit the governing power of elected officials.
The political system in which militaries wield the “tutelary powers” or “reserved domains”, but still accept the democratic game can be articulated to be a “tutelary democracy”. It is a system in which no channel exist for oppositional forces to legally contest for executive power. A closed authoritarian regime evolves where democratic institutions does not exist. A hegemonic regime pertains to a system in which formal democratic institutions exist on paper, but are nothing more than a façade, and that is the category in which military regimes falls.&nbsp;
The military regimes can be distinguished on the basis of the level of intervention. In the direct military regime, military forms the government while in the quasi-civilian regimes, military holds political hegemony with a civilian window dressing.
According to Nordlinger, the extent of power of the armed forces, and their political &amp; economic goals define the level of military intervention. He distinguishes three ideal types of military rule.
<ul>
<li>Rulers – Military dominate the regime, control large segments of political and economic aspects of society, and it “intend to bring basic changes in the distribution of power by eliminating all existing power centres”</li>
<li>Guardians – Military control the government from backstage, and informally holds the governmental powers.</li>
<li>Moderators – Military does not hold important offices leaving them to civilian politicians, but maintains veto power over certain policies.&nbsp;</li>
</ul>
The longevity of military rule in Myanmar is a function of regime’s preparedness to use lethal force against its opponents with total impunity, and regime’s assiduousness in rewarding its supporters along with its tight control over the economy to grant military and other elites some concessions against its own labyrinthine restrictions and rules on economic activity.
<ins>Myanmar and Tatmadaw</ins>
The Burmese army, established in 1942, also known as Tatmadaw preceded the existence of an independent state. Army became politicised during the freedom struggle against colonisers, becoming a liberating force. It could retrospectively assume the role of guardian of the Burmese state, and bulwark of national independence.
After the departure of Britishers in 1948, Burma was established as a democratic State according to its constitution, but Tatmadaw got deeply involved into civil politics. Even after accepting supremacy of a civilian government, army gradually expanded its political role. The outbreak of ethnic, secessionist, and communist rebellion triggered the institutional modernisation of the armed forces leading to the increased assertiveness of the Burmese military which out-paced the capacities of civilian arm of the government. The military took over the administrative functions, and acquired the significant chunk from national budget (one-third to half) to save the Burma from going through the process of Balkanization.&nbsp;
Late 50s witnessed the turbulent times for politics of Burma when factionalism increased within the ruling Anti-Fascist Peoples Freedom League (AFPFL). This subsequently led to a split in the party creating instability in the parliamentary system.
General Ne Win urged the civilian government of Prime Minister U Nu to temporarily transfer power to the armed forces which acted as a “Caretaker Government” from 1958 to 1960. This also developed praetorian ethos in the officer corps grounded in the belief that military functions is more effective than its civilian counterparts.
The military brought out some changes at the organisational, operational, and ideological level. It adopted new ideology which defined the role of military in broad national security terms as being responsible for the defence of the national objectives of establishing “peace and the rule of law”, “democracy”, and “socialist economy”. This prepared the groundwork for the “new professionalism” of the Burmese military. It expanded its business activities into the banking sector, construction industry, and fishing, and became the most powerful business organisation in the country.
The “Caretaker Government” handed back the power in February 1960 to the then Prime Minister U Nu, but this honeymoon period did not last long as General Ne Win staged the first Coup d'état in the history of Burma, bringing together high-ranking army officers, and eliminating their civilian counterparts once and for all.
The military was “compelled” to intervene to safeguard the nation from secessionist forces trying to disintegrate the country. Democracy allows dissent to freely propagate, looking for peaceful resolution through dialogue and deliberation, whereas the military rule do not allow this process called “democratic”.
U Nu’s decision to make Buddhism the state religion, calls by ethnic groups for greater autonomy, and secession from the union had laid the groundwork for the intervention of the military to save the country from disintegration.
After ’62, military prevented the emergence of any autonomous centres of influence through the means which termed as ‘un-democratic’. By the same means which shaped the perception that military juntas are malicious to the society, and cannot support the people’s will.
This disadvantage of military regimes, give countries like US the chance or perhaps an excuse to intervene in any country in the name of establishing democracy, or to impose sanctions if the country do not comply to democratic values.
General Ne Win formed a Revolutionary Council, abolished the 1947 constitutions, dissolved parliament, and banned all political parties to name a few “means”. The military regime nationalised the economy under the banner of the “Burmese way of Socialism”, and cut all ties to the outside world. It had also set up its own Leninist party called the Burmese Socialist Programme Party (BSPP), which ran the country unchallenged for over 25 years.&nbsp;
Military regimes thrive on repression; any unbiased examination of military regimes in any country can lead to this conclusion. It is more or less a consistent reality. Myanmar military regime was also no different which has remained in place with the readiness to swiftly and brutally supress dissent.
The coup that installed the military, for the first time, was no doubt relatively a bloodless affair as military cited national security danger, but in the intervening year the regime was quick to put down challenges to its rule with violence. Such suppression has existed as a routine part of everyday life, manifested in an all-pervasive surveillance apparatus.
As of April 2011, Human rights watch reported that there were over 20,000 political prisoners in Myanmar; most of them have been incarcerated and given lengthy sentences under biased legal proceedings and are frequently subjected to torture. Outside of the prisons, the people of Myanmar face limits to their freedom of movement, both domestically and internationally.
Meanwhile, the flow of information is greatly restricted. The press is subject to tight censorship, and the country's perfunctory education system is little more than a vehicle of indoctrination for the military's interpretation of Myanmar’s history. Myanmar's universities were broken up long ago, and their faculties were geographically dispersed to prevent student concentration and activism.
1988 events of widespread uprisings when many thousands of demonstrators were killed or imprisoned or fled the country after Military came hard-handily to suppress the dissent. The events revealed one of the most dangerous faces of military regimes through the episodes of state-sponsored military violence against its own dissenting citizens.
UIS’ (UNESCO Institute for Statistics) data centre suggested that Myanmar’s state spending on education was the lowest in the world in 2000 with a little more than 0.57 per cent of GDP. This showcased another characteristic of military regimes which democratic countries accuse them of.&nbsp;
The military returned to civilian rule only after it succeeded in designing a political system that safeguarded its own core interests. The political changes fell short of a genuine democratic transition, since the military remains fully in control of the political system after having successfully manipulated the 2010 elections. Additionally, it has managed to orchestrate this transition process at every single stage. The military has continuously restricted political space so that oppositional forces have virtually no room to manoeuvre.
<ins>Disciplined Democracy</ins>
Officially announced in the late 2003 by General Khin Nyunt, the military’s roadmap to “disciplined democracy” envisioned the installation of a new political system step by step. Beginning with the reconvening the National Convention to finalise the Constitution’s basic principles which were introduced at the 1993 National Convention. Like the first National Convention (1993–1996), the second was “marred by a lack of inclusiveness, heavy restrictions on public debate, and little input by the participants into the final product”, including the two main opposition parties – the NLD and the Shan National League for Democracy (SNLD).
The new constitution enshrined military control, codified the military’s leading role in the participation of the state which was finalised in February 2008, and was formally approved by the national referendum – apparently a highly manipulative one.
Although it established a multiparty democracy allowing for elections for national and regional assemblies, the military still maintained the dominant role in the years to come. Of all regional and national parliament seats, 25 per cent are reserved for the military, and security-related ministries like, defence, border affairs, and home affairs were also bagged by the military.
Military controls the whole security related matters, and is a fully autonomous organisation which is neither subjected to judicial and legislative control, nor accountable for its actions, both publically and judicially.
The transition to “disciplined democracy” has also been accompanied by a wave of privatisation measures where 271 state-owned companies have reportedly been sold to former head of the state, Than Shwe’s closest cronies such as Thay Zar, Zaw Zar, and Chit Khaing, the Myanmar Times reported. While the military conglomerates have got weakened in this process, Than Shwe’s informal influence has been consolidated.
Altogether, the influence of the military conglomerates in the economy remains considerable. The generals’ transition ensured a return to civilian rule without relinquishing the de facto military control of the government. The military would still remain the arbiter of power in the country, though it has created new political institutions that might develop some autonomy of their own in the future.
Even before the latest coup, the military’s withdrawal from power did not mean a retreat into the barracks, but rather a further institutionalisation of military control. The military has managed to establish a competitive authoritarian regime, in which it remained the arbiter of power.

History of Myanmar: Transformation from Military rule to Disciplined Democracy

<img src="https://discussion.policharcha.in/1613568906958" alt="China’s misadventure in the region called Central and Eastern Europe. CEE, CEEC, 17+1." style="float:none;height: auto;width: auto"/>
For the first time, Chinese Communist Party premier, Xi Jinping has chaired the virtual meeting of 17+1 Summit between Central &amp; Eastern European (CEE) countries and China, instead of his distant number two, Li Keqiang.
Chinese state media called it a “pioneering feat of great power diplomacy with Chinese characteristics”, but facts suggest otherwise. Long-delayed summit, growing division among CEE nations on Beijing’s increasing malicious geo-political activities, and frustrated CEE nations over China’s shallow promises on trade and investment are some of the instances showcasing that countries are losing confidence in China.
CEE group is facing ‘Promise fatigue’ from China on the accounts of unlevelled business playing field, and China not coming to keep up with its promises. EU claims that China may be implementing divide et impera – divide and rule – policy toward the EU through its investments in CEE nations. 12 EU nations are also a part of 17+1.
This year the summit witnessed absence from the head of states of six countries, namely Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, and Slovenia in the state-level summit which was graced by Xi himself. These countries decided to send ministers instead.
The recent 17+1 summit can be seen as a clear setback for China, which commenced with high hopes to economically develop the less-developed region of Europe against their advanced western neighbours.
Almost ten years and one pandemic later, the scholars are claiming that this region will again be the battlefield for new Cold War with the mere difference of leading countries involved. The growing scepticism towards China in CEE countries is not the entirely the result of sudden rise of expansionist China, but of failing infrastructure projects one after another in the region, China’s unkept investment promises, and the Russia factor.
This episode of another China-CEE failing relationship highlights a widening split taking place in Central and Eastern Europe where many countries have a soberer assessment of engagement with China, and are carefully positioning themselves between Beijing and Washington amid the deepening rivalry.
<ins>What is 17+1?</ins>
China-CEE or China-CEEC (Cooperation between China and Central and Eastern European Countries) is an initiative by the CCP to stimulate trade and investment relations between China and 17 countries of CEE which are Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia and Slovenia.
The format of 17+1 (previously 16+1) mechanism was proposed almost 10 years ago, and was received with lot of enthusiasm &amp; hope on both the sides. China, which became the world’s largest manufacturer and second largest economy, aspired to be a great power which wanted to inject capital in the CEE region to build infrastructure, revive old factories, invest in human resources, and local projects that western investors tend to overlook.
This narrative created the competition among fellow countries to become the “China’s gateway to Europe” which paved the way for China–CEE summits. The Prime Minister-level summit aimed to fill a gap of cooperation aimed to facilitate the flow of investments and trade for the economic development of CEE nations along with establishing strategic partnership between China and regional countries was inaugurated in Poland in 2012.
China always promotes bookish definition about the 17+1 concept which seems like music whenever it falls on ears, but never has articulated its purpose. The loose and undefined concepts regarding the mechanism created numerous perspectives about the ‘purpose’.
For US, 17+1 mechanism was China’s new weapon to influence geopolitics of Central and Eastern European region through proposing lofty infrastructure projects, and using its soft &amp; hard power, together called as “Smart Power”, a term proposed by former US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton. For EU, 17+1 mechanism is formed to divide the union.
Therefore, both EU and US view the mechanism as a strategic intrusion of China into united Europe which pose serious security threats to region’s countries and their national interests. Suspicion approves when countries like Greece and Hungary, receiver of most China’s investments, have been blocking unfavourable EU resolutions on the China subject from past few years, causing fear inside EU that more countries will follow the suit.
On the contrary to above perspectives, it is just an annual summit featuring a plethora of unfulfilled promises and projects.
The CEE countries were in dire need of infrastructure and investments, and China’s intentions with 17+1 mechanism was to create an economic corridor between the China and CEE countries which would develop the region, facilitate China’s presence in the Europe and, and strengthen its bilateral connections, but China failed in juggling expectations and achievements.
The majority of Chinese investments were pouring only in six countries diplomatically close to China, namely Poland, Czech, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria. This created a huge imbalance among 17 CEE countries.
Thus, the initial years of optimism changed into growing scepticism when the reality of mechanism uncovered. All those hopeful and appealing years of promises, proposals, and headlines returned back to haunt Beijing when the other countries acknowledged that investments were not arriving consistently. Discontent towards Chinese companies and regime is growing rapidly.
Chinese companies have been criticised for financing projects using Chinese loans, and employing a predominantly Chinese workforce. This causes fears about the emergence of “debt trap” policy in Europe.
<ins>Case of Serbia, Hungary, and Romania</ins>
Labelled as “Chinese highway to nowhere”, Montenegro’s European Motorway XI links the Port of Bar with Serbia, which became the first victim of debt-trap increasing its debt-to-GDP ratio to 80 percent.
Serbia, which is one of the Chinese pillars in the 17+1 community, received a series of investments in infrastructure, industry, and energy sector. Railroad between Budapest and Belgrade proved to be a landmark for 17+1. Zemun-Borca Bridge, also known as the Pupin Bridge, was constructed by China Road and Bridge Corporation, and was inaugurated by Chinese Premier Li Keqiang in 2014. The bridge was nicknamed as the ‘Friendship Bridge’ was China’s biggest investment of 260 million Euros in Europe on one project.
The project characterised China’s modus operandi regarding its investment abroad – heavy loan from a Chinese bank, a workforce which is at least half Chinese, and full involvement of Chinese companies in construction.
In energy sector, Kostolac Thermal Power Plant Station and the Smederevo Steel Plant received the Chinese investments.&nbsp;
Hungary is well-known for its traditional friendship with China which facilitated such investments in the form of Budapest-Belgrade railway, and the Huawei European Supply Center.
Although Hungary has not received much foreign direct investment (FDI) from China, it boasts a lot of 'firsts' as it is the first European country to sign an intergovernmental cooperation document with China on jointly promoting the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The first to set up a BRI working group with China, as well as the first CEE country to establish a Renminbi (RMB) clearing bank, and issue bonds in RMB.
It is also the first CEE country to host an official agency of the Tourism Authority of China, and the first European country to implement bilingual education in Hungarian and Chinese.&nbsp;
Romania was also supposed to receive an important amount of Chinese investments, but nearly all of them are stuck in negotiation or have been cancelled. The Cernavodă Nuclear Power Plant, the Rovinari Thermal Power Plant, and the Tarnita-Lapuşteşti Hydroelectric Power Plant are the three most important Chinese projects, two of which are still under negotiation. The only big Chinese investment in Romania is the Huawei Regional Support Center.
China lacked a long-term strategy for developing the CEE countries. China treated all the 17 countries as one unit – which they are definitely not – like the European single market, and considered them as monolith. It did not acknowledge their diversity of visions, policies, perspectives, or backgrounds because China entered into not-so-economically viable region to eventually just gain influence geopolitically. China’s aim was to stretch its muscles of money power to gain leverage against US in the ‘great game’.
<ins>The Russian Factor</ins>
China ignored the ‘Russian Factor’ as mostly all the countries in the CEE region have a communist past under the shadow of USSR, especially those on the eastern flank. From the security perspective, these countries fear Russia, especially after Moscow annexed Crimea back in 2014, which makes them prone to side with the United States.
Many countries did not even know the proper intentions of China regarding the 17+1 mechanism, and Beijing kept everyone in dark about the ‘purpose’ as mentioned above. Lack of communication about the goals created panic among members as the trade-war took off.
China’s malicious activities in the region, and the subsequent pandemic made 17+1 economically dead. Beijing also tried to inject with its “Vaccine diplomacy”. China simply failed to deliver on its economic, investment, and trade promises which made the 17+1 attractive in the first place, but Beijing did not whole-heartedly address this problem which increased the disappointment towards China in CEE countries.&nbsp;
When launched in 2012, the 17+1 mechanism was regarded as a Chinese tool to facilitate its access to the EU market. Over time, because the mechanism has failed to bring about promised outcomes, even China’s closest CEE friends have begun to rethink their relationship with China and the United States.
The changing perspectives of some 17+1 members may assuage the EU’s concern about China attempting to divide the Union as China seems to become less important for the CEE region. At the same time, the EU is in the process of changing its voting system regarding foreign policy decisions.
If there were a New Cold War between China and the United States, many EU countries from the CEE region might take a different position. This got demonstrated when many CEE countries allied on the US’ ‘Clean Network program’ with respect to the cyber policy to safeguard the privacy and data that could compromise national security against Chinese telecommunication giant, Huawei (on its 5G global rollout).
Tensions between China and the United States will continue to deepen even if they manage to reach a trade deal in future, owing to their competing geopolitical interests. Under the US global campaign, Huawei’s technology has become central to the concern of a potential “digital iron curtain”.
China is stuck in the middle of geopolitical and military tensions between US and Russia in the region which used to known as “other side of iron curtain” which today perceive Russia as a common threat. Economic prosperity will never be prioritised over survival and security of the State in the international system, as Liberalist seems to propound, and China’s failed adventure in CEE region making prospects where countries will cut tie from Beijing.

China’s misadventure in the region called Central and Eastern Europe

<img src="https://discussion.policharcha.in/1612959127830" alt="Biden’s chance to stabilise US-Iran relations post Trump-Era. Iran Nuclear deal and JCPOA" style="float:none;height: auto;width: auto"/>

After the turbulent four years of American foreign policy under Trump administration with high level of unpredictability that created havoc in the world politics, US President Biden has pledged to reverse several of the previous administration’s decisions, beginning with the Iran Nuclear Deal, popularly known as Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
Not only Trump’s foreign policy, but also domestic policies were guided by Trumpism – a new theoretical ideology denoting Trump’s idiosyncratic actions without realising their detrimental effects. This mind-set forced the political scholars to denote the four years of trump in White House as Trump-Era, indicating that these four years caused as much damage to America’s foreign policy as it did to the established world order.
The unilateral withdrawal by former President Trump from JCPOA strained the already terrible relations between Iran and US, therefore, Biden’s path to restore the Obama-period nuclear deal would be extremely difficult.
President Biden is eyeing an urgent restoration of the Iran Nuclear Deal, while US’s new National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan has suggested that a faster timeline than the administration has previously outlined is being framed.
“We are going to have to address Iran’s other bad behaviour, malign behaviour, across the region, but from our perspective, a critical early priority has to be to deal with what is an escalating nuclear crisis as they move closer and closer to having enough fissile material for a weapon,” Sullivan said. “And we would like to make sure that we re-establish some of the parameters and constraints around the program that have fallen away over the course of the past two years,” he added.
<ins>What is JCPOA? A brief history</ins>
After the intensive and lengthy diplomatic talks for years amidst the continuous animosity between Iran and the western countries, at dawn of July 14, 2015 a news broke which everybody on either side of hemisphere were hoping. Final details of the JCPOA or Iran N-deal were finalised. The accord was notable in the history of nuclear proliferation, and the deal was considered an agreement that could change the dynamics in the Middle East.
It provided hope to citizens of the world that differences can only be resolved through diplomacy, and not by wars. One such citizen was Iran’s Foreign Minister Javed Zarif who had tweeted back in 2015, “#IranDeal is not a ceiling, but a solid foundation. We must now begin to build on it.”&nbsp;
The Iran nuclear agreement, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), is a landmark accord reached between Iran and five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), along with Germany – collectively known as P5 + 1.
It had gone into effect in January 2016, and imposed restrictions on Iran’s civilian nuclear enrichment program. During the regime of former monarch Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Iran had committed to forgo the development of nuclear weapons, and even signed the Non-proliferation Treaty sponsored by Nixon administration.&nbsp;
Though after the overthrow of Reza Shah Regime, which was an ally of US in the Middle East as per the Baghdad Pact, and the subsequent 1979 Islamic revolution, which established Ruhollah Kheominei’s Islamic clergy regime, the leaders of Iran who were hard-liners against US and western powers on the ideological basis tried to secretly pursue the nuclear technology.
Under JCPOA terms, Iran agreed to dismantle much of its nuclear program, and open its facilities to more extensive international inspections in exchange for billions of dollars’ worth of sanctions relief. Iran has suffered from a dizzying and complex set of international economic sanctions as punishment for its nuclear development by the western powers prior to the deal. The deal in the nutshell was that the sanctions would be lifted in exchange for the tight restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program. The provisions of the deal formed as such that it would make functionally impossible for Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon till the accord remains in place.

<img src="https://discussion.policharcha.in/1612959313444" alt="Biden’s chance to stabilise US-Iran relations post Trump-Era. Iran nuclear deal and JCPOA." style="float:none;height: auto;width: auto"/>

<ins>Trump’s JCPOA withdrawal</ins>
Riding on the anti-Iran and anti-JCPOA rhetoric, Donald Trump campaigned on the promises to dismantle the Iran nuclear accord, referring to it as “the worst deal ever.” An electoral victory in 2016 allowed the Trump administration to fulfil its promise, and thus, it changed the dynamics of Middle East for the worse.
In May 2018, Trump unilaterally withdrew from the Iran nuclear accord, thanks to Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu consistent lobbying against the deal from the beginning. Regional players like Israel and Saudi Arabia provided a strong backing to Trump administration for the withdrawal from the deal which would further weaken Iran’s influence in the region.
“This was a horrible one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made,” a grim-faced Mr. Trump said in an 11-minute address from the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House. “It did not bring calm, it did not bring peace, and it never will,” he added.

<img src="https://discussion.policharcha.in/1612959398758" alt="Biden’s chance to stabilise US-Iran relations post Trump-Era. Iran nuclear deal and JCPOA." style="float:none;height: auto;width: auto"/>

These steps in compliance with accord foreclosed the Iran’s pathways to build nuclear weapons. Trump insisted that the limits placed on the Iran’s nuclear fuel production according to the deal were inadequate. The administration presented no evidence that Iran was not complying with its obligations, but the former president called the deal as “worst deal ever” due to the couple of reasons. Firstly, Trump had a contention with the provisions of ‘sunset clauses’ – the deal is not permanent, the limits were to expire in 2030. Secondly, the deal does not address the threat of Iran’s ballistic missiles development or its malign behaviour in the region. Iran supports militant groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon which is principal enemy of the Israel, a known US ally.
<ins>Consequences of withdrawal</ins>&nbsp;
After withdrawing from agreement, US re-instated all the sanctions it had waived as part of the nuclear accord. Therefore, US re-impose oil sanctions, and new sanctions against the Central Bank of Iran, crippling the national economy while Iran complied with provisions of the deal and kept restricted its development of nuclear capability for next one year.
Iran accused the United States of reneging on its commitments, and faulted Europe for submitting to US’ unilateralism. The withdrawal not only increased geopolitical tensions with Iran, but also strained the transatlantic relations with European allies, undermining their positions in the deal which came into effect to hold Iran accountable.&nbsp;
Trump’s strategy to confront Iran, and bring it back to the table to negotiate the total dismantle of its nuclear program – eliminating sunset clauses – and address its malign activities was to impose maximum pressure to gain maximum leverage ahead of diplomatic discussions while avoiding a military entanglement in the future. This is popularly known as ‘maximum pressure’ strategy.&nbsp;
JCPOA provided a highly intrusive inspection regime to check Iran’s compliance with the agreement, but Trump’s maximum pressure campaign has failed to produce concessions from Iran, let alone bring it to the negotiation table for discussion on the Iran’s other malign activities.
The nuclear deal provided the P5+1 with greater inspection and accountability tools to ensure Iran is not foraging on the path of building nuclear weapons. Provisions of the deal would have made almost impossible for Iran to violate the agreement without facing serious blow from all the countries including European powers, which are still the participants in the deal. The deal would also have given greater international legitimacy to US to use hard power against Iran if the latter had resumed the nuclear program.
Pressure from multilateral sanctions successfully brought Iran to the negotiating table, but US retaliatory unilateral sanctions have failed to produce a replacement agreement or stop Iran from ramping up its nuclear program.
In response to the United States’ withdrawal from the JCPOA, and subsequent re-instatement of nuclear and other sanctions, Iran has steadily reduced its compliance with the JCPOA.
Iran increased its uranium enrichment, advanced centrifuges, and stockpile size. Moreover, maximum pressure has failed to stop Iran from supporting proxies that further destabilise the region.
The provocations from both sides increased the tensions between Iran and US. Many political scholars had even predicted a Middle East war after the tanker blast incident in Persian Gulf in mid-2019. The list of Iranian provocations in the same year also goes long, beginning from the downing of an American drone, mine attacks on ships in the Strait of Hormuz, and a cruise missile strike on Saudi oil facilities.
On the nuclear front, Iran’s slow but steady effort to shrink its breakout timeline raises alarm bells in Western capitals without provoking an American or Israeli military strike on its nuclear facilities.&nbsp;
The assassination of Qassim Suleimani, a top Iranian military commander, in January 2020 was the peak of these provocations on the either side which followed the downward spiralling effect pushing the region to the brink of a catastrophic war amidst the coronavirus pandemic. Subsequently, the assassination of eminent scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh in November worked as a fuel in the confrontation.&nbsp;
<ins>Conclusion</ins>
Despite the welter of conflicting actions and statements coming from senior Iranian leaders in recent times, it seems that Tehran would welcome a quick return to the JCPOA by the incoming Biden administration.
However, Iran appears to be signalling that the opportunity to do so will be brief, and if the United States does not immediately resume compliance with the terms of the original agreement, that window will close quickly and perhaps permanently. Although such compliance must be verified, a US return to the JCPOA is the best way to incentivise Iran to comply with the deal.
The Biden administration’s best approach will be to pursue complementary near-term and long-term strategies simultaneously to bring Iran back into compliance with the limits on its nuclear program, while raising the stakes of Tehran’s adventurism in the region and paving the way to a follow-on agreement.
The JCPOA offers the best path for the United States to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons, and it was working until the withdrawal. The reality today is much starker, and Iran is closer to building a nuclear weapon. The steps Iran has taken in violation of the JCPOA, however, are reversible — Iran can return to compliance with the deal.
The only way to achieve another agreement in the future — including one that addresses Iran’s ballistic missile program and other security threats Iran poses — is for the United States to return to the JCPOA and implement its part of the deal. Re-joining the JCPOA advances US national security, restores US credibility, and should be a top priority for the Biden administration.

Biden’s chance to stabilise US-Iran relations post Trump-Era

<img src="https://discussion.policharcha.in/1612358206140" alt="India needs to be cautious about China while dealing with Myanmar" style="float:none;height: auto;width: auto"/>

In the early hours of Monday, Myanmar’s military had staged a coup, and detained the country’s de-facto Prime Minister, Aung San Suu Kyi, and other officials. The Burmese military, also known as Tatmadaw, seized the control from a government that was established just five years ago, and declared a state of emergency for a year.
The takeover also discontinued the office of the President Myint Swe, as the armed forces detained him also on the day that was supposed to be the incumbent’s government first day in a new Parliament session. Just a few hours after the developments, a military television network confirmed about the coup to the public, and announced that all the power has been transferred to Commander in Chief of the Defence Forces of Myanmar, Senior General Min Aung Hlaing.
The alleged voter fraud in Myanmar’s last general election was given as a reason by the military to the overthrow of Government. “Although the sovereignty of the nation must derive from the people, there was terrible fraud in the voter list during the democratic general election which runs contrary to ensuring a stable democracy,” the army said through a statement.
Last year’s elections in November saw Aung San Suu Kyi’s party, National League for Democracy winning with a landslide margin – 396 seats out of the 476 contested – over the military’s representative party, Union Solidarity and Development Party, which had won 33 seats. Out of total 664 seats, clear majority is established by winning 332 seats, but according to the Constitution, 25 per cent of the seats are reserved for army’s representatives. Therefore, the elections are contested on 498 seats effectively.
The civil society came out on the roads to protest the move by the military, and international community also condemned the developments. India, US, UN, among others expressed grave concerns with different intensity in their stances, while China seemed more-or-less indifferent towards the takeover by the military.
<ins>How did the other countries react?</ins>
India, maintaining a balanced stance, expressed “deep concern” about the ongoing situation in Myanmar, and said, “rule of law and the democratic process must be upheld.” The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said that it is monitoring the situation closely.
US took an aggressive position and guaranteed to “take action against those responsible if these steps aren't reversed.” Standing in solidarity with the people of Burma, US also said that it would be monitoring the situation closely.
China, on the other hand, maintained an apathetic stand towards Myanmar. China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman, Wang Wenbin, said that Beijing hopes that all sides can resolve their differences under the framework of the constitution and law, and safeguard political and social stability. China avoided calling it a coup, and its state-run media outlet, Xinhua News Agency said that developments in Myanmar is a “major cabinet reshuffle.”
<ins>India’s relation with Myanmar</ins>

<img src="https://discussion.policharcha.in/1612358411603" alt="India needs to be cautious about China while dealing with Myanmar" style="float:none;height: auto;width: auto"/>

Deemed by India as the gateway to South East Asia, Myanmar holds an important position in India’s ‘Act East’ and ‘Neighbourhood First’ policies. India shares a land border of around 1,640 kms with Myanmar, and a maritime boundary of more than 700 kms in the Bay of Bengal. India aims to incorporate Myanmar into its <a href="https://policharcha.com/article/internationalrelations/a08b9462-ab09-4d42-be8f-040db0beb017/importance-of-indopacific-in-the-new-multipolar-world-order" target="_blank">superior idea of the Indo-Pacific</a>.
Diplomacy has been the key factor in determining the relationship between two neighbours. It is because of statesmanship from New Delhi’s side that India has maintained a sound relationship with both the Tatmadaw, and the government of Myanmar. India enjoys a trust factor because of being a major democracy, both in terms of economy and military might, in the South East Asian region.
<ins>India and Government of Myanmar</ins>
Last year, PM Narendra Modi had held that India is ready to provide all possible assistance to mitigate the health and economic impact of Coronavirus pandemic in Myanmar. Thereafter, India has gifted 1.5 million of doses of its domestic made vaccine to Myanmar under Vaccine Maitri initiative. Moreover, Myanmar has signed a contract with the Serum Institute of India to purchase 30 million doses of Covishield vaccine.
Myanmar is a significant member of the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC), which is a regional organisation that is committed to nurture bilateral and regional cooperation among the Bay of Bengal countries. Myanmar President Win Myint Swe had attended the second swearing-in of PM Modi on behalf of the State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi who was on her visit to Europe then.
Being the only ASEAN country that shares a boundary with India, Myanmar provides India an access to other South East Asian countries. After formally detaching itself from The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), India has looked to engage with ASEAN countries independently and not as a group, and Myanmar was the key partner in that regard.
Aung San Suu Kyi had visited India for the 25th India-ASEAN Commemorative Summit in January 2018, and met President Ram Nath Kovind. Subsequently, our President also visited Myanmar in December 2018, and held bilateral meeting with the now-detained President of Myanmar, and State Counsellor.
Moreover, on the infrastructure development side, India is involved in two major projects in Myanmar. One of them is Kaladan Multimodal Transit Transport Project which is a multi-modal sea, river, and road transport corridor which aims to connect Rakhine State of Myanmar to North East India. Other one is India-Myanmar-Thailand Trilateral Highway, a 1,360 km long trilateral highway which will connect Moreh in Manipur, India with Mae Sot, Thailand via Myanmar.
<ins>India and the Tatmadaw</ins>
High level visits to India are conducted not only from the elected representative of Myanmar, but also from the representatives of the Myanmar armed forces. Commander in Chief of the Defence Forces of Myanmar, Senior General Min Aung Hlaing, visited India back in July 2017, and then in July 2019.
The 2019 meet garnered a positive and aggressive outlook from both the sides to counter anti-India insurgent groups operating from bases inside Myanmar. Moreover, a defence co-operation agreement to boost military engagement, especially in the maritime warfront, between the two countries was signed.
“The talks were aimed at enhancing defence co-operation, review joint exercises and training provided to Myanmar Defence Services, strengthening maritime security by joint surveillance and capacity building, medical co-operation, pollution response, and developing new infrastructure," a statement from the defence ministry said.
Recently, in October 2020, when foreign secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla was on day-long visit to Myanmar capital Naypyidaw, he invited Senior General Min Aung Hlaing to Darjeeling for his next visit.
Besides these official visits, the armies of the two countries have executed Operation Sunshine 1 and 2 in 2016 and 2019 respectively to neutralise militants in NE India. India also provides training to Myanmar Army, and organise joint training sessions through the India-Myanmar Bilateral Military Exercise (IMBAX) for capacity building of the Burmese Army to take part in UN peacekeeping missions.
Started in 2018, through IMNEX, navies of both the nations prepare together to tackle any maritime adversity in the Indian Ocean Region, which is gaining prominence in the geo-politics arena.&nbsp;
In addition to this, India has also exported its first domestically-produced anti-submarine torpedo, TAL Shyena in 2017. Two years later in 2019, Myanmar also acquired India’s submarine, INS Sindhuvir.
<ins>How does China come into picture?</ins>
China has both strategic and economic interests in Myanmar. Chinese Communist Party’s flagship project in Myanmar is China-Myanmar Economic Corridor (CMEC), which is part of the <a href="https://policharcha.com/article/internationalrelations/76157c99-4081-4ec1-a093-1d1d84953ec3/india-and-china-more-than-what-meets-the-eye" target="_blank">ambitious Belt and Road initiative</a>. CMEC plans to connect China’s Yunnan province to the Bay of Bengal, perhaps to strengthen China’s String-of-Pearls around India.
Back in the 1960s, for training Mizo and Naga rebel groups, China used to face a pushback from India-Myanmar military partnership. Presently, Tatmadaw have grown more wary of China because China supports rebel outfits like United Wa State Army, the Kokang Army, and the Kachin Independence Army.
Moreover, there are reports which claim that China has been supplying firepower to the Arakan Army operating in Rakhine state. This further leads to delays in the completion of projects under Kaladan Multimodal Transit Transport Project. One of them is Sittwe deep-water port project which is being constructed by India to counter China’s growing presence in the region.
One can say that China is pushing its anti-India agenda through financing insurgency in Rakhine, but is getting countered by Tatmadaw. Therefore, it is safe to assume that China would not prefer Myanmar to get ruled by its Generals, and China has worked well in the past with Aung San Suu Kyi’s NLD Party.
<ins>Road ahead for India</ins>

<img src="https://discussion.policharcha.in/1612358898813" alt="India needs to be cautious about China while dealing with Myanmar" style="float:none;height: auto;width: auto"/>

It will be best for India to maintain a pragmatic stance like it has been doing over the years. It needs to find a way to play a ‘balancing role’ between the two parties of Myanmar, while keeping a special eye on China.
It is due to India’s diplomacy in the east that Myanmar can tilt towards India, considering how India has come to the <a href="https://policharcha.com/article/nation/44e8b417-c6d4-48fb-b5a8-28c0deca0e23/the-west-vs-india-who-came-to-the-rescue-of-the-third-world" target="_blank">forefront to help the Third World</a> in the fight against Coronavirus pandemic, but at the same time, India has to be careful because an unstable Myanmar would not help India with its <a href="https://policharcha.com/article/internationalrelations/a08b9462-ab09-4d42-be8f-040db0beb017/importance-of-indopacific-in-the-new-multipolar-world-order" target="_blank">Indo-Pacific goals</a>. Moreover, an unstable Myanmar can look towards China because of China’s superior economic prowess, and can reduce to a mere Satellite State.
In addition to this, India cannot maintain an all-hands-down-aggressive stance like the US did because unlike US, India gets affected directly due to the tensions in Myanmar.
India will have to show Myanmar that it must have faith in a democratic nation, instead of China, which is known for its authoritarian and expansionist regime. India already holds some ground in its immediate East, and it is time to put that position to good use to further its international goals, especially when <a href="https://policharcha.com/article/internationalrelations/ba0f0874-d036-42fb-8196-46a365b93ae7/india-chairs-the-high-table-in-a-fractionated-united-nations" target="_blank">India sits at the High Table in the UNSC.</a>
...
More to come in this regard. Stay tuned.
...
Follow us on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/PoliCharcha" target="_blank">Facebook</a>, and <a href="https://www.instagram.com/policharcha/" target="_blank">Instagram</a>. Also join our <a href="https://t.me/policharcha" target="_blank">Telegram channel</a> for regular updates.

India needs to be cautious about China while dealing with Myanmar

<img src="https://discussion.policharcha.in/1611954726575" alt="Opportunities & challenges for India at the UNSC" style="float:none;height: auto;width: auto"/>

India’s pursuit for permanent membership of the UNSC is evidence of its global ambitions. India deserves it on the account of being a major economic power, having a highly capable military, and contributing to UN peacekeeping forces. Other factors like contribution of funds to the UN budget, population size, being the world’s largest democracy, and a leader of the developing nations also help India solidify its claim.
New Delhi hopes that its <a href="https://policharcha.com/article/internationalrelations/33918ad7-d5ca-4c0b-a117-5c0489a03572/india-unsc-a-brief-history-and-what-lies-ahead" target="_blank">eighth stint at the UNSC</a> would help move the organisation towards the <a href="https://policharcha.com/article/internationalrelations/ba0f0874-d036-42fb-8196-46a365b93ae7/india-chairs-the-high-table-in-a-fractionated-united-nations" target="_blank">ultimate reform</a> of increasing the permanent seats at the high table. The permanent seat will give India enough power to influence global decision-making to further its national interests, and would add an unparalleled bargaining chip in its arsenal of international negotiation.
Last September, PM Modi complained in the UN General Assembly that his country has not been adequately rewarded for its participation in UN peacekeeping. “Till when do we have to wait?” he asked.
India will have the opportunity to shape the discourse, and take decisions on most pressing global peace &amp; security challenges in the UNSC. It will have a say in issues like the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Myanmar, Iran nuclear deal, the COVID-19 pandemic, and threats posed by climate change.
India has been the passive voice in the Security Council during its previous terms, and has abstained from voting on critical resolutions, showing the indecisive nature of India’s foreign policy. This has made it difficult for the international countries to take New Delhi seriously for global leadership.
In 2011, during India’s seventh rotation on the UNSC, India abstained on the Resolution 1973, which authorised the international intervention in Libya. India claimed that it respects other nations sovereignty during the Nehru’s Panchsheel Era, and on the other hand, New Delhi has not stood up for countries which are victim of aggression from foreign power. India was the first major country to legitimise the Russian illegal annexation of Crimea, and abstained on the resolution, representing the poor qualities of an aspiring global leader.
India have to make itself more relevant to international security, and integral to the decision making on tough issues. New Delhi needs to dirty its hands by choosing sides, taking tough stances, and sending clear signals to countries threatening the international peace. It also has to maintain itself relevant to the UNSC business which is to make difficult and politically sensitive decisions on matters of international security.
Africa is the most dominant item on the agenda. In 2018, for instance, over 50 percent of UNSC meetings, 60 percent of its outcome documents, and 70 percent of its resolutions with enforcement mandates concerned African peace and security issues, according to the Institute for Security Studies Africa. Even in 2020, amidst the pandemic, most UNSC meetings dealt with conflicts in various parts of Africa – from Somalia to Sudan, and from Mali to Guinea-Bissau.
India will have to push for the Security Council reforms so the global institution can better reflect contemporary global realities. Apart from claiming for permanent seat for India, New Delhi will have to bring <a href="https://policharcha.com/article/internationalrelations/c2b6a694-79a0-4c10-b4a4-beab54ebdce6/significance-of-boris-visit-to-india-rise-of-the-indopacific" target="_blank">focus of global fraternity towards the Indo-pacific</a> which is driving the global economic and political agenda; just like managing the divided and ruined Europe was the focus of United Nations in the immediate aftermath of World War II, and security dynamics demanded the attention towards safeguarding its peripheries from the Soviet Bloc.
The global institutional framework should acknowledge this shift, and reflect it in proceedings and debates, especially when the UN is weakening leading to a proliferation of the numerous plurilateral and minilateral forums emerging out in the past decades. Definitions of security have changed considerably, and the Security Council is yet to adapt to the new reality. Failure of the UN to rise to the occasion during the COVID-19 crisis will have significant bearing on its global influence.
The UN reforms are not plausible without ensuring proper resourcing to the United Nations as budget crunch and inadequate resourcing are the major factors restricting the assembly to discuss reforms. Moreover, channelling more resources in the absence of genuine reforms will lead nowhere, and only will perpetuate the status quo.
Lack of reforms compelled some countries to gradually de-emphasise the United Nations in favour of new frameworks to address their most pressing challenges. Other nations have been gaming the UN system to further their narrow interests, for example, the danger in having UN officials and agencies champion China’s Belt and Road Initiative is immense.
For India, this eighth term has brought a number of opportunities along with mounted challenges, and the status quo is no longer a viable option for New Delhi. If UN reforms fail, New Delhi’s approach to the United Nations could significantly get altered in the coming years as India would feel the necessity to look elsewhere for solutions.
India is entering into UNSC temporarily at the moment filled with both peril and opportunity, and this critical juncture of international system where the world is exposed to the COVID-19 pandemic, rising illiberalism, and deepening income inequality. On the top of it, China’s unconventional threatening rise, and the consequences of Trump’s feckless actions are not helping the global community.
The world needs leaders who can counter these malign undemocratic forces, and provide a compelling and countervailing narrative to growing uncertainties in international security system.
Biden administration needs partners like India which can help articulate and implement a global vision predicated on human dignity and international peace. India has a clear choice. It can continue on its current trajectory of domestic bluster and international passivity, and cede this opportunity to others; or it can speak up on international crises, and recommit itself to the remarkable vision of inclusivity and openness which are articulated in India’s Constitution.
India can definitely emerge as the leader the world needs. Now is the time for India to stop simply saying it deserves to be a global power, and start acting like one instead.

Opportunities & challenges for India at the UNSC

<img src="https://discussion.policharcha.in/1611874479412" alt="India chairs the High Table in a fractionated United Nations" style="float:none;height: auto;width: auto"/>

The world is witnessing the rise of China as an expansionist nation creating a pessimistic environment in international politics defined theoretically in Classical Realism by Morgenthau’s 2nd principle – Nations always define and act for securing their national interests by means of power.
While China, <a href="https://policharcha.com/article/internationalrelations/76157c99-4081-4ec1-a093-1d1d84953ec3/india-and-china-more-than-what-meets-the-eye" target="_blank">a country which does not operate by the books</a>, is threatening the democratically established international norms and rule-based order, <a href="https://policharcha.com/article/internationalrelations/33918ad7-d5ca-4c0b-a117-5c0489a03572/india-unsc-a-brief-history-and-what-lies-ahead" target="_blank">India is getting ready for its eighth term at the UNSC.</a>&nbsp;
Indian flag installed at the UNSC stakeout in the world’s largest multilateral institution marks the start of a new era for India’s geo-politics with the mantra of NORMS – New Orientation Towards Reformed Multilateralism. With an aim to ‘reform multilateralism’, New Delhi will look to shape an inclusive global agenda to spur innovative solutions to trans-national challenges.
India’s clear position on combating international terrorism as a non-permanent member reflects its commitment towards eradication of International terrorism and of perpetrators promoting it. India pushed for an effective response to global terrorism and abuse of information technology by terrorists, disrupting their nexus with sponsors, and stemming the flow of terror financing.
<ins>India’s bid to permanent membership &amp; the untrustworthy UNSC</ins>

<img src="https://discussion.policharcha.in/1611875074308" alt="India chairs the High Table in a fractionated United Nations" style="float:none;height: auto;width: auto"/>


India winning the seat at the high table unopposed with an overwhelming support from the Asia-Pacific region displays country’s growing recognition among strategic circles, and this two-year term with twin presidency presents India with a unique opportunity for the country to demonstrate global power and responsibility, thereby strengthening its decades-long claim to a permanent seat on the Council.
India has vocally and rightfully asserted the demand for reforms in the functioning of the United Nations and UNSC which are long overdue. The previous year showed us the limitations of the institution – diverging from the path of transparency, bending the rules to favour the powerful countries – exposing the realist nature of international politics in the institution formed on liberal values, and failing to comprehend the founding principles of the UN.&nbsp;
Setting the tone for India’s two-year tenure in UNSC, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said, “We will work with all member countries to promote peace, security, resilience, and equity.”&nbsp;
The United Nations Charter begins with the line “We the peoples of the United Nations” which was agreed by the 50 founding members after fierce negotiations, and this opening line is notable because it promises each and every human being on the planet that if a particular nation fails to uphold its national duty, United Nations is the organisation to look for.
The power tussle between most powerful countries is hampering the very foundational values on which the United Nations was formed, and their priorities stand in the way of fulfilling the Charter’s first two pledges – to end “the scourge of war” and to regain “faith in fundamental human rights.”&nbsp;
The Security Council’s job to international peace was largely affected by the internal rivalry between the West and USSR during the Cold War, and today, between democratic countries and authoritarian nations. This resulted in Security Council to be unable to defuse major conflicts.
The starkest failure of the Council has been the handling of the nearly nine-year-old conflict in Syria, with Russia backing the government of President Bashar al-Assad, and the United States, Britain, and France supporting some opposition groups. It also failed to halt the fighting in Yemen between the Houthi rebels and a Saudi-led coalition, despite a disastrous humanitarian situation and reports from its own investigators of war crimes on both sides. North Korea, an ally of China, has also consistently defied the United Nations, ignoring prohibitions against its nuclear program and missile tests.
“In recent years the UNSC has initiated no new resolutions. It has not even announced any new peace keeping initiatives or imposed fresh sanctions. All it does is to add an individual to the sanctions list or lift sanctions from certain individuals or groups if necessary. Beyond that no new initiatives have been taken by the UNSC in the last 10 years,’’ former Indian diplomat Dilip Sinha said.
The history proves that when President Bush declared war against Iraq in 2003 along with its western allies, UNSC was by-passed, and remained a mute spectator when Tony Blair and Bush destroyed the whole country in the name of ‘war against terrorism’, while blatantly lying about weapons of mass destruction to the whole world, and claiming lives of uncountable people.
<ins>Need of Reforms in the UN</ins>
Since its inception, the UN General Assembly has been a forum for lofty declarations, and rigorous debate over the world’s most vexing issues – from poverty and development to peace and security. Formed in 1945, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) is the only universally representative body of the United Nations with the membership of 193 countries, each with a vote in the UNGA.
The function of the General Assembly, as delineated in the Charter of the United Nations, is to discuss, debate, and make recommendations on subjects pertaining to international peace and security, including development, disarmament, human rights, international law, and the peaceful arbitration of disputes between nations every year at the organisation’s New York headquarters from September to December.
The United Nations in recent times has become less credible. This is reflected by its indecisive nature during emergence of adverse conditions, and decisive nature while favouring some countries which use Security Council for their national interests. The UN could not cope up with the harsh reality of power politics, which has reduced it to be a pawn of five powerful nations which sit permanently at the high table.
Whenever the efforts to revitalise the assembly’s functioning sets in motion, the rift between the developing countries, which want to retain a strong say in deliberations, and the wealthy countries, which serve as the United Nations’ main donors, emerges out.
Being the leader of the developing countries or the so-called third world, India can become the bridge between the Global South and its western partners, who got even closer to India to impede the revivalist China.
US has made India a NATO-level strategic partner by signing the contracts for further military technology transfer and intelligence sharing in order to contain China. It has also shifted its focus from Asia-Pacific to Indo-Pacific, while France has supported India on Kashmir issue and has not allowed China to play any “procedural games” at the UNSC. France has also publicly denounced China’s ambiguity, whether it’s on Kashmir or in the Himalayas. Emanuel Bonne, diplomatic advisor of French President, has said that France is diplomatically close to the Quad and can participate in the joint naval exercise with Quad nations in future. Britain has also played its card in favour of India by announcing the Prime Minister Johnson’s idea of ‘Global Britain’ post-Brexit, <a href="https://policharcha.com/article/internationalrelations/c2b6a694-79a0-4c10-b4a4-beab54ebdce6/significance-of-boris-visit-to-india-rise-of-the-indopacific" target="_blank">and India is positioned at the centre of that strategy.</a>&nbsp;
Due to China’s belligerence in its neighbourhood, and India’s strategy to draw the global attention to its backyard, Indo-Pacific has become an important geo-political theatre for great power politics. India needs to capitalise this by strategically using the UNSC opportunity to safeguard its interests from bully China, along with strengthening its position of permanent seat at the High Table marching closely with the western powers and allies.
The institution completed its 75 years last year in 2020, the year most challenging for the organisation since it has been established from the ashes of World War II’s devastation. The organisation created to peacefully manage conflicts and foster global co-operation within multilateral forums, has witnessed extraordinary events on its 75th anniversary due to unprecedented strain on the framework of international institutions.
The debate on how to reform and strengthen the United Nations is more relevant than ever and what would be India’s role in democratising the institution in the times of great upheaval as it sits on the high table.
The United Nations in contemporary times is bedevilled by a complex number of challenges like gross underfunding as countries donate amounts less than their commitment. Bloated bureaucracy, disunity among members, and polarised views among permanent members thanks to geopolitical rivalry are other reasons the UN is suffering.
The delay in reforms weakens the effectiveness, and undermines the relevance of United Nations as the world parliament. Intransigence among the permanent members of the Security Council is the greatest setback to the idea of making UN more inclusive, representative, transparent, and effective. The powerful countries are moving towards unilateralism, populism, and nationalism at the expense of developing countries that require the United Nations, and in the meanwhile UN – a proud example of multilateralism and forum of collective action – is heading on a path of irrelevance.
Three of the five permanent members of the UNSC are European, representing about ten per cent of humanity, one is Asian, representing more than 30 per cent of humanity, and no member belongs to Africa. This fundamental imbalance denotes that the Security Council is misrepresented. Combine this up with weakened multilateralism, re-emergence of power politics, and the rise of new actors in the geo-political arena, and you got yourself a compelling case for changing the dynamics at the UNSC.
From the beginning, all power in the UN is concentrated in the Security Council, more specifically with the P5, which were given the power to veto. The road to concrete reforms such as increasing the number of permanent and non-permanent members in the UNSC to proportionally represent the people of the world in the world’s largest multilateral organisation will most likely be bumpy.
The only time the strength of the UNSC was altered was in 1965 when the council’s size increased from eleven to the current fifteen members [five of them permanent (P5), and ten elected (E10)]. Post this the Security Council was seen as a ‘body of five plus ten members’.
<ins>Road ahead</ins>
The 15-member UNSC continues to play a significant role in international affairs even after the question keeps arising regarding its irrelevancy in international relations. This has often bogged down in political paralysis, primarily because of UNSC’s ability to impose economic sanctions on rouge countries as it did against North Korea over its nuclear arsenal and missiles, approve the use of force and authorise military intervention as it did against Libya in 2011, and provide legal mandates for peace operations around the world through UN peacekeeping forces.
Another crucial power which non-permanent members hold is the Collective Veto. For any United Nations Security Council resolution to pass, at least seven non-permanent members should agree to it even if the permanent members have already said yes to that resolution.
Along with the permanent members, the non-permanent ones also assume monthly presidency of the Council. As President, a nation can decide the topics of debate, and issues that are needed to be discussed at the high table. Non-permanent members also preside over several committees and working groups at the UNSC. Put these powers together, and there is enough room for India to lead from the front, and strengthen its claim to permanent membership.

India chairs the High Table in a fractionated United Nations

<img src="https://discussion.policharcha.in/1611815324655" alt="India & UNSC; A brief history and what lies ahead" style="float:none;height: auto;width: auto"/>

India has initiated its two-year tenure as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) this year. For the eighth time, India will sit at the 15-nation UNSC table, so it is imperative to take a look at India’s journey in the United Nations (UN) to get a better understanding of what lies ahead of New Delhi, and how India can further its national goals at the biggest multilateral stage in the world.
India is a founding member of the United Nations, which then included Pakistan and Bangladesh, and due to its large population, vast area, and diverse society, Mahatma Gandhi felt that India should become a veto-wielding member of the Security Council.&nbsp;
India has been enthusiastically engaged with the Security Council ever since it became independent country in 1947, and participated in UN General Assembly’s matters pro-actively. Even under different governments, and despite falling out of favour with the Council over Kashmir and the issue of disarmament in the past, India’s foreign policy has, by and large, followed a realistic and pragmatic approach. Indeed, India’s contribution to the working of the UN has been substantial.
At the very first session of the UN, India had raised its voice against colonialism and apartheid, and as decolonisation began to change the face of the world, India positioned itself as the Third World or Non-Aligned voice on the Council. India hoped that the UN system would be democratised by the trade union of decolonised nations.
India’s relationship with UNSC began with India’s most contentious issue till date – when India first went to the Security Council on January 1st, 1948 to submit a complaint against Pakistan.
India was first elected as the non-permanent member of the Security Council during 1950-51. During the tenure, the Council adopted three resolutions on the India-Pakistan question, and took three other decisions; on all of which India abstained. India, as President of UNSC, presided over the adoption of resolutions calling for cessation of hostilities during the Korean War, and for assistance to Republic of Korea.
<ins>The Ups and Downs</ins>
The relationship soured between India and UNSC which led many in India to feel that India is still paying the price of going to the UN over Kashmir. However, the Kashmir debates of 1957 were instrumental in strengthening the Security Council’s authority under Chapter VI and Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The then Indian Defence Minister, Krishna Menon, insisted that the Security Council must decide under Article 39 in Chapter VII if it wished to enforce its decisions.
The 1960s and 1970s seemed to be even worse decades for India’s relations with the Council. India approached UN seeking disarmament treaty after China conducted nuclear test in 1964, and in response, New Delhi was targeted with the Non-proliferation Treaty. During the second term in 1967-68, India co-sponsored Resolution 238 extending mandate of UN mission in Cyprus.
India raised the issue of bloodbath happening in the erstwhile East Pakistan, and intervened in the crisis in 1971 on humanitarian account to end one of the world’s biggest genocides on religious basis after World War II, but this move gardened little support from western countries, especially from United States which militarily supported Pakistan in the war breakout between two neighbours in South-East Asia. A Soviet veto prevented the Security Council to impose sanctions on India for its humanitarian intervention in the conflict which created new State in the region.
During its third term in 1972-73, India pushed strongly for admission of Bangladesh into UN, but resolution was not adopted because of a veto by a permanent member.
In the fourth term as non-permanent member of the council in 1977-78, India raised a strong voice for Africa in the UNSC against apartheid, and the then External Affairs Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee spoke in the council for Namibia’s independence.
In 1984-85, India was a leading voice in UNSC for resolution of conflicts in Middle East, especially in Palestine and Lebanon during its fourth term.
However, despite drafting numerous resolutions on transforming the world in the 1970s and 1980s, India’s early vision was far from being realised.
India has been criticised for possessing such a naïve opinion of the UN Security Council, which a leading Indian sociologist has termed as a “bazaar (market) for the trading of interests between major powers.” In spite of this, India proved that it was at the forefront of the international scene, and did provide an alternative voice to the Cold war rival blocks by leading the Non-Aligned Movement of decolonised nations.
India was an early champion of the concept of peaceful co-existence between the communist bloc and the free world. That alternate voice was then being heard, and several of the subsequent reform proposals insisted on the inclusion of countries from the developing world so that the Global South is adequately represented on the Council.
Indian foreign policy is said to combine ‘Gandhian non-violence with a touch of Kissinger-like pragmatism’. India is traditionally seen as a peace-loving country with non-aggression and non-interference as the cornerstone of its Panchsheel policy. Its commitment to the UN Charter, and maintenance of peace and security – a guiding factor in the selection of additional Council members – is evidenced by the fact that India has been an energetic and influential participant in the UN debates on peacekeeping.
<ins>What now?</ins>

<img src="https://discussion.policharcha.in/1611816877253" alt="India & UNSC; A brief history and what lies ahead" style="float:none;height: auto;width: auto"/>

India enters into Security Council for the third time since the end of the Cold War with the changing dynamics that it encountered during the earliest stints in 1991-92 and 2011-12. The political complexion of the permanent members changed dramatically, especially China, which is rising as Asian hegemon, and threatening the global democratic order.
The other members have consistently put their national interests ahead of any collective interests, especially US under Trump administration which moved towards protectionism and defied all the multilateral principles during its term from unilaterally backing off from JCPOA (Iran nuclear deal) to threatening to stop funding World Health Organisation (WHO), going against the implicit provision in the UN Charter which conferred responsibility on them for the maintenance of international peace and security.
Despite the Charter provision that the veto should not be used for procedural issues, the P5 (five permanent members of the UNSC) are allowed to use their veto implicitly in many closed-door consultations. This largely unaccountable nature of the Security Council came under attack by the General Assembly (GA), which has increased in size from 51 in 1945 to 191 presently.
P5’s unprecedented powers, and their right to veto, have been a major source of tension between the GA and P5, leading the former to press for Security Council reform. The Security Council has been widely viewed as unrepresentative and lacking in credibility.
India’s national interests have also dynamically changed and shifted to different theatres from the perspective of national security, and India has expanded the list of its international partners and strategic allies.
New Delhi’s approach to current stint at UNSC will be more purposeful and pragmatic – purposefulness is about tightly integrating its UNSC engagement with India’s broader national goals, while pragmatism demands adapting to the changed conditions at the UNSC and avoiding overly ambitious goals – reflecting in its attitude shift from the reactive to the proactive.
The eighth term for India at Security Council is juxtaposed with the intractable differences between the US and China which would make the UNSC far more contentious to walk into. The tensions between the two largest economies of the world reached new heights with Trump declaring the trade-war against China, accusing Beijing for levying high-tariffs on US imports, and providing state subsidies to Chinese companies. This rendered American companies less competitive in Chinese market which itself is highly regulated by Chinese communist party. The problem of intellectual property theft hurt the American economy which led Trump to announce more protectionist policies in US, and slap reverse tariffs on Chinese goods.
China, along with exploiting countries with its economic policies, and favouring its own companies, has also risen to be a great power, making expansive claims in its neighbourhood, and investing militarily, coupled with deploying its wolf warrior diplomats; as it seems proving itself to be totally a revisionist state.
The United Nations is facing strong challenges from multiple direction exposing the shortcomings, which turned out to be failures, of post-World War II multilateral order. The pillars of global governance are undergoing rapid transformation towards undemocratic processes and unilateral world, institutional infirmities are being revealed, and a normative shift is becoming increasingly self-evident. As India joins UNSC at the critical juncture with an aim to shape rules in the international system, and not merely be a follower, stakes could not be any higher.
.
This story is part of a package. Two more related stories to come.

India & UNSC; A brief history and what lies ahead

<img src="https://discussion.policharcha.in/1608366915946" alt="UK PM to be the Chief Guest at Republic Day celebrations 2021. The rise of Indo-Pacific region." style="float:none;height: auto;width: auto"/>

Being the largest democracy in the world, and a promoter of <a href="https://policharcha.com/article/nation/203170c0-7305-4852-99d5-91fe035d8189/breakdown-of-preamble-of-indian-constitution-meaning-of-democracy" target="_blank">democratic values</a> on international forums, India has been emerging as a political and economic power in the new multipolar world order. Standards like Rule of law, freedom of faith and expression, among others have made India a vital democratic partner for the West, at a time when the <a href="https://policharcha.com/article/internationalrelations/a08b9462-ab09-4d42-be8f-040db0beb017/how-india-established-indopacific-in-the-new-multipolar-world-order" target="_blank">West has its eyes set on the Indo-Pacific region.</a>&nbsp;
For the United Kingdom, India is even more important, as it is still governed by European Union rules – a position that will cease to exist when the transition period ends on 31st December, 2020. Less than a month later, when the Prime Minister of UK, Boris Johnson, is scheduled to visit India as the Chief Guest for the Republic Day celebrations, he is expected to go forward with the implementation of what his former Conservative PM, David Cameron, said about India and UK fashioning a “great partnership of the 21st century.”
Boris Johnson’s maiden visit to India, in the words of Foreign Minister S Jaishankar, “would be in a way symbolic of a new era, and a new phase of India-UK ties.” The incumbent British Prime Minister will become the second PM of Britain to get the honour of visiting as a guest of honour for the Republic Day celebrations.
<ins>From Great Britain to Global Britain</ins>

<img src="https://discussion.policharcha.in/1608367246758" alt="Boris Johnson wants Global Britain, and needs India support in the Indo-Pacific." style="float:none;height: auto;width: auto"/>

In a statement given by PM Boris Johnson, he said, "I am absolutely delighted to be visiting India next year at the start of an exciting year for Global Britain, and look forward to delivering the quantum leap in our bilateral relationship that Prime Minister (Narendra) Modi and I have pledged to achieve."
The key words to notice here are ‘Global Britain’ and ‘Quantum Leap’, which signify that, in a post-Brexit world, the UK is willing to establish itself outside the purview of EU, and is ready to acknowledge India as a companion in its goal to increase its global footprint, both diplomatic and economic, in the <a href="https://policharcha.com/article/internationalrelations/a08b9462-ab09-4d42-be8f-040db0beb017/how-india-established-indopacific-in-the-new-multipolar-world-order" target="_blank">Indo-Pacific, a region which is gaining importance</a>, considering the current geo-political scenario.
“The British PM will use his visit to boost co-operation in areas that matter to UK, and that will be our priorities for our international engagement throughout 2021 - from trade and investment, to defence and security, and health and climate change”, the Downing No 10 said in the statement.
<ins>Transition from G7 to D10; Rise of the Indo-Pacific</ins>
In order to achieve his ambition to work with a group of like-minded democracies to advance shared interests and tackle common challenges, Boris Johnson has invited PM Modi to next year’s G7 summit hosted by Britian as one of the three guest nations alongside South Korea and Australia.
PM Johnson has the idea of “D10” grouping of nations ideologically committed to combating the march of authoritarian states. The India visit of PM Johnson will mark a historic event as Britain is going to enter into the Post-Brexit world, leaving the single European Market after decades of economic success juxtaposed with neo-liberal policies of Thatcher and Reagan of ‘80s.
The reality of Global Britain would only come true if UK establish trade relations with other leading market economies like India, and emerge out from already suffering economy, increasing poverty, lowering social security and welfare schemes, especially in the aftermath of pandemic.&nbsp;
Boris Johnson’s plan to transform the G7 forum of leading industrialised nations into a broader grouping of 10 leading democracies capable of challenging China and other authoritarian states can be seen as a significant diplomatic move to deepen UK-India relations, and along with that, to symbolise the post-Brexit tilt to the Indo-Pacific.
The No 10’s Indo-Pacific vision is expected to align with the New Delhi’s vision of Indo-Pacific region as free, open, and prosperous. PM Johnson’s vision for ‘UK outside the EU’ and Indo-Pacific strategy will be given explicitly in the integrated foreign and security review, which was heralded as the “‘largest review of the UK’s foreign, defence, security, and development policy since the end of the Cold War”, according to the UK Parliament, due to be published early in the new year. It will also provide insights to the soundbite Global Britain that has become a mainstay of post-Brexit foreign policy talk.
UK Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, said Britain’s upcoming integrated strategic review will contain an “Indo-Pacific tilt”, and there is “no stronger partner” in the east than India.
In eastward looking strategy of UK, India is emerging as a key player, and recent shifts in global politics pave the way to serve both their interests, if they work together in the areas such as connecting people, trade and prosperity, defence and security, climate change, and health.
Johnson said, “As a key player in the Indo-Pacific region, India is an increasingly indispensable partner for the United Kingdom as we work to boost jobs and growth, confront shared threats to our security and protect our planet.”
Britain’s connection with Indo-Pacific world stretches back centuries, when it used to be ‘Great’ Britain. Relationship begun due to trade competition with the Portuguese and Spanish in the 16th century from the voyages of discovery by Captain Cook to the colonisation of India, and beyond into the 20th century.
The post-WWII 20th century turned out to be dramatic for Britain in Indo-Pacific region when it decided to pull back East of Suez in 1960s, resulting in the UK’s curtailed security presence in the region.
The UK leased out its strategically important military base at Diego Garcia island to the US in the cold war era which became crucial to safeguard the rule-based international system in 21st Century, as it sits astride crucial maritime trade routes from Gulf strait to the Strait of Malacca, which have seen a dramatic increase in naval traffic from China, India, Japan, and the United States.
Although UK is present in every Indo-Pacific country, even in Maldives and Seychelles, where US is absent, but it has failed to publicise its role in the region, or articulate its goal set for the region’s countries.
India is a major power in Indian Ocean, and has the potential to become the biggest trading partner in the region along with the security and strategic partner in the Indo-Pacific for Britain in coming years as this region would be new area for world dominance.
"The Indo-Pacific is all about looking at what are your options... We would like the UK to come in as a major investor and innovation partner; a range of activities in the digital and cyber age which may not have been even possible to conceive earlier," current foreign secretary Harshvardhan Shringla said, and hoped that UK would follow the path of France, the Netherlands, and Germany to formulate its Indo-Pacific strategy keeping with the new definitive shifts in the region as the Quad is emerging as a military alliance, and in the global economic trajectory from the Atlantic to the Indo-Pacific.
S Jaishankar said, “The Indo-Pacific is a reality because...it is an articulation of globalisation, the fact that you cannot deal with different theatres in a watertight way. The kind of challenges the world faces today – climate change, maritime security, terrorism, [and] the opportunity to increase connectivity – all these require a larger arena and more coordinated efforts.”
<ins>Free Trade Agreement in the pipeline</ins>
India and United Kingdom are examining ways to intensify the trade relations in the coming decade when Britain would finally leave the European Single market, and would proudly walk on the path to become ‘Global Britain’.
India and UK have agreed to announce the 10-year-roadmap for India-UK relations as well as an “Enhanced Trade Partnership”, which will be a prelude to the proposed Free Trade Agreement (FTA). Both the countries will speed up negotiations for a free trade agreement against the backdrop of Britain looking to enhance its trade ties, amid its troubled exit from the European Union, and can sign an early harvest deal as early as next month when British Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, will visit New Delhi.
<ins>Some numbers</ins>
The No 10 highlighted the two countries’ burgeoning trade and investment relationship, which it said is worth £24 billion ($32 billion, 26 billion euros) annually, and supports more than half a million jobs. Bilateral Merchandise trade between the two countries has been in the range of US$15.45 billion in 2019-20, and trade in Services has been around US$ 9.5 billion in 2017.
Bilateral trade has remained in favour of India, but only during the FY20, in comparison to previous year. UK used to be the second largest trading partner of India in 1998-99, but it ranked 16th in the list of India’s trading partners during the year 2018-19.
India invested in 120 projects and created 5,429 new jobs in the UK to become the second-largest source of foreign direct investment (FDI), after the US, in 2019, according to the Department for International Trade (DIT) inward investment statistics for 2019-2020.
As per the CII-Grant Thornton India meets UK Report 2020, there are now a record 850 Indian companies operating in the UK, with combined revenues of almost £41.2 billion (£48 billion in 2019). Together, they paid over £461.8 million in corporation tax (£684 million in 2019), and employed 110,793 people (104,783 in 2019). This figure excludes employees of UK branches of Indian companies. If these were included, the employment numbers would be substantially higher.
<ins>Defence Partnership</ins>
The defence cooperation between India and United Kingdom remained below the par during the cold war due to the 1971 Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation between India and USSR, which virtually gave a status of Warsaw Pact member to India, creating an adversary for Britain in India as it was in opposite camp led by capitalist US.
The disintegration of USSR, and disappearance of communist fatherland from the world facilitated laying the foundation of broader UK-India defence cooperation in March 1995 with the decision to establish a Defence Consultative Group (DCG) headed by India’s Defence Secretary and the UK’s Permanent Under-Secretary for Defence.
The DCG in future intends to create two sub-groups, focusing on the joint environment including cyber and space, and defence reform cooperation. The Cameron-Modi summit in 2015 proved a significant milestone towards holding annual strategic dialogues at the defence minister level as well as the level of joint/integrated and single service chiefs. The defence cooperation is not limited to dialogues and meetings, but joint UK-India military exercises, notably the Konkan naval exercises held since 2004 on a bi-annual basis in the Indian Ocean, the Indra Dhanush Air Force exercises held since 2006, and the Shamsheer Bugle army exercises held since 2010.
The future military cooperation includes the mutual defence logistics support agreement which is an advanced stage of negotiation like India inked with US, along with the Government-to-Government (G2G) mechanism for defence deals. Defence training Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) is also in progress, hoping to get a push with the PM Johnson’s visit.
The two countries are close to signing a G2G agreement on jet technology development. They are already in partnerships and joint ventures in Armoured Fighting Vehicle engines, Firearms, Howitzers, Air defence systems in land domain, Air Cushioned vehicles, Critical warship navigation equipment in maritime domain, and Missile simulation systems in Air Domain. Moreover, the UK has approached India during Aero-India 2018 for joint technological development for sixth-generation fighters which can fit into India’s fifth generation Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA).
The UK Navy offered the design of its HMS Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers for Indian Navy’s proposed second indigenous carrier which would be in its maiden deployment arrive in Indian Ocean next year.
The scheduled visit by UK PM is already being seen as starting a new era between India and UK, at a time when both the countries are equally important to each other for fulfilling their international politics agenda in a multipolar world order.

Significance of Boris’ visit to India; rise of the Indo-Pacific

<img src="https://discussion.policharcha.in/1608341681596" alt="India established Indo-Pacific in the new multipolar world order to couter China" style="float:none;height: auto;width: auto"/>

The evolution of world from a multilateral one, which was being led by the West, to a more plurilateral one, which offers a relatively more level playing field to other nations, is giving rise to a multipolar world that we are witnessing today.
Multipolarity, in the arena of international relations, is regarded as a sharing of power among more than two countries, not necessarily <a href="https://policharcha.com/article/nation/203170c0-7305-4852-99d5-91fe035d8189/breakdown-of-preamble-of-indian-constitution-meaning-of-democracy" target="_blank">democracies</a>, which command a similar volume of military, cultural, and economic influence.
The days of the past had exhibited that just a few countries from the West could dictate the terms on how the world would function, but today’s world is characterised by the fact that we are seeing more <a href="https://policharcha.com/article/nation/44e8b417-c6d4-48fb-b5a8-28c0deca0e23/the-west-vs-india-who-came-to-the-rescue-of-the-third-world" target="_blank">‘regional superpowers’, specially after seeing how COVID has exposed the West</a>. China, and, one can say, India are two noteworthy examples which show a shift in power balance from West to the Global South.
The shift in economic balance of power was largely initiated due to one of the biggest economic downturn the world has seen – The Financial Crisis of 2008. It prompted the West to share its influence in geo-politics. Resultantly, we saw a more open and larger international forum in the form of G20 group of countries.
Therefore, the events of 2008 paved the way for an economic rebalancing of the world which ultimately got translated into a political rebalancing of the world.
Moreover, the last three decades have been marked by growing nationalistic approach by several countries like the US, China, and others. These countries have prioritised their own interests while making foreign and economic policies, and naturally so.
The weakening of multilateralism, coupled with the rising of nationalistic attitude gave way to a multipolar world - a world where there are not one, not two, but many ‘super powers’, a stark do away with the bi-polar world that we had observed during the time of the Cold War.
This is a world where countries are going beyond pre-determined alliances to make new groupings that have mutual interests and can share the global burden. We have seen the soon-to-be former President of the US, Donald Trump, putting forth the idea of a G10/11 because G7 got “outdated”, and the incumbent Prime Minister of the UK, Boris Johnson, who was scheduled to go on an <a href="https://policharcha.com/article/internationalrelations/c2b6a694-79a0-4c10-b4a4-beab54ebdce6/significance-of-boris-visit-to-india-rise-of-the-indopacific" target="_blank">important visit</a> (now cancelled due to COVID) to India, talking about enlarging the scope of G7 to a D10, which is a group of 10 Democracies.
<ins>What do G10/11 and D10 have in common?</ins>
G7 is a group of seven countries, namely US, UK, France, Germany, Canada, Italy, and Japan. Now, both Trump and Johnson want India, Australia, and South Korea to be a part of the G7. The West is looking to counter the <a href="https://policharcha.com/article/internationalrelations/76157c99-4081-4ec1-a093-1d1d84953ec3/india-and-china-more-than-what-meets-the-eye" target="_blank">authoritarian and expansionist regime of China</a>, and it will have to work together with more strategic coalitions, and more importantly, with the above mentioned three countries.
India, South Korea, and Australia are the three major economies present in the Pacific and the Indian Ocean Region. Thus, the West has a vested interest in perhaps the most relevant region called the Indo-Pacific.
<ins>Importance of Indo-Pacific</ins>
Indian Ocean Region, or one can also say the Indo-Pacific region, is becoming a hotspot of regional and global dominance due to its increasing economic and strategic importance, and China has started flexing its muscles in the region, creating an obstacle in rule-based international order.
QUAD countries – US, India, Australia, and Japan - holding joint naval drills for the first time in the region, Germany announcing to send a warship in Indian Ocean as part of plans to contain the China’s growing authoritarian influence in the region, European countries formulating Indo-Pacific strategy against the backdrop of China’s increasing belligerence towards its neighbours in Asia, and Australia increasing its military expenditure to $270B to build larger and more technologically advanced defence forces are the events reflecting that Indo-Pacific region is crucial for foreign policy of countries, which want to save the international law &amp; order to create prosperous, free, and safe ocean environment.
The vast maritime space stretching from the western coast of North America to the eastern shores of Africa is popularly known as Indo-Pacific. The term became popular in international politics as India highlighted the importance of the region, both economically and strategically, to draw the attention of world leaders and policy-makers.
“India not just mainstreamed the expression Indo-Pacific but, more substantially, encouraged others to perceive and define the region in its full extent", said Foreign Secretary Shringla.
<a href="https://policharcha.com/article/internationalrelations/ba0f0874-d036-42fb-8196-46a365b93ae7/india-chairs-the-high-table-in-a-fractionated-united-nations" target="_blank">India becoming a part of a fractionated UNSC</a> gives it more say in shaping the discourse at the high table. India faces its own set of <a href="https://policharcha.com/article/internationalrelations/78a989d0-fd72-4e7a-98d0-1f73cb1ac94e/opportunities-challenges-for-india-at-the-unsc" target="_blank">opportunities and challanges</a> at the UNSC, but it is slowly and steadily turning the eye of the world towards the Indo-Pacific region.
“In the past, the Indo-Pacific concept was seen as an Asian concept with Western Europe keeping a safe distance. Now, the gloves are off.” Harsh Pant, an international relations professor at King’s College, London said.
India had done its bit to link western countries to the Indo-Pacific, and put forth the idea that the Indo-Pacific is not a regional construct, but a global issue.
The West will increase its footprint in Indo-Pacific to safeguard the democratic values of navigation in the sea, and there is no better partner than India. Thus, making Indo-Pacific an area of strategic importance in the new multipolar world order.

Importance of Indo-Pacific in the new multipolar world order

<img src="https://discussion.policharcha.in/1608113311624" alt="Saudi Arabia and UAE move closer to India, even at the cost of Pakistan." style="float:none;height: auto;width: auto"/>

Pakistan is the world-renowned host of an Ivy League institution of terrorism education and training funded by <a href="https://policharcha.com/article/internationalrelations/1bf82b33-bfb3-438e-8789-9e97f49583d7/deepstate-pakistan-in-deep-trouble" target="_blank">deep-state Pakistan</a>. The graduates of these institutions are on the front-foot in proliferating the venomous propaganda to other nations, especially India by the means of physical destruction, creation of fear among locals, and brain-washing youths.
India is a long-time victim of state-sponsored terrorism originating from other side of the Line of Control. Ranked as the 17th most fatal terrorist attack in 2019 according to Global Terrorism Index, which termed <a href="https://policharcha.com/article/nation/6b6ae17f-e802-48a9-803e-81001a6ff732/india-is-the-th-most-affected-country-by-terrorism" target="_blank">India as the 8th most affected nation by terrorism</a>, the 14th February attack by Jaish-e-Muhammad graduates on the Indian paramilitary in Pulwama killed 41 soldiers and kick started a chain of events.
India’s punitive retaliatory action against Pakistani terror camps on the land of Pakistan, the ceremonial handover by Pakistan of a captured Indian Air Force pilot during Balakot strikes, and subsequently Pakistan opting out from attending the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) meeting for the first time ever due to invitation to former Foreign Minister and late Sushma Swaraj by OIC as a Guest of Honour. This series of events in the span of a month points out to an important development - Pakistan is losing friends abroad and its global isolation is increasing which have significant strategic implications.&nbsp;
Pakistan plays on the same tune every time it has sponsored these graduates to carry out any terrorist activity in India - it denies any involvement of the state. Now, things are changing and not in the favour of Pakistan. Pakistan is selling its predictable denial strategy to the world, but it has no more buyers outside Pakistan.
<ins>Change of positions</ins>
The Mumbai terror attack was one of the biggest and the most horrendous terrorist attacks on the Indian soil by a Pakistani terrorist group which received global sympathy for India as a victim, but countries that used to be allies of Pakistan - United Kingdom, the United States, the European Union, as well as Gulf countries such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates – issued statements denoting these state-sponsored terrorist groups as “non-state actors” which act independently. Their expressions of faith in Pakistan’s promises on acting against terrorist activity have refrained them from directly blaming the State of Pakistan as an accused.
Fast forward 11 years, and Pulwama incident happened. These countries, which now believed that these terrorist groups are just another propaganda hand of the deep-state and got sick of Pakistan’s lies, are not willing to praise the Pakistan government’s actions against domestic terrorists and are compelling Pakistan for strict actions against terrorists targeting India and Afghanistan. It took more than a decade for these countries to shift from their initial positions.
The US and Iran are geostrategic rivals, and recent events like unilateral withdrawal of US from Iran nuclear deal called JCPOA, international economic sanctions on Iran by the US, and oil tanker attack by Iranian patrol teams in the Persian Gulf gave their rivalry a new height. Despite being at the loggerheads, both US and Iran share one similar position which pertains to Pakistan’s behaviour towards the terrorist groups thriving in the country.
US State Department released a statement after the Indian punitive raid on Balakot which said, “We reiterate our call for Pakistan to abide by its United Nations Security Council commitments to deny terrorists safe haven and block their access to funds.” The French Ministry of Foreign Affairs went a step further when it said, “France recognises India’s legitimacy to ensure its security against cross-border terrorism and asks Pakistan to put an end to the operations of terrorist groups established on its territory.”
<ins>Paradigm Shift</ins>

<img src="https://discussion.policharcha.in/1608113479584" alt="Diplomacy, backed by economic incentive, is the way to counter policies established on religious stimulus" style="float:none;height: auto;width: auto"/>

The OIC — formerly Organisation of the Islamic Conference — is the largest Islamic organisation with total of 57 Muslim majority countries as members, formed with the objective “to safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world in the spirit of promoting international peace and harmony among various people of the world.”.
The Indian delegation headed by Minister Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed was disinvited from the first meeting of Organisation of the Islamic Conference in 1969, and exactly after 50 years, former Minister of External Affairs, late Sushma Swaraj was invited by United Arab Emirates as the ‘Guest of Honour’ for the inaugural plenary 46th meeting of OIC Foreign Ministers in 2019 amidst heightened tensions between both the rival countries after Pulwama attacks and the subsequent Balakot strike. This development was deemed as a major diplomatic victory against Pakistan which successfully cornered Pakistan, a founding member of the OIC, in the same organisation. Pakistan had opposed the invitation to Sushma Swaraj, while Foreign Minister of Pakistan Shah Mehmood Qureshi boycotted the plenary after the UAE turned down his demand to rescind the invitation clearly displaying the lack of support for Pakistan in the international arena, even from its traditional allies.
The OIC has supported Pakistan's stand on Kashmir, and criticised Indian armed forces for performing atrocities against local Kashmiris citing human rights abuse. The statements critiquing Indian role in Kashmir over the last three decades became an annual ritual of an OIC meeting to appease Pakistan's Kashmir agenda but this time, on November 27 in Niamey (Niger), there was no mention of the Kashmir issue being on the agenda, giving a major blowback to Pakistan, which always used the OIC platform to please the Kashmiri Hurriyat.
Pakistan had been demanding for a special meeting of OIC Foreign Ministers to be convened to discuss the issue more aggressively ever since the Indian Parliament abrogated Article 370 in August last year, but to its dismay, the OIC has not accepted Islamabad's request for convening an unscheduled meeting.&nbsp;
The non-inclusion of the Kashmir issue in the OIC Foreign Minister's meet is clearly a big failure of Pakistan’s Kashmir Policy arising out of incompetent handling of the situation. It shows Pakistan has been isolated by OIC member countries, especially, Saudi Arabia and UAE, the de-facto leaders of the organization. The Pakistani matters does not matter much as they used to in the past, and this year's OIC theme was 'United against terrorism for peace and development' which can be seen as a clear signal to Pakistan to stop propagating hate and conflicts from its land.
For the first time in 2017, India had laid the red carpet for a leader who is neither the head of government, nor the head of State, when we invited Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan as the Chief Guest at the 68th Republic Day Celebrations. Abu Dhabi described India as a “friendly country” of “great global political stature”.
Moreover, Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi, both countries have rewarded Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi with their highest civilian award. The relations between India and Saudi Arabia is deepening and have become more significant than Saudi-Pakistan traditional-historical-Islamic ties, the reason being the emerging trade relations between both the countries. The Kingdom is India's fourth-largest trading partner with the trade amounting to be around $28 billion. India imports almost one-fifth of its oil requirements from Saudi fields.
Today, India-UAE trade is around $60 billion. UAE was India's third largest trading partner for the year 2018-19. After US, UAE is the second largest export destination of India with an amount of over $30 billion for the year 2018-19. For UAE, India was the second largest trading partner during 2018 with $36 billion from non-oil trade.
Pakistan’s frustration on the issue of J&amp;K not getting any traction internationally has been mounting. This led to an attempted alignment with Iran, Malaysia, and Turkey, to upstage Saudi Arabia and UAE in the OIC. The Pakistani FM shot his mouth off by warning that if the OIC did not show enough activism on J&amp;K, Pakistan would be forced to form a separate Islamic platform outside the OIC.
This was a direct challenge to the leadership of Saudi Arabia. The Saudis did not take kindly to Pakistan’s hectoring, and have cracked the whip. Pakistan paid the price of having its loan worth $3 billion recalled, and its army chief’s mission to mend ties, resulting in his being roundly snubbed as he failed to get a meeting with the Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman. They forced Pakistan to return $1 billion recently which Islamabad repaid after Beijing came to its rescue. The two sides are now locked in tough negotiations for repayment of the rest of the debt. The main culprit behind Saudis cracking the whip on Pakistan is India-Saudi economic and security ties, which are getting strengthened day by day reflecting in the actions of Saudis to avoid the Kashmir issue on international forums, a clear indication of upswing ties with India. Riyadh and Delhi declaration between India and Saudi established both countries as a “strategic partner”. Both the countries involved in counter-terrorism measures which would have been an impossible scenario a few years ago.

Diplomacy & economic incentive trump religious aspirations

<img src="https://discussion.policharcha.in/1607254927701" alt="Deep-state Pakistan in deep trouble. Imran Khan and General Bajwa duo on the backfoot as Pakistan Democratic movement holds ground." style="float:none;height: auto;width: auto"/>

If the chaotic economic conditions, and a deteriorated image at the geo-political spectrum were not enough, the rapidly growing political instability in Pakistan is surely acting as a thorn in the flesh of the Pakistani Government led by the incumbent PM Imran Khan.
Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM), an alliance of 11 opposition parties, has made its political goal to sack Imran Khan, who, for all we know, is a puppet in the hands of Pakistan’s army. This makes Pakistan a ‘Deep State’, which is an infamous and trending term in Pakistani politics.
Moreover, the news from international arena is not favouring the fate of Pakistan - withdrawal of US from Afghanistan seems to end Pakistan’s 20-year long leverage against the superpower, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is <a href="https://policharcha.com/article/internationalrelations/733feb68-6fac-4ca3-a034-1b50221d5862/case-of-omar-saeed-fatf-talks-pakistan-playing-in-out" target="_blank">on the verge of putting Pakistan in the ‘black list’ for terror-funding and money laundering</a> , Pakistan’s economy is now on the mercy of IMF bailout or <a href="https://policharcha.com/article/internationalrelations/76157c99-4081-4ec1-a093-1d1d84953ec3/india-and-china-more-than-what-meets-the-eye" target="_blank">Chinese investment in the face of China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC)</a> , new administration in the US can create obstacles in the path of Pakistan at the international arena as the Democratic Party gives significant importance to human rights and democratic values in their foreign policy while dealing with countries unlike their Republican predecessor.
<ins>Political instability looms over Pakistan as PDM holds ground against Imran-Bajwa duo</ins>
Getting back to the political instability, a major political shift is on the horizon for Pakistan as PDM launched a nationwide protest movement to unseat PM Imran Khan, seeking his removal over food shortages and inflation, and demanding the military to stop meddling with politics. The PDM is united umbrella of eleven opposition parties in Pakistan including Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League along with Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, the Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party and others in the leadership of Maulana Fazlun Rehman, who is elected as chief of the movement to avoid the internal clashes among the opposition parties.
The movement began with a huge rally organised in Gujranwala demonstrating that pressure is building on Imran Khan, who came in power in 2018 on the promise to eradicate the corruption in the Pakistani domestic politics, and reduce the powerful influence of the deep state, but it seems like Imran khan is following the path set out by military and ISI bosses.
<ins>What is a deep state?</ins>
The term 'deep state' is originated in the Turkish language. In Turkey, a phenomenon was called derin devlet or the deep state, which was first used in the context of groups carrying disproportionate influence in a polity, or a state short-circuiting the recognised lines of authority.&nbsp;
In contemporary times, Pakistan is deep state in the truest forms where the military, which has been touted as the largest political party that is always in power and does not have to even contest in any election to be in power, is calling all the shots. The deep state is often referred as ‘state within the State’ as it runs parallel with the democratically elected political leadership, and makes decisions that overrules every other constitutional institution’s in the country whenever its own ‘institutional interests’ are in jeopardy. It resides deep inside the bureaucratic machinery of the nation equipped with well-oiled public relations strategy to present the military rule as legitimate one. This parallel establishment is also assisted by an obliging vernacular media to propagate its narrative and to mobilise people in support of the army.
With a squeamish civilian bureaucracy, numerous activists, and a hyperactive judiciary opposed to elected Government in power, the military has demonstrated its ability to sway public opinion one way or the other to retain its salience in Pakistan polity.
<ins>From anti-government to anti-military</ins>
Nawaz Sharif, who understands the zero-sum games of deep-state, and believed that it would lead the nation into an economic dead-end and an international isolation, is now part of the campaign which began as anti-government movement but soon transformed into anti-military. “General Bajwa is responsible for rigging 2018 elections, curbs on the media, abduction of journalists, and forcing judges to give decisions”, former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif said while addressing his supporters at the massive demonstration rally in the Gujranwala.
It is natural for opposition leaders to condemn the incumbent government. It is, however, quite surprising that they are confronting the powerful military, which is considered a “holy cow” in the South Asian country. The growing discontent for military has now been seen among the civilian population as an opponent in the realm of political governance and economy. “The military is not only involved in politics, (but also) has huge stakes in Pakistan’s economic affairs. To protect these interests, it has captured the state. The situation is so grave that elected representatives have become totally powerless”, a political-analyst Arshad Mahmood told DW.
The Pakistan army chiefs have ruled Pakistan for over 35 years directly, army’s total budget is 20% of the total annual budget of the country, it owns over 50 commercial entities, and rules country’s real estate, communications, and food businesses. Ayesha Siddiqa detailed in her 2007 book, ‘Military Inc: Inside Pakistan’s Military Economy’, how the Pakistan army owns 12% of fertile land in Pakistan, and the estimated worth of 100 senior-most military officials should at least be $3.5 billion. Nawaz Sharif even went to say that “State above the State” exists in Pakistan in the form of deep-state in his strident criticism.&nbsp;&nbsp;
The Pakistan Army’s project of using Imran Khan as a puppet to rule the democratically representative government has come out to be a total disaster for the governance and economy. The Nawaz Sharif government, which believed in free trade and considered open borders as the key to prosperity, saw a term of growth and economic recovery despite the efforts of army to destabilise the political environment of the country. Every economic and social indicator went downwards under the Imran-Bajwa hybrid martial law regime, and every constitutional right since has been trampled upon.
<ins>State of the economy – "Pakistan on the verge of bankruptcy"</ins>
Pakistan’s economy is in virtual free-fall since cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf (PTI) government has been installed by the establishment. The cash-strapped Pakistan’s economy has been severely hit by the coronavirus pandemic, but even before the Covid-19 breakout in February, the country’s economy was diving low from 5.4 % in 2017 to 3.9 % in 2019, while inflation skyrocketed from 4.2 % in 2017 to 9.4 %. Inflation is going to rise with the increase in the import of steel for construction, import of wheat and sugar to meet domestic shortfall. The Imran Khan led government has brought Pakistan on the verge of bankruptcy, said the PDM.
The measly economic growth puts Pakistan amongst the lowest in South Asian countries in human development indicators with about a quarter of the country’s over 220 million population living below the national poverty line, and over 22 million children remain out of school. With public debt at 70 % of the GDP, foreign exchange reserves sitting at a paltry $9 billion, poor exports and high imports, falling expatriate remittances, plunging stock market, a struggling industrial sector grappling with infrastructure nightmares like water and power supply, and faltering cotton-driven agro-economics, the hyper-patriotic, chest-thumping Imran Khan and his backers went begging the IMF for the 22nd time in the country’s history.
The high-profile kidnapping of a police chief in Pakistan by official paramilitary troops signals further turmoil in a country which is already bracing for more protests against PM Imran Khan. This would create more rift among civilian provincial government and Army. The promotion of jihadists and sponsoring of terrorism have already created a lot of hurdles for Pakistan in the past at international level, where it either sat in the lap of US or in China’s for protection. As US is forming a strategic partnership with India, it can only be China which can come to Pakistan’s aid.
Toppling democratic values in the name of preserving deep state is now beginning to create a havoc in the domestic politics of Pakistan which would have long lasting impact on the functioning of the deep state and in reflection, the government.

Deep-state Pakistan in deep trouble

<img src="https://discussion.policharcha.in/1605100532359" alt="Pm NArendra Modi puts-down China and Pakistan at the 20th Summit of SCO Council of heads of State." style="float:none;height: auto;width: auto"/>

Prime Minister Narendra Modi took part in the first-ever-virtual-summit of the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation (SCO). Under the chairmanship of Russia, all the members and observer states joined the 20th Summit of SCO Council of heads of State via video conferencing.
Albeit virtually, this was the first time PM Modi and Chinese President Xi Jinping were face to face after the deadly altercation between the Indian and Chinese armies at the LAC in mid-June. Recognising the vitality of a nation’s sovereignty and integrity, PM Modi took the opportunity to convey a message to both the neighbours, China and Pakistan, and said, “India believes that to further deepen connectivity, it is necessary to carry forward with the core principles of respecting each other's sovereignty, and territorial integrity.”
Leading the Indian delegation, PM Modi addressed the SCO Council where he highlighted the leading role played by India during the times of Covid-19 pandemic. He recounted the Indian Army’s contribution in United Nations Peacekeeping Operations, and India’s Pharma Industry’s prominent role in providing support and relief through constant supplies after the novel coronavirus outbreak.
“Let us all stay happy and disease free. In this painful time of unprecedented pandemic, India's pharmaceutical industry helped more than 150 countries with essential medicines. As the world's largest vaccine producing country, India will use its vaccine production and distribution capacity to help the entire humanity in fighting this crisis,” he added.
<ins>A way for cultural exchange</ins>
While talking about the historical and cultural relationship India has with the SCO region, PM Modi also mentioned the initiative of holding first SCO cultural exhibition on Shared Buddhist Heritage by National Museum of India. He also talked about the upcoming SCO Food Festival to happen in India in 2021, and about the translation of ten Indian regional literary works into Russian and Chinese languages.
“I give my outright support to celebrate the 20th anniversary of SCO in the year 2021 as SCO Culture Year. The National Museum of India is in the process of organising the first SCO exhibition on our shared Buddhist heritage this year. The Literature Academy of India has completed the translation of ten Indian literary works in Russian and Chinese languages,” he said.
He presented the ideas of Atma-nirbhar Bharat (Self Reliant India) movement, and how it could add a ‘multiplier effect’ to the global economy in a post-pandemic world.
“I believe that Self-reliant India will prove to be a Force Multiplier for the global economy, and will accelerate the economic progress of the SCO region,” he further added.
While congratulating to the Russian President Vladimir Putin for calling the SCO virtual meet, PM Modi proposed for India to host the next regular virtual meeting of the SCO, next year.&nbsp;
<ins>About Shanghai Cooperation Organisation</ins>
The SCO is a regional and inter-governmental organisation formed in Shanghai, China in 2001. The members of former Shanghai Five Group - China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan - along with Uzbekistan established this regional body while calling it a ‘Eurasian political, economic, and security alliance’. It is headquartered in Beijing, China.
India and Pakistan joined the SCO as its full-fledged members in 2017 after being ‘observer states’ for more than a decade. Afghanistan, Belarus, Iran, and Mongolia are other observer states.
<ins>Observer States</ins>: Unlike the permanent members, these States do not possess the voting power, and cannot make any proposals. Though their participation in the summit is allowed, they do not have decision making powers.&nbsp;
The aim of the SCO is to maintain peace, security, and stability in the region by developing mutual trust and ‘neighbourliness’, co-operation in politics, culture, research &amp; technology, and to share common goals in education, energy, and environmental protection.&nbsp;
The Council of Heads of States is the chief decision making body of the SCO, and it comprises of Presidents (in India and Pakistan’s case, their Prime Ministers) of the member States.
A body of the SCO is Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure which is established to combat separatism, extremism, and terrorism.

PM Modi puts down China-Pak at SCO meet; bids for India to lead Covid-19 world recovery

<img src="https://discussion.policharcha.in/1593475932277" alt="India bans 59 Chinese apps" style="float:none;height: auto;width: auto"/>

Data is considered to be the new oil in today’s age. If you have the data, you have the power. The power to formulate policies, to tackle an adverse situation (like a pandemic), to strengthen a delivery system, to support a propaganda, or even to take down a country in the times of uncertainty.
China has been accused by many countries to strengthen its interest by using the data it collects through its apps and service providers (the case of Huawei’s 5G technology). India, home to more than half a billion internet users, can be considered as an ocean of data where, given the appropriate resources, anyone can take a dive, and use the data to one’s benefit.
Many of the Chinese apps, especially TikTok, have come under the scanner for their unlawful techniques to collect data, and the potential misuse of the same. At a time when relations between India and China are at their worst, a digital cut-off was on the cards.&nbsp;

<ins>Background</ins>
The Indo-China clash in Galwan Valley, Ladakh had sparked protests amongst Indians towards the use of Chinese goods and services. With hashtags like #BoycottChina trending on twitter, many restored to burning effigies of Chinese leader Xi Jinping, and destroying Chinese goods. Many Government agencies also appeared to take part in this by trying to distance themselves from the neighbouring country.
Soon after the clash, the Indian Railways cited "poor progress" to terminate a project with the Beijing National Railway Research and Design Institute of Signal and Communication Group. The Bihar Government recently cancelled tenders for a mega project, while the Maharashtra Government has put three Chinese deals worth Rs 5020 crore on hold.
Now, the Central Government has responded to the Chinese side with a “#DigitalAirStrike”, which is the name given to the move by many Twitteratis owing to the Chinese connections of the apps that have been blocked. The ban also comes two weeks after 20 Indian soldiers were killed, and 76 were wounded in the violent clash with their Chinese counterparts in Ladakh along the Line of Actual Control.
A list of the banned apps is as follows :-&nbsp;

<img src="https://discussion.policharcha.in/1593476374347.jpg" alt="undefined" style="float:none;height: auto;width: auto"/>


In a press release on Monday, the Ministry of Electronics and IT invoked its power under section 69A of the Information Technology Act to block 59 apps with Chinese affiliation (See picture attached), claiming that the listed apps “are engaged in activities which is prejudicial to sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of state and public order.”
The Ministry said that they have received many complaints from various sources including several reports about the misuse of some mobile apps available on Android and iOS platforms for stealing and surreptitiously transmitting users’ data in an unauthorized manner to servers which have locations outside India which ultimately impinges upon the sovereignty and integrity of India.
The Ministry reported that the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-IN), an office in the Ministry of Information technology dealing with cyber security threats, had also received many complaints from citizens regarding the security of data and breach of privacy impacting upon public order issues.&nbsp;
Incoherence with such complaints, the exhaustive list of apps provided by the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre and Ministry of Home Affairs, and not to mention the strong discourse in the public spaces to take strict action against these Apps, the Ministry has taken this move to protect the public’s privacy, according to the official press release.

<ins>Impacts of the Ban</ins>
The ban sends a message about the shift in policy towards China. Gone are the days when India used to appease her neighbour in the hope that China will extend its helping hand towards us. It is about sending a message that our integrity and sovereignty are of paramount importance to us. We will put India first, even at the cost of irritating a neighbour.
On the flipside though, some apps which are on the list are very popular in India, especially Tiktok with 119 million active users from the sub-continent. Other social media platform like Likee, Helo, and Bigo Live were also up and coming platforms attracting a lot of Indian users. These users will now have to look for substitute platforms.
Probably the more concerning impact of this sudden banning is that most of these platforms, more specifically TikTok, had a popular community of “creators” who earned their livelihood creating content on these apps, and for many, it was the only source of income. Along with it, many of these apps have offices and employees in India, where few thousands of jobs could be at stake.&nbsp;

<ins>How will the ban be enforced?</ins>
A notification is to follow, instructing internet service providers to block these apps. Users are likely to get a message saying that the access to these apps has been restricted on the request of the Government.
However, while this will definitely impact apps like TikTok and UC browser, which need a live internet feed to function, users might still be able to use apps which are already downloaded, and do not need the internet. The further download of these apps might not be possible, as it is most likely that Google Play Store, Apple App Store, and others of the like, will block these apps.&nbsp;

This action has been taken in a specific context of national security and specific strategy, and can be considered as a warning to other big Chinese businesses in India, and even to China itself.&nbsp;

A new form of retaliation in this digital age; 59 Chinese apps banned by the Govt

<img src="https://discussion.policharcha.in/1591874537527" alt="India Australia sign agreement to boost military interoperabilty" style="float:none;height: auto;width: auto"/>

India and Australia have recently signed a deal, getting access to each other’s military bases. This deal comes at a time when diplomatic tension between Australia and China is escalating, and the latter is already at a stand-off over international border issue with its neighbour India. The deal, as the Foreign Ministry of India has claimed, is going to clear the way for more military exercise and exchange in the Indo-Pacific region.
The Mutual Logistic Support agreement strengthens the military cooperation between the two countries, and helps build military interoperability. The agreement allows the Australian military to use Indian bases for maintenance work, refuelling, and replenishment of supplies. Similarly, also allowing the Indian Military to use Australian bases. This partnership helps both countries to have strong control over the Indo-Pacific region.
The agreement was signed in a virtual summit held between Narendra Modi and his Australian counterpart, Scott Morison. The India Australia Virtual Summit, a first of its kind, saw a few more agreements between the two countries which call for collaborative work.&nbsp;

Apart from the Mutual Logistic Support agreement the countries also signed the following :-&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;
<ul>
<li>Comprehensive Strategic Partnership agreement</li>
<li>Australia-India Strategic Research Fund to promote innovative solutions for responding to and treating Covid-19.&nbsp;</li>
<li>Framework arrangement on Cyber and Cyber-enabled critical technology cooperation allowing them to work together in the digital economy, cyber-security, and critical &amp; emerging technologies.&nbsp;</li>
<li>Agreement on agriculture and related activities - Agriculture was identified as an important pillar of both the economies with shared challenges and climatic conditions.</li>
<li>Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on mining and processing critical and strategic minerals – Co-operate on new technologies for exploration and extraction of minerals including Australian rare earth metals used for electronics, governance, vocational training, and water management.</li>
<li>Joint declaration on ‘Shared Vision for Maritime Cooperation in the Indo-Pacific’ - The two sides announced a roadmap to harness opportunities and meet challenges together as comprehensive strategic partners.</li>
</ul>
<ins>India and other countries</ins>
India also has a similar logistic support agreement with the United States of America called the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA), and other such agreements France, Singapore, and South Korea.
The LEMOA signed between India and the USA also allows both countries to have access to each other’s designated military facilities for refuelling and replenishment. This pact between the USA and India was to balance out China’s growing economy, and military weight in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), and contain China’s growing influence beyond IOR.

<ins>The Quad to counter China?</ins>
The recent deal between Australia and India along with the LEMAO increases the strength of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue or the Quad. The group, which includes Australia, India, Japan, and the United States of America, is seen as a regional counterweight to China which wishes to decrease and neutralize the Chinese sway in the region. India now already has logistic support agreements with two of the countries, and with India communicating with the Japanese ministry, a similar military deal between the two seems to be inevitable, making it only a matter of time.&nbsp;
While the Indian army is locked in a standoff against Chinese forces in Northern parts of the country, Australia’s frictions with China are also growing. Australia’s push for an international review into the origins and spread of the novel coronavirus drew opposition from China. It is this common concern over China which allows for many bilateral treaties between the two countries, to put pressure on the Chinese influence over the Asia Pacific region.&nbsp;
A reaction from China in the near future can be expected, especially because of its ongoing disputes with both countries.

India Australia sign agreement to boost military interoperability

<img src="https://discussion.policharcha.in/1587894440891" alt="Extradition Laws in India & Vijay Mallya’s Case" style="float:none;height: auto;width: auto"/>
Former liquor tycoon and loan defaulter Vijay Mallya has lost his plea in the UK’s High Court against an extradition order to India. This development can be seen as another positive step towards bringing loan defaulters, who have fled to other nations, back to India.
While Mr. Mallya has another plea left in which he can knock the doors of UK’s Supreme Court, the chances of a stay on extradition order seems bleak.
What is an extradition? How do countries come to a mutual agreement that pertains to the transfer of foreign offenders to their home country? We try to shed more light on this pressing issue.

Extradition means delivery of a person from one State (where the person currently resides) to the ‘requesting’ State (where the person is accused or convicted of any offence). It is an exercise done to bring back the fugitive criminals from foreign lands, in order to present them in the domestic court of law for trial.&nbsp;
The Indian Extradition Act, 1962 lays the legislative provisions for matters related to extradition. The Consular, Passport and Visa (CPV) division of Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) monitors and handles all the incoming and outgoing extradition requests.

<ins>Extradition Process</ins>
<ul>
<li>When a person after committing a crime has escaped from the country, and has taken refuge in a foreign jurisdiction, the MEA sends an ‘extradition request’ on behalf of the Republic of India to that foreign state/country.</li>
<li>The extradition request consists of various documents citing the details of the offender, nature of offence, case details, legal provisions etc.</li>
<li>The involved foreign country, after examining the situation, takes the necessary actions according to its own extradition policies.</li>
<li>Once extradited, the criminal is held under custody, and thus tried for his offence.</li>
</ul>
<ins>Extradition Treaties</ins>
The extradition treaties are usually bilateral agreements between two countries regarding the extradition of fugitive criminals. These treaties provide an obligation on a country, in which the fugitive has taken shelter, to acknowledge the extradition request, and thus start proceedings against the asked criminal.
As of 2018, India has such bilateral treaties with 43 countries and ‘extradition arrangements’ with further 10 countries. In comparison to India, the US and UK have extradition treaties with 100 countries each, whereas some others nations stand on - Russia (64), Canada (49), China (37) and Pakistan (13).&nbsp;
India, which also suffers from cross-border terrorism, does not have extradition treaty with its neighbors like Pakistan, Afghanistan, China and Myanmar.
INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization) can also issue notices (Red and Blue Notices in case of extraditions) to governments in order to extract information about the fugitive criminal and can assist in surrender/delivery of a said person to the country seeking extradition.
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLAT):- Under these treaties, the requesting country can demand the foreign Government to summon and collect the testimony of the fugitive criminal. This does not include detention or extradition. Also, responding to such summon is not binding on the addressed criminal. India has these treaties with 39 countries.

<ins>Extradition Norms</ins>
<ul>
<li>Extradition is not just confined between treaty members. For example India can also send extradition request to a non-treaty country, but the addressed country will not be obliged to take any action. To overcome such hurdles, some arrangements can be made through diplomatic channels regarding the extradition exercise. The foreign country may then act according to its own procedures and can demand reciprocity.</li>
<li><ins>Provisional arrest request</ins>: - The country demanding the extradition of a fugitive can also request for the fugitive’s arrest by provisional authorities of the foreign land, so that the said person cannot run-away until the completion of extradition process.</li>
<li><ins>Dual Criminality</ins>:-The crime committed by the accused fugitive should fall in the category of ‘dual criminality’, that is, it should be a punishable offence by law in both the involved countries.</li>
<li>The crime not falling under the ‘list of crimes’ mentioned in the treaty cannot be reasoned for the extradition. Also, extradition can be denied for ‘purely military or political offences’.&nbsp;</li>
<li><ins>UN Conventions</ins>:- There are certain United Nations conventions like UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCOC) - of which India is a signatory – under which a fugitive who has committed an offence related to corruption can be unconditionally extradited to the requesting country. Thus, ‘dual criminality’ would not be applicable in such a case.</li>
<li>There are countries where capital punishment is banned. If a fugitive has taken refuge in such a country, and the authorities of that country thinks that, if extradited, the accused might get capital punishment, then it is most likely that the country will refuse to extradite.</li>
</ul>
Since 2002, 62 fugitives have been brought back to India out of 110 requests made. As of 2018, more than 150 extradition requests are lying pending whereas 16 are under process. The provision for death sentence, in the rarest of the rare cases though, in India could be one of the reasons behind this low success rate.
Some high profile criminals of whose extradition India awaits are like David Headley, and Tiger Hanif, both terrorists, and Mehul Choksi, Nirav Modi, and Vijay Mallya, all of them are economic offenders.

<ins>Vijay Mallya’s Case</ins>
Vijay Mallya is an Indian businessman who is accused of fraud and money laundering, and owes a whopping Rs 9000 crore to 17 Indian banks. He is currently in London, UK and India is seeking his extradition.
Recently, on April 24, 2020 the High Court of England and Wales approved Mallya’s extradition to India.

<ins>Backdrop</ins>
Mallya took the reins of the UB Group from his father at the age of 28 and made huge profits till his Kingfisher Airlines (founded in 2005) suffered huge losses and succumbed to debt ridden death in 2012. The fortunes of Mallya had already started decaying since the global recession of 2008 which saw lofty rises in fuel prices.
In 2016, amidst CBI raids and SBI’s consortium moving to Debt Recovery Tribunal, Mallya, in the month of March, fled to London.&nbsp;
From London, Mallya proposed to return 4000 crore to Indian banks, but his request was rejected. Several cases of money laundering were registered against him and Enforcement Directorate (ED) issued a non-bailable warrant, following which his passport was also revoked.
As per the extradition treaty, Mallya was arrested on India’s request in April 2017 and proceedings against him began. After several hearings, a UK court approved Mallya’s extradition in December, 2018. Responding to which, Mallya filed a petition against the order. After a month, Indian special court declared Mallya a ‘fugitive economic offender’.
In February, 2019, the UK Home Secretary had also ordered Mallya’s extradition. The final nail on the coffin was put by the High Court of England and Wales on April, 2020.

<ins>Final nail on the coffin? Will Mallya be extradited soon?</ins>
Technically it may not be the final nail on the coffin as Vijay Mallya has still one legal option left, that is to appeal to the Supreme Court of UK. He has got 14 days (till May 3, 2020) to place his plea. However, it is unlikely that he will be relieved by the Supreme Court, thus making it nothing more than a legal formality. The Covid-19 crisis might further delay his case hearing by months.
Hence, Mallya might not be extradited in the coming days, but we can expect him to land in India in the coming months.

Extradition Laws in India & Vijay Mallya’s Case

Trumps business like international policy outlook has reduced USA's influence over world politcs.
Withdrawal from Iran deal.
Trade war with China.
Calling climate-change a hoax.

Trumps short-sightedness.

US dominance is not about just its economic and military might. America's cultural dominance makes it a superpower. I mean we see american movies, listen american songs, wear american clothes and what not

The importance of soft power

What impact would the Coronavirus outbreak make on Chinese, Global and Indian economy?
*China is world's second largest economy.
*China is our largest exporter

Coronavirus and its effects on Chinese, Global & Indian economy

What can be the virus' impact on China's most ambitious project, i.e. The Belt and Road Initiative?
Beijing is trying to penetrate into Western Europe since the project has started and now that US and EU are on the backfoot, China has a chance to increase its presence where it was not before.

Coronavirus and China's Belt and Road initiative.

If China is to really held accountable for this Coronavirus crisis...how should countries especially like US and EU including UK react?
India's stance will also be one to notice, will it go with the flow or still play safe? India still has not blamed China for anthing unlike other few countries.&nbsp;
Even if countries put sanctions on China or take anyother actions, I dont think this the China we can beat anyhow anymore.

Also, could there be an angle of Capitalism vs Communism here?

Handling China

Some reports claim that Kim Jong-Un is dead because of heart complications.
Some are saying that he is alive and well.
He has not been seen since last two weeks now, and had missed Army Day celebrations.
What is really happening?

What's happening in North Korea?

How realistic is our this thought that we should Boycott Chinese Products in response to the Dragon's aggression across the border?

Wallet vs Bullet

Already world is dealing with Covid19.

But China is using this 'opportunity' to engage in creating complications across its borders, whether land with India or sea, in South China Sea.

Now it has fulfilled Bangladesh's long term demand of reduction in tariffs, and that too by 97%! The timing couldnt be perfect.