India- UAE take a dig at Pakistan’s state sponsored terrorism

In a big boost to India’s engagement with the Middle East, NDA government has extended invitation to UAE Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed Bin Zayed Al Nahyan to be the chief guest for the 68^th Republic Day parade. Of late, India is using this occasion to reshape and send message to crucial message to global partners. As against the precedent of inviting head of state or head of government, Modi government invited Deputy commander of Chief Nahyan choosing to invest in the future leadership. Moreover, the crown Prince popularly known as MBZ is the most highly popular leader not only in Emirates but in entire Gulf. He is the third leader from the Middle East to grace the Republic Day celebrations.  Delhi hosted Mohammed Khatami, President of Iran in 2003 and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in 2006. Middle East had a vital importance for India’s security and prosperity. In 1974 when India was condemned for conducting nuclear tests, Shiekh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, father of UAE, supported India’s position and stressed the need for development of nuclear energy by all countries. Later Indira Gandhi in her bilateral visit to UAE cemented relations with UAE but lagged in attracting investments. Pakistan under Z. A. Bhutto and Zia-ul-Haq steadily built strong relations with UAE. In over next past four decades, relations between the countries had its own ups and downs.

Prime Minister Modi on his visit to UAE reenergized bilateral relations and endeavored to bring UAE investors on board. He reinvigorated bilateral ties resting on the pivots of energy security, trade, Defence & Security, and remittances. A series of reciprocal visits by Ministers from both countries maintained steady momentum in bilateral ties. Deputy Crown Prince visited India in Feb 2016 when both countries mooted the idea of elevating strategic bilateral relationship to Comprehensive strategic bilateral partnership. India and UAE during Crown Prince’s state visit have signed 14 Agreements/MoUs which included the much-anticipated Comprehensive Strategic Partnership calling for high level cooperation in different sectors. Accordingly, agreements are signed in the areas of defence, cyberspace, maritime transport, road transport, combatting human trafficking, small and medium enterprises (SME), agriculture and allied sectors and trade.

Regional Security and Counter terror cooperation

The shared concerns of regional security and growing terror attacks have propelled countries to elevate the cooperation in countering international terrorism. UAE’s elevated concerns about burgeoning terror in the region can be traced to the recent to the killings of five UAE diplomats in terror strikes conducted by Afghan Taliban at Kandahar on January 10^th 2017. A high elvel investigation conducted by UAE suggested the involvement of Haqqani network headed by a Afghan Taliban leader. This incident brought about a marked shift in UAE’s approach towards against terrorism. Pakistan and UAE were once strategic allies and an attack on UAE diplomats by Pakistan aided terror network is indeed intriguing. A cloud of mistrust enveloped Pakistan-UAE ties since Islamabad refused to join the Saudi-alliance fighting the Yemen war in 2015. Bilateral ties plummeted further when the Modi resurrected India’s ties with UAE at around the same time. Besides, UAE threatened by growing presence of IS in its backyard reaffirmed support for counter terrorism call given by Modi in 2015.  UAE went one step further and in an official statement chastised Pakistan. “The two nations reject extremism and any link between religion and terrorism. They condemn efforts, including by States, to use religion to justify, support and sponsor terrorism against other countries. They also deplore efforts by countries to give religious and sectarian colour to political issues and disputes, including in West and South Asia, and use terrorism to pursue their aims”.

UAE is one of the first nations that not only condemned the Pathankot and Uri attacks but supported India’s surgical strikes. India and UAE signed an extradition treaty in 2000 heralding cooperation between the security agencies of both countries. Now UAE is no longer the preferred hideout of Pakistan terror operatives. Reiterating strong condemnation towards terrorism both sides stated that “We denounce and oppose terror in all forms and manifestations, wherever committed and by whomever. We call on all states to reject and abandon use of terrorism against other countries, dismantle terrorism infrastructures where they exist and bring perpetrators of terrorism to justice” in the Joint Statement. Both countries agreed to coordinate efforts to counter radicalization, misuse of religions by groups and countries for inciting hatred and perpetrating acts of terror. They emphasized on the need for cultural inclusiveness, openness and tolerance. To foster cultural inclusiveness UAE is currently working through state-sponsored Hedayah groups, with Islamic clerics, schools to wean away from extremist ideologies, extricate extremism from school curriculum. Sermons delivered by Imams on Friday are now heavily vetted by government. Without naming Pakistan, UAE has slammed it for state-sponsored terror.

Economic Engagement

India and UAE have strong ties in trade and commerce. Bilateral trade which was mere $700 million in 1971 steadily rose to $50 billion making it the third largest partner of trade after China and US. UAE is second largest export destination of India amounting to $30 billion after US. Earlier, precious stones, Gems, and jewelry formed the bulk of export basket now engineering and machinery spare parts dominate it.  is the tenth biggest investor in terms of FDI.  For UAE, India is the largest trade partner. While UAE reaffirmed interest in investing in various area, no agreements are signed pertaining to $75 billion investment.

Energy Security

Besides, UAE is very crucial for India’s energy security. In a major push to energy security, India signed a deal with UAE’s Abu Dhabi National Oil Co (ADNOC) under New Delhi’s Strategic Petrol Reserve System. It is an emergency system with an underground storage of 36.87 million barrels of crude oil sufficient to meet energy needs of country for 10 days. Under the agreement with ADNOC will store 6 million barrels crude oil (roughly half the capacity of site), at Mangalore wherein India will have first rights over the oil during emergency. Maintenance of these essential reserves of crude oil is an effort to mitigate countries needs during emergencies. The other had of Mangalore site is already filled with Iranian oil. India has underground facility at Visakhapatnam with 7.55 million barrels of Iraqi oil and Karnataka’s Paduran has capacity of 18.3 million barrels. US has the largest strategic oil reserves. China plans to increase to strategic petroleum reserves to 90 days of supply by 2020.

Other areas of cooperation

Both countries have agreed on manufacturing defence equipment and expanded joint military training. India and UAE combined military exercise Desert Eagle, resumed after eight years. 179-member strong UAE military contingent marched along Indian soldiers on Republic Day heralding the message of friendship and solidarity. In the spirit of nationalism, Burj Khalifa was lit in tricolors on Republic Day. Of the 6 million Indian expatriates, 2.6 million stay in UAE next to 3.2 million Indian in US. Remittance from UAE is accounts for $15 billion. Both sides agreed to collaborate on renewable energy, climate change and initiated a dialogue for space cooperation.

Geopolitical Advantage

Strengthened Indo-UAE ties has imminent strategic advantages. Till now Pakistan stalled and weakened India’s resolutions on Kashmir at UN drawing support from OIC. UAE has significant clout in GCC (Gulf Cooperation Council) and OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation). With UAE levitating towards India, OIC can be little considerate towards Indian concerns of Kashmir. Above all, UAE can be strong partner for India in the strategic gulf area.

For decades, India’s engagement with Middle East was stymied by vested interests who brought the predicament of religion. Further, India’s emphasis on non-alignment, opposition to military alignments had no takers in middle east. Plagued by hesitations, India frittered away many opportunities. Pakistan on the hand, playing faith card, quickly scored over India. But of late Islamabad is struggling to balance ties between arch rivals- Iran and Saudi Arabia. Pakistan’s refusal to be part of 39-nation Saudi Arabia alliance to counter terrorism and ambivalence towards GCC’s action against Iran had muddled its ties with GCC members. In a bid to ameliorate, GCC members, Pakistan’s Raheel Sharif agreed to head the Saudi alliance to fight IS last month. But killings of UAE diplomats by Taliban had widened the rift. Deplorable remarks by Pakistani lobbyists on Indo-UAE bonhomie, trending twitter trolls, invariably suggests that Modi’s active Middle East engagement perhaps touched raw nerves of our Western neighbor.

@ Copyrights reserved

Russia’s shrewd geopolitical positioning

Growing Russian dominance in global strategic conflicts and Moscow’s ability to outmaneuver the United States with shrewd diplomacy is taking US strategists by surprise. US always had two sharply contrasting perspectives about Russia. One of despicable arrogance and the other was compounded by wariness. These two extreme positions prevented West from having a balanced approach towards Russian strategies. West even considered Russia as a political and economic laggard. But intellectuals over the years made a calibrated assessment that “Russia is never as strong as she looks, nor as weak as she looks.” Truly, while Russia had been a formidable opponent for the west during the Cold war era, its eventual collapse led to a steady decline. But despite the sudden fall, Russia retained its remarkable capacity to hang on and wade through.

Astana Peace Talks

Now, mediation of peace talks between the Syrian government and armed militant rebel groups at Kazakhstan capital Astana with unusual partners Turkey and Iran testimonies Moscow’s resurgence. The two day long talks which concluded on Tuesday making a little headway towards cessation of hostilities in Syria. In a Joint statement approved by three guarantor states, it was decided to institute a trilateral mechanism, “to observe and ensure full compliance with the ceasefire, prevent any provocations and determine modalities of ceasefire” and “reiterate their determination to fight joint against ISIL/Daesh and Al-Nusra and to separate them from armed opposition groups”. A nominal ceasefire is in place since December 30^th.

Russia, Turkey and Iran agreed to support negotiations between the Syrian government and armed opposition groups under the auspices of UN at Geneva on Feb 8^th. Till now UN conducted several rounds of peace talks to resolve the Syrian crisis. But what makes Astana talks so significant is for the first time, Russia initiated peace process brought Syrian government and armed opposition to the table. With this, Russia has evolved as the hegemon of the region by filling the vacuum created by the diminutive presence of US in the Middle East. By tactfully keeping Assad out of this newly brokered alliance of the three nations, Russia deftly defended the political inevitability of his regime in Syria. To accomplish this formidable mission, Russia diligently orchestrated an alliance of convenience with Iran and Turkey. Mediating the most intractable conflict of the 21^st Century Russia now aspires to position itself as a leader the changing world order.

Interestingly, Iran and Russia always sided with Syria and made remarkable contributions in seizing several areas from IS. But Russia and Turkey had uneasy relations. Shooting down of Russian fighter plane by Turkey for alleged air space violations in November 2015 and killing of Russian envoy in Ankara a year later could have potentially triggered enmity between the countries. But Russia intent on positioning itself in the middle East accepted the condolences of Turkey and repaired the relations. Russia roped in Turkey despite being an ardent supporter of Syrian opposition through Moscow Declaration and laid foundations for the peace process in Syria. Turkey exasperated by American failure and perturbed by Kurdish advances joined hands with Russia. Russia also brought the ideologically antagonistic partners like Iran and Turkey together which is no mean job either.

Post-Coldwar

For long Russia was dubbed as the “sickman of Europe”. In fact, after the collapse of Soviet Union, though Russia inherited its indomitable military, Moscow was beset with several issues like secession, free fall of Ruble, humongous levels of corruption by oligarchs etc. Russian federations comprising 15 countries plunged into total disarray. To prevent states from seceding from the federation, Russia sent troops to Chechnya in 1994 but could manage to crush the rebellion only by 1999 under the leadership of Putin. The Asian financial crisis of 1997 culminating in Global Economic recession aggravated Russia’s financial crisis. Gladly, with a sudden surge of global oil prices, Russian economy significantly recovered by 2000. Putin was chosen to head new government in 1999 and was appointed as President in 2000. During eight years of his presidency economy recovered substantially, GDP grew by 6.7% per year, average income increased by 11% enabling government to cut external debt by 70%. By 2004, Russian animosity with West intensified due to second NATO expansion into Baltic States (Lithuania, Estonia and Lativa). In 2008, Russia was forced to marched troops to South Ossetia to stall Georgia’s efforts to take over the breakaway region. Moscow, later recognized the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

The Ukrainian Revolution of February 2014 sent the region into tizzy. Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych requested Russia to send military troops to restore law and order in the country. Russian troops eventually entered the autonomous region of Crimea and took control over the region’s parliament. By March 6^th Crimean Parliament unilaterally voted to rejoin the Russian federation and later conducted a referendum. Following the approval of resolution by overwhelming majority Crimea signed a treaty of accession with Russian Federation. Thus, Russia gained control of the region without firing a single shot while UN General Assembly opposed Russia’s annexation of Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol.

Russia’s annexation of Crimea had earned it overwhelming international censure in 2014. Soon economic sanctions were imposed crippling the economy. Russian economy nearly stumbled, Ruble nearly halved and the country was forced to pump in strategic reserves to rescue the country from the debt trap. Apparently, the state of art infrastructure built for the Sochi winter Olympics exacerbated the debt burden. Meanwhile, as global crude oil prices nose-dived, Russian slipped into economic doldrums. Per capita income fell by 10%. Russia was left with two options. One, immediate economic redressal to contain popular resentment and other was raising above the economic travesty and seizing opportunities. Instead of stooping into despair President Putin invoked nationalism and resurrected his flailing popularity by invoking the Ukrainian crisis and Crimean accession. At a time when Russia was considered economically weak and in decline, Putin recovered Russian pride. Crimean annexation aside highlighting Russia’s competent use of force helped Moscow gained unhindered access to Black Sea. Having suffered a humiliating debacle due to its Afghanistan adventurism, Russia didn’t occupy Ukraine. Instead Moscow effectively utilized military might and strategic leveraging of various resources to control Ukraine.  

Strategic Approach of Russia

Russia’s resilience despite economic crisis and mounting international censure had become a point of growing interest among the international diplomats, historians, and politicians. Indeed, Strategists of the West began a comparative analysis of the strategic approach of the Russia and US. Briefly, they summarized that- Russia is well-versed with desired ends, cognizant of available means and retains flexibility. Akin to Darwinism, Russia quickly adapts to the changing dynamics and suitably plans to minimize risks. Whereas Washington’s structured strategic approach designed after a stringent decisive-making is deemed rather inflexible to yield results on ground. While US effectively completes one decision making cycle, Russia attacks the problem with several uncharacteristic assaults, fails and reinvents to accomplish the task. The rather unambiguous approach of Russia, which was confused with lack of stratagem by opponents eventually succeeds. Russian military intervention in Syria which began on September 30^th 2015 characteristically illustrates its basic approach to global conflicts. While America started providing non-lethal aid to rebels after the eruption of Civil war in 2011. Slowly it began providing training, intelligence, and cash to rebels. After the alleged use of Chemical Weapons by the Syrian authorities in August 2013, US resolve of direct intervention began to gain ground. In September 2014, US under Operation Inherent Resolve announced a military campaign against IS by the Combined Joint Task Force (CJTF), a coalition of 14 countries. The coalition pledged to destroy IS and dismantle the Assad regime. They conducted disproportionate numbers of airstrikes. Russia on the other hand, before direct military intervention supplied arms to Syrian army. Moscow besides fighting IS wanted to help Syrian government to regain control over the territories held by opposition forces and stabilize the political power. Indeed, Russia by operating over 50 aircrafts expending $500 million (the amount spent by US on training rebels) has demonstrably instilled signs of reprieve. Russian coalition by felling Aleppo, forced the rebels for a peace talks. Moscow eventually strengthened Bashar Assad’s political regime.

Unlike US, Russia had selectively intervened (Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine and Syria) and produced demonstrable results with modest military expenditure. More so, Russian foreign policy is more aggressive since it had to guard its vast borders from the dozens of neighboring countries with dubious intentions. Being a victim of jihadist problem, it mastered the art of low cost war. Strategist Michel Hoffman, elaborated that Russian doctrine and strategy rests on the “pillars of Gerasimov doctrine and non-linear warfare to hybrid warfare, new generation warfare and cross-domain coercion”. For decades, West casted aspersions on Russian achievements and castigated its shrewd diplomacy. Recently US sent back 35 Russian diplomats alleging Moscow’s interference in US elections by President Obama. President Putin reciprocated by inviting children of Russian diplomats to Kremlin to see his Christmas tree. West’s vilification stems from Russia’s diplomatic triumphs like creation of Eurasian Economic Union with Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, brokering of Syrian chemical weapons disarmament, rapprochement with China and more recently resetting of ties with former Soviet Republics starting with Moldova. At a time when EU is weakening, Russia is precociously heralding a new strategy of keeping a check on former Soviet Republics from considering ties with EU or NATO.

Lessons for India

India has been a close ally of erstwhile Soviet Union since 1960’s and shares exceptional camaraderie. After the collapse of Soviet Union, Russia became time-tested partner of India. For the past five decades, Russia was the top most military weapons and equipment supplier of India. But India’s decision to diversify weapons acquisitions and levitation towards US upset Russia. This was reflected in Russia’s shifting foreign policy stand towards Pakistan. Moscow’s flirtation with Islamabad epitomized in the form of joint-military exercises, agreement for supply of MI-35 attack helicopters, Moscow’s new found interest in CPEC and Russian envoy objecting India’s attempt to isolate Pakistan at Heart of Asia Summit. Russia even deftly avoided naming the Pakistan based terror groups in the Joint Statement at BRICS-BIMSTEC Summit.  Even Russia’s burgeoning rapprochement with China may not bode well for India.  Now, Russia is keen on joining hands with Afghan Taliban to attack Daesh/IS in Afghanistan much against the wishes of New Delhi and Kabul. Russia, Pakistan, and China have recently agreed to remove selected Taliban leaders from the UN sanctions list. India must be really concerned since Russia didn’t feel the need to consult Delhi despite its long-standing relations. P.S. Raghavan, convener of National Security Advisory board in a newsletter suggested that “Russia’s overtures to the Taliban in Afghanistan could create bilateral dissonance in an area of core importance to India”. It is time, India should effectively communicate with Russia and intensify diplomatic activity with Russia else New Delhi might be caught the quagmire of India-US-Afghanistan vs Russia-China-Pakistan. India can ill afford such ominous geopolitical predicament.

Putin a fervent nationalist, authoritarian having mastered the skill of shrewd diplomacy is keen on positioning Russia as a leader in changing global order.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Trump’s Inaugural Address peppered with populism and anti-establishment tirade

Amidst official ceremonial rituals, President elect Trump was handed over the reins of the most powerful country today. Behind the façade of the peaceful transition thousands have hit the roads carrying out protest rallies. Several protestors even smashed shops and cars in Washington. Trump’s stunning victory despite losing the popular vote by a margin of over 3 million caused shock, dismay and anger among millions of Americans who refused to accept him as their president. Understandably so, he has lowest popularity rating of 48% as against 75% of Obama. Meanwhile, even as people started grudgingly accepting Trump as the upcoming President, his audacious outbursts and Twitter spats truly incensed liberals. While the Obama hadn’t left a great legacy behind, the comparisons between the outgoing President and incoming President began to haunt people. Consequently, departure of Obama despite several misgivings was reckoned as end of an era of traditional politics and people began to admire his creditable disposition. Both besides hailing from two different Worlds made strikingly different impressions on the people making deep impact on markedly different sections of the society. While Obama rode to power on high horse of promise of hope and change, Trump adopted populism. Even their idea of America was so very different. Obama, an aspiring young lawyer, senator from Illinois fervently suffused with pragmatism was uniquely distinct from Trump, a real estate billionaire who was a megalomaniac with no political experience. Besides, Trump at 70 is the oldest President ever to take charge. Having never held a public office, Trump’s actions and agenda for the country was largely shrouded. Moreover, being mercurial there was a sense of unpredictability regarding his approach.

Being predictably unpredictable, political analysts, intellectuals and the entire world eagerly awaited his inaugural speech. In his 20 min long inaugural speech which was shortest since Jimmy Carter, he rallied majorly on two important issues- bringing back jobs and infused patriotism. Against all expectations, he neither any attempt to reach out to his dissenters nor spoke of inclusiveness. His rather un-Presidential inaugural speech strongly reminisced a campaigning trail. It lacked positivity and focused endlessly on what is wrong. Not to sound too condescending, eight years ago, President Obama inaugural presidential remarks were “On this day we gather because we have chosen hope over, unity of purpose over conflict and discord. On this day, we proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations, and worn-out dogmas that for far too long strangled our politics. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift; that noble idea passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise of all are equal, all are free and that all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness”. Unlike Obama who assumed charge when America was reeling under severe economic recession, Trump is comfortably well placed. American economy is stabilized, making rapid strides and ample jobs are created. But Trump’s mean spirited and nasty speech had heightened the worries of sceptics.

Trump ruthlessly lashed out at the establishment and remarked “for too long, a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of the government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished…politicians prospered…the establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of the country”. He spoke of poverty stricken suburbs, rusted-out factories, unaffordable education, crimes, gangs, and drugs. In short, he highlighted all the shortcomings of America. [Few journalists, added that President Regan too in his inaugural address “pitted himself and the American people against the elites”]. But painting a bleak picture of the country on assuming charge might be utterly demoralizing.

By threatening to overhaul the existing alliances and blatantly accusing that “we have made other countries rich while the wealth, strength and confidence of our country has dissipated over the horizon. The wealth of our middle class has been ripped from their homes and then redistributed all across the world” he is forcing US allies and especially EU to reevaluate their ties. Though there is no denial of fact that shifting of manufacturing hubs away from US led to loss of jobs. John Kerry in his remarks added that 85% jobs lost in America are not due to trade but due to technological advancements. Trump’s audacious call to “unite civilized World against radical Islamic terrorism, which we will eradicate completely” in inaugural speech can be delusional. It might have serious connotations too. By constantly reiterating on American pride and reinforcing the doctrine of “making America great again” might fuel xenophobia. It even sans inclusiveness. By pledging “protection will lead to great prosperity and strength”, Trump has inadvertently strengthened President Xi’s position who projected China as the “new torch bearer of free trade” at Davos Forum. In all, his plans of revamping infrastructure and rebuilding country are worthy. “Buy American and hire American” slogan can send shivers down the Indian IT companies who must really brace for tough crackdowns on H1B quota.

By and large, despite serious recriminations, World must live up to the US President Trump and India especially must tread through the friendship bridge to US very skillfully. More importantly India should be ready for the proposition of protectionist US economy. Business may no longer be usual. India must prepare itself for a new kind of economic order wherein clinching bilateral deals might be challenging. Being a shrewd businessman and having mastering the art of trade negotiations, going might be tough for India under Trump.

@ Copyrights reserved.

President Xi pitches for globalisation at Davos Forum

The annual meetings of the World Economic Forum (WEF), Davos have always played a pivotal role in addressing global issues. WEF, a Swiss Non-profit organization started by German business professional, Klaus Schwab in 1971 based in Cologny was first named as European Management Forum. It was rechristened in 1987 as World Economic Forum. Subsequently its vision was broadened to ameliorate pressing global issues through active participation of leaders of economic, academic, business, political arenas. Soon the forum became popular as the Davos forum and emerged as a neutral platform for resolving various international conflicts as well. Samuel Huntington even coined word “Davos Men” referring to iconic participants of Davos Forum. The organization convenes six to eight meeting every year at different locations and engages in sector specific initiatives too. But what makes the 2017 Davos Forum significant is the illustrious presence of President Xi Jinping. He became the first Chinese leader to attend WEF.

Davos indeed has a unique reputation of focusing on most relevant and pressing issues of the day. Last Year, the WEF objectively analyzed the implications of the Fourth Industrial Revolution 4.0. The advent of artificial intelligence, automation and Big Data Analytics critically transformed the face of every major industry. This year, the rather unprecedented referendum results and stunning election victory steered by populism has shifted international attention to the need for restoration and reinduction of an international order. The global economic order is currently mired by conflicting popular movements that ruefully disapproved the game changers of 20^th century- globalization and World without borders. Moreover, the transfer of power has created a brief lacuna in World leadership. Seizing this opportunity, China, which has been clamoring for an international rise, unveiled new economic vision at the meet attended by over 2500 Davos Men. President Xi on the opening day of the forum themed “Responsive and Responsible Leadership”, vouched to uphold free trade and spurned protectionism, advocated by President elect Trump. Keen on hijacking the mantle of leadership, Xi defended globalization that changed the fortunes of China. Quoting Charles Dickens, A tale of two cities, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times” he urged that there is no point blaming globalization for all the global problems. He said while globalization has been a Pandora box, international financial crises were caused by excessive greed for profits, not by globalization. He added that three issues have scuttled the global development. These are absence of enough driving force for reform and development, inadequate global governance, and unequal global development.

In a veiled dig at Trump, he added “pursuing protectionism is just like locking one’s self in a dark room: wind and rain might be kept outside but so are light and air”. Xi called for an inclusive globalization and warned that populist approaches might lead to war and poverty. Signing off with a warning shot that tit for tat trade policies can be disastrous, he indicated that “no one would emerge a winner in a global trade war”.

While Xi’s pragmatic vision towards free trade might rekindle spirts of the business leaders, the habitual mismatch of Chinese public diplomacy and concrete action is a sure dampener. Incidentally while Xi spoke of “opening up”, China is steadily clamping restraints on imported goods. American Chamber of Commerce reported that China raised duties on distillers’ grain from US, increased anti-dumping tax from 42.2 to 53.7% and anti-subsidy tax from 11.2 to 12%. Meanwhile, American companies also allege that trade with China is becoming increasingly difficult due to unclear laws, inconsistent enforcements, rising protectionism, and restrictions on foreign investments.  

Meanwhile, as an air of uncertainty and unpredictability, overhangs the international arena President Xi poignantly presented China as a savior of globalization. Ambitious Xi, tried to woo business leaders ruffled by backlash against globalization by the west. Despite Xi’s frantic attempts, China can’t replace the US due to lack of economic openness, overpowering hegemonic aspirations and despotic nationalism. Davos strongly upholds the values of free trade, unhindered migration, strengthening of multilateralism and disdains nationalism. They expound an international order that transcended territorial boundaries. China’s intense nationalistic fervor and the fervent “Chinese Dream” are in contravention to basic tenets advocated by Davos Men. Now with Trump intent on “Making American Great Again” and threatening to pull put from free trade agreements, Xi saw an opportunity in Davos. China with its growing economic clout and muscularity might prevail over the region but its poor credentials might have few international takers. Though Xi might project China as “champion of global governance” and “new torch bearer of free trade”. Its cavalier rejection of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) ruling regarding South China Sea and hegemonic presence in the region has earned it a great disrepute. Unscrupulous trade practices and usurping economic zones under the ruse of infrastructure in countries like Myanmar, Sri Lanka and Malaysia made smaller Asian countries suspicious of China’s intentions. Consequently, China is struggling to earn the confidence of its immediate neighborhood. The attitude of “My way or highway” is eliciting acrimonious responses. India earlier supported China to counter the Western dominance. But following China’s inveterate agenda of blocking India’s rise, New Delhi is forced to reevaluate its stand.

Ever since, President of Tsai Ing-Wen’s congratulatory phone call to Trump, Sino-American rivalries intensified. The illustrious WEF had been a seat of resolving global issues like refugee crisis, financial bailouts and rising global inequalities etc. But the overwhelming presence of President Xi has shifted the focus away from the global problems to China’s role in global public discourse on the opening day.

@ Copyrights reserved.

2016 Review: Pertinacious fine-tuning of Modi Doctrine

The year 2016 started on a dreary note for India. Pathankot airbase was attacked by Pakistan’s strategic assets, the veritable militant outfits, on January 2^nd. Deep state of Pakistan reciprocated Prime Minister Modi’s impromptu visit to Lahore the previous week by launching a brutal an attack on Indian airbase. This event not only sabotaged comprehensive bilateral talks but also mirrored reluctance of sections of Pakistan establishment towards peace initiatives. Clandestine attacks provided opposition enough fodder to denigrate Modi’s Pakistan policy and extinguished hopes of renewed engagement. Despite the breach of trust, Modi government made a rare concession of allowing access to Joint Investigation Team (JIT) of Pakistan containing members of ISI to investigate the Pathankot attack. In return Pakistan promised to reciprocate Indian largesse by providing access to Indian Investigation team to terrorist havens in Pakistan. Islamabad reneged and admonished New Delhi for staging the attack to tarnish the reputation of Pakistan. Smitten by obfuscation of Pakistan, Modi hardened his stance and chasm between India and Pakistan widened. Pakistan continued to intensify its proxy war against India. This trend was reflected in record number of ceasefire violations and border infiltrations throughout the year. Surprise attacks on armed personnel increased, Pampore incident stands testimony to this changed tactics of Pakistan. Killing of Hizb-ul-Mujahadeen leader Burhan Wani tactically changed the dynamics of Indo-Pakistan relations. Turning this into a moot point, Pakistan glorified Wani and bestowed martyr status. Portraying him as a “good terrorist” carried out high decibel campaign at UN, UN Human Rights Council, Nuclear Suppliers Group and OIC. While India had punctured Pakistan’s vilification, Indian resolve of isolating Pakistan began to gain more momentum. Under the guise of azadi, Pakistan orchestrated an insurgency in the Valley through its stooges that lasted for almost four months. Life in the valley was crippled. Pakistani apologists in the Valley instigated youth into stone pelting resulting in volatile civilian-military relations.

India sharpened its diplomatic weapons and began unraveling the trouble fomented by cross border terrorism nurtured by Pakistan at international fora. India started reviewing and questioning the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) and began contemplating on using its waters fully. Islamabad was to hold the SAARC summit for the year 2016. In the spirit of regional cooperation, at the height of insurgency in Kashmir valley, India sent Home Minister to attend a conference of Ministers of Interior Affairs at Islamabad. Rajnath Singh was welcomed by protests organized by Masood Azhar in Islamabad. Miffed by ill treatment and media blackout, India expressed its inability to join other rounds of SAARC summit. Joining the chorus, all other members stood by India. Afghanistan, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Maldives and finally Nepal backed out forcing the Pakistan to cancel the summit. With Pakistan acting as an obstructionist, experts even suggested the plausibility of an association of South Asian nations without Pakistan to foster regional cooperation. India thus made a humble diplomatic effort to take on Pakistan. Undeterred or rather a more determined Pakistan intensified nefarious attacks. Terrorists launched one of the deadliest attacks of 26 years, on an Army base at Uri, close to LoC killing 17 personnel and 34 jawans critically injured. India was outraged, tensions aggravated across border and public demand for instantaneous justice grew. Shunning characteristic restraint, Indian army launched surgical strikes with meticulous precision on the terror launch pads across the border inflicting great damage by the end of September. India’s temerity startled Pakistan. Sadly, Pakistan’s unabated clandestine attacks post India’s surgical attacks claimed lives of 29 army personnel. Afflicted by Ghazwa-e-Hind syndrome, Pakistan has launched another attack on Nagrota army base. Series of terrorist attacks targeting the armed personnel seems to be part of new strategy adopted by Pakistan.

Indeed, Pakistan’s new-found brazenness can be attributed to unequivocal support of China who has been marauding Indian efforts to isolate Pakistan. At the BRICS-BIMSTEC Summit China bulldozed India’s attempts to name and shame Pakistan. China stalled India’s membership for NSG (Nuclear Suppliers Group), vetoed India’s efforts at UN of imposing sanctions against JeM chief Masood Azhar, opposing India’s permanent membership for extended UNSC, fomenting terror in North East by supplying arms to insurgents, waging cyberwars and aggressively going forward with CPEC passing through India’s legitimate territory. China’s embrace has emboldened Pakistan. Together, a formidable cahoots of a regional bully and a terrorism sponsored state are taking toll on India. Modi’s two years of proactive diplomacy towards its neighbors seems to be of no avail. Modi government through high-level diplomatic visits reached out to China for NSG membership but China remained intransigent. It openly barricaded India’s attempts to be part of global platforms. Breaking menacing nexus can alone fructify Modi’s aspirations for rapid economic development. While there are many caveats to this strategy, Modi has no choice.

Global alliances are rapidly transforming. Shifting geopolitical paradigms are exacerbated by unpredictable foreign policy stratagem of the bulwark, US. India can now no longer take Russia for granted. Contracting economy has thrown Russia into China’s orbit. Keen on strengthening Russia’s geostrategic positioning, Moscow has drifted towards Beijing. Rapid military gains in Middle East thus far has enthused Russia prompting the possibility of developing an alternative Russia-China axis. Russia has been largest defense supplier for India till recently but now US is slowly competing for this position. During the BRICS summit Modi held bilateral talks with Putin and revamped cooperation in areas like nuclear, defence, counter terrorism and strengthened energy links. Simultaneously, India consolidating ties with US by signing the LEMOA (Logistics Exchange of Memorandum and other Agreement). Russia though not seemingly miffed, began warming up to Pakistan. Both countries even conducted joint military exercises despite India’s objections. Russia has been sending conflicting messages by expressing interest in CPEC and announcing to work with Afghan Taliban to attack Daesh. Now, with US senate passing the National Defence Authorisation Act (NDAA) India will become major defence partner of US. By essentially dehyphenating relations with different countries Modi is trying to buttress India’s position as a balancing power in the region.

China’s defiance in accepting the verdict of Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) coupled with US’s timorous assurances to its allies in the region has turned South China Sea into a tinderbox. Frequent egregious incursions by China into overlapping territorial waters and exclusive air zones of Japan has changed the geopolitics of Indo-Pacific region. Japan is keen on developing a quadrangle comprising of US, India, and Australia. Burgeoning assertiveness of China, uncertain US policies synergized Indo-Japan strategic ties. As a token of trust and faith in bilateral ties, Japan sealed civil nuclear deal with India.

Modi assiduously built bridges with Middle East region, for their phenomenal significance to India which includes-substantial volume of remittances, energy supplies, and traditional Muslim connect. Modi visited Saudi Arabia and Iran, traditional rivals of the region and won the faith of both regimes by genuinely pursuing Indian interests. Saudi Arabia conferred Modi with highest honor of King Abdul Aziz Shah. Modi pioneered India’s strategic engagement with Iran and Afghanistan by sealing the long pending Trilateral Transport and Transit Corridor Agreement aimed at developing Chabahar port in Iran is considered as “game changer”. Since India can connect to extended neighborhood whose access is hindered by geographical obstruction and obdurate Pakistani dispensation.

Modi extensively promoted India’s NSG membership bid by travelling to Switzerland, Mexico and Qatar to expound India’s faith in principles upheld by NSG. Reiterating India’s commitment towards Nuclear Security, Modi at the Nuclear Security Summit (NSS), Washington, pledged $1 million towards Nuclear Security Fund and as a house gift established a Global Center of Excellence for Nuclear Energy Partnership (GCENEP) at Bahadurgarh, Haryana.

Modi invested more energy in rejuvenating ties with India’s traditional partnership with Afghanistan. He dedicated Indo-Afghan Friendship Dam (Salma Dam), donated four attack helicopters, extended $1billion aid and pledged to help in reconstruction. India recently hosted Heart of Asia conference at Amritsar to chart out collaborative plans with over 40 other supporting countries for restoring peace and stability in Afghanistan. Through neighborhood first doctrine, India resurrected ties with Nepal (which continues to play China card), Maldives, and Sri Lanka. To mitigate tremendous fluctuations of geopolitical paradigms, Modi intensified engagement with East. Under the Act East policy Modi reinvigorated historical connect with Vietnam, who was bestowed Most Favored Nation status by India in 1975. India upgraded ties with Vietnam, enhanced cooperation in defence, trade and investment, offered a $500 million credit and pledged to deliver BrahMos missiles. Since India was admitted into the elite 34-member nuclear club Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) in June. Overwhelmed by bilateral strategic engagement, hawkish China derided it as an attempt to develop India-Vietnam axis.

Modi on his visit to Belgium gave a renewed push to the Bilateral Broad-based Trade and Investment Agreement (BITA) which has been in pipeline since 2007. He unveiled India-EU Agenda for Action-2020. To explore new horizons with Africa, Modi paid bilateral visits to Mozambique, South Africa, Kenya and Tanzania. India hosted Central Asian leaders from Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan and renewed strategic defence ties. Ceremonial welcome was extended to President Francois Hollande of France, President of Myanmar Htin Kyaw, Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, Prime Minister of Britain Theresa May, President of Israel Reuven Rivlin and leaders like Aung San Suu Kyi. Issues of shared interests are discussed with these countries.

Under the theme of connecting Asia, India held a massive flagship program, Raisina Dialogue, first of its kind, to explore economic opportunities and challenges. Besides, India hosted the BRICS-BIMSTEC Summit meeting and Heart of Asia. Modi called for international collaboration for counter terrorism cooperation and reiterated need for Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT) at G-20 summit, East Asia Conference and ASEAN meet.

With tumultuous conditions showing no signs of respite in Middle East, traditional alliances are becoming increasingly fragile. Brexit, Euroscepticism, rise of right wing parties in Europe, intimidating aggression of China have critically changed the geopolitical architecture. As Jaishankar Subramanyam recently summarized, “when every variable is in flux, imagine the fluidity of the World”. So far, Modi clearly steered Indian foreign policy into new realms with rare diplomatic acumen. But challenging times demand dynamic solutions. Modi must evolve a resurgent policy to hoist India as a responsible power on global platform.

@ Copyrights reserved.