Freedom Corridor: A Indo-Japanese Belt Road Initiative

Beijing’s BRI (Belt and Road Initiative) generated intense intellectual debates. While supporters of this massive infrastructure development initiative hailed it as “symbol of golden age of globalization”, absence of transparency raised serious doubts among skeptics. Similar set of diametrically opposite narratives dominated Indian diplomatic circles, questioning New Delhi’s decision of staying away from the BRF summit. Some dominant voices started stoking fears of regional and global isolation of India.

In a rather prudent assessment of China’s overreaching hegemonic ambitions, in November 2016, Prime Minister Modi and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan in a summit meet at Tokyo envisaged a joint project for connecting Asia-Pacific region with Africa. The vision was finalized and christened as Asia Africa Growth Corridor (AAGC) also touted as “Freedom Corridor”. Three think-tanks- Japan’s External Trade Organization (JETRO), Economic Research Institute for ASEAN (ERIA) of Singapore and India’s Research and information Systems for Developing Countries (RIS) were tasked to evolve a coherent plan. The vision document of AAGC was released at the 52^nd Annual Meeting of African Development Bank (AfDB) Group held at Gandhinagar between May 22^nd-26^th. Over 3000 delegates representing governments, think-tanks, banks, and civil society from 81 countries attended the meeting. All the finance ministers of 54 African Countries took an active part in the meet. AfDB Group which has three entities-  The African Development Bank, The African Development Fund and Nigeria Trust Fund was established in 1964 and India became a member in 1983. This is first time AfDB held general meeting in India.

NDA regime laid special emphasis on revitalizing ties with Africa which critically suffered due to India’s poor execution of projects in comparison to China. To ramp up Indo-African engagement, in 2015 Modi government conducted third India-Africa Forum Summit (IAFS) on a large-scale. It was attended by 41 heads of State and representatives from 54 African countries. IAFS was India’s one of the largest outreach program which generated intense momentum. Modi announced $10billion export credit, $600 million military grant, $100 million Africa- India Development Fund. Both sides have set a target of $100 billion trade by 2018. High level diplomatic visits revitalized Indo-African relations. Modi visited Mozambique, South Africa, Mauritius, Seychelles, Tanzania and Kenya. President Pranab Mukherjee travelled to Namibia, Ghana and Ivory Coast while Vice President Hamid Ansari went to Morocco, Tunisia, Nigeria, Mali, Algeria, Rwanda and Uganda. “There no single country that has not been visited by an Indian Minister in the last three years”. African engagement was accorded highest priority. Though unfortunate racist attacks in National Capital Region threatened to imperil Indo-African ties which were painstakingly built, India’s swift action averted breach of trust.

Africa in the recent decades has become a favored destination for investments. According to KPMG study, Africa has unexplored opportunity of $2.5 trillion. China took a great leap ahead in entering African markets and infrastructure development arena. Extensive Chinese penetration in Africa is now coming under international scanner for dubious reasons. Africa is also becoming suspicious of Chinese investments due to violent waves of domestic protests. On the other hand, Indian presence was more benign. Although African representatives actively participated in BRF, they are cautiously watching China’s OBOR and unfoldment of various developments in South China Sea (SCS).

AfDB meet in India came at a juncture, when New Delhi boycotted BRF openly citing its sovereignty concerns. Adding heft to Indian concerns, UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific Study (UNESCAP) warned of plausible financial risks in South and Central Asian Countries where China’s investments through BRI is high compared to relative size of economy of recipient country. This announcement coming close on heels after the first BRF summit will force nations to seriously reconsider their association with the much-hyped global connectivity project OBOR.

Inaugurating the AfDB meeting Modi said that, “Although Indian sportsman can’t compete with their African peers in the long distance running, the country will stand shoulder to shoulder with the continent in its race towards brighter future”. He reiterated, “India’s partnership with Africa is based in cooperation, which is responsive to needs of African Countries. It is demand driven and free of conditions”. India pledged $29 million towards Africa Development Replenishment Fund.

Later in the session on “India-Japan Cooperation for the development of Africa” amply represented by high-powered Japanese delegation, both countries jointly released a 30-page vision document, AAGC. The document which reflected the synergistic approach of India and Japan had four elements, uniquely distinct from the OBOR doctrine of China. The core objectives are- enhancing capacity and skills; building quality infrastructure and connecting institutions; development and cooperation projects in health, farming, manufacturing and disaster management and people to people partnership. AAGC unlike OBOR is aimed at sustainable, inclusive development for a mutually win-win situation in the trilateral partnership between India-Japan and Africa. It also includes human resource training, developing capacities to sustain infrastructure, green field projects, investment opportunities, renewable energy, power grids, agriculture, agro processing etc. Japan committed $200 billion. An announcement regarding the same will be made in September. It has already invested $32 billion. India is still working on its plans.

Uncertainty and unpredictability of US administration has created a power vacuum. Simultaneously, overt Dragon belligerence has prompted regional powers India and Japan to provide a balance of power. India and Japan are investing great energies to deepen partnership. Japan keen on joining India in Chahbahar port development is already in talks with New Delhi. Both countries are discussing the possibility of developing the British oil fields of World War-II in Trincomalee for storage of oil. Talks are on to jointly develop the Dawei port along the Thailand- Myanmar border. Indian companies are invited to actively participate in new economic zone built at Mombasa, Kenya with Japanese assistance.

India with $54 billion is the fifth largest investor in Africa compared to $75 billion of China. Bilateral trade stands at $72 billion higher than India’s trade with US but pales in comparison with whopping $194 billion of China. Exim Bank of India has extended 152 credit lines worth $ 8 billion to 44 African countries. 25 African countries are part of India’s flagship International Solar Alliance Initiative (ISA). Africa is largest destination of India’s exports. India is now making renewed efforts to cultivate stronger ties with Africa, a continent with which India had centuries old mercantile and maritime relations. India’s constructive engagement has so far generated good will. While India can’t match the deep pockets of China in Africa, instead of going alone, India is keen on collaborating with countries like Japan, Germany, France, UK, US to make a big impact on progressive development of Africa.

After India’s refusal to be part of OBOR, an undercurrent of intellectual chorus expressed concerns of collateral damage to India’s economic prospects. With Chinese double standards blatantly uncovered by OBOR and its flagship CPEC, India began its quest for alternative narratives. In the process, India in collaboration with Japan proposed Freedom Corridor or AAGC which is essentially transparent, inclusive and aims at comprehensive development. It pledges to develop quality infrastructure, complemented with digital connectivity. In the past seven decades, India carved unique niche in Africa through development cooperation which included capacity building, education and developing programs like Pan Africa e-network. India provided affordable and adoptable technology to Africa. Through Freedom Corridor, India in collaboration with Japan aims to transform Africa “enabling it to integrate and emerge as globally competitive economic bloc”. 

@ Copyrights reserved.

Manchester Attacks: Has the West failed to crush terrorism?

Yet another brutal attack on hapless innocents claims in Manchester left 22 dead and over 50 injured. Britain is two weeks away from general elections.  The explosion occurred at the foyer of the sold-out show of Araina Grande at Manchester Arena stadium when people were coming out after the show at around 10:30 pm. Teenagers and children attended the concert in huge numbers and the terrible attacks claimed their lives leaving the parents shattered. The gruesome attack reflects the mindless depravity of a cruel mind. Details of the perpetrator of the suicide bomber aren’t available at the time of writing; social media is replete of celebratory messages of IS supporters who shamelessly encouraged each other to carry out more “lone wolf attacks”. Meanwhile, leaders condemned attacks in unequivocal terms and called for resilience. Political parties suspended election campaign.

Since the uprisings in the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region and subsequent inflow of migrants in large scale, Europe has become a victim of violent terror attacks. Most of these attacks apparently have IS connections. After the attacks, while the British Police averred from making any immediate conclusions, the US security agencies categorically opined these as terror attacks. It is unfortunate that despite the unabated spree of attacks countries in the EU refuse to wake from the long-drawn stupor.

For decades, India having suffered worst attacks cautioned and warned various international agencies of burgeoning cult of terrorism; however, nations chose to ignore. It is quite evident now no part of globe is untouched by this scourge. Still, the nations and high profile multilateral agencies haven’t thought it appropriate to at least define this brutal inhuman savagery. Hoisted on the high pedestal of human values and freedom, it is nothing but obvious that even the advanced countries failed to appropriately collaborate, cooperate, identify, and extricate the roots of this menace. Having been a victim of terrorism, India spearheaded a campaign calling for international cooperation on counter terrorism. India has proposed a  Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT), back in 1996 and since then  consistently worked towards it. Prime Minister Modi during his first address at the 69^th Session of UN General Assembly once again reiterated the need for such a convention. Ever since, CCIT had become an important aspect of Modi’s agenda on his foreign visits. Though Modi managed to elicit support from various countries, the negotiations have hit a deadlock over differences in defining terrorism. Thalif Deen, who has been covering UN since late 1970s said, “the key sticky point in the draft treaty revolve around several controversial yet basic issues, including the definition of ‘terrorism’”. Draft treaty itself was roiled in the medley of contrasting views with the Western delegation and members of Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) failing to reach a consensus hijacking the progress. While ideological differences stymied CCIT, the West’s zealotry to be “politically correct” and the driving urge to remain in a vantage position for larger economic gains have lulled them into silence, unfortunately.

The deluge of radicalization and penetration of jihadist ideology into the most innocuous regions of the globe could have been controlled had the nations displayed the true tenacity and determined wills to exterminate it. Most cases, societies silently suffer humongous losses for failing to identity the ailments afflicting it. Now the genesis, causes and dissemination sources of malafide ideologies that are tearing the very fabric of humanity are universally known. But the dubious ineptness of nations to collectively launch an offensive against these terror safe havens have emboldened emissaries.

In the wake of the recent attacks, it is important to recall the important strategic decision of President Trump that elucidates US’s take on terrorism. Trump’s choice of his first foreign state visit to Saudi Arabia, an exporter of jihadi-Salafist ideology besides leaving his supporters exasperated have evoked severe condemnation from strategic experts. Blissfully burying the 9/11 traumatization, Trump, an obdurate businessman, clinched arms deals and commitments in infrastructure worth $400 billion that could revitalize the job market in the US.  Treading along the strategic concept of renewed partnership Trump made concessions of Saudi Arabia addressed the Sunni-NATO attended by over leaders of 50 Islamic states. Shelfing US traditional policy of exerting moderate diplomatic pressure on Arab nations and occasional incentivization through arms deals, Trump with no holds barred welcomed leaders who grossly violated human rights to White House. He embraced Egypt’s Abdel Fatah Al-Sissi and Bahrain’s King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa. Trump throughout his election campaigning strongly denounced his predecessors for adopting a soft approach towards Arab States. Now he openly forged an alliance with Arab nations. Further his subdued reference to Islamist extremism and mellowed tone on terrorism are raising fresh doubts about West’s take on terrorism. Speaking at the Sunni-NATO alliance, he characteristically avoided any references to “radical Islamic terrorism” and instead talked about “shared interests” and “common security”. Referring to murderous trails of terrorism spread in the region, he noted, “This not battle between different faiths, different sects, or different civilizations. This is a battle between barbaric criminals who seek to obliterate human life and decent people of all religions who seek to respect it. This is a battle between good and evil”. These statements of concern and pragmatic approach might have been music to Sunni-NATO.  But the quirky volte-face pulled off by Trump whose election speeches hardly ended without reference to radical Islam were at its dubious best. 

It is an open secret that petrodollars of Middle East are instrumental in nurturing Salafist-Wahabi ideology. Appealing a conglomeration of nations whose foundational planks are swamped in noxious philosophy for crushing terrorism is truly delusional. Urging the Arab nations to fight a battle between good and evil, who have clearly defined logical explanation for good and bad terrorists is illogical and baleful. Moreover, the hesitation in calling a “spade a spade” by the West will continue to do more harm than the radicalized youth.

Like the strategic ploy of Trump to be “politically correct”, British politicians have turned blind eye to the reports of burgeoning Islamization in Britain. Be it the proliferation of Madrassas, the bastions of radicalization, (Birmingham Centre Mosque Scandal), spurt in grooming gangs, mass conversions into Islam, wide endorsement of Sharia law etc. Indeed, many leaders preferred to remain silent for the fear of being labelled as “racist”. These insidious developments which if unchecked unshackle the foundations of any multicultural society.

With IS losing foothold in Levant and Syria, the indoctrinated terrorists are seeking refuge in new havens. Unfortunately, South Asia had the distinction of rearing legions of radicalized militants as early as early 1970s. Ever since, many hues of radicalized outfits proliferated and flourished in this region. Over centuries people of different ethnicity, religion, culture, language and tradition made India their home. Diversity has been the corner stone of Indian civilization. Extremist ideology of any hue can severely endanger the integrity of our country. India must exercise utmost discretion and obliterate elements sympathetic to IS or its ilk.

Belt and Road Forum: India snubs China

One Belt One Road doctrine (OBOR) doctrine envisioned and initiated by President Xi Jingping in 2013 has now emerged as the most powerful foreign policy of China. In the past four years, China buttressed the plans of developing a gargantuan infrastructure development activities across 60 countries with unabated flow of investments. Painstakingly and rather deftly China garnered the support of Asian countries including India for establishing financial institutions (AIIB- Asia Infrastructure and Investment Bank) to realize the grand vision. More on OBOR at https://myind.net/Home/viewArticle/sri-lanka-buckles-under-mounting-chinese-debt-trap and https://myind.net/Home/viewArticle/dubious-chinese-investments-in-south-asian-countries

Belt Road Forum (BRF)

Surpassing the scale of engagement and collaboration of 21^st century trade alliances, 68 countries signed cooperation agreements under OBOR. The first summit meet of Belt Road Forum (BRF) held at Beijing on May 14^th-15^th was attended by heads of state of 29 countries and delegates from by 130 countries except a major country in the region-India. Drawing red lines, India resolutely stayed away from the BRF summit. Indo-Chinese relations has gone south of late with China snubbing India officially.

Recent phase of animosity intensified with China launching a volley of attacks both diplomatically and through media over 9 day long Dalai Lama’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh in April. China retaliated by giving Chinese names to six places in Arunachal Pradesh. As BRF neared, seeking India’s high-level participation Chinese spokesperson began to clarify that “the belt and road is a connectivity program for economic development and will also benefit India”. In the meanwhile, China steadily expanded scope of CPEC (China Pakistan Economic Corridor) making it a $62 billion project. From the inception, India raised serious objections about CPEC and stubbornly prevailed that CPEC violates Indian sovereignty as it runs through PoK (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir), a legitimate territory of India. When India clarified that Prime Minister Modi will not attend the summit, China’s mouth piece Global Times dissuaded that “India is exaggerating the situation. India is viewing Beijing and Islamabad as potential threats and is suspicious of OBOR initiative and CPEC”. It remarked that “China has and will never seek hegemony in the region”.  Meanwhile, India was irked when Global Times in an article cited that “Beijing respects New Delhi’s sovereignty concerns and is willing to mediate in India-Pakistan disputes, on the condition that it accords to the wishes of both India and Pakistan”. While the official media repeatedly urged India to be part of OBOR, it didn’t shy away from interfering Indo-Pakistan affairs which are purely bilateral. This double talk and China’s renewed interest in CPEC despite India’s repeated appeals suggests that China will not steer clear off the Kashmir issue. Moreover, Pakistan illegally conceded a sizeable Kashmir territory under its occupation way back in 1963 making the dragon an invisible third partner in Kashmir issue. With construction of Karakoram Highway China began meddling with India’s sovereignty CPEC inauguration exacerbated India’s worst fears. To make matters worse, a Chinese website is now showing Gilgit-Baltistan as part of Pakistan even when Pakistan constitution doesn’t recognize it. In addition, 30,000 strong PLA troops are deployed in PoK region to safe-guard Chinese assets. India has severely protested to all these developments. In 2014 Sushma Swaraj, Prime Minister Modi and Ajit Dhoval asked China to respect “One India Policy”. But China has never heeded to India’s concerns.  Interestingly, China highlighted CPEC as the flagship project of the OBOR initiative.

Reiterating India’s stand of not attending BRF, MEA spokesperson said, “we are of firm belief that connectivity initiatives must be based on universally recognized international norms, good governance, rule of law, openness, transparency and equality”. Referring to CPEC, he added, “No country can accept a project that ignores its core concerns on sovereignty and territorial integrity”. Few Indian scholars attended the meet. Indian delegation is conspicuous by its absence at a forum touted to be global development initiative by Chinese.

For decades, India had put up with China’s typical doublespeak and arm twisting tactics. Lately, China’s foreign minister Wang Yi and other diplomats threatened to isolate, but Modi government has refused to budge and boycotted BRF. Ironically, China wants India to embrace OBOR, even as it impedes New Delhi’s long standing goal of obtaining NSG membership and repeatedly snubs India at UN. But critics opine that India is taking a huge risk by not towing in line with Dragon whose GDP is five times India. India has however left door open for a “meaningful dialogue” and indicated in unequivocal terms that bilateral ties will not be affected. India while prudently making point about its uncompromising stand on sovereignty, dehyphenated territorial issues from trade.

Apprehensions about OBOR

Interestingly, for a mission of this huge proportions, instead of building a viable multilateral organization to bring all the partners on board, China roped in partner countries through bilateral negotiations.  The one to one agreement with individual countries not necessarily based on a common framework was mired in secrecy rendering OBOR projects opaque. Further the scale and nature of the investments and loans offered under the banner of assistance with high interest rates began raising curious doubts about the real intentions of the much publicized OBOR which was conceived on the basic premise of filling in the lacuna of infrastructure development and connectivity in the third world countries. High interest development loans extended by China reflected the dubious intentions of the Middle Kingdom. While China aspired to effectively camouflage its real intentions behind professed developmental projects, it invested in fragile economies and pandering to countries that gravely violated human rights. A careful deliberation of the projects rolled out so far busted the grand developmental narrative. A brutal disregard for environmental concerns and violent protests to Chinese investments in various countries have already eroded the sanctity of OBOR.

Overriding the narrative of commercial viability, most projects under OBOR are carefully chosen to fit into the larger purview of geostrategic significance for China. By consequence, more often recipient weak economies are lured to pay for this larger “Chinese dream”. Hambantota port of Sri Lanka and the Mattala Airport, falls into this category. The deep-sea port and the airport are now notoriously famous in international circles as White Elephants. The inimical situation in Sri Lanka emerged as the fitting example of Chinese investments for the large-scale protests that rocked the nation. It is no exaggeration to say that eventually these domestic concerns led to overthrowing of a pro-Chinese Rajapaksa government with a political outfit that promised to renegotiate. Similar domestic lash was witnessed in Myanmar.  

In yet another instance of Chinese hegemony, enraged by Chinese takeover of Scarborough Islands, Philippines in 2012, approached Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). The verdict dismissed Chinese claims and ruled the case in favor of Manila. China blatantly refused to uphold the verdict. Instead China courted President Duterte pledging $15 billion investments. Duterte not only refrained from raising cudgels against the Dragon but meekly surrendered to China and pivoted against US. Interestingly, ASEAN Summit, 2017 held in Philippines made no mention of PCA verdict. China effectively conscripted South East Asian countries into subjugation through its investments.  The patterns of Chinese investments under the banner of the 21^st century Maritime Silk Route, a refurbished ancient Silk route from China to Europe underscored the hegemonic aspirations of Middle Kingdom.

Progress thus far

In these four years, slowing economic growth, fleeing capitals and mounting debt of China emerged as potential hurdles for OBOR. But the doctrine received a shot in arm, with US receding to its shell and adopting a rather protectionist agenda. Though OBOR is believed to be brain child of President Xi, several strategists indicated that China, which was one of the oldest civilizations keen on reclaiming old glory had carefully etched a road map to overtake US. Supremely ambitious Xi has given wings to the Maoist Vision of becoming a super power by 2049. With OBOR, China managed to sideline US in Asia and managed to portray Beijing as the new globalization leader. But depleted foreign reserves ($4 trillion, reduced to $3 trillion) and strategic overdraft are raising fresh concerns about the sustainability of OBOR. The foundation for most of the Chinese infrastructure projects has been political connections. Hence, lack fair competition, auditing and transparency. Through OBOR China has emerged as the second largest creditor after Japan. So far, China Development Bank and Export and Import Bank of China lent $50 billion. President Xi committed $124 billion towards OBOR at BRF.

EU’s skepticism

EU skeptical of OBOR, instituted investigation into the 350 km long high speed railway line constructed by the China Railway Corporation between Belgrade and Budapest on grounds of financial viability. This project was part of China-Europe Land-Sea Fast Transport Route that link western parts of China to Greek port of Pireus (1). In fact, the gargantuan scale of OBOR projects sprawling the globe has raised serious suspicions in several countries. EU now has serious misgivings of Chinese investments in 16 East and central European countries and highly suspicious of Chinese ambitions. EU minced no words in calling it “divide and rule” of China.

Russia is irked by looming Chinese presence in its sphere of influence Central Asia. Under the ruse of developing ports, China penetrated South Asia and established String of Pearls. Already aggressive reclamation of islets in South China Sea (SCS) and extension of claims to over 90% SCS mirrored belligerent nature of China. Beijing’s defiant objection to PCA verdict firmly established China’s pugilistic approach. Now a domineering ingress into developing economies through opaque OBOR projects at unprecedented speed is evoking suspicion.

The two-day BRF summit failed to obtain endorsement of European countries for proposed trade statement as there was no mention of transparency clauses and standards of tendering procedure. Though the communique released at the end of summit implied that it is committed to free trade, respect for national “sovereignty and territorial integrity” and “opposition to all forms of protectionism” China must walk the talk to sustain OBOR.

Treading Realms of Soft Diplomacy

To resuscitate traditional cultural links and infuse momentum to the Neighborhood First” Policy, Prime Minister Modi embarked on a two-day state visit to Sri Lanka. On his second visit to Sri Lanka, Prime Minister participated in the 14^th International Vesak Day celebrations. Vesak Day marks the birth, enlightenment and demise of Buddha. Sri Lanka is hosting the International Vesak Day, recognized by the UN for the first time. Back in 1999, India lent support to Sri Lankan proposal introduced by Sri Lankan foreign minister Lakshman Kadirgamar at the UN. Buddhist culture, identity and ideology are integral to Buddhist majority country of Sri Lanka. The current edition of Vesak celebrations presided by Modi as chief guest was themed on the “Buddhist teachings for social justice and sustainable World peace” attended by representatives from 85 countries. In his opening remarks, Modi conveyed greetings on behalf of 1.25 billion people to Sri Lanka and extolled the shared culture of Buddhism that brings societies together. He also lauded Sri Lankan efforts in preserving the Buddhist elements of Buddhist heritage. He reiterated that a great opportunity of achieving quantum jump in expanding the bilateral partnership across different sectors has arrived. Signaling India’s interest of becoming a partner in Sri Lankan progress and development, Modi promised to join hands for common goals. He also announced that Air India will operate flights between Varanasi, place where Buddha delivered first sermon to Colombo.

For decades, India gravely undermined the significance of strengthening cooperation with immediate neighbors at its own risk. While British India had an unparalleled engagement with all countries in the subcontinent, after independence, bogged down by internecine wars, India failed to crave an impactful foreign policy. India pertinently clung to claims of sub-continent as its sphere of influence but failed to ramp up the narrative with plausible economic cooperation. The inward-looking fledging India religiously rooted in philosophy of self-reliance, not only crippled India’s economy but stymied the potential of ramping up economic cooperation with regional neighbors. By the time, India could wake up from its deep slumber, Chinese economy was kicking and making new inroads into markets of the sub-continent. Further, ideological posturing and trans-border conflicts, significantly dented India’s engagement with regional neighbors. Besides, cumulative neglect of successive Indian governments grossly demerited India’s aspirations of prevailing in its sphere of influence. Modi government having realized India’s eroding geo-economic influence in the region have instituted the “Neighborhood First Doctrine”.

Ill-conceived foreign policy decisions, together with inopportune intervention under domestic political duress severely damaged India’s relations with its next-door neighbor Sri Lanka. The accumulated burden of distrust over decades took a toll on the bilateral relations. Prolonged neglect and absence of concerted efforts to resurrect ties prompted Sri Lanka to slowly slip into Chinese orbit. Sri Lanka battling decades long civil war was determined to bring it to conclusion. But New Delhi which was averse to Sri Lankan strategy of crushing the LTTE with an iron-hand circumventing human rights. President Rajapaksa shifted allegiances to China for finances and advanced weapons even as India offered necessary assistance for de-mining, rail and road construction and housing in Jaffna. Ever since Sino-Sri Lankan relations began to deepen. China under the guise of extending developmental assistance for restructuring economy eventually clinched major contracts. As the economic cooperation intensified, Sri Lanka evolved as a crucial hub for China’s Maritime Silk Route. Indian establishment refused to construe the crux of this massive Chinese outreach until a Chinese nuclear submarine docked at Sri Lankan port in October 2014. Panicky India, reminded Sri Lanka of the modalities of Indo-Sri Lankan accord. But the defiant Rajapaksa chose to ignore.

India waited for results of the Presidential elections 2015, to revive Indo-Sri Lankan relations beleaguered by Indian insensitivity to Sri Lankan nationalism and mired in distrust.  With pro-Indian leader Maithripala Sirisena, emerging victorious in the elections, Delhi intensified engagement with Colombo. President Sirisena as a first port of call visited India in February 2015. Modi created a history by visiting Sri Lanka after 28 years paving way for high level diplomatic exchanges. Prime Minister Ranil Wickramasinghe and President Sirisena made three trips to India since 2015 elections. Economic cooperation topped the agenda of Modi’s first visit. India extended $300 million credit line and both countries signed four agreements.

Honoring invitation of President Sirisena to be part of International Vesak Day Celebrations, Modi made his second visit to Sri Lanka where he made attempts to obliterate deeply entrenched negative perceptions towards India. Religiously sticking to the objective of reviving traditional relations with Sri Lanka, no MoU’s were signed nor economic cooperation was broached. Modi opened a 150-bed multi-specialty hospital for Tamil tea plantation workers of Indian Origin at Dickoya, unveiled a plaque commemorating the setting up of faculty of Kandyan Dance at the Sri Lankan International Buddhist Academy constructed with Indian assistance. Modi addressed the Indian origin people at Dickoya and recalled the contributions of Indian origin Tamil-community in Sri Lanka. He said that “diversity calls for celebration and not confrontation. Sinhala and Tamil people and languages existed harmoniously. We need to strengthen not separate the threads of unity and harmony”. He also prayed at the golden-roofed famous Kandy temple where tooth relic of Buddha was preserved. By and large, the visit was devoid of any bilateral talks and purely rooted at rebuilding ties and projecting India as a sustainable partner in development.

Modi’s visit to Sri Lanka was preceded by Sri Lankan Prime Minister Wickramasinghe’s Delhi trip where both countries signed MoU’s with a promise of economic cooperation in various sectors. One of the agreement, where India was given rights to develop and use of WW-II era oil tanks farms with 99 storage tanks in Trincomalee area was strictly opposed by the trade unions of Ceylon Petroleum Corporation. Interestingly, this is not a new deal but was signed two decades ago. The agreement is now part of the Mega Memorandum of Understanding on Economic cooperation that covers energy, infrastructure, roads, power, agriculture and fisheries. In short, the agreement aims to develop Trincomalee area into a hydrocarbon hub.  It now emerges that the opposition to this agreement was propped up by former President Rajapaksa who threatened to welcome Modi with black flags. Further he alleged that Sri Lankan government is “selling out” to India. Orchestrated opposition of former President is on expected lines for his decade long meandering into Chinese orbit left Sri Lanka neck deep in debt. According to an estimate, 95% of Sri Lankan revenues now goes towards debt repayment. To stave off domestic suspicions Trincomalee project will be overlooked by Japan-India-Sri Lanka Joint working group.

Although Buddhism was an important part of Indian diplomacy since 1950, India realized the importance of the same at the turn of the decade. From the inception, Modi bequeathed   special emphasis to various parameters of soft diplomacy, which has been a defining feature of Modi doctrine. Right from internationalizing Yoga to roping in sister country agreements with Kyoto and Brisbane, soft diplomacy has been the unmissable trait of Modi’s foreign policy. Modi invoked Buddhist connect on his visit to Vietnam even.

India can never match scale and extent of Chinese investments nor compete with unassailable lead commanded by the Dragon. India is cognizant of these practical realities. Modi’s brain child-South Asian Satellite (SAS) and the Buddhist bridge may not immediately reap gains but determined and persistent efforts to revitalize old ties might bolster India’s image as a stabilizing regional power. This perception might augur well for India’s aspirations to emerge as a viable economic power eventually.  In this context, Sri Lanka refusing to allow Chinese submarines to dock in Colombo coinciding with Modi’s visit to the island can be chalked as diplomatic victory as of now.  But this should be taken with a pinch of salt, as Prime Minister Wickramasinghe is all set to travel Beijing for attending first BRI (Belt Road Initiative) summit. Unlike China, Indian ties with Sri Lanka can never be defined by economic cooperation as the historical connects predisposes India to play a larger role. C. V. Vigneswaran, Chief Minister of Northern province, home to India origin Tamils indicated that India is a guarantor of Sinhala Tamils. He appealed that India should push for implementation of 13^th amendment of Sri Lankan constitution and suggested that New Delhi should consider developing Palaly airport, Kankesanthusian (KKS) harbor and start ferry service from Dhanushkodi. Indo-Sri Lankan ties were mired in several ambiguities and disagreements, nevertheless Modi made an earnest effort for sustained engagement. Certainly, the template of shared heritage catalyzing bilateral ties is an imaginative diplomacy.

@ Copyrights reserved.

South Korea Presidential Elections: Challenges ahead for President Moon

Registering an emphatic victory in the 19^th Presidential Elections, Moon Jae-in of Democratic Party of South Korea was sworn in as President immediately after the National Election Commission announced results.  Drawing down curtains on the spate of sporadic protests that plagued South Korea after the implication of President Park Guen-hye in political scandal and her subsequent impeachment. The Presidential elections initially slated for December 20^th, 2017 were rescheduled for May 9^th 2017 as Park was officially removed from Presidential post after the National assembly unanimously voted for her ouster on March 10^th 2017. As per constitutional ruling, Presidential elections should be held on or before 60 days of her impeachment. In the interim period, Prime Minister Hwang Kyo-ahn functioned as the acting President.

To begin with 15 candidates have registered for the Presidential elections, of which two resigned before the election date. Representatives from all the six national parties contested the elections. These included-Moon Jae-in of liberal Democratic party of Korea, Hong Jun-pyo of conservative Liberty Korea Party, Ahn Cheol-soo Centrist People’s party, Yoo Sueng-Min of liberal conservative Bareun Party, Sim Sang-jung of the Progressive Justice Party and the Pro-Park Geun-Hye Conservative Saenuri party represented by Cho Won-jin. Exit Polls have predicted landslide victory for Moon from the Democratic Party. Along the expected lines, in a contest that witnessed massive voter turnout in 20 years, Moon, who was runner-up in 2012 elections, emerged as the winner with 41% of the votes. The new president now inherits a country mired in corruption, imperiled by a nuclear North Korea and battling inconsistent leadership overtures of US. Interestingly these three aspects constituted the core agenda of the Presidential elections. The political establishment of South Korea has been dominated by two parties- Conservatives and Liberals who represent Centre-right and Centre-Left in Korean Parliament.

South Korean political establishment was by and large dominated by conservatives who were highly critical of favorable relations with North Korea. Moon’s predecessor Park, ordered the closure of the Kaesong Industrial Complex (KIC) in North Korea set up by earlier Liberal regimes. KIC besides providing gainful employment was a symbol of inter-Korean cooperation.

President Moon of Liberal party born to refugees who fled from North Korea in a small island off South Korean coast has humble origins. He had been an excellent student and took active role in protests suspension of civil and political rights during the dictatorial regime of Park Chung-hee (father of Park Guen-hye). Having been prosecuted as a student activist, he failed to obtain a government job but became human rights lawyer nurturing political ambitions. In 2003, he was appointed as chief of staff by President Roh Moo-hyun where he had first opportunity to administer a public office. Moon is a strong advocate of Sunshine Policy, which is based on Korea’s traditional way of pandering to enemy by offering generous gifts. South Korea thus, officially formulated a policy of encouraging interaction and offering economic assistance in 1998. The architect of the policy, President Kim Dae-jung was conferred Nobel Prize in 2000 for successfully implementing this policy. The two major outcomes of the Sunshine Policy were establishing KIC in North Korea where South Korean companies employed the labor from DPRK and opening of Mount Kumgang, a tourist spot in North Korea for South Koreans. Despite generous offers from South Korea, North Korea pursued the nuclear weapons development program throughout the 2000’s. Following the nuclear and missile tests by North Korea in 2006, South Korea stalled its shipments and issued a military alert. In 2008, President Lee Myung-bak of Grand National party changed South Korea’ stance. He announced that economic cooperation through KIC can’t continue till DPRK resolves international standoffs over nuclear weapons. Subsequently Mount Kumgang was closed for South Koreans and the South Korea Unification Ministry declared that Sunshine Policy was a failure in 2010. Eventually, Conservative party under Park Guen-hye who adopted a rather tough stand towards North Korea was elected to power in 2012 elections. Her infamous ouster and impeachment created a domestic turmoil.

At a time when raising tensions in Korean peninsula is sending jitters across the globe and kindled the deleterious spark of a plausible World War-III, the strategic calculations and vision of new President Moon has immense significance. Rightly so, asserting his stance which is so typical of the liberal democratic party, Moon in his first presidential address confirmed that he is open to visiting Pyongyang to de-escalate tensions if needed. He also asserted South Korean’s strong faith in alliance partner US and reiterated that he will “sincerely negotiate” with the US and key trading partner China over the deployment of THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) in South Korea.  South Korea besides bearing the brunt of missile of North Korea is currently facing economic sanctions of China which was angered by THAAD deployment. China strongly protested missile-system deployment citing that powerful radars will spy it military operations. He added that, “I will quickly move to solve the crisis in national security. I am willing to go anywhere for peace of the Korean Peninsula-if needed, I will fly immediately to Washington. I will go to Beijing and I will go to Tokyo. If conditions shape up, I will go to Pyongyang”. Though he instilled great confidence and hope in the young electorate who resoundingly supported his candidature, Democratic party falls short of majority in Parliament to pass key resolutions.  Currently Democratic Party has 40% majority as against the needed 60%. The next national assembly elections will be held in 2020. Ironically, for Moon reining in on the military rhetoric of President Trump might be the toughest challenge than taming the adamant Kim Jung Un. Moon have even pledged to restart the six party negotiations-including both Koreas, US, China, Russia and Japan. He strongly advocates two tier policy wherein South Korea would be open to any dialogue with North Korea but would continue to press for economic sanctions on North Korea to denuclearize the peninsula.

On domestic front, the major challenge for Moon is rising unemployment, corruption, high handedness of business conglomerates (chaebols) and widening socio-economic inequalities. The influence of corporate conglomerates touched new heights under Park’s regime. Arrest of Samsung Chief Jay Y Lee on charges of bribing President’s close aides’ testimonies prevalence of massive corruption. In South Korea, corporate conglomerates are known to oil the political engines and believed to have phenomenal influence in steering election campaigns as well. Previous regimes which shot into power on the promise of downsizing the influence of corporates have largely failed in taming them. Currently, there is growing discontent among the younger generation as declining economic growth has failed to offer employment opportunities South Korea has the highest levels of per capita college graduates and hence the frustration of educated, unemployed youth is palpable. On the other hand, despite having good social security system for the old, South Korea has the highest level of old-age poverty among the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) Countries.

The labor market of South Korea has two-tiers, where the permanent workers have good pay, perks and promotion while the temporary workers receive less pay devoid of job protection. Mostly middle-age people are preferred for permanent jobs. With looming economic slowdown and Korean businesses moving to foreign lands employment opportunities are becoming increasingly scarce. This new trend is becoming detrimental to youth. To improve economy, major structural reforms must be instituted and with conservative party failing to improve the economy, South Korea elected Moon who enthused voters with his new style of politics.  Unlike in other countries, where people embraced the Right-wing parties for effective solutions, dejected by the political scandal of President Park from Conservative Party, Liberals who spoke of uprooting the evils afflicting South Korea were perceived as agents of change. The older generation which witnessed Korean war are wary of Moon’s mild confrontational stance while the younger voters rallied Moon voting him in large numbers. Older generation largely favored the nationalist approach of the conservative and Centre-right parties.

While there is a sense of discomfort, regarding Moon’s election as he once famously said that South Korea should learn to say “No” Washington, people have high expectations from him. In fact, US may have its reservations with the new President, as he was highly critical of installing THAAD and promised to review the decision if voted to power. But as of now, experts strongly opine that believe that under Moon, who is unequivocal supporter of reunification of Korea, inter-Korean tension might reduce. Further, the KIC, a joint venture of North-South Korea which was closed last might be reopened. 

@ Copyrights reserved.

Ushering into an era of Space Diplomacy

By hoisting the South Asia Satellite (SAS), a communication satellite for free use of all SAARC nations minus Pakistan, Modi government added a new chapter to the Annals of Indian Foreign Policy. The mission which was diligently executed by ISRO with text book precision gave a fresh impetus to South Asia regional cooperation which miserably falls short of its potential in all avenues. The benevolent initiative, announced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the November 2014, SAARC summit at Kathmandu has rekindled a new spirit wherein Indian intent was impeccably back by affirmative action. While geostrategic objective deeply nurtured the idea, the “Invaluable gift”, as described by BBC would be of immense help to India’s south Asian neighbors who have been worst victims of natural disasters. The satellite with its immense scientific benefits would certainly add a new depth and dimension to Indian Diplomacy.  India had for various reasons is dubbed as poor deliverer the successful launch of SAS which will be operational within two weeks will augur well Modi’s new doctrine of Neighborhood First Policy.

Rightly recalled as “historic moment” for Indian diplomacy, the SAS, initially named as SAARC satellite, got the present name after Pakistan pulled out from this collective development oriented venture. The launch besides, befittingly positing India as an emerging power in space research projects reiterates that Indian rise unlike the Middle Kingdom is genuinely benign. Scientifically, the project offers numerous benefits like disaster management support, broadcast of meteorological data and strengthening the networking of academic, scientific and research institutions. SAS or GSAT-09, weighing 2230 kg was successfully inserted into the geosynchronous orbit by the GSLV F09 on its eleventh flight and consecutive fourth flight fitted with the indigenous cryogenic upper stage (CUS) from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre, Sriharikota on Friday. Over decades India established its credentials as a proven leader in launching satellites weighing less than 2000 kg meticulously into orbits with work-horse PSLV(Polar Satellite Launch Vehicles) but had hiccups in developing Geosynchronous Launch Vehicles (GSLV) capable of inserting heavier satellites over 2000kg into geosynchronous orbits. Navigation and communication satellites are typically very heavy and India had been employing foreign vehicles for launching its own satellites. But having broken this jinx with GSLV by clocking three consecutive successful launches and rigorously tamed the famed “naughty boy” (scientific community fondly refers to GSLV) India promised to build and hoist a communication satellite for exclusive use South Asian neighbors. Accordingly, GSAT-09 was designed with 12 ku transponders catering to the needs to the South Asian region with a mission life of 12 years. Each country is entitled to use one transponder.

Arguments are now rife among the intellectual circles that India can’t override the penetrating Chinese ingression into the South Asian region, since Beijing launched communication satellite for Pakistan and Sri Lanka in 2011 and 2012 respectively. China is also expected to launch communication satellites for both these countries by 2018. Now it is believed that China has offered Afghanistan to develop a satellite, Afghansat-2 when Afghan officials approached Beijing for help in laying a 4800-km optic fiber for internet connectivity. The veracity of these developments is reflected in Kabul’s hesitation to sign a MoU in space cooperation with India. On the contrary, India in collaboration with European Aeronautic Defense and Space Company (EADS) built first satellite for Afghansat-1 in 2008. Mission life of Afghansat-1 is all set to expire around 2020 and hence Kabul grabbed Chinese offer. Bangladesh is all set to have first communication satellite Bangabhandu-1 jointly developed by Italy and France which will be piggy backed by Falcon 9 rocket of Space X later this year. It is now believed that Bangladesh might prefer China over India since Beijing is an established player.

Interestingly, India made forays into space research a year after Pakistan set up its space research Centre, Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Communication (SUPARCO) in 1961 with the help of US. But it could launch indigenously built satellite Badr-1 in 1986. Space research in Pakistan picked up new pace following China’s cooperation since 2011. Intricacies of Sino-Pakistan axis is well known in this region and the nexus is here to stay for long. By and large, Chinese influence is going to prevail in the Asian Subcontinent. China is infusing new energy into its relations with South Asian countries like Nepal, Maldives and Bhutan. But this shouldn’t dither India’s attempts to revitalize its relations with SAARC nations. While India cannot match the levels of Chinese investments, India can certainly make up for the blunders and ignominious impassivity of previous regimes by offering help to countries like Nepal, Bhutan and Maldives in setting up necessary infrastructure for space research. 

It is unfortunate that the decade long UPA regime, during which China derisively pervaded into South Asian region failed to rev up cooperation with SAARC countries. With this priceless gift of SAS, Modi government has made a sincere attempt to salvage engagements with South Asian countries. The unprecedented move of gifting communication satellite to neighbors will truly be reckoned with utmost reverence. The entire cost of building and launching the satellite which accounts for Rs 450 crores is borne by India. BBC in a report estimated that all neighbors would accrue services worth $1.5billion for a period of 12 years. No doubt, China will have an upper hand for beginning early but India’s satellite will early richer dividends in terms of soft diplomacy. Also, Modi’s masterstroke of interacting with heads of states of all countries immediately after the launch through video conferencing reiterated India’s commitment and faith in regional cooperation. Besides, effectively isolating Pakistan, a formidable stumbling block which opposed even regional connectivity networking, SAS infused a new vitality in this regional grouping. Addressing leaders of neighboring countries, Modi said, “this launch tells us that even sky is not the limit when it comes to regional cooperation. The satellite opens up new horizons of engagement and will greatly benefit South Asia and our region’s progress”. All the leaders, in turn, thanked Modi and hailed his initiative. With Chinese threat looming in our backyard, the significance of this benevolent gift can’t be undermined.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Engaging with Turkey

Fresh from victory in referendum on constitutional reforms, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan embarked on a two-day state visit to New Delhi on April 30^th, honoring the invitation extended by President Pranab Mukherjee. Having consolidated his position as supreme leader of Turkey with a slender margin in a rather botched up referendum process, Erdogan who will be President of Turkish Republic till 2020 is on a mission to recalibrate ties with various nations. President Erdogan earlier visited India in 2008 as the Prime Minister is now currently accompanied by first lady and 150 delegates.

India and Turkey upholders of two greatest civilizations occupy pivotal positions in Asia. These glorious legacies also share religious, historical and cultural connect which dates back to 1481-82 when Muslim rulers of India established diplomatic relations with Ottoman Sultans. Mevlana Jelaluddin Rumi of Turkey the architect of Sufism whose philosophical moorings transcended the narrow boundaries of nations finds huge acceptance and appreciation in India. India was one of the few nations which not only stood against the atrocities inflicted on Turkey post World War I, but also extended unstinted support to Turkey’s freedom movement. The Khilafat Movement (1919-24), an agitation by Indian Muslims at the end of World War I pressurizing the British to declare the Ottoman Sultan as Caliph of Islam reflects the deep connect between India and Turkey. Similarly, All Indian Medical Mission headed by Dr. M. A. Ansari, (grandfather of Vice-President Hamid Ansari) travelled to Turkey for rendering medical assistance during Balkan wars and World War I. Turkey was one of the first countries to recognize India immediately after Independence.

Despite the legacy of historical connect, Turkey falls in the category of nations like Pakistan and China in terms of its bilateral relations with India. India and Turkey have been traversing two diametrically divergent pathways. While Independent India spear-headed the non-alignment movement, Turkey had been a NATO ally. Further Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Pakistan were hitched together under the Baghdad pact or the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) in 1955. Baghdad Pact was an attempt to contain the Soviet Union. Unlike NATO, CENTO showed signs of withering as early as 1958 due to coup in Iraq and completely crumbled when Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974. Though CENTO decimated, irrespective of the regime change, Pakistan-Turkey relations prospered. After partition, Pakistan inherited the windfall of the salubrious tidings from Turkey. Islamabad in a bid to boost its military bounty of arms and ammunition, aligned with the Western powers. Alternatively, Pakistan deftly aligned with other Muslim nations in the region under the realm of invincible didactic Islamic affiliations. Clamoring for influence, by 1969 Pakistan joined the 54-nation association OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) to tacitly give voice to its maligned narratives. Turkey lent support to Pakistan on Kashmir issue reciprocally Pakistan was empathic to Turkey’s position on Cyprus, Armenia and Azerbaijan. Though Indian leadership persevered to foster relations with Turkey, Ankara which was heavily tilted towards Islamabad showed no signs of reciprocation.

In a highly consequential coincidence, President of Cyprus and Turkey visited India back to back. Needless to say, India’s diplomatic mettle is thus put to a tough test. President of Cyprus Nico Anastasiades was in New Delhi from 25^th to 28^th April seeking India’s help in reunification of Cyprus. Turkey is in possession of 37% of area of Cyprus since its attack in 1974. India had always supported reunification of Cyprus while the hawkish Erdogan is the lone insurmountable upheaval for the same and refuses to recognize Republic of Cyprus. India and Cyprus share many similarities and the island country with cumulative FDI of $9 billion is the eight largest investor of India. New Delhi signed a double-taxation avoidance treaty with Cyprus. President Nico during his visit reposed faith in India as a stabilizing factor to play an active role in reunification and reaffirmed support for India’s permanent membership to extended UNSC and entry into NSG (Nuclear Suppliers Group). It is known that Turkey strongly detests reunification of Cyprus. Apparently in 1983 the Turkish Cypriot (region under the control of Turkey) declared independence rechristening itself as Turkish Republic of North Cyprus (TRNC) which was condemned by UNSC. But Turkey and TRNC continued to exchange ambassadors violating UNSC resolutions. Interestingly prior to Erdogan’s New Delhi visit, Vice-President Hamid Ansari who was on a visit to Armenia paid homage to victims of the genocide at the Tsitsernakaberd Memorial. In early 20^th century over 1.5 million Armenians were alleged killed by the Ottoman Sultans. Turkey denies the charges of genocide and now both countries have frosty relations. Sharing his feelings at an event in Armenia, Ansari reiterated that “any killing of human beings by other human beings can generate only one feeling. There can’t be two opinions regarding killing of innocent people be it in this region, Asia, Africa or in Latin America. We are obliged to adopt universal values. It is part of history nobody can be proud of”. This kind of indirect reference to traumatic genocide episode by Vice President of India few days ahead of President Erdogan’s state visit was unanticipated. Perhaps, these remarks may have left a bitter after taste too. In one of its toughest diplomatic exercises, India engaged three frosty neighbors in a span of one week-Cyprus, Armenia and Turkey.

The situation became even more murkier with President Erdogan in an interview to media channel days before his state visit suggested a “multilateral dialogue” for resolving Kashmir issue. Besides, he opined that both India and Pakistan are equally eligible for a membership to the elite club of NSG. This strident pitching for Pakistan and controversial approach for Kashmir issue has reinforced India’s worst fears about Turkey’s Islamabad levitation. India for long has been deeply riled by Turkey’s involvement in various infrastructure projects in Pakistan-Occupied region. While, Erdogan government seriously believes that the ideologues of the Turkish preacher and politician Fethullah Gulen “infiltrated” India. Turkish authorities in unequivocal terms announced that the Gulen Movement or Fethullah Gulen Terrorist Organization (FETO) orchestrated the failed coup bid last year and intensified crackdown on Gulen followers. Post-Coup, Turkey asked India to act against FETO, but New Delhi hadn’t responded. Erdogan in his bilateral talks raised this issue. Interestingly, for all his unabashed partisan statements, Erdogan was very enthusiastic about forging ties with India.

Erdogan who has been Prime Minister for 12 years was extremely popular in Turkey for his revolutionary economic reforms that transformed Turkish economy. Despite, the ever-deepening relations with Pakistan, Turkey aspires to enhance economic ties with India, which is currently one of the fastest growing economies. Addressing the Indo-Turkish Business Forum Meeting, Prime Minister Modi and President Erdogan, stressed on the need to deepen trade and investment relations and capitalize on the growth of untapped potentials. The bilateral trade as of now stands at $6.4 billion and both leaders set a target of $10 billion for 2020. Turkey is known for its expertise in construction. Modi besides inviting the Turkish investments towards flagship programs like Make in India and Smart Cities drew attention to the growing Infrastructure requirements of India.

Despite strategic twists, mysterious admonitions and nonconformist approach, World leaders are hardly freezing ties with Turkey headed by wily politician like Erdogan. India too, regardless of the deep-seated convergences, intends to engage with Turkey for it is an important strategic world power. India and Turkey over the years have been cooperating with each other in various multilateral organizations like Heart of Asia-Istanbul Process initiated in 2011, G-20, Asia Cooperation Dialogue and collaborating on “Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia”.

Under Prime Minister Modi India is trying to surmount the phenomenon of de-hyphenation in international diplomacy. In the past three years, India actively engaged with different partners in Middle East like Iran, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar and now patiently engaging with Turkey. In Erdogan’s current visit- both countries reached agreement on early conclusion of negotiations on the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism. Jamia Milia Islamia University, cofounded by Dr. M.A. Ansari, conferred honorary Degree of Doctor of Letters (Honoris Causa) on President Erdogan for his contribution towards international cooperation, peace and security. Intriguingly, the prestigious Indian university bestowed unique honor on a person who championed education purge in Turkey after a failed coup attempt. Though it is widely known that India’s engagement with Turkey may hardly yield positive outcomes for all its bias towards Pakistan, but India’s diplomatic efforts might be worth the wait on a long run. In the past two decades, India with its steady economic growth began to draw attention of various nations. India is emerging as a positive gateway for propitious investments; for all the material benefits Turkey may ill afford to miss the boat. 

@ Copyrights reserved.