Will Hongkong protests prove to be nemesis for China’s unwarranted intervention?

Hongkong which has established a formidable reputation for its economic progress and rule of law is slowly sinking into an abyss. Travellers at the airport are now greeted with freedom slogans by the demonstrators. As of now seven countries have issued travel alert to Hongkong. The autonomous region handed over to China in 1997 by the British under the foundational agreement of “One Country two systems” for the next fifty years is now reeling under political turmoil. Ever since its accession to China, Hongkongers have jealously defended their prized freedom of speech and media and tried to maintain a distinct identity. The islanders spared no efforts to defend their freedom and boldly expressed resentment towards the political dispensation through peaceful marches and protests in the past two decades. The momentous Umbrella Movement or Occupy Central Movement underscores their penchant to realise the dream of universal suffrage. 

On the 20^th anniversary of Hongkong’s handover President Xi openly hinted at sinification and gradually the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) intensified attempts to penetrate the city’s civil society.  Introduction of the controversial extradition bill have been a calibrated effort in that direction. The bill which permits extradition of accused to mainland China is a direct assault on independence of Hongkong’s judiciary and hence civilians denounced the bill. Expressing disapproval people carried out peaceful marches which snowballed into massive protests compelling the pro-China Chief Executive Carrie Lam to suspend the bill. Activists demanded complete withdrawal of the bill but an obstinate Chief Executive didn’t heed. Keen on preserving the sanctity of its judiciary, activists intensified protests. They stormed into the legislature defaced portraits. With time peace marches sparked clashes between the riot police and activists. Protests slowly morphed into pro-democracy movement. Last weekend, protests reached a crescendo with activists blackening plaque of China’s Liaison Office. They defaced the façade of the building with graffiti. Chinese government which perceived these acts as an assault on their sovereignty issued a stern warning to protestors and accused them of working with foreign forces.

Amidst no signs of any let down in protests by the pro-democracy activists a day after China’s warning, masked men in white T-shirts wielding bamboo sticks, iron rods, holding China flags entered a metro station and roughed up people traveling by the Mass Transit Rail. Gangs attacked people returning from protests. Soon, videos of police retreating from the site of the assault leaving the common man to fend for themselves became viral. The rampage episode which lasted for two hours left one battling for life and 45 others grievously injured. Curiously, there has been little response from the metro police who arrived 35 minutes after the first report of attacks. Furious over inaction of Police, activists protested before Police station the next day leading to arrest of six members associated with triad gangs. The incident occurred at Yuen Long metro North of Hongkong a den to triad gangs very loyal to China and the CCP. There are various theories about Triads but by and large they carry out kidnapping and other illegal activities at the behest of Chinese government. Similar reports of triad employment emerged during Taiwanese Presidential Elections. Commonly known as the underground front of CCP, they were used to spy leaders and threaten anti-Beijing elements in Taiwan. Hongkongers who closely followed democratic movement in Taiwan now strongly believe that China is going to employ every trick in its book to curb the protests with heavy hand. Undeterred by the pressure tactics, activists sought the permission of police to carry out a peaceful march to protest indiscriminate attacks by triad gangs. Police banned the march scheduled for July 27^th citing violence. Notwithstanding the attempts to curb their march, students walked through the Yeung Long metro and the central Liaison office. Extending support, airport employees also joined the movement. Soon protestors occupied the airport, flashed placards, displayed pictures, chanted freedom slogans drawing the attention of the international media. Meanwhile the clashes between activists and Police turned violent after police used tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse the crowds. Taking stock of escalating tensions, China hinted at a military action upon to curb protests. Beijing even cited a law that authorises Hongkong police to seek the help of China in restoring peace and order.

Alarmed by the tumbling trade and tourism, America Chamber of Commerce charter in Hongkong requested the government to address the grievances of the demonstrators and institute an investigation. Instead of resolving the crisis, government shifted the blame on protestors and held them responsible for the turmoil. Government’s inability to protect common man from the unruly (triad) mobs has destroyed their faith in current government. Already Hongkongers are deeply upset with Lam government which has failed to deliver on economic front. Now her reluctance and indifference to heed to public resentment towards extradition bill and their demands has completely eroded their trust in the government. With reports of China’s preparations to deploy PLA gaining traction, Hongkongers are now totally miffed. Until unless government mulls a conciliatory path, the situation is unlikely to return to normalcy. In the meanwhile, any kind of authoritarian display or outburst from Beijing might even escalate tensions in Hongkong.

Hongkong protests are going to be China’s nemesis for various regions. Firstly, Hongkong is not Tibet or Xinjiang. The city which has carved a unique identity has immense economic potential. Any disruption or major upheaval will have a considerable impact on China as well. Secondly, the protests in Hongkong are now grabbing global headlines. China’s heavy-handedness will buttress its deplorable human rights credentials. Thirdly, unlike the Tiananmen Square protests where China ruthlessly mowed tanks over protestors and censored media, free media of Hongkong will relay the information to the world with no holds barred approach. Fourthly, the protests in the city are showing no signs of wearing off. Activists are collectively working as a single unit. Having learnt lessons during the Umbrella Movement in 2014, Hongkongers have fine-tuned their protests to escape riot Police offensive. Fifthly, protestors are firmly determined to safeguard their civil liberties. Chinese authoritarian display in Hongkong will deter Taiwan from even considering Chinese proposal of reunification.

China’s inability to brook no dissent is at the root of this mayhem. Beijing has been resolutely tightening its grip on Hongkong Special Autonomous Region (SAR). President Xi’s unrelenting efforts to bring SAR under firm control of Beijing trampling their freedom has aggravated the situation. An authoritarian President Xi promoting the “Chinese Dream” of rejuvenation has turned China into a surveillance state. He converted the entire province of Xinjiang into a big jail and illegally detained over 1 million Uighur Muslims under the pretext of imparting employment skills. For the fear of losing trade ties with China, Muslim countries across the globe refused to condemn Chinese actions. Similarly, he quelled dissent in Tibet with iron hand. To bring back Taiwan under its fold, Beijing offered “One Country two systems” principle. But a democratic Taiwan didn’t cower under China’s pressure. Needless to say, China’s actions in Hongkong will hold a key to success of “One China policy” or reunification of China ambitiously pursued by President Xi.

@ Copyrights reserved.

President Trump’s false claims on Kashmir mediation get condemnation and a strong counter from India

Trump is no stranger to controversies. His controversial remarks on the eve of Pakistani President Imran Khan’s visit to Washington has thrown a spanner into the Indo-US ties which are sagging under the burden of abrasive US trade policies. Trump’s inarticulate and inconsistent foreign policy is now taking a toll on the US relations with friends and foes. In yet another glaring example of fomenting tensions in the bilateral ties, addressing the Press  after his meeting with Khan, President Trump claimed, “I was with Prime Minister Modi two weeks ago and we talked about this subject” Trump said, “He actually said,’ would like to be a mediator or arbitrator” I said, “where” he said, “Kashmir”. His false claims of Prime Minister Modi asking his to mediate the Kashmir issue has now stoked biggest controversy.

Anyone familiar with the South Asia knows that India has now two opinions about Kashmir. Time and again Indian leadership, bureaucrats and politicians ascertained that Kashmir issue will be resolved bilaterally with Pakistan and will not brook any “third party involvement”. Minutes after Trump’s remarks, MEA spokesperson tweeted, “We have seen @POTUS's remarks to the press that he is ready to mediate, if requested by India & Pakistan, on Kashmir issue. No such request has been made by PM @narendramodi to US President”. He also added, “It has been India's consistent position that all outstanding issues with Pakistan are discussed only bilaterally. Any engagement with Pakistan would require an end to cross border terrorism. The Shimla Agreement & the Lahore Declaration provide the basis to resolve all issues between India & Pakistan bilaterally” expressing India’s strong objection to his claims”.  

Trump’s sham claims of Modi requesting Trump’s mediation along the sidelines of G-20 Osaka summit are outright lies as Ivanka, who accompanied his father to the summit stated that four aspects-defence deals, Iran sanctions, trade tariffs and 5G were discussed at during Indo-US bilateral. 

With his reckless claims, Trump has punctured the rubicon of trust and confidence painstakingly built by the leadership of both countries over the past two decades. Kashmir has been Pakistan’s jugular vein. Islamabad never missed a chance to rake up Kashmir issue at various bilateral and multilateral forums to rile India. Nations, cognisant of India’s stand on Kashmir have always stayed away this issue. But Trump keen on placating Pakistan hasn’t hesitated to raise contentious Kashmir issue. Modi’s audacious air strikes and tough posturing against Pakistan bolstered his reputation as a strong leader and has been instrumental for his spectacular re-election. Hence it is inconceivable for any leader in right frame of mind to even believe that Modi would have even brought the Kashmir mediation issue with Trump. On the other hand, Trump with established credentials as pathological liar with a predilection to pursue his interests has clearly played mischief.

After Trump’s white lies, State Department South and Central Asian Division swung into action damage control mode and tweeted, “While Kashmir is a bilateral issue for both parties to discuss, the Trump administration welcomes Pakistan and India sitting down and the United States stands ready to assist”.

Soon, Representative Eliot L Engel, Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, spoke to India’s ambassador to the United States Harshvardhan Shringla and reiterated that United States supports a dialogue between India and Pakistan over the longstanding Kashmir dispute. He affirmed that “the dialogue’s pace and scope can only be determined by India and Pakistan” and contended that Pakistan must take concrete and irreversible steps to dismantle the terror infrastructure for a meaningful dialogue to begin. In the meanwhile, White House in its press statement on meeting between Trump and Khan didn’t make reference to Kashmir mediation issue. Expressing shock over Trump’s remarks, India launched protest with US State Department. Trump’s statement has stirred a political storm in India and Minister of External Affairs categorically reiterated government’s position in the Parliament.

Trump who has announced his plans for re-election has been scouting for a major foreign policy breakthrough. Desperate to pull back troops from Afghanistan, Trump is leaving no stone unturned to cultivate Pakistan to clinch a peaceful with Taliban. Trump administration has been doling out favours to Pakistan. Ignoring pleas of senators, US facilitated $6 billion IMF bail package, days before Khan’s visit to Washington the US designated Baloch activists as terrorists. Contradicting his own statement on January 1^st 2018, when he tweeted about Pakistan, “They have given us nothing but lies and deceit, thinking of our leaders as fools….no more” to curtly defending Islamabad before talks as saying, “Pakistan never lies” Trump made a massive U-turn. Lying through his teeth, Trump rehyphenated India with Pakistan to placate Islamabad to bring about reconciliation with the Afghan Taliban. Similarly, blatantly disregarding sensitivities of Afghanistan, before the bilateral meeting Trump said, “I have plans on Afghanistan that, if I wanted to win that war, Afghanistan would be wiped off the face of the Earth.  It would be gone.  It would be over in — literally, in 10 days.  And I don’t want to do — I don’t want to go that route”. Peeved by Trump’s remarks Afghanistan too lodged strong protest.

Trump who considers himself smarter than intelligence chiefs have often put White House officials to shame with his goof ups and nuggets of knowledge on South Asia. He believed that Bhutan and Nepal are part of India and he was told during a briefing that they were separate countries. His ignorance, stubbornness and above all his deal making approach is now endangering America’s ties.

While Brad Sherman apologised India, New Delhi is ruffled by Trump’s volte-face. In sharp contrast to Trump’s Pakistan appeasement, America has removed India from Generalised System of Preference (GSP), imposed 14.5% tariffs on Steel and aluminium exports, even after India acceded to US sanctions in Iran has reduced imports to zero and finalising defence deals worth more than $11 billion and routing oil imports from America.  

By extending a warm welcome to Khan chaperoned by military hierarchy, Trump has legitimised military dominated Pakistan regime and elevated Khan’s political fortunes. By downplaying Pakistan’s cross border terrorism and acknowledging temporary crackdown on terror outfits, Trump gave Pakistan a free run. His hostile statements on Kashmir gave a new lease for life to Pakistan trumpeters who are waiting to blow their horn and flash a victory sign. But surely Trump’s remarks will force India to charter a new course and adopt a new strategy towards his administration.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Book Review: Rajesh Kadian’s “India’s Sri Lanka Fiasco”

As a regional power India has many a times rescued neighbouring countries in times of distress and need. But one of its biggest strategic blunders of sending IPKF (Indian Peace Keeping Forces) troops to Sri Lanka will forever will be etched in the history as an unwarranted external intervention. The book, “India’s Sri Lanka Fiasco: Peace Keepers at War” by Rajesh Kadian throws light on the finer details of the entire saga.

By the time British left Sri Lanka, Ceylon Tamils who constituted 12.9% of the population dominated the administrative, professional and other government jobs. Even the Indian Tamils who were sent as indentured labour to work in Sri Lankan tea and coffee plantations also formed a huge chunk of population in the central Kandy region of the island.  Over-representation of Ceylon Tamils created resentment among the majority Sinhalese. The British who believed that minorities might suffer in an independent Sri Lanka, left behind a constitution that suggested a 50:50 representation of majority, Sinhalese and minorities which included Tamils, Hindus, Muslims and others. But Sinhalese rejected the constitutional recommendation and what ensued was a systemic discrimination against Tamils. This led to a series of riots where majority clashed with Tamil minority in the Northern and Eastern territories snowballing into an eventual Tamil genocide. To escape persecution thousands of Tamils sought refuge in India.

Alarmed by mass influx of refugees, Indian government called for an India-Sri Lankan accord in early 1987 with an objective of preserving the territorial integrity of the Southern neighbour as opposed to protecting the suppressed Tamils. Interestingly, instead of convincing the Sri Lankan government to negotiate with Tamils fighting for their rights, in a serious lapse of judgement India committed to send forces to restore peace in the region. India’s unwarranted intervention irked both the parties. Tamil groups considered India. But post peace accord, Indian troops battled these groups in a guerrilla war. To bring about normalcy in the region, India appealed reluctant Sri Lankan government to hold elections and even propped up a political entity. Though the party managed to win elections, it floundered within months. Extended presence of Indian forces began to irk Sri Lanka. After 1000 days on ground, having invested men, material and money India not only failed in bringing any semblance of peace but earned ire of both the parties- Sri Lankan government and Tamil fighters.

Drawing parallels with the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation war, the author tries to explain the absurdity of India’s adventurism in Sri Lanka. He argues that since independence, India had a “principles-based” approach towards foreign policy but failed to frame a policy. Though written in 1990, the author in this book, warns India of two impending threats to India’s sovereignty in the form of China and Pakistan.  junks the justification of ethnological burden as the reason for India’s intervention in Sri Lanka and rues India’s low-key behaviour in Sri Lanka.

Unfortunately, this fiasco took a huge toll on India-Sri Lanka bilateral ties and dented India’s image as a big power in the region. India’s paid heavy price for its irresponsible action through the life of former Prime Minister Rajiv who signed the accord. He was assassinated by LTTE suicide bomber. Geopolitically, India’s boots on ground approach irreparably damaged the ties ceding space to China, anxious to expand its foot print in the region. Beijing exploited the rift between India and Sri Lanka and soon gained firm foothold in the island. Through sustained efforts India managed to bring some warmth in the relations. Prime Minister Modi’s state visit to the island in 2015 after a gap of 28 years has been India’s best foot forward towards earning the trust of its neighbour.

Clearly, Rajesh Kadian’s diligently researched book is a good read for anyone interested in South Asian studies.

@ Copyrights reserved.

India’s Moon Mission: Chandrayaan-2

After Indian Cricket team’s shock exit from the semi-finals of World Cup Cricket, the nation has something to cheer for-India’s pride and glory, ISRO (Indian Space Research Organisation) is going to launch Chandrayaan-2 mission at 2:50 am on July 15^th from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre, Sriharikota. The present Mission is an advanced version of Chandrayaan-1, India’s first mission to the moon launched on October 22^nd, 2008.

Chandrayaan-1

Chandrayaan in Sanskrit means “Moon Craft”. Moon orbiter of Chandrayaan-1 helped in determining presence of water molecules on the surface of the Moon. Equipped with instruments needed for collecting data on Moon’s geology, minerology and topography, the spacecraft orbited Moon 3400 times and transmitted data back to mission centre. From the mapping orbit located at an altitude of 100 kilometres, space craft, deliberately crashed Moon Impact Probe into Moon’s south pole to detect presence of water.

After 10 months of its launch, ISRO lost contact with the orbiter. Though Chandrayaan-1 failed to complete is mission life of two years, it had many achievements to its credit. It was ISRO’s first interplanetary mission. The instruments aboard the mission detected water in the thin lunar atmosphere, water ice near surface of the poles and the over 70,000 images captured during its life span helped in creating three-dimensional map of Moon and its past tectonic activity. This highly successful scientific mission besides establishing ISRO’s technological prowess motivated scientists to intensify Moon exploration.

Background

Encouraged by the new findings of Chandrayaan-1, scientists finalised the payloads by 2013 and prepared ground for Chandrayaan-2. Originally conceived as a joint mission between ISRO and ROSCOSMOS (Russian Space Agency) the mission, Chandrayaan-2 was rescheduled to 2016 after Russia couldn’t develop lander for the mission. Subsequently after failure of its Mars Mission, Russia withdrew from the Chandrayaan-2 mission. India then decided to carry out the mission independently and scheduled the launch for March 2018. But was delayed to April, then June and finally the team made some comprehensive changes in the mission in October pushing the launch date to 2019. In the meantime, India carried out its second interplanetary mission to Mangalyaan in November 2013. ISRO took the World by storm by launching Mars Orbiter Mission (MOM) successfully in its very first attempt incurring a cost of mere $74 million (11% of NASA’s Mars Mission).

Chandrayaan-2

The Mission altogether contains three parts- Chandrayaan Orbiter, Vikram Lander and Pragyaan Rover. Chandrayaan-2 Orbiter carrying the lander and rover module, weighing 3.8 tonnes will be hoisted into Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit (GTO) by the indigenously developed cryo-vehicle, Geosynchronous Launch Vehicle (GSLV Mk-III). GSLVs are specially designed to inject satellites weighing more than 4 tonnes to geosynchronous orbit. The three-stage rocket containing a pair of S-200 solid boosters, a core liquid L-110 stage and upper cryogenic engine are perfectly suited for the new parameters of the mission. Having conducted two successful launches earlier, ISRO decided to use Mk-III launch vehicle for the lunar mission. Unlike Chandrayaan-1 the current mission is technologically more challenging and complex. Accuracy is the key. Even a slightest error of one kilometre can be disastrous.

After 17 minutes of lift-off, the upper cryogenic engine will inject the orbiter into earth’s parking orbit. In the next 53 days, Orbiter will travel 3.84 lakh kilometers to reach the designated lunar orbit. During the first 16 days of lift-off, the propulsion system of orbiter will fire “earth-bound burns” to propel it into higher orbits. Subsequently for the next five days, the orbiter will travel towards the moon. With another firing, the orbiter sucked up by lunar gravity will be hoisted to a peri-lunar orbit. The Orbiter will finally enter the 100km circular orbit around moon after four lunar-burn manoeuvres. It will go around the moon for 27 days. The orbiter with a mission life of one year besides carrying the lander-rover composite module has the essential communication equipment to relay message between lander, rover and mission centre on Earth.

On September 6^th/7^th after travelling 3.84 lakh kilometres, the orbiter will prepare the module for soft-landing.  After going through the numerous images captured by the Chandrayaan-1, scientists have pinned down on a region for touchdown, which is a plain between two craters, Manzinus C and Simpelius N, 70 degrees South of equator and 350 km north of South pole. It has a slope of less than 12 degrees ideally suited for landing. A nerve-wrecking time frame of 15 minutes will be challenging for soft-landing of the lander. As per programmed set of events for the soft landing, four days before landing, lander will separate from the orbiter and reach an orbit 30kmX100km. In the scheduled 15-minute window, lander will decelerate its speed rapidly and lose altitude. 100mt from the lunar surface, lander will hover for 25seconds to take a call on final spot for touchdown. Firing all five engines for 13 seconds, it will touch lunar surface. 15 minutes after landing it will send first photograph and four hours after landing, rover will crawl out to conduct experiments for 14 earth days or one lunar day.

India’s Chandrayaan-2 is immensely significant for being the first mission attempting to soft-land on Moon’s South pole. Poles with permanently shadowed craters termed as “lunar cold traps” with water ice have fossilised records of the evolution of moon and solar system. Exploring these regions can greatly enhance knowledge of our nearest space neighbour, Moon. South pole is the region which is explored the least. Coming shortly after Israel’s Beresheet crash while landing on lunar surface, on April 11^th, space enthusiasts are closely observing India’s Moon Mission.

Lander, Vikram is named after the founder of Indian Space Program, Dr. Vikram Sarabhai will act as communication link between the rover, orbiter and Earth. It houses instruments for measuring lunar seismic activity, ILSA; Thermal probe; Radio Anatomy of Moon Bound Hypersensitive Ionosphere and Atmosphere; Imaging System; Radio Occultation Experiment and instrument provided by NASA- retoreflector.

Rover, Pragyaan meaning Wisdom in Sanskrit is an autonomous unit weighing 27 kilograms. It has six wheels, a radio antenna to communicate, solar panels and carries Laser Induced Breakdown Spectroscope, Alpha particle induced radio Spectroscope and Imaging System. It can travel up to 500 meters. Of the 14 instruments on board, 13 are Indian. The cost of entire mission is 630 crores ($87 million).

Barring China’s Chang’e, last year, no mission has soft-landed on lunar surface. A successful soft-landing will put India in an exclusive club of the US, Russia, China and Japan who have reached Moon and elevate its status as an emerging space power. India’s moon mission coincides with the 50 years of America’s conquest of Moon on July 16^th 1969, when America’s Eagle landed on lunar surface and Neil Armstrong walked over it. For all the trails and tribulations faced by Indian space program, a successful Chandrayaan will be a giant leap forward. India’s unmanned mission to Moon will be a fitting centenary tribute to Dr. Vikram Sarabhai who envisioned potential of space exploration and its quintessential role in powering telecommunication, weather forecasting, education and broadcasting.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Trump’s contrasting stance on nuclear disarmament is at risk of stoking more tensions than defusing them

Known for his characteristic uncertain foreign policy moves, President Trump surprised everyone with his impromptu invitation to North Korean Supremo Kim Jong Un to meet at DMZ (Demilitarised Zone).  Wrapping up the G-20 Summit at Osaka, Trump travelled to South Korea and paid visit to DMZ, the buffer zone between the two Koreas. Known to be intense conflict zone laden with thousands of booby traps, the region even poses major security challenges to both countries, the region is extremely significant for both Koreas. Previously American Presidents- Bill Clinton, George Bush and Barak Obama visited the DMZ. But Trump became first American President to script history by crossing over to North Korean part of the territory through DMZ at the behest of DPRK leader Kim.

Back Ground

US and North Korea have a signature topsy-turvy kind of relations and Trump’s twitter invite to Kim generated huge interest. Back in 2017, in response to North Korea’s string of missile tests, Trump left no stone unturned to unleash fury on the Kim for creating a reign of instability in the Korean Peninsula. Upping his attack against North Korea, in his maiden address at the UN Assembly in 2017, Trump referred to him as a “Rocket Man on suicide mission” and threatened to “totally destroy his regime”. North Korea condemned Trump’s public mockery and called him “mentally deranged US dotard”. Elsewhere Trump aggressively warned North Korea “(they) will be met with fire and fury like the World has never seen”. But the things took a conciliatory turn, after President Moon Jae, advocate of Sunshine policy batted for rapprochement between Koreas in his Presidential campaign, initiated confidence building measures. He warmed up to North Korea, sent an official invite for the Winter Olympics. Symbolising truce, a unified Korean team took part in the Women’s ice hockey event. Adding momentum to confidence building measures, President Moon on his state visit to Washington urged President Trump to initiate North Korean outreach and prepared ground for the peace talks. This eventually paved way for the first summit meet between Trump and Kim at Singapore in June 2018 which began with much fanfare. Reiterating his commitment to bring peace to Korean peninsula, ahead of the talks, Kim ordered suspension of proliferation activities including development of Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICMB) capable of reaching American shores. Trump on his part cancelled joint military exercises off the South Korean coast.  During the first meet, both leaders agreed to “word towards denuclearisation”.

Both leaders known to be tough negotiators conceded little. But Kim walked with an advantage of having shedding the image of “hermit king”. The summit helped North Korea in main streaming itself diplomatically absolve its global pariah status. For long, North Korea was shunned for its bad human rights violation record. In the run up to Singapore Summit, Kim renewed outreach with China, Russia Korea and also meet with leadership of Singapore.

From the beginning while Trump batted for complete, irreversible and verifiable nuclear nuclearization, Kim reiterated that denuclearisation must be complete implying evacuation of America’s nuclear assets from South Korea leading to denuclearisation of Korean Peninsula completely. Showing his firm intent, North Korea returned remains of fallen American soldiers and dismantled Sohae Satellite Launching Station used for assembling space launch vehicles and developing liquid fuel engines for ballistic missiles. At the inter-Korean summit in September 2018 both Koreas signed a Comprehensive Military Agreement to reduce tensions in the Korean peninsula. Additionally, DPRK pledged permanent dismantling of nuclear site region, Yeongbyeon and called for delivery of “corresponding measures” by America which by definition implied removal of official sanctions.

Kim Jong Un unlike his predecessors advocated byungjin policy, expounding simultaneous economic and military development. Ever since Kim took over DPRK after the death of his father, Kim Jong Il in 2011, he focussed on nuclear development despite sanctions of 2006 nuclear testing and explored ways to boost economic progress. Kim Jong Un’s ideology is effectively an amalgamation of juche (the battle cry of DPRK’s industrial policy) meaning spirit of self-reliance of depending on its own powers, adopted by Kim Il Sung, back in 1950s and Songun Chongch (Military First) the clarion call of Kim Jong Il to deter US-ROK (Republic of Korea’s) aggression. In his new year message to America, Kim appealed for a relief from sanctions an essential breather for North Korean economy. Anticipating partial relief from sanctions, DPRK readily agreed for a second summit at Hanoi in February.

Instead America dangled some concessions like reconsidering joint military exercises with South Korea, opening of a liaison office in DPRK and a formal declaration of end of Korean war. These “corresponding measures” of America reflected its inflexible and rigid approach. Indeed, America believed that in exchange for a comprehensive lifting of sanctions, it would convince Kim to give up its stockpile of nuclear weapons. Cognisant of America’s combative actions in Iraq and Libya, Kim refused to yield to America’s concessions. Kim offered to have an interim agreement whereby DPRK offered a formal moratorium on ICBM and missile testing. He sought partial lifting of sanctions in return. But America demanded a total surrender of diligently accumulated nuclear assets in return for a comprehensive relief. Given America’s previous experience of DPRK’s violation of nuclear moratorium, US rejected DPRK’s step wise dismantling of nuclear sites. DPRK which felt enthused by Trump’s praises of Kim in the run up to the Hanoi Summit felt let down. Kim walked out the summit. Post-summit, DPRK officially announced that Kim has lost the will to negotiate further.

Given the intransigent approach of Trump failure of Hanoi summit was written all over the place. After its eventual failure, the possibility of a one on one meeting between the leaders of both leaders seemed negligible. Since then for months there was hardly any communication between both countries. Trump’s impromptu meeting with Kim at the DMZ reignited hopes of diplomatic talks. If reports are to be believed, the meeting is said to be fruitful. DPRK appointed Kim Mong-gil former NK’s ambassador to Vietnam, who actively oversaw the Hanoi Summit will lead Korean negotiation team. He will replace Kim Hyok-chol rumoured to have been purged after the failure of Hanoi summit. American delegation will be headed by US special representative for North Korea Stephen Biegun. Fresh round of talks will be held in Thailand soon.

Instead of “complete denuclearisation” whose definition and terms are not clear as yet according to NYT, softening stance, America is now calling for total freeze of North Korea’s nuclear program. Though hawks National Security Adviser Bolton rejected this new approach as reprehensible, flexibility in North Korean talks must be seen together with President’s decision of stalling attacks against Iran at the eleventh hour.

Trump’s contradictory approach

Diplomatic negotiations between the US and DPRK have considerably defused tensions in the East Asia. But simmering US-Iranian crisis in the Persian Gulf is posing a threat to global energy security and peace as well. Interestingly, Trump’s DPRK model is in sharp contrast to his Iranian approach. By inviting DPRK to negotiation table, Trump legitimately acknowledged North Korea as nuclear power. In the process, he has set a precedent that America would rather cut deal with a nuclear capable country than attack it. Kim who has rightly assessed American propensity for impulsive action, is now using the nuclear deterrent to strike deal. After acquiring nuclear capabilities, ICBM’s and dozens of ballistic missiles, Kim besides meeting Trump thrice have not only refused to concede but is trying to extract concessions despite being a repeat violator of nuclear freeze. With his obscurantist approach Kim has set an example and Iran would definitely emulate this to have its way. While US-Korean hardly made any progress, Trump’s penchant to negotiate authoritarian Kim despite failed summits underscores his pursuit to script history and earn laurels as a deal maker.

While America continues to threaten Iran with more sanctions and isolation if it accelerates Uranium enrichment, Trump’s shift in stance after the Panmunjom (DMZ) talks symbolised his double standards. His contrasting stands to two nuclear threats is sending confusing signals. Both DPRK and Iran designated as dangerous countries for their implacable tendencies are known for heightened anti-Americanism. His stern warning to Iran for surpassing uranium enrichment level as opposed to rewarding DPRK with one more chance of diplomatic negotiation is intriguing. Through unilateral withdrawal from the iconic P5+1 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) Trump has stirred a hornet’s nest. Despite its fallacies, the deal has successfully halted Iran’s nuclear aspirations and brought semblance of stability in the region. Interestingly, Trump’s reconciliation towards DPRK and disastrous dismantling of Iranian deal took place around the same time.  Ironically, on the pretext of giving enough rope to Iran, Trump pulled the plug on Iranian nuclear deal but now he is ready to come down from “complete denuclearisation” to “total freeze” of nuclear weapons to DPRK. While Iran is facing international pressure for exceeding limits of enrichment which are way short of developing a weapon, concessions await DPRK on the negotiation table. Though both countries refused to succumb to America’s unilateral disarmament, the only difference appears to be DPRK’s readiness to negotiate as opposed to reluctance of Iran for a direct dialogue. But with his summit meets America acknowledged North Korea as a nuclear power.

Though it might be perfunctory to drawn parallels between nuclear issues of DPRK and Iran, in the absence of a firm and unequivocal commitment towards nuclear proliferation and disarmament doctrines, America is at risk of stoking more tensions than defusing them.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Trump’s pivot to trade transactionalism nudges strategic partnership to backseat

Yesterday, US Senate approved the passage of National Defence Authorisation Act 2020 with a proposal of giving a NATO-ally status to India. The legislation aside upgrading India’s status on par with countries like Israel and South Korea will pave way for increased India-US defence cooperation especially in the Western Indian Ocean maritime security, counter terrorism, counter piracy and humanitarian assistance. Within 180 days of enactment of this legislation, US defence secretary will submit a report on the joint Indo-US joint military exercises and defence cooperation in the Indian Ocean Region. The report will be processed by House of Representatives and once the House approves it, both Houses would recommend the amendment for President’s final signature to make it into a law. The upgrade, will immensely enhance the Indo-US strategic ties and will ease India’s high-end defence purchases from the US. This new elevation further to the recognition of India as a “major non-NATO ally” in 2016 followed by signing of foundational agreement COMCOSA (Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement) during the maiden 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue in 2018 reinforced growing convergence and cooperation between both countries.

Expectedly, these promising developments invigorated new hopes of deepening Indo-US strategic partnership. But conflicting messaging of President Trump, reckless name calling of India on trade tariffs and increasing carbon emissions equating it with China has triggered fresh doubts. With frequent scathing references to India’s import duties the US dubitably etched itself as a big bully. Further the termination of India’s “Generalised System of Preferences” for not assuring an “equitable and reasonable” access to its markets created fresh strains in Indo-US ties. Under GSP over 2000 Indian products worth $5.6 billion entered US markets duty free in 2017. Trump’s decision which came days after new government took charge widened the gulf. In retaliation, India imposed duties on 28 American products including almonds, walnut, pulses and apples after a delay of one year. Citing security reasons, America last year imposed 25% tariff on steel and 10% duty on Aluminium products from India. India refrained from imposing duties in the hope of resolving the issue through negotiations. After America pulled plug on the GSP, India imposed retaliatory duties.

America is India’s largest trading partner. The volume of trade in goods and services accounts for $142.1 billion with the trade balance in favour of India. To mitigate the trade deficits, India began importing crude from America from 2017 despite the huge geographical distances. While it takes eight to ten days for oil imports from West Asia to reach to India, the wait is 50 days long for American crude imports. After America’s waiver of sanctions for importing oil from Iran has expired in April, oil supplies from US increased by four-fold to 6.4 million tonnes. Similarly, to address Trump’s obsession with trade surplus, India increased its defence purchases and lined up $10 billion worth orders.

Being a developed economy, to protect its domestic interests, India imposes duties due to which it is derided as protectionist by economists. On a comparative scale, developed countries like Japan, South Korea, Australia and the US outmanoeuvre India in terms of higher duties. India’s regulatory pricing of the stents, knee implants from American companies, tightening of e-commerce rules, imposing licencing requirements on imports of Boric Acid and the February 2019 draft policy of localisation of the server farms and data centres in India compounded Trump’s fixation of India hurting America’s business interests. In response to India’s new draft policy America threatened to impose data localisation restrictions on Indian companies thereby increasing operational costs for Indian companies and demanded removal of tariffs on all ICT products. These latent trade irritants that have persisted from the time both countries started trading have become more irksome due to Trump’s impatience. Trump’s transactional approach and blunt public references has complicated America’s relations with its traditional partners and India is no exception.

While trade transactions have been one major area of dissonance, India is feeling the heat of America’s sanctions on Iran and Russia which are overstepping its “red lines”. Especially America’s opposition to India’s purchase of $ 5.2 billion Russian S-400 Triumf missile defence system triggering Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) is now a major bilateral irritant. During Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s visit to India days ahead of Modi-Trump meeting along the sidelines of Osaka G-20 Summit, External Affairs Minister Jaishankar Subramanyam asserted that India would act on “what is in our national interest”. He added, “India has many relationships with many countries, many of them of long-standing. They have a history. And part of that strategic partnership is the ability of each country to comprehend and appreciate the national interest of the other. And part of that strategic partnership is the ability of each country to comprehend and appreciate the national interest of the other”. India has unequivocally conveyed its reluctance to make any trade-offs on vital strategic interests. Russia has been India’s major defence supplier. 70% of defence equipment in armed forces is of Russian origin.

Similarly, India is facing shortage of oil supplies due to US sanctions on Iran which accounts for 11% crude imports. With waiver of sanctions from May, India was forced to cut down its imports to zero. American sanctions on Venezuela also affected oil supplies. Simmering US-Iranian tensions have heightened India’s concerns of energy security and the safety of over eight million expatriates living in the Gulf region. Driving home the message of the fall out of the exacerbating tensions between the US and Iran, Jaishankar told Pompeo, “the developments in this region will affect the fragile world economy and the U.S. must not do anything to exacerbate the tensions”. Setting a stage for the big meeting between the leaders of both countries, New Delhi has clearly spelt out its unwillingness to compromise on core bilateral issues.

Growing fissures over various issues between countries raised speculations of differences creating a rift in what is now a deepening strategic partnership. Summarising the outcome of his talks with Indian counterpart, Pompeo said, “partnership is already beginning to reach new heights” and “great friends are bound to have disagreements”. But ahead of Osaka meet, Trump tweeted, India’s high tariffs on the US goods are “unacceptable” and must be “withdrawn”.

Amidst mounting frictions, Prime Minister Modi held talks with President Trump along the margins of G-20 Summit at Osaka. Lending credence to the Pompeo’s assertion of “Modi hai to mumkin hai” focussed on ironing out outstanding differences, Modi publicly listed out four principle issues for discussion- simmering crisis in Persian Gulf, by implication its impact on India’s oil imports and fragile security in the region; readiness to resolve trade issues; 5G and defence (India’s plans of purchasing S-400 from Russia). Though the outcomes of the meeting are not known, officials described it as “positive” and “pragmatic”. After the talks, Trump made no reference to the tariffs but said that there “would be big things to announce, big trade deals”. Clearly the focus of Trump has been trade. As agreed during the talks, reports suggest US trade representatives are going to arrive in India for talks next week.

While it is likely that India might make concessions on trade tariffs, Trump’s hyphenation of India with China with respect to trade practices is utterly atrocious and imprudent. India’s trade surplus of $23 billion is measly compared to China’s trade surplus of $419 with the US. America derides India’s stringent regulatory trade procedures and protectionist practices. As opposed to Indian trade policy, China’s predatory practices including infringement of IPR and intellectual espionage are perilous. With President tipped to transit into election mode, his tirades against nations with trade surplus might be much shriller. Given his enthusiasm to keep campaign promise, he might as well approve investigation of India’s protectionist practices under the section 301 in case of delay in reaching a bilateral trade agreement. Trump flagged off tariff regime on China after a green signal from USTR. Trump’s uncertain foreign policy has confounded strategists but till now he hasn’t wavered from his campaign promises. Having promised to enact, “free, fair and reciprocal trade agreements” Trump might adopt inflexible approach towards trade related issues. While nations are known to advance its interests, Trump’s blatant transactionalism overstepped the decorum of diplomacy.

Ideally at times when US-China trade tariff war is snowballing into a cold war with animosity slowly permeating into other aspects, the US must consider deepening its relations with India, with matching human resources and strategically located in the Indian Ocean region to stall China’s march. Besides bolstering defence cooperation with India, to check mate the global reach of Huawei, the US must consider collaborating with India to develop 5G technology. Given the growing face-off between the US and China, rise of a democratic India will be in the best of interest of America and the region as well. Besides, India’s commitment towards free and open Indo-Pacific bodes well America’s objective of a peaceful and stable Indian Ocean Region.

Post-Osaka talks, White House briefing acknowledged “The leaders affirmed that as responsible democracies, a close partnership between the United States and India is central to global peace and stability”. A robust strategic partnership between the oldest and largest democracy will bode well for world order. Countries should make some concessions without crossing redlines to give a fillip to Indo-US ties.

@ Copyrights reserved.