India’s Digital Strike on China

Driving the Middle Kingdom towards its centennial objective of World domination by 2049, President Xi Jinping, ruler for life-time and head of everything has ambitiously embarked on misguided madness of territorial expansionism. Capitalizing on the “period of strategic opportunity”, China has been recklessly needling neighbours with its expansionist pursuits. Aggressive Chinese intrusions across LAC since 2014 have only epitomized China’s resurgent revisionism which received new lease of life under President Xi.

Guided by Chinese exceptionalism, Middle Kingdom is ruthlessly infringing international laws and norms. Flaunting its global rise, China tried to woo countries into its predatory initiatives like BRI. India not only refused to be part of China’s touted “win-win policy” of BRI but flagged concerns over violation of its sovereignty and repelled Chinese attempts to unilaterally alter the geography of the Dolam tri-junction. Beijing hasn’t taken India’s approach to stand up to Dragon kindly. Compounding this renewed assertiveness India withdrew special status to J&K and fortified its sovereignty. With Delhi lacking the appetite for imposing strategic costs, since 1980s China has been nibbling into the mountainous terrain of Indo-Tibetan border. Confronted by a strong-willed India, in the wake of the pandemic, China reared to bring India to bring to its knees with its military adventurism.

With twin ambitions of sending a strategic message to the East Asian countries, anticipating Indian capitulation, China escalated tensions along the LAC, intruding at multiple locations simultaneously. But to China’s dismay, India quelled the intrusions and gave diplomacy a chance. After marathon meetings on June 5th, commanders of India and China agreed on disengagement of troops. Disregarding the agreement, China not only amassed troops but indulged in its characteristic incorrigible behaviour. This eventually led to an inevitable violent confrontation for the first time in over four decades- the Galwan Valley incident, which led to the death of 20 Indian soldiers and undisclosed number of PLA troops. Barbaric killing of India personnel has become a reckoning moment for India. With China’s irrational behaviour staring in the face, India has insisted on gradual and verifiable disengagement.

Galwan incident triggered immense backlash against China in India. Local traders’ body-Confederation of All India Traders (CAIT) intensified calls of boycott of Chinese goods and to go, ‘vocal for local’. They released of list of 500 Chinese goods which can swapped with indigenous products1. Indian Railways terminated signal contract worth Rs 471 to a Chinese firm2, state governments (Haryana, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra) and PSUs ended Chinese contracts3. Earlier, India has tightened FDI investments from neighbouring countries, blocking Chinese takeovers and safeguarding its strategic industries.

Savouring the bloating trade deficits in favour of China in the Indo-China bilateral trade, Beijing has turned India into a dump yard for cheap Chinese products while binging on the perks of accessing huge Indian markets. India is not among the top 10 trading partners of China (as of 2018). Chinese exports to India are 3.1% of its total exports, India exports to China are 5.8% of its total exports. While Chinese imports account for 15% of our total imports. Clearly, India’s sanctions on trade will barely inflict any damage to China4 whose economy is nearly four times of India. India’s attempts to use trade as leverage would be counterintuitive. Despite growing clamour for boycott of Chinese goods, Indian government refrained from trade sanctions for the fear of exacerbating pandemic-inflicted economic crisis. Even Chinese mouth piece “The Global Times” mocked at India about the futility of trade sanctions8.

Instead India upped its ante. Debunking China’s preposterous fresh sovereignty claims over Galwan valley and attempts to put onus of easing tensions on India, Vikram Misri, Indian ambassador to China warned, “there should be a realisation on the Chinese side that there is no gain in trying to alter the status quo on the ground especially by resorting to force…that will not just damage the peace and tranquillity that existed on the border but it can have ripples and repercussions in the broader bilateral relationship”. India’s sharp rebuttals without imposing costs for China’s military adventurism and preference to diplomacy as a tool hardly perturbed China.

Prime Minister who has been unforgiving about China’s violent confrontations, in his monthly outreach Mann Ki Baat said, “those who cast an evil eye on Indian soil in Ladakh have got a befitting response. India honours the spirit of friendship…she is also capable of giving an appropriate response to any adversary without shying away. Our brave soldiers have proven that they will not let anyone cast an evil eye on the glory of Mother India”5. Much to the disappointment of the populace, instead of openly endorsing the, ‘Boycott Chinese Goods’ campaign, Modi resolutely promoted "Atma Nirbhar Bharat" initiative.

Without giving any inkling about the kind of retaliation, the government determined to extract retaliation announced ban on 59 Chinese apps. Ministry of Electronics and IT under section 69A of IT Act India blocked Chinese apps for “engaging in activities which is prejudicial to sovereignty and integrity of India, security and public order”. In 2018 Australian Defence Department raising concerns over espionage activities of Chinese apps banned staff and personnel from using WeChat 6. Recently US Republican Senators Josh Hawley and Rick Scott introduced a bill to ban TikTok for users using government devices 7. India’s move is bound to echo the popular global sentiment pertaining to Chinese apps which are extensions of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and tasked with surveillance, spying and collection of data of private individuals.

China has been silently using these insidious technological conduits to steal data, transmit the user information surreptitiously to servers located outside India. These apps penetrate Indian system, spread fake news, censor anti-China content and insinuate people to violence. While China has firmly insulated its domestic audience from foreign apps, Chinese apps have been making a killing by gaining access to India’s 130 crores population. Under the larger strategy of Digital Silk Route-China apps with their easy to use interface, simple registration, alluring features and requirement of low bandwidth are becoming immensely popular among the tech savvy generation of India. By stealthy collecting user details, China is indulging in data mining and profiling. Psychological warfare through robust media technologies have been a forte of China. Since 2003, this information warfare has become part of China’s military doctrine. With burgeoning digital penetration in India, China is aiming to advance its propaganda war and espionage activities through these innocuous entertainment apps.

China is investing heavily in gaming technology and apps, besides strengthening the military might to penetrate democratic countries exploring the inherent fault lines and attempting to weaken them from within. Infamous for violating rules and set guidelines, authoritarian regimes like China are beyond the precincts of accountability. These regimes neither abide by the rules of regular play book nor do they respect extradition laws. Dubious tech companies of these countries can’t be held culpable for fiddling with national security. Indian Intelligence agencies have been warning of the threats posed by Chinese apps.

Presciently, given the widening economic parity between India and China, India can’t bargain for favourable outcomes with China exercising trade sanctions. With its digital strike, India has apparently conveyed its message. For decades, India has been reluctant to impose any costs on China. India failed to explore the inherent strengths of asymmetric options relying entirely on diplomacy to clear hurdles. China perceives diplomacy and negotiation as weakness. The resplendent Wuhan and Mamallapuram informal summits, failed to temper the irrationality of Beijing. China respects strength. By rejecting the digital avatar of BRI and refusing capitulation, India has asserted itself. Going ahead, India must guard its digital infrastructure from Chinese attacks and outrightly deny any space for 5G networks of China.

Setting a new precedent for Naya Bharat, India avenged Pakistan’s deplorable terror blitzkrieg with audacious cross border surgical strikes. China is not Pakistan. Disparaging China’s push over and military adventurism, India blocked free run of China’s spyware tools.

1. 
   

PV Narasimha Rao: The man, who failed to receive his due

Iconised as, “India’s best Congress Prime Minister”, Pamulaparti Venkata Narasimha Rao, fondly called PV, born as June 28^th 1921 in Vangara village of Karimnagar district of Telangana, is the first Telugu Prime Minister of India. Fondly remembered as the architect of the modern economic reforms that transformed the country and ended the Nehruvian socialism, his legacy is still debated. Torn between the disagreements of right and left, blamed for Capitalism and Communalism by the Marxists, his illustrious contributions which were largely undermined are now explored and deeply analysed. The new waves of revivalism that changed the ideological contours of India in 2014 had indeed augured a new enthusiasm among the hagiographers who are trying to resurrect his legacy.

Having spent his childhood in a region which is touched by several linguistic cultures-Telugu, Hindi, Marathi, Kannada, Oriya, Urdu and Persian he naturally picked up these languages.. Polyglot PV knew 17 languages. He served as chairman of Telugu academy and translated, Kavi Samraat Vishwanath Satyanarayana’s popular work Veyipadagalu into Hindi Saharaphan. He also translated Hari Narayan Apte’s Marathi novel Pan Lakshat Kon Gheto into Telugu.

PV’s tryst with freedom movement began when he was 17. PV along with 300 students participated in 1938 Satyagraha, sang “Vandemataram” banned by the Nizam and faced expulsion from the college. With help of some nationalists, PV obtained admission in Fergusson College, Pune and completed Master’s Degree in Law. Though he read works of VD Savarkar, subscribed to Communist Weekly New Age. But he got attracted to the national movement. While India became independent in 1947, PV actively worked under Swami Ramananda Tirtha for the liberation of the Princely state of Hyderabad. Ramananda Tirtha has been a formidable influence on PV. After the successful annexation of Hyderabad, PV chose politics as his career. Around the same time Indian National Congress has also transformed as a political party.

Since 1948 PV steadily carved a niche for himself in the Congress party which has been a sea of contradictions, cultivating relations with different factions within the party, he shone as a “ajathashatru” (someone whose enemies are yet to be born). PV contested in first Loksabha elections as Congress representative from Huzurabagh constituency and lost his elections against Communist party candidate. Later in 1957 he contested for assembly elections and won from Manthani. For the next twenty years he never lost elections. In 1964 he became state minister and handled several portfolios till 1971.

To quell a booming agitation by landless farmers in the Telangana region, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi facing the threat from pro-Telangana party, nominated, PV, a Telangana man with socialist values and who attracted backward castes and landless peasants as the Chief Minister of the state. Since he wasn’t backed by any faction, pliant and unassuming, Gandhi chose his for the post. PV who implemented land reforms in the state, served as chief minister till 1973 when President’s rule was imposed to counter Jai Andhra Movement.

Indira Gandhi wanted someone through whom she could execute her will. Being a conciliatory chief minister with no ambitions for promoting his family, he fit the bill. Nearly two decades later, Sonia Gandhi chose him as the Prime Ministerial candidate for these very reasons.

PV spent two years, 1973-74 in political exile. Indira Gandhi who was looking for loyalists in the party, appointed PV as Congress general secretary in October 1974. Emergency weathered the Congress party’s reputation. In the 1977 elections Congress was trounced in North India but Southern states voted for Congress. PV who contested from Hanumakonda seat returned to Lok Sabha was appointed as chairman of Public Accounts Committee (PAC). In 1980 elections when Congress returned to power, Indira Gandhi appointed PV as the Foreign Minister and he soon became trusted advisor of Indira.

A month after the “Operation Blue Star” Indira Gandhi, worried about the internal security appointed PV as the Home Minister on priority basis in July 1984. The pogrom that ensued after the assassination of Indira Gandhi in October 1984 exposed the complicity of PV in Sikh’s killings. PV who was in charge of the security of Delhi, evaded the responsibility and refused to question the silence of the Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi (who allowed the slaughtering of Sikhs) and whose office coordinated response to the violence in Delhi. While investigation teams gave a clean chit to PV in the Sikh massacre, who was bypassed by the PMO in the aftermath of Indira Gandhi’s assassination, PV’s lack of audacity to shame Rajiv Gandhi has starkly exposed the insecurities of PV who feared a political oblivion. He feared defying the family.

In Rajiv Gandhi’s cabinet, PV was shifted to Defence portfolio. In September 1985, PV took charge as education minister and by 1986 he drafted National Education Policy. Navodaya School System has been the brainchild of PV. PV wanted to become President of India after President Zail Singh’s tenure in 1987. But Rajiv Gandhi preferred R Venkataraman, close friend of PV for the post. By 1988, Rajiv Gandhi reinstated PV as the foreign minister.

After Congress lost elections in 1989, PV who started reflecting on the losses and the tenure of Rajiv Gandhi published an unnamed critique. In 1990 when suffered a heart attack, he was rushed to US for surgery. When he returned from the US, he found a soul calling from the Siddeshwari peetham, in Courtallam. The ashram which was looking for a head found PV a known Sanskrit scholar with Hindu leanings suitable for the post. They asked PV to give up his political responsibilities and shift to Courtallam. True to his nature, PV neither rejected nor accepted the offer.

By April 1991, PV who contemplated retirement shuttled between Delhi and Hyderabad. Persuaded by party workers, he obliged to campaign for a replacement candidate in his constituency in Maharashtra in May, when the assassination news of Rajiv Gandhi reached PV. Sonia Gandhi who was ordained to take a decision on the Congress Party leader was confronted with the choices of Sharad Pawar, N D Tiwari, K Natwar Singh, Arjun Singh, Madhavrao Scindia, Shankar Dayal Sharma. Seeking the wise counsel of PN Haksar, principal secretary of Indira Gandhi, she narrowed down on PV.

Though Sonia Gandhi wasn’t keen on PV, in his long political record, he never dissented nor mutinied. He maintained no factions, had no enemies. He appeared to be a safe bet for the family who wanted a loyal PM to work on their behalf. Seething with disappointment at the elevation of PV and on being side-lined, Congress bigwigs refused to cooperate with PV. The burden of heading the Congress led government which is woefully short of full majority rested on the shoulders of PV.

PV, took charge as the 9^th Prime Minister of India on June 19^th 1991, when India has reserves barely enough for two weeks of imports against the recommended six weeks. As a Congress man without being from the family, heading a minority government he single-handedly brought in economic reforms that steered the Indian economy on the path of progress. Roping in Manmohan Singh as the financial minister, PV launched his ambitions plans of resurrecting ailing Indian economy. He cut taxes, reduced tariffs, encouraged private sector, dismantled licence raj, opened up equity markets for investments, devalued Indian rupee and started National Stock Exchange. By 1996, when he demitted office, India was growing at 7.5%. Through his bold economic reforms, PV unleashed transformation in India. Nearly every sector witnessed a change-telecommunications, infrastructure development, aviation sector, television and broadcasting. Slowly the consumption pattern began to evolve, middle class became empowered. A gradual but subtle development brought a new hope. Embarking on the tough task of streamlining the practices of a “Welfare State”, PV launched several social welfare schemes like employment guarantees and food security.

When PV took up reigns, India’s relations with Sri Lanka were frayed. Even the domestic situation was volatile. Fresh from the wounds of the Kashmiri Hindu genocide, followed by exodus of the Kashmiri Pandits, Kashmir has become a tinder box. Punjab was scrambling with militancy. Secession movements gripped North East region. But a semblance of normalcy returned to Punjab and Assam by the time he left the office.

1991 marked the end of the Cold war. When PV rose to power, geopolitics was going through a tumultuous phase with the collapse of Soviet Union, which has been a close partner of India. In tune with the new global world order, India was forced to reorient its foreign policy. Without any complacency, standing up to the challenges of the evolving geopolitical calculus, PV launched Look East Policy, revived ties with China, the US, western Europe and East Asia. Unruffled by the prospect of angering Muslims, PV openly reached out to Israel dismantling the road block od self-imposed Muslim appeasement. To buttress national security, PV asked scientists to prepare for nuclear tests and laid foundations for nuclear deterrence. He encouraged ballistic missile program.

Aside the regular administration and governance, managing Sonia Gandhi has been the biggest task at hand for PV. PV’s relation with Sonia wasn’t without any major incident for the first one and half years. Babri Mosque demolition in, 1992 December created a rift. While Congress was miffed by PV’s inaction, the Hindu community hailed it. PV was accused of making himself unreachable during the crucial moments of mosque demolition. But in reality, if his close friend is to be believed he was closely monitoring the situation scenario through intelligence officials. While pressure mounted on him to rebuild the mosque he desisted. Later Liberhan Commission too exonerated PV of all charges.

PV adeptly managed every crisis into opportunity to consolidate his position by reshuffling the cabinet. He earned the trust of non-BJP opposition and eased the critics. With economy doing extremely well, people ignored all his faults. Fighting all odds and huge coterie of servile Congressmen, PV ran the minority government for five years and firmly placed the country on a strong pedestal through his policies, reforms and doctrines.

The long political journey of PV is full of contradictions, while he is accused of being indecisive, vacillating and vicious he alone tried to fix collapsing Indian economy, revamped India’s foreign policy and overcame the constraints of a fractured mandate. Despite the upheavals in his political career, he tried to reinvent himself through introspection and by assessing his skills and weaknesses. Vinay Sitapati in his book-Half Lion aptly summarises PV’s illustrious personality as- “If Chanakya, the fourth century BCE Indian Machiavelli, best captures Rao’s skill in politics, the eighteenth-century Burke captures his vision”.

Despite hailing from a political party with over 125 years of history, no group willingly stood for him. Having earned the ire of the dynasty, he was blamed for several sins. He was even denied a respectful burial in Delhi (his Karma Bhoomi), due recognition and rightfully earned honour for being the Prime Minister of country. The family and the party controlled by the family detested him and alienated the man who earned laurels for the country.

While the Congress disowns the uncommon genius with his ambiguities, Telangana government is all set to kick-start year long birth centenary celebration of PV Narasimha Rao.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Nepal’s Cartographic Adventurism and The Way Forward

On June 18^th Nepal President Bidya Devi Bhandari signed the constitutional amendment to update Nepal’s political and administrative map containing three Indian territories- Kalapani, Lipulekh and Limpiyadura. Earlier in the day, Nepal’s 57-member, upper house or national assembly unanimously passed the second constitutional amendment bill, 2077 to amend the schedule 3 of constitution to update national coat of arms. On June 13^th the 274-member Lower House or the Pratinidhi Sabha passed the second constitutional bill. A two-third majority was required to pass the bill. 258 voted in favour of the bill none voted against it. 11 abstained the voting and four members of the indigenous Tharu community who were suspended couldn’t vote. Earlier, the author, discussed about the latest events, Indo-Nepalese territorial disputes Prime Minister KP Oli’s hardened position and vacuous assertion of ultra-nationalism (anti-India sentiments) ¹.

Through the unilateral cartographic changes, Nepal has provoked India. Despite India’s objections to the “artificial enlargement of the territorial claims will not be acceptable”, Nepal went ahead with the process of incorporating 335 sqkm of Indian territory in its new political map. Notwithstanding, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh’s appeal of “roti beti ka rishtaa” the Himalayan nation, resolutely brought out updated political map. Singh said, “Our relationship with Nepal is not just social, geographic, historic or cultural but even spiritual. People of India have no-ill feeling towards Nepal”.  With reference to the new political map, he said, “I must express my sense of great regret and dismay that Prime Minister Oli has moved the country into what can only be described as an irreversible confrontational posture vis-à-vis India” ². With its provocative actions, Nepal soon joined the ranks with Pakistan and China which also lay claims to Indian territories.

Prime Minister Oli’s invectives, mockery of “Satyameva Jayate”, references to Indian corona virus as more dangerous than Chinese and Italian virus twice, killing of an Indian citizen along the Sitamarhi border in Bihar by the Nepalese Armed Police Force has only attenuated the tensions between both countries.  Nepal’s no holds barred anti-India signalling at the height of Indo-China border crisis hasn’t escaped New Delhi’s attention. While Oli entirely blamed the returnees from India as the source of pandemic, several Nepalese have returned home from several countries including India. But Oli chose to single out India. Since the adoption of new political map, Nepal has upped insidious propaganda with radio channels in the border regions broadcasting songs laying claims to Indian territories and promoting anti-India content. Some channels have even started giving weather reports of three Indian territories in a bid to assert Nepal’s control.

For long Nepal accused India of its reluctance to hold bilateral dialogue of Foreign Ministers to discuss territorial dispute. But it now emerges that Oli has lied to its Parliament and people. He rejected India’s offer of talks and squarely laid the blame on Indian doorsteps for not responding ². Three weeks after releasing the political map, Nepal formed nine-member expert committee to collect evidences and historical references to back its claims. The characteristic similarity to Chinese style of unilaterally changing the status quo and making cartographic to defend its claims has been so implicit ³.

Nepal took serious objections to Indian Army chief MM Naravane’s remarks of Nepal acting at the behest of someone. His remarks aren’t off the mark. Chinese ambassador to Nepal Hou Yanqui, instrumental in bringing the warring political factions together to prevent toppling of OIi government is now believed to have been the force behind Nepal’s cartographic assertion. Yanqui, who has earlier served in Pakistan and conversant in Urdu is reported to have made several visits to Oli in the recent times. Mounting evidence now indicate that Pakistan and China have been instigating Nepal to provoke India and open another front. Given Nepal’s past history to side with Pakistan and China several times in the past to irk India, this new development isn’t really a concocted claim anymore.

A day after Nepal government officially legislated new political map, Nepal communist party held a virtual conference with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to share “experience on running the party and government”. The timing couldn’t have been more suspect ¹³.

As per reports, Nepal has started deploying armed police force at 15 border posts along Indo-Nepal border in Uttarakhand ⁴.  Nepal has proposed new amends in the Citizenship law, whereby a foreign national married to Nepali men would be conferred citizenship after seven years. Madhesis and National Congress opposed the government’s move. Marriages between Madhesis who live in Terai regions of Nepal and inhabitants of Bihar are very common. This move is believed to discourage the “bread and bride relations” between Nepal and India. Similarly, Nepal has activated an Advertisement (Regulation) Act 2019 endorsed by Nepali Parliament last year under which foreign channels have to air the content without commercial advertisements, campaigns or promotional material. This move is supposed to boost the local channels and domestic advertisement companies. Indian channels are very popular in Nepal. With this policy besides controlling the content Nepal would make telecasting expensive for foreign channels. Channels are subject to heavy penalty in case of any violation and they stand to lose transmission rights as well.

Nepal is making every attempt to undercut India’s influence in Himalayan region despising the centuries old traditional, religious, cultural, linguistic and historical links. Nepal allowed the study of Mandarin language compulsory in schools ⁶. Oli’s overzealous efforts to wean Himalayan country from India-specific connections and fanning anti-Indian to shift people’s focus from his incompetence in governance is now reaching a tipping point.

Expressing displeasure over the border dispute with India, growing corruption and increasing Chinese interference in the country, disgruntled Nepalese are intensifying protests against Oli regime ⁷. Instead of focussing on domestic governance, Nepal stopped the embankment of the Lalbakeya river between pillar 346 and 347 in the East Champaran district of Bihar alleging that it is being constructed on no man’s land. After dispute over the region in 2019, both countries agreed on fresh measurement to resolve the issue. In March 2020, Nepal lifted all its objections and amicably settled the dispute. But now, Nepal is raked up the issue raising objections over height of embankment and its diversion now ⁸.

Oli who has portraying himself as the saviour of territorial integrity with vengeance is tight lipped even as China has usurped Nepalese village, Rui Gaun as a part of Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR). China has pushed pillars into Nepal to complete its encroachment six decades ago⁹. Massive road construction in TAR, has led to change in river course and China is silently encroaching the northern territories of land. Nepal Agriculture Department documented that China has already nibbled away hundreds of hectares of Nepal and warned that over a period of time, they might develop them into border observation posts of Armed Police. Thus far, China is reported to have encroached 36 hectares of land due to changing course of 11 rivers.

For long, analysts blamed India’s poor deliverance as the reason for neighbourhood drift to China. But in the past few years, India made remarkable progress-operationalised inland waterways agreements, constructed first cross-border oil pipeline, facilitated transit and clearance processes for Nepali cargo, launched South Asian Satellite, under BIMSTEC (Bay of Bengal Multi Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation) and BBIN (Bangladesh Bhutan India Nepal) initiatives, India ramped up cooperation with Nepal since 2014. India which is part of the US Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) intends to play an active role in electricity connectivity with Nepal. Under the ambit of Neighbourhood First Policy, India has ratcheted cooperation with neighbours including Nepal ¹⁰. India has instituted a bilateral oversight mechanism with Nepal to monitor implementation of bilateral projects.

Within hours, Prime Minister Modi mobilised resources to assist Nepal after it was hit by massive earthquake. Unfortunately, Indian media’s irresponsible ground coverage has ruined India’s good will and solidarity. India even extended financial aid of Rupees 1.6 billion for rebuilding to quake hit Nepal. 2015 Madhesi blockage has further dampened the bilateral ties. To resurrect ties, India constituted an Eminent Person Group (EPG) in 2016. Post- blockade, to reduce dependence on India, Nepal signed transit treaty with China. But interestingly, since the blockade, Indo-Nepalese bilateral trade continued to rise ¹¹.

Nepal depends heavily on remittances, nearly 30% of its GDP accounting for USD 8 billion comes from remittances. India accounts for $1 billion of remittances to Nepal. In the pandemic when the world of going through uncertainties and the prospect of the remittances bubble going bust, the open borders between the countries, provides much needed economic cushion to Nepal. Nepalis are allowed to work and live freely in India. Nepali politicians like BP Koirala, Pushpalal Shresta, one of the founders of Nepal Communist Party have studied in Banaras Hindu University. India and Nepal have close political ties.

Notwithstanding, these deep connections, Nepal is steadily towing Chinese line. Nepal started first started bilateral military exercises with China in 2017, joined the BRI (Belt and Road Initiative). By steadily increasing investments in Nepal, Dragon has now become largest investor toppling India. With a sharp increase in Chinese influence, being the Chairman of BIMSTEC in 2018, Nepal refused to participate in the joint counter terror exercises of BIMSTEC held in India. Since Oli’s ascension to power, Nepal has steadily drifted into Chinese orbit. While India can’t match China’s financial heft, India has been increased its financial aid to neighbouring countries and expedited regional connectivity and trade related clearances.

To evade tough questions on inept handling of pandemic, beleaguered Oli, facing worst internal crisis has fomented the anti-Indian sentiments still fresh in Nepalese minds due to 2015 blockade. Oli who is puppet in Chinese hands is playing to dragon’s tunes and needling India. But India has refrained from taking any punitive actions, since any kind of restrictions would irreversibly push Nepal into China’s tight embrace.

During 72-day Dolam standoff, China used Maldives to irk India and divert its attention. While India smartly revived ties with Maldives and made it party to “India First” paradigm, Nepal unlike the Indian Ocean Archipelago suffers from an identity crisis. Since 1950 despite signing the Peace and Friendship Treaty with India, Nepal sided with Pakistan initially and later with China to have its way.

In this connection, it is important to note that India have at times treated smaller neighbour with disrespect sowing the seeds of deep divide. Undermining the dignity of protocol, the Friendship treaty was signed between Indian Ambassador and Prime Minister Mohun Shaumshere Rana. Nepal never showed any interest to abide by the treaty and wanted to amend it. But India’s approach of “either we keep it or you abrogate it” failed to make much progress with improving ties. In 1989 Rajiv Gandhi imposed blockade over discrepancies in transit treaty and Nepal’s growing closeness with China. India which aspired to see a democratic dispensation in Nepal and subjugation of Monarchy, supported Maoists. JNU served as the cradle for Nepali Maoists. Over the years, these comrades have levitated to the mothership of Maoism, China. Now, India is reaping the rewards of the same. Rise of Pro-democracy activists and Maoists changed the cultural landscape of Nepal, which has become hub of conversions. For years, Pakistan has used free borders of Nepal under the veneer of friendship to create havoc in India. China is now using Nepal to advance its plan of encircling India.

Nepal is India’s outer border with China. To counter the double pronged attack of China and Nepal, instead of hardening stance, India must boost movement of people and boost people to people connections for bilateral ties to flourish. Maoists backed by China are bombarding Nepalese with the idea of “Greater Nepal” to up ante against India ¹². Greater Nepal is concept of including the territories ceded to East India Company after the Gurkha King lost the Anglo-Nepalese war in 1816. These include parts of Punjab, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Sikkim. 

China’s gameplan has been to encircle India. To defeat Chinese attempts, India must desist from adopting any tough sanctions against Nepal and exercise strategic patience. India should cultivate intellectuals, academicians, media, NGOs, civil society organisations and reach out to politicians favourably poised towards India through back channels in Nepal. With Indo-Nepalese ties on a precipice, as a bigger partner India must be considerate and understanding. India will be playing into Chinese hands by adopting tough measures and a “tit for tat approach”. Strategic patience seems to be the only way forward for India.

@ Copyrights reserved.

China's strategic signaling to India is bound to backfire

Amid international backlash over China’s culpability in the spread of pandemic, during his visit to Xian Jiaotong University, President Xi said, “Great historical progress always happens after major disasters”. Unruffled by the international ire over China’s irredeemable mistake of allowing the infection to grow out of control, Xi reminded people of the “hardship and suffering” and of the unflinching, “The Chinese Dream”. Three weeks into that event, putting Xi’s words into action, PLA unleashed violence across the LAC leading to a blood bath.  While the World is consumed by the China-gifted pandemic, reasserting its mythical claims China has been unleashing aggression from East China Sea to Ladakh. In the past few weeks, China has sunk a Vietnamese fishing boat, escalated tensions near Senkaku Island, intruded into Taiwanese airspace only to be chased away ignominiously and ratcheted up tensions with Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia.

While PLA incursions have been an annual event, violence hasn’t been its accompaniment in the past four decades. Breaching mutually agreed protocols of disengagement to ward off violent flareups, China has lived up to its reputation of transgressor of international rules.

Since May 5^th troops from both countries are locked in a stand-off. To escalate the situation across LAC, military commanders of India and China met on June 6^th agreeing on partial de-induction of troops from four areas. On June 15^th when Indian troops went to supervise the Galwan valley area, PLA troops attacked Indian Commanding officer who asked PLA to remove their tent. The fisticuffs between both sides turned violent after PLA troops attacked Indian counterparts with stones, boulders, fence wires, and clubs. The brutal attack which resulted in the death of 20 Indian soldiers, the first since 1975 Tulung La ambush in Arunachal Pradesh has laid bare the insidious intentions of China. While the secretive Chinese Communist Party (CCP) refused to divulged Chinese casualties, the trending #43PLA soldierskilled goes to show that India gave bloodied nose to Dragon. China’s blatant disregard towards the bilateral agreement besides stoking intense distrust prompted India to recalibrate the existing protocols of de-escalation.

With his enthusiasm to play to the domestic audience, who are miffed by CCP’s dismal handling of the pandemic and China’s eroding international reputation China has overplayed India.  The violent flareup leading to loss of precious lives is set to change the dynamic of Indo-Chinese relations. Chinese assertive claims and unabated expansionist adventurism will drive India to forge close alliances with like-minded countries. Unlike in the past, the 24X7 social media would continue to exert pressure on both countries, the relationship can’t be normal. Anti-Chinese sentiments are brewing in India.

Besides the planned synchronous intrusions across the 3,488 km LAC, China has instigated Nepal to needle India with its audacious cartographic enlargements. Known for its penchant to seize an opportunity from the crisis, China has firmed up encircling India policy. While the Pakistan continued to engage Indian troops with relentless ceasefire violations and the false flag operations in the Kashmir valley, with its feckless invectives, Nepal added more strain to the otherwise special friendly ties. Offering to help in tackling the Covid-19, dengue and other epidemics, if it signs the sister-city alliances, China firmed up ties with Bangladesh. Huddling up Indian neighbourhood into its orbit to weaken India’s sphere of influence has been domineering aspect of China’s policy toward India.

China loathed India which is deemed as a bulwark against the expansionist Dragon. With its unparalleled civilisational legacy, comparable demography, sizeable landmass and diversity, India has all the attributes to be a global power. Though Chinese Premier Wien Jiabao rejected the dragon and elephant comparison made between India and China and conceded that both countries have enough space to develop and prosper in 2010, China always had alternate plans for India. China believed in kicking a storm in India to keep it busy. China has resolved all border disputes with overlapping neighbour except India. Using this permanent irritant of the unresolved border issue, China continues to badger India. Of late though China advocated a “cooperation and competition” it has remained as a mere rhetoric with competition trumping cooperation as Dragon continues to stonewall India’s efforts to get NSG membership or the Permanent UNSC position. China considers India an adversary to be weakened, subjugated and broken.

The simmering differences between India and China became starker as India under Modi began making rapid strides through pragmatic global engagement. India is no longer considered a reluctant third world representative with obstructionist attitude. But by actively becoming part of global initiatives India has steadily risen the ladder of global recognition. India’s approach to the pandemic offering to lead as opposed to the petulant and peevish propagandist approach of China stood out. While India’s democratic credentials and the first responder’s tag enhanced its attributes the culpability of China in pandemic spread and reckless attempts to exculpate from all crimes eroded Dragon’s reputation. Further China’s postulation of the supremacy of an authoritarian regime in handling the pandemic and ridiculing of the democratic countries have further sharpened the acrimonies.

Revelling the defeat of the virus, China used the global crisis to advance its expansionist pursuits, while nations battered by the pandemic resolved to jointly tackle the virus. Quad plus countries, G7 countries which are now united by a joint objective has cemented ties. China deemed the coming together of the democratic countries as an anti-China alliance. President Trump’s proposal of including India in the expanded G-10 forum further spooked China.

For the past few years, under the ruse of economic cooperation, China turned India into a dumping ground for cheap products and eventually became the largest trading partner of India. Disregarding India’s concerns of ballooning trade deficits China enjoyed huge profits. While India stayed no to RCEP, which has been another sinister design of China to access Indian markets, the trade deficits has sapped the innovative spirits of India. Given China’s reluctance to India’s entry into Chinese markets, India is slowing reducing its dependence on Chinese markets. Trumping China, now the US has emerged as the India’s largest market ¹. India and the US are yet to sign FTA (Free Trade Agreement), and once both countries finalise the FTA bilateral trade will reach higher levels.

While analysts warn against the growing propaganda of “boycott Chinese products”, its futility and repercussions, a recent study listed out five countries that made big India. These included United States, Japan, United Arab Emirates, Germany and France. China didn’t figure the list ².  Given China’s reputation and its anti-India agenda it would be naïve to even consider that Dragon would be a constructive partner. China has been eyeing strategic industries in India to entrench itself in Indian markets. It is time India must exercise caution in monitoring and tracing Chinese investments and its origins. By guarding Indian industries against a possible Chinese takeover after corona outbreak and tightening FDI rules, New Delhi irked Beijing.

India’s takeover as the chair of WHO (World Health Organisation) executive board, its  unanimous election to the UNSC as non-permanent member from 2020-21, backing of a resolution signed by over 100 countries calling for an impartial international investigation on the origins of the pandemic, subtle message of allowing two MPs to attend the inaugural ceremony of Taiwan President Tsai Ing-Wen-all these developments which resonate with India’s assertiveness have petrified China.

Bolstering sovereignty and territorial claims, India abrogated article 370 and stripped Kashmir of the special status. Kashmir has been Pakistan’s jugular and an instrument to bother India at multilateral forums. Asserting India’s unequivocal claims, India junked Pakistan’s narrative and scuttled China’s ambitious strategic expansionism by repealing Article 370. Ever since, both countries are going hammer and tongs after India whipping up anti-India narratives across various global platforms. While both countries failed to internationalise the Kashmir issue, division of State of Jammu and Kashmir into two union territories have hampered China’s larger plans. India’s legislation not only posed a threat to the multi-billion CPEC (China Pakistan Economic Corridor) project under BRI but frustrated China’s plans of salami slicing and gaining foot hold in the Eastern Ladakh, a huge water source.

Ever since President Xi’s ascent to power in 2013, Chinese incursions into Indian territories have become more aggressive and frequent. Around the same time, India expedited infrastructure development along the LAC. Till 2008, India refrained from developing any infrastructure near LAC under the presumption that it would facilitate Chinese ingress. A structured plan was evolved by late 2012 and 2013. But China on the other hand, rapidly put in place robust infrastructure on their side of LAC and always had an edge. With India picking up pace, China feared a loss of first mover advantage. India has now constructed 255 km- all weather DSDBO road (Darbuk-Shyok-DaulatBeg Oldie Road) which runs parallel to LAC and connects Leh to the base of the Karakoram. This road which is 10km west from the Aksai Chin- Xinjiang highway will rapidly enhance mobilisation of Indian forces. India is now planning to construct feeder road to DSDBO to improve connectivity. India’s rapid infrastructure build triggered China. Demanding that India should stop building roads, PLA made rapid incursions across LAC at various places. By intruding into the Galwan Valley region, one of most demarcated areas along the LAC for the first time since 1962 PLA attempted to signal its indignation. 

Through its pre-planned actions and violent flare-ups China has not only exposed its sinister ambitions but also earned the wrath of 1.3 billion people. It can no longer hide beneath the veneer of “peaceful rise”. China had covered up the brutal attacks by censoring any coverage in the domestic media and laying blaming on India’s door steps. Pandering to the domestic audience, while President Xi China went all guns blazing against India amid spiralling global reputation, shrinking economic growth and spiralling unemployment rate. With China opening several fronts with various countries, China’s strategic signalling to India amid burgeoning global backlash is bound to backfire. With its unilateral actions, China has deliberately attempted to change the status quo. Also, India of 2020 is different from India of 1962. India will no longer cow down to Dragon’s tantrums.

@ Copyrights reserved.

The inimitable China’s global propaganda campaign

On June 4^th the official twitter handle of India’s largest dairy, Amul was blocked after it backed the boycott of Chinese goods. Amid unrelenting Indo-Chinese face-offs across the LAC, stifling of Amul girl known for speaking her mind on Twitter triggered sneaking suspicion of Dragon’s role. Twitter, inaccessible to Chinese citizens and banned in the mainland is immensely popular with the Wolf warrior diplomats to wage propaganda wars. Corona outbreak has dented China’s popularity. To revive its image and resurrect the deteriorating global image of China, among the numerous propaganda mechanisms, China co-opted Twitter. Be it laying claims to Mt Everest or the unceasing pysch-ops battle waged by the Global Times, it has become the most favoured choice of China.

On May 29^th, Twitter blocked President’s tweet for allegedly ‘glorifying violence’. Few days back, Twitter even disabled Trump’s campaign video. But curiously the malicious and obnoxious posts by Chinese diplomat as part of their propaganda overdrive never faced Twitter’s censorship. Twitter’s censorship and implicit double standards sparked a debate on free speech. A startling disclosure by the China Daily recently has added a new perspective to the “neutrality” on the social media.

Documents filed by the China Daily, English newspaper owned by the publicity department of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) with the US Justice Department under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) indicated that it paid $19 million for advertising and printing to American newspapers in the past four years. Twitter also figured in the list China’s advertisers.

The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal have been recipients of $4.6 million and $6 million respectively since November 2016 for carrying out China supplements- “the China watch” with a pro-Beijing spin. Even, The New York Times, Foreign Policy, The Des-Moines Register, and CQ-Roll Call received payment for advertising. The Los Angeles Times, The Seattle Times, The Atlanta-Journal Constitution, The Chicago Tribune, The Houston Chronicle, The Boston Globe also figured in China Daily’s client list. Given China’s murky arrangements, these reports may be hardly surprising but it lends credence to the popular perception of China’s attempts to stifle the free media.

Since the outbreak of virus, to escape the culpability and global wrath, China unleashed an aggressive propaganda warfare. The unmissable pro-Chinese overtones of the news reports from above-mentioned agencies has buttressed the popular concerns of China’s penetration of the Western media which has turned into a platform for pro-China sympathisers.

Pro-democracy groups like Freedom House and Hoover Institution have long warned America of a China government’s agenda to push propaganda through American media agencies. Decades of Cold war has conditioned America to be wary of Russian interference in the media. But America which has horribly misjudged the China’s intentions and agenda has overlooked China’s creeping penetration. While the payments have steadily shrunk since Covid outbreak, fresh disclosures have warranted analysts to study it much closer.

To achieve, “The Chinese Dream” Beijing formulated policies inspired by the Western doctrine. In the Cold war era, the US and Soviet Union vying for dominance evolved strategies to outsmart each other. After the collapse of Soviet Union, the US outshined all countries with meticulous strategies. During the 1991 Desert Storm, by excelling and integrating all the domains of the battle field (air, land, sea, space and electronic (information) spectrum, the US set a new benchmark to consolidate its dominance. China began to draw inspiration from the US military’s Joint for Information Operations and charted a framework for its own ascendency ².

Emulating American rise, after a 10-year rigorous study China brought out a White paper in 2004, seeking a Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) ³. Reorienting PLA (People’s Liberation Army) for modern warfare, China rolled out an Information warfare (IW) with five integral aspects: destruction of the enemy command and control information centres;  attacking the information collection and intelligence centres by electronic jamming or electronic warfare; military deception through simulated attacks; operational secrecy and psychological warfare using TV, media to undermine the morale of the enemy. [American IW has six pillars- electronic warfare, tactical deception, strategic deterrence, propaganda warfare, psychological warfare, computer, command and control warfare].

Since 2004, China has used one or a combination of these attacks to intimidate its adversary. Phising attacks through emails, trojan malware, developing new virus have been part of this new strategy. The driving paradigm behind China’s new strategy has been Maoist People’s war concept of “overcoming the superior with the inferior” and Sun Zi’s notion of “winning the battle without fighting”. Additionally, to overcome its technological disadvantage, China adopted non-technological measures like camouflage, concealment and deception techniques as attractive asymmetric options.

After psychological warfare became integral part of the Beijing’s military strategy, China pursued it vigorously. It rolled out a sophisticated strategy to tell China’s story to international audience. Averse to political reforms, China mobilised all resources to launch a global propaganda campaign.

Central Propaganda Department (CPD) in charge of the Propaganda started in 1924 and as old as the CCP has been integral part of Chinese political system⁴. CPD catered to the domestic audience. Till late 1990s China’s approach has been largely reactive and defensive. It largely firewalled domestic subjects from the foreign influence by blacking out international broadcasts and expelling foreign correspondents who reported on sensitive issues like Tibet, Taiwan and Tiananmen post 1989.

With soaring global ambitions, China replaced the crude tools with a sophisticated and assertive strategy. Infusing funds, China launched- China Global Television Network (CGTN), the global arm of the China Central Television (CCTV), controlled by CCP in 2016 to revamp its global image. Keeping a tight leash on the domestic reporting, China began to exploit the vulnerabilities of free media globally. Introducing special fellowships, free graduate degrees in communication, incentivising salaries, special journalistic perks and free trips, China began to entice the journalists across the World to “tell the China story well”^5.

Soon China began to implant state-run China Radio International (CRI) content into the broadcasts of countries across the World. China even cultivated vocal supporters called the “third party spokespeople” to influence people’s perceptions and preclude any criticism towards PRC. CRI started in 1941 is now reporting in 65 languages. CRI funded Global CAGM has reportedly made deep in roads in Australia which has sizeable Chinese population. Alluding to the strategy of “borrowing a boat to go out to the Ocean” CRI is steadily expanding its reach ⁸.

Recently Australia has been worst victim of China’s propaganda machinery which inimically extended tentacles into political system as well. Besides cultivating businessmen, through influential Chinese-origin individuals, CCP expanded its propaganda campaign in Australia. Huang Xiangmo, a billionaire, with close links to CCP and a permanent resident of Australia donated funds to found Australia China Relation Institute (ACRI) for cultivating positive relations between both countries. He became the Chairman of ACRI. Despite claims of being independent and partisan, ACRI became a launch pad for organising free tours for high profile Australian journalists to mainland China. Journalists of sponsored trips began to sing praises of China and refrained from criticizing Chinese initiatives like BRI¹⁰.

Aside the occasional bullying and intimidatory tactics to crackdown on the outlets that refused to fall in line. After the bad press in the run up to 2008 Beijing Olympics when rights groups openly derided China’s high-handed crackdown in Tibet. China intensified its global campaign pledging $6.6 billion to strengthen global media. Through Digital Silk Road initiative, China made inroads into Africa struggling to establish digital infrastructure. By building optic fibre cables, television satellites and offering enticing salaries, China recruited African journalists to recount the benevolence of China along with Africa story. Beijing slowly penetrated Africa. After its initial success in Africa, China replicated the same process in several low-and middle-income Asian countries.

Despite China’s insistence of win-win cooperation, BRI faced severe international criticism. To reshape international reporting on BRI, and to “tell stories about China well and spread China’s voice well”, Beijing hosted 100 foreign journalists from leading media agencies in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, South East Asia and African countries for 10 months. The package program included language classes, plush accommodation, lucrative fellowships and guided free tours of China. All the participating media agencies subsequently carried out glowing reports on China but without mentioning that the reports were generated as part of Chinese government hosted fellowship. IANS, Jansatta and The Indian Express of India participated in this program.⁹ One of the participants in the program later disclosed that they were barred from reporting South China Sea disputes and compelled to produce positive stories to complete fellowship.

China is using time-tested techniques of the developed Western countries to advance its global rise. But unlike those countries China’s CCP is intolerant to plurality of voices. Journalists working for state run-global Chinese media agencies are goaded to use special access privileges to spy for Beijing.

Under the façade of journalism, recruiters of global-Chinese media agencies are restrained to serve as low-level intelligence officers, spies, propaganda agents, and eyes of the CCP. Wary of eroding journalistic edicts, Washington asked Xinhua established in 1931 to serve as CCP propaganda channel and CGTN to register under FARA in 2018 ⁵.

In 2009, Hongkong millionaire Tung Chee-hwa with close ties to CCP, founded The China-United States Exchange Foundation (CUSEF). To foster engagement, the foundation, regularly conducts fully funded travel of US journalists, academicians, politicians to China. While CUSEF denies having any political goals, it has been part of PLA’s Sanya Initiatives, which brings high ranked officials of China and US military officials together. CUSEF even uses the same PR firm as Washington Chinese embassy. In 2016 CUSEF hired Podesta group to lobby Congress on China-US relations¹³. Through BLJ Worldwide LTD, PR firm it not only runs pro-Beijing website, China US Focus but manages to place three Chinese articles in US media agencies per week by paying $20,000 a month (as per FARA filings of 2010) ¹².

A 2016 report claims that China Daily paid over $1 million per year to the Britain’s The Daily Telegraph to carry out “China Watch” supplement once a month. Indeed, China Daily, freely distributes weekly newspaper, “China Daily European Weekly” in certain parts of London ⁷. The Daily Mail has agreement with People’s Daily, Chinese language mouth piece. Epitomizing Mao’s strategy of “Making the Foreign Serve”, China is roping popular media agencies across the globe to aggressively promote its interests.

Besides the trusted state media agencies, China is marshalling new tribe successful Chinese business men to acquire media houses of repute. Jack Ma’s acquisition of the 115-year old Hongkong’s South China Morning Post (SCMP) known for its objective journalism has been part of this new strategy. Under the veneer of adhering to the sanctity of independent reporting, China is promoting pro-China content through these reputed media houses.

The ambit and expanse of Chinese ambitions is truly overwhelming. Along with the short-term fellowship programs and free tours, China has an insidious long-term ambition of completely revamping the western idea of journalism by indoctrinating and grooming a new generation of journalists with Chinese ideology (unquestionable supremacy of the party and intolerance towards multiparty system). At the 3^rd Plenum of eighteenth party congress, China released Document 9 expounding fears over western journalism infiltrating Chinese ideology and opposing the leadership of the CCP in the media ¹¹.

Reflective of China’s intolerance for dissent and poor press freedom it is ranked, 176 out of 180 countries as per Reporters Without Borders (RSF) 2018 World Freedom Index. While ruthlessly censoring domestic media, China is wooing global media agencies to preclude any criticism⁶. As per China’s Pursuit of a New World media order, China is investing $1.3 billion annually to increase global presence of Chinese media.

Reactive authoritarian regimes are known to coopt the propaganda machinery for narrative setting. But the multifaceted approach of China, its opacity, the scale, depth of investments and its global penetration is truly astounding. Latest report of Huawei launching a media blitz highlighting its role in building mobile network before security review is just a tip of iceberg of China’s larger information war tactics¹². While the West is caught unawares, China is infiltrating global media agencies with brute money power, coercion and intimidation to create a new world media order-where intolerance of dissent and kowtowing to CCP will become the new normal.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Chinese Belligerence Brings India and Australia closer

Ushering India into a new era of digital diplomacy Prime Minister Narendra Modi held virtual bilateral summit, the first of its kind, with Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison on June 4^th.  Warranted by a global health crisis, leaders of both countries met virtually to add meat to the Indo-Australia bilateral ties. The meeting comes at a time when the global world order is in a flux. The US is retreating from the international agencies while China is ensnaring them to assert its control. After the World Health Organisation (WHO) let China off the hook, despite the resolution seeking an international investigation supported by over 100 countries, the World woke up to the reality of Beijing’s tightening strangle hold over the global agencies and its naked ambitions. China conformed the worst fears of the World by blatantly defying the call for an open investigation.

Australia’s call for an investigation into origins of Covid-19 to avoid recurrence of any pandemic in future and its strict FDI regulations riled Beijing. China’s Wolf warrior diplomats harangued Australia, called it “chewing gum stuck on the soles” and “lap dog of America”. Forcing Australia to tow its line, Beijing raised tariffs on Australian imports by 80% and banned Australian barley, beef, iron ore and Coal imports. But Australia refused to budge.

Around the same time, directing its wrath against India, which took over as the chair of WHO executive board and backing Australia’s resolution for investigation, China slapped a ban on Indian livestock and pork imports citing African Swine Flu (ASF) concerns.

Apparently miffed by India raising stature as regional leader steering cooperation to tackle the pandemic, as opposed to Beijing its eroding global credibility, China began needling India with incursions and border face-offs. Wary of the global decoupling and plausible flight of capital and investments to India, a favoured destination, China compounded its aggression across the border after India imposed safeguards against Chinese takeover of economically stressed businesses and investments into India. India’s active participation in the QUAD plus members (QUAD+ South Korea, Vietnam, New Zealand) conference convened by the US to deliberate on a collective active to combat the pandemic and India’s drift towards the US, China upped ante against New Delhi.

Since assuming charge, Morrison has been countering China’s infiltration into Australian institutions, universities, media, political system, research, predatory trade tactics, usurpation, cyber domination with 5G Huawei roll out. China has ruthlessly exploited Australia’s open system and democratic values to advance its agenda. China’s latest salvo and relentless bullying has turned Australia towards India which fits its bill in more than one way.

Stressing the importance of the virtual summit High Commissioner Barry O Farell, stated⁴, “like-minded democracies and important partners like Australia and India should work together to shape the post-Covid multilateral order. India and Australia are committed to a free, open, inclusive and secure Indo-Pacific and strengthening and making their economies more resilient. And both have a shared goal of strengthening international institutions as well”.

Indo-Australian bilateral summit planned for first week of January in India was cancelled due to bush fires in Australia. Later a visit was contemplated for May but it couldn’t fructify due to Chinese virus outbreak. In the wake of Covid, global leaders continued to engage virtually.  In line with the evolving trend of digital diplomacy Prime Ministers of both countries decided to hold bilateral summit to reshape the bilateral ties and expand the scope of cooperation.

India and Australia which share common values of democracy, rule of law and common interests coalesced into a strategic partnership in 2009. Infusing fresh dynamism, to bilateral cooperation, leaders elevated ties to Comprehensive strategic partnership (CSP)².

Buttressing the strategic dimension of CSP, countries agreed to broaden and deepen defence cooperation. Facilitating increased military inter-operability, India and Australia have signed the basic-Mutual Logistics Agreement (MLS). The signing of MLS is bound to bolster the cooperation among the Quad members. After its inception of Quad in 2007, members held MALABAR exercises as a testament to their cooperation. After the inaugural stint, circumspect of upsetting China Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd pulled out the MALABAR exercises in 2008. Ever since, India has been reluctant to invite Australia despite Australia’s recent interest. While Australia’s chances of receiving an invite to join MALABAR exercise improved, after the MLS, pending an official confirmation, it is too early to speculate.

China’s belligerent claims to 90% of SCS citing fictitious nine-dash paradigm and raising cudgels over free movement of vessels even in the international waters and establishing Air Identification Zones (AIZ) has threatened peace and stability of the region. Being important stake holders of the Indo-Pacific region, India and Australia cautioned of this insidious import reaffirmed their support for freedom of navigation and overflight in the region. Reiterating their commitment to FOIP (Free, Open, Inclusive and rules-based Indo-Pacific) for promoting peace, stability, security and prosperity they announced Joint Declaration on the shared Vision for maritime cooperation in the Indo-Pacific Region¹ and respect towards international law and sovereignty and especially to United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS).

Furthering objective of shared maritime vision, both countries agreed to collaborate on environmental challenges, piracy, drugs, arms smuggling, human trafficking, poaching of wild animals, terrorism, unregulated fishing, marine pollution etc. Recapitulating the centrality of ASEAN for maritime cooperation in the Indo-Pacific region, India and Australia affirmed their commitment to cooperate through various forums like East Asia Summit (EAS), ASEAN Regional Forum, ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting (ADMM-Plus), the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA), the Indian Ocean Naval Symposium (IONS), the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission and International Maritime Organisation. Australia supported Prime Minister Modi’s Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative (IPOI) launched in November 2019 aimed at improving the management of shared oceanic spaces. This new pillar of maritime security cooperation caters to preserving marine ecosystem, capacity building, disaster management and promoting mutually beneficial maritime trade.

Covid-19 disrupted global supply chains and exposed the vulnerabilities of overdependence and globalisation. China is Australia’s largest trade partner. With China weaponizing trade, Australia started diversifying its exports. India is a developing economy with immense potential to grow. Australia believes that India can be a critical partner to meet its economic aspirations. Expressing interest in supply high-quality mineral resources to India, Australia signed a MoU in mining and processing of Critical and Strategic minerals. Both countries agreed to cooperate on the new technologies for exploration. To boost trade and investment, countries decided to renew negotiations on Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) and explored the possibility of launching RuPay Card in Australia.

To enhance collaboration in science, medical research and technology and promote innovative solutions countries instituted the India-Australia Strategic Research Fund. Plans are afoot to develop a Frame Work Arrangement on Cyber and Cyber Enabled-Critical Technology Cooperation to tackle the technological challenges and cybersecurity issues. India and Australia have signed seven MoUs including defence cooperation, water resources management, vocational education and governance reforms ³.

Outlining ways to prevent illegal migration and human trafficking, countries have agreed to hold senior-level dialogue to discuss India’s proposed Migration and Mobility Partnership Arrangement. Australia supported India’s candidature for UNSC permanent seat and NSG (Nuclear Suppliers Group) membership. Australia has committed to collaborate and support India’s initiatives- International Solar Alliance (ISA) and Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure (CDRI).

Warned of China’s growing influence in its sphere of influence, Australia in 2017 launched “Pacific Step-Up” stepping up engagement with Indo-Pacific Island countries. India engages with the Indo-Pacific islands through Forum for Indo-Pacific Islands Cooperation (FIPIC). Underscoring the importance of prosperity of South Pacific Region, India and Australia are planning to align and cooperate through their respective initiatives.

Shoring up strategic and economic cooperation, India and Australia agreed to have biannual 2+2 Defence and Foreign Ministers Dialogue besides the regular interaction under the Foreign Ministers Frame Work Dialogue (FMFD). India has 2+2 Ministerial Dialogues with the US and Japan. By unveiling similar arrangement with Australia, India has bolstered the cohesiveness of Quad. Relaunched Quad 2.0 in 2017 met along the margins of EAS at additional secretary level to revive cooperation. Since then, officials met twice every year, along the side lines of various multilateral fora. By 2019 upgrading the level of dialogue Quad Foreign Ministers met along the side-lines of UNGA. While Quad has been an informal strategic dialogue between the democracies in the Indo-Pacific region, China interpreted it as an alliance against Beijing. Given, China’s misgivings, India’s deepening engagement with Australia on par with other Quad countries the US and Japan is bound to exacerbate its animosity.

Aside the existing bilateral mechanisms- India-Australia Framework for Security Cooperation, India-Australia Maritime Dialogue, India-Australia-Indonesia trilateral dialogue, Japan-Australia-India trilateral dialogue, AUSINDEX bilateral naval exercises, defence policy both countries have agreed to deepen navy to navy cooperation and strengthen maritime domain awareness. India has maritime cooperation agreement with Japan, Indonesia and by adding Australia to the list, India is steadily cobbling support in the Indo-Pacific Region.

With the theatre of action shifting to the east, the geo-strategic construct of Indo-Pacific is assuming greater significance. In absence of a reliable global leadership, coming under the fire of Chinese belligerence, India and Australia, two responsible democracies of the region which share a common vision to promote peace, prosperity and stability have decided to deepen strategic conversation and lay foundation for a multilateral world order. In the process, the middle order powers keen on resurrecting their economies battered by the pandemic are making a determined effort to diversify their trade and reduce overdependence on China to keep the engines of growth running.

@ Copyrights reserved.

China ensnares the UN agencies to advance its global pursuits

US to withdraw from WHO

Adding heft to the growing perception of the US’s decline from the global politics, Trump administration announced the US withdrawal from the WHO. Reiterating his charges of the WHO’s complicity in global spread of Chinese virus, Trump renewed his threats of exiting the health regime. His decision comes days after China diligently managed to bypass a resolution signed by 116 countries presented at the WHO virtual conference calling for an independent investigation into origin and spread of the Chinese virus. Undermining the ‘accountability’ and ‘transparency’., China diligently replaced critical paragraphs of the resolution with words like “as appropriate” and extricated itself from any obligatory investigation. Insisting that China has been ‘transparent, open and responsible’ President Xi gaslighted Chinese role and pledged $2 billion towards combatting the pandemic.

Even as a pandemic-stricken World grapples with the virus, WHO let off China. Clearly, China’s diplomatic victory despite its brazen coverup, strengthened popular distrust towards the UN agencies which are losing their sheen, relevance and credibility. Claiming WHO’s Director General Dr Tedros “alarming lack of independence” and “repeated missteps..that have been extremely costly for the World”, Trump withheld the US funding to WHO in March. US contributes $400 million per year to WHO’s annual budget of $4.8 billion ⁸.

A break down of the statistics shows that US compulsory WHO membership for 2020 is $58 million and that of China is $29 million with reported voluntary contribution of $ 6 million in 2018 while US contributed $281 million in 2018 ¹⁰. Author wrote about WHO’s in action during initial stages of Corona outbreak in connivance with China in detail earlier¹⁶

Several national health agencies criticized timing of Trump’s decision and urged him to reconsider it. As pulling out from WHO at the height of the pandemic would hamper collective global response to tackle the disease. Pending Congress approval while it is not clear how quickly US can withdraw. But given, China’s leadership role at various international agencies and WHO’s deference it is important to dwell on China’s motives and motivations. WHO’s “China-centric” approach is just a tip of iceberg. Over the decades, China doubled up engagement with international agencies to position itself as the most influential global player.

From dismissing the UN as an instrument of US imperialism in 1970s to using it as a vehicle to advance its national interests, China had quite a journey. With deft-coalition building China stealthily tamed the UN ecosystem nurtured by the western value systems and liberal principles.

China’s initial stint with the UN

China made a global entry by claiming the UNSC seat as a permanent member on Oct 26^th 1971. Through a UNGA resolution of 2758, Republic of China’s seat was transferred to People’s Republic of China. While this elevation ended China’s isolationism, China didn’t join World Bank, IMF, Conference of Disarmament (CD) and ILO till Mao’s death in 1976 ¹⁵. Despite its initial trepidations about globalisation and inter-dependency, Samuel Kim summarized China progression from a “system-transforming approach” during the exclusion phase from 1946 to 70 to “system-reforming” in 1970s and later on to a “system-maintaining and system exploitation” approach ¹. China had a characteristic maxi-mini strategy. Asserting its status as permanent member, China fiercely used veto power to make its point and simultaneously made extensive gains invoking its developing nation status. For instance, it forced UN to reduce its contribution status to 0.79% from 5.5% ² while the US contributed to 25% and Japan, a non-permanent member paid 19.9%.

China fiercely guarded sovereignty and principles of self-determination and emphasised on Article 2.7 of UN charter which says- “nothing contained the present charter shall authorise the UN to intervene in the matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state”. With its uncompromising position on these aspects, China defied international rules and tightened its control over the autonomous regions of Tibet and Xinjiang and claimed sovereignty over Taiwan.

Beijing never deviated from the Maoist approach and beneath the veneer of pragmatic goals, it has always strived to use the conducive external environment for its internal development and enhancing international status. China’s inflexibility on sovereignty borne out of fear of being a victim of imperialist power in the past guided its foreign policy. China inexorably used past grievances to stoke nationalism to overcome the domestic pressure which are highly sensitive to its international policies. Consequently, China’s compliance to international rule of law has been influenced by the domestic rule of law and political culture. 

China’s double standards

Justifying one-China policy, China prevented Taiwan from joining security, environment and human rights regimes. But acquiesced Taiwan entering financial and trading organisations. Consequently, Taiwan is member of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the WTO. Taiwan became member of WTO in 2002 under the name of “separate customs territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu (Chinese Taipei)”. Even Hongkong, is a member of APEC. China’s opposition to Taiwan’s inclusion in the WHO is an offshoot of this obstinate approach.

Setting a new precedent for double standards, China refused to accede to any treaty, it has always been party to drafting the resolutions. China has actively involved in drafting the “Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture” but never ratified it. Similarly, China having been part of the drafting mission of ILO’s 1998 Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, signed the declaration but never complied with it³. With Cuba, it prevailed that UN Mission to Prison and Prisoners be subject to national laws and imperilled the basic objective.

China advocated supremacy of sovereignty over human rights. To challenge Western definition for Human Rights and deflect resolution critical of China’s human rights, Beijing rallied with like-minded countries. Built a cooperation to develop a consensus that effectively challenged the universal applicability of international human rights norms and firmly refused to allow international bodies to monitor conditions on Chinese soil. But China used UN agencies to accelerate its economic development to the hilt. It has been the largest borrower of World Bank and largest source of long term foreign capital as well.

China vehemently opposed any international intervention to monitor human rights situation in its territory.  For China human rights has been matter of domestic policy and it remained defiant about it. In what can be called a travesty of humanitarianism, China a known abuser of human rights, has been on the special panel that selects 17 special rapporteurs on free speech, enforced disappearances, arbitrary detention and health.

In October 2019, 23 countries issued a joint statement condemning China’s persecution of Uighur Muslims ⁴. These included the US, Canada, Japan, Australia. Countering this argument, 54 countries led by Belarus, Russia, Egypt, Bolivia, Serbia defended the detention as part of China’s counter-terror program.

China has consistently held on to the membership of UNHRC for four consecutive terms from 2006 to 2019. On April 1^st despite the reports of China’s threatening actions on the whistle blowers of the Covid-19 outbreak and extraction of forced written confession of “illegal behaviour” by Dr Li Wenliang, Jiang Duan, Chinese mission official in Geneva was appointed as member of Consultative Group of UNHRC ⁵.

President Xi’s vision of making the UN the pivot to global rise

At the 19^thCommunist Party Congress, President Xi outlined his vision for “taking active part in leading the reform of the global governance system”. Hinting at the comeuppance of penetrating the global organisations ⁹.

China invested heavily in three categories to foster its global aspirations- UN Peace Keeping Force, Climate Change and Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). From refusing to contribute any forces in 1971, China became the second largest contributor to its budget now. China’s contributions are guided by strategic interest. By deploying more than 80% of Chinese troops deployed in Africa, a major source of oil imports and investments, China ensured safety of its strategic assets.

After opposing reduction of emissions at both 1997 Kyoto and 2009 Climate Change conferences, China voluntarily signed Paris Agreement in 2015 and promised to reduce Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) by 60-65% from 2005 levels by 2030. As opposed to Trump’s defiance towards climate change related obligations by acceding to Paris Agreement, China earned quick brownie points.

Having lifted several millions of people from poverty, China not only evolved as a role model by contributing enormously towards Millennium Development Goals (MDG) but advocated, “common but differentiated responsibilities” for implementing SDGs ^11. China eventually used this SDG agenda to launch the “Belt and Road Initiative International Green Development Coalition”¹³.

China’s leadership roles at the UN

In 2017, China’s Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs was appointed to key position in UN’s Department of Economic and Social Affairs which plays a critical role in climate change, reduction of inequality and promoting development. Fang Liu, accused of not sharing crucial information about Corona protocols with Taiwan now heads the UN’s International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO). Zhao Houlin appointed as Secretary General of International Telecommunication Union for the second four-term actively promoted Huawei’s business pursuits. In 2019, China’s former Vice Minister of Agriculture Qu Dongyu got elected as the Director-General of FAO ⁹.

Financial coercion and bribery have become a new norm as Chinese influence grew in the UN agencies. In 2013, Chinese government reportedly stopped an activist, Cao Shunli from travelling to Geneva to participate in UNHRC training. They detained her, after she died of an illness in detention, China blocked a moment of silence in her name at UNHRC in 2014 ¹⁰.

Recently, UN tied up with Chinese tech company Tencent for conducting online video conferences and communication. UN Development Program (UNDP) partnered with Tencent in a new initiative “Connecting Cities to Solutions” to foster innovation and address urban challenges ¹⁴. With support of Russia and North Korea, China facilitated the passage of UN anti-Cybercrime pact 2019, bestowing legitimacy to “internet sovereignty” and the power to repress political dissent ¹².

America pulls out from UNESCO and UNHRC

China’s elevation at UNHRC comes at a time when US withdrew from both the UNHRC and UNESCO. US which helped to found the UNESCO and accounted for 22% of the total budget stopped funding the organisation since 2011, after Palestine was accorded membership. After UNESCO undermined Israel’s connections to Jerusalem and named them as Palestinian states, Israel dropped out of UNESCO. Trump administration pulled out of UNESCO by October 2017. Earlier US withdrew from UNESCO in 1984 under Regan’s regime over fund misappropriation. US re-joined in 2003 ⁶.

While a universal application of the human rights norms may not be a suitable way to address the wide spread human rights abuse. The unchecked brutal crackdown by authoritarian regimes in Venezuela, China, Cuba and Democratic Republic of Congo have been a curse on the humanity. But these perpetrators evaded scrutiny and weren’t ever held accountable for gross human rights violation. On the other hand, certain countries were wilfully charged and targeted. An underpinning high-order bias soon defined the functioning of UNHRC.

US believed that Israel has been the permanent standing agenda item on UNHRC.  Accusing the UNHRC of ‘chronic Israeli bias’, the US pulled out of UNHRC in June 2018⁷. The move came at a time Trump was accused of separating families through his anti-immigration policies and holding meeting with North Korean Supremo Kim Jong Un with dubious human rights reputation and after the council called for a probe into the killing of the Palestinian protestors in the Gaza strip by Israel. While critics questioned US’s deflecting tactics, America bade goodbye to UNHRC.

In 2006, US boycotted UNHRC for three years under the leadership of Bush for admitting nations into the revamped UN Human Rights Council comprising of 47-elected members for a term of three years. It re-joined in 2009 and served for two terms. After China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Algeria and Venezuela won the elections to the council, unopposed in 2013, rights groups across the World censured the UNHRC.

Under Trump’s leadership, the US so far exited from 11 multilateral pacts and international agencies-the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), Paris Climate Agreement, North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Open Skies Treaty, Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, Global Compact for Migration, Iran Nuclear Deal. America has pulled out from UNESCO, UNHRC, UN Relief and Works Agencies (UNRWA), WHO (pending). Trump is challenging WTO and weakened NATO over European Allies reluctance towards the idea of collective defence commitment.

Trump’s America First Policy and withdrawal from global organisations paved way for commensurate decline in its soft power. Trump’s scant efforts to cobble up support of allies whose resentment overwhelmed the relationship weakened a coalition of democratic forces. In absence of a formidable pushback, China is marching ahead thrusting authoritarian agenda down the global institutions.

US financial contributions towards the UN are much higher than China. If US fails to use that leverage, China will transmogrify these agencies into unrecognisable exemplars of illiberal values, facilitating the hollowing out of rules-based order.

Looking back, at the height of the Cold war, Chinese President Deng Xiaoping denounced America’s, “vain (pursuit) of global hegemony” and warned the US of exerting pressure on the international organisations like the UN. Four decades, hence, China is exactly doing the same. For all these years, the US has used UN as an instrument to advance its pursuits. Now China is just replicating the Western strategy ⁹.

While Trump’s moves and attempts hints at his plans to recalibrate America’s global positioning, the inclement rise of an authoritarian China and hegemonic ambitions poses fresh threat to the transparent functioning of global agencies.

@ Copyrights reserved.