India explores new opportunities for cooperation with I2U2

Barely nine months after the first meeting of the foreign ministers of India, Israel, the UAE and the US termed “The Western Quad”, the leaders of the four countries held a virtual summit. Coinciding with President Biden’s visit to Israel, the leaders of the four countries- US President Joe Biden, Israel Prime Minister Yair Lapid, Prime Minister Modi and President of UAE Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan held the first-ever meeting of atypically named -I2U2.

 Akin to the Quad that has buttressed the Indo-Pacific construct, I2U2 is expected to make “West Asia” a geopolitical reality. But unlike the Quad, which graduated to a leadership summit after 13 years of its existence, the foreign ministers and sherpas of I2U2 held several rounds of meetings shaping the objectives of the new grouping. The intent of the group is to mobilize private sector capital and deploy it for economic cooperation in many areas. Instructively so, the sherpas are drawn from the economic division of each of these countries.

Summing up the broad agenda of I2U2, PM Modi, in his opening remarks stated- “It is clear that vision and agenda of I2U2 is progressive and practical. By mobilising the mutual strengths of our countries- Capital, Expertise and Markets, we can accelerate our agenda, and contribute significantly to the global economy. Our cooperative framework is also a good model for practical cooperation in the face of increasing global uncertainties”¹.

Drawing from their experience perhaps, the US and India which are part of the Quad, have set the ground running by adopting a bottom-up approach. Building on the strength of the strategic partnership between each of these countries and focusing on cooperation in technical areas, they have set the wheel running. Member countries have identified six areas for joint investments and new initiatives-water, energy, transportation, space, health and food security.

The challenges of the post-pandemic world have been exacerbated by the Ukraine war which dramatically worsened the global food crisis and energy security. In their first meeting, leaders of I2U2 focused attention on two ambitious projects- the food security project and the clean energy project².

Accordingly, the UAE would invest $2 billion towards developing a series of integrated food parks in Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh. Employing renewable energy sources, with the expertise of the private sector companies of the US and Israel, state-of-the-art climate-smart technologies will be incorporated to reduce food waste and spoilage and conserve fresh water. Additionally, the US and Israel would offer innovative solutions to contribute to the sustainability of these projects. India will provide the land and will facilitate the integration of the agricultural produce with the food parks.  Clearly, the major outcomes will be the maximization of crop yields, enhancement of Indian farmers’ incomes and contribution toward food security of the Middle East and South Asia.

As part of the Arab Nations Food Security Program, in December 2020, at the height of farmers’ protests, India and UAE signed a $7 billion food corridor agreement³ and envisaged its implementation under the umbrella of Abraham Accords- Israel-UAE Peace Agreement. Indeed, by 2021, India has replaced Brazil as the major food supplier of Arab countries⁴. I2U2 has infused fresh impetus to the food security aspect which is very vital for Arab countries. The project will also review trade barriers, bring about harmonization of food safety and quality standards and establish benchmarks for the export of perishable food products and roll out a trade facilitation mechanism to facilitate a hassle-free export of food products from India. Always at the receiving end of phytosanitary issues, India would immensely benefit from the standard practices of project³. India is also likely to join the Agriculture Innovation Mission for Climate initiative (AIM for Climate).

Another important area actively prompted by all four member countries is clean energy. This is a priority for the UAE, host of COP28 in 2023 and home to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA).  India has set an ambitious target of 500GW non-fossil fuel capacity by 2030 and the planned commencement of the hybrid renewable energy project of 300MW wind and solar capacity at Dwarka, Gujarat, will augur well for India’s energy security aspirations with UAE-based companies serving as knowledge and investment partners⁵. Together with the active participation of companies from the US and Israel, India can turn into a global hub for alternate supply chains in renewable energy. India has developed its own OPEC for solar energy with the International Solar Alliance (ISA) and the thrust of the clean energy project of I2U2 on renewable energy will add a fresh impetus to India’s quest for reliable energy security.

I2U2 is envisaging mobilizing private sector capital and expertise to modernize infrastructure and connectivity, improve health and access to vaccines, solutions for waste management and development of critical emerging and green technologies. Together, the complementary capabilities of the US investment and technical expertise, Israel’s pre-eminence in advanced technology, UAE’s experimentation with competitive policies and India’s talented manpower can help in building a strong ecosystem for Startups.

With economic cooperation as the cornerstone energetically advancing Abraham Accords, I2U2 delivers on the promise of Israel’s integration with the region and lays the ground for closer coalescing of the Middle East and South Asia. A coherent agenda of I2U2 not withstanding trenchant disagreements indicates that countries have a deep sense of clarity.

Regarding the Ukraine crisis, India, Israel and UAE have more or less adopted a similar approach towards Russia which is at odds with the US. Israel and UAE look to China as an opportunity in terms of investment and infrastructure development. However, roiled in an ongoing border standoff, facing regional security challenges and riddled with multiple divergences, India considers China an adversary while the US deems China a strategic challenge. Even countries have differing views on Iran. Betting on the collective strengths and complementary capabilities, I2U2 drew up a non-military agenda and now the group will be assessed for its delivery.

Geopolitics is moving into an arena of closed minilaterals with a defined purpose and absolute unanimity is a rarity now. Countries are forming coalitions to pursue their interests. For the first time, the Middle East is not a source of a global problem but is at the forefront of seeking solutions for the challenges of the 21^st century.

Retracting from the Middle East, the US is now diverting its attention and resources to the most happening geopolitical theatre, Indo-Pacific. To consolidate regional stability, India with huge demographic strength, military powers, economic potential and regional power has been looped in. While disaster relief in the aftermath of the 2004 tsunami has triggered the Quad, responding to geopolitical uncertainties, with economic cooperation as the cornerstone, the US has shepherded the countries to come together into a minilateral. 

Unlike the Quad, which was labelled as “Asia’s NATO”, regional integration seems to be the main tagline of the I2U2. Shedding wariness, Modi has rescued India-UAE ties from the rut, by giving political imprimatur to the relationship with Israel and made the biggest makeover to harness the investment and advanced technology expertise of the region. Factoring China’s extensive global penetration, India is making strategic gains in the region. Coinciding the summit, Adani Ports and Gadot of Israel clinched the Haifa port bid⁶. Through nimble-footed diplomacy, India is exploring new opportunities and the emergence of I2U2 as a coherent group is a recognition of its burgeoning defence and strategic cooperation with the Middle East.

Throwing away “hesitations of history”, stepping out of its shell and seeking a larger role in the region, India is now steadily expanding its outreach with multiple partners. With every new engagement, India is expanding its vistas of cooperation and optimistically pursuing various options to tread the path of sustainable growth and economic development.

@ Copyrights reserved.

India’s seamless connectivity aspirations get a huge fillip with the operationalisation of INSTC

The West has consistently ratcheted up pressure on India to discourage it from buying crude oil from Russia. Though India made its stand clear time and again, the West insisted that India tow its line. Things have come to such a pass that last week the US consulate General in Mumbai wrote directly to the Mumbai Port authority, to not allow the Russian vessels to dock at the port due to American sanctions against Russia. Taking serious objection to America’s direct letter, India asserted its sovereign right to engage with global partners for national interests.

The focus on the Ukraine issue and its plausible repercussions in the Indo-Pacific region has taken away the attention from another important development. While G7, NATO and BRICS continue to dominate the geopolitical discourse, a major economic corridor has taken shape and test trials were also launched. The 7200km long, multimodular transport corridor INSTC or simply (International North-South Transport Corridor) connecting St Petersburg to ports in Iran and India has been operationalized.

Notwithstanding the mounting pressure from the West to boycott Russia’s energy supplies, India, an energy-hungry economy started importing Ural crude. As per Department of Commerce data, Russian imports surged to $3.18 billion in the month of April-May becoming the fourth largest supplier of oil¹. The Ukraine crisis has inadvertently boosted the long overdue Indo-Russian energy cooperation.

For decades, defence cooperation has been a major pillar of the longstanding Indo-Russian partnership, to take the partnership to next level during President Putin’s visit to India in 2021, both countries have set a target of $30 billion in trade and $50 billion investment by 2025. An increase of 38% in trade in the first half of 2021 despite the pandemic restrictions, prompted both sides to objectively assess the roadblocks impeding bilateral trade². In 2020 to jointly develop multi-modal logistics services along INSTC, Indian Railways’ Container Corporation of India signed an agreement with Russian Railways (RDZ).

Among the many factors that affected Indo-Russian bilateral trade poor connectivity has been a major issue. With INSTC stalled, looking for alternative routes, countries proposed to establish a shipping corridor between Chennai and Vladivostok which can reduce shipping time to Russia’s far east by 16 days. But Russia’s military action against Ukraine has brought to fore Russia’s Kuril Islands dispute. South Korea and Japan have refused to cooperate and now the proposal is temporarily shelved. But the punitive sanctions regime has bolstered Russian resolve to address the connectivity hurdles to ramp up trade.

To facilitate seamless connectivity back in 2002, founders Russia, Iran and India signed an agreement for INSTC, a trans-continental economic corridor avoiding the circuitous Suez Canal route. The original plan which includes rail, ship, and road routes would involve moving freight from Mumbai in India to Bandar Abbas port and Port Anzali in Iran to Astrakhan along the Caspian Sea, Moscow, and St. Petersburg in Russia.

The landlocked Central Asian Republics, Caucasian and even Baltic countries showed interest in INSTC. Ten countries- Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Belarus, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Oman, Ukraine, and Syria joined INSTC with Bulgaria as an observer. Baltic countries Latvia and Estonia expressed interest to join the group. Now the Ukraine crisis has turned them anti-Russian. INSTC comprises of three branches- East, West and Central.

The Central branch begins with the Jawaharlal Nehru Port, Mumbai, and connects to Bandar Abbas port on the Straits of Hormuz and passes through Iranian territories to reach Port Anzali and runs through the Caspian Sea to reach Russian ports of Olya and Astrakhan. The Western branch comprises a rail network that connects Azerbaijan to Iran. The Eastern branch connects Russia to India through Central Asian countries- Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Currently, Turkmenistan is not a formal member and Prime Minister Modi has invited Ashgabat to join the INSTC.

In 2021, Russia has agreed to India’s proposal of including Iran’s Chabahar port developed by India in INSTC. Unlike Bandar Abbas port, Chabahar connects to the Indian Ocean and can handle cargo ships of 10,000 tons capacity. With the integration of Chabahar, India plans to offer INSTC membership to Afghanistan and effectively actualize the policy of “Connect Central Asia” which failed to take off due to lack of connectivity.

Over the past two decades, hit by various geopolitical storms, INSTC failed to commence. In 2014, two dry runs were conducted. The first one was from Mumbai to Baku via Bandar Abbas and the second one was from Mumbai to Astrakhan via Bandar Abbas, Tehran and Port Anzali. As against the 40 days for the shipment of goods, the dry runs took 27 days.

These direct routes reduced the travel time, reduced distances, fuel expenses and ensured faster deliveries. It was expected that the INSTC route would be up and running in six months. But Iran was soon embroiled in the sanction regime. Lack of loan facilities, inadequate insurance and irregular shipping services to Iran has delayed the process. Nevertheless, for better economic integration India signed the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and Bilateral Investment Protection Agreements (BIPA) with some member states of the INSTC.

India has developed the Chabahar port and began operating from the refurbished Shahid Chisti port in 2018 to trade with Afghanistan bypassing Pakistan. Ever since India has been steadily pushing for the operationalisation of the INSTC. Now, Western sanctions have prompted Russia to look east and diversify its trade with partners that refused to join the sanctions regime. Surrounded by adversaries, China and Pakistan, overland transport to India was risky and it could be safely reached by sea.

Till now, the India-Russia trade has largely been through sea via the Suez Canal route. But in a geopolitically charged atmosphere, trade is always the first casualty. To avert such threats, Russia gave a big push to INSTC which passes through the Caucuses, avoids narrow maritime routes with potential for political blockades and drastically reduces the transit time for goods. With Oman on INSTC board, even the military blockades are also taken off.

With Chabahar on the agenda, the Iranian foreign minister visited India on June 8^th to prepare a ground for the operationalisation of INSTC. On June 14^th commencing a trial run, two Russian consignments of 40 feet weighing 41 tonnes set off from St Petersburg. The containers reached the Mumbai port via Astrakhan, Port Anzali and Bandar Abbas after 24 days.

Following the successful dry run, at the 6^th Caspian Summit attended by the Presidents of Azerbaijan, Iran, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan President Putin batted for “a speedy launch of NSTC”³ and described it as a “transport artery from St. Petersburg to ports in India and Iran”. With nodes in Central Asia, West Asia and Caucasia, INSTC can serve as an alternative to Suez Canal and a potential competitor to BRI. Indeed, frazzled by the operationalization of INSTC, China has dispatched Chinese defence minister Wei Fenghe to Kazakhstan, Oman, Turkmenistan and Iran to dissuade them⁴.

In 2018, when India sided with Trump’s fresh sanctions against Iran, to checkmate India’s attempts of making Chabahar central to INSTC, China roped in Iran under the BRI and signed a deal to develop Chabahar port. Also, by overseeing the Afghanistan-Pakistan Action Plan for Peace and Solidarity (APAPPS), China strengthened a cooperative mechanism of strengthening a coalition with Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Central Asian countries and even extending it to Russia to isolate India⁵.

But India continued to develop strong ties with the Central Asian Republic through defence, counterterrorism, trade and energy (Uranium) cooperation. To bolster trade and investment, besides extending membership to INSTC, India resolved to sort out technicalities to ensure hassle-free movement of goods.

The Ukraine crisis has paralysed China’s BRI expansion in the Eurasian landmass. Indeed, Beijing began exploring an alternate route via Central Asia and Iran to reach European markets. Further, the slowdown of the economy due to covid, the drying up of investments has considerably slackened China’s aggressive BRI pursuits. On the contrary, reeling under sanctions, Russia gave a huge push to NSTC in the wake of the Ukraine crisis and Central Asian countries being wary of hidden debts of BRI, reposed interest in INSTC. After two decades, things seem to be finally falling in place.

After Western companies left sanctions-hit Russia, Indian retailers are seeking to replace them, INSTC can facilitate the expansion of Indian trade and business to Russia and Central Asian countries. While Iran’s trans Railway corridor and sections of the rail network in Central Asian regions are still under construction, Russia’s transit cargo meant for India reached Iran on July 14th marking the official launch of NSTC. The first rail transit cargo carrying 39 containers from Russia entered Iran through Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan and from Iran’s Bandar Abbas port, the cargo will reach Mumbai port.

Rising oil prices have forced India to purchase discounted crude from Russia which is shipped by sea. Russia is now among India’s top five oil suppliers. India has tripled its coal imports and fertilisers from Russia which can now be transported overland. INSTC will open up a slew of opportunities for India to expand its trade to Central Asian, Baltic countries, Caucasia and Russia.

Refusing to succumb to Western pressure and impressively defending its neutral stance, effectively engaging and collaborating with Western partners on various multilateral forums, India is resolutely pursuing its national interests. Being part of multiple issue-specific coalitions, extensively reaching out to multiple partners, and objecting to any breach of its sovereignty, India is deftly balancing relations with arch enemies-the US and Russia at the same time. Emphatically exercising its strategic autonomy, while awaiting the first Russia consignment via INSTC, PM Modi is exploring India’s role at the first ever I2U2 summit with Israel, UAE and the US. Displaying an energetic diplomatic elan and alacrity in responding to swift geopolitical changes, India is treading cautiously to secure its economic interests.

@ Copyrights reserved.

The unprecedented economic and political crisis in Sri Lanka is not good news for India

Sri Lanka descends into chaos. The precipitous fall of the island nation has been in the making. After several beleaguered efforts to leave the country, hours before President Gotabaya Rajapaksa was set to resign, invoking his executive powers, he fled to Male along with his wife and two bodyguards. Without tendering resignation, perhaps to avail immunity from arrest, Gotabaya left the country. As this news spread, protests intensified across the country demanding his resignation. To quell the protests, Prime Minister declared a state of emergency.  Hours later an official gazette stated that invoking article 37 (1) of the constitution, the President has appointed Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe as the President of Sri Lanka.

In response to the massive people’s uproar, Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa resigned on May 9^th but smartly Gotabaya replaced him with another crony Ranil Wickremesinghe. Now the elevation of Wickremesinghe as President who bolstered Rajapaksas and know to be Rajapaksa loyalist has riled the protestors. Incensed by the quick turn of events, demanding the resignations of Gotabaya and Wickremesinghe, the people stormed the President’s house, President’s Secretariat, and the Prime Minister’s official residence and took over the state-owned television channel Rupavihini (SLRC).

Over the weekend the protestors ran down the Presidential Palace and refused to leave until the President and the Prime Minister tendered their resignation. President agreed to resign on July 13^th and Prime Minister has offered to put down his resignation “on the formation of an alternative interim government”. Notwithstanding these conditionalities, Sri Lankan people are completely aware that a vast majority of the political dispensation is beholden to Rajapaksas.

Despite claims of Speaker receiving a phone call from Gotabaya confirming that he would send the resignation, there is no news of his resignation as yet.  Now steadily, the calls for Wickremesinghe’s resignation are peaking and he might be forced to quit. Also, the all-party opposition has now taken decision to allow the Speaker to take over as the acting President. Even otherwise, as per the constitution, if President and Prime Minister quit office, Speaker can act as interim President.

Simultaneously, there are reports of President Wickremesinghe asking the Speaker to nominate a Prime Minister acceptable to both the government and the opposition. Be as it may, the Speaker belongs to the Rajapaksa’s Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) party and in the event of the election of new a President by the Parliament until the fresh elections which are due at the end of 2024. With SLPP still holding 100 seats in the 255-member parliament, there is a high possibility of the President being elected from the majority party and might likely be a Rajapaksa crony¹.

Indeed, even though the Rajapaksas have seemingly quit the office, they seem to control the strings. The opposition in Sri Lanka which have 122 seats includes majorly- the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB), Tamilnadu National Alliance and 45 Independents. But the Janatha Vimukthi Permuna, which is most active on the ground is refusing the join the all-party interim government and the leader of the opposition belonging to SJB, Sajith Premadasa is reluctant to head the all-party government. Unless the opposition is united, the Rajapaksas will continue to seat a person favourable to them in the highest post.

The authoritarian rule of Rajapaksas, economic mismanagement, unsustainable loans, the sudden transition to organic farming, unviable tax cuts, and the covid induced decline in tourism have wrecked the economy and pushed the country into the worst economic crisis in the seven decades of its existence.  The stranglehold of the dynasty that ruthlessly brought an end to the 26-year-long civil war, stabilized its grip over the country for the past two decades. Accused of brutal war crimes, Rajapaksas pivoted to China for investments in infrastructure and inadvertently ended up pouring billions of dollars into unsustainable projects that drained the economy.

Shielding Sri Lanka on the global platform, China steadily expanded its footprint in the country by way of land reclamation close to Colombo airport. The iconic “White Elephants” Mattala airport, the world’s emptiest port, the biggest international cricket stadium and the Hambantota port, in Rajapaksa’s family bastion, has further exacerbated the debt burden of the country.

In lieu of debt servicing in 2017, the Sri Lankan government gave away Hambantota port to China signing a 99-year lease agreement.  Under the Rajapaksa regime, China has expanded its strategic and economic presence in Sri Lanka. In 2014, by docking submarines in Sri Lanka, China sent a signal to India of its expanding footprint in India’s strategic backyard.

The World Bank declared Sri Lanka a Middle-Income country after the country registered robust economic growth averaging 6.5 during the initial years of President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s regime. But the flawed economic policies of investing in long-term, economically unviable infrastructure development projects have stunted the growth. In 2015, Rajapaksas were voted out of power, riding on the storm of strong support from the ethnic majority in the aftermath of 2019 bomb blasts, Mahinda Rajapaksa occupied the Prime Ministerial position. Winning a landslide in 2019 Presidential elections, to circumvent the term limits on President, Gotabaya Rajapaksa took over as the President. He appointed Mahinda as Prime Minister and brothers Basil and Chamal as Minister of Finance and Irrigation respectively and nephew Namal Rajapaksa as Minister of youth and sports. Together, the Rajapaksa family controlled the entire power hierarchy of Sri Lanka.

Notwithstanding the signs of recession, in 2019, Gotabaya announced tax cuts in the face of depleting tourism revenues due to covid and falling for the Western Green Elites spell of ESG (Environment, Social Governance Criteria) banned the use of inorganic fertilizers. Sri Lanka has the highest ESG score of 98, above the Nordic countries and to make it a perfect score, Gotabaya impulsively stalled the import of fertilizers and ordered a transition to organic farming². This sudden shift caused a 50% to 60% drop in crop yields. The lucrative tea exports which earned $1.3 billion in forex suddenly crashed. Food shortages, sinking forex reserves, rising oil prices due to the Ukraine crisis has further accelerated the economic miseries. For the first time, Sri Lanka faulted on the foreign debt payments and the situation has come to such a pass that Sri Lanka last week had less than a day’s worth of fuel reserves.

Needless to say, Sri Lanka is in dire need of a leadership that can handle this crisis and diligently chalk out a plan to mitigate short-term, medium-term and long-term plans to ably pull out the economy from the crisis. While a techno-cabinet that can negotiate terms and conditions with IMF can be its best bet, even an acceptable all-party government at this point can instill some confidence in the Sri Lanka citizens who are seething with anger. Certainly, a smooth transition of power can at this point in time can avert an unprecedented political crisis and army takeover.

The economic crisis has snowballed into an unprecedented political crisis in Sri Lanka, throwing the entire government machinery out of gear. This has doubly complicated the situation for Lanka with the financial institutes like IMF unsure of whom to negotiate with. Political stability is a must for Sri Lanka to tide over this whopping economic crisis.

Besides the strong cultural, religious and civilizational connections, India has huge stakes in Sri Lanka. Geostrategically, Sri Lanka is in India’s immediate neighbourhood and China’s creeping strategic and economic expansion is a matter of great concern to India. Given the past history of misunderstandings and bad blood between the countries, India has to tread the path cautiously amid tumultuous political transitions and uncertainties. Carefully wading through these waters and responding to the Lankan crisis, India has committed $3.8 billion and assisted in initiating negotiations with IMF for a financial bailout. Standing up to its reputation as a first responder, India supplied food, medicines, essential supplies and fuel to Sri Lanka and earned the goodwill of the Island.

Colombo is a trans-shipment hub and sixty percent of India’s trans-shipment cargo is handled by the port. Realising the gravity of the economic crisis, forestalling any crisis South Indian ports have risen to the occasion and began handling the trans-shipment cargo. A four-member Indian team comprising of economists and finance experts headed by foreign secretary Vinay Kwatra, travelled to Sri Lanka in June to aid in quick economic recovery and discussed a partnership in infrastructure, connectivity, renewable energy and deepening economic linkages³.

Long accused of interference in domestic affairs, India steered clear of the political developments on the island and demolished the rumours of India sending troops to Sri Lanka and helping Gotabaya to leave the country. Noting that the economic crisis in Sri Lanka is a “serious matter”, MEA spokesperson reiterated that “India stands with the people of Sri Lanka as they seek to realise their aspirations for prosperity and progress through democratic means and values, established institutions and constitutional framework”⁴.

Since 1965 Sri Lanka has received 16 IMF bailouts. Behind the façade of high HDI, the Sri Lankan crisis has many lessons, the first among them being the perils of an entrenched dynasty rule, populism, absence of fiscal prudence, excess reliance on multilateral loans, and lack of developmental infrastructure. Indian macroeconomic indicators are stable and the country is endowed with a world-class regulatory framework to manage risks. Hence it would be churlish to draw parallels with the Sri Lankan economy.

@ Copyrights reserved.Int

Shinzo Abe, A Great Friend of India

An assassination in the most unexpected countries of the world has stunned not only the native residents but sent shock waves across the globe. The former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was assassinated during a political campaign ahead of the elections for the Upper House in the city of Nara. Considered a safe country with the lowest crime rates a violent attack on their longest-serving Prime Minister, the country was shaken.

Abe is among the most consequential global statesman, who has reshaped the geopolitical contours of the Indo-Pacific region. Ahead of the times, discerning the much-touted peaceful rise of China is everything but peaceful, expounded a vision, “Confluence of Two Seas” while addressing the Indian Parliament in 2007. Conceptualising a ‘broader Asia’ which is free and open, enriched by the dynamic coupling of freedom and prosperity of the Pacific and the Indian Oceans, he proposed an immense network spanning the entire region comprising four democracies that would foster co-existence and transparency. This idea soon evolved into the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue with Japan, India, Australia, and the US as partners marking the genesis of the Indo-Pacific as a geopolitical construct.

Abe’s intuitive vision stems from the horrors of the war which imperial Japan underwent. Post-World War II, Japan vowed to never wage a war and created a free and democratic country, and resolved to uphold the rule of law. Bound by a Pacifist Constitution, creating a security net has been a vital necessity. Growing threats from the nuclear North Korea, historical animosities with South Korea and territorial disputes with China have prompted Abe to partner with a democratic India, which shares the same values, interests and threats.

The friendly relations between India and Japan touched new heights under the leadership of Modi and Abe. Both leaders, avowed nationalists, mindful of the Chinese aggression have fortified the relationship by adding new layers of cooperation. Saying, “strong India is in the best interest of Japan and strong Japan is in the best interest of India” and cognizant of India’s developmental challenges, Abe promoted investments in India and making an exception pursued a civil nuclear agreement. Consenting to the transfer of Shinkansen Technology, Abe played a pivotal role in realizing India’s dream of bullet trains. Together, Modi and Abe laid the foundation for the Mumbai-Ahmedabad High-Speed Rail (MAHSR) in 2017 giving a massive fillip to India’s infrastructure development aspirations.

The exceptional camaraderie and personal chemistry between Modi and Abe indeed steered Indo-Japanese ties to new heights. An element of inviolable trust eventually led to Japan under Abe’s leadership becoming a development partner of India in the insurgent-infested North East region. Committed to development and prosperity, India and Japan launched Asia Africa Growth Corridor, and jointly collaborated on developmental projects in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.

Abe-Modi eventually scripted a new chapter in the bilateral ties through “personal diplomacy” which wasn’t just limited to warm hugs and effusive smiles. The exceptional bonhomie of the leaders and their reverence towards each other cultures have inadvertently brought the people of both countries together. Abe’s devoted presence at the Ganga Aarti, visit to Sabarmati Ashram and his enthusiastic appreciation of hospitality extended in Ahmedabad welcoming him- all these public events have left an indelible impression on the minds of Indians.

Abe’s Japan stood with India during the Doklam stand-off and the current logjam across the LAC. In recognition of his contributions in fostering India-Japan ties, India has bestowed Padma Vibhushan on Abe in 2021. A consequential leader, Abe realised the need to cultivate strong ties with like-minded countries and strived to establish a stable framework and architecture for a stable, secure, peaceful and prosperous Indo-Pacific. The Indo-Pacific concept is now widely popular and many countries have devised Indo-Pacific strategies to counter expansionist China. To further the India-Japan friendship, in May Abe took over as the chair of the India-Japan Association. With his death, India will miss a great friend in Abe.

To overcome compulsions of self-imposed pacificism, Abe adopted a transformative approach to Japan’s security.  When Abe first assumed charge in 2006, Japan didn’t have a defence ministry. He upgraded the Defence Agency to Defence Ministry and envisioned alternative ways to fortify the country’s defenses.

In response to dramatic changes in the regional power balance, during his second term rapidly introduced some fundamental changes. Dubbed as “Abe Doctrine”, he planned to amend Article 9 of the constitution, established the National Security Council, revised the National Security Strategy, updated the National Defence Program Guidelines and the Medium-Term Defense program.

JapanIn 2014, he lifted the arms export and established an Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Agency (ATLA) to handle defence procurement, research and development. In 2015, he adopted the Legislation for Peace and security to exercise the right to collective self-defense. He also attempted to normalise relations with Russia to find a mutually accepted solution for the lingering territorial disputes¹.

While Abe’s emphasis on the security aspect was remarkable, his pursuits to revive the economy- ‘Abenomics’ have been moderately successful in stabilizing the Japanese economy. After America’s pulled out from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), amid the emergence of the China-dominated, RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) Abe revamped and rescued the trade agreement and steered the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTTP).

Abe presciently forewarned the world of China’s rise and strongly advocated the need for a rules-based international order. Though Abe resigned for the second time as Prime Minister in 2020 due to health problems, during a lecture in December, he said, “an increasingly powerful China toward Japan and Taiwan were likely to become more complex blurring the line between war and peace”².

Being a visionary statesman with deep insights into the geopolitical realities, he engaged with southeast Asian countries, Middle East, and African countries and favored bilateral, quadrilateral or multilateral strategic coalitions for specific issues.

Abe successfully revived ties with many countries. But his outreach to South Korea was marred by controversies- ‘comfort women’, reparations and ‘forced labour’. Abe’s visit to Yakusune Shrine in 2013, stirred up historical hostilities. Though he tried to make it up by offering condolences on the 70^th anniversary of the end of World War II, falling short of an apology, the gesture was deemed insensitive.  On the other hand, Abe’s act of reconciliation through a visit to Pearl Harbour on the 75^th anniversary of the attacks rejuvenated Japan-US relations.

Abe is one of the most strategically aware leaders who persistently cautioned of China’s belligerence and its imminent threat to the peace and security of the Indo-Pacific region. No wonder, while the world mourned the demise of Abe, Chinese social media gleefully celebrated.

Born in a political family, Shinzo Abe was the youngest and longest-serving Prime Minister of Japan. As a leader of Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), he led the party to landslide victories in 2012, 2014, and 2017. Labelled as an ‘Ultra Nationalist’ by liberal media agencies, Abe was a conservative, right-wing nationalist leader who left behind an illustrious legacy and the world will surely miss his wise counsel and strategic intuitiveness.

@ Copyrights reserved.

NATO democracies give in to the demands of an authoritarian Turkey

The signing of the accession protocols of Sweden and Finland by NATO allies drew curtains on the thriller climax written, directed and scripted by President Erdogan. With this, the collective strength of NATO reaches 32. The new members can now attend the NATO meetings but can’t vote. The Nordic countries’ accession must be ratified by the parliaments of NATO allies before the countries can avail protection under the mutual defence pact. The Ukraine war has spurred the Nordic countries to shed their neutrality and join NATO.

While the accession marks the confirmation of unanimous support, Turkey has yet again warned Sweden of blocking its ratification, if Kurdish leaders aren’t extradited. This comes in the wake of a Sweden legislator challenging the legality of the “Turkish-Swedish-Finnish Memo” or the “10-point trilateral memorandum” signed at Madrid¹. Sweden and Finland have agreed to designate Fetullah Gulen’s FETO (Fetullah Terrorist Organisation) and PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party) as terrorist organisations and prevent activities of these organisations in their territories, as part of Turkey’s fight against terrorism. Consented to lift arms embargoes imposed on Turkey following its 2019 military operation in Syria, enhance cooperation in counter-terrorism, expeditiously clear the pending deportation requests (including the current pledge of extraditing 73 terrorists by Sweden), fight disinformation, interdict terror financing and amend the domestic laws to facilitate the same. Additionally, a Permanent Joint Mechanism will be established to implement this memorandum².

Turkey has explicitly indicated that ratification of accession of Nordic countries will be subject to swift extradition of Kurdish leaders. Obliterating any trace of opposition, Erdogan has already crushed all the dissenters, jailed journalists and now with this memorandum he is tracking down political enemies by designating them as terrorists. Erdogan attributes the 2016 coup to FETO and considers the Kurdish dissenters of PKK terrorists.

Towing Turkey’s line, the US, the UK, and the EU have already labelled PKK as a terrorist organisation and to avail the security shield amid Russian aggression Finland and Sweden disinterestedly acceded to Turkey’s concessions. With this, Turkey has accomplished a phenomenal feat of weaponizing its geographic location and its military strength against NATO allies to fall in line. Turkey has the second-largest military force in NATO.

The Western analysts summed up the whole exercise as a positive turn of events. Unbeknownst, given Erdogan’s preponderance to leverage every small victory for domestic dividends, an ostentatious flaunting of the unceremonious extraction of concessions might cast a shadow on the value system the Nordic countries are identified with. Turkey’s Madrid mission was accomplished. But the abject surrender of the democratic countries to the whims of an authoritarian Erdogan is a new low for countries that resolutely commit to defending human rights and freedom for all.

Given Erdogan’s tough ask, the Nordic countries will never forget this difficult experience. In response to Turkey’s lifting of the opposition, the Biden administration has backed Turkey’s F-16 jet request.  This major turnaround is no less than a ‘diplomatic coup’ considering the fact that the Trump administration has imposed CAATSA on Turkey for purchasing Russia’s S-400 defence system and removed it from the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Partnership.

Turkey has close defence and economic ties with Russia and relies on its natural gas and Russian tourists. Ankara has appeased Moscow disregarding its long-term alliance commitment with NATO but detested Russian assistance to Bashar Assad’s regime.

In October 2021, Turkey made a request to the US to buy 40 F-16s and 80 modernisation kits and threatened to buy Russian jets if the US freezes F-16 sales. But the US didn’t respond. In March, Turkey lawmaker, wrote to the US expressing support for Ukraine and stating that its defence ties with Ukraine are an “important deterrent to malign influence in the region”³.  Turkey which shares a maritime border with Russia and Ukraine can control access to the key straits of the Black Sea- Bosphorous and Dardanelles Straits and by extension movement of vessels from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean Sea via the Sea of Marmara and the Aegean Sea. As per the 1936 Montreaux convention, the International Straits Commission bestowed control over the straits to Turkey lending it huge maritime power⁴. In practical terms, it is as crucial as airspace blockade. 

Given, Ankara’s close ties with Ukraine and Russia, it hosted a round of peace talks. Carefully balancing its position, while supporting Ukraine and supplying drones, it has opposed punitive sanctions against Russia. Before Russian aggression against Ukraine, US Congress arrived at a bipartisan agreement to reject the sale of F-16s to Turkey due to Ankara’s lack of commitment and “vast human rights abuses”.

During peacetime, while Turkey guarantees free passage to civilian and commercial vessels, in case of war that doesn’t involve Turkey, it can prevent the vessels of belligerent parties from entering the sea except to return to their bases in the Black Sea. With war showing no signs of abatement, Turkey’s special powers are of immense significance in terms of power projection abilities.

Recognising the huge strategic potential of Ankara, the US slowly softened its stance. Just before the NATO summit, Biden agreed to discuss the sale of F-16s with Erdogan and after the signing of the “accession protocol” Biden officially backed Turkey’s request. For long, Turkey has expressly flirted with Russia to have its way with the US. Now with its cynical blocking tactics, similar to Pakistan in the sub-continent, Erdogan has successfully blunted the institutional checks wielded by the West on his authoritarian rule.

Notwithstanding the surging inflation and a crippling economy, Turkey threatened to single-handedly torpedo the membership of Sweden and Finland. Exacting some tough promises, in return for its ‘no objection’, Turkey has arm-twisted the Nordic countries, champions of human rights to surrender to its demands. While the parlous nature of the Turkish economy is believed to bestow NATO countries enough leverage to exert brakes on Erdogan’s upmanship, the strategic geographic location especially in the face of the Ukraine war has given Turkey an overriding advantage. Erdogan has seized this opportunity with both hands.

The exasperating pre-conditions imposed by Turkey for its no opposition to the Nordic countries are now raising serious concerns about Ankara’s behaviour in future crises. Since Article 5 of NATO for mutual defence guarantee can be triggered by a unanimous vote.

Incredibly the Western commentariat which is at the forefront in pontificating the developing countries of values had bent over backwards to appease Turkey for accommodating two Nordic countries into NATO. Meanwhile, underscoring its indispensability to NATO, Turkey has impounded a Russian vessel suspected of smuggling Ukrainian grain.

Though Turkey can be expelled legally, with the odds favouring Ankara in terms of its strategic location as the gatekeeper of the Black Sea and huge presence in Syria including hosting 3.7 million Syrian refugees, NATO has bitten the bullet. Despite, Turkey’s repeated threats to Greece, given Erdogan’s dexterity to quickly change its stance, NATO chose to ditch values in lieu of its strategic interests.

Another feature of this edition of NATO has been the adoption of a Strategic Concept. The last one was adopted at the 2010 Lisbon Summit. It highlighted the challenges posed by authoritarian actors to NATO’s interests, values and democratic way of life. For the first time, calling China a ‘Strategic Challenge’, NATO stated, “The People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) stated ambitions and coercive policies challenge our interests, security and values. The PRC employs a broad range of political, economic and military tools to increase its global footprint and project power, while remaining opaque about its strategy, intentions and military build-up. The PRC’s malicious hybrid and cyber operations and its confrontational rhetoric and disinformation target Allies and harm Alliance security. The PRC seeks to control key technological and industrial sectors, critical infrastructure, and strategic materials and supply chains. It uses its economic leverage to create strategic dependencies and enhance its influence. It strives to subvert the rules-based international order, including in the space, cyber and maritime domains. The deepening strategic partnership between the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation and their mutually reinforcing attempts to undercut the rules-based international order run counter to our values and interests”⁵.

Additionally, the Strategic Concept referred to Indo-Pacific as well, “The Indo-Pacific is important for NATO, given that developments in that region can directly affect Euro-Atlantic security. We will strengthen dialogue and cooperation with new and existing partners in the Indo-Pacific to tackle cross-regional challenges and shared security interests”. Ostensibly, Ukraine and the Indo-Pacific are major geopolitical fronts. Espousing an “interest-driven approach”, NATO ironically reaffirmed to stand together-“to defend our security, values, and democratic way of life”.

Eschewing their values, NATO appeased an authoritarian regime that destabilised Syria, attacked Iraq, sheltered terrorists and caused chaos in Libya. So, will it even behove NATO to sit in judgement of Indian democracy?

@ Copyrights reserved.

Modi posits India as a responsible global stakeholder at the G7

With the world battling three major issues- post-pandemic recovery, spiralling inflation, and food and energy security, there is a genuine expectation that the group of richest countries will address these issues. However, the Ukraine issue dominated the G7 meeting themed on ‘progress towards an equitable world’ held at Elmau Schloss, Germany. The Ukraine issue jolted the post-pandemic global economy by exacerbating the food crisis and energy supplies. To this end, G7 pledged $4.5 billion to increase food security through Global Alliance on Food Security.

Another major announcement of the summit has been a $600 billion Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (PGII)¹ over the next five years for the emerging economies as an alternative to China’s BRI. Additionally, G7 plans to step up cooperation and foster Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETP) with Argentina, India, Indonesia, Senegal and South Africa, the countries invited for this year’s summit. Pledging corruption-free, transparent, sustainable, environmentally compliant, and value-driven infrastructure development, the US plans to mobilise investments in collaboration with G7 allies (UK, Germany, France, Italy, Japan and Canada) and the EU.  The US will contribute $200 billion and the rest by the other G7 countries and the EU.

Highlighting the plan, Biden said, PGII will “deliver returns for everyone, including the American people and the people of all our nations” and EU commissioner Ursula summarised, “it is up to us to give a positive, powerful investment impulse to the World, to show our partners in the developing world that they have a choice”. Last year, G7 has launched the Build Back Better World (B3W) Partnership with great fanfare but the initiative could hardly kick-off. Harsh Pant opines, “PGII is an attempt to rectify past problems and make it operational quickly”.

In fact, prior to the B3W Partnership, in November 2019, the US, Australia and Japan unveiled Blue Dot Network (BDN) – to certify public-private investments in global infrastructure and establish standards for infrastructural development. Even the 2018 edition of the G7 Declaration at Charlevoix, Canada, evinced the interest of democratic countries for quality infrastructure. It remains to be seen whether it can match the BRI. Noticeably, there is a palpable enthusiasm amongst the democratic countries to take on an authoritarian China. But unfortunately, none of the initiatives of the West were successful in wooing the developing countries.

Additionally, to combat future pandemics, the summit has announced G7 Pact for Pandemic Readiness and promised 1.175 billion doses of Covid-19 vaccines. For all the grand rhetoric, the G7 had always fallen short in delivering its promises. Ostensibly, this edition might be no different as countries were keen on condemning Russia for an “illegal and unjustifiable war of aggression against Ukraine” and pledging to stand with Ukraine “as long as it takes”. G7 agreed to impose unprecedented sanctions which included a ban on Russia’s gold imports with a proposal for a cap on Russian oil exports to developing countries.

Pledging to phase out energy imports from Russia, without compromising on climate goals, some European countries retreated to firing up the coal plants much for their commitment to “accelerating phase-out of domestic unabated coal power”. Given, the reliance of European countries on Russia for energy supplies, and the war showing no signs of ceasing, facing domestic backlash due to soaring inflation rates, there are now mild fissures in the combined front anti-Russia front. But President Biden, who is in no mood for reconciliation while assuring resolute political, military and financial support has urged for ‘unity’ at the G7 platform.

Thanking the German Chancellor for his efforts in keeping the alliance together, Biden said, “we have to stay together. Because Putin has been counting on from the beginning that somehow NATO and G7 would splinter”. “But we haven’t, and we’re not going to”². The G7 which evolved from being an ad-hoc gathering of Finance Ministers in 1973 transitioned into a high-level formal meeting to discussing wide-ranging global issues, especially trade, security, economics and climate change, has morphed into a strategic security forum.

India is now a regular invitee to the G7 as a partner country. Ahead of the summit, given India’s persistence to give in to the pressures of the West to condemn Russian action against Ukraine, fabricated media reports of Germany debating whether to invite Prime Minister Modi to the G7 summit attempted to isolate India. Blunting these chequered narratives, Chancellor Scholz personally invited PM Modi to attend the G7 summit during the Inter-Governmental Consultations (ICG). Days after the virtual BRICS summit, PM Modi travelled to Elmau for G7.

Being the largest democracy in the world with huge economic growth and market potential, India has now become a magnet for the G7 countries and the EU. India’s climate change action, renewable energy goals, green energy transitions, and Vaccine Maitri with a promise of advancing global challenges are bolstering New Delhi’s image as a global stakeholder. India’s victories at the recently concluded 12^th WTO Ministerial Meeting regarding illegal fishing, subsidies to farmers and patent waiver for vaccines have positioned it as a steadfast representative of the developing countries.

Relentless pursuits of media narratives to denigrate India hasn’t deterred the interests of the G7 to partner with India. Much for the focus on India signing a communique of virtues- 2022 Resilient Democracies³, that underscores Freedom of Speech, PM Modi used the high-profile platform to meet Argentine President Alberto Fernandez, Indonesian President Joko Widodo, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, President of South Africa Cyril Ramaphosa, EU Commissioner Ursula von der Leyen and recalibrated ties with Canadian President Justin Trudeau. As a special gesture, Modi gifted the leaders exquisite pieces of Indian traditional crafts.

With apocryphal effectiveness, an engagement with the G7, with huge economic clout, is a place for important global conversations. Speaking at the session on “Investing in a better future: Climate, Health, Energy”, Modi brought back the focus of the group to the global energy crisis stating, “access to energy should be a privilege of the rich and the poor should have an equal right to energy” and asked the G7 countries to invest in the emerging market of clean energy technologies in India. He added, “when a large country like India shows such ambition, other developing countries also get inspiration. We hope that the rich countries of G7 will support India’s efforts”. Consummately introducing a slice of India’s timeless civilizational knowledge, Modi said, India accounts for 17% of the global population but is responsible for 5% of global emissions. “The main reason behind this is our lifestyle, which is based on the theory of co-existence with nature”⁴.

Indeed, India’s willingness to offer solutions to global challenges together with its credentials as a security provider of the region and the first responder in offering assistance during emergencies echoed its reputation as a reliable partner. Further India’s diplomatic elan in engaging with diverse multilateral partners without siding with any country and adopting a principled stand in the pursuit of national interests amid these global uncertainties and disruptions, is positing New Delhi as a responsible stakeholder.

@ Copyrights reserved.

BJP’s biggest masterstroke of all: Elevates Shinde and draws the curtain on a dynasty leadership

India’s vibrant democracy replete with varied challenges is never boring. The crisis in Maharashtra, following an internal rebellion, that came to the fore on June 20^st post-MLC elections created a political upheaval leading to the collapse of 31-month-old Maha Vikas Agadi (MVA) and the ascension of a party worker to the post of the Chief Minister.

The ten-day drama and war of words ended with the BJP serving a masterstroke that stumped the political commentariat. The announcement of rebel leader Eknath Shinde as the Chief Minister created an earthquake of sorts decimating the pumped-up theory of “Operation Kamal” based on the premise that the BJP perpetually indulges in number games and topples the governments. This theory dominated the narrative even as a Sena MLA, Deepak Kesarkar in a letter titled- “Safe Guarding Hindutva: Not a rebellion; but a fight for self-respect” stated that they aren’t against the current Sena leadership.

By entering into an alliance with NCP and Congress which have nothing in common but contradicting ideologies with Shiva Sena, Uddhav Thackery formed a united front MVA and made a huge compromise on principles. Sena workers often expressed their extreme dissatisfaction with the functioning of NCP and Congress in the MVA to their leader Uddhav Thackery. However, things have come to a bind wherein the Sena MLAs believed that staying in the unholy alliance is an affront to their self-respect as their support base began to dwindle.

Inflicting a devastating blow to the dynasty politics, the BJP which considers Pariwarwad dangerous to a healthy democracy, walked the talk. Pending the Supreme Court decision on the spate of ‘rebel’ Shiva Sena MLAs, BJP extended support to the faction and declared their leader, Eknath Shinde as the Chief Minister of Maharashtra. This marks a new chapter in Indian politics. Family-based politics dominate the Indian polity. Without exception, the baton of leadership is always transferred to members of the family making the party a family domain. In the process, eligible youth are deprived of the opportunity to raise in ranks and reach the top leadership.

In a major break from this tradition, BJP recognised Eknath Shinde as the leader of the Shiva Sena and extended support for government formation. Shiva Sena is identified with an ideology expounded by the founder Balasaheb Thackery. As a natural corollary, being the heir of Balasaheb Thackery, Uddhav Thackery held the mantle of party leadership. Endorsing a non-Thackery wedded to the Hindutva ideology of Balasaheb as the leader of the party was thus inconceivable. Hence the elevation of Shinde as leader of the alliance party by the BJP has changed the course of Indian politics as most of the parties are identified with their families. This move besides neutralising the hold of Thackery’s on the party raised serious questions about their political future.

Sacrificing the Chief Minister post, BJP has not only blunted all the allegations of being power-hungry but earned immense goodwill by being generous. Sena supporters and Shinde will harbour a feeling of gratitude towards the BJP. Slipping into the post of Deputy Chief Minister despite the numbers favouring him, Devendra Fadnavis has turned all the odds against him to his advantage. Besides escaping any brickbats in event of any misgovernance or misappropriation, he will stay away from public scrutiny but will continue to enjoy access to decision-making as an insider. This continuity of staying in the administration would help in his future stints.

Also, BJP and Shiva Sena are identified as Hindutva parties and share common ideological moorings. Working in tandem, Sena and BJP can make huge gains in the 2024 general elections and can give the opposition parties a run for their money. The opposition has to work twice as hard to retain their vote base. NCP can still rely on their leader Sharad Pawar to fall back. Devoid of any credible leadership and a dedicated leader, Congress will stare at near extinction. Over a period of time, given its clout and extensive machinery, BJP can consolidate its electoral base at the cost of Sena. Sena has been intimidated by the untrammelled ascendency of the BJP and felt eclipsed. It feared being swallowed by BJP. Its worst fears might come true.

After Balasaheb’s death and the rise of Modi, Sena and BJP which were in alliance for years faced ego clashes and NCP hasn’t missed the opportunity to drive a wedge between them. Sena has been the dominant right-wing party during Balasaheb’s time. After his demise, BJP began to overshadow Sena with its rise. In 2014, BJP treated Sena with disdain and Uddhav paid back BJP in the same coin in 2019 by pulling out of the pre-poll alliance.

Shinde’s elevation and depriving Uddhav of the claims over Sena’s legacy are now construed as the BJP’s way of exacting revenge. But on the contrary, by conceding the Chief Minister post and settling for Deputy Chief Minister, BJP has debunked the contentions of humiliating regional parties.

Sena an ethnic, nativist party began its journey by supporting Mumbai’s Marathi-speaking population. Since it started espousing Hindu interests, its base has been anti-Congress. But Sena’s overtures to Congress and MVA stint have eroded its base. To reclaim their support, Sena has to now deliver on its promises. Else the disenchanted voters have their best alternative in BJP.

Maharashtra’s MVA has been a classic case of backstabbing and dishonouring the electoral mandate. Dumping the pre-poll alliance, Sena severed ties with BJP and formed an opportunistic front with NCP and Congress. While Sena alleges to have a pre-poll alliance agreement of rotating chief ministership, thus far, it failed to convincingly prove its claims and accused the BJP of cheating. BJP has resurrected its image by handing over the reign to a Sena leader and absolved itself of all the allegations and came clean with a statement-“Eknath Shinde will be the new Chief Minister of Maharashtra, this is BJP’s tribute to Balasaheb Thackery”. Through this political googly, the BJP convincingly portrayed itself as a real saviour of Hindutva.

Renouncing the Chief Minister post, the BJP catapulted itself to a different level in the battle of political narratives. This entire episode has an important lesson for Congress rebel leaders embattled by a decrepit leadership and dynasty entitlement- Unshackle from an asphyxiating leadership and try to cultivate a dedicated vote base on the strength of the ideology. But unfortunately for Congress, there is none!!

@ Copyrights reserved.

BRICS: A Litmus Test for India’s Strategic Autonomy

BRICS Summit held in the backdrop of China’s veto of the resolution of India and the US to proscribe a Pakistani terrorist, Abdul Rehman Makki rightly surmises the vortex the group is caught up in. Additionally, the continued stand-off between the Indian and Chinese troops along LAC prolonged deferment on complete disengagement from the Western Sector and absence of any breakthrough at 24^th meeting of the Working Mechanism for Consultation & Coordination on India-China Border Affairs (WMCC) brings to fore the implacable decline in the Indo-China relations.

Months ahead of the BRICS summit, Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi visited India extending an invitation for the summit. Considering China’s obdurate posturing and reluctance to initiate disengagement of forces, Wang was denied meeting with PM Modi. NSA Ajit Doval reiterated that any visit can happen only after the complete disengagement of forces. This sequence of events has eerie similarities with the Indo-China standoff at Doklam in 2017 when China, as BRICS chair, conscious of its global reputation and optics, withdrew the troops to facilitate a smooth summit. But China’s propaganda machinery on a vicious overdrive pronounced that New Delhi has chickened out.

Going by the past cycle of events, analysts hoped that the BRICS summit would offer some solution to the prolonged Sino-Indian logjam. With the 20^th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) just months away, President Xi who is on a sticky wicket and facing challenges to his leadership is in no position to risk his reputation by way of offering concessions to India by choosing to hold a virtual meeting. To gloss over deeply-roiled ties with India, China swiftly resorted to digital diplomacy. Despite China’s deft management, fissures within BRICS are now threatening intra-BRICS cooperation.

Besides the bilateral dissensions between the two large stakeholders of the BRICS, the group is also enveloped by the complex geopolitical turbulences. Ukraine crisis eventually snowballed into a proxy war between the US-led NATO and Russia, the deteriorating ties between the US and Russia, Sino-Russian ‘no limits friendship’, and the US acknowledgment of China and Russia as adversaries, have put the intra-BRICS partnership under stress.

The 14^th BRICS Summit themed on “Foster High-Quality BRICS partnership, Usher in a New Era for Global Development” was conducted virtually by the chairship of China on Jun 23-24. The covid pandemic has exposed the true nature of countries. Strident “Wolf Diplomacy”, subtle politicization and weaponization of the medical emergency, disruption of global supplies, and above all China’s bellicose expansionism has invariably dented its international reputation. To resurrect its image and counter the burgeoning global concerns over security in the Indo-Pacific region, China began to advocate global development to address global challenges, and ever since it has become the buzzword of Beijing’s foreign policy. 

Indeed, President Xi proposed a “Global Development Initiative” at the 76^th Session of the UN General Assembly on September 21^st, 2021, just days ahead of the first in-person Quad Summit in Washington. China contended that the new emphasis on global development is an effort to strengthen and accelerate the UN 2030 Agenda of Sustainable Development. Incidentally, global development has been the main theme of China’s High-Level Dialogue with BRICS Outreach/ BRICS Plus Cooperation to strengthen international cooperation as well.

Geopolitically, China suffered two blowbacks- drying of funds, investments to BRI in the aftermath of Covid, and the renewed global recognition of the threat to peace and stability of the Indo-Pacific region. While the Biden administration fumbled in evolving a hardnosed Chinese policy, the revival of the Quad had implicitly highlighted the aggressive policies of China. The situation is further complicated by the eruption of the Ukraine crisis and the West’s punitive sanctions on Russia.

Beset with global aspirations, in response to the Quad’s Indo-Pacific strategy, China hankered to push its vision of global order. At the 2017 Xiamen BRICS Summit, China first outlined a framework for “BRICS Plus” to promote cooperation between BRICS members and the emerging markets and developing countries (EMDCs). Giving a huge fillip to these plans, China has invited EMDCs for the virtual summit of BRICS foreign ministers in May for the first time. After the conclusion of the BRICS Summit, China chaired a session on Global Development in the BRICS Plus format attended by leaders of 17 countries- Brazil, Russia, India, South Africa, Argentina, Indonesia, Nigeria, UAE, Egypt, Cambodia, Thailand, Iran, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Fiji and Ethiopia and proposed to launch BRICS Plus Business Community Forum¹.

Indeed, setting the tone by inaugurating the BRICS Business Forum ahead of the BRICS summit, President Xi criticised the West and Europe for “the abuse” of international sanctions and derided its “group politics” and “bloc confrontation”. Calling sanctions “boomerangs and double-edged swords” Xi lashed at the West, “those who politicise, leverage and weaponise the global economy and wilfully impose sanctions by taking advantage of dominance in international and financial and monetary systems will eventually harm others and themselves and bring disasters to people around the World”¹. He referred to Global Security Initiative (GSI) launched recently at Boao Asian Forum to counter the Quad as well. While President Putin rebuked the West for fomenting the food crisis.

Clearly, the remarks of India, central to both BRICS and Quad, the two parallel groupings, hogged the limelight. Reiterating that BRICS is conceived with a belief that the group of emerging economies can serve as an engine of global growth, Prime Minister Modi highlighted the investment opportunities, digital transformation, economic reforms enforced in India and focussed on the post-Covid recovery.

Refusing to take sides at the recently concluded Quad summit, India exerted a moderating influence and adopted a neutral stance. Replicating the same template at BRICS summit, India has ensured that it doesn’t turn into an anti-Western propaganda trail and the joint statement remains non-partisan. Despite its differences with China, keen on preserving its friendly ties with Russia and engagement with other countries, India continues to play an active role in the BRICS.

Led by China, the Joint Statement is high on rhetoric and low on substance in terms of productive cooperation. For all the unusual attention, the BRICS has garnered for all the contradictions it subsumes, the Joint Statement began with a hollow proclamation– “BRICS countries have strengthened mutual trust, deepened intra-BRICS mutually beneficial cooperation and closer people to people exchanges”.

Replete with pompous cliches, the sententious Joint statement included a “commitment to multilateralism through upholding international law, including playing a central role in which sovereign states cooperate to maintain peace and security, sustainable development, promotion and protection of democracy, human rights, and fundamental freedoms”. Underscoring the need for making global governance systems more inclusive, transparent, representative and participatory, BRICS affirmed the need to strengthen and reform the multilateral systems. Ironically, furthering reforms in the UNGA and Economic Social Council, China in collaboration with the “Coffee Club” led by Italy and Pakistan has deliberately halted the negotiations on UNSC reforms to deprive India of a seat at the high table.

Abound with contradictions and searing double standards, the joint statement affirms a “commitment to ensuring the promotion and protection of democracy and human rights and fundamental rights for all” even as 1.5 million Uighurs are held in the so-called “re-education” detention camps by China. The joint statement reiterated strong support for G20’s leading role in global economic governance to address global challenges and emphasized the need for launching a selection process of Appellate Body Members of WTO for dispute resolution mechanism and called upon the IMF to address the underrepresentation of EMDCs and protect quota shares of the poorest and the smallest countries.

Notably, countries have a clear consensus on certain global aspects. Unequivocally the group supported diplomacy and dialogue between Russia and Ukraine to resolve the situation in Ukraine. Similarly, countries emphasised that Afghanistan’s territory shouldn’t be used to threaten or attack a country or train and finance terrorists and called for a broad-based and inclusive political structure. They condemned terrorism in all forms and manifestations, extended support to the African Union Agenda 2063 and called for the resumption of Iran’s JCPOA, denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula, strengthening of arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation treaties, conventions on biological and chemical weapons, prevention of arms race in outer space for global stability and international peace.

BRICS summit has identified certain core areas of cooperation and these curiously match the focus areas of joint collaboration of the Quad. BRICS has launched BRICS Vaccine Research and Development Centre to strengthen vaccine cooperation and jointly build a defensive line against pandemics and emphasised the need for the establishment of BRICS integrated Early Warning System for preventing mass infectious diseases. For cooperation in research and development and the application of new and emerging technologies, BRICS has constituted the Digital BRICS Task Force (DBTF). Similarly, BRICS Initiative for Enhancing Cooperation on Supply Chains and BRICS Digital Economy Partnership Framework are proposed for reliable supply chains and to promote the digital economy respectively.

To deepen economic cooperation and work towards a strong inclusive post-Covid recovery, Strategy for BRICS Economic Partnership 2025 was unveiled. BRICS now comprises multitudinous frameworks, task forces, working groups, and roadmaps, ranging from start-up partnerships on new industrial revolution, ICT cooperation, cooperation in science, technology & innovation, industrial internet and digital manufacturing, technology transfer and basic training in patents.

The new inclusion to BRICS cooperative framework now includes- BRICS Think Tank Network for Finance, BRICS Joint Committee on Space Cooperation established in line with the Agreement on Cooperation on BRICS Remote Sensing Satellite Constellation.

While BRICS has diligently evolved a structural framework for comprehensive cooperation across various arenas, the group’s future is bogged by a glaring lack of trust. Proclaiming commitment to respect sovereignty and integrity of the country, China implacably refuses to restore the status quo ante at the LAC, continues to expand the CPEC project on the legitimate territory of India, Gilgit and Baltistan and resorts to coercion as opposed to the stated position of peaceful settlement of the crisis.

BRICS, which has been a platform for discussing and deliberating issues of common concern of developing countries successfully weathered speculations of its eventual collapse with the establishment of the New Development Bank and a robust Contingent Reserve Arrangement (CRA). Unfortunately, BRICS group lacks a consensus on various issues. Economic cooperation and sharing of complementarities have been the cornerstone of BRICS have taken a back seat. Geopolitical ambitions have become the driving force of the group now.

 Amid Russia’s waning global influence, assuming a leadership position, China in pursuit of “National Rejuvenation” is attempting to use the platform to expand its global footprint and target the Western policies. China is actively pursuing the expansion of BRICS.  While some favour an expansion of the BRICS, the transformation of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) into a “China Club” warrants caution. The SCO was originally conceived out of the “Shanghai Process” on the basis of Four (Russia+ three central Asian Countries) plus one, China on the framework of Soviet-Sino border cooperation⁴.

The region can’t risk turning another grouping into a China club. Hence, pulling the plug on China’s pursuits, India insists on the guiding principles, procedures and criteria for adding new members to prevent China from overriding the group and pushing other countries to the margins. But in the process isn’t completely blocking Chinese attempts. India has welcomed Bangladesh, UAE, Egypt and Paraguay into the New Development Bank. Unlike other members, India refuses to cower under China’s coercion and checks Beijing’s unbridled expansion spree. Latest reports suggest that Iran and Argentina have applied to join the BRICS⁵.

Ostensibly, India’s presence in the group is essential to counter an aggressive China and its ambitions. With its uncanny diplomatic dexterity, India is balancing its engagement with countries belonging to different groupings and maintaining strategic autonomy that best suits its national interests.

@ Copyrights reserved.

The cycle of political uncertainty and inconclusive elections continues to beleaguer Israel

With the collapse of the ‘change government’, all hopes of much-longed political stability have crumbled. The Parliament passed the Knesset dissolution bill on Wednesday officially making way for a fifth election in three and half years.  The vote passed overwhelmingly 110-0. After two years of prolonged political impasse, a coalition government of eight parties of varied hues came together to form a ‘change government’. The rainbow coalition comprised of far rights, centrists and leftists. The coalition included an Arab party, a conservative Islamist party led by Mansour Abbas. This is quite significant since, for the first time ever, an Arab party became a party to a governing coalition.

Driven by the motive of keeping former Prime Minister and Likud Party leader Benjamin Netanyahu out of power, promising political stability, Naftali Bennett of arch Nationalist Yamina party and Yair Lapid of centrist Yesh Atid party steered a coalition to form a ‘change government’. While the new coalition government successfully ended the 12-year rule of Benjamin Netanyahu, the party suffered from internal contradictions. Having resolved to address critical issues, parties were forced to compromise on their ideologies and this riled up their dedicated supporters.

Among the notable achievements, the coalition managed to pass the budget in November, which was stalled for the past three years depleting funds in the public sector. New funds were allocated to public transport, health care, law enforcement and education. The government has increased work permits for Gazans as well. 

The ruling coalition with a razor-thin majority of 61 seats fell into trouble in April after Yamina party member, Idit Silman announced her departure after health minister refused to prohibit entry of non-kosher food to hospitals and defected to Likud party. Tremors within the coalition intensified following the clashes between the Israeli Defense Forces and the Palestinians at the Al-Aqsa Mosque during Ramadan. The Joint List which is an alliance of three Arab parties expressed serious disappointment over continued raids in the West Bank. The death of Al-Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, most likely shot by Israeli convoy ¹, the Supreme Court’s order allowing the Israeli military to evacuate 1000 Palestinians from Masafer Yatta region for building a firing zone accentuated the tenuous relationship of the coalition². This has spurred a string of defections.

Internal rebellion hit the coalition, which suffered a massive blow after it failed to renew the 50-year-old ‘Settler Law’ which extends Israeli Law to Jewish settlers in the West Bank. The law is renewed every five years. Two members of the Ra’am Party of ruling coalition voted against the bill and three Yamina party didn’t turn up to vote. Right-wing opposition voted against the bill to conclusively pull down the coalition government. Ahead of the voting, Justice Minister Gideon Saar of Hope Party reiterated that the legislation is key for the survival of the government. Renewal of the regulations has put the Ra’am party in a difficult position. Protecting the rights of settlers is a right-wing agenda. The Islamist party identified with Palestinians would appear to be portrayed as supporters of Israeli policy if it supports the bill. Likud party, the principal opposition determined to oppose any policy of the ruling party has overwhelmingly voted against the bill.

In the absence of the renewal of 55-year-old- “emergency regulations” the settlers in the West Bank will be subject to military court along with Palestine residents and would usher in legal chaos³. With elections in the offing, while ‘emergency regulations’ will automatically kick in, a rejection of renewal served as a final blow to the embattled coalition.

The proverbial last straw came after Yamina Party’s Nir Orbach on June 13^th quit the coalition and pushed the government to minority status. This expedited the vote for dissolving the Parliament, Knesset, and honouring the power-sharing agreement, Prime Minister Naftali Bennett plans to step down to hand over reigns to Foreign Minister Yair Lapid. Lapid will continue to serve as the interim Prime Minister until the new government is formed after elections. The ruling bloc which collapsed after one year and one-week sparked speculations about the prospective return of Benjamin Netanyahu to power.

Diplomatically, the ‘Change Government’ bolstered relations with the UAE and sealed a $10 billion Free Trade Agreement. Ties with Saudi Arabia have been on the upswing.  Since the signing of the Abraham Accords, Israel emerged as a viable ally of Arab nations facing the threat of Iran. To counter Iran’s burgeoning missile and drone capabilities, Israel has announced plans to lay the foundation for a strategic military alliance to deter Iran and its associated militia⁴ at Negev Summit. Recently, in the face of reports of Iran’s planned attacks on Israelis in Turkey, Israel has intensified its call to build “Joint Defense System” with Middle East allies Morocco, Egypt, Bahrain and the UAE. To their credit, the ‘change government’ has tactfully avoided joining the sanctions regime against Russia despite US pressure.

While the disbanded coalition had its ups and downs it, by and large offered some kind of remission from the prolonged political volatility in Israel. With Israel heading for a fresh round of elections which must be held within the next 90 days, Netanyahu is rearing for a comeback. Though mired in corruption charges, in absence of any law that can prevent him from serving as Prime Minister, Netanyahu is already making a fervent pitch to voters to ride back to power. With Bennett floating the idea of not contesting the next elections, the Centrist party leader, Lapid, the architect of the ‘Change government’ and who served as foreign minister is all set to emerge as the main challenger for Netanyahu.

Like Netanyahu, Lapid is now reckoned as global statesman for elevating Israel’s international stature. Unlike Netanyahu, who is despised for his rightist policies, as an architect of a coalition government with a gamut of ideologically varied parties, Lapid has gained the reputation of being an inclusivist. While the electoral tide is largely in favour of Netanyahu, initial electoral surveys have ruled out an outright majority for Netanyahu. But Likud party is expected to emerge as the single largest party.

Despite the trepidations of government collapse complicating the upcoming Biden’s visit, the US confirmed Biden’s trip to Israel as planned. This visit will largely tilt the scales in favour of the ruling coalition and bestow Lapid a statesmanlike sheen. Besides, being an incumbent leader, Lapid might have an upper hand in appealing electorate if a proposed anti-Iran bloc in the Middle East and expansion of Abraham Accords materialise. Additionally, with a major restructuring of geopolitical alignments in the region on the cards and Iran-US nuclear negotiations on the verge of collapse even Foreign Minister Bennett would be forced to brace for a high-valued diplomatic mission.

Though the survey conducted on the day, the government dissolved indicated Netanyahu as the preferred leader for Prime Minister with 47%,⁵ the incumbent government and Yair Lapid stand a better chance to improve their standings. Analysts believe that the coming elections will be Netanyahu’s last chance and if he fails to deliver, he might lose the support of his vote base. Be as it may, Israel is now plagued by a cycle of inconclusive elections and a tenuous coalition, will a fifth round of elections break this political gridlock?

@ Copyrights reserved.

Shared Interests and Complementary Capabilities to steer I2U2

After embracing Trump’s Indo-Pacific policy, President Biden is all set to give a huge fillip to his predecessor’s Middle East policy as well. In September 2020, Trump pushed for the transformative Abraham Accord favouring the normalisation of Israel’s relations with the regional states and its eventual integration.  Soon, Israel established diplomatic ties with the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan. Considering the huge geopolitical churn in the region on the anvil with Turkey claiming the leadership of the Muslim World and Pakistan’s alignment with Turkey, Egyptian Strategist Mohammed Soliman envisioned a great promise in the Indo-Abraham Accord. A trilateral strategic partnership of convergence of interests between India, Israel and the UAE¹.

Turkey’s quest for dominance, rivalries with Greece and Cyprus, support for the radical Islamic Brotherhood, Iran’s aggression besides widening the fissures in the region have underscored the need for a regional coalition.  Given the burgeoning strategic depth of India’s relationship with Israel and other Arab states, the idea of a new geopolitical coalition began to gain traction.

The idea quickly matured into a new concept when EAM Jaishankar on his visit to Israel in October 2021 held a virtual conference with foreign ministers of the UAE and the US. The meeting which was called “International Forum for Economic Cooperation” discussed the possibilities for joint infrastructure projects in transportation, digital infrastructure, maritime security and trade. The UAE foreign minister referred to the same as “West Asia Quad”.

The nascent “West Asia Quad” shot back to international headlines after a US official informed of a virtual meeting of the leaders of the West Asia Quad during Biden’s visit to Israel, West Bank and Saudi Arabia. Assuaging concerns of the allies and partners in East Asia, Biden revived the Quad holding four summit meetings with leaders of member countries in 14 months, launched AUKUS (Australia, UK, US) security alliance for Indo-Pacific and Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF). Amid looming energy supply and food security challenges and to make up for its extrication from the region, the US has lent a new name to the minilateral with India, Israel, the UAE, the US as I2U2 to reclaim its footprint in the region.

The first virtual summit of the leaders of I2U2 scheduled for next month will be steered by the complementary strengths of the nations to address common challenges and threats. Notably, the significant upgrade in the level of engagement underscores an elevated level of synergy.

Akin to the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, the evolution of I2U2 is galvanised by various factors-the US retrenchment from the Middle East during the Trump regime has created a strategic vacuum. Beijing opportunistically attempted to fill the gap by enhancing its influence in MENA (the Middle East and North Africa) region. Also, America’s unilateral pullback from the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) has changed the strategic calculus in the region and renewed fears of Iran as a major threat. Subduing these fears Washington gave a major push to Abraham Accords and paved the way for formal diplomatic engagement between Israel and the UAE.

Alternatively, Iran which joined the BRI in 2016 bolstered ties with China by signing a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership in 2021. In the quest for warm waters, reeling under sanctions keen on accessing the Indian Ocean Russia too warmed up to Iran. Additionally, Washington’s permanent withdrawal from Afghanistan eventually laid the ground for a geopolitical axis- China, Iran, Russia and Pakistan. Ostensibly, this strategic realignment has a major impact on the stability of the region.

The plausible reality of a new axis in the region has in a way spurred the coalescing of all the four nations who certainly have common interests in the region. This multilateral has sparked new interest among strategists trying to draw parallels between the Quad that focuses on the challenges in East Asia vis-à-vis I2U2 of West Asia. As of now, economic cooperation is the mainstay of the minilateral with strategic security as its implicit underlying objective.

Briefing about Biden’s visit, the US official announced, “we consider these initiatives central to our strategy of empowering partners and encouraging them to work more closely together, which will lead to a more stable region and also to Israel’s security and prosperity over the longer term”.

India and I2U2

Built on the robustness of the bilateral relations, the I2U2 will facilitate India to move away from working in silos and joining the four-way conversation breaking the self-imposed ideological shackles.

Though India launched the “Look West Policy” in 2005, it lacked the assertiveness to pursue wide-ranging partnerships with the countries in the region. The relations with the GCC and the Middle East revolved mostly around energy supplies, trade, diaspora and remittances. Modi’s visit to the UAE for the first time in 34 years in 2015 has been a gamechanger. As the US began to extricate itself, India upped the game of deepening strategic relations with the region.

With proactive engagement and in line with Arab countries “Look East Policy” and pro-developmental aspiration of diversifying an energy-dependent economy, India stepped up engagement with the countries seeking infrastructure investment opportunities. Powering the bilateral relations with economic cooperation, India exuded its seriousness by concluding FTA (Free Trade Agreement) with the UAE after record three months of negotiations. Setting a target of $100 billion in bilateral trade by 2030, India built a robust strategic partnership with the UAE. No longer encumbered by the religion tag, which Pakistan wielded to wean off India from West Asia, India has pragmatically engaged with Arab countries. The FTA which has come into force from May 1^st is expected to generate over 10 lakh jobs in the next five years. 

After three decades of establishing diplomatic ties with Israel, abandoning the Israel-Palestine hyphenation, India displayed renewed commitment and assuredness in engaging with Israel. Lending much-needed credence to the largely under-radar relations, with an iconic visit to Israel in 2017, the first-ever by any Indian prime minister, Modi has revitalised ties with Israel. Pivoted on the pillars of cooperation in defence, science and technology, water management and agriculture, Israel is now India’s fourth-largest defence supplier and both countries are working towards an FTA agreement by the end of the year.

Similarly, there is a huge upsurge in India-US relations. Strengthening the strategic partnership by signing all the four foundation agreements and regularly holding 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue, India and the US, active partners in the Quad that envisions a free, open and inclusive Indo-Pacific are now coalescing to evolve a new framework for West Asia as well. Guided by common values and shared interests, India and the US are seeking to further Indo-US Strategic global partnership through a new cooperative framework to address the challenges of the region.

Overall, there is a greater convergence of interests among the partners of I2U2. Israel and the UAE cooperation which is springing forth on the foundation of economic and technological cooperation will serve as the bedrock for I2U2 as well. Emulating the Quad template, the ambit of I2U2 will be cooperation on non-military aspects, to begin with. Strategic security is unlikely to figure in the agenda of I2U2.

I2U2 will mark a new milestone in India’s foreign policy. Integral to Indo-Pacific strategies, New Delhi has ramped up its engagement to new levels with the East Asian countries and Australia. I2U2 will open a new gateway of opportunities for India in West Asia and will augur well for India’s new regionalism to the West of the subcontinent. Reimaging policies towards West Asia, India has displayed the possibility of non-ideological engagement. Building on the strength of convergence of interests, the US has unveiled a new forum. It remains to be seen if the countries can sustain this momentum of cooperation in the long term.

@ Copyrights reserved.