Burgeoning Euroscepticism, Trump’s Protectionist Approach portends well for Global Rise of China

Rise of right-wing populism in Europe, burgeoning Euroscepticism, Brexit, and Trump’s victory have set new global precedents. Numerous Op-eds have spelled out bombastic effects of Brexit and US Presidential elections whose stunning verdicts left people gob-smacked. The referendum results and Donald Trump’s victory had clearly undermined the intellect of the Liberals ensconced in walled high-rise buildings. Brexit and Trump’s triumph signified wide spread public acceptance of the rhetoric “shutting off doors to immigrants” and “Make America Great Again” respectively. Academicians concluded that the startling outcomes truly reflected a simmering dissent towards globalization while others ascribed it to frenzied fixation of restoring identity. But the imminent effects on geopolitical scenario were hardly discussed. The sudden shift in people’s choices impelled that Britain and the US who collectively reigned globally as Western axis may no longer continue to wield more influence and power over the rest of the World.

Europe and later the US largely controlled the international arena from early 18^th Century until the turn of 21^st century. With the collapse of Soviet Union, a formidable challenger till the end of Cold war, the US emerged as the lone super power. Asia despite its huge size could never project its power and remained a subdued continent.  The humongous diversity, lack of unity, incoherent alliances, colonization stymied the continent to evolve as a collaborative entity. While Asian countries were engrossed in nation-building, US and Europe reached the pinnacles of economic development. The onus of driving the wheels of global economy rested solely on Asia with a panoply of developing nations. Envisaging the developmental potential of emerging nations strategists declared that 21^st century belongs to Asia. Subsequently through rapid globalization, economic growth in Asian countries picked up momentum as the West continued to invest and catered to insatiable appetite for development. But steadily the dynamics began to change.

Following populist surge against globalization reflected in Brexit and US Presidential election, the West is propelled towards Protectionism. A trend, which will open gateways for Asian countries to explore and navigate through the charters which were forte of the West earlier. This slow but imminent effects might be significant. The preponderance of multilateral institutions patronized by the West might diminish. A characteristic synchronized attunement of geopolitical stratagems to suit western interests will be resisted. Together, this systematic shift in power fulcrum will augur well for China’s global ambitions.

The self-imposed retreat of the two dominant democracies might usher World nations into a network dominated by Asia or more specifically China. China which has been itching to project itself as the emerging superpower can launch itself unabashedly. To gear up for the new responsibility China had already launched its own multilateral institutes – AIIB (Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank) NDB (New Development Bank) and the economic overdrive under the ruse of infrastructure development-OBOR (One Belt One Road) and MSR (Maritime Silk Route). Like Europeans who inveterately spread tentacles to colonize the globe, emulating similar tactics China will reincarnated itself as the neo-colonist through its dubious aid games. In fact, the imperialistic tendencies of China are expounded by its all-weather friend, Pakistan. Express Tribune recently carried out a scathing piece saying that $46 billion CPEC was “designed by China for China” to gain access to Arabian Sea. Though China says Pakistan will immensely benefit from the project, it is more than clear that Pakistan products are no match to Chinese manufacturing companies. Further the article opined that “China will use CPEC to loot and plunder Baluchistan”. India raised serious objections to CPEC since the 3000km long highway adjoining the strategic space of India passes through its legitimate territory. List of Chinese perfidies under the guise of developing infrastructure projects have already accrued more losses to small countries which included among others- India’s neighbor Sri Lanka. The lacuna created by a weakened EU, inwardly looking US in the International Sphere is up for grabs. Unmistakably, China is rapidly gaining ground during this intermittent period of uncertainty and vacillation.

Further, Trump’s protectionist attitude and intemperate arguments towards climate change, detached approach towards alliances might cost US dearly. By inadvertently rejecting the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) as a “disaster for American jobs”, US has already conceded more space to China. The strategic space created by retreat of US can be eloquently capitalized by India too. Absence of a long term national foreign policy stratagem and excruciating regulation plagued India’s outreach. On the other hand, China through meticulous diplomacy, quick decision making and strategic overdrive clearly chartered through murkier waters and evolved as a giant player. With Sino-Centric World eventually going to be a reality, Trump is trying to change the diplomatic tact by reaching out to Russia. Post-World War II, owing to animosities between US and Russia international arena remained bipolar till the end of Cold war. US in a bid to ascertain its supremacy, buttressed China which was rather weak state despite conflicting ideologies. With the collapse of Soviet Union and end of Cold war, Russian economy was reduced to tatters. American diplomatic and economic influence remained unchallenged till late 2000s. But now US is perturbed by the steady rise of China and its inclement assertiveness. With Russia steadily meandering into Chinese Orbit, a prospective Sino-Russian axis might diminish the geostrategic significance of US. To circumvent the resilience of such axis, Trump is now reaching out to Russia with renewed vigor and enthusiasm.  

Clearly, Brexit, US Presidential Elections and Euroscepticism reflected in the latest Italian referendum had a toll on three major aspects- Trade, Investment, and Migration. Besides, these stunning verdicts will eventually lead to a tectonic shift in geopolitical alignments.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Killing of Russian Ambassador heralds new Geopolitical Predicaments

Russian envoy to Turkey, Andrey Karlov was shot dead at photo exhibition event by a gunman at Ankara on November 19^th. The Turkish off-duty gunman, Mervut Mert Altintas, was a member of Ankara riot-squad, was immediately neutralized after assassination. With this Turkey as foreclosed an opportunity of finding the reason behind the killing.

At a time when Middle East is going through calumnious power shift, an incident of this intensity was believed to spark a diplomatic crisis. Melvut who gained access to the Posh Art Gallery, shot the envoy just few minutes after his opening remarks. He shouted, “Allahu-Akbar” and yelled “Don’t forget Syria, don’t forget Aleppo”. Some reports indicated that he also said “You will not taste safety until our fields are safe. Only death can get me out of here. Whoever has a share of tyranny will pay for this one by one”. The impassioned outburst of gunman besides signifying surge of radicalization, was an act of retribution against Russia for bombing Aleppo.

Immediately after the attack, President Erdogan and President Putin put up a show of unity and condemned it as a “provocative” terrorist act. President Putin reacted very soberly and exhorted it as a calibrated attempt to derail the rapprochement between Russia and Turkey. Also, Putin didn’t want to jeopardize the scheduled meeting of foreign ministers of Russia, Iran and Turkey the next day. But as expected, the World didn’t erupt into World War-III. It is now widely believed that Russia will use this incident to extract concessions from Turkey. While the nature of the concessions or rather arm-twisting are not imminent, Russia is keen on capitalizing the assassination of Karlov. Indeed, Turkey was forced to retract its reservations at the joint meeting of foreign ministers at Moscow. Further, it was agreed by three countries that regime change in Syria is not a priority.

Turko-Russian historical geopolitical rivalry

Social media was abuzz with concerns of World war III after Karlov’s killing. Striking parallels are drawn to the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand that triggered the first World War. Indeed, sceptics were right in portending a serious trouble because of frayed Russo-Turkey relations. Meanwhile, historians cited that current scenario reminded them of killing of Russian Consul-General by an Albanian in Ottoman army in 1903. The assassination which could have otherwise propelled both parties (Ottoman Empire and Russia) to war but for Sultan Abdulhamid-II of Ottoman Empire, who deftly averted it. Sultan had to make several concessions to deter Russian retaliation. This paved way for Russia expansion till to the rim of Black Sea. Sultan indeed followed the trail closely and ensured that the Albanian Soldier received capital punishment.

The long history of Turko-Russian relations endured varying trajectories. For the most part of late 16^th Century to early 20^th century both countries had troubled relations and were engaged in several Russo-Turkish Wars. In fact, on December 19^th 1853, (the day Russian Envoy was shot dead) Ottoman Empire declared war against Russia. Both empires gradually evolved as torch bearers for different civilizations. Russia championed the causes of Orthodox Church and Ottoman Empire became the seat of Islam. Russian expansion reached a hilt with Balkan wars that preceded World War I. Over a period, the conflicts became bloodied and both Empires committed heinous genocides. Ottoman’s carried out mass deportations and killings of Armenians while Russian Czars butchered Turks. By 19^th century, Russia fomented nationalism in Balkans which culminated in the birth of nations in the Macedonian region. They assisted various liberation movements in the East Europe which eventually flared up into World War I. Gradually Ottoman’s stronghold over its Empire slackened and its cosmopolitan fabric of Secularism eroded.

Relations between the two countries took a new turn when Bolshevik Soviets offered assistance to Turkish revolutionaries during the Turkish war of Independence and signed a Non-aggression pact in 1925. Turkey under Mustafa Kemal warmed up to Russia. Turkish Republic took developmental loans from Russia in 1932 and instituted five-year economic and industry developmental plans modelled after the five-year plans of Russia. Good relations continued until Joseph Stalin demanded that Soviet be allowed to join in defense of Straits of Turkey. (Russia wanted to have access to Mediterranean Sea). The Montreaux Convention of 1936 ruled that Turkey can remilitarize the straits. Throughout the World War-II Turkey remained neutral. But it allowed passage of German Ships through the Straits. Irked Russia by March 1945 sought the repealing of Non-aggression pact and laid claims over the Straits and a part of eastern Turkey which it held between 1878 and 1921. Stalin reiterated his demand at Potsdam Declaration but Truman Doctrine overruled it and by 1952 Turkey joined NATO. Soon Turkey became an armed bulwark of NATO. With the end of cold war and subsequent collapse of Soviet Union, relations between Russia and Turkey improved. Bilateral trade increased manifold with Russia becoming largest supplier of oil and natural gas while Turkey was the choicest tourist destination for Russians.

Russian intervention in Syrian changed the dynamics of bilateral ties presently. Turkey was infuriated when Russia extended military support to Bashar al-Assad.  President Erdogan was among the frontrunners who desperately rooted for departure of Assad. With two countries taking opposite sides, the subsequent friction resulted in shot down of Su-24 Russian fighter jet for alleged airspace violation resulting in the death of a Russian pilot in November 2015. This inimical development created international panic. But surprisingly, annihilating fears of disastrous aftermath both leaders together climbed down.

Turkey at that point picked up a tiff with US and its relations Europe too nose-dived after its hopes of getting into EU evaporated. Russia on the other hand, bearing the brunt of economic sanctions due to Crimean annexation aspired to strengthen its geostrategic positioning by making deeper forays into Middle East. Hence refrained from retaliation. Instead Russia imposed sanctions on exports from Turkey, ordered travel agents to stop conducting tours to Turkey and stopped fuel supply. It designated Turkey as the only country in Middle East aiding IS. Subsequently, Turkish businesses with Russian tie-ups suffered. IS launched a series of brutal attacks on Turkey from the beginning of 2016. Its approach towards Syria has tilted a little bit. The acrimony with Russia was short-lived. By June 2016, both leaders exchanged telephone calls. Erodogan visited Moscow showing signs of rapprochement. Putin on his visit to Turkey in October announced a gas pipeline between Russia and Turkey.

On the other hand, a series of swift transformations significantly changed the domestic architecture of Turkey. The founding father, Mustafa Kemal envisioned a secular framework for Turkey. The military was endowed with the responsibility of upholding the guiding principles of secularism and democracy. Post-World War-II unlike other Muslim countries, Turkey tried to emulate the Western ideologies and became party to NATO and fervently aspired to enter EU. Despite, US’s exhortations, Europe was averse to the idea. This caused severe resentment among the Turks. Slowly it began to find a new identity for itself and was getting drawn into the cultural moorings of the Middle East countries. Conservative Islam began to slowly gain ground in Turkey.

Erosion of secular credentials was galvanized with Erdogan at the helm of affairs. Turkey slowly tilted towards Islam. Erdogan’s authoritarian regime began to unleash illiberal policies which ranged from curtailing freedom of press to prioritizing conservative Islamic practices. Soon this led to a failed coup in July to topple Erdogan regime. Under the ruse of punishing the officials involved in the coup, Erdogan successfully purged off all political enemies from the military and other crucial administrative posts. The West severely condemned Erdogon’s purge. So, he carefully steered the foreign policy away from the West. He instilled an anti-Western sentiment by alleging that coup was staged by Fetullah Gulen living in exile in Pennsylvania. Erdogan expressed severe discontentment towards western alliance and began drifting towards Russia and China. Erdogan by embracing Islam gained overwhelming support of Sunni Muslims for AKP (Justice and Development Party). But ever since Russia started bombarding the rebels in Syria, Sunnis were irked by Erdogan’s detente with Russia. Erdogan really have tough choices to make.

But as of now, Turkey might swiftly tow in line with Russia and use its dalliance as a bargaining chip with the US. US may not afford to lose Turkey for its strategic geographic location and for being repository of America’s strategic nuclear assets. US’s fragile alliance relations, Trump’s ambiguous stance on Assad’s regime and fervent electoral promise of attacking IS seem to give Russia upper edge. If Trump choses to join Russia in decimating IS, the dynamics of the geopolitics will take a new turn. In the meanwhile, Turkey attributed Karlov’s killing to Gulenists, began crackdown campaign and intensified extradition process of Gulen. In any case, Russia will not forget and forgive Turkey and will try to gain maximum leverage for the diplomatic embarrassment it suffered. But in all likelihood, a wavering commitment of Turkey towards NATO alliance may not bode well for the West and US in particular.

@ Copyrights reserved.

India and Tajikistan to strengthen trade links through Chabahar Port

India and Tajikistan on the recently concluded five day visit of President Emomalih Rahmon (from December 14^th to 18^th) have agreed to strengthen trade links through Chabahar Port. The agreement comes at a time when Pakistan is wooing nations to be part of the CPEC (China Pakistan Economic Corridor) project. President Rahmon on his state visit to India arrived in Kochi and after spending two days reached Delhi where he was extended a ceremonial welcome at the Rashtrapati Bhavan. He later held talks with President and Vice-President and issued a joint statement with Prime Minister Modi.

Tajikistan which share southern boundaries with Pakistan & Afghanistan and eastern boundary with China is a strategically important partner in our extended neighborhood. India’s direct access to Tajikistan is restricted due to the adjoining Gilgit-Baltistan controlled by Pakistan. India has its lone overseas air base at Farkhor, South West of Dushanbe and is cause of severe discontentment to China and Pakistan. India has built a military hospital near the airbase. Sadly, no credible information about its activities is available currently as the base hasn’t been in use since 1980s. But some reports suggest that the airbase was in dilapidated condition and government awarded a tender of $10 million to a private firm for its restoration in 2003.

India and Tajikistan have cordial friendly relations with shared interests in regional security and development. On his fifth State visit to India in 2012 President Rahmon and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh have elevated bilateral relations to Strategic Partnership. The cooperation encompasses a wide spectrum of areas like political, economic, military, health, education, human resource development, defence, counterterrorism, culture, tourism, science, and development. While Tajikistan support India’s bid for permanent membership at extended UNSC, India helped Tajikistan’s accession to WTO. Both countries have been actively working through Multilateral Fora like UN and SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization). Earlier in 2015, Prime Minister Modi on his bilateral visit to Central Asia strengthened bilateral relations. Later both leaders met along sidelines of SCO at Tashkent in 2016.

While the aerial distance between India and Tajikistan is 95km, but the volume of business transactions is much below the potential. Since goods are to be transported through a circuitous route, bilateral trade is severely hampered. (From India to Bandar Abbas by sea and then via Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan finally to Turkmenistan). As of 2014-15 bilateral trade stands at $58 million. Now countries have decided to enhance trade and transport links through the Chabahar port in Iran which can provide connectivity to Tajikistan. India is actively working towards development of the International North South Corridor which includes Tajikistan. At Hyderabad House, shortly after the bilateral talks, both sides inked pacts on bilateral investment, avoidance of double taxation and prevention of fiscal evasion. Underscoring the need for surface connectivity for greater economic cooperation, leaders opined that accession to Ashgabat agreement will improve connectivity of Tajikistan to Central Asia. Leaders have also explored possibilities of increasing flight services between both countries.

Rahmon during his current visit sought Indian investments in small & medium hydroelectric power projects and in four free economic zones developed in Tajikistan. He appreciated India’s efforts in modernization of Vazrob-1 hydroelectric plant. Both sides have also agreed to enhance defence cooperation and signed pacts against terror financing and money laundering. India and Tajikistan expressed concerns over growing terrorism and extremism in the region that threaten the peace, stability, and security of the region. Leaders agreed to work towards the development, restoration of peace and prosperity of Afghanistan. President Rahmon thanked India for setting up 37 computer labs in Tajikistan. Both sides reviewed the progress of projects under implementation and in pipeline. collaborate in capacity building at Tajikistan, application of space technology for human development and agriculture. Key areas of bilateral cooperation currently have been pharmaceuticals, information technology and hydel-power. Commemorating 25 years of diplomatic partnership both countries reaffirmed to elevate bilateral ties to newer heights by 2017.  Both countries share deep-rooted history and heritage and leaders reiterated that greater cultural exchange and people to people contact can rekindle friendship.

Despite strong cultural, linguistic, and religious connect with Central Asia India failed to fully capitalize on its friendly ties with this extended neighbor because of connectivity issues.  Pakistan to provide India access to Central Asia. This vehement denial prompted India and Afghanistan to seal a trilateral transit agreement with Iran culminating in development of Chabahar port for strengthening economic cooperation. India and Tajikistan share multiple security threats and challenges. Combatting terror and development of nations in the region have emerged as two formidable concerns in the region. In a bid to deepen engagement, both countries have agreed to step-up cooperation to extricate terror in all forms and manifestations in the region.

@ Copyrights reserved.

India and Indonesia rediscover their natural partnership

India and Indonesia on the eve of the President Joko Widodo’s (Jokowi) first state visit have deepened ties and strengthened cooperation in areas of common interest. Described as a valued neighbor, both countries reached agreements on fostering defence cooperation, maritime ties and resolved to fight the terror together. Jokowi, a former furniture maker became President of Indonesia in the historical elections of October 2014 by defeating Megawati Sukarnoputri daughter of legendary founder President Sukarno. He characteristically shares similarities with Prime Minister Modi. Both hail from humble background with no political or military backing and have travelled extensively to various countries after assuming power. Modi met President Widodo along the sidelines of ASEAN Summit at Nay Pyi Taw in November 2014 and agreed to increase the trade and business investment. India-Indonesian bilateral ties received a fresh lease for life when both countries signed Joint Declaration on Establishing Strategic Partnership in 2005 during President S B Yudhoyono’s State visit to India. Later President Yudhoyono graced the Republic Day parade with his presence in 2011 called for charting a Vision Statement 2025 to enhance India-Indonesia ties. In 2013, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on his reciprocal visit agreed to adopt five-pronged initiative to strengthen Strategic partnership. Modi government through Act East policy gave a renewed push to reinvigorate ties with South East Asian countries.

India and Indonesia during the modern times shared cordial friendly relations. The concerted fight and vocal support extended by the legendary Jawaharlal Nehru and Sukarno against the colonial rule gave fresh impetus to freedom movements in Africa. Their cumulative political comaraderie laid the foundation for the Non-Alignment Movement and Asia-Africa Bandung Conference of 1955. Nehru indeed organized the first International Conference on Indonesia in 1947 before India became independent. Sukarno was the first head of state to attend the Republic Day Parade of independent India in 1950. Bilateral relations remained in good stead through the times of Suharto, Abdul Rahman Wahid, Megawati and Yudhoyono. But despite the vitality bilateral ties failed to reach its potential.

Widodo’s visit to India comes at a strategic time when geopolitics are going through a flux. The unpredictability hovering American foreign policy doctrines, China’s burgeoning assertiveness and unabated land reclamations has thrown the East Asian countries into a tizzy. While Indonesia is not a claimant to the territorial entities in the South China Sea, the belligerent presence of China near Natuna Islands has been a cause of concern. China in the past made attempts to include island’s exclusive economic zone in its territorial claims. Further the reluctance of China to adhere to the tribunal ruling of Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) turned the region into a potential conflict zone. Considering these developments, both countries in their joint statement stressed “the importance of resolving disputes by peaceful means, in accordance with universally recognized principles of international law including UNCLOS”. India made similar statements with countries like US, Japan, Vietnam earlier and proposed to name SCS dispute in the summit meetings with Singapore. But the later objected. The joint exhortation by both countries not only underscores imminent concerns of both countries but also reflects the congruence.  In the process both sides upgraded ties in the arena of maritime security and defence cooperation.

Though India and Indonesia have long-standing trade and cultural relations of two millennia old, India rather failed to fathom the economic and strategic potential of Indonesia. Indonesia with its huge panoply of 17,000 islands spread across the strategic choke points of Straits of Malacca, covering a vast expanse of South of Indian Ocean to Pacific Ocean and linking South China Sea has a pivotal role in maritime security. Indonesia which is rather preoccupied with nation building hardly evinced any interest in evolving a strategic maritime plan to capitalize on its extraordinary geographic location. Articulating the stratagem of developing Indonesia into a strategic “maritime axis”, which includes building of a robust navy Widodo during his visit signed an agreement to strengthen maritime cooperation.

India and Indonesia both largest democracies in Asia share several commonalities which includes relentless pursuit of guarding the syncretic fiber of their societies intact. Like India, Indonesia is home to diverse religious cultures and beliefs. Historical evidences indicate that Indian traders set foot on Indonesia in 1^st century and along the trade routes Hinduism and Buddhism touched Indonesian shores and thrived there. Indeed, there is a mention of Indonesia in Ramayana where it was referred to as Yadawadwipa.  Indonesia is replete with traces of Indic influence. Indian epics like Ramayana and Mahabharata find an exquisite place in Indonesian history. Islands like Bali, Sulawesi still have significant populations who follow the Hindu way of life. While the Borbudur and Parambadadan temples reflect the Hindu-Buddhist cultures, the mosques in Sumatra reminisces influences of Mughal architecture. Even Sanskrit language and traces of Brahmi script found in Indonesia testimony the deep seated connect between the two countries. Currently, the single largest and second largest Muslim populations of the World, Indonesia and India began feeling the heat of insidious religious fundamentalism making sway into their respective countries. Christianism, Confucianism, Animism and Kebatinan are also followed in Indonesia.  But in the recent past, pluralistic, diverse, and democratic philosophy, characteristic of Indonesia, is threatened by Islamic radicalization emanating from the Gulf.

Violent eruption of street protests spear headed by militant Islamic Defenders Front (FDI) and Muslim Students Association in Jakarta demanding the jailing of Chinese Muslim Mayor Basuki Ahok Tjahaja Purnama showed the first signs of fractures in otherwise homogenized Indonesian society. The protestors on November 4^th opposed the candidature of Ahok for upcoming elections in February. The police in a bid to quell the angry protestors instituted investigation to probe allegations of blasphemy. But the simmering disquiet and incipient intolerance of militant groups is slowly mounting pressure on the political dispensation. Slowly Islamic conservatism and extremism is making its inroads into Indonesia. Like India, Indonesia endures radical terror and it indeed evolved a mechanism of deradicalization which is worth emulating. Both leaders expressed greater concern over the growing menace of terrorism and stressed on “Zero-tolerance for acts of terror” and called for enhancing cooperation in counter terrorism.  

India made a significant progress in enhancing trade through India-ASEAN bilateral free trade agreement in 2010. The trade reached $80 billion by 2014. To boost the bilateral trade between India and Indonesia which is currently $20 billion (2015), both countries have started negotiations for comprehensive economic cooperation agreement to further liberalize the trade. Widodo’s visit gave a massive push to the comprehensive Economic Partnership calling for early convening of meeting of Biennial Trade Ministers Forum (BTMF) to remove the impediments in bilateral trade and investment. Both leaders welcomed the meeting of business wigs at the India-Indonesia CEO’s Forum held in New Delhi on December 12^th. A vision document prepared by Eminent Persons Group projected that bilateral trade volume will blossom to reach $50 billion by 2025.

Both sides have substantially increased military cooperation over the years and India is a major source of military hardware for Indonesia. Currently, Joint Defence Cooperation Committees are reviewing the upgradation of the existing “Agreement on Cooperative Activities in the Fields of Defence” to a substantive bilateral defence cooperative agreement. India and Indonesia share the maritime boundaries of Andaman Sea and jointly conduct naval exercises CORPAT (Coordinated Patrol) biannually. Both sides have agreed to enhance bilateral cooperation in combatting terrorism, terrorist financing, money laundering, arms smuggling, trafficking of human beings and cybercrime. To explore and further build on the shared cultural connect, both countries agreed on establishment of chairs for Indian Studies in Indonesian Universities and vice-versa. Leaders called for expediting the conclusion of Inter-Governmental Framework Agreement on Cooperation in the exploration and uses of outer space for peaceful purposes and other agreements in weather forecasting, disaster management, resource mapping etc. Further Indonesian carrier Garuda Airlines is slated to started direct flights to Jakarta from Mumbai.

South East Asian countries are now wary of the diabolical paradigm of peaceful rise of China and with Obama’s Pivot to Asia failing to address the concerns of the region, countries are now increasingly turning to India as balancing power. While China with its economic growing economic clout coerced its smaller neighbors to tow-in-line, Sino-Indonesian ties are strained following the “over-lapping claims” over the features close to Natuna Islands. Resentment towards China is brewing up in Indonesia with many Chinese-led consortiums doing a shoddy job in various infrastructure projects across the country. Development of coal generation units across Indonesia awarded to Chinese companies of proven abilities are now reported to be running far below its capacity. Some of the large coal generation units are now found to be containing low technology boiler units and second hand equipment. Now, as Widodo looks at India, New Delhi should make investments in sectors like infrastructure development and endeavor to take the relations to next level.

@ Copyrights reserved. 

Pakistan asked to rein in terror at the Heart of Asia Conference

The two day long sixth Heart of Asia- Istanbul Process (HoA-IP) conference concluded in Amritsar yesterday. Chaired and co-chaired by India and Afghanistan respectively, the conference was a stupendous success in terms of the hassles it eloquently identified. HoA-IP was instituted in 2011 at Istanbul to evolve all mechanisms for restoring peace and security in Afghanistan through political and economic cooperation. Stability in Afghanistan is crucial for prosperity and economic development of the its extended neighborhood which includes- South Asia, Central Asia and West Asia. The Istanbul Process was aptly named as Heart of Asia to seek solutions for revival of Afghanistan which was devastated by war. Since then, over 22 supporting countries including US participate in the process held annually. In the earlier conferences organized at Istanbul, Kabul, Almaty, Beijing, Islamabad nations tried to evolve various mechanisms that can mitigate threats faced by Afghanistan which include- counterterrorism, narcotic trade, poverty, and radicalization. Despite the Herculean efforts of supporting countries, in the form of economic aid, military funding, peace remains elusive since Afghanistan is plagued by terrorism.

Unlike recently held BRICS conference where Indian efforts to castigate perpetrators of terror were bulldozed by “elephant in the room”, at HoA-IP, India played a perfect host, allowing Afghanistan to do the hard talk. Mincing no words, in his hard-hitting speech, President Ashraf Ghani lambasted Pakistan for providing safe havens to terror groups and indicated that Taliban insurgency wouldn’t survive for even a month if Pakistan blocks financial conduits.  Ever since Ghani assumed charge in 2014, he single-mindedly focused on improving relations with immediate neighbor Pakistan to contain Taliban. But Afghanistan had no respite from burgeoning incidents of violence. On the contrary emboldened Taliban gained more ground. Like Afghanistan India has been victim of Pakistan’s cross border terrorism.

In response to the offer of $500 million from Pakistan as financial assistance, Ghani lashed out Pakistan for fomenting an “undeclared war””. He startled the gathering by asking defacto foreign minister Sartaz Aziz, “this fund, Mr. Aziz could very well be used for containing extremism because without peace any amount of assistance will not meet the needs of our people”. Pakistan quickly rejected the blame and added, “The security situation in Afghanistan is very complex. It is simplistic to blame only one country for the surge in violence. We need to have an objective and holistic view”. Ghani’s unequivocal remarks not only exposed the duplicity of Pakistan but added heft to India’s repeated plaints on cross border terrorism.

The significant outcome of the HoA-IP is the “Amritsar Declaration” which recognized terrorism as the biggest threat for the regional security and peace and sought early finalization of the draft of CCIT (Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism). The declaration welcomed the agreement between the International Community and Afghanistan National and Defense Security Forces (ANDSF) for continued financial assistance till 2020. It expressed concerned about the “high level of violence caused by the Taliban, terrorist groups including ISIL/Daesh and its affiliates, the Haqqani network, Al Qaeda, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, East Turkestan Islamic Movement, Laskhar-e-Toiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad, TTP, Jamaat-ul-Ahrar, Jundullah and other foreign terrorists. In this regard, we call upon all states to take action against these terrorist entities in accordance with their respective national counter terrorism policies, their international obligation and the UN Global Terrorism Strategy 2006”. The Inter-Ministerial conference comprising of delegation of 44 countries called “for concerted regional and international cooperation to ensure elimination of terrorism, in all its forms and manifestations, including dismantling of terror sanctuaries and safe havens in the Heart of Asia region, as well as disrupting all financial, tactical and logistical support for terrorism”. While Prime Minister Modi and President Ashraf Ghani upped the ante against terrorism, unconditional support of participating nations and observer countries paved way for evolving a strategic approach towards rebuilding of Afghanistan. Further the declaration thanked Iran and Pakistan for hosting Afghan refugees for over the past three decades. The meet urged the countries to extend the hospitality until their sustainable repatriation and reintegration can take place. HoA-IP has also tried to address the issues emanating from the increased cultivation of poppy along the Southern Afghanistan which is prospering under the ambit of the terror groups. This cultivation has soon emerged as the chief source of finances for the terrorist network operating from Pakistan.

It is an open secret that Pakistan has been raising terror sanctuaries against India and Afghanistan till now. While Pakistan’s foreign policy of bleed India by thousand cuts is well-known, Islamabad is equally intolerant to the idea of stable and peaceful Afghanistan. Pakistan’s insecurities towards Afghanistan stem from the fact that Kabul doesn’t recognize the international border- Durand Line with Pakistan. In 1893, to reduce frequent incursions into each other’s region British foreign secretary Henry Mortimer Durand and Amir Abdul Rahman Khan formally agreed on a demarcating 2640 km long international border. The line ran through Pashtun territories. But Afghanistan never ratified the document and even Pashtuns who wanted to create Pashtunistan too opposed the Durand line. While Afghanistan reclaimed most of the Pashtun areas under British India through 1919 Anglo-Afghan war, after British left India, Afghanistan openly declared that it doesn’t recognize Durand line. Afghanistan has thus claims to region from Durand line to Indus river. Since 1947 Pakistan has tried to seal bilateral agreement to convert Durand line into international border, but no avail. Moreover, Pakistan has been wary of a long and enduring relationship between India and Afghanistan as that might render its geostrategic positioning ineffective. By denying free passage of goods through its territory for long Pakistan had tried to hinder the bilateral trade between India and Afghanistan. Now that Modi and Ghani had agreed on developing a joint air corridor, both countries can nail down the obstructionist policies of Pakistan and enhance bilateral trade. Thus India, can enhance its connectivity to Central Asia and European Countries.

Modi’s assertive and dynamic foreign policy towards Afghanistan have indeed irked Pakistan. A slew of developments in the past two years had laid firm foundation for nurturing of bilateral ties. These included-Modi’s visit to Kabul to inaugurate the Parliament Complex built by India, delivery of three Mi-24 gunships, signing of the trilateral transit agreement for development of Chabahar port to increase connectivity of land-locked Afghanistan, opening of Salma Dam, $1 billion economic assistance and finally supply of four attack of helicopters. India openly embraced Afghanistan and made no qualms in deepening ties with Afghanistan. This strategic shift in India’s policy towards Afghanistan tapped into the betrayal and frustration suffered by Kabul at the hands of Pakistan. President Ghani immediately reciprocated India’s no-strings attached policy and firmly supported India’s stance of not attending the SAARC summit. By and large, in this edition of HoA, India besides cogently garnering support of all participating countries for rebuilding of Afghanistan, strengthened its ties with Afghanistan.

Despite escalating hostilities with Pakistan, India didn’t sidestep the agenda of HoA and deftly managed to call for international support for extricating the roots of terror in the region. While the media in India and Pakistan widely anticipated resumption of talks, India didn’t budge from its position of terror and talks can’t go together. Though the media is abuzz with a photograph of an animated discussion between Ajit Doval and Sartaz Aziz, both sides dismissed reports of any formal conversation.

While over 44 participating countries have affirmed support to Amritsar Declaration that categorically denounced Pakistan for sheltering terror groups, Islamabad found a rare ally in Russia. Russian envoy Zamir Kabulov remarked that, “I’m sure President Ghani has strong reasons to do so, but I don’t think the HoA is the right place for settling scores”. Russia, by playing a referee at HoA signaled a paradigm shift in Indo-Russian Strategic partnership and reflected Moscow’s Sino-centric dalliance. However, India shouldn’t be flustered by emerging strategic realignments and steadfastly continue to engage with Afghanistan to circumvent the Pakistan’s overtures.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Heights of Political Despondency: Allegations of Coup

Ever since the big announcement of demonetization of high value-currency notes, the series of the outbursts and vituperative tirade of West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee undeniably followed a pattern. While Modi with outstanding financial reform made an impeccable impression on common man whose lives were jolted by vicious cycle of corruption Banerjee denounced it as anti-poor. The political opportunism didn’t end there. She reached out to opposition parties including her avowed political enemies to build pressure enough momentum to oppose demonetization. She unabashedly persisted that country was going through financial emergency. Notwithstanding the abysmal support for the Jan Akrosh Diwas called by the opposition parties against demonetization, Banerjee continued to denounce the drive. Unlike other parties that criticized poor execution of demonetization, she called for an immediate roll back. But now the political frenzy has stooped to new lows where her irrational political fears are conspicuous by the ludicrous and baseless allegations.  From the charges of conspiracy to kill her to staging of coup and illusionary fears of a civil war her scandalous allegations against central government invariably reflects her political frustration.

On Thursday, Trinamool Congress created ruckus in the Parliament alleging that Central government was hatching a conspiracy to kill her. They continued that the Indigo flight that was carrying Banerjee was low on fuel and was intentionally made to hover the airport. Crying hoax, the TMC demanded an explanation from the Civil Aviation Minister, who clarified that owing to the decongestion at the airport, the jet had to wait. The airline officials said that, “the fuel on arrival had more than minimum diversion fuel”. They added that “IndiGo captain at no stage declared a fuel priority or an emergency”. Government subsequently ordered an inquiry to probe the charges made by TMC that two other flights of Air India and Spice Jet had also called in with same problem. TMC linked this conspiracy to Banerjee’s stiff opposition to demonetization.  Interestingly, this is not the first-time Banerjee made such vague allegations. In 2014 at the height of investigations into Sarada Chit fund she cried that vested groups are making attempts on her life. 

Now the hysterical frenzy of the mercurial chief minister rock-bottomed when she cried of a military coup to unseat her from power. It emerges that Banerjee on finding armed battalion at various toll gates across West Bengal locked herself for over 30 hours in secretariat on the pretext of saving democracy. She came down heavily on the routine vehicle counting exercise undertaken in the eastern states by the military. Banerjee charged that it is “a clear violation of rules and understanding, Army has been deployed without informing the democratically-elected government. This is very bad. The army had come all the way to the Kona Express Way near the State Secretariat as well. The central government is trying to create a civil war like situation in the country. This is against constitution. The Centre is trying to bulldoze us. We will fight it legally”. Perhaps for the first time in Independent India’s history had any chief minister made such wild and reckless allegations against the center. The paranoia and the intense obsessive histrionics clearly jeopardized the credibility of the constitutional position she holds and mirrored her political bankruptcy. By questioning the ethos of Indian Army she scored a self-goal and annihilated all hopes of catapulting herself onto the national political arena. Indian Army besides having a formidable reputation of supreme valor and sacrifice is revered World over for upholding the democratic values. Most of the countries that obtained independence from colonial regimes had embraced democracy. But majority, had succumbed to the overdrive of military forces where elected civilian governments were reduced to execute nominal administrative services. Our western neighbor is best example of such scenario. With her orchestrated paranoia Banerjee casted aspersions on Armed Forces which might be deleterious to the democratic fabric of a vast country like India. While hysterical meltdown of politicians are desperate attempts to launch and relaunch themselves in desperate situations, certain institutions must be spared of blame and suspicion. Indian democracy is being overstretched nowadays for dubious political ends. Common man is flabbergasted by the theatrics and disgusting obsession of politicians for power. Political parties are outcompeting each other to touch new lows.

Defence Minister in response to the sinister campaign launched by the TMC indicated that local authorities were informed of the routine exercise and that necessary approvals were sought. In fact, this kind of exercises are regularly undertaken in states like Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. He added that, “It is shocking that a chief minister is saying this. The Army’s deployment is a part of routine exercise going on for last 15-20 years. Even last year it was held on Nov 19 to 21^st”. He dismissed the allegations that Centre didn’t inform the State authorities. Addressing the concerns of Banerjee, Eastern Command released a series of letters to confirm that Army had informed the state. The political slugfest of Banerjee was supported by Congress, AAP and BSP. Congress Party which had been in power for six decades questioning the deployment of Army is ironical.

Moreover, as Banerjee tries to project herself as a plausible prime ministerial candidate for 2019 elections creating ruckus in Parliament with frivolous allegations, the exercise might be counterproductive.  Her political image as a street fighter and an inveterate revolutionary might have won her overwhelming majority in West Bengal, but her tenure as the Central Minister holding various portfolios (Railways, Coal and Human Resources) was appalling. Her political career is muddled by several controversies and frequent tantrums, resignation dramas which resonate her personality. Her intolerance to contrary opinions, lack of governance skills, appeasement of minorities, concessions to vote banks, and flippant attitude might hardly appeal to people beyond the borders of West Bengal. Further, the clear deterioration of West Bengal and its fall into abyss of the financial mess and religious polarization testimonies her failures as a chief minister. In short, she is one of the most ineligible person for the job of Prime Minister. So, her cries of political vendetta might logically have any takers. Moreover, the country hasn’t forgotten her party’s involvement in the Sarada Chitfund and sudden increase of deposits in Bengal (the highest recorded so far across India) too rises several doubts. Notwithstanding these, if Banerjee continues to stir new controversies with fanatical allegations, she might soon earn severe censure and rebuke of Indian public.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Forced Repatriation of Afghan Refugees by Pakistan

The tide of refugee crisis has been on rise in the 21^st century. The ongoing wars in the Middle East, dictatorial regimes in North Africa, decades long war in Afghanistan, ethnic conflicts in Myanmar resulted in forcible displacement of millions of hapless individuals from their native countries. While the exodus of refugees to Europe, fleeing of Rohingya Muslims have been widely debated, forced migration of Afghan refugees is hardly discerned. Termed as the “worst migration crisis since World War II” in Europe, refugee crisis is now included under the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) agenda of the UN.

Tormented by eternal conflicts, people from Afghanistan have been fleeing to safer havens for the past three decades. Afghanistan is indeed one of the largest producer of refugees. Ever since the Afghan revolution of 1978 followed by Soviet invasion in 1979, civil war in 1990 and oppressive Taliban regime millions of Afghans began migrating to various countries. In the past thirty years, over 2.4 million Afghan refugees crossed over to Pakistan and mostly settled in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Baluchistan provinces (1.4 million are registered refugees). But now the unprecedented return of these refugees overwhelms Afghanistan.

Ever since Peshawar School attacks by Pakistan Taliban in December 2014, Pakistan has renewed it campaign of humiliation and harassment towards Afghan refugees. They were literally hounded to leave Pakistan. In the first six weeks after the attack around 33,000 refugees were forced to migrate. From Feb 2015, Pakistan authorities began raiding houses of Afghan refugees and steadily mounting pressure to leave the country. Refugees as a last resort began bribing Pakistan Officials to defer repatriations. But now refugees having run out of money, decided to leave the country rather than face increasing hostility and extortion of Pakistan security forces.

As per official records of the manned Tokhram Gate exit, the average number of returnees which was thousand per day in 2015 increased to four to five thousand. As per, UN’s emergency aid coordination body OCHA, around 538,100 Afghans returned home. Border crossings have increased ever since Pakistan announced deadline of March 31^st 2017 for deportation. Pakistan’s contemptible crackdown on Afghans has come under severe criticism. In 2002 Pakistan signed for a voluntary repatriation of Afghan refugees with United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and Afghanistan. But it was never duty bound and began forcibly expelling refugee ever since. Amidst growing incidents of extortion, harassment, and intimidation Afghan refugees are forced to return.

Incidentally, most refugees in thirties born in Pakistan or have migrated when they were too young had made Pakistan their motherland. The ordeal of these desolate refugees back into their country in war for the past 15 years is going to be disastrous. With war becoming increasingly menacing in Afghanistan and Taliban controlling over dozen provinces, the conditions in Afghanistan have steadily deteriorated. Now it is burdened by the baffling internal displacement where people from the Taliban controlled cities and towns are moving into hinterlands. Thus, as many as 300,000 internally displaced Afghans have become refugees in their own country. With the arrest of Sharbat Gula, National Geographic cover page fame, now aged 44 in Peshawar on November 9^th, the widespread crackdown of Pakistan has come to limelight. Gula aged 12, with her piercing green eyes symbolized the plight of Afghan refugees who fled to Pakistan during the Soviet War. She was arrested for holding a fake Pakistan identity card and was deported to Afghanistan with her four children.

Afghans embroiled by the unrelenting war, selling off their assets began knocking the doors of Europe for asylum. Afghans are the second largest asylum seekers in Europe. The continent inundated by the exodus of refugees from Syria began tightening controls. Germany which has sheltered largest numbers of refugees indicated that asylum seekers from Afghanistan which largely included the urban middle class must go back to their country and help in nation building. They were denied any asylum. Moreover, European Union firmly believed that Syria is in war zone but didn’t consider Afghanistan being in war zone despite substantial increase in civilian casualties and deteriorating security situation. EU subsequently evolved a policy that bestowed asylum status to Syrians Only. At a conference in Brussels attended by 70 donor countries in October, EU pledged $15.2 billion towards reconstruction of Afghanistan until 2020 apart from the $5billion a year for military. In return Afghanistan, must take back the 200,000 asylum seekers who thronged Europe. While both parties indicated that the offer of funding is not subject to Afghanistan accepting back the refugees EU’s persistence indicates otherwise.

Iran which is home to over 1 million Afghan refugees is now coercing them to return. While the Afghan Hazaras who are Shia Muslims are recruited to fight their wars in Middle East, the rest are persuaded to go back.  Able-bodied, young, Afghans are lured to join Iranian forces with an offer of Iranian citizenship. Desperate Afghan refugees are quickly grabbing this offer as prospects of employment and better living conditions back home are bleak. Iran is thus using the refugees as Expendable soldiers for hegemony wars.

Sadly, forced deportation of Afghan refugees is hardly evincing any international opprobrium. Three decades of war has reduced Afghanistan to shambles. Propitious developments in 2001 offered some cheer. But rampant corruption, political infighting pushed the nation into abyss. Further, resurgence of Taliban vanquished all hopes to revival for Afghanistan.  

Issues of Contention

While Pakistan claims that Afghans are returning voluntarily, ground picture indicates otherwise. Pakistan’s forced expulsions have deeper connotations and reflects growing fissures between both countries. After the Peshawar attacks in December 2014, Pakistan grew more suspicious and sought regulation of goods and men through border crossings. New Afghan President Ashraf Ghani made every attempt to forge closer ties with Pakistan. Through the Quadrilateral Coordination Group, Pakistan promised to facilitate peace talks between Taliban and Afghan government and pledged to work towards restoring peace in Afghanistan. On the contrary, emboldened by the support from Pakistan deep state, Taliban began to launch massive offensive on Afghanistan. Owing to breach of trust, bilateral relations strained. By April 2016 Afghanistan and Pakistan agreed to regulate the movement whereby Afghans were mandated to produce authorized travel documents to cross the mountainous Torkham exit. Later Afghans residing in Torkham area were ordered to evacuate. Over 300 families were forced to leave and their houses were bulldozed. In May, with the death of Mullah Mansour, chief of Afghan Taliban by the US in a drone attack, the relations between the countries touched a new low. Afghanistan welcomed this development, and questioned the intent of Pakistan for sheltering anti-Afghan elements. Afghanistan subsequently called off the peace talks with Taliban mediated Pakistan and denounced its duplicity. Irked Pakistan began to impose restrictions on entry of Afghan nationals through Torkham Gate. Meanwhile, Islamabad started building barbed fencing at the Torkham crossing despite Afghani objections. Tensions between the countries escalated leading to exchange of firing. Harassment of Afghans refugee increased post-Torkham Gate border skirmishes.

During the same period, India has reached out to Afghanistan and both countries revived the traditional linkages by signing the Trilateral Transit Agreement of the Chabahar port, India built a Parliament Complex in Kabul, dedicated Salma dam, pledged economic aid of $1 billion, supplied refurbished battle tanks and helicopters. Afghanistan deepened strategic partnership with India and firmly supported New Delhi’s isolate Pakistan doctrine by deciding not to participate in SAARC Summit. Pakistan in a bid to exert pressure on Afghan government from honing bilateral ties with India intensified its attempts to evict Afghan refugees. Under the garb of counter terrorism operations, Pakistan resorted to arbitrary arrests, detention, harassment, and conducted police raids on Afghan refugees. Unarguably while Afghan refugees have changed the political, economic, cultural, societal contour of Pakistan its deliberate expulsions might eventually lead to a humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. Paradoxically while Pakistan is keen on deporting Afghan refugees it rather tight-lipped on the expulsion of Quetta Shura, the Afghan Taliban militant organization that operates from Baluchistan.

With winter approaching UN is making pleas to donors for assistance. UNCHR announced that its facilitated repatriation program which provides $400 for every refugee as a going-home package has paused its cash grants from November 1^st to March 1^st.  Pakistan has set a deadline of March 31^st for Afghan refugees to leave. With deadline, so close, all the registered refugees with valid proof of residence would thus be left with no choice but to leave Pakistan with the cash in grants of UN.

While registered refugees have some reprieve, the situation of 1 million undocumented refugees is grievous. After 2007, Pakistan stopped registering depriving them of the proof of residency cards. These undocumented refugees are not eligible for cash grants. They are vulnerable to abuse and are more likely leave Pakistan under pressure. While the deportations have come down in November due to winter, the forced migration may invite severe backlash. Pakistan must seriously reconsider its approach towards Afghan refugees else the brewing humanitarian catastrophe in Afghanistan may spill over.

@ Copyrights reserved.