Can the Biden Cabinet Picks with Obama-era foreign policy approach forestall China’s expansionism?

Curtains are not yet finally drawn over the US Presidential elections 2020. Marked by the absence of a traditional concession speech or a congratulatory message, the piling law suits contesting the results in six swing states is raising doubts over the electoral process.  In tune with democratic functioning, despite resistance, Biden and Harris started receiving daily national security and diplomacy briefings.

Close to three weeks to elections, the outcome remains shrouded. Assuaging fears, Trump has authorised the Biden transition and on Monday, Biden announced his Cabinet pick. Backing the announcement of six names with a tweet of “America is Back”, Biden has grandiosely conveyed the return to Multilateral diplomacy.

The Cabinet appointees dominated by the Obama era- old establishment underscored the message of “American exceptionalism”. Through the choice of appointments of Anthony Bilken as US Secretary of State, Jake Sullivan as national security advisor, Alejandro Mayorkas as chief of homeland security, Linda Thomas-Greenfield as US ambassador to the UN, Avril Haines as director of intelligence and John Kerry as special presidential envoy of climate, Biden has signalled America’s return to Obama era foreign diplomacy. Dominated by the Ivy League diplomats, Biden administration will end Trump’s isolationist policies and “America First” and reinstate cooperation and amicable working with allies. Notably, post-Biden’s announcement, China’s Xi congratulated the President-Elect on his electoral victory.

Biden’s ascent to power, comes at a time when the “American exceptionalism” is in doldrums and the World Order build by it is under threat from China. Appointment of Washington insiders with experience in policy making, signalled a more predictable foreign policy replete of ruthless isolation and toppling of regimes, and a reticent and cautious China policy.

Trump’s transactional foreign policy a radical departure from the previous regimes led to spin-offs with traditional allies. Biden’s Presidentship will be a return to normalcy. But what has changed from Obama era to Biden is the China’s steady rise. China’s influence is no longer confined to its sphere of influence.

Earlier, crippling American sanctions could bring any regime to its knees. But now regimes refusing to surrender to America are reaching out to Beijing. Be it North Korea or Iran they are finding a patron in China. The rise of China has created new economic and geopolitical realities. Hence pursuing policies of American unilateralism are no longer going to work. Even as the discourse is dominated by the issues of bringing about domestic stability in the aftermath of deeply divided and contested elections, foreign policy recalibration has to prioritised by Biden administration.

With the conclusion of RCEP, China has demonstrated its keenness in reshaping the geopolitics in the Indo-Pacific region. It is steadily cementing its role as the centre of the Indo-Pacific region. On November 18^th, The US State Department’s Office of Policy Planning has released an unclassified paper, “Elements of China Challenge” along the lines of George Kennan’s idea of “containment” as a strategy to take on Soviet Union in 1947.

The 70-page document released days after elections made some important suggestions and laid out ten tasks for the American administration¹. The Memo states that China is wedded to the 20^th Century Marxist-Leninist dictatorship and has triggered “a new era of great-power competition”. For the first time in this paper, America highlighted CCP’s determination to remake world order and its quest for global pre-eminence.

China Observers has warned America that, “the prolonged failure in China policy can turn out to be biggest US policy deficiency in the past seven decades, given the accumulating dangerous strategic consequences of the rise of Chinese power for the world order as well as United States and its allies and its friends”. But American leaderships failed to see this coming. Characteristically, categorising people as either Hawks or Doves, deluding in an illusion of hope of maintaining American power, the US failed to accept the realities.

With regard to Indo-Pacific region, which America helped to develop after World War-II, the paper noted, “Near to medium strategy (of China) will be using military capabilities, operational concepts and over all doctrines to turn US’s military’s technological strengths in Indo-Pacific into weaknesses by credibly threatening to deliver massive punishment against America power projection forces while thwarting US ability to provide reinforcement… The PRC’s strategy is not only to prevail but also to demoralise America friends and partners by demonstrating that US can’t meet security commitments in the region”. This strategy which is pertinent to Taiwan will be slowly extended to other countries.

Strategic import of the observations of the Elements of China Challenge especially in the context of Indo-Pacific region are salient. Cognisant of the strategic importance of the region, Obama launched “Pivot to Asia”. Despite the policy, during his eight-year regime, China formidably established its dominance in the entire region and defiantly undermined the International Arbitration without battling an eyelid. The rest of the World including America fretted and frowned but failed to inflict any punishment for this brazen defiance.

Despite the contesting views about the recommendations and observations of the policy paper, to his credit, President Trump have definitely understood the game plan of China and identified competitive threats. But he couldn’t come up with a coherent and consistent strategy initially. After the outbreak of the pandemic he cemented his approach. His strategy towards reasserting American position in Indo-Pacific- like revamping the Quad in 2017 to renaming the US Pacific Command as Indo-Pacific Command, elevating the Quad to Foreign Ministers summit and finally the Quadrilateral Malabar exercise, Trump made all the right moves.

By convening of the Quad with three new partners South Korea, Vietnam and New Zealand to synergise efforts during the Wuhan virus outbreak, the US has espoused interest to step up its engagement with the region. Originally in 2013, The Quad Plus Dialogue was launched which included Quad and Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore, Taiwan, France and Sri Lanka. Now US is reconnecting with these partners. In October after conclusion of the Foundational Agreement BECA with India during the 2+2 Ministerial dialogue, Secretary Mike Pompeo travelled to Sri Lanka, the Maldives and Indonesia to kick start collaborations, establish resilient supply chains, reduce China’s influence and boost the Indo-Pacific Strategy.

Upping ante against China, America welcomed the head of the Tibetan government in-exile Dr Lobsang Sangay at the White House for the first time in six decades². Asserting that China has no role to choose the next the Dalai Lama, US House of Representatives has passed a resolution titled-“Affirming the significance of the genuine autonomy of the Tibetans in the People’s Republic of China and the work his Holiness the 14^th Dalai Lama has done to promote global peace, harmony and understanding”, Congressman Ted Yoho called for a teleconference between Congressmen and the Dalai Lama to discuss peaceful solutions to international conflicts³. While these acts are bound to rile China, Trump steadily buttressed American influence in the region.

NSA Robert O’Brien on his visit to Vietnam and the Philippines reassured these countries which have maritime disputes with China of all support in case of any external attack⁴.

Reiterating America’s position on Taiwan, Pompeo claimed, “Taiwan has not been part of China” in a radio interview. Recounting the work of Taiwanese expert, Bruce Jacobs of Monash University, he said, “since the arrival of the Dutch in 1624, Taiwan has been ruled by six colonial rulers, The Dutch, the Spanish, the Cheng family, the Manchu Empire, The Japanese and the Chinese Nationalists…. and Taiwan was part of China only during the Civil war from 1945-49 and has never been part of PRC, a nation with a notably distinct culture and state”⁵. By calling the bluff of China’s bombastic claims, Pompeo has set the record straight and invited China’s wrath. But Pompeo’s straight talking has definitely earned America a critical acclaim in Taiwan.

Notwithstanding the Presidential transition, in the backdrop of conclusion of RCEP, America and Taiwan have signed five-year agreement on health, technology and security⁶. Drumming up American support, Indo-Pacific Commanding Officer, Rear Admiral Michael Studeman visited Taiwan⁷. By setting new precedent through high-level visits, Trump administration is clearly sending a message to Beijing of Taiwan having America’s back. With China’s voices of attacking Taiwan growing shriller, Trump administration has been concomitantly ramping up support and cooperation with Taiwan.

Going ahead, while Taiwan might become an issue of contention in Sino-US relations, Trump has chosen to play a hard game with China. In sharp contrast to Trump’s bilateral approach, Biden has been a proponent of multilateral approach. These differential approaches are bound to generate concerns especially in Taiwan.

By upping ante against China and reaching out to partners and allies in the Indo-Pacific, Trump is attempting to make up dwindling American credibility and challenging China’s dominance in the region. Trump has certainly achieved some closeness with Asian countries. On the contrary, Biden refusal to take a call from President Tsai-Ing Wen of Taiwan and allowing Blinken to talk to his counterpart implied an eventual attenuation of US-Taiwan ties.

Barring the campaign rhetoric where Biden called China a “thug”, he lacked a clear-eye approach of the threat posed by China in Indo-Pacific region. Reckoned as a “consensus-builder” “and centrist with strong streak of interventionism”, Biden’s secretary Blinken can hardly take on a super ambitious China determined to displace America as World’s foremost power.

Unlike Trump, Biden fails to inspire the fence-sitting Indo-Pacific countries grappling the aggressive policies of China. Through a steady engagement and an inspiring outreach, Trump has laid a foundation for a robust Free, Open, Prosperous and Inclusive Indo-Pacific. Biden’s choice of candidates replete of globalists and liberalists with a propensity for nonagenarian Kissinger’s counsel of “to go easy on China” can hardly backstop China’s unabated expansionism

@ Copyrights reserved.

Ethiopia, led by a Nobel Peace Winner, on the brink of Civil War

It has been more than three weeks and the ethnic conflict in Ethiopia is showing no signs of abatement. While the exact number of deaths which now runs into thousands is not clearly known, over 40,000 people mostly from the northern most province of Ethiopia, Tigray are arriving in Sudan triggering a humanitarian crisis along Ethiopia-Sudan border.

UN appeals for mediation has hardly found any takers. Though African Union (AU) announced to send an envoy to mediate, Ethiopian regime countered the report as fake. Peace eludes the region with Ethiopian Prime Minister Ahmed Abiy’s, declaring that the campaign has entered “Final Phase”. Government forces have issued a 72-hr ultimatum to TPLF (Tigray Peoples Liberation Front) to surrender. The ultimatum ends today and signs of easing of tensions are at large.

As of now, government troops captured the city of Adrigat and inching towards Mekele the capital of Tigray province, the heart of the conflict. In retaliation, the rebel forces have reportedly destroyed airport in the ancient town of Axum, a UNESCO world heritage site¹. Auxm, is claimed to be Oldest centres of Christianity and houses ruins.

Ethnic conflicts are not new to Ethiopia. Aside the conflict, the role of two individuals in now under scanner, Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, Nobel Peace Prize winner and Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of World Health Organisation. Since the outbreak of Wuhan virus, Tedros dominated news for bad reasons than good.  Tedros served as the Health Minister of Ethiopia between 2005 and 2016 when TPLF was dominant force and was part of the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF).

In the wake of brewing conflict, Ethiopian Army chief, alleged that Tedros, the most influential Tigrayan is attempting to secure weapons and backing of international forces for TPLF². Though Tedros quickly denounced these charges, given his complicity in the pandemic spread and the extensive one-sided account of the Ethiopian conflict by internationally reputed journals, people are confounded.

Abiy on the other hand, was conferred 2019 Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of his stellar efforts to restore peace and resolving the prolonged border dispute with neighbouring Eritrea. By bringing together 110 million Ethiopians belonging to over 80 ethnicities and introducing a wave of reforms like- removing censors on media, release of political prisoners, welcoming exiles back home and instituting faith in democratic process, Abiy showed a promise of transforming the country riddled by ethnic disputes and long-standing conflicts with neighbouring Eritrea.

Over the past 60 years, Ethiopia bore the brunt of successive repressive regimes that crushed dissent. Barely two years into power, ushering country into a realm of reforms, Abiy’s won plaudits from across the globe. Reposing faith in his reformist zeal, Nobel Committee, perhaps, pre-maturely heaped highest honour as a larger message. A year after the award, Ethiopia reached a boil, inching towards civil war and the country is on brink.

Abiy, an ethnic Oromo, a software engineer and former Army intelligence officer belonging to the Oromo Democratic Party (ODP) one of the coalition partners of EPRDF clinched power in 2018. TPLF representing Tigrayans- comprising of 6% of the population, has been the dominant party of EPRDF. Two years into power, differences between the four coalition partners of EPRDF began to spiral. To consolidate power, and steer away from an ethic federalism bequeathed by constituted by earlier TPLF regime, Abiy launched a political platform, Prosperity Party (PP). He called upon all the ethnic parties to join PP. Threatened by Abiy’s rise, TPLF felt slighted and refused to join the coalition.  

Tensions and conflict are not new to Ethiopia, whose history is replete of repressive regimes. Since the imperial rule of Emperor Haile Selassie in 1934 which was briefly disrupted by the Mussolini’s conquest and eventually take over of the country between 1936 and 1941 and Halie Selassie’s return to power till 1974, Ethiopia was under dictatorship.

In 1974 following a civil unrest a provincial administrative committee of soldiers termed “Dreg” instituted a socialist government headed by Mengistu Haile Mariam to administer. He unleashed “Red Terror” that claimed 750,000 lives. In early 1980s the Marxist-Leninist group along with indigenous independent movements which later transformed into EPRDF, rebelled against the Mengistu government and forced him to flee the country³.

In 1991 EPRDF formed the government with Oromo Liberation Front (OLF). Eritrea also gained independence. But OLF soon parted ways. By 1994, a new constitution, working through a federal political system granted “all people’s the right of self-determination”. But this arrangement failed to empower the provinces and they could exercise their autonomy as long as it didn’t interfere with the interests of the EPRDF.

For all the grand talk of ethnic balance, EPRDF which ruled Ethiopia disproportionately made TPLF powerful. TPLF, the main force behind the guerrilla war and the rebellion which ousted the Dreg remained supreme. TPLF led by powerful men and strong army could turn down any government.

In 2016, following the intense backlash from the majority Oromo community though TPLF acceded Abiy’s leadership, it retained firm grip over the governance machinery. Most of the administrative jobs and other power positions were held by Tigrayans.

Following TPLF’s refusal to join the PP, for the first time, Tigrayans found themselves out of power. Concerned of their deteriorating influence, TPLF cried foul after Abiy announced postponement of elections due to surging Wuhan virus cases. Much to the consternation of the government, TPLF went ahead and held elections in September. A month after elections, Abiy sent a new Northern Command General to Tigray, but the government rejected his authority and sent him back.

Tensions roiled after Abiy declared the elections illegal and disbanded the government. He purged Tigrayan leaders from the government and riled them up. Soon Tigrayan troops began defecting the Northern Command of Federal government and making away with arms and ammunition. Battle hardened able Tigrayans are joining TPLF rebels.

On November 4^th, TPLF Ethiopian National Defence Forces base and tried to sped away with artillery and military equipment. Federal government declared, “the last redline has been crossed” and ordered air strikes and military campaign against TPLF⁵. Soon, Tigray borders were closed, communication snapped and media was blacked out.

In the meanwhile, the murder of popular singer Haacaaluu towards the end of June, considered as cultural asset of Ethiopia, postponement of elections, arrest of opposition leaders on charges of incitement of tensions, fuelled resentment among the people who hit the streets. Federal government used force, restrained press and ordered closure of Oromo media outlet to contain the spreading unrest. These acts raised apprehensions about the Abiy’s stated democratic reforms⁴.

Cofounding worst fears of analysts, the conflict snowballed raising fears of drawing in neighbouring Eritrea, Egypt and Sudan. Meanwhile, conflicts erupted in neighbouring Amhara region over reports of illegal detentions and arrests.

Egypt and Ethiopia are at loggerheads with each other over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. This conflict might accentuate existing dissensions. Having made peace with Eritrea, President Isaias is believed to join hands with Abiy in their common fight against TPLF. Just a week into the ethnic strife, TPLF launched missiles on the Eritrean capital Asmara and drew Eritrea into this conflict⁶.

Eritrea harbours UAE bases and tensions in the country can destabilise the Horn of Africa. Sudan has already deployed its forces along the Tigrayan-Sudan border. Sudan’s ousted dictator Omar Bashir has close links with TPLF. Incidentally, if the war intensifies and Sudan which has territorial dispute with Ethiopia opens borders for rebels and extends support to TPLF, then the disaster will engulf the entire region.

US considers Ethiopia as an important ally in the region and can play a crucial role in mediating the conflict.  By removing Sudan from the terrorism list and extending $33 million humanitarian assistance⁷ and supporting Egypt in Nile water negotiations Trump administration has tampered America’s ties with Ethiopia.

Ethiopia is vital for the political, economic stability and security of the region. Countries like China, US, Japan invested heavily in Ethiopia. Last fortnight, Russia signed an agreement with Sudan to establish a naval base close to Port of Sudan⁸. Clearly, Horn of Africa is slowly turning into a hot bed for geopolitical confabulations. Moreover, straddling the major trade transit routes of the Red Sea, peace and stability of Horn of Africa is extremely important.

Prolonged conflict in an ethnic charged Ethiopian country can foment secessionist movements especially in Tigray, Oromia, Amhara, Somali and trigger a civil war. A civil war, can potentially suck in all major countries in the region.

The current conflict is an uphill battle for Abiy forces which against well-trained TPLF rebels. With a faction of Federal troops already fighting Islamic insurgency in Somalia, and another contingent deployed along the Sudan border, Ethiopia is already stretched for resources and facilities.

Prolonged conflict prompting withdrawal of forces from Somalia can plunge the region into chaos and concomitant exodus of refugees during the trying pandemic times can set off an unmanageable humanitarian crisis.

Swift negotiations and intervention of responsible international players can possibly avert a crisis from unfolding.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Why India is Right in Staying Away from RCEP; China’s Geostrategic Tool?

 Timing of RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership) is salient. Just two days to the first anniversary of public knowledge of Wuhan virus outbreak and commencement of second phase of Quad Joint exercise in the Arabian Sea, 15 countries signed RCEP. At a time when the loosely woven Quad, a constellation of democracies is taking shape to emerge as counter weight to China in the Indo-Pacific, members of Quad, Japan and Australia have acceded to China-led and China-driven RCEP. The ambiguity of these and other Indo-Pacific nations is incomprehensible.

In response to Chinese aggressive expansionism, Trump administration has resurrected the Quad and even made FOIP, the major concept of its foreign policy. After 12 years, The Quadrilateral Malabar exercises, teeming solidarity and friendship began gaming exercises in the first week of November as a strategic message to China the region. Barely the message would have sunk into the CCP (Chinese Communist Party), RCEP saw light of the day.

China conceived RCEP in 2012, to counter growing influence of the US in the Asia-Pacific. After eight years of negotiations, on November 15^th, 10 ASEAN Nations, China, South Korea, Japan, Australia and New Zealand have signed RCEP, the largest free trading arrangement. RCEP includes the second and third largest global economies, makes up for one third of global population and 30% of Global GDP. India has been initial negotiating partner of RCEP. But last year, India pulled out after RCEP failed to address its concerns.

Perturbed by the prospect of China writing trading rules for the Asia-Pacific, Obama envisaged Tran-Pacific Partnership (TPP) comprising of Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam but excluded China. In 2017, Trump administration withdrew from TPP. After US exit, Japan took the lead and formed Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans Pacific Partnership (CPATPP). RCEP and CPATPP have seven common partners in the Asia-Pacific region. RCEP’s conclusion has given China a clear edge over the US in the region. Written with Chinese characters, RCEP unlike CPATPP doesn’t include any provisions for labour and environment.

RSCI

Reeling under the impact of the Wuhan pandemic, nations vowed to decouple and restructure their trade supplies. Japan, Australia and India launched Resilient Supply Chain Initiative (RSCI) in September to build resilient supply chains. The moot point has been to diversify sourcing across various sectors to minimise risk from disruption and enhance resilience. Wuhan pandemic caused a disruption of global supplies sourced from China in the initial stages of the outbreak. While China quickly recovered and restored supplies, the impact has been felt across the globe. To avoid such recurrence in future steering an alternate course for new geostrategic realm, countries wanted to disengage and reposition supplies to countries which posed no security threats. The larger objective of RSCI has been to build multi-country initiative.

RSCI was spurred by strong security and political concerns as well. Wary of Chinese history of using trade as a strategic weapon, nations envisaged this new idea. The genesis of this proposal had its roots in the trade spats with Australia, contesting claims over Japan’s Senkaku island and the prolonged stand-off with India across the LAC. Coming in the wake of Japan offering subsidies to companies relocating from China to South East Asia, India and Bangladesh this proposal eventually shaped into an anti-China alliance symbolising emergence of an initiative along geopolitical lines. It also pointed to fashioning of new global economic order where strategic partnerships are fortified by robust economic diplomacy.

In the backdrop of such alternative grandiose plans, conclusion of China-driven RCEP has raised doubts over the strategic perspectives of the signatories. ASEAN countries have been circumspect of China’s ambitious hegemonic expansionism. Australia openly rebuked China’s coercive diplomacy and mercantilist approach. Japan is raising alarm over Chinese frequent incursions. Post-THAAD installation, China imposed trade sanctions on South Korea. New Zealand and Australia are intimidated by China’s growing influence in the Pacific Islands. Notwithstanding the growing disaffections, nations displayed no compunctions to align their economic fortunes with China.

A popular counter argument is now piquantly played in support of signatories- stung by recession, swayed by perception of lower tariffs of free trading regime like RCEP might fuel growth, countries have huddled to sign the agreement. But all of them clearly missed the forest for the woods. With India out of the deal, the gains are projected to be marginal. China is going to be the major beneficiary of RCEP.

For all the devastation inflicted by the China-originated Wuhan pandemic, countries are rewarding China by sourcing their supplies and allowing access to their markets. By signing RCEP countries undermined China’s hegemonistic behaviour and lent Beijing a strategic handle to mangle their economies. They inadvertently created a benign external environment which will act as driver for Chinese economy.

RCEP is China’s geostrategic tool

RCEP is China’s geostrategic tool. China has been stealthily expediting RCEP negotiations, to deepen its integration with Asian economy and to offset the damage suffered by the US trade war¹. With India and the US, the two major balancing forces staying away from RCEP, Beijing is at the verge of evolving a China-centric Asian economic order. With India out of the picture, China will opportunistically reassert itself in the Asia-Pacific region, thwart the evolving Indo-Pacific fabric where India’s role as major regional power is acknowledged.

With concerns of a smooth transition of power in the US abound, roping in Japan and Australia, strong advocates of FOIP into RCEP, Beijing has consolidated its influence over the region. Trump for all his fallacies understood Chinese game plan and propped up the concept of Indo-Pacific, renamed US Pacific Command as Indo-Pacific Command as a strategic message to China. Went hammer and tongs after China over the mounting trade surplus.

President elect Joe Biden’s ambiguous messaging is a reprieve to China which is steadily cementing its position as a major economic and military superpower of the region. Lured by economic gains, nations let China scot free despite the havoc wrecked by China originated Wuhan pandemic. Economic gains apart, China duped nations and successfully regained dominance over the global supply chains.

Europe is slowly waking up to a reality of a 21^st Century, dominated by Sino-centric Asia. Manfred Weber, leader of the European People’s Party, began advocating for a “new transatlantic agenda” and pronounced the need for an urgent re-unification of the Western World to battle China³.

India withdraws from RCEP

India is privy to Beijing’s nefarious tactics since independence. Still New Delhi went out of way to accommodate Chinese interests and facilitated its global rise by openly pitching for its UNSC membership. In reciprocation, India was handed over the most humiliating defeat, years of creeping expansionist attempts and tumultuous encirclement.

China’s empty talk of “shared future” and tall claims of “win-win cooperation” through various flagship initiatives remain a myth. It is interesting that ASEAN, Japan, Australia, New Zealand which expressed concerns and raised alarm over the pursuits of the hegemon have given into the financial pressure. 

By staying away from RCEP, India has made a point. The open-ended Indo-Sino logjam across the LAC, during the pandemic has irrevocably changed New Delhi’s approach towards China. Galwan clashes has hardened its stance. Reiterating, business can’t be as usual, India upped ante against China, banned popular gaming app PUBG mobile and 223 apps with Chinese links citing security reasons¹ and began decoupling.

India owes its present geopolitical profile to a formidable growth trajectory in highly competitive sectors. There is a growing recognition that, “international relations have increasingly come to be shaped by economic relations”. In this context, New Delhi is facing strident criticism from certain quarters for staying away from RCEP, believed to trigger growth. Fears of India losing out of the economic race for failing to accede to RCEP are abound. Some critics even alluded to this move as India’s regression into a pre-1991 scenario.

Rebutting these concerns Foreign Minister Jaishankar said, “the recent debate on RCEP offers lessons in foreign policy as much as in trade domain. On the one hand, we should not go back to the old dogma of economic autarky and import substitution. But at the same time embracing the new dogma of globalisation without cost benefit analysis is equally dangerous…. We negotiated till the very end, as we should. Then knowing what was on offer, we took a call. And that call was that no agreement at this time was better than a bad agreement.”⁴

With regard to cost benefit analysis, Ministry of Finance report pointed that FTA with ASEAN countries has risen the trade deficits from $5 billion in 2010 to $22 billion. While India’s abysmally poor manufacturing is a major cause of concern, misuse of FTA route is found to be impacting the domestic industry and widening trade margins.

Certainly, India has to buckle up its manufacturing sector to stay competitive. Atma Nirbhar Bharat approach to enhance resilience of country has all the attributes to revive the economy. To plug the loopholes of FTA, India has notified Customs authority to stringently implement, “Rules of Origin Under FTA”⁵. It is anybody’s guess as which products are inundating Indian markets. Over the years India is paying hefty price for the non-reciprocal FTAs which exempt service sector.

It is common knowledge that China leveraged initiatives are devoid of “openness and efficiency”. Clarifying India’s stand, Jaishankar, stated that India is not averse to free trade pacts which are “fair and balanced” with EU as opposed to RCEP which would have “negative consequences”. FTA with EU is no cake walk. Given, EU’s growing scepticism and disenchantment with China, EU might be keen on exploring new alternatives to cement trade ties with India. Besides, India is also swiftly working towards conclusion of FTA with America.

Having ceded billions of dollars as trade deficit to China, India has learnt its lessons the hard way…. Currently, 20 negotiations for bilateral FTAs are underway. Clearly India is not ready to give into “agreements that are FTAs by stealth with China”. RCEP is clearly not the end of the road for India. RCEP will eventually take several months or years to come into effect. At least six ASEAN members and three non-ASEAN members should ratify for RCEP to kick in.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Expansionism, the Cultural DNA of China: The curious case of Cambodia

 Giving wings to its super ambitious, “national rejuvenation” centenary goal, China is quietly preparing ground to establish a sphere of influence in East Asia.  Striving towards the great-power status, China is attempting to reshape, alter and redefine the existing World view to foster its interests. While overtly formulating the core concepts of “non-interest, non-confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation”, universally accepted principals for a peaceful and stable World order, Beijing has been diligently giving shape to traditional, “tributary system”, the core of its Cultural DNA. This system has been a quintessential way to exercise hegemony.

Indeed, the Chinese leaders are no more dismissive calling this system the “natural order” alludes Gordan G Chang, author of The Coming Collapse of China. Firmly believing in “tian xia” meaning “All under Heaven” patronised by one Emperor, appointed by well-defined principles of an order, who is centre of the system and all others as subordinates, China is cultivating vassal states; most of them immediate neighbours with an underlying paradigm of “neighbours should trust China to lead and to do the right thing”¹.

Close on heels, addressing tri-services at Longewala on the occasion of Deepavali, making no effort to conceal India’s exasperation with China, Prime Minister Modi said, “Today, the world is troubled by expansionist forces. Expansionism is, in a way, a mental disorder and reflects 18^th century thinking. India is also becoming a strong voice against this thinking”². While Modi refrained from taking Beijing’s name, his intended message coming days after the conclusion of eight round of commander level talks is an unambiguous indication.

For over six months India and China are locked in fierce stand-off. After the November 6^th talks, both countries have agreed to restore the statusquo ante along the LAC. China agreed to go back to finger 8^th at the Pangong Tso region and remove all the temporary structures between Finger 4 and 8. Both parties agreed to keep this region, “non-patrolable” for foreseeable future. Reports suggested Chinese willingness to a three-step comprehensive package of de-escalation, disengagement and de-induction by April 2021. As has been the precedent, China rejected the claims and indirectly lent credibility to the report.

The current logjam and the 2017 Doklam stand-off have reinforced global narrative of China’s unquenchable expansionism and a propensity for penetrative salami slicing. Given China’s past history, India has adopted the basic premise of “distrust and verify”.

China’s aggressive hegemony in the South China Sea, 99-year lease of Sri Lanka’s Hambantota port, attempts to position along the SLOCs through a base in the Maldives, sneak entry into Myanmar, Bangladesh through enticing connectivity projects, development of sea ports at strategic geographic locations like Piraeus and the first officially declared military base in Djibouti have only mirrored Beijing’s expansionist agenda. These expansionist projects are an off-shoot of the China’s tributary system referred to as Cefeng System.

The CPEC, the crown jewel of BRI which exposed the Sino-Pakistan collusivity and its nefarious anti-India agenda is the closet example of the Chinese Tributary system, wherein the neighbouring countries complied with Chinese authority and sought peace, relations in military force, trade, diplomacy and ritual. To date, the Sino-Pakistan relationship effectively ticked all these boxes, the kind of subordination of Pakistan towards Beijing and their dubious encirclement of India has unravelled the relaunch of Chinese version of Confucian World Order. Similar to the Sino-Pakistan, “all weather-friendship”, which is threatening the peace and security in the Indian Ocean Region, China-Cambodia iron-clad relationship is now posing threat to American interests in the South East Asia.

While the Pakistan-China “all weather- friendship” is well documented, the implications of Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen’s steady march into Chinese orbit went rather unnoticed. Like Pakistan, which refused to suspend flights flying to China after the Corona outbreak, in a testimony to growing friendship, Cambodia imposed no restrictions on Chinese arrivals. Even as the World shuddered the pandemic, as an apparent message, Hun Sen flew to Beijing in February 2020⁷. In the face of growing criticism from the US and other European countries for brazen human rights violation to consolidate his authority President Hun Sen has turned to China. Enthused by China’s no pre-set conditions for economic investments, Cambodia welcomed Beijing with no holds barred approach.

Building on historical cultural, economic ties and their congruity to the communist ideology, both countries fortified ties. The trajectory of ties reached new heights since 2013 with a marked uptick in investment flow under the BRI. As of 2019, FDI from China and Hongkong accounted for 62%. China’s presence in Cambodia soon began ubiquitous accounting for highest number of tourists and investments in tourism sector. With the lucrative Cambodian properties up for scale in Renminbi, Chinese International Travel Service through its extensive network of casinos, malls, high-end restaurants, eventually dominated the tourism sector, the mainstay of Cambodian economy. Firming up the air connectivity, Chinese tourism and aviation sector monopolised their presence in the Cambodian tourist destinations.

Besides property development, pursuing weaponizing water agenda, China established hegemony over the Mekong River basin, the life line of Cambodia. China’s SOE’s constructed eight hydroelectric dams which besides changing the course of the river and depleting the marine life has cause major ecological degradation.

The influx of Chinese money and its fall out has become more pronounced in the sleepy town of Sihanoukvilla, located next to nine Chinese SEZs and adjacent to America’s Ream Naval Base. Instructively, nearly 90% of businesses in the town are Chinese-owned. The town which is veritable hub for gambling has turned into an attractive tourist destination. Nearly all jobs are held by Chinese and the Cambodian are shunted to fringes. Having ceded control to Chinese, Cambodian authorities have virtually lost control over the town, crimes rose, disorder prevailed, infrastructure was torn apart. With no conditions on investments, lakes were turned into dumping yards. Consequently, floods became common.

Facing the uphill task of growing domestic flak and international media criticism, Hun Sen drew even closer to China, which offered help ahead of 2018 elections. Cambodia revoked licences to independent media like Voice of Democracy, Voice of America; charging journalists of espionage, Cambodia eliminated media scrutiny.

Co-opting China, Sen banished opposition, throttled the voices of civil society, press and democratic agencies and garnered every single seat in legislature in the elections. Barring China none of the Western democracies welcomed the electoral verdict. Shortly, Xi announced $600 million grant-in aid to Cambodia ³. Having ceded so much space to China, Cambodia helplessly watched Chinese takeover of the strategic geography of Sihanoukvilla.

Drawing strength from China for its political and economic legitimacy, Sen began to kow-tow China. The elites and even the Royal family are beholden to China. Clinging onto the Chinese loyalty, elites made a fortune by turning a blind eye to China’s mercantilist and predatory practices.

Reciprocating China’s support, Cambodia sided with China on international platforms and voted in favour of China at the UN. Eventually, China used Cambodia to effectively, undermine the ASEAN solidarity and unity. By vetoing joint communiques critical of China since 2012, Cambodia has been serving Beijing’s interests. Speaking at the ASEAN Summit during the pandemic, Sen stated, “we have to avoid racial discrimination and the attitude of blame game”⁴. While in the face of it, it appeared innocuous, he has been defending China indirectly. Similarly, Cambodia has been torpedoing regional interest to pander to China through the Lancang-Mekong Cooperation Forum. To honour “One China” policy, Cambodia even banned public display Taiwanese and Tibetan flags⁸.

Aside the political and economic cooperation, the deepening military ties is concerning. Notwithstanding the pandemic, both countries conducted Golden Dragon joint military exercises which began in 2016⁵.  Back in 2008, Cambodia leased 45,000 hectares of Dara Sakor economic zone in Koh Kong province, 50 km from America’s Ream Naval Base for 99 years to Tianjin Union Development Group. American authorities are now alarmed by the sprawling run way, which is larger than required for commercial flights and the port facilities of Dara Sakor⁶.

Under the garb of connectivity, China has been successfully furthering its military infrastructure across the globe. Despite Beijing’s plausible deniability, Gwadar and Dara Sakor are a testament to China’s ulterior motives.

Despite simmering discontent towards China, the longest serving ruler of Cambodia continues to mollify China to remain in power. With China effectively shielding the despotic regime from pressures of international community, Sen even initiated FTA negotiations in 2019 and concluded the agreement in 2020 making it the destination for China’s industrial over capacity. The corrupt regime at the helm of affairs has turned Cambodia into a vassal state of China with no qualms. Being hand in glove, seizing the opportunity with both hands, China established foot hold in Cambodia. Making the best of Cambodia’s strategic geography, China is affecting strategic calculus of Thailand, Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia.

Acknowledging Cambodia’s solidarity and friendship, Xi presented a Friendship Medal, China’s highest honour to Queen Mother Norodom Monineath Sihanouk during the Royal Couple’s three day visit to Yunnan City⁹. Days after this development, Centre for Strategic and International Services reported the demolition of another building at US Naval facility in Camobodia.

Last year, Cambodia turned down US offer for repair, and The Tactical Command Headquarters (TCH) of the National Committee for Maritime Security (NCMS) at Ream in October. Initially, denying any reports of Chinese involvement, Cambodia announced further plans to expand and relocate the base ¹⁰ to Koh Preap Island. But as tensions between US and China intensified after Taiwan announced the presence of US troops on its soil to offer training, China might have prevailed upon Cambodia to demolish the building.

Ending these speculations, Cambodian Defence Minister clarified the second demolition and confirmed reports of secret deal of allowing the Chinese to use a part of the Ream Naval base for 30 years¹¹. China strategic presence in the Gulf of Thailand will gave a major fillip to expand its surveillance and patrolling in South China Sea (SCS).

China’s dangerous expansionism under the garb of ‘peaceful rise’ has been a myth. These inimical developments in countries like Cambodia are an extension of the Confucian World Order, the World fails to comprehend at its own peril.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Modi’s Undiminished Popularity Delivers Victory for the NDA Alliance in Bihar

 

Just days after a closely contested US Presidential elections, India is also witnessing a nail-biting number crunching game in the Bihar assembly elections. Unfortunately, the similarities don’t end there. The exalted liberal brigade, uncannily firmed a theory that akin to Joe Biden, Tejashwi Yadav of RJD would romp home victory. Besides predicting a landslide and sufficiently pushing this narrative, they spelled doom for the NDA. Interestingly, in what can be a repeat of the US election scenario, none of the exit polls in India hasn’t ever predicted a possible victory for the NDA.

In contravention to the prophesised theories, Bihar assembly elections turned out be a closely contested affair with the outcomes down to the wire. The wafer- thin margins sealing the fate of the candidates has kept election watchers on the edge of the seat. Bihar polls registered a fairly decent turnout of 57% despite the COVID. But the wait for the results has turned into a long-drawn affair. The 63% increase in polling booths due to COVID restrictions, has caused much delay in declaration of poll outcomes. Since the beginning NDA maintained a fragile lead, giving anxious moments to Mahaghatbhandan. But by and large, the massive swing in the outcomes has changed has turned into a nail-biting affair.

At the time of writing, NDA comprising of, BJP, JDU, Jitin Ram Manjhi’s Hindustani Awam Morcha (Secular) and Mukesh Sahani’s Vikassheel Insaan Party have crossed the majority mark. BJP with a strike rate of 66% has reiterated that Modi magic is still intact. Given the poor show of JD (U) afflicted by the anti-incumbency factor, BJP’s stellar performance has saved the NDA from a defeat.

Enthused by Joe Biden’s triumph, the Liberal brigade in India, inundated a narrative drawing parallels between the US elections and Bihar polls, where there exists none, declared the outcome of the Bihar assembly elections as referendum on Modi.

Since Modi’s spectacular return to power in 2019 with absolute majority, NDA executed landmark legislations like abrogation of article 370, triple talaq, CAA which unsettled the liberals. Upping ante against the government, the brigade whipped up tensions and orchestrated communal riots to push nation into unrest. Sabotaging this nefarious agenda, BJP government came out unscathed. Stung by COVID pandemic and a punitive Chinese transgression across the LAC, BJP government entered a mission mode to wade through these exigencies.

COVID pandemic unprecedented global disruption. Many world leaders were found either biting dust or facing public ignominy for poor COVID management. In sharp contrast, Prime Minister Modi, leading a country of 1.35 billion with limited health resources seemed to have fared better. Through national wide lockdown, during the initial stages of viral outbreak, Modi strategized to curtail viral spread. This unannounced lockdown has caused severe distress and economic hardships to various sections of the society. Sufferings of the migrant workers, loss of livelihoods across the country has emerged as major challenge. Prime Minister faced severe criticism putting the lives and livelihoods of several millions of workers at risk. Government’s financial measures and the “Atma Nirbhar” project was derided as too little too late.

Left-liberals continued to attack the government for the insufficient measures, economic recession and jeopardizing lives of migrants. Despite the scathing attacks, Modi’s popularity remained intact. A Lokniti-CSDS survey indicated that 78% were satisfied with Prime Minister’s handling of pandemic 1. Undermining the national reality, opposition continued to slander which gained more ground after Joe Biden’s victory. They even anticipated a gloom and doom for the NDA in the 2024 elections.

Most Indian media exit poll surveys went horribly wrong. Out of the bye-elections held for the 59 seats in 11 states, BJP won 40 seats. With a clean sweep in Gujarat (8/8), Telangana (1/1) and 6 out of 7 seats in UP, BJP has demonstrated its pan-India presence and electoral dominance. While this performance can alone indicate the resounding consolidation of BJP and its massive approval among the populace, the outcome of Bihar assembly elections has only reinforced BJP’s unhindered poll run.

The major takeaways from the Bihar assembly polls have been, trouncing JD (U), BJP emerged as the single largest party in the NDA. Anti-incumbency has stung Nitish Kumar’s JD (U), a strike rate of 37% is a reflection of people’s disenchantment. Unlike in the past, Nitish’s leverage has declined and he can no longer have his way. Disapproving Nitish, LJP’s Chirag Paswan walked out the NDA, and contested alone. His smear campaign against Nitish dented NDA’s electoral outcome. Claiming to be the Hanuman of Modi, Paswan entered the fray and gained a single seat but damaged the JD (U)’s winning prospects in close to 40 seats. Earning the reputation of ‘vote-cutter’ he ended up hurting NDA’s electoral gains.

Tejashwi Yadav, in absence of Lalu Prasad Yadav, single-handedly led the party in the elections and emerged as single largest party. RJD made most of its popularity in the rural areas and put up a strong fight with huge winning margins against the JD(U). Its alliance partner Congress proved to be dampener yet again. With a paltry 9.5% of vote share, Congress is galloping towards its extinction as a national party. Another important development has been resurgence of the Leftist parties, which speaks of scores of people who couldn’t benefit from the social welfare schemes.

AIMIM contested the Bihar elections in alliance with BSP, Upendra Kushwaha’s Rashtriya Lok Samata Party, Suhel Dev’s Bharatiya Samaj Party and Devendra Yadav’s Samajwadi Janata Dal (Democratic) clinched five seats in the Seemanchal region which went to polls in the final phase. Contesting 24 seats AIMIM smartly encashed Muslim votes which went for Mahaghatbhandhan. Muslim consolidation earned AIMIM five seats.

Much to the dismay of the liberals, BJP remains a strong force to reckon with steering their alliance partners to victory. BJP is always accused of being unfair to its alliance partners. Contrary to the perception, alliance partners who are unrelenting in criticising BJP have disproportionately, reaped electoral gains seeking votes in the name of Modi. Alliance partners continue to extract their pound of flesh but fail to acknowledge it openly. As a national party, it is high time, BJP grooms second rung regional leaders and slowly refrain entering alliance and start contesting alone in states.

As always, the street intelligence has trounced the predictions of Khan market elites. Bihar poll verdict once again underscored the undiminished popularity of Modi.

@ Copyrights reserved

The Deeply Polarised American Elections are Reflective of an Underlying National Reality

The US Presidential Elections 2020 will go down in the history of the country for many reasons. It is reckoned as costliest election thus far, with estimated campaign spending of $14 billion. Notably, Joe Biden alone has raised a whopping $952.2 million with President Trump pooling $612.7 million1. Interestingly even the proportion of smaller donations (amounts less than $200) which has increased to 22% in 2020 from 15% in 2016 exemplified the people's participation 2. 

These donations accounted for 38% of Biden’s funds and 45% of Trump’s total. Significantly, Biden’s campaign received large amounts from 98% of tech companies 3. People’s enthusiastic participation eventually manifested in the form of record voter turnout, selective censoring of messages on social media continued to linger around as pervasive election intervention. These two aspects inadvertently pointed at people’s faith in the overarching democratic process and even exposed efforts to effectively tinker the system. Inadvertently, these features became an integral part of the US Presidential election season.

Together the bitter campaigning and partisan political discourse has turned the 2020 the most polarized elections thus far. The overt and covert role played by the media has heightened the divide between competing narratives turned the present round of elections into a bitter contest. The opposing narratives which once exemplified a healthy diversity is turning rogue due to burgeoning media interference that is feeding a partisan narrative.

With its inability to gauge the churn within the societies and their rejection of the old normal, labelling the growing resentment as ‘populism’, media accentuated the existing divide. Ascent of Donald Trump to White House in 2016 essentially reflected this change. His astonishing victory was mooted as an aberration and welcomed with “Not My President” protests across the country. Since that day, each and every action of the President has been critiqued. His policies, a break from the precedent, caused disruption. America’s equations with the World witnessed a sea change. His style of functioning, devoid of nuance led and infused with nationalistic approach led to an anachronistic order. This caused consternation and accentuated the rifts. American ecosystem, refused to adjust to this ideological shift.

While prevalence of alternate voices is sign of a healthy democracy, reluctance to accept the change has seeded confusion, built acrimony. Pitched ideological battles bred polarisation. The Presidential Elections 2020, a perfect platform to voice out their choices is now witnessing intense contest. Instructively so, it has been close to two days since the election day, elections weren’t called, which is unprecedented in American history. At the time of writing, Joe Biden is almost inching close to the magical number of 270. Trump is expected to do some kind of “Mission Impossible” to re-return to White House.

Media predicted a landslide for Joe Biden, but contrary to all predictions which has gone woefully wrong. Unlike in India, where media continue to virtue signal, progressive media in America have made no secret of their loyalties. Majority of them called elections in favour of Biden. With razor thin margins separating, both the candidates, media predictions had to bite dust. Hailed as barometer of democratic societies, capable of resonating societal changes, contemporary media failed to assess the ground swell. Despite scathing indictment of Trump over various charges, electoral trends indicate that he has retained his traditional vote bank. Contrary to the prediction of his unpopularity would help Democrats to regain control, Republicans have retained their control over the Senate.

Even as the number crunching game continues, apprehensions about the smooth transfer of power sour with Trump already filing legal suits. The flood of unverifiable discrepancies in counting are raising doubts about claims of free and fair elections, which is shining glory of the oldest democracy. As the wait for the real victor of the Presidential elections continues, the sore loser of the elections is media. Media has eroded its credibility for peddling a partisan narrative and viciously targeting Trump.

Meanwhile, reports of small and large business boarding up, instances of stabbing in Washington, an uptick in gun sales and plausible threat of violent protests to undermine the legitimacy of elections are only alluding to qualms of American democracy is in danger. Existence of contrarian views is the intrinsic strength of democracy. But the present electoral system is unable to accommodate all the voices, bringing in reforms in American electoral system should be a way forward.

Above all, the Presidential elections has a larger message to the world and the leftist-liberal/ progressive media in particular. Societies across the World are going through a deep churn. People are no longer enamoured by the concept of global village or globalisation, which is considered to have powered spectacular economic development post World War II. They are disenchanted with globalisation, mercantilism, which is threatening their livelihoods and jobs. They averse to migration and cultural assimilation which is denting their identities. Political nationalism is the new reality. Elites can’t wish away, the rising tide of economic protectionism and cultural insularity. By dismissing the emerging traits as populism, elites are deepening the rifts within the society. While return of Trump to power might be a miracle, but a reluctance to accept growing nationalistic approach might eventually make America ungovernable.

Whosoever be the next President of America, it is important to appreciate the binary, Trump kind of politics is here to stay. Instead of alleviating the rifts by the new President must respect the aspirations and concerns of all the Americans.

 

@ Copyrights reserved.

 

Are the European leaders truly serious in their intent to fight the Islamic terror?

 Even as the World is rattled by the French beheadings, stabbings, killings seeking wanton revenge, a section of Islamo-Leftists have been silently pushing the theories of European appeasement of Muslims during the First World war and in the run up to World War II. In the intervening period of two World Wars, European governments courted Muslims, accorded special treatment to them.

In 1926, France tweaked its commitment to secularism called laicite, (which literally translates into neutrality of the state) to build Mosque, Grande Mosquee de France to the utter contempt of the Catholics. On the eve of the foundation laying ceremony of the The Mosque, Paris Municipal authority official Paul Fleurot was reported to have declared that when France was in danger, Muslims from Africa defended it. This Mosque is expression of France’s gratitude towards the Muslim Soldiers.

At a time, when Europe is grappling with, “Islam Separatism”, a rampant phenomenon, whose existence no leader dared to discuss, in a public address on October 2^nd, President Macron, admitted, “what we must tackle is Islamist Separatism….. And in this radical Islamism – since this is at the heart of the matter let’s talk about it and name it – a proclaimed, publicized desire, a systematic way of organizing things to contravene the Republic’s laws and create a parallel order, establish other values, develop another way of organizing society which is initially separatist, but whose ultimate goal is to take it over completely. And this is gradually resulting in the rejection of the freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and the right to blaspheme, and in us becoming insidiously radicalized”². He added, “Islam is a religion that is currently experiencing crisis all over the world”. By explicitly conversing about concerns over emergence of the counter society, he proposed to introduce a bill to consolidate the 1905 law which adopted laicite comprising five pillar including formulating “Islam particular for France”.  Macron raised many eyebrows with a framework of having Islam free from foreign influences in France.

Rebuffing the perils of radical Islam, elitist international magazines continued to peddle the saga of the French, the British and German courtship with Muslim population as a message to the colonial subjects in the early 20^th century till second World war. Rebuking Macron’s Islamist Separatism threat they attributed poor reintegration, ghettoization of Muslim immigrants, European “Otherness” as facilitators of radicalisation and imputed political motives to Macron’s concerns of religion-based separatism.

Debate on growing radical Islamism began to surface since the January 2015 Charlie Hebdo killings, subsequent November 2015 Paris Attacks and July 2016 Nice truck mowing episode and the regular low-intensity attacks have consolidated the fears about the mushrooming Islamist separatism phenomenon. Until 2015, any public discussion on brewing extremism threat is widely scorned as a pernicious propaganda, symptomatic of the far-right groups, who are averse to liberal ideas. But unabated low-intensity attacks across France and Europe has eventually ceded space to discussions on separatism threat. For initiating discussions on this oft tabooed issue, Centrist Macron was also derided by the Liberals.

Days after double-stabbings carried out by a Pakistani near Charlie Hebdo office for republication of Prophet’s cartoons commemorating court hearing of killing of 12 people, Macron reignited the discussion on Islamic Separatism on Oct 2^nd.  But the public address in the wake of intolerant attack was labelled as “Islamophobic” and scrutinised with scepticism by sections of media.

Even before France, with 6-8% of Muslim population, highest in a European nation, could come to terms with brutal attack, decapitation of history teacher Samuel Paty by an 18-year old Chechen, on his way to home for showing the cartoons to students as part of teaching of Freedom of Expression, has sent shock waves across the nation. The brazen intolerance has only bolstered France’s fears of growing Islamic terrorism in the country. In a stern message, France conferred highest honour, ‘Legion d honnuer’ on Paty for upholding republic’s values of freedom, liberty and ordered the closure of a mosque which incited Muslims against him.

Defending the freedom of expression, commemorating Paty’s memorial service, thousands protested against the rising Islamist terrorism. In a tribute, Macron said, “He was killed because the Islamists want our future. They know that with quiet heroes like him, they will never have it”³. Later government building displayed six cartoons of Prophet demonstrating its commitment towards Freedom of expression.

Public display of cartoons stirred a war of words between Turkey and France. Turkey President Erdogan, projected Messiah of Muslim World, condemned, Macron’s remarks on Islamic terrorism and remarked “Macron needs mental treatment” as opposed to a message of condolence and support triggering a storm. Following the footsteps of Turkey, justifying the beheading, Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan’s condemned Macron’s Islamophobic remarks, urged OIC to boycott French goods, passed a resolution to recall envoy from France (even though Pakistan don’t currently have any Ambassador to France). Close on heels, former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Muhammed’s stirred the pot with hateful tweet “Muslims have a right to be angry and kill millions of French people”. These provocative statements endorsing Muslims right to violence eventually triggered a chain of protests in the Muslim-majority countries in South Asia and South East Asia.

World must be cognisant of these intolerant protests, for they are indicative of potential breeding grounds of terror and Islamic extremism. Intriguingly, the Muslim nations who defended killing of French people, dare not rise a finger against internment of over 2 million Uighur Muslims for the fear of economic repercussions.

In sharp contrast, Saudi Arabia, fountain head of Wahhabi Jihadism, the UAE and Egypt rejected violence and terrorism. No doubt, while nations reaction to this gruesome terror act has an underlying geopolitical character as well, the series of terror attacks in France has provided fresh impetus to debate on Islamic terrorism.

Macron’s outright condemnation and calling the bluff of the extremist Islam elements is a welcome development. While reprehensible justification of beheading by Muslim majority nations is really troubling.

Incidents of deaths perpetrated by extremist Islam elements across the nook and corner of globe almost every day has been a common news. The West never bothered to take a hard look at the brutal acts of terror and violence. For decades daily blood bath has become a ritualistic rigour in certain parts of the World. Hundreds of innocent lives were lost. Even as the violent killings have become an integral part of certain extremist groups the plight of the victims was never addressed. Above all, the ideology which has been silently endorsing and cultivating this kind of maniacal mindset was never challenged.

The ideology, backed, defended by the influential Islamo-Leftist group which dominates the intellectual and academic strata across the World despite the daily manslaughter continues to deride anyone who questioned veracity of reign of terror. Any open discussion on the spectre of the rising “Political Islam” is even harshly rebuked. The threat of Islamic terrorism which is steadily chipping away peace and harmony of the society is real.

Even before pregnant fears of Islamic separatism could die down, a deadly Vienna attacks that left four dead and 14 injured, claimed by ISIS has heightened fears of burgeoning terrorism across Europe. For decades, rallying the ignoble cliché of “terror has no religion”, absurdly clinging to myopic “political correctness” the West defiantly rebuked ground realities.

India which experienced onslaught of Islamic terror since 7^th century has been warning the West of the disastrous consequences of radical Islam. Even in the post-colonial era, West turned to deaf ear to India’s tryst with cross-border state-sponsored terrorism. Throwing caution to air, the West chose to admonish India and censured it for its poor human rights record. Failing to cultivate a discerning eye and overpowered by the Islamo-leftist bigotry, the West refused to even acknowledge the existence of Islamic terrorism, until the twin towers were reduced to a rouble in 2001.

After a slew of terror attacks, shedding the liberal masks, European leaders are now collectively condemning the Islamic terror. In a marked departure, apostle of liberalism, BBC referred to recent attacks as ‘Islamist terror’ stabbings. But the American media is still reluctant to call it by its name. Until unless, nations, leaders and the intellectual ecosystem stubbornly reject the Islamic terror and strip the Muslim community of self-obsessed victimhood card, this scourge passing off as a religious ideology can’t be extricated from the World.

India which has always rejected terrorism, has extended support to France and Austria and strongly condemned the terrorist attacks. Foreign Secretary Harsh Shringla, during his three-country visit to France, Germany and the UK, expressed condolences to France denounced personal attacks on Macron and added, “the civilised World needs to act together and act with firmness to address this threat to our cherished democratic value systems”⁴.

Indeed, if the European leaders are truly committed to take Islamist separatism head-on, they must at least work towards evolving a global consensus. India has proposed Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT), way back in 1986. But it hasn’t been implemented for the lack of unanimity on definition of terrorism by states. European nations can now take the lead and work towards its logical implementation. Alternatively, they can call for the boycott of nations which overtly/ covertly support terrorism, cut off the financial support to terror agencies. With souring caliphate ambitions, Turkey is now endorsing extremism, in a strong message to state sponsors of terror, NATO should expel Turkey.

For centuries, J&K bore the brunt of the Islamic terror/Jihad. Despite India’s repeated attempts to highlight the exigencies of the terror in J&K, European nations refused to take cognisance of the issue. On the contrary, they indicted India on dubious human rights charges. If European nations are determined to have a clear-headed approach towards Islamic terror, they must at least begin their campaign by condemning the Islamist Jihad perpetrated by Pakistan, the mothership of terror.

Else the outrage of European leaders devoid of discernible action and empathy towards terror victims would be hallow and futile.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Is the dynamic of Jaishankar’s “The India Way” underway in the ongoing Indo-China standoff?

A massive geopolitical transition is underway. COVID pandemic exacerbated the global turbulence. Widening Sino-US fault lines are posing fresh challenges to the changing world order. Exuding an interest to forge a G-2 like arrangement during the second term of President Clinton, China consolidated the approach under Obama and announced its arrival on the global stage as “emerging super power”. Rising of a super power has tremendous consequences on the immediate neighbourhood. India is currently witnessing the impact of such a rise along its norther-eastern frontier.

The six-months old, unabated Sino-Indian logjam along the LAC is thus, a consequence of the growing power contestations in this uncertain world. India’s ability to weather this logjam amid unprecedented health emergency is offering new insights to the World of its strategic maturity. Having donned the mantle of non-alignment or abstention or non-involvement, steadily overcoming the hesitations of history India of late has entered into a new phase of unapologetically advancing its national interests. Largely mooted as “strategic autonomy” by strategists, stepping up its engagement, India is now actively seeking opportunistic and realistic multiple-alignments.

Amid accentuating power contestations in the Indo-Pacific, relaunched to promote the idea of “Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP)” foreign ministers meet of Quad 2.0 met at Tokyo. Projected as an ‘Asia-NATO’ by the US and considered as an ‘anti-China alliance’ by the Beijing, the much-awaited Quad meet ended on a damp note failing to even issue a common joint statement. Indian strategists questioned New Delhi’s caution and nuanced approach of foreign minister Jaishankar as opposed to Mike Pompeo who went ballistic. Echoing India’s circumspection, Ram Madhav alluded, “Quad must be built on agendas, not emotions. (Quad) Can’t afford to become another NATO”¹.

Current geopolitical uncertainties akin to the 1970 which motored the Indo-Russian Friendship Treaty are raising the spectre of a plausible Indo-US alliance partnership. India is in logger heads with China. Decades of Beijing’s belligerence catalysed deepening of Indo-US ties. India and US having signed three foundational agreements are at the verge of inking- Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geo-Spatial Cooperation (BECA) at the upcoming 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue. India is just inches away from becoming an alliance partner of the US. Numerous Op-Eds questioned India’s reluctance to firm up a security alliance with the US. It is in this context, Jaishankar’s “The India Way” offers fresh perspectives about New Delhi’s prospective engagement with the World.

Taking lessons from the past, Jaishankar highlights how India has handled the two major actors-the US and Soviet Union during the Cold war. Immediately after the 1962 war, India turned towards the US and sought its help. Emergence of a fledging US-China-Pakistan axis in 1971 and the Bangladesh crisis, pushed it into Soviet Union’s embrace. After the crisis faded, India adopted a middle path and managed its ties relatively well in a bipolar world. A return to a strongly bipolar world is unlikely now with the US and China turning more nationalistic and ceding space for more players.

Currently, the dynamic of multipolarity has been driving the balance of power with alliances becoming burdensome. Despite the growing rifts over certain issues, compulsions of common concerns as of now are holding traditional alliances together. To tide over the dilemmas of incongruities, World is now moving over towards plurilateralism anticipating a result-oriented cooperation. Less structured groupings with agenda-based cooperation are on rise.

India must maximize its engagement with contesting parties at the same time for optimum results. Clearly, “there will be convergence with many and congruence with none”. With multipolar world turning into a reality, Jaishankar advocates that, “India must reach out in as many directions as possible and maximize its gains. This is not about greater ambition; it is also about not living in yesterday”. Seemingly, India’s distinct foreign policy choices and current assertions are now or less in consonance with the doctrine predicated by Jaishankar.

For the first time, Jaishankar shed light “The India Way” at the Raisina Dialogue 2020 and enunciated its five characteristic features. Broadly stating that India will not be disruptionist power, he outlined India’s aspirations to be a net security provider, contributor to connectivity, dealing with climate change, terrorism. Two, India would be more of a decider or a shaper rather than abstainer. Three, India will be a just power, fair power, in line with its political inheritance it will be a standard bearer for south.

Finally, India Way envisages to evolve a “Brand India” connecting through its extraordinary diaspora, sharing its traditional knowledge systems like yoga, traditional and eloquently standing up for the global issues like maritime security, counterterrorism, climate change, democratic values and technological challenges ².

Besides, offering a comprehensive understanding about India’s aspirations in his book- “The India Way: Strategies for an Uncertain World”, he highlighted India’s rising stature as the iconic first responder of the region and New Delhi’s generous medical assistance during Corona. Appealing to the wise counsel of strategists who dig into Western doctrines to find solutions for Indian problems, Jaishankar reminds Indians to rely on their own traditions and recommends the treatise of Mahabharata, which is “saga of approaches and choices”. In the process, he dispels the misunderstandings about the rising tide of Nationalism.

As against the popular misconception of “nationalism is the last refuge of the scoundrel”, he contends, “nationalism is synonymous to asserting independence for nations who regained independence from colonial rule”. Unlike in the Western sense of nationalism which translates into “us versus the world” Jaishankar explains that Indian nationalism “derived from our innate pluralism…  is a tradition of reconciling the nationalism with global engagement. Not driven by victimhood, it has potential to serve as a bridge between the established and emerging orders”

In line with the postulations rooted in Indian civilisational values, as a foreign minister, Jaishankar has refashioned India’s foreign policy which is now more proactive, dynamic, assertive. Reports of India forces crossing the LAC at seven places to counter PLA’s transgressions and bringing China to the negotiating table³, India’s invitation to Australia to join the Annual Malabar exercises⁴, growing support for trade negotiations with Taiwan for greater investments in electronics⁵, all these developments which are departure from past are pointing towards India’s massive recalibration of Chinese policy and refusal to acquiesce to Beijing’s domination.

It is instructive to recall that Nehru too confessed, “the issue with China is not so much about territory as about domination”. Clearly, India seems to be developing “an understanding of the past which provides insights to the future”. By standing tall and refusing to be cowered by Dragon’s coercion, India is steadily rising up to the expectations of turning into bulwark against China’s expansionism.

After the 1962 war, keen on managing ties with China, India took the initiative to establish ambassadorial relations in 1976 and foreign minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee travelled to Beijing in 1979 to foster ties. This was followed by first foreign visit by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in 1988. Subsequently India and China signed peace and tranquillity agreements in 1993 and 1996. Countries instituted Special Representatives mechanisms in 2003 and carried out 22 rounds of talks to resolve the territorial dispute.

Even in the absence of Free Trade Agreement (FTA) in the past two decades, the bilateral trade increased exponentially despite denial of reciprocity of market access to India by China. All the while, China joined hands with Pakistan to meddle India’s affairs and sovereignty and continued to make aggressive border transgressions. Abiding by the 2017 Asthana Summit agreement of “not allowing differences to become disputes”, India continued its engagement with China.

With business as usual, China unabashedly pursued salami slicing. Unlike in the past, a series of disengagement military talks failed to diffuse tensions across the LAC. Unrelenting India is now standing its ground, driving home the message that- “border and future of ties are not separated”.

@ Copyrights reserved.