Measure of Employment Rate muddled by poor data upkeep by concerned agencies

Among numerous issues, the first and foremost, Modi government is widely criticized for failing to fulfill the promise of creating more jobs or insufficient employment generation. Modi government is blamed for bad economics as well despite robust economic indicators suggesting otherwise. Coming to unemployment, there has been a concerted effort to create a misleading narrative that Modi government has dismally failed in creating new jobs. To address, this issue, Pulak Ghosh from IIM Bangalore and Soumya Ghosh, Chief Economic Adviser carried out indepth analysis of data from various agencies to measure employment. But answer to this question was rather tough since even after seven decades of independence, India doesn’t have proper metrics to assess the ground situation without any bias.  The latest report published by Quarterly Employment Survey in December comes with a huge lag of 9 months and covered mere select 8 organized sectors as against 190. Essentially, employment surveys thus far have not portrayed the true picture and suffer from many limitations. Hence the authors tried to evolve a new format to account for employment in both formal and informal sectors on the lines of US monthly pay roll. It is referred to as what is called the Nonfarm pay roll which also accounts for 80% of workers who produce entire GDP of US.

Next the authors attempted to arrive at the correct numbers in terms of people joining the labor force by considering birth rate and then making a conservative estimate of the same. 15million labor force is entering work force every year. Of them only 6.6 million are qualified. Based on estimates, 7 informal jobs are generated annually. As per available data from EPFO (Employees Provident Fund Organization), ESIC (Employees State Insurance Corporation), NPS (National Pension System) and GPF (Government Provident Fund) round 1 crore people are employed in professional bodies and over 1.7 crores are employed by state, which includes education sector and Police. Auto industry provides employs 20 million. Arriving at these numbers has been really an excruciating experience for these economists, since proper records of number of people employed is not properly maintained by various professional bodies and even in informal sectors. States do a shoddy job in compiling the data and fail to have idea of number of people entering labor market annually since they don’t take population growth into account. Further, records are not updated regularly and even people employed for additional jobs as domestic helps etc remain unaccounted. So, the problem is manifold. Despite, glaring inadequacies, a perceptible increase in jobs has been recorded for the year 2017. In absence of fool proof pay roll reporting…it might be little presumptuous to levy baseless allegations….

@ Copyrights reserved.

Is Indian Parliamentary Democracy just a mockery?

The non-stop excitement offered by Karnataka assembly elections since the day of counting continues to remind that morality has no place in Indian politics. The fluctuating leads and trends on counting day that witnessed premature celebrations in political camps stabilised only in the afternoon presented a grim picture where no single party obtained a clear mandate. BJP which made commendable electoral gains fell short of majority by 8 seats. In the meanwhile, gulping down big egos Congress reached out to JD(S) which obtained 38 seats with 18% vote share for a post-poll alliance. JD(S) much against its pre-poll pledge of staying away from alliance formation with Congress, in a massive volte-face aligned with grand old party in lieu of irresistible offer of Chief Ministership. The post-poll alliance of Congress with 78 seats and JD(S) combine which had the numbers way above the majority mark began to fervently pitch for government formation.

Having conceded defeat in over 10 successive elections, Congress was unseated from power in majority of the states. The massive electoral drubbing since 2014 eroded pan-Indian political presence of Congress. Following a crushing defeat in Karnataka elections the party with over 120 years of legacy is just reduced to Punjab, Puducherry and Mizoram.  Though political analysts took major objection to opposition’s allegation of Karnataka being ATM of Congress, the desperation of party and its outright wooing of the smaller partner JD(S) vindicates popular perception. While counting was underway, Congress rushed its topmost leaders to take stock of situation and to manage the numbers well ahead. Having learnt its lessons, overpowered by the fear of losing its last formidable bastion in South, congress smartly cobbled up the numbers well in advance.

As against fighting pitched battles in the elections, Congress mobilised its entire ecosystem to make last ditch effort to retain power in Karnataka. The post-poll alliance which commanded the support of 116 members met governor to form government. BJP leaders too met the governor with government formation bid. Citing single-largest party claim, BJP strengthened its position. The fractured mandate shifted the onus on governor to take stock of the situation. While some constitutional experts viewed that leader of single-largest party be given first chance to prove the majority others disapproved. Soon people began to refer to recent precedents of post-poll coalitions forming governments and supported Congress stand. Amidst these warring claims, the governor who is constitutionally entitled under Article 163 and 164 to exercise discretion has invited elected legislative BJP leader B S Yeddyurappa (BSY) to form the government. Governor’s decision sparked intense debates. To resolve a hung assembly situation, examining centre and state relations, Sarkaria commission in 1983 laid out certain guidelines. Wherein the order of the inviting the parties for government formation was clearly enunciated. It reads- “In case no party gets majority, the governor should follow an order of preference: a. Pre-poll alliance b. the single largest party c. a post-poll alliance that commands the required numbers to run the government smoothly d. a post-poll alliance in which partners are willing to extend outside support”. The commission recommended that chief minister should seek vote of confidence within 30days.  Even the Punchi Commission set up in 2007 gave similar recommendations. Governor Vajubhai Vala first invited BJP, the single largest party asking them to prove majority on the floor of house within 15days.

Meanwhile, Congress and JD (S) having formed a post-poll alliance herded all their MLAs to resort claiming fears of horse-trading by BJP. Alleging that 15 days is too long a time to safe guard their elected representatives, Congress moved Supreme court at wee hours contesting governor’s discretion in inviting BJP. It even sought stalling of swearing-in ceremony of BSY and legal intervention of the Chief Justice against whom it has moved impeachment motion which was squashed by Vice-President. Ironically, Congress challenging Vice-President’s decision called for urgent hearing of the case as well which was squashed. Though it is different story for some other day. Terming governor’s decision as “encounter of the constitution”, Congress who habitually overturns the SC’s judgements which are not in its favour, thronged Supreme Court. The hearing which lasted for four hours, upheld governor’s decision and even advanced the time of the oath taking ceremony of BSY to 9am. Interestingly, the same attorney Abhishek Manu Singhvi who argued that judiciary shouldn’t intervene in the functioning of legislature in Jharkhand has represented Congress in Supreme Court. As of now, Supreme Court in its latest hearing on Friday, ordered for a floor test tomorrow by 4pm, appointed BJP MLA KG Bopiah as pro-tem speaker to conduct proceedings of floor and ruled out secret ballot ensuring transparency.  In a sudden shift of stance, Rahul Gandhi who has equated Indian judiciary to Pakistan after BSY sworn-in, hailed SC’s latest verdict mandating early floor test.

Congress by repeatedly seeking judicial intervention is undermining the independence of office of governor. It is now learnt that Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Congress attorney is going to approach SC challenging the decision of appointing Bopiah as pro-term speaker. Isn’t there any end to dynasty’s frivolous fault-finding exercise? Excessive judicial intervention in functioning of other organs of democracy may not be a good precedent for a thriving democracy like India. Indeed, it may not be surprise if Congress would once again call for pre-dawn hearing regarding speaker and restraining his functioning like disqualification. Congress has just now submitted an application before SC putting forward five points for transparency.

The competitive malicious politicking, ruthless political manoeuvring, unceremonial shepherding and locking up of elected representatives in resorts, extracting loyalty affidavits from MLAs has now reduced the electoral process to a sham exercise. Karnataka elections witnessed new lows with parties invoking religion, language, Indianness and North-South divide. Indeed, the litany of crass religious politicking in Karnataka cluttered with issues divested from progress and development dominated the poll campaigning. Curiously, all the issues that destroy the social fabric of harmony like- according minority status to Lingayats just before elections and Islamist groups collectively issuing fatwa ordaining Muslims to vote for Congress, trading charges over who is being true Hindu or on beef ban, debate on North-South debate dominated the campaigning. Even after the completion of electoral process in the state, politicians are single-mindedly focused on clinching power.

As of now, with floor test slated for tomorrow, there are reports of MLAs being hoarded and shifted to avoid being poached. The kind of abominable terminology that is being used to describe these events together with huge cache of currency, jewellery recovered in raids before elections indicates incorrigible corruptibility of Indian politics. The gigantic exercise of mobilisation of men, money and muscle power to retain in power has now become integral to elections.  While both BJP and Congress combine exuded confidence, sources claim that five Congress MLAs and three JD(S) MLAs are spotted in Delhi. BJP spokesperson alleged that the Congress party which called for urgent hearing of court at Midnight didn’t even furnish letter containing the signatures of all the supporting MLAs. Now HD Kumaraswamy indicates that he is in no hurry for floor test. A massive Rs 200 crores were spent for the smooth conduct of Karnataka assembly elections. With candidates defecting and allegedly making raw deals for power and position, is Indian Parliamentary democracy just a mockery???

@ Copyrights reserved.

Invoking strong cultural connect Modi reaches out to Nepal

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s two-day visit to Nepal on May 11, 12, comes as a follow up to Nepalese Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli’s trip to New Delhi reinforcing India’s strong interest in stabilizing ties with the Himalayan neighbour. With China’s muscle looming large over the subcontinent, Modi, the architect of neighbourhood first policy, began building strong ties with immediate neighbours since 2014. True to the spirit of the policy, Modi visited all the neighbouring countries barring Maldives and as toast of friendship gifted South Asia satellite hoisted by ISRO. Unlike his previous two visits to Nepal which ended on a high note, Modi’s current visit comes at a time, when Indo-Nepal relations having weathered turbulent times are still facing trust deficit. The trouble began when Nepal new draft constitution accorded special privileges to ruling hill tribes side-lining the interests of Madhesis of terai (plains) region. This discriminatory stance caused spurt in protests leading to blockade of Indian boundary stalling the movement of goods and supplies choking Nepal.  The eight-month long blockade turned Nepalese hostile towards India and the current regime of OIi stormed into power by riding on this anti-India wave. Oli, who currently heads the opposition of the leftist coalition party sworn in as Prime Minister on February 15^th honouring the tradition, made first visit to India. In his first stint as Prime Minister the height of blockade, Oli accused India of the crisis and signed several agreements with China. He also alleged that India plotted his ouster as Prime Minister and played China card.

India and Nepal which share strong cultural, religious and historical ties, have strong people to people connect. Indeed, both countries have porous borders and India is largest sources of remittances for Nepal and its biggest trade partner. Despite the strong linkages, bilateral ties between the countries were roiled by misunderstandings with Nepal alleging India’s interference in its domestic politics. Geographically Nepal being the inner boundary is very important for India. Sandwiched between Asian giants, Nepal afflicted by “small country syndrome” has effectively played Indian card against China and vice-versa for a long time. But now the current dispensation which is overtly pro-China is making repeated references to “mutual respect” highlighting the erosion of trust. Faced with the challenge of building a harmonious relation with immediate neighbour, Modi has embarked on his third visit to Nepal with focus on three Cs- Cooperation, Connectivity and Culture.

Resonating with the idea of collective development and regional cooperation, India has increased financial aid to Nepal by 73% this financial year to Rs 650 Crore next to Bhutan which receives highest financial assistance of Rs 1813 crore. While there is no official data, it is estimated that 2 million Nepali work in India and to facilitate safe and cost-efficient transfer of remittances, RBI has introduced India-Nepal Remittance Facility Scheme. India has always displayed a strong interest in sustaining robust relationship is now facing the challenge of countering the check book diplomacy of China. 

Modi’s recent visit which was devoid of any big announcements is a spectacular effort to reclaim lost place in Nepal. Dubbed as “cultural diplomacy”, by strategists, Modi’s meticulously planned itinerary of two-day whirlwind program of visiting three places of religious importance besides holding bilateral ties covered a vast ground.  On May 11^th Modi travelled to Janakpur, close to Bihar border and offered special prayers Janaki Temple, the birth place of Devi Sita. Later Modi and Oli jointly flagged off a bus service between Janakpuri to Ayodhya, birthplace of Bhagwan Sri Rama. These two sacred places are immensely significant to Hindus. These places are now going to be part of the ambitious Ramayana Circuit which will include 15 other places across India spanning the states of Bihar (Sitamarhi, Buxar and Darbhanga), Uttar Pradesh (Ayodhya, Nandigram, Shringverpur, Chitrakoot), Jharkhand, Chattisgarh (Jagadalpur), Madhya Pradesh (Chitrakoot), Orissa (Mahendragiri), Maharastra (Nashik, Nagpur), Telangana (Bhadrachalam), Karnataka (Hampi) and Tamilnadu (Rameshwaram). NDA government which made no secret of its intentions of promoting religious tourism began investing heavily in building necessary infrastructure which includes the promise of building a 100 mt tall Bhagwan Rama’s statue by the side of river Saryu in Ayodhya. Inauguration of bus service between India and Nepal both Hindu majoritarian countries will boost tourism, people to people connect and will strengthen trust. Thousands of Nepalese gathered outside the Janaki Temple to welcome Modi where the provincial government has declared a holiday.

Speaking at the civic reception organised by Janakpur provincial government attended by over 1 lakh Nepalese, Modi highlighted on the deep traditional links between the countries. He indicated that Nepal is of top priority in India’s Neighbourhood First policy. He asserted that “India would stand with Nepal in its development journey”.  He said, “We are the base camp now. India is ready to play the role of a Sherpa guide, taking the expeditioners from the base camp right upto the peak of Mt. Everest”. Modi promised $100 million towards for province’s development which will be routed through Kathmandu. Later Modi flew to Kathmandu where he was offered Guard of Honour at the Army Parade Ground in Tundikhel. He met President Bidhya Devi Bhandari and Vice-President Nanda Bahadhur Pun.

In his second summit meet with Prime Minister Oli, Modi reiterated resolve to work together for strengthening on-going cooperation in various initiatives like agriculture, railways, inland water development projects and expand the partnership for socio-economic development. Both sides assured that they “will take effective measures for the implementation of all the agreements and understandings reached in the past”. Leaders took stock of the economic ties and India assured Nepal to make necessary amendments in the comprehensive review of bilateral treaty of trade to address the issue of Nepal’s trade deficit. Taking cognizance of Nepal’s request for additional air entry routes through India, New Delhi promised to expand cooperation in civil aviation sector. Additionally, India agreed to enhance economic and physical connectivity by air, water and land. Both prime ministers jointly laid foundation stone of 900 MW Arun-III hydro electric project in Nepal. For long, India made tall assurances to Nepal but failed in time-bound deliverance.  Allaying Nepali angst over poor implementation of Indian projects Modi promised to expedite priority projects of Nepal’s choice.

Modi visited the Pashupathi nath Mandir, the oldest and sacred temple of Bhagwan Shiva. During President Pranab Mukherjee’s visit to the temple in 2016, government of India aided the establishment of Nepal-Bharat Maitri Pashupathinath Dharamsala Project. In a message to Nepalese, Modi wrote, “Iam happy to get another good opportunity to pray at Lord Pashupatinath Temple. This temple is a symbol of the combined religious heritage of peopke of India and Nepal. I wish for peace, progress and prosperity in lives of people of Nepal and India. Iam grateful to Pashupatinath kosh and government of Nepal for making arrangements for my visit. I hope that devotees will soon get new facilities from the new Dharmashala being developed by India and Nepal on the temple premises”. in the visitor’s book.

Wrapping up Nepal’s visit Modi flew to Mustang in the Northern Nepal becoming the first World leader to offer prayers at Muktinath Temple scared for both Hindus and Buddhists. Wearing a red dress symbolic of Buddhists performed puja to life-sized murthi of Bhagwan Vishnu. The temple is highly revered by a larger community of Sri Vaishnavas of Karnataka,. Modi’s visit to temple a day ahead of Karnataka elections resonate well with domestic electorate.

The rapid developments in Nepal and its newly calibrated foreign policy have a direct bearing on India’s national interest due to open borders. Targeted attacks on Indian assets has become cause of concern. Two bomb explosions-one near Indian Embassy field office at Biratnagar and an explosion near Indian-built power project within a month has triggered a panic reaction in New Delhi. The explosions in quick succession together with Pakistan Prime Minister’s Shahid Kahan Abbasi’s visit to Nepal days after Oli has sworn in as premier warranted India’s immediate attention. Besides, creeping Chinese penetration into Nepal and its inclement urgency towards building a railway connection from Shigatse to Kathmandu has promoted India to deepen partnership with Nepal. Also, China has been constantly invoking the common Buddhist linkages with Nepal and pledged to develop Buddhist monuments.

Religion and culture have been the strongest connecting links between India and Nepal. Hinduism which is a global minority is the major religion in both countries. For long leaders of both countries had been shy of wearing their religion on their sleeves. For the first time, Modi forthrightly took the pride of being a Hindu and emerged as an icon for the aspirations of Hindus who were facing similar threats in both countries. While Modi, has been highly criticised by hardcore Hindu leaders for failing his core support base in India, till now no Hindu leader unabashedly displayed his religious identity. With his ingenious diplomacy which is getting better by the day Modi is raising the bar for domestic politicians and his successors as well.  Modi engaged with leaders of various political hues in Nepal to normalise relations. Aside his formidable soft power diplomacy, Modi has promised to deepen cooperation, partnership and offered support on various fronts. The message is loud and clear: India is ready to make all amends to strengthen the relationship. The ball is now in Nepal’s court….

@ Copyrights reserved.

Trump’s abrogation of Iran deal is a shot in arm for Revisionist Countries

On the face of it while pulling out America from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) appears to be a poll promise, President Trump has pushed volatile Middle East into a deep abyss. Trump who condemned the Iran deal as a shameful concession to a rogue nation promised to scrap the treaty if voted to power. In January, Trump reluctantly signed waiver of sanctions which is reviewed every 120 days and prevailed that he won’t sign the next waiver until radical changes are made in the deal. Trump unequivocally signalled his intention of repudiating the treaty months ahead and hence his announcement on May 8^th has been unsurprising.  He complained that the deal is “defective at its core” as it curtailed Iran’s nuclear ambitions for a fixed time. Russia exasperated by Trump’s threats raised this issue in UNSC condemning American unilateralism for contemplating changes in the historic P5+1 treaty which has fructified after twelve years of negotiations.

In the last week of April, French President Emmanuel Macron and later Chancellor Angela Merkel travelled to Washington to appease Trump. Notwithstanding, advice of European allies, Trump announced withdrawal of America days before the scheduled review of waiver on May 12^th. Back, in 2015 when the historic deal was clinched, critics pointed at glaring lacunae, ill-equipped to rein in on nuclear ambitions of Iran. But countries chose to ignore frailties of the deal, hailed it as a stellar diplomatic feat of Obama administration. Since the deal, Iran conducted more than 20 missile tests and seamlessly expanded its influence in the region.

Days ahead of Trump’s announcement, Iran’s strategic partner Hezbollah swept polls of Lebanon reducing the influence of Saudi-proxy Prime Minister Saad Hairiri and buttressing Tehran’s dominance. Similarly, pro-Iranian leaders are expected to triumph in the over pro-Western forces in the Iraqi elections to be held on May 12^th. Having portrayed itself as the messiah of Shias, Iran gained quick access into Iraqi domestic politics. After collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003, to stall American expansion in its immediate neighbourhood, Tehran provided refuge and funds to Shia leaders. By 2014, when IS became a dominant force in Iraq, Iran extensively cultivated ties with Sunnis and Kurds, participated in anti-IS campaign and made territorial and communal gains. Iran wanted extermination of IS and restoration of peace in Iraq but preferred a weak government in Baghdad to have enough leverage. Powering its hegemonic aspirations, Iran is steadily growing in strength in the Middle East. Since lifting of economic sanctions, Iran has consolidated its position in Middle East. Clinching evidence confirms that Tehran has been supplying weapons and funds to Hezbollah operating in Lebanon, pro-Assad forces fighting in Syria and Houthi rebels fighting the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen. Rejuvenation of Iran has intensified hostilities in the region with Iran and Israel locking horns across the Syrian border near Golan heights. Expectedly, barring two countries Israel and Saudi Arabia, major nations expressed concerns over Trump’s decision.

Trump’s decision created an unprecedented commotion and pushed experts into serious rethinking about the spate of impending nuclear threat and urgent need for evolving a consolidated plan of action. America’s European allies UK, Germany, France expressed serious concerns over Trump’s decision but pledged adherence to JCPOA. Russia was miffed by the decision and China which is threatened by US trade war expressed regret and vowed to safe guard the deal. Besides, withdrawing America from the deal, Trump signed Presidential memorandum reinstating “highest level” of economic sanctions on Iran. Trump’s decision was widely criticized since pulling out the multilateral joint agreement is tantamount to violation of global diplomatic norms. Secondly, 11 detailed reports of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) since January 2016 confirmed that Iran hasn’t violated rules of the treaty and evidently there is no plausible justification for dumping the nuclear deal.

Moments after Trump withdrew from deal Hassan Rouhani of Iran, announced that it will abide by deal and asked other allies to figure out a way forward without US and imposed time limit for such negotiations. But now the crucial issue remains whether the remaining parties can evolve a workable solution that can contravene the US imposed sanctions within limited time frame. He added “Iran will start enriching more than before” if the solution is not satisfactory. Expressing doubts over European support Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei warned, “without receiving strong guarantee from three European countries, we won’t stick to the nuclear agreement”.  Iranians who were tired of the four decades of hard-line Islamic rule, overwhelmingly embraced JCPOA and counted on it to alleviate their economic plight. Much against domestic opposition from the Islamic clergy, Rouhani pursued the deal. Capitalising on Trump’s Iran’s foreign policy, hardliners stoked incipient distrust towards America.

Iran and America had tenuous relationship which was irrevocably damaged after Iran held 54 American diplomats and citizens hostage for 444 days in 1980.  The republic which was largely controlled by Islamic hardliners since Iranian revolution 1979, avoided forging any relations with the West. But guided by the interest to develop economic and political partnership with international community, Iranian leaders made several attempts to reach out to America. In the process, Iran offered to make few concessions. But America rebuked Iran as part of “axis of evil”. Hence JCPOA, for Iran is a testimony of trust and by abrogating the deal, Trump validated Islamic clergy claims of America as a mistrustful partner.

Responding to Rouhani’s efforts, European bigwigs UK, France and Germany assured that EU3 will not allow the deal to be dismantled. But the larger question remains as how EU can conduct trade under the shadow of US sanctions in this globally interconnected world.

Trump’s decision has massive geopolitical implications. Iran which has just recovered from years of economic sanctions and isolation supplies 4% of global oil. Post-announcement, price of Brent Crude increased by 29 cents, highest since mid-2014. Economic momentum across the World has pushed the demand for oil and major consumers of Tehran’s oil include European and Asian countries. In August 2017, Congress passed Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) which is impeding India’s defence deals with Russia. US economic sanctions against Iran will bring all the oil customers including its European allies under the ambit of CAASTA. These trade dealings might create fresh fissures between America and its European allies. If America grants waiver to European allies and exempts them, then other countries will demand similar concessions with respect to their trade transactions with Russia, North Korea. Reducing the high posturing of “highest level of sanctions against Iran” to mere rhetoric.

China and India, two largest importers of hydrocarbons purchased Iranian oil even during sanctions. With increasing oil demand, both countries will seek a waiver or bypass sanctions to continue buying oil from Iran. If Iran’s two main customers manage to tweak American sanctions, the threat of strictest sanctions of Trump will be null and void. Aside Oil, Iran is strategically important to India as major connectivity hub for International North-South Corridor (INSTC) and investments in development of Chabahar port. America can hardly undermine importance of Chabahar port, an essential transit conduit to Afghanistan. Similarly, Iran is a pivotal link in China’s BRI (Belt Road Initiative) project for Eurasian Integration. China which is already locked in a trade war with America might now increasingly seek to cooperate with EU3 who disfavoured Trump’s decision. In the process, while US might not only be isolated but the revisionist attributes of China will receive a fresh lease for life. Reeling under the burden of economic sanctions Russia which Chinese orbit established strong ties with Beijing. Iran which has shifted its focus from West to East recently signed several agreements with China and Russia. Trump’s unilateralism hastened Tehran’s run into Chinese embrace. Already Iran is cooperating with Russian forces in Syria and this crisis will prompt Iran to join hands with Moscow on issues of mutual concern like Afghanistan, paving way for emergence of a strong China-Russia-Iran coalition. Trump’s ill-advised hasty action has shifted the geopolitical strategic balance in favour of China now. It has annihilated all hopes of regional cooperation in Middle East seat of internecine wars.

In the meanwhile, reports indicate America is mulling a regime change and James Mattis, Defence Secretary and John Bolton, National Security Advisor, known Iranian hawks are now in talks with Iranian resistance groups operating in exile Mujahideen-E-Khalq (MEK). MEK, was once listed as terrorist organization by US State Department. With nuclear deal at the verge of collapse, experts suggest that America might topple the Islamic Republic of Iran. Unravelling of the republic can create a havoc in the region. Strategists point out that Trump donot have a solid plan for regime change in Iran. But he scrapped the deal to destroy Obama’s political legacy and play to domestic politics.

Trump’s faltered Iran policy besides exacerbating regional stability will pose formidable challenges in restoring peace in the Middle East. Trump justified his action as an effort to curtail the “malign activities of Iran”. But what can explain American ineptness in curbing terror activities emanating from the land of Wahhabism and its covert indifference to Pakistan’s nuclear proliferation. With Iran enunciating its keenness to tread nuclear path if European countries fail to rework the deal, Saudi Arabia will intensify its campaign of acquiring nuclear weapon. American history which has been an epitome of hypocrisy has now triggered a nuclear arms race and decimated vestigial hopes of instituting a US-centric World.  Besides with abrogation of Iran deal, a testimony of global diplomacy, countries might find it increasingly difficult to tame the nuclear aspirations of rogue nations.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Beyond symbolism, Wuhan summit enhanced mutual understanding between India and China

The two summits-Korean and Wuhan Summit which concluded recently, in Asian continent brought a semblance of peace, hope and renewed cooperation. While a joint statement was issued after the Korean Summit, Indo-China summit lasted which for two days didn’t formally released any joint declaration. Modi and Xi indeed held six rounds of talks. Putting irreconcilable differences on the back burner, in tune with changing global paradigm, Modi and Xi met at Wuhan. Concluding the summit, both countries issued separate statements, containing themes of convergence and inadvertently stressed on issues that mattered most to them. In fact, a new beginning made by Asian giants undermining differences opened new vistas for cooperation.  

As discussed earlier, the threat of US trade war prompted China to form a united front with India against the protectionist approach of America.  Setting stage for a renewed engagement Chinese foreign minister who was in India March said, “The Chinese Dragon and Indian Elephant must not fight with each other but dance with each other”. Earlier in February, China meekly agreed to forgo its opposition to black-listing of Pakistan at FATF (Financial Action Task Force) in return for India’s support for Beijing’s Vice-Presidential elevation. Also, the flurry of the high-level reciprocal visits of dignitaries between two countries since Xiamen BRICS Summit of September 2015 infused a new momentum in Indo-China relations.

Days ahead of summit, Indian side reiterated that it had low expectations from the informal summit. Expectedly so, while the summit was very high on bonhomie, it didn’t offer any magic bullet for all the longstanding issues that roiled bilateral ties. Wuhan summit was inspired by President Xi’s earlier stint of sorting out relations with America with President Obama at Sunnylands in 2013. Summit held at California didn’t produce any lasting outcomes it helped to ease out relations. With both India and China feeling the heat of the disputes and incursions which have snowballed into a stand-off, this summit offered to reduce friction temporarily with Modi and Xi reaching broad consensus over certain issues. Significantly, there is no mention of Masood Azhar issue, NSG membership or burgeoning trade imbalances. As expected China’s stance on specific issues, related to third party and its vassal state Pakistan have been rather muted.

Wuhan summit besides symbolising ascendency of personalised diplomacy has for once ended the Chinese protocol tradition of equating Indian Prime minister to their premier. It must be recalled that in 2015 Chinese Premier Li Keqiang was deployed to extend ceremonial welcome to Modi on his visit to Xian. In this context, President Xi hosting Prime Minister Modi for two days at Wuhan is a major elevation to status of democratically elected leader of India. Xi taking complete charge of the whole issue not only reflected his growing clout but it has literally reduced the prominence of Chinese premier Li. For two days, the unmissable ambience, electrifying welcome of Modi with Bollywood number, “Tu hai wahi dil ne jise apna kaha”, long walks along the Wuhan lake, tour to heritage museum, the traditional tea ceremony and finally a relaxed boat drive on boat for “peace, prosperity and development” made for impressive optics. Unperturbed by China’s seemingly flexible stance, India remained firm on certain aspects and categorically expressed its opposition towards BRI (Belt Road Initiative), CPEC (China Pakistan Economic Corridor) and strongly condemned state sponsored terrorism without directly referring to Pakistan at the Foreign Affairs Ministers meeting of SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organisation). While Modi embarked for Wuhan, underscoring the need for de-escalation of tensions between both countries, Congress Spokesperson launched a scathing attack on Prime Minister for attending the informal summit. In a series of five tweets, he lashed out at Modi saying “Will PM Modi take up the issue in the summit with Chinese president today in Wuhan, China? Modiji may not be able to show “red eyes” as he loftily promised, but will he show the courage of conviction to do plain-speaking on Doklam and defend India’s interests?”. In response, demarcating,  India’s national interests from its attempts in pursuing friendly ties with China, while Modi was in Wuhan, government announced that 96 new border posts of ITBP (Indo-Tibetan Border Police) will be added along the Indo-China border to enhance operational capability.

Leaders agreed on certain common themes and differed on specific issues as evident from the statements issued by respective countries. Sticking points of Indo-China relations have been long-festering border issue, terrorism and trade imbalances.  As has been evident from Chinese approach, Beijing has always been tongue-tied in calling spade a spade with respect to terrorism. This summit has been no different. While Indian statement read, “Prime Minister Modi and President Xi recognised common threat posed by terrorism and reiterated their strong condemnation of and resolute opposition to terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. They committed themselves on counter terrorism”. China made a reference to terrorism in passing. The choice of words and casual reference to scourge of terrorism aptly reflects Beijing’s indifference to Pakistan’s state sponsor terrorism. It says, “They agree to join hands in offering innovative and sustainable solutions to global challenges such as epidemics, natural disasters, climate change and terrorism”. Needless to say, Beijing indirectly suggested India that China will be the last person to join hands in fight against terrorism. China have strategic and economic interests in Pakistan. Beijing’s strong urge to defend Pakistan is understandable, since Islamabad has been China’s formidable asset in its containment of India policy.

Both sides stressed on importance on maintaining “peace and tranquillity”, “implementing confidence building measures”, “trust and mutual understanding”. While a greater congruence over resolution of border issue is evident from both the sides, they lamented lack of strategic communication which eventually escalated Doklam border stand-off. In a welcome development, both sides agreed to use Special Representatives meeting on border issue for a fair, reasonable and mutually agreeable settlement. Indian emphasised on “strategic guidance”, “predictability and effectiveness in the management of border affairs” to avoid unnecessarily border skirmishes.  While Indian statement expressed its intent to settle down the Indo-China border issue at the earliest, Beijing’s lack of determination is striking, implying its intent of using border as a strategic leverage.

Both countries appreciated the need for building a free, open, inclusive, multipolar, pluralist global economic order, China has been very vocal in championing globalisation. As against India’s subdued approach China opined, “The two countries will work together to make international relations more democratic, increase the representation and say of developing countries and emerging markets, support multilateral trading regime, oppose protectionism and work for an open, inclusive, balanced and win-win economic globalisation that benefits all”. Perturbed by economic slowdown, increased debts, threats of trade tariff war and America’s confrontational attitude Beijing is seeking to deepen engagement with India. This economic anxiety is evident from its strong-worded statement.

While India sought to “push forward bilateral trade and investment in balanced and sustainable manner by taking advantage of complementarities between their two economies”, China wanted to harness the full potential of business and investment cooperation and new ways of exploring win-win situation. This ominously worded win-win situation which is the foundation for OBOR as well should ring bells for India that China is interested exploring investment opportunities in India and not interested in addressing ballooning trade deficits. But for all the grand talk on free trade, even now China has closed doors to India’s pharmaceuticals, agriculture goods, Aluminium and beef exports. Indo-China bilateral trade touched a new high reaching $84.44 billion. Though Indian exports have increased 40% the trade deficit hovers around whopping $51 billion. Experts predict while bilateral trade might soon touch $100 billion, burgeoning trade deficit might spell doom for growing Indian economy.

Besides, both leaders stressed the need for encouraging cultural exchanges and people to people contact, strengthening closer Developmental Partnership, underscored need for developing multilateral financial and political institutions and called for candid discussions on political and security issues.

Interestingly, while China invoked the five principles of mutual coexistence of Panchsheel, India avoided any such references. Modi invited Xi for an informal meeting in India next year. The major outcome of Wuhan has been both countries agreed to work together on an economic project in Afghanistan. While the summit may not be high on outcomes, leaders have rejuvenated bilateral ties hovered by dark clouds of distrust. Close on heels, with leaders agreeing to lend “strategic guidance” to their militaries to build trust and mutual understanding, Army Chief Bipin Rawat is set to meet NSA Ajit Doval to discuss measures for keeping the LAC “incident-free”. Decks are now cleared for establishing a direct hot line between Indian Director General Military Operations (DGMO) and Chinese counterpart and for creation of information sharing mechanism. Both armies are now mooting joint patrolling in disputed regions. Army sources indicated that this limited joint patrolling experimented in few regions of Arunachal Pradesh has been successful. It might be too premature to comment on the outcomes of Wuhan summit but certainly there is a display of some understanding. As of now, India shouldn’t reduce guard and be cautious and follow dictum of “trust, but verify”.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Is historic Inter-Korean Summit a new beginning to a catastrophic conflict?

Asia is going through a major diplomatic churning and the day April 27^th, 2018 will be reckoned in history for being a witness to three important events that can offer plausible solutions to long-festering morass. While Indian subcontinent is deeply engrossed in evaluating Wuhan, informal meet between Modi and Xi, the historic Korean-summit is capturing the attention of the World.  Besides, these two pioneering developments, President Trump is going to hold talks with Angela Merkel at White House regarding trade tariffs on Iron and Steel and the historic Iran nuclear deal.

Korean leaders, Kim Jong Un of North Korea and Moon Jae-in of South Korea met at the truce village of Panmunjom, South Korea, a demilitarised zone (DMZ) separating two Koreas. The meeting is truly historic, as for the first time, a North Korean leader has set foot on South since the Korean war of 1953. The handshake between North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, grand son of Kim Sung Il and his South Korean counterpart Moon Jae-in, son of North Korean refugee who moved to South will go down in history as a fervent attempt by two countries to unveil peace on the Korean peninsula. Kim accompanied by his sister, Kim Jo Yong and inter-Korean relations head are warmly welcomed by Moon, South Korean spy chief and chief of staff. The emotional meeting began with Moon stepping into Northern side briefly, before leading Kim and his delegation to the Peace Summit Building.

The Third Inter-Korean Summit is convened by leaders is largely believed to set stage for the much-anticipated meeting between Kim and President Trump next month. Another underlying interest of summit is to uphold legacies of their predecessors: Kim’s mission of safeguarding dynasty and Moon’s of unifying the peninsula. Days before the meet, Kim announced moratorium on nuclear tests and pledged to dismantle the nuclear site Pungyye-ri and revive economic development. In reciprocation, South turned off propaganda devices at the DMZ zones. Interestingly, Kim hasn’t imposed a precondition of evacuation of American troops from South Korea for talks. While a display of harmonious reciprocity is ostensibly good news, hushed talks of reunification are also mooted with interest. Though it may be premature to comment anything in this regard, a survey conducted by Korea Institute for National Unification last year showed that 71.2% of respondents in 20s opposed reunification.

Inter-Korean Summits

As of now, Koreas held three Inter-Korean summits since 1953. In 2000, South Korean President Kim-Dae Jung, who advocated Sunshine Policy travelled to Pyongyang for talks with Kim Jong Il. Second summit too place between Roh Moo-hyun and Kim Jong Il took place at Pyongyang in 2007. Seoul and Pyongyang are 160 km away but the journey by flight took over one hour since it flew over West Sea to avoid the heavily militarised zone between the countries. Denouncing Cold war style politics, South Korea adopted Sunshine Policy and generously aided the North and initiated various projects to foster economic cooperation. Indeed, Kim-Dae Jung was awarded Nobel Peace Prize for his reconciliatory approach. But the terms of engagement took a massive hit after North Korea conducted first nuclear test in 2006. Despite, concerted opposition of conservatives, Roh made last ditch attempt to reach out to North. But with North remaining uncooperative, in 2010, conservatives who swept the elections, stalled all aid programs and ended the Sunshine Policy. Moon, a supporter of Sunshine policy served as presidential secretary to Roh. When North approached South to broker peace deal, Moon who has several years of political experience gladly agreed. Korean peninsula has been living under the shadow of war for over six and half decades as Armistice of 1953, temporarily stopped the war but formally didn’t end it.

To attend the third Korean summit, Kim walked into South passing through DMZ. Leaders wished each other courteously and steered the engagement personally. The leaders sat across 2018 centimetres table and had freewheeling discussions accompanied by interpreters alone. After parting for lunch and returning to their respective camps, leaders manured 65- year old tree and had a private walk, beyond the range of microphones. While analysts have been deeply sceptical of North Korean intentions, Kim effused warmth, remained receptive and cordial. A day before the Summit, Kim reportedly said that he wouldn’t need nuclear weapons if security of his government is guaranteed and no nuclear power launches an attack.

Joint Declaration

In the joint declaration, both leaders pledged to end war. Sharing the commitment of ending the era of confrontation and division, a relic of cold war, they promised to lead the countries towards an era of conciliation, peace and prosperity. They expressed desire to build and reconnect blood relations and implement all agreements and declarations adopted by both the sides. Both countries agreed to renew cooperation in various fields, encourage development of people to people ties, stage joint events on important days and jointly participate in international events. Agreement is reached to convene Inter-Korean Red cross meeting to relocate and arrange for reunion of separated families and to stop loud broadcast and distribution of leaflets along the border region.

Militarily, they agreed to cease hostilities on all three domains air, land and water and convert demilitarised zones into peace zone by May 1^st this year. Accordingly, Northern Limit Line in West Sea will be turned into a maritime peace zone to avoid military clashes and ensure safe fishing. To generate trust, both sides agreed for regular mutual exchanges, visits and cooperation between the military authorities of both countries. As a confidence building measure, both sides agreed to carry out phased disarmament. Both countries decided to hold a trilateral or quadrilateral with US and China to permanently declare end of war and establish a permanent peace regime. Finally, both leaders reiterated their commitment towards complete de-nuclearization for a nuclear-free Korean peninsula and sought the cooperation of international community to realise the same. To invigorate friendship and trust, leaders agreed to hold regular discussions, meetings and telephonic conversations. Truly, Korean rapprochement seems to be enlivened by the tall promises and broad smiles. But the million-dollar question remains…will Kim deliver on his promises?

After signing the joint declaration, Kim said, “We will make efforts to create good results by communicating closely, in order to make sure our agreement signed today before the entire World, will not end just as a beginning like previous agreements before today”.

Kim’s soft approach to avoid further ostracization and isolationism is in sharp contrast to his intransigence in carrying out a barrage of missile testings. Trump has been credited for the new shift in stance of Kim for threatening North Korea with more crippling sanctions and exerting pressure. Hailing this new historic summit Trump tweeted “KOREAN WAR TO END!!! The United States and all of the GREAT people, should be now proud of what is taking place”.  Interestingly, while Trump had made the right moves, the road ahead seems to bumpy, riskier and augury.

American Dilemma

Till now North carried out six nuclear blasts (equal to India’s nuclear tests), one intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) testing and several rounds of missile blasts. Kim’s nuclear ambitions sent the countries in its immediate vicinity into a tizzy. After the soaring success of the sixth nuclear test and ICBM, and having completed development of nuclear weapons, North began to climb down and attempted to broker a deal with South and Washington. After Trump agreed for a formal meeting with Kim, he travelled to China last month and promised to work towards peace and stability of the region. There are four important stakeholders in the Korean issue besides two Koreas-US, China, Japan and Russia. For both Koreas, summit is more about rapprochement, ending the Korean war and bringing peace. Korean border is the most heavily militarised border the in the World and both countries are in suspended state of war ever since. US and Japan want near total verifiable, nuclear disarmament. China and Russia, close allies of North Korea are closely watching the developments.

Despite the optimism of Korean leaders, Kim is cognizant of American’s manner of treating countries with weapons of mass destruction (WMD) like Iraq and Libya. In 2015, 5+1 cut a verifiable, complete denuclearization deal, JCPOA, Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran. This deal had as of now become prototype for dealing with nuclear belligerent state. But ever since Trump assumed power, he adamantly castigated JCPOA as a “bad deal”. He reluctantly signed a waiver suspending sanctions after much persuasion in January. As per JCPOA, America must certify Iran every 120 days that it is complying with set guidelines and sanctions need not be applied. Next approval is due for May 12^th. Trump has upped ante against Iran calling it a state sponsor terror and urged European counterparts to make fresh changes in the deal to rectify “disastrous flaws”.

European countries wary of dismantling the deal which was put in place after years of persuasion and talks with Iran. To prevent unravelling of JCPOA, French President Emmanuel Macron visited US tried to convince Trump to uphold the JCPOA but failed. Trump threatened to tear the agreement. Iran has now warned that it will pull out the agreement if US exits. Trump persistence for making unilateral changes in negotiated document will create fresh doubts for Kim who is immensely concerned about security of his government.

Besides, tough stance on JCPOA is now creating new fissures in its already fractured relations Russia and China. In a new development reminiscent of cold war era, US and Russia are now modernising and developing new and advanced missiles that can escape detection at an alarming pace and resurrecting a fresh nuclear arms race. Appallingly the stakeholders of Korean issue are bitterly divided. With Trump having agreed to hold talks with Kim work is cut out for America. It must now productively engage and charting out objective course of denuclearising Korean Peninsula.

While sceptics belied enthusiasm of Kim and snapped back that North Korea has cut several deals with countries in the past but never honoured them, Trump optimistically responded, “I don’t think he is playing…Its never gone this far. This enthusiasm for them wanting to make a deal”. He added, “We are going to hopefully make a deal. If we don’t that’s fine”. North Korea denuclearization issue has become a nagging issue at a time when major powers are unabashedly justifying proliferation of weapons to safeguard national interests. At a time when world is enveloped by dark nuclear clouds, can concerned stakeholders provide a peaceful solution for systematic denuclearization of Korean peninsula? Also, how can outsmart an astute and audacious Kim, who knows how to use his limited diplomatic leverage?

Successfully ending the summit, Korean leaders released joint declaration after the banquet, watched a music performance which ended with words “be a family again” and parted with warm farewells. Bonhomie of the historic summit, reminded the World of a happily ever after kind of scenario. But as a matter of fact, the long story of Korean saga, is yet to be untangled...miles to go becomes the peninsula becomes nuclear free.

@ Copyrights reserved.

What to make of Modi-Xi informal meet at Wuhan

The Doklam standoff that lasted for 73 days brought India and China to the brink of war and severely crippled bilateral ties.  Ever since bilateral relationships witnessed a paradigm shift marked by a significant change in foreign policy stratagem. Undermining the animosities and shark differences India and China began to close in to each other. This was reflected in growing number of bilateral visits between the nations. Last December, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and State Councillor Yang Jiechi visited India which was closely followed by Indian Foreign Secretary, Vijay Gokhale’s trip to Beijing in February. In April, National Security Advisor and Special Representative for Border Issues, Ajit Doval visited China weeks ahead of External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj and Minister of Defence Nirmala Sitharaman’s visit to Beijing for attending foreign ministers and defence ministers of SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organisation) members meeting respectively. Ever since escalation of Doklam issue till now both countries witnessed hectic diplomatic activity. The flurry of exchanges, together with MEA’s (Ministry of External Affairs) notice to Indian officials to stay away from official appointments of Dalai Lama has prompted strategists to suggest that India is probably seeking to “reset” its ties with China. These meeting are seen in the contest of setting stage for Prime Minister Modi’s meeting with president Xi at the SCO summit at Qingdao, China. Much to the surprise of strategists, Foreign Ministers of India and China at the SCO meeting announced an informal meeting between leaders of both countries at Wuhan, China on April 27^th and 28^th. This unprecedented development of Prime Minister Modi travelling to China twice in the gap of two months to hold meetings with Xi has surprised international community. While insiders, claim that efforts were underway for the past eight months for such an arrangement, approval of both leaders for such high-level engagement has increased chances for deepening of cooperation related to issues of common interests.

This informal meeting besides raising hopes for revival of ties on a plethora of issues, underscored the diplomatic astuteness of Modi and his signature style of building personal rapport with World leaders. India for long relied on the coterie of envoys to communicate and engage with countries, taking a break from this arrangement, both leaders, known to be “hard-headed nationalists” will reflect on bilateral issues. While the format of the meeting is not clear, it will be a close-door conversation between the leaders assisted by interpreters. No joint statement or document will be released. A person familiar with the plans said, “The intention of this is to ensure that at the leadership level there is a strategic communication. Both countries are emerging as important countries in the World, we are both neighbours. These are risks involved as well, therefore there is a need for discussions to mitigate and handle those differences and of course growing the relationship. I foresee a discussion that is focussed on the positives of the relationship.” Former Indian foreign secretary Lalit Mansingh said, “the format will give two leaders the room to discuss all issues without the weight of too much expectation. The discussions can be seen as the beginning of the resolution of problems rather than be seen as resolving all problems.”

Amidst talks to renewed engagement with China, India unequivocally expressed its reservations towards BRI (Belt Road Initiative) and CPEC (China Pakistan Economic Corridor) and stayed away from the joint communique issued after foreign Ministers SCO meeting on OBOR. Speaking at the Summit, Swaraj condemned the protectionism and stressed on the need for economic globalisation that is open, inclusive and equitable. While refraining from directly naming Pakistan, Swaraj, expressed concerns over burgeoning terrorism calling it “an enemy of basic human rights” and urged members of SCO to “identify and take strong measures against states that encourage, support and finance terrorism and provide sanctuary to terrorists and terror groups”. 

Upon hearing, India’s willingness for robust engagement with China and Modi’s informal meetings, China Observers contended that India is bending over backwards to appease China. But India’s categorical objections to certain sticky issues and uncompromising approach towards terrorism should allay fears of strategists who believe that India will toe Dragon’s line hence forth. It must be recalled that the heightened escalations during the border stand-off could be remarkably quelled due to the proactive diplomatic approach embraced by both countries. Days before the Xiamen, BRICS Summit in 2017, NSAs of both countries held close diplomatic talks paving way for cooling heels over the Doklam issue.

In the meanwhile, the Global Times, Chinese official mouth piece began creating a new paradigm saying, “India is dissatisfied with the US definition of the strategy (Indo-Pacific strategy). India has also realised that the huge gap between China and India and worries that China will take even tougher measures against India which may hinder India’s domestic development”. It added, “changes of India’s China policy are tactical, not strategic, as India’s traditional hegemonic and cold war mentality has not changed. The Modi government thinks that India should become a leading country rather than simply a balancer. India believes that China is India’s geopolitical rival”. China always believed to putting the blame on somebody else for its aggression and this outburst of Global Times is no different. But this statement makes it amply clear that Beijing is ruffled by India’s proactive diplomatic engagements with various regional groupings. China is intimidated by revival of Quad, strengthening of Act East Policy and consolidating ties with ASEAN countries, India’s renewed engagement with European countries. This was reflected in the closing statement of Global Times saying, “The warming of ties between China and India is out of the needs of both countries”.

Beijing which is now profligate about its global domination strongly believes the West is playing India against Beijing to contain it. Reflecting Dragon’s wariness, The Global Times, in an editorial spluttered “The US and Japan began underscoring Indo-Pacific strategy last year in an explicit attempt to rope in India against China. But the strategy hasn’t brought India any strategic benefit except to trigger vigilance between New Delhi and Beijing. Indian elites now realise that India shouldn’t develop cooperation with the US at the cost of ties with China…. The West wanted India and China to confront each other. But it didn’t work that way. Asian powers and emerging countries both China and India share common interests in international affairs. They both have to strive for the right to develop and face Western pressure on issues like trade and intellectual property rights. There is large room for economic cooperation. China and India have more robust economic development than other emerging countries and both are independent”.

Since Doklam, there has been phenomenal global power shift. Hardening protectionist approach, President Trump in a show of economic aggression announced imposition of 25% tariffs on Chinese products for its “unfair economic practices”. China began to feel the heat of tariffs and announced counter tariffs. But being the largest exporter, China will stand to lose in the trade tariff war. In the aftermath of US trade threats, China for the first time in eight years, held trade talks with Japan. Wrapping up trade talks, China and Japan agreed to improve ties with leaders of both countries planning to pay reciprocal visits. They even planned a trilateral summit involving South Korean leaders. During his election campaign, Trump criticised Japan, Vietnam and India for persistent trade deficit and now China has intensified trade talks with all these countries.  US trade threats has brought about a stark change in China’s approach towards India.

Aside, issues of trade, US security observers are now raising alarm over growing Chinese hegemony in the South China Sea (SCS). In the first week of April, as a message to Taiwan and show of support to Russia, China conducted biggest ever Naval exercise in the SCS and surprise live-fire drill near Taiwan Straits. Around the same time, USS Theodore Roosevelt along with 20 F-18 Super Hornet Fighter jets performed landing exercises on their way to Philippines water. US also announced expansion of annual military exercises with Philippines to include Japan and Australia. Newly nominated Pacific Command Chief, Philip Davidson called for fielding and developing strong force posture to “counter Chinese malign influence in the region”. He even warned US of China’s weaponization of space, improving ballistic missile technology and cyber capabilities. Australia expressed similar concerns and willingness to join hands with US. Escalation of trade war, US imposed sanctions on the sale of ZTE manufactured mobile phones for violating US sanctions against North Korea and Iran has flustered China. Interestingly, last year having violated the sanctions, ZTE agreed to punish the concerned employees and agreed to pay $1.2 billion fine. But China backtracked and hence US commerce department announced a ban on the sale of mobiles for seven years.

While nothing much has changed between India and China in the past one year, Trump’s bolder stance on trade issues, North Korea’s coming out of China’s cudgels and reaching out to US has altered the geopolitical game for China. Notwithstanding towering Chinese influence, both Koreas displayed gumption to initiate peace talks. This substantially reduced the invincibility and influence of China in Asia. Europe is too waking up to pervading Chinese presence in the region. Bereft of any other option, smaller countries have grudgingly accepted Chinese rise. But now, the warnings of international agencies of China’s slumping growth rate coupled with high debt levels staring at possibility of financial crisis might be at the root of new game of seeking rapprochement. Also, India’s formidable opposition towards BRI is gaining more prominence with Europe which is seriously reassessing China’s real motives pertaining to global connectivity initiative.

International community is closely observing new found cordiality of Asian giants. Wuhan meeting will offer unique opportunity for leaders to reflect on sticking points and improve strategic communication. India understands that China will not make concessions but there can be possibility of negotiations over issues of conflicting interests. China expects India to endorse its new global status while India is growing wary of increased Chinese penetration into its exclusive spheres of continental and maritime influence. Both countries are grappling for influence in subcontinental region. Sources indicate that Pakistan and Tibet issues might dominate the agenda of talks. Chinese strategist Zhao Gancheng, suggested that Wuhan meeting will seek to “promote economic cooperation between the two largest developing countries amid US driven anti-globalisation trend, and mechanism to safeguard peace and avoid border disputes”. India’s perceived closeness with US and its rising global influence makes New Delhi, an important strategic partner hard to ignore. Endorsing India’s growing stature, Global Times known for its distasteful antipathy carried a conciliatory article saying, “China’s strategic indifference towards India and India’s strategic sensitivity towards China have always existed. These attitudes are rapidly becoming major obstacles towards development of the two countries. The more they develop, the more serious strategic anxiety on the other side and greater the security burden unless positions are addressed, and traditional notions of geopolitical competition are abandoned”. While a constructive diplomatic engagement with China is good, India mustn’t give into Chinese pressure.

@ Copyrights reserved.