US and China Play ‘Taiwan Card’ for Strategic Messaging

Aggressive posturing and brinkmanship are now threatening the stability of the Indo-Pacific region. Speaker of US House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan along with the Congressional delegation has turned into a watershed moment, triggering a diplomatic storm between the US and China. Pelosi embarked on a trip to East Asia - Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea and Japan and made an unconfirmed stop at Taiwan. 

Stating that the Congressional delegation is travelling to the Indo-Pacific “to reaffirm America’s strong and unshakeable commitment to our allies and friends in the region”¹, the statement by Pelosi deliberately avoided any mention of Taiwan.  

Pelosi who is second in succession to the US presidency, postponed the scheduled trip to Taiwan in April after she was affected by Covid. Her comments in July about the need to show support for Taiwan, sparked speculations about her visit to Taiwan. The last high-ranked visit to Taiwan was over 25 years ago made by Republican Newt Gingrich in 1997. Against these developments, President Xi in a telephone conversation with President Biden reiterated that China’s position on Taiwan is consistent and resolute and warned, “those who play with fire will perish by it” and added, “the US should honour the one-China principle and implement the three joint communiques both in word and in deed”².

Maintaining that the “one-China policy of the US has not changed and will not change”, Biden in response to the strong objection from Beijing said, “well, I think that the military thinks it’s not a good idea right now,” about Pelosi’s reported visit³. But President can’t force the legislative wing to change its decision as the Executive can’t undermine the Legislative branch in a democracy.

Beijing deems any deviation from the One-China policy as a “red line” and Biden fomented a nebula of suspicion with his repeated flip-flops. In a joint press meeting with Japanese PM Kishida in Tokyo, Biden said the US is prepared to defend Taiwan if attacked but the White House immediately walked back on his claim. The “strategic ambiguity” of the US stems from the Taiwan Relations Act, 1979, which offers to defend the democratic Taiwan framework providing for a diplomatic and economic relationship and would “consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States”⁴. (Meaning any embargo or boycott of Taiwan be considered a threat to peace).

America’s strategic ambiguity is rather intriguing, for the provisions of TRA permit the US to supply defence equipment to Taiwan but don’t guarantee that the US will intervene militarily if PRC attacks nor does it relinquish it. While Biden lived up to the guidelines of the TRA, his multiple gaffes have elevated temperatures in the region and provoked angry outbursts. Also, a recent surge in high-profile visits to Taiwan by US officials, which included Democrat and Republic senators, has made China jittery.

Signalling its disapproval of these developments, China began sending warplanes into Taiwan’s ADIZ (Air Defence Identification Zone). Indeed, China’s insecurity deepened as Taiwan’s recent successes in the fields of health, semiconductors and scientific technology has made it a natural magnet for productive collaborations drawing legislators from several Western countries.

This new global acclaim for Taiwan, together with the dire expansionist pursuits of Beijing has indeed, prompted countries like Japan to recommend the US to shift from a policy of strategic ambiguity to a policy of clarity. China’s recent announcement insisting its “sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the Taiwan Straits” and totally rejecting that these are “international waters”⁵ has only reinforced the concerns of countries in the region. Around one-third of global maritime trade passes through the Taiwan Straits which connects South China and the East Sea and China’s fresh claims over its sovereignty pose a grave challenge to the movement of commercial vessels.

Since the Ukraine crisis, China has been eyeing a forcible reunification of Taiwan and waiting for an opportune time to unleash its strategy. Setting the stage for the upcoming 20^th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), where Xi is expected to nullify Deng Xiaoping’s two-term Presidency rule and claim his third term, addressing a study session of provincial and ministerial level officials on June 26-27, Xi has asked the party “to hold high the banner of socialism with Chinese characteristics and stay committed to driving forward the historic process of national rejuvenation”⁶. The reunification of Taiwan is the core aspect of the postulated national rejuvenation.

Hailing the efforts of the Central government in enacting law safeguarding national security in the Hongkong Special administrative region, in securing firm control over the region, Xi urged the party to “thoroughly review the international and domestic situation to have a clear understanding of the strategic opportunities, risks and challenges we face”. He stressed that “achieving national rejuvenation will be no walk in the park, and it will take more than drum beating and gong clanging to get there. We must undertake a great struggle with many new contemporary features and be prepared to work even harder toward this goal”.

Rightly so, amid burgeoning domestic troubles of real estate crisis, a slowing economy, and demographic decline, to distract the public attention, Xi is resorting to ultra-nationalist brinkmanship. Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan provided an opportune moment for China to intensify its reunification agenda. Taiwan besides being a prized economic and strategic asset is now being used by both the US and China as leverage.

After rather symbolic responses to China’s expansionist moves for over a decade, the US which lost its credibility is now using Taiwan to resurrect its position in this part of the world. Taiwan is a bridge that separates the two spheres of influence of the US and China and is strategically very important for both countries given Taiwan’s geographic location and its supremacy in semiconductors.

By ceding the island, the US would completely lose its influence in the region. It would pose a grave threat to US allies in the region. Also, considering the aggravating Sino-US strategic competition, the changing international scenario, the US need to prove its ability to control China’s strategic design toward Taiwan, Washington wanted to use Taiwan question as a tool.

Moreover, China’s remonstrance of “the US will bear the responsibility and pay the price for undermining China’s sovereign security interests”⁶ and PLA “will not sit idly by” if Pelosi makes a pitstop at Taiwan and strengthened the resolve of Speaker Pelosi, a supporter of Tibet and vocal critic of China’s human rights violation to go ahead with the visit. With the US heading for a midterm election, Pelosi who is almost on the fag end of her career, cognizant of the implicit domestic imperatives, couldn’t have cowered down to Chinese threats.

Though Biden doesn’t want an escalation, a cancellation of the visit would erode US’s strategic messaging and would indicate that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) could dictate America’s Taiwan policy. While the strategic community and the policy wonks in the US are deeply divided over the visit with some outrightly arguing that the visit isn’t worth the risk, Pelosi landed in Taiwan. She held talks with Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-Wen and said, “America has made a bedrock promise to always stand with Taiwan. On this strong foundation, we have a thriving partnership grounded in self-government and self-determination focused on mutual security in the region and world committed to economic prosperity”⁸.

Slamming Pelosi’s visit as “extremely dangerous”, China stated, “the Taiwan question is purely an internal affair of China and no other country is entitled to act as a judge on the Taiwan question” and urged the US to stop playing the “Taiwan card” to contain China⁹. Ahead of Pelosi’s visit, China held live-fire exercises and military drills dangerously close to Taiwan. Shortly, after Pelosi’s arrival, Eastern Theatre Command announced long-range live-fire drills near Taiwanese islands, sent 21 fighter jets and fifth-generation J-20 planes into Taiwan’s air defence zone and threatened targeted military operations.

In response to Pelosi’s visit, China’s military and propaganda fronts went on an overdrive. In addition to the export ban on 100 Taiwanese products announced earlier, China has now suspended imports of citrus fruits, white scallop and mackerel and banned the export of natural sand used for producing silicon wafers in chip production. Ahead of the visit, the Taiwan Presidential Office website was hit by a cyberattack.

Flexing its military muscle, China is attempting a trade blockade on Taiwan. Beijing warned airlines to avoid the Taiwan airspace designated as “danger zones” and vowed disciplinary action against Taiwan Foundation for Democracy and Taiwan Foreign Ministry’s International Cooperation and Development Fund¹⁰. Stirring up nationalistic fervour, Beijing is now seeking refuge for its aggressive confrontation under the pretense of “upholding sovereignty”. While the Indo-Pacific region is aware of China’s combative belligerence, the world at large and the US would now experience the peaceful rise proclamations of Beijing.

Reinforcing the sabre rattling, the Chinese embassy in India issued a 'red line' warning over Pelosi's visit¹¹. Russia, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea, Belarus, Cuba, Cambodia, Myanmar junta, and Afghan Taliban reaffirmed the "One China Policy'. G7 nations, the EU condemned China's 'aggressive' military drills and the White House asked China not to turn Pelosi's visit into a crisis¹².

With economic interests at stake, turning a blind eye to China’s expansionism, the US operational strategy has been strategic competition. Ever shy of calling China an adversary unlike its relative ease in terming Russia as one, the US is now at crossroads. To cater to its domestic interests and geostrategic alliances, the US has vowed not to abandon Taiwan. Will it now uphold the rules-based order and amend its strategic ambiguity toward Taiwan?

Though the US warned that the unilateral change in the status quo of Taiwan is unacceptable prospects of outright military war between China and the US are bleak thus far. But the current episode has created frictions in Sino-US relations which might be hard to revive. Interestingly, unlike the US, the Taiwan issue is essential fodder for Xi’s political fortunes and Beijing will perpetually indulge in war-mongering to defend its claims.  The moot point is whether Washington can deliver on its promise to Taiwan.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Aurangzeb: Whitewashing Tyrant, Distorting Narrative

The course of the world was changed by Abrahamics whose lust for power and fanaticism has led to the annihilation of indigenous civilisations to an extent that a vast majority of them no longer exist even in name. As a result, some of the cultures, traditions and knowledge systems were lost forever. Some of the darkest chapters of history that underscore this intolerance and depravity are totally whitewashed. Records of some of the conquests and brutalities heaped on the conquered populations in different corners of the world find oft mentioned in history books. Over decades, to maintain their supremacy and domination, a template of selective presentation of history has been consciously adopted and advocated. Lost in the deluge of this selective interpretation of history, descendants of indigenous civilisations gave up their hopes of reclaiming their past.  Indeed, whitewashing history has been a tested and tried tool of vested interests hellbent on wiping out any residual remnants of indigenous cultures.

This prodigal template is now lavishly deployed against Bharat, the upholders of the oldest living civilisation. Consciously picking the selective snippets from historical records to suit a pre-set narrative, a so-called eminent league of historians propped an icon to deny the excesses of zealotry unleased on Indians. Meticulously repackaging the Mughal King, Aurangzeb, an inveterate religious bigot, the symbol of Muslim colonialism and the quintessential hero of Pakistan, portrayed as a ‘secular, progressive ruler of India’, insidious attempts are being made to change the discourse.

At a time, when religious fanaticism is rearing its ugly head and nibbling at the syncretism of Indian society, it becomes imperative to revisit the history for an uncontrived understanding. Challenging the gross falsification of revisionist narrative, debut author, Saurabh Lohogaonkar through his book- “Aurangzeb: Whitewashing Tyrant, Distorting Narrative” has brought to light several facets of the tyrant monarch. Terming this endeavour of bringing out some inconvenient truths as a “fact-finding exercise” the author has enriched readers’ understanding of the political contours of India during Aurangzeb’s regime.

Deconstructing the revisionist narrative, the author busts several myths. Defending the temple demolitions as the king’s way of punishing disloyal Hindu officials by destroying the temple he patronised, all the acts of religious fanaticism were exculpated. The attacks on temples that served as prime centers of learning and reconversion, especially in the case of Kashi, were attributed to a rebellion. For instance, the Jat revolt, the zamindar revolt and the Rathore revolt were used as cover for the ruthless destruction of temples in Mathura, Kashi and Mewar respectively.

Castigating temples as places of teaching deviant religious doctrines they were constantly targeted to wipe out Santana Dharma. Hideously, providing cover to these motives, revisionist theories condoned these acts as ‘demolition for political purposes’. Reserving special commendation to these exponents, the author calls them- “Political resistance theorists”. These theorists in collaboration with another set of lobbyists- “Aurangzeb Defenders League” flagrantly justified the imposition of the “Jizya” tax on Hindus under the ruse of rising- ‘Hindu revolts, the building of new temples, financial strain on the treasury due to wars, need to please the orthodox ulemas amid dwindling Hindu support’. In their enthusiasm to defend the indefensible, several biographers of Aurangzeb have thrown objectivity to the wind. Rejecting all these ludicrous reasons, the author brilliantly busts a trail of lies and unravels the abject bigotry of Aurangzeb.

The book gives a detailed list of the Hindu rulers who were forced to convert to retain control over their fiefdoms. Announcing a lucrative amount for conversion of non-Muslims, Aurangzeb launched a mass conversion program as well. Burying these inconvenient truths, a fake narrative was created. Berating the fight of Hindu rulers against the tyrannical Mughals of Timurid origin who invaded India lobby groups have malevolently portrayed them as Indian rulers.  They contested the natural right of the people of the land to defend their country from invaders.

Deconstructing this narrative based on chronicles, the author points out that Babur wanted his body to be buried in Kabul and wanted to expand the boundaries towards Samarqand. Shahjahan attempted to capture Balkh and Badakshan provinces. He reportedly spent nearly 25% of the revenue on conquests. Interested in capturing those territories, Aurangzeb stationed his son Prince Shah Alam at Kabul and lamented his failure to take “ancient possessions of our ancestors”.

Generating reams of atrocity literature, “eminent historians”, attributed anything and everything under the sky in the Indian realm to Mughals. Countering this obnoxious fiendish fetish, the author convincingly presents the facts. After his ascent to the peacock throne, Aurangzeb appointed Irani-Turkish to the highest positions, next in line were Indian Muslims while Hindus were demoted to lower order. Aurangzeb played the religion card to the hilt, imbuing the teachings of Ahmad Sirhindi of Nasqhbandi order, he deemed India as the land of kuffar. Leveraging his deep religiosity, he portrayed Dara Shikoh as an apostate and won the support of the orthodox ulema. Subsequently, through calculated moves, he ruthlessly killed all his brothers and nephews to lay claims to the throne.

Denying the Bharatiyas of their gory past replete with episodes of zealotry and the fanaticism that sapped the vitality of their civilization, ‘self-appointed sentinels of Indian history’ glorified and extolled the invaders. Defending the conquests ‘to civilise, illiterate, unwashed masses’ historical sources, the discriminatory policies followed by Aurangzeb were normalised.

Unlike some Mughal kings who coopted the Hindu rulers, deeply distrustful Aurangzeb interfered in the traditional primogeniture succession and usurped the Hindu fiefdoms to launch his discriminatory anti-Hindu agenda. Consequently, Aurangzeb had to spend the last 27 years of his rule in relentless wars with non-Muslims. This had severely dented the economy, treasury ran empty. A spate of defeats against the Marathas demoralised Aurangzeb’s troops. Besides the cost of raising and maintaining troops, Marathas used to extract heavy sums to release captured Mughal officials and heavy bribes for the seizure of forts. As per records altogether 1 million soldiers were believed to have lost their lives in these battles. Another million died due to two years of consecutive famines in the Deccan between 1702-1704.

Disapproving the governance of Aurangzeb, his son Prince Akbar who fled to Persia in a stinging letter offers a reality to his father wrote- “In Aurangzeb’s reign, the wild and low are favoured, they pass by in mighty state and arrogance, these are his companions and counsellors as they govern all, the noble and learned are undone because he don’t want them in the Court at all. The whole world wonders at seeing this misrule; Behold to what conditions we are now reduced to!”.

In this extensively researched book, the author provides various tables and pie diagrams for easy understanding. An exhaustive list of towns whose names were changed to erase the Indian identity should alone alert a keen reader that reconversions, renaming and destroying the identity are not random events but have been an integral aspect of his governance. These aspects become all the more relevant since simple acts of renaming cities/towns/ streets to reclaim their original identity are vociferously opposed by self-professed intellectual lobbies.

George Orwell says, “the most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history”. Even as thousands of ruined temples spanning the length and breadth of India and renamed cities whose real identity expunged from contemporary discourse are now a lived reality, new generations are deliberately fed the white-washed history to deny atrocities and genocide.

By critically refuting this falsified history, the author has rendered an invaluable service. This book caters to the curiosity of readers who analyze things objectively and appreciate an empirical approach.

@ Copyrights reserved.

Antipathy Towards West Brings Russia and Iran Together

Besides the Eurasian front, another front is getting heated up and turning into an epicentre of new partnerships and alignments- The Middle East. The region known for intense military activity, strife and contestations has become fertile ground for hectic diplomatic parleys. Days after President Joe Biden’s engagement with the region, President Putin landed in Tehran on his first tour since the Ukraine war beyond the former Soviet Union.

The Tehran Summit, a meeting between President Putin and Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei came just weeks after reports of a Russian delegation in Iran for a putative combat drones purchase. These reports raised speculations of Russia’s falling short of weaponry for its “special military operation” against Ukraine. However, the issue is largely under wraps with no official confirmation from either side.

Fearing domestic anger over exacerbating the Russia-Ukraine tensions, which is likely to increase pressure on the US and Middle East, Iran has kept the development confidential. Wary of tainting its image as a global military power, even Russia chose to keep the issue a secret.

But as a matter of fact, military cooperation has been the basis for the start of a new relationship between Moscow and Tehran. They reinvented this new relationship as Russia is seen as an interventionist power for annexing parts of Iran in the Russo-Persian war (1826-28) which include the present-day Armenia, Azerbaijan, Nakhchivan and Idgir province of Turkey century and for invading Iran in 1941 with the British¹.  After the fall of the Soviet Union, Iran competed with Turkey for influence in Central Asia and the Caucasian region and this brought Russia and Iran together wherein both countries supported Christian Armenia against Shia Azerbaijan.

Both countries signed the last comprehensive cooperation in 2001 for 10 years and it was later extended twice for a period of five years ending in 2021². Additionally, these countries worked together on various forums like – INSTC, Eurasia Economic Cooperation and in September 2021, Iran was admitted to SCO as a full member. But Iran’s ties with Russia bordered from being friend to foe.

In the aftermath of the US exit from Syria in 2015, both countries worked together to stabilise the Assad regime. Russia also voted in favour of six resolutions imposing sanctions on Iran. Simultaneously, Moscow played the role of a mediator between the West and Iran in JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) negotiations to enhance its great power status. Russia completely believes that Iran shouldn’t have access to nuclear weapons and Moscow doesn’t condone Iran’s nuclear program.

The other two major issues, where Iran and Russian interests converge are Syria and Afghanistan. Russia will resolutely defend its strategic interests in Syria especially the access to Port Tartus that connects the Mediterranean Sea and is keen to collaborate with Iran on Afghanistan to contain the spill of terrorism into its backyard, Central Asia. Russia and Iran have different military abilities and they extensively cooperate to advance their interests in Syria. There were instances when Russia and Iran provided cover for each against the IS (lslamic State). While Russia continued with air strikes, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) provided boots on the ground. In 2016, to strike rebel areas in Syria, Iran has allowed Russia to use its Hamadan airbase³.

Be as it may, consumed by decades of antipathy towards the West, Tehran leaned towards Russia. This ideological synergy has been the sustaining force of the Russo-Iranian ties. A review of multi-dimensional cooperation is on cards and Putin’s visit is believed to boost the prospects of sealing a comprehensive strategic partnership agreement between the two countries.

Subjected to punitive western sanctions, facing greater isolation and pressure in the aftermath of Biden’s engagement with the region cementing the Abrahamic accords, to send a strong message to the West, Iran and Russia are exploring various avenues for cooperation. The US has steered the formation of an Arab-Israeli alliance that shifted the balance of power from Iran. Chaffing at the Western sanctions, Russia has cemented ties with China and the latest round of sanctions has nudged Moscow to venture into Asian markets.

During the first face to face interaction between the two leaders, Khamenei stated that the two countries need to stay vigilant against “Western Deception” and suggested that “the US dollar should be taken off the global trade, and this can be done gradually”⁴. Iran which has earlier abstained from voting on Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine and adopted a neutral position has now completely endorsed the Russian stance. Khamenei said Moscow had little alternative, “if you had not taken the initiative, the other side (west) would have caused a war on its own initiative”.  

Chances of reviving the 2015 JCPOA torpedoed after the June Doha talks. While US officials stated, “their vague demands, reopening of settled issues and requests clearly unrelated to the JCPOA all suggests to us… that the real discussion that has to take place is (not) between Iran and the US to resolve remaining differences. It is between Iran and Iran to resolve the fundamental questions about whether they are interested in a mutual return to the JCPOA” as the main roadblock. Iran on the other hand demanded explicit guarantees that future US administrations wouldn’t pull back the plug on the JCPOA and the US expressed its inability to give any such legal guarantees⁵.

Exhausting all options of any redemption, Iran is now betting heavily on Russia to bypass the sanctions and the isolation. To resurrect its global image and break free from the West’s isolation, Russia is pivoting to Asia. While the operationalization of INSTC has revived the spirit of cooperation between Iran and Russia, both countries have a curious cooperative competition between them.

Russia and Iran have the largest and second-largest natural gas reserves respectively. With European markets currently off bound to both countries, both are eyeing Asian markets. Iranian oil exports to China reduced in May after Beijing started preferring the discounted Russian oil. Russians were anxious to expand, protect markets and deny any share to Iran. Moscow believes that Iran’s improved ties with the West can endanger its oil exports as Central Asian Republics would become a better alternative to purchasing oil.

Reeling under decades of sanctions the political dispensation and domestic populace favour a rapprochement with the West. But Iranian hardliners led by Supremo Khamenei want to increase trade with Russia and build that as a front leverage to push back the West and whittle down its sanction regime. 

With a focus on economic cooperation, Iran’s National Oil Company and Russia’s Gazprom have signed an MoU worth $40 billion and planned to gradually abandon the US dollar. Iran is also considering joining Russia’s SWIFT system- System for Transfer of Financial Messages (SPFS).

Tehran has also hosted Turkish President Erdogan who attended the trilateral meeting of leaders of Russia, Turkey and Iran, as a part of the Astana peace process to discuss Syria. Erdogan announced his plans for a special military operation in Northern Syria in areas held by People’s Protection Units (YPG). Turkey considers the YPG an offshoot of PKK (Kurdish Workers Party), deemed a terrorist organization by Ankara. YPG is in fact part of US-backed Syrian Defence Forces (SDF) that takes on the IS.

Threatening to launch the military offensive to extend the 30- km deep “safe zones” along the border, Erdogan sought the solidarity of Iran. But Russia and Iran strongly disapproved of his proposal with Khamenei stating that a military attack in Northern Syria will definitely harm Syria, Turkey and the entire region and terrorists would benefit from it⁶. Russia which is more preoccupied with Ukraine is less interested in playing a military role in Syria. But Iran requested Russia to play a major role in deterring Turkey from launching any major operation in Syria.

Another facet of Erdogan’s travel to Iran despite increasing tensions between Ankara and Tehran over water resources and Iran’s alleged intelligence operations on Turkish territory, is to discuss a Black Sea Grain corridor deal with Russia. As a NATO member, Turkey hosted the peace talks between Russia and Ukraine and is now coordinating the UN-led plan for Ukrainian grain export.

A tentative agreement on grain corridors can alleviate the global food crisis by facilitating the export of 22 million tonnes of Ukrainian agricultural produce. Putin said that America has lifted sanctions on Russian fertiliser supplies to the global markets and if they ease similar restrictions on Russian grain exports, Moscow will facilitate Ukrainian grain shipments.

Constrained by many limiting factors including their competition in energy, Putin’s visit to Tehran is more symbolic and intended to deliver a message to the West of its ability to charter an alternate course to resurrect its global influence and that Russia can’t be cornered. Iran and Russia are portrayed as allies in the anti-West coalition, both countries aren’t strategic allies to date. Both countries are at best political allies with intense loathing of the West as the firm glue. Tehran wouldn’t risk the wrath of the West by way of deep military cooperation with Russia. But if the Ukrainian crisis persists, the former imperial states would continue to amplify their resistance against the West.

@ Copyrights reserved.

India explores new opportunities for cooperation with I2U2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ Copyrights reserved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ Copyrights reserved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ Copyrights reserved.Int

Shinzo Abe, A Great Friend of India

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ Copyrights reserved.