Search

By Prof. Bharat H. Desai The Baisakhi Day of April 13, 2023 brought to the fore painful memories of the 104 years old carnage at Amritsar’s Jallianwala Bagh. On that fateful day, the British soldiers enacted one of the bloodiest massacres on the Indian soil. The festering wounds of that past and the ghastly act of a renegade agent of the British Raj still await a closure. It calls for making International Law work through reparations for injury caused by an internationally wrongful act committed during the British colonial rule. The Amritsar massacre resulted from wanton ten minutes firing without warning was ordered by Brigadier-General Michael Dyer on the assembled peaceful protesters against the Rowlatt Act (XI of 1919). The action required firing of 1,650 rounds that killed at least 379 people and injured 1200 more. The tectonic shocks of the incident were a turning point in Mohandas Gandhi’s full commitment to Indian freedom from the British rule. It also made Rabindranath Tagore to give up his knighthood. Tagore expressed his anguish in his protest letter of May 31, 1919 to the Viceroy Lord Chelmsford thus: “The disproportionate severity of the punishments inflicted upon the unfortunate people and the methods of carrying them out, we are convinced, are without parallel in the history of civilized governments”. Similarly, the March 08, 1920 report of Lord William Hunter, President of the Disorders Inquiry Committee explicitly concluded: “Brigadier-General Dyer's action at Jallianwala Bagh was in complete violation of this principle (using the minimum force necessary)…that it is impossible to regard him as fitted to remain entrusted with the responsibilities which his rank and position impose upon him”. Past as Present: Healing the Wounds In the post-independence period, the 1919 Amritsar massacre has been relegated in the public memory even though the Jallianwala Bagh memorial remains a mute witness to one of the historical wrongs left behind by the British Raj. After a century (1919-2019) of the Amritsar massacre, the then British Prime Minister Theresa May described it merely as the “shameful scar” on the British Indian history. Hence, a formal apology in the British House of Commons still eludes. In the wake of the Prime Minister’s Questions on April 10, 2019, concerning the Amritsar massacre, May invoked the standard cliché to describe the massacre as a “distressing example” and said: “We deeply regret what happened and the suffering caused.” This was at best a half-hearted, insincere and reluctant acceptance of the massacre that was dubbed ‘monstrous’ at the time even by Winston Churchill. In 2013, David Cameron became the first serving British Prime Minister to visit the Jallianwala Bagh Memorial. However, Cameron brushed it aside and refused to "reach back into history" to apologize for the wrongs of British colonialism. Even as the wheels of time move on, the ghosts of the past wrongs haunt affected peoples and nations and hence the quest for a closure persists. In a historic move on April 24, 2021, the US President Joe Biden formally recognized the 1915 Ottoman-era massacre of the Armenians as ‘genocide’ and observed: “We honor the victims of the Meds Yeghern so that the horrors of what happened are never lost to history. And we remember so that we remain ever-vigilant against the corrosive influence of hate in all its forms”. It became reminiscent of a similar initiative by President Barack Obama, who visited the Hiroshima bomb site on May 27, 2016. In paying homage, Obama invoked the “souls of the dead who speak to us” and candidly admitted: “We stand here...and force ourselves to imagine the moment the bomb fell...we listen to a silent cry…(it) demonstrated that mankind possessed the means to destroy itself.” Though not tendering an explicit 'apology', the US President laid a basis for closer of the wrong at a future date as several former colonial powers have already done. For instance, apologies have been tendered by Germany for the 1904-08 Namibian massacre (2021), Canada for the ill-treatment of the passengers (Indian) of the ship Komagata Maru (2016), Japan for the ‘comfort women’ (2015), Australia for ‘stolen generation’ (2008) and Germany for the ‘holocaust’ (1970). In case of the ‘comfort women’, the compensation and “most sincere apologies and remorse” tendered by Japan (2015) was revoked in 2017 by the new South Korean government. The invoking of the past in the present times reflects human’s evolution, empathy and eternal sense of justice. It is a vital lesson for all powerful wrongdoers who think they would get away by inflicting wounds on a people. The usage of words such as ‘regret’, ‘shame’, ‘remorse’, ‘sorry’ or ‘failure’ aim to seek rapprochement with either a section of a country’s own population or in another country. Mere tokenism would render it futile. It calls for full acceptance of state responsibility. In 2013, Britain apologized and agreed to pay compensation of 19.9 million pounds to 5,228 claimants for the Kenyan Mau Mau nationalist uprising. This precedent provides a concrete basis for the Britain to apologize and seek a closure of past colonial wrongs such as the 1919 Amritsar massacre. Invoking State Responsibility The formal tendering of an apology by a state either to own people (lost generation in Australia) or for an incident on its soil (ill-treatment of the Indian immigrants at the Canadian harbor) or in the former colonies (Mau Mau massacre in Kenya) are designed to satisfy psychological needs of the decedents of affected parties or the States. The French apology for blowing up of the Rainbow Warrior award (UNSG, 1986) in Auckland harbor and the US apology to Germany in the LaGrand case (ICJ, 2001) for failure to notify the accused of their right to communicate with German consular officials are other examples in this chain. In the same vein, India needs to seek a formal Pakistani apology for egregious violations of the right of consular access in the Kulbhushan Jadhav case (ICJ, 2019). Every internationally wrongful act of a State constitutes a breach of legal obligation that entails an international responsibility. The International Law Commission’s 2001 Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts provide for the injury caused by conduct of a State “to make full reparation for the injury (material or moral) caused by the internationally wrongful act” (Article 31). Modes of reparation could include restitution, compensation, or satisfaction. Thus, International Law recognizes apology as a formal remedy for its violations under an overarching criterion of satisfaction. It can take the form of an “acknowledgement of the breach, an expression of regret, a formal apology or another appropriate modality” (Article 37). In this context, the 1948 Genocide Convention, ratified by 153 countries (April 2022), holds direct relevance since recognizes that “at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity” and states “genocide is a crime under international law, contrary to the spirit and aims of the United Nations and condemned by the civilized world”. Awaiting Apology and Reparations The present generation owes responsibility for the wrongful actions of the past generations since continuing nations have continuing responsibilities. As a corollary, a sincere apology and reparations can help in healing the past wounds. After a lapse of 104 years, it is high time the Indian government formally seeks an apology from the British government for the 1919 Amritsar massacre. The Punjab Legislature as well as both houses of the Indian Parliament can unanimously adopt resolutions to this effect. On February 19, 2019, in special House of Lords debate on Amritsar massacre, strong views were expressed by many peers on the need for a formal British apology. This inevitable historical British action would need to comprise a formal statement by the British Prime Minister in the House of Commons, issue of a postage stamp for paying homage to the departed souls and an appropriate compensation to be deposited in the Jallianwala Bagh National Memorial Trust Fund. This International Law ordained process would form a basis of much awaited closure for the descendants of the massacred victims, the City of Amritsar and the people of India. Which British Prime Minister would go down in history to do so? Time is the answer. #Apology #Reparations #Amritsar #JallianwalaBagh #104years Dr. Bharat H. Desai is Jawaharlal Nehru Chair, Professor of International Law and Chairperson of the Centre for International Legal Studies (SIS, JNU), served as a member of the official Indian Delegations to various multilateral negotiations (2002-2008) as well as coordinated the knowledge initiatives for Making SIS Visible (2008-2013) and the four partner Inter-University Consortium: JNU; Jammu; Kashmir; Sikkim (2012-2020)

By Prof. Swaran Singh The real numbers are uncertain, and what they actually mean for China and India even more so World media have been abuzz with the United Nations’ State of World Population 2023 report released this month, declaring India the world’s most populous country. Equal focus has been on the People’s Republic of China experiencing its first ever population shrinkage in the last six decades and how its elderly population will overtake its working-age population by 2080. This is projected to have a profound effect on everything in China, from the economy to President Xi Jinping’s legitimacy. Some blame China’s population decline on the one-child policy imposed during Deng Xiaoping’s rule during early 1980s. That policy was finally scrapped in 2015, but the current population decline is expected by some to bring about a total collapse of China, in political, economic, and demographic terms, triggering unprecedented global volatility. Put together, such reports have sought to highlight the population issue as one more point of comparison between China and India. Speculations about whether this will become another point of confrontation have seen experts cite Premier Li Qiang’s reference to China focusing on a “talent” dividend to compensate for its loss of the demographic dividend to India. Indeed, some television and other media debates have sought to ask whether India’s rise as the next economic powerhouse will trigger China’s decline, thus presenting this as a zero sum equation between the two Asian giants. All this rhetoric calls for a serious rebuttal, to put things in perspective, and to question various basic assumptions in these super-hyped, sensational insinuations. Estimates are tentative First and foremost, all these estimates are just that, estimates. Based on projected trends, the aforementioned UN report concludes that India’s population this year will exceed that of China by 2.9 million. This figure, when put against the 2.9 billion combined population of China and India, leaves too little space for any margin of error: 0.001%, to be precise. Now compare this with the margin of error in China’s recent census. The census for 2020 was conducted during the Covid-19 pandemic, with an officially accepted undercount rate of 0.05%. This is way above the aforementioned 0.001% margin of error in predicting India as the world’s most populous nation. Second and more important to remember is that China’s population projections do not include its autonomous regions of Hong Kong and Macau, which together stand at more than 8 million people – way more than the margin of 2.9 million to make India the world’s most populous nation. This, of course, also does not include the 24 million people of Taiwan, which China considers its renegade province. Third, in the middle of the pandemic, India was not able to conduct census. This means that its current reliable census figures remain those of 2011, and figures used since then they represent broad trend projections that will remain tentative until the next census is conducted. India first postponed its census to 2021 and has since postponed it to 2024. Devil in the details As is often said, absolute numbers always miss hidden subtleties that make a real difference. The focus, for example, has been primarily on the workforce, and India’s workforce is expected to be 900 million. But irrespective of the median age of the workforce, as the locomotive of national economic growth they may be carrying varying productive potential. Apart from unemployment figures, which also reflect the complex reality of a bloated labor force shifting out of agriculture, half of this workforce consists of women. China holds an impressive record in women’s employment even in comparison to most developed nations, and it is twice the world average. Compared with China’s 72%, India’s female participation in the labor market has been as low as 29%. There is also debate on whether India having world’s largest workforce will follow China’s example to emerge as another economic powerhouse in the making. Again, there is no reason to believe India will – 0r can – follow China’s example. This is not just because the two have had very different cultures and models of development but also because China’s began in the early 1990s when the world had just come out of the Cold War and the brief unipolar moment. China’s economic rise took off in an era when manufacturing was still seen as the main driver of economic growth. By comparison, growth rates are today driven by the services sector, especially those led by Internet-enabled services and by digital platforms, where India already has established credentials. India accordingly has been experimenting with blending its demographic dividend with its talent dividend. Moreover, India becoming the world’s most populous nation is not as new as is being made out in the aforementioned media reports. These demographic trends have been a well known and a long time in the making. So understandably, both China and India have been working to deal with this reality and have put in place multiple initiatives to face the various challenges and opportunities that flow from this transition. On expected lines Finally, the transition has been on expected lines. It is a commonplace that a rise in prosperity, especially with more women joining the productive workforce, has a direct impact on birth rates and women’s fertility. The growth rates of the populations of China and India have been slowing since the 1950s. So just as China has experienced a population decline this year, India will also be experiencing a similar decline in coming years. Already, India’s fertility rate has fallen from 5.7 per woman in 1950 to 2.2 per woman now. Only in the face of its unprecedented economic rise has the slowdown in China’s population growth happened faster than India’s. Likewise, an aeging population need not necessarily lead to lower productivity per capita. Infusions of technology, skill development and automation can actually make longevity an asset, allowing a trained person to work for longer years. Especially with the shift toward e-commerce and digital platforms in increasing number of industries, the correlation of age and production does not hold true in the case of advanced nations. No doubt, by all estimates, India is ordained to surpass China’s population size, but it need not happen this year and should not be seen as marking any breaking point in either their growth and development trajectories or their bilateral equations. Both China and India have always had large populations and large workforces that have expanded gradually over the last half-century. If anything, the world will be witnessing the expanding global outreach of both Chinese and Indian people around the world and how it impacts the the United States, whose population is barely one-fourth of either China’s or India’s. #UNWorldPopulation #India #Demography #China #AsiaGiants Originally published: AsiaTimes, April 25, 2023. https://asiatimes.com/2023/04/the-myths-and-realities-of-the-population-sweepstakes/?fbclid=IwAR3T4CoLuUc8yCrXQnyCIQpificlsA06JI5GU8RaUmCW8ea2x3GAjs7I8_Y Posted in SIS Blog with the authorization of the author. Prof. Swaran Singh is visiting professor at the University of British Columbia, fellow of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute in Calgary, Alberta, and professor of diplomacy and disarmament at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

By Prof. Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit The G20 presidency of India has come at an opportune time as we complete 75 years of independence, and begin the 25-year Amrit Kal journey towards the centenary celebrations. It provides an opportunity to not only showcase the country’s economic successes but also to show the light towards a collective future for all as reflected in the theme chosen for G20, Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam – One Earth, One Family, One Future. More at: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/what-indias-young-must-produce-and-supply-to-the-world/articleshow/99590755.cms?from=mdr Originally published in The Times of India, 18 April, 2023 Posted in SIS Blog with the authorisation of Dean, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi Prof. Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit is Vice Chancellor, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi

By Nirbhay Phusate and Akhand Pratap Rai Introduction According to the latest press release by the UN Human Rights Office (OHCHR), at least 8,490 non-combatants have been killed with nearly 14,244 injured in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict (10th April 2023). One of the reasons of such huge number of deaths could be said due to the presence of high-tech weapons. One of such weapons or so called weapons system is the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs as used further). An UAV also commonly known as drone is an aircraft that is guided autonomously, by remote control, or both and that carries sensors, target designators, offensive ordnance, or electronic transmitters designed to interfere with or destroy enemy targets. Historically UAVs have been used for various purposes such as surveillance, disaster response, data collection, healthcare, agriculture & delivery systems, but the most debated one is as a weapon system. In the Russia-Ukraine War itself, both the sides have used UAVs extensively such as the use of SHAHED-136, ORLAN-10, SWITCHBLADE 300, BAYRAKTAR TB2, MATRICE 300 RTK, MAVIK 3, GERAN 2, Kvazimachta and KAMIKAZE. The major issue surrounding the use of UAVs is that, as the risk to lives of combatants is reduced due to the use of remote control/automated UAVs, this leads to encouragement of prolongation of war which further leads to unnecessary suffering and disruption of peaceful livelihood of non-combatants. The major justification provided in the favor of use of UAVs is that, it reduces the chances of civilian casualties, as the precision of UAVs can be made by fixing a target and then using it against it. But the whole justification falls around the feet as the data shows that huge numbers of deaths have been caused of non-combatants. Not only it leads to deaths but also leaves psychological effect on the civilians as the continuous hovering leads to breach of right to privacy and creates a fear of someone looking over them all the time. UAV’s and Law of Armed Conflict: The current International Law does not specifically provide for regulation of armed UAVs and hence the General rules of International Law and Law of Armed Conflict apply. These rules state that, there must be adherence to principle of not causing Unnecessary Suffering (Additional Protocol I, Article 35.2), principle of Distinction (Additional Protocol 1, Article 48) and principle of Proportionality (Article 51(5)(b) of Additional Protocol I). While in the ongoing war, it can be clearly seen that there is no adherence to the above principles. Such as the rule of Distinction permits direct attacks only against the armed forces of the parties to the conflict, while the peaceful civilian population must be spared and protected against the effects of the hostilities. But it has been seen that, there has been many deliberate UAV attacks in civilian areas sparing none. Also the principle of unnecessary suffering is not complied with, as the damage by the traditional weapons used by one side are incomparable with the fatality of explosive nature of armed UAVs causing also the failure of complying with the principle of proportionality. Russia’s war on Ukraine has also provided a testing ground for foreign UAV powers, such as Turkey, the US, and Iran, further accelerating drone proliferation. The war has meanwhile served as a public relations campaign for armed UAVs and loitering munitions, changing the public image of UAVs along the way. UAV operations in Ukraine contrast with the use of large UAV systems in the war on terror over the past two decades, which became controversial due to their association with collateral damage and targeted killings beyond official battlefields. One of the other issues with UAVs is that, as UAVs become common, their use may not be only restricted to state actors, but also by the non-state actors, who generally don’t comply with rules of International law. Further as the presence of UAV’s increase, the accessibility to such weapons by non-state actors may also increase as have been already seen, as cases have come up where cheap civilian drones have been used as explosives in targeting places. Considering the general use of UAVs, it has been seen in the last few years the gradual increase in the use of UAVs in situations of non-armed conflict. The Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions (dt.2020) on “Use of armed drones for targeted killings” (A/HRC/44/38) states that there have been various extra judicious killings in the name of self-defense without any transparency and accountability. The report highlights the issue of targeted killings using armed drones, particularly in light of the proliferation in the use of drones and their expanding capability over the past five years, and makes recommendations designed to regulate their use and enhance accountability. The report also analyzes the armed drone killing of Iranian General Quassem Soleimani. The Way Forward From the above it can be concluded that the laws regulating Armed Conflict are not sufficiently equipped to deal with the changing technological developments of UAVs. Rather than seeking to develop new principles or values, the existing legal framework can be updated to reflect the changing landscape of armed conflict. Indeed, the main challenge is the certainty that the advancement of technology will further outpace international legal developments Hashtags: #ArmedUAV #TargettedKilling #LawofArmedConflict #InternationalLaw Nirbhay Phusate and Akhand Pratap Rai are Doctoral Candidates at the Centre for International Legal Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi

By Prof. Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit The recent debate on changes in the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) history textbooks reminded me of a comment by Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy: “The factors which determine the life of mankind are various, historians select from them only some single aspect, say the political and economic, and represent it as primary, as the efficient cause of social change”. As a social scientist and an administrator, I am dismayed to read in some sections of the media allegations that corrections and improvements made in the NCERT history textbooks are deliberate distortions or rewriting of our history, that today’s historians are less competent, and that they are erasing parts of our history under the influence of a particular ideology. Such a charge is laughable and betrays a sense of entitlement that only one set of historians of a specific era had the sovereign and absolute knowledge to determine what should be taught in our schools about India’s civilisational past. While the importance of the autonomy of academic and intellectual activities in writing school textbooks, especially for central organisations, such as NCERT, can never be over emphasised, the recent kerfuffle on how institutional autonomy has been undermined by the current government and how academic freedom is under stress is a pointless and one-sided exercise. In the last nine years, nobody has told me what to teach or how to frame my questions on a topic. Turning to the history textbooks prepared by NCERT, there is a growing demand to improve and correct their content. I strongly believe school textbooks should be revised or rewritten every 10 years to incorporate discoveries and new knowledge. This will benefit learners, broaden their horizons, empower them to think independently about our past, political and social systems and understand plans for the future. The current NCERT social sciences textbooks were prepared in 2006, and as media reports suggest, NCERT has rationalised Class 12 history books, corrected mistakes and errors, not rewritten them. However, there is an urgent need for a thorough revision of NCERT textbooks, not only in history but in all subjects; therefore, NCERT considered it prudent to use the existing textbooks until the new National Curriculum Framework (NCF) comes up with a detailed plan and advice for a comprehensive revision of the books and the syllabus of our school education. In any event, rationalisation, filling up gaps, moving away from Delhi-centrism and updating textbook content is a continuous process; there have been several changes in history text- books since the first edition of these books was published in 1966. Is it fair to say that only one set of people has the right to rewrite textbooks? Textbooks written by an earlier group of historians underwent many changes and, in 2006, were replaced by books written by a new set of authors. One does not remember any controversy on these changes. Further, if rewriting textbooks was such an undesirable activity, we would still be teaching books written by colonial historians in our schools. Institutions such as NCERT should be concerned about reducing syllabi stress on students in our schools. India’s history, as Ram Manohar Lohia said, is more than 10,000 years old; the writers, therefore, would naturally agonise over what topics to choose for a textbook. Thus, much care would be required to keep two things in mind: One, what is relevant for a 16-year-old and how many facts she can absorb from her textbooks in one year, and how evenly and rationally facts of our history are presented before her. NCERT has clarified that the section removed from the Class 12 history textbook on the Mughals was unnecessary as these details are available in the textbooks of previous classes; also, these sections contained the political history of the Mughals, which may not be required for school students. This logic is reasonable because certain aspects of history or political science can be deeply investigated at the university level. If the writers of the current history textbook felt the necessity of teaching school children the generosity and tolerance of the Mughals, then it would be equally appropriate to expect stories of their religious fundamentalism. Facts are sacred, though interpretations may vary. This criticism of the changes is like saying what was said in 2006 is the final word, and no changes can be made. This is an exclusivist argument for a civilisation that celebrates diversity and assimilation. The present NCERT social sciences textbooks must update their content, improve the language to make them lucid for students to understand and enjoy, and reflect a meaningful pedagogy. What is not required is a sermon from those who may think they know it all. Instead, facts must be presented lucidly, so students can glean the knowledge they wish to acquire. Most importantly, academics and politicians must keep away from politicising school textbooks. The textbooks should tell the students the stories of our past but not weave in half-truths and gaps by erasing vast chunks of history. The Cholas, Cheras, Pandyas, Pallavas, the dynasties that ruled the Vijayanagara kingdom, Ahoms and the mighty Marathas, their bravery and contribution, are marginalised or absent from our school textbooks. History cannot be written on shaky and fabricated foundations. What was constructed was a mythical and artificial unity on a falsified history. NCF is attempting — I endorse its efforts — to bring a plurality of voices and an independent scheme of more inclusive representations of the versions of marginalised and previously excluded history. We need to be more honest with our past and facts. History represents the memory of civilisations, the acts of people, and the past; historians must present this memory carefully and faithfully for future generations. Textbooks must change as the curriculum needs to be continuously revised to address gaps and make them more relevant and inclusive for the changing times, and this is what NCF is doing. This is in keeping with our civilisation’s ethos, in the words of Thiruvalluvar, who held that adherence to truth is an essential quality in writing any text. #NCERT #NCF #NEP2020 Originally published in The Hindustan Times, 12 April, 2023 https://www.hindustantimes.com/opinion/ncert-history-textbooks-rationalisation-correction-and-improvement-are-necessary-for-an-inclusive-and-accurate-representation-of-india-s-past-says-jnu-vicechancellor-101681306811301.html Posted in SIS Blog with the authorisation of Dean, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi Prof. Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit is Vice Chancellor, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi

By Prof. Gulshan Sachdeva As China is India’s major trading partner as well as a key strategic challenge, New Delhi needs to carefully study the evolving European approach towards China European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has just outlined the European Union’s position on China in her landmark speech in Brussels. She asserted that “it is neither viable – nor in Europe's interest – to decouple from China”. Instead, she wants to ‘de-risk’ Europe’s economic and diplomatic ties with China. This is a new twist to EU’s 2019 China strategy where it had labelled China as a negotiating partner, an economic competitor, and a systemic rival. She also acknowledged that the EU’s relationship with China is “one of the most intricate and important anywhere in the world”. To manage this relationship, von der Leyen will be visiting China between April 5and 7, along with French President Emmanuel Macron. EU’s foreign policy chief Josep Borrell will also meet his Chinese counterpart Qin Gang in Beijing later this month. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and European Council President Charles Michel were in China in recent months. The Spanish Prime Minister, who has just concluded his China visit, is reported to have urged President Xi Jinping to speak with Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. China has recently unveiled its 12- point position paper on the ‘political settlement of the Ukraine crisis’. Spain is going to assume the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU in July. Managing relations with a rising and assertive China has been a challenge for all major countries. Europe is not an exception, and is facing a serious dilemma. The EU and China are deeply engaged with each other through more than $900 billion bilateral trade in goods and services. So, decoupling from China is not an option for Europe. Von der Leyen has acknowledged that how the EU manages this relationship will be a determining factor for Europe's future economic prosperity and security. Although alarmed by China’s aggressive strategic postures, the EU is still trying to avoid becoming part of the US-China geopolitical rivalry in the region. This has also been clear even from various Indo-Pacific strategies and approaches issued by the EU as well as by some of its members such as France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the Czech Republic. Most European countries have significant economic presence in this dynamic region. Therefore, the EU focuses on how to further advance its economic interests and how to protect its value chains in the region. For the EU, China is very much part of the Indo-Pacific. Although the Quad nations also talk about an inclusive Indo-Pacific, the centrality of their narrative is to build some kind of platform or forum to balance the impact of assertive China in the Indo-Pacific. As Russia has become a major strategic challenge, Moscow’s ‘no limits’ friendship with Beijing is becoming a major concern for Brussels. The EU believes that the Russia-China power balance has reversed as ‘China sees Putin's weakness as a way to increase its leverage over Russia’. Both leaders would also like China to use this leverage and pressure Moscow over the war in Ukraine. If Von der Leyen’s speech is any indication, the EU would like to redefine its relations with China through de-risking diplomatically and economically. It will re-look its ties in the areas of critical technologies such as microelectronics, quantum computing, robotics, artificial intelligence, and biotech. It will also develop instruments to stop leakages of sensitive technologies through investments. The EU is also re-assessing the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) with China which was concluded in 2020, but still not ratified. Despite hawkish rhetoric by the EU, will member states change their behaviour towards Beijing? Macron’s delegation to China will include many business executives including Airbus and Alstom. Earlier, Scholz took about a dozen CEOs from major German firms to China which included Siemens, Volkswagen, and Merck. As China is India’s major trading partner as well as a key strategic challenge, we need to carefully study the evolving European approach towards China. Since the EU cannot de-couple economically from China, it is striving to develop tools of ‘de-risking’. Despite strong transatlantic ties, the EU is also still trying to separate its relations with China from US-China tensions. How this strategy is implemented will have implications for the Indo-Pacific narrative, and European economic presence in Asia. It may also impact growing India-EU ties. #EU #India #China #USSinoRivalry #RisingChina #IndiaEU #IndoPacific Originally published : Deccan Herald, on 4th April, 2023 https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/india-must-evaluate-eu-s-de-risking-with-china-1206545.html Posted in SIS Blog with the authorisation of the Author. Prof. Dr. Gulshan Sachdeva is Professor, Centre for European Studies and Coordinator, Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence, Jawaharlal Nehru University.

By Prof. Gulshan Sachdeva After brokering a deal in the Middle-East, Beijing is likely to push further its Ukraine peace plan during President Xi Jinping’s expected Moscow visit. If he is successful, it will be another blow for US attempts to contain Chinese influence Many reports indicate that the Chinese President Xi Jinping is likely to visit Russia for a meeting with his counterpart Vladimir Putin in the coming days. He is also likely to speak with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. In the current volatile geopolitical environment, the significance of the visit cannot be underestimated. Apart from demonstration of “no limits” partnership between two major geopolitical powers, the visit will be watched in the context of the continuing Ukrainian war. While intense fighting for the eastern Ukrainian city of Bakhmut continues, there are no signs of any serious western diplomatic activity to end the conflict. In fact, the US and its allies are helping Ukraine prepare for a major offensive against Russia in late spring. China's Peace Moves In the meanwhile, China has brokered a deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran. The crisis in Ukraine is far more serious. Still, riding on its success in the Middle-East, Beijing may at least try to present itself as a force for peace during Xi’s Moscow visit. Building on its Global Security Initiative concept paper, it has already presented a twelve-point position on the "political settlement of the Ukraine crisis". Both these documents not only talked about respecting the UN Charter and territorial integrity of all countries but also commitment to "security concerns of all parties". The plan was not rejected by most Europeans as it demonstrated that the Ukraine war is not just a European crisis. But most of its leaders were cautious. “It is not a peace plan,” the European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen had asserted. “We will look at the principles, of course, but we will look at them against the backdrop that China has taken sides,” she had added further. The US President Biden almost rejected the Chinese initiative when he said that "I've seen nothing in the plan that would indicate that there is something that would be beneficial to anyone other than Russia, if the Chinese plan were followed." A More Confident Xi But the Chinese goal is much beyond the West. It is trying to assert its larger role in the global South, where American leadership is not seen as very effective. Despite close ties with Moscow and rising tensions with the US, Beijing is still trying to be a mediator in the Ukraine war. During his recent visit to Moscow, China's top diplomat Wang Yi was quoted saying that "the Chinese side will, as in the past, firmly adhere to an objective and impartial position and play a constructive role in the political settlement of the crisis," He also mentioned that China-Russia relations are “not directed against any third country”. After securing an unprecedented third term presidency, Xi Jinping is full of confidence. Now he may be keen to use his skills to push further for Chinese geopolitical, diplomatic and economic interests abroad. If he is able to achieve even a very modest success, it will help China establish itself as a leading diplomatic force, continue to maintain stable ties with Russia, may repair relations with Europe and provide many new economic opportunities. Stability in global markets is very important for the reopened Chinese economy now. Nosediving China-US Ties However, achieving even a limited ceasefire agreement may not be easy. From a Western perspective, a ceasefire means surrendering Ukrainian occupied territory to Russia for an unforeseeable future. In the meanwhile, China-US verbal exchanges are also intensifying. "Why does the US talk at lengths about respecting sovereignty and territorial integrity on Ukraine, while disrespecting China's sovereignty and territorial integrity on the Taiwan question? Why does the US ask China not to provide weapons to Russia, while it keeps selling arms to Taiwan? the new Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang asserted recently. To counter the US moves in the Indo-Pacific, a Maritime Security Belt trilateral naval exercise between Russia, China and Iran in the area of Chabahar port in Iran is underway. Iran and Saudi Arabia’s membership in the BRICS will also be formally discussed in the grouping this year. The move to expand BRICS was initiated under the Chinese presidency last year. The Chinese Foreign Minister was very clear when he said that the “more unstable the world becomes, the more imperative it is for China and Russia to steadily advance their relations”. With $190 billion bilateral trade in 2022, Russia is now in the list of China’s top ten trading partners. Unlike increasing India-Russia trade, which is mainly based on discounted oil imports, China has also exported goods worth $76 billion to Russia. Due to western sanctions, Russians are buying more Chinese electronics and cars. Although President Xi’s expected Moscow visit has the potential to improve China’s standing in a shifting global order, it can also intensify global geopolitical tensions. #USSinoRivalry #MiddleEast #GlobalSecurityInitiative #MoscowVisit #Europe #UkrainePeacePlan Originally published : Money Control, on 17th March, 2023 https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/opinion/xi-jinping-peacemaker-in-russia-ukraine-war-greatly-raise-china-standing-intensify-global-geopolitical-tensions-10263601.html Posted in SIS Blog with the authorisation of the Author. Prof. Dr. Gulshan Sachdeva is Professor at the Centre for European Studies and Coordinator, Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence, Jawaharlal Nehru University.

By Prof. Gulshan Sachdeva French President Emmanuel Macron’s intention of making the EU a third pole in global affairs along with the US and China through strategic autonomy and European sovereignty may be right but timing and messaging seems incorrect French president Emmanuel Macron is facing protests against his pension reforms and criticism of his recent China visit and Taiwan remarks. In the midst of all this, he has once again elaborated his plans for the future of Europe during his visit to the Netherlands. The plan was originally presented by him in 2017 at the Sorbonne University. The idea was to reboot the slow and inefficient European Union (EU) under Franco-German partnership. With Britain moving out of the EU and Angela Merkel retiring as a de facto leader of Europe, young Macron was then expected to take over European leadership. Macron’s Vision And Realities Since then much has changed in Europe. Apart from the pandemic, the European security architecture has been fundamentally changed by the war in Ukraine. In 2019, Macron described NATO as “brain dead”. But the alliance is alive and kicking. With Finland and Sweden joining NATO, the organisation's ambitions are growing. The usefulness of the transatlantic alliance is strongly felt in Europe today. This differs significantly compared to the difficult years under the Trump presidency in the United States. At The Hague, Macron talked about a new era of ‘European sovereignty’, which he asserted is not just a French idea. His vision contains five pillars: competitiveness, industrial policy, protectionism, reciprocity and cooperation. Many of these ideas are contrary to traditional free market principles, which is the basis for most common EU policies. Throughout his speech, the focus was how to make the European economy competitive to the United States and China. To him, “European sovereignty” means that Europe must be able to choose its own partners and shape its own destiny, rather than “a mere witness of the dramatic evolution of this world”. He further stressed that Europeans “must strive to be rule-makers rather than rule-takers”. This is interesting as many in the world including in India believe that Europeans are in fact over-represented in most institutions of global governance. On trade agreements currently being negotiated by the EU, he argued that sustainability must be an integral part of all of them. While tough green laws are being implemented for the EU industry, Europe must not seal agreements with countries where sustainability laws are less rigorous. He found the EU-New Zealand FTA as the gold standard for sustainability. Eurocentrism’s Limits Despite setbacks and drastically changed circumstances in Europe, he is continuing pursuing his theme of “strategic autonomy” of Europe. He feels that in an emerging geopolitical competition between the United States and China, Europe must pursue its strategic autonomy, possibly under French leadership. Even during his recent China trip, both President Macron and the European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen emphasised on “de-risking” rather than “de-coupling” as encouraged by the United States. In a recent interview, Macron mentioned that the major risk which Europe faces is that it “gets caught up in crises that are not ours, which prevents it from building its strategic autonomy”. The part of the interview which has generated a lot of controversy is where he asserted that “the question Europeans need to answer … is it in our interest to accelerate [a crisis] on Taiwan? No. The worse thing would be to think that we Europeans must become followers on this topic and take our cue from the US agenda and a Chinese overreaction”. This is exactly the kind of approach about which the Indian External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar had pointed out earlier that “Europe has to grow out of the mindset that Europe's problems are the world's problems but the world's problems are not Europe's problems”. US Makes A Comeback President Macron might have noble intentions of making the EU a third pole along with Washington and Beijing in the coming decades through his narratives of strategic autonomy and European sovereignty. The Franco-German alliance has also been a main force behind the European integration project. In the recent past, however, many EU nations have been critical of Franco-German dealings with both Russia and China. They are also aware that without the serious US involvement, Ukraine could not have resisted the Russian aggression. In these circumstances, president Macron’s autonomy and sovereignty agenda for an assertive Europe seems ill-timed. Some major West European countries are sympathetic with the idea but uncomfortable with the language and timing due to the war in Ukraine and Chinese military exercises around Taiwan. The European Council president Charles Michel has confirmed that quite a few European leaders think like Macron though “wouldn't say things the same way”. But still most countries in the Baltics, Nordics and Central and Eastern Europe see the United States crucial to their security. And they have become very assertive in recent years. #Marcon #EuropeanSovereignty #USSinoRivalry #EUThirdPole Originally published : Money Control, on 14th April, 2023 https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/opinion/emmanuel-macrons-ill-timed-move-to-assert-europes-autonomy-10412431.html Posted in SIS Blog with the authorisation of the Author. Prof. Dr. Gulshan Sachdeva is Professor at the Centre for European Studies and Coordinator, Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence, Jawaharlal Nehru University.

By Prof. Bharat H. Desai On March 29, 2023, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted a resolution titled “The role of diamonds in fuelling conflict: breaking the link between the illicit transaction of rough diamonds and armed conflict as a contribution to prevention and settlement of conflicts”. The draft resolution of March 27, 2023 (A/77/L.61) was mooted by Botswana. It recognized that the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS) helps in ensuring the implementation of Security Council resolutions such as 1643 (2005), 1579 (2004), 1521 (2003) containing sanctions on the trade in conflict diamonds. The UNGA had taken the lead through resolution 55/56 of December 1, 2000 for “breaking the link between the illicit transaction of rough diamonds and armed conflict” and called for an international certification scheme for rough diamonds. That paved the way for the initiative by a select Southern African countries for the Kimberley Process. Since then the UNGA has provided strong support for the KPCS including through resolution 75/261 (March 03, 2021). The Kimberly Process Certification Scheme Bereft of the status of a legally binding international treaty, the KPCS is a unique inter-governmental initiative brought into being on November 05, 2002 through the Interlaken Declaration on the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme for Rough Diamonds. It came into effect on January 01, 2003. The UNGA acknowledged the KPCS through its resolution 56/263 of March 13, 2002. The KPCS came into effect on January 01, 2003. It aims at eliminating the use of rough diamonds to finance armed conflicts. Hence, they are termed ‘conflict diamonds’ or ‘rough diamonds’ that are sold by rebel groups or their allies to fund conflicts against legitimate governments. The KPCS focuses on what has been dubbed as ‘blood diamonds’ as they emanate from areas that are mineral rich and armed groups engaged in the extraction process indulge in violence and brutality that take a heavy toll of wildlife, forests and people. It has fueled insurgencies as environment becomes a ‘cannon fodder’ in conflict zones of the world. The National Geographic film Diamonds of War: Africa’s Blood Diamonds (2007), by journalist Dominic Cunningham-Reid, provides a peep into the mysterious world of diamonds that have almost become a curse for the people. India chaired the KPCS in 2019 that comprises 59 participants from 82 countries including the European Union (with 27-member states). The KPCS has been given effect through respective domestic legislations. KPCS accounts for 99.8% of the global production of rough diamonds. It has defined ‘conflict diamonds’ as “rough diamonds used to finance wars against governments”. The trade in rough diamonds (HS Code 7102.10, .21 or .31) is permitted between KPCS participants on the basis of authentic KP certificates. It is an umbrella entity that brings together participating governments, diamond industry and civil society. The World Diamond Council (WDC) is the diamond industry’s representative in the KP that has designed a ‘system of warranties’ (SOW). It requires professional buyers and sellers of rough diamonds, polished diamonds and jewelry sets with diamonds to include a warranty statement on B2B invoices and memos each time a diamond changes hand. It ensures the next buyer that diamond originated from sources in compliance with KPCS. An upgraded SOW launched in 2021 requires compliance with the guidelines of the WDC as well as the KPCS. In fact, the SOWs, endorsed by the KPCS participants, all buyers and sellers of both rough and polished diamonds must make the following affirmative statement on all invoices: “The diamonds herein invoiced have been purchased from legitimate sources not involved in funding conflict and in compliance with United Nations resolutions. The seller hereby guarantees that these diamonds are conflict free, based on personal knowledge and/or written guarantees provided by the supplier of these diamonds.” The KPCS process works on the basis of inter-governmental “conflict-free" certification that provide legitimacy to the shipments of rough diamonds. It is estimated that trade in diamonds worth $13.88 billion was facilitated in 2015 through the KP. With such high stakes, what constitutes “conflict-free” remains a moot question. Most of the African continent is dependent on proceeds from diamond sales. The diamonds represent an industry worth over $81.4 billion per year. More than 50 per cent of global diamond production is sourced from Africa alone. Diamond–Conflict Nexus: Role of the UN Security Council In view of direct links with the source of origin of diamonds from the conflict regions, the UN Security Council (UNSC) gave its stamp of approval to the KPCS through the resolution 1459 of January 28, 2003 and recalled previous resolutions: 1408 (2002), 1385 (2001), 1343 (2001), 1306 (2000) and 1173 (1998). In taking enforcement actions in situations of Côte d’Ivoire (resolution 1643 of December 15, 2005) the UNSC recognized "the linkage between the illegal exploitation of natural resources such as diamonds, illicit trade in such resources, and the proliferation and trafficking of arms and the recruitment and use of mercenaries as one of the sources of fuelling and exacerbating conflicts”. Similarly, in case of Liberia (resolution 1579 of December 21, 2004), the UNSC sought to “establish an effective Certificate of Origin regime for trade in rough diamonds that is transparent and internationally verifiable” to be vouched by the Kimberley Process. The UNSC has repeatedly expressed grave concern as regards the “linkage between the illicit trade in rough diamonds from certain regions of the world and the fueling of armed conflicts that affect international peace and security”. As indicated above, the UNSC has acted at various times under enforcement Chapter VII of the Charter to address threats to international peace and security posed by conflicts linked to diamonds. Through these actions, it has prohibited all states from exporting weapons to countries affected by conflicts in countries such as Sierra Leone and Liberia. The 2022 KPCS Botswana Meeting and Beyond The KPCS provides an arrangement wherein the participating countries give effect to the consensual decisions through their respective domestic regulatory processes. For instance, the sub-committee on trade of the US Congress held ‘conflict diamonds’ hearings on October 10, 2001. It was followed by the enactment of a special legislation Clean Diamond Trade Act 2003 - . It authorizes (Section 4) the US President to “prohibit the importation into, or exportation from, the United States of any rough diamond, from whatever source, that has not been controlled through the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme”. The 2002 Interlaken Declaration calls upon KPCS participants to implement the scheme through their “respective laws and internal systems of control meeting the standards established in the Document (KPCS)”. The KPCS for rough diamonds need to be compliant with international trade rules. It also needs to spell out the definition of ‘conflict diamond’. The 2022 Botswana intersessional meeting indicated readiness of the KPCS members to work on this crucial aspect around which the entire scheme revolves. Moreover, it needs to further build upon the 2021 Moscow Declaration on Principles to promote best practices in the diamond sector. As a corollary, after a hiatus of 20 years, it is time for the KPCS to place the 2002 Interlaken Declaration on a firmer legal footing of a multilateral treaty. The task is cut out in 2023 for the KP Chair Zimbabwe. #KPCS #UNGA #UNSC #UNSG #WDC Dr. Bharat H. Desai is Jawaharlal Nehru Chair and Professor of International Law at the Centre for International Legal Studies (SIS, JNU), contributes as the Editor-in-Chief of Environmental Policy and Law (IOS Press: Amsterdam) and served as a member of the official Indian Delegations to various multilateral negotiations (2002-2008) as well as coordinated the initiatives for Making SIS Visible (2008-2013) and the Inter-University Consortium: JNU; Jammu; Kashmir; Sikkim (2012-2020)

By Akhand Pratap Rai and Nirbhay Phusate Introduction The International Criminal Court (ICC) recently issued arrest warrants against Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, President of Russian federation and Ms Maria Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova, Commissioner for Children Rights in the Office of President of the Russian Federation. The press release of 17th March 2023 mentioned that Mr Putin and Ms Lvova-Belova “is allegedly responsible for the war crime of unlawful deportation of population (children) and that of unlawful transfer of population (children) from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation (under articles 8(2)(a)(vii) and 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute)”. The press release further mentioned that Mr Putin liable under Article 28(b) of the Rome Statute for “his failure to exercise control properly over civilian and military subordinates who committed the acts, or allowed for their commission, and who were under his effective authority and control, pursuant to superior responsibility”. The Court again made Mr Putin and Ms Lvova-Belova liable under Article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute under individual criminal responsibility “for having committed the acts directly, jointly with others and/or through others”. The International Criminal Court The ICC came into existence in the year 2002 and it is governed by Rome Statue which was adopted in July 1998. The Article 11 (1) of the Rome Statute, states that the Court doesn’t have retroactive jurisdiction over crimes that occur before entry into force of Rome Statue on July 1, 2002. Article 5 of the Rome Statue grants the ICC jurisdiction over for main crime i.e. (i) the crime of genocide (ii) crime against humanity (iii) war crime (iv) crime of aggression. The ICC works on the Principle of Complementarity i.e. it prosecutes cases only when states are unwilling or unable to do so genuinely. The hypocricy of International criminal Justice System The Russian ‘military action’ against Ukraine was condemned by several western leaders citing UN Charter and International Law. But this is not the first time that powerful states violate the rules governing the use of force under the UN Charter. The world is full of hypocritical leaders who change their stands on a case to case basis on similar grounds. There is a famous Bollywood movie Deewaar (1975) acted by Shashi Kapoor and Amitabh Bacchan. In a scene of Deewar movie, Shashi Kapoor who acted as a Police Personnel said to Amitabh Bacchan who acted as a criminal that “Doosro ke paap ginane se tumhare apne paap kam nahi ho sakte” [Your own sins cannot be reduced by counting the sins of others]. This dialogue is the benchmark of the western world leaders when you ask them for their obligation under international law and UN charter. The western world leader are making hue and cry over the Russian ‘military action’ against Ukraine but at the same time they keep silent over their own crime against humanity. They are using International Institutions for their own national interest. Prof B S Chimini in his article International Institutions Today: An Imperial Global State in the Making mentioned that the “leaders and armed personnel of northern states would ever be dragged before the ICC” (pp.13). The world has witnessed the blatant violation of International Law by western countries and their leaders in every nook and corner of the world. In the name of ‘war on terror’ US and its allies bombarded and destroyed several nations. The world has witnessed the violation of international law directly and indirectly by western countries in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, Syria and Palestine. Many war crimes have been committed in these nations, resulting in the deaths of thousands, if not millions of people; nonetheless, there have never been any significant appeals for the ICC to bring the offenders to justice. The torture camp at Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq, Bombing at Kunduz Hospital in Afghanistan, detention camp at Guantanamo Bay Prison , blocking of several UN resolutions in United Nations against Israel, are the best example of human rights violation and international law by United States. The world has witness the role of Belgium and France in Rwanda Genocide lead to death of 80,000 persons. In 2021, Emanuel Macron, the President of France, accepted the role of France in Rwanda Genocide and also President Macron seeks forgiveness over Rwanda Genocide. In 2018, the former US National Security Advisor John Bolton threatened the ICC and called the Court “illegitimate”. Bolton further said that “We will not cooperate with the ICC. We will provide no assistance to the ICC. We will not join the ICC. We will let the ICC die on its own. After all, for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us”. The US passed a law called American Service Protection Act, 2002 (known as The Hague Invasion Act). This law allows the President of the US to use military force to liberate any American or citizen of a US-allied country being held by the ICC and, as the court resides in The Hague in the Netherlands. Among other things, it prevents the US Government from supporting the ICC, collaborating with its requests, or giving military aid to any state that is a party to the ICC. Ironically, the US President Joe Biden welcomed the ICC issuing of arrest warrant against President Putin. The way forward The International Law is a circus and the western countries are the ‘ringmaster’ of the Circus. International institutions such as the United Nations and ICC should not work as a “spoke-person” of western countries. The ‘pick and choose’ of cases in the name of ‘International Justice’ will only harm the reputation and legitimacy of international institutions. The ICC should stands against the western leader for “justice” with the same intent as it stands against President Putin for alleged ‘war crimes’. #ArrestWarrant, #ICC, #UNCharter, #Putin Akhand Pratap Rai and Nirbhay Phusate are Doctoral Candidates at the Centre for International Legal Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi

Prof. Bharat H. Desai In 2022, the world witnessed the 50 years of the global environmental movement at the Stockholm+50 Conference (June 2-3) and UNEP@50 as well as 30 years of the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (June 4) and 40 years of the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (December 10). Two mega Conference of Parties meetings of the universal conventions on climate change (COP27: November 6-20, 2022) and on biodiversity (COP15: December 7-19, 2022) were also held without any major splash. Both the conventions, adopted at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, are yet to make critical difference with respect to attaining their primary objectives. These events and largely ‘framework convention’ processes with their in-built law-making mechanisms have shown the limits of the global conferencing techniques. In his June 02, 2022 address at the Stockholm+50 Moment, the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres warned that we have not kept our promises on the environment since our consumption is “at the rate of 1.7 planets a year” that has placed “global well-being is in jeopardy”. The gathering storms indicate the planetary level environmental crisis. The coming events cast their shadows before. The humankind seems to be sleepwalking into an existential “triple planetary crisis”. It may be akin to the events of 1914 that led to the catastrophic World War – I. The UN-led World Order Built on the ashes of the League of Nations (1920-1945) after World War – I, the advent of the 1945 United Nations Charter has stood the test of time for 77 long years. Notwithstanding its limits, as the members driven international organization in a State-centric global order, the UN matters most for the humanity’s survival on the Earth. The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has played a crucial role in institutionalizing law-making as well as institution-building processes [Bharat H Desai (2004), Institutionalizing International Environmental Law. New York: Transnational Publishers]. At each of the momentous occasions, through the instrumentality of its resolutions (UN Charter, Chapter IV), the UNGA took crucial decisions across wide canvass of its functions and powers that include convening of the major global conferences (1972, 1992, 2002, 2012 and 2022), established international environmental governance structures (UNEP, CSD, HLPF), took initiatives for launching inter-governmental negotiations (such as the three Rio Conventions: climate change, biodiversity, desertification) and provided mandates on several occasions for high-level informal consultations (such as the Global Pact for the Environment; UNGA resolution 73/733 of August 30, 2019). As the plenary organ with all the UN member states, the Assembly has played its vanguard role to address the world environmental problematique with varied levels of successes. The fact that the UNGA provides a springboard to the UN member States for an institutionalized cooperation, records the needs, aspirations and concerns of the time and comes out with consensual outcome of resolutions (recommendatory) with some normative legal significance (Asamoah, 1966) itself needs to be considered a blessing for the humankind. There is no other global forum at our disposal commanding such a universal reach, trust, competence and legitimacy. Our only abode, planet Earth is in the Balance The Stockholm Moments: 1972 and 2022 The 1972 Stockholm Moment was an outcome of the “Swedish initiative” that took the form of the UNGA resolution [2398 (XXIII), December 03, 1968: The problems of the human environment] and the resultant outcome, though under the UN auspices, had a strong Stockholm imprint. In contrast, as underscored by this author in his preface “The Stockholm Moment” [EPL 52 (3-4) 2022], the Stockholm+50 Conference was enabled by the UNGA through resolution 75/280 of May 24, 2021 (“Sweden to host and assume the cost” and “with the support of Kenya”) as well as mandated by resolution 75/326 of September 10, 2021 (“Sweden to host and assume the cost”; “with the support of Kenya”; “two Presidents, one from Sweden and one from Kenya”). These resolutions explicitly made the Swedish Government share the credits with the Kenyan Government. It was also expected that the “international meeting should be mutually reinforcing with UNEP@50, avoiding overlap and duplication”. In fact, the UNGA required “the United Nations Environment Program to serve as the focal point for providing support to the organization of the international meeting” and suggested to the Secretary-General “to appoint the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Program as the Secretary-General of the international meeting”. It was also curious that commemoration of the 2022 Stockholm+50 Moment was parceled into two parts for a mere two-day event across two far-away continents: (i) UNEP@50 in Nairobi, March 3-4, 2022 and (ii) Stockholm+50 in Stockholm, June 2-3, 2022. Cumulatively, in essence, the stage set was inherently robbed off the luster as regards the historical significance of the 2022 Stockhom+50 Moment. Possibly, keeping in mind the ground reality of the much-divided world, it showed that the effort was to be ‘politically correct’ rather than seize the Stockholm+50 Moment to ordain a rigorous revitalization of the existing international environmental legal instruments as well as the international environmental governance (IEG) architecture including structure, performance and location of UNEP. The organizing of the three leadership dialogues as well as Stockholm+50 Report (August 01, 2022) spelled out the five interconnected pathways (Figure 1) to provide altruist goals to weave together various global and regional processes for the healthy planet. At the ‘act of origin’ (1972 Stockholm Moment), the deliberations were spread over June 5-16 whereas only two days (June 2-3, 2022) were given for the 50-year commemorative event (2022 Stockholm+50). Hence, nothing concrete could be expected except ritualistic sermons and inspirational statements. The UNSG’s repeated laments at Stockholm+50 and the UNGA speaks volumes about the lack of sensitivity and seriousness of the member States to grapple with the planetary crisis staring at the humankind and the Earth. Yet the sheer presence of the feisty UNSG has been a silver lining, almost akin to the plight of the lonely House Sparrow who ran from the pillar to the post by sprinkling little drops of water when her own forest was on fire! The UNGA Needs to Take the Charge It now appears, in the aftermath of the outcome of the 2022 Stockholm+50 Moment and in view of the gravity of the planetary crisis, the UNGA needs to rise to the occasion to take charge of the situation. The UNGA has already set the stage for Summit of the Future (UNGA resolution 76/307 of 8 September 2022) to be held in New York during September 22-23, 2024. As a corollary, the Assembly needs to chart the future roadmap to institutionalize the review, establish synergy and inter-linkages as well as determine the trajectory of some of the principal MEAs (with universal membership, such as UNFCCC, UNCCD and CBD) as well as determine the design of the futuristic IEG architecture that is warranted to address the planetary level environmental challenges of the 21st century. #IPCC #UN #UNSG #UNEP #MEA #PMOIndia Dr. Bharat H. Desai is Jawaharlal Nehru Chair and Professor of International Law at the Centre for International Legal Studies (SIS, JNU), contributes as the Editor-in-Chief of Environmental Policy and Law (IOS Press: Amsterdam) and served as a member of the official Indian Delegations to various multilateral negotiations (2002-2008) as well as coordinated the initiatives for Making SIS Visible (2008-2013) and the Inter-University Consortium: JNU; Jammu; Kashmir; Sikkim (2012-2020)

By Prof. Swaran Singh China’s claim to fame as the world’s new peacemaker is seeing serious contenders Last month saw China staging a diplomatic coup by brokering a peace deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia — two arch rivals in the tension-ridden Middle East, where the United States has been an uncontested arbiter of all regional dynamics. This historic breakthrough by China was followed by its former foreign minister and now State Counsellor, Wang Yi, at the Munich Security Conference last month, presenting a 12-point peace proposal for ending the Ukraine crisis. While the United States reluctantly recognised China facilitating the Saudi-Iran peace deal, it credited its regional allies Iraq and Oman for hosting several rounds of talks for two years before Beijing could host this finale on March 10. In comparison, Wang Yi’s peace proposal was dismissed by most of Ukraine’s western allies citing China’s suspect credentials as the most powerful backer of President Putin. However, on obtaining his unprecedented third term in office, President Xi has now staked his personal prestige on this initiative. Earlier this week, not only did Xi make this a top priority of his Moscow visit, his actions saw President Putin accepting and endorsing it. So much so that even though Xi’s Moscow visit was followed by Russia relaunching another barrage of attacks, Xi's peace proposal has since engendered multiple counterintuitive responses, triggering debates on China emerging as the new peacemaker and and what it means for the future of American global leadership. As Xi’s interlocutors began to work on his follow-up dialogue with President Zelenksy — who has welcomed Xi’s intervention asking that his words must be followed by sincere deeds — this Thursday witnessed an interesting Spanish twist. And, as time passes, this Spanish twist appears to be in line with what was widely suspected, given China’s deep and expanding outreach with European countries. Though Ukraine has been critical of soft Russia policies of NATO members like Hungary and Germany, the end of Xi’s visit saw Spanish Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez, surprising his European and American friends by announcing his China visit next week. He has offered to discuss Xi’s peace framework, transmit the message to Ukraine and help establish the conditions for their talks. Spain is Ukraine’s strongest supporter, supplying Kyiv with military equipment and planning to send main battle tanks in its fight against President Putin. But Spain now wants to work with Xi in resolving the Ukrainian crisis. Most importantly, Spain is due, in July, to take over the European Union’s presidency, thus obtaining Pedro Sanchez a bigger platform to pursue this peace perspective. Should this be seen as a wake-up call for the West to begin exploring serious counter-strategies instead of pooh-poohing China’s credentials and denouncing its refrain for a ceasefire as nothing more than seeking “effectively the ratification of Russian conquest” calling it “a classic part of China’s playbook”? Does it make sense to continue dismissing Xi’s peace initiative as nothing but a smokescreen for China’s ever-increasing support for President Putin? So far, American agencies have continued to publicise their assessments that China is still considering supplying weapons to Russia and their confirmation that Chinese munitions are being used by Russian forces. In light of such Western rhetoric, can the Saudi-Iran peace deal provide any clues about Ukraine’s likely trajectories? Saudi-Iran deal To put things in perspective, China’s Saudi-Iran peace deal has rather limited lessons for the Ukraine crisis. It can neither be a stepping stone nor a model template for easy replication though China has sought to project it as setting the stage and adding an aura to Xi’s Ukraine initiative. The Saudi-Iran deal could be brokered by Beijing as it is easier for it to maintain some sort of equidistance from these two countries. This is not possible when it comes to China’s ties with Moscow and Kyiv. Especially in China’s long-drawn contest with the United States, Putin remains Xi’s most important ally. Second, given the volatile history of the Middle East, it will be easy to blame any future failure on the contracting parties, not Beijing. Like most such agreements, this peace deal too remains vague and vulnerable to contradictory interpretations from both sides. It makes no mention of resolving their bloody proxy war in Yemen. Also, the failure of this peace deal will have limited implications for Beijing’s power and prestige. Its damage will be restricted to the Middle East. The Ukraine crisis has already resulted in shortages and price hikes in food, fuel, fertilisers and even finance capital worldwide. These have seen Russia brandishing nuclear weapons and commentators calling it 'World War III in the making'. Ukrainian exceptionalism What holds promise for Xi is that Ukraine’s approach to his peace proposal has been far too subtle and pragmatic; even at strong variance from its western allies. This makes Zelensky's direct talk with Xi a strong possibility. For Zelenksky, if nothing else, his engagement with Xi will ensure China will stay closer to its professed neutrality and feel restrained from supplying weapons or any other material support to President Putin. Moreover, before this war began, China was Ukraine’s largest trading partner and a major destination for its barley and corn. Ukraine had often abstained from a UN vote condemning China’s prosecution of its Uyghur Muslims. So, in spite of Ukrainian discomfort about China’s increased oil imports from Russia funding President Putin’s war machine and China's peace proposal making no mention of the withdrawal of Russian forces, its specific points like the stress on reducing nuclear risks are finding unanimous approval from the Ukrainian political elite. President Zelensky — who last March, told his western benefactors to send him weapons to fight and not a ride for an exile — has shown the grit and grace needed for his office. He knows how Western tough-talking and sanctions have had limited impact on Moscow and are even less likely to work with Beijing, were it to supply weapons to President Putin. Zelensky must be watching parts of the Biden administration showing signs of course correction or fatigue that he must reckon with in choosing his options. Perhaps indirectly endorsing China's peace proposal, the US National Security Advisor, Jake Sullivan, for example, urged Xi to directly engage Zelensky rather than relying exclusively on Russian narratives. Future trajectories For China, this peace proposal marks another stepping stone in its global aspirations. But it may also end up revealing Xi’s inability to persuade Russia to meet Ukraine even halfway, leave alone accepting Ukraine’s precondition of withdrawing its forces. This will further accentuate China’s core challenge of managing perceptions of its credentials as a peacemaker. Second, China is not the only one staking claim to mediating in the Ukraine war. President Erdogan of Turkey has been the only one so far to achieve concrete success, though it was short-lived. India presents the other major example with several nations now publicly expressing hope for its G20 presidency to deliver a breakthrough in the Ukraine war. Prime Minister Modi’s ‘this era is not era of war’ comment has become the mantra amongst world leaders. The G20 Foreign Ministers meeting earlier this month was able to usher in a breakthrough by facilitating a bilateral between Blinken and Lavrov — their first meeting since the beginning of the Ukraine war. India now hopes to bring President Putin and the rest of the world leaders together at its G20 Summit coming September. China’s claim to fame as the world’s new peacemaker is seeing serious contenders. It is also important to ask if India will continue to fight shy and just stand by the side as China presses ahead, projecting itself as the new peacemaker. Xi’s pursuit of peace in Ukraine has to be understood in the context of its brinkmanship with the US, which makes it pregnant with systemic implications for world order. Closer to home as well, it has serious implications. China’s neighbours remain on the receiving end of its increasingly assertive behaviour. No doubt, apart from major power contestations, China’s muscle-flexing in its immediate periphery has been a drain on its credibility. Here, India — being both the largest among China’s neighbours and also a major power — must take cognisance of these developments and take some bold initiatives of its own in order to avoid being pushed into taking sides and playing second fiddle. #China #IranSaudiDeal #SinoUSRivalry #MiddleEast #WestAsia Originally published: Deccan Herald, March 25, 2023. https://www.deccanherald.com/specials/chinas-strategy-has-a-new-arbiter-entered-the-ring-1203528.html Posted in SIS Blog with the authorization of the author. Swaran Singh is visiting professor at the University of British Columbia, fellow of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute in Calgary, Alberta, and professor of diplomacy and disarmament at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India l