Search

By Prof. Swaran Singh The international media have been busy debating the implications of India's possible overtaking China to become the world's most populous country. Many of the Western commentaries have sought to present this inflection point — which has been well known and long in the making — to drive a wedge between New Delhi and Beijing. However, the fact that they are the most and second-most populous countries does bring the focus of global demographic trends on India and China. After all, the third-most populous country, the United States, has less than one-fourth the population of India and China. But this evolution of global demography is often presented in rather simplistic and zero-sum terms as if India's gains from a larger workforce will trigger a similar, if not bigger, loss for China's growth. First, China's leaders have been fully aware of this demographic change being in the making. Like most developed countries that, at a certain level of their material development, experienced a decline in population growth, the Chinese leadership must have prepared for such an eventuality following China's unprecedented economic rise. They must have set in motion strategies to deal with such an inevitable but piecemeal demographic change. Second, the very argument of a rising aging population becoming a burden on a country stands contested. Increasing infusion of modern technologies into everyday life and robust trends of skill development, automation, and the larger drift from manufacturing to internet-driven services becoming the driver of economic growth have already demonstrated the limits of co-relation between an aging population and productivity. Countries have been revising their definition of senior citizens and raising the retirement age. Plus, advanced economies have always been attractive destinations for the younger workforce of less-developed countries which often sustain the advanced economies' growth rates and eldercare. China could do the same; or it could do even better. So what is the logic of putting two of the most populous countries in an artificial either/or binary? With the world becoming increasingly intertwined, what is pertinent to ask is what the United Nations' State of World Population 2023 report implies for global growth trajectories and which countries will be driving our shared destiny. Eight countries, the report says, will contribute half of the global population growth up to 2050. Of these, three are from Asia and five from Africa. Look closely and the three Asian countries — India, Pakistan and the Philippines — already have the world's largest, fifth-largest and 13th-largest populations. This means that the highest population will continue to be from Asia, led jointly by India and China, which have already become the epicenter of global growth and social transformation. Thus, Asia in the short and medium term till 2050 and Africa in the long run till 2100 will provide the bulk of new global consumers and producers, thereby becoming increasingly influential in determining global food production and consumption, as well as fashion and lifestyles. This transformation can already be seen in Asia's increasingly leading powerful international organizations and multinational companies, and in Asian leaders becoming central to the global governance structure and process. In fact, ethnic Asians are increasingly becoming an integral part of the ruling elites of advanced Western countries. The middle-income segment of populations — defined as people who spend between $12 and $120 a day — has been and continues to be the driving force behind global economic trends also in transforming social norms and best practices. Till the 1980s, more than 70 percent of the world's middle class was located in member states of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. But before the world was hit by the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, Asia had already tipped the balance by contributing more than 50 percent to this middle class of 4 billion people while OECD countries' share had shrunk to 40 percent. So to understand how demographic changes will drive global trends, it makes sense to look at China and India together rather than pitch them against each other. Today China and India respectively are trying to expand middle-income group to 900 million and 475 million. Therefore, will the world gain from China and India partnering in addressing their demographic changes or if they are to treat this as one more friction point? Of course, their policy choices are not going to be easy. China, and not the United States, today is the largest trading partner for the largest number of countries. But when it comes to India, the US and China have been alternating as India's largest trading partner. And the fact that India-US trade does not face an enduring and formidable trade deficit that is evident in India-China trade makes the former's proposition promising. In their respective social fabric as well, compared with 3.2 million people of Indian origin in the US, 50,000 people of Indian origin in China make their elite and street perceptions vulnerable to US interpretations and incentives. While hoping for more objective analyses, this calls for maximizing outcomes from the limited and skepticism-driven China-India interactions to ensure that the US brinkmanship does not distort their imagination of what these demographic trends entail for Asia's manifest destiny. #DemographicDividend #Asia #China #India Originally published: ChinaDaily, May 9, 2023. https://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202305/09/WS64597f9da310b6054fad1c31.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

By Prof. Swaran Singh SCO expansion perhaps was the most exciting part of the CFM deliberations In the just-concluded Shanghai Cooperation Organization Council of Foreign Ministers (CFM) meet in Goa, current SCO chair and host India can draw satisfaction on having managed steady progress on 15 shortlisted discussion items plus five major draft documents to be finalized and enunciated during the SCO summit on July 3-4. These documents include the “New Delhi Declaration” for the upcoming summit plus four thematic joint statements on cooperation in de-radicalization strategies, promotion of millet cultivations, sustainable lifestyles to address climate change, and on digital transformation. Together these are expected to take forward this year’s theme of “Secure SCO” that aims to promote multilateral, political, security, economic and people-to-people interactions. Second, with the SCO now being in its third decade, India sought to push its perspectives on much-awaited reform and modernization. India has been especially vocal on making English, in addition to Russian and Chinese, the SCO’s third official language to ensure its wider global outreach and influence. India was also able to ensure focus on countering all forms of terrorism, especially cross-border terrorism, which remains one of the core and original mandates of the SCO. India also currently leads two SCO working groups on innovation and digital transformation. But it is the issue of SCO expansion that perhaps was the most exciting part of the CFM deliberations. SCO expansion Expansion of the SCO has lately come to be a constant, consensus-driven and potentially groundbreaking part of its evolution. This growth underlines the SCO’s growing international relevance with its footprint, after starting off in Central and South Asia, now moving to include several nations from the Middle East region as its new focal point. As of now, the SCO has eight full members (China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, India and Pakistan) and four observers (Afghanistan, Belarus, Iran and Mongolia). While the July summit is set to make Iran and Belarus its ninth and 10th members, the other two observers – Afghanistan and Mongolia – are expected to be the next to do so as well. It is the number of the SCO’s dialogue partners that has witnessed a rapid increase. Beginning with Sri Lanka (2010), Turkey (2013), Cambodia (2015), Azerbaijan, Nepal and Armenia (2016), and Egypt, Qatar and Saudi Arabia (2022), several others such as Bahrain, Kuwait, Maldives, Myanmar and the United Arab Emirates remain the next aspirants and applicants. Some of them are expected to be included at the coming SCO summit. The SCO started in 1996 as the Shanghai Five to connect China and Russia to their three newly independent Central Asian neighbors. Their initial task of demarcating boundaries and building trust was completed by 1999, which saw their focus shifting to energy security and countering terrorism. In 2001, the Shanghai Five recast itself as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization by adding Uzbekistan, which also became the headquarters for the SCO’s Regional Anti-Terrorism Structure. Membership remained frozen since 2001 until India and Pakistan were added as new members in 2017. This has given a whole new turn to the SCO’s anti-terrorism strategies, with India playing a leading role in pushing this agenda, sometimes to the discomfort of Pakistan and that country’s closest ally, China, which has lately come to present itself as the new peacemaker. Sino-Russian competition Indeed, the pace of expansion portends SCO becoming a mini-United Nations minus the United States and its friends. This is where China’s role as the new peacemaker and the SCO’s rapid expansion begin to reveal a correlation. The SCO has come to be seen as a grouping of China’s partners and friends. China’s mediation leading to the Saudi Arabia-Iran rapprochement followed by Iran being upgraded from observer to full member and Saudi Arabia joining the SCO as a new dialogue partner does lend credence to such suggestions. Indeed, there are speculations of Sino-Russia competition within the SCO. Interactions at the Goa SCO CFM saw experts speculating on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov relying on Russia’s proximity with India to assert Moscow’s centrality to the SCO. Without doubt, the Ukraine war has further reinforced how the SCO remains Russia’s strongest support base and could create a situation of Sino-Russian competition enhancing India’s advantage. China’s unprecedented rise has seen it use its economic leverage to cultivate its influence in SCO nations. All SCO members have China as their largest trading partner, and most of them are recipients of China’s Belt and Road projects. But this also makes India and Russia cautious of China’s pre-eminence. China presenting itself as a peacemaker also brings focus on China-India border tensions, which were discussed during by Qin Gang’s and Subrahmanyam Jaishankar’s 45-minute bilateral session, resulting in lip service for umpteenth time. Chinese Defense Minister Li Shangfu was in New Delhi last week (April 27-28) to attend the SCO Defense Ministers’ meet. The two sides have also had 18 rounds of Core Commanders talks plus half a dozen ministerial meetings to no avail whatsoever. This mundane affair saw the SCO’s focus shifting from China to Pakistan. Pakistan focus The news that dominated media commentaries in India during the CFM was the visit by Pakistani Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. This visit by a Pakistani foreign minister came after a long gap of over 12 years. This also made a splash given that Pakistan has so far been noncommittal to India’s presidency of the SCO. For instance, at last week’s SCO Defense Ministers’ meeting, Pakistani Minister Khawaja Asif was first reported to join online, but in the end completely skipped the meeting. Meanwhile all seven of the other members’ defense ministers were sitting face to face in New Delhi. Hina Rabbani Khar was the last foreign minister of Pakistan to visit New Delhi in 2011. That makes it a seven-year gap if one counts the India visit by a former foreign minister of Pakistan, Sartaj Aziz. He had visited Amritsar in December 2016 to attend a “Heart of Asia” conference on Afghanistan, and there were no bilateral meetings whatsoever. Bilawal Bhutto’s surname, his youth, flamboyance and use of social media all added to his presence in India. Indeed, his becoming Pakistan’s youngest ever foreign minister at 33 in April last year briefly created expectations, but in view of his history of acidic remarks on India, most commentators expect little substance from his debut visit to India. In any case, in face of the strained India-Pakistan relations, Bilawal Bhutto’s India visit does deserve consideration. It is important to underline that his tone and tenor were visibly different. He held two bilateral meetings with his Russian and Uzbek counterparts and attended all other routine CFM-related events. Notably, Bhutto’s warm handshake with his Indian counterpart during the gala dinner did make result in some media commentaries allude to his setting the stage for Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif attending the SCO Summit in person. Positive spinoffs Finally, coming alongside India’s presidency of the Group of Twenty, which has faced a far more complex set of hurdles and invariably failed to achieve any consensus document so far, minor irritants and undercurrents in bilateral equations within the SCO CFM were surely not a matter of concern. Indeed, given that SCO nations including China, India, Russia and Saudi Arabia are also members of the G20, the visible camaraderie in the SCO CFM could be expected to have positive spinoffs for India as host of the G20 summit, which, perhaps intentionally follows the SCO Summit. #SCOExpansion #SinoRussia #NewDelhiDeclaration #India #Pakistan Originally published: AsiaTimes, May 5, 2023. https://asiatimes.com/2023/05/sco-foreign-ministers-meet-makes-steady-progress/?fbclid=IwAR3tMz-Ga0I0fPERjrL42qhziSTXMJOtSJ0SdWN4BdjuXYnPIZoigI5VjwU 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

Dr. Aparajita Kashyap The build-up to the election had been dominated by problems like soaring poverty in one of the least developed countries of South America, rampant social inequality and neglect of the indigenous groups and informal labourers President Mario Abdo Benitez, will pass over the mantle to Santiago Peñain a governmental system where the Presidential term of five years is non-extendable. One among the political parties is the Conservative Partido Colorado (PC) or the Colorado Party which has dominated politics in the landlocked South American country for nearly seven decades since the 1950s. Santiago Peña, 44 who represented this party in the country’s presidential election on Sunday, is an economist and former finance minister. The Party in opposition is the Authentic Liberal Radical Party (PLRA), a left-of-center Party which has held power for only one term. The face of this party was a lawyer Efrain Alegre who was leading the Concertacion, the centre-left coalition that has united to defeat the Colorado Party. Peñascored a big win and secured 43 percent of the vote to 27.5 percent that Alegre could garner even though the exit polls had predicted a win for the latter. Peña’s win has ostensibly sent two signals- successful tightening of the conservative Colorado Party’s political grip in the country and defusing fears about the ending of diplomatic ties with Taiwan. The build-up to the election had been dominated by problems like soaring poverty in one of the least developed countries of South America, rampant social inequality and neglect of the indigenous groups and informal labourers. Corruption continues to plague Paraguay which is ranked 137 out of 180 countries on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index. To corroborate this, former President Horacio Cartes, one of Paraguay’s wealthiest and most powerful men, was accused of corruption and drug trafficking by the USA. Alegre had drawn an analogy between Cartesian and Pablo Escobar and had stated that Santiago Peña was his right hand man. The outcome of Paraguayan elections has defied the recent anti-incumbency trend in Latin American elections. The reasons for Peña’s victory could have been the divided opposition (PayoCubas, the candidate of the National Crusade, with 22.92 percent had cut into Alegre’s vote bank), a massive incumbency advantage, a formidable political machinery and the asymmetrical position of a single party in a state. Peña used a classic conservative campaign focused on issues such as crime, drugs and opposition to the legalization of abortion, usually popular concerns in most Latin American countries. The landlocked country is the last bastion in South America to still recognize Taiwan’s Presidency and is one of the 13 nations that maintain formal diplomatic ties withit.The Colorado Party’s strong alliance with Taiwan dates back to Paraguay’s former right-wing dictator Alfredo Stroessner, who ruled between 1954 and 1989, who saw a natural ally in anti-communist Chiang Kai-shek, the authoritarian ruler of Taiwan. In fact, Stroessner built a statue of Kai-shek in the capital after the two countries began diplomatic relations.In 2010, Paraguay’s President Fernando Lugo, credited with breaking the continuous rule of Colorado Party rule had floated the idea of establishing diplomatic relations with China.The other diplomatic backlash that Peñamay face relates to the decision to move Paraguay’s embassy in Israel to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv.Paraguay moved its embassy to Jerusalem in 2018 under Cartes but reversed its decision and relocated to its original location in Tel Aviv.The president-elect has also affirmed his intention to re-establish relations with Venezuela. Fiscal deficit, deficiencies in the health and education systems, the continued impacts of COVID-19 pandemic would remain major challenges for the new presidency. Diversification from the agricultural sector would be an expectation from this government. He would also have to deal with the rising pressures from soy and beef producers to drop associations with Taiwan in favour of China and its huge markets. Convergences between Colorado Party and PLRA emanate from the two being socially conservative, defending strong anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage stances in an overwhelmingly Catholic nation. Implications for India Paraguay is the one country in the region that has been able to keep China out and for this reason, India can use this as an opportunity to become Paraguay’s strategic partner. Collaboration in the space sector, especially in an effort to boost its space program at a low cost can have huge potential. The fact that as part of its Vaccine Maitri programme, India supplied it with Covaxin, at a time when the country was tempted by Chinese offers of a vaccine, can be used to leverage the ties. To further the cooperations, similar visions and stands on issues like the agreement to cooperate to deal with terrorism, combating the threats of climate change and global warming, or concerns with WTO rules would be the drivers. India and Paraguay have resonated in unison on the need for restructuring the United Nations and the move towards renewable sources of energy (Paraguay and India are signatories to the International Solar Alliance), these could become areas with the potential for furthering the bilateral relations. #ParaguayElections #ParaguayIndia #Taiwan Originally published : Financial Express, on May, 3, 2023 https://www.financialexpress.com/business/defence-presidential-poll-in-paraguay-persistence-of-incumbency-3072615/ Posted in SIS Blog with the authorization of the author. Dr. Aprajita Kashyap is Assistant Professor at the Centre for Canadian,US & Latin American Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

By Himanshu Varshney Introduction Customs duties on merchandise imports are called tariffs. Tariffs give a price advantage to locally-produced products over similar products which are imported, and they raise revenues for governments. India imposed tariffs on electronics products used in Information and Communication Technology (ICT) to curb cheap electronic imports and to promote India’s domestic manufacturing industries. The Dispute The European Union (EU), Japan and Chinese Taipei complained the tariff treatment that India accorded to certain ICT products falling under the tariff items of India’s WTO Schedule and claimed that these measures lead, or led to the application of ordinary customs duties in excess of those set forth in India’s Schedule of Concessions, and, therefore, are or were inconsistent with Articles II: 1(a) and (b) of the GATT 1994. Even where India unconditionally exempts certain products from customs duties, India acts inconsistently with Article II:1(a) because India grants those exemptions through customs notifications which are subject to the possibility of repeal at any time, thus creating a lack of foreseeability for traders. However, India argued that- (i) its binding tariff commitments are set forth in the Information Technology Agreement (ITA), 1996 and those commitments are static and did not change due to their incorporation into India’s WTO Schedule; (ii) pursuant to Article 48 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT), aspects of India’s WTO Schedule are invalid as a consequence of an error on the part of India during the transposition of its Schedule from the Harmonized System (HS) 2002 to the HS2007; and (iii) the errors in India’s WTO Schedule are of a formal nature and were therefore capable of rectification pursuant to the 1980 Decision (Procedure for Modification and Rectification of Schedules of Tariff Concession) With respect to Japan’s complainant India specifically argued that pursuant to the India-Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA), and the implementing notification thereof, India exempts from ordinary customs duties the products at issue when originating from Japan, and therefore accords to products of Japan tariff treatment that is consistent with India’s duty-free tariff commitments set forth in its WTO Schedule. Panels’ Findings WTO on 17 April, 2023 circulated three panel reports in the cases brought by the European Union in “India — Tariff Treatment on Certain Goods in the Information and Communications Technology Sector” (DS582), Japan in “India — Tariff Treatment on Certain Goods” (DS584) and Chinese Taipei in “India — Tariff Treatment on Certain Goods in the Information and Communications Technology Sector” (DS588). The Panel rejected India’s (i) defence by saying that the ITA is not a covered agreement within the meaning of the WTO Agreement and the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU); and the ITA is not the source of India’s legal obligations in these disputes. The Panel also held that India’s WTO tariff commitments are not static in nature. With respect to India’s (ii) defence the Panel found that India did not satisfy the requirements of Article 48 of the VCLT and accepted in good faith India’s argument that at the time of the transposition of its HS2002 Schedule into its HS2007 Schedule, India had assumed that the scope of its WTO commitments was limited to the scope of its ITA undertakings and that the scope of those tariff commitments would not be expanded through the HS2007 transposition process and India had failed to demonstrate that this assumption constituted an essential basis of India’s consent to be bound by the certified Schedule. The Panel also found that India was put on notice of the possibility that its WTO tariff commitments in its HS2007 Schedule may have expanded from those set forth in its HS2002 Schedule, and similarly, that its WTO tariff commitments in its HS2007 Schedule may have expanded from those set forth in the ITA. Thus, even if Article 48 applied in WTO dispute settlement the circumstances did not satisfy the requirements of application of Articles 48 of VCLT. With respect to India’s (iii) defence the Panel declined to make findings on India’s request that the complainant countries violated paragraph 3 of the 1980 Decision by raising objections to India’s requested rectification unfounded in law, and thereby impeded India’s rights to make a formal rectification to its schedule of concessions under the 1980 Decision. The Panel found that India’s requests were claims, not affirmative defences, and therefore fell outside the Panel’s terms of reference. Even if the Panel made findings on this issue, to the extent that there remained objections on record to India’s rectification request, including those by WTO Members who were not parties to this dispute, India’s WTO Schedule would remain unmodified, and the findings requested by India would not modify India’s WTO obligations as set forth in its WTO Schedule. With respect to India-Japan CEPA Panel found that India failed to establish that the CEPA brings India into compliance with its WTO obligations pursuant to Articles II:1(a) and (b) of the GATT 1994. The Panel found that for products of Japan to access duty free treatment as set forth in India's WTO Schedule, they must satisfy preferential rules of origin which are not set forth in that Schedule, such that this notification does not accord unconditional duty-free treatment to the products at issue, and therefore does not bring India into consistency with its obligations under Articles II: 1(a) and (b) of the GATT 1994. Panel concluded that India’s tariff treatment of products falling under India’s WTO Schedule is inconsistent with Article II:1(b), first sentence, because: (i) certain such products are subject to ordinary customs duties in excess of those set forth in India’s WTO Schedule; and (ii) certain such products are subject to ordinary customs duties in excess of those set forth in India’s WTO Schedule unless they satisfy certain conditions that are not set forth in that WTO Schedule. India’s tariff treatment of such products is less favourable than that provided in its WTO Schedule, such that India is acting inconsistently with Article II:1(a) of the GATT 1994. India accords unconditional duty-free treatment to products in accordance with the terms of its WTO Schedule, and is therefore acting consistently with Article II:1(b), first sentence, of the GATT 1994. India by according to the commerce of complainant countries no less favourable than that provided for in its WTO Schedule, India’s tariff treatment of such products is consistent with Article II:1(a) of the GATT 1994. Panel recommended India to bring alleged measures in conformity with its obligation under the GATT 1994. Aftermath of the WTO Panel Reports India is willing to challenge these panel reports in WTO Appellate Body (AB) pending appeal such reports would not be enforceable because the WTO AB is dysfunctional due to non-appointment of AB members or exercising veto in appointment of AB members. The EU has approached India to resolve the dispute through Multi Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA). However, India is not in favour of MPIA and believes in restoration of the WTO AB as affirmed during the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference, 2022 held in Geneva. If EU opt for retaliatory tariffs on Indian goods by invoking the EU Enforcement Regulation which allows it to enforce its rights by imposing customs duties or other restrictions in response to an appeal in to the void it would be a setback to India’s faith over multilateral trading system. #WTOPanel #IndiaTechTariffs Himanshu Varshney is a Ph.D. candidate at the Centre for International Legal Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi

By Prof. Srikanth Kondapalli China refuses to vacate an estimated 60,000 to 70,000 troops from Depsang Plains and Demchok, and thus continues to obstruct Indian patrols Despite tremendous pressure from major powers, India is steering the G20 and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) meetings with its own flavour of speaking for the Global South, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief (HADR), food security, climate change, and other issues. The SCO meeting in New Delhi on Friday saw the defence ministers of China, India, Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan take part. Iran and Belarus joined as observers and Pakistan’s defence representative attended the meeting virtually. This was preceded by informal bilateral meetings amongst them the previous day, including between India’s Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and his Chinese counterpart Li Shangfu. The SCO defence ministerial mechanism is aimed at military cooperation among member-states, addressing regional security issues such as border disputes and arms control, pursuing counter-terrorism measures and enhancing cyber security cooperation. Given that SCO mandate and in the face of the Ukraine war and China’s violation of agreements with India in the border areas – manifesting most worryingly in such incidents as the conflict in Galwan in June 2020 and intrusions at Yangtse, Tawang, in December last, India, as the host, has to work out a way to obtain some substantial outcomes and ensure the success of its presidency of the SCO. At the SCO meeting, Rajnath Singh proposed HADR, in which India has demonstrated capability since the 2004-5 tsunami rescue and relief operations, as part of its agenda, in addition to defence capacity-building through training and co-manufacturing and co-development of items, food security and climate change mitigation and adaptation. Counter-terrorism issues were also raised, with a caveat that countries that promote terrorism should be penalised. The SCO states conduct “Peace Mission” counter-terrorism exercises, but these remain ineffective, mainly because of the prevailing double-standards. Another intractable SCO defence ministerial agenda item is border stability. Clearly, as Rajnath Singh told Gen Li, China’s “violation of existing agreements [1993, 1996, 2005, 2013, 2021 and others] has eroded the entire basis of bilateral relations”. Despite 18 corps commander-level meetings till last week, China refuses to implement the February 2021 defence ministerial agreement on “disengagement and de-escalation at all friction points” and thus violates the spirit of SCO as such. Earlier, on March 2, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar told his Chinese counterpart Qin Gang, who came to attend the G20 foreign ministerial meeting, that the state of India-China relations is “abnormal”. On June 17, 2020, two days after Chinese troops killed 20 Indian soldiers at Galwan, Jaishankar had said that bilateral relations with China can only improve once efforts are made to restore peace and tranquillity. China, on the other hand, refuses to vacate an estimated 60,000 to 70,000 troops from Depsang Plains and Demchok, and thus continues to obstruct Indian patrols. It even wants India to accept the current situation as the “new normal”. Another phenomenon that has revealed itself at recent SCO meetings also could have far-reaching consequences. This is the attempt by China to marginalise India diplomatically and economically in Asia and beyond. In pursuit of this objective, Beijing floated a “Himalayan Quad” with Nepal, Pakistan and Afghanistan, another grouping with Pakistan, Afghanistan and Tajikistan, and is now attempting to form a “new RIC” – with Russia and Iran. China is propping up this “new RIC” to counter the US, but also to marginalise India. India built the Chabahar port in Iran to enhance trade and connectivity to the landlocked Afghanistan and Eurasian region. However, China sees this as a challenge to its Belt and Road Initiative and to its recent facilitation of a dialogue between Iran and Saudi Arabia. An ancient Chinese adage goes, “a mountain cannot accommodate more than one tiger”. Beijing is following that dictum to ensure that India does not build linkages into the Eurasian region, which it covets. Clearly then, the SCO defence ministerial meeting witnessed intense Chinese powerplay aimed simply at marginalising the host country – India – and ensuring that the declared SCO agenda of border stability, demilitarisation and arms control cannot be implemented. In these circumstances, India needs to re-calibrate its thinking and strategy to enhance its deterrence capabilities as well as to pay more attention to geopolitical issues. #China #SCO #Powerplay #newRIC Originally published : Deccan Herald, April, 30, 2023. https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/beijing-s-powerplay-1214277.html Posted in SIS Blog with the authorization of the author. Prof. Srikanth Kondapalli is Dean of School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University.

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.