Search

By Prithvi Naresh Rathod The era of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher is often referred to as the ‘Reagan-Thatcher Revolution’. This term is used to describe the political and economic changes that occurred in the United States and the United Kingdom during the 1980s under their leadership. Both leaders promoted conservative policies that emphasised individualism, free-market capitalism and limited government intervention in the economy. Their policies had a significant impact on both domestic and international politics, and are often seen as ushering in a new era of conservative politics in the Western world. Reaganomics and Thatcherism ‘Reaganomics’ and ‘Thatcherism’ are two terms specifically associated with the conservative political leaders Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, respectively. While, ‘Reaganomics’ is a term used to describe the economic policies of the Reagan administration in the United States during the 1980s; ‘Thatcherism’, on the other hand, is a term used to describe the economic policies and political philosophy of Margaret Thatcher, who served as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1979 to 1990. The key principles of Reaganomics were low taxes, reduced government regulation, and a focus on free market capitalism. Reagan believed that by lowering taxes and reducing government intervention in the economy, businesses would be able to expand and create jobs, ultimately leading to economic growth. The policies were aimed at stimulating economic growth, reducing inflation, and increasing employment. The key principles of Thatcherism were similar to Reaganomics and included reducing the role of the state in the economy, privatising state-owned industries, and promoting free market capitalism. Thatcher believed that reducing the power of trade unions and cutting government spending would help to improve economic performance and create greater prosperity for all. Both Reaganomics and Thatcherism were characterised by a focus on reducing government intervention in the economy and promoting free market capitalism. While these policies were successful in many respects, they also led to growing inequality and a widening gap between the rich and poor. Impact on International Politics The Reagan-Thatcher Revolution began in the late 1970s and continued through the1980s. The policies and ideas of President Ronald Reagan in the United States and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom laid the foundation for a new era of global politics that would shape the world for decades to come. Some of the most significant changes are listed below: 1. Promotion of free-market capitalism and reduced government intervention in the economy: Both leaders believed that the free market was the most efficient means of allocating resources and creating wealth. They implemented policies such as deregulation, privatisation, and tax cuts to stimulate economic growth and promote entrepreneurship. This approach had a profound effect on the global economy, as other countries began to adopt similar policies in order to compete with the United States and the United Kingdom. 2. Rise of neoliberalism as a dominant economic and political ideology: Neoliberalism emphasises free-market capitalism, individualism, and deregulation, and it advocates for the reduction of government intervention in the economy. Many countries adopted neoliberal policies in the 1980s and 1990s, and this led to significant economic growth and development in many parts of the world. However, the rise of neoliberalism also had some negative consequences. It led to the erosion of labour protections and environmental regulations, which had a negative impact on workers and the environment. Additionally, the promotion of free-market capitalism led to a series of financial crises, such as the Asian financial crisis of 1997 and the global financial crisis of 2008. 3. Promotion of democracy and aggressive foreign policy interventions: Both leaders were strong proponents of democracy and human rights, and they supported the spread of democracy throughout the world. They also believed in a strong defence and pursued aggressive foreign policies to promote American and British interests abroad. This led to a series of conflicts and interventions in countries such as Nicaragua, Grenada, and Iraq. 4. Undermining Soviet influence: Reagan and Thatcher were both strong anti-communists, and they pursued policies aimed at undermining the Soviet Union. Reagan's "famous speech" in 1983 set the tone for more confrontational approach towards the Soviet Union, and his Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was seen as a direct challenge to Soviet nuclear capabilities. Thatcher, for her part, was a strong supporter of NATO and worked closely with the United States to contain Soviet influence in Europe. 5. Criticism of the United Nations: Both leaders were critical of the UN and believed that it was ineffective and biased against Western democracies. They pursued a policy of ‘UN bashing’, and they were particularly critical of the UN’s handling of conflicts in the Middle East. This led to a strain in relations between the United States, the United Kingdom, and the UN, and it set the stage for a more unilateral approach to international relations in the years to come. The impact of the Reagan-Thatcher Revolution can still be seen today, as many countries continue to embrace neoliberalism and free-market capitalism. However, the negative consequences of these policies, such as income inequality and environmental degradation, have also become more apparent. In recent years, there has been a growing pushback against neoliberalism and a renewed focus on promoting social justice and environmental sustainability. Way Forward Overall, the Reagan-Thatcher Revolution was a significant moment in international politics, and its impact can still be felt today. While it promoted free-market capitalism and democracy, it also had negative consequences and led to a more confrontational approach towards international relations. As we continue to navigate the complex challenges of the 21st century, it is important to learn from the successes and failures of the Reagan Thatcher Revolution and strive for a more just and sustainable global system. #RonaldReagan #MargaretThatcher #UN #ColdWar #Capitalism Prithvi Naresh Rathod is pursuing an MA in Politics (with specialisation in International Studies) at the School of International Studies in Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Views are personal.

By Prof. Bharat H. Desai On March 8, 2023, in a symbolic justice, the Committee of the 1979 Convention on Elimination of Discrimination against Women called for full reparations and official apology to the women survivors of the sexual slavery by the Japanese military during the Second World War. The Committee gave the decision “that Philippines violated the rights of women victims of sexual slavery by the Japanese military during the Second World War by failing to redress the continuous discrimination and suffering they have endured”. This emphatic stand has revived the long saga of seeking justice for the survivors from the Japanese ‘comfort stations’. An estimated 200,000 women and girls –Korean, Chinese, Taiwanese and Filipino –who were forced to work as prostitutes in Japanese military brothels. A vast majority, however, were Korean. The Japanese army had forcibly recruited these women by deception, coercion, force and false advertisements. The Comfort Women: Girl Statue Depicts Past as Present The issue has been largely seen as concerning the Korean ‘comfort women’. In 2011 a bronze Statue of Girl was placed in front of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul. The Statue of Girl (Sonyeosang in Korean or Shōjo-zō in Japanese) became a powerful imagery of the plight of the women abused in the Japanese ‘comfort stations’. Each part of the statue (see the picture) was designed to convey symbolic but strong message against wartime rapes perpetrated against ‘comfort women’ (sex slaves). The treatment of the Korean ‘comfort women’ has been a major irritant in bilateral relations between South Korea and Japan often threatening trade deals and causing diplomatic rifts. In the face of horrific past crimes, the power of imagery in the present through art or sculpture conveys a powerful protest and a resolute hope. On June 19, 2022, the International Committee of the Red Cross brought two uprooted dead trees at the place du Rhône and in Palais des Nations in Geneva. Instead of treetops, irritating, blood-red roots invading the sky became a symbolic outcry for “all the persons whose human dignity and integrity have been torn down and violated by SV in conflicts”. Japanese Apology and Reparations As a result of the public pressure, protests and the changed times, an agreement was arrived at on December 28, 2015 between the Government of Japan and the Government of the Republic of Korea. The Japanese foreign minister, Fumio Kishida, said that his government will give 1 billion yen ($8.3 million) to a fund to help those who suffered. His South Korean counterpart, Yun Byung-se, assured that as long as Tokyo sticks to its side of the deal, Seoul will consider the issue “irreversibly” resolved. In fact, the Agreement did admit that “Government of Japan is concerned about the statue built in front of the Embassy of Japan in Seoul”. The Agreement, from the Japanese side, explicitly acknowledged that: “The issue of comfort women, with an involvement of the Japanese military authorities at that time, was a grave affront to the honor and dignity of large numbers of women, and the Government of Japan is painfully aware of responsibilities from this perspective. As Prime Minister of Japan, Prime Minister Abe expresses anew his most sincere apologies and remorse to all the women who underwent immeasurable and painful experiences and suffered incurable physical and psychological wounds as comfort women”. The far sighted Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe candidly recognized the gravity and observed: “we did our duty for the current generation by reaching this final and irreversible resolution before the end of the 70th year since the war.” ‘Closure of the Past’: A Challenge for International Law In the wake of the 2015 Japan-South Korea Agreement, this author in MA Core Course on Legal Controls of International Conflicts (IS455N), while elaborating the International Law of State Responsibility including the 2001 Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (Reparation for Injury, Articles 34-37) explained the context for the ‘closure of the past’. When asked for their views, one South Korean student stood up and said: “It is not enough”. Then, what is enough? The lingering past has caused deep wounds on the Korean society. It was not surprising that , in 2019, the new Government of President Moon Jae-in dissolved the foundation, for ‘comfort women’ and effectively annulled the 2015 agreement. The wartime crimes against ‘comfort women’ remains a festering wound and haunts the Japan- South Korea relations. In most of the conflicts, SV in general and rape under orders in particular has become a predominant form of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) against women. The warring factions use mass rapes as a cheaper weapon than even bullets. It hits the ‘soft belly’ that hurts the society most. There is still no accounting for largescale rapes of women that took place in various conflicts such as the partition of India (1947), the Bangladesh liberation war (1971), the Sri Lankan civil war (1983-2009) and the Maoist insurgency in Nepal (1996-2006). The Sierra Leone conflict (1991-2002) became notorious for the warring factions using ‘bush wives’, another variant of the (Japanese) ‘comfort stations’. As explained by this author in SIS Blog Special II (June 22, 2022), wars have been perceived as ‘extra-legal’ – neither legal no illegal. Yet there has been a persistent quest for ‘outlawry’ of wars (1899 and 1907 Hague Peace Conferences; 1919 Treaty of Versailles; 1928 Pact of Paris and the 1945 UN Charter). The Charter has considered war as a ‘scourge’ (Preamble) and provides a detailed ‘blueprint’ for prohibition of threat or use of force [Article 2 (4) and Article 51]. Still, numerous wars around the world leave the deep wounds including mass rape under orders that haunt the peoples and nations. The 2018 Nobel Peace Prize award (Denis Mukwege and Nadia Murad) conveyed the powerful message against the “use of sexual violence as a weapon of war and armed conflict". The UN Security Council Resolutions 1325 (2000) and 1820 (2008) have brought the agenda item ‘women, peace and security’ and the 68th UN General Assembly (2014) endorsed a Declaration of Commitment to End Sexual Violence in Conflict. The Statutes of the UNSC mandated international criminal tribunals (ICT) in Rwanda, Yugoslavia and Sierra Leone contain crimes of sexual violence. The 1998 Rome Statute of ICC became the first global treaty that recognized rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, and other forms of SV as distinct types of war crimes. Ironically, no reference was made to crimes against ‘comfort women’ by the Japanese soldiers in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East (Tokyo Trial, 1946-48). In a foreword to this author’s 2022 book: Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in International Law (Singapore: Springer Nature), Peter Maurer (President ICRC, Geneva) asserted that wartime sexual violence is “not inevitable” and hence is it preventable. It calls for a lex specialis international legal instrument to hold the States and non-state actors accountable for rape under orders and violations of International Humanitarian Law and International Criminal Law. Still, the de-legitimization of wartime rape would remain one of the biggest challenges of the 21st century. #UN Women #UNSG #UNSC #CEDAW #ICC #MEA 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. Bharat H. Desai The 67th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW67) opened in New York on March 06 for a two-week (March 6-17 March 2023) long deliberations. It began work just ahead of the International Women’s Day (IWD) on March 08, 2023. The 2023 IWD comes with a theme of online violence and other dangers faced by women and girls as well as the need for quality education in the information age. The CSW67 has a special focus on closing this major gap in the information and communication technology (ICT). Thus, turning the innovation into a boon instead of bane constitutes new ideational challenge to counter deeply entrenched patriarchal mindsets as well as “creating new social, economic and cultural codes for a gender equal future”. The Chair of the CSW67 Mathu Joyini in her opening remarks said that the digital technologies are having profound effects in the lives of women globally since they would heighten already serious gender inequalities, discrimination and violence against women. “Gender-based discrimination is a systemic problem that has been interwoven into the fabric of our political, social and economic lives, and the technology sector is no different,” she said. CSW67 is also slated to address approaches and options for gender equality and empowerment of rural women and girls. UNSC 2023 Open Debate on WPS In a significant move, on March 7, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of the Republic of Mozambique, Veronica Nataniel Macamo Dlhovo is to chair the UN Security Council (UNSC) open debate on the theme ‘women and peace and security’. It will mark the anniversary of the adoption of the historic UNSC resolution 1325 of October 31, 2000. The UNSC’s engagement on women issues has been justified on the ground that they are worst affected due to the armed conflicts raging around the world. In the third decade of the 21st century women and girls face the brunt of wars including sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) mainly due to their gender as well as marginalized status and exclusion from the decision-making in matters of peace and security. As a tactics of war, rape has been widely used by all kinds of combatants as a cheaper weapon than even bullets. This has been vividly shown in this author’s scholarly work: Sexual and Gender Based Violence in International Law (Singapore: Springer Nature, 2022) as well as highlighted in the 2018 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Denis Mukhwege and Nadia Murad for "for their efforts to end the use of sexual violence as a weapon of war and armed conflict". All indicators point towards a backwards slide. Shrinking Global Space for Women In an ominous sign, March 2023 assessment of the International Labour Organization (ILO) shows that in the last 20 years, the jobs and pay for women have barely improved. As a corollary, the gender gap in the labour market, graphically reveal the jobs gap for women is a “stubborn and damaging reality of the global labour market” especially in the developing countries. According to the ILO, almost 25% women are unable to find a job, compared with 16.6 % of men. “It paints a much bleaker picture of the situation of women in the world of work…(it) shows that women still have a much harder time finding a job than men,” ILO said. It is most worrying that for each dollar of labour income men earn, women earned only 51 cents. Moreover, there is a serious gender disparity in income in low and lower-middle income countries “with women earning 33 cents and 29 cents on the dollar, respectively”. The year 2022 left the legacy of many negative parameters for women. As seen in the case of regressive policies of outlaws like Taliban after its usurpation of power on August 15, 2021 in Afghanistan, it pushed back decades of progress on women empowerment. Iran emerged as another big trouble spot wherein death of 22 year old Mahsa Amini in September 2022 became an inspiration for widespread Iranian protests. This author’s 2022 work published in the global journal Environmental Policy and Law (vol. 52 (3-4) 2022) shows that by 2050 climate change would cause loss of 4% global annual economic output - $ 23 trillion – wherein women and girls would suffer the most. Due to their traditional roles, as a consequence of disasters and Covid-19 pandemic 2020-22, women have faced heightened risks of SGBV. They suffer from lack of protection, privacy and mental trauma. The effects of climate change results in the feminization and intensification of vulnerability of women. Deleterious Impact of ICT on Women’s Rights The 2023 IWD focus on the safe digital environment for women is indicative of the global winds of change. Ironically, women are still a minority in digital information technology, computing, physics, mathematics and engineering, and account for less than 35 per cent of the global ICT workforce. As a reflection of the heavy odds faced on all the fronts, women face a graver risk from ICT. The UN data show that women are 20 per cent less likely than men to use the internet – but 27 times more likely to face online harassment or hate speech, when they do. “The world needs women’s expertise to address complex and interlocking crises, such as climate change, conflict, poverty, hunger and water scarcity, said the President of the 77th UN General Assembly, Csaba Kőrösi. Making International Law Work It is in this context that the ideational works of International Law scholars, decision- makers of the UN member states and the UN system need to be geared up for the audacious task of remedying adverse effects on women and girls from the global juggernaut of development, violent conflicts and the pushback by the entrenched patriarchy that refuses to see the inevitable change as the law of life. In this respect, the global campaign by the UN Women, mandate of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the special procedures of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) and other agencies need to be effectively marshalled for application of the entire corpus of International Human Rights Law for protection of the rights of women. The basic challenge lies in making a dent on the pernicious mindsets as well as in walking-the-talk for the elimination of sexual and gender-based violence, inequality and discrimination that have become root causes for many of the global ills. Within the limits of this SIS Blog Special, it is sufficed to state that even the CSW67 aims for “Cracking the Code”, International Law instrumentalities, primary treaties such as 1979 CEDAW, 1989 CRC and other processes of the HRC shall have to be woven together as a comprehensive response for the protection of rights of women and girls including risks emanating from the ICT. “Your focus this year on closing gender gaps in technology and innovation could not be more timely. Because as technology races ahead, women and girls are being left behind,” the UNSG Antonio Guterres said. The words of the worldly wise UNSG seem to provide a beacon of hope for all women. #CSW67 #UNWomen #UNSG #UNSC #MEA Professor Dr. Bharat H. Desai is Jawaharlal Nehru Chair and Professor of International Law at the Centre for International Legal Studies of SIS, JNU. He served as a member of the official Indian Delegations to various multilateral negotiations (2002-2008), coordinated the Making SIS Visible initiative (2012-2020) and Inter-University Consortium: JNU; Jammu; Kashmir; Sikkim (2012-2020) as well as contributes as the Editor-in-Chief of Environmental Policy and Law (IOS Press: Amsterdam)

By Prof. Swaran Singh It is good that Chinese Foreign Minister Qin Gang is traveling to India to attend the G20 Foreign Ministers' meeting on Thursday. This a gives China and India an opportunity to put bilateral ties back on track. Then foreign minister Wang Yi, now China's top diplomat, visited New Delhi in March last year. Later in July, Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar met Wang during the G20 Foreign Ministers meet in Bali. Being a new foreign minister, his participation in the meeting in India allows Qin to make a fresh start. Since he is just beginning his tenure, he could be leading China's global engagements and might use this opportunity to engage with India and further strengthen his credentials as China's lead interlocutor for its growing global engagements. Therefore, he should use this chance to study the major challenges to China-India ties and explore how best to take their developmental partnership forward. After all, it is high time these two fastest-growing large economies initiate a new chapter as part of confidence-building measures that have helped them work together since the early 1980s. Also, given that India has invited 40 delegations — including non-G20 nations and representatives of international bodies — to the meeting, this could be a great occasion for Qin to explore building of a larger support base for China's recently enunciated Global Peace Initiative. But as China has already clarified, both China and India remained determined that, given its mandate, formal meetings of G20 should not be distracted by Ukraine crisis. China will be working with India to ensure that G20 debates continue to focus on prominent challenges to the global economy and to strengthen multilateralism, Qin can also contribute to India's effort to keep the G20 meeting focused on its mandate of addressing economic challenges rather than getting bogged down by geopolitics. While the world risks getting divided into different blocs that have different understandings of "democracy", the G20 foreign ministers meeting will provide China and India an opportunity to share notes on their own understanding of the democratic process, which has often been a bone of contention between China and the industrialized Western nations. #G20 ForeignMinistersMeeting #India-Sino #GlobalPeaceInitiative #QinGang Originally published: China Daily, March 02, 2023. https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202303/02/WS6400092ca31057c47ebb1b2b.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 The host nation must strive to ensure that attendees stay focused on the crucial issues of the day This Thursday and Friday, New Delhi will host the Group of Twenty Foreign Ministers’ Meeting, which is widely expected to provide a peek into the likely scenarios for the G20 Summit in September, also hosted by India. And going by the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors meeting held in Bangalore late last week, this is expected to put India’s diplomatic finesse to the test to minimize chances of this becoming one more example of G20 leaders talking at, rather than with, one another. While it is comforting to know that US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and British Foreign Secretary James Cleverly have confirmed they will sit face to face in New Delhi, Beijing is expected to send Qin Gang, who will be formally confirmed as China’s next foreign minister at the five-yearly meeting of the National People’s Congress starting next week. Other public soundbites of most participants have also not been discouraging. What is also encouraging is the fact that this week’s meeting is expected to see representatives from as many as 40 countries, including those from the non-G20 nations and multilateral bodies invited by India. Given India’s already increased global visibility, all this promises to shine searchlights on India’s G20 presidency. Already several leaders have underlined expectations from India’s leadership in redressing some of the most formidable challenges the world faces as it moves into life post-pandemic. Minimizing collaterals Of course, India’s presidency of the G20 and this foreign ministers’ meeting will have a share of serious challenges. For instance, the host has to keep alert to several intended and unintended consequences and minimize their collaterals, if any. As usual, the participants will not just be distracted by their respective domestic dynamics and bilateral discords but also by their desire to maximize outcomes for themselves by attending multiple meetings of several subsets of multilateral groupings that will be present within this inordinately large gathering. For example, apart from the main G20 deliberations and several bilateral meetings lined up for these two days, there will be parleys, on the sidelines, at the level of the Group of Seven advanced industrialized nations, the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa), the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Australia, India, Japan and the United States), and the Russia-India-China strategic triangle, to count a few that are known for hosting such parallel meetings along with the G20. Ensuring everyone is optimally productive and happy can be a nightmare for the host country, especially so when it is also expected to be present at most of these meetings. Apart from logical challenges of matching various timelines and protocol requirements, ensuring convenient movement and venues, there are always last-minute hiccups and changes that were unforeseen. Canadian Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly, for instance, was in New Delhi in early February and was not expected to make a return visit this soon. But the first casualty, on Tuesday, was the last-minute cancellation of Japanese Foreign Minister Yoshimasa Hayashi, which Indian officials described as “unbelievable.” It is of course understandable that in Japan all ministers always attend the Diet’s budget session, which is taking place this week. Now, this could put the meeting of Quad foreign ministers in jeopardy, which India wishes to host in order to balance out its hosting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) foreign ministers’ meet at Goa in May. As well, Hayashi’s absence may be disconcerting for his G7 counterparts, as Japan is scheduled to hold the G7 Summit in May. BRICS and the Russia-India-China triangle are also known for holding meetings on G20 sidelines. While these may raise eyebrows in the United States and its allies, these could help India set the tone for hosting the Council of Foreign Ministers of the SCO in Goa in May. Also, other than fine-tuning India’s engagement with Sino-Russian duo in mutually disengaged G20 and SCO groupings, this could help India to that Pakistan sees India’s invitation in the purview of the SCO and not from the prism of toxicity of their bilateral relations. Staying focused The biggest challenge of course will be to ensure tje G20 stays on course without being frayed by participants’ Ukraine-centric speeches and their predispositions distracting them from focusing on the real global challenges. The Bangalore meeting of G20 finance ministers and central-bank governors late last week saw this major powers’ geopolitics blocking consensus-building on their final communiqué. Indian Finance Minister Nirmala Sitaraman had to make a chair’s summary that underlined differences in their wording on the Ukraine conflict. It is known now that China and Russia refused to sign the final communiqué, and Russian officials later told media they were chided by counterparts from Germany and Canada. Likewise, continued tensions between China and the United States would be another major challenge that could deadlock consensus-building. Relations between the two largest economies remain strained by the controversy over the US shooting down a Chinese weather balloon this month, presenting the most recent example of their brinkmanship. While this saw Blinken canceling his China visit at very last minute, Chinese State Councillor and senior foreign-policy adviser Wang Yi called the US action “unimaginable” and “hysterical,” and now, to make things further complicated, President Xi Jinping is expected to travel to Moscow to meet with President Vladimir Putin. Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar has repeatedly underlined India’s position on the Ukraine crisis and has even gone to the extent of calling it Europe’s problem – a remark most recently echoed in German Chancellor Olaf Sholz’ Munich Security Conference speech. But in a country that believes in Aatithi devo-bhava (guest is God), Jaishankar may have to hold back his tough talking style a bit. At the same time though, India has to stay on course and remain assertive with its core beliefs. India could put to use its newfound bonhomie with middle powers and/or emerging economies as well as its re-emergence as the voice of the Global South. Ideally, India would like to see that the Ukraine conflict does not hijack its G20 meetings and stay focused on its core mandate of renovating the global governance architecture and in delivering representative and effective economic and financial decision-making. This is the moment for India to come true to expectations of so many stakeholders and ensure that the G20 remains focused on specific global challenges like climate change and the debt crisis for the developing nations. Other major issues that need the urgent attention of the G20 include stabilizing food and energy prices and supplies, and redressing the onset of inflationary and recessionary forces for an early post-pandemic economic recovery. #G20 #ShanghaiCooperationOrganization #UkraineConflict Originally published: Asia Times, February 28, 2023. https://asiatimes.com/2023/02/challenges-before-indias-g20-foreign-ministers-meet/ 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

By Anshu Kumar With the ever-interconnected world, cybersecurity concerns spread beyond the political boundaries of countries. It would be pernicious to see cyber threats as an autonomous domain having no ties with the overall health and safety of the state. Recent cyber-attacks in AIIMS and past cyber-attacks on Mumbai’s power grid during the COVID pandemic highlight the incapacity of Indian defence to deal with a bigger iceberg beneath the ocean surface, of which cyber-attack is only the visible ice tip. Lest we see chaos inside the country when there is a simultaneous war in the North, we need to form an exclusive clique with partners sharing the same threats and interests to deal with the behemoth. The China factor Whether it is a grid power attack near the border area in Ladakh, the UIDAI database tampering, intrusions in the vaccine manufacturing units (Bharat Biotech and the Serum Institue of India), the Mumbai Power outage, the AIIMS cyberattacks, cyberattacks on Indian banks or attacks on other critical infrastructures, Chinese involvement cannot be denied. India ranked second, behind the US, in terms of the number of cyberattacks on the healthcare infrastructure worldwide in 2021. Moreover, IBM’s X-Force Threat Intelligence Team reported that Japan, India and Australia, in 2021, were among the top nations in Asia to be under massive server access & ransomware attacks. The observable common thread binding the countries, under attack, is that they are at odds with China. [However, hackers from Russia, North Korea & Iran are also behind such attacks on the US, Japan and India.] The Hainan Technology company, under Xi’s ambitious cyber war, has employed hackers to infiltrate foreign nations for precious rewards— trade secrets, proprietary research & data, and other critical information. Looking from Sun Tzu’s perspective, China is analyzing the patterns of India’s movement by skirmishing at the borders and gauging the latter’s strengths and weaknesses through hybrid warfare, including cyber warfare. If China is merely testing the water by causing the ‘worst power cuts in a decade’ in Mumbai (affecting the COVID patients in Mumbai’s hospitals) or encrypting the critical data at the AIIMS or possessing the ability to tamper the power supply to key infrastructure near the LAC, we can only imagine the severity of blizzard it can bring to India during a large-scale war. A scenario where hospitals are chaotic and patients are dying due to power cuts; trade markets, banks and businesses are confused owing to the cyber-attacks; and military communications being infiltrated along with a large-scale war going on the LAC may seem to be an exaggeration. But, precaution and preparation may help India against the Chinese ‘salami-slicing’, even if an above-like crisis does not arise in the first instance. ‘Club goods’ Oona Hathaway and Scott Shapiro recommend the idea of producing 'club goods', instead of bothering to form a universal consensus, to address crises transcending political boundaries. “Club goods are non-rivalrous (like public goods) but excludable (like private goods). Consider a swimming club. Club members can enjoy swimming in their pool at the same time (non-rivalry) and can use a gate to keep nonmembers out (excludability).” The real power of the club lies in its exclusive nature. There is no point in making a QUAD group which includes China. Likewise, in a failed bid to exclude India, China concluded a ‘China-Indian Ocean Region Forum on Development Cooperation’ in which India was absent. It is time for India to keep aside the chant of ‘self-reliance’, at least in cyber security issues, and form an exclusive clique to produce a ‘club goods’—cybersecurity firewall. What the QUAD members are doing on cyber threats is still an enigma. There is a need to form a ‘Cyber-NATO’, with and beyond the QUAD members, which would not only possess the defensive but also the offensive capabilities against the perpetrators. It would be fruitful for the QUAD members to form a club with other ‘liked-minded’ cyber-power countries like the Netherlands, France, Israel, Estonia or the UK. The club would commit itself to protect the critical infrastructures of its members (non-rivalry) and keep non-members out from sharing information on threats and potential risks and collaborative mechanisms to deal with the threat (excludability). Alike the Nuclear Suppliers Group or NATO, the effectiveness of this club would be gauged by its exclusive success, in fending off cyber criminals, and with the enhanced longings of non-members to join the club. Conclusion Whether cyberattacks have been able to cause significant crises in India or not, what is worth heeding is the ability of the perpetrators to infiltrate major critical infrastructures in India, at a time when the country is not going through any calamity, so to speak. India is ardent to boast of its Aadhar and UPI success on the G20 platform, but it will be interesting to see how India keeps its citadel secure against China’s cyberwarfare. The Indian government must learn that China would not be comfortable sharing this ‘Asian century’ with India. India needs to collaborate with ‘like-minded’ partners to build an effective fortress, with people inside the fortress enjoying an easy and free flow of information, research data, and kits to deal with the dragon furiously ready to burn the citadel. #cybersecurity #cyberwarfare #chinesethreat #clubgoods #cyberNATO Anshu Kumar is currently pursuing his Master of Arts in Politics with a Specialization in International Studies at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. His interest areas lie in Indian foreign policy, Realism, strategic studies, Indo-Pacific, the rise of China in geopolitics, India’s relations with great powers, and geoeconomics.

By Prof. Swaran Singh The central threat of both Putin’s and Biden’s speeches underlines their determination to expand instead of end this conflict This Friday in New York, Malta, the current chair of the UN Security Council (UNSC), is to convene a special ministerial session to discuss Russia’s war in Ukraine as it completes one full year and its end is not yet in sight. This has been preceded by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) debating on Thursday, ahead of a vote on Friday, on one more resolution reiterating “the need to reach, as soon as possible, a comprehensive, just and lasting peace” in Ukraine. In fact, much of this week saw politicians and diplomats of all hues traveling around the world trying to persuade national leaders to vote one way or the other, but only to witness further hardening of global fault lines. Last October as well, after Russian President Vladimir Putin’s signing of “accession treaties” on September 30 formalizing Russian annexation of four regions of eastern Ukraine, the UNGA debated a similar resolution condemning the annexations. In the end, 143 of the 182 UNGA members supported the resolution and 35 chose to abstain, while five, including Russia, voted against. Before that as well, the Bucha massacre of early April 2022 saw a UNGA resolution to remove Russia from the Human Rights Council, resulting in even more – 58 nations out of 175 voting – abstaining while 24 nations including Russia voting against it. So one lesson of this one-year-old Ukraine war is absolutely clear: Given the veto systems of UNSC, this most powerful apex body as well as all other UN organs become dysfunctional when it comes to conflicts involving any one of the permanent UNSC members, the P5. Not just that, even local conflicts involving any of the P5 becomes global, where the entire tenor and trajectories of that conflict become vulnerable to divisive major-power geopolitics hijacking the narratives away from where the conflict first ignited. Thus we see observers calling the Ukraine war “a moment of reckoning” where a “tectonic chasm appears to have split the Global North from the Global South” transforming global geopolitics. Skewed focus It is said that when elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers. That surely sounds like a condescending and patronizing comparison, yet it makes sense in understanding how Ukraine’s national pride has received no more than lip service as it has been turned into nothing more than a battleground of world’s big sheriffs. The military-industrial complex of developed industrialized nations has been the war’s only beneficiary so far, though some players have also displayed strong aspirations about this being an opportunity. It is interesting how year after year nations continue to fight wars in the name of pious visions of establishing democracy and freedom, which has remained an illusionary dream for much of the human race. Understandably, the first-anniversary debates on the Ukraine war have focused on issues of global existential concerns; on the continued nuclear threats from Russia, on the perilous nature of US-Russia deterrence stability, and the West now choosing to up the ante by agreeing to supply Ukraine with offensive main battle tanks that could take the war to Russia’s terra firma. Few and far between are commentaries that have bothered about the continued misery of those uprooted and separated from their dear ones and hundreds of thousands wounded and unknown number of dead. The guessing game of these numbers has also become part of rhetorical polemics from both the sides of theemerging global divide. So even as the UNGA and UNSC sessions have spent much of this week intensely debating on this war, media have remained glued to the grandstanding speeches of the Russian and American presidents, who have managed to grab an inordinately large part of the public attention the world over. Some of their ostentatious mega-events make humanity numb to the pain and suffering of millions of Ukrainians, even Russians, who see little hope for their future. One report calls Bakhmut “the meat grinder,” with average life expectancy of a soldier in eastern Ukraine now being a mere four hours. Even the issue of the Ukraine war rattling global markets with shortages of food, fertilizer, fuel and finance capital have been sidelined. On Wednesday, after declaring Thursday a Russian national holiday to honor people serving in its armed forces, President Putin took to the stage to address a cheering crowd of 200,000 people gathered at the “Glory to Defenders of the Fatherland” concert at Moscow’s Luzhniki Stadium. At this stadium, with a normal seating capacity of 81,000, his short five-minute pep talk – which was followed by state-sponsored performances by pro-war artists, military veterans and a group of Ukrainian children from the city of Mariupol – echoed the two-hour state-of-the-nation address he had delivered to the Russian parliament on Tuesday. This saw a strong-willed Putin hailing Russia’s “brave fighters” defending “our historical lands … our interests, our people, our culture, language and territory, our entire nation.” Biden-Putin duel The two back-to-back speeches on Tuesday by Presidents Putin and Biden focused searchlights on the Ukraine conflict becoming part of their ping-pong diplomacy. Their speeches were addressed as much to their domestic constituencies as to their friendly global audiences. Putin’s speech on Tuesday was telecast on every screen available as he blamed Western power elites who “intend to transform a local conflict into a phase of global confrontation.” He explained how “those imposing sanctions are punishing themselves. They have caused price hikes, job losses, an energy crisis. And we hear them telling their own people that the Russians are to blame.” Taking his strategy of dangerous brinkmanship a step forward, he announced that Russia was “suspending its participation in the Strategic Offensive Arms Treaty,” which was rubber-stamped by his parliament the next morning. Putin’s speech also talked of how “the US is developing new types of nuclear weapons … [and] the Russian Ministry of Defense and Rosatom must ensure readiness for testing Russian nuclear weapons.” Indeed, during Biden’s surprise visit to Kiev on Monday, Russia unsuccessfully tested its nuclear-capable “invincible” intercontinental ballistic missile, which, if it had been successful, would have found a mention in Putin’s state-of-the-nation address on Tuesday. Instead Putin chose to reassure his countrymen, saying, “I want to emphasize that elections of local and regional authorities this year, and the presidential elections in 2024, will be held in strict accordance with the law, taking into account all democratic and constitutional procedures.” It is uncertain how many will take that bait, especially when he had little to say about his plans for those losing their lives and limbs for his grand strategy of ensuring Russia’s “strategic parity.” But Biden was not to be left behind. Media were abuzz over his secretive 36-hour journey from Washington ending in his brief stroll with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in front of Kiev’s famous St Michael’s Cathedral. This was followed by his quick visit to St Sophia Cathedral and concluded with delegation-level talk at Mariinskyi Palace before Biden returned to Poland, where next evening he was to deliver his rebuttal to Putin just a few hours after the latter’s nationwide address. Alluding to Putin as an “autocrat” who has “met the iron will of America,” Biden’s speech outlined the future of the Ukraine conflict, saying “President Putin’s craven lust for land and power will fail. And the Ukrainian people’s love for their country will prevail.” Expanding, not ending The central threat of both presidential speeches and other commentaries underlines their determination to expand instead of end this conflict. Both seem to have developed deep stakes in being seen as the winning side. Their inability to back down is bound to be read at least partly in terms of their national elections next year and both aspiring to try for one more term in office. While Putin’s speech reiterated his nuclear threat, which is becoming too repetitive to sustain credibility, the most revealing part of Biden’s address was his saying: “The United States has assembled a worldwide coalition of more than 50 nations to get critical weapons and supplies to the brave Ukrainian fighters on the frontiers, air defense systems, artillery, ammunitions, tanks and armored vehicles.” The Biden administration has also betrayed a certain fatigue at providing for Ukraine’s grandstanding. This saw the president underline the distinction between his and his allies’ strategies, by saying, “The European Union and its member states have stepped up with unprecedented commitment to Ukraine, not just in security assistance, but economic, and humanitarian, refugee assistance and so much more.” Does this place the onus increasingly on middle powers like China, India, Iran and Turkey that have stood up to their autonomy and have displayed interest in mediating in this conflict? #Ukraine #US #Russia #China #India #Geopolitics #UkraineWar Originally published: First Post, February 24, 2023. https://asiatimes.com/2023/02/ukraine-war-has-become-hostage-to-big-powers-geopolitics/ 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 Del

By Prof. Swaran Singh India is once again being seen as the voice of the Global South that regards the West's attention on Ukraine as a mere diversion from more pressing issues such as food security, an impending economic recession, mounting debt, and terrorism With the Ukraine war this Friday entering its second year, Tuesday saw Presidents Vladimir Putin and Joe Biden delivering two back-to-back imperious speeches respectively in Moscow and Warsaw; further ratcheting up their brinkmanship that threatens to further derail any prospects of an early end to this conflict. For instance, Putin not only once again blamed this war on the United States (US) and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) seeking “limitless power” but announced the suspension of the 2010 New START nuclear arms reduction treaty. This Russia-US pact was extended for a period of five years only in February 2021. Likewise, Joe Biden not just paid a surprise visit to Kyiv but alluded to Putin as a “dictator” who “still doubts our conviction” and “staying power” saying “Ukraine will never be a victory for Russia. Never.” In the backdrop of Russia’s continuing nuclear threats and its armed forces holding on to Ukraine’s (and Europe’s) largest nuclear power plant at Zaporizhzhia, Putin also underlined Russia’s readiness for fresh nuclear tests, that is, if the US were to do so. Joe Biden responded to him by directly addressing Russian citizens; rebutting Putin’srhetoric that the US and NATO “seek to control or destroy Russia” underscoring how last year has witnessed “autocrats” getting weaker as democracies strengthen their solidarity. Proactive neutrality Where do such polemics put the world’s largest democracy, India, and also its ‘proactive neutrality’ foreign policy posture in the Ukraine war? Western studies continue to club this largest democracy in the world with China, Iran and Turkey which have so far refused to condemn the Russian invasion of their neighbouring nation. Is that a fair comparison and does such labelling of India make Russia any more at ease with India’s neutral posture? How has the rest of the world responded to India asserting its national interest and refusing to toe any line whether Russian or American? Even India’s critics agree that its visibility in global politics has increased by leaps and bounds. But, in spite of its regular connection with the national leaders of both Russian and Ukraine and its humanitarian assistance for the latter, has India been able to play any substantive role in resolving this war? Now, this has also come to be not just an expectation but a prerequisite if India has to ensure all 19 national leaders attend India’s G20 summit scheduled for coming September. To begin with, neither Russia nor US nor its allies have been fully at home with India asserting its own foreign policy perspective of strictly pursuing its own national interest. For Russian, much pooh-poohed lack of performance of their military machine is suspected to push India towards further diversification of its defence imports. But defence imports remain but one of the four factors — history, energy, arms and influence — that have shaped India’s approach to Russia. This explains why compared to Russia, American leaders have been more vocal in airing their displeasure with India’s persistent abstentions from all UN resolutions condemning Russian actions. Last March, for instance, President Biden had most politely called India “somewhat Shaky” in acting against Russia. Some of that murmur has since disappeared because this was followed by India hosting Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov in April and Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his September Samarkand meeting with President Putin reasserted the “unbreakable” friendship of their two nations. Foreign Minister Jaishankar was in Moscow last November calling their relationship “exceptionally steady and time tested.” Last week, National Security Advisor Ajit Doval was in Moscow and held a deliberation will all Russian leaders including President Putin. Russian oil imports Other than India’s assertive approach in defying some Western expectations this also makes India a glaring example of the world’s largest democracy refusing to endorse Western democracy versus autocracy formulations. More specifically, the West has been at unease with India’s oil imports from Russia that they say have undermined their sanctions campaign and funded Putin’s war efforts. This has come to be a bone of contention consuming much of India’s foreign policy community both inside and outside the Modi government. But the Ukraine war has also made India conscious of its dependence on energy imports. No doubt India continues to rely primarily on the nations of the Middle East, mainly Oman and Saudi Arabia as suppliers of its gas and oil yet, it is Russian oil supplies that have skyrocketed in the last year. India’s oil monthly imports from Russia jumped 33 times between December 2021 and December 2022. Foreign Minister Jaishankar is often seen diligently explaining this in terms of time-tested Indo-Russian relations, India’s low per capita income levels, its exponentially growing energy demand and above all Modi government’s “moral duty” to procure energy at the most cost-effective prices available. What is also most disconcerting to the US is that, unlike the past when India followed their dictate and stopped buying oil from Venezuela or Iran, this time India has stood its ground while conforming to all relevant global norms. But while increasing Russian oil imports, India has also become increasingly firm on its concerns about the Ukraine war. Content analysis of India’s speeches at the United Nations shows how India’s semantics have moved from concern to regret to deplore to calling parties to show respect for UN Charter, International Law, national sovereignty and territorial integrity etc. India had called for an independent investigation into the Bucha massacre and voted against the Russian resolution to deny President Volodymyr Zelensky addressing the UN Security Council. And then, in September last, Prime Minister Modi’s saying to President Putin that this is not the era for wars was to become a mantra for global leaders. India has also been exploring alternatives in launching International Solar Alliance, Lifestyle for Environment and domestic diversification towards renewables. But it is also true that India has already come to be the world’s third-largest oil consumer and Russia is now its third-largest oil supplier. It explains this huge change from Russia standing in the 17th spot for 2021. And, India also imports oil from the US as well. But, with its IMF-endorsed GDP growth rate of 6.8 per cent for this year — compared to 1.6 per cent for the United States — India’s energy demand is bound to grow reinforcing its connect with Russia. By the year 2030, India is expected to emerge as the world’s third-largest economy after the United States and China. India can leave no stone unturned to ensure energy security for its citizens. West’s doublespeak Rising India has to constantly work towards better perception management of India’s rapidly changing stature that underlies its initiatives and intentions. India’s constant narrative underlining the autonomy of its foreign policy has witnessed Indian interlocutors politely, and sometimes less politely, rebuffing old-style patronising tones amongst rich industrialised nations and their foreign policy elites. Especially their doublespeak has to be called out in a consistent manner. Of course, over time this new assertive style of Indian foreign policy interlocutors has gained certain traction and even certain acceptability across several quarters. Nevertheless, the mainstream Western narratives continue to paint India’s proactive neutrality as simple neutrality that they paint as in favour of Russia though several of them have begun to appreciate India’s compulsions and explanation or become increasingly resigned to emerging India’s assertions. India for instance has once again come to be viewed as the voice for the Global South that sees the West’s focus on Ukraine largely as a distraction from more pressing challenges like food security, impending recession, mounting debt, and terrorism. India’s presidency of G20 presents a great opportunity for India to work for an early end of the Ukraine war which has already become an inflection point in India’s foreign policy becoming far more assertive and grounded in India’s own national interest. This new tone of India has surely achieved not just greater visibility though achieving greater credibility remains as yet a work in progress. #Ukraine #India #Russia #UkraineWar Originally published: First Post, February 23, 2023. https://www.firstpost.com/opinion/why-ukraine-war-is-an-inflection-point-for-indias-foreign-policy-12194892.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.

By Prof. Srikanth Kondapalli Beijing has halted fresh Belt and Road Initiative investments in Russia and tried to mediate with a few visits and phone calls to several western leaders. However, nobody gave importance to the Chinese offer for negotiations. Read the full article here: https://www.hindustantimes.com/opinion/as-the-ukraine-war-drags-on-china-is-growing-uneasy-101676899349636.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. Srikanth Kondapalli Xi Jinping’s war on China’s billionaires is telling on the country’s economy, entrepreneurship, innovation drive and financial market stability. Read the full article here: https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/disappearing-billionaires-1195107.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. Gulshan Sachdeva After initial disruptions by the Ukraine war, the global economy is slowly adjusting. But as the war prolongs, uncertainty in energy markets and geopolitical fragmentations are likely to persist for years Although the war in Ukraine is approaching its one-year anniversary, there are no clear winners. In a continuing stalemate, both sides are apparently preparing for major new offences. The United Nations has recorded about 19,000 civilian casualties in Ukraine in the last one year: about 7,200 killed and 11,800 injured. Ukraine’s Devastation About half of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure is destroyed. Around 40 percent of its housing buildings are badly damaged. Its overall economic decline in 2022 was more than 30 percent. There are wide variations in the number of military casualties. A few western estimates put the figure between 200,000 and 300,000 combined military casualties from both sides. At one point, Russia was in control of about 25 percent of Ukrainian territory. Since then, Kyiv has been able to reclaim significant territory. Still, about 17 percent of its land is under Russian control. The Ukrainian counter offensive has been facilitated through huge western support. The EU and its Member States have provided 67 billion euros ($72 billion) in military, financial and humanitarian support to Ukraine since the war began. Similarly, the United States has given nearly $50 billion in assistance, including substantial weapons and equipment. Now eleven countries, including the United States and Germany have agreed to send tanks to Ukraine. Resilient EU, Russia The war has clearly derailed expected post-pandemic robust recovery in the world economy. Due to energy, food and inflation crises, the global economy may not even touch three percent growth in 2023. After initial disruption, most major economies are stabilising. But any further escalation and geopolitical tensions may worsen the situation. Luckily, the EU economy has been able to avoid the anticipated recession. Through various policy measures, It has escaped fourth quarter contraction. The growth in the EU 2022 is now estimated at 3.5 percent in 2022 and projected to expand by 0.8 percent in 2023 and 1.6 percent in 2024. Despite unprecedented sanctions, Russia has also remained more resilient than western expectations. Earlier, many expected that the Russian economy would be down by 10 to 15 percent in 2022. The latest IMF projection indicates that last year, it was down only by 2 percent and expected to grow marginally in 2023. Russia was able to profit from high energy prices diverted its oil to Asian markets. The economic sanctions seem to have limited impact on President Putin’s war calculations so far. Because of huge dependence on Russian fossil fuels, the EU spent most of 2022 in tackling its energy crisis. Through RePowerEU plan, it aims to reduce Russian dependence through diversification, energy savings and accelerating renewals. Although the EU has done well so far, readjustments are going to be costly. To shield consumers from rising energy prices, the European nations have provided 768 billion euros to its consumers. This included 265 billion euros by Germany and 103 billion euros by Britain. Struggling Multilateralism, NATO Revival The war has once again shown the ineffectiveness of the institutions of global governance. In 2022, the UN Security Council held fifty meetings on Ukraine. Because of direct involvement of a permanent member in the conflict, almost no agreement was possible. These frequent meetings also did not lead to any supportive diplomatic effort to resolve the crisis. Because of excessive focus on Ukraine, many other issues including the situation in Afghanistan did not get sufficient attention at global institutions. The war has also strengthened the transatlantic alliance and American leadership. Possible NATO expansion towards Ukraine was perhaps one of the main reasons for the war. But the war has resulted in neutral Finland and Sweden also bidding for joining the organisation. NATO, which was experiencing brain death as per French President Emmanuel Macron, has again become the main pillar of European collective security. India’s Chessboard Moves As a result of the Ukraine war Indian foreign policy seems to have asserted its strategic autonomy. Apart from traditional Indian dependence on Russian weapons, Moscow has also become India’s top oil supplier. Although the current situation is dynamic, these changes may have implications not just for India-Russia ties but also for the Eurasian geopolitics. Both Russia and the West would like to see India on their side, particularly when it is holding the G20 presidency. Beyond this, India’s role in the conflict is likely to be limited. Being big geopolitical players, both the United States and Russia have the capabilities to deal their matters directly. But so long as Russia and Ukraine continue to have maximalist negotiating positions; and the West continues with plans for a ‘strategic Russian defeat’, an early end of the conflict is unlikely. #Politics #Russia #RussiaUkraineWar #Ukraine Originally published: Money Control, February 22, 2023. https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/opinion/russia-ukraine-war-one-year-no-end-in-sight-key-actors-strategic-goals-in-play-10121651.html Posted in SIS Blog with the authorization of the author. Gulshan Sachdeva is Professor at the Centre for European Studies and Coordinator, Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence, Jawaharlal Nehru University.

By Prof. Swaran Singh Last Thursday, almost a fortnight after the US Air Force shot down a Chinese balloon on Feb 4, President Joe Biden finally broke his silence. Earlier, the balloon had been hovering over North American skies, and making media headlines, for almost a week. Biden's prolonged and deafening silence was, of course, accompanied by actions such as United States Secretary of State Antony Blinken postponing his visit to China. Then the US House of Representatives passed a resolution, with an unprecedented 419 to 0 majority, condemning China for its "brazen violation of US sovereignty." And then, as a final punch, the US Air Force shot down three more flying objects over North America, at first describing them as national security threats. The Biden administration even claimed that China had sent similar surveillance balloons over the skies of many other countries but gave no details whatsoever; sending its friends and allies to stare into their home skies anxiously. Australian leaders were reportedly reaching out to their American counterparts and openly questioning their own intelligence agencies. But after Biden spoke to NBC television on Thursday, his explanation — which has since become the refrain of all other US leaders, including Vice-President Kamala Harris who spoke at the Munich Security Conference on Friday — has only further diminished the credibility of US agencies. For instance, days after US agencies retrieved debris from the balloon they had shot down, all Biden had to say about the three other flying objects that were shot down was: "We don't yet know exactly what these three objects were, but nothing right now suggests they were related to China's spy balloon program, or they were surveillance vehicles from any other country." While trying to play down the incident, he even suggested that the three flying objects may have been part of some academic research, corporate endeavor or even recreational activity, though no one has as yet claimed ownership. An American hobby club — Northern Illinois Bottlecap Balloon Brigade — however, claims to have lost one of its balloons that has circled the earth seven times, only reinforcing the Chinese argument that US balloons have also been flying over Chinese skies. To defuse the crisis, President Biden said he will soon talk to Chinese leader on the issue, though he didn't give any timeline. He also tried to reassure his constituents at home by saying he has directed his team to come back to him with much sharper rules on how to deal with these flying objects; to be able to distinguish between those posing safety and security threats, necessitating action, and those that do not. He also sought to reassure his friends and allies by pledging to work for streamlining global norms for dealing with such exigencies. There, however, remain major loopholes that must be plugged so as not to fall prey to similar knee-jerk responses involving the world's most powerful military machine. As a first thing, reflecting on US agencies, this presidential explanation was not much different from earlier US briefings that saw officials parroting the much rehearsed "we do not know" or "this is not our domain" officialese, pushing the media into speculating about aliens infesting US skies and US generals not ruling out that possibility. Second, and more specifically, it is worrying that North America's binational North American Aerospace Defence Command or Norad's, jointly manned by Canada and the US, stands exposed for its inability to even identify small slow-moving airborne objects over its skies. Also, the way that they precipitously chose to declare these as threats to national security and destroy them before even identifying them must send shivers down the spines of those who rely on the US military or even US military technology. What makes it particularly perplexing is that Norad had only recently undergone modernization costing billions of dollars and this involved recalibrating its radar systems to detect such objects in the skies. Last June, Canada alone had pledged to invest $40 billion for Norad's modernization over the coming two decades, thereby linking its future security to US military partnership. According to experts, weather forecast radar systems have become so advanced that they can determine the shape of a 6-milimeter raindrop from more than 8 miles away, and yet Norad could not identify these much hyped slow-moving flying objects in its skies. While all this has implications for the security of the US and its allies and adversaries alike, with the onset of presidential primaries — where President Biden has announced his desire to contest for a second innings — such fiascos could also challenge his contest for the presidency. #ChineseBalloons #USChinaRelations Originally published: China Daily, February 21, 2023. https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202302/20/WS63f328dba31057c47ebafc3c.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.