Search

By Shibankita Pradhan The month of November unfurled itself interweaving the pride of a cherished past and the vision of a promising future. As the celebration lights of Cuttack’s Balijatra dimmed with the conclusion of the annual festival, the spotlight was shifted to the capital where the stage was set for India to make its pathway toward the aspiration of becoming an oceanic superpower, by hosting the inaugural edition of Sagarmanthan 2024: the great oceanic dialogue , organised by the amalgamated efforts of the Union Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways and the Observers Research Foundation.   Owing to its vast coastline of 7,500 kilometres, the ancient mariners of the land successfully created not only trade links but also cultural connectivity with the Southeast Asian region, which has shaped the dynamics of India’s soft power capabilities today. The architectural wonders  like Java's Borobudur and Prambanan temple and Tanah Lot temple in Bali, today stand as the timeless witness of India's ancient glory and seafaring endeavors. The annual festival of Balijatra ("voyage to Bali") in Odisha, keeps this treasured legacy alive by commemorating the farsightedness of the mariners of the land. This age-old tradition somewhere prepared the foundational ground for setting up India’s current vision of becoming a global maritime superpower by reviving its past potential. This aspiration got a kick-start by the inaugural edition of Sagarmanthan Dialogue 2024, which aimed to forge strategic cooperation in the key areas of Global Supply Chains, Climate change Maritime Logistics, and Sustainable Growth, thereby positioning India in the epicenter of global maritime governance.   Described as “the platform of churning” by the president of the ORF, Mr. Samir Saran in his opening remarks, the two-day Sagarmanthan dialogue brought together delegates, policymakers, and thinkers of across 60 nations to formulate a well-planned, sustainable, and mutually shared strategy  to address the challenges and opportunity in the field of ocean governance and blue economy. Looking at the picture through the geostrategic lenses, the Dialogue succeeded in finding plausible solutions to the China factor. It can be contemplated that the core goal of discussions was to present India as a reliable alternative to China so that the Chinese dominance over global maritime trade can be countered. During the sessions, experts and policymakers concluded that India, with its geographical position coupled with rapidly developing infrastructure is a more reliable player in reforming the world's supply chains as opposed to China, whose unethical practices related to the Belt and Road Initiative were subjected to criticism across the globe. The Sagarmala initiative, a key Indian infrastructure project, caters to this by focusing on increasing global connectivity in the sea trade routes and reducing the reliance of those routes on China. The dialogue has further underlined India's approach towards building geopolitical partnerships, mainly in the Indo-Pacific region. Opportunities for the future can be created by aligning with the Quad nations and by promoting regional collaborations through initiatives like SAGAR (Security and Growth for All in the Region). Moreover, the concept of democracies "ruling the waves" can particularly gain momentum in this respect as they are guided by the principles of equitable and sustainable global order. Democracies are more likely to promote the notion of freedom of navigation and free trade routes as emphasized in the United Nations Convention on Laws Of Sea. Unlike China's unilaterally imposed approach on the South China Sea, India's approach revolves around the notions of "Viswamaitri" and “Vasudhaiwa Kutumbakam” with promises of inclusivity and cooperation between likeminded nations in order to achieve a balanced maritime governance.   The Sagarmanthan dialogue marked an iconic milestone as it drew global attention to its position as the most influential maritime thought leadership platform in South Asia. It brought a plethora of valuable insights for Indian policymakers to realize that the vision put forward through the Sagarmanthan needs a constant and rigorous plan of action. This takes the Indian maritime journey to a crossroads now. This is a nation with an ancient oceanic trading legacy and the distinction of having an ocean name after it, yet, it does not seem to have found its position among the contemporary maritime leaderships. The country’s economy accounts for 8 percent of the global GDP, but is starkly contrasted with only a paltry 1.2 percent of share in global shipping capacity and has to rely heavily on foreign vessels to transport 95 percent of nation’s traded merchandise . However, India inherits all the potential and expertise to transform the current scenario. From building nuclear submarines to aircraft carriers, it has all the capabilities to bridge this gap. The country's brimming young population can be a valuable asset in shipbuilding foremanship. Almost 20% of the Indian youth are following their profession in sailing activities. Along with that, the current government is committed to policy reforms by granting ship infrastructure status for long-term financing and amending the SARFAESI Act to allow ships as collateral. Increased research around oceans, enhanced commercial shipping capacity, and a strong naval power, are the three focus areas that can act as catalysts for India's march toward being an oceanic powerhouse.   Towards the end of the dialogue , Sanjeev Sanyal, a member of Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister of India , drawing inspirations from Balijatra, linked India's ancient maritime power with its modern potential. "If we once dominated the oceans through commerce and culture, there is no reason we cannot do so again,"  Sanyal remarked. The echoes of Balijatra, symbolizing centuries of maritime excellence, resonated deeply throughout the Sagarmanthan. It was a powerful reminder that the strength of India lies in fusing its legacy with the ambition of its future. The tradition of toy boat sailing on Boita Bandana on the day of Kartika Purnima carries aspirations for a future where the maritime spirit of India will lead the world, sailing through the challenges, and uniting tradition and ambition to steer mankind toward a brighter, more sustainable horizon.   This is an Original Contribution to the SIS Blog.   Shibankita Pradhan is a postgraduate student of Politics with specialization in International Relations (PISM) at the School of International Studies, JNU. Her academic pursuits are centered around research and writing on pressing political issues and global dynamics and transitions.

By Prof .Emeritus S. D. Muni Ideologically, the United States is a self-proclaimed promoter and protector of democracy in the world. Its democracy policy has gradually evolved over the past century. The US fought the Second World War to defend democracy against fascism and waged a three-decades-long struggle during the Cold War against communism. Soon after the Cold War, U.S. President George Bush Senior proposed a ‘New World Order’ based on “freedom, peace and democracy” His successor, President Bill Clinton, said at the United Nations on September 27, 1993, that the ‘overriding purpose’ of American foreign policy is to “expand and strengthen the world’s community of market-based democracies.” In order to advance this purpose, Clinton’s Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, took the initiative of establishing a Community of Democracies (CoD). At the first meeting of the CoD in Warsaw in 2000, 106 countries promised to advance democratic norms and institutions [1] .  The U.N. endorsed this intergovernmental organization and later raised a “U.N. Fund for Democracy,” with contributions from members. In recent years, President Joe Biden has convened the ‘Summit of Democracy.’ The first such summit was convened in a virtual form in Washington on December 9-10, 2021. Its objectives were “defending against authoritarianism, addressing and fighting corruption and advancing respect for human rights.” The second summit was hosted by the U.S. in collaboration with Costa Rica, Zambia, Netherlands and South Korea in March 2023, and the third summit was hosted by South Korea in March 2024, in a hybrid, in-person, and virtual form. The second summit was prompted by the feeling that there was “autocratic assertion and an ongoing democratic recession.” The U.S. strategic community (official and unofficial) has identified Russia and China as the two powerful states pursuing “autocratic” assertions, thus integrating its ideological stance on democracy with the foreign policy goals of containing Russia and China. At the second summit, Biden promised to work with the U.S. Congress to “commit $9.5bn across all over efforts to advance democracy around the world.” In a critical assessment of Biden’s approach, the Carnegie Endowment for Peace said that “Biden’s democracy policy…actions belie the administration’s soaring rhetorics about standing for democracy against autocracy.” [2]  The declared policy’s inconsistencies and its contradictions with the actions, however, are not limited to the Biden-Harris administration alone, but to the U.S. approach as a whole. Recall President Clinton’s campaign speeches in 1992, when he had criticized his predecessor, Bush Senior, for aligning American interests with a variety of dictatorial regimes while highlighting the values of democracy and freedom. Democracy in South Asia Let us look closely at these inconsistencies in U.S. democracy policy in South Asia over the years. South Asia as a region occupies a strategically important place in U.S. foreign policy as it accounts for a third of the world’s population, closely neighbours China and turbulent West Asia, is a potentially attractive economic market, and its countries are jostling with diverse and fluid forms of democratic governance. On the ideological plane, the U.S. State Department brings out two reports every year to monitor human rights and religious freedoms all over the world. These reports cover in detail various aspects that underline democratic processes and governance, like violations of human rights and personal freedoms, political freedoms, the role of the judiciary, media censorship and prosecutions of journalists, government corruption, discriminatory nationalism, the status of ethnic and religious minorities, gender justice, etc. These reports serve an important role in U.S. domestic politics to show how committed the government of the day is to the cause of democracy. In these reports, policy recommendations are also made to the government in its approach to specific countries, depending on their positive or negative record on various aspects. Measures like sanctions, denial of economic assistance and visas, and trade and other restrictions on those who violate norms, including individuals, leaders, business houses, managers of democratic institutions, and the like, are implemented to get the faults corrected. In these reports, South Asian countries have been found wanting on many of the human rights and religious freedom parameters of democratic functioning. For instance, the Report of the U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedoms (USCIRF) for 2024-25 listed four South Asian countries, namely India, Pakistan, Myanmar and Afghanistan, as “countries of concern.” Sri Lanka was put on the list of countries under “special watch”, while Pakistan was pulled up for its discriminatory and harsh blasphemy laws. India was described as a country where “religious freedom conditions continued to deteriorate,” which “reinforced discriminatory nationalist policies” and also failed to “address communal violence…against Muslims and their places of religious worship.” The U.S. Ambassador in India endorsed this report. Earlier, President Obama had sounded caution to India in a public speech in New Delhi during his state visit in 2015. In Sri Lanka, too, according to the latest report, “religious freedom continued to decline,”, pointing out that lands belonging to Hindu and Muslim minorities were being acquired for the construction of Buddhist places of worship. Similarly, detailed country reports on the state of human rights, annually prepared by the U.S. Department of State since 1977, also show South Asian countries in poor light. Most of them have been censured for restraining freedom of expression, violence and discrimination against minorities, life-threatening conditions in prisons, gender violence and injustice, persecution of political opponents, and related issues. Besides Department of State monitoring, there are think tanks and advocacy institutions engaged in regular studies and analysis of the democracy situation in the world. In its latest “Freedom in the World” report, Freedom House categorises all the South Asian countries as “partially free,” and India’s Kashmir as “not free.” On India, it says that “separate incidents of violence resulted in damage to mosques, Muslim-owned businesses and Christian churches.” South Asian countries have rejected such categorization. South Asian governments have dismissed the U.S. reports as biased and distortions of reality. Reacting to the 2024-25 USCIRF report, India’s Minister for External Affairs, S. Jaishankar, described it as uncalled-for “interference.” He said: “It cannot be that one democracy has a right to comment on another, and that’s part of promoting democracy globally. But when others do that, it becomes foreign interference. Foreign interference is foreign interference, irrespective of who does it and where it is done.” Describing the USCIRF as a “biased organisation with a political agenda,” Randhir Jaiswal, spokesperson of India’s Ministry of External Affairs, said, “We reject this malicious report, which only serves to discredit USCIRF further.” [3]  Similarly, the Pakistani Foreign Office spokesperson Mumtaz Zahara Baloch, reacting to the 2023 report on religious freedom, said: “Such ill-informed reporting exercises about internal affairs of sovereign states are pointless, irresponsible and counterproductive.” [4]  India has not been issuing visas to USCIRF representatives for over a decade. Cold War Policy Inconsistencies and Contradictions U.S. agencies make various policy recommendations for the government, which include sanctions (including financial), visa restrictions and other diplomatic measures to be imposed on countries and entities violating the rights of their citizens. The U.S. government has only selectively accepted such recommendations depending upon its perceived strategic, economic and other interests. This is evident in U.S. policies towards South Asian countries. During the Second World War, U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt wrote to Gandhi, the leader of India’s freedom struggle, to cooperate with the British war efforts, saying: “Our common interest in democracy and righteousness will enable your countrymen and mine to make common cause against a common enemy.” Gandhi and India’s freedom fighters refused the request and asked for the grant of Indian independence first. After independence, India denounced military alliances and emerged as a leader of the non-aligned movement. India’s non-alignment and its cordial relations with the then Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and the People’s Republic of China – the perceived bastions of Communism and adversaries of the U.S. – so annoyed policy-makers in Washington that they decided to contain India within South Asia. For instance, during the Cold War, the U.S. preferred military regimes of Pakistan against a democratic India. The reason was that India refused to follow the U.S. vision of the world, and Pakistan was more than willing to do the U.S. bidding in return for American military, economic and diplomatic support against India. India’s push for democratization of the Himalayan Kingdoms of Nepal, Bhutan and Sikkim was only selectively welcomed by the U.S. In Nepal, the U.S.’ preferred option remained the Monarchy from the rise of King Mahendra in 1955 until the elimination of the Monarchy under King Gyanendra in 2008. The democratization of Sikkim (1975) and Bhutan (2008) were accepted in Washington. India’s support for the emergence of an independent and sovereign Bangladesh in 1971 was militarily resisted by the U.S. Subsequently, the U.S. was seen in New Delhi as being actively involved in the Pakistan and China-engineered military coup in Bangladesh in 1975 that overthrew a democratic regime, brutally killing its popular Prime Minister Mujibur Rahman and his entire family. [5]   During the 1970s and 1980s, the U.S. even allied with China to isolate the USSR and force it to retreat from Afghanistan. This proved the consistent Indian assumption that the Cold War was being waged not to fight Communism ideologically but to contain the USSR to consolidate U.S. power and supremacy in the world. The broader strategic irritation and indifference towards India in U.S. policies was punctuated by periodic and limited economic and military support (after the Chinese aggression in 1962). There were also U.S. Presidents like Eisenhower, Kennedy and Reagan who appreciated India’s democratic credentials and wanted to improve bilateral relations but strategic interests worked out by the Departments of State and Defense did not let the White House’s ideological preferences translate into concrete policies. The real shift in U.S. approach towards India has been evident only in the context of India’s declared nuclear weapons power status in 1998, its growing economy since the early 1990s, and the rising challenge posed by China to U.S. supremacy and India’s territorial integrity in the Indo-Pacific region. The U.S. sees India as a credible force in the Indian Ocean to balance Chinese expansion and assertion, and India looks towards the U.S. for military, technological, economic and diplomatic support to match China’s phenomenal rise. In pursuance of this strategic convergence, the U.S. is soft-peddling its response to India’s democratic deviation, and India is willing to absorb minor ideological shocks from the U.S. [6]  To accommodate India’s unhappiness, the U.S Department of State has distanced itself from the latest USCIRF report.     U.S. support for Pakistan started with the firming up of the Cold War against the Communist powers Russia and China. Explaining this support, a senior State Department official observed in 1951: “We do however have a great incentive to help Pakistan for the reason that Pakistan is very co-operative with us and the western countries. Pakistan has a very forthright attitude with respect to the basic cold war issues. Pakistan…has in other ways demonstrated her willingness to participate with us.” [7] Several studies hold U.S. support for Pakistan responsible for the erosion of its democracy and the rise of its military as a domestic power center. The sudden death of its founder, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, followed by the mysterious assassination of its popular Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan, broke the back of democratic evolution in Pakistan. The U.S. Central Investigation Agency is suspected of having played a role in Liaquat Ali’s assassination. [8] In his biography, “ Friends, Not Masters (Oxford University Press, 1967), Pakistan’s first military dictator, General Ayub, wrote that American support for his army gave it strength and confidence between 1952 and 1958. This encouraged the army to take control of the Pakistani State in 1958. By then Pakistan had become a military ally of the U.S. Pakistan’s military has consistently received U.S. military, political and economic support (estimated to be $67 bn between 1951 and 2011). After the Cold War, the U.S. needed Pakistan to fight its post-9/11 war on terrorism in Afghanistan. Even after realizing that Pakistan was a part of the ISIS and Al-Qaida terror networks and its strategic proximity was growing with China, the U.S. continued to support Pakistan and its military’s dominance in its polity. The latest example of support for the Pakistani military was evident in the ouster of popular Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan through a parliamentary conspiracy in April 2022. [9]  Pakistan’s nuclear weapons power status, its identity as the largest Islamic State, its proximity to the turbulent Islamic world, and its location on the Persian Gulf and in the neighbourhood of China cannot be ignored by Washington’s strategists. Recent Democratic Upheavals in South Asia   Three South Asian countries have undergone democratic upheavals in the past two decades. Nepal saw the democratic mainstreaming of a decade-old Maoist insurrection in 2006 and the elimination of its Monarchy in 2008 for an “inclusive, federal, republican democratic” order. The Maoist leadership had promised to create a “New Nepal” through systemic transformation. During March-July 2022, a popular uprising in Sri Lanka, called Janatha Aragalaya  (people’s struggle) forced its democratically elected President Gotabaya Rajapaksa to flee the country. The Rajapaksa clan was known to be authoritarian, corrupt and strategically leaning towards China. In the presidential elections in September 2024, Anura Kumara Dissanayake of a radical, leftist outfit, the Janatha Vimukti Peramuna (JVP) known for its violent rebellions in 1971 and 1989, has emerged victorious. Dissanayake has promised to bring about systemic changes in the Sri Lankan polity. In Bangladesh, a massive student uprising defied violent suppression and forced Shiekh Hasina, its prime minister of 15 years, to resign and flee the country. An interim political setup that includes student leaders and led by Noble Laureate and activist Mohammad Yunus has assumed power. The new administration promises to reform Bangladesh’s political dynamics radically. The U.S. reacted differently to these transformations. In Nepal, it strongly opposed the Maoist insurrection and, while pleading for a peaceful resolution of the turmoil and condemning human rights violations both by the Maoists and the ruling monarchy, offered military and financial assistance to the latter to crush the former. The U.S. support, along with support from China, had emboldened the autocratic Monarchy to avoid reaching a peaceful compromise with mainstream democratic parties and the Maoists. These two anti-monarchy forces joined hands and, blessed by India, eventually forced the King to surrender his executive power in April 2006. Mainstreamed into politics, the Maoists with support from other Nepali democratic parties ended Monarchy through a popularly elected Constituent Assembly in 2008. The U.S. accepted this change and has since been pursuing cordial relations with Nepal, including under Maoist-led governments. Indeed, Biden invited Pushpa Kamal Dahal, the former Maoist guerrilla leader who was the then Nepali prime minister, to attend the second Democracy Summit in 2023.   In Sri Lanka, when an inefficient and autocratic presidency of Gotabaya Rajapaksa triggered a huge popular uprising, the U.S. stood by the people. The Department of State opposed Gotabaya’s imposition of emergency and violent police action to deal with the uprising in 2022. It extended support for the protesters. The U.S. Ambassador in Colombo Julie Chung was in direct contact with the protest leaders and had reportedly financially backed them. In a post on X, formerly Twitter, on May 04, 2022, she said: “The freedom to engage in peaceful protest without fear of arrest is fundamental to democracy. The US urges restraint on all sides and reiterates our support for the rights of peaceful protest.” Whispers in Colombo’s political circles pointed to the U.S. embassy’s efforts, while supporting the protests, in helping President Gotabaya (a dual U.S./Sri Lanka citizen) escape without being personally harmed. A U.S.-friendly successor to him in Ranil Wickremasinghe was ensured. There were also reports of Ambassador Chung subsequently visiting the JVP office, supporting JVP leader Dissanayake’s bid for the presidency in the September 2024 elections and sponsoring his U.S. visit to mobilize diaspora support before the election. [10]  This underlined, in view of the Nepali example, that the U.S. is willing to engage and support radical South Asian forces that had engaged in armed rebellion when such forces join democratic politics. In the case of Bangladesh, the U.S. has been consistently unhappy with the Awami League (AL) since the elections of 2009, as its sympathies lay generally with the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) established by post-1975 military dictator Gen. Zia-Ur-Rahman and led after his death by his wife Begum Khalida Zia. The U.S. found it difficult to accept the legitimacy of the Hasina-led AL’s electoral victory as elections were not conducted under an ‘independent’ interim administration, a provision made under the BNP government but amended by the AL government in 2011. Since 2021, the U.S. was openly pressuring Prime Minister Hasina to ensure “free and fair elections”, under an interim arrangement. In December 2021, it imposed sanctions on Bangladesh’s Rapid Action Battalion (RAB), a para-military force meant for counter-terrorism, anti-drug action and emergency use. This force was allegedly being politically abused for carrying out extra-judicial killings, abductions and election fund-raising through extortions. The U.S. Department of State imposed visa restrictions in May 2023, reiterating them in September 2023, ahead of the January 2024 elections, on “Bangladeshi individuals responsible for, or complicit in, undermining the democratic election process… The United States is committed to supporting free and fair elections in Bangladesh that are carried out in a peaceful manner.” The U.S. viewed the January 2024 elections as unfair and rigged. After the elections, it lent support to the anti-government students’ uprising (June-August), condemning the Hasina government for atrocities against the protesters, who were demanding her resignation and ‘restoration of democracy.’ Hasina’s contention was that by using the shield of the students’ movement, the U.S. worked to overthrow her regime because she had refused to toe the U.S. strategy for the Indo-Pacific region. Apparently, Bangladesh had refused to sign two U.S.-proposed defence agreements—the “General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA)” and the “Acquisition and Cross-Servicing Agreement (ACSA). She publicly accused the U.S. of forcing her to let the U.S. build a military base on Saint Martine’s Island. [11]  Yunus, who heads the post-Hasina interim government, has been a known friend and supporter of the U.S. since the Clinton presidency. There are media reports that the U.S. has been quietly mobilizing and training students for the anti-government uprising. [12]  These reports quote Yunus introducing the protesting students’ leader to former President Clinton, lauding these leaders’ careful planning and execution of the Hasina government’s ouster. The groundwork for this operation, spread over months through funding the movement and training the leaders, was reportedly done by the International Republican Institute (IRI), a subsidiary of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), and under information to the Department of State. [13] India has generally been uncomfortable with any major external, including from the U.S., move or intervention in its immediate neighborhood. However, the years of recent democratic upheavals in South Asia have also been the years of growing strategic proximity between India and the U.S. Both have a common objective of containing China’s assertive and expansionist stance in the Indo-Pacific region, though their pursuance of this objective has mutual nuances and deviations. India was unhappy with the U.S. in its support of the Nepali Monarchy’s military approach to the Maoists while repressing democratic institutions and parties. After the mainstreaming of the Maoists, the U.S. has accepted the primacy of India’s strategic interests in the Himalayan state and the two countries are coordinating their approaches to Nepal. In Sri Lanka’s case, India and the U.S. converged on supporting popular resentment against the Rajapaksa ruling clan that has been unduly leaning towards China. Both also found Wickremasinghe to be eminently acceptable as a successor of Gotabaya, and are generally working in harmony to ensure that newly elected President Dissanayake builds an inclusive and stable democratic order. India has felt seriously disturbed by the U.S. support for regime change in Bangladesh. India had built a strong economic and security relationship with the Hasina regime, based on respect for mutual sensitivities and core interests. The forces opposed to Hasina, like the BNP and radical Islamists of the Jamaat-e-Islami, are traditionally close to Pakistan and inimical to India’s interests. The rise of these forces and the prevailing instability, including attacks on the Hindu minority and the fragility of the Yunus-led arrangement, are a matter of deep concern to India. Through quiet diplomatic channels, India has brought U.S. attention to it. It may be hoped that in the larger regional interest of both partners, the U.S. would be responsive to India to see that these forces do not gain ground in the evolving political dynamics of Bangladesh. In this respect, India’s loss will only be the gain for Pakistan and China. In a recent interview, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell admitted that the U.S. role in Bangladesh has “raised some anxieties in India…but we have sought very much to communicate directly of our strong desire that India’s interests are noted and acted on.” [14]  If the discordance between the American and Indian approaches to Bangladesh is not bridged, the interests of both will suffer and Bangladesh will not be able to stabilize itself. Summing Up: The ideological passion for supporting democracy in the world is clearly evident in U.S. foreign policy. However, in translating this ideological commitment into concrete policy measures, strategic and economic interests have always been accorded priority. The cause of democracy has been subordinated to U.S. geostrategic concerns. Balancing ideology with core strategic interests has been all the more challenging for the U.S. in relation to South Asia, where the countries of the region are democratic commitments, but they carry no insignificant value in the U.S. strategic calculations. The U.S., however, is not alone in this mismatch between ideological values and strategic core interests. All other major countries, including India, confront from this dilemma all the time [15]. ------------------- [1] For the text of the declaration see “Warsaw Declaration: A roadmap to democracy”. June 27, 2000. https://community-democracies.org/app/uploads/2019/04/WD-brochure-large.pdf . [2] Thomas Carothers and Francis Brown, “Democracy Policy under Biden”, Carnegie Endowment for Peace, Washington DC, February 06, 2024. [3] The Hindustan Times (Delhi), October 04, 2024. [4] The Dawn (Karachi), May 19,2023. https://www.dawn.com/news/1754289 . [5]  Lawrence Lifshultz,  Bangladesh: The Unfinished Revolution , Part1 and 2, Zed Books Ltd, 1979. [6] For an interesting over view of values and strategic conflict between India and the US, see Daniel Markey, “India As It Is: Washington and New Delhi Share Interests, Not Values”, Foreign Affairs  July/August 2023, Vol. 102, No. 4. Pp. 128-141. [7] As cited in Baldev Raj Nayar, American Geopolitics and India, Manohar Publication, new Delhi, 1976. [8] M.S. Venkataramani, The American Role in Pakistan , New Delhi 1982. Also see, Akhtar Baloch, “The Mystery that shrouds Liaquat Ali Khan’s murder”, The Dawn (Karachi), October 16, 2015. [9] “Imran Khan Claimed He was threatened by the US” The Guardian (London), March 31, 2022. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/31/imran-khan-address-pakistan-faces-no-confidence-vote . [10] Sena Thoradeniya, “Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s (AKD’s) Tryst In America And Julie Chung’s Apologists”, Lankaweb, November 1st, 2023. https://www.lankaweb.com/news/items/2023/11/01/anura-kumaras-akds-tryst-in-america-and-julie-chungs-apologists/ . [11] The Times of India (New Delhi), August 11, 2024. [12]  ibid. [13] Kit Kilarenberg and Wyatt Reed, “Leaked file expose covert US government plot to destabilize Bangladesh’s politics”. The GRAYZONE , September 30, 2024. https://thegrayzone.com/2024/09/30/us-plot-destabilize-bangladesh/ . [14] The Hindustan Times (New Delhi), October 06, 2024. [15] S.D. Muni, India’s Foreign Policy: The Democratic Dimension , Cambridge University Press, 2009, New Delhi. An edited version of this article was published in The Diplomat magazine (No.120, November 2024) Views expressed are personal and do not reflect the official position of SIS. Prof. S.D. Muni is Professor Emeritus, Jawaharlal Nehru University and Former Ambassador and Special Envoy, Government of India

By Pankaj Phanase Clausewitz famously stated , “War is nothing but a duel on a larger scale. It is a physical contest between people where each side uses force to oblige enemy to do things at their will.” Since his time, the nature, purpose, and course of war have transformed dramatically. Gone are the days when war represented the final act of the struggle for existence. Today, it has become a complex task of multidimensional activity with multiple tactics. The rise of asymmetric warfare, the formation of alliances and counter-alliances, and the limited nature of modern conflicts have taken the scope of war far beyond just survival. One need not mobilise an entire resource and yield maximum efficiency when the dominant side really has the power to dictate the entire course of a conflict for the winner. Such a luxury enables the dominant parties to go beyond political objectives to economic objectives in the wars. When such a party is technologically superior, the course of war reaches the war platform, turning into platforms for testing new technologies and strategies, effectively transforming battlefields into experimental labs. The limited wars of the 21st century, such as the Russia-Ukraine and the Israel-Hamas conflict, need to be assessed through this perspective. When the war was escalated by Putin in 2022, it was thought of as a matter of time before the fall of Ukraine. But, Ukraine captivated its allies and observers alike with its remarkable technological capacity to counter Russia’s aggression. The use of smart phones  by both the combatants and noncombatants has brought transformation in command, control, communications, computing, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) on the battlefield. The monitoring capability of Ukrainian software bugs can easily penetrate Russian computers, tablets and phones, which make them GPS guides  for Zelensky’s army.  is followed by small, plastic drones, buzzing quietly overhead, dropping grenades and other ordnance on Russian troops. 3D printers  are able to manufacture spare parts in such a way that maintenance of heavy equipment could be done in the war field itself. Further, ordinary pickup trucks are transformed into the mobile missile launchers  by the engineers. Beyond testing new technologies, Ukraine has shown that even existing technologies can be pushed to their limits to determine their effectiveness. For example, the U.S. and its allies have been keenly observing how well their weapons perform under the stresses of combat and analysing the types of ammunition each side employs. One prominent example is the effectiveness of Russia's use of inexpensive drones  supplied by Iran, which have proven effective in targeting Ukraine’s electrical grid. Western military observers have noted how Ukrainian success has largely been attributed to the American-made HIMARS  (High Mobility Artillery Rocket System), which has played a decisive role in stalling Russian advances. However, some high-profile systems provided to the Ukrainians, such as the Switchblade 300 drone , have not performed as well as expected, teaching valuable lessons about their durability and maintenance requirements in high-intensity warfare. The innovation definitely entered a new phase when it came to the Israel-Hamas war, which escalated after the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023. Israel has shown tremendous superiority over its adversary in three ways. First, unconventional methods of intelligence gathering and targeted killings have revolutionised its warfare. The extensive use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)  has become a game-changer. The Israeli military, using an AI system known as “Lavender”,identified tens of thousands of “human targets” for assassination based on their suspected affiliation with Hamas or the Palestinian Islamic terrorist groups. Once these targets were selected, another AI-based system called “ Where’s Daddy? ” was employed to track them, often resulting in the killing of entire families and nearby neighbours. Another AI system, “ Habsora ”, has been used to identify and destroy buildings and facilities that are purportedly used for military purposes. The second is manufacturing and deployment of ultramodern weapons. The army only used unguided missiles, sometimes referred to as "dumb" bombs  (as opposed to “smart” precision bombs), which have the ability to destroy entire buildings, causing a lot of casualties, when it came to targeting the alleged junior militants identified by ‘Lavender’. This exercise is the outcome of the logic of cost-cutting in warfare, which has reduced human lives to mere numbers, leading to the deaths of hundreds of women and children in Gaza. Third, the transformation of the conventional artillery to unconventional levels. The 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons prohibits the use of lethal weapons on civilian populations. Hence, Israel has developed weapons that appear less lethal on the surface, but cause significant harm. The new precision-guided 120mm mortar bomb called the  Iron Sting  is a powerful weapon in urban warfare because it can pierce double-reinforced concrete. The Palestinian people have suffered severe injuries as a result of the Israeli army’s testing of rubber bullets, robotic guns with artificial intelligence, and various crowd dispersal techniques. The nature of the wounds disguises the lethality of these bullets. Surgeons noticed  that the limbs after the wound appear intact, but it is difficult to distinguish between bone and soft tissues. Hence, superficial wounds reveal severe internal damage, making these weapons exceptionally dangerous. Finally, the IDF’s ability to expand the war beyond borders to initiate manipulation of information. Images from the Israel-Hamas conflict have painfully and graphically demonstrated AI’s ability to be used as a propaganda tool to produce realistic depictions  of bloodshed. Since the beginning of the war, social media has been circulating digitally manipulated photographs that have been used to mislead people about atrocities that never happened or to create false reports of casualties. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu posted a set of pictures on X during the early stages of the conflict, describing them as “horrifying photos of babies murdered and burned”  by Hamas. Ben Shapiro, a conservative commentator, came under fire for allegedly disseminating artificial intelligence-generated content after he enlarged one of the images on X. On the battlefield itself, IDF has deployed drones making sounds of babies crying, which forced the civil population to come out during the night, resulting in enhanced and target identification programmed in ‘Lavender’. The  superiority of the Israeli technicians has deceived AI checking tools.   Wars after the 2020s have introduced novel weapons, frontiers, and techniques, pushing the boundaries of battlefield innovation and allowing for the real-time deployment and testing of these advancements in combat. In the Syrian conflict, Russia used the space  to demonstrate its weapons and access the global arms market. Now Ukraine and Israel replicating this manoeuvre to advanced levels. The limited and deceived lethality of the weapons combined with psychological techniques makes it hard to bring these innovations under radar. China is definitely taking notes  for its potential technological spectacle in Taiwan or elsewhere in the neighbourhood. Thus, modern battlefields are no longer just theatres of conflict— they have become testing grounds where new technologies are forged, pushing the boundaries of warfare and redefining the rules of engagement for future generations. #Digital #War #Competition #Geopolitics This Article is an Original Contribution to the SIS Blog Pankaj Fanase is a Doctoral Candidate at the Centre for International Politics, Organisation, and Disarmament (CIPOD) at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. His thesis focuses on the impact of digital competition on great power politics and their strategic thinking.

By Rahul Pandey The India-China border dispute originates from colonial-era agreements  and post-independence territorial claims . The Sino-Indian War of 1962 significantly exacerbated tensions, resulting in a military standoff between both armed forces. The standoff resulted in the Chinese occupation of Aksai Chin ( China occupied 42,735 sq km ), an Indian territory (part of Ladakh). The conflict was primarily fueled by differing perceptions of the Line of Actual Control (LAC) and unresolved territorial claims, which have persisted for decades.   Over the years, numerous talks have been held to address the border issues, yet a lasting solution still needs to be discovered. Tensions escalated in the late 1980s and early 1990s, particularly during the political unrest in Tibet and border incursions. The distrust and competitive nature of regional politics, fueled by the desire for regional influence, resulted in the signing of numerous peace treaties, such as the Peace and Tranquillity  Agreement and the Confidence-building Measures  Agreement, which aimed to foster peace and Development.   However, diplomatic engagements, such as agreements on maintaining peace along the Line of Actual Control (LAC), temporarily eased tensions. The situation turned dramatically with the Doklam standoff  in 2017. The Indian and Chinese troops faced off near the tri-junction of India, Bhutan, and China. However, the Indian Express reported in 2020 that the number of Chinese transgressions across the disputed border had increased from 428 in 2015 to 663 in 2019. Some of these transgressions eventually escalated into standoffs between the two armies. The most notable examples occurred near Chumar and Demchok in eastern Ladakh in 2014 and at Burtse in northern Ladakh in 2015. The Doklam standoff was triggered by China’s attempt to extend a road in a disputed area claimed by Bhutan. India intervened, leading to a 73-day standoff that ended without significant military engagement but underscored the fragility of Sino-Indian relations.   Galwan’s bloody hand-to-hand battle  in June 2020 (June 15/16, 2020) marked a significant deterioration in relations, resulting in the deaths of 20 Indian soldiers and an undisclosed number of Chinese casualties (Officially 4, Xinhua ). This violent confrontation was unprecedented since the 1962 as multiple agreements signed from the early 1990s to early 2010s, such as the Border Peace and Tranquility Agreement, 1993, Agreement on Confidence Building Measures, 1996, Protocol for the Implementation of Military Confidence Building Measures, 2005 and the Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on India-China Border Affairs, 2012 - limited the scope of violence. In the aftermath of the Galwan clash, both countries engaged in extensive military and diplomatic discussions to de-escalate the situation. Over the following months, military commanders and diplomatic officials met multiple times to negotiate disengagement ( 31 rounds of diplomatic meetings and 21 rounds of military talks ) at various friction points along the LAC. The key focus areas included the Galwan Valley, the banks of Pangong Tso Lake, and the Gogra-Hot Springs region.   The process was complex and challenging, as both sides sought to protect their territorial claims while avoiding further conflict. Initial agreements led to the establishment of buffer zones to reduce the risk of clashes. Local commanders have been encouraged to meet regularly to foster understanding and mitigate the risk of skirmishes. Implementing buffer zones has led to conflict resolution, but issues in the Depsang Plains and Demchok persist.   On October 21, 2024, Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri announced a breakthrough in the negotiation. He stated that significant progress had been made in resolving issues regarding patrolling arrangements along the LAC. This marked an important step toward normalising the situation, which had remained tense for over four years.  As part of the recent negotiations, both sides recognised the need for a mutual understanding of patrolling rights and troop deployments.   The discussions emphasised a return to pre-April 2020 positions, where normal patrolling was conducted without obstruction. On 12 September 2024, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, the External Affairs Minister , during his conversation with Amb Jean-David Levitte at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, confirmed that about 75% of the disengagement issues had been resolved. However, problems regarding the militarization of the border persisted.   Intense diplomatic efforts marked the process leading to the latest disengagement agreement. Meetings between high-ranking officials, including National Security Adviser Ajit Doval and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi , in September 2024 at the sidelines of BRICS summit meeting played a crucial role in bridging gaps and facilitating dialogue. These diplomatic channels were complemented by military discussions, which focused on practical measures to reduce tensions on the ground.   The continuous engagement at both levels demonstrates the importance of sustained communication in conflict resolution. Despite the historical mistrust and complexities involved, both nations have recognised the necessity of dialogue to prevent escalation and ensure stability along their shared border. The recent agreement on patrolling arrangements and the disengagement process  is critical to normalising relations. Continued vigilance and diplomatic efforts will be necessary to address the underlying issues and prevent future conflicts.   Implications of Disengagement: Among numerous short-and-medium-term implications, there are four broader implications of this disengagement process: border stability—the agreement could reduce tensions in disputed areas, enhance security along the LAC, and foster stability in border regions; further strengthening confidence-building measures—by creating a formal process of dialogue and crisis management mechanisms, the agreement could pave the way for greater diplomatic trust, potentially easing long-standing regional rivalries; trade and economic exchanges—it can improve trade relations that could benefit both countries and open up more investment opportunities; and people-to-people connectivity will also be restored, particularly among students who wish to pursue higher education in both countries. For instance, the well-known Chinese language fellowship supported by the Ministry of Education of China and the Ministry of Human Resource Department of India (now the Ministry of Education) has been suspended since the Doklam issue. This was a significant language fellowship for Indian students pursuing language training in Chinese universities. With the opening of dialogue, these issues can be resolved.   Challenges and Opportunities: Interpreting past agreements is the most significant challenge between the border issues of both countries. Several factors complicate the situation beyond differing interpretations of the Line of Actual Control (LAC). One of the most entrenched issues is the historical basis of each country’s territorial claims, which are deeply intertwined with national pride and identity. From the Chinese perspective, these claims stem from their political opportunism, rooted in the extension of their past empires.   Another significant challenge is the strategic importance of the contested areas. India and China have developed extensive military infrastructure in these regions, including roads, bases, and supply lines, which has led to a substantial military presence on both sides. This militarisation complicates disengagement because each side is reluctant to pull back, fearing that it could weaken its defensive position or allow the other side to gain strategic advantage. The result is a situation where even minor skirmishes or misunderstandings carry the potential for escalation, as neither side wants to appear weak in the eyes of the other.   What are the ways forward? The path to peace and tranquillity lies in maintaining continuous diplomatic dialogue, supported by back-channel diplomacy, at all levels: government, academia, business, and people-to-people. The territorial disputes between the Chinese and Indian states in the Eastern and Western sectors can be resolved peacefully by addressing the border issue and establishing boundaries at suitable locations along the long border between the two countries. To sum up, the India-China border dispute remains one of Asia's most complex geopolitical challenges. While significant progress has been made in recent months toward disengagement and dialogue, both countries' historical context and entrenched positions mean that a comprehensive resolution will require sustained effort and commitment. As both nations navigate their path forward, they must focus on building trust and cooperation to ensure lasting peace along the LAC. #IndiaChina #MilitaryDisengagement, #IndiaChina #BorderIssues, #DoklamStandoff, #GalwanIncident This is an Original Contribution to the SIS Blog. Rahul Pandey is a PhD candidate at the Chinese Centre of the Centre for East Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. He regularly contributes to domestic and global media on China-related issues, offering insights into Chinese politics, governance, and international relations

By Sanjay Turi Instead of pursuing truth or justice, Canada holds on to politically driven accusations, designed to distract from its own failures. The current diplomatic tensions between India and Canada following India's alleged involvement in the assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar- a notorious Khalistani terrorist - highlight how the phenomenon of migration and ethnic diasporas are increasingly determining the foreign policies of host countries. The contemporary scenario is marked with acclaimed migration as one of the topmost highly-debated political issues around the globe. People of liberal states are sharply divided among themselves in their ideologies over the issue of migration. The proponents tilt towards the idea of providing refuge to them for humanitarian considerations and global equality awareness. In contrast, the opponents argue against the same by claiming that the influx of migrants poses a serious threat to the job opportunities and survival of native groups. The current scenario in Canada, where the Sikh diaspora has exerted tremendous influence on foreign policy, highlights this tension in the context of global migrations. The mere fact that the Sikh community has played a significant role in shaping Canada’s internal and external policies, especially with respect to its ties with India, is again bringing this conflict into focus regarding whether migration among the countries should be encouraged or not. Currently, Canada is under a coalition government , where the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC), led by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau governs along with the New Democratic Party ( NDP ) led by Jagmeet Singh. That role is particularly important for Canada-India relations as the transborder migration of the Sikh community has continued to shape the foreign policy of the host country. The Sikh presence in Canada dates back to the late 19th century. Today, they have prospered and emerged as one of the most important minority groups in the country, known for their active participation in politics and economic success. The Canadian Sikh diaspora, today with more than 700,000  Sikhs is one of the largest Sikh populations outside India, with strong concentrations in provinces such as British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta. There are stages of Sikh migration to Canada, but a large number of Sikhs in Canada primarily came from families who immigrated during times of political turmoil in India, especially in the 1980s when tensions between the Indian government and Sikh separatist movements were at their height. Though Sikh diaspora makes up a prominent part of Canadian political life, with leaders like Jagmeet Singh, chief of the New Democratic Party, and many other Sikh members of Canadian parliament as well as cabinet ministers. This has, in turn, influenced Canadian politicians to address the Sikh community’s concerns, related to human rights and religious liberty as well as India’s internal politics, which in turn continues to affect Canada’s foreign policy stance toward India   While the Khalistan movement has decreased significantly in India, it still holds significant support among certain radical Sikh groups within Canada. Khalistani activists in Canada, where they have been able to hold referendums and protests among other events in support of the separatist movement that India sees as a serious threat to its sovereignty, territorial integrity and national security. The Indian government is continuously expressing concerns about the pro-Khalistani groups being active in Canada, accusing the so-called " liberal " Canadian government of supporting extremism and terrorism. It has been urged time and again by the Government of India to crack down on such groups, but Ottawa under domestic political pressure is quite ignorant and soft on them. This attitude of the Canadian government continues to fuel the diplomatic row between India and Canada in recent times. Canada, for its part, defends these activities on the grounds of freedom of speech and expression, enshrined in its constitution. Prime Minister Trudeau has repeatedly emphasised that Canada does not agree with the Khalistan movement, but strongly believes in allowing its citizens to express their political views peacefully. That view of the Trudeau government is interpreted by many as a bid to win the support of Canada's Sikh community – more than 2.1%  of its population and thus a sizable voting bloc. Therefore, even if Prime Minister Trudeau wishes to strengthen relations with India and respect its territorial integrity by cracking down on Sikh separatists living in Canada, he(Trudeau) would face substantial domestic pressure from the Sikh population, resulting in a significant decline in his electoral performance.   Trudeau’s reliance on the NDP, which has a very strong Sikh base, further complicates matters. Having recently survived two no-confidence motions , Trudeau cannot afford to alienate his coalition partner, Jagmeet Singh, or risk losing Sikh support ahead of the general election expected to be held next year in October.  This is exacerbated by the fact that Trudeau's government highly depends on the New Democratic Party(NDP) — a party with strong Sikh support, probably playing the role of King-Maker.   The recent diplomatic tension between Canada and India is a microcosm of a wider trend in global politics — where migration and diaspora politics are shaping home-grown policy more than ever before. Across the European continent, concerns about immigration—often framed in terms of national security, cultural preservation, and economic impact—are unilaterally driving political discourse in society. The negative impact of the Sikh Diaspora within Canada which impacts its foreign policy is perhaps a warning or wake-up call for multicultural societies such as European states. This seems to be possibly fuelling a further backlash against immigration. This may potentially lead to stricter policies on immigration and deportation of migrants globally, disproportionately affecting African and Asian communities who often come from disadvantaged backgrounds in search of better lives.   Mr Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary-General,  was a strong supporter of state sovereignty , once said in his speech that interfering in another country's internal affairs has the potential to undermine international cooperation and peace. He also said that supporting separatist groups for political benefits, generally results in "an endless cycle of retaliation" that harms the existing global multilateral cooperations for the greater good and undermines the idea of diplomacy in International Relations. Therefore, to promote the idea of Vashudaiv Kutumbakam  and prevent any such confrontations, countries, today, must follow the directions provided by the former UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan. #Canada #Diaspora #India This is an Original Contribution to the SIS Blog Sanjay Turi is a Doctoral Candidate at the Centre for West Asian Studies (CWAS), School of International Studies(SIS), Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.

By Madhulika, Snehil Shukla, Sayantan Bandyopadhyay, Nadeem Iquebal, Chandan Kamath, Vijaylaxmi Pal At the heart of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Ganga Dhaba stands humbly as a buzzing hub of ideas and debate, where conversations flow as freely as the chai and debates echo into the cool evening air. Small in structure but immense in significance, Ganga Dhaba serves as a gathering ground for students, faculty, research scholars, and visitors alike, drawn in by its affordable tea and snacks, priced to be accessible to all. More than just a spot for late-night refreshments, it has become an enduring symbol of JNU's ethos of intellectual freedom, critical dialogue, and democratic spirit.   Originally established in the 1980s by Bharat Tomar as a humble tea stall, Ganga Dhaba swiftly evolved into a central hub for the university community, where students engage in passionate debates on subjects ranging from Marxism and feminism to caste politics and foreign policy, often continuing late into the night. “Despite its modest size, Ganga Dhaba has preserved its affordability, with a cup of chai costing just Rs. 10 and an aloo paratha also at Rs. 10, ensuring it remains accessible to students from all walks of life,” shared Harish, the current shop manager.   This unassuming eatery has been frequented by some of India’s most influential intellectuals and politicians during their formative years in JNU, many of whom credit their political awakening to the late-night discussions at Ganga Dhaba. Figures like Sitaram Yechury, Nirmala Sitharaman, and S. Jaishankar, have all spent evenings immersed in debate here, surrounded by fellow students as eager to discuss the intricacies of global affairs as they were to unpack domestic issues. For those who sat on these stone benches with steaming cups of chai, Ganga Dhaba was nothing less than an open classroom where ideas could be tested, arguments refined, and perspectives broadened. More than a place for debates, Ganga Dhaba is a sanctuary for dissent and activism, integral to JNU’s culture of social and political engagement. When the university administration threatened to close it for nonpayment of dues, modernization, and hygiene reasons, students rallied to preserve it. To them, the Dhaba was more than a food joint—it was the heart of campus life, embodying camaraderie, learning, and resilience.   With the U.S. presidential elections taking centre stage, Ganga Dhaba has become a hub for lively discussions. On the night of November 5th, doctoral scholars gathered at the Dhaba, sipping chai and munching on samosas, as they debated how the election’s outcome might impact India's future. Nikhil Biswas from the Centre for African Studies, School of International Studies, sipped his coffee while passionately endorsing Trump. He argued that Trump’s approach, particularly on Syria, favoured stability by leaving it to Russia, and he dismissed the possibility of the U.S. embracing a female president anytime soon. Nearby sat Dhirendra Kumar of the Centre for South Asian Studies, who countered Nikhil’s view with his support for Kamala Harris. He appreciated her inclusive policies and her Indian heritage, which he believed could foster stronger ties with India. Dhirendra highlighted what he saw as Trump’s patriarchal stance, restrictive immigration policies, and the hurdles he posed for Indians pursuing education and work in the U.S. The debate intensified as Nikhil defended Trump’s appeal to everyday Americans facing high living costs and job crises.   Nitish Kumar, a Ph.D. scholar from the Centre for Russian and Central Asian Studies, then chimed in, drawing attention to the potential disruptions in trade policy under another Trump presidency. He explained that Trump has previously labelled India a “Tariff King” and a “very big abuser” in trade, pointing out that India’s average tariff rate of 17% far exceeds those of Japan, the U.S., and the EU. Alok, who stood beside him sipping a bottle of Lahori Zeera, added that Trump’s “America First” policy had already led to tariffs on Indian steel and aluminium in his previous term. “That’s why I’m hoping for Kamala’s win,” he remarked.   As the discussion unfolded, some students from Jamia Millia Islamia, waiting for friends nearby, joined in. Their perspective added a sobering dimension to the conversation. One Jamia student remarked, “It doesn’t matter whether Kamala wins or Trump; the ongoing genocide in Gaza is likely to continue.” Another added, “I’m not interested in the U.S. election at all. It’s not going to do any good for the people of Palestine.” The debate took a more reflective turn when an alumnus from the Centre for the Study of Social Systems joined, cautioning that renewed U.S.-China tensions could negatively impact India. He suggested that Trump’s relationship with American voters might see him through, even as he doubted Harris’s call for “a new generation of leaders” would resonate. As the night grew colder, Sankhar Da, the owner of the neighbouring saloon, strolled by, musing, “It doesn’t matter who wins as long as there’s a peaceful transition of power.” His words brought a calm end to the conversation, underscoring the Dhaba’s role as a democratic space where diverse opinions clash yet ultimately converge around a shared commitment to India’s future in a complex global order. In this spirited corner of JNU, students blend the personal with the political as they refine their perspectives on international relations, blending the personal with the political. #JNU #GangaDhabha #USElections This is an Original Contribution to the SIS Blog. Sayantan Bandyopadhyay, Madhulika, Nadeem Iquebal, Snehil Shukla, Vijaylaxmi Pal, and Chandan Kamath are Doctoral Research Scholars at the School of International Studies, JNU.

By Kuldeep Ojha The Chilean Foreign Minister His Excellency Mr. Alberto Van Klaveren’s visit to India during the last week of August 2024 marked a significant touchpoint in the Indo-Chile bilateral ties. As the first such visit in the past decade, it facilitated progress on trade, investment, environment and technological cooperation between the two Global South actors. On India’s part, the renewed momentum in ties with the Latin American state demonstrates its diplomatic commitment to engaging with the Global South on win-win terms. In an uncertain geopolitical environment, both India and Chile are prudently diversifying into new set of diplomatic ties beyond their traditional concerns to hedge their bets and achieve their foreign policy goals through new avenues. The foreign minister’s visit also included a sojourn to India’s premier international relations institution, the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). A key element of his address included the promotion of education and knowledge exchange between the two countries. Welcomed by Professor Amitabh Mattoo, the Dean of the School of International Studies, the Minister addressed Chile’s role in world geopolitics and the potential for bilateral cooperation in the fields of trade, diplomacy, education and business. In this article, based on the Minister’s remarks at JNU, this article analyzes the current state of India-Chile  bilateral relationship and future avenue for cooperation. Economic Cooperation: Expanding Trade and Investment Ties India and Chile are strengthening trade cooperation, particularly in the areas of agriculture, pharmaceuticals and staple foods. The Preferential Trade Agreement (PTA) , signed between the two countries in 2006, has played a significant role in reducing customs duties on over 1,000 products. The trade composition majorly consists of India’s imports of Chilean fruits and wines and its export of agricultural products and medicines. The key focus of the Chilean foreign minister’s visit included the discussion on the introduction of a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) between the two countries. During the bilateral talks with the Commerce Minister of India, Mr. Piyush Goyal, both parties stressed the need for the development of economic cooperation through the framework of market access and cooperation in a new and promising field for Chile and India, namely, critical minerals. The Chile-India Business (Agriculture) Summit in Mumbai  also proved its ability to bring back the agricultural trade between the two countries. Efforts have also been made to address the longstanding concerns regarding sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures, a move deemed crucial to spur fresh supplies of commodities including basmati rice, rose and kidney beans among others. Chile on its part wants to secure the portion of the Indian market share of wines and nuts.    Critical Minerals: Promoting Green Energy Collaboration Out of all the sectors for collaboration that was under discussion during the visit, one of the most crucial one included critical mineral. As the global leader in the lithium ore segment and the second largest producer of copper, Chile holds an important position in the global supply chain of renewable energy sources. India’s growing appetite for electric vehicle (EV) and renewable energy has created an immediate need for these minerals, most importantly lithium which is used for battery production. Moreover, China’s remarkable domination of the EV market and critical mineral supply chain provide an additional incentive on part of India to collaborate with Chile. The obvious rationale, when it comes to the strategic thinking of cutting the risks of economic over-dependence, could not be clearer in New Delhi’s equations. On the Chilean side, such political importance of economic interdependence and the need to diversify its markets could be the reasons that explain the keen interest to court a rising India. The Chilean Foreign Minister’s invitation to Indian firms to invest in lithium mining in Chile is a geopolitical chance for India to secure the supply of the mineral crucial to green transition. The gaining of technical know-how and a foothold in the lithium supply chain are to be counted as the long-term benefits for the Indian business sector. The collaboration further has the potential to result in technological exchange and joint partnerships around sustainable mining operations for economic and environmental benefits. Aligning Interests and Values in the Strategic Partnership India and Chile share a common ground in their commitment to democracy, human rights, and sustainable development. These shared values have the potential to serve as the bedrock of the growing bilateral relation. Both India and Chile support the use of diplomacy and peaceful means to resolve global problems and are committed to the rules-based international order. India’s EAM S Jaishankar has already expressed his appreciation for Chile’s support to India’s bid for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. The Chilean minister’s speech at JNU touched upon the synergy between the two nations on international order, especially the agenda of reforming multilateral institutions. Consequently, in future, Indian diplomacy may do well to coordinate its position with Chile in international forums on matters of global importance.  The strategic dimension of the bilateral relationship has also attracted quite a lot of diplomatic interest because the conversation has been colored by the possibility of cooperation in the spheres of defense, technology and space. Leading private Indian defence sector actors, including BrahMos, Azista Industries and Goa Shipyard Limited, are involved in discussions with the Chilean Armed Forces to gain access to the lucrative market. MKU Limited has recently exhibited its latest products at FIDAE (International Air and Space Fair) 2024 , in turn consolidating the Indian footprint in Chile’s defence acquisitions market. The vast potential for the defence export on part of India remains untapped and the future performance of Indian firms deserve a close watch. As for the potential for deepening bilateral cooperation, another set of concerned activities include the current negotiations over the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA). While the full details are not available, the likely affected areas include cybersecurity, green energy, climate action, poverty reduction. The Chilean minister also paid much attention to regional integration in Latin America and Asia, where India and Chile can potentially take the leading part to address climate change, economic inequality, and global health issues. India’s prowess in generic medicines, expertise in the HADR missions, and promotion of the solar alliance can readily serve as the diplomatic blueprint to provide public goods in these regions.  Conclusion In conclusion, the momentum in the bilateral relationship warrants an optimistic outlook of the future trajectory, despite a rapidly developing Sino-Latin American relations, and substantial geographical and linguistic barriers between India-Latin America. The Chilean foreign minister’s visit to New Delhi and JNU serve to highlight the Latin American nation’s commitment to improve the relation with India by investing in people to people ties and scholarly exchanges. The visit also demonstrates India’s rising profile and its adroit diplomatic conduct, as well as the continued importance of JNU as the leading hub of IR scholarship in India. #IndiaChile This Article is an Original Contribution to the SIS Blog and is based on an open event not subject to the Chatham House Rules. Kuldeep Ojha is a PhD scholar in Latin American Studies at SIS, JNU. His research focuses on environmental governance in Central America, and his interests extend to the Latin American region and its geopolitics.

By Aarshiya Chowdhary “Standards are taking centre stage in global governance discussions. When countries gather in New Delhi for WTSA-24, they will have an opportunity to foster digital inclusion and trust — values that are more important than ever to ensure that innovation in fields like artificial intelligence, the metaverse, and quantum information technologies helps us create the future we want."  - Doreen Bogdan-Martin, ITU Secretary-General   Artificial Intelligence (AI) is no longer a Small Wonder !   From the first AI Beauty Pageant   winner, Kenza Leyli , the first AI-driven Humanoid citizen , Sophia,  the proliferation of AI-driven haptic devices  like smartwatches to the increasing role of non-state actors like Taylor   Swift's AI-synthesised deep fake  in influencing electoral politics. Moreover, from the world’s first AI regulation  by the European Union (EU), Open AI’s Strawberry model  (sequel to ChatGPT), the adoption of the Global Digital Compact , the Nobel Prize 2024 (Physics) , to the recent release of Ananya Pandey starring ‘CNTRL ’ , Artificial Intelligence (AI) is intensely encapsulating human lives at light’s speed.   In light of this, the Information Telecommunication Union (ITU), the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) are spearheading the first edition of the International AI Standards Summit  at the World Telecommunication Standardization Assembly ( WTSA-2024 ), being held from 14th October- 24th October 2024, in New Delhi, India. This year's World Standards Day theme is ‘Achieving Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure through AI’ , signifying the instrumental role of AI in transforming the digital space and ensuring an AI-driven sustainable future for all. The Birth of AI: The Smart Machine   The term AI was coined by American computer scientist and mathematician John McCarthy after the creation of LISP (a computer programming language based on a recursive mathematical function applied to a data set) in 1958. This programming language became fundamental to the birth of AI by enabling machines to ‘learn’ and imparted machines with 'intelligence' over a relay of past 'learnings' or 'experiences’. Basically, an AI machine cannot be asked to ' Forget The Past!’   Further, Artificial Intelligence gained traction with Alan Turing’s famous ‘Imitation Game’, also known as the ‘Turing Test’. In his remarkable paper, ‘ Computing Machinery and Intelligence , 1950 ’, Turing demonstrated the ability of machines to ‘think’, based on repeated mimicking or copying of humans in experimental conditions. This became the foundation of what Zuboff (1988) calls 'smart machines', highlighting their socio-economic implications on the different equations of power, particularly with the expansion of Information Technology (IT).   The Need for Standardisation of the AI Landscape: The Pros and Cons of an AI-driven Society   AI has a plethora of benefits, for instance, automated mechanical or creative work with greater efficiency and productivity, personalised online user experience, disaster risk mitigation based on geoclimatic data of a region and security enhancement of digital borders by filtering illegal migrants and identifying UAVs in the age of grey warfare and more.   However, there are downsides. First, it perpetuates inherent racial bias and gender discrimination as an outcome of deep-rooted social stereotypes and prejudices that get embedded in the technical architecture of AI networks. Second, the occurrence of false positives in identification processes. Third, Gen AI technologies like ChatGPT create artworks based on originals that violate IPRs (Intellectual Property Rights). Fourth, AI-created deep fakes facilitate the spread of disinformation and synthetic data. Fifth, there is an increased threat to cyber-security via machine-based phishing, spoofing and DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) attacks. Sixth, training AI models have a heavy energy consumption footprint. Seventh, anonymity and pseudofication techniques with the support of AI augment cyber threats to a great extent. Eighth, AI can deeply erode an individual’s information privacy.   The challenges of an AI-based algorithmic society are exacerbated with the digital Brandt line , which undermines the efforts towards an equitable AI-driven society. The inequality in digital connectivity, access, and literacy results in the absence of fair representation of data from deprived regions, causing biases in AI training models. Also, the fragmentation of data protection laws, including the demand for data localisation by developing countries, inhibits data security and protection of digital rights, fuelling critical threats like profiling based on discrimination.   Standardising AI: The Global Efforts So Far   The first global-level move to advance a human-centric, trustworthy and responsible AI society saw the inception of the OECD-led Global Partnership for AI (GPAI) during the Covid (2020). This was followed by UNESCO’s Recommendation on the Ethics of AI  (2021). Of late, in March 2024, the UNGA adopted the landmark resolution on AI  and emphasised two essential priorities: bridging the digital divide and ensuring equal protection of the rights of individuals in the offline-online world, particularly throughout the life cycle of the AI systems. Further, the European Union pioneered the first AI Regulation Act, adopting a risk-based approach with a critical focus on personal data protection and AI literacy of all stakeholders in the AI ecosystem. Following the release of the Act, the Council of Europe has adopted the first-ever legally-binding AI treaty  to ensure global standardisation of AI with a strong intent to protect human rights, mitigate AI-based risks that undermine social cohesion and democracy, uphold the rule of law, and ensure a sustainable and inclusive AI-based global society. India: Voice of the Global South in the AI Landscape Notably, alongside the WTSA-2024, the world’s first International AI Standards Summit is being held in New Delhi, India, from the 14th-18th of October 2024. It is important to note that such an event is taking place in the Indo-Pacific for the first time. This reflects the Global South's growing multistakeholdership in setting of the global AI-standard regime and India's growing leadership role as the representative of the Global South in the backdrop of current domination of Global North in AI landscape.   Today, the Indo-Pacific construct is emerging as the Geotech heartland  of the digital international system as a consequence of accelerating digital development. Here, India is working towards expanding its foreign policy interests as well as mainstreaming the goals and aspirations of the Global South:   a)     India has strategically opted out of the ‘ Trade pillar ’ of the US-led IPEF, where digital trade fuelled by personal data, the new oil of the twenty-first century , is a crucial component.   b)    India hosted the third Voice of the Global South Summit  under the theme ‘ An Empowered Global South for a Sustainable Future ', with technology, digital transformation, IT, innovation and governance as key focus areas.   c)     India is a founding member of the OECD-led GPAI (Global Partnership Alliance for Artificial Intelligence), 2020, an initiative to enhance multi-stakeholder cooperation in global governance on AI rooted in three critical priorities- safe, secure and trustworthy AI. This pins India's proactive role in fostering cooperation in AI governance. At the GPAI 2024, the New Delhi declaration  called for collaborative efforts to pursue 'AI for the good of all’.   d)    India participated in the Outreach session on AI at the G7 Summit , pushing its values of 'AI for All'. Also, it is a member of the Quad Standards Sub-Group on AI  (2024) that aims to promote international cooperation and give impetus to coherent global AI governance through technical interoperability. Therefore, India has the potential of being a critical bridge between the West and the Global South in the digital domain.   e)     India is positioned 39th on the WIPO’s Global Innovation Index . It occupies the first position amongst lower middle-income economies. It has continued to emerge as an innovation outperformer for the 14th year in a row. Also, it is the world's third-largest start-up economy, with most start-ups being tech-led . Also, India ranks 10th  in private investment in AI development.   f)     India’s global success in digital public infrastructure (DPIs) , for example with the adoption of India’s UPI in Bhutan, Singapore and France , is a significant achievement and highlights its huge potential to be the backbone of a global AI ecosystem that is transparent, inclusive, diverse, accountable, open for cooperation, and a standards-based sustainable human-centric AI future.   g)    India is an emerging economy with an expanding data pool  of 120 crore mobile phone users and 95 crore internet users. A wide data pool paves its way to be a notable actor from the Global South in the AI regulatory landscape.   To conclude, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming and reconceptualising many aspects of human lives. Technology, particularly emerging technologies like AI, is instrumental in profoundly impacting the international world order. The digital divide in the AI landscape compels the developing world to be a dormant actor in the global governance of critical issues like AI. However, in recent times, amid the ongoing Sino-US technology rivalry, emerging economies like India from the Global South have a unique position. They are making headways to promote an ethical, inclusive, diverse and sustainable AI future. The World Standards Summit 2024, including the first AI international standards summit, is an apt moment to ensure an 'AI for Good for All' and achieve the essence of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 2030). #AI #WTSA2024 #INDIA This is an Original Contribution to the SIS Blog.     Aarshiya Chowdhary is a Doctoral Candidate at the Centre for European Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, India, with her focus of research work on Data Protection, Information Privacy, Digital Rights and Global Regulation of Technology.

By Inzam P I The current decade is characterized by an ongoing cycle of wars, indiscriminate killing, genocide, and armed conflicts. This costs not only the lives of millions of people but also causes irrevocable damage to the environment and local populations. From the political crisis in Bangladesh to the Israel-Palestine conflict, the severity of harm inflicted upon the environment is undisputed. Consequently, the warmongering mentality of certain states around the world has led to a rapid surge in eco-violence this decade. Hence, it is a time of urgency for the international community to discuss the serious repercussions of mass environmental damage and adopt possible legal mechanisms to mitigate it. Arthur Galston, an American botanist, first coined the term 'ecocide' in 1970 to describe the environmental devastation that resulted from United States’ use of Agent Orange, a harsh herbicide, in Vietnam. ‘Ecocide’ literally means ‘killing the environment.’ Therefore, ecocide can be referred to as the deliberate or unintended destruction of the environment by human action. The demand for criminalisation of ecocide may sound highly radical, fresh and new. But it is quite opposite. The question on the legality of ecocide was addressed five decades ago. One of the first efforts to address it was proposed by former Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme at the 1972 U.N. Conference on the Human Environment. The momentum for the global movement to criminalize ecocide was maintained by Stop Ecocide International (SEI), which acted as a catalyst in mobilizing resisting voices together. It consistently urges for the inclusion of ecocide as the fifth crime in the Rome Statute , along with the “crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression”. According to the Stop Ecocide International , criminalization of ecocide would address and punish violators if they commit large-scale damage to the ecosystem through chemical disasters, deforestation, wide-ranging water and land contamination, and mass destruction of endangered species. Independent Expert Panel  of Stop Ecocide International in June 2021 defined ecocide as "unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts." The judgement of Dutch Supreme court in  State of the Netherlands v Urgenda  on 20th December, 2019, was a beacon of hope for future litigation on climate change. According to the ruling , the Netherlands is bound by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to take proactive steps to avoid climate change and to cut its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 25% by the end of 2020. Although there are noticeable positive trends in international law, like the Urgenda case ruling for the prevention of harm to the environment, its architecture still lacks sufficient strength to prevent countries and individuals from committing blatant violations of its provisions. While a few countries like France, Belgium, Georgia and Armenia have incorporated ecocide under criminal law, there is no international law with respect to the crime of ecocide in peacetime. This is where the necessity of including ecocide as a fifth crime in the Rome Statute comes in. Thus, it is germane to discuss that, as in war and armed conflict times, peacetime also witnesses the huge number of grave destructions of habitats. UN Secretary General, Antonio Guterres  reiterated that “the world can no longer wait to take bold and resolute international climate action.” Undoubtedly, the need of the hour is to walk the talk, putting down the ego of developed and most powerful countries in the UN is a must for succeeding in the mission of legal recognition of ecocide as a serious international crime. Developed countries like the US must learn from, appreciate, and join the initiative taken by Pacific Island States like Vanuatu, Fiji, and Samoa in proposing the criminalization of severe harm to the environment. The official statement by the Government of Republic of Vanuatu  states that “Strengthening international peace and security is everyone's business, and particularly important to us Small Island Developing States. While our region is characterized by relative peace and stability, the fight against impunity is global.” It should be noted that legal recognition of ecocide should not be solely the responsibility of small countries more vulnerable to climate change. Rather, it demands coordinated efforts by all member parties to the ICC. Regarding the procedural aspect in the ICC, for adoption of ecocide as a fifth crime, at least a 2/3 majority of votes in favor of the proposal is essential at an assembly of parties. This requires discussions and consistent negotiation among attending parties. However, according to Washington Post , one of the potential challenges for the legal recognition of ecocide could come from some of the world's biggest pollution contributors, such as China, Russia, India, and the United States, which are not ICC member states. This non-member status gives them the freedom to challenge any of the court's rulings on jurisdictional grounds. The criminalization of ecocide as a fifth international crime may bring several positive changes. In addition, states will start incorporating ecocide law into their municipal criminal laws. Thereby, the amendment will push private corporate giants, and industrialists into a position to become more eco-sensitized. Additionally, policy elites in the government will be more conscious and careful in checking the possible damages of any project thoroughly before proceeding with such projects lightly. Most importantly, the new ecocide law and amendment to the Rome Statute should be framed without loopholes. Otherwise, certain parties could exploit these loopholes in the law to justify and enjoy impunity for law violations. It should not also neglect the multiplicity of actors involved in causing environmental damage, as most conflicts involve multiple players, including but not limited to states, non-state entities, MNCs, NGOs, individuals, etc. After all, only a massive global movement against ecocide could bring a significant change to the status quo, which requires persistent discussions, coordination, pressuring politicians, and demand for policy change from the grass root to the global level. #Ecocide #InternationalLaw #Romestatute #ICC This is an Original Contribution to the SIS Blog   Inzam P I is currently a second-year student pursuing a Master’s in Politics with Specialization in International Studies (M.A PISM) from the School of International Studies (SIS), Jawaharlal Nehru University, JNU.

By Prof. (Dr.) Bharat H. Desai A simple, matter-of-fact statement issued on October o1, 2024  by the United Nations Secretary-General (UNSG) Antonio Guterres caused an unprecedented diplomatic storm. “I condemn the broadening of the Middle East conflict, with escalation after escalation. This must stop.  We absolutely need a ceasefire”, the UNSG said. Similarly, the statement ( October 01, 2024 ) issued by the spokesperson for the UNSG, Stéphane Dujarric, specifically on Lebanon, reflected a similar concern. “ The Secretary-General is extremely concerned with the escalation of the conflict in Lebanon. He appeals for an immediate ceasefire.  An all-out war must be avoided in Lebanon at all costs and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon must be respected”, Dujarric said.     Declaring the UNSG persona non grata Though the UNSG’s statement did not mention any country per se , use of the jargon “ escalation after escalation” and “ broadening of the Middle East conflict”  touched a raw nerve, caused alarm in Israel and drew swift reaction from its combative foreign minister, Israel Katz. Katz crossed the limits of his office to declare the UNSG a persona non grata . The term is used to expel a diplomat whenever his/her presence in the country of posting becomes “undesirable”.  It is not meant for someone who is already outside the territorial jurisdiction. To equate the SG of the UN, of which Israel has been ‘difficult’ member from the beginning, with such cases of diplomatic misdemeanors is beyond all canons of Law of International Organization as well as time-tested corpus of diplomatic immunities and privileges ( 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations ). More importantly, the persona non grata  missile thrown by the Israeli minister at the UNSG does not apply to international organizations per se . The UN and its staff are governed by a special 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations . Referred to as the “General Convention”, it was negotiated and adopted immediately after establishment of the UN. As provided for in Article 105 of the UN Charter, the Convention was adopted by the UNGA at its first session on February 13, 1946 (resolution 22 A (I)) and entered into force on September 17, 1946. The General Convention specifies the notion of “functional” personality and immunity of the UN. It contains detailed provisions on the privileges and immunities enjoyed by UN officials. The over-the-board Israeli reaction was unwarranted. It is a classic example of ‘shooting the messenger’ who is discharging his UN Charter mandate and troubled by the habitual and willful defiance of International Law in the Middle East imbroglio by the state actors (Israel, Iran etc.) as well as non-state actors (Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthi etc.). The UNSG has sought to act within the remit of his office. The tone, tenor and phraseology of the Israeli minister was not unexpected in the aftermath of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s defiant address to the UNGA on September 27 . In diplomatic parlance, any such statement prohibiting entry of the UNSG is tantamount to coercive action against the Chief Administrative Officer (Article 97) of the 193-member political organization of sovereign states. The outburst of the Israeli foreign minister is not new in the UN history. Several member countries, some overtly and others covertly, have sought to make disparaging remarks against incumbent UNSGs from time to time or threatened or dissuaded them from visiting specific territories (including disputes ones). Most of such leaders vent their personal frustration on the UNSG. If the UNSG is strong enough (like Antonio Guterres), actively seeks to carry out the Charter mandate in letter and spirit (like Dag Hammarskjöld ) or even tries to make the UN stronger with radical ideas and proposals (like Butros Butros-Ghali), they are not sparred. It seems the rule is: stronger the Secretary-General, greater the attack and the outburst! Similarly, for proposing An Agenda for Peace (1992) , Butros-Ghali, a Professor of International Law, was not forgiven by the powerful actors. As a result, Butros-Ghali remains the only UNSG, who was not given the second term. Though very mild-mannered, even Kofi Annan was not sparred. Yet the shoulders of the UNSG must be broad enough to receive all the brick backs and the sheer weight of the office of the UNSG is beyond slights or insults (as in Mahabharata , as the Peace Envoy, Lord Krishna tells renegade Kaurava Prince Duryodhana). All the UNSG’s who took their task seriously had to face this professional hazard from ill-tempered heads of government or their representatives. The UN history is replete with stories of such mercurial people. To control the damage, in the wake of a discussion on situation in the Middle East on October 3, 2024 , however, the 15-member UNSC, promptly issued a joint statement that indirectly chided Israel . E xpressing its full support for the UNSG, the Council said, “any decision not to engage with the U.N. Secretary-General or the United Nations is counterproductive, especially in the context of escalating tensions in the Middle East.”   Thus, all UN member countries need to exercise restraint and sobriety in consonance with highest standards of diplomatic etiquettes so as not to shoot the messenger but to pay heed to the UNSG’s words of wisdom, concern, sobriety and empathy.          UNSG as a Conscience Keeper   The founders of the UN Charter envisaged role of the ‘secretariat’ ( Chapter XV; Articles 97-101 ), a fulcrum around which the entire edifice of the organization would revolve. During his seven years (since January 2017) as the head of the UN Secretariat, Guterres has been a trail blazer and sought to the walk-the-talk as the principal liaison officer for all the main organs of the UN. Invoking a series of instrumentalities of annual reports, special reports, periodic updates, briefings, statements and as the most visible face of the UN, the SG (along with his team) does the fire-fighting all the time on literally any issue ‘under the sun’. It is the briefings and reports on the ground situation provided by the UNSG that enable the UNSC to provide authorizations (drawing mandates from Chapter VI and VII of the Charter) for the UN Peacekeeping Missions ( Author: SIS Blog , September 18, 2024 ) as well as perform onerous task in making available crucial humanitarian assistance ( Author: SIS Blog , August 23, 2022 ) wherever possible in situations of conflicts, misery, mass violence, hunger, droughts, disasters, displacements etc.). The regular updates provided by the UNSG personally to the UNSC have become a stuff of legends. When Antonio Guterres walks into the hallowed chamber of the UNSC (or for that matter the UNGA), his whole lifetime experience as a stateman, including as Prime Minister of Portugal, walks with him. The crisp statements, laden with facts, figures and marshalling of data as well as authentic updates from the ground speak for themselves. We have not seen in recent decades a UNSG speaking with such authenticity, sincerity, candor, power of language, facial expressions and sheer force of personality. No wonder the Nobel Peace Prize has eluded him – so far.  Invocation of the Charter Tool (Article 99) Guterres has shown especially during his second term (2022-2026) that where is a will there is a way. As required, the UNSG has drawn power and competence scattered throughout the Charter. The UNSG can invoke ‘implied powers’  ( Rahmatullah Khan, Implied Powers of the United Nations : Vikas, 1970 ), hidden in the Charter. However, Guterres took an unprecedented step by invoking power expressly contained in Article 99 by sending December 6, 2023 letter to the President of the UNSC . This audacious letter invoked Article 99 (Chapter XV) , rarely used Charter provision. Under this extraordinary power, the UNSG can “bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security”. The 2023 initiative of the UNSG was propelled by the “appalling human suffering, physical destruction and collective trauma across Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory.” The invocation of Article 99 has been regarded as the “most powerful tool”  in the arsenal of the UNSG. Since taking office in 2017, it was the first time Antonio Guterres had felt compelled to invoke Article 99. "In my opinion, the most powerful tool that he [the Secretary-General] has, " the UN spokesperson Dujarric told reporters at the UN Headquarters. The nuanced tone and tenor of the graphic letter appeared to sensitize the numbed senses of the 15 members of the UNSC including the veto-wielding five Permanent Members (China, France, Russian Federation, the UK and the USA). As the UN’s custodian for maintenance of international peace and security, the Council was expected to swing into action without any fear or favor to halt the brutality of warfare that has, over one year, resulted in colossal loss of civilian life (largely women and children), destruction and displacement of millions of people. Making the warring parties to adhere to the sanctity of International Humanitarian Law has been the biggest challenge for the UN since its principal ‘enforcement’ organ – UNSC – has remained paralyzed.     Notwithstanding the UNSG’s urgent appeal for consideration of the alarming situation in the OPT, the draft resolution was vetoed by the USA [13 in favor to 1 against (USA) and 1 abstention (UK)]. Not dejected by the outcome, the SG emphatically declared that he will continue with the efforts to avert a humanitarian catastrophe . “Regrettably  the Security Council failed to do it but that does not make it less necessary. So, I can promise I will not give up ”, the UNSG told assembled delegates on December 10, 2023 to the Doha Forum  to discuss “Building Shared Futures” comprising collective security and other challenges. Reports of the Secretary-General The Preparatory Commission for negotiating the 1945 UN Charter had sought to endow the Secretary-General with “a quite special right which goes beyond any power previously accorded to the head of an international organization.” As a result, the Charter underscores the inherent strength and express constitutional position of the UNSG as preeminent international political organization of the sovereign states. Thus, the proverbial ‘reports’ of the Secretary-General are eagerly awaited including on the ‘work of the organization’. The UNSG also provides reports to the other three principal organs: General Assembly (GA), Security Council (SC) and Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). For instance, the 2024 report of the UNSG  entitled “resolve”, literally and figuratively declares what the UN stands for and the entire secretariat staff (35, 000 plus), led by the UNSG, strives to achieve in furtherance of the UN’s objectives . The SG’s words in 2024 report duly underscore the UN’s raison d'être  as: “A t every step, our Organization and our personnel will continue to stand in solidarity with the people of the world through these trying times, as we seek to forge a more peaceful, healthy, equal and prosperous future together”.   Entire UN organization wide effort comprises contributions of over 100 bodies and organizations, including some 30 agencies, funds, commissions and programs. It is no less miracle that in a world where one-fourth population (two billion) lives in conflict zones, the UN is able to provide material assistance to hundreds of millions of people with over $60 billion (2023) . The expenses incurred by the UN comprise, at the top of the ladder, peace and security (203; in million US dollars). It is followed by other areas: climate action (178), food security (152), women (92), children (133), human rights (56), water and sanitation (36) and livelihoods (9).   The other tools used by the UNSG in his arsenal include conveying the view of the organization for maintenance of international peace and security, upholding adherence to International Law and well being of the humankind. It also comprises ‘statements’ issued by the SG or (on his/her behalf) by the spokesperson. The quantum of these finely crafted, nuanced and to the point statements is staggering. During January 3 to October 4, 2024  alone, the UNSG’s statements reached the figure of 298 . They are mostly issued from New York (apart from others issued from places of visits of the UNSG). The statements address a wide range of issues within the remit of the UNSG’s mandate under the Charter and focus on contemporary issues of global concern. As a corollary, t he UNSG provides a real time picture of the UN @work  in our much-troubled world. The arduous nature of the task of the UN and its chief officer need to be measured in the context of the principal challenge faced by the organization: maintenance of international peace and security. Making the United Nations Work In his 2021 Vision: Restoring Trust and Inspiring Hope   (as a candidate) for the second term (2022-2026), Antonio Guterres, without mincing words, stated: “The Charter perseveres even in the face of profound transformation. Its purposes, principles and provisions epitomize all that we stand for and guide all that we do”. As Guterres inches closer to his second (and final) term of office of the SG as well as the world organization attaining historic milestone of 80 years (1945-2025), everyone including the UN-baiters must be convinced that we have only one UN for our only one planet Earth. Having failed within 20 years (1919-1939), when Second World War broke out, the League of Nations  (emanating from the great peacemaking at the 1919 Treaty of Versailles ), did provide “vital lessons to reaffirm the resolve to work for realization of the idealism to eliminate war as an appalling evil.” ( Author: “On the Century of Peacemaking at the 1919 Treaty of Versailles: Looking Back to Look Ahead,” International Studies  57(3) 2020 (201–222) at 216 ). Thus, the advent of the UN became a necessity, upon the ashes of the League of Nations, to eliminate war as a ‘scourge’ ( Preamble to the UN Charter : ‘to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind”). Hence, notwithstanding  all the UN-bashing and personal targeting of the UNSG, the SG as a diplomat par excellence  does keep reminding all the UN members that there is no substitute for this organization. Pending revitalization of the UN to face “ 21st century challenges” ( UNSG, Summit of the Future , New York; September 22, 2024 ), we need to cherish and value the stellar role played by the Secretary-General (including use of negotiations, good offices and mediation), in espousing and symbolizing “United Nations ideals and a spokesperson for the interests of the world's peoples.” Since January 01, 2017, as the 9th occupant of the post of the UNSG  [previous UNSG were: Ban Ki-moon, Republic of Korea (2007-2016); Kofi Annan, Ghana (1997-2006); Boutros Boutros Ghali, Egypt (1992-1996); Javier Pèrez de Cuèllar, Peru (1982-1991); Kurt Waldheim, Austria (1972-1981);   U Thant, Burma (1961-1971); Dag Hammarskjöld, Sweden (1953-61); Trygve Lie (Norway (1946-1952) ], Antonio Guterres has left an indelible imprint on the organization wherein he has played the role of an elder stateman, a whistle-blower, a guide, a trouble-shooter and a messenger of peace. When Antonio Guterres speaks, as expected of the ace international civil servant, his words ring loud and clear. Even his October 2, 2024 UNSC address   “on the situation in the Middle East” to the UNSC, gave a wakeup call to the Council: “We must never lose sight of the tremendous toll that this growing conflict is taking on civilians. We cannot look away from systematic violations of international humanitarian law. This deadly cycle of tit-for-tat violence must stop. Time is running out”. Nothing more could be adhering to the role envisaged for the SG in the UN Charter. Conclusion The UNSG as a messenger and genuine well-wisher, can only convey non-partisan concern for the escalating ground situation in different parts of our troubled world. Irrespective of the area of concern and instead of trying to shoot the messenger par excellence , it would be in the interests of the “peoples of the United Nations” (Preamble) in whose name the UN Charter  was solemnly adopted ( San Francisco Conference; April 25-June 26, 1945 ; Documents of the United Nations Conference on International Organization, San Francisco , Volumes I to XX, 1945-1954 ), it would be in the fitness of things if the UNSC and the member states pay heed to the calls for sanity and wisdom. “The people of the world are looking to us – and succeeding generations will look back on us. Let them find us on the side of the United Nations Charter…on the side of our shared values and principles…and on the right side of history”, Antonio Guterres prophetically said at the 79th UNGA, Sept. 2024 . There is no alternative to peace. Since nothing is permanent in this impermanent world, rest will be decided by Time , as the final arbiter. This is an Original Contribution to the SIS Blog. Prof. (Dr.) Bharat H. Desai is (former) Chairperson and Professor of International Law at the Centre for International Legal Studies (SIS, JNU), who served as a member of the Official Indian Delegations to various multilateral negotiations (2002-2008), coordinated the futuristic knowledge initiatives for the SIS Faculty Wall of Honor (2023-24) , the Inter-University Consortium: JNU; Jammu; Kashmir; Sikkim (2012-2020)  and the Making SIS Visible (2008-2013)  as well as contributes as the Editor-in-Chief  of Environmental Policy and Law (IOS Press: Amsterdam) .

By Sakshi Sanjay Ugale Despite commemorating climate milestones in 2023—61 years since Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring," 51 years since the Stockholm Conference, and 31 years since the UNFCCC—the Global Stocktake report detailed a sobering fact: the world is not on track to achieve the targets established in the Paris Agreement. Numerous conventions have taken place and still, we have not achieved any significant growth as only hyperbole is given by leaders at global negotiations. “Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250 000 additional deaths per year, from undernutrition, malaria, diarrhoea and heat stress alone” (WHO). However, it is important to understand that climate change is not a great equalizer and it does not affect all of us equally. In Global climate risk index (2021 ), The top 10 countries that have experienced the most severe impacts of climate change during 2000-2019, are mostly LDC and developing countries of the global south. This observation highlights the ‘Climate Justice Paradox’, which means those who are the least responsible for climate change are the most vulnerable to its effects. These circumstances raise some fundamental questions- If the world was not completely oblivious about the climate change since more than a half century then why have we achieved very little progress? And why is it so difficult to get countries work together on this issue? Various scholars have attempted to address these questions, including Roberts and Parks , who prioritize inequality as the primary factor driving non-cooperative behaviour between the Global North and Global South and seek to elucidate this through two central pathways, first the extreme poverty and relative powerlessness of the majority of the global south nations which hinders their ability to negotiate with the global north. This has entrenched differing worldviews and beliefs, leading to widespread mistrust and polarized expectations regarding how to tackle climate-related issues. Similarly, Joyeetha Gupta argues there exists a structural imbalance of knowledge between developing and developed countries which results in ultimate deadlock. Another scholar, Chukwumerije Okereke, criticizes the international environmental regime's notion of justice , which he believes aligns with neoliberal economic and political interests. Okereke argues that these neoliberal ideas of justice do not provide a solid foundation for achieving global sustainable development and environmental justice. He contends that they fall short of delivering "distributive justice". The Global Stocktake report highlights the critical importance of climate finance and the transfer of climate-related technology, particularly for the less developed and developing countries in the global South. This idea is not a recent one but dates back three decades. In 1992, the UNFCCC, in Article 4.5 , explicitly stated that Annex I parties should make every practical effort to promote, facilitate, and financially support, when appropriate, the transfer of environmentally sound technologies and knowledge to other Parties, especially those in developing countries. However, despite these longstanding principles, progress in this regard has been limited due to various geoeconomic and geopolitical factors that hinder cooperation. It is becoming increasingly urgent to explore more radical approaches to cooperation that go beyond the traditional neoliberal framework. The challenge in reaching a global agreement on climate change stems from the fact that while we are all collectively motivated to address it, our individual commitment often falls short, as noted by Frame and Matthews in 2017 . In this context, it's crucial to recognize that we all share this " spaceship earth " and are part of one global family, echoing the ancient wisdom of "Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam" which perceives the world as one interconnected family. Much like how we instinctively care for the most vulnerable members of our own family, we must extend our support and solidarity to vulnerable nations. It is not like we do not have the memories of global cooperation. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown that when the world unites to confront a global crisis, remarkable achievements become possible through our interconnectedness for shared goals. This experience serves as a powerful reminder of the potential for global cooperation to overcome significant challenges. Likewise, we should cooperate on a global level in the most unconventional and radical way to fight against the climate change. Sakshi Ugale is pursuing her post graduation in Political Science and International Relations at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Her research interests lie in climate justice, environmental policy and governance with focus on the Global South.

By Prof. (Dr.) Bharat H. Desai Introduction The Summit of the Future  ended on September 23, 2024  after two days of routine speeches by the Heads of State or Government as well as intensive and interactive four dialogues. The Summit adopted an ambitious outcome document – Pact of the Future – along with two annexes on Global Digital Compact  and Declaration on Future Generations . It was presented by the President of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) and formally adopted as resolution 79/1  of September 22, 2024 of the 79th UNGA Session. Philémon Yang (former Prime Minister of Cameroon elected President of the 79th UNGA session on June 06, 2024 ), expressed hope that the ideas exchanged would inspire further initiatives at national, regional and the global levels. “As we close the  Summit of the Future , I urge all Member States to continue to push for decisive action and to create meaningful progress,” Yang said. The feisty UN Secretary-General (SG), Antonio Guterres justified convening of the 2024 Summit since “21st century challenges require 21st century solutions”. “We are here to bring multilateralism back from the brink. I called for this Summit to consider deep reforms to make global institutions more legitimate, fair and effective, based on the values of the UN Charter… our world is heading off the rails – and we need tough decisions to get back on track”. In his opening remarks, Guterres ( September 22, 2024 ) cautioned the assembled world leaders.    All Roads Led to UNHQ in New York On September 22-23, 2024 all roads led to the UN headquarters in New York for the Summit of the Future.  The leaders of 193-member organization assembled for annual 2024 confabulations that came to be known as the “Year of the Planetary Future” (Author: here , here ) to show a way out of the planetary level crisis amidst raging conflicts that have engulfed one-fourth of the humankind (2 billion people around the world). Therefore, as contended by the UNSG Guterres, the world requires “more accountability, justice and opportunity and a future of solutions, not endless conflict ”. It needs to get a top priority of the global leaders for addressing the “root causes of war” , as underscored by Cyril Ramphosa, President of South Africa, especially on the African continent. Similarly, the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi also referred to the global conflicts (it has been a recurrent feature in most of his recent addresses at the global forums) in these words: “Success of humanity lies in our collective strength, not in the battlefield, and for global peace and development, reforms in global institutions are essential.” His reference clearly alluded to India’s aspirations to become a permanent member of the UNSC ( Author, SIS Blog , March 22, 2024 ) as well as other pending ideas for UN reforms such as repurpose of the UN Trusteeship Council [ Author, EPL , 52 (2022) 223-235 ]. Described as once-in-a-generation UN Summit, it provided a unique stage to address current and future global challenges as well as reform of the UN Charter (1945). “ I have one overriding message today: an appeal to Member States for a spirit of compromise. Show the world what we can do, when we work together,” UNSG Antonio Guterres said in his September 18 address  at the UNGA’s high-level week. He pleaded to the world leaders that “We can’t create a future fit for our grandchildren with systems built for our grandparents,” he said, stressing that the Summit “cannot fail”.  In the same vein, the US President Joe Biden, in his fourth and final address to the UNGA on September 24, 2024 , asked some tough questions that confront our troubled world: ““Will we stand behind the principles that unite us? Will we stand firm against aggression? Will we end the conflicts that are raging today?” Then, in a matter of fact way, Biden expressed some words of wisdom to the Assembly that “ The choices we make today will determine our future for decades to come.”   The Moment of Truth The current warnings concerning planetary level crisis and quest of conscientious thought leaders and decision-makers to find solutions to it, underscores proverbial dilemma of the humankind on living in harmony with nature  (GA resolution 75/220 of December 21, 2020). It vividly reminds us about the alarm bells rung in the decades of sixties and seventies through scholarly works such as Silent Spring  (Rachel Carson, 1962), The Limits to Growth  (Club of Rome, 1972), This Endangered Planet   (Richard Falk, 1972) and Only One Earth  (Barbara Ward & Rene Dubos, 1972). They in fact set the stage for the epochal first UN Conference on Human Environment  (Stockholm, 1972). This author recalls his early publication, as a doctoral scholar, sought to underscore the “human quest for development seriously threatens our fragile ecosystem” [Author (1986), “Destroying the Global Environment”, International Perspectives , Ottawa, Nov./Dec. 1986, 27-28]. The resultant global environmental regulatory process has come a long way. In fact, full 50 years later, two curated scholarly works of this author in 2022 ( Envisioning Our Environmental Future ) and 2021 ( Our Earth Matters ) reflected the spirit of those early works by reminding the decision-makers as regards rapidly “depleting time"  (Nick Robinson, EPL  51 (2021) 361-369] for a decisive course correction. The timing of the UN Summit was considered as humankind’s “moment of truth” ( Author, SIS Blog , June 30, 2024 ) wherein global challenges are moving faster than the ability to resolve them. The summit took place in the aftermath of the two mega conferences of 2022 on the Stockholm+50   and UNEP@50 . In his June 02, 2022  address at Stockholm+50, the UNSG Antonio Guterres had warned that our consumption is “at the rate of 1.7 planets a year” and the “ global well-being is in jeopardy”. The gathering storms indicate the planetary-level human-induced crisis at work. Since coming events cast their shadows before, humankind seems to have sleepwalked into an existential “triple planetary crisis” ( Author, Green Diplomacy , November 08, 2023 ). The advent of the UN has stood the test of time for 79 long years unlike the League of Nations that existed for 20 years. Notwithstanding its limits, as a member-driven international organization in a State-centric global order, the UN matters most for humanity’s survival on planet Earth. The UNGA has been the main anchor for concerted international environmental law-making [ Author, EPL  50 (6) 2020, 489-508 ]  and institution-building processes [ Author (2014), International Environmental Governance , Boston: Brill Nijhoff, Chapters 2-4 ) comprising the normative approach at work. Pursuing the global conferencing technique, the UNGA took  crucial decisions across a wide canvass that included convening of some major global conferences (1972, 1992, 2002, 2012 and 2022). The AR6 Synthesis Report  (Interlaken; March 13-19, 2023) of the IPCC,  set up by the UNGA in 1988, has now unequivocally confirmed widespread and rapid “human-caused climate change” occurred in the “atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere…in every region across the globe”. 2024: New York Summit The Summit of the Future outcome document ( September 23, 2024 ) - Pact for the Future  – is a negotiated text (56 actions points arranged in 84 paragraphs) agreed upon through intergovernmental negotiations. It comprises two annexes containing two other instruments: Global Digital Compact and Declaration on Future Generations. The Pact pledges for a new beginning in multilateralism. It aims to ensure that the UN and other key multilateral institutions can deliver a better future for people and planet. It could enable states to fulfil existing commitments amidst new and emerging challenges and opportunities. The renewed thrust would be on “equally important, interlinked and mutually reinforcing” across three pillars of the United Nations – sustainable development, peace and security, and human rights. It has also been emphasized that “every commitment in this Pact is fully consistent and aligned with international law, including human rights law”. In the opening session of the first day (September 22), the tone of the Summit was set by Philemon Yang, President of the UNGA and the UNSG António Guterres. While the Plenary Meeting took place in the General Assembly Hall, the interactive dialogues were held in the Trusteeship Council Chamber. There is a scholarly idea from the Global South, mooted by this author in an invited talk of January 15, 1999 at Legal Department of the World Bank, (Washington DC), to ‘repurpose’ the same UN Trusteeship Coun cil [ Author, EPL, 52 (2022) 223-235 ] with a new mandate for global environment and global commons. The Summit comprised four intensive interactive dialogues: (i) Transforming global governance and turbocharging the implementation of the 2030 agenda for sustainable development Co-Chaired by K P Sharma Oli, Prime Minister of Nepal; (ii) Enhancing multilateralism for international peace and security, Co-Chaired by Julius Maada Bio, President of Sierra Leone; (iii) Towards a Common Digital Future: strengthening inclusive innovation and cooperation to bridge the digital divides Co-Chaired by Alar Karis, President of Estonia and Mohamed Muizzu, President of Maldives); (iv) The Future Starts Now: enhancing the global system for current and future generations, Co-Chaired by Andrew Holness, Prime Minister of Jamaica and Evelyn Wever-Croes, Prime Minister of  the Netherlands. The Pact for the Future The finally adopted the Pact for the Future  (as the UNGA resolution 79/1  of September 22, 2024) contains five pillars  of sustainable development and financing for development, international peace and security, science, technology and innovation and digital cooperation, youth and future generations and transforming global governance. The two year-long preparatory process for the Summit brought about the realization that future of our international order is at stake and it cannot stand still. It promised to “promote cooperation and understanding between Member States, defuse tensions, seek the pacific settlement of disputes and resolve conflicts”. For the first time, it laid down a roadmap for reform of the UNSC to make it “more representative, inclusive, transparent, efficient, effective, democratic and accountable”. In essence, the pact considers the rationale given by India for enlargement of the UNSC based of various criteria, categories of membership as well as widely felt need for taming of the use of veto. In fact, it suggests for intensifying efforts “to reach an agreement on the future of the veto, including discussions on limiting its scope and use”. The G4 group (Brazil, Germany, India and Japan) countries have been consistently making a case for urgent UNSC reforms (see, Author, SIS Blog , March 22, 2024 ). Indicative of the things to come, the Pact underscores the centrality of the General Assembly as the plenary organ of the UN the “chief deliberative, policymaking and representative organ”. Therefore, it has called for further enhancing and making full use of the role and authority of the UNGA to address evolving global challenges. In view of the consistent stalemates in the UNSC and its ineffectiveness to stop most of the global conflicts, the UNGA ends up playing role on maintenance of international peace and security. The Assembly draws its manmade from Article 11 of UN Charter  that empowers it to “ discuss any questions relating to the maintenance of international peace and security” as well as “ call the attention of the Security Council to situations which are likely to endanger international peace and security”. From the perspective of Law of International Organization, the UN Charter contains beautiful balancing between the two principal UN organs (UNGA and UNSC). Notwithstanding the UNSC’s inherent inequality due to ‘veto’ possessed by the P5 countries, the Assembly was expected to fill up the gap whenever the UNSC is deadlocked due to exercise of veto by one of the P5 countries. Since the UN's inception vetoes have been used 321 times (1945-2024). As a result, the action seems to have shifted to some extent to the UNGA. For instance, the UNGA convened the 11th Emergency Special Session that took some vital decisions on conflicts in Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Gaza. For instance, in the aftermath of the Russian veto to defend its ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine , the UNGA adopted an unprecedented resolution 76/262 on April 26, 2022  for a “standing mandate for a General Assembly debate when a veto is cast in the Security Council”. It provides that “President of the General Assembly shall convene a formal meeting of the General Assembly within 10 working days of the casting of a veto by one or more permanent members of the Security Council, to hold a debate on the situation as to which the veto was cast.” This extraordinary step shows the future pathway to blunt the edges of use of veto by P5. Hopefully, it could render veto less attractive for the future expansion of the UNSC. That inevitably opens the doors for the third category of the UNSC’s permanent membership without veto . It now appears to be the pragmatic way out for G4 in general and India in particular to” secure a permanent seat” on the UNSC’s horse-shoe table. Significantly, the Pact contains consensual understanding on the need “for the selection and appointment process of the Secretary-General to be guided by the principles of merit, transparency and inclusiveness”. As regards the next selection and appointment processes for the UN Secretary-General, the Pact emphatically notes “regrettable fact that there has never been a woman Secretary-General, and we encourage Member States to consider nominating women as candidates”. Possibly, it indicates winds of change and things to come when successor to Antonio Guterres will be deliberated upon both by the UNGA and the UNSC. Two Annexes to the Pact The Pact for the Future  (adopted as the UNGA resolution 79/1  of September 22, 2024) contains two annexes on (i) Global Digital Compact  (Annex I; pages 37-52) and (ii) Declaration on Future Generations (Annex II; pages 52-56). The 74 paragraphs Digital Compact (25 pages) seeks to address the “power of emerging technologies is creating new possibilities but also new risks for humanity, some of which are not yet fully known. We recognize the need to identify and mitigate risks and to ensure human oversight of technology in ways that advance sustainable development and the full enjoyment of human rights”. Significantly, the Compact swears to build foundations for the future multilateral digital cooperation on the basis of “international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, international human rights law and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”. It draws upon previous processes in the field such as report of the World Summit on the Information Society  ( UNGA Doc. A/60/687 of March 15, 2006 ), known as the Tunis Agenda for the Information Society, and the Geneva Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action ( UNGA Doc. A/C.2/59/3 of October 27, 2004 ). The Digital Compact’s objectives (Article 7) have been laid down as follows: (1) Close all digital divides and accelerate progress across the Sustainable Development Goals; 2. Expand inclusion in and benefits from the digital economy for all; 3. Foster an inclusive, open, safe and secure digital space that respects, protects and promote human rights; 4. Advance responsible, equitable and interoperable data governance approaches; 5. Enhance international governance of artificial intelligence for the benefit of humanity. Since the Compact emphatically declares that it is “anchored in international law, including international human rights law”, the 13 principles (Article 8) comprised therein would provide a basis for the future global treaty for regulation of the digital technology. The Declaration on Future Generations  is encapsulated in just 4.5 pages (32 paragraphs). It is divided into Guiding Principles (10), Commitments (13) and Actions (9). Building upon the one of the cardinal precepts of International Law – fiduciary obligation – the Declaration  reiterates obligation of the present generation to “to leave a better future for generations to come” as well as “safeguards the needs and interests of future generations”. This derives its inspiration from the idea of ‘trusteeship” wherein something is held in sacred trust and safeguarded for handing it over. This idea came to be inserted in the 1945 UN Charter ( Chapter XII and XIII ) in the form of “Trust Territories” and safeguarding of their interests through the instrumentality of the UN Trusteeship Council ( UNTC ; Articles 86-91 ). Now there is concerted movement in the UN corridors and intergovernmental forums for “repurpose” the UNTC ( here , here , here ) “to serve as a deliberative forum to act on behalf of succeeding generations”. In a similar way, the entire planet Earth regarded as a ‘trust’ (Planetary Trust). Hence the present generation ought to protect and pass on the resources and the Planet in form that would provide adequate “foundation for the prosperity of future generations” (paragraph 4). However, except pious homilies, the Declaration does not carry any concrete normative resolve or institutional transformation. It merely notes the proposal of the UNSG to appoint a Special Envoy for Future Generations  to support the implementation of the Declaration. Thus, it is still work-in-progress.    Conclusion There were high expectations that the Summit “cannot fail.”  The outcome document – Pact of the Future  – along with two annexes shows resilience and working of multilateralism at its best. However, the main challenge lies in walking-the-talk for all leaders of all the assembled 193 nations.  The UNSG has asserted  ( September 18, 2024 ) that “w e can’t create a future fit for our grandchildren with systems built for our grandparents.” In September 2020 virtual address to the 75th UNGA session as well as September 25, 2021 address at the 76th UNGA , the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi  had called for “comprehensive UN reforms.” “We cannot fight today’s challenges with outdated structures”, he said  ( Author, The Tribune , December 02, 2020 ). On September 23, 2024 , the Indian PM’s assertion that the “success of humanity lies in our collective strength, not in the battlefield” further cements the principles Indian position. As 59 plus global conflicts ( Uppsala Conflict Data Program , June 03, 2024 ) jeopardize future of at least 2 billion people, endanger peace and prosperity and derail multilateralism on institutionalized platform of the UN, it would require revisit, in conjunction with other components, processes and structures of the UN, of the Charter ‘blueprint’ for the prohibition of “threat or use for force” [ Article 2(4) and Article 51 ] to make it effective for the remaining three quarters of the 21st century. To operationalize the Pact of the Future  would necessitate sincere concerted follow-up action by the UNSG, the UN system as a whole and all the 193 member states. It presents a challenge for the global scholarly community to ideate on the Planetary Future  ( Author, SIS Blog , June 30, 2024 ). From his small perch in New Delhi (SIS/JNU), 12, 000 km away from the decision-making center in New York (UN), this author has audaciously sought to make a modest contribution to the global knowledge pool by bringing together cutting-edge ideas of some of the global thought leaders. As a corollary, the author has curated and published in Part – I [ EPL Special Issue 54 (2-3), 2024 ] contribution of ten eminent scholars prior to the 2024 Summit of the Future . The rest of the contributions will be published in Part – II  of the EPL Special Issue  54 (4-5) in November 2024. It is within remit of the conscientious scholars, irrespective of location, resources and hindrances (all kinds of mindsets, processes and systems), to think aloud and ahead for a better common future for our only abode – planet Earth.        Prof. (Dr.) Bharat H. Desai is (former) Chairperson and Professor of International Law at the Centre for International Legal Studies (SIS, JNU), who served as a member of the Official Indian Delegations to various multilateral negotiations (2002-2008), coordinated the futuristic knowledge initiatives for the SIS Faculty Wall of Honor (2023-24) , the Inter-University Consortium: JNU; Jammu; Kashmir; Sikkim (2012-2020)  and the Making SIS Visible (2008-2013)  as well as contributes as the Editor-in-Chief  of Environmental Policy and Law (IOS Press: Amsterdam) .