Search

By Prof. Srikanth Kondapalli Recent actions against Chinese companies, in India and elsewhere, are impacting economic ties with China. Are they also having an impact on China's internal dynamics? Chinese companies operating in various countries including India have come under the scanner recently. Several of them made huge profits due to the backing of the Communist party-state in terms of subsidies, diplomatic support, managerial skills, mass production, cost advantage and other factors. However, this 'win-win' strategy of China is running out of steam. The United States government targeted China’s companies on espionage cases, unfair trade practices, intellectual property thefts, growing trade deficits, lack of market economy and the consequent discrimination of American companies in the China market. Europe also rolled back Huawei 5G telecom networks. In the backdrop of the Ukraine conflict, NATO’s move to target Russia and China has dwindled China’s business prospects. India also recently began tightening the screws after the June 2020 Galwan incident. As Foreign Minister S Jaishankar repeatedly reminded the Chinese leadership, unless and until peace prevails on the borders, bilateral relations — including trade and economic relations — cannot improve. As a result, India initially banned over 200 Chinese IT apps, restricted Chinese investment in infrastructure projects and closed several Confucius classrooms. In the last few months, as a part of 'decoupling strategy', India began exerting pressure on China in trade and economic relations.This was in the backdropof no progress on the 'de-escalation and disengagement' process in the border areas,despite 16 rounds of corps commanders’ meetings. Clearly, the political messaging to China is that after the Galwan incident, it cannot be business as usual, and economic relations come under political control as well. Trade with India (about $120 billion last year) is only a minuscule one percent of the overall trade of China (estimated at over $6 trillion a year). Yet, Beijing was able to earn a whopping $1.2 trillion through trade deficits with India in the past decade. With such revenues, China could easily subsidise the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (worth $62 billion), in addition to infrastructure projects in Tibet, Xinjiang or Sri Lanka and Nepal. After the Galwan incident, India consciously began to diversify from the China market and reduce dependence on an estimated 4,400 items of Chinese merchandise. However, due to the pandemic, bilateral trade ballooned to over $120 billion last year, despite the protests of the Indian Consul General in Hong Kong on inflated prices of oxygen concentrators. India also began looking at the operations of Chinese companies. Many Chinese firms – specifically in the telecom sector such as Xiaomi, Vivo, Oppo, Zhongxing (ZTE), Huawei and others, have dominated the retail sector in India. Several of these have been investigated on money laundering charges. For instance, the Enforcement Directorate’s raid on Xiaomi this May yielded nearly $700 million in money laundering and tax evasion charges. A July raid on Vivo yielded over $3 billion in 'remittances' to China. Many Chinese business leaders fled the country. Backdoor entry Another critical area is the backdoor entry of China’s capital into the Indian market, even as the total Chinese direct investment is only $8.2 billion for a $17 trillion economy. The portfolio investments of the People's Bank of China in startups, and its investment of over one percent in Housing Development Finance Corporation had raised eyebrows in India on the pervasive financial influence that China is intending to build up. By April, India’s Ministry of Home Affairs curbed the automatic route for investors from countries bordering India. Indian actions thus concern not only telecom security but also financial security. However, while China’s official position reiterated the 'law of the land' principle, there is also a veiled criticism of India, implying that these raids would affect future business prospects. China’s foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said in a recent statement that India should “provide a fair, just and non-discriminatory business environment for Chinese enterprises to invest and operate within their borders”. However, there was no mention about China’s discriminatory practices towards Indian pharmaceuticals and IT companies in the Chinese market. Further, on July 5, the spokesperson of China’s embassy in New Delhi, Wang Xiaojian said that such investigations “impede the improvement of business environment in India and chills (sic) the confidence and willingness of market entities from other countries, including Chinese enterprises to invest and operate in India.” The Communist party’s influence on all walks of life, in China and abroad, is pervasive. Under China’s law, all enterprises which have more than seven employees —private or state-owned companies — should establish Communist party cells that report directly to the central committee. Also, by the 2015 national intelligence law, all individuals or institutions are required to cooperate with the country’s agencies on all matters of concern to the party-state. This has alerted many countries to the pitfalls of doing business with China. In this global business environment that has grown generally restrictive for Chinese companies, and in the backdrop of relative economic decline — an estimated 4% this year, China’s Communist party is concerned about the blowback effect on domestic politics. With the 20th Community party Congress scheduled to happen this November, political jockeying has intensified for the 6th generation of political leadership. It is natural that the economic aspects also come into the limelight. Through the anti-corruption drive since 2012, and the 'common prosperity' campaign since last year, Xi Jinping was able to make a major dent in the money power of Jiang Zemin’s faction in the communist party. State-business connection Many of Jiang’s cronies in the party-state and businesses have been netted. However, Jiang’s faction is said to have deep pockets in China. Jiang, who served as the Shanghai party secretary before 1989, has been identified as a part of the 'Shanghai gang'. It would be no exaggeration to say that reformist China was mostly guided by this 'Shanghai gang'. Last year, China’s major fintech company Alibaba’s Ant Group stock listing was cancelled, affecting several shareholders, including Jiang Zemin’s grandson. Also, a Hangzhou city official was put in dock ostensibly for his connections to the Alibaba company. Restrictions on Tencent, Meituan and other companies and the free fall of real-estate tycoons had sent shivers across Xi’s opposing factions. However, Xi also needed funds to prop up his vision and his factional leaders at various levels. It is well-known that at the village level direct elections, the moneyed class of leaders are emerging in large numbers. Money and muscle power are also playing a big role in the Communist party selection process for national congress at the county, prefecture, province and centre levels. Significantly, in the provincial people’s congress selection process, a significant percentage of members belong to the nouveau riche. All of these political activities in the run-up to the 20th Communist party congress need money bags, which can only be delivered by party-state 'loyal' Chinese companies. However, these companies have come under increasing scrutiny abroad recently, thus impacting the political dynamics back in China. It is thus a tricky political issue in China. #China #India #Market #Economy #Business Originally published: Deccan Herald, July 24, 2022. https://www.deccanherald.com/amp/specials/chinese-business-giants-lose-steam-1129408.html Posted in SIS Blog with the authorization of the author. Prof. Srikanth Kondapalli is Professor in Chinese Studies and Dean of School of International Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University.

By Prof. Swaran Singh As we enter the fifth month of the Ukraine war and resultant food and fuel shortages worldwide, parties to the conflict have begun showing crisis fatigue. They increasingly appear to be reconciling to this mutually hurtful stalemate with no end to the violence yet in sight. Russia of course was the first to tone down its lofty objectives of seeking written security guarantees against NATO's eastward expansion, limiting its goals to consolidating its positions in bordering territories inside Ukraine. Now Western nations have as well begun to reveal a similar dwindling of resolve, unleashing their internal catharsis, with systemic implications worldwide. Meanwhile, all sides continue to claim victories as they gradually begin to drift into myopic and self-centric policy choices, thus thinning their facade of being guided by sublime objectives of seeking regional or global welfare and peace. Their diplomatic doublespeak continues to thrive as they attempt to explain the circumstances restraining their options, as the hapless Ukrainians continue to die or flee for their lives and while consumers worldwide continue to be pulverized by soaring prices of essential commodities. As of now, it is Europe's growing panic about impending energy shortages in the coming winter that may be casting a reset in their equations with Russian President Vladimir Putin, yet the microcosm of Sri Lanka's political vacuum and financial ruin reveals what could replicate in other vulnerable countries. A firm Ukraine supporter The case of Canada presents the most apt example of Western circumspection that defies logic. Canada has been an example of a NATO country with a strong normative foreign policy. This has seen it employing a humanitarian discourse to undergird its inordinate indulgence with Ukraine and standing tall with President Volodymyr Zelensky. Canada has been a leading advocate of Ukraine joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and proactive in its military support of Ukraine since its 2014 backing of the ouster of pro-Moscow president Viktor Yanukovych, and since 2015, Canada has trained more than 30,000 Ukrainian soldiers. This indulgence is partly guided by Canada's Ukrainian diaspora, which numbered a whopping 1.36 million at the last count in 2016. So on February 25, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was among the first to“condemn” Russia and slap sanctions on 58 Russian people and entities. The last four months have seen Canada sending soldiers, volunteers, weapons and relief materials and supporting Ukraine in international forums. Canada has not only welcomed Ukrainian refugees but has waived multiple immigration rules of eligibility and provided them with a monthly financial stipend on arrival under the Canada-Ukraine Authorization for Emergency Travel . The federal government website on Canada's response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine presents impressively user-friendly handholding in offering safe passage and shelter to those wishing leave their war-torn country. Defying logic But this past Monday, in the face of opposition from its Ukrainian diaspora at home and the Ukrainian leadership in Kiev, Canada delivered by plane the first of six Russian turbines being repaired by the German energy firm Siemens in Montreal. It arrived at Russian's Portovaya compressor station, which is a crucial element of Moscow's Nord Stream 1 gas pipeline to Germany and the most powerful instrument in its arm-twisting of European countries. While the US State Department, the European Union and Germany have expressed support for this Canadian decision, Ukrainians have been vocal in their opposition. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba called it a“mistake,” saying“this solution will not address the problems” and will instead“put Russia in a winning position.” On Tuesday, Canada's own former chief of Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier , described it as signaling a“relenting of pressure from NATO [and] from the West in general.” No doubt, both uncertainties and shortages of Russian gas supplies have pushed up both panic and prices across Canada's European allies, yet this decision varies widely from, for example, Australia's standard line on the Ukraine crisis. Likewise, confusion among Europeans has also continued to flourish. Most European nations have already taken emergency measures, and yet next Tuesday will see the European Commission debating a proposal to ask member states to ensure a 15% cut in their gas consumption, which needs a difficult-to-achieve two-thirds majority for approval. No easy choices Gazprom, which stands in the midst of these shifting tides, owns majority stakes in Nord Stream 1, and has been under Canadian sanctions since March. Last week, Gazprom linked its decision to reduce Nord Stream 1 gas supplies by 60% of its capacity to the continuing delays in repair of its turbines at Siemens' facility in Montreal. That apparently was the last straw pushing Trudeau to make the difficult choice of allowing repair of six Russian turbines in Canada for a period of years, though he defended his decision by saying it was designed to spare European allies the pain from sanctions meant to target the Russia regime. Putin, however, shows little sign of relenting on using energy to browbeat Canada's European allies. For months, the Russian president has been threatening to cut back supplies, thereby weakening already shaky resolve among several vulnerable European countries, including Germany, which relies heavily on Russian gas supplies. Of the European Union's total import of 140 billion cubic meters (bcm) from Russia's pipelines last year, the biggest share came from Nord Stream 1, which annually transports 55bcm of gas, but it has been shut down for annual maintenance since July 11. That repair period had been scheduled for 10 days, thus ending on July 21, but some suspect Putin will not return the pipeline to 100% capacity. That prospect threatens to throw European plans to store gas for winter into disarray while they grope between emergency measures and imposing punishing price increases. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg this week pressured the European Parliament to“stop complaining” and help Ukraine, alluding to his fears of Europe's changing trajectories. Shifting tides Realizing that the Ukraine stalemate is bound to become a painful long haul with no meeting ground between Russia and the US and its European allies yet in sight, third countries like Turkey have become proactive in finding exit strategies for Moscow and Kiev. This is where the logic-defying Canadian concession to Gazprom could help strengthen such positive vibes. The last four months have already witnessed both Russia and Ukraine diminishing the intensity of their violence. Moscow and Kiev have also been engaged in more than a dozen direct talks with various interlocutors of repute. Now, with facilitation provided by Turkey – often an irritant for the US – Russia and Ukraine were to sign on Friday a UN-brokered deal to allow Ukraine to resume its food exports from its ports on the Black Sea. The deal entails Russia enforcing a truce while Ukrainian naval vessels escort grain shipments through heavily mined coastal waters, while Turkey – supported by the UN – ensures that the Ukrainian ships are not misused for weapon smuggling. While experts remain skeptical whether such gestures will make any dent in Putin's policies, after the arrival of the first turbine from Canada, Moscow on Thursday resumed Nord Stream 1 gas supplies, albeit as yet at only 40% of its capacity. At the same time, even after this unusual gesture from Ottawa, Putin on Wednesday accused Canada of sabotaging Gazprom's ability to continue with its full supplies. He went a step further to allege that Canada had sinister motives, saying“Canada did it because it produces oil and gas itself and plans to enter the European market,” which of course carries a mixture of both myth and reality. At the very least, this concession to Gazprom brings Canada back into the global spotlight, for it has long been missing from most other US-led global initiatives. #Canada #Russia #Ukraine #Gazprom #Trudeau Originally published: MENAFN-Asia Times, July 22, 2022 at https://menafn.com/1104574692/Canadas-Gazprom-Move-May-Be-Part-Of-Western-War-Fatigue Posted here with the authorization of the author. Prof. Swaran Singh is visiting professor at the University of British Columbia and professor of diplomacy and disarmament, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. He is president of the Association of Asia Scholars; adjunct senior fellow at the Charhar Institute, Beijing; senior fellow, Institute for National Security Studies Sri Lanka, Colombo; and visiting professor, Research Institute for Indian Ocean Economies, Kunming.

By Udbhav Sharma The declaration of financial emergency, the change of PM seat from Mahinda Rajapaksha to Ranil Wickramsinghe did little to satisfy the public. Gotabaya should have quit long back by taking the moral responsibility. On 9th of July, images from Sri Lankan President’s House were going rounds on all the networking platforms. The world witnessed a historic seizure of power by the already troubled Sri Lankan public. This seizure was a hard-hitting response of the masses towards the wrongly managed economic policies of the government in power, it was a message to the world that perverted regimes can always be challenged and overthrown if the greatest stakeholder, the general public forms a chain strong enough. The saturation point of the hardships faced by people in the last three years and particularly in the preceding span of 6 months resulted in what we have been witnessing on the streets of Colombo. Things are now looking even more worrisome with the proclamation of indefinite emergency, reluctance of the military man Gotabaya to step down making the crowds on the roads of Colombo go haywire. There are different theories as explanations for the economic crisis seen in Sri Lanka. Some point towards the debt diplomacy of China, few others curse the pandemic for reduced tourism revenue as a factor. Along with these two, there are significant structural policy flaws from the government side which has been the major reason of the present situation in Sri Lanka. The Rajapaksha brothers returned back to power through the 2019 general election. The new government lead by Gotabaya Rajapaksha set out to fulfill its proposed promises like tax cuts, decision of organic farming. The idea of tax-free household, Decision of huge reduction in VAT tax and a significant reduction in cooperative tax lead to severe downfall in government revenue and an obvious budget deficit. To cover this, Central Bank began printing money after which the IMF warned about a possibility of economic explosion. Gotabaya further went on to ban fertilizers import which he believed would significantly lower imports and save foreign reserves. This backfired as the nation was not ready for the transition to organic farming thereby leading to shortages of food creating a problematic price rise. As a result, Sri Lanka had to now import basic food crops. Further, the recent Russian ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine disturbed imports of tea by Russia. Aggravating all this, the Easter bombings lead to a reduction in tourists and the pandemic further gave a severe crush to the tourism sector which is said to have accounted as high as 12% of the country GDP. Sri Lankan beaches are today completely empty in a season which usually is a peak time for hospitality sector. A fall in remittance, debt trap and Russia-Ukraine confrontation are some ancillary reasons for the same. The declaration of financial emergency, the change of PM seat from Mahinda Rajapaksha to Ranil Wickramsinghe did little to satisfy the public. Gotabaya should have quit long back by taking the moral responsibility. Instead, he chose to deflect the blame on his ministers and did the most to irritate the masses. Even today, he is not in a mood to accept the very fact that his royal mansion was raided by angry mob and how he had to manage the great escape. Governments policy blunders lead to people waiting for hours to get cooking gas cylinders get refilled, huge power cuts, schools and other institutions getting closed to save Oil and electricity, unprecedented inflation leading to almost everything getting costly. The series of events above mentioned made the plot of Public coup and the seizure of Presidential Palace, the PM’s house ‘Temple Tress’ getting occupied by angry protestors and the large scale demonstrations across the country. This angry mob diving in the President’s Pool has clearly stated that the Palace won’t be emptied until both the PM and the President resigns from office. What is worth understanding is not just this attractive seizure but what the way ahead is for the pearl of Indian Ocean whose shine has got diminished in the last few months. It is worth understanding that the Seizure of Presidential Palace and the viral images might look attractive but does little to improve the economic crisis. It has more of a symbolic role to warn the coming regime to be indebted to public interest failing which can result into similar or possibly even bigger revolution. A mere regime change would just mollify the masses for the time being. What is indeed needed is a proper shift of power within constitutional bounds, without the public coup turning out into a military coup and through a well structured mechanism. Given that the country is already lacking resources monetarily and also otherwise, fresh elections are not a prudent step. Possibly, the Speaker can takeover rather than giving seat, though constitutionally, to a person whom the public finds not less guilty of the present hardships. He should ensure that the parliament chooses new occupants at the earliest so that a constitutionally legitimized government can go on to IMF, the western powers and other allies for a bailout package and do all other steps to bring the Lankan Lion back to normalcy. Such a transition will instill public trust and confidence, something which looks the most shattered at present. If the occupancy of two prominent seats of power remains vacant for long, this would lead to power vacuum leading to a possible civil unrest in the country. The tourism sector cannot boost until a fixed and powerful regime is established and inflation is brought down. A revised tourism policy can be formulated keeping in view the significance of tourism sector in lowering the budget deficit. Once the foreign debt percentage falls from the present 119% of GDP, essential goods supply chain is normalized, reformulated and decisive monetary and fiscal policies are installed, the country can move on for a fresh election. The nation needs to prioritize the present situation leaving aside old confrontations on racial and religious lines. To curb unemployment rates and for strategic purposes, it should also focus to diversify its investment projects by shifting from the Dragon to other nations in Europe and South East Asia. The opposition parties have to set aside ideological and ethnic differences and together try to build the Lankan republic from scratch. The political elite of Sri Lanka should keep their self interests aside and those guilty in the eyes of the public should step down soon. They need to understand that unless the angry crowds on streets don’t go back to their home, leave the fancy presidential palace; no reformation process can take place. Afterall, crowds cannot negotiate with the IMF. Sri Lankan public is just not ready to accept the Rajpaksha family and their supporters at the moment. With army keeping their guns down at some protest sites in support of the public should be a simple indication for the top office how far has the Sri Lankan public reached in capturing state institutions. All in all, the small island nation in the Indian Ocean needs to back itself; the political leadership has to be smart enough in negotiating over the bailout package along with instilling the confidence in masses of a better Sri Lanka in the times to come. It needs to understand from the model of Indonesia who was once stuck in a similar economic crisis but smart and swift economic model has ensured its entry into the powerful G-20 club today. The July 9 protests and the later developments on the streets of Colombo are a clear testimony to the potential of a collective mass mobilization. It is an alarming situation for similar economies that have been facing economic crisis as a result of miscalculated policies by their representatives in power. The public coup thus need not be seen as the end of it rather has to be acknowledged with a hope of a fresh start towards a new era in the island’s history. #SriLanka #Coup #China #Rajapaksha Udbhav Sharma is doing his Masters in Politics and International Relations at the School of International studies, Jawaharlal University, New Delhi.

By Srijan Sharma The concept of contingent sovereignty which says that sovereign rights and immunities are not absolute. They depend on the observance of fundamental state obligations. The Russian Ukraine War is going to complete 6 months and has raised full throttle discussions over it. The International Court of Justice has condemned Russia’s actions and ordered an immediate withdrawal of troops from Ukraine. Therefore, the question of legality of Russian actions deserves merit to be discussed. What UN Charter Says? United Nations Charter of 1945, in article 2(4), prohibited “the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”. The United Nation straightway prohibits war; however, UN does not fully close the doors for aggression or presses for prohibition rather United Nations under the charter have established due procedure to respond to aggression through armed measures. UN is empowered under article 39 to determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression. It may make recommendations or decide what measures (including the use of armed force) shall be taken. The decision rests upon the UNSC. Applicability of Article 51 of UN Charter The Article 51 of UN Charter reads Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Article 51 grants states the right to exercise self-defence. In such cases States have resorted to defend and protect their sovereignty, security from terrorists and have taken armed measures against non-military targets and hence Self Defence is convincingly justified; but is it justified in the present scenario? The answer is straight no because there are territorial and strategic interests of Russia (Donbas Region). It is a well settled fact that Article 51 cannot be used for territorial gains rather for securing and responding to an attack by a state or violent non-state actors against a state. In this regard Security Council resolutions 1368 (2001) and 1373 (2001) have formally endorsed the view that self-defence is available to avert terrorist attacks such as in the case of the 9/11 attacks. Even if Russia argues that use of force is done in the response of genocide then it makes the case of humanitarian intervention for which UNSC nod is required. Though critics argue that such an act of unilateralism was exercised by the United States in the past, Libya Kosovo etc. Looking Through ICJ Lenses ICJ prima facie did not decide on question of genocide, the court did raise its eyebrows on the fact that whether a country can unilaterally use force against another country for preventing an alleged act of genocide. This indicates that Russia’s use of force is difficult to justify under the Genocide Convention. However, there is no strict and effective measure to enforce ICJ decisions, it has to go through UNSC in which Russia is the permanent member. The question still remains - Is there legality to war? Or does even full prohibition of war exists? Even if it partially exists no mechanism or institution is able to even control that partial fraction of war. No Full Prohibition of War: Russia Seeking Refuge in Interpretations There is no full prohibition to war there are certain legal escape routes that can circumvent the UN Charters, ICJ Rulings etc. That is the Principle of Military Necessity Under International Humanitarian Law. This principle permits the legal use of force to achieve military objectives. Further, principles of military necessity are only implemented as a last resort when all agreed political and diplomatic channels collapse. The following is the explanation on merits which justifies Russian actions under the umbrella of interpretations. 1- Russia says meaningful dialogue cannot be initiated now through diplomatic and political means because over the years the agreements have failed. Russia’s apprehensions of Ukraine waging a genocide in Donbstek makes the situation appear a military necessity. The speech of Head of Main Operations Directorate of General Staff of Armed Forces of the Russian Federation Colonel General Segi Rudskoy deals with the issue. 2- Russia says that It has launched a special military operation to target military and strategic installations of Ukraine Government and Military and nowhere says that the operation is aimed against people of Ukraine. 3- The case of collateral damages fits in the present case. Russia has no intent to harm or directly target the people of Ukraine. Damages and loss of life direct result of unintentional damage which has been inflicted upon by Air Strikes/ Artillery fire. 4- The concept of contingent sovereignty which says that sovereign rights and immunities are not absolute. They depend on the observance of fundamental state obligations. These include the responsibility to protect the citizens of the state. When a regime makes war on its people or cannot prevent atrocities against them, it loses its claim to non-intervention. In such a situation, the responsibility to protect may fall on the international community. #Russia #Ukraine #UNSC #ICJ Srijan Sharma is working as an Research Analyst at India's oldest and prestigious national security and strategic Think Tank United Service Institution Of India (USI).

By Dr. Sameena Hameed Biden blamed the current global energy crisis on Russian invasion of Ukraine, but people perceive it as domestic and foreign policy failings with consequent loss in his popularity. The Americans are fuming over the reported export of 5 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Reserves, while gas prices remain high. Though gas prices fallen in the last 20 days, yet its painfully high for the American. Inflation few weeks ago had touched a 7-year record peak and natural gas prices at the pumps raced ahead of US 5 per gallon. The voters anger is hitting the roof before November 8 midterm elections. The US President Joe Biden’s both energy and environment policies are facing embarrassing reversals. Not long ago Biden said, “I guarantee you we’re going to end fossil fuels” ushering in new Green Deal that aimed at ending the use of fossil fuels; and promote electric vehicles. Passing more than two dozens of executive orders he shut down the Keystone Pipeline and committed non- renewal of oil and gas leases on Federal public lands and waters producing about 10% of US oil. Faced with rising gas prices and diesel shortages, many Americans blame Biden's new Green Deal. Biden blamed the current global energy crisis on Russian invasion of Ukraine, but people perceive it as domestic and foreign policy failings with consequent loss in his popularity. To add insult to the injury of the average Americans, not only attempts to isolate Russian oil has failed miserably but other countries are gaining at their cost. Displacing Saudi Arabia, Russia became the largest supplier to China, which purchased record volume of 8.42 million tons of crude oil for about US$ 5.8 billion. India has not only imported around 20% of total Russian crude export at discounted price but has re-exporting refined products to EU and the US. The Russian Rouble hit a 7 year high against the US Dollar just three months after Biden said “The Russian Rouble is rubble”. Though, the US oil production, has increased between May 2020-March 2022 from 9,711 barrels per day to 11,655 bpd (EIA figures). But the US production is of sweet light variety, that yields limited production of middle distillates like diesel and kerosene. The US imported heavier crude variety from countries like Saudi Arabia (6%), Russia (8%) and also previously Venezuela and Iran. The US imported about 200,000 bpd of oil from Russia in October 2021, which went offline after the imposition of sanctions. This coalescing with the shortage of domestic refining capacity have put upward pressure on gasoline and diesel prices in the US. With soaring temperatures, the power plants in the US were guzzling increased volumes of gas. Biden vowed to supply Europe all the gas it needed in the face of Russian supply disruption. More than 60 percent of US LNG exports went to Europe selling at exorbitant prices; making obvious the causative link with the pains of the Americans. The outage at the Freeport LNG export terminal cooling the domestic gas prices is telling. Biden also started a war of words with the big oil companies; blaming them of making exorbitant profits. While the US oil and gas Association President Tim Stewart called Biden’s “colossal failure of leadership” in arresting record high gas prices. Biden shot off letters to the big oil companies asking them to explain why they were not putting more gasoline into the market but real constraint is limited domestic refining capacity. Nevertheless, the big oil companies have made a killing with profits more than doubled in the first quarter of 2022 over the same period in the previous year. Biden’s new Green Deal also falls on its head as energy crisis looms over Europe and is snowballing into rising cost of living. Thousands of people marched on 18 June in central London protesting against the soaring prices. EU imported 20% of its oil from Russia (about 2.2 million barrels per day of crude oil and 1.2 mbpd of petroleum products) and several nations are phasing out Russian oil and gas imports imposing sanctions over the Russian aggression in Ukraine. In retaliation as Russia reduces gas supply with consequent price hikes; Germany, Austria and Netherlands are ready to restart their phased-out coal-fired power plants. Biden’s pro-environment measures face reversal with emergency measures like authorising (earlier banned) use of more ethanol in gas and reported continued leasing of public lands and water for oil and gas. The American see a loss of US energy independence as the President had to bite the bullet of talking to the Saudis to cool the international oil prices during his forthcoming visit to the Kingdom. Biden’s attempt to mend fences with Saudi Arabia would be seen by many in his administration as betrayal of vowed policies to keep human rights at the pivotal of its foreign policy. For a common American, Chinese and Indians snapping up discounted Russian oil, Biden having to visit Saudi Arabia, which he vowed to treat as a “pariah” state for pumping more oil into the market and is both material and moral loss. For Biden, his domestic credibility and foreign policy posturing are both under fire. #US #Biden #Russia #Oil #Energy Dr. Sameena Hameed is an Assistant Professor in Centre for West Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Email: hameed.sameena@gmail.com

By Prof. Srikanth Kondapalli Abe was convinced that China’s military forays on the Senkaku islands since September 2010 China’s official response to the assassination of former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe as “shocking” and “unexpected incident” is at variance with the scorn being poured out on its rabid Communist Party-backed nationalist social networking sites. In some Chinese quarters, there is even elation, depicting Abe’s assassin as a hero! These conflicting views of Abe is an outcome of the complex relationship between him and China’s leaders in the past decade and a half. Although Abe’s visit to China in October 2006 was considered an “ice-breaker” visit, as was his last visit in 2018, and though Japan developed substantial economic interdependency with China in those years, China’s rise created the conditions for Abe to hedge and explore balancing mechanisms against China in both economic and security terms. China viewed Abe’s revoking of crucial aspects of Japan’s 1950s’ “peace constitution” negatively, without acknowledging that it was Beijing’s brazen territorial and irredentist claims that were at the root of Abe’s gradual rethinking on China. Abe was convinced that China’s military forays on the Senkaku islands since September 2010, its “six nos” policy on Taiwan, and militarisation of the disputed South China Sea islands, were pointers to Beijing’s self-aggrandisement bid. China’s nearly 600 transgressions a year on the Senkaku islands, which are administered by Japan, was to consume much of Abe’s energies and that of Tokyo’s ties with ally United States. Abe also took the bull by the horns by visiting the Yasukuni shrine in December 2013 – a temple where the war-dead were honoured. While Abe discontinued such visits, he exposed the double-standards of China on historical issues, conveying the message that what happens in Japan’s politics is the domain of the Japanese and China has no veto over it. Abe also did away with the routine annual offering of apology by Japan’s leaders to China and other countries in the region for past wrongs. Abe suggested that the current generation of Japanese are not responsible for what happened in the 1930s and need not apologise for them. Over time, Abe also reduced the quantum of Official Development Assistance that Japan disburses to these countries as “compensation” for historical issues – including for the modernisation of China and the iconic Pudong Special Economic Zone in Shanghai -- and increased such assistance for India and other countries. But it was Abe’s renewal of a debate on enhancing Japan’s defence budget (capped previously at 1% of GDP, but marginally increased to 1.2%), on operating its Self-Defence Forces beyond the 1,000 nautical miles limit, the exporting of arms to Philippines, Vietnam and others, and his recent comments on nuclear deployments in the face of China’s muscle-flexing in the Taiwan Straits that raised China’s hackles the most. On the other hand, Abenomics, as his economic thinking came to be known, acknowledged the importance of reviving the economic “lost decades” of Japan and, for this reason, Abe had sent his senior-most party colleague to China’s Belt and Road Initiative meetings, seeking to invest in infrastructure projects and enhancing economic interdependencies. Abe also tried the “quality infrastructure” route by committing over $100 billion, but the progress was lax. To combine efforts with the Chinese was a way to reduce conflict with China. This was also Abe’s consideration for moving faster on the 15-member Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement that was cobbled up last year. There were also the East Asian free trade negotiations with South Korea and China. Most significantly, Abe, tirelessly and against all odds, pushed the idea of the Indo-Pacific into mainstream strategic thinking in the last decade. As China walked away from UN maritime convention law and its arbitration procedures in July 2016, the writing on the wall was clear to Abe and others. Much of global trade is dependent on maritime areas and China’s stealthy grabbing and militarisation of islands unnerved many countries dependent on the seas. In 2007, Abe spoke to the Indian Parliament on the need for an overarching initiative in this regard, proposing to create an “arc of freedom and prosperity”. In time, the Quad idea came about but could not take shape immediately. It was revived and finally took off in 2017 and has been gaining strength since then. Abe wanted to usher in a rules-based order and a concert of powers in Asia that could stop any aggrandisement in the region. While he continues to be hated in China, the creation of certain strategic alternatives for Japan and like-minded countries, his work to institutionalise norms, and his efforts for predictable and stable outcomes and decent living standards for several countries remain his positive legacy. #ShinzoAbe #Japan #China Originally published: Deccan Herald, July 09, 2022. https://www.deccanherald.com/amp/opinion/shinzo-abe-is-dead-but-the-chinese-still-love-to-hate-him-1125310.html Posted in SIS Blog with the authorization of the author. Prof. Srikanth Kondapalli is Professor in Chinese Studies and Dean of School of International Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University.

By Prof. Swaran Singh The I2U2 Group comprising India, Israel, the UAE and the US has offered a new template to tackle unfolding challenges On Thursday, the leaders of the new I2U2 Group (India-Israel, United Arab Emirates-United States), whose foreign ministers had held an inaugural meeting last October, held their inaugural online summit. Thanks to the footwork by their officials, the four leaders were able to clinch a short, crisp, two-page joint statement identifying projects with specific details on redressing their challenges in food security and clean energy by leveraging “more innovative, inclusive, and science-based” initiatives. Without doubt, in the face of two and half years of the pandemic followed by five months of the Ukraine crisis, this looks impressive. Apart from disrupting political equations, these twin crises have deeply rattled the global food and energy supply lines. Resultant loss of livelihoods and economic disruptions and deceleration in much of the world have triggered soaring inflation with punishing uncertainties. Experts are talking of the irreversibility of a global famine in the making. Non-availability of fuel, food and medicines creating political vacuum and financial ruin in Sri Lanka presents a microcosm of challenges that have emerged. This is where I2U2 presents one more attempt at exploring alternative templates for redressing these unfolding challenges to protect their own citizens and potentially protect the citizens of their friends and allies. Institutionalizing I2U2 The key to the success of I2U2, also called the West Asian Quad, is sustaining its credibility. As of now, its survival instincts appear promising given this being a follow-up to two US-led initiatives: the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue of Australia, India, Japan, and the US in the Indo-Pacific and the Abraham Accords of August 2020. The latter, normalizing Israel’s diplomatic relations with the UAE, Bahrain and later Morocco, has since opened possibilities of Israel-centric regional-level development initiatives. And this may see more Arab nations endorsing normalization with Israel, helping to institutionalize this I2U2 grouping. Equally reassuring so far has been the support of trends in US domestic politics involving a bipartisan endorsement of its strategy of burden sharing. This is reflected in both the Trump and Biden administrations’ shift to multilateral soft-balancing and gradual reduction of US presence in the Middle East. March saw Israel hosting the inaugural meeting of the Negev Summit that included foreign ministers from Bahrain, Egypt, Morocco and the UAE, with their first meeting focusing on Israel’s main enemy, Iran, though both its agenda and membership may expand in coming times. As US President Joe Biden makes history this week with the first ever direct flight from Tel Aviv to Jeddah as well as marking a U-turn on his demonization of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, there remain deep differences in US and Israeli strategy in engaging major regional powers like Saudi Arabia and Iran that could undermine this effort at institutionalizing the I2U2 grouping. This is what perhaps explains the Biden administration’s desire to bring sobering influences of India and the UAE into I2U2. In particular, the US engagement of India in the Indo-Pacific has been instructive as India has withstood all pressure toward militarizing the region, leading to the US finally outsourcing security responses to the AUKUS security regime. Sans geopolitics While the US and Israeli engagement of I2U2 will be suspected of being guided by geo-strategy for tackling their rivals Russia, China and Iran, the brief joint statement from this “West Asian Quad” shows promise of gradually building credibility of being focused on geoeconomics. Indeed, in the online meeting during Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar’s visit to Israel in October 2021, when I2U2 was first conceptualized, the press statement from the host Israel called it “an international forum for economic cooperation.” Six major areas were then identified for their mutual financial and technical investments: water, energy, transportation, space, health, and food security. However, in view of changed circumstances such as the Covid-19 pandemic and the Ukraine crisis, the inaugural I2U2 summit chose to focus narrowly “on the food-security crisis and clean energy.” Second, as US State Department spokesman Ned Price recently underlined, while all four of these countries “are technological hubs,” India has come to be viewed as the “massive consumer market” offering opportunities for the other three to invest their financial and technical resources as well as their expertise. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been talking of digital India alone having scope for attracting investments worth US$1 trillion or more. The UAE also has its priorities. Being home to the International Renewable Energy Agency and host for the 2023 Climate Change COP28, the UAE’s president, Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, at the I2U2 summit pledged to invest $2 billion in developing integrated food parks in India. Meanwhile Israel and the US will contribute climate-smart technologies and expertise to reduce food waste, conserve water and employ renewable energy aimed at tackling food insecurity in their respective regions. The grouping will also help India build a 300-megawatt hybrid (wind and solar) renewable energy project. In fact, the joint statement makes India appear as the main beneficiary of their inaugural summit, though India has also come to be valued as a food-exporting country. India’s interests In fact individually India has for long been engaged with the member states of the I2U2 Group, only this now is being explored as their first multilateral initiative. The US has invariably remained India’s largest trading partner and there has been constant talk of their trade potential, taking it from the current value of a little over $100 billion to $500 billion. Similarly, the UAE, India’s third-largest trading partner, recently signed a free-trade agreement (FTA) that is expected to increase their bilateral trade from the current $59 billion to $100 billion or more in five years’ time. India and Israel are also currently at an advanced stage of their FTA negotiations and their ties have seen exponential growth in recent years. India’s ties with Israel have been transformed, making it India’s major defense supplier and the value of their bilateral trade moving from $200 million in 1992 – when India formally established its embassy in Tel Aviv – to $6.35 billion last year. With the UAE as well, the idea of food corridors connecting farmers to food parks was first mooted before the pandemic, but the Ukraine crisis has since revived this initiative. Major Dubai-based firms like Emaar Group are expected to invest billions to rejuvenate India’s agricultural productivity. The pandemic and the Ukraine crisis have seen India emerge as an important exporter of agricultural products, marking a 20% increase in its food exports, reaching $49.6 billion for 2021-22 compared with $37.3 billion for the previous year. Interventions from I2U2 are expected improve India’s storage capabilities for both food and renewable energy using innovative technologies. The big idea here seems to be to enhance intermittency and decentralization of power generation and storage to make deep penetrations in India’s national electricity grid while providing stability from fluctuating prices. This will also promise to help India achieve its target of tripling its renewable power generation to reach 500 gigawatts by 2030 and achieve a net-zero emissions by 2070. Defying divergences But with each of the four I2U2 nations having its own emotional and historical baggage, it will not be easy for them to stay on course and overcome their divergences. Some critics have already denounced it as nothing more than a “hedging” strategy devoid of “logic” and having “no strategic value,” as they see it driven by Joe Biden’s China-containment policy, along with Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid pushing for his “punish Iran” thesis. India and the UAE as of now seem more focused on geoeconomics, and they see I2U2 as a platform for greater global recognition as well as complementary for their management of global shocks in food and fuel supplies. While this Quad in the Middle East will always be compared to the Quad in the Indo-Pacific, the sustained success of the latter so far – four summits in 14 months – could also inspire it. Its inaugural summit has surely survived headwinds, but how far I2U2 will be able to expand on their convergences and build synergies remains to be seen. #India #Israel #UAE #US #I2U2 Originally published: Asia Times, July 15, 2022 https://asiatimes.com/2022/07/new-west-asian-quad-makes-bold-promises/ Posted here with the authorization of the author. Prof. Swaran Singh is visiting professor at the University of British Columbia and professor of diplomacy and disarmament, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. He is president of the Association of Asia Scholars; adjunct senior fellow at the Charhar Institute, Beijing; senior fellow, Institute for National Security Studies Sri Lanka, Colombo; and visiting professor, Research Institute for Indian Ocean Economies, Kunming.

प्रोफेसर स्वर्ण सिंह राष्ट्रमंडल व गुटनिरपेक्षता आंदोलन जैसे ऐतिहासिक संगठनों से हटकर विश्व की उभरती हुई ताकतों व अर्थव्यवस्थाओं के नए समीकरणों से जुड़ने के संदर्भ में सम्मेलन में भारत की शिरकत को आंक सकते हैं। इ स सप्ताह अफ्रीका के रवांडा देश की राजधानी किगाली में राष्ट्रमंडल के 54 देशों से 5,000 से ज्यादा प्रतिनिधि अलग-अलग सरकारी और गैर सरकारी संगठनों के अधिवेशनों में शामिल हो रहे हैं। इनमें खिलाड़ी, पत्रकार, महिलाएं, प्रकाशक, शिक्षाविद और खासकर इस बार स्वास्थ्य से जुड़े विशेषज्ञ और संगठन अपने-अपने देशों का यहां नेतृत्व कर रहे हैं। सप्ताह भर की इन द्विवार्षिक व्यस्त और रंग-बिरंगी बैठकों का समापन शुक्रवार से शुरू हो रहे दो दिवसीय राष्ट्रमंडल शिखर या ‘चोगम’ (कॉमनवेल्थ हैड्स ऑफ गवर्नमेंट मीटिंग) सम्मेलन से होगा। सर्वव्यापी महामारी के चलते 2020 में होने वाले ‘चोगम’ के कई बार तय और फिर स्थगित होने से इसकी प्रासंगिकता और प्रभाव पर उभरते हुए प्रश्नचिह्न और गहरे हो गए हैं। चोगम के इस शिखर सम्मेलन से ही इसके सचिवालय और दूसरे संस्थानों को बजट और नीति-निर्देश मिलते हैं। पिछला चोगम 2018 में लंदन में हुआ था और चार साल के अंतराल ने इसकी कार्यशैली और कामकाज पर काफी नकारात्मक असर डाला है। चोगम 2022 के सामने सबसे जटिल प्रश्न इसकी महासचिव पैट्रीशिया स्कॉटलैंड को दूसरा कार्यकाल अनुमोदित करने का है। वह 2016 में चार वर्ष के कार्यकाल के लिए महासचिव चुनी गई थीं। क्योंकि महामारी के चलते चोगम न तो किसी नए महासचिव का चुनाव कर पाया और न ही मौजूदा महासचिव के दूसरे कार्यकाल पर निर्णय ले सका तो इस असमंजस में पैट्रीशिया स्कॉटलैंड पहले ही अपने दूसरे कार्यकाल के दो वर्ष पूरे कर चुकी हैं। मुश्किल यह है कि इतिहास में कभी किसी महासचिव को दूसरा कार्यकाल लेने से कभी रोका नहीं गया। यदि इस पर मतभेद हुआ भी तो वह सार्वजनिक नहीं हुआ। पर इस बार पैट्रीशिया स्कॉटलैंड अपना दूसरा कार्यकाल पूरा करना चाहती हैं, यह जानते हुए भी ब्रिटेन, ऑस्ट्रेलिया, कनाडा, न्यूजीलैंड, भारत जैसे बड़े राष्ट्रमंडल देश अपना रुझान नया महासचिव चुनने पर सार्वजनिक कर चुके हैं। अखबारों में भी पैट्रीशिया पर कई तरह के घपलों के आरोप लगते रहे हैं। राष्ट्रमंडल के स्थायी अध्यक्ष ब्रिटेन के प्रधानमंत्री बोरिस जॉनसन और विदेश मंत्री लिज ट्रस खुलकर पैट्रीशिया के दूसरे कार्यकाल को स्वीकृति देने पर विरोध जता चुके हैं। ब्रिटेन व ऑस्ट्रेलिया ने तो वित्तीय सहायता भी निलंबित कर दी थी। यहां तक कि इसके चलते ब्रिटेन की महारानी और उनकी सरकार में भी दरार नजर आई है। हमेशा से ब्रिटेन का राजपरिवार रोजमर्रा के राजनीति के पचड़ों से दूर रहकर औपचारिकता और संयम के इस्तेमाल से शासन में निरंतरता को बनाए रखने में योगदान करता रहा है। पर हाल ही में राष्ट्रमंडल के कुछ सदस्य देशों के राष्ट्राध्यक्षों के मानवाधिकार हनन को लेकर और खासकर ब्रिटेन की गृह मंत्री प्रीति पटेल के रवांडा से आ रहे शरणार्थियों के प्रति सख्ती से पेश आने से सरकार के कड़े रुख और राजपरिवार की औपचारिकताओं में तनातनी सार्वजनिक हो गई है। इसी बीच, केन्या ने अपने देश की पूर्व रक्षा मंत्री मोनिका जुमा को महासचिव चुने जाने के लिए दावा पेश किया है। मोनिका जुमा को प्रधानमंत्री बोरिस जॉनसन की सरकार के अलावा चीन (जो कि राष्ट्रमंडल का सदस्य भी नहीं है) का समर्थन इस मुद्धे को और भी जटिल बना देता है। इसके अलावा, मेजबान देश रवांडा के राष्ट्रपति पॉल कगामे का दो दशकों से ज्यादा का कार्यकाल भी अक्सर विवादों में रहा है। उनकी सरकार पर बार-बार मनावधिकारों के हनन के आरोप लगते रहे हैं। हालांकि कगामे भी चोगम का इस्तेमाल अपनी सरकार की सफलताएं गिनाने के लिए करना चाहते हैं। रवांडा की 7 प्रतिशत आर्थिक वृद्धि दर, संसद में विश्व में सर्वाधिक 60 प्रतिशत महिलाओं का निर्वाचन और तुत्सी-हुतु साम्प्रदायिक हिंसा पर संयम-सुलह को वह व्यक्तिगत योगदान मनवाना चाहते हैं। तो क्या राजकुमार चार्ल्स, जो महारानी एलिजाबेथ द्वितीय के बढ़ती उम्र के चलते चोगम की अध्यक्षता के लिए आ रहे हैं, राष्ट्रमंडल का प्रतिनिधित्व कर सकेंगे? क्या वह इन हालात का सही विश्लेषण कर पाएंगे? राष्ट्रमंडल ब्रिटेन के पूर्व-उपनिवेशित राष्ट्रों का एक परिवार जैसा है। बीसवीं सदी की शुरुआत से ही ब्रिटेन ने इन राष्ट्रों को धीमे-धीमे शांतिपूर्ण ढंग से सत्ता हस्तांतरण करके स्वतंत्रता के बाद भी इन्हें अपने साथ जोड़े रखने के लिए 1948 में राष्ट्रमंडल का गठन किया था, जबकि कुछ स्वतंत्र हुए राष्ट्र — जैसे भारत — गणराज्य बन गए जहां राज्य के मुखिया का वे स्वयं चुनाव करते हैं। पर आज भी 15 राष्ट्र अपने को ब्रिटेन का अधिराज्य मानते हैं और महारानी को राज्य का मुखिया। इस बार महारानी एलिजाबेथ द्वितीय के अलावा ऑस्ट्रेलिया के नए प्रधानमंत्री एंथनी ऐल्बनीज भी शामिल नहीं होंगे। उन्होंने एक ‘गणराज्य’ मंत्रालय भी बनाया है और अटकलें हैं कि महारानी के बाद वह ऑस्ट्रेलिया को गणराज्य बनाना चाहते हैं। अन्य राष्ट्रों में भी यह सोच उभर रही है। हालांकि इस बार के चोगम सम्मेलन में मेजबान देश ने 40 से ज्यादा राष्ट्राध्यक्षों के शामिल होने की उम्मीद जताई है पर प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी के जी-7 और ब्रिक्स देशों के शिखर सम्मेलनों में व्यस्त होने के कारण किगाली के चोगम में भारत का प्रतिनिधित्व विदेश मंत्री जयशंकर कर रहे हैं। भारत के इस निर्णय को राष्ट्रमंडल व गुटनिरपेक्षता आंदोलन जैसे ऐतिहासिक संगठनों से हटकर विश्व की उभरती हुई ताकतों व अर्थव्यवस्थाओं के नए समीकरणों से जुड़ने की दृष्टि से आंक सकते हैं। इस बार चोगम के समक्ष संगठन की चरमराती अंदरूनी एकजुटता व उभरते हुए नए बहुराष्ट्रीय संगठनों से मिल रही चुनौतियां ही अहम मुद्दा हैं। राजस्थान पत्रिका, 22 जून 2022 विजिटिंग प्रोफेसर, यूनिवर्सिटी ऑफ ब्रिटिश कोलम्बिया; फेलो, कनेडियन ग्लोबल अफेयर्स इंस्टीट्यूट और प्रोफेसर, जेएनयू, नई दिल्ली

By Prof. Gulshan Sachdeva The G7 knows that global green transition and SDG targets cannot be achieved without India. For its ambitions, India needs G7 investment, technology, and green finance. The just-concluded G7 summit took place under the shadows of the Ukraine war, which has threatened economic recovery. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic is still not over, and there are many points of tension in the Indo-Pacific Region. To tackle these challenges, the group of rich industrialised nations resolved to “continue to impose severe and immediate economic costs on President Putin’s regime” along with stepping up efforts to “secure global energy and food security”, and stabilising post-pandemic economic recovery. The major outcomes included the Global Alliance on Food Security; Climate Club, and a $600 billion Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment. Besides, the G7 nations underscored their commitment to humanitarian aid and reconstruction in Ukraine. On foreign and security policy, the major focus was also on China. The G7 nations reiterated the “importance of maintaining a free and open Indo-Pacific”, and reminded China to “abstain from threats, coercion, intimidation measures or use of force”. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, along with the leaders of Argentina, Indonesia, Senegal, and South Africa, also attended some of the sessions. Their participation strengthened the goal of the G7 German presidency — ‘Progress towards an equitable world’. India is going to take over the G20 presidency soon. It is also an important member of the BRICS grouping. Since most of the issues discussed at the summit have broader implications and need wider ownership, India can become an important link between the G7, G20, and BRICS. Practically, the G7 is not just seven rich countries, but a group of more than 30 Western nations. The European Union as a whole also participates in all meetings, and Europe has been very influential in setting the G7’s agenda. After all, it was Germany and France which launched the World Economic Summit in the 1970s, which later became the G7. Since India now has very strong economic and strategic ties with all of them, it does not see this group with distrust. It is negotiating an FTA with the United Kingdom and has re-started negotiations for trade and investment agreements with the EU. As the Indian economy is likely to be one of the fastest growing economies in the post-pandemic phase, partnership with India is attractive for the West. In fact, for its sustainable modernisation and energy transition, India is keen to attract investment, technology, and green finance from these very nations. So India will be pleased to be partnering with initiatives such as Just Energy Transition Partnership, and extra funding for global infrastructure. Most summit discussions were influenced by the Ukraine war. As India has different perceptions about this crisis, Modi rightly focused on strengths of the Indian economy, its ambitious climate targets and performance, and contribution to global food security. Through the Resilient Democracies Statement, India along with G7 has affirmed its commitment to “protecting the freedom of expression and opinion online and offline and ensuring a free and independent media landscape”. In addition, it has agreed to “promoting academic freedom” and “guarding the freedom, independence and diversity of civil society actors” as well as “protection of human rights defenders and all those exposing corruption”. This is an important development in the context of some criticism in Western media about Indian democracy which is seen under stress. The G7 relations with Russia are bad, and tensions with China have grown. The main focus of NATO’s Madrid summit which is taking place immediately after the G7 meeting is the direct security threat from Moscow, and challenges posed by China. In these circumstances, strengthening partnership with New Delhi is useful for the G7. Moreover, major global targets related to green transition and Sustainable Development Goals cannot be met without robust and equitable Indian economic growth. India also has the potential to scale up new emerging technologies, bringing costs down, and making it affordable to other developing countries. Some of the success stories of Indian development experiences can be replicated in other countries through triangular projects with the G7 nations. India has already developed such partnerships with Germany, the UK, and the US. In the current geopolitical situation, where the West is facing threats from the authoritarian states, partnering and strengthening other democracies like India is also an important G7 objective. #G7 #G20 #BRICS #India Originally published: Money Control, June 29, 2022. At: https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/opinion/india-is-an-important-link-between-g7-g20-and-brics-8754151.html Posted in SIS Blog with the authorization of the author. Gulshan Sachdeva is Professor at the Centre for European Studies and Coordinator, Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence, Jawaharlal Nehru University.

By Abhishek Khajuria There is a possibility that Johnson and Sunak are able to steer the country out of the present crisis and improve their political fortunes. But the mood at present is pessimistic. British PM Boris Johnson has survived the no-confidence motion brought against him by the lawmakers of his own Conservative party in the intra-party vote. However, it can be said that this success might not be a durable one for Johnson as the road till the next elections is a tough one (if stays at helm till then). Of the 359 Conservative MPs in the Commons, 211 voted in Johnson’s favour in the secret ballot while 148 were and remain in opposition. On the face of it, it might look like a comfortable victory for him. But we need to get into the finer details of it, and it will become clear how dire difficult the situation for Johnson is. One, only 59% of his Tories now support him. It is significantly less than what former PMs Theresa May and Margaret Thatcher got in their respective confidence votes. Even then, both resigned in the ensuing months. Two out of the 648 MPs in the Commons (total number is 650 with 2 up for bye-elections in the coming weeks where the Conservatives are projected to lose), Johnson is only supported by 32.5% of members. This is significantly less than the number he won in the election of 2019. The numbers outlined above indicate a clear question of moral dilemma for the leader to continue in office after the vote has weakened his authority. But as Johnson has clarified previously, he won’t be relinquishing office. This statement is further cemented by the fact that the PM refused to resign when the partygate scandal emerged. His assertion of ‘victory’ in the no-confidence vote further adds to the above statement. It is worth highlighting here that as per the Conservative party rules, he is now immune from a leadership challenge for the next 12 months. However, this rule is subject to a change, which means that the Prime Minister’s path is still difficult. All this adds to the already precarious condition in the UK, which has emerged as a divided country in the wake of Brexit with resurgent Scottish nationalism and fears of a re-emergence of a pre-1998 situation in Northern Ireland (a political deadlock at present); added to it the severely wounded economy due to the pandemic after which the UK now faces a cost-of-living crisis today. Inflationary pressures are on and household spending has squeezed. The British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) has warned that the “UK economy will grind to a halt and then shrink”. The government is struggling to find responses to the crisis, and the situation remains precarious. Returning to the political scenario, two things need to be looked at. One, if Johnson resigns as has previously happened in the cases of Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May, the questions of succession would come up. Rishi Sunak, the head of the Treasury, was the favourite until recently, but partygate and his wife’s tax avoidance issues have harmed his chances. Others like Liz Truss and Sajid Javid are also seen as contenders. But there is no clear-cut alternative to the PM at the moment. His possible resignation might lead to an uncertain situation over the Irish question due to Brexit once again. Then, if the PM ultimately stays on till the next election scheduled in late 2024, what effect it has on the Conservatives remains to be seen. There is a possibility that he and Sunak are able to steer the country out of the present crisis and improve their political fortunes. But the mood at present is pessimistic. Two, how much of an alternative does the opposition provide. After a humiliating defeat in 2019, it still seems a long way back for Labour. In that election, it lost its traditional strongholds in the West Midlands, which it had not conceded for more than 30 years. It has also not completely recovered from the antisemitism issues (the party as a whole was accused of Antisemitism), which resulted in the suspension of the previous leader Jeremy Corbyn. Though there is some optimism in labour circles after victories in the recent local elections, nothing concrete can be predicted yet. A silver lining is for Labour though is leader Keir Starmer leading Johnson in opinion polls. In the ultimate analysis, it is safe to say that there are many possible scenarios. Johnson emerging winner is one. Others include a new leader curing the Tories or the party totally losing plot and Labour providing an alternative. But one thing is for sure, the future is a tough one for the UK with the political uncertainty coinciding with the cost-of-living crisis. Still, for the time being, it is upon Mr. Johnson to lead a divided country out of its travails which continue to be punctuated by his own. #UK #Politics #BorisJohnson Abhishek Khajuria is a PhD Candidate at the Centre for European Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University.

By Prof. Bharat H. Desai Sexual violence against women during conflicts has been used as a tactic and weapon of war. It is not just rape out of control, but rape under orders, as means of pursuing military, political or economic ends. On 19 June 2022, the world stood up to say ‘NO’ to sexual violence (SV) against women in conflicts and call for its elimination. Notwithstanding the worldwide reality of use of SV as a ‘weapon of war’, this International Day will witness powerful protest against SV. This write-up is a sequel to the 28 May 2022 article on “Use of Food as a Weapon of War” (https://sisblogjnu.wixsite.com/website/post/blog-exclusive-use-of-food-as-a-weapon-of-war-a-challenge-for-international-law ). The global humanitarian watchdog, the Geneva based International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) brought to the public on 19 June 2022 the two uprooted dead trees at the place du Rhône and in Palais des Nations. Instead of treetops, irritating, blood-red roots will invade the sky. It will be symbolic outcry for “all the persons whose human dignity and integrity have been torn down and violated by SV in conflicts” (ICRC campaign on the international day for the elimination of sexual violence in conflict | International Committee of the Red Cross). In most of the conflicts, SV in general and ‘rape’ in particular as predominant form of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) against women has been used with fatal consequences. The warring factions seek to hit the ‘soft belly’ where it hurts the most. Mass rapes have been used as cheaper and lethal weapons than even bullets. Brutality of Wars This author has, for years, taught the MA Winter Semester Core Course on Legal Controls of International Conflicts. The CILS course emanated from the 1959 treatise by the same name by Julius Stone, who visited predecessor of SIS, the Indian School of International Studies at its infancy. Notwithstanding teaching of the legal framework for control of international conflicts, one is always alive to the reality that wars have been as old as human existence and perceived as ‘extra-legal’ – neither legal no illegal. Yet there has always been a quest for ‘outlawry’ of war as seen in 1899 & 1907 Hague Peace Conferences, 1919 Treaty of Versailles and 1928 Pact of Paris. Even after the advent of the 1945 UN Charter with a ‘blueprint’ for prohibition of threat or use of force [Article 2 (4)], scores of conflicts have taken toll of “millions of people”, as warned by the US President Truman, at San Francisco Opera House on 26 June 1945, about consequences for not taking the UN seriously. In view of this reality, all right-thinking peoples and genuine scholars, have been left with the only option of ‘taming the beast’ of war, dubbed as a ‘scourge’ by Preamble to the UN Charter. It came out vividly in the award of 2018 Nobel Peace Prize to Congolese gynaecologist Denis Mukwege and Nadia Murad, the Yezidi victim of the IS brutality in Iraq. “If we want people to say ‘no more war’, we have to show how brutal it is”, Berit Reiss-Andersen, Chair of the Norwegian Nobel Committee said. It was emphatic global call to end the use of SV as a weapon of war in the 21st century. Rape under Orders: A Neglected crime SV against women during conflicts has been used as a tactic and weapon of war. It is not just rape out of control, but rape under orders, as means of pursuing military, political or economic ends. SV against women has occurred and continues to occur before, during, and after most of the wars. The horrors of Pakistani army’s brutal efforts to crush 1971 Bangladeshi liberation movement are etched in collective memory. The systematic mass rapes in final days of Bangladesh war, the Tamil Eelam war in Sri Lanka, Maoist insurgency in Nepal and during partition of the Indian sub-continent are instances of large-scale SV against women. All have remained unaccounted for. It shows that SV in conflicts persists due to acceptance of brutalities and resultant trauma that remains frozen in ‘walls of silence’. Wars leave behind gory incidents, horrid stories, painful past and many wounds that refuse to heal with the passage of time. During the Second World War, the Japanese ‘comfort stations’ massively abused women drawn from its empire as sex slaves. It remains a festering wound in the Japan-Korea relations even after 2015 Japanese apology. It shows how wounds of the past refuse to heal. Big Challenge for the UN At the 68th UN General Assembly (2014), 122 Member States endorsed a Declaration of Commitment to End Sexual Violence in Conflict. It resolved to end pernicious culture of impunity by bringing perpetrators of SV in conflicts to justice. There have been appointments of special envoy by the UNSG, special rapporteurs by the HRC and the UN Women remains the focal point for SV against women. Similarly, the UN Security Council Resolutions 1325 (2000) and 1820 (2008) have brought the agenda item ‘women, peace and security’. The Statutes of the UNSC mandated international criminal tribunals (ICT) in Rwanda, Yugoslavia and Sierra Leone contain crimes of sexual violence. The 1998 Rome Statute of ICC became the first global treaty that recognized rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, and other forms of SV as distinct types of war crimes. These ICTs had limited capacity to provide justice to SV inflicted upon women during conflicts. They recognize only a small set of the SV against women, fell short of addressing gender-based harms and gender biases. The Sierra Leone civil war infamously gave birth to notorious tradition of ‘bush wife’ wherein abducted girls and women were forcibly assigned to rebel commanders and routinely tormented by their rapists. Survivors’ Right to Heal In view of such institutionalized practices, there is a tendency to dismiss SV as inevitable by-product of war, random acts of few renegades, or mere collateral damage! Nobel Laurate Desmond Tutu, Chairman of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, once remarked that “we needed to look the beast in the eye, so that past wouldn’t hold us hostage anymore”. There has been persistent search for appropriate institutional designs that could deal with mass atrocities in conflict-ridden societies and foster justice in the post-conflict period. The scholarly discourses hover around the Transitional Justice (TJ). TJ processes deal with the aftermath of violent conflicts and systematic human rights abuses to create conditions for peaceful future for tormented societies. It comprises a number of instruments and mechanisms including criminal tribunals, truth commissions, memory work, reparation and institutional reforms. Cumulatively, these measures aim at uncovering the truth about past crimes, holding perpetrators accountable, vindicating the dignity of victims-survivors and contributing to reconciliation. Ironically, the post-war accountability jamboree, the quest for justice of women survivors is aggravated by shame, stigma, fear and futility. In the legal and political maze of ending or transmuting conflict, women survivors rarely find space to influence policies, laws and institutional structures adversely affect them. In a sign of new hope, gender-based approaches have gained significant attention in recent years in international criminal law, transitional justice mechanisms and peace building processes. SV not Inevitable Due to an overwhelming emphasis on sexual and penetrative violations of women’s bodies, there has been insensitivity towards emotional harm, harm to the homes, personal spaces, to children and to others with whom women are intimately connected. It calls for sovereign states, the UN and international relief and humanitarian agencies such as the ICRC as well as scholars to come out with urgent ideational solutions. The ICRC’s call that wartime SV is “not inevitable” is an emphatic declaration. This would, however, necessitate concrete inter-governmental legal framework of action under a global treaty, pre-emptive measures to end SV against women, socio-economic-psychological support structures for the survivors and mechanism to hold states and non-state actors accountable for violations of IHL and ICL. An in-depth study of conceptual, legal and institutional framework for the challenge of SGBV has been provided separately in the author’s just released 2022 work, with a foreword by Peter Maurer, the President of the ICRC (Geneva): Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in International Law: Making International Institutions Work (Singapore: Springer Nature, 2022); Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in International Law | SpringerLink #SexualViolence #War #ICRC #UN #InternationalLaw Professor Dr. Bharat H. Desai is Jawaharlal Nehru Chair and Professor of International Law at the Centre for International Legal Studies of SIS, JNU. He coordinated the Making SIS Visible initiative during 2008-2013 (Making SIS Visible | Welcome to Jawaharlal Nehru University (jnu.ac.in) as well as Inter-University Consortium (Partner Universities: JNU, Jammu, Kashmir and Sikkim) during 2012-2020 (www.iucccc.in/Contact us.htm).

By Prof. Bharat H. Desai In the third decade of the 21st century, the growing use of food as a weapon to starve civilians and others presents great challenge. It is used by the armed groups as ‘scorched earth’ strategy that works as a double-edge sword. The UN Security Council (UNSC) held an unprecedented ministerial level open debate on 19 May 2022 on conflict and food security. The widening of the ambit of the UNSC’s primary remit of maintenance of international peace and security underscores that the world is facing a different nature of the security threat. It took place amidst reports that conflicts have been the primary driver of hunger for 139 million people in 24 countries and territories. It grew from 99 million in 2020. The situation is expected to worsen in 2022 due the conflict in Ukraine. Both Russia and Ukraine are major exporters of agricultural commodities. The concept notes by the US Presidency of the UNSC (May) ominously stated: “a sharp increase in global food insecurity threatens to destabilize fragile societies and exacerbate armed conflicts and regional instability.” On 12 April 2021, the UN Secretary-General (UNSG) reported to the UN General Assembly (UNGA) on Implementation of the United Nations Decade of Action on Nutrition (2016–2025). The report, highlighted the underlying drivers of all forms of malnutrition. It called upon the states to act with urgency for elimination of “all forms of malnutrition and achieving the SDGs by 2030”. Similarly, the 2021 report on the State of Food Security and Nutrition by the five agencies (FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO) also graphically noted that “The world has not been generally progressing either towards Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Target 2.1, of ensuring access to safe, nutritious and sufficient food for all people all year round, or towards SDG Target 2.2, of eradicating all forms of malnutrition”. It ominously reported that “between 720 and 811 million people in the world faced hunger in 2020 (161 million more than in 2019)” and nearly “2.37 billion people did not have access to adequate food in 2020 (320 million more than 2019). Hunger as a Global Problematique The large part of the problematique on hunger, inadequacy of food and nutrition has been contributed by various kinds of armed conflicts that rage across the world. This is a harsh global reality notwithstanding the UN Charter [Article 2 (4) ‘blueprint’] prohibition (refrain) of “threat or use of force”. Similarly, another facet of global concern, as per 2021 Global Gender Gap report, shows the huge gender disparity that widened by a “generation from 99.5 years to 135.6 years” since there is no letup in the persistence of global inequality, discrimination and violence against women. Maybe it is now high time we need to work on measuring the Global Misery Index (instead of happiness or hunger) to assess as to how much of the 7.9 billion (2022) population on planet earth lives in misery in spite of all the riches, scientific and technical prowess and the advent of the Digital and Internet Age. It seems, the words of late Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, expressed poetically in Hindi, have come true that the “human being has reached the moon but does not know how to live on the earth”! Hunger as a Tool of Warfare It was the UNSC resolution 2417 of 24 May 2018 that expressed grave concern about the direct impact of armed conflicts on food security due to the “threat of famine presently facing millions of people in armed conflicts, as well as about the number of undernourished people in the world”. In the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic (2020-2022), the global food insecurity has only worsened. The Indian humanitarian supplies of wheat to save starvation in post-Taliban Afghanistan and rice for the Sri Lankan people are vivid reminder of the world we live in. According to FAO, vicious cycle of hunger is largely fueled by extreme climatic events, economic slowdowns and crises (such as Covid-19 pandemic). In the cocktail, the violent conflicts and wars exacerbate hunger, poverty and sexual violence against women around the world. Poverty and hunger are closely correlated. FAO estimates show 842 million people suffer from ‘chronic hunger’. With the world population expected to reach the staggering figure of 10 billion in 2050, it presents a monumental challenge to sustainably feed the population explosion. It will necessitate fundamental changes in the global food system even as there is very slow move towards attaining ‘zero hunger’ goal under the UN’s 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The 2021 Global Hunger Index forecast shows 47 countries with alarming levels of hunger and 47 others will fail to reach ‘zero hunger’ by 2030. India was placed at 101, just above Afghanistan. 2020 Nobel Prize for WFP The award of the 2020 Nobel Peace Prize for the World Food Program (WFP) became a landmark. The citation made the rationale for WFP choice amply clear: “for its efforts to combat hunger, for its contribution to bettering conditions for peace in conflict-affected areas and for acting as a driving force in efforts to prevent the use of hunger as a weapon of war and conflict." The recognition of WFP for “combating use of hunger as a weapon of war” came close on the heels of the 2019 Nobel Economics Prize on “alleviating poverty” (Abhijit Banerjee et al.) as well as the 2018 Nobel Peace Prize on “use of sexual violence as a weapon of war” (Danis Mukwege and Nadia Muard). Ironically, hunger, poverty and sexual violence against women all three have become endemic in the global armed conflicts and accentuate the human misery. “Until the day we have a medical vaccine, food is the best vaccine against chaos”, the WFP has strongly contended. The humanitarian task of WFP has been aptly termed as the “modern version of peace congresses” that the Nobel Peace Prize is intended to promote. The Norwegian Nobel Committee felt that it is this noble task of providing assistance to increase food security prevents hunger and in turn helps in improving prospects for stability and peace. “WFP gives significant contribution to combat hunger as such and to combat hunger used as a weapon in war and armed conflicts”, Berit Reiss-Andersen, Chair of the Norwegian Nobel Committee said on 9 October 2020. A Challenge for International Law In the third decade of the 21st century, the growing use of food as a weapon to starve civilians and others presents great challenge. It is used by the armed groups as ‘scorched earth’ strategy that works as a double-edge sword. It affects the rival armed groups, causes an exodus of refugees and starves the civilians trapped therein. Such aggressive method of warfare has been prohibited by International Humanitarian Law (IHL). All parties to an armed conflict have an obligation to comply with IHL, in particular their obligations under the 1949 Geneva Conventions as well as the 1977 Additional Protocols thereto. It also presents a challenge to the edifice of rules and principles of International Human Rights and Refugee Laws. However, with rising human greed, arrogance of power and primitive streak to subjugate others results in brutalities, death and destruction. It calls for empowering the only neutral humanitarian organ on the ground, the ICRC as the custodian of the IHL, to grapple with the challenge. One needs to admire the concern and courage of the ICRC President, Peter Maurer, as he moves to supervise work from one conflict zone to another (from Haiti to Syria to Ukraine). His prophetic words, shared in conversation with this author, provide us a beacon of hope: “These destructive forces are not invincible”. Still, the growing use of hunger (food) as a weapon of war presents a challenge to the global scholarship in the fields of International Law and International Relations. #War #Hunger #Food #UN #FAO #WFP #InternationalLaw Prof. Bharat H. Desai is Jawaharlal Nehru Chair and Professor of International Law at the Centre for International Legal Studies of SIS, JNU. He coordinated the Making SIS Visible initiative during 2008-2013 (Making SIS Visible | Welcome to Jawaharlal Nehru University (jnu.ac.in) as well as Inter-University Consortium (Partner Universities: JNU, Jammu, Kashmir and Sikkim) during 2012-2020 (www.iucccc.in/Contact us.htm).