Search

By Prof. (Dr.) Bharat H. Desai On November 25, 2023, in a very powerful message from Antarctica, the UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres said: “What happens in Antarctica doesn’t stay in Antarctica” and the world must wake-up since Antarctic is being awoken due to climate chaos. The symbolic message of the UNSG came just five days ahead of the 28th meeting of the Conference of Parties (COP28) to the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Dubai COP28 (November 30 to December 12, 2023), is yet another annual gathering of the state Parties in the long line up of COP meetings that have mysteriously been unable to address the “climate change conundrum”, as this author described [Preface: EPL 52 (5-6) 2022], over a period of 31 years (1992-2023). The UNSG was on a three-day official visit to Antarctica. He was accompanied by the Chilean President Gabriel Boric to visit Chile’s Eduardo Frei Air Force Base on King George Island. “We are witnessing an acceleration that is absolutely devastating,” Guterres said while reflecting on the unprecedented rate of ice melt in Antarctica. Dubai COP28: Unrealistic Expectations Today (November 30, 2023), as the COP28 (UAE) commences work, the air will be heavy in Dubai due to unrealistic high expectations and increasingly bleak prospects for realization of 1.5 °C GHG emission target. The vital question remains as to what the UNFCCC parties will decide on the phase-out of fossil fuel in the face of climate emergency that has emerged as one of the most prominent drivers of the “planetary crisis”. This author has extensively examined the gravity of the planetary level crisis, implications for the humankind and the planet Earth and explored options for invoking the instrumentalities of International Law to make them work (here, here, here, here). It is widely accepted that, in order to limit global warming to 1.5°C, GHG emissions must peak before 2025 at the latest and decline 43% by 2030. In the absence of a major trigger-event and a planetary miracle, at the current rate and in view of dithering by the state Parties, all indicators show that the goal set is unrealistic and unattainable. It raises the frightening prospects of a literally burning planet. It has led the conscientious UNSG running from pillar to the post and speaking up through a series of ‘whistle-blowing’ speeches ranging from Stockholm+50 Conference (June 02, 2022) to the ‘cry-out’ from the Syangbpoche (the Everest Region of Nepal) in the Himalayas (October 30, 2023) to the latest visit to Antarctica (November 25, 2023). Making International Law Instruments Work With 198 Parties, the UNFCCC has been designed as a ‘framework convention’. It became one of the first global instruments that designated climate change as a common concern of humankind. The COP of the multilateral environmental agreements [Bharat H. Desai (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010], provides a platform at a specific periodicity (one, two or three years) to review work of the Convention in question. The UN provides ‘secretariat’ support to the UNFCCC, hence the usage of prefix ‘United Nations’. It is called a ‘framework convention’ since it was adopted with a bare skeleton on May 09, 1992. The UNFCCC necessitated ‘fleshing out’ with required elements to make it work for realization of the “‘ultimate objective” (Article 2) of “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system”. It led to the adoption of the “related legal instruments”: 1997 Kyoto Protocol and 2015 Paris Agreement. The global climate change regime now comprises these three legal instruments. On March 20, 2023, the IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report explicitly underscored that “Average annual GHG emissions during 2010–2019 were higher than in any previous decade on record” and observed: “Global net anthropogenic GHG emissions have been estimated to be 59 ± 6.6 GtCO2-eq9 in 2019, about 12% (6.5 GtCO2-eq) higher than in 2010 and 54% (21 GtCO2-eq) higher than in 1990, with the largest share and growth in gross GHG emissions occurring in CO2 from fossil fuels combustion and industrial processes (CO2-FFI)”. In view of this, the near future regulatory goal has been pegged at the 1.5 °C global warming by 2050. The UNSG, in his address at the Stockholm+50 Conference (June 02, 2022) gave a clarion call for addressing climate change as one of the “triple planetary crises”. The UNEP’s 2022 Emissions Gap Report (October 27, 2022) reinforced the global concerns that “the international community is falling far short of the Paris goals, with no credible pathway to 1.5°C in place. Only an urgent system-wide transformation can avoid climate disaster”. This prognosis and the projections, have set the stage to explore possible options for averting the climate change catastrophe. What lies in store at the Dubai COP28 (Nov. 30-Dec. 12, 2023) and beyond? Whereas COP27 (Sharm El-Shaik; Nov.06-21, 2022) was known for adoption of the decision on “loss and damage” funding for vulnerable countries hit hard by climate disasters, COP28 is likely to conclude the first global climate ‘stocktake’ mandated vide Decision 19/CMA.1 (2018). It will be a comprehensive assessment of the progress in climate change action since adoption of the 2015 Paris Agreement. The Dubai COP28 will take place on the heels of 2023 UNEP Emissions Gap Report (November 20, 2023) that issued a warning that the “world is heading for a temperature rise far above the Paris Agreement goals unless countries deliver more than they have promised”. The UNEP report has predicted that by 2030 the GHG emissions must “fall by 28 per cent for the Paris Agreement 2°C pathway and 42 per cent for the 1.5°C pathway”. Thus, the task is cut out for the assembled states Parties in Dubai COP28 to walk-the-talk, seriously. The Dilution: From Differentiation to NDCs Over the years, the primary legal bulwark for addressing the issues of equity and climate justice in the global climate change discourse has been the criteria of differentiation (CBDR&RC; Preambular para 7 and Principle 3.1 of UNFCCC). It was a negotiating masterstroke amidst rush to adopt the UNFCCC prior to the Rio Earth Summit (UNCED 1992). It emanated from razor-sharp clarity and strategizing by some ace negotiators of the developing countries. However, efforts were quickly underway to blunt the edges and dilute the core of this fundamental criteria of differentiation for affixing state responsibility for harm (adverse impacts) caused to the global atmosphere (“largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases has originated in developed countries”; Preambular para 3). Many scholars, bureaucrats and civil society groups of the developing countries were co-opted in this process. As a member of the Official Indian Delegation, this author vividly saw such subtle efforts in various COP meetings, other intergovernmental processes and on the sidelines. It culminated, after a decent burial was given to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol (as none of the Annex – I countries complied with their legal obligations), in the 2015 Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement brought in a new voluntary criterion of “nationally determined contributions” that requires “all Parties are to undertake and communicate ambitious efforts” (Article 3, Paris Agreement). The direct effect of NDCs was to knock-out principle of equity that required only equals can be treated equally (since developed and developing countries are not equal in their contributions to the atmospheric harm caused). As a corollary, the UNFCCC’s basic premise was also sidelined that required “per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low and that the share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs” (Preambular para 4). Notwithstanding the fact that responsibility for global climate change was “common” yet it was to be given effect in a differentiated, stratified, and staggered way. As this author contended, the leadership principle was also crucified that required the “developed countries Parties should take the lead” (Article 3.1) as a condition precedent (Article 4.7: “extent to which developing country Parties will effectively implement their commitments under the Convention will depend on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments under the Convention”) before the developing countries were called upon to reduce their part of the GHG emissions. As a result, the stage has never come to work out the criteria and elements for determining if any such “lead” was in fact taken by the developed country Parties. The Road Ahead In view of the above legal stratagems and crafting of tools and techniques to stabilize GHG emissions enshrined in the instruments on the global climate chessboard, the regulatory approach appears to be somehow floundering. It has brought in fatigue effect, proliferation of national climate change litigations and an exasperated effort by the UNGA (vide resolution 77/276 of March 29, 2023) to seek an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ, if accepts jurisdiction and agrees to provide an opinion to the UNGA, it will be required to provide an answer to two specific questions: (i) What are the legal obligations of the States under International Law for protection of the climate system from emissions of GHG? and (ii) What are the legal consequences for States under these obligations? The Court has affixed January 22, 2024 as the last date for filing of the written statements. What can the principal legal organ of the UN do to nudge the states and the UNGA to resolve the global climate change riddle? Since it adopted the famous resolution 43/53 of December 08, 1988, the UNGA has been the principal conductor of the grand climate-change orchestra, invoked normativity of ‘common concern’ and triggered the process for the UNFCCC negotiations (1990-1992). Therefore, it is high time for the UNGA after full three decades, to rise to the occasion and possibly elevate common concern to the higher pedestal of a planetary concern to provide future direction to the 1992 UNFCCC and 2015 Paris Agreement processes. This author has put into place a series of successive scholarly processes including 2022 special issue of the global journal [EPL 53 (5-6) 2022], 2023 IOS Press book on Regulating Global Climate Change, a special EPL landing page for Dubai COP28 and moderation of the forthcoming global webinar on Averting the Global Climate Catastrophe (December 10, 2023). Cumulatively, they aimed to sow some ideational seeds to try to find answers to the global climate problematique. Premised upon the principle of state responsibility and differentiation, it will necessitate earnestly walking-the-talk by those states who caused the climate change problem in the first instance with all legal obligations, consequences and requirements. Making the architecture work remains the biggest challenge to secure our planetary future. #PlanetaryCrisis #COP28 #Dubai #ClimateChange #TriplePlanetaryCrisis This Article is a sequel to Global Climate Change as a Planetary Concern – Part I. This Article is an original contribution to the SIS Blog. Prof. (Dr.) Bharat H. Desai is Professor of International Law and Chairperson of 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 knowledge initiatives for Making SIS Visible (2008-2013) and the Inter-University Consortium: JNU; Jammu; Kashmir; Sikkim (2012-2020) as well as contributes as the Editor-in-Chief of Environmental Policy and Law (IOS Press: Amsterdam)

By Ayadoure S. Stalin Coup d'état is not a new element in Myanmar’s polity since its independence from British colonialism. Coup d’état is not a new element in Myanmar’s polity since its independence from British colonialism. A coup throws out the democratic polity to set up a military dictatorship. Such unilateral transfer of power would require legitimacy from a sovereign state, which often leads such an authoritarian state to be a satellite for the great power nation in its quest for survival that, in turn, carves a path for bloc politics. With the military taking over Myanmar’s democratic polity in 2021 through a coup d’état, the democratically elected President – Aung San Suu Kyi, was arrested on 1 February 2021, and the whole world witnessed the return of Tatmadaw (Myanmar Armed Forces) as Junta Government took control with State Administration Council led by Min Aung Hlaing. With such developments in Myanmar, many political leaders from the political party – National League for Democracy (a party led by Aung San Suu Kyi) were arrested with a total lockdown on civil and human rights. Nevertheless, a few ousted political elites from the National League for Democracy led by Duwa Lashi La, with the support of other disparate groups, formed a parallel government opposed to the Junta Government called the National Unity Government (NUG) and constituted a defence force called the People’s Defence Force to call for ‘defensive war against Junta by National Unity Government’ in September 2021 brought the Cold War loop of Authoritarian versus Pro-Democracy conflict back to Southeast Asia. The Authoritarian versus Pro-Democracy division in the state system of Southeast Asia is the pattern observed during the Cold War-induced conflicts in the State of Kampuchea (erstwhile) and Vietnam into North and South Vietnam, which kept the map of Southeast Asia in flux. During the Cold War, the junta rule of Myanmar survived without any changes in their map, and the other authoritarian regimes faced the formation of new States. Fortunately, the nascency of ASEAN survived such flux in the Southeast Asian States during the Cold War and accommodated new states under its fold. However, the current state of internal strife in Myanmar has, unlike earlier Junta rule, two groups claiming legitimacy and fighting for claim over Myanmar, which may have two recourses – a division of Myanmar into two states or one China dilemma reflection in Myanmar with NUG carving a territory leading to the ‘China-Taiwan’ scenario. In either of the two recourses, such development would yield great powers like The USA and China’s intervention in the region that would trickle to the escalation of regional conflict. Such escalation of the regional conflict would see the polity of other Southeast Asian States permeable to the crisis, probably escalating conflict in mainland Southeast Asia and eventually fracturing the ASEAN consensus. Hence, to deescalate the internal strife and bring enduring peace in Myanmar, ASEAN’s immediate response to the crisis in Myanmar was the adoption of Five Point Consensus – immediate cessation of violence in Myanmar, constructive dialogue among all stakeholders, a special envoy of the ASEAN Chair shall facilitate mediation of the dialogue process, humanitarian assistance through the AHA Centre, and special envoy and delegation shall visit Myanmar to meet with all parties concerned. However, the Junta Government headed by Min Aung Hlaing, after two days of adopting the Five Point Consensus, in his speech with the State Administration Council, announced “visits to Myanmar proposed by the ASEAN will be considered after stabilizing the country”, and the Junta Government have announced ceasefire but followed by an increased crackdown on civilians. Such developments attracted sanctions on the Junta Government by The United States, followed by Canada, the UK, the EU, and Australia. LOOMING ASEAN’s INEFFECTIVENESS In three summits since Tatmadaw took over Myanmar in 2021, the annual summit of ASEAN, every chair following Brunei chose not to invite junta leader Min Aung Hlaing but has opted to have a ‘non-political representative’ from Myanmar. With the denial by the Myanmar Junta, the 2021 ASEAN summit proceeded with no participation from Myanmar. However, the Cambodia Chairmanship witnessed the first-ever in-person summit following the COVID-19 crisis. As a chair of ASEAN in 2022, Cambodia followed the same pattern as its predecessor to have a non-political representative from Myanmar. Such successive developments have dented the legitimacy crisis of the Junta Government. Even the current chair of 2023 to ASEAN – Indonesia followed the same precedence of the previous chair not to invite the Junta Leader. A paradox emerges in the choice of ASEAN not to invite the Junta State Administrative Council leader Min Aung Hlaing, to secure the legitimacy required to be a Sovereign State. At the same time, ASEAN has not engaged till now with the NUG. Every summit since 2021 for Myanmar’s non-political representation, ASEAN’s chair has sought the Junta Government to send a non-political representative, depicting a paradoxical approach as the NUG was never given representation in ASEAN. Hence, the East Asia Summit, which sets off along with ASEAN’s Summit for 2023, has “lost momentum as an agenda-setting institution for the region due to intractable differences between its biggest members such as the United States, Japan, China and Russia.” Critics of failed consensus through ASEAN-led solution to Myanmar’s crisis have found reflection from Indonesia, the current chair of ASEAN, whose President Joko Widodo commented that “there has been no significant progress in the implementation of the five-point consensus” directly indicating the ASEAN has failed to act appropriately on Myanmar case. INDONESIA AS ASEAN CHAIR FOR INCLUSIVE NATIONAL DIALOGUE Indonesia’s ASEAN Chairman commenced on January 2023 amid three major challenges – recovering the regional economy from the COVID-19 crisis, the emergence of ‘minilateral’ security arrangements, and the 2021 Myanmar Coup. With such challenges, the Indonesia chairmanship was themed “ASEAN Matters: Epicentrum of Growth.” Two out of three challenges have an outlook for regional growth, but the conflict due to Myanmar does not. In its publication on Regional Economic Outlook on Sub-Saharan Africa, IMF explicates, “Growth tends to be lower in conflict cases across all country groups.” Spillover effect due to conflict in Myanmar on the economic growth of Southeast Asia would impact healing from downfalls due to COVID-19. So, the only way out for ASEAN’s chair, for the current and successor member countries, is to set the path to an Inclusive National Dialogue in Myanmar. ASEAN’s mechanism is based on non-interference in the internal matters of member countries, but the issue of human rights abuses and excess arrests committed by the Junta required sensible action. As one purpose underlined in ASEAN’s charter states, “to ensure that the peoples and Member States of ASEAN live in peace with the world at large in a just, democratic and harmonious environment.” ASEAN charter demands peaceful resolution and enhanced consultation on matters concerned with common interest. A question may be propounded: What does Myanmar conflict have a common interest for ASEAN? Myanmar conflict, if not resolved, would open the Southeast Asian Polity for great power games induced due to the evolving Indo-Pacific rivalry between China and The USA, the migration induced due to displacement caused by the Junta’s crackdown on civilians is pushing more burden on the healing economies of Southeast Asia due to COVID-19 pandemic, the regional trade agreement concluded by ASEAN – Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership would be least effective when Myanmar facing sanctions by major western countries thus making Southeast Asian good and services uncompetitive markets, and the intra-regional investments sourced to Myanmar by other ASEAN countries – Thailand and Singapore has invested into Myanmar’s natural gas imports would draw no returns thus hindering intra-regional flow of goods and services. By understanding the perils of the Myanmar conflict, Indonesia, the ongoing chair for ASEAN, has undertaken a rational approach to this conflict by demanding an Inclusive National Dialogue. Inclusive National Dialogue is “used as an instrument to resolve political crises and pave the way for political transitions and sustainable peace.” Conflict-driven nations from Tongo to Yemen, National Dialogue have paved the way for the “political reforms, constitution-making, and peacebuilding” for a successful political transition. Indonesia has brought “180 engagements with the stakeholders in Myanmar since it assumed the ASEAN chairmanship in January” 2023. The two sides – Junta and NUG, were brought to dialogue in various formats by Indonesia. However, the engagement does not mean National Dialogue would immediately kick off, and conflict would stop. Because the national dialogue does not initiate only when two parties in conflict come to the table. The participation in National Dialogue has broad stakeholders – “civil society, women, youth, business, and religious or traditional actors.” National dialogue succeeds when incorporated with the following principles – “inclusion, transparency and public participation, a far-reaching agenda, a credible convener, appropriate and clear rules of procedure, and an implementation plan.” Indonesia sensibly propounded a Troika mechanism with Malaysia, Indonesia, and Laos (the other two nationals will take up the ASEAN chair in the succeeding year), thereby creating a continuity in this process of initiating National Dialogue Myanmar, which would lead to the resolution of conflict and reduce the current volatility in Southeast Asia. #ASEAN #Myanmar Originally Published : Modern Diplomacy, 14th November' 2023 https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2023/11/14/inclusive-national-dialogue-only-respite-for-aseans-solution-in-the-ongoing-myanmar-strife/ Posted in SIS Blog with the Authorisation of the Author. Ayadoure S. Stalin is a PhD Candidate and a UGC Junior Research Fellow (Research Scholar) at Centre for Indo-Pacific Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru Universty, New Delhi, India.

By Prof. (Dr.) Gulshan Sachdeva It remains unclear whether India and the UK will be able to conclude a trade deal during Rishi Sunak's upcoming visit to India. External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar's recent visit to the United Kingdom became more interesting with the abrupt reshuffling of the British Cabinet that occurred while he was in London. Initially, he engaged with British Foreign Secretary James Cleverly during the reception hosted by the Indian High Commissioner. The following day, he became the first foreign leader to hold a meeting with the newly-appointed Foreign Secretary, former British Prime Minister David Cameron. He once again encountered Cleverly, who had assumed the role of Home Secretary, succeeding Indian-origin Suella Braverman. In fact, during the visit, he met three British Prime Ministers — Rishi Sunak, Tony Blair, and Cameron. His trip primarily aimed to lay the groundwork for Sunak's upcoming visit to India. Despite constant shifts in British political dynamics and sporadic activities of radical Sikhs in the United Kingdom, New Delhi’s ties with London continue to witness an upward trajectory. Somehow, Britain’s post-Brexit ambitions have coincided with India’s economic and strategic priorities. These ambitions and priorities are captured through the upgraded Comprehensive Strategic Partnership and Roadmap 2030. The roadmap covers a broad spectrum of issues spanning trade, defence and security, as well as people-to-people connections. Official statements indicate that apart from bilateral issues, Jaishankar discussed broader issues concerning the war in Ukraine, the situation in Israel and Gaza, as well as the Indo-Pacific region. In addition to the overall positive trend in bilateral relations, two specific issues are being closely monitored. First, developments at the bilateral trade negotiations. Second, convergence of issues and possible co-operation in the Indo-Pacific region, particularly after the British tilt towards the region. The India-UK Enhanced Trade Partnership (ETP) was launched in early 2021 and formal trade negotiations began in 2022. During Prime Minister Boris Johnson's visit to India in April 2022, a deadline for reaching an agreement was set by Diwali of 2022. Even this Diwali has gone. Following 14 rounds of negotiations, five out of the 26 chapters remain unresolved. In fact, critical matters related to intellectual property rights, rules of origin, financial services, work visas, and specific item tariff reductions still require resolution. While bilateral talks commenced only last year, negotiations for a trade deal have been ongoing since 2007, initially within the framework of India-EU discussions. So difficult issues concerning short term mobility for high skilled professionals, investment protection, Indian market access to British legal and financial firms, high Indian tariffs on scotch whiskey and automobiles, non-tariff barriers on some Indian exports etc. have been known for years. During the visit, Jaishankar asserted that both are hoping to find “a landing point” for the FTA that works for both the countries. Braverman may be out of Sunak’s Cabinet, but anti-immigrant rhetoric in British politics will continue. So, it will not be easy for Sunak to link bilateral FTA with some kind of deal on mobility. Many reports suggest that as part of the trade deal, India is now not seeking an increase in student or other visas. Instead, the focus is on facilitating easier intra-company transfers and providing portable pensions for those who contribute in the UK. Even linking these intra-company transfers with the FTA may not be easy. Having refrained from signing any trade deals for years, New Delhi is currently working to alter its image as a hesitant trade partner. After two major trade deals with Australia and the United Arab Emirates, achieving an FTA with the UK could represent a crucial milestone. The last two agreements allow deep access into the partner country’s market, safeguards in case of import surges, and better rules of origin. India is likely to follow a similar strategy not only with the UK but also with the European Union and the Gulf Cooperation Council. This could pose some new challenges to negotiators. Evolving geopolitical shifts, including the rise of assertive China and closer India-US ties have played an important role in bringing India and the UK together. Still convergence on many foreign policy issues will not happen automatically. On Ukraine, Indian and British perceptions differ. The Israel-Palestine issue is still evolving. Discussions surrounding the Indo-Pacific are currently addressing matters related to maritime security, infrastructure connectivity, and triangular development cooperation. As a Prime Minister for six years, Cameron played a pivotal role in shaping a ‘golden era’ of relations with China. He is now a heavyweight in-charge of the British foreign office. His appointment has already been hailed in the Chinese media. Though as foreign secretary, he faces an entirely different geopolitical environment, his impact on British foreign policy will be visible soon. He has also been very enthusiastic about relations with India. However, the pivotal issue remains unclear as to whether India and the UK will be able to finalise a trade deal during Sunak's upcoming visit to India. #IndiaUK #FTA Originally Published : The Deccan Herald, 16th November' 2023 https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/still-no-light-at-the-end-of-the-india-uk-fta-tunnel-2773151 Posted on SIS Blog with the Authorisation of the Author Prof. (Dr.) Gulshan Sachdeva is a Professor, at the Centre for European Studies and Coordinator, at the Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence, at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.

By Md. Muddassir Quamar (Ph.D.) The war has divided the global community into two camps—pro-Israel and pro-Palestine—leaving little space for a considered and objective analysis of the situation. As the Israel-Hamas war, that broke out on 7 October 2023 after Hamas and other militant organisations based in the Gaza Strip attacked southern Israel, enters the second month, it is relevant to analyse its geopolitical context and implications. The war has divided the global community into two camps—pro-Israel and pro-Palestine—leaving little space for a considered and objective analysis of the situation. For the supporters of ‘Palestinian rights to self-determination,’ even a terrorist strike against unarmed civilians is justified in the name of ‘resistance against occupation.’ On the other hand, for the supporters of Israel’s rights to defence, even the killing of innocent civilians and children is justified as ‘collateral damage.’ World leaders have also taken stands based on personal preferences and the country’s strategic interests and ambitions, not entirely unexpected. Hence, President Joe Biden and the United States have fully backed the Israeli military action in the Gaza Strip. Similarly, the majority of European leaders and countries have voiced their support for Israel. The same is true for Canada and a few countries in the Global South. On the other hand, most of the West Asian countries, while condemning the Hamas terror attack of 7 October, have been critical of the excessive use of force by Israel and have condemned the targeting of civilians and children. The non-western global powers such as Russia, China and India have taken a more nuanced and balanced position given their intricate relations with both the Israelis and the Palestinians. As the war continues and the casualties rise, the calls for allowing humanitarian aid to reach the Palestinian population have increased, with intermittent appeals for a ceasefire. The political and military leadership in Israel, although they have allowed some humanitarian aid to enter Gaza through the Rafah border with Egypt, have ruled out any possibility of a ceasefire until the twin goals of decimating Hamas and rescuing the nearly 200 Israeli hostages are achieved. Hamas and other Gaza-based militant organisations have ruled out surrendering or releasing Israeli hostages and committed themselves to fighting the Israeli ground incursion. Thus, the threat of urban warfare between IDF and Hamas remains possible. Amidst this, it is important to understand the regional geopolitical setting of the ongoing war. While the festering and unresolved Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the primary context, the geopolitical contestation among the regional powers is also important. A key aspect is the position of Iran, which has been engaged in proxy conflicts with Israel and Arab Gulf states, as well as has outstanding problems with the United States. The tensions between Iran and Arab Gulf states have begun to settle down after the March 2023 agreement to restore their diplomatic relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Some had underlined the possibility of the beginning of a rapprochement between the two Gulf neighbours that can unveil a new era of stability in Western Asia. Alternatively, the signing of the Abraham Accords and the possibility of establishing diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel led to greater discussion on peace and stability in Western Asia, wherein the focus shifted from geopolitics to geoeconomics. Economic interdependence and regional connectivity had emerged as the buzzword in the region since 2020–2021, especially as the Biden administration was trying to encourage greater regional cohesion, unlike the Trump administration, whose policies were fuelling tensions. The rapprochement between Arab Gulf countries and Israel was not necessarily viewed positively in Ankara or Tehran. In Türkiye, the Islamic-nationalist AKP-Erdoğan government has been critical of Israel for its continued occupation of Palestinian territories. In Iran, the Shia Islamist-clerical establishment has continued to refuse the Israeli right to existence based on religious and ideological convictions. Iran is also engaged in a proxy conflict with Israel in Syria and Iraq, wherein it has been able to establish itself as a de facto military power through Shiite-Islamist militant groups that are committed to the revolutionary ideals of the Islamic Republic. Iran is also the chief benefactor of groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Ansarallah (Houthis) in Yemen and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza. Iran’s strategy to arm militant groups is based on the idea of offsetting any threats emanating from state and non-state actors because of the ideological fight with Sunni Islamists and the geostrategic battle with the US and its regional allies for dominating the region. In the Iranian view, the regional order should be free from external interference, in which case the leadership of the Islamic Republic assumes that Iran will be able to establish an Iranian-led regional order. Given its ideological opposition, Iran would also prefer Israel to remain tangled in a web of conflicts with non-state actors without Tehran necessarily getting directly involved in the war. Iranian nuclear ambitions and Israeli opposition and actions to deny the possibility of it attaining atomic weapon capability have also become a bone of contention in the fight between the two regional powers. Given this, it raises the bigger question of whether the Palestinian issue has become just a pawn in the proxy war between Iran and Israel. Although thus far, there is no evidence of direct Iranian involvement in inciting or planning the Hamas attack on Israel, the fact remains that the Iranian support and training, along with Qatari aid, have been instrumental in keeping Hamas alive and making it into a potent fighting group albeit with only rudimentary military equipment. As the context is important, so are the implications. One of the key aspects is that the already strong anti-Hamas and anti-Palestinian sentiments in Israel will further harden, and the same can be said about the prevailing anti-Israel sentiments in Palestine, the Arab and Islamic worlds and the pro-Palestinian global community. Secondly, it will become difficult for the Arab Gulf monarchies to justify their relations with Israel, diplomatic or otherwise, given the rise in anti-Israel sentiments. Thirdly, the war may lead to intensification of the ongoing proxy war between Israel and Iran, and at some point, other regional Iranian proxies might join the conflict. Finally, the war also rules out any possibility of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, however remote it might have been before the outbreak of the war. It is not clear what the Hamas leadership was hoping to achieve by attacking, killing and abduction of Israeli civilians. If it were to showcase their potency and Israeli vulnerability, they can claim they succeeded. But to attack civilians is unjustifiable and outrightly criminal under any circumstance, and to do this at the cost of the lives of thousands of Palestinians and the destruction of the Gaza Strip is not only ludicrous but outrightly beyond any humanitarian conscience. The 7 October attack on Israel, thus, has not only hardened the regional and global public opinion against Hamas but has also buried any possibility of a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. #WestAsia #IsraelHamasWar #IsraelPalestineConflict Originally Published : The Financial Express, 8th November 2023 https://www.financialexpress.com/business/defence-the-israel-hamas-war-and-geopolitical-contestations-in-west-asia-3301637/ Posted in SIS Blog with the Authorisation of the Author Md. Muddassir Quamar (PhD) is an Associate Professor at Centre for West Asian Studies, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.

By Prof. (Dr.) Srikanth Kondapalli The Chinese are not strangers to their ministers disappearing or being dismissed. In a sign of chinks in President Xi Jinping’s armour, there is, of late, turbulence in China’s political landscape. This is in sharp contrast to the signals of solidarity and unity put out a year ago at the 20th Communist Party Congress. While Xi jettisoned rival political factions in the all-powerful 7-member Politburo Standing Committee and the 24-member Politburo, there is definitely a push back, as can be seen from the fact that Xi has forced two of his close confidants out of office. Read more at: https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/chinese-intrigues-2757231 #China #CCPCHINA #Politik #XiJinping Originally Published : Deccan Herald, 8th October' 2023 https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/chinese-intrigues-2757231 Posted in SIS Blog with the Authorisation of the Author. Prof. (Dr.) Srikanth Kondapalli is Dean of School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

By Prof. (Dr.) Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit In the Israel-Hamas war, the left, the wokes, instead of discussing the war and the reason behind the terror are attacking the Other, the victims. What greatly surprises anyone in the Israel-Hamas war is that Marxists/wokes are with the Islamists and using their tactics of cancel culture against those who dissent. Is there something much deeper to this collaboration between groups that ideologically can never come together. It is an oxymoron. How is an objective scholar to look at this collaboration? Karl Marx stated that religion is the opium of the masses and Raymond Aron that Marxism is the opium of intellectuals. Now the wokes support the terrorists who have hijacked religion to annihilate the Jews, forgetting Marx himself was Jewish. What a paradox. One is intrigued when there is a surge of demonstrations for ceasefire, which will benefit terror groups like Hamas which is on the defensive to recoup. Both Russia and China have fought Islamist terror with an iron hand and they have denied them their cultural rights domestically. Where were these wokes/and the Islamists then? This is doublespeak in a dystopic world. Dystopia, also called a cacotopia or anti-utopia, is a speculated community or society that is undesirable or frightening. Dystopias are often characterized by fear or distress of tyrannical governments or other characteristics associated with a cataclysmic decline in society. According to Winston Smith, the protagonist of 1984, doublethink is “to know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against.” Doublethink may happen because of someone being willfully perverse or as a result of faulty logic. Doublethink is a word coined by George Orwell for the novel 1984. Doublespeak is the use of euphemistic or ambiguous language in order to disguise what one is actually saying. Orwell uses the irony of doublethink to show how manipulation and control can restrict one’s individuality and freedom and creates a mob psychology. The unfortunate truth is that the in Israel-Hamas war, the left, the wokes, instead of discussing the war and the reason behind the jihadist terror are attacking the Other, the victims—the Jews, Christians and Hindus. In India the woke brigade in academia funded by international and national global corporate interests are attacking Jews, Hinduism and Hindutva. Is this not academic doublethink and doublespeak? Attacking Hindus is the easiest for they do not retaliate by beheading like in the case of the cartoons and Charlie Hebdo. It is fear of indiscriminate violence that nobody dares attack jihadist terror for the fear of retaliation. Hence, we see the glorification and legitimation of jihadi terror. For the Left, the means of Jihadi terror do not matter as long as the end is achieved by whatever means—loot, plunder, rape, murder. That makes them strange bedfellows. Why this doublethink and speak? Are we in an Orwellian world of Dystopia where war is peace, ignorance is strength. Doublethink is the power of holding two contradictory belief in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. Rape, loot, murder, torture and plunder, but the faith is peaceful. The left and the wokes are against religion but not the Islamists and jihadi terror. This is indeed doublethink, speak and dystopia. In the land of the birth of Islam, Saudi Arabia there are no protests supporting Hamas terrorists, nor in many Arab states. Most of them do not take these Palestinian refugees. The journey of the Palestinian struggle is from the secular romance of Yasir Arafat of resistance and his PLO and Fatah party to the savage and fanatic edition of jihadi terrorism of the Hamas that many in the Arab states also condemn. Prince Turki al-Faisal, the former intelligence chief of Saudi Arabia, speaking at Rice University’s Baker Institute (Houston) stated, “I prefer the other option: civil insurrection and disobedience. It brought down the British empire in India and the Soviet empire in Eastern Europe.” Here is another glaring example of doublethink and speak. Moussa Abu Marzouk, head of Hamas’ international relations office in Doha, Qatar, speaking to Frontline and in response to the question on Hamas killing Israeli civilians on 7 October said: “There are also Israeli testimonies that those who killed Israeli civilians was their army because the army bombed the houses surrounding the fighters, killing dozens of civilians, and the extent of the destruction proves that it was at Israeli hands. Our fighters had light weapons and armoured vehicle shells. As for the music festival used by Israeli propaganda to claim that Hamas killed them [people attending it], we did not know that there was a festival in that area. The Israeli army and security services arrived at the celebration before the fighters arrived there to evacuate them, so the area became a military zone and clashes occurred. Also, according to the confessions of some Israelis who were witnesses, the Israeli army killed many civilians when it fired missiles.” Frontline, the mouthpiece of the wokes in India, did not even think of cross checking or contesting such statements as part of objectivity and fair-play. In the age of the Hamas, morality has become a part of the progressive pieties in which the motif of victimization continues to be culturally updated, atrocity by atrocity. How the jargon of insensitivity pretends to be a moral position. The tyranny of phrases like Islamophobia seeks to divert attention from the fundamental right to life and land, and creates a doctrine of false consciousness and victimhood out of a staggering mathematics of the dance of rape, loot, murder and death. Today the wokes and Islamists have been the party which is always right. Aron’s prediction can rightly be applied to the woke who is “convinced that it acts with a view to achieving the only future which is worthwhile, sees, and wants to see, the other merely as an enemy to be eliminated, and a contemptible enemy at that since he is incapable of wanting the good or of recognising it” as per its dystopia. #IsraelHamasWar Originally Published : The Sunday Guardian, 5th November' 2023 https://sundayguardianlive.com/opinion/doublethink-doublespeak-and-dystopia Prof. (Dr.) Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit is the Vice Chancellor of the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

By Prof. (Dr.) Bharat H. Desai A flurry of global initiatives and processes have moved forward on the emerging challenge of Artificial Intelligence (AI) since this author wrote Part – I of the SIS Blog Special article: Taming the Beast (July 24, 2023). The UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, in his November 02, 2023 address to the AI Safety Summit (Bletchley Park, London), emphasized that: “the gap between AI and its governance is wide and growing. AI-associated risks are many and varied. Like AI itself, they are still emerging, and they demand new solutions”. Interestingly, notwithstanding the new technology driven challenges, the basic architecture of International Law is capable of addressing these hitherto unforeseen challenges. As a corollary, the question of governance of AI shall have to be within the established tenets and realm of International Law. “The principles for AI governance should be based on the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We urgently need to incorporate those principles into AI safety”, the UNSG said. The Regulatory Blitzkrieg Within limits of time and space, this author has sought to review and place under scanner three global processes comprising (i) the US President’s Executive Order (October 30, 2023), (ii) the UK-led AI Safety Summit (November 1-2, 2023) and (iii) the forthcoming India Chaired Global Partnership Summit on AI (December 12-14, 2023). (i) The US Executive Order on AI 2023 Since the US President Joe Biden hosted a White House meet on July 21, 2023 of a group of seven leading AI behemoths (Amazon, Anthropic, Google, Inflection, Meta, Microsoft, and OpenAI), there has been heightened urgency to ‘tame the beast’. It has been a sequel to the adoption of the “blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights” (October 2022) for making automated systems work for the people. In the aftermath of the “voluntary commitments to the White House” (July 21, 2023), the US president has issued an Executive Order on October 30, 2023 entitled: Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence. In calibrated moves, the US Executive Order came just two ahead of the UK initiated AI Safety Summit. It was attended by the US Vice-President Kamala Harris. The main thrust of the detailed 12 Section White House Order is to provide guardrails on the most advanced forms of the emerging AI technology that would impinge upon the planetary future. Mandated by the Executive Order, the White House Artificial Intelligence Council, chaired by the Deputy Chief of Staff on Policy, appears to be all powerful as comprises the entire Washington power structure with 28 plus members. Primarily intended to secure the US, the Executive Order aims to “address cross-border and global AI risks to critical infrastructure”, yet seeks to play a role in “ensuring the safe, responsible, beneficial, and sustainable global development and adoption of AI”. The opening up and prioritization of AI is taking shape even as brutal wars are raging in conflicts zones wherein one fourth (2 billion) of the global population lives. It provides us a beacon of hope with enormous potential to make things work by marshalling unfathomable human ingenuity for our safe future. The US Executive Order underscores the inherent predicament of ‘taming the beast’ of AI. It emphatically states: “Responsible AI use has the potential to help solve urgent challenges while making our world more prosperous, productive, innovative, and secure. At the same time, irresponsible use could exacerbate societal harms such as fraud, discrimination, bias, and disinformation; displace and disempower workers; stifle competition; and pose risks to national security. Harnessing AI for good and realizing its myriad benefits requires mitigating its substantial risks. This endeavor demands a society-wide effort that includes government, the private sector, academia, and civil society” (Section 1). It sums up the predicament of grappling with a technology that can be put to good or bad use – akin to the proverbial riding of a tiger. (ii) AI Safety Summit 2023 Quick on the heels of the White House Executive Order (October 30, 2023), the US Vice-President chose to personally attend British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s initiative on the AI Safety Summit. Regarded as a major “diplomatic coup”, the event showcased political and commercial heft. Invoking the pioneering role of Alan Turing who cracked the Enigma cipher at Bletchley Park (during World War – II), Rishi Sunak reflected upon the global concerns and observed: “nothing in our foreseeable future that will be more transformative for our economies, our societies and all our lives…than the development of technologies like Artificial Intelligence”. Articulating his initiative for the AI Safety Summit, the British PM described it as a “conversation” to “tip the balance in favor of humanity” by bringing together “CEOs of world-leading AI companies…with countries most advanced in using it…and representatives from across academia and civil society”. It speaks volumes about the UK’s institutionalized University based research traditions and societal values for innovations as it brought onboard the academia alongside the AI corporate honchos. It wasn’t surprising that, immediately after his Coronation, King Charles chose to visit a University (Cambridge) that annually contributes almost £30 billion to the UK economy. In order to cement UK’s position as a “world leader” in AI safety, Rishi Sunak promptly announced the setting up of the AI Safety Institute by placing the Frontier AI Taskforce on a permanent footing. The Bletchley Park Declaration (November 01, 2023), as an outcome of the AI Safety Summit, resolved that “AI should be designed, developed, deployed, and used, in a manner that is safe, in such a way as to be human-centric, trustworthy and responsible. We welcome the international community’s efforts so far to cooperate on AI to promote inclusive economic growth, sustainable development and innovation, to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms, and to foster public trust and confidence in AI systems to fully realise their potential”. As a corollary, the participating 28 countries and the European Union affirmed their resolve to “sustain an inclusive global dialogue that engages existing international fora and other relevant initiatives and contributes in an open manner to broader international discussions, and to continue research on frontier AI safety to ensure that the benefits of the technology can be harnessed responsibly for good and for all. We look forward to meeting again in 2024”. In his address (Nov. 02, 2023) to the AI Safety Summit, the Secretary-General of the 193-member UN, Antonio Guterres sounded a note of caution that any “global oversight of emerging artificial intelligence (AI) technology should be based on the UN Charter’s core principles and ensure full respect for human rights”. This encapsulates the essence of the future pathway and raison d'être of the proposed global instrument on AI (that may carry nomenclature of a compact, treaty, convention, agreement, covenant or charter) (iii) Global Partnership on AI Summit 2023 GPAI is a multi-stakeholder, 25 country initiative whose Secretariat is provided by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). It comprises “leading experts from science, industry, civil society, international organizations and government” and aims to “bridge the gap between theory and practice on AI by supporting cutting-edge research and applied activities on AI-related priorities”. GPAI emanated from the Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence (OECD). The Recommendation is premised on “value-based principles for the responsible stewardship of trustworthy AI” articulated as follows: (i) inclusive growth, sustainable development and well-being; (ii) human-centred values and fairness; (iii) transparency and explainability; (iv) robustness, security and safety; and (v) and accountability. Regarded as the OECD’s legal instrument (adopted on May 22, 2019 and amended on November 08, 2023), the ‘recommendation’ can be construed as having binding effect on the OECD member countries. Drawing from these recommendations, the G20 Osaka Summit (June 28-29, 2019) gave shape to its own AI Principles. Significantly, the G7 Digital & Tech Ministers meeting (September 07, 2023), during the Japanese Presidency of G7, within the Hiroshima Artificial Intelligence (AI) Process, decided to collaborate with prominent international organizations and actors including GPAI. One of the important AI technological aspects under GPAI radar is the new generation of “foundational AI models” such as ChatGPT and MidJourney that would require “detection mechanisms” (GPAI; July 2023) as a condition for their public release. In this context, India (whose economy/GDP can gain from AI USD 450–500 billion by 2025) as the Council Chair of the GPAI including the forthcoming New Delhi Ministerial Council (December 13, 2023) could potentially play a pivotal role in giving a big push for concrete blueprint and global regulatory instrument for responsible AI. The Big Unknown and Beyond In view of the “world we live” in as well as opportunities (addressing national security threats), risks (cognitive behavioral manipulation of people, impersonation and deep fakes) and effects arising from the public release of AI products such as generative AI and the “Big Unknown” (future of some 9% or 281 million global workforce), there is an urgent need for concerted global ideational works to address ethical issues and regulatory guardrails in time. It is refreshing that several major players such as China, European Union, India, the UK and the USA have already taken steps or working on prospective regulatory tools. Ironically, even the designers of the AI do not seem to have an idea as to where it will lead us in the future. Still, it is estimated that by 2030 AI could contribute an estimated US $10 and $15 trillion to the global economy. Cumulatively, AI presents a big challenge for the global knowledge architecture especially the Universities. As envisioned by this author (Indian Express, December 11, 2008), the School of International Studies, as a think tank, needs to gear up for AI’s ideational research challenge. In the words of the eminent theoretical physicist, late Prof. Stephen Hawking, “AI is likely to be the best or worst thing to happen to humanity.” In the times of a planetary crisis, the coming together of right-thinking peoples, nations, AI behemoths, international organizations and the civil society provides a ray of hope that there are no limits to human ingenuity. Hence, we can audaciously hope and pray that AI will turn out to be the best thing for humankind and the future of the planet Earth. #AI #BletchleyParkDeclaration #Regulation This Article is a sequel to Taming the Beast : AI - Part I This Article is an Original Contribution to the SIS Blog. Prof. (Dr.) Bharat H. Desai is Professor of International Law and Chairperson of 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 knowledge initiatives for Making SIS Visible (2008-2013) and the Inter-University Consortium: JNU; Jammu; Kashmir; Sikkim (2012-2020) as well as contributes as the Editor-in-Chief of Environmental Policy and Law (IOS Press: Amsterdam)

By Prof. Satishree Dhulipudi Pandit The reaction of those supporting Hamas is cognitive-dissonance reduction. This requires vilifying the victim to uphold one’s prejudices. The banality of evil initially used by Hannah Arendt for Nazism and Fascism seems to fit well for the present crisis inflicted by Hamas terrorists on 7 October 2023 against the state of Israel and its people. The characteristics she brought out fits so well for Jihadi terror. The inhumanity is glaring and the silent majority for whom they claim to fight for don’t have any say, as they don’t live in a democracy in Gaza ruled by the Hamas. Those far away, culturally identify with the Hamas. The enemy then and now are the Jews. Truth is to be found in killing and dying for a fairy tale that claims to replace history. We need to see the terrifying similarities between Nazism and Jihadi terrorism. Hence all people need to wake up and support those fighting against this terrorist peril and not be apologetic for it. If we don’t learn from history, we are condemned to repeat it. One needs to remember the words Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) a prominent Lutheran pastor in Germany, “Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.” 7 October 2023 freezes all humanity and the civilized world order. This is the worst killing of Jews after the Holocaust unleashed by Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist party. The terrorist organizations complicit in this crime refuse to accept democracy, difference, diversity, dissent and deliberations. It is necessary for us to see through this Jihadi terrorism that wants only its way and rule by its fascist policies of uniformity. Drawing on audiotapes of interviews with Eichmann by the Nazi journalist William Sassen, Stangneth shows Eichmann as a self-avowed, aggressive Nazi ideologue strongly committed to Nazi beliefs, who showed no remorse or guilt for his role in the Final Solution—a radically evil Third Reich operative living inside the deceptively normal shell of a bland bureaucrat. Far from being “thoughtless”, Eichmann had plenty of thoughts—thoughts of genocide, carried out on behalf of his beloved Nazi Party. On tape Eichmann admitted to a sort of Jekyll-and-Hyde dualism. In “The Origins of Totalitarianism” (1951), published well before the Eichmann trial, Arendt said: “It is inherent in our entire [Western] philosophical tradition that we cannot conceive of a ‘radical evil’… One saw it unleashed then and now.” Instead of using the Eichmann case as a way forward to advance the tradition’s understanding of radical evil, Arendt decided that his evil was banal, that is, “thought-defying”. By taking a narrow legalistic, formalistic approach to the trial, she emphasised that there were no deeper issues at stake beyond the legal facts of Eichmann’s guilt or innocence—Arendt automatically set herself up for failure as to the deeper why of Eichmann’s evil. The death cult of Jihadi terrorism is legitimized by the power of denial, the faith of exclusion. In “The Origins of Totalitarianism”, she argued that the evil of the Nazis was absolute and inhuman, not shallow and incomprehensible, the metaphorical embodiment of hell itself: “[T]he reality of concentration camps resembles nothing so much as medieval pictures of Hell”, the ideologically evil warrior. How Eichmann’s humdrum life could co-exist with that “other” monstrous evil puzzled her. Thought-defying, his genocidal acts were not. In the final analysis, Arendt did see the true horror of Eichmann’s evil. In Eichmann in Jerusalem, Arendt claimed that there is a “strange interdependence of thoughtlessness and evil”, and that Eichmann’s testimony had revealed the “banality of evil”. Both Islamic Jihad and Hamas are terrorist groups operating in Gaza that are united in their resistance against Israel and extermination of Jews. Both are also funded by and have close ties to Iran, though function independently, Khaled Meshaal designated Friday, October 13, as the “Day of Jihad,” asking Muslims to take to the streets and deliver a message of anger in support of Palestinians. Is Hamas the legal and official spokesperson of the Palestinians? It is important to understand the contemporary usage of the word “Jihad”. Scholar Olivier Roy considers Syed Ahmad to be the first modern Islamic leader to lead a movement that was “religious, military and political” and to address the common people and rulers with a call for jihad. Syed Ahmad is widely regarded as the founder of the subcontinental Ahl-i Hadith movement and his teachings are highly influential amongst its members. Another major group that carries his legacy is the Deobandi school of thought. Scholar Edward Mortimer believes Syed Ahmad anticipated modern Islamists in waging jihad and attempting to create an Islamic state with strict enforcement of Sharia. Syed Ahmad attained the exemplar status of shahid (martyr), one of the highest honours in Islam, and would inspire generations of militant Islamist ideologues and jihadi activists and the return to the pristine Islam of the Salaf, and the purifying of Islamic culture from Western and Shi’i influences through armed jihad. It is this reinterpretation that has blurred the text from its interpretation. The reactions of those supporting Hamas need to be understood as cognitive-dissonance reduction. This requires vilifying the victim to uphold one’s prejudices. This involves four theoretic paradigms of cognitive dissonance, the mental stress people experienced when exposed to information that is inconsistent with their beliefs, ideals or values. The worst demonization of the Jewish state has typically followed the worst atrocities against it. They have failed to recognize the Hamas cult of hate and death of the “other”. They are cowards who use civilians, especially women and children, as shields. They use holy places for their radical evil activities which negates the purpose of any peaceful religion. It is time that all the countries who claim to be peaceful and modern spoke against these fascist terror groups. The Palestinian Resistance has been hijacked by fascist terror with a religious adjective, “political jihad”. It vows annihilation of the “other”, who they term as faithless and a lie. This is nothing but dehumanization and desecularization of the Palestinian campaign. It is also a perversion of martyrdom and a rejection of human life that combines rage with hatred and senseless killing. It is time the civilized world spoke for order instead of terror. Finally the words of W.B. Yeats, which bring out the moral dilemmas of the present extremely divided and polarised world: Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world; The blood dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity. #IsraelHamasWar Originally Published : The Sunday Guardian, 29th October' 2023 https://sundayguardianlive.com/opinion/santishree-dhulipudi-pandit Prof. Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit is the Vice Chancellor of the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

By Prof. (Dr.) Gulshan Sachdeva This year marks a decade since China’s ambitious infrastructure funding project, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), was first outlined by President Xi Jinping. Spanning countries from Africa to Asia and seeing investments of hundreds of billions of dollars, it has also come under criticism over the years about how sustainable these debts may be. Why did China launch the project in 2013, and how does it stand at present? How has India responded to it? Prof. Gulshan Sachdeva explains key aspects of the project and where it stands now after a decade since its inception : What was the idea behind the BRI, and how did these goals evolve over the years? President Xi Jinping announced the Silk Road Economic ‘Belt’ during his visits to Kazakhstan in 2013. The ‘Belt’ plan was to revitalise a series of trading and infrastructure routes between Asia and Europe. Connectivity through Central Asia was a key element of the initiative. Subsequently, President Xi announced a sea trade infrastructure called ‘Road’. This maritime ‘Road’ would connect China with Southeast Asia, Europe and Africa. The major focus has been to build ports, bridges, industry corridors and other infrastructure throughout South East Asia and the Indian Ocean. For some time, together these initiatives were referred to as the One Belt One Road Initiative (OBOR). Since 2015, it has been mostly referred to as the BRI. Initially, the BRI was based on five principles: (1) policy coordination (2) infrastructure connectivity (3) trade (4) financial integration and (5) people-to-people connections. Later, the sixth principle of ‘Industrial cooperation’ was also added. Basically through the BRI, China wanted to resolve two major concerns, viz capital surplus and industrial overcapacity. It was also about increasing Chinese political influence in broader regions. Between 2013 and 2018, the World Bank estimated that investment in BRI projects including energy projects was about $575 billion. Earlier, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) also estimated that the BRI investment projects were likely to add $1 trillion in funding between 2017 and 2027. China has hosted three BRI Forums in the years 2017, 2019, and 2023. These gatherings attracted significant participation from world leaders, leading to the signing of numerous agreements during each of these forums. At the tenth anniversary of the initiative, the Chinese government declared that more than 150 countries and 30 international organisations have embraced the BRI. It was also reported that 3,000 BRI projects valued at $1 trillion, are currently underway across the globe. Originally, the initiative proposed six international Economic Corridors (EC): the New Eurasia Land Bridge; China-Central Asia-West Asia-EC; China-Mongolia-Russia-EC, China-Indochina Peninsula-EC, the China-Pakistan-EC (CPEC); and the Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar (BCIM)-EC. At the second BRI Forum in 2019, a list of 35 major corridors/projects was released. As large number of BRI projects are being carried out in nearly all parts of the world, they are affecting all major economies even if they are not participating in the initiative. Some countries in Africa have praised the project, whereas the likes of India and the United States have accused China of engaging in ‘debt trap diplomacy’ – aiming to own countries’ assets if they are unable to repay the loans. Today, what is its status? Building infrastructure is never risk-free. Any large initiative like the BRI having thousands of infrastructure projects will have many failures as well as success stories. India was the first to point out issues concerning debt trap, lack of transparency and sustainability of BRI projects. Later, the US and the EU also raised similar concerns. But there continues to be a huge infrastructure deficit in the Global South. So despite the criticism, BRI is still an attractive proposition to many developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Strong Chinese strategic financial support has played a crucial role. Economic conditions today are much more difficult than a decade ago. The Chinese have realised some weaknesses. They have already started talking about open, green and clean corridors and linking these projects with Sustainable Developments Goals. But if they follow these rules, some of the projects may not be feasible for funding. At the latest BRI forum held in Beijing earlier this month, a reduced number of heads of state was noticed compared to previous meetings. Can it be said that there has been a cooling off regarding some of the initial enthusiasm? All participants in the BRI projects have learned in the last ten years. Because of geopolitical tensions, the United States has sharpened its criticism of the BRI. In the beginning European policy makers looked at the BRI in a positive manner. The EU itself has been promoting regional integration initiatives throughout the world for decades. The EU and China, in fact, established a connectivity platform in 2015. A large number of European leaders participated in the first two BRI Forums. Of late, however, there has been growing scepticism and apprehensions about Beijing’s intentions and the way many of the projects are being implemented. These evolving perceptions also mirror the EU's reassessment of its relationship with China. Italy’s recent apprehensions of the project and its possible departure from the BRI will be a symbolic setback as it was the only G7 country which had formally joined the initiative. What has progress been like on the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) front? The CPEC has been a flagship BRI project from the beginning. Pakistan is going through a very difficult political and economic phase. But despite some analysts indicating that CPEC projects may create long term problems for the economy, Pakistan is unlikely to abandon the CPEC. The $60 billion CPEC is now central to China-Pakistan “all weather” strategic partnership and bilateral free trade agreement. A large part of the CPEC is energy related projects. The rest of the projects are in the road and railway infrastructure and Gwadar port. There has been some progress: the Sukkur-Multan section of Peshawar-Karachi Motorway, the Havelian-Thakot section of the Karakoram Highway Phase II and the Lahore Orange Line Metro are operational. Many energy projects including coal-fired plants at Sahiwal, Port Qasim and Hub are also operational. Now, a few CPEC projects are also likely to be extended to Afghanistan. What have India’s views been on the BRI? India's position on the BRI has remained relatively consistent since 2013. From the beginning, India had reservations about the BRI – mainly due to sovereignty related issues, as the CPEC goes through the Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), and geopolitical implication of projects in the Indian Ocean. The importance of the Indian Ocean for China has increased significantly due to its expanding trade, energy transport and investments. It started expanding its footprints in India’s neighbourhood through investments in various ports in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Myanmar. As commercial ports could be easily converted into military use, these developments have troubled Indian policy makers and analysts. China's economic presence in India’s neighbourhood, including in South Asia, has already undergone substantial expansion. Moreover, many negative developments in broader India-China ties (trade deficit, border tensions, etc.) have also affected India’s perceptions about the BRI. While India has refrained from endorsing the BRI and has not taken part in any BRI Forums, it has been an active participant in the China-headquartered Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) since its inception. The Silk Road Fund (SRF) and the AIIB are the two main channels for BRI investment and financing. With about $10 billion in borrowing, which is about 20 per cent of AIIB’s total lending, India has emerged as a top market for the agency. Many in the West have flagged the slowdown in the Chinese economy in recent years. Could this impact BRI projects? For a long time, the world was used to the narrative of the rise and rise of China. In 2019, the Chinese economy was 42 times larger than what it was in 1980. In the last fifteen years, China was also a major contributor to global growth. As the economy matured, “going out” through the BRI was expected to provide another push for growth. Some slowdown in growth was already factored into the BRI strategy. However, current geopolitical tensions resulting in “decoupling’ or ‘de-risking’ measures by the US, Europe, and many others to reduce their own economic dependence on China might adversely affect the Chinese economy as well as BRI expansion. In the wake of these developments, China will have to re-strategize some of the BRI projects. How do these domestic worries impact the standing of Xi Jinping, who is now in his third term as the head of the Chinese state and the Communist Party? Undoubtedly, the BRI stands as President Xi's most ambitious foreign policy endeavour. In 2017, he dubbed it the "project of the century" and it is a part of his long-term dream of a China-dominated world. Despite facing criticism, the BRI has already cultivated substantial diplomatic and geopolitical leverage for China within the Global South. The West is still scrambling to provide an alternative to the BRI in terms of infrastructure investments. Faced with a challenging geopolitical and economic landscape, China is now adjusting its ambitions, aiming to pivot towards green and smaller-scale development projects. Indeed, the success of other ambitious China-led diplomatic and economic plans, like the Global Security Initiative and the Global Development Initiative, hinges largely on the BRI's success. #BRI #TenYears Originally Published : The Indian Express, 30th October' 2023 https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-global/expert-explains-10-years-chinas-bri-xi-jinping-status-explained-9004356/ Posted on SIS Blog with the Authorisation of the Author Prof. (Dr.) Gulshan Sachdeva is a Professor, at the Centre for European Studies and Coordinator, at the Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence, at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.

By Prof. (Dr.) Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit Universal values form the foundation for moral and ethical judgments, distinguishing right from wrong. Failure to adhere to these values is viewed as a breach of morality and ethics. The gruesome barbaric attack on Israel on 7 October 2023 by Hamas terrorists needs to be condemned by all. Many celebrated the attack, even though it involved the gruesome killing of the elderly, raping of women, parading them naked and beheading of children. No State can remain a mute spectator to this. Where were the wokes, the peacefuls and the human rights lobby then? There was silence of the graveyard. Let me congratulate PM Modi for the courageous stand of supporting peace and order against terror where rape, loot and plunder are being normalized. This war is about order versus terror. These people tell us that Terror has no religion. Then why is there support to terror groups? Indiscriminate violence and barbarity cannot be part of any peaceful religions. Then there are issues of interpreting values; are values universal or unique? Values, defined as “desirable, trans situational goals, varying in importance, that serve as guiding principles in people’s lives” play a pivotal role in shaping human behaviour and societal norms. However, the landscape of values is intricate, marked by universal principles, objections to their universality, and the nuanced use of values in different contexts. Universality in values involves shared core principles across diverse cultures, societies, and historical periods. Isaiah Berlin’s perspective emphasizes that universal values are held by many individuals across various situations, consciously or expressed in behaviour. Amartya Sen offers an alternative lens, suggesting universality when all people have a reason to believe a value is valuable. Universal values form the foundation for moral and ethical judgments, distinguishing right from wrong. Failure to adhere to these values is viewed as a breach of morality and ethics. The existence of universal values sparks debates in moral philosophy and cultural anthropology. The transcendence of cultural, religious, and geographical boundaries characterizes these values. Samuel Huntington’s influential thesis on the “Clash of Civilizations” adds a layer to the discourse on universal values. Huntington suggests cultural and civilizational differences will be the primary sources of conflict in the post-Cold War world. This challenges the assumption of universal values, proposing a world where distinct civilizations have divergent values and interests. He believes that some of the factors contributing to this conflict are that both Christianity (upon which Western civilization is based) and Islam are missionary religions, seeking conversion of others and Universal, “all-or-nothing” religions, in the sense that it is believed by both sides that only their faith is the correct one. These teleological religions represent the goals of existence and purpose in human existence. More recent factors contributing to a Western-Islamic clash, Huntington wrote, are the Islamic resurgence and demographic explosion in Islam, coupled with the values of Western universalism—that is, the view that all civilizations should adopt Western values—that infuriate Islamic fundamentalists. All these historical and modern factors combined, Huntington wrote briefly in his Foreign Affairs article and in much more detail in his 1996 book, would lead to a bloody clash between the Islamic and Western civilizations. Core state conflicts can arise out of fault line conflicts when core states become involved. Huntington suggests cultural and civilizational differences will be the primary sources of conflict in the post-Cold War world. This challenges the assumption of universal values, proposing a world where distinct civilizations have divergent values and interests. Moral relativism opposes the concept of universal moral values, asserting that moral principles are context-dependent. Aesthetic relativism extends beyond aesthetics, challenging the universality of values within different cultural norms. The universal values are justice that emphasizes fairness, impartiality, and equitable resource distribution. It guides ethical judgments and interventions promoting equality. Promotes empathy and kindness, particularly towards those in need. It is essential in designing interventions that enhance social support networks. It acknowledges the intrinsic value of all living beings and guides behaviours prioritizing environmental care and well-being. Finally, integrity emphasizes honesty, truthfulness, and adherence to moral principles and informs interventions fostering trust and reliability in societal interactions. Individuals and organizations often camouflage parochial values as “universal” to gain acceptance and popularity. Terrorism, disguised as “freedom movement,” exemplifies the misuse of universal values for political ends. Woke culture often positions itself as a champion of universal values, emphasizing principles like equality, justice, and inclusivity. Advocates argue that these values should be universally accepted, yet challenges arise in the selective application and potential clash with cultural relativism. It is hardly surprising to realize woke culture’s impact on freedom of expression, potential polarization, and the fostering of an “us vs. them” mentality. Huntington predicts and describes the great clashes that will occur among civilizations. First, he anticipates a coalition or cooperation between Islamic and Sinic cultures to work against a common enemy, the West. Three issues that separate the West from the rest are identified by Huntington as: The West’s ability to maintain military superiority through the nonproliferation of emerging powers. The promotion of Western political values such as human rights and democracy. The restriction of non-Western immigrants and refugees into Western societies. Non-western countries see all three aspects as a western attempt to enforce and maintain their status as the cultural hegemon. Unique values are beliefs and principles specific to particular cultures, communities, or individuals. This is Influenced by history, geography, religion, and tradition. Examples include cultural traditions, religious beliefs, and personal values shaped by individual experiences. Cultural tradition includes specific customs, rituals, and practices that are important within a culture. It may not be shared universally, contributing to cultural diversity. Religious beliefs include teachings and doctrines of various religions guiding moral and ethical conduct and significant differences exist between faiths, influencing diverse values. Personal values: but one should remember the common quote here: “You don’t need religion to have morals. If you can’t determine right from wrong, then you lack empathy not religion.” Individual values are shaped by personal experiences, upbringing, and belonging. Priorities such as family, career, or environmental stewardship are examples. Certain values are unique to specific cultures, religions, and societies, resisting easy implementation in other contexts. Contentious ideas like tolerance for violence or marriage practices showcase the diversity of unique values. Unique values often become instrumental in propaganda dissemination. Groups package their ideas as unique values but strive to connect them with larger universal values to gain mass support. Conflicts arise when universal values clash with a nation’s unique values, such as cultural or religious practices. International organizations and diplomatic negotiations traditionally mediate these conflicts by facilitating discussions for mutually acceptable solutions. However, recent trends suggest a shift in international organizations from platforms for engagement to instruments of power projection and manipulation. In instances like the Hamas-Israel war, international organizations have diverted discussions towards the morality of Israel’s retaliation towards a terrorist attack. Furthermore, failed experiments with forced multiculturalism in some Western countries highlight the dangers of prioritizing unique values at the expense of universal values, challenging the very foundations of cooperation and stability. #ClashOfCivilisations #IsraelHamasWar Originally Published : The Sunday Guardian, 22nd October' 2023 https://sundayguardianlive.com/opinion/universal-vs-unique-values-multiculturalism-vs-monoculturalism Prof. Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit is the Vice Chancellor of the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.

By Prof. (Dr.) Gulshan Sachdeva Europe’s support to Israel is fine but justifying many of the actions by Tel Aviv including the seize of Gaza is not going to be easy for the EU. Europeans have accused Russia of war crimes for similar activities in Ukraine. While the war in Ukraine served to unite the European Union (EU) as a cohesive bloc, the Israel-Hamas war has underscored its existing weaknesses. The varying interests among European nations naturally lead to divisions on numerous foreign policy matters. In this case, however, even the European Council President Charles Michel, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and their foreign policy chief Josep Borrell initially did not share a unified stance. The EU also reversed its decision to halt financial assistance to Palestine. From the initial disorganised response, it appears that there is now a greater level of co-ordination occurring both within the EU and among its member states. During an extraordinary European Council meeting, the EU nations condemned the terrorist attack by Hamas, recognised Israel's right to self-defence, and highlighted their commitment to lasting and sustainable peace based on the two-state solution. In an unfolding situation, the European Parliament later shared similar points and also called for both an independent investigation of the Al-Ahli hospital blast in Gaza, and a humanitarian pause. So far, Israel's air strikes have resulted in the loss of more than 5,000 lives in Gaza. The UNRWA reported that more than 400,000 internally displaced people are now being sheltered by the agency in Gaza. As Israel prepares for a ground offensive, the EU foreign ministers have not yet reached a consensus to request a ‘humanitarian pause’, as advised by the European Parliament. It is a different issue whether Israel or Hamas are heeding the EU's appeal. French President Emmanuel Macron is the latest European leader to make a ‘solidarity’ visit to Tel Aviv since Hamas’ October 7 attack. So far, von der Leyen, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, and British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak have visited Israel to show their support. To ease tensions, many European leaders also took part in the recent Cairo peace summit, organised by the Egyptian President. This included the President of the European Council, along with prime ministers from Italy, Spain, and Greece, as well as foreign ministers from France, and Germany, the British foreign secretary, and the EU foreign policy chief. A few days ago, German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, alongside the majority of major political parties, participated in a pro-Israel rally in Berlin. Similar events have taken place in Paris, London, and other European cities. Meanwhile, the two EU countries with the largest Jewish and Muslim communities, Germany and France, have prohibited pro-Palestine protests due to concerns about public order and the increase in antisemitic incidents. Still, thousands of pro-Palestine protestors continue to march across Europe including in London, Paris, Rome, Berlin, and Marseille. Traditionally, many of the far-Right parties in Europe have been synonymous with antisemitism. Interestingly, some of them now see an opportunity to push for their anti-Islamist agenda through the Israel-Hamas war. This is especially evident when many liberal and Leftist parties have somewhat nuanced positions on the activities associated with Hamas and other groups. The liberal-Leftist positions reflect the complex nature of the Israel-Palestine issue, and their strong support base among immigrant communities. The war in Ukraine has already impacted growth and pushed up inflation in Europe. The current economic situation in the Eurozone is showing worrying signs. Furthermore, the emerging political tensions resulting from Israel's military campaign and the possibility of a new wave of refugees from Gaza heading towards Europe could further bolster far-Right populists. The situation will also become increasingly untenable as civilian casualties in Gaza continue to rise daily. The support to Israel is fine but justifying many of the actions by Tel Aviv including the seize of Gaza is not going to be easy for the EU. Europeans have accused Russia of war crimes for similar activities in Ukraine. While many European leaders are advocating for the relaunch of the Palestinian peace process, the extent of Europe's influence on the process remains uncertain, even if it were to be initiated. In the past Europe along with the US had some influence over the events in West Asia. However, in the altered geopolitical landscape, Europe must also deal with other key players, including China, Russia, Iran, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. Moreover, within Europe, there is a perspective as articulated by the Latvian Foreign Minister, emphasising that alongside other endeavours, Europe should not divert its attention from Ukraine. The Israel-Hamas war and the potential for it to escalate into a broader regional crisis have exposed Europe for its spillover effects. It has also revealed Europe's constraints, particularly when it is already dealing with the war in Ukraine. #IsraelHamasWar #Europe #Security #ForeignPolicy #Palestine Originally Published : The Deccan Herald, 26th October' 2023 https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/israel-hamas-war-exposes-europes-vulnerabilities-2742421 Posted in SIS Blog with the Authorisation of the Author Prof. (Dr.) Gulshan Sachdeva is Professor at the Centre for European Studies and Coordinator, Jean Monnet Centre of Excellence, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.

By Srijan Sharma Introduction The Middle East region is reeling under the burning ashes of war between Israel and Hamas. Once again, the Israel and Palestine conflict has come into focus, not by light flare but uncontrolled fire, which has pushed the Middle East back into its old days of heightened tensions snowballing into full-fledged war. After Russia-Ukraine crisis in Europe, another war frontier opened in the Middle East, which will alter the regional geopolitical balance. A three-pronged invasion by Hamas terrorists into the Southern part of Israel and later wreaking havoc on Israeli citizens across regions have stunned the whole world, making a 26/11 for Israelis. However, Hamas pulling off an attack of such magnitude has raised serious questions over its sterling Intel agencies, Mossad and domestic Intelligence Agency Shinbet. Didn't they see it coming, or did they underestimate it? However, the changing dynamics of Middle East geopolitics in overhang also played some role in misting Israel's Intelligence glass. Changing Middle East Power Balance The thaw between Israel and Arab began with a series of agreements from Camp David, Oslo to Abraham Accord which have acted as a catalyst in placing the power base of the Middle East to some rest, giving way for regional forces to converge for their regional and national interests like Saudi Arabia is doing to add pace to its Vision 2030. China- Pakistan, India- US quadrilateral on wide-ranging strategic interests also get some breathing space to up their ante in the region. Operation Sankalp's India's maritime engagement in the Middle Eastern region to ensure the security of Indian vessels in Middle Eastern waters got some breather when the Abraham Accords happened as accords to some extent will help the routes along major trade centers- Dubai and Abu Dabi do not become targets between Jerusalem and Tehran covert warfare. Similarly, New Delhi's Look West Policy got the fillip to engage with Arab, the visit of former Army Chief General M.M Narvane to UAE and Saudi in December 2020 (first Army Chief to do so) to strengthen strategic cooperation. China brokering peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia prepared a base for its economic ingressions in the region. US's mounting West Asian QUAD and IU2U to increase its geopolitical relevance in the Middle East amid the cold war with Saudi and checkmating China and Russia are some examples of geopolitical crisscrossing. From time to time, these geopolitical configurations control the possibility of conflict in the region and attempt to increase stability. Still, at the same time, the thawing of relations antagonises the Arab players sitting at the extreme ends- Lebanon, and their proxies, which again puts the Middle East on the burning matchbox. Recently, when various initiatives such as the Middle East Corridor at G20 and normalisation phenomena between Saudi Arabia and Israel came into focus, a trigger perhaps went off where the extreme ends of the region stirred the hornet nest and, therefore, the intermixing of power games with ideologies and fundamentalism kept the balance of power in a capacious position. Israel's Vengeance Hamas's deadliest terror strike on Israel has triggered a spine-chilling retaliation by Israel launching Operation Iron Sword, which involves heavily striking Hamas locations across Gaza. Continued pounding bombs, air strikes, targeting banks, media houses, and whatnot have paralysed the Gaza strip. There is little doubt that Israel will not stop sooner or later, and its wrath will continue. It wouldn't be correct now to say that the balance of power or the geopolitical force of the Middle East is in a capacious position; it is on the verge of collapse. Israel won't stop; the Arab world, involving, Syria, Lebanon, and Qatar, would mobilise along with Hezbollah and Hamas backed by Iran. This hot axis of the Middle East will give another strategic shock not only to the region but to the world again if not controlled as it did in 1973 by let losing the oil crises. Interestingly, Israel's vengeance mode will provide the US a small opening to establish its hard power relevance in Middle East after decades which will to some extent revive its security architecture which came under heavy storm during Russia-Ukraine war. However, the US will have some risks in navigating its hard power influence viz-a viz Israel, as many more regional players, especially Saudi Arabia, won't let this go unnoticed. How many power alterations will the Middle East see, especially the conflict of territories, which have a chance to see some makeovers in a few days? Perhaps its answer requires some patience and tight observance in the coming days. Mossad's Colossal Miss The memories of the 1973 Yim Kippur War seem to be refreshed when, for the first time, Israel was caught off guard in failing to rightly assess Egypt's intentions and threats emanating from them in a war-like situation. This led to a surprise hit at Israel, though it wasn't a total surprise as almost at the last moment Mossad did get some intel of Egypt launching an offensive, but as far as Mossad’s assessment was concerned, it fell flat. This failure perhaps significantly contributed to the departure of Golda'Meir's Government and the sacking of its Military Intelligence chief, Eli Ziera, after the Agranant Commission investigated the failure of Israel's defence forces and Intelligence. A close examination of Mossad's miss says that the real problem in Israel's famed intel agency does not lie in Intelligence gathering or awareness of the threat; the real problem lies in the assessment and feedback part, which is an integral part of the Intelligence cycle. Often, biased or half-baked assessments and underestimated feedback have made nations pay a heavy price. There is a difference where perhaps Mossad faltered, not in Intelligence gathering but in Intelligence management, where the Intel agency often makes errors with Intelligence in hand either by assessing it through prejudiced or biased perspective or the feedback on the Intel in hand is underestimated. The same episode of Intelligence management failure with Mossad happened in 1973, when the Intel agency failed to realise that Egypt, having no counter to Israeli air power, would attack Israel, but to surprise, Egypt hit hard from the ground by well-designed complex offensive plans through missiles. Similarly, the 7th October attack intel was perhaps well received by Mossad, but they underestimated Hamas's capability of carrying out a well-coordinated three-pronged attack. The reasons for not endorsing a good feedback and threat assessment on this intel would perhaps be three reasons: 1) Too much confidence investment in Israel's technological drive- Iron Dome, border security, surveillance capabilities, etc. 2) Middle East normalisation perhaps misted Israel's lenses as thawing rules out misadventures. 3) Israel's divided attention in domestic politics(West Bank politics) and Iran's nuclear obsession kept Mossad under the impression that Iran won't sabotage as Iran is already engaged in a diplomatic circus around JCPOA. As strategic affairs expert and national security analyst Praveen Swami notes, "successful conduct of war demands endless intellectual creativity.". Another senior Israeli journalist notes that intelligence failure is attributed to "sinful arrogance of the Israeli defence establishment". The three-pronged attack was almost a construct of intellectual creativity that defeated Israeli famed technologies at the borders. Such realisation of error is required in the Intelligence agencies, especially those with gold status, to build strategic foresight and prevent misting their intelligence glass with prejudiced or underestimated feedback. Iran has allegedly sabotaged Middle East normalisation for now, and what scenario lies ahead is more blazing and anxiety-ridden. #IsraelHamarWar #WestAsia #MiddleEast #IsraelPalestineConflict This Article is an Original Contribution to the SIS Blog. Srijan Sharma is a national security analyst specializing in Intelligence and security analysis and working as a Research Assistant in India's premier and prestigious national security and foreign policy think tank United Service Institution of India(USI). Previously, he has extensively written on matters of security and strategic affairs for various institutions, journals, and newspapers (Telegraph), The Print, and the Organiser. Also, he served as Defence Editor for a journal.