Friday
March 29, 2024
Home Blog

Golden Crescent: Global Danger Zone

By: Deeplaxmi Patil, Research Analyst, GSDN

Golden Crescent: source Internet

Introduction

Nestled amidst the rugged terrain and towering peaks of Central Asia lies a region for its pivotal role in the global opium trade, the Golden Crescent. Encompassing the mountainous landscapes of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan, this sprawling expanse serves as the epicentre of opium production and distribution on an unprecedented scale. Despite Iran’s position as a transit country rather than a primary producer, its significance within this illicit network cannot be understated.

The Golden Crescent pulsates with the relentless clandestine operations, orchestrated by a network of smugglers deeply enmeshed in organized crime. Within this shadowy realm, narcotics and weapons, traverse borders seamlessly, guided by the hands of insurgents, terrorists and state-sponsored agents. These actors, driven by a nexus of greed and geopolitical agendas, exploit the region’s tumultuous landscape of war, violence, and political instability to perpetuate their nefarious enterprises.

Among the labyrinthine corridors of this illicit trade, certain groups have emerged as key players, that privy to the clandestine dealings of the Golden Crescent. Baloch separatists, the Quetta Shura Taliban and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps cast a long shadow over the opium trade, leveraging its lucrative profits to fund their operations and further their agendas.

Furthermore, this illicit commerce extends far beyond the confines of the Golden Crescent, reaching into the heartlands of India. States such as Jammu and Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan, and Gujarat find themselves ensnared in the web of opium production, their proximity to the Indo-Pakistan border rendering them both lucrative markets and strategic supply routes for the flow of hashish and heroin.

Routes to the Golden Crescent

Smugglers operating within the Golden Crescent employ a multitude of intricate methods, often enlisting the aid of local communities in their illicit endeavours. These strategies encompass a range of approaches, from utilizing small trucks and heavily armed vehicle convoys to smuggling on foot or with the assistance of pack animals such as donkeys and camels. The flow of narcotics out of Afghanistan predominantly follows three principal pipelines, each carving distinct paths across the geopolitical landscape.

Firstly, the Balkan route, traversing through Iran and Turkey to reach Europe, stands as the preeminent artery of opiate trafficking globally. Its bustling activity underscores its status as the busiest conduit for the movement of illicit substances.

Secondly, the northern route extends through Central Asia, funnelling opium and heroin towards Russia via Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. However, this trajectory has contributed to a burgeoning HIV epidemic in Russia, primarily attributed to intravenous drug use stemming from the influx of narcotics along this pathway.

Lastly, the southern route serves as a vital channel for heroin emanating from Afghanistan, meandering through Pakistan and Iran before disseminating to destinations across South Asia, African nations and the Oceania region. This route often relies on sea transport, capitalizing on the expansive reach of the Indian Ocean. The vast expanse of this maritime domain poses significant challenges for authorities tasked with interception and patrol efforts, thereby facilitating the efficiency of drug smugglers.

In response to the escalating concerns surrounding narcotics trafficking within the Indian Ocean region, concerted efforts have been made to address this pressing issue. The Colombo Declaration, adopted with the aim of establishing the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) as a “Drug-Free Zone,” represents a pivotal step towards combating the proliferation of illicit substances within this strategic maritime domain.

Efforts to Combat the Drug Menace in the Golden Crescent Region

In response to the escalating global prevalence of drug usage, nations across Asia and Europe are heightening their attempts to tackle the menace of narcotics while fostering collaboration through regional initiatives. Playing a pivotal role in this, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) is actively involved in the combat against drug trafficking within the Golden Crescent region, primarily through its Regional Programme for Afghanistan and Neighbouring Countries.

Central to the objectives of this program is the enhancement of anti-drug capabilities among participating states by advocating for cooperation and facilitating the exchange of crucial information. A notable initiative spearheaded by the UNODC is the Triangular Initiative, which seeks to forge a collaborative effort between Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan in combating the illegal drug trade.

Within the framework of this initiative, these nations engage in joint operations aimed at disrupting the illicit flow of narcotics across their shared borders. Facilitating this coordinated approach is a Joint Planning Cell situated in Tehran, serving as a hub for intelligence sharing among the involved parties.

To bolster their operational effectiveness, Strategic Border Liaison Offices have been strategically designated along the shared borders of these countries, enabling prompt and synchronized responses to trafficking activities. Since, its inception in 2009, the Triangular Initiative has executed 11 joint operations, including a significant operation in March 2011, resulting in the seizure of over three tonnes of illicit drugs.

Issues with the Golden Crescent

The widespread cultivation and trafficking of opium in the Golden Crescent region has far-reaching consequences, extending beyond the realm of drug-related activities and significantly impacting the socio-economic landscape.

Escalating Opiate Consumption: The proliferation of opium production in these regions has fuelled a surge in opiate consumption among populations across South East and Central Asia. This upsurge in drug use poses significant public health challenges and exacerbates existing social issues.

HIV/AIDS Epidemic: The rampant trafficking and consumption of opiates have contributed to the spread of HIV/AIDS within the region and beyond. This epidemic has particularly ravaged areas facilitating the rapid transmission of the virus.

Financing Non-State Actors: Non-state actors, including insurgent groups and terrorist organizations, capitalize on the proceeds generated from illegal drug trafficking to fund their operations. This convergence of narcotics trade and insurgent activities perpetuates instability and undermines efforts for peace and development in affected areas.

Taliban Involvement: The Taliban government in Afghanistan has long been implicated in the opium trade, utilizing it as a lucrative source of revenue to sustain its economy and fund its activities. The exploitation of the drug trade by such entities further compounds the challenges faced in combating illicit narcotics trafficking.

Linkages to Other Crimes: The proceeds generated from illegal drug trafficking often find their way into financing various other criminal activities, including money laundering and naxalism. This interconnected web of criminality amplifies security concerns and hampers efforts for law enforcement and governance.

Conclusion

In the heart of Central Asia, the Golden Crescent stands as a stark testament to the intertwined complexities of geopolitics, illicit trade, and societal challenges. With its vast opium production and distribution networks spanning across Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, this region remains a focal point of global concern. The consequences of the Golden Crescent’s prolific opium trade reverberate far beyond its borders, fuelling the rise of organized crime, exacerbating public health crises such as HIV/AIDS, and providing funding for non-state actors and insurgent groups. The entrenchment of the drug trade within the fabric of society poses significant obstacles to regional stability, development, and security.

Addressing the myriad issues plaguing the Golden Crescent demands a multifaceted approach that encompasses not only law enforcement measures but also initiatives aimed at socio-economic development, public health interventions, and regional cooperation. Only through concerted efforts and collaboration can the Golden Crescent begin to shed its notorious legacy and chart a path towards a brighter future for the generations to come.

South China Sea: The New Centre of Geopolitics

By: Sourishree Ghosh, Research Analyst, GSDN

South China Sea: source Internet

The South China Sea (SCS) is the new arena of geopolitical competition and rivalry. The South China Sea not only holds a regional but also global importance. Geographically, this region encompasses a portion of the Pacific region stretching roughly from Singapore and the Strait of Malacca in the Southwest, to the Strait of Taiwan in the northeast. Historically, the South China Sea played a crucial role as an important trade route which led to economic growth in the countries of the Asia-Pacific Region. The geopolitical competition for influence in the South China Sea has been a sphere of contestation among various regional powers including China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan. This region has assumed significant geopolitical significance in the region, thereby has become the latest geopolitical hotspot in the present context of world affairs. The article aims to delve into the economic and geostrategic importance of the South China Sea to understand the geopolitical power play in the region.

Economic and Geostrategic Importance of the South China Sea

The political geography of the South China Sea is one of the factors determining the geopolitical significance of this region. The region is at the crossroads of the international maritime routes which connect the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. The global economic importance of this region also lies in the fact that it accounts for over one-third of global maritime traffic, connecting the vast major economies and connecting Asia with the markets of Europe, Africa and Americas. The South China Sea accounts for more than 60% of the global maritime trade, more than 22% of the total global trade and one third of the global shipping.

It is a crucial hub of trade for the economies of East Asia, South Asia, South Asia and beyond. About a million people rely upon the marine economy of the SCS. The access to the energy reserves and fisheries are at risk and it is vital to the lifeline of several South Asian states. This region is the main artery of trade in Southeast Asia which links waterways from Singapore and Malaysia to Indonesia, the Philippines and Taiwan. This dispute over the South China Sea is a multifaceted dispute. An example is the 105-kilometre-long Singapore Strait which is integral for economic security of Singapore as it is placed on the most critical sea lanes of communication (SLOC). If there is disruption in the South China Sea, there would be severe damage and disruption to the global supply chain. A study by Kerem Cosar and Benjamin Thomas, University of Virginia, published as a working paper by the US National Bureau of Economic Research, states that major Asia-Pacific economies could potentially incur a loss of up to 12% of their GDP in the situation of the closure of key trade routes of the region. Therefore, the South China Sea is a maritime choke point.

According to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, an estimated US$3.37 trillion worth, or 21% of all global trade passed through this region in 2016. The SCS is also a geopolitical chokepoint for the economies connected to this region. The South China Sea accounts for trade which is equivalent to 5% of the global GDP. The region is also a very important world energy trade route as almost a third of the global crude oil and over half of the global liquefied natural gas (LNG) passes through the South China Sea every year. According to estimates, the South China Sea contains about 190 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of natural gas reserves and 11 billion barrels of untapped oil reserves. The competition over access to these resources have been the source of geopolitical conflict among the nations.

China’s imports and exports flow through these waters, so the SCS is integral to the economic and energy security of the region. This region is also one of the biggest maritime routes of the Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). It is also estimated by the US Energy Information Administration, that about 4.7 trillion cubic feet of LNG (which is around 40% of the global LNG trade) passes through this region. So, the energy security of the extra regional as well as regional countries are dependent on the South China Sea. The Sea also contains important mineral resources including rare earth elements. These minerals play a crucial role in modern technology and manufacturing. The freedom of navigation in the SCS, which means that all nations can travel through the sea and utilise the sea for various purposes without the interference or intervention from other nations. According to the Department of Environment and Natural resources, Philippines, the SCS accounts for one-third of the entire world’s marine biodiversity. The region accounts for around 12% of the world’s fish catch. Moreover, its untapped reserves of oil and natural gas are significant, which is estimated to be around 11 billion barrels of oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. This is integral for the economic growth of the littoral nations.

There are critical security issues with regard to maritime safety and infrastructure in this region. The South China Sea faces the problem of overfishing and this has led to imbalance in the maritime ecosystem of this region. The significance of preserving the marine ecosystem of this region requires maritime cooperation from all nations. Blake Herzinger, civilian Ind0-Pacific defence policy expert, pointed out that food security in the South China Sea can quickly cause national instability in the Southeast Asia region.

Major Players and their Interests in the South China Sea

South China Sea is characterised by an intersection of territorial demands and strategic importance, thereby making it one of the most contentious regions of the world. There are major regional security challenges of this region on account of the ongoing disputes over the islands, reefs and waters. This geopolitical rivalry among major powers has also threatened the peace and stability of this region. There are many regional and extra-regional countries which are shaping the evolving dynamics of the South China Sea. This region has also become the latest arena of clash between the US and China.

The most pressing geopolitical conflict is the delicate and complicated territorial disputes of the region. The strategic location of these islands has made the South China Sea a geopolitical hotspot. The Spratly Islands (Nansha Islands) is one of the most disputed islands in this region. It is a resource rich and strategically positioned archipelago. This island is at the heart of the territorial disputes in the South China Sea. Paracel Islands is another site of territorial dispute. This island is the hub of fishing and world’s fourth most productive fishing zone. This also plays a vital role for the economies of China and Vietnam.

The Scarborough Shoal is a subject of conflicting claims between China and the Philippines. The whole conflict in the South China Sea also revolves around China’s contentious “Nine-Dash Line” claim over territories which overlap and clash with the territories of the maritime waters (Exclusive Economic Zones) of the other neighbouring states, namely Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia. Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam. These nations allege that China is establishing its hegemony over this region by militarising this region. The military bases developed by China would give China significant geopolitical leverage in this region and project its power.

The territorial disputes have grown in recent times as states have tried to exert their sovereignty in this region. Historically, the South China Sea has been an arena of disagreements and antagonisms. The regional players such as Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia have high stakes in the region with regard to their national security.

The United States has been playing the role of maintaining the regional equilibrium and supports the claims of some of China’s neighbouring states and implements the Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) and also upholds the commitments under the Mutual Defense Treaty (1951). This treaty mandates mutual assistance if either of the parties is harmed. This injects further complexity into the South China Sea.

A military dispute would lead to disruption of regional equilibrium. China is unilaterally taking aggressive initiatives for changing the status quo in the South China Sea by building artificial islands and militarisation of the SCS. The economic security of China is closely tied with the South China Sea. This region is an arena of geopolitical contestation among major powers. The United States has always maintained a strong presence in the region along with its regional allies, including Japan and the Philippines.

China has been aggressively pursuing its territorial claims and the Chinese Government created artificial islands with military facilities and declared an Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) in the region. Russia also shares its own set of concerns and interests in this region. In August 2023, the US Navy sent destroyer ships to the coast of Alaska when around a dozen of Russian and Chinese warships were spotted in the nearby international waters.

Japan also has high stakes in this region for securing its commercial and energy needs, thereby supporting the freedom of navigation in the region and territorial conflicts. There has been a substantial increase in the military deployment by the US, Philippines and Japan in recent years to uphold the Freedom of Navigation in the international sea.

The South China Sea also holds geostrategic importance for India’s economy in the context of India’s national security. India also has high geopolitical stakes in the region given India’s trade in the Indo-Pacific Region. A Lok Sabha reply states that over 55% of India’s trade passes through the South China Sea and Malacca Straits. So, the evolving dynamics of the South China Sea would also determine the geopolitics of the Indo-Pacific Region. India, as a State party to the UNCLOS, in its foreign policy has put forward its stance that it supports the freedom of navigation and unimpeded commerce based on the principles of international law as reflected in the UNCLOS (UN Convention of the Law of the Sea).

The freedom of navigation through the Special Economic Zones also determines the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the maritime borders of the littoral states. The economic security of the regional states is closely tied with the South China Sea. This region has geopolitical as well as geostrategic importance for the energy and economic security of the littoral countries. To conclude, the ongoing diplomatic tensions in the South China Sea has significant political and economic implications for the future of this region.  

Balochistan: Land of Forced Disappearances

By: Lt Col JS Sodhi (Retd), Editor, GSDN

Pakistan: source mapsofindia.com

Introduction

Balochistan which is the largest of the four provinces of Pakistan by area, has the ignominy of forced disappearances dating back to the 1970s. However, since the early 2000s, enforced disappearances and alleged extrajudicial killings have become a vital tool of Pakistan’s counter-insurgency policy in Balochistan. During these decades, the victims’ families have sometimes received sympathy but never justice. The Pakistani policy towards the problem of forced disappearances and extrajudicial killings has remained one of inaction, but its stance on the issue switches between denial and justification. The rise in forced disappearances in Balochistan has created a grave humanitarian crisis and clouded the socio-political environment of the area. People disappear without a trace, leaving families in turmoil and communities paralyzed by dread and uncertainty.

These people are frequently targeted for their alleged activism or opposition. The disappearances are said to have been planned by governmental agencies and are systematic in nature, which highlights long-standing problems with human rights abuses, governance, and the degradation of civil freedoms. It is critical to promote accountability, openness, and the defense of basic rights as the world community brings attention to this urgent problem. A coordinated effort is needed to address the issue of forced disappearances in Balochistan in order to protect human dignity, respect the rule of law, and create an environment where everyone feels trusted and treated fairly.

History of Forced Disappearances

The history of forced disappearances in Balochistan is deeply entrenched in the region’s tumultuous socio-political narrative, with numerous documented cases highlighting a pattern of systematic human rights abuses. While exact figures are challenging to ascertain due to the clandestine nature of these disappearances, human rights organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have extensively documented numerous cases.

According to Amnesty International’s reports, between 2009 and 2019, over 1,200 cases of enforced disappearances were reported in Balochistan. These cases often involve individuals, including activists, journalists, and students, who are allegedly, abducted by the Pakistani security forces or intelligence agencies. Many of them are held incommunicado, without any official acknowledgment of their detention or whereabouts, denying them access to legal representation or due process.

Human Rights Watch has also raised alarm over the situation in Balochistan, noting a disturbing trend of disappearances and extrajudicial killings targeting Baloch nationalists, students, and intellectuals. The organization’s reports indicate a pervasive climate of fear and intimidation, with families of the disappeared facing harassment and intimidation when seeking information about their loved ones.

The issue of forced disappearances in Balochistan gained international attention in 2011 when the United Nations Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances raised concerns about the alarming number of cases in the region. Despite calls for accountability and justice, perpetrators continue to operate with impunity, exacerbating tensions and perpetuating a cycle of violence and distrust. The history of forced disappearances in Balochistan underscores the urgent need for a transparent and impartial investigation into these grave human rights violations.

Addressing this issue requires concerted efforts from both the Pakistani government and the international community to uphold the rule of law, protect fundamental rights, and ensure accountability for those responsible for these heinous crimes against humanity.

Shocking Statistics of Forced Disappearances

Forced disappearances in Pakistan originated during the military dictator General Pervez Musharraf tenure as the President of Pakistan from 1999 to 2008. The practice continued during subsequent governments. The term missing persons is sometimes used as a euphemism. According to Amina Masood Janjua, a human rights activist and chairperson of Defence of Human Rights Pakistan, there are more than 5,000 reported cases of forced disappearance in Pakistan. Human rights activists allege that the law enforcement agencies in Pakistan are responsible for the cases of forced disappearance in Pakistan. Since 2011, the government of Pakistan established a Commission to investigate cases of enforced disappearance in Pakistan. The Commission reports that it has received 7,000 cases of enforced disappearance since its inception and it claims to have resolved around 5,000 of those cases.

The year 2022 was a dreadful year for Balochistan as Pakistan Army, forcibly disappeared 629, extrajudicially killed 195 and tortured 187 people, according to the annual report released by Paank, the human rights organization of the Baloch National Movement.

The Commission of Inquiry on Enforced Disappearances convened by the Pakistan Government, records 2,752 active cases of enforced disappearances in the province as of January 2024, but Pakistan’s interim Prime Minister claimed in a recent interview with the BBC that only about 50 people are missing.

Futile Protests

Amina Masood Janjua, a human rights activist and chairperson of Defence of Human Rights Pakistan, has stated that there are more than 5,000 reported cases of forced disappearance in Pakistan. Defence of Human Rights Pakistan is a not-for-profit organization working against forced disappearance in Pakistan. The families of missing persons have also staged protest across Pakistan demanding to know the whereabouts their missing family members. The Voice for Baloch Missing Persons, a non-profit organisation representing family members of those who disappeared in Balochistan, says approximately 7,000 cases have been registered with them since 2004.

Complicity of Pakistan Security Forces in Forced Disappearances

There are a number of complicated elements at play when it comes to Pakistani troops’ involvement in forced disappearances in Balochistan. The following are some explanations for why Pakistani soldiers would be drawn to or participating in such activities:

Counterinsurgency Operations: There has been a protracted insurgency movement in Balochistan, with several nationalist organizations of the Baloch people calling for increased autonomy or independence from Pakistan. Targeting activists, suspected separatists, and supporters, the Pakistani military and intelligence services may use forced disappearances as a means of stifling criticism and putting an end to conflict.

Threat to National Security:   Because of their support for separatist or suspected connections to militant activity, some people or organizations in Balochistan may be seen by Pakistani authorities as a threat to the country’s security. Therefore, the government may use forced disappearances.

Retaining Control and Authority:   Pakistani military may use forced disappearances as a means of quashing opposition and generating terror in Balochistan. This will help them to hold onto power and keep control over the area. Disappearances can create an environment of dread that deters activism and opposition, which helps the state achieve its goal of general stability.

Refusal of Rights and Resources:  Natural resources abound in Balochistan, including minerals, gas, and strategically located ports. Due to the Pakistani state’s need to keep control over these resources, possible challenges to resource extraction and economic exploitation may be avoided by using forced disappearances as a means of suppressing opposition.

Causes of Forced Disappearance

The intricate socio-political dynamics of Balochistan are at the core of the many factors contributing to forced disappearances in the province. The frequency of forced disappearances in Balochistan is attributed to the following causes:

Political turmoil and Nationalist Movements:   Balochistan has a history of nationalist movements and political turmoil as they strive for increased independence or autonomy from Pakistan. Crackdowns and other forms of repression. Forced disappearances of suspected separatists, activists, and supporters, are frequently used by the state in reaction to these movements.

Counterinsurgency operations and military operations:   To suppress separatist organizations and preserve authority over the province, Pakistani intelligence and military forces carry out counterinsurgency operations in Balochistan. The local populace is frequently intimidated, information is gathered, and resistance is quelled through the use of enforced disappearances.

Lack of Accountability and Impunity : The culture of impunity surrounding forced disappearances in Balochistan allows those who commit these crimes, like as intelligence services and state security forces, to act without worrying about facing consequences. Violence and abuse are perpetuated by a cycle of impunity for human rights abuses.

Regional diversity:   Tensions between Sunni and Shia Muslims as well as between Baloch nationalists and other ethnic groups are examples of the ethnic and sectarian diversity of Balochistan. Conflicts can be made worse by these tensions, which can also serve as an excuse for governmental persecution and forced disappearances. The geopolitical aspects of forced disappearances are further complicated by Balochistan’s advantageous location since it borders both Afghanistan and Iran. State and non-state entities could operate differently in the region due to regional rivalries, security issues, and international interests.

The Way Forward to stop Forced Disappearance

Reforms to Law and Policy:   Pakistan Government should pass and implement laws that clearly forbid forced disappearances. Laws now in place must to be changed to guarantee responsibility and openness in situations involving forced disappearances.

Independent Inquiries:    Form impartial task groups or commissions to look into claims of forced disappearances. It is important to provide these committees with sufficient funding, power, and autonomy so they can carry out in-depth, objective investigations.

Accountability:           Ensure that those responsible for forced disappearances face just trials and follow the proper procedures. This involves bringing charges against state representatives, security guards, or anybody else in charge of directing or carrying out forced disappearances.

Judicial Reforms:        To ensure prompt and unbiased decision-making in situations involving forced disappearances, the judiciary should be strengthened. Educate judges, attorneys, and law enforcement personnel about human rights norms and practices. Ensuring openness in detention institutions and providing relatives and legal representatives with updates on the location of imprisoned persons are important aspects of information sharing.

Support for Victims and Families:     Offer psychological support, financial aid, and legal assistance to victims and their families who have been subjected to forced disappearances. Encourage civil society organizations to keep an eye out for and report instances of enforced disappearances. Guard journalists, activists, and human rights advocates who stand up for the rights of victims.

Resolution of Conflicts and Dialogue :           Hold meaningful discussions and agreements with impacted communities to address the underlying issues and disputes that give rise to forced disappearances. Ensure fair development in Balochistan by addressing socioeconomic disparities.

Pressure and Support from the International Community:    Work to bring attention to the problem of forced disappearances in Balochistan by interacting with the UN and human rights groups, among other international bodies. For projects aimed at increasing capacity, look for technical help and advice.

Preventive measures include enforcing proper oversight of security forces, encouraging respect for human rights within law enforcement, and increasing public awareness of the ramifications of enforced disappearances. The goal is to prevent forced disappearances from happening in the first place.

Reforms to Pakistani Laws:    In order to make forced disappearances clearly illegal and hold those responsible accountable, Pakistan may pass new laws or make changes to current ones. It is important to have well-defined legal frameworks and investigative and prosecution procedures.

Institutional Accountability:    It is imperative to bolster the institutions in charge of security and law enforcement. This involves steps to guarantee accountability, transparency, and monitoring within these organizations in order to stop abuses like enforced disappearances.

Discussion and Reconciliation: Opening up communication with Baloch nationalist organizations and resolving their complaints amicably may serve to calm tensions and aid in resolving the fundamental issues that give rise to conflict, which may in turn assist to minimize the number of enforced disappearances.

Global Collaboration: In order to tackle the problem of enforced disappearances, Pakistan can go to the United Nations and human rights agencies for support. Exchange of best practices, technical assistance, and capacity-building projects are a few examples of collaboration with foreign partners.

Engaging the Civil Society:   It is crucial to support and foster the work that human rights advocates, civil society groups, and independent media perform in tracking down, recording, and denouncing enforced disappearances. Additionally, it is critical to defend the rights of journalists and activists covering these topics.

Assistance for Victims and Families: Offering legal counsel, psychological assistance, and rehabilitation programs to those who have been subjected to forced disappearances can help mitigate the pain and lingering consequences of these events.

Mechanisms for Accountability and Transparency:  Establishing procedures for keeping open and honest records of arrests and detentions, along with making sure that families and legal counsel are kept informed, can help avoid instances of enforced disappearances and hold offenders accountable.

How close is Iran in acquiring a Nuclear Weapon

By: Aasi Ansari, Research Analyst, GSDN

Iranian missile: source Internet

Introduction

Since highly enriched Uranium was discovered, the authorities of Iran and the UN watchdog have been discussing the nuclear safeguard. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspection report on January 22, 2023, confirmed that enriched uranium up to 83.7% had been found at the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant (FFEP), located in the south of Tehran (capital of Iran) – controlled by ‘Atomic Energy Organization of Iran’ (AEOI). This Report has put Iran under the suspicion of many nations for trying to make nuclear weapon grade material to potentially develop Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD).

According to the 2015 nuclear deal of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), Iran was limited to enriching uranium up to 3.67% for 15 years and allowing the IAEA to inspect the nuclear facilities. According to the IAEA, 3.67% enriched uranium is sufficient for peaceful nuclear energy use; anything above that could be considered as a threat. Although the weaponization of uranium material can only be done at 90% or higher uranium enrichment, 83.7% is very close to it.

Uranium Stockpile in Iran

Since February 2021, Iran has restricted the IAEA’s complete ability to monitor and inspect Iran’s nuclear facilities. Iran has also been producing 60% enriched uranium since 2021. IAEA estimates the Iranian nuclear stockpile is more than 18 times larger than expectation. Though experts believe Iran has no use for 60% pure uranium. In January 2023, Grossi warned that Iran now has enough uranium to produce nuclear bombs if it chooses, because Iran’s Stockpile of U-235 at 60% purity has reached 70Kg and 20% purity has reached 1000kg.

The IAEA’s inspection report of February 2023, stated that Iran has 434.7 kg of 20% enriched uranium, which is 48 kg more than the 386.4 kg mentioned in the November 2022 report. Similarly, Iran has 87.5 kg of uranium at 60% purity, which is 25 kg more than the 62.3 kg mentioned in the previous report. The IAEA also estimated an increase of around 87 kg in Iran’s total uranium stockpile, making it 3760.8 kg as of February 12, 2023.

According to the IAEA, 42 kg of uranium of 60% purity is the approximate amount needed to possibly make a nuclear explosive device. Although experts believe, in practical, some material is wasted during enrichment; therefore, more than 55 kg of the same purity level will be needed. Currently, Iran has enough Uranium stockpile to make several Nuclear bombs. According to March 31 IAEA report, Iran has stockpiled 114Kg of 60% pure Uranium and if the enrichment reaches to 90%, it is sufficient to develop three nuclear bombs.

In 2023, between June to November Iran slowed down the average enrichment to 3 kg per month, but at the end it increased to 9 kg per month. After November 2023, Iran installed 6 new advanced centrifuge cascades and have the total of almost 7400 advanced centrifuges at Natanz and Fordow facilities, resulting the increase of average increase of enrichment. As of February 2024, Iran continues to enrich nuclear material approximately 7 kg per month up to 60% purity. As of March 2024, Iran has the total stockpile of 5525.5 kg including 712.2 kg of 20% purity, 2396.8 kg of 5% purity, 1934 kg of 2% purity, 121.5 kg of 60% purity and 361 kg of unidentified enrichment level of UF6 in chemical form.

Global Impact of Enriched Uranium discovery in Iran

Enriched Uranium discovery in Iran has raised concern not only for the IAEA but all over the world that Iran might use that material for the production of a nuclear bomb. For instance, European authorities have said that it would force them to break the 2015 nuclear agreement. German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock stated that “There is no plausible civilian justification for such a high enrichment level”. Similarly, Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen said there are two options to deal with Iran: either reimposing the UN ‘snapback’ sanctions that enshrined the 2015 nuclear deal or attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities with military force. Although, IAEA says military attack on nuclear facilities is illegal.  

France, Germany, and the United Kingdom accused Iran to violate ‘Security Council Resolution-2231’ last year when Iran supplied drones to Russia during the Russia-Ukraine conflict even though Iran knows that Russia might use the Drones to target the Nuclear Facilities. The US and Iran were trying to restore the 2015 nuclear deal, but because of the indirect negotiations, it broke in September 2022, although Biden says the US is ready to make a deal if Iran is willing to comply. This 2015 JCPOA nuclear deal has been wavering since Donald Trump abandoned it in 2018.

CIA director Bill Burns stated that US intelligence has found no evidence against Iran’s uranium weaponization. He also stated that Iran might not have yet made any decision for the weaponization, but their enrichment program has advanced enough that if Iran chooses to make a weapon out of the enriched uranium, it will be ‘the matter of weeks‘. Burns also showed concern that Iran was now nearing to become a nuclear state since they have also been advancing their missile systems by stating that “What we also see are signs that…Russia is proposing to help the Iranians on their missile program and also at least considering the possibility of providing fighter aircraft to Iran as well”. Saudi Arabia has shown signs of obtaining the nuclear weapon if Iran ever successfully detonates one.

The US defence authority Colin Kahl stated that with this advanced technology, Iran might make one nuclear bomb’s worth of fissile material in just 12 days instead of 12 months. Though Iran will take more than one year to restarting a complete weaponization program which was stopped in 2003, but with Russia’s help it could be sooner than expected. Iran is the closest to test a nuclear weapon for the first time. In early 2000s, Iran was developing the ‘Project Midan’ to identify the location for the nuclear testing. Iran also possess the nuclear weapon design and have the ballistic missiles.

Other than that, there are few EU sanctions including missile, nuclear and other weapon, that has expired in October 18, 2023. On which Iran said it will be illegal for the EU to maintain sanctions on Iran. Re-establishing 2015 JCPOA deal and limiting Iranian stockpiling at this point will not stop the Uranium weaponization in Iran, because Iran has enough material to develop two Nuclear bomb. Thought one nuclear bomb is not enough to deter Iran from nuclear threat. Grossi said that there will be instability if the IAEA is unable to tell world that the nuclear program of Iran is completely peaceful.

Response from Iranian Authority

In defence, Iran says that the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant (FFEP) was enriching uranium up to 60% purity, but the traces of an extremely high enrichment might be an ‘unintended fluctuation’. The traces of 83.7% enriched uranium were found while inspecting the two interconnected cascades of advanced centrifuge machine used to enrich uranium up to 60% at Fordow facility. The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) authority Behrouz Kamalvandi says that this fluctuation might be a momentary side effect of trying to achieve 60% purity or while replacing the feed cylinder in November 2022. Iran nuclear authority Mohammad Eslami stated that the IAEA’s inspector had made a mistake and the report is ‘incorrect’. Mohammad Eslami also stated that the discovered particles cannot even be seen with a microscope, and the volume was also small. On June 11, 2023, Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei claimed that Iran is not trying to make a nuclear bomb by stating if ‘we wanted to develop a nuclear weapon, we would have done so and the west would not have been able to stop’.

While IAEA Director General Grossi visit to Iran in February 2023, he mentioned an improvement in the relation between the IAEA and AEOI since Iran was ready to cooperate with them. The IAEA chided Iranian authorities that they made a change in those cascades without informing since these particles were discovered after the inspection. The Iran and the IAEA came to an agreement in April 2023, to reinstalling the monitoring equipment to regain access to information, people, and places to ensure nuclear safeguards, which was limited by Iran since February 2021. But the gap of three years has made monitoring difficult for the IAEA to make sure that all the nuclear material is under the safeguards.

However, the scenario changed quickly. In June 2023, Supreme leader of Iran wanted a new nuclear deal with some changes, which will help Iran to maintain its nuclear threats. Iran has shown sign of compliance by slowing down the Uranium enrichment production. But the West was sceptical about it. On September 16, 2023, the Director General IAEA, stated that Iran has withdrawn the safeguard agreement from inspectors which were assigned to verify activities of the Iranian facilities. This step of Iran has further deteriorated the hope of restoring the 2015 JCPOA nuclear deal.

Recently, Iran has diluted some of their enriched nuclear material. The rate of dilution has been more than the production of new enriched material, due to which the stockpile of 60% enrichment purity has fallen slightly, from 128.3 kg in October 2023 to 121.5 kg in March 2024, a total reduction of 6.8 kg.  As of now, Iran has enough enriched weapon grade nuclear material for 2 nuclear weapons. The US expressed that the Iran should ‘downblend’ all of its near weapon grade material and not just some of it.

It is not cleared why Iran down blending the enriched material at the same time also enriching new material, which doesn’t have any civil use. Iran says they have all rights for enriching the nuclear material up to high level of purity, all while denying the intentions to make a nuclear weapon. In January 2024, director general of IAEA sated that Iran is ‘very close’ to making the nuclear weapon. At the rate they are progressing it may only take few weeks to make the weapon of mass destruction.

Conclusion

Although, Iranian authority claimed to enrich uranium unintentionally, they changed the cascade in Fordow fuel enrichment facility without informing the IAEA and have been enriching nuclear material up to 60%. Iran has no civilian use for even 60%, let alone 83.4% purity. Simultaneously, they are trying to improve missile technology with the help of Russia, all while the IAEA monitoring system is limited. While Russia is trying to help, EU missile sanctions are also about to expire in October 2023. This will give Iran freedom over EU monitoring.

While US is distracted dealing with Ukraine and Israel, and IAEA’s attention also divided to the Ukraine’s power plants safety, Iran may speed up its nuclear program. Despite the repercussions, it seems very likely for Iran to develop nuclear weapon and become the Nuclear armed nation. Right now, Iran has enough weapon grade material to develop several nuclear bombs and they might potentially be closing to test the first nuclear weapon. If Iran is really not trying to develop the nuclear weapon, then Iran needs to cooperate by giving full control of its nuclear fuel cycle program to IAEA for better safeguards of nuclear material and to ensure that the nuclear power is only used for peaceful purpose.

The “Little Red Dot” of Southeast Asia: Singapore’s Internal Dynamics and its Balancing Role in the Indo-Pacific

By: Aishwarya Dutta

Singapore: source Encyclopaedia Britannica

Introduction

A non-communist regime popularly construed as a “pseudo-democracy”, Singapore is home to the ‘healthiest’ and the most ‘disciplined’ population of the world fashioning one of the world’s most effective and efficient governments at work. The city-state has retorted immaculately to the snobbish “little red dot” remark (which was made by B.J. Habibie, in 1999, then President of Indonesia) with its incredible accomplishments. Thriving on the themes of ‘survival’, ‘prosperity’, and ‘order’, Singapore assumes a remarkable role in the Indo-Pacific region. Being located at the eastern mouth of the Malacca Strait, the fulcrum of the Indo-Pacific and one of the world’s most important chokepoints, Singapore has become a very vital commercial hub for trade and various other services. With a strategy to become ‘East Asia’s equivalent of New York or London’, Singapore has established a commanding position and also articulated a rigorous capability development plan which obviously flows from its overall strategic posture and outlook.

Internal dynamics

The so-called ‘little speck on the map’ compared to its ‘massive neighbors’, has successfully grown into the third largest economy of Southeast Asia. It is ranked among the world’s most competitive economies. Post independence, Singapore witnessed a rapid development from a low-income country to a high-income country. Singapore was ranked the best country in the world in Human Capital Development in 2019. Starting from traffic rules to cleanliness, the regulation of citizen behavior has yielded great results in Singapore’s success. The condition at the time of independence was horrifying, yet the People’s Action Party (PAP) headed by Lee Kuan Yew brought about fundamental changes by introducing efficient economic and social policies.

Centralized, top-down and integrated policies coupled with one-party rule, totally against the western conceptions of a democracy, led to the establishment of a ‘parochial rule’ in the hands of one leader and his successors. As described by William Safire (1995), a New York Times columnist, Singapore is a family dictatorship which reflects the “old-fashioned European totalitarianism”. So far Singapore has been ruled by three leaders: Lee Kuan Yew, Goh Chok Tong and Lee Hsien Loong (Yew’s son), who is also the current Prime Minister of Singapore. Yew had an unmatchable impact on Singapore. His governance was a mixture of the Western style democratic institutions and the Asian-style hegemonic political party system.

Oscillating in a continuum where democracy stands at one end and authoritarianism at the other, Yew strongly bent towards a total control of the country in each and every aspect which was best evident in the 1980s when he totally went far from open and pragmatic policies. Surprisingly, his rule achieved universal support and legitimacy. In the 1990s Singapore was in the hands of Goh, a close aide to Yew who took charge with utmost sincerity and dedication to Yew and his empire. In 2004, Yew’s son Lee Hsien Loong assumed office and is serving till date. Through Yew’s guidance and mentorship, Loong has been successfully leading Singapore.    

The opposition party/parties have very little say partly due to the factional politics and partly due to the rigid rules that curtail any opposition groups or any other dissenting voices thus representing an altruistic state (in Hegelian terms) which prioritizes solidarity and order over interest group competition. Parties like the Barisan Socialists, the Singapore Democratic Party and the Worker’s Party exist just for the sake of existing. The prevalent rigidity is also reflected in the fact that Singapore has a unicameral legislature and steady bureaucratization. In spite of a rigorous bureaucratic control, Singapore experiences less corruption as compared to other Southeast Asian states as evident from its inclusion in the five least corrupt countries in the world in the annual ranking of the Transparency International.

Despite being a country with an ethnically heterogeneous population, the society is quite homogeneous culturally and people have one thing in common and that is their distinct Singaporean identity.

Role in the Indo-Pacific

Apart from its domestic success, the city-state also plays a predominant role in maintaining security and stability in South East Asia if not the Indo-Pacific region. Singapore believes in the concept of “total defense” when it comes to security, with five important pillars: military, civil, economic, social and psychological. The government has adopted a “comprehensive, technocratic, forward-looking approach to security that greatly informs the country’s unique social model.” It is to be noted that Singapore is a mixture of capitalist and socialist economics, with emphasis on the former.

In the new international era, Singapore is maintaining a balance by interpreting China to the US and the US to China. It is Singapore’s dream to achieve peace with and between China and the United States. Any conflict between the US and China or any other power in the Indo-Pacific could derail the postwar Asian miracle and threaten Singapore’s economic or physical security.

Singapore maintains a strong security cooperation with the US which was formalized in the Strategic Framework Agreement which was signed by US President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in Washington in July 2005. Singapore thus relies on extra regional powers like the US to maintain a balance of power and to prevent a larger power from dominating the smaller Asian states. Back in the 1990s when US base negotiations with the Philippines had failed, Singapore provided the US military access to facilities in Singapore to fill the security void and to ensure a US presence in the region.

Some analysts predict that Singapore is so keen on US cooperation because they think that the US is much more preoccupied with Iraq and the Middle East and is not paying enough attention to Asia. Even when it comes to other states in South East Asia, Singapore maintains a specific balance. For instance, Singapore’s policy towards Taiwan is one where Singapore is trying to balance its interests in expanding its economic relationship with China and in helping to manage China’s rise as a peaceful actor in the Asian security system.

Besides playing an active role in the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations), Singapore also has a Five Power Defense Arrangement (FPDA) with major powers like the UK, Australia, New Zealand and Malaysia which provides additional security to Singapore. Singapore has calibrated its ties with the regional greater powers like India, Japan, the United States, and China very carefully. Given the current trends, Singapore seems well-positioned to continue expanding its strategic space and overall security through continued military modernization and geopolitical balancing achieved through bilateral and multilateral means.

Conclusion

After a careful analysis of Singapore’s state of affairs, we can say that the “little red dot” is not so little and it is an exception in Southeast Asia in terms of culture, ethnicity, geography, state capacity, and level of economic development. Singapore is destined to play a vital role in international trade, commerce, and finance as long as the ships need the Malacca Strait to transport food, manufactures, and oil between Asia and the world.

Ethiopian Crisis: A Catastrophe in Making

By: Nabhjyot Arora, Research Analyst, GSDN

Ethiopia: source Internet

Bring the weapon; do you support Fano?’ – a question amongst that many Amnesty International officials asked to the victims of civilian attacks made by the Ethiopian National Defense Force (ENDF). The Horn of Africa has emerged as a geopolitical zone of conflict, with the security crisis coming to the fore after clashes were reported between the government troops and the ENDF insurgents in the Amhara Region on March 01, 2024. The government extended the state of emergency for four months until June 2024, which was initially imposed on August 04, 2023 over months of volatile clashes between the military and militiamen in the Amhara region.

The region is also affected by an ethnic conflict between Oromo and Amhara (Ethiopia’s largest communities) in Western Tigray. The government enabled a federal arrangement for the ethnic groups to create their own state by a referendum as per the provisions laid out in the 1994 constitution. The relations between the central government and ethnic groups in the Tigray Region, however, broke down as the government made efforts to disband and reintegrate the ethnic armed groups into the mainstream community, which was met with strong opposition and armed confrontations with the government security forces.

The federal government has been accused of launching military attacks on civilians against their alleged support for the ethnic armed rebellious groups including Fano and the Oromo Liberation Army (OLA). Fano is an insurgent group that operates without a formal leadership structure and is spread out into groups in the region. The group backed the federal troops in the Tigray War carried out from November 2020 to November 2022. The war ended in the signing of the Ethiopia–Tigray Peace Agreement (Pretoria Agreement) between the Ethiopian government and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), under the mediation of the African Union on November 02, 2022. The peace deal called for:

  • the withdrawal of foreign forces from the region
  • cessation of hostilities, including the end to hate speech
  • restoration of essential services in the Tigray region
  • access to humanitarian aid in the Tigray region
  • disarmament of TPLF combatants
  • commitment to protect civilians – especially women and children
  • taking steps toward the implementation of a comprehensive Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration (DDR) program.

The conflict continues despite the signing of the peace deal, as the government is accused of disregarding Amhara’s security. Further, there have been apprehensions regarding the centralization of power by Prime Minister Abey Ahmed with the dismantling of state paramilitaries across the country in April 2023. Declaration of an emergency in Amhara followed in August 2023, which allowed for roadblocks to be imposed, suspension of transport services, imposition of curfew, and military to take over in certain areas.

Human Rights Violations

The ongoing conflict pose a threat to the country’s stability – the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission (EHRC) reported repeated outbreaks of violence including raids carried out by the forces, highlighting at least 45 extrajudicial civilian killings undertaken by the government security forces on January 29, 2024 in the village of Merawi (Amhara). Similar killings were reported in the regions of Seba Tamit, Bahir-Dar, Abune Hara, and Lideta neighbourhoods of the Kebele 14 area from August 2023 to October 2023. The government stated that the attacks are a part of ‘joint security operation and house-to-house surveillance’ conducted to eliminate the extremist forces.

The EHRC reports of violations of international humanitarian law carried out by the regional forces in Tigray and Oromia including extrajudicial executions, bomb attacks, and enslavement of women carried out during the civil war, which may amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity. There were reports of ethnically-targeted attacks and violence against Tigrayans living in Amhara and Afar regions. The ongoing emergency provisions in the Amhara region have resulted in internet shutdowns, communication blackouts, preventive detention, and curtailment of the freedom of speech and media, despite signing of the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement which also amounts to a violation of the right to life.

Amnesty International reported on the social and economic impact of the violations of international humanitarian law. The conflict has resulted in the displacement of civilians, with over 60,000 people reported to have fled to Sudan and Somalia. Ethiopia is home to more than 3,779,000 Internally Displaced People (IDPs), with the majority of refugees from South Sudan, Somalia, and Eritrea. The United Nations (UN) reports that ongoing violence and drought have left about 20 million people in critical need of emergency humanitarian aid. The drought conditions affecting eastern and south-east Ethiopia can also lead to  famine conditions  as observed in 1984-85.

The conflict can undermine the essence of the Pretoria Agreement, hinder reconciliation and peacebuilding efforts, and result in potential sanctions by the United States (US) in case of human rights violations. The US government announced a pause in its food assistance program due to widespread corruption and aid diversion in 2023; while the humanitarian aid resumed in December 2023, humanitarian assistance required for the IDPs is hindered due to roadblocks and only 14 percent of those targeted for food aid had received it by January 21, 2024.

Deal with Somaliland & Access to the Red Sea

The country is the world’s most populous landlocked region, which lost its coastline after the secession of Eritrea in the 1993 War of Independence. Ethiopia is thereby dependent on the Addis-Djibouti Corridor for international trade and aims to gain access to the Red Sea. Ethiopia signed a deal with Somaliland on January 01, 2024, to access the Port of Berbera for commercial marine operations and naval activity in the region. Ethiopia, meanwhile offered support for the declaration of independence for Somaliland. The deal poses a threat to the regional stability in the Horn of Africa, as Somalia claims authority over the self-governing breakaway state of Somaliland, despite of autonomy announced in 1991.

Ethiopia gained the ownership in 2017, with a 19 percent share in the Port of Berbera (Gulf of Aden), however, the country failed to make timely payments which resulted in the fall of the deal. There have been reports that Ethiopia might step back from the deal due to potential regional implications as well as intervention from Kenya, Djibouti, Eritrea, and Somalia. Further, incongruity in the terms of the deal suggests that the facility will have both military and commercial purposes, against the claims made to build only a naval base. Ethiopia considers access to the port as a means to strengthen maritime security, and economic and political influence in the region.

Internationalization of Conflict

An escalation of conflict in the Horn of Africa due to the potential fall of diplomatic relations between Somalia and Ethiopia could give rise to the activity of Al-Shabaab in East Africa. The terror group is reported to have increased international recruitment from Ethiopia and Kenya. International Security Studies (ISS) reports that there have been attempts by the terror group to call for youth in Ethiopia to fight against the federal government. Ethiopia is a part of the African Union Transition Mission in Somalia (ATMIS), though the forces are set to exit Somalia by the end of 2024. The withdrawal of Ethiopian soldiers as a part of African Union peacekeeping missions amid the potential rise of conflict could pave the way for Al-Shabaab to expand its terror operations.

Somalia in turn termed the agreement as a violation of its sovereignty and is backed by the US, UK, and Türkiye. Kenyan Prime Minister William Ruto in association with the regional bloc of The Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) has been enabling to mediate the conflict between Ethiopia and Somalia, where the leaders reached an agreement termed as ‘Nairobi Declaration’ on February 28, 2024, and February 29, 2024. Ethiopia and Kenya released a joint statement pledging to respect the ‘sovereignty and territorial integrity of states’ without naming Somalia. Kenya assured of the security of the Lamu Port, South Sudan Ethiopia Transport (LAPSSET) corridor, which provides Ethiopia an alternative to Port Berbera.

Eritrea, Somalia, and Djibouti raised apprehensions regarding the possibility of Ethiopia taking military means to gain access to the Red Sea. Ethiopia, however, lacks military capabilities to escalate the conflict, though the resurfacing of the issue can draw regional blocs of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Eritrea, and Djibouti against Ethiopia and the UAE to contain any power play in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. Further, it could jeopardize the revenue source for Djibouti, which relies on shipping fees from Ethiopia against the access to the Port of Djibouti.

The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD)

Egypt has raised opposition to the development of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) on the Blue Nile upstream from Egypt to Sudan. The project is undertaken as a potential violation of international law and a 2015 agreement on the development of the dam on mutual understanding; with Ethiopia filling the dam upstream threatens the water supply to Sudan and Egypt downstream. The dam lies in northern Ethiopia’s highlands accounting for 85 percent of the flow of River Nile in the region, which remains critical for the energy security of 60 percent of the population in Ethiopia, in addition to aiding energy requirements for Sudan, South Sudan, Kenya, Djibouti, and Eritrea.

Conclusion

The country affected by internal conflict, food insecurity, humanitarian crisis, high inflation, foreign debt, and FOREX crisis relies on aid package negotiations with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the African Union (AU); while joining the BRICS forum could boost the investment opportunities and post-conflict reconstruction. Ethiopia as a key member of counterterrorism missions undertaken in association with the AU and the United Nations (UN) since 2007 highlights the strategic importance of the Horn of Africa. Potential escalation of the conflict could affect the containment of internal security crisis with Ethiopia relying on drones from China, Turkey, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which are deployed against the advance of insurgent groups. Reconciliation and recovery efforts with the mediation of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in the humanitarian crisis and diplomatic resolution of the conflict in the Horn of Africa could pave way for balance of power in the region already affected by geopolitical turbulence of civil war in Sudan and Houthi Attacks over the Red Sea.

Conference on Disarmament 2024: Key Highlights

0

By: Mahima Sharma, Research Analyst, GSDN

Conference on Disarmament 2024 in progress: source Internet

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) stands as a pivotal forum for international dialogue and negotiation on disarmament issues, playing a crucial role in shaping global efforts towards arms control and non-proliferation. With a history dating back to 1979, the CD has been instrumental in facilitating discussions among member states to address pressing security challenges and promote peace through disarmament measures. In the context of the 2024 session, the theme of “Strengthening Multilateralism for Peace and Security: Towards a Safer World” underscores the collective commitment of nations to reinforce multilateral cooperation in tackling contemporary disarmament challenges and fostering a more secure global environment.

The Conference has a rich history dating back to its establishment as a single multilateral disarmament negotiating forum by the Tenth Special Session on Disarmament of the United Nations General Assembly in 1978. Over the years, the CD and its predecessors have played a crucial role in negotiating major arms limitation and disarmament agreements, including significant treaties like the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). The CD’s agenda items encompass critical issues such as nuclear disarmament, prevention of nuclear war, arms control in outer space, and transparency in armaments. Despite its achievements, the CD has faced challenges in reaching consensus on a program of work due to disagreements among member states and attempts to link progress in different areas. The CD’s annual sessions, divided into three parts, involve discussions among its 65 member states, including key military powers. The CD’s work is guided by a rotating presidency and conducted through consensus, with support from the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs. The 2024 session of the CD focuses on strengthening multilateralism for peace and security towards a safer world, highlighting the ongoing commitment to advancing global disarmament efforts through collaborative international dialogue and negotiation.

The High-Level Segment of the Conference on Disarmament (CD) in 2024 was held from February 26 to March 1, marking a significant period of intense discussions and diplomatic engagements at the Palais des Nations in Geneva. This segment served as a crucial platform for high-ranking officials and representatives from member states to address pressing disarmament issues and reaffirm their commitment to global peace and security. During this session, notable statements were made by participating countries, with the European Union (EU) notably condemning Russia’s actions, underscoring the importance of upholding international norms and agreements in the face of escalating tensions.

In his speech at the Conference on Disarmament (CD), Secretary-General António Guterres emphasized the importance of values and trust in fostering global peace and security. He stated, “Deadlock over disarmament is ‘not acceptable.’” Guterres highlighted the need for collaboration and partnership, acknowledging that the United Nations cannot succeed alone and must work with other actors to address complex global challenges. He also stressed the necessity for reform within the UN to enhance its effectiveness in promoting peace and sustainable development. Guterres emphasized the urgency of preventing crises and transitioning from fear to trust among nations, advocating for a shift towards a more peaceful and stable world. 

During the 2024 session, several key issues were addressed, reflecting the diverse challenges and priorities in global disarmament efforts. Non-proliferation efforts took center stage, with a focus on strengthening international norms and agreements to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Emerging technologies also emerged as a critical topic, highlighting the need to establish international norms regarding the military use of artificial intelligence (AI) to ensure responsible and ethical practices in warfare. Additionally, disarmament treaties were a key area of discussion, emphasizing the importance of upholding existing agreements and exploring new avenues for arms control and reduction.

Specific concerns raised by different countries during the 2024 session including Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which drew condemnation from various nations for violating international norms and destabilizing regional security. The European Union (EU) strongly condemned Russia’s actions, including its nuclear rhetoric and threats, underscoring the urgent need for accountability and adherence to international law. Furthermore, concerns were raised about the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK)’s persistent pursuit of nuclear and missile programs, which pose a significant threat to global disarmament efforts. Calls were made for DPRK to engage in dialogue and commit to comprehensive abandonment of all weapons of mass destruction programs in a verifiable manner. These discussions at the CD highlighted the complex geopolitical landscape and underscored the ongoing challenges in achieving disarmament and non-proliferation goals amidst evolving security threats.

Various Member States expressed their viewpoints on critical disarmament issues, reflecting a diverse range of perspectives and priorities. South Korea, represented by Vice Minister Kang Insun, highlighted concerns regarding recent setbacks in global non-proliferation efforts. Specifically, Vice Minister Kang emphasized Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, its unilateral suspension of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), and its withdrawal from the ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). She called upon the five nuclear-weapon states (P5) to actively re-engage in dialogues aimed at promoting transparency and rebuilding mutual trust. Additionally, South Korea underscored its active participation in initiatives dedicated to strengthening the international disarmament and non-proliferation regime, emphasizing the need to address the rapid advancement of emerging technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) in military contexts.

On a different note, Pakistan obstructed the adoption of the ‘2024 Program of Work’ proposed by India, which aimed to set the agenda for future disarmament talks. Despite India’s efforts to formulate a comprehensive proposal during its presidency, Pakistan’s opposition, rooted in concerns about the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) and military posture vis-à-vis India, effectively derailed the consensus-based decision-making process at the CD. This move by Pakistan drew criticism from disarmament experts and other delegations, including major powers like the US, France, Russia, the UK, and China, who supported India’s proposal. Diplomats familiar with the matter speculated that Pakistan’s blockade was driven by a desire to prevent India from achieving success rather than substantive concerns related to the proposal itself. 

During this year’s Conference on Disarmament, diverse calls to action and resolutions were proposed to address pressing disarmament challenges, emphasizing the critical need for collective efforts to promote global peace and security. Member States urged for renewed commitment to existing disarmament treaties and agreements, such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), to strengthen the international disarmament regime. Additionally, proposals were made to enhance transparency in armaments, prevent the weaponization of outer space, and address emerging threats posed by new technologies like cyber warfare and autonomous weapons systems. The conference highlighted the importance of international cooperation and multilateral dialogues in advancing disarmament goals, underscoring the shared responsibility of nations to work together towards a world free from the threat of nuclear weapons and other arms. Collaborative efforts, mutual trust, and diplomatic engagement were emphasized as essential components in achieving meaningful progress in disarmament and non-proliferation initiatives on a global scale. As we move forward, it is imperative for countries to uphold their responsibilities, strengthen existing disarmament frameworks, and foster a culture of peace to address the evolving threats to international security effectively.

What would a Successful Grand Strategy look like for the Foreign Policy of India

By: Swaraj Parameswaran

India: source mapsofindia.com

Introduction

With India geographically being the seventh-largest nation on earth and reportedly the most populous country, there is great need for it to develop a coherent, successful grand strategy if it wishes to economically and militarily grow in these times of geopolitical uncertainty. This article examines and analyses the various elements of the Indian Grand Strategy before concluding that, while India has a good grand strategy, the success of this strategy depends on it avoiding a few pitfalls.

Grand Strategy and Middle Power Nations

According to Paul Van Hooft, Grand Strategy is ‘the highest level of national statecraft that establishes how states, or other political units, prioritize and mobilize which military, diplomatic, political, economic, and other sources of power to ensure what they perceive as their interests.’        

While it’s widely agreed that superpowers can’t survive without a grand strategy, there’s been debate about its relevance to middle-powers. But a grand strategy, as shall be explained, can be very effective for a middle-power like India to carry out its foreign policy. More than anything, and to summarize its relevance, a grand strategy helps middle-power nations maximize influence with limited resources, helps navigate power dynamics, ensures stability, helps form coalitions, and strengthens their soft power.

Earlier, Indian grand strategy was associated with the principles of ‘Nehruvianism’, which focused on alleviating poverty, taking a non-aligned stance in Cold War politics, and globally spreading morality and peaceful coexistence. While these principles still survive, India has, adapting to externalities such as the end of the Cold War, tweaked existing elements and added a few new ones in its pursuit to be a great-power and create a multipolar world.

Elements of the Indian Grand Strategy

India is an exceptionally diverse nation with a multitude of languages, religions and cultures. Pakistan, through Kashmir, and Khalistani separatists in foreign nations have frequently sought to undermine this unity by instigating grievances among the local population. Its greatest internal task is to maintain its unity in this cultural diversity.

While poverty has drastically reduced since Independence, a huge share of the population still does not have immediate access to healthcare and education. Securing latest medical technology and restricting import duties on essential grains like ricecan help achieve the required health security to serve as a foundation for long-term growth.  

China and Pakistan, collectively, pose an existential threat to India. Securing Asiabecomes crucial in this scenario. Pakistan-sponsored terrorism, and Chinese ‘String of Pearls’ and military land incursions have forced India to strengthen alliances with other nations, particularly the US. Through alliances like the Quad, it attempts to reduce the Chinese domination of Asia, and seeks to balance against it. India also aims to have good relations with South-East Asian nations and Middle-Eastern powers due to their cultural similarities and overlapping histories. This strengthening of ties with Asian nations is a broader expansion of its ‘Neighbourhood First’ policy- where India focuses on strengthening ties with its immediate neighbours like Bhutan, Nepal, Maldives, and Sri Lanka- to augment and further trade and commerce among them.

With a rich culture, history, and diaspora, and having served for centuries as a haven for myriad religious minorities, India has immense soft power. Through its exercise in forums like SAARC, BIMSTEC, and ASEAN, where cultural and diplomatic relations between nations is prioritised, India attempts to increase its likeability in the international community, grow its tourism and education industries, and further the spread of decolonial and moral values.

Multi-Alignment. This is a revamped version of its traditional Non-Alignment policy. The focus is on building relationships without getting into binding alliances, as seen in many of India’s dealings with Western European nations and the USA. This protects its agency while fostering mutually-beneficial ties to ensure its security.

Through its growing economic strength and historical yet universally applicable treasure trove of philosophical knowledge, India also seeks to play a bigger role in international organizations, influencing decisions on issues like climate change and acting as a potential intermediary in global conflicts. Through these institutions, India seeks a greater role in major decisions that have, heretofore, been dominated by superpowers; it seeks more influence on a global stage, in proportion to its share in the global population.

India, ultimately, seeks to create a peaceful, multipolar world where it can pursue its interests and receive the great-power recognition it believes it deserves.

Analysis

While still favouring the diplomatic route, in the face of security threats, India has begun attaching greater importance to hard power, coalitions and realpolitik. This, while not exactly signalling the end of its idealistic approach to world politics, marks a shift towards a more pragmatic India that’s not afraid to flex its strength as a nuclear power and growing economy.

A good grand strategy prioritizes what’s essential and identifies the nation’s core interests. It is also cohesive, dynamic, and has clear-cut interests that it prioritizes when confronted with challenges. For middle-powers like India, it is important to either bandwagon with or balance against superpowers, in light of its significantly lesser might and resources. Middle-powers need to be skilled in diplomacy if they wish to retain their agency and, simultaneously, ensure their security and pursue their individual interests. Else, as has so often happened in the past, they could easily become pawns entangled in superpower politics, risking exploitation of their resources.

India’s grand strategy has got a lot of things right. Its priorities- national unity, security, growth, and global involvement- are clear-cut. It refuses to commit itself into a binding alliance, while still balancing China with the help of the US, and, incredulously, forces the US to get on board with its policies. It has also expanded its multi-aligned stance by relying on forums like the Quad, ensuring it’s not dependent on any single power. In the midst of great-power politics, refusing to explicitly pick sides, it exploits opportunities available to it, such as the import of Russian oil after the breakout out of the Ukraine War. This refusal to commit, while occasionally drawing criticism from some nations, gives India the wiggle room to strategically analyse world politics without being rushed into making harmful choices.

To ensure the success of this strategy in the long-run, India should decrease but not rid itself of its scepticism of the West, for India will have to increasingly depend on the West due to China’s land border and Indian Ocean aggressions. It must also occasionally be willing to ditch its neutrality, especially if human rights are at stake and its own national interests are not threatened. This will build credibility in the international community, and show that India, rather than being governed by self-interest, stands for humanitarian causes that align with the philosophical wisdom it aims to spread. And, to reduce costs and reliance on foreign defence deals, India must develop its science and defence industries, must strive to be one of the nations at the forefront of space exploration, AI evolution, and microchip development.

Conclusion

India’s grand strategy focuses on national unity, soft power, and the alleviation of poverty, while taking a multi-aligned stance in global politics. By relying on the West, but refusing to commit to a Western alliance, it refuses to lose its agency and be threatened by superpower imperialism. India’s grand strategy not only maintains its ‘middle power’ status, but also provides it with a strong foundation to achieve its ambition of becoming a great-power. This strategy is coherent, self-motivated, and dynamic- more or less suitably crafted for the world we live in.

Book Review: The Devils Will Get No Rest

0

By: Darshan Gajjar, Research Analyst, GSDN

The Devils Will Get No Rest: source Internet

“You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war,” notably remarked Winston Churchill to Neville Chamberlain when he signed the famous Munich Agreement with Hitler’s Nazi Germany on September 30, 1938, to avoid a greater war in Europe. Churchill was soon proven to be right when, on September 1, 1939, a year after signing the Munich Agreement, Hitler invaded Poland and World War II began. Next year, in 1940, Churchill became Prime Minister and led the British war efforts. Britain was soon joined by the United States in the aftermath of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941, which compelled Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) to take all measures for the defence of America.

Though the allies were together and fought in the theatres in their vicinity, i.e., the US in the Pacific and the UK in Europe, there was a need to have a common strategy in order to defeat advancing Nazi forces. To synergize Allied military strategy and further plans of action vis-à-vis the Third Reich and Imperial Japan, military leaders and politicians from both the UK and US came together in Casablanca, Morocco, and prepared effective military strategies that eventually led to the defeat of both Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany.

Noting down the detailed events of what happened between January 14–24, 1943, in Casablanca, award-winning author and Honorary Fellow of the Massachusetts Historical Society James B. Conroy, in a book titled “The Devils Will Get No Rest: FDR, Churchill, and the Plan That Won the War,” published by Simon & Schuster, highlighted the importance of that conference and the role that various military leaders, diplomats, and politicians play in it.

Divided into eighteen chapters, which cover not only the ten days of the conference but also how military personnel prepared for it in addition to covering the aftermath of it.

British Strategic Advantage

After the end of World War II, while it was America that dominated the great power politics, the book argues that, in the initial years of that war, the British and, for that matter, the Soviets had the upper hand in strategy and military planning. Royal British forces not only had a better understanding of strategy but also had battle experience spanning more than a century. By contrast, America, though it had a greater advantage in technological advancements and industrial planning, lacked strategic foresight when it came to warfare.

This was as true at the level of the military as it was at the level of politicians. In contrast to FDR, who had little experience with military planning and strategy, Churchill was heavily involved in British war planning. Highlighting this difference between both personalities, the author writes, “He [FDR] had never worn a uniform, understood naval strategy but had never shaped it, and knew less about ground and air power… He did not pretend to be a serious strategist and seldom took firm positions on military issues, which Churchill did twice before breakfast. Even when he made up his mind, FDR often kept its contents from his Chiefs of Staff, but Churchill’s [chiefs] never had to guess what he was thinking.”

This strategic advantage culminated in the British articulating their point of prioritising Germany in this war while keeping Japan at arm’s length by means of maintaining the status quo and extending the battles of exhaustion.

Initial Planning from Operation Bolero to Sledgehammer

The author accentuates how, while talks of cooperation were ongoing with the allies endorsing the Atlantic Charter on January 1, 1942, these efforts were accelerated after the fall of Singapore, which Churchill called “the worst disaster in British military history” in February 1942. In March of 1942, General George C. Marshall, then Chief of Staff of the US Army, asked then Major General Dwight D. Eisenhower to coordinate with his British counterparts and prepare a plan to be presented to President FDR.

Gen. Eisenhower presented an initial plan of action that FDR approved and which was further explored and discussed with the British in Casablanca. The plan would initiate with Operation Bolero, under which a rapid buildup of U.S. forces would be accumulated in the United Kingdom culminating with Operation Roundup, a full-scale continental invasion of Europe after attaining air superiority in the theatre. As an alternative to the full-scale continental invasion, there would be Operation Sledgehammer, a smaller attack that would pull the Germans off the Red Army if it started to collapse before Operation Roundup was ready.

In addition to attacking Nazi-controlled Europe, two more theatres of operations were Africa and the Pacific. The book explains how the British were keen on securing Northern Africa and southern shores of Italy before going all in with the channel crossing to Europe. Americans, on the other hand, had a twin strategy: Gen. Marshall suggested prioritising channel crossing, while Admiral Ernest J. King demanded more resources and focus in the Pacific theatre to deter Japanese forces.

Gen. Marshall had geopolitical considerations in mind as well when he insisted on crossing the English Channel at the earliest. Russians were fighting hard, and he did not want Russians to feel abandoned by Anglo-Americans in the fight against Hitler.

After the conference, however, the joint allied strategy called for an invasion of Sicily, under Operation Husky, that would secure British maritime communications channels in the Mediterranean and pave the way for further invasion of the continent. Simultaneously, allies will maintain the status quo in the Pacific, making sure Japanese advancements are curtailed.

Individual Conflicts and Collective Cooperation

One of the unique attributes of the book is its coverage of the human aspects of the strategy. With the benefit of hindsight, what we see is the end version of the strategy that helped Allies win the war without realising the discussions, deliberations, and cooperation it takes to delineate such a strategy that can be materialised in due course. Some of the incidents that went from conflict between individuals to collective cooperation deserve to be mentioned here.

Although they were united in presenting an American point of view of the war in front of the British, the American Navy and Army had their own differences. The inter-service rivalry was indeed very new to the British witnesses who were present there, especially during the initial planning.

Mentioning the rift between General Marshall and Admiral King, the author notes, “As a gifted naval strategist, King had no peer in the world, and no senior American officer was more despised. In 1942, Brigadier General Dwight D. Eisenhower shared a fantasy with his diary: “One thing that might help win this war is to get someone to shoot King.””

The author further mentions the frustration of British officers due to this interservice rivalry; quoting the British Army’s Brigadier General Vivian Dykes, he says, “Dykes too was frustrated. The Americans could not have been friendlier, but their interservice conflicts were crippling and their military secretariat useless. “Light relief” was provided by their record of a White House meeting. “It read just like a child’s comic story.””

General Sir Alan Brooke, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Chairman of the British Chiefs of Staff Committee, and one of the key architects of the allied military strategy at Casablanca, had a particularly hard time convincing his military counterparts from the USA while finalising the operations, for they believed that the British, who had an upper hand in strategy, were prioritising British interest at the expense of the American Pacific campaign. American General Wedemeyer wrote to his fellow General Handy, expressing his contempt as well as appreciation for British strategic foresight “We came, we listened, and we were conquered… The Brits were good enough not only to plan American operations but German operations too… The British planners were just smarter than hell.”

Finally, it’ll be an injustice to this book review if we fail to discuss the two military menaces of General Giraud and Charles de Gaulle, who managed to keep both FDR and Churchill occupied till almost the end of the conference. General Giraud, being the senior of De Gaulle, wanted full control over allied French forces, but De Gaulle, being De Gaulle, refused to yield any powers to Giraud and demanded full autonomy and absolute control over French colonial territories and resources. The author’s articulation of this rivalry gives the book a necessary comical appearance amid all the serious talks of strategy and warfare.

Conclusion

The book, although a very interesting read for any military history enthusiast, due to the inclusion of operational technicalities, prior study of World War II is feasible if one wishes to read it. All the personal anecdotes give the book a human-centric approach, despite primarily focusing on military history and strategy. The book ends with key outcomes of the conference; one of the most important of them was the commitment to unconditional surrender of Axis powers, a bold stance that reaffirmed the Allies’ resolve and unified their objectives despite initial disagreements. Through meticulous research and compelling storytelling, the book not only offers a gripping account of the Casablanca Conference but also provides valuable lessons for leaders in any field.

The Indo-Pacific and the three C’s: China, Challenges and Cooperation

By: Aishwarya Dutta

Indo-Pacific Region: source Internet

The Indo-Pacific region with its ever-expansive dynamism spans 36 countries spread across major continents, 16 time zones, more than half of the world’s biggest and most popular cities, 7 fastest-growing markets, 7 of the 10 largest armies of the world, more than 20,000 islands, and approximately 60 percent of the total world population and is still growing. The region has gained extreme importance in recent times because the trajectory of maritime geopolitics will herald the global politics of the 21st Century. According to a study conducted by experts, it has been predicted that by 2030, the Indo-Pacific will be home to the five largest national economies: the United States, China, India, Indonesia, and Japan. The region has emerged as a highway for important energy transfers to the ‘energy hungry’ nations of the world. However, with a rising trajectory of sea-borne trade, there seems to be an increase in asymmetric threats. In this article I would focus on the three C’s: the China threat, other major challenges in the region including the South China Sea dispute and cooperation in the region which together will give us a lucid and wholesome understanding of the region.

China

The contest for the Indo-Pacific traces deep geopolitical currents while witnessing emerging threats from various quarters especially from China. China’s expansionist policy is at the expense of weakening the neighboring states. China’s “nine-dash line” policy encroaches the sovereignty of other states because China seems to claim its ownership over other countries’ Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs), a move which has been declared invalid by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), in the Hague in 2016. Beijing is seeking to convert international waterways and other countries’ EEZs into its own territorial waters. Moreover if China somehow unilaterally captures the South China Sea it would close major parts of the sea to foreign fishing and forbid foreign governments from any kind of resource extraction in the region. Managing strategic competition with China has been a major challenge, most prominently in recent times.

But China’s rise is not without any resistance in the region. Indonesia and Malaysia portray a stronger defense of their maritime interests against China. American and Japanese warships unequivocally sail the South China Sea. China asserts its presence in the Indian Ocean along with Russia, Iran and South Africa for naval exercises. In Australia, the China debate has been sharpened. The scenario in Sri Lanka is very contradictory where China is asked, on the one hand, to hand back the Hambantota port and urges other nations to dilute China’s influence, and on the other hand they are celebrating a Chinese built artificial island off Colombo. Taiwanese Democracy is seeking non-interference from the Chinese Communist Party in its internal matters.

The trouble is that China feels risk and discomfort in the term ‘Indo-Pacific’. It feels it is a strategy of the Quad members (the United States, Japan, India and Australia) to contain its power and exclude as well as sideline it from the major events taking place in the region. In this context, Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi publicly rejected the Indo-Pacific as an ‘attention-grabbing idea’ that ‘will dissipate like ocean foam’. China describes much of the world as simply ‘the Belt and Road’ (China’s own project of connecting the major continents of the world including Asia, Africa and Europe through land and maritime networks) which is very much an opaque term entwined with an inward-looking purpose. The ‘Road is the Indo-Pacific with Chinese characteristics’, a strategy to extend Chinese influence into the Indian Ocean and the South Pacific. Today Asia is divided into two big contests of ideas: China’s Belt and Road versus the Indo-Pacific championed by Japan, India, Australia, Indonesia, France and the United States. The term Indo-Pacific is a message to an ascending China that it cannot expect others to accept its self-image as the center of the region and the world.

Despite the setbacks, China keeps on expanding its economic, military and diplomatic activities in the Indian Ocean where it is trying to establish an Indo-Pacific strategic system, where the actions and interests of China as the most powerful state of the region affect the interests and actions of others. The region’s foremost strategic challenges are thus China-centric. The Chinese navy is expanding rapidly in the sea space and they have two major reasons for deploying force in distant waters: ‘offshore waters defense’ and ‘open-seas protection’. China is combining the ‘soft power’ (persuasion and attraction) with ‘sharp power’ (internal political interference), to neutralize opposition and reconfigure the Indo-Pacific game board, from Australia to Sri Lanka, Pakistan to the Pacific Island states. China has growing interests at stake in the Indian Ocean, some of which are legitimate, some questionable, and it has no intention of recognising this zone as India’s backyard or sphere of influence. The China factor also worsens the India-Pakistan hostility.

Many observers assume that China’s rise will continue, largely unabated, into the future: “Through the Belt and Road and its growing military footprint, China’s problems are becoming the world’s problems, and the world’s problems are becoming China’s. China relies on coercion, whether in the form of armed force, geoeconomics or political interference. The vital question for others, then becomes how to manage such coercion without it ending in conflict or capitulation.”

Challenges

There has been an abrupt rise of tensions between China and its neighbors over sovereignty, resources and security. In this context, the South China Sea is of immense importance as it is a zone which is rich in hydrocarbon and protein resources. Chinese strategists believe that the South China Sea, East China Sea, and Yellow Sea collectively represent an area in which they need to develop military control in order to counter external threats and to increase the level of security of China’s coastal region. In order to counter China’s dominant attitude, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was formed in 1967 by the Southeast Asian nations. Countries like Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines, Brunei, China and Taiwan, all claim their sovereignty in the South China Sea. But China claims sovereignty over the features of all of the island groups that fall within the nine dash-line in the South China Sea. The Chinese government maintains a suspicious ambiguity about the line’s meaning.

Friction is also caused with the United States which relies on freedom of navigation in maritime East Asia. The US tries to ensure its position in East Asia and that is why it tries to maintain the region as an open, maritime system. States like Japan, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia, and Singapore all maintain friendly relations and cooperate with the US because they benefit politically and economically from remaining outside China’s control.

Apart from the tensions in the South China Sea, there are several other threats in the region which need to be addressed immediately. The foremost among the rising maritime threats affecting the security and free flow of trade in the region is Piracy. ‘Piracy is the bane of modern seafarers. It is a transnational crime which has made a considerable impact on commercial shipping. There are some major piracy hotspots like the Horn of Africa, the Malacca Straits, the Indonesian waters, and the South China Sea. Modern piracy has emerged in Somalia which has resulted in a complex problem. It has emerged as a lucrative criminal industry with transnational characteristics.

Apart from the threat of piracy, there is a major threat of maritime terrorism. Oceans are being misused as a part of the supply chain dynamics for incidents ashore. There is also a rise in Narco-terrorism. Drug trafficking shares a close linkage to maritime terrorism since it is often used to finance terrorism, insurgencies, and piracy activities directly or indirectly. India lies in the pivot of the Golden triangle and the Golden crescent – the two infamous drug producing areas – and is used as a transit point seaward for both.

Pollution and oil-related environmental disasters at sea are a serious concern for environmentalists. Alongside several cons, they affect the free flow of trade and shipping. Most littoral governments are also concerned about major oil spills or wrecks of oil tankers at narrow approaches to harbors, and choke points affecting the flow of shipping traffic.

The South China Sea (SCS) region has emerged as a global flashpoint and as a major maritime challenge for all the users and stakeholders. The SCS has a geostrategic significance because it functions as the throat of the Western Pacific and Indian Ocean enabling rapid shipment of goods and deployments of armed forces.

Cooperation

Cooperation and collaboration against maritime threats and challenges affecting the region is a common affair. However, this requires sensitivity and a wholesome understanding of the security concerns of other countries – an aspect which becomes difficult to achieve given the vastness of the region. India and the US are considered to be the fundamental maritime states that have a responsibility to help all the other littoral states towards capacity building and the maintenance of “maritime order” in the region. An evolving matrix of cooperation would enhance “maritime bonding” at various levels between the maritime agencies and the navies. A continued cultivation of allies and partners by bigger players such as the United States and sustained investment in international engagement is essential. Countries like India, Australia, Japan and some ASEAN countries are expanding security cooperation with each other in the face of rising assertiveness of China. There is also a prominence of middle power coalitions these days which include cooperation in various fields like security dialogues, intelligence sharing, military capacity building, technology sharing, agenda setting for regional forums and coordinated diplomatic initiatives to influence both US and Chinese strategic calculations or form ‘minilateral’ arrangements that do not include China or the US. All these would reinforce the multipolar quality of the Indo-Pacific order.

Along with strengthening defense ties, the United States is also trying to integrate economically with the Asian economies. It has been launching multinational partnerships with South East Asian and South Asian states in areas of agriculture, food security, connectivity, education, energy security, environment etc. In this respect there are initiatives like the Indo-Pacific Economic Corridor and Lower Mekong Initiative. It is also working on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that seeks to bring together economies from across the Pacific into a single trading community. The US has also reached out to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to build an Indo-Pacific region.

India, on the other hand, preserves strategic autonomy in the region which allows it to create a web of cooperative relations with all the stakeholders based on mutual interest and benefit. India also plays a vital role in securing and safeguarding the trade routes crossing the Indian Ocean and Western Pacific. Regional initiatives like the Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia (ReCAAP) intends to secure sea lanes and maritime governance.

The Indian Navy is cooperating with navies of the region to tackle disasters, narcotic smuggling, gun running, etc. The Indian Ocean Naval Symposium (IONS) is an initiative in this direction. India also contributes to the African Union Mission in Somalia and has begun bilateral and trilateral naval coordination and patrolling with China, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar and the Seychelles in Africa. Efforts have also been made for strengthening organizations like Indian Ocean Rim-Association for Regional Cooperation (IOR-ARC). India is also working with Bangladesh, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Nepal for closer trade through the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC). The Mekong-Ganga initiative, launched in 2000 involving India, Thailand, Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam has recently expanded its ambit to include trade, investment, energy, food, health and highway connectivity. India has also associated itself with triangular strategic partnership between India-Russia-China and in the areas of trade, technology transfer and resource sharing. In the Pacific, New Delhi is conducting naval partnership with Hanoi and pursuing oil exploration with Vietnam. Even India and China participate in multilateral cooperation processes such as the free trade schemes in South-east Asia.

Conclusion

The strategic importance of the Indo-Pacific is testimony to the fact that it will remain a disputed zone even in the future. China as the major power of the region keeps it embroiled in conflicts even though it promised to make its rise ‘peaceful’. Other players try to maintain the region as a zone of cooperation and mutual benefit for trade and various other purposes while also trying to resist Chinese dominance.

Ads Blocker Image Powered by Code Help Pro

Ads Blocker Detected!!!

We have detected that you are using extensions to block ads. Please support us by disabling these ads blocker.

Powered By
Best Wordpress Adblock Detecting Plugin | CHP Adblock