By: Aasi Ansari, Research Analyst, GSDN

Introduction

India-Pakistan border is one of the most vulnerable places in the world because of the nuclear capabilities in South Asia. India entered the nuclear arms race when first did the peaceful nuclear test in 1974, after the establishment of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968. India didn’t sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty because India claimed it was discriminatory towards them. Pakistan, on the other hand, tested nuclear weapon much later in May 1998, just days after India tested for the second time, and became a nuclear armed state. India did its second nuclear weapon testing after India adopted No First Use (NFU) policy, which declared that India would use weapon of mass destruction only if the state was attacked by nuclear weapon first by other nuclear armed country.

India has not signed Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty but it has Credible Minimum Deterrence (CMD) and No First Use Policy (NFU), which has helped India to keep the nuclear weapon without any consequence. Pakistan has also not signed Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and they don’t have No First Use Policy, infect they have First Use Policy in order to deter from India or any other nuclear threats. However, Pakistan keep nuclear warheads separately from the missiles and only assemble them if they are considered to be used.

India-Pakistan Border Conflicts

India and Pakistan had been at war multiple times since India got independence from the British empire in 1947 and Pakistan was created as a new nation. Thousands of people were killed in the separation in communal violence, resulting hostile environment between both sides for decades. India and Pakistan conflict was considered as the possible nuclear threats for the first time in the Kargil war in 1999, which happened nearly a year after both India and Pakistan had become nuclear armed states.

The possibility of the use of nuclear weapon was the closest between India and Pakistan in February 2019, when a terrorist group ‘Jaish-e-Mohammed’ attacked by suicide bomb car in the Pulwama region of the Kashmir Valley in India, killing nearly 40 Indian military personnel. India retaliated with air strikes near the Line of Control twelve days after the terrorist attack happened. Pakistan claimed that India staged the Pulwama attack to make an excuse to attack Pakistan for the political benefit. Although, this accusation war never proven more than a conspiracy theory. Pakistan also shot down an Indian aircraft and captured the pilot. This escalated the tensions between the nations. But two days later, Pakistan released the pilot back to India. However, in February 2021, both the nuclear state declared ceasefire on the borders. This decreased the tensions between them.

In the Pulwama crisis, India had indicated that they might reconsider its No First Use policy when the Defence Minister of India, Rajnath Singh implied that India might need to use the nuclear weapon first in the future. China believes that India’s ‘No First Use Policy’ has evolved to ‘No first use against non-nuclear weapon states’. Pakistan became active as well. Although, there has not been any nuclear escalations since Pulwama crisis in neither of the nuclear countries. However, nothing can be confirmed for the future.

The Global Nuclear Flashpoint

In 2000, American President Bill Clinton considered that Kashmir could transform into a “nuclear flashpoint”. All these nuclear countries are developing their nuclear program and try to increase the nuclear arsenal in order to deter from the potential nuclear threat. For instance, Pakistan have nuclear weapon to deter from India, India have it to deter from China, China have it to deter United States, and United States have it deter from Russia.

India don’t only have to deter from Pakistan but from China as well. There have been multiple military conflicts at Sino-Indian and Indo-Pakistani border, but only conventional arms were used. Both India and China has never used its nuclear capabilities to threaten each other but Pakistan has, since it entered nuclear arms race in 1998. Every time the leading global nuclear power had to intervene to handle the conflict for establishing peace. America supported Pakistan during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan with the military aid. Although, America was not actually supporting Pakistan, they were just fighting against Russia. These crises have highlighted the third party influence to the nuclear escalation in the border of India and Pakistan.

India’s nuclear arsenal is lower than the Pakistan’s and China’s nuclear arsenal. India having nearly 165 nuclear warheads and have 700 Kg of weapon grad plutonium to make up to 213 warheads by 2033. Pakistan tries to keep just a little more than India, i.e. nearly 170 warheads and have enough material to make up to 200 warheads by 2025. Much more than India and Pakistan, China has about 500 nuclear warheads and they are developing the nuclear program much faster and it is estimated to be up to 1000 warheads by 2035. However, China has signed Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and have maintained No First Use Policy.

China has supported Pakistan in the previous wars between India and Pakistan. China’s increasing nuclear arsenal has raised concerns about the global security, especially in South Asia. The Biden Administration has declared that US currently does not need to increase its nuclear arsenal, despite China’s nuclear developments and Russia’s aggressive behaviour.  China has refused to talks for any peace building or to stop the nuclear arms race, infact China has 60 more warheads in January 2023 compared to previous year. This might raise concerns in India and Pakistan in the future and both India and Pakistan might increase the number of nuclear warheads to deter for China’s potential nuclear threats.

Pakistan is estimated to have 106 warheads in six deferent types land based ballistic missile capable of nuclear payload. All of them are short range ballistic missiles. Pakistan has also tried to miniaturised nuclear missiles to make Multiple Independently Targeted Re-Entry Vehicles (MIRVs). Pakistan also have naval nuclear capabilities. Babar-3, a Sea Launch Ballistic Missile (SLBM), has been tested twice under the water. However, the completion of the development of Babar-3 has not been confirmed yet. Pakistan approved the purchase of 8 submarines from China, considered to be capable of carrying Babar-3 missiles. The F-16, Mirage-3 and Mirage-5 aircrafts are considered to be capable of carrying nuclear missile. Pakistan is estimated to have nearly 12 Mirage aircrafts.

India has nearly 64 warheads in four deferent types land based ballistic missiles capable of nuclear payload, 2 of them are short range, 1 is medium range and 1 is intermediate range ballistic missile. India has 1 ship-launched and 1 submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), capable to be equipped on submarine but the nuclear capable submarine development in India has not completed yet. Mirage 2000H/I, Jaguar IS/IB and Rafale aircraft are considered to be able to deliver nuclear missiles.

It is considered that Pakistan has the nuclear power to use its own nuclear weapon in its own country in case of an invasion to kill the enemy force in the state along with killing of their own force. If Pakistan ever choses to use Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD)  they are most likely to use a small scale nuclear warhead with minimum destruction. But both the bordering states have to deal with the fallout and radiation contamination in the air, if it is used on the borders. Furthermore, even if the small scale low yield nuclear weapon is used, it could wipe out approximately 20 million people, depending on the population of the destroyed area and nearly 2 billion people will die, if the nuclear winter is triggered.

Just like America supporting Israel right now have raised concern of possible support to Pakistan against China or even India. It is less likely to happen but not impossible. The history of Pakistan being against India is long but the probability of India responding against Pakistan is much higher in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership. All these possible scenarios have the potential to lead to nuclear flashpoint and start the nuclear war in the world or at least between the nuclear armed states.

Conclusion

India have to maintain its nuclear diplomacy throughout the world to deter from Pakistan or any other possible nuclear threats. The possible way to avoid nuclear conflict for India and Pakistan and all the nuclear armed countries is to engage in to a serious dialogue to establish peace and take confidence building measures. All the nuclear states should stop or slow down the nuclear missile development program in order to reduce the nuclear weapon grade material stockpile resulting the reduction of warheads. However, many scholars believe that India-Pakistan border as a nuclear flash point might be a myth, due to the Geopolitical and environmental consequences Pakistan and India have to face. Nevertheless, both India and Pakistan should consider signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty to pledge to use nuclear power for peaceful purpose only.

By: Darshan Gajjar, Research Analyst, GSDN

The domains of geopolitics and foreign policy are filled with many unsolved questions due to the association of inherently uncertain and somewhat bizarre dispositions with them. Often, academicians and scholars of international relations are propelled by questions such as “How do states think? Are they rational all the time? How do policy makers take decisions in a crisis? What is rationality in foreign policy, and how is it associated with the final outcome of policy?”

In a well-crafted manner, American political scientist and international relations scholar John J. Mearsheimer and political scientist Sebastian Rosato attempt to answer those questions through their new book, “How States Think: The Rationality of Foreign Policy,” published by Yale University Press. In this work, which is divided in nine chapters, John Mearsheimer and Sebastian Rosato (jointly referred to as ‘the Authors’ hereafter) not only define strategic rationality in international relations but also break popular notions by separating rationality from that of expected utility maximization. 

Defining Strategic Rationality

When it comes to rationality and international relations, there are broadly two schools of thought: rational choice theorists and political psychologists, who argue that states are non-rational for the majority of the time. If true, such a hypothesis can prove to be catastrophic because in the majority of IR theories, especially liberal and realist theories, states are primarily rational actors—what we call a rational actor assumption.

How can we say that states are rational? Can we equate rationality with the end outcome? The authors argue that “states are rational if their policies are based on credible theories and result from a deliberative decision-making process,” which means rationality is strictly alien to the outcome of the policy decision.

Taking this definition as a reference, the authors highlighted how some of the most infamous decisions, such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Hitler’s decision to invade the Soviet Union, and Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II, were rational decisions despite not achieving their desired outcomes.

Expected Utility Maximization and Rationality

Both rational choice theorists and political psychologists correlate rationality with expected utility maximisation which propounds that rational actors take action to maximise their overall utility. The authors have rejected such a correlation, arguing that since the international system is an anarchic one and uncertainty is one of its prime components, it will be difficult for policymakers to identify the expected maximum utility under such conditions.

The authors further assert, “Rationality is often judged in terms of outcomes. In this view, a policy is rational if it brings success and nonrational if it fails. Rational thinking is associated with good outcomes, such as victory in war, and nonrational thinking with bad outcomes, such as defeat. But rationality is about process rather than outcomes. Rational actors employ their critical faculties to figure out how to operate in an uncertain world. This does not ensure that the policies they come up with will meet with success.”

Instead, they provide that rationality is independent of outcomes and utility maximization. This does not mean that rationality has nothing to do with outcome; rationality simply means that a decision has been taken based on credible theories and is the result of a deliberative decision-making process that can lead to the survival of the state. That is to say, rationality is not an end but a means to an end, where the end is the ultimate survival of the state.

Credible and Non-Credible Theories

As mentioned earlier, one of the two components of the definition of strategic rationality is a credible theory. The field of geopolitics and foreign policy is an information deficit field where, for the most part, uncertainty prevails, making it necessary for any state or policymaker to follow any particular theory that can help it formulate rational policy.

The authors put forth that any theory is credible if it has its own set of assumptions, causal logics, and empirical claims that are backed by evidentiary support. Conversely, a theory is non-credible if it commits one or more of the following errors: i) it rests on unrealistic assumptions; ii) its causal story is logically inconsistent; iii) there is little evidentiary support for their causal logics, overarching claims, or both.

Giving various historical and empirical examples, the authors term realist concepts and theories such as Balance of Power, Mutually Assured Destruction, and liberal theories such as Democratic Peace Theory, Economic Interdependence, and Liberal Institutionalism, along with Social Constructivism, as credible theories, while theories such as Domino Theory, Forcible Democracy Promotion Theory, and Neoclassical Realism Theory are non-credible.

Individual and State Rationality

To what extent do individual biases affect the actions of the state? The second component of the definition of rationality is the deliberative decision-making process. While the final decision has to be taken by an individual, that decision must be the result of deliberative discussions. Though it is possible for an individual to have particular biases in certain matters, due to collective deliberations, the final outcome of the policy will be alien to such a bias.

State rationality is a result of two-staged deliberative aggregation where key decision makers involve themselves in a robust debate where the final policy choice has to be made by the ultimate decider. In the first stage, every actor engaged in the discussion must have a credible theory, put forth their view on those theories, and discuss among themselves various merits and demerits of them, followed by robust and uninhibited debate, after which they settle on a guiding policy based on a credible theory or theories. In cases where policymakers involved in the debate fail to agree on a theory, the ultimate decider determines the way forward based on that debate.

Case Studies

The book further provides fourteen historical case studies, which include five grand strategy decisions, five crisis management decisions, and four non-rational decisions, solidifying an earlier argument that separates rationality from results. Out of those fourteen case studies, three merits to be mentioned here.

These days, due to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, one of the most discussed issues in common geopolitical debates is the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) after the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. John Mearsheimer himself in the past contended that one of the reasons why Russia attacked Ukraine in February 2022 was the eastward expansion of NATO. While the authors may not agree with the policy, that ipso facto does presuppose the policy to be a non-rational one. The book asserts that the initial decision to expand NATO after the Cold War by the Clinton administration was based on the amalgamation of credible theories of Democratic Peace Theory, Economic Interdependence, and Liberal Institutionalism and was the result of a deliberative decision-making process between the stakeholders, thus making it a rational policy decision.

Similarly, two of the most consequential events during World War II—the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour and Operation Barbarossa—were believed to have shifted the entire balance of power in favour of Allied powers. In 1940, as a result of Japanese military expansion in Asia, the USA passed the Export Control Act, which cut off Japan’s supply of many goods and raw materials, which by and large crippled the Japanese economy. It was further feigned by the American oil embargo in 1941. Eventually, on December 7, 1941, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. The Japanese chose to attack the United States, reasoning that a risky war was preferable to a crippled economy and elimination from the ranks of the great powers. No matter how bad it has proven to be, the book argues that since the attack was based on a credible theory of balance of power and was followed by due deliberation, it was a rational decision.

Likewise, Hitler’s decision to invade the USSR on June 22, 1941 is often considered a non-rational decision, and it is widely, for ideological reasons, believed to be motivated by Hitler’s personal hatred towards communist ideology. While his personal anti-communist biases may align with Germany’s attack on the Soviet Union, the decision was based on credible realist theory, and during the deliberations with his generals, Hitler, based on the poor performance of the Red Army in the war with Finland (famously known as the Winter War) along with other factors, concluded that the Red Army was hardly a formidable opponent, paving the way for the full-fledged military invasion. Thus, making it a rational policy decision.

Conclusion

The concept of rationality, as argued in the book, relies on the assumption that policymakers, while taking a decision, solely rely on the existing theories, which is not the case all the time. However, the arguments offered in this book will provide a starting point for future scholars and researchers to delve deep into the subject of rationality and how it affects geopolitics and foreign policy of any State.

By: Krishnendu R, Research Analyst, GSDN

Introduction

Jordan is a young state, an Arab country called the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, a desert land with traces of ancient civilizations. Jordan is bounded north by Syria, east by Iraq, southwest and south by Saudi Arabia, and west by Israel and West Bank. It has a pivotal role in the Middle Eastern region. Jordan’s population is mainly Arabs, principally Jordanians and Palestinians. It is a relatively modern state carved from a desert after the great Arab revolt and has marked a pivotal role in the history

History of Jordan

Jordan is rich in archaeological and religious traditions, and the Jordanian desert was home to many hunters from the early Palaeolithic era. There, flint tools were found at Palaeolithic sites. A site at Tulayat al Gazal in Jordan Valley, a well-built village with painted plaster walls, also represents developments from the Neolithic to the Chalcolithic period.

The early bronze age is found through deposits from Dibon. Many sites were not excavated, and Al Shawak was where evidence of settlement was located. Nomadic invasions destroyed the Bronze Age culture, villages, and towns and the peaceful development of civilization. This area was believed to be occupied from 1300 to 1900 BC, but several archaeological surveys found traces of settlement only when the Egyptians came. It was confirmed by the founding of a temple at Amman, which imported objects from Egyptian, Mycenaean, and Cypriot. Prominent kingdoms dating from the middle bronze age onwards, Gilead in the north, Moab in central Jordan, and Midian in the south.

From (1300- 1000 BCE) there were invasions from both sides of the Jordan River. David attacked kingdoms like Moab and Edom. Modern Amman then Ammon regained its independence after the death of David. Assyrians were the successive invaders who took the eastern part of the country as far as Edom. Revolts happened against Assyrian rule in the 760s to 750s, but they again captured and ruled until the fall of the Assyrian empire; the country was divided under Assyrian governors. The Assyrian texts were the first source to refer to the Nabataeans. The country prospered only during the Hellenistic rule of the plutonomy. They built a new town, Ammon, and was renamed Philadelphia.

In 64-65, the Nabataean kingdom was conquered by the Romans under Pompey. They restored destroyed cities by the Jews and set up Decapolis. The country remained independent, but taxes in Jordan prospered under Roman rule. Many towns and villages were established after Christianity became recognized, and several churches were built.

In the early 7th century, Jordan was ruled by the new Arab Islamic Umayyad empire (the first Muslim dynasty). Later, in (750-1258) the successors of the Umayyads Abbasids took over power.

After the decline of the Abbasids, different regions of Jordan were ruled by Crusades, Ayyubids, mamelukes, and the Ottomans. 1516 Ottoman forces led Jordan and witnessed prosperity in the 16th century. Wasabi forces occupied Jordan after four centuries of Ottoman rule (1516 – 1918) ended during World War 1. Arabs joined the British army against the Ottomans, and the British took over the administration. On May 25, 1923, the British recognized Trans Jordan’s independence under the rule of Emir Abdulah. Still, matters of finance, military, and foreign affairs were in the hands of the British after World War 2, and he was proclaimed king. Later on in the interwar period, the British financially supported Jordan. Larter Abdullah was assassinated, and then his eldest son, Hussein ibn Tala, was crowned king in 1953. his policies were sharpened for regaining the west bank for the Hashemite dynasty, and after Husein Abdullah 2 took over the power.

Constitution and Political Landscape

The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is a monarchy with a representative government based on a constitution established in 1952. King Abdullah II is the head of the state. Islam is the official religion. King is the commander of the armed forces. He excuses his duties through the prime minister and the council of ministers. The judiciary is an independent part of the government, with three categories of courts. The first category consists of regular courts that include courts of first instance and courts for appeals. The constitution also provides a special council that interprets laws on their constitutionality. The second category consists of courts for exercising jurisdiction over personal matters. The third court category consists of courts for land government, government, property, municipal tax, and custom courts.

The political process in Jordan is through the constitutional monarchy system. Political parties were banned before the elections, and the Arab national union, not a political party, was the only political organization allowed, they engage in socially active functions and they won in the 1989 elections. In 1992, political parties were recognized as long as they acknowledged the monarchy’s legitimacy.

Economy of Jordan

Jordan is a small country with limited resources; the country is facing a significant problem with water security. Jordan depends on others for energy requirements.

Trade and finance constitute Jordan’s one-third of GDP, transportation and construction represent one-fifth of the GDP remittances, and liquidity from Jordanians working abroad is a significant source of foreign exchange.

Jordan has been plagued by recession, debt, and employment because of the small size of the Jordan market and the presence of large numbers of refugees. Jordan sought financial aid from the International Monetary Fund and World Bank to boost the private sector, clear the country’s debt and loans from the World Bank, and revitalize the Jordanian economy. In 2000, Jordan joined the World Trade Organisation.

Jordan’s geographic location is a reason for political instability and a vulnerable economy. Agriculture in Jordan is only a tiny amount of cultivable land, and they import most food products.

Mineral resources like deposits of phosphates, potash, and marble. Quartic, gypsum, and baric were recently discovered. Jordan has no oil deposits and natural gas reserves are located in the eastern deserts.

Water scarcity led to conflict among states in the region overusing the Jordan River. In 2000, Jordan and Syria secured funds to construct a dam on the Yarmouk River. It also helps in generating electricity. Major products manufactured in the city where cement and extra traction of phosphate and petroleum refining were primarily exported were clothes, chemicals potash, and phosphates; imports are machinery ‘crude petroleum and food products.

Regional influence and foreign relations

Jordan has close connections with Western countries through its participation in enforcing UN sanctions against Iraq. Jordan has trade agreements with the USA. It also has good relations with the European Union and is part of European neighbourhood policy to increase the ties between its neighbours.

Jordan shares borders with Israel, Syria, and Iraq. There have been wars between the boundaries, so Jordan is maintaining diplomatic relations with its neighbours.

Jordan stands for an independent Palestinian state as part of a two-state solution; the ruling dynasty in Jordan has custodianship of holy sites in Jerusalem, which reinforced the Israel-Jordan peace treaty; there are also tensions in protecting the Muslim and Christian religious sites in Jerusalem.

The political position of Jordan changed after the conflict between Hamas and Israel, and the Jordanian prime minister expressed disapproval of Israel’s action in Gaza by calling back the ambassador from Israel and declaring that he would not be permitted to return, following the Hamas attack. Khasawneh argued that the Israel blockade in the Gaza Strip could not be justified as self-defence but criticized the genocide of Israel, which included safe zones and ambulances as targets.

Palestinian refugees (Jordanian residents) conducted protests against Israel’s attacks in Gaza. Jordan’s population has sympathy with Hamas; there was a massive fear of migration from Palestine to Jordan due to the Israel-Hamas war. Western allies see Jordan as a mediator in case Israel and Hamas agree to negotiate. King Abdullah has been part of meetings with Europe to secure the safe passage of humanitarian aid. The government is also fighting problems such as inflation, unemployment, and the trafficking of arms and drugs through Jordan to the West Bank.

Jordan has affiliations with the UN and related organizations, like the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. Jordan is a core member of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the Arab league. It is also a member of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Islamic Cooperation, and the Non-Aligned Movement.

Conclusion

Jordan’s geopolitical position, history, and political landscape mark a significant regional influence in the Middle Eastern region. Jordan was always committed to maintaining peace and stability in the area. Facing problems like water scarcity, managing the refugee population, and addressing economic issues, the country is trying to maintain active participation in regional diplomacy and promote interfaith between the nations to underscore its significance.

By: Harshit Tokas, Research Analyst, GSDN

The recent events surrounding North Korea’s missile launch and South Korea’s response have catalyzed a surge in tensions, marking a significant escalation in the already volatile situation in the Korean Peninsula. North Korea’s apparent missile test, closely following its claimed successful satellite launch, has provoked strong reactions from neighboring countries and the international community at large.

South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff reported a suspected unsuccessful missile launch from North Korea’s capital region recently. This launch, directed towards the sea east of North Korea, was believed to have ended in failure. Despite this failure, the specifics regarding the type of missile fired and the reason for the launch’s unsuccessful outcome were not disclosed.

This missile launch came hot on the heels of South Korea’s decision to suspend parts of the 2018 inter-Korean military agreement, a response to North Korea’s satellite launch a day earlier. The 2018 agreement had established demilitarized zones and restricted aerial surveillance along the heavily fortified border between the two Koreas. North Korea’s subsequent missile test was seen as a direct challenge to South Korea’s stance, exacerbating the already strained relations.

In retaliation, North Korea issued a stern response, threatening to bolster its armed forces and deploy additional military equipment at the border while renouncing the terms of the 2018 military agreement. This move heightened military tensions, with North Korea condemning South Korea’s actions as provocative and claiming they were responsible for pushing the situation into an uncontrollable phase.

North Korea’s claimed success in launching the Malligyong-1 satellite was presented as part of its endeavor to enhance its surveillance capabilities against the US and South Korean forces. However, while South Korea acknowledged the satellite’s entry into orbit, further assessments were underway to verify its functionality.

The international community’s response to these provocations was swift and unequivocal. The White House expressed concerns over the missile launch, highlighting the risks it posed to regional stability and security. Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida lodged a strong protest against North Korea’s actions, emphasizing the need for adherence to international norms and the maintenance of regional stability.

Amidst widespread opposition and criticism, North Korea remained steadfast in defending its sovereign right to strengthen its surveillance capabilities through satellite launches. This unyielding stance has exacerbated the already heightened tensions on the Korean Peninsula, raising concerns about the prospects for diplomatic resolution.

North Korea’s repeated attempts at satellite launches in the current year have faced setbacks, with previous efforts ending in failure. However, the recent escalation marked by missile tests and satellite launches underscores the precarious state of affairs in the region and the pressing need for diplomatic intervention.

The evolving scenario in the Korean Peninsula necessitates concerted diplomatic efforts and multilateral engagement to de-escalate tensions and prevent further provocations that could potentially destabilize the region. As the situation unfolds, the delicate balance between assertive deterrence and diplomatic dialogue assumes paramount importance in mitigating the risks posed by escalating tensions in the Korean Peninsula.

This recent chain of events, including the missile test, North Korea’s satellite launch, and the subsequent geopolitical responses, has not only heightened regional anxieties but also brought into focus the fragility of peace in the Korean Peninsula. The complex interplay between geopolitical rivalries, security concerns, and the aspirations for diplomatic resolution underscores the challenges in finding a sustainable path towards peace and stability in the region.

As tensions continue to simmer, diplomatic channels must remain open, fostering dialogue and negotiations to prevent further escalations and uphold the prospects for peaceful coexistence between the two Koreas and their regional counterparts. The need for cooperative frameworks and diplomatic initiatives that prioritize peace and security in the Korean Peninsula has never been more imperative.

By: Barsha Hazarika, Research Analyst, GSDN

Competition between India and China has caused Southeast Asian countries to assess their respective geopolitical positions and importance as another great power struggle begins. With countries compelled to choose sides or straddle the line with perilous neutrality, we examine why Thailand may be necessary to both Asian powers.

Thailand’s location in Southeast Asia, bordering Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia, and Malaysia, makes it an important crossroads for trade and transit lines and a gateway to other countries in the region.

Thailand is Southeast Asia’s second-largest economy and a center for manufacturing, agriculture, and tourism. Because of its significant economic growth, it has become a key partner for several countries in the region and global trade and investment.

Despite recurrent political instability, Thailand maintains a largely stable political environment and strong connections with its regional neighbours. Its stability has made it an appealing destination for global investment and a trusted partner for other countries in the area, implying that giants of Asia have increased their efforts to persuade Bangkok’s leadership.

Southeast Asia’s economic growth over the last four decades demonstrates relatively extended periods of unbroken, vigorous growth. This was one of the factors that led India and China to strengthen their ties with the area after the Cold War ended. Southeast Asia’s overall growth rate was 7.6 percent from 1991 to 1996. However, the Asian financial crisis, which began in July 1997 with the devaluation of the Thai baht, put in motion an economic and financial catastrophe that engulfed the Thai economy and every other critical Southeast Asian economy, with repercussions felt worldwide. The Thai economy was in disarray after the financial crisis, with output and investment contracting, poverty rising, and the government forced to accept an IMF bailout package as the financial system was bankrupt due to a lack of confidence in the country’s economic institutions.

One of the critical driving causes for Thailand’s connectivity goal, according to a 2015 analysis by the Asian Development Bank Institute, is the country’s shifting economic structure. Like many other nations in the region, Thailand serves as a central manufacturing and assembly hub for sectors such as autos and hard disc drives. This attracts investments from global corporations in Japan, the EU, and the United States.

China’s interest in Thailand

Thailand, known as Siam before 1939, has faced and lived with power imbalance for generations as a small country near China.

Thailand is significant for China because it is one of the countries involved in China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) is a vast infrastructure and development project to expand China’s economic and political influence across Asia, Africa, and Europe. Thailand’s Southeast Asian position makes it a significant hub for China’s marine trade and a gateway to other countries in the region. Furthermore, Thailand has a well-developed infrastructure, such as ports, railways, and highways, which China may utilize to transfer goods and commodities from its southwestern region to other parts of the world.

Furthermore, Thailand is viewed as a potential partner for China in its efforts to counteract the United States’ influence in the region. China’s military presence in the South China Sea has increased tensions with numerous Southeast Asian countries, including Thailand. However, China has been seeking to strengthen its relationship with Thailand by providing economic and military aid and fostering tighter relationships with the Thai government.

Concerned about the potential consequences of military tensions in the Taiwan Strait, small and medium-sized Northeast Asian firms have considered Thailand a cheaper, more regionally connected production base. Over the years, Thailand has emerged as an attractive investment hub for growth-hungry Chinese firms.

According to the Thailand Board of Investment (BOI), Thailand received 365.2 billion baht (US$ 10.1 billion) in foreign investment applications between January and August, 73% more than the same period last year, led by Chinese firms that committed 90.3 billion baht, up nearly three-fold year on year, and it’s predicted to rise. According to central bank data, net Chinese direct investment in Thailand increased 56% yearly to 25.1 billion baht in the first six months of 2023. Thai exports to China have also increased, from US$ 1.82 billion in 1995 to US$ 37.7 billion in 2021, owing to China’s expanding middle class and Thailand’s increasing competitiveness as a manufacturing and agricultural powerhouse.

India’s interest in Thailand

In 2022, both countries celebrated the 75th anniversary of their diplomatic relations. Thailand’s “Look West” policy has complemented India’s “Act East” program, bringing the two countries closer together. Both countries have participated in various international forums, including ASEAN, the East Asia Summit, BIMSTEC, the Indian Ocean Rim Association, the Asia Cooperation Dialogue, and the Mekong Ganga Cooperation, as India and Thailand have maritime borders in the Andaman Sea.

The relationship between India and Thailand is familiar; they have historical people-to-people and economic ties that help further cement the relations between them. The two countries’ relations were formalized in 1947. Thailand initially had little to offer India, and Cold War politics placed them in opposing camps of two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union. However, with the end of the Cold War and the Asian economic boom of the 1970s, trade and commercial connections between India and Thailand have grown, and several agreements have been struck between the two countries.

Thailand’s importance has grown substantially in recent years. For the past two decades, India has worked to expand its economic, social, political, and cultural ties with Southeast Asian countries. The value of trade between India and ASEAN countries has surpassed 70 billion US dollars.

It is not just Myanmar’s neighbor but also shares its discomfort with China.  If one looks at trade and commerce, it reached an all-time high of USD 15 billion in 2021-22, thus achieving the status of India’s fourth-largest trading partner in ASEAN.

The India-Myanmar-Thailand trilateral highway project will aid in connecting South Asia with Southeast Asia. It is expected to expand land connectivity through Northeast India and Southeast Asia. For the development of India’s Northeast, the trilateral highway is the crucial entry point to ASEAN that facilitates trade, commerce, and people-to-people links.  The Trilateral project is critical not only for the road but also for the Dawei Project. Dawei, a port city in Myanmar, is being developed jointly by Myanmar and Thailand as a deep sea port and special economic zone. India also proposes connecting the port to Chennai, providing an alternate marine route to Southeast Asia and minimizing reliance on the crowded Malacca Strait, reducing shipping time.

Thailand assisted India in its fight against COVID by supplying oxygen and medical supplies to combat the devastating second wave. This exemplifies the evolution of the Indo-Thai relationship from economic cooperation to a solid bilateral connection.

Both countries have endured the wrath of terrorism in the past, and potential threats loom. This has caused both countries to recognize the importance of a strong and practical counter-terrorism strategy.

Lastly, the Indian Ocean and the Bay of Bengal are part of India and Thailand’s common maritime boundaries. Its geopolitical importance in the Indian Ocean and its long-standing vulnerability to sea-borne threats have forced India to maintain surveillance, ranging from the Malacca Straits to Madagascar, to secure its vital strategic interests.  As a result, India must work with its neighbours to ensure its economic and geopolitical well-being. Conversely, Thailand is a critical regional player due to its central location in Southeast Asia. To sustain its economic success, it must expand its market, which necessitates a stable regional climate. As maritime neighbours, India and Thailand face similar security concerns from rising non-traditional challenges such as terrorism, maritime communication security, and piracy. Given their geographical location, India and Thailand are uniquely positioned to shape the Indo-Pacific policy.

Conclusion

Thailand is strategically significant to China and India due to its Southeast Asian position, well-developed infrastructure, and potential as a partner in growing their respective economic and political power in the region.

Thailand is currently undergoing a new economic growth paradigm. The recent economic development model, ‘Thailand 4.0,’ was introduced by Prime Minister Chan-o-cha in 2016. This developmental model seeks to free the country from the middle-income trap,’ the ‘inequality trap,’ and the ‘balanced trap,’ and to propel the country towards the status of a ‘first-world country,’ one that is stable, affluent, and sustainable in the context of the fourth industrial revolution. Thailand’s economy is expected to increase due to the implementation of its new economic policy model, dubbed “Thailand 4.0,” which, according to the World Bank, contributes to ongoing improvements in domestic business mood. Furthermore, the World Bank’s Thailand Economic Monitor for 2018 forecasts 4.1% growth, indicating that Thailand’s economic recovery is spreading.

This allows India to expand its economic collaboration with Thailand in IT, pharmaceuticals, auto components, machinery, and alternative energy. Such investment incentives are also available to Chinese enterprises seeking fertile ground for expansion both at home and overseas.

The national dream of Thailand of the ‘golden peninsula,’ in which it would serve as Southeast Asia’s economic hub, the agenda is still part of modern-day Thai national planning, with connectedness at the center of its economic policies.

By: Anjali Mahto, Research Analyst, GSDN

Paraguay is a landlocked democratic South American country. The majority of the population is of mixed Spanish and Guarani heritage and speaks both Guarani and Spanish languages. Initially occupied by the indigenous Guarani people, Spanish invaders began colonizing Paraguay’s interior plains in 1537. The local population was thereafter converted to Roman Catholicism. From 1947, the right-wing Colorado Party dominated politics for the next 60 years. During their tenure, in 1954, General Alfredo Stroessner seized power in a coup, ushering in 35 years of ruthless dictatorship which came to an end in 1989, starting democracy in Paraguay.

Corruption is imposing a serious challenge in the country, and anti-corruption law has been not enforced adequately. Moreover, cases have been sitting in court for years, resulting in large protests. Authorities, meanwhile, have continued to criminalize and suppress social protests. Furthermore, the fact that Paraguay is a hub for drug and cigarette smuggling, as well as human trafficking, has fueled street violence, particularly in border districts, and raised fears about runaway crime. The Triple Frontier region, which includes Paraguay, Argentina, and Brazil, has long been connected with drug trafficking and other illegal trade. Environmental degradation and institutional discrimination have harmed the rights of rural and Indigenous peoples. Forced evictions have been a severe problem as a result of the country’s agrarian policies and property rights, harming the rights of thousands of small-scale farmers and Indigenous communities.

Poverty and gender-based discrimination limit women’s and children’s rights, while sexual exploitation of children and girls’ forced pregnancies endangers their safety. In comparison to its neighbors, such as Brazil and Argentina, Paraguay is one of the least developed countries in South America, with a very small tourist sector.

Political Landscape

The right-wing Colorado Party has long dominated the political scene of Paraguay, holding power for decades until 2008, when a rift led to their collapse. The party’s ongoing power is credited to the development of a strong political machine during a 35-year dictatorship, as well as its connection with traditional values in the mostly Catholic country. Despite claims of dictatorial participation and corruption, the Colorado Party is supported by around 40% of the electorate. The party’s previous president, Abdo Bentez, was involved in controversies that led to US sanctions against the country.

Former President Horacio Cartes has been linked to the illegal trafficking of tobacco products in the region. Tabesa, his company, is tied to networks involving the FARC, Sinaloa Cartel, and Hezbollah, as well as illicit money transactions. Cartes was blacklisted by the US State Department owing to “significant corruption” and ties to “foreign terrorist organizations.”

Despite these scandals, Cartes remains President of Honor Colorado, a faction of Colorado Party after the split, and handpicked Santiago Peña, the current president of Paraguay. The party, which has traditionally controlled politics, is now under investigation, with several of its top leaders implicated in major organized crimes and sanctioned by the US.

Peña is Cartes’ former finance minister and former IMF economist. His policy is centered on attracting international investment, lowering taxes, and attempting to reduce Paraguay’s large foreign debt. He advocates keeping Paraguay as the only country in South America with full diplomatic relations with Taiwan.

Rule of Law

According to polls, corruption remained one of the top three issues in Paraguay. Although the judiciary is technically independent, money launderers, drug traffickers, and corrupt politicians have taken control of local judicial authority. Sandra Quiónez, the attorney general, is widely thought to have obstructed investigations into former President Cartes. Efforts to remove her have been denied in Congress by the Colorado Party.

Deficiencies in the health system were exposed by the COVID-19 epidemic, which provided the population’s fundamental requirements and primary healthcare. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the government faced severe and credible claims of corruption over the purchase of COVID-related products, prompting the resignation of the health minister in 2021.

A legislative commission report released in September 2022 documented a smuggling network conducted by members of Paraguay’s customs service and navy. Earlier that year, some officers and commanders were removed from their positions due to their involvement in smuggling.

Climate and Economics

Paraguay remained one of South America’s most vulnerable countries to climate change. However, officials continued to allow monoculture to spread, potentially damaging native ecosystems.

Economic issues, such as unemployment, poverty, social inequality, and inflation, remained among the top worries. Agriculture and hydroelectric power are important to the economy. Climate conditions that affected agricultural and hydropower exports, poor performance of its trading partners, and the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the World Bank, have hampered growth in recent years, reducing GDP growth from an annual average of 4.4% between 2003 and 2018 to 0.7% between 2019 and 2022. Last year, Paraguay showed a 0.8% contraction in GDP.

The economy grew by -0.3% in 2022, however, as the weather begins to normalize, the economy is predicted to recover by 4.8% in 2023.

Poverty recovered to pre-pandemic levels at 19%, but drought, high inflation (9.8%), and fewer pandemic-related benefits led to an increase in extreme poverty. The World Bank forecasts average inflation of 5.3% in 2023, while Fitch forecasts 7.1%.

Its extreme sensitivity to climate change necessitates urgent attention. Weather events are predicted to become more frequent and intense in the future, requiring structural modifications in the country to boost production and resilience.

Freedom of Expression and Belief

Paraguay’s constitution guarantees freedom of expression; however, it is not consistently enforced.  Journalists are threatened and assassinated by criminal organizations and corrupt officials, encouraging self-censorship. Various religious groups are mostly free to worship. However, the Roman Catholic Church’s cultural domination has expanded deeper into public and private life, often at the expense of individual rights.

Protests are prevalent; however, they are sometimes suppressed. Throughout 2022 there were many protests demanding land rights and relief during drought and difficult economic conditions as well as against high fuel prices.

Indigenous People in Paraguay

Paraguay is home to 19 indigenous groups of people. Even though Paraguay has ratified the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the country’s indigenous peoples’ fundamental rights are often violated. There is systemic discrimination, as well as agrarian policies that have increased in the frequency of forced evictions. These evictions have led to arbitrary detentions and executions, as well as the expulsion of thousands of small-scale farmers and Indigenous people.

Peasant settlements and Indigenous groups have been subjected to widespread prosecution and violence, to deprive the former of access to land and agricultural reform and the latter of their communal property rights.

Individual Rights & Trafficking Profile

In Paraguay, human trafficking affects both domestic and foreign victims, with practices such as Criadazgo, in which children from underprivileged homes are taken as domestic labor. It is estimated that 47,000 Paraguayan minors work in Criadazgo, rendering them vulnerable to sex and labor trafficking. Although girls are disproportionately affected, boys account for 30% of youngsters in Criadazgo. Children from rural areas are used in sex trafficking and forced labor in metropolitan places, with familial traffickers participating in child sex trafficking cases. Indigenous people, transgender people, and those working in street selling, begging, mining, brick making, and ranching are especially vulnerable. Social media is being used more and more for recruiting, and victims are being identified both within and outside of Paraguay, especially in Europe.

The lack of regulatory mechanisms in the Tri-Border Area contributes to increasing trafficking dangers. Corruption among officials, especially police and judges, is alleged to be enabling sex trafficking through bribery and extortion. The government’s 2022 internet campaign and awareness materials attempt to counteract fraudulent recruitment practices, with awareness campaigns depending on civil society. There are hotlines and a website for reporting crimes, including human trafficking, highlighting attempts to combat the issue.

Gender-based violence (GBV) and sexual abuse continue to be prevalent among women and children. In 2021, authorities registered 35 femicides, and 40 in 2022. Abortion, same-sex marriage, and civil unions are still prohibited. LGBT+ persons, particularly transgender women, describe feeling increasingly dangerous as the country becomes more conservative.

Conclusion                                    

Finally, Paraguay has a complicated combination of issues in the political, economic, social, and human rights domains. Its political scene, long dominated by the right-wing Colorado Party, is marred by claims of corruption, involvement in organized crime, and challenges to the rule of law. The judiciary is accused of being swayed by money launderers and corrupt politicians, hence impeding effective judicial processes.

Economically, Paraguay is vulnerable due to climate change implications on agriculture and hydroelectric generation. Poverty, unemployment, and social inequality remain high, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite economic difficulties, the resurgence is expected in 2023 as weather conditions stabilize.

The country’s human rights status is concerning, especially for Indigenous peoples who face discrimination, forced evictions, and violence. Threats against journalists and the Roman Catholic Church’s cultural dominance, which influences public and private life, highlight issues of freedom of expression and belief.

Individual rights are under attack, with human trafficking on the rise, particularly among vulnerable populations like children, Indigenous peoples, and transgender Paraguayans. Despite the government’s efforts to combat trafficking through awareness campaigns and hotlines, obstacles remain, including reported corruption among officials.

Gender-based violence continues to be a major issue, with sexual assaults and restrictions on reproductive and LGBT+ rights adding to a hazardous environment for marginalized people. Despite its natural and cultural riches, Paraguay is at a crossroads that requires comprehensive measures to solve structural concerns and promote diversity, justice, and sustainable development.

By: Nihal Kujur

In the spirit of promoting international peace and harmony, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is the world’s second-largest organization founded on September 25, 1969 in Raba, Morocco as a Muslim world’s united voice that strives to promote and protect the interests of the Muslim world. The organization was formed in response to an attack on Al-Aqsa Mosque, the third holiest site in Islam located in Jerusalem, by an Australian extremist Jew in the same year. Its headquarters are in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

As violence erupted between Hamas and Israeli forces following an attack on Israel on October 7, 2023 Iran asked for an emergency meeting of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The Hamas attack, the most serious assault into Israeli territory in decades, coincides with US-backed efforts to persuade Saudi Arabia to normalize relations with Israel in exchange for a weapons contract between Washington and Riyadh. Such a move would put a halt to Saudi Arabia’s recent détente with Iran.

Iran’s support for Hamas is part of a larger network of militias and armed groups it backs throughout the Middle East, giving Iran a strong presence in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen in addition to Gaza. Along with Hamas, Iran’s support to Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Yemen’s Houthi rebels has made Iran an influencing player in the Middle East.

On November 11, 2023 a unique joint summit of the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) happened in Riyadh putting aside their hostilities and differences to present a united front calling for an end to the Gaza war and rejecting Israel’s actions against Palestinians as self-defense.

Originally, just 22 Arab League members were anticipated to attend, but the summit was eventually enlarged to include the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a larger group of 57 primarily Muslim-majority states to which the Arab League countries belong.

The unexpected return of the Palestinian issue to Arab and Muslim consciousness, as well as unquestioning support for Israel by the Western World, demanded a strong response, hence the meeting was concluded.

The young Prince of Saudi Arabia, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman popularly known as MBS, convened the summit and assumed the role of leader of the Arab-Muslim world by inviting his allies including Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Egypt as well as his rivals including Iran, Türkiye, Qatar and Syria who was welcomed back into the Arab League this year, to unitedly reiterate their plea to the United States and Israel to cease the fighting in Gaza.

The meeting was another historical milestone because President Ebrahim Raisi also attended the meeting in Riyadh, marking the first visit by an Iranian president in 11 years to Saudi Arabia. The peace between Saudi and Iran was brokered by China in March of this year.

CONSENSUS

Hundreds of Arab and Muslim leaders had together condemned Israeli aggression against the Gaza Strip, war crimes, and barbaric and inhuman massacres perpetrated by the government. They demanded an immediate cease-fire, the removal of Gaza’s siege, and access to humanitarian relief in Gaza which all are desperate to do. They all condemned the forced relocation talks of Palestinians from Gaza to Egypt or the West Bank to Jordan and demanded an end to arms sales to Israel. They demanded that the peace process be restarted to allow for the formation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. It emphasized that the Palestinian problem will be resolved based on a two-state solution and ending Israeli occupation.

The leaders requested that the United Nations Security Council to pass “a decisive and binding resolution” to put an end to Israel’s “aggression” in Gaza.

According to the final statement of the unusual joint Islamic-Arab summit in Riyadh, the International Criminal Court was urged to probe “war crimes and crimes against humanity that Israel is committing” in the Palestinian territories. The conference also called for an end to the siege of Gaza, access to humanitarian supplies, and an end to armament sales to Israel.

Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman remarked that an immediate suspension of military operations in Gaza must be done and that all hostages and prisoners must be released. He went on to saying the summit that the Israel-Hamas war is a humanitarian crisis and that Israel is violating international humanitarian laws. He pointed out that the dual standards adopted by the world have proven the failure of international community and the UN Security Council.

“We are certain the only cause for peace is the end of the Israeli occupation and illegal settlements, and restoration of the established rights of the Palestinian people and the establishment of the state on 1967, with East Jerusalem as its capital,” he said.

DIFFERENCES IN

While everyone agreed on some topics, there was no agreement on others, where Iran’s views were the most confrontational.

Türkiye’s President Erdogan called for an international peace conference to find a permanent solution to the Israeli-Palestinian problem and asserted for a permanent ceasefire and not pauses for a couple hours. According to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Israel is waging an “unrivaled genocidal war” in Gaza, and the US should put pressure on Israel to agree to a truce. Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, Emir of Qatar, has questioned how long the international community will treat Israel as if it is beyond international law.

Iranian President Raisi, on the other hand, praised the Palestinian Islamist militant group Hamas for battling Israel and asked Islamic countries to strike Israel with oil and goods sanctions. “There is no other option but to oppose Israel. “We kiss Hamas’ hands for its resistance against Israel,” Raisi declared in his speech. Raisi emphasized that Washington in support of Israel, uses veto in the UN to any resolution that prohibits the killing of Palestinians.

Some Arab countries, led by Algeria, have called for an end to diplomatic relations with Israel. While other Arab countries that have established diplomatic relations with Israel, such as the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, are fighting back, emphasizing the importance of keeping lines open in order to retain diplomatic relations with Israel despite rising international pressure on Islamic countries to condemn Israel’s shelling of the Gaza Strip.

Earlier at a press conference in Tel Aviv, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu asked Arab leaders to condemn and oppose Hamas. While in the summit, Iran requested for arming the Palestinians which the rest of the Islamic world refused. Most Islamic countries do not wish to arm terrorist organizations like Hamas. The summit, in fact, emphasized recognizing only the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the official representative of Palestinians—but it also declares that all other Palestinian factions should operate “under a PLO-led national partnership.”

Iran requested a trade boycott on Israel, particularly in the energy sector, by imposing an oil embargo on Israel. The oil embargo has been a powerful weapon in the hands of Arabs, but Saudi Arabia has denied as it does not wish to go that lane. Thus, Raisi’s proposals were mostly rejected.

Rasi also urged Muslim countries attending the special Islamic-Arab summit to label Israel’s army a “terrorist group” for striking civilians in the Gaza Strip. “Gaza is not a place for words. It should be for action,” said Iran President Ebrahim Raisi earlier in Tehran. “Today, the unity of the Islamic countries is very important,” he went on to say.

CONCLUSION

While the war has disrupted traditional Middle Eastern alignments, with Riyadh strengthening connections with Iran, resisting US pressure to denounce Hamas, and delaying plans to normalize relations with Israel, the OIC could only agree on a ceasefire and humanitarian aid to Palestinians, but nothing severe. It demonstrated Islamic unity among Muslim nations, such as Iran’s president visiting Saudi Arabia and that despite internal disagreements in the Islamic world, the Israel-Gaza war can bring them all together.

Iran’s constant support to Hamas as well as Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Yemen’s Houthi rebels, puts it at the center of fears that the conflict may escalate. In addition, Iran’s convincing for further aiding the Hamas with arms in the summit and calling for Muslim solidarity in the war has portrayed Iran’s clear interests and intentions in the dynamics of Palestine and the Middle East. The battle has already fueled cross-border clashes between Israel’s army and Hezbollah, and the Houthis have claimed responsibility for “ballistic missiles” that the rebels alleged were intended for southern Israel.

Analysts believe Saudi Arabia is vulnerable to potential strikes due to its tight links with Washington and the fact that it was discussing normalizing relations with Israel before the war began which has now been halted due to the war.

The meeting intends to show how Arab and Islamic states are observing Israel and the United States’ movements and might intervene on the international stage as being the second largest inter-state organization to defend Palestine and its people, denounce the Israeli occupation, and hold Israel accountable for its crimes. However, without getting to a strong unified decision it will make no difference and would be insignificant to stop Israel from further escalating the war.

By: Muktha Prasannan, Research Analyst, GSDN

Madagascar is an island country situated off the southeast coast of Africa and is the fourth largest island in the world. Historically, Madagascar had a strong French presence, and contemporaneously, its strategic location bordering the Mozambique Channel has also attracted the attention of other great powers. Besides, the region is exposed to eco-power, which is essentially controlled by international actors which make the country more vulnerable to power competition in the Indo-Pacific. Notably, strategic islands have historically been utilized by developing nations to project power. It has been expected that islands, including Madagascar, will shape a new framework for security structure. However, it occupies a vulnerable geopolitical position in the Indo-Pacific, swaying in the swiftly charging currents induced by climate change.

The country is ranked 167 out of 182 countries on the 2022 ND-GAIN climate vulnerability index. Affected by an exceptional number of tropical cyclones such as Ana, Bastsirai, Emnati, Dumako, Gombe, Jasmine and Freddy, which led to significant infrastructure damage and increase in internal displacement. Despite having abundant natural resources, such as nickel, cobalt, and ilmenite, the island remains among the least competitive on the continent. This has made it feasible for foreign nations like Japan, China, and Russia to provide assistance and investments. Rain fed agriculture; inadequate infrastructure, had made constraints on development, along with weak economic growth and rapid population resulted in poverty in the population.

Having advanced in isolation, the island nation is notable for its distinctive flora and fauna. The population is Malagasy and is branched into about twenty ethnic groups. The majority of the population speaks the Malagasy language and French also being widely used and formally recognized. Traditionally, it is an agro-based economy, concentrating on the cultivation of paddy, rice, coffee, vanilla, and cloves.

Despite rich natural resources and wildlife, and the tourism industry driven by its unique environment, it remains one of the poorest countries with weak economic growth and rapid population growth, ultimately resulting in poverty in the population. The economic growth of the country is stagnant due to political instability and inadequate human and physical capital for development. Furthermore, the region is highly exposed to natural hazards like cyclones, floods and drought on account of its location in the South Western Indian Ocean basin.

Confronted with challenges from economic inequalities and domestic political instability, including violent coups and controversial elections, since gaining independence from France in 1960, with Philibert Tsiranana as President. The 2009 coup had led to five years of political deadlock, international condemnation and economic sanctions. Andry Rajoelina brought an end to a decade of political unrest by assuming the office of President by ousting Marc Ravalomanana in January 2019. President Andry Rajoelina and Prime minister Christian Ntsay have led the country since 2019.

Political unrest and the aftermath of the 2009 coup with successive natural disasters have made the country a center for geopolitics of Indo-Pacific due to glaring vulnerabilities, strategic location and resource potential. Historically, Madagascar had the presence of the French and contemporarily, its strategic location on the Southwestern Indian Ocean separated from the African coast by a 400km wide Mozambique channel, holds a precarious geopolitical focus. Madagascar serves as a development, economic, and security partner for nations in the Indo-Pacific, including France and India. It has a crucial role in guaranteeing freedom of navigation, particularly in the Mozambique channel, a vital chokepoint. As well positioned in Indo-Pacific, occupy the capacity to protect maritime interests and safeguard the naval assets of the partner nations. The country is influential in the Small Island Developing States (SIDS) that have seen interest from the United States, Russia, and China. It has attracted investments and accepted aid from other countries like Japan, China and Russia. US remains to be one of the largest bilateral donors of Madagascar. US aid and peace corps are active in the country.

India and Madagascar association are essential to establishing as stakeholders in the emerging maritime security architecture of the Indo-Pacific. Both countries participated in Indian Ocean Naval symposium and were part of the first maritime India Summit in 2016. New Delhi attempts to use soft power influence through initiatives as Security and Growth for all in the Region (SAGAR), Project Mausam, and Sagar Mala port development project. Both countries have cooperated in multidimensional areas of defense and renewable energy.

China’s multidimensional approach with investment in the development of the port of Toamasina, a deep-water port which is a vital resource of island nation. Beijing provided Sinopharm vaccine, healthcare aid and medical kits, oxygenators and ventilators during the Covid-19 pandemic. China focused on technical and humanitarian assistance.

Russia has bilateral relations with Madagascar. Madagascar has signed a military cooperation agreement with Russia, comprising collaboration on development of military products, training of personnel and maintenance of equipment.

Since obtaining independence from France, both nations remain to have diplomatic and cultural and political relations. France has provided funds for its initiative pore l’emergence de Madagascar (IEM). Likewise, US is involved in scientific projects the Deep Underground Neutrino experiments (DUNE).

South Korea has invested in the Toliara roads rehabilitation project and a national disaster management centre. Seoul has interest in food security and biofuel exports from Madagascar. Tokyo provides incentives via Japan international cooperation agency, a project of Asia-Africa growth corridor.

Madagascar is aiming for its third peaceful election with 13 candidates running since the upheaval of 2009 when Rajoelina ousted Ravalomanana. It is a semi-presidential democratic republic with an elected president, a bicameral legislature, prime minister and cabinet. The elections were scheduled to be held on 9 November 2023, with a second round on 20 December if required, later it was announced that elections postponed to one week to 16 November due to pre-political unrest. The High Constitutional Court is scheduled to certify the results on November 30. Full provisional results are expected on November 24.

Madagascar’s election matters as this election could be essential in cementing democracy and help strengthen its fragile democracy. As the state has a history of political instability. In fact, the region’s wealth of natural resources, fertile land, tourists’ hotspot, long coastlines, and young workforce, yet remains as one of world’s poor countries with more than three quarters of people living in extreme poverty. Further, the region has the least developed road network and struggles with frequent power-cuts.

According to the IMF, the spending on health and education is low compared to other sub-Saharan African countries; there aren’t enough schools and hospitals for the growing population. Meanwhile, environmental threats like slash and burn agriculture and illegal logging have destroyed a quarter of biodiversity in the last two decades. Recent cyclones, floods, and drought made it one of the most vulnerable nations to natural hazards. The stake for this election is about activating the capacity for growth in Madagascar.

The challenges and prospects faced in the region as great power competition intensifies, is affected by political instability. The weak governance and inefficiency of political parties remain key constraint to development. Environmental degradation and threats become vulnerable spot and liabilities that the great powers use to justify their engagement in the country. This could encourage the government to be more selective in forming associations with other countries.

Madagascar has signed agreement with the world bank to reduce poverty, deforestation, and carbon emissions and Emissions Reduction Payment Agreement (ERPA) which provided the aid of USD 50 million to ease poverty among forest communities. Madagascar can observe interactive relations with other powers and enhance cooperation through knowledge sharing, equipment transfers in the emerging realm of artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, undersea capabilities for shared purposes like intelligence surveillance target acquisition and reconnaissance (ISTAR).

As the region remains in peril from natural hazard, which pushes the government to work with other countries, such as the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA), which would extend assistance to the country with disaster risk management, maritime safety, and blue economy. For Madagascar, establishing multilateral security partnerships is paramount. The quad plus construct provides equal opportunity for African countries like Madagascar to join partnership, work toward national security and provide assistance in managing natural resources to protect the ecosystem and promote sustainable living.

Island nations count on global powers, who serve a crucial role in creating “regional security hierarchies.” As major powers foster cooperation and enhance interoperability in the areas of knowledge sharing and equipment transfer related to artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, and underwater capabilities, such types of hierarchies are enforced. Additional initiatives have been made to reduce infrastructure gaps and increase climate resilience through the Pacific Region Infrastructure Facility, particularly as Madagascar is still a prime example of the vulnerability of islands to climate change.

In an effort to gain influence in the region, major powers are also focusing on resolving Madagascar’s resource constraints. Moreover, the strategic use of island nations has allowed the emerging non-traditional actors an overview of the tremendous potential of these countries, which is likely to contribute to a shared goal with major powers to increase influence in the region. After a recent period of relative stability, it has a chance to consolidate its democratic status and fulfil its potential.

By: Harshit Tokas, Research Analyst, GSDN

The recent visit of Bhutan’s top diplomat to Beijing has ignited a complex geopolitical situation, placing the tiny Himalayan kingdom in an uncomfortable spotlight. Nestled between two Asian giants, China and India, Bhutan has long been recognized for its special ties with New Delhi. However, this historic relationship faces a potential paradigm shift as Bhutan engages in diplomatic overtures with China. The visit, which included boundary talks and discussions on establishing formal diplomatic ties, raises significant concerns in India and has broader implications for regional geopolitics.

Bhutan’s geographical location, sandwiched between China and India, has made it a crucial player in the geopolitical landscape of South Asia. Despite its small size, the kingdom’s unique position has made it a focal point for its neighbors’ strategic interests. Bhutan, unlike any other country in Asia, has refrained from formal diplomatic relations with Beijing, maintaining a distinctive closeness to New Delhi. However, the recent developments indicate a potential shift in this traditional stance.

The heart of the ongoing negotiations between Bhutan and China lies in the unresolved border issues, particularly the disputed tri-junction on the Doklam plateau, involving China, Bhutan, and India. The Doklam region gained international attention in 2017 when a tense 73-day standoff occurred between Chinese and Indian troops. The strategic importance of Doklam for India, especially its proximity to the Siliguri Corridor, adds layers of complexity to the situation.

During the recent talks in Beijing, Bhutanese Foreign Minister Tandi Dorji received a warm reception, signifying potential progress in border negotiations. The signing of a cooperation agreement on delimitation and demarcation of the boundary is viewed as a breakthrough. These developments, coupled with expressions of willingness to establish diplomatic ties, underscore a notable warming of relations between Bhutan and China.

China’s outreach to Bhutan extends beyond economic considerations, reflecting broader strategic ambitions. The potential establishment of an embassy in Thimphu would mark a significant departure from Bhutan’s historical aversion to big-power politics. The complex dynamics of allowing China into Bhutan’s diplomatic sphere raise questions about the kingdom’s autonomy and its ability to navigate the delicate balance between its powerful neighbors.

Bhutanese Prime Minister Lotay Tshering, seen as a China-friendly figure, has acknowledged the theoretical inevitability of bilateral relations with China. This acknowledgment, coupled with discussions about a possible land swap involving the strategically crucial Doklam area, indicates a nuanced shift in Bhutan’s foreign policy. The three-step road map on boundary delineation, agreed upon in 2021, includes demarcation talks, on-ground site visits, and formal boundary demarcation.

For India, Bhutan’s traditional ally, these developments raise significant concerns. The fate of Doklam has been highlighted as one of India’s red lines regarding Bhutan’s ties with China. The potential normalization of diplomatic relations between Bhutan and China, combined with progress on the border dispute, challenges India’s strategic interests in the region. The sensitive nature of Doklam, particularly its proximity to the Siliguri Corridor, adds a layer of complexity to India’s response.

In an editorial, The Hindu emphasized that the fate of Doklam represents one of India’s red lines in Bhutan’s engagement with China. New Delhi’s wariness about a possible border settlement and formal diplomatic ties between Beijing and Thimphu reflects the delicate regional geopolitics, where India has historically played a significant role.

The unfolding events in Bhutan carry broader implications for regional stability and the international system. The potential realignment of Bhutan’s foreign policy challenges established norms, especially concerning territorial disputes between smaller and larger neighbors. The outcome of Bhutan’s diplomatic engagements could reshape perceptions of China’s influence in South Asia and beyond.

The Doklam plateau, strategically positioned near the “Chicken’s Neck” holds immense significance for India’s security architecture. Any alteration in the territorial status quo, particularly involving a potential land swap, could have seismic implications for regional stability. The strategic importance of Doklam, highlighted during the 2017 standoff, adds a layer of complexity to the ongoing negotiations.

As Bhutan navigates the delicate balance between China and India, diplomatic nuances become crucial. The skepticism surrounding an imminent border settlement reflects the distrust and complexities involved. Tshering and Dorji’s assurances that no agreement will be made against India’s interests emphasize the continued significance of India’s role in the tri-junction matter at Doklam.

The possibility of a diplomatic agreement between China and Bhutan raises questions about the involvement of India in the negotiation process. The tri-junction area, involving all three parties – Bhutan, China, and India, requires consent from each for any deal to be reached. The resolution of the border dispute, if achieved, could potentially ease tensions between China and India, contributing to a positive regional development.

The evolving dynamics between Bhutan, China, and India underscore the intricate nature of geopolitical relations in South Asia. Bhutan’s delicate balancing act, historically leaning towards India, now faces the complexities of engaging with an assertive China. As negotiations progress and the potential for a diplomatic breakthrough loom, the geopolitical implications extend far beyond Bhutan’s borders.

The Doklam plateau, with its historical significance and strategic positioning, symbolizes the challenges and sensitivities of the region. India’s role as a regional power and Bhutan’s longstanding ties with New Delhi add layers of complexity to the unfolding narrative. The outcome of these diplomatic maneuvers will not only shape the future of Bhutan’s foreign policy but will also reverberate across the broader canvas of regional and international relations.