By: Puloma Pal

Recently G20 summit was held in Delhi. The two-day summit went well without a glitch. As we know, the memorandum of understanding was signed and the Delhi Declaration was passed without any opposition from the member countries. Apart from this, African Union (AU) was added to G20 as a new member which now makes G20 as G21.

But currently the talk of the town is the economic corridor which was signed by G20 nation members. As per a press conference given to the media who were accompanying President of Turkey to the G20 Summit, Erdoğan clearly expressed why he is unhappy with the project. The Turkey President wants the corridor to pass through Turkey. Currently, this project consists of two corridors -The Eastern Corridor linking India to West Asia and the Middle East and The Northern Corridor linking West Asia and the Middle East with Europe. This project includes countries like India, UAE, Saudi Arabia, EU, France, Italy, Germany and the US. But theTurkish President believes that Turkey it important in terms of locations and production and is also a trade base and hence Turkey should be included in the project.

 One of the line from his interview which is circulating in the media is – “No corridor without Turkey”. This line clearly states how desperate Turkey is to be the part of this Economic corridor project. What could be the possible reason? Why Turkey wants to join this project even when it is already part of Iraq Development Project as well as China’s BRI?

1. The Profit – Project’s main aim is to reduce the cost of transport/shipping by 40% and save money as well as fuel. This project will not only save money and fuel but also time. Let’s take an example, if a ship takes 20 days, then after the project this time would reduce to 10 to 10 days (approx.). It is quite obvious that this project will give a direct access to Asian countries to trade with the European Union directly. Currently, the trade between Asia and EU is done through Suez Canal. This trade is about US$ 2 trillion annually.

If the corridor is completed successfully then we can say that there will be an alternative for trade. If trade begans, profit would also come in. Those countries who have partnership in this project would obviously gain a lot of profit. Hence, Turkey is too interested in the partnership and the profit. Apart from the less time to shipping goods, this corridor will have set ups of Hydrogen pipelines, high speed internet cables and electricity cables. So, this project comes with lots of investment which would bring in a lot of profit.

• China’s BRI – As we know, China’s BRI project is a huge project. It began in year 2013 and as of August 2023, 215 cooperation documents have been signed with 155 countries and 32 international organizations. This project is taking a long time. Plus, this project has a huge investment from its partner countries. China has a lot of investment across the globe. For example The China Pakistan Economic Corridor where the Chinese Govt has invested around US$ 60 billion, totally spent by China in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor. The Government of China has continued to invest on various projecst and always been criticised on its intentions.

It is obvious that criticisms are a result of the relations between China and countries such as Cambodia, Djibouti, Mongolia and Pakistan. There are some circles that claim these countries will be drowning in Chinese debt. Hence, we can say that Turkey is looking for an alternative. The new Spice route is the best alternative for Turkey.

• An Alternative – As mentioned before, Turkey is looking for an alternative. China’s BRI is taking a long time plus Turkey doesn’t want to fall under the debt trap of China. By joining hands with India, it will not only strength countries’ security (security; as there are many powerful nations who are part of this New Spice Route). Joining the Project will also help Erdoğan polish is political image. Can we say that Turkey has now a shift in opinion and is willing to abandon China? Well! The answer to this Question can be seen in upcoming future.

The Bottom Line…

The G20 (now G21) under the Presidency of India (Bharat) has seen new changes. Some changes that people didn’t expect were the Delhi Declaration passing without a glitch, US, Russia and China the main center power countries being satisfied with the declaration, Turkey’s dissatisfaction for been left out of the corridor project and a new spice route created which would work as an alternative to China’s BRI project.

At first it was quite strange when USA didn’t protest the declaration. What reason could it be? From various reports we get to know that USA is keen to know about China and wants to dominate the south pacific region. For this USA has joined hands with South Korea which is close to Mainland China as well as Taiwan. Also, USA is not happy about the growing power of China in East and how it is channeling its routes to West Asia. Through the corridor, China’s BRI project can be side lined and India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) along with West Asia, and Europe will get an alternative of Suez Canal.

Apart from this, Turkey is already in an “intensive negotiation”with Iraq Development Road Initiative (IDRI). Iraq which is politically instable and has faced various issues in regard to state institutions as well as security. Though the instability has reduced but still the conflict of the Kurdish demonstrators in Kirkuk has disturbed the stable environment in Iraq.

With diminishing health and difficulty in walking, Erdoğan has many challenges to face during his third term of Presidency. The economic conditions are not well. The economy of Turkey has worsened especially after the massive earthquake that took away lives of many Turkish citizens. The loss is in great numbers. Turkey’s currency Lira has seen a fall after 21 years. This issue is huge as the municipal elections are around the corner and Turkey in financial crisis can make a big news in Turkey. This would further help the opposition to gain more votes. The fall of Lira is been dumped on Erdoğan and his unorthodox policy of cutting interest rates. Erdoğan’s unfavorable policy has driven away many investors.

Apart from this, there are news on how Western countries have put pressure on Turkey to accept Sweden and Finland as NATO member. The question is why Turkey opposes Sweden and Finland? Turkey believes that giving membership will be like giving membership to“terrorists”. The fight is between the Turkish forces and PKK (a Kurdish Marxist separatist movement) since the 1980s. Turkey believes that Sweden and Finland are supporting the PKK, a movement which is been classified terrorist movement not only by Turkey but also by Canada, US, European Union and Australia.

Hence, if Turkey becomes a member, it would help Erdoğan to bring foreign investments which would help the country improve their economy. This would lead to better political image of Erdoğan in his country. This would also help Erdoğan win the municipal elections which are supposed to be conducted next year in 2024.

About the Author

Puloma Pal is pursuing Master in International Relations from Amity University, Noida. She is a prolific writer whose articles are frequently published in leading geopolitical publications. She tweets at @Sassy_Saira. The views expressed are personal.

• Twitter
• LinkedIn
• Instagram
• WordPress

By: Nandini Khandelwal, Research Analyst, GSDN

Recently, Italy backed out of the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), also referred to as BRIXIT, i.e., Exit from BRI before the upcoming renewal of the agreement in March 2024. This is significant as Italy was the only G-7 country to be a part of it beginning in 2019, the largest-ever global infrastructure undertaking. Italy saw an opportunity to leverage its position, having suffered three recessions in a decade and growing scepticism towards the European Union. It was looking forward to attracting investments and increasing exports to the PRC’s huge market.

Italian Defence Minister Guido Crosetto remarked, “The choice to join the BRI/Silk Road was an improvised and wicked act, made by the Government of Giuseppe Conte which led to double negative result”.

Italy played a major role in the significance of the BRI as it refreshed the golden memory of China’s old Silk Road which connected Central Asia, West Asia and Europe. In addition, Italy is home to the largest population of the PRC in Europe, and deep shared trade links but most importantly, the PRC saw it as a gateway to influence Europe in its far-sighted future. However, it seems like this remains a dream since Italy has dumped the Dragon which has immense implications for the geo-politics.

Background

BRI is an infrastructural project of the PRC aspiring to connect to the world. It began with the 2013 Xi Jinping’s speech in Kazakhstan where he announced a new trade route based on the ancient Silk Road.
It is a colossal project that consists of at least 60% of the world’s population at present. As of August 2023, the number of countries that have joined the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) by signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with China (excluding Italy) is 148 including itself, spread across Sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia, East Asia and Pacific, Latin America and Caribbean, West Asia and North Africa (WANA) and South-East Asia.

It is referred to as an amorphous project due to its secrecy regarding the objective. For instance, it could mean building infrastructures for the members or upgrading them; providing loans and investment in the developing countries in need and providing overland routes. Interestingly, the term “road” in the project means the maritime Silk Road all across the world through building ports for the member countries, like Djibouti, Sri Lanka, and Pakistan etc.

Geopolitical analysts contend that the PRC strategically placed these ports as military bases in particular nations, close to the choke points, to reinforce its power in the region, popularly known as the “String of Pearls theory,” which conspired around India in order to eventually become a global hegemon. In addition to creating economic reliance on the nations, it also asserts geopolitical power to move around as it sees fit.

It is dubious because, unlike institutions located in the West like the IMF or World Bank, which offer economic assistance to nations subject to certain criteria, BRI does not impose any such requirements, giving the impression that it is a Ponzi scheme. Recent advances have produced these outcomes. For instance, after promising to assist Sri Lanka with its economic difficulties, China ended up leasing the country’s port of Hambantota from Sri Lanka for a period of 99 years. In the case of Djibouti, China actively contributed to the construction of its ports, railways, highways, and related infrastructure. In addition, China took over the country’s logistics support base on a ten-year lease in January 2016 and, interestingly, by mid-2017, had completely transformed the location into a base of operations for itself. This naturally draws attention to China’s “debt trap” tactic, which keeps control of these defenceless nations.

Xi Jinping’s paradox of cooperation through his wolf-warrior approach

Used as a buzzword word for Chinese diplomacy post the outbreak COVID-19 pandemic, Xi Jinping has been using it as a support base due to its popularity domestically as well as asserting its power aggressively at the international level, reflecting his call for the “fighting spirit”.

Chinese current diplomacy is a result of an evolution, beginning with Zhou Enlai, the founder, who stated “ability to hide its fist when needed behind velvet gloves”.

Deng Xiaoping in the early 1990s called for keeping a low profile, stating his popular statement “hiding brightness, biding our time”

Jiang Zemin (1993-2003), called for being more active. It was in his era that the PRC began asserting its power over the Mischief Reef (South China Sea) in the year 1995 while focussing on economic growth.

Hu Jintao’s (2003-13) era was of rapid economic growth for the PRC, portraying itself as a responsible state. However, the territorial disputes with Taiwan and in the South China Sea persisted. Notwithstanding, it began managing its relationship with the major economies of the world rather than forging foreign policy as a major power.

It only happened since Xi Jinping came to power and pushed for diplomacy that favoured the PRC’s major power status across the globe. However, there is a paradox in his style of diplomacy. While Chinese policy urges for “opposing sides or another cold war”, its unilateral and baseless assertion of power is creating a situation, compelling the countries to form alliances to counter it. For instance, the recent update in its map shows the 10-dash line in the South China Sea region, in addition to the 9-dashed line, ruled as having no legal basis by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague in 1947 and by the United Nations. The PRC’s cartographic aggression, one of the warfare tactics used by China besides psychological and controlled public opinion has been going on since then.

The liberal and egalitarian views of his diplomacy often contradict his realist actions. His conception of a shared future for all mankind was characterized by win-win cooperation in his UN speech of 2015 where he re-instated the idea of a “community of common destiny” as a continuation of his predecessor Hu Jintao. He furthered the idea by portraying the PRC as a responsible state, which thinks of other states’ interests rather than exclusively its own. He institutionalized this idea through practical forms of the BRI and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), envisioning the country to reach great rejuvenation by becoming a global leader.

Every nation considers its own national interests, but when those interests are pursued or controlled through unfair and illegal tactics, problems arise. For instance, the BRI is beneficial as long as it promotes increased interconnectedness through globalisation and serves as a tool for economic assistance and development. When it forces them into a geopolitical reliance and debt-trapping country, it turns into a wolf warrior policy. Coercive tactics like this are incompatible with liberal and egalitarian ideals. The hostile language used in the new major-country diplomacy is likely to vary across subject areas and to get worse when it comes to “core national interests.”

Path for India

The reality check that the members are getting from signing up with the PRC’s BRI provides India with an opportunity to make the world believe in its balanced leadership. The biggest example this year is the G-20 summit whose presidency is with India. The recent summit held in India proved its moto of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (One Earth, One Family, One Future) being successful in getting the member-states to consensus, amid the polarizing issue of  Russia-Ukraine.

In fact, the summit’s ground-breaking announcement is a “new economic corridor connectivity” connecting Europe, West Asia, and India via ship-to-rail transit was made among participants, including the US, despite it having no part in the transit route. It is important to be specific because the PRC’s BRI model, which just took a hit from Italy, could be substituted by this corridor.

In addition, the PRC’s decision to skip the ASEAN and G-20 summits immediately following its aggressive cartography is indicative of a childish attitude. According to the speculation, it’s because of domestic pressures that Xi is experiencing as a result of the current economic slump in the nation. But the reality reveals the PRC’s “hegemonic, high-handed” mentality, which prevents it from being able to witness someone else assuming the reins, forcing it to watch from the sidelines.

By: Kashif Anwar, Research Analyst, GSDN

Introduction

In the global geopolitics, the formation of alliance, partnership, blocks and groups has allowed nations to secure their common interest and ensure peace and stability in the directed or concern region. Among all such developments the formation of a trilateral group between Israel, Cyprus and Greece which later included the US has allowed these three founding members to enhance and develop their relationship into a strategic partnership. With change in technology, increase in conflict worldwide and the growing need for energy has become a hot topic for any country has only impacted the global order. The 3+1 trilateral group has been viewed as one such group who is working to address such queries in the Mediterranean region. As relationship between Israel, Greece and Cyprus has been part of their holistic strategy of their foreign policy which has allowed them to cooperate on various agenda with like-minded countries. In this regard, invitation to India to attend the 10^th Trilateral Summit in 2024 reflects the strength, relevance and prospect of the group who is looking for a country like India to join them in their journey to ensure peace, stability and prospect in Eastern Mediterranean.

What is the 3+1 Alliance

On January 28, 2016, Greece, Cyprus and Israel came together to initiate the trilateral summit directed to promote peace, stability and security in the Eastern Mediterranean. The group aimed to achieve this through substantive and practical strengthening of joint ventures in all the fields of cooperation which isn’t directed against any country. As they agreed to cooperate in the field of energy, tourism, research and technology, environment, water management, terrorism and migration. Formulation of trilateral cooperation was a historic event bringing the blessings of progress not only to the citizens of three democracies but also to the wider region by helping stability, security, prosperity and peace.

The group improved relationship between Israel, Cyprus and Greece transforming into a strategic partnership based on a shared common vision for a thriving Eastern Mediterranean.

The prospect of substantial hydrocarbon resources waiting to be tapped beneath the Eastern Mediterranean waters have sparked major global interest. Energy being common denominator, it will become a main component of the geostrategic struggle in the East Mediterranean and its surroundings. As the resources requires careful management to ensure peace, stability, security and prosperity in the region to avoid confrontation and friction disturbing trade in the region which could impact global trade. Thus, the inclusion of the US expanded the group – formed 3+1 – which expanded the scope and role of the trilateral cooperation in the region.

Invitation to India join the alliance and its geopolitical implications

With India’s bilateral relationship with the US and Israel have improved in recent years which brought them together as reflected from the I2U2. The invitation to India to join the 3+1 group is viewed as of great strategic relevance for the group and India. India’s inclusion and Turkey’s role, position and aim towards the Eastern Mediterranean cannot be viewed as separate events. With the Eastern Mediterranean region becoming a hotbed of geopolitical activity, and India making inroads has caused contentment and concern in the region. As the region is strategically important, rich in natural gas, and riddled with the maritime territorial disputes. The news that India is planning to join the group has directly challenged Turkey in its backyard, and is bound to ruffle some feathers in Ankara.

Invitation to India to attend the group and hopefully join the 3+1 group next year during the 10^th Trilateral Summit highlights the group’s continued intention to invite like-minded countries to strengthened its aim and objectives. Such decision was taken during the 9^th Trilateral Summit which was held in Nicosia, Cyprus to discuss regional energy cooperation and focus on exports to Europe, especially natural gas and renewables. The Group views such partnership will strengthen their resolute efforts intend for Eastern Mediterranean as common interests will increase the prospect of the group, compelling other countries to cooperate or even join such a group in the near future.

Such partnership will ensure peace, stability and security in the Eastern Mediterranean region, the group is looking for a way to ensure the growing need for the energy diversification, interconnectivity and a reliable energy corridor from the region basin to Europe is secured. In the recent years, the need for energy has increased and thus the need to ensure countries abide by and respect the international laws like the United Nation Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) has become the need of the hour. In the last 15 years, major gas discoveries have been made in Eastern Mediterranean Sea, particularly off the coasts of Israel (Tamar Field) and Egypt, and more such gas exploration is taking place in Cyprus’s exclusive economic zone.

As the Eastern Mediterranean has been riddled with maritime territorial disputes for years, caused by Turkey, who claims EEZ beyond its water assigned under the UNCLOS which has caused dispute with Greece and Cyprus. Further, with Europe diversifying its source of energy demands caused by the Russa-Ukraine conflict, Greece could play the role of a gateway. With India diversifying its source of energy demands, considering the prospect of India joining the group and its bilateral relationship with Greece will allow the flow of natural gas both ways to Europe and India.

With Abraham Accord being a success and another such accord is being made or on the table between Israel and Saudi Arabia, all such developments succees in happening will transit gas from Greece to India through Israel and the Arabian Peninsula providing a safe and stable trade route. Such aspects were visible during India’s PM Narendra Modi’s recent visit to Greece which was strategically planned to ensure India’s engagement in gas exploration and transportation in the Eastern Mediterranean region. Thus, India joining the 3+1 group in near future will ensure the above mentioned aspects giving India ample window of opportunities to thwart Turkey’s anti-India stance and improve its bilateral ties with other Mediterranean nations. Such aspect will keep Turkey caution while ensuring the need and supply of India’s energy demand is secured to propel its economic growth improving India’s global stature and strengthening its foreign policy.

Conclusion

Development of the 3+1 group was viewed as a great achievement which was inconceivable 20 years ago as Israel’s Ambassador to Cyprus Oren Anolik stated, as it speaks volumes of the success it has achieved since its inception. As it is envisioned to enhance the regional cooperation through the creation of various linkages at different levels, it allows them to extend invitation to India to join the group which will be a win-win situation for group’s members. On the other hand, over the years has allowed them to enhance multilateral engagement and defence cooperation with the US, like it bolsters US support for Greece military modernisation. The recent 9^th Trilateral Conference, 2023, happened at the time when they’re constructing an ‘Energy Highway’  which will connect national electricity grid of all three nations. India becoming a partner of the group in near future will allow Israel, Cyprus, Greece and India to engage in the defence cooperation and supply chain too. As it will further pushed, strengthened and promote India’s Make in India and Aatmanirbhar Bharat initiative, something India’s foreign and defence policy are working tirelessly and thus strategic cooperation with the like-minded nations is highly required today.

By: Harshit Tokas, Research Analyst, GSDN

Introduction

For over a decade, China has been actively courting developing nations, offering them an alternative to Western influence. China’s remarkable rise from poverty and its ambitious global development initiatives have been a source of inspiration for many countries in the Global South. However, a new player is emerging in this arena – India. India is now presenting itself as a distinct leader for developing nations, challenging China’s dominance and offering a different approach to global leadership. This article explores India’s growing influence and its potential to lead the Global South.

India’s Leadership Ambitions

India’s aspirations for influence are obvious in its role as G20 President. India has done its best to be the voice of the Global South throughout its presidency. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has emphasized the significance of dialogue with other nations in the Global South in order to effectively tackle their problems. India’s voice is concerning that the greater part of the Global South is missing from representation at the G20 table. To encourage equitable growth, India invited the African Union (AU), comprising all fifty-five African nations, to join the G20 as an official member, identical to the European Union (EU). This happened during the summit, especially with the backing of USA President Joe Biden and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. This initiative is a concrete step towards making the G20 more reflective of the world and a place where poorer countries could express their issues effectively.

Recently, at the 15th BRICS Summit in South Africa, PM Modi said that the Global South is not just a diplomatic term but represents the shared history of these countries against colonialism and apartheid based on which modern relations are being reshaped.

India as the Voice of the Global South

India’s emergence as the leader of the Global South requires active engagement with regional politics within developing nations. India recognizes the diversity within the Global South and tailors its policies to different regions and groups. It aims to bridge the North-South divide by focusing on practical outcomes rather than ideological battles, aligning with changing global dynamics.

Challenges Faced by the Global South

Despite progress, the Global South faces numerous challenges. Developed countries in the Global North have been reluctant to fund green energy initiatives, leaving less-developed nations to bear the consequences of climate change. Geopolitical conflicts, such as the Russia-Ukraine war, impact least-developed countries’ food, energy, and financial stability. China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has raised questions about its true intent and benefits. The dominance of the United States in global affairs and historical inequalities persist, hindering global convergence. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated existing divides, leading Global South countries to face unique challenges.

India as China’s replacement

China, long seen as a champion of the Global South, now faces criticism for its actions, notably through the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and its alleged “debt trap” policies. Many nations in Asia and Africa have experienced the repercussions of these actions, with assets like Hambantota port in Sri Lanka, Mombasa port in Kenya, and areas in Pakistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan seemingly lost. This has tarnished China’s global image. In contrast, India has steadfastly championed the cause of the Global South, positioning itself as a reliable advocate.

India’s commitment to the Global South is unwavering, even as it faces its own domestic challenges. Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar aptly compared the Global South to a family unit, with India assuming a central role within it. India’s recent success with the Chandrayaan mission is a testament to this familial spirit, earning it admiration and pride not only within its borders but also among fellow Global South nations.

India’s soft power stands as one of its most significant assets on the global stage. Its vibrant culture, world-renowned art, cinema, and rich cuisine have transcended borders, fostering connections and goodwill around the world. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and China’s assertive foreign policy, the world’s interest in manufacturing within India has surged. India now stands at the precipice of positioning itself as the world’s next global manufacturing hub, leveraging its extensive capacity, skilled workforce, low production costs, and scalability.

India’s attractiveness as a destination for foreign investments is undeniable. A recent report from the World Economic Forum (WEF) underlines India’s appeal, with the country attracting substantial foreign direct investments (FDIs) totaling $83.6 billion in the 2021-22 fiscal year. India offers a lucrative market, cost-effective production capabilities, and a business environment that rivals that of the United States and China.

India’s leadership extends to critical sectors, notably renewable energy. The country is on the brink of becoming the world’s largest solar energy producer, underlining its commitment to sustainable development. In addition, India has prioritized green transportation and mobility. To reduce its dependence on China, India’s government has taken a decisive step by approving a $10 billion package aimed at boosting its semiconductor industry.

India’s leadership in the Global South is guided by a vision of a more equitable and just world order. Its priorities for the future include:

1. Reforming Global Governance: India seeks a more representative and inclusive global governance structure. This includes reforming the UNSC to reflect contemporary geopolitical realities and giving a stronger voice to developing nations.
2. Sustainable Development: India is committed to achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and promoting sustainable development practices in partnership with other developing countries.
3. Peace and Security: India advocates for peaceful resolution of conflicts and regional stability. It plays a constructive role in peacekeeping missions and conflict resolution efforts.
4. Economic Cooperation: India continues to promote South-South cooperation, sharing its developmental experiences and expertise with other countries in areas such as healthcare, agriculture, and technology.
5. Climate Action: India remains dedicated to its climate commitments and actively participates in international climate negotiations. It continues to invest in renewable energy and sustainable practices

Challenges to India

India’s aspiration to lead the Global South comes with a set of complex challenges. First and foremost is the economic diversity among Global South nations. While India’s economic prowess is significant, it must find ways to address the varying levels of economic development and resources among member nations without causing feelings of marginalization. Additionally, India’s geopolitical landscape is fraught with complexities, as it shares borders and diplomatic relationships with countries that may have conflicting interests or geopolitical tensions. Striking a balance between regional priorities and global leadership can be a delicate task.

Resource constraints pose another challenge. India has its own domestic issues, such as poverty, healthcare, and infrastructure development, that demand significant attention and resources. Managing these domestic priorities alongside global leadership responsibilities requires careful planning and resource allocation. Moreover, climate change is a pressing concern for Global South nations, including India itself. As a leader, India must advocate for climate action while addressing its own environmental challenges.

Maintaining a balanced foreign policy is crucial. India must align with the interests of Global South nations while avoiding conflicts with powerful countries in the Global North, such as the United States and the European Union. Furthermore, representation in international organizations remains an issue for Global South nations, and India must work towards reforming these institutions to ensure fair representation.

China’s assertive global presence and economic influence present a significant challenge. India must differentiate itself and offer a compelling alternative to China’s dominance. The COVID-19 pandemic has also highlighted the need for global cooperation in healthcare. India must collaborate with other Global South nations to strengthen healthcare systems and ensure access to vaccines and medical resources during crises.

Infrastructure development in many Global South countries is lacking, and India’s leadership may involve supporting resource-intensive infrastructure projects in these nations. Additionally, the Global South’s diversity in terms of culture, religion, and language is vast. India must navigate this diversity effectively to build strong relationships and promote unity among member nations.

Conclusion

The global South is dealing with difficulties such as energy and food shortages, as well as the worldwide economic impact of the recession. Elucidating India’s approach to the Global South, Prime Minister Modi in his address to the opening session of Voice of Global South Summit 2023 said, “India has always shared its developmental experience with our brothers of the Global South…People of Global South should no longer be excluded from the fruits of development. Together we must attempt to redesign global political and financial governance. This can remove inequities, enlarge opportunities, support growth and spread progress and prosperity.”

In this scenario, India may provide the Global South with the required leadership and a new narrative for worldwide geopolitics. This might undoubtedly give a fresh boost to the present global order.

By: Darshan Gajjar, Research Analyst, GSDN

On September 07, 2023 two days prior to the historic G20 summit in New Delhi, Prime Minister Narendra Modi attended the 20th ASEAN-India Summit and the 18th East Asia Summit, which highlights the importance of ASEAN countries in India’s foreign policy matrix.

Attending the ASEAN summit just before the important G20 summit reaffirms India’s commitment to strengthen a comprehensive strategic partnership with ASEAN in line with the principle of ASEAN centrality. Let us look into why ASEAN matters to India and how, in the last three decades, the relationship between ASEAN and India has evolved.

Genesis of ASEAN

To understand why ASEAN matters to India, we first have to look into the conditions under which ASEAN came into being along with the fundamental principles of the organisation.

Amid the geopolitical rivalries and block politics of the Cold War, August 08, 1967 the leaders of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand came together and signed what is today famously known as the ASEAN Declaration, thus giving birth to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

Subsequently, in the next few decades, especially after the end of the Cold War, other countries from the region, such as Brunei (1984), Vietnam (1995), Lao PDR (1997), Myanmar (1997) and Cambodia (1999), have joined the association, further advancing integration in the region.

The fundamental principles on which ASEAN functions, and are highlighted by the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC) of 1976, are i) Non-interference in the internal affairs of one another; ii) Settlement of differences or disputes by peaceful manner; iii) Renunciation of the threat or use of force; iv) Effective cooperation among member states, v) Mutual respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial integrity, and national identity of all nations and vi) The right of every State to lead its national existence free from external interference, subversion or coercion.

India and ASEAN: From Look East to Act East

India Southeast Asia in general and ASEAN in particular share a deep cultural and historical ties that are being supplemented by growing economic integration and the convergence of strategic interests.

In 1991, India, with the implementation of LPG (Liberalisation, Privatisation and Globalisation) reforms, opened its economy and, with it, the possibility of higher investments in various sectors. India’s foraging of economic space morphed into the operationalisation of “Look East Policy” by the then PM PV Narasimha Rao government.

The Look East Policy opened new pathways for India to take advantage of new opportunities in the various sectors of trade and investment. Due to its successful implementation, India’s trade with ASEAN has risen from US$2.4 billion in 1990 to US$23 billion in 2005.

Eventually, in November 2014, during the 12th India-ASEAN summit, PM Modi formally launched the “Act East Policy,” advancing goals enunciated in the erstwhile Look East policy, further enhancing relations with ASEAN along with BIMSTEC countries. ASEAN is a central pillar of India’s Act East policy.

As per the latest data, the India-ASEAN trade amount stands at $133 billion, with India having a trade deficit of around $43 billion. As mentioned earlier, from $2.4 billion in 1990 to $133 billion in 2022, economic trade and integration have increased drastically.

However, we have to look at these figures in comparison with China, which is by far one of the biggest trade partners of the ASEAN countries, with $975.3 billion in 2022 itself. There has to be more investment by the Indian private sector in ASEAN countries to solidify the overall supply chain vis-à-vis India.

The ASEAN-India Free Trade Area (AIFTA), which was signed in 2003 and came into effect in 2010, was further upgraded by adding the services sector, with the signing of the ASEAN-India Trade in Services Agreement, in November 2014, fostering persistent economic integration.

AIFTA eliminates tariffs for 75% of goods traded between India and ASEAN and promotes deeper cooperation in areas such as agriculture, fisheries, and forestry; services; mining and energy; science and technology; transport and infrastructure; manufacturing, etc.

Connectivity projects in the region further form one of the key pillars of India-ASEAN cooperation. The India-Myanmar-Thailand Trilateral Highway is on the verge of completion, and once finally operationalized,  over 1,400 kilometres of highway will connect the Indian city of Moreh in Manipur to Thailand’s Mae Sot through Myanmar.

Another such project is the Kaladan Multimodal Project, which will enable India’s multimodal transit connectivity with Southeast Asia. Such connectivity projects help India reduce its dependence on crucial sea routes. Although we cannot abolish waterways, these projects will enable India to supplement maritime routes while doing trade with the Southeast Asian region.

Convergence of Strategic Interests

With the changing shift in relations between India and China, especially in post-Galwan times, it becomes extremely important for India to develop defensive and offensive capabilities against the adversary. The exasperating attempts by China to alter the status quo in the South China Sea provide an opportunity for India and ASEAN countries to collaborate to establish rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific region.

China claims an exclusive economic zone in the South China Sea around the so-called “nine-dash line” based on historical reasons. The ongoing conflicts in the South China Sea between China and several ASEAN member states are one of the major drivers for China in shaping its relations with ASEAN countries. Just like India and China, ASEAN and China’s economies are intertwined; however, due to China repeatedly violating the sovereignty of ASEAN members, ASEAN countries are looking to diversify and de-risk their economy.

Further, due to its geographical location being located at the strategic flashpoint of the Strait of Malacca, countries like Indonesia become pivotal in India’s maritime strategy.

Various military exercises, one of which was Exercise Samudra Shakti-23, illustrated the strong partnership between India and Indonesia and reaffirmed the commitment of both navies, through cooperative engagement, to promote peace and stability in the region.

Countries of ASEAN also see India as a reliable defence partner who can help them develop deterrent capabilities against potential aggressors in the Indo-Pacific. The Philippines is likely to receive the first delivery of the BrahMos cruise missile by this December, strengthening the country’s deterrence capabilities.

Further, India is likely to sell BrahMos missiles to Vietnam, bolstering defence cooperation between both countries. In the maritime domain, India has also gifted the active warship INS Kirpan to Vietnam, which will help it secure its sovereignty in the region. This becomes evident with Chinese ships often violating international norms by showing unforeseen coercion in the Indo-Pacific.

India also plays a role as a net security provider and first responder in the region through initiatives like SAGAR (Security And Growth for All in the Region), through which we ensure economic growth and security in the region are not affected widely in the face of any unforeseen natural disasters.

Present Visit and Implications

Prime Minister Modi, during his visit to Indonesia at the India-ASEAN Summit, presented a 12-point proposal to strengthen relations between India and ASEAN in areas such as digital transformation, connectivity, trade and economic engagement, calling for building a rules-based post-COVID World Order.

It further called for a collective fight against terrorism, terror financing and cyber-disinformation, in addition to calling for cooperation in disaster management and enhanced cooperation on maritime safety, security and domain awareness.

Reaffirming the principle of ASEAN centrality in the Indo-Pacific, the PM highlighted the synergies between India’s Indo-Pacific Ocean’s Initiative (IPOI) and ASEAN’s Outlook on the Indo-Pacific (AOIP). He also called for a review of the ASEAN-India FTA in a time-bound manner to rationalise the trade imbalance under the current agreement.

At the East Asia Summit, calling ASEAN the focal point of Quad’s vision, PM Modi emphasised Quad’s aim of ensuring a free, open, and rules-based Indo-Pacific. The Prime Minister advocated a cooperative approach to address global challenges, including terrorism, climate change, resilient supply chains, etc. He accentuated India’s steps in the area of climate change through initiatives like OSOWOG, ISA, CDRI, and Mission LiFE.

It is sine qua non for every country in the region to maintain a code of conduct by following UNCLOS, thus securing the respective country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The PM called for compliance with such treaties.

With the shifting balance of power and plausible security dilemmas, the relationship between India and ASEAN becomes very important due to their geographical proximity and, as mentioned earlier, economic interlinkages and convergence of strategic interests.

With India increasing its maritime prowess, the strategic location of ASEAN countries makes them obvious partners in the region. In addition to defence and security, cooperation in the areas of sustainable development, disaster management, and climate change will benefit the entire region as a whole.

By: Prashant Singh Parihar, Research Analyst, GSDN

December 01, 2022 will be remembered as milestone day for India as it was on this day that India took over the G20 presidency from Indonesia at the 17th G20 summit held in Bali. The Group of Twenty (G20) comprises 19 countries — Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States and the European Union.  G20 members represent around 85 percent of the global GDP, over 75 percent of the global trade, and about two-thirds of the world population. G20 is the premier forum for international economic cooperation, and it plays an important role in shaping and strengthening global architecture and governance on all major international economic issues

India’s presidency assumed importance on the context that it took over when the world was facing geopolitical tumult and uncertainty over post-pandemic economic recovery. India through year-long events and summit have tried its way to give the world positive way forward on various issues ranging from support to multilateralism, one earth one family concept, voice to global south cooperation and a direction on strengthening of global architecture and governance. India has not left any stone unturned to showcase its leadership skill on global platform and in this article, we will analyze the year-long events and the outcome of the summit.

Elevating the Voice of the Global South

Throughout its presidency, India has emerged as a steadfast champion of the Global South, propounding innovative development concepts and addressing the distinct challenges faced by these nations. The Global South, a term encompassing regions frequently categorized as developing, less developed, or underdeveloped, spans across the continents of Africa, Asia, and Latin America. In January, Prime Minister Modi assumed the pivotal role of the main articulator, hosting a groundbreaking virtual “Voice of the Global South Summit,” which saw active participation from an impressive 125 countries. Furthermore, the guest list at the G20 was notably dominated by countries from the global south like Bangladesh, Mauritius, Oman, Egypt etc… marking a significant shift in global diplomatic dynamics.

Making transformative change in G20 membership for the very first time, India boldly lead the integration of the African Union as a new permanent member within this influential grouping. This momentous initiative not only underscored India’s commitment to amplifying the voices of the Global South but also represented a remarkable diplomatic accomplishment during its presidency. By placing the Global South at the forefront global discussions and addressing their pressing needs, India has achieved a diplomatic milestone of immense significance.

Mitigating climate risk

India has consistently made effort at global platform for the cause of sustainable human centric growth and has been torch bearer for initiative to mitigate climate risk. Some of these initiatives include the International Day of Yoga, the International Solar Alliance, the Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure, Infrastructure for Resilient Island States, and One Sun One World One Grid. Continuing this commitment, on November 8, 2022, Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched the G20 logo and revealed India’s G20 Presidency theme: “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam,” which translates to “One Earth, One Family, and One Future.” The G20 logo embodies India’s pro-planet stance and its vision of cooperation and unity amid global challenges.

During its presidency, India spearheaded the establishment of the Global Biofuel Alliance, aiming to boost global ethanol blending with petrol to 20%. At the ‘One Earth Session’ of the G20, Prime Minister Modi proposed the launch of the G20 satellite mission for environmental and climate monitoring and called for action on the green credit initiative. India also introduced the ‘Gandhinagar Implementation Roadmap’ and ‘Gandhinagar Implementation Framework’ to reinforce the G20 Global Land Initiative. Another noteworthy achievement was the launch of the industry-led Resource Efficiency and Circular Economy Industry Coalition (RECEIC) under India’s G20 Presidency.

Digital cooperation

“India, as the G20 host, fervently displayed its technological capabilities to fellow member nations, emphasizing the importance of digital collaboration. The esteemed ministerial meeting unanimously embraced the G20 Framework for Systems of Digital Public Infrastructure, a tool for enhancing financial inclusivity. India’s proposal to establish the Global Digital Public Infrastructure Repository (GDPIR), a virtual depository of voluntarily shared Digital Public Infrastructure (DPI) by G20 nations, received resounding support. Additionally, the summit oversaw the creation of the G20 Toolkit on Cyber Education and Youth Cyber Awareness and the G20 Roadmap for Cross-Country Comparison of Digital Skills, further strengthening global digital cooperation.”

Women centric presidency

Promoting Gender equality and outlining solutions tailored for women across education, entrepreneurship, technology, finance have been a focus area for India under its presidency India calibrated efforts toward education with a focus on STEM and one of the critical contributions of its presidency included ‘Tech Equity’, a Digital Inclusion Platform through which girls and women can skill, upskill and reskill themselves in digital literacy, financial literacy and other technical subjects. For the first time, the KPI Dashboard for G20 EMPOWER would look at the role of women in Small and Medium Enterprises. India’s Presidency has added substantially to G20 EMPOWER advocates (comprising CEOs, association heads and other leaders) promoting women’s advancement.

Economic Reforms

With assuming presidency India has consistently focused on the need for revitalized multilateralism to adequately address contemporary global challenges of the 21st Century and to make global governance more representative, effective, transparent and accountable. It has led member nations to agree on Reforming Multilateral Development banks (MDBs) so as to make them more effective, credible, accountable and legitimate institution. G20 members also emphasised on the importance of addressing debt vulnerabilities in low- and middle-income countries in an effective, comprehensive and systematic manner with collaborating We encourage the efforts of the Global Sovereign Debt Roundtable (GSDR) framework.

Countries also agreed on regulation on cryptocurrencies given the threat they pose to the stability to financial system by endorsing the Financial Stability Board’s (FSB’s) for the regulation, supervision and oversight of crypto-assets activities and markets and of global stable coin arrangements. India -West Asia -Europe connectivity initiative launched on sidelines of September meet boosted the greater connectivity among members.

 Janbhagidari – People’s Presidency 

Janbhagidari marked a distinctive era in India’s presidency, moving from Delhi-centric diplomacy to active citizen engagement across states and Union Territories. With 220 meetings in 60 cities, involving nearly 30,000 delegates in G20 meetings and over 100,000 participants in side events, G20 connected with people from all corners of the nation. Activities like G20 University Connect, Model G20 meetings, festivals, quizzes, selfies, and #G20India stories gave Indian youth a chance to understand how significant role they can play in progress of country and prepare themselves to leadership they will assume in decade ahead This summit also offered common citizens a deeper understanding of the country’s foreign policy and learning to future such event.

Successful New Delhi Declaration

The New Delhi Declaration is a main document floated among the member countries of the G20 Summit which touches on issues as mentioned above like digital public Infrastructure, gender equality and inclusion sustainable development goal, International taxation counterterrorism and money laundering, green development Technological transformation etc.

India’s G20 Presidency faced a unique challenge as Western nations like the USA, France, the EU, and the UK called for strong language condemning Russia’s actions in Ukraine, while China and Russia advocated for a milder stance. India, with its neutral position on the conflict, skillfully navigated this divide as the G20 chair. in this context, the successful crafting of the Delhi Declaration, which garnered consensus in a world marked by fractures, showcased Indian diplomacy at its best.

 This achievement marked a stark departure from the previous G20 summit in Bali in 2022, which had been marred by sharp divisions among member nations regarding the Ukraine war this time G20 leaders’ declaration avoided mentioning the Russian invasion of Ukraine and made a general call to all states to follow the principle of respecting each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. India’ success also becomes meaningful when it has overcome all sabotage plans made by its rival member China from creating issue over Sanskrit Quote to skipping the meet by its President

Conclusion

India’s year-long G20 Presidency has been nothing short of a remarkable milestone in its foreign policy. Throughout this period, India has proven its mettle in leading and influencing global affairs in a world marked by complexity and rapid change. Notably, India used this platform to display its rich tapestry of soft power and cultural diversity. It opened its arms to G20 leaders and delegates, treating them to a dazzling array of cultural events and exhibitions. This was more than just diplomacy; it was a celebration of India’s unique identity on the world stage. the summit itself was a resounding affirmation of India’s ascent as a global leader and a responsible participant in addressing the shared challenges and opportunities of our time. India’s Presidency has truly left an indelible mark on the international stage.

By: Barsha Hazarika, Research Analyst, GSDN

On December 21, 2022 the Government of Gambia Spokesman and Presidential Adviser issued a statement stating that a coup attempt had been foiled, and some suspects were detained.

It is unknown who was behind the attempt to overthrow President Adama Barrow, who was re-elected to a second term last year.

There had been no reports of gunshots and no evidence that loyalist forces have been dispatched to secure vital areas. On the other hand, the official statement stated that military reservists had been placed on standby. “Based on intelligence reports some soldiers of the Gambian Army were plotting to overthrow the democratically elected government,” the government spokesman added.

According to the 1946-2018 global database of coups, The Gambia had one successful coup and six unsuccessful or alleged coup attempts between 1994 and 2016, as well as the instability and interruptions they caused to the national development agenda. Since the Barrow administration took office in 2017, The Gambia has experienced two coup attempts.

Background

The Gambia is a largely stable country in West Africa popular with tourists due to its beaches and wildlife. Banjul, the capital, seems calm, and life goes on as usual. However, Gambians are once again engrossed in heated debates about yet another claimed coup attempt in the country. For a country that is the smallest on the African continent and one of the poorest in the world, The Gambia has had its fair share of upheavals from coups, whether successful or not.

In February 1982 the Senegambia Confederation was formed as a result of an abortive coup attempt in The Gambia in 1981, which was put down by Senegalese forces. The confederation, however, disbanded in 1989. The Ministry of Defence was established in 1982, and the Gambia Armed Forces Act was passed in 1985, and the Gambia National Army (GNA) was created.

On July 22, 1994 troops led by Lieutenant Yahya Jammeh executed a bloodless coup against President Sir Dawda Kairaba Jawara’s government, effectively terminating Africa’s longest-surviving democracy at that moment. The coupists used “rampant corruption and the retrogressive nature of the country” as justifications for destabilizing the government.

Jammeh’s rule finally ended in 2017, following his defeat at the hands of a coalition of opposition groups led by Adama Barrow in the December 2016 presidential elections. Barrow’s victory was widely regarded as a victory for democracy, yet there has been growing dissatisfaction with his administration for failing to address poverty and rising living costs.

The Coup Attempt of December 2022

There was no word on whether the coup attempt was tied to the former administration. Eight ex-soldiers plotted to depose Barrow a year after he took power, led by one of Jammeh’s former military advisers. They were sentenced to jail in 2019 on treason and conspiracy charges they denied. Although Barrow’s government has released limited information, there is no indication of what prompted the coup attempt.

According to David Aworawo, Professor of international relations and strategic studies at Nigeria’s University of Lagos, The Gambia has a history of coups as well. Yahya Jammeh, Barrow’s predecessor, seized power in a bloodless coup attempt until being deposed in 2016.

Jammeh, who lives in exile in Equatorial Guinea, continues to play a role in the Gambia’s polarised politics. According to Aworawo, Barrow’s lack of trust in the military may have played a factor in the coup attempt. When Barrow entered office in 2017, some top officers resigned from the Gambia National Army, creating an uneasy relationship between the president and the military forces.

“In 2017, he was sworn in in Senegal, not even in Gambia itself,” Aworawo explained in an interview with Nigerian television channel TVC television. “Since then, elements in the military loyal to Yahya Jammeh have been attempting to cause problems for Barrow.”

Barrow’s personal security is provided by Senegalese troops. According to the BBC, Nigerian and Ghanaian military guard the Gambia’s international airport and key seaport. As a result, he is unpopular among many Gambians, who feel he has undermined the country’s sovereignty by relying on foreign troops.

Although the deployment of foreign Soldiers has been unpopular, Barrow was easily re-elected in December 2021, receiving 53% of the votes.

The attempted coup stunned Gambian political expert Sait Matty Jaw, executive director of the Banjul-based Centre for Research and Policy Development, who said some have questioned its legitimacy.

According to Jaw, Barrow’s administration is dealing with a number of difficult difficulties. “People are frustrated by the slow progress made since Jammeh’s departure, and there is still no constitution,” he told the Voice of America. “Many people blame this incident on a lack of reform in the security sector.”

According to Jaw, Gambians are concerned about the country’s economy but oppose military intervention in domestic politics. “There are so many other issues that people are worried about,” he explained. “We also know from survey data that the majority of Gambians are anti-coup.”

Poverty, according to Aworawo, has fuelled discontent in The Gambia. “Inflation is still very high in the country, economic problems are pervasive, and the quality of life is still very low,” he stated. “There have been protests. As a result, optimism has given way to pessimism, and hope has given way to despair.”

Mr. Barrow also fell out of favour after splitting from the United Democratic Party (UDP), which pushed him to power in 2016, and forming the National People’s Party (NPP) to run in last year’s election. His popularity sank even further when he revealed his alliance with Mr. Jammeh’s old party in what was seen as an attempt to boost his chances of securing a second term.

Geopolitical Implications

Aworawo, suggested that it might be a case of copying recent coups in the region. Over the last two years, West Africa has seen a surge in coups and coup attempts. Military juntas took power in Burkina Faso, Guinea, and Mali, and the government of Guinea-Bissau averted a coup attempt in February 2022. And then the most recent coup in Gabon might also be a consequence of these cycle of coup.

These events highlight two of the most visible realities of contemporary African Politics:

(1) African democratic institutions are not yet strongly consolidated and

(2) Military interventions continue to be a significant hindrance to the democratic process in Africa

The alleged coup attempt was swiftly and unequivocally criticised by the National Human Rights Commission, ECOWAS, and civil society organisations, with some urging the government to guarantee that those imprisoned receive due process. In response to these calls, the government announced on December 27, 2022 the formation of an 11-member “investigative panel” to study and report on the coup attempt.

The latest coup attempt was condemned by West and Central African leaders, who are concerned about the region’s stability. There has been no word about who was responsible or whether it was connected to the former leadership.

Since 2020, West Africa has seen six successful military coups, indicating a reversal of democracy in a region that had previously been making progress in shedding its “coup belt” moniker.

Kemesit Effiong is a Nigerian geopolitical analyst. He blames some countries’ military efforts or takeovers on corruption, economic incompetence, and the misuse of authority across the continent. “If you look at the age profile of many coup plotters in places like Mali, Guinea Bissau, Burkina Faso, and right across the region, they are relatively young people, and for many of them, democracy has not delivered, and they are channelling this popular frustration with a democratic ruling in the region into violence and military takeovers,” Effiong said.

Jaw believes that the Gambia’s administration must change the country’s political, economic, and security structures in order to prevent the military from seizing power. “One way of ensuring that things like this do not happen is to ensure that there are adequate reforms that will address the gaps, the lacuna, but also for the government to be more transparent with the population, ensuring that the governance challenges in this country are addressed,” Jaw explained.

Conclusion

Military coups in Africa have been a constant concern since the winds of change swept across the continent in the late 1950s. The earlier coups took place following independence. In the decade of the 1970s, the pervasiveness of military coups in Africa was such that over half of the countries on the continent were under the tutelage of military dictatorships.

However, during the 1990s, in West Africa alone, we witnessed the annulment of a democratic election in Nigeria, the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Sierra Leone, and the disposing of one of the longest almost three-decade democratically elected government in the Gambia.

In a small country like The Gambia, which has a deficit in economic or geo-political weight, the answers to the threat of military coups must be found internally. The relatively small size of The Gambia’s population and land size have always been a disadvantage. The country is not enriched with significant natural resources. It is not sufficiently geo-strategically pivotal to any of her neighbours (except for Senegal) to warrant outside intervention in a coup. This was demonstrated by the refusal of the United States government to assist in stopping the coup, despite pleas from President Jawara. If the US had deemed it a national interest to intervene, it is highly conceivable that the coup would not have occurred.

By: Vaishnavi Verma, Research Analyst, GSDN

The escalating tensions between China and India in recent years have resulted in an increased strategic significance of the nations located between them. Since their respective establishments in 1949 (in the case of the People’s Republic of China) and 1947 (for India), the two dominant countries have consistently pursued the establishment of a buffer zone between them. Numerous academics believe that the impetus for China’s invasion of Tibet in 1950 might be attributed to the pursuit of a sense of security and protection. Presently, the endeavors of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to exert influence on the democratic processes in Nepal have been effective in molding a government in Kathmandu that exhibits more receptiveness towards Beijing as opposed to New Delhi. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has also expanded its influence to oversee and repress the Tibetan people residing under its jurisdiction.

In recent months, China has directed its focus towards the eastern region to address the long-standing border conflict it has with the Kingdom of Bhutan. China is now seeking discussions with Bhutan to establish legal recognition of its territorial acquisitions along their shared border, a tactic that bears resemblance to China’s previous actions along its border with India and in the South China Sea.

The acquisition of the disputed Doklam plateau by China would grant Beijing unrestricted mobilization capabilities and additional access routes in the event of a potential military confrontation with New Delhi. Consequently, the discussions between China and Bhutan transcend mere bilateral concerns, instead forming an integral component of China’s strategic maneuvering aimed at securing a significant edge over India. The potential resolution between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the government of Bhutan could have significant implications for India, potentially jeopardizing regional peace and exacerbating the ongoing crisis along the Sino-Indian border. The matter necessitates careful consideration from New Delhi, as well as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, an Indo-Pacific partnership comprising Australia, India, Japan, and the United States.

China has worked hard to maintain a connection with Bhutan despite not having a diplomatic representation there. After an almost two-year hiatus, Beijing has escalated border dialogues this year, indicating increasing urgency. Thimphu, Bhutan hosted the latest conference in May 2023, months after Chinese and Bhutanese leaders met in Kunming. Bhutan and China have reached a mutual agreement to form a collaborative technical team and undertake coordinated measures to accelerate the execution of a ‘three-step roadmap’ aimed at facilitating the delineation of their respective borders. A joint press statement was published following the 13th expert group meeting (EGM) on the China-Bhutan problem, held in Beijing from August 21-24, 2023. This was the third expert group meeting this year.

China maintains territorial claims to about 764 square kilometers of land located in the northwestern and central areas of Bhutan. Originally, the dispute was part of border negotiations between India and China. However, direct dialogues between China and Bhutan were initiated in 1984. Since then, over 24 rounds of border talks and 12 rounds of expert-level meetings have taken place.

One of the significant results of the 13th Expert Group Meeting (EGM) is the formation of the Joint Technical Team on the Delimitation of the China-Bhutan Boundary. This team convened its first meeting at the 13th EGM. Additionally, both parties reached a consensus to promptly convene the next expert group meeting and sustain ongoing contact for the organization of the 25th Round of China-Bhutan Boundary Talks. The resumption of diplomatic negotiations between Chinese and Bhutanese officials is likely to have generated apprehension among India and the other nations in the Quad alliance. Following his official visit to Brussels in March, an interview conducted by the Belgian daily La Libre with Bhutanese Prime Minister Lotay Tshering shed insight on his nation’s preparedness to address the continuing border dispute with China.

Nevertheless, the resolution of the boundary dispute between China and Bhutan is a complex undertaking. China now asserts its territorial claims over three distinct geographical areas, including Doklam in the western region, the revered Buddhist site of Beyul Khenpajong in the northern region, and the Sakteng wildlife sanctuary in the eastern region. The inclusion of the wildlife refuge in Chinese requests only occurred in 2020, despite its geographical distance from the border. The aforementioned assertions exemplify Beijing’s lack of sincerity in negotiations, which has negatively impacted the ongoing discussions between the two nations since their commencement in 1984. The lack of progress in discussions between both parties, despite repeated meetings over an extended period, is apparent.

Since 1996, China has proposed a territorial swap with Bhutan, to renounce its claim to disputed territories in the northern area. In return, China seeks for Bhutan to cede land of greater strategic significance in the western region. Beijing regards Doklam as a strategic objective due to its location at the confluence of Tibet, Bhutan, and India, which would provide the Chinese People’s Liberation Army with a significant tactical benefit. To enhance the appeal of its offer, China acknowledged that the northern area in question had far more geographical expanse than the land it specifically requested. Despite the original offer showing promise, the negotiations in 1996 eventually failed to resolve.

Bhutan’s steadfast rejection of the agreement may have potentially compelled China to introduce the Sakteng claim, conveying a signal on the extent to which it is willing to assert its position. In recent times, China has intensified its use of coercive strategies and has chosen to employ innovative methods to achieve significant advancement. The series of events started with instances of border intrusions, which saw a substantial escalation throughout the 2000s, afterward leading to the rapid development of cross-border civilian and military infrastructure.

In recent years, China has established whole settlements inside the territorial boundaries of Bhutan. One notable example is Gyalaphug village, located in the northern Beyul area. Alongside the construction of extensive road networks, the Chinese government has also established administrative centres for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and other outposts to accommodate military, police, and other security personnel. The establishment of villages along the border is a component of a plan that was revealed by Beijing in 2017. This plan aims to create a total of 600 villages in the border regions of the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR), which is situated on the Chinese side of the contested boundary. Nevertheless, as stated in the aforementioned study, several communities are located inside the contested region. According to the Chinese foreign ministry in January 2023, the building project was primarily aimed at enhancing the local population’s working and living standards. Contrary to the claim made, it is evident that there exists a military aspect to their operations.

The primary aim of China is to enhance its authority over the contested regions and shift the trijunction about seven km towards the southern direction. The acquisition of a commanding vantage point over the strategically critical Siliguri Corridor would bestow a notable advantage on China. The Chinese government is exerting heightened pressure on Bhutan to negotiate a land exchange agreement aimed at resolving the border dispute between Bhutan and China, with the underlying objective of obtaining a strategic edge over India.

The large infrastructure development plan may appear to contradict China’s apparent preference for western regions, as seen by its readiness to trade developed land for settlements. However, this approach misinterprets the Chinese Communist Party’s genuine goal. The CCP appears to want to undermine Bhutan’s Buddhist culture rather than grab its territory for colonization.

The likelihood of Bhutan relinquishing control over the Beyul region, which holds significant cultural and religious significance, can be compared to the probability of Britain renouncing ownership of Stonehenge. The covert occupation is designed to exert pressure on the Bhutanese leadership, thereby increasing their willingness to engage in discussions regarding the future of Doklam. The situation of Doklam concerns three parties. Bhutan-India relations have been distinctive and noteworthy since the 1949 Treaty of Friendship. This pact gave India control over Bhutan’s diplomatic and military affairs. Despite the 2007 treaty relaxation, the two countries have maintained this strong connection. Chinese military troops and Indian soldiers clashed in 2017 over a Chinese route connecting Doklam to Tibet. The disputed land threatens India and China’s security. Doklam lies in the south and borders the Siliguri corridor, a short band of terrain that connects central India to the northeast. The road is the only way Indian armed troops can enter battlegrounds like Arunachal Pradesh, like during the 1962 Sino-Indian conflict. Last year saw the latest violent conflict between the two countries’ forces in this region.

The Chumbi Valley, located north of Doklam, has been frequently characterized as a Chinese intrusion into Indian territory. China perceives this ancient gateway to Tibet as susceptible to a pincer movement, wherein Indian troops could potentially launch simultaneous attacks from both Bhutan and India, thereby exploiting a vulnerability for China. China’s strategic objective of expanding its territorial claim by 89 square kilometers to the south of the Bhutan-India junction is aimed at securing a favorable position that may potentially be used for both offensive and defensive objectives in the event of a confrontation with India.

China’s increased haste in border discussions with Bhutan is not a vacuum. The China-India border conflict is intimately tied to the Doklam settlement. China claims Arunachal Pradesh as an extension of South Tibet, which is key to this issue. With Doklam, China might gain power over India, disrupting India’s access to the eastern part of their contentious border. The resolution may lead to further serious Chinese measures in Arunachal Pradesh, perhaps including the US.

CONCLUSION

The ramifications of the negotiations between China and Bhutan will exert significant influence on the prospects of peace along the China-India border, as well as on wider geopolitical tensions. Despite the increasing pace of discussions, China and Bhutan have not yet finalized a date for the highly significant 25th round of boundary talks, which holds the potential for a substantial breakthrough. From a Western perspective, it is evident that the United States and India are actively strengthening their bilateral relations. Given this trajectory, it seems increasingly likely that the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) will need to incorporate military cooperation as part of its framework. Given the significant implications involved, it is imperative for New Delhi to strongly encourage Thimphu to uphold the existing state of affairs in the Doklam region, despite the ongoing pressure exerted by Beijing.