By: Vaibhav Borude, Research Analyst, GSDN

The rise of China as the world’s factory, aided by globalisation and the active assistance of the United States, had the result that China emerged as the second-largest economy in the world. The path-breaking visit of U.S. President Nixon paved the way for the economic development of China. The superpower rivalry in the Cold War naturally brought the USA and China closer to one another. China used this time to develop its strength. The famous Chinese strategist Sun Tzu’s advice was to “appear weak when you are strong, and appear strong when you are weak.” The Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping based his strategy of “hide your strength, bide your time” on Sun Tzu’s advice to maintain a low profile on the geopolitical world stage. However, the present Chinese president, Xi Jinping, believes that now that China has arrived on the world stage, it must assume the global leadership baton from the US. This rise of China as a geopolitical leader is creating a ripple effect all over the world.

Current China’s profile:

The real GDP of China was $14.27 trillion in 2020. The real GDP of the USA was $20 trillion in 2020. The gap between both countries is closing, and experts believe that China will soon overtake the USA as the world’s biggest economy. China has already overtaken the USA as the world’s biggest economy in PPP terms. The rise of China’s economic profile means that it has more resources to spend on its defence budget and on research and development of new emerging technology. It also has resources for  developing capabilities to deter an adversary from taking any coercive steps against China.

China is changing the rules of the world order.

The current world order is a liberal world order, developed by the USA after World War 2, largely based on the Washington Consensus. China is aiming to disrupt this world order and end the Pax Americana. China is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, so any decision can’t be made without its consent. So many countries are dependent on China that any coercive decision is not taken against them. For example, India’s plan to designate Masood Azar as a global terrorist was many times derailed by China due to its support for Pakistan. China has also started to delegitimize international institutions through its actions.

The peculiar case of South China Sea can be seen here. The South China Sea is an important strategic location. One-third of the world’s maritime shipping passes through it, carrying over $3 trillion in trade every year. There are claims of huge oil and natural gas deposits beneath it. Due to its strategic importance, China now wants to transform this world sea into a Chinese lake. China started calming the entire South China Sea on its own based on the 9-dash line. Aggravated by this behaviour, the Philippines filed a suit against China in the Hague Tribunal. The tribunal rejected China’s claims and ruled in favour of the Philippines. Reacting to the decision, the Chinese government rejected this tribunal ruling. The Chinese president, Xi Jinping, said in the ruling that the territorial sovereignty and maritime rights of China would not be affected.”

Use of economic might to create new friends and world dominance.

China is using its offensive charm and power to bring new countries into its sphere of influence. China launched the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) to connect Europe and Asia. BRI would help China increase its trade all over the region, thus making them dependent on it. BRI has not only an economic angle but also a strategic angle. The BRI route criss crosses the lands of central China to reach Europe. The route passes through central Asia, Iran, and Turkey, thus ideally fulfilling all the requirement of Mackinder’s view of world dominance. According to Mackinder, one who controls Central Asia controls the world island, and one who controls the world island controls the world. BRI serves as a dual-use facility, as it can increase its trade and also control the region. China is using debt trap diplomacy to increase its economic stakes in the region by providing loans to these projects, and if countries fail to pay them back, it forces them to hand over the infrastructure to China. China has used this method in Sri Lanka’s Hamanbota port. There is also fear of China using the same tactics in Pakistan and Myanmar.

BRI also has a maritime component that includes sea routes connecting China’s coastal regions with the South East Asia, South Asia, the South Pacific, the Middle East, Eastern Africa, and all the way to Europe. With the maritime component of BRI, China can leverage it to increase its naval footprint all over the world’s oceans in lieu of protecting its economic interests. China has built a port in Djibouti and is planning a secret naval facility in the Cocoa Islands of Myanmar. Hidden beneath the maritime component of BRI is the String of Pearls theory, which would encircle the Indian subcontinent from the sea route, thus forcing India into a defensive position. It would also reduce the influence of India in the Indian Ocean, thus affecting India’s position as a net security provider in the Indian Ocean.

China is shifting the balance of power in West Asia away from the United States

West Asia is a significant region in the world. As a source of oil and natural gas, it powers the world economy. West Asia has suffered the worst due to the Gulf wars, the Shia-Sunni conflict, the Saudi Arabia-Iran issue, and the Israel-Palestine issue. The USA has always tried to dominate this region and has favoured Saudi Arabia and Israel against Iran. China has now stepped up its engagement and started taking an active role in resolving the conflict in West Asia. The recent China-brokered deal between Iran and Saudi Arabia shows the “changing global order.” The USA has always had the upper hand in this region, but renewed Chinese engagement is reducing the hegemonic power of the USA in this region. China has also signed a 25-year cooperation agreement with Iran, despite US sanctions against Iran due to its nuclear programme. All this points towards the change from a USA-led world order to a multipolar world order with China as a major competitor for the USA‘s hegemonic status.

China’s Role in the Ukraine War.

The Ukraine-Russia war is the most defining moment of present times. The failure of Russia to checkmate Ukraine and, with the support of western Europe and the USA, Ukraine’s renewed efforts are forcing Putin’s military advances to slow down. The longer the war continues, the weaker Russia will emerge. A weak Russia would make it more dependent on China thus, helping China. It can also be seen as China using the USA’s policy of “beggar thy enemy”.

China’s rise as a geopolitical leader is against India’s interests.

The rise of China as a dominant power in the world order would go against the Indian interests. Firstly, the India-China border dispute is still lingering. India wants to end the dispute as soon as possible, whereas China wants to keep the issue at a standstill. China wants to increase the power differential with India, so when the power differential is at its maximum level, China can use its dominant power to force India to accept the terms and conditions as China says. Secondly, China and Pakistan have an all-weather friendship, and both view India as an adversary. In the event of future conflict, a two-front war with India cannot be ruled out. Thirdly, the USA sees India as a natural partner to balance China. As only India can challenge China on the Asian continent. Hence, the USA has started engagement with India from all sides. USA has re-energised the Quad. USA terms India a net security provider in the Indian Ocean. But in case any conflict emerges, India alone will have to bear the brunt, as India is the only Quad member that shares a land border with China.

As power is a zero-sum game, the rise of China as a geopolitical leader will reduce the power of the USA equally. The changing world order points towards the rise of a multipolar world order. In these changing times, the geopolitical world order appears to be in flux, but China would leave no stone unturned to replace the USA as the world power.

By: Hitti Chopra, Research Analyst, GSDN

The United States of America has been involved in various armed confrontations ranging from conflicts on its own soil to wars in far-off countries. From the American Revolution (1776) to the war on terror, to proxy war with Moscow in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, the US military has been able to prove its ability making it a significant player in many of these conflicts.

The Wars of 18th Century

One of the earliest conflicts the United States was involved in was The American Revolution (1775-1783).The conflict began in 1775, and the United States at the time was a group of British colonies. It was fought between the 13 colonies and Great Britain which sought to maintain control over the colonies. The United States with the help of France ultimately emerged victorious, gaining independence from Great Britain in 1783.

The Wars of 19th Century

The War of 1812 (1812-1815) was fought between the United States and Great Britain over trade destructions and the impressments of American sailors into the British Navy. The US military led by General Andrew Jackson was able to successfully defend against British invasion ultimately leading to the Treaty of Ghent which ended the conflict. The Civil War (1861-1865) was fought between the Union (northern states) and the Confederacy (southern states) over states’ rights and the issues like slavery. The US military, led by General Ulysses S.Grant ultimately defeated the confederacy resulting in the abolition of slavery and the reunification of the country.

The Wars of 20th Century

In the first half of 20th century, the United States was involved in both World War I and World War II.In World War I (1914-1918), the United States entered the conflict in 1917 after several years of neutrality. The war was fought between the Allied Powers (including the US) and the Central Powers over various territorial and economic issues. In World War II (1939-1945), The United States entered the conflict after the attack on Pearl Harbour by Japan. The war was fought between the allied powers and the axis powers over territorial and ideological issues. The conflict lasted from 1939 to 1945 and resulted in the defeat of Germany, Italy and Japan.

In the second half of the 20th century, the USA was involved in the Korean War and the Gulf War. The Korean War (1950-1953), was fought between North and South Korea, with the US and other UN forces supporting the South. The US military led by General Douglas MacArthur, was able to successfully push back North Korean forces and secure a ceasefire resulting in the division of Korea into separate countries.

The Vietnam War (1955-1975), was fought between North Vietnam and South Vietnam, with the US supporting the South. The US military ultimately failed to achieve its goals leading to a withdrawal of US forces and eventual reunification of Vietnam. The Gulf War (1990-1991) was fought between Iraq and coalition of UN forces, including the US over Iraq invasion of Kuwait. The US military was able to successfully liberate and defeat Iraqi forces, resulting in a ceasefire and the establishment of no-fly zones over Iraq. 

The Wars of 21st Century

Since becoming the world’s most powerful country after the two world wars and the Cold War, the United States has followed its interventionist policy in other countries, maintaining its hegemony in the global order. The War on Terror (2001-present) began after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, has been fought against various terrorist organizations including Al Qaeda and the Islamic State. The US military led by various generals has been involved in various conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq and other parts of the Middle East (American led intervention in Syria to US naval presence in Yemini civil war) with the goal of reducing terrorist activity and promoting stability in the region.

The United States of America has played a significant role in various armed confrontations throughout history, with its military power and ability to project its influence globally resulting in victories for the United States while some have been more challenging with significant long term implications for the nation and the world.

In today’s international geopolitical dynamics, the United States of America is no longer the only big kid on the block. The proxy war with Russia, icy relationships with China and entire Afghanistan fiasco, the USA singular post cold war dominance is fading, marking the comeback of Great Power rivalry. 

By: Abhyuday Saraswat, Research Analyst, GSDN

The Russia-Ukraine War, which began in 2014 with annexation of Crimea, has had a significant impact on Western Europe in several ways. And with continued aggression and Russia’s “Special Military Operation” launched on February 24, 2022 it has affected both political, military and economic relations between the countries in the region and the world.

Political Relations

The Russia-Ukraine War has had a profound impact on political relations in Western Europe. The conflict has created deep divisions between countries in the region, with some nations supporting Russia’s actions while others vehemently condemn them. Poland and the Baltic states have been particularly vocal in their criticism of Russia, while Italy and Greece have taken a more supportive stance. These divisions have caused significant tension between countries, making it challenging for them to reach a consensus on how to respond to the conflict. As a result, the unity of the European Union has been undermined, which was already facing challenges due to the rise of nationalism and the refugee crisis.

The consequences of this conflict have been far-reaching, with political relations between countries in Western Europe being severely impacted. It is essential for nations to come together and find a way to resolve their differences to prevent further damage to the region’s political stability.

Food Crisis

Wheat, barley, maize and cooking oil are major exports from Ukraine and Russia, mainly to nations in Africa and the Middle East. A compromise was mediated by Turkey and the UN last summer to allow Ukrainian grain to transit via Black Sea ports, but it appears that Russia is still impeding shipments. In addition, Russia is a significant producer of petroleum and fertiliser. In addition to raising food and petrol prices and generating shortages in locations like Chad, Tunisia, and Sri Lanka, disruptions to the flow of these items are aggravating other supply chain and climate concerns.

Economic Crisis

The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine has had significant economic consequences for Western Europe. The imposition of sanctions by Western countries in response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine has disrupted trade between Russia and the EU. As a result, countries that rely heavily on trade with Russia, such as Germany, have experienced a decline in exports since the sanctions were put in place. Conversely, countries that have been less impacted by the sanctions, such as Italy, have been able to maintain their trade relationships with Russia.

The economic fallout from the Russia-Ukraine War has been far-reaching, affecting not only the countries directly involved but also their trading partners. The sanctions imposed by Western countries have created a ripple effect throughout the global economy, with businesses and industries in Europe feeling the impact. The decline in exports to Russia has been particularly challenging for Germany, which has traditionally had strong economic ties with Russia. However, other countries have been able to weather the storm more effectively, thanks to their diversified trade relationships.

Despite the challenges posed by the ongoing conflict, Western Europe remains committed to finding a peaceful resolution to the crisis. In the meantime, businesses and industries in the region are adapting to the changing economic landscape, exploring new markets and opportunities to maintain their competitiveness. As the situation continues to evolve, it is clear that the economic ramifications of the Russia-Ukraine War will be felt for years to come.

Refugee crisis

The World Health Organization notes that more than 8 million refugees have left Ukraine, making this “the largest movement of people in the European Region since the Second World War.” Russia has forcibly relocated a lot of people. Resources, including those in Poland and Germany’s hospitals and schools, have been strained by others breaking the back of Poland and European public administration system. The same Poland which was previously unwilling to open its border to the Syrian refugee is opening up its border for Ukrainians which clearly shows its subjugation and discrimination between people of colour.

Anger and Protests

The ongoing conflict, coupled with the recent military build-up by Russian forces on the Ukrainian border, have led to a spate of protests in France and Northern Ireland. Many citizens of these countries view the Russian aggression as a threat to European stability and democracy, and thus express their solidarity with Ukraine through large-scale demonstrations. These protests also reflect broader concerns about geopolitical tensions between Russia and the West, as well as anxieties over the potential for another global conflict. As politicians debate how best to respond to Russian aggression, public protests serve as an important reminder of the urgency and gravity of these issues.

Energy Disruption

The conflict has caused a disruption in gas supplies from Russia to Europe, raising concerns about energy security in the region. Germany is the biggest user of gas in Europe, which receives 40% of its supply from Russia. Despite the sanctions, EU nations continued to buy gas. However, Putin’s punitive cuts have roughly 90% decreased supply. Leaders in Europe charge Moscow with “weaponizing” gas supplies.

With the sabotage of Nord-stream pipeline nothing flows form Russia to Europe making Europe shiver in their last winter and facing energy crisis. As a result, several countries in Western Europe have started exploring alternative sources of energy, such as renewable energy, to reduce their dependence on Russian energy and gas.

This shift towards renewable energy is not only driven by the need to ensure energy security but also by the desire to reduce carbon emissions and combat climate change. The use of renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, and hydro power can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help achieve the goals set out in the Paris Agreement.

The impact of the Russia-Ukraine War on energy security in Western Europe highlights the need for diversification of energy sources and the importance of investing in renewable energy. By doing so, countries can not only ensure their energy security but also contribute to the global effort to combat climate change.

NATO and US

Furthermore, the Russia-Ukraine War has had a significant impact on the security situation in Europe. The conflict has led to increased tensions between Russia and NATO, with both sides conducting military exercises and increasing their military presence in the region. NATO and allies sending weapons to Kyiv and Germany ending its era of pacifism and mass producing for Ukraine. Not only Europe but also Pakistan sending weapons to Ukraine while maintaining relations with Russia is a sign of its hypocrite nature. As a measure of confidence in response to the invasion of Ukraine, Finland joined NATO opposing the previous “Finlandization” by Russia. By doing this, the Western military alliance is extended up to the 800-mile border between Finland and Russia and now NATO is breathing on Russia’s neck.

This has raised concerns about the possibility of a wider conflict, which could have catastrophic consequences for Europe and the world. The war has also highlighted the need for greater cooperation and coordination between European countries in the areas of defence and security.

Takeaway

The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine has had a profound impact on Western Europe, with far-reaching consequences that have affected both politics and society. One of the most visible effects of the war has been the surge in the number of migrants and refugees seeking safety in Europe. As violence and instability continue to grip Ukraine, many people have been forced to flee their homes and seek refuge in neighbouring countries.

This influx of refugees has put a significant strain on Western European countries, many of which are already struggling to cope with the ongoing refugee crisis. The resulting tensions have fuelled rising nationalism and anti-immigrant sentiment, which has further exacerbated social divisions and created new challenges for policymakers.

Beyond the social impact, the Russia-Ukraine War has also had significant political and economic consequences for Western Europe. The conflict has disrupted trade and raised concerns about energy security, as many European countries rely heavily on Russian gas imports. Additionally, the ongoing conflict has created political divisions within the European Union, with some countries advocating for a more aggressive stance towards Russia while others seek to maintain diplomatic relations.

Despite these challenges, the conflict also highlights the importance of cooperation and unity among Western European countries. As the situation in Ukraine continues to evolve, it is clear that the conflict will continue to have significant consequences for Europe for years to come. By working together and finding common ground, however, Western European countries can help to mitigate the impact of the conflict and build a more stable and prosperous future for all.

By: Khushbu Ahlawat, Research Analyst, GSDN

INTRODUCTION

The Philippines and the United States (US) have announced plans to “accelerate the full implementation of the Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) by agreeing to designate four new ‘Agreed Locations’ in strategic areas of the country and substantially complete projects in the existing five agreed locations. The EDCA’s primary goal is to support integrated training, exercises, and interoperability across troops. The EDCA also “grants the American military broad access to a variety of vital military bases throughout the Philippines.” This occurred during US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin’s visit to the Philippines on February 2, 2023 as part of a Western Pacific Mission.

“Expansion of the EDCA will make our alliance stronger and more resilient and will accelerate the modernization of our combined military capabilities,” the US said in a statement. Establishing these new EDCA locations will enable faster response to humanitarian and climate-related disasters in the Philippines and other shared concerns.” “The Philippine-US Alliance has stood the test of time and remains ironclad,” the US statement continued. We are excited about the additional potential these new venues will provide to broaden our collaboration.”

WHAT TIES TWO MILITARIES TOGETHER?

The Philippines, a former Spanish colony that earned independence in 1946 after being controlled as an American possession for decades, is the region’s longest-treaty ally. (Australia, Japan, South Korea, and Thailand are the others.) It is also an essential strategic partner in a region where China has been asserting its military dominance and constructing military installations on disputed South China Sea islands.

The three main components of the US-Philippine military alliance are a 1951 Mutual Defence Treaty, a 1999 Visiting Forces Agreement that allowed for large-scale military exercises, and a 2014 defense agreement that allowed the US military to station troops and weapons at five different locations throughout the Philippines. The US military has also dispatched Special Operations personnel to advise counterterrorism operations in the southern Philippines, where Muslim guerrillas have fought the Catholic-majority state for decades.

A TROUBLED COLONIAL HERITAGE

The Philippines used to house some of America’s largest overseas military bases. However, hosting foreign troops in the Philippines was politically delicate because many Filipinos considered it a relic of American colonialism.

After street protests and the Philippine Senate’s resolution to end America’s military presence, the US was forced to leave Subic Bay, its final facility in the country, in 1992. Subic Bay, located near the South China Sea, was once home to a significant US Navy detachment during the Cold War. The accords of 1999 and 2014 permitted the American military to rebuild its presence in the Philippines to some extent. However, when President Rodrigo Duterte entered office in 2016, he stated that he intended to stop the former and maybe revoke the latter as part of a “separation” from the US and a move towards improved relations with China.

WARMING US-PHILIPPINES RELATIONS

Mr. Duterte backtracked on his threats, and his successor, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., has worked to repair ties with the US since entering office last year. The agreement is a significant step in that direction. It would specifically prolong the 2014 agreement by allowing Washington to post-military equipment and rotate personnel in nine Philippine military installations, up from four in the initial 10-year arrangement. The reform will allow the US to construct the country’s largest military deployment in 30 years.

WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE NEW AGREEMENT?

The Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement, which was extended in 2014, could have ramifications for the future of Taiwan, the island democracy near China that Beijing claims as its own. Since US Speaker Nancy Pelosi visited Taiwan last summer, tensions have been building. This provocative move spurred Beijing to increase its activity in the area, including several days of live-fire training, boosting the prospect of future war. According to American officials, access to the Philippines’ northernmost islands is critical to countering China in the case of an attack on neighboring Taiwan. The country’s most populous island, Luzon, features military installations that can house American troops and combat planes.

The new pact may have ramifications in the South China Sea, which contains some of the world’s busiest trade channels. Even though an international tribunal ruled in 2016 that Beijing’s comprehensive claim to sovereignty over the sea lacked a legal foundation, China’s military development has proceeded. The Philippines is one of several Southeast Asian countries, including Indonesia and Vietnam, that want the United States to aid them in combat the buildup.

The US-funded renovation of the runway at the Philippines’ Basa Air Base began with a total cost of $25 million projected. The event was co-led by US Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall and Philippine Department of National Defence Officer-in-Charge Carlito Galvez Jr. “The rehabilitation is a manifestation of our Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), a key pillar of the US-Philippine alliance. The two countries’ ties are at a crossroads” Kendall added.

CONCLUSION

The development of military cooperation between the United States and the Philippines is understandable, given that they are historic security allies. Nonetheless, the Philippines should be wary of China’s financial situation. If Philippine-US defense cooperation is highly targeted, mainly if it covers the Taiwan Strait, China would undoubtedly regard it as an unfriendly act and will respond in kind. In this context, the Chinese embassy in Manila’s recent remark that Philippines-US military cooperation could “seriously harm Philippine national interests” is a clear warning to the Philippines.

The strengthening of US-Philippine defense ties, as well as the decision to push for the full implementation of EDCA, will impact US-Philippine relations and the Philippines-China and US-China great power struggle. This may harm the wider South China Sea issue and the continuing discussions on the Code of Conduct (COC) for a peaceful dispute resolution. Though the new leadership recognizes that it requires the US to secure and protect its sovereign regions, a robust relationship with China is also required for economic advancement and development. By taking such aggressive moves that directly send a strong message to China, it remains to be seen how the Marcos Jr. government will be able to manage and hedge between these two powers in order to get benefits from both, as has been the mantra of most of his Southeast Asian neighbours.

By: Vaibhav Borude, Research Analyst, GSDN

On February 24, 2023 a police station was attacked in Ajnala, on the outskirts of Amritsar, Punjab, India and one name flashed in the media all over India: Amritpal Singh, a radical Sikh preacher who used the idea of Khalistan to create a violent atmosphere in Punjab. He and his aides stormed the police station to demand the release of their assistant, Lovepreet Singh. The fact that they used the symbols of Sikh religious leaders distinguishes this attack. Amritpal and his supporters, some of them brandishing swords and guns, barged into the Ajnala police station using the Sikh holy book as a shield. Videos of Amritpal’s close aides carrying weapons with the Anandpur Khalsa Force’ logo have also been found.

The question arises: who is Amritpal Singh? Amritpal Singh first gained traction on social media during the farmer’s stir against the now-repealed farm laws. He was a vocal supporter of protest leader Deep Sidhu, who hit the headlines over the hoisting of the ‘Nishan Sahib flag’ on the Red Fort in New Delhi on Republic Day in 2021. Singh then lived in Dubai, where he had been working as a dispatcher in the family-owned transport business for the past 10 years. His family is from Jallupur Khera in Amritsar.

In February 2022, Sidhu died in a car accident. Amritpal Singh was then selected as the leader of ‘Waris Punjab de’, an organisation that was founded by Deep Sidhu. This dastarbandi (installation) ceremony was held at Rhode, Bhindarwale’s village, amid slogans of “Khalistan Zindabad ”. Amritpal Singh openly says that he draws inspiration from Jarnail Singh Bhindarwale, the militant leader who was killed in 1984. Amritpal Singh’s popularity was built over Facebook Live and other social media sessions with his aggressive speeches against regional and national political parties, feminists, activists, Khalsa Aid, and even some pro-Khalistan groups such as Dal Khalsa.

Amritpal Singh started to tour Punjab to build some support but was not able to capture the popular imagination of the people. After the police station incident, he thought that popular support had started gaining traction. He said that he would launch another procession. To break this momentum, on March 18, 2023, the government started a crackdown against him, and since this date, he has been on the run.

This has led to the start of geo-political tensions in relations between India and some countries that have a previous record of Khalistan activities like Canada, Australia, Germany, UK and USA. The Indian consulate was attacked in London after the search operation for Amritpal Singh A Khalistan protester attacked the staff in the consulate and lowered the Indian tricolour, replacing it with the Khalistan flag.    

The attack was prominent as it was carried out in the heart of the UK, i.e., London, which has the highest grade of security. Following the incident, India summoned the senior-most British diplomat in Delhi and demanded an explanation over the complete “absence of security” at the mission. Foreign Secretary Vinay Kwatra also informed that the government has asked UK authorities to quickly attack and prosecute those who are involved in this act.

After the London incident, the diplomatic tensions remained high; later, the Indian side lowered the security outside the UK consulate in India. Also, the sand barracks along the UK consulate were later removed.

After the UK incident, the Indian consulate in San Francisco, USA, was attacked. This protest movement is on the rise, raising the issue of Khalistan and expressing strong support for Amritpal Singh. India registered its “strong protest” with the US Charge d’Affaires in New Delhi over the incident and asked the American government to take appropriate measures to prevent the recurrence of such incidents. Later, US State Department Deputy Spokesperson Vedant Patel condemned the incidents of violence at Indian diplomatic facilities in the United States, saying violence is never an acceptable form of protest.

Similar protest movements in countries such as Canada and Australia have also been reported. This protest movement raises the serious question as to who is behind it? Many analysts and intelligence sources refer to the support of ISI in the Khalistan movement and the present protest movement. The swift entry and rise of Amritpal Singh point towards the role of ISI in finding and pushing the movement into mainstream culture. After the loss of Pakistan in the Kargil War, ISI has started the policy of ‘hundred cuts’ to India. The Khalistan movement is one part of this movement. The main aim of this policy of Pakistan is to balkanize India, as Pakistan knows it cannot win against India in a conventional war.

The rise of Amritpal Singh and the waves of the Khalistan movement pose a challenge for the North American bloc, as many of the affluent immigrants of Punjab support the Khalistan movement, so they use this opportunity and show it as a part of their self-development rights. The geo-political ramifications are high, as it can lead to diplomatic protests that drain precious time and resources to this issue when the world is changing.

The best part of the Amritpal Singh episode shows that it lacks mass support, and the people of Punjab have strongly supported the government, showing that the Khalistan movement is a dream of few miniscule people, who with their deep pockets use media amplification tools to show this as all of Punjab’s popular aspiration.  The Indian state, as long as it remains secular and federal, the Khalistan movement would fail to realise its dream.

By: Sagnik Sarkar

Introduction

Over the span of the 21st century, global militarization has accelerated, with a clear recalibration towards the Asia Pacific. Military expenditure rose from $1.12 trillion (in 2020 dollars) per year to $2.11 trillion between 2000 and 2021. Data compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute show that during that period, Asia and Oceania’s share of global defense spending rose from 18% to 28%. An arms race across the region has been sparked by growing worries about China, whose defense expenditure has been rising steadily for almost three decades, upending decades-old regional conventions and exposing several potential flashpoints.

The Chinese Quest for Taiwan

How China’s military buildup fits into its plans to annex Taiwan is the greatest worry. The possibility of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan is higher than it has been in years, but estimates of when it might occur differ. Senior US military figures have recently given alarmingly close deadlines, such as 2023, 2025, and 2027. However, some analysts warn that these military figures are probably exaggerating to advocate for more funding. American evaluations are important because it’s possible that the US military will assist in defending Taiwan against Chinese attacks. According to sources, the president of Taiwan is frustrated by the public forecasts because she wants to make sure that people are concerned about the China threat just enough to support her policies but not too much that they give up hope.

China will raise its defense spending by 7.2% in 2023, making it the highest level ever, despite still allocating a smaller percentage of its GDP to defense than the US. According to the US Department of Defense, China’s actual military spending may be up to twice as much as what is publicly disclosed. In reaction, increasing the military presence in the Indo-Pacific has been given priority in the most recent US budget’s defense section. The US also gave its approval this month for Taiwan to possibly purchase new weaponry worth $619 million. The impact on the regional military power balance is just as significant as the higher spending. China was the Indo-Pacific region’s second-largest spender on military in 2000. By 2021, it spent more on defense than the following 13 nations in the area put together.

Additionally, a trilateral deal involving Australia, the US, and the UK has drawn strong criticism from China. The US and UK will assist Australia in acquiring at least three nuclear-powered submarines over the following three decades as part of the AU$368 billion Aukus agreement. Multiple opinions have been expressed regarding Aukus, which is generally believed to be intended to counter China’s military buildup. The allies, according to China, were “walking further and further down the path of error and danger” by lying, abusing non-proliferation treaty provisions, and using loopholes.

The Scramble in the South China Sea

One of the world’s most vital waters in terms of both strategy and commerce is the South China Sea. One of the busiest trade routes in the world, it is abundant in marine life and is believed to hold sizable reserves of natural gas and oil. Hence, it is hotly disputed.

China claims almost the entire South China Sea, with its infamous “nine-dash” line serving as the country’s legal border. However, this claim has been denied by an international tribunal in The Hague. There are conflicting claims from the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and Taiwan. Despite not being a candidate, the US views the water as being essential to its national interests.

The Philippines has adopted a much tougher stance on the conflict under President Ferdinand Marcos, accusing Chinese ships of “aggressive actions” in the South China Sea. The Philippines opened up more of its military bases to the US in March, strengthening Washington’s position there and making it easier for it to keep an eye on Chinese action in the South China Sea near Taiwan. Additionally, it has improved military relations with two US allies, Japan and Australia, and simultaneously also backed the development of the AUKUS, in contrast to neighboring Southeast Asian nations, some of whom fear that it could spark an arms race that destabilizes the area.

The Pacific Power Circus

Pacific leaders have resisted taking a position in the geostrategic conflict between the US and China and have repeatedly emphasized that they don’t want to be drawn into it. Additionally, they frequently assert that the climate catastrophe is their biggest security threat.

China, however, has stepped up its efforts to gain sway among the Pacific Island nations, particularly in matters of law enforcement and security. The US, New Zealand, and Australia have all moved to step up their diplomacy efforts in response to these efforts, which have caused something of a reckoning.

The signing of a security deal with the Solomon Islands almost a year ago serves as the clearest example of Beijing’s advancement in the area. According to a draft that was leaked, the agreement would enable China to carry out a variety of requests from the police and armed forces, including upholding societal order and defending “the safety of Chinese personnel and major projects in the Solomon Islands.”

Even though the prime minister of the Solomon Islands, Manasseh Sogavare, has repeatedly reassured Australia and other countries that there will never be a foreign military base in his country, Australian officials had privately expressed concerns that the deal might open the door for a future Chinese naval presence about 1,700 kilometers from the country’s coast.

The Pacific leaders rejected China’s request for a broad regional security agreement with 10 Pacific nations last year because they believed Beijing was attempting to sidestep established institutions like the Pacific Islands Forum. (PIF).

China’s diplomacy efforts have prompted a rush of responses from other nations. The Australian Labor government has made reestablishing trust with Pacific leaders a top goal since taking office last year. In a succession of high-level visits, the foreign affairs minister Penny Wong and others have emphasized that the immediate region should be in charge of security.  After signing a contract with Vanuatu in December, Australia hopes to complete talks on a bilateral security arrangement with Papua New Guinea by the end of April.

The US reopened its embassy in the Solomon Islands in February after admitting it needed to do more in the area, but western authorities are aware of the trends. The Australian government believes that despite initial relief at the decision by Pacific island nations to postpone China’s expansive security plans, this may only be a brief reprieve. Last year, a high-ranking government official acknowledged that “things aren’t going back to the way they were.”

Ambitious or Insecure: The Record-Breaking North Korea

North Korea looks focused on breaking its own record this year after launching roughly 90 ballistic missiles and other weapons in 2022. In total, it has tested 11 different types of missiles so far in 2023, some of which involved more than one weapon. These tests involved two intercontinental ballistic missiles and, according to state media, strategic cruise missiles with a nuclear capacity.

The Pyongyang regime recently unveiled new, smaller nuclear warheads and vowed to create more weapons-grade nuclear material, showing that it has no plans to give up its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. An “exponential increase” in the regime’s nuclear stockpile was demanded by Kim Jong-un at the close of the previous year.

The US and South Korea are the principal targets of the North’s provocations. Days after concluding their largest combined military exercises in five years, forces from both nations participated in joint maritime exercises that included the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Nimitz. The exercises, which the allies insist are solely defensive in nature, are denounced by Pyongyang as a practice for an invasion.

Yoon Suk Yeol, the conservative president of South Korea, has responded harshly to the escalating hostilities on the Korean peninsula by announcing that Seoul will not give the North a “single penny” as long as it continues to work on nuclear weapons. A serious debate over whether Seoul should acquire its own nuclear deterrent is currently taking place, which is concerning for those hoping to reduce tensions. Polls show that the majority of South Koreans back this course of action.

Japan’s argument for moving further away from its wartime “pacifism” has been strengthened by worries about North Korea and a more assertive China. Japan’s government, led by Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, declared late last year that it would abandon its self-imposed cap of 1% of GDP and double defense spending to 2% of GDP by 2027.

A long-awaited warming of ties between Japan and South Korea, both US allies with tens of thousands of American troops stationed there, has been sparked by the region’s increasingly unstable security environment. Yoon and Kishida held their first bilateral discussions between the leaders of South Korea and Japan in 12 years in March. After a five-year hiatus, their summit in Tokyo produced an agreement to restart reciprocal visits and a security dialogue as they worked to settle differences stemming from their bitter wartime past.

Conclusion

The instances mentioned above are a clear portrayal of the Asia-Pacific region being the new ‘hotbed’ of a global arms race. And with the changing dynamics of the global order and the involved power equations, this phenomenon is going to be a common sight in the near and distant future. With the rise of China as a significant power (or even a ‘superpower’ in the making) which can surely cause major alterations to the world order in existence, the Asia-Pacific region has now gained significant traction as the main ‘battlefield’ of the new power struggle. Instances of this ‘arms race’ progressing even further in this region, hence, may also be a reality, with the passage of time. 

About the Author

Sagnik Sarkar is a graduate of Political Science from the Department of International Relations, Jadavpur University. Currently, he is pursuing his Masters in International Relations from the same institution. He is passionate about researching, and has a special interest towards International Relations, Diplomacy, Connectivity, Trade, Human Rights, Conflict Studies, Public Policy and Governance. He has been associated with numerous think tanks in the past, such as CSIRD, Asian Confluence and Asia in Global Affairs. He is extremely enthusiastic about academic writing and has authored and published numerous research papers and articles pertaining to various issues under the realm of Political Science and International Relations for notable organizations. The views expressed are personal.

• Twitter
• LinkedIn
• Instagram
• WordPress

By: Vishnugayathre S, Research Analyst, GSDN

Colombia, officially known as the Republic of Columbia is home to a variety of indigenous organisms, ranked as the second highest biodiverse country in the world, and known as the gift of God on earth. It was considered to be a beautiful and peaceful place to live in, but it was the condition before 60 years. Now Colombia is in major crisis because of armed insurgencies against the government, illegal drug trafficking, crime, and kidnapping. The geographical location of this country also paves the way for it as the country’s vast area of the mainland is divided into many sub-diversified regions because of the nature of the landscape, climates, and ecosystem due to which there emerged many secessionist and regional divisions.

Colombia effectively achieved its independence from Spain in 1819 and soon after the independence, in the 1830s and the 1840s, two political parties with a different vision for the country’s future formed, namely the Liberals and the Conservatives. During the nineteenth century, several wars between both groups took place. The great war of thousand days is one such example. Colombia experienced peace for about 40 years after the peace treaty which ended the Thousand Days War. But in that span too, it experienced small-scale wars like Banana Massacre. In that massacre, the direct involvement of the US government was ascertained. This rebellion was seen as the thirst for a communist government that concentrated on the life of poor citizens and keeping prices of goods and commodities in check. But soon large-scale violence broke out again in the 1940s.

The years between 1946 and 1964 were known as La Violencia, a decade of civil war that is estimated to have killed more than 2,00,000 people. It began when the Liberals lost the election to the Conservatives as the vote for them got divided into two candidates and it further got intensified when a Liberal populist politician was murdered, which led to clashes between Liberal and Conservative elites. The Liberal Party pushed for the impeachment of the President. In return, the Conservatives to protect their status in the country dissolved the Congress and formed dictator rule. They controlled the military directly, armed the peasant supporters, and turned them into Para-military forces. Liberals were excluded from the power-sharing agreement that end up in guerrilla group formation by liberals for self-defence from the conservative government such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN). The FARC is composed of military communists and self-defense peasants’ groups whereas ELN was dominated by students, catholic radicals, and left-wing intellectuals. Both claimed the rights of the poor and the communist form of government. On the other hand, the largest paramilitary group, The United Self-defence Forces of Colombia (AUC) emerged and had a direct link with the state military to protect the landowners and the conservatives from the guerrilla group. It was a contrast as the informal group led by the conservative government perceived threats of the guerrilla group. These groups were announced as foreign terrorist organizations by the US.

Liberals and Conservatives were aware of the extending violence and thus brought in the National Front Agreement in 1958. Both parties agreed to rotate the power among themselves, intercalating for a period of four presidential terms. But this also did not work as it questioned the “Democratisation of Democracy.” Several guerrilla organizations were formed in such a way that it became very difficult to identify and separate the groups and their ideologies. In 1967, Population Liberation Army was formed by the Communist Party of Colombia which itself was broken from the Colombian communist party over the disagreement with stringent Soviet ideology. It is well evident that most of the armed insurgent groups were quite familiar with their ideologies but with slight differences.

By 1974, the country witnessed the emergence of another guerrilla group, M-19 which was led by the urban guerrilla group. It was seen as a form of civilian uprise against the regime after the fraudulent election of 1970 and the forced removal of the former election. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) initially engaged mostly in the village side began to make money by illegal drug trafficking for buying modernized equipment and training the rebels. The FARC and ELN used violence, kidnapping, drug trafficking, and extortion as a source to earn money. FARC began to kidnap and kill US officials. FARC’s assassination of the US’s Former Cultural minister in 2001 is one such example and it is also involved in the hijacking of a domestic commercial flight.

In the 1980s, drug cartels increased, and as a result, Colombia emerged as the highest supplier of Cocaine in the world. It also raised various criminal and unjustified activities. Drug cartels kidnapped people if they were seen as an obstacle to selling drugs. It also emerged as a severe threat to the US as the drugs started to enter the markets of the US as well. The US reported that the FARC is responsible for 60 percent of Colombian Cocaine exports to the US. Right from the beginning the US helped the Colombian government tackle guerrilla organizations, and this led the US to further intensify it. The US approved Plan Colombia, the aid package provided to tackle the insuring non-state actors.

In 1982, FARC began to talk with the government for peaceful negotiations as it added the people’s army to its name and concentrated on people’s welfare. A series of ceasefires and negotiations took place between the Government and the FARC which created some hope. But some of the people in the FARC were not satisfied with the formation of FARC as a legally organized political party. It thus led to the creation of a new political party known as the Patriotic Union. But FARC was not satisfied with the government’s negotiation and continued its smuggling business and small-scale low intense massacres like the Mapiripan massacre that took place in the 1990s.  FARC, which was formed as a self-defence organization  that began to control many economic resources and is enduring it till now. Even after the steps and measures taken by the government to decentralize the power, it ended up with the negative effect of further intensification of the violence.

The formal and legal peace talks with FARC began in 2012. The negotiations created five principles that both sides promised to follow. Those are future political participation of FARC members, rebels’ reintegration into civilian life, illegal crop eradication, transitional justice, and reparations, and rebel disarmament and implementation of the peace deal. And at last, in 2016, the revised peace agreement was signed and implemented which is seen as a ray of hope for the country.

It is the vilest fact that around 16.9% of the total country’s population has been a direct victim of the war according to the reports. Colombia is still an underdeveloped country in the world even though it has the resources to emerge as a developing country, the main reason for this is the improper utilization of resources as well as the influence of guerrilla organizations and criminal activities in society. This also led to the displacement of around 5 million people between 1985 to 2012. The life and shelter of these people are questioned. Colombia needs to raise itself from inequality and must develop its infrastructure and economy as well and there is a long way for the country to go. But the way to peace, right after the war is not that much easier. Still, there are many insurgency groups engaged in criminal and smuggling activities that need to be encountered by the state in order to protect its citizens from tensions and years of violence.

The government is fiscally strapped by spending its money on tackling ongoing armed resurgence activities and not on protecting the rights and welfare of the people. It is a fact that even though the war is between the government and the guerrilla group, common people are impacted a lot. The government provides poor services to its citizens which was well evident from the Covid pandemic and the poverty rate in Colombia is now the highest in the South American countries. In order to tackle it, the government can get help from its closest ally the US, and the United Nations, in terms of funding and then make certain reforms in its governmental laws to overcome the fiscal deficit and to lead the country towards growth. So, it is vested in the hands of the government to take initiative and work for the better improvement of the economy and to safeguard the rights of its citizens.

By: Abhyuday Saraswat

“Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP)” was the main takeaway from PM Fumio Kishida’s visit to India recently. His main purpose was to unveil his new plan on the soil of India, making it an indispensable partner in realising the FOIP. But what exactly does the Free and Open Indo-Pacific mean for Japan, and why is India a key partner in many nations’ strategies for the Indo-Pacific? Why is India seen as an ally by many?

The Indo-Pacific region is a geopolitical territory that includes the Indian and Pacific oceans. The Indo-Pacific region, which stretches from the west coast of the United States to the west coast of India, is a 24-nation regional framework that includes the tropical waters of the Indian Ocean, the western and central Pacific Oceans, and the seas connecting the two in the general area of Indonesia.

But the entire region is under threat from China and its tendency to bully its neighbours, along with North Korea’s constant aggression towards its neighbours, mostly ASEAN. As a result, the Indo-Pacific emerged as an area of importance for many nations and superpowers. With Japan focusing on FOIP, the USA and Canada have also included India in their strategic framework to counter China in the region.

Japan’s FOIP

Late Prime Minister of Japan, Shinzo Abe laid the foundation of Free and Open Indo-Pacific which was a blanket term that includes the Indo-Pacific-specific strategies of nations with comparable regional objectives. With the recent visit of Japan’s PM to India, the two leaders pledged to strengthen their relationship. Believing that doing so will help create a more peaceful, stable, and prosperous Indo-Pacific region as well as benefit the two nations in many other ways. “It is based on our mutual democratic values and respect for rule of law on international platforms,” the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said.

Japan is moving forward afterrealising that the Indo-Pacific region, which is home to more than half of the world’s population, is at the core of global vitality and is essential to the world’s stability and prosperity. The “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” vision seeks to realise the prosperity of the entire area by facilitating open and vigorous economic activity throughout the Indo-Pacific. The principles for peace and norms for prosperity, handling problems in an Indo-Pacific manner, multi-layered connectivity, and expanding efforts for security and safe usage of the “sea” to the “air” are the new “four pillars” of cooperation for FOIP.

The “FOIP” Vision is being pursued by Japan through a concerted, whole-of-government strategy.

To maintain a sizeable presence in the area as the seas are a lane for multi-nation exports and trade, India’s cooperation is needed. In the Indo-Pacific, Japan is marked by performing drills and exercises of all three forces on an annual basis as well as in groupings of nations. Maitryi, Dharma Guardian, and Malabar Exercises are performed to counter the threats of the region.

PM Kishida stated that by 2030, Japan would mobilise more than $75 billion in public and private funding for infrastructure projects throughout the Indo-Pacific region and grow alongside other nations.

India in the Indo-Pacific

Countries like Australia, Japan, and the United States view India’s involvement in the Indo-Pacific region as essential. Nonetheless, despite New Delhi’s presence in the Indian Ocean, because of its continental challenges, marine security has actually stayed outside of India’s strategic interests, worries, and thoughts.

In this regard, India is taking up the policy of a multi-pronged approach, with regional problems being solved via regional groupings as well as involving the Quad in order to counter the common threat. While alliances with more powerful nations like Australia, France, Japan, and the United States have given New Delhi a broader platform to increase its diplomatic reach, its relationship with island countries will determine India’s position in the Indo-Pacific. Due to the island nations’ close proximity to India, the Maldives, Sri Lanka, and, to a greater extent, Mauritius and the Seychelles, their foreign policy decisions would directly affect the security situation in New Delhi. It is important and delicate for India not to contaminate its neighbouring areas, as the small nations in the neighbourhood can get tangled up in the Sino-Indian or Sino-US geopolitical rivalry.

India will face a tough test in juggling relations with China, the US, the EU, and other regional organisations like QUAD, BIMSTEC, and SAARC. Smaller countries in South Asia and India seem to understand the anticipated move in foreign policy from non-alignment to multi-alignment, but there are significant hazards ahead for India due to unresolved border issues and the trade deficit with China.

Chinese Influence

China’s sphere of influence in the Asia and under developed countries is notorious, with its recent Sri Lanka fiasco, it is evident that China won’t stop at anything. The BRI (Belt and Road Initiative) is aiming to build infrastructure in ASEAN and increase connectivity, but its recent rise is being seen with an eye of suspension because of its debt trap policy. Several groupings, states, and players are sitting on the fence and watching the play unfold.

The world economy and security depend on the Indo-Pacific area. On the one side, we have the US, which has long held a strong position. China, a fast-rising power that poses a danger to the established quo, is the opposite; it is viewed with distrust. Several nations in the Indo-Pacific are also affected by the Sino-US strategic rivalry. The world can wish for prosperous cooperation and harmonious coexistence. But an aggressive and expansionist China seems to have gone the confrontational route. China’s goal has been to reclaim its former greatness by ruling Asia now and the rest of the world later. As a result, countries in the Indo-Pacific and beyond will continue to face difficulties as a result of China’s rise. Since China deliberately seeks to overthrow the West and the established international order, it is clear that it cannot and will not rise peacefully. As a result, the West, along with India, needs to check China’s ascent in order to avoid major global repercussions. Regional organisations like QUAD, AUKUS, and other aid initiatives are being used as levers to control China.

About the Author

Abhyuday Saraswat is young Defense Research intern at The Kootneeti. He has authored other articles and pieces on India’s International and Defense relations. He is pursuing Master in Defense and Strategic Studies from Bareilly College, M.J.P. Rohilkhand University, Bareilly. Beforehand, he attained a Bachelor of Science degree in Military Science from Bareilly College. His fields of interests include Defense Affairs, International Relations and Geopolitics. His writings have appeared at The Kootneeti. The views expressed are personal.

• Twitter
• LinkedIn
• Instagram
• WordPress