Global Strategic and Defence News (GSDN) started its foray on November 11, 2022 as a forum to provide accurate analysis on geopolitical and defence issues that concern the world at large
India-Pakistan Tensions: Loss of Lives to both Nations due to Military Operations and Terrorism
By: Khushbu Ahlawat, Research Analyst, GSDN
South Asia is home to several countries dealing with security issues such as terrorism, separatism, and geopolitical rivalries. India and Pakistan, both nuclear powers, have a long history together. The standoff between India and Pakistan highlighted the need for greater regional cooperation and dialogue to address challenges. Pakistan-sponsored cross-border terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir, insurgency-related violence in some North Eastern (NE) states, and naxal violence in several parts of the country remained a concern. Experts fear that the ongoing crisis will escalate beyond the use of conventional weapons, leading to a huge loss of life in both nations.
PARTITION OF 1947
India and Pakistan tensions started with the Partition of 1947, which caused collective trauma, widening the religious divide on both sides of the border. As faith-based communities turned against one another, violence erupted. Hindus and Muslims, who had coexisted for centuries, were abruptly torn apart. Houses were looted and burned, houses were looted and burned, women were raped, and children were killed. Although the figures are unreliable, historians estimate that 15 million people were displaced and approximately 2 million died due to the violence. Trains carrying dead bodies were sent across the new border in Punjab.
INDIA AND PAKISTAN WAR OF 1965 and 1971
The war began on April 24, 1965, when the Pakistan Army attacked our territory in the Rann of Kutch and advanced six to eight miles into Indian territory. Following the launch of Operation Gibraltar, Pakistani forces infiltrated Kashmir. India recognized the critical nature of the ongoing plan, repulsed the attacks, and cut off access to and from the Kashmir Valley. The seventeen-day war resulted in thousands of casualties on both sides, with the Indian army losing 3,000 soldiers on the battlefield and Pakistan losing 3,800. Pakistan claimed to have destroyed 104 enemy aircraft while losing 19 of its own, whereas India claimed to have destroyed 73 enemy aircraft while losing 35 of its own.
The Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 was a military conflict between India and Pakistan that lasted from 3 December 1971 in East Pakistan until Pakistan’s capitulation in Dhaka on 16 December 1971. During this war, India lost over 12,000 soldiers. Of these, 2,908 gave their lives in defense of the country. The eastern front war ended on 16 December with the unconditional surrender of Pakistani forces at 1631 hrs. Following that, the Indian Prime Minister declared a unilateral ceasefire beginning at 2000 hrs on the 17th. Members of the Pakistani military and pro-Pakistani Islamist militias are estimated to have killed between 300,000 and 3,000,000 civilians in Bangladesh. A further eight to ten million people fled the country due to the conflict.
KARGIL CONFLICT
The 1999 Kargil War lasted from May 8, when Pakistani forces and Kashmiri militants were discovered atop the Kargil ridges, to July 14, when both sides essentially ceased military operations. The incursion of Pakistan-backed armed forces into territory on the Indian side of the line of control around Kargil in the state of Jammu and Kashmir, as well as the Indian military campaign to repel the intrusion, resulted in the deaths of 524 Indian soldiers and the injuries of 1,363 others. According to previous government figures, 696 Pakistani soldiers were killed. According to a senior Pakistani police official, approximately 40 civilians were killed on the Pakistani side of the line of control. The United States actively managed the situation. From the start of the crisis, Washington determined that Pakistan was the aggressor. As a result, the Clinton administration focused its diplomatic efforts on convincing Islamabad and Rawalpindi to withdraw their troops to the Pakistani side of the Line of Control.
TWIN PEAKS CRISIS
In 2001-2002, Twin peaks crises happened in which the first “peak” was brought on by a failed suicide bombing attempt on the Indian Parliament by members of the terrorist organizations: Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba, both of whom have bases in Pakistan. And the second “peak” of the crisis occurred in May 2002 when suicide bombers killed 39 persons, largely women and children, at an Indian Army post in Kaluchak. In order to reduce the escalating tension between. In order to reduce the escalating tension between India and Pakistan, this resulted in regional and international pressure on Islamabad to impose stringent measures against these violent nonstate actor organizations.
MUMBAI CRISIS
Ten Pakistani men linked to the terror group Lashkar-e-Tayyiba stormed Mumbai buildings, killing 174 people, including 20 security force personnel and 26 foreign nationals, in 2008. Nine of the gunmen were killed during the attacks, and one survived. The lone surviving gunman, Mohammed Ajmal Kasab, was executed in November 2012. Before India or Pakistan implemented risky response plans, the US crisis management team quickly contacted both countries’ presidents. Following the Mumbai attacks, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown visited India and Pakistan. India petitioned the United Nations Security Council for sanctions against Jamaat-ud-Dawa, claiming that the organization was a front for Lashkar-e-Taiba, which Pakistan had banned in 2002. On December 11, 2008, the Security Council imposed sanctions on Jamaat-ud-Dawa and formally designated the group as a terrorist organization in response to India’s request.
URI ATTACK AND BORDER TENSIONS
The Uri attack in 2016 was carried out on September 18 by four Jaish-e-Mohammed insurgents from Pakistan against an Indian Army brigade headquarters near Uri in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir. The attack killed 19 Indian soldiers and injured another 19-30. On the same day, President Pranab Mukherjee tweeted, “India will not be frightened by such attacks; we will foil the evil designs of terrorists and their backers” This attack further escalated the tensions between the two.
The 2019 India-Pakistan border skirmishes were a series of armed clashes between India and Pakistan across the de facto border in the disputed Kashmir region, consisting of cross-border airstrikes and gunfire exchanges. 40-46 CRPF personnel were killed, and 70 were injured.
The India-Pakistan border skirmishes of 2020-2021 were a series of armed clashes between India and Pakistan. According to Indian Army sources, 11 Pakistani soldiers were killed, and 16 were injured in clashes. According to the Indian Defence Ministry, six Indian civilians, four soldiers, and one border guard were killed. The Indian military released footage of mortars striking and damaging Pakistani bunkers along the border.
CONCLUSION
In 1947, India lost 1104 soldiers and Pakistan lost 6000 soldiers. In 1965, Indian Losses: 3,000 men, 150–190 tanks 60–75 aircraft, 540 km2 of territory lost (primarily in Kashmir) and Pakistan Losses 3,800 men,200-300 Tanks, 20 aircraft and Over 1,840 km2 (710 mi2) of territory lost (in Sindh, Lahore, Sialkot, and Kashmir sectors). Up to 269,000 individuals lost their lives in the conflict that resulted in Bangladesh’s freedom in 1971. The report stated that earlier estimates of Bangladesh War casualties were in the neighbourhood of 58,000. Following the Kargil war, both sides released the following official statistics: In the Dras, India, all the names of the 527 killed and 1,363 injured soldiers are listed. The Pakistani Army first reported 453 fatalities but did not include the number of injuries. In Uri war, Estimates place the number of dead and wounded in the Pakistani army at 5988. India lost 2735 men to death and 8225 more to injuries. 80 Indian tanks were lost, compared to 475 Pakistani tanks.
According to the most recent government data available, militancy in Jammu and Kashmir has claimed a total of 41,000 lives over the past 27 years, translating to an average of 4 fatalities per day or 1519 casualties annually. India held Pakistan’s policies directly responsible for the casualties and deaths of thousands of civilians worldwide. Between 1990 and March 2017, 14,000 civilians, 5,000 security personnel, and 22,000 insurgents perished. There have been 69,820 militancy-related occurrences overall throughout the time period, which equates to the state experiencing 2586 militancy incidents annually. India always blames cross-border terrorism from Pakistan for these incidents.
Russian Oil Cap and Alternatives
By: Abhyuday Saraswat
Since the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine War, or so-called Russia’s Special Military Operation over Ukraine, several economic activities have taken a hit. Energy and oil prices have gone up significantly, with no indication that the war will soon end. To hold up and counter the Russian economy and stop the funding of Russian war, its oil exports were targeted by the US and its allies in the G7 by sanctioning and capping them to a limit. The United States allies decided to increase their sanctions against Russia’s oil industry by capping the sales price of premium Russian petroleum products like diesel at $100 per barrel and limiting the price of low-value ones like fuel oil at $45 per barrel. The accord will prevent Western companies as well as global players from handling seaborne cargoes of Russian oil products unless they are sold below the predetermined pricing, similar to the $60 per barrel price ceiling on Russian crude that the West imposed last year. In addition to lowering the Kremlin’s income in reaction to its invasion of Ukraine, the sanctions seek to maintain Russian oil availability on international markets to maintain stable pricing. Due to a global shortage of spare crude volumes, the prohibition resulted in an oil shortage. Due to the supply-demand shortage, there was a great surge in the price of energy.
Alternatives
Russian Alternatives
In order to increase state revenue by seizing a larger proportion of crude sales that frequently exceed the G7-imposed price cap on the nation’s exports, Russia is revamping how oil businesses are taxed. Russia was able to divert crude oil exports from Europe to substitute markets like India, China, and Turkey; however, the export earnings were severely restricted by the sizeable discounts that Russian exporters were forced to accept in market segments where the impending EU embargo reduced demand, such as exports from Baltic Sea ports. This dynamic only grew more pronounced after the embargo and price cap went into effect.
Alternatives for EU
According to the IEA, the EU will need to replace an additional 1.4 million barrels of Russian crude as a result of the impending ban, with 300,000 bpd possibly coming from the US and 400,000 bpd from Kazakhstan. Johan Sverdrup, the biggest oilfield in Norway, which produces medium-heavy crude akin to Urals crude in Russia, also intends to increase output in the fourth quarter, maybe by 220,000 bpd. According to the IEA, imports from other regions, including the Middle East and Latin America, would be required to completely satisfy EU demand. Some Oil was still flowing into landlocked countries from Russia via the Nord stream Pipeline until the first ever Eco Terrorism took place and cut off the supply entirely.
Indian Waiver
Despite all these restrictions, Russia has been able to maintain its oil trade relations with India, one of the largest markets for petroleum products in Asia. One of the primary reasons behind the continued oil trade between Russia and India is their long-term strategic partnership, which has been strengthened in recent years. In 2019, both countries signed several agreements to extend their cooperation in different fields, including energy, trade, and Defense. As part of these agreements, India has offered to invest in several major Russian energy projects, which will help to strengthen their economic ties further.
Another crucial factor contributing to the sustained oil trade between the two countries is that India has been one of the countries that have been granted a waiver from U.S. sanctions against Russia. Under these waivers, India has been able to purchase oil from Russia and pay for it in Rupees, avoiding the use of U.S. dollars, which is a significant restriction imposed by the sanctions. Additionally, India has also been able to diversify its oil suppliers, reducing its dependence on Middle Eastern countries, which are often volatile and prone to geopolitical instability.
But this one waiver can be the chip for future diplomacy and trades where other states, non-state players as well as Indian companies ditch Dollar for future trades and bypassing the threat of US sanctions and opt Indian Rupee which is a significant step. Currently 18 nations together with others, these nations include the UK, Singapore, and New Zealand.
China’s Opening
Since Ukraine, Russia has considerably increased oil deliveries to China, hitting a record high of 2.01 million b/d, and backed the Chinese economy as both being communist and being targeted by the US constantly. At the end of 2019, Russia began supplying gas to China via the Power of Siberia pipeline. Supply has increased from 4.1 billion cubic metres in 2020 to 10 billion cubic metres in 2021 and 15.4 billion cubic metres in 2022. Flows are scheduled to reach 22 billion cubic metres in 2023 and reach their planned capacity of 38 billion cubic metres per year in 2027.
The significance of the Russian-Chinese oil relationship could have far-reaching implications for the global oil market with Xi’s recent 3-day visit to Moscow and Putin and Xi calling each other “Best Friends.” Xi arrived in Russia after China achieved a stunning diplomatic win in the Middle East, a region historically controlled by the United States, by mediating a deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran to re-establish diplomatic ties for the first time in seven years.
Russia and China are two of the largest consumers of oil in the world, with increasing energy demands. As a result, the close partnership between these two countries has the potential to significantly affect oil prices, by creating a new dynamic in global supply and demand. Furthermore, as China continues to develop increasingly sophisticated energy technologies, they may begin to compete with traditional western energy sources, potentially leading to a realignment of global energy trade.
With US and European Union sanctions cutting off Russia’s access to Western energy markets and advanced US and European technology, Beijing has offered Moscow an economic lifeline by purchasing its oil and gas and selling semiconductors and other “dual use” items required to keep the Kremlin’s war machine running.
Takeaway
Russia being important trading partner for both India and China and with the recent remarks at the Raisina Dialogue, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that Moscow wants both India and China to be “friends,” and offered to help both sides converge because they may “not feel comfortable” engaging one-on-one. Along with Chinese Premier’s visit to Russia is seen as a huge boost for Putin. As a symbolic show of support after the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for Russia’s president, Xi Jinping has invited Vladimir Putin to visit China this year.
In conclusion, Russian oil diplomacy and discounting oil is crucial for its relations with India and China. Despite the Western sanctions, Russia has managed to deepen its energy ties with these two countries, and energy cooperation has become a critical aspect of their strategic partnership. While their shared economic interests have driven their energy diplomacy. As such, energy diplomacy will remain a vital tool for Russia and China to challenge the Western dominance in the global energy markets.
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.
AUKUS Trilateral Meeting in USA on March 13, 2023
By: Vaibhav Borude, Research Analyst, GSDN
AUKUS is a trilateral security organization made up of Australia, the United States of America, and the United Kingdom that focuses on the Indo-Pacific region. As part of AUKUS, a meeting was held on March 13, 2023 in USA. It was attended by US President Joe Biden, UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.
This meeting is significant as on September 15, 2021, these 3 parties committed to finding an optimal pathway so that Australia can be provided access to a nuclear-powered submarine while remaining within the limits of non-proliferation standards.
The rising threat of China’s plan to increase its naval power and to displace the USA as a net security provider in the region and become a new world superpower creates a serious challenge for the countries around the Indo-Pacific region, and so Australia is forced to look at better defense infrastructure that include developing conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarines (SSN), and the trilateral partnership of Australia, the USA, and the UK fits in this proposition.
In this meeting, an ambitious plan has been put forward so that Australia can be provided with conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarine (SSN) capability as soon as possible and also to ensure that Australia has the capability to safely operate, maintain, and regulate this technology, along with setting the highest standards for nuclear proliferation. A phased approach has been put forward, along with the commitments of each nation that include,
- Embedded personal and port visits – The main objective behind this is to accelerate the training and development of Australian Navy personnel. The USA plans to increase the number of SSN visits starting in 2023, and the UK will increase this beginning in 2026.
- Submarine Rotational Force – UK and USA, beginning by 2027, would try to establish the rotational presence of one UK Astute class submarine and two USA Virginia class submarines under the initiative of ‘Submarine Rotational Force-West.” It would also fully comply with the Australian position of no foreign bases within its territory. Australia aims to increase its defense and industrial workforce with this ambitious effort.
- Sale of Virginia Class Submarines – By the start of 2030, the USA aims to sell Australia three Virginia Class submarines after approval from the US Congress. This will provide Australia with SSN capability at the earliest possible time so that it can be in a better position to secure the interest.
- SSN-AUKUS – To meet the long-term defense needs of Australia and bolster its trilateral industrial cooperation, the USA and UK aim to deliver best-in-class submarines to Australia.
This approach would enable Australia to develop its individual capacities to operate a nuclear-powered conventionally armed nuclear submarine. With the enhanced port visit, the capacity of the Australian Navy would be increased, and after the sale of a Virginia-class submarine at the earliest time possible, it would enable Australia to have the capacity at the earliest date possible to protect its interests in the Indian Ocean and ensure smooth transport of goods through the international trade routes.
Australia would ensure responsible stewardship of naval nuclear propulsion technology. Considering the enormity of this endeavor, Australia is committed to ensuring that the safety records of the naval nuclear propulsion programs in the UK and USA are maintained by it. For over 60 years, both the UK and USA have an unmatched safety record; they have operated more than 500 naval nuclear reactors and have collectively traveled more than 150 million miles, which equals over 300 trips to the moon and back from earth.
The nuclear-powered submarine is bound to generate nuclear waste; considering the radioactive nature of this waste, safe disposal of this waste is needed to maintain Earth’s overall health. Australia has committed to maintaining all this nuclear waste in Australia with the best of technology. UK and USA would also assist Australia in developing capabilities to handle it effectively. Australia will manage the nuclear waste effectively so no spillover effects happen.
Further, the AUKUS members have firmly committed to their promise of maintaining nuclear non-proliferation, setting the highest nuclear non-proliferation standards, and also protecting classified information. Australia is a non-nuclear weapon state, and thus it would not seek to acquire nuclear weapons. As part of its commitment, it has also held that it would not enrich the uranium or reprocess the spent fuel to make nuclear weapons. Along with that, they have also committed that they would not produce their own nuclear fuel for their SSN.
The UK and USA will provide Australia with nuclear material in complete units, and these welded units will not require refueling during their lifetimes. The nuclear fuel provided without chemical processing cannot be used to make nuclear fuel, and as Australia lacks this chemical processing, the non-proliferation agreement would not be breached. This initiative is also within the framework of Australia’s Comprehensive Safeguard Agreement and an additional protocol with the International Energy Agency.
This initiative would result in the development of infrastructure and industrial capacity in Australia. The development of submarines would lead to significant investment in Australia’s domestic defense industry and also would lead to job creation, thus boosting their economy. However, the UK and USA would also need to increase their investment in submarine development and complete it within the time period. The US has committed itself to increasing the investment by $2.4 billion from 2023 to 2027. UK is also increasing its investment in the submarine delivery system, which would lead to a further boost in the economy and increase investment in the country as the defense sector has linkages in different sectors.
However, the Chinese challenge remains a constant threat, and according to China, AUKUS and QUAD represent a cold war mentality and are called “small cliques. China is also trying to woo the second line of defense in the Pacific Ocean by bringing in the smaller Pacific nations into their fold. The threat of China was one of the reasons for the coming together of these democratic countries, as the USA, as a global superpower, knows that one who controls the ocean controls the world. However, the United States is trying to bring an increasing number of like-minded countries into its fold to counter the threat of China. India would also benefit from this initiative as it would help counter the Chinese threat in the Indo-Pacific.
The success of AUKUS depends on meeting this bold commitment, and as the Chinese bide their time by hiding their strength, the success of AUKUS depends on hiding the strength of the UK, USA, and Australia and increasing their preparedness to meet any challenge they face in the Indo-Pacific.
Research Paper: The Yemen Crisis
By: Junaid Suhais
The news cycle time and again is dominated by political developments in the Middle East and undoubtedly, the conflict in Yemen has earned an unavoidable place. Since the war started back in 2014, the conflict has attracted the attention of the international audience on and off however, the conflict advanced into the limelight as the result of new developments in the conflict the death of Ali Abdullah Saleh, the origination of Southern Transitional Council (STC) and the augmentation in drone attacks by Houthi rebels on Saudi Arabia, targeting oil tankers and international airports.
Realism is a prominent school of thought in the academic study of international relations. It has traditionally been the dominant theory of international relations and, importantly, a point of reference for opposing views. It aspires to be prehistoric, explaining the essential elements of international politics throughout all epochs, most notably conflict and war.
This paper will attempt to analyze the Yemen conflict through a realistic lens, undertaking mainly the element on the nature of intervention on the part of both Saudi led coalition and Iran. In addition, the paper will also direct some light on the current political scenario of Yemen.
INTRODUCTION
The Republic of Yemen is currently under a six-year civil war, which resulted in the death of more than 233,000, including 1,31,000 from indirect causes such as lack of food, health services, and infrastructure (UN Dec. 2020). The war has pushed 5 million people on famine doorstep, displaced over 4million people, and left 3 million acutely malnourished. With a total population of 30.8 million people, 20.7million require immediate humanitarian aid that accounts for 71% of the total population. The devastation of the civil war is so catastrophic that the United Nations in 2018 declared it as the “worst humanitarian crisis” in the world.
BACKGROUND
The population of Yemen is almost entirely Muslim, divided into two factions, the Shia Zaydis, who controlled the northern territory, and the Sunni Muslims holding their grip on the southern part of Yemen. A series of Shia Zaydi had ruled parts of Yemen from the ninth century to 1962. However, during 1960 in both the factions, an uprising against the British saw an unprecedented development of relations between the Shia Sunni groups. The Two groups emerged respectively in the North and South. “The Yemen Arab Republic” (YAR) and the socialist “People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen” (PDRY).
The development in the relation between The YAR and PDRY ultimately paved the way for the unification of Yemen in 1990. Ali Abdullah Saleh, the former ruler of YAR, became the president of Unified Yemen. His rule characterized by nepotism, and corruption proved delinquent and unsurprisingly, Yemen remained the poorest country in the Arab world.
THE YEMENI REVOLUTION
The Yemeni revolution, also known as the Yemeni revolution of dignity, followed the initial stage of the Tunisian revolution. Protests erupted in various parts of Yemen, including the capital Sana. In its early phase, people were protesting against unemployment, economic disparities, and corruption. Adding to this was the hostility against the policies of the government to modify the constitution. In mid- 2011, the confrontation became increasingly violent, widespread clashes in capital Sana and elsewhere resulted in many civilian deaths, and hundreds detained.
On November 23, 2011 Yemini state television announced the return of Saleh, who, during the clashes, had fled to Saudi Arabia. Apparently, on the same day, Saleh signs a Gulf Cooperation Council-brokered agreement granting him impunity in return for his resignation, turning over power to his Vice President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi.
On February 21, 2012 Yemen held the presidential elections. Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi was the only candidate and was subsequently sworn into office on February 25, 2012. Hadi flopped on the presidential chair plagued with several problems, including attacks from Al Qaeda, separatist movement in South; continuing loyalty of some military factions to Saleh, unemployment, corruption, and food security.
The Houthis (Ansari Allah), a Shia Zaydi movement, took advantage of the weak government with innumerable conundrums and launched multiple military attacks on the Hadi government, capturing capital Sana and other neighboring South and West areas of the country until 2014.
In January 2015, Houthis seized the Presidential Palace, setting their shadow government in Sana by putting President Hadi and other government officials under house arrest. The next few weeks witnessed the completion of coup d’ etat by establishing the “Revolutionary Council.” In the meantime, Hadi fled to Aden, declaring a coup and highlighting his legitimacy as the internationally reorganized head of the state. Hadi swiftly formed the Anti-Houthi/Salah alliance comprising the separatists, Islamists, and tribal men mainly from the South to counter Houthis advancement to sustain the legitimacy on the ground. With the uncertain refashioning of political scenarios and acts of terror, Yemen rapidly descended into chaos.
The Houthis continued their policy of expansion and wanted to capture the entire country with the help of Saleh’s military forces; however, this in turn paved the way for the alienation of various segments of Yemen’s population. Adding fuel to the already burning fire, the Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and a branch of Islamic states invaded the state asserting territorial control in Yemen’s southeast.
In the meantime, Houthis continued their advancements and prepared to capture Aden. Hadi fled to Saudi Arabia in March 2015. This was the moment, which added an entirely new dimension to the civil war in Yemen. Meanwhile, for Saudi King Salman and his favorite son and newly appointed successor, defense minister Mohammad bin Salman this was a tipping point to counter Iran in a proxy war, as Saudi believed that Iran was supporting the Houthis.
THE JOINT INTERVENTION (SAUDI-UAE)
On March 26, 2015 Saudi Arabia launched airstrikes on Houthi rebels and their allies, ultimately declaring Saudi’s involvement in the war. The operation “Decisive Storm” (Asifatual-al-Hazm) had backing of Sunni Muslim countries. The military campaign came after Yemeni President Abd Rabbo Mansour Hadi, on March 25, asked the United Nations for military assistance to stop the advancement of Houthi rebels towards Aden. Right after the airstrikes by Saudi, the Obama Administration announced that the United States would provide “logistical and intelligence” support to the Saudi-led coalition’s operation against the Houthi rebels, however, without taking any direct part in the war. Soon after that, a joint US-Saudi planning cell was established to coordinate the military campaign. In the Security Council of the United Nations, The United States supported the passing of resolution 2216 (April 2016), which among other things, required the member states to impose an arms embargo on Houthi/Saleh forces and demanded the Houthis to withdraw from all the areas they had captured during the conflict.
Saudi Arabia and UAE were the key elements of the Arab League that led to the intervention to support the Hadi government and stop the Houthi advancement who wanted to expand their reach and consolidate the entire country. From the beginning, the Saudi and UAE invasion was necessary and not optional, as they did not want the Houthi ideology to sustain in Yemen, which certainly was not in both countries’ strategic interest. In this case, Saudi launched a comprehensive attack against Houthi rebels citing the following three goals.
- To enable Hadi to return to Yemen safely, reinstalling his government
- Elimination of Houthis resources and facilities as the rebel group in Yemen.
- Reducing Iran’s influence.
A report by Middle East Eye on March 25, 2021 revealed that the Saudi-led coalition has conducted at least 22,776 air raids in Yemen and up to 65,982 individual airstrikes since it started bombing in March 2015. The report mentioned that the involvement of UAE behind the airstrikes led to the death of 8,759 civilians and injured another 9,815 (March 2021). Since the onset of intervention in 2015, Saudi has carried out a daily average of 10 air raids. It was found that 29 percent of all air raids hit civilian areas; 47 percent of the raids in which targets had been identified hit civilian sites. Another report released by “Save the Children,” highlighted that all the casualties in Yemen over the last two years had been children.
IRAN’S PARTICIPATION
Historically, Iran has not been significant in Yemen’s political affairs nevertheless; Iran has maintained a long diplomatic presence in Yemen’s capital Sana. Meanwhile, it has been affirmed that two decades before the war, Iran’s role in Yemen was marginal. During the six Saadah wars between 2004 and 2010, Ali Abdul Saleh, the former president of Yemen, asserted the Support of Iran in the war. However, the US analysts rejected any involvement on Iran’s part.
In 2011 and 2012, Iran’s policy towards Yemen changed considerably. During the Arab Spring, when the country witnessed various protests, Iran’s Support for Houthis increased. However, Iran played no part in the negotiations, which led to Saleh’s resignation. Ironically, after he was overthrown, he turned toward the Islamic Republic as he calculated the prospectus for returning to power. It is believed that Iran probably played a role in forging the Houthi-Saleh coalition, which resulted in the current civil war.
Shreds of evidence of Iranian intervention to support the Houthis began to grow in 2012. In January 2013, the US navy, in cooperation with the Yemeni navy force, abducted an Iranian cargo ship containing forty tons of military supplies intended for the Houthis. The military supplies included air to surface missiles, rocket- propelled grenades, Katyusha rockets, and ammunition. The United States also tracked the Iranian Revolutionary guard providing training to the Houthi in the Sarah governorate.
The Iranian Support grew increasingly open and transparent after the successful drive by the Houthi-Salah coalition of capital Sana’a in the summer of 2014. The Houthi leaders travelled to Tehran and signed an agreement declaring the regular air services between the two capitals, Tehran and Sana’a. They also agreed to increase Yemeni-Iranian cooperation.
With time, Tehran started launching its supplies and Personnel, including the Lebanese Hezbollah, into Yemen soil. In addition, the Iranians started propagating their own band of Twelver Shi’ism over the indigenous Zaydi sect practiced in Yemen. This however deepened the sectarian divisions, opening another dimension of conflict. Since 2014, the Houthis rhetoric and provocations threatening Saudi Arabia had increased exponentially. In addition, the Houthis have launched several attacks on Riyadh.
In 2019, the Houthis named an ambassador to Iran and the following year Iran requited, installing Hassan Irloo, member of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as its ambassador to Sana’a.
THE CONTEMPORANEOUS STATE OF AFFAIRS
The current situation in Yemen is delineated by turmoil, chaos, hunger, famine. People are dying more because of hunger and diseases instead of bullets and bombs. The country is share-out into copious factions fighting each other to procure more areas and consolidate the ones already in occupation. In February 2021 with Joe Biden’s decision to cease US assistance for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen, a light of hope for peace appeared. However, the country is embroiled in internal rivalry between numerous groups, making it difficult to see a quick conclusion to the conflict.
- In the northern highlands, the Houthis hold their sway and ruled the region in partnership with the former president of Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh, until December 2017, when the internal rivalry got Saleh eventually killed at the hands of Houthis. Since then, the Houthi’s have embarked upon an ambitious program of restructuring governing areas, making the removal of Houthis and reunification of Yemen impossible.
- Tariq Saleh, nephew of Ali Abdullah Salah, backed by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, heads a group of fighters along the Red Sea against the Houthi frontlines in Hudaydah.
- In Taiz, the conflict is mainly between the members of the Anti-Houthi alliance. The Houthi hold the northern part of the governorate; however, Islah, a political party affiliated with Muslim Brotherhood, defeating the rival fighters from the 36th armored brigade and the Abu al-Abbas group, took hold control of the city of Taiz and much of the countryside.
- May 11, 2017, a new player emerged by the name of the Southern transitional council, headed by the former governor of Aden, Aidarus
al-Zoubaidi. The STC emerged soon after Hadi fired Aidarus al-Zoubaidi, accusing him of prioritizing southern Yemen’s independence. In August 2019, the secessionist-minded STC held the southern Port city of Aden after pushing Hadi’s forces out. The STC and its affiliated militant groups are backed by UAE, which opposes the Islah for its ties with Muslim Brotherhood
- The Salafi-led Giants Brigades, another secessionist-minded group that is active in Lahj, north of Aden, is also backed by the United Arab Emirates
- In Marib, the strategic oil-rich region of Yemen and the current site of the Houthi offensive is in charge of Islah. Hadhramaut halved between the Hadhramaut Elite Forces, who control the coast and Islah-affiliated units in the interior. The UAE backs both
- In Al- Mahra, on Yemen’s eastern border, Saudi Arabia and Oman leave no stone unturned for respective influence over local tribes. Saudi Arabia has built dozens of military sites, recruited people from tribal areas for paramilitary groups, and increased its military presence on the Omani border in the last three years. Oman regards Al-Mahra as part of its area of influence,
and is increasingly concerned by Saudi Arabia’s military presence on its borders.
- STC controls the island of Socotra, while Hadis troops dominate Yemen’s
“Triangle of Power,” which includes the oil and gas resources of Marib, Shabwa, and Hadhramaut.
None of these groups whether-The Houthis, Hadi forces or the STC –are strong enough to eliminate or impose their will on the rest of the country. Nevertheless, nearly all of these groups possess enough calibre in terms of men and munitions to behave, as spoilers to any national peace deal, they sense does not adequately address their stipulation. What is more concerning is the fact that the longer the fight continues, the more its catastrophic consequences and the eventual emergence of more armed groups will be. The STC did not exist in 2015. Today, the secessionist-minded party has its hold on Hadi’s temporary capital of Aden.
Amalgamate that with the shrinking economy, exports limited mainly to oil and gas fields of Marib, Shabwa and Hadhramaut, make these sites the origin of years of conflict to come. No doubt, in the future, more and more groups will be fighting for resources thin on the ground, resulting in countless deaths and destruction. This situation is already witnessed in Marib where Houthis go all out to procure the oil reserves of Marib and surrounding areas, knowing that to survive as an independent state in highlands, they will require export revenue.
The numerous peace attempts, whether led by UN or US special envoys or Saudi Arabia’s newest ceasefire offer, do not appear to comprehend that, the Houthis don’t want to be a part of the state, they want to be “the state.” They will not surrender at the negotiating table, what they believe they have already won on the ground.
Even erratically, if Houthis and the STC were disposed to negotiate to be part of a restructured state, there is no assurance that, at this late date, the state could be put together. Gratitude to a witless decision by Hadi to bifurcate Yemen’s Central Bank in 2016, the country has now two separate economies, attributing different valuations. The Yemeni Riyal trades at one rate in Houthi controlled areas and differs in STC controlled Aden. The Newly printed Riyal bills issued by the Hadi government are held invalid in Houthi areas.
Into the bargain, the most concerning stumbling block is that of civilians dying at an exponential rate not just by arms conflict but under hunger, diseases, famine, covid-19 and unavailability of the much needed humanitarian aid. The political situation in Yemen since 2021 has been marked by ongoing conflict and instability, although there have been some recent developments that could potentially lead to a resolution of the conflict.
In May 2021, the Houthi rebels launched a major offensive to seize control of the city of Marib, which is strategically important due to its location near the country’s oil fields. The fighting in Marib has continued since then, with both sides suffering significant casualties.
In June 2021, the United Nations Special Envoy for Yemen, Martin Griffiths, announced a new peace plan for the country. The plan called for a nationwide ceasefire, the reopening of Sanaa airport, and the resumption of political negotiations between the warring parties. However, the plan has yet to be implemented, and fighting has continued.
In November 2021, the Houthi rebels claimed to have captured a number of Saudi Arabian soldiers in a cross-border attack. The incident further escalated tensions between Saudi Arabia and the Houthis, who are backed by Iran.
Overall, the political situation in Yemen remains volatile and unpredictable, with no clear end in sight to the ongoing conflict. The humanitarian situation in the country also remains dire, with millions of people in need of assistance due to the conflict and a worsening economic crisis.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Critically analyzing the prior material available in the form of books, journals, news stories, and scholarly papers, I discovered that all of the facts and figures coincided, emphasizing the fact that the drive for regional predominance by the entities involved in the intervention, whether directly or indirectly by supplying munitions to rebel groups, has culminated in disaster. The United Nations,[18] The Middle East Eye, Brookings.edu, Aljazeera, The German Institute for Global and Area Studies, and periodicals such as The Economist and Foreign Affairs deliver in-depth analysis of the conflict.
Yemen: Dancing on the Heads of Snakes (2010) Victoria Clark: The book is a rich source of the civil war in Yemen, the background of war and the Salah government. Ali Abdullah Saleh himself coined the phrase “dancing on the heads of snakes”, and this is an unconventional approach Victoria Clark sets out to explore in her book. The “snakes” in the question include the troublesome tribes, militant Jihadist, opposition parties and Salah’s ambitious-relatives.
Clark believed that Saleh was not a stereotypical dictator as he only dances on the heads of snakes rather than stamping on them. In Yemen, where the government control barely a few stretches of land and the militant elements capable of giving government forces a bloody nose, this makes sense; threatening, charming, bribing and opting works better than brute force.
Clark mentions that Yemen is the ancestral home of Osama-bin- laden and has always witnessed the presence of Al Qaeda. The book is a lively mixture of travelogues, politics and history. The historical part of the book provides a brisk run- through of some 500 years or so, revealing that the current situation in Yemen is not entirely attributed to acts of Ali Abdullah Saleh, even if it has exuberated some of them in the last three decades.
Yemen in Crisis: Autocracy, Neo-Liberalism and the Disintegration of State. (2017) Helen Lackner : This book is the culmination of decades of research and many years of first-hand experience filling the gaps left by most publications on Yemen. Through this book, Helen Lackner takes the reader on a journey attributed to the war against the British, the origin of Peoples Democratic republic of Yemen (PDRY), Yemen Arab Republic (YAR) and eventually the unification of Yemen to the Republic of Yemen (ROY) in 1990. The first hand experience and long-term involvement, witnessing fortunes and misfortunes, provide in-depth insights into Yemen’s socio-economic and political scenario in time.
The assemblage of topics of this book is correspondingly comprehensive. The book opens with a very succinct and laudable account of the spring 2011 and, ended with the launch of the Saudi-led bombing campaign in 2015
The solidity of this book lies in the breadth of its topics and their balanced, unbiased presentation. Lackner’s caution in properly weighting such a complicated set of details are attributed to her expertise in the field and the firsthand experience of the entire scenario. Analyzing Lackner’s mention of facts and events, it is surprising to spot the eloquence and exhaustiveness with which the mention has been made.
Reviewing Abaad studies and research, a licensed nonprofit organization in Yemen, I came across the various geopolitical factors, authentic to understand the background of the cause of intervention by Saudi Arabia and Iran. Yemen sits on the strategical geographical location, and good wealth is of considerable importance. Located on the gateway of the Arabian Peninsula, Yemen overlooks the Bab al-Mandab strait, the vital corridor for international trade. In addition, located on the open waters of the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean on one side and the Red Sea lining the three continents of Asia, Africa and Europe on the other hand. This geographical advantage adds to the country’s influence on gulf regions, and the Horn of Africa and even northern Arabia and Africa, linked to Europe.
Realistic analyses
The very first assumption of realism is that the nation-state is the primary player in international affairs. Other bodies, such as people and organisations, exist, but their influence is limited. Second, the state functions as a unified actor. National interests, particularly during times of conflict, compel the state to speak and act in unison. Third, policymakers are rational actors in the sense that rational decision-making leads to the pursuit of national interests. Taking activities that might weaken or expose your status would be irrational in this situation. Realism implies that all leaders, regardless of political affiliation, recognise this as they seek to manage their state’s affairs to thrive in a competitive environment. Finally, nations exist in an anarchic environment that is, there is no one in power globally.
Interest Of Iran
Iran seeks to increase its influence in Yemen through its actions because of its unique strategic location and strong geopolitical weight in the area, Iran believes that by establishing a foothold near a key international strategic corridor, such as the Gulf of Aden and the Strait of Bab Mandeb, it can greatly increase its influence and
dominance in the region by controlling traffic 11in the Gulf of Aden and the Strait of Bab Mandeb, which is the main link connecting the Arabian Gulf and the Indian Ocean in the Red Sea
to the Gulf of Aden
Within this framework, Iran seeks to clone the experience of Hezbollah in Lebanon, which overtook Beirut by military power in 2008 12 and then agreed with opposition political forces to sign a new power-sharing agreement and form a new government in which the party would have veto power over its decisions. Meanwhile, Iran’s work in Undermining regional Neighbours and limiting their influence are two of the most significant goals of Iran’s intervention in Yemen, which stems from its view that growing Iran’s power in Yemen will reduce the influence of Arab Gulf States, particularly Saudi Arabia. As a result, Iran seeks to elevate its Houthi supporters to erode Yemen’s ties with its neighbours and hinder any future actions or complementing initiatives between Yemen and its neighbours that may result in the Gulf States increasing their influence in Yemen in specific and the region in general.
Interest Of Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were important members of the Arab Coalition that intervened in Yemen in 2015 to defend Yemen’s legitimate government. Their major goal was to save President Hadi’s administration from collapsing completely, while also preventing the Houthi organization, who ousted the government in September 2014, from extending its reach and solidifying its authority throughout the nation.
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates viewed the intervention as a necessity rather than a choice from the start. From their standpoint, they simply could not allow an ideology organisation like the Houthis to take rule Yemen, where the group may endanger both nations’ strategic interests. The underlying opinion in both Riyadh and Abu Dhabi was that if the Houthis had been able to take control of the port city of Aden during their campaign in 2015, it would have been nearly difficult to expel them. There was a genuine fear that once in power, the Houthis would expand their links with Iran, an opportunity that Tehran would have found difficult to pass up given their success with organisations like as Hezbollah in Lebanon or the Popular Mobilization Units (PMU) in Iraq. As a result, a Houthi takeover was equated with Iran establishing a permanent presence right on Saudi Arabia’s eastern and southern borders.
Furthermore, the pull factor that’s, having unique strategic location gravity Saudi Arabia to Yemen. The Bab Al-Mandeb is a critical strategic chokepoint for world marine trade and energy supplies, connecting the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea through the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea. It is as significant for marine transport routes and trade between Africa, Asia, and Europe as the Suez Canal
The Hope
The restoration of diplomatic ties between Iran and Saudi Arabia could have a significant impact on the Yemen conflict. With diplomatic channels reopened, there is potential for increased communication and negotiations between the two countries regarding the conflict. This could potentially lead to a de-escalation of tensions and a reduction in support provided by Iran and Saudi Arabia to their respective factions in Yemen.
In addition, the agreement could lead to increased economic cooperation between the two countries, which could potentially improve conditions for the Yemeni people. The Yemen conflict has resulted in a severe humanitarian crisis, and increased economic cooperation between Iran and Saudi Arabia could potentially lead to increased aid and support for Yemeni civilians.
However, it is important to note that the Yemen conflict is complex and involves multiple actors, both domestic and foreign. The impact of the Iran-Saudi Arabia agreement on the conflict is uncertain, and it remains to be seen how the agreement will be implemented and how it will affect the conflict moving forward.
Conclusion
Iran and Saudi Arabia have proved to be two of the most powerful powers in the Middle East, but neither has been able to overcome the other in their battle for regional hegemony. The desire of power and hegemony has led Iran and Arabia to Yemen, where the Bab al-Saudi Mandeb strait provides a chance to take control of oil shipping. Iran and Saudi Arabia have proved their desire for dominance to achieve regional hegemony via historical research and contemporary events. Iran and Saudi Arabia are still operating under the paradigm of Classical Realism, with their engagement in Yemen emphasising their quest for regional hegemony.
About the Author
Junaid Suhais is a freelance writer with a passion for storytelling and is currently enrolled in a Master’s program in International Relations at Jamia Millia Islamia, following the completion of a Master’s degree in Political Science. He Tweets at @junaidsuhais. The views expressed are personal.
Importance of Haiti for USA
By: Patted Shamanth, GSDN
The inherent geological location of Haiti renders it prone to flooding and mudslides, which attack Haiti at twice the rate, to which the US plays the geopolitical card to its advantage. A more comprehensive understanding of the predicament must be assessed through the prism of historical events stretching back to Haiti’s independence and its intertwined relationship with the United States.
On January 1, 1804 Haiti proclaimed its independence from France, making it the second-oldest independent country in the Western Hemisphere. Prior, Haitians contributed to America’s glory in the Revolutionary War. However, during Woodrow Wilson, the United States invaded Port-au-Prince in 1914, looted its reserve, and seized it. Up until 1934, the United States reigned over Haiti. Haiti still suffers the effects of imperialism and the dictatorship that was supported by the United States that ruled from 1957 to 1986.
Further, when in 2010, a catastrophic earthquake struck Haiti, killing at least 200,000 people. The US granted $5.1 billion to relief, recovery, and reconstruction efforts. Also, provided for temporary visas allow certain Haitians to seek better economic opportunities in the US. Foreign aid to Haiti benefits the United States because it fosters goodwill and recognizes that the United States has taken a lot from Haiti in the past.
Nowadays, the United States and Haiti are trading partners. Foreign assistance to Haiti benefits the United States because it promotes more trade with the US. The majority of clothing offered at Walmart, JCPenney, Gap, Old Navy, and other well-known retailers is made in Haiti. According to the Association of Industries of Haiti, the country’s garment manufacturing industry has remained stable for decades and currently employs 60,000 people. And this garment industry accounts for at least 90% of Haiti’s overall exports.
Despite what might be expected, the U.S. stands to gain from the employees who enter the country on temporary visas. There is unequivocal economic proof that migrant workers significantly fill vacancies in the US labour market. According to a 2013 research, North Carolina’s unemployment rate peaked at 12% during the worst of the Great Recession. Only 250 of the state’s 500,000 unemployed people applied for the 6,500 available agriculture jobs. Haitian immigrants contributed to the U.S. economy by filling the labour shortage in agriculture.
Not to be outdone, referring to Haiti’s current political instability and its proximity to the United States, the leading Spanish daily “El Pas” stated that Haiti is “on the verge of becoming the ‘Somalia of the Americas.'” Ipso facto, The United States must maintain a stable political calendar in Haiti. The lack of democratic governance, security concerns, and absence of rule of law leads to violations of citizens’ human rights and fundamental freedoms, which disrupts their economic growth and jeopardizes US investment. President Biden pledged a new era of US involvement with Latin America and the Caribbean. following which the 2022 Global Fragility Act made Haiti a priority nation. This intends to offer financing to support stability and lessen and prevent violent conflict.
Revising Lessons Learnt from the European Migrant/Refugee Crisis for the Ukraine War Today
By: Kritika Kaushik, Research Analyst, GSDN
Context: Fast-forward from 2015 to 2023
Exactly 8 years ago in March 2015, the world woke up to a painful photograph of a three-year-old dead child washed ashore on a Turkish beach which was a red flag for the entire world to take collective action to mitigate the refugee crisis. The refugee crisis is not just about a particular region or a country, it is what is plaguing all of humanity. The 2015 refugee crisis also referred to as the ‘European Migrant Crisis’, is rooted in armed conflicts across Western Asia which is also known as the ‘Middle East Region’. Since the onset of the Ukraine war, international observers had been anticipating another human catastrophe similar to the EU Refugee Crisis and the recent development of a shipwreck (February 2023) carrying migrants from countries including Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria caused great concern because even the Ukraine war is painfully producing refugees. The problem cuts deeper as it is not Ukraine or West Asia/Middle East facing a humanitarian catastrophe, but even remote areas like the Sahel (in Burkina Faso) are reeling in armed conflict, especially, which go long back to 2011 and the roots are even older.
A Crisis for the Entire Humanity
Therefore, it is important to see the refugee crisis as a crisis to deal with for the entire humanity and not just a crisis of a particular region like the Sahel, or a specific country like Nigeria or Ukraine or the Democratic Republic of Congo and the responsibility to protect the people is and should be a mutually shared global responsibility. This goes beyond the traditional versions of the R2P (Responsibility to Protect) Doctrine. In 2005, the United Nations adopted the concept of the R2P in order to stop and curb humanitarian crisis and it goes on to say, “sovereignty no longer exclusively protects States from foreign interference, it is a charge of responsibility that holds States accountable for the welfare of their people” (The UN World Humanitarian Summit Rio+23). While taking military action is one way to look at R2P, it is more than just this, because it is also about armed conflict prevention. Owing to the hybrid nature of challenges that the world faces today with crisscross intersectionalities of armed conflict intertwined with gender violence, climate change, child soldiers, forced migration, and economic deprivation, to name a few. A blend of realist power politics, geopolitics and political conflict, insurgency et al are definitely the common ingredients to analyse armed conflicts across the world, however, it is getting enmeshed with such recent complex challenges, which renders older definitions of doctrines like the R2P redundant. The point is not to abandon them, however, to revive them, and reinvigorate them for the sake of tangible peace in the world for the longer run.
The Global South & Multilateral Peace Arrangements
This article, therefore, argues that there is a need to reinvigorate the present multilateral-international institutions by enthusing them by giving an active role to the countries that fall under the category of the ‘Global South’ and what better occasion there could be than G20. However, what makes this article different is how a hybrid shift from the conventional ‘level of analysis’ in International Relations is done to facilitate understanding of how we need to revise the lessons learnt from the EU Refugee Crisis 2015 to at least manage ongoing conflicts and prevent a humanitarian crisis like the one described just now.
The Level of Analysis: As per recent academic scholarship (Gebhard: 2022), there are 4 levels of analysis in order to understand the current & past happenings of the world. For instance, ‘the system level’ (which comprises the entire global system in its entirety and looks at issues like the distribution of political power, economic system, international law and international organisations and the diffusion of technology); the second level is the ‘the state level’ that includes nation-states as actors in the international arena; the third is ‘the group level’ including political parties, non-governmental organisations and interest groups acting at the intersection between governments and societies; and at the bottom comes the “individual level” wherein the behaviour of and decisions people in organisations both governmental and non-governmental are analysed. Perhaps the above hierarchy needs a levelling wherein all four need to be seen horizontally in an equal manner while definitely giving making the nation-states and the international law framework at the centre stage in order to enforce State obligations and commitments to meet humanitarian catastrophes.
India’s Foreign Policy & ‘Preventive Diplomacy’
It is interesting to note that India is a signatory to the UN Child Rights Convention and ratified the treaty in domestic law arrangements long back in December 1992. As India is at the helm of the G20 Presidency today, strengthening the bulwark of India’s Foreign Policy and strategic autonomy, it is important to note that peacekeeping and peacebuilding have been one of the biggest hallmarks of Indian Foreign Policy and this article argues that the same metal of India as a peace builder can reinvigorate multilateral and intergovernmental agencies like the UN in a manner that State Parties deliver on their national obligations and implement statutes. When India abstains from any UN Resolution either in favour of Ukraine or against Russia in the case of the Russia-Ukraine war, it is not a sign of weakness, however, a sign of diplomatic brilliance and creativity wherein while we are fine-tuning our strategic tightrope for a balanced foreign policy stance to maintain an independent foreign policy stance, we as a country are also contributing towards ‘preventive diplomacy’ which refers to actions and efforts taken to present disputes that may arise between State Parties and/or other actors, ‘to prevent existing disputes from escalating into conflicts and to limit the spread of the latter when they occur’.
Therefore, it is time to strengthen the narrative that the Global South must be at the centre stage or must be given the centre stage in a way that countries like India can democratise the multi-lateral institutions. India’s diplomacy has been based on a solid balance of peace-making and pragmatism. In fact, it was in 2007, that India became the first country to send an all-India female peacekeeping unit on a foreign mission, which demonstrates the unique approach India has always taken in the international arena. Humanitarian intervention, either done by any of the major world powers have had both positive as well as debilitating impact on civilians and countries, therefore, the point is to strengthen and democratise the institutions like the UNHCR, UN Security Council etc as well as to revive statutes of the International Law and in the case of the refugee crisis and children, UN Conventions like the Child Rights Convention (UNCRC 1989) and its Optional Protocol No. II (2002) relating to the prohibition of children in the direct involvement of children in armed conflict; the International Humanitarian Law, the International Refugee Law et al because International Law must be seen as a coherent system and to bring this coherent brilliance in play, it is important that we see International Relations and International Law and its overarching philosophy in harmony because it is based on the very same moral foundations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1984 that human dignity is the basic principle and equal and inalienable rights of all members of the ‘human family’. This universal and moral consensus was achieved by the world following the Nuremberg Trials after World War II and there was widespread agreement that ‘barbarous acts’ against humanity were committed which led to the establishment of the Roosevelt Commission headed by Eleanor Roosevelt which was based on Franklin D. Roosevelt’s famous speech on four freedoms of human beings – freedom of expression, belief, want and freedom from fear.
Such a moral grounding along with reviving multilateral, international arrangements and legal regimes to strengthen the refugee cause by putting the Global South at the centre stage is the need of the hour today and for the days to come.
A Closer Look at India-Russia Relations
By: Devyani Wadera, Research Analyst, GSDN
India-Russia bilateral ties have been an enduring affair, sustaining for more than 70 years now. The two countries have had a longstanding relationship grounded in strong military, political, and economic ties. This relationship has been based on cooperation, understanding, and respect. The Indo-Russia relationship can be characterized as time-tested with the two countries having a level of trust which has been unprecedented in the global arena. This partnership has been formed and strengthened due to multiple factors like similar political and strategic goals, collaboration in science and technology, extensive military-technical cooperation, and deep economic bonds formed between the two nations. In this article, we will attempt at shedding light on the well-established relationship between the two countries, and the trajectory of this partnership over the last few decades. We will also be delving deep into the different domains of cooperation which has helped in the sustenance and deepening of the bond. Lastly, the article will be talking about the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war and how it has impacted the bilateral relationship.
When India gained independence, it was also the inception of the cold war between the two superpowers and their military alliances. It was a state of geopolitical tension which had enveloped the whole world in its power struggle with each country picking sides and joining military alliances. India however chose the path of non-alignment which gave a chance to nations to not formally join any military blocs and have an independent political and military stance This policy was viewed with suspicion and confusion in the global arena. The west viewed India as too socialist in its outlook whereas the communist bloc led by Russia perceived India as a capitalist economy and state. In India also Russia was seen with suspicion as the word communism made people uncomfortable with the perception that India and Russia had different values and goals. The initial years can be best described as cold with both sides keeping each under scrutiny. It is only after the death of Stalin in 1953 that a cordial relationship started between the two countries as a new leadership emerged in Russia. Stalin had a negative view of Nehru and the Congress Party as they were seen as the instrument of British and capitalism. He had expressed his dismay for India’s approach to international relations.
With changes set in motion to foster a closer relationship between the two states, Nehru visited the USSR in June 1955 and a return visit by Nikita Khrushchev, Communist Party General Secretary, and Prime Minister Nikolai Bulganin took place the same year in India. During Khrushchev’s visit, he declared that USSR supported India’s sovereignty over Kashmir. Even though India’s resolve for not to join any military alliance proved to be strong and lasting, it did realize a need to counter the brewing friendship between the US and Pakistan. Pakistan had joined the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO, also known as the Baghdad Pact) and Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO). To counter the growing influence of the US in the south Asian region and the economic and military support being gained by Pakistan, the India-Russia relationship was vital. This relationship endured the cold war and remained a strong pillar till the very end of the Soviet Union. The USSR soon became and until its disintegration remained India’s primary arms supplier even surpassing Britain which India had often turned to in the initial years of its independence. The Soviet arms were important to India as Pakistan was receiving military aid from the US as well as China. After 1964, the Soviet was the sole source of arms for all three services. Also, Soviet-designed tanks and aircraft were being produced in India under license. As much as 85% of the nation’s force structure still comes from the Soviet Union, causing a heavy dependence on and need for spare parts and upgraded aircraft, missiles, and armour versions. In addition, the Soviet Union served as a training ground for numerous Indian military leaders.
There was economic cooperation witnessed in several sectors of the Indian economy. Through its technical aid and know-how, Moscow changed the face of the Indian public sector, an essential part of the Indian economy. Some big names which can be included are BHEL, ONGC, HEC, and Bokaro. Here, the rupee-rouble arrangement deal struck by the two countries really aided in expanding trade. The US which promoted private enterprise was not very keen on investing in India’s state-run sector, resulting in more opportunities for the Soviet Union. Also, during the cold war, India’s close economic and protectionist policies hindered foreign investment. Political relations between the two countries grew warmer with high-level delegations and political leadership becoming an annual affair. Additionally, there was a lot of cultural exchange between the two countries with Indian movies and culture being popular in the USSR. Indian movies and songs had become household names further creating a camaraderie between the two countries and their populations. In the international forum, Moscow came to India’s need multiple times by vetoing the Kashmir issue at the United Security Council which saved India from the prying eyes of the west, mainly the US and UK who had a soft spot for Pakistan. India reciprocated by supporting USSR in Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, and Afghanistan in 1978. During the 1962 Indian-Sino war, the Soviet Union handled the whole issue tactfully as it expressed regret over the clash between two of its allies and did not take any sides. This was accepted in India but did not go well down with China which was witnessing a downgrade in its relations with USSR since the latter’s growing proximity with India. As India-Russia relations became more intimate there was distancing seen on the part of China.
The culmination of this friendship was the Treaty of Peace, Friendship, and Cooperation signed by the two countries. Moscow firmly stood by India in the 1971 Indo-Pak war and opposed the Pakistani-USA-China nexus. These relations continued to grow and remained special for the two nations for a long time. However, the disintegration of the USSR in 1991 led to a change in the international landscape where the USSR had lost its position and the US had emerged as the sole superpower. Even though Russia was the successor of the USSR it was a new entity altogether with different leaders and perceptions. Russia had emerged with a different attitude with Boris Yeltsin’s pro-western policy orientation causing its relationship with India to take a backseat. In the meantime, India started to liberalize its economy and turned to the West for trade and investment. Both nations were preoccupied with home affairs while adjusting to a new global order. During this time, bilateral trade and economic cooperation slowed down, cultural exchanges stopped and there was a lack of warmth among the political leaders.
Yet, both Russia and India tried to mend fences. They ratified a Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation in 1993, and a Military-Technical Cooperation pact was signed the following year. After a brief period from 1990 to 1993 in which there was a steep decline in the number of arms shipments, India eventually became one of Russia’s top importers of weaponry. In 2000, in order to get the relations between the two countries on track ‘Declaration on India-Russia Strategic Partnership’ was signed. With increased levels of collaboration in practically all sectors, including politics, security, defense, trade and economy, science & technology, culture, and people-to-people relationships, India-Russian relations have taken on a radically new character. The Strategic Partnership was upgraded to the status of “Special and Privileged Strategic Partnership” during the visit of the Russian President to India in December 2010. In order to guarantee ongoing communication and follow-up on collaboration initiatives, the Strategic Partnership has various formalized discussion structures operating at both the political and official levels.
The defense and security relations between the two countries have moved ahead of just a buyer-seller relationship and the two states are jointly involved in the research, development, and production of advanced defense technologies. The joint military programs between India and Russia include: – the Brahmos cruise missile program, the 5th generation fighter jet program, the Sukhoi Su-30MKI program, Ilyushin/HAL Tactical Transport Aircraft, and KA-226T twin-engine utility helicopters. Russia also assists the Indian Navy in its submarine programs. INS Vikramaditya operated by the Indian Navy is also a Russian production. India is dependent on Russia for its nuclear submarine program and many of the conventional submarines used by India are Russian by origin. Now looking at trade relations between the two countries, the bilateral trade has reached a 30 billion US dollar record in 2023 speaking of the growing relations. By 2025 the two countries intend on increasing the investment to 50 billion US dollars. In the peaceful use of nuclear energy, Russia is a strategic partner as it recognizes India as a responsible country with advanced technology. The Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant (KKNPP) is being built in India with Russian cooperation. Also, both parties work together for peaceful uses of outer space, such as satellite launches, the GLONASS navigation system, and remote sensing. During the 19th Bilateral Summit, an Agreement was signed between ISRO and ROSCOSMOS on Joint Actions in the Field of Human Spaceflight Projects.
India and Russia have had a time-tested relationship in this multipolar world as both nations are forging new relationships with other key nations. Now, shedding some light on the contemporary circumstances of the Russia-Ukraine war and India’s stance on it. India’s balanced position with respect to its policy of multilateralism has met with sharp criticism from the west. India has avoided openly condemning the acts of Russia in Ukraine and has also abstained from voting in the UN general assembly and Human rights council that condemned Russian attacks. India’s neutrality has led to the creation of a void between the US and itself. A lot of spectators have referred to this neutrality as a pro-Moscow position. This decision on India’s part has been taken to safeguard national interests and preserve its friendship with Russia. This is done to ensure that Russia does not deepen its ties with China or Pakistan.
Also as discussed earlier, India is dependent on Moscow for its arms supply and therefore cannot afford to alienate Russia. Even though in the last two decades India has diversified its sellers, it still cannot cut ties with Russia as there are multiple strategic, technological, and political advantages of working with the country. Also, India cannot afford to go against Russia as It is not sure of the US as a loyal and sturdy partner and Russia has always been a constant and sturdy friend of the nation who has always come to India’s aid. Following the outbreak of the Ukraine War and as a result of sanctions placed on Russia by the US and Europe, it began to offer discounted oil and chemical fertilizers to India, resulting in an increase in the volume of bilateral trade between India and Russia from $13 billion in 2021–2022 to $27 billion in 2022, making it the largest supplier of oil and fertiliser to India. India has received a lot of criticism from the west on purchasing oil from Russia at discounted rates however, the Indian government defended its trade by stating that it will source oil from where it is cheapest and does not feel any moral dilemma in the purchase. India refused to accept the price cap on oil imposed by the US on Russia. All these steps have been taken to protect national interests as India cannot anger Russia with whom it has had years of friendship.
Lastly, the India-Russia relationship has withstood the test of time, where both countries have supported each other on multiple fronts and have been able to sustain their friendship in the ever-changing world order.
