By: Devyani Wadera, Research Analyst, GSDN

In 1923 Turkey achieved its independence under the guidance of military leader Gazi Kemal Ataturk, and in 2023 will complete a hundred years of its liberation, a history of the nation that has been marred by military coups and attempts. The overpowering military junta has directly intervened in the political arena multiple times with the most recent coup attempt in 2016. With the Turkish army’s high degree of autonomy and hegemonic powers, it has successfully managed to carry out coups in 1960, 1971, 1980, and 1997. These coups speak of a turbulent past in Turkish history which has damaged the democratic spirit of the country and led the state to an authoritarian regime. In this article, we will be demonstrating the factors that make Turkey a military coup-prone state meaning a country that is highly susceptible to the rule of the military by overthrowing an elected government. There is a need to delve deep into the Turkish political, and historical context to realize the source of this autonomous power of the military which subsides the government.

The Turkish army sees itself as the custodian of the legacy of Kemalist ideology which propagates western style modernization and secularism in the Muslim-dominated state. It always considered itself the true defender of the unity and security of the country. Coups led by the army were not seen by them as disruptive but rather as a mechanism for them to protect secularism and keep the inharmonious forces like Islam, the Kurdish separatist movement, and sectarianism at bay. In other words, in the larger political system, the military was the symbol of nationhood built on traditional Turkish values which were ingrained in the army itself, as it laid the bricks of modernization during its initial years. This idea was instilled in the institution by Kemal himself, who stated, “Whenever the Turkish nation has wanted to take a step up, it has always looked to the army as the leader of the movements to achieve lofty national ideal. When speaking of the army, I am speaking of the intelligentsia of the Turkish nation who are the true owners of this country. Turkish nation considers its army the guardian of its ideal”. This highlights how the Turkish military was entrusted with the role of the savior in the political scenario which was to overlook the political activities and ensure the well-being of the state.

Back in 1960, the military carried out, its first coup to cool off a highly tense confrontation between the government led by Democrat Party and the opposition. The predicament took an ugly turn with the government toying with the idea of going back to a one-party authoritative regime and to rectify this situation and reemphasize democracy in the state the military intervened. From this moment it started playing a more active role in politics and reshaping it whenever it deemed necessary. For the military, the civilian rules have been polluted by corruption, low devotion to democracy, and the core values of Ataturk. By assuming the role of the watchdog, the army is an ever-present player in the political scene, waiting to restructure aspects according to its own will. The start of this was the new constitution devised by the military in 1961 which increased its political autonomy. Through legal channels, the Turkish military legalised its actions, which is evident in Article 35 of the Turkish Armed forces Internal Security law of the constitution which states “the duty of the armed forces is to watch and protect the Turkish homeland and the Republic of Turkey, which is established by the constitution.” The introduction of laws like these legitimized the authority of the military and its right to intervene in the political system at its own whims and fancies in the name of national security. This validated the responses of the army and put it on a political pedestal that gave it unhindered political freedom and undermined the democratic process in the country.

Under the garb of territorial integrity, the military legitimized its every step and with every escalating move gathered more power. The advent of the National Security Council (NSC) with the new constitution of 1961 enabled the government to wield authority over areas that were earlier controlled by civilian authorities. The forum was put in place for the military to state its opinions on issues of national security. This was initially seen as a joint venture between the civilian and military apparatus, but with every new coup, and new constitutional amendment the National Security Council (NSC) increased its legal powers and military members. This way the government took on a tutelary role within politics. The NSC started taking decisions on various matters such as the economy, the curriculum in schools, foreign policy, and abolishing the penal immunity of members of parliament from the (Kurdish) Democratic Party. Earlier the objective of the NSC was to provide the government with credible information however, this changed with the 1971 constitutional amendment which stated that now NSC will be ‘recommending’ it’s findings to the government. Article 118 in the 1982 constitution further expanded the power of the military apparatus as it stated that the government must give priority consideration and thoughts to the recommendations made by NSC. Over time, the army gained considerable executive power which superseded civilian authority and gave way to a dual executive system- civilian authority and military authority (NSC).

Another reason for its growing institutional power was that the General Chief of Army Staff appointed by the president has a higher stature than the minister of defence and many other elected officials in the government. During the war, under the 1982 constitution, the General Chief of Army Staff carries out the duties of commander-in-chief on behalf of the president. Additionally, the superior position of the General Chief of Army Staff is highlighted by its autonomy regarding matters concerning defence policy, military budget, production and procurement of weapons, and intelligence gathering. This speaks of how the Army Chief has a weighty role in influencing the politics of the nation. The army also has complete control over its military budget and the allocation of resources to different needs without much governmental interference. In addition, the military also has complete control over senior promotions and successive leaders in the army. This ensures that the military has complete control over keeping its loyalists at the top who align with their ideology and ensure the subservient stature of the government.

The recent interventions by the military were in 1997, 2007, and 2016. In 1997 the military overthrew the Islamist prime minister Necmettin Erbakan of the Welfare Party. In Turkish history, this event is referred to as a soft coup or a postmodern coup. The National Security Council issued a memorandum that was seen as the ultimatum to the welfare party. This was in response to the rising Islamist ideology according to NSC. This is a testimony to how the Turkish military considers itself the protector of the country against internal threats which are incongruent with the western style modernization that the country has adopted. Additionally, the most important element which makes the Turkish military successful in its endeavour is how earlier there was no public opposition to the military. There was no other actor in place who had the power of restructuring politics and how mostly the army was unopposed. The civilian forces did not question the power structure and the unrequired hegemony of the military junta.

However, this changed in 2016 when a coup attempt was planned by a certain section of the military junta from the Fethullah Terrorist Organisation (FETO). The Turkish military announced on its website that a coup has taken place and a curfew has been imposed all over the country. This faction referred to itself as the Peace at Home Council. The coup instigators blocked the Bosphorus bridge, took control of strategic locations in multiple cities, bombed the parliament in session, and attacked the hotel where President Erdogan was staying. According to coup plotters, they did this as they felt that democracy was eroding and Erdogan was taking the nation towards an Islamist and authoritative rule. However, this attempt was overturned by the public as they took to the streets and displayed their open defiance against the regime. Turkey saw the power of the people as they took to the streets and resisted the coup. It proves the resilience of the civilians against the authoritative rule of the army. On the night of the coup attempt, 300 deaths and 2100 casualties were reported many of which included civilians.

Here we can conclude that the reasons for the Turkish military intervening in the political sphere are deeply entrenched in historical, legal, and cultural reasons. With every successive military coup, the Turkish state has taken a hit causing a fragile democracy. However, the overturning of the coup in 2016 was a watershed event in Turkish history as it retained a moment in the nation’s history where the will of the people sustained the power of the barrel. 

By: Patted Shamanth, GSDN

Afghanistan-centric geopolitical focus began soon after the 9/11 attacks in 2001 on USA which shook the entire world as for the first time a superpower had been attacked in such a mammoth manner.

The United States and the Taliban signed an agreement on the withdrawal of the forces from Afghanistan on February 29, 2020 for the Taliban to take over power in Afghanistan and form a government. During the course of the power shift in the hands of the Taliban, many nations including India engaged with the actors of the Taliban through the backchannel for the safety assurance of their citizens who decided to flee from Afghanistan. This was the first stepping footprint of Taliban government’s legitimacy in the international order. Though no nation recognises the Taliban government but invariably many are having relations with Afghanistan in some form or the other due to the change in geopolitics.

Taliban has found itself in a vulnerable and unstable position since rising to power with regard to significant economic developments. The Taliban-led government has managed to strike an oil deal with China that was signed on January 06, 2023 between the acting Minister of Mines and Petroleum Sheikh Shahabuddin and an official of Xinjiang Central Asia Petroleum and Gas Co (CAPEIC), marking the first major public commodities extraction deal by the Taliban administration since coming to power in 2021.

The deal also paved the path for another Chinese state-owned company to engage with the Taliban-led administration over the operation of a copper mine (Mes Aynak) copper deposit near Kabul, following a $3 billion, 30-year agreement signed under the previous government in 2008. Similarly, the first-of-a-kind deal dates back to 2011 when the Hamid Karzai-led government signed a similar deal with CNPC (China National Petroleum Corporation), that allowed CNPC to develop oil blocks in the Amu Darya basin, the basin could support up to 87 million barrels of crude oil at the time, and it was anticipated that Afghanistan could produce 25,000 barrels a day by the end of 2013.

In the foreground, the 2023 deal allows the Chinese company to access the oil from an area covering 4,500 square kilometres collectively in northern Sar-e-Pul, Jawzjan, and Faryab provinces and the provisions of the deal talks about Taliban administration to be a 20% partner. This share will increase to 75% and around 3,000 Afghans will get employment. The oil will be processed in Afghanistan and the deal will be terminated automatically if CAPEIC fails to meet its material obligations within a year. However, on the contrary, the company to invest US$150 million a year which would increase to US$ 540 million in three years for the 25-year contract.

The successful and smooth implementation of this deal could be a game changer for the Taliban-led government and could possibly attract many other states who vest their interest in the estimated untapped resources of more than US$ 1 trillion in Afghanistan, which could further open up a channel for diplomacy and to build their legitimacy.

And in case this deal fails then China will join the list of nations like USA, Russia and Pakistan who have experienced defeat in Afghanistan in any of their ventures or adventures.

By: Hitti Chopra, GSDN

Japan on December 23, 2022 announced a defence budget of 6.82 trillion Yen (US$ 51.4 billion) for the next fiscal year commencing in April 2023, pushing up military spending and high social security costs. Prime Minister Fumio Kishida promised to boost defence expenditure to 2% of Japan’s GDP by 2027.

Japan since World War II has been following a pacifist defense policy making the country spend the minimum required to defend the nation. On May 20, 2021 the Japanese Defence Minister Nobuo Kishi announced that Japan would scrap 1% GDP cap on defence spending.

Globally, Japan is at ninth place for defence spending with United States, China, India, the United Kingdom, and Russia as top five spenders. The doubling of defence expenditure places Japan at third position behind US and China. The call for more military spending comes at a time of economic challenges posed by Ukraine war and increasing trends of inflation pushing the international economy to the brink of recession.

The hike in defence expenditure aims to provide Japan with a “counter strike capability” that can pre-empt enemy attacks and protect itself from growing regional security risks from the unpredictable North Korea, Russia and assertive China. “With the Japan finding itself in the midst of the most severe and complex security environment since the end of World War II as quoted by Foreign Minister of Japan, Hayashi Yoshimasa, Tokyo has adopted a multifaceted approach from defence to diplomatic ties. The country has always indicated to work with like-minded countries to address its defence, economic, technological and intelligence challenges. Hayashi Yoshimasa also said that Japan “will strive to improve the security environment surrounding Japan by steadily executing the strategic approaches such as strengthening the Japan-USA alliance, coordinating with like-minded countries and others including further promoting efforts in pursuit of realising a “Free and Open Indo-Pacific,” and engaging in diplomacy with neighboring countries and regions.

Partnering with countries will involve a number of engagements with Japan-USA-South Korea and Japan-USA-Australia trilaterals and with countries like India, Australia, Canada, the EU, South Korea, European countries, ASEAN and NATO.

Japan’s original National Security Strategy (NSS) is almost 10 years old where Japan carefully harmonised concerns posed by Chinese military and “lack of transparency in its military affairs and security policy”. The new NSS section on China is more straightforward and long mentioning China as “unprecedented and the greatest strategic challenge in ensuring the peace and security of Japan and the peace and stability of the international community, as well as in strengthening the international order based on the rule of law, to which Japan should respond with its comprehensive national power and in cooperation with [the United States], like-minded countries and others.” 

Japan in 2013 saw Russia as a prospective partner for peace and stability in Asia-Pacific and mentioned Russia as “cooperation with Russia in all areas”. Today Japan scrutinises Russia whose “aggression against Ukraine has easily breached the very foundation of the rules that shape the international order.”

The accelerated development of missile-related technology in Pyongyang area, Japan has showcased exigency regarding how “North Korea’s military activities pose an even more grave and imminent threat to Japan’s national security than ever before”. The stand on Taiwan remains consistent and more nuanced describing it as “an extremely important partner and a precious friend of Japan, with whom Japan shares fundamental values, including democracy, and has close economic and personal ties.”

The strategy adopted by Japan focusing on deterrence and maintaining peace and stability has not been welcomed by China. Despite the constant criticism that Japan strategy is a move away from its pacifist policy and reflecting militarisation. North Korea has also critiqued Japan’s strategy documents. Europe and USA have welcomed and shown support with Japan. Despite having complex relationship with its neighbour in recent years, South Korea has welcomed the counter-strike capability strategy of Japan.

Following the announcement of hike in Defence Expenditure of Japan, release of strategy documents, South Korea has also disclosed its Indo-Pacific strategy. With the strategic dynamics metamorphosing the Indo-Pacific region, it is likely that countries will come up with their own Indo-Pacific strategies.

By: Rajlaxmi Deshmukh, GSDN

Sweden took over the Presidency of The Council of European Council from Czech Republic from January 01, 2023 till June 01, 2023 and said that priority would be on issues like security, resilience, prosperity, rule of law and democratic values.

The Council is an integral part of the European Union (EU), which decides its political course and direction and sets up the priorities of the European Union. It is a decision-making branch of the EU that compromises ministers from all the member states and represents the concerns of every nation. It is an intergovernmental body, whose presidency rotates amongst member states in every six months.

After an eight-year-long rule of the centre-left party in Sweden, the conservative party has come to power with an alliance with far-right Swedish democrats under the leadership of Ulf Kristersson. As he quoted, “Sweden is taking over the presidency at a time when the European Union is facing unprecedented challenges,” in context to the ongoing war in Europe between Ukraine and Russia which is having consequences on the economies of European states. Sweden has also promised to continue the economic and military support to Ukraine and also help in rebuilding the nation.

The main themes Sweden would prioritise are Security and maintaining unity among the member states it also tries to address the issue of organised crime, terrorism, and violent extremism and to protect its citizens from the same. It will also look after the security situation in the Balkans. Another priority is Resiliencewhich would be ensured through competitiveness. It will also ensure Prosperity in the form of energy transition toward green and sustainable energy, in the backdrop of the Russia-Ukraine War, Europe is facing a severe energy crisis due to which the states have felt the need to diversify their energy sources. It would promote free trade agreements with other nations and regions in response to the US green subsidies. Sweden will also try to uphold and promote the fundamental and foundational values of the European Union such as democracy and rule of law. Mitigating climate change would also be on the agenda of the council during the Swedish presidency.

Due to the ongoing war between Ukraine and Russia, Europe is facing a migration crisis, the war has also affected Europe’s food and energy supply. Hence it has become necessary for the EU to have a common foreign and security policy which is on a high agenda of the EU, and most likely to happen during the Swedish presidency.

Earlier, Sweden had the tendency to keep itself at a distance from the workings and active participation of the EU, it had also voted against the use of the single currency ‘Euro.’ It would be interesting to know Sweden’s future course of action during its tenure of Presidency of The Council, and how would it respond to the current geopolitical and economic challenges, to deal with the crisis mode going on in Europe.

By: Meghali Deb, GSDN

The eastern South Asian country of Nepal, inhabited by diverse communities and religions, illustrates a vibrant history towards democratic commitments. The Himalayan country exemplified undaunted popular uprisings, Jan Andolan in pursuit of democracy on the global platform. Owing to the revolutionary movement of the Nepali population, the country witnessed a peaceful democratic transition to the multi-party system. Emboldened by the historical spirit, Nepal’s journey toward political stability is marked by constitutional perseverance, including the promulgation of the Constitution in 2015. Unlike the neighboring countries of India or China, Nepal began its political metamorphosis as recently as the 1990s and which culminated most recently in 2007 – 2015. Therefore, it is interesting to trace the main political actors and parties to the roots of epoch-making events in the history of Nepal.  In 1990 with the advent of federal democracy, the Interim Government was formed under the leadership of K.P Bhattarai, a Nepali Congress leader. 

Apart from Royal representatives, the nine-member Constitution Reform Commission comprised representatives from the two salient political parties: Nepali Congress and Communist Party.  The history epitomizes the position of the Nepali Congress and the Communist party at the core of the democratic spirit of the country. The remarkable stature of Nepal in the broader international context, especially in neighboring China and India, can be examined by employing domestic actors in its electoral politics. Therefore, the reports reveal that New Delhi’s influence emanates from the close allegiance which is fostered with Nepali Congress; on the other hand, China exerts influence on Nepal through the communist parties in Nepal – Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist- Leninist) and the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist Centre).  To assess the post-election strategic relationships between Nepal and the two emerging giants of Asia – India, and China, it is pertinent to revisit the federal elections in Nepal in 2017.  Therefore, the electoral victory of CPN’s -Leftist Alliance against NC’s Democratic Alliance reveals that the 2017 elections in Nepal were largely denoted in the favor of China. On the other hand, India was forced to feel the heat of its loss of influence over the nation’s domestic and international affairs.  A series of transmuting developments at the regional and national level preceded the Nepal Elections 2017 and paved the prerequisites for Nepal Election 2022 to take place.

The events which represent imperative value in the history of Nepal include the catastrophic earthquake in Nepal, the promulgation of a new Constitution and the Madhesi conflict, and the Nepal-India border blockade in 2015. The following chain of events in the same year served Nepal’s vulnerability open to both New Delhi and Beijing for wresting their strategic dominance in the Himalayan country. India’s role in the first two events has been progressive towards reinforcing the trust of Nepal towards New Delhi, with the following steps: donating 1.54 billion (in Nepalese currency) for rehabilitating the Nepali population and also, ordering a rescue operation with the Indian Army called Operation Maitri after the destructive earthquake in 2015; Secondly, under the newly assumed leadership of Narendra Modi, laying down strategic and economic commitments with Nepal which included an emphasis on 4Cs – Cooperation, Connectivity, Culture and Constitution at the forefront and other endeavors such as the announcement of $ 1 Billion Line of Credit to Nepal, drawing the framework for a Power Trade Agreement, developments on the Project Development Agreement (PDA) between the Investment Board of Nepal and GMR Group of India for Upper Karnali Hydro projects and more. Despite the well-willed areas of partnership between India and its Northern neighbor, the relationship suffered a hostile juncture on the issue of the Madhesi tribe in the Terai region.  Let us revisit in a quick glimpse, the Madhesi controversy across the Nepal-India borders which led to the blockade of supplies from India to Kathmandu. The Medhesis are the Bhojpuri-Maithili-Hindi speaking communities living in the Terai region, who share strong cultural ancestry with India. After the promulgation of the Nepali constitution in 2015, the Madhesis based their political resentment on the claims of depriving them of political representation, compromising the framework of inclusion, alienating them by carving federal units, and imposing discriminatory citizenship provisions. The protests took strength in the form of blockades across the borders which impeded the supplies of essential materials into Kathmandu. The Nepal government unleashed a violent crackdown against the protestors as a response, which led to nearly 40 fatalities. The volatile political condition in the Terai region led to strong ‘anti-Indian’ sentiments in Nepal, since the agitation was perceived to be allegedly kindled by the Indian Government. However, there are no stronger bases for supporting the allegation because it served no strategic, diplomatic, or economic purpose to India in exerting its influence in South Asia. Instead, the relationship between India-Nepal worsened to pave the strategy for China to seep into the political loopholes of Nepal. 2017 elections saw the rise of the Left alliance as a breakthrough for China and a huge setback for India.

The relationship between China and Nepal includes many ongoing development agreements and projects-Upper Trishuli Hydropower Project-Power station, Transmission Line Projects, Food/Material Assistance in Northern bordering districts, Kathmandu Ring Road Improvement Project, and more projects. Among a multitude of projects, the most distinguishing agreement includes the Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation under the Belt and Road Initiative on 12th May 2017 which paved the way for bilateral cooperation in the mutually agreed areas. The strategic cooperation between China and Nepal is fostered on the economic front with commercial loans. The interest rate and repayment period of loans sanctioned by China’s EXIM bank to specific nations do not follow the regulations of conventional and multilateral funding organizations like the World Bank and others. Therefore, the fleeting financial transparency between the two countries of China and Nepal has led the latter to the jeopardy of a debt trap.  In the last 5 years, Nepal experienced negligible progress in culminating the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) towards the expected goal. Owing to a myriad of reasons which includes debt trap, huge displacements, and environmental degradation, not a single project has successfully been accomplished in 5 years. Triggered by the recent Sri- Lankan financial crisis, the opposition broke out in many places against the BRI initiative.  Therefore, the above-mentioned events contributed to the strategic equation between India, Nepal, and China between the Nepal Elections in 2017 and 2022 both on the economic and cultural front. On the economic front, an aversion to China’s debt diplomacy led the commercial temperament in Nepal to incline towards India.  The statement can be substantiated by the following example-the state-owned Nepal Electricity Authority (NEA) sold electricity to the power exchange market of India by participating through competitive bidding.  The strategic endeavor has encouraged the private sector in Nepal towards globalized participation with India.

On the cultural front, the definition of Hindutva was rebranded and became more prominent in Nepal following the influence of the right-wing BJP in India. Records suggest that K.P Sharma Oli as the former Prime Minister of Nepal has stirred Hindu nationalist sentiments. He went on record to claim that Madi in Nepal, instead of Ayodhya, is the birthplace of Lord Ram. He also became the first communist Prime Minister to offer prayers at the Pashupatinath Temple and to donate around $2.5 million of government funds towards the maintenance of the temple. The consecutive series of events bridged Nepal’s election in 2017 and 2022, which can be derived from the current electoral outcomes. The political tug-of-war in Nepal induced intense controversies and volatility among the alliances between Deuba’s Nepali Congress and Oli’s CPM-UML. Nepal’s most recent electoral processes have induced intriguing possibilities that will play out in the country’s political destiny very soon.

By: Santosh Sharma, GSDN

One of the Ireland’s youngest leader Leo Varadkar became Prime Minister of Republic of Ireland for second term as a result of power swapping deal made between the coalition party in the government to share the Prime Minister’s post after half of the five-year term.

Who is Leo Varadkar?

The son of Mumbai born doctor and an Irish Nurse, he himself is a recognised doctor. He is one of the youngest politicians of the world, who reached the highest position of his political career in Ireland and became the youngest Prime Minister of Ireland in 2017 at an age of 38 years.

àhe came out with referendum on same sex marriage in Ireland which helped him to be recognised as a bold and courageous leader in world.

àHe was also criticised for anti–immigrant sentiments as he proposed in 2008, the unemployed foreigners could be given a lumpsum payment if they agreed to leave the country.

He is staunch supporter of united Ireland, as he announced that he wants to see united Ireland but not by neglecting the views of minority.

What is Ireland Issue?

Ireland is an island that lies to the west of the British mainland and has two separate politically independent territories.

• Northern Island is about 1/6^th of the total Island is part of the United Kingdom and is administered as an autonomous region.
• The rest of the Island forms the ‘Republic of Ireland’ and is independent sovereign nation since 1922.
• The problem is not of border, but the problem is that Northern Island is a land divided between those who consider themselves as Irish (who want Northern Ireland to join/merge with Republic of Ireland, an independent country within the European Union) and those who consider themselves as British (who want Northern Ireland to remain in the United Kingdom, separate from the Republic of Ireland).

Good Friday Agreement, 1998

• Also known as Belfast Agreement 1998. It was a political deal to bring an end to 30 years of violent conflict in Northern Ireland, known as Troubles, approved by public votes in Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland.

• When Northern Ireland in 1921 became part of United Kingdom and rest of Ireland became an independent nation, this also created split between the citizens of Northern Ireland like the Unionists who were happy with Britain, while the Nationalists want to became the part of Republic of Ireland. This led to troubles which lasted for almost 30 years and cost the lives of more than 3500 people.

After Brexit

• After Brexit, it is only Northern Ireland which shares border with European Union (The Republic of Ireland), as in Brexit agreement, there are checks required on goods transported between EU and UK.
• Now the problem is that as goods arrived from UK, they are checked before entering Northern Ireland, to ensure that they comply with EU rules. Nationalist Party (Sinn Fein) supported it as they say this is in line with Good Friday Agreement, while the Unionists including Democratic Unionist Party opposed it because they said that this separates them from rest of the UK.
• To resolve this issue, UK government proposed that goods are split into two different lanes, Goods for Northern Ireland go into green lane and are not checked while goods for Ireland and EU go into red lane for being checked.

National Challenges for Leo’s as PM:

During his first term, he negotiated hard to keep Northern Ireland in European Union’s Custom Block, which remains unsolved as now Britain has proposed a new solution. Leo is unlikely to agree with this, and this may intensify the tensions in Ireland.

He has also the responsibility to lower the cost of energy as there is energy crisis in Europe due to the Russia–Ukraine War. There is also a housing problem in Ireland because as per report there were only approximately 900 houses available in Ireland.

Global Implications of Leo Varadkar as the Prime Minister for the second term :

• As he is a staunch supporter of United Ireland and also wants Northern Ireland in EU’s Custom Union, and is against hard border, this may bring more conflict in Ireland, which can further escalate the crisis in Europe.
• His image as anti-immigrants, because earlier he advocated that unemployed foreigners should be deported from country, EU is already suffering from the immigration problem, and this can further create more problems.
• As Ireland is suffering from housing and energy problem, it’s will be tough for him to resolve this problem and bring stability.
• As he announced that, he wants to see united Ireland, but with the support of whole and also by keeping the view of minority, he also hinted of talking with the United Kingdom Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, which would be challenging for both the nations given how emotive the issue is both the nations.

Conclusion:

The charisma and confidence that Leo Varadkar as a young leader has, puts him in the line of the likes of the French President Emmanuel Macron and the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. But his different approach in dealing with Northern Ireland and Ireland as he is an advocate of a United Ireland would be quite challenging. However, it is a golden period for Leo Varadkar to settle the Ireland issue and create history.

By: Khushbu Ahlawat

Overview of India and Pakistan’s nuclear histories:

Zia Mian, Co-Director of the program on science global security at Princeton University, said that the idea in Pakistan of acquiring nuclear weapons began in the     early 1950s when Pak signed a military alliance agreement with the US as part of which Pakistan became an ally of the US in the cold war against USSR and in return the US was to provide economic aid and military advice to bring Pakistan into the modern age weaponry systems.

In this way, the US plotted the modern American idea of nuclear technology, i.e., nuclear weapons in warfare. Raj Chengappa, the Editorial Director of the India Today group, Jayita Sarkarv, and Feroz Khan, who is the Director of Arms Control and Disarmament affairs, said that in 1964, China tested nuclear weapons, and in the 1965 Indo-Pak War when China sided with Pakistan, this compelled India to move         forward with its nuclear weapons program.

Thus, two nuclear neighbors i.e., China         and Pakistan compelled India to develop nuclear weapons in order to ensure security. The strong debate started that India was building weapons, and Homi J Bhabha was very active about this. But the Indian Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri was against nuclear weapons. Basically, India saw nuclear weapons as a limited but necessary capability to protect itself. Atomic Energy Commission in India was established as the regulatory body under Homi J Bhabha.

In 1963, PTBT was ratified by India which stated that complete prohibition of nuclear testing in underwater, atmosphere  and outer space.

Dwight D. Eisenhower’s 1953 “Atoms for Peace” address suggested the creation of an international atomic regulatory organization. Hence, IAEA was created in 1957. The organisation’s primary goal was to encourage nuclear technologies’ safe, secure, and non-militaristic use.

The NPT came into force in 1970 to promote the peaceful benefits of nuclear energy, advance nuclear disarmament, and stop the spread of atomic weapons and technology. Provisions of NPT were:

• Nuclear-weapon states and non-nuclear-weapon states were the two groups defined under the treaty.
• NWS will not increase their nuclear arsenals and would move towards gradual disarmament.

Neither India nor Pakistan joined the NPT as they said that it was a discriminatory treaty which divided the world into Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) and Non-Nuclear Weapon States (NNWS).

In 1969, Indira Gandhi ordered to go ahead with nuclear weapons, and in 1971 the India-Pakistan war occurred and Bangladesh was created. India detonated its first nuclear  weapon on May 18, 1974 in what it referred to as a “peaceful nuclear explosion,” also called Smiling Budha which included use of Plutonium. The nuclear test was conducted in Pokhran, Rajasthan. The United States provided the heavy water required to generate the plutonium utilised in the experiment, and Canada provided the CIRUS Reactor.

This triggered anger in Pakistan. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto always dreamed of increasing bombs in Pakistan, and after the defeat of Pak in 1971, he wanted to turn his dream into reality. Pakistan criticised New Delhi for trying to distinguish between military and non-military applications of a nuclear test. Pakistan began developing nuclear weapons in response to its 1971 war with India. India’s test of nuclear weapons was also a wake-up call for the International Community, which compelled them to take non-proliferation more seriously. Later, The Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) was founded by the international community in November 1974 due to India’s peaceful nuclear explosion.

INDIA AND PAKISTAN’S NUCLEAR TESTS AND SANCTIONS BY THE US

In 1998, the BJP government in India decided to conduct a series of nuclear tests in Rajasthan specifically; most were believed to be militarised. India has been working on their nuclear arsenals, and now they needed to be tested. This is why India condemned the CTBT treaty because this treaty aimed to keep nuclear arsenals for NWS and banned to acquire weapons for NNWS. India believed that the Soviet Union and the United States were no longer required to test their arsenals to prove their reliability because they had already done a lot. It was said that India’s nuclear test in 1998 was against CTBT, but legally India never signed CTBT. Agni-I, Prithvi-II, Agni-III, Agni-V, Agni-V, and Prahar were the names of the nuclear tests, Mansoor Ahmed, Post-Doctoral Fellow at Harvard University, said that Pakistan conducted five nuclear explosions in the underground Tusko hills in Western Baluchistan and Kharan in 1998. These tests were in response to India’s test in Rajasthan in 1998. Abdali ballistic missile, Ghaznavi and Shaheen-I, Shaheen-II and Shaheen-III were some names of the tests. At the international forum, it was argued that deterrence capability would be compromised if Pakistan conducted another test.

At that moment, the immediate concern was to avert dangerous arms competition and to stop the zero-sum game. When the US started to engage with both nations, the basic objective was to restrain weapons and missile delivery programs. The nuclear tests conducted by India were another down because of fear of sanctions

INDO-NUCLEAR DEAL SIGNED

On October 1, 2008, the Indo-U.S. civil nuclear agreement became official. The agreement allowed India to conduct nuclear trade with the United States and other Nuclear Suppliers Group members. In exchange for access to American dual-use nuclear technology, it also promised to allow American businesses to construct nuclear reactors in India. Pakistan objected to the agreement, saying that Pakistan likewise deserved an NSG waiver because India was given preferential treatment. Pakistan increased its production of fissile material in response to the agreement.

INDIA AND PAKISTAN NUCLEAR POSTURE

According to the Nuclear Weapons Convention, even today, India has nuclear weapons, but it continues to be at the forefront of disarmament efforts, so India’s nuclear ambivalence persists. Pakistan was clear and purposeful about weapons because they wanted to build in order to fight against stronger neighbors and wanted to establish a sense of deep identity as a regional power. This showed that Pakistan has a “FIRST USE POLICY”, “FULL SPECTRUM DETERRENCE,” and India has a “NO FIRST USE POLICY”, “MINIMUM DETERRENCE”, “CONVENTIONAL FIGHTING CAPABILITY”, “GLOBALLY VERIFIED NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT” AND “COMMAND AND CONTROL”.

CBM’S AND SERIES OF AGREEMENT

In order to avoid war, tension, mistrust and establish peace and security, both sides must agree to ratify the agreement in order to not attract nuclear instillations. So, CBM and NRRM should be used in order to diffuse tensions, reduce nuclear wars. Non-Attack of Nuclear Facilities Agreement was signed by Rajiv Gandhi and Benazir Bhutto in 1988 where they both pledged, not to  attack the listed nuclear facilities. Other Agreement on Prior Notification of military  exercises was signed in 1991, Ballistic Missile Flight-Test Pre-Notification Agreement was also signed in 2005. So, basically, both sides pledged to notify each other in the event of a nuclear accident.

About the Author

Khushbu Ahlawat is from Sonipat, Haryana and has done her graduation from Daulat Ram College, Delhi University in BA (Hons) Political Science. Currently she is pursuing Master of Arts in International studies at Christ University, Bengaluru. The views expressed are personal.

• Twitter
• LinkedIn
• Instagram
• WordPress