Wednesday
February 19, 2025
Home Blog Page 3

Why the Indo-Pacific matters Geopolitically?

1

By: Meghna Dasgupta, Research Analyst, GSDN

Indo-Pacific Region and flags of India, USA and China: source Internet

From the eastern coast of Africa, to the western shores of Americas the strategically important region known as the Indo-Pacific region has emerged to be very influential in world politics. It incorporates some of the world’s most important trade channels, economic zones and strategic sea bottlenecks. In recent years, economic growth, shifts in the balance of power, significance of the area for the world economy, as well as new conflicts and cooperation opportunities has made the region the focus of great powers competition.

Economic Significance of the Indo-Pacific

The Indo-Pacific region is still considered the backbone of the global economy today. It holds 65 % of the world population and contribute over 60% to the global GDP. Asian countries like China, India, Japan, South Korea, and all ASEAN countries drive this global economic growth.

Trade routes through the Indo-Pacific region is currently some of the busiest in the entire globe. The South China Sea is an important channel through which more than $3.4 trillion of trade passes every year. It also transports about 32.2 million barrels of crude oil daily. Another chokepoint is the Strait of Malacca through which a third of the world’s energy supplies pass. It should therefore come as no surprise that any disruption to these sea lanes spells doom for world commerce and energy supplies.

Large market opportunities are also evident in the region as a result of FDI. In 2022, United States had trade worth $2 trillion with the Indo-pacific countries, emphasizing its economic integration with the region. More recent efforts include the quadrilateral dialogue, ASEAN’s Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and its Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF) which are expected to advance economic cooperation in the trade, supply chain and sustainable development spheres.

Strategic and Military Dynamics

The Indo-Pacific is not simply the largest economic region in the world, it is also a strategically significant area. Seven of the biggest Armed forces in the world operate in this region, making this region play a very crucial role in defense. Some of the major military presence here are of United States, China, India, Japan, South Korea and Australia.

One of the most contested areas is the South China Sea, where multiple countries, including China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei, have overlapping territorial claims. Chinese actions which may have escalated tension include building artificial islands equipped with military features. These actions are contrary to the norms approved by the world community under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

To match China’s activities, the United States and its partners have sought to ramp up their activities within the region. The United States’ Navy always engages in FONOPs in the South China Sea to challenge excessive claims regarding maritime. The Quad, made of USA, India, Japan and Australia has come out as key forum to provide the vision of a “Free and Open Indo-Pacific”. It also conducts exercises like the Malabar Naval Exercise with similar objectives of stability and moderation.

Geopolitical Rivalries in the Indo-Pacific

The Indo-Pacific is currently the theatre for great power rivalry, mainly between the US and China. The Belt and Road Initiative by China with over US$ 1 trillion in investment, aims to advance influence via Asia, Africa and the Pacific region mostly through infrastructure investments. But these investments are normally accompanied by strings that are strategic and political in nature, leading to debate over debt dependency and sovereignty.

The United States, in turn, has been actively working to forge containment strategies to restrict China through enhancing partnerships. It has revived the Quad and has also improved its defense cooperation with countries such as Japan South Korea, Philippines and Australia. For example, the AUKUS unveiled the Australia-UK-US defense alliance’s plan to strengthen the capability of the Australian navy, including acquiring nuclear-powered submarines.

India as a major regional power, has also been gradually expanding its strategic profile. India has signed defense agreements with Southeast Asian countries like Vietnam and the Philippines, and is very involved in dialogue regarding maritime security in the Southeast Asian region. Given India’s ‘Act East Policy’, the country is focusing to enhance relations with ASEAN states, the country’s participation in the ‘Quad’ establishes the country as a strategic participant in pacific region.

Regional Cooperation and Multilateral Initiatives

However, it is also a region of cooperation because it has both strategic and economic significance for the United States and other countries. ASEAN remains central in the promotion of dialogue and economic cooperation as its founding members unite to set the foundation for an economic community. The creation of global trading systems, such as the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which connects 15 countries, including China, Japan, and Australia, to create the largest trading block in the world is a testimony of this claim.

The Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF), introduced by the United States in 2022, focuses on building resilient supply chains, advancing clean energy technologies, and ensuring fair trade practices. This initiative complements existing agreements and fosters greater economic collaboration.

India’s Growing Role in the Indo-Pacific

India is gradually transforming into a crucial actor in influencing the Indo-Pacific region. India, belonging to the South Asian region, has strategic interests like navigation and security of the Indian Ocean.

India’s naval capabilities have significantly expanded due to increasing emphasis on the maritime domain and combined operations. India has enhanced cooperation with island nations like the Maldives, Seychelles and Sri Lanka in order to boost partnership on maritime security. An instance of such contribution is the transfer of the INS Kirpan to Vietnam in 2023 to enhance regional defense capabilities.

Further, India is engaged in multilateral frameworks such as IORA, as well as ASEAN-India mechanisms. Its commitment to the Quad nations is also reflective of another of its strategic directions in dealing with coercive actions in the Indo-Pacific region.

Non-Traditional Security Challenges

The Indo-Pacific region is facing several non-conventional threats such as piracy, terrorism, human trafficking, and climatic change. These are some of the challenges that must be addressed in an integrated manner. For example, regional navies have embarked on cooperative measures in combating piracy in the Gulf of Aden and the Malacca Strait.

Another issue worth mentioning is climate change. The impact of the rising sea level is devastating to many small island nations in the world including the Maldives, Kiribati, and Tuvalu. Cyclones and other natural disasters are common in the region and often affect the livelihoods and economies. To address these existential threats, initiatives like the Pacific Islands Forum provide a synthesis of cooperating efforts.

Future Outlook: Challenges and Opportunities

It is thus the actions and policies of both regional and extra-regional actors that will to a large extent determine the future trajectory of the Indo-Pacific region. Coordinating the containment of great power conflicts with the promotion of economic relations can be rather challenging. Given that technology cooperation, infrastructure development, and supply chain security are major areas of focus in the Quad, the framework has been useful in underlining possible solutions to common issues.

However, un-demarcated borders and militarization remain threats to security in the region. This is why abidance to international laws, including UNCLOS, as well as diplomacy can play a significant role in reducing such tensions.

Some of the newer threats that need to be addressed are; global warming and other environmental degradation activities. Strengthened regional frameworks and international support may assist these nations to draw lessons from the present circumstances.

Conclusion

The Indo-Pacific region holds unparalleled geopolitical significance in the 21st century. Its economic vitality, strategic waterways, and the interplay of major powers make it a cornerstone of global affairs. As the centre of gravity shifts toward the Indo-Pacific, understanding its dynamics is essential for shaping a stable, prosperous, and inclusive global order.

The future of this region will not only influence the lives of its inhabitants but also determine the trajectory of global politics, economics, and security.

Candid Conversation: Navinika Singh Chauhan, Editor, Global Focus Today on “One Week of Donald Trump’s Second Presidency”.

1

Crisis in Syria

0

By: Paarvana Sree, Research Analyst, GSDN

Syria: source Internet

The crisis in Syria is the outcome of the Arab Spring which started in Tunisia and reached many parts of the world. Around the world ‘change’ and people revolt began receding with the support of regional and international actors, but what makes it different in Syria is that the change is being forced with a limited strike which even has the risk of a regional or a global war. The local dynamics of Syria were transformed into regional rivalry and global threat. The military and ideological competition for regional hegemony by competing States swallowed up the entire region. The Arab spring in Syria experienced divided loyalties. In Syria, people were either Pro-Assad or Anti-Assad thus complicating the situation and ending up in the civil war. This civil war resulted in almost 100,000 deaths and created more than 2 million refugees which resulted in another social catastrophe in the region. The influx of terrorist elements and non-state actors into Syria by the regional actors has further intensified the civil war.

Theoretical Context

The Syrian Crisis can be best explained through the Regional Security Complex (RSC) theory propounded by Barry Buzan and Ole Weaver. According to this theory every region is placed in a security complex being accompanied by a downward sub-regional security and super-security complex at the global level. These security complexes are basically interlinked and can affect each other. As per this security complex must have a) boundary, which separates RSC from its neighbours b) an anarchic structure, composed of two or more autonomous units c) polarity, in order to cover the distribution of power among the units d) social construct to cover up the pattern of enmity and amity among the units. The RSC basically aims at three main configurations maintenance of status quo, external transformation and internal involvement of more regional and extra regional actors and to have internal transformation within the region. Crisis in Syria is a sub-regional security complex of Levant region present in the wider Middle Eastern regional security complex and larger super security complex. The Levant sub-regional security context is mainly contested between Syria and Israel with non-state actors like Hezbollah and Hamas. In the wider Middle Eastern security complex the competition between conventional rivals, Tribes and Arabs on one side and Iran and Arabs on the other side is further complicated by the rivalry between Israel and Iran. Also there is a global level contest taking place between France, US and Britain against Russia and China. All of the security complexes actively interact with each other. Syria is given support by Iran and Hezbollah at regional level and by China and Russia at global level. The Syrian rebels were equipped, supported and trained by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar at the regional level and Britain and France at global level.

Historical Perspectives

Syria has a great history of civilization. It remained as an independent state. The ruling authority of Hafez Al Assad was unchallenged. Assad tried to convert Syria into a major regional power by influencing events in Lebanon and Israeli occupied Palestinian territories. It then soon established a strategic dialogue with the revolutionary Iran, which strongly opposed the US dominance and the hegemony of Israel which supported the Iran sponsored Hezbollah in Lebanon. The US provided Assad with US$ 6 million and free hand in Lebanon in return for his full support against Saddam Hussein during the Iraq crisis over the Kuwait in 1990-91 periods. By his death in 2000, his son Bashar Al Assad was chosen as his successor.  Initially he seemed to be liberal and moderate leader soon he turned his strategy into military power politics and the Baathist regime his father once pursued. When the Arab spring spread in the neighbouring Arab States, Bashar Al Assad was relatively comfortable. However soon he was confronted with strong and well-built western backed opposition. The confrontation in no time turned into a civil war when the protestors started clashing with his supporters. Syria’s social, economic and political disparities based on its tribal, factional, ethnic and sectarian differences make it a heterogeneous society. The population comprises about 74% of Sunnis, 16% of Alawites and Druze and 10% of Christians. There is also a small proportion of the Jewish population.  Since 1970 the country has been ruled by the Alewives minority.

Conflicting Groups in the Syrian Crisis

The Syrian civil war is considered as one of the most vulnerable crises in the contemporary era in terms of its destructiveness and impacts of international politics. The major groups involved in Syrian civil war can be categorised as –

1) Pro Assad groups

Hafez Al Assad came to power in 1963 through a military coup and then became the President of Syria in 1970. He ruled Syria for about 30 years. Later his son Bashar Al Assad succeeded him. He belongs to the Alawite community and the majority of the population in Syria belonged to Sunni community. They both belonged to the Ba’ath party. The ideology of the party cantered around 3 main objectives namely secularism, socialism and Arab unity. Hafez Al Assad tried the best to maintain the agenda of Pan Arabism and Arab unity during his presidency. But his son failed to contain that influence because of the limited public support. Initially during his period he tried to win popular support by new political and economic reforms. But in a sense he never tried to initiate such reforms. During the 2006- 2010 Syrian draught there increased large problems of the Syrian regime. There were peasant movements and popular uprisings against the increase in employment and inflation. By that time demonstrations in the Middle East created a ray of hope for the Syrian population and they started a protest against the Assad regime in late December 2010. The government tried to suppress the movement by armed forces which resulted in the death of many people and many were injured. Thus the demonstration turned into a civil war. This consequently resulted in the division of the Syrian republic into pro-government and anti-government and also Assad groups were also divided. This division highly affected the whole country and the support of the Ba’ath party and Alawite supported Assad who was a minority while the rivals constituted the majority. Also the emergence of other militant organisations and Al-Qaeda further increased the distress. The main agenda of the Assad government was to suppress the insurgency and to maintain the pre-democracy status quo of the Assad government.

2) Anti Assad Groups

The Anti-Assad group comprised of numerous small groups with different objectives and narratives but a single Agenda of regime change. These groups were commonly called the ‘Syrian National Coalition’ (SNC). This group contains the Free Syrian Army (FSA) the first recognised military against the Assad regime, the jihadist group which was against the Assad regime on a sectarian basis. The third major group was the Islamic Jihadist group. The Islamic State (IS) and Nursa Front (NF) were prominent Jihadist groups since the civil war. Later in 2015 Jaish Al-Fatah was created by anti-Assad government states like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar. The main objective of this group was the replacement of the Assad government, dismantling of security forces, unifying and supporting FSA, no dialogue with the Assad government and holding accountability of those responsible for civil war and other crises.

3) Kurdish National Council

Another significant group in Syrian civil war is Kurds whose main motive was different from other groups. They are indigenous people of the Mesopotamian region and they are residing in south eastern Turkey, north-eastern Syria, northern Iraq, and south western Armenia. Their language and culture is different and they do not have a common dialect. More than 15% of Kurdish people were stateless in Syria and they were treated in legal vacuum and they are even deprived of the fundamental rights.  The Kurds saw Syrian civil war as a means to acquire their status and fundamental rights.

Kurds officially entered civil war in mid-2014 when Islamic State captured Syria’s northern part. They flew towards the Turkey border, but later began their fighting under the Syrian Democratic Force (SDF). They introduced various fighter groups to protect themselves from civil war such as the People’s Protection Unite – the army wing of the Syrian Kurdish democratic union party. They were officially backed by the US led coalition with weapons and airstrikes. They successfully recaptured the major part of Northern Syria from Islamic State under the SDF banner.  The main objectives of Kurds under the Kurdish Supreme Committee were full citizenship and rights, full representation in the Syrian National Council and other basic rights.

Onset of the Civil War

In Syria, in early 2011 there was an emergence of peace protests for political reforms and increased freedoms. These rallies are basically influenced by Arab spring events in nearby countries. In March 2011, in the city of Derra, there began pro-democracy demonstrations, demanding the release of people in detentions who painted revolutionary messages on the school wall. The suppression of protests resulted in the death of several people. The severe repression by the Assad regime, which includes detentions and suppression of demonstrations aggravated the situation and triggered an armed uprising which resulted in a large scale civil war. The complexity of the conflict became intense when international and regional entities provided aid and support to different sides.

Finally the opposition supporters resorted to armed resistance initially for self-defence and later on as a means to drive out security troops from localities. The scale of violence increased, resulting in the country being engulfed in civil war. The conflict soon spread to the capital city of Damascus in 2012. The crisis transcended a mere dichotomy between the supporters and opponents of Assad. This also took sectarian dimensions, where the Sunni majority of the country fought against the Alawite minority. Also the emergence of the extremist group of Islamic State made an additional aspect. The Syrian government was supported by Russia and Iran while the anti-government rebel organisations were supported by the US and its military allies. The three campaigns that mainly drove the conflict were: 1) the coalition endeavours to vanish the IS 2) the hostilities among Syrian government and rebels 3) military offensives conducted by Turkish forces against Syrian Kurds.

Syrian territory was beginning to be acquired by Islamic State in 2013. As a response to this the US, UK and France with assistance from Saudi, Turkey and other Arab allies extended their air campaign in Iraq to also cover Syria. The US-led coalition has conducted more than 11,000 aerial assaults against the IS targets in Syria while Turkish forces have been in conflict against Islamic State since 2016. With the help of Russia and Iran in 2016, the Syrian government recaptured land from opposition troops including the city of Aleppo which the opposition considered as their stronghold. There were numerous attempts to have a diplomatic settlement but none of them became fruitful. The Geneva peace negotiations on Syria and peace talks started by Russia in Astana, Kazakhstan managed to secure a cease fire agreement and the creation of four de- escalation zones.

Current Situation in Syria

The crisis in Syria which began in 2011, had completed a decade as per the reports of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Syria is facing one of the biggest refugee crises. About 14 million people have been forced to evacuate their residence since 2011 for the sake of Security.  About 7.2 million people are still displaced within their nation with 70% of the population requiring humanitarian assistance. About 90% of people are living below the poverty threshold. About 5.5 million refugees are living in the border countries of Syria namely Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey and Iraq. Germany is the largest host country accommodating for about 850,000 refugees.

In addition to this, on February 06, 2023 Syria was hit by a pair of formidable earthquakes, particularly in the south eastern region of Turkey and northern part of Syria, which resulted in the loss of numerous lives and devastation of the houses and infrastructure throughout the area. This in turn affected the internally displaced Syrians and Syrian refugees. As per March 2024, about 8.8 million people were affected by earthquakes, displacing tens of thousands including many who were already displaced. The earthquake took 60,000 lives and tens of thousands sustaining injuries and many of the neighbourhood households were destroyed. Syria produced the largest number of refugees in the world due to the civil war. As per the reports of UNHCR, About 70% of Syrian refugees are still facing adversity, especially limited access to essential services, education and career opportunities and having poor prospects of returning to their own country. 

In addition to this there is a price hike resulting in inflation and approximately 12.9 million people are facing food insecurity. Refugees have been deprived of basic amenities like obtaining potable water, power, nourishment, medication and rent expenses. There are also other forms of social exploitation including underage labour, gender based abuse and early marriage. About 65,000 children in Syria are forced to be under nutrition which puts them in danger of permanent physical and psychological harm. The country is facing a significant education crisis; approximately 47% of Syrian refugees in the region are below the age of eighteen and over one third of children lack schooling. Over 2.4 million children in Syria are not attending school and 1.6 million youngsters are in danger of leaving school.

Syria after Assad

The Russian foreign ministry on December 08, 2024 announced that Bashar Al Assad who had ruled Syria since 2000 has resigned from the role of president in Syria and he had been offered asylum in Russia. The collapse of the Assad regime was in the wake of an offensive from Hayat Tahrir Al Sham (HTS) and other opposition groups including the Syrian National Army (SNA) which was backed by Turkey, which was launched in November 2024 and resulted in the culmination of the capture of Damascus. What will happen in Syria in the coming years is still uncertain.

HTS has recently announced a transitional government and a general amnesty for the Syrian people who have been conscripted into the Assad regime. As per the opinion of the UN envoy for Syria “the conflict in the region has not ended yet”. Opposition groups are still continuing to compete for control over the territories with HTS and SNA taking control over the areas backed by US led Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces. In addition to this Israel also conducted military action against Syrian military and chemical weapons which facilitates the previously held Assad government and says it has temporarily occupied the Syria-Israel buffer zone. The prime minister appointed by Assad still remained in the Syrian capital and handed over the administration control on December 10, 2024 which was led by the past leaders of the HTS administration in Idlib where HTS was officially based. This administration will remain till March 01, 2025. The opposition forces continue to be ununited and the country still remains divided. The most likely beneficiary of the Assad regime is Turkey because Turkey had failed in negotiations with Assad for normalising the relations in 2023 and 2024 with the motive of return of refugees from Turkey. As per the reports of UNHCR, Turkey hosts about 2.9 million refugees of Syria. For Lebanon and Iran, the fall of Assad regime is a strategic defeat for ‘axis of resistance’ . This is a network of terrorist groups that Iran has developed which includes Iraqi Militia, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Assad in Syria , Hamas in Gaza and Houthis in Yemen in order to counter and threaten the Israel attack.

Conclusion

The continuity of the Syrian crisis since 2011 is a live example of failure of the present-day global system. Syria is ranked third on the International Rescue Committee’s watch list for nations because of the large scale humanitarian crises taking place in Syria. The global powers including inter-governmental organizations and self-proclaimed champions of world peace failed to achieve a consensus on the Syrian issue . There should be a fresh and innovative approach towards the crisis and major powers including US and Europe should adopt a novel strategy that effectively tackles the present issues. Mediators in the issue should be cautious of evolving multi-dimensional security landscapes in the present day conflicts. The conflict resolution strategies should be decentralised and inter-governmental organisations should make an effort to adapt to that. The Syrian crisis necessities the importance for a strong and peaceful conflict resolution not only Syria but for the entire Middle Eastern region.

Why is Myanmar a destabilised Democracy?

2

By: Saziya Asgar & Shubh Gupta

Myanmar: source Internet

In the last quarter of 20th century, the third wave of democratisationoccurred which has shaped geopolitical landscape in a tremendous way. Similarly, after Covid-19, there has been a trend of rise of authoritarianism across the world. Several nations are shifting towards authoritarian regimes, Myanmar being the latest one. In 2020 elections were held in Myanmar which resulted into the National League for Democracy (NLD) getting the second term but Myanmar’s military, the Tatmadaw refused to accept the results of election and this was followed by a coup in Myanmar.

Achieving a successful transition to democracy necessitates the establishment of effective civilian-led institutions to oversee the military, a task made more challenging in nations with a deep-seated tradition of militarism and where the military holds significant political and institutional power. Given the military activism of Tatmadaw, it seems less likely that Myanmar will witness democratic transition. Despite the strides made by the NLD in instituting democratic procedures in Myanmar, the military coup of February 2021 exposed the government’s inability to assert civilian authority over the junta. This coup has propelled the nation and its trajectory into unfamiliar terrain. Yet we can be hopeful that, international mediation could be helpful in this instance. Many countries came forward and put economic sanctions against Myanmar after the coup. Since the coup, the country’s former coloniser UK, too has now sanctioned several individuals and entitiesspecifically targeting those responsible for the coups. “We must not allow Myanmar to become a forgotten crisis,” declared the UK representative Barbara Woodward. He further underscored the need of appointing an UN Special Envoy to Myanmar.

According to Human Rights watch, “Myanmar’s Junta Benefits from Weak International Response”.  Many countries like China and Russia have blocked the effect of sanctions on Myanmar. They have emerged as one of the most potent enablers of military junta. They have also blocked any substantive action against Myanmar’s military at United Nations Security Council and the UN has failed to address this humanitarian crisis.

Introduction

“Myanmar is at risk of breaking apart”.These are not the words of an international media outlet but the words of Myanmar’s President himself. Even after 7 decades of Independence, the country of “The Land of Golden Pagodas” has not been able to unite and now it’s more fragmented than ever. According to Reuters, Myint Swe, the president of the State Administration Council, told a National Defence and Security Council meeting, “If the government does not effectively manage the incidents happening in the border region, the country will be split into various parts”.

The statement comes at a point, when in the east, The Rebel Brotherhood Alliance comprising of three ethnic armies are driving Junta out of power in Shan Province of Myanmar, and on the western front the Chin are fiercely fighting the Junta resulting in Junta forces fleeing to neighbouring countries such as India. In this paper, we shall examine the story of this Golden Land and why it has failed to transition to a stable democratic system, what are the factors behind this fragile socio-political scenario and what can the world learn from Myanmar’s experience.

Historical Context

Myanmar is a country in Southeast Asia. Right since it’s very independence the country has been struggling for democracy and human rights. However, despite this Civil War-like situations have continued to prevail in the country and any dissent is brutally crushed by its military rulers. Like most of its Asian neighbours, Myanmar too became prey to British colonialism after the three Anglo-Burmese wars. The Britishers were later ousted by the Japanese during the time of the First World War. It was during this time that an effective Burmese Movement was formed.

Myanmar is a diverse country with more than 130 ethnicities. In these ethnicities, the majority is that of the Bamar people. This group constitutes 2/3rd of the country’s entire population. The group enjoys a superior position and majority representation in both civilian and Military government.  Thus, after the country’s independence, several ethnic and armed insurgents have fought for greater autonomy.

After the end of 2nd World War, the Local Army with the support of the “Allied Forces gained control over Myanmar. This local army was led by Aung San who is also revered as the Father of the Nation. In 1947, General Aung San led the Burma delegation to London to negotiate for the country’s independence. He along with leaders of other ethnic groups namely Chin, Shan, And Kachin, signed the PANGLONG Agreement, which was primarily an agreement on the transnational arrangements emerging after World War II.  The agreement aimed to make Burma a federal state and to give autonomy to non-Barman ethnic groups.

In 1948, Like most other countries in the region, the Union of Burma became a parliamentary democracy. However, the representative democracy only lasted till 1962 when General Na Win led a military coup and seized power. The state was run by URC or the United Revolutionary Council. It implemented the Burmese way of Socialism. This was followed by the nationalisation of all major industries. Consequently, a parallel economy emerged because of these harsh government restrictions. The economic situation deteriorated with massive poverty food and widespread corruption. This was accompanied by food shortages. On August 08, 1988, the country saw the biggest pro-democracy protests in its history which too was brutally crushed by the army. The “8888” uprising ultimately ended with the death of at least 3 thousand civilians and displacing of thousands more.

By this movement, Burmese politics took an unexpected turn as the Nationalist leader Aung San Suu Kui, the daughter of Aung Sang rose to prominence. After the Junta’s massive crackdown on innocent civilians, Sui and her supporters formed a political party known as the National League for Democracy, or NLD in short.

Suu finished her graduation from India and married a British National. Suu was deeply influenced by the non-violent struggle of Indian Independence leader Mahatma Gandhi. By the late 2000s, under domestic and international pressure Myanmar’s Junta began to loosen its grip on power. However, as noted by the “Human Rights Watch” even the new constitution of 2008 was designed to perpetuate military control in Burma and obstruct any steps toward a meaningful multiparty democracy that upholds human rights. The constitution reserved 25% of seats for the military in the “Pyidaungsu Hluttaw,” Myanmar’s Parliament. According to the new constitution, any amendment in the constitution would require more than 75% of Votes, thus ensuring an effective de facto veto for the Military.

Today Suu is perceived as a force of democratisation and modernisation. She won the 2015 elections and became the de facto ruler of Myanmar. However, American Journalist Kurlantzick notes that “she failed to strengthen democracy and to create democratic bulwarks.” Her international image further took a hit when she defended the military on the international platforms on the issue of the Rohingya Genocide. However, she has also been an outspoken critic of the Military’s influence in Myanmar’s politics. NLD promised to establish internal peace, redress ethnic grievances, sustainable development, and further democratisation. Her push for the deepening of democracy further made the Junta insecure about its power. In 2020 NLD won a landslide victory but the Military Generals refused to accept the results arguing that the elections were fraudulent.

In February 2021, the Military citing its constitutional authority declared National Emergency and seized power. Since then, the Military has been ruthlessly consolidating power.

Ethnic Diversity

As discussed above Myanmar is full of diversity very much like it’s neighbors such as India on the west and Singapore on its east. However, Myanmar has not been able to manage these diversities in a manner that satisfies both regional aspirations of the Minorites and it’s National Interests. It’s interesting to note that, India on the other hand has been able to ensure movement and mingling of people through set of diverse policies encompassing inter-state coordination, central government services coupled with affirmative actions, anti-discriminative law, creation of all India services. Such feats are yet to be achieved by the Myanmar’s administrative apparatus.

On the other side, we have Singapore, a small island nation whose history is marred by a series of ethnic clashes with the most violent ones occurring in the 1960s is now a first world country. So, the obvious question that one might want to ponder is why countries like Singapore and India were able to ensure harmony, despite the history of a bloody and brutal violence that followed during post-independence times.

Phenomenon of Ghettoization

The answer to such questions can be understood by applying the phenomenon of Ghettoization. According to the United States holocaust memorial museum the term “Ghetto” originated from the name of a Jewish quarter in Venice. The jews over here were restricted to live and thus segregated from other people. Merriam Webster defines a ghetto is a part of a city in which members of a minority group live, especially as a result of political, social, legal, environmental or economic pressure. The process that results in such a phenomenon is known as Ghettoization. Such Ghettos are prevalent in Myanmar, consequently this has led to strengthening of regional and ethnic identities. However, it’s important to note that this Ghettoization is natural rather than enforced.

One of the main reasons that why this phenomenon is predominant is perhaps that people belonging to certain ethnicities find comfort in living in close-knit communities. If we look at the sociological theories explaining Ghettoization, the most suited explanations in context of Myanmar can be understood by applying a mix socio-psychological theory.

Application of Socio-Psychological Theories in Myanmar

 First is the Social Identity Theory. The theory was proposed by Tajfel and Turner in 1970s. The theory examines about the social identity of an individual, the theory tells us that in addition to our own individual identity we also possess a social identity, this social identity may be derived from nationality, religion and ethnicity. The latter will be our focus while examining the question of Ethnic Diversity in Myanmar and how has it led to fragile political conditions in the country. The theory delves into the human nature of maintaining a positive self-esteem.

In order to achieve this, individuals often tend view their groups as better and more civilized as compared to other groups and this results in people developing a bias against other communities. This leads to categorization of categories, when this categorization of territories is coupled with other factors such as perceived threat from the dominant/ rival groups, this can further lead to a sense of insecurity among a particular group. These fears coupled with in group favouritism may often manifest as ethnic conflicts. 

Many of these biases have been the cause of ethnic tensions in Myanmar, few examples are:  Bamar people often view Shan people as less educated and lazy. This is based on the presumption that most Shan people tend to live in the countryside and have no or little access to education. However, this is far from reality. Many Shan people are equally if not more educated than the dominant Bamar community. Additionally, these people are also viewed as criminals and drug smugglers, since most of the drug trade happens in Shan state of Myanmar. However, many Shan people strongly oppose drugs and besides they are not the only ones involved in drug trade.

Another example can be of Kachin people, who are viewed as violent and aggressive, partially due to the fact that Kachin people have a warrior culture and many of them are Christians rather Buddhists. In reality while Kachin people do have a warrior culture, they are also known for their hospitality and caring nature. On the other hand, it’s also important to note that 25% to 27% of Kachin people are non-Christians.

Such in-group biases further strengthen the existing stereotypes and this manifests in discriminations and ultimately leads to ethnic tensions. While social identity theory is useful to understand how social identity may play a role in creating animosities between two groups, it fails to solve our problem in a holistic manner, i.e. why is it that few societies are able to deal with ethnic tensions while others can’t.

 The Contact Hypothesis

 A solution to deal with these intergroup conflicts was provided by Gordon Allport in his “Theories of Intergroup Relations.” In this work he gave his famous “Contact Hypothesis,” the contact hypothesis he maintains that positive intergroup contact can lead to better relations between different groups. For such a positive intergroup contact to occur, he mentions few basic conditions. Let’s apply them in the context of Myanmar.

Equal status: The contacting groups should have more or less equal status. This was never achieved in Myanmar as Panglong agreement was never implemented in it’s true spirt, consequently the ethnicities were not devolved powers and were not given the autonomy that they hoped for. The central leadership was dominated by Bamar people and other ethnicities hardly got any representation there.

Common Goals & Intergroup cooperations: The contacting groups have certain degree of converging interests. In the initial days of independence, there was a convergence of interests for Myanmar’s independence, these shared interests was no longer there after independence. What’s interesting to note is that, these groups are once again coming together, as we have noted in the formation of rebel alliance. The longing for democracy is what’s binding Myanmar once again fostering a good bond and understanding between different ethnicities. Additionally, the rebels have shown remarkable degree of cooperation and consequently have exceeded Junta’s expectations. The coordinated attacks are a proof that inter group cooperation between different Ethnic groups is possible.

Support from authorities: Support from authorities is the crucial for any nation to blur ethnic distinctions and cherish it’s diversity. This state support was quite visible in Singapore. The Singaporean authorities actively took steps to ensure the same through a series of policy measures such as EIP (Ethnic Integration Policy) which ensured that people living in government housing were from a variety of ethnicities. Additionally, government also provide financial incentives for couples to engage in inter-racial marriages such as providing education subsidies to their children.

In contrast, the Myanmar’s junta has done the opposite. Subedi and Garnett in their 2020 paper has clearly highlighted how the state’s portrayal of diversity is often contradictory and hypocritical. While it does acknowledge the diversity, the state often suppresses the ethnic diversity in name of national unity and integration. Additionally, the Military has also taken specific policies to ensure that ethnic harmony is never forged, this has been done through a series of measures including control of state media, education boards and systematically fabricating stories. One such example is “Muslim Plot” narrative of 2016, where the Military fabricated a story that Muslim groups in Myanmar were planning to oust the government and establish an “Islamic State of Myanmar”, the majority of the Myanmar’s citizens became victims to this narrative, and it ultimately resulted in ethnic genocide of Rohingyas. Similarly, many of these artificially created ethnic tensions have been used as an excuse by Junta to maintain its group of power.

Military Activism of the Junta

Myanmar’s military has been the most powerful institution since the independence from Britain in 1948. This is due to a combination of factors largely structural and economic. Myanmar’s Military is involved in several profitable businesses such as Mining, Timber and Construction activities. Economic power has allowed Junta to procure new weapon systems including fighter jets, armored vehicles and helicopters. This factor has resulted in Tatmadaw becoming one of the most powerful militaries in the South East Asian region.

This raises the question that “What should be the ideal model of Civil-Military relations in a democratic setting.” According to Huntington in his book “The Soldier and The State”, the most desirable form of civil military relation in a democracy is “objective Civilian Control over Military.” This model suggests that the optimal means of asserting control over the armed forces is to professionalize them and at the same time by giving them professional autonomy in their internal affairs. The model also mentions about simultaneously maximizing military subordination and Military fighting power. To sum up the model advocates for the separation of civil-military institutions and non-involvement of Military in domestic politics and clear distribution of power between military and civilian government by explicitly stating legal and institutional frameworks.

Huntington also talks about another model of civil-military relations i.e. subjective civilian control. It suggests to maximize civilian power by both civilizing and politicizing military and therefore making it politically dependent and denying any military professionalism. This ensures that military is directly integrated into the civilian state, while this would mean that military will be more directly accountable to the people in the latter case, it could also result in politicization of the army and at the same time the civilian interference may affect military’s decision-making process and this may lead to serious lapses in national security.

On applying the model of Objective civilian control, we find there is little evidence to suggest that Myanmar has democratic civil-military relations. Tatmadaw operates virtually without any parliamentary oversight. We don’t find any objective control since there is no clear distinction of power distribution between the military and civilian government. The government is not permitted to interfere in the appointment and promotion of Military personnel.

Tatmadaw directly controls three ministerial portfolios i.e. Defense, Home Affairs and Border Area Affairs. The other avenues through which Tatmadaw can exercise its influence is National Defense and Security Council (NDSC) where commander in chief of Junta controls six out of eleven members and thereby giving him a majority in the NDSC.

However, it’s important to note that military control has become a common phenomenon in many of the post-colonial states of the third world. Including Pakistan and Bangladesh. In this regard a country like Myanmar can learn from India where by the 1970s, Indian armed forces were rendered coup proof by comprehensive system of checks and balances. Myanmar too could have achieved this by diversifying ethnic composition, a strategy that was also used by the Mongols, recasting the order of precedence between civilian and military authorities and disallowing army officials from making public statement. However, this model was never implemented in Myanmar due to strong hold of military since independence from Britain. After all, it was the father of the nation that formed the Burmese National Army in 1940s with Japan’s support. And therefore, even after his death people continued to view military as liberating force and so the military enjoyed unchecked power from the very beginning. For this reason, renowned Burmese historian Thant-Myunt-u in his book the “Hidden history of Burma” notes that the modern state of Burma was born as a military occupation.

The military activism of Junta is further sustained in its propaganda machinery.

Propaganda of Tatmadaw

After coup of 2021 and brutal crackdown on popular resistance, military has become country’s most hated institution. But Tatmadaw with its use of legitimation strategies is still maintaining its authority both domestically and internationally and somehow managed to stay in power.

To understand the role of Propaganda in legitimising Junta’s role we can apply different theories. One such theory given by Noam Chomsky is Manufacture of Consent Theory which suggests that powerful institutions including military use propaganda to manipulate public opinion and then take control over the flow of public information. This theory can be used to describe the efforts of Myanmar’s Military to maintain control over the country and its people. For this military has engaged in a variety of methods and has systematically suppressed dissent.  The Gramscian idea of cultural hegemony or soft power can also be applied to our case study of Junta’s rule. Tatmadaw has patronised cultural and art institutions promoting nationalistic narratives and portraying itself as the Guardian of Myanmar’s traditions.

Another such strategy is the control over the media. The Military junta has used constitutional amendments and legal framework to exert it’s control over the media. In 2011 military junta stepped in and initiated democratisation. Government undertook several policy measures like abolishing restrictions like pre-publication censorship, removed restrictions on the content of newspapers, etc. But in 2021 when the coup was staged, media restrictions were formalised and integrated into legal system through numerous amendments to the existing criminal laws. Myanmar’s State Administration Council [SAC] established by the military after 2021 coup, has approved a series of changes that criminalise peaceful demonstration. Article 38[d] and [e] impose criminal penalties for accessing unauthorised online content. The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has described Myanmar as the third worst country when it comes to jailing journalists. Similarly, Internet service providers have begun to restrict access to specific websites and social media such as Facebook and VPNs that can bypass internet filtering.

Impacting Mass Psychology

In the aftermath of coup, the Junta came with a perfect candidate to mass brainwash the civilians. Chit Naing, a social psychologist was appointed as Minister of Information. State owned print media such as Myawaddy and Ngwe-tar-yi in addition with pro-military newspapers such as Pydaungsu play a prominent role in spreading Junta’s propaganda.  In order to seek support from various ethnic parties the Junta also tried to popularise slogans such as “Eternal Peace” and “Unity is Strength”.

The propaganda is not just limited to print media but is also entrenched in television and radio networks such as MRTV. These television networks try to portray the Junta as the saviour of the Burmese people. The channels play clips of Junta’s Senior officials engaged in charitable works and donations to Monks, Nuns, Monasteries and Pagodas. However, in this age of digital revolution, propaganda on social media was essential to Junta’s soft power strategy. For this purpose, Junta pushed it’s propaganda through Facebook pages such as “Tatmadaw True News Information TV” and “People Media.” The Reuters reported that more than 200 personal accounts of Military personnels on various social media platforms including YouTube, Facebook and Tik-Tok have been used to allege that the 2020 elections were fraudulent.

News outlets such as Kyemon (The Mirror) have continued to justify Myanmar’s Junta’s role in National politics as a patriotic actor to ensure stability in Myanmar.

Websites of Ethnic armed organisations such as KNU also document Junta’s historic role in perpetuating the discourse of National Unity and justifying suppression of Karen people under its name. Similarly, on the international front, the Military reiterated that there won’t be any change in foreign policy and the Military will continue to pursue friendly relations with all its partners. Narratives such as “When there is discipline, there is progress” were repeatedly evoked to convey that Myanmar’s Junta was committed to serving the nation.

Role of International Community & the way ahead

In an era of globalisation where the entire world is dependent on one another, international actors can play a very important role in shaping the direction of any conflict. In this section, we shall examine the role of international actors in shaping the conflict and its outcomes. Further, we shall conclude our article by suggesting a way ahead in navigating the conflict.

To begin with, let us focus on the reaction of the two major poles in the international system, which is increasingly becoming bipolar. Both China and the USA claim to stand with the people of Myanmar, however, both have different and even contrasting approaches to the conflict. While the USA has strongly condemned the military coup and has imposed numerous sanctions, China on the other hand is heavily investing in Myanmar and is providing a cover to Junta on a global level. This investment is visible through projects such as the rail-road-Indian Ocean Route, a trade route connecting Southwest China with Myanmar and neighbouring countries. While most countries such as India and the ASEAN nations, paused and some even terminated their investment, China continues to invest in the military lead Myanmar. However, considering that China as an ally of Tatmadaw, may not show us the full picture, while China initially distanced itself from the coup, and later supported Junta, it has also maintained friendly ties with the ethnic armed groups. This was visible in Operation 1027 by the Northern Alliance in Shan state which was allegedly conducted with China’s involvement and approval.

This approach makes China an important player in the conflict. This has allowed China to play the role of a good mediator to broker cease-fire agreements from time to time. For instance, under the recent agreement between the two warring parties, the Military, and the resistance forces, two sides have decided to withdraw their forces from the forefront in Northern Shan state to protect the Chinese investments in the region.

If we put our focus on the Western Powers such as the USA, they have frozen accounts of Burmese Banks such as Myanmar Foreign Trade Bank (MFTB) and Myanmar Investment and Commercial Bank (MICB). This has significantly impacted the regime’s ability to profit from natural resources available in the country as mentioned in the fourth section of the paper. This has limited Tatmadaw’s access to foreign currency reserves. Consequently, Myanmar’s FDI inflow declined in 8 months of FY 2023-24. This shows a lack of investor confidence and the Junta’s inability to convince the world about its capability to consolidate power like it once had.

Other powers such as Russia continue to provide cushion to Myanmar’s Junta by delivering it with Military supplies which are crucial to maintain the Areial power of the Junta. This support is further visible by the high-level visits between Russian officials and the Myanmar junta, as well as the conferment of an honorary doctorate upon Junta Military Chief Min Aung Hlaing. Coming to the ASEAN nation Laos, which also happens to be Myanmar’s immediate neighbour, has appointed a special envoy to Myanmar, signaling a change from previous approaches. Coming to Singapore, a small yet powerful nation has taken a significant step by notifying Myanmar banks that it would limit their access to funds and would only allow transactions between UOB accounts. Following the US footsteps, Bangladesh too has severed its financial ties with Myanmar’s Junta by freezing MFTB and MICB accounts. Relations between the two states were already soured after the Rohingya crisis and now they have deteriorated even further.

Coming to India, we have traditionally engaged with Myanmar’s ruling powers, prioritizing security. However, the current situation demands a recalibration as joint India-Myanmar projects such as the Kaladan Multi-Modal Transit Transport Project are now controlled by Ethnic armed forces such as the Arakan Army. Further, it may also be noted that India cannot simply ignore the Myanmar Crisis because if the Crisis worsens India may see a huge influx of refugees which will be detrimental to the nation’s security. Due to such apprehensions, India has also suspended the free movement regime with Myanmar.

The above analysis clearly points out the challenges of navigating through this complex conflict in Myanmar. Similar to any tricky situation, the first step to be taken involves having an open and frank conversation with the parties involved for any possible solution to take hold. There should be increased support from, the international community. The world must play a more active role in facilitating discussions between all stakeholders.

The bottom line is that unless the crisis in Myanmar receives renewed attention, progress towards a solution will remain elusive. Open communication serves as the foundation for resolving any dispute. In conclusion, the adage “For a problem to be solved, it must be talked upon” applies perfectly to the situation in Myanmar.

Bangladesh’s growing Military aggressiveness towards India

1

By: Megha Mittal, Research Analyst, GSDN

Indian Army and Bangladesh Army logos: source Internet

The relationship between Bangladesh and India was based on mutual cooperation that has taken an alarming turn in recent times towards military aggression. With the political transition in Bangladesh on August 5, 2024, this transition has taken the two countries on a slippery slope. The departure of Sheikh Hasina and the rise of an interim government under Professor Muhammad Yunus have not only altered the political landscape but have also sparked a series of military confrontations and heightened border tensions, which has left a very significant departure from the traditionally amicable ties between the two neighbors.

At the heart of this new direction lies a growing sense of military assertiveness in Bangladesh’s foreign policy, which is apparently fueled by several factors. The internal political shift, along with a desire to reaffirm sovereignty and reassert Bangladesh’s strategic autonomy, has led to an increasingly confrontational stance toward India. Bangladesh has increased its aggression in the military approach regarding border killings, territorial conflicts, and even the suspicion of Indian interference in their domestic affairs. It signaled a shift from diplomatic engagement to military posturing.

Problems such as the unwritten agreement on Teesta water, the safety of minorities and frequent border clash have contributed to the build-up in tension between two nations. With the caretaker government still in power these unresolved problems have taken the shape of a new surge. It now focuses more upon military preparedness and deterrence to solve the disputed issues than through diplomacy. This aggressive shift in policy is actually a response to what seems to be India’s assertion of Bangladesh’s sovereignty especially in light of growing dissent at home against India influence during Hasina’s rule.

Additionally, rising military assertiveness has been accompanied by increased nationalist rhetoric and a greater focus on territorial integrity for Bangladesh. Military forces have remained on high alert, responded with force to border incidents, and increasing rhetoric has led to a call for revisiting the security dynamics of the region. The renewed focus on military capability and defense preparedness in Bangladesh underscores the desire to challenge India’s strategic dominance and project power in the region.

Historical Relations between Bangladesh and India

Bangladesh and India have a history of cooperation, especially since the 1971 Liberation War, when India helped Bangladesh gain independence. Over the years, the relationship has been characterized by strategic cooperation in areas such as trade, security, and cultural ties. India and Bangladesh also collaborated on shared issues like water resources, particularly the regulation of the Ganges and Brahmaputra rivers.

However, these unresolved issues of border management, Teesta water-sharing agreement, and border killings created some tensions. Sheikh Hasina’s leadership had continued a good relationship with India; however, the opposition in Bangladesh viewed Indian influence as detrimental to sovereignty.

The political transition in Bangladesh in 2024, with the rise of an interim government, has changed the dynamics. Growing military assertiveness and a desire to reclaim autonomy have replaced the earlier era of strategic alignment and have led to a more confrontational approach, especially on border issues and alleged Indian interference in domestic politics.

Recent Military Developments and Escalations

Bangladesh has recently fielded Turkish-made Bayraktar TB2s along the border with India, sparking strategic concerns for New Delhi. The Bayraktar TB2, made famous by a 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, is a medium-altitude long-endurance drone used specifically for surveillance and precision strike. Capable of flying well over 24 hours at a time and carrying targets up to 300 kilometers out, Bayraktars are loaded with laser-guided missiles, allowing these drones to target ground forces and infrastructure.

Deployment of such highly advanced drones along the India-Bangladesh border is perceived as an important development in the region’s military dynamics. Increased defense cooperation with Turkey, especially at this time, when the defense systems have been strategically located, appears to be Bangladesh’s desperate attempt to shore up its military capacities amid heightened tensions in the region. The border between India and Bangladesh, which stretches across diverse terrains of mountains, rivers, and dense forests, is challenging for traditional military surveillance, making drones an effective tool in such a setting.

While Bangladesh claims the drones are for defensive purposes, their strategic importance, especially in a sensitive border area cannot be ignored by India. Advanced UAV technology can change the military balance, especially in areas with limited physical surveillance capabilities. This move is another addition to the increasing military capability in the region, with Pakistan also having acquired Bayraktar TB2 drones. India now faces heightened challenges in terms of drone warfare, further complicating the security environment along its eastern border and intensifying the arms race in South Asia.

India’s Strategic Military Response

India has intensified security measures along the India-Bangladesh border, particularly in the strategic West Bengal region, after Bangladesh recently deployed Turkish-made Bayraktar TB2 drones as part of a major build-up. Following reports that Bangladesh had placed the advanced UAVs for intelligence-gathering and potential strike missions, the Indian government, led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, deployed its own array of UAVs to assert control over the area.

The Indian forces have introduced a batch of domestically developed UAVs, including Heron TP, along with other models for surveillance. These will aim to nullify Bayraktar TB2’s intelligence-gathering potential and improve India’s mechanism of border surveillance. Deployment of such UAVs will clearly indicate that the Indians mean business regarding the security of airspace over Indian Territory and will prevent unauthorized encroachments into Indian airspace, especially around the vulnerable “chicken neck” corridor through which Northeast India connects with the rest of India.

Bangladesh claims that the drones are for defensive and surveillance purposes, while the strategic implications of their proximity to India’s border have alarmed the nation. The Bayraktar TB2, with its advanced surveillance and precision strike capabilities, has raised alarm over the potential use of these drones for more aggressive operations, especially given the recent escalation in political instability within Bangladesh. The country’s internal unrest, along with growing ties between Bangladesh and other geopolitical actors like China and Pakistan, has further complicated the situation.

India’s response is the deployment of UAVs, such as the Heron TP, in defense of its territorial integrity. These drones can carry out long-duration surveillance and are part of a larger strategy by India to dominate the airspace near the Bangladesh border, countering any perceived threats from Bangladesh’s military maneuvers.

Regional Stability and Future Relations Implications

Bangladesh has just deployed Turkish-made Bayraktar TB2 drones along its border with India, which in turn prompted India to intensify UAV surveillance along that frontier. The consequences for the stability of the region will be profound. This new move by Bangladesh, purporting to use high-end UAVs strictly for defensive purposes, signals a significant change in the security balance in South Asia. The Bayraktar TB2 drones, renowned for reconnaissance capabilities and precision strikes, might heighten tensions in that region, especially in a place like West Bengal due to the strategic importance around the sensitive “chicken neck” corridor.

India’s response, deploying its own Heron TP UAVs and increasing border surveillance, is a reflection of the growing militarization of the region and the dependence on advanced technology in the defense strategy. This high-tech arms race may create a higher risk of unwanted confrontations or miscalculations along the border.

The Bangladesh-China-Pakistan growing ties, such as with the acquisition of modernized military technology, might therefore change the regional power structure and make it increasingly hostile to India. Because of Bangladesh’s leaning towards China and Pakistan, the dynamics of these developments can become a shift towards an antithesis security alignment with which India cannot be expected to coexist peacefully. The dual deployment of UAVs by both nations underlines the increasing militarization of the South Asian region, and it may lead to increased instability and make diplomacy a more difficult task.

Conclusion

The recent escalation in military tensions between Bangladesh and India, with the former deploying Bayraktar TB2 drones and the latter countering, marked a new and worrying phase of their bilateral relations. That shift, fueled by Bangladesh’s desire to assert sovereignty and India’s response to perceived security threats, marked a departure from cooperation that once defined their relationship. The introduction of advanced unmanned aerial technologies into the region presents novel complexities, militarily and diplomatically, thereby ratcheting up the stakes for regional stability.

This changing security scenario reflects a larger trend in South Asia, in which the focus of military preparedness and sophistication could easily outstrip even the best diplomatic channels. That both claim their actions defensive in nature notwithstanding, the presence of those advanced weapon systems, accompanied by a growing militarization in the region, increases chances of a possible accidental confrontations or miscalculations. The dynamics of these tensions are further complicated by Bangladesh’s shifting foreign policy, especially its growing alignment with China and Pakistan, which could further isolate India and alter regional power balances.

In light of these developments, a protracted and dangerous standoff appears likely unless both countries put more emphasis on diplomatic dialogue. South Asia’s security architecture may depend on whether India and Bangladesh can de-escalate their military posturing and return to a path of negotiation addressing long-standing disputes while navigating geopolitical pressures that influence both nations. The path ahead will demand careful calibration of military and diplomatic strategies to ensure that stability in the region is achieved and the broader consequences of this rivalry do not destabilize South Asia further.

Eyeing Make in India, Foreign Firms Bring Cutting Edge Technologies to Aero India 2025

1

By: Suman Sharma

Lockheed Martin F-21: source Author

Aimed at wooing the Indian defence market foreign aerospace firms are vying to showcase their might at the biennial airshow – Aero India, taking place in Bengaluru from February 10-14, 2025.

MBDA missiles on a Rafale: source Author

MBDA

The French missile manufacturer-MBDA is gearing up to showcase its advanced missile systems designed to support the Indian Armed Forces in their mission to safeguard Indian sovereignty.

MBDA’s cutting-edge weapon systems arming the Indian Air Force’s (IAF) Rafale combat aircraft, including the Meteor beyond visual range air-to-air missile, the SCALP deep-strike cruise missile, and the versatile MICA missile will be on display at this year’s airshow. These highly potent set of weapons from MBDA give the IAF an air combat capability that is unrivalled by any of India’s neighbours. The most famous of these weapons is the Meteor beyond visual range air-to-air missile, which is widely recognised as a game-changer for air combat. The Meteor is powered by a unique rocket-ramjet motor that gives it a far greater engine power, enhancing its endurance compared to any other missile of the same class, meaning it can fly faster, longer, and manoeuvre better, resulting in Meteor’s no-escape zone many times greater than any other air-to-air missile.

India’s Rafale fighter jets are also be equipped with the SCALP deep-strike cruise missile from MBDA to strike hardened and protected targets deep inside hostile territory, along with MICA, a potent air combat missile, which is also part of the IAF’s upgrade package for the Mirage 2000 aircraft. MBDA is also proposing all these potent weapons, as well as the famous Exocet AM39 air launched anti-ship missile for the Rafale M for the Indian Navy’s new aircraft carrier.

MBDA has been delivering battle-winning capabilities to the IAF and collaborating with the Indian industry for over 50 years.  MBDA and the Indian private defence manufacturer Larsen & Toubro (L&T) have a Coimbatore-based joint venture named LTMMSL, which will showcase its Make in India projects at Aero India 2025, including short range surface to air missile systems for the Indian Navy and the latest generation anti-tank missiles (ATGM5) for the Indian Army.

MBDA aims at providing the very best technologies to the Indian armed forces, and to work in true partnership in support of the Indian defence industry, to fulfill its commitment towards the ‘Make in India’ programme.

Other examples of technological edge equipping the IAF include the ASRAAM within visual range air combat missiles. ASRAAM is providing the IAF’s Jaguar fleet with a step-change in air combat performance – a capability that will soon also enhance the IAF’s new Tejas LCA Mk1A.

Meanwhile the MBDA Mistral ATAM system has been successfully integrated on the indigenous Advanced Light Helicopter (ALH) and the Light Combat Helicopter (LCH).

Lockheed Martin MH-60R: source Author

Lockheed Martin

American aircraft giant Lockheed Martin is unveiling its immersive Vast™ experience system in India for the first time at the 15th biennial edition of Aero India. The company is highlighting its vision for the 21st century security® solutions with a focus on integrated capabilities on offer to the Indian armed forces.

The immersive Vast™ experience is hoping to be the prime attraction at the Lockheed Martin booth, providing visitors with access to a system that brings multi-domain missions to life through interactive 3D visualisations.

The company’s exhibit will also showcase its most innovative capabilities, including the C-130J Super Hercules tactical airlifter, F-21 fighter aircraft, MH-60R “Romeo” multi-mission helicopter, Javelin® weapon system and S-92 multi-role helicopter among others.

 “Aero India has been a leading platform for Lockheed Martin and the aerospace and defence sector for many years, and we look forward to our participation this year with the Vast™ Experience System,” said William L. Blair, Vice President and regional chief executive, Asia and India, Lockheed Martin, adding, “Building on our deep partnerships with the Indian industry, we look forward to showcasing some of our advanced capabilities that address our customers’ biggest challenges for the 21st Century and grow our presence and partnerships that support greater self-reliance in the defence sector.”

Boosting Lockheed Martin’s presence at the show will be the C-130J Super Hercules aircraft model which represents a strong legacy of partnership with the Indian defence industry. The IAF operates 12 C-130Js to support a variety of tactical airlift missions. India also is connected to the C-130J through Tata Lockheed Martin Aerostructures Limited, a joint venture, that has the distinction of being the single-global source of C-130J empennage assemblies included on all new Super Hercules aircraft, worldwide.

In 2024, the company expanded its commitment to India through a teaming agreement with Tata Advanced Systems Limited (TASL) to expand upon the companies’ business relationship through the C-130J Super Hercules tactical airlifter on future potential business opportunities to include:

  • Establishing a Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul (MRO) facility in India to support the IAF’s existing fleet of 12 C-130Js as well as other global Super Hercules fleets.
  • Expanding C-130J manufacturing and assembly in India to produce aircraft for the IAF’s MTA program, subject to U.S. and Indian government approvals.

AnF-21 fighter aircraft model,which is on offer to the IAF for the Multi-Role Fighter Aircraft (MRFA) competition, will be on display at the show. The model is configured with the latest sensors and mission avionic systems that couple on-board and off-board data information into an effective, easy to manage combat situation display. 

TheMH-60R “Romeo” SEAHAWK® helicopter will occupy a prominent place at the Lockheed Martin’s Aero India display. The MH-60R is the most capable and mature Anti-Submarine (ASW)/Anti-Surface Warfare (ASuW) multi-mission helicopter available in the world today. Ten MH-60R helicopters are presently available to the Indian Navy for operations. A total of 24 MH-60Rs will be delivered to India over the next year.

Javelin, the world’s most versatile, one-man-portable and multi-purpose weapon system, also will be part of Lockheed Martin’s exhibit at Aero India. The anti-tank weapon system can be deployed by its traditional man-portable manner as well as from multiple platforms and used during the day, at night and in any kind of weather. Using fire-and-forget technology, Javelin provides operational flexibility so that operators can rapidly engage and then move on to a new firing position, affording the highest level of survivability to the user.

S-92®multi-rolehelicopter is connected to India through the Tata Sikorsky Aerospace Limited, a joint venture, that has the distinction of being fully integrated into Lockheed Martin’s global supply chain for manufacturing aerostructure components for the S-92 helicopter.

Yours Geopolitically Khaund: The Taliban-India Meet in Doha-A Strategic Outreach?

0

By: Anuraag Khaund

Afghanistan & India’s flags: source Internet

The day of January 08, 2025 saw India’s Foreign Secretary Vikrant Misri meeting Taliban’s Foreign Minister Mawlawi Amir Khan Muttaqi in the city of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This meeting was a viewed as a dramatic beginning to the new year of 2025 on the foreign policy front given the latter being the first kind of engagement between New Delhi and the new regime in Afghanistan at such a high level despite previous attempts such as the stationing of a ‘technical team’ in the Indian embassy in Kabul in 2022 and interactions with high-profile Taliban members such as Acting Defence Minister Mullah Yaqub, son of former leader Mullah Omar and JP Singh, joint secretary of Pakistan-Afghanistan-Iran division of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA). The meeting in Doha saw both the sides taking stock of the Indian humanitarian assistance in the country with Misri underscoring India’s  ‘readiness to respond to the needs of the Afghan people’, especially in health and rehabilitation of refugees as well as New Delhi’s commitment to continue its development and humanitarian activities on Afghan soil.

While there exists no doubt regarding the above outreach as an exercise on the part of India maintaining a balance between its interests and the reality of the current situation in Afghanistan, also noteworthy is the timing of the same. The Misri- Muttaqi meeting comes in the heels of exacerbated tensions along the Af-Pak border after the conduction of airstrikes by Islamabad inside Afghan territory aimed at dismantling alleged hideouts of the Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) outfit in the eastern Afghan province of Paktika on December 24 last year. The strikes, resulting in the death of 46 civilians, including women and children as per the Taliban were responded by the latter in the forms of attacks on multiple points along the Pakistani side of the border targeting centres of ‘malicious elements and their supporters who organised and coordinated attacks in Afghanistan’.  India was quick to react soon after by releasing a formal statement condemning the civilian casualties in the conflict while also highlighting Pakistan’s ‘old habit to blame its neighbours for its own internal failures’ – an apparent reference to the Pakistani deep state’s old strategy of harbouring utilizing militants to foster instability in neighbouring countries which had come back to haunt it. This formal condemnation can be seen as an attempt by New Delhi at exploiting the rift between the Taliban and its erstwhile patron at a time when seismic changes are being witnessed in South Asia much to the detriment of India’s security concerns.

One such major development has been the recent blossoming of strategic convergence between Pakistan and Bangladesh, especially in the aftermath of the overthrow of Sheikh Hasina government on August 2024. This convergence was first witnessed in the meeting between Lt Gen SM Kamr-ul Hssan, principal staff officer (PSO) as well as second-in-command of the Bangladesh Army and Pakistani Army Chief Gen. Asim Munir on January 16, 2025  for the enhancement of bilateral defence cooperation including the training of Bangladeshi officials by Rawalpindi. This was followed by the docking of ships from Karachi on the Chittagong Port twice  as the first step towards the establishment of direct maritime links for fostering bilateral trade. More worryingly for India, the interim Yunus administration has removed the earlier clause of mandatory inspection of Pakistan-origin goods or cargo arriving in Bangladesh as well as the security verification of Pakistani nationals or individuals with Pakistani origin setting foot in the country. Such unfettered access could be exploited by inimical and anti-India elements to target the North-Eastern (NE) part of India bordering Bangladesh by exploiting existing unrest in states such as Manipur while also funnelling material support to NE based separatist outfits and not to mention the trafficking of drugs and penetration by terrorist elements in the region.

An example back in time would be the 2004 Chittagong Arms Haul involving the transportation of Chinese and Singapore origin weapon consignments received at Chittagong port to the camps of the United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA) on Bangladeshi soil for later distribution to rebel groups inside India. Far more alarming was the suggestion for a Nuclear Treaty between Islamabad and Dhaka in order to boost the latter’s nuclear capability against India−an idea which has found much reception amongst the anti-India and ultra-nationalist segments of Bangladeshi strategic circles.

From this perspective, New Delhi’s act of exhibiting tacit solidarity with the Taliban can be seen as a response to Islamabad’s attempts at finding common cause with Dhaka aimed at Indian security and regional interests. However, the current engagement with the ruling dispensation in Kabul goes beyond the Pakistan factor to include other aspects of India’s strategic calculus. Foremost, is the need to maintain a foothold in post-US Afghanistan especially in the face of increasing Chinese presence as well as overtures to the Taliban regime. Beijing became the first country to not only appoint an ambassador to its embassy in Kabul post-2021 but also accept the credentials of  the Taliban-appointed envoy to China in 2024−actions which were justified in terms of normal diplomatic protocol and rotational procedures rather than outright recognition.

Moreover, the increasing Western-led attempts at isolating the Taliban and actions such as the freezing of Afghan overseas assets worth US$ 9 billion by the US has only served to push the regime towards further alignment with China whereby the latter is invited to exploit the reserves of strategic minerals like lithium and copper as well as oil within Afghanistan in return for economic aid and investment. Such conditions could create a relationship of dependency which could be exploited by Beijing to India’s detriment.

In response, New Delhi has begun shedding its hesitation while becoming more receptive towards the idea of pragmatic outreach towards the new regime in Kabul. This was witnessed in the tacit acceptance of the ‘Taliban appointed’ acting consul in the Afghan Consulate based in Mumbai which can be interpreted as a signalling of willingness to engage.  The focus on resuming development and humanitarian activities addressing health and refugee rehabilitation as well as fostering ties through cricket is a positive step in direction which would underline India’s credential as a ‘key regional and economic player’ as described by Muttaqi himself.

Especially important in this regard is the vexed issue of resuming Visa services for Afghan students and patients seeking education and healthcare respectively on Indian soil which was raised by the Taliban delegation in Doha. While such a decision cannot be taken easily given the compulsions and complications of security and other concerns, yet efforts should be made, in conjunction with security considerations, to restore India’s position as a favoured destination for education and health services in order to maintain and deepen the goodwill among the Afghan populace. Moreover, the Taliban itself has been willing to ‘strengthen political and economic cooperation’ with India as expressed in Doha which is an indication of the reciprocal sentiment as well as reception of the group towards New Delhi’s continued involvement in the country.

From the Taliban’s perspective, active engagement with India will not only bring economic and other benefits, but also push back against the narrative of the group being isolated and its identity of being a mere proxy of Pakistan with no autonomy of its own while also maintain pressure on Islamabad through its alignment with New Delhi. While Muttaqi’s claim of ‘present-day (Taliban ruled) Afghanistan not posing threat to any nation (including India)’ cannot be taken at face value, yet it is imperative to maintain continued Indian engagement in order to prevent the current regime from falling completely under the influence of China and by extension, its ‘iron ally’ Pakistan.

Another focal point of the interaction in Doha was the issue of promotion of trade, especially through the Iranian port of Chabahar marked by Indian investment and involvement. For long, the Chabahar has been touted as providing landlocked Afghanistan a pathway to access international markets and connectivity as an alternative to the Gwadar which was also welcomed by the Taliban. Despite the port’s importance especially in terms of facilitating multimodal connectivity initiatives such as the International North South Transport Corridor (INSTC) as well as providing Afghanistan an opportunity to join the same, yet the project remains un-utilized to its full potential. This especially true of India, along with Iran and Russia who are the main stakeholders of the INSTC and have shared interests in a stable and secure Afghanistan. In the case of Iran and Russia, the long-drawn conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza and US-led sanctions have resulted in adverse implications and strains on their economic sustainment and well-being. Hence, the kickstarting of Chabahar and its integration with an activated INSTC would not only provide some possible economic relief to both Tehran and Moscow, but also allow some sort of alleviation of economic crisis in Afghanistan thereby ensuring a semblance of stability. This has required urgency in the wake of the rise of extremist organisations such as the Islamic State Khorasan Province (ISKP) on Afghan soil with repercussions for the security of not only Kabul, but the wider Eurasian region and world. The Misri-Muttaqi meeting has brought the spotlight back on the importance of Chabahar and New Delhi should seize this momentum to take it up with both Tehran and Moscow given the shared interests as outlined above.  

In the case of Iran, Afghanistan’s participation in Chabahar would provide some respite to already strained relationship between Kabul and Tehran over issues such as the conflict over the Helmand river and ‘undocumented Afghan migrants’ on Iranian soil. Moreover, an Iran reeling from its conflict with Israel over Gaza and the wider Middle East could ill afford an unstable Afghanistan in its border which makes resolution of outstanding issues as well as the buttressing of the relative calm inside the neighbouring country a priority. The importance of Iran in India’s Afghanistan calculus also stems from concerns over the increasing Turkish- Bangladeshi relationship which was witnessed in the deployment of Turkish drones along the border with India as well as the acquisition of Turkish manufactured tanks by Dhaka. Keeping in view Ankara’s recent closeness with Pakistan as well as the recent thawing of ties between Dhaka and Islamabad, one can see the beginnings of a Turkey- Pakistan- Bangladesh trilateral convergence foreshadowing negative implications for Indian security and strategic interests. Meanwhile, the Turkey-Iranian ties have come under strain as a fallout of the regional competition in Syria and South-Caucasus (Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict) with the fall of the Iran-backed Assad regime in 2024 and the capture of Nagorno Karabakh by Turkey-backed Azerbaijan in 2023 from Armenia, a strategic partner of Tehran. Hence, New Delhi could advantage of this fissure and rope in Iran to form a strategic convergence of its own aimed as a bulwark against if not undercutting the Turkey-Pakistani influence over the happenings inside Afghanistan. Moreover, the recent tensions between Iran and Pakistan over the latter’s harbouring of anti- Iranian groups such as Jaish al-Adl and the conduction of Iranian airstrikes inside Pakistani territory in 2024 would incentivise Tehran to find common cause with Delhi in restraining Islamabad’s sway over the Taliban and the region at large.

Finally, the India-Taliban meet in Doha also comes in the backdrop of the resurgence of the strategic Wakhan Corridor. The latter is a 350 km and 34 km wide narrow of strip of land in Afghanistan’s Badakhshan province stretching eastward to China’s Xinjiang province, with Tajikistan’s Gorno-Badakhshan Autonomous region lying in the north and Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (POK) in the south thereby becoming the focus of five countries namely Afghanistan, China, Tajikistan, Pakistan, and India respectively. The corridor came under the control of Taliban in 2022 which has shaped the dynamics involving the major surrounding countries. From Beijing’s perspective as well as for the Taliban, the corridor provides a direct route of connectivity and trade between Afghanistan and China while also providing a pathway for Kabul and the neighbouring Central Asian countries to become a part of the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). For Pakistan, along with the CPEC, the route has the potential to provide direct overland access to Tajikistan and the markets of Central Asia. But, the complications of Taliban presence and issues of terrain, geographic location and infrastructure costs have not yet allowed the strip to be utilized strategically by any of the key players.

However, actions such as Muttaqi’s emphasis on the Wakhan’s potential to emerge as a trade hub and the announcement of the construction of the Little Pamir road between Badakhshan and China highlight the Taliban’s willingness to utilize the Wakhan by inviting collaboration from powers such as China. While Beijing appears hesitant to accept this offer because of potential ramifications upon the security of Xinjiang, yet the possibility of Taliban joining the BRI and becoming a part of the CPEC would throw up challenges to India’s own ambitions regarding Chabahar and the INSTC while also affecting India’s apparent leverage with the regime.

Along with the extension of CPEC, another major Indian concern with respect to the Wakhan Corridor is its potential usage by anti-India elements or Pakistani proxies to funnel drugs and weaponry to J& K based militants as well as attempt to enter Indian territory via the corridor given its proximity with occupied Gilgit Baltistan. While Pakistan has denied allegations of plotting to capture the Wakhan in the aftermath of the Af-Pak border clashes and even reiterated the latter as part of Afghan territory, yet any Chinese influence over the corridor or its inclusion in initiatives such as the CPEC would provide Islamabad opportunity to utilize the strip of land for funnelling instability into India, under the tacit approval of Beijing and a pliant regime in Kabul. Hence, New Delhi along with its partners Iran and Russia should double down on efforts to present the Chabahar and the INSTC as a viable and much better alternative. Or at least, it should be ensured that India is kept abreast of the developments in the area through its channels of communication with the Taliban regime while holding the latter to its claim of not being a threat to any country. However, such actions are critically dependent on the level and depth of continued Indian multi-faceted engagement with the regime in Kabul.

In the aftermath of the Misri-Muttaqi meeting in Doha, concerns were raised over the event’s possibility of alienating the goodwill associated with India among the anti-Taliban factions currently based outside such as the National Resistance Front (NRF) in Tajikistan composed of members such as former Afghan Vice President Amrullah Saleh. The overemphasis on outreach to the Taliban while ignoring the need to cultivate ties with other players such as the NRF have led scholars to wonder whether India is repeating the same mistake of putting all of its eggs in one basket (Taliban) as it did previously with the Ashraf Ghani government. Such questions have taken urgency in the backdrop of speculations regarding Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) director general Muhammad Asim Malik’s visit to Tajikistan and calling upon President Emomali Rahmon and possibly the NRF to forge an anti-Taliban alliance.

Hence, New Delhi will have to play its cards right and establish and maintain communication with all parties while ensuring that it is not pushed into unfavourable equations with any. On their part, the NRF and others must exhibit an understanding attitude towards the compulsions and complications driving India’s current strategy in Afghanistan while also keeping in mind New Delhi’s past record of humanitarian and developmental assistance during the pre-2021 period.

For now, the Taliban in Kabul is a reality which India has to be deal with. Non-engagement is not an option if New Delhi wishes not to let the ghost of the Pakistan-controlled Afghanistan of 1996 haunt its security and strategic interests.

About the Author

Anuraag Khaund is pursuing PhD in International Politics from the School of International Studies, Central University of Gujarat. He has published opinion pieces in The Diplomat, Deccan Herald, Kashmir Observer and Modern Diplomacy.  His interests include International Relations and Geopolitics with a focus on Eurasia, East, West, South and Southeast Asia. In addition to geopolitics, he also looks at the intersection between civilizational histories and current global politics. The author can be contacted at khaundanuraag@gmail.com

Trump 2.0 and States Scouting for Strategic Symphony

2

By: Pragathi Kowndinya, Research Analyst, GSDN

Donald Trump: source Internet

Trumpism’, lately, a term in the trend. Scholars opine that ‘Trumpism’ was coined to mark the outright personality, high dominance charismatic leadership and distinctive attributes of Donald Trump which are deep-rooted in American nationalism and pragmatic conservatism. Since his landslide victory in the 2024 US Presidential elections, Trump has unapologetically advocated economic protectionism, hostility to taxation and immigration and has championed the motto of ‘America First’. The world nations, thus, are on the path to decode their respective socio-economic and geopolitical prospects under the new regime unfolding in Washington DC.

The USA: A pivotal geopolitical power

The United States of America is the world’s largest economy accounting for 26% (more than a quarter) of the global GDP. The USA is also a global financial powerhouse, as 60% of the international claims and liabilities are denominated in US dollars. The USA is also the largest shareholder in the World Bank and IMF, having 15.85% and 17% of voting shares respectively, thus a key decision maker in the multilateral lending ecosystem.

The dollar is the principal reserve currency in the global forex market which makes up for 58%. As an impact, the US Federal Reserve’s decisions affect the global economy. For Example, when the Federal Bank raises the rate of interest, the value of the dollar appreciates making exports expensive and debts costlier, thus adversely affecting the overall business and transnational trade ecosystem and slowing down the global economy. Henceforth, the monetary decisions of the central banks across the globe are sometimes contingent upon the US Federal’s monetary policy.

Concerning the global trade, the US is the world’s second-largest trading nation. It is a crucial export destination for 1/5th of the world’s countries. The dollar is involved in 88% of all trade in the global foreign exchange market. The USA also dominates the vital global trade routes. For Example, the US is responsible for 73% of the traffic over the Panama Canal. The USA is also a key strategic stakeholder in the global energy sector. The US is the world’s largest producer of oil and natural gas and a net exporter. With regard to clean energy, the US is ranked second in solar and wind energy production.

The remarkable feat accomplished by the US in the defense sector makes it the world’s mightiest military power. The defense budget of the US is a staggering amount of US $831 billion. The US military has the world’s most advanced and state-of-the-art military technology which includes F-22 and F-35 fighter jets. The US has 750 active military bases across 80 countries. The USA is also a key defense exporter worth US$ 238 billion. The US controls 40% of the global arms export, especially to European countries.

As a champion of capitalism, neo-liberalism and laissez-faire traditions since the Cold War era, from defense and energy security to Artificial Intelligence and encapsulating the world’s most skilled manpower in Silicon Valley, the US is revolutionizing every arena as a tool to seek its hegemonic aspirations. Given such a humungous stake of the USA in the geopolitical and geoeconomic circuit, the political current emerging from the Oval Office of the White House transmits across the globe and affects every actor from the deserts of Africa to the frozen lands of the Arctic and Antarctica.

Thus, in this era of geopolitical uncertainty and spiking challenges, the global expectations from Trump 2.0 are massive. From dealing with proxy wars to pandemic and addressing inflation, economic burden to tackling climate catastrophes the world nations expect a fair solution from the fundamental superpower, the USA and its supreme elected leader. Whether this presupposition is in symphony with the core nature of Trump’s distinctive stewardship in an era of realpolitik, is a serious question to deliberate upon!

Panacea for a jeopardized power struggle

Be it the chaotic seashores of the Black Sea in Southeastern Europe or the Red Sea on the borders of Africa and Asia, the current timeline is witnessed as an era of geopolitical upheaval. From Russia’s ‘special military operation’ in Ukraine to the Israel-Hamas conflict in the narrow strip of Gaza and the regime change in Syria, the unravelling conflicts reflect how the international system is truly anarchic, where a foreseeable solution is faint and vague.

The warring nations are not even liable to the verdicts of the United Nations, International Criminal Court and other international institutions. At such a critical juncture, the expectations on the Trump presidency are mounting to quest for an ultimate solution to the enduring political, economic and humanitarian crisis in the conflict zones, as the US is a key stakeholder in the growing geopolitical menace.

With respect to Russia-Ukraine conflict, as an ardent advocate of protectionism, Trump believes that the military and financial support to Ukraine is cumbersome on the US domestic economy. Thus, he owes to end the war that has been unravelling for almost 3 years now with no sight of giving a strategic victory to either of the sides, but only costing burden on the US exchequer. But Kyiv fears that a ‘quick deal’ and acute cut down of the defense supplies would lead to unfair border agreements and high chances of escalation and annexation in the future, especially at this juncture when Moscow is in an offensive mode in Kursk, Kharkiv and other regions. Kyiv, thus expects continued and comprehensive support from the US and also an early induction into the NATO alliance and not leave it in the middle of geopolitical crossroads. But Ukraine’s aspirations are bound to be a distant dream under Trump 2.0.

Trump’s transactionalism however, has a completely different outlook towards the Middle East Crisis. Nations such as Saudi Arabia, UAE and other powers of the world expect a lasting ceasefire among the state and non-state actors of the region and a beckon of hope for the humanitarian crisis in Palestine. On the other hand, Israel is expounding its confidence in the unwavering support of the US in its mission to be a hegemonic power in the region. As a reflection of the aspirations of Tel Aviv, Trump had recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital in his preceding term and also, he is a hardcore adversary to the theocrats of Iran.

The world awaits to witness, how Trump balances between, his stronghold towards Israel and bounds to his election promise of ‘stopping wars’. The crisis in the Middle East encompasses a wide spectrum of actors. The state actors of Israel, Iran and Palestine and the non-state actors such as the Houthis in Yemen, Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon. How Trump pulls everyone to the negotiating table and strikes a fair deal along with the release of hostages and ensures a lasting peace and security in the region, determines the peace or conflict dynamics of the Middle East and beyond in the future.

An anticipation regarding climate action

Climate Change and the associated catastrophes are exceeding the threshold. Recent analysis exclaims that 2024 was the first year in history, where the mean global temperature has breached the limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius as per the Paris Agreement. Trends also suggest that there is no going back and the world is on the path of exceeding 2 degrees Celsius by 2050. Given such an apex crisis with an alarming rate of heat waves, wildfires, untimely cyclones and other natural disasters, the predisposition on the Trump presidency is mammoth. 2024 witnessed a series of UN environmental summits including UNFCCC at Baku, UNCBD in Colombia, the UN Plastic Treaty in South Korea etc. However, none was able to script a fair, inclusive and sustainable conclusion for the global good. Yet, the hope on the world’s largest economy under the Trump administration remains glare with respect to mitigating Climate Change.

Donald Trump, a climate sceptic, during his first term Trump withdrew from the ambitious Paris Agreement. It seems that history repeats during Trump 2.0. Climate experts believe that Trump would give a blow to climate justice and the US’s CO2 emissions would soar by 4bn tonnes by 2030, as Trump unapologetically echoes for heightened fossil fuel (oil and natural gas) production. As Republicans control the US Congress, there is a high possibility of rolling back from the vital Inflation Reduction Tax and other clean energy policies. He might target Europe for its ambitious Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism and other carbon market-related regulations and can cut the US’s contribution to the key global climate pledges. The years ahead, hence, are truly challenging for already paralyzed and inconclusive climate efforts, whose major victims will be the low-developed nations.

No antidote to the perplexed global economy?

With a capitalist and protectionist regime unleashing at the helm of the world’s largest economy, a structural shift in the global economy is much anticipated. The world is yet to fully recover from the high inflation, supply chain shocks posed by the pandemic, outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war and the Israel-Hamas conflict. Meanwhile, Trump’s ‘America First’ narrative may escalate trade wars, supply chain disruptions and adversely affect the global export-import market.

For example, Trump has repeatedly reiterated that he would hike the tariff rate by 10% for all imports and by 60% especially for China because the latter enjoys a favourable position with respect to the US with a surplus of more than US$ 380 billion. If brought into reality, increased tariff rates would propel inflationary pressure on the US economy that gradually reciprocates globally as the majority of the world trade and purchasing power is determined via dollars. Such a measure will surely escalate trade wars between the world’s two largest economies.

Trump, also threatening to take back the Panama Canal and Greenland is a testimony to his economic aspirations enroute to ‘Make America Great Again’. The Panama authority imposing the highest transit fees on the US vessels and the increased presence of Chinese vessels in the passage has triggered Trump to echo such a statement, as it is a strategically vital passage for the US vessels. With regard to buying/coercing Greenland, Trump ascertained the idea, as Greenland is a rich repository of critical minerals and helps the US explore new maritime trade routes. This gives the US a strategic edge against China which is aiming to carve new trade routes in the Arctic and also helps to counter China which is the world’s leading producer and supplier of the majority of the critical minerals.

Trump has even asked Europe to purchase more of the US oil and gas otherwise warned that he will impose higher tariffs, on European imports to the US. Trump has also warned the de-dollarization efforts of the BRICS nations and has claimed to impose high tariffs against those countries that ascribe to de-dollarization. Given these developments, expecting an antidote to the already structurally fragile global economy under Trump 2.0 is vain. But the major sufferers of these repercussions are predominantly small and import-dependent economies, which are caught in the geopolitical game played by the superpowers.

African angle for Trump’s presidency

Trump’s policy towards Africa was on a low profile in his preceding term. Few African nations expect Trump 2.0 to be a helpful endeavour in their geopolitical calculations, while for some other states, it may not be so. For Example, Egypt, a key mediator between Israel and Hamas, expects Trump to quickly resolve the conflict, given Trump and the Egyptian President’s close relationship. But Africa’s expectations towards Trump to resolve the political crisis of Syria, Sudan etc. may not be materialized, because in the backdrop of Trump’s agenda of ‘America First’, these are not his foreign policy priorities.

Also, Trump’s broader foreign policy perspectives such as economic sanctions, aversion towards climate action and hostility towards immigration might adversely affect the African nations that are reeling under military coups, civil wars and have low socio-economic potential.

The chapter of India and the Indo-Pacific

Indo-Pacific will be one of the apex foreign policy goals of the US, given the current geopolitical gravity and to counter the growing footprint of China across the Indo-Pacific. Infact, the QUAD initiative gained momentum during Trump 1.0 and the QUAD partners expect the same or even higher threshold and frequency in their relations, as the hegemonic aspirations of China keep multiplying.

Apart from the QUAD, even the AUKUS nations, South Korea, Japan and the Philippines that are at loggerheads with China expect greater security, defense and strategic cooperation with the US. But, despite the Indo-Pacific being a key focal area of the US foreign policy, will the US echo the same aspirations as other vital players of the region is unclear, given Trump’s high economic inclinations. On the other end, the trade wars and economic rivalry between the US and China may be manipulated in the maritime and security domain, thus, chances of imperilling the larger region.

India and the USA have scripted a steady growth in bilateral relations for more than a decade now, inspite of changes in leadership at every successive election in the USA. President Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi sharing cordial relations on a personal note is an added advantage. India is a key security and strategic partner for the US to navigate its goals in the Indo-Pacific and Indian Ocean Region (IOR). India too aspires to strengthen its relations with the US under Trump 2.0 to achieve its strategic priorities. India expects the US cooperation to take forward its ambitious initiatives such as IMEC and I2U2. To materialize these, a major roadblock is the Middle East Crisis, which needs to be decoupled soon under the leadership of Donald Trump.

India also looks forward to accelerate partnerships in the domain of Artificial Intelligence, transfer of critical and cutting-edge technology, maritime and military security, energy security, ease of business, FDI & trade and ofcourse smooth exchange of skilled manpower etc. by successfully harnessing a wide range of forums such as IPEC, iCET etc. India also wishes to reopen the halted FTA negotiations with the US. However, there are a few irritants between India and the US under Trump 2.0 that act as an adverse harbinger for smooth relations.

Trump might pressurize India to continue its ban on importing oil from Iran and might ask India to purchase the same from the US. This might hinder the India-Iran relations which are negotiating towards fully operationalizing the Chabahar port and reopening the dormant International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC). Further, Trump’s economic sanctions might have repercussions on the Indian economy, especially as he compels India to tariff cuts and not go for de-dollarization. Also, Trump’s antipathy to immigration policy may be a catch-22 for the millions of Indian diaspora and skilled manpower. However, India hopes that all these flashpoints are navigable diplomatically and the prospects for cooperation are huge.

Trump 2.0 with its hawkish political and economic policies will be an era of intense geopolitical calculations for the global powers which are hitherto stuck amidst regional conflicts, proxy wars, economic turmoil and climate catastrophes. How Trump rolls the dice to redefine the global balance of power to America’s advantage and in turn how the rest of the world navigates their geopolitical motives to ensure respective strategic victory, will be a game of dice. Ultimately how every actor on the geopolitical chessboard quest for collective security, climate action, inclusive and sustainable development in the era of Trump’s realism is what nations have to interrogate!

China-Japan Relations: Critical Juncture

1

By: Manvi Banta, Research Analyst, GSDN

Japan & China’s flags: source Internet

One can change friends, but one cannot change neighbors”: This quote from a former Indian prime minister applies to China and Japan as well. Given their geographical proximity, both countries have a pressing need to find ways to cooperate and coexist.  Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi reiterated that China-Japan relations are at a “critical stage.” The contentious issues like the detention of Japanese nationals in China, limits on semiconductor exports, and China’s import ban on Japanese seafood.

The bilateral relationship has long been plagued by wartime crimes, but amid strategic maneuverings, diplomacy between these two Asian superpowers has become more complicated. China and Japan are currently embroiled in a number of conflicts, including the territorial dispute over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, a constant source of tension. Their relationship is also strained by economic challenges, such as China’s prohibitions on importing Japanese seafood after the release of nuclear wastewater from Fukushima, and Japan’s export limits on semiconductors. Geopolitical alignments further heighten tensions. China’s worries about regional security dynamics are compounded by Japan’s close links to the United States.

The relationship is complicated and deeply influenced by history, including Japan’s invasion of China and the war crimes carried out during that conflict, such as the Nanjing Massacre. The past still affects perceptions and interactions between the two countries. Japan has failed to fully address and acknowledge its wartime crimes, irking the Chinese people. 

China raises continuous objections to the visits and offerings made at Tokyo’s Yasukuni Shrine, which commemorates 2.5 million Japanese war dead – including 14 wartime leaders convicted as war criminals. On the anniversary of Japan’s surrender in World War II, Japanese Prime Minister Kishida Fumio sent an offering to Yasukuni and several members of his Cabinet, including Defense Minister Kihara Minoru visited the shrine. In response, China “lodged serious protests to the Japanese side” over what Beijing called “an erroneous attitude towards historical issues”. China urges Japan to honor its commitment of recognizing and reflecting on its history of aggression, stay prudent on historical issues such as the issue of the Yasukuni Shrine, make a clean break with militarism, stick to the path of peaceful development, and take concrete actions to earn the trust of its Asian neighbors and the international community.

Despite a deeply contentious past, China and Japan have engaged economically as well as diplomatically for over 50 years. After the normalization of Sino-Japanese relations in 1972, four major documents were signed that serve as the cornerstone of their relations: the China-Japan Joint Statement of 1972, the China-Japan Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1978, the China-Japan Joint Declaration of 1998, and the China-Japan Joint Statement on the Comprehensive Promotion of a Mutually Beneficial Relationship Based on Common Strategic Interests issued in 2008.

Over the years, Japan has contributed significantly to China’s modernization, particularly in the 1970s and 1980s through investment, technological transfer, and economic aid. These periods of cooperation boosted economic growth in both countries and also stabilized their relations, fostering a level of interdependence. Further strengthening their economic ties, the countries integrated their economies through trade, investment, and regional initiatives like the ASEAN Plus Three framework.

However, trade and technology have become a point of ongoing tension between China and Japan. For example, Japan had announced export restrictions on 23 types of semiconductors manufacturing equipment, aligning with U.S. policy. Although Japan did not explicitly target China, this move – which requires manufacturers to obtain export clearances for every region – is anticipated to impact Chinese companies’ access to cutting-edge chipmaking technologies. 

Japan’s action of stopping shipments of semiconductor manufacturing equipment made by companies such as Nikon Corp and ASML Holdings bolsters the U.S. strategy to curtail China’s technology sector. This decision was aimed to stop China from manufacturing advanced chips that would improve its military capabilities. Considering the importance of semiconductors to China’s economic and technological advancement, restrictions on this sector would significantly impact a number of industries, including electronics, automobiles, and telecommunications.

In addition, China’s concern over Japan’s release of treated wastewater from the Fukushima nuclear facility led to a ban on all Japanese seafood imports in 2023. Along with affecting Japan’s seafood industry, the ban emphasizes the fragility of trade relations between the two nations.

Despite these challenges, China and Japan remain economically intertwined. China stands as Japan’s largest trading partner, while Japan plays a crucial role as a major provider of technology and investment to China. In fact, China ranks as Japan’s third-largest investment destination, with direct investments reaching over 1 trillion yen (equivalent to US$ 9.2 billion) in 2022, marking a 4.4 percent increase from 2021. Both countries can enjoy economic incentives if they settle their differences amicably in order to prevent adverse effects. The primary challenge to their stability is striking a balance between security concerns and the economic advantages.

Japan comes under the security umbrella of the United States. The U.S.-Japan Mutual Security Treaty signed in 1951 ensures U.S protection to Japan in the event of an attack, enabling Japan to concentrate on its economic growth while depending on U.S. military support. This security partnership has grown even stronger, as pointed out by U.S. President Joe Biden and Japanese Prime Minister Kishida Fumio. The two leaders praised the “new era of U.S.-Japan strategic cooperation,” with an emphasis on enhancing military cooperation, working together to create modern defense technologies, and integrating their defense communication networks.

The bilateral relationship has long been plagued by wartime crimes, but amid recent strategic maneuverings, diplomacy between these two Asian superpowers has become more complicated. China and Japan are currently embroiled in a number of conflicts, including the territorial dispute over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, a constant source of tension.

Japan’s action of stopping shipments of semiconductor manufacturing equipment made by companies such as Nikon Corp and ASML Holdings bolsters the U.S. strategy to curtail China’s technology sector. This decision was aimed to stop China from manufacturing advanced chips that would improve its military capabilities. Considering the importance of semiconductors to China’s economic and technological advancement, restrictions on this sector would significantly impact a number of industries, including electronics, automobiles, and telecommunications.

Focusing on the mission and responsibilities of ruling parties, both sides engaged in candid discussions on the important responsibilities and roles that the two countries should assume to maintain international order based on international law amid global upheavals. The ruling parties held in-depth discussions on enhancing mutual trust, expanding cultural exchange and deepening mutually beneficial cooperation. They agreed to adhere to the principles established in the four China-Japan political documents, following the direction of their leaders.

They pledged joint efforts to comprehensively advance the strategic, mutually beneficial relations between China and Japan, aiming to build a constructive, stable relationship that meets the requirements of the new era. They agreed to promote the implementation of the consensus reached by the two governments, accelerate communication and consultation, and address one another’s concerns in a proper manner. Both sides confirmed that they will continue to promote practical cooperation between the two countries through exchanges between ruling parties, and agreed in principle to hold the 10th meeting under the exchange mechanism in Japan this autumn.

China-Mexico Relations: Arduous Times for America

1

By: Shivangee Bhattacharya, Research Analyst, GSDN

China & Mexico’s flags: source Internet

In recent decades, China’s interaction with Latin America has seen exponential growth with Mexico moving perceptibly from one of the countries with little stake to becoming one of China’s top partners in Latin America. Being the second-largest economy in Latin America, Mexico is fairly significant to China in trade terms and as an influencer in the region. The article, however, will look at the many issues that will consolidate and define the dynamic of the Sino-Mexican relationship historically, tuning into the impact of the economic bond network, diplomatic cooperation, and the challenging facets of their relationship. Fresh changes-like widening trade agreements, addenda to existing ones, and promotion of investments-further bring forth the significance of the bilateral ties in an evolving and ever-faster global landscape.

History


The first contact that China and Mexico had was when the silver trade on a global scale started during the 16th century. This made Asia and the Americas get connected through the Pacific routes of the Spanish Manila Galleons. Initially, in 1972, though not always well-knit, their diplomatic relations were characterized by great form. With the course of time, the nature of the relation shifted gradually yet gradually for good. The developing pattern of this time is especially characterized with the onset of China as an entry of a member of World Trade Organization on 2001, on the other hand the same country, had started giving major economic blows in the international field. All the named processes are of a crucial nature to the relation of Mexico and China, as it involves the diversification, and de-risk of the economic partnerships of both countries.

Economic Relations


The life of China-Mexico relations is trade. The two countries trade with each other and it has emerged as an issue. The latest report has revealed that Mexico’s trade with China is second to only to the US. China is not the first country with which Mexico trades from Latin America, Brazil is. Data from official sources show that the bilateral trade has almost reached US$ 110 billion in 2022 despite the temporary setbacks marked by the outbreak of the COVID-19 virus. Most of the time, Mexico supplies oil, coal, and agricultural products to other countries, while China provides electronics, machinery, and manufactured goods. However, the trade relations are littered with inconsistencies. The trade deficit of Mexico with China is in the negative, which always creates divisions within the policymakers and entrepreneurs. It is this deficit in trade alongside the fact that Chinese investors and Mexico could not share a common cause that led to the demand for new investment and infrastructure that would help the economy grow uncontrollably as a result.

Investments and Infrastructure


In recent years, China has increased its investments in Mexico, focusing on energy, mining, and manufacturing sectors. The Belt and Road Initiative has also contributed to China’s economic presence in Mexico. Mexico is not a signatory to the BRI, but Chinese companies have been involved in the infrastructure sector, including railways, ports, and energy facilities. Some of the most notable examples are the participation of Chinese companies in the Tren Maya project, which is a major railway development intended to enhance tourism and economic growth in southern Mexico. Another example is the State Grid Corporation of China, which has invested in Mexico’s electricity sector, a sign of growing interest in Mexico’s energy market.

Challenges in Economic Relations


Economic ties are not without challenges. The firms of the Mexican industries, especially textile and electronics, view Chinese imports as competition to their local production. On the other hand, there is the issue of the Chinese infrastructure projects concerning quality and environmental implications. In this regard, both sides must strengthen their regulatory frameworks and establish increased cooperation between the private sectors of each country.

Diplomatic and Political Cooperation


China and Mexico have developed strong diplomatic relations through multilateral forums such as the United Nations, the G20, and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). Mexico has been a strong supporter of the One-China policy, which has been the bedrock of their diplomatic relationship, while China has supported Mexico’s desire to play a more significant role in Latin America.
Their cooperation has been strengthened through recent high-level visits and dialogues. Chinese President Xi Jinping and Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador made commitments in 2023 to deepen cooperation in trade, technology, and cultural exchanges. It shows a mutual interest in building a multipolar world order and opposing unilateralism. Cultural and educational exchanges have also played a role in deepening bilateral relations. Confucius Institutes in Mexico and academic exchange programs have contributed to mutual understanding between the two countries. The growing popularity of Mexican culture in China, such as food and music, also offers an opportunity for soft power diplomacy.

Challenges in China-Mexico Relations

Geopolitical Pressures

It has been put against the larger U.S.-China tensions. Since Mexico shares close proximity to the United States, geographically and economically, it requires fragile diplomacy in balancing relations with China. Currently, the United States is Mexico’s largest trading partner. Any balance shifting towards China will be questioned at Washington.

Trade Imbalances and Economic Concerns

The large and perennial trade deficit of Mexico toward China is evident in the matter mentioned above. Sometimes, some Mexican firms present a complaint based on unfairness due to competitors in the field of imports in China, supposedly receiving state support. The work required in coping with such claims involves establishing balanced mutual investment and exchange.

Regulatory and Environmental Issues

Chinese investments in infrastructure and energy projects in Mexico have sometimes drawn criticism regarding regulation and environmental practices. For both parties to keep enjoying long-term cooperation, ensuring that these investments meet Mexico’s sustainability goals as well as those of its regulations is essential.

Recent Developments

Recently, China and Mexico have begun to expand their economic and political cooperation. New trade agreements that focus on agriculture and technology provide opportunities for further cooperation in these areas. Recent business news show that Chinese tech companies such as Huawei and Xiaomi expand their presence in Mexico, as Mexican companies look for opportunities in the fast-expanding consumer market in China. The COVID-19 pandemic reminded the world of the need for cooperation in public health. China has sent medicines and vaccines to Mexico; this is one example of improving relations during the pandemic. There is a good opportunity to pursue joint research on healthcare and biotechnology.

Conclusion

China-Mexico relations are emblematic of the intricacies in modern international cooperation, balancing prospects for growth and challenges based on economic asymmetry and geopolitical dynamics. Both countries should continue to better understand each other and try to address issues they share, thus unlocking both their full capacities. A prosperous future for bilateral relations between Mexico and China in both trade and political areas is foreshadowed by the proliferation of new bilateral agreements, heavy investments, and cultural exchanges recently witnessed.

Balance and sustainability could be achieved from such a strategic partnership only after correcting trade imbalances, obtaining international regulatory compliance, and successfully finding ways to live with the subtle complexities of Sino-U.S. relations. The stronger the relations get between China and Mexico, the more arduous times it will be for USA as on its southern borders will be its biggest global competitor, both economically and militarily ie China.

Ads Blocker Image Powered by Code Help Pro

Ads Blocker Detected!!!

We have detected that you are using extensions to block ads. Please support us by disabling these ads blocker.

Powered By
100% Free SEO Tools - Tool Kits PRO