By: Shivangee Bhattacharya, Research Analyst, GSDN

In a recent meeting of the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) in Astana in 2024, the organization comprised countries like Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, China, and Russia. From India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi was supposed to attend the meeting on July 3^rd and 4th, but the External Affairs Minister Dr S. Jaishankar represented India. In the span of that week, PM Modi decided to visit Russia on July 8^–9^t, 2024.

This decision speculated on the possibilities of India’s withdrawal from the SCO. The decision hasn’t been taken yet, but analysing the sour relations with China, BRI (Belt and Road Initiative) has created an atmosphere of tension between China and India. Now, these speculations flared up after seeing China as the leader of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, with this leadership of China and participants in the organization being part of BRI. Also, Sino-Pakistan relations and CPEC (China-Pakistan Economic Corridor) play a role in India losing interest in the organization.

Despite these disparities, why did India choose to join the organization in the first place? India, being the only fully democratic country in the organization, has significantly denied the initiative taken by China in BRI. Among the neocolonial countries, India was the only one who decided to give a thumbs up to the China-led project.

India’s past comes from the decolonization era. After independence, India decided to be non-aligned with any superpower that existed at that time. The US was leading the world as the hegemon and creating a new global era. India’s foreign policy since independence has been to be neutral and non-aligned. With the decision to join SCO, India thought that aligning with the non-western organization could help them establish international relationships, and this organization could also help them strengthen relations with Central Asia.

In the famous quote where it was mentioned that “keep your friends close and enemies closer,” participation was not restricted because of China. Unfortunately, it was observed that the organization wasn’t giving any importance to Indian foreign policy. The participation of the largest population and economy elevated the international legitimacy of SCO in the world. The welcome of Iran to the SCO marked the organization being perceived as an anti-Western autocracy.

At the start of joining SCO, this decision was merely related to regional security; now it has become more of a rivalry between China and Russia, for instance, disapproval of the title “Indo-Pacific” rather prefers calling it “Asia-Pacific”. The promises seem shallow, and agendas talking about mutual trust and benefit seem hollow for India because of Chinese military encroachment in India.

India’s initiative to join the organization is to strengthen its bilateral relations between India and Central Asia, overlooking its sour relations with Pakistan and China. Within the organization, border disputes have hampered bilateral relations since 2021. The BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) and G20 summits have witnessed the interaction between the countries in 2023. Though despite the disputes between China and India, they stood up for multilevel relations and worked together on issues like climate change and the SDGs. Since 2017, relations between India and China have shrunk; differences have increased.

To cement relations between Central Asia and India, the countries have collaborated on the “Connect Central Asia” policy since 2012, followed by the “Act East Policy” in 2014. To flourish regional development, peace, and prosperity, the India and Central Asia summit, which happened in 2022.

The challenges persisted even after these negotiations and summits, including those related to security and connectivity. India is not a part of the BRI; the decision is related to maintaining sovereignty as the route of the CPEC (China-Pakistan Economic Corridor) encompasses the POK (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir). The grouping stands out for “extremism, terrorism, and being the victim of terrorist attacks, which are state-sponsored by Pakistan. India stands out for acknowledging the need to counter the issue of terrorism. The recent Reasi attack raged India with tension as the SCO stood inefficient to counter the regional attacks of terrorism.

India’s motto of having multilateral relations with countries can be seen as India being a part of the G20 and QUAD. The Prime Minister’s absence from the recent summit of the SCO has raised concerns among the participating countries. In the year 2021, the PM joined the meeting virtually. He did participate in 2022 and held the summit virtually in 2023. In the current times, the PM of India skipped the meeting in 2024. This signifies that Indo-Pakistan and Indo-Sino border disputes are not just mere issues; the issues are way beyond the border disputes. The inconsistency of India’s participation indicates the hinderance of bilateral relations and active participation in regional meetings.

Moreover, SCO has benefited India in several areas, like establishing trade relations and vital relations with the countries of South Asia. Russia being present in the organization, which is the largest arm supplier to India, has helped in continuing relations. Despite the fact that SCO has provided a platform for trade engagement, it has failed to provide security to India in any given manner. If analysed, the organization has lost its relevance with respect to India, and looking at the current geopolitical situation in India, SCO is not benefiting India much.

For the balance of power, India is trying to maintain its relations with China’s rivals, Russia and the US. It is critical to analyse how long India will be able to maintain these relations. A recent visit to Moscow by PM Modi signified his efforts to maintain relations with Russia. It is early to say and comment about India’s withdrawal from the organization, but looking at the recent turn of events, it is giving the notion that India is giving a cold shoulder to the SCO. The reason for this behaviour can be traced back to border disputes and a lack of security insurance from the organization.

India is a growing economy, and with the largest population in the world, its growing importance in the world is increasing significantly. India’s foreign policy has changed over the years, and now it is making a significant mark through its participation in summits held. Being part of SCO, it is not getting assurance related to its agendas and growth.

By: Lipun Kumar Sanbad

The Philippines, an archipelagic nation with over 7,000 islands, sits at the heart of one of the world’s most strategically significant maritime regions. Its maritime sovereignty is not only central to its national security but also crucial for its economic stability and international standing. However, the Philippines faces multi-faceted challenges in asserting and protecting its maritime sovereignty, primarily due to overlapping territorial claims, regional geopolitical dynamics, and internal policy weaknesses. One of the most pressing issues for the Philippines is the overlapping territorial claims in the South China Sea. This area is not only rich in natural resources but also a crucial maritime route for global trade.

The Philippines’ claim, based on the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), conflicts with China’s expansive “nine-dash line” claim. This has led to significant diplomatic and military tensions between the two nations. The Permanent Court of Arbitration’s ruling in favor of the Philippines in 2016 was a landmark victory, yet enforcing this ruling remains a formidable challenge due to China’s continued assertive actions and the lack of a binding enforcement mechanism. the Philippines’ maritime sovereignty is critical to its national security and economic prosperity. However, it faces significant challenges due to overlapping territorial claims, regional geopolitical dynamics, and internal policy weaknesses. By adopting a comprehensive strategy that includes military, diplomatic, and internal reforms, the Philippines can better safeguard its maritime interests and uphold its sovereignty in the face of evolving challenges. This article delves into the complex landscape of the Philippines’ maritime sovereignty, examining the challenges it faces and the strategies it employs to safeguard its maritime interests.

Historical Context of Maritime Sovereignty

The Philippines’ maritime boundaries and territorial claims are deeply rooted in historical, legal, and geographical contexts. The country’s maritime jurisdiction is defined by several international agreements and national laws, most notably the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Under UNCLOS, the Philippines is entitled to a 200-nautical-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), which grants it sovereign rights to explore and exploit marine resources. However, the assertion of these rights has been fraught with challenges, particularly in the South China Sea, where overlapping claims have led to heightened tensions and conflicts. The Philippines’ maritime boundaries encompass a vast area of the South China Sea, a region rich in marine biodiversity and significant for its strategic importance in global shipping routes. This expansive maritime zone has made the Philippines a critical player in regional security and economic stability. Historically, the Philippines has relied on a combination of domestic legislation and international law to assert its territorial claims. Notably, the country’s archipelagic nature, consisting of over 7,000 islands, has further complicated its maritime boundary delineation, necessitating precise and robust legal frameworks to manage its extensive waters.

Challenges to Maritime Sovereignty

(i) Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea

The South China Sea dispute is the most significant challenge to the Philippines’ maritime sovereignty. China claims almost the entire South China Sea, based on its controversial “Nine-Dash Line,” which overlaps with the EEZs of several Southeast Asian nations, including the Philippines. This has led to frequent confrontations between Chinese and Philippine vessels, raising concerns about potential military escalation. The Scarborough Shoal Standoff; In 2012, a maritime standoff occurred between China and the Philippines over the Scarborough Shoal, a rich fishing ground within the Philippines’ EEZ. Chinese coast guard vessels prevented Filipino fishermen from accessing the area, leading to a prolonged diplomatic crisis. The incident highlighted the Philippines’ vulnerability and the aggressive tactics employed by China to assert its claims.

(ii) Environmental and Economic Threats

Illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing is another significant challenge undermining the Philippines’ maritime sovereignty. The depletion of fish stocks due to overfishing by foreign vessels, particularly from China, has had devastating effects on the livelihoods of Filipino fishermen and the marine ecosystem. For instance, the destruction of coral reefs; Chinese fishing practices, including the use of cyanide and dynamite, have caused extensive damage to coral reefs in the Spratly Islands. These reefs are vital for marine biodiversity and serve as critical breeding grounds for fish. The environmental degradation not only threatens the region’s ecological balance but also undermines the Philippines’ economic interests.

(iii) Geopolitical Dynamics

The South China Sea is a critical maritime corridor for global trade, making it a focal point of great power competition. The United States, as a Pacific power, has a vested interest in ensuring freedom of navigation in the region. This has led to increased military presence and joint exercises with the Philippines, further complicating the geopolitical landscape. For example: The Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) in 2014, the Philippines and the United States signed the EDCA, allowing increased rotational presence of U.S. troops and access to Philippine military bases. While the agreement aims to bolster the Philippines’ defense capabilities, it has also drawn criticism for potentially escalating tensions with China and infringing on Philippine sovereignty.

Strategic Responses to Maritime Challenges

(i) Diplomatic and Legal Strategies

The Philippines has employed a mix of diplomatic and legal approaches to assert its maritime sovereignty. The landmark 2016 ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague, which invalidated China’s expansive claims in the South China Sea, was a significant legal victory for the Philippines. The ruling, however, has been largely ignored by China, highlighting the limitations of international law in resolving such disputes. The case study of PCA Arbitration Case; In 2013, the Philippines initiated arbitration proceedings against China under UNCLOS. The PCA ruling in favor of the Philippines affirmed its rights over the EEZ and recognized the environmental damage caused by China’s activities. Despite the ruling, the enforcement of international law remains a challenge, necessitating continued diplomatic efforts to garner international support and pressure China to comply.

(ii) Strengthening Maritime Security

Enhancing maritime security is crucial for protecting the Philippines’ maritime sovereignty. This involves modernizing the Philippine Navy and Coast Guard, increasing patrols, and improving surveillance capabilities. The acquisition of modern naval assets and the establishment of maritime domain awareness systems are steps in this direction. The Philippine Navy has acquired new assets, such as the BRP Jose Rizal, a modern frigate equipped with advanced radar and missile systems. These acquisitions aim to enhance the country’s maritime defense capabilities and deter potential aggressors.

(iii) Regional Cooperation and Alliances

Strengthening regional cooperation and building alliances are vital strategies for the Philippines. Engaging with ASEAN member states and other regional partners helps in presenting a united front against unilateral actions that threaten regional stability. For instance, The ASEAN-China Code of Conduct; The ongoing negotiations for a Code of Conduct (CoC) in the South China Sea between ASEAN and China aim to establish norms and guidelines for behavior in the disputed waters. While progress has been slow, the CoC represents a potential framework for managing conflicts and ensuring stability in the region.

(iv) Economic and Environmental Initiatives

Addressing the economic and environmental dimensions of maritime sovereignty involves sustainable management of marine resources and protecting the marine environment. The Philippines is working on initiatives to promote sustainable fishing practices and restore damaged marine ecosystems. For example: Sustainable Fishing Initiatives. The Philippines has launched programs to promote sustainable fishing practices, such as the closed fishing season in the Visayan Sea, aimed at allowing fish stocks to recover. These initiatives are essential for ensuring the long-term viability of the country’s marine resources.

Step forward

The Philippines’ maritime sovereignty is a multifaceted issue involving legal, diplomatic, security, economic, and environmental dimensions. The challenges it faces are significant, from territorial disputes with a powerful neighbor to environmental degradation and geopolitical complexities. However, through a combination of legal victories, strategic alliances, military modernization, and sustainable practices, the Philippines is working to assert and protect its maritime sovereignty. The Philippines can strengthen its maritime sovereignty through several strategic actions. Enhancing legal frameworks and enforcement ensures robust protection of its waters, while building strategic alliances with regional and global partners bolsters security.

Accelerating military modernization, including advanced technologies and training, is essential for effective defense. Promoting sustainable environmental practices preserves marine ecosystems and resources, while developing the maritime economy through fishing, tourism, and resilient infrastructure boosts economic strength. Increasing public awareness and education fosters national support for maritime sovereignty efforts. Additionally, advocating for regional cooperation addresses shared challenges and enhances collective security in the region. These combined efforts, underpinned by strategic foresight and resolve, can help the Philippines navigate challenges and secure its maritime future. The road ahead is fraught with challenges, but with continued resolve and strategic foresight, the Philippines can navigate these turbulent waters and secure its maritime future.

By: Nabhjyot Arora, Research Analyst, GSDN

India conducted the third parliamentary elections between April 19- June 01, 2024 where the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) claimed victory for the third consecutive term. The largest democratic exercise remains crucial for the country positioning itself as ‘’Vishwaguru’’ in the geopolitical arena, with more than 900 million registered voters exercising their democratic rights. New Delhi hosted the G-20 Presidency in 2023, aptly demonstrating ‘India’s moment has arrived’ as the country extended its outreach in the global south, to counter Beijing as diplomatic tensions simmered ahead of the inclusion of Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates fearing the bloc would turn pro-China, whilst Russia already described the ties with Beijing, as the ‘’best in history’’ during the security summit in Kazakhstan.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Moscow in July 2024, to co-chair the 22nd India-Russia Annual Summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin amidst the outbreak of the Ukraine-Russia war in February 2022 indicates commitment towards warmer ties, and redefines the Special and Privileged Strategic Partnership the countries share, highlighting the focus areas of oil diplomacy, energy security, defense partnership including nuclear technology development, anti-terrorism, fertilizer, food transfer, and infrastructure development. The crude oil import increased to 1.97 million barrels per day (mbpd) during June 2024, the highest since July 2023.

There could be an improvement in Indo-Russia ties, with India opening two consulates in Russia’s Kazan and Yekaterinburg, to ease mobility and trade. Further, Moscow invited PM Modi to the BRICS Summit which is scheduled to be held in Kazan, Russia in October 2024. New Delhi however, has been looking to diversify its defense procurement away from Russia, to Western arms manufacturers including the US, the UK, Israel, France, Japan, Germany, and Brazil. Diversification is also driven by defense cooperation with Brazil, on sharing military information, military technology, capacity building and training, development of defense systems and equipment, and strengthening the supply chain.

Expanding footprint of India

India will continue expanding its footprint in LATAM and the Caribbean based on defense collaboration, energy security, and food security in addition to investments in the sectors of tourism, pharmaceuticals, and infrastructure. The country signed Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with Japan, South Korea, Australia, and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), while trade agreements are yet to be concluded with New Zealand, South Africa, Oman, Peru, the US, the UK, European Union and ASEAN. Development of the indigenous defense industry would enable US$ 5 billion in exports in defense hardware by 2025, with New Delhi investing in infrastructure development along the contested borders, especially with the expansionist presence of Beijing.

Prime Minister Modi did not attend the 24th summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) held in Kazakhstan in July 2024, which was represented by the Minister of External Affairs Dr S. Jaishankar who discussed the issues of terrorism, connectivity, climate change, and respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity. The summit was attended by Chinese President Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and Pakistan PM Shahbaz Sharif, indicating the prominent role New Delhi needs to play to balance counteracting global forces at play. The northwest borders remain affected by terror operations, which impede infrastructure development and connectivity with Central Asia via Pakistan. New Delhi remains critical of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC – sub-project of Belt and Road Initiative) violating the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India, specifically Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir (PoK).

The SCO and BRICS + Forum could enable building ties with Central Asia, Africa, LATAM, and the Middle East, while India seeks to gain permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). An increase in terror activities in the SAHEL region might lead Ethiopia and Egypt to seek out UNSC membership, making the countries aligned with Beijing. The inclusion of Iran, with the possibility of imposition of potential US-backed sanctions might jeopardize New Delhi’s containment of the actions of Russia and China.

Connectivity, Infrastructure, and Elections in the US

The coalition government would continue the development of the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) instilling connectivity and economic integration between Asia, the Persian Gulf, and Europe. India looks forward to building on connectivity and infrastructural projects including Chabahar Port under the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) and the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor, however, the deal could result in potential sanctions on India, the decisive factors based on upcoming US elections. The transit route opens via Afghanistan and Central Asia, avoiding the land route through Pakistan. India’s developing close relations with Russia might also affect diplomatic and trade relations with the European Union and the United States. President Obama stated that ‘’India-US strategic partnership will be the defining relationship of this century’’, which will further shape the geopolitical fervour, ahead of the Presidential Elections in the United States in November 2024, especially in case of the potential victory of former President Donald Trump.

US-China Rivalry & borders of India

The recent visit of the former Speaker of the House of Representatives – Ms. Nancy Pelosi at the doors of New Delhi, to meet the spiritual leader His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama aims to engage Beijing in resolving the Tibet Dispute, which has been taken up with the passage of the “Promoting a Resolution to the Tibet-China Dispute Act” advancing the human rights of Tibetans, and preserving their distinct linguistic, cultural, and religious heritage as evident from the statement made by the President of the United States Joe Biden – ‘’My administration will continue to call on the People’s Republic of China to resume direct dialogue, without preconditions, with the Dalai Lama, or his representatives, to seek a settlement that resolves differences and leads to a negotiated agreement on Tibet.” On the land frontier, the border standoff remains an issue of contention due to incursions made by Beijing, especially along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in Depsang and Demchok sectors across eastern Ladakh and the Tawang sector of Arunachal Pradesh.

Hedging – balancing foreign policy

Diplomatic heft calls to balance the national foreign policy between the West and the largest trading partner – Beijing, well defined by the External Affairs Minister Dr. Jaishankar as ‘’hedging.’’ The ‘’nation first’’ approach, thereby, requires New Delhi to balance military and economic security, given the trade imbalance of US$ 100 billion remains in favour of Beijing.

India will continue collaborating with the United States on clean energy and defense, conducting naval exercises in the Indo-Pacific, thereby securing the high seas based on collaborations of QUAD and the I2U2. Foreign policy objectives as well will continue to seek permanent membership at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), depicting commitment towards counter-terrorism and democratic principles against the perceptions of democratic backsliding in India, which includes a decline in press freedom, civil liberties, religious divide, and a decline in human rights. Aggressive foreign policy approach raises concerns regarding conflict with the West, after the extradition of an Indian national – Nikhil Gupta to the United States, regarding involvement in the alleged assassination attempt of the Khalistani separatist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, which took place in New York City in June 2023.

India & Strategic Autonomy

New Delhi underwent a diplomatic fallout with Ottawa after Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accused Indian diplomatic agents of an alleged involvement in the assassination of the Khalistani leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar in British Columbia in June 2023; following which protests against the Indian Diplomatic Offices in Canada have strained Indo-Canada ties.

Protests have been reported against the changes to immigration rules in the Canadian province of Prince Edward Island, which could further affect the education and tourism potential of the two countries. Protests organized by the Khalistani separatists have been taken as a threat to the national security of India, while Ottawa perceives the issue against the right to self-determination and sovereignty of Canada, might alter foreign policy goals towards the West. India’s quest towards maintaining strategic autonomy remains critical with the potential escalation of the Taiwan Crisis and the United States – China rivalry, given its adherence to a free and open Indo-Pacific against the maritime expansion of Beijing in the South China Sea and the Indian Ocean.

India-China and the Neighbourhood First

The ‘’Neighbourhood First Policy’’ and the ‘‘Act East Policy’’ can ensure improved ties with the neighborhood, while securing maritime territorial rights of the Philippines, Vietnam, and Sri Lanka, however, clashes due to the fisherman issue and over Katchatheevu island could further push Colombo close to Beijing.

An influx of Rohingya refugees along the Bangladesh-Myanmar border could as well pose a challenge to the coalition government, while the administration seeks to implement the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC), to deport refugees back to their home countries. The issue could further be exacerbated by the ongoing human rights crisis in the north-east, concerns have already been raised by the United States and the European Union. The Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina took a visit to Beijing, wherein the development of Teesta Basin and failure on the part of New Delhi to formalize the water sharing agreement might push Dhaka closer to Beijing, as it conducted an agreement on Rohingya Repatriation. Beijing has been developing infrastructure in the Indian Ocean, which could jeopardize New Delhi’s efforts to emerge as the net security provider in the global south.

Economy, diaspora, and humanitarian assistance

Economic policies and foreign policies are likely to be shaped by elections in the European Union, Brazil, the United Kingdom, the United States, Indonesia, and South Africa. Economic diplomacy shaped the conclusion of the Trade and Economic Partnership Agreement (TEPA) with four member European Free Trade Association (EFTA), debt restructuring in Sri Lanka, military assistance and Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR) operations in Maldives, Bangladesh, and Nepal. Ukraine War and Israel-Palestine conflict will further define relations with the European Union, on the other hand, China, Egypt, and the United States have been involved in peace negotiations in the Middle East, wherein continuation of close cooperation with Israel, amidst the ongoing war might affect India’s relations with the West, though New Delhi could continue providing humanitarian relief for Palestinians.

Speaking of the Ukraine-Russia War, New Delhi refused to condemn the war or back any international sanctions, while New Delhi enabled evacuation for the diaspora stuck in the warzone. Moscow further promised to discharge Indians caught up in the Russian conflict, who were falsely inducted to join its army and forced into active combat in Ukraine, some of them were suspected to have been trafficked; the issue however, can be taken up against the ruling government.

Economic Collaborations under Viksit Bharat

De-dollarisation and currency swap agreement with Russia could as well lead to investments, though New Delhi has been diversifying its defense partnership from the largest arms supplier to the United States, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Israel. The international collaborations could further enable investments in the country, amidst shifting supply chain structures under the ‘’China Plus One (C+1)’’ policy under the ‘Make in India’ program, which could enable the country to escalate to a GDP of US$ 30 trillion economy under the ‘’Viksit Bharat’’ program by 2047.

New Delhi decided not to join the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), affecting its regional standing in South East Asia. However, defense production and exports based on ASEAN-India cooperation could pave the way out for economic development. The South Asian region especially gained prominence after leaders from Sri Lanka, Maldives, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, and Seychelles were invited to attend the swearing-in ceremony of Prime Minister Modi, depicting the implementation of the ‘’Neighbourhood First’’ Policy and ‘’SAGAR’’ Vision. The foreign policy marked a continuity of balancing deterrence and diplomacy, with anti-piracy naval deployments in the Indian Ocean and countering attacks in the Red Sea Region, thereby protecting freedom of navigation amidst the ongoing Israel-Palestinian War, as mentioned in the 2024 manifesto. The agenda has been taken up ahead of the possibility of Beijing expanding its presence in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), which is likely to be countered by New Delhi conducting naval and military exercises and training missions.

The Approach of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam

India will continue extending its presence in the Indo-Pacific, while it has issued a line of credit to neighboring countries. The foreign policy approach needs to be balanced with the potential escalation of anti-India rhetoric due to ongoing tensions in the northeast, social unrest, communal disharmony, and a perceived fall in democratic values including freedom of speech and civil liberties.

The economic grit might be jeopardized by falling demographic dividend, potential influx of refugees, burgeoning internal instability due to communal disharmony, and implementing a uniform civil code which could lead to conflict with the opposition. The issues can also affect unobstructed parliamentary functioning; the opposition, however, supports labor reforms, instilling entrepreneurship, vocational training, tourism, and tech-based development, which could also be enabled by the diaspora supporting higher education and research initiatives, in turn, India provides for capacity building and training based on the initiative of ‘‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam.”

Domestic strife and unstable geopolitical environment could potentially undermine India’s soft power, and pose a challenge to the demographic dividend which could lead India to become the third-largest economy by 2030. An increase in terror activities during the G-20 Summit and the post-elections oath-taking ceremony makes it imperative to revisit national security – the hawkish approach initially paved by the “2014 Doval Doctrine”.

By: Lt Col JS Sodhi (Retd), Editor, GSDN

Nestled between the Himalayas and the Karakoram, Gilgit-Baltistan is a region of breathtaking beauty and strategic importance. Yet, this gem of South Asia has endured over seven decades of suffering and atrocities under Pakistani occupation. Since 1947, the people of Gilgit Baltistan have faced political disenfranchisement, demographic manipulation, sectarian violence, economic exploitation, and cultural suppression, all while their plight remains largely ignored by the international community.

A Legacy of Oppression

Gilgit-Baltistan, initially part of the princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, was occupied by Pakistan during the chaos of partition. Despite its significance, the region has never been granted constitutional recognition or associated rights. Instead, it has been administered as a colonial territory, with Islamabad imposing its will on the local population. The imposition of the Gilgit-Baltistan Orders of 2009 and 2018 centralized power in Islamabad, stripping the region’s elected assembly of any real authority and further entrenching its dependence on federal oversight.

Sectarian Strife and Demographic Manipulation

One of the most egregious aspects of Pakistan’s rule has been its deliberate efforts to alter the region’s demographic and sectarian landscape. Historically, Gilgit-Baltistan has been home to a diverse mix of ethnic groups and sectarian communities, including Shia Muslims, Ismailis, and Noor Bakshis. However, since the 1970s, Pakistani authorities have encouraged Sunni migration, aiming to dilute the Shia majority’s influence. This policy, initiated under Zia ul Haq, has led to increased sectarian tensions and violence, with notable massacres in 1988, 1990, and subsequent years.

Economic Exploitation

The region’s vast natural resources and strategic location have been exploited for the benefit of Pakistan and its allies, particularly China. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), announced in 2013, has brought extensive infrastructure projects to Gilgit Baltistan, but these have primarily served external interests. The 2018 Gilgit-Baltistan Order ensured that control over critical infrastructure remained with the central government, depriving the region of economic autonomy and increasing its financial dependence on Islamabad. Land acquisition for CPEC projects has often been conducted without adequate compensation or consultation, leading to widespread discontent and displacement.

Cultural Suppression and Human Rights Violations

The Pakistani state has systematically sought to erode Gilgit-Baltistan’s unique cultural identity through policies that undermine local languages, traditions, and practices. Reports of arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances, and extrajudicial killings targeting activists and dissenters are rampant. The lack of independent media and the suppression of freedom of expression have further silenced the voices of the people.

A Growing Call for Reunification with India

In recent years, there has been a significant increase in protests by the locals of Gilgit-Baltistan. Since 2022, more than 100 protests were reported across the region, with thousands of locals participating. These demonstrations have been fueled by grievances over land rights, economic exploitation, and the lack of political representation. A growing number of locals are calling for reunification with India, disillusioned by decades of neglect and oppression under Pakistani rule. A survey conducted in late 2022 revealed that approximately 40% of respondents in Gilgit-Baltistan expressed a desire to join India, citing better governance and historical ties.

A Call to Action

The story of Gilgit-Baltistan is one of resilience amidst adversity. For over seven decades, its people have endured unimaginable hardships under Pakistani occupation. It is high time for the international community to recognize the suffering of the people of Gilgit Baltistan and support their struggle for self-determination and human rights. By bringing attention to their plight, we can help bring an end to their suffering and pave the way for a brighter, more just future for Gilgit-Baltistan.

India, too, must engage with the people of Gilgit-Baltistan and nationalist groups seeking moral support. By reaching out, India can garner more support for Gilgit Baltistan’s reunification, a sentiment that is gaining momentum despite Pakistan’s suppression. Additionally, New Delhi should work to draw international attention to the atrocities in Gilgit-Baltistan. Highlighting these issues will give a voice to the region’s people and draw attention to the broader Kashmir issue, which has been neglected by the international community for too long.

The world cannot remain silent while the people of Gilgit-Baltistan continue to suffer. It is time to stand with them, to acknowledge their struggles, and to support their quest for justice and self-determination.

By: Srijan Sharma

Last serious assassination attempt on an US President/ex-President was made in May 2005 when an Armenian named Vladmir Arutyunian threw a live Soviet-made RGD-5 hand grenade toward the podium where the former US President George W. Bush was giving a speech. Fortunately, the grenade didn’t explode because a red tartan handkerchief was wrapped tightly around it, preventing the safety lever from detaching. However, US Presidents especially those who steered USA during conflict times had close brushes with assassination attempts.  One more serious attempt was planned on Bill Clinton by the Al-Qaida chief Osama Bin Laden in 1994. Laden recruited Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing, to attempt to assassinate Clinton. However, Yousef decided that security would be too effective and decided to target Pope John Paul II instead.  In 1981, former US President Ronald Regen was shot by John Hickely to impress actress Jodie Foster, with whom he had developed an erotomaniac obsession after viewing her in the 1976 film Taxi Driver.

The Threat Matrix of US Presidents

The threat matrix of US Presidents has always been high but it reached to concerning levels whenever US was contesting battles abroad.  Many survived but few were not lucky.  The threat assessment works on wide arrays and the most difficult part is predicting the exact degree of threat. According to reports and a former Secret Service Director, former US President Donald Trump faced around eight threats per day which average out to about 2000 threats per year.  With increasing developments in cyberworld, the threat emanating from the cyberspace is increasingly becoming difficult to track and eliminate. However, a brief study was done by Secret Service National Threat on evaluating risks on targeted violence and its approaches, first in 1995 and then in 1999. The Secret Service in its monograph titled “Preventing Assassination” in 1997 concluded that assassination is the end result of a discernible and understandable process of thinking and behaviour and perhaps works on micro to macro threat assessment where micro means individual level threats where threats from specific individuals civilians with psychological disorders or stunt maniacs, extremists, criminal syndicates which are not limited to only external domains those can even include individual threats within home.

The macro level threat exists considering US’ national security and its strategic decisions impacting geopolitics or any specific region. The macro level emanates from organizational levels, terror outfits, another state, the threat scale etc. In case macro level threat increases, intelligence gathering and investigations help detect the degree of threat that US Presidents face, especially when security environment around US becomes serious.

In both the cases, there is a common link which is the leadership behaviour and its decisions which impacts micro and macro threats.  The example of Israel’s Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination by an Israeli ultranationalist after signing Oslo Accords is one way of assessing the relationship of leadership behaviour and threat matrix.  Similarly, the case of assassination of the US President Abraham Lincoln too reflects the importance of leadership’s behaviour.  In this case Lincoln was assassinated by a supporter of slavery and an opposer of idea of equality named John Wikes Booth, as he believed that Lincoln who supported idea of quality and was against slavery will overthrow constitution.  In totality, the threat assessment to be close to accurate has to go through qualitive intelligence assessment without any intel biases. Also, it must have a thorough scan of security environment. Thirdly, it must run a impact test of current leadership’s decisions and President’s popularity and hostility which will help to identify micro level threats. The macro level threats automatically get generated by intelligence agencies and counter terror setups.

Failure of Threat Assessments and Secret Service

The most startling miss by the Secret Service was the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy where a former US Marine Corps trooper named Lee Harvey Oswald, shot the President when his Presidential Motorcade passing through Daely Plaza in Dallas. Kennedy was shot once in the back the bullet exiting via his throat, and once in the head.  Warren Commission thoroughly investigated the assassination and ruled out conspiracy and put all blame on Oswald that he did it all alone.  However, still many analysts and even Americans don’t accept that. A conspiracy theory was swamped that the deep state system in the US conspired the assassination of its own President and the reason to some extent was quite obvious that the CIA budget had been slashed, CIA’s failure in Cuba and various other factors had made President Kennedy’s relationship with CIA quite troublesome.

The question of Secret Service was too examined and the agency was asked to make few modifications in their security details. Surprisingly, Commission member Richard Russell told the Washington Post in 1970 that Kennedy had been the victim of a conspiracy, criticizing the commission’s no-conspiracy finding and saying “we weren’t told the truth about Oswald”. John Sherman Cooper also considered the ballistic findings to be “unconvincing”.

The Overload of Threat Assessment: Trump’s assassination Attempt

Threat assessment can go wrong and it can be become a victim of intelligence bias or situation bias sometimes as to some extent reflected in Kennedy’s case. The reason of biasness and failed assessment is the overload of threat in evolving threat landscape. The argument of achieving 100 percent threat accuracy is too far fetched and near to impossible, but a near or high accuracy is possible at least from professional state agencies. The overload of assessments sometimes forces the agencies to overlook the micro threats which sometimes are present in their home regardless of internal or external abetments, which also include civilians with psychological disorder. An increase in situational awareness and close attention to micro threats especially in election season could have prevented Trump’s assassination attempt.  An introspection and need of filtration of threats, a strategic enhancement to increase their situational awareness should become priority for the security agencies to save themselves from getting caught off guard, as their one mistake can have serious implications.

By: Aishwarya Dutta

“Diplomacy is like Jazz: Endless variations on a theme.” The recent SCO summit proves how much truth this statement by Richard Holbrooke holds.     

The 24th summit of the Council of heads of state of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) on July 4, 2024 adopted the Astana Declaration approving 25 strategic documents covering energy, security, trade, finance and information security. The SCO is an Eurasian intergovernmental organization which came into formation on 15 June, 2001 in Shanghai, China. Currently the SCO has ten members namely, Republic of Kazakhstan, People’s Republic of China, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Tajikistan, the Republic of Uzbekistan, the Republic of India, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Republic of Belarus. The SCO undertakes policies based on the principles of mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality and mutual consultations, respect for cultural diversity, and a desire for common development with an aim to maintain and safeguard peace, security and stability in the region.

The summit titled “Strengthening Multilateral Dialogue – Striving Towards a Sustainable Peace and Prosperity” saw several bilateral as well as multilateral meetings among the heads of states of the member states. However, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s absence has been speculated as a purposive stance on India’s part to put pressure on China to reconsider their encroaching activities at the Indo-China border. On behalf of Modi, the External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar represented India and urged global action against terror-harboring nations; thus, taking an indirect dig at China and Pakistan. What caught the attention however was the brewing Sino-Russian as well as Russia-Pakistan ties. These growing bilateral relationships could be a matter of apprehension for India. We shall explore these variations in the paradigms of the relationships between the major powers within the SCO in this article.

Sino-Russian ties

Putin and Xi held bilateral meetings on the SCO sidelines. They met on July 3, 2024 making it the second meeting in two months and emphasized on the strengthening of partnership to counter Western influence. Putin underscored that Sino-Russian relations are going through their ‘best’ phase, highlighting their role as a stabilizing force globally. He also emphasized SCO’s growing significance in shaping a “fair multipolar order.” China has offered crucial support to Russia’s economy amid severe sanctions while the two nations have also strengthened military cooperation.

After several years of apparently unbeatable distrust and bilateral crises, the post-Cold War era has observed an extraordinary regeneration and strengthening of the relationship between Russia and China. In the 1950s, after a primary influence of the stated socialist ‘brotherhood’ and deep political and financial assistance, Moscow and Beijing quickly went into an aggressive tactical hostility. In 1969, things went to the point of nuclear dangers. The relations were finally normalized in 1989 and the two countries developed a close association. Since 1991, the major powers of the world have experienced intense modifications in status: China, prospered in military and economic transformations, appeared as a rising power on the global arena; Russia, extremely involved in political and economic changes, lost the status of super power; and the U.S got converted to the only remaining international superpower after it had vanished its Cold War opponent. The theoretical basis for strategic partnership between China and Russia refers to the system of contrasting a unipolar world and sponsoring a multipolar system in the world. In the mid-1990s, leaders of China, Jiang Zemin, and of Russia, Boris Yeltsin, decided to make a ‘strategic partnership’ between the both states. Russia and China signed a Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation in 2001.

Russia-Pakistan bilateral ties

In the recent SCO summit, Pakistani Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif proposed to Russian President Vladimir Putin to consider barter trade as a means to outmaneuver Western financial sanctions hindering economic cooperation. Sharif recalled how Pakistan and Russia engaged in barter trade (of machinery, textiles, leather and other products) during the Soviet period. According to Sharif, resuming the barter system would greatly benefit Pakistan and help overcome many other challenges.

Pakistan and Russia have witnessed a fluctuation of relations during the cold war and the post-cold war era. The worst period of their relationship lasted a decade from 1979 to 1989 when Pakistan helped launch the US sponsored guerrilla war of the Mujahideen against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. This bitter phase ended with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. But another source of tension arose in the later part of 1990s on account of Pakistan’s support to the Taliban in the Afghan civil war and its ultimate recognition of their government which the Soviets believed was harmful for the entire region. However, despite this history of tense relations, both countries from time to time made moves to improve their relations. Nawaz Sharif, as Prime Minister of Pakistan, visited Russia in 1999 and signed quite a few trade and industry related agreements. This visit greatly helped in breaking the ice and opening a new chapter of bilateral relations.  The visit was termed by the Russian President Boris Yeltsin as a “new chapter in relations between the two countries oriented into the 21st century.” There onwards exchange of visits by representatives of both countries became a regular feature. In 2011, Russia’s Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin publicly supported Pakistan’s desire to attain full membership of SCO. He further stated that in South Asia and the Muslim world, Pakistan was a very important partner for Russia.

While Pakistan needs Russian investment for reviving its economy due to dwindling American aid (post the 9/11 tragedy), Russia also eyes Pakistan as a good destination for its investments and trade, with India getting closer to the US and Europe in its place. It is in this light that the recent progress in Pak-Russian relations is being seen. Many scholars, leaders and diplomats believe that Pakistan-Russia relations would grow more even in face of Indo-US tacit opposition.

Implications for India

Modi’s vision of a ‘secure’ SCO seems to be a far-fetched dream. ‘Secure’ is an acronym for security, economic cooperation, connectivity, unity, respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, and environmental protection. The growing Sino-Russian and Russia-Pakistan relations within the context of the SCO might prove to be a serious hurdle for India’s secure strategy. While PM Modi decided to skip the summit, Sharif and Xi saw it as a great opportunity to strengthen their ties with Russia which is also one of the most important allies of India. While India balances out between Russia and the USA to counter Chinese hegemonic influence in Asia, China’s closer relations with Russia might prove to be troubling India’s stronghold in Asia as well.

However, the friendship between India and Russia is still very strong. The former Soviet Union was the main supplier of defense equipment to India for many decades. Their geopolitical ties have become stronger since the 2011 ‘Special and Privileged Strategic Partnership.’ The Russian Government has supported India’s efforts for becoming a permanent member of United Nations Security Council (UNSC) with full veto power and also backed India’s full membership of SCO. Both countries have been cooperating in energy and space programs also. India and Russia have taken some major steps to promote trade and economic cooperation as well. However, in view of India’s growing relations with the US and interest in purchasing its military hardware, Russia has been going closer to Pakistan. Russia’s logic is that since it has accepted India’s agreement of strategic partnership with the US, India should also not object to Russia’s evolving friendship with Pakistan.

Another point to note is that Pakistan and China are also very close friends with strategic cooperation in many micro and macro level economic projects and military related fields. China has been steadfast in supporting Pakistan’s role in the ‘war on terror’. It has firmly supported Pakistan in all matters in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and also not to forget the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) as a part of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). China even aided Pakistan in developing the Gwadar Port in Baluchistan.

Conclusion

Having explored all these facets, India seems to linger outside a triangular camaraderie which exists among China, Russia and Pakistan especially after the recent SCO summit. The forum might become a little less attractive for India to further its cause. Being an ally of only one of the countries i.e. Russia would put India in a tight position in the future. However, we are yet to witness how things unfold for India.

By: Mahima Sharma, Research Analyst, GSDN

The European Union’s relationship with Hungary has reached a critical juncture, marked by persistent violations of rule of law principles and a deepening divide over core values. Despite Hungary’s significant economic ties with the EU, the country’s authoritarian government, led by Viktor Orbán, has systematically undermined democratic institutions and human rights, leading to a standoff that has frozen over €30 billion in EU funds. This standoff not only highlights the challenges to EU cohesion but also raises fundamental questions about how the bloc should deal with a member state that rejects its foundational principles. As Hungary assumes the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU, these tensions are set to intensify, posing a significant headache for the EU’s future and its ability to uphold its values.

Violations of Rule of Law and Democracy

The European Union has been grappling with persistent violations of rule of law principles in Hungary for years. In response, the EU has deployed a range of instruments and procedures to address these concerns.

One of the key actions taken by the EU is the initiation of infringement proceedings against Hungary. The European Commission has launched numerous infringement cases, accusing the Hungarian government of breaching EU law in areas such as the independence of the judiciary, freedom of expression, and data protection.  These proceedings can ultimately lead to Hungary being brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union and facing potential fines or other sanctions.

Additionally, the EU has taken the unprecedented step of activating Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union against Hungary. This procedure, often referred to as the “nuclear option,” is designed to address serious and persistent breaches of the EU’s core values, including the rule of law.  The activation of Article 7 has placed Hungary under heightened scrutiny and could potentially result in the suspension of its voting rights within the EU.

The consequences of these rule of law violations have been significant for Hungary. Over the past three years, the country has had more than €30 billion in EU funds frozen due to these serious deficits.  This is a staggering amount, equivalent to nearly 5% of Hungary’s GDP, and has put significant economic pressure on the government. Furthermore, Hungary has become the first and only member state against which the EU’s new conditionality mechanism has been applied, further tightening the financial constraints.

These actions by the EU demonstrate the gravity of the situation and the bloc’s determination to uphold its foundational values of democracy, the rule of law, and respect for human rights. The ongoing tensions between Hungary and the European Union over these issues pose a significant challenge for the EU, with the potential to undermine its cohesion and credibility if left unresolved.

Economic and Political Pressure

The blocking of EU funds for Hungary is a significant economic and political pressure point, amounting to almost 5% of its GDP between 2024 and 2026. This has put the government under immense financial strain due to the high cost of borrowing on financial markets. The economic impact is substantial, as Hungary relies heavily on EU funds for its economic development and stability.

Additionally, Hungary is facing increasing political pressure within the EU. The loss of its ally Poland, which has been a key supporter of Hungary’s stance on EU issues, has left Hungary more isolated. The possibility of Article 7 proceedings being initiated against Hungary, which could lead to the suspension of its voting rights, further exacerbates the political pressure. This could potentially isolate Hungary within the EU and undermine its ability to influence EU decisions.

The economic and political pressures on Hungary are intertwined and have far-reaching implications. The loss of EU funds and the threat of further sanctions can lead to economic instability and political uncertainty, which can, in turn, exacerbate the political tensions within the EU. The ongoing standoff highlights the challenges the EU faces in maintaining cohesion and upholding its values in the face of persistent rule of law and democracy violations by a member state.

Challenges to EU Values and Institutions

The Hungarian government is accused of deliberately and systematically undermining the EU’s founding values, including through the recently adopted “national sovereignty protection” package.  This legislation has been compared to Russia’s “foreign agents” law, raising concerns that it could be used to unjustly target government critics and dissidents.

The EU has responded by initiating legal proceedings against Hungary, arguing that the law breaches multiple EU regulations and threatens democratic principles, voting rights, and fundamental freedoms.  This action signifies the latest clash in the ongoing conflict between Brussels and Budapest over the rule of law and democratic backsliding in Hungary.

Beyond the legal challenges, there are also concerns about Hungary’s ability to fulfil its duties during its upcoming Presidency of the Council of the EU in the second half of 2024.  There are calls for the Council to find proper solutions to mitigate the risks posed by a Hungarian Presidency, and for reforms to the Council’s decision-making process to prevent the abuse of the right of veto and blackmail.

These tensions highlight the broader challenges the EU faces in upholding its core values and institutions in the face of a member state that appears determined to undermine them. The standoff with Hungary poses a significant headache for the EU, with the potential to further erode its cohesion and credibility if left unresolved.

Diverging Paths and Missed Opportunities

While Hungary remains deeply linked with the European Union economically, support for EU membership is declining as sanctions from Brussels intensify. This decline is partly due to the economic pressure resulting from the blocking of EU funds, which has significant macroeconomic implications. The amount of EU funds blocked for Hungary is substantial, amounting to almost 5% of its GDP between 2024 and 2026, and has forced the government to tighten fiscal policy to compensate for the lack of these funds. The high cost of borrowing on financial markets, with interest rates for Hungarian government bonds standing at 6.16% in December 2023, further exacerbates the economic strain.

Hungary has also fallen behind its Central European peers in terms of economic convergence. The country has seen slow progress in areas such as GDP per capita, wages, and productivity growth. This stagnation is particularly notable given that Hungary has historically been a net recipient of EU structural assistance, receiving significant funds for infrastructure, ecology, climate protection, energy transition, and civil society projects. However, the withdrawal of these funds due to rule of law issues has hindered Hungary’s economic development and convergence with other EU member states.

The Orbán government’s policies, such as further centralization, strong state intervention, and a focus on reindustrialization, have been criticized as misinterpreting the needs of the 21st century economy. These policies have led to a significant budget deficit and fiscal consolidation challenges. The government’s reliance on Russian gas and oil supplies, despite the geopolitical tensions, also highlights its strategic and economic dependencies

Conclusion

The ongoing tensions between Hungary and the European Union have reached a critical juncture, posing significant challenges for the bloc’s cohesion, values, and institutions. The Hungarian government’s persistent violations of rule of law principles and its systematic undermining of democratic institutions have led to a standoff with the EU, resulting in the freezing of over €30 billion in EU funds and the activation of Article 7 proceedings.

While Hungary remains deeply linked with the EU economically, support for EU membership is declining as sanctions intensify. Hungary has fallen behind its Central European peers in terms of economic convergence, with slow progress in areas like GDP per capita, wages, and productivity growth. The Orbán government’s policies, such as further centralization and a focus on reindustrialization, have been criticized as misinterpreting the needs of the 21st century economy.

The bloc must find a way to uphold its values while maintaining unity and cohesion. This will require a delicate balance of diplomacy, economic incentives, and a commitment to the rule of law. Failure to resolve these issues could have significant consequences for the EU’s future and its ability to project its values on the global stage.

By: Darshan Gajjar, Research Analyst, GSDN

The realist school of thought in international relations (IR) considers the international system to be anarchic, where there is an absence of hierarchy and any central authority. As opposed to the realists, there is a liberal school of IR that emphasises the role of order in the international system. One of the liberal theories, liberal institutionalism, believes that cooperation between states by means of institutions is feasible, sustainable, and reduces the potential for conflict between those states.

Such theoretical underpinnings led to the building of numerous alliances across the world, especially after World War II, with the aim of cooperation on multiple issues. Global political cooperation by means of the United Nations in addition to other organisations was at least a norm, if not an established standard. At the economic level, it made lots of sense for countries to collaborate on issues of convergence to remove existing trade issues. The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), established by European states, was a great example of how nations can collaborate in order to maximise their economic output.

The Genesis and Objectives of SAARC

Recognising the importance of such a cooperation at the regional level, the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) was founded in 1985 with the aim of promoting economic and regional integration. Its member states include Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. SAARC’s primary objectives include the promotion of welfare economics, collective self-reliance, and accelerated socio-economic growth within the South Asian region.

SAARC was envisioned as a platform to foster mutual understanding and collaboration among the South Asian nations, many of which share historical, cultural, and economic ties. The primary idea was to create a regional bloc that could leverage its collective strengths to address common challenges such as poverty, illiteracy, and underdevelopment, thereby uplifting the overall standard of living in the region. However, despite its noble objectives and initial promise, SAARC has largely been perceived as a failure in achieving its intended goals.

Key Factors Behind SAARC’s Ineffectiveness

One of the primary reasons for SAARC’s ineffectiveness is the deep-seated political tensions and rivalries among its member states, particularly between India and Pakistan. The contentious relationship between these two nuclear-armed neighbours has often overshadowed the organisation’s agenda, leading to a stalemate on several initiatives. The Kashmir conflict, cross-border terrorism, and historical animosities have consistently hindered any meaningful progress within SAARC. This bilateral tension has frequently resulted in the derailment of summits and the postponement of key decisions. Further, Pakistan’s support of non-state terrorist actors was one of the key reasons while its activities were being opposed by the member states

There also exists a lack of political will among SAARC member states to prioritise regional cooperation. Many member countries have been more focused on pursuing their own domestic agendas and bilateral relations with powerful external actors rather than investing in regional cooperation. Pakistan’s invocation of the Kashmir dispute at each and every multilateral forum, including SAARC is one such example. This lack of commitment has led to a situation where SAARC’s initiatives are often underfunded and poorly implemented.

SAARC’s organisational structure and institutional mechanisms have also contributed to its ineffectiveness. Decision-making within SAARC is based on the principle of unanimity, which means that any member state can veto a proposal. This has often resulted in a paralysis of decision-making, as member states with conflicting interests fail to reach a consensus. Furthermore, SAARC’s secretariat, which is responsible for coordinating and implementing its activities, has been criticised for being understaffed and lacking the necessary resources and authority to drive the organisation’s agenda.

The South Asian region is characterised by significant economic disparities among its member states. India, being the largest and most economically advanced member, has often found it challenging to align its economic priorities with those of its smaller and less developed neighbours. This has resulted in a mismatch of expectations and priorities, further complicating efforts to achieve regional integration. Additionally, divergent economic policies and protectionist measures adopted by some member states have hindered the establishment of a cohesive regional economic framework.

Impact of SAARC’s Failure on India

India, being the largest and most influential member of SAARC, has much at stake in the organisation’s success or failure. The failure of SAARC has several implications for India, ranging from economic and strategic concerns to geopolitical challenges.

For starters, SAARC’s failure to achieve economic integration has limited India’s ability to capitalise on regional trade opportunities. Intra-regional trade within SAARC remains abysmally low compared to other regional blocs such as ASEAN or the European Union. This has prevented India from fully leveraging its economic potential within the South Asian market. Additionally, the absence of a robust regional trade framework has resulted in increased reliance on extra-regional trade partners, such as China, thereby limiting the scope for regional economic synergies.

The failure of SAARC to foster regional cooperation has also impacted India’s strategic and security interests. The lack of a unified regional approach to addressing common security challenges, such as terrorism, has made it difficult for India to build a cohesive security architecture in South Asia. This has allowed external actors to exploit regional divisions and influence the strategic dynamics of the region. Moreover, the persistent political tensions within SAARC have hindered efforts to build confidence and trust among member states, thereby perpetuating a cycle of insecurity and instability.

Further, there are some geopolitical implications of SAARC’s failure that are particularly concerning for India. The inability of SAARC to function effectively has provided an opportunity for China to expand its influence in South Asia through initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Several SAARC member states, facing economic challenges and limited regional cooperation, have increasingly turned to China for economic and infrastructural assistance. This growing Chinese presence in India’s immediate neighbourhood has strategic implications, as it could potentially undermine India’s influence and leverage in the region.

India’s Strategic Response

In response to the challenges posed by SAARC’s ineffectiveness, India has adopted a multi-faceted strategy to safeguard its interests and promote regional cooperation. Recognizing the limitations of SAARC, India has increasingly focused on strengthening bilateral relations with individual SAARC member states. This approach has allowed India to pursue its strategic and economic interests without being constrained by the collective decision-making process of SAARC. Additionally, India has actively promoted sub-regional initiatives such as the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) and the Bangladesh-Bhutan-India-Nepal (BBIN) initiative. These platforms provide an alternative framework for regional cooperation and have shown more promise in achieving tangible outcomes.

India has also prioritised enhancing connectivity and infrastructure development within the South Asian region. Projects such as the India-Myanmar-Thailand Trilateral Highway and the development of regional energy grids aim to improve regional connectivity and facilitate economic integration. By investing in infrastructure development, India seeks to create a conducive environment for regional trade and cooperation, thereby offsetting the limitations of SAARC.

In addition to its regional initiatives, India has sought to leverage its partnerships with other regional and global players to promote its strategic interests. Engagement with organisations such as ASEAN and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) allows India to pursue regional cooperation on a broader platform. Moreover, India’s strategic partnerships with countries like the United States, Japan, and Australia provide additional avenues for promoting regional stability and addressing security challenges.

Conclusion

The failure of SAARC to achieve its intended goals of regional cooperation and integration is a cause of concern for India. The political tensions, lack of political will, structural challenges, and economic disparities within SAARC have significantly impeded its effectiveness. This has resulted in economic limitations, strategic vulnerabilities, and geopolitical challenges for India. However, India has recognised one point that terror and trade cannot go hand in hand and responded to these challenges by adopting a multi-faceted strategy that includes strengthening bilateral and sub-regional initiatives, enhancing regional connectivity, and leveraging regional and global partnerships. While SAARC’s future remains uncertain, India’s proactive approach provides a pathway for addressing the challenges and promoting regional cooperation in South Asia.

By: Kashif Anwar. Research Analyst, GSDN

Keeping in mind the development taking place across the globe whether it’s the Russia-Ukraine conflict, ongoing situation in the Middle East region, China in the Indo-Pacific region and the West vs Russia in Africa have become a concern for the West and group like G7. In this regard, the 2024 G7 Summit was 50^th summit which was held in the city of Borgo Egnazia in Apulia, Italy between 13^th and 15^th June to address their concern and issue through six working session. The G7 summit aimed to demonstrate group member’s strong determination and will power to uphold the international order based on rule of law, and to strengthen their engagement with developing nations. As summit witnessed leaders from 12 nations like India and 5 international organisations like the EU and African Union attended and took part in the four working sessions during the summit. The G7 communique re-affirmed their commitment to a Free and Open Indo-Pacific to be based on the rule of law and strengthened initiatives like the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment Initiative, India-Middle East Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC) and Italy’s Mattei Plan for Africa to address illegal immigration issue emerging from Africa.

The backdrop of the G7 2024 Summit

The 2024 G7 Summit in Italy is taking place in a different geo-political environment which is in contrast when compared to 2023. As in the last few months Israel intensifying incursion in Gaza or Russia intensifying position in Ukraine or West forces withdrawing and being replaced by the Russian forces in many African nations have become concerning for many G7 members. However, as France being the most vocal one to strongly deter Russia in Ukraine, on the other hand, calculated the move by the UK and Germany and Italy’s complete opposition to use of NATO forces against Russia have put G7 members against one another in recent months. With France and the US experiencing a major strategic blow – a military retrieval – in Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger and Chad the latest addition, highlight Africa is favouring the Russian military presence. On the other hand, the US and France gave Ukraine permission to use their weapons – within a limit – inside Russia like in Belgorod, has deteriorated France and the US ties with Russia.

Within such surroundings, Hungarian PM Viktor Orban accusation of West supporting Ukraine, who sees its wealth as a gold mine for the West who wants to ‘acquire and divide’ Kyiv’s wealth and exchange it with their arms aid and assistance. As the 2024 summit was held under such a backdrop, the G7 members saw the summit as a means to address their concerns and difference among the group and project a unified stand. This is happening at the time when Russia-China no-limit partnership has strengthened and actions and response from Russia, China and many Middle East and African countries, often contradict the West’s approach and have impacted G7 influence in many countries in Africa and region like Middle East.

The 2024 G7 Summit

Among various concerning issues like development, Africa, Climate and Artificial Intelligence are being discussed during the G7 summit. The Israel-Gaza conflict and Ukraine-Russia War being discussed and addressed by the G7 members during the summit are being closely watched globally. As the steps and plans adopted by the members before and during the summit highlight a distant away from addressing such concerning issues to ensure global order.

In the case of Israel-Gaza conflict, an unwavering the US support to Israel has further delayed the two-state solution as they promoted the normalisation of Arab nations relations with Israel at the cost of ensuring peace process between Palestine and Israel and in the Middle East region. Such aspects were well reflected in G7 members’ statement at the time when tension is brewing on the Lebanon-Israel border between Israeli forces and Hezbollah, which could result in the emergence of regional war in the coming times. In such a situation, a strong G7 stand is needed with the US willingness/position to resolve the situation. As G7’s half-hearted and ill-conceived approach to address the situation in the Middle East region will keep the region on a boiling point and could see another October 7 attack in the future.

Concerning the Russia-Ukraine War, to ensure Ukraine achieves a victory against Russia, the summit saw the signing of the 10-year security deal between the US and Ukraine. Such a deal includes providing Ukraine with US$ 75 billion aid of which US$ 46 billion will be military support and to provide squadrons of fighter jets like F-16s. On the other hand, G7 will use US$ 50 billion earned from the Russian frozen assets worth US$ 300 billion and provide it as a loan to Ukraine. G7 members argues such move will be a signal to Russia that they cannot win a war, and it will be wrong for Russia to be hopeful and wait for the Ukrainian resources to deplete. G7 move saw a strong response from Russia and vows to respond with a reciprocal move and emphasised they will find their move a risky affair for themselves in coming years.

Apart from such updates and decision took during the summit, the meeting saw Pope Francis being the first Pontiff to address a G7 summit stating concerns growing around the development of Artificial Intelligence. On the other hand, the G7 took a pledge to tackle their economy from China’s harmful business practices and the economic clout caused by its electric vehicles, steel and renewable energy practices, namely. However, in their communiqué they emphasised that such move isn’t intent to harm China or cause hurdle in its economic development path rather such move was to protect their business from unfair practices and ensure there is a level playing field for everyone, and not controlled by a few.

With host nation Italy project the G7 summit as a prominent global summit, the Italian Prime Minister Giorgio Meloni rejected the narrative of ‘West against the Rest’ and projected the G7 as not an exclusive club. Meanwhile, the absence of Saudi Arabia Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman from the submit has impacted group’s Middle East policy like the IMEC which is jolted by the Israel-Hamas conflict. Furthermore, expansion of BRICS and statement coming from the group in the recent times have shown it is becoming more relevant to global politics than the G7. Addition of more nations in BRICS like from the Global South and their voice is supported by BRICS. In the coming times in BRICS vs G7, BRICS will take a huge lead and become a focal of global geopolitics.

Conclusion

Considering the global geo-political developments and environment globally, the world watched the G7 summit closely, as how concerning issues like the Russia-Ukraine War, situation in the Middle East and immigration issue have been addressed during the summit. As G7 members emphasised to inflict further cost on Russia causing rift between the West and Russia and also expressed their full commitment, support and solidarity with Israel in their joint statement. The summit didn’t address the concerns of Global South to the development taking place in the Middle East region which was a contrast compared to BRICS Foreign Ministers joint statement released on June 10, 2024 in Russia, which accused Israel for blatant disregard of international law in Gaza. On a brighter side, unlike the earlier G7 summits, the immigration issue was discussed for the first time and seen as a sign of progress and a productive move by the group. However, the development and events taking place in the coming times, will further test the will-power and capacity of the G7 as how they address the voice and concern of the World or BRICS will take the lead becoming the prominent one.