By: Vishal Singh

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine set off a chain reaction, leading Armenia to re-evaluate its alliance with its longtime strategic partner, Russia. Initially dismissed as a rumour, it became clear over time that Armenia is now acquiring significant weaponry from India and the West, particularly France. Through this article, we’ll explore how India is emerging as or will become the primary supplier of weapons to Armenia, surprising Azerbaijan with the scale of these acquisitions. Having faced the harsh realities of past conflicts, Armenia understands the critical importance of robust defence capabilities, and the need for a strong defence has become paramount in this context. The acquisition of weapons is not just a strategic move but a vital necessity to ensure the security and sovereignty of the nation.

Russia’s Declining Influence in the South Caucasus

The recent Nagorno-Karabakh conflict marked a turning point for Armenia and strained its historical alliance with Russia despite being formally allied within the CSTO. Armenia, disillusioned by Moscow’s inaction during the conflict, is reconsidering its security ties. The failure of Russia’s peacekeeping mission in Nagorno-Karabakh has raised doubts about the sustainability of its military presence in Armenia. Armenia’s dissatisfaction is evident in its ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which means Armenia has accepted the jurisdiction of the international criminal court, and if Russian President Vladimir Putin visits Armenia, he will be arrested. Moscow’s response, labelling this move as extremely hostile, highlights the tensions in their once-aligned relationship.

The shifting dynamics led Armenia to explore alternative arms sources like India and the West, as Russia faces constraints in supplying weapons due to its commitments in the Ukraine conflict. France, which is home to an influential Armenian community, has become, in recent years, Armenia’s leading Western backer in the international arena. India also supports the country in the conflict with Azerbaijan.

The diplomatic relations between India and Armenia dates back to 1992 but gained momentum after Armenia’s short but intense conflict with Azerbaijan in 2020. In 2020, India sold the SWATHI weapon locating radar system to Armenia. However, the systems didn’t participate in the conflict because it was a new system for them, and they needed training to operate before being deployed in a conflict. Following this, a bilateral deal was established for New Delhi to supply an indigenous Pinaka multi-barrel rocket launcher. It may export Man Portable Anti-tank Guided Missile (MPATGM) to Armenia. In November 2022, Kalyani Strategic Systems won a US$ 155 million contract to supply artillery guns to Armenia.

The acquisition is facilitated through an Iranian Corridor, which is crucial for landlocked Armenia, providing a passage for importing military equipment. Armenia’s military commander, Major General Edward Asryan, visited India in March 2023 and emphasized closer ties. Armenians expressed gratitude for India’s condemnation of Azerbaijan’s aggression and welcomed an increased Indian role in the region.

One Arrow, Four Targets

Concerns arose for New Delhi due to the growing closeness between Azerbaijan, Pakistan, and Turkey. Turkey and Azerbaijan supporting Pakistan on Kashmir raised apprehensions, potentially leading to enhanced cooperation on National Security.

Armenia’s interest now extends to various other Indian weapons, including the Akash surface-to-air missile system, and recently, in a groundbreaking feat, India’s Akash SAM systems successfully engaged four aerial targets simultaneously at a 25 km range using a single firing unit with command guidance. Being able to engage multiple targets with a single firing unit implies a high level of efficiency and integration in the AOS Sam system. This capability could contribute to a more effective and responsive air defence system, making it the first nation to achieve such capability.

Additionally, Armenia is eyeing the medium-range, surface-to-air missile MRSAM system from India, which has a range of up to 75 km. The MRSAM is a significant addition to Armenia’s defence capabilities. Also, Armenia is purchasing an anti-drone system from India, the Zen anti-drone system, a countermeasure against unmanned aircraft. It consists of an RF-based drone detector that uses radio frequency sensors that passively listen and monitor 70 MHz to 6 GHz frequencies for transmissions of the communication link between the Drone and the pilot. Reports also suggest Armenia might be the first to operate India’s armed UAVs.  A Turkish Defence website reported Armenia’s interest in buying armed UAVs from India, specifically the Rustom 2 drones, representing a potential milestone in their defence collaboration.

Therefore, it’s a clear win-win situation for India. Weapon deals does not just suggest booming defence industry, it also sends a loud and a clear message to the adversaries.  India is stepping into the spotlight, from cutting-edge drones to precision rockets and robust air defence systems. Previously occupied by Russia, as Armenia diversifies its Arsenal and navigates the twists of global geopolitics, we could be witnessing the dawn of a new era with India taking the Reigns in shaping the defence landscape. Will India become the new defence powerhouse for nations in need? Only time will tell. Stay tuned because the world of international relations is a theatre where alliances shift, and narratives evolve.

By: Nihal Kujur, Research Analyst, GSDN

Introduction

The contact between India and New Zealand (NZ) is referred to as India-New Zealand relations. Both of these countries were previously a part of the British Empire. India and New Zealand have a long and friendly relationship. In an overview of India-New Zealand relations, India and New Zealand are founded in the Commonwealth, parliamentary democracy, and the English language. Both countries have been committed to disarmament, global peace, North-South dialogue, human rights, environmental preservation, and battling international terrorism. Tourism and sporting relations, particularly in cricket, hockey, and mountaineering, have played an important role in strengthening ties between the two countries.  With about 15,000 Indian students pursuing higher education in fields such as information technology, hospitality, science, engineering, and architecture annually, India is the second-largest source of international students in New Zealand. Education and tourism are important components in the New Zealand’s economy.

India-New Zealand Bilateral Relations

Both countries attained independence in the same year, and India’s diplomatic relationship with New Zealand began in 1950 with the establishment of a Trade Commission, which eventually ascended to the position of High Commission. India has an Honorary Consulate in Auckland and a High Commission in Wellington, while New Zealand has a High Commission in New Delhi, a Consulate in Mumbai, trade offices in both cities, and an Honorary Consulate in Chennai.

.

Historical Relations

India and New Zealand (NZ) have a longstanding, friendly and growing relationship. Their ties go back to the 1800s, with Indians settling in Christchurch as early as the 1850s. Larger numbers of immigrants from Punjab and Gujarat came to NZ in the 1890s. Indian troops fought alongside the Anzacs in Gallipoli in 1915.The bond between India and NZ is rooted in their shared history as former colonies of the British Empire. India becoming a priority for New Zealand is seen in its Open Doors to India policy. Pranab Mukherjee was the first Indian President to visit New Zealand in August 2016.

Political Relations

Both gaining independence the same year and starting diplomatic representation since 1950 with the establishment of a Trade Commission, the diplomatic ties between these two nations were officially established in 1952. Since then, New Zealand and India have maintained diplomatic ties. Both nations are members of a number of international organizations, and their relations extend to trade, culture, and education.

During Covid-19 pandemic, both countries cooperated extensively in fighting against the pandemic by ensuring the continuity of supply chains of essential commodities, medicines, and vaccines.

Trade Relations: 

With total two-way commerce valued at US$1.80 billion in 2020, New Zealand is the 11th largest two-way trading partner. Education and tourism are two of New Zealand’s fastest growing industries in India. Before the epidemic, about 15000 Indian students were the second largest source of overseas students in New Zealand.

• The number of Indian tourists to New Zealand in 2018 was the ninth highest, at 67,953.

• India largely imports logs and forestry goods from New Zealand, as well as wood pulp, wool, and edible fruit and nuts.

• Pharmaceuticals/medications, precious metals and stones, textiles and motor vehicles, and non-knitted clothes and accessories are the most common Indian exports to New Zealand. India and New Zealand have Free Trade Agreements (FTAs).

The India-New Zealand Business Council (INZBC) and the India-New Zealand Trade Alliance (INZTA) are two important organizations that strive to improve India-New Zealand trade and investment cooperation.

Cultural Relations 

All Indian holidays, such as Diwali, Holi, Rakshabandhan, Baisakhi, Guruparv, Onam, and Pongal, are widely celebrated in New Zealand. In 2021, New Zealand Post released a set of four new stamps representing the narrative of Diwali. NZ has roughly 2,50,000 people of Indian descent and NRIs, the great majority of whom have made the country their permanent home.

Strategic relations

‘India-New Zealand 2025: Investing in the Relationship’ establishes a framework on which New Zealand Government agencies and partners can build over the next five years to improve the relationship with India. New Zealand has pledged to working closely with Mori, Indian communities, businesses, colleges, and research groups to help achieve the strategy’s goals. New Zealand is opposed to India’s membership in the Nuclear Supplier Group (NSG). It has refused to change its position on admitting only Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) members to the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), a club of 48 countries that functions by agreement. New Zealand is a member of the New Agenda for Coalition, an organization that promotes the NPT and works for worldwide nuclear disarmament. Students from India are eligible to apply for Commonwealth Scholarships to pursue postgraduate studies in New Zealand. The two countries established the India-New Zealand Education Council in June 2011.

New Zealand’s importance for India         

New Zealand has world-class technologies in the dairy industry. India is collaborating with NZ in this field. A significant number of Indians go to New Zealand for studies and jobs, hence is important for India’s diaspora presence around the world. Moreover, India seeks its support for NSG and UNSC.

To strengthen bilateral ties, India and New Zealand inked three agreements in 2016 in the fields of double taxation avoidance (DTA), sports, and food security. Both countries have agreed to expand their collaboration in cyber security, counter-terrorism, customs, education, and food safety. 

India’s bid for NSG membership

During the New Zealand Prime Minister’s visit, India was unable to obtain New Zealand’s unequivocal backing for its bid for Nuclear Supplier Group (NSG) membership. India had made it clear to New Zealand that its admission to the NSG was dependent on renewable energy and climate change obligations. As a result, it suggests that New Zealand has yet to abandon its policy of admitting only Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) signatories to the NSG, a club of 48 countries that operates on consensus. 

New Zealand does not support India’s bid to NSG because it is a member of the New Agenda for Coalition, which advocates the NPT and works for global nuclear disarmament. The official state visit by New Zealand Prime Minister John Key comes ahead of an important NSG Consultative Group meeting in Vienna in November 2016.

This meeting was held to determine whether nations who have not signed the NPT can be considered for membership. Earlier in June 2016, India’s NSG membership application had failed to gain traction in Seoul (South Korea) due to opposition from China and other countries. New Zealand was also one of the countries, led by China that advocated the establishment of criteria for non-signatories to the NPT to join the NSG.

Recent Developments

In 2022, S. Jaishankar, the External Affairs Minister (EAM) of India, for first time visited New Zealand. During the visit, EAM and Ms. Jacinda Ardern, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, honored members of the Indian community in the country for their outstanding contributions and accomplishments. Both leaders released India@75 postal stamps in recognition of the celebration of Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav in New Zealand. EAM published the book ‘Modi@20: Dreams Meet Delivery’. There was also a book published called “Heartfelt – The Legacy of Faith,” which emphasized the unique bond that Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi has with the Sikh community.

He met New Zealand’s Foreign Minister, Ms. Nanaia Mahuta, to examine the condition of the overall partnership. He also met with a number of ministers, including Ms. Priyanca Radhakrishnan, Minister for Community and Voluntary Sector, Diversity, Inclusion, and Ethnic Communities, and Youth, the first person of Indian origin to be appointed to a cabinet position in New Zealand, as well as parliamentarians, business leaders, and members of the Indian diaspora, including Indian students during the visit.

In February 2023, Ms. Nanaia Mahuta, Foreign Minister of New Zealand, undertook her maiden official visit to India at the invitation of External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar. During her maiden visit to India as Foreign Minister, both Ministers talked on a variety of bilateral issues, including economic cooperation, educational exchanges, defence engagements, and people-to-people contacts. They discussed mutual interests in regional and international challenges, as well as India and New Zealand’s shared goal for a rules-based, peaceful, stable, and prosperous Indo-Pacific. Foreign Minister Mahuta handed over signed copies of the International Solar Alliance (ISA) Framework Agreement to the External Affairs Minister, clearing the way for New Zealand’s participation in this project.

New Zealand asserted that it sees India as a core and influential partner in the Indo-Pacific and has welcomed India’s participation in the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework believing that engagement with India as a part of their broader regional agenda.

Conclusion

In conclusion, India-New Zealand relations are deeply rooted in history and have evolved into a comprehensive partnership spanning political, economic, cultural, and strategic sectors. From their common colonial history to their joint efforts during the Covid-19 pandemic, the countries have developed significant connections. While bilateral trade, cultural festivities, and educational exchanges expand, obstacles remain, particularly with regard to India’s NSG membership. Recent high-level visits demonstrate a commitment to improving ties and recognizing common Indo-Pacific values and goals. The relationship covers a wide range of topics, from dairy technology to counter-terrorism measures. Despite their difficulties, both countries actively endeavor to improve cooperation, as seen by recent developments that indicate a favorable trajectory in India and New Zealand’s dynamic relationship.

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

Of the four provinces of Pakistan, namely Punjab, Balochistan, Sindh and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the province having the largest area but the least population amongst these four provinces is Balochistan.

Balochistan is located in the southwestern region of Pakistan and has internal boundaries with all the three other provinces of Pakistan and also shares an international border with Iran and Afghanistan. It has the Arabian Sea on its south and the port city of Gwadar, which is an important point in the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which is the flagship project of China’s Belt Road Initiative (BRI).

Balochistan is rich in natural resources. Despite it having 44% of the land area of Pakistan, only 5% of it is arable. Still agriculture and livestock contribute to 47% of Balochistan’s economy.

On August 14, 1947 when the Britishers carved out Pakistan as a new nation out of India, Balochistan remained an independent nation but finally against the wishes of its people it acceded Pakistan on March 27, 1948. This resulted in resistiveness among the Balochis and till date the Balochis do not consider themselves as part of Pakistan and this led to insurgencies by the Balochis against the Pakistan Government and the Pakistan Army since 1948, with the period since 2003 seeing intense fighting between the Baloch nationalists and the Pakistan Government and the Pakistan Army.

It is in this background of Balochistan’s struggle for independence from Pakistan, that Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) has launched severe and serious attacks on Pakistan Army. Since 2000, 1929 Balochis have been killed and 2052 Pakistani security forces have been killed. Thus, this dry and arid province of Pakistan is the witness to the biggest bloodbath taking place in Pakistan.  

And in this backdrop of the mayhem being unleashed by Pakistan in Balochistan, thousands of innocent Balochis have mysteriously started disappearing. This has further increased the resentment amongst the Balochis who are quite upset with their near and dear family and friends disappearing.

On December 06, 2023 the Balochis initiated “The Long March” from the city of Turbat to oppose “Baloch Genocide”. The marchers received a thundering response in the city of Taunsa Sharif and later on in Quetta, which is the capital of Balochistan. The marchers intended to end their Long March in Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan where it would merge with the ongoing sit-in in the Press Club.

Fearful over the growing popularity and success of “The Long March”, the Pakistan Government has launched a brutal crackdown on the marchers in an attempt to break the will of the marchers, so that The Long March collapses and doesn’t reach Islamabad.

Many of the marchers have been arrested or have been physically assaulted by the Pakistani security agencies.

It is time that the international forums like the United Nations, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the Arab League come to the aid of the Balochis and exert pressure on Pakistan to end their attacks on Balochis.

By: Pinkle Gogoi, Research Analyst, GSDN

Introduction

COP-28 which means Conference of the Parties more commonly known as COP-28 was the 28^th United Nations Climate Change Conference held from 30 November to 12 December, 2023 at Expo City, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

Sultan al-Jaber, the chief executive of COP-28 said that nearly eight years after the Paris Understanding and partially through the 2030 Plan, COP-28 is a convenient chance to leave upon another way towards powerful environment activity. As few UN reports show, the world isn’t on target to meeting the Paris Arrangement’s objectives, yet the expectation is that states at COP-28 will spread out a guide to speed up environment activity.

In 2020, individual nations thought of public environment activity plans pointed towards diminishing public outflows and adjusting to environmental change influences. With the following round of these plans booked for 2025, the result of the worldwide stocktake cycle could urge nations to raise desire and set new targets, surpassing existing arrangements and responsibilities. With such a huge amount in question, the Dubai meeting was a definitive second to transform environment plans into aggressive activity and reverse the situation against the environment emergency.

It was a gathering of all 195 countries where representatives came together to discuss and negotiate global climate policy and actions. COP-28 was very much important because there is this ongoing climate change and it is our responsibility to take some measures before it’s too late. COP-28 addressed the challenges of climate change, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions, adapting to the impacts of climate change, and mobilising financial resources for climate action.

As a result of COP-28 climate meeting there were some important outcomes namely, acknowledgement of the need to move away from fossil fuels to reduce methane emissions, capitalisation of the loss and damage fund.

The Expectations

The main motive of COP-28 was to carry out a Global Stocktake (GST), a comprehensive assessment of where the world was in its fight against climate change and what more needed to be done to meet the climate objectives. The GST was mandated by the Paris Agreement to be a periodic exercise, the first one in 2023 and every five years thereafter. It also thought to discuss and ensure that the world had some hope of keeping within the 1.5-degree Celsius warming threshold.

COP-28 was held while an Earth wide temperature boost was breaking new records. The year 2023 is now affirmed to arise as the warmest year of all time. This year set new temperature standards. Over 80 days this year turned out to be somewhere around 1.5 degree Celsius hotter than pre-modern times. Simultaneously, every evaluation showed that the world was not doing what’s needed, and that the 1.5 degree target was quickly getting insane. COP-28 accordingly was supposed to utilise the GST to invigorate more aggressive environment activities, especially among now and 2030.

Notwithstanding, COP-28 frustrated on that front. There was minimal in the last consent to speed up environment activity temporarily.

Outcomes

Fossil Fuel Phase-Out: This was one of the most important topic at COP28 and it had not been discussed before. The role of fossil fuel in causing global warming had never been even acknowledged in any earlier COP before. After much discussions, the final agreement called upon countries to contribute towards “transitioning away” from fossil fuels, so as to achieve net zero by 2050. Many countries got very much disappointed that the term “fossil fuel phase-out” had not been used. Though the production and consumption of fossil fuels are unlikely to be curbed but it is not possible within the 2050-time frame.

Tripling of Renewable Energy: This was an expected outcome, and the only one that contributes to additional emission reductions between now and 2030. The COP-28 agreement called upon countries to contribute to tripling of global installed capacity of renewable energy, and doubling of annual improvements in energy efficiency. Together, these two measures have the potential to avoid emissions of about 7 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent between now and 2030, more than all the net result of all the other climate actions being currently taken. Tripling is a global target, and it is not incumbent on every country to individually triple its current installed capacity. It is thus not clear how this tripling would be ensured.

Phase down of coal: Notwithstanding being a non-renewable energy source, very much like oil or petroleum gas, coal has gotten a different notice in the understanding. This is on the grounds that coal was at that point singled out for work down in the Glasgow gathering in 2021. There was a transition to specify that no new coal terminated power plants could be opened without an in-fabricated carbon catch and storeroom, however this was unequivocally opposed by India, China, South Africa and other nations. It was dropped. Lastly, the Glasgow language was repeated. There isn’t anything about how this stage down is to be estimated, or from what pattern.

Methane emission cuts: The game plan talks about “accelerating and essentially lessening non-carbon-dioxide outpourings around the world, recalling for explicit methane spreads by 2030”. Methane is the most expansive ozone hurting substance isolated from CO2, addressing practically 25% of all releases. It is similarly on various occasions major areas of strength for more CO2 in causing a perilous air deviation. Methane outpouring diminishes can therefore bring huge benefits. Nonetheless, a couple of countries, including India, are unimaginably against any request to cut methane spreads, basically considering the way that one of the huge sources is cultivation and tamed creatures.

Loss and Damage Fund: This was one of the most important outcomes for the poor and vulnerable countries. Though a decision was set up last year in Sharam el-Shaikh for the lost and damage fund but it had not been created and no money had been promised. Now COP-28 operationalised this fund on the opening day of the conference and several countries including host UAE, made funding commitments worth about US$ 800 million. The fund is meant for the countries for financial help trying to recover from climate-induced disasters.

Global Goal on Adaptation: This was another significant step emerging nations had been hanging tight for. All things considered, adaptation hasn’t got sufficient consideration, or assets, as contrasted and relief exercises, basically in light of the fact that variation is generally a local endeavour. Its advantages likewise are mostly local.

In any case, emerging nations had been contending that a worldwide system for adaptation was important to carry more consideration regarding it. As needs be, the Glasgow gathering had chosen to set up a two-year work program to characterize the forms of this system. The work program brought about the identification of some common objectives, significant for the whole world. These included decrease for environment actuated water shortage, reduction in climate induced water scarcity, attaining the climate resilience in food and farming creation, supplies and dissemination, and resilience against environment prompted wellbeing influences.

COP-28 embraced the structure, yet significantly more should be finished on this front, especially in distinguishing the markers to gauge progress on every one of the worldwide objectives. The transformation understanding presently needs monetary arrangements, and nations would have to keep chipping away at it to reinforce it before very long

Way Forward

What ought to be the Way Advance?

Focus on Environment Money Targets.

All respective benefactors should satisfy their environment finance responsibilities and set more aggressive targets.

The requirement for incorporating environment finance into public improvement plans and arrangements is much more prominent than previously.

Clear Guides and Timetables

Foster clear and nitty gritty guides with explicit timetables for accomplishing key achievements and targets.

Lay out interval objectives that add to the generally speaking long haul targets, encouraging a feeling of responsibility.

Upgraded Public Activity Plans (NDCs)

Nations ought to re-examine and reinforce their Broadly Resolved Commitments (NDCs) to reflect more aggressive and substantial environment activity targets.

NDCs ought to cover a great many areas, including energy, transportation, farming, and industry.

Regulation and Strategy Backing

Institute and reinforce home-grown regulation and approaches that help the execution of environment targets.

Coordinate environment contemplations into existing regulations and guidelines across different areas.

Put resources into limit working at nearby, public, and worldwide levels to upgrade the capacity to carry out environment activities really.

Give preparing and assets to help mechanical, monetary, and institutional limit.

Global Participation.

Work with the exchange of environment well-disposed advances, particularly from created to emerging nations.

Share encounters, examples learned, and best practices among nations to speed up the reception of harmless to the ecosystem arrangements across ventures.

Conclusion

COPs are pivotal in the fight against environmental change however the street ahead is both testing and promising. Its prosperity requires aggregate assurance, enduring responsibility. It requires determination, commitment and support from all the countries so that all can come together and work for the greater cause. Thus, the leading members of the countries must take initiatives in battle against climate change.

By: Deeplaxmi Patil, Research Analyst, GSDN

Introduction

Hamas, derived from the acronym of its official title, the Islamic Resistance Movement (Harakat al-Muqāwamah al-Islamiyah), stands as a significant Palestinian Sunni Islamist political and military organization. It currently holds governance in the Gaza Strip, an area situated within the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories. Headquartered in Gaza City, Hamas also maintains a presence in the West Bank, the larger of the two Palestinian territories, where its secular rival, Fatah, holds control.

Established in 1987 by Palestinian imam and activist Ahmed Yassin during the First Intifada against Israeli occupation, Hamas originated from Yassin’s Mujama al-Islamiyah Islamic charity, which had affiliations with the Muslim Brotherhood dating back to 1973.The history of Hamas has been marked by significant conflicts with Israel, including multiple wars in 2008–09, 2012, 2014, and most recently in 2021. The ongoing 2023 conflict erupted when Hamas launched an attack on Israel, targeting Israeli military bases and civilian communities, resulting in casualties among civilians and soldiers. This assault has been characterized as the most substantial military setback for Israel since the 1973 Arab–Israeli War. In response, Israel initiated an ongoing ground invasion of Gaza.

Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by dozens of countries due to its history of armed resistance against Israel, including attacks targeting civilians. The group is known for its Islamist militant ideology and governs the Gaza Strip, where it maintains control over a significant population. While some nations differentiate between its political and military wings, the organization’s actions, including the recent massive surprise attack on Israel resulting in numerous casualties, have led to widespread condemnation and designation as a terrorist entity. The group’s hostility towards Israel, coupled with its backing from countries like Iran and harbouring of leaders in Turkey, continues to create instability in the region and hinders prospects for peace and stability in Gaza.

The United Nations has not labelled Hamas as a terrorist organisation due to various geopolitical reasons and differing perspectives among member states. Some member nations within the UN do not consider Hamas solely as a terrorist organisation but rather as a political entity representing certain Palestinian interests. Additionally, the UN operates under a complex framework where designating a group as a terrorist organisation involves a consensus among its member states, which can be influenced by diplomatic considerations, regional dynamics, and differing interpretations of terrorism. Hamas is recognized as a terrorist organisation by several countries, including the United States, Israel, the European Union, Canada, and others. However, the lack of a unified global consensus within the UN prevents the organisation from receiving a universal terrorist designation by the entire body.

Factors contributing to this lack of designation include:

1. Political Considerations: Some member states view Hamas as a legitimate political entity representing certain Palestinian interests. This viewpoint creates divisions within the Security Council, hindering unanimous agreement on labelling Hamas as a terrorist group.

2. Geopolitical Dynamics: The Security Council comprises diverse nations with varying geopolitical interests. Veto powers held by countries like Russia often impede actions against entities linked to Iran, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, due to their alignment with Iranian interests.

3. Lack of Consensus: Efforts to designate Hamas as a terrorist organization have faced opposition within the Security Council. Attempts, like the 2018 resolution introduced by former U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley, received minimal support, highlighting the lack of consensus among member states.

4. Complexity of Definition: There may be differing interpretations of terrorism and its applicability to certain groups. Some nations might not categorize Hamas solely as a terrorist organization, viewing its actions within a broader political or resistance context.

5. Diplomatic and Legal Considerations: The UN operates under specific legal and diplomatic frameworks. Designating an entity as a terrorist organization involves legal intricacies, and disagreements among member states can hinder the legal criteria for such a designation.

These factors, among others, contribute to the absence of a UN Security Council designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization, despite declarations by individual nations and ongoing criticism from certain quarters for not taking a decisive stance against the group.

How Hamas is funded?

Hamas receives funding from various sources despite being designated as a terrorist entity by the United States and the European Union, restricting official assistance from these entities. Historically, Palestinian expatriates and private donors in the Persian Gulf have been significant contributors to Hamas’s finances. Some Islamic charities in the West have channelled funds to Hamas-backed social service groups, resulting in asset freezes by the U.S. Treasury.

Presently, Iran plays a significant role in supporting Hamas, providing funds, weapons, and training. Despite a brief rift due to conflicting positions in Syria’s civil war, Iran contributes approximately $100 million annually to Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), and other designated Palestinian groups. Iran promptly praised Hamas’s 2023 assault on Israel and pledged continued support.

Turkey, under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has been a consistent supporter of Hamas. While Ankara claims to provide only political support, accusations have arisen regarding funding for Hamas’s activities, including potential diversion of aid from the Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Agency.

Division among member states within the United Nations

The response to labelling Hamas as a terrorist organization has been contentious and divided among nations, especially within the United Nations Security Council. The attempts made by the United States, notably under the leadership of former Ambassador Nikki Haley in 2018, to designate Hamas as a terrorist group faced significant resistance. Despite efforts, the resolutions brought forth by the U.S. received minimal support, highlighting a lack of consensus among Security Council members on this issue.

Russia, as one of the permanent members of the Security Council possessing veto power, has been a notable obstacle in taking decisive action against entities like Hamas. Its stance has often acted as a roadblock in pursuing measures against Iran and Iran-backed entities, further complicating efforts to condemn groups like Hamas at the international level.

In recent instances, the U.S. urged the Security Council to condemn terrorist attacks attributed to Hamas, but immediate action was not taken due to the lack of unanimity among council members. This underscores the challenges in achieving consensus on matters related to Hamas within the Security Council, with divergent opinions among member nations impeding unified action. The responses from different countries and officials also reveal broader tensions and accusations of bias within the United Nations. Israeli and U.S. officials have criticized the U.N., particularly the Security Council, for what they perceive as an anti-Israel bias.

Countries Designating Hamas as a Terrorist Organization:

Countries supporting and opposing the designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization display a significant divergence in their stances.

1. United States: Designated Hamas as a terrorist organization in 1995.

2. Canada: Followed suit in November 2002.

3. United Kingdom: Designated Hamas as a terrorist organization in November 2021.

4. European Union: Designated Hamas’s military wing in 2001 and, under pressure from the US, designated Hamas in 2003.

5. Japan and New Zealand: Designated the military wing of Hamas as a terrorist organization.

6. Jordan: Banned the organization.

Countries Not Regarding Hamas as a Terrorist Organization:

1. Afghanistan, Algeria, Iran, Russia, Norway, Turkey, China, Egypt, Syria, and Brazil: Do not classify Hamas as a terrorist organization.

2.  Arab and Muslim World: Hamas has lost its pariah status in some regions, with its representatives being welcomed in capitals of Islamic countries.

3. Varied Opinions:  Some governments and academics view Hamas as a multifaceted organization, with terrorism being just one facet.

Conclusion

The designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization remains a subject of contention and divergence among nations. While certain countries, notably Western nations, and some Asian states, have labelled Hamas as a terrorist group, others, especially in the Middle East and parts of Asia, do not share this viewpoint. This discrepancy in classification highlights the complexity and varying perspectives on the nature and actions of Hamas in different geopolitical contexts.

Overall, the response to labelling Hamas as a terrorist organization reflects a complex geopolitical landscape within the United Nations, marked by differing perspectives, accusations of bias, and challenges in achieving consensus among member nations, particularly within the Security Council.

By: Seetal Patra

Palestinian author Susan Abulhawa in a recent interview to Rajdeep Sardesai said, “It is sad to see how Indians have changed.”

India is an important stakeholder in any major and minor world event. The world views India’s response through the gaze of Israel-Palestine (Hamas), but the government of India/ Bharat sees this as an event in the Middle East with repercussions for a possible spillover to India. A biased western media has gone to the extent of interpreting New Delhi’s response as pro or anti-Hindutva, since the ruling party is the BJP, infamously identified as anti-minority (Islam) party. But the prism of India’s interpretation of this conflict is deeply embedded in the realities of internal affairs and external realism embedded in real-time geopolitics. Indian External Affairs Minister, Dr. S Jaishankar has ensured to mention in numerous other geopolitical fraught that, “Do not think it is necessary for India to join any axis. India is entitled to make its own choices which will be a balance of its values and interests.”

India views Israel as the lever of Middle East evidenced from the mini-lateral I2U2, followed by India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor. India cannot afford to get herself embroiled in the difficult annals of not siding with Israel. India has made its stance very clear regarding the vagaries of conflict of interest when it comes to the infighting between the human rights with that of territorial rights (Palestine), and retaliation to terrorism (Israel). India stood its stand by not opposing the U.N ceasefire resolution and abstaining from the UNGA resolution seeking a humanitarian cease-fire in Gaza. India has lessons to learn from this conflict for it to be future ready, considering the fact India is one of the worst placed geopolitically when it comes to its external and foreign borders.

We must understand and reinvigorate and reiterate the fact that along with a muscular foreign policy, there also must be the preparedness about the highest levels of military intelligence. The art of statecraft is an effective amalgamation and saturation of two things; Surprise and Deception. We have a lot of parallels that can be drawn from our unfortunate past episodes of ravaging our internal sovereignty in the case of Kargil War and the 26/11 Mumbai attack.

Military intelligence is all about hunch and the effective joining of the dots that play out in the domain of tactics, strategy, and intelligence. This brings us to the point that the Five Eyes alliance and the CIA got all the nodes correct in the case of Russia-Ukraine war, but in this case, all the points got whitewashed right in front of their eyes. The IDF and the Mossad got whitewashed and trapped onto an ‘Information Deception.’ The Hamas used every tactic and strategy by tearing out the pages of learning from that of the IDF and the Mossad. The way Israel was in for a battle shock, we do not want that for India, if God forbid, we see any escalation in any of our volatile and porous borders.

Deterrence is costly, but wars are always costlier. For deterrence to be effective and tech savvy and timely, there must be ramping up of the efforts for ensuring the Theatre Commands, and the necessary structural changes in the Intelligence. Howsoever technologically advanced we might get; Human Intelligence can never be undermined. HUMINT since the age of the genesis of nationhood and statehood, has remained an undeniable asset to any tactic solvation and strategy modulation. HUMINT is the conviction of truth, that transcends the boundaries of technology, neither undermining, nor demonizing the power of technology in effective war deterrence.  Human source intelligence is and uniquely effective against the terrorist targets. And this becomes even more important for India, since we are in a limbo of vulnerability, both from an internal security (as reckless as that of a Lone Wolf attack) and an external security prism.

By: Kashif Anwar, Research Analyst, GSDN

Introduction

The year 2011 was a difficult and turning phase for many Middle East nations as it went through the Arab Spring movement which started in Tunisia and caused political upheaval, uprising and civil war in many Arab countries. Among many nations, Syria’s civil war against its President Bashar al- Assad has continued to be an issue for many nations as it re-ignites the issue of Kurds and has witnessed Russian and the US involvement in the war which has only worsened the situation. As the conflict caused economic and humanitarian (refugee) crisis in the country, situation in and for Syria has changed since 2011 and as President Assad has a firm control in the country, is back in the Arab League and conflict in the country appears to have settled into a frozen state.

Situation in Syria

To understand the situation in Syria, today, a roughly 30% of the country is controlled by the rebel or opposition forces. However, heavy fighting largely ceased to exist between the rebels and the government and there is a growing regional trend towards a normalisation ties between both the groups. Meanwhile, despite the West push to remove President Assad from the power and growing power politics between the West and Russia with Turkey playing a strategic role to address the Kurds issue, and after 13 years the power and hold of President Assad has become firm in the country.

With the Assad regime continues to operate with impunity in the areas controlled by its army and he has only continue to strengthened his power over the years. Despite accusations labelled against the crimes committed by his forces and government, the power centric politics between the US, Russia, Iran, Turkey and Israel and the sects politics and conflicts have made situation worse in the country and difficult for the 12 million Syrian refugee. The developments in Syria shows an impasse has been achieved in the recent years projecting the future of Syria has been frozen and prospects of a peace talk to bring normalisation and address humanitarian crisis situation in the country has become low.

With poverty and hunger widespread in the country and prospects of securing a safe place in Syria is minimal due to a stalemate in the Syrian civil war. As the West argues, regime and Russia and Iran have benefitted from the on-going situation in the country and the use of vetoes by Russia and China against West backed UN Security Council Resolution has impeded the roadmap/process to secure justice and accountability in Syria. Considering violence is low and combined with a collapsing economy and spread of diseases, natural calamity and situation like the Covid-19 pandemic has hardened the life of people in Syria. Despite such situation in Syria, conflict remains frozen, with status-quo is in fragile and armies from the US, Russia, Iran, Turkey and Israel are operating on different sides of the conflict have caused no progress in political negotiation, which is a worrying sign for the people.

Syria re-entry into the Arab League

Despite such situation and considering how the civil war unfolded in the first place and role played by vested countries which includes many nations in the Arab League. Since 2011, things have changed when Syria was removed from the league. As the league is often seen as disunited group and has not played a significant role in the Syrian peace negotiations. This became clear in 2018 when many members begin to repair their relationship with Syria, though, it was largely symbolically in the past such decision became beneficial for the Assad regime. As West Asian countries tilt towards Russia and China, this has cautioned the West which could impact the peace process in Syria like under the UNSC Resolution 2254 (2015) and Astana Talk proceeded in a right direction in the last few years.

Such aspects became prominent during the Russia-Ukraine war when many West Asian countries didn’t response to the West’s call to decouple from Russia and China. As many West Asian countries depend upon Russia and China for military hardware and the economic benefits respectively. Recent alignment between the Arab League and Syria is only after effect of such aligning of interest of West Asian countries and Russia and China. In May 2023, Syria was re-admitted into the Arab League shows a collective decision taken as they agree isolation of Syria hasn’t worked so far and need to address problems and challenges like refugees and the illicit drug trade which could spread to other nations. Such re-alignment highlights following aspects:

1. They recognise the Assad regime will remain in power in the country.
2. Seen as an attempt to reduce the influence of Iran in the country.
3. Want to push reconstruction plan in Syria which will provide them economic gains.
4. Such development allow them to diversify their alliance beyond the US.

The return of Syria into the league is a result of many factors and among them changing regional reality is seen as a main driver. With stalemate on the ground and realisation that the President Assad can’t be removed and the momentum for revolution failed to withstand with the time forced the opposition forces to come to a conclusion and to extent accept the reality in Syria for now. Furthermore, lack of a coherent US policy backed by force on the one hand and President Assad continue to exercise control with the backing of Russia and Iran over 70% of territory on the other hand is seen as a vital factor for normalisation process in the Arab world. Meanwhile, many analyst sees the development as Saudi Arabia push for region’s stability and economic growth in the region, facilitating the beginning of much needed reconstruction and renewed trade between Damascus and other Arab countries.

Way Forward

With this normalisation process, it does not give respite to the Assad regime who will gain new economic ties and a much-needed reconstruction. On the other hand, it also promotes Saudi Arabia role as a mediator, who already enjoyed tremendous political and economic clout in the Middle East. However, France issuing an arrest warrant for President Assad for the crimes he committed against his people, Russia, Syria and the US continue bombing in Syria and with winter approaching, the life of Syrian people will not change anytime soon. As West’s sanction against the Assad regime continues it will act as a hurdle in further normalisation between Arab nations and Syria and Arab’s leadership role. Thus, improvement of people’s situation in Syria and end to their misery is needed which has continued for long and should bring respite in Syria.

By: Aasi Ansari, Research Analyst, GSDN

Introduction

India-Pakistan border is one of the most vulnerable places in the world because of the nuclear capabilities in South Asia. India entered the nuclear arms race when first did the peaceful nuclear test in 1974, after the establishment of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968. India didn’t sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty because India claimed it was discriminatory towards them. Pakistan, on the other hand, tested nuclear weapon much later in May 1998, just days after India tested for the second time, and became a nuclear armed state. India did its second nuclear weapon testing after India adopted No First Use (NFU) policy, which declared that India would use weapon of mass destruction only if the state was attacked by nuclear weapon first by other nuclear armed country.

India has not signed Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty but it has Credible Minimum Deterrence (CMD) and No First Use Policy (NFU), which has helped India to keep the nuclear weapon without any consequence. Pakistan has also not signed Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and they don’t have No First Use Policy, infect they have First Use Policy in order to deter from India or any other nuclear threats. However, Pakistan keep nuclear warheads separately from the missiles and only assemble them if they are considered to be used.

India-Pakistan Border Conflicts

India and Pakistan had been at war multiple times since India got independence from the British empire in 1947 and Pakistan was created as a new nation. Thousands of people were killed in the separation in communal violence, resulting hostile environment between both sides for decades. India and Pakistan conflict was considered as the possible nuclear threats for the first time in the Kargil war in 1999, which happened nearly a year after both India and Pakistan had become nuclear armed states.

The possibility of the use of nuclear weapon was the closest between India and Pakistan in February 2019, when a terrorist group ‘Jaish-e-Mohammed’ attacked by suicide bomb car in the Pulwama region of the Kashmir Valley in India, killing nearly 40 Indian military personnel. India retaliated with air strikes near the Line of Control twelve days after the terrorist attack happened. Pakistan claimed that India staged the Pulwama attack to make an excuse to attack Pakistan for the political benefit. Although, this accusation war never proven more than a conspiracy theory. Pakistan also shot down an Indian aircraft and captured the pilot. This escalated the tensions between the nations. But two days later, Pakistan released the pilot back to India. However, in February 2021, both the nuclear state declared ceasefire on the borders. This decreased the tensions between them.

In the Pulwama crisis, India had indicated that they might reconsider its No First Use policy when the Defence Minister of India, Rajnath Singh implied that India might need to use the nuclear weapon first in the future. China believes that India’s ‘No First Use Policy’ has evolved to ‘No first use against non-nuclear weapon states’. Pakistan became active as well. Although, there has not been any nuclear escalations since Pulwama crisis in neither of the nuclear countries. However, nothing can be confirmed for the future.

The Global Nuclear Flashpoint

In 2000, American President Bill Clinton considered that Kashmir could transform into a “nuclear flashpoint”. All these nuclear countries are developing their nuclear program and try to increase the nuclear arsenal in order to deter from the potential nuclear threat. For instance, Pakistan have nuclear weapon to deter from India, India have it to deter from China, China have it to deter United States, and United States have it deter from Russia.

India don’t only have to deter from Pakistan but from China as well. There have been multiple military conflicts at Sino-Indian and Indo-Pakistani border, but only conventional arms were used. Both India and China has never used its nuclear capabilities to threaten each other but Pakistan has, since it entered nuclear arms race in 1998. Every time the leading global nuclear power had to intervene to handle the conflict for establishing peace. America supported Pakistan during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan with the military aid. Although, America was not actually supporting Pakistan, they were just fighting against Russia. These crises have highlighted the third party influence to the nuclear escalation in the border of India and Pakistan.

India’s nuclear arsenal is lower than the Pakistan’s and China’s nuclear arsenal. India having nearly 165 nuclear warheads and have 700 Kg of weapon grad plutonium to make up to 213 warheads by 2033. Pakistan tries to keep just a little more than India, i.e. nearly 170 warheads and have enough material to make up to 200 warheads by 2025. Much more than India and Pakistan, China has about 500 nuclear warheads and they are developing the nuclear program much faster and it is estimated to be up to 1000 warheads by 2035. However, China has signed Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and have maintained No First Use Policy.

China has supported Pakistan in the previous wars between India and Pakistan. China’s increasing nuclear arsenal has raised concerns about the global security, especially in South Asia. The Biden Administration has declared that US currently does not need to increase its nuclear arsenal, despite China’s nuclear developments and Russia’s aggressive behaviour.  China has refused to talks for any peace building or to stop the nuclear arms race, infact China has 60 more warheads in January 2023 compared to previous year. This might raise concerns in India and Pakistan in the future and both India and Pakistan might increase the number of nuclear warheads to deter for China’s potential nuclear threats.

Pakistan is estimated to have 106 warheads in six deferent types land based ballistic missile capable of nuclear payload. All of them are short range ballistic missiles. Pakistan has also tried to miniaturised nuclear missiles to make Multiple Independently Targeted Re-Entry Vehicles (MIRVs). Pakistan also have naval nuclear capabilities. Babar-3, a Sea Launch Ballistic Missile (SLBM), has been tested twice under the water. However, the completion of the development of Babar-3 has not been confirmed yet. Pakistan approved the purchase of 8 submarines from China, considered to be capable of carrying Babar-3 missiles. The F-16, Mirage-3 and Mirage-5 aircrafts are considered to be capable of carrying nuclear missile. Pakistan is estimated to have nearly 12 Mirage aircrafts.

India has nearly 64 warheads in four deferent types land based ballistic missiles capable of nuclear payload, 2 of them are short range, 1 is medium range and 1 is intermediate range ballistic missile. India has 1 ship-launched and 1 submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), capable to be equipped on submarine but the nuclear capable submarine development in India has not completed yet. Mirage 2000H/I, Jaguar IS/IB and Rafale aircraft are considered to be able to deliver nuclear missiles.

It is considered that Pakistan has the nuclear power to use its own nuclear weapon in its own country in case of an invasion to kill the enemy force in the state along with killing of their own force. If Pakistan ever choses to use Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD)  they are most likely to use a small scale nuclear warhead with minimum destruction. But both the bordering states have to deal with the fallout and radiation contamination in the air, if it is used on the borders. Furthermore, even if the small scale low yield nuclear weapon is used, it could wipe out approximately 20 million people, depending on the population of the destroyed area and nearly 2 billion people will die, if the nuclear winter is triggered.

Just like America supporting Israel right now have raised concern of possible support to Pakistan against China or even India. It is less likely to happen but not impossible. The history of Pakistan being against India is long but the probability of India responding against Pakistan is much higher in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership. All these possible scenarios have the potential to lead to nuclear flashpoint and start the nuclear war in the world or at least between the nuclear armed states.

Conclusion

India have to maintain its nuclear diplomacy throughout the world to deter from Pakistan or any other possible nuclear threats. The possible way to avoid nuclear conflict for India and Pakistan and all the nuclear armed countries is to engage in to a serious dialogue to establish peace and take confidence building measures. All the nuclear states should stop or slow down the nuclear missile development program in order to reduce the nuclear weapon grade material stockpile resulting the reduction of warheads. However, many scholars believe that India-Pakistan border as a nuclear flash point might be a myth, due to the Geopolitical and environmental consequences Pakistan and India have to face. Nevertheless, both India and Pakistan should consider signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty to pledge to use nuclear power for peaceful purpose only.

By: Darshan Gajjar, Research Analyst, GSDN

The domains of geopolitics and foreign policy are filled with many unsolved questions due to the association of inherently uncertain and somewhat bizarre dispositions with them. Often, academicians and scholars of international relations are propelled by questions such as “How do states think? Are they rational all the time? How do policy makers take decisions in a crisis? What is rationality in foreign policy, and how is it associated with the final outcome of policy?”

In a well-crafted manner, American political scientist and international relations scholar John J. Mearsheimer and political scientist Sebastian Rosato attempt to answer those questions through their new book, “How States Think: The Rationality of Foreign Policy,” published by Yale University Press. In this work, which is divided in nine chapters, John Mearsheimer and Sebastian Rosato (jointly referred to as ‘the Authors’ hereafter) not only define strategic rationality in international relations but also break popular notions by separating rationality from that of expected utility maximization. 

Defining Strategic Rationality

When it comes to rationality and international relations, there are broadly two schools of thought: rational choice theorists and political psychologists, who argue that states are non-rational for the majority of the time. If true, such a hypothesis can prove to be catastrophic because in the majority of IR theories, especially liberal and realist theories, states are primarily rational actors—what we call a rational actor assumption.

How can we say that states are rational? Can we equate rationality with the end outcome? The authors argue that “states are rational if their policies are based on credible theories and result from a deliberative decision-making process,” which means rationality is strictly alien to the outcome of the policy decision.

Taking this definition as a reference, the authors highlighted how some of the most infamous decisions, such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Hitler’s decision to invade the Soviet Union, and Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II, were rational decisions despite not achieving their desired outcomes.

Expected Utility Maximization and Rationality

Both rational choice theorists and political psychologists correlate rationality with expected utility maximisation which propounds that rational actors take action to maximise their overall utility. The authors have rejected such a correlation, arguing that since the international system is an anarchic one and uncertainty is one of its prime components, it will be difficult for policymakers to identify the expected maximum utility under such conditions.

The authors further assert, “Rationality is often judged in terms of outcomes. In this view, a policy is rational if it brings success and nonrational if it fails. Rational thinking is associated with good outcomes, such as victory in war, and nonrational thinking with bad outcomes, such as defeat. But rationality is about process rather than outcomes. Rational actors employ their critical faculties to figure out how to operate in an uncertain world. This does not ensure that the policies they come up with will meet with success.”

Instead, they provide that rationality is independent of outcomes and utility maximization. This does not mean that rationality has nothing to do with outcome; rationality simply means that a decision has been taken based on credible theories and is the result of a deliberative decision-making process that can lead to the survival of the state. That is to say, rationality is not an end but a means to an end, where the end is the ultimate survival of the state.

Credible and Non-Credible Theories

As mentioned earlier, one of the two components of the definition of strategic rationality is a credible theory. The field of geopolitics and foreign policy is an information deficit field where, for the most part, uncertainty prevails, making it necessary for any state or policymaker to follow any particular theory that can help it formulate rational policy.

The authors put forth that any theory is credible if it has its own set of assumptions, causal logics, and empirical claims that are backed by evidentiary support. Conversely, a theory is non-credible if it commits one or more of the following errors: i) it rests on unrealistic assumptions; ii) its causal story is logically inconsistent; iii) there is little evidentiary support for their causal logics, overarching claims, or both.

Giving various historical and empirical examples, the authors term realist concepts and theories such as Balance of Power, Mutually Assured Destruction, and liberal theories such as Democratic Peace Theory, Economic Interdependence, and Liberal Institutionalism, along with Social Constructivism, as credible theories, while theories such as Domino Theory, Forcible Democracy Promotion Theory, and Neoclassical Realism Theory are non-credible.

Individual and State Rationality

To what extent do individual biases affect the actions of the state? The second component of the definition of rationality is the deliberative decision-making process. While the final decision has to be taken by an individual, that decision must be the result of deliberative discussions. Though it is possible for an individual to have particular biases in certain matters, due to collective deliberations, the final outcome of the policy will be alien to such a bias.

State rationality is a result of two-staged deliberative aggregation where key decision makers involve themselves in a robust debate where the final policy choice has to be made by the ultimate decider. In the first stage, every actor engaged in the discussion must have a credible theory, put forth their view on those theories, and discuss among themselves various merits and demerits of them, followed by robust and uninhibited debate, after which they settle on a guiding policy based on a credible theory or theories. In cases where policymakers involved in the debate fail to agree on a theory, the ultimate decider determines the way forward based on that debate.

Case Studies

The book further provides fourteen historical case studies, which include five grand strategy decisions, five crisis management decisions, and four non-rational decisions, solidifying an earlier argument that separates rationality from results. Out of those fourteen case studies, three merits to be mentioned here.

These days, due to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, one of the most discussed issues in common geopolitical debates is the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) after the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. John Mearsheimer himself in the past contended that one of the reasons why Russia attacked Ukraine in February 2022 was the eastward expansion of NATO. While the authors may not agree with the policy, that ipso facto does presuppose the policy to be a non-rational one. The book asserts that the initial decision to expand NATO after the Cold War by the Clinton administration was based on the amalgamation of credible theories of Democratic Peace Theory, Economic Interdependence, and Liberal Institutionalism and was the result of a deliberative decision-making process between the stakeholders, thus making it a rational policy decision.

Similarly, two of the most consequential events during World War II—the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour and Operation Barbarossa—were believed to have shifted the entire balance of power in favour of Allied powers. In 1940, as a result of Japanese military expansion in Asia, the USA passed the Export Control Act, which cut off Japan’s supply of many goods and raw materials, which by and large crippled the Japanese economy. It was further feigned by the American oil embargo in 1941. Eventually, on December 7, 1941, Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. The Japanese chose to attack the United States, reasoning that a risky war was preferable to a crippled economy and elimination from the ranks of the great powers. No matter how bad it has proven to be, the book argues that since the attack was based on a credible theory of balance of power and was followed by due deliberation, it was a rational decision.

Likewise, Hitler’s decision to invade the USSR on June 22, 1941 is often considered a non-rational decision, and it is widely, for ideological reasons, believed to be motivated by Hitler’s personal hatred towards communist ideology. While his personal anti-communist biases may align with Germany’s attack on the Soviet Union, the decision was based on credible realist theory, and during the deliberations with his generals, Hitler, based on the poor performance of the Red Army in the war with Finland (famously known as the Winter War) along with other factors, concluded that the Red Army was hardly a formidable opponent, paving the way for the full-fledged military invasion. Thus, making it a rational policy decision.

Conclusion

The concept of rationality, as argued in the book, relies on the assumption that policymakers, while taking a decision, solely rely on the existing theories, which is not the case all the time. However, the arguments offered in this book will provide a starting point for future scholars and researchers to delve deep into the subject of rationality and how it affects geopolitics and foreign policy of any State.