Context: India has recently contributed $2 billion to the New Development Bank, formerly known as BRICS New Development Bank.
Relevance of the Topic Prelims: New Development Bank
About New Development Bank:
The New Development Bank (NDB) is a multilateral development bank established by Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS).
The idea for setting up the bank was proposed by India at the 4th BRICS summit in 2012 held in Delhi.
In 2014, the first day of the 6th BRICS summit held in Fortaleza, Brazil, the BRICS states signed the Agreement on the New Development Bank.
Objective: To mobilise resources for infrastructure and sustainable development projects in emerging markets and developing countries (EMDCs).
Initial authorised capital: $100 billion.
Headquarters: Shanghai, China.
India’s contribution to NDB:
India’s contribution to the New Development Bank (NDB) stands at $2 billion from the fiscal year 2015-16 to 2021-22.
As of now, 20 externally aided projects (in areas transportation, water conservation, food management, and connectivity in rural areas) with loan amounts of $4,867 million funded by the NDB are ongoing in India.
Context: International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and its former Defence Minister for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.
Relevance of the topic: Prelims- International Criminal Court, International Criminal Court vs International Court of Justice
Major Highlights:
The ICC asserts there are “reasonable grounds” to believe that the Prime Minister and the former Defence Minister bear “criminal responsibility” for causing “mass starvation” and “deliberately targeting” medical facilities in Gaza.
As the Rome Statute of the ICC has been recognised by 124 countries, the countries would be legally obligated to arrest them if they enter their territories.
The arrest warrants would complicate their ability to travel freely across the globe.
About International Criminal Court
Origin:
The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established under the Rome Statute, a multilateral treaty adopted in 1998. Rome Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002 after ratification by 60 countries.
It marked the creation of the first permanent, treaty-based international criminal court to address impunity for the gravest crimes threatening the global community.
ICC is an independent international organisation and is not part of the United Nations.
ICC has 18 judges who are elected by the Assembly of State Parties and have non-renewable 9-year terms.
The seat of ICC is in The Hague, Netherlands.
Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court:
ICC investigates and prosecutes individuals accused of the gravest crimes of international concern, as defined under the Rome Statute:
Genocide
War crimes
Crimes against humanity
Crime of aggression
Conditions for Exercising Jurisdiction:
The ICC can exercise jurisdiction only under specific conditions:
Territorial or National Jurisdiction:
If the alleged crime occurred on the territory of a State Party.
The UNSC can refer cases to the ICC, even if the crime occurred in a non-State Party.
Declaration of Acceptance:
A non-State Party can accept the ICC's jurisdiction by making a formal declaration.
Principle of Complementarity:
The ICC operates under the principle of complementarity, i.e., it acts as a court of last resort (seeks to complement, not replace, national courts). The ICC can intervene only if national judicial systems are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute crimes.
Limitations of the International Criminal Court:
The ICC does not have a police force to enforce arrests. It relies on State Parties to apprehend individuals.
Trials cannot proceed until the accused is arrested and brought before the court, as the ICC does not conduct trials in absentia.
Parties to International Criminal Court:
As of 2024, ICC has 124 member states.
However, countries such as India, China, USA, Russia etc. have not ratified the Rome Statute and are not members of ICC. Reasons for non-membership include concerns about sovereignty, potential misuse of the court, and conflicts with domestic laws.
Differences Between the ICJ and the ICC
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) are two courts with different functions within the international legal system.
ICJ (International Court of Justice)
ICC (International Criminal Court)
Established
1945
2022
UN-Relationship
Highest court of the UN
Not part of the UN
Location
The Hague, the Netherlands
The Hague, the Netherlands
Jurisdiction
UN member-states
Individuals
Types of cases
Legal disputes between states and requests for advisory opinions on legal questions
Prosecutes individuals for the most serious crimes as per the Rome Statute
Appeals
No
Yes
Enforcement power
None - relies on the UN Security Council to uphold judgements, with permanent members having veto power
None - relies on cooperation from member states to enforce its decisions
Context: The 44th ASEAN Summit, held in Vientiane, Laos, highlighted the growing concerns in the Southeast Asia region, particularly the deepening crisis in Myanmar.
Go through the neighboring countries of Myanmar and the Indian states sharing land border with Myanmar(#PreFact)
Background of Myanmar crisis
In 2021, Myanmar’s military seized control in a coup, dismantling the country’s democratic government and attempting to reinstate the authoritarian rule in the country.
The present crisis has unleashed unforeseen consequences such as instability and rising crime across Southeast Asian region.
Present situation:
Myanmar is currently embroiled in a brutal civil war between the military junta and various resistance groups, including Ethnic Armed Organizations (EAOs) and the People’s Defence Forces (PDFs).
After the junta forcibly seized power, it encountered broad armed resistance, with opposition groups now controlling significant areas, including six key border trade routes.
The junta’s reluctance to cooperate with international peace efforts has aggravated the conflict.
Myanmar’s economy is nearing collapse, with dwindling foreign reserves, escalating foreign debt which amount to USD 10 – 11 bn, and deepening poverty. Amid a severe forex shortage and rising inflation, many international businesses are withdrawing, while the junta heavily relies on Chinese-backed infrastructure projects and loans.
Agricultural output has plummeted due to conflict, and economic forecasts predict worsening conditions. The UN and ILO have warned of widespread poverty, job losses, and a looming humanitarian crisis, with Myanmar’s survival increasingly dependent on Chinese support.
Implications of Myanmar’s instability:
Trade distortion: The ongoing crisis in Myanmar disrupts regional flow of trade, particularly along key border routes with countries like Thailand, China, and India. The conflict-related shutdowns, lack of stable governance have reduced trade efficiency due to increased costs.
Security of neighboring countries:Myanmar’s conflict poses security challenges for neighboring nations as violence and unrest spill across borders. Thailand, in particular, faces challenges with the flow of refugees, arms trafficking etc.
Humanitarian crisis: The present tussle between junta and resistance groups has led to widespread displacement of innocent people (around 18.6 million) who are forced out of their homes and are in need of urgent assistance (UN reported it).
Extremism: Continuous instability and repression provides a breeding ground for extremism, as disenfranchised groups may turn to radical ideologies in response to political exclusion and violence.
India’s ‘Act East’ policy, aimed at using Myanmar as a land bridge to Southeast Asia, cannot advance without stability in Myanmar.
Myanmar’s instability has led to a rising influx of refugees into India’s northeastern states, stretching their limited resources and impacting local communities in Mizoram and Manipur.
As resistance groups in Myanmar might seek safe havens or resources in Indian states, local sympathies could arise, particularly in border regions.
Efforts for Peace in Myanmar:
ASEAN’s role:
It’s Five-Point Consensus (#PreFact), calling for an end to violence, inclusive dialogue, and humanitarian assistance, remains largely ignored by Myanmar’s military, exposing ASEAN’s limited influence in the region.
ASEAN allowed Myanmar to send a representative to the 44th summit in Laos, showcased a pragmatic approach to keep dialogue open with the junta. ASEAN’s consensus-based decision-making continues to limit response effectiveness, especially with divided stances among members ( On one hand Indonesia, Malaysia wants a stronger action and on the other countries like Thailand maintains closer relations with military government).
Western response:
The United States and the United Kingdom have initiated a crucial step towards an intervention in Myanmar by introducing a UN Security Council resolution in 2022. It strongly condemned Myanmar’s military regime and called for an end to the violence, as well as the release of political prisoners, including the State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi.
India’s approach towards Myanmar:
Discontinuation of Free Movement Regime (FRM): Due to concerns over regional stability and an influx of refugees, Government of India has decided to end the Free Movement Regime(#PreFact) with Myanmar. This move faces opposition from several Indian state governments, putting India in a delicate balancing act.
Agreement for socio-economic development: India and Myanmar signed five Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) under the Quick impact Projects framework, focusing on areas like agriculture, vocational training, disaster management, and education etc.
Financial support: India has committed $250,000 to support the Quick Impact Projects and to uplift the communities in Myanmar.
Way forward for India to bring stability in the region:
End strategic inaction: India can no longer afford inaction regarding Myanmar's crisis; New Delhi must adopt a proactive approach to address the stakes involved.
Launch a Peace-making platform: Establish a “Gandhi Peace Mission” within the Prime Minister’s Office, supported by the National Security Council and Ministry of External Affairs, to institutionalize India’s peace efforts.
Initiate an outreach programme: Begin by sending a delegation, including a representative from Manipur, two senior Buddhist monks, and former diplomats experienced with Myanmar, to engage directly with all stakeholders (ethnic groups, democratic factions, and the military) and initiate dialogue.
Leverage Religious Diplomacy: Include top Buddhist leaders like Venerable Chalinda Bhante and Dr. Lam, who have shown interest in negotiating with influential Burmese Buddhist monks, fostering peace through mass prayers and reconciliation in line with Buddhist principles.
As a key gateway to Southeast Asia, Myanmar’s challenges complicate India’s efforts to counter China’s influence, necessitating a balanced approach emphasizing strategic rationality and commitment to democratic values.
Context: Israel’s parliament passed bills to ban UNRWA from operating in Israel and the Palestinian territories. The Knesset also voted to designate UNRWA a terrorist organisation, cutting all ties with the agency. This could lead to the breakdown of Gaza's already fragile aid distribution system, intensifying the humanitarian crisis in which nearly 2 million displaced Palestinians are facing severe shortages of food, water, and medicine.
Reasons for Israel’s actions:
Israel has argued that the UNRWA’s role is obsolete, and its work to aid Palestinian refugees and their descendants has been an obstacle to a peace settlement.
However, Israel has itself not meaningfully recognised the foundation of a Palestinian state, thus perpetuating the longstanding territorial conflict.
Israel accusedsome of UNRWA’s employees in Gaza of participating in the October 7, 2023 attacks on Israel by Hamas.
But the agency denies aiding armed groups on purpose. The agency also mentioned that it has been sharing the list of its employees with Israel for a long time.
Bills has passed by Israel’s parliament:
The first Bill bars UNRWA from operating any representative office, providing any service, or conducting any activity, directly or indirectly, in Israel’s sovereign territory.
The second Bill cuts all ties between government employees and UNRWA, and takes away the legal immunities of the agency’s staff.
The Bills will stop UNRWA from operating in Gaza and the West Bank as Israel controls access to both these Palestinian territories and could also force the agency to relocate its headquarters from East Jerusalem.
The ban on the agency will only deepen the suffering of Palestinians.
Since the beginning of the war, almost all of Gaza’s 2 million people have been reliant on UNRWA for basic necessities, including food, water, and hygiene supplies.
Along with the Palestinian Red Crescent, UNRWA handles almost all UN aid distribution in the territory.
The UN agency also recently helped implement an emergency polio vaccination campaign in Gaza to prevent the infectious virus that can cause paralysis from spreading.
In the West Bank, UNRWA currently provides services for 19 refugee camps, more than 90 schools, and several health services, including prenatal care.
Objective: To provide aid to about 700,000 Palestinians who were forced to leave their homes during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.
Operating since May 1, 1950.
Operating regions: Gaza and the Israeli-occupied West Bank; Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan- where Palestinian refugees took shelter after their expulsion.
What does it do?
It runs education, health, relief and social services, microfinance and emergency assistance programmes inside and outside refugee camps in these areas.
An estimated 5.9 million Palestinian refugees, most of whom are descendants of the original refugees, currently access the UNRWA’s services.
Funds: It is funded mostly by voluntary contributions from donor states such as the United States, Germany, the European Union, etc. It also gets a limited subsidy from the UN, which is used only for administrative costs.
Context: Russian President Vladimir Putin signaled to the West that he is far from “isolated” despite ongoing sanctions related to the Ukraine conflict at the recently concluded BRICS meeting at Kazan.
Key takeaways from the meet:
BRICS members aim to establish an alternative ‘global financial architecture’; which comprises three main aspects:
Reducing the dominance of Dollar: China and Russia are keen on diminishing the dollar’s leading role in global transactions, driven by their broader geopolitical objectives.
Trade in local currency: India has proposed a consensus-oriented approach, promoting trade in local currencies within BRICS.
Financial integration: India advocates for stronger financial integration among BRICS members without directly challenging the dollar’s prominence.
BRICS countries emphasized on the need of developing a platform BRICS bridge which links central bank digital currencies, which will help in reducing the intermediation costs.
Reasons behind BRICS’s move:
Due to the weaponization of the SWIFT platform, global trade and financial flows have been impacted, as SWIFT links more than 11,000 banks.
Countries like Iran and Russia face exclusion from SWIFT due to geopolitical conflicts, which also impacts third-party nations like India. The geopolitical instability is encouraging more countries to seek alternative systems to mitigate risks. E.g., Saudi Arabia finalized a three-year currency swap deal with China.
BRICS nationsare nurturing the New Development Bank and Contingency Reserve Arrangement as an alternative to Bretton Woods institutions to have a more prominent voice at the global level.
The case of BRICS’s Financial strategy:
The rise of digital currencies, blockchain technology, and the Unified Payments Interface, which can facilitate trade settlements, has made a unified BRICS currency less important.
Moreover, trade deals can be settled in mutually agreed currencies.
Establishing a blockchain-based payment platform and an alternative to the SWIFT messaging system is entirely achievable among a coalition of countries as long as it remains decentralized and free from control by any single nation.
Context: The Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) launched a major offensive against the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in Khartoum and Bahri. Thus, the war which was quiet for a few months has gained momentum again.
Who are involved in the war and situation thereof
It started as a power rivalry between the military heads of the SAF and the RSF, Abdel Fattah al-Burhan and Hamdan Dagalo respectively.
The Conflict which started in capital city of Khartoum has spread to Omdurman, Bahri, Port Sudan, El Fasher and the Port Sudan cities, as well as the Darfur and Kordofan states.
In August, the UN declared famine in the Zamzam camp in North Darfur which hosts nearly 5,00,000 IDPs.
The UN- Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) Famine Review Committee says that 14 regions in the Greater Darfur, South and North Kordofan, and Jazeera states face conditions similar to Zamzam.
According to the latest UN-backed IPC initiative, 25.6 million people, more than half of Sudan’s population, face “crisis or worse” levels of food insecurity.
Why war still continues?
Firstly, both warring parties are adamant about gaining ground and legitimising their power. The SAF claims to be the legitimate government, with the UN just about recognising their claims, although it came to power through a coup in 2021.
The RSF, a former Arab militia known as Janjaweed, seeks alliances from several Arab countries to support its claim to power.
Secondly, Sudan has been under the UN arms embargo, since the 2004 Darfur crisis, which has recently been extended for another year. However, the embargo has not blocked the flow of weapons.
Thirdly, the war has become complex with the involvement of multiple actors and issues.
It began as a military rivalry has now evolved through ethnic lines, involving several regional ethnic militias. Arab and non-Arab militias have taken sides with the RSF and the SAF respectively.
Fourthly, the SAF has accused the UAE and previously Russia’s Wagner Group of supporting the RSF. Although the Wagner group and the RSF have rejected any direct military engagement.
Status of peace measures
Nine rounds of U.S.-Saudi ceasefire efforts failed; recent talks saw no attendance. Mistrust persists, limiting negotiation progress, while media attention and access to conflict zones remain restricted.
Regional implications
Over 2 million people have sought refuge in neighboring countries (Chad, South Sudan, Ethiopia).
Overflowing refugee camps raise concerns in Europe about migration attempts.
Increased ethnic clashes along borders (South Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea).
Violence in Abyei region and clashes in El Fashaga reported.
War jeopardizes South Sudan's oil pipeline to the Red Sea.
There is an increasing fear that the military rivals will divide the country, leading to a plight similar to that of Libya’s. Sudanese people have started to live with the war, and with much attention given to Gaza and Ukraine, the war in Sudan will continue to rage on the sidelines.
Context: For the second time since April, Iran and Israel are on the brink of all-out war as Iran fired almost 200 missiles at Israel, which has vowed to respond.
Why is it a Cause of Concern for India?
Conflict between the two countries is a major worry for India, which has strategic ties with both Israel and Iran.
Relations with Israel:
The strategic relationship with Israel, especially the defence and security partnership, has grown and deepened under the Narendra Modi government.
The two sides have strong shared concerns over extremism and terrorism.
Israel has emerged as a major defence supplier alongside the US, France, and Russia — and New Delhi remembers that the Israelis had stepped up at its time of crisis during the Kargil war in 1999.
Relations with Iran:
Iran has been a major supplier of crude to India.
Also, the two countries share concerns on terrorism emanating from Pakistan and Afghanistan, and on the Taliban’s treatment of minorities and lack of an inclusive and representative government in Kabul.
The Chabahar port is a project of great strategic and economic importance to India.
Past tensions between Israel and Iran have brought discomfiture to New Delhi. Widening of the conflict in the Middle East will make it difficult for India to stay ambivalent.
What are India’s Stakes in the Iran-Israel Conflict?
India’s adeptness at maintaining balanced relationships with both Israel and Iran has been a notable aspect of its foreign policy.
However, the recent escalation of conflict in the Middle East poses significant challenges that could impact India in multiple ways.
Impact on Diaspora:
India’s large expatriate community in the region is at risk if the conflict intensifies.
With approximately 18,000 Indians residing in Israel and 5,000-10,000 in Iran, and around 9 million Indians living across the Gulf and West Asia, any escalation would endanger these individuals.
Economic Interests:
India’s energy security is intricately linked to the West Asian region, which supplies about 80% of its oil.
The potential disruption of oil supplies due to conflict could lead to increased energy prices, impacting India’s economy.
Although India has mitigated some of the effects of global oil price volatility through discounted Russian oil, a new conflict could negate these efforts and exacerbate economic challenges.
New Delhi is also concerned about the impact of these tensions on recent initiatives like the 10-year India-Iran MoU for the development of Chabahar port.
Any conflict or US sanctions could affect India's plans for Chabahar port and connectivity projects with Afghanistan and Central Asia.
Strategic Imperatives:
India’s strategic interests in the region are substantial.
The country has cultivated significant ties with major Arab nations, Iran, and Israel, and is invested in initiatives like the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC). This corridor is crucial for economic integration and strategic positioning.
The ongoing West Asian tensions have hindered meetings of the IMEC steering committee.
Additionally, the India-Israel-UAE-US I2U2 initiative and the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) linking Indian cargo routes to Russia could be jeopardized.
An expanded conflict could unravel the regional consensus necessary for stability and cooperation.
Ensuring Diplomatic Balance:
India’s strategic relationship with Israel, particularly in defence and security, has been robust, highlighted by support during critical moments such as the October 7, 2023 attacks by Hamas.
Conversely, India’s ties with Iran are also significant, especially considering Tehran’s role as a major crude supplier and its alignment with India’s counter-terrorism objectives.
Balancing relations with both Israel and Iran have historically been challenging for India. Notable incidents include diplomatic confrontations between Israeli and Iranian representatives in New Delhi, underscoring the delicate nature of India’s position.
What Role Can India Play?
Therefore it is important for India that the conflict doesn’t take a wider regional dimension and India wants that all issues be addressed through dialogue and diplomacy.
India’s stance on de-escalation and return to diplomacy is crucial for preserving its national interests amidst the volatile regional dynamics.
New Delhi has so far not offered to play a mediatory role.
To play any meaningful role as a possible mediator, India will need, apart from communication channels with both sides, significant leverage with them as well.
Conclusion
As the situation evolves, India’s diplomatic manoeuvres will be essential in safeguarding its people, economic interests, and strategic objectives while navigating the complex web of Middle Eastern geopolitics.
Context: The United Kingdom on Thursday (October 3) said it would cede sovereignty of the strategically important Chagos Islands to Mauritius, calling it a “historic political agreement”. The UK has long controlled Chagos and the Diego Garcia military base located there, jointly operating it with the United States.
Sovereignty Transfer:
On October 3, 2024, the UK agreed to cede sovereignty of the Chagos Archipelago to Mauritius, marking a “historic political agreement.”
Strategic Importance:
The Chagos Archipelago includes Diego Garcia, which houses a major US military base, crucial for defense and military operations.
Historical Context:
The Chagos Islands were uninhabited until the late 18th century, later populated through forced labor.
In 1814, the islands were ceded to the UK from France.
The UK established the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) in 1965, keeping Chagos while granting independence to Mauritius in 1968.
US-Military Relations:
In 1966, the UK allowed the US to use BIOT for military purposes, leading to the establishment of the Diego Garcia base, which became fully operational in 1986.
Chagossian Displacement:
About 2,000 civilians were forcibly removed from Diego Garcia during its military transformation, a central issue in the sovereignty dispute.
International Legal Challenges:
Mauritius has claimed UK occupation of Chagos as illegal, taking the issue to international bodies.
In 2017, the UNGA requested the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to examine the islands' legal status.
An ICJ advisory opinion stated the detachment from Mauritius in 1965 was not based on genuine consent.
Treaty Provisions:
The UK ceded claims over the islands but retains control over Diego Garcia for an “initial period” of 99 years.
Mauritius can resettle people on the islands, excluding Diego Garcia.
A trust fund for Chagossians will be established by the UK.
Geopolitical Implications:
The resolution may bolster Western commitment to a free Indo-Pacific, countering potential influences from nations like China.
The treaty is seen as pivotal amid growing geopolitical tensions, especially with US interests in the Indian Ocean.
India's Role:
India has consistently supported Mauritius’ claims, voting in favor at the UNGA in 2019.
India is strengthening ties with Mauritius in response to China's assertiveness in the region, exemplified by infrastructure developments in Mauritius.
The treaty represents a compromise, addressing historical grievances while maintaining strategic military interests in the Indian Ocean.
Context:India described the inclusion of a detailed paragraph on Security Council reform in a U.N. summit document as a “good beginning.” New Delhi expressed its anticipation for the initiation of text-based negotiations within a fixed timeframe to address reforms of the 15-member body.
Key takeaways from the news article:
Historic moment:
September 22, 2024: World leaders unanimously adopted the ‘Pact of the Future’, marking a significant milestone in the long-awaited reform of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).
The pact promises to enhance the council’s representativeness, inclusivity, transparency, efficiency, effectiveness, democracy, and accountability.
Importance of the pact's language:
It includes a detailed paragraph on UNSC reform for the first time in a U.N. summit document. While the pact may not encompass every detail desired, it is a ‘good beginning.’
There is optimism for the initiation of text-based negotiations within a defined timeframe, viewing the current agreement as a foundational step toward meaningful reform.
The 'Pact of the Future' also underscores the commitment to address historical injustices faced by Africa, recognizing it as a special case.
Leaders agreed to improve representation for underrepresented regions, including the Asia-Pacific, Latin America, and the Caribbean.
The pact emphasizes the necessity of enlarging the Security Council to better reflect the contemporary realities of its membership.
The pact advocates for intensified efforts to secure an agreement on the categories of Security Council membership.
It encourages the submission and revision of proposals by states for structured dialogues aimed at developing a consolidated model. This emphasis on a collaborative approach aims to balance the council’s representativeness with its effectiveness.
India's stance on UNSC Reform:
India has been a prominent advocate for UNSC reform, arguing that the current structure is not suited for the challenges of the 21st century.
India rightfully claims a permanent seat on the Security Council, as India has served as a non-permanent member in 2021-22.
The country's position reflects its commitment to a more equitable international order, particularly in light of the Security Council’s polarization on pressing global issues like the Ukraine conflict and the Israel-Hamas situation.
In his address at the 'Summit of the Future', Prime Minister Modi stressed that institutional reforms are crucial for global peace and development. The reform is essential for maintaining the relevance of international institutions.
Need for Institutional reforms:
U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres echoed this sentiment, calling for profound reforms to enhance the legitimacy and effectiveness of global institutions, rooted in the principles of the UN Charter.
He emphasised that the challenges of the 21st century necessitate contemporary solutions that are inclusive and collaborative.
He noted the disparity between the original 51 member states at the UN's inception nearly 80 years ago and the current 193 members, highlighting the outdated nature of existing peace and security frameworks.
He warned that the Security Council, characterized as ‘outdated,’ risks losing credibility unless its composition and methods are reformed.
The evolving dynamics of international relations necessitate significant reforms to address its inherent limitations. Some of the reasons why reforms are needed in UNSC are:
1. Outdated representation:
The current structure of the UNSC fails to adequately represent the global landscape.
Lack of representation from Africa and Latin America: With 54 countries, Africa remains vastly underrepresented in the UNSC, as does Latin America and the Caribbean. Despite their growing influence on the world stage, these regions have no permanent representation.
Major economies in Latin America and the significant population and resources of Africa highlight the disconnect between the UNSC’s membership and the realities of global power dynamics.
2. Concerns over Sovereignty and Unilateral actions:
Sanctions imposed by the UNSC can lead to severe economic repercussions for nations, often disregarding the interests of those nations.
Key decisions, particularly regarding conflicts in regions like Africa, are made without adequate representation from those directly affected.
Sanctions on Iran have led to a crippling economic crisis, highlighting how the UNSC's actions can have far-reaching effects on a nation’s sovereignty and well-being.
3. Lack of recognition for major contributors:
Countries that play pivotal roles in global peacekeeping and financing are overlooked in the UNSC.
India, Japan, and Germany: These nations are significant contributors to UN peacekeeping missions and UN finances but lack permanent seats in the UNSC.
India is among the top contributors to peacekeeping operations, while Japan and Germany are major financial backers of the UN. Their exclusion from the UNSC reflects an imbalance that undermines their contributions.
4. Ineffectiveness of Veto power:
The veto power held by the P5 (the five permanent members) has often led to deadlocks in critical situations.
Deadlocks: The veto can obstruct consensus and render the UNSC ineffective in times of crisis.
The use of Veto power by the P5 nations to protect their interests illustrate how the P-5 can skew resolutions in their favour, disregarding broader international concerns.
The P5's inability to agree on resolutions regarding the Syrian Civil War has resulted in prolonged inaction, exacerbating human suffering and instability.
5. Discouragement of multilateralism:
The exclusivity and perceived ineffectiveness of the UNSC have eroded trust in multilateralism.
The UNSC's failures discourage countries from engaging in collective efforts to tackle global challenges, undermining international cooperation.
6. Changing geopolitics:
The geopolitical landscape has shifted significantly since the establishment of the UNSC.
Post-World War II composition: The current UNSC composition reflects a bi-polar world that no longer exists, failing to represent the multi-polar reality of today where developing nations have substantial influence.
This misalignment hampers effective decision-making and inclusivity.
The UN chief cautioned the 15-member United Nations Security Council about its outdated nature, highlighting that its waning authority could ultimately lead to a complete loss of credibility unless significant reforms are enacted in both its composition and operational methods. The UN chief issued a powerful call to action, stating, “We cannot forge a future for our grandchildren with a system designed for our grandparents.”
Key highlights from the Summit of the Future, 2024:
World leaders convened at the Summit of the Future (New York) adopted the Pact for the Future, which includes a Global Digital Compact and a Declaration on Future Generations.
1. Commitment to Sustainable development:
Member States recommitted to accelerating the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and the 2023 SDG Summit Political Declaration.
Their aim is to eradicate poverty and hunger while ensuring no one is left behind.
The Pact emphasizes the necessity of planning for sustainable development beyond 2030 and addresses the SDG financing gap through enhanced public and private investments.
2. Climate action and Environmental sustainability:
The Pact reiterates the commitment to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and transition from fossil fuels to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050.
It also calls for urgent actions to promote sustainable practices, including a legally-binding agreement on plastic pollution and initiatives to reverse biodiversity loss.
3. Peace and security initiatives:
Leaders emphasized the importance of sustaining peace through national prevention strategies, strengthening international cooperation, and ensuring military spending does not undermine sustainable development.
The Pact commits to protecting civilians in conflict zones and enhancing accountability for serious violations of international law.
4. Disarmament and arms control:
One of the Pact's notable achievements is the reaffirmation of commitment to nuclear disarmament, alongside measures to prevent the weaponization of emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence.
5. Addressing global inequalities in Science and Technology:
The Pact promotes reducing disparities in science, technology, and innovation (STI) and emphasizes women's and girls' participation in these fields.
It advocates for increased funding for SDG-related research and innovation.
6. Enhancing Multilateral cooperation:
The adoption of the Pact showcases countries' commitment to an international system centred around the United Nations.
It aims to enhance multilateralism to better reflect contemporary global dynamics, fostering collaboration among governments, civil society, and private sectors.
7. Youth and gender equality:
The Pact prioritizes youth engagement in global decision-making and commits to revitalizing the Commission on the Status of Women, ensuring the empowerment of women and girls.
8. Financial architecture reform:
The Pact outlines comprehensive reforms to the international financial architecture, aiming for more equitable representation of developing countries and improved financial safety nets to support economic resilience.
9. Global Digital compact and future generations declaration:
Annexed to the Pact, the Global Digital Compact establishes a framework for digital cooperation that emphasizes human rights and accountability in the digital space.
The Declaration on Future Generations focuses on safeguarding the interests of future populations through long-term governance principles.
10. Outer Space:
On governing outer space, the Pact includes an agreement to strengthen the existing international frameworks including to ensure that all countries can benefit from its safe and sustainable exploration and use, and working with non-State actors where relevant.
The Pact includes follow-up mechanisms, including a high-level review of the Global Digital Compact in 2027 and a comprehensive review of the Pact for the Future in 2028.
Context: The Jharkhand High Court has directed the state government to identify illegal Bangladeshi immigrants in the Santhal Parganas region after a PIL raised concerns about demographic changes due to ‘Bangladeshi infiltration.’ The petition noted a significant demographic shift in six districts, with the tribal population decreasing from 44.67% in 1951 to 28.11% in 2011, while the minority community's percentage rose from 9.44% to 22.73%.
Illegal immigrants from Bangladesh:
Illegal migration and cross-border activities pose significant challenges along the India-Bangladesh border, which is highly porous.
The border spans 4,096.7 km, with 3,145 km already secured by physical fencing, while the remaining sections are planned to be covered by a combination of physical and technological barriers.
The Home Ministry's 2021-22 annual report highlights that the porous nature of the Indo-Bangladesh border has made it difficult to control illegal migration and other cross-border activities.
Assam and West Bengal, which share a porous border with Bangladesh, are particularly affected by illegal infiltration.
Who are ‘Illegal Immigrants’?
An illegal immigrant in India is defined as a foreigner who has either entered the country without valid documents or overstayed beyond the permitted time under the Citizenship Act, as amended in 2003.
Such individuals are ineligible for citizenship by registration or naturalization and may face imprisonment for 2-8 years and fines.
However, an exception was made in 2019 for minority communities from Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Afghanistan who fled to India due to religious persecution or fear of it. These individuals are not considered illegal migrants and remain eligible for citizenship.
The 2001 Indian Census provides data on migrants, with Bangladeshis being the largest group, followed by Pakistanis, though it does not specifically categorize illegal immigrants.
Reasons for influx of Illegal Immigrants from neighbouring regions:
1. Economic opportunities: Neighbouring countries like Bangladesh, Nepal, and Myanmar face poverty and unemployment, pushing people to seek better livelihoods in India.India's larger economy offers better job opportunities, especially in informal sectors.
2. Political instability:
The 2021 military coup and ethnic conflicts in Myanmar forced thousands of Rohingya and other minorities to flee to India. The UN estimated nearly 18,000 Rohingya refugees in India by 2021. The Civil War (1983-2009) led to over 100,000 Tamil refugees entering India, many illegally. The Taliban's takeover in 2021 prompted many Afghans to seek asylum in India.
3. Religious and ethnic persecution:
Religious minorities, especially Hindus, have faced persecution, leading to migration to India. The Citizenship Amendment Act (2019) responded to this, with over 25,000 Pakistanis seeking Indian citizenship between 2016-2019.
4. Environmental factors:
Climate change and environmental degradation, especially in coastal areas, drive migration. The Sundarbans region has seen significant displacement due to rising sea levels, leading to an influx into West Bengal.
5. Lack of stringent border controls:
India's borders with Bangladesh, Nepal, and Myanmar are porous. These border regions traverse a range of natural landscapes which are hard to monitor, making illegal crossings easier. India has an easily navigable sea route with Pakistan as well as Sri Lanka making it vulnerable to a continuous threat of an influx of illegal migration.
Preventing the entry of illegal migrants into India is important as they impose pressure on citizens and pose a security threat, especially in sensitive areas such as Jammu and West Bengal
Threats to India’s National Security:
The large influx of illegal immigrants in different parts of India has raised both direct and indirect threats.
Direct threats
Radicalization and infiltration:
The large influx of illegal immigrants, especially from regions with ongoing conflicts or extremist activities, increases the risk of radicalization. Terrorist organizations can exploit refugee movements to infiltrate operatives into the country.
Indian security agencies have reported that some Rohingyas, who may sympathize with militant ideologies, could be active in areas like Jammu, Delhi, Hyderabad, and Mewat, posing a potential threat to internal security.
Intelligence reports have indicated that Pakistan-based terror groups have attempted to infiltrate operatives into India under the guise of migrants from Bangladesh.
This not only poses a direct threat to internal security but also strains India’s relations with neighbouring countries.
Political and cultural threats:
The demographic change due to the influx of illegal immigrants threatens the political and cultural pre-eminence of local populations.
In states like Assam, the continuous influx of immigrants from Bangladesh has altered the demographic balance, leading to tensions between the indigenous population and the newcomers.
The Assam Accord of 1985, which sought to address these concerns, highlights the long-standing issue of illegal immigration and its impact on the socio-political fabric of the region.
The unchecked influx of undocumented immigrants poses a serious threat, potentially sparking power struggles between foreign anti-national groups and the indigenous populace.
Infiltration of Myanmar Kuki-Chins has previously ignited the Naga vs. Kuki conflict (1992 – 1999), Kuki vs. Paite (1997–1998) in Manipur, and the Kuki vs. Karbi clash (2003 – 2004) in Assam.
Militancy:
Ongoing attacks against Muslims perceived as illegal migrants in Assam have contributed to radicalization within some segments of the Muslim community.
This has led to the emergence of militant groups, such as the Muslim United Liberation Tigers of Assam (MULTA), posing a significant threat to national security.
Law and order disruption:
Illegal migrants undermine the rule of law and national integrity by engaging in activities such as obtaining identity documents illegally, involving in trans-border smuggling of arms.
Indirect threats:
Resource strain:
The arrival of large numbers of illegal immigrants can strain local resources, including land, water, and public services.
This often leads to resentment among the local population, who feel that their opportunities are being usurped.
For instance, in urban areas like Delhi and Mumbai, the presence of illegal immigrants has contributed to overcrowding and increased competition for jobs, leading to a decline in wages and working conditions.
According to a 2022 report by the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO), regions with high concentrations of illegal immigrants have witnessed a significant drop in wages for unskilled labor.
Social instability and crime:
The lack of opportunities and the prevailing sense of insecurity among the local population can cause social instability.
Illegal immigrants, often living in poverty and deprivation, may become vulnerable to crime, both as victims and perpetrators.
Terror outfits can easily exploit these vulnerabilities, recruiting individuals by promising better prospects and livelihoods.
The Bodoland violence in 2012, which was partly fuelled by concerns over illegal immigration and its impact on local communities.
In the northeastern states of India, where illegal immigration is a significant issue, there has been a noticeable rise in crime rates, including human trafficking and smuggling, as reported by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) in 2023.
Grievances over resource distribution:
The situation in Assam's border districts, where illegal settlements have encroached on forest and agricultural land, has led to frequent clashes between the indigenous communities and the immigrants.
The 2019 National Register of Citizens (NRC) exercise in Assam was an attempt to address these grievances but also highlighted the deep divisions and challenges in resolving the issue.
The cumulative impact of these direct and indirect threats can lead to broader regional and national instability.
India's strategy to address these threats:
Strengthening border security:
India has invested in extensive border fencing and surveillance systems to control illegal crossings. The construction of the India-Bangladesh border fence, which spans over 4,000 kilometers, aims to deter unauthorized movement. As of 2023, approximately 3,200 kilometers of the fence have been completed.
The Comprehensive Integrated Border Management System (CIBMS) project leverages technology for enhanced border monitoring.
Efforts to improve border security also include the construction of border roads to enhance communication and mobility in these areas.
In addition, floodlights have been installed along significant portions of the border in West Bengal, Meghalaya, Assam, Mizoram, and Tripura.
The BSF plays a crucial role in patrolling and securing India's borders. For example, in 2022, the BSF apprehended over 2,000 individuals attempting to cross the India-Bangladesh border illegally.
Legal and policy frameworks:
National Register of Citizens (NRC): The NRC is a government initiative to identify and document citizens and illegal immigrants. The most notable application was in Assam, where the NRC was updated to exclude illegal immigrants. The 2019 NRC list excluded over 1.9 million individuals, although this process faced criticism and legal challenges.
Foreigners Act of 1946: This act regulates the entry and stay of foreigners in India. It empowers the government to detain and deport illegal immigrants. Recent amendments and stricter enforcement have aimed to enhance its effectiveness.
Diplomatic cooperation:
India has worked with Bangladesh to address illegal immigration through bilateral agreements. The 2015 Land Boundary Agreement (LBA) resolved border disputes and facilitated the exchange of enclaves, which has helped reduce illegal movement.
Challenges in managing national security threats from illegal immigration:
1. Operational:
The extensive and challenging-to-monitor borders with Bangladesh (4,096 km) and Myanmar (1,643 km) have gaps despite efforts like border fencing.
The Border Security Force (BSF) struggles with limited resources and the need for advanced surveillance technology.
Inefficient coordination between central and state agencies hampers effective border management, leading to gaps in enforcement.
2.Legal:
The Foreigners Act and Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) create a complicated legal environment.
The CAA has faced protests and legal issues, complicating its implementation.
Balancing national security measures with human rights, as seen with the CAA, leads to criticism and protests.
Recommended strategies for dealing with the issue:
A comprehensive national policy for effective border management is urgently needed. This policy should be formulated by national security experts and tailored to address the unique challenges faced by each border region of the country.
1. Enhancing border security:
India can invest more in high-tech solutions like drones, infrared sensors, and AI-based monitoring systems. Expanding and better equipping the BSF and other border agencies can help close existing security gaps.
2. Reforming legal framework:
India needs a more transparent and consistent legal framework to define and categorize illegal immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers. Ensuring that security measures do not infringe upon human rights is crucial.
3. Coordination between Central and State agencies:
Establishing a unified command structure for border management could enhance coordination.
The European Union’s Frontex agency exemplifies how centralizing border management can improve coordination across multiple states.
Regular joint training programs for central and state agencies can foster better coordination.
4. Counter-terrorism measures:
Strengthening intelligence sharing between central and state agencies, and with international partners, can help detect and prevent radicalization.
Developing programs to engage with migrant communities and address grievances can reduce the risk of radicalization.
5. Strengthening diplomatic cooperation:
Strengthening and expanding bilateral agreements with neighbouring countries for better border management and repatriation processes is essential.
For example, India could model agreements on the U.S.-Mexico bilateral cooperation on border security, which includes joint initiatives and intelligence sharing.
Regional forums like the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) could improve collective responses to illegal immigration and security challenges, as Counter-Terrorism and Transnational Crimes are in its list of priority sectors of cooperation.
Context: Cambodia has launched $1.7 bn Funan Techo Canal mega connectivity project.
About Funan Techo Canal Project
The Funan-Techo Canal Project aims to connect Cambodia's capital Phnom Penh with the coastal town of Kep located on the Gulf of Thailand by a 180 km canal.
As per the plans, the canal will be 100 metres wide and 5.4 metres deep allowing for two shipping lanes.
Currently, ocean-bound shipping from Phnom Penh passes through Vietnam's Mekong Delta to ports near the Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam.
The Funan Techo Canal will provide Cambodia an alternative route for sea trade and reduce its dependence of Vietnamese ports.
The Canal project is part of the broader Belt and Road Project of China and will be built with Chinese assistance.
Context: The 20th edition of India-USA joint military exercise YUDH-ABHYAS 2024 has started at Foreign Training Node in Mahajan Field Firing Ranges in Rajasthan. This edition of YUDH-ABHYAS has a significant increase in terms of troop strength and equipment employed in the joint exercise focusing on semi-desert environment.
About YUDH-ABHYAS
YUDH-ABHYAS is an annual exercise between militaries of USA & India ie Indian Army & USA Army.
First edition of YUDH-ABHYAS was held in 2004.
It is held alternatively in India and USA.
Significance
Enhance joint military capability of both sides to undertake counter-terrorism operations in a sub-conventional scenario under Chapter VII of UN Charter.
Prepare a joint exercise to a terrorist action, joint planning and combined field training exercises that simulate real-world counter-terror missions.
Share best practices in tactics, techniques and procedures of conducting joint operations.
Facilitate development of inter-operability and bonhomie between the two armies.
