The Biden administration released a video of a Russian fighter jet dumping fuel on a US Airforce surveillance drone as the US sought to hold Russia responsible for the collision that led to the drone’s crash into the Black Sea without escalating already fraught tensions with the Kremlin.
What is the MQ-9 Reaper?
The MQ-9 Reaper is a large unmanned aircraft manufactured by military contractor, General Atomics. It is remotely operated by a two-person team, consisting of a pilot and an aircrew member who operates sensors and guides weapons.
The primary use is as “an intelligence-collection asset”, while also highlighting its “unique capability to perform” precision strikes against “high-value and time-sensitive targets”
Which countries use Reaper drones?
The US is by far the largest purchaser of Reaper drones. UK has accelerated its use of Reaper drones over the last decade.
France, Italy, Spain, India, Japan and the Netherlands all also operate Reaper drones.
The deal highlights a long-standing ally of the US — Saudi Arabia accepted and acknowledged publicly the mediatory role of China, which is locked in a sharpening, all-round confrontation with the US, cannot be regarded as anything less than a major diplomatic setback for Washington
Saudi Arabia and Iran have agreed to revive two key agreements they concluded during an earlier phase of positive bilateral relations.
One is a 1998 agreement on economic, trade and investment cooperation;
The other is an agreement on internal security cooperation, concluded in 2001, which covered organised crime, terrorism and drug trafficking.
WHY US IS WITHDRAWING ?
The US is also distancing itself from the region as it is no longer dependent on energy imports from the region.
It has itself emerged as a significant exporter of both oil and gas.
America knows that its survival in the region is very costly, because it will remain under the strikes of the Axis of Resistance, which has grown and gained great influence in last decade, meaning that the American presence is no longer without cost, but rather the price will rise if US stays.
The only reason US remains engaged because its major allies are still dependent on energy supplies from the region.
US also has a stake in the security of Israel, which also serves as its key regional ally.
AXIS OF RESISTANCE The term Axis of Resistance (also Resistance and Deterrence Axis) commonly refers to a Shiite anti-Israel and anti-Westernalliance between Iran, Syria, the Lebanese Militant group Hezbollah and Hamas.
This Iran-led alliance aims to oppose Western, namely United States and Israel, interests in the region.
FOR INDIA
India has done well in recent years in forging much closer relations with key Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Oman.
India has been able to do so even while forging a close strategic partnership with Israel. The Abraham Accords opened the door to the I2U2 initiative which brought together India, Israel, the UAE and the US in a quadrilateral regional framework, akin to the Quadrilateral (Quad) in the Indo-Pacific.
But the deal brokered by China highlights the growing clout, following this if the multi-billion dollar($400bn) deal between Iran and China is materialized and partnership with Saudi is strengthened it will put brakes on ambitious targets set under I2U2
SILVER LINING
American President Joe Biden has earlier assured, the US is not leaving the Middle East and that America “will not walk away and leave a vacuum to be filled by China, Russia, or Iran”.
Earlier US saw itself as the sole provider of regional security, now this approach is changing with US effort to craft a Middle East Air Defence coalition is an example of this.
US focus on national interest found an echo in the Middle East. The region earlier focused on transcendental notions of “pan Arabism” and “pan Islamism”. Arab leaders now are not willing to let that come in the way of normalisation of relations with Israel. Ex Abraham Accords
Thus India must find ways to revive and expand its energy partnership with Iran and fast-track the implementation of the Chabahar port and the transport corridor that would link it to Central Asia. India’s western flank is far too important to be accorded second place to the Indo-Pacific.
Parliament amended 'The Weapons of Mass Destruction and their Delivery Systems (Prohibition of Unlawful Activities) Act, 2005 (WMD Act, 2005) to fulfil international obligations relating to financing of weapons of mass destruction. The amendment prohibits financing of any prohibited activity under the WMD Act, 2005 and empowers taking financial and other measures to prevent such financing related to WMDs and their delivery systems.
About Weapons of Mass Destruction & Their Delivery Systems (Prohibition of Unlawful Activities) Act, 2005
Need for the Act:
Prohibits unlawful activities related to weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems.
India is committed not to transfer nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or assist , encourage or induce any other country to manufacture nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
Provides legal framework to the objective of global nuclear disarmament,
India is a member of Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). Thus, this act empowers India to exercise controls over export of chemicals, organisms, materials, equipment and technologies related to weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems.
The Act was passed to meet an international obligation enforced by the UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1540 of 2004.
UN Security Council Resolution 1540
UN Security Council Resolution 1540 address the growing threat of non-state actors gaining access to WMD material, equipment or technology to undertake acts of terrorism.
It established binding obligations on all UN member states under Chapter VII of UN Charter.
Nations were mandated to take and enforce effective measures against proliferation of WMD, their means of delivery and related materials to non-state actors.
UNSCR 1540 enforced three primary obligations upon countries:
(i) To not provide any form of support to non-state actors seeking to acquire WMD, related materials or their means of delivery.
(ii) To adopt and enforce laws criminalising the possession and acquisition of such items by non-state actors.
(iii) To adopt and enforce domestic controls over relevant materials, in order to prevent their proliferation.
UNSCR 1540 undergoes periodic reviews to determine the success of its implementation and identify gaps in enforcement.
Salient Features of the Weapons of Mass Destruction & Their Delivery System (Prohibition of Unlawful Activities) Act, 2005:
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD): WMDs under the Act includes any biological, chemical or nuclear weapons.
Extent: Extends to whole of India including the Exclusive Economic Zone.
Application: Provisions of this Act applies to export, transfer, re-transfer, transit and trans-shipment of material, equipment or technology of any description as are identified, designated, categorised or considered by Central Government as Weapons of Mass Destruction and their delivery systems.
Provisions of this Act apply to:
Citizens of India outside India.
Companies or bodies corporate, registered or incorporated in India or having their associates, branches or subsidiaries, outside India.
Any ship, aircraft or other means of transport registered in India or outside India.
Foreigners while in India
Persons in service of Government of India, within and beyond India.
Central may identify, designate, categorise or regulate the export, transfer, re-transfer, transhipment or transit of any item related to Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Prohibition related to Weapons of Mass Destruction
Nuclear Weapons: No person shall unlawfully manufacture, acquire, possess, develop or transport or transfer (directly or indirectly) a nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive device and their means of delivery.
Chemical & Biological Weapons: No person shall unlawfully manufacture, acquire, possess, develop or transport (directly or indirectly) a biological or chemical weapon or their means of delivery.
Missiles: No person shall unlawfully transfer, directly or indirectly, to any one missiles specially designed for delivery of weapons of mass destruction.
Non-state actors or terrorists: No person shall, directly or indirectly, transfer to a non-State actor or terrorist, any material, equipment and technology related to Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Brokering: No person who is a resident of India shall, for a consideration, knowingly facilitate execution of any transaction which is prohibited or regulated under this Act.
Export: No person shall export any material, equipment or technology knowing that such material, equipment or technology is intended to be used in the design or manufacture of a biological weapon, chemical weapon, nuclear weapon or their missile delivery system.
Punishment: Heavy punishments have been provided for contravening or abeting the provisions of this act.
Need for Amendments
The risk of proliferation of WMDs to non-state actors is increasing due to rapid advances in science, technology and international commerce.
FATF has expanded the scope of targeted financial sanctions and demanded tighter controls on the financing of WMD activities.
New kinds of threats: Developments in the fields of drones or unauthorised work in biomedical labs that could be maliciously used for terrorist activities.
Changes introduced by Weapons of Mass Destruction & Their Delivery System (Amendment) Act, 2022
Prohibition on financing: No person shall finance any activity prohibited under this Act or UN (Security Council) Act, 1947 in relation to WMDs and their delivery systems.
For preventing financing by any person of above activities, the Central Government will have power to:
Freeze, seize or attach funds or other economic resources owned or controlled, wholly or jointly, directly or indirectly by such person.
Prohibit any person from making funds, financial assets or economic resources related to unlawful transfer of WMDs.
The McMahon Line, named after British colonial officer Henry McMahon, is a disputed boundary between India and China that runs through the eastern Himalayas.
The line was established in a 1914 treaty between the British Empire and Tibet, which was then an independent country. China, however, does not recognize the McMahon Line and considers it a relic of British colonialism.
Right hand palm theory of China
Firstly, it is important to understand the history of the McMahon Line and the dispute surrounding it. When the treaty was signed in 1914, the Chinese government was not consulted, and it has since claimed that the treaty was invalid. China maintains that Tibet was a part of China at the time and that the McMahon Line was never recognized by the Chinese government.
The McMahon Line became the de facto boundary between India and China after India gained independence from Britain in 1947.
China, under the leadership of Mao Zedong considered Tibet to be the right hand’s palm of China with Ladakh, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and NEFA (Arunachal Pradesh) as its five fingers.
It therefore was China’s responsibility to “liberate” these regions believed Mao.
After annexation of Tibet it was widely expected that China may attempt to liberate these regions but global outcry against Tibet’s annexation forced Mao to distance himself temporarily from the idea.
However, in 1962, China launched a surprise attack on India along the McMahon Line, resulting in a brief but intense war that ended with China's victory. Since then, there have been occasional flare-ups along the border, including a deadly clash in 2020 that led to the deaths of several Indian and Chinese soldiers.
India and China have engaged in several rounds of talks over the years to resolve the border dispute, but progress has been slow. Meanwhile, the US has increasingly taken an interest in the region, viewing China's growing influence and assertiveness as a threat to its strategic interests.
Recognition of McMahon Line by the US
Recently, there has been much discussion about the recognition of the McMahon Line as the official boundary between India and China by the United States.
The move, if it were to happen, would have significant geopolitical implications for the region.
The US recognizing the McMahon Line as the official boundary between India and China would be a significant diplomatic move, one that would have implications for the entire region. It would signal US support for India and its territorial claims, which could embolden India in its dealings with China. It could also encourage other countries in the region, such as Japan and Australia, to take a stronger stance against China's assertiveness.
However, such a move would undoubtedly be met with strong opposition from China, which views any recognition of the McMahon Line as a violation of its territorial integrity.
China has already warned against any such move by the US, stating that it would harm bilateral relations between the two countries.
India-China Border Dispute
India shares a 3488-km boundary with China along J&K, Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, Sikkim & Arunachal Pradesh.
Border between India and China is not demarcated throughout and there is no mutually agreed Line of Actual Control (LAC).
Entire border is divided into three sectors: Western sector is disputed (Ladakh); Middle sector is largely settled and peaceful (Himachal Pradesh & Uttarakhand) and Eastern sector is unsettled and disputed (China claims entire Arunachal).
China claims that the border claimed by India as signed by British India and Tibet was under colonial pressure and a weak China. China does not agree.
British India had failed to produce a single integrated and well-defined northern boundary separating the Indian subcontinent from Xinjiang and Tibet.
Western Sector
Western sector i.e., Aksai Chin Sector
The two sides differ over boundary line that separates Ladakh region from Xinjiang province of China.
India accuses China of illegally occupying Aksai Chin and some other parts of Ladakh region. China sees Aksai Chin as extension of Tibet plateau whereas India claims it is an extension of Ladakh plateau. The region is mostly uninhabited.
Aksai Chin is important for China as it connects two backward provinces of China i.e., Tibet and Xinjiang.
British Johnson Line where Aksai Chin was part of Kashmir another advocated McDonald line under which Aksai Chin falls under Xinjiang Province of China.
As a result, disagreement prevails with India claiming Johnson Line to be correct and China claiming McDonald Line to be correct.
In the official map of India of 1950, India marked east of Karakoram range as “boundary undefined”.
Currently, LAC at present separates India and China in the absence of a mutually agreed boundary, there is a difference in perceptions about the alignment of the line.
Eastern Sector: McMahon Line
In eastern sector, boundary was delineated in 1914 Shimla conference of British India, China and Tibet.
British proposed formation of Outer Tibet bordering India & Inner-Tibet bordering China.
A boundary demarcating Tibetan region of China and the North-east Frontier Areas of India (current Arunachal Pradesh) was agreed upon by British and Tibetan representatives which came to be called McMahon Line.
China does not recognize McMahon line as it was signed between British and Tibet which was not a sovereign state at the time.
As a result, China claims Arunachal Pradesh especially Tawang as part of Tibet.
India on its part while recognizes Chinese suzerainty over Tibet and considers McMahon line to be the official boundary.
In conclusion, the recognition of the McMahon Line by the US as the official boundary between India and China would be a significant development in the ongoing border dispute between the two countries. While it would provide India with diplomatic support, it could also escalate tensions with China, which has already warned against such a move. Ultimately, a peaceful resolution to the border dispute remains the best outcome for all parties involved.
India and Italy are celebrating 75 years of establishing diplomatic relations. In order to strengthen the relations even further, both countries have elevated the bilateral relations to a strategic partnership.
Factors strengthening India-Italy relations
The trade between India and Italy has doubled in 2022 (from 2020) to 15 billion euros.
In 2020, a five-year action plan has been adopted which focuses primarily on energy transition, food processing, advanced manufacturing, the creative industry and infrastructure of various kinds.
Italy has joined multilateral initiatives promoted by India like the Indian Ocean Rim Association, the Coalition for Disaster Relief Infrastructure, the International Solar Alliance etc.
India and Italy are also collaborating in the field of culture and creative spheres like fashion, design and cinema etc.
India and Italy are collaborating in the field of science and technology and have launched 13 new joint products.
There has been a lot of movement of Indian students and workers in Italy and there are around 200,000 Indian living, working and studying in Italy (The highest in the EU).
In the health sector, during the pandemic, the two countries have collaborated since the beginning with the exchange of experiences and practices, with humanitarian initiatives, and we have also promoted joint research projects.
Now, the Joint Declaration approved in the last Summit affirms the commitment of the two governments to develop a strategic partnership that will also focus on sectors such as defence, cybersecurity, space and energy.
Way forward
The enhancement of our relationship is part of a common vision for an Indo-Pacific based on respect for international law, freedom of navigation and territorial integrity.
Finally, Italy intends to offer full support to the Indian Presidency of the G20. One of the ways it will do so is by contributing to the issues that were at the centre of Italy’s G20 Presidency in 2021. This includes debt service suspension, special drawing rights, finance and health track, and balance sheet optimisation of multilateral banks – that will help promote the agenda of the Global South in this G20, where India’s Presidency will further enhance these priorities.
Italy is part of the Coffee Club and can support India’s candidature for the UNSC in future.
SIPRI’s has released its latest report titled “Trends in International Arms Transfers, 2022”
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)
SIPRI is an independent international institute dedicated to research into conflict, armaments, arms control and disarmament. Established in 1966, SIPRI provides data, analysis and recommendations, based on open sources, to policymakers, researchers, media and the interested public. SIPRI defines major arms as aircrafts, warships, tanks, artillery, missiles and various heavy defence systems. SIPRI uses the Trends Indicator Values (TIV) methodology to present the figures on global arms imports.
Highlights of the report:
Ukraine was the third largest importer of arms in 2022 (sharp increase of imports from U.S. and Europe in the latest period after Russian invasion).
Europe’s share in global volume of arms transfers increased significantly by 47% in the five-year period between 2013-17 and 2018-22.
The global volume of international arms transfers fell by 5.1% between 2018-22.
The share of West Asia, Americas, Asia, and Oceania decreased marginally in the last five years.
U.S. arms exports increased by 14% between 2013-17 and 2018-22. It accounted for 40% of global arms exports in 2018-22.
Russia’s arms exports fell by 31% between 2013-17 and 2018-22.
Why European countries has increased their arms imports?
Security concerns: Many European countries have increased arms imports due to security concerns, including conflicts in Ukraine, instability in the Middle East, and tensions with Russia.
Modernization: European countries are also increasing arms imports as part of modernization efforts, which involve replacing outdated or obsolete weapons systems with new equipment and technologies.
Geopolitical considerations: Some countries may view arms imports as a way to build strategic relationships with other countries, such as purchasing weapons from the United States to strengthen ties or signal commitment to NATO.
Way Forward:
The prioritization should shift towards investing in human development by reducing defense spending. To achieve global peace, reduce armed conflicts, and foster sustainable development, disarmament is an essential step. While there has been some success in eliminating certain weapons, significant obstacles still exist. It is imperative that governments, organizations, and individuals unite in their efforts to promote disarmament through advocacy, education, and action. Ultimately, the aim should be to create a safer and more secure future for everyone.
The AUKUS partnership for Canberra, London, and Washington is about promoting deterrence and stability in the Indo-Pacific. For China, AUKUS, along with the Quadrilateral forum or the Quad, is one of the dangerous “small cliques” that the US is building in Asia. China has warned Canberra that Australia is making an “expensive mistake” that will “plant a time bomb” in the region.
The future of this partnership will involve Canberra, London and Washington to overcome several technical and policy issues in implementing the AUKUS road map. The current estimated cost of the project will be around $250 billion. It will be nearly three decades before an Australian-built nuclear submarine will enter service.
This multi-decadal plan will trigger multiple strategic consequences:
AUKUS is in essence about transforming Australia’s strategic capabilities and making it a powerful factor in shaping the Indo-Pacific regional security environment. AUKUS will see a deeper partnership between the US, UK, and Australia in developing a range of underwater technologies to cope with the dramatic expansion of Chinese naval capabilities in the Indo-Pacific.
The UK is the lynchpin in the AUKUS, with its critical role in designing and developing a new class of nuclear-powered submarines by including cutting-edge US technologies to Britain’s domestic nuclear capabilities and the Australian demand. AUKUS will begin to change that by reinforcing London’s renewed claim for a long-term role in Indo-Pacific security.
AUKUS has reinvigorated the idea of an “Anglosphere” that speaks of the enduring geopolitical bonds between the US, UK, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. India, which had difficult ties with the Anglosphere in the past, is now seeing a rapid expansion of its ties with the English-speaking world.
FUNCTIONAL CHALLENGES THAT AUKUS WILL FACE
It is for the U.S. to build nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs) for Australia but the U.S. policymakers seem sceptical about the option.
Even if Australia acquires a submarine the integration with the onboard combat system would be difficult due to differences between the current Australian and American fleets.
Canberra could announce a modified version or new design i.e. a completely new AUKUS-class design to be acquired by all three countries but again the biggest of challenges which Australia has to figure out how to get around U.S. export controls. As the U.S.’s stringent export control and protocol regime could jeopardise the technology transfer agreement.
Nuclear technology is difficult under the international system. For Australia to operate nuclear-powered submarines with high-enriched uranium (HEU) fuelled reactors, it will have to exploit a loophole that allows non-nuclear weapon countries to withdraw the fissile material required for submarine reactors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)-monitored stockpile.
For India Acquiring nuclear propulsion technology is likely to be complicated as India is not a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
ABOUT AUKUS USA, UK and Australia have formed a security partnership in Indo–Pacific with an aim to counter Chinese aggression. This group has been created in addition to already existing collaborations like QUAD, 5 eyes alliance etc. In this backdrop let us understand the various dimensions of AUKUS and its implications on the geo-politics of Indo- Pacific.
BENEFITS OF AUKUS FOR INDIA
Strengthens India-Australia relations • Aims at improving defence capabilities of Australia which is a strategic partner of India. • India & Australia recently held their first round of 2+2 dialogue to deepen their defence & strategic ties.
India can now see a dramatic upgradation of those Australian capabilities in the coming years. This should also open the door for greater S&T cooperation between India and Australia which should eventually expand to cover sensitive strategic areas.
2. Augments Quads capability
Augment capacity of Quad of which both US and Australia are members.
This is a first of its kind defence initiative of the US in the Indo - Pacific since Quad has not clearly outlined its defence motives clearly.
AUKUS is beneficial for India because it reflects continued & intensifying US-Australian concerns about China.
Bolster both Australian and American ability to deter China or to respond in the event of a crisis. Thus, supplements Quad’s efforts.
3. Clarifies role of Big Powers in Indo - Pacific
Indian policymakers have gone from worrying about too much US presence and interest in Indian Ocean to worrying about Washington paying too little attention to this region. AUKUS could ease this concern.
AUKUS conveys the U.K.’s seriousness about its tilt to the Indo-Pacific and signals a change in UK’s assessment of China.
AUKUS rollout gives India an opportunity to boost diplomatic, defence & trade ties, particularly with France. France will probably double down on its efforts to secure arms deals with India—for commercial and political economic reasons and maybe even to get one over on the U.S.
France’s reaction to AUKUS could make it more willing and able to help India attain nuclear-powered submarines in addition to or in place of Russia.
Thus it can be concluded that India has now a rare opportunity to develop a unique set of arrangements of its own with Washington and its allies that will strengthen India’s comprehensive national power as well as enhance its contribution to regional peace and security.
CHALLENGES FROM AUKUS FOR INDIA
Tussle between AUKUS nations & France discourages consensus on larger issue of rise of China.
France's discontent feeds China’s narrative about U.S. unreliability.
Despite India’s increasing collaboration with US, India did not get the offer that US has offered to Australia under AUKUS.
Creation of AUKUS signals a dilution of USA’s interest in India, in its Indo – Pacific strategy.
Shrinks potential space available for Quad, and India, to play a serious role in region’s security architecture.
The government of India has quietly begun to build a holistic naval base on Great Nicobar Island, which stands squarely overlooking the entrance to the Malacca Straits, and is barely 90 miles from the tip of Indonesia.
A naval base in Great Nicobar would be the central piece to an oceanic strategy, to offer a counter punch to Chinese aggression in the Himalayas.
China’s deep vulnerability in its dependence on imported oil, China’s Indian Ocean lines of communications imports over 65 per cent of its oil dependency.
With a base in Great Nicobar, the entry to the Malacca Straits would be a hundred miles away while the nearest Chinese base in Sanya would be 1,500 miles away.
Further it was rumoured that the Chinese have awarded a major dredging contract off Gwadar and that their intention is to operate an aircraft carrier in support of Djibouti and base it in Gwadar. With access to the Malacca Straits in Indian hands, these deep laid plans of China will get an effective countercheck.The current Indian strategy is in accordance with the current revolution in military affairs, where the prerequisite to victory is in formation dominance and the denial of information to the enemy.
STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF STRAIT OF MALACCA
Strait of Malacca is the shortest transportation route between the Far East and Indian Ocean.
Approximately 60 percent of the world’s maritime transport passes through the Strait of Malacca
The Strait of Malacca is on the transport route of approximately 25 percent of the oil transported between the Middle East and Asia.
With the increase in the population and wealth of China and other regional powers, this ratio is increasing steadily.
The Strait of Malacca plays a key geographical role for the entire Indo-Pacific region. For this reason, many countries in the region, including China and even the USA, are dependent on the Strait of Malacca
FOR INDIA
The main strategy regarding the Strait of Malacca relates to the strait becoming a gateway to its “East View Policy”.
In addition, India attaches importance to the Strait of Malacca at the point of developing bilateral and regional relations through various cooperation mechanisms such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Regional Forum.
FOR CHINA
China's disadvantage in high seas becomes all the more grave in the South China Sea where China is fighting six countries.
Eighty per cent of China's oil imports come through the Malacca Strait. It is also the route for a considerable amount of Chinese trade.
According to an estimate, China’s shipping costs could increase by more than $64 million if the Strait of Malacca is closed for even a week, another estimate says alternative routes could cost Beijing anywhere between $84 to 220 billion a year.
China is aware of the fact that the Indian navy eyes Chinese SLOCs [sea lines of communication] through the Malacca Strait as its ‘Achilles heel’.
A detour through the Sunda or Lombok Straits will not ensure complete security for China’s strategic commodity trade because, ultimately, Chinese SLOCs traverse near the Indian peninsula
WHY THE STRATEGY OF BLOCKING MIGHT NOT WORK FOR INDIA
The same lanes serve India’s friends and partners, both from the West and the East, such as Japan. A wholesale blockade of shipments from the Indian side of the strait would create as many challenges for such countries as it would for China. Tokyo, for instance, is just as reliant on oil traveling through the Strait of Malacca as China is. For Saudi Arabia, a country with which India also enjoys good relations, shipments of oil to China, Japan, and South Korea through the same lanes constitute a large part of total crude exports.
China could temporarily block at least parts of its exports to India (on which New Delhi relies much more than Beijing relies on imports from India), by simple administrative decisions, without resorting to blocking cargo ships on waters with a navy.
The Chinese navy may build the capacity, , to a India-bound ship in waters closer to Djibouti. The same may one day be true for the Chinese presence in Pakistan.
China is exploring is Northern Sea Route in the Arctic which could create a ‘Polar Silk Road.’ The importance of this is underlined by China’s 2018 Arctic Policy. It asserts, “Geographically, China is a “Near-Arctic State”, one of the continental States that are closest to the Arctic Circle.”
WAYFORWARD
Focus on multilateral organisation and rules based order as promoted under UNCLOS and the UN charter.
Nurture new partnership with like-minded countries. For example with countries of South China sea which have maritime disputes with China to promote free, open and rules based maritime order.
To continue develop its own partnership (under necklace of diamonds) for example on lines of Changi naval base in Indonesia, Sabang base, Duqm port access etc.
Expansion of partnership under QUAD to new level with possible expansion through democratic countries like UK and FRANCE who have large naval strength and access to extra-territorial jurisdiction under them. (Ex. Reunion Island and Diego Garcia).
Recently, Stockholm-based defence think-tank SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) has released a report on global arms transfers for a period between 2018-22.
Major Highlights:
Global:
The five largest arms importers in the world during 2018-22 were India, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Australia and China.
The five largest arms exporters were the United States, Russia, France, China and Germany.
The United States' share of global arms exports increased from 33 to 40%, while Russia's fell from 22 to 16%.
While arms transfers have declined globally, those to Europe have risen sharply due to the tensions between Russia and other European states.
India-specific:
India remained the world's top arms importer, but its imports declined by 11% between 2013-17 and 2018-22.
The decline was linked to a complex arms procurement process, efforts to diversify arms suppliers and attempts to replace imports with indigenous designs.
Russia accounted for 45% India’s arms imports followed by France (29%) and the US (11%). Russia was the largest supplier of arms to India in both 2013–17 and 2018–22, but its share of total Indian arms imports fell from 64% to 45%.
Iran and Saudi Arabia have agreed to revive diplomatic relations and reopen embassies after seven years of tensions. The deal has been struck with the help of China.
More about the news:
The two regional rivals are expected to reopen embassies as they re-establish ties and a security agreement after Beijing talks.
Beijing maintains ties with both countries, and the breakthrough highlights its growing political and economic clout in the region which has long been shaped by the influence of the US.
Background of Iran-Saudi Arabia relations:
1.Areas of Tensions:
Tumultuous relationship between the two countries dates back to Iran's Islamic revolution in 1979.
Tensions have been high between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia broke off ties with Iran in 2016 after protesters invaded Saudi diplomatic posts in Iran.
Shia-majority Iran and Sunni-majority Saudi Arabia support rival sides in several conflict zones across the Middle East- Yemen, where the Houthi rebels are backed by Tehran and Riyadh leads a military coalition supporting the government. Iran and Saudi Arabia also are on rival sides in Lebanon and Syria.
2.Recent improvements in relations between the two countries:
Negotiations began in Baghdad in 2021 and have taken five rounds so far.
Some progress has been made, but the most important or complex case is the Yemen war. Saudi Arabia has declared a unilateral cease-fire, indicating that the country is moving toward new strategies for engaging with Iran.
REGIONAL IMPACT: Renewed ties could scramble geopolitics in West Asia and beyond by bringing together Saudi, a close partner of the US, with Iran, a long-time foe that US and allies consider a threat and the rising role of China in the region.
Rising Role of China in the Region:
China’s engagement in the region has for years been rooted in delivering mutual economic benefits and shunning Western ideals of liberalism that have complicated Washington’s ability to expand its presence in the Gulf.
China dipped its toes into Middle East diplomacy in 2013 by offering a four-point plan that rehashed old ideas for solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That failed to achieve a breakthrough.
China is seizing on waning American influence in the region and presenting Chinese leadership as an alternative to a Washington-led order
China’s engagement with the region has been steadily expanding. The GCC states provide 40 percent of China’s oil imports, with Saudi Arabia alone exporting 17 percent.
The Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has been a major factor in attracting China to the region. The Saudi-China joint statement refers to the “harmonisation plan” between BRI and the Saudi “Vision-2030” that was signed during the visit.
With increasing role of China, important initiatives have been: the five rounds of dialogue between Saudi Arabia and Iran in 2021-22, Turkey’s outreach to Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Egypt, and the Iraq-Jordan-Egypt consortium set up in August 2021.
3.Indian’s role in West Asia:
Areas of Cooperation:
70 per cent of India’s imported energy needs come from West Asia and 11 million Indians working in West Asia.
India is the largest recipient of foreign remittances from West Asia.
Close cooperation with West Asia is important to prevent spread of terror outfits like Islamic State.
West Asia provides gate way to energy rich Central Asian region. Example: Chahbahar port in Iran.
Challenges:
India’s deepening strategic relations with Israel has been a concern for Iran. Iran hence, plays its China and Pakistan card. Iran has also supported Pakistan’s stand on Kashmir, going against India’s interests.
Iran is a part of China’s ambitious Belt and Road initiative. India has been consistently opposing China’s Belt and Road Initiative.
ONGC ‘Videsh Limited’ played an important in discovering the Farzad B gas fields in Iran. However, Iran has not given the rights to develop the gas field to India.
India has to work on to balance its ties with Iran on the one hand with USA sanctions and Saudi Arabia and the USA on the other.
The two close partners of India like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Iran have reached a deal with Beijing’s influence is disquieting, given India’s current tensions with China.
India’s focus on the I2U2 quadrilateral along with Israel, U.S. and UAE, which may have taken the spotlight away from its ties with Iran and Saudi Arabia.
India has to closely watch whether Beijing takes its new role as peacemaker to other parts of the world, including the Russia-Ukraine conflict regarding which China has pitched a peace formula
China has also sought to emphasize a plan called the Global Security Initiative, that describes an effort to apply “Chinese solutions and wisdom” to the world’s biggest security challenge.
Way Forward
I2U2 is the new ‘QUAD’: The I2U2 Group is a grouping of India, Israel, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States. India can play crucial role as far as the region (West Asia) is concerned.
India can provide large workforce and leverage on its ties with UAE, the USA and Israel to balance China in the region.
India’s approach towards the conflicts in the region should have more clear voice and perception. Clear documents should be issued by the Indian side over this conflict, for example, over Iran and Saudi Arabia
What is Cold Peace?
A cold peace is a state of relative peace between two countries that is marked by the enforcement of a peace treaty ending the state of war while the government or populace of at least one of the parties to the treaty continues to treat the treaty with vocal disgust domestically.
A cold peace is a mimetic cold war. In other words, while a cold war accepts the logic of conflict in the international system and between certain protagonists in particular, a cold peace reproduces the behavioural patterns of a cold war but suppresses acceptance of the logic of behaviour. Cold peace, while marked by similar levels of mistrust and antagonistic domestic policy between the two governments and populations, do not result in proxy wars, formal incursions, or similar conflicts.
A cold peace is accompanied by a singular stress on notions of victimhood for some and undigested and bitter Victory for others. The perceived victim status of one set of actors provides the seedbed for renewed conflict, while the 'victory of the others cannot be consolidated in some sort of relatively unchallenged post-conflict order.
Example:
Egypt and Israel:
The Camp David Accords, the Egypt–Israel peace treaty and the aftermath of relations between Israel and Egypt are considered a modern example of cold peace.
After having engaged each other in five prior wars, the populations had become weary of the loss of life, and the negotiation of the accords and the treaty were considered a high point of the Middle Eastern peace process.
However, Egyptian popular support for the treaty plummeted after the 1981 assassination of Anwar Sadat and the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, and perception of the treaty has not recovered in the Egyptian populace ever since.
