Miscellaneous topics in India’s International Relations

Context: The Canadian government declared Chinese diplomat Zhao Wei “persona non grata,” for allegedly targeting a Canadian lawmaker critical of China’s human rights record. Hours later, China announced a “reciprocal countermeasure” by asking Jennnifer Lynn Lalonde, a top diplomat in the Canadian consulate in Shanghai, to leave the country by May 13. Tensions soared with China saying it holds the “right to take further actions in response”, while Prime Minister Justin Trudeau put out a strongly worded statement, reiterating that Canada will not be intimidated.

History of straining Canada-China ties?

• Diplomatic ties between China and Canada have been unsteady for the past few years, especially after Canadian police arrested Huawei Technologies executive Meng Wanzhou on charges of fraud in 2018. A few days after her arrest, China detained two Canadians on spying charges a move then called “hostage diplomacy”
• China had suspended imports of canola from Canada, alleging pests in the shipment
• Canada has also alleged that the Chinese government attempted to interfere in the 2019 and 2021 federal elections a charge Beijing vehemently denies.
• The two countries are also engaged in a technology battle. While Canada has limited the presence of Chinese firms in its communications infrastructure, Beijing believes the restrictions were imposed without any solid evidence.
• The tension between the leadership was also visible at the G-20 summit in Indonesia last year, when Chinese President Xi Jinping and the Canadian PM exchanged barbs over leaked details of their meeting about Chinese interference in domestic affairs.

The Recent Spat:

• At the centre of the latest spat is a report from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS)
• A series of media reports also highlighted about growing Chinese interference in Canada, a report on an intel document from 2021 which detailed potential threats to opposition lawmaker Michael Chong and his family in Hong Kong over the latter’s criticism of Beijing. Citing an anonymous national security official as its source, the newspaper reported that Chinese consul Zhao Wei was involved in gathering information about Mr. Chong and his family in Hong Kong to target him over his anti-Chinese sentiments 
• Michael Chong was targeted because he led legislative efforts in Canada’s House of Commons to declare China’s treatment of Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang as “genocide”. In response, Beijing barred his entry into China.
• After details of the CSIS report were revealed, the Canadian government was heavily criticised for its inaction against China. Internal deliberations followed about the future course of action, seemingly to prepare for any economic repercussions since China is Canada’s second-biggest trade partner.
• Canada declared diplomat Zhao Wei “persona non grata” (Latin for an unwelcome person). Canada reiterated that it would “not tolerate any form of foreign interference in our internal affairs.”
• China also responded strongly on actions of Canada, warning of retaliatory measures. 
• Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin had urged Canada to stop “unreasonable provocations”. Later China issued an order asking Ms. Lalonde to leave the country.

Conclusion:

The future course of diplomatic relations between the two countries will be sharply observed by neighbouring countries like USA, India etc which are themselves having contentious relationship with China and are apprehensive of aggressive rise of China at regional and global level.

Context: As Prime Minister Narendra Modi steps up engagement with the US and its allies — at the G7 summit in Hiroshima this week, the Quad summit in Canberra week after, and bilateral visits to Washington and Paris in June and July— the restructuring of the global economic order will figure high on India’s bilateral and multilateral agenda. In the geopolitical domain and so in the geoeconomic, there is a growing convergence of interests between Delhi and Washington. Translating that into concrete outcomes will demand much hard work and some creative solutions

• The United States today is seeking wider international consensus on the new economic approach from its allies and partners, including India. The Unites states is pushing its efforts to build a “New Washington Consensus” as there is also a  geoeconomic competition between Washington and Beijing which had begun to develop in the Trump years and President Joe Biden has intensified it and lent a plausible ideological framework to it.
• The term “Washington Consensus”, which gained ground in the late 1980s, referred to the shared prescriptions from the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and US Treasury on deregulation, privatisation, and free trade for economic modernisation. By the 1990s, these recommendations gained widespread policy traction in the chancelleries of the world, including in India.

However the Washington Consensus has started showing fissures and the lacunas in the approach which are highlighted by the following reasons: 

• The conviction that the “markets know best” approach led to the hollowing out of the US industrial base. It was argued that in the name of oversimplified market efficiency, entire supply chains of strategic goods along with the industries and jobs that made them moved overseas. It was realised that deep trade liberalisation though helped America export goods, but not jobs and capacity.
• Secondly the notion that “all growth was good growth”, led to the privileging of some sectors like finance “while other essential sectors, like semiconductors and infrastructure, atrophied”.
• Thirdly, the old assumption “that economic integration would make nations more responsible and open, and that the global order would be more peaceful and cooperative”, also led to distortion wherein Unites States referred to the premise underlying China’s admission into the WTO in 2001 wherein admitting countries into the rules-based order should have incentivised them to adhere to its rules”. However  the problems triggered by the integration of a “large non-market economy” like China into the WTO.

It was realised that the America’s economic policy must confront the urgent need for a “just and efficient transition” to green economic growth and the political imperative of reducing economic inequality at home that has undermined American democracy. Thus for this purpose the United States has offered a five-fold policy framework under the New Washington Consensus 

• The first is to return to industrial policy that was the hallmark of US economic development historically, but dismissed by economic neoliberalism in the last few decades. For this the US has restored the role of the state in pumping investments into semiconductor production and promoting the development and deployment of green technologies.
• Second, the United States under its new approach is not seeking autarky or promoting protectionism. The US is not going alone, and wants to develop a joint effort with US allies and partners, including India.
• Third, United States wants its friends and partners to look beyond traditional trade policies. Wherein he highlighted the US-proposed Indo-Pacific Economic Framework is not a free trade agreement.
• Fourth, the US is trying to mobilise “trillions in investment into emerging economies with solutions that those countries are fashioning on their own, but with capital enabled by a different brand” of US economic diplomacy. This primarily involves offering an alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative, addressing the global debt crisis, and reforming multilateral development banks.
• Lastly United States is also pushing the efforts to develop a new set of export controls on sensitive technology that will limit national security threats from China and other rivals.

Conclusion

It is for India to understand that the common themes in the economic strategies are many and these include China’s geoeconomic challenge, the dangers of dogmatic commitment to globalisation, the need for industrial policy to develop national manufacturing, technological cooperation among like-minded partners, building resilient supply chains, addressing the economic concerns of the Global South, and reforming the global financial institutions.

It is also important to understand that there will also be many disagreements on the identification of priorities as well as on the details of the specific outcomes in rearranging the global economic order. But Building on new opportunities and resolving new problems must be viewed as a historic opportunity for India’s economic statecraft. As the US is ready for substantive engagement with its partners and Delhi must be ready to respond.

Context: National Security Advisor Ajit Doval met his counterparts from the US, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to discuss an ambitious proposal being pushed by the White House to link West Asian countries through rail — using Indian expertise — and connect the region to South Asia via sea lanes.

• The participants discussed the broad contours of the massive joint project to build railway, maritime and road connectivity in the larger region, linking the Indian subcontinent in South Asia with West Asia which the US also calls the Middle East.
• The idea for the new initiative came up during talks held over the last 18 months in a forum called I2U2, which includes the US, Israel, the UAE and India. The forum was established in late 2021 to discuss strategic infrastructure projects in West Asia.

What is the railway link plan

• It is among the key initiatives as United States wants to push in the Middle East as China’s influence in the region grows. The Middle East is a key part of China’s Belt and Road vision.

•  The United states of America, has also proposed the Blue Dot network, is one of the elements in the creation of the connectivity project that will be financially sustainable and viable.
• For India, China has expanded its sphere of political influence in the West Asian region through what Delhi views as “mission creep” the breakthrough in ties between Saudi Arabia and Iran had caught India unawares.

Benefit of the project:

• Efficient: Such connectivity will allow for faster movement of the crude and minimise India’s costs in the long term. The connectivity boost will also help India’s eight million citizens who live and work in the Gulf region.
• Branding: The project will help India build a brand as an infrastructure builder in the railways sector. Boasting a strong rail network at home and buoyed by the success of creating such infrastructure in Sri Lanka, India has the confidence to do it overseas.
• It wants private companies as well as public sector enterprises to explore the potential economic and infrastructure opportunities in the region. 

• Countering BRI: This will also have the effect of countering the Chinese Belt and Road project, which has burdened many countries in the region with infrastructure that has limited utility.
• Alternative Route: The government feels that India’s connectivity to its western neighbours has been limited for long by Pakistan’s blocking of overland transit routes. So, India wants to use shipping routes to reach West Asian ports. 
• These include Chabahar and Bandar-e-Abbas (Iran), Duqm (Oman), Dubai (UAE), Jeddah (Saudi Arabia) and Kuwait City. Connectivity projects crisscrossing the Gulf and Arab countries, with Indian stakes, open up trading opportunities.
• Energy security: India is a significant energy consumer from the region plus it will be beneficial for partners in the project like UAE and Saudi Arabia. Prior to pivoting towards Russia in the aftermath of the Ukraine invasion, India was heavily dependent on the region for its energy needs and thus this initiative cab bring focus back on the region.

Conclusion:

The basic plan is to connect South Asia, the Middle East and the US in ways that advance economic technology plus diplomacy and thus India can be the glue which binds the grouping. As New Delhi has steady ties with Washington and the latter sees it as a natural ally to counter the threat of China on the global map.

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:

1. 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).
2. Europe’s share in global volume of arms transfers increased significantly by 47% in the five-year period between 2013-17 and 2018-22.
3. The global volume of international arms transfers fell by 5.1% between 2018-22.
4. The share of West Asia, Americas, Asia, and Oceania decreased marginally in the last five years.
5. U.S. arms exports increased by 14% between 2013-17 and 2018-22. It accounted for 40% of global arms exports in 2018-22.
6. Russia’s arms exports fell by 31% between 2013-17 and 2018-22.

Why European countries has increased their arms imports?

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

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%.