(Guidelines for Reader: Latest Op-Ed First; Verbatim
Compilation of The Hindu Op-Ed; Best to read in the order of oldest to latest
article to get a comprehensive understanding; Consider repetition to be
revision)
(We are drowning in information and starving for wisdom.
READ and develop a PERSPECTIVE!!)
Cornered by the Quad? (28.02.18)
Last November on the sidelines of the East Asia Summit in
Manila, the Quadrilateral arrangement involving Australia,
India, Japan and the U.S. saw a revival as officials exchanged notes on
regional and global security. It has been a remarkable turnaround in the
prospects of an arrangement which had collapsed a decade ago under the weight
of Chinese démarches. In 2017 it was an assertive Beijing that brought the four
Indo-Pacific powers together to manage the externalities arising out of the
scale and scope of China’s rise.
Challenging China
Despite an initial meeting, there has been a range of
questions on the viability of the Quad arrangement, and specifically on its
agenda given that the grouping has often been wary of explicitly annoying the
Chinese.
But there are signs of emerging priority areas. Last week it
was revealed that the four countries are working to establish a joint regional
infrastructure scheme as an alternative to China’s Belt and Road Initiative
(BRI). Though the plan is still in its nascent stage, it is clear that the
normative order China is trying to construct in the economic sphere will not go
unchallenged. As Australia’s Minister for Foreign Affairs Julie Bishop said
recently in a media interview in London,“We want to work with China to ensure
that their infrastructure investment is commercially sustainable, is
transparent and adds to the economic growth that is so needed in our part of
the world.”
The Quad has expressed reservations on the BRI in its own
ways. But the four countries have rightly recognised that merely opposing it
will not advance their agenda given the hunger for infrastructure in large
parts of the world. According to some estimates, developing nations in the
Indo-Pacific itself need around $26 trillion through 2030 for their
infrastructure needs. As a pet project of Chinese President Xi Jinping, the BRI
is aimed at situating Beijing at the core of the global economy by building
global transport links across the world. China’s ambitions in this regard have
also kept expanding with its first official Arctic policy white paper which
talks of a “Polar Silk Road.” The Quad nations will have to present their own
model if only to underscore the normative differences between the Chinese and
their approach. China with its BRI is providing a new economic template to the
world, and it is important for those powers which view Beijing’s approach as
top-down, opaque and self serving to pro-actively provide credible
alternatives. The scale and scope of the Chinese economic footprint can only be
tackled if the Quad nations combine forces. Unlike the military option, this is
a softer side of the “Quad” engagement and its members are already undertaking
connectivity projects around the world. India and Japan, for example, are
working on an ambitious Asia-Africa Growth Corridor linking Southeast Asia to
Africa. The idea of an Indo-Pacific “quad” has been much talked about but this
will be the first concrete manifestation of the idea in operational terms.
Pushing back
The biggest concern about the BRI is that it is a means of
cementing Chinese economic hegemony and, in the process, challenges the
foundations of the extant liberal economic order. While underlining their
support for the need for global and regional connectivity in principle, the
Quad members have been pushing back. India’s opposition has been the strongest
partly because the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, which is a part of the
BRI, passes through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. India was the only major power
which did not attend the BRI summit hosted by China last May. Japan has laid
down specific conditions for its participation in the BRI even as it is looking
to use its official development assistance to promote a broader “Free and Open
Indo-Pacific Strategy” including “high-quality infrastructure”. Australia has
challenged the principles which frame the BRI. U.S. Defence Secretary Jim
Mattis has suggested that “no one nation should put itself into a position of
dictating ‘One Belt, One Road’”. After the U.S. pulled out of the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, raising apprehensions about America’s continued commitment to
Asia’s future, infrastructure investment in the region will bring it back in
the game.
Beijing has already expressed its unhappiness at the
emergence of the “Quad” and will see moves to counter the BRI as an attempt to
shift the balance of power in the wider Indo-Pacific. China’s worries will only
increase as the combined might of these four powers is quite formidable. The
possibility of major power coordination on managing global connectivity still
remains a possibility but as more and more countries recognise the limits of
Chinese approach, the Quad’s attraction will get even stronger.
Harsh V. Pant is Distinguished Fellow at the Observer
Research Foundation, New Delhi and Professor at King’s College London
XXX
Looking for balance in power (15.12.17)
A month after India was part of the ‘Quad’ discussion on the
sidelines of the East Asia Summit in Manila involving Japan, Australia and the
U.S., New Delhi hosted foreign ministers of Russia and China this week. The
Russia-India-China trilateral held its 15th meeting in what can be construed as
New Delhi’s attempt to get a semblance of balance in its ties with Moscow and
Beijing.
Scope of talks
The broader discussions, according to a joint communique of
the 15th meeting, “took place in the backdrop of the political scenario in West
Asia and North Africa, numerous challenges in putting the world economy back on
the growth track, concerns relating to terrorism, transnational organised
crime, illicit drug trafficking, food security, and climate change.”
But what was perhaps interesting was Russia and China’s
continued attempts to frame global and regional politics through a similar
lens, and the growing divergences between India and them. Russian Foreign
Minister Sergei Lavrov made it clear that he believes that India can benefit by
joining China’s Belt and Road Initiative. “I know India has problems, we
discussed it today, with the concept of One Belt, One Road, but the specific
problem in this regard should not make everything else conditional to resolving
political issues,” Mr. Lavrov said. Targeting India’s participation in the
‘Quad’, he also underlined that a sustainable security architecture cannot be
achieved in the Asia-Pacific region with “closed bloc arrangements.” Chinese
foreign minister Wang Yi also cautioned against “spheres of influence” and
“cliques” by arguing that China opposed “hegemony and power politics and disagree
with the sphere of influence and cliques and promote the democratisation of
international relations.”
China, meanwhile, continued to take an aggressive posture on
Doklam and its aftermath. Mr. Wang said in a speech before his Delhi visit: “We
have handled the issue of cross-border incursions by the Indian border troops
into China's Donglang (Doklam) area through diplomatic measures.” Though he
suggested that “China and India have far greater shared strategic interests
than differences, and far greater needs for cooperation than partial friction,”
he maintained that “through diplomatic means, the Indian side withdrew its
equipment and personnel which reflected the value and importance of China-India
relations and demonstrated sincerity and responsibility of maintaining regional
peace and stability.”
Tension in the air
The tensions in the trilateral framework are inevitable
given the changes in the global geopolitical environment. The original
conception of this framework was a response to a very different global
environment. The proposal for a Moscow-Beijing-Delhi ‘strategic triangle’ had
originally come from former Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov during his
visit to India in 1998, when he argued that such an arrangement would represent
a force for greater regional and international stability. This did not elicit
as enthusiastic a response from China and India as Russia had perhaps hoped
for. Thereafter, the three countries continued to focus on improving the nature
of their bilateral relationships, maintaining a safe distance from the Primakov
proposal. But, this idea of a ‘strategic triangle’ took a tangible form when
former Foreign Ministers of Russia, China, and India — Igor Ivanov, Tang
Jiaxuan and Yashwant Sinha — met on the margins of the UN General Assembly in
New York in September 2002. Despite the fact that nothing concrete emerged out
of that meeting, it represented the first major attempt by the three nations to
deliberate on world affairs, and since then has become a regular feature of interactions
among the three states.
The three nations had very different expectations from this
trilateral. Russia’s role was key as its loss of power and influence on the
world scene was a major cause of concern for its leadership. There was a
growing and pervasive feeling in Russia that it surrendered its once-powerful
position on the world stage for a position of little international influence
and respect. It is against this backdrop that Russia tried to establish itself
as the hub of two bilateral security partnerships that could be used to
counteract U.S. power and influence in areas of mutual concern. While Russia
witnessed a downward slide in its status as a superpower since the end of the
Cold War, China emerged as a rising power that saw the U.S. as the greatest
obstacle, if it was to achieve a pre-eminent position in the global political
hierarchy. As a consequence, China recognised the importance of cooperating
with Russia to check U.S. expansionism in the world, even if only for the short
term. In fact, American policies towards Russia and China moved the two states
closer to each other, leading to the formation of a new balance of power
against the U.S.
India’s stance
India, on the other hand, had different considerations, as
it was still far from becoming a global power of any reckoning. India saw in
the trilateral a mechanism to bring greater balance in the global order as it
believed that a unipolar U.S.-dominated world was not in the best interests of
weaker states like itself, even as strategic convergence deepened between
Washington and Delhi. Moreover, all three countries realised the enormous
potential in the economic, political, military and cultural realms if bilateral
relationships among them were adequately strengthened.
As a consequence, the trilateral did not lead to
consequences of any great import. It merely resulted in declarations which were
often critical of the West, and of the U.S. in particular. Yet this was also a
period which saw significant shifts in Indo-U.S. ties as bilateral relations
expanded while Russian and Chinese links with the U.S. have witnessed a
downward shift.
The joint declaration of the recent trilateral meeting said:
“Those committing, organising, inciting or supporting terrorist acts” must be held
accountable and brought to justice under international law, including the
principle of “extradite or prosecute.” It stopped short of naming
Pakistan-based terror groups such as Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed,
something that India would have liked in line with the most recent BRICS
declaration.
An arrangement that had started with an attempt to manage
American unipolarity is now being affected fundamentally by Chinese resurgence.
Both Russia and India are having to deal with the externalities being generated
by China’s rise. While Russia is getting closer to China, India is trying to
leverage its partnership with other like-minded states in the wider
Indo-Pacific region. As a multipolar world order takes shape, India will have
to engage with multiple partners so as to limit bilateral divergences.
The Russia-India-China template comes with its own set of
challenges. China’s Global Times, commenting on the recent trilateral,
suggested that “the leaders of the three only meet with each other on international
occasions,” adding, “this indicates it does not have high status in diplomacy
and cannot bear more functions.” While this may be true, New Delhi’s continued
engagement with the duo suggests that India is today confident of setting its
own agenda in various platforms. Just as China engages with the U.S. on the one
hand and with Russia on the other, a rising India is quite capable of managing
its ties with Washington, Beijing and Moscow simultaneously. It will not always
be easy, but in an age when the certitudes of the past are fast vanishing,
diplomacy will have to tread a complex path.
Harsh V. Pant is Professor at King's College, London and
Head of Strategic Studies at the Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi
XXX
Quad confusion (24.11.17)
More than 10 days after the Quadrilateral meeting, or
‘Quad’, involving secretary-level officials of India, Japan, Australia and the
U.S., the dust is yet to settle on just what was decided among them. To begin
with, the four participants issued not one but four separate statements after
their meeting in Manila. A cursory look at these statements reveals the basic
differences in intent: while all four referred to keeping a “free and open
Indo-Pacific”, the Ministry of External Affairs statement did not mention
upholding “maritime security” as an objective, while the statements of the
U.S., Australia and Japan did. Similarly, the Japanese Ministry of Foreign
Affairs made no mention of enhancing “connectivity” as an aim, which the other
three did.
The import of these omissions is clear. The Quad is yet to
decide what its real aim is: maritime security, connectivity, countering
China’s moves in the Indo-Pacific and on the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), or
a combination of all three. Adding to the confusion were U.S. President Donald
Trump’s own moves in Beijing. He lavished praise on Chinese President Xi
Jinping and the two signed a slew of agreements, including one for a joint fund
for the $40 billion Silk Road Fund meant to finance BRI projects. Despite all
the concerns expressed by the countries of the Quad, India remains the only one
to openly oppose the BRI.
On the maritime front, India gave out confusing signals. It
is the only country in the Quad that is not part of a military alliance. In
June, India declined Australia’s request to join the Malabar exercises, and
just days before the Quad, Naval Chief Sunil Lanba told The Hindu that
there were no plans for joint patrols with the U.S., or any country that is not
a “maritime neighbour” of India, which would rule out Australia and Japan too.
If India’s intentions are only to patrol the Indian Ocean part of the
Indo-Pacific, it remains to be seen what reciprocal value the Quad would have.
Then there is the question of where the government stands on
India’s position in the world. While rejecting “non-alignment” in a unipolar
world, the government has decided a course that wins the country a foot in the
door to every membership club. While that may seem wise, the practicalities in
an increasingly polarised world are difficult: how would India explain not
joining a security cooperation arrangement within the Quad, for example, even
though it joined the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation this year?
If India is willing to brave all of these contradictions and
steer the course towards a closer Quad arrangement, then the final question to
be answered is, to what end? A few years ago, a South Block mandarin said the
basic difference between India and the U.S. was that the U.S. wanted India’s
assistance, along with Japan and Australia, “to the East”, while India wanted
the U.S.’s assistance in matters “to its West”. As a result, giving in to
demands for greater engagement in the East with the Quad will need to be calibrated
with concrete outcomes on India’s concerns with terror from Pakistan, and a
free hand to pursue ties with Iran.
XXX
Beyond big game hunting: the 'Quadrilateral' meeting
(06.11.17)
By accepting an invitation to join the Japan-proposed,
U.S.-endorsed plan for a “Quadrilateral” grouping including Australia
to provide alternative debt financing for countries in the Indo-Pacific, India
has taken a significant turn in its policy for the subcontinent. Explaining the
need to invite other countries into what India has always fiercely guarded as
its own turf, Foreign Secretary S. Jaishankar was remarkably candid. “Our
neighbours also feel more secure if there is another party in the room,” he
said recently, giving examples of working with the U.S. on transmission lines
in Nepal or with Japan on a liquefied natural gas pipeline in Sri Lanka. His
words contain a tacit admission: that having India in the room is no longer comforting
enough for our neighbours.
The Quad pivot?
As Prime Minister Narendra Modi heads to the East Asia
summit in the Philippines next week, where the first ‘Quad’ meeting is likely
to be held, it is necessary that India analyse the impact of this admission on
all our relations. It would also serve as a useful exercise to understand why
India has conceded it requires “other parties” in the neighbourhood, even as it
seeks to counter the influence of China and its Belt and Road Initiative.
One reason is that as a growing economy with ambitious
domestic targets, India’s own needs often clash with those of its neighbours.
More connectivity will eventually mean more competition, whether it is for
trade, water resources, or energy. Take, for example, the case of Bhutan, which
is working, with India’s assistance, on its own goal
of producing 10,000 MW of hydropower by 2020.
Even as Indian
and Chinese troops were facing off at Doklam on land claimed by
Bhutan, a very different sort of tension was claiming the attention of the
government in Thimphu. The first indicator came on May 8, when in his budget
speech at the National Assembly, the Bhutanese Finance Minister warned that the
external debt is about 110% of GDP, of which a staggering 80.1% of GDP (or 155
billion Nu, or $2.34 billion) is made up by
hydropower debt mainly to India. In April, the International Monetary
Fund’s world economic outlook had already put Bhutan at the top of South Asia
in terms of the highest debt per capita, second only to Japan in all of Asia
for indebtedness. The budget figures attracted much criticism for the Bhutanese
government, and opposition taunts that Bhutan could become the “Greece of South
Asia” forced Prime Minister Tshering Tobgay to appoint a three-member
committee. In a government order he said that said the negative media, public
perception and “absence of strategy” could even affect the “larger and more
important relationship between Bhutan and India.”
Among the committee’s findings were that Bhutan’s external
hydropower debt financed by India at 9-10% rates was piling up, with the first
interest and principal payments expected in 2018, and construction delays,
mainly due to Indian construction issues, were taking the debt up higher. Above
all, despite several pleas to the Ministries of External Affairs and Power, the
Cross Border Trade of Electricity (CBTE) guidelines issued by India had not
been revised, which put severe restrictions on Bhutanese companies selling
power, and on allowing them access to the power exchange with Bangladesh.
In the Power Ministry’s reckoning, relations with Bhutan
took a backseat to the fact that India already has a power surplus, and its new
renewable energy targets come from solar and wind energy, not hydropower.
Moreover, given falling prices for energy all around, India could not sustain
the Bhutanese demand that power tariffs be revised upwards. Eventually, it
wasn’t until early October that Mr. Jaishankar visited
Thimphu and subsequently the visit
last week of King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck began to address the
problem that has been brewing for more than a year.
History of forgetting
Another problem is what one diplomat in the region calls
‘India’s big game hunting attitude’: “India chases its neighbours to cooperate
on various projects and courts us assiduously, but once they have ‘bagged the
game’, it forgets about us. As a result, crises grow until they can no longer
be ignored, and the hunt begins again.” Over the past decade, since the defeat
of the LTTE, India passed up offers to build the port in Hambantota, Colombo,
and Kankesanthurai, despite Sri Lanka’s pressing need for infrastructure. At
the time, given India’s crucial support in defeating the LTTE, Sri
Lanka was considered “in the bag”. With the U.S. and other Western
countries also taking strident positions over human rights issues and the
reconciliation process, Chinese companies stepped in and won these projects,
for which Sri Lanka recklessly took loans from China’s Exim bank.
New Delhi has changed its position on Hambantota several
times, going from initial apathy, to disapproval of the Chinese interest, to
scoffing at the viability of the project, to open alarm at the possibility of
any Chinese PLA-Navy installation in Sri Lanka’s southern tip. Finally this
year, upturning everything it has said, the government decided to bid for the
Mattala Rajapaksa International Airport at Hambantota, a $205 million
investment for the empty facility that sees an average of two flights a day.
Even as a ‘listening post’, it is an expensive proposition, with some officials
now suggesting a flight training school at Mattala to defray the cost. India is
also hoping to win the bid to develop Trincomalee port with several projects.
Clearly India is moving in now to build a counter to China in the
neighbourhood, but it may be too little, too late and a little too expensive.
India has also been ambivalent on tackling political issues
in its region, often trapped between the more interventionist approach of the
U.S., which has openly championed concerns over ‘democratic values’ and human
rights in Sri Lanka, Maldives and Bangladesh, and the approach of China, which
is to turn a blind eye to all but business and strategic interests. In Nepal,
India lost out to China when it allowed a five-month-long blockade at the
border, calling for a more inclusive constitution to be implemented by
Kathmandu — but in the case of Myanmar, it lost precious ground in Bangladesh
when Mr. Modi
refused to mention the Rohingya refugee situation during a visit to
Nay Pyi Taw. In both cases, India reversed its stand, adding to the sense that
it is unsure of its next steps when dealing with neighbours on political
issues.
Multiple rivalries
Finally, it is important to note that while the government’s
new plan to involve the U.S. and Japan in development projects in South Asia
will yield the necessary finances, it will come at the cost of India’s leverage
in its own backyard. India’s counter to China’s persistent demand for a
diplomatic mission in Thimphu, for example, could be to help the U.S. set up a
parallel mission there — but once those floodgates open, they will be hard to
shut.
In Sri Lanka, the U.S. and Japan will now partner in India’s
efforts to counter China’s influence, but whereas India objected to Chinese
naval presence in the Indian Ocean, it will not be able to object to an
increase in U.S. naval warships and Japanese presence there. Writing about
Myanmar in a new book, India Turns East: International Engagement and
US-China Rivalry, the former French diplomat Frédéric Grare says the
emergence of new players like the U.S., Europe and Japan has only increased
multiple regional rivalries in the region.“This does partly benefit India, who
is no longer isolated vis-à-vis Beijing,” he concludes. “But
New Delhi’s political profile has consequently diminished.”
Mr. Modi, who began his pitch for his “neighbourhood first”
plan by inviting the neighbours to his swearing-in ceremony in 2014, must look
before he leaps while inviting other powers, howsoever well-meaning, into the
neighbourhood.
suhasini.h@thehindu.co.in
(All of the above articles have been taken straight from The
Hindu. We owe it all to them. This is just an effort to consolidate opinions
expressed in The Hindu in a subject-wise manner.)
No comments:
Post a Comment