Indian Foreign Policy

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby NRao » 17 Feb 2020 10:48

In addition to this fiasco:

NRao wrote:For the record, here is the more complete Jaishankat-LG interaction.



Here is a very good picture of current Indian thinking.



1) It is very blunt (IMHO) (with LG sitting on the same stage), and
2) This, new, thinking re-writes a lot of things, including the papers published by the think tanks thus far

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3518
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby ArjunPandit » 17 Feb 2020 18:22

Philip wrote:The huge shake-up in the MEA with a massive reorganisation, extra Addl.Secs. inducted to head vital divisions,etc. i
what changes sir..

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14553
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby pankajs » 17 Feb 2020 18:24

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7348&p=2414443#p2414438

GOI has started to wield the danda and that is a welcome change.

Now that the danda has been applied to UK only US senators still remain immune till date. France, Germany and Japan leaders tend to mostly keep to themselves. With the action on UK MP they too are bound to face the similar action should they meddle in out internal affairs. Rest don't matter.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Manish_Sharma » 18 Feb 2020 01:13

TWITTER

GAURAV C SAWANT
@gauravcsawant:

Did British MP
@Debbie_abrahams
have a valid visa to enter India? Sources tell me her e-visa was not valid. Her application was processed and `rejected' and in writing she was advised to apply for a regular visa by the authorities.

So the Hon'ble MP
@Debbie_abrahams
had written communication about not having a valid visa before she boarded the flight to India & was in writing told to apply for an appropriate regular visa? Yet she chose to come on an earlier e-visa (which Govt sources say was cancelled)?

https://twitter.com/gauravcsawant/statu ... 12768?s=20

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10608
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Vayutuvan » 18 Feb 2020 05:26

wikipedia biopage on Debbie Abrahams wrote:Personal life
Abrahams married John Abrahams, a former captain of Lancashire County cricket team, in the late 1980s. They have two daughters, both of whom were sent to private schools, despite Abrahams being opposed to selective education


She seems to have taken "the Hypocrite's oath"

Vikas
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6828
Joined: 03 Dec 2005 02:40
Location: Where DST doesn't bother me
Contact:

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Vikas » 18 Feb 2020 10:18

When watching S. Jaishankar, He comes across very erudite without being preachy with appropriate dash of humor.
Reminds me of Jassu bhai but doesn't complicate his narrative.
He seems to be turning out to be one of the best EAM we had in many years,

pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14553
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby pankajs » 29 Feb 2020 22:07

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTWmUqfkwkQ
S Jaishankar Exclusive Interview To India Today; Opens Up About Trump's Visit, Pakistan & More


pankajs
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14553
Joined: 13 Aug 2009 20:56

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby pankajs » 29 Feb 2020 22:09

https://www.mea.gov.in/Speeches-Stateme ... s_Conclave
Address by External Affairs Minister at the 6th India Ideas Conclave -- February 28, 2020

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2923
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Vips » 07 Mar 2020 03:20

India joins Indian Ocean Commission as observer bolstering Indo-Pacific vision.

NEW DELHI: India has joined as an observer of the Indian Ocean Commission — the inter-governmental organisation that coordinates maritime governance in the southwestern Indian Ocean — a move that will bolster Delhi’s Indo-Pacific vision.

This move has strategic importance as the Commission is an important regional institution in the Western Indian Ocean. It facilitates collective engagement with the islands in Western Indian Ocean that are becoming strategically significant. It boosts cooperation with France that has strong presence in the Western Indian Ocean and lends depth to India's SAGAR policy of PM Narendra Modi 2015.

The move also strengthens western flank of the Indo-Pacific and is a stepping stone to security cooperation with East Africa.

The Western Indian Ocean (WIO) is a strategic sub-theatre of the Indian Ocean linking the Southeastern coast of Africa to the wider Indian Ocean and beyond. It is home to one of the key chokepoints in the Indian Ocean- the Mozambique Channel.

While Comoros sits at the northern mouth of the Mozambique Channel, Madagascar borders the channel to its west. While the channel lost its significance post the opening of the Suez Canal, the recent hostilities near the Strait of Hormuz brought the channel back into focus as the original route for bigger commercial vessels (especially for oil tankers).

Additionally, the growing importance of Africa in Indo-Pacific engagements combined with potential natural gas reserves in the Mozambique Channel will only continue to raise the significance of this region in wider maritime security. Keeping in mind the importance of geography for maritime power projection and naval dominance, there is little doubt about the rising significance of the islands in a new geo-political environment in the Indian Ocean.

For India, engagements with this region will become critical as the Navy begins to strengthen its presence under its mission based deployments. Engagements with the region, especially with the islands- given their geo-strategic location- could become key in supporting Indian naval presence as well as furthering Delhi’s Indian Ocean engagement.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20904
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Philip » 14 Apr 2020 08:17

In the light of Chinese perfidy over the CV pandemic,refusing to share info on the origins of it etc., the GOI must prepare its policy towards China anew post- crisis.Even before there was a $70B annual deficit that has destroyed our MSMEs. The textile industry in now threatened by it as we have yet to restart ours, and over- dependence on it for bulk drug material has forced us to keep quiet.Had the Vizag SEZ for bulk drug manufature been on stream we wouldn't need China.This project must be built at hyper- speed
to make us self-sufficient in health ,as well as our successes in agri and dairy."A healthy nation is a wealthy nation",old saying.
Back to China.It must face a reckoning.A total ban on Chin goods,de-recognition until it pays up at least a $ trillion to us,plus recognition of Taiwan. Nothing less will suffice.

PS: As mentioned in the earlier abovd post,the maritime sphere is going to be v.heavily contested by China.It regards the IOR as its sphere of influence.It is building sev.units of large amphib vessels which can accommodate at least 30 helos.One has happily caught fire ( put out) during outfitting yesterday, but its intentions are v.clear.The IN must be given a major share of the def. budget.
The 4 planned amphibs are nowhere on the horizon,subs are aged,require immediate acquisitions perhaps through leasing of more Ru N-subs,etc. , and the lack of a supersonic maritime strike aircraft that can hit PLAN assets in the Indo-China Sea ( ICS) is an essential acquisition. The GOI despite the CV crisis on hand shouldn't slacken its modernisation and expansion of the IN.

Varoon Shekhar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2009
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 23:26

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Varoon Shekhar » 14 Apr 2020 19:50

Philip, awesome! Yes, don't pull punches with China. Throw out as many, if not all Chinese companies, reduce massively if not eliminate Chinese goods, recognise Taiwan, counter China in the Indian ocean, and upscale relations with Vietnam, Thailand, Philippines and Cambodia.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20904
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Philip » 16 Apr 2020 08:45

Cheers to that! If only our MEA will roar,nor mew....

amar_p
BRFite
Posts: 505
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby amar_p » 09 May 2020 00:33

Get involved in internal political processs in Afghanistan, US urges India
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/arti ... aign=cppst


Something that was to be expected. US/Trump administration has no time or interest in Afghan now, given the Covid disaster at home, elections in Nov and a massive recession if not a depression looming ahead.

It will be interesting to see what India will make out of this situation/opportunity. A new chapter in our foreign policy might be in the making.

nvishal
BRFite
Posts: 872
Joined: 14 Aug 2010 18:03

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby nvishal » 10 May 2020 16:38

^afg has no future

The only way they can get out of the mess is if the shias get absolute power over afganistan, which allows them access to the Arabian sea through Iran.

The pashtuns are too dumb to see 5 years ahead.

India would only be wasting money and resources over a hopeless situation.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12278
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Aditya_V » 10 May 2020 16:55

nvishal wrote:^afg has no future

The only way they can get out of the mess is if the shias get absolute power over afganistan, which allows them access to the Arabian sea through Iran.

The pashtuns are too dumb to see 5 years ahead.

India would only be wasting money and resources over a hopeless situation.


or the International community agrees to act as per the Natural aspiration and makes Baluchistan which should never been a part of Pakistan as independant.

syam
BRFite
Posts: 749
Joined: 31 Jan 2017 00:13

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby syam » 11 May 2020 14:03

Any more investment in afgan will be waste of resources. we already did what we can given our religious background and people-people connections. Indian is ill equipped to do any thing big anyway. home land muslims themselves rejected hindu nationalist bjp government. what can it do in some foreign muslim nation?

Raghunathgb
BRFite
Posts: 127
Joined: 23 Apr 2019 18:16

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Raghunathgb » 11 May 2020 14:47

Afghanistan can help India in two ways.

1) Afghanistans Kabul river provides around 17% to Indus river of Pakistan. India's help in building dam for Kabul river now reduces water flow to Pakistan. So any help in utilizing Kabul river will keep relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan tight. Already Pakistan is struggling with water shortage and tightening of water flows from India and Afghanistan will put Pakistan in tight squeeze .
2) Pasthuns have increasingly getting agitated with Punjabis. Afghanistan can help India increase the scale of protest and keep unrest in Pakistan.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Manish_Sharma » 28 May 2020 14:03

https://bharatmimamsa.com/savarkar-on-f ... y-affairs/

Savarkar on Foreign and Security Affairs
by Sandesh Samant | May 28, 2020 |

Veer Savarkar is often discussed as one of the extremist leaders of Indian freedom struggle and the movement of nationalism in India. Much of the discussion revolves around his contribution in freedom struggle and the hardships that he faced in the British Indian Empire.  As the writer Vikram Sampath states that, “Revolutionary as a terminology is generally coupled with the Communists. But, Veer Savarkar was a revolutionary and he wasn’t a Communist.”

However, one of least discussed aspects of Savarkar’s life is his views on India’s foreign relations and security policies.  He was a pragmatist and his views of foreign policy were driven by his knowledge of the two World Wars and the world order during his time.  Savarkar had spent a good amount of time in the United Kingdom and had observed the political developments in Europe very closely. Although he was imprisoned at the Andaman during the course of the First World War, he was updated about the developments about it. Having studied various ideologies and behaviours of societies and civilisation, he was ahead of his time to analyse the course of future political processes.

Foreign policies are generally driven by ideologies of policy makers. Savarkar, however, did not believe in one particular ideology. His ideas were shaped by the experience of colonisation of India by the British. According to him India’s weaknesses were exploited by the British to colonise the county. Hence, he believed in the masculine superiority of state. He was definitely a staunch realist; but, he refused to believe in any one ‘ism’ to form the country’s foreign policy.  He stated, “We should never hate or love Fascists, Bolshevists or Democrats simply on the ground of any theoretical or bookish reasons. There was no reason to suppose that Hitler was a human monster because he passed as Nazi and Churchill was a demi-God because he called himself a democrat.”

In the contemporary world order and considering the formation of the United Nations and its impacts on the world affairs, Savarkar’s ideas stand the testimony of time.  It was also the reason he advised the policymakers to focus on heavy militarisation. He was strong proponent of India’s nuclear programme. Contrary to common belief, Savarkar wasn’t particularly against the idea of a ‘non-violent’ state; but, he was of the opinion that non-violence shouldn’t make the state weak which may invite crisis. He was influenced by the principles of Mahabharata and Ramayana where Krishna convinced Arjuna to render justice through violence and Ram too resorted to a war.

He’d anticipated the demand of Pakistan and also believed that a neighbouring state like Pakistan which stands on the pillars of religious fundamentalism, shall always pose danger to the security of India. Savarkar was accused of causing paranoia amongst Indians. However, he was proven correct immediately after the formation of Paksistan when it launched an attack on Kashmir and India was engulfed in a war after independence. In last seven decades India had to fight four major wars and innumerable proxy wars against Pakistan.

Savarkar opposed the idea of ‘self-determination’ on religious ground when Sindh was separated from Bombay presidency. He opined that the trend in future would result in the partition of land. Similarly, he insisted the migration of outsiders in the land must be controlled with strict measures. Today, when India is facing the crisis in its Eastern states due to illegal Bangladeshis, Savarkar is proven right yet again.

Similarly, he was a staunch supporter of the Jewish State of Israel. When Israel was established in 1948, India had refused to support the partition of Palestinian soil. Pt. Nehru was of the opinion that, “I confess that while I have a very great deal of sympathy for the Jews, I feel sympathy for the Arabs also…After all these remarkable achievements, why have they [the Jews] failed to gain the goodwill of the Arabs?” India didn’t establish formal relationship with Israel until 1992.  In 1956, in Hindu Mahasabha’s annual session at Jodhpur Savarkar said “…that tomorrow if there breaks out a war between Pakistan and Bharat, almost all the Muslim [states] will be arrayed on the side of Pakistan in opposition to us and their enemy Israel will be our only friend. Therefore, I say that Bharat should give an unequivocal recognition to Israel.” He viewed India-Israel ‘friendship’ from religious relations rather than geo-strategic cooperation. In the war of 1962 against China and in 1999 Kargil conflict – on both occasions, Israel stood by India and helped with decisive military equipment. Today, Israel happens to be one of the most important partners of India in anti-terrorism struggle.

Along with Pakistan and Israel, Savarkar was always vocal about his perspectives on China.  In 1950s, when India’s policy makers were celebrating ‘Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai’, Savarkar had criticised it. (Another important leader to criticise this policy was Dr. B. R. Ambedkar).  Savarkar had raised doubts about the intentions of China.  He expressed his fear that if China could annex Tibet in 1950; it was a matter of time that China would stake claim on Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh (then NEFA). His views were unconvincing and he was once again accused of causing panic in India. However, 1958 onwards, the relationship between India and China deteriorated and the rest is history.

Another important perspective that he had offered was about Nepal. Recongnising the importance of buffer states on India’s borders, Savarkar had special affection for Nepal.  He strongly believed that Nepal maintaining its official ‘Hindu’ identity will always be in India’s interest. Hence, he would often write letters to the King of Nepal over various issues.  In 2008, following the massacre in Royal Family, Nepal ceased to be a Hindu state followed by the Maoists forces overtaking Nepal’s politics. Thereafter, the relations between Nepal and India have faced a major setback. Currently, the Maoist influence on Nepal’s politics has resulted in Nepal altering its political map.

There are numerous issues – ranging from Goa to Kashmir and Andaman to Nagaland where Veer Savarkar had expressed his thoughts that were rejected by his contemporary. However, over a period of time, Savarkar’s views remain undefeated. It is the cycle of time that has proven him true in various issues again and again.  It is the need of our times to embrace Savarkar that transcends the clichés in our usual discourse.


Views expressed are of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official position of Mimamsa – An Indic Inquiry 

m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 236
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby m_saini » 29 May 2020 04:20

I love Savarkar but honestly we shouldn't embrace him. I 100% agree with all his ideas and the ideology but the truth is despite all that foresight and knowledge he had, it didn't help him or India. What good is a person who knows all and is right but never acts on it or can't convince others to act on his behalf. The reality is despite him knowing all that about Israel, pakis and china, all those things he was worried about still happened. All this talk of embracing Savarkar does is it gives us a false sense of pride about our freedom warriors and give us the tag of Hindu nationalists without providing any benefits.
People like Nehru were able to impose their ill-wills by hook or crook and those are the kind of people we should be embracing. There are no points for being good or right if your nation doesn't benefit from it.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54707
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby ramana » 29 May 2020 04:46

On the contrary, he has taken a life of his own.

And the current nationalistic resurgence since 1998 is due to him only.

Nehru is hardly a person to embrace unless you want STD.

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3888
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby arshyam » 29 May 2020 06:58

m_saini-ji, Patel also predicted that China would occupy Tibet and cause problems. He also was against going to the UN about Kashmir. In neither of these, did he get Nehru's support, nor was he able to influence the outcome of events.

WRT Pakistan, Ambedkar predicted problems down the road unless a full population exchange was carried out. He also opposed having the words socialist and secular in the constitution. In neither of these was he able to influence the outcome of events (though he was partly successful in the second point as it was IG who later added these words to the constitution).

But we have two examples of nationalist leaders who didn't achieve what they recommended, and I am sure one can find a lot more such examples. So shall we avoid these gentlemen as well?

m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 236
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby m_saini » 29 May 2020 07:19

no ji for me haha, i'm just a college junior who got to know BRF about 2 years ago from places like reddit. I also apologize if i'm being disrespectful to our freedom fighters.

I really love Savarkar. It's just really painful to see that our great leaders like Savarkar, Patel etc were sidelined and instead we got Nehrus and now gandhis. And then we have people like Churchill and the slave-owning f-fathers who were utter trash but they won and are now heralded almost as legends. There's something really admirable about their particular qualities that made them able to do so. Our history is full of leaders who had it all figured out but could never turn those beliefs and ideas into realities. Just wish we could also nurture those particular qualities in our future leaders.

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3888
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby arshyam » 29 May 2020 07:24

^^ That's exactly why we shouldn't forget the others who weren't successful. Or we'll end up repeating mistakes.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby NRao » 13 Jun 2020 02:18

Confident of winning UNSC seat, no takers for Pakistan’s propaganda: India’s Envoy to UN

June 12, 2020

HIGHLIGHTS
* Election to the UNSC will be held on June 17
* EAM Dr Jaishankar has already launched our set of priorities for our stint in the UNSC: Ambassador TS Tirumurti
* "COVID-19 has made us rethink how we can use multilaterism and international cooperation to make this a better world," Ambassador TS Tirumurti told India Today


In his first interview after taking over as India's Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York, Ambassador TS Tirumurti emphasised the key agenda and priorities of India at the world body. He will serve as the Indian envoy at a crucial time when India is set to become a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) after over a decade.

Speaking to India Today from New York, Ambassador Tirumurti was confident that India will be elected in the group of elite 15 by winning a two-thirds majority. He said that his focus will be to "strengthen the voice of those who are not heard".

At a time when the UNSC has been used against India by Pakistan with help from its all-weather friend China, the Indian envoy said that he will not look at India's presence in the Security Council purely through the "narrow prism of India-Pakistan bilateral issue". Trimurti emphatically said that there were no takers for Pakistan's "false propaganda" and India's fight against "cross-border terrorism" and "terror financing" will continue.

Here are excerpts from the interview:

How has the beginning of your stint been, given that you took office in these difficult times of the Covid-19 pandemic?

TS Tirumurti: Thank you Geeta for having me on your programme. Yes, I have landed in the midst of Covid-19 in New York. It has been a very difficult time for the US, particularly New Yorkers. It has not been an easy time for the UN as well. Everything is going on in virtual mode.

So, it has not been an easy time for the UN and certainly very difficult for the US but I must say that I have been very fortunate. I have been able to communicate with many of my colleagues in spite of COVID and the lockdown.

What would your key priorities be as India's envoy to the UN, especially in the context of the forthcoming elections to the UNSC where India is a candidate?

TS Tirumurti: The immediate priority is naturally to get India elected in the forthcoming elections for the non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council. This will be in a few days on the 17th of this month.

In fact, this will be the first activity inside the UN premises since it was closed down in mid-March.

External Affairs Minister Dr Jaishankar has already launched our set of priorities for our stint in the UN Security Council. We have set ourselves five overarching priorities under the acronym NORMS, which stands for New Orientation for a Reformed Multilateral System. The five priorities include:

* is 'New Opportunities for Progress'. We have always been known for working closely with our partners, particularly in the context of development and developing partnerships, to ensure sustainable peace. The repercussions of Covid-19 have impacted all of us like never before. Even in the COVID situation, we have assisted more than 120 countries. Consequently, to be in the Security Council in the post-COVID period gives us an opportunity to put forward our development and peace agenda.

*Secondly, we will focus on an 'Effective Response to International Terrorism'. India has been a victim of cross-border terrorism and you are aware of our strong interest in fighting terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. Our presence in the Security Council will help pursue concrete and result-oriented action.

* Our third priority would be 'Reform of Multilateral Systems'. Prime Minister has already put forth his vision of "reformed multilateralism". Even as we remain committed to multilateralism, we are equally conscious that it does not reflect contemporary realities. We need to do so to make the multilateral system credible and effective. An important step in this direction will be the reform of the Security Council where India has a strong claim.

* The fourth priority is to have a 'Comprehensive Approach to Peace and Security'. Armed conflicts around the world are getting increasingly complex. Traditional and non-traditional security challenges continue to grow. We need to give greater direction to the mandates of UN peacekeeping operations. You are aware that Indian peacekeepers have played a historic and pioneering role in the UN peacekeeping even while they are protecting lives across the world. We need to protect the protectors.

* Our fifth priority will be 'Technology with a Human Touch'. India has made tremendous progress to bring technology to the people. We would like to take our example to the world and promote technology as a force for good and enhance ease of living.
Overall, during our tenure, we will seek to reflect our ethos of 'Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam' - the World is One Family.

The most important development that we will see in coming days is India joining the UNSC as an elected member? How confident are you of securing the seat even though India stands unopposed? It comes after a decade when last we had Hardeep Puri sit in that room.

TS Tirumurti: We have received tremendous support. Countries see our presence in the Security Council as not just strengthening the Council but also strengthening the voice of those who are not heard. Of course, I am also reaching out to the various countries to ensure that our message and our priorities for the Security Council are understood and appreciated.

They see that India will add value to the UNSC. I have pretty big shoes to fill after minister Hardeep Puri's stint.

Afghanistan gave up its turn for India. How important was it for India to be in that room? The UNSC recently has been used against India by Pakistan through their all-weather friend China?

TS Tirumurti: I don't want to see our presence in the Security Council purely through the narrow prism of India-Pakistan bilateral issues. India has a global role, more so in the context of COVID. COVID-19 has made us rethink how we can use multilaterism and international cooperation to make this a better world. We have the ability to work closely with partners and overcome old and new fault lines.

We have advocated dialogue and fairness to solve global issues. We have a great opportunity to shape the post-COVID scenario. Therefore, our election to the UN Security Council will be very timely.

Recently, the UN envoys of OIC nations met and Pakistan tried to raise the alleged persecution of minorities in India. But, it seems like there are no takers for Pakistan's propaganda anymore?

TS Tirumurti: There are no takers for such false propaganda. Pakistan has tried to couch its anti-India disinformation campaign in religious terms and raise this in OIC in New York but found no takers. You are already aware that on the 50th anniversary of OIC, India was invited for the first time as the chief guest on the first of March last year at their Foreign Ministers' meeting where the late Hon'ble Sushma Swaraj had participated.

We also have excellent bilateral relations with OIC countries, especially in the last few years, including in the Gulf and Africa and others where our relations are at an all-time high. The OIC countries share, acknowledge, appreciate and value our pluralistic and democratic ethos.

Terrorism has been spelt out as one of the key agendas by EAM Dr Jaishankar. How would you take up the issue of terrorism, especially cross border terrorism at the world body?

TS Tirumurti: As I mentioned, terrorism is definitely one of the priorities for our Security Council agenda. It is an enduring threat to international peace and security having linkages across the border and regions in recruitment and operations. The UN itself has recognised the grave threat posed by terrorism and has set up the UN Office of Counter-Terrorism in 2016 to bring the issue to the fore to involve the wider UN membership to join efforts to put an end to the scourge.

We will take it up strongly and address both its sponsors as well as the various dimensions like the abuse of ICT by terrorists, stop the flow of terror finance and ensure greater coordination to fight terror. It will be a comprehensive way, looking at all dimensions of terrorism.

Finally, with the changing global order in the wake of the pandemic, could there be a serious relook in the rising demand for UN reforms and expansion of the UNSC that would reflect the right representation of a changed world order?

TS Tirumurti: Reform of the Security Council is going to be a very important part of our agenda. There is definitely a need to look seriously into the reform of the Security Council. As I mentioned, Prime Minister has made a clarion call for reformed multilateralism. The status quo of the multilateral system is what some countries would like to revert to and reinforce. This does not reflect current realities.

It is also not in the interest of developing countries, which have started playing a major role within the United Nations and outside, but whose voices have not found traction in these multilateral bodies. Consequently, there is a need to go beyond the 1940s multilateral architecture and provide for greater representation, starting with the UN Security Council. In other words, the multilateral architecture needs to get contemporary and reflect reality to be relevant.

amar_p
BRFite
Posts: 505
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby amar_p » 13 Jun 2020 02:27

Good to see EAM thinking ahead !

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby NRao » 13 Jun 2020 02:53

Will India be an 'activist' in UNSC?

India is set to enter the UN Security Council as an 'elected' member for a two-year term. Victory is assured in next week's election because India is running unopposed for the Asia-Pacific seat, the only question being the margin of victory.

India's UNSC term runs January 2021to December 2022, a time sure to be marked by profound change, great power competition and possible realignment. But it's also a time to push, generate valuable discussion and prove India's 'vishwa guru' credentials. It will be India's eighth innings in UNSC and, perhaps, the most challenging. It needs 129 votes of the 193 votes to win in the UN General Assembly. Whether it improves last time's record of 187 votes remains to be seen.

First, it's important to use the term 'elected' instead of 'non-permanent' to describe India's entry, because 'while elected members are chosen by a democratic ballot with twothirds majority, none of the existing five non-elected members have undergone such a democratic scrutiny so far since 1945,' Asoke Mukherji, India's former UN permanent representative, told me. It was during his tenure that the path to India's uncontested nomination became clear.

Mukherji's point is pertinent. It segues nicely into India's aim to reform UNSC and make it more representative. When, or whether, UNSC will expand to include a democratic nation of 1.3 billion people is anyone's guess. But it's important to keep pushing.

Given Prime Minister Narendra Modi's love of acronyms, this time the goal comes riding on a vehicle called NORMS, or New Orientation for a Reformed Multilateral System. Interesting, especially since there is trouble with 'INCH Towards Miles,' or India-China Towards a Millennium of Exceptional Synergy, given the border situation. Hopefully, the Chinese incursions will have been sorted out by the time India's envoy sits in the same room as China's ambassador.

Indian diplomats are confident their hard work in Africa and in the Arab world will be remembered on voting day. As for the difficulties created with regard to Article 370 and Kashmir, most countries consider it a matter to be resolved bilaterally between India and Pakistan. Still, Arab ambassadors have been troubled by what's happening to the Muslim community in India

Most countries value New Delhi's perspective because they believe India as a developing country brings a nuanced position and offers solutions they can accept. India has extended $7 billion in lines of credit, $700 million in grants, and $1billion in buyer's credit to African countries in the last 4-5 years, apart from assigning thousands of slots for IT training and scholarships. Add to that India's medical aid during the Covid-19 pandemic, and 35 visits at the level of PM, president and vice-president, apart from ministerial trips, to African countries in recent years.

Foreign Minister S Jaishankar said that an unreformed and under-representative multilateral system can't effectively deal with new or persistent challenges — Covid-19 and terrorism. Incidentally, both have a Chinese flavour, one infused globally, the other regionally. A multilateral system designed last century can't effectively deal with the current disorder.

Change is essential, and it's time to counter countries whose main business is to block and prevent others from playing a bigger role. Also, the US must decide how it wants to play. US disengagement over the last 10 years has only helped China gain influence within the UN and beyond. The US should help UN evolve, even as Washington gets busy creating 'circles of trust' with 'like-minded countries' outside.

That means the US-European alliance must be healthy. But Europe is pulling in a different direction while in awe of Beijing. European nonalignment will be costly, because the US-China Cold War will remain a feature, no matter who wins the White House in November. The western alliance could push for UNSC expansion, instead of paying mere lip service. The only permanent member that doesn't want change is China.

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2923
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Vips » 20 Jun 2020 18:17

Any information on which 8 countries voted against India in the elections to the Non-Permanent seat of the UN security council? India won 184 out of the 192 votes. I searched but am not able to come across this info.

I have six countries so far who might have voted against us China, Pakistan, Nepal Malayisa, Turkey and Azerbaijan.

darshan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2721
Joined: 28 Jan 2008 04:16

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby darshan » 20 Jun 2020 19:33

May be it's a secret ballot. India would have received the vote so I suppose that countries wanting to suck up to chinese XiChee would have done it voluntary.

Procedure for Holding Elections by Secret Ballot Without a Plenary Meeting During the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Pandemic
https://www.un.org/pga/74/2020/06/09/pr ... andemic-3/

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby NRao » 24 Jun 2020 04:57

Could not find an appropriate thread:

India expels dozens of Pakistan diplomatic staff

India is expelling half the staff at Pakistan's high commission (embassy) in its capital Delhi, accusing diplomats of spying and dealing with terrorists.

India will also reduce staff by the same number at its high commission in the Pakistani capital Islamabad, the external affairs ministry said.

There was no immediate response from the Pakistani authorities.

Relations between the nuclear powers were already tense after India expelled two Pakistani staffers three weeks ago.

They were accused of trying to obtain information about Indian troop movements.

Indian media suggest the latest move was prompted by the alleged mistreatment of two Indian staff members in Islamabad.

Last week, the Indian government accused Pakistan of abducting the two men but Pakistan said they had been detained by police after hitting a pedestrian while driving.

According to the Hindustan Times newspaper, each of the two countries has an agreed strength of 110 staff at their respective high commissions, although the current number is actually about 90.

India's decision means the two commissions will both have to send back 35 staff members within a week.

The Pakistan High Commission in Delhi - high commission is the term used for the embassies of one Commonwealth country in another
"They [the Pakistani staff] have been engaged in acts of espionage and maintained dealings with terrorist organisations," India's external affairs ministry said in a statement.

It summoned Pakistan's Charge d'Affaires, Syed Haider Shah, to make the accusations.

He was also told, the Hindustan Times reports, that Pakistan had "engaged in a sustained campaign to intimidate the officials of the Indian High Commission in Islamabad from carrying on their legitimate diplomatic functions".

What are the allegations about the Indian staffers?
The Indian government's position, according to the Hindustan Times, is that Pakistani security agencies picked up the two men in Islamabad, tortured them and framed them over a road accident and fake currency.

When the two men, Dwimu Brahms and Selvadhas Paul, returned to India on Monday, they are said to have provided "graphic details of the barbaric treatment that they experienced at the hands of Pakistani agencies".

Pakistan police say the two men were detained after running a man over and trying to flee the scene but were later released from custody because of their diplomatic status.

There was no immediate comment on the allegations that the two men had been tortured.

Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4701
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Manish_Sharma » 15 Jul 2020 20:49

India as the fulcrum in a Cold War 2.0

15 July 2020
|SUSHANT SAREEN|

The Cold War 2.0 between the US and China that is unfolding quite rapidly both on India’s west and on her east offers a stark choice to her. India can either choose to be the fulcrum in this war, and leverage that position to secure herself strategically and economically; or India can keep latching on to the hoary hoax of cultural, historical and civilisational links, and continue the strategic self-deception of unlikely ‘friendly and good neighbourly relations’ and uncertain economic benefits, to adopt a position of neutrality (or if you will, Non-Alignment 2.0) and end up risking not just her security and economy, but also her very future. At a time when the world is again on the cusp of entering new alignments, India must choose her side. Because if she doesn’t, India will end up being squeezed, both from her east and west. Unlike Cold War 1.0 which was fought primarily in a distant theatre and only its denouement – Afghanistan – occurred in India’s neighbourhood, the theatre of Cold War 2.0 finds India in the very centre of the struggle for how the world will run in the 21st Century.

Over the last couple of years, the US-China relationship has been going into a tailspin. In January 2018, the National Defence Strategy of the US had clearly identified “inter-state strategic competition” – read China and Russia – as the ”primary concern” in US national security. A few months later, the first shots were fired in the trade war between the US and China, that has since escalated. The spectre of a new Cold War had already been looming large when the Covid-19 pandemic hit the world, and accelerated the process. China’s aggressive ‘wolf-warrior’ diplomacy and opening of multiple fronts – both security and economic – against Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan, India, Vietnam hardly helped matters and led to attitudes hardening all around.

The US was already signalling that it wasn’t going to give a walkover to the Chinese in India’s east. Restrictions were imposed on Chinese companies and students, Chinese officials were sanctioned for human rights violations in Xinjiang, and in a show of force, two carrier strike groups were despatched to South China Sea to hold exercises. Strong statements by both the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows left no doubt over the direction in which things were headed.

Even as things were heating up on India’s east, a bombshell of sorts was dropped with the news of a mammoth security and economic deal between Iran and China. Within a few days, another piece of news further muddied India’s strategic  environment in its west – Iran ousted India from a rail project to link the Chabahar port to Zahedan on the Afghan-Iran border. The Chinese presence in Pakistan, including its potential naval bases in and around Gwadar, was already a matter of serious strategic concern to India. With the Chinese doubling down on taking their relations with Iran to the next level – the China-Iran deal is virtually another China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) like arrangement and like in the case of Pakistan, will eventually transform Iran into a virtual satellite state of China – the strategic implications for India are quite deadly. In short, the Iran deal completes India’s encirclement by China.

The immediate impact of this deal will of course be felt on India’s outreach to Afghanistan. Iran offered an alternate route for India to access Afghanistan, and even Central Asia. With the US already all set to abandon Afghanistan, it means that India’s options there are going to be severely curtailed. With Iran likely to play the China game (read Pakistan and China game), India’s access to Afghanistan will be limited to the air route. The limitations of that in terms of not just trade and economic assistance but also military assistance are self-evident. Effectively, it means that the door is starting to shut on India in Afghanistan. The Chinese are in any case working through Pakistan in Afghanistan, and by roping in the Iranians, and given their influence in Central Asia and with the Russians, it is pretty much slam-dunk as far as Afghanistan is concerned. Already the Chinese have made a renewed push to play a bigger role in Afghanistan and one indication of this came from the recent Afghanistan-Pakistan-China trilateral.

More worrying is the imminent possibility of the emergence of a new axis of countries with the acronym PRIC (no pun intended) – Pakistan, Russia, Iran and China. The PRICs alliance has for long been a dream of Pakistani strategists, and it now seems far more possible, even imminent, than when the idea of such an axis was first floated. While originally this alliance was aimed at only Afghanistan, its potential as a challenger to the existing world order under Chinese leadership now goes far beyond Afghanistan. At the very least, such an axis completely demolishes India’s strategic environment to her west and endangers her economic, energy, political and territorial security.

Iran has of course done what it thinks best serves its interest. Having been pushed to the very edge by the US, Iran had probably no option but to accept the life-line thrown by China. The Chinese had in 2016 signed a flurry of agreements during the visit of Xi Jinping to Tehran. At the time an ambitious target of raising bilateral trade to $600 billion in ten years was set. But with the US re-imposing sanctions on Iran, this grand plan seemed to have been put on the backburner by the Chinese. If now an even grander plan has been unveiled, it is because the Chinese calculate that they can take on the Americans and their still inchoate and somewhat fuzzy plans to pushback against Chinese expansionism.

With the Chinese openly defying the US and making a bold power play in the Middle-East (where until now the US has held virtually unchallenged sway), the US red-line was crossed. The Americans were quick to strike back in China’s proverbial backyard. After years of dillydallying over Chinese attempts to convert the South China Sea into China’s personal lake, the US has finally taken a position on this issue. Rejecting China’s maritime claims in the South China Sea, the US has declared that “Beijing’s claims to offshore resources across most of the South China Sea are completely unlawful, as is its campaign of bullying to control them” and added that “the world will not allow Beijing to treat the South China Sea as its maritime empire”. The Chinese were quick to react and in a statement the Chinese embassy in Washington accused the US of trying to “sow discord between China and other littoral countries”. The statement went on to say that the US was “flexing muscle, stirring up tension, and inciting confrontation in the region”.

Clearly, the gloves are coming off, on both sides. Going forward, tensions are only going to rise, even more so because of the new alignments that are taking place. Many of the countries sitting on the fence will soon have to decide which side they throw in their lot with. For India, the crunch time is coming. For years every country in the world, including India and the US, had been in denial about the threat that a totalitarian and expansionist China poses to the world order. In ignoring China’s rise, they were practically sleep-walking towards an unmitigated disaster. But thanks to Chinese aggressive expansionism, India appears to have been rudely woken up from its slumber. So too the US, which has suddenly realised that China’s rise is neither benign nor peaceful.

For many years, US officials have been quite candid in telling their Indian interlocutors that while there is 95% strategic convergence between India and US east of India, there is only 5% west of India. The main sticking points were of course Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Circumstances and choices made by others have now conspired to increase the convergence west of India to at least 50%, if not more. With Iran joining the Chinese camp, it will be that much easier for India to align her interests with the US. Add to this the imminent possibility that India could end up marginalised in Afghanistan because of extremely restricted access, another point of some divergence between US and India gets resolved. With Afghanistan out of the equation, the Pakistani problem can also be addressed more easily. Post withdrawal, Pakistan’s utility for the West will take a tumble. Add to this the fact that Pakistan is now a virtual vassal of China against whom the new alignments will be made, and Pakistan will no longer remain the sticking point it has been in the last so many decades.

In the east of India, with the expanding Chinese footprint in India’s neighbourhood – an openly hostile Nepal government is just one example – India’s strategic challenges are only increasing. It was bad enough that India had to factor in a two-front war because of the China-Pakistan collusion. Now, there is the possibility of other fronts also opening up. India therefore needs to break through the strategic encirclement by aligning more closely with the US and allies. This was a decision India had been avoiding for the longest. But the Chinese hostility and over-reach, coupled with the moves that other countries in region have made, India can now shed the strategic shibboleths of the past that prevented her from taking sides.



Home Expert Speak

India as the fulcrum in a Cold War 2.015 July 2020

SUSHANT SAREEN

The Cold War 2.0 between the US and China that is unfolding quite rapidly both on India’s west and on her east offers a stark choice to her. India can either choose to be the fulcrum in this war, and leverage that position to secure herself strategically and economically; or India can keep latching on to the hoary hoax of cultural, historical and civilisational links, and continue the strategic self-deception of unlikely ‘friendly and good neighbourly relations’ and uncertain economic benefits, to adopt a position of neutrality (or if you will, Non-Alignment 2.0) and end up risking not just her security and economy, but also her very future. At a time when the world is again on the cusp of entering new alignments, India must choose her side. Because if she doesn’t, India will end up being squeezed, both from her east and west. Unlike Cold War 1.0 which was fought primarily in a distant theatre and only its denouement – Afghanistan – occurred in India’s neighbourhood, the theatre of Cold War 2.0 finds India in the very centre of the struggle for how the world will run in the 21st Century.

Unlike Cold War 1.0 which was fought primarily in a distant theatre and only its denouement – Afghanistan – occurred in India’s neighbourhood, the theatre of Cold War 2.0 finds India in the very centre of the struggle for how the world will run in the 21st Century

Over the last couple of years, the US-China relationship has been going into a tailspin. In January 2018, the National Defence Strategy of the US had clearly identified “inter-state strategic competition” – read China and Russia – as the ”primary concern” in US national security. A few months later, the first shots were fired in the trade war between the US and China, that has since escalated. The spectre of a new Cold War had already been looming large when the Covid-19 pandemic hit the world, and accelerated the process. China’s aggressive ‘wolf-warrior’ diplomacy and opening of multiple fronts – both security and economic – against Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan, India, Vietnam hardly helped matters and led to attitudes hardening all around.

The US was already signalling that it wasn’t going to give a walkover to the Chinese in India’s east. Restrictions were imposed on Chinese companies and students, Chinese officials were sanctioned for human rights violations in Xinjiang, and in a show of force, two carrier strike groups were despatched to South China Sea to hold exercises. Strong statements by both the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows left no doubt over the direction in which things were headed.

Even as things were heating up on India’s east, a bombshell of sorts was dropped with the news of a mammoth security and economic deal between Iran and China. Within a few days, another piece of news further muddied India’s strategic  environment in its west – Iran ousted India from a rail project to link the Chabahar port to Zahedan on the Afghan-Iran border. The Chinese presence in Pakistan, including its potential naval bases in and around Gwadar, was already a matter of serious strategic concern to India. With the Chinese doubling down on taking their relations with Iran to the next level – the China-Iran deal is virtually another China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) like arrangement and like in the case of Pakistan, will eventually transform Iran into a virtual satellite state of China – the strategic implications for India are quite deadly. In short, the Iran deal completes India’s encirclement by China.

With the Chinese doubling down on taking their relations with Iran to the next level – the China-Iran deal is virtually another China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) like arrangement

The immediate impact of this deal will of course be felt on India’s outreach to Afghanistan. Iran offered an alternate route for India to access Afghanistan, and even Central Asia. With the US already all set to abandon Afghanistan, it means that India’s options there are going to be severely curtailed. With Iran likely to play the China game (read Pakistan and China game), India’s access to Afghanistan will be limited to the air route. The limitations of that in terms of not just trade and economic assistance but also military assistance are self-evident. Effectively, it means that the door is starting to shut on India in Afghanistan. The Chinese are in any case working through Pakistan in Afghanistan, and by roping in the Iranians, and given their influence in Central Asia and with the Russians, it is pretty much slam-dunk as far as Afghanistan is concerned. Already the Chinese have made a renewed push to play a bigger role in Afghanistan and one indication of this came from the recent Afghanistan-Pakistan-China trilateral.

More worrying is the imminent possibility of the emergence of a new axis of countries with the acronym PRIC (no pun intended) – Pakistan, Russia, Iran and China. The PRICs alliance has for long been a dream of Pakistani strategists, and it now seems far more possible, even imminent, than when the idea of such an axis was first floated. While originally this alliance was aimed at only Afghanistan, its potential as a challenger to the existing world order under Chinese leadership now goes far beyond Afghanistan. At the very least, such an axis completely demolishes India’s strategic environment to her west and endangers her economic, energy, political and territorial security.

Iran has of course done what it thinks best serves its interest. Having been pushed to the very edge by the US, Iran had probably no option but to accept the life-line thrown by China. The Chinese had in 2016 signed a flurry of agreements during the visit of Xi Jinping to Tehran. At the time an ambitious target of raising bilateral trade to $600 billion in ten years was set. But with the US re-imposing sanctions on Iran, this grand plan seemed to have been put on the backburner by the Chinese. If now an even grander plan has been unveiled, it is because the Chinese calculate that they can take on the Americans and their still inchoate and somewhat fuzzy plans to pushback against Chinese expansionism.

Iran has of course done what it thinks best serves its interest. Having been pushed to the very edge by the US, Iran had probably no option but to accept the life-line thrown by China

With the Chinese openly defying the US and making a bold power play in the Middle-East (where until now the US has held virtually unchallenged sway), the US red-line was crossed. The Americans were quick to strike back in China’s proverbial backyard. After years of dillydallying over Chinese attempts to convert the South China Sea into China’s personal lake, the US has finally taken a position on this issue. Rejecting China’s maritime claims in the South China Sea, the US has declared that “Beijing’s claims to offshore resources across most of the South China Sea are completely unlawful, as is its campaign of bullying to control them” and added that “the world will not allow Beijing to treat the South China Sea as its maritime empire”. The Chinese were quick to react and in a statement the Chinese embassy in Washington accused the US of trying to “sow discord between China and other littoral countries”. The statement went on to say that the US was “flexing muscle, stirring up tension, and inciting confrontation in the region”.

Clearly, the gloves are coming off, on both sides. Going forward, tensions are only going to rise, even more so because of the new alignments that are taking place. Many of the countries sitting on the fence will soon have to decide which side they throw in their lot with. For India, the crunch time is coming. For years every country in the world, including India and the US, had been in denial about the threat that a totalitarian and expansionist China poses to the world order. In ignoring China’s rise, they were practically sleep-walking towards an unmitigated disaster. But thanks to Chinese aggressive expansionism, India appears to have been rudely woken up from its slumber. So too the US, which has suddenly realised that China’s rise is neither benign nor peaceful.

For many years, US officials have been quite candid in telling their Indian interlocutors that while there is 95% strategic convergence between India and US east of India, there is only 5% west of India. The main sticking points were of course Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Circumstances and choices made by others have now conspired to increase the convergence west of India to at least 50%, if not more. With Iran joining the Chinese camp, it will be that much easier for India to align her interests with the US. Add to this the imminent possibility that India could end up marginalised in Afghanistan because of extremely restricted access, another point of some divergence between US and India gets resolved. With Afghanistan out of the equation, the Pakistani problem can also be addressed more easily. Post withdrawal, Pakistan’s utility for the West will take a tumble. Add to this the fact that Pakistan is now a virtual vassal of China against whom the new alignments will be made, and Pakistan will no longer remain the sticking point it has been in the last so many decades.

With Iran joining the Chinese camp, it will be that much easier for India to align her interests with the US. Add to this the imminent possibility that India could end up marginalised in Afghanistan because of extremely restricted access, another point of some divergence between US and India gets resolved

In the east of India, with the expanding Chinese footprint in India’s neighbourhood – an openly hostile Nepal government is just one example – India’s strategic challenges are only increasing. It was bad enough that India had to factor in a two-front war because of the China-Pakistan collusion. Now, there is the possibility of other fronts also opening up. India therefore needs to break through the strategic encirclement by aligning more closely with the US and allies. This was a decision India had been avoiding for the longest. But the Chinese hostility and over-reach, coupled with the moves that other countries in region have made, India can now shed the strategic shibboleths of the past that prevented her from taking sides.

India needs to break through the strategic encirclement by aligning more closely with the US and allies. This was a decision India had been avoiding for the longest. But the Chinese hostility and over-reach, coupled with the moves that other countries in region have made, India can now shed the strategic shibboleths of the past that prevented her from taking sides

Given that India is sitting in the middle of the new Cold War which is unfolding all around it, New Delhi is the natural fulcrum of this new struggle for deciding the future of the world. If India plays her cards smartly, she stands to gain the most; on the other hand, if India remains ambivalent, and tries to hedge her bets, then she very well could end up being the biggest loser. In the emerging scenario, neutrality is probably the worst option for India. There is no way India can go with China because that is the path of servitude. With the US and its allies, it will be a partnership, albeit a somewhat unequal one. Because of the sheer power differential, it is a given that the US will be the first among equals. Even so, the benefits in terms of trade and security from joining a US-led alliance will be far greater and more equitable than those that will accrue to India if she tied up with a exploitative, extractive, egotistical and expansionist China.







https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/ ... ssion=true

schinnas
BRFite
Posts: 1736
Joined: 11 Jun 2009 09:44

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby schinnas » 15 Jul 2020 21:14

The choices are fast being made for India, driving it fast into a more strategic relationship with the US. A deeply nationalistic and proud Russia will not abandon India for it will leave it to the mercy of China, a country Russia distrusts and hates to its core.

The China, Iran marriage will be useful to Pak on the Afghan front in edging out India but will be a total disaster for Pakistan othereise as it will push the Gulf countries more into India. With Pakistan four father's reduced to single Mastel China, Pakistan is writing its own death warrant.

While there is strong strategic, economic, people contacts between India, the West, the ASEAN states, Japan, Korea and the Gulf states, Pakistan will find itself in an alliance of Turkey, China, Iran, North Korea. The Shia, Sunni equation between Turkey and Iran and genocide of Turkik Uigurs by China will make that alliance inherently unstable.

Russia will play a nuanced role by siding with China against US and not siding against India.

Other than the loss of Afghanistan, India has everything to gain in the emerging equation. It needs to retain its independence and self respect but drop all pretense of non alignment. Even in the case of Afghanistan, this need to open up access to Afghanistan will enable Western support for Balochi freedom struggle.

Thank you Xi Jinping for making it easy for India.

M_Joshi
BRFite
Posts: 186
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 00:06

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby M_Joshi » 15 Jul 2020 23:50

Yes thanks indeed. This PRICs alliance can be pricked out of half its air if India plays its GB /PoK gamble. China's land access to Pakistan & Iran too can be curtailed & India getting direct land route to Afghanistan will simmer down the gas from Pak Chin Afghan dialouge. Now it's more necessary than ever to take the gamble on PoK. India cannot close its eyes & let its neigherhood become a Chin whorehouse with Iran Afghan & Pak on one side & Nepal & Bangladesh on the other. This will be MAD's biggest litmus test.

MeshaVishwas
BRFite
Posts: 548
Joined: 16 Feb 2019 17:20

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby MeshaVishwas » 17 Jul 2020 22:34

How does a Bitchslap look and sound like, you ask?
Follow the below thread.
https://twitter.com/DrSJaishankar/statu ... 41088?s=20

ranjbe
BRFite
Posts: 270
Joined: 12 Apr 2011 21:25

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby ranjbe » 18 Jul 2020 03:08

The Iran gambit by China was a given, and just emphasizes a well-known fact that the Malacca Straits are the Achilles heel of China, as the Quad can choke it off and cut China's oil import lines from the middle east. China is not stupid, and has addressed the problem by:
1. Making Russia the major oil supplying country in the last few months, overtaking Saudi Arabia. Remember most Russian oil comes overland,
2. Importing oil from Colombia, Venezuela, West Africa, etc. through the Pacific ocean,
3. With the Iranian deal, they can get another 20% of their import need overland.
With these moves they can get at least 50% - 75% of their energy supplies either by land or through the Pacific ocean.
If the Iranian gambit succeeds poor Pakistan will be shafted badly. Iran has far superior ports, infrastructure and land access to Russia and Europe, no insurgencies, and without the possibility of India (and USA) threatening the CPEC option. Gwadahar port will just be a military outpost for China, if that.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20904
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Philip » 18 Jul 2020 06:47

Schinn,there is no need to abandon the NAM members.Our neglect of them has been to China's advantage picking them up in deals that cement their footprint strategically.Every country has value,geographically,militarily,trade,energy,etc. At least a vote at the UN where we're wanting a seat at the UNSC which the PRC is doing its bit to sabotage. Pak for decades played the US brilliantly
we must learn to do the same,Indian interests first as always.
To my mind,the Iran- PRC deal is a major setback to us as we had hoped that the foothold at Chahbahar would enable us to outflank both Pan and the PRC at Gwadar.The PRC will now after this deal will also get port facilities at other Iranian ports complicating our own energy supplies from the Gulf,where we are becoming more dependent than the PRC. We too have opened up a Vladivostok- Madras/ Chennai corridor,but must put meat into the agreement.Ru oil can be shipped from V' vostok or even exchanged for Iranian oil in a 3- way deal where we get oil from Iran for the equiv. amount/ costs of mil. eqpt.,etc. that Iran buys from Russia,we footing the Ru bill. This is where the rail link from.CB was so important too. Our dithering in and off thanks to US pressure not to deal with Iran ,showed us up to being a weakling despite our size and mil. prowess,meekly succumbing to
Uncle Sam. A bolder approach is required from our foreign policy where we do not compromise upon our mutual interests.

sivab
BRFite
Posts: 996
Joined: 22 Feb 2006 07:56

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby sivab » 06 Aug 2020 09:30

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blo ... eneration/

India and the emerging world: The impact on the global order of China’s rise will be visible over the next generation

Dr. S. Jaishankar, Minister of External Affairs

If you had believed the best minds of our times, this was not supposed to happen. But for two decades, China had been winning without fighting, while the US was fighting without winning. Something had to give and it did, in the 2016 American presidential election.

The world faces an extraordinary prospect of its two leading players doing what it takes to win, and then some more. In the ultimate analysis, the ability of major powers to reach accommodation will shape our times. When ‘black swans’ meet ‘grey rhinos’, the very nature of the habitat undergoes transformation.

The US-China relationship that currently holds global attention has gone on for four decades, not a short span in modern times. Who benefited more in this period is a question to which we may get a different answer today than two decades ago. But because it was long enough to be taken as a given by two generations, we attribute to it a sense of being natural. We ask why it is under stress now, when we could wonder equally easily why it lasted that long.

Many of the discomforts today arise from differences on key issues like the relationship between the state, politics, society, business, faith and the markets. It is expressed in matters of personal freedoms and institutional firewalls. Sociology matters, especially once it assumes global proportions. This is at the heart of the predicament the world faces today. And creating common ground is, therefore, the hardest diplomatic challenge.

The rise of a new global power was never going to be easy, and an order waiting to happen will look like chaos till it does. In an interdependent and constrained world, it can only unfold through tensions and negotiations, adjustments and transactions. In this process, much will depend on what is allowed to take root.

The impact on the global order of these developments is likely to be visible over the next generation. That would have many dimensions, each of them in itself a source of potential instability. The most obvious one is that the world will be increasingly multipolar as distribution of power broadens and alliance discipline dilutes. A more nationalistic approach to international relations will undeniably weaken multilateral rules in many domains. This will be particularly sharp in respect of economic interests and sovereignty concerns.

This prospect of multipolarity with less multilateralism suggests a more difficult future even for the near term. This does not mean giving up on the latter. On the contrary, it requires a new energy to be poured into reformed multilateralism. The current anachronistic order must be pushed to change, along with its outdated agenda. The emerging world is also likely to fall back on balance of power as its operating principle, rather than collective security or a broader consensus. History has demonstrated that this approach usually produces unstable equilibriums. World affairs will also see a proliferation of frenemies. They will emerge from allies who criticise each other or competitors compelled to make common cause.

The really uncharted territory that US-China frictions will take us into is that of coping with parallel universes. They may have existed before, most recently during the Cold War. But not with interdependence and interpenetration of the globalised era. As a result, divergent choices and competing alternatives in many spheres will rest on partially shared foundations. This dilemma will be evident in a growing number of domains, from technology, commerce and finance to connectivity, institutions and activities. The key players will themselves struggle with the dichotomy of such parallel existence. Those who have to manage both, as most of us will, may then find themselves really tested.

Even if ties between China and the West take on a more adversarial character, it is difficult to return to a strongly bipolar world. The primary reason for that is the landscape has now changed irreversibly. Other nations are independently on the move, including India. Half of the 20 largest economies of the world are non-Western now. Diffusion of technology and demographic differentials will also contribute to the broader spread of influence. We see forces at play that reflect the relative primacy of local equations when the global construct is less overbearing. The reality is that the US may have weakened, but China’s rise is still far from maturing. And together, the two processes have freed up room for others.

If division within alliances was one evolution, reaching beyond them was another. As the world moved in the direction of greater plurilateralism, result-oriented cooperation started to look more attractive. They were better focussed and could be reconciled with contrary commitments. The growing imperative of sharing responsibilities was combined with an appreciation of influences beyond formal structures. Asia has been a particular focus for such initiatives, as regional architecture is the least developed there. India today has emerged as an industry leader of such plurilateral groups, because it occupies both the hedging and the emerging space at the same time.

Because global fluidity is so pervasive, India must address this challenge of forging more contemporary ties on every major account. Achieving an overall equilibrium will depend on how it fares on the individual ones.

amar_p
BRFite
Posts: 505
Joined: 28 Mar 2020 01:07

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby amar_p » 06 Aug 2020 23:06

With all due respect to EAM Jaishankar whom I like a lot, I think he is wrong in his analysis of China, in a fundamental way.

They have certainly increased the size of their economy, pulled 100s of millions of Chinese out of poverty, by becoming the sweat shop for a developed world that thrives on deficits and whose people spend wampum credit money on cheap gadgets and goods.

The whole world knows China & the CCP has used its economic prosperity to fudge their numbers, oppress their own population, rankle their neighbours, cheat in business, steal IP, have little respect for a rules based international conduct, siding with teerrorist nations like Pak & Iran, coersive diplomacy, corrupting global institutions like WHO. They have overfished the Pacific & the Atlantic waters to lifelessness, have destroyed flora and fauna in their country, polluted their lands like there is no tomorrow... the list of misdemeanours and crimes is endless !

If the USA and NATO had treated Chinese communism like they had treated Russian communism, China would be no where today.

What are China's contributions to the world? No scientific discoveries I can think of, no philosophical, intellectual, social contributions, no largesse in international disaster recovery and humanitarian aid, no technological innovations that truly matter. No cultural contributions either in terms of writers, poets, cinema, music, arts. The only notable contributions in recent times seems to be Corona and other viruses.

They have erased their own cultural roots many times over and have no civilisational awareness despite how frequently our eminently intellectual Jaishankar keep reminding them of it, both tirelessly and needlessly. Thats why Jaishankar's discussions with China are fruitless - words mean nothing when definitions and frames of reference are not the same. A moralising discourse goes nowhere with a China that lacks a basic moral compass. Expecting an ingrained liar to keep his promises is foolish. Respecting and expecting respect from a miscreant who has no value system is delusional. The Ladakh standoff negotiations are a telling demonstration of this.

China's World Power image is pure bluff taking up the space vacated by an aimless America, a decadent Europe, a slumbering India, a festering Middle East and an ever toddling Africa.

China being a "global power" is a carefully constructed and orchestrated CCP con job everyone seems to be walking into by default. Its nothing but a house of cards, one has to just muster courage and blow at it to make it collapse.

And India must do it, starting NOW, for its own sake.

Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2923
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Vips » 17 Aug 2020 23:03

India wants to be Vishwa Guru but IFS gets too few diplomats to take us there.

In this year’s civil services exam, the Union Public Service Commission has picked 354 candidates for the top three services — the Indian Administrative Service, the Indian Police Service and the Indian Foreign Service.

The number of candidates selected for the IAS is 180, while that for the IPS is 150. And for the IFS, whose officers are mandated with making and implementing India’s ever-changing and complex foreign policy, the number is 24.

Under the Narendra Modi government’s maxim of ‘minimum government, maximum governance’, all civil services in India have been reducing recruitment since 2014. But the fall in recruitments for the already short-staffed IFS has been both steep and glaring.

Initially, the Modi government had, in fact, picked more IFS officers than the preceding three years’ counts of 30 (2012), 32 (2013) and 32 (2014). In 2015 and 2016, 45 officers each were selected for the IFS, but the next two years, the numbers fell to 42 and 30, respectively.

“The IFS is one of the smallest cadres in the country. The government recruits more officers in most other civil services…What does that tell you about the country’s priorities when it comes to foreign policy?” said a retired diplomat, who did not want to be named.

India’s global footprint and size of IFS
According to the Ministry of External Affairs, India’s sanctioned IFS cadre strength is 850, as against 6,500 for the IAS and 4,843 for the IPS, as of 2017.

In 2016, briefing the Parliamentary Standing Committee on External Affairs, then foreign secretary S. Jaishankar, now the External Affairs Minister, had said India has 2,700 diplomats. Asked to provide a breakdown, he told the committee that it included 912 IFS (A) grade officers, 252 Grade 1 IFS (B) officers, 33 of the Interpreters Cadre, 24 of the Legal and Treaties Cadre, 635 attaches, 540 diplomatic officers from sectorial staff, and 310 diplomatic officers for other ministries.

Compare this to other world powers — South Korea has over 1,250 diplomats, New Zealand has over 1,300, Brazil has over 2,000, China has over 4,500, and Japan has over 5,700. Even a small island nation like Singapore has 800-850 diplomats — nearly as many as India’s IFS ‘A’ cadre.

The numbers are glaring because of the size of New Delhi’s diplomatic footprint around the world. According to Australian think tank Lowy Institute’s Global Diplomacy Index, India’s diplomatic network ranks 12th in the world — behind smaller countries such as Turkey, Spain, and Italy.

A more micro-level comparison with China and Brazil sheds light on India’s relatively smaller global footprint — China has 276 total diplomatic posts around the world, Brazil has 222 and India 186. In terms of embassies and high commissions, China has 169, Brazil has 138, and India has 123, while in terms of consulates and consulate-generals, China has 96, Brazil 70, and India 54.

This means Brazil, whose GDP is about $1.8 trillion, almost a trillion less than India’s, has a larger global presence than India. While the scale of China’s global presence is in line with the size of its economy, looking at some particular criteria further highlights Beijing’s mammoth foreign service capacity.

Other than foreign embassies and high commissions, China has 12 permanent missions across the world, as compared to India’s five. The gulf in Indian and Chinese capacity becomes all the more stark when one looks at the internal structure of some of these permanent missions.

India’s Permanent Mission at the United Nations has 14 officers, while its Chinese counterpart has 12 separate divisions, with many more officers serving in each of them.Similarly, at the World Trade Organization (WTO), India has eight officers, while China is believed to house a staff of 1,000.

China, thanks to its large diplomatic corps, not only has permanent missions in significant entities such as the European Union (EU) and the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), but also a much larger internal capacity at its missions across the world.

Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10608
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Vayutuvan » 18 Aug 2020 04:31

One solution is to hire lateral entry people into IFS. No life time appointment but contractual with minimum period to serve being 5 years with Top Secret (whether that is called in India) clearance. Offical Secrets Act aplies to them for lifetime and they cannot take up foreign citizenship for 5 years after their assignment/posting abroad. That will weed out future lobbyists who want to monetize their GoI experience immediately.

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3888
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby arshyam » 18 Aug 2020 08:13

One wonders why the IFS, despite two ex-services officers (that I know of, at least) leading the MEA itself, did not lobby to grow more? Nor did these ex-officers see it fit to increase their numbers? I am referring to Natwar Singh decade ago, and S. Jaishankar currently. Are we missing something here?


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests