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.
schinnas
BRFite
Posts: 1773
Joined: 11 Jun 2009 09:44

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by schinnas »

India should get lateral entry for all of its diplomatic cadre and for rest of the beaurocracy. This whole UPSC system needs to be abolished. All it has given rise to is incompetence and rigidity. Have a very good lateral talent finding and grooming set up instead of giving a competitive exams to young adults and giving them extra ordinary powers at an young age when they haven't even seen real life.
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by Vips »

India beats China, becomes member of UN's Economic and Social Council body.

India has been elected as a member of the United Nation's Commission on Status of Women, a body of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), said TS Tirumurti, permanent representative of India to the United Nations, on Monday (local time).

Taking to Twitter, Tirumurti said, "India wins seat in prestigious ECOSOC body! India elected member of Commission on Status of Women (CSW). It's a ringing endorsement of our commitment to promote gender equality and women's empowerment in all our endeavours. We thank member states for their support."

India, Afghanistan and China had contested the elections to the Commission on Status of Women. Even as India and Afghanistan won the ballot among the 54 members, China could not cross the half-way mark.

This year is the 25th anniversary of the famous Beijing World Conference on Women (1995).

India will be a member of United Nation's Commission on Status of Women for four years, 2021 to '25.
Dilbu
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8266
Joined: 07 Nov 2007 22:53
Location: Deep in the badlands of BRFATA

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by Dilbu »

India walks out of SCO meet of NSAs over fictitious Pak map, says it violates norms
India on Tuesday walked out of a virtual meeting of national security advisers of member states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) after the Pakistani representative projected a map that inaccurately depicted the borders of the two countries.

“At the meeting of the national security advisers (NSAs) of member states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), hosted by the chair of the SCO (Russia), the Pakistani NSA deliberately projected a fictitious map that Pakistan has recently been propagating,” said external affairs ministry spokesperson Anurag Srivastava.

“This was in blatant disregard to the advisory by the host against it and in violation of the norms of the meeting. After consultation with the host, the Indian side left the meeting in protest at that juncture,” he said.
“India issued its strong objection to the use of this illegal map by Pakistan. The Russian side, as the chair, tried very hard to persuade Pakistan not to do so,” said one of the people cited above.

Russian NSA Nikolai Patrushev conveyed to the Indian side that he was personally very grateful to his Indian counterpart Ajit Doval for attending the SCO Summit, the people said.

“Russia doesn’t support what Pakistan has done and hopes Pakistan’s provocative act won’t affect India’s participation in SCO and definitely not cast any shadow on Patrushev’s warm personal relationship with the Indian NSA, for whom he has the highest regard,” the person added.

Patrushev also said he hoped to see Doval at forthcoming events, according to the people.

Pakistan issued a new map on August 4 that laid claim to India’s union territories of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh and parts of Gujarat state on the eve of the first anniversary of the scrapping of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status.
m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 767
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by m_saini »

^ Does anyone know why we're in SCO in the first place? Googling, I couldn't find any practical benefits other than the usual "helps provide an avenue for negotiations" etc.

Seems like another waste of time in line with the commonwealth.
Mukesh.Kumar
BRFite
Posts: 1242
Joined: 06 Dec 2009 14:09

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by Mukesh.Kumar »

m_saini wrote:^ Does anyone know why we're in SCO in the first place? Googling, I couldn't find any practical benefits other than the usual "helps provide an avenue for negotiations" etc.

Seems like another waste of time in line with the commonwealth.
May not matter now. But even being a fly on the wall helps. Who knows tomorrow when we liberate Tibet we will be very much in the thick of things.

Let's not repeat NeverWho's short sightedness of refusing Security Council seat.
m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 767
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by m_saini »

Mukesh.Kumar wrote:
May not matter now. But even being a fly on the wall helps. Who knows tomorrow when we liberate Tibet we will be very much in the thick of things.

Let's not repeat NeverWho's short sightedness of refusing Security Council seat.
If we have dreams of liberating Tibet, then participation in SCO would actually be a hindrance since one of it's stated goals is to "...support the efforts of one another in safeguarding the five countries' national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, and social stability." The 5 founding countries being China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan.

SCO is nowhere nearly comparable to Security Council. SCO is more like League of Nations; actually it's even worse in that atleast the League was a world organization and SCO is pretty much China's plaything.
Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15043
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by Suraj »

So that means China "support the efforts of one another in safeguarding the five countries' national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, and social stability" of India because India is in the SCO .

Oh wait...
m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 767
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by m_saini »

Suraj wrote:So that means China "support the efforts of one another in safeguarding the five countries' national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity, and social stability" of India because India is in the SCO .

Oh wait...
Sir, you jest but that kinda reinforces my point. SCO is a toothless organisation that won't/can't check chinese aggression against us. If we dream of liberating Tibet then SCO has **no** role to play in it as well. SCO came out of the "Shanghai Five" and it is pretty much the chini dream of having a NATO like org.

This is their decision making procedure
The SCO bodies shall take decisions by agreement without vote and their decisions shall be considered adopted if no member State has raised objections during its consideration (consensus), except for the decisions on suspension of membership or expulsion from the Organization that shall be taken by "consensus minus one vote of the member State concerned".
Imagine being in an org where a country like pakis have essentially a veto. So again I don't get why we're in it.
Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15043
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by Suraj »

I see nothing in your argument that makes the point that we should leave SCO. Being in or out of SCO has no relationship to countries interfering in each other's affairs.

So the logic boils down to a far more simple argument - does India gain more by being in the SCO or not ? Personally I like the idea of destroying a Chinese created entity from within, or at best making a complete mockery of it. If it was a third party entity, maybe not. But things like SCO and Boao Forum are Chinese creation. I personally have no problem with India going in there and p*ssing all over the tables.
m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 767
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by m_saini »

Suraj wrote:I see nothing in your argument that makes the point that we should leave SCO. Being in or out of SCO has no relationship to countries interfering in each other's affairs.
Never really made any argument about leaving. I asked:
^ Does anyone know why we're in SCO in the first place?
Joining and leaving are completely different things.

By joining, we gave SCO unnecessary credibility of having the largest democracy as a member. There's not a single respectable country in that rag-tag group. Just wanted to know what we got or are getting in return.
bharathp
BRFite
Posts: 453
Joined: 24 Jul 2017 03:44

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by bharathp »

m_saini wrote:
Suraj wrote:I see nothing in your argument that makes the point that we should leave SCO. Being in or out of SCO has no relationship to countries interfering in each other's affairs.
By joining, we gave SCO unnecessary credibility of having the largest democracy as a member. There's not a single respectable country in that rag-tag group. Just wanted to know what we got or are getting in return.
provide access to a CAR grouping. any event/item proposed by china and not supported by CAR can be raised by india. also, providing a platform with china + russia gives India a way to still combine forces against western ideas of common.

while russia, china, india, pak, even the CAR have their internal differences, they all still have to stick together to counter balance any overt pressure from EU/NATO etc (in some cases - not all).

also, SCO was also the center of "multipolar" world that India EAM has made his plank for India's rise as another "pole" of power.
Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15043
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by Suraj »

In general you always want to have a seat in any regional multilateral organization of even passing interest.

There's no value in standing outside and gazing intently at your own navel wondering if there's a great purpose served by joining.
m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 767
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by m_saini »

bharathp wrote: provide access to a CAR grouping. any event/item proposed by china and not supported by CAR can be raised by india. also, providing a platform with china + russia gives India a way to still combine forces against western ideas of common.

while russia, china, india, pak, even the CAR have their internal differences, they all still have to stick together to counter balance any overt pressure from EU/NATO etc (in some cases - not all).

also, SCO was also the center of "multipolar" world that India EAM has made his plank for India's rise as another "pole" of power.
Okay, this answers the question somewhat.
m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 767
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by m_saini »

Suraj wrote:In general you always want to have a seat in any regional multilateral organization of even passing interest.

There's no value in standing outside and gazing intently at your own navel wondering if there's a great purpose served by joining.
I disagree. If we do things without an actual purpose in mind, then we'd be no different than mohalla aunties organizing kitty-parties, sipping cocktails and discussing what happened in last night's saas-bahu drama.
Suraj
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15043
Joined: 20 Jan 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by Suraj »

A lot of foreign policy and diplomacy is about building networks. Never discount the importance of schmoozing, either in the context of professional development or diplomacy.
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by Vips »

m_saini wrote: This is their decision making procedure
The SCO bodies shall take decisions by agreement without vote and their decisions shall be considered adopted if no member State has raised objections during its consideration (consensus), except for the decisions on suspension of membership or expulsion from the Organization that shall be taken by "consensus minus one vote of the member State concerned".
How long before China uses this provision to expel India from the grouping? There really is not a single country in this group which will stand up for India in the moment of truth.

IIRC, China wanted Pakistan in SCO and Russia agreed only on the condition that India too would become a member. China had to agree then but now with Russia no longer the power it was and it being increasingly dependent on China due to the western sanctions(which do not seem to be going away anytime soon) not too much in the future you will see China chuck India out of the group.
srin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2508
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by srin »

m_saini wrote:^ Does anyone know why we're in SCO in the first place? Googling, I couldn't find any practical benefits other than the usual "helps provide an avenue for negotiations" etc.

Seems like another waste of time in line with the commonwealth.
The cynical me likes us being there, for this reason :D


We don't want Russians with Chinese and Pakis in the same forum without us to err, moderate the discussion.
arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4570
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by arshyam »

srin wrote:
m_saini wrote:^ Does anyone know why we're in SCO in the first place? Googling, I couldn't find any practical benefits other than the usual "helps provide an avenue for negotiations" etc.

Seems like another waste of time in line with the commonwealth.
The cynical me likes us being there, for this reason :D
[Snipped video link to Yes, Minister]

We don't want Russians with Chinese and Pakis in the same forum without us to err, moderate the discussion.
Ejjactly! Nothing cynical about this, though - it's just plain realpolitik..
m_saini
BRFite
Posts: 767
Joined: 23 May 2020 20:25

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by m_saini »

srin wrote:The cynical me likes us being there, for this reason :D
<yt link>

We don't want Russians with Chinese and Pakis in the same forum without us to err, moderate the discussion.
That was absolutely hilarious :rotfl: I'm watching the other episodes as well, thank you!
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by Vips »

India joins Indian Ocean grouping against piracy as observer.

India said on Wednesday it had joined the Djibouti Code of Conduct (DCOC), a grouping on maritime matters aimed at countering piracy, as an observer as part of efforts aimed at enhancing maritime security in the Indian Ocean region. The move to join the grouping followed a high-level virtual meeting held on August 26, the external affairs ministry said.

The development comes at a time when India is shoring up its position in the Indian Ocean and nearby waters as part of its overall Indo-Pacific policy. India has signed reciprocal military logistics support agreements with Australia and Japan this year to increase interoperability with the navies of those countries.

The DCOC, which aims to repress piracy and armed robbery against ships in the western Indian Ocean and the Gulf of Aden, was adopted on January 29, 2009, by the representatives of Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Madagascar, Maldives, Seychelles, Somalia, Tanzania and Yemen.

Comoros, Egypt, Eritrea, Jordan, Mauritius, Mozambique, Oman, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sudan and the United Arab Emirates signed on later, taking the total countries in the grouping to 20.

The 18 member states are located in areas adjoining the Red Sea, Gulf of Aden and the east coast of Africa and include island nations in the Indian Ocean. Besides India, the other observers in the grouping are Japan, Norway, the UK and the US.

“As an observer at [DCOC], India looks forward to working together with... member states towards coordinating and contributing to enhanced maritime security in the Indian Ocean Region,” the external affairs ministry said.

Under the code of conduct, the member states cooperate in countering piracy and armed robbery on the high seas and promoting the implementation of relevant UN Security Council resolutions.

They also cooperate in the investigation, arrest and prosecution of persons suspected of having committed acts of piracy and armed robbery against ships, the interdiction and seizure of suspect ships, the rescue of ships and people subject to piracy and armed robbery, and the conduct of joint operations.
bharathp
BRFite
Posts: 453
Joined: 24 Jul 2017 03:44

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by bharathp »

about time this happened:
https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/ ... ism-669103
Calling out the "selectivity" at the United Nations in condemning acts of violence against religions, India has said the UN General Assembly has failed to acknowledge the rising hatred and violence against Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism and underlined that the culture of peace cannot be only for "Abrahamic" religions.
Calling out the "selectivity" at the United Nations in condemning acts of violence against religions, India has said the UN General Assembly has failed to acknowledge the rising hatred and violence against Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism and underlined that the culture of peace cannot be only for "Abrahamic" religions.

Addressing the UN General Assembly session on 'Culture of Peace' on Wednesday, First Secretary in India's Permanent Mission to the UN Ashish Sharma said there are “disconcerting trends” in the world of today.

While India fully agrees that anti-Semitism, Islamaphobia and anti-Christian acts need to be condemned and the country also firmly condemns such acts, he pointed out that UN resolutions on such important issues speak only of these three Abrahamic religions together.

“This august body fails to acknowledge the rise of hatred and violence against Buddhism, Hinduism and Sikhism also,” Sharma said.

“Culture of peace cannot be only for Abrahamic religions. And as long as such selectivity exists, the world can never truly foster a culture of peace,” he said.

Asserting that the UN is not a body which should take sides when it comes to religion, Sharma said if “we are indeed selective”, the world will end up proving American political scientist Samuel Huntington's 'clash of civilisations'.

“What we are trying to build here is an ‘alliance of civilisations’, not set up a clash. I call on the UN Alliance of Civilisation to act likewise and speak for all, not just a select few,” he said.

Sharma recalled the shattering of the iconic Bamyan Buddha by fundamentalists in Afghanistan as well as the terrorist bombing of a gurdwara in the war-torn country in March where 25 Sikh worshipers were killed and the destruction of Hindu and Buddhist temples and minority cleansing of these religions by countries.

He told the 193-member General Assembly that such acts call for condemning violence and attacks against Buddhist, Hindu and Sikh religions also.

“But the current member states refuse to speak of these religions in the same breath as the first three ‘Abrahamic’ religions. Why is this selectivity?” he asked. Sharma noted that overall, Hinduism has more than 1.2 billion followers, Buddhism has over 535 million followers and Sikhism around 30 million followers across the world.

“It is time that attacks against these religions are also added to the earlier list of the three Abrahamic religions when such resolutions are passed,” he said.

Key UN General Assembly resolutions over the years have categorically condemned and voiced concern over increase in “anti-Semitism, Christianophobia and Islamophobia in various parts of the world”.

However, violence against other religious minorities “get little more than a slap on the wrist”, a sentiment shared by several other countries also, sources said.

Sharma told the General Assembly session that India is not just the birthplace of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism, but is also the land where the teachings of Islam, Judaism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism have taken strong root and where the Sufi tradition of Islam has flourished.

“Today, every one of the world’s major religions has a home in India,” he said. Sharma said for millennia, India has provided shelter to waves of those persecuted in foreign lands, and allowed them to thrive in India.

“And our tradition of inter-culture dialogue goes right to the time when ancient Indian thinkers had a flourishing dialogue with the ancient Greeks.

India is not just a culture, but a civilisation in itself,” he added.

Underlining that culture of peace is the cornerstone of the foundation of a global order of peace and tolerance, he said India has tried to foster this culture through tolerance, understanding, respect for differences, respect for other religions and cultures, respect for human rights, gender equality -- all this under the overarching umbrella of pluralistic ethos and democratic principles.

India on Wednesday co-sponsored a resolution presented by Bangladesh titled, 'Follow-up to the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace'.

The resolution reiterates that the objective of the effective implementation of the Programme of Action is to strengthen further the global movement for a culture of peace. It invites member states to continue to place greater emphasis on and expand their activities promoting a culture of peace at the national, regional and international levels and to ensure that peace and non-violence are fostered at all levels.
hard hitting points! about time India took on the role of protector of Dharma for the world over.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21538
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by Philip »

V.true.I've been advocating for ages that our FP was timid, insipid,weak, insecure, with occasional sparks of guts ( remember the famous refusal to kowtow to the nuclear bullies by Arundathi Ghose,"India will never sign this uequal treaty, not now ,not ever"), but too few of them to reflect our true status in the global pecking order. The best FP statement was made by IG and then magnificently by ABV at Pokharan-2.As the erstwhile Chairman of the PRC said ," a loud fart is better than a long speech!"

In recent times,Sec.-Gens of the UN have been nothing better than pimps for the western members of the P-5 and their satellites,unable to douse the global conflicts that plague our time. In the early years of the current UN,there was a better pro-active policy where Indian peace- keeping forces played a splendid role in many global crises. Pro-active Sec.- Gen.Dag Hammerskjold was assassinated by western secret services as his pan- African cooperative agenda would affect the exploitation of African mineral wealth by western MNCs belonging to former imperialists and colonial rulers .Since then,non-controversial lilliputs whose woeful track record is better forgotten have been installed ,one marionette replacing another.

From Africa,the Middle East to the Balkans,we've been there keeping the peace. However, in more recent times the selective nature of the UN in dealing with terrorism has been shameful. The continuing cross-border terror by Pak goes on unabated with Pak not even getting a rap on the knuckles is just one example.The PRC's aggression in the ICS gets little noise as well.

Our voice at the UN must be heard loud and clear. If it does not restructure its UNSC membership within a definite timeframe,then we should threaten to leave it.The UN today is a symbol of the perpetuation of white racist neo-colonialism.
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by Vips »

India’s island diplomacy gains momentum.

External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar and National Security Adviser Ajit Doval recently visited Seychelles and Sri Lanka, respectively, to promote Island Diplomacy which assumes importance in the country’s foreign policy.

India officially acknowledged the importance of “Island Diplomacy” in its foreign policy orientation after reorganisation of the Ministry of External Affairs incorporated an Indo-Pacific Division and an Indian Ocean Region Division, only late last year.

In March 2015, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, along with Doval and then Foreign Secretary Jaishankar visited Seychelles and was the first Indian leader to do so in over three decades. Modi also visited Mauritius and Sri Lanka. The Prime Minister said that India “attaches paramount importance to strengthening relations with this region, which is vital for India's security and progress”.

The Small Island Developing States in the Indian Ocean become important as logistics facilities for Asian and non-Asian navies to sail and sustain themselves faraway from their home ports. The presence of warships of extra-regional powers like the US and other western industrial democracies, in the Indian Ocean therefore lends importance to these islands.

Today India, China and the US strive to cultivate relations with these Island States in order to get access to logistics facilities on their territories. These island states include Sri Lanka and Maldives in South Asia, besides Madagascar, Mauritius, Comoros, Reunion and Seychelles further away from Indian shores in the Indian Ocean.

Domestic politics in these island states determines their political proximity or distance from India or China. These island states want to avoid choosing sides in the India-China or China-US competition. Both India and China compete for power and influence in these islands through Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief operations and investments.

Strategic relevance
The Indian Ocean gained strategic relevance in November 1994 after the United Nations Convention on Laws of Sea came into effect and nation states started to identify their national interests with freedom of navigation and oceanic resources.

The countries of consequence in the Indian Ocean Region are India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Iran, China, Myanmar, besides the US and France.

For instance, France has logistics facilities in the Réunion Islands and Paris is likely to allow Indian warships to utilise its logistics facilities in Abu Dhabi and Djibouti on the Horn of Africa. Importantly, China attempts to alter the naval balance in the Indian Ocean through naval technology ties with Bangladesh and Pakistan.

Therefore, an interplay of military, political, economic and social relations among these littoral and extra-littoral nations, which include major Asian powers, western countries, small nations and island states, shapes the regional strategic environment.

Moreover, the US involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq with Operation Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom since 2002 heralded the entry of US Navy carrier battle groups into the Indian Ocean. Thereafter, since 2008, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy maintains a semi-permanent presence in the Indian Ocean for anti-piracy operations.

In August 2017 China acquired a naval base in Djibouti. Similarly, India obtained logistics facilities for the operational turnaround of Indian warships to refuel and get water in Singapore in 2017. Also India is the only other country, apart from a USNS Mercy, a hospital ship, to enjoy logistics facilities at Nha Trang on the Cam Ranh Bay, Vietnam since 2018. The race for logistics facilities on island states in the Indian Ocean has started to take shape. As a result, the new Great Game has begun in the Indian Ocean.

India has over the years realised the importance of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands as a military platform for aero-naval surveillance over the Malacca Straits and South-East Asia. As a result, the militarisation of these islands became imperative.

In 2001 this island became India’s first tri-Services Command with army, air force and navy, besides coast guard elements, to ensure maritime and territorial security. India has signed agreements to permit Japan access to its logistics facilities at the A&N Islands.

On April 19, 2016, China’s officiating Ambassador at a discussion about South China Sea in New Delhi, during deliberations between various think tanks commented that “Someone in, future may dispute the ownership of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands”.

Strategic analysts often refer to the “String of Pearls” about China’s strategy to acquire naval bases across South Asia to box India with base facilities at Gwadar, Pakistan and Hambantota, Sri Lanka, besides elsewhere in the region. However, India’s counter strategy to China, as former Foreign Secretary Lalith Mansingh articulated in 2012 at various Washington academic fora is the “Necklace of Diamonds” which involves bilateral relations with Australia, Indonesia, and Vietnam, besides Gulf Cooperation Countries.

In this context, India’s relations with the East Asian island state namely Taiwan merits mention. From an Indo-centric security perspective Taiwan provides a useful listening post into China to obtain relevant political and military intelligence which is otherwise hampered by linguistic and cultural barriers.

Clearly, India’s national security and foreign policy gradually acquired an oceanic dimension after Prime Minister Modi went on board the aircraft carrier INS Vikramaditya in June 2014 following his assumption of office. Thereafter, the logical progression to this oceanic outreach involves island diplomacy which has gained momentum since then.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by NRao »

Tuan
BRFite
Posts: 440
Joined: 16 Oct 2008 01:26

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by Tuan »

Is India's ‘neighbourhood first policy’ unable to win regional allies?
https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/is-in ... lies-50492
In an online webinar hosted by a Danish think tank, experts highlighted how the rise of China across South Asia has left an unpleasant impact on India’s relations with its smaller neighbours.

India’s 'neighbourhood first policy' was Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s signature foreign policy initiative that sought to develop better relations with the country’s neighbours.

But experts, who last week spoke at an online conference organised by the Nordic Institute of Stability Studies (NISS), a Copenhagen-based think-tank, believe that the policy has failed to take a meaningful direction as Modi’s aggressive posture and growing Chinese pressure has prevented the country from winning allies in the region.

The conference’s title was “Failure of India’s Neighborhood First Policy under BJP Government: Implications for Regional Cooperation”.

Speaking at the conference, Scott Lucas, a professor emeritus of political science and international studies at the University of Birmingham, said that “Modi’s confrontational rather than collective approach in the region” has hurt India’s political prospects across South Asia.

The Modi government’s “focus on military measures rather than social elements” has also helped increase tensions across the region, increasing anti-India sentiment, according to Lucas.

Many experts in the conference echoed a common view that China appears to have benefited from increasing anti-India sentiment in the region, helping Beijing solidify its connections with other South Asian nations.

In the first few years of Modi's rule, regional organisations like SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) were given utmost importance, but the 'neighbourhood first policy' failed to produce any positive outcome and instead, the country found itself competing with a far more belligerent China.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government's domestic policies, which many criticise for being exclusionary against non-Hindu minorities, and attacks on press freedom have also made matters worse and further alienated India from its neighbouring countries, the experts said.

Muhammad Athar Javed, director-general of the NISS, who moderated the conference, also viewed that due to India’s patronising attitude towards smaller neighbours such as Nepal, Maldives, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, New Delhi is “now grappling with multilayered diplomatic challenges with SAARC member states.” The SAARC, which was established in 1985, includes states of Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

Long enmity

Lucas also drew attention to the fact that when it comes to Pakistan, India’s regional policy sees a sudden shift “due to the factors such as Kashmir or Afghanistan”, making New Delhi’s foreign policy confrontational in nature.

The erstwhile princely state of Jammu and Kashmir has been a disputed region between India and Pakistan since 1947. India has always accused Pakistan of supporting an armed guerrilla movement that either seeks independence from both India and Pakistan or wants the complete merger of the disputed territory with Pakistan.

Another conflict that pits India against its neighbour Pakistan is Afghanistan. Islamabad has long been one of the patrons of the Taliban, a group which has recently come to power in Kabul after a long insurgency against the US-backed Afghan government. Pakistan has also raised concerns over growing hate crimes against India's Muslim minority.

“India-Pakistan Economic relationship will be damaged if they don’t come to understand Afghanistan and they don’t make some good favorable decisions,” said Samuel Ramani, a tutor of politics and international relations at the University of Oxford, during the conference.

Both countries need to work together for projects like the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) pipeline, which is also known as Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline, Ramani said. The TAPI project aims to transport natural gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan into Pakistan and finally to India.

Projects like TAPI will test Modi’s mood on whether he is ready for such projects, which will empower India’s neighbourhood first policy, or “it's just in papers”, Ramani said.

India-Nepal tensions

Ramani found similarities between the post-Arab Spring political environment in the Middle East and current South Asia. Relations among neighbouring countries in South Asia have not improved or gotten worse to some extent and it's parallel could be found in deteriorating ties between the Middle Eastern states following the Arab Spring uprisings, according to Ramani.

While India’s 'neighbourhood first policy' is something New Delhi was keen on pursuing in the beginning, it now appears to be going nowhere, Ramani observed.

“India is interfering in the domestic affairs of neighbouring countries especially in Nepal in the violation of their sovereignty. India is also creating hurdles in free transit and free trade within and beyond Nepal and keeps suppressing its people and government,” the academic said.

A lot of things are “going wrong” in India’s foreign policy, Ramani added.

Anil Sigdel, founder of Nepal Matters for America, a Washington DC-based think-tank agreed with Ramani's conclusions on India's foreign policy. Sigdel also thinks that India urgently needs to address various demarcations across Nepal-India borders, which has particularly made Nepali citizens suffer.

As the Eminent Persons Group, comprising high level politicians and experts from both sides for a joint comprehensive review of the bilateral ties, sat down and finalised a list of recommendations, “Modi’s leadership was showing some promise,” Sigdel said, during the conference.

“But that goodwill quickly evaporated as there was no response from the Modi government or not even willingness to receive the joint group’s report,” the Nepali activist said.

According to Sigdel, Ajit Doval, India’s National Security Adviser, “opined that Nepal has benefited from the existing arrangements; therefore Modi does not want to move forward with the report recommendations. And that was it”.

There are also various remaining problems between the two countries such as the water management along the border, especially regarding high structures being built on the Indian side to manage flooding that exposes Nepali villages to danger in monsoon season, according to Sigdel.

During the monsoon season in South Asia, heavy rainfall is recorded between June and September every year.

On top of all these issues, Indian authorities wanted to show their disregard toward Nepal by organising a road inauguration ceremony in Kalapani, a disputed region between Nepal and India, according to Sigdel. But that triggered “an unprecedented defiance” by Nepal as the country’s parliament unanimously passed an upgraded map that included Kalapani as a Nepali territory, “giving a massive setback to the Modi government”.

Is Bangladesh a bright spot for India?

Among others, India- Bangladesh relationship is “a sign of promise”, Ramani said, during the conference. But even in that relationship, things are not bright on the ground as many ordinary Bangladeshis find the political leadership of India under Modi as Islamophobic or anti-Islam, Ramani said. They think that the BJP is “pushing Hindus against the Muslims that create violence,” he viewed.

Nazmul Islam, an assistant professor of political science at Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University, also thinks that “India’s domestic policies are creating problems” in Bangladesh, a Muslim-majority country, showing India’s neighbourhood first policy faces serious challenges even in friendly territories like Bangladesh.

Modi’s recent visit to Dhaka sparked deadly protests. The protesters in the capital city Dhaka chanted anti-Modi slogans to draw attention to his controversial policies that many find to be discriminating against Indian minorities, especially the Muslims.

Across India-Bangladesh borders, things are not looking good either with occasional skirmishes continuing to take place as “smuggling is at its peak”, according to Ramani.

In December 2020, India and Bangladesh held a virtual summit, where the countries discussed topics like boosting trade, investment and transportation links, but avoided the thorny issue of sharing the water of the Teesta River, which flows into Bangladesh from the Indian states of Sikkim and West Bengal, Islam said.

“Bangladesh, like most nations, will sign up for something for its economic benefit”, the academic said.

While India has disagreements with Bangladesh on several issues, “it's wrong to assume that economic deals with China will make Bangladesh move away from India but India doesn’t like Chinese interest and its investment in Bangladesh”, Islam added.

“Bangladesh's foreign policy sides with China and Pakistan over India in a few cases, and that Dhaka should be careful regarding its foreign policy and strategic choices as Indian interference in the region and in Afghanistan to gain its power will affect its relationship with Bangladesh in the future”.

Sri Lanka-India ties

One of India’s clashing points with China across South Asia happens in Sri Lanka for different reasons.

“India draws closer to the West, particularly through the Quad and other multilateral and mini-lateral initiatives”, said Shakthi De Silva, an assistant lecturer of international relations at University of Colombo, Sri Lanka, during the conference. Quad refers to a strategic dialogue between the US, India, Japan and Australia as a response to China’s assertive presence in the Pacific region.

But Sri Lanka’s connections with the West are not moving in a good direction as the country’s Rajapakse government faces increasing criticism from Western capitals on human rights issues and freedoms, according to Silva. As a result, Sri Lanka has begun moving toward China, increasing the possibility that Indo-Sri Lankan ties might deteriorate at some point, he said.

“Sri Lanka’s tilt towards China was not an inevitable outcome. Rectifying the situation requires India and the West to adopt a more nuanced posture on the issue of human rights and accountability,” Silva viewed.

But Silva still thinks that "Sri Lanka has, and will, continue to maintain warm ties with India, giving deference to Indian security interests and welcoming high level Indian visits,” Silva added. But the country has also increasingly inclined towards China owing to the latter’s FDI inflows, investment volume and Beijing’s ability to grant Sri Lanka much needed loans as the island tries to extricate itself from its economic crisis.

“Although Sri Lanka curtails its own behaviour to appease India’s security interest, it is increasingly relying on China and will continue to interact with China in the future.”
Lohit
BRFite
Posts: 133
Joined: 28 Feb 2019 01:03

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by Lohit »

Tuan wrote:Is India's ‘neighbourhood first policy’ unable to win regional allies?
Here are my 2 paisa super-subjective opinions

1. General population of countries such as Afg, Pak and Bang have an deep seated intrinsic loathing for us and view us as people that they ruled. A similar feeling exists amongst the general populace, especially of Nepal and to a lesser extent Sri Lanka. Heck even Bhutanese ruled over parts of India but they are a small protectorate now. All these countries feel that like before, they can take external help, this time China and usurp power against India as before.

2. I think we've been mediocre at regional integration with Nepal and Sri Lanka and too a lesser extent with Bang - given the opportunities we've had. However China's use of trade and lending, even if a little predatory, should show us the way on how it's done. Trade and Credit are two carrots which can also function as hefty sticks to "win friends".

3. On Pak and Afg, I'd argue we currently have the best FP dispensation which is clear-eyed about those who dream of once again "smashing the idol of Somnath". I think we've been far to invested in Pak. The current Indo-Pacific platform of engaging SE Asia is promising. And the new proposed connectivity corridor linking us to the Gulf and Europe via UAE-KSA-Israel-Greece-Cyprus is a far better way to engage the western extended neighborhood.
chetak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 32227
Joined: 16 May 2008 12:00

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by chetak »

Lohit wrote:
Tuan wrote:Is India's ‘neighbourhood first policy’ unable to win regional allies?
Here are my 2 paisa super-subjective opinions

1. General population of countries such as Afg, Pak and Bang have an deep seated intrinsic loathing for us and view us as people that they ruled. A similar feeling exists amongst the general populace, especially of Nepal and to a lesser extent Sri Lanka. Heck even Bhutanese ruled over parts of India but they are a small protectorate now. All these countries feel that like before, they can take external help, this time China and usurp power against India as before.

2. I think we've been mediocre at regional integration with Nepal and Sri Lanka and too a lesser extent with Bang - given the opportunities we've had. However China's use of trade and lending, even if a little predatory, should show us the way on how it's done. Trade and Credit are two carrots which can also function as hefty sticks to "win friends".

3. On Pak and Afg, I'd argue we currently have the best FP dispensation which is clear-eyed about those who dream of once again "smashing the idol of Somnath". I think we've been far to invested in Pak. The current Indo-Pacific platform of engaging SE Asia is promising. And the new proposed connectivity corridor linking us to the Gulf and Europe via UAE-KSA-Israel-Greece-Cyprus is a far better way to engage the western extended neighborhood.
A big power behaving like a supplicant results in these weasels ill treating us.

Behave like the big power that you are and make them beg for everything that they get from you, especially visas be it for medical or for educational reasons. Reciprocity in all matters will ensure that you get your due.

If you are not happy with them for any reason, make it very clear and force them to rectify for continued access. If they prefer the hans, so be it.

If not, let them go their way and be done with it. lanka, nepal and maldives have already learned their lessons

there is a huge difference between leaches and friends

India still suffers from the “log kya kahenge” syndrome.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by ldev »

An excellent exposition of India's current foreign policy interaction with External Affairs Minister Jaishankar speaking at the India Today Conclave today. The ultimate bow to realpolitik by an Indian Foreign Minister when he says that bilateral and multilateral groupings today are a result of the UN being "gridlocked", "anachronistic", " often not there". He was responding to a question about the emergence of groupings such as the QUAD or AUKUS and other trilaterals etc. Finally an Indian Foreign Policy that is based on realpolitik. Great credit to Minister Jaishankar!!
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by Vips »

India set to ink key trade deals by next year.

India is set to conclude three major trade agreements with the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and Australia by 2022, and is close to signing early harvesttrade deals separately with the three nations, three people aware of the development said.

The government has set aggressive timelines for the agreements as part of its ambitious target of $500 billion exports by the financial year to March 2023 – formalisation of a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) with the UAE by early 2022, a free trade agreement (FTA) with the UK by next year, and an interim trade deal with Australia by December. These will be followed a year later by a Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA), the people said, requesting anonymity.

The negotiations with the UAE are on a fast track. The first round of talks was held on September 23-24 in New Delhi during the visit of UAE minister of state for trade Thani bin Ahmed Al Zeyoudi. “The aim is to sign a formal CEPA in March 2022,” one person said.

“Both sides are serious about negotiating and concluding CEPA in line with the determination of the leadership of both countries,” a second person added. “Both sides are closely connected and working to achieve this agreement, which will complement the India-UAE strategic partnership.”

The agreement is expected to raise bilateral trade in goods to $100 billion and in services to $15 billion in five years. The UAE was India’s third largest trading partner with about $59.1 billion of bilateral trade in 2019-20, a largely non-Covid period.

India’s major exports to the UAE include refined petroleum products, minerals, cereals, sugar, fruits, vegetables, tea, meat, seafood, textiles, engineering, machinery products, and chemicals. It imports petroleum and petroleum products, precious metals, stones, jewellery, minerals, chemicals and wood products.

“India and the UK plan to launch negotiations on an FTA from next month in two stages – low-hanging fruits (early trade deal) by March 2022 on priority, followed by a comprehensive agreement,” a third person said. The tentative timeline for the FTA and other trade matters was chalked out during discussions between commerce minister Piyush Goyal and UK trade secretary Liz Truss last month.

The two countries also agreed to quickly finalise terms of reference so that negotiations can be launched in November, he said, adding rapid progress has been seen after an “Enhanced Trade Partnership” was announced by the prime ministers of both nations in May.

India has also revived CECA negotiations with Australia, which has tremendous potential, said the first person cited earlier.

“It is expected that the long-pending FTA negotiations with Australia may conclude by 2022 and an agreement could be signed thereafter,” he said. Australia and India launched negotiations for a CECA in May 2011, but talks were suspended in September 2015 after nine rounds because of differences on some multilateral issues.

Negotiations by the two countries were “relaunched in June last year and an aggressive timeline” was agreed at the India-Australia joint ministerial commission meeting between Goyal and his Australian counterpart Dan Tehan on September 30, he said.

Tehan said the aim is to have an interim agreement covering goods, services, investments, rules of origin, phyto-sanitary measures for fruits and vegetables, and mutual recognition of qualifications in place by December this year, to be followed by a final agreement in December 2022. He said the two sides are expected to make market access offers by the end of October.

“It’s going to be a challenge. These things are not easy,” Tehan said, acknowledging Indian concerns in areas such as dairy and agriculture. The market access offers will be a “difficult” aspect requiring hard work by both sides, he said.

Though both sides will have to make compromises, Australia can offer investments and technology to boost food and agricultural processing in India, Tehan said. Australia is also open to equitably handling the issue of domestic subsidies in agriculture, he added.

India has set an ambitious of exports target of $450-$500 billion by the next financial year and early harvest deals, along with full FTAs, will play a major role in realising this goal, the first person said. Besides the three most prospective FTAs, New Delhi is negotiating trade deals with other countries and blocs. They include Oman, Canada, the European Union, Russia, and the Southern African Customs Union (SACU), which comprises Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, South Africa, and Swaziland.

Speaking at a midterm review meeting of export promotion councils (EPCs) on Saturday, Goyal asked the bodies to raise trade-related concerns faced in these countries so that the government can address them while negotiating individual FTAs. He said such issues were mostly related to market access rather than tariffs.

Goyal said India is on the right track as its exports touched $197 billion in the first half of the current financial year. “Our exporters have made all of us Indians proud today,” he said in a statement, adding “if we can aim to scale $450-$500 billion exports next year”.

Nilaya Varma, co-founder and CEO of consultancy firm Primus Partners, said: “UAE, UK, and Australia are three key economies, and India’s old allies. Trade negotiations with them in both goods and services have progressed very well and signs of early harvest deals are visible, which will finally culminate into comprehensive FTAs. It’s a win-win for both India and its partners.”

Meanwhile, commerce minister Goyal met ministers of at least 15 countries on Monday on the sidelines of the G20 Trade Ministers Meeting in Sorrento, Italy, a government spokesperson said.

He clarified India’s trade position and engaged in bilateral and multilateral negotiations with the ministers of the US, the UK, the EU, Brazil, China, Australia, South Africa, Indonesia, Canada, South Korea and Mexico, among others, the official said.

At the meetings, Goyal also asserted India’s position for the forthcoming Twelfth Ministerial Conference (MC12) of World Trade Organization (WTO) to be held in November at Geneva in Switzerland. Goyal said the multilateral trade deal must be “just and equitable” and “historical wrongs against developing countries must be corrected” rather than being carried over, the official cited above said.
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by Vips »

'India invited to become full-time IEA member’.

International Energy Agency (IEA) has invited India, the world’s third-largest energy consumer, to become its full-time member - a proposal if accepted will require New Delhi to raise strategic oil reserves to 90 days requirement.

Oil Minister Hardeep Singh Puri on Monday said he held online discussions with IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol.

“As a natural corollary to the India-IEA strategic partnership, Dr. Birol invited India to deepen its cooperation with IEA by becoming a full Member,” Mr. Puri tweeted without saying if the full-time membership proposal was acceptable to the government or not.

India, in March 2017, became an associate member of the Paris-based body which advises industrialised nations on energy policies.

On its website, IEA states that “India is becoming increasingly influential in global energy trends.”
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by NRao »

New Quad in making: Foreign Ministers of USA-India-Israel-UAE to meet on Monday
In what could emerge a new Quad of sorts, the Foreign Ministers of the USA, India, Israel and UAE foreign ministers to hold their maiden meeting on Monday eyeing to enhance coordination and economic partnership across the West Asian region.

The meet to be held in virtual format coincides with the visit of Foreign Minister S Jaishankar to Israel. A top Israeli official told ET that the meeting will be held on Monday afternoon. Earlier India-Israel-UAE, following establishment of diplomatic ties between Israel-UAE last year, have explored trilateral economic projects

Ahead of this emerging Quad Foreign Ministers of USA-Israel-UAE met last week in Washington coinciding with the Abraham accord. Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan, UAE Foreign Minister stated on the occasion that he would visit Israel soon, adding that his country was impressed with the growing bilateral relationship.

Addressing a joint press meet with his Israeli and UAE counterparts US Secretary of State Antony J Blinken stated, “We believe strongly that Palestinians and Israelis deserve to live safely, securely, with equal measures of freedom, prosperity and democracy, and we will continue our own efforts toward that end,” which in turn fosters creation of a Palestinian state. The three Ministers also discussed Iran’s failure thus far to return to the international nuclear deal.

India and Israel elevated bilateral relations to a Strategic Partnership during the visit of PM Narendra Modi to Israel (first by an Indian PM to Israel) in July 2017. Since then, the relationship between the two countries has focused on expanding knowledge-based partnership, which includes collaboration in innovation and research, including boosting the ‘Make in India’ initiative.

The Minister will also interact with the Indian-origin Jewish community in Israel, Indologists, Indian students who are currently pursuing their education in Israeli universities, and business people, including from the hi-tech industries.
ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2616
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by ldev »

DheerajG
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 9
Joined: 15 Aug 2016 09:02

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by DheerajG »

Hug diplomacy and all is ok but I really like Modiji's confidence. He is 71 years old and yet he is not wearing mask.
arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4570
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by arshyam »

One one hand, I am concerned for his health, and on the other, he is setting a poor example for already abysmal mask compliance in India. I can no longer go around and say "Modiji wears a mask at his age, why can't you?" (believe, it did work with many ordinary folk who'd sheepishly wear their masks)
RKumar

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by RKumar »

+1 I will prefer that Modi ji wear mask for the nation. We need him around for a long time, during such gatherings even single infact person can cause big damage. It’s like a bio weapon. Modi ji should be more careful.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by NRao »

Quad West will test India’s foreign and economic policy
This ‘Quad West’ came out of the blue. It promises to transform the way we think about the Middle East and India’s place in it. It is also much tougher than the ‘Quad East’ and will test India’s foreign and economic policy.

On October 19, foreign ministers of India, Israel, UAE and the US came together to form, what they call, an “international forum for economic cooperation” — an innocuous enough name — to pool resources, technology and skills to build infrastructure, collaborate on maritime security.

Yair Lapid, Israeli foreign minister, the only one sharing a physical space with external affairs minister S Jaishankar — UAE foreign minister Abdullah bin Zayed and US secretary of state Anthony Blinken joined virtually — summed up the agenda for the new group.

“I think the word we’re looking for here is synergy, because this is what we’re going to try and create starting with this meeting. Synergy that will help us work together on infrastructure, digital infrastructure, transport, maritime security and other things that preoccupy us all,” said Lapid.

“The key to success is how quickly can we move from ‘government-to-government’ to ‘business-to-business’?” How quickly can we turn this into a working process that will put boots on the ground, changing infrastructure around the world.”

Jaishankar made a brief but telling comment — “the three of you are among the closest relationships we have, if not the closest”.

There appears to be different things at play here.

The quartet/foursome is making appropriate use of the Abraham Accords (2020), which saw Israel signing peace treaties with key Arab states, notably the UAE, followed by Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco.

India has close ties with both Israel and UAE, therefore the ‘Quad West’ (for want of a more imaginative moniker) is essentially a natural progression. It is essentially a trilateral, since the US comes in with a lighter footprint, but as an essential glue and a facilitator for accessing key technologies and adding to the comfort levels of each of the other three.

The interesting part is this was a brainchild of all three — as one source explained, “all of us put in a little bit” into creating this group. However, the new Israeli ambassador to India, Naor Gilon, credited the US with the idea, saying they played a big role in its creation. The detailed agenda for the group is yet to be worked out, but early indicators are out there.

India and the UAE have moved much closer together in recent years, bound by common economic and security interests. Israel is arguably India’s most trusted partner in the world, sometimes even closer than the US. Using trade, connectivity, technology and education as the new drivers of influence, the new initiative is aimed at putting an apolitical, religion-agnostic presence in an otherwise volatile and violent region.

As Israel’s foreign secretary, Alon Ushpiz said to me in an interview: “…all these relationships and the new peace treaties we have, they are based on the things that Israel and India have been doing together for the last 30 years. But what we’ve been doing together is to do deliveries to the people, economy, prosperity, technology, education… If we can combine or if we can mix in the cocktail, what we have been doing between us and what we are doing with these countries now — UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, maybe together with an American pitch. I think it will be a strong booster, as we say nowadays. Technology, production, supply chains, communication, transportation, direct flights. These are things that are tremendously important from the point of view of what we can do together from an Indian perspective in this new regional context. From an Israeli point of view, this is really a strategic earthquake.”

If ‘Quad East’ is aimed at balancing the rise and expansionism of China, ‘Quad West’ checks other, related boxes. It also opens some new ones, not all of them pleasant.

India is in advanced trade negotiations with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) and Israel. The new grouping opens the door to a coordinated economic engagement with the region, between the three main players. In time, and hopefully, increased levels of trade, this can be expanded further westwards.

It could advance India’s strategic playing ground beyond the Gulf into the Levant and eastern Mediterranean, when the new group embraces Greece, Cyprus and Egypt within its ambit. The Gulf is a huge export market for India, and, during the pandemic, India kept its supply chains to this region open, keeping food exports going when many supply chains were in disarray.

In addition, the UAE, certainly, is a trading hub for India — their ease of business rules are much more user-friendly than India’s own. But if India has to tap new markets, especially after having turned its back to RCEP, there is a sense that Dubai, for instance, can be that hub. Even Pakistan, with whom India has little formal bilateral trade, can theoretically take advantage of India’s commercial presence in the Gulf.

Second, ‘Quad West’ has an opportunity to advance a similar technology-healthcare-infrastructure agenda that is taking off with the ‘Quad East’. From education to space cooperation, there is a whole new arena out there. India and UAE are already collaborating in the space front. Israel’s tech advantages are evident, but Israel has very low acceptability in its own region. India, US and UAE, however, do and enjoy brand equity in the region, which might make things easier in other countries.

Third, it gives the US a qualitatively different re-entry point back into the region. For well over half a century, US’ presence in the Gulf/Middle East was predicated on its oil dependency, strategic buttressing of Israel, and separately, Saudi Arabia against Iran, involving itself in the sectarian feuds of the region. It has squandered blood and treasure on what turned out to be unnecessary wars — Iraq and Afghanistan.

It oversaw the growth of murderous terrorist groups emanating from the region, notably al Qaeda and the IS. But the US’ appetite for Middle Eastern oil is not what it used to be. Their involvement in the sectarian fault lines of the region is down, as the US is pivoting eastwards to China. But this remains a very important region, geopolitically and geo-economically, so expect US presence to remain an active one.

Thus far, there is little in the security field, except a promise to work together on maritime security. This is probably the area which will take careful work among the four, because it also involves areas that India has traditionally stayed away from, including the fact that Iran plays a key role here.
The ‘Quad West’ grouping is bookended by two regional powers who could make it or mar it — Saudi Arabia and Iran. Then there are others who could play a counter game in different ways — China, Turkey, Qatar, and even Pakistan.

Frankly, the only other country that could have been in this grouping is Saudi Arabia — but Riyadh is still a distance away from a peace deal with Israel, and the Biden administration does not care much for the Crown Prince. Riyadh could be persuaded to endorse it, even silently, because it too is seeking a new role that goes beyond oil and religion.

But Iran is an unknown element at the moment. Tehran cannot be happy about the new grouping, that goes without saying. It has three of its worst enemies tying up with a close friend. Many in Iran have been watching with dismay India’s growing closeness to the US and Israel, therefore India might have to work harder to assuage Iranian sensitivities. Iran remains important for India. India continues to be concerned about terrorism spilling out of Afghanistan, and after the recent spate of Shia killings in the Taliban-run state, Iran would be too. Chahbahar is an important entrepôt for India into Central Asia.

However, in the new era of geopolitical resets, Iran is doing its own reset, with Saudi Arabia, as both countries hold ice-breaker talks in Baghdad, significant in their own way. Yes, India has an important relationship with Iran, but there are other interests India is pursuing with this new grouping. Iran is unlikely to become the deal breaker.

On the other hand, In the aftermath of the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, we saw a new regional axis take shape — China, Pakistan, Iran, Qatar and Turkey, under the benign gaze of Russia. Could the new Quad be a response to this axis?

India’s balancing act will need to become sharper — Qatar, for instance, has a close relationship with India and US, but remains at odds with UAE and Israel. In fact, this week Chinese foreign minister, Wang Yi met the Qatari leadership in Doha and offered to advance the Belt & Road Initiative in this region, to welcome applause from the Qataris.

Then there is China, which plays a huge role in this region. Like India, it cuts across fault lines and operates closely across the region, with deeper pockets and an expansive strategic vision. If, ultimately, the Quad West is there to expand influence, they will come up against China sooner rather than later. That will test the grouping.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by NRao »

Is India Abandoning Iran for a Middle Eastern Quad, or Merely Signaling China?
The four-way talks held virtually among the United States, Israel, the United Arab Emirates, and India on October 19 are the latest manifestation of the “minilateralist” tendency increasingly characteristic of international politics in the Middle East. The quadrilateral format of the talks has encouraged unfounded comparisons to the Quad, a bloc that includes the United States, India, Japan, and Australia, which is aimed clearly at countering China in the Indo-Pacific region. Unlike the Quad, however, the U.S.-Israel-UAE-India talks share no clear geopolitical objective. While the United States and India appear intent on containing China’s economic influence in the Middle East, Israel and the UAE – whose sights are set on Iran – are unlikely to play along given their deep economic ties with China.

By joining the talks, however, India may be sending messages to an important but difficult partner, Iran. The talks initially began as a trilateral U.S.-Israel-UAE meeting on October 13 in Washington that focused on the Abraham Accords and Iran’s nuclear program. Another meeting was held virtually five days later, this time with India participating as a fourth member. Although India’s relations with Tehran have been bogged down by the impact of U.S. sanctions and commercial disputes, involving key projects such as the Chabahar Port railway and Farzad-B gas field, India nevertheless views Iran as an important partner. Iran is a key player in Afghanistan and is sympathetic to India’s concerns over a potential resurgence of terrorist activity. Iran’s Chabahar Port, which India has developed, is also a crucial component of India’s plans to connect to Afghanistan and Central Asia while bypassing its rivals Pakistan and China. Although joining the quadrilateral talks risks upsetting relations with Tehran, New Delhi appears willing to take measured risks to counter what it perceives as its most potent and increasingly belligerent adversary, China.

India and the “New Quad’: Reading India’s Intentions
India’s participation in talks with the United States, Israel, and the UAE has fueled speculation that a “new Quad” may be taking shape in southwest Asia. This characterization seems exaggerated, however, for talks that appeared largely as an afterthought. A few days prior to India’s joining the talks, trilateral discussions among officials from the United States, Israel, and the UAE were held in Washington where working groups on religious tolerance, water, and energy issues were announced. The quadrilateral format that includes India emerged several days later during Indian External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar’s 5-day visit to Israel. Jaishankar joined the talks, which were held virtually, from the Israeli Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem, where he sat next to his Israeli counterpart.

Nonetheless, joining the quadrilateral forum serves to illustrate India’s close ties with the United States and two of Washington’s top regional partners, the UAE and Israel. But India may have additional motivations for joining the group that relate to geopolitical challenges closer to home. New Delhi would like to portray the group as a putative coalition to contain China’s economic influence in the region. The quadrilateral forum intends to cooperate on infrastructure development, according to an Israeli statement, a term that often reads as code for countering China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Although Israel and the UAE have sought to dispel suspicions that the quadrilateral group is aimed against China, India is likely to continue to push for a somewhat hard-edged China agenda.

Iran, Key to India’s Foreign Policy
Iran’s importance to India has increased greatly over the past year, particularly in recent months since the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. The Taliban’s swift takeover of Afghanistan has been a source of deep concern in New Delhi. India worries that Afghanistan may turn into a hub for transnational terrorism once again, becoming a base from which Pakistan could leverage its deep influence with the Taliban to target India’s security interests. New Delhi is also concerned that China, which is already looking into extending infrastructure funding to Afghanistan, might exploit its inroads with the Taliban to draw the country closer into its orbit. To date, the Taliban has signaled that it desires to build better relations with India, but the long legacy of mutual distrust and the influence that India’s rivals – Pakistan and China – exercise over the group signal that progress in India’s relations with the Taliban may prove difficult.

Due to its historical distaste for the Taliban, Iran is one country with which India has, prior to the 2001 U.S.-led invasion at least, seen eye to eye on Afghanistan. India and Iran both supported the Northern Alliance in its war against the Taliban during the 1990s. Subsequently, despite having built ties with the Taliban following the invasion on the basis of a shared animosity toward the United States, Iran – which portrays itself as a protector of Afghanistan’s ethnic Hazara predominantly Shia minority – retains a degree of distrust toward the Taliban. On Jaishankar’s two trips to Tehran since Ebrahim Raisi’s election as Iran’s president, talks centered largely on Afghanistan, where Raisi has said his country welcomes an Indian role. Since India does not share a border with Afghanistan, it has been at pains to build a trade corridor that bypasses its rival Pakistan. Since the early 2000s, India has been involved in developing the Iranian port of Chabahar and building the Zaranj-Delaram highway in Afghanistan – despite armed resistance of the Taliban – which connects Iran to key cities in Afghanistan. Since much of India’s trade corridor to Afghanistan passes through Iran, the success of India’s geoeconomic designs in Afghanistan depend on New Delhi’s ability to work with Tehran.

Beyond connecting India to Afghanistan, Iran’s Chabahar Port is also viewed in New Delhi as a rival to Pakistan’s China-funded port in nearby Gwadar. Some Indian strategists buy into the theory that China seeks to encircle India in the Indian Ocean by investing in a series of ports in Pakistan and Sri Lanka, and further afield in Kenya and Djibouti, among others. The concern is that, in the case of an armed confrontation with China, Beijing could exploit these ports to encircle India militarily. Viewed through this geomilitary lens, India’s foothold in Chabahar is meant to interrupt China’s “string of pearls,” though the prospect that India may be able to leverage militarily its investment in the Chabahar Port in case of a confrontation with China seems rather farfetched. China’s moves in the Indian Ocean region are probably more accurately perceived through a geostrategic lens that focuses on its efforts to establish long-term commercial and maritime dominance, ambitions that challenge India’s current position in the region.

Less farfetched than any overt military function, however, is the role that the Chabahar Port plays in connecting India to Central Asia, as it will eventually to Russia. Over the past two decades, India has signed agreements to build a North-South Transport Corridor that links the landlocked Central Asian countries to the Indian Ocean while allowing India to connect to the oil and gas rich region and bypass Pakistan and China. In October, Jaishankar toured the Central Asian countries of Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Armenia. During the 6th Foreign Ministers’ Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia held in the Kazakh capital Nur Sultan, Jaishankar took an implicit swipe at China’s Belt and Road Initiative, stating that infrastructure projects had to be underpinned by “respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of nations,” and that “connectivity building is a participative and consensual exercise, based on financial viability and local ownership. They must not serve other agendas.” In Armenia, where he became India’s first foreign minister to ever visit, Jaishankar expressed India’s desire for the Chabahar Port to be incorporated into the International North-South Transport Corridor. The rise in tensions between Iran and Azerbaijan, which has halted the flow of overland trade between the two countries, has incentivized India to cultivate Armenia, Azerbaijan’s rival, as an alternative node on the route north. In any case, Chabahar is therefore a necessary component for India to connect with Central Asia and Russia and ultimately, from the Indian perspective at least, offer an alternative to Chinese infrastructure funding under the Belt and Road Initiative.

India Sheds Its Nonaligned Posture in the Middle East
Although relations with Iran had often functioned as a “purity test” with which Indians would gauge the independence of their country’s foreign policy from the United States, the palpable threat posed by China has pushed India to abandon its long-standing caution against appearing to take sides in Middle Eastern rivalries. Traditionally, India shied away from forming regional coalitions with partners in the Middle East out of fear of alienating its other partners in the region. But the impulse to contain China’s influence, accelerated by the border clashes that erupted between Chinese and Indian troops who accused each other of encroaching upon disputed territory in 2020, has caused India to shed its traditional inhibitions and align more closely with the United States, even if it means upsetting Iran. The calculation seems to be that such irritation can be managed, as India balances its substantial interests in Iran with a newly inflamed desire to counter China’s expanding, potentially suffocating regional influence.
BajKhedawal
BRFite
Posts: 1203
Joined: 07 Dec 2008 10:08
Location: Is it ethical? No! Is it Pakistani? Yes!

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by BajKhedawal »

ldev wrote:PM Modi at the G-20

The hug diplomacy is back
Image
Reminded me of Chatrapati Shivaji wala hug :twisted:
Vips
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4699
Joined: 14 Apr 2017 18:23

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Post by Vips »

India retains membership of top maritime body.

India has retained its membership of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) council after clinching 133 votes.

India retained its membership for "Category B" which included ten countries namely Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the United Arab Emirates. "Category B" are states with the "largest interest in international seaborne trade", IMO said in a statement.

Interestingly for the first time in 30 years, Pakistan stood for the council seat but failed to garner any support. Pakistan's federal minister for maritime affairs tweeted about the development saying, "We didn’t make it this time" :rotfl:

The council was elected by the assembly of IMO for the period 2022-2023. The 32nd Assembly of IMO is meeting in London at IMO Headquarters from 6 -15 December and on December 10 the result for the election of the organisation's 40-member council were announced. All 175 member states and three associate members are entitled to attend the IMO assembly.

The council is the executive organ of IMO and is responsible for supervising the work of the organisation. When the assembly is not in session, the council performs the functions of the assembly. The assembly normally meets once every two years in regular sessions and is responsible for approving the work programme, voting the budget and determining the financial arrangements of the organisation.

There are three categories in all: "Category A" includes ten states with the largest interest in providing international shipping services and includes China, Greece, Italy, Japan, Norway, Panama, South Korea, Russia, UK and US.

"Category C" includes states whose election will ensure "representation of all major geographic areas of the world". States in "Category C" are - Bahamas, Belgium, Chile, Cyprus, Denmark, Egypt, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, the Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Thailand, Turkey and Vanuatu.
Post Reply