Month: December 2022

SAARC Charter Day is observed on December 8. The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), an intergovernmental organisation, was founded on this day, 37 years ago.

SAARC

• Establishment: On December 8, 1985, in Dhaka, Bangladesh, the SAARC Charter was signed, thus establishing the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC).
• Members: Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka founded this intergovernmental organisation. Later, Afghanistan joined SAARC.
• Secretariat: On January 17, 1987, the Association’s Secretariat was established in Kathmandu.
• Objectives: According to the SAARC Charter, the region’s goals are to advance the welfare of its citizens and raise their standard of living, to speed up economic expansion, social advancement, and cultural development, to give everyone the chance to live with dignity and reach their full potential, and to encourage and strengthen regional unity.

SAARC achievements

• SAARC has utterly failed to achieve the majority of its goals.
• The world’s most impoverished and least integrated region is still South Asia.
• When compared to other regions like the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia’s intraregional trade and investment are quite low.
• By continually opposing important measures like the motor vehicles accord, which is intended to improve regional connectivity, Pakistan has chosen an obstructionist stance within SAARC.
• Things have gotten worse as India and Pakistan’s enmity has grown. Since 2014, there hasn’t been a SAARC summit, leaving the organisation directionless and all but dead.

Bilateralism or religionalism

• Bilateralism can support regional efforts rather than replace them. According to a new narrative, India can successfully advance its interests in South Asia by favouring bilateralism over regionalism. Bilateralism is unquestionably vital, but it can only serve to supplement rather than to replace regional or multilateral initiatives.
• Regionalism in East Asia and Africa: In other areas, including East Asia and Africa, regionalism has had great success. The South Asian region can benefit from regionalism as well, especially since that multilateralism is waning.
• Idea for a new regional economic system: International lawyers Julien Chaisse and Pasha L. Hsieh have developed the idea of a new regional economic order in response to ASEAN’s spectacular success in regional integration. This process involves developing countries looking for a trade-development model that is based on incrementalism and flexibility as opposed to the neoliberal model established by the Washington Consensus.

BIMSTEC

• The Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) is a regional organisation made up of seven member states that are located in or close to the Bay of Bengal. These seven states together form a contiguous regional unity.
• Establishment: On June 6, 1997, the Bangkok Declaration led to the creation of this sub-regional organisation.
• Serve as a bridge between South and South East Asia: The regional group strengthens ties between these nations by serving as a bridge between South and South East Asia.
• Platforms for intra-regional cooperation between SAARC and ASEAN nations have been established by BIMSTEC, which also offers platforms for inter-regional cooperation.

Importance of BIMSTEC

• India switched its diplomatic focus from SAARC to BIMSTEC: India appears to have switched its diplomatic focus in recent years from SAARC to BIMSTEC. As a result, BIMSTEC this year adopted its Charter for the first time in 25 years.
• Better than the SAAC charter is BIMSTEC: The BIMSTEC Charter outperforms the SAARC Charter by a wide margin. For instance, Article 6 of the BIMSTEC Charter discusses the “Admission of new members” to the organisation, unlike Article 6 of the SAARC Charter. This makes it possible for nations like the Maldives to be admitted.
• No flexible formula, though, like “ASEAN Minus X”: Despite the advancements, the BIMSTEC Charter lacks the flexible participation system seen in the ASEAN Charter in order to promote economic integration. Two or more ASEAN countries may start discussions for economic obligations using this flexible framework, sometimes known as the “ASEAN Minus X” formula. As a result, no nation has the ability to prevent economic integration between willing nations.
• It is odd that BIMSTEC does not have a more flexible participation structure given Pakistan’s obstructive behaviour within SAARC, where Pakistan consistently vetoes various regional integration attempts. India and Bangladesh or India and Thailand may have conducted their ongoing bilateral free trade agreement (FTA) negotiations under the more inclusive BIMSTEC framework if the “BIMSTEC Minus X” formula had been flexible. By permitting the slow and incremental expansion of these contractual obligations to other members, this would have eventually strengthened BIMSTEC. India ought to advocate for this change to the BIMSTEC Charter.

Steps to be taken

• In order to prevent BIMSTEC from becoming another SAARC, its member nations should increase the bar. The best course of action would be a high-caliber FTA that offered comprehensive economic integration, something that Prime Minister Narendra Modi also supported at the most recent BIMSTEC ministerial meeting.
• India should look into legal options to transfer successful SAARC institutions like SAU to BIMSTEC in order to make the organisations more adaptable and promote peace and prosperity in the region. These actions will strengthen BIMSTEC’s foundation and make it possible to establish a new regional order for South Asia based on incrementalism and flexibility, bringing wealth and peace to the area.

@the-end

The best course of action will be to revitalise SAARC by injecting political energy into it and amending its antiquated Charter because South Asia cannot reject regionalism. This, however, is overly optimistic given the current situation. Considering additional regional tools like the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral, Technical and Economic Cooperation is therefore the next best course of action (BIMSTEC).

Vinay Kwatra, the foreign minister of India, travelled to Myanmar for two days from November 20 to 21. According to a press release from the Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), he met with members of the military junta that is currently in charge of the nation and spoke with them about infrastructure development, issues relating to human trafficking (of which several Indian citizens have been victims), and security and stability in border regions.

Interpretations over the foreign Secretary’s visit

• Discussion of cordial relations is stated on Myanmar’s national portal as follows: The two parties held talks about improving relations between Myanmar and India and discussed opinions on how to advance their bilateral cooperation and carry out Myanmar’s peace process, according to the Myanmar National Portal.
• India’s interest in seeing Myanmar return to the democratic path, the release of political prisoners, and other difficult topics were not mentioned in the MEA statement.
• Accent on finishing ongoing projects: On the other hand, the foreign secretary mentioned continued Indian support for “people-centric socio-economic development projects” and the early completion of connectivity projects like the Kaladan Multimodal Transit Transport Project and the Trilateral Highway between India, Myanmar, and Thailand.
• Kwatra reassured the Myanmar junta about initiatives under the Rakhine State Development Program and Border Area Development Program, suggesting that infrastructure and development projects were a major focus during the visit.
• Contradictory omissions: MEA spokeswoman Arindam Bagchi tweeted that the foreign secretary had discussions on various critical matters, including “India’s support to democratic transition in Myanmar,” despite the MEA news release not mentioning it.

Background

• India’s interest in Myanmar’s restoration of democracy, according to the MEA’s 2021 statement: In contrast, the MEA released a statement in December 2021 after then-Foreign Secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla visited, in which he emphasised India’s interest in seeing Myanmar return to democracy as soon as possible, the release of prisoners and detainees, the resolution of disputes through dialogue, and the end to all forms of violence.
• India’s steadfast and resolute support for ASEAN Additionally, he reaffirmed India’s unwavering support for the ASEAN initiative and expressed the expectation that, based on the five-point consensus, progress would be made in a practical and positive manner.

India’s concerns

• As a result of various criminal gangs operating a racket recruiting Indian citizens with false job possibilities, human trafficking has become a significant problem in Myanmar. According to media reports, the MEA official advised Indian nationals to be cautious of trafficking. Indian labourers were recruited by IT businesses under the guise of jobs in Thailand and subsequently transported to Myanmar. According to reports, close to 200 Indian people have fallen for this job scam.
• Support from China for the Military Junta China has strengthened ties with the military junta since the military takeover, giving the Myanmar leadership the much-needed support it needs in the face of international criticism.
• High Chinese investment in Myanmar: According to reports, China has been a major foreign investor in Myanmar. The numerous projects being undertaken by China include a number of dams and high-speed rail lines, as well as a $2.5 billion investment in a gas-fired power plant. The cost of the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor, which consists of infrastructure development projects including gas and oil pipelines, is in the billions of millions.
• China wants to have easier access to the Indian Ocean. The deep sea port that China proposes to build at Kyaukphyu, on Myanmar’s west coast, is of particular significance to China since it may improve its access to the Indian Ocean, which China has been seeking for some time.
• Concern over the developing friendship between Pakistan and Myanmar: After signing a contract with Pakistan two years earlier in 2016, Myanmar reportedly received six JF-17 light-weight multi-role fighter jets from that country in 2018. The delivery date for Myanmar’s further order of 10 aircraft is uncertain.

Why India’s interest in Myanmar’s transition to democracy has altered

• A combination of pragmatism and China’s expanding influence and incursions into Myanmar may have led India to abandon its moralising about democracy and step up its engagement with Naypyidaw.
• While Myanmar’s pro-democracy groups and India’s strategic allies in ASEAN may not be particularly pleased with this approach, especially after India abandoned ASEAN’s Five-Point Consensus on Myanmar, it seems that New Delhi believes it has few other options.

Conclusion

India’s increased cooperation with the military junta appears to be motivated by strategic considerations, including concern over Chinese and Pakistani intrusions. Dealing with the governing military junta requires India to strike a delicate balance.

China reacted to a US report that said Beijing had significantly increased its nuclear arsenal. It claimed that it upholds its stance against using nuclear weapons as a first resort.

The news

• Beijing would probably have 1,500 nuclear weapons, according to a study on China’s security that the Pentagon published every year.
• Presently, China has 350 nuclear warheads.
• Russia had 5,977 nuclear weapons in its arsenal as of 2022, compared to the US’s 5,428.

‘No First Use’ Doctrine: What is it?

NFU is a pledge to never deploy nuclear weapons first in any situation, including as a pre-emptive strike, first strike, or in reaction to any form of non-nuclear attack, according to nuclear ethics and deterrence theory.

Where do nuclear-armed countries stand on No First Use?

• China is the only nuclear-armed country with an unwavering NFU policy.
• India still adheres to its NFU policy, with the exception of a response to chemical or biological attacks.
• According to their different policies, France, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the UK, and the US may use nuclear weapons first in a conflict.
• Israel doesn’t have a position that is known to the public because it denies possessing a nuclear arsenal.

Why push for worldwide NFU commitments at this time?

• After the US bombed Japan, there have never been any situations that may have led to a nuclear exchange.
• We run acceptable high chances of nuclear weapons use between and in addition to the unstable situation on the Korean peninsula.
• Putin and NATO amid the ongoing invasion by Ukraine
• Pakistan and India Nuclear weapons are acquired by jihadists
• US and China: As a result of provocations regarding Taiwan and the South China Sea
• The likelihood that nuclear weapons will be used—whether intentionally, unintentionally, or as a result of error—is actually at its highest point since the darkest days of the Cold War.
• The establishment of a worldwide NFU would make the world safer right away by eliminating confusion regarding what a nuclear-armed nation may do in an emergency.
• It takes away the pressure and motivation for any one nation to “go nuclear” first in a crisis and impose a moral duty on others.

Consequences of nuclear war

• Any nuclear weapon use would trigger severe retaliation.
• Not to mention the terrible fallout from a nuclear conflict.
• According to a 2014 study, a purportedly “limited” nuclear conflict in South Asia involving the use of 100 nuclear weapons would have global repercussions.
• The atmosphere would be filled with millions of tonnes of smoke, which would cause temperatures to drop and harm the world’s food supply.
• There would be a risk of starvation-related death for two billion people.

Way Ahead

• Making nuclear weapons unimportant to national security would require the implementation of Global No First Use.
• These measures would render nuclear weapons useless in the perspective of military strategists, open the way for future nuclear disarmament talks, and hasten the destruction of these weapons.
• Additionally, it would act as a “confidence-building measure” to increase mutual trust between nuclear-armed nations.
• As a result, cooperation is made easier in the effort to lower nuclear hazards and finally get rid of all nuclear weapons.

India will be the voice of the Global South, which is typically underrepresented in such fora, according to EAM S Jaishankar, who was speaking on December 1 as India assumed the chairmanship of the G20 group of nations for the years 2022 to 2023.

Global South

• Since then, the phrase has been used numerous times, most notably when Jaishankar stated of ongoing international crises that “polarisation may occur elsewhere, the people who suffer most are the Global South.”
• The terms “Global North” and “Global South” are used to describe a broad range of nations, including the United States, Canada, Europe, Russia, Australia, and New Zealand.
• The ‘Global North’ and the ‘Global South’ are the two sides of a binary difference.
• The practise of grouping nations into broad groups for simpler examination has long been used in the study of international political systems.
• One illustration of this is the idea of “East” and “West,” with the Western nations typically denoting greater levels of economic development and wealth among their citizens.
• Eastern nations were thought to be going through this transformation.

Other such categorizations

First World, Second World, and Third World nations are categorised similarly.

It made reference to nations related to the US, USSR, and non-aligned countries alliances from the Cold War era.

The concept of the “third” world highlighted how distinct it was from both the “first,” or the capitalist West, and the “second,” or the socialist “East.”

World Systems Approach

• The World Systems approach, which sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein introduced in 1974 and emphasises an integrated perspective of looking at global politics, is at the core of these ideas.
• He claimed that there are three main production zones: the core, the periphery, and the semi-periphery.
• Being the proprietors of cutting-edge technologies, such as the US or Japan, the core zones make money.
• On the other hand, industry in peripheral zones is less complex and requires more labour.
• India and Brazil are examples of nations in the centre.

Need for new terms

(1) Global shift of powers

• The First Era/Third World distinction was no longer applicable in the post-Cold War world.
• This is so because most nations were forced to form some sort of alliance with the capitalist US, the last remaining superpower, when the communist USSR collapsed in 1991.

(2) Monolithic classification

• The East/West dichotomy was thought to frequently support preconceived notions about Asian and African nations.
• It was considered oversimplistic to lump together so many extremely distinct nations.
• Additionally, it was believed that classifying certain nations as “developed” while others weren’t was too broad and unsuitable for addressing issues.

(3) Issues with Developed vs. Developing

• From the standpoint of his company’s charitable endeavours, Bill Gates wrote on the “developing” label in 2014.
• Any category that combines China and the Democratic Republic of the Congo confuses more people than it clarifies, the irony was discovered.
• Some supposedly developing nations have advanced to the point where it is reasonable to say they have developed.
• Several failing states are barely progressing at all. The majority of nations fall somewhere in the middle.

Emergence of Global South

• Colonial past: The South’s countries have a lot in common, including a history of colonisation that was mostly carried out by European powers.
• Having no voice since decolonization It’s interesting that the region has historically been excluded from important international organisations, such as the UN’s permanent membership.
• Awareness of decision-making: These nations view their absence as a factor in their slower progress because organisations like the UN and the IMF are involved in key decisions that have a global impact on politics, the economy, and society.
• Economic emergence: Over the past 20 years, China and India have experienced strong economic growth.
• Declining US hegemony: Many believe that today, rather than having the US alone control international events, the globe is becoming multipolar.
• Climate reparations: The Northern nations, who have historically contributed to higher carbon emissions, are now being discussed as paying for funding green energy.

Criticism of the classification

• Not many players: The South merely seeks to displace the North and the positions it holds, reinforcing a cycle in which a few few nations amass critical resources.
• More of a China vs. India rivalry The topic of whether elites from the global South and “emerging powers” actually intend to challenge the dominant institutions of global capitalist development is currently the subject of much debate.
• Anti-china bias: The broad Belt and Road Initiative finally evolved from China’s hesitant “going out” approach at the turn of the century.Where does India stand?
• No more sexism in the diplomatic community, EAM S Jaishankar Rebuilding a worldwide trade union against the North is not India’s goal.
• India is eager to act as a link between the North and the South by emphasising pragmatic results rather than resuming previous ideological conflicts.

Challenges

• Political consistency: India’s excitement for the Global South has always lagged behind its material might and political will.
• Building bridges between the neighbours: India must also accept that the Global South is not a cohesive entity with a single common objective.
• Despaired South: In terms of money and power, needs and capacities, there is a lot of diversity within the South today.
• The Global South’s numerous internal and regional crises during the Cold War era weakened India’s Third World policy (and the Non-Aligned Movement).

Way forward

• More neighbourhood involvement: Supporting the Global South now will necessitate more active Indian participation in the complex regional politics of the developing countries.
• Political coherence: There won’t be a conflict between the simultaneous pursuit of universal and specific aims if India can turn this aspiration into effective policy.

A price restriction on Russian oil under a G7 proposal recently took effect. The idea, which took months to materialise, aims to strike a delicate balance between preventing supply disruptions on the world oil market, which would drive up prices, and starving the Russian government of oil profits in order to financially cripple its war against Ukraine. However, the action runs the danger of disrupting the world crude oil market.

Price cap on Russian oil

• The $60 per barrel cap and denial of infrastructure services to Russian oil are designed to reduce Russia’s oil revenues while keeping Russian crude on the market by forbidding Western allies from providing insurance, maritime services, and financial support for tanker cargoes priced above a set dollar-per-barrel cap.
• Try to reduce Russia’s oil income and put pressure on it: The US’s proposed cap is intended to harm Moscow’s finances while preventing a significant increase in oil prices in the event that Russia’s oil is abruptly removed from the world market.
• Impact on shipping: Tanker owners may be hesitant to accept Russian oil and may encounter difficulties delivering it if they lack insurance.

Russian response to the price cap

• Russia has declared that it will not adhere to the restriction and that it will stop supplying nations that do.
• Retaliate by stopping the shipments: In an effort to benefit from an abruptly higher global oil price on whatever it can sell in spite of the sanctions, it could retaliate by stopping the shipments.
• Price caps won’t prevent the war’s financing, according to Russia. The cap, according to recent statements from Russia, won’t have an impact on the funding of its “special military operation” in Ukraine.
• Other buyers might circumvent the limitations by prioritising national interests: Chinese and Indian consumers would object to the cap, and Russia or China might try to establish their own insurance companies to replace those that the US, UK, and Europe have blocked. It’s also conceivable that these nations will devise inventive ways to get beyond the limitations set by the G7.

Impacts on the world’s oil supply chain

• Russian oil can now only be transported using the infrastructure of the G7 countries if it is sold for $60 per barrel or less. In general, this means that Russian oil cannot be transported anywhere in the world using the infrastructure of the G7 countries’ tankers, insurance, etc.
• Higher cost of purchasing oil from Russia: Given that the majority of businesses that provide shipping and insurance services are based in these G7 countries, purchasing oil from Russia at a higher cost is challenging. In the week before this announcement, Urals crude was trading in the mid-$60s range.
• Purchasing nations are at a disadvantage but remain below Brent crude oil prices Even while Russia has failed to comply with this regulation and the cap will disfavour nations that choose to purchase oil from Russia at a price greater than $60 per barrel, the price will still be significantly lower than Brent crude oil, which is presently selling at over $81 per barrel.
• Nations that carried on commerce despite opposition: So far, nations like India and China have kept up their commerce with Russia in spite of opposition from the west.

Response from India and bilateral commerce with Russia

• India and Russia now have more bilateral trade than ever before: In reality, as this newspaper has noted, India and Russia’s bilateral commerce has risen to a record high in the first five months of the year (April-August).
• India prioritising its own interests and benefiting from the sale price: India increased its oil imports from Russia by taking advantage of the discounts being offered, putting its interests first. Previously importing less than 1% of its import needs from Russia, India now buys around a fifth of its oil from that nation.
• Given that India imports oil, the transaction at a reduced price will help to reduce the current account deficit and promote economic stability. After all, lower crude oil prices will ease price pressures in the economy and relieve the current account deficit, reducing risks to macroeconomic stability for an oil importer like India, which fulfils the vast majority of its needs through imports.
• India rejected the alleged moral obligation: India denied any “moral” obligation to join the coalition for a price cap.

Conclusion

Any attempts to use commerce as a weapon will merely skew the world market and harm energy-poor customers who are not to blame for the conflict. India has been governed by its sovereign interests in its response to the West’s reprisal against Russia for the war in Ukraine thus far. This must remain the underlying principle.