Author Archives: rakeshsood13

Writings On The Chinese Wall

Posted on by
Reply

Publication for Observer Research Foundation

There is an old saying – coming events cast their shadows before them. This is certainly true in India-China relations. For three years prior to the 1962 war with China, there were clear signs that disagreements on the border were becoming sharper but Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was unwilling to believe that China would resort to war.

And yet again, in recent years India has ignored the writing on the Chinese wall, assuming that the slew of agreements signed, beginning in 1990s would ensure a peaceful border. Prime Minister Narendra Modi was perhaps so convinced of the virtues of his personal diplomacy with President Xi Jinping over 18 summits since 2014 that the darkening shadows cast by the cumulative evidence of increasing incursions and what these implied were disregarded. Even as the official statements talked of disengagement to ease the 45-day stand-off, the gloves came off and more than 20 Indian soldiers were killed in the fighting at Galwan Valley in Ladakh on the night of 15-16 June. Unconfirmed reports put the number of Chinese casualties at over 40.

These are the first casualties since October 1975 when four Indian soldiers from Assam Rifles were ambushed at Tulung La in Arunachal Pradesh. In keeping with the three-decade old understanding, no shots were fired; the present casualties resulted from iron rods, batons studded with barbed wire, stones and hand to hand combat which only makes it more grisly. Why have things come to such a pass when India and China have concluded multiple agreements regarding maintenance of peace and tranquillity and confidence building measures during the last three decades? How did India fail to register the changing ground reality?

The current priority will be to restore normalcy to the border through negotiations leading to disengagement and restoration of status quo ante. However, the important challenge is for India to undertake a deeper examination that has been long overdue about the premises on which its China policy has been conducted in recent decades. Growing evidence in the last decade would indicate that these premises are in need of review and many of the understandings based on them have outlived their utility.

The 1988 Opening With China

The process of re-normalising ties with China after the 1962 war began in 1988 with the visit of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi when both countries agreed to put the boundary dispute on the backburner and focus instead on building economic, commercial and cultural aspects of the relationship so that a more conducive environment could be created over time that would enable both sides to address the boundary issue. A Joint Working Group on Boundary Question was also set up to keep matter under review.

The underlying thinking on both sides was that while neither side was in a position in 1988 to be able to achieve an acceptable solution to the boundary dispute, hopefully, after a passage of time, it would be better placed to reach an outcome that would be better and more acceptable. Such an assumption on both sides would only be natural and reflective of a sense of pragmatism that led to the shift in the relationship in 1988.

The first major development thereafter was the Agreement on the Maintenance of Peace and Tranquillity along the Line of Actual Control in the India-China Border Areas, concluded in 1993. The clunky title reflected a compromise. The concept of a Line of Actual Control (LAC) had been suggested by the Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai to Prime Minister Nehru in his letter dated 7 November 1959 “as the line up to which each side exercises actual control”. This was significant for settling the boundary dispute in the western sector while in the eastern sector, the Chinese leader suggested that the LAC coincided broadly with the 1914 McMahon line. Nehru rejected the notion because India considered the India-China boundary in the western sector to be defined by the 1865 Johnson Line, a point disputed by China.

Following the 1962 war, China asserted that it had withdrawn 20 kms behind its claimed LAC, a notion that India had never accepted. India took the stand that China had illegally occupied Aksai Chin area which was part of Indian territory. The language of the 1993 Agreement marked a shift by acknowledging the LAC. The shift was justified on the ground that the reference to the LAC was without qualifying it either as the 1959 or the 1962 LAC; this enabled India to claim that it interpreted the reference as its own version of the LAC.

Para 1 of the 1993 Agreement commits both states to resolve the boundary question “through peaceful and friendly consultations” and that pending an ultimate solution, “the two sides shall strictly respect and observe the line of actual control between the two sides”. However, given that India and China did not share a common understanding of the LAC, the 1993 Agreement added “In case the personnel of one side cross the line of actual control, upon being cautioned by the other side, they shall immediately pull back to their own side of the line of actual control . When necessary, the two sides shall jointly check and determine the segments of the line of actual control where they have different views as to its alignment”. This fudge or creative ambiguity lay at the heart of the 1993 Agreement.

This was followed three years later by the 1996 Agreement on Confidence- Building Measures in the Military Field Along the Line of Actual Control in the India-China Border Areas. Since India and China perceived the LAC differently, any use of this term had to be accompanied with the phrase “in the India-China Border Areas”. Both sides agreed to reduce military presence in these areas and also added constraints on the size and nature of military exercises in these areas. Both sides also committed not to “open fire” within two kilometres of the line of actual control. Evidently this restraint was observed at Galwan even though more barbaric means were employed.

A significant addition was in Article X – “Recognising that the full implementation of some of the provisions of the present Agreement will depend on the two sides arriving at a common understanding of the alignment of the line of actual control in the India-China border areas, the two sides agree to speed up the process of clarification and confirmation of the line of actual control”. It reflected the realisation that differing perceptions of the LAC carried the potential for misunderstanding and conflict. The common understanding was to be reached through exchange of maps, an exercise completed for the middle sector (pertaining to the border falling in Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh) in 2001 as this was the least contentious; thereafter the process stalled.

Realising that the Joint Working Group on Boundary Question was unable to get around politically sensitive boundary issues, a new dialogue channel was added following PM Vajpayee’s visit to China in 2003. Both sides agreed to appoint a Special Representative (SR) “to explore from the political perspective of the overall bilateral relationship the framework of a boundary settlement”. On the Indian side, the National Security Adviser has been the SR while on the Chinese side it has been the State Councillor; currently Foreign Minister Wang Yi also holds this position and is the SR. Twenty-two rounds of talks have been held between the SRs but clearly, the “clarification and confirmation” of the LAC as well as the contours of a “boundary settlement” have remained elusive.

There was a sense of optimism when the Agreement on the Political Parameters and Guiding Principles for the Settlement of the India-China Boundary Question was concluded in 2005 but it turned out to be short lived. Among the principles identified were “the principle of mutual and equal security”, aligning the boundary “along well-defined and easily identifiable natural geographical features” and safeguarding “due interests of their settled populations in border areas”. These were widely interpreted to mean that Arunachal Pradesh which had a settled population would remain part of India and in the western sector, India would have to make adjustments in keeping with geographical features so that Chinese connectivity through Tibet to Xinjiang was not impaired. However, the SR level talks failed to sustain the 2005 momentum and translate these expectations into forward movement.

By 2005, the number of incidents where patrols of both countries often came face to face had started growing. Accordingly, a Protocol to the 1996 Agreement on CBMs was concluded on Modalities for the Implementation of Confidence Building Measures in the Military Field Along the Line of Actual Control in the India-China Border Areas. Article IV of the Protocol defines the procedure for exercising restraint in such situations – On coming face to face, both sides were to refrain from advancing further, return to their bases, inform their respective Headquarters to enable consultations, not use or threaten to use force, treat each other with courtesy and refrain from provocative actions. However, these provisions have been ignored in recent years as there have been increasing reports of pushing and shoving and stone throwing causing injuries though neither side suffered fatal casualties till the present showdown in Galwan area.

It is clear that 2005 was the high point in terms of registering some forward movement, though incremental, in terms of managing the situation in the border areas. After 2005, summit level meetings have continued to take place regularly and some new agreements were also concluded but these did not further the boundary dispute resolution. The SRs have met regularly but were also unable to register progress on the boundary question. Part of the reason is that in recent years, the agenda of the SR’s talks has expanded and now encompasses the entire gamut of the bilateral relationship as well as exchanging views on regional and global developments, thereby diluting the focus on the core issue.

In 2012, an Agreement on the Establishment of a Working Mechanism for Consultation and Coordination on India-China Border Affairs was concluded. It provided for the Joint Secretary level officers in the respective Foreign Ministry(s) to “study ways and means to conduct and strengthen exchanges and cooperation between military personnel and establishments of the two sides in the border areas”. Art V of this Agreement states that they “will not discuss resolution of the Boundary Question or affect the Special Representatives Mechanism”.

The following year saw another Agreement on Border Defence Cooperation being concluded after a prolonged stand-off in Depsang in Ladakh. Art VI enjoined both sides not “to follow or tail patrols of the other side in areas where there is no common understanding of the line of actual control in the India-China border areas”. It reiterated the need for exercising maximum restraint as agreed in the 2005 Protocol. Significantly, the 2012 and 2013 agreements did not reflect material progress on the LAC or boundary issue; these merely reiterated suggestions that were no longer working on the ground.

How The Ground Reality Changed
The future is always marked by uncertainty and a policy is an attempt to provide a map for the foggy road ahead. Looking continuously into the rear-view mirror for assurance that one is on the right road creates a bias that will lead to a crisis, exactly as has happened with China. Underlying political realities had changed dramatically from 1988 but Indian policy makers and leaders found reassurance in policy continuity.

In 1988, when both countries embarked on the new chapter in their relationship, Indian GDP was $296 billion (in 2010 dollar value) and Chinese GDP was $312 billion. In per capita terms, India was marginally better off. The defence budget of both countries was at par, at $20 billion each. A decade later, in 1998, Indian GDP rose to $421 billion while China moved faster to reach a trillion dollars. Indian defence spending rose to $24 billion while Chinese spending went up to $33 billion. This gap grew larger and in 2008, as Indian GDP reached $1.2 trillion, Chinese economy was nearly four times larger at $4.6 trillion. Indian defence budget was $44 billion while Chinese budget had reached $133 billion. During the last decade, the gap has further widened; Chinese GDP is estimated at five times that of India while its defence budget has climbed to four times that of India.

A similar gap was growing in other areas too. From near zero in 1988, bilateral trade registered a modest beginning, crossing $2 billion by 1998. By 2008, China had emerged as India’s biggest trading partner with a $41 billion turnover and the imbalance was evident in India’s $21 billion trade deficit. This has only grown further to over $50 billion at present, indicating that continued engagement in the current manner was placing India at a disadvantage on account of a non-level playing field.

In other words, the growing gap in capabilities across the board was an unmistakable trend that undermined the political basis of the 1988 policy. The basic assumption in 1988 that India would be better placed after a passage of time to achieve a more acceptable resolution to the boundary dispute was no longer valid. While it is true that India had registered considerable progress between 1988 and 2008 and had improved its standing vis-à-vis many countries but relative to China, India’s position had worsened.

As the account of the discussions on boundary CBMs indicates, it is around the same time that progress in these dialogue mechanisms began to stall. References to the 21 st century as the Asian century that included the rise of both China and India had been an accepted phraseology in bilateral statements but no longer found mention after 2008.

The LAC clarification process had stalled even as both countries stepped up patrolling. The number of “transgressions” reported by India began to grow to over 400 a year. India embarked on improving its connectivity infrastructure in the border areas. Since no progress had been made on clarification of the LAC and each side was engaged in more robust patrolling up to its perception of where the LAC lay, face-offs became more frequent. Transgressions became prolonged stand-offs, requiring diplomatic and political intervention. New agreements merely reiterated restraint but remained unable to address either the underlying reasons or impose restraints on patrolling. In short, it was just a matter of time that a face-off would turn violent and get out of hand and this is what happened on the night of 15 June.

A New Policy Reset
Currently, analysts are speculating more about the proximate causes that have led to the crisis. These span a range of factors – domestic compulsions on the Chinese leadership facing troubles at home, distraction from the criticism on China’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, unhappiness with India’s statements following the declaration of Ladakh as a union territory last year, concerns about India’s expanding infrastructure in border areas, signalling aimed at growing Indian ties with the US as US-China ties remain locked into a downward spiral, or just part of China’s growing assertiveness also on display with Taiwan, Hong Kong and in South China Sea in recent months. However, the Indian analysis needs to dig deeper and examine the changed political drivers behind China’s behaviour.

Right now, both sides have taken firm stands but it is not in either side’s interest to escalate matters. Nevertheless, a prolonged stand-off appears likely. This will force India to review its plans on building infrastructure in border areas by ensuring adequate security and surveillance. In this case too, the Darbuk-Shyok-Daulat Beg Oldi road had been in the making for years and occupying heights at vulnerable points to secure the road would have avoided the unpleasant surprise that faced us in 2020.

Since the 2020 incursions are seen as different from the recent incidents as being larger in scale and across multiple locations, it can only be concluded that the Chinese side wanted to unilaterally force India back from its perceived LAC. India has therefore sought a restoration of status quo ante, as in April. It is difficult to predict how and when this is going to be achieved through negotiations. The Chinese attempt in Ladakh seems to be similar to its salami slicing tactics in the South China Sea where the steady land reclamation has enabled it to convert atolls into islands with runways and missile defences, creating a new military reality. But suffice to say, China’s unilateral approach has forced India to rethink on the fundamental basis of the relationship by making it clear that the 1988 assumption is no longer tenable.

Therefore, what is needed is a thorough review of the three-decade old policy. It has become evident that an ambiguous LAC is unlikely to remain peaceful and tranquil. Creative ambiguity worked for a while but its time was running out, a fact that Indian policy makers should have foreseen but were somehow reluctant to accept. China did not face a similar compulsion because it had improved its relative standing and continuing ambiguity was to its advantage. Formalising an understanding of the respective perceptions is only the first step; then will come the harder challenge of resolving the differences. And in the meantime, a new set of CBMs will need to be worked out to guide activities in the grey zone of overlapping LACs, in order to prevent future incidents.

These negotiations are going to be long and contentious. Compared to the 1990s when the early agreements were concluded, today the bilateral relationship has become multi-dimensional providing both sides with additional leverages and also a stake in not allowing the situation to spin out of control. At the same time, areas of concern have also grown. In the past, it was China’s defence, nuclear and missile cooperation with Pakistan that remained a constant irritant for India but was never discussed; it still exists today and CPEC adds to it. However there is a host of other issues – trade imbalances, market access, foreign investment entry regulations, non-tariff restrictions on commercial activities, China’s growing footprint in India’s neighbourhood including in the Indian Ocean, developments in South China Sea, BRI, interpretation of free and open Indo Pacific and role of Quad, and many more, including some that both sides have not taken up in recent years but could be revived like Tibet, Taiwan, Xinjiang.

In sum, since the basis of the old modus vivendi is no longer tenable, both sides need to start by asking how they visualise their relationship in the coming decades.

US To Withdraw From Open Skies Treaty

Posted on by
Reply

Publication for Observer Research Foundation

On 21 May, US President Donald Trump announced that US was serving notice of its intent to withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty (OST). Concluded in 1992, the OST entered into force in 2002 and currently has 35 members (1) (Kyrgyzstan is a signatory but hasn’t yet ratified). Canada and Hungary are the depositary states. The reason provided is continuing Russian non-compliance with the OST which has led US to conclude that it is no longer in US interest to remain a party. Trump added that the US decision will take effect after six months (as provided in the treaty text) but US can reconsider if Russia returns to full compliance.

Unravelling Arms Control
The US decision had been anticipated and is in keeping with recent US decisions to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – JCPOA, signed between US, UK, France, Russia, China, Germany and EU and Iran) on 8 May 2018, followed by the withdrawal from the US-Russia Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty) on 2 August 2019.

Two more nuclear related treaties are at risk. The New START treaty between Russia and the US imposes a ceiling on operational strategic nuclear weapons of 700 launchers and 1550 warheads each, was concluded in 2010 and is due to lapse in February 2021 unless extended for a period of five years. President Trump has indicated that he is not in favour of the extension.

The second is the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty which was concluded in 1996 but has not entered into force. It prohibits countries from carrying out nuclear test explosions but earlier this year US voiced suspicions that both Russia and China were carrying out low yield nuclear tests in violation of the understanding on zero-yield threshold. US has signed but not ratified the CTBT and there are indications that it may be planning to test.

Negotiating the OST
The concept underlying the OST is aerial reconnaissance flights by unarmed aircraft over each other’s territories as a means of promoting confidence, trust and stability between potential adversaries. It was first proposed by US President Dwight Eisenhower in mid-1955 in Geneva to Soviet Premier Nikolai Bulganin but found no traction. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the idea was revived in December 1989 by US President George Bush and accepted by Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. Negotiations commenced between NATO and Warsaw Pact members supported by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE, which continues to host the Open Skies Consultative Commission in Vienna) and were concluded on 24 March 1992. It entered into force on 1 January 2002. Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in mid-1991, months before the break-up of the Soviet Union and 27 out of 29 NATO members are party to the OST.

The OST establishes a regime for conduct of short notice flights by unarmed aircraft over territories of States Parties in accordance with established “quotas” spelt out in the treaty taking into account the size of the country. For example, US has a quota of 42 flights, the same as Russia (it is a joint quota with Belarus) while Portugal has a quota of 2 flights. The quota defines both the number of flights that a country can mount as also the number of flights it can host. The latter is called a “passive quota” and the former, “active quota”. States Parties can form groups to redistribute their active quotas as long as the absolute ceilings are observed. Since 2002, nearly 1500 flights have been undertaken by member states. In recent years, US has mounted an average of 14-16 flights a year while Russia has mounted between 4 and 9 flights annually.

Time frames are stipulated for providing notice to the observed state with flight plans and possible refuelling stops which are needed, particularly across the large territories of US, Canada and Russia. The observed state can propose changes and there are rules regarding deviations. The kind of aircraft to be used by each state are already agreed upon as also the sensors to be mounted on the aircraft. Four kinds of sensors are authorised – optical panoramic and framing cameras, video cameras with real time display, infra-red line-scanning devices and sideways looking synthetic aperture radar. A copy of the data collected is provided to the observed state and other countries can also obtain access to the data. Periodic review conferences have been held where technical issues regarding developments in sensor technology are discussed to redefine approved lists.

Why US is leaving

While Russia and other countries have upgraded both the aircraft and the sensors, US surveillance aircraft modernisation has been held up for lack of funds. Part of the reason is that US is able to obtain equally good or better data from its satellites. No other country can match US’ satellite monitoring capabilities. Sharing of satellite imagery is restricted and accordingly managed bilaterally by US. For the US, the OST is not particularly useful as an intelligence gathering tool but the reality is that it was always intended as a confidence building and transparency measure. As tensions between US and Russia have grown, US has become more interested in restricting transparency over its territory.

Since 2015, US has voiced concerns about instances of Russian non- compliance in terms of either delaying clearances or imposing onerous restrictions. The recent report on compliance issued by the US State department cited instances of Russian non-compliance in 2019 by imposing a limit of 500 kms over Kaliningrad and creating highly restrictive flight corridors in the Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. US has also cited undue restrictions on flights over eastern Ukraine Crimea. The stage was therefore set for the US withdrawal.

The US has been increasingly concerned that Russia is using its overflights over US critical infrastructure to develop actionable intelligence and possibly mapping it for possible future offensive cyber operations. In 2017, an overflight request over the Trump golf estate in Bedford (New Jersey) raised concerns in the White House. This led the US to conclude that Russia was converting the transparency measure into an intimidation measure by weaponizing it. Reacting with a tit for tat approach was not in US interest.

US allies have expressed regret over the US decision. Russia has bluntly rejected US allegations of non-compliance, calling it a pretext for US moves to turn its back on multilaterally negotiated arms control treaties, citing the JCPOA and INF Treaty as examples. However, it has refrained from any indications regarding its response. Clearly, the OST is of limited utility for Russia if US territory is excluded and limited only to Europe and Canada. The OST may limp along for a while even after the US withdrawal takes effect after six months but the countdown for it has begun.

NOTES

(1) Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Kyrgyzstan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and the United States

For A Reset In India-Nepal Relations

Posted on by
Reply

Published in The Hindu on 29th May, 2020

Once again, relations between India and Nepal have taken a turn for the worse. The immediate provocation is the long standing territorial issue surrounding Kalapani, a 40 square kilometres patch of land near the India- Nepal border, close to the Lipulekh pass on the India-China border which is one of the approved points for border trade and the route for the pilgrimage to Mt Kailash-Mansarovar lake in Tibet. However, as in all India-Nepal issues, the underlying reasons are far more complex. Yet, the manner in which this is being exploited by PM K P Oli by raising the banner of Nepali nationalism by painting India as a hegemon is a frequent pattern that indicates that relations
between the two countries need a fundamental reset.

Kalapani and the maps
India inherited the boundary with Nepal concluded between Nepal and East India Company in the Treaty of Sugauli in 1816. Kali river constituted the boundary and territory to its east was Nepal. The dispute relates to the origin of Kali. Near Garbyang (Dharchula Tehsil in Pithoragarh district), there is a confluence of different streams coming from northeast from Kalapani and northwest from Limpiyadhura. The early British survey maps identified the northwest stream Kuti Yangti from Limpiyadhura as the origin but after 1857 changed the alignment to Lipu Gad and in 1879 to Pankha Gad, the northeast streams defining the origin as just below Kalapani. Nepal accepted the change and India inherited this boundary in 1947.

The Maoist revolution in China in 1949, followed by the takeover of Tibet created deep misgivings in Nepal and India was ‘invited’ to set up 18 border posts along the Nepal-Tibet border. The westernmost post was at Tinkar Pass, about six kilometres further east of Lipulekh. In 1953, India and China identified Lipulekh pass for both pilgrims and border trade. After the 1962 war, pilgrimage through Lipulekh resumed in 1981 and border trade, in 1991.

In 1961, King Mahendra visited Beijing to sign the China Nepal Boundary Treaty that defines the zero point in the west, just north of Tinkar Pass. By 1969, India had withdrawn its border posts from Nepali territory. The base camp for Lipulekh remained at Kalapani, less than 10 kms west of Lipulekh. Both countries reflected Kalapani as the origin of Kali river and as part of their territory in their respective maps. After 1979, ITBP has manned the Lipulekh pass. In actual practice, life for the locals (Byansis) remained unchanged given the open border and free movement of people and goods.

After the 1996 Treaty of Mahakali (Kali river is also called Mahakali/Sarada further downstream) that envisaged the Pancheshwar multi-purpose hydel project, the issue of the origin of Kali river was first raised in 1997. The matter was referred to the Joint Technical Level Boundary Committee that had been set up in 1981 to re-identify and replace the old and damaged boundary pillars along the India-Nepal border. The Committee clarified 98 percent of the boundary, leaving behind the unresolved issues of Kalapani and Susta (in the Terai) when it was dissolved in 2008. It was subsequently agreed that the matter would be discussed at the Foreign Secretary level. Meanwhile, the project to convert the 80 km track from Ghatibagar to Lipulekh into a hardtop road began in 2009 without any objections from Nepal.

The Survey of India issued a new political map (8th edition) on 2 November to reflect the changes in the status of Jammu and Kashmir into two union territories. Nepal registered a protest though the map in no way had changed the boundary between India and Nepal. However, on 8 November, the 9th edition was issued. The delineation remained identical but the name Kali river had been deleted. Predictably, this led to stronger protests with Nepal invoking the Foreign Secretary level talks to resolve issues. With the Indian Ambassador Manjeev Puri in Kathmandu retiring in end-December and Foreign Secretary Vijay Gokhale retiring a month later, the matter remained pending despite reminders from Kathmandu.

Nepali nationalism and anti-Indianism
By April, PM Oli’s domestic political situation was weakening. Under the Nepali constitution, a new prime minister enjoys a guaranteed two-year period during which a no-confidence motion is not permitted. This ended in February unleashing simmering resentment against Oli’s governance style and performance. Inept handling of the Covid-19 pandemic added to growing disenchantment. Within the Nepal Communist Party (NCP) there was a move to impose a “one man one post” rule that would force Oli to choose between being NCP co-chair or PM.

The re-eruption of the Kalapani controversy when Defence Minister Raj Nath Singh did a virtual inauguration of the 80 km road on 8 May, provided PM Oli with a political lifeline. A subsequent comment by COAS Gen Naravane on 15 May that “Nepal may have raised the issue at the behest of someone else” was insensitive, given that the Indian COAS is also an honorary general of the Nepal Army and vice versa, highlighting the traditional ties between the two armies.

Oli had won the election in 2017 by flaunting his Nepali nationalism card whose flipside is of anti-Indianism. This is not a new phenomenon but has become more pronounced in recent years. Oli donned the nationalist mantle vowing to restore Nepali territory and marked a new low in anti-Indian rhetoric by talking about “the Indian virus being more lethal than the Chinese or the Italian virus”.

A new map of Nepal based on the older British survey reflecting Kali river originating from Limpiyadhura in the northwest of Garbyang was adopted by parliament and notified on 20 May. On 22 May, a constitutional amendment proposal was tabled to include it in a relevant Schedule. The new alignment adds 335 sq kms to Nepali territory, territory that has never been reflected in a Nepali map for nearly 170 years.

This brief account illustrates the complexity underlying India-Nepal issues that cannot be solved by rhetoric or unilateral map making exercises. Such brinkmanship only breeds mistrust and puts the government-to-government relations and erodes the goodwill at the people -to-people level. Political maturity is needed to find creative solutions that can be mutually acceptable.

Rewriting the fundamentals
Prime Minister Modi has often spoken of the “neighbourhood first” policy. He started with a highly successful visit in August 2014 but then saw the relationship take a nosedive in 2015, first getting blamed for interfering in the constitution drafting and then for an “unofficial blockade” that generated widespread resentment against India. It reinforced the notion that Nepali nationalism and anti-Indianism were two sides of the same coin that Oli exploited successfully.

In Nepali thinking, the China card has provided them the leverage to practice their version of non-alignment. In the past, China maintained a link with the Palace and its concerns were primarily related to keeping tabs on the Tibetan refugee community. With the abolition of the monarchy, China has shifted attention to the political parties as also to institutions like the Army and Armed
Police Force. Also, today’s China is pursuing a more assertive foreign policy and considers Nepal an important element in its growing South Asian footprint.

The reality is that India has ignored the changing political narrative in Nepal for far too long. India remained content that its interests were safeguarded by quiet diplomacy even when Nepali leaders publicly adopted anti-Indian postures – an approach adopted decades earlier during the monarchy and then followed by the political parties as a means of demonstrating nationalist credentials. Long ignored by India, it has spawned distortions in Nepali history textbooks and led to long term negative consequences. For too long has India invoked a “special relationship”, based on ties of shared culture, language and religion to anchor its relationship. Today, it carries a negative connotation, of a paternalistic India that is often insensitive and worse still, a bully.

It is hardly surprising that the 1950 Treaty of Peace and Friendship which was sought by the Nepali authorities in 1949 to continue the special links it had with British India and provides for an open border and right to work for Nepali nationals is viewed as a sign of an unequal relationship, and an Indian imposition. Yet, Nepali authorities have studiously avoided taking it up bilaterally even though Nepali leaders thunder against it in their domestic rhetoric.

The urgent need today to pause the rhetoric on territorial nationalism and lay the groundwork for a quiet dialogue where both sides need to display sensitivity as they explore the terms of a reset of the ‘special relationship”. A normal relationship where India can be a generous partner will be a better foundation for “neighbourhood first” in the 21st century.

The Trends Shaping The Post-Covid World

Posted on by
Reply

Published in The Hindu on 11th May, 2020

The COVID-19 pandemic began as a global health crisis. As it spread rapidly across countries, country after country responded with a lockdown, triggering a global economic crisis. Certain geopolitical trendlines were already discernible but the Covid shock therapy has brought these into sharper focus, defining the contours of the emerging global (dis)order.

The first trend which became clear in the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis is the rise of Asia. Economic historians pointed to its inevitability recalling that till the 18th century, Asia accounted for half the global GDP. The Industrial Revolution accompanied by European naval expansion and colonialism contributed to the rise of the West and now the balance is being restored. The 2008 financial crisis showed the resilience of the Asian economies and even today, economic forecasts indicate out of G-20 countries, only China and India are likely to register economic growth during 2020.

Asian countries have also demonstrated greater agility in tackling the pandemic compared to US and Europe. This is not limited to China but a number of other Asian states have shown greater responsiveness and more effective state capacity. Consequently, Asian economies will recover faster than those in the West.

The second trend is the US retreat after a century of being in the forefront of shaping the global order. From the Treaty of Versailles and the League of Nations after World War I or the creation of the UN and Bretton Woods institutions after World War II, leadership of the Western world during the Cold War, moulding global responses to threats posed by terrorism or proliferation or climate change, US played a decisive role.

US hubris and arrogance also generated resentment, more evident in recent years. Interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq have become quagmires that have sapped domestic political will and resources. This is the fatigue that President Obama sensed when he talked of “leading from behind”. President Trump changed it to “America first” and during the current crisis, US efforts to corner supplies of scarce medical equipment and medicines and acquiring biotech companies engaged in R&D in allied states, show that this may mean America alone. Moreover, even as countries were losing trust in US leadership, its bungled response at home to the pandemic indicates that countries are also losing trust in US competence. US still remains the largest economy and the largest military power but has lost the will and ability to lead. This mood is unlikely to change, whatever the outcome of the election later this year.

A third trend is EU’s continuing preoccupation with internal challenges generated by its expansion of membership to include East European states, impact of the financial crisis among the Eurozone members, and ongoing Brexit negotiations. Threat perceptions vary between old Europe and new Europe making it increasingly difficult to reach agreement on political matters e:g relations with Russia and China. The trans-Atlantic divide is aggravating an intra-European rift. Rising populism has given greater voice to Euro-sceptics and permitted some EU members to espouse the virtues of “illiberal democracy”.

Adding to this is the North-South divide within the Eurozone. Strains showed up a decade ago when austerity measures were imposed on Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal a decade ago by the ECB, persuaded by the fiscally conservative Austria, Germany and the Netherlands. ECB chief Christine Lagarde’s press statement in end March that “ECB is not here to close spreads” undermined any solidarity that the Italians felt as they battled with the pandemic and growing borrowing costs.

Further damage was done when Italy was denied medical equipment by its EU neighbours who introduced export controls leading to China airlifting medical teams and critical supplies. Schengen visa or free-border movement has already become a victim to the pandemic. EU will need considerable soul searching to rediscover the limits of free movement of goods, services, capital and people, the underlying theme of the European experiment of shared sovereignty.

A fourth trend, related to the first, is the emergence of a stronger and more assertive China. While China’s growing economic role has been visible since it joined the WTO at the turn of the century, its more assertive posture has taken shape under President Xi Jinping’s leadership with the call that a rejuvenated China is now ready to assume global responsibilities. Chinese assertiveness has raised concerns, first in its neighbourhood and now, in the US that feels betrayed because it assisted China’s rise in the hope that an economically integrated China would become politically more open. In recent years, the US- China relationship moved from cooperation to competition and now with trade and technology wars, is moving steadily to confrontation. The pandemic has seen increasing rhetoric on both sides and with the election season in the US, confrontation will only increase. A partial economic de-coupling had begun and will gather greater momentum.

Xi has engaged in an unprecedented centralisation of power and with the removal of the two-term limit, has made it clear that he will continue beyond 2022. His signature Belt and Road Initiative seeks to connect China to the Eurasia and Africa through both maritime and land routes by investing trillions of dollars in infrastructure building as a kind of pre-emptive move against any US attempts at containment. Even if Xi’s leadership comes under questioning, it may soften some aggressive policy edges but the confrontational rivalry with US will remain.

Global problems demand global responses. With Covid-19, international and multilateral bodies are nowhere on the scene. WHO was the natural candidate to lead global efforts against the health crisis but it has become a victim of politics. Its early endorsement of the Chinese efforts has put it on the defensive as US blames the outbreak on a Chinese biotech lab and accuses Beijing of suppressing vital information that contributed to the spread. UN Security Council, G-7 and G-20 (latter was structured to co-ordinate a global response to the 2008 financial crisis) are paralysed at when the world faces the worst recession since 1929.

The reality is that these institutions were always subjected to big power politics. During the Cold War, US-Soviet rivalry blocked the UNSC on many sensitive issues and now with major power rivalry returning, finds itself paralysed again. Agencies like the WHO have lost autonomy over decades as their regular budgets shrank, forcing them to increasingly rely on voluntary contributions sourced largely from Western countries and foundations. US leadership strengthened Bretton Woods institutions in recent decades (World Bank spends 250% of WHO’s budget on global health) because US’ voting power gives it a blocking veto. The absence of a multilateral response today highlights the long felt need for reform of these bodies but this can’t happen without collective global leadership.

The final trend relates to energy politics. Growing interest in renewables and green technologies on account of climate change concerns, and US emerging as a major energy producer was fundamentally altering the energy markets. Now, a looming economic recession and depressed oil prices will exacerbate internal tensions in Gulf countries which are solely dependent on oil revenues. Long standing rivalries in the region have often led to local conflicts but can now create political instability in countries where regime structures are fragile.

A vaccine for the Coronavirus possibly by end-2020 will help deal with the global health crisis but these unfolding trends have now been aggravated by the more pernicious panic virus. Rising nationalism and protectionist responses will prolong the economic recession into a depression sharpening inequalities and polarisations. Greater unpredictability and more turbulent times lie ahead.