WORLD AROUND YOU
India's Foreign Policy: Current priorities and relevance of SAARC
-
By: Amb (Retd) Achal Malhotra
Venue: UGC Centre for SAARC Studies, Visakhapatnam
Date: October 08, 2018
Lecture at Centre For SAARC Studies, Andhra University : 8th October, 2018
Honourable Vice Chancellor, Andhra University,
Honourable Director, Centre For SAARC Studies, Heads of Department,
Members of Faculty, Students, including students from friendly foreign countries,
Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen
I have been given the privilege of talking to you on India's Foreign Policy , current
priorities and also on relevance of SAARC.
In my presentation today I intend to cover three important aspects: Core Objectives of India’s foreign Policy; Fundamental Principles and Salient Features of India’s foreign policy,and the standard institutional mechanisms India has devised for the conduct of foreign policy.
I will then highlight the current foreign policy priorities in bilateral, regional and global contexts. I will also cover the Relevance of SAARC.
The Core Objectives of India’s Foreign Policy
The first and foremost objective of India’s foreign policy is to secure our country’s national interests. The definition and scope of national interests has over time acquired multiple dimensions; it includes for instance the defence of India’s borders and thus territorial integrity, it alsoincludes cyber security, food security and energy security, while combating terrorism, money-laundering, besides fighting drugs and human trafficking.
Securing national interests also envisages the creation of an external environment which is conducive for the overall and more importantly an inclusive development of our country.
The Fundamental Principles and salient Features of India’s Foreign Policy
One may argue that securing national interests is the core objective of all countries in the world. Further, we are living in an age of "Real Poltik . In other words the policies are framed on the basis of realistic assessment of current geopolitical scenario and are guided by what is best in national interests. In Real Poltik , no or not much consideration is given to ethics, moral or emotions or past association. Therefore,you may ask what makes the Indian foreign policy different from others?
The answer is: India's foreign policy is guided by an objective assessment of its own national interests but in its implementation India invariably adheres to a set of basic principles on which no compromise is made.
FUAMETAL PRICIPLES
PANCHSHEEL
These fundamental principles include for instance the five principles of peaceful co-existence: Panchsheel,or Five Virtues which were first formally enunciated in the Agreement on Trade between the Tibet region of China and India signed on April 29, 1954 and later evolved to act as the basis of conduct of international relations globally. These Five Principles are: Mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, ii. Mutual non-aggression, iii. Mutual non-interference, iv. Equality and mutual benefit, and v. Peaceful co-existence.
India is Opposed to Export of Ideologies and Change of Regimes
India believes in and supports Democracy; however, India does not believe in the export of ideologies.India has therefore endeavoured to deal with the government-of-the-day, be it a democracy, monarchy or military dictatorship, insisting that it is best left to the people of the country to choose or remove their leaders and retain or change the form of governance. By extension of the above principle, India does not endorse the idea of regime change in a particular country by use of force or other means by another country or a group of countries.
India DOES NOT ENDORSE Unilateral Sanctions
India also does not endorse the idea of imposing sanctions against any individual country by another country or group of countries unless these sanctions have been imposed by the United Nations as a result of international consensus.
India contributes only to such Peace-Keeping military operations which are part of the UN Peace-keeping Forces.
(India has contributed nearly 195,000 troops, the largest number from any country, participated in more than 49 missions and 168 Indian peacekeepers have made the supreme sacrifice while serving in UN missions. India has also provided and continues to provide eminent Force Commanders for UN Missions.)
At the same time, India does not hesitate in promoting democracy wherever potential exists; this is done by proactively providing assistance in capacity building and strengthening the institutions of democracy, albeit with the explicit consent of the concerned Government.
Interference : NO ; Intervention : YES
India does not believe in interference in the internal affairs of other countries. However, if an act - innocent or deliberate - by any country has the potential of impinging upon India’s national interests, India does not hesitate in quick and timely intervention. Mind it: intervention is qualitatively different from interference, particularly when the intervention is made at the request of the country concerned. (Examples: Bangladesh 1971, IPKF in Sri Lanka(1987-90) , Maldives (1988).
CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT OVER AGGRESSION
India advocates the policy of constructive engagement over aggression. It believes that violent retaliation and confrontation can only complicate the matters. War is no solution; after every war the conflicting Parties ultimately come to negotiating table by which time much damage has already been done. This applies in particular to Pakistan- the origin of State-sponsored terrorism targeted at India. India has shown restrain despite such serious provocations as have been in the past (attack on Parliament, Mumbai terrorist attacks etc.).
The policy of engagement is not allowed, however, to be misunderstood as India’s weakness. Strong and loud messages emanate from India each and every time our patience is tested. The Surgical strike to target terrorist –launch pads in Pakistan occupiedIndian territory in September 2016 is one such example.
STRATEGIC AUTONOMY : PARTNERSHIPS-YES, ALLIANCES:NO
Independence of decision making andstrategic autonomy are yet another significant features of India’s foreign policy. India thus believes in Partnerships and shuns Alliances, particularly military alliances.
GLOBAL CONSENSUS ON ISSUES OF GLOBAL DIMENSIONS
India advocates a global debate and global consensus on issues of global dimensions such as world trade regime, climate change, terrorism, intellectual property rights, global governance.
FOREIGN POLICY :NATIONAL CONSENSUS ; REGIONAL ASPIRATIONS
Foreign policy in India by and large enjoys national consensus. At times, however, there are instances when it appears that the foreign policy is being held hostage to domestic regional politics. Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are the most glaring examples, where some adjustments have been made due to the concerns of West Bengal, Assam and Tamil Nadu. The successive Governments have taken into consideration the domestic sentiments and genuine concerns of the segments of the society but have rightly not allowed to determine country’s foreign policy which must be guided solely by the overriding national interests and must be made in New Delhi.
Three Arms of Indian Foreign Policy: The political diplomacy, economic diplomacy and cultural diplomacy are the three mutually supplementary and complementary arms for the conduct of India’s foreign policy.
POLITICAL DIPLOMACY
High degree of political understanding is essential to create an environment which can promote cooperation and collaboration and minimise irritants in mutual relations. In the absence of political understanding, even minor issues may get blown up and hinder the natural progression in relations. Hencethe importance of political diplomacy and of the so-called fine chemistry between the leaderships.
ECONOMIC DIPLOMACY
Political understanding does not automaticallytranslate into sound trade and economic relations as those relations are often guided by commercial considerations ; this is where economic diplomacy assumes importance. The main objective of Economic Diplomacy is to increase the volume of bilateral trade in commodities and services, reduce trade imbalances, and enhance foreign direct investments into country. For this purpose, India foreign policy makers identify suitable partners and enter into enabling framework agreements e.g Avoidance of Double Taxation Agreements, Bilateral Investment Protection Agreements, Most Favoured Nation Status, Free Trade Area Agreements etc.
The economic diplomacy assumes added importance when it is applied to cater to domestic compulsions of ensuring an overall inclusive development. In this context, the diplomacy is directed towards identifying the sources of raw materials and modern technology and equipment , which can contribute to India’s inclusive development in diverse sectors ranging from agriculture to defence.
CULTURAL DIPLOMACY
The cultural diplomacy is used as a supplement to political and economic diplomacy and is useful wherever there is a history of religious and cultural links, presence of substantial Indian Diaspora; it includes Indian soft power as reflected in the popularity of Yoga, Indian Cinema and Indian cuisine.
INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS FOR CONDUCT OF DIPLOMACY
High Level Contacts
Bilateral Visits at the level of Heads of State and Heads of Government or their meetings on the side-lines of multilateral conferences such UNGA are the highest platform for interaction and for laying the framework for pushing foreign policy objectives. Considerable home-work is done at officials levels before such meetings are actually held. Visits/Meetings at the level of Foreign Ministers also fall in this category.
Foreign Office Consultations
These consultations are held periodically between the Senior Officials of the two countries and usually focus on exchange of views on important topical interests of bilateral, regional and international dimensions.The contents are usually political.
Inter-Governmental Commissions
Such Commissions are usually comprised of representatives of Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other concerned and relevant nodal Ministries depending on the existing and potential areas of cooperation and meet periodically to review the status of cooperation in diverse areas such as trade and investment, agriculture, education, science & technology, culture. Often Programmes of Action are agreed upon for a duration of next two to three years.
Let me now focus on some of the current priorities of India’s Foreign Policy.
Neighbourhood First
Cordial relations and productive cooperation with India’s neighbours, particularly with the founder Members of SAARC in South Asia, has always with a priority.
India’s neighbourhood is a fairly complex geographical entity. In the post-colonial period, the South Asia has been a theatre of bloody inter-state as well as civil wars; it has witnessed liberation movements, nuclear rivalry, military dictatorships and continues to suffer from insurgencies, religious fundamentalism and terrorism, besides serious problems associated with drugs and human trafficking. The region also has the dubious distinction of having a large number of people living below poverty line. The region has produced several powerful female leaders and yet in the overall much remains to be done for the empowerment of women. On the barometer of religious tolerance, the constituent countries range anywhere between flexible secular minded and rigidly fundamentalist.
Where does India stand in this rather volatile region? India’s position is unique in more than one sense. As a matter of an interesting geographic factor, India shares borders with all other South Asian nations whereas no other South Asiannation shares borders with any other South Asian nation. Notwithstanding some shortcomings, democracy and rule of law as instruments of political governance are well entrenched in India. Transfer of power has been more or less peaceful and transparent. In relative terms India can be arguably considered as the most stable country in the region, moving ahead on the fast tracks of development, registering on average a healthy growth rates. Further in terms of its population, territory, GDP, its image as an emerging world economy and a responsible de-facto nuclear State, and as a country which is destined to play a larger role on international arena, and also for several other reasons, India stands apart amongst the bunch of other South Asian countries. In fact India can be said to dwarf others in the South Asian region.
These asymmetries over time have created misperceptions about India and its intention.There are unjustified and erroneous perceptions about India floating around in the region: "Big Brother bullying the smaller neighbour”; "India treats its neighbours as a neglected backyard” etc. etc. There is no justified explanation for the "trust deficit”. On top of it there are vested interests and lobbies for whom being anti-Indian is synonymous with being patriot and nationalist. And then there are strong institutions within the framework of a more or less failed and rogue State in the neighbourhood (Pakistan) which would like to see relations with India in a state of perpetual suspension. India’s motives are suspected even in cases of innocent proposals for economic cooperation which would lead to win-win situations.At times the domestic compulsions in India arising out of regional and coalition politics complicate matters further.
More-over, it is not uncommon for some of our neighbours to play the so-called "China Card”
In a scenario where we have incorrigible Pakistan at one end and genuinely friendly Bhutan at the other end of the spectrum, and everyone else somewhere in between, it is perhaps difficult to write one single foreign policy prescription for the entire region.
The focus of India’s "Neighbourhood First Policy” initiated in 2014 is on multiple objectives of re-invigorating relations, removing trust deficit and building bridges of mutually beneficial cooperation both on bilateral basis as well as within the frame-work of SAARC.
With those objectives in mind, the Prime Minister has extensively engaged the leadership in the region in last four years. The outcome is mixed. India has exemplary relations with Bhutan. Relations with Bangladesh are on an even kneel; the two countries have concluded some historic agreements , including Land Boundary Agreement of 2015.
Sri Lanka and Maldives had drifted towards Chinaat the possible cost of India’s strategic interests. Nepal also appeared to be moving in that direction. However, thanks to India’s efforts there is a reappraisal of their foreign policies in these three countries and there are now enough indications that they would like to balance their relations with India and China.
PAKISTAN
Relations with Pakistan are at the lowest ebb; this is despite tremendous efforts made by Indian leadership to normalize relations, including the surprise halt made by PM Modi in Lahore en-route to India from Kabul. It would be erroneous to dub India’s Pakistan policy as a failure. It must be understood that Pakistan’s India policy is controlled by its Army and ISI and so long as they do not end their declared policy of giving thousand cuts to India, the chances of normalization are very bleak.
Under the circumstances, India has adopted a policy that Terror and Talks cannot go togetherand unless there is a halt to cross-border terrorism and interference in Kashmir, India will not resume dialogue with Pakistan.
Afghanistan The situation in Afghanistan is a matter of concern to India. India can ill-afford the return of Taliban in Afghanistan. India’s focus in Afghanistan is on contribution towards reconstruction of war-torn Afghanistan and help Afghanistan build institutions of democracy and assist it in its capacity building through training programs. India’s assistance in the vicinity of 3nn $ has been/being used in Afghanistan for building its Parliament , roads, schools and several other infrastructure projects including in small towns and villages and therefore is being much appreciated both by the Government and people of Afghanistan.
CHINA
Chinais our largest neighbour and arguably India's biggest challenge. India has repeatedly said that if the 21st century has to belong to Asia, both India and China will have to work together. Relations between the two countries were marked by cordiality for a decade in 1950s and then they fought a war in 1962 ,followed by several years of strained relations.
India's current policy towards China is built around four Cs: Cooperation and collaboration wherever possible, including on issues of multilateral and global dimensions, 2 Conflict: avoid to the extent possible without compromising national interests, 3. Contain China's growing influence ,particularly in our neighbourhood and finally Confront if any act on part of China infringes on India's interests.
Relevance of SAARC.
The importance of regional cooperation particularly in the spirit of South-South cooperation between geographically contiguous countries cannot be belittled. The objectives of SAARC as reflected in its Charter therefore remain relevant. Similarly SAARC as an instrument for the realization of its objectives also remains relevant .However,SAARC as an Organisation has not lived up to expectations when measured in terms of delivery. It has been in existence for several decades and yet South Asia remains the least integrated region in the world .Notwithstanding the explicit stipulation in SAARC Charter that bilateral and contentious issues will be kept out of the deliberations, the fact of the matter is that poor state of India- Pakistan relations and Pakistan' s policy of obstrauction has had an adverse impact on the progress in SAARC. In the backdrop of continued State patronage and sponsorship of cross-border terrorism by Pakistan, India had decided to boycott the SAARC Summit in 2016, India was supported in its decision by Bangladesh, Bhutan and Nepal . There has been no change in situation and chances of it being held in near future are bleak.
Meanwhile India' s views on SAARC were eloquently articulated by India's External Affairs Minister Smt. Sushma Swaraj at an informal meeting of the SAARC Council of Ministers in New York on September 27, 2018 on the side-line of United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). She reiterated India's commitment to SAARC and identified the following as priorities: seamless physical connectivity, further trade liberalisation under SAAFTA , operationalization of SAARC Agreement on Trade in Services (SATIS), early ratification by all Member-States of the Framework Agreement on Energy Cooperation ,signed during the 18th SAARC Summit.
The External Affairs Minister concluding remarks carried an implied message and I quote her when she said " meetings including high level ones can only be effective if expressions of resolve are translated in to concrete action on the ground” and added that "thetrue potential of the region can be realized only if all countries contribute constructively towards delivering on the commitments SAARC has made to the people of the region”.
It is relevant to recall what PM Modi had said at his first SAARC Summit in 2014. His message was loud and clear that India would prefer to work together with all other SAARC members but would not at the same time be averse to the idea of working with those members who are agreeable to implement agreed programmes. As a result India, Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh went ahead and signed a landmark Motor Vehicles Agreement for seamless movement of road traffic among Four SAARC Countries in June 2015, leaving aside Pakistan and others.
Later in May 2017, India launched the South Asia Satellite - a communication satellite built by ISRO to provide a variety of communication services over the South Asian region; the satellite was launched despite reservations by Pakistan. The project will touch the lives of the people even in remote areas of our region, through its wide ranging applications in health, education, disaster response, weather forecasting and communications.
India remains committed to funding the full capital new campus of the South Asia University in New Delhi; construction is in full swing.
SAARC VS BIMSTEC
While remaining committed to regional development through SAARC , India is also promoting the inter-regional cooperation through platforms such as BIMSTEC – the Bay of Bengal Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation comprised of five SAAARC countries ( India, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka ) and Myanmar and Thailand. BIMSTEC has evolved from BIST- EC at a very slow pace since its first summit way back in June 1997. Only in recent years there has been a spurt in its activities in the backdrop of SAARC becoming more or less dysfunctional and India’s renewed thrust on its Look East Policy through Act East policy. India deliberately chose BIMSTEC over SAARC for outreach meetings with BRICS at the BRICS Goa Summit in November 2016.
The very recently held BIMSTEC Summit in Kathmandu (August-September, 2018) has naturally ignited a debate as to whether BIMSTEC will soon replace SAARC. It appears that both these grouping have the potential to complement and supplement each other. The Nepalese PM recently acknowledged the potential of BIMSTEC but also urged for the revival of SAARC. The keyto full scale revival of SAARC may appear to be in the hands of India but by available indications the reinvigoration of SAARC hinges upon Pakistan’s political will to containing the State-sponsored terrorism.
In short, India remains committed to SAARC but is determined to encourage sub-regional cooperation within South Asia and promote inter-regional cooperation through BIMSTEC, albeit not necessarily at the cost of SAARC.
Global Issues and Global Aspirations
India is the second largest country in the world in terms of its population, and amongst the fastest growing countries in terms of GDP growth. India is thus entitled to playing its role in international deliberations on issues of global dimensions. In this context, I propose to refer to the following important issues:
Terrorism
India has suffered too long and too much from the state-sponsored cross-border terrorism and therefore its condemnation in all forms and manifestations at all regional and international forums is on the priority of India’s global agenda. India had proposed way back in 1996 that a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism(CCIT); unfortunately two decades have elapsed and despite the spread of terrorism throughout the world, the international community has not yet been able even to agree on the definition of terrorism. Meanwhile, India’s campaign against terrorism continues unabated; India does not look at terrorism from the prism of religion nor does India believes in differentiating terrorists as good terrorists or bad terrorists.
NON- PROLIFERATION: DISARMAMENT : NUCLEAR DOCTRINE
India is NOT a signatory to Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ( NPT) of 1968 ; it considers the Treaty as discriminatory in as much as it creates Nuclear-Haves and Nuclear-Non-Haves.
In view of potential threats from nuclear powers in its immediate vicinity ( China and Pakistan) India has developed nuclear weapons despite sanctions and pressures from the West.
NUCLEAR DOCTRINE
The core element in India’s nuclear doctrine (revealed through a Government Press Release of 4th January 2003) is in building and maintaining a ‘credible minimum deterrent’. It also envisages inter-alia: i) "No First Use" i.e. nuclear weapons will only be used in retaliation against a nuclear attack on Indian territory or on Indian forces; ii) Non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states. However, in the event of a major attack against India, or Indian forces anywhere, by biological or chemical weapons, India will retain the option of retaliating with nuclear weapons.
Even though India has not signed the NPT, it has diligently followed the principles enshrined in the Treaty in spirit. India has also adjusted its export controls appropriately. As a result, India today is a d’facto Nuclear Power; true this is not yet formally acknowledged by the international community. There is a widespread recognition, however, of India impeccable record in the field of non-proliferation, in recognition of which the international community is now ready to engage India in nuclear trade.[the Nuclear Suppliers Group’s India specific waiver was given in mid-2008). No other non-NPT signatory country has been given this privilege. And this can be considered as an outstanding achievement in the foreign policy pursuits during the past two decades.
Since then India has become a member of the three of the four multilateral non-proliferation regimes : Missile Technology Control Regime, the Wassenaar Arrangement and the Australia Group. The only one remaining is the Nuclear Suppliers Group( NSG), which is stonewalled due to Chinese objections.
Disarmament : India’s disarmament policy is directed at achieving a world free from weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons; it advocates a universal, non-discriminatory disarmament in a time-bound, phased and verifiable manner; this approach is reflected in the Rajiv Gandhi Action Plan which India submitted at the UNGA in 1998.
Global Governance:
In India’s assessment the contemporary structures of global governance including UN and international financial institutions such as World Bank, IMF etc have proved inadequate in dealing with the political and economic crisis of present days and therefore the international community deserves new structures of global governance to confront cross-cutting and trans-national challenges. India seeks UN reform, including reform of UN Security Council. In recognition of India’s growing stature, several countries have explicitly endorsed India’s bid for a Permanent Seat in expanded Security Council. Objectively and realistically speaking it would be a long and difficult path to tread before the campaign for substantial reforms in the present structures of global governance could be attained.
Climate Change:
India considers climate change as a global problem requiring global efforts and global solutions. India ratified the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (1993) and Kyoto Protocol (2002) and more recently the Paris agreement in October, 2016.
India’s well-articulated position during the negotiation on climate change has been that the current state of climate change and global warming is attributable to the excess emissions of harmful gases by the developed countries during the period of industrialisation; this is often referred to as the concept of ‘historical responsibility’. India has further insisted that the developing countries cannot be expected to forego their developmental efforts. India subscribes to the principle of equity and ‘common but differentiated responsibility’. India would like the developed world to assist the developing countries through financial assistance and transfer of technology to meet the challenges of climate change. India’s position was adequately reflected in the Paris Agreement signed in December 2015.
IN A NUT SHELL
India’s foreign policy is based on pragmatic assessment of national interests, and in its implementation India is guided by a set of well defined fundamental principles. India’s inclusive development is as much central to its foreign policy as are the other objectives.
India’s reputation as world’s largest functioning democracy and fast growing economy is on the rise, and its voice is heard at the international fora. There is widespread global acceptance that India is destined to play an important role in global affairs. India is thus an important player on international arena , moving confidently in the direction of becoming a global power in evolving multi-polar world.
Before I conclude ,I must complement the Andhra University for its initiative to organize this Talk at the Centre For SAARC Studies, and also thank the Ministry of External Affairs for assigning this important task to me . I should also thank the audience for their patience and interest.
I do hope that today's interaction will serve the desired objectives and also trigger interest in India's foreign policy to understand how it is serving country’s vital interests both at domestic front and international arena.
I will be glad to take your questions and to answer them to best of my ability.
Thank You.
By: Amb (Retd) Achal Malhotra
Venue: UGC Centre for SAARC Studies, Visakhapatnam
Date: October 08, 2018
Venue: UGC Centre for SAARC Studies, Visakhapatnam
Date: October 08, 2018
Honourable Vice Chancellor, Andhra University,
Honourable Director, Centre For SAARC Studies, Heads of Department,
Members of Faculty, Students, including students from friendly foreign countries,
Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen
I have been given the privilege of talking to you on India's Foreign Policy , current
priorities and also on relevance of SAARC.
In my presentation today I intend to cover three important aspects: Core Objectives of India’s foreign Policy; Fundamental Principles and Salient Features of India’s foreign policy,and the standard institutional mechanisms India has devised for the conduct of foreign policy.
I will then highlight the current foreign policy priorities in bilateral, regional and global contexts. I will also cover the Relevance of SAARC.
The Core Objectives of India’s Foreign Policy
The first and foremost objective of India’s foreign policy is to secure our country’s national interests. The definition and scope of national interests has over time acquired multiple dimensions; it includes for instance the defence of India’s borders and thus territorial integrity, it alsoincludes cyber security, food security and energy security, while combating terrorism, money-laundering, besides fighting drugs and human trafficking.
Securing national interests also envisages the creation of an external environment which is conducive for the overall and more importantly an inclusive development of our country.
The Fundamental Principles and salient Features of India’s Foreign Policy
One may argue that securing national interests is the core objective of all countries in the world. Further, we are living in an age of "Real Poltik . In other words the policies are framed on the basis of realistic assessment of current geopolitical scenario and are guided by what is best in national interests. In Real Poltik , no or not much consideration is given to ethics, moral or emotions or past association. Therefore,you may ask what makes the Indian foreign policy different from others?
The answer is: India's foreign policy is guided by an objective assessment of its own national interests but in its implementation India invariably adheres to a set of basic principles on which no compromise is made.
FUAMETAL PRICIPLES
PANCHSHEEL
These fundamental principles include for instance the five principles of peaceful co-existence: Panchsheel,or Five Virtues which were first formally enunciated in the Agreement on Trade between the Tibet region of China and India signed on April 29, 1954 and later evolved to act as the basis of conduct of international relations globally. These Five Principles are: Mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, ii. Mutual non-aggression, iii. Mutual non-interference, iv. Equality and mutual benefit, and v. Peaceful co-existence.
India is Opposed to Export of Ideologies and Change of Regimes
India believes in and supports Democracy; however, India does not believe in the export of ideologies.India has therefore endeavoured to deal with the government-of-the-day, be it a democracy, monarchy or military dictatorship, insisting that it is best left to the people of the country to choose or remove their leaders and retain or change the form of governance. By extension of the above principle, India does not endorse the idea of regime change in a particular country by use of force or other means by another country or a group of countries.
India DOES NOT ENDORSE Unilateral Sanctions
India also does not endorse the idea of imposing sanctions against any individual country by another country or group of countries unless these sanctions have been imposed by the United Nations as a result of international consensus.
India contributes only to such Peace-Keeping military operations which are part of the UN Peace-keeping Forces.
(India has contributed nearly 195,000 troops, the largest number from any country, participated in more than 49 missions and 168 Indian peacekeepers have made the supreme sacrifice while serving in UN missions. India has also provided and continues to provide eminent Force Commanders for UN Missions.)
At the same time, India does not hesitate in promoting democracy wherever potential exists; this is done by proactively providing assistance in capacity building and strengthening the institutions of democracy, albeit with the explicit consent of the concerned Government.
Interference : NO ; Intervention : YES
India does not believe in interference in the internal affairs of other countries. However, if an act - innocent or deliberate - by any country has the potential of impinging upon India’s national interests, India does not hesitate in quick and timely intervention. Mind it: intervention is qualitatively different from interference, particularly when the intervention is made at the request of the country concerned. (Examples: Bangladesh 1971, IPKF in Sri Lanka(1987-90) , Maldives (1988).
CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT OVER AGGRESSION
India advocates the policy of constructive engagement over aggression. It believes that violent retaliation and confrontation can only complicate the matters. War is no solution; after every war the conflicting Parties ultimately come to negotiating table by which time much damage has already been done. This applies in particular to Pakistan- the origin of State-sponsored terrorism targeted at India. India has shown restrain despite such serious provocations as have been in the past (attack on Parliament, Mumbai terrorist attacks etc.).
The policy of engagement is not allowed, however, to be misunderstood as India’s weakness. Strong and loud messages emanate from India each and every time our patience is tested. The Surgical strike to target terrorist –launch pads in Pakistan occupiedIndian territory in September 2016 is one such example.
STRATEGIC AUTONOMY : PARTNERSHIPS-YES, ALLIANCES:NO
Independence of decision making andstrategic autonomy are yet another significant features of India’s foreign policy. India thus believes in Partnerships and shuns Alliances, particularly military alliances.
GLOBAL CONSENSUS ON ISSUES OF GLOBAL DIMENSIONS
India advocates a global debate and global consensus on issues of global dimensions such as world trade regime, climate change, terrorism, intellectual property rights, global governance.
FOREIGN POLICY :NATIONAL CONSENSUS ; REGIONAL ASPIRATIONS
Foreign policy in India by and large enjoys national consensus. At times, however, there are instances when it appears that the foreign policy is being held hostage to domestic regional politics. Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are the most glaring examples, where some adjustments have been made due to the concerns of West Bengal, Assam and Tamil Nadu. The successive Governments have taken into consideration the domestic sentiments and genuine concerns of the segments of the society but have rightly not allowed to determine country’s foreign policy which must be guided solely by the overriding national interests and must be made in New Delhi.
Three Arms of Indian Foreign Policy: The political diplomacy, economic diplomacy and cultural diplomacy are the three mutually supplementary and complementary arms for the conduct of India’s foreign policy.
POLITICAL DIPLOMACY
High degree of political understanding is essential to create an environment which can promote cooperation and collaboration and minimise irritants in mutual relations. In the absence of political understanding, even minor issues may get blown up and hinder the natural progression in relations. Hencethe importance of political diplomacy and of the so-called fine chemistry between the leaderships.
ECONOMIC DIPLOMACY
Political understanding does not automaticallytranslate into sound trade and economic relations as those relations are often guided by commercial considerations ; this is where economic diplomacy assumes importance. The main objective of Economic Diplomacy is to increase the volume of bilateral trade in commodities and services, reduce trade imbalances, and enhance foreign direct investments into country. For this purpose, India foreign policy makers identify suitable partners and enter into enabling framework agreements e.g Avoidance of Double Taxation Agreements, Bilateral Investment Protection Agreements, Most Favoured Nation Status, Free Trade Area Agreements etc.
The economic diplomacy assumes added importance when it is applied to cater to domestic compulsions of ensuring an overall inclusive development. In this context, the diplomacy is directed towards identifying the sources of raw materials and modern technology and equipment , which can contribute to India’s inclusive development in diverse sectors ranging from agriculture to defence.
CULTURAL DIPLOMACY
The cultural diplomacy is used as a supplement to political and economic diplomacy and is useful wherever there is a history of religious and cultural links, presence of substantial Indian Diaspora; it includes Indian soft power as reflected in the popularity of Yoga, Indian Cinema and Indian cuisine.
INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS FOR CONDUCT OF DIPLOMACY
High Level Contacts
Bilateral Visits at the level of Heads of State and Heads of Government or their meetings on the side-lines of multilateral conferences such UNGA are the highest platform for interaction and for laying the framework for pushing foreign policy objectives. Considerable home-work is done at officials levels before such meetings are actually held. Visits/Meetings at the level of Foreign Ministers also fall in this category.
Foreign Office Consultations
These consultations are held periodically between the Senior Officials of the two countries and usually focus on exchange of views on important topical interests of bilateral, regional and international dimensions.The contents are usually political.
Inter-Governmental Commissions
Such Commissions are usually comprised of representatives of Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other concerned and relevant nodal Ministries depending on the existing and potential areas of cooperation and meet periodically to review the status of cooperation in diverse areas such as trade and investment, agriculture, education, science & technology, culture. Often Programmes of Action are agreed upon for a duration of next two to three years.
Let me now focus on some of the current priorities of India’s Foreign Policy.
Neighbourhood First
Cordial relations and productive cooperation with India’s neighbours, particularly with the founder Members of SAARC in South Asia, has always with a priority.
India’s neighbourhood is a fairly complex geographical entity. In the post-colonial period, the South Asia has been a theatre of bloody inter-state as well as civil wars; it has witnessed liberation movements, nuclear rivalry, military dictatorships and continues to suffer from insurgencies, religious fundamentalism and terrorism, besides serious problems associated with drugs and human trafficking. The region also has the dubious distinction of having a large number of people living below poverty line. The region has produced several powerful female leaders and yet in the overall much remains to be done for the empowerment of women. On the barometer of religious tolerance, the constituent countries range anywhere between flexible secular minded and rigidly fundamentalist.
Where does India stand in this rather volatile region? India’s position is unique in more than one sense. As a matter of an interesting geographic factor, India shares borders with all other South Asian nations whereas no other South Asiannation shares borders with any other South Asian nation. Notwithstanding some shortcomings, democracy and rule of law as instruments of political governance are well entrenched in India. Transfer of power has been more or less peaceful and transparent. In relative terms India can be arguably considered as the most stable country in the region, moving ahead on the fast tracks of development, registering on average a healthy growth rates. Further in terms of its population, territory, GDP, its image as an emerging world economy and a responsible de-facto nuclear State, and as a country which is destined to play a larger role on international arena, and also for several other reasons, India stands apart amongst the bunch of other South Asian countries. In fact India can be said to dwarf others in the South Asian region.
These asymmetries over time have created misperceptions about India and its intention.There are unjustified and erroneous perceptions about India floating around in the region: "Big Brother bullying the smaller neighbour”; "India treats its neighbours as a neglected backyard” etc. etc. There is no justified explanation for the "trust deficit”. On top of it there are vested interests and lobbies for whom being anti-Indian is synonymous with being patriot and nationalist. And then there are strong institutions within the framework of a more or less failed and rogue State in the neighbourhood (Pakistan) which would like to see relations with India in a state of perpetual suspension. India’s motives are suspected even in cases of innocent proposals for economic cooperation which would lead to win-win situations.At times the domestic compulsions in India arising out of regional and coalition politics complicate matters further.
More-over, it is not uncommon for some of our neighbours to play the so-called "China Card”
In a scenario where we have incorrigible Pakistan at one end and genuinely friendly Bhutan at the other end of the spectrum, and everyone else somewhere in between, it is perhaps difficult to write one single foreign policy prescription for the entire region.
The focus of India’s "Neighbourhood First Policy” initiated in 2014 is on multiple objectives of re-invigorating relations, removing trust deficit and building bridges of mutually beneficial cooperation both on bilateral basis as well as within the frame-work of SAARC.
With those objectives in mind, the Prime Minister has extensively engaged the leadership in the region in last four years. The outcome is mixed. India has exemplary relations with Bhutan. Relations with Bangladesh are on an even kneel; the two countries have concluded some historic agreements , including Land Boundary Agreement of 2015.
Sri Lanka and Maldives had drifted towards Chinaat the possible cost of India’s strategic interests. Nepal also appeared to be moving in that direction. However, thanks to India’s efforts there is a reappraisal of their foreign policies in these three countries and there are now enough indications that they would like to balance their relations with India and China.
PAKISTAN
Relations with Pakistan are at the lowest ebb; this is despite tremendous efforts made by Indian leadership to normalize relations, including the surprise halt made by PM Modi in Lahore en-route to India from Kabul. It would be erroneous to dub India’s Pakistan policy as a failure. It must be understood that Pakistan’s India policy is controlled by its Army and ISI and so long as they do not end their declared policy of giving thousand cuts to India, the chances of normalization are very bleak.
Under the circumstances, India has adopted a policy that Terror and Talks cannot go togetherand unless there is a halt to cross-border terrorism and interference in Kashmir, India will not resume dialogue with Pakistan.
Afghanistan The situation in Afghanistan is a matter of concern to India. India can ill-afford the return of Taliban in Afghanistan. India’s focus in Afghanistan is on contribution towards reconstruction of war-torn Afghanistan and help Afghanistan build institutions of democracy and assist it in its capacity building through training programs. India’s assistance in the vicinity of 3nn $ has been/being used in Afghanistan for building its Parliament , roads, schools and several other infrastructure projects including in small towns and villages and therefore is being much appreciated both by the Government and people of Afghanistan.
CHINA
Chinais our largest neighbour and arguably India's biggest challenge. India has repeatedly said that if the 21st century has to belong to Asia, both India and China will have to work together. Relations between the two countries were marked by cordiality for a decade in 1950s and then they fought a war in 1962 ,followed by several years of strained relations.
India's current policy towards China is built around four Cs: Cooperation and collaboration wherever possible, including on issues of multilateral and global dimensions, 2 Conflict: avoid to the extent possible without compromising national interests, 3. Contain China's growing influence ,particularly in our neighbourhood and finally Confront if any act on part of China infringes on India's interests.
Relevance of SAARC.
The importance of regional cooperation particularly in the spirit of South-South cooperation between geographically contiguous countries cannot be belittled. The objectives of SAARC as reflected in its Charter therefore remain relevant. Similarly SAARC as an instrument for the realization of its objectives also remains relevant .However,SAARC as an Organisation has not lived up to expectations when measured in terms of delivery. It has been in existence for several decades and yet South Asia remains the least integrated region in the world .Notwithstanding the explicit stipulation in SAARC Charter that bilateral and contentious issues will be kept out of the deliberations, the fact of the matter is that poor state of India- Pakistan relations and Pakistan' s policy of obstrauction has had an adverse impact on the progress in SAARC. In the backdrop of continued State patronage and sponsorship of cross-border terrorism by Pakistan, India had decided to boycott the SAARC Summit in 2016, India was supported in its decision by Bangladesh, Bhutan and Nepal . There has been no change in situation and chances of it being held in near future are bleak.
Meanwhile India' s views on SAARC were eloquently articulated by India's External Affairs Minister Smt. Sushma Swaraj at an informal meeting of the SAARC Council of Ministers in New York on September 27, 2018 on the side-line of United Nations General Assembly (UNGA). She reiterated India's commitment to SAARC and identified the following as priorities: seamless physical connectivity, further trade liberalisation under SAAFTA , operationalization of SAARC Agreement on Trade in Services (SATIS), early ratification by all Member-States of the Framework Agreement on Energy Cooperation ,signed during the 18th SAARC Summit.
The External Affairs Minister concluding remarks carried an implied message and I quote her when she said " meetings including high level ones can only be effective if expressions of resolve are translated in to concrete action on the ground” and added that "thetrue potential of the region can be realized only if all countries contribute constructively towards delivering on the commitments SAARC has made to the people of the region”.
It is relevant to recall what PM Modi had said at his first SAARC Summit in 2014. His message was loud and clear that India would prefer to work together with all other SAARC members but would not at the same time be averse to the idea of working with those members who are agreeable to implement agreed programmes. As a result India, Nepal, Bhutan and Bangladesh went ahead and signed a landmark Motor Vehicles Agreement for seamless movement of road traffic among Four SAARC Countries in June 2015, leaving aside Pakistan and others.
Later in May 2017, India launched the South Asia Satellite - a communication satellite built by ISRO to provide a variety of communication services over the South Asian region; the satellite was launched despite reservations by Pakistan. The project will touch the lives of the people even in remote areas of our region, through its wide ranging applications in health, education, disaster response, weather forecasting and communications.
India remains committed to funding the full capital new campus of the South Asia University in New Delhi; construction is in full swing.
SAARC VS BIMSTEC
While remaining committed to regional development through SAARC , India is also promoting the inter-regional cooperation through platforms such as BIMSTEC – the Bay of Bengal Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation comprised of five SAAARC countries ( India, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka ) and Myanmar and Thailand. BIMSTEC has evolved from BIST- EC at a very slow pace since its first summit way back in June 1997. Only in recent years there has been a spurt in its activities in the backdrop of SAARC becoming more or less dysfunctional and India’s renewed thrust on its Look East Policy through Act East policy. India deliberately chose BIMSTEC over SAARC for outreach meetings with BRICS at the BRICS Goa Summit in November 2016.
The very recently held BIMSTEC Summit in Kathmandu (August-September, 2018) has naturally ignited a debate as to whether BIMSTEC will soon replace SAARC. It appears that both these grouping have the potential to complement and supplement each other. The Nepalese PM recently acknowledged the potential of BIMSTEC but also urged for the revival of SAARC. The keyto full scale revival of SAARC may appear to be in the hands of India but by available indications the reinvigoration of SAARC hinges upon Pakistan’s political will to containing the State-sponsored terrorism.
In short, India remains committed to SAARC but is determined to encourage sub-regional cooperation within South Asia and promote inter-regional cooperation through BIMSTEC, albeit not necessarily at the cost of SAARC.
Global Issues and Global Aspirations
India is the second largest country in the world in terms of its population, and amongst the fastest growing countries in terms of GDP growth. India is thus entitled to playing its role in international deliberations on issues of global dimensions. In this context, I propose to refer to the following important issues:
Terrorism
India has suffered too long and too much from the state-sponsored cross-border terrorism and therefore its condemnation in all forms and manifestations at all regional and international forums is on the priority of India’s global agenda. India had proposed way back in 1996 that a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism(CCIT); unfortunately two decades have elapsed and despite the spread of terrorism throughout the world, the international community has not yet been able even to agree on the definition of terrorism. Meanwhile, India’s campaign against terrorism continues unabated; India does not look at terrorism from the prism of religion nor does India believes in differentiating terrorists as good terrorists or bad terrorists.
NON- PROLIFERATION: DISARMAMENT : NUCLEAR DOCTRINE
India is NOT a signatory to Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ( NPT) of 1968 ; it considers the Treaty as discriminatory in as much as it creates Nuclear-Haves and Nuclear-Non-Haves.
In view of potential threats from nuclear powers in its immediate vicinity ( China and Pakistan) India has developed nuclear weapons despite sanctions and pressures from the West.
NUCLEAR DOCTRINE
The core element in India’s nuclear doctrine (revealed through a Government Press Release of 4th January 2003) is in building and maintaining a ‘credible minimum deterrent’. It also envisages inter-alia: i) "No First Use" i.e. nuclear weapons will only be used in retaliation against a nuclear attack on Indian territory or on Indian forces; ii) Non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states. However, in the event of a major attack against India, or Indian forces anywhere, by biological or chemical weapons, India will retain the option of retaliating with nuclear weapons.
Even though India has not signed the NPT, it has diligently followed the principles enshrined in the Treaty in spirit. India has also adjusted its export controls appropriately. As a result, India today is a d’facto Nuclear Power; true this is not yet formally acknowledged by the international community. There is a widespread recognition, however, of India impeccable record in the field of non-proliferation, in recognition of which the international community is now ready to engage India in nuclear trade.[the Nuclear Suppliers Group’s India specific waiver was given in mid-2008). No other non-NPT signatory country has been given this privilege. And this can be considered as an outstanding achievement in the foreign policy pursuits during the past two decades.
Since then India has become a member of the three of the four multilateral non-proliferation regimes : Missile Technology Control Regime, the Wassenaar Arrangement and the Australia Group. The only one remaining is the Nuclear Suppliers Group( NSG), which is stonewalled due to Chinese objections.
Disarmament : India’s disarmament policy is directed at achieving a world free from weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons; it advocates a universal, non-discriminatory disarmament in a time-bound, phased and verifiable manner; this approach is reflected in the Rajiv Gandhi Action Plan which India submitted at the UNGA in 1998.
Global Governance:
In India’s assessment the contemporary structures of global governance including UN and international financial institutions such as World Bank, IMF etc have proved inadequate in dealing with the political and economic crisis of present days and therefore the international community deserves new structures of global governance to confront cross-cutting and trans-national challenges. India seeks UN reform, including reform of UN Security Council. In recognition of India’s growing stature, several countries have explicitly endorsed India’s bid for a Permanent Seat in expanded Security Council. Objectively and realistically speaking it would be a long and difficult path to tread before the campaign for substantial reforms in the present structures of global governance could be attained.
Climate Change:
India considers climate change as a global problem requiring global efforts and global solutions. India ratified the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (1993) and Kyoto Protocol (2002) and more recently the Paris agreement in October, 2016.
India’s well-articulated position during the negotiation on climate change has been that the current state of climate change and global warming is attributable to the excess emissions of harmful gases by the developed countries during the period of industrialisation; this is often referred to as the concept of ‘historical responsibility’. India has further insisted that the developing countries cannot be expected to forego their developmental efforts. India subscribes to the principle of equity and ‘common but differentiated responsibility’. India would like the developed world to assist the developing countries through financial assistance and transfer of technology to meet the challenges of climate change. India’s position was adequately reflected in the Paris Agreement signed in December 2015.
IN A NUT SHELL
India’s foreign policy is based on pragmatic assessment of national interests, and in its implementation India is guided by a set of well defined fundamental principles. India’s inclusive development is as much central to its foreign policy as are the other objectives.
India’s reputation as world’s largest functioning democracy and fast growing economy is on the rise, and its voice is heard at the international fora. There is widespread global acceptance that India is destined to play an important role in global affairs. India is thus an important player on international arena , moving confidently in the direction of becoming a global power in evolving multi-polar world.
Before I conclude ,I must complement the Andhra University for its initiative to organize this Talk at the Centre For SAARC Studies, and also thank the Ministry of External Affairs for assigning this important task to me . I should also thank the audience for their patience and interest.
I do hope that today's interaction will serve the desired objectives and also trigger interest in India's foreign policy to understand how it is serving country’s vital interests both at domestic front and international arena.
I will be glad to take your questions and to answer them to best of my ability.
Thank You.
The Emergence of Eurasia
- By: Amb (Retd) Shyam Saran
Venue: South Asian University, New Delhi
Date: September 03, 2018
The Emergence of Eurasia
When speaking about Eurasia the challenge is to define the geography that we wish to focus on. I will use the more expansive definition, which goes back to strategists like Mackinder, who in 1904 called the land mass between the Atlantic and the Pacific, but girded in the south by the Himalayas and by the Arctic tundra in the north, as the world island or Eurasia. The domination of the core of this Eurasian landmass, comprising mainly of East Europe, which he called the "heartland” would be the key to world domination. Mackinder encapsulated his geopolitical theory in the following dictum:
"Who rules Eastern Europe commands the heartland; who rules the heartland commands the World Island; who commands the World Island commands the world.”
This harked back to the empires of yore such as the Mongol empire which straddled both continents and enabled the old Silk Roads-and there were many-delivering relative peace and security, although short-lived. Then came the maritime age in the 15th century, when long distance sea travel became possible, and littoral powers at the periphery of the old Eurasia, became dominant, controlling the new sea lines of communication criss-crossing the world’s oceans. Unlike Mackinder the U.S. strategist Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan held that the control of the maritime domain would be the key to empire-building in the new age. Other scholars went further. Spikeman who taught at the Yale University propounded a Rimland theory, which accepted the centrality of Eurasia but claimed that its mastery depended on the control of its oceanic rim on the Atlantic and the Pacific. His dictum-"Who controls the Rimland rules Eurasia; he who controls Eurasia controls the destinies of the world.”
This is, of course, a very American-centric perspective.
But the Second World War demonstrated that both land armies as well as naval power were critical in any power contestation as were regional theatres spread across the globe.
The profile of Eurasia diminished when it was practically partitioned between East and West during the Cold War, disrupting the age old links which bound the region together and the gentle mergings of different parts of the region were now separated by political, ideological and military barriers.
"Who rules Eastern Europe commands the heartland; who rules the heartland commands the World Island; who commands the World Island commands the world.”
This harked back to the empires of yore such as the Mongol empire which straddled both continents and enabled the old Silk Roads-and there were many-delivering relative peace and security, although short-lived. Then came the maritime age in the 15th century, when long distance sea travel became possible, and littoral powers at the periphery of the old Eurasia, became dominant, controlling the new sea lines of communication criss-crossing the world’s oceans. Unlike Mackinder the U.S. strategist Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan held that the control of the maritime domain would be the key to empire-building in the new age. Other scholars went further. Spikeman who taught at the Yale University propounded a Rimland theory, which accepted the centrality of Eurasia but claimed that its mastery depended on the control of its oceanic rim on the Atlantic and the Pacific. His dictum-"Who controls the Rimland rules Eurasia; he who controls Eurasia controls the destinies of the world.”
This is, of course, a very American-centric perspective.
But the Second World War demonstrated that both land armies as well as naval power were critical in any power contestation as were regional theatres spread across the globe.
The profile of Eurasia diminished when it was practically partitioned between East and West during the Cold War, disrupting the age old links which bound the region together and the gentle mergings of different parts of the region were now separated by political, ideological and military barriers.
- The end of the Cold War set into motion the gradual dismantling of these barriers. At the same time, the region gained importance as the treasure of valuable resources, including oil and gas and uranium. China’s emergence as a major economic and military power in the past 3 decades, and its westward expansion, has enhanced the role of Central Asia and Eastern Europe as corridors linking it to the markets of the West. There is little doubt that this region will play a more important geopolitical role during this century. Russia continues to be a major actor in this space and this is likely to bring it into a more visible contestation with China both in Central Asia and East Europe. Initiatives such as the Eurasian Economic Union and the Commonwealth of Independent States are aimed at retaining its influence in a region which constituted the old Soviet Union and which it still regards as its extended neighbourhood.
- What needs to be appreciated is that we are not about to enter the geopolitical landscape that Mackinder had spelt out in the 19th century. Maritime power has not diminished in importance. In fact, more than 90% of the world’s trade is still sea-borne and this is unlikely to change anytime soon particularly for bulk shipments. Oil and gas pipelines criss-crossing the Eurasian landmass are gaining in importance but where will they be in a future likely to be fossil-fuel free? And if the melting of the Arctic ice makes shipping between Asia and Europe much shorter and swifter, what impact would this have on the land corridors already in place and now being built including under China’s BRI initiative? In sum, I believe that the sources of geopolitical power and pre-eminence will require both its maritime as well as land dimension with the former retaining its salience.
- The rising political and economic profile of Eurasia demands an effective security framework to safeguard its valuable resource assets and the corridors which provide the infrastructure for its sustained development and prosperity. What are the likely security challenges in the region? From India’s perspective cross-border terrorism and the spread of religious fundamentalism, under, for example, the Islamic State( IS), in several countries of the region need to be addressed urgently. The continuing civil war in Afghanistan may destabilize the entire region. Its political stability and economic recovery is our common responsibility. The region is a victim of drug trafficking and the new transport corridors are also potential transmission belts for the expanding drug trade. The corridors themselves traverse vast distances and lightly populated areas. Policing them is a huge challenge. And lastly, the resurgence of nationalistic sentiment and the backlash against globalisation, threatens to bring back barriers again interrupting international supply chains, disrupting trade and investment flows and even people to people contacts. These challenges can only be met through closer regional cooperation based on dialogue, on mutual respect and putting in place multilateral institutions and arrangements where each stake-holder has a role and responsibility.
There are several regional bodies that have begun to play a role in this regard, including the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, of which India has recently become a member. India’s Connect Central Asia policy folds very well into its membership of the SCO as does its participation in the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC) which is a multi-modal network linking India through the Iranian port of Chahbahar to the Caspian Sea and thereafter to Russia and Northern Europe. This could link up with the East-West transport corridors that are connecting Russia and China to West European destinations. - There is a rapid transformation taking place in the global geopolitical landscape. We are witnessing major changes on both ends of Eurasia, on the Atlantic flank and its Pacific flank. The fragmentation of Europe continues and it is not certain that NATO will survive as a powerful and united military alliance that has been a fixity in world affairs since the end of the Second World War. Brexit has weakened the EU and a new divide is emerging between the older members in Western Europe and the newer members in Eastern Europe. The U.S. under Trump has downgraded the NATO alliance. U.S.-Russia relations are in flux with the recent Trump-Putin summit in Helsinki. We have also witnessed dramatic changes in East Asia, such as the expansion of Chinese economic and security power, the steady drift in Japan towards significantly advanced military capabilities and a more active foreign policy, the unprecedented Trump-Kim Jongun summit which carries both promise of peace but also risks of military conflict on account of disappointed expectations. India’s own footprint in the region is expanding through its Act East policy and the latest Indo-Pacific strategy. While the U.S. retains a formidable military presence in the region its intent as well as its future role have become uncertain. These are already triggering major changes in the security calculations of major powers like India, Japan, South Korea and Australia. ASEAN countries are also being affected by these changes and risk being marginalised. The notion of ASEAN centrality is now more an aspiration rather than reflective of reality.
- These changes on both its flanks confronts Eurasia with unpredictability and uncertainty but perhaps there are opportunities offered by these realignments to construct more inclusive security architecture and arrangements across both Europe and Asia as well as in what is now being called the Indo-Pacific. This will not be easy. The former Portuguese Minister of European Affairs, Bruno Macaes, has written a very interesting book, The Dawn of Eurasia. He describes the current situation in Eurasia as a ”more complex, multi-polar scenario made up of significant convergences and serious competitions among the principal players of the Eurasian landmass, with no single dominant power.” In addition these principal players, in particular Russia, China and the European Union, have world views and values that are competitive and this makes regional cooperation a more complex exercise. China’s role in Eurasia will also be influenced by how the situation evolves on its eastern flank. Is China’s westward expansion into Eurasia the result of its facing a geopolitical barrier in the east? Will the U.S., while downgrading its alliances, augment its forward deployments in the region? How will a country like Japan react to the new situation? What kind of choices will the ASEAN countries choose to make and what might be India’s security calculations? These are all questions which are difficult to answer while there continues to be geopolitical churn in the region. But these are developments which will impact on Eurasia and its future.
- Does the history of Eurasia have any lessons to offer? I would like to quote from John Darwin who, in his book After Tamerlane-The Global History of Empire, has made a fine survey of the history of the ebb and flow of empires in this space: "…..if there is one continuity that we should be able to glean from a long view of the past, it is Eurasia’s resistance to a uniform system, a single great ruler, or one set of rules. In that sense, we still live in Tamerlane’s shadow-or perhaps more precisely, in the shadow of his failure.”
1. What are the key takeaways?
The end of the Cold War, by dismantling the political, ideological barriers which divided Eurasia, has led to the emergence of Eurasia as a region of independent sovereign states each with its own historical and cultural identity and possessing valuable resources which attract the attention of major powers across the globe. Thanks to the dismantling of barriers, connectivity has become important and the region is being criss-crossed by new railways, highways, oil and gas pipelines and now digital links as well. Eurasia has emerged as a region of economic opportunity.
Despite these developments Eurasian transport corridors are unlikely to diminish the role of the maritime domain as the carrier of much of global trade particularly in bulk items. The importance of maritime security will remain.
The region confronts major security challenges, including religious fundamentalism, terrorism, drug trafficking and weak governance. The continuing civil war in Afghanistan is a particularly destabilising influence. There is also an incipient conflict of interest between China and Russia both in Central Asia and East Europe. The various regional institutions of consultation and cooperation have not matured enough to provide effective response to these challenges.
It is unlikely that Eurasia will emerge as a new cockpit of geopolitical contestation but will be an important component in that contestation. What happens in the western and eastern peripheries of Eurasia will continue to play a greater role in the shaping of a new global order.
Eurasia is also part of India’s extended neighbourhood with longstanding historical, cultural and trade links. However with the creation of Pakistan and China’s occupation of Tibet, these links were broken and remain interrupted. The efforts to find alternative routes through Iran are at best sub-optimal. The situation is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. Therefore, India’s maritime links will be the more important, both on the eastern and western reaches of the Indian Ocean.
The end of the Cold War, by dismantling the political, ideological barriers which divided Eurasia, has led to the emergence of Eurasia as a region of independent sovereign states each with its own historical and cultural identity and possessing valuable resources which attract the attention of major powers across the globe. Thanks to the dismantling of barriers, connectivity has become important and the region is being criss-crossed by new railways, highways, oil and gas pipelines and now digital links as well. Eurasia has emerged as a region of economic opportunity.
Despite these developments Eurasian transport corridors are unlikely to diminish the role of the maritime domain as the carrier of much of global trade particularly in bulk items. The importance of maritime security will remain.
The region confronts major security challenges, including religious fundamentalism, terrorism, drug trafficking and weak governance. The continuing civil war in Afghanistan is a particularly destabilising influence. There is also an incipient conflict of interest between China and Russia both in Central Asia and East Europe. The various regional institutions of consultation and cooperation have not matured enough to provide effective response to these challenges.
It is unlikely that Eurasia will emerge as a new cockpit of geopolitical contestation but will be an important component in that contestation. What happens in the western and eastern peripheries of Eurasia will continue to play a greater role in the shaping of a new global order.
Eurasia is also part of India’s extended neighbourhood with longstanding historical, cultural and trade links. However with the creation of Pakistan and China’s occupation of Tibet, these links were broken and remain interrupted. The efforts to find alternative routes through Iran are at best sub-optimal. The situation is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. Therefore, India’s maritime links will be the more important, both on the eastern and western reaches of the Indian Ocean.
Thai rescue diver dead after falling unconscious in cave
In this image taken from video provided by the Thai Navy Seal, Thai boys are with Navy SEALs inside the cave, Mae Sai, northern Thailand. | Photo Credit: AP
In this image taken from video provided by the Thai Navy Seal, Thai boys are with Navy SEALs inside the cave, Mae Sai, northern Thailand. | Photo Credit: AP
After one rescuer dead, teams stuck on how to bring out Thailand's trapped boys
A Thai rescuer died during an operation to save 12 boys and their soccer coachtrapped inside a flooded cave complex, the latest setback for a mission fraught with danger as rescue teams brace for more rain that could delay their work.
Samarn Poonan, a former member of Thailand's elite navy SEAL unit who was part of the rescue team in Chiang Rai, died on Thursday night after entering the cave to lay oxygen tanks along a potential exit route, the SEAL commander said.
“The conditions in the cave are tough,” Admiral Apakorn Yuukongkaew, commander of the SEALS unit, told reporters on Friday.
“Once he placed the oxygen tanks he became unconscious on his way back. His buddy tried to administer first aid, when there was no response he tried to move him,” Apakorn said.
“We won't let his life be in vain. We will carry on”.
Volunteers at the Tham Luang cave in northern Chiang Rai province were shaken by Samarn's death.
“A navy SEAL just passed away last night. How about a 12-year-old boy that will have to pass through?” Rafael Aroush, an Israeli living in Thailand and volunteer who arrived at the cave site on Thursday, told Reuters.
“There will be rain and many things could go wrong. I don't want to say it, but it could be a catastrophe,” he said.
Chiang Rai Governor Narongsak Osottanakorn said on Thursday that rescuers were preparing a five km (three miles) “oxygen pipeline” as part of preparations for the group's extraction but added that the boys would not be coming out soon.
“You see we are increasing the number of people going inside the cave. So we have to fill it up with oxygen,” Narongsak told reporters.
Rescuers, including international teams, are considering alternative ways to bring the group out before heavy rains hit the country's north next week which could further hamper the rescue operation.
“We have considered many alternatives to find the most feasible ones,” Narongsak said.
Deep Water
Rescue alternatives include teaching the boys to dive and then swim out, a highly risky venture, remaining in the cave for months until the wet season ends and flood waters recede, or drilling a shaft into the cave from the forest above.
The boys, aged between 11 and 16, and their assistant coach were found inside the cave on Monday, after nine days underground, hungry but in good spirits. They went missing after they set out to explore the cave on June 23.
Rescuers are deciding how to remove the group but have been slowed down by logistical issues including high water levels inside the cave and narrow, flooded passages which would require the boys to dive alone.
The Thai navy is teaching the boys the basics of diving, with a view to guiding them out through flood waters.
But getting them out won't be easy. The boys will have to be taught how to use scuba diving gear and how to navigate a cave that has frustrated even the most expert divers.
“Regarding the plan for the 13 to swim or dive, there is only one critical point which it is risky: It is where every boy has to dive alone. The point is very narrow ... It is very deep water. The distance is pretty long,” said Narongsak.
Some of the boys cannot swim.
But rescuers are considering other options including keeping the 13 inside the Tham Luang cave until the flood waters recede, at the end of the rainy season in about four months.
Others say the boys could be out in days if the weather is on their side and enough water can be pumped out of the cave to enable the boys to get out the same way they got in, on foot, perhaps with some swimming.
Another possibility would be to find an alternative way into their chamber, such as drilling a shaft into the cave from the forested mountain above.
Heavy monsoon rains are forecast for next week in most of the north, according to Thailand's meteorological department.
A Thai rescuer died during an operation to save 12 boys and their soccer coachtrapped inside a flooded cave complex, the latest setback for a mission fraught with danger as rescue teams brace for more rain that could delay their work.
Samarn Poonan, a former member of Thailand's elite navy SEAL unit who was part of the rescue team in Chiang Rai, died on Thursday night after entering the cave to lay oxygen tanks along a potential exit route, the SEAL commander said.
“The conditions in the cave are tough,” Admiral Apakorn Yuukongkaew, commander of the SEALS unit, told reporters on Friday.
“Once he placed the oxygen tanks he became unconscious on his way back. His buddy tried to administer first aid, when there was no response he tried to move him,” Apakorn said.
“We won't let his life be in vain. We will carry on”.
Volunteers at the Tham Luang cave in northern Chiang Rai province were shaken by Samarn's death.
“A navy SEAL just passed away last night. How about a 12-year-old boy that will have to pass through?” Rafael Aroush, an Israeli living in Thailand and volunteer who arrived at the cave site on Thursday, told Reuters.
“There will be rain and many things could go wrong. I don't want to say it, but it could be a catastrophe,” he said.
Chiang Rai Governor Narongsak Osottanakorn said on Thursday that rescuers were preparing a five km (three miles) “oxygen pipeline” as part of preparations for the group's extraction but added that the boys would not be coming out soon.
“You see we are increasing the number of people going inside the cave. So we have to fill it up with oxygen,” Narongsak told reporters.
Rescuers, including international teams, are considering alternative ways to bring the group out before heavy rains hit the country's north next week which could further hamper the rescue operation.
“We have considered many alternatives to find the most feasible ones,” Narongsak said.
Deep Water
Rescue alternatives include teaching the boys to dive and then swim out, a highly risky venture, remaining in the cave for months until the wet season ends and flood waters recede, or drilling a shaft into the cave from the forest above.
The boys, aged between 11 and 16, and their assistant coach were found inside the cave on Monday, after nine days underground, hungry but in good spirits. They went missing after they set out to explore the cave on June 23.
Rescuers are deciding how to remove the group but have been slowed down by logistical issues including high water levels inside the cave and narrow, flooded passages which would require the boys to dive alone.
The Thai navy is teaching the boys the basics of diving, with a view to guiding them out through flood waters.
But getting them out won't be easy. The boys will have to be taught how to use scuba diving gear and how to navigate a cave that has frustrated even the most expert divers.
“Regarding the plan for the 13 to swim or dive, there is only one critical point which it is risky: It is where every boy has to dive alone. The point is very narrow ... It is very deep water. The distance is pretty long,” said Narongsak.
Some of the boys cannot swim.
But rescuers are considering other options including keeping the 13 inside the Tham Luang cave until the flood waters recede, at the end of the rainy season in about four months.
Others say the boys could be out in days if the weather is on their side and enough water can be pumped out of the cave to enable the boys to get out the same way they got in, on foot, perhaps with some swimming.
Another possibility would be to find an alternative way into their chamber, such as drilling a shaft into the cave from the forested mountain above.
Heavy monsoon rains are forecast for next week in most of the north, according to Thailand's meteorological department.
Pakistan pushes law ahead of Financial Action Task Force meeting
Facing grey-listing by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) during its crucial six-day Paris meeting starting on Monday, Pakistan has notified the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Regulations- 2018, which it claims is fully compliant with the global watchdog’s guidelines.
The development comes amid a strong push by the United States, backed by the United Kingdom, Germany and France, to put Pakistan in the FATF ‘grey list’ for its failure to comply with the anti-money laundering and terror funding guidelines despite repeated attempts.
Given that the electoral process for a new government in Pakistan will conclude on July 25, sources said, Pakistan could seek more time from the FATF for full compliance.
Not ratified
Since the last FATF session, over the past few months, Pakistan President Mamnoon Hussain had issued multiple ordinances in view of the FATF requirements. However, its Parliament was yet to approve a proposed amendment that recognised all the UNSC declarations in Pakistan’s Anti-Terrorism Act, promulgated as an Ordinance in February and laid in the Senate in April 2018.
On June 20, the Securities & Exchange Commission of Pakistan said it had notified the regulations that seek to make financial institutions more accountable in terms of money laundering and terror funding activities, it being “mandatory” for the country as a member of the Asia Pacific Group on Money Laundering.
During its last session, the FATF Plenary had decided to put Pakistan on the grey list, subjecting it to direct monitoring and intense scrutiny by the International Co-operation Review Group on terror financing, pending further review during the June meeting.
Pakistan was placed on the same list from 2012 to 2015.
The case against Pakistan is its inaction against UN-banned terror groups like the Taliban and Haqqani Network, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jamaat-ud Dawa and its affiliate Falah-i-Insaaniyat Foundation, besides terrorists like Hafiz Saeed and Masood Azhar.
Earlier, the FATF had also sought an exhaustive report from the Asia Pacific Group on Money Laundering, focussed on measures taken by Pakistan against terror funding and money laundering.
About FATF:
The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is an inter-governmental body established in 1989 by the Ministers of its Member jurisdictions. The objectives of the FATF are to set standards and promote effective implementation of legal, regulatory and operational measures for combating money laundering, terrorist financing and other related threats to the integrity of the international financial system. The FATF is therefore a “policy-making body” which works to generate the necessary political will to bring about national legislative and regulatory reforms in these areas.
The FATF has developed a series of Recommendations that are recognised as the international standard for combating of money laundering and the financing of terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. They form the basis for a co-ordinated response to these threats to the integrity of the financial system and help ensure a level playing field. First issued in 1990, the FATF Recommendations were revised in 1996, 2001, 2003 and most recently in 2012 to ensure that they remain up to date and relevant, and they are intended to be of universal application.
The FATF monitors the progress of its members in implementing necessary measures, reviews money laundering and terrorist financing techniques and counter-measures, and promotes the adoption and implementation of appropriate measures globally. In collaboration with other international stakeholders, the FATF works to identify national-level vulnerabilities with the aim of protecting the international financial system from misuse.
The FATF's decision making body, the FATF Plenary, meets three times per year.
Money laundering, terrorist financing, and the financing of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction are serious threats to security and the integrity of the financial system.
The FATF Standards have been revised to strengthen global safeguards and further protect the integrity of the financial system by providing governments with stronger tools to take action against financial crime. At the same time, these new standards will address new priority areas such as corruption and tax crimes.
The revision of the Recommendations aims at achieving a balance:
- On the one hand, the requirements have been specifically strengthened in areas which are higher risk or where implementation could be enhanced. They have been expanded to deal with new threats such as the financing of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and to be clearer on transparency and tougher on corruption.
- On the other, they are also better targeted – there is more flexibility for simplified measures to be applied in low risk areas. This risk-based approach will allow financial institutions and other designated sectors to apply their resources to higher risk areas.
The FATF Recommendations are the basis on which all countries should meet the shared objective of tackling money laundering, terrorist financing and the financing of proliferation. The FATF calls upon all countries to effectively implement these measures in their national systems.
The FATF Recommendations set out a comprehensive and consistent framework of measures which
countries should implement in order to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, as well as
the financing of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Countries have diverse legal,
administrative and operational frameworks and different financial systems, and so cannot all take
identical measures to counter these threats. The FATF Recommendations, therefore, set an
international standard, which countries should implement through measures adapted to their
particular circumstances. The FATF Recommendations set out the essential measures that countries
should have in place to:
identify the risks, and develop policies and domestic coordination;
pursue money laundering, terrorist financing and the financing of
proliferation;
apply preventive measures for the financial sector and other designated
sectors;
establish powers and responsibilities for the competent authorities (e.g.,
investigative, law enforcement and supervisory authorities) and other
institutional measures;
enhance the transparency and availability of beneficial ownership
information of legal persons and arrangements; and
facilitate international cooperation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
‘U.S. to withdraw from UN human rights council’
The United States was to announce on Tuesday that it is withdrawing from the UN Human Rights Council, which it accuses of bias against Israel, UN officials said. U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley was to make the announcement at a press conference with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Washington at 5.00 p.m. (2200 GMT).
Ms. Haley has repeatedly threatened to quit the Geneva-based body, established in 2006 to promote and protect human rights worldwide. UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric declined to comment ahead of a formal announcement, saying: “We will wait to hear the details of that decision before commenting fully.”
However, UN officials privately confirmed they were expecting the U.S. decision to quit the rights body.
Since President Donald Trump took office, the United States has quit the UN cultural agency UNESCO, cut UN funding and announced plans to quit the UN-backed Paris climate agreement.
The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is a United Nations body whose mission is to promote and protect human rights around the world. The UNHRC has 47 members elected for staggered three-year terms on a regional group basis.The current three-week session of the UNHRC began June 18, 2018. The headquarters of UNHRC is in Geneva, Switzerland.
The UNHRC investigates allegations of breaches of human rights in UN member states, and addresses important thematic human rights issues such as freedom of association and assembly, freedom of expression, freedom of belief and religion, women's rights, LGBT rights, and the rights of racial and ethnic minorities.
The UNHRC was established by the UN General Assembly on March 15, 2006 (by resolution A/RES/60/251) to replace the UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR, herein CHR) that had been strongly criticised for allowing countries with poor human rights records to be members. UN Secretaries General Kofi Annan and Ban Ki-moon, former president of the council Doru Costea, the European Union, Canada, and the United States have accused the UNHRC of focusing disproportionately on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and many allege an anti-Israel bias- the Council has resolved more resolutions condemning Israel than the rest of the world combined. The UNHRC works closely with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and engages the UN’s special procedures.
The Human Rights Council (HRC or Council) is the only intergovernmental
organisation responding to all human rights abuses across the globe by exposing violators and demanding change.
By sounding alarm bells at an early stage, the HRC can prevent oncoming human rights disasters or protracted crises from spreading . Prompt action by the Council has helped stem conflicts in countries given international condemnation voiced at the HRC and critical reporting from the Council-mandated investigation missions. The HRC’s swift actions to spotlight human rights violations has also stirred global attention and prompted the governments to take actions to remedy those situations.
No one State runs the Council. The HRC is a group of 47 nations presided over by a President, a position currently held by the Ambassador of Slovenia (Vojislav Šuc).
With 107 of the 193 UN member States having served on the HRC, the Council’s membership reflects the UN’s diversity giving it legitimacy when speaking out on human rights violations in all countries.
Council members commit themselves to uphold human rights . No country has a clean human rights sheet, and the quality of the Council's membership influences its impacts.
The HRC can address any human rights issue brought to its attention, often those that other bodies will not or are unable to discuss.Governments, grass roots activists and other HRC participants address countless issues throughout the busy Council sessions year-long; approx. 30 weeks of meetings annually.
The United States was to announce on Tuesday that it is withdrawing from the UN Human Rights Council, which it accuses of bias against Israel, UN officials said. U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley was to make the announcement at a press conference with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in Washington at 5.00 p.m. (2200 GMT).
Ms. Haley has repeatedly threatened to quit the Geneva-based body, established in 2006 to promote and protect human rights worldwide. UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric declined to comment ahead of a formal announcement, saying: “We will wait to hear the details of that decision before commenting fully.”
However, UN officials privately confirmed they were expecting the U.S. decision to quit the rights body.
Since President Donald Trump took office, the United States has quit the UN cultural agency UNESCO, cut UN funding and announced plans to quit the UN-backed Paris climate agreement.
The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is a United Nations body whose mission is to promote and protect human rights around the world. The UNHRC has 47 members elected for staggered three-year terms on a regional group basis.The current three-week session of the UNHRC began June 18, 2018. The headquarters of UNHRC is in Geneva, Switzerland.
The UNHRC investigates allegations of breaches of human rights in UN member states, and addresses important thematic human rights issues such as freedom of association and assembly, freedom of expression, freedom of belief and religion, women's rights, LGBT rights, and the rights of racial and ethnic minorities.
The UNHRC was established by the UN General Assembly on March 15, 2006 (by resolution A/RES/60/251) to replace the UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR, herein CHR) that had been strongly criticised for allowing countries with poor human rights records to be members. UN Secretaries General Kofi Annan and Ban Ki-moon, former president of the council Doru Costea, the European Union, Canada, and the United States have accused the UNHRC of focusing disproportionately on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, and many allege an anti-Israel bias- the Council has resolved more resolutions condemning Israel than the rest of the world combined. The UNHRC works closely with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and engages the UN’s special procedures.
The Human Rights Council (HRC or Council) is the only intergovernmental
organisation responding to all human rights abuses across the globe by exposing violators and demanding change.
By sounding alarm bells at an early stage, the HRC can prevent oncoming human rights disasters or protracted crises from spreading . Prompt action by the Council has helped stem conflicts in countries given international condemnation voiced at the HRC and critical reporting from the Council-mandated investigation missions. The HRC’s swift actions to spotlight human rights violations has also stirred global attention and prompted the governments to take actions to remedy those situations.
No one State runs the Council. The HRC is a group of 47 nations presided over by a President, a position currently held by the Ambassador of Slovenia (Vojislav Šuc).
With 107 of the 193 UN member States having served on the HRC, the Council’s membership reflects the UN’s diversity giving it legitimacy when speaking out on human rights violations in all countries.
Council members commit themselves to uphold human rights . No country has a clean human rights sheet, and the quality of the Council's membership influences its impacts.
The HRC can address any human rights issue brought to its attention, often those that other bodies will not or are unable to discuss.Governments, grass roots activists and other HRC participants address countless issues throughout the busy Council sessions year-long; approx. 30 weeks of meetings annually.
----------------------------------------------------
Melania, lawmakers seek an end to child separations
A protest outside the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles, California.AFPROBYN BECK
A protest outside the Metropolitan Detention Center in Los Angeles, California.AFPROBYN BECK
There is ‘zero logic’ to the ‘zero tolerance policy’, says Oregon Senator Merkley
Democratic lawmakers vowed on Sunday to end the “evil” separation of migrant children from their parents at the U.S. border, as First Lady Melania Trump made a rare political plea to end the practice.
The “zero-tolerance” border security policy implemented by President Donald Trump’s administration has sparked tears among migrant families and outrage on both sides of the political aisle. “They call it ‘zero tolerance,’ but a better name for it is zero humanity, and there’s zero logic to this policy,” said Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon, after leading a group of Democratic lawmakers to the Mexican border. They toured a converted Walmart supermarket that is now housing about 1,500 immigrant children, after which Mr. Merkley said “hurting kids to get legislative leverage is unacceptable. It is evil”.
Call for reform
Ms. Trump, who seldom wades into the political arena, opted to call for bipartisan immigration reform to fix the issue, rather than denounce the policy. “Ms. Trump hates to see children separated from their families and hopes both sides of the aisle can finally come together to achieve successful immigration reform,” her spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham said.
Authorities said that during one recent six-week period nearly 2,000 minors were separated from their parents or guardians. Representative Sheila Jackson Lee accused Mr. Trump of lying by claiming he was simply following a previously existing law. “The President is not telling the truth. There is no law, there is no policy that has allowed him to snatch children away from their families,” she said.
What is zero tolerance policy ?
A zero tolerance policy is one which imposes strict punishment for infractions of a stated rule, with the intention of eliminating undesirable conduct.Zero-tolerance policies forbid persons in positions of authority from exercising discretion or changing punishments to fit the circumstances subjectively; they are required to impose a pre-determined punishment regardless of individual culpability, extenuating circumstances, or history. This pre-determined punishment, whether mild or severe, is always meted out.
Zero-tolerance policies are studied in criminology and are common in formal and informal policing systems around the world. The policies also appear in informal situations where there may besexual harassment or Internet misuse in educational and workplace environments. In 2014, the mass incarceration in the United States based upon minor offenses has resulted in an outcry on the use of zero tolerance in schools and communities.
Little evidence supports the claimed effectiveness of zero-tolerance policies. One underlying problem is that there are a great many reasons why people hesitate to intervene, or to report behavior they find to be unacceptable or unlawful. Zero-tolerance policies address, at best, only a few of these reasons.
Democratic lawmakers vowed on Sunday to end the “evil” separation of migrant children from their parents at the U.S. border, as First Lady Melania Trump made a rare political plea to end the practice.
The “zero-tolerance” border security policy implemented by President Donald Trump’s administration has sparked tears among migrant families and outrage on both sides of the political aisle. “They call it ‘zero tolerance,’ but a better name for it is zero humanity, and there’s zero logic to this policy,” said Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon, after leading a group of Democratic lawmakers to the Mexican border. They toured a converted Walmart supermarket that is now housing about 1,500 immigrant children, after which Mr. Merkley said “hurting kids to get legislative leverage is unacceptable. It is evil”.
Call for reform
Ms. Trump, who seldom wades into the political arena, opted to call for bipartisan immigration reform to fix the issue, rather than denounce the policy. “Ms. Trump hates to see children separated from their families and hopes both sides of the aisle can finally come together to achieve successful immigration reform,” her spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham said.
Authorities said that during one recent six-week period nearly 2,000 minors were separated from their parents or guardians. Representative Sheila Jackson Lee accused Mr. Trump of lying by claiming he was simply following a previously existing law. “The President is not telling the truth. There is no law, there is no policy that has allowed him to snatch children away from their families,” she said.
What is zero tolerance policy ?
A zero tolerance policy is one which imposes strict punishment for infractions of a stated rule, with the intention of eliminating undesirable conduct.Zero-tolerance policies forbid persons in positions of authority from exercising discretion or changing punishments to fit the circumstances subjectively; they are required to impose a pre-determined punishment regardless of individual culpability, extenuating circumstances, or history. This pre-determined punishment, whether mild or severe, is always meted out.
Zero-tolerance policies are studied in criminology and are common in formal and informal policing systems around the world. The policies also appear in informal situations where there may besexual harassment or Internet misuse in educational and workplace environments. In 2014, the mass incarceration in the United States based upon minor offenses has resulted in an outcry on the use of zero tolerance in schools and communities.
Little evidence supports the claimed effectiveness of zero-tolerance policies. One underlying problem is that there are a great many reasons why people hesitate to intervene, or to report behavior they find to be unacceptable or unlawful. Zero-tolerance policies address, at best, only a few of these reasons.
The United States will not be a migrant camp and it will not be a refugee holding facility.
US President Donald Trump
President Donald Trump emphatically defended his administration’s policy of separating immigrant children from their parents, even as an audio recording that appears to capture the heartbreaking voices of small Spanish-speaking children crying out for their parents at a U.S. immigration facility took center stage Monday.
The audio surfaced as politicians and advocates flocked to the U.S.-Mexico border to visit U.S. immigration detention centers and turn up the pressure on the Trump administration.
And the backlash over the policy widened. The Mormon church said it is “deeply troubled” by the separation of families at the border and urged national leaders to find compassionate solutions. Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican, reversed a decision to send a National Guard helicopter from his state to the Mexican border to assist in a deployment, citing the administration’s “cruel and inhumane” policy.
President Donald Trump emphatically defended his administration’s policy of separating immigrant children from their parents, even as an audio recording that appears to capture the heartbreaking voices of small Spanish-speaking children crying out for their parents at a U.S. immigration facility took center stage Monday.
The audio surfaced as politicians and advocates flocked to the U.S.-Mexico border to visit U.S. immigration detention centers and turn up the pressure on the Trump administration.
And the backlash over the policy widened. The Mormon church said it is “deeply troubled” by the separation of families at the border and urged national leaders to find compassionate solutions. Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican, reversed a decision to send a National Guard helicopter from his state to the Mexican border to assist in a deployment, citing the administration’s “cruel and inhumane” policy.
About United Nations Population Division
Overview
The Population Division was established in the earlier years of the United Nations to serve as the Secretariat of the then Population Commission, created in 1946. Over the years, the Division has played an active role in the intergovernmental dialogue on population and development, producing constantly updated demographic estimates and projections for all countries, including data essential for the monitoring of the progress in achieving the Millennium Development Goals, developing and disseminating new methodologies, leading the substantive preparations for the United Nations major conferences on population and development as well as the annual sessions of the Commission on Population and Development.
The United Nations Population Division assists the Department of Economic and Social Affairs in discharging its functions as member of the Global Migration Group. It provides programmatic support to the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for International Migration and Development. It co-chairs the Population cluster of the Executive Committee on Economic and Social Affairs (EC-ESA), together with the Population Division of ECLAC.
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, with its commitment to leave no one
behind, recognises that international migration is of major relevance for the development of
countries of origin, transit and destination, requiring coherent and comprehensive responses. In
the Agenda, Governments pledged to “facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration
and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed
migration policies” (SDG target 10.7). The 2030 Agenda also seeks to reduce remittance transfer
fees, to promote labour standards for migrant workers, and to eliminate human trafficking.
Deportment of Economic and Social Affairs , United Nation - Releases International Migration Report
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Population Division was established in the earlier years of the United Nations to serve as the Secretariat of the then Population Commission, created in 1946. Over the years, the Division has played an active role in the intergovernmental dialogue on population and development, producing constantly updated demographic estimates and projections for all countries, including data essential for the monitoring of the progress in achieving the Millennium Development Goals, developing and disseminating new methodologies, leading the substantive preparations for the United Nations major conferences on population and development as well as the annual sessions of the Commission on Population and Development.
The United Nations Population Division assists the Department of Economic and Social Affairs in discharging its functions as member of the Global Migration Group. It provides programmatic support to the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for International Migration and Development. It co-chairs the Population cluster of the Executive Committee on Economic and Social Affairs (EC-ESA), together with the Population Division of ECLAC.
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, with its commitment to leave no one
behind, recognises that international migration is of major relevance for the development of
countries of origin, transit and destination, requiring coherent and comprehensive responses. In
the Agenda, Governments pledged to “facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration
and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed
migration policies” (SDG target 10.7). The 2030 Agenda also seeks to reduce remittance transfer
fees, to promote labour standards for migrant workers, and to eliminate human trafficking.
Deportment of Economic and Social Affairs , United Nation - Releases International Migration Report
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greece, Macedonia sign pact to change ex-Yugoslav republic's name to ‘Republic of North Macedonia’
Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, right and his Macedonian counterpart Zoran Zaev, raise their hands during a signing agreement for Macedonia's new name in the village of Psarades, Prespes Greece, on Sunday, June 17, 2018
The agreement still requires the approval of both parliaments and a referendum in Macedonia
The foreign ministers of Greece and Macedonia signed an accord on Sunday to rename the former Yugoslav republic as the “Republic of North Macedonia’.
The landmark accord follows decades of inconclusive talks which had soured relations between the two countries and held up the admission of the Balkan State into the EU and NATO, of which Greece is a member.
The agreement still requires the approval of both parliaments and a referendum in Macedonia.
“We have a historic responsibility that this deal is not held in abeyance, and I am confident that we will manage it,” Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras said as he and his Macedonian counterpart Zoran Zaev received a standing ovation from guests at a lakeside ceremony.
Mr. Tsipras survived a no-confidence vote mounted by Greece's opposition in parliament on Saturday, but the depth of public emotion against the deal is strong.
Up to 70 percent of Greeks object to the compromise, an opinion poll by theProto Thema newspaper showed on Saturday.
Under the deal, Greece will lift its objections to the renamed nation joining the EU and NATO.
“Our two countries have to turn from the past and look to the future,” Mr. Zaev said. “We were bold enough to take a step forward.”
Greece has been in dispute with Macedonia since 1991 over the former Yugoslav republic's name, arguing it could imply territorial claims over the Greek province of Macedonia and an appropriation of ancient Greek culture and civilisation.
The subject is an emotional one for many Greeks. On Saturday, thousands of protesters outside the parliament building shouted “Traitor, traitor!” as lawmakers debated inside.
NATO Membership
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO /ˈneɪtoʊ/; French: Organisation du Traité de l'Atlantique Nord; OTAN), also called the North Atlantic Alliance, is an intergovernmental military alliance between 29 North American and European countries. The alliance is based on the North Atlantic Treaty that was signed on 4 April 1949. NATO constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its independent member states agree to mutual defence in response to an attack by any external party. NATO Headquarters are located in Haren, Brussels, Belgium, while theheadquarters of Allied Command Operations is near Mons, Belgium.
NATO was little more than a political association until the Korean War galvanized the organization's member states, and an integrated military structure was built up under the direction of two US Supreme Commanders. The course of the Cold War led to a rivalry with nations of the Warsaw Pact, that formed in 1955. Doubts over the strength of the relationship between the European states and the United States ebbed and flowed, along with doubts over the credibility of the NATO defense against a prospective Soviet invasion—doubts that led to the development of the independent French nuclear deterrent and the withdrawal of France from NATO's military structure in 1966 for 30 years. After the fall of the Berlin Wall in Germany in 1989, the organization conducted its first military interventions in Bosnia from 1992 to 1995 and later Yugoslavia in 1999 during thebreakup of Yugoslavia.Politically, the organization sought better relations with former Warsaw Pact countries, several of which joined the alliance in 1999 and 2004.
Article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty, requiring member states to come to the aid of any member state subject to an armed attack, was invoked for the first and only time after the September 11 attacks,after which troops were deployed to Afghanistan under the NATO-led ISAF. The organization has operated a range of additional roles since then, including sending trainers to Iraq, assisting in counter-piracy operations and in 2011 enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1973. The less potent Article 4, which merely invokes consultation among NATO members, has been invoked five times: by Turkey in 2003 over the Iraq War; twice in 2012 by Turkey over the Syrian Civil War, after the downing of an unarmed Turkish F-4 reconnaissance jet, and after a mortar was fired at Turkey from Syria;in 2014 by Poland, following theRussian intervention in Crimea;and again by Turkey in 2015 after threats by Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant to its territorial integrity.
Since its founding, the admission of new member states has increased the alliance from the original 12 countries to 29. The most recent member state to be added to NATO is Montenegro on 5 June 2017. NATO currently recognizes Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Macedonia and Ukraineas aspiring members. An additional 21 countries participate in NATO's Partnership for Peace program, with 15 other countries involved in institutionalized dialogue programs. The combined military spending of all NATO members constitutes over 70% of the global total.Members' defense spending is supposed to amount to at least 2% of GDP by 2024.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S., S. Korea to announce suspension of joint drills
Routine military training to continue
South Korea and the U.S. are expected to announce the suspension of “large-scale” military drills this week, with the provision that they would restart if North Korea failed to keep its promise to denuclearise, news agency Yonhap said on Sunday.
Citing an unnamed government source, the South Korean news agency said the suspension was likely to affect only major joint exercises, not more routine military training.
U.S. President Donald Trump surprised officials in Seoul and Washington when he pledged to end “war games” after his summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Singapore last week.
South Korean President Moon Jae-in said on Thursday that his country would carefully consider joint military drills with the U.S. and he asked his officials to cooperate with the U.S. on the issue, his office said in a statement.
At a Senate hearing on Thursday, Mr. Trump’s nominee to be Ambassador to South Korea, retired Admiral Harry Harris, backed the idea of a “pause” in major military exercises.
Comments
Post a Comment