Connect with us

South Asia

Outfoxing Signal From SCO for India: Russia Turned Strategic to Strange Partner

Dr. Bawa Singh

Published

on

Since its inception, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) has been as a Eurasian political, economic, and military organization. Initially, it has five members -China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, known the ‘Shanghai Pact.’ Having strategic interests in the Eurasian region; it becomes imperative for India to institutionalize its engagements with the Eurasian region.

Russia has been encouraging and endorsing India’s full-time membership of the SCO, realizing it is an important potential strategic partner. Realist thinker like Hans Morgenthau had already been put the nations on alert that there is no permanent friends/foes in the arena of international relations. For the given strong strategic partnership between India and Russia, the recent picture of bilateral ties has not been moving in the same direction. In this backdrop, the analysis will be made to know the dynamics, why Russia has been giving the strategic signal for India to be at choppy sea in the SCO?

Genesis of SCO

Out of the ongoing regionalization trends since the 1970s, the SCO, a Eurasian geopolitical organization, originally established as ‘Shanghai Five’ on 26 April 1996, out of the ‘Treaty on Deepening Military Trust in Border Regions in Shanghai.’ After the inclusion of Uzbekistan in 2001, it was rechristened as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Initially, it was aimed at ensuring the liberal democracy to grow in the Central Asian countries. However, it has been argued by a political scientist Thomas Ambrosio, that the SCO has been failed to enthuse the member countries to do the same. During their meeting in Saint Petersburg (Russia), the members signed the SCO Charter in June 2002, in which they determined its purposes, principles, and structures. The SCO has covered wide-ranging of areas of cooperation such as security, trade, investment, connectivity, energy, and culture. Despite its slothful performance, the strategic salience of the SCO cannot be undervalued for the given of membership of two nuclear powers and possessing of the 60% of the land mass of Eurasia and quarter population of the world.

Geopolitical Expansion of the SCO

It has been accepted that the Indo-Pacific geopolitics in the 21st century, going to be determined by the two Asian giants –China and India. Having its geopolitical and geostrategic interests in the Eurasian region, India has been seeking to get into the SCO, which has been lingering on due to the obduracy of China. In the backdrop of regional geopolitical dynamics, India has been encouraged by Russia to join SCO as a full-time member because the latter has considered that the former could be a vital strategic partner to counter China in the Eurasian region. India applied for the membership in September 2014. The SCO approved it in July 2015. To join as a full member, India has signed a memorandum of obligations on 24 June 2016 at Tashkent. Now, it is expected that India will be a full member of the organization by 2017. However, to counter India in the SCO, China has pressed Russia for the entry of Pakistan in the same. Along with India, Pakistan is also joining the SCO in 2017.

SAARCIZATION of the SCO?

Now, India and Pakistan are going to be the member of the SCO in 2017. What will be the geopolitical meaning of this for the SCO? To decode the meaning of hostile relation of India and Pakistan for SCO, it is worth to mention here the performance of the SAARC in this context.

The performance of SAARC in terms of trade and foreign direct investment has been remained at the lost ebb comparable to the other regional organizations such as ASEAN and the EU etc. The SAARC Summit of 2016, has been canceled due to the ongoing tension on the Line of Control (LoC) between both the countries. No substantial cooperation have been achieved in counter terror, energy, connectivity, refugees problems etc. Despite the counter-terror strategy of SAARC in place, numerous terrorist attacks have been taking place in both the countries. Seeing the performance of SAARC during the last 30 years, it is very easily to argue that the SAARC has been failed due to the given hostile relations of India and Pakistan. When these two countries join the SCO, how it will perform, will remain interesting to see the same. It seems that the side effects of the hostility between both the countries will drastically impact the performance of the SCO. Moreover, India will have a pariah status in the SCO, given the changing geopolitical equations. Russia, China and Pakistan has been emerging a new strategic triumvirate.

Russia’s Strategic Signal for India

India and Russia have remained active strategic partners throughout the Cold War. Russia has helped India in various sectors such as military, science and technology, industrialization, and nuclear technology. Russia has remained the largest exporter of weapons to India. With the end of the Cold War and disintegration of the USSR, the geopolitical equations have changed. Russia has come more close to Pakistan despite the given hostile background of relation during the former’s intervention in Afghanistan (1979-89) and now signed defense agreement in 2014.

Russia is one of the dominating players in the Eurasian region. India has interests in the Eurasian region such as political, economic, and security. For the given historical background of bilateral between Russia and India, it is anticipated that the former will remain helpful in protecting the Indian’s interest. But seeing some moves of Russia, it seems that now, Russia has been drifting away from India.

The terrorism, separatism, and extremism have remained the pressing security threats for the SCO member countries and to fight against these threats, is remained the top priority of the SCO since its inception. In this context, Afghanistan case will be taken into account. Afghanistan is a dialogue partner of the SCO, moreover being strategically located, it has been sharing borders with Pakistan, China, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan and Iran. Due to the resurgence of Taliban in Afghanistan, there is a possibility of shifting of terrorism to Russia and China via the Central Asia. It has created panic for these two countries. Against this background, Moscow is going to host a meeting with China and Pakistan on Afghanistan. India is an acceded member of the SCO, and moreover, it has strategic interests in Afghanistan. Therefore, India also should be a partner of this meeting. However, India has not been made a partner of the same.

The second case was also far-reaching impacts for India. Soon after Uri terrorist attack, India has urged Russia not to take part in the joint military exercise ‘Friendship’ with Pakistan. Ignoring the Indian request, Russia has participated in the same exercise. In the ‘Heart of Asia-Istanbul Process’ (3-4 December 2016), Russia has openly sided with Pakistan on the terrorism issue. Rather, it advised India not to use such fora for the bilateral problems. Russian ambassador to Pakistan, Alexey Y. Dedov does not only supported the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) rather expressed Russia’s interest to join it. Since it is passing through the disputed territory, hence it means, it is weakening the claim of India regarding disputed area. India has been outfoxed/outmaneuvered in the strategic and energy projects from the Central Asian countries by Russia and China. Tanchum (2013), has argued that central Asia is critical for India’s security, trade and energy needs, but it has been outfoxed from the region, and it raises a serious question about India’s ability to be a partner of the regional arrangement. At last, it is concluded that Russia has turned from strategic partner to a strange partner of India. Therefore, Russia is not only a challenge in the Eurasian region and SCO rather it is going to hurt the Indian interests in the South Asia as well. In the changing geopolitical equations, the protection of Indian interests in the Eurasian region would depend on India’s astute diplomacy as well as balance between the major powers.

Dr. Bawa Singh is teaching in the Centre for South and Central Asian Studies, School of Global Relations, Central University of Punjab, Bathinda, India-151001. bawasingh73[at]gmail.com

Continue Reading
Comments

South Asia

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hug Diplomacy Fails

Published

on

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s enthusiasm is only to capture power; the same, however, cannot be said of foreign policy administration, especially in dealing with our immediate neighbors, and China. The best examples of his policy paralysis are the way in which demonetization and GSTs are implemented, or his sudden visit to Pakistan in December 2015. He is always in election mode. During the first two years, he was in the humor of a general election victory. Thereafter, he has spent much of his energy in establishing himself as the sole savior of the BJP in state elections, and this year he will turn his attention to the 2019 general elections.

Two years ago, without doing any homework or planning, Modi travelled to Pakistan from Afghanistan to greet his counterpart, the then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, to wish him well on his birthday. He hugged Sharif and spent only two hours with him to try to sort out the 70 year outstanding divergence between India and Pakistan.

Modi strategically hugs fellow world leaders. He has no strategic perception. He believes only in the power of his personal charisma in dealing with foreign policy matters. This strategy has failed considerably with China and with our other immediate neighbors, but he neither intends to accept these mistakes, nor is he interested in learning from them. More importantly, an alternative diplomatic strategy is necessary to maintain our international position; through prudent policy articulations. Let us examine the impact of his hug diplomacy.

During the 2013/14 general elections campaign he attacked the Congress-led UPA government on multiple fronts, including towards former Prime Minister Dr.Manmohan Singh’s policy on Pakistan. He proposed that the BJP government would have more guts to better deal with Pakistan. Under his administration, we lost numerous soldiers in fighting with Pakistan terrorists, experienced a 100-day shutdown in Kashmir, blindly allowed a Pakistan team to inspect our Pathankot Air Force Station, and generally continued down a visionless path in foreign policy. These indicate that Modi’s defensive and offensive strokes against Pakistan have failed completely, including the most politicized ‘surgical strike’ that did not contain the terrorists from Pakistan. Today, the Modi government is searching for policy directions in handling Pakistan, but sat in a corner like a lame duck.

In the beginning, when he took office, Modi perhaps believed that ‘everything is possible’ in international affairs simply by virtue of occupying the prime minister seat. Further, he thought that all his visits abroad would bring a breakthrough. His hugs with counterparts, various costume changes, and the serving of tea, indicate that our prime minister is using soft power approaches. These approaches were used by our first Prime Minister Nehru whilst India did not have a strong military or economy. However, India is not today what it was in the 1950/60s. Presently, hugging and changing costumes will not necessarily keep India influential in international relations, especially at a time when the world is undergoing multi-polar disorder. However, he is in continuous denial that his paths are wrong, especially in dealing with our neighbors.

What is the BJP led-NDA government policy on Pakistan? Does this government have any policy for Pakistan? Since 2014,Modi has not permitted the Minister of External Affairs, Sushma Swaraj, to contribute to any foreign policy articulations. As long as Sushma fulfills the duty of Ministry of Indian Overseas Affairs she will receive praise from the prime minister’s office.

During 2015 he met Sharif at his residence in Islamabad to give him a hug. This happened exactly two years ago. Further, this is a very serious question that the Media and Modi-supporting TV channels forgot to raise. Instead, without hesitation, they praised him for touching the sky, and described the moment as a diplomatic initiative for a breakthrough with our neighbor Pakistan. The Media will realize this mistake when their traditional viewers switch over to other channels to get centrist news.

What are the outcomes of Modi hugging Sharif at his residence? The results are terrible. India’s relation with Pakistan touches the lowest ever level in a history of 70 years. The Mumbai terror attack mastermind Hafiz Saeed was released from house arrest and has started a political party to contest the general elections in Pakistan next year. This government does not have the guts to put pressure on Pakistan to provide the evidence – as requested by the Pakistan’s Court – essential to keeping the trial alive against Saeed. Modi has often preached that his government succeeded in isolating Pakistan in the international domain. The reality would be as much India diplomatically isolating Pakistan from the international community as the vacuum has been comfortably filled by China without any difficulty. These are the achievements that Modi’s hugs have brought to India.

The stability of Afghanistan is in India’s long-term strategic interest. India’s ‘aid diplomacy’ to Afghanistan in various fields has been increasing day after day, including infrastructure development and the training of Afghan security forces. Yet, India’s influence in Afghanistan is in disarray. Former Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai said, “India should have its own policy on Afghanistan”. However, Modi’s policy makers in New Delhi are expecting the US President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to maintain India’s active and significant role in Afghanistan.

India showed its displeasure during the constitutional crisis in Nepal, in halting energy supply to Kathmandu. This forced the land-locked country to obtain easy support from Beijing. Nepal was once the buffer state between India and China; it is now sitting on China’s lap and steering India. Modi’s mute approach to the Rohingya crisis speculates India’s major power ambition. This is a serious setback to India’s diplomacy: it is now pushing Myanmar to get support from China, along with our neighbor Bangladesh, in resolving the crisis with Rohingya refugees.

The first democratically elected government under Mohamed Nasheed was toppled unconstitutionally in Maldives. Since India has failed to raise any substantial voice against this atrocity, China has jumped onto the scene. New Delhi ought to have designed a policy to resolve the political crisis, but India, the world’s largest democracy, has watched this incident as a movie in the Indian Ocean Theatre. The highlight was the decision of our Prime Minister to skip a visit to the Maldives whilst on his tour of the Indian Ocean islands.

In Sri Lanka, China is designing its future battlefield against India. As the war against LTTE was over, Colombo started travelling in a two-way track, with India and China. Beijing’s love affair, apparently with Colombo, but with an eye on New Delhi, is no secret. Since Modi has allowed these developments without exercising any diplomatic resistance, he has given China a comfortable seat inside Sri Lanka. China has now realised that her weaved network against India can be strengthened easily in the Indian Ocean, because New Delhi only displays silent concern. After Modi took office, India – China relations have remained static. The border talks are on stand still. Beijing holds on to extend a technical hold on Masood Azhar, a UN designated terrorist. The dragon pulls our immediate neighbors to her side. These developments indicate that our foreign policy articulations are not supported by any clear strategic trajectory.

Modi’s diplomacy is like an air balloon which, once torn, cannot be refilled; a new balloon is needed. Hugging a leader does not lead to any commitment in foreign affairs. Personal charisma does not work as a foreign policy tool in dealing with a world power. For this reason, Modi cannot understand the setback he is facing with China, Pakistan, and our other neighbors. In comparison, Vajpayee’s or Dr. Manmohan Singh’s combined simple charisma as leaders or economists with appropriate home-work in the past; has caused tremendous results in foreign policy, including expected results in Indo-US nuclear negotiations. This is completely missing in Modi’s administration.

Hence, the newly elected Congress Party President Rahul Gandhi has said, “Modi’s hug diplomacy fails”. It was a valuable comment that the ruling elite should consider as a meaningful insight. Alternative approaches are vital to regain our neighbors’ trust, as opposed to China’s. However, Prime Minister Modi’s this year of work will be focused on the 2019 general elections, compromising the proper attention due to India’s international diplomacy.

First published in Congress Sandesh

Continue Reading

South Asia

Potential Consequences of Nuclear Politics in South Asia

Published

on

Established in 1948, Indian atomic energy commission turned towards United Kingdom for their first help in the making of Apsara. Subsequently, with a similar vision, the CIRUS reactor was supplied by Canada, where, the heavy water came from the United States.

India, over the years, has built a nuclear program that has led to the making of a number of reactors. India’s 1974 “Peaceful nuclear explosion” implies to their hegemonic ambitions as India has the capacity to produce around 300-400 nuclear weapons. The continuous upgradation of weapons by India could lead her as a hegemon nuclear power that can deeply unsettle Pakistan and China.

Calling into question India’s stated intentions, when it comes to nuclear tests, the plutonium for its 1974 and 1998 tests was diverted from its “civilian” nuclear facilities. After 1974, India continued to claim its explosion was “peaceful” and advocated global nuclear disarmament, even as it rejected proposals by Pakistan to denuclearize South Asia.

From Pokhran-I to Operation Shakti, India has traditionally relied on plutonium and thermonuclear technology. In 1992, the then Chairman of Department of Indian Atomic Energy  acknowledged that India had succeeded in the past for achieving the target of highly enriched uranium, while the centrifuge program was facing critical and technical hindrances. Also, it was admitted by the former Chairman of AEC, Raja Ramanna that India was working to produce more efficient centrifuges which were used for military purposes.  At the peak of all these developments, it is important to note that thermonuclear weapons have far more destructive power than a nuclear bomb.

India may also be considering using its civil power reactors to increase its stock of weapon-grade plutonium. Robert Einhorn, the State Department’s former top nonproliferation official told the Carnegie International Nuclear Policy Conference in March that the officials in the Bush administration had the ambition to sign a nuclear deal with India, to “work together to counter China- to be a counterweight to an emerging China.” He further expressed his views that the nuclear deal had unfortunate repercussions, because other nations concluded that Washington was playing favorites with India.

India is the only country in the region having uranium reserves that are higher than what other countries in the region hold. India has already received roughly 4,914 tons of uranium from France, Russia, and Kazakhstan, and it has agreements with Canada, Mongolia, Argentina, and Namibia for additional shipments. It also signed a uranium deal with Australia that has sparked considerable controversy at home.

This massive production of uranium annually can support its nuclear submarine program and current weapons grade plutonium production rate indirectly. These uranium reserves are enough for approx. 6-10 bombs per year.

Adding a twist to the existing fissile material build-up process, the Indo-US strategic partnership supplemented it. Under this dangerous bargain, it would continue to not only allow India to increase its fissile material but also the capacity to increase the build-up of nuclear weapon material.

Hence, the strategic stability in South Asia has been negatively impacted since the initial stages due to the hegemonic designs which India pursued with the start of CIRUS reactor. With the passage of time, the Indo-US nuclear deal and Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) waiver have already added more repercussions and now the discriminatory move to try to facilitate Indian NSG membership will further erode the strategic stability in South Asia.

Indian NSG membership and its potential exemption has adverse implications on non-proliferation regime. This has allowed India to expand its military program. As a result of 2008 exemption it has signed a number of agreement in nuclear domain with different countries. Interestingly, Mansoor Ahmed states that India has the capacity to utilize the uranium it is importing from these countries to produce more bombs.  The aforementioned reasons sum up India’s keenness to obtain NSG’s membership. This U.S.-backed move to make India a member of the NSG will be good neither for Pakistan nor for China, and it would set off nuclear instability in the region.

While looking at the dynamics of left alone Pakistan since late 1990’s, starting from Indo-US strategic partnership to now this geoploliticising of NSG. Consequently, this shall allow India to use all this a means of making the most optimum use of all its natural uranium stocks for weaponization. To offset the stakes, it might be prudent to have a close check on the international architects of India’s nuclear build-up. The alleged misuse of U.S. and Canadian controlled items by India must be enough to refrain from any cooperation if it is not abiding by group’s guidelines and commodity control list.

Furthermore, the more discriminatory the international nuclear order becomes, the less would be the effectiveness of deterrence and strategic balance in the region. The NSG will have to identify that India’s 1974 nuclear explosive test was the reason that nuclear supplier states established the NSG. It must also emphasize upon its commitment to uphold the principles of the nonproliferation.

Continue Reading

South Asia

Who’s going to rescue Male?

Published

on

In the last three and a half years of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s administration, China has been allowed to easily interfere with the internal affairs of India’s close neighbors’. This demonstrates India’s reluctance to stand with its neighbors’as they face grave domestic challenges which require India’s assistance. The best example is the recent refugee crisis in Rakhine, western province of Myanmar, and the fleeing of the Rohingya Muslims to India and Bangladesh. Modi’s government only observes the issue from the perspective of security, and therefore seeks to send the refugees back to Myanmar; it does not attempt to resolve the crisis. India is supposed to take the lead in resolving the Rohingya refugee crisis. However, its insular, defensive strategy has given the Chinese the opportunity to take a foothold; Modi is failing to address the situation. India is a country aspiring to become a major power but it is presently losing ground daily in the international power system. These raises serious doubt among the great powers and among those countries that desire and expect the rise of India.

The present Maldives crisis provides India with a chance to reclaim the trust of its neighbors. The first democratically elected President, Mohamed Nasheed, was arrested for terrorism charges in 2015 and sentenced to 13 years. In consequence of his health problems, he exiled in London now staying in Sri Lanka. Meanwhile, the Maldives’ Supreme Court has ordered (on 1 February 2018) the release of the former president Nasheed and the other twelve members of the opposition party. If President Yameen’s government complies with the court order, there is a good chance that it would lose its majority to the opposition party. Hence, Yameen refused to comply with the verdict of the court and declared a state of emergency. The Supreme Court has since taken a ‘U’ turn and revoked its judgment regarding the release of prisoners. Thus, Male is facing a great crisis.

In this article, I would like to argue that, since the Male crisis is occurring in the Indian Ocean Theater, it is for New Delhi to exercise its responsibility and resolve the crisis.

The Male Crisis

Modi skipped a visit to Male during his state visit in 2015 to the Indian Ocean countries. This was a policy mistake of the Modi’s government. Hence, “India’s leverage in the Maldives is less than it has ever been” (The Hindu). He should have visited at that time, to register a strong message in Male that ‘India will stand with them shoulder to shoulder to restore democracy’. This would have been a tough message to Yameen, to respect the law. Now, however, in the vacuum of the government’s mistake, Yameen is spreading his wings towards India’s adversaries – China and Pakistan. If it is allowed – this would be a serious security threat for India. China should not be allowed to dictate terms in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR). So, by resolving the situation, Modi can rectify his past errors.

If India is to emerge from the containment strategy of China, then it should act with strategic assertiveness whilst simultaneously inviting both government and the opposition of Maldives’ to negotiating table, to recover the rule of law in Maldives, and allow elections to be conducted in September 2018.

India should now act sensibly by considering the request from ‘Nasheed the opposition camp’ for India’s support; they ask India “to send an envoy, backed by India’s military”. Nasheed believes that India alone can restore the democracy to the Island. Moreover, India cannot run from this emergency by citing “its long-standing claim not to interfere in other states’ affairs” (The Independent). The Indian Ocean is India’s backyard. India should not expect the West to come to the rescue of Male or allow China to interfere. The world knows that China is Yameen’s close ally. It also knows that the Male military has trained in Islamabad and that ammunition has been produced in Male with the support of Pakistan.

The traditional responses of India – such as “we are watching closely and are disturbed” – will not work this time nor gain any diplomatic advantage. This is the time for India to step in and prove that the Indian Ocean is indeed India’s Ocean, especially with increasing Chinese assertiveness therein. India should consider the sincere request of former president Nasheed, the condemnation of the West, and the support of the wider world.

China’s mouthpiece, The Global Times, advises that – ‘India must not interfere in Male’ as it has no justification. India is surrounded by more rogue states. If India does not interfere in resolving the Male crisis, then law breakers closer to home will presume that India’s desire to get along with China provides them with more impunity for breaking the law domestically. India’s relations with China have no space with Male crisis. Hence, India has the duty to reinstate democracy in the island nation of Maldives and proclaim to the world that India’s aspiration to become a major power has not faded. Modi should not forget that India is now a country with a “credible minimum nuclear deterrent”. Our “ballistic missile arsenal can deliver warheads on targets more than 5,000-km away – a range that encompasses China’s eastern centers”. India also possesses and we have the “air, sea, and land-based launching platforms” (CRS Report, 2017). India’s past leadership gave substantial power to Modi so that he would use it in situations of necessity like this, to safeguard India’s image on the Indo-Pacific stage.

Conclusion

What are the available solutions and who is going to rescue Male? The answer is very clear: India holds this responsibility.

First, whilst dealing in this matter, New Delhi should avoid crafting useless statements like “we are disturbed by watching the Male crisis”. This will not provide any positive results. India should being tough with the Yameen government; it should ring a bell about former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s realism of “1988’s Operation Cactus” to thwart the coup attempt to save the Maumoon Abdul Gayoom’s government in Male. Through this communication Yameen will have a chance to presume India’s strategic trajectory. Although China, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are the close allies of Yameen, India should not back down on this matter. To shy away from this challenge is akin to a suicide attempt for the Modi government. No one would accept this leadership if it took this course.

Second, India should communicate its stance with the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) countries, to stand together and to mount pressure on the Maldives. This would send a signal to Beijing that it ought to avoid any interference in the issue, and sternly warn Yameen, forcing him to reconsider his position.

Third, New Delhi could meanwhile obtain the backup of the US, EU, and Australia, to make a powerful statement of India’s intention to restore peace and order in Maldives.

Fourth, India should stand tall in this matter and tell the world that it is its duty and responsibility to earn and preserve the trust of other nations. This trust is now under serious threat, following the actions of the ruling elite in New Delhi. This trust was built brick by brick by India’s leaders in the last seven decades. To keep this trust with its ally alive, India should act wisely to maintain its interest in the Indian Ocean.

Fifth and finally, if Modi fails to defend India’s interest in the Indian Ocean, he should take moral responsibility. India’s neighbor is facing a very serious issue. It is also vulnerable to the influence of China in the Maldives, which increases whenever New Delhi stands still. If there is no keen watchfulness with China, there will be serious long-term consequences. This can be seen in Sri Lanka today.

Continue Reading

Latest

Newsletter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 Modern Diplomacy