Connect with us


European Union Strategy for Cooperation in the Indo-Pacific and the Role for India



Photo: Markus Spiske/Unsplash

The European Council approved conclusions on the European Union (EU) Strategy for Cooperation in the Indo-Pacific on April 16, 2021. The bloc laid out its intentions to “reinforce its strategic focus, presence and actions in the Indo-Pacific with the aim of contributing to the stability, security, prosperity and sustainable development of the region, based on the promotion of democracy, rule of law, human rights and international law.” This strategy was launched before the virtual EU-India Summit that was held on May 8, 2021.

The strategy of the EU has opened new doors for India to play a greater role in the Indo-Pacific, the strategy mentioned that “EU will continue to explore deepening economic relations with India”. Henceforth, India will have a relevant role in strengthening the Indo-Pacific strategy of the EU. After the release of the Indo-Pacific strategy by the EU, a virtual India-EU summit was organized. For the first India-EU summit to be held in the 27+1 format—the only other country to have held talks with the EU in this format is the U.S.

India well understands the uncertainty embedded in the U.S. and China rivalry and needs partners to support its economic growth and security developments. Both the EU and India consider each other as their natural partners in the Indo-Pacific. The Summit reinforced the EU-India strategic partnership, that is based on shared values of democracy, adherence to rule of law and respect for human rights.

The policy adopted by the EU is relevant as it is followed by the launch of the Indo-Pacific Strategies of European countries like France, Germany and the Netherlands. Currently, the EU is trying to maintain a balanced approach in dealing with China but the relations between them are deteriorating. The EU and China relations exacerbated when in March 2021, the  EU imposed sanction against China for its treatment of the Uyghur Muslim living in the Xinjiang province of China. To counter the sanctions of the EU, China as well imposed sanctions against the EU. After the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989, the sanctions imposed by the EU are the first human rights sanctions against China. Last year in December 2020, the EU-China Comprehensive Investment Aid was signed. But for the agreement has not come into force as it has to be ratified by the EU members and the European Parliament. But, due to the sanctions in place, the agreement is under enormous opposition from the EU members making the conditions unfavorable  for ratification. Presently, the EU is trying to come up with a balanced approach towards China, therefore, avoided pointing a figure at China in its strategy. But then again the rising Chinese assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific has alarmed the bloc.  Therefore, the changing role of China in the region and the world has laid the groundwork for the EU to revise its Indo-Pacific strategy. 

Major highlights of the Indo-Pacific strategy was that it based on a long-term perspective. It aims to provide the EU larger engagement in the region and enhance its capacity as a global actor in the region starting from the east coast of Africa to the Pacific Island States. The EU believes that the political dynamics of the Indo-Pacific region has stepped up the geopolitical competition and increased concerns on trade and supply chains along with technological, political and security areas. The violations of human rights in the region threaten the security and stability of the region that directly impacts the interests of the EU. Indo-Pacific is crucial for the EU as it holds 60% of the world population and produces 60% of global GDP, contributing two-thirds of current global growth. The region comprises major trade routes and dominates the world trade and political dynamics.

The EU wants to work with all partners in the areas of common interests such as addressing the human and economic effects of the COVID-19 crisis, guaranteeing a sustainable and inclusive green socio-economic recovery and establishing a resilient health system. The focal point of the EU Indo-Pacific strategy is to engage with partners that have announced their Indo-Pacific approaches. The EU is committed to the region and wishes to cooperate with everyone ready to engage with the bloc. The strategy is designed to be rational, adaptable and multi-faceted, to give EU the opportunity to shape its cooperation conferring to specific policy areas where common ground based on mutual principles, values and interest with the partners can be established. The renewed strategy allows the EU to enhance cooperation in areas such as ocean governance, health, research and technology, security and defence, connectivity, and climate change.

In coordination with the EU strategy, the joint statement after the India-EU summit stated that both the partners will cooperate with each other in areas such as connectivity, climate change, health sector, human rights, digital transformation and foreign and security affairs. It was agreed in the summit that EU and India will commit to cooperate to a free, open and inclusive Indo-Pacific region. Both the partners consented to strengthen EU-India cooperation in the Indo-Pacific based on respect of sovereignty, democracy, rule of law, freedom of navigation and overflight, unrestricted lawful commerce, and peaceful resolution of any disputes. This indicates that they want to prevent any specific country to dominate the region or run it according to its narrative.

EU along with India can provide economic, social, security and political alternatives schemes as the region is attempting to cultivate a balance between the U.S. and China. The vision India holds for the Indo-Pacific is well expressed in its initiatives like the Security and Growth for all in the Region (SAGAR) doctrine. Being geographically positioned within the Indo-Pacific region, India’s strategy towards the region is based on maritime security, disaster management, connectivity, supply chains, and scientific as well as academic cooperation. To address the challenges India faces in the region it has utilized its strategic position to foster relations with the QUAD members, ASEAN and now the EU to support its vision. India is open to the presence of the EU in the region. Lately, it also supported the membership of France to the Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA). The country also welcomed the Indo-Pacific strategies of the U.K., France, Germany and the Netherlands. The Chinese aggression in South Asia, Southeast Asia and particularly the borders of India has encouraged the country to deepen its relations with other countries, and mitigating the Chinese assertion is a priority for India. 

The alignment of India and EU strategies has opened opportunities for both to cooperate in the Indo-Pacific and strengthen their bilateral relations. India and the EU must include ASEAN members in their mutual cooperation and establish multilateral ties to cooperate in the areas of mutual interests. Other than France no other member of the EU is a resident power in the region, hence requires to be consistent and make regular efforts to assure its presence in the region. The EU is not a traditional maritime power in the region, therefore, needs the support of India to establish itself as a maritime power in the region. France is a regional stakeholder and a reliable partner of India, therefore, will have a major role to play in directing the EU-India cooperation in the Indo-Pacific. For the EU to position itself in the region it has to support the regional countries like Seychelles, Mauritius, Bangladesh, Seychelles, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Indonesia and Singapore. As India does share cordial relations with these countries it can back EU’s relations with them and presence in the region. Cooperation in capacity-building in the health sector, post COVID-19 recovery, maritime security, cybersecurity, enhancement of supply-chains, adherence to rule of law, open and free Indo-Pacific along with climate change, disaster management and promotion of green economy must be the center of gravity for EU-India cooperation in the region. Together they have to support the regional powers in establishing the political, security and economic stability along with developing scientific and technical capacity.

Even though India-EU have enormous opportunities to cooperate in the Indo-Pacific, there are certain challenges that needs to be addressed. Firstly, the EU strategy for the Indo-Pacific depends on the way its 27 members cooperate with each other and line up their individual strategies for the Indo-Pacific with the EU strategy. Secondly, for India counterbalancing the Chinese presence in the region is a priority, whereas the EU wants to take a balanced approach towards China. The bloc wants to solve the challenge arising out of China’s assertiveness but not necessarily wants to take an anti-China position. Therefore, both India-EU has to balance this difference in their particular Indo-Pacific strategies. Thirdly, the success of EU-India cooperation in the Indo-Pacific will largely depend on the openness of the regional countries towards them, as well as the Chinese reaction to the EU-India led cooperation. Lastly, India tends to be active and robust in implementing its strategies in the region. The EU Strategy for Cooperation in the Indo-Pacific has opened new doors for India to play a bigger role in the region. In the end, there is an enormous opportunity to secure their interest in the region, but it is too early to determine their success in the Indo-Pacific.

Shivangi Dikshit is a Research Analyst at Nehginpao Kipgen Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Jindal School of International Affairs (JSIA), O.P.Jindal Global University, India. Shivangi is a recent Post-graduate in International Affairs from JSIA. She focuses on the Political and Security Developments of Southeast Asia. LinkedIn Profile- Shivangi Dikshit. Twitter- @DikshitShivangi

Continue Reading


Indo-European rapprochement and the competing geopolitics of infrastructure



Current dynamics suggest that the main focus of geopolitics in the coming years will shift towards the Indo-Pacific region. All eyes are on China and its regional initiatives aimed at establishing global dominance. China’s muscle-flexing behavior in the region has taken the form of direct clashes with India along the Line of Actual Control, where India lost at least 20 soldiers last June; interference in Hong Kong’s affairs; an increased presence in the South China Sea; and economic malevolence towards Australia. With this evolving geopolitical complexity, if the EU seeks to keep and increase its global ‘actorness’, it needs to go beyond the initiatives of France and Germany, and to shape its own agenda. At the same time, India is also paying attention to the fact that in today’s fragmented and multipolar world, the power of any aspiring global actor depends on its diversified relationships. In this context, the EU is a useful partner that India can rely on.

Indo-European rapprochement, which attempts to challenge Chinese global expansion, seeks also to enhance multilateral international institutions and to support a rules-based order. Given the fact that India will hold a seat on the UN Security Council in 2021-22 and the G20 presidency in 2022, both parties see an opportunity to move forward on a shared vision of multilateralism. As a normative power, the EU is trying to join forces with New Delhi to promote the rules-based system. Therefore, in order to prevent an ‘all-roads-lead-to-Beijing’ situation and to challenge growing Chinese hegemony, the EU and India need each other.

With this in mind, the EU and India have finally moved towards taking their co-operation to a higher level. Overcoming difficulties in negotiations, which have been suspended since 2013 because of trade-related thorny topics like India’s agricultural protectionism, shows that there is now a different mood in the air.

The Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, had been scheduled to travel to Portugal for  a summit with EU leaders, but the visit cancelled because of the Covid-19 pandemic. As a result, the European Commission and Portugal – in its presidency of the European Council – offered India to hold the summit in a virtual format on 8 May 2021. The talks between these two economic giants were productive and resulted in the Connectivity Partnership, uniting efforts and attention on energy, digital and transportation sectors, offering new opportunities for investors from both sides. Moreover, this new initiative seeks to build joint infrastructure projects around the world mainly investing in third countries. Although both sides have clarified that the new global partnership isn’t designed to compete with China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the joint initiative to build effective projects across Europe, Asia and Africa, will undoubtedly counter Beijing’s agenda.  

The EU and its allies have a common interest in presenting an alternative to the Belt and Road Initiative, which will contain Chinese investment efforts to dominate various regions. Even though the EU is looking to build up its economic ties with China and signed the EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investments (CAI) last December, European sanctions imposed on Beijing in response to discrimination against Uighurs and other human rights violations have complicated relations. Moreover, US President Joe Biden has been pushing the EU to take a tougher stance against China and its worldwide initiatives.

This new Indo-European co-operation project, from the point of view of its initiators, will not impose a heavy debt burden on its partners as the Chinese projects do. However, whilst the EU says that both the public and the private sectors will be involved, it’s not clear where the funds will come from for these projects. The US and the EU have consistently been against the Chinese model of providing infrastructure support for developing nations, by which Beijing offers assistance via expensive projects that the host country ends up not being able to afford. India, Australia, the EU, the US and Japan have already started their own initiatives to counterbalance China’s. This includes ‘The Three Seas Initiative’ in the Central and Eastern European region, aimed at reducing its dependence on Chinese investments and Russian gas. Other successful examples are Japan’s ‘Expanded Partnership for Quality Infrastructure’ and its ‘Free and Open Indo-Pacific Strategy’. One of the joint examples of Indo-Japanese co-operation is the development of infrastructure projects in Sri Lanka, Myanmar and Bangladesh. The partners had been scheduled to build Colombo’s East Container Terminal but the Sri Lankans suddenly pulled out just before signing last year. Another competing regional strategy is the Asia-Africa Growth Corridor (AAGC), initiated by India, Japan and a few African countries in 2017. This Indo-Japanese collaboration aims to develop infrastructure in Africa, enhanced by digital connectivity, which would make the Indo-Pacific Region free and open. The AAGC gives priority to development projects in health and pharmaceuticals, agriculture, and disaster management. 

Undoubtably, this evolving infrastructure-building competition may solve the problems of many underdeveloped or developing countries if their leaderships act wisely. The newly adopted Indo-European Connectivity Partnership promises new prospects for Eastern Europe and especially for the fragile democracies of Armenia and Georgia.

The statement of the Indian ambassador to Tehran in March of this year, to connect Eastern and Northern Europe via Armenia and Georgia, paves the way for necessary dialogue on this matter. Being sandwiched between Russia and Turkey and at the same time being ideally located between Europe and India, Armenia and Georgia are well-placed to take advantage of the possible opportunities of the Indo-European Partnership. The involvement of Tbilisi and Yerevan in this project can enhance the economic attractiveness of these countries, which will increase their economic security and will make this region less vulnerable vis-à-vis Russo-Turkish interventions. 

The EU and India need to decide if they want to be decision-makers or decision-takers. Strong co-operation would help both become global agenda shapers. In case these two actors fail to find a common roadmap for promoting rules-based architecture and to become competitive infrastructure providers, it would be to the benefit of the US and China, which would impose their priorities on others, including the EU and India.

Continue Reading


The Leaders of the Western World Meet



The annual meeting of the G7 comprising the largest western economies plus Japan is being hosted this year by the United Kingdom.  Boris Johnson, the UK Prime Minister has also invited Australia, South Korea, South Africa and India.  There has been talk of including Russia again but Britain threatened a veto.  Russia, which had been a member from 1997, was suspended in 2014 following the Crimea annexation.  

Cornwall in the extreme southwest of England has a rugged beauty enjoyed by tourists, and is a contrast to the green undulating softness of its neighbor Devon.  St. Ives is on Cornwall’s sheltered northern coast and it is the venue for the G7 meeting (August 11-13) this year.  It offers beautiful beaches and ice-cold seas.

France, Germany. Italy, UK, US, Japan and Canada.  What do the rich talk about?  Items on the agenda this year including pandemics (fear thereof) and in particular zoonotic diseases where infection spreads from non-human animals to humans.  Johnson has proposed a network of research labs to deal with the problem.  As a worldwide network it will include the design of a global early-warning system and will also establish protocols to deal with future health emergencies.

The important topic of climate change is of particular interest to Boris Johnson because Britain is hosting COP26  in Glasgow later this year in November.  Coal, one of the worst pollutants, has to be phased out and poorer countries will need help to step up and tackle not just the use of cheap coal but climate change and pollution in general.  The G7 countries’ GDP taken together comprises about half of total world output, and climate change has the potential of becoming an existential problem for all on earth.  And help from them to poorer countries is essential for these to be able to increase climate action efforts.

The G7 members are also concerned about large multinationals taking advantage of differing tax laws in the member countries.  Thus the proposal for a uniform 15 percent minimum tax.  There is some dispute as to whether the rate is too low.

America is back according to Joe Biden signalling a shift away from Donald Trump’s unilateralism.  But America is also not the sole driver of the world economy:  China is a real competitor and the European Union in toto is larger.  In a multilateral world, Trump charging ahead on his own made the US risible.  He also got nowhere as the world’s powers one by one distanced themselves.

Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen is also endorsing close coordination in economic policies plus continued support as the world struggles to recover after the corona epidemic.  India for example, has over 27 million confirmed cases, the largest number in Asia.  A dying first wave shattered hopes when a second much larger one hit — its devastation worsened by a shortage of hospital beds, oxygen cylinders and other medicines in the severely hit regions.  On April 30, 2021, India became the first country to report over 400,000 new cases in a single 24 hour period.

It is an interdependent world where atavistic self-interest is no longer a solution to its problems.

Continue Reading


Revisiting the Bosnian War



Genocide is not an alien concept to the world nowadays. However, while the reality (and the culprit) is not hard to profile today, history is ridden with massacres that were draped and concealed from the world beyond. Genocides that rivaled the great warfares and were so gruesome that the ring of brutality still pulsates in the historical narrative of humanity. We journey back to one such genocide that was named the most brutish mass slaughter after World War II. We revisit the Bosnian War (1992-95) which resulted in the deaths of an estimated 100,000 innocent Bosnian citizens and displaced millions. The savage nature of the war was such that the war crimes committed constituted a whole new definition to how we describe genocide.

The historical backdrop helps us gauge the complex relations and motivations which resulted in such chaotic warfare to follow suit. Post World War II, the then People’s Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina joined the then Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia. Bosnia-Herzegovina became one of the constituent republics of Yugoslavia in 1946 along with other Balkan states including Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia. As communism pervaded all over Yugoslavia, Bosnia-Herzegovina began losing its religion-cultural identity. Since Bosnia-Herzegovina mainly comprised of a Muslim population, later known as the Bosniaks, the spread of socialism resulted in the abolition of many Muslim institutions and traditions. And while the transition to the reformed Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1963 did ease the ethnic pressure, the underlying radical ideology and sentiments never fully subsided.

The Bosniaks started to emerge as the majority demographic of Bosnia and by 1971, the Bosniaks constituted as the single largest component of the entire Bosnia-Herzegovina population. However, the trend of emigration picked up later in the decades; the Serbs and the Croats adding up to their tally throughout most of the 70s and mid-80s. The Bosnian population was characterized as a tripartite society, that is, comprised of three core ethnicities: Bosniaks, Serbs, and Croats. Till  1991, the ethnic majority of the Bosniaks was heavily diluted down to just 44% while the Serbian emigrants concentrated the Serbian influence; making up 31% of the total Bosnian population.

While on one side of the coin, Bosnia-Herzegovina was being flooded with Serbs inching a way to gain dominance, the Yugoslavian economy was consistently perishing on the other side. While the signs of instability were apparent in the early 80s, the decade was not enough for the economy to revive. In the late 80s, therefore, political dissatisfaction started to take over and multiple nationalist parties began setting camps. The sentiments diffused throughout the expanse of Yugoslavia and nationalists sensed an imminent partition. Bosnia-Herzegovina, like Croatia, followed through with an election in 1990 which resulted in an expected tripartite poll roughly similar to the demographic of Bosnia. The representatives resorted to form a coalition government comprising of Bosniak-Serb-Craot regime sharing turns at the premiership. While the ethnic majority Bosniaks enjoyed the first go at the office, the tensions soon erupted around Bosnia-Herzegovina as Serbs turned increasingly hostile.

The lava erupted in 1991 as the coalition government of Bosnia withered and the Serbian Democratic Party established its separate assembly in Bosnia known as ‘Serbian National Assembly’.  The move was in line with a growing sentiment of independence that was paving the dismantling of Yugoslavia. The Serbian Democratic Party long envisioned a dominant Serbian state in the Balkans and was not ready to participate in a rotational government when fighting was erupting in the neighboring states. When Croatia started witnessing violence and the rise of rebels in 1992, the separatist vision of the Serbs was further nourished as the Serbian Democratic Party, under the leadership of Serb Leader Radovan Karadžić, established an autonomous government in the Serb Majority areas of Bosnia-Herzegovina.

The vision and the actions remained docile until the ring of independence was echoed throughout the region. When the European Commission (EC), now known as the European Union (EU), and the United States recognized the independence of both Croatia and Slovenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina found itself in a precarious position. While a safe bet would have been to undergo talks and diplomatic routes to engage the Serbian Democratic Party, the Bosnian President Alija Izetbegović failed to realize the early warnings of an uprising. Instead of forging negotiations with the Bosnian Serbs, the Bosniak President resorted to mirror Croatia by organizing a referendum of independence bolstered by both the EC and the US. Even as the referendum was blocked in the Serb autonomous regions of Bosnia, Izetbegović chose to pass through and announced the results. As soon as the Bosnian Independence from Yugoslavia was announced and recognized, fighting erupted throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The Bosnian Serbs feared that their long-envisioned plan of establishing the ‘Great Serbia’ in the Balkans was interred which resulted in chaos overtaking most of Bosnia. The blame of the decision, however, was placed largely on the Bosniak president and, by extension, the entire ethnic majority of the Bosniaks. The Bosnian Serbs started to launch attacks in the east of Bosnia; majorly targeting the Bosniak-dominated towns like Foča, Višegrad, and Zvornik. Soon the Bosnian Serb forces were joined by the local paramilitary rebels as well as the Yugoslavian army as the attacks ravaged the towns with large Bosniak populations; swathing the land in the process. The towns were pillaged and pressed into control whilst the local Bosniaks and their Croat counterparts were either displaced, incarcerated, or massacred.

While the frail Bosnian government managed to join hands with the Croatian forces across the border, the resulting offense was not nearly enough as the combination of Serb forces, rebel groups, and the Yugoslavian army took control of almost two-thirds of the Bosnian territory. The Karadžić regime refused to hand over the captured land in the rounds of negotiations. And while the war stagnated, the Bosniak locals left behind in small pockets of war-ravaged areas faced the brunt in the name of revenge and ethnic cleansing.

As Bosniaks and Croats formed a joint federation as the last resort, the Serbian Democratic Party established the Republic Srpska in the captured East, and the military units were given under the command of the Bosnian-Serb General, Ratko Mladic. The notorious general, known as the ‘Butcher of Bosnia’, committed horrifying war crimes including slaughtering the Bosniak locals captured in violence, raping the Bosniak women, and violating the minors in the name of ethnic cleansing exercises. While the United Nations refused to intervene in the war, the plea of the helpless Bosniaks forced the UN to at least deliver humanitarian aid to the oppressed. The most gruesome of all incidents were marked in July 1995, when an UN-declared safe zone, known as Srebrenica, was penetrated by the forces led by Mladic whilst some innocent Bosniaks took refuge. The forces brutally slaughtered the men while raped the women and children. An estimated 7000-8000 Bosniak men were slaughtered in the most grotesque campaign of ethnic cleansing intended to wipe off any trace of Bosniaks from the Serb-controlled territory.

In the aftermath of the barbaric war crimes, NATO undertook airstrikes to target the Bosnian-Serb targets while the Bosniak-Croat offense was launched from the ground. In late 1995, the Bosnian-Serb forces conceded defeat and accepted US-brokered talks. The accords, also known as the ‘Dayton Accords’, resulted in a conclusion to the Bosnian War as international forces were established in the region to enforce compliance. The newly negotiated federalized Bosnia and Herzegovina constituted 51% of the Croat-Bosniak Federation and 49% of the Serb Republic.

The accord, however, was not the end of the unfortunate tale as the trials and international action were soon followed to investigate the crimes against humanity committed during the three-year warfare. While many Serb leaders either died in imprisonment or committed suicide, the malefactor of the Srebrenica Massacre, Ratko Mladic, went into hiding in 2001. However, Mladic was arrested after a decade in 2011 by the Serbian authorities and was tried in the UN-established International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY). The investigation revisited the malicious actions of the former general and in 2017, the ICTY found Ratko Mladic guilty of genocide and war crimes and sentenced him to life in prison. While Mladic appealed for acquittal on the inane grounds of innocence since not he but his subordinates committed the crimes, the UN court recently upheld the decision in finality; closing doors on any further appeals. After 26-years, the world saw despair in the eyes of the 78-year-old Mladic as he joined the fate of his bedfellows while the progeny of the victims gained some closure as the last Bosnian trail was cased on a note of justice.

Continue Reading