With the South Korea-Japan spat escalating, it is unlikely that the US can play a mediatory role. The fallout of such dispute will affect the world economy

At a time when both Japan and South Korea are expected to cooperate in addressing multiple economic and strategic challenges in the East Asian region, they are embroiled in a serious trade dispute, which threatens to escalate and even spill into other areas like security and regional supply chain.

That the bilateral relations between the two have long been plagued by historical and territorial issues is well-known. But this time around, it is not the usual historical wrangle but a more serious and substantive trade dispute that poses a challenge to their ties. The current issue, which has created a serious diplomatic row between the two, relates to the action taken by Japan to put restrictions on its supply of semiconductor manufacturing materials to South Korea.

On July 4, Japan started implementing a new policy of restricting its supply of three critical materials involved in the manufacture of semiconductors — photoresist, etching gas and fluorinated polyimides — to South Korea. Restrictions on more such sensitive materials are expected to follow once the policy gets into full swing. Under this policy, Japanese companies supplying these materials to South Korea will have to seek the Government’s approval for each contract — a cumbersome process that would take at least 90 days for clearance.

For a long time, South Korea has enjoyed a preferential treatment in the supply of these sensitive materials, which contributed to Korean companies like the Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix among others, to emerge as giants in the semiconductor field. Today, they make nearly two-thirds of the world’s memory chips, which are used in a wide range of products from smart phones to cars. If these companies go out of their stockpiles, it will cause serious disruption to the global semiconductor production.

On August 2, the Japanese Government followed up on its earlier action by removing South Korea from the “white list” of 27 countries, which enjoyed preferential treatment in the supply of sensitive materials from Japan. South Korea is the only Asian country which joined the list in 2004. The latest action of the Japanese Government will come into force by August 28 and is regarded as a serious threat to the Korean companies.

Expectedly, this has provoked sharp reaction from Seoul, which considers the Japanese action as politically motivated. Many in South Korea perceive it as a retaliation to the recent Korean court ruling, asking Japanese companies like Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Nippon Steel and Sumitomo to pay compensation to Korean workers, who were not paid for their labour during the Japanese colonial period.

Japan strongly protested the court’s ruling  on the ground that this would undermine the very basis of the post-war bilateral relations. The Japanese Government further clarified that both countries had already settled all war-time labour disputes under the 1965 — $500 million was paid to South Korea in aid and loans at the time — Japan-South Korea normalisation treaty. Japanese leaders fear that the court’s verdict could open the floodgates of never-ending claims for compensation from different quarters.

But inside South Korea, the court’s verdict enjoys considerable support, particularly among the younger generation. There are even voices that doubt the legitimacy of the 1965 Treaty itself, which they claim was signed by a military dictator, Park Chung-hee.

The issue has already created a complex diplomatic row between the two countries. Basically, Japan has clarified that its measures to curb the export of the three materials are closely connected with regional security concerns as it doubts the effectiveness of the monitoring mechanisms of South Korea. It alleged that some of the sensitive technologies have reached North Korea, thereby raising serious security concerns.

But the same has been denied by the South Korean Government, which has given evidence to prove how Seoul has tightened its vigilance against any illegal diversion of these sensitive materials to North Korea. South Korean President Moon Jae-in has himself taken the position that Tokyo’s restrictive measures run “counter to the history of the development of bilateral ties” and called for their immediate halt.

Warning that these measures would be counterproductive as they would ultimately “cause great damage to the Japanese economy itself”, apart from “destroying the framework of South Korea-Japan economic cooperation accumulated over half a century”, he also complained that Japan’s action would “cripple the global supply chain and wreak havoc on the global economy.”

Anti-Japanese sentiments have quickly picked momentum in South Korea, resulting in the boycott of Japanese products, temporary closure of many Japanese business establishments, decline in the number of Korean tourists to Japan and cancellation of many private air services to Japan.

Undoubtedly, bilateral relations have now sunk to the lowest level since 1965 and to stem the further decline, it is necessary for a friend outside power like the US to intervene and mediate. One would like to recall the mediatory role played by the then-President Barack Obama in 2014 at The Hague, in a bid to reduce tensions between the two countries. But current US President Donald Trump is different from Obama and he does not inspire the same degree of trust and confidence as his predecessor did.

Nevertheless, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo met the Foreign Ministers of Japan and South Korea together in a bid to reduce bilateral tensions and to urge them to accept a “standstill agreement” to gain time to find a “pathway for dialogue.”

Analysts doubt the ability of   Washington to play any mediatory role given Trump’s strong push for “America First”, his transactional approach to South Korea and Japan on security issues, his obsessive anti-China postures and unsuccessful bid to denuclearise North Korea.

With no prospects of any truce in the escalating trade friction, more Japanese exports regulations will come into force from August 28 and they could virtually restrict any product on national security grounds to South Korea.

Faced with such a grim situation, the South Korean Government seems to be in a mood to take counter-measures against Japan.

First, it may consider terminating a military intelligence-sharing pact, which is coming up for renewal by the end of this month. But the US is very much interested in its renewal and it remains to be seen whether it can persuade Seoul to renew.

Second, Seoul is also thinking of removing Japan from its own “white list” of countries that receive preferential treatment on trade and will

proceed to file a formal complaint with the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

Third, Seoul has already informed Japan that it may not consider it as a “friendly” nation for ignoring along “history of cooperative relations.”

(The writer is a distinguished fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi. Earlier, he was a professor of Japanese Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi)

Writer: KV Kesavan

Courtesy: The Pioneer

It’s unfortunate that leaders choose to ignore the truth or deliberately serve the interests of lobbies who want to maximise profits without regard for the future impact of climate change

The UK has been quite unique as a developed nation, having enacted the country’s Climate Change Act in 2008. According to the Committee on Climate Change, a statutory independent body, by 2017 its greenhouse emissions were 43 per cent below 1990 levels while the economy grew by two-thirds over the same period. The Act calls for the UK to reduce these emissions by at least 80 per cent by 2050, compared to 1990 levels. The remarkable aspect of this Act is that it cuts across party lines and binds the country to a set of measures enacted by Parliament. But, of course, much more needs to be done now to ensure that human society does not allow the earth’s temperatures to exceed 1.5°C by the end of this century.

Meanwhile, according to meteorological information, the year 2019 has already crossed previous limits and is heading towards becoming the hottest year on record. At the same time, all across the world, there are extreme events ranging from heat waves to extreme precipitation events, which have increased in frequency and intensity. This year there were also reports that a widespread area in the Arctic had raging fires right from Siberia to Alaska.

The Arctic region, according to the Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published in 2007, estimated that the Arctic region was warming at twice the rate of the rest of the globe. The extreme heat this year and in earlier periods is also melting the Greenland ice sheet at a rapid rate, which would enhance sea level rise dangerously. Drastic measures are required to curb greenhouse gas emissions and these include lifestyle changes as well.

It is questionable whether the new Prime Minister of Britain, Boris Johnson, is truly committed to action on climate change and certainly, he is not likely to make any lifestyle changes himself or motivate others in the UK to do so. This writer had addressed a gathering of professionals in London in 2008, where he clearly highlighted the need for reducing meat consumption, based on his plea, “Please eat less meat, because you would be healthier and so would the planet.” The UK beef industry, of course, was very critical of this appeal but surprisingly, so was the current Prime Minister of Britain, who was then the Mayor of London.  He wrote an op-ed piece in the Daily Telegraph on September 9, 2008, which while ridiculing advice to cut down on meat consumption, wrote the following.

“No, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, distinguished chairman of the panel, I am not going to have one meat-free day per week. No, I am not going to become a gradual vegetarian. In fact, the whole proposition is so irritating that I am almost minded to eat more meat in response.

Every weekend, rain or shine, I suggest that we flaunt our defiance of UN dietary recommendations with a series of vast Homeric barbecues.”

Johnson ignores the fact that the IPCC makes no recommendations. Its assessments are policy-relevant but not policy prescriptive. He states further, “We are going to have carnivorous festivals of chops and sausages and burgers and chitterlings and chine and offal, and the fat will run down our chins, and the dripping will blaze on the charcoal, and the smoky vapours will rise to the heavens.

We will call these meat feasts Pachauri days, in satirical homage to the tofu-chomping UN man who told the human race to go veggie.”

There is considerable speculation in the British media on whether Johnson’s live-in partner Carrie Symonds might actually be able to influence his position on climate change, perhaps with some changes in lifestyle as well and possibly have him forego the excessive craving for meat feasts, which he had referred to as Pachauri days.

While one can be amused with Johnson’s humour, it would be unfortunate if the Prime Minister of a country as important as the UK, and which has had the vision of enacting its climate change law, sticks to his old position. Who knows, perhaps he has actually reduced his meat consumption because he certainly seems trimmer than was the case when he was the Mayor of London. It may be that Symonds will be a productive influence on the man who is now the British Prime Minister and, thus, send a message to the public in that nation.

Johnson in his article also stated, “Man is an omnivore, culturally and probably biologically programmed to take protein from meat; and those meat animals must be farmed.” The meat industry undoubtedly was thrilled with this view.  Sadly, Johnson obviously has not realised that the entire global meat cycle is very intensive in the use of energy, right up to the stage where households store meat in their refrigerators. 

Added to that is the clearing of forests as pastureland, such as with the Amazon rainforest, and providing CO2 intensive feed material produced in larger and larger quantities for livestock. An IPCC report just released provides a stark warning of land just not being available on planet earth if we consume meat at current levels. This report establishes the escalating conflict between meat production and other more essential uses of land.

Sadly, the current President of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, who subscribes to US President Donald Trump’s and Johnson’s views, has recently sacked the head of the National Institute for Space Research, which has been monitoring deforestation in the Amazon region. After Bolsonaro’s assumption of office, deforestation in June was estimated by this organisation as 88 per cent higher than the same period last year.

It is unfortunate that leaders of major countries choose to ignore the truth or deliberately serve the interests of lobbies, who just want to maximise their profits without regard to the future impacts of climate change.

This mental inertia has to be overcome through public consciousness and grassroots action, as has been the case in several countries of the world. It is the youth of the world who now need to take the lead and implement actions to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases, which are responsible for human-induced climate change.  

Fortunately, this is now gaining momentum with the efforts of Greta Thunberg, the 16-year-old Swedish activist, and the Protect Our Planet (POP) movement being implemented in several countries. But when do we get leaders with a conscience and those who care about our future?

(The writer is former chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2002-15)

Writer: RK Pachauri

Courtesy: The Pioneer

China’s restrictive ways are only magnifying the pro-democracy movement and costing the economy

It seems discussions and contraventions around “special status” have even thrown civilian life completely out of gear in Hong Kong, as pro-democracy activists continue to make their point despite crackdowns and teargas fury. Things have come to such a pass that around 100 flights have been stopped in and out of the semi-autonomous southern Chinese city. Triggered by opposition to an extradition law to mainland China — that was subsequently put on hold — the stir has snowballed into a wider movement for democratic reforms and autonomy as mandated by its historical special status. And given the size of Hong Kong’s economy and global vibe, even China cannot overlook the opposition in its stressed times. A British colony for more than 150 years, China also leased the rest of Hong Kong to the British for 99 years. It became a busy trading port, and post-1950s became quite the economic powerhouse. Over time, it became an island of opportunity, attracting migrants and dissidents who fled persecution in the mainland. And though China ensured a return of Hong Kong to itself in 1997,  it was under the conditional principle of “one country, two systems.” So, apart from foreign and defence affairs, Hong Kong is empowered to develop its own legal system, borders and rights, including the ones on free speech and peaceful protests. But with the heaving approach of Premier Xi Jinping’s “China first” mantra, there have been insidious ways of meddling in Hong Kong and muzzling pro-democracy legislators. Its Legislative Council has been defanged as most members aren’t chosen directly by Hong Kong voters and are pro-mainland.

These frictions have been building up over time and the extradition order was just the last straw on the camel’s back. The restlessness is now a galloping civil movement, spearheaded by the young, who want an identity and a life independent of the oppressive idea of being a “global Chinese.” China cannot steamroll this movement any longer and risk further negativity or renewed demand for full independence. And though it is wondering how far should it endure before kicking in with familiar ways, it knows that bottling gaps may lead to a bigger pipe bursts of anger. Besides, could it risk its business interests in the world’s most expensive piece of real estate and trading volumes? Technically, Hong Kong’s special status ends in 2047. But can China hold out with its belligerence till then without addressing political demands of its people to have a say about their lives?

Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer

The Hyperloop promises to revolutionise travel but questions remain about its economic viability

The world is littered with expensive transportation infrastructure projects that are barely used and even abandoned after a few years. There is the famous example of a brand new airport near Madrid, Spain, which was abandoned after a few months. In 2002, China inaugurated a magnetic levitation train between the Pudong airport and the outskirts of Shanghai, the harbinger of a massive network of space age connectivity. While that train remains the world’s fastest commercially operating train, with speeds touching 500 km per hour, it is nothing more than a tourist attraction today. The 30 km rack cost an eye-watering $1.2 billion in the early-2000s and it should serve as a cautionary tale for those who want to make India a hub for the new ‘Hyperloop’ technology. In essence, Hyperloop is ‘Maglev Plus.’ Magnetic levitation lifts a ‘shuttle’, which travels through an enclosed pipe. It operates ideally, in a vacuum, but  realistically with very low air pressure, allowing the shuttles to move without any air resistance at up to 1,000 km per hour. Such a system would make immense sense then as a transportation system between urban agglomerations located close to each other. Such as Mumbai and Pune, and it is no surprise that those who back the technology feel that this will make for a great test track. Sure, reducing the three-four hour travel time by road between Maharashtra’s industrial hubs will be welcome but there are several caveats. First, there is little certainty on who will fund this extremely extravagant programme. While the Maharashtra government has given it ‘infrastructure’ status, the State government and the Centre  are not investing any money. The estimated project’s price is a truly sky-rocketing $10 billion, and that is before the inevitable cost escalations, since the technology itself is currently in its testing phase.

Would the money be better spent on developing a regular high-speed train track between the two cities that tunnels through the Western Ghats instead? Or should money be poured into a unproven technology with immense potential but possibly still years, possibly decades away from commercial application? Will the Hyperloop in India end up like the Maglev track outside Shanghai, a tourist attraction that showcases the future that might have been? It is one thing to look at the future, but practicality should also come into consideration. Massive, futuristic infrastructure projects and technologies get politicians goggly-eyed but running headlong into something without thinking it through is plain silly. Has anyone asked the question on who will use the ‘Hyperloop’ between the two cities? If the project costs a bomb, then only the very rich or tourists can use it. After all, in Shanghai, locals prefer taking the regular, slow subway train instead of the Maglev. We do not have the luxury of building infrastructure to make a point, we have to build infrastructure to be used by a billion people.

Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer

Ahead of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit, India will do well to complete its homework — from symbolism to business

On July 22, an amusing news item caught everybody’s attention. The visit by the Communist Party of China leader and state President, Xi Jinping, to India in October depended primarily on the runway length of the Indian airport. “A runway big enough for the aircraft carrying Chinese President Xi Jinping and his large high-powered delegation to land directly from Beijing is believed to be one of the key parameters when the Indian and Chinese sides jointly decide the venue for the second informal summit in India between President Xi and Prime Minister Narendra Modi,” said the report.

Several points, therefore, emerge on the runway alone. First, if it becomes one of the prime issues regarding the visit and venue of the Sino-Indian bilateral, then it’s up to the host nation, India, to take the call  because once a sovereign nation hosts a top dignitary of another sovereign nation, it’s the duty and responsibility of the former to take care of and fulfil all parameters of safety, security, hospitality and protocol among other things. Second, if the guest raises the airport runway length of the host as an issue three months before the visit, then the bilateral looks more like a logistics-centric exercise than a serious diplomatic discussion. Third, does the unusual “runway length” shift the focus on to poor airport infrastructure in India’s backyard, which the Chinese guest would like to see as a business opportunity for “upgradations?” Fourth, is it a Chinese ploy to play with and point out the vulnerability and backwardness of the host? To show India in poor light in front of the world? Through wide media coverage?

If so, understandably the airport “runway” has its ancillaries, too, under the scanner. Leave road, hotel, transport, communication, media facility, security and hospitality aside. There is a need for ample room for VVIPs to move around and stroll in solitude. There are expectations of an informal, intimate and private set-up with spacious arena, beyond the gaze, or radar, of the “excessively inquisitive” media, being in tune with the philosophy and standard set long ago by disciples of the Marx-Lenin duo.

Coming back to the Indian airport and Chinese aircraft for the Sino-Indian bilateral, it may not be far-fetched to visualise Xi alighting from a four-engine US-made Boeing 747 as there is nothing else in the vicinity, notwithstanding the existence of the sole four-engine Airbus 380 of Europe.

Assuming again that Airbus 380 could be one of the options for the flight of the Chinese leader, as reportedly China Southern Airlines operates five such aircraft, in reality, it’s highly unlikely. Only four Indian airports of Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru and Hyderabad have the facility and capability to handle super-jumbo Airbus 380, the maximum take-off weight of which is between 510 and 575 tonnes.

Hence, it’s almost certain that only a fully-laden four-engine US Boeing 747 will be the preferred aircraft with a maximum take-off weight between 362.875 tonnes and 442.250 tonnes (depending on the model and date of manufacture). That takes us to the possible Indian venue of the meet, which has to be the same city for the foreign dignitary. Thus, whereas there exists more than 30 international airports in India’s map, handling aircraft of various size, shape and capacity for diverse destination, only the top 10 longest airport runways could be considered for visiting Chinese dignitary.

These 10 are New Delhi 4,430 metres (14,534¢); Hyderabad 4,260 metres (13,976¢); Bengaluru 4,120 metres (13,517¢); Chennai 3,662 metres (12,020¢) and 2,935 metres (9,629¢); Kolkata 3,627 metres (11,900¢) and 2,790 metres (9,150¢); Ahmedabad 3,599 metres (11,807¢); Mumbai 3,445 metres (11,302¢) and 2,990 metres (9,760¢); Kochi 3,400 metres (11,154¢); Amritsar 3,289 metres (10,790¢) and Thiruvananthapuram at 3,400 metres (11,154¢).    

We can now say with a reasonable degree of confidence that the Boeing 747 of Xi will land at one of these 10  airports. Why? Because a fully-laden Boeing 747 (a VVIP like Xi arriving in India cannot come in an aircraft without full load owing to various obligatory safety, security parameter and protocol) takes anywhere between 7,000¢ and 8,000¢ length runway for landing and between 9,950¢ and 10,600¢ for take-off. That said, every flight also requires an additional 2,000¢ to 3,000¢ length for manoeuvring, in case of an aborted take off or emergency landing. And one simply cannot take any chance with high-profile visit of an important head of state.

So, once decided, one would like to ask: Which airport would be preferred for Xi’s October visit? Here, I dare suggest, if I was there, I would unhesitatingly suggest Kolkata as the venue for the Indian Prime Minister to welcome the Chinese President for an “informal bilateral visit.” Absurd? Impossible? Hallucination? No. Not at all. It’s real. Practical. Art of turning impossible into possible.

Too much political bickering between Delhi and Kolkata is reaching an unacceptably high decibel, thereby creating an irreparable rift between the Centre and the whole of the East and North-East. Perennial neglect and snubbing of the East and the North-East is creating a cleavage with potential long-term damage. Hence, hold the meeting in Kolkata to equalise its strategic value as a gateway to our Look east policy, China having already consolidated its economic hold on Southeast Asia. The distance between the Kolkata airport and Raj Bhavan can be covered through the aerial route. Dum Dum to Race Course, under Eastern Army Command, is six-eight minute flying time, and Race Course helipad to Raj Bhawan would be a maximum three-four minute drive for VVIP motorcade.

The river-front of Hooghly, from Eden Garden to Princep Ghat, could easily be spruced up again under the Eastern Army Command. Hotels of Taj Bengal and Oberoi Grand could be had for the entire entourage. Those coming by road from airport to hotels could easily cover the distance through fly-overs in 30 minutes, under controlled protocol of traffic guards.

Politically and diplomatically, it can very well be a win-win situation for all. Delhi could show political sagacity. Kolkata its traditional magnanimity. And the Chinese guest could have a reunion with those Chinese who made Bengal their home almost 100 years ago when China (especially Shanghai) was on fire, from May 4, 1919. There still are Chinese, who do Durga Puja in China Town and have even written slogans in Chinese language during the last parliamentary elections.   

There, however, is one knotty issue: The date of the visit. If it’s Durga Puja/Nava Ratri, it has to be between October 2 and 8.  The only thing which, perhaps, needs to be avoided is that it may not be between October 20 and 31. October 20 because India was attacked by China on that day in 1962. Hence, all 11 days from October 20 to 31, when India was being mauled by the PLA, may not give politically the right signals. October 1  will be the 70th birth anniversary of the People’s Republic of China. We all compliment China on its 70 years, but Beijing, too, needs to understand the sentiment of Indians for mutual reciprocity pertaining to goodwill and harmony. Hence, to my mind, a visit between October 6 (Ashtami) and October 8 (Dussehra) could be ideal. Both diplomatically as well as internally. It reminds me of the book by General William Slim, Defeat into Victory.

(The writer, an alumnus of National Defence College of India, is author of China in India. Views are personal.)

Writer: Abhijit Bhattacharyya

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Nikolay Kudashev, Russian Ambassador to India, says that the history of World War I teaches us many universal lessons, which are still relevant

As the world marks the 105th anniversary of World War I (1914) and remembers the beginning of the war, we recall how it led to an implosion of great empires — Russian, German, Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian — devastated the European continent, drastically reshaped the erstwhile global order and ushered in a period of instability, which finally resulted in the outbreak of the second World War in 1939.

Russia, during the time, was not prepared to enter the war. Nevertheless, when Saint Petersburg’s sincere diplomatic efforts to prevent the conflict failed, Russia completely carried out its commitments to the allies — Serbia, France and Great Britain.

On August 1, 1914, Germany had declared war on Russia. Within the next few days, France and Great Britain were drawn into the warfare. In no time, the Reichswehr was beating against the gates of Paris. St Petersburg took up the ally’s call to attack the opponents immediately and thus began the fateful offensive in Prussia. The subsequent crush of the advancing army, led by General Samsonov, was the price that Russia had paid for saving the French capital — the sacrifice that Supreme Allied Commander, Ferdinand Foch himself had admitted.

That was indeed the first but not the last instance when Russia had come to the allies’ rescue. In 1916, after suffering a number of setbacks, it launched a large-scale assault, led by General Aleksei Brusilov, supporting French efforts. Soon Russia had reacted to a request from the French for help by sending in 45,000 troops to the Western front, where they stood against the Germans alongside with the Indian Cavalry Corps.

Overall, the Russian entry into the war prevented the early rout of the Western allies, thus forcing Germany and Austro-Hungary into a warfare they were doomed to loose.

In 1914, German, Austro-Hungarian and Turkish armies lost more than 10 lakh troops at the Russian front while lost 9.8 lakh at the Western and Serbian fronts. In the course of the war, the Germans and the Austrians deployed almost half of their troops against Russia.

After the break out of hostilities, St Petersburg concentrated on strengthening the bonds within the Entente, isolating the Triple Alliance, searched for new allies, worked on future settlements, but was unable to reap any of the benefits. A war period of two and a half years led to an overstrain of Russia’s economy, breakdown of its army, a series of political turmoils, collapse of its monarchy, the 1917 October Revolution and the civil war.

The history of the World War I teaches many universal lessons, which are relevant even today. One of the most important is that of inadmissibility of imposing one’s own sense of exceptionalism upon others with blind use of force. It reminds us of tragic consequences of excessive ambitions of political leaders as well as of importance to firmly uphold the hard-won principles of sovereign equality of states, non-interference in their internal affairs and collective methods for settling crises by political and diplomatic means.

(The writer is a senior journalist)

Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer

Though the present US-Pak bonhomie is Afghan-specific, India will have to be watchful and tread its path carefully in case Khan succeeds to placate the Taliban

Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan’s recently concluded three-day visit to the US and his one-on-one meeting with US President Donald Trump have evoked mixed reactions in India not only due to the latter’s controversial statement but also due to a lukewarm concern displayed by American authorities with regard to terrorism. Relations between Pakistan and the US have been strained ever since the Trump Administration assumed power due to Islamabad’s support to the global jihadi terrorist organisations and its involvement in cross-border terrorism in India and Afghanistan. Though Pakistan’s involvement in cross-border terror in Iran is also well established, the US does not show much concern due to its strategic concerns in the Gulf region.

Pakistan’s continued support to the Taliban and the Haqqani network operating in Afghanistan irked the new US Administration, which put it on notice, threatening to suspend all aid, including the package to its Army. Islamabad failed to read the US’ intent. In the past, it got away playing the nuclear card. The Western world, particularly the US, is scared of the nuclear arsenal falling in the hands of jihadi terrorists operating from Pakistan’s soil and succumbed to its black mail, dishing out doles to it. Trump, however, is different.  

“The US has foolishly given Pakistan more than $33 billion in aid over the last 15 years and they have given us nothing but lies and deceit, thinking of our leaders are fools. They give safe havens to the terrorists we hunt in Afghanistan, with little help. No more!” — this is what Trump tweeted on the first day of 2018. Pakistan went to the extent of blaming Trump for “flinging accusations at Pakistan,” as he was disappointed at the “US’ defeat in Afghanistan.” Trump responded by blocking American aid of approximately $3 billion that also included the $300 million for the Pakistani Army. The Army-to-Army contact between the two nations was suspended. It was a big setback for Pakistan, which was already going through an economic crisis. Islamabad did try to put up a brave front initially but its dwindling economy, India’s diplomatic offensive in exposing Pakistan, the firm stand of the US Administration and the strictness of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) compelled the Imran Khan Government to take stern measures against the terror industry. Whether these measures are a “show window” to win the trust of Trump and the US authorities (a prelude to Khan’s visit to the US) or is there a sense of seriousness or permanency, only time will tell.

Meanwhile, the US has begun preparations for the next presidential election and Trump has also thrown his hat in the race. He is desperate to have one major diplomatic victory about which he can boast to the American people. His initiative in the Korean Peninsula is not making much headway. The strained relations with Iran are harming him more than helping him boost his image. His high-handed tactics of dealing with other countries have got him more enemies than allies. Both China and Russia also have tense relations with America. Although India is likely to be granted the status of the most-favoured non-NATO ally and is already designated with special STA-1 status, the relationship between the two countries is blowing hot and cold. Many in India perceive the US as a fickle ally. In a nutshell, Trump has more negatives to his credit than positives as far as foreign and strategic relations are concerned. He is desperate to win the Afghan tangle, which is not possible without placating the Taliban. The US also knows that only Pakistan can exert the desired influence on the Taliban. This forms the background of Khan’s visit to Pakistan as far as American perspective is concerned and unblocking the US aid.

Let’s first discuss Afghanistan. India has emerged as a major soft power in Kabul and has a big stake in whatever final settlement takes place. The Taliban has been recognised as the key impediment to the end of conflict in Afghanistan. Earlier, India was elbowed out of the direct negotiations with the Taliban, as claimed by a section of the media. To my mind, it is a deliberate decision by the Government to stay away from direct negotiations with the terror group due to adverse ramifications back home. India, however, cannot be ignored. Sooner than later, we will be involved in the final settlement. India remains steadfast on its traditional position of supporting only an “Afghan-led, Afghan owned and Afghan controlled” process, which includes the duly elected Government in Kabul.

With Pakistan forming a key partner in Trump’s South Asia strategy for achieving a political settlement in Afghanistan; defeating Al Qaeda and IS-Khorasan; providing logistical access for US forces and enhancing regional stability, it certainly has gained an upper hand. That is why Pakistan was included for the first time in the trilateral consultations with Russia, China and the US on the Afghanistan peace process held in Beijing in July.

The entire focus of the US was concentrated on Afghanistan during Khan’s visit, which included the Pakistan Army Chief and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief in the entourage. While Khan has agreed to work with Trump to prod the Taliban to strike a peace deal with the aim of extricating the US Army from its longest war, the latter has dangled the offer of unblocking $3 billion aid to Pakistan if Khan succeeds. Khan said, “I want to assure President Trump, Pakistan will do everything within its power to facilitate the Afghan peace process. The world owes it to the long-suffering Afghan people to bring about peace after four decades of conflict.”

There is no doubt that the US is desperate to exit from Afghanistan but is the negotiation with the Taliban the best solution? The terror organisation has not been reformed and its five-year brutal rule is still fresh in the mind of the Afghans. It certainly suits Pakistan because this will help it achieve its aim of achieving strategic depth and the use Afghan territory to promote terrorism. It will also end the hope of a democratic Afghanistan, disappointing millions who are holding out still for a brighter future. India must, therefore, press for its involvement in the peace talks and ensure that the Taliban does not elbow out the elected Afghan Government. Trump’s desperation can be gauged from this statement, “I could win that war within a week, and I don’t want to kill 10 million people. Afghanistan could be wiped off the face of the earth. I don’t want to go that route.”

India has lot at stake because Afghanistan holds significant economic, security and strategic implications for it. We cannot be a mute spectator  and have to ensure that democracy survives in Afghanistan. As far as counter-terrorism is concerned, not much time was devoted to the same possibly to avoid public embarrassment to the visiting premier, whose services are badly needed by the US in view of its leverage over the Taliban, thanks to the safe havens it provides to the group’s leadership. But as admitted by Khan himself, with more than 40 terror groups existing in Pakistan, the situation is very fragile. Any terror attack in Afghanistan or India with mass causalities with proven links to Pakistan will reverse the new-found relationship between the US and Pakistan. The latter will have to tread the path very carefully.

Khan was successful in raising the Kashmir issue during the one-on-one meeting with President Trump. It was a spin-doctored question asked by a correspondent to prevent difficult questions on Pakistan’s involvement in terrorism, which would have caused a lot of embarrassment to Pakistan. The question successfully diverted the topic to Kashmir, when Khan lost no time in seeking Trump’s mediation and assistance in resumption of Indo-Pak dialogue. India has made its stand very clear by stating that talks and terror cannot be held together.

Trump surprised everyone with his signature trademark off-the-cuff remark. He has developed a habit of speaking or tweeting without preparation or proper briefing. His remark stoked a controversy, to which New Delhi reacted promptly and set the record straight. Fearing a strain in Indo-US relations, a number of American bureaucrats and leaders also jumped in to save the situation from worsening. But Trump is Trump and his remark should be seen in the light of his desperation for an early Afghan exit.

But Khan has succeeded to once again to internationalise Kashmir after numerous failed attempts by past Governments. India has to be careful and thwart the ISI’s design to portray home-grown terror groups in India by promoting the proxies of IS like ISJK, Al Qaeda like Ansar Ghazwa-ul-Hind, Hizbul Mujahideen and other IS-affiliate/inspired terror outfits. The ISI will certainly attempt to influence Left-wing extremism as has been exposed by the Pune Police disclosing links between urban Naxals and HM.

Khan’s attempt at reviving bilateral trade, as was evident from the large number of businessmen and traders that formed his entourage and unblock the US aid, has failed for the time being and is in no way going to help him to come out of the current economic mess. It may force him to persist with various counter-terrorism mechanisms put in place, including the arrest of Hafiz Saeed. More arrests are likely provided the Army and ISI permit. The imminent danger of being placed in the blacklist by the FATF may tie the hands of the ISI and Army. So the axe is likely to fall more on Afghan-specific terror groups like the Taliban and the Haqqani network.

The visit has been significant as far as bilateral security cooperation and military-to-military relations are concerned. There is a bright chance of resuming suspended military training programmes for Pakistan. At one point during President Trump’s meeting with Khan, the former also hinted at resumption of the security assistance for Pakistan depending on what both countries achieve concerning Afghanistan. The major plus point was the personal rapport established between the two. There is a great likelihood of a direct tele-line between the two leaders to further cement their bonhomie and smoothen any bureaucratic hiccups that may erupt. Islamabad would like to use such an opportunity to sort out other issues in the bilateral realm.

Will there be a change in the Indo-Pacific strategy of the US? Will Pakistan succeed in elbowing out India from the US equation in the region? Indian diplomats will have to work hard to ward off any such possibility. Though the present bonhomie between the two is Afghan-specific, what shape it takes in the future in case Khan succeeds to placate the Taliban, will have to be watched carefully.

(The writer is a Jammu-based political commentator, columnist, security and strategic analyst)

Writer: Anil Gupta

Courtesy: The Pioneer

If history is anything to go by, it is premature for either the US to trust the Pakistanis or vice versa. Both nations have been known to ultimately succumb to their basic instincts. Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan has been walking the tightrope of the genealogical and evolutionary compulsions that characterise his nation. His jazba (passion) of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) had stormed the elections in 2018 and promised an idyll that is historically, Constitutionally and practically undeliverable – a “Riyasat-e-Madina”, where all citizens are equal in the eyes of the law with guaranteed full fundamental rights.

Acknowledging the enormity of his promise and reset, he instinctively suggested reconstructing the edifice of Pakistan and rechristened it as “Naya Pakistan.” The inheritance of an economy in slide with rising debts, falling currency, inflation and depleted coffers had him scurrying to the Arab capitals, Beijing and even to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This to impress upon them an economically-prudent, austere and reformist agenda that would no longer be profligate or reckless with the sanctioned “aid.”

This entailed the toning down of his anti-IMF tirade that he had invoked during the pre-election campaigning, as indeed, personally chauffeuring the all-important Princelings from the rival camps of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. While money has started trickling in bits, it has extracted a severe price from the common citizenry as they reel under spiralling price rises and shortages.

The onerous task of re-setting to “Naya Pakistan” essentially implies the reneging of various Pakistani positions. The opening act of the tenure was lavish in promising such change, including the famous “If India takes one step, Pakistan will take two.” The optics and soundbites emanating from the prime ministerial house were in conformity with the naya way of things and soon the usual ostentatiousness was frowned upon and the all-powerful razzmatazz was supposedly cut.

The world at large waited with bated breath to figure out if it was yet another exercise in political posturing or if Pakistan had indeed evolved to the portents of “Naya Pakistan.” But the cracks showed up almost immediately as Imran Khan succumbed to the nation’s ingrained bigotry and dropped the economist, Atif Mian, from the economic advisory, apparently on account of his belonging to the minority and the persecuted Ahmediya faith.

From the Indian perspective, Imran Khan continued making naïve statements against terrorism while the Pakistani incorrigibility continued in Afghanistan. Then the Pulwama episode happened. The trust deficit between Pakistan and all its irate neighbours (India, Afghanistan and Iran) widened. A certain disillusionment against the built-up hype of “Naya Pakistan” started afresh.

The US was already breathing down Pakistan’s neck for its duplicity and US President Donald Trump famously tweeted that Pakistan does not “do a damn thing” in return for the billions of dollars in American “aid.” Imran Khan retaliated and tweeted back: “No Pakistani was involved in 9/11 but it decided to participate in the US’ war on terror” and added, “Pakistan suffered 75,000 casualties in this war and over $123 billion was lost to the economy.” US aid “was a minuscule $20 billion.” The free-for-all between Pakistan and the US ensured that Islamabad swung even more sharply towards the willing arms of Beijing and almost started behaving like a beholden and vassal state of China.

Providentially, for Imran Khan and Pakistan, the whimsical Trump, who had ranted against the Pakistani establishment, had a re-think on his Afghanistan strategy and realised that he would need the services of its bête noire ie, Pakistan, in extricating itself out of the mess in Afghanistan.

In a move reminiscent of dumping Afghanistan in the lurch after ensuring the Soviet-withdrawal from Kabul, the US is yet again working towards a similar vacuum; with Pakistan rubbing its hands in glee. Suddenly, Islamabad is back in favour as all is seemingly forgotten and forgiven and Imran Khan is back to reverse-swinging his “Naya Pakistan” with revised gusto — this time in Washington, DC.

Both Pakistan and the US are masters of selective amnesia and their dalliances of the past, which included flying and feting of the Afghan mujahideen to the White House and supporting these warlords with weapons, have become a lost memory. Both Imran Khan and Trump now shake hands and the former thanks to the Presidents of the United States of America (POTUSA) with “his understanding of Pakistan’s point of view!”

The incredulity continues with Imran Khan promising, “I want to assure President Trump, Pakistan will do everything within its power to facilitate the Afghan peace process” — a rote statement that has consistently and unfailingly been dishonoured by Pakistan.

The hapless Afghan regime of Ashraf Ghani looks on with shocked bewilderment and New Delhi is left having to deal with Trump’s creative memory of Prime Minister Modi apparently asking him to mediate in Kashmir!

The US President’s statements were rightfully, strongly and unequivocally slammed by New Delhi as outrightly incorrect and the same got acknowledged by other functionaries at the Capitol Hill. However, Imran Khan persisted with his façade of “surprise” at the Indian response to “Trump’s offer of mediation” as he feigned ignorance at India’s unwavering and consistent stand on a bilateral framework on Kashmir.

Today, Imran Khan is on a charm offensive both domestically (flying commercial) and internationally, staying at his Ambassador’s residence to avoid “unnecessary expenditure.” Trump has added one more to his embarrassingly long list of documented inexactitudes, which now “exceed 10,000.”

Both the US and Pakistan are again in a convenient and tactical huddle that suits their individual and topical urgencies, without bothering about the past, present or future with such tenuous underpinnings. Beyond the reality of US-Pakistan sparring openly, just a few months back, this region has not forgotten the murky history of American hand in the bloodshed of the 1980s during the height of the Cold War or indeed in India with the US’ seventh fleet sailing menacingly towards the Bay of Bengal in 1971. It would be premature for either the US to trust the Pakistanis or vice versa as history suggests that both nations ultimately succumb to their basic instincts and while India, Afghanistan and Iran will lick their wounds for now — the “deep state” within Pakistan will ultimately rear its head and both Trump and Khan will end up looking like their predecessors.

(The writer, a military veteran, is a former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry)

Writer: Bhopinder Singh

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Boris Johnson has been appointed British PM by the Conservative Party. Can he deliver on promises?

It appears that to be a successful populist leader in the English-speaking world, you need to conjure up a cool acronym. Donald Trump’s mantra in the 2016 elections was to ‘Make America Great Again’ or MAGA. And now that Trump’s ‘friend’ Boris Johnson is in 10, Downing Street, the home of the British Prime Minister, he has come up with the slogan ‘DUDE’ to outline his objectives. Those are to ‘Deliver Brexit’; ‘Unite Britain’; ‘Defeat (Jeremy) Corbyn’ the leader of the opposition Labour Party and lastly to ‘Energise the nation’, the final one coming because, as Johnson himself noted in his acceptance speech, ‘DUD’ doesn’t make for a great tagline. One could argue nor does ‘DUDE’ which sounds more like something a college student would say rather than a 55-year old shaggy-haired populist whose insurrection doomed the government of his predecessor Theresa May. Those who know Johnson, and thanks to his past as a journalist in major British newspapers, have said that being Prime Minister was his ultimate ambition. But make no mistake, he might fashion himself as a populist but is a product of Britain’s upper classes, much like Donald Trump is a product of the New York elite. And Johnson has the extremely difficult task of uniting the nation and delivering Brexit at the same time. He has taken the hard line stance that a ‘Hard’ Brexit, that is the British exiting the European Union (EU) without any sort of a deal, come what may by October 31. There are several problems with this stance expected to cripple trade and cause major issues on Ireland, which remains divided between the British North and the Republic of Ireland. His tactic of negotiating with a gun to his head with the EU looks suspiciously like Pakistan’s negotiating tactics.

But the question is will ‘BoJo’ change now that he has the top job? Previously he held the high-profile role of Mayor of London where he managed to be re-elected as a Conservative in a Left-leaning city. A floppy-haired “likeable rogue”, whose private life still makes headlines, he was pro-migrant, pro-LGBT rights and even pro-Europe. Some are hoping that BoJo will now take a turn and manage to deliver good governance, especially since he is by far and away Britain’s most popular politician. But with just about a 100 days to go before Brexit, no matter which sort, he has an unenviable task in front of him. And clever acronyms which might make you an entertaining writer does not make one a statesman. 

Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer

As the campaign for the US presidential elections, slated for November 2020, heats up, can the man be defeated?

Much newsprint has been wasted by commentators doubting US President Donald Trump’s intelligence or his methods, particularly his single-minded determination to keep Twitter relevant in foreign ministry offices and corporate headquarters across the world, let alone American homes. Yet one must admit he is a smart man. You do not win the US presidency against an establishment candidate after securing your party’s candidacy in a crowded field. Trump’s upending of the global trade paradigm has been drastic but he does make some sense when it comes to domestic priorities. But his latest statement against a few American Congresswomen from the Democratic Party, telling them in no uncertain terms that if they do not “love America” they should go back to where they “came from,” is distressing. It just so happens that Ilhan Omar, one of the Congresswomen attacked by Trump, is of Somalian descent and this is nothing more than Trump catering to the nativist part of the American electorate. Instead of reaching out to minorities, who are unlikely to vote for him, he is trying to energise his base. So the “Lock her up”, Trump’s slogan against Hillary Clinton, has been intensified now with his supporters chanting, “Send her home” about Omar.

Trump has been pilloried by political rivals. The Democratic Party, fractured by a contentious primary election to select the man or woman who will contest against him, has backed Omar and her fellow Congresswomen. Even foreign politicians have attacked him, particularly from Europe. Yet, Trump’s attack resonates as nativist forces in the US look on immigrants as interlopers in their nation, ignoring that immigrants have actually been change agents. But with few of Trump’s Republican allies attacking him, he will carry on this path and his cries against immigrants will get stronger. It remains to be seen if the Democratic Party can put up a credible candidate who can stand against Trump. The risk they run, like several other liberal parties across the world, is that they might put someone from the extreme-left ideological wing of the party who will stand little chance against Trump’s intelligence. Some say Trump was a failure in everything that he did, his business ventures have never been as successful as he claims. But looking at him now, it is impossible to see how he is anything but a winner.

Writer & Courtesy: Pioneer

The state of action and reaction between Israelis and Palestinians has continued for decades with several wars in addition to local level intersecting conflicts

It is perhaps for the first time since the Sadat-Begin accord presided over by Jimmy Carter 40 years ago that the US last month announced a very laudable and a concrete proposal for the development and mainstreaming of Palestinians. Worth over $7 billion, the plan  was unveiled at a recent conference in Bahrain by Kushner, the son-in-law of US President Donald Trump. Though the Palestinians did not attend, some Israeli private entrepreneurs were present. For the present, without an official Israeli approval, it is difficult to visualise any forward movement towards the implementation of such a proposal, which made virtually no contribution towards ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

To the current generation of youth, Islamic terrorism is synonymous with images of 9/11, Osama Bin Laden and ISIS. To their parents, it would be the Munich Olympics massacre, a violent Beirut and numerous hijackings. Research papers and books have been written to theorise that Islam is a manifestation of a violent civilisation and its interface with other religious communities bristles with faultlines. While this may be only true in certain specific instances and not as a generality, at the same time it would be important for us to understand the genesis of violence involving Islamic groups in the contemporary scene. For this we have to go back in history by about a hundred years.

When Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb, assassinated Archduke Francis Ferdinand on June 28, 1914, a series of events was set in motion leading to the World War I and the subsequent collapse of the Ottoman and other empires. After the war, this resulted in uncertainty for Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Algeria, countries which had been conquered 400 years ago for the Ottomans by Selim I. Later, under the aegis of the League of Nations, a permanent Mandate Commission was constituted, which allowed certain countries to be administered by those who had won or occupied such territories. Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, Iraq and Algeria, all parts of former Turkish Empire, were classified as category A mandates, which were entitled to eventual independence. The administration of Iraq, Palestine and Egypt was handed over to Britain while Syria and Lebanon were awarded to France. Keeping in line with the spirit of the mandates, Iraq became independent in 1937.

At this stage it is important to recall that while the war was still raging, in November 1917, then foreign secretary of Britain, Arthur James Balfour wrote to Baron Rothschild, head of an English Jewish banking family, pledging British support to Zionist efforts for establishing a Jewish state in Palestine. This was a war-time communication known as the Balfour declaration, conveying an intent on future policy in order to win over the Russians, who were at that time under the influence of Jews, for their greater involvement in the war effort as at that time Kerensky was playing a very dominant role in the government. Later, however, with the success of the Russian revolution, also in November 1917, the ground situation changed drastically as Lenin declared an armistice with Germany unilaterally. Nevertheless, the British promise remained intact.  

Even though the administration under the mandate was in the hands of Britain, Jews from all over the world began to make serious plans and efforts to start administering the Palestinian territory sometime in future. This led to heavy influx of Jews into this area. Despite the fact that some of these areas were in an active theatre of World War II, the hardliners wanted the mandate to be circumvented as quickly as possible. The obvious aim was that when Palestine would be ripe for independence and the British left after the completion of the mandate, it should become a Jewish territory. In due course, such hardliners began a campaign to harass the British so that they were compelled to vacate Palestine sooner than later. In this context, the activities of the Irgun and the Stern gangs, both Jewish terrorist outfits, are worth recalling.

Their campaign began in November 1944 when the Stern Gang assassinated the British Minister for the Middle East, Lord Moyne, in Cairo. This was followed by an escalation of violence in Palestine, with several incidents against the British. In the absence of any clear directions on policy, the British chose not to respond. But when Irgun launched a wave of attacks, bombing trains and bridges connecting Palestine to neighbouring states, a response came swiftly. Mass arrests were made across Palestine and over 2,000 Zionists were arrested. However, none of the ring leaders of Irgun or Stern Gang was caught. This resulted in escalation of violence with Irgun inflicting a devastating blow to the British rule in Palestine when it bombed the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. As is well known, this bombing was planned by the leader of the Irgun, Menachem Begin, later to be the sixth Prime Minister of Israel and a joint winner of a Nobel Peace Prize for the 1978 Arab-Israel accord.

Begin, in his book The Revolt, has explained “history and experience taught us that if we are able to destroy the prestige of British in Palestine, the regime will break. Since we found the enslaving government’s weak point, we did not let it go.”  After the success of this bombing, the Irgun and the Stern Gang extended their activities outside Palestine. An Irgun cell bombed the British Embassy in Rome and followed this with a series of attacks on British targets in Germany. Later, Irgun bombed a club in London, injuring several servicemen. Prominent British public figures connected with Palestine also received death threats. In June 1947, the Stern Gang launched a letter-bomb campaign in Britain, which targetted prominent member of the Cabinet. Sir Stafford Cripps barely escaped becoming a victim. Similarly, Sir Anthony Eden was lucky to have escaped. There was no counter from the British, much less from the Palestinians, as the British by then, had almost made up their mind to quit the mandate.

Ultimately the strength of the Jewish activists, with support of influential Jews from all over the world and amply demonstrated by its armed struggle in Palestine, persuaded the United Nations in November 1947 to partition Palestine into separate, independent Jewish and Arab states. This led to a virtual free for all and a war-like situation between various competing factions from which Israel emerged as a viable State, while Palestine ceased to exist. The Palestinian population, largely leaderless and ill-prepared for war, was driven out of what became Israeli territory by a combination of deliberate attacks. When the war ended, Palestinians had been reduced to a refugee status and kept in camps. Not surprisingly, this gave birth to a new generation of insurgents, who later turned to the same methods that Jews had used to drive out the British. This was the birth of the PLO.

The seeds of terrorism had been sown with the tree growing rapidly with several branches of varied shades. Some were taken over by the Left wing revolutionaries nurtured by the Cold War politics. On the other hand, we had a nation state fighting for its existence, security and sovereignty. This state of action and reaction between Israelis and Palestinians has continued for decades with several wars in addition to local level intersecting conflicts. In the mean time, the politics of Islamic dominance, Gulf and Middle East oil, besides the super power rivalries and their attempts to ensure through surrogates that their sphere of influence remains strong and intact, has kept the pot boiling. This has had consequences for the world which have been serious and long-lasting.  The fallout from this insurgency of eight decades ago is still playing out on the local, regional and world stages in different forms by different players.

(The writer is a retired Delhi Police Commissioner and former Uttarakhand Governor)

Writer: KK PAUL 

Courtesy: The Pioneer