Narendra Modi delivered the keynote address at the Shangri-La Dialogue (SLD) in Singapore. He showed adherence to the rules that are mentioned in international forums. The keynote was the repetition of this principle without directly pointing a finger at china.

Shangri-La is usually associated with a place in the Himalaya immortalised by James Hilton in his 1933 novel, the Lost Horizon; a mystical valley where people live in harmony under the compassionate direction of a lamasery: In other words, a paradise on earth, a high-altitude utopian retreat, a permanently happy land.

The Shangri-La Dialogue (SLD) or Asia Security Summit annually organised by the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), an independent think-tank based in London, is not about a perfect word, it deals with today’s chaotic real world. But the Track One inter-governmental security forum attended by heads of Government, defence ministers or military chiefs of the Asia-Pacific States, happens to be held in a hotel called Shangri-La in Singapore since 2002.

According to the organisers, “the Dialogue has (helped) built confidence and fostered practical security cooperation, by facilitating easy communication and fruitful contact among the region’s most important defence and security policymakers.” It is not an easy proposition, to ‘cultivate a sense of community’ in the region.

This year, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi gave the keynote address: “I am pleased to return to a region, known to India since ancient times as Swarnabhoomi, (the Land of Gold),” he told the delegates, adding: “For thousands of years, Indians have turned to the East. Not just to see the Sun rise, but also to pray for its light to spread over the entire world. The human-kind now looks to the Rising East, with the hope to see the promise that this 21st century beholds for the whole world, because the destiny of the world will be deeply influenced by the course of developments in the Indo-Pacific region.”

For decades, we were told that the pinnacle of diplomacy was ‘non-alignment’. Though it did not lead India anywhere, it became almost a religious dogma which often translated into an alignment with Moscow and a rejection of the West (except in November 1962, when Nehru ran to the United States for support).

Today, the situation is more healthy; Delhi, keeping India’s interests in mind, ‘aligns’ with the world’s major shareholders; it has perhaps been the greatest foreign policy’s achievement of the four-year rule of the Modi Sarkar.

US Defence Secretary James Mattis was not the last to praise the Prime Minister for his warning on the debts incurred by some countries; Modi had spoken about the dangers of accepting loans that were ‘too good to be true’.

Mattis told reporters: “(Modi) made a really good point there about the dangers of accepting loans that are ‘too good to be true’, and being forced into another agenda.”

The message was obviously targeting some of China’s practices through the Belt and Road Initiative; countries like Pakistan, Sri Lanka or Nepal, all India’s neighbours, are at the wrong end of these ‘loans’.

This year China sent a lower-than-usual delegation “in stark contrast to previous events, none of its members will give a keynote speech,” wrote The South China Morning Post before the event. When asked to explain, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying remained blissfully vague, it had ‘to do with work arrangements’.

But according to the he South China Morning Post’s sources: “The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) had scaled down its presence at the Shangri-La Dialogue to focus on domestic reforms.” The Chinese delegation to the 17th Shangri-La Dialogue was headed by Lt Gen He Lei, deputy head of the PLA’s Academy of Military Sciences.

But it is not that China was not listening, despite the remarks on ‘debts’, China was pleased with India, especially after Modi declared: “No other relationship of India has as many layers as our relations with China. Our trade is growing. I firmly believe that Asia and the world will have a better future if India and China work together with trust and confidence, keeping in mind each other’s interests.”

During a press conference, He Lei praised these words as a friendly and positive gesture; he also explained: “The mission of the Chinese delegation is to elaborate China’s foreign diplomacy and its defensive defense strategy, as well as to show the confident image of China’s military.”

The South China Sea issue was of course the ‘hot topic’ of the Dialogue, Here Hilton’s harmonious paradise was still far-away and China’s image has recently taken a beating.

However, the Chinese representative strongly defended his country’s interests and  affirmed: “The Chinese government and the Chinese people will never allow any person, any organization and any political party to separate any piece of Chinese territory from China at any time and in any form.” He also added that the PLA “has the determination, confidence and ability to safeguard the security of China’s sovereignty, unity and development interest.”

At the same time, China’s tone remained surprisingly soft vis-à-vis India. Zhao Xiaozhuo, a research fellow at the PLA Academy of Military Sciences, told The Global Times: “The India factor is what makes this year’s SLD different from previous ones,” perhaps because Beijing saw in Modi’s speech that, “the quasi-alliance between the US, Japan, India and Australia will not last long.”

Lt Gen He Lei, however, justified China’s deployment of ‘defensive’ facilities on the artificial islands as legitimate and necessary.

By now, China probably realised that its unilateral occupation of the South China Sea may not be accepted as a permanent fact by the rest of the Indo-Pacific community.

Take France and Britain, their defence ministers announced that their warships would sail through the South China Sea “to challenge Beijing’s expanding military presence in the disputed waters.”

Florence Parly, the French Armed Forces Minister told the forum that a French naval task group, together with British helicopters and ships, would soon be visiting Singapore “and then sail ‘into certain areas’ of the South China Sea.”

The French and British warships may cross into ‘territorial waters claimed by Beijing’; Parly even envisioned a potential encounter with China’s military: “At some point a stern voice intrudes into the transponder and tells us to sail away from supposedly ‘territorial waters’. But our commander then calmly replies that he will sail forth, because these, under international law, are indeed international waters.”

Mattis also spoke of the US plan to ramp up its freedom of navigation operations to counter Beijing’s militarisation in the region. The US does not accept Beijing’s contention that these territorial disputes are a matter between China and its Asian neighbours only.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi conluded by mentioning ‘Five S’, Samman (respect); Samvad (dialogue); Sahayog (cooperation), Shanti (peace), and Samriddhi (prosperity). He promised that “India will engage with the world in peace, with respect, through dialogue and absolute commitment to international law,” while adding: “We will work with others to keep our seas, space and airways free and open.”

But Delhi so far has managed to keep a balanced foreign policy; and India does not need to be non-aligned for that.

(The writer is an expert on India-China relations and an author)

Writer: Claude Arpi

Courtesy: The Pioneer

The astute reader of international politics would have noted that in the UK the Labour Party (socialist)has been having a torrid time of late. In particular, accusation after accusation has surfaced, both from within the Party membership as well as from those on the outside. So, what say you all are these accusations related to? And the answer in a nutshell, it’s with regard to overt and covert racism against the Jewish community, and the turning of a blind eye to the anti-Semitism that appears to be rife in some corners of the Labour Party.

There has been a long-standing myth that the Labour Party in the UK is on the side of the ethnic minorities. I use the word, ‘myth’, because in my view and experience it has become apparent over the past several decades that maybe this perception that the Labour Party has enjoyed thus far might not be a true representation of its real under belly. So let’s start with the new leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn. He became the unexpected leader of the Labour Party on 12th September 2015. I say unexpected since even his own MP’s did not want him, yet by a quirk of the voting methods used by the Labour Party, the vote bank politics of the Unions and the far-left dominated membership he was brought to power. The victory of Corbyn was almost like a signal to the far-left of the Party to do whatever they wanted to do. To the horror of the centrist Labour MP’s, Corbyn supporters saw this as a green signal and went on a political rampage. Within a short period of time a far-left group calling itself ‘Momentum’ started to take over the Labour Party narrative. It was almost as if the old Labour Party had been hijacked by the farleft, and the Unions who now seemed to have been given unchecked access to do whatever they wanted to do. In effect the Labour farleft seemed to be empowered toattack anyone who stood in their way, or in the way of their leader. The pent-upvenom over decades of frustration of the farleft was unleashed, and it seemed that their initial targets appeared to be their own MP’s and the centre of the Party membership.

The alarm bells were not just ringing, they were exploding with the news that the old guard of the Labour Party was finished and the new comrades of Corbyn were now in power. Labour MP’s in their last-ditch stand passed a vote of no confidence in Corbyn by 172 votes to 40 following the resignation of around two-thirds of Corbyn’s Shadow Cabinet. Now under any other democracy and for any other leader who had any honour and integrity, that would certainly mean walking away. However, Corbyn defied all logic in the knowledge that he had a majority of the membership votes, and the vote bank of the Unions that would keep him in place anyway. Labour MP’s were no longer in any position of influence. Labour had reached a bizarre position where the Parliamentary MP’s overwhelmingly rejected Jeremy Corbyn, yet the Party membership voted him in. The Labour Party as we knew it was finished.

So by now you must be asking the question, where and how does this antiSemitism issue arise? Well, in 2016 the Labour Party instigated what was called the Chakrabarti Inquiry. It was to investigate allegations of antisemitism and other forms of racism in the Labour Party. At that time comments made by two high-profile Labour figures, Naz Shah and Ken Livingstone had been deemed to have been anti-Semitic in nature were therefore to be investigated. On 30 June 2016 the findings were presented stating that although antisemitism and other types of racism were not endemic within Labour, there was an “occasionally toxic atmosphere”. The report was seen by most independent readers as a white wash. This became even more toxic when the British public discovered months later that the Chair of the same inquiry, Shami Chakrabartiwas suddenly made the Labour appointment to the House of Lords. Marie van der Syl, vice-president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, called it a whitewash for peerages scandal. The tone was set, increasingly it became clear to most people that something was not quite right. The Jewish community was outraged to the core. If this was not bad enough for the Labour Party, a cross-party Select Committee on antisemitism described the Chakrabarti Inquiry as “compromised”. It criticised the Labour party’s handling of anti-Semitism, concluding “the failure of the Labour Party consistently to deal with anti-Semitic incidents in recent years risks lending force to allegations that elements of the Labour movement are institutionally antiSemitic”.

Now to most sane people you would have thought that the writing was on the wall,and it was very clear. However, either the Leader of the Labour Party was deluded, compromised, part of the problem or just plain stupid to grasp the seriousness of the issues emerging. Whatever might the truth be, what was abundantly clear to most independent by-standers was that Labour was in trouble on the anti-Semitism issue and that it was not going to go away.

In early 2018 devastating news broke. It turns out that Jeremy Corbyn (and some other senior members of the Labour Party) were part of several Facebook groups. It also emerged that in some of the discussions taking place in these groups, there seemed to be antiSemitic views expressed openly. In what became a farce, Corbyn’s defence was that he did not know of these views being expressed in these groups, even though he was a member. In the end the leaders of British Jewry wrote an open letter to the Labour Party and Jeremy Corbyn stating, ‘enough is enough’. Never in the history of modern day politics has the Jewish community been so outraged, and so abused, that they felt compelled to write in the bluntest fashion that they had, had enough of the rhetoric and platitudes from the Labour leader.

I have of course touched on just the tip of this messy racist iceberg. The Labour Party has hitherto ridden a wave of support from various ethnic minority groups who have seen it as a champion for equality and human rights. However, and increasingly, people are beginning to question whether this is in fact a true representation of the Labour Party now, or whether it has managed to escape close scrutiny by offloadingsuch accusations onto the Conservative Party.

I have done a bit of digging myself and it seems that it is not just the Jewish community that is angry with the Labour Party.

I have come across many community leaders from the Hindu, Sikh and Jain communities who have also expressed serious concern and reservations about the Labour Party. When you delve a bit further you come across time and again, community leader after community leader telling you that they now perceive the Labour Party to be anti-India. In fact, they went on and stated that the impression they were getting was that Corbyn wasfundamentally anti-Modi with some suggesting that he was also anti-Hindu.

I am reminded of the first visit by PM Modi to the UK. It was under the stewardship of the then PM,David Cameron who welcomed the Indian PM with incredible hospitality. I remember the huge event that took place at Wembley Stadium when PM Cameron and PM Modi were on stage together as good friends. During that visit it was remarkable how the senior figures from the Labour Party were absent at most of events taking place. It was almost as if they had gone into hiding, trying their best to avoid coming into contact with PM Modi. The people noticed this open undermining of the Indian PM by the Labour Party. It was only towards the end of the visit that a hastily arranged meeting between the Labour leader and PM Modi took place – which I am told was a face-saving exercise for Corbyn. I am told, PM Modi gave him a few minutes only. A clear sign to the labour leadership that they cannot disrespect the biggest democracy on the planet and hope to get away with it so easily.

I asked many community leaders as to why the leader of the Labour Party had behaved in such a disgraceful fashion. Their answer was enlightening. As far as they were concerned the Labour Party was now a Party that was intertwined with the Pakistani community. Labour needed the Sunni and Kashmiri vote and could not do anything to alienate that community. In effect it seems the Labour Party had decided that harvesting the Sunni vote was more productive to them than trying to keep the votes of the other minorities. Again, one was left a bit perplexed. Surely such a strategy would be disastrous. And once again the very same leaders came back to me and said, not quite. It seems that the Labour Party had rightly concluded that the Hindu, Sikh and Jain vote was in the bag anyway, and given that these communities are not as well united and organised like the Pakistani community, they would not be able to damage their overall votes. There is a lot of truth in that view. History showed us there is still a sizeable Hindu, Sikh and Jain vote that always goes to the labour Party. This blind allegiance means that the Labour Party can get away with disrespecting their faith, their culture and their country of origin, knowing that they groups are too brainwashed to vote for anyone else. The Jewish vote for Labour on the other hand has gone down dramatically – they know how to show their displeasure.

When you investigate the matter further it transpires that most of the EDM (Early Day Motions in Parliament) that are negative to Israel and India tend to be led by Labour MP’s. No surprise there I suppose. In factthe Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn supported an EDM seeking a Visa ban for Shri Narendra Modi. Yes, you read that correctly.Even more startling, he wanted to ban PM Modi from the entering the UK. So readers in India, think about this seriously. You now have the leader of the Labour Party in the UK, who could potentially become the next PM of UK, who has openly sought to ban PM Modi from the UK. Add to that the fact that you still have some Indians in the UK who will blindly vote for Corbyn and Labour. I am informed that some of these very same Indians are also key advisors to PM Modi. Now how mad is that? It’s almost as if the Indian PM is being advised by, and is listening to, the very people who want to undermine him and India. Folks you cannot make this up if you tried. This is ground reality and I would hope that someone in PM Modi’s camp might see enlightenment and act accordingly, and quickly. If they want to know more, then I am always available to share my thoughts.

So let us move back to how the under belly of the Labour started to get exposed. The Jewish lobby is very powerful in the UK (as it is anywhere else in the world). I salute the Jewish community since they have learnt the lessons of history and have concluded, never again will they allow the racist from the far left,or the far right, to dictate the agenda and leave them in a precarious position. As soon as they raised their voice and took proactive action, we saw the fear in the Labour Party spreading. Jeremy Corbyn was forced to accept that his ideological positioning was not compatible with British society. Every media channel, including the proLabour media, ran the story to the end with remarkable editorials that more or less showed that Jeremy Corbyn was unfit to be a leader. We had endless apologies from him as well his senior MP’s in the Shadow Cabinet. Do I think the public believed a word of it? Simple answer, it seems most of the British public don’t believe a word he utters on this subject. It has become toxic to such an extent that even his own Jewish MP’s like Luciana Berger stated in Parliament that anti-Semitism within the party has become “commonplace, conspicuous and corrosive”.In May of this year, in many parts of the UK we had our Local Elections to elect Councillors and Councils. The Labour Party had been stating for months that this would be a total wipe out for the Conservative Party. The reality has now hit them hard. As the results were announced, the vast majority of Labour supporters were left devastated. Their prediction of winning everything in sight was way off the mark. In the end, the Conservative Party after 8 years in Government held on to most of the Councils and the wipe out that was predicted, never materialised. The reason, the anti-Semitism row took its toll. The Jewish community showed that not only can they affect and impact elections where they are in large numbers, but their reach goes much wider and affected results across the country.

India is the emerging giant. India under PM Modi has garnered huge respect around the world. However, it has yet to take people to task when India or Indians are undermined or disrespected. PM Modi needs all the support he can get from the nation. However with that support he, and his Government, must also deliver on some of the core issues emerging. India stands at the gateway of a glorious future. The dreams of Bharat varsh can be achieved where each and every Indian will be respected, valued and will find a place in the nation to fulfil their aspirations. This is not a time to blink, it’s time to stare your destiny in the eye and secure it.

In the words of Swami Vivekananda ji:“Arise awake and stop not until the goal is achieved.”

Twitter: @kk_OEG The writer is a seasoned businessman and a leading thought provoking writer from the UK. His command of detail and his ability to see issues and events years before they come to fruition is worthy of note. He has advised very senior politicians on a variety of issues. Being independent of thought, he does not compromise, nor does he bow to pressures to become politically correct.He understands the East, and he lives in the West. A unique grasp of perspectives that is often food for thoughts for all of us.

Former PM Nawaz Sharif’s confessional interview has smashed the traditional deceitfulness of Pakistan’s official positions. The fact is that in Pakistan, every institution need enemies to withstand importance and relevance for itself.

The confessional interview of  former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif  has the Pakistani establishment in knots and squirming in its seat to cover up for the embarrassing candour and plain-speak by the three-time Prime Minister who has busted the traditional-duplicitousness of the official Pakistani positions. From confirming the Pakistani hand in terror infrastructure, facilitation process, dilly-dallying and specifically its nefarious role in 26/11, the rooster of honest self-goals by Nawaz Sharif was unprecedented in its admission.

The expected fallout included disruption in distribution of the concerned media house which initiated the interview, red-faced denials by the ruling Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) spokespersons, including Nawaz Sharif’s own brother and Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif who said, “The report has incorrectly attributed certain remarks to PML-N Quaid Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, which do not represent the party policy.” Above all, he hurriedly, called a meeting of the National Security Council (NSC) to consider the situation arising from Nawaz Sharif’s damaging remarks.

Major General Asif Ghafoor, the official spokesperson of the Pakistan Army tweeted a cryptic: “NSC meeting suggested the Prime Minister to discuss recent misleading media statement regarding the Bombay incident.” However, the cat was out of the bag and for once, the entire spectrum of the Pakistani ‘establishment’ and Opposition leaders were united in slamming the obvious shame coming out of the spilling of sovereign beans — this time from the longest serving Prime Minister of Pakistan and the ‘Quaid for life’ (leader for life) of the ruling party, PML-N in Pakistan.

Sophistications of terror infrastructure aside, the concept of ‘non-state actors’ that Pakistan routinely pedals to rationalise terror that is invariably traced back to it, is riling the sub-continental neighbourhood and the global community committed to the ‘war on terror’.

The martyr-syndrome on terrorism that Pakistan has appropriated for itself in recent times has very few takers as the background and the continued involvement of the Pakistani establishment is well-documented. Calling the bluff on track of Pakistani victim-card, the Assistant to the US Secretary of Defence for Public Affairs, Dana White, clarified at a briefing held at the Pentagon that Pakistan was both a victim of terrorism and guilty of “sponsored terrorism”.

On Nawaz Sharif’s specific revelations, White agreed that Pakistan was now at an “inflexion point” of choices that it needs to make. Such disconcerting observation from the US Administration aside, almost daily accusations from both New Delhi and Kabul on Pakistan’s insincerity and complicity in terror is acquiring a global chorus that usually falls on deaf ears in Islamabad, which still attributes all wrongdoing to the convenience of ‘non-state actors’.

Earlier in February, it was not India but a combine of the US, the UK, France and Germany that co-sponsored a move to put Pakistan on the ‘grey list’ of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) for international money-laundering and terror-financing.  The convenient charade of ‘non-state actors’ that seeks to absolve the state of Pakistan from the blame-game in all terror attacks from Mumbai, Pathankot, Uri among others, was fully exposed much before Nawaz Sharif’s soul-cleansing act of clever politics.

Deep down, the entire Pakistani establishment knows the deceitful logic of ‘non-state actors’. Following the Uri attack,  Pakistan Peoples Party leader Aitzaz Ahsan had slammed the Pakistani Government when he said, “The Government has been completely unsuccessful in imposing restrictions on non-state actors according to the National Action Plan.”

He further deplored the rote move to blame ‘non-state actors’ by saying that the standard position that Pakistan has no hand in the Uri attack is not a categorical denial. He added that the phrase implied: “We don’t know if our non-state actors are behind it.” Similarly, Awami National Party leader Asfandyar Wali Khan wondered at the establishment’s unexplained laxity by saying, “Why the Government is helpless before non-state actors?”

However, Pakistan’s only practical recourse to relevance in its so-called ‘jugular vein’ of Kashmir is through these home-grown and nurtured ‘non-state actors’. This tactic has offered the Pakistani state to claim plausible (though no longer believable) deniability for the violent acts of terrorism by these ostensible ‘non-state actors’ — this tact fits in perfectly with the previous dictator General Zia-ul-Haq’s infamous doctrine of “bleeding India through a thousand cuts.”

The more direct and head-on approach of the sort in 1965, 1971 and more recently ‘Kargil’, resulted in humiliating defeats for Pakistan and it is only through these covert  proxies or ‘non-state actors’ that the Pakistani establishment has been able to keep the violence and unrest brimming.

This practice was first deployed within days of Pakistan gaining independence when it slipped in tribal raiders and marauders into the Kashmir valley, in its first of the multiple failed attempts at taking Kashmir.

Even the precursor to the full-fledged 1965 Indo-Pak War had seen Pakistan sending jihadis in the mistaken belief that they would be able to instigate a local uprising. While this practice was fine-tuned to an art in the Afghan war of the 80’s, nurseries and infrastructure continue to bedevil both New Delhi and Kabul till date. Despite the unbelievable human price that the Frankenstein monster of Pakistani terror industry has afforded on the Pakistanis, the establishment still pursues running with the hare and hunting with the hound, on terrorism.

Afghan President unequivocally pointed fingers at Pakistan’s benevolence and hospitality to these ‘non-state actors’ when he said, “Some still provide sanctuary for terrorists. As a Taliban figure said recently that if they had no sanctuary in Pakistan, they wouldn’t last a month.”

The ‘non-state actors’ manifest in the form of the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani Network for Kabul and Delhi continue blaming Islamabad for propping the likes of Lashkar-e-Tayyeba, Jaish-e-Muhammad, Hizbul Mujahideen etc, and politically, even the Hurriyat parties.

In Pakistan, everyone from the revivalist clergy, the over-fed military to the opportunistic politicians needs an ‘enemy’ to sustain relevance for itself and that is the invaluable service provided by these ‘non-state actors’ who do the Pakistani establishment’s bidding even if occasionally the embarrassing truth spills out, like it did in the case of Nawaz Sharif.

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

Writer: Bhopinder Singh

Courtesy: The Pioneer

FIFA World Cup, one of the world’s most popular sport, is starting in Russia in a couple of weeks. Though it will not top over the international games schedule decline but will still be enthralling on television.

Many countries will come to a stop later this summer as the 21st edition of the world’s largest sports tournament gets cracking in the world’s largest country, Russia. This is the first time that the country is hosting the World Cup. While the way in which Russia and the 2022 host, Qatar, were awarded the World Cup rights remain shrouded in controversy, the 2018 tournament is upon us, questions that need to be asked more important in the eyes of some than the corruption scandal or Russia’s brutal crackdown on dissent or even the crisis in the Eastern Ukraine and the annexation of the Crimean peninsula.

For 90 per cent of the sports watching population across the world, such questions can wait out the six weeks of the tournament, which is a pity because hosting the tournament usually can put a lot of pressure on the hosts to behave themselves, but other than forcing Russia to ‘suspend’ some homophobic laws for the duration of the tournament, FIFA and the world, particularly Western Europe, which misses no opportunity to hector their giant Eastern neighbour, have been quiet. In Germany and the United Kingdom, more pressing issues have emerged — that is how will their national men’s football teams perform in Russia, spy poisoning scandals be damned. Such is the hypocrisy of the Western media.

However, World Cup tournaments themselves during their durations have a way of altering the worldview and the world’s view of nations. Germany, for example, got a massive economic and social boost following the 2006 World Cup they hosted. The world’s image of the Germans as a stiff teutonic nation was irrevocably changed into one of a hip, modern and inclusive nation. The foundations of Germany’s 2014 World Cup win and their unquestioned leadership in Europe today were laid in 2006. However, the 2014 World Cup in Brazil had the opposite effect — it was the catalyst that laid bare the social strife at the heart of the nation that spent money they did not have to host the tournament. Today, Brazil is in political and social turmoil.

However, it was the deep-rooted corruption in the global football federation FIFA and the world body’s failure to spread the sport more successfully into China and India that is becoming a huge issue going forward. Even though the Indian Super League has had some commercial and viewership success, it pales in front of the runaway success that is the Indian Premier League in cricket. Indeed, football’s spread to several new territories will be challenged by cricket, as the IPL has demonstrated India’s soft power in neighbouring countries. But much like the IPL and other T20 leagues across the world have gnawed away at the core of the international game in cricket, overload and competitiveness of the club game, especially the European club game, is challenging international football.

Unlike international cricket, where players can play beside each other as much as a hundred days in a year, international football players barely spend a few weeks together in a year once their professional careers start. The European football season officially comes to a close on Sunday at the conclusion of the Champions League final between Spain’s Real Madrid and England’s Liverpool Football Club, which will be a highly competitive match between two clubs loaded with talent. But one reason the club game has become so popular is because of the mixture of talent and the fact club football is the only space for some of that talent to really shine through. Take Liverpool’s talismanic Egyptian striker Mohamed Salah. While he will play at the World Cup, it is unlikely that he can raise the rest of his team to the level they need to be to get into the second round. But when surrounded by talent from all over the world, he will win several trophies in Liverpool.

And Salah is not the only example, Leo Messi, who along with Cristiano Ronaldo is a superstar and one of the best to ever have stepped onto a football pitch, has not won a major international tournament. And this is where things have changed from the times of the previous Argentine football God, Diego Maradona. Messi is no less of a legendary player because he has won nothing in the blue and white of Argentina because he has won everything a club player can in the ‘Blaugrana’ of Barcelona. Maradona was defined by his performance at Mexico, 1986. Messi has been defined by his time at Camp Nou alongside other superstars like Xavi Hernandez and Andres Iniesta.

Lack of frequency of international football matches, particularly compared to the fifty-plus games a year that some of the top clubs play, almost all of which are broadcast in high-definition into our homes have changed the game of football. That coupled with the rot inside the global football federation which spent, among other things, $25 million producing a movie about themselves ‘United Passions’ instead of promoting the game properly has been a problem, FIFA and for that matter the Indian football federation have not built on the back of the successful Under-17 World Cup hosted in india last year. If India is to be successful at the sport, much more money and coaching talent is needed from FIFA. However, it is almost certain that an Indian-born player will succeed at the top of the club game, it is almost certain that player has been born already. Because it is easier for one or two to succeed than a whole team.

FIFA plans to expand the World Cup Finals to a truly incredible 64 teams going forward, quite the opposite solution of the International Cricket Council which is reducing participation. This runs the risk of making the international game even more unrelatable and irrelevant. No country is particularly fond of failure in an international sporting event, so with more countries failing and it might turn people away from the sport. One could argue that a lot of Brazil’s current turmoil started after their horrendous 7-1 defeat by Germany. Smaller, tighter and highly competitive tournaments might be the best way for the international game to stay relevant at a time of the club game.

That said, I for one will certainly be enjoying this tournament, which on the face of it it seems the most open tournament since 2006. Despite all the controversy and the issues surrounding the federations and the hosts, the tournament ought to be a success. Here is wishing all the players, coaches and volunteers all the best for Russia, 2018.

(The writer is Managing Editor, The Pioneer)

Writer: Kushan Mitra

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Indonesia and India are the two major powers both on the sides of the Indian Ocean. Both the countries when come together, can play a balancing role in an unbalanced region during tensions regarding the South China Sea.

A public lecture by HE Luhut Pandjaitan, Coordinating Minister for Maritime Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia on ‘Indonesia’s Maritime Policy and Thinking of ways forward for India-Indonesia as Maritime Neighbours’ on May 17, organised by the Nehru Memorial Library and Museum, envisaged a plethora of strategic scenarios where India can choose to play a significant role in the region. In fact, the South China Sea (SCS) dispute has prompted a re-look at India as a balancing factor.

Besides drawing a wide canvas of India’s probable roles, Luhut  Pandjaitan substantiated all components of foreign policy of Indonesia, which provide congenial environment for India, to forge stronger economic and strategic ties. He also highlighted common issues such as poverty and terrorism faced by the two countries. His visit to India is important as Prime Minister Narendra Modi is scheduled to make a three-day visit to Indonesia later this month in reciprocation to the recent visit by Indonesian President Joko Widodo.

The Prime Minister’s upcoming visit will bring both the countries closer as a number of agreements are on the cards. Among the known agendas, as revealed by Luhut Pandjaitan, is that Modi will lay the foundation stone for a hospital at the Sabang port which is the westernmost coastal location of Sumatra Province and is strategically perceived to be important for both countries. Prime Minister Modi is also expected to announce several investments to strengthen the Sabang Port and its economic zone, which, with its deep harbour, is capable of hosting submarines along with other Naval vessels.

This development is seen to be accentuating India’s probable role as a balancer in the region amid brewing unstable situation in the SCS through which an annual trade of $5.3 trillion passes and where the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has continuously been installing several strategic bases in an attempt to build its war effort in the SCS.

The precedence of the Chinese establishment in SCS shows PRC’s adamant behaviour and closely echoes a popular Indian proverb: “If an elephant passes through a market, barking of dogs is natural.”

Indonesia is itself facing issues with its Natuna islands located in the southern part of SCS which were partially claimed by the PRC. China also had a tiff with the Indonesian Navy in 2016. Though, according to Luhut Pandjaitan, situation is now under control, it seems he is not fully convinced as the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), off the coast of Natuna, is partially within China’s SCS claim, which is indicated by the so-called “Nine-Dash Line.”  

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean), whose basic agenda was to promote political and economic cooperation and regional stability, never achieved a consensus on any commonly perceived external security threat. This because each and every country in the region reels under different kinds of pressures, either economic or strategic, mounted by the PRC. In reality, they are reeling under diplomatic pressure, which the PRC has augmented in recent years by seriously engaging directly with individual countries in the region at different levels ie, bilateral trade, investments, political and domestic affairs as well.

Some global think-tanks term the formation of Asean as a security community since no significant war has taken place among themselves. The reason for the Asean being a peaceful place may be attributed to Indonesia, the largest country in the region which suffered for 32 years under the dictatorship of Suharto  who was rather an inward-looking person and depended mostly upon the US for its external security issues. The rest of Asean nations were concerned with domestic issues such as insurgency, political instability, economic stability and state-building. Another factor that has prevented Asean from becoming a security community is non-interference in each other’s internal affairs which is its sacred principle.

The second factor was proved by the experience of the two countries in the region viz  Philippines and Vietnam, who are major stakeholders in the SCS and are equally bullied by the PRC. However, they hardly found any shoulder from Asean to support their genuine claims. This was clear when the Hague Ruling (under Article 287, Annex VII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) debunked the PRC’s so-called historical claim on the SCS and the islands that it encompasses.

Silence on SCS issues, exhibited by the Asean, emboldens PRC’s claim and that’s the primary reason why China continues its belligerence, giving a signal that it was completely immune to all external factors, including world public opinion in this regard. It has increased its patrolling, construction and military installations with upgraded surveillance equipment in the SCS, created fierce geopolitical tensions among big powers and uncertainty among nations in the region.

The paradox is that all Southeast Asian (SEA) nations, even those who do not stake claim to the SCS, are directly or indirectly going to be impacted with the PRC standing vigilant just across its doorstep. On the outcome of the Hague verdict, Philippines, with its allies, was in a celebrating mood while other claimants seemed sceptical in displaying public cheer. The outcome, which was already feared by the countries of SEA before the Hague verdict, was visible in their statements from day one.

India’s swift handling of the Doklam issue with the PRC followed by Modi’s recent visit to PRC and his continuous efforts to balm the escalated injury exhibited by the Chinese military was taken as a role model for Asean countries. Their conviction towards India is getting stronger which is proved by an ever-increasing exchanges of leaders between India and Asean, especially with Indonesia. The change in India’s Look East Policy to Act East Policy seems to be placed at the right time.

Relationship between India and Indonesia is based upon deep shared culture and agama as Indonesian archipelago thrived under one umbrella of Indic fraternity, which is currently termed as the Indic Belt. However, post the formation of nation-states, both the countries got engaged in bigger power alliance politics, overlooking the power of cultural bonding between them. India could not take advantage of this opportunity to strengthen bilateral relations with Indonesia and other countries in the region. The foundation of Indian foreign policy under Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru changed its course frequently and tilted more towards holding Western hands, post Chinese attack on India.

In order to counter aggressive, and assertive hegemony of PRC, India marginalised its approach to strengthen relationship with smaller but strategically powerful nations in SEA at the cost of building economic and strategic blocs. On the other hand, the PRC utilised its diasporic presence in the Asean countries only to exhaust its industrial products, flooding the market with mundane products which could have been easily produced and marketed among themselves.

Thus, leaving India far behind in terms of gross trade, PRC has emerged as a sole economic giant in the region.  India’s trade with Asean reached to $71 billion in 2017 while China’s bilateral trade with Asean stood over 500 billion in 2017. In contrast to China-Asean  trade relations, the Indian trade is not making any rapid growth.

Luhut Pandjaitan called for stronger and balanced bilateral ties between the two countries. Aaccording to him, both countries are very large and powerful and share common maritime boundaries. Indonesia’s westernmost Province, Aceh, is only 100 nautical miles, which translates into 45 miles away from India’s Andaman Nicobar islands. This itself gives a great prospect with an abundance of possibilities of building economic bridge between the two countries.  Sumatra islands of Indonesia seems to be flooded with huge deposits of coal, gas and minerals and India can tap the resources given its geographical proximity. To balance the trade deficit, Indonesia is expected to increase its import on pharma, IT, defence and meat products for which it is dependent on Australia and other Western countries as revealed by Luhut.

(The writer is Assistant Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi)

Writer: Gautam Kumar Jha

Courtesy: The Pioneer

As Beijing strengthens the execution of military principle, mainly media manipulation, India must stand organized. Information will be significant for any battle of tomorrow.
In 2003, China’s Central Military Commission approved the concept of ‘Three Warfares’, namely: (1) the coordinated use of strategic psychological operations; (2) overt and covert media manipulation; and (3) legal warfare designed to manipulate perceptions of target audiences abroad.

In recent months, Beijing has been intensifying the implementation of this military/civilian doctrine, particularly ‘media manipulation’. Take the example of an article published last week in The South China Morning Post. It speaks of “large-scale mining operations on the Chinese side of the border with India where a huge trove of gold, silver and other precious minerals has been found.” It argues that it “may create a new military flashpoint with India.”

Though no large-scale mining has yet been spotted in Lhuntse County, north of Arunachal Pradesh, the writer connects it with the Chinese claims in the area: “People familiar with the project say the mines are part of an ambitious plan by Beijing to reclaim South Tibet [the Chinese name for Arunachal], a sizeable chunk of disputed territory currently under Indian control.”

The article mixes the Longju border incident in 1959, the 1962 war with India, the Chinese claims and the supposedly huge deposit of rare earths. The sad part of the story is that the article was immediately copied and pasted by PTI and the next morning, the entire Indian media reported about the issue and linked the happenings on the Tibetan plateau with the Chinese advances in the South China Sea.

Ironically, a day later, the ultra-nationalist Chinese tabloid, The Global Times, called the article “a dodgy report disturbing the Sino-Indian ties.” It said that the article had lit a firestorm but remarked that after Indian Prime Minister’s visit to Wuhan, the two countries have achieved major progress in strengthening mutual trust, further it said China “has no intention of provoking border disputes”.

The Global Times added that though: “the report severely lacked factual evidence and was coarse,” the Indian media “was extremely excited to see such a topic,” adding: “to many Chinese people, their first impression is that the report is not credible, given the vague facts, the geopolitical point quoted by a geologist and the denial by the expert.”

Whether it is an orchestrated move by Beijing to first plant a ‘dodgy’ piece, knowing fairly well that some Indian correspondents in Beijing are experts at copy-paste reporting, and later to throw water on the fire, is difficult to know.

It is not the first time that The South China Morning Post has done it. On October 29, 2017, Jack Ma’s newspaper reported that “Chinese engineers are testing techniques that could be used to build a 1,000km tunnel — the world’s longest — to carry water from Tibet to Xinjiang;” again the Indian media jumped to the bait. There is no doubt that India needs to be prepared for Information Warfare in the coming months.

Another favorite topic of the Chinese media propaganda has been the 1962 War with India. Beijing is keen to rewrite the narrative and sell it to lakhs of its citizens visiting South Tibet; its idea is to prove that India attacked China in October 1962.

At the end of October 2017, as an offshoot of the Doklam episode, Sina.com published an album of photos “to commemorate the 55th Anniversary of the Outbreak of the Self-Defense Counterattack.” Note that for Beijing, it is the ill-equipped and unprepared Indian troops who attacked the Chinese, giving China no option but to ‘counterattack’, killing hundreds of Indian jawans and officers in the process.

One of the photos, showing the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) parading in front of the Potala in January 1963, in Lhasa linked the 1962 War with the 2017 standoff in Bhutan: “The leader of the Chinese Communist Party, Mao Zedong, once estimated that India’s ‘embarrassment’ [of the 1962 War] could usher in 10 years of border security and peace. History has proved that the period of peacetime has been longer than estimated. Today, 55 years later, India once again provoked China.” The message was clear. At the time of the 1962 War, disinformation already existed.

In his Monthly Report for April 1963, the Political Officer in Sikkim informed New Delhi: “Early in the month it was announced by the Chinese authorities that the Chinese frontier guards in Tibet would be releasing 3,213 Indian prisoners which included amongst others one Brigadier [John Dalvi], 26 Field Grade Officers and 29 Company Grade Officers.”

The PO added: “The propaganda machine of the Chinese made out that the Indian prisoners were living in Tibet in a state of idyllic bliss. The detention camp was described as having been established in picturesque surroundings where the prisoners spent their time playing games or fishing and otherwise enjoying themselves. The food was supposed to have been so good that the prisoners had according to the Chinese statement on an average gained 1.35 Kgs per head. The nursing care received by the sick is supposed to have so overwhelmed the recipients as to have induced them to say that even their parents had not bestowed more loving care on them.”

The Indian PoWs reported the opposite; they ate only radish and immensely suffered during their months of captivity on the cold Tibetan plateau. Today, the Chinese propaganda is using the 1962 conflict to its benefit.

Che Dalha (alias Qizhala), the Governor of the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) recently visited Zhayul, north of the McMahon line in the Lohit Valley. Some 50 km south in the same valley, the famous Battle of Walong took place in November 1962; here Indian troops and particularly the six Kumaon regiment of the Indian Army managed to stop the Chinese advances and paid a high price for it; the Chinese too suffered heavy casualties.

China has built a Hero Memorial Park to honour its deaths in Zhayul. During his visit, Che told the villagers that the masses should always cherish the memory of the revolutionary martyrs; he laid a wreath for 447 Revolutionary Martyrs at the War Memorial.

The story will now be told to thousands and thousands Chinese visitors, how ‘the Indians attacked our troops’. Incidentally, Che took the opportunity to urge the villagers to watch for strangers or suspicious persons (Indian?); he asked them to cross-examine them and send a report to the PLA manning the Indian border.

Another memorial stands north of the Thagla ridge in Tsona County. The Forward Command Post of General Zhang Guohua, who commanded the PLA operations in 1962, has been reconstituted and opened to tourists. It is located in Marmang village, the first hamlet north of the McMahon Line.

This gazetted national-level historical site also mentions the ‘Sino-India Self Defense Counter Attack Battles’, hotels are already mushrooming to receive the visitors.   ‘Information’ will certainly be an important part of any battle of tomorrow. Has India grasped this? Not sure. In the meantime, Indian journalists should scrupulously verify the facts when they write.

(The writer is an expert on India-China relations and an author)

Writer: Claude Arpi

Courtesy: The Pioneer

PM Narendra Modi and Russia’s Vladimir Putin summit is a big proof of New Delhi showing promptness in answering to global power play.

The fact that Prime Minister Narendra Modi, welcomed warmly by Russian President Vladimir Putin to Sochi for an informal bilateral summit on Monday, leads an Indian administration that is refreshingly responsive to the rapidly shifting sands of contemporary geopolitics is beyond doubt. Even the Prime Minister’s severest critics ought to concede that he is doing a spirited job of keeping India in play at a time when the US, Russia, China and the European Union are all re-calibrating their tactical plays and/or redefining their strategic objectives. It isn’t an easy job, especially because both multilateral and bilateral relationships of the above-mentioned are in state of, let’s say redevelopment. Additionally, for India, we happen to live, to paraphrase the late King Hussein of Jordan, in a tough neighborhood, which makes it incumbent upon New Delhi to pay close attention to what’s going down in South Asia as well as what’s happening in Indian Ocean rim-countries.

Some strategic experts trace the current state of flux in the context of which Modi and Putin have met to iterate the strategic level of the longstanding Indo-Russian partnership with an emphasis on defence ties to the moves made by the US under President Donald J. Trump. The argument goes that it is a result of Washington no longer being willing to go along tail tucked neatly between its legs with accepting the inevitability of China’s rise as a fait accompli or Russia’s attempts to reclaim the Soviet legacy in terms of heft on the world stage and is entirely unwilling to continue with one-sided economic ties — especially its trade deficit with other nations/groupings — as a price for being feted as a so-called leader of the free world. Indeed, it is true, that the US under Trump – who promises to make America Great Again — has resulted in others reacting to protect their own national interests in turn thereby strengthening an emerging multipolar world. But it would be facile to put it down this trend to merely a change in US administrations. No, what many have missed but India for once has not, is that these developments are a manifestation of deeper shift in world politics after the end of the Cold War and perhaps the most fundamental rejig of the premise on international relations have been conducted after the end of World war II than is commonly recognized. We are, not to put too fine a point on it, going back to the future in a sense, with the nation-state once again as the primary unit of interaction globally and multilateral alliances increasingly becoming tactical rather than strategic in nature. India, which was a subject nation in the era of empire, has, thankfully, got it right this time around.

New Delhi’s outreach to Moscow at a time when US sanctions are a real threat for the latter while simultaneously deepening its ties with Washington is a reflection of that understanding. Its balancing act in terms of engaging with Teheran, another object of Trump’s ire, and making clear its sympathies lie more with the Russia/EU position is another example. India has also been quick to respond to China’s accommodative overtures given the US pushback against Beijing’s growing global influence which has forced the latter to show some flexibility towards its lesser adversaries. In sum, while all political parties in India have long accepted the primacy of our national interest, it has taken a Government with an ideological commitment to the idea of the nation-state in general and the Indian civilizational nation on which a modern, democratic state is being crafted in particular to walk the talk.

Writer: Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

The United States opened its embassy in Jerusalem under a contentious move by President Donald Trump. This has exasperated the Palestinians who fought with Israeli soldiers, who shot dead at least 52 of Palestinians in Gaza, in the fatal acceleration of violence since 2014.

Trump said the opening of the new US embassy in Jerusalem has been a “long time coming.” Trump gave a video address that aired at the opening of the new embassy. Trump, in an early morning tweet, hailed the opening of the US embassy in Jerusalem as “a great day for Israel.”

Trump made no reference to the violence in an early morning tweet but said, “A great day for Israel!”

Monday marked the biggest showdown in years between Israel’s military and Gaza’s Hamas rulers along the volatile border. The sides have largely observed a cease-fire since the 2014 war — their third in a decade.

In a show of anger fueled by the embassy move, protesters set tires on fire, sending plumes of black smoke into the air, and hurled firebombs and stones toward Israeli troops across the border. The Israeli military said its troops had come under fire, and accused protesters of trying to break through the border fence. It said troops shot and killed three Palestinians who were trying to plant a bomb.

At least 52 Palestinians, including a 14-year-old boy, were killed while more than 1,200 were wounded, including 27 critically, Palestinian health officials said.

The Hamas-led protest in Gaza was meant to be the biggest yet in a week-long campaign against a decade-old blockade of the territory.

The protests mark the culmination of a campaign, led by Hamas and fueled by despair among Gaza’s 2 million people, to break the decade-old border blockade of the territory imposed by Israel and Egypt after Hamas seized control of Gaza in 2007. Since weekly border marches began in late March, 79 Palestinian protesters have been killed and more than 2,300 wounded by Israeli army fire. Hamas said four members, including three security men, were among the dead.

Ismail Radwan, a senior Hamas figure, said the mass border protests against Israel will continue “until the rights of the Palestinian people are achieved.”

“Moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem will be a disaster on the American administration and a black day in the history of the American people because they are partners with the occupation and its aggression against the Palestinian people,” he added.

Hamas leaders have suggested a border breach is possible, something Israel has vowed to prevent at any cost.

Most of the casualties were in the southern Gaza towns of Khan Younis and Rafah. Israeli forces were firing volleys of tear gas to disperse the crowds, and the sound of heavy gunfire could be heard. Sirens were constantly wailing as the wounded were carried to nearby ambulances. Groups of young activists repeatedly approached the fence, but were quickly scattered by gunfire and tear gas.

Lt Col Jonathan Conricus, an Israeli military spokesman, said the army had set

up additional “layers” of security in and around communities near the border to defend Israeli civilians. He said there already had been several “significant attempts” to break through the fence.

“Even if the fence is breached, we will be able to protect Israeli civilians from attempts to massacre or kidnap or kill them,” he said.

In a statement, the army said troops had shot and killed three Palestinians who attempted to plant a bomb along the fence. It also said an aircraft had targeted a Hamas post in northern Gaza after Israeli troops came under fire.

The timing of Monday’s events was deeply symbolic, both to Israel and the Palestinians.

The US said it chose the date to coincide with the 70th anniversary of Israel’s establishment.

But it also marks the anniversary of what Palestinians call their “nakba,” or catastrophe, a reference to the uprooting of hundreds of thousands who fled or were expelled from what is now Israel during the 1948 war surrounding Israel’s independence.

Israel captured east Jerusalem in the 1967 Mideast war and annexed it in a move not recognized by the international community. The Palestinians seek the city’s eastern half as the capital of a future state.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas cut ties with the Trump administration and declared it unfit to mediate peace talks.

Writer: Agencies

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Contemplating on whether or not to close the nuclear agreement with Tehran, Hassan Rouhani, the Iranian president, warns Donald Trump that a “no-deal” will result in the US facing a “historical regret”.

Trump has strongly criticised the agreement, calling it “insane”. The 2015 deal — between Iran, the US, China, Russia, Germany, France and the UK — lifted sanctions on Iran in return for curbs on its nuclear programme.France, the UK and Germany have been trying persuade the US president that the current deal is the best way to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons.

British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson is travelling to Washington on Sunday to discuss the matter with White House officials.

The UN also warned Mr Trump not to walk away from the deal.

However, he has threatened that the US will “withdraw” from the deal on 12 May — the end of a 120-day review period — unless Congress and European powers fixed its “disastrous flaws”.

In remarks carried live on Iranian state television on Sunday, President Rouhani said: “If America leaves the nuclear deal, this will entail historic regret for it.”

He warned Iran had “a plan to counter any decision Trump may take and we will confront it”. Iran insists its nuclear programme is entirely peaceful and says it considers the deal non-renegotiable.

Last week, Israel revealed “secret nuclear files” which it said showed Iran had run a secret nuclear weapons programme, which was reportedly mothballed 15 years ago.

Iran branded Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a liar and said the documents he produced were a rehash of old allegations already dealt with by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN’s nuclear watchdog. But US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the documents were authentic and showed the 2015 Iran nuclear deal was “built on lies”.

Trump is already unhappy that the current deal only limits Iran’s nuclear activities for a fixed period and does not stop the development of ballistic missiles.

He also said it had handed Iran a $100bn (£72bn) windfall that it used “as a slush fund for weapons, terror, and oppression” across the Middle East.

During two days of talks in Washington, Mr Johnson will meet US Vice-President Mike Pence, National Security Adviser John Bolton and foreign policy leaders in Congress.

Earlier this month, he said it was important to keep the deal “while building on it in order to take account of the legitimate concerns of the US”.

Writer: The Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

French President Macron on Wednesday called on the United States not to ditch a nuclear deal with Iran until a broader international accord is reached that states all remaining U.S. and European concerns about Iran.

The French President received a three-minute standing ovation as he arrived in the chamber in Washington, DC on Wednesday, yet his speech was critical of President Donald Trump’s America First agenda.

He expressed doubt that Trump would stay in the nuclear deal and warned the West not to “repeat past mistakes” in the Middle East.

Saving the Iran deal has been high on the agenda of Macron’s visit, and he has presented Trump with a supplementary pact that would further limit Iran’s development of ballistic missiles and curb its military role in the region.

France, the US as well as Russia, Germany, China, the UK and the European Union are signatories to the agreement with Iran.

“My view — I don’t know what your President will decide — is that he will get rid of this deal on his own, for domestic reasons,” Macron said.

In an address to the US Congress earlier in the day, Macron said while the 2015 nuclear agreement “may not address all concerns”, the parties to the deal “should not abandon it without having something more substantial instead”.

“We signed it at the initiative of the United States. We signed it — both the United States and France. That is why we cannot say we should get rid of it like that.”

Macron added, “What we decided, together with your President, is that we can work on a more comprehensive deal addressing all these concerns.”

While declaring France’s position to stay with the Iran deal, Macron sought to allay the concerns of Trump and his conservative allies, declaring, “Iran shall never possess any nuclear weapon. Not now, not in five years, not in 10 years, never.”

Macron said France will not leave the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and pushed for a comprehensive agreement with Tehran to address the US concerns.

In his speech, Macron also made a pointed criticism of “isolationism, withdrawal and isolationism”, adding that the US “invented multilateralism”.

“It can be tempting to us as a temporary to remedy to our fears,” he said.

“But closing the door to the world will not stop the evolution of the world. It will only inflame the fears of our citizens. We have to keep our eyes wide open to the new risks right in front of us,” he added.

Since Trump came to office in January 2017, he has taken several steps to block the nuclear deal.

In October, he refused to certify that Iran is living up to the accord.

He also targeted several Iranian businesses and individuals with new sanctions. On January 12, Trump announced he was waiving the US sanctions for the “last time”.

He said if his demands are not met within 120 days, the US would withdraw from the deal. The deadline is on May 12, although he has hinted that the US could cut loose before that date.

Trump also appointed several members of his cabinet who oppose the nuclear deal, including Mike Pompeo, the incoming secretary of state, and John Bolton, the national security adviser.

Writer: Agencies

Courtesy: The Pioneer

During the Sino-Indian informal summit, Chinese President Xi Jinping suggested a new protocol to Prime minister Modi in response to his call for border peace. President Xi suggested that the agenda will be formulated by China and its disclosure would be left to India.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ‘informal summit’ with Chinese President Xi Jinping from April 27 to April 28 in Wuhan city is perhaps meant to reduce the tangible Chinese military pressure, since the Doklam face-off, on the 3,488 km disputed border (Line of Actual Control). Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj said, “We underlined that maintaining peace and tranquillity in the India-China border areas is an essential pre-requisite for the smooth development of bilateral ties.”

Under the rubric of strategic communications, the two leaders are expected to concentrate on each other’s core concerns. Modi will seek to diffuse the risen temperature at the border, which has enormous potential for negative military consequences for India. Another 2013 Depsang incursion or worse, with a year left for India’s General Elections, would impact negatively on the Modi Government.

Both Modi and Xi know that the LAC is India’s Achilles heel. Xi, on the other hand, would desire that India completely desist from the official patronage of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan Government-in-exile including His Holiness’ visits to Arunachal Pradesh. Since India has sought the meeting, China, which is in a stronger negotiating position, would likely ask for cooperation and clarification on two other vital issues which have the potential to derail strategic communications. The first is about the perceived ganging up of India with the United States to stymie China’s Maritime Silk Road in the Indian Ocean Region.

Xi would be interested to know Modi’s assessment of the Indo-Pacific region, whether the Quadrilateral grouping (India, US, Japan and Australia) is being done as an alternative to China’s One Belt One Road. The other issue would be to start talks, possibly at a political level, on connectivity cooperation between the two nations. China wants India to make peace with Pakistan and join the One Belt One Road.

Being undertaken a month before, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit also to be held in China, Modi-Xi meeting cannot be business as usual; especially when the National Security Advisor, Ajit Doval, without prior knowledge of the external affairs ministry, had gone and sought the meeting.

The business, as usual, was left to India’s foreign and defence ministers, who were recently in China for pre-SCO summit meetings. They would have discussed bilateral geopolitical and defence issues and shared mutual concerns. Moreover, Niti Aayog vice chairman Rajiv Kumar too was in China for the Strategic and Economic Dialogue where threats to globalisation and protectionism, and enhanced bilateral trade were reportedly discussed.

Before we proceed with the military implication of Doklam which compelled Modi to seek an audience with Xi, two assertions by experts regarding the  Line of Actual Control (LAC) should be put into perspective. The first is by Army Chief General Bipin Rawat who has repeatedly said that he is prepared for a two-front war. Unlike the Air Force chief, Air Chief Marshal Birender Singh Dhanoa, who has consistently evaded this question by the media, General Rawat has, many a time, proffered this assessment without even asking. This is when the Air Force and not the Army would have to do the heavy lifting in a conflict with China.

Now, when India is seeking peace on the LAC, it appears that General Rawat either does not fully comprehend the adversary and the dynamics of conflict escalation that might ensue, or he has been making political statements. The former seems more likely. He appears to have misled the political bosses into believing that tactical muscle-flexing in Doklam and increased Army deployments post-Doklam would scare the Chinese off. Perhaps, he has done this unwittingly.

Having spent most of his career in counter-insurgency operations, he probably is not fully conversant with the Chinese military capabilities, strategy, modern war dynamics and most importantly, that China is not known to buckle under outside pressure. What China did in Doklam was a tactical retreat to win the war without fighting. That they have succeeded in it is obvious from the informal summit sought by India.

The other assertion is by the former National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon, who has maintained that the border with China has been peaceful since no shots have been fired there. Giving credit for this to the 1993 bilateral agreement which renamed the border as the LAC, he writes in his book, Choices: Inside the Making of India’s Foreign Policy, “The reference to the LAC would be unqualified, making it clear that it was the LAC at the time the agreement was signed that would be respected, and not some notional idea of where it was in 1959 or 1962.”

China, with admirable border management and relatively excellent war-fighting capabilities, has, instead of respecting the 1993 agreement, made use of the agreement to apply military pressure on India. Given that the LAC, unlike a border, is a military line which can be altered by force, the Chinese have since 1993, transgressed it, at will. If the LAC had not been formed, China would have hesitated to violate the disputed border (denoted by natural geographical features like mountains) so often. Realising the blunder wrought by the LAC construct, Modi had, in September 2014, during Xi’s India visit, publicly sought clarification on the LAC. China refused to do it.

The creation of the LAC has reduced the Indian Army to a policing force. It has been left to stop intrusions by the adversary (without resorting to violence) which, unlike them, does not stay perched on heights of 15,000 feet and above, but comes in vehicles looking for border gaps. To reduce a fighting force to policing duties undermines the soldiers’ morale no ends. Giving the choice of being posted at the military line with Pakistan, and that with China, soldiers would prefer the former.

Since Doklam, the ground situation on the LAC has worsened. The People’s Liberation Army while replacing border guards (akin to India’s paramilitary forces) has built additional military infrastructure and increased its presence on the LAC. This has compelled the Indian Army to substantially increase its soldiers on the LAC and to shift resources from other sectors to the China front. This has denuded other vital sectors of necessary capabilities.

Worse, the Indian Army, as admitted by the Army senior brass to the media, has, at best, counter-attack capabilities against China. These are tactical or battle fighting, rather than war or campaign fighting capabilities. Instead of worrying about this, they are happily informing the nation that 1962 (when the focus was on land battles) would not be repeated, as if a conflict in 2018 would be the same as what it was then.

Modi, however, has taken upon himself to ensure peace at the border. A possible code of conduct, which was suggested by China in response to Modi’s call to define the LAC, or some other mechanism for border peace, could be in the offing. Its substance would likely be dictated by China, while the timing of its disclosure would probably be left to India.

(The writer is editor FORCE newsmagazine)

Writer: The Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer