The FATF compliance is just about technical criteria and India must remember that it won’t impact Pakistan’s proxy war with it
Despite intense lobbying, Pakistan continues to be on the “grey list” of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) — the global watchdog that tracks terror-funding States and can disqualify them from aid by World Bank and other global institutions. Even after the Paris-based body extended the deadline because of the pandemic, it found “strategic deficiencies” and non-compliance of six key markers in its 27-point action plan. These have to be addressed by February. But given Pakistan’s track record, it has rarely gone beyond token compliance. In August, it had imposed financial sanctions on 88 banned terror groups and their leaders, which included the mastermind behind the 26/11 Mumbai attack and Jamaat-ud-Dawa chief Hafiz Saeed, Jaish-e-Mohammed chief Masood Azhar and underworld don Dawood Ibrahim. However, it failed to take substantial action against Azhar and Hafiz Saeed. It may have booked Saeed’s charities through which he funded money but is yet to cap the money trail to listed terrorists or prosecute the financiers. Besides, their confinement doesn’t mean that they cannot inspire or raise new outfits under different names. And imprisonment is just a euphemism for protection and nurturing their safe havens. Besides, as India pointed out, the names of over 4,000 terrorists suddenly disappeared from its official list.
Nothing much seems to have changed since Pakistan was first put on the list in February 2012 with the FATF’s main concern being that the country did not have appropriate legislation to identify terror financing and to confiscate terrorist assets. This is the second time Islamabad is trying to wiggle out of the “grey list” and if it succeeds without guaranteeing it won’t continue harbouring and aiding terrorist organisations, the credibility of FATF will also be in question. For now, with its economy already in the doldrums, it has brought time to “repair the outstanding issues.” Besides, Pakistan’s all-weather friend China is trying to devise a workaround, arguing for a re-negotiation of the FATF brief itself, saying the grouping had no business to blacklist nations but should help them counter terrorist funding instead. India must realise that the shades of the FATF list mean nothing in terms of threat levels ever since the blacklist was diluted as a “call for action” and the “grey list” was downgraded to “other monitored jurisdictions.” It must remember that global penalties won’t impact Pakistan’s proxy war and it has to evolve its own dynamics about sponsored terror instead of focussing solely on isolating our neighbour diplomatically.
At a time when right-wing parties have a field day around the world, Jacinda Ardern has led the centre-left Labour Party to a historic victory. Considering her winning formula of compromise and consensus, the absolute majority might prove a challenge for her as she needs to take along the polar opposite groups: the affluent middle class and the poor
The recently concluded New Zealand parliamentary election has once again brought back Jacinda Ardern to power. The election was scheduled for September, but because of the Covid-19 pandemic, it was postponed by a month. Since the introduction of the MMR in the 1996, the Labour Party has become the first ever party to form Government on its own, winning 64 seats out of total 120 in the House of Representatives. Looking at the results: Labour Party 64 seats (49.1%), National Party 35 seats (26.8%), ACT (Association of Consumers and Taxpayers) 10 seats (8%), Greens 10 seats (7.6%), NZ First (2.7%), but no seat, Maori Party 1 seat (1%) and others got 7.7 % (no seat), it is clear that the centre-Left Labour has recorded a landslide victory.
With this thumping victory, Ardern has spread the message of stability and certainty to the people of New Zealand.
Jacinda’s foray into politics is an interesting story. With her father being a police officer and mother a school cook, Jacinda had a ground experience of poverty that her country was facing. When she was 17, she was an active Labour Party worker. After completing her degree in Communication Studies in Politics and Public Relations, she started working for Helen Clarke, the then Prime Minister of the country. She also had the experience of working in the UK Cabinet Office when Tony Blair was the Prime Minister of the UK. By 2008, she was back to her country from London and became an MP of the Labour Party. One of her most controversial political moves was an attempt to introduce a Bill to support gay rights in her country. She even renounced the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints in her early twenties as the Church’s views on gay rights clashed with hers. Thus, she is in favour of equal rights for the LGBTs.
“Jacinda Mania” has finally worked. She has been awarded an outright majority, with an approval rating of 55 per cent. The election was set behind an extraordinary background accompanying three pronged crises — the first being a terror attack, second the natural disaster, and third the global pandemic of Covid-19. She has been able to handle all the three issues much better than any other leader of the country. Her unequivocal stand not to defend the white man accused of the terror attack in the Chirstchurch area that killed 50 and wounded more than fifty in mid-March 2019 earned her admiration of the people.
The mass shooter Brenton Tarrant, an Australian white man driven by anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim sentiments, was temporarily based in the country before the incident took place. In fact, an unsigned manifesto before the carnage on the Twitter and 8chan, an online messaging platform which has been used by anonymous accounts to share extremist messages and cheer on mass shooters, was posted in Tarrant’s name. The attack threatened the country, particularly the Muslim community. Throughout the entire crisis, Jacinda stuck to her stand that the white gunman was a terrorist and emphasised that he did not represent the people of New Zealand.
Second, when a volcanic eruption rocked the White Island or Whakaari, a small volcanic Isle in New Zealand’s Bay of Plenty, on December 9, 2019, it shocked the nation as Covid-19 was already gripping the world around the same time. This was probably the worst case scenario for the islanders that killed more than 17 people. Jacinda joined a nation-wide mourning on this incident. The fact is that the White Island is a summit of a complex submarine volcano. As the island is regularly visited by tourists, the Government was extremely careful in taking the best of the post-volcanic disaster management measures.
Third, unlike many other countries, the Covid-19 handling was too early and followed by extremely hard actions by the Jacinda Government. Its success in controlling the virus has been widely described as “crushing the curve”. The island nation’s Covid strategy was based on speedy testing, contact tracing and isolation, while adhering to strict public health guidance norms across the country. Indeed, the country benefitted from being a high income and an island nation with an advanced health care system at its best. But the best part of the Government was that it called on its entire population to fight the menace as a “team of five million” to protect their families, friends and all the neighboring nations. And Jacinda has earned rare reputation and fame by taking such preventing measures to save her people from this health havoc.
Her charisma is well appreciated. On record, she has become a Labour leader just seven weeks before the 2017 parliamentary election that gave her a rare opportunity to grab power at Wellington with a coalition Government with the New Zealand First Party and the Greens Party, although she was able to score only second highest number of votes. But the country’s unique proportional representation system had helped her to form the Government with these two coalition partners. Very soon, she was branded as an anti-Trump liberal icon at a time when the international community witnessed a wave of rightist nationalist leaders around the world. Again she came into prominence for wearing a Maori cloak, known as “Korowai”, while meeting her monarch Queen Elizabeth-II in April 2018.
Jacinda’s popular slogan “be strong, be kind” has worked magic in this election. And she has become the third woman Prime Minister of the country. She has driven a positive message across. Considering her age, unlike the other Opposition leaders, she has long and bright future in New Zealand’s politics. But the critics and global political experts say that the absolute majority could be a problem for her, even as top Opposition leaders like Judith Collins of the National Party has accepted her defeat and she has vowed to play the role of a robust Opposition figure in Parliament.
Much more than this, people have also voted on two critical referendums; the first being the legalisation of euthanasia and the second, for using cannabis. The first will offer terminally ill patients to go for assisted dying. It is a binding vote and if more than 50 per cent voters say yes, this will be implemented soon. The second is related to the recreational use of cannabis making legal. This is not a binding vote which implies that even if more than 50 per cent people say yes, cannabis can’t be made legal on the basis of this referendum. The Jacinda Government has to bring a fresh Bill to legalise this. And finally when the results of both these referendums are expected on October 30, the decisions delivered by the voters will make a lot for the entire nation and especially for the widely popular Jacinda.
(The writer is an expert on international affairs)
India has invited Australia to the Malabar naval exercises with the US and Japan. A reinforced Quad is ready to take Beijing head on
For long, India had not been too keen on firming up the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue with Australia militarily. While it had committed to the security alliance in principle to rein in China in the Indo-Pacific region and been comfortable with the US and Japan, it had been wary of Australia’s role — considering its deep dependence on Chinese markets — and its ability to override economic imperatives. After all, China continues to be Australia’s largest trading partner and accounts for 32.6 per cent of its exports. Besides, China sources iron ore, coal and gas from Australia because of its geographical proximity and mined quality, preferring the latter over Brazil. India was sceptical about Australia doing anything to jeopardise this mutually beneficial relationship. Besides, both India and Australia, being in the neighbourhood, didn’t exactly want to rile up China or risk a hit-back by overtly upping the dragon’s anxieties. Therefore, India had never included Australia in the Malabar naval exercises, a series of simulated war games and combat manoeuvres it has been conducting with the US and Japan since 2017. Last year, the exercises were upgraded to complex maritime operations focussing on anti-submarine warfare, anti-air and anti-surface attacks, maritime interception and other tactical manoeuvres. But in a post-pandemic scenario, which has been entirely the fallout of China’s negligence and its neo-imperialism in a world flattened by the virus in more ways than one, new allies are realising that without standing together as a bulwark, there’s no chance of standing up to China’s might, the only nation to notch up positive growth in distressed times and in a position to dictate its terms again. Now both want competitive advantages at China’s expense. So India has finally announced Australia’s participation in the Malabar exercise along with the US and Japan, the Quad’s first full military-level engagement. This is significant geo-politically because four of the biggest democracies with stakes in the region are collectively committed to preserving open waters and hold off China’s misadventures to monopolise them ruthlessly. The initiative allows inter-operability between the four partners, which means accessing and using each other’s strengths and bases to pursue their common mission of maritime democracy. This makes Quad formidable. For far too long, the group has been under criticism for being amorphous, united by posturing than real intent and being half-hearted about taking on China in a real theatre of geo-strategic capabilities. The full-fledged military alliance gives a robustness of entity, one which can now embolden Quad plus nations to coalesce together against Chinese assertiveness and debt-trap diplomacy. Except the US, nobody in the group had directly dared to call out China. With a military-level agreement, there should not be trust issues anymore. And if mutual interests and concerns find congruence, then over time it could become what the US calls a NATO-like presence in Asia that could contain China’s expansionist designs and one-sided behaviour. Most significantly, the military alliance could also be strengthened to forging an economic coalition of sorts, for example setting up a Quad Free Trade Agreement (FTA) to attract investment and set up an alternative supply chain network that would reduce the dependence on China. Australia has been keen to be part of the Malabar exercises for quite some time to acquire strategic depth with India and further sharpen its maritime capabilities. Virus-hit badly, it had, with US encouragement, spearheaded a petition for a neutral, global investigation into Covid-19’s origins and China’s role in it. China, which now sees both India and Australia as US stooges in the region, immediately hit back, imposing an 80 per cent tariff on Australian barley and banning beef imports. Ever since, Australia has been looking to find allies where it can diversify markets and find support. One of the results was the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, agreed upon by Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Prime Minister Narendra Modi on June 4, 2020. The military exercises seem to be a corollary of this understanding.
With this consolidation, Beijing could have a tough time monitoring the entire South China Sea, which it claims as its own. Its intention is to encircle the region, particularly India, with a “string of pearls” or islands friendly to it and keep a hawkish overlordship of the littoral States. India, which has realised that China won’t budge on Ladakh, is now seriously considering getting down to “a poke for a poke” strategy. It is now firming up more military pacts, like the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geo-Spatial Cooperation (BECA) with the US during the 2+2 dialogue between the Defence and Foreign Ministers of the two countries later this month. This will amplify India’s maritime vigilance capabilities significantly. The US can share advanced satellite and topographical data for long-range navigation and missile-targeting with India. We can now use US unmanned aerial vehicles for reconnaissance. Besides, after years, India is also keen on formal trade negotiations with Taiwan. This is tricky territory as India would have to sidestep issues that China might raise regarding bilateral trade agreements and pledges made under fair practices. India doesn’t formally recognise Taiwan, with the two Governments maintaining unofficial diplomatic missions. But a trade pact, if it does materialise bypassing Chinese resistance, would help us reduce our supply chain dependency and attract massive investments. Galwan may have been the trigger that China has wrongly pressed. For it has forced India to develop its own protective “ring of fire” in the region.
India has made major progress in delivering energy efficiency. It has done better than China, the US, Russia and many European nations
The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 7.1 aims to ensure universal access to affordable, reliable and modern energy services by 2030. India’s journey so far has been remarkable in achieving near-universal access to electricity in the last one decade. As per the “Saubhagya” dashboard, 99.9 per cent of rural households in the country have been electrified and less than 20,000 homes lacked electricity access as of March 2019, but as per NSS-76, more than six per cent households in rural areas and one per cent in urban areas had no access to electricity till December 2018.
A majority of the States have above 97 per cent access, but larger States such as Uttar Pradesh (UP), Jharkhand and Odisha still lag behind the national average. Rural areas of UP and Jharkhand are most deprived with 80 and 85 per cent access to electricity respectively.
According to the National Family Health Survey (NFHS)-4, in 2015-16, Bihar ranked at the bottom of all States with just 60 per cent of its households having access to power. Since then, it has made significant progress in expanding its electricity access to near-universal coverage in the last three years. But despite attaining near-universal electrification for the majority of States, securing continuous and quality supply of power to remote villages and poorest households still remains a big concern.
Compared to electricity access, larger variations can be observed in the access to clean fuel among the States. Meghalaya, West Bengal, and Empowered Action Group (EAG) States, excluding Uttarakhand, still lag in providing universal access to clean cooking fuels, and every second household has no access to it. This significantly low national average poses a core developmental and health challenge. Even Kerala, despite its high living standards, has witnessed glaringly low progress in this aspect. Also, as per NSS-76, there exists a blatant, countrywide rural-urban divide in the access to clean fuel.
On average, the beneficiaries of the Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana (PMUY) go for only 3.1 LPG cylinder refills in a year. For the year 2019-2020, around 4.14 crore families never opted for a refill of more than three cylinders. Madhya Pradesh, UP and Rajasthan fared the worst in this regard. According to the information given in the Rajya Sabha recently, since the beginning of the new financial year in April till August, around 1.84 crore families refilled their LPG cylinders only once. This information came in even as the Government claimed of providing free cylinders to the poor during the lockdown. Hence, the challenge further remains to not only increase the access to cleaner fuels for households, but to increase the overall consumption per family.
Energy production of all types contributes to about 70 per cent of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions across the globe. Energy-related CO2 emissions grew 1.7 per cent in 2018 to reach a historic high of 33.1 gigatons of CO2 globally. It was the highest rate of growth since 2013, and 70 per cent higher than the average increase since 2010. However, the global energy demand in the first quarter of this year declined by 3.8 per cent relative to the first quarter of 2019, resulting in five per cent lower CO2 emissions as well. But this seemingly desirable change, that was mainly caused by the national lockdowns, may not continue for more than a few months.
To sustainably move towards a better future, it is now essential that we cope with our energy needs, giving due consideration to the environment that has been long neglected and continues to be so. The energy transition from conventional to renewable sources is the biggest need of the hour. Owing to this, SDG target 7.2 aims to increase the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix by 2030.
Among the BRICS nations, Brazil has been leading the way in the share of renewable power in its total energy mix, drawing advantage from its high potential of electricity production from wind and solar energy sources. India’s share of renewable energy in its final energy consumption stands at 32.2 per cent as of 2017 and has been suffering a decline for the last many years. Even though India’s share of renewable energy is higher than countries like Russia, the US, China, Japan and Europe, the decline in this share must be controlled. Whereas for countries mentioned above, in order to be able to sustain the share of renewables in their total energy mix, intense efforts for increasing that share must be realised too.
The Energy Statistics 2020 has reported a substantial growth in the renewable energy share in the total installed electricity generation from 13.4 per cent (2015-2016) to 17.7 per cent (2017-2018), owing to significant investments and expansions made in wind and solar power generation. A recent International Energy Agency analysis shows that in 2018, India’s investment in solar energy was greater than in all fossil fuel sources of electricity generation put together. SDG- 7.3 aims to double the global rate of energy efficiency by 2030. Energy intensity indicates the amount of energy needed to produce one unit of the GDP, where a smaller value is always desirable, as it points towards greater energy efficiency.
India has made significant progress in delivering energy efficiency. It has done better than major economies, namely China, the US, Russia and several European countries. It has showcased exemplary performance on this front and achieved an energy intensity level of 4.1 to 5.1 megajoules per US dollar (MJ/$) that is even lower than the global average of 5.4 MJ/$. Energy efficiency and increasing share of renewables are fundamental in achieving several other sustainable development goals. Without accelerated clean energy innovation and transition towards renewables, the 2030 agenda seems far-fetched.
As the nation faces the grim economic impact of the pandemic, energy efficiency offers several opportunities to provide the much-needed boost to the economy in the form of employment generation and so on, although a great deal of uncertainty exists with regard to SDG-7.
(The writers are researchers, International Institute for Population) Sciences, Mumbai)
Standing against the combined resources of numerous countries in a militaristic misadventure, statements from Beijing are reflective of pressure, not confidence
Chinese history, taught in its formative schools, is complex, wounded and deliberately provocative as it aims to undo the “century of humiliation” that ostensibly ended with the advent of the Communists in 1949 under Chairman Mao Zedong. Seeds of revenge, insecurities and expansionist tendencies were assiduously sown and harnessed by the focussed efforts of the single-party regime. This transformational narrative of the deprived past to that of the dreams of the hegemonic “Chinese Century” (21st century) has distracted, galvanised and anchored the faith of the citizenry to the illiberal and undemocratic regime. A collateral outcome of this national passion has been the planned outreach beyond its cartographic limits in terms of trade, commerce, military and diplomacy, both welcomingly and unwelcomingly. This demanded a governance tonality of disruption, deceit and re-interpretation of all known laws of sovereignty, morality and all other forms of global operating systems. It has led to a unique situation of China having territorial disputes with at least 18 countries, while having borders with only 14. Ironically, the Chinese greed does not spare its own allies like North Korea, Philippines and most recently, Nepal.
The Chinese approach towards territorial aggrandisement has swerved from creeping, brazen, opportunistic to even innovative — but always, relentless. With such a backdrop, it was hardly surprising that Beijing stated, “China does not recognise the Ladakh Union Territory illegally set up by the Indian side and the Arunachal Pradesh.” This was patently duplicitous, obstructionist and retracting Chinese diplomacy at its normal. Constant flare-ups that end up enhancing the Chinese footprint are a critical and reassuring component of its power projection, as President Xi Jinping had famously claimed, “Only if there are battles, there are opportunities.”
The ensuing trade wars with the United States, sabre-rattling with Taiwan, prickly relations with Japan, a military stand-off with India and continuing belligerence in the South China Sea are carefully plotted moves in the mould of “shock and awe,” to reassert the Dragon’s arrival and supremacy on the global centrestage, with or without anyone’s permission. Part of this Chinese tact is to draw the opponent into a “limited” theatre and then out-muscle and out-posture the same into subservience without matters escalating beyond the defined realm. History suggests that the outcome of a long-drawn and expanded conflict has never ended in China’s favour — like the China-Vietnam war in 1979. China had underestimated the Vietnamese resolve as the then Chinese Vice Premier, Deng Xiaoping, had mentioned to American President Jimmy Carter before China’s ill-fated intrusion into Vietnam, “The little child is getting naughty, it’s time he got spanked.” By the end of the bloody conflict, most independent historians agree that the ragtag but battle-hardened Vietnamese outfought and outperformed the numerically and materially superior Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA).
China can suddenly seize unoccupied shoals, reefs and islands beyond its maritime limits like the Johnson Reef, Mischief Reef, Scarborough Shoal, Paracel Islands, Spratly Islands and more, and then start mega reclamation projects to enlarge the landmass into full-fledged, militarised bases. Towards this, it can discount all international treaties and norms to propound its own unique formula like the “nine-dash line” to the consternation of the rightful claimants. China will invariably posit an admixture of disputed history, vague claims and cartographic dashes that were clearly declared to be unlawful under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS). Beijing disregarded the verdict of the International Court of Justice and brazenly added another 10th and 11th line dash to its claims.
China’s claims on Taiwan are equally disbelieving with the Chinese Communist Party (CPC) never ever ruling the island State since the independence of either of the nations, and only alluding to an expeditionary Chinese force in AD 239 to buttress its claims.
In recent times, devious efforts to soften its expansionist image by propounding creative formula, like “one country, two systems” in Hong Kong, have been completely exposed and unmasked. Even shifty leaders like the Philippines President, Rodrigo Duterte, who had shocked everyone by siding with the Chinese just when Manila was embroiled in a territorial dispute with Beijing or Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli of Nepal, have been forced into serious introspection of their dalliances with China. Duterte not only dialled down his anti-US rhetoric but also hailed its verdict against China as “the triumph of reason over rashness, of law over disorder, of amity over ambition.” Somewhere the Dragon’s free-run seems to have run into rough weather and the clouds of a pushback are looming on the horizon.
Indian armed forces are staring back, hitting back and have dug their heels, the Quad discussions (US, Japan, Australia and India) are moving from paper to spadework and the US naval warships are passing through the choppy Taiwan Straits. China is clearly feeling the heat as Jinping was left goading his military, “Put all (your) minds and energy into preparing for war.”
The situation is getting uncomfortably prolonged, inconclusive and simmering to Beijing’s discomfiture, and perhaps the sense that it has bitten more than it can chew simultaneously, has dawned on the Chinese. The entire neighbourhood is seemingly on a “high alert” and this works to the detriment of the Chinese, who typically thrive on nibbling and “salami tactics” on unsuspecting, napping or trusting neighbours. Even Russia, which has its own axe to grind with the US, would not mind seeing China in a tight spot and may allow its “neutrality” to worsen the situation for Beijing. In such a situation, Sino-wary nations need to collectively stare back, ignore and blunt the provocative Chinese statements that are intended to dramatise, coerce and win bullet-less wars.
The pandemic has weakened the global economy, but for China to unilaterally stand up against the combined resources in a militaristic misadventure could be regime-threatening given the imploding undercurrents that could get unleashed with the crumbling of the “Chinese Dream.” The Dragon has effectively been checkmated in its tracks, even though restoring status quo ante may not be possible. Yet the bombastic statements from Beijing are reflective of pressure and not confidence.
(The writer, a military veteran, is a former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands)
It has been a fortnight since the Kyrgyz people raised the banner of revolt against the October 4 parliamentary election results, which have been annulled for fresh polls. However, aggravating the crisis is Opposition groups’ inability to arrive at a consensus on picking up a leader
The sudden political unrest and conflicts in former Soviet nations are not accidental. The primary reason is that all of them have suddenly ceased to become a sphere of Russian influence after 1991. Kyrgyzstan, known as the only democracy in Central Asia, has literally turned herself into a mobocracy in a span of few days. The rag-tag Opposition backed groups are fast occupying Government establishments, including the most prestigious Parliament building of the country. Currently, the protesters are appointing their favourites as mayors, ministers and even Prime Minister. The only problem with these self-declared or mob-appointed authorities is that all of them can be overturned by stronger and well-armed groups again. So, there would be no end to such chaos if it persists like this. The safe road ahead is to bring legitimate authorities back to the seat of power as per the law of the land.
However, Kyrgyzstan is no stranger to such calamities as its people had a good experience of Tulip Revolution of 2005 and the resurgence of violence in the year 2010. The Tulip Revolution is also known as the First Kyrgyz Revolution that led to the ouster of President Askar Akayev in early 2005. Going back to the recent history of the country, what we find is the people of Kyrgyzstan had a strong yearning for democracy. The country conducted parliamentary elections on February 27, 2005. The revolution started after the parliamentary elections when Askar’s allies came out victorious. But it was alleged that the election was marred by widespread election frauds. In fact, such malpractices were also confirmed by the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) after the election. Thus, a massive protest campaign started to dislodge the corrupt and authoritarian regime of Akayev, who had been ruling the country since the 1990s. The revolution was a turning point for Kyrgyz people as it made them realise that democracy is possible in their country.
The 2010 crisis took place because President Kurmanbek Bakiyev was ousted from power in an uprising on April 7, 2010. His stronghold in the south of Kyrgyzstan witnessed massive violence. During that time, the pro-Bakiyev supporters organised resistance to the interim Government led by President Rosa Otunbayeva by seizing Government buildings and taking officials hostage. What added fuel to the fire was that the sizeable Uzbek community in the country backed the interim Government. Taking advantage of the power vacuum, criminal gangs and drug mafias aided in sparking communal violence in the southern city of Osh between Kyrgyz and Uzbek groups. It forced thousands of Uzbeks to flee the region. Most of them had fled to neighboring Uzbekistan only. As per the UN estimate nearly 4,00,000 people were displaced during this violence. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees regarded the crisis as ethnic clashes. But many say that there was a strong element of Bakiyev in stoking violence across. But only this factor could hardly be blamed for mass killings and indiscriminate fighting among numerous groups.
The current political turmoil started only after the results of the parliamentary election held on October 4 was declared. Interestingly, only four political parties out of 16 have crossed the threshold to claim a seat in the country’s Parliament called Supreme Council. This council was earlier known as the Supreme Soviet of the Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic until 1991. Unfortunately, out of all these four parties, three are closely connected to ruling President Sooronbai Jeenbekov. None of the established Opposition parties has even secured a single seat in Parliament. Therefore, all the 12 Opposition parties have come together after the election to reject the results. That is how the current political drama unfolded across the country, mainly in the capital city of Bishkek. The primary charges brought against the pro-Jeenbekov parties are vote-buying and voter intimidation. For now, the authorities have annulled the results of the disputed election, necessitating a re-run of the vote in the country of more than 6.5 million people. What now the protesters are demanding is the immediate impeachment of the President. A group set up by several Opposition parties called as the Peoples Coordination Council Opposition for now has assumed all state powers and dissolved the Parliament. Meanwhile Parliament agreed to nominate Opposition leader Sadyr Zhaparov for the post of Prime Minister. He also aired his view that he would propose a constitutional reform before holding presidential and parliamentary elections within two to three months from now. But he was uncertain about the backing of the coordination council about his candidature because there are strong differences of opinions among all the allies. It was absolutely unclear when Parliament could be convened to approve his appointment as Prime Minister. This all demonstrates that the current situation is too fluid. And there is every possibility that some other leaders might also claim key political offices. As Prime Minister Kubatbek Boronov resigned, Jeenbekov called for an all-party meeting to resolve the political crisis.
Former President Almazbek Atambayev might play a key role in this crisis. It’s very apparent from the series of events that have taken place in and around Bishkek. The mob led by Atambayev’s son went to the State Committee for National Security and released his father from the prison. Therefore, Jeenbekov has termed this crisis as an attempt to seize power. Precisely, Zhaparov do not have a clean background and he was sentenced to prison for ten years for taking a person hostage. He is a former MP from the nationalist Ata Jurt Party. Around the same time, some other notorious leaders have also appeared in the scene just to take the advantage of the chaos. Among them the most prominent one Melis Myrzakmatov, who was a former mayor of Osh city, is now back from his self-exile and started gathering his supporters. He is well known for his ultra-nationalistic campaigns in the region wherein ethnic clashes took place in the year 2010. Incidentally, he was the mayor of the Osh when these conflicts took place there.
The problem at the heart of Kyrgyzstan is that it is the poorest nation of the former Soviet Union. There is an acute shortage of natural resources in this country. But after the sudden collapse of the USSR, the country became a gateway of trans-shipment of Chinese goods for the whole post-Soviet republics. And the problem was that since the beginning, no single group or leader could have monopoly over the country’s political landscape. It is only the coalitions that have been dominating the political scene so far. But ironically, there is no broad consensus among all these coalition groups. And again, those who were not included in the coalitions have also been able to exert control over some pockets across the country.
Another issue is that in most of the Central Asian Republics, the power of the First Secretary was brought to practice. But this did not materialise in both Kyrgyzstan and in Tajikistan. As a result in Tajikistan, the absence of an efficient leadership led to bloody civil war in that country. When it comes to Kyrgystan, the power calculation was initially stable, but gradually the fissures have come to the fore. In fact, frequent changes of leadership have led to fierce political competition. Many a time, there is insufficient legitimacy of people who are occupying the corridors of power in Bishkek. These have added to what we have witnessed today in Kyrgyzstan.
At present, it’s simply mob rule. Now, to be pragmatic, Bishkek needs to find a way to hold a fresh parliamentary election. But the worst-case scenario could be a fresh civil war. The chances of such a catastrophe are too high. Too many groups are claiming and re-claiming their leaders as genuine representatives of the people. Better for Kyrgyz people is to see that situation remains under control. The plain and clear message for both the vigilante and the activists is not to destroy public properties in the days to come. After all these are public assets. No one will gain anything by smashing public squares. Of course, they represent symbols of power and authority. But in reality, they are run by the politicians. Hence instead of crushing the physical structures, it is better to change the leaders. And bring back true leaders so that they would be able to safeguard common interests. Finally, it’s high moment for Jeenbekov and the rest of the political folk display complete sense and sensibility to save the fragile democracy of this former Soviet republic.
(The writer is an expert on international affairs)
Morales’ time is up but the MAS under Arce’s leadership could still win this poll and if it doesn’t then Mesa might become President
The quotation is usually given as, “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” However, English historian, politician and writer Lord Acton’s original remark went on to say: “Great men are almost always bad men.” And so they are. This is not to say that all bad men in power are also great men. President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus, in power for 26 years but currently fighting eviction after another rigged election, is clearly a bad man, but he is also a petty man of no discernible merit. Evo Morales, President of Bolivia for 14 years, is certainly a great man: The first person of indigenous descent ever elected to lead a country where only five per cent of the population is of European origin. But he was ousted from power late last year, and he deserved to be. (He is sitting out the October 18 election in exile in Argentina.)
This has been taken by most people elsewhere (and not just people on the Left) to mean that there was a “coup” in Bolivia last year, and that democracy there is in danger, or even at an end. That impression was reinforced by the fact that the caretaker President for the past 11 months has been an extreme Right-wing politician. But it wasn’t really a coup; more of a car-crash. The presidential election last year was followed by weeks of popular protests claiming that it had been rigged to give Morales a narrow victory in the first round of voting.
Morales resigned when an investigation by the Organisation of American States reported that there had been “serious irregularities” in the vote and “clear manipulations” of the voting system.” That was the right thing to do, but then his party, the Movement Towards Socialism (MAS), made an incredible blunder.
It boycotted an ad-hoc meeting held by the Opposition parties, the Catholic Church and representatives of the European Union (EU) to choose an interim President. All the senior MAS officials having resigned together with Morales, the choice fell on the second Vice-President of the Senate, an obscure politician called Jeanine Añez, who turned out to be a monster.
Within a week, journalists were digging up racist tweets in which she called Morales a “poor Indian” and declared an indigenous new year celebration “Satanic.” In the same week, she fired all the military top brass, replacing them with her own appointees and gave the police and soldiers blanket authority to use lethal force against protesters. At least 28 were killed in the State-sponsored violence.
Añez seemed well on the way to enshrining the rule of the extreme Right. Morales was banned from seeking the presidency again and in May she declared that she would run for the presidency herself when the election was re-run. But now that election, much postponed because of Covid-19, has come round at last — and she has just withdrawn her candidacy.
It turns out that mourning for the death of Bolivian democracy has been a bit premature. The leading candidate in this election is still from the MAS: Luis Arce, a former Economy Minister who oversaw the nationalisation programme under Morales. Arce’s main opponent is the same man Morales faced last year: Ex-President Carlos Mesa, a former journalist and professor who is Centre-Left politically. Añez withdrew to give the other hard-Right candidate, Luis Fernando Camacho, a better chance of getting through to the second round, but he still probably won’t make it.
The second round remains the key issue. The rules say that the leading candidate wins in the first round if s/he gets 40 per cent of the vote, and is at least ten points ahead of the nearest rival. If not, the two leading candidates go through to the second round — but then the supporters of all the losing candidates will probably unite behind the challenger to defeat the socialist (who is invariably the leader in the first round).
Morales did not have a 10-point lead over Mesa last year when 85 per cent of the votes had been counted — but then the “quick count” stopped for no clear reason for a full day, and when it resumed Morales ended up with a 10.1 per cent lead. So no second round: Morales wins. That’s when the mass protests started, and rightly so. An unexplained halt of that duration in the vote-counting always means they are fixing the outcome. Given Morales’ past record — he held a referendum to end the two-term limit on the presidency, lost it, then got an MAS-dominated court to set the referendum result aside and end term limits — not too many people were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Morales’ time is up, but the MAS under Arce’s leadership could still win this election, and if it doesn’t then Mesa will probably become President, which would not be a disaster either. Democracy is not dead in Bolivia.
(Gwynne Dyer’s new book is ‘Growing Pains: The Future of Democracy and Work.’)
Beijing will continue to make tall claims, hoping to coerce us in a bloodless war. New Delhi must encircle it in the neighbourhood
For years together, China’s intimidatory tactics and surreptitious salami slicing of territories had gone unchallenged along our Himalayan border. A logistically disadvantaged India meant that China could keep a fairly low-cost vigilance operation and easily push its ultimate aim of controlling the Karakoram, Central Asia and beyond with Pakistan as the key conduit. But that has changed recently. Irrespective of the clash at Galwan, infrastructure development in border areas, particularly Ladakh, has been ramped up on our side over the last few years. Better roads have meant that we can rush supplies and reinforcements to our frontier posts and amass a presence quickly, something which was China’s forte for long. With its strategic edge compromised and now that our troops have shown in Galwan that they are as adept in mountain warfare and capable of giving a bloody nose to marauders, Beijing has realised that its ambush tactics can no longer “shock and awe” us. And given that the nature of the Line of Actual Control (LAC) is not codified despite India’s best efforts in forcing China to a discussion on it, perceptional differences mean India is now more vociferous about its rightful claims, too. Post-Galwan, it is determined to not give up its acquired positions and ridges and stare down at China with the same gusto. This explains the rather hyperbolic and impassioned war cry by Chinese President Xi Jinping, asking his troops to be ready for war, while his administration objected to the opening of 44 bridges in Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh, saying they were “the root cause for tension between the two sides.” This came barely a day after Beijing declared that it considered both Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh illegal. Of course, India categorically rejected this latest missive, saying China has no locus standi to comment on its internal matters. This even as Minister for External Affairs Subrahmanyam Jaishankar said that since peace talks with China were still on, he would not like to hazard an assessment. But his measured response was contradicted by Xi’s provocation, clearly as part of his relentless effort to wear us out in the war of perception. For the first time, if anything, this betrays China’s anxieties over what it had assumed would be a cakewalk, namely browbeating India. It may even tempt India into a limited theatre of war and then try to extract a give-and-take formula but it is getting exasperated with us refusing to bite the bait. The Siachenisation of Ladakh would cost it, too. Hence the stepped up rhetoric in the hope of getting some leeway in Ladakh. At best, the diplomacy is just a diversionary tactic as Beijing will not forfeit this geographical wedge between Gilgit-Baltistan in the west (Pakistan-occupied Kashmir), where it is invested in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), and Aksai Chin in the east. It is an irritant to its regional supremacy, strategically and economically. And it wants an unhindered run of the highway from Xinjiang to Tibet, 179 km of which is under Indian shadow. As it is, by agreeing to a buffer zone, we have ceded our right to monitor forward areas in the Pangong Tso region. We should be wary of the fact that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), which has been pitching tents, building roads and marking territories since 2013 and which takes orders from Xi himself, intends to keep the LAC hot. And challenge us routinely on a battle of nerves, hoping to coerce us in a bloodless war if possible.
India is already working on a multi-pronged global approach to rein in the dragon’s territorial and economic imperialism. It is challenging China in the Indian Ocean Region (IOR), neutralising the latter’s maritime conduits and engaging with South and Southeast Asian nations that have been held hostage by Beijing’s debt-trapping economic bailouts. And to counter our greedy neighbour’s “string of pearls” diplomacy, which means having strong military and economic ties with all our neighbouring nations and laying siege to our national interests, we, too, have rolled the dice. The Government is bolstering defence cooperation in the neighbourhood, leasing out a submarine to Myanmar and arming it with torpedoes. We have begun ramping up the naval strategy around the Malacca Straits, which happens to be China’s trade and strategic corridor. India has deployed its vessels to keep a check on any activity of the Chinese Navy and is planning to maintain hawkish patrols through autonomous underwater vessels, unmanned systems and sensors. It has got more active in the Quad initiative with the US, Japan and Australia and is using its international goodwill as a nation that respects “rule-based order” to build a case against China’s “wolf warrior” tactics. Diplomatically, India should be transactional in its approach to China and lay down in no uncertain terms that the latter’s avarice for global domination would only push the second-largest Asian entity towards the US-led bloc. In fact, we have to be overt about our strategic partnership with the US but it wouldn’t be too invested in a theatre where it is not the dominant player. Besides, it may not want India to become too formidable in its quest to blunt China. Russia, for all its deepest desire to counter-balance China’s growing heft and leverage itself vis-a-vis the US, is compromised by economic dependencies. So, India is pretty much on its own and has to use every multi-national forum, alliance and bilateral ties to make enough noise about the asymmetric relationship with China. And it must girdle up with nations that are directly under our neighbour’s threat in the region to stand up and be counted.
The pandemic will accelerate the fall of the West unless we abandon our irrational approach to the virus
Please, please, Prime Minister, do not lock the UK down again. Do not listen to the unidimensional, anti-economic, risk-averse groupthink from Sage. Ignore Sir Keir Starmer and Sadiq Khan’s shameless politicking. A “circuit-breaker” is doublespeak for another lockdown, and cannot be a sustainable answer: The virus would only be temporarily suppressed, with transmission bouncing back as soon as the restrictions were lifted again. A vicious circle of stop-go lockdowns would be a catastrophic indictment of Government policy, an admission of total defeat, a victory of fear and emotion over reason. We would no longer be a free society tolerating an exceptional, temporary shutdown to allow our scandalously unprepared establishment to learn to manage a terrible situation. Instead, we would have transitioned to a world of permanent emergency, a wartime society whereby individual rights and lives were permanently suppressed for an ill-defined, ever-shifting “national interest.” A new principle would have become established: That the Government has the right and even the obligation to lock us down at the first sign of any new epidemic, even one that doesn’t truly threaten the survival of our society. The main rationale for a “circuit-breaker” — that it would buy yet more time for “one last push” on testing, the app, tracing and a vaccine — is tragically delusional. Even the French and Germans have failed to introduce effective testing and tracing, suggesting that the endeavour may be an elusive El Dorado, at least for now.
Yes, a few deaths might be avoided by spreading out ICU admissions to our hopelessly ineffectual National Health Service. Yes, a few others — maybe even up to 20,000 in a best-case scenario — might be saved as a result of multiple lockdowns if an effective vaccine suddenly, miraculously materialises by April 2021. But, in reality, most deaths would not be avoided, merely delayed, and there will be plenty of additional fatalities caused by the lockdown itself — including out of despair — to set against that. Unemployment would have surged, tens of thousands more businesses ruined, family and community life laid to waste, and immense misery created. What kind of society is ready to destroy so much to save so little?
If he agrees to the lockdown fanatics’ every demand, Boris Johnson’s legacy would have been to sweep away the Eurocrats, and cut back on the juristocrats, just to replace them with a new medicocracy. A gang of well-meaning scientists and doctors would be empowered to impose their narrow vision of the good on the rest of us, the first therapeutic, zero-risk State in world history.
But public health experts don’t have the full perspective. We can’t go on like this for much longer. The first lockdown probably increased our debt to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ratio by 20 percentage points; adding yet another 20 per cent over the winter would weaken us severely. We could survive that, of course, but what firepower would we have left when the next calamity hits us? What about another virus? And the one after that? Or what about the next bad flu season? We would be all but bankrupt by 2030, with a Dollar, Sterling and Euro crisis on our hands.
Lawrence Summers, the economist, estimates the cost of Covid will reach 90 per cent of the GDP for America alone — a mind-boggling $16 trillion or $2,00,000 per family. This is “four times larger than the output loss of the Great Recession, twice the cost of all wars since 9/11, and roughly the cost of climate change in the next 50 years.” We need to find ways of minimising this cost for future pandemics, or we will be condemned to impoverishment, social decay and geopolitical decline.
This latter point is ably demonstrated by the International Monetary Fund’s latest forecasts. It expects the UK to suffer a 9.8 per cent fall in GDP this year, identical to France, better than Italy or Spain. Germany and America will shrink but by less. Astonishingly, however, China’s economy will actually grow this year. This pandemic has accelerated many trends, not least the transfer of power from the West to the East. South East Asian countries are among the few to have kept the costs of the virus to manageable levels, and China is laughing.
Britain and the West have two choices. We could relearn to live with death, as we did in the post-World War years when big flu epidemics killed tens of thousands. The alternative is to embrace the South Korean approach. We will need to invest a fortune in pandemic preparedness and technology, and pounce on the next virus as soon as it emerges. Ruthless, brutal quarantining, isolation and hugely superior tracking and tracing will be necessary.
Can we do it? Would we have to give up too much privacy and liberty? Are we nearing the twilight of the West, defeated by its fragility, its inability to cope with the kind of virus that our forebears shrugged off? If we don’t get our act together, this will not just be Asia’s century but also the West’s last as any kind of beacon to the rest of the world. Boris Johnson needs to show that Britain, for one, hasn’t yet given up.
(Courtesy: The Telegraph)
Xi is being labelled as a revisionist and expansionist and the world is getting united to counter China’s designs under democratic forces by supporting the Taiwanese cause
In an unprecedented move recently, the Chinese embassy in New Delhi issued a series of “directives” to Indian journalists and media houses regarding the coverage of the National Day of Taiwan on October 10. The press release that was issued by the media section of the embassy appeared to be more of a diktat and declared, “We will like to remind our media friends that there is only one China in the world, and the Government of the People’s Republic of China is the sole legitimate Government representing the whole of China. Taiwan is an inalienable part of China’s territory.” It further dictated to the journalists, “Taiwan shall not be referred to as a country or Republic of China or the leader of China’s Taiwan region as ‘President,’ so as not to send wrong signals to the general public.”
Significantly, no such “advisory” was issued by the Chinese embassy in 2019 on the Taiwanese National Day. What is even more infuriating is that after the event, it issued a statement on “misreporting by the Indian media on Taiwan”, seriously objecting to and expressing strong dissatisfaction at some of the journalists referring to Taiwan as a country. “Taiwan is an inalienable part of China’s territory. It is an objective fact and a universally recognised norm governing international relations,” emphasised the Chinese envoy.
What was so different this year that the embassy issued a virtual threat to the Indian media? China is preparing for the celebration of the 100th year of the formation of the Communist Party of China (CCP) under the watchful eye of its all-powerful President Xi Jinping. The current behaviour of the Chinese diplomatic staff is the manifestation of its “wolf warrior” diplomacy. Xi wants China not only to be powerful but assertive as well. He is aggressively pushing China’s “3 W Strategy”, which includes media warfare. Xi desires that the CCP should not only control select foreign media but also be able to manipulate it to further its ideology and portray its Comprehensive National Power (CNP).
But why is China so sensitive about Taiwan? It is said that Taiwan would be the main trigger of a Sino-American conflict if it ever manifests. Ironically, the US does not officially recognise the Republic of China or Taiwan. Even India doesn’t. Only 17 countries in the world recognise Taiwan. Yet, the US is the biggest arms supplier to Taiwan, its 11th-largest trading partner and avowed guarantor of its sovereignty.
The self-ruled island’s uncertain future, amid tensions between Washington and a newly-powerful Beijing, is the greatest unresolved legacy of the Chinese civil war. While China claims Taiwan to be one of its regions and refers to it as Taiwan region, the latter is in no mood to alter the status quo and lose its status as an independent democratic nation. Xi has offered to resolve the matter on the pattern of Hong Kong by advocating the “One Nation, Two Systems” model, which has been rejected by the island nation.
Dwelling into history, the dispute is a legacy of the Mao-led Chinese civil war. The island formally became a Chinese province only in 1887. But China’s faltering Qing imperial government was forced to cede it to Japan in 1895 after a brief war. Japan ran Taiwan as a colony until 1945, when it was effectively handed over to Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist (KMT) Government in China. In 1949, Mao Zedong’s forces won the Chinese civil war and the KMT fled to the island, ruling it under martial law until democratising it in the 1980s, while the Communists controlled China. It continues to remain a dispute till date since no peace treaty has ever been signed.
However, China’s official position on Taiwan is unambiguous. It claims that the latter is, was and always has been an inseparable part of it, and that international law supports such a claim. This is drilled into every mainland Chinese child’s mind as part of the CCP’s ideology campaign with no second thought on the issue and no public discussion of alternate views being permitted.
The CCP wants outright reunification, the sooner the better, seeing the recovery of the island as the final chapter in the civil war and end of past humiliations when China was forced to cede territory to foreigners. Xi has succeeded in reasserting party control over society, which had loosened to an extent during the era of his immediate predecessors who believed in “collective leadership.”
His clarion call to the nation after assuming its control was, “Don’t forget the original intention. Stick to the mission.” With multifarious threats challenging him, the slogan has become more relevant in the present days and is emerging as a battle cry for unity and perseverance. With increasing US interference in Taiwan and the non-reconciliatory approach of its newly-elected hardliner President, iron lady Tsai Ing-wen, China is becoming increasingly sensitive and restive about Taiwan. On the other hand, Taiwan is becoming more assertive and confident.
During the ongoing pandemic, the Taiwanese were denied entry into various countries which believed them to be Chinese since their passport is of the Republic of China. The Taiwanese Government has, therefore, decided to change the cover of its citizens’ passports to read “Taiwan Passport” while retaining the Republic of China in Mandarin.
It has its own currency, the New Taiwan dollar controlled by the central bank of the Republic of China. It is increasingly stamping Taiwanese made goods as “Made in Taiwan” and all this is not going down well with the CCP, which is increasingly threatening to punish the errant island nation. China is also worried and annoyed with the fact that more and more nations are speaking up for Taiwan and are reluctant to back down under Chinese pressure.
Xi is being labelled as a revisionist and expansionist and the world is getting united to counter his designs under the banner of democratic forces and supporting the Taiwanese cause. There are growing voices in India for recognition of Taiwan though that may not be easy due to the prevailing agreements and treaties with Beijing. However, a change in intent and desire to strengthen relations between the two countries has been signalled by the present regime by deputing two of its senior party leaders to attend the swearing-in ceremony of the new President.
The CCP is unwilling to settle for anything less than reunification. For Xi it has an additional emotional angle as well, related to his family history. China regards Taiwan as unfinished business as part of the civil war and Xi is a firm believer of this historic mission.
Apart from being an unfinished mission of the civil war, it is the geo strategic location and buzzing high-tech micro-chip industry of Taiwan that is the compelling reason for China to claim ownership of the island territory. Taiwan is also the world’s 22nd largest economy and an important supply chain link of Silicon Valley. Many high-tech companies from the mainland have changed base to the island territory with Taiwan emerging as a potential high-tech superpower. It is home to the world’s biggest contract chipmaker, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Limited.
Taiwan’s location and economy are critical to China in its pursuance of becoming the numero uno world power. If Taiwan becomes integral to China as desired by the latter, it would become a Pacific power, strengthen its position in the South China Sea and be in a position to threaten vital US interests in the Pacific region. It would also have the leverage to cut off oil supplies to Japan and South Korea, important US allies in the region. Economically, Beijing would have control over the world’s major cutting-edge technologies. All this explains China’s sensitivities about Taiwan and its allergy to other nations calling it a “country” rather than Taiwan, Region of the People’s Republic of China. The US, on the other hand, does not want to take any chance in the security of the island-nation that may help China fulfil its mission. Stepped-up US support for Taiwan has angered China, which has often cautioned Washington DC that it amounts to US support for Taiwan’s independence. If it feels threatened enough, Beijing may forcibly occupy the island by launching military operations across the strait.
With India and China on the verge of war in eastern Ladakh and the heightened anti-China sentiments across the country, the Chinese were apprehensive of the Indian media giving prominence to Taiwan on its National Day. It was to pre-empt the same and gauge India’s concerns to its sensitivities that the advisory was issued by the Chinese embassy.
(The author is a Jammu-based veteran, columnist and security analyst)
India should stay just under the diplomatic threshold and engage more visibly with Taiwan, especially in economic ties, to keep China in check
In any other year, the Taiwanese National Day celebrations in India wouldn’t have assumed such political proportions had both nations not been at the receiving end of China’s maximalist ambitions. So they needed to make a statement about standing by each other in the face of a shared geo-political threat. In a move laden with a message to China, posters of the event were put up outside the Chinese embassy by a ruling BJP member, though they were taken down later on the grounds of not having the required permission. But they had served their purpose. Similarly, Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen thanked “dear friends in India” for sending wishes for the annual celebration, clearly intended to rile up China further after its embassy issued a “letter” to the Indian media to not cover Taiwan’s National Day as it would violate our “One China” policy. Not only that, she even mentioned the Ladakh standoff in her speech among many examples of Chinese expansionist tendencies in the region. What China does not understand is that the Indian media is free to pursue its own policies independent of the official Government line and is not beholden to follow it. The “One China” policy means that the Government doesn’t have diplomatic ties with Taiwan, though both sides have trade offices which operate as de-facto embassies. Beyond the officialese, Taiwan has always been building stronger economic and cultural associations with India. In fact, it is looking at India as a potential business destination as the US trade war with China has pushed its companies to look for newer markets. Besides, to counter China’s colonial takeover of the economic and cultural space in south and southeast Asia with its Belt and Road Initiative, Taiwan has set up its own southbound policy. This focusses on strengthening ties in the areas of culture, tourism, education and trade with 18 southeast and south Asian countries, with India being pitched as one of the pivotal collaborators. The new President is pursuing this aggressively one-on-one with each nation. Trade between India and Taiwan will likely touch $10 billion over the next few years and this has led to synergies across sectors with consistent media coverage of the same. Little wonder then that the Ministry of External Affairs dismissed the Chinese embassy’s instructions, saying the “free” Indian media would report “as it sees fit.” China must realise that the Indian media does not operate by the rules and framework of its own Press, which is an extension counter for its propaganda. And as a free medium in a democracy, it allows debates and discourse on everything, including foreign policy, and allows even dissent. Besides, it has only to measure the coverage and importance that Chinese President Xi Jinping is given whenever he visits India. The Government may have to be vigilant about sensitivities and anxieties but the Indian media is well within its right to criticise China and give space to Taiwan. Even if China insists on “good faith”, it must realise that it has long broken that understanding with predatory moves in Ladakh and insisting on reclaiming border positions from 1959. And in a hostile environment, diplomatic niceties cannot be expected. Still India has never subverted the rule of law so far despite Chinese provocations.
Meanwhile, Taiwan, too, has used its National Day to reassert its political and cultural identity and undercut its existence as tied to the mainland. It commemorates a 1911 uprising in the central Chinese city of Wuhan against the nation’s last imperial dynasty. This led to the creation of the Republic of China, which leader Chiang Kai-shek then brought to Taiwan seven decades ago when he fled Beijing as the Communist Party took power. It is just about remembering a historical event but allows Taiwan to technically bypass anything that would suggest total independence. Yet it allows it wiggle room to assert its historical, political and cultural identity subtly. And leverage itself vis-a-vis China, which has been breathing down on it by sending jets in the Taiwanese straits. As far as India is concerned, it can use its proximity to Taiwan more effectively and discomfort China just like it does by using Pakistan against us. The first blow could be economic, by reducing dependence on Chinese goods and moving to high quality Taiwanese products, particularly in the technology and electronic space. The Government has been overtly careful about relations with Taipei for fear of a Chinese hitback. In return for increased Taiwanese investment, it can widen its access to our markets and act as an enabler of Taiwan’s inclusion at all global commercial and strategic bodies and cooperation groups. This way it can have an ally in China’s immediate neighbourhood and use it as an irritant alongside the Quad initiative with the US, Australia and Japan. That China is uneasy about the Indian attempt to encircle it is evident from its mouthpiece Global Times, saying such closeness to Taiwan would “only exasperate the already soured China-India ties.” In fact, India can very well use Taiwan and the Tibet question — by joining the US-led campaign on the latter — to force China into yielding some ground at the negotiating table. Intransigent though it might be, Beijing realises that it cannot risk open hostility with India in a post-pandemic world where opinion is loaded heavily against it. Besides, India can stay just under the diplomatic threshold and niggle China. Instead of being muted, it can be visibly seen to heighten its confabulations with Taiwan and Tibetan representatives, just about enough to pressure China. It is high time we tweak our status quoist positions.
FREE Download
OPINION EXPRESS MAGAZINE
Offer of the Month