Search

Begin New Search Topic Foreign Policy Political Geography India

41. The Russia-India-China Trilateral After Ukraine: Will Beijing Take the Lead?

Author:
Jagannath P. Panda and Wooyeal Paik
Publication Date:
09-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
China Brief
Institution:
The Jamestown Foundation
Abstract:
At the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) foreign ministers’ meeting in late July, which included China, India, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, People’s Republic of China (PRC) State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi exhorted member states to uphold the “Shanghai Spirit” (上海精神, Shanghai Jingshen) of mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality, mutual consultations, diverse civilizations, and the pursuit of common development (Gov.cn, July 29). He then presented a “five-point proposal” for building an SCO community “with a shared future” (CGTN, July 30). In doing so, Wang echoed President Xi Jinping’s call in his four-point proposal at the BRICS (Brazil-Russia-India-China-South Africa) summit in June —albeit via a rather elemental poetic allegory of fire, wind, and water –to embark on a “righteous course” toward a shared global future premised on inclusive, comprehensive and close win-win cooperation (Qiushi, June 24). BRICS already has a “Plus” mechanism and is mulling an expansion to include “like-minded” partners.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, and Russia-Ukraine War
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Europe, Ukraine, India, and Asia

42. What is at Stake in China-Bhutan Boundary Negotiations?

Author:
Jagannath P. Panda
Publication Date:
02-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
China Brief
Institution:
The Jamestown Foundation
Abstract:
Satellite imagery reveals that China has recently accelerated construction along its border with Bhutan. Underway since 2020, the project includes over 200 structures, with several two-story buildings in six locations (Times of India, January 13). Bhutan has not commented on the situation in keeping with its policy to refrain from public discussion of border issues, whereas Beijing has framed the development as “normal construction activities on its own territory” (The Hindu, January 13). India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has acknowledged that it is monitoring China’s bridge-building activities over the Pangong Tso lake (India MEA, January 6). In late December, China’s Ministry of Civil Affairs announced the “standardization” of the names of 15 places (eight residential areas, four mountains, two rivers, and one mountain pass) in the Northeast Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh that China also claims and calls “Southern Tibet” (藏南, Zangnan). This is the second instance of China renaming localities in Arunachal Pradesh; the first occurred in 2017 (Global Times, December 30, 2021). India called it a “ridiculous exercise to support untenable territorial claims” (Indian MEA, January 6). Though 2022 has only begun, China’s various intimidation tactics against India are already in full swing: from renaming places and circulating videos of People’s Liberation Army soldiers raising the five-starred red flags of China, supposedly, in the Galwan Valley as part of their New Year celebrations, to expanding its dual use infrastructure along the Himalayan border (Global Times, January 1; The Print, January 13). According to state media, China has been strengthening infrastructure-related projects in the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR). Beijing claims its infrastructure push in Tibet is intended to support economic development, but the Indian side interprets the projects as serving dual use, or, military purposes (China Brief, November 19, 2021). While Chinese sources claim that India was making a “fuss,” they did not, however, entirely deny these reports (Global Times, January 19).
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Bilateral Relations, Territorial Disputes, and Borders
Political Geography:
China, India, Asia, and Bhutan

43. The Role of America in Crises Management: A Study of India- Pakistan Crises (2001-2019)

Author:
Salma Naz
Publication Date:
12-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Political Studies
Institution:
Department of Political Science, University of the Punjab
Abstract:
The enduring antagonism between Pakistan and India enlarged by thoughts of threat perception has spawned recurring crises. Because of the presence of misperceptions as well as miscalculations the possibility of an accidental clash between both nuclear powers was high. So, through the crisis management technique possible armed collision is controlled. The primary purpose of the study is to analyze the American mediation in the India-Pakistan crises. The nature of the study is qualitative because qualitative research supports explaining comprehensively and helps interpretive objectives to understand the role of America in the India-Pakistan crises. The case study method is applied for the present study and the selected era is from 2001 to 2019. Being a review study descriptive, exploratory and historical approaches are applied to discover the answers of the research questions. This research would offer a guiding structure for studying third-party mediation in the management of the crisis. Consequently, an analysis of this research will support to discover several potential finding of the American involvement in crisis management to keep strategic stability and peace in the South Asian region. But, there is no assurance that the findings and conclusions of this crisis management case study are applied to other contexts or crises.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Crisis Management, Mediation, and Perception
Political Geography:
Pakistan, South Asia, India, and United States of America

44. Genocide, ethical imperatives and the strategic significance of asymmetric power: India’s diplomatic and military interventions in the Bangladesh Liberation War (Indo-Pakistan War of 1971)

Author:
Rudrajit Bose
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Security and Defence Quarterly
Institution:
War Studies University
Abstract:
This paper seeks to understand if the political, legal and ethical imperatives of a humanitarian war justified Indian military intervention in East Pakistan. It examines the asymmetric, dynamic national power equations that shaped the Bangladesh Liberation War and the genocide that preceded the conflict. At the height of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union, this conflict was a key flashpoint in South Asia. This research was undertaken through a qualitative literature review with the help of declassified archival documents and media from numerous national archives and government databases across the world. Aided by emerging insights, perspectives and research, this paper seeks to evolve, extend and expand our existing understanding of events as they unfolded within the overall matrix of this conflict. The results show that India’s ability to align its foreign policy and media narratives to its military objectives while adroitly managing big power rivalry holds lessons for how smaller states might compel strategic concessions from big powers and global institutions. This requires them to navigate both the asymmetry of national power and the asymmetry of attention during a conflict to secure their interests. In conclusion, recent times have seen an increasing trend for major global powers and alliances to declare war in the name of humanitarianism. The political and ethical imperatives of a humanitarian war in 1971 dovetailed seamlessly with larger Indian strategic goals and was one of the catalysts for the eventual unanimous adoption in 2005 of the global political commitment known as Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in the United Nations.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Genocide, United Nations, War, and International Security
Political Geography:
South Asia and India

45. Strategic Patience: Sustainable Engagement with a Changed Afghanistan

Author:
Adam Weinstein
Publication Date:
08-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
One year after the United States withdrew its military from Afghanistan, relations between the two countries are stuck in a holding pattern. The United States remains the single largest humanitarian donor to the people of Afghanistan, with over $774 million USD distributed since the Taliban takeover, but the United States maintains no diplomatic presence in the country — nor does it send official diplomatic envoys.1 U.S. sanctions have not altered the Taliban’s calculus on human rights or ties with al-Qaeda. The Taliban has proved intransigent and unrealistic in its relations not only with Washington but with neighboring countries like Pakistan. Its senior leaders lack a coherent vision for the country and its emir remains reclusive.2 Future U.S. policymakers might be tempted to disengage diplomatically and economically from Afghanistan and instead rely primarily on “over-the-horizon” counterterrorism.3 The most likely consequence of this approach would be a more isolated and unstable Afghanistan, which in turn could foster an even more permissive environment for transnational terrorists. Consistent diplomacy tied to long-term U.S. security objectives is likely to produce incremental results at best, but is still preferable to diplomatic disengagement or military intervention. This brief provides a concise background and analysis of the most pressing issues affecting U.S. interests in Afghanistan. It draws on open source data; interviews with government officials — including from the de facto Taliban government; and interviews with private analysts that were conducted remotely or in person — in the United States, Pakistan, and Qatar. Broad policy recommendations • The United States should work closely with regional countries, including Pakistan, India, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan to ensure they are prepared to handle security challenges as they emerge. If the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is revived, opportunities may emerge to engage Iran on Afghanistan. These should include routine dialogue, intelligence sharing, and capacity building, such as policing and border security. Washington should engage separately with India and Pakistan to bolster humanitarian aid and limited commerce to Afghanistan. • The United States should reiterate mutual responsibilities under the 2020 agreement it signed with the Taliban in Doha, but recognize that it lacks effective enforcement mechanisms and therefore is better understood as an aspirational framework. • Formal recognition of the de facto Taliban government should be withheld until it demonstrates a clear commitment to its counterterrorism responsibilities and respect for basic human rights, including for women. But Washington should place diplomats in Afghanistan either through the creation of an in-country Afghanistan affairs unit, whether based in the prior U.S. Embassy or inside a friendly third country’s diplomatic mission, or by sending temporary delegations to Kabul, as our allies have. This should be coupled with multilateral steps to remove the leadership’s travel privileges. It is important that U.S. officials interact with Taliban cabinet members in Kabul and other Taliban stakeholders based in Kandahar.4 Direct outreach by U.S. military officials and the intelligence community may have utility but it is not a replacement for a coherent civilian-led diplomatic strategy. • Sanctions intended to target the Taliban as a non-state actor now extend far beyond their original scope, since they became the de facto government of Afghanistan. If not yet determined, the U.S. government should communicate what steps the Taliban must take to be de-listed as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist Group.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Human Rights, Sanctions, and Engagement
Political Geography:
Pakistan, Afghanistan, South Asia, India, and United States of America

46. Aid and Technological Cooperation as a Foreign Policy Tool for Emerging Donors: The Case of Brazil

Author:
Kamil Yılmaz
Publication Date:
12-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Uluslararasi Iliskiler
Institution:
International Relations Council of Turkey (UİK-IRCT)
Abstract:
There is a high concern that development assistance can be seen as national interest from the donor’s perspective. The book dwells on the specific case of Brazil and tackles the question of how a country like Brazil seeks power and influence by providing no-strings-attached foreign technical assistance. In the book, there are also some similarities and differences among Southern emerging donors like China, India and South Africa, concerning their take on foreign assistance. The book, as Farrias puts it, is mainly about foreign policy motivations and development assistance. In the particular case of Brazil, author asks what the foreign policy logic behind the no-strings-attached development assistance is. While answering the question, she gets help from a theoretical perspective, which is a combination of realism and constructivism. According to Farrias, development partnership between developing countries is understudied; and she wants to clear this gap with a specific case study. According to her, most studies deal with money-based cooperation, but from a developing country’s perspective, knowledge sharing is common. Hence, technical cooperation is ought to be explored, Farrias claims. According to Farrias, technical cooperation is mostly on non-controversial topics. She advocates that despite the weakness of development assistance, it is one of the most common foreign policy tools for developing countries.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, International Cooperation, Science and Technology, Foreign Aid, Book Review, and Development Assistance
Political Geography:
China, India, South Africa, Brazil, and Global South

47. Gendering the Indo-Pacific Dialogue: Opportunities for India and Australia

Author:
Priyanka Bhide and Aditi Mukund
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
International Women's Development Agency (IWDA)
Abstract:
Viewing the confluence of the Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean as a distinctive and interdependent strategic and economic space is fundamentally changing the way both India and Australia think about and examine their relationship with the broader region.i The Indo-Pacific as a strategic construct has grown in prominence in global geopolitical discourse, especially over the last five years. The EU, USA, and several countries in Europe have in place or are developing their own strategies for engagement in the Indo-Pacific region. The European Union collectively advocates for a ‘Free and Open IndoPacific’, designed to foster a ‘rules-based international order, a level playing field, as well as an open and fair environment for trade and investment, tackling climate change and supporting connectivity.’ii For France, the Indo-Pacific is at the heart of its vision for a stable multipolar order, and the Indo-Pacific is listed as a ‘priority and essential partner’.iii Germany too is making an active contribution to shaping the international order in the Indo-Pacific, so that it is ‘based on rules and international cooperation, not on the law of the strong.’iv The significance of the construct is varied for countries that are part of the region. The scope of the conversation in the Indo-Pacific is widening, with more diverse and varied perspectives being brought to the forefront. In this paper, against the backdrop of global Feminist Foreign Policy conversations, we focus on how Australia and India view the Indo-Pacific; marking the shifts in both countries’ approaches, along with bringing in important aspects of their bilateral relationship, highlighting how the Indo-Pacific has grown in significance to become a foreign policy priority, how both India and Australia have incorporated a gender lens in their actions, and what could be the avenues for Australia and India to apply such a lens in their collaborations.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Economics, Geopolitics, Multipolarity, Dialogue, and Gender
Political Geography:
India, Australia, and Indo-Pacific

48. De-Risking the India Relationship: An Action Agenda for the United States

Author:
Sarang Shidore
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
In the wake of a sharp deterioration in U.S.–China and India–China relations, there is an increasing emphasis in U.S. relations with India on military-to-military ties and bloc formation over other forms of relationship-building. Washington is steadily militarizing the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, or “Quad,” a four-member security group that is intended to counter Beijing, of which New Delhi is a member. This, combined with India’s stalled economy and the outlook for longer-term post-pandemic weakness, is accentuating a risk-prone asymmetry in U.S.–India relations. There also remain key divergences in the specifics of U.S. and Indian interests, even on the question of countering China. Over-militarized U.S.–India relations could help push Asia closer to a paradigm of military blocs, frontline states, and zero-sum games, while also planting seeds for a nationalist backlash against the United States in South Asia as a whole. The United States should therefore reorient its vital partnership with India according to these four recommendations: Limit the relationship’s increasing militarization and instead emphasize nontraditional areas of security cooperation such as climate change and peacekeeping, which lend themselves to inclusion rather than exclusion. The Quad should be returned to its original political-normative focus; Create conditions favorable to India’s comprehensive development, particularly in the energy, environmental, and supply-chain spaces, as a lower-risk path toward catalyzing a multipolar Asia; Drop demands on India to scale back ties with U.S. adversaries such as Russia and Iran; Resist the temptation to use India as a force-multiplier to pressure smaller South Asian states as to their global alignments.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, and Alliance
Political Geography:
United States and India

49. Nature and Nurture: How the Biden Administration Can Advance Ties With India

Author:
Anubhav Gupta
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Asia Society
Abstract:
The state of the U.S.-India relationship is strong, but two critical developments in 2020 have created a new inflection point for the relationship. Growing apprehension in both New Delhi and Washington about Chinese aggression has created the strategic convergence long sought by a U.S. defense establishment eager to enlist India to balance China. On the other hand, devastated by the Covid-19 global pandemic, the United States and India face challenging economic recoveries amid growing protectionist sentiments at home that could diminish the relationship’s promise. Having won the U.S. presidential election, Joe Biden has an opportunity to consolidate and accelerate the relationship by creating a substantive and broad partnership with India, which can undergird U.S. policy in Asia and support U.S. global interests for decades to come. this paper provides a blueprint for how the Biden administration can actualize what previous presidents have deemed a “natural partnership.”
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Bilateral Relations, Partnerships, COVID-19, and Joe Biden
Political Geography:
China, India, and United States of America

50. Mitigating the risk of a China–India conflict

Author:
Arzan Tarapore
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI)
Abstract:
More than a year has passed since Chinese troops began to occupy previously Indian-controlled territory on their disputed border in Ladakh. The crisis has cooled and settled into a stalemate. This report warns that it could escalate again, and flare into a conflict with region-wide implications. The report assesses the risk of conflict by analysing its likelihood and consequences. A possible war would be costly for both India and China. But a possible war could also risk stirring Indian distrust of its new partners, especially in the Quad – Australia, Japan, and the United States. The report outlines some conditions under which a war would disrupt or dampen those developing partnerships. The report concludes by offering a framework for policymakers to shape India’s expectations and the strategic environment before and during a possible war.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, National Security, and Strategic Planning
Political Geography:
China, India, Australia, and Asia-Pacific