#sino indian treaty | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

antoine-roquentin · 4 years ago

Link

In the aftermath of World War II, America’s Cold War leaders had a clear understanding that their global power, like Britain’s before it, would depend on control over Eurasia. For the previous 400 years, every would-be global hegemon had struggled to dominate that vast land mass. In the sixteenth century, Portugal had dotted continental coastlines with 50 fortified ports (feitorias) stretching from Lisbon to the Straits of Malacca (which connect the Indian Ocean to the Pacific), just as, in the late nineteenth century, Great Britain would rule the waves through naval bastions that stretched from Scapa Flow, Scotland, to Singapore.

While Portugal’s strategy, as recorded in royal decrees, was focused on controlling maritime choke points, Britain benefitted from the systematic study of geopolitics by the geographer Sir Halford Mackinder, who argued that the key to global power was control over Eurasia and, more broadly, a tri-continental “world island” comprised of Asia, Europe, and Africa. As strong as those empires were in their day, no imperial power fully perfected its global reach by capturing both axial ends of Eurasia — until America came on the scene.

During its first decade as the globe’s great hegemon at the close of World War II, Washington quite self-consciously set out to build an apparatus of awesome military power that would allow it to dominate the sprawling Eurasian land mass. With each passing decade, layer upon layer of weaponry and an ever-growing network of military bastions were combined to “contain” communism behind a 5,000-mile Iron Curtain that arched across Eurasia, from the Berlin Wall to the Demilitarized Zone near Seoul, South Korea.

Through its post-World War II occupation of the defeated Axis powers, Germany and Japan, Washington seized military bases, large and small, at both ends of Eurasia. In Japan, for example, its military would occupy approximately 100 installations from Misawa air base in the far north to Sasebo naval base in the south.

Soon after, as Washington reeled from the twin shocks of a communist victory in China and the start of the Korean war in June 1950, the National Security Council adopted NSC-68, a memorandum making it clear that control of Eurasia would be the key to its global power struggle against communism. “Soviet efforts are now directed toward the domination of the Eurasian land mass,” read that foundational document. The U.S., it insisted, must expand its military yet again “to deter, if possible, Soviet expansion, and to defeat, if necessary, aggressive Soviet or Soviet-directed actions.”

As the Pentagon’s budget quadrupled from $13.5 billion to $48.2 billion in the early 1950s in pursuit of that strategic mission, Washington quickly built a chain of 500 military installations ringing that landmass, from the massive Ramstein air base in West Germany to vast, sprawling naval bases at Subic Bay in the Philippines and Yokosuka, Japan.

Such bases were the visible manifestation of a chain of mutual defense pacts organized across the breadth of Eurasia, from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in Europe to a security treaty, ANZUS, involving Australia, New Zealand, and the U.S. in the South Pacific. Along the strategic island chain facing Asia known as the Pacific littoral, Washington quickly cemented its position through bilateral defense pacts with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Australia.

Along the Iron Curtain running through the heart of Europe, 25 active-duty NATO divisions faced 150 Soviet-led Warsaw Pact divisions, both backed by armadas of artillery, tanks, strategic bombers, and nuclear-armed missiles. To patrol the Eurasian continent’s sprawling coastline, Washington mobilized massive naval armadas stiffened by nuclear-armed submarines and aircraft carriers — the 6th Fleet in the Mediterranean and the massive 7th Fleet in the Indian Ocean and the Pacific.

For the next 40 years, Washington’s secret Cold War weapon, the Central Intelligence Agency, or CIA, fought its largest and longest covert wars around the rim of Eurasia. Probing relentlessly for vulnerabilities of any sort in the Sino-Soviet bloc, the CIA mounted a series of small invasions of Tibet and southwest China in the early 1950s; fought a secret war in Laos, mobilizing a 30,000-strong militia of local Hmong villagers during the 1960s; and launched a massive, multibillion dollar covert war against the Red Army in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

During those same four decades, America’s only hot wars were similarly fought at the edge of Eurasia, seeking to contain the expansion of Communist China. On the Korean Peninsula from 1950 to 1953, almost 40,000 Americans (and untold numbers of Koreans) died in Washington’s effort to block the advance of North Korean and Chinese forces across the 38th parallel. In Southeast Asia from 1962 to 1975, some 58,000 American troops (and millions of Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians) died in an unsuccessful attempt to stop the expansion of communists south of the 17th parallel that divided North and South Vietnam.

By the time the Soviet Union imploded in 1990 (just as China was turning into a Communist Party-run capitalist power), the U.S. military had become a global behemoth standing astride the Eurasian continent with more than 700 overseas bases, an air force of 1,763 jet fighters, more than 1,000 ballistic missiles, and a navy of nearly 600 ships, including 15 nuclear carrier battle groups — all linked together by a global system of satellites for communication, navigation, and espionage.

Despite its name, the Global War on Terror after 2001 was actually fought, like the Cold War before it, at the edge of Eurasia. Apart from the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Air Force and CIA had, within a decade, ringed the southern rim of that landmass with a network of 60 bases for its growing arsenal of Reaper and Predator drones, stretching all the way from the Sigonella Naval Air Station in Sicily to Andersen Air Force Base on the island of Guam. And yet, in that series of failed, never-ending conflicts, the old military formula for “containing,” constraining, and dominating Eurasia was visibly failing. The Global War on Terror proved, in some sense, a long-drawn-out version of Britain’s imperial Suez disaster.

60 notes · View notes

awesomemamta · 4 years ago

Text

DISASTROUS TRIANGLES OF WORLD &INDIA

China( wuhan) is responsible for covid 19 Pandemic & also be for Third world war . The first of which, Aksai Chin, is located either in the Indian union territory of Ladakh, or the Chinese autonomous regions of Xinjiang and Tibet; it is a virtually uninhabited high-altitude wasteland crossed by the Xinjiang-Tibet Highway. The other disputed territory lies south of the McMahon Line, formerly known as the North East Frontier Agency and now called Arunachal Pradesh. The McMahon Line was part of the 1914 Simla Convention signed between British India and Tibet, without China's agreement. As of 2020, India continues to maintain that the McMahon Line is the legal border in the east. China has never accepted that border, stating that Tibet was never independent when it signed the Simla Convention .India faces trade imbalance heavily in favor of China. The two countries failed to resolve their border dispute and Indian media outlets have repeatedly reported Chinese military incursions into Indian territory. Both countries have steadily established military infrastructure along border areas..The line that separates india administered areas of ladakh from AKSAI CHIN is known as the line of actual control (LAC) and is concurrent with Chinese AKSAI claim line . According to melee fighting on 15/16 June 2020 resulted in the death of 20 Indian soldiers (including an officers )and casualties 43 Chinese soldiers their officers. ladakh placing is opportunity for china for its trade route and natural resources . The China–Pakistan border is 438 kilometers (272 mi) and runs west-east from the tripoint with Afghanistan to the disputed tripoint with India in the vicinity of the Siachen Glacier. It traverses the Karakorum Mountains, one of the world's tallest mountain ranges. Pakistan has collaborated with China in extensive military and economic projects, seeing both seeing each other as counterweight to Indian-Western alliance. Pakistan signed an agreement with China to use Chinese currency for bilateral trade to get rid of the dollar burden in $15 billion bilateral trade. china and Pakistan have entered a secret 3 years agreement to expand potential BIOWAFARE capabilities including several research projects related to deadly agent anthrax the klaxon. Pakistani manufacturers and traders to export around 313 new products to the Chinese market on zero duty are some agreement done between them. The bilateral relation between Nepal and China has been friendly and is defined by the Sino-Nepalese Treaty of Peace and Friendship signed on April 28, 1960 by the two countries. Though initially unenthusiastic, Nepal has been of late making efforts to increase trade and connectivity with China. Despite the close linguistic, marital, religious and cultural ties at people-to-people level between Indians and Nepalese, since late 2015 political issues and border disputes have strained relations between the two countries with anti-Indian sentiment growing amongst the government and people of Nepal. 0n May 8, India’s defense minister virtually inaugurated a new 80 km-long road in the Himalayas, connecting to the border with China, at the Lipulekh pass. The Nepali government protested immediately, contending that the road crosses territory that it claims and accusing India of changing the status quo without diplomatic consultations. The region is of strategic importance, and the new road is now one of the quickest links between Delhi and the Tibetan plateau. In a 2015 statement, China also recognized India’s sovereignty by agreeing to expand trade through the Lipulekh pass. Finally, this is also an important route for thousands of Hindus who trek across the border with China every year to visit the sacred Mount Kailash. Since 1975, Sino-Nepalese relations have been close and grown significantly, with China being the largest source of FDI, while India still remains one of the major source of remittance to Nepal. The first “Agreement between China and Nepal on Economic Aid” was signed in October 1956. ... Chinese assistance to Nepal falls into three categories: Grants (aid gratis), interest free loans and concessional loans. India, Nepal was a critical buffer between its borders and Chinese-controlled Tibet. The Tibet Autonomous Region is a province-level entity of the People's Republic of China. It is governed by a People's Government, led by a Chairman. In practice, however, the Chairman is subordinate to the branch secretary of the Communist Party of China.

Despite growing economic and strategic ties, there are a lot of hurdles for India and the PRC to overcome. India faces trade imbalance heavily in favour of China. The two countries failed to resolve their border dispute and Indian media outlets have repeatedly reported Chinese military incursions into Indian Territory.

Two-and-a-half months after the violent clash at Galwan Valley, The actions have renewed tensions in eastern Ladakh, where negotiations on implementing the disengagement process had stalled over China’s refusal to go back to its previous position in Pangong Tso Lak and Depsang. The disengagement process had begun as a result of the violent face-off at Galwan valley on June 15, when 20 Indian soldiers and unverified number of Chinese troops were killed after hours of hand-to-hand fight.

India and China are facing off at a new area on the border, after Chinese troops intruded into the southern bank of Pangong Tso on 29 -30 August .

The Indian Army issued a statement on Monday 31-8-2020 that the Chinese People’s Liberation Army “carried out provocative military movements to change the status quo” on the night of August 29-30.

The movement of Chinese troops in the East Ladakh sector is seen as an effort by the Chinese side to expand the border row to the southern bank of the lake. So far, much of the Chinese deployment around the lake has been concentrated around its southern bank. The two armies have been locked in a stand-off at multiple points in the East Ladakh sector for nearly four months. There have been several agreements between the two sides to disengage, particularly after scores of soldiers clashed in Galwan Valley on June 15 that led to casualties on both sides. But Chinese troops have been slow to step back, particularly around Pangong Tso, the saltwater glacial lake spread across 700 sq km.

“Though the statement did not say so, the Indian Army is believed to have rushed some 800 soldiers to Chushul, just south of the lake.

But “timely defensive action”, India was “able to prevent these attempts to unilaterally alter the status quo”, in relation to the Line of Actual.

1 note · View note

rajkrranjan · 5 years ago

Video

youtube

पंचशील समझौता क्या था ? | Panchsheel Treaty in HINDI | Sino‑IndianTreaty...

#pan #panch #panchshil treaty #panchshil agreement #panchshil samjhouta #india china agreement #sino indian treaty #bpsc #bpsc exam #bpsc 65th #bpsc 65th mains #bpsc mains #bpsc mains exam

0 notes

loadsofplaces · 3 years ago

Text

Thailand

General Information Thailand is a country in South East Asia. Thai people mostly descent from Tai peoples, while from the 6th to 11th century the region was dominated by the Mon-speaking Dvaravati kingdom. Thai culture is therefore also influenced by the Mon culture, as well as Khmer culture, of the time, in particular many elements these cultures took over from Hindu/Indian culture left lasting traces. In 1238 the first major Tai kingdom in Thai history, Sukhotai, was founded. The Ayutthayan Kingdom (1351 - 1767) followed, during which the country started being called Siam by its neighbours. In the 19th century, Siam avoided full colonization by European powers through a series of treaties, increasing Western influence. After a coup in 1932, Thailand transformed from an absolute to a constitutional monarchy, though the system only reached partial democratization towards the late 20th century, with government leaders being military, not elected leaders until 1976. Today 97.5% of the population are Thais, Burmese being the largest minority. Recent Chinese ancestry is however common in Thailand, but these Sino-Thais have largely assimilated over the course of the 20th century. 94.6% of people in Thailand are Buddhists, 4.3% Muslims. The capital city is Bangkok.

Lopburi and its monkeys The city of Lopburi is famous for its monkey population. While in recent years there has been growing controversy around its monkeys due to their rapidly increasing population disturbing the human residents’ daily lives, traditionally they were revered as being representatives of the Hindu god Hanuman, bringing good luck. The Lopburi Monkey festival, including a special buffet for hundreds of monkeys, has been held annually since the 1980s.

youtube

~ Anastasia Economy Thailand is classified as a developing nation by a large number of international organizations. The economy of Thailand is dependent on exports, which accounted in 2019 for about sixty per cent of the country's GDP. Its currency, the Thai Baht, ranked as the tenth most frequently used world payment currency in 2017. Thailand is one of countries with the lowest unemployment rates in the world, reported as one percent for the first quarter of 2014. The nation is recognized by the World Bank as "one of the great development success stories" in social and development indicators.

Orchids Orchids have a mystique that seems to set them apart from most other flowers: They are elegant and almost unreal in their perfection. It turns out they orchid is the national flower of Thailand. Thailand is the origin of about 1300 species and 180–190 genera of orchids. Part of the reason the ratchaphruek was chosen as Thailand's national flower is its bold yellow colour. Yellow is associated with Buddhism, the country's majority religion. Yellow is also seen as the colour of glory, harmony, and unity.

~ Damian

Sources https://www.britannica.com/place/Thailand/ https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/lopburi-monkey-temple-thailand-intl-hnk/index.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Thailand https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/thailand/overview#1

#Thailand #Lopburi #monkeys #Bangkok #Orchids #unemployment #Buddhists #Ayutthayan

0 notes

brookstonalmanac · 2 years ago

Text

Events 2.24

484 – King Huneric of the Vandals replaces Nicene bishops with Arian ones, and banishes some to Corsica. 1303 – The English are defeated at the Battle of Roslin, in the First War of Scottish Independence. 1386 – King Charles III of Naples and Hungary is assassinated at Buda. 1525 – A Spanish-Austrian army defeats a French army at the Battle of Pavia. 1527 – Coronation of Ferdinand I as the king of Bohemia in Prague. 1538 – Treaty of Nagyvárad between Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand I and King John Zápolya of Hungary and Croatia. 1582 – With the papal bull Inter gravissimas, Pope Gregory XIII announces the Gregorian calendar. 1597 – The last battle of the Cudgel War takes place on the Santavuori Hill in Ilmajoki, Ostrobothnia. 1607 – L'Orfeo by Claudio Monteverdi, one of the first works recognized as an opera, receives its première performance. 1711 – Rinaldo by George Frideric Handel, the first Italian opera written for the London stage, is premièred. 1739 – Battle of Karnal: The army of Iranian ruler Nader Shah defeats the forces of the Mughal emperor of India, Muhammad Shah. 1803 – In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court of the United States establishes the principle of judicial review. 1809 – London's Drury Lane Theatre burns to the ground, leaving its owner, Irish writer and politician Richard Brinsley Sheridan, destitute. 1821 – Final stage of the Mexican War of Independence from Spain with Plan of Iguala. 1822 – The first Swaminarayan temple in the world, Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, Ahmedabad, is inaugurated. 1826 – The signing of the Treaty of Yandabo marks the end of the First Anglo-Burmese War. 1831 – The Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, the first removal treaty in accordance with the Indian Removal Act, is proclaimed. The Choctaws in Mississippi cede land east of the river in exchange for payment and land in the West. 1848 – King Louis-Philippe of France abdicates the throne. 1854 – A Penny Red with perforations becomes the first perforated postage stamp to be officially issued for distribution. 1863 – Arizona is organized as a United States territory. 1868 – Andrew Johnson becomes the first President of the United States to be impeached by the United States House of Representatives. He is later acquitted in the Senate. 1875 – The SS Gothenburg hits the Great Barrier Reef and sinks off the Australian east coast, killing approximately 100, including a number of high-profile civil servants and dignitaries. 1876 – The stage première of Peer Gynt, a play by Henrik Ibsen with incidental music by Edvard Grieg, takes place in Christiania (Oslo), Norway. 1881 – China and Russia sign the Sino-Russian Ili Treaty. 1895 – Revolution breaks out in Baire, a town near Santiago de Cuba, beginning the Cuban War of Independence; the war ends along with the Spanish–American War in 1898. 1916 – The Governor-General of Korea establishes a clinic called Jahyewon in Sorokdo to segregate Hansen's disease patients. 1917 – World War I: The U.S. ambassador Walter Hines Page to the United Kingdom is given the Zimmermann Telegram, in which Germany pledges to ensure the return of New Mexico, Texas, and Arizona to Mexico if Mexico declares war on the United States. 1918 – Estonian Declaration of Independence. 1920 – Nancy Astor becomes the first woman to speak in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom following her election as a Member of Parliament (MP) three months earlier. 1920 – The Nazi Party (NSDAP) was founded by Adolf Hitler in the Hofbräuhaus beer hall in Munich, Germany 1942 – Seven hundred ninety-one[22] Romanian Jewish refugees and crew members are killed after the MV Struma is torpedoed by the Soviet Navy.[ 1942 – The Battle of Los Angeles: A false alarm led to an anti-aircraft barrage that lasted into the early hours of February 25. 1945 – Egyptian Premier Ahmad Mahir Pasha is killed in Parliament after reading a decree. 1946 – Colonel Juan Perón, founder of the political movement that became known as Peronism, is elected to his first term as President of Argentina. 1949 – The Armistice Agreements are signed, to formally end the hostilities of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. 1967 – Cultural Revolution: Zhang Chunqiao announces the dissolution of the Shanghai People's Commune, replacing its local government with a revolutionary committee. 1968 – Vietnam War: The Tet Offensive is halted; South Vietnamese forces led by Ngo Quang Truong recapture the citadel of Hué. 1971 – The All India Forward Bloc holds an emergency central committee meeting after its chairman, Hemantha Kumar Bose, is killed three days earlier. P.K. Mookiah Thevar is appointed as the new chairman. 1976 – The 1976 constitution of Cuba is formally proclaimed. 1978 – The Yuba County Five disappear in California. Four of their bodies are found four months later. 1981 – The 6.7 Ms Gulf of Corinth earthquake affected Central Greece with a maximum Mercalli intensity of VIII (Severe). Twenty-two people were killed, 400 were injured, and damage totaled $812 million. 1983 – A special commission of the United States Congress condemns the Japanese American internment during World War II. 1984 – Tyrone Mitchell perpetrates the 49th Street Elementary School shooting in Los Angeles, killing two children and injuring 12 more. 1989 – United Airlines Flight 811, bound for New Zealand from Honolulu, rips open during flight, blowing nine passengers out of the business-class section. 1991 – Gulf War: Ground troops cross the Saudi Arabian border and enter Iraq, thus beginning the ground phase of the war. 1996 – Two civilian airplanes operated by the Miami-based group Brothers to the Rescue are shot down in international waters by the Cuban Air Force. 1999 – China Southwest Airlines Flight 4509, a Tupolev Tu-154 aircraft, crashes on approach to Wenzhou Longwan International Airport in Wenzhou, Zhejiang, China. All 61 people on board are killed. 2004 – The 6.3 Mw Al Hoceima earthquake strikes northern Morocco with a maximum Mercalli intensity of IX (Violent). At least 628 people are killed, 926 are injured, and up to 15,000 are displaced. 2006 – Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo declares Proclamation 1017 placing the country in a state of emergency in attempt to subdue a possible military coup. 2007 – Japan launches its fourth spy satellite, stepping up its ability to monitor potential threats such as North Korea. 2008 – Fidel Castro retires as the President of Cuba and the Council of Ministers after 32 years. He remains as head of the Communist Party for another three years. 2015 – A Metrolink train derails in Oxnard, California following a collision with a truck, leaving more than 30 injured. 2016 – Tara Air Flight 193, a de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter aircraft, crashed, with 23 fatalities, in Solighopte, Myagdi District, Dhaulagiri Zone, while en route from Pokhara Airport to Jomsom Airport. 2020 – Mahathir Mohamad resigns as Prime Minister of Malaysia following an attempt to replace the Pakatan Harapan government, which triggered the 2020-2022 Malaysian political crisis. 2022 – Days after recognising Donetsk and Luhansk as independent states, Russian president Vladimir Putin orders a full scale invasion of Ukraine.

#Events

1 note · View note

hsoc-updates · 4 years ago

Text

SINO-INDIAN AGREEMENT SUMMIT

The People’s Republic of China would like to propose a treaty of Non-Inteference regarding Tibetan affairs to The Republic of India's cabinet. The People’s Republic of China hopes to establish with The Republic of India Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence:

1.) mutual respect for each other's territorial integrity and sovereignty,

2.) mutual non-agression,

3.) mutual non-interference in each other's internal affairs,

4.) equality and mutual benefit, and

5.) peaceful coexisting In addition to this, the People’s Republic of China would also like to propose a trade agreement in which China will allow

The Republic of India to establish Indian trade Agencies within China’s Tibet Autonomous Region of Yatung, Gyantse and Gartok. These Trade agencies "would enjoy freedom from arrest while exercising their functions" among other privileges, and will also specify Gartok, Pulanchung (Taklakot), Gyanima-Khargo, Gyanima-Chakra, Ramura, Dongbra, Puling-Sumdo, Nabra, Shangtse and Tashigong as markets open for trade with The Republic of India in the region. Those involved in the Summit: People's Republic of China: Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping, Liu Shaoqi USSR: Nikita Kruschev (observer)

0 notes

aayushanandblog · 4 years ago

Text

Planning Long-term Strategic Foreign Policy

(These are my personalised views on the topic and the facts and figures are segregated from various sources)

India faced many challenges from its neighbour countries and that too all one at a time.

The year 2021 should see a cementing of the many trends that had their genesis in 2020.

Leadership change in the United States is perhaps the most awaited change, but is unlikely to bring about a major power shift in the international arena.

Even before the changeover, and despite the promise of a Biden presidency to invigorate the U.S.-Europe axis, Europe has turned its back on the U.S. and revived its China links, by ‘concluding in principle the negotiations for an EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment’.

In one swift move, Europe has thus shattered all hope that China would remain ostracised in 2021. Many countries will now find themselves scrambling for cover.

India which has greatly curtailed its relations with China since April 2020, (in the wake of Chinese aggression in Eastern Ladakh) will find itself ‘out on a limb’, with many countries likely to seek closer economic relations with China now.

Present situation tells that India isolated from many International Groupings:

At the start of 2021, India seems the odd man missing as far as these developments are concerned.

No breakthrough in Sino-Indian relations has, or is likely to occur, and the confrontation between Indian and Chinese armed forces is expected to continue.

India currently plays no significant role in West Asia. India-Iran relations today lack warmth. In Afghanistan, India has been marginalised as far as the peace process is concerned.

While India’s charges against Pakistan of sponsoring terror have had some impact globally, it has further aggravated tensions between the two neighbours, and in the process, also helped Pakistan to cement its relations with China.

While hostility between India and Nepal appears to have reduced lately, relations continue to be strained.

Through a series of diplomatic visits, India has made valiant efforts to improve relations with some of its neighbours such as Bangladesh, Myanmar and Sri Lanka, but as of now worthwhile results are not evident.

One key takeaway is that as India-China relations deteriorate, India’s neighbours are not averse to taking sides, increasing India’s isolation.

Whether India’s perceived marginalisation from global mainstream events as we enter 2021 signifies a sharp drop-off in its foreign policy capabilities is, no doubt, debatable.

India’s foreign policy objectives are to widen its sphere of influence, enhance its role across nations, and make its presence felt as an emerging power in an increasingly disruptive global system. It is a moot point though whether any of these objectives has been achieved.

Today, India’s voice and counsel are seldom sought, or listened to. This is a far cry from what used to happen previously.

India will serve as the president of the powerful UN Security Council for the month of August, 2021, but if it is to make a real impact, it must be seen to possess substantial weight to shape policies, more so in its traditional areas of influence.

Currently, India remains isolated from two important supranational bodies of which it used to be a founding member, viz., the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC).

Efforts to whip up enthusiasm for newer institutions such as the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC), have hardly been successful.

India has opted out of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) (a majority of Asian countries are members), and failed to take advantage of the RIC, or the Russia, India and China grouping, even as relations with Russia and China have deteriorated.

A stronger China: Dominating in the Indo-Pacific Ocean:

The year 2021, hence, begins on a triumphal note for China and China’s Supreme Leader, Xi Jinping.

China is about the only major country which had a positive rate of growth at the end of 2020, and its economy is poised to grow even faster in 2021.

Militarily, China has further strengthened itself, and now seeks to dominate the Indo-Pacific Ocean with its announcement of the launch of its third aircraft carrier in 2021.

Simultaneously, it is seeking to strengthen its military coordination with Russia.

International politics may not be very different from that in 2020, but any hope that the Compact of Democracy would emerge stronger will need to be eschewed.

China is, hence, unlikely to concede any ground to its opponents across the world in 2021, a fact that India will need to reckon with.

Economy first for Europe rather than politics:

The China-EU Investment Treaty which saw Europe capitulating to China’s brandishments is an indication that Europe values its economy more than its politics.

Major changes are afoot in Eurasia and West Asia which could lead to significant shifts.

Russia is beginning to display greater interest in the affairs of countries on its periphery and, together with strengthening ties with China and reaching an entente with Turkey, this seems to signal reduced interest in countries such as India.

In West Asia, the Abraham Accords, leading to a realignment of forces in the Arab world, have sharpened the division between the Saudi Bloc and Iran-Turkey.

Despite the hype surrounding the Abraham Accords, the situation, however, remains fluid and has not reduced the risk of a confrontation between Iran and Israel. This does pose problems for India, since both have relations with it.

Meanwhile, China demonstrates a willingness to play a much larger role in the region, including contemplating a 25-year strategic cooperation agreement with Iran.

Saudi Arabia could find the going difficult in 2021, with a Biden Administration taking charge in Washington.

The healing of wounds among the Sunni Arab states in the region should be viewed as a pyrrhic victory at best for Saudi Arabia. One by-product of this could be a sharpening of hostilities between the Sunni and Shia camps.

Given the strategic flux in the region, Iran could well be tempted to use its nuclear capability to enhance its position, confident that the West may be unwilling to challenge it at this juncture.

India must manage dynamic interaction between domestic policies of India and its neighbours:

The aim of the restructuring is to ensure that domestic policies and objectives are achieved in a much more synergistic fashion than in the past.

Indian diplomacy has seen monumental changes over the centuries. These transformations have allowed the country to cope with the changing demands of external affairs.

As the MEA prepares itself to meet the aspirations of a 21st-century India, it is clear that the process of evolution in its institutional underpinnings will have to be a constant one.

Getting the institutional design right is key for effective policymaking and given the scale and scope of global transformation, the MEA’s journey may have only just begun.

Conclusion:

The subcontinent has historically been an integrated geopolitical space with a shared civilisational heritage.

Equally true is the reality of multiple contemporary sovereignties within South Asia. In dealing with these twin realities, the principles guiding India’s engagement are not too difficult to discern.

As part of the ideational restructuring of India’s foreign policy, what is urgently required, apart from competent statecraft, is the adoption of prudent policies, pursuit of realistically achievable objectives, and, above all, a demonstration of continuity of policy, irrespective of changes in the nature of the Administration.

These may be time consuming, but are a surer recipe for success in attaining foreign policy objectives.

India will always be a dependable partner and reliable friend and is committed to strengthening bilateral ties on the basis of mutual trust, mutual interest, mutual respect and mutual sensitivity. These are not easy principles to follow.

But the new vocabulary on “mutual respect and mutual sensitivity” is certainly welcome.

India’s consistent pursuit of this framework could help India better manage the complex dynamic with its neighbours.

#internationalrelations #foreign policy #india #he

0 notes

nebris · 4 years ago

Photo

Ryūjō (Japanese: 龍驤 "Prancing Dragon") was a light aircraft carrier built for the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) during the early 1930s. Small and lightly built in an attempt to exploit a loophole in the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, she proved to be top-heavy and only marginally stable and was back in the shipyard for modifications to address those issues within a year of completion. With her stability improved, Ryūjō returned to service and was employed in operations during the Second Sino-Japanese War. During World War II, she provided air support for operations in the Philippines, Malaya, and the Dutch East Indies, where her aircraft participated in the Second Battle of the Java Sea. During the Indian Ocean raid in April 1942, the carrier attacked British merchant shipping with her guns and aircraft. Ryūjō next participated in the Battle of the Aleutian Islands in June. She was sunk by American carrier aircraft at the Battle of the Eastern Solomons on 24 August 1942.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aircraft_carrier_Ry%C5%ABj%C5%8D

0 notes

syedsalmanshah · 4 years ago

Text

War hysteria in South Asia And where does Pakistan stand in this equation?

New political and strategic blocks are in making in (South) Asia. One can easily hear the beating drums of an imminent regional war. The question is, where does Pakistan stand in this equation? The conducive environment of war, from the Persian Gulf to the South China Sea, is not only alarming but also could have catastrophic effects on Asia, Oceania, and beyond.

The 2020 China–India conflict is part of an ongoing military standoff between China and India. Since 5 May 2020, Chinese and Indian troops have engaged in aggressive face-offs and skirmish at locations along the Sino-Indian border, along the Line of Actual Control (LAC). The US once again meddling in the regional conflict between China/Pakistan and India that would change the power balance in the region forever. Just a recent strategic meeting between The US secretary of Defense Mike Pompeo and the Indian National Security Advisor (NSA) Ajit Doval, in which the Ladakh confrontation was discussed, reflects this notion as Mike Pompeo said: "The US will stand with India in its efforts to defend its sovereignty and its liberty... Our nations are committed to working together into expanding our partnerships across many fronts."

Well, that’s not a good sign for Pakistan and China. India and the US signed the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA) for Geo-Spatial Cooperation that will allow India access to crucial information including precise and real-time information on enemy positions accessed from US military satellites during any potential border conflict. Pakistan’s situation in the context of these agreements is more fragile than china for various reasons. Because history tells that a similar kind of treaty (Indo-Soviet treaty of Peace, friendship, and cooperation) was signed between Indian and the Soviet Union in August 1971 that gave the strategic advantage to India and was a decisive factor in 1971 Indo-Pakistan war.

Meanwhile, the environment of Political bickering and Infighting in Pakistan is detrimental amid the growing tensions in the region. Imran Govt. has to take an aggressive diplomatic posture by connecting regional (Potential) friendly countries to anticipate and curb the ongoing war hysteria in South Asia as the time is slipping through his fingers like sand. Economic woes especially Inflation, are giving the opposition alliance legs, but overturning an establishment-backed prime minister is a hard proposition. In this regard, a new corruption-ridden unified anti-government movement has emerged in Pakistan amid a worsening economic crisis. Pakistan Democratic Movement (PDM), an alliance of 11 opposition parties, was formed in September 2020 and has held large rallies in major cities. It plans more protests in the coming weeks and intends to march on Islamabad in January 2021. As we all know, apart from internal political chaos, the situation just needs a false flag attack or a Black swan event to be used against Pakistan to start a war. In this scenario, the vulnerability of Pakistan in this imminent conflict is too high (as compared to China) because of economic, political, and military limitations.

The mechanics in south Asia when it comes to creating war hysteria is somewhat predictable. It has been observed that whenever such an incident (false flag or black swan event) occurs the Indian war hysteria gets activated and their jingoistic leadership and Mainstream media in a matter of hours start blaming Pakistan. For example, February 2019 escalation brought Pakistan and India to the brink of a nuclear war. Pakistan initially affirmed to retaliate in case of any Indian military action but responded wisely with ‘tit-for-tat’ based counter airstrikes. The situation had been reached its maximum sensitivity when Pakistan struck back across the Line of Control (LoC) and two Indian jets were shot down by PAF while one Indian pilot was captured alive. As a ‘peace gesture,’ the pilot was later released. The ‘deterrence factor’ which was debated all the time during the crisis remained applicable even without the use of nuclear weapons. The situation in South Asia already reached its boiling point, all it needs a little push to escalate, and World powers incl. the US should immediately intervene into this to normalize the deteriorated situation for the better rather than taking sides and adding oil to the fire. Well, we can't say anything with certainty as it’s still a developing story...Stay tuned!

#WarHysteria SouthAsia India Pakistan China SouthChinaSea

0 notes

newstechreviews · 4 years ago

Link

In a speech last week to commemorate 70 years since China’s entry into the Korean War, President Xi Jinping launched a thinly-veiled attack on the U.S. “No blackmailing, blocking or extreme pressuring will work” for those seeking to become “boss of the world,” Xi told veterans and cadres crammed into Beijing’s Great Hall of the People. The 1950-53 Korean War, he went on, “broke the myth that the U.S. military is invincible.”

With U.S.-China relations at a decades-long nadir, it was fitting that Xi threw down the gauntlet on the anniversary of one of the only times the People’s Liberation Army and U.S. troops have faced off on the battlefield—a conflict still known in China as the “War to Resist U.S. Aggression and Aid Korea.”

The upcoming U.S. election on Nov. 3 could be a turning point for American foreign policy, particularly regarding Beijing, which has borne the brunt of the Trump Administration’s sledgehammer approach to diplomacy. Chinese trade practices, tech companies, diplomats and even students have been in the crosshairs, feeding Beijing’s paranoia that the U.S. is pursuing a Soviet-era policy of containment.

Much hangs in the balance: economics, nuclear proliferation, the climate crisis, human rights as well as possible military confrontations. Whether Donald Trump or Joe Biden controls the White House may decide if the last four years of rancor was an aberration or the new normal for relations between the world’s top two economies.

“China, of course, is very concerned about the election,” says Wang Yiwei, director of the Institute of International Affairs at Renmin University in Beijing. “If Biden wins, he may take a multilateral approach, more coherence with U.S. alliances. If Trump wins, he’ll definitely continue harsh policies toward China.”

But whoever sits in the Oval Office in January, a return to fulsome engagement appears off the table.

AFP via Getty Images Containers are stacked at the port in Qingdao, in China’s eastern Shandong province on November 8, 2019. – China’s exports suffered their third month of decline in October, and while the drop was less than expected there were warnings on November 8 of more pain to come as the US trade war rumbles on.

Global rivalry between the U.S. and China

Washington’s attempts to isolate Beijing from an integrated and interconnected global economy have forced U.S. companies to relinquish established supply chains in China. Senior administration hawks like Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have also openly questioned the legitimacy of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and called for regime change.

As a result, the U.S. is losing the goodwill of ordinary Chinese, with moderate voices within society replaced by resurgent nationalism. Meanwhile, the vacuum created by the Trump Administration’s America First approach has allowed Beijing to co-opt international institutions. China now sits on the U.N. Human Rights Council despite detaining one million Muslims in its far west region of Xinjiang. It champions the Paris Climate Accords and free trade despite, being the world’s worst polluter and propping up key industries with state funds.

This has allowed China to develop a narrative that it is reasserting its rightful place in global leadership while the U.S is in terminal decline—riven by income inequality, political polarization, racial injustice and toxic nativism. That has been strengthened this year by Trump’s inability or unwillingness to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. while China has successfully controlled the coronavirus within its borders and is the only major economy heading for growth this year.

At the same time, China has torpedoed some of its relationships around the world as it seeks to swell its influence. When the normally urbane Foreign Minister Wang Yi visited Europe late August—ironically to smooth trade tensions—he threatened Norway with reprisals were it to give the Nobel Peace Prize to Hong Kong protesters, and swore that the president of the Czech senate would pay a “heavy price” for visiting the self-ruled island of Taiwan, which China regards as a breakaway province. (The affront prompted the Mayor of Prague to brand Chinese diplomats “rude clowns.”) On Oct. 21, China responded to Sweden’s decision to ban Huawei from its 5G network by threatening a “negative impact” on Swedish companies.

Qilai Shen/Bloomberg via Getty ImagesU.S. President Donald Trump, left, and Xi Jinping, China’s president, shake hands during a news conference at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, China, on Thursday, Nov. 9, 2017.

China’s military capability

Worryingly, Beijing’s hawkish Wolf Warrior diplomacy has gone beyond rhetoric and strayed into saber-rattling with U.S. allies. In recent months, China has ramped up military drills around Taiwan, sailed a record number of sorties into Japan’s territorial waters and engaged in deadly Himalayan border clashes with India. This appears to be more than mere chest-thumping; analysts suspect that China may be pitting its formidable yet untested military against unprepared foes in order to better gauge its own capabilities as well as the likelihood of an international backlash.

“India is a perfect target because it’s not a treaty ally of anybody,” says John Pomfret, a former Beijing bureau chief for the Washington Post and author of The Beautiful Country and the Middle Kingdom: America and China, 1776 to the Present. “You push the Indians around a little bit, declare victory and leave. That would signal the rest of the world that China’s big and bad and can do this type of stuff so watch out.”

Beijing insists that it is the victim of Indian aggression in the recent Himalayan skirmishes. But it is less meek about designs for Taiwan, which split politically from the mainland following China’s 1927-1949 civil war and is by far the CCP’s most coveted prize. Xi considers reuniting the island with the mainland a historic “mission” and analysts agree it is the most likely issue to force a military confrontation between the superpowers.

Read more: How TikTok Found Itself in the Middle of a U.S.-China Tech War

In an Oct. 10 speech, Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen called for “reconciliation and peaceful dialogue” with Beijing. Instead, Beijing responded within hours by releasing previously unseen footage of a large-scale military exercise simulating the invasion of an unidentified island, as well as video of a staged confession from a Taiwanese businessman charged with spying on the mainland.

Oriana Skylar Mastro, a specialist on China’s military at Stanford University’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, says that up until 2015 the main consideration of Chinese military leaders was Washington’s resolve to defend Taiwan. Now, however, she says they tell her: “It doesn’t matter. We would still win.”

The veracity of those sentiments is a matter of hot debate, but concerningly, “China has a remarkable tendency to overestimate its power,” says Pomfret. In September, the PLA Air Force released a video on its official social media showing nuclear-capable H-6 bombers carrying out a simulated raid on what looks like Andersen Air Force Base on the U.S. Pacific island of Guam. In a clear reference to U.S. support for Taiwan, Xi told the Great Hall of the People last week that any attempt to invade or separate China’s “sacred territory” will be met “with a head-on blow!”

Photo by Andrea Verdelli/Getty Images Soldiers of the People’s Liberation Army march during a parade to celebrate the 70th Anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, at Tiananmen Square on October 1, 2019 in Beijing, China.

Sino-U.S. relations after the election

It’s a precarious situation in need of deft diplomacy. Some China hawks in the Trump Administration are calling for Taiwan to be provided with an explicit U.S. defense guarantee. But that would be “provocative and expensive,” says Benjamin H. Friedman, policy director for the nonpartisan Defense Priorities think tank. “I’m not in favor.”

Trump’s distaste for multinational institutions like NATO, and dislike of U.S. troop deployments overseas, has made America’s allies take their own security more seriously. On Monday, the U.S. State Department approved the sale of 100 Boeing-made Harpoon Coastal Defense Systems to Taiwan in a deal worth as much as $2.37 billion, prompting China to impose sanctions on the U.S. companies involved.

“Taiwan could do more, Japan could do more,” says Friedman. “They could buy more defensive systems, particularly mobile missiles and radar that will make it harder to be invaded.”

Biden, by contrast, has voiced support for a multilateral approach in the region, restoring America’s role in global governance and re-establishing a liberal democratic order. Writing on Oct. 22 in World Journal, America’s largest Chinese-language newspaper, Biden vowed to “stand with friends and allies to advance our shared prosperity and values in the Asia-Pacific region … That includes deepening our ties with Taiwan, a leading democracy, major economy, technology powerhouse—and a shining example of how an open society can effectively contain COVID-19.”

Biden has railed against Trump’s trade war—which studies estimate has trimmed 0.7% from U.S. GDP—and would likely rollback many tariffs. He also said that he would organize and host a global Summit for Democracy to “renew the spirit and shared purpose of the nations of the free world” during his first year in office.

Read more: What Happens Next With the U.S.-China Rivalry

Reasserting such historic alliances could cause Beijing much heartburn. “We are 25% of the world’s economy,” Biden told the audience at the final presidential debate Oct. 23. “We need to have the rest of our friends with us saying to China, ‘These are the rules, you play by them or you will pay the price for not playing by them, economically.’”

While there’s no doubt that Biden would be tougher on China than Obama, many in diplomatic circles hope he could reopen lines of communication with Beijing to seek pragmatic solutions on trade, the environment, human rights and other issues. America still has many tools. The dollar’s role as global reserve currency has become more important during the pandemic. And the U.S. still boasts the world’s biggest economy, spearheading innovation.

But the U.S. has never faced a rival that can compete economically and militarily as China can. In the week before his Korean War anniversary speech, Xi addressed the nation on state-run television: “We Chinese know well we must speak to invaders with the language they understand,” he said. “So we use war to stop war, we use military might to stop hostility, we win peace and respect with victory. In the face of difficulty or danger, our legs do not tremble, our backs do not bend.”

#Blogger

1 note · View note

indianarrative1 · 4 years ago

Link

Xi Jinping is aiming at China taking on the mantle of the world’s pre-eminent power, displacing the United States, before he completes a third five-year term.

Xi Jinping comes from a privileged family that has seen both rough as well as good times. Unlike the assertive and brash children of some of the Chinese Communist Party leaders lower down the leadership ladder, Xi’s daughter Mingxe is quiet and courteous, refusing to partake 24/7 of the pomp and privilege of her father’s high office, while his wife Peng Liyuan is herself a well-known singer of motivational and patriotic songs, which are usually sung by her in a military setting. From his early years close to high authority, such as his affinity with China’s longest serving Defence Minister, Lin Biao, the current General Secretary of the CCP has placed the military at the centre of his statecraft.

This distinguishes him from Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Zemin, who put commerce above everything else, or Hu Jintao, who placed a high value (and spent lavishly) on securing goodwill across the world. Soft power was given priority by Hu, even as he took steps to increase the domestic component of hi-tech fields of endeavour, a task enthusiastically embraced by his successor, Xi. Since 2012, “soft power booster budgets” have been cut and those cadres engaged in “goodwill” missions and tasks have been downgraded. In the time of Xi, an ounce of hard power is worth a pound of soft power. For Xi, as for his idol Mao Zedong, what counts is raw power and its exercise. He is clearly a believer in the adage that if an opponent is in a weaker position, it is irrelevant where that person’s heart and mind is, for he will be forced into doing what is wanted of him. This goes for groups and countries as well.

Even the “friendly face” of the PRC, Foreign Minister Wang Yi, is voluble during conversations that his country is 100% right in whatever its leadership says or does, and so discussions need to centre around the sole point of how quickly and smoothly the other side acknowledges such an obvious fact. What counts in the Xi model of governance is facts on the ground, not talks about talks or meetings about meetings.

While Indian public opinion saw the Moscow meeting of Defence Minister Rajnath Singh with his PRC counterpart as routine diplomatic courtesy, the Chinese side saw it as a sign of weakness, and promptly stiffened their stance. Such an approach is the opposite of the situation in India, where international talks are given high priority and even visible failures (in terms of getting more than was given away) such as Tashkent or Shimla or the Tibet talks (from Nehru to Vajpayee) are seen as successes, a judgement made purely on the basis of optics. Indeed, optics seems to be the only result that policymakers in India have taken seriously in several situations.

The removal of the two-term limit by PRC President Xi Jinping has been taken as an indication that the CCP General Secretary would like to remain in office until the close of his life. However, the fact is different: Xi Jinping is aiming at China taking on the mantle of the world’s pre-eminent power, displacing the United States, before he completes a third five-year term. This would act as a force multiplier accelerating China’s lead over the US, the way its pivotal role in global commerce and geopolitics has assisted the US in maintaining its position within the global order. Once the milestone of global primacy is crossed, and it is regarded as axiomatic by his team that Xi’s leadership is crucial to such a success, it is likely that the current General Secretary, President and Chairman of the Central Military Commission will follow the example of Deng Xiaoping and take on an honorific title, such as Chairman of the CCP, handing over the General Secretaryship and other posts to trusted associates, although not to the same individual. India and the US are the two countries which figure prominently in the calculations of the team that has been gathered around Xi, individuals seen as the “best and the brightest” that the CCP has to offer. The question is whether they will ensure the success of Xi’s plans, or be responsible for a failure, much as the “best and the brightest” US policymakers in the Lyndon Johnson Cabinet were over Vietnam. The projections of Team Xi for both the big democracies are less than rosy.

EXPLOITING FAULTLINES

The US is seen as having potentially irreversible fault lines based on race, religion and income, which is expected to consume that country in internal strife on an increasing scale. While Joe Biden is preferred by Beijing to Donald Trump in the 3 November 2020 Presidential polls, the latter too is seen as vulnerable because of a “Two-Front” situation. The two fronts are (a) duels with the PRC combined with tensions with multiple countries, and (b) internal fissures created by those around President Trump seeking to impose on the US the same societal structure as was prevalent in the 1950s and in finance as was prevalent towards the close of the 19th century. The Supreme Court in particular is regarded as promising from the viewpoint of engendering chaos, in view of the fact that several of the justices are in effect charter members of the revivalist wing of the Republican Party and are visibly loyal in their verdicts to its tenets. Such a display of judicial partisanship is in the service of an effort to reverse the course of history, most importantly the effort by Stephen Miller and others filled with nostalgia for the segregationist past.

The main objective of immigration and “justice” policies is to reverse the steady increase in the non-white population, which is a factor that is deeply upsetting to such individuals. The selection of Kamala Harris as the running mate of Joe Biden has given oxygen to the efforts of such elements out of fear that Biden may, for reasons of health, have to hand over the keys to the White House to a non-white and this not long after the first non-white President of the US was sworn in for two terms. Should the Democratic Party prevail in the 3 November contest, including in the House of Representatives and the Senate, there is likely to be a growing conflict between the Executive and a Judicial branch honeycombed with closet revivalists by the Trump administration. Their power would increase with the likely nomination of another Republican ideologue to replace Associate Justice Ruth Ginsburg on the Supreme Court before the team chosen by the 3 November election gets sworn in.

An intensive effort is under way within the US to map for the CCP leadership the faultlines in US society and how they are developing. Or can be developed, a task in which China’s key ally Russia has been assigned to play the lead role on behalf of the common interests of the Sino-Russian alliance. At the same time, packages of misinformation that claim to show that Moscow and Beijing are working not seamlessly together (as is the case) but at cross purposes are being constantly tossed out to credulous policymakers in countries that are identified as hostile to a situation where China replaces the US as the centre of gravity of the international order. As a consequence, there are several policymakers in the US, the EU and India who believe that there is substantial daylight between the strategic ambitions and actions of Putin and Xi. The reality is that both wish to see the end of US primacy, ensure a fissured EU, and a weak congeries of South Asian and Southeast Asian states. Both Moscow and Beijing give an appearance of acting separately and on different sides, when in reality they are synchronising policy (often covertly) to bring about the geopolitical shifts desired by both.

SEPARATING THE U.S. AND INDIA

Both Beijing and Moscow regard it as crucial to keep the US and India strategically separate from each other, and the manner in which pro-Pakistan elements have embedded themselves within the Biden campaign has given Putin and Xi hope that a Biden White House would adopt a hectoring and unfriendly tone towards the Modi government. What is causing anxiety is the fact that Barack Obama, who seems close to Joe Biden, tossed away earlier US policy towards Narendra Modi within minutes of the latter winning the 2014 polls and becoming the second BJP Prime Minister of India.

A Washington-Delhi pairing as close as the Moscow-Beijing partnership would present an immense obstacle to the global designs of the Sino-Russian alliance, and extraordinary effort is being made by both capitals to ensure that this not take place. This campaign is active in Washington as well, where a whispering campaign has been launched even through improbable channels that India wants to be a “free rider” and is moreover “unreliable and quirky” as a partner. Thus far, this campaign has prevented the US Congress from going ahead with additional legislation designed to make India in law an ally of the US on par with any other country, including treaty allies. A bevy of voices are opposing this on the Hill, most of whom are unaware of the foreign link to their advocacy.

At the same time, several channels are being used in Delhi to convey a similar impression of unreliability about the US. Thus far, neither has Australia been invited to the Malabar exercises by India nor has BECA been signed. Keeping the US and India apart is a high priority and thus far, the strategy seems to have delivered results. Within the Biden camp in particular are several individuals who are in close contact with the Pakistan embassy, and during such visits, they “accidentally” meet diplomats from the country that is acknowledged as the single biggest threat to US interests by the Pentagon and the national security system. The close coordination between the Chinese and Pakistan embassies in numerous capitals is no secret. The usefulness of Pakistan in ensuring a covert bridge between Beijing and Washington, this time mostly in matters relating to the US Congress and to elements of the Republican and Democratic parties, is far from over.

MODI’S CREDIBILITY CORE TO STABILITY

Just as the US is regarded as being close to getting tipped into a societal war on a scale that will dwarf the unrest of the 1960s whoever wins on 3 November, India is calculated as being potentially vulnerable to a similar meltdown of public confidence and order. It has been factored in that the continuing credibility of Prime Minister Narendra Modi is key to ensuring a popular level of hope in the future as would prevent mass civil unrest across India. Efforts are ongoing to damage this credibility, and a military setback on the border is seen as the most effective way of bringing down the level of confidence of his people in the leadership of PM Modi. This would be on top of the economic hardship of the recent past. More than in the South China Sea or across the Taiwan Straits, it is the Himalayan massif that is likely to witness a kinetic effort by the PLA. This would be designed to shatter the image and confidence of India. The calculation is that such a setback would discredit those in the US and within the EU who are pushing for a more robust alliance with India. It would also eliminate any confidence within ASEAN that they can rely on India as a counterforce to an expansionist China. Clearly, interesting times are planned for the world’s largest democracy in terms of population.

The nightmare for President Xi Jinping is a military defeat at the hands of a country that is being constantly derided in state media as a paper tiger. Should the General Secretary’s Himalayan adventure end in catastrophe for the PLA, the impact on his leadership would be immediate. Given the governance structure of China, such a meltdown at the core would have a Chernobyl-style impact on the Chinese Communist Party, and a consequent weakening of the CCP’s hold on the people. This would lead to unrest in the PRC (and subsequently in Russia) on a scale that would dwarf whatever takes place in the US and India, even assuming some success in the Sino-Russian “Mission Meltdown” of the world’s two most consequential democracies. Those in the US and India who seek to “prevent war” seem to be unaware that the conflict has already started, and will end only with the defeat of one side over the other.

(This article was originally published in The Sunday Guardian)

0 notes

margdarsanme · 4 years ago

Text

NCERT Class 12 Political Science (India) Chapter 4 India’s External Relations

NCERT Class 12 Political Science Solutions (India Since Independence)

Chapter 4 India’s External Relations

TEXTBOOK QUESTIONS SOLVED : Q 1. Write ‘True’ or ‘False’ against each of these statements. (a) Non-alignment allowed India to gain assistance both from USA and USSR. (b) India’s relationship with her neighbours has been strained from the beginning. (c) The cold war has affected the relationship between India and Pakistan. (d) The treaty of Peace and Friendship in 1971 was the result of India’s closeness to USA.

Answer: (a) True; (b) True; (c) True; (d) False. Q 2. Match the following:

Answer: (a)—(ii), (b)-(iii), (c)-(iv), (d)-(i). Q 3. Why did Nehru regard conduct of foreign relations as an essential indicator of independence? State any two reasons with examples to support your reading.

Answer. 1. India decided to conduct its foreign relations with respect to sovereignty of other nations and maintain peace and security through mutual cooperation to be reflected in the Directive Principles of State Policy on Article 51 of constitution 2. India always advocated the policy of Non-alignment, made efforts to reduce cold war tensions and contributed human resources to UN peace keeping operations. 3. Hence, India took independent stand and got assistance from members of both the blocs. Q 4. “The conduct of foreign affairs is an outcome of a two-way interaction between domestic compulsions and prevailing international climate”. Take one example from India’s external relations in the 1960s to substantiate your answer.

Answer: The statement is justified to maximum extent to be proved during ‘Sino-Indian Conflict of 1962’ to dent India’s image at home and international level, India had to approach the Americans and the British for military assistance to tide over the issues. The Soviet Union remained neutral during the conflict: (i) All the occurrings, created a sense of national humiliation but strengthened a spirit of nationalism also on the other hand. (ii) Pt. Nehru was also criticised for his naive assessment of Chinese intentions and lack of military preparedness. (iii) Political mood of country began to change, when no-confidence motion against Nehru moved in and debated in Lok-Sabha. (iv) ‘Sino-Indian Conflict’ splitted the Communist Party of India in 1964s split fraction formed communist party of India (CPI-M). (v) Besides, the war with China alerted Indian leadership to volatile situation in the North east region. (vi) Apart from being isolated and extremely underdeveloped, this region posed the challenge of national integration in front of India. Q 5. Identify any two aspects of India’s foreign policy that you would like to retain and two that you would like to change, if you were to become a decision maker. Give reasons to support your position.

Answer:

Two Aspects to be Supported: 1. India always maintained her dignity and image of a peace loving country by taking initiatives to bring about equality and understanding among the nations i.e. India supported to end Korean War in 1953, French rule in China, US role in Vietnam. 2. India’s initiatives for Non¬alignment are also appreciable for the maintenance of mutual understanding and security. During post cold war era also, NAM had become an effective tool to make the Security Council more effective and democratic.

Two Aspects to be Changed: 1. In the course of decade of 1962-72, India faced three wars and its peaceful image played a very limited role. 2. Conflict with neighbouring countries like China and Pakistan derailed India’s concept of regional co¬operation under SAARC. Hence, India must adopt diplomatic and defensive postures in its foreign policy to maintain its independent entity. Q 6. Write short notes on the following: (a) India’s nuclear policy (b) Consensus in foreign policy matters

Answer:

(a) India’s Nuclear Policy: 1. India advocates no first use and reiterates India’s commitment to global verifiable on non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament loading to a nuclear weapon free world. 2. Pt. Nehru always promoted ’ science and technology to build a modern India, i.e. initiated nuclear programme in the late 1940s under the guidance of Homi J. Bhoba. 3. India was against nuclear weapons, hence pleaded many nuclear disarmament with superpowers. 4. India always considered NPT as discriminatory and refused to sign on it. 5. Even India’s first Nuclear Test in May 1974 was termed as a peaceful explosion and India argued to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes only.

(6) Consensus in Foreign Policy Matters: 1. Pt. Nehru played a crucial role in the architecture of setting National Agenda for foreign policy. 2. Both as a Prime Minister and foreign minister he played profound influence in the formulation and implementation of India’s foreign policy from 1946 to 1964. 3. When different parties came to power from time to time, foreign policy of India played a limited role in party politics. Q 7.India’s foreign policy was built around the principles of peace and cooperation. But India fought three wars in a space of ten years between 1962 and 1971. Would you say that this was a failure of the foreign policy? Or would you say that this was a result of international situation? Give reasons to support your answer.

Answer: No, this was not the failure of foreign policy but this was a result of international situation:

1. The Chinese Invasion 1962: (a) Serious conflict arose when China annexed Tibet in 1950 and removed a historical buffer between two nation, and India did not oppose this openly. (b) India grew uneasy, when China began to suppress Tibetan Culture. (c) Another border dispute arose when China claimed Aksai Chin area and NEFA (much of the state in Arunachal Pradesh) within the Indian territory. (id) Despite long term correspondence and discussions, these issues have not been resolved even by top leaders of country. (e) Hence, India had to indulge in the conflict.

2. War with Pakistan: (a) A serious armed conflict between two countries began in 1965 with the initiative of Pakistan over Kashmir partition. (b) In 1966, the hostilities came to an end with the UN intervention and Tashkent Agreement signed between Indian Prime Minister Lai Bahadur Shastri and Pakistan’s General Ayub Khan. (c) The 1965 War added to India’s already difficult economic situation.

3. Bangladesh War of 1971: (a) In 1970, Pakistan faced its biggest crisis in the way for a split verdict i.e. Zulficar Ali Bhutto’s Party emerged as winner in West Pakistan while Awami league led by “Sheikh Mujibur- Rehman” swept through East Pakistan. (b) The Bengali population of East Pakistan had voted to protest against discriminatory attitude of West Pakistan, which was not acceptable to West Pakistan rulers. (c) In 1971, Pakistani army arrested Sheikh Mujib and unleashed a region of terror on East Pakistan. This started people’s struggle to liberate Bangladesh from Pakistan. (d) India had to bear 80 lakh refugees who fled from East Pakistan to take shelter. Hence, India had to extend moral and : material support to the freedom struggle in Bangladesh. (e) A full scale war between India and Pakistan in December 1971 broke out, when Pakistan attacked on Punjab and Rajasthan to be retaliated an attack from India. (f) Within ten days the Indian army surrounded Dhaka and Pakistan had to surrender with Bangladesh as a free country, India declared a unilateral ceasefire and Shimla Agreement was signed between India and Pakistan in 1972. (g) Most people in India saw this moment as a glory of India and a clear sign of India’s growing military powers. Q 8. Does India’s foreign policy reflect her desire to be an important regional power? Argue your case with the Bangladesh war of 1971 as an example.

Answer: Bangladesh War 1971: (a) In 1970, Pakistan faced its biggest crisis in the way for a split verdict i. e. Zulficar Ali Bhutto’s Party emerged as winner in West Pakistan while Awami League led by ‘Sheikh Mujibur-Rehman’ swept through East Pakistan. (b) The Bengali population of East Pakistan had voted to protest against discriminatory attitude of west Pakistan which was not acceptable to west Pakistan rulers. (c) In 1971, Pakistani army arrested Sheikh Mujib and unleashed a reign of terror on East Pakistan. This started people’s struggle to liberate Bangladesh from Pakistan. (d) India had to bear 80 lakh refugees who fled from East Pakistan to take shelter. Hence, India had to extend moral and material support to the freedom struggle in Bangladesh. (e) A full scale war between India and Pakistan in December 1971 broke out, when Pakistan attacked on Punjab and Rajasthan to be retaliated an attack from India. if) Within ten days the Indian army surrounded Dhakan and Pakistan had to surrender with Bangladesh as a free country, India declared a unilateral ceasefire and Shimla Agreement was signed between India and Pakistan in 1972. (f) Most people in India saw this moment as a glory of India and a dear sign of India’s growing military powers. On the above mentioned reference, we may conclude “Yes’. India’s foreign Policy reflects her desire to be an important regional power which was revealed during the Bangladesh war of 1971. Yes, India’s foreign policy reflects her desire to be an important regional power which was revealed during the Bangladesh war of 1971. Q 9. How does political leadership of a nation affect its foreign policy? Explain this with the help of examples from India’s foreign policy.

Answer: Foreign policy of any country is the mirror of national interests as in India: 1. During non-congress government in 1977, Janata Party announced to follow non-alignment genuinely. This implied that the pro-Soviet tilt in foreign policy will be corrected. Since then, all governments took initiatives to restore better relations with China and entered into close ties with the US. 2. In Post 1990 period the ruling parties were criticised for their pro-US foreign policy. During this period Russia had lost its global pre¬eminence despite it has been India’s good friend. Hence, India’s foreign policy shifted to a more pro-US strategy. 3. Besides, the contemporary international situation is also more influenced by economic interests than military interests so made an impact on India’s foreign policy i. e. Indo-Pakistan relations have witnessed new developments. Q 10. Read the Passage: “Broadly, non-alignment means not tying yourself off with military blocs… It means trying to view things, as far as possible, not from the military point of view, though that has to come in sometimes, but independently, and trying to maintain friendly relations with all countries”. —-Jawaharlal Nehru (a) Why does Nehru want to keep off military blocs? (b) Do you think that the Indo-Soviet friendship treaty violated the principle of non-alignment? Give reasons for your answer, (c) If there were no military blocs, do you think non-alignment would have been unnecessary?

Answer: (a) Nehru wanted to keep off military blocs to maintain friendly and peaceful relation with all nations of world as well as to maintain India’s uniqueness at international stage. (b) No, the Indo-Soviet friendship treaty did not violate non-alignment because it was not to maintain military relations but to maintain diplomatic friendly relations. . (c) NAM emphasises on disarmament, decolonisation and terrorism except staying away from military blocs.

Very Short Answer Type Questions [ 1 Mark]

Q 1. What is foreign policy?

Answer: Foreign policy of a nation reflects ^systematic statements of national interests alongwith the interplay of domestic and external factors. Q 2. I n which context India started participating in the world affairs as an independent nation state?

Answer: Due to: 1. British government left the legacy of many international disputes. 2. Priority to the poverty alleviation. 3. Pressures created by the partition. Q 3. Why did India not sign Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty?

Answer: Because India considered the NPT as discriminatory policy to argue it to be used for peaceful purposes only. Q 4. What was Bandung conference?

Answer: Bandung conference was held in 1955 in Indonesia as an Afro-Asian conference to lead an establishment of NAM and to mark the engagement of India with African and Asian nations. Q 5. Mention the Article of Indian constitution to promote international peace and security.

Answer: Article 51 to lay down some Directive Principles of State Policy. Q 6. Which step was the beginning of Indo¬china’s strong relationship?

Answer: Panchsheel, the five principles of peaceful co-existance signed in 1954.

Very Short Answer Type Questions [2 Marks]

Q 1. How did the Sino-Indian conflict affect the opposition also?

Answer: The Sino-Indian conflicts affected the opposition as well. This and the growing rift between China and the Soviet Union created irreconcilable differences within the Communist Party of India (CPI). The pro-USSR faction remained within the CPI and moved towards closer ties with the Congress. The other faction was for sometime closer to China and was against any ties with the Congress. The party split in 1964 and the leaders of the later faction formed the Communist Party of India (Marxist) (CPI-M). In the wake of the China War, many leaders of CPI(M) were arrested for being pro¬China. Q 2. Which two differences between India and China led to an army conflict in 1962?

Answer: (i) Serious conflict arose when China annexed Tibet in 1950 and removed a historical buffer between two nation and India did not oppose this openly. (ii) Another border dispute arose when China claimed Aksai Chin Area and NEFA (much of the state in Arunachal Pradesh) within the . Indian territory. Q 3. Highlight the contribution made by Pt. J.L. Nehru to the foreign policy of India.

Answer: (i) India’s initiatives for non-alignment for maintenance of mutual understanding and security. (ii) India always maintained her dignity and image of peace loving country by taking initiatives to bring about equality and understanding among nations i.e. to end Korean war in 1953, French rule in China etc. Q 4. Mention any two/four Directive Principles of State Policy for the promotion of international peace and security.

Answer: The Article 51 of Indian Constitution deals with the “Directive Principles of State Policy” on “Promotion of International Peace and Security”: (i) Promote international peace and security. (ii) Maintain just and honourable relations between nations. (iii) Foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organised people with one another. (iv) Encourage settlement of international dispute by arbitration. Q 5. Highlight any two/four major objectives of Prime Minister Nehru’s Foreign Policy.

Answer:1. The first objective was to follow NAM, not to join either the military blocs formed by USA and Soviet Union. 2. To promote rapid economic development and maintain cordial relations with other nations. 3. To prefect the territorial integrity. 4. To preserve sovereignty of India and also respecting others sovereignty. Q 6. What was Afra-Asian Unity?

Answer: Bandung conference was held in 1955 in Indonesia as an Afro-Asian conference to lead an establishment of NAM to mark the engagement of India with African and Asian nations known as Afro-Asian Unity. Q 7. Why did India oppose the international treaties on Nuclear non-proliferation?

Answer: Because of discriminatory nature: 1. India felt that these treaties prove the monopoly of five nuclear weapon- powers only and applicable to only the non-nuclear powers. 2. India opposed the indefinite extension of the NPT in 1995 and refused to sign even CTBT (Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty). Q 8. In the Post Cold War Era what is the nature of India’s foreign policy in terms of shifting alliances in world politics?

Answer: In the Post Cold War Era India’s foreign policy had shifted to more pro-US stance with the disintegration of USSR: 1. At present India’s foreign policy rather more emphasizes on economic interests in place of military. 2. Every Indo-Pak relations have also witnessed many new developments. 3. Efforts are being made to restore normal relations with other countries through cultural exchange. Q 9. Arrange the following events in the correct chronological sequence from the earlier to the latest: (a) First nuclear test conducted by India. (b) Twenty year treaty of peace and relationship between India and Soviet Union. (c) The Tashkent Agreement. (d) The Panchsheel declaration.

Answer: (a) Panchsheel-1954 (b) Tashkent Agreement-1966 (c) Twenty year treaty-1971 (d) First nuclear test-1974

Short Answer Type Questions [4 Marks]

Q 1. Explain India’s Nuclear Policy. Or Explain any four important features of India’s Nuclear Policy.

Answer: India’s Nuclear Policy: 1. India advocates no first use and reiterates India’s commitment to global verifiable on non-discriminatoiy nuclear disarmament loading to a nuclear weapon free world. 2. Pt. Nehru always promoted science and technology so build a modern India i.e. initiated nuclear programme in the late 1940s under the guidance of Homi J. Bhaba. 3. India was against nuclear weapons, hence pleaded many nuclear disarmament with superpowers. 4. India always considered NPT as discriminatory and refused to sign on it. 5. Even India’s first Nuclear Test in May 1974 was termed as a peaceful explosion and India argued to use nuclear power for peaceful purposes only. Q 2. Describe any four issues of conflict between India and China .

Answer: Issues of Conflict between India and China: (a) Serious conflict arose when China annexed Tibet in 1950 and removed a historical buffer between two nation and India did not oppose this openly. (b) India grew uneasy, when China began to suppress Tibetan culture. (c) Another border dispute arose when China claimed Aksai Chin Area and NEFA (much of the state in Arunachal Pradesh) within the Indian territory. (d) Despite long term correspondence and discussions, these issues have not been resolved even by top leaders of country. (e) Hence, India had to indulge in the conflict. Q 3. Describe any two major issues of conflict between India and Pakistan leading to war of 1971.

Answer: Issues of conflict between India and Pakistan leading to War in 1971: 1. A serious armed struggle arose between India and Pakistan in December 1971 when Pakistan attacked on Punjab and Rajasthan. In turn India had to retaliated a war against Pakistan. 2. India had to bear 80 lakh refugees who fled from East Pakistan to take shelter in India. Hence, India had to extend moral and material support to freedom struggle in Bangladesh against Pakistan. Q 4. What was Tibet issue? How did it cause tension between India and China? Explain.

Answer: 1. From the very beginning of independence time to time, China has claimed its administrative control over Tibet. 2. In 1950, China took over control of Tibet. Large sections of Tibetan population opposed this takeover. 3. In 1958, there was an armed uprising in Tibet against China’s occupation. India supported the cause of Tibetan which was bitterly objected by China. Even India has granted asylum to Dalai Lama and a large number of Tibetans. Q 5. Access any four principles of India’s foreign policy.

Answer: India’s foreign policy is based on principles of Panchsheel, which is derived from two words ‘Panch’ means five and ‘Sheel’ means a ‘Code of Conduct’ for peaceful co-existence. 1. Panchsheel 2. Non-alignment (NAM) 3. Mutual benefits and equality 4. Mutual non-aggression 5. Non-intervention in each others international affairs 6. To maintain international peace and understanding

Passage Based Questions [5 Marks]

1. Read the passage given below carefully and answer the questions: What does independence consist of? It consists fundamentally and basically of foreign relations. That is the test of independence. All else is local autonomy. Once foreign relations go out of your hands into the charge of somebody else, to that extent and in that measure you are not independent. —Jawaharlal Nehru

Questions 1. What does the extract signify? 2. What is not an independence as per Pt. J.L. Nehru? 3. What did India do to maintain its Sovereignty?

Answer: 1. The above extract signifies the non-alignment policy of India. 2. When foreign relations go out of the hands of a country into the charge of somebody else, to that extent, one is not independent. 3. When India achieved its freedom and started forming its foreign policy, it followed non-alignment policy to pursue its national interests within international context.

Picture/Map Based Questions [5 Marks]

A. Study the picture given below and answer the questions that follow:

Question. 1. What message does this cartoon convey? 2. Which year is being shown here?

Answer: 1. This cartoon conveys message on Indo-China tensions to be resolved. 2. 1962, Chinese invasion.

from Blogger http://www.margdarsan.com/2020/08/ncert-class-12-political-science-india_18.html

#NCERT Class 12 Political Science

0 notes

wesleyv21-blog · 7 years ago

Text

Headin to the Galapagos!

¡Hola todos y todas! ¡Espero que todo les vaya bien atrás en los EE.UU.!

Ya es muy difícil escribir, hablar, y a veces pensar en el inglés. Los otros estudiantes estadounidenses hablan en ingles frecuentemente cuando estemos juntos, pero aparte de esos ratitos, vivo completamente en el castellano. Y claro una lengua nunca es solo una manera de hablar, sino que es otra manera de pensar, identificarse, e interactuar con lo que se llama el mundo.

Language really is constitutive of reality itself. That sentence was very hard to write after the preceding paragraph haha. The structures and vocab of my language permit me to think about certain realities and also prohibit me from imagining others. Thus my very world is conditioned by my language. For example, last week I spent learning the basics of Kichwa or Runashimi. There’s a particular possessive form in Kichwa that is used exclusively to denote a relationship of such intensity that it can never be broken. So, for example, if I have an unbreakable, inalienable relationship with a particular llama, I can express everything I just expressed in one simple syllable attached to the end of the name of the llama: llamayuk. Fascinating, no? Thus Kichwa conceives of relationships in different ways from the others languages I can speak (not necessarily better or worse ways, just different). Por eso, no se puede aprender una lengua sin que a la misma vez se aprendan una cultura y una filosofía también.

Anyway, here’s some things that have impacted me apart from learning the basics of Kichwa. No, I’ll stick with Kichwa first. Kichwa has 3 vowels, does not change inflection for questions, and is agglutinative (which means to form sentences or change the meaning of words, you add morphemes to the beginning, middle, or end of a word. To some extent, all languages are partially agglutinative, but Kichwa, among others, is particularly so. For example, tanta is bread, tantata makes bread the direct object of some verb, and tantatachu makes it a question as to whether or not the bread exists, is being eaten, etc.). The structure places the subject first, the object second, and the verb last. Always. There are no irregular verbs either. In many ways, it’s a much easier language to learn than either English or Spanish! I just need much more practice because it requires a completely different way of thinking about language than I’m used to. Ñukaka Wesleymi kani (nyoo-KA-ka We-SLEE-mee KA-nee) means “my name is Wesley.” Kanka allkuta charinkichu (KAN-ka ash-KU-ta cha-reen-KEE-choo) means “Do you have a dog?”. Counting is very hard haha. To say 30, you say three-ten. Thus, a number like 5,678 would be as follows: five-thousand six-hundred seven-ten eight, or pichka waranka sukta patsak kanchis chunka pusak! We only did four days of formal instruction, but I’d like to continue learning and practicing. It’s a really unique language that is completely different from anything I’ve ever experienced, and if possible, I’d love to continue speaking it when I return to the U.S.

The legacy of colonialism is long. VERY long. As in, it still traps Ecuador to this day. Here’s a tiny example. During the age of formal colonialism, Ecuador’s natural resources were extracted by Ecuadorians (or African or indigenous slaves) and shipped to Spain. Spain, or another European country, refined those raw materials into a finished product that was then sold back to Ecuador. Even after gaining independence in 1822 and later from Gran Colombia in 1830, this trend has only slightly abated. So, given this, I was only mildly surprised to hear from my host dad as we were eating KFC one day for lunch that until very recently (like a couple of years), Ecuador exported potatoes and imported French fries. Potatoes originated in the Andes, and Ecuador has over 100 different varieties of potatoes. French fries are not that difficult to produce. This is an example of the enduring economic patterns inherited from colonialism that continue to wreak havoc on formerly-colonized countries. This isn’t exclusively the fault of the neocolonial powers (U.S., China, Britain, France, the standouts), as domestic elites benefit from this arrangement of power (which Aníbal Quijano calls the coloniality of power). So, yea, colonialism is still being felt today.

Here’s another example: the state system itself. Originating from the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, the concept of the nation-state with unbreachable sovereignty was quickly incorporated into the colonial project begun nearly 200 years earlier in 1492. The state system justified the seizure of alien lands, the violence perpetrated against the original inhabitants of these lands, and the privileges of economic, social, religious, and political control. This system was imposed through physical, structural, and cultural violence. Today, the state system and the concept of citizenship it has engendered obscures the diverse nations that inhabit what is known as Ecuador. These nations have had other names imposed on them, such as “indigenous” or “Indian” or even Kichwa. Those who speak Runashimi call themselves Runa, which simply means people. Let’s not forget the Afro-descendant (this is the English equivalent of the Spanish afrodescendiente which is one of the common words used to self-identify) communities who were kidnapped from their homes and forcibly transplanted here; they constitute their own nation as well. There’s also the Montubio nation out west who forms their own distinct culture as well. Thus the title “Republic of Ecuador” presumes to be a homogenous whole, when it in fact conceals a plurality of peoples and cultures that call this arbitrarily-drawn territory home. It’s the same in the U.S. and every other state in fact.

But, what is so interesting is that the latest Constitution of Ecuador (composed in 2008) defines this place as “democratic, sovereign, independent, unitary, intercultural, plurinational, and lay” (my translation). The Constitution is actually quite progressive, far more so than that of the U.S. It was drafted by civil society members rather than elites. The environment has rights. Healthcare, access to drinking water, and education are declared human rights. Each ancestral nation is recognized and is guaranteed rights and a status concomitant to that of the state itself. Now, of course, the extent to which this amazing document is carried out is not as progressive. But it nevertheless is a high water mark in the history of drafting constitutions. Y’all should check it out.

I went to a soccer game last Wednesday, and damn was it exciting! Soccer really is the ‘beautiful game.’ I would love to investigate it sociologically as well, because it’s a fascinating cultural and political phenomenon. As a tiny example, the first inter-African international organization was, in fact, the CAF, or African Confederation of Football. I think soccer thus possesses interesting socio-political dimensions that as of now are unknown to me. But, as a purely entertaining event, I was thoroughly pleased. Liga Universitaria was playing Phoenix Rising from the U.S. in a friendly match. Liga is the only Ecuadorian team to have won an international tournament, and they’ve won several. Phoenix Rising is a new team that features one of the best players ever, Didier Drogba, in his presumably final years in the game. It was incredibly exciting to watch the match tie 2-2 and then go in Liga’s favor in a penalty shoot-out.

My host mom and grandmother in particular never cease to rave about Ecuador’s food, places to travel, and artisanal crafts and clothes. It’s really cool actually to see that they have so much pride in their country, and I get to find out new things to do or see or buy with each conversation. The individuals I’ve met so far (which is a very small number) have so much to say about the natural beauty of Ecuador as well. Favorites are the Galápagos and the Amazon out in the eastern provinces, and no wonder! La Amazonía is simply incredible, and I’m sure Galápagos will be too!

Over the weekend a group of us went to Baños, which is a tiny, cheap, and fun tourist attraction—and not just American tourists. Baños is especially popular with the Quito crowd, but there were also many people from other Latin American and European countries that I met or observed. When I say Baños is cheap, I mean I got a two-course lunch for $2.50. Our hostal was $10 a night per person. We rented bikes for the entire day for $5 each. Incredible. So we spent the weekend hitting up various nightclubs, going to the hot springs after which Baños is named (though they are nothing compared to the hotsprings at Papallacta), eating at delicious restaurants, ascending a small mountain on whose peak is this swing that is positioned right on the edge of the cliff; but my favorite part was the bike ride we took on Saturday. Our destination was 20 km away, this giant waterfall called Pailón del Diablo. To get there, we biked along the main road for about 2 hours, at times in pouring, driving rain coming down so hard you had to close your eyes and hope for the best. It was an existential experience for me. I don’t think I’ve ever felt so alive, precisely because I didn’t know if I’d make it out unscathed. That plus the natural beauty of the landscapes (green mountains shrouded in mist on all sides) and the thrill of reaching high speeds going downhill, through a car tunnel, or climbing a ridge was nothing short of inolvidable. The waterfall too was spectacular and well worth the bike trip. We caught a bus back which only took about 20 minutes! Definitely a weekend well spent!

Yesterday and today we’ve been in class wrapping up our Kichwa section as we transition to the thematic seminar at the heart of the program: Paradigms of Development, which, as my professor declared, is basically a class all about hegemony, power, and resistance. Tomorrow we leave for Guayaquil, Ecuador’s largest and most financially powerful city. Thursday we head to the Galápagos Islands! The actual Galápagos Islands! I’m so freaking excited I can’t even begin to describe it! ¡No puedo esperar ni un minuto más! ¡Espero que hayan disfrutado de este episodio del blog! ¡Tendré mucho que contar al regresar de los Galápagos!

Til next time!

1 note · View note

brookstonalmanac · 3 months ago

Text

Events 8.17 (1840-1945)

1862 – American Indian Wars: The Dakota War of 1862 begins in Minnesota as Dakota warriors attack white settlements along the Minnesota River. 1862 – American Civil War: Major General J. E. B. Stuart is assigned command of all the cavalry of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. 1863 – American Civil War: In Charleston, South Carolina, Union batteries and ships bombard Confederate-held Fort Sumter. 1864 – American Civil War: Battle of Gainesville: Confederate forces defeat Union troops near Gainesville, Florida. 1866 – The Grand Duchy of Baden announces its withdrawal from the German Confederation and signs a treaty of peace and alliance with Prussia. 1876 – Richard Wagner's Götterdämmerung, the last opera in his Ring cycle, premieres at the Bayreuth Festspielhaus. 1883 – The first public performance of the Dominican Republic's national anthem, Himno Nacional. 1896 – Bridget Driscoll became the first recorded case of a pedestrian killed in a collision with a motor car in the United Kingdom. 1914 – World War I: Battle of Stallupönen: The German army of General Hermann von François defeats the Russian force commanded by Paul von Rennenkampf near modern-day Nesterov, Russia. 1915 – Jewish American Leo Frank is lynched in Marietta, Georgia, USA after his death sentence is commuted by Governor John Slaton. 1915 – A Category 4 hurricane hits Galveston, Texas with winds at 135 miles per hour (217 km/h). 1916 – World War I: Romania signs a secret treaty with the Entente Powers. According to the treaty, Romania agreed to join the war on the Allied side. 1918 – Bolshevik revolutionary leader Moisei Uritsky is assassinated. 1942 – World War II: U.S. Marines raid the Japanese-held Pacific island of Makin. 1943 – World War II: The U.S. Eighth Air Force suffers the loss of 60 bombers on the Schweinfurt–Regensburg mission. 1943 – World War II: The U.S. Seventh Army under General George S. Patton arrives in Messina, Italy, followed several hours later by the British 8th Army under Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery, thus completing the Allied conquest of Sicily. 1943 – World War II: First Québec Conference of Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and William Lyon Mackenzie King begins. 1943 – World War II: The Royal Air Force begins Operation Hydra, the first air raid of the Operation Crossbow strategic bombing campaign against Germany's V-weapon program. 1945 – Sukarno and Mohammad Hatta proclaim the independence of Indonesia, igniting the Indonesian National Revolution against the Dutch Empire. 1945 – The novella Animal Farm by George Orwell is first published. 1945 – Evacuation of Manchukuo: At Talitzou by the Sino-Korean border, Puyi, then the Kangde Emperor of Manchukuo, formally renounces the imperial throne, dissolves the state, and cedes its territory to the Republic of China.

#Events

0 notes

iamsiddharthanilnair · 5 years ago

Text

Book Review | “Mutual Security: The Case of India-Nepal”, Sangeeta Thapliyal.

Sangeetha Thapliyal’s book, “Mutual Security”, examines the history of the India-Nepal relationship with an emphasis on the unique geopolitical qualities that Nepal, as a landlocked, small-state embodies. This history is explored through the issues of economic and security cooperation, and placed in the foreground of the internal and external political concerns of each nation. The book argues that Nepal, as a landlocked, small-state, situated between two of the world’s most populated countries – India and China – has made all the potential manoeuvres to raise its survivability; and that those manoeuvres belong in either the accommodation and alternative transit models typical of small-states.

The work begins with Nepal’s relationship with British India - the Anglo-Nepal War of 1814, the Treaty of Segouli in 1816, the Treaty of Peace & Friendship of 1923. Thapliyal notes that these events laid the foundation of Independent India’s disposition towards Nepal. The author argues that India’s approach to Nepal, as a “buffer state” or as a “state on its threshold”, was heavily influenced by British perceptions of territorial integrity in the era of Tsarist Russia and Imperial China. From here on, the work examines the ways in which the economic, cultural and military relations between India and Nepal have been tested, around and in between two critical junctures - 1962 and 1971.

Content

The text, a result of the author’s doctoral thesis, is also organised as one. The work contains maps, economic data and the treaties undertaken in the time period of interest. The chapters are short, with premises being offered and analysis running parallel to one another. Each chapter is limited to a certain time period, chronologically examining the geopolitical changes between the 1800-1980s, e.g. the democratic tussle inside Nepal, the issue of Gurkha recruitment for the Indian and British Armies, the changes in Chinese attitudes towards South Asia etc.

The key debate revolves around the politcal conflict between the monarchic, communist and democratic elements of Nepal’s domestic politics. These elements determined Nepal's sentiments towards India, China and the extra-regional states involved (the USSR, US, the UK); but they do not deviate far from the models set by the condition of ‘small-statehood’. The security concerns of a small-state, such as Nepal emanate from both, military and non-military threats, that require the state to adopt a fluid attitude. To quell threats, internal and external, political and militaristic, small-states at times engage in formal security arrangements with larger, regional powers. It is in this situation, that Nepal finds itself; anxious about its survivability given its economic and security dependence on India.

The debate on Gurkha recruitment is an incredibly strong lead to the Nepal-India-Britain relationship; a unique aspect of the text, it explains how after the war of 1814, the East India Company (and the Crown) realised that the Gurkhas, as a veritable fighting force, would serve best under the Company/Crown, in case they were employed by India or neighbouring powers against them. The recruitment of Gurkhas in Independent India, displays the consanguinity of the colonial British Raj.

Argument

The key determinants of the nature of India-Nepal relations, have been the internal political considerations of either country, and their external relationships with third-party countries, particularly China. Internal issues stem from the tussle between the Nepalese monarchy, the Communist Party and the National Congress; while the monarchy identities its own security as that of the state’s, the last two have unique ideological ties to China and India respectively. A combination of internal-external considerations then determine which of the aforementioned models - accommodation (working with multiple neighbours in a neutral manner) or transit (using multiple neighbours against one another in a neutral manner) – Nepal would employ to ensure its survival.

Contentious themes that coul be categorised as internal, deal with the domestic perceptions on the issue of Gurkha recruitment, the influence of Nepali nationalism, power conflict between the democratic, communist and monarchic political groups. External issues revolve around Nepal’s desire to initiate relations with extra-regional powers, disputes between India, China and Pakistan, trade, foreign aid and military-to-military relations.

Most important however, is that Thapliyal notes the significance of Nepal’s geographic location, and the international politics that follow from it. No matter the changes to internal or external axes, the geopolitical dimensions of the India-Nepal-China triangle remains constant, almost structural.

Premises

The issue of Gurkha recruitment finds its origins in the Anglo-Nepal war of 1814, when Sir David Ochterlony formed four irregular corps of Gurkha soldiers to serve in the British-Indian army. The practice continues even today as part of the Tripartite Agreement between Britain, India and Nepal; and as Thapliyal notes, it became a hammering board for nationalist sentiments in Nepal. The combination of Nepali nationalism and small-statehood found the Indian altitude towards Nepal, to be “big brotherly”. Indian security policies were viewed in Nepal with suspicion given the geopolitical differences between the two. The economic dependence also furthered Nepal’s desire to diversify its international relations. The nature of that diversification, Thapliyal argues, was dependent on the political balance in India and in Nepal. The communists, obviously, leaned towards China, while the National Congress had a relatively balanced approach to foreign policy (It is in the monarchy, that we see a greater use of structurally-determined models of foreign policy).

The author also uses the events of 1962, 1965 and 1971 as a test of Nepal’s foreign policy as a small state. In the 1950s under King Mahendra, Nepal began to court Chinese influence, particularly through development projects and arms purchases. The 1962 Sino-Indian war, also put a dent in India’s image as a regional power, leading to further intimacy with China. India’s victory in the 1971 war was critical in bringing back Nepali confidence, but India’s relationship with its own northeastern states also created certain misgivings in the same. Economic aid was a benchmark to measure Nepal’s attitude towards its neighbours; India’s competition in infrastructure and connectivity projects included China, USSR, the US and Japan.

The military-to-military relations between India and Nepal, through the Indian Military Training and Advisory Group (IMTAG) and Indian Military Liaison Group (IMLG) which helped in bringing about the modernisation of the Royal Nepal Army (RNA), were also a key factor in the India-Nepal relationship. Even though India’s dominance in the region waxed and waned through the years, convergent security perceptions ensured some level of conjugality between the neighbours. However, the author notes how Nepal uses its ability to maintain its neutrality towards its neighbours, either playing them off one another, or accommodating their individual ambitions.

Analysis & Conclusion

“Mutual Security” contends that Nepal’s failure to successfully develop its economic, political and cultural dimension had led to a certain state of flux, forcing it to feel insecure about its sovereignty and independence. The author claims that the Nepal’s perception of India is based on its [India’s] bureaucratic “carrot and stick” foreign policy; and this isn’t completely wrong given India’s security dominated approach to the small state. Nepal’s attempts at neutrality and diversification lead it to reach out to extra-regional powers, declare itself a “zone of peace”, adopt a non-alignment philosophy or Panchsheel, trade with China, enter into a security agreement with India and so on. These events not only fall into the models set out in the beginning of the work, but the nuances of Nepal’s strategic outlook are also clarified as the author engages in the political history.

Thapliyal has built a chronological work that is not only informative, but also theoretically sound. The theory that the unique geopolitical situation that Nepal and India find themselves in, coupled with Nepal’s characteristics as a small-state determine the relationship between the two, even with (and because of) the domestic political divergences, hold true in Thapliyal’s work.

The postscript is also welcome as it ties up the theory, where India and Nepal have begun to engage in greater cooperation - in trade, connectivity and security - particularly along the lines of the Treaty of “Peace and Friendship between the Government of India and the Government of Nepal” signed in 1950.

Written by Siddharth Anil Nair.

#India #Nepal #Geopolitics #Book-Reviews

0 notes