1)Indo-Nepal-China :-

  • Modern-day India and Nepal initiated their relationship with the 1950 Indo-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship and accompanying secret letters that defined security relations between the two countries, and an agreement governing both bilateral trade and trade transiting Indian territory.
  • Recently there has been a significant debate over the weakening Indo-Nepal relations and the spoilsports played by China.
  • Much of the editorials of India written on the particular theme – “Not to meddle in Nepal’s relation” .But , Journalists don’t run this country, the government does, so it is vital we should understand the mechanism behind it.

Principles of Geopolitics:-

  • Idealism takes a back seat and realism takes precedence  as long as geopolitics is concerned.We can’t preach universal brotherhood , when we can’t protect ourselves.Universal brotherhood can only be achieved , when we as a nation strong enough to thrash out any challenges to it.
  • Geopolitics is not fought on idealism, instead nationalism takes precedence. National interest and security are the two objectives of geopolitics.Nothing that the Govt. should do which may undermine these two.We have freedom in every form because our nation is secure.So debating national interest or security on the ground of  ideals such as non-interference , is going to serve no national interest.
  • When we live in a comity of nations , when one country’s action impairs our national interest , then there is bound to be interference.
  • Debating Geopolitics on the grounds of ethics or morality is again misguided. For eg- It is always immoral to kill another human being , but on a day to day basis our army prepared to do it as a job to keep the nation safe. Thus the ethics and morality of geopolitics throws a greater dilemma. But this dilemma can be addressed by a simple answer to the question – If the act carried out  has served the greatest number of people for greater good ? If yes, then idealism  takes a back seat.
  • Running a country as vast as India with its volatile neighborhood is a challenge that no other country of the world goes through. Thus far, the Govt. has done a great job in keeping this Nation together since independence, when everybody else predicted that the nation will fail owing to its diversity.Hence ingenuity of our leaders should be questioned when need be but unnecessary intellectualism through paper-bashing the Govt. for every action it takes is outright misguided.Nepal is one such case.
  • Geopolitics is a pure game of power and struggle. The word that one understands in geopolitics is strength.If a nation is not strong enough , then no one going to listen to it. It  is as simple as that.Hence India’s  deterrence capacity or the mission to mars – all these are display of strength.
  • Today , India tries to bargain from the position of strength not from weakness. And from this One can understand what is happening in Nepal.

The case of Nepal:-

  • Nepal , recently drafted a constitution , where the concerns of Madhesi people  was not addressed. Hence India has questioned the exclusivity of Nepal’s Constitution. The people largely inhabit the border region of Indo-Nepal.
  • Indian and Nepal has been good friends since time immemorial. Recently in Bhutan , there was smooth transition to democracy , because there is no meddling by China or any major communist propaganda.The case in Nepal is different , on many occasions , the Communist party has tried to evoke anti-India sentiments among Nepalese people.
  • Now the govt is run by the Communist party in Nepal, and of course , they draw their ideology from China. They see China as their natural ally, even though India has stood by Nepal in every-time it was in crisis.
  • India has never been a hegemonic power , neither it displays itself as such .However recent action of Nepal to cozy up to China is a serious concern for India. We already have the string of pearls encirclement of India in Indian ocean. Now interference in Nepal will lead to Northern encirclement of India.
  • What Nepal has long neglected is that – China is neither a true democracy nor a true well-wisher of Nepal. It has got a huge forex reserve and is throwing around dollars to buy some geopolitical power.
  • Moreover, in Asia , the only aggressor is China , its role South China sea is well-known. If Nepal cozy up with China , there can be only one outcome. Nepal will be another Tibet. It will be subdued by Force. And when it is done, Nepal can cry foul but no one will listen , simply because it has nothing to offer to the world ( No oil or gas or Technology). No Asian power will dare to challenge China in any case.
  • So if Nepalese PM speaks of Indian Hegemony , they have not seen of China, or at least they have been ignorant about it.

India’s Stance:-

  • India’s blockade is not official one. Instead as mentioned the border people are protesting due to the exclusivity of Nepalese constitution , hence it is more of a internal protest rather than a geopolitical sanction.
  • In any case, a peaceful Nepal is in India’s interest . As mentioned geopolitics is a pure game of power , and India has to go from strength to strength.No country should draw all the help from India and do the actions inimical to India’s interest, if it does so , it must not go scot-free.

Note:- The above analysis is completely of UPSCTREE. There are chances one might not agree with it , and for that we will be happy to entertain a debate on the issue. We are believers in debate, discussion and deliberation, and if you have any comments in this regard- kindly drop mail or comment on this. A healthy debate always broadens one’s perspective and we whole heartedly welcome it.



 

2)Swachh Delhi app :-

  • The Delhi Govt. has launched  Swachh Delhi App , where people can immediately take pictures of a garbage mound or heap and through this application it will be directly communicated to Delhi Municipal , which will help them to take real time action. This has been done  keeping the broader interest of Swachh Bharat Mission.
  • This kind of initiative should also be launched at a national level and state level , which can really help the municipal of the region to clean up the city in real time.


3) Justice T.S. Thakur has been appointed as the Chief Justice of India :-

  • Justice Thakur, who is the seniormost judge after the Chief Justice, will take over after Chief Justice retires on December 2, 2015. It is a convention that the present CJI recommends to the government the name of his successor. After the Law Ministry clears his name, the file would travel to the Prime Minister’s Office and finally reach the President. His Warrant of Appointment would be issued after the President gives his approval.
  • Article 124 of the Constitution of India provides for the manner of appointing judges to the Supreme Court. Though no specific provision exists in the Constitution for appointing the Chief Justice, who, as a result, is appointed like the other judges, conventionally, the outgoing CJI recommends the name of the senior-most judge (i.e. by date of appointment to the Supreme Court) for appointment by the President, as his successor.However, this convention has been breached on a number of occasions, most notably during the premiership of Indira Gandhi, who appointed A.N. Ray superseding three judges senior to him allegedly because he supported Gandhi’s government, during the Emergency, a time when her government was becoming increasingly mired in a political and constitutional crisis


4)National Resource Facility for Bio-medical Research (NARF) :-

  • Cabinet approved the proposal of the Department of Health Research in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare for setting up of a National Resource Facility for Bio-medical Research (NARF) at Genome Valley in Hyderabad by the Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR)
  • The institution will be the first of its kind for quality laboratory animals for basic and applied biomedical research in the country.
  • It will be developed as a world-class facility for breeding and housing of animals such as primates, cabines and other specialized models such as transgenic and knockout rodents required for testing of various R&D products. The facility will create, develop and provide access to a range of laboratory animals and related technological resources for advancement of biomedical research in the country, mainly to facilitate research in medical colleges, research and academic institutions, universities and Biotech/Bio-pharma companies


5)IFSO- In-Flight Security officers :-

  • The Union Cabinet chaired by the Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi, gave its ex-post facto approval to the signing of Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Ministry of the Interior Germany and the Ministry of Civil Aviation of India for carriage of In-flight Security Officers (IFCOs) on board the flight.
  • What is important is that , IFSO should be availed in all the flights . This can help fight any hijackers on board and can act as the security of last resort.


6)UN confers Shri Kiren Rijiju with Disaster Risk Reduction Asia Champion honour :-

Union Minister of State for Home Affairs, Shri Kiren Rijiju, has been designated as the Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) Champion for the Asia Region by the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR).

  • Shri Rijiju is the first regional champion for DRR after the Sendai Agreement. He is also the first Indian to be conferred with this honour.

Sendai Framework:-

  • The “Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030” was adopted during the Third UN World Conference on Disaster Risk Reduction held in Sendai, Japan in  2015.
  • It has seven targets and four priorities for action. It has a 15 yr framework.
  •  It is a voluntary and non-binding agreement which recognizes that the State has the primary role to reduce disaster risk but that responsibility should be shared with other stakeholders including local government, the private sector and other stakeholders.
  • It succeeds Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) 2005-2015 .
  • The implementation of the Sendai Framework involves adopting integrated and inclusive institutional measures so as to work towards preventing vulnerability to disaster, increase preparedness for response and recovery and strengthen resilience.

7 Targets:-

  1. Substantially reduce global disaster mortality by 2030, aiming to lower average per 100,000 global mortality rate in the decade 2020-2030 compared to the period 2005-2015.
  2. Substantially reduce the number of affected people globally by 2030, aiming to lower average global figure per 100,000 in the decade 2020 -2030 compared to the period 2005-2015.
  3. Reduce direct disaster economic loss in relation to global gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030.
  4. Substantially reduce disaster damage to critical infrastructure and disruption of basic services, among them health and educational facilities, including through developing their resilience by 2030.
  5. Substantially increase the number of countries with national and local disaster risk reduction strategies by 2020.
  6. Substantially enhance international cooperation to developing countries through adequate and sustainable support to complement their national actions for implementation of this Framework by 2030.
  7. Substantially increase the availability of and access to multi-hazard early warning systems and disaster risk information and assessments to the people by 2030.

4 Priorities for Action :-

  1. Understanding disaster risk
  2. Strengthening disaster risk governance to manage disaster risk
  3. Investing in disaster risk reduction for resilience
  4. Enhancing disaster preparedness for effective response and to “Build Back Better” in recovery, rehabilitation and reconstruction


PDF Download

 

 

 

Share is Caring, Choose Your Platform!

Recent Posts


  • The United Nations has shaped so much of global co-operation and regulation that we wouldn’t recognise our world today without the UN’s pervasive role in it. So many small details of our lives – such as postage and copyright laws – are subject to international co-operation nurtured by the UN.

    In its 75th year, however, the UN is in a difficult moment as the world faces climate crisis, a global pandemic, great power competition, trade wars, economic depression and a wider breakdown in international co-operation.

    Flags outside the UN building in Manhattan, New York.

    Still, the UN has faced tough times before – over many decades during the Cold War, the Security Council was crippled by deep tensions between the US and the Soviet Union. The UN is not as sidelined or divided today as it was then. However, as the relationship between China and the US sours, the achievements of global co-operation are being eroded.

    The way in which people speak about the UN often implies a level of coherence and bureaucratic independence that the UN rarely possesses. A failure of the UN is normally better understood as a failure of international co-operation.

    We see this recently in the UN’s inability to deal with crises from the ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, to civil conflict in Syria, and the failure of the Security Council to adopt a COVID-19 resolution calling for ceasefires in conflict zones and a co-operative international response to the pandemic.

    The UN administration is not primarily to blame for these failures; rather, the problem is the great powers – in the case of COVID-19, China and the US – refusing to co-operate.

    Where states fail to agree, the UN is powerless to act.

    Marking the 75th anniversary of the official formation of the UN, when 50 founding nations signed the UN Charter on June 26, 1945, we look at some of its key triumphs and resounding failures.


    Five successes

    1. Peacekeeping

    The United Nations was created with the goal of being a collective security organisation. The UN Charter establishes that the use of force is only lawful either in self-defence or if authorised by the UN Security Council. The Security Council’s five permanent members, being China, US, UK, Russia and France, can veto any such resolution.

    The UN’s consistent role in seeking to manage conflict is one of its greatest successes.

    A key component of this role is peacekeeping. The UN under its second secretary-general, the Swedish statesman Dag Hammarskjöld – who was posthumously awarded the Nobel Peace prize after he died in a suspicious plane crash – created the concept of peacekeeping. Hammarskjöld was responding to the 1956 Suez Crisis, in which the US opposed the invasion of Egypt by its allies Israel, France and the UK.

    UN peacekeeping missions involve the use of impartial and armed UN forces, drawn from member states, to stabilise fragile situations. “The essence of peacekeeping is the use of soldiers as a catalyst for peace rather than as the instruments of war,” said then UN Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, when the forces won the 1988 Nobel Peace Prize following missions in conflict zones in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Central America and Europe.

    However, peacekeeping also counts among the UN’s major failures.

    2. Law of the Sea

    Negotiated between 1973 and 1982, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) set up the current international law of the seas. It defines states’ rights and creates concepts such as exclusive economic zones, as well as procedures for the settling of disputes, new arrangements for governing deep sea bed mining, and importantly, new provisions for the protection of marine resources and ocean conservation.

    Mostly, countries have abided by the convention. There are various disputes that China has over the East and South China Seas which present a conflict between power and law, in that although UNCLOS creates mechanisms for resolving disputes, a powerful state isn’t necessarily going to submit to those mechanisms.

    Secondly, on the conservation front, although UNCLOS is a huge step forward, it has failed to adequately protect oceans that are outside any state’s control. Ocean ecosystems have been dramatically transformed through overfishing. This is an ecological catastrophe that UNCLOS has slowed, but failed to address comprehensively.

    3. Decolonisation

    The idea of racial equality and of a people’s right to self-determination was discussed in the wake of World War I and rejected. After World War II, however, those principles were endorsed within the UN system, and the Trusteeship Council, which monitored the process of decolonisation, was one of the initial bodies of the UN.

    Although many national independence movements only won liberation through bloody conflicts, the UN has overseen a process of decolonisation that has transformed international politics. In 1945, around one third of the world’s population lived under colonial rule. Today, there are less than 2 million people living in colonies.

    When it comes to the world’s First Nations, however, the UN generally has done little to address their concerns, aside from the non-binding UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples of 2007.

    4. Human rights

    The Human Rights Declaration of 1948 for the first time set out fundamental human rights to be universally protected, recognising that the “inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world”.

    Since 1948, 10 human rights treaties have been adopted – including conventions on the rights of children and migrant workers, and against torture and discrimination based on gender and race – each monitored by its own committee of independent experts.

    The language of human rights has created a new framework for thinking about the relationship between the individual, the state and the international system. Although some people would prefer that political movements focus on ‘liberation’ rather than ‘rights’, the idea of human rights has made the individual person a focus of national and international attention.

    5. Free trade

    Depending on your politics, you might view the World Trade Organisation as a huge success, or a huge failure.

    The WTO creates a near-binding system of international trade law with a clear and efficient dispute resolution process.

    The majority Australian consensus is that the WTO is a success because it has been good for Australian famers especially, through its winding back of subsidies and tariffs.

    However, the WTO enabled an era of globalisation which is now politically controversial.

    Recently, the US has sought to disrupt the system. In addition to the trade war with China, the Trump Administration has also refused to appoint tribunal members to the WTO’s Appellate Body, so it has crippled the dispute resolution process. Of course, the Trump Administration is not the first to take issue with China’s trade strategies, which include subsidises for ‘State Owned Enterprises’ and demands that foreign firms transfer intellectual property in exchange for market access.

    The existence of the UN has created a forum where nations can discuss new problems, and climate change is one of them. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up in 1988 to assess climate science and provide policymakers with assessments and options. In 1992, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change created a permanent forum for negotiations.

    However, despite an international scientific body in the IPCC, and 165 signatory nations to the climate treaty, global greenhouse gas emissions have continued to increase.

    Under the Paris Agreement, even if every country meets its greenhouse gas emission targets we are still on track for ‘dangerous warming’. Yet, no major country is even on track to meet its targets; while emissions will probably decline this year as a result of COVID-19, atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will still increase.

    This illustrates a core conundrum of the UN in that it opens the possibility of global cooperation, but is unable to constrain states from pursuing their narrowly conceived self-interests. Deep co-operation remains challenging.

    Five failures of the UN

    1. Peacekeeping

    During the Bosnian War, Dutch peacekeeping forces stationed in the town of Srebrenica, declared a ‘safe area’ by the UN in 1993, failed in 1995 to stop the massacre of more than 8000 Muslim men and boys by Bosnian Serb forces. This is one of the most widely discussed examples of the failures of international peacekeeping operations.

    On the massacre’s 10th anniversary, then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan wrote that the UN had “made serious errors of judgement, rooted in a philosophy of impartiality”, contributing to a mass murder that would “haunt our history forever”.

    If you look at some of the other infamous failures of peacekeeping missions – in places such as Rwanda, Somalia and Angola – ­it is the limited powers given to peacekeeping operations that have resulted in those failures.

    2. The invasion of Iraq

    The invasion of Iraq by the US in 2003, which was unlawful and without Security Council authorisation, reflects the fact that the UN is has very limited capacity to constrain the actions of great powers.

    The Security Council designers created the veto power so that any of the five permanent members could reject a Council resolution, so in that way it is programmed to fail when a great power really wants to do something that the international community generally condemns.

    In the case of the Iraq invasion, the US didn’t veto a resolution, but rather sought authorisation that it did not get. The UN, if you go by the idea of collective security, should have responded by defending Iraq against this unlawful use of force.

    The invasion proved a humanitarian disaster with the loss of more than 400,000 lives, and many believe that it led to the emergence of the terrorist Islamic State.

    3. Refugee crises

    The UN brokered the 1951 Refugee Convention to address the plight of people displaced in Europe due to World War II; years later, the 1967 Protocol removed time and geographical restrictions so that the Convention can now apply universally (although many countries in Asia have refused to sign it, owing in part to its Eurocentric origins).

    Despite these treaties, and the work of the UN High Commission for Refugees, there is somewhere between 30 and 40 million refugees, many of them, such as many Palestinians, living for decades outside their homelands. This is in addition to more than 40 million people displaced within their own countries.

    While for a long time refugee numbers were reducing, in recent years, particularly driven by the Syrian conflict, there have been increases in the number of people being displaced.

    During the COVID-19 crisis, boatloads of Rohingya refugees were turned away by port after port.  This tragedy has echoes of pre-World War II when ships of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany were refused entry by multiple countries.

    And as a catastrophe of a different kind looms, there is no international framework in place for responding to people who will be displaced by rising seas and other effects of climate change.

    4. Conflicts without end

    Across the world, there is a shopping list of unresolved civil conflicts and disputed territories.

    Palestine and Kashmir are two of the longest-running failures of the UN to resolve disputed lands. More recent, ongoing conflicts include the civil wars in Syria and Yemen.

    The common denominator of unresolved conflicts is either division among the great powers, or a lack of international interest due to the geopolitical stakes not being sufficiently high.  For instance, the inaction during the Rwandan civil war in the 1990s was not due to a division among great powers, but rather a lack of political will to engage.

    In Syria, by contrast, Russia and the US have opposing interests and back opposing sides: Russia backs the government of the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, whereas the US does not.

    5. Acting like it’s 1945

    The UN is increasingly out of step with the reality of geopolitics today.

    The permanent members of the Security Council reflect the division of power internationally at the end of World War II. The continuing exclusion of Germany, Japan, and rising powers such as India and Indonesia, reflects the failure to reflect the changing balance of power.

    Also, bodies such as the IMF and the World Bank, which are part of the UN system, continue to be dominated by the West. In response, China has created potential rival institutions such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

    Western domination of UN institutions undermines their credibility. However, a more fundamental problem is that institutions designed in 1945 are a poor fit with the systemic global challenges – of which climate change is foremost –  that we face today.