Background :-
The recent diplomatic engagements that played over a month upto the Seoul Plenary session of NSG and the subsequent developments has been at the center stage of Indian media.The consequence of India not getting a membership of NSG has been disappointing.However , while many have lauded the diplomatic pursuations few have criticized it on the basis of outcome. In this regard, here is our analysis of the issue :-
India has already got NSG waiver , so should we worry about membership ?
Ans– In this regard, there was an article that reads “India’s obsession with NSG” , although we have not gone through the entire article , it is quite indicative of its stance from the heading itself.The question is should India be obsessed with NSG ?
To answer the above question , we have been deliberating why and why not , however one of our UPSCTREE core member pointed out a very good arguments in this regard:-
“It is always better to be inside the room that takes decisions and makes policies than to be an outside of its door , waiting for the outcome”
So , in this ground , it is always better to be on the decision making table , becasue that changes the whole game altogether and most importantly , one will have a say in the decision making process – which is as important as the outcome of the decision itself.
In a nutshell, yes, India should put its all weight to get things done diplomatically and more so to get NSG membership.
The next question is the way the diplomatic engagement was launched and the way media played it out as if it is a do or die situation.
Ans :- In this regard, we firmly believe that every action that one pursues should be a do or die situation.Because there should not be regret afterwards that we have not done enough.That’s a regret one can not afford- whether preparing for an exam or getting a membership.
In this context , India did manage to punch above its weight , the outcome are indicative of it.
What are the lessons from the outcome ?
Here is the list :-
- India managed diplomatically pursue the matter and made enough noise about it, which is good.Noises are good in geopolitik , becasue right noise builds right perception and India’s geopolitics profile has only increased after this.
- The outcome clearly indicated who are our friends and who are our foes- pretty clearly.Which is good , becasue , then one knows who the foes are and how to fight it- you can not win a fight if you don’t know the opponent.We now know who is who and policy can be calibrated accordingly.
- The fact that all the major countries – 38 out of 48 out-rightly supported India , where as 9 remained neutral and one played the spoil-sport indicates India’s international importance.
- Moreover , nothing is stronger than an Idea whose time has come .India’s time has come , and it is just a matter of time.
- If one delves in to the philosophical angel of this question, Indian philosophy gives importance to work than outcome.Work is in our control , not the results- so working hard is not a bad thing.Means are as important as ends ,in diplomacy one should not only be judged by outcome but also by the means.
- Disappointment on the outcome is fine , but to be disheartened due to the outcome is neither necessary nor required.Diplomacy is a subtle art , everyone will pay their debt and everyone will get their credit – history stands testament to it.
- To blame the diplomats for putting all the effort is a no-brainer.The outcome is not the result of this particular endeavor, it has it’s past too.History clouds the judgements and has its way to influence geopolitics.Why China did what it did becomes obvious if we look at our past clearly.The efforts are new but the outcome is old.
Interestingly, the MEA has put a public statement saying that it will be difficult for India to implement Paris climate agreement as it hits NSG roadbloack.
Here is an article that explains rather clearly why China did what it did ?We are publishing it as is-
Editorial :-
If reports emanating from Seoul, where NSG plenary session was held on June23-24, are to be believed, India’s request for membership was turned down despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of 38 out of 48 member countries favoured India’s inclusion into the group. Nine other members were not against India’s inclusion but they wanted clear-cut criteria to be put in place simultaneously for inclusion of non-NPT signatories like New Delhi.
However, there was one country which was dead against India’s inclusion and it was none other than China, India’s arch-rival in Asia as well as one of the two neighbours with whom India had fought an overt and full-fledged war in the past.
Despite the strenuous efforts of Ministry of External Affairs and its diplomats, China refused to budge an inch from its stand. In fact, it was not even ready to discuss India’s case in Seoul. Facing tremendous pressure from other member states, it agreed for a discussion reportedly on the condition that India will not be granted membership, at least in this session.
Even the much-touted ‘personal touch’ diplomacy of Prime Minister Narendra Modi , who met Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) on June 23 and pleaded for Chinese support, failed to work or break the ice.
Not only that, Chinese even refused to pay any heed to the sane advices that came from common friends like Russia and France. The US also tried its best to persuade China, although not at the same level they had worked phones in 2008 to ensure one time waiver for US-India civil nuclear deal, but to no avail.
Since NSG as a group takes all decisions through consensus, China’s strident anti-India posture ensured that New Delhi was denied entry into NSG, at least for the time being. China, obviously, played the spoilsport for India.
In international diplomacy, these things are neither unusual nor unheard of. It is only natural that a big group rather a cartel like 48-member NSG will take its own time before it arrives at a consensus on an issue which generates diverse viewpoints and opinions.
However, what has baffled observers is the obduracy with which China publicly took an anti-India stand this time. It’s a fact that even in 2008, China was not in favour of the India-specific favour but it had preferred not to go public with its opposition. At that time, Chinese relented after the then US President George Bush personally called up the then Chinese President Hu Jintao.
In fact, NSG is not the first instance in the recent times when China has taken an anti-India position.
On April 1, 2016, it had blocked an UN Security Council move to blacklist Jaish-e-Mohammad chief Masood Azhar who India has accused of masterminding the Pathankot airbase attack.
What has changed since 2008 that has forced China to take an unambiguous anti-India stand on international forums like NSG and UNSC?
In fact, there are a host of issues and developments that has made China wary of India’s rising international profile.
In Seoul, China objected to India’s NSG entry on the ground that New Delhi is yet to sign the NPT but in reality, the NPT was just a fig leaf that Beijing used to thwart India’s candidature.
Despite being a NPT signatory, China’s own record on proliferation – from Pakistan, North Korea and Iran – is pathetic.
The actual reasons behind China’s anti-India hostilities go beyond NPT. In fact, they have nothing to do with NPT.
Let’s have a look at some of these factors:
1. China’s growing unease over deepening Indo-US military ties
It’s an open secret that China has always been suspicious of deepening military ties between India and the United States.
China believes that through these military tie-ups, United States is trying to prop up India as Beijing’s counterweight in Asia-pacific reason.
China did not hide its concern over the recent Indo-US logistics exchange agreement under which militaries of India and the US can use each other’s assets and bases.
US willingness to sell India cutting-edge military hardware including local manufacturing of F-16 fighter jets has further added to the Chinese fears.
The recent statement of an US official that Washington will do everything to boost India’s naval power has been seen by China as yet another American attempt to undermine and challenge its strategic interests in Indian ocean region.
China knows that it can’t stop two sovereign nations from engaging into military cooperation but its frustration over its helplessness is now getting manifested in its increasingly anti-India posturing on international platforms.
2. Beijing’s fears on Indo-US interference in South China sea dispute
China’s construction of artificial islands in the Spratly Islands have been objected to by many countries. In fact, China has faced resistance on this issue from time to time by many countries including Brunei, Malaysia, Philippines, Vietnam and Indonesia.
The dispute also involves clash of interest between different nations on issues like acquiring fishing areas, the potential exploitation of crude oil and natural gas under the waters of various parts of the South China Sea, and the strategic control of important shipping lanes.
The United States has openly opposed the Chinese move and India has also started calling for restraint and peaceful resolution of the dispute.
The two countries have started mentioning South China Sea in joint statements recently although during last US visit of Modi, the two sides deliberately omitted the topic given the fact that India was hopeful of Chinese support on NSG issue.
China sees a design in India and US taking a similar line on South China Sea dispute and considers it a ploy to curtail its influence in the region
3. China alarmed over India’s military ties with its adversaries like Japan and Vietnam
The recent reports of India trying to sell supersonic BrahMos missile to Vietnam has also alarmed China. Some media reports have also pointed out that Vietnam has expressed keen interest in Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) Tejas as well.
The growing military ties between India and Japan have further annoyed china. Much to China’s discomfort, India, Japan and US are regularly holding naval exercise, Malabar 2016 being the latest one.
Obviously, China is not taking these military moves kindly.
4. Not ready to welcome New Delhi on big table and de-hyphenate India and Pakistan
China does not want India to emerge as a rival power in Asia and as part of the strategy, it wants India to remain bogged down with Pakistan.
That’s one reason why China encouraged Pakistan to apply for NSG membership just after a week India moved its application.
China knows that as long as India is forced to compete with Pakistan on international platforms, it can’t acquire the respect to claim a seat on the table meant for big powers.
5. Chinese concern over aggressive diplomacy of PM Modi in neighbourhood
China is also looking with suspicion at the aggressive diplomatic posturing of PM Modi.
The recent Chabahar port agreement between India and Iran has also ruffled the Chinese feathers.
Chinese believe that Indian presence in the neighbourhood of Gwadar port (that it is developing in Pakistan) may also give a foothold to Americans as the two countries now share a logistics exchange agreement.
PM Modi’s outreach to countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE, Iran, Qatar and Afghanistan has further raised the eyebrows of the Chinese. It is concerned over the impact of India’s new aggressive diplomacy over its client state Pakistan.
Should India retaliate against China?
India’s attempt to get entry into NSG may have failed this time but this is not end of the road for New Delhi.
As the Americans have pointed out, the process has begun and India may get the membership by end of this year. The American official pointed out that even in the case of India’s MTCR (Missile Technology Control Regime) application, the members deliberated upon it for nearly a year and then arrived at a conclusion.
There have been suggestions that India should curtail trade opportunities for Chinese as a retaliatory measure but there is no unanimity among experts on that.
“This will be very immature. In international diplomacy, ups and downs are part and parcel of the game. Even Chinese have faced similar situations. There is no need for any knee-jerk reactions,” former diplomat TCA Rangachari pointed out.
Ambassador Rangachari is not the only one who advises against any knee-jerk reaction from India. Former diplomat Kishan S. Rana agrees with him.
“ It’s true that China is opposing India’s NSG bid and wants to support Pakistan on this issue. But we have to take every call with a cool mind,” Ambassador Kishan S. Rana said.
On their part, both India and China look to keep each other engaged both bilaterally as well as on multilateral platforms.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be travelling to Hangchou in September to attend G20 summit while Chinese President Xi Jinping is coming to India in October to attend BRICS summit.
That India will be finally included in the NSG club is almost certain but whether Chinese will fall in line easily or will delay India’s entry for a longer duration remains to be seen.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
- Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest Finance (LEAF) Coalition, a collective of the United States, United Kingdom and Norway governments, came up with a $1 billion fund.
- LEAF is supported by transnational corporations (TNCs) like Unilever plc, Amazon.com, Inc, Nestle, Airbnb, Inc as well as Emergent, a US-based non-profit.
- The world lost more than 10 million hectares of primary tropical forest cover last year, an area roughly the size of Switzerland.
- Ending tropical and subtropical forest loss by 2030 is a crucial part of meeting global climate, biodiversity and sustainable development goals. Protecting tropical forests offers one of the biggest opportunities for climate action in the coming decade.
- Tropical forests are massive carbon sinks and by investing in their protection, public and private players are likely to stock up on their carbon credits.
- The LEAF coalition initiative is a step towards concretising the aims and objectives of the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) mechanism.
- REDD+ was created by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It monetised the value of carbon locked up in the tropical forests of most developing countries, thereby propelling these countries to help mitigate climate change.
- It is a unique initiative as it seeks to help developing countries in battling the double-edged sword of development versus ecological commitment.
- The initiative comes at a crucial time. The tropics have lost close to 12.2 million hectares (mha) of tree cover last year according to global estimates released by Global Forest Watch.
- Of this, a loss of 4.2 mha occurred within humid tropical primary forests alone. It should come as no surprise that most of these lost forests were located in the developing countries of Latin America, Africa and South Asia.
- Brazil has fared dismally on the parameter of ‘annual primary forest loss’ among all countries. It has lost 1.7 mha of primary forests that are rich storehouse of carbon. India’s estimated loss in 2020 stands at 20.8 kilo hectares.
- Between 2002-2020, Brazil’s total area of humid primary forest reduced by 7.7 per cent while India’s reduced by 3.4 per cent.
- Although the loss in India is not as drastic as in Brazil, its position is nevertheless precarious. For India, this loss is equivalent to 951 metric tonnes worth carbon dioxide emissions released in the atmosphere.
- It is important to draw comparisons between Brazil and India as both countries have adopted a rather lackadaisical attitude towards deforestation-induced climate change. The Brazilian government hardly did anything to control the massive fires that gutted the Amazon rainforest in 2019.
- It is mostly around May that forest fires peak in India. However, this year India, witnessed massive forest fires in early March in states like Odisha, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh and Mizoram among others.
- The European Union’s Copernicus Atmospheric Monitoring Service claimed that 0.2 metric tonnes of carbon was emitted in the Uttarakhand forest fires.
- Implementation of the LEAF Coalition plan will help pump in fresh rigour among developing countries like India, that are reluctant to recognise the contributions of their forest dwelling populations in mitigating climate change.
- With the deadline for proposal submission fast approaching, India needs to act swiftly on a revised strategy.
- Although India has pledged to carry out its REDD+ commitments, it is impossible to do so without seeking knowledge from its forest dwelling population.
Context:-
At the recently concluded Leaders’ Summit on Climate in April 2021, Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest Finance (LEAF) Coalition, a collective of the United States, United Kingdom and Norway governments, came up with a $1 billion fund plan that shall be offered to countries committed to arrest the decline of their tropical forests by 2030.
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]What is LEAF Coalition?
Why LEAF Coalition?
Brazil & India
According to the UN-REDD programme, after the energy sector, deforestation accounts for massive carbon emissions — close to 11 per cent — in the atmosphere. Rapid urbanisation and commercialisation of forest produce are the main causes behind rampant deforestation across tropical forests.
Tribes, Forests and Government
Disregarding climate change as a valid excuse for the fires, Indian government officials were quick to lay the blame for deforestation on activities of forest dwellers and even labelled them “mischievous elements” and “unwanted elements”.
Policy makers around the world have emphasised the role of indigenous tribes and local communities in checking deforestation. These communities depend on forests for their survival as well as livelihood. Hence, they understand the need to protect forests. However, by posing legitimate environmental concerns as obstacles to real development, governments of developing countries swiftly avoid protection of forests and rights of forest dwellers.
For instance, the Government of India has not been forthcoming in recognising the socio-economic, civil, political or even cultural rights of forest dwellers. According to data from the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs in December, 2020 over 55 per cent of this population has still not been granted either individual or community ownership of their lands.
To make matters worse, the government has undertaken systematic and sustained measures to render the landmark Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 ineffective in its implementation. The Act had sought to legitimise claims of forest dwellers on occupied forest land.
Various government decisions have seriously undermined the position of indigenous people within India. These include proposing amendments to the obsolete Indian Forest Act, 1927 that give forest officials the power to take away forest dwellers’ rights and to even use firearms with impunity.
There is also the Supreme Court’s order of February, 2019 directing state governments to evict illegal encroachers of forest land or millions of forest dwellers inhabiting forests since generations as a measure to conserve wildlife. Finally, there is the lack of data on novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) deaths among the forest dwelling population;
Tardy administration, insufficient supervision, apathetic attitude and a lack of political intent defeat the cause of forest dwelling populations in India, thereby directly affecting efforts at arresting deforestation.
Way Forward
Tuntiak Katan, a global indigenous leader from Ecuador and general coordinator of the Global Alliance of Territorial Communities, aptly indicated the next steps at the Climate Summit:
“The first step is recognition of land rights. The second step is the recognition of the contributions of local communities and indigenous communities, meaning the contributions of indigenous peoples.We also need recognition of traditional knowledge practices in order to fight climate change”
Perhaps India can begin by taking the first step.