|
|
|
|
|
|
Round the States
Chile’s President in India: MODI’S OUTREACH TO LA, By Dr. D.K. Giri, 5 April 2025 |
|
|
Round The World
New
Delhi, 5 April 2025
Chile’s
President in India
Modi’s
Outreach to LA
By Dr. D.K. Giri
(Prof. NIIS Group of
Institutions, Odisha)
The
practice in the media and political circles is creating a buzz and excitement
when leaders of big powers visit India. Leaders from United States, Japan,
European Union, China and Russia draw a good deal of public attention. The
proposed visit of Russian President Putin is already featuring in several
media. Prime Minister Modi seems to be departing from that trend and is
inviting leaders of countries having small and medium power. Last year when he
met the new President of Chile Gabriel Boric Font on the sidelines of G-20
meeting in Brazil, he invited the latter to visit India. In response, Chilean
President made his first official visit to India from 1 to 5 April.
The
visit of Gabriel Font is significant on more than one account. He is a new
generation politician in Chile who moved from student politics to the highest
office of President of the country. He promised to break the mould in Chilean
politics. In her banquet welcome, Hon’ble President of India underlined this
aspect. Second, Gabriel Font’s visit corresponds well to Modi’s scheme of
consolidating the Global South. Prime Minister Modi singled out Chile in his
appreciation for its participation in all the three editions of the Voice of
Global South summits. Third, Chile was the only Latin American country which
sent an envoy to the celebration of Independence of India in 1947. Fourth,
Chile was one of the first Latin American countries to sign a trade agreement
with India in 1956.
Unarguably,
it is in the national interest of India, and the strategic ambition of becoming
the Voice of the Global South, India’s foreign policy should continue to engage
with all the countries of Global South, big or small. President of Chile
acknowledged this special trait of Modi while endorsing his new image
effusively, “Prime Minister Modi is now a key player in the current geo-political
environment. He is the only leader in the world today, who can speak to Donald
Trump of USA, the Presidents of both- Ukraine and Russia – Zelenskyy and Putin
respectively – European Union, Latin American leaders, and Iran and Greece”. Irrespective of the diplomatic nicety, this
is a strong statement in favour of Modi’s geo-political acumen.
India-Chile
diplomatic relations go back to 76 years beginning in 1949. There has been a fair
convergence of positions in international relations between both countries.
They have had moderate bilateral relations ever since 1949. The major component
has been trade. A framework agreement for bilateral trade was initiated in 2005.
It was meant to promote widespread economic cooperation between both countries
which was envisaged as a prelude to a Preferential Trade Agreement (PTA). A
year later, PTA was signed between both countries in March 2006, which became
operational in September 2007.
Under
the PTA, a Joint Administrative Committee (JAC) was constituted continually to
review the functioning of PTA, and to recommend its expansion. In 2016, both
countries signed a new India-Chile Preferential Trade Agreement marking a
ten-fold jump in the number of products to be traded on concessional rates.
India’s bilateral trade with Chile stood at 2.6b USD in that year. Now, both
President Font and Prime Minister Modi agreed to initiate discussion on a
Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement.
During
this visit, the whole gamut of bilateral relations was reviewed and many new
initiatives were taken. The Chilean President was accompanied with a big
delegation from diverse sectors to cover the entirety of bilateral relations. The
delegation included ministers, academics, administrators, entrepreneurs,
cultural actors, defence personnel et al. In fact, Prime Minister Modi had a
special mention on the size and diversity of the delegation.
One
important development which concerns many Indians is about the visa. Chilean
President announced multiple entry visas to Indian business persons. The Indian
Diaspora is quite small in Chile compared to other countries; it has just over
thousand members. India had already extended the e-visa facility to Chile. Like
in any bilateral relations, people-to-people contact was given priority.
Exchange of students, faculty and cultural programmes was also discussed.
Notably, an ICCR (Indian Council for Cultural Relations), chair on Indian
Studies has been decided to set up in any of the Chilean universities.
Trading
on minerals from both countries figured in a big way. This was necessary to
boost the industries in both countries. A MoU on traditional medicines was
signed between both countries. India has rich tradition and practice of
traditional medicines along with Yoga and natural wellness. Chile invited
Indian attention to building infrastructure like railways, and support in
defence preparedness. India reciprocated by offering to train Chile’s defence
personnel in its premier institutes like NDC, NDA and HDMC.
Terrorism
was another topic which was seriously discussed. New Delhi has been flagging
off international terrorism in bilateral as well as multilateral forums. Both
leaderships discussed the functioning of FATF (Financial Action Task Force) and
NMFT (No Money for Terrorism). Both leaders agreed to work for a comprehensive
cooperation in international terrorism.
Cross-border terrorism has been a menace for any country in the world.
President
Gabriel Font appreciated India’s initiative in setting up the International
Solar Alliance (ISA). India took the leadership along with France to set up
this renewable energy association. India was the first country to become the
international convener of ISA. Prime Minister Modi appreciated Chile joining
ISA since November 2023. He also thanked President Font for agreeing to host
the 7th ISA Regional
Committee meeting for Latin American and Caribbean countries. At the same time,
Prime Minister Modi thanked Chile for joining the Coalition for Disaster
Resilient Infrastructure (CDRI) since January 2021. This is critically
important coalition given the recurrence of natural disasters. The latest is the
horrible earthquake in Myanmar and Thailand.
New
Delhi offered to help Chile in building its digital public infrastructure.
India is leading in building digital platforms. Even at a small tea stall or
fruit vendor, one can pay digitally. This has been appreciated across the
world. Chile will do well to invite Indian technology and the know-how to
enhance the digital sector. The other area of interest is the pharma industry.
The President invited Indian pharma manufacturers to trade in his country.
At
the time of writing, HE Gabriel Font was to visit Agra, Mumbai and Bangaluru in
order to meet companies, local politicians and others interested in doing
business with Chile. The main contours of upgrading the bilateral relations
were discussed in Delhi with Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues. The
state visits to Maharashtra and Karnataka are supposed to supplement the initiatives
taken at Delhi.
All
in all, it should be a good visit by the President of Chile which would lead to
deepening of relations. Focussing on spreading Spanish language would perhaps
accelerate the people-to-people contact which is the key to good bilateralism. Good
luck President of Chile.---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
Ganga Valley Sees Oil Boom: GAME CHANGER IN ENERGY SECTOR?, By Shivaji Sarkar, 31 March 2025 |
|
|
Economic Highlights
New Delhi, 31
March 2025
Ganga
Valley Sees Oil Boom
GAME CHANGER IN ENERGY SECTOR?
By Shivaji Sarkar
India, heavily
reliant on imports for 87 percent of its oil needs, is now eyeing a potential
energy revolution in its underexplored eastern basins. South Bengal, Bihar, and
Eastern Uttar Pradesh are emerging as key oil hotspots, with untapped reserves
that could reshape the region’s economy. The Oil and natural Gas Corporation (ONGC)’s
exploration in Ballia and Samastipur spans 308 sq km, holding the promise of
transforming some of India's most impoverished areas.
The new oil and gas
exploration in Bihar’sSamastipur and UP’s Ballia holds the potential to reshape
India’s energy landscape. However, challenges in land acquisition remain,
necessitating strong local support for seamless drilling operations. A
commercial discovery here could unlock the entire Ganga Basin, spanning Bihar,
Uttar Pradesh, and West Bengal, for further oil exploration.
Initial investments
in the two explorations are likely to be about Rs 125 crore – Rs 85 crore for
Ballia and Rs 35 crore for Samastipur.Explorations are on in Punjab-Haryana
Ganga basin too. The study is being conducted in - Machhiwara, Samrala,
Ludhiana East tehsils, Nawanshahr, Jalandhar, Gurdaspur, and Amritsar.
The discovery at
Ashoknagar, yielding high-quality crude superior to Bombay High, has positioned
the Bengal Basin as India’s eighth commercially producing hydrocarbon zone.
Meanwhile, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands hold vast untapped natural gas
reserves, estimated at 610 million tonnes. With just 10 percent of India’s
sedimentary basins currently under exploration, the country plans to expand
this to 16 percent within a year—paving the way for a new era in domestic oil
and gas production.
The monetisation of
the Ashoknagar-1 discovery has made the Bengal Basin India’s eighth
commercially producing hydrocarbon zone, leading to its upgrade to a Category-I
productive basin.With this, ONGC has discovered seven out of eight
producing basins of the country.The seven basins discovered and put into
production by ONGC are: Krishna-Godavari, Mumbai Offshore, Assam Shelf,
Rajasthan, Cauvery, Assam-Arakan Fold Belt, and Cambay.
India is on track to
increase its exploration acreage to 1million square km by 2030,
oil and gas yields are expected to increase significantly. The approval
process for exploration and production activities in the petroleum industry has
now been simplified, reducing 37 approval processes to just 18, of which
nine are now available for self-certification.
The new Oilfields
(Regulation and Development) Amendment Bill in 2024,passedby the Rajya Sabha in
December 2024, ensures policy stability for oil and gas producers, and enables
single licence for all hydrocarbons. This opens up entry of private companies.The
ONGC has signed a MoU with BP to explore collaboration in oil and gas projects
in India and abroad. The partnership will focus on enhancing production,
trading, and exploring new energy vectors. This collaboration aims to boost
ONGC’s output, optimise management of fields, and create value in additional
energy vectors such as carbon sequestration.
India has witnessed a
remarkable surge in petroleum product exports over the last decade. The
country’s refining capacity, now exceeding 250 million metric
tonnes per annum (MMTPA), has enabled it to cater to global markets.
Key export
destinations include South Asian, African, and European countries. The
emphasis on export-oriented growth and establishing Special Economic Zones
(SEZs) for refineries have further boosted this trend. Exports not only
contribute to foreign exchange reserves but also enhance India’s stature as a
global energy supplier.
As of April 2021,
India’s crude oil reserves were estimated at approximately 587.335 million
metric tonnes, with the western offshore region holding the largest share,
followed by Assam and Gujarat. The Bihar and UP discoveries add to the hope of the
country’s hydrocarbon exploration efforts, promising long-term gains in energy
production and economic growth.
Through intense
seismic surveys since 2016-17, the ONGC made 68 new discoveries and monetised
36. Key discoveries in Kutch, Saurashtra, West Bengal, and the KG Basin
reinforced confidence in upgrading these basins to Category-I (Producing).
It has identified 26
sedimentary basins, categorized into four groups by the Directorate General of
Hydrocarbons (DGH) based on their hydrocarbon prospectivity. To harness the
country’s untapped oil and gas potential, ONGC is actively exploring reserves
across 13 of these basins under the Nomination and New Exploration Licensing
Policy (NELP) regimes.
These basins include
the Assam Shelf, Assam-Arakan Fold Belt, Cambay (including offshore), Cauvery
(including offshore), Krishna-Godavari (including offshore), Mumbai Offshore,
Rajasthan (Jaisalmer), Kutch Offshore, Mahanadi Offshore, Saurashtra Offshore,
Himalayan Foreland, Bengal, and Vindhyan basins spread across Assam, Mizoram,
Tripura, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, West
Bengal, and Madhya Pradesh. The basins extend along eastern and western coasts,
strengthening domestic energy security.
The exploration
successes have strengthened India’s domestic hydrocarbon reserves. India is set
to become a key driver of global oil demand by 2030, fuelled by economic
growth, urbanization, and rising vehicle ownership. With the new finds India’s
capacity in refinery is to reach 295 million tonne. Oil imports may rise to 5.6
million barrels. But for the new oil basins, output is to drop to 540,000
barrels a day.
By 2035, domestic oil
production is likely to rise but so are imports by an aspiring nation with
larger activities. Though battery vehicle is being junked by US President
Donald Trump, India continues with it. It too has heavy import liabilities in
battery and other components.
The ONGC produces
1.26 million barrels a day, 76 percent of this of high quality. India’s import
dependence is rising, with the oil ministry telling the standing committee that
the share of import in the volume of crude processed will increase to 91 per
cent. Despite efforts to enhance energy efficiency, India’s growing energy
needs will necessitate a balanced approach between exploration, imports, and
refinery expansion.
India’s energy demand
is set to rise to 11 percent of global demand by 2040, positioning the country as
a key player in the global oil and gas sector.Its crude oil imports rose to 179.3 million tonnes in April-December, from
173.7 million tonnes in the same period the previous year. Meanwhile, domestic
oil production declined slightly to 21.6 million tonnes from 22
million tonnes, according to the latest data from the Petroleum Planning and
Analysis Cell (PPAC).Once the Gangetic Valley finds go for commercial
production, the PPAC projection may have to be revised. India hopes to maintain
balance in import and exports of petroleum products.---INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
Greenland & Trump's “Forcing open doors’, By Dr. Ewa Fronczak, 29 March 2025 |
|
|
Spotlight
New Delhi, 29 March 2025
Greenland & Trump's “Forcing open
doors’
By Dr. Ewa Fronczak
(Centre for International Relations,
Poland)
“For the
sake of national security and freedom everywhere, the United States of America
believes that it is absolutely necessary to possess and control Greenland,” with
these words in December 2024, Donald Trump, the 47thPresident of the
United States, astonished not only Denmark (of which Greenland is an autonomous
territory with its own government and parliament) but probably the rest of the
world as well. Why now? Why Greenland? Is this just another of Trump’s arrogant
announcements, or part of a deliberate strategy?
Trump,
surprisingly for some, is not the only US President to have talked about buying
Greenland. The idea first came up in the 1860s under Andrew Johnson. According
to a government report entitled “Report on the Resources of Greenland and
Iceland,” after buying Alaska from Tsarist Russia, the US State Department also
considered taking over Greenland, and even Canada and Iceland. Although nothing
came of the idea, interest in the world’s largest island and its natural
resources did not diminish.
The
following years showed that the sale of overseas lands by Denmark in modern
times would not be unprecedented. In 1915, after the sinking of the Lustiania
and the growing threat of German submarines in the Atlantic, the question of
the US purchasing the Danish West Indies became a major issue in American
foreign policy. US President Woodrow Wilson and Secretary of State Robert
Lansing feared that the German government might annex Denmark, in which case
the Germans could also secure the Danish West Indies as a naval or submarine
base from which to launch attacks on shipping in the Caribbean and Atlantic.
Finally, in 1917, the Danish kingdom sold the Virgin Islands to the US, seeking
to raise funds for economic investment in its impoverished Caribbean
possessions. Thus, by paying $25 million in gold coins, Washington managed to
protect the Panama Canal from foreign powers operating in the Caribbean.
The 1940s
brought an important event in bilateral relations – after the German invasion
of Denmark in 1941, the US signed a “Defense of Greenland” agreement with
Denmark, which provided an American umbrella over the island and protected it
from hostile interest in this strategic region. The agreement granted the US
the right to build and access military bases on the island. The cryolite
deposits there, then essential for aircraft production, became a key war
resource. Greenland’s weather stations were also needed for forecasting in
Europe, supporting Allied plans. The years after the end of hostilities brought
a gradual rapprochement with North America in economic and political terms.
Greenland’s
strategic importance remained crucial during the Cold War, as evidenced by the
US’s reluctance to abandon the island despite Denmark’s initial requests.
During the growing atmosphere of a clash of powers, the overseas authorities
realized how crucial Greenland was as a strategically located point between the
US and the USSR in the Arctic, and their purchase was considered a “military necessity.”
Not mincing words, the Truman Administration offered the Kingdom of Denmark
$100 million in gold for Greenland, even offering to exchange part of the
island for the oil-rich Alaska as a plan B. Then as now, the offer shocked
those who were addressed: “Our needs ... seemed to shock Rasmussen [then
Minister of Foreign Affairs of Denmark], but he did not reject my [then US
Secretary of State] suggestions outright and said he would review the note I
gave him. “ As you might guess, Denmark also refused this time, but, recognising
the strategic importance of Greenland, it abandoned neutrality and joined NATO.
During the
Cold War, the island was a key location for early warning systems against
nuclear attack over the Arctic and for surveillance and control of the narrow
passage used by the Soviet Navy to transit the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans. In
1951, when the previous agreement of a decade earlier expired, the US and
Denmark concluded another agreement (the Greenland Defense Agreement) under
which the US could establish so-called ‘defence areas’ and military bases on
the island, as recognized by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). The
agreement established the first American air base at Thule.
In 2019,
as global competition intensified and the Arctic became a geopolitical
battleground, Trump, for the first time as president, reminded the world of
America’s continuing interest in Greenland and verbalized his desire to acquire
it. Although the Greenlanders consistently rejected the American proposal, they
welcomed the renewed interest in their island quite enthusiastically, which the
following year brought $12.1 million in economic and political investment and
the reopening of the American consulate in Nuuk for the first time since 1953.
That same
year, an agreement was also signed with the Ministry of Mineral Resources of
Greenland to strengthen cooperation in the development of key energy and
mineral sectors. The U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Energy Resources
engaged with the Greenland School of Minerals and Petroleum to support
Greenland’s capacity to develop a local mineral sector. Mutual efforts have
focused on establishing an underground mining training facility, search and
rescue programs, and thematic courses to train the necessary experts and
specialists. Subsequent years have seen further strengthening of relations,
including a visit by Secretary of State Antony Blinken in 2021 and further
economic aid packages to develop Greenland’s mining, education, and tourism
sectors.
In December
2024, Donald Trump expressed his desire to buy Greenland for the second time, and
his behavior so far shows that he has taken the matter completely seriously.
Similar to 2019, he has also used a similar rationalisation this time, speaking
about the island’s critical importance to US security, while also doing
something very disturbing. When questioned by journalists, he did not directly
rule out a forceful solution to the issue. This is an unprecedented case of a
NATO member publicly threatening another member of the alliance. Even if Trump
does not intend to put his shocking words into action, he is creating enormous
pressure and an atmosphere of intimidation in future relations with the rulers
of Greenland. Worse still, he is weakening NATO’s international image and
undermining the solidarity of this key military alliance - to the undoubted
satisfaction of Vladimir Putin.
Some
experts and officials of the presidential administration have taken up Trump’s
idea and proposed concluding a special agreement of free association with the US,
which would secure the territorial integrity and national independence of
Greenland in the event of an application for independence from Denmark. It is
emphasised that such a comprehensive economic and security agreement would be
the best solution at a time of Russian-Chinese activity in the Arctic, where
the US needs a permanent and stable presence. The US would consolidate its
position at the top of the North Atlantic, and American investments and markets
would contribute to the economic growth of Greenland. “A win-win deal,” as
President Trump would put it.
As for
future relations with the “big North American neighbour,” Greenland’s 2024
Foreign, Security and Defense Policy Strategy emphasises the need to remove trade
barriers and expand cooperation with individual U.S. states, especially Alaska
and the northeastern states. It is also worth noting the Strategy’s telling
subtitle: “Nothing about us without us.” As you can see, the Greenlanders know
what they want and seem to be telling the world – we are a nation and our voice
should be heard.
Legally,
regardless of his ambitions and imperialistic ambitions, Trump cannot
peacefully take over Greenland or force it into submission, because the
Greenland Self-Government Act, ratified by the Danish parliament in 2009,
recognises the Greenlandic nation as “a nation under international law with the
right to self-determination.” In other words, Greenland cannot be taken over by
the US or any other country without the consent of the Greenlanders. And
according to recent polls, such consent is lacking: more than 85% of the
Greenlandic population of about 60,000 people do not want to be Americans.
In sum, the
current U.S. engagement strategy builds on existing agreements and combines
effective diplomacy through the U.S. consulate in the island capital of Nuuk
with a variety of economic and political incentives in exchange for local
acceptance of U.S. geostrategic ambitions. Such incentives include, for
example, assurances that support services for installations at the US base at
Pittufik (formerly Thule Air Base) are provided by local businesses, and
support for the minerals and education sectors. Washington has not disclosed
the total amount of these efforts, but available data estimates them at a
minimum of $50 million per year.
Greenland’s
strategic importance can be viewed from several perspectives. First, climate
change, resource competition, and increasing militarisation in the Arctic
Ocean, especially by Russia and China, have raised geopolitical tensions in the
region in recent years. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 complicated its
relations with the other seven Arctic states (Canada, the Kingdom of Denmark,
Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and the US) and prompted Finland and Sweden
to join NATO. As a result, all Arctic states except Russia are NATO members.
This change has raised the overall importance of the Arctic—including
Greenland—for NATO. Greenland is also key to monitoring the so-called GIUK
Gap (Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom), a bottleneck for anti-submarine
warfare in the North Atlantic during the Cold War. The gap remains important to
this day for monitoring and potentially limiting Russian naval movements in the
North Atlantic and the Arctic Ocean. GIUK is, in other words, the Russian
gateway to the Atlantic Ocean.
What’s
more, Greenland straddles two strategic Arctic shipping lanes: the Northwest
Passage, which includes the northern coast of North America, and the Transpolar
Sea Route, which runs through the middle of the Arctic Ocean. Month-by-month,
the melting of Arctic ice is increasing the commercial viability of these
routes, which will significantly shorten transit times and provide a tempting
alternative to current, often congested sea routes such as the Suez Canal or the
Panama Canal. According to last year’s data from the Arctic Council, shipping
there increased by 37% between 2013 and 2023, which only confirms the growing
interest in this destination.
All of the
US’s efforts so far have been aimed at limiting Sino-Russian plans for a
presence near the island. The threat seems very real. Russia has significantly
increased its military activity in the Arctic in recent decades. The Kremlin
has revived old Soviet bases there, is building new military infrastructure,
and is constantly modernizing its submarine fleet, equipping it with
increasingly efficient units such as nuclear-powered icebreakers. Since
declaring itself a “Near Arctic” state in 2018, China has taken steps to
consolidate its position in the Arctic, including attempts to connect Europe
and East Asia via a “Polar Silk Road” across the Arctic Ocean. Since 2022,
Chinese investment beyond the Arctic Circle has reached over $90 billion.
China’s plans also extend into the interior of the island—in 2018, the Pentagon
managed to block Chinese financing for three airports there. To make matters
worse, the two powers are also keen to join forces to assert their presence in
the region, for example during joint patrols like the one in the Barents Sea
last October.
Greenland’s
other trump card is its abundant natural resources. According to the European
Commission, 25 of the 34 critical raw materials necessary for the production of
most modern technologies are located there. Given China’s current near-monopoly
on rare earth minerals, this advantage seems invaluable to Americans, who view
the technological race with China as a matter of national security.
Furthermore, the US Geological Survey estimates that there are over 17.5
billion undiscovered barrels of oil and 148 trillion cubic feet of natural gas
off the coast of Greenland. However, it is worth noting that Greenland’s mining
industry is currently largely dormant due to a number of factors, including low
world prices, the high costs associated with mining in the harsh Arctic
environment without the necessary infrastructure, burdensome regulations, and
resistance from local civil society groups.
It is also
worth remembering that since 1941, the Danish island has been home to the
aforementioned American space base Pituffik, which permanently houses both the
US military and an early warning system against ballistic missiles. The
shortest route from the US to Europe runs through Greenland, hence the
importance of this particular location, for example, in NATO’s ability to track
Russian submarines in the GIUK gap. In the latest Foreign, Security and Defense
Strategy, the Greenlanders expressed their desire for increased military
cooperation with the Americans. The document emphasizes “the desire for the
Greenlanders to play a more active role in enforcing Danish sovereignty through
participation in the Joint Arctic Command and the Sirius Patrol, the
establishment of an administrative unit at the American space base Pituffik and
eventually the creation of their own non-military coast guard.”
As you
might imagine, the rest of the world – including Greenland itself – did not
have to wait long for the reaction to Trump’s words. “Greenland is ours. We are
not for sale and we will never be for sale. We cannot lose our long fight for
freedom,” the island’s prime minister, Mute Egede, said in a written statement.
And in his New Year’s speech, he added that a new impetus had arrived and
Greenland was ready to take another big step in its efforts to break the
“shackles of colonialism” and that “Greenland is for the people of Greenland.
We do not want to be Danes, we do not want to be Americans. We want to be
Greenlanders.”
The Home
Rule Act was passed in 2009, paving the way for a future referendum on
independence. Local elections are due to be held in April, which will be the
best test of public opinion on Greenland’s constitutional future. Danish Prime
Minister Mette Frederiksen (the same one who called Trump's first proposal from
2019 “absurd”)spoke in a similar tone, emphasizing that “Greenland belongs to
the Greenlanders” and only they have the right to decide on its fate .
As you can
see, the reality of Greenlandic politics suggests that Greenland definitely hasno
plans to become part of the United States. Instead, its short-term goal is
to strengthen Greenland’s autonomy in the international arena, which is an
important part of its long-term ambition to become a sovereign state. This
position is also clearly verbalized in the aforementioned Greenland’s Foreign,
Security and Defense Strategy of 2024, the final sentence of which clearly
states: “This strategy can be updated as needed and is essentially an
expression of Greenland’s will, working with others, to move towards
independence.”
Trump’s
proposal has also accelerated key decisions by Denmark on the island’s defense.
The Danish government has announced a strengthened military capability in the
Arctic, acknowledging that the time has come to expand its military presence in
such a key part of the world. A $2.1 billion package has been announced to
build three new warships, two long-range drones and additional dog sleds. The
project also includes increasing staffing at the Arctic Command in the capital
Nuuk and upgrading one of Greenland’s three main civilian airports to allow it
to handle supersonic F-35 fighter jets. Plans have also been drawn up to
increase investment in drones, radars and satellites in the next defense
budget. Denmark seems to have understood that if it cannot protect the waters
around Greenland from encroachment by China and Russia, US demands for greater
control will grow.
The Danish
political class seems very determined to defend the island's autonomy and is
not content with words. On January 28 this year, Danish Prime Minister Mette
Frederiksen began a “diplomatic crusade” and met successively with German
Chancellor Olaf Scholz in Berlin, French President Emmanuel Macron in Paris and
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in Brussels. The European allies have so far
expressed solidarity and a desire to jointly oppose Trump's imperial ambitions.
The German Chancellor firmly emphasised that: "The principle of the
inviolability of borders applies to every country - regardless of whether it is
to the east or to the west of us - and every state must respect it, regardless
of whether it is a small country or a very powerful state.”
The French
also stressed the need to respect international law: “There is no question of
the European Union allowing other nations in the world, whoever they are, to
attack its sovereign borders,” said Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot. António
Costa, President of the European Council, expressed his full support in this
matter and readiness to defend Denmark’s territorial integrity. Although
Greenland is not a member of the Union, it benefits from special access to EU
funds and freedom of movement for Greenlanders, who are considered citizens of
the European Union. The European Commission confirmed that in the event of
military aggression, Greenland would be covered by the mutual defense clause
set out in the treaties.
Given
Russia’s increasingly aggressive posture in the region, the US and Europe have
quite similar geostrategic priorities. Denmark (read Greenland), Sweden,
Iceland, Finland and Norway — NATO’s northern flank — share the Arctic with
North America and Russia, and in the current geopolitical circumstances, an
increased American military presence seems particularly justified for Denmark,
which admits that it has neglected its defense investments on the island in
recent years.
Moreover,
the Danish prime minister does not hide his desire to deepen military ties with
its northern neighbour: “They are already there and may have more
opportunities.” That is why many experts consider Trump’s aggressive approach
to be unfounded and counterproductive: “The US already has extensive military
rights granted to it by Denmark. Greenland and Europe also see US security
interests as closely linked to theirs and would most likely not mind Washington
developing them. Trump is forcing open doors for the US.”
From the
American perspective, as global competition intensifies and the Arctic becomes
a critical geopolitical battlefield, the US must increase control over
Greenland to secure its national security interests. But attempting to seize
Greenland by force may prove too politically costly and simply unnecessary,
because Washington could achieve its goals by cooperating with Greenland and
Denmark.
Trump’s
maximalist approach may have the opposite effect, i.e. revive Chinese activity
in the territory and accelerate the ongoing militarization of the Arctic. Such
blatant arrogance towards international law and the use of the “Roosevelt
stick” instead of dialogue and negotiations is nothing more than giving Russia
a pretext for similar behavior towards weaker states.
Analysing
Trump’s recent decisions and statements (Granland, the Panama Canal, Canada,
Mexico), one common denominator can be seen here - the priority of this
administration will be the security of the US in its immediate surroundings.
First, we clean up the so-called “our backyard”, and only then will we deal
with further issues, further away from our borders. There may be several
reasons for such a strategy of the US president. First, an attempt to prove to
voters his agency and decisiveness in action. As is common knowledge, in the
American political system the president has the first hundred days to make the
most strategic decisions - then comes the time for the campaign and other
matters.
Second,
Trump gives the impression that he really takes his political promises such as Make
America Great Again or America First seriously (although in his own
specific way) and wants to go down in the history of the country as a
groundbreaking reformer and one of the "great" presidents. Third, he
is a typical realist, so he uses methods typical of Realpolitik, i.e. hard power.
The world is now witnessing a ruthless return to the era of the “law of might,”
where the largest global power, the architect of the post-war order based on
liberal democracy, is itself undermining that order.---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
A Peace Manifesto: INDIA AND THE WORLD, By Dr. D.K. Giri, 28 March 2025 |
|
|
Round The World
New Delhi, 28 March 2025
A Peace
Manifesto
INDIA AND
THE WORLD
By Dr.
D.K. Giri
(Prof.
NIIS Group of Institutions, Odisha)
The crying need of the world currently is peace and
security, without which life and living are untenable. Violent conflicts across
the world and two bloody wars have disrupted politics and economiesand have
made life insecure. What is worse, the world leadership as a whole has failed
to stop these two wars – Gaza and Ukraine. Only recently, since the end of
January 2025, American President Donald Trump took a bold initiative, albeit
controversial, to stop the war in Ukraine. There are multiple interpretations
and reactions to Trump’s initiative, but what is noteworthy is the
determination displayed by him to end the war in Ukraine.
In international theory, it is established that absence
of war does not necessarily lead to peace. To ensure durable peace, appropriate
social, economic and political structures have to be created. It is high time
the international community engaged in constructing those structures. The
existing inter-governmental organisations mainly United Nations have failed to
generate any momentum for peace in the world, let alone stopping conflicts and
wars.
Out of six thematic sessions in just-held Raisina
Dialogue 2025, there was one dedicated to peace, but except for wrangling by
European countries and their desperation against Trump administration, nothing
substantial emerged towards peace building.This should have been the focus of
the Raisina Dialogue this year. Trump’s ‘whimsical’, approach to peace would
have been supported by a structured dialogue on peace.
Out of all the countries, India, the biggest democracy,
without history of intervention or aggression against any country, can initiate
the peace-building process in the world. This should be a part of the new world
order that is likely to emerge after the ‘Trumpian assault’ on the existing
one. Russia and China have been trying to transform international politics to
their advantage. America, ‘the current superpower’, was consolidating the
Western dominance.
The West was defined as America plus Europe. That has
dramatically changed. The American Vice-President has strongly advocated
withdrawing from Europe. He just said in a strategy meeting at Oval Office
that, “I loathe the idea of bailing out Europe again”. Defence Secretary of US
Pete Hegseth shared Vice-President’s ‘loatheness’. So, Trump’s new world order
may throw up new issues and equations of power. At any rate, the desire for
peace will be a priority.
Keeping the emerging scenario in mind, can we draft a
peace manifesto for one world? This resonates with India’s fundamental
spiritual philosophy, VasudhaivaKutumbakam. The premise is, a peaceful
one world is the end, and a universal welfare system backed by a common
security is the means. One world concept is derived from thousands of years of
Indian thought, like the Advaita and the VasudhaivaKutumbakam embedded
in the Vedas and Upanishads. They proclaim the indivisibility of the humanity
and featured the earth and its inhabitants as one grand family. These ideas and
wisdom remained submerged until Shri Shankaracharya presented them to the world
of knowledge in the 8th Century A.D. In modern times, Swami
Vivekananda elaborated their content and meaning to the wider world about a
century and a half ago. Remember his legendary speech in Chicago to the World
Parliament of Religions when he addressed the gathering as, “Brothers and
sisters”.
But today, we are living in a divided world, composed of
nation-states, driven by nationalism and often daggers drawn at each other in
the name of national security and under the influence of doctrines like
deterrence. This mindset has led the world to wasting a lot of resources which
could have been used for the welfare of the people everywhere in the world.
Today, we are living in not only a divided world but also
a shrinking world. The communication technology has drastically reduced
distances between places, countries and continents. Yesterday’s distant
countries are today neighbourhoods. Also, the inter-dependence between
countries has grown phenomenally. Lot of people miss this point. But the
management of world affairs and inter-country relations is being managed in a
confrontational mode. This has to be replaced in a peace structure by a
solidarity mode, imbued with the spirit of one world.
Why did the League of Nations and United Nations fail to
deliver their declared objective of preventing wars in the world? Let us
elaborate as we declare UN as a failure as of now. The main reason of their
failure was the built-in dichotomy between the de facto objectives of those
international peace structures and of their national components. It has been
found that, while keeping the League of Nations and the UN largely as talking
shops of international peace, the system did not stop their national
constituents from building up war machines. They wanted to fight wars with
neighbouring countries in order to meet their unfair national ambitions to
concur and expand.
As a result, under the nose of the League of Nations,
Hitler of Germany pursued his policy of aggression by use of violent force
which ignited the Second World War. In the current epoch, under the very nose
of the United Nations, People’s Republic of China is pursuing an expansionist
policy by use of force, which, unless effectively halted, has the potential to
instigate the Third World War. What Russia has done in Ukraine is another
example.
Admittedly, there is a fundamental flaw in the way the
world is organised and governed today. It is based on confrontation and
competition. Instead, it is important to create structures of equality, freedom
and solidarity. The earth has enough resources, if mobilised prudently, for
everyone to live in peace and prosperity. But it is necessary to organise the
societies and countries in a cooperative and a solidarity mode. This is
possible under national and universal welfare state systems. For external security,
there has to be a common security system for national defence.
If the guiding principle in organising world governance
is ‘one world’, the result inevitably will be universal peace and security. The
nuts and bolts of this can be detailed out as there are good experiences across
the world. One can draw on the welfare state systems practiced in the
Scandinavian countries. These countries are at the top of the list for having
peaceful and contented societies in the world. A world survey has repeatedly rated
Finland as the happiest country in the world.
The slogan in the welfare system is caring from cradle-to-the
grave. They call it so, because the welfare system protects an individual from
their birth until their death. Since the child is born, the family gets an
allowance for childcare, as they grow; they get free education and free medical
care. After the education, the state is responsible for providing a gainful
employment failing which it has to provide unemployment allowance to them. And,
finally, when a person dies, their funeral/burial expenditure is met by the
state. Thus, social security for everyone is guaranteed.
The second component of this manifesto is the common
security system which would cut down the defence expenditure of all countries
of the world and help them spend on welfare and development. The idea of a
peace manifesto is thus mooted here for discussion in the thinking world. There
is alternative to war, but no alternative to peace which everyone seeks. Let
peace prevail. ---INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
Delimitation Row: SOUTHERN STATESFIRM!, By Dhurjati Mukherjee, 2 April 2025 |
|
|
Open Forum
New Delhi, 2 April
2025
Delimitation
Row
SOUTHERN
STATESFIRM!
By
Dhurjati Mukherjee
Delimitation of
parliamentary seats due in 2026 has evoked controversy with Opposition leaders,
particularly the southern states, expressing serious concern and warning it
will be a ‘test for democracy’. If the delimitation is solely based on
population, it is expected to violate federal fairness. This has forced the
southern states to challenge the proposed delimitation with the formation of
the Joint Action Committee (JAC) for ‘Fair Delimitation’, comprising chief
ministers and heads of political parties from Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka,
Telangana, Odisha and Punjab. It has passed a resolution calling for a 25-year
extension of the freeze on Lok Sabha constituencies based on the 1971
population census.
The JAC initiated by Tamil
Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin presented a joint representation to Prime Minister
Modi by a core committee of MPs. The CMs and party chiefs are determined to
challenge the Centre’s delimitation plan, expressing concerns about
transparency and states being penalised for successfully implementing
population control measures. The JAC wants the Centre to enact Constitutional
amendments to stop penalising states that implemented population control
programmes.
Stalin has rightly
raised this question and wondered whether good governance in population control
would backfire on the state by reducing its number of seats. There is need to
maintain federal fairness by evolving some formula that is acceptable to all
the states. Another point that needs to be addressed isthat while a Member of
Parliament can effectively represent around 3 million people in India, in the United
Kingdom it is 0.1 million and closer home in Bangladesh it’s 0.56 million. This
is not to say that richer states should be rewarded with more seats. Nor is it
necessary to tie representation to achievement of key development indicators,
incentivising governments to improve their performance.
Meanwhile, reports
indicate that the Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav in UP and JMM in
Jharkhand have lent support to Tamil Naduon the issue. However, the RJD, the
main opposition party in Bihar has backed the proposed delimitation exercise.
It is well known that
the southern states stand to lose the most if the delimitation exercise is
carried out on the basis of population alone. According to one estimate,
Gujarat, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan would have 367
seats, constituting 47 percent of parliamentary representation while the five
southern states would have a mere 164 seats. Reduced representation could erode
their say on national policy and government formation. Thus, the southern
states have joined together and are speaking in one voice about their concern
at the erosion of federalism.
ThoughUnion Home Minister Amit Shah has stated recently that no state will
face reduction in Lok Sabha seats, it doesn’t appear to be a fact. If seats are
to be allocated in proportion to the present population, UP, which now has 80
seats may send more than 130 members to a 790-strong House while Tamil Nadu
will get only 43, an increase of just four seats. Indeed, states like UP, Bihar
and Maharashtra would benefit, while the southern ones would see a drastic
decline in their number of seats, obviously a punishment for successfully
implementing family planning.
Thus, Congress Chief Minister
Revanth Reddy in Telangana has asked Centre to increase South India’s
representation to 33% in the Lok Sabha (up from the current 24%). This as ‘states
contributing more to GDP should have a stronger voice in Parliament’. The
Congress in Karnataka has likewise warned that delimitation was ‘not a
technical adjustment, but a political assault’ on southern states and that the
strength of Rajya Sabha should be increased as a counterbalance to North’s
numerical dominance in the Lok Sabha.AAP Chief Minister Mann in Punjab has accused
BJP of ‘manipulating’ seat allocation to benefit Hindi-speaking states where it
performs well, and that his state’s representation would be cut primarily
because BJP is weak there.
It is understood that
the proposed Delimitation Commission will be the final authority to decide the
basis of the exercise and not population alone. The Commission will be formed
only after the population census is over and that members would go around the
country to elicit states’ views.
Delving into the
past, the government thought it necessary not to disincentive the small family
norm and delimitation of Parliament seats on basis of population was frozen for
25 years in 1976 and again for another 25 years by the Vajpayee government. The
big question now is whether the BJP government wants to force delimitation in
order to expand and consolidate the party’s advantage in the North? Pushing
southern states into reversing population control, as Stalin warned, will
obviously be ill-advised. The reality is that at the national level the nation
has a population problem, and the growth needs to be checked.
Sadly, the ruling
dispensation has found a way of suppressing the southern states which are far
ahead than their northern counterparts in all spheres. Whether it is education,
economy or political governance, the South is more efficient in all possible
ways. Even when you look at scientists, technocrats and bureaucrats, those who
lead incidentally belongto the South. Thus,northern states fall behind them when
it comes to competition in industrial and service sectors and an overall
governance chart.
At 1.45 billion, the
country’s population continues to be above the carrying capacity of our
ecosystem. Obviously, strict measures need to be taken to control the uptrend
of the population rise and strict measuresmust be taken by the northern states.
In fact, the Centre has an important role to play in helping the northern
states, and even eastern states, in this regard. And those states that have
shown success in controlling population cannot, in any way, be penalised by
reducing their number of seats and thereby curtailing their powers in the
national decision-making and governance process.
Obviously, an
amicable solution needs to be formulated. One such solution to the
controversial issue would be to set the 2011 population as the new norm for
both central resource transfers and for delimitation and freeze it at that
level for the next 25 years. The delimitation could be gradual with 20 or 25
percent adjustment every five years starting 2031.
Finally, it needs to
be reiterated that in a pluralist democracy not just population, but other
considerations need to be kept in mind in evolving delimitation and the
Delimitation Commission, once established, can take the views of experts in
this regard. It is worth remembering the American political philosopher, Alexis
de Tocqueville who argued that the equalising spirit of democracy exerted a
prodigious influence over the whole course of society and the country,
including public opinion, laws and the habits of the governed and this should
not be curbed, in any way.---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
| | << Start < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
| Results 82 - 90 of 6263 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|