|
|
|
|
|
|
Political Diary
Pentagon Report on Chinese Armed Forces, By Dr. EwaFroncza, 17 May 2025 |
|
|
Spotlight
New Delhi, 17 May 2025
Pentagon Report on Chinese Armed
Forces
By Dr. EwaFronczak
(Center for
International Relations, Poland)
The numbers don't lie - the
Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) is currently the largest armed force in
the world, and the fact that it is constantly transforming towards greater
flexibility and technological advancement increases its combat potential year
by year.
The first "China Military Strength Report" was
produced by the U.S. Department of Defence in 2000, and has been updated every
year since then, with the latest one appearing in December last year.
The PLA is the world’s largest active military,
consisting of some 2.035 million active-duty soldiers, 510,000 reservists, and
500,000 paramilitary personnel, totaling more than 3 million personnel. The
primary goal of China’s military structure is to fully modernize its national
defence and armed forces by 2035, and to become a world-class army by 2049; one
that can engage in conflict on the periphery of the PRC as well as project
power in distant theaters.
To achieve this, modernization will encompass all domains
of warfare—land, air, sea, nuclear, space, electronics, and information. Among
the weaknesses and shortcomings in China’s combat capabilities, the report
cites urban warfare and long-range logistics capabilities.
One of the key observations worth noting is that China is
in the process of continuous, steady modernization and increasing resources for
the development of its military; each successive report records increasingly
higher numbers in every area analyzed. According to the authors, this proves Xi
Jinping's unwavering determination to have an army that can ensure the
achievement of his most important political goals - the "renaissance of
the Chinese nation" by 2049 and unification
with Taiwan.
Second, China continues to rapidly expand and modernize
its nuclear forces, seeking to give itself greater control over the dynamics of
escalation in a potential conflict with a significant adversary. The U.S.
estimates that China has more than 600 operational nuclear warheads, up from
500 last year, and will have another 1,000 by 2030. This expansion includes
intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), such as the DF-41, which are
capable of striking most of the U.S., among other areas.
The PLA Rocket Force significantly enhances China's
missile capabilities, which are:
·
DF-15 (CSS-6) - a short-range tactical
ballistic missile from 725 to 850 km enabling precision attacks on regional
targets
·
DF-21D (CSS-5 Mod 5) - anti-ship ballistic
missile, which, thanks to its range of over 1,500 km, poses a serious threat to
ships and aircraft carriers
·
DF-26 - a medium-range ballistic missile with
high versatility. It can carry conventional or nuclear warheads to a distance
of up to 5,000 km, thus covering the Western Pacific, Indian Ocean and South
China Sea
·
The DF-27, currently under development, has a
range of 5,000 to 8,000 km and capabilities that include both land-attack and
anti-ship capabilities. In addition to conventional anti-ship modes, it can
also carry hypersonic, conventional and nuclear payloads for land attack.
Potential targets include Guam, Alaska and Hawaii, the Americans emphasize.
The Chinese are also surprising in hypersonic technology.
For example, the DF-17 missile is equipped with a hypersonic glide vehicle
(HGV) and has a range of over 16,000 km. Thanks to its high speed and
maneuverability, it is difficult to detect and intercept, posing a challenge to
existing missile defence systems.
Third, in addition to expanding its nuclear arsenal,
China is also improving the other elements of the nuclear triad. Three new
missile fields with 320 silos for intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)
were recently completed. In the meantime, work is underway on new, more
survivable ICBMs. As the second leg of China’s nuclear triad, nuclear ballistic
missile submarines conduct
near-constant deterrent patrols. China’s JL-3 ballistic missiles launched from
such submarines can reach the mainland United States from bases in the South
China Sea or the Bohai Gulf. The nuclear triad is completed by the H6-N
air-launched ballistic missile bomber. In addition, work is underway on a new
H-20 stealth bomber with
a range of over 10,000 km.
Fourth, China has the world’s largest navy, with over 370
ships and submarines (61 active submarines, including twelve nuclear-powered),
while the Pentagon predicts it will have 395 ships by 2025 and 435 by 2030. The
Chinese navy is continuing to build RENHAI-class guided-missile cruisers (CG),
LUYANG III MOD-class guided-missile destroyers (DDG), and JIANGKAI II MOD-class
and JIANGKAI III-class guided-missile frigates from the first half of 2024. The
fourth YUSHEN-class (Type 075) amphibious assault ship will begin sea trials in
late summer. Construction has also begun on a new YULAN-class (Type 076) LHA,
which will be equipped with an electromagnetic catapult for unmanned aerial
vehicles. In 2025, the third CV-18 Fujian aircraft carrier will enter service.
In the near future, the Chinese navy will be able to conduct long-range
precision strikes against land targets from its submarines and surface ships
using cruise missiles to attack land targets, which will significantly increase
its ability to project power.
Fifth, the Chinese Air Force is the largest air force in
the Indo-Pacific region and the third largest in the world, with over 3,150
aircraft (excluding training or unmanned aerial vehicles), of which about 2,400
are combat aircraft (including fighters, strategic bombers, tactical bombers,
tactical multirole aircraft, and attack aircraft). The J-16 is the latest
fourth-generation multirole fighter, which will be capable of carrying the
PL-17 long-range air-to-air missile. As of 2023, more than 225 J-16s were in
service, with plans to produce more in the coming years. As for
fifth-generation stealth fighters, the latest acquisition is the J-20,
manufactured by the domestic Aviation Industry Corp of China.
Sixth, China is building a global military and investing
in capabilities that will allow it to project power far beyond the first island
chain. In 2023, the PLA Navy continued to enhance its ability to carry out
missions beyond the first island chain, and in the near future will have the
ability to conduct long-range precision strikes against land targets from its
submarines and surface ships. The PLA’s air force bomber fleet also has the ability
to conduct long-range precision strikes against targets in the second island
chain from home bases in mainland China.
The report noted that China is seeking to expand its
overseas logistics and base infrastructure and that it has likely considered a
variety of countries as locations for military logistics facilities, including:
Burma, Thailand, Indonesia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, the United Arab Emirates,
Cuba, Kenya, Equatorial Guinea, the Seychelles, Tanzania, Angola, Nigeria,
Namibia, Mozambique, Gabon, Bangladesh, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands,
and Tajikistan.
Seventh, the modernization of the Chinese military is
possible thanks to a world-class defence industrial base. Most importantly,
China has managed to close the entire production chain at home and is able to
independently produce a wide range of combat ships, gas turbines and diesel
engines, and ship weapons and electronic systems, making it almost
self-sufficient. It has sufficient production capacity to build various classes
of ships: submarines, surface ships, and auxiliary and landing ships. This is
in stark contrast to the US defence industrial base, which is struggling to
produce everything from submarines to surface ships and ammunition, lagging far
behind in this field.
Eighth, the report notes that China’s leaders see
unification with Taiwan as a fundamental condition for national rejuvenation,
to be achieved by 2049. Throughout 2023, Beijing has been increasing
diplomatic, political, and military pressure on the island, using a range of
tactics, including maintaining a naval presence and holding major military
exercises near the island. According to Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defence,
PLA incursions into Taiwanese airspace continued throughout the year, with a
slight decrease in 2023 to 1,641 incidents compared to 1,733 the previous year.
Chinese documents list a naval and air blockade of Taiwan among possible
scenarios, which should be taken very seriously. In March of this year, Beijing
held its largest-ever military exercise simulating such a blockade.
Last but not least, space and
counter-space operations. China has devoted significant economic and
technological resources to developing an advanced space program, improving
military space applications, developing human spaceflight, and conducting lunar
and Mars exploration missions. In 2023, 67 space launches were carried out,
placing more than 200 satellites into orbit, making China second only to the
United States.
In sum, over the past two decades, China has achieved the
most noticeable increase in military power since World War II. Against the
backdrop of the global security scene, the modernization of the Chinese armed
forces is an element of a broader national policy aimed at strengthening
China's position in the world. The main challenge for the Middle Kingdom is the
growing rivalry between the powers, and according to China, the culprit is the
US, which, in the name of defending its own national interests, is undermining
global stability and reshaping the existing balance of power to its advantage.
Although the famous Chinese proverb says, "The sound of a weapon is the
defeat of a strategist," and Xi will certainly do everything to avoid a
military clash with the American superpower, he is also preparing his country
for the worst-case scenario. Such a rapid and multi-faceted process of
developing the Chinese army (not limited only to equipment modernization, but
also encompassing organizational reforms and changes in the command system) is
intended to provide greater flexibility and response capabilities in the face
of the dynamically changing international situation.
Xi Jinping seems to understand perfectly well that with
an inexperienced army at his disposal, he has no choice but to first and
foremost equip and train it perfectly. The Pentagon Report described above, and
the twenty-four previous ones, confirm that the leader of the Middle Kingdom is
doing this with unwavering determination and effectiveness, increasing his
chances of winning the ongoing systemic war of the two largest economic
entities on this globe from year to year.---INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature
Alliance)
|
|
AI & Media: TOOL TO AID OR HURT? By Sabina Inderjit, 10 May 2025 |
|
|
Spotlight
New Delhi, 10 May
2025
AI &Media
TOOL TO
AID OR HURT?
By Sabina
Inderjit
Imagine having a
super-smart assistant that can gather information, write drafts, generate
videos, clone voices, et al. Incredible possibilities that artificial
intelligence (AI) offers in the media. Yes, it’s transforming journalism by
handling routine tasks, analysing vast data sets, and enhancing content
delivery. And like any powerful tool, AI comes with its own set of ethical and
legal dilemmas.
The power and peril
of AI has sparked a heated discussion in the media, often referred to as the
Fourth Estate--wielding influence, shaping public opinion and a watchdog of
democracy.Will it help safeguard or play mischief? At the same time, AI’s rapid
development has sparked fears among journalists whether they would become
obsolete!
That may not be the
case, as speakers during a session ‘Shaping the Future of Journalism in the AI
media Era: Copyright and Ethical Challenges,’ at the World Journalists
Conference 2025, organised last month by the Journalists Association of Korea would
have the 70-odd participants from over 50 countries believe.
AI won’t replace
journalists—it will replace journalists who don’t use AI. Good journalism
relies on human traits that AI lacks: empathy, curiosity, and the ability to
ask hard questions in real time. AI won’t meet informants, uncover hidden
documents, or attend a press conference and challenge a prime minister. When
disaster strikes, it’s human journalists who head to the scene to speak with
witnesses and capture the raw, emotional truth.
The plus and minuses of
the evolving media landscape shaped by AIwere spelt out by speakers from China,
Poland, South Korea and the US. AI could achieve remarkable things, such as in
Kunshan, East China’s Jiangsu Province, wherein police used AI to catch
criminals who had swindled $145,000. The AI system traced the money in just 10
minutes and stopped half of it from being transferred. The suspects were
caught, highlighting how AI can analyse data faster than any human and help
resolve complex cases that might otherwise go unsolved.
On the flip side, the
same power can be misused. In Kunming, Yunnan Province, a fraudster used AI
face-swapping software to impersonate a victim’s friend and nearly tricked them
into sending $43,500 worth of gold bars. Fortunately, police intervened in
time.In another case in Beijing, a voice actor’s voice was cloned without her
consent and used in audiobooks. The court ruled this a violation of her
rights—a clear example of how AI can cross ethical and legal boundaries.
While AI offers
substantial benefits, it also poses serious threats to privacy, identity, and
intellectual property. There’s a need to strike a balance between embracing
innovation and safeguarding citizens’ rights. AI use should never infringe on
reputation, privacy, or image rights. It’s not just about creating regulations—education,
awareness, and continuous research are vital to establishing ethical
boundaries.
In early March in China’s
‘Two sessions’, most significant political meetingsmany lawmakers and experts
called for deeper research and clearer AI legislation. Globally, this
conversation is intensifying, particularly around copyright issues and fair use
of journalistic content.
In the U.S., The
New York Times has filed a lawsuit against OpenAI over alleged copyright
infringement, and similar concerns are growing in South Korea. The Korean
Newspaper Association (KNA) initially determined that Naver, dominant web
portal and search engine, often referred to as “Google of Korea” had
incorporated news content from media outlets into its AI services without
proper authorisation. It plans to file formal complaints against both domestic
and international tech companies, including Google and OpenAI, for using news
content in AI training without proper authorization.
The KNA argues this
unauthorized use violates copyright laws and constitutes an abuse of market
dominance under the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act. Without clear legal
frameworks, the unchecked use of news content by AI could severely impact
journalism’s sustainability by eroding its economic foundations and remain a
persistent challenge.
In Poland, in July
2024 there was a nationwide media protest wherein hundreds of editorial offices
participated calling for changes to the copyright law. Theycalled for a mechanism
to negotiate payment for content used by global tech companies and that it
shouldn’t remain a legal fiction but become a real tool. Eventually a
compromise was reached, albeit unsatisfactory. Negotiations are ongoing between
publishers and Google, and if an agreement isn’t reached, the state
administration would need to step in.
Besides, in Poland,
where the political and media landscape is polarised, the ethical use of AI
becomes particularly important. But this problem affects practically every
country especially the global geopolitical situation-- the war in Ukraine, the
tense situation on the Korean Peninsula, or the massive changes in US politics.
AI algorithms, which are based on data patterns and user behaviour, can deepen
media fragmentation, leading to creation of information bubbles, which will
only further intensify existing political divides.
The EU was the first
to adopt a comprehensive AI Act, followed by South Korea. These regulations
include provisions to label AI-generated content and outline prohibited uses.
However, ambiguity remains around what qualifies as ‘creative input’ when AI
helps write an article. The EU law won’t be fully applied until 2026, and AI’s
capabilities may evolve dramatically by then.
Additionally, as
traditional media loses influence in the advertising market, distribution
models are shifting in ways that weaken competition and diversity in the media
landscape.To address these concerns, the EU adopted the Digital Single Market
Directive in 2019, requiring platforms like Google to sign agreements with
publishers for content usage.
Under current EU
copyright laws, training AI on content is allowed unless explicitly forbidden
by rights holders. Yet publishers argue that if tech giants use their work,
they should compensate accordingly. Google, for example, benefits from
journalistic content while trying to position itself as a publisher—without
paying for the work it leverages.This places publishers in a difficult spot:
they face the dominance of tech giants while also needing to fund quality
journalism.
Fortunately, they are
doing so, using AI as anally and not a replacement. For example, Ringier Axel
Springer Polska, one of Poland’s largest media companies, is using AI to handle
some tasks—like creating localised weather forecasts during night
shifts—freeing journalists to focus on meaningful work. Tools like AI-assisted
article summarization help readers quickly digest key stories when they’re
short on time, improving user experience.
Another example is
that of The New York Times. In October 2024, in an investigation titled “Inside
the Movement Behind Trump’s Election Lies,”it used AI to analyse over 500
hours of video from the Election Integrity Network. AI translated and indexed 5
million words from the recordings, allowing journalists to find recurring
themes and identify key figures. But the final product was carefully verified
by human reporters, and the AI usage was explained to readers.
This blend of AI
efficiency and human judgment is key. Trust and credibility take years to
build—and seconds to lose. Transparency, verification, and ethics must remain
central to journalism. And while AI is transforming journalism, it doesn’t
diminish the role of journalists—it elevates it. When used ethically and
intelligently, AI enhances reporting, speeds up workflows, and allows for
deeper investigative work.
To shape the future
responsibly, journalists must learn how AI works, understand both its risks and
rewards, and continuously update the frameworks—legal, ethical, and
professional. The tools are here. It’s up to the media to use them wisely.---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
India & Pakistan: ESCALATION OF TENSION By Piotr Opaliński, 3 May 2025 |
|
|
SPOTLIGHT
New Delhi, 3 May 2025
India
& Pakistan
ESCALATION
OF TENSION
By Piotr
Opaliński
(Former
Polish Dy Ambassador to India &Ambassador to Pakistan; CIR)
The April terrorist
attack in Pahalgam has reignited a new wave of tensions between India and
Pakistan. It exposed not only the fragility of bilateral relations but also the
persistent nature of the decades-old unresolved Kashmir conflict, which
continues to impact the regional situation.
Tensions between
India and Pakistan—two neighbouring nuclear-armed countries—have a long
history, beginning on the very day British India was divided based on religious
lines. However, the current dynamics—combined with the passive stance of key
international players—pose a serious risk of deteriorating security and
destabilizing the entire region.
The brutal attack on
tourists in Pahalgam, carried out on April 22 this year by members of The
Resistance Front (TRF)—allegedly linked, according to New Delhi, to Pakistani
organisations Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hizbul Mujahideen—was the deadliest attack on
Indian civilians since the Mumbai attacks in 2008. Tourists numbering 26 were
killed, and 17 injured. The incident caused a sudden spike in tension, evolving
into one of the most dangerous crises in South Asia in recent years.
India’s Reactions
India accused
Pakistan of directly supporting the attackers and, as a sanction, suspended the
Indus Waters Treaty of 1960, closed the Attari–Wagah border crossing, revoked
visas for Pakistani citizens, and initiated reciprocal reductions in diplomatic
personnel. India also deployed significant military forces to the Jammu and
Kashmir region and reinforced border control. It further threatened military
action in response to “any further provocations.”
India’s decisions
were also influenced by strong nationalist sentiments and the pressure of
upcoming regional elections, which pushed the BJP-led government at the Centre to
take a hard line against Pakistan.
Pakistan's Reactions
In response to India’s
actions, Pakistan closed its airspace to Indian aircraft, suspended the 1972
Simla Agreement, and froze bilateral trade, including trade through third
countries.At the same time, Islamabad rejected New Delhi’s accusations and
called for an international investigation into the Pahalgam attack under UN
auspices. It traditionally condemned “terrorism in all its forms and
manifestations” and declared “only moral and diplomatic” support for the
Kashmiri people's right to self-determination.
It also pointed out
that Pakistan itself is a victim of terrorism, accusing India of supporting
anti-Pakistani armed groups in the Afghan-bordering provinces of Balochistan
and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.It is worth noting that despite New Delhi’s sharp
reaction, Islamabad continues to appeal for international intervention, emphasising
that war with India is not a solution but rather a path to further destabilisation.
International
Inaction
Despite the UN’s call
for restraint from both sides, no world leader has proposed an effective
mediation mechanism. The U.S. President Donald Trump downplayed the
significance of the conflict, calling it “a thousand-year-old dispute.” China,
a traditional ally of Pakistan, called for peace while Pakistani media reported
on intensive consultations between Islamabad and Beijing.Saudi Arabia limited
its response to a call for dialogue without offering a specific
initiative.Russia, though traditionally maintaining close relations with India,
declared neutrality in this matter.The European Union, while expressing concern
and urging both sides to engage in dialogue, also refrained from proposing
concrete actions, staying within the bounds of general appeals.
Rising Tensions
The suspension of the
Indus Waters Treaty—already referred to by Islamabad as a casus belli—could
have catastrophic consequences for Pakistan, where 80% of agriculture depends
on the river system. The growing tensions with India could break the existing
taboo around the use of “water weapons” as a tool of conflict. For Pakistan,
this would mean not only the loss of vital resources but also economic
destabilisation and rising social unrest that could turn into a crisis with
international implications.
The scale of the
problem may also draw other regional players into the rivalry, especially
China, which has strategic interests in managing Indus waters due to its
infrastructure projects in Pakistan and neighbouring areas. Potential Chinese
involvement could further complicate the geopolitical situation and elevate the
water dispute to a broader Asian forum.
Both countries are
experiencing rising socio-political tensions: in India, there is an increase in
nationalist sentiment driven by upcoming regional elections, while in Pakistan,
political militarisation is progressing, sidelining civilian institutions.
Both trends increase
the risk of radical political decisions that could have irreversible
consequences for both countries. Escalating political polarisation creates a
space for military decisions that could lead to tragic outcomes.
Outlook
In the short term,
the most likely scenario is continued military pressure from India through
limited operations, as well as ongoing violations of the ceasefire by both sides.The
absence of effective mediation or pressure from key powers increases the risk
that the current conflict between South Asia’s two nuclear states could
escalate into a major threat to international peace and security.
The previous
escalation of tensions following the Pulwama attack in 2019 showed how real the
danger of a full-scale war was under similar circumstances, making a strong
case for urgent and intensified efforts toward a peaceful and diplomatic
resolution of the current crisis. ---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
India-EU Closer To Trade Pact, By Dr. Krzysztof M. Zalewski, 26 April 2025 |
|
|
Spotlight
New Delhi, 26 April
2025
India-EU Closer
To Trade Pact
By Dr. Krzysztof M.
Zalewski
(Boym Institute&
Centre for International Relations, Poland)
Negotiations on a
free trade agreement (FTA) between the European Union and India have been
ongoing for 18 years, with breaks. Despite the ongoing difficulties, for geo-economic
reasons its finalisation now seems more likely than ever before. It will probably
be the largest free trade area in the world next to RCEP.
Given the scale of
Indian economy, from Poland’s perspective this agreement creates both enormous
challenges and great opportunities. The impact of this trade agreement on the
economy depends on the negotiated detailed solutions and the ability of the
Polish administration to cooperate with business. The Polish debate on this FTA
should not be dominated by defensive interests.
“ The EU-India free
trade agreement would be the largest of its kind in the world (...). Timing and
determination count, and this partnership comes at the right time for both
sides. That is why we have agreed with Prime Minister Modi that we will strive
to achieve it this year”, said the President of the European Commission, Ursulu
van der Leyen in New Delhi during an unusual foreign visit of the entire
College of commissioners in February. She was echoed by Prime Minister Modi: We
have prepared a plan of cooperation in trade, technology, investment,
innovation, green growth, security, skills and mobility. We
have instructed our teams to conclude a mutual technology, investment,
innovation, green growth, security, skills and mobility.We have instructed our
teams to conclude a mutually beneficial bilateral free trade agreement by the
end of this year.”
Will the two major
economies – currently the world’s second and fifth largest – be connected by an
FTA? The history of the EU-India comprehensive trade agreement is not very
encouraging. It has often seemed that an agreement
was within reach, but in the end it didn’t happen.
Let us recall that
the work on the jointpolitical declaration
of 1993 and cooperation agreement of 1994 was accompanied by the idea of
deepening trade relations between New Delhi and the bloc countries. When in
2004 India and the EU became “strategic partners”, both sides expressed hopes
for the imminent conclusion of a free trade agreement. However, thenegotiations
started in 2007 were suspended in 2013. The reason was the difficult to
overcome differences in interest in sectors like automotive,
agriculture and food production or pharmaceutical industry.
There were fears of
too deep economic and social disruptions caused by the agreement. Reducing
tariffs of more than 100% on groups of goods suchas
dairy products, vegetables, fruits, sugar and confectionery products could
cause a collapse in production and a crisis in the industries. Boththe EU and India heavily subsidised their own
agricultural production, perceiving it as an inalienable component of food
security. In turn, different interests and rules regarding intellectual
property in the pharmaceutical market caused,
on the one hand, European fear of a flood of cheap Indian generic drugs, and on
the subcontinent - fear of a practice called ever-greening, i.e. maintaining drug
patents by European companies by introducing minimal changes to them.
After eight years, in
2021, a will was announced to return to negotiations, which startedin 2022. At that time, the interest in India
on the European side was mainly motivated by the intensifying competition with
China. New Delhi, on the other hand, had ambitions to take advantage of the de-risking policy promoted by EU institutions, i.e. reducing EU’s
dependence on imports from China. At the corporate level, this principle was
called"
China plus one ". In principle, large
international corporations should not base their extensive supply chains solely on the Middle Kingdom, having an alternative
place of production and sourcing of raw materials. India
seemed to be the ideal partner for this.
But for over two
years, there was a lack of political will to overcome obstacles old and new.
Although negotiating teams met, the scant information about the talks suggestedno breakthrough had been achieved. EC officials involved in the negotiations
complained that Indian delegations lacked information or authority to make
binding decisions.
This doesn’t mean
that trade has not flourished. Quite the opposite - over the past decade, trade
has almost doubled, both in goods and in services. As per EC, EU remains
India's largest trading partner, accounting for trade in goods worth €124
billion in 2023, or 12.2% of India's total trade, ahead of
the US (10.8%) and China (10.5%). India has a surplus in its relations with EU
every year. Exports to EU and the US each accounted for 17% of India's total
exports.
Although India is
only the EU’s ninth-largest trading partner, accounting for just over 2% of
total EU goods trade in 2023, its position has been steadily growing over the
past two decades. Trade in goods has almost doubled in the decade since the FTA
negotiations were suspended, despite the pandemic crisis (2020-21). Trade in
services has grown even faster, almost doubling in 2020-23 from €30.4 billion
to €59.7 billion. Direct investment has been growing at a slightly slower pace,
rising by justover 30% in 2019-22 to €108 billion.
It is precisely
the rapidly growing trade in services and goods and the solid value of
investments that make both sides seem inclined to quickly conclude a trade and
investment agreement to maintain the existing trend. Trade and investment need
a stable legal basis, providing certainty of turnover.
More important factors that
speak in favor of quickly concluding an agreement that hadpreviously been impossible for decades.Firstly,
India-EU ties, especially in bilateral
relations with individual MemberStates, have
gained a strategic dimension not only in terms of declared plans and values, but in terms of interests. Brussels and New Delhi are currently united
by the desire to deepen cooperation in trade and technology, security and
defence issues, but also in the broad sense of global connectivity, i.e.
building multidimensional infrastructural, economic and business connections.
Secondly, bothEU and India are trying to acquire new
trading partners in the face of the
unpredictable policy of the US administration. The level of additional US
import tariffs announced on 2 April - 27% on Indian products and 20% on EU
goods - in both cases surprised business analysts. Since
the US remains the leading trading partner for boththe
European "
27" and India, such high
tariffs could cause economic disruption and crisis. Bilateral FTA may therefore
be a way to escape forward.
Third, even before
the new U.S. tariffs were announced, India’s economic growth, still the fastest among
theworld’smajor economies,
appeared to be slowing. It fell to 5.4% in the fourth quarter of 2024, well
below the RBI’s expectations of 6.8% annual growth. Direct investment data was
also disappointing, with Vietnam and Malaysia benefiting much more effectively
from the policy of relocating some production from China.
In turn, on the Old
Continent, most EU economies are stagnating, and the continent's largest
economy, Germany, is in its third year of recession. For both partners, an FTA would be a way to
stimulate economic growth.
Fourthly, why the current plan to speed up negotiations may
succeed is the clear change in attitudes among Indian elites towards
international trade and FTAs. Until now, New Delhi has been haunted by the
shadow of Jawaharlal Nehru, India's long-time post-war prime
minister, who, becauseof India’s unfavourable
modern experience in relations with the West, saw international trade as
a threat of colonisation.
After a period of
liberalization that began in 1991, tariffs have been rising again since at
least the middle of the last decade. The Modi government has sought liberal
economic reforms within the country since coming to power, but it has also
believed that a combination of higher tariffs and investment incentives should
attract manufacturing.
But New Delhi has
changed its attitude toward trade agreements
in recentyears,
recognizing their potential for growth and modernization and exposing Indian
companies to external competition. Concerns about domination by a rival from
across the northern border, China, prevented India from joining RCEP in 2020,
an agreement that liberalizes trade between the 10 nations of
Southeast Asia (ASEAN) and its five regional trading partners, South Korea,
Japan, China, Australia and New Zealand .
However, India has
sought trade agreements with smaller entities on a bilateral basis. In 2022, an
agreement was signed with the UAE and with Australia a few months later. Negotiations
on pact with UK were resumed. The pressure to quickly conclude an agreement
with EU is therefore part of a broader trend among the
Indian elite: after cades of skepticism, the Indian subcontinent is now
dominated by faith in its own strength and the ability of domestic
entrepreneurs tocope with external
competition.
The preparations for
this incomparably largeragreement also have a practical dimension. During Raisina Dialogue conference in New Delhi one could
sense a certain optimism among hosts and European guests regarding the
acceleration of talks and the
prioritisation of them by the leadership of the EC
and Indian government. Moreover, the ministers of the member states – with the
exception of Hungary – presented an exceptionally coherent position not only on the issue of relations with
India, but also on global challenges.
Teams on
both sides have been strengthened, and both sides at India's most important
geopolitical conference have publicly expressed hope that the talks will be
concluded bythe end of this year. The decision in 2022 to
negotiate on three separate platforms, namely a free trade agreement, an
investment protection agreement and an agreement on geographical indications
(GI) for food products ,has reduced
the risk that a blockade on anyone of them
will lead to the collapse of the whole.
This does not mean,
however, that the conclusion of the agreement is certain. It may be delayed or
permanently blocked by the relations of the EU with its external partners or by
internal factors in India and the Union.The biggest risk factor in trade issues
remains the unpredictable policy of US administration. Given the importance of
the economic partnership between both EU and US and US and India, it is
possible that the current hectic negotiations with Washington will drive
Brussels and New Delhi apart.
India has adopted a
different negotiation strategy than Europe. While EU is currently focused on
finding an internal compromise on tariffs on American goods, subsequent Indian
trade missions are focusing on creating conditions forsigning
a trade agreement withUS too. Before Modi's
visit to Washington in February, tariffs on American bourbon and motors were
reduced. During the visit, the Indian side declared its willingness to purchase
more American gas (LNG), crude oil and arms. There is hope in New Delhi that a
trade agreement on trade in goods with the US will be concluded by autumn 2025,
the goal being to achievetrade exchange of $500 billion in 2030, from $
210 billion lastyear (an average of 15% annually).
Indian negotiators
hope that while they will likely not be able to avoid an increase
in U.S. tariffs on products from the subcontinent, the tariffs will be lower
than those on goods from other parts of the world,
giving Indian products a comparative advantage in US market. However, the parallel talks with Washington could cast
a shadow over EU-India negotiations, especially since it may not be in U.S.
interest to conclude such an agreement between the two American trading
partners any time soon.---INFA
(Copyright, India
News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
A WAY OUT OF THE ARMS RACE, By Inder Jit, 15 May 2025 |
|
|
REWIND
New Delhi, 15 May 2025
A
WAY OUT OF THE ARMS RACE
By
InderJit
(Released
on 21 April 1981)
India
continues to strive hard to somehow block American arms for Pakistan. New Delhi
has not only communicated its views on the subject to Washington, but also
sought to use the British Prime Minister's visit to India to mount pressure on
the US Administration. Mr's Gandhi raised the issue with Mrs Thatcher both
privately and publicly in her official talks and in Parliament's Central Hall
where a departure was made from established practice on the occasion of the
British Prime Minister's address to MPs to enable her also to speak. "The
spectre of cold war peeping in our doorway causes us grave apprehension",
said Mrs Gandhi and added: "We have already spoken to you about the
dangers of giving sophisticated arms to Pakistan." But New Delhi has again
drawn a blank. What is worse, Mrs Thatcher made out a powerful case for
Pakistan in New Delhi at her Press conference which will be remembered for her
superb performance. She answered questions candidly and forthrightly without
the slightest attempt to either hedge or side step or, like Mr Morarji Desai,
reply with counter questions!
We
in India have undoubtedly every reason to be gravely concerned over the
prospect of fresh supply of American arms to Pakistan. Our country has been
attacked thrice by Pakistan in the past three decades and more proving right
Krishna Menon's brilliant quip: No one has yet produced a gun which fires only
in one direction. Experience has also shown that military regimes are inclined
to be less restrained and more trigger happy; both the 1965 and 1971 wars were
launched by Pakistan while the country was ruled by Generals Ayub and Yahya
Khan. But then Pakistan, too, has a problem on its hands, as Mrs Thatcher
argued at her Press conference. The Soviet Union has "invaded" and
"occupied an independent and non-Aligned Afghanistan", posing a
threat to Pakistan. "I would be concerned if I had Soviet troops on my
border. I would be getting all the means to defend myself and my people."
India, she added, had increased its defence capability "enormously"
and was in a position to defend itself. "You cannot deny the same right to
another sovereign nation."
A
question which needs to be asked is: Can something be done to avert an arms
race in the sub-continent? Two possible answers are available. Ideally, the
best would be to get the Soviet Union to pull out of Afghanistan. All the
countries, including Pakistan, have now veered round to India's view that this
can be achieved only through a political solution and not militarily. Yet,
enough has not been done for a political solution. The recent non-aligned meet
in New Delhi took welcome initiative in setting up a four-nation committee to
help resolve the Iran-Iraq conflict. The committee has since been vigorously
following up its mandate and shuttling between world capitals. Yet the meet did
not consider it necessary to either send a mission to Moscow on the Afghan
issue or to set up a committee to help find a political solution. Even today,
many feel that India, which has a vital security stake in getting the Soviets
back to the Oxus, could help itself, the sub-continent and peace generally by
taking a clear initiative regionally.
Opinion
is divided on whether any such initiative would yield results. The Soviet Union
seems to have little intention of pulling out of Afghanistan. But this need not
cause us despair in rest our search for some way to avert an arms race between
India and Pakistan. A second solution lies in taking Gen Zia at his word and
accepting a unilateral offer he made to Mr Swaran Singh in April last year an
offer which he repeated to me in an interview in reply to the question:
"Do you think some kind of a permanent arrangement needs to be made to
ensure against the build-up of a dangerous war psychosis between our two
countries?" He said: "Well, the whole thing starts from a lack of
trust. We must not forget that India and Pakistan have fought three wars. I
only hope we have both realised the futility of wars... Wars do not solve
political problems. In this year of the Lord 1981, might should not be right...
We must create more confidence in the minds of not only the people but also at
the Government level."
He
then recalled his offer to Mr Swaran Singh: "I said to him. Tell us,
whether Pakistan should have a force for its own security or not. Should India
have a force for its security or not? And if you come to the conclusion that
there is justification for Pakistan to have an armed force for its own
security, then ask your (military) experts to tell us what should be the
strength of our forces considering the defence requirements of a country like
Pakistan and its geographic borders. I would accept their assessment and not
debate it. In the process, you may probably ask our reaction. If you were to
say all right, Pakistan should have this much and India that much. I said have
as much as you like, I am not concerned. But I would be very much concerned
when 18 divisions face Pakistan. We have then to think twice as to what all
this exercise is about. But I made this offer. Unfortunately, we had no
reaction at first. The reaction that came much later was 'No'. India said this
is not a fair proposition. Because, Pakistan should have what Pakistan thinks
necessary and India should have what India thinks necessary.
"Then
I said, if that be the case, why should India get allergic to Pakistan's stress
on its legitimate defence requirements. Here again, I proposed that if you want
to know what we have and what we do not have, please come and ask me. I will
tell you exactly what we have. And what you have I will not challenge. India is
a big country. Pakistan realises this... We very humbly suggest to you and through
you to the people of India that it is about time that both countries decided
what was good for them. As for Pakistan, I can say there is no doubt in my mind
that the good of both the countries lies in peaceful relationship, in mutual
understanding, confidence, and respect. Pakistan is a small country. India is a
bigger country, Pakistan today does not consider itself in competition with
India. We can't. We are 80 million people. India is 650 million people. India
is a bigger partner in this. It has a clear role to play and we grant it that
much. But I think there is need for a better understanding and more confidence.
I am sure sooner or later these will come."
I
then said: "These are excellent thoughts, Mr President, I recall having a
chat with SardarSwaran Singh on his return. He and many others in the country
felt that any discussion in regard to the defence forces of the two countries
would have to be preceded by some political understanding. Is that what he said
to you?" Gen Zia replied, "No, he did not say so. We were discussing
bilateral relations and came to the question of defence forces. This is what I
offered unilaterally, as an idea. However, I agree that everything must emerge
from a political understanding which willabout better military understanding
and more confidence in each other. (Almost a year to the day, I wrote:
"Notwithstanding their difference of perception, New Delhi has sought to end
Islamabad's misgivings about India and, in the bargain, conceded Pakistan's
concern for its security from across the Afghan border. Islamabad has been
reassured by Mr Swaran Singh that India presents no security problem to
Pakistan and that Pakistan should regard its eastern border with India as
"a frontier of peace.")
Gen
Zia also made some other remarks in the course of the interview which assume
urgency and importance on two other grounds. First, in the context of the
continuing talk of Pakistan's determined effort to go in for the nuclear bomb
and Mrs Gandhi's forthright declaration in Parliament that India would respond
appropriately in case Pakistan decided to go in for nuclear arms. (Some leading
commentators are already advocating the view that India should exercise its
nuclear option before Pakistan does so.) Second, in the overall context of the
continuing cold war between the two countries and the fresh arms race, Gen Zia
emphatically denied that Pakistan had any intention of either making a nuclear
bomb or of detonating a nuclear device for peaceful purposes. Pakistan, he
said, wanted nuclear technology to fill the gap of its energy requirement. Its
programme was "peaceful and modest." Gen Zia also said that he
regarded the Simla Agreement as a no-war pact and emphasised: "We should
stop living in the past... (and) start a new chapter."
From
here to where? Gen Zia has spoken and, as I said earlier, we should take him at
his word. Full advantage should be taken of Mr P.V. Narasimha Rao's visit to
Islamabad next month to begin a meaningful dialogue to avert an arms race and
end the cold war, which is already causing both India and Pakistan enormous
damage. Some Soviet commentators have reportedly suggested that the American
arms for Pakistan are designed to prod Islamabad to fulfil "its old
territorial ambitions in regard to Kashmir." But this is essentially an
attempt on the part of Moscow to fish in the sub-continent's troubled waters.
Pakistan may or may not accept the line of actual control in Jammu and Kashmir
as an international frontier under the Simla Agreement. However, its
willingness to go by India's assessment of its security requirements reflects a
departure from its old policy and an inclination to accept a peaceful final
settlement of the Kashmir issue.
Time
is here for a bold response to Gen Zia's offer and to test his sincerity. It is
not enough that we keep talking of the East-West detente. New Delhi and
Islamabad need to turn their thoughts to lowering tensions within the
sub-continent itself. India should accept Pakistan's need to strengthen its
defences as a frontline state in terms of Gen Zia's offer. Simultaneously, it
should also seek an agreement in regard to nuclear development and leave no
scope for mutual distrust. Indeed, Mrs Gandhi and Gen Zia should meet to gain
understanding of each other's viewpoint and explore the areas of cooperation.
Mrs Gandhi conveyed to Gen Zia in February last India's respect for the
integrity, sovereignty and independence of Pakistan. Gen Zia has reciprocated
by sending a warm message through Mrs Thatcher. India and Pakistan already
regard the Simla Agreement as a "no-war pact." They should now
consider ending the arms race which will only make them more dependent on the
Super Powers. The two countries need to go beyond the Agreement towards a
possible treaty of peace and friendship.----INFA
(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)
|
|
| | << Start < Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
| Results 51 - 59 of 6263 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|