Monthly Archives: August 2018

Both the Indian Air Force (IAF) and PLAAF (People’s Liberation Army Air Force) had been flying their platforms since the stand-off between India and China’s armies began a month ago in the Galwan and Pangong Tso areas of eastern Ladakh.

Nepal Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli on Wednesday criticised Uttar Pradesh chief minister Yogi Adityanath for his remarks on a border row, saying the Indian leader should be advised not to make “threatening” remarks.

Oli’s remarks were the latest twist in the border dispute between India and Nepal, which erupted last month when Kathmandu protested against the opening of an 80-km road running to Lipulekh on the border with Tibet. Nepal claims the Lipulekh region and the Oli government recently published a new political map that shows the area as part of Nepalese territory.

A constitutional amendment to give legal backing to the map was unanimously endorsed by lawmakers from all political parties in the House of Representatives or the lower house of Nepal’s Parliament on Tuesday.

Participating in a discussion on the issue in the lower house on Wednesday, Oli was quoted by media reports as saying that India’s central leadership should advise Adityanath not to “threaten” Nepal.

“Uttar Pradesh chief minister Adityanath-ji said some things about Nepal. His remarks were not appropriate or legitimate. The leadership of the central government [in India] should tell him not to speak on issues that he is not responsible for. He should also be told that his comments threatening Nepal will be condemned,” Oli said.

Oli was also quoted as questioning India’s contention that the regions of Lipulekh, Kalapani and Limpiyadhura are part of its territory. He said India had deployed its armed forces in these areas since the early 1960s but they belonged to Nepal.

There was no immediate response to Oli’s remarks from Indian officials.

During a recent interview, Adityanath had said Nepal should not “repeat the mistake of Tibet” while determining its political boundaries. “Nepal should think of the consequences and remember what happened to Tibet,” he had said.

Adityanath also said India and Nepal are two political entities but have one soul.

“The two countries have cultural, historical and mythological links that date back several centuries and Nepal should remember this,” he added.

While speaking in Parliament, Oli reiterated Nepal’s offer for a dialogue to settle the border issue. He said Nepal is confident about getting its territory back though diplomatic dialogue as its claims are backed by evidence.

Disturbing trends towards lead nation-led coalitions or lead nation-dominated military interventions have enervated the UN. There is a need to increase the number of permanent members so as to represent the world order. Let critical peace and security issues be decided in the Security Council by two-thirds majority, with no power of veto of any member.

Lt Gen Sanjiv Langer (retd)

former International Civil Servant, UN HQ

WITH the world in the aching throes of a horrifying pandemic, the US President announced withdrawal from the WHO on May 29.This follows a sequence of events and ferociously contested allegations between the US and China, and targeting of the WHO. Without fully verifiable facts, the allegations are open to equivocation. WHO is the visible fall guy, being hit when it is essential to the international battle against Covid-19. Financially, up to 15 per cent of its budget has evaporated, with wider effects. In the resultant ‘incoherence of global response’, the real loser is the community of nations struggling to defeat Covid-19

We need to take a wider view of this increasing phenomenon of the emasculation of the UN and the UN family. The boiling cauldron of Syria is instructive, a conflict that has extended for over a decade, resulted in an estimated 4,00,000 deaths, created 5.6 million refugees, and displaced 6.2 million people internally. Characterised by brutality and complete disregard of humanitarian considerations, the UN was repeatedly annulled by its own permanent members (P5). While there were numerous UN initiatives, draft resolutions, Human Rights Council reports, the Security Council— 15 members, including the P5 — was held hostage.

The acute divide comes in focus when, in contrast, the concern and consensus of the General Assembly (193 nations) is seen. In the UNSC, during this conflict, there have been 14 Russian, and at least seven Chinese vetoes. China supported Russia on most occasions even when it did not veto. What is painful is that but for the veto, the SC was in unison on the need for effective measures to end the conflict and deliver immediate humanitarian aid. These two permanent members even blocked the opening up of humanitarian access to the beleaguered citizens in Syria in December 2019.

During the period of this conflict, the SC was permitted some resolutions on illicit financing, chemical weapons, humanitarian aid, and resolution 2254 of 2015 gave a roadmap for peace. The action end was always curtailed with even the military observer mission collapsing due to violence. It is one thing to approve an investigation team for chemical weapons, quite another to allow it actual access for the investigation.

Let’s wind back to the WHO and the pandemic. In the UNSC, even a discussion on the pandemic was not permitted by the US and China due to their ‘personal’ antagonism for four months. This is in acute contrast with the Ebola epidemic, where the SC resolutions of July 2000 (1308) and September 2014 (2177) galvanised global support. Naturally, the WHO, among others, was at the forefront of that campaign.

In March this year, China, as the chair, blocked discussions on the pandemic. It is only in April, when the Dominican Republic took over, that a draft resolution was fielded. This was, however, blocked by the US on May 9. With close to 206 nations and territories affected and nearly 40% of the cases in the P5 nations and a clear precedence of Ebola, the UNSC has not been permitted to act.

During the same period, the UNGA adopted a resolution co-sponsored by 188 nations, including India, articulating solidarity to fight the Covid-19 pandemic. It is a fine manifestation of the international will, but why not the full institutional power of the UNSC? Evident is a debilitating malaise in the UN family, orchestrated by members who are chartered to be more responsible.

Admittedly, when the UN Charter was adopted, it was far from democratic. The vesting of special role to the P5, a fallout of World War II, and other factors, was iniquitous. Despite this, till the 1990s, the UN managed quite well in peace and security, despite some failures, such as in Congo (1960-64).

Commencing with Cambodia (1991-93), and, more significantly, Somalia (1991-95), the UN struggled with complex emergencies, a genre that has continued till the missions in Sudan.

Those who have worked in the UN are aware of the politics and predilections of the P5. Mandate formulation and mission execution was challenging and complex. The finalisation of the rules of engagement and operational guidance for missions was peppered with impediments. There was, however, no despondency and the organisation struggled on. This was a reflection of the belief in the UN. Multifaceted security situations and human suffering was not wished away (with exceptions, for example Rwanda, the Great Lakes Region, Africa). Also, as peacekeepers, we were aware that the members of the UN family, like WHO, WFP, UNDP, UNHCR and committed NGOs such as MSF and the ICRC were effective well before the UN missions and stayed on till well after. In many cases, they gave vital support for UN missions.

Disregarding this, the disturbing recent trends towards the lead nation-led coalitions or lead nation-dominated military interventions have enervated the UN. A graduation of this trend is now the complete obstruction of the UN or its negation (WHO), at the behest of the P5. Those charter-bound for greater responsibility have become its greatest adversaries. In exception, France and the UK of the P5 cannot be encumbered with this stigma.

The international community has reached a stage where the tragedy of Syria has manifested and continues, while the UN is hostage to select members of the P5. While the world community sees its duty to humanity, these select members do not. A direct attack has been launched on the WHO, which is critical to the world at this stage. The world community needs and wants the WHO. Can the autocracy of the few ruin the commitment of the world community? With the UN structured the way it is, unfortunately, yes.

The way ahead lies in not only empowering the UN and increasing the number of permanent members, but also in obliterating the veto. Permanent members need to increase to represent the world order. This should be centred on their commitment and capabilities. Let critical peace and security issues be decided in the Security Council by two-thirds majority, with no power of veto of any member.

With the cascading US withdrawal from world fora and China’s obsession with the capture of strategic international space, their veto privilege is anachronistic. Russia, with its impressive rebound, fired by Syria, and hydrocarbons, is seeking its own unique world stature. An objective commitment is suspect. The veto power with them is irrational.

The community of nations has shown its might in the General Assembly repeatedly, in sharp contrast to the P5 members. As a first, we should demand an amendment of the UN Charter to strike down veto powers. If the immense suffering caused, in conflict and health, is meditated on, we, as a conscientious member of the UN, would do well to recall the words of Guru Gobind Singh in his Zafarnama: ‘B-Been Gardish-e Be-wafaai-e-zamaan, Pas-e-pusht Uftad Rasaanad Ziyaan’ (Look at the turn of the unfaithful world, when it sets itself after someone, it inflicts injury and does harm to him).

G Parthasarathy

Chancellor, Jammu Central University & former High Commissioner to Pakistan

WHEN reports started pouring in recently, of Chinese troops again crossing the LoC in Ladakh, there was a feeling of considerable concern in India. There were queries in the minds of some, on whether our northern defences would be breached yet again by our assertive and ambitious northern neighbour, as it did in 1962. Many in India still remain afflicted by the ‘1962 syndrome’, though there is now better confidence in India’s growing military, economic and diplomatic clout. There now appears to be a better understanding of how a growingly confident India has handled Chinese aggression on its borders in more recent times.

Growing Chinese arrogance has pitted it against the US and many European powers. Beijing has also failed to undermine India’s influence in the Indian Ocean Region.

The 1962 debacle has been attributed to a gross misreading of Chinese intentions by the then PM, Jawaharlal Nehru, and defence minister VK Krishna Menon. We went wrong even in military appointments in 1962. Lt Gen BN Kaul, an officer with no combat experience, was appointed to lead the Indian forces in the then Northeast Frontier Agency (now Arunachal Pradesh). Gen PN Thapar was made the Army Chief, overlooking the claims of the highly decorated and respected Lt Gen SV Thorat. Our forces were ill-equipped and outgunned by the Chinese. The Chinese army was battle-hardened, after challenging the Americans in Korea. Successive governments led by Lal Bahadur Shastri and Indira Gandhi built up our defence capacities, which led to the creation of Bangladesh in 1971, thanks also to Soviet military supplies.

India’s forces were tested yet again, when Chinese forces crossed the generally accepted international border, and took up positions in an area called Sumdorong Chu in 1986. Then Army Chief, Gen Sundarji, airlifted around 3,000 troops, just south of the border, to areas occupied earlier by the Chinese, leaving the Chinese dumbfounded. China’s supreme leader Deng Xiaoping warned that he would teach India ‘another lesson’. He evidently forgot the ‘lessons’ China received in 1979, after he had similarly warned and invaded Vietnam!

Successive governments have followed up by expanding ties with China. Despite this, the Sino-Indian border remains vulnerable to Chinese moves to expand its influence by probing militarily in places like Doklam, which have been thwarted by India. China has, thus far, refused to discuss, define and delineate the border. Beijing wishes to keep the territorial issue alive to pressure India through cross-border incursions.

Indian forces, including a Mountain Division, are now deployed in Ladakh, backed by tanks, artillery and armoured personnel carriers, and air support. The Modi government is determined to improve the transportation corridors in what is now the UT of Ladakh. Speaking in Parliament on August 5, 2019, Home Minister Amit Shah observed: ‘Kashmir is an integral part of India, there is no doubt over it. When I talk about J&K, Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and Aksai Chin are included in it.’

The Chinese have protested this statement, given their territorial claims in Ladakh and their concerns about the development of the airport and other facilities at Daulat Beg Oldie. The airport is located barely 8 km from the sensitive Aksai Chin corridor, linking China’s Tibet and Xinjiang provinces. Beijing seeks to eventually control the entire Aksai Chin plateau, on which parts of Ladakh are located. India is, however, firmly going ahead with the construction of roads, including its strategic air base.

China is also concerned about recent moves reflecting close cooperation between India, the US and Australia, along with countries like Indonesia and Vietnam, to call into question Beijing’s excessive maritime territorial claims on virtually all its neighbours, including Japan, South Korea, Vietnam, the Philippines and Indonesia. These claims are in gross violation of the International Laws of the Seas. India has, in recent years, been promoting an assertive response to China’s efforts to undermine its relations with all its neighbours, bilaterally, regionally and internationally, while using Pakistan as its stalking horse. Moreover, India has not joined others in pointing fingers at what many across the world believe is the cover-up by China of the facts on the source of the coronavirus.

India has, however, worked with others and ensured that the 130-member WHO voted for an inquiry into the emergence of the virus.

China realises that India is going to stand firm in Ladakh. Most importantly, India will not go back on its decision to build a network of roads across the areas of present tensions in the Pangong Lake and Galwan River. This was made clear to China when New Delhi announced recently that 11 special trains were set to carry 11,815 workers to Ladakh, J&K, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand for work on road projects.

China would be well advised to remember that India in 2020 is not what it was in 1962. The Chinese failed to change existing borders in previous instances. Growing Chinese arrogance has led to new global rivalries, pitting it against the US and many European powers, like the UK, France and Germany. Beijing has also not succeeded in undermining India’s influence in the Indian Ocean Region. Differences and tensions on the Sino-India border can, however, be addressed if China abides by the provisions of the border agreement signed in 2005. The agreement states that the border ‘should be along well defined and easily identifiable natural geographical features, mutually agreed on’. The meeting of senior regional commanders of India and China has set the stage for a dialogue to resolve differences. One has, however, to look forward to hard negotiations ahead. China is not generally given to easily returning territories it claims and seizes.

Srinagar, June 10

The body of a 25-year-old soldier, who had been missing since Friday, was recovered on Wednesday morning from a National Hydel Power Corporation (NHPC) barrage in north Kashmir’s Baramulla district.

Afsar Singh of 5 Jat Regiment and a resident of Uttar Pradesh was posted at Chahla Boniyar, Uri. He had been missing since June 5. His unit had filed a missing report with the local police station.

“His body was found from an NHPC barrage this morning,” a police officer said. — TNS

Tribune News Service

Jammu/Rajouri, June 11

An Army jawan lost his life in the ceasefire violation by Pakistan along the Line of Control (LoC) in Manjakot sector of Rajouri district on Wednesday night. A civilian was also injured in Rajdhani village of Manjakot sector.

The deceased was identified as Naik Gurcharan Singh, a resident of Gurdaspur district in Punjab. His body has been shifted to Rajouri hospital for autopsy.

“Pakistan resorted to heavy shelling in civilian areas along the LoC in Manjakot sector on Wednesday night. An army jawan and a civilian were injured in the ceasefire violation. Pakistan has been targeting civilian areas along the LoC for the past few days with its sole aim to push armed militants into Indian territory,” a source said.

“In the early hours of Wednesday, Pakistan targeted the civilian areas in Nowshera sector. Later, it initiated ceasefire violation by firing with small arms and shelling with mortars in Balakote sector of Poonch district. The Army has been retaliating befittingly,” sources said.

On June 4, an Army havildar was killed in mortar shelling in Sunderbani sector in Rajouri district.

For the past few months, Pakistan army has been desperately trying to push militants into Rajouri and Poonch districts under the cover of heavy artillery, mortar shelling and firing on the Indian army’s forward locations and civil areas.