Submit your Article

India's Permanent Representative to the UN, Ruchira Kamboj, said on Friday that India is deeply disturbed by the recent turn of developments in Ukraine and stressed that dialogue is the only answer to settle differences and disputes after India abstained in the UN Security Council vote which condemned Russia's "illegal referenda" and annexation of Ukrainian regions, calling for an immediate cessation of violence.  The 15-nation UN Security Council on Friday voted on the draft resolution tabled by the US and Albania that condemns Russia's "organization of illegal so-called referenda in regions within Ukraine's internationally recognised borders." The UN security council voted on the resolutions condemning referendums in Ukraine at UNSC on Friday which were tabled by the US and Albania and failed to get adopted as Russia vetoed it whereas India, China, Gabon, and Brazil abstained.  Explaining the vote, Kamboj urged that all efforts are made by the concerned sides for the immediate cessation of violence and said that dialogue is the only answer to settling differences and disputes.  "Dialogue is the only answer to settling differences and disputes, however daunting that may appear at this moment. The path to peace requires us to keep all channels of diplomacy open," she said during the address at UNSC. She further highlighted the statements made by the External Affairs Minister in his recent engagements at UNGA during the High-Level Week on the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine. Referring to Prime Minister Narendra Modi's advice to Russian President Putin during the SCO Summit in Samarkand that this cannot be an era of war, Kamboj said that India is hopeful of an early resumption of peace talks for resolution of the conflict.  "India's position has been clear and consistent from the very beginning of this conflict. The global order is anchored on principles of the UN Charter, international law and respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states," the UN envoy added.  "Escalation of rhetoric or tensions is in no one's interest. It is important that pathways are found for a return to the negotiating table. Keeping in view the totality of the evolving situation, India has decided to abstain from this resolution," Kamboj said.  Putin signed the documents on Friday to formally announce the annexation of four regions - Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. Russia's annexation sparked wide criticism from around the world. The United States announced that it will impose a "swift and severe cost" on Russia.  Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that the "United States unequivocally rejects Russia's fraudulent attempt to change Ukraine's internationally recognized borders."  "We will continue the United States' powerful, coordinated efforts to hold Russia to account, cut Russia's military off from global commerce and severely limit its ability to sustain its aggression and project power," he added.  In an earlier briefing on Tuesday, Kamboj said the Ukraine war has resulted in the loss of countless lives and miseries for people particularly women, children and the elderly with millions becoming homeless and taking shelter in neighboring countries.  Ruchira Kamboj said that New Delhi will continue to work with the International Community to mitigate economic hardships resulting from the Ukraine conflict.  During the UNSC briefing, the UN envoy also reiterated that India's approach to the ongoing war in Ukraine will be human-centric as the country firmly believes that global order should be anchored on international law in the UN charter. (ANI)

The endorsement of the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), a US grant program, by the Nepali parliament in February this year caused a huge political controversy in Kathmandu. Next came the outrage over the draft of the US State Partnership Program (SPP) that was leaked to the media. While the US says the document is fake, a section of Nepali leaders and intellectuals are not convinced.  Some provisions mentioned in the draft go against Nepal’s non-alignment foreign policy and could upset the security and stability of South Asia. That is why the Nepal government has put the ‘disaster reduction plan’ on hold, for now, stating that it cannot join any military alliances. The Sher Bahadur Deuba government, like its predecessors in 2015, 2017, and 2019, was initially impressed by the SPP's mitigation content, but a closer look at the "partnership" program reveals a risk that Nepal cannot afford. Some argue that the SPP is administered by the National Guard Bureau, guided by the foreign policy objectives of the US Department of State, and carried out by senior military officers (state lieutenants) in each US state in support of the policy objectives of the Department of Defense. Through the SPP, the National Guard conducts military-to-military engagement in support of national defense security objectives but also leverages society-wide relationships and capabilities to facilitate broader inter-agency and inevitable engagement across military, governmental, economic, and social domains. The ‘military alliance’ between Nepal and the US would be unacceptable to India, with which Nepal has a close relationship. It would also infuriate China. The SPP was created in the 1990s as a post-Cold War effort to pair National Guard units from various US states with those from the former Soviet bloc. It has been described as "a key US security cooperation tool." It has a strong military component, including joint Nepal-US military training and scholarships for Nepali officers to be trained at US colleges. As one diplomat puts it, the SPP is "a multipurpose tool for advancing broad US political and strategic goals under the blanket cloak of humanitarian engagement." It is worth noting that the US has been working with Ukraine since 1993 through a similar program. The state of California, the US claims, has contributed significantly to Ukraine's continued defense modernization. "For the past 29 years, the California National Guard has taught, trained with, and shared successes and failures with Ukrainian military personnel," the Defense Department mentions on its website, which came into play this year after military broke out between Russia and Ukraine. The US once again mentioned the SPP in its Indo-Pacific Strategy paper in 2022. So does the US want Nepal to become the next "Ukraine" region? Such a question deserves serious consideration in Nepal. Since its inception, the SPP has been administered by the National Guard Bureau, whose director holds the rank of general and is a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, equal to the heads of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. The US National Guard integrates the characteristics of the reserve forces, local armed forces, and militias of many countries.  As an important part of the US reserve forces, it has the same powerful combat effectiveness as the US active forces, and its equipment and training level far exceed that of the active forces of many countries. Such a force is difficult to define as a national army in international law. This, we believe, is the most cunning part of the SPP agreement. In recent years, the US has increased its involvement and penetration in Nepali politics, and the disclosure of the SPP documents has once again laid bare Washington's ambition to strengthen its military presence in Nepal. The projection of US military power into Nepal would undoubtedly upset the fragile balance and greatly exacerbate the geopolitical and security landscape in the region. The Nepali people themselves are well aware of their precarious situation. Politicians from the ruling and opposition parties have been warning against signing any military agreement with the US. Many say signing the SPP would be "equivalent" to signing the US Indo-Pacific Strategy. And Nepal is not really an ally in the eyes of the US, nor does it have the bargaining power with Washington. If such an agreement is signed it will hamper Nepal’s independent and non-alignment foreign policy.  A country like Nepal can never achieve real security unless it is very strong itself or learns to balance great power relations instead of blindly joining "military alliances" or "selection stations.” (Khin is the director of Tampadipa Institute in Yangon, Myanmar. )

Given the sensitivity of China-India ties after last summer's trespassing across the border by Indian troops, it is no surprise that the Indian defense minister's recent visit to military posts along the border has provoked Chinese concerns.

Yet the popularity of a new Bollywood movie among Chinese filmgoers highlights the warmth of relations between the peoples of the two countries.

On Saturday, Indian Defense Minister Nirmala Sitharaman visited forward posts along the China-India border, where Indian media reports say she was briefed on their operational preparedness. Considering that Indian and Chinese troops were locked in a two-month standoff in Donglang from June to August last year, an event that put a freeze on bilateral ties, the move has, not surprisingly, been interpreted as India showing it is taking a hard-line stance on the border issue.

But while Sitharaman's border visit has revived the strategic mistrust and suspicions between the two sides, Indian film star Aamir Khan has opened another window on ties, one that offers a more upbeat perspective of relations between the two peoples.

Khan's latest film Secret Superstar has taken Chinese audiences by storm, and Chinese filmgoers' appreciation of Khan's performance is clear evidence that Chinese people bear no ill-will toward their neighbors.

India should appreciate that after last summer's standoff this is not the time to test China's bottom line on the sensitive border issue, because any misstep and misjudgment could easily trigger another round of tensions.

But there is really no reason why the two sides cannot continue to deepen the bonds of friendship that exist between the two peoples and seek to resolve the issues that threaten to drive a wedge between them. Certainly, the fundamental foundations of the relationship between the two countries remain strong.

To this end, cultural exchanges and economic cooperation, rather than deliberate provocations on sensitive issues, are a much better choice for the two neighbors to build good momentum in their relations.

Matters are coming to a head in the Maldives, with President Abdulla Yameen’s government pitted against the judiciary, polity and sections of the bureaucracy.  Yameen has ruled since 2013 when he won power in an election, the result of which is still contested. He defeated Mohammad Nasheed, who had been deposed in 2012 and who, in 2015, was sentenced to 13 years in prison on charges of terrorism.  Nasheed is now in exile. In an order on February 1, the Supreme Court cancelled his imprisonment term and that of eight other political leaders, reinstated 12 parliamentarians who had been disqualified last year, and ordered Yameen to allow the Maldivian parliament, or Majlis, to convene. Yameen has thus far failed to comply with any of these orders, despite an official statement on February 2 about his government’s “commitment to uphold and abide by the ruling of the Supreme Court”. The most egregious failure is the government’s refusal to cancel the imprisonment of the nine leaders, amongst whom is Yameen’s former vice president and his former defence minister, members of parliament and leaders of major opposition parties, apart from Mr. Nasheed himself. The President has also refused to allow the Majlis to meet, which has led to the resignation of its Secretary General. In fact, the government sent in the army to stop lawmakers from entering the premises, besides arresting two parliamentarians at the airport. Meanwhile, several officials, including two police chiefs and the prison chief have resigned or been sacked, reportedly for seeking to implement the Supreme Court’s orders. The Attorney General has now announced that only the Constitution matters, not “illegal orders” from the court. In short, the Maldives is in the midst of a constitutional crisis. Calling fresh elections, which are in any case due later this year, may be the best way out.

Amidst the turmoil, India has joined the U.S., the European Union and several other countries in calling for Yameen to carry out the Supreme Court’s order. New Delhi said in a statement that it is monitoring the situation in Male “closely”. But currently, Delhi’s leverage in the Maldives is less than it has ever been. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s decision to cancel his visit to Male three years ago, has singled Maldives out as the only country in the South Asian and Indian Ocean Region that he hasn’t visited. Given that the Maldives has pulled out of the Commonwealth, and there is little semblance of a SAARC process at present, India’s influence in Male is further limited. It will require concerted action from the international community to persuade Yameen to steer the Maldives out of this crisis, without taking recourse to coercive means.