UNIT- I

Policy and Principles

1. Indian Foreign Policy

2. Basic Principles

3. Internal and External Determinants

4. Indian Nuclear Policy

1.1 GENESIS AND FOUNDATIONS OF INDIA’S
FOREIGN POLICY: IDEOLOGY, PRINCIPLES, GOALS
AND OBJECTIVES -

1.1.0 Objectives
1.1.1 Introduction
1.1.2 Genesis of India’s Foreign Policy
1.1.3 Ideology of India’s Foreign Policy
1.1.4 Goals of India’s Foreign Policy
1.1.5 Objectives of India’s Foreign Policy
1.1.6 Principles of India’s Foreign Policy
1.1.7 Nuclear Policy
1.1.8 Let us Sum Up
1.1.0 OBJECTIVE

This introductory lesson provides basic understanding about evolution of India’s

foreign policy in the post-independence period. After going through this topic, you
should be able to: know the ideological influences of nationalist movement on
foreign policy of India;

 understand the goals and objectives of the India’s foreign policy;

 comprehend the principles on which India’s foreign policy is based upon, during
Cold

 War and post-Cold War period.

1.1.1 INTRODUCTION

A country's foreign policy consists of self-interest strategies chosen by the state to

safeguard its national interests and to achieve goals within its international
relations milieu. The approaches are strategically employed to interact with other
countries.

The aforementioned interaction is evaluated and monitored in attempts to

maximize benefits of multilateral international cooperation. Since the national
interests are paramount, foreign policies are designed by the government through
high-level decision making processes.

National interests’ accomplishment can occur as a result of peaceful cooperation

with other nations, or through exploitation. Usually, formulation of the foreign
policy is the job of the head of government and the foreign minister or equivalent.

In some countries the legislature also has considerable effects. Foreign policies of
countries have varying rates of change and scopes of intent, which can be affected
by factors that change the perceived national interests or even affect the stability of
the country itself.

The foreign policy of one country can have a profound and lasting impact on many
other countries and on the course of international relations as a whole. India’s
foreign policy has been subject to various pulls and pushes since its inception. In
this chapter, we will study the orientation of India’s foreign policy, which was a
product of the long drawn freedom struggle and Indian leadership’s interaction
with the outside world during that period.

This chapter analyses the goals of the foreign policy and principles adopted to
achieve those goals.

1.1.2 GENESIS OF INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY

Indian leadership formulated certain basic principles on which the framework of

India’s foreign policy was constructed. These could be termed as means of India’s
foreign policy to achieve the ends. India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru,
was the chief architect of this framework, which was an aggregation of India’s
principles and concrete realities in international arena. In real terms, Indian foreign
policy came into being with the advent of independence in 1947.

Until then the nation, as a satellite of the British Empire, had no diplomatic identity
and eschewed the postulates of foreign policy dictated by the erstwhile rulers.
India’s role in the First World War and the subsequent course of its rudimentary
diplomatic overtures were constrained by prevailing British influences.

The preponderance of political leaders and philosophers such as Mahatma Gandhi,

Nehru and Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan in the ruling elite of India in the immediate
post-independence era brought an element of altruism and idealism into its polity.

Nehru himself taken responsibility as a foreign minister and throughout his life
remained the chief architect of India’s foreign policy. He tried to identify the
country’s foreign policy with anti-colonialism and anti-racism. He also promoted
India’s role as a peacemaker, which was an extension of Gandhian policies and
deeply rooted in the indigenous religious traditions of Buddhism, Hinduism and
Jainism.

Like foreign policies of other countries, India’s was based first on its government’s
perceptions of national interests and security considerations. India’s foreign policy
defined by Nehru as non-aligned was based on the Five Principles of Panch-Sheel
— mutual respect for other nations’ territorial integrity and sovereignty, non
aggression, non-interference in internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit and
peaceful coexistence.
In the 1950s, India attempted to play an important role in international politics
even though it did not possess all the necessary attributes. It endeavoured to
overcome its power weaknesses by politically mobilising African and Asian
nations and by assuming for a time, the leadership of non-aligned nations.

Washington considered this policy not only an obstacle in the way of its
containment of the Soviet Union but also an attempt to create an additional global
force. It thus launched a policy of military containment and neutralisation of India
through the military build-up of Pakistan in 1954.

These years of diplomatic vacillations and ambiguity were characterised by a

general unwillingness in India to address foreign policy issues in perspective and
with pragmatic foresight. The next decade began as the era of Panch-Sheel and
non-alignment and India hoped that the border issues over the validity of the
McMahon line, incursions into Aksai Chin and military action in Tibet by the
Chinese would be resolved by discussions, as it did not have the appropriate
military preparedness to counter China’s coercive diplomacy.

The 1962 military defeat revealed that the country’s role pretensions were
inconsistent with its capabilities, which resulted in somewhat undermining India’s
global influence. Nehru’s attempts to play a global leadership role failed, because
of the widespread recognition after 1962 that India was not master in its own
house.

Indian diplomacy and statesmanship could not prevent a war with China, nor could
its ill-equipped and ill-prepared military machine sustain it. The Chinese invasion
humiliated India, shook its position in the international sphere and gave it its first
object lesson that utopian foreign policies are often ignored in the face of
pragmatic geopolitical compulsions so that a military backup to diplomacy is a
prerequisite.

In this period, the country gave concrete proof of its capability to become a
regional superpower in the twenty-first century. During the East Pakistan (now
Bangladesh) Crisis, India was staggered by the American warning that it should
expect no assistance in the event of Chinese intervention.
To counter the US–China alliance against India, in a masterly balance of power
move, Indira Gandhi entered into a Treaty of Friendship with the USSR. When war
erupted and with the US and China diplomatically and militarily neutralised by the
USSR, India was able to inflict a severe military defeat on America’s proxy —
Pakistan in 1971.

Thus, India created a new strategic environment and emerged as the preeminent
power in South Asia. Its nuclear test in 1974 was an indicator that it would
endeavour to maintain its pre-eminence in the subcontinent as well as its
independent status.

During the 1980s, India came into its own in terms of foreign policy. The success
of the 1971 War, a stronger military and a more mature nation were part of the
reason. In addition, increasing domestic troubles led to the need for greater
engagement with the world, as the emergence of the media increased “international
pressure”.

The country began to play a greater role in Asian fora, engaged several countries
bilaterally and increased its UN peacekeeping engagements. However, internal
troubles and political turmoil stopped it from achieving a truly global status in
economic terms.

Furthermore, the decade started on an ominous note for India’s strategic concerns.
However, the post-Cold War context completely changed the international
dynamics and India needs to reorient its foreign policy as per the changed context.
And it did it very well. T

The political and diplomatic class moved quite well to stabilize India’s foreign
policy in the changed context. The changes were so extreme that Israel, the country
whose recognition India opposed, emerged as one of the leading exporter of India’s
defence equipment. The responses at economic, political and strategic levels have
enabled India to emerge as a potential great power though it still faces enormous
developmental challenges.

1.1.3 IDEOLOGY OF INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY

The ideology and political traditions of a country influences its foreign policy
substantially. More so for a country like India whose political traditions evolved
during the nationalist movement against British colonialism. Apart from anti-
imperialist orientation, which is a natural outcome of anti-colonial struggle, the
Gandhian values of non-violence and peace,

The following section will discuss some of the issues related to ideological
foundations of India’s foreign policy.

[Link] IDEALIST VIEW OF POLITICS AND POWER

The ancient Indian tradition of nonviolence in general, and the Asokan tradition in
particular, found its manifestation in an idealist approach to politics, both national
and international, in the mainstream of Indian nationalist movement led by Gandhi.
Politics Gandhi defined not in its usual sense of the art of capturing and managing
governmental power, but as the “transformation of social relationships” in terms of
certain ultimate values. He was severely critical of power politics and advised his
followers to stay away from “power politics and its contagion”.

The only desirable and enduring form of power, according to him, was the power
of nonviolence, which would involve love and respect for the adversary, and which
he believed to be much greater than that of the atom bomb. Jawaharlal Nehru and
other policymakers of the post-independent India were profoundly influenced by
the nonviolent national movement led by Gandhi, as well as by the modern Indian
tradition of idealist political thinking in general.

Although, Nehru, as prime minister, could not afford to be a pure idealist, and
often referred to the real factors in India’s national interest as important
determinant of his foreign policy, he also strongly criticized the purely realist view
of international relations based on military and economic power, and repeatedly
emphasized the idealist political tradition of modern India in general and the
Gandhian insistence on nonviolent and right means in particular, as an important
element of Indian foreign policy.

[Link] IDEALIST APPROACH TO INTERNATIONALISM

Idealist approach to internationalism is one of the important ideological
instruments that influenced the India’s foreign policy during the early post-
independence period. Gandhi pleaded for the “voluntary interdependence of
nations” of nations as against their “isolated independence”. Jawaharlal Nehru did
not come entirely under the spell of this romanticized idealism, and certainly
introduced a political element and a large measure of objectivity.

But neither he nor the Indian National Congress came close to what in
contemporary jargon would be called “political realism”. In 1942, the All India
Congress Committee passed a resolution in which it observed that “the future
peace, security and ordered progress of the world demand a World Federation of
free nations, and on no other basis can the problems of the modern world be
solved”.

Such a federation, the resolution said, would ensure the freedom of the member-
nations, prevent aggression and exploitation by one nation of another, protect
national minorities, lead to the advancement of all backward areas and peoples,
and the utilization of the world resources for the common benefit of all nations.
Before Independence, Nehru persistently stressed this world-view of the Indian
National Congress.

In January 1947 he told the Constituent Assembly: “The only possible real
objective that we, in common with other nations, can have is the objective of
cooperating in building up some kind of world structure, call it One World, call it
what you may.” IN his various foreign policy pronouncements Nehru stated
categorically that the ideal of One World constituted one of the important bases of
Indian foreign policy in general and of India’s policy towards the United Nations
in particular.

[Link] ANTI-IMPERIALISM AND ANTI-RACIALISM

Anti-imperialism as an aspect of Indian foreign policy developed out of India’s

own experience of British imperialism. At the initial states, however, India’s anti-
imperialism was primarily a protest against British rule in India, rather than an
international ideal.
However, since First World War Congress started protesting against all forms of
imperialism. In 1928 the Congress observed that “the struggle of the Indian people
for freedom is a part of the general world struggle against imperialism and its
manifestation”.

On account of the British racialist policy in India, which “permeated all the
services and constituted the distinguishing characteristic of British rule in the East
in the 19th century”, imperialism and racialism became identified in India’s
historical experience.

One of the aspects of Soviet life which made a deep impressions on Nehru’s mind
during his visit to Moscow at the end of 1927 was what he considered to be the
complete absence of the racial prejudice in Soviet society.

By 1947 anti-imperialism and anti-racialism had become categorical imperatives of

the Indian national mind, and Nehru only expressed a deep Indian sentiment when
he declared in 1946, as the Prime Minister of the Interim Government of India, that
anti-imperialism and anti-racialism were the “kernel of our foreign policy”.

[Link] ASIANISM India’s

Asianism was a corollary to anti-imperialism and anti-racialism. The growth of the

nationalist spirit in India was associated with the realization that practically the
whole of Asia was suffering from imperialistic oppression and racial
discrimination in one form or another, and that the historical experience and the
destiny of Asian countries were linked together.

The national movements in different Asian countries, particularly the poitical

consolidation and industrial development of Japan, resulting in her victory over
Russia in 1905, and the Chinese revolution of 1911 further inspired the leaders of
Indian freedom movement and strengthened their sense of a common Asian
destiny.

From the end of the First World War the Indian National Congress talked of the
need for an “Asiatic Federation”. In 1928 the Congress resolved that “India should
develop contacts with other countries and peoples who also suffer under
imperialism and desire to combat it” and directed its Working Committee to
convene “the first session of a Pan-Asiatic Federation in 1930 in India”.
In 1942 the Congress resolved that “the freedom of India must be a symbol of and
prelude to the freedom of all other Asiatic nations under foreign domination”. Thus
when Nehru convened the first Asian Relations Conference in New Delhi in March
1947 and observed in his inaugural address that “in order to have one world, we
must also, in Asia, think of the countries of Asia cooperating together for that
larger ideal”.

[Link] REJECTION OF WESTERN DEMOCRACY AND COMMUNISM

The ideals of nonviolence, democracy, anti-imperialism, anti-racialism, Pan-

Asianism, cooperative internationalism, etc. gave the Indian people a certain
autonomy in political thinking and a world outlook which fitted neither with that of
the Western countries nor with that of the Communist bloc.

The anti-Western democratic feelings were the result of the perception that this
system was responsible for the cruel imperialism in Asia and Africa. There was
also the feeling that the capitalist economic system which was associated with this
type of democracy was based on the exploitation of the common people at home
and the people in the colonies. Similarly, there is realization in the Indian
nationalist leadership that the Russian Revolution and the state system which had
come into existence as a result of it were utterly repugnant to the basic ideals of the
Indian nationalist movement, especially against those of nonviolence, democracy,
and cooperative internationalism.

Hence, the leadership strived to establish a new set of political and economic
institutions which would steer clear of the evils of both the systems and break new
ideological ground for the future course of human progress. The resolutions of the
Indian National Congress since the early thirties reflected this ideological
autonomy of Indian nationalism.

The Karachi Resolution of 1931 laid the foundation of both political democracy
and state initiative, control and planning for rapid economic development with
equality and justice. This middle ground of ideological stance later on led to India
championing the nonalignment movement with likeminded countries.

Non-alignment is basically aimed at keeping equidistance from western bloc led by

America and Socialist bloc led by Soviet Union. It always voices of the newly
independent countries, which later on popularly called as Third World countries.
India is in the forefront of this Third World movement for a long time.

[Link] CHANGING CONTEXT: IDEOLOGY TO PRAGMATISM

It must be kept in the mind that the above mentioned ideologies and political
traditions had grown up with the Indian freedom movement and the Indian
National Congress in a colonial context. It is natural that any change in this
context, both domestic and international, also changes the ideological perceptions.

Hence, though Nehru represents the nationalist traditions, however, his foreign
policy reflected a mixture of idealism and realism, and a constant effort to
synthesize the two. Similarly, the next Prime Minister, Lal Bahadur Shastri
displayed realism in both war and peace during his brief tenure.

Under Indira Gandhi, there was a perceptible decline of idealism in both domestic
and foreign policy, although the idealistic rhetoric was sometimes used as an
ideological camouflage. But there was a strong emphasis on the anti-imperialist
and anti-racialist aspects of foreign policy. The Janata Party, which came to power
in 1977, pledged allegiance to Gandhian principles in both domestic and foreign
policy. However, there were important developments in 1960s that affected India’s
foreign policy substantially and led to the relative decline of Asianism.

The idea of Asian solidarity had developed within the mainstream of the Indian
national movement at a time when the partition of the subcontinent or the triumph
of the Communism in China was not anticipated. Nehru always regarded
friendship between India and China as the only possible foundation of a movement
for Asian unity.

But the growing antagonism between India and China from 1959 onwards,
culminating in the border war of 1962, undermined the foundations of Asianism as
an element of India’s foreign policy. The many wars that India fought with
Pakistan further complicated the situation.
[Link] IDEOLOGY IN POST-COLD WAR PERIOD

India’s foreign policy throughout the Cold War period, i.e. it’s attainment of
independence in 1947 to demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, guided by the
ideological neutrality between East and West and not aligning with any one group
on political or strategic matters. On a world-wide scale, this policy is well known
as "active neutrality."

It arises in part from the great need for peace in order to concentrate upon internal
problems, and in part from a deep sense of security which characterized Indian
thinking on world affairs until recently and which obviated the need to take sides.
It has incidental advantages as well.

India, unattached to any group, retains greater freedom of action to play its
leadership role in Asia; also, the government can avoid antagonizing any one
faction too much a vital consideration at a time when strong opposition is arising
inside and outside of the Congress.

However, the collapse of the Socialist bloc of Soviet Union and Eastern Europe
forced many countries alter trajectories of their foreign policies. The demise of the
Soviet Union deprived India of the support of a veto-wielding power in the U.N.
Security Council, ended a highly favourable arms-transfer relationship that had
enabled New Delhi to maintain a modern military, and removed a virtual guarantee
against Chinese nuclear blackmail. The Soviet collapse also undermined India's
autarkic approach to economic development, which, in turn, had serious
consequences with respect to its foreign policy options. Not only was the Soviet
model of long-range planning, and massive state regulation of industry discredited,
but almost simultaneously, in 1991, India faced an unprecedented financial crisis.

The high cost of purchasing oil on the global spot market, the expenses incurred in
repatriating thousands of workers from the Persian Gulf states before the onset of
the first Gulf War, the loss of their remittances, and loan payments to multilateral
banks drained India's exchequer.

Hence, the end of Cold War and demise of Soviet Union not only altered the
foreign policy course but also led to the changes to domestic ideological positions
and normative order. The economic reforms that were introduced in India, have
significantly altered core national values, traditions, norms and ideological grounds
on which social, political and economic systems were founded in the early years of
independence.

Adjusting to the unipolar realities of early 1990s, India's leaders also began to
dispense with their anti-American ranting on matters ranging from global
disarmament to climate change to international trade negotiations, and New Delhi
started to play a more constructive role in such global multilateral institutions as
the World Trade Organization.

They also dropped their rhetoric on behalf of the Third World at the United
Nations and in other multilateral fora. And in another dramatic shift, India, acting
on a desire to ingratiate itself with Israel and the United States, played a
constructive role in overturning the obnoxious U.N. resolution that equated
Zionism with racism. Other important policy changes followed. Throughout the
Cold War, in an attempt to court Arab public opinion and fearful of a domestic
public backlash from its substantial Muslim minority, India had refused to
maintain full diplomatic relations with Israel.

Prime Minister Rao reversed this decades-old policy in a single stroke and with
only mild domestic opposition. By so doing, he hoped to gain an invaluable ally in
the Middle East, to acquire high-tech weaponry. New Delhi also made a concerted
effort to improve relations with China, with which it had fought a disastrous border
war in 1962, by expanding cultural exchanges, trade, and foreign investment, and
through a series of confidence-building measures along the disputed border.
However, the new pragmatism that began to inform Indian foreign policy
calculations with the Soviet collapse has not led to an uncritical acceptance of
American global dominance.

The issues of contention between the US and India changed, but not completely
disappeared. In most critical multilateral forums of 21st century, the WTO and
Rounds on Climate Change, India and the US were always on other side of the
table, differing with each other’s position. These and other issues of such nature
will be discussed later on, in other lessons.

1.1.4 GOALS OF INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY

The making of foreign policy is essentially an exercise in the choice of ends and
means on the part of a nation-state in an international setting. It is necessary, first
of all, to formulate a broad end or goal which will give a sense of purpose and
direction to foreign policy. This goal need not, and in fact should not, be static in
content; it must be a conceptually long-term goal to which immediate objectives,
and the short-term policies pertaining to them, can be related.

In the event of possible conflict between different short-term goals, the broad and
long-term goal will indicate the direction of choice. Though broad, this goal should
not be a vague one; it should be clearly definable and divisible into some concrete
and specific components, since otherwise it will not be possible to formulate any
goal-oriented clear policies (short-term or long-term) and foreign policy may
degenerate into a futile exercise, loose talk, and aimless shift of one thing to
another.

Though sometimes the policy makers may not always be able to relate their short-
term policies to long-term goal, due to various factors and contingencies, but this
relationship is the essence of rationality in the making of foreign policy.

In this broader perspective, India’s foreign policy strived to attain some basic goals
to secure territorial, political and human security of the country. Since foreign
policy is always instrumental in uplifting the economic wellbeing of the people,
naturally India’s foreign policy always oriented to achieve economic development
of the country in the post independence period. The following section would
highlight some of those goals which India considered vital to its national interest.

[Link] SECURITY

Securing the borders and lives of the people is the most important responsibility of
any nation-state. Hence, security becomes the most primary goals of foreign policy
of any country; so is India’s. However, security should not be interpreted in narrow
sense. The military preparedness of security cannot guarantee long-term security.
Long-term and durable security always results from economic development and
state-building.

Similarly, militarily aggressive postures (hegemony) cannot be equated with the

security. That is the reason there is no general agreement among scholars what
constitutes security. A countries effort to attain security might become insecurity to
others.

Hence, while defining security one has to undertake a balanced viewpoint. From
international relations perspective, security implies external threat to territorial
integrity; on this count India has bitter experiences as it fought many bitter wars
with Pakistan, and one major war with China. The tension with Pakistan has not
ended, the easing of tensions with China was of a recent date.

However, India managed to achieve a measure of tranquillity on its northern

borders and India and China were engaged in building confidence and
understanding each other.

This is now way implied any real dilution of China’s relationship with Pakistan,
but the logic of normalization of relations with India determined that China pursue
its commitments to Pakistan less obtrusively, more subtly and with greater
sophistication. The various Confidence Building Measures taken by India and
China at the northern borders allowed greater flexibility to India’s external
policies.

Similarly, India also overcame its insecurities vis-a-vis sea based threats by
building one of the professional navies in the world. These and other dimensions of
security will be analysed in the next lessons.

[Link] ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Ever since India became independent, the political leadership always focused on
economic development of the country. The Nehru’s focus on heavy industries, the
five year plans, emphasis on higher education and research, the big dams, etc. are
intended to modernize the country and attain a respectable status in the
international fora.

And one of the important dimensions of the non-alignment was also to secure
assistance from both West and Socialist bloc economic assistance to achieve
development. There is broad consensus at present in India that the country’s single
most important goal is to become the world’s third largest economy by 2025 and,
concurrently, also emerge as one of the key global political and security actors in
the evolving multipolar world.
Reflecting on it, recently India’s Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj while addressing
at Growth Net Conference stated that “We have stepped up commercial divisions
in our missions around the globe. The vision of the government is to empower
people and bring about economic development. The foreign policy priorities are
aimed at creating the right external environment for the same”.

[Link] SEARCHING FOR IDENTITY

Apart from those above mentioned goals which are vital for any country’s national
interest, India also always striving to attain its own identity, rather than swayed by
one or the other kind of influences. The non-alignment policy of India is an
example for quest for own identity. India never became member of any security
pacts, never became part of military alliances and never associated blindly with
one superpower during Cold War period.

Though many criticised India’s tilt towards Soviet Union, it is largely in a

particular context and to protect national interest when its security was threatened.
And contemporary foreign policy is also pursuing the same goal of protecting its
own unique identity, with clarity on international issues.

For a country, which wants to attain economic prosperity must maintain its own
positions on various issues rather than swayed by influences of other countries.

[Link] RESPECTFUL POSITION AMONG COMMUNITY OF NATIONS

A country like India, which is known for its civilisational history, rich traditions
and political values, is always respected in international forums. In fact, India
commanded much higher respected comparison to its power attributes. When India
emerged as an independent country in 1947 it was a very weak economic player
and much weaker military power.

But still, it was respected by many countries and statesmen, for various reasons,
most importantly the enlightened national leadership and the values professed
during independence struggle. This can be seen when India was chosen as country
for arbitrary in the Korean War which brought Cold War to the world.

In the contemporary period, India wants to keep that rich historical tradition by
actively participating in various international forums. It was an important nation
that significantly contributed to peacekeeping efforts of United Nations. Similarly
it is playing very critical role in World Trade negotiations as well as negotiations
on Climate Change.

In fact, the situation has come to such an extent that now without India’s consent it
is very difficult to achieve any progress in these negotiations. In short, India has
moved from a stage of “Rule-Follower” to “Rule-Maker”. Hence, it is not
unreasonable if India makes claims for permanent seat on United Nations Security
Council. It’s just a matter of time to finally attain this goal.

[Link] SECURING FRIENDLY NEIGHBOURHOOD

Another important goal of India’s foreign policy from the beginning was having
friendly relations with all the neighbouring countries. As stated earlier, Nehru
organised Asian Relations Conference much before India attained independence.
However, the partition, Wars with Pakistan and China, a brief tension with Sri
Lanka somewhat undermined this goal of securing friendly relations with all the
neighbouring countries.

However, recently India achieved considerable success in maintain cordial and

friendly relations with all the neighbours. Though the tensions with neighbours
were at its peak during Indira Gandhi’s tenure, however, during the Janata
Government India has achieved considerable progress in this direction. However,
the Gujral Doctrine is considered to have made a substantial change in the manner
in which India's bilateral relations were conducted with its immediate neighbours,
especially the smaller ones. The Gujral Doctrine is a set of five principles to guide
the conduct of foreign relations with India's immediate neighbours as spelt out by
I.K. Gujral, first as India's foreign minister and later as the prime minister.

Among other factors, these five principles arise from the belief that India's stature
and strength cannot be divorced from the quality of its relations with its
neighbours. It, thus, recognises the supreme importance of friendly, cordial
relations with neighbours.

These principles are: first, with neighbours like Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives,
Nepal and Sri Lanka, India does not ask for reciprocity, but gives and
accommodates what it can in good faith and trust; second, no South Asian country
should allow its territory to be used against the interest of another country of the
region; third, no country should interfere in the internal affairs of another; fourth,
all South Asian countries must respect each other's territorial integrity and
sovereignty; and, finally, they should settle all their disputes through peaceful
bilateral negotiations.

1.1.5 OBJECTIVES OF INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY

Objectives are off-shoots of larger goals a country sets for itself. Once the broad
and longterm goal has been decided upon, it is the task of makers of foreign policy
to test the rationality of every short-term objective in the light of this goal.

Hence, the long term goal can only be the cumulative result of a series of short-
term objectives; unless the latter are consistent with the long-term goal, and the
means for their efficient realization and rationality chosen, the actual long-term
results of foreign policy will diverge from the set of goal.

The means selected for the achievement of the various specific objectives need not
and should not be a single unique means or a static one; different alternative means
may be chosen.

But there must be the highest logical probability of their efficiency in achieving the
given objective. The dominating ideology of India’s freedom struggle undoubtedly
got reflected in its post-independence foreign policy. While formulating India’s
foreign policy, the policy makers put the national interest at the core of it, along
with the strategy to carve out an independent role for it in world politics.
Accordingly, following objectives attained most important positions in India’s
foreign policy.

[Link] PROTECTING INDIAN CITIZENS

Protecting the interests of its citizens is one of the primary objectives of India’s
foreign policy. For example, successive Indian governments keep in mind interests
of farmers while negotiating bi-lateral and multi-lateral trade agreements. A
primary interest of any country is in self-preservation and well-being of its citizens.

In international arena, interests of various countries often clash with each other and
the states have to protect their own interests vehemently.. In modern times,
economic development is one of the key factors in determining state’s international
status. Thus, the treaties and agreements concluded with other states are drafted in
a way to protect and promote economic interests of its own.

A foreign policy also protects interests of its citizens beyond the borders. For
example, the External Affairs Ministry takes up issue of racial discrimination and
harassment of Indian students in Australia with the Australian government in order
to protect its citizens in that country.

The Indian government also bring back those Indians who are working in other
countries that are engulfed in War, Civil War or other disturbances. A foreign
policy also protects dignity and sentiments of the people of Indian origin
throughout the world.

For example, Indian government had asked its French counterpart to reconsider
ban on Sikh’s turbans in that country even though the Sikhs there may not be
Indian citizens anymore and had accepted French citizenship.

[Link] SETTLE AND SECURE INTERNATIONAL BORDERS

Cross-border trade and broader bilateral intercourse can only be achieved when
geographic boundaries are beyond doubt. India has achieved considerable success
in securing its borders compare to the initial days of independence. The increased
professionalism among the security forces and technological progress substantially
contributed to this. Similarly, Indian Navy has emerged off late as one of the
strong navies in the world. Due to the efforts of the Navy’s Coast Guard, India
could curtail some of the sea-based threats to its security.

However, due to situation arising from Pakistan, still India is facing cross-border
incursions. Reflecting these threats, Indian President in January 2015 expressed
serious concern over repeated ceasefire violations on Line of Control (LoC) and
recent incursions off the coastal line.

He stated that “"While India is committed to peace and non-violence, we cannot

afford the luxury of being complacent on our borders. Repeated violations of the
ceasefire on the LoC and recent incidents of incursions off our coastal line are a
matter of serious concern. We should be ready to take all steps necessary to ensure
both internal and external security, and protect territorial integrity of our nation”.
[Link] COMBATING NUCLEAR THREATS

Ever since China exploded nuclear bomb, India is experiencing a sort of nuclear
insecurity. Though it has overcome by Pokhran nuclear explosions, however, the
Pakistan’s nuclear capability added additional dimension to its security. Recently,
there were alleged reports that claiming links of Abdul Qadeer Khan, the father of
Pakistan’s nuclear bomb, to the terrorist organisations.

This has led to considerable tension in the international community. Preventing the
nuclear technology and weapons not falling into the wrong side has become an
important dimension of nuclear security.

Similarly, the recent nuclear efforts by Iran also created considerable turmoil in the
international relations. Indian, being neighbourhood country, which maintains
cordial relations with Iran, it has to factor all the dimensions related to nuclear
threats emanating from the surroundings.

[Link] SECURING SEA LANES

India is making significant efforts to improve its naval capabilities to help

safeguard vital sea lanes. For instance, India is cooperating with naval forces of
other countries including that of the US, in the Gulf of Aden and off the coast of
Somalia, to counter piracy and ensure safety and security of commercial shipping.

[Link] COMBATING GLOBAL THREATS THROUGH COMBINED

ACTIONS

India is undertaking appropriate domestic measures to strengthen security, but the

global nature of the threat requires global efforts. Issues such as terrorism,
prevention and response to natural disasters, piracy, protecting sea lanes of
communication and drug trafficking are the challenges that cut across national
boundaries and require cooperative responses.

Terrorism continues to pose a threat to international peace and stability. India

having been a victim of terrorism for many decades, has worked with the
international community to strengthen the international framework to deal with this
threat.
In the UN for instance India has taken the initiative to pilot the Comprehensive
Convention on International Terrorism or the CCIT, with the objective of
providing a comprehensive legal framework to combat terrorism. Given the global
nature of the threat India is working with our international partners including the
US to tackle the problem.

[Link] MAINTAINING CORDIAL RELATIONS WITH MAJOR POWERS

Unlike the Cold War period, India’s foreign policy nowadays is much more
calibrated and attained sophistication to keep controversial issues under carpet and
maintain very friendly and cordial relations with all the superpowers. Especially
the turnaround India achieved in its relations with the United States is very worth
noting.

India’s relationship with the United States is in fact built on shared values and
converging interests. Both countries set up a comprehensive architecture of
engagement based on broad political support in each of our countries, strong
people to people linkages, and growing habits of cooperation.

On the other hand, China emerged as a key priority of India's foreign policy. It has
emerged as the largest trading partner of India, and India’s engagement with China
has become multi-faceted. Similarly, India also intensified its relations with
European Union countries and South-East Asian countries. Though somewhat lost
the earlier rigour, India and Russia are still cooperating with each other in bilateral
and multilateral relations.

[Link] SECURING FAVOURABLE CONDITIONS IN MULTILATERAL

FORUMS India is playing significant contribution to the international relations by

actively participating in multilateral forums. One of the key factor in this
participation is to secure the countries national interests. Even though it was
actively looking for the establishment of rule-based world trade system, however,
India has seen as a hindrance for the progress of trade negotiations since it has
taken a strong position against the proposals came from the Developed Western
countries.

India vehemently opposed some of the clauses as they are going to undermine
India’s social and economic interests. Similarly, India has also taken a substantial
position in the negotiations of Climate Change which also attracted considerable
criticism from the western countries.

However, India has achieved considerable success on the nuclear front, as it has
been completed all the requirements for membership to the Nuclear Suppliers
Group (NSG) and Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). It is going to
become one of the members of these critical organisations very soon.

However, it is not that successful in becoming permanent member of the Security

Council of United Nations though there is general consensus in its favours. The
demands originating from other countries for the same is prolonging the matter.

[Link] ENERGY SECURITY

To attain the broader goal of development is not possible without meeting the
energy security required for it. India is on the cusp of emerging as a fairly
developed nation within the next decade and a half, and this means that the energy
requirement for an energy starved nation is going to jump significantly. For India
to ensure that it has a suitable mix of energy sources to meet the expected demand,
the government has to initiate long-term strategic planning and investment, in
consultation and co-ordination with the private sector.

Hence, India is strengthening the activities of ONGC’s overseas organisation to

secure energy security while maintain cordial relations with all the oil exporting
countries.

[Link] DEEPENING RELATIONS WITH COUNTRIES THAT SUPPLY

MILITARY HARDWARE

As an emerging power, India has to strengthen its military power that includes
sophisticated weapon systems, communication systems and surveillance systems.
Considering this vital requirement, India not only established diplomatic relations
with Israel but also concluded agreements for supply of military equipment. India,
also concluded similar agreements with the US, Britain, France, Russia and other
European countries.
[Link] STRENGTHENING SAARC

Since establishing friendly relations with neighbouring countries is one of the goals
of India’s foreign policy, India is trying to institutionalise good neighbourly
relations through a regional organisation, South Asian Association for Regional
Cooperation (SAARC). Under the umbrella of this organisation, India is trying to
improve military, political and economic relations among the countries of South
Asia.

[Link] PLAYING A CRITICAL ROLE IN INDIA’S EXTENDED

NEIGHBOURHOOD

Looking beyond South Asian neighbourhood, India is also attempting to expand

circles of engagement, starting with South-east Asia, the Indian Ocean region,
West Asia, Central Asia, Africa, and the world’s major powers. 1.1.6
PRINCIPLES OF FOREIGN POLICY Principles of the foreign policy are the
guidelines to the policy makers through which India carries out its foreign
relations. In essence, these are the means through which national interest is sought
to be protected and promoted. However, the principles on which foreign
Directorate of Distance Education, University of Jammu, MA Political Science, Se
mester II, India’s Foreign Policy 20 policy operationalised is always context
specific. As context changes, the principles also change. The principles on which
foreign policy conducted during the early years of independence were somewhat
altered in the post-reform period.

[Link] PRINCIPLES IN EARLY PERIOD OF INDEPENDENCE

The nationalist movement and the values of the nationalist leaders have given
strong normative order to the principles of India’s foreign policy in the early period
of independence. Some of these were explained below.

[Link] PROMOTION OF INTERNATIONAL UNDERSTANDING AND

WORLD PEACE

India consistently emphasized on settlement of international disputes through

dialogue and negotiations. India also laid great emphasize on purity of means. It
had maintained that the means for the attainment of national interest must be pious.
In order to promote international understanding and peace, Nehru had repeatedly
spoke about futility of war and warned of ultimate disasters if Third World War
would broke out.

Even though such emphasize did not always result in success, it had certainly
helped in reducing international tensions. Nehru realized that arms race, including
deployment of nuclear weapons, would result in increased suspicions and mistrust
among the nations.

Also, the expenditure on arms would make the governments deprived of sufficient
money required for upliftment of people from poverty. Therefore, India
campaigned for disarmament in general and de-nuclearization in particular. At the
same time, India maintained that onus of de-nuclearization rested on the shoulders
of big powers, who must sacrifice their nuclear weapons for the sake of world
peace and future of human race.

On this ground, India refused to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), terming
it as exclusionary and discriminatory.

[Link] NON-ALIGNMENT

Non-alignment has been the central pillar of India’s foreign policy, which served
its objectives and goals in international arena. Nehru’s understanding was that
India and other poor countries of Asia and Africa would not gain anything but lose
out miserably by joining either of the military blocks of that time. According to
him, instead of focusing on fight against poverty, illiteracy and diseases, they
would end up being used as pawns in the war of no relevance to them. India’s
interests was in expanding ‘area of peace’ and not of war or conflicts.

Therefore, India neither joined any of the military pacts of capitalist countries,
such as SEATO, CENTO, Baghdad Pact or Manila Treaty; nor the Warsaw Pact of
the socialist block. Thus, non-alignment was not a policy of isolation or inaction.
In fact, it was a positive policy designed to promote national sovereignty and
international peace.

The grand success of India’s non-alignment could be measured from the fact that
majority of the poor and developing countries from all parts of the world adopted
the similar policy and all of them joined hands to constitute the Non-Aligned
Movement against the hegemony of both the ideological blocks during the Cold
War period.

[Link] PANCH-SHEEL

Jawaharlal Nehru recognized that sovereignty of nation-state is supreme in

international arena and peace and conflict revolved around it. In order to protect
the sovereignty of each nation, all the nations need to acknowledge and respect
each other’s sovereign rights.

India emphasized that sovereignty can’t differ from nation to nation and every state
in the world enjoys equal amount of sovereign rights with regard to its people,
territory, institutions and decision-making processes. This could be observed by all
the nations by following Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence, which were
enthusiastically upheld and promoted by Nehru as Panch-Sheel.

In Nehru’s words, “I imagine that if these principles were adopted in the relation of
various countries with each other, a great deal of the trouble of the present day
world would probably disappear.” In 1954, these principles were enunciated in
bilateral agreement between India and People’s Republic of China. They are:

• Mutual respect for each-other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty; • Mutual

non-aggression;

• Mutual non-interference in each-other’s internal affairs;

• Equality and mutual benefit; and

• Peaceful co-existence.

The fifth principle in it, i.e. the Peaceful Co-existence was drafted keeping in view
the then existing world situation, wherein the opposite camps of socialism and
capitalism vowed to finish off each-other. Nehru propagated that nations based on
different ideologies could coexist and prosper if they follow the first four
principles of Panch-Sheel and believed in the fifth one.

[Link] PROMOTION OF REGIONAL COOPERATION

India seeks friendly ties with all its neighbours and co-operations among all the
countries in South Asia. Therefore, SAARC receives big support from Indian
establishment, which sees as a tool to promote regional trade, business and people
to people exchanges. Since South Asia, which is nothing but an Indian
subcontinent in geographical term, faces more or less similar problems in all of its
countries; such as poverty, illiteracy, malnutrition, ill-health and gender disparity
etc., India advocates joint efforts to get rid of these problems.

However, the reforms introduced to Indian economy in the early 1990s added new
priorities to the foreign policy.

[Link] PRINCIPLES IN THE POST-REFORM PERIOD

Underlining India’s development-centric foreign policy, Prime Minister

Manmohan Singh has enunciated the five core principles that animate the country’s
engagement with an increasingly globalised world, which include prioritising the
economic aspirations of the over 1.2 billion Indians.

India’s prime minister has unveiled a pragmatic vision of the country’s foreign
policy that seeks to blend the economic imperative of unleashing prosperity
without compromising on core values of democracy, pluralism and secularism.

Manmohan Singh enumerated these principles while speaking to over 120 heads of
Indian missions who have gathered in the Indian capital for a four-day conclave in
November 2013. Manmohan Singh outlined what he called the five principles that
define India’s foreign policy and exhorted the Indian envoys to ensure that they are
guided by these principles in discharging their diplomatic duty. First, recognition
that India’s relations with the world – both major powers and Asian

 neighbours – are increasingly shaped by India’s developmental priorities. The

single most important objective of Indian foreign policy has to be to create a global
environment conducive to the well-being of a great country. Second, that greater
integration with the world economy will benefit India and enable

 people to realize their creative potential. Third, India seeks stable, long term and
mutually beneficial relations with all major

 powers. India are prepared to work with the international community to create a
global economic and security environment beneficial to all nations.

Fourth, India recognizes that the Indian sub-continent’s shared destiny requires
 greater regional cooperation and connectivity. Towards this end, India focuses on
strengthening regional institutional capability and capacity and invests in
connectivity. Fifth, India’s foreign policy is not defined merely by its interests, but
also by the

 values which are very dear to Indian people. While outlining these five
principles, Manmohan Singh also emphasised some of the core principles on which
Indian foreign policy was conducted ever since it achieved independence. He
lauded the Indian model of foreign policy, which is underpinned by strategic
autonomy, non-alignment and the resolution of issues through diplomacy, for
pursuing economic liberation of the country within the framework of time-tested
principles of liberalism and democracy.

1.1.8 NUCLEAR POLICY

Progress and Policy of Peace

Non-Alignment stands for peace through peaceful co-existence and cooperation
among nations. It means a policy of peace, a policy of "talking in a quiet voice and
not shouting" or "a policy of converting strong feelings into strength and not into
bad temper".

Non-Alignment rejects war, and therefore military alliances and power politics. It
supports peace, through peaceful means. It supports peaceful settlement of all
disputes and peaceful adjustment as the best means for resolution of conflict
among nations.

These are the fundamental characteristics of Indian Non-alignment. As a principle

of Indian Foreign Policy it stands for freedom from commitment to any power bloc
and it emphasises the independence of choice and action in external affairs.

It is not a negative principle of in action or neutralism or isolationalism. On the

contrary it is a principle of action. It is dynamic, and regards independence of
foreign policy as the fundamental and most vital element.
In 1961. Nehru, Nasser and Tito accepted the following five essentials or tests of
Non-alignment:

(1) Independent Foreign Policy.

(2) Opposition to colonialism.
(3) Non-membership of any alliance or bloc.
(4) Absence of bilateral military alliance with any big power.
(5) Absence of foreign military base/bases on the territory of the state.

Non-alignment is a vital principle of Indian Foreign Policy. It has in the past

helped India to achieve the goals of national interest and is destined to secure,
India's as we'll as Third World's interests in the times to come The non-aliened
countries believe fully in the continued relevance of this principle of peaceful-
existence and independence in foreign relations.

Central Issues of Nuclear Policy

Since 1985 within India, between India and Pakistan, the India and USA and India
and Japan, and in all forums associated with the nuclear issue the issue of NPT
nuclear non-proliferation vs proliferation, regional level nuclear control regimes,
issue of possibility of spread of 'nuclear weapons' of the former USSR, issue of
horizontal and vertical expansions of nuclear weapons etc., have been keeping
occupied the attention of statesmen and leaders.

Domestic Nuclear Policy

Right from its origin in 1947, India's nuclear policy has been guided by the desire
to harness nuclear energy for country's developmental needs. Even after the PNE
of 1974, India has refrained from the path of nuclear weaponisation.

The first Prime Minister of Independent India Mr. Nehru, the architect of modern
India, was quick to realise the important and big role that nuclear energy could
play in the socio-economic development of the country. His vision of India's
domestic and foreign policies was guided, as Dr. K.K. Pathak observes, by three
guiding principles.
(1) India must develop a scientific temper of mind, acquire and keep abreast with
the latest development in all the fields of scientific thought to regain and maintain
its intellectual vitality and keep pace with the spirit of the age.

(2) Technology based on scientific thought was of fundamental importance to the

realisation of Indian economic goals and the country must not lose time or effort to
equip herself with the already developed and developing technology.

(3) The scientific temper and the application of technology must be made
consistent with responsible internationalism and reconciled with the highest ideals
of the age. PM Nehru found additional strength from Dr. Homi Bhabha's view that,

"When nuclear energy has been successfully applied for power production in, say,
a couple of decades from now, India will not have to look abroad for its experts but
will find them ready in hand."

Dr. Bhabha also advocated the need to tame the atom for securing the
developmental needs of the country, particularly in the spheres of power, industry
and transport. In fact, all the prominent leaders and scientists of Independent India
believed that since atomic energy could play an important role in the future
economy and developmental needs of an underdeveloped and under-powered
country, India should go ahead in for developing "atomic technology for peaceful
purposes.

Atomic Energy Commission

As early as 1948, the Atomic Energy Act was passed by the Parliament, and by it
the Central] Govt. was given the responsibility to control the development of
atomic energy through the research and the use of any mineral which is or may be
used for the production of atomic energy. This Act provided for the legal
framework of India's nuclear policy.

On 10th August, 1948, an Atomic Energy Commission, under the Chairmanship of

Dr. H.J. Bhabha, was constituted to protect the interests of the country in
connection with atomic energy and to launch a full-fledged atomic energy
programme in the country. On 3rd January, 1954, a decision to establish a separate
search institution at Trombay, in addition to the already existing the Tata Institute
of Fundamental Research was undertaken. On 3rd August, 1954, the Dept. of
Atomic Energy was set up under the charge of the Prime Minister, with Dr. H.J.
Bhabha as the Secretary.

Atomic Energy Commission, 1958

With a view to improve the working of AEC, the Government of India decided to
reconstitute it and vest it with full executive and financial powers. Accordingly in
1958, AEC was reconstituted.

The Commission was entrusted with the power to formulate the policy of the Dept.
of Atomic Energy, to prepare the budget and to implement the policy of the
government in all matters concerning atomic energy.

Atomic Energy Act, 1962

In 1962, the Parliament passed the Atomic Energy Act and laid down the
foundations of nuclear policy of India. This Act gave statutory mandate to the
Central Government lo provide for the development, control and use of atomic
energy for matters connected therewith.

Nuclear Research Establishments, Atomic Reactors and Atomic Power Plant:

Since 1948, India has been making rapid progress towards the establishment of
Atomic Centres, Atomic Reactors and Atomic Power Plants In addition lo the Tata
Institute of Fundamental Research (T1FR) which had been in since 1945, the
Atomic Energy Establishment was established in 1957. In 1967, it was renamed as
Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC).

India has established several Atomic Power Plants: Tarapore Atomic Power Plant
(TAPP), Rajasthan Atomic power Station at Rana Partap Sagar, Kalpakkam
Atomic Power Station and Narora Atomic Power plant.
India has in operation developed a network of institutes, reactors and power plants
which are helping India to conduct nuclear research and develop and use nuclear
energy and technology for peaceful purposes.

Nehru Era Nuclear Policy

During Nehru era, India confined itself to the development of nuclear research for
peaceful purposes India strongly opposed the use of nuclear energy for military
purposes, i.e., lor the manufacture of nuclear It strongly criticised the nuclear
weapon slates for indulging in a dangerous nuclear arms race. India strongly
favoured the cause of Disarmament, particularly Nuclear Disarmament.

Nuclear Disarmament : It, however, accepted the need for developing and
utilising nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Nehru fully realised the potentials
of nuclear technology as a means for the socio-economic development of the
underdeveloped countries.

"Atoms for Peace", Inangurating the Swimming Pool Reactor (APSARA) at

Trombay, the first such reactor on Asian soil, on 20 January 1957, Nehru observed:
"No man can prophecy the future. But 1 should like to say on behalf of my
government and I trunk I can say on behalf of any future Government of India- that
whatever might happen, whatever the circumstances, we shall never use this
atomic energy for evil purposes. There is no condition attached to this assurance,
because once a condition is attached, the value of such an assurance does not go
very far."

International Safeguards

During the Nehru era, India advocated the need for creating international
safeguards against the misuse of nuclear technology, i.e., against use of nuclear
technology for manufacturing nuclear weapons. These safeguards were demanded
for all countries whether in possession of nuclear technology weapons or not.
Nehru ascertained the right of every nation to have access to nuclear technology
for peaceful purposes.
India signed the Moscow Partial Test Ban Treaty because it was designed to save
mankind from the hazards of increased atmospheric radiation that always results
from uncontrolled and open nuclear explosions conducted by the nuclear states.

Nuclear Umbrella-Shastri Era

Despite the nuclear explosions carried out by China and The continued stalemate
and conflict in relations with Pakistan, P.M. Shastri did not think in terms of
making Indian atom bombs.

Recognising the dangers of a possible nuclear blackmail attempts on the part of a

hostile nuclear power state, he did advocate the need to secure an international
nuclear umbrella for non-nuclear states. He added, "I have no doubt that we cannot
at the present moment think in terms of making atom bombs."

Indira Gandhi Era-Constant Review

Keeping India's' security in view, Mrs. Gandhi maintained, "The country's defence
and security would be paramount consideration in the formulation of the
Government's nuclear policy, which was under constant review." She decided to
keep the options open.

Against Acceptance of N.P.T. : It was with this end in view that Mrs. Gandhi
decided against the acceptance of Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), which was
made in 1968 and which became operative in 1970.

NPT - A Discriminatory Treaty: NPT was regarded as a discriminatory treaty

which sought to impose restrictions upon the non-nuclear states even when these
were committed to pursue a peaceful nuclear policy, and which provided for no
measure to cheek the growing nuclear arms race among the nuclear powers.

NPT provided neither for disarmament nor for nuclear disarmament and arms
control, and nor even for checking the open violation of Mowcow Test Ban Treaty
by France and China. India, under Mrs. Indira Gandhi, refused to sign NPT and
decided to develop further the drive towards the development of peaceful nuclear
technology.

Analysing India's attitude to NPT, K. Subramanyam, Former Director, Institute of

Defence Studies, rightly observed, "The Indian objection was mainly against the
unequal nature of the Treaty and misuse of international public opinion to subserve
a policy of vertical proliferation by a few powers and obfuscation of the dangers of
nuclear first use.

In India's view this was not a non-proliferation treaty but a measure designed to
disarm the unarmed.

Under this policy India conducted it first PNE at Pokharan on 18th May 1974, and
earned entry into nuclear club through self-efforts. It was clearly stated and
forcefully maintained by Mrs. Gandhi that Pokharan test was a peaceful and fully
controlled explosion conducted to develop nuclear technology for peaceful
purposes for development of mines, construction of dams, harbours, search for
minerals, etc.

Pokharan Explosion: The Pokharan explosion demonstrated the high level of

scientific expertise attained by Indian scientists. It definitely reflected the progress
made by India towards the development of indigenous nuclear technology for use
in industrial and economic development of the country.

Second Indira Gandhi Era : Nuclear Policy

After having experienced the American pressures over India's nuclear policy,
particularly after experiencing a big difficulty in securing fuel for its Taraporc
planl, India decided to step up nuclear research in nuclear fuel reprocessing
technology, alternative technology fuel for Atomic Plants, Reactor technology,
Fast Breeder reactor technology and other related areas of research.
Rajiv Gandhi Govt. Policy: High Level Technology

India invigorated the movement for securing nuclear disarmament and nuclear
arms control. In the New Delhi Declaration, India and former USSR gave a call for
securing a non-nuclear weapon non-violent world in the 21st century.

India's nuclear options were kept open. With fully indigenous Dhruv Atomic Plant
going into the production of Plutonium 239, and with the second unit of
Kalpaskam atomic planl going critical, India attained a high level of indigenous
nuclear technology during this period.

National Front Government and Janata Party Government

The National Front Government (1980-90) also decided to keep India's Nuclear
options open. While going to Kualaumpur for attending the G-15 meeting P.M.
VP. Singh declared on May 31, 1990 in a press conference aboard his plane that
India was keeping its nuclear options open in view of Pakistan's adventurous plan
to engulf the sub-continent in nuclear warfare.

P. V. Narsimha Rao Govt. Nuclear Policy

In the post-cold war, post-USSR world in which increasing pressure has been
coming from the USA and some other states upon India, the Government of PM
Narsimha Rao continued to believe in the policy of developing nuclear technology.
It continued to desist from making nuclear weapons.

India and NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty)- Present State of Nuclear Policy :

During his visit-to Japan, in June 1992, PM Narasimha Rao made a categorical
statement on India's stand on NPT and the issue of nuclear proliferation. While
stating that, "Indian could not sign the NPT because of its being a discriminatory
treaty- (Japan, even while sighing it in 1975 had described NPT as a discriminatory
treaty).
India too believes it (NPT) is discriminatory. India is against any weapons of mass
destruction in the world. But the fact remains that these weapons are today in the
possession of some countries.

On the current NPT, PM Narsimha Rao declared, "It is not a time for signing, it is
a lime for reviewing." In October 1992 India gave a call for an international
convention on the non-use of nuclear weapons, a freeze on the production of such
weapons and fissile material for atomic arms and steps to achieve a nuclear
weapon free world by the end of the century.

Mr. Atal Bihari Vajayee, the Indian delegate at the Political and Security
Committee of the UN General Assembly observed on October 19th, 1992, " The
sentiments already expressed that nuclear war must not be fought needs to be
formalised as a multilateral commitment."

Atal Behari Govt. also pursues the nuclear policy principles established by his
predecessors. The present govt. pursues the same policy.

South Asia - A Nuclear Free Zone

India has refused to accept the UN resolution making Soulh Asia a nuclear
weapon-free zone, because nuclear free South Asia is a meaningless concept as
China is already a nuclear power and Pakistan has known nuclear weapon
capability, even a nuclear weapon.

Basic Approach Indian nuclear policy insists on :

(1) Total opposition to the development of nuclear weapons, opposition to

both horizontal and vertical expansion of nuclear weapons.
(2) Total support For Nuclear Disarmament.
(3) Support for Nuclear Arms Control involving an immediate end to the
nuclear arms race as the first step towards Nuclear Disarmament.
(4) Commitment to refrain, as far as possible from making nuclear weapons.
(5) Development and use of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.
 (6) Refusal to accept discriminatory international inspections and safeguards
in respect of national nuclear establishments and facilities.
(7) Refusal to sign NPT.
(8) Refusal lo accept the demand for making South Asia a nuclear weapons
free zone.
(9) Support for securing a non-nuclear world in the years to come.

Refraining

Despite the fact that Pakistan's nuclear programme is a weapon oriented

programme, India has decided to avoid, as far as and as long as possible, the
transformation of its present peaceful nuclear policy into a weapon oriented
nuclear policy.

In the words of Dr. lyengar, Chairman of AEC "India is the most developed among
the developing countries in the field of nuclear energy." The technology being
developed in India has been most appropriate for a developing nation. However, it
has voluntarily committed to remain away from nuclear weapons.

It refuses to accept piecemeal and partial nuclear control devices like the making of
South Asia a nuclear weapons free zone and other such nuclear control regimes. It
supports a total ban on horizontal and vertical expansions and securing of a general
and comprehensive nuclear.

At the first ever UN Security Council Summit, January 21, 1992, P.M. Narasimha
Rao did not budge from India's foreign policy principle that, "a global, and not a
regional or country specific approach should be adopted to rid the world of nuclear
weapons."
The major foreign policy problems confronting India at the

(1) To meet the challenges posed by the neighbouring States- China, Pakistan,
Sri Lanka, Bangladesh in respect of Border-disputes, inter-state terrorism,
ethnic problem, sharing of river waters, to check the infiltration of insurgents
& terrorists and still keep the relations normal.
(2) Defence Problems- Atomic threats by neighbour Stales of China &. Pakistan,
ISI activities, Border conflicts with Pakistan & China, to maintain Indian
Ocean as a zone of peace, Pakistan's atomic expansion plan and arsenals &
missiles. A Great problem for Indian foreign policy makers lo contain the
expansionist policies of Pakistan, China & terrorist group is a major
challenge for Indian foreign policy.

(3) International Terrorism is another important problem for Indian foreign

policy makers, especially the terrorist activities in Jammu & Kashmir.

(4) To remain Non-aligned even in this age of International power politics is a

very hard task for Indian foreign policy makers,

(5) To protect the economic well-being and safety of a large number of non-
resident Indians in various countries of Europe, America, Saudi Arabia, Iran,
Iraq, Dubai, Abu Dhabi and many countries of South America & Africa.

(6) To get a permanent seat in the Security Council of United Nations.

(7) To oppose the signing of C.T.B.T.

(8)To restructure the international reaction against Indian Atomic experimental

explosions for peaceful purposes.

(9) Economic diplomacy for the development of country and to attract foreign
direct & institutional investment in key-sectors of Indian economy.

(10) To promote Indian culture.

 (11) To help in the process of globalisation and liberalisation policies and
procedures.
(12) To maintain regional & international co-operation.

(13) To help keep international peace.

(14) To help the economic development process.

(15) To help keep the world & its policies & power system multilateral.

1.1.7 LET US SUM UP

The broader direction to the India’s foreign policy evolved much before India
achieved its independence, during the period of anti-colonial nationalist movement.
The ideology, goals, objectives and principles of India’s foreign policy strongly
reflect the core values that emerged as guiding principles for the development of
modern India. Hence, anti-imperialism anti-racialism, strong solidarity between
Afro-Asian countries, non-alignment, peaceful coexistence, peaceful resolutions of
international problems, strong adherence to United Nations Charter, friendly
neighbourhood relations, etc. are part of these core values.

However, since foreign policy of any country strongly determined by its national
interest, throughout the post-independence period, the political leadership of India
always tried balance these core values with the pragmatic interests. Hence, Indian
foreign policy strongly guided both idealistic and realistic assumptions.

However, the end of Cold War and the realities of post-Cold War world drastically
altered the foreign policy course of the India. The economic reforms introduced in
early 1990s shifted the focus of foreign policy in favour of economic
considerations somewhat underplaying the political and normative values.
1.2 DETERMINANTS OF INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY: INTERNAL AND
EXTERNAL -

External affairs will follow internal affairs. Indeed, there is no basis for external
affairs if internal affairs go wrong. - Jawaharlal Nehru

1.2.0 Objectives

1.2.1 Introduction

1.2.2 Determinants of India’s Foreign policy

1.2.3 Determinants of India’s Foreign policy: Internal Factors

[Link] Geopolitical Identity

[Link] Economic Development

[Link] Political Structure

[Link] Institutions and Interest Groups

[Link] Ethnic Factors

[Link] Religious Identity

1.2.4 Determinants of India’s Foreign policy: External Factors

[Link] Big Power Politics

[Link] Developments in Neighbourhood

[Link] Nuclear Weapons

[Link] Multilateral Forums and Negotiations

[Link] Regional Organisations

[Link] Military Strength

1.2.5 Let us Sum Up

1.2.6 Sources & Suggested Readings

1.2.0 OBJECTIVES

This lesson provides basic understanding about the determinants of India’s foreign
policy, both internal as well as external. After going through this topic, you should
be able to: know the national and international structures and context in
influencing India’s

 foreign policy; understand the domestic factors that are determining India’s
foreign policy;

 comprehend the role of external environment in influencing India’s foreign

policy.

1.2.1 INTRODUCTION

The linkage between domestic and international determinants of foreign policy has
long been a widely debated topic in the field of international relations, and foreign
policy analysis in particular. Some scholars argue that domestic politics and
foreign policy are two independent arenas of issues.

Others believe that the two respective issues cannot be separated from one another.
Foreign policy and domestic politics are interdependent and could spill over into
each other. While both schools of scholars make some convincing arguments about
their respective cases, it’s probably reasonable to expect that the degree of
influence between domestic and international determinants of foreign policy is
contingent on different foreign policy contexts.

In some cases, international factors play a more important role, whereas in other
cases, domestic reasons are more important.

1.2.2 DETERMINANTS OF INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY

Foreign Policy is never determined by any one factor but is the result of the
interplay of a large number of factors that affect the formulation of policy in
different ways in different circumstances. Some of these factors are relatively
stable and have to be taken as given by the makers of foreign policy, and can,
therefore, be regarded as more basic or unchangeable determinants of policy than
others.
But the more variable institutional factors, and even the personal role of the
decision-makers, are no less important in the process of decision-making than the
basic determinants.

Even the basic determinants of foreign policy, however, vary in importance

according to circumstances, and it is impossible to lay down any general rule
regarding the relative importance of each of these factors, or a scale of priorities
which the decision makers must permanently adhere to in making their policy
decisions.

The basic factors that shapes or conditions India’s foreign policy can be classified
into two factors namely internal and external. The internal factors, which are the
basic of all, are the domestic politics, geography, economic system, culture,
military strength and national character. According to J. Bandopadhaya, the role of
political institutions – public opinion, party system, lobbyists, ministry of external
affairs, diplomacy, and persona are the other factors that influence in the making of
India’s foreign policy.

1.2.3 DETERMINANTS OF INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY: INTERNAL

FACTORS

The socio-economic, political structures and other internal dimensions a country

strongly influence the foreign policy. Internal factors includes geopolitical identity
(location, size, natural resources, neighbours), economic development (growth
level, development of resources, per capita income levels, class structure,
technological development, etc.), the political structure (nature of political system,
character of ruling elite, party politics, activities of interest groups) – the factors
that are playing active role in influencing the policies, both domestic as well as
foreign policy.

[Link] GEOGRAPHICAL IDENTITY

Geopolitical identity of a country is shaped by geographical location and size of

the country. The geographical positioning influences power relationships in
international politics. It basically reveals the inter-relationship of politics,
geography and demography. There are two main reasons why geography should be
regarded as an important determinant of India’s foreign policy. In the first place,
there are various aspects of geography which tend to influence foreign policy
irrespective of the degree of industrialization and the level technology. Secondly,
India and most of the neighbouring countries will take some time to attain the
technological level of the leading industrial and military states.

Hence, it will not be possible for India in the foreseeable future to ignore the
Himalayas and the Indian Ocean, from the viewpoint of either trade and
transportation or defence. It is therefore obvious that geography is the foremost
determinant of Indian foreign policy. The prediction that Lord Curzon made in
1903 has proved to be true. He observed that the geographical position of India
would more and more push it into the forefront of International affairs.

Jawaharlal Nehru too was fully conscious of the geographical importance of India.
On 17th March 1950, in a speech in the Indian Parliament, he observed, “We are in
a strategic part of Asia, set in the centre of Indian Ocean, with intimate past and
present connection with West Asia, South-East Asia and Far Eastern Asia.

Even if we could we would not want to ignore this fact." Himalayas and the Indian
Ocean are determining factors of India's security. To begin with, the Himalayas
were considered to be natural security guard for India. However, in the fifties and
sixties it led to a new security orientation in Indian foreign policy.

To defend Himalayas came to determine India's security and defence needs and
consequently her relations with other nations. Geography includes location, size,
topography, state boundaries, population, climate, hydrography, soil, etc., and all
of these elements are important in varying degrees for India’s national politics and
foreign relations.

Some of these aspects will be discussed below. Location The history of

international relations shows that location has always been an important
determinant of foreign policy of a state. The strategic location of Britain helped her
historically to rule over the seas in terms of both trade and naval power. The
highest mountain range of the world in the north and one of the three major oceans
of the world in the south have given the Indian subcontinent a certain geographical
insularity.
The Himalayas cut off India from her northern neighbours militarily, politically,
and commercially, although in the modern period this mountain range is no longer
as impenetrable as it once used to be. The Indian Ocean similarly offers India a
certain insularity in purely geographical terms.

But the strategic location of India at the centre of the great Asian arc stretching
from Aden to Tokyo has made it inevitable from ancient times that she should pay
a vital role in the history of Asia and the world in spite of her relative geographical
insularity. India’s strategic location at the centre of the Asian arc and on the Indian
Ocean logically made India the bastion of the British empire in the East.

The manpower, wealth and strategic advantage of India were used by Britain to
establish and maintain her politico-military dominance over the rest of Asia and
Africa. The same strategic location gives India a central position in Asian and
world politics. All the major air and sea routes of the world pass through India.

India and Indian Ocean are an indispensable link in world trade and commerce.
India is a major connecting link among the geographical areas called West Asia,
East Asia or the Far East. From the geographical point of view, as Nehru often
used to say, India is a kind of bridge between the East and the West, and inevitably
involved in major global issues. India’s location on the Indian Ocean has also
made her defence and foreign trade heavily dependent on control over this Ocean
and its sea-lanes.

India's strategic location has placed it within easy reach of many sensitive areas
including China, South-East Asia, West and East Africa. Hence, it is no surprise
that Indian Navy emerged as one of the most powerful navies in the world. Size
The fact that independent India emerged as seventh largest state in the world is not
without considerable geopolitical significance.

A large territory generally means a relatively large stock of natural resources. On

the other hand, the vastness of India’s territory has an important bearing on her
external security. Unless there is a great difference in military power, it would not
be easy for any other state to occupy the whole country.

The bigness of territory make India an important and independent factor in

international relations in her own right. It would not be rational for India to behave
in international relations like a small state with a small territory, population, and
resource base. This is the reason for Nehru to state that: “I can understand some of
the smaller countries of Europe or some of the smaller countries of Asia being
forced by circumstance to bow down before some of the greater powers, because
they cannot help it.... India is too big a country herself to be bound down to any
country, however big it may be. India is going to be and is bound to be a big
country that counts in the world affairs”.

[Link] ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Economic development plays important role in shaping the foreign policy

discourse of any state. Successful empires were built on the edifice of strong
economy. Even Kautalya in his famous treatise called Arthashastra emphasises
strong economy as a prerequisite to achieve foreign policy goals.

Historically, it is proved that the economically powerful country is the one that
established its hegemony, authority and control over rest of the world, be it Great
Britain till 19th century and the United States in the 20th century. The relatively
backward state of the Indian economy, due to colonial exploitation, acted as a
serious constraint of Indian foreign policy during the early years of independence.

Even depending on other countries, particularly the big powers, for a mandatorily
required food grains made India vulnerable for external influences. An
economically weak country cannot build modern military power to thwart the
external military threats. This is the reason why India has to face a defeat in its war
with China.

However, India has achieved a significant turnaround in terms of economic

development in recent period. The high economic growth of India placed it as 7th
biggest economy in the world and in terms of PPP (purchasing power parity) it is
already third biggest in the world. As the data released by Ministry of Finance,
Government of India in July 2015, India’s GDP crossed US dollar two trillion.

This is a significant achievement if we consider the fact that it took almost 60 years
(after independence) to cross one trillion, and it took just seven years to touch one
trillion to two trillion. For all the predictions, by 2030 India is going to emerge as a
third biggest economy in the world. This economic development of India has
enhanced its standing among the community of nations. It has moved from rule-
follower to rule-maker in most of the multilateral negotiations. This is also the
reason for India to overcome the nuclear apartheid practiced by the status quo
powers and even concluded successful nuclear agreements with many countries,
including United States.

Many countries are already concluded strategic partnership agreements with India.
India’s technological development, especially in information technology, has given
further edge to India’s foreign policy as many Indians are working in foreign
countries are helping India to attain soft power in the conduct of its international
relations.

As a result, India’s Overseas activities have gained momentum due to fillip the
Indian Diaspora has given to its foreign policy. It is no surprise that in recent
foreign visits of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, special efforts were made to
mobilise overseas Indians, and the Prime Minster addressed in these meetings.

Many Indian origin people also gained important responsibilities in the

governments of other countries, particularly in the United States. And there are
many Indians who are heading the leading multinational companies, including the
Microsoft. All these have significantly contributed to enhance India’s stature in
international relations and provided leverage in conducting foreign policy.

Hence, it is not surprising when the then Finance Minster Chidambaram stated it is
the economic growth that has enhanced India’s standing in the international
community. He said that: “India is respected not because it has acquired the
capacity to launch rockets or satellites, or because of the size of its population, or
because of its dominant presence in Asia. The world respects India because of its
capacity to emerge as an economic powerhouse”.

[Link] POLITICAL STRUCTURE

Foreign policy is not immune from the impact of values, ideas, initiatives and
upheavals internally a country experiences. As we have studied in the previous
lesson, the ideology and core values of the nationalist movement substantially
influenced foreign policy of India in the early days of independence. The principles
that guided India’s foreign policy such as anti imperialism, anti-racialism, Afro-
Asian solidarity, non-alignment, peaceful resolution of international disputes, etc.
largely reflect the political influences on India’s foreign policy. The political
structure of state substantially influences its foreign policy. The nature of political
system (democracy, authoritarianism, etc.), the character of ruling elite, the party
politics, the activities of interest groups (religious, economic, political, etc.)
considerably determine the foreign policy.

Ruling Elite There is a public perception that foreign policy is elitist, which stems
from the belief that issues pertaining to foreign powers are too remote to matter in
the day-to-day lives of ordinary people. For much of India’s history, that may well
have been the case. The policies of Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister
and one of the main proponents of the principle of non-alignment – a doctrine that
defined Indian foreign policy during much of the Cold War – went unquestioned
for decades.

India emerged as an independent nation with a broadly three-tiered ruling elite: the
political class, the bureaucracy and the armed forces. Of these three, only political
class has strong Indian outlook, since the remaining two were largely composed by
British-trained officers.

However, the situation has changed as time passed. The new generation of the
officers are trained in Indian ethos and are as committed to advancing the national
interest of India as India’s political class. However, one problem associated with
foreign policy is the excessive dominance of the ruling elite in policy making.
Since foreign policy making demands some sort of expertise as it has to deal with
technical matters, the small minority of technocrats are determining the foreign
policy matters.

Hence the material interests and individual biases of the small class is distorting
the policy-making and sometimes most of the issues have been decided on a very
narrow prism. Democracy has been a major structural characteristic of the Indian
political system, and is therefore a major source of strength for India’s foreign
policy.

India can and should adopt a positive and proactive policy for the promotion of
global democracy, including the democratization of UN system. India is the largest
democracy in the world. Contrary to the Western predictions that India will
collapse due to internal crisis and conflicts and it move towards a sort of
authoritarianism, it has emerged as a successful democracy, not only in the Third
World countries but globally. Comparing to its neighbourhood countries, India’s
democratic success was phenomenal.

It is the political class, the legislative and executive part of the government, that
ultimately determine the country’s foreign policy. However, the democratic nature
of the country also sometimes creates some hurdles to rational decisions on the
foreign policy matters. The contestation between various political parties to
determine the policy matters often leads to either stalemate or irrational decision.

The populism and vote bank politics often leads to political mobilization of people
on matters related to foreign policy. For instance, many times the political parties
in Tamil Nadu are influencing the foreign policy decisions on Sri Lanka, and there
are many occasions the Government of India succumbed to the pressure of these
parties. Similarly, the Trinomial Congress in Bengal stalled the conclusion of
agreements with Bangladesh on matters related to boundary and waters sharing.

After a great persuasion with the West Bengal government, the Government of
India successfully concluded an agreement in the early months of 2015.

[Link] INSTITUTIONS AND INTEREST GROUPS

The Indian official institutions of foreign policymaking broadly encompass the

Cabinet, the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO), the Ministry of External Affairs
(MEA), the Indian Foreign Service (IFS), the Ministry of Defence (MoD), the
Indian Parliament, and various manifestations of the defence and intelligence
establishment (the armed forces, the Defense Research and Development
Organization, the nuclear establishment, the Research and Analysis Wing, the
Intelligence Bureau etc.).

While the defense of India’s territorial sovereignty is viewed as paramount by

virtually all of these, the defense establishment has historically played a selective
role in wider foreign policymaking (except at times of military crisis), instead
understandably choosing to focus on immediate threats from within India’s
neighborhood. The broader conduct of diplomacy that spans the gamut of inter-
state relations (and more recently, a range of instruments underpinning India’s
“soft” power) has traditionally been the domain of the PMO, MEA, and IFS who
are accountable to Parliament through various channels. Apart from the
Government institutions many non-government organisations and groups also
significantly influence India’s foreign policy.

For instance, the NGOs acted proactively in guiding India’s policy in the
negotiations of World Trade Organisations as well as on climate change. Similarly,
the trade and business organisations like Chambers of Commerce and FICCI also
contribute significantly to the India’s policy making, particularly on matters related
to economic interests of India.

Likewise, the many human rights organisations and their active role in organising
people influences the decision making process in foreign policy.

[Link] ETHNIC FACTORS

Three kinds of domestic factors relevant to ethnic identity influence India’s

policies towards certain countries. Transnational Ethnic Groups Indian populations
in border regions tend to share a common ethnic and sometimes religious bond
with populations in adjacent countries.

This is true of Tamils and Sri Lanka, Indian Punjabis and Pakistani Punjabis,
Indian Kashmiris and Pakistani Kashmiris, Indian populations bordering the Tarai
region of Nepal, and even Malayalis (the people of Kerala) and the Gulf countries.
By corollary, and extending the concept to religion, it is also true of the Hindu
minorities in Bangladesh and Pakistan, and Muslims in India with respect to some
neighbouring countries and communities.

The broad territorial division of ethnic groups within India and the strength of
regional ethnic identities ensure that Indian policy towards the countries in
question is always attentive to the preferences of domestic actors in these regions.

This has been evinced by the sustained and vociferous support of the Tamil people
and the Tamil Nadu government to the separatist movement of Tamils in Sri Lanka
till the early 1990s, Similarly, there is “widespread sympathy” in Indian border
regions and “most politicians and bureaucrats do not hesitate to express moral
support” for the Madhesi movement for autonomy in the Tarai region of Nepal.
Secessionist Movements and Insurgencies Due to its vast size and heterogeneous
society and polity, India has been the subject of various conflicts between sub-
national regions and the central government. Scholars particularly attribute this to
the failure of the Indian state to ensure “substantive democracy and equitable
development” for large swathes of society.

This, they argue, has resulted in the discrediting of state-sponsored nationalism

and, inter alia, the rise movements aimed at establishing separate sovereign status
from the Union. The history of modern India is replete with such movements,
many of which are still in progress.

Movements in border areas are particularly problematic because they become

flashpoints with neighbouring countries, mainly due to three reasons. First,
secessionist movements, especially armed movements, are likely to use the
territories of adjacent countries to stage their attacks on the Indian state.

This has negative consequences for the security of India’s neighbours, and makes
India diplomatically vulnerable to allegations of not doing enough to prevent its
domestic conflicts from destabilizing the border regions of neighbouring countries.
Second, and more importantly, the cross-border activities of secessionists create
obstacles to neutralising these movements.

Third, secessionist movements allow neighbouring countries with an interest in

destabilising India to interfere in its internal affairs in an adverse manner. These
number among the considerations that have influenced India’s policy towards
Pakistan in the case of the Khalistan movement, toward s Myanmar, Bhutan, China
and Bangladesh in the case of multiple secessionist movements in the Northeast,
and towards Nepal in the case of the Naxalite (Maoist) movement.

The existence of domestic groups of insurgents and separatists therefore

significantly complicates India’s security environment in South Asia. Migration:
New Ethnic Groups The cross-border movement of large populations, although a
version of the transnational ethnic group conundrum, presents a conceptually
distinct challenge because it involves the large-scale migration of individuals into
Indian territory, transforming an international affair into one with significant
domestic ramifications.
The mass migration of such populations either at one time or over time results in
the creation of new ethnic groups in the border (and other) regions of India, with
the potential of creating security problems, particularly in relations with respective
originating countries. Two examples stand out in this regard – the limited
migration of Buddhist Tibetans escaping Chinese persecution, and the much larger
and steady inflow of Muslim immigrants (legal and illegal) from Bangladesh into
West Bengal and the North-eastern region of India.

The creation and expansion of two new ethnic groups (Tibetan Buddhists and
Bengali Muslims) to which post-independence Indian society was not accustomed
has impacted the domestic reaction to these migrations, not least given suspicions
attaching to the purported connections between some recent terrorist attacks in
India and Bangladeshi elements, and consequently impinged on India’s relations
with China and Bangladesh respectively.

In the case of China, India has walked a tightrope between official recognition of
Tibet as an integral part of China and granting asylum to the Dalai Lama and his
followers in Indian territory. This is largely because Tibetan migrants are relatively
small in number and representatives of a globally recognized struggle (yet one that
the Indian government cannot officially endorse).

Also, Buddhism is accepted as a native faith in India, albeit nowadays a very minor
one numerically. By contrast, the domestic sociopolitical response to Bangladeshi
Muslim immigrants has been much less forgiving, partly due to their faith and
partly the purely economic motive driving the migrants onto Indian soil.

The reaction has been particularly violent in Assam, where riots against migrant
Bengalis date back to the 1960s and 1970s. Despite some progress towards
normalisation of bilateral relations with Bangladesh, complicated by a host of other
issues, the migration question remains a thorn in the Indian side.

A manifestation of the domestic impulse was the Indian decision to construct a

4000km concrete fence along the Indo-Bangladesh border in 1984, a project that
carries on till today and has created controversy between the two countries.
[Link] RELIGIOUS IDENTITY

The importance of religion as an integral component of the Indian worldview

cannot be understated. Various commentators have highlighted the weight that
Indian foreign policymakers attach to the religious opinions and sentiments of
India’s sizeable Muslim population, which by many accounts is the second largest
in the world. C. Raja Mohan describes India as an “Islamic nation” with a national
culture deeply influenced by Islam.

Other members of the Indian intelligentsia have highlighted West Asia as a

priority area for India not just for strategic reasons but also due to the spiritual and
religious needs of India’s Muslim population. Indeed the fear of alienating this
population is cited as a major reason for the lack of a noticeable Indo-Israeli
relationship until the 1980s.

India also has the second largest Shia Muslim population in the world, which
makes its ties with Iran, a Shia state, particularly relevant and sensitive. The fate of
Indian Muslims is keenly followed by Iran and plays an important part in
cementing a long-term relationship between the two countries.

The impulse to accommodate the sensitivities of India’s Muslim community on at

least some foreign policy issues derives more recently in part from a growing
recognition that not all terrorism involving Muslims in India is likely any more to
be directed from Pakistan or Bangladesh.

The actual and potential interplay between some Indian Muslims and radical
Muslim forces outside India has worried many in the security establishment for
some time, but no consistent policy in this regard has arisen under any recent
Union government.

No other country has figured more prominently in the interplay of religion and
India’s security than Pakistan. (In this regard, religion is more fundamental to the
political identity of India than some observers recognize). India’s secular polity
was forged as a conscious refutation of the idea that religion should be the basis of
nationality, an idea more commonly referred to as the “two-nation theory.”

While the progenitors of Pakistan considered partition to be primarily a religious

phenomenon, India’s leaders viewed it as an instance of territorial self-
determination. This basic divergence lies at the root of India’s policy towards
Pakistan and India’s position on the Kashmir issue. While Pakistan views the status
of Indian-controlled Kashmir as abhorrent to the idea of Muslim nationhood (i.e. a
Muslim-majority state in a Hindu-majority nation), India views the Kashmir valley
and surrounding territory as an integral part of its territorial identity.

Moreover, Kashmir stands as a crucial test of India’s secular character – a move

towards independence for Kashmir or, worse still, its accession to Pakistan would
undermine India’s religious plurality while adding credibility to the two-nation
theory. This could have “far-reaching, reactionary and undemocratic effects” in
India.

1.2.4 DETERMINANTS OF FOREIGN POLICY: EXTERNAL FACTORS

A dominant international political discourse plays decisive role in deciding the

foreign policy of a country. The structure of global power relations and the
developments in immediate neighbourhood significantly influence foreign policy
decisions.

[Link] BIG POWER POLITICS

India’s external environment at the time of her independence was characterised by

bipolarity and the Cold War. The main task of the Indian diplomacy was to
safeguard the country’s newly one sovereignty and independence in the context of
the military alliances and counter alliances of the big powers and their global
strategic manoeuvres.

The policy of nonalignment was the only rational option for India’s foreign policy
in this bipolar context of international relations. The Sino-Soviet conflict diluted
the bipolarity of international relations to a certain extent. However, the
development of a US-China-Pakistan axis in the context of Sino-Soviet conflict
posed a major threat to India’s national interest.

The prolonged Soviet presence in Afghanistan from 1979 onwards further

strengthened this three-power axis and impelled India to move closer to the Soviet
Union, particularly with regard to the security dimension of her foreign policy. The
Cold War thus continued to be the most important international determinant of
India’s foreign policy till the beginning of 1990s. The disintegration of the Soviet
Union and the end of the Cold War has brought about a radical transformation in
the structure of international relations. The USA has emerged not only as the only
superpower of the world, but also as the unchallenged hegemon of the international
system, both inside the UN and outside. Naturally, therefore Indian foreign policy
has to adjust itself to his new reality of the international environment.

The new direction and shape of Indian foreign policy must be such as to ensure
that there is no total opposition or direct confrontation with the US. At the same
time it is necessary to formulate a strategy of counter-hegemonic resistance against
possible neo-imperialistic encroachment upon India’s sovereignty in the economic
or political interests of the US and its allies.

Hence, the structural transformation of India’s international environment

necessarily involved radical change in the shape and direction of Indian foreign
policy.

[Link] DEVELOPMENTS IN NEIGHBOURHOOD

India is also located in a volatile neighbourhood, with ongoing wars, insurgencies

and unrest taking place in Sri Lanka, Nepal, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, and a coup
in Bangladesh. Any developments in the neighbouring countries would have a
cascading effect on India’s national interest. The external factors play at two
levels: regional and international.

The immediate impact would be from regional level where major changes in
politics, security or economy of India’s neighbouring states would make significant
imprint in India’s foreign policy making. For instance, China’s growing footprint
in South Asian countries in the name development altered India’s neighbourhood
policy to revive its traditional approach of reactive polity to proactive one.

[Link] NUCLEAR WEAPONS

In spite of the end of the Cold War, the nuclear stockpiles of the US and Russia
have remained almost as large as ever. India’s immediate neighbour, China, has
also developed considerable nuclear-weapon capabilities, including Inter
Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) capability. In these conditions India has no
option other than violating the international nuclear regime created by the US
dominated west. India not only refused to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
but also exploded its own nuclear bomb. Now in changed international
environment, India is successful to get a sort of acceptability for its nuclear status.
It was also successful in terms of concluding agreements with many countries for
cooperation in nuclear technology. It is also about to get a seat in international
nuclear regime established by big powers.

[Link] MULTILATERAL FORUMS AND NEGOTIATIONS

Ever since the end of the Cold War, the dominant powers in the international
relations are attempting to create a regulatory framework to create a normative
order among the countries. Mostly, these multilateral forums are aimed to promote
the interests of the big powers and international finance and multinational
corporations.

For example, the World Trade Organisation has emerged as a regulatory body to
order the trade relations among the countries. There are many similar forums to
regulate various that are utmost concerned to international community, including
Climate Change. All these organisations are influencing the foreign policies of all
the countries. While adjusting to these international regimes, India is actively
contributing to the outcomes voicing the interests of the developing countries.

[Link] REGIONAL ORGANISATIONS

The proliferations of regional organisations, as a offshoot of globalisation process

also significantly influencing India’s foreign policy. Traditionally India was
associated with Nonaligned movement and organs established by the United
Nations for trade and other development.

However, the success of India in attaining some sort of economic development led
it to become member of various regional and international organisations. For
instance, India is actively involved with the ASEAN an organisation established
for increasing cooperation between South-East Asian countries. Similarly, India is
also founding member of the many other forums such as BRICS (Brazil, Russia,
Indian, China and South Africa) and IBSA (India, Brazil and South Africa). The
membership in these organisations has brought a new dynamism to India’s foreign
policy.
[Link] MILITARY STRENGTH

Indian foreign policy under Nehru was based more on diplomacy than on military
power. But the border war with China in 1962, and four war with Pakistan have
compelled India to augment her defence capability, although the imperatives of
economic development are still as great as ever.

In particular, the relentlessly hostile relations with Pakistan, and the continuously
uneasy somewhat strained relations with China have impelled India to invest a
larger portion of her resources in defence than would otherwise have been
necessary. China’s relatively large nuclear-weapon capability, Pakistan’s nuclear
programme, and the apparently active and continuous Chinese aid to Pakistan in
the field of nuclear weapons have impelled India to adopt a strategy of developing
a minimum credible nuclear deterrence.

On the whole, India’s fairly large military capability makes her a major military
power in Asia, and this enables her to play a significant role in both intra-Asian
and international relations.

1.2.5 LET US SUM UP

The realm of the foreign is an ideological concept, a product of international

dynamics and domestic attributes. There is no denying that international
socialization has re-shaped foreign relations, and similarly, the permeation of
national politics on the international stage cannot be discredited. Since both factors
play a pivotal role in external policy formulation, the domestic and the foreign are
easily distinguishable conceptions.

Whilst the two environments may be different, the relationship between foreign
and domestic policy is thus determined on a common level of populism, with the
decisions of state leaders reflecting notions of common consensus and agreement.
Moreover, the relationship between domestic and foreign is also commonly linked
by the influence of domestic culture, with heavy emphasis on social groups and
social attitudes within states.
 UNIT - II

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AFTER 1945

1. Nature and Development

2. International relations after (II world war , Cold war- post

Cold War

3. Non Alignment Movement (NAM)

4. World Power

5. North-South & South- South dialogue

 Cold War Post Cold War

The Cold War, 1945-1990

The United State and the Soviet Union became the two superpowers of the post-
World War II era (See Figure 1.4). Each had its ideological mission (capitalist
democracy versus communism), its networks of alliances and clients, and its deadly
arsenal of nuclear weapons.

Europe was divided, with massive military forces of the United States and its North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies on one side and massive military forces
of the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies on the other. Germany itself was
split, with three-quarters of the country- and three quarters of the capital city of
Berlin–occupied by the United States, Britain, and France.

The remainder, surrounding West Berlin, was occupied by the Soviet Union. Crises
in Berlin in 1947–1948 and 1961 led to armed confrontations but not war. In 1961,
East Germany built the Berlin Wall separating East from West Berlin. It symbolized
the division of Europe by what Winston Churchill has called the “iron curtain.”

Gaddis, John Lewis. We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History. Oxford, 1997.
Zubok, Vladislav, and Constantine Pleshakov. Inside the Kremlin’s Cold War: From
Stalin to Khrushchev. Harvard, 1996. Garthoff, Raymond. Détente and
Confrontation; American Soviet Relations from Nixon to Reagan. Brookings, 1985.
Larson, Deborah Welch Anatomy of Mistrust: U.S. Soviet Relations During the
Cold War. Cornell, 1997. Trachtenberg, march. A Constructed Peace: The Making
of the European Settlement, 1945–1963. Princeton, 1999.

Despite the hostility of East- West relations during the Cold War, a relatively stable
framework of relations emerged, and conflicts never escalated to all-out war
between the largest states- At a U.S.-Soviet-British meeting at Yalta in 1945, when
the defeat of Germany was imminent, the Western powers acknowledged the fact of
the Soviet army's presence in Eastern Europe, allowing that area to remain under
Soviet influence.
Although the Soviet bloc did not join Western economic institutions such as the
IMF, all the world's major states joined the UN. The United Nations (unlike the ill-
fated League of Nations) managed to maintain almost universal membership and
adherence to basic structures and rules throughout the Cold War era.

The central concern of the West during the Cold War was that the Soviet Union
alight gain control of Western Europe—either through outright invasion or through
communists' taking power in war-weary and impoverished countries of Western
Europe. This could have put the entire industrial base of the Eurasian landmass
(from Europe to Siberia) under one state. The Marshall Plan—U.S. financial aid to
rebuild European economies—responded to these fears, as did the creation of the
NATO alliance.

Half of the entire world's military spending was devoted to the European standoff.
Much spending was also devoted to a superpower nuclear arms race, in which each
superpower produced tens of thousands of nuclear weapons.

Through the policy of containment, adopted in the late 1940s, the United States
sought to halt the expansion of Soviet influence globally on several levels at once—
military, political, ideological, economic. The United States maintained an extensive
network of military bases and alliances worldwide. Virtually all of U.S. foreign
policy in subsequent decades, from foreign aid and technology transfer to military
intervention and diplomacy, came to serve the goal of containment.

The Chinese communist revolution in 1949 led to a Sino-Soviet alliance (Sino

means "Chinese"). But China became fiercely independent in the 1960s following
the Sino-Soviet split, when China opposed Soviet moves toward peaceful
coexistence with the United States. In the late 1960s, young radicals, opposed to
both superpowers, ran China during the chaotic and destructive Cultural Revolution.

But feeling threatened by Soviet power, China's leaders developed a growing

affiliation with the United States during the 1970s, starting with a dramatic visit to
China by U.S. president Richard Nixon in 1972. This visit led to U.S.-Chinese
diplomatic relations in 1979. During the Cold War, China generally tried to play a
balancer role against whichever superpower seemed most threatening at the time.
In 1950, the Korean War broke out when communist North Korea attacked and
overran most of U.S.-allied South Korea. The United States and its allies (under UN
authority obtained after the Soviets walked out of the Security Council in protest)
counterattacked and overran most of North Korea. China sent masses of "volunteers"
to help North Korea, and the war bogged down near the original border until a 1953
truce ended the fighting. The Korean War hardened U.S. attitudes toward
communism and set a negative tone for future East-West relations, especially for
U.S.-Chinese relations in the 1950s.

The Cold War thawed temporarily after Stalin died in 1953. The first summit
meeting between superpower leaders took place in Geneva in 1955. This thaw in
relations led both sides to agree to reconstitute Austria, which had been split into
four pieces like Germany. But the Soviet Union sent tanks to crush a popular
uprising in Hungary in 1956 (an action it repeated in 1968 in Czechoslovakia), and
the Soviet missile program that orbited Sputnik in 1957 alarmed the United States.
The shooting down of a U.S. spy plane (the U-2) over the Soviet Union in 1960
scuttled a summit meeting between superpower leaders Nikita Khrushchev and
Dwight D. Eisenhower. Meanwhile in Cuba, after Fidel Castro’s communist
revolution in 1959, the United States attempted a counterrevolution in the botched
1961 Bay of Pigs invasion.

These hostilities culminated in the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, when the Soviet
Union installed medium-range nuclear missiles in Cuba. The Soviet aims were to
reduce the Soviet Union’s strategic nuclear inferiority, to counter the deployment of
U.S. missiles on Soviet borders in Turkey, and to deter another U.S. invasion of
Cuba U.S. leaders, however, considered the missiles threatening and provocative.

As historical documents revealed years later, nuclear war was quite possible. Some
U.S. policy makers favored military strikes before the missiles became operational,
when in fact some nuclear weapons in Cuba were already operational and
commanders were authorized to use them in the event of a U.S. attack. 25Instead,
President John F. Kennedy imposed a naval blockade to force their removal.
The Soviet Union backed down on the missiles, and the United States promised not
to invade Cuba in the future. Leaders on both sides were shaken, however, by the
possibility of nuclear war. They signed the Limited Test ban Treaty in 1963,
prohibiting atmospheric nuclear tests, and began to cooperate in cultural exchanges,
space exploration, aviation, and other areas.

The two superpowers often jockeyed for position in the global South, supporting
proxy wars in which they typically supplied and advised opposing factions in civil
wars. The alignment, were often arbitrary. For instance, the United States backed the
Ethiopian government and the Soviets backed next-door rival Somalia in the 1970s;
however, when an Ethiopian revolution caused the new government to seek Soviet
help, the United States switched its support to Somalia instead.

One flaw of U.S. policy in the Cold War period was to see all regional conflict
through East-West lenses. Its preoccupation with communism led the United States
to support unpopular pro-Western governments in a number of poor countries,
nowhere more disastrously than during the Vietnam War in the 1960s. The war in
Vietnam divided U.S. citizens and ultimately failed to prevent a communist
takeover. The fall of South Vietnam in 1975 appeared to signal U.S. weakness,
especially combined with U.S. setbacks in the Middle East—the 1973 Arab oil
embargo against the United States and the 1979 overthrow of the U.S.-backed shah
of Iran by Islamic fundamentalists.

In this period of apparent U.S. weakness, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in
1979. But, like the United States in Vietnam, the Soviet Union could not suppress
rebel armies supplied by the opposing superpower. The Soviets ultimately withdrew
after almost a decade of war that considerably weakened the Soviet Union.
Meanwhile, President Ronald Regan built up U.S. military forces to record levels
and supported rebel armies in the Soviet-allied states of Nicaragua and Angola (and
one faction in Cambodia) as well as Afghanistan. Superpower relations slowly
improved after Mikhail Gorbachev, a reformer, took power in the Soviet Union in
1985. But some of the battlegrounds of the global South (notably Afghanistan and
Angola) continued to suffer from brutal civil wars 9fought with leftover Cold War
arms) into the new century.
In retrospect, it seems that both superpowers exaggerated Soviet strength. In the
early years of the nuclear arms race, U.S. military superiority was absolute,
especially in nuclear weapons. The Soviets managed to match the United States over
time, from A-bombs to H-bombs to multiple-warhead missiles. By the 1970s the
Soviets had achieved strategic parity, meaning that neither side could prevent its
own destruction in a nuclear war.

But behind this military parity lay a Soviet Union lagging far behind the West in
everything else—wealth, technology, infrastructure, and citizen/worker motivation.
In June 1989, massive pro-democracy demonstrations in China's capital of Beijing
(Tiananmen Square) were put down violently by the communist government.
Hundreds were shot dead in the streets. Later that year, as the Soviet Union stood by,
one Eastern European country after another replaced its communist government
under pressure of mass demonstrations.

The toppling of the Berlin Wall in late 1989 symbolized the end of the Cold War
division of Europe. Genmany formally reunified in 1990. The Soviet leader,
Gorbachev, allowed these losses of external power (and more) in hopes of
concentrating on Soviet domestic restructuring under his policies of perestroika
(economic reform) and glasnost (openness in political discussion). China remained a
communist, authoritarian government but liberalized its economy and avoided
military conflicts.

In contrast to the Cold War era, China developed close ties with both the United
States and Russia and joined the world's liberal trading regime. Scholars do not
agree on the important question of why the Cold War ended. 26One view is that U.S.
military strength under President Reagan forced the Soviet Union into bankruptcy as
it tried to keep up in the arms race. A different position is that the Soviet Union
suffered from internal stagnation over decades and ultimately imploded because of
weaknesses that had little to do with external pressure.

Indeed, some scholars think the Soviet Union might have fallen apart earlier without
the United States as a foreign enemy to bolster the Soviet government's legitimacy
with its own people.
 The Post-Cold War Era. 1990-2013

The post-Cold War era began with a bang while the Soviet Union was still
disintegrating. In 1990, perhaps believing that the end of the Cold War had left a
power vacuum in its region, Iraq occupied its neighbor Kuwait in an aggressive grab
for control of Middle East oil. Western powers were alarmed—both about the
example that unpunished aggression could set in a new era and about the direct
threat to energy supplies for the world economy.

The United States mobilized a coalition of the world's major countries (with almost
no opposition) to counter Iraq. Working through the UN, the U.S.-led coalition
applied escalating sanctions against Iraq. When Iraq did not withdraw from Kuwait
by the UN's deadline, the United States and its allies easily smashed Iraq's military
and evicted its army from Kuwait in the Gulf War.

But the coalition did not occupy Iraq or overthrow its government. The costs of the
Gulf War were shared among the participants in the coalition, with Britain and
France making armies supplied by the opposing superpower. The Soviets ultimately
withdrew after almost a decade of was that considerably weakened the Soviet Union.
Meanwhile, President Ronald Reagan built up U.S. military forces to record levels
and supported rebel armies in soviet-allied states of Nicaragua and Angola (and one
faction in Cambodia) as well as Afghanistan.

Superpower relations slowly improved after Mikhali Gorbachev, a reformer, took

power in the Soviet union in 1985. But some of the battlegrounds of the global South
(notably Afghanistan and Angoal) continued to suffer from brutal civil wars (fought
with leftover Cold War arms) into the new century.

In retrospect, it seems that both superpowers exaggerated Soviet strength. In the

early years of the nuclear arms race, U.S. military superiority was absolute,
especially in nuclear weapons. The Soviets managed missiles. By the 1970s the
Soviets had achieved strategic parity, meaning that neither side could prevent its
own destruction in nuclear war. But behind this military parity lay a Soviet Union
lagging far behind the West in everything else–wealth, technology, infrastructure,
and citizen/worker motivation.
In June 1989, massive pro-democracy demonstrations in China’s capital of Beijing
(Tiananmen Square) were put down violently by the communist government.
Hundreds were shot dead in the streets. Later that year, as the Soviet Union stood by,
one Eastern European country after another replaced its communist government
under pressure of mass demonstrations.

The toppling of the Berlin Wall in late 1989 symbolized the end of the Cold War
division of Europe. Germany normally reunified in 1990. The Soviet leader,
Gorbachev, allowed these losses of external power (and more) in hopes of
concentrating on Soviet domestic restructuring under his policies of perestroika
(economic reform) and glasnost (openness in political discussion). China remained a
communist, authoritarian government but liberalized its economy and avoided
military conflicts. In contrast to the Cold War era, China developed close ties with
both the United States and Russia and joined the world’s liberal trading regime.

Scholars do not agree on the important questions of why the Cold War ended. 26One
view is that U.S. military strength under President Reagan forced the Soviet Union
into bankruptcy as it tried to keep up in the arms race. A different position is that the
Soviet Union suffered from internal stagnation over decades and ultimately
imploded because of weaknesses that has little to do with external pressure. Indeed,
some scholars think the Soviet Union might have fallen apart earlier without the
United States as a foreign enemy to bolster the Soviet government’s legitimacy with
its own people.

The Post-Cold War Era, 1990-2013

The post-Cold War era began with a bang while the Soviet Union was still
disintegrating.
In 1990, perhaps believing that the end of the Cold War had left a power vacuum in
its region, Iraq occupied its neighbor Kuwait in an aggressive grab for control of
Middle East oil. Western powers were alarmed—both about the example that
unpunished aggression could set in a new era and about the direct threat to energy
supplies for the world economy. The United States mobilized a coalition of the
world's major countries (with almost no opposition) to counter Iraq. Working
through the UN, the U.S.-led coalition applied escalating sanctions against Iraq.
When Iraq did not withdraw from Kuwait by the UN's deadline, the United States
and allies easily smashed Iraq's military and evicted its army from Kuwait in the
Gulf War But the coalition did not occupy Iraq or overthrow its government. The
costs of the Gulf War were shared among the participants in the coalition, with
Britain and France making military commitments while Japan and Germany made
substantial financial contributions. The pass-the-hat financing for this war was an
innovation, one that worked fairly well. 27

The final collapse of the Soviet Union followed only months after the Gulf War. 28
The 15 republics of the Soviet Union-of which Russia was just one-had begun taking
power from a weakened central government, declaring themselves sovereign states.
This process raised complex problems ranging from issues of national self-
determination to the reallocation of property. Russia and the other former republic
struggled throughout the 1990s against economic and financial collapse, inflation,
corruption, war, and military weakness, although they remained political
democracies. A failed Russian military coup attempt in 1991–and the prominent role
of Russian president Boris Yeltsin in opposing it–accelerated the collapse of the
Soviet Union. 29Soon both capitalism and democracy were adopted as the basis of
the economies and formed the CIS. Of the former Soviet republics, only the three
small Baltic states and Georgia are nonmembers.

Western relations with Russia and the other republics have been mixed since the
1990s. Because of their own economic problems, and because of a sense that Russia
needed internal reform more than external aid, Western countries provided only
limited aid for the region’s harsh economic transition, which had drastically reduced
living standards. Russia’s brutal suppression of its secessionist province of
Chechnya in 1995 and 1999 provoked Western fear of an expansionist, aggressive
Russian nationalism. Russian leaders feared NATO expansion into Eastern Europe
that placed threatening Western military forces on Russia’s borders. Meanwhile,
Japan and Russia could not resolve a lingering mostly symbolic territorial dispute. 30

Despite these problems, the world's great powers overall increased their cooperation
after the Cold War. Russia was accepted as the successor state to the Soviet Union
and after the Cold War. Russia was accepted as the successor state to the Soviet
Union and took its seat on the Security council. Russia and the United States agreed
to major reductions in their nuclear weapons, and carried them out in the 1990s.

Just after the Gulf War in 1991, the former Yugoslavia broke apart, with several of
its republics declaring independence. Ethnic Serbs, who were minorities in Croatia
and Bosnia, seized territory to form a "Greater Serbia." With help from Serbia,
which controlled the Yugoslav army, they killed hundreds of thousands of non-Serb
Bosnians and Croatians and expelled millions more, to create an ethnically pure
state.

The international community recognized the independence of Croatia and Bosnia,

admitting them to the UN and passing dozens of Security Council resolutions to
protect their territorial integrity and their civilian populations. But in contrast to the
Gulf War, the great powers showed no willingness to bear major costs to protect
Bosnia. Instead they tried to contain the conflict by assuming a neutral role as
peacekeeper and intermediary.31 In 1995, Serbian forces overran two UN-designated
"safe areas" in eastern Bosnia, expelling the women and slaughtering thousands of
the men. Finally two weeks of NATO airstrikes (the alliance's first-ever military
engagement), along with losses to Croatia on the ground, induced Serbian forces to
come to terms. The treaty to end the war (authored by US. negotiators) formally held
Bosnia together but granted Serbian forces autonomy on half of their territory, while
placing about 60,000 heavily armed (mostly NATO) troops on the ground to
maintain a cease-fire. Meanwhile, Serbian strongman Slobodan
Milosevic was indicted for war crimes by the UN tribunal for the former Yugoslavia,
was delivered to the tribunal in 2001, and died in 2006 near the end of a lengthy
trial.

In contrast to their indecision early in the Bosnia crisis, the Western powers acted
decisively in 1999 when Serbian forces carried out “ethnic cleansing” in the Serbian
province of Kosovo, predominantly populated by ethnic Albanians. NATO launched
an air war that escalated over ten weeks. NATO came under criticism from Russia
and China for acting without explicit UN authorization and for interfering in
Serbia’s internal affairs. (The international community and the UN considered
Kosovo, unlike Bosnia, to be a part of Serbia.) In the end, Serbian forces withdrew
from Kosovo and NATO has controlled the province ever since. 32In 2008, with the
UN Security Council still deadlocked over its status, Kosovo declared independence,
bringing protest from Serbia and its allies. In 2010, the World Court declared
Kosovo’s declaration of independence legal, although its substantive status remains
in dispute.

Other Western military intervention decisions since 1990 were less effective. In
Somalia, a U.S.-led coalition sent tens of thousand of troops to suppress factional
fighting and deliver relief supplies to a large population that was starving. However,
when those forces were drawn into the fighting and sustained casualties, the United
States abruptly pulled out. 33 In Rwanda in 1994, the genocide of more than half a
million civilians in a matter of weeks was virtually ignored by the international
community. The great powers, burned by failures in Somalia and Bosnia, decided
that their vital interest were not at stake. In 1997, the Rwanda conflict spilled into
neighboring Zaire (now Democratic Congo), where rebels overthrew a corrupt
dictator. Neighboring countries were drawn into the fighting, but the international
community steered clear even as millions of civilians died of hunger and disease.
The U.S. military intervened in Haiti to restore the elected president, but Haiti
remains mired in poverty.

New rifts opened in 2001 between the United States and both China and Europe–
possibly signaling a realignment against U.S. predominance in world affairs–on
issues ranging from global warning to the proposed International Criminal Court.
Russia and China signed a treaty of friendship in 2001, and European countries
helped vote the United States off two important UN commissions.

These divisive issues receded when the United States was attacked by terrorists on
September 11, 2001. The attack destroyed the World Trade Center in New York and
a wing of the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., killing thousand of American and
citizens of about 60 other countries. The attacks mobilized support for the United
States by a very broad coalition of states. President Bush declared a “war on
terrorism” that lasted for years and spanned continents, employing both conventional
and unconventional means. In late 2001, U.S. and British forces and their Afghan
allies ousted the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, which had harbored the al Qaeda
network (led by Osama bin Laden).
The great power divisions reappeared, however, as the United States and Britain
tried to assemble a coalition to out Iraq’s Saddam Hussein by force in early 2003.
France and Germany (along with Russia and China) bitterly opposed the war, as did
millions of protesters around the world. The dispute disrupted the Atlantic alliance
for several years and weakened the UN’s role as the U.S. led coalition went forward
despite its failure to win Security Council authorization for war.

The invasion itself was brief and decisive. A U.S. military force of 250,000 troops
with advanced technology overpowered the Iraqi army in three weeks. Many Iraqis
welcomed the end of a dictatorial regime, as has most Afghans in late 2001, but the
war inflamed anti-American sentiment, especially in Muslim countries. Insurgent
forces in Iraq gained strength as the U.S. occupation stretched on for years, and
within several years U.S. public opinion had turned against the protracted war. After
a U.S. troop surge in 2007 and the arming of Sunni communities fed up with foreign
Islamist radicals, violence in Iraq fell 34 U.S. forces withdrew from Iraq in 2009–
2011, although some violence continued. Estimates of Iraqi death caused by the war
range from tens of thousands to more than 600,000. Elections in 2010 were
relatively peaceful, but left the country divided along ethnic lines.

In Afghanistan, fighting worsened beginning in 2007 as the Taliban ran an

insurgency campaign from bases in Pakistan. Disputed elections, corruption, and
“insider” attacks by members of Afghan security forces on NATO troops in 2009,
but then began a withdrawal set to conclude in 2014. One goal of the Afghan
intervention was accomplished in 2011, when U.S. special forces killed Osama bin
Laden in Pakistan U.S. drone attacks on other militants inside Pakistan and
elsewhere weakened all Qaeda but raised thorny legal and political issues.

Meanwhile, nuclear weapons programs in North Korea and Iran raised alarms. North
Korea produced possibly a half-dozen nuclear bombs and tested three in 2006, 2009,
and 2013. In 2012, it successfully tested an advanced long-range missile in defiance
of a UN Security Council ban/ Starting in 2004, Iran made and broke several
agreements to suspend the enrichment of uranium that could be used to build nuclear
weapons. In response, the UN Security Council passed a series of sanctions against
Iran, demanding that it stop its enrichment program. In 2010, centrifuges key to its
enrichment program began mysteriously destroying themselves, and investigation
pinned the problem on the sophisticated Stuxnet computer virus, evidently a creation
of Israeli and American defense scientists. It set back Iran’s program by a year or
more.

The Arab Spring uprisings in 2011-2012 began with nonviolent protests ,n Tunisia
and Egypt, both resulting in the overthrow of dictators and the holding of free
elections. Egypt elected a leader of the long-banned Muslim Brotherhood as present.
In Libya and Syria violent repression against protesters sparked violent uprisings,
leading to the bloody overthrow of Libya's dictator with NATO air support, and a
prolonged and agonizing civil war in Syria with a divided international community
unable to respond effectively. Yemen had its own revolution—a mix of peaceful
protest, violent repression, ethnic conflict, and political compromise leading to a
transitional government. And far away in Burma (Myanmar), a longstanding military
regime finally made a concerted move toward democracy.

The post-Cold War era may seem a conflict-prone period in which savage wars flare
up with unexpected intensity around the world, in places such as Rwanda and Syria
— even New York City. Yet, the post-Cold War era has been more peaceful than the
Cold War (see p. 85). Old wars have ended faster than new ones have begun. 35 Latin
America and Russia/CIS have nearly extinguished wars in their regions, joining a
zone of peace already encompassing North America, Europe, Japan/Pacific, and
China.

Warfare is diminishing even in the arc of conflict from Africa through the Middle
East to South Asia. Since 1990, long, bloody wars have ended in South Africa,
Mozambique, Angola, .southern Sudan, and Ethiopia-Eritrea, as did the various
conflicts in Central America and the civil war in Sri Lanka. Wars in West Africa,
Rwanda, and Indonesia have also wound down. After the Cold War, world order did
not spiral out of control with rampant aggression and war.

However, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which saw rising expectations of peace in

the 1990s, worsened alter a proposed deal fell through in 2000. With the 2006
Palestinian election victory of the militant Islam- Ist party Hamas, responsible for
many violent attacks on Israel, hopes for a durable peace faded. In 2006, Israel
fought a brief but intense war with Hezbollah guerrillas in southern Lebanon, while
violent clashes between Israel and Hamas continued from 2009 to 2012. Israel
deployed a new "Iron Dome" missile defense system against Hamas missiles in a
2012 clash.36

In international economic relations, the post-Cold War era is one of globalization.

New hubs of economic growth are emerging, notably in parts of Asia with
remarkable economic growth. Globalization has created backlashes among people
who are adversely affected or who believe their identities are threatened by foreign
influences. The resurgence of nationalism and ethnic-religious conflict—
occasionally in brutal form—results partly from that backlash. So does the
significant protest movement against capitalist-led globalization.
With increasing globalization, transnational concerns such as environmental
degradation and [Link] have become more prominent as well. Global warming
looms as an ever more present danger, underscored in 2005 by the toll of Hurricane
Katrina on New Orleans and the accelerating melting of arctic ice. In 2008-2009, a
virulent swine flu (known as H1N1) spread worldwide, triggering efforts to control
the virus through quarantines and a new vaccine. Major oil spills in the Gulf of
Mexico and China in 2010 refocused international attention on the issue of pollution
and the environment, especially in the context of the global race for natural
resources.

China is becoming more central to world politics as the 21st century begins. Its size
and rapid growth make China a rising power—a situation that some scholars liken to
Germany's rise a century earlier. Historically, such shifts in power relations have
caused instability in the international system. China is the only great power that is
not a democracy. Its poor record on human rights makes it a frequent target of
Western criticism from both governments and NGOs.

China holds (but seldom uses) veto power in the UN Security Council, and it has a
credible nuclear arsenal. China adjoins several regional conflict areas and affects the
global proliferation of missiles and nuclear weapons. It claims disputed territory in
the resource-rich South China Sea and disputes ownership of islands with Japan in
the East China Sea, but it has not fought a military battle in 25 years. With the
transfer of Hong Kong from Britain in 1997, China acquired a valuable asset and
turned to hopes of some-day reintegrating Taiwan as well, under the Hong Kong
formula of “one country , tow systems.” China is the only great power from the
global South. Its population size and rapid industrialization from a low starting point
make China a big factor in the future of global environmental trends such as global
warming. All these elements make China an important actor in the coming decades.

It remains to be seen whether, in the coming years, the international system can
provided China with appropriate status and respect to reflect its rising power and
historical importance, and whether China in turn can come to conform with
international rules and norms. So will the Chinese leadership’s decisions about
whether to encourage or discourage the rising tide of nationalism among China’s
young people as communist ideology loses its hold.

The transition into the post –Cold War ear has been a turbulent time, full of changes
and new possibilities both good and bad. It is likely, however, that the basic rules
and principles of IR–those that scholars have long struggled to understand–will
continue to apply, though their contexts and outcomes may changes. Most central to
those rules and principles is the concept of power, to which we now turn.

Non-Alignment Movement (NAM)

 Objectives
 Introduction
 Context and Imperatives
 The Concept of Non-Alignment
 Evolution of the Non-Aligned Movement
 Goals and Achievement of the Non-Aligned Movement
 Non-Aligned Movement Today
 The Debate
 The Relevance of Non-alignment
 Let Us Sum Up

OBJECTIVE

After going through this unit, you will be able to:

1. Explain the concept of non-alignment and analyse the factors that led to its
emergence;
2. Trade the evolution and functioning of the Non-Aligned Movement; and
3. Examine the relevance of both non-alignment and the non-aligned
movement in a Post Cold War as well as a post Soviet world.

INTRODUCTION

The term 'non-alignment' is used to describe the foreign policies of those states that
refused to align with either of the two blocs led by the two Superpowers i.e. the U.S.
and the U.S.S.R., and instead, opted to pursue an independent course of action in
international politics. The Non-Aligned Movement (N.A.M.) emerged when
individual non-aligned states came together and coordinated their efforts on a
common platform. It changed the nature of inter-state relations by enabling the
newly independent developing countries to play a significant role in world affairs.

CONTEXT AND IMPERATIVES

Non-alignment emerged within the context of two simultaneous global
developments Afro-Asian resurgence and bipolar world politics. The reawakening of
the nations of Africa and Asia kindled in them the urge for freedom from colonial
rule and infused a determination to shape their destinies on their own.

This led to the development of a distinct idea of active and independent involvement
'in world affairs based on one's own perspectives of national and international
interests. Therein evolved an independent stand on national and international issues
amongst the newly emergent nations.

This Afro-Asian resurgence occurred at a time when the world was divided into two
hostile camps, each representing two different ideologies and two socio-economic as
well as political systems, and led by the U.S. and erstwhile U.S.S.R. respectively.
Each aspired for greater spheres of influence through military alliances with other
states. In this context, the independent position of the newly emergent states came to
be viewed I, as non-alignment, as they refused to be allied with either bloc.
Cold War Period : The impetus for the non-aligned approach stemmed from many
sources. One of the foremost objectives of these states was economic development
for which they needed resources in the form of economic assistance as well as
increased trade. Non-alignment enabled them to have economic relations with all
countries.

The second imperative was the need for peace without which there could not be real
development. A third source was that their need be secure from global threat
perceptions emanating from Cold war politics. Other domestic imperatives also
existed which varied from country to country.

For example, in the case of India, its internal political plurality, its political
processes, its historical role and geographical position were important contributing
factors for the emergence of non-alignment.

THE CONCEPT OF NON-ALIGNMENT

Non-alignment means the refusal of states to take sides with one or the other of the
two principal opposed groups of powers such as existed at the time of the cold war.
Nonalignment can be defined as not entering into military alliances with any
country, either of the Western bloc led by the U.S. or the communist bloc led by the
U.S.S.R. It is an assertion of independence in foreign policy.

Some Western scholars have persistently confused non-alignment "with

isolationism, non commitment, neutrality, neutralism and non-involvement. Non-
alignment is not neutrality. Non-alignment is a political concept, whereas, neutrality
is a legal concept. Unlike neutrality, non-alignment is not a law written into the
Constitution of the state.

Neutrality is a permanent feature of state policy, while non-alignment is not. Further,

unlike neutrality, non-alignment is not negative, but is a positive concept. It stands
for :
(a) an active role in world affairs and
(b) friendship and cooperation with all countries.
It consists of taking an independent position based on the merits of each issue, and,
on the requirements of national interest. It is not directed against any ideology but
seeks to promote peace and friendship in the world, irrespective of ideological
differences. Non-aligned nations continuously opposed the politics of Cold War
confrontations. They underlined the necessity of building peace and "peace areas" in
a world of clear bipolarism. Non-alignment was also not a policy based on
opportunism which tried to gain advantage by playing one power against another.

EVOLUTION OF THE NON-ALIGNED MOVEMENT

The non-aligned movement evolved out of the concerted efforts of individual

nonaligned states to build a common front against the superpower and neo-
imperialist domination. Jawaharlal Nehru from India, Gamal Abdal Nassar from
Egypt and Josip Broz Tito from Yugoslavia took the first step in building this
movement. Among thckt3 first architects Nehru would be specially remembered.

His early perception about the rise of neo-imperialism and the consequent insecurity
that would be faced by the smaller states, made a major contribution towards
building this movement. Nehru believed that the countries of Asia and Africa,
should build up an alliance of solidarity to fight neo imperialism.

As a first step he tried to organise an Asian front in the forties. In 1947 he called an
Asian Relations Conference in New Delhi. In the fifties as the states of Africa
started gaining independence from colonial rule it became necessary to expand the
base of this front.

In April 1955, therefore, Nehru together with leaders of Indonesia, Burma, Sri Lanka
and Pakistan convened an Afro-Asian Conference at Bandung in Indonesia. Both
these Conferences highlight the political and economic insecurity that was
threatening the newly independent states at the time.

However, Bandung Conference failed to build a homogenous Asian and African

front as a number of these States did not agree to conduct their foreign relations
under the banner of anti-imperialism. 'They had either already joined the various
Western military alliances or had closely identified their interests with that of the
Western Powers. The rift between the two groups was visible at Bandung itself. In
the post-Bandung years, thus, it became necessary to build up an identity for the
non-aligned states on the basis of principles and not on the basis of region.

The effort united these states with Yugoslavia which was similarly looking for
a political identity in international affairs. The embryo of the later non-aligned
conferences first came into being a Brioni, in Yugoslavia, in June 1956, where Tito
conferred with Nehru and Nassar on the possibility of making real the unspoken
alliance which bound them together.

The efforts finally resulted in the convening of the first non-aligned conference at
Belgrade in 1961. Five basis were determined and applied, for countries to be
members of the Non-aligned Movement. Only such countries as fulfilled these
conditions were actually invited to the conference. There were :

(a) independent foreign policy, particularly in the context of Cold War politics;
(b) opposition to colonialism in all its forms and manifestations;
(c) should not be a member o f any of the military blocs; d) should not have
concluded any bilateral treaty with any of the two superpowers;
(e) should not have allowed military bases on its territory to a superpower, qualified
for attendance at the Belgrade summit.

The NAM summit conferences from time to time, have discussed several issues and
problems. At the first summit (Belgrade, 1961) 25 countries, who attended it,
discussed the situation in Berlin, question of representation of People's Republic of
China in the United Nations, the Congo Crisis, imperialism as potential threat to
world peace, and Apartheid. The Conference expressed full faith in the policy of
peaceful co-existence.

India was represented by Nehru. The Cairo summit, held in 1964 was attended by 46
countries. The Indian delegation was led by La1 Bahadur Shastri. The conference
emphasised the urgent need for disarmament, pleaded for peaceful settlement of all
international disputes, urged member-governments not to recognise the white
minority government in Rhodesia and reiterated the earlier stand of NAM against
apartheid and colonialism. The demand for representation of People's China in the
United Nations was also reiterated. Cold War Period The third summit at Lusaka in
1970 (attended by 52 countries) called for withdrawal of
foreign forces from Vietnam and urged the member-states to boycott Israel which
was in occupation of certain neighboring Arab countries territories.

It requested governments of member-nations to intensify their struggle against

Apartheid and as a part of the struggle, not to allow the fly over facility to the South
African aircrafts. The summit resolved to increase economic cooperation. It rejected
the proposal to establish a permanent secretariat of the Movement.

The Indian delegation was led by Indira Gandhi. There were signs of detente in Cold
War Politics by the time the next summit met at Algiers (1973 attended by 75
countries). It welcomed easing of international tens~on, supported detente, and
repeated NAM's known stand against imperialism and apartheid, and resolved to
encourage economic, trade and technical cooperation amongst member states.

The conference demanded a change in the existing international economic order

which violated the principle of equality and justice. In 1976, the Colombo summit
was attended by 85 countries. The U.N General Assembly had given a call for a
New International Economic Order In 1974. The NAM at Colombo not only gave
whole-hearted support to this demand, but asked for a fundamental change in the
world monetary system and form.

It was proposed that the Indian ocean be declared a zone of peace. As there was a
caretaker government in India, the then Prime Minister Charan Singh decided to
send his foreign minister to represent the country at the sixth summit at Havana
(1979). The number of participant rose to 92. Pakistan was admitted to the
Movement and Burma (a former member) left the NAM.

The Cuban President Fidel .a Castro described the former U.S.S.R. as a natural
friend of the Movement The summit reiterated the well known position against
imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism and apartheid. The summit resolved to
support freedom struggle in South Africa and to stop oil supply to that country. As
Egypt had resolved her differences with Israel, some of the anti-Israel countries
sought suspension of Egypt. The summit merely discussed the' proposal.
The Seventh Summit (due in 1982 at Baghdad) could not be held in time due to Iran-
Iraq War. It was held at New Delhi in 1983 and attended by 101 countries. The New
Delhi declaration sought to reiterate the known position of NAM on various issues.
It hoped for any early end to the Iran-Iraq War and for liberation of Namibia.

However, the conference failed to take any stand on Soviet intervention in

Afghanistan. The Soviet occupation was openly supported by Vietnam, Yemen,
Syria and Ethiopia was strongly opposed by Singapore, Nepal, Pakistan. Egypt and
Zaire. The Harare Conference (1986) adopted the Harare declaration and sought
greater economic cooperation among its members and North-South cooperation for
faster development in the South. The summit gave a call for new International
Information and Communication Order to end the western monopoly over news
disbursement.

In view of likely retaliation by the apartheid regime of South Africa against

Frontline countries who were applying sanctions, the NAM decided to set up a fund
called Action for Resistance against Imperialism, Colonialism and Apartheid. In
abbreviated form it came to be known as the AFRICA Fund.

The 1989 Belgrade Summit was the last one to be held before Yugoslavia
disintegrated and at a time when Cold War was just ending. It gave a call against
international terrorism, smuggling and drug trafficking. The principle of self-
determination was reiterated particularly in the context of South Africa and her
continued rule over Namibia.

The tenth conference at Jakarta in 1992 was the first assembly of NAM after the end
of Cold War. The summit was at pains to explain that even after the collapse of
Soviet Union and end of Cold War, there was utility of the movement as a forum of
developing countries struggling against neo-colonialism and all forms of big-power
interference.

The main issue was preservation of NAM and strengthening its identity as an agency
of rapid development for its members in a tension-free world. The eleventh NAM
Summit was held at Cartagena (Colombia) in October, 1995. India was represented
by a high-power delegation led by Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao.

The summit, second after the end of the Cold War, tried to find its role in the
changed circumstances of a world without blocs. An effort was made by Pakistan, at
the foreign ministers level, to persuade NAM to evolve a system in which bilateral
disputes may be sought to be settled by the movement.

This was a clever way of bringing Kashmir on the agenda of NAM. Pakistan did not
succeed in its design. An important decision taken by the 113-member NAM summit
was to give a call for general and universal disarmament. India won a spectacular
victory in its lone battle against the monopoly of the nuclear power countries over
atomic weapons.

The NAM resolved to take the issue to the United Nations by moving a resolution
for the complete elimination of all weapons of mass destruction. This endorsement
of India's position gave encouragement to India's consistent stand against signing the
discriminatory Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). The endorsement of India's position
on NPT by NAM was all the more significant because 11 1 out of 113 members of
NAM have already signed the NPT.

They had earlier in 1995, voted at New York for indefinite extension of. the NPT.
Pakistan continued to favour a regional nuclear arrangement and did not share
India's concern about discriminatory nature of the NPT. Pakistan's view was also
,accommodated in the final communiqué which urged states to conclude agreements
for creation of nuclear weapon free zones, wherever they did not exist.

Pending creation of such zones, Israel was called upon to renounce possession of
nuclear weapons, to accede to NPT, and to promptly place all its nuclear abilities
under full scope of International Atomic Energy safeguards. This summit also called
for total and complete prohibition of the transfer of all nuclear-related equipment,
information, material and facilities.

GOALS AND ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE NAM

A major goal of .the Non-aligned Movement was to end colonialism. The
conferences of the NAM continuously supported the national liberation movements
and the organisations that led those movements were given the status of full
members in these conferences. This support greatly facilitated the Decolonization
process in Asia and Africa.

It also condemned racial discrimination and injustice and lent full support to the
antiapartheid movement in South Africa and Namibia. Today in both countries this
obnoxious policy has ended with independence and majority rule. A third area in
which the NAM made a significant contribution was towards the preservation of
peace and disarmament.

Its espousal of peace, of peaceful co-existence and of human brotherhood,

opposition to wars of any kind contributed to the lowering of Cold War tensions and
expanded areas of peace in the world with less states joining military blocs. It also
continuously strove for disarmament and for an end to the arms race stating that
universal peace and security can be assumed only by general and complete
disarmament, under effective international control.

It underlined that the arms Non-Aligned Movement Cold War Period race blocked
scarce resources which ought to be used for socio-economic development. They first
called for a permanent moratorium on nuclear testing and later for the conclusion of
a treaty banning the development, production stockpiling and use of all chemical
weapons.

Fourthly, the non-aligned states succeeded in altering the composition of the U.N.
and consequently in changing the tenor of the interstate relation conducted through
its organs. In the forties and fifties deliberations in the U.N. organs were entirely
dominated by the super power and their associate states. The emergence of non-
alignment has changed this situation.

It has created not only a new voting majority in the General Assembly but also
common platform from where the third world can espouse its cause. It is no longer
possible to ignore this platform. Thus we see that non-alignment has facilitated third
world's participation in world politics and in the process has democratized the
international relations.

The fifty important contribution was with regard to economic equality. It was the
NAM that called for the establishment of a New International Economic Order
(NIEO). Despite their political sovereignty, the newly independent states remained
economically unequal. They remained the same raw materials producing countries,
which sold their commodities to the developed world at a lower price, and bought
manufactured good from them at a higher price.

The tragedy was that they were and continue to be part of an oppressive economic
system and that have to function within it. This makes them perpetually dependent
on the developed North for capital goods, finance and technology. In order to end
this economic exploitation, termed as neocolonialism, the NAM called for a
restructuring of the international economic and monetary systems on the basis of
equality, non-discrimination and cooperation.

Non-aligned Movement's struggle for economic justice has demonstrated how

realistic I, is to divide the world between the North and the South rather than
between the East and the West. It has proved that what concerns the majority of
humanity is not the choice between capitalism and communism but a choice between
poverty and prosperity.

Preaching's of non-alignment has made the developed world realize, to some extent,
that deprivation of the third world would someday affect adversely their prosperity
too. This has, to a large extent, forced them to come to the negotiating table. Besides
the general success in making third world's economic demands negotiable, non-
alignment has won its battle for some specific issues also.

For example, economic sovereignty over natural resources is now an accepted

principle. Non-alignment has also succeeded in legitimizing the interventionist trade
policy that the developing countries want to pursue.
It has successfully turned world attention to the problem created by the role as
played by multinationals, specially in the context of transfer of technology. It has
also succeeded in pursuing the IMF to establish system of compensatory finance
which help the developing states in overcoming their balance of payments
difficulties.

In the cultural field the establishment of the Pool of News Agencies needs to be
considered as an achievement. This is the first time in history that politically and
economically weaker nations have been able to gather information and communicate
with the outside world without the aid of the western communication system.

The most significant achievement of non-aligned movement lies in the fact that it
has taught the developing world how to pursue independent economic development
in spite of being a part of the world capitalist economic order which makes them
dependent on the developed states for capital and technology.

NAM IRRELEVANT AND INVAILD

Some scholars mostly Western used to not only criticize, but also jeer at non-
alignment movement. They under related it by calling it hypo-critic, in effective and
worth less. However, in the last few years-nonwestern scholars and even leaders and
representatives of few non-aligned countries have also started realizing the
redundancy and irrelevance of this movement.

The circumstances that led to the creation of this movement have under gone a sea
change .The following changes have rendered the utility of the NAM doubtful:

i) Decolonization has become a fait accompli.

ii) Cold war has ended and détente is again beginning with new vigor and vitality.
iii) Military blocs have tumbled down.
iv) Military bases have become a thing of the past owing to advance in science and
technology and its use for military purposes.
v) Bi-polar world is non-existent.
vi) Collapse of communism and communist blocs and resultant de- idealization of
world politics.
vii) Irreversible trends towards peaceful co-existence and active economic
cooperation.
viii) Trends towards disarmament have been gaining momentum since1921. The
aligned of the East and West have taken steps towards 20-30 percent reduction in
defense forces.
ix) Since the US has emerged as the sole world power following the collapse of
Soviet Union, many non-aligned countries went to leave the NAM. In September
1991, Argentina actually dropped out of the NAM. Where is the question of keeping
aloof from rival blocs, some people ask, when there is only one effective power and
the other is in ruins?

OUTDATED ECONOMIC STAND

For years NAM has been trying to get rich nations to give aid to the poor nations .It
wants that rich nations commit 0.7% of their GDP as aid. This figure has not been
met, except by a few countries. The Foreign aid figure of $850 billion has been
declining at about 10% annually. Instead of relying on aid, NAM countries have to
get more private investment into their countries.

LACK OF ECONOMIC PRAGMATISM

Many of the economic ideas which were in vogue in the past are updated today.
However, many NAM members are rooted in ideas of socialism and state control,
ideas popular at the time of Nehru and Nassir. This has made them impossible to
move forward. They continue complaining about the IMF and the WTO but lack the
muscle to do anything. Rather than complain about the new trade regime, the
countries must adjust to changing realities and learn to derive strength from them.

DUPLICACY
NAM today competes with G-7, ASEAN and the Commonwealth, which are similar
groups of nations. The other groups are more effective, as they deal with economic
and trade issues. NAM does not do that, nor does it take up any diplomatic initiative.
It has no position even on issues like human rights, child exploitation and gender
issues. As a result, its members have to follow the Western dictates in this regard.

LEADERSHIP

The statesmen who started NAM had a vision, today NAM has none. There is no
leadership on global issues, and there are also disagreements among the members.
As a result, the organization has no direction as to the path it should take.

LACK OF ISSUES

Nor does NAM have real issues. It could have provided some leadership on things
like nuclear non-proliferation, child labour, poverty and terrorism, besides other
social and economic issues. NAM desperately needs new issues and themes to focus
so that it can play a meaningful role in world politics in the future. Otherwise, it will
be another meaningless meeting.

Even items on which there is a consensus, such as the drug trade, international
terrorism and non-proliferation, NAM has not been able to achieve anything. This
erodes the credibility of the movement as an instrument to further the political and
economic interests of its members. Unless NAM redefines its terms of reference and
chalks out a strategy to counter US influence on the world, it will remain
marginalized and irrelevant.

It should have charted out its plans in the post-cold war period, but has failed to do
so. After going over the history of non-alignment, Jagat [Link], India’s foreign
secretary suggested, “That after the non-aligned nations come to command a safe
majority in the United Nations”. The non-aligned movement had become redundant.
He further said,“We should remind ourselves and the world that the non-aligned
started with the independent rights of nations to functionally determine international
cooperation and that is where the world has now arrived…. Why not the mission
declares accomplished and discontinues the ritual continuation of NAM

[Link] says about NAM, “While being non-aligned movement gives its
countries the flexibility to choose partners and partnerships, the non-aligned
movement is not a forum of any consequence, relevance in today’s world”. Great
Historian Ram Chandra Guha has described Jawaharlal Nehru’s policy of Non-
alignment as an attempt to place India “beyond and above the rivalries of Great
powers”.

Some scholars believe that NAM remains to be redundant or impotent, as it could

not solve the basic conflicts among its member states. “The non-aligned movement
is not in a position to act even as a forum for displaying solidarity.” New Delhi-
India on Friday (29June, 2007), the then U.S Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in
a statement questioned the relevance of Non-aligned movement. NAM in the post-
cold war, and reiterated its “firm and abiding commitment” to those ideals.

In a speech made at the 32nd anniversary celebrations of the United States India
Business Council in Washington Thursday (28 June, 2009), Rice called upon India
to abandon NAM, as it has lost its relevance.

Rice had earlier exhorted India to move past old ways of thinking as NAM has lost
its relevance and meaning. “I know that there are some who still talk about non-
alignment in foreign policy but may be that made sense during the cold war when
the world really was divided into rival camps”. She further added “it has lost its
meaning. One is aligned not with the interests and power of one Bloc or another but
with the values of a common humanity. Instead India should join fellow
democracies in prompting common values of freedom and justice”. (“The Earth
Times” New York, 29june2007) Prof. Hans Koechler, a leading expert on NAM says,
“NAM is not relevant today, it was relevant only during cold war era Bi-polar world.
Now there is only one dominant global power or player (U.S) and in this unipolar
world, NAM has lost its relevance. NAM has emerged more of a moral influence”
adds Koechler. “It is not about the specific measures. It is about the principles of
Sovereignty,Independence,and non-interference, peaceful settlement of disputes and
North-South Relations and economic relations between member states. Koechler
further adds that, “I am not optimistic that the NAM countries can make use of its
structure, because of many of its member states are now heavily dependent on the
United States, so they are not really, “non-aligned”, according to their own
philosophy”.

There are no strict rules, whether NAM countries had to defend each other’s actions.
The NAM has no charter. It has no statue unlike other international organizations. It
is without a secretariat, Koechler said”. (International Media Coverage Deutshce
Welle, Bonn Germany-13 july2009) On the surface it does seem logical that with the
disappearance of bloc divisions and rivalry between the two nuclear super powers,
there was no longer any reason for countries wishing to stay away from these
divisions to remain together hence the relevance of NAM.

It may seem paradoxical that the first serious dilemmas concerning the future of the
NAM were voices, both within and outside it, as détente evolved between United
States and USSR. It was said in various quarters that the NAM has become
superfluous. Now, it is alleged that during its decades of existence NAM has proved
to be ineffective.

However, at the same time NAM maintained its regular schedule of periodic summit
meetings, while increasing its number of member countries. The steadily growing
memberships of NAM eliminate all doubts as to the relevance of the NAM. On the
other hand, the phenomenal expansion that has occurred in the membership of the
NAM gives rise to a situation of internal contradiction together with an apparent and
potential tensions and reservations among its member states, leads to stalemate in
the capacity of the Non-aligned to play a positive role in world affairs.

The NAM is turning into a club where one can discuss and debate international
issues rather than resolve or influence them. One should note that the existing
contradictions within the NAM itself- which could exacerbate discrepancy between
theory and practice, between declared goalsand behavior in practice-weaken the
capacity of NAM to carry out more successfully its historical mission. This is
obviously because NAM’s position on many issues remains fairy generic. There is
nothing quite specific in summit declarations that suggest that the movement is truly
coming to grips with the issues arising out of a unipolar strategy aimed at
maintaining the hegemony of the North over the South. Most important, looking at
the world economy and international economic relations, the NMA’s progress in two
central and consistent goals, development and eradication of poverty, continue to
flounder.

This means that the NAM is far from its cherished goal of being constructive and
effective force in the international politics in the new millennium. The fact is that the
collapse of the bi-polar system and emergence of unipolarity in political, economic
and military terms is leading to further inequality and injustice and, hence, the role
of NAM becomes much more important as a counterforce to unilateral military and
economic coercion.

NAM STILL RELEVANT AND VALID

On the other hand many non-aligned countries claim that all the changes enumerated
above are mainly the result of their long struggle and so they take credit of it. All
these changes indicate the vindication of their stand and principles. Even in the
changed context it has assumed a novel role.

If its political relevance has become absolute, its economic significance has
increased manifold. The 22-page Declaration issued after the meeting of the NAM
Foreign Ministers, held at Accra in September 1991, entitled, “ A World in transition
from Diminishing Confrontation Towards Increasing Cooperation” emphasized the
NAM’s new focus must be on eradicating poverty, hunger, malnutrition and
illiteracy and called on the international community to help.

NAM supported the present efforts at strengthing the UN so as to render it, “more
democratic, effective and efficient”. There was a consensus among the Foreign
Ministers for a bridging agreement between NAM and the Group of 77 and proposed
that a study should be made immediately of the modalities for reaching agreement
between the two bodies for the introduction of a new system of periodic meetings of
the joint coordination committee.
The NAM has not out lived its utility in a post- cold war world, in fact the
indications are that the movement is becoming more popular and its importance is
being widely recognized. If that had not been so, why should more countries seek
the NAM membership? Mongolia was granted admission. Germany requested to be
allowed to attend the sessions a quest along with the Netherlands.

To change its name to Third World Movement will alienate a large section who has
long cherished NAM’s ideology. In the growing multi-centric world order with the
decline of prominent status of the Super powers, limiting NAM to a third world
movement would prevent it from getting a fair hearing from some of the emerging
centers of power. Finally to confine it in terms of geographical boundaries will act as
reversal of its international role to that of a regional movement.

Though the bi-polar world was dead, that does not mean that Washington should
become the political Mecca of those who had avoided being identified with either of
the two blocs. It is evident that the impression conveyed by the slogan, “NAM is
dead” is nothing short of a canard being deliberately spread by some Western
Commentators.

The current unipolar world is an increasingly featureless international political

landscape, regrettably Euro- Centre in nature. A replacement of the unipolar world
by the multipolar world, NAM is perhaps even more relevant now to international
relations and development that at any time in the history.

The massive attack by the NATO forces on Yugoslavia in the amenof resolving
Kosovo problem in 1999 have wider ramification on the world polity. The show of
brute forces by the USA and its European allies on another sovereign country further
confirms the boldness with which the thesis of pax Americana is being pushed
through this increasingly unipolar world. Earlier Iraq has been the “rogue” country
which suffered similar kind of combined US-Britain bombings for allegedly
violating UN resolutions.

After the US military action in Iraq and Kosovo, any free country anywhere in the
world which chooses to defy the US line, will ultimately have to face either
sanctions or an armed subjugation. Moreover, The US preparations for developing a
more deadly anti-missile system along with its unchallenged hegemony is bound to
prompt others like Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea to resort to their own
built up. All these developments of a unipolar world are bound to make the non-
aligned movement once again relevant.

Non-alignment is fundamentally a political concept; Nehru, Tito, Sukarno and

Nasser did not envisage full economic cooperation as part of NAM. But now the
movement is shifting its emphasis from the political to the economic arena. The
Accra meet, besides referring to political problems worldwide, also made references
to the question of external debt as an obstacle to development of many countries.

Obviously, if NAM is to give priority to economic problems, it is perhaps because it

has little role to play in the political arena. In the modern times, the NAM is
struggling hard to prove its worth by striving to work for the following
contemporary issues:

I. Setting up a New International Order through UN

II. Restructuring and Democratization of the UN.
III. Strengthening of the UNCTAD and UNIDO.
IV. Coordinating with the G-77 and stressing South-South Cooperation.
V. Cooperating in areas of food cooperation, population, trade and investment.
VI. Ensuring equitable international flow of trade and transfer of technology.
VII. Working for non-proliferation and nuclear weapon free world.
VIII. Combating terrorism, extremism and racism.
IX. Fighting poverty, drug trafficking and environmental degradation.
X. Opposing interventionism and imposition of economic conditions on developing
countries.

It seems pointless for a person to question today the continuing relevance of this
policy which has become integral to the functioning of sovereign nation states. The
jaded question of the time is non-alignment with whom? The answer is non-
alignment with the hegemony of great powers.

It may be difficult to practice in a unipolar world but the policy as such does not
cease to be pertinent. The policy remains relevant despite periodical vagaries in the
sovereign states system for more than three centuries. The traditional foreign policy
choices to small/ weak states (isolationism, neutrality) are no longer available in
view of the increasing interdependence of states.

And the traditional foreign policy choices of the great powers (imperialism,
nationalistic, universalism) will be resisted today by an overwhelming majority of
the states. All that is likely to happen is that the 350 year old struggle of small/ weak
nation states against the hegemony of the great powers will enter a new phase in
which an overwhelming majority of small/ weak states would challenge the lone
super power dominating the community of states.

The External Affairs Minister, Pranab Mukherjee, rightly remarked that NAM has
contemporary relevance. NAM is still relevant even after the end of the cold war.
India is founding member of the NAM. And since its birth NAM has been playing a
very active role in fostering cooperation among nations particularly among
developing countries.
The relevance of NAM lies in promoting North-South Dialogue, South-South
cooperation and new international economic order. NAM members have a voice in
almost all the international matters and NAM countries, which are mostly
developing countries, have been playing a very active role in international bodies
like United Nations.

Increased membership of the NAM over the years also signifies the increasing
relevance of NAM even today. Still the factors are prevalent are which were
responsible for the emergence of NAM like corruption, transnational organized
crime, hegemony of US, apartheid etc. So it is wrong to say NAM has become
irrelevant today. US Secretary of the state Condoleezza Rice statement at the Indi-
US business meet advising India to dump NAM is politically motivated.
Government of India should be committed on its foreign policy of NAM, which has
not only contributed in past in the struggle against colonialism and apartheid but has
also done so today in prompting equitable world order and South-South
Cooperation.
The cold war has ended but, as [Link] reminds us, “peace in the world is still
threatened by forces of extremis, discord, aggressive nationalism and terrorism and
large stocks of weapons of mass destruction”.
He further tells us that the “dynamics of globalization have produced a whole set of
new problems which the Non-Alignment Movement must take not of.” (Frontline,
Vol 18, Issue24 Dated Nov.24-Dec.04, 2001) Cuba’s Deputy Foreign Minister
Abelardo Moreno, who was in New Delhi in the last week of January after
participating in a high- level ministerial meeting to prepare for the NAM summit,
told Frontline that the Kuala Lumpur meeting “is going to be one of the most
important NAM summit in the history of the organization.

The summit will devote itself to the revitalization of the movement. He added that
there was need for new impetus in order to play a meaningful role, which we think it
should play in international affairs”. To accelerate the process of revitalization,
NAM should devote, “more time and effort to promote cooperation among member
countries both in the economic and political fields”.

Moreno is of the opinion that there is “renewed interest” among developing

countries in NAM. “We should not have any misconceptions. The fact that we are
living in a unipolar world and the increasing unilateralism being shown by certain
countries in world affairs should make NAM countries more united.

There have been attempts by a group of countriesto portray NAM as irrelevant and
outdated. NAM is noweven more relevant than it was a couple of decades ago,”
Moreno said. (Frontline Vol20, Issue4, Feb 15-28, 2003) “Today, we can
confidently assert that the NAM is more necessary than ever and its member
countries are committed to its preservation, revitalization and strengthening as an
essential forum to discuss our most pressing problems and continue fighting in order
for our just demands to be headed in the unjust unequal world in which we are
currently living, “Felipe Perez Roque, Cuba’s Foreign Minister told the conference
opening session September 11, 2006. (Frontline, Sep.2006)

While going to Haryana to attend the 14th NAM summit in September 2006,Indian
prime minister Manmohan Singh had underscored the relevance of NAM in the post-
cold war world saying it was ,“state of mind “ and urged the grouping to play a
reconciling role in a “highly uncertain, insecure world” New Delhi growing strategy
partnership with the US, which includes a landmark civil nuclear deal and
comprehensive defenseco-operation, he evoked sharp criticism from the leftist
partners of India’s ruling alliance who accused the government of succumbing to US
“imperialist design”.

(“The Earth times” 29 June 2007) As the world is engulfed by the economic crisis,
developing countries, with strengthening consolidation and co-operation, can finally
steal some limelight as they become one of the in-dispensable forces in the
multipolar world. UN Secretary general Bon Ki-Moon said that 15th summit (2009)
“it is abundantly clear that no country –regardless of the size or resources- can solve
problems alone.

That raises the stakes and the space for the Non-alignment movement to shape a
better world”. To prove this, the group is endeavoring to exert influence on resolving
major international mechanism to improve Egyptian-Iranian’s interference in the
Arab affairs. During a rare meeting on the sidelines of the summit, Prime Ministers
of rival India and Pakistan vowed to co-operate in the fight against terror in the wake
of the devastating Mumbai attacks.

In the final document adopted at the summit, NAM countries made clear their un-
animus position on some hot-spot issues, including appealing for ending economic
embargo against Cuba, stopping Israel settlement activities on Palestinian territories
and immediate restoration of the ousted Honduran President “The Non-aligned
movement is considered the biggest representative of the developing world, so it can
and should impose pressure on the international society,” said Dr Gamal Abdel
Gawad, director of International Relations Department of Al Ahram Centre for
strategic and political studies. (Times of India, 17July, 2009)

NAM more relevant that ever

Manmohan Singh Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said on July 15, 2009, the
relevance of the Non-aligned movement has “Never been greater than today” and
called for greater solidarity among members in tackling challenges, including the
financial crisis, energy security, climate change and the UN reforms”. History has
shown that non-alignment is an idea that evolved but does not fade. We must take it
forward, harnessing it to meet the challenges of today,” Manmohan Singh said on
the opening day of the 15th NAM summit that is attended by 118 leaders from
developing countries Invoking the words of India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal
Nehru at the first NAM conference in 1961, Manmohan Singh said: “The Power of
nation assembled here is not military power or economic power, nevertheless it is
power”.

Underlining the importance of NAM in addressing contemporary global problems,

Manmohan Singh said the 15th summit was being held amid the world’s worst
economic crisis in living memory. “The NAM has a great stake in ensuring that
steps planned to revive the global economy take into account the concern of
developing countries,” he said.

“These include the challenges of food security, the environment and the reform of
institutions of global governance,” he said. Recently, in 16th summit of NAM held
at Tehran (Iran) in August, 2012, in which NAM’s membership raised upto 120:PM
Dr Manmohan Singh said, “Our shared objectives of working together to preserve
our strategic space, ensure social and economic development and strive for more just
and equitable world order, remain as true and relevant today as they were in the
past.” (The new Indian Express, 6th September, 2012)

LET US SUM UP

Non-alignment emerged in the context of two global developments: the national

liberation struggles of colonies and the Cold War between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.
leading to two military blocs and alliances. Despite political independence, the new
states were economically underdeveloped and vulnerable to new imperialist
pressures. The term non-alignment denotes the perspective of states that wanted to
remain outside this system of alliances in order to follow an independent course of
action in external policy and relations.

The imperatives for non-alignment sprang from economic, political, strategic and
indigenous sources. These states came together on a common platform and formed
the Non-aligned Movement. It provided an important forum for the discussion of
common problems facing the developing countries of the South and for arriving at
Concerted Action to achieve common aims.
It upholds principles which seek to promote political and economic justice in the
international system. Its achievement were significant. There is debate about the
relevance of non-alignment in a world without Cold War or bipolarism. But while
the context of Cold War may have changed, the world remains divided into the rich
and the poor nations.

The developing countries which constitute three-fourth of the world's population

remain only on the periphery of the international system. The policy of non-aligned
will remain valid until the system operates on the basis of genuine equality and
reciprocity. There is an urgent need to reactivate the Non-aligned Movement in
order to work concertedly for a more egalitarian world order.

North South Dialogue

The Third World regards the securing of a Nieo a vital necessity for contemporary
international relations, it feels that this is the only nor alternative for halting the
fast deterioration of their economies in the present state of international economic
order.

They strongly oppose the continuance of the economic squeeze that is currently
being practised by the developed countries over the developing countries. They
advocate the view that in this age of global interdependence any further squeeze
and deterioration of their resources, markets, and economics is bound to be very
harmful, counter-productive and even destructive of the economies of even the
developed countries.

Nieo alone can end this era of neo-colonialism. It alone can end the prevailing
anarchy of the existing economic order. On the basis of such logic, the Third
World or the South strongly supports Nieo and advocates that the developed
countries should come forward to negotiate the issue.

An immediate and serious North-south dialogue is the need of the hour. It is

argued that neither the UN nor the existing international economic institutions can
play any meaningful and fruitful role in restructuring the existing economic order
as these stand dominated and controlled by the developed countries.
The developed countries on the other hand are not willing to accept the
abandonment of their existing strong and dominant economic position and their
key role in the international economic relation the feel that Nico would be harmful
there to interests and objectives. The existing system is helping them to maintain
an economic and political control over the economics and policy of the
underdeveloped countries. They do not want to part with their dominant position in
the UN and other international economic institutions like World Bank, IMF etc.

They advocate that the existing economic institutions are capable of all actions in
internal relations and these can be amended and used for, accommodating none of
the demands of the Third world countries. They are therefore, neither serious nor
keen to participate in a North South dialogue over the issue. They want to retain
their neo-colonial control over the policy and economics of the third world
countries and hence are not prepared to go in for Nieo.

This difference in approach of the two developed world’s on the one hand and the
third world on the other has made the issue of Neio controversial issue. The
developed countries are not willing to go in for it, whereas the underdeveloped
countries are committed to secure it. The latter are strongly critical of such
attempts of the former which are aimed at perpetuation and using the existing
system for maintaining their controls over international economy and trade.

Faced with the continued opposition of developed countries to the demand for the
creation of opposition of Nieo through North-South dialogue and cooperation, the
Third World countries, have come up with concept of south-south cooperation and
increased emphasis upon regional cooperation for development (RCD) among the
developing countries.

Several better countries developed- developing countries like India and Brazil have
decided to strengthen internal economic systems by finding domestic solutions of
their economic problems. They have stepped up the drive towards attainment of
economic and self reliance this together with increased South-South cooperation
and meaningful RCD appear to constitute the best approach.
However all the developing countries which include poorest of the poor, cannot
participate effectively in operationalising this approach. Their poverty,
backwardness and near total dependence upon imports render them incapable of
utilising fully this approach. They need developmental aid foreign aid without
string capital resource transfer and teleological know how transfer for getting out
there poverty and backwardness. This can be supplied by only developed countries.

Hence the ultimate and effective remedy can be New International Economic
Order. Even South South cooperation and RCD among the better developed-
developing counties can be moderately successful in actual practice. The heavy
constraints and big weakness of their economic systems are bound to remain big
hindrances in the path. The concerted opposition and protectionist policies of the
developed countries are further destined to make their path towards development
difficult and problematic. As such Neio alone constitute to be best solution for
ending existing discriminatory, partial and unjust international economic order.

South-South Meet at New Delhi

With a view to secure increased economic and trade cooperation among the
developing countries, as well as for securing coordination in their policies over the
issue of the approach to be pursued within the Group of 77. India took the initiative
to hold meeting of the developing countries in New Delhi. The meeting took place
on February 22-24, 1982 and was attended by the representatives of 44 developing
countries, Mrs. Indira Gandhi in her opening speech expressed concern over what
she described as ‘visible deterioration in the global economy since the Cancum
Summit’, and she was especially critical of ‘protectionism in industrialised
countries’ which she said had ‘victimised the developing world’. Developing
countries should close their ranks to withstand pressure from affluent nations. 102

The South–South cooperation conference agreed to concentrate upon the

following points for further consideration:
(i) the formulation of programmes for agricultural self-reliance and food-
self-sufficiency;
(ii) the creation of a multilateral financing facility for joint ventures and
technical cooperation among the developing countries.
 The conference concluded with unanimous acceptance of the importance of
cooperation for collective self-reliance, and with a renewed call for efforts to
reach an agreement on the launching of the North-South global economic
negotiations.

Global System of Trade Preference (GSTP)

The idea of Global System of Trade Preference (GSTP) was mooted first in
1982 and took shape the two UNCATAD meetings in 1984 which did the
spadework. This idea was mooted for securing increased trade cooperation and
relations among the developing countries. Its objectives are following

(a) expansion and diversification of trade among the developing

countries;
(b) development of industrial and other forms of economic cooperation
among the developing countries with a view to accelerate their
industrialisation and general economic growth; and
(c) the system should also ensure trade advantage for the relatively less
advanced countries.

The major guidelines for establishing this preferential trade system include:

(a) Global System of Trade Preferences (GSTP) is exclusively reserved

for member countries of the ‘G-77’;
(b) it is to be negotiated step by step. And the preferences are to be
introduced gradually;
(c) it will be based on the principle of mutuality of advantages,
recognising the needs of the least developed countries by preferential
measures on a non-reciprocal basis;
(d) all types of commodities should be included in the negotiations;
(e) tariff and non-tariff barriers as well as other trade measures may form
part of the preferential system and
(f) it will supplement and not replace present and future sub-regional and
intra-regional arrangements between LDCs.103
The two days ministerial level meeting of the developing countries was held
on 25-26 July 1985 to consider GSTP as means for promoting South-South
cooperation. The then Union Commerce Minister of India, Mr. V.P. Singh
presided over the meeting which was inaugurated by the Prime Minister
Rajiv Gandhi. In his speech, the minister called upon the developing
countries to work for collective self-reliance through boosting their trade.
More than 70 countries which deliberated for two days on way of making
South-South cooperation meaningful and mature agreed that the negotiating
committee (for GSTP) should consider across the border tariff reduction of
upto ten per cent in addition also identified sectors for particular social-
economic importance for the developing countries such as processed tropical
products, non-textile handicrafts, textiles and agricultural products for
comprehensive and integrated treatment relating to tariff and non-tariff
measures. Another important decision of meeting was to take up periodic
reviews at political levels for monitoring and evaluation of the progress
relating to GSTP, and that the next such meeting held in Brazil.

It made a breakthrough by approving to have a workable counterpart to the

rich countries concept of the Global Scheme of Preferences. According to
the time-table chalked out at the meeting, agreement incorporating ground
rules were to be completed by October 31, 1985. The techniques and
modalities were to be worked out by February 28, 1986. The first round of
talks (negotiations) was to begin not later than Mat 1, 1986. This time-bound
schedule was made to secure was made to secure definite progress towards
GSTP among the developing countries. In actual practice, however, no result
were achieved. Talks were held but no agreement was made. The GSTP
became effective in 1989.

Non-Aligned Foreign Ministers’ Conference on South-South

Cooperation
The First Conference of Non-Aligned Foreign Ministers on South-South
Cooperation was held on June 12–13, 1987 at Pyongyang (North Korea). It
gave a call to give new impetus to cooperation among the Non-Aligned and
other developing countries and adopt a new approach to make such
cooperation among the Non-Aligned and other developing countries and
adopt a new approach to make such cooperation more dynamic. The
ministers while adopting the Pyongyang declaration, listed a number of
measures to develop and strengthen economic independence of those
countries which would build collective self-reliance and increase their
bargaining power in negotiations with the North.

Reaffirming the unwavering commitment of all Non-Aligned countries to

economic cooperation among themselves the declaration noted the current
world economic crisis and the economic policy of some rich countries had a
negative impact on the economies of countries of the south:

“Referring to the indebtedness of developing countries, the declaration

called for a political dialogue between the developed and the developing
Countries to resolve the problem of unpaid debts.”104

Reiterating its demand for an international conference on money and finance

for development at the earliest, the declaration expressed concern at the
continuous decline in commodity price and regretted that certain developed
countries did not show the required political will to remove trade imbalance
at the last Uruguay meeting.

An action plan, incorporated in the declaration, called for measures for

economic cooperation at the national, regional and international levels to
promote South-South cooperation.

The plan said, ‘competent professional consultancy organisations available

in developing countries must be tapped in a between way to implement
various action-oriented programmes’,

It called for oayments and clearing house arrangements to support expansion

of trade among developing countries under the global system of trade
preferences.

Commenting upon the Pyongyany declaration, The Tribune, a prestigious

daily from Chandigarh ion one of its editorials has rightly observed:
“The declaration has rightly stressed the interrelationship between peace,
disarmament and development because much of the Third World debt
burden has been caused by avoidable purchase of weaponry from the
developed countries. The high rate of obsolescence of sophisticated
weaponry makes it imperative for them to go on allocating higher amounts
for weapons purchases just to maintain ,what could be called the balance of
terror in the world. A global disarmament arrangement is, thus, a necessary
concomitant of a new international economic order. To the extent the
deliberations at Pyongyang helped to expand mutual cooperation among the
Third World Countries and encourage South-South trade and economic
cooperation to reduce their dependence on the rich countries by building up
regime of collective self-reliance, they will be playing a major role in saving
the world from the gravest economic disaster it has faced since 1929.” 105

G– 77 and South-South Cooperation

Another manifestation of South-South cooperation is the Group of 77. The
proceedings of UNCTAD–I compelled the developing countries to realize
that it was not possible to negotiate with developed countries unless the
developing countries formed a pressure group of their own. 106

The Group of 77 was set op mainly to highlight the problems of developing

countries in their right perspective. The Group of 77 took up negotiations
with the North on the behalf of the South and sought to use the strength of
Collective action to pressurize and persuade North to change. 107

G–15 and South–South Cooperation

G–15, a group of leading Third World countries was organised after the
Ninth Non–Aligned Summit meeting Belgrade. The economic cooperation
and South–South cooperation was the potential perspective of G–15. The
member countries are: Algeria, Brazil India, Indonesia, Egypt, Jamaica,
Argentina, Nigeria, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, Venezuela, Senegal,
Yugoslavia and Zimbabwe.
At the G–15 meetings there has been continuous emphasis on South–South
Cooperation. The perception in the G–15 is that, while South-South
Cooperation has been talked about for years, very little has been achieved
and that the group should work towards showing some success in this area.
The joint communiqué issued after the G–15 meetings listed several
agreements for increasing South-South cooperation and for adopting an
agreed stand at the Uruguay round of trade talk under GATT. The
communiqué declared:

“We affirm our commitment to a balanced and successful conclusion of the

Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations which takes into account
the concerns and needs of the developing countries. We shall closely consult
each other and coordinate our efforts towards this end”.108

The kuala Lumpur Summit had identified a dozen specific projects for
South-South Cooperation. G–15 agreed to start a dozen projects for South-
South cooperation. They immediately started three projects include the trade
financing facility, Trade and Technology Data Exchange Centre and a
Business and Investment Forum for the South. Besides this, G–15 sought
North’s cooperation for IMF and World Bank and other financial aids and
North-South cooperation. Other South-South projects on the G–15 agenda
relate to setting up of financial mechanisms for facilitating South-South
trade, food, security, population control, trade and investment cooperation,
stimulation of interregional cooperation among regional economic groups,
evolving a common view on the external debt problem, and helping
developing countries in dealing with multilateral financial institutions.

The Malaysian proposal for a South Investment Trade. Technology Data

Exchange Centre (SITTDEC) has been approved at G–15 Caracas Summit.
The Dakar Summit, 1992 of the G–15 also gave much importance to South–
South Cooperation. It declared that greater global independence and
prolonged economic recession in the North underlie the need for South to
look towards itself to accelerate development and growth. Areas identified
for South-South cooperation include the projects on bilateral payments
arrangements, on population and family planning, self-propelling growth
schemes, technical personnel training, development of non-metallic mineral
raw materials, environment mining, river and watershed recovery projects.
The communiqué issued at New Delhi Summit emphasized the importance
of South-South cooperation as a strategy for collective self-reliance.

The Fifth Summit of G–15 was held on November 6–7, 19975 in Buenos
Aires (Argentina). In This Summit, the committee on investment, trade and
technology (CITT) was set up to promote trans-regional arrangements and
broaden the scope in intra G–15 cooperation. It is for the first time that
governments and businessmen from G–15 countries have joined hands to
provide impetus for cooperation in trade facilitation, promotion and
liberalization, investment promotion and technology transfer.

The G–15 Summit of Kuala Lumpur also reiterated the G–15’s catalytic role
in fostering South-South Cooperation. It suggested the need for collective
efforts to ensure that the rule of the game of global trade and commerce
remained fair and open.

Financial and relevant trade issues emphasised the need for the discussion of
these issues at an international conference with universal participation. It
asserted that the commonwealth could play a useful role in this regard and
set up a commonwealth consultative group for the purpose of promoting a
consensus on the issue.

South Commission
The South Commission (established by G–15) was originally proposed by
the Malaysian Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohammad, came into being in
1987. The Commission was a product of the disillusionment of the South
vis-à-vis the North and its inability to acquire any voice in decision-making
at the global level. As the Chairman of the South Commission, Julius
Nyerere said at the meeting of the Commission in New Delhi in November
1989:
“A state of dependency is incompatible with the reality of self-determination
and freedom-both for nations and persons.”109

Meeting of South-South Commission

The second meeting of South-South Commission for betterment of third
World countries was held at Kuala Lumpur
 UNIT- III
UNITED NATIONS, N.P.T AND C.T.B.T

UNITED NATIONS- ORGANISATION, WORKING

Introduction
The name "United Nations", coined by United States President Franklin D.
Roosevelt was first used in the Declaration by United Nations of 1 January 1942,
during the Second World War, when representatives of 26 nations pledged their
Governments to continue fighting together against the Axis Powers.

In 1945, representatives of 50 countries met in San Francisco at the United Nations

Conference on International Organization to draw up the United Nations Charter.
Those delegates deliberated on the basis of proposals worked out by the
representatives of China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United
States at Dumbarton Oaks, United States in August-October 1944.

The Charter was signed on 26 June 1945 by the representatives of the 50 countries.
Poland, which was not represented at the Conference, signed it later and became
one of the original 51 Member States.

The United Nations officially came into existence on 24 October 1945, when the
Charter had been ratified by China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom,
and the United States and by a majority of other signatories. United Nations Day is
celebrated on 24 October each year.

Main Organs:

The main organs of the UN are the General Assembly, the Security Council,
the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, the International
Court of Justice, and the UN Secretariat. All were established in 1945 when
the UN was founded.
 General Assembly
The General Assembly is the main deliberative, policymaking and representative
organ of the UN. All 193 Member States of the UN are represented in the General
Assembly, making it the only UN body with universal representation. Each year,
in September, the full UN membership meets in the General Assembly Hall in
New York for the annual General Assembly session, and general debate, which
many heads of state attend and address. Decisions on important questions, such as
those on peace and security, admission of new members and budgetary matters,
require a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly. Decisions on other
questions are by simple majority. The General Assembly, each year, elects a GA
President to serve a one-year term of office.

Security Council
The Security Council has primary responsibility, under the UN Charter, for the
maintenance of international peace and security. It has 15 Members (5 permanent
and 10 non-permanent members). Each Member has one vote. Under the Charter,
all Member States are obligated to comply with Council decisions. The Security
Council takes the lead in determining the existence of a threat to the peace or act of
aggression. It calls upon the parties to a dispute to settle it by peaceful means and
recommends methods of adjustment or terms of settlement. In some cases, the
Security Council can resort to imposing sanctions or even authorize the use of
force to maintain or restore international peace and security. The Security Council
has a Presidency, which rotates, and changes, every month.

 Daily programme of work of the Security Council

 Subsidiary organs of the Security Council

Economic and Social Council

The Economic and Social Council is the principal body for coordination, policy
review, policy dialogue and recommendations on economic, social and
environmental issues, as well as implementation of internationally agreed
development goals. It serves as the central mechanism for activities of the UN
system and its specialized agencies in the economic, social and environmental
fields, supervising subsidiary and expert bodies. It has 54 Members, elected by the
General Assembly for overlapping three-year terms. It is the United Nations’
central platform for reflection, debate, and innovative thinking on sustainable
development.

Trusteeship Council
The Trusteeship Council was established in 1945 by the UN Charter,
under Chapter XIII, to provide international supervision for 11 Trust Territories
that had been placed under the administration of seven Member States, and ensure
that adequate steps were taken to prepare the Territories for self-government and
independence. By 1994, all Trust Territories had attained self-government or
independence. The Trusteeship Council suspended operation on 1 November
1994. By a resolution adopted on 25 May 1994, the Council amended its rules of
procedure to drop the obligation to meet annually and agreed to meet as occasion
required -- by its decision or the decision of its President, or at the request of a
majority of its members or the General Assembly or the Security Council.

International Court of Justice

The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the United
Nations. Its seat is at the Peace Palace in The Hague (Netherlands). It is the only
one of the six principal organs of the United Nations not located in New York
(United States of America). The Court’s role is to settle, in accordance with
international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States and to give advisory
opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized United Nations organs and
specialized agencies.

Secretariat
The Secretariat comprises the Secretary-General and tens of thousands of
international UN staff members who carry out the day-to-day work of the UN as
mandated by the General Assembly and the Organization's other principal organs.
The Secretary-General is chief administrative officer of the Organization,
appointed by the General Assembly on the recommendation of the Security
Council for a five-year, renewable term. UN staff members are recruited
internationally and locally, and work in duty stations and on peacekeeping
missions all around the world. But serving the cause of peace in a violent world is
a dangerous occupation. Since the founding of the United Nations, hundreds of
brave men and women have given their lives in its service.
Maintain International Peace and Security
The United Nations came into being in 1945, following the devastation of the
Second World War, with one central mission: the maintenance of international
peace and security. The UN does this by working to prevent conflict; helping
parties in conflict make peace; peacekeeping; and creating the conditions to
allow peace to hold and flourish. These activities often overlap and should
reinforce one another, to be effective. The UN Security Council has the
primary responsibility for international peace and security. The General
Assembly and the Secretary-General play major, important, and
complementary roles, along with other UN offices and bodies.

UN Photo/Pasqual Gorriz

An Indian UNIFIL peacekeeper watches over the "Blue Line", which

demarcates the border between Israel and Lebanon, from the town of
Shab'a, Lebanon, in 2012.

Security Council
The Security Council takes the lead in determining the existence of a threat to the
peace or an act of aggression. It calls upon the parties to a dispute to settle it by
peaceful means and recommends methods of adjustment or terms of settlement.
Under Chapter VII of the Charter, the Security Council can take enforcement
measures to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such measures
range from economic sanctions to international military action. The Council also
establishes UN Peacekeeping Operations and Special Political Missions.

General Assembly
The General Assembly is the main deliberative, policymaking and representative
organ of the UN. Through regular meetings, the General Assembly provides a
forum for Member States to express their views to the entire membership and find
consensus on difficult issues. It makes recommendations in the form of General
Assembly Resolutions. Decisions on important questions, such as those on peace
and security, admission of new members and budgetary matters, require a two-
thirds majority, but other questions are decided by simple majority.

How does the UN maintain international peace and security?

Preventive Diplomacy and Mediation
The most effective way to diminish human suffering and the massive economic
costs of conflicts and their aftermath is to prevent conflicts in the first place. The
United Nations plays an important role in conflict prevention, using
diplomacy, good offices and mediation. Among the tools the Organization uses to
bring peace are special envoys and political missions in the field.

Peacekeeping
Peacekeeping has proven to be one of the most effective tools available to the UN
to assist host countries navigate the difficult path from conflict to peace. Today's
multidimensional peacekeeping operations are called upon not only to maintain
peace and security, but also to facilitate political processes, protect civilians, assist
in the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of former combatants;
support constitutional processes and the organization of elections, protect and
promote human rights and assist in restoring the rule of law and extending
legitimate state authority. Peacekeeping operations get their mandates from the UN
Security Council; their troops and police are contributed by Members States; and
they are managed by the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and supported by
the Department of Field Support at the UN Headquarters in New York. There are
16 UN peacekeeping operations currently deployed and there have been a total of
69 deployed since 1948.

Peace Building
United Nations peace building activities are aimed at assisting countries emerging
from conflict, reducing the risk of relapsing into conflict and at laying the
foundation for sustainable peace and development. The UN peace building
architecture comprises the Peace building Commission, the Peace building
Fund and the Peace building Support Office. The Peace building Support Office
assists and supports the Peace building Commission with strategic advice and
policy guidance, administers the Peace building Fund and serves the Secretary-
General in coordinating United Nations agencies in their peace building efforts.

Countering Terrorism
The United Nations is being increasingly called upon to coordinate the global fight
against terrorism. Eighteen universal instruments against international terrorism
have been elaborated within the framework of the United Nations system relating
to specific terrorist activities. In September 2006, UN Member States adopted the
United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. This was the first time that
Member States agreed to a common strategic and operational framework against
terrorism.

Disarmament
The General Assembly and other bodies of the United Nations, supported by
the Office for Disarmament Affairs, work to advance international peace and
security through the pursuit of the elimination of nuclear weapons and other
weapons of mass destruction and the regulation of conventional arms.

What is peacekeeping?

United Nations Peacekeeping helps countries torn by conflict create conditions for
lasting peace.

Actor George Clooney speaks of UN Peacekeepers.

Peacekeeping has proven to be one of the most effective toolsavailable to the UN
to assist host countries navigate the difficult path from conflict to peace.

Peacekeeping has unique strengths, including legitimacy, burden sharing, and an

ability to deploy and sustain troops and police from around the globe, integrating
them with civilian peacekeepers to advance multidimensional mandates.

UN Peacekeepers provide security and the political and peace building support to
help countries make the difficult, early transition from conflict to peace.

UN Peacekeeping is guided by three basic principles:

 Consent of the parties;

 Impartiality;
 Non-use of force except in self-defence and defence of the mandate.

Peacekeeping is flexible and over the past two decades has been deployed in many
configurations. There are currently 16 UN peacekeeping operations deployed on
four continents.

Today's multidimensional peacekeeping operations are called upon not only to

maintain peace and security, but also to facilitate the political process, protect
civilians, assist in the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of former
combatants; support the organization of elections, protect and promote human
rights and assist in restoring the rule of law.

Success is never guaranteed, because UN Peacekeeping almost by definition goes

to the most physically and politically difficult environments. However, we have
built up a demonstrable record of success over our 60 years of existence, including
winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

Peacekeeping has always been highly dynamic and has evolved in the face of new
challenges. Recently, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon established a 17-member
High-level Independent Panel on UN Peace Operations to make a comprehensive
assessment of the state of UN peace operations today, and the emerging needs of
the future.
Principles of UN peacekeeping

There are three basic principles that continue to set UN peacekeeping operations
apart as a tool for maintaining international peace and security.

These three principles are inter-related and mutually reinforcing:

 Consent of the parties

 Impartiality
 Non-use of force except in self-defence and defence of the mandate

Consent of the parties

UN peacekeeping operations are deployed with the consent of the main parties to
the conflict. This requires a commitment by the parties to a political process. Their
acceptance of a peacekeeping operation provides the UN with the necessary
freedom of action, both political and physical, to carry out its mandated tasks.

In the absence of such consent, a peacekeeping operation risks becoming a party to

the conflict; and being drawn towards enforcement action, and away from its
fundamental role of keeping the peace.

The fact that the main parties have given their consent to the deployment of a
United Nations peacekeeping operation does not necessarily imply or guarantee
that there will also be consent at the local level, particularly if the main parties are
internally divided or have weak command and control systems. Universality of
consent becomes even less probable in volatile settings, characterized by the
presence of armed groups not under the control of any of the parties, or by the
presence of other spoilers.

Impartiality

Impartiality is crucial to maintaining the consent and cooperation of the main

parties, but should not be confused with neutrality or inactivity. United Nations
peacekeepers should be impartial in their dealings with the parties to the conflict,
but not neutral in the execution of their mandate.
Just as a good referee is impartial, but will penalize infractions, so a peacekeeping
operation should not condone actions by the parties that violate the undertakings of
the peace process or the international norms and principles that a United Nations
peacekeeping operation upholds.

Notwithstanding the need to establish and maintain good relations with the parties,
a peacekeeping operation must scrupulously avoid activities that might
compromise its image of impartiality. A mission should not shy away from a
rigorous application of the principle of impartiality for fear of misinterpretation or
retaliation.

Failure to do so may undermine the peacekeeping operation’s credibility and

legitimacy, and may lead to a withdrawal of consent for its presence by one or
more of the parties.

Non-use of force except in self-defence and defence of the mandate

UN peacekeeping operations are not an enforcement tool. However, they may use
force at the tactical level, with the authorization of the Security Council, if acting
in self-defence and defence of the mandate.

In certain volatile situations, the Security Council has given UN peacekeeping

operations “robust” mandates authorizing them to “use all necessary means” to
deter forceful attempts to disrupt the political process, protect civilians under
imminent threat of physical attack, and/or assist the national authorities in
maintaining law and order.

Although on the ground they may sometimes appear similar, robust peacekeeping
should not be confused with peace enforcement, as envisaged under Chapter VII of
the United Nations Charter.

 Robust peacekeeping involves the use of force at the tactical level with the
authorization of the Security Council and consent of the host nation and/or
the main parties to the conflict.
 By contrast, peace enforcement does not require the consent of the main
parties and may involve the use of military force at the strategic or
 international level, which is normally prohibited for Member States under
Article 2(4) of the Charter, unless authorized by the Security Council.

A UN peacekeeping operation should only use force as a measure of last resort. It

should always be calibrated in a precise, proportional and appropriate manner,
within the principle of the minimum force necessary to achieve the desired effect,
while sustaining consent for the mission and its mandate. The use of force by a UN
peacekeeping operation always has political implications and can often give rise to
unforeseen circumstances.

Judgments concerning its use need to be made at the appropriate level within a
mission, based on a combination of factors including mission capability; public
perceptions; humanitarian impact; force protection; safety and security of
personnel; and, most importantly, the effect that such action will have on national
and local consent for the mission.

United Nations Disarmament Commission

In 1952, the General Assembly, by its resolution 502 (VI) of January 1952, created
the United Nations Disarmament Commission (UNDC) under the Security Council
with a general mandate on disarmament questions. However, it met only
occasionally after 1959.
In 1978, the first special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament
established a successor Disarmament Commission (UNDC) as a subsidiary organ
of the Assembly, composed of all Member States of the United Nations. It was
created as a deliberative body, with the function of considering and making
recommendations on various issues in the field of disarmament and of following
up on the relevant decisions and recommendations of the special session. It reports
annually to the General Assembly.
In the light of its function, the UNDC focuses on a limited number of agenda items
at each session. In 1989, to allow for in depth consideration, it decided that its
substantive agenda should be limited to a maximum of four items. From 1993, it
has, in practice, dealt with two or three items, each of which has usually been
considered for three consecutive years. In 1998, by its decision 52/492, the General
Assembly decided that the UNDC’s agenda, as of 2000, would normally comprise
two substantive items per year from the whole range of disarmament issues,
including one on nuclear disarmament.
The UNDC, which meets for three weeks in the spring, operates in plenary
meetings and working groups, the number of working groups depending on the
number of substantive items on its agenda. The five geographical groups take turns
assuming the chairmanship of the UNDC, while the chairmen of the working
groups are selected in accordance
Over the years, the UNDC has formulated consensus principles, guidelines and
recommendations (see below) on a number of subjects, which have been endorsed
by the General Assembly. However, in the past decade, it has not been able to
agree on a substantial outcome.
The UNDC is serviced substantively by the Office for Disarmament Affairs and
technically by the Department of General Assembly Affairs and Conference
Services.
Atomic Energy Commission
The UN and the nuclear age were born almost simultaneously. The horror of the
Second World War, culminating in the nuclear blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
brought home the need to address the nuclear issue. By its first resolution, the
General Assembly established the UN Atomic Energy Commission to deal with the
problems raised by the discovery of atomic energy. And a landmark address by
United States President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1953, “Atoms for Peace”, led to
the establishment in 1957 of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Today, 439 nuclear power reactors produce approximately 16 per cent of the
world’s electricity. In nine countries, over 40 per cent of energy production comes
from nuclear power. The IAEA, an international organization in the UN family,
fosters the safe, secure and peaceful uses of atomic energy and helps ensure the use
of nuclear technology for sustainable development.

Under the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the
IAEA conducts on-site inspections to ensure that nuclear materials are used only
used for peaceful purposes. Prior to the 2003 Iraq war, its inspectors played a key
role in uncovering and eliminating Iraq’s banned weapons programmes and
capabilities. In 2005, the Agency and its Director General, Mohamed ElBaradei
were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize “for their efforts to prevent nuclear energy
from being used for military purposes and to ensure that nuclear energy for
peaceful purposes is used in the safest possible way.”

The UN Conference on Disarmament, the sole multilateral negotiating forum on

disarmament, produced the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, which was
adopted in 1996. The Office for Disarmament Affairs promotes nuclear
disarmament and non-proliferation. The Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer
Space produced the 1992 Principles on the use of nuclear power sources in outer
space. The UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation reports
on the levels and effects of exposure to ionizing radiation, providing the scientific
basis for protection and safety standards worldwide.

Addressing the danger of nuclear terrorism, the UN has also produced the
Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (Vienna, 1980), and the
International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism (2005).

Commission on conventional armaments

This commission was set up by the Security Council in February 1947, in
pursuance of 12 Aug 1948. In this resolution of December 1946.

The commission after due deliberations adopted a resolution on 12 Aug [Link]

this resolution the commission recommended:
 1) Setting up of a system for the regulation and reduction of armaments which
shall include all states having substantial military sources.
2) Creation of an atmosphere of international confidence and security because
the measures for reduction and regulation armaments could succeed only
after necessary confidence had been created.
3) Establishment of an adequate system of agreements under Act.43 of the
charter; establishment of international control of atomic energy and
conclusion of peace settlement with Japan and Germany.
4) The reduction of armaments and armed forces to the extent they were
indispensable for the maintenance of international peace and security.
5) Provision of adequate safeguards and
6) Effective enforcement action in case of violation.

Disarmament Commission
In October, 1950 and again in November 1951, President Truman of USA made a
suggestion to the U.N General Assembly to the work of the Atomic Energy
Commission and the Conventional Armaments Commission.

Consequently on January 11,1952, General Assembly asked for the merger of the
two commissions into a single Commission known as Disarmament Commission.
The Commission consisted of 11 members of the Security Council as well as
Canada.

This Commission worked under the Security Council and laid before it a number
of proposals like (i) Inventory and verification , (ii) calculation of limits and
reductions for all armed forces and all armaments, (iii) determination of armament
programme through negotiations among states, (iv) agreement projects for
armament limitations such as nuclear weapons ,conventional weapons , budgetary
expenditure for armament , inspections and controls etc: But the efforts of this
commission also failed to produce any fruitful results.

Atoms for Peace (1953)

 In December, 1953 President Eisenhower of USA proposed ‘Atoms for peace
Plan’. The plan aimed at peaceful uses of atomic energy.

Anglo- French Plan (1954)

In June, 1954, England and France submitted a fresh plan for disarmament in the
General Assembly which made a plea for disarmament in three phases. During the
first phase military expenditure and manpower were to be frozen at a specific level
and a control organ established.

During the second phase the control organ was to become fully operative and
expenditure on conventional weapons and maintenance of military was to be
reduce by one half. During this phase the manufacturer of nuclear weapons was
also to be prohibited. During third and final phase the military expenditure was to
be further reduced and nuclear weapons to be eliminated but the plan had to be
shelved on account of Soviet opposition.

Geneva Summit, (1955)

The meeting in Geneva of the leaders of the U.S., France, Britain, and the Soviet
Union that sought to end the Cold War. Such issues as disarmament, unification of
Germany, and increased economic ties were discussed. Though no agreements
were reached, the conference was considered an important first step toward
easing Cold War tension.

Eighteen Nations disarmament conference

The Conference on Disarmament (CD), established in 1979 as the single
multilateral disarmament negotiating forum of the international community, was a
result of the first Special Session on Disarmament of the United Nations
GeneralAssemblyheldin1978.

It succeeded other Geneva-based negotiating for a, which include the Ten-Nation

Committee on Disarmament (1960), the Eighteen-Nation Committee on
Disarmament (1962-68), and the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament
(1969-78). The current Director-General of UNOG is the Secretary-General of the
Conference on Disarmament as well as the Personal Representative of the
UNSecretary-GeneraltotheCD.

The terms of reference of the CD include practically all multilateral arms control
and disarmament problems. Currently the CD primarily focuses its attention on the
following issues: cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament;
prevention of nuclear war, including all related matters; prevention of an arms race
in outer space; effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon
States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons; new types of weapons of
mass destruction and new systems of such weapons including radiological
weapons; comprehensive programme of disarmament and transparency in
armaments.

The CD meets in an annual session, which is divided in three parts of 10, 7 and 7
weeks, respectively. The first week shall begin in the penultimate week of the
month of January. The CD is presided by its members on a rotating basis. Each
President shall preside for a period of four weeks.

In order to ensure a coherent approach among the six Presidents of the session to
the work of the Conference, as of 2006, an informal coordination mechanism - the
P6 - was established that provides for the six presidents of the session to informally
meet, usually on a weekly basis. Also on a weekly basis, the President meets
informally with the Regional Group Coordinators and China together with the P6
(Presidential Consultations).

As originally constituted, the CD had 40 members. Subsequently its membership

was gradually expanded (and reduced) to 65 countries. The CD has invited other
UN Member States that have expressed a desire to participate in the CD's
substantive discussions, to take part in its work as non-member States.

The CD adopts its own Rules of Procedure and its own agenda, taking into account
the recommendations of the General Assembly and the proposals of its Members.

It reports to the General Assembly annually, or more frequently, as appropriate. Its

budget is included in that of the United Nations. Staff members of the Geneva
Branch of the Department for Disarmament Affairs service the meetings of the CD,
which are held at the Palais des Nations.
The Conference conducts its work by consensus.

The CD and its predecessors have negotiated such major multilateral arms
limitation and disarmament agreements as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons, the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other
Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, the seabed treaties, the
Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of
Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction, the
Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and
Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction and Comprehensive Nuclear-
Test-Ban Treaty.

Limited test ban treaty 1963

In the early 1960s, U.S. President John F. Kennedy and Soviet Premier Nikita
Khrushchev each expressed deep concern about the strength of their respective
nations’ nuclear arms forces. This concern led them to complete the first arms
control agreement of the Cold War, the Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963.
President signing the Limited Test Ban Treaty. (John F. Kennedy Library)

This treaty did not have much practical effect on the development and proliferation
of nuclear weapons, but it established an important precedent for future arms
control. Both superpowers entered the 1960s determined to build or maintain
nuclear superiority. The Soviet Union had led the way in the development of
intercontinental ballistic missiles after its launch of the first man-made
satellite, Sputnik, in 1957. In just a few years, it had developed an arsenal of long
and medium range missiles that had raised alarm in Washington. President
Kennedy had even campaigned for office on a claim that President Dwight
Eisenhower had allowed the Soviet Union to far out-produce the United States in
nuclear technology, creating a “missile gap.” However, soon after he took office,
the Kennedy Administration determined that the balance of nuclear power
remained in favor of the United States.
With both sides working to develop new and better nuclear technology over the
course of the late 1950s and early 1960s, each engaged in a series of test
explosions. These nuclear tests received worldwide scrutiny, not only for what they
meant for the arms race but also for what they meant for human life. As the United
States, Soviet Union and United Kingdom tested new nuclear technologies in the
earth’s atmosphere, concerns emerged worldwide about the potential effects of
radioactive fallout on the people exposed to it. This led to the formation of activist
groups and public discussion of the issue.
The three countries entered into negotiations for a comprehensive test ban treaty in
1958. Having recently completed rounds of tests, at that time all three entered into
a voluntary moratorium on all forms of testing, initiated first by the Soviet Union
but later adhered to by the United States and Great Britain. In spite of this
willingness to self-restrict testing, one of the most difficult issues preventing the
conclusion of a formal treaty was the question of verification.
The United States and Great Britain, in particular, pushed for on-site inspections of
Soviet facilities as without them, it was impossible to determine whether the
Soviets were continuing underground nuclear tests or just experiencing the
frequent seismic activity to which its geographic area was prone. However, the
Soviets were hesitant to permit such onsite inspections of its nuclear facilities,
interpreting U.S. insistence on these inspections as a ruse to facilitate U.S. efforts
to spy on Soviet advancements.
After the Soviet military shot down an American U-2 spy plane over Russia in
1960, the prospects for reaching an agreement on the inspections issue all but
disappeared. Khrushchev also rejected the idea of having the United Nations
conduct inspections after observing what he believed was the organization’s
mishandling of the Congo crisis. Instead, in the wake of these incidents both the
United States and the Soviet Union resumed testing.
In 1961, Kennedy established an Arms Control and Disarmament Agency within
the U.S. Department of State, and the new organization reopened talks with the
Soviet Union. That year, however, neither side was ready to make major
concessions. As long as it remained difficult to verify that the other side was not
engaging in clandestine testing, there was little incentive to form an agreement.

Over the course of the next year, however, the situation changed dramatically for a
number of reasons. Concerns about nuclear proliferation increased interest in the
testing ban, as France exploded its first weapon in 1960 and the People’s Republic
of China appeared close to successfully building its own atom bomb.
However, it was the rapid escalation of the Cuban Missile Crisis in October of
1962 that compelled leaders in both the United States and the Soviet Union to
pursue more aggressively an agreement that could help them avoid the devastating
destruction that nuclear warfare would bring.
Although the crisis provided the impetus for an agreement, its final negotiation was
made possible by the decision to step back from the original idea of a
comprehensive test ban treaty and work instead on a more limited arrangement.
Atmospheric and underground tests proved equally effective for scientific
purposes, so there was no reason to insist that access to both types of testing
remain available.
In past negotiations, the inability to detect underground explosions and agree on
provisions for inspections to ensure such explosions were not taking place became
a problem that prevented an agreement. Once the Soviet Union and the United
States decided that underground testing would not be included in this first treaty,
the two sides very quickly reached terms they could agree upon.
The Limited Test Ban Treaty was signed by the United States, the Soviet Union,
and Great Britain in 1963, and it banned all nuclear tests in the atmosphere, in
space, or underwater. Because it stopped the spread of radioactive nuclear material
through atmospheric testing and set the precedent for a new wave of arms control
agreements, the Treaty was hailed as a success.

The Treaty was the first of several Cold War agreements on nuclear arms,
including the Non-Proliferation Treaty that was signed in 1968 and the SALT I
agreements of 1972. In 1974, the Threshold Test Ban Treaty returned to the
question of nuclear testing by limiting underground testing of bombs with a yield
greater than 150 kilotons.
Outer Space Treaty 1966 and 1967
The Outer Space Treaty was considered by the Legal Subcommittee in 1966 and
agreement was reached in the General Assembly in the same year ( resolution 2222
(XXI)). The Treaty was largely based on the Declaration of Legal Principles
Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space,
which had been adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 1962 (XVIII) in
1963, but added a few new provisions. The Treaty was opened for signature by the
three depository Governments (the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and
the United States of America) in January 1967, and it entered into force in October
1967. The Outer Space Treaty provides the basic framework on international space
law, including the following principles:

 the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and
in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind;
 outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States;
 outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty,
by means of use or occupation, or by any other means;
 States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction
in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other
manner;
 the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful
purposes;
 astronauts shall be regarded as the envoys of mankind;
 States shall be responsible for national space activities whether carried out
by governmental or non-governmental entities;
 States shall be liable for damage caused by their space objects; and
 States shall avoid harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies.

The Non-Proliferation Treaty

The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968 created a framework for controlling

the spread of nuclear materials and expertise. 30 The International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA), a UN agency based in Vienna, is charged with inspecting the
nuclear power industry in member states to prevent secret military diversions of
nuclear materials. However, number of potential nuclear states (such as Israel) has
not signed the NPT, and even states that have signed may sneak around its
provisions by keeping some facilities secret (as Iraq and Iran did). Under the terms
of the terms of the Gulf War cease-fire, Iraq’s nuclear program was uncovered and
dismantled by the IAEA.

In 2006, a deal between the United States and India to share nuclear technology led
many states to question the NPT, because those benefits were supposedly reserved
for only signatories. Nonetheless the deal received final U.S. and Indian approval
in 2008.

North Korea withdrew from the IAFA in 1993, then bargained with Western
leaders to get economic assistance, including safer reactors, in exchange for
freezing its nuclear program. North Korea’s leader died months later, but the
compromise held up. In 1999, North Korea allowed inspection of a disputed
underground complex and agreed to suspend missile tests in exchange for aid and
partial lifting of U.S. trade sanctions.
Then in 2002, the United States confronted North Korea with evidence of a secret
uranium enrichment program, which the North Koreans then admitted to having.
North Korea then pulled out of the agreement and out of the IAEA, restarted its
nuclear reactor, and apparently turned its existing plutonium into a half-dozen
bombs within months, one of which it tested in 2006.

North Korea again agreed to give up its program in 2008, yet after another nuclear
test in 2009, it began processing nuclear material again. Iran denies, but appears to
be, working to develop nuclear weapons. Since 2003, Iran first agreed to suspend
its uranium enrichment program and allow surprise IAFA inspections, then
restarted enrichment, suspended it again, and restarted it again.

In 200, U.S. backed efforts by Europe to offer Iran economic incentives to

dismantle its program, and by Russia to enrich Iran’s uranium on Russian soil with
safeguards, both faltered. In 2006, the UN Security Council condemned Iran’s
actions and imposed mild sanctions. Iran insisted on its right to enrich uranium for
what it called peaceful purposes. In 2008, Iran’s behavior led to further UN
Security Council sanctions, and in 2009, after a secret underground processing
facility was discovered, Iran was engaged in talks over the program with Western
powers.

An number of middle powers and two great powers (Japan and Germany) have the
potential to make nuclear weapons but have chosen not to do so. Te reasons for
deciding against “going nuclear” include norms against using nuclear weapons,
fears of retaliation, and practical constraints including cost. Brazil and Argentina
seemed to be headed for a nuclear arms race in the 1980s but then called it off as
civilians replaced military governments in both countries. 32In 2004, after years of
resistance, Brazil gave IAEA inspectors access to a controversial uranium
enrichment plant (not part of a nuclear weapons program, evidently).

Strategic Arms Limitations Talks/Treaty (SALT) I and II

SALT I
During the late 1960s, the United States learned that the Soviet Union had
embarked upon a massive Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) buildup
designed to reach parity with the United States. In January 1967, PresidentLyndon
Johnson announced that the Soviet Union had begun to construct a limited Anti-
Ballistic Missile (ABM) defense system around Moscow. The development of an
ABM system could allow one side to launch a first strike and then prevent the
other from retaliating by shooting down incoming missiles.
Johnson therefore called for strategic arms limitations talks (SALT), and in 1967,
he and Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin met at Glassboro State College in New
Jersey. Johnson said they must gain “control of the ABM race,” and Secretary of
Defense Robert McNamara argued that the more each reacted to the other’s
escalation, the more they had chosen “an insane road to follow.” While abolition of
nuclear weapons would be impossible, limiting the development of both offensive
and defensive strategic systems would stabilize U.S.-Soviet relations.
Nixon and Brezhnev during the latter’s visit to the U.S. in 1973. (Nixon
Presidential Library)

Johnson’s successor, Richard Nixon, also believed in SALT, and on November 17,
1969, the formal SALT talks began in Helsinki, Finland. Over the next two and a
half years, the two sides haggled over whether or not each nation should complete
their plans for ABMs; verification of a treaty; and U.S. concern that the Soviets
continued to build more Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs). Nixon
and Soviet General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev signed the ABM Treaty and interim
SALT agreement on May 26, 1972, in Moscow.
For the first time during the Cold War, the United States and Soviet Union had
agreed to limit the number of nuclear missiles in their arsenals. SALT I is
considered the crowning achievement of the Nixon-Kissinger strategy of détente.
The ABM Treaty limited strategic missile defenses to 200 interceptors each and
allowed each side to construct two missile defense sites, one to protect the national
capital, the other to protect one ICBM field. (For financial and strategic reasons,
the United States stopped construction of each by the end of the decade.)
SALT II
Negotiations for a second round of SALT began in late 1972. Since SALT I did not
prevent each side from enlarging their forces through the deployment of Multiple
Independently Targeted Re-Entry Vehicles (MIRVs) onto their ICBMs and
SLBMs, SALT II initially focused on limiting, and then ultimately reducing, the
number of MIRVs. Negotiations also sought to prevent both sides from making
qualitative breakthroughs that would again destabilize the strategic relationship.
The negotiations spanned the Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter
administrations.
At the November 1974 Vladivostok Summit, Ford and Brezhnev agreed on the
basic framework of a SALT II agreement. This included a 2,400 limit on strategic
nuclear delivery vehicles (ICBMs, SLBMs, and heavy bombers) for each side; a
1,320 limit on MIRV systems; a ban on new land-based ICBM launchers; and
limits on deployment of new types of strategic offensive arms.
Even after the Vladivostok agreements, the two nations could not resolve the two
other outstanding issues from SALT I: the number of strategic bombers and the
total number of warheads in each nation’s arsenal. The first was complicated by
the Soviet Backfire bomber, which U.S. negotiators believed could reach the
United States but which the Soviets refused to include in the SALT negotiations.
Meanwhile, the Soviets attempted unsuccessfully to limit American deployment of
Air-Launched Cruise Missiles (ALCMs).
Verification also divided the two nations, but eventually they agreed on using
National Technical Means (NTM), including the collection of electronic signals
known as telemetry and the use of photo-reconnaissance satellites. On June 17,
1979, Carter and Brezhnev signed the SALT II Treaty in Vienna. SALT II limited
the total of both nations’ nuclear forces to 2,250 delivery vehicles and placed a
variety of other restrictions on deployed strategic nuclear forces, including MIRVs.
However, a broad coalition of Republicans and conservative Democrats grew
increasingly skeptical of the Soviet Union’s crackdown on internal dissent, its
increasingly interventionist foreign policies, and the verification process delineated
in the Treaty. On December 17, 1979, 19 Senators wrote Carter that “Ratification
of a SALT II Treaty will not reverse trends in the military balance adverse to the
United States.”
On December 25, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, and on January 3, 1980, Carter
asked the Senate not to consider SALT II for its advice and consent, and it was
never ratified. Both Washington and Moscow subsequently pledged to adhere to
the agreement’s terms despite its failure to enter into force. Carter’s successor
Ronald Reagan, a vehement critic of SALT II during the 1980 presidential
campaign, agreed to abide by SALT II until its expiration on December 31, 1985,
while he pursued the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and argued that
research into the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) adhered to the 1972 ABM
Treaty.
Sea-Bed Treaty (1971)
Opened for Signature: 11 February 1971; Entered into Force: 18 May 1972.;
Number of Parties: 95 States.; Number of Signatories: 21 States.
Depositories: Russia (originally the Soviet Union), United Kingdom, and United
States.
Treaty Text
In the 1960s, there were concerns that due to recent advances in oceanographic
technologies, nations might use the seabed as a new environment for nuclear-
related military installations. The Soviet Union and the United States submitted
two separate drafts that differed on what was to be prohibited and verification
measures. On 7 October 1969, the two States submitted a joint draft to the
Conference of the Committee on Disarmament (CCD).
During the deliberations in the CCD, coastal States raised concerns about the
protection of their rights and smaller States had doubts whether they could check
on violations.
The final draft was approved by the United Nations General Assembly's Resolution
2660 (XXV) on 7 December 1970 by a vote of 104 to 2 (El Salvador, Peru), with
two abstentions (Ecuador, France). The Seabed Treaty was opened for signature on
11 February 1971 and entered into force on 18 May 1972, when the Soviet Union,
the United States, and the United Kingdom, as well as more that 22 nations had
deposited instruments of ratification.

Treaty Obligations: The Treaty forbids States Parties from implanting or placing
on the seabed or ocean floor or in the subsoil thereof, beyond a 12-mile territorial
zone, any nuclear weapons or any other types of weapons of mass destruction or
structures, launching installations, or any other facilities specifically designed for
storing, testing, or using such weapons.
Verification: The Treaty allows for verification through observation by the States
Parties of the activities of other States Parties, provided that observation does not
interfere with such activities. If after such observation reasonable doubts remain,
further procedures for verification may be agreed upon, including inspections.
After completion of the further procedures for verification, an appropriate report
shall be circulated to other Parties by the Party that initiated such procedures.
Compliance: If consultation and cooperation have not removed the doubts
concerning the activities and there remains a serious question concerning
fulfillment of the obligations assumed under this Treaty, a State Party may, in
accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, refer the
matter to the Security Council, which may take action in accordance with the
Charter.
The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC)

The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) is a legally binding treaty that

outlaws biological arms. After being discussed and negotiated in the United
Nations' disarmament forum1 starting in 1969, the BWC opened for signature on
April 10, 1972, and entered into force on March 26, 1975. It currently has 165
states-parties and 12 signatory states.

Terms of the Treaty

The BWC bans:

 The development, stockpiling, acquisition, retention, and production of:

1. Biological agents and toxins "of types and in quantities that have no
justification for prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes;"
2. Weapons, equipment, and delivery vehicles "designed to use such
agents or toxins for hostile purposes or in armed conflict."
 The transfer of or assistance with acquiring the agents, toxins, weapons,
equipment, and delivery vehicles described above.

The convention further requires states-parties to destroy or divert to peaceful

purposes the "agents, toxins, weapons, equipment, and means of delivery"
described above within nine months of the convention's entry into force. The BWC
does not ban the use of biological and toxin weapons but reaffirms the 1925
Geneva Protocol, which prohibits such use. It also does not ban biodefense
programs.

Verification

The treaty regime mandates that states-parties consult with one another and
cooperate, bilaterally or multilaterally, to solve compliance concerns. It also allows
states-parties to lodge a complaint with the UN Security Council if they believe
other member states are violating the convention. The Security Council can
investigate complaints, but this power has never been invoked. Security Council
voting rules give China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United
States veto power over Security Council decisions, including those to conduct
BWC investigations.

Membership and Duration

The BWC is a multilateral treaty of indefinite duration that is open to any country.
Notably absent from the list of member states is Syria, a treaty signatory that the
United States believes is probably developing biological weapons.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), 1968

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was an agreement signed in 1968 by several
of the major nuclear and non-nuclear powers that pledged their cooperation in
stemming the spread of nuclear technology. Although the NPT did not ultimately
prevent nuclear proliferation, in the context of the Cold War arms race and
mounting international concern about the consequences of nuclear war, the treaty
was a major success for advocates of arms control because it set a precedent for
international cooperation between nuclear and non-nuclear states to prevent
proliferation.
U.S. Ambassador Llewellyn E. Thompson, signs nuclear non-proliferation treaty as Soviet
Foreign Minister Andrei A. Gromyko watches in Moscow, Russia, on July 1, 1968. (AP Photo)

After the United States and the Soviet Union signed the Limited Test Ban Treaty in
1963, leaders of both nations hoped that other, more comprehensive agreements on
arms control would be forthcoming. Given the excessive costs involved in the
development and deployment of new and more technologically advanced nuclear
weapons, both powers had an interest in negotiating agreements that would help to
slow the pace of the arms race and limit competition in strategic weapons
development.
Four years after the first treaty, the two sides agreed to an Outer Space Treaty that
prevented the deployment of nuclear weapons systems as satellites in space. Of far
greater import, Soviet and U.S. negotiators also reached a settlement on concluding
an international non-proliferation treaty.
By the beginning of the 1960s, nuclear weapons technology had the potential to
become widespread. The science of exploding and fusing atoms had entered into
public literature via academic journals, and nuclear technology was no longer
pursued only by governments, but by private companies as well. Plutonium, the
core of nuclear weapons, was becoming easier to obtain and cheaper to process.
As a result of these changes, by 1964 there were five nuclear powers in the world:
in addition to the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom, all of
which obtained nuclear capability during or shortly after the Second World War,
France exploded its first nuclear bomb in 1960, and the People’s Republic of China
was not far behind in 1964. There were many other countries that had not yet
tested weapons, but which were technologically advanced enough that should they
decide to build them, it was likely that they could do so before long.
The spread of nuclear weapons technology meant several things for international
lawmakers. While the only countries that were capable of nuclear strike were the
United States, its close ally Britain, and the Soviet Union, the doctrine of
deterrence could be reasonably maintained.
Because both sides of the Cold War had vast stocks of weapons and the capability
of striking back after being attacked, any strike would likely have led to mutually
assured destruction, and thus there remained a strong incentive for any power to
avoid starting a nuclear war. However, if more nations, particularly developing
nations that lay on the periphery of the balance of power between the two Cold
War superpowers, achieved nuclear capability, this balance risked being disrupted
and the system of deterrence would be threatened.
Moreover, if countries with volatile border disputes became capable of attacking
with nuclear weapons, then the odds of a nuclear war with truly global
repercussions increased. This also caused the nuclear states to hesitate in sharing
nuclear technology with developing nations, even technology that could be used
for peaceful applications. All of these concerns led to international interest in a
nuclear non-proliferation treaty that would help prevent the spread of nuclear
weapons.
Although the benefits to be derived from such a treaty were clear, its development
was not without controversy. A ban on the distribution of nuclear technology was
first proposed by Ireland in a meeting of the General Assembly of the United
Nations in 1961. Although the members approved the resolution, it took until 1965
for negotiations to begin in earnest at the Geneva disarmament conference.
At that time, U.S. negotiators worked to strike a delicate balance between the
interest in preventing further transfer of the technology that it shared with the
Soviet Union and the desire to strengthen its NATO allies by giving several
Western European nations some measure of control over nuclear weapons. The
plan for a nuclear NATO threatened to scuttle the talks altogether, and the United
States eventually abandoned it in favor of reaching a workable treaty.
A more difficult problem involved the question of bringing non-nuclear nations
into line with the planned treaty. Nations that had not yet developed nuclear
weapons technology were essentially being asked to give up all intentions to ever
develop the weapons. Without this agreement on the part of the non-nuclear
powers, having the nuclear powers vow never to transfer the technology would
likely not result in any real limitation on the number of worldwide nuclear powers.
After two years of negotiations, the nuclear powers managed to make enough
concessions to induce many non-nuclear powers to sign.
The final treaty involved a number of provisions all aimed at limiting the spread of
nuclear weapons technology. First, the nuclear signatories agreed not to transfer
either nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons technology to any other state. Second,
the non-nuclear states agreed that they would not receive, develop or otherwise
acquire nuclear weapons.
All of the signatories agreed to submit to the safeguards against proliferation
established by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Parties to the
treaty also agreed to cooperate in the development of peaceful nuclear technology
and to continue negotiations to help end the nuclear arms race and limit the spread
of the technology. The treaty was given a 25-year time limit, with the agreement
that it would be reviewed every 5 years.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was, and continues to be, heralded as an
important step in the ongoing efforts to reduce or prevent the spread of nuclear
weapons. Still, it had one major drawback in that two nuclear powers, France and
the People’s Republic of China, did not sign the agreement, nor did a number of
non-nuclear states. Of the non-nuclear states refusing to adhere, and thereby limit
their own future nuclear programs, of particular importance were Argentina,
Brazil, India, Israel, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and South Africa, because these
powers were close to being capable of the technology. In fact, in 1974, India joined
the “nuclear club” by exploding its first weapon. Pakistan tested its first atomic
bomb in 1983.
Current Problem
Even as the legal regime was expanded by these agreements, the NPT came under
strain elsewhere. One of the most significant blows was Iraq’s demonstrated ability
to hide its nuclear-weapon-making efforts from IAEA inspectors before the Gulf
War. With inspection authority from UN Security Council resolutions adopted
after that war—authority beyond what the 1970s negotiations on NPT verification
standards had given the IAEA—inspectors found previously hidden Iraqi efforts to
enrich uranium to make nuclear weapons and even an attempt to use (for a
weapon) highly enriched research-reactor uranium provided for peaceful purposes
by France and the Soviet Union.

These findings produced a major effort to strengthen the IAEA’s NPT inspection
authority through an additional protocol. The IAEA parties who negotiated the
1997 model for this protocol did not agree, however, that the NPT required its
parties to accept the model, as had been the case with earlier IAEA safeguards
standards. It is now up to each NPT party to negotiate with the IAEA a revised
safeguards agreement pursuant to the model.
As of mid-2003, only 81 of 187 NPT states had negotiated new safeguards
agreements; only 37, or about 20 percent, had given final approval to them through
parliamentary or other ratification.
Even the United States has not yet adopted legislation to implement its new
safeguards agreement. Some non-nuclear-weapon states may be holding back,
asking why they should take on more nonproliferation obligations when, as they
perceive it, the United States rejects an important one—the CTBT prohibition on
nuclear testing—and then proposes new types of nuclear weapons for itself.

After the experience with Iraq, IAEA inspectors sought new techniques to deal
with other problem states such as North Korea. Some evidence was produced by
IAEA inspectors in the 1990s using a new technique called “environmental
monitoring”—testing for small traces of evidence of nuclear activities in the air, on
walls or vegetation in areas within or surrounding a nuclear site, or in streams or
rivers nearby.
This is explicitly authorized in the 1997 Mode Additional Protocol for use even at
sites far from the reactors that a country has declared open for inspection. Results
from using these and other techniques at declared sites encouraged the IAEA to
press North Korea for broader inspections in the early 1990s, but Pyongyang
refused.
A stalemate between North Korea and the IAEA eventually led to bilateral
negotiations between the United States and North Korea and the 1994 Agreed
Framework between the two countries which called for Pyongyang to dismantle a
reactor who’s spent fuel rods had apparently been used by North Korea to produce
plutonium.
Pyongyang was also asked to provide information about its past activities. These
steps were to be in exchange for the construction of new, more proliferation-
resistant nuclear reactors from South Korea and Japan, as well as interim supplies
of heavy-fuel oil from the United States. However, North Korea appears to have
engaged in nuclear-weapon activities at other sites after the 1994 agreement was
inked. During 2002-2003, North Korea and the United States each concluded that
the 1994 agreement was not to their liking, and North Korea announced its
withdrawal from the NPT.

Discovery of Iran’s failure to disclose experiments with plutonium separation and

uranium enrichment to IAEA inspectors has triggered concern since last year.
Using environmental monitoring and other techniques at declared sites and
undeclared sites that Iran permitted them to check, the IAEA inspectors uncovered
many suspicious items, including tiny samples of enriched uranium, tubes
apparently used for enriching uranium in centrifuges, and stocks of unenriched
uranium—none of which Iran had reported to the IAEA.
In negotiations with the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, Iran agreed to
sign an additional protocol authorizing broader inspections in Iran and to put aside
its uranium-enrichment plans, at least for the time being. Though the IAEA
director-general’s report shows that Iran had not disclosed to earlier inspectors its
uranium-enrichment efforts or an experiment in plutonium separation, he
concluded that the IAEA lacked direct proof that these efforts were for the purpose
of making weapons—to the consternation of officials in the United States. The
IAEA Board of Governors then adopted, with U.S. support, a decision to order
continued inspections in Iran for clandestine activities.

The uranium-enrichment and plutonium-separation efforts of Iraq, North Korea,

and Iran have produced renewed calls for the NPT not to permit such efforts even
if subject to IAEA inspection. The concern is that, once a country gains access to
this technology, it might then withdraw from the NPT (as North Korea did) and use
its stocks of weapons-usable uranium or plutonium to make weapons.
The Nuclear Supplier’s Group (NSG) had earlier recommended that new uranium-
enrichment and plutonium-separation plants of non-nuclear-weapon states be
placed under multilateral ownership and control so that the co-owners from the
different countries could check on each other. However, Japan; some western
European non-nuclear-weapon countries; and Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, and
a few others, as well as all the nuclear-weapon states, have or have experimented
with enrichment or reprocessing facilities. Should these all now be subject to a rule
requiring multilateral ownership and oversight? Would limiting the requirement to
non-nuclear-weapon countries be regarded as adding further insult to the NPT’s
existing discrimination in favor of nuclear-weapon states? IAEA Director-General
Mohamed ElBaradei has recommended that all enrichment and reprocessing
facilities used for civilian purposes should be multilaterally owned and controlled
in the future, with each country involved being urged to check on what its partner
countries are doing to make sure that the enriched uranium or separated plutonium
is not used for weapons purposes.

The Bush administration has pressed hard on Iraq, Iran, and North Korea to
restrain them from acquiring nuclear weapons, but it has done so sometimes in
unilateral or domineering ways that seem inconsistent with a multilateral regime
like that of the NPT.
The American-led, counter-proliferation-justified, preventive-war invasion of Iraq
in 2003 that the United States waged without UN Security Council authorization is
a recent example. At the time, the invasion was said to be necessary to prevent Iraq
from again acquiring nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons or long-range
missiles. It took place even though Security Council-authorized inspections,
consistent with the NPT, were going on in Iraq to look for these weapons.
It resulted in UN inspectors being withdrawn from Iraq for their own safety. U.S
inspectors have subsequently found little evidence of ongoing biological, chemical,
or nuclear weapons programs but the decision reflected Bush’s tendency to
downgrade treaties and international efforts in favor of more proactive
proliferation efforts.”

Likewise, the Senate failed to ratify the CTBT in 1999. The Bush administration
has not asked the Senate to reconsider that vote and instead has said that the United
States “will not become a party” to that treaty.
At the same time, the administration seeks money from Congress for new types of
nuclear weapons—ones that may well need testing before the United States would
rely on them. However, in 1995, when the United States negotiated an agreement
with all the non-nuclear-weapon states to extend the NPT beyond 1995, it agreed
to negotiate a CTBT by 1996 as part of the price it had to pay to gain agreement to
renew the NPT.
The CTBT was negotiated by 1996. Then, in the 2000 NPT review conference, the
Clinton administration agreed on “the importance and urgency” of ratification of
the CTBT “without delay” to “achieve the early entry into force” of the treaty even
though the Senate then had no plans to vote again on the CTBT.[23] Is the CTBT
such an essential element of the nonproliferation regime that U.S. failure to join it
could provide persuasive justification for withdrawal from the NPT for those who
choose to do so?

Other problems of this sort occurred with Article VI of the NPT, agreed to in the
original treaty negotiations in order to gain the support for the treaty of non-
nuclear-weapon states. In that provision, the United States and the other recognized
nuclear-weapon states promised to negotiate nuclear-weapon reductions with the
goal of nuclear disarmament.
Then, to gain the votes of these parties for extension of the NPT in 1995, the
United States agreed to pursue “progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons
globally, with the ultimate goal of eliminating those weapons.”
At the 2000 NPT review conference, the Clinton administration made similar
commitments. It also promised to implement START II (negotiated in the prior
Bush administration) and to conclude “START III [more reductions] as soon as
possible while preserving and strengthening the [Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM)]
Treaty as the cornerstone of strategic stability.”
These promises were shredded when the present Bush administration withdrew
from the ABM Treaty. The withdrawal nullified START II because the Russian
Duma had conditioned its approval vote for START II on a continuation of the
ABM Treaty. The substitute for START II negotiated with Russia by President
George W. Bush, the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty of 2002, required
withdrawal of warheads from many long-range missiles on each side to the end
that, by 2012, no more than 2,200 warheads would be deployed on either side.
The treaty, however, does not require the warheads to be destroyed, calls for no
inspections, has a more permissive withdrawal clause than in START II, and
contains no stated plan for a subsequent treaty such as START III that would
require further reductions. Does this satisfy the NPT commitment to negotiate
toward nuclear disarmament?

ElBaradei has suggested that the United States may be employing a double
standard by not actually cutting its own arsenal of nuclear weapons (as distinct
from its missiles) while attempting to restrain other countries from acquiring
nuclear weapons.

To gain the agreement of the non-nuclear-weapon NPT parties to the treaty’s

extension in 1995, the United States also made promises in connection with a UN
Security Council resolution calling for what are called negative security
assurances, which for the United States was a promise not to use nuclear weapons
against non-nuclear-weapon NPT parties unless they attack the United States while
in alliance with another nuclear-weapon state.
Yet, in its Nuclear Posture Review of 2001 and its National Strategy on Weapons
of Mass Destruction of 2002, the Bush administration made clear that it was
prepared to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear-weapon NPT party that
threatened the use of chemical or biological weapons against the United States or
its allies whether or not this NPT party was allied with a nuclear-weapon state.
Thus, the United States watered down another promise that was important to
gaining the support of non-nuclear-weapon NPT states-parties for renewal of the
NPT in 1995. Whether all these problems will produce further withdrawals from
the NPT is, of course, unknown, but they might be used as excuses for withdrawal
by any who want to do so.
Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT)
The first nuclear explosive test was conducted by the United States on July 16,
1945. The Soviet Union followed with its first nuclear test on August 29, 1949. By
the mid-1950s, the United States and the Soviet Union were both conducting high-
yield thermonuclear weapon tests in the atmosphere. The radioactive fallout from
those tests drew criticism from around the globe.
The international community’s concern about the effects on health and the
environment continued to grow. In 1954, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal
Nehru proposed a ban on all nuclear testing. The increasing public concern over
explosive tests led to the negotiation and entry into force of the 1963 Limited
Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty(LTBT).
This Treaty banned nuclear testing in the atmosphere, outer space, and under
water, but underground tests were still permitted.
When the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was being negotiated in 1968, a
comprehensive test ban was discussed, but the international community failed to
reach agreement on the issue. Advocates for a ban on explosive testing persisted.
In 1974, the United States and the Soviet Union signed the Treaty on the
Limitation of Underground Nuclear Weapon Tests, also known as the Threshold
Test Ban Treaty (TTBT). It established a nuclear "threshold" by prohibiting the
United States and the Soviet Union from conducting tests that would produce a
yield exceeding 150 kilotons (equivalent to 150,000 tons of TNT). The mutual
restraint imposed by the Treaty reduced the explosive force of new nuclear
warheads and bombs, which could otherwise be tested for weapons systems. The
TTBT was not intended as a substitute for a comprehensive test ban. Article I of
the Treaty states that, “the Parties shall continue their negotiations with a view
toward achieving a solution to the problem of the cessation of all underground
nuclear weapon tests.”

In 1976, scientists from different countries formed the Group of Scientific Experts
(GSE) and began conducting joint research into monitoring technologies and data
analysis methods for the verification of a comprehensive test ban.
Almost two decades later, the Cold War ended, bringing with it increased
possibilities for progress on disarmament and self-imposed testing moratoriums
from the United States and the former Soviet Union. Capitalizing on this
momentum, the United Nations’ disarmament body, the Conference on
Disarmament (CD) in Geneva, began formal negotiations on the Comprehensive
Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1994. Capitalizing on the GSE’s research, the
CD was able to reach consensus on the verification regime. Other parts of the
negotiations proved more difficult, but members of the CD were able to find
common ground and move forward. Australia submitted the Treaty to the U.N.
General Assembly, where it was adopted on September 10, 1996 and opened for
signature on September 24, 1996.

Since then, 182 nations have signed the Treaty, and 156 have ratified it. Of the 44
nations whose ratifications are specifically required by the Treaty for it to enter
into force, 41 have signed and 36 have ratified.

India and CTBT

India’s future with the CTBT is still unwritten. Leadership until now may have
been delayed, but there are opportunities for it to be reengaged and renewed
India’s past with the treaty to ban all nuclear tests in all places for all time is well
known. Some might characterise it as leadership defaulted or, more optimistically,
merely delayed. A lot has changed for India since the Comprehensive Nuclear Test
Ban Treaty (CTBT) was opened for signature in 1996, and the same is true for the
treaty itself — enough to prompt fresh thinking about some renewed engagement.

India did not support the treaty in 1996 — and still does not — but it had been very
supportive during negotiations. The roots of that exuberance can be traced to Prime
Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s famous initiative in 1954 for a “standstill agreement”
on nuclear testing. His intervention came at a time when the U.S. and the Soviet
Union were detonating powerful nuclear weapons with increasing frequency.
Nehru played an important role in building international momentum for the 1963
Limited Test Ban Treaty, which India joined. This treaty significantly reduced
global levels of fallout, but did little to constrain the nuclear arms race. The CTBT
was created as a result.
It has been hard in recent years to discern a public debate on the CTBT in India.
This is tragic in the very country that made the path-breaking call for the “standstill
agreement”; has been observing a unilateral moratorium since 1998; is a champion
of nuclear disarmament; and, in the words of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, “will
continue to contribute to the strengthening of the global non-proliferation efforts.”
For all of its efforts in galvanising the creation of an effective international
verification system, India is currently unable to derive either the political or the
technical benefits from it. But 183 other countries do.

The CTBT with its 183 signatories and 163 ratifications is one of the most widely
supported arms-control treaties. This near universal support is due to the treaty’s
non-discriminatory nature, where everyone has the same obligation never to
conduct a nuclear explosion. As another mark of progress, the prohibition against
testing has emerged as an established global political and behavioural norm. The
international condemnation of North Korea as the only country that has conducted
nuclear tests in this millennium is a vivid illustration.

After each of the North Korean nuclear tests, all CTBT State Signatories received
the same high-quality information about the location, magnitude, depth and time of
the event within hours of detection by the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban
Treaty Organisation’s (CTBTO) system of monitoring stations.

CTBTO has evolved from a mere blueprint to the custodian of the world’s largest
and most sophisticated multilateral verification system. Over 300 stations in 89
countries have been built to monitor for signs of nuclear explosions around the
globe and round the clock. The International Monitoring System (IMS) monitors
the Earth’s crust, listens in the atmosphere and in the oceans and sniffs the air for
traces of radioactivity. While scanning the globe for signs of a nuclear test, this
monitoring system produces data that have many spin-off applications, from
disaster early warning to scientific research on the Earth’s inner structures, climate
change or meteors, to name just a few of the potential uses.

Nuclear Safety
CTBTO is also making contributions to the nuclear safety field. After the March
2011 Fukushima nuclear accident, CTBTO data provided timely information on
the radioactive emissions from the crippled plant and their global dispersion.

In spite of all these achievements, the CTBT has yet to become global law due to
its demanding entry into force clause, which requires the signature and ratification
of all 44 countries listed as nuclear technology capable. At present, eight of those
countries are yet to join: India, Pakistan and North Korea are the only non-
signatories from this list.

Before India even signs the CTBT, it can reacquaint itself with today’s global
nuclear test ban, while making an important contribution to the multilateral
verification system. Radionuclide stations, which “sniff out” radioactive particles
and noble gases, are the only means to confirm a nuclear explosion. In particular,
the radionuclide station still sought for India to host is vital to finishing the now 90
per cent complete IMS, which is already highly effective in detecting nuclear
explosions.

The IMS has also facilitated a rich international exchange of data and expertise and
boosted technological advancements pertaining to infrasound and noble gas
monitoring. Additionally, the CTBTO has an active programme of engagement
with the international scientific community who can tap into a wealth of data
generated by the IMS, and civil and scientific applications are booming. India
should be part of this.

Science should support diplomacy. Today, a first step toward reengagement would
be for relevant scientific and other government institutions to initiate contact with
the CTBTO for the purpose of beginning scientific cooperation. This could
eventually lead to India participating in the international exchange of data from the
monitoring stations and would be an important first step to establishing familiarity
and trust.

Taking these initial steps within the scientific context is wholly consistent with
India’s standing in the 21st century as it looks to strengthen the global non-
proliferation regime. Scientific cooperation is crucial for sustainable dialogue.
Interactions between scientists serve to promote cross-border exchanges and can
become a precursor for greater engagement. One avenue for engagement takes
place this June in Vienna at the CTBT: the Science and Technology Conference
2015, which is the world’s largest scientific forum on nuclear-test-ban verification
and its other benefits. Encouragingly, Indian scientists attended the last conference
and I look forward to welcoming more this year.

India’s future with the CTBT is still unwritten. Leadership until now may have
been delayed, but there are opportunities for it to be reengaged and renewed.

International Banks

Since inception in 1944, the World Bank has expanded from a single institution to
a closely associated group of five development institutions. Our mission evolved
from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) as
facilitator of post-war reconstruction and development to the present-day mandate
of worldwide poverty alleviation in close coordination with our affiliate,
the International Development Association, and other members of the World Bank
Group, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the Multilateral Guarantee
Agency (MIGA), and the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment
Disputes (ICSID).

Once, we had a homogeneous staff of engineers and financial analysts, based

solely in Washington, D.C. Today, we have multidisciplinary and diverse staffs
that includes economists, public policy experts, sector experts and social scientists
—and now more than a third of our staff is based in country offices.

Reconstruction remains an important part of our work. However, at today's World

Bank, poverty reduction through an inclusive and sustainable globalization remains
the overarching goal of our work.
The World Bank is like a cooperative, made up of 189 member countries. These
member countries, or shareholders, are represented by a Board of Governors, who
are the ultimate policymakers at the World Bank. Generally, the governors are
member countries' ministers of finance or ministers of development. They meet
once a year at the Annual Meetings of the Boards of Governors of the World Bank
Group and the International Monetary Fund.

The governors delegate specific duties to 25 Executive Directors, who work on-site
at the Bank. The five largest shareholders appoint an executive director, while
other member countries are represented by elected executive directors.

World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim chairs meetings of the Boards of
Directors and is responsible for overall management of the Bank. The President is
selected by the Board of Executive Directors for a five-year, renewable term.

The Executive Directors make up the Boards of Directors of the World Bank. They
normally meet at least twice a week to oversee the Bank's business, including
approval of loans and guarantees, new policies, the administrative budget, country
assistance strategies and borrowing and financial decisions.

The World Bank operates day-to-day under the leadership and direction of the
president, management and senior staff, and the vice presidents in charge of Global
Practices, Cross-Cutting Solutions Areas, regions, and functions.

Objectives:

The following objectives are assigned by the World Bank:

1. To provide long-run capital to member countries for economic reconstruction

and development.

2. To induce long-run capital investment for assuring Balance of Payments (BoP)

equilibrium and balanced development of international trade.

3. To provide guarantee for loans granted to small and large units and other
projects of member countries.
4. To ensure the implementation of development projects so as to bring about a
smooth transference from a war-time to peace economy.

5. To promote capital investment in member countries by the following ways;

(a) To provide guarantee on private loans or capital investment.

(b) If private capital is not available even after providing guarantee, then IBRD
provides loans for productive activities on considerate conditions.

Functions:
World Bank is playing main role of providing loans for development works to
member countries, especially to underdeveloped countries. The World Bank
provides long-term loans for various development projects of 5 to 20 years
duration.

The main functions can be explained with the help of the following points:
1. World Bank provides various technical services to the member countries. For
this purpose, the Bank has established “The Economic Development Institute” and
a Staff College in Washington.

2. Bank can grant loans to a member country up to 20% of its share in the paid-up
capital.

3. The quantities of loans, interest rate and terms and conditions are determined by
the Bank itself.

4. Generally, Bank grants loans for a particular project duly submitted to the Bank
by the member country.

5. The debtor nation has to repay either in reserve currencies or in the currency in
which the loan was sanctioned.

6. Bank also provides loan to private investors belonging to member countries on

its own guarantee, but for this loan private investors have to seek prior permission
from those counties where this amount will be collected.
 Board of Governors

The Boards of Governors consist of one Governor and one Alternate Governor
appointed by each member country. The office is usually held by the country's
minister of finance, governor of its central bank, or a senior official of similar rank.
The Governors and Alternates serve for terms of five years and can be reappointed.

If the country is a member of the Bank and is also a member of the International
Finance Corporation (IFC) or the International Development Association (IDA),
then the appointed Governor and his or her alternate serve ex-officio as the
Governor and Alternate on the IFC and IDA Boards of Governors.

They also serve as representatives of their country on the Administrative Council

of the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) unless
otherwise noted. Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) Governors
and Alternates are appointed separately.

Role of the Boards of Governors

All the powers of the Bank are vested in the Boards of Governors, the Bank's
senior decision-making body according to the Articles of Agreement. However, the
Boards of Governors has delegated all powers to the Executive Directors except
those mentioned in the Articles of Agreement. These powers include:
 Admit and suspend members;

 Increase or decrease the authorized capital stock;

 Determine the distribution of the net income of the Bank;

 Decide appeals from interpretations of the Articles of Agreement by the Executive

Directors;

 Make formal comprehensive arrangements to cooperate with other international

organizations;

 Suspend permanently the operations of the Bank;

 Increase the number of elected Executive Directors; and

 Approve amendments to the Articles of Agreement.

The Boards of Directors

The Boards of Directors consist of the World Bank Group President and 25
Executive Directors. The President is the presiding officer, and ordinarily has no
vote except a deciding vote in case of an equal division. In line with the Bank's
Articles, the Executive Directors select the World Bank President, who is the
Chairman of the Board of Directors.

The Executive Directors as individuals cannot exercise any power nor commit or
represent the Bank unless specifically authorized by the Boards to do so. With the
term beginning November 1, 2010, the number of Executive Directors increased by
one, totalling 25.

Alternates to Executive Directors have full power to act in the absence of their
respective Executive Directors. Furthermore, Senior Advisors and Advisors assist
the Executive Directors in their work, who can, along with the Alternates to
Executive Directors, attend most Board meetings in an advisory capacity, without
voting rights.

Previous Compositions

The first Boards consisted of 12 Executive Directors, as provided under the IBRD
Articles of Agreement, Article V Section 4(b). Increases in the number of elected
Executive Directors require a decision of the Boards of Governors by an 80%
majority of the total voting power. Before November 1, 1992, there were 22
Executive Directors, 17 of whom were elected. In 1992, in view of the large
number of new members that had joined the Bank, the number of elected
Executive Directors increased to 20.
The two new seats, Russia and a new group around Switzerland, brought the total
number of Executive Directors to 24. With the term beginning November 1, 2010,
the number of Executive Directors increased by one, totalling 25.

Voting Powers
The World Bank and the IMF have adopted a weighted system of voting.
According to the IBRD Articles of Agreement, membership in the Bank is open to
all members of the IMF. A country applying for membership in the Fund is
required to supply data on its economy, which are compared with data from other
member countries whose economies are similar in size.

A quota is then assigned, equivalent to the country's subscription to the Fund, and
this determines its voting power in the Fund. Each new member country of the
Bank is allotted 250 votes plus one additional vote for each share it holds in the
Bank's capital stock. The quota assigned by the Fund is used to determine the
number of shares allotted to each new member country of the Bank.

Member countries are allocated votes at the time of membership and subsequently
for additional subscriptions to capital. Votes are allocated differently in each
organization, and result in different voting powers.

The Corporate Secretariat is responsible for coordinating the process for members
to complete their periodic capital increases in IBRD, IDA, IFC, and MIGA. It
provides advice on the procedures for subscribing to additional shares as
authorized under resolutions approved by the Boards of Governors, including
required documentation and capital subscriptions payments.

Ethics Matters
The Code of Conduct for Board Officials that took effect in November 1, 2007,
supersedes the Code of Conduct and Ethics Committee Procedures approved in
August 2003.
The Code of Conduct for Board Officials sets forth principles and ethical standards
for the Executive Directors, the Presidents of each of the organizations, Executive
Director Designates, Executive Director Post-Designates, Alternate Executive
Directors, Alternate Executive Director Designates, Alternate Executive Director
Post-Designates, Temporary Alternate Executive Directors, Senior Advisors, and
Advisors to Executive Directors (collectively, “Board Officials”) in connection
with, or having a bearing upon, their status and responsibilities in the organizations
of the World Bank Group.

UNIT- IV

RELATION WITH OTHER COUNTRIES

India–Nepal Relations
As close neighbours, India and Nepal share a unique relationship of friendship and
cooperation characterized by open borders and deep-rooted people-to-people
contacts of kinship and culture. There has been a long tradition of free movement
of people across the borders. Nepal has an area of 147,181 sq. kms. and a
population of 29 million. It shares a border of over 1850 kms in the east, south and
west with five Indian States – Sikkim, West Bengal, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and
Uttarakhand – and in the north with the Tibet Autonomous Region of the People's
Republic of China.

The India-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship of 1950 forms the bedrock of the
special relations that exist between India and Nepal. Under the provisions of this
Treaty, the Nepalese citizens have enjoyed unparalleled advantages in India,
availing facilities and opportunities at par with Indian citizens. Nearly 6 million
Nepali citizens live and work in India. 2. There are regular exchanges of high level
visits and interactions between India and Nepal. Nepalese Prime Minister Shri
Sushil Koirala visited India to attend the swearing-in ceremony of Prime Minister
Shri Narendra Modi on 26 May 2014.

In 2014, Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi visited Nepal twice – in August for a
bilateral visit and in November for the SAARC Summit – during which several
bilateral agreements were signed. India and Nepal have several bilateral
institutional dialogue mechanisms, including the India-Nepal Joint Commission
co-chaired by External Affairs Minister of India and Foreign Minister of Nepal.

When a devastating 7.8 magnitude earthquake struck Nepal on 25 April 2015

(followed by a powerful aftershock of 7.4 magnitude on 12 May 2015), the
Government of India swiftly dispatched National Disaster Response Force (NDRF)
teams and special aircrafts with rescue and relief materials to Nepal. India’s
assistance, which reached Nepal within six hours of the earthquake, included 16
NDRF teams, 39 IAF aircraft sorties with 571 tons of relief material including
rescue equipment, medical supplies, food, water, tents, blankets and tarpaulin.
Medical teams from India were deployed in various parts of Nepal. India helped in
restoring 3 power sub–stations in Kathmandu valley.
The total Indian relief assistance to Nepal amounted to approx. US$ 67 million. At
an International Donors’ Conference organized by the Government of Nepal in
Kathmandu on 25 June 2015 towards post-earthquake reconstruction, External
Affairs Minister Smt. Sushma Swaraj announced Indian assistance of US$ 1 billion
to Nepal, one-fourth of which would be as grant.

Political Beginning with the 12-Point understanding reached between the Seven
Party Alliance and the Maoists at Delhi in November 2005, Government of India
has welcomed the roadmap laid down by the historic Comprehensive Peace
Agreement of November 2006 towards political stabilization in Nepal, through
peaceful reconciliation and inclusive democratic processes.

India has consistently responded with a sense of urgency to the needs of the
people and Government of Nepal in ensuring the success of the peace process and
institutionalization of multi–party democracy through the framing of a new
Constitution by a duly elected Constituent Assembly. India has always believed
that only an inclusive Constitution with the widest possible consensus by taking on
board all stakeholders would result in durable peace and stability in Nepal.

India’s core interest in Nepal is a united Nepal’s peace and stability which has a
bearing on India as well because of the long and open border shared between India
and Nepal. 5. Nepal’s second Constituent Assembly promulgated a Constitution on
20 September 2015 amid protests by Madhes-based parties and other groups.

The Government of India has expressed grave concern regarding the ongoing
protests and has urged the Government of Nepal to make efforts to resolve all
issues through a credible political dialogue. Economic 6. Since 1996, Nepal’s
exports to India have grown more than eleven times and bilateral trade more than
seven times; the bilateral trade that was 29.8% of Nepal’s total external trade in
1995-96 reached 66% in 2013-14.

Exports from Nepal to India increased from INR 230 crore in 1995-96 to INR
3713.5 crore (US$ 605 million) in 2013-14 and India’s exports to Nepal increased
from INR 1525 crore in 1995-96 to INR 29545.6 crore (US$ 4.81 billion) in 2013-
14. The main items of exports from India to Nepal are petroleum products, motor
vehicles and spare parts, m.s. billets, machinery and spares, medicines, hot rolled
sheets, wires, coal, cement, threads and chemicals.

The main items of exports from Nepal to India are polyester yarn, textiles, jute
goods, threads, zinc sheet, packaged juice, cardamom, G.I. pipe, copper wire,
shoes and sandals, stones and sand. 7. Indian firms are the biggest investors in
Nepal, accounting for about 38.3% of Nepal’s total approved foreign direct
investments.

Till 15 July 2013, the Government of Nepal had approved a total of 3004 foreign
investment projects with proposed FDI of Rs. 7269.4 crore. There are about 150
operating Indian ventures in Nepal engaged in manufacturing, services (banking,
insurance, dry port, education and telecom), power sector and tourism industries.
Some large Indian investors include ITC, Dabur India, Hindustan Unilever, VSNL,
TCIL, MTNL, State Bank of India, Punjab National Bank, Life Insurance
Corporation of India, Asian Paints, CONCOR, GMR India, IL&FS, Manipal
Group, MIT Group Holdings, Nupur International, Transworld Group, Patel
Engineering, Bhilwara Energy, Bhushan Group, Feedback Ventures, RJ Corp,
KSK Energy, Berger Paints, Essel Infra Project Ltd. and Tata Power etc. Water
Resources .

A three-tier mechanism established in 2008 to discuss all bilateral issues relating

to cooperation in water resources and hydropower has been working well. Regular
meetings are being held on and off site. In the area of river training and
embankment construction, Government of India has been providing assistance to
Nepal for strengthening and extension of embankments along Lalbakeya, Bagmati
and Kamla rivers.

It is proposed to extend this assistance for construction of embankments on other

rivers as well. Started in 2008, with the present assistance, the total grant assistance
already disbursed for embankments construction along these rivers stands at NRs.
3,670.66 million. 9. A Development Authority was set up in September 2014 to
carry out the Pancheshwar Multipurpose project. India and Nepal signed an
agreement on “Electric Power Trade, CrossBorder Transmission Interconnection
and Grid Connectivity" popularly known as the Power Trade Agreement (PTA) in
October 2014.
A Power Development Agreement (PDA) for the 900 MW Arun-III hydroelectric
project between India’s Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited and the Investment Board
of Nepal (IBN) was concluded in November 2014. Also, a PDA for the 900 MW
Upper Karnali hydroelectric project was concluded between IBN and M/s GMR in
September 2014.

There are more than twenty 132 KV, 33 KV and 11KV transmission
interconnections which are used both for power exchange in the bordering areas
and power trade. A 400 KVA cross-border transmission line between Muzaffarpur-
Dhalkebar and two 132 KVA lines between Kataiya-Kushaha and Raxaul-
Parwanipur are under construction.

India’s Development Assistance to Nepal 10. Government of India provides

substantial financial and technical development assistance to Nepal, which is a
broad-based programme focusing on creation of infrastructure at the grass-root
level, under which various projects have been implemented in the areas of
infrastructure, health, water resources, education and rural & community
development.

In recent years, India has been assisting Nepal in development of border

infrastructure through upgradation of roads in the Terai areas; development of
cross-border rail links at Jogbani– Biratnagar, Jaynagar-Bardibas, Nepalgunj Road-
Nepalgunj, Nautanwa-Bhairhawa, and New Jalpaigudi-Kakarbhitta; and
establishment of Integrated Check Posts at Raxaul-Birgunj, Sunauli-Bhairhawa,
Jogbani-Biratnagar, and Nepalgunj Road-Nepalgunj. The total economic assistance
extended under ‘Aid to Nepal’ budget in FY 2014-15 was Rs. 300 crore

Currently, 36 intermediate and large projects such as construction of a National

Police Academy at Panauti, Nepal Bharat Maitri Pashupati Dharmashala at
Tilganga, a Polytechnic at Hetauda, and the National Trauma Centre at Kathmandu
are at various stages of implementation. In addition, Government of India’s Small
Development Projects (SDPs) programme in Nepal extends assistance for the
implementation of projects costing less than NRs 5 crore (approx.. INR 3.125
crore) in critical sectors such as health, education & community infrastructure
development.
So far, 243 SDPs have been completed and 233 are under various stages of
implementation in 75 districts of Nepal, with a total outlay of over Rs 550 crore.
Till date, India has gifted 502 ambulances and 98 school buses to various
institutions and health posts across Nepal’s 75 districts.
Apart from our grant assistance, Government of India has also extended three
Lines of Credit of USD 100 million, USD 250 million and USD 1 billion to
Government of Nepal in 2006- 2007, 2011-12 and 2013-14, respectively, for
undertaking infrastructure development projects. Education.

Over the years, India’s contribution to the development of human resources in

Nepal has been one of the major aspects of bilateral cooperation. GOI provides
around 3000 scholarships/seats annually to Nepali nationals for various courses at
the Ph.D/Masters, Bachelors and plus–two levels in India and in Nepal.

These scholarships cover a wide spectrum of subjects including engineering,

medicine, agriculture, pharmacology, veterinary sciences, computer application,
business administration, music, fine arts etc. Culture.

Government of India initiatives to promote people-to-people contacts in the area

of art & culture, academics and media include cultural programmes, symposia and
events organized in partnership with different local bodies of Nepal, as well as
conferences and seminars in Hindi. Familiarization visits to India by Nepalese
journalists/editors and short term training in India for Nepalese
editors/journalists/experts/officials in the field of print & electronic media and
archaeology are also arranged.

Assistance is also provided to several India-Nepal Friendship Organizations

working to promote Indian culture and India-Nepal bilateral relations. An MoU
between the Sahitya Kala Akademi (India) and the Nepal Academy is already in
operation. Four more MoUs have been signed between Doordarshan and Nepal
TV, Press Council of India and Press Council of Nepal, Lalit Kala Akademi, India
and Nepal Academy of Fine Arts, and an MoU on Youth Exchange between the
Governments of India and Nepal. MoUs between the Sangeet Natak Akademi,
India and the Nepal Academy of Music & Drama, and between Akashwani (AIR)
India and Radio Nepal are under consideration to promote cultural and information
exchanges between the two countries.

The Governments of India and Nepal have signed three sister-city agreements for
twinning of Kathmandu-Varanasi, LumbiniBodhgaya and Janakpur-Ayodhya.
India is establishing an E-library system across Nepal. The setting up of a Light &
Sound show at Lumbini with Indian assistance is under process. The
Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) is involved in the renovation of the
Pashupatinath Temple Complex in Kathmandu.

Two ASI teams have already visited Kathmandu to assess the work to be done for
conservation/restoration of the Pashupatinath shrine, for which an MoU is under
consideration. 15. An Indian Cultural Centre was set up in Nepal in August 2007 to
showcase the best of Indian culture not only in the capital city but in the areas
outside Kathmandu.

The Indian Cultural Centre in Kathmandu has generated considerable goodwill

through the various cultural events it has undertaken in the past. The Nepal–Bharat
Library was founded in 1951 in Kathmandu. It is regarded as the first foreign
library in Nepal. Its objective is to enhance and strengthen cultural relations and
information exchange between India and Nepal

The [Link] India-Nepal Foundation was set up in 1991 through a MoU signed
between the Governments of India and Nepal. The Foundation’s objective is to
foster educational, cultural, scientific and technical cooperation between India and
Nepal and to promote mutual understanding and cooperation through sharing of
knowledge and professional talents in academic pursuits and technical
specialization.

Around 6,00,000 Indians are living/domiciled in Nepal. These include

businessmen and traders who have been living in Nepal for a long time,
professionals (doctors, engineers, IT personnel) and labourers (including
seasonal/migratory in the construction sector). An Indian Citizens’ Association
(ICA) of Nepal was formed on 14 September 1990.
ICA is the only association of resident Indian citizens in Nepal with branches at
Pokhara, Damak and Bhairahawa, and provides a platform for discussion on
matters pertaining to the legitimate interest of resident Indians in Nepal and works
for the protection of such interests.

India - China Relations

In On 1 April, 1950, India became the first non-socialist bloc country to establish
diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China. Prime Minister Nehru
visited China in October 1954. While, the India-China border conflict in 1962 was
a serious setback to ties, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s landmark visit in 1988
began a phase of improvement in bilateral relations.

In 1993, the signing of an Agreement on the Maintenance of Peace and

Tranquility along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) on the India-China Border
Areas during Prime Minister Narasimha Rao’s visit reflected the growing stability
and substance in bilateral ties. Visits of Heads of States/Heads of Governments
Cumulative outcomes of nine key visits in recent times have been transformational
for our ties.

These were that of Prime Minister Vajpayee [2003], of Premier Wen Jiabao [2005
&2010], of President Hu Jintao [2006], of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh [2008
and 2013], of Premier Li Keqiang [2013], of President Xi Jinping [2014] and of
Prime Minister Narendra Modi [2015]. During Prime Minister Vajpayee’s visit, the
two sides signed a Declaration on Principles for Relations and Comprehensive
Cooperation and also mutually decided to appoint Special Representatives (SRs) to
explore the framework of a boundary settlement from the political perspective.

During the April 2005 visit of Premier Wen Jiabao, the two sides established a
Strategic and Cooperative Partnership for Peace and Prosperity, while the signing
of an agreement on Political Parameters and Guiding Principles, signaled the
successful conclusion of the first phase of SR Talks. During Chinese President Hu
Jintao’s visit to India in November 2006, the two sides issued a Joint Declaration
containing a ten-pronged strategy to intensify cooperation.
Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh visited China in January 2008. A joint
document titled "A Shared Vision for the 21st Century" was issued during the visit.
When Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao visited India in December 2010, the two sides
agreed to establish the mechanism of annual exchange of visit between the two
Foreign Ministers.

Mr. Li Keqiang, Premier of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China
paid a State visit to India (Delhi-Mumbai) from 19-21 May 2013. During this visit,
the two sides signed eight agreements and released a Joint Statement. Some of the
significant proposals included in the Joint Statement were the decisions to
designate 2014 as the Year of Friendly Exchanges between India and China and
hold the first High Level Media Forum.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi met with Premier Li Keqiang in November 2015
(on the sidelines of the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lampur). Former Prime Minister
Dr. Manmohan Singh paid an official visit to China from 22-24 October 2013.
Agreements relating to border, trans-border Rivers, establishing service centers for
servicing power equipment in India, road transport and Nalanda University were
signed.

Also signed were three agreements establishing sister-city partnership between

Delhi-Beijing, Kolkata Kunming and Bangalore-Chengdu. Vice-President Hon’ble
Shri Hamid Ansari paid a visit to China on 26-20 June 2014. During the visit the
Vice President met with President Xi Jinping, held talks with Vice President Liu
Yuanchao, attended events to mark the 60th anniversary of ‘Panchsheel’, and
visited Xian in Shaanxi Province. Three agreements related to industrial parks,
training of public officials, and exchange of flood season data on the
YarlungZangbu River were signed.

The two Vice-Presidents also jointly released the English and Chinese versions of
the Encyclopedia of India-China Cultural Contacts. Chinese President Mr. Xi
Jinping paid a state visit to India from 17 to 19 September 2014. During the visit,
President Xi Jinping met with President Pranab Mukherjee and held talks with Shri
Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India.

A total of 16 agreements were signed during the visit in various sectors including,
commerce & trade, railways, space-cooperation, pharmaceuticals, audiovisual co-
production, culture, establishment of industrial parks,sister-city arrangements etc.
The two sides also signed a MoU to open an additional route for Kailash
MansarovarYatra through Nathu La.

The Chinese side agreed to establish two Chinese Industrial Parks in India and
expressed their intention to enhance Chinese investment in India. Prime Minister’s
visit to China (May 2015) Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited China from May
14-16, the visit was rich in symbolism and substance and it opened up a new
chapter in India-China relations.

For the first time, Chinese President Xi Jinping travelled outside Beijing to receive
a foreign leader, in Xi’an in his home province of Shaanxi. President Xi also
accompanied Prime Minister to the Big Wild Goose Pagoda and organized a grand
welcome ceremony at the Xi’an city wall. Premier Li Keqiang joined Prime
Minister at the Yoga-Taichi performance in Beijing on 15 May with the world
heritage site of Temple of Heaven as the backdrop, the first ever such event, which
highlighted the cultural connectivity between the two countries.

There were 24 agreements signed on the government-to-government side, 26

MoUs on the business-to-business side and two joint statements, including one on
climate change. The fact that India and China could come up with over 50 outcome
documents in just eight months reveals the huge potential that exists between our
two countries, as well as the efforts that we have made to elevate our partnership.

The inter-governmental agreements covered, as Premier Li said, areas from the

heaven to the earth! They included such diverse fields as space cooperation,
earthquake engineering, ocean sciences, mining, railways, skill development,
education, culture, Yoga, tourism and many more. The strength of our economic
partnership could be gauged from the business events in Shanghai. Prime Minister
interacted with 21 CEOs of leading Chinese companies and over 40 prominent
Indian CEOs attended the Business Forum along with their counterparts from
China.

The 26 business understandings worth over US$ 22 billion signed at the Forum
covered such varied sectors as industrial parks, renewable energy, thermal energy,
telecommunication, steel, capital goods, IT and media. Besides, there was a clear
consensus among the leaders of the two countries on correcting the existing
imbalance in the bilateral trade and injecting sustainability into it.

With this in mind, they agreed to establish a high-powered task force that will go
into issues relating to the trade deficit as well as expansion of economic
engagement. There was, moreover, an action-oriented accord on broad-basing the
bilateral partnership, as could be seen from the range of agreements signed and in
the establishment of new dialogue mechanisms, such as the one between the DRC
and the NITI Aayog and the Think Tanks’ Forum, besides a bilateral consultative
mechanism on WTO negotiations.

Three new institutions were launched in partnership, the Centre for Gandhian and
Indian Studies in Shanghai, Yoga College in Kunming, and National Institute for
Skill Development and Entrepreneurship in Ahmedabad. Both sides decided to
establish new Consulates in each other’s country, in Chengdu and Chennai and to
expand our interactions at the sub-national level.

Two agreements signed – one on cooperation between the Indian Ministry of

External Affairs and the International Department of the Central Committee of the
CPC and another on the establishment of a State/Provincial Leaders’ Forum –
reflect this understanding. Prime Minister Modi and Premier Li addressed the
opening session of the new Forum in Beijing on 15 May, which is a significant
initiative, considering that this is the first time that India has established such a
dialogue mechanism with any country.

A number of sister-city and sister-state relations agreements between: Karnataka

and Sichuan, Chennai and Chongqing,Hyderabad and Qingdao, Aurangabad and
Dunhuang were also signed. Prime Minister also announced the extension of the e-
visa facility to Chinese nationals wishing to travel to India. Prime Minister
addressed university students at the Tsinghua University and also gave a speech at
the reception hosted by the Indian community in Shanghai, the largest ever
gathering of the community in the region.

The visit also went on to deliver a message to the international community on

cooperation between India and China. There was agreement among the leaders that
our relationship is poised to play a defining role in the 21st century in Asia and
beyond, with the recognition that the simultaneous reemergence of India and China
as two major powers would have a profound impact on the course of this century.

The Joint Statement has a separate section on “shaping the regional and global
agenda” where India and China, as two major poles in the global architecture,
agree to cooperate on a host of issues ranging from WTO, climate change and
terrorism to regional organizations. Other recent high level visits Hon’ble Home
Minister of India Sh. Rajnath Singh visited China from 18-23 November, 2015 and
met with Minister of Public Security of China.

Hon’ble External Affairs Minister, Smt. Sushma Swaraj met Foreign Minister
Wang Yi in June 2015 (on the sidelines of the international donors’ conference in
Kathmandu). External Affairs Minister, Smt. Sushma Swaraj paid an official visit
to the People’s Republic of China from 1-3 February 2015 during which she met
with Chinese President Xi Jinping, had formal talks with Foreign Minister Wang
Yi and also had a meeting with Mr. Wang Jiarui, Minister of the International
Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China.

External Affairs Minister also inaugurated the 2nd India-China High-Level Media
Forum and attended the launch of Visit India Year during her stay in Beijing. On 2
February, EAM also participated in the 13th Foreign Ministers’ Meeting of Russia-
India-China Trilateral. Hon’ble Minister for Environment and Forest Sh.
ParakshJavdekar visited China in October 2015 to attend the 21st BASIC
Ministerial Meeting on Climate Change. Hon’ble Minister of State for External
Affairs Gen. (Dr.) [Link] (Retd.) visited China in September, 2015 and met
with Foreign Minister Wang Yi and he also attended the SCO HOG Meeting in
Zhengzhou on 14th December, 2015.
The 18th round of talks between the Special Representatives of India and China on
the Boundary Question, Shri Ajit Doval, National Security Advisor and Mr. Yang
Jiechi, State Councillor was held in New Delhi on 23 March, 2015. Both Sides
agreed to take necessary steps to maintain peace and tranquility in the border areas
which is a pre-requisite for continued growth of bilateral relations. The two sides
agreed to build on the momentum provided by President Xi’s visit to further
expand bilateral relations in areas such as railways, smart cities, vocational
education, skill development, clean and renewable energy and manufacturing
sector.

Both sides agreed that growing linkages between Indian States and Chinese
Provinces through sister-city and sisterprovince mechanism plays an important role
in deepening bilateral ties. The two sides exchanged views on regional and global
issues of mutual interest and agreed to enhance their consultations on counter-
terrorism, maritime security, climate change, reform of United Nations and civil
nuclear energy cooperation.

To facilitate high level exchanges of Party leaders from China and State Chief
Ministers from India, a special arrangement has been entered into by the
International Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of
China and the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA-ILD) since 2004. There are
regular Party-to-Party exchanges between the Communist Party of China and
political parties in India.

Commercial and Economic Relations Trade and economic relationship has seen
rapid progress in the last few years. India-China bilateral trade which was as low as
US$ 2.92 billion in 2000 reached US$ 41.85 billion in 2008, making China India’s
largest trading partner in goods. By 2015, as per DGC&IS provisional data India-
China bilateral trade stood at US$ 70.4 billion. India’s exports to China touched
US$ 8.86 billion whereas China’s exports were US$ 61.54 billion.

However, India still faces a growing trade deficit vis-a-vis China. In 2015 trade
deficit stood at US$ 52.67 billion. Apart from trade, India is also one of the largest
markets for project exports from China. Currently, projects under execution are
estimated at over US$ 63 billion. As per Chinese figures, cumulative Chinese
investments into India till December 2014 stood at US$ 2.763 billion while Indian
investments into China were US$ 0.564 billion.

Commercial and Economic Relations Trade and economic relationship has seen
rapid progress in the last few years. India-China bilateral trade which was as low as
US$ 2.92 billion in 2000 reached US$ 41.85 billion in 2008, making China India’s
largest trading partner in goods. By 2015, as per DGC&IS provisional data India-
China bilateral trade stood at US$ 70.4 billion. India’s exports to China touched
US$ 8.86 billion whereas China’s exports were US$ 61.54 billion. However, India
still faces a growing trade deficit vis-a-vis China.

In 2015 trade deficit stood at US$ 52.67 billion. Apart from trade, India is also one
of the largest markets for project exports from China. Currently, projects under
execution are estimated at over US$ 63 billion. As per Chinese figures, cumulative
Chinese investments into India till December 2014 stood at US$ 2.763 billion
while Indian investments into China were US$ 0.564 billion. Cultural Relations
India and China are not mere societies; they are civilizations.

We do not know exactly when and how they started exchanging their cultural
elements, but we do know that they grew in parallel and shared their cultural traits
since the beginning of human history and this tradition of sharing has continued
ever since. Even before the advent of Buddhism, the Shang-Zhou civilization and
the ancient Vedic civilization in 1500-1000 B.C. showed some evidence of
conceptual and linguistic exchanges. For instance,"wumingzhi" (nameless finger)
in Chinese is called "anamika" (nameless) in Sanskrit and in Pali. Similarly, some
ancient Indian literature mentions "chinas" referring to the Chinese people.

The Mahabharata of the fifth century B.C. contains reference to China. Chanakya
of the Maurya dynasty (350-283 B.C.) refers to Chinese silk as "chinamsuka"
(Chinese silk dress) and "chinapatta" (Chinese silk bundle) in his Arthashastra.
Likewise, the Record of the Grand Historian of Zhang Qian and Sima Qian has
references to "Shendu", may be referring to “Sindhu” in Sanskrit. In sixth century
B.C., the birth of Confucius and Sakyamuni heralded a new period of exchanges
between the two civilizations. Emperor Ashoka’s propagation of Buddhism after
his conversion in 256 B.C. brought both civilizations even closer.

Ashoka’s bilingual (Kharoshti and Greek) edict points at extension of Buddhism in

the direction of China and Central Asia. The trend continued in first century A.D.
during emperor Kanishka’s period. His empire, with its capital at Purushpura (now
Peshawar in Pakistan), enabled Buddhist pilgrims and scholars to travel on the
historic “silk route”.KashyapaMatanga and Dharmaratna made the White Horse
monastery at Luoyang their abode. Along the silk route, Khotan Turpan and Kucha
became prominent centers of Buddhism and India-China exchanges. The great
scholar Kumarajiva initiated efforts to collect and translate important Buddhist
texts at a great Buddhist conclave in Chang’an (present Xi’an) where he stayed
until his death in 413 A.D. and managed to have 98 major Buddhist canonical
works translated into Chinese. He is widely believed to be responsible for bringing
in Mahayana Buddhism and Madhyamika doctrine into Chinese philosophy.

In the beginning of the fifth century A.D., Dharmakshema, an Indian Buddhist

scholar came to China bringing with him the “Mahaparinirvana Sutra” which was
translated into Chinese about the year 415 A.D. Meanwhile, the Chinese Pilgrim
Fa Hein visited India along the Silk Route in 405 A.D. Batuo (464-495 A.D.) and
Bodhidharma visited China; Xuan Zhang (604A.D.) and I Ching were students at
the prestigious Nalanda University.

All along, there is ample evidence of India-China cultural, commercial and

technological exchange. Both civilizations also shared scientific knowledge. In
eighth century, Indian astronomer Aryabhata's astronomical signs were translated
into Chinese in the book "KaiyuanZhanjing" compiled by Gautama Siddha, an
astronomer in Chang'an of Indian descent. It is also believed that he translated the
Nabagraha calendar into Chinese. During the Ming Dynasty, navigator General
Zheng He’s arrival at Calicut in early 15th century is also a testimony of China’s
ancient maritime linkage with India.

Exchanges between India and China continued during the days of India’s struggle
for selfgovernance. In early 20th century, Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore
visited China twice, in 1924 and in 1929. Since 1911, Chinese scholars and
intellectuals have been visiting and revisiting Tagore’s life, works and philosophy.
Dr. Dwarkanath Kotnis sacrificed his life in the service of the Chinese people
during the Sino-Japanese war. His mortal remains rest in the North China Martyrs'
Memorial Cemetery in Hebei Province. A part of a 1938 medical team comprising
five Indian doctors, he stayed in China working in mobile clinics to treat wounded
soldiers. He was eventually appointed as Director of the Doctor Bethune
International Peace Hospital built by the Eighth Route Army. On 2nd July 2015,
[Link] Kotnis, the sister of Dr. Kotnis, passed away. Both India and China
began their journey of independent governance almost at the same time, India in
1947 and the People’s Republic of China in 1949. In 1955, the first Indian cultural
delegation headed by then Deputy Minister of External Affairs Mr. A. K. Chanda
visited China which was warmly received by the Chinese leaders and people
during their tour.

In the 1960s and 1970s Bollywood movies such as Do BighaZameen, Awara and
Sree 420 of Raj Kapoor and Noorie struck an emotional chord in the hearts and
minds of the Chinese people. Even today, people on the street hum the tunes of the
songs of these films. Movies like ‘pk’ , 3 Idiots and The Life of Pi have been well
received in recent times.

Since 1988 both countries are bringing their people together through structured
Cultural Exchange Programmes. The latest CEP signed in October 2013 during the
visit of then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s to China, provides for cooperation
in a gamut of cultural fields including exchanges of visits of performing artists,
officials, writers, archivists and archaeologists, organizing cultural festivals, film
festivals and exchanges in the field of mass media, youth affairs and sports. In
2003, Prime Minister Vajpayee had committed to build an Indian style Buddhist
temple in Luoyang, Henan province and President Pratibha Devisingh Patil
inaugurated the temple during her visit to China in May 2010.

In February 2007, the Xuanzang memorial was inaugurated at Nalanda. In June

2008, joint stamps were released, one stamp depicting the Mahabodhi temple at
Bodhgaya and the other depicting the White Horse temple at Luoyang. A Centre
for Indian studies was set up in Peking University in 2003. Chairs of Indian
Studies/Hindi have also been established in Shenzhen University, Jinan University,
Fudan University, Guangdong University and in Shanghai International Studies
University.

The 60th anniversary of the establishment of IndiaChina diplomatic relations was

celebrated with much fanfare in both countries in 2010. Exchange of Youth
delegation between Indian and China has been continuing since 2007. During the
visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao to India in November 2006, the two sides had
agreed to launch a five year programme for mutual exchange of youth delegation.
In this context, the China had invited five hundred youth from India over the next
five years. Later, during the visit Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao to India in
December 2010, the two sides agreed to continue youth exchange activities in next
five years. Reciprocal visits were also paid by the Chinese side each year.

During the visit of President Xi to India in September 2014 the two sides
recognizing the significance of youth exchanges in increasing mutual
understanding, the two sides agreed to continue with the annual exchange of 200
youth from 2015 to 2019. During the visit of Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh
and Premier Li Keqiang in 2013 the leaders designated 2014 as the Year of
Friendly Exchanges between India and China.

To mark this special year, Glimpses of India Festival was organized across several
cities of China through 2014 showcasing Indian performing arts, exhibitions of
modern Indian arts, depictions of Buddhism links between the two countries, food
and film festivals.

As part of the festival Kalashetra, Kathak Kendra Troupe, Sangeet Natak Akademi
and a Bollywood Troupe from Indian Council for Cultural Relations visited China.
SangeetNatakAkademi performed at the Reception Marking the 60th Anniversary
of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence at the Great Hall of People. Food
Festivals were also organised in cities like Beijing, Qingdao, Shanghai, Hong
Kong to give the local people a taste of authentic Indian cuisine. Yoga Festivals
were organized in the month of July, 2014 in Beijing, Shanghai and Dali in
partnership with Department of AYUSH, Government of India.
 Buddhist Art Exhibitions were organized in cities like Hong Kong, Shanghai and
Chengdu. Indian Film Festivals were also organized in cities like Beijing,
Hangzhou, Guangzhou, Qingdao, Hong Kong and Xi’an in partnership with
Ministry of Information & Broadcasting. During the visit of Chinese Premier Wen
Jiabao to India in December 2010, the leaders of India and China agreed on a
project involving compilation of an Encyclopedia of India-China Cultural
Contacts.

The Encyclopedia of India-China Cultural Contacts was released in both English

and Chinese versions during Hon’ble Vice President of India’s visit to China on
June 30, 2014 in Beijing. The Encyclopedia features over 700 entries,
encapsulating the rich history of contacts and exchanges between the two countries
in the trade, economic, literary, cultural and philosophical spheres. Prime Minister
Narendra Modi paid a three day state visit to China from May 14th to 16th 2015.
Prior to the visit, Prime Minister launched his own ‘Weibo’ handle to connect with
the Chinese people.

The details of the visit were first shared with the public via this Weibo handle, and
the handle has since become immensely popular among Chinese netizens. The
Prime Minister’s visit was rich in symbolism, reflecting the growing closeness
between India and China. For the first time, President Xi Jinping travelled outside
Beijing to receive a foreign leader in Xi’an, in his home province of Shaanxi.

President Xi also accompanied Prime Minister to the Big Wild Goose Pagoda –
itself a symbol of the shared legacy of our two great civilizations – and organized a
grand welcome ceremony at the Xi’an city wall. Premier Li Keqiang joined Prime
Minister at the YogaTaichi performance with the world heritage site of Temple of
Heaven as the backdrop, the first ever such event, which highlighted the cultural
connectivity between the two countries.

The two leaders even clicked a ‘selfie’ which went viral with over 33 million hits
on the Weibo. There were 24 agreements signed on the government-to-government
side, 26 MoUs on the business-to-business side and two joint statements, including
one on climate change Expanding people-to-people exchanges and cultural
contacts figured as a major theme of the visit. Prime Minister’s visit to the Great
Wild Goose Pagoda, joined by President Xi, and his attendance at the Yoga-Taichi
event along with Premier Li exemplified the importance that our leaders attach to
tapping the shared cultural heritage. Moreover, three new institutions: the Centre
for Gandhian and Indian Studies in Shanghai, Yoga College in Kunming, and
National Institute for Skill Development and Entrepreneurship in Ahmedabad were
launched.

On December 11, 2014, the 193 member UNGA approved by consensus with a
record 177 co-sponsoring countries including China a resolution to establish 21st
June as "International Day of Yoga". In its resolution, the UNGA recognized that
Yoga provides a holistic approach to health and well-being and wider
dissemination of information about the benefits of practicing Yoga for the health of
the world population. Embassy of India Beijing and Consulates at Shanghai,
Guangzhou and Hong Kong celebrated the First International Day of Yoga today
on 21st June, 2015 in China.

The event was celebrated in more than 14 cities of China including Beijing,
Shanghai, Tianjin, Qingdao, Hong Kong, Macau, Guangzhou, Chengdu, Kunming,
Xiamen, Wuxi, Hangzhou, Wenzhou and Changzhou in which thousands of people
participated [Link] Chinese celebrities including musician Ms.
SiqinGaoli, actors Mr. Wang Baoqiang, Mr. Du Yiheng, and snooker champion
Mr. Ding Junhui gave personal video endorsement messages, congratulating on the
occasion of International Day of Yoga and inviting people to participate in the
event. On 23rd October 2015, an Indian modern art exhibition titled’ The Eye and
the Mind’ was inaugurated at Beijing Minsheng Art Museum.

This two month long exhibition has been curated by Mr. Rajeev Lochan, Director,
National Gallery of Modern Art and comprises a number of exhibits by well-
known artists in contemporary Indian art. ‘India Culture Week’ was organized
from 4th November 2015 in Shanghai as part of the ‘Shanghai International Arts
Festival.’

This cultural fiesta comprised ‘Bollywood Love Story’ musical, ‘Sari’ Dance
composition by Daksha Sheth Company, folk music by Rajasthan Josh and the
exhibition ’Forms of Devotion.’ India Culture Week provided glimpses of the
multi-faceted cultural traditions of India and encouraged greater understanding of
India among Chinese people. Both India and China have vibrant cultures and
vibrant people. Buddhism, Xuan Zhang, Tagore, Dr. Kotnis, Nalanda, Yoga and
Cinema are only symbols of our long tradition of exchanges. They are testimonies
of our shared heritage. The momentum has been set and the pace can only increase
in the 21st century.

The Indian community in the consular jurisdiction of the Mission is growing.

Present estimates put the community strength within this Mission’s jurisdiction to
around 21,000. A major part of this comprises of students (around 7500), who are
pursuing courses in various universities in China. A number of Indians and PIOs
are also working as professionals with various multinational and Indian companies.
The Mission maintains regular contact with the Indian community directly as well
as through the “Indian Community in Beijing “, which is an association of Indians
and PIOs based in Beijing. Since its formation in 1999, ICB has been acting as a
platform for Indian nationals and PIOs for get-togethers and organizing events
during Independence Day, Diwali as well as an annual Indian Bazaar.

The Mission regularly organizes annual community events to maintain contact

with the community. The Mission has been encouraging Indian nationals in China
to register online through the facility provided in the embassy website. As of now
more than 1200 persons have registered with the Embassy. Education Relations
India and China signed Education Exchange Programme (EEP) in 2006, which is
an umbrella agreement for educational cooperation between the two countries.

Under this agreement, government scholarships are awarded to 25 students, by

both sides, in recognized institutions of higher learning in each other’s country.
The 25 scholarships awarded by India are offered by Indian Council for Cultural
Relations (ICCR). A revised EEP was signed during the visit of Hon’ble Prime
Minister Sh. Narendra Modi to China in May 2015.

The same provides for enhanced cooperation between institutions in the field of
vocational education; collaboration between Institutes of higher learning, etc.
Apart from this, Chinese students are also annually awarded scholarships to study
Hindi at the Kendriya Hindi Sansthan, Agra to learn Hindi. For the year 2015-16, 8
Chinese students have been selected to study in Agra under this scheme. In 2010, it
was decided to introduce Mandarin Chinese as a foreign language in the Central
Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) syllabus.

A Memorandum of Understanding was signed in August 2012, between Central

CBSE and Confucius Institute, where both signatories agreed to exchange
academic staff, teachers and trainees as well as exchange information on the
system and structure of teaching Mandarin Chinese as a second language in
schools in India. As a part of this MoU, the first batch of 22 Chinese teachers
taught in select CBSE schools for two years, from January 2014 to January 2016.
The cooperation in the education sector between the two sides has resulted in an
increase in the number of Indian students in China. As for academic year 2014-
2015, there were 12998 Indian students studying in various Universities in China
in various disciplines. Similarly, around 2000 Chinese students are studying in
various educational institutions in India.

India-Pakistan Relations

India desires peaceful, friendly and cooperative relations with Pakistan, which
require an environment free from violence and terrorism. In April 2010, during the
meeting between Prime Minister and then Pak PM Gilani on the margins of the
SAARC Summit (Thimpu) PM spoke about India's willingness to resolve all
outstanding issues through bilateral dialogue.
Follow up meetings were held by the two Foreign Ministers (Islamabad, July
2010), and the two Foreign Secretaries (Thimphu, February 2011). During the
latter meeting it was formally agreed to resume dialogue on all issues:
(i) Counter-terrorism (including progress on Mumbai trial) and
Humanitarian issues at Home Secretary level;
(ii) Peace & Security, including CBMs,
(iii) Jammu & Kashmir, and
(iv) promotion of friendly exchanges at the level of Foreign Secretaries;
(v) Siachen at Defence Secretary-level;
(vi) Economic issues at Commerce Secretary level;
(vii) Tulbul Navigation Project/ Wullar Barrage at Water Resources Secretary-
level; and
(viii) Sir Creek (at the level of Surveyors General/ Additional Secretary).

Since then several efforts have been made by the two countries to enhance
people-to-people contacts. Cross-LoC travel and trade across J&K, initiated in
2005 and 2008 respectively, is an important step in this direction. Further, India
and Pakistan signed a new visa agreement in September 2012 during the visit of
then External Affairs Minister to Pakistan.

This agreement has led to liberalization of bilateral visa regime. Two rounds of
the resumed dialogue have been completed; the third round began in September
2012, when the Commerce Secretaries met in Islamabad. Talks on conventional
and non-conventional CBMs were held in the third round in December 2012 in
New Delhi. A meeting of the Working Group on Cross-LoC (Line of Control)
trade and travel CBMs was held in New Delhi on March 4, 2014 in which
issues including strengthening of standard operating procedures were discussed.
Pakistan's PML (N) party received a strong mandate in the elections held on 11
May 2013 which allowed its leader Mian Nawaz Sharif to form a new
Government.

In his letter of congratulations (May 12), Prime Minister expressed desire to

work with the new Pakistan government "to chart a new course" in bilateral
ties. PM's Special Envoy Ambassador S.K. Lambah met Nawaz Sharif on 27
May 2013 in Lahore to personally convey PM's message even before the latter
formally assumed office - a gesture that was appreciated by the new Pakistan
PM. Ambassador Shahryar Khan also visited India (4-6 July) as PM Nawaz
Sharif's Special Envoy and met PM (5 July); during the meeting he also handed
over a personal letter from Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to PM.

Following the dastardly attack on 6 Aug 2013 in which five Indian jawans were
killed along the LOC with the involvement of Pak army, India called upon
Pakistan to maintain ceasefire and uphold the sanctity of LOC, which is the
most important Confidence Building Measure between the two countries and,
together with Pakistan's assurance not to allow territory under its control to be
used for anti-India activities, which formed the basis of bilateral dialogue.

It was conveyed that such unprovoked incidents on LOC by the Pak Army
would have consequences for our bilateral ties. In their meeting on the margins
of the UN General Assembly on September 29, 2013 in New York, Prime
Minister and PM Nawaz Sharif agreed that the precondition for a forward
movement in the relationship, which they both desired, was an improvement of
the situation on the LoC where there had been repeated ceasefire violations and
incidents. They decided to task the Directors General of Military Operations
(DGMOs) to suggest effective means to restore the ceasefire and a way forward
to ensure that that remains in force and in place.

The meeting of the DGMOs took place at Wagah on December 24, 2013.
Terrorism Terrorism emanating from territory under Pakistan's control remains
a core concern in bilateral relations. This is precisely why India has sought a
firm and abiding commitment from Pakistan that it will not allow its territory
and territory under its control to be used for the aiding and abetting of terrorist
activity directed against India and for providing sanctuary to such terrorist
groups. India has consistently stressed to its interlocutors the need for Pakistan
to fulfill is oft-repeated assurances, given to us at the highest level, that territory
under its control would not be allowed to be used for antiIndia activities in any
manner.

It is critical for the security of the region that Pakistan undertakes determined
action to dismantle the terrorist networks, organizations and infrastructure
within its own territory. However, internationally sanctioned entities such as
Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) continue to function in Pakistan under various aliases.
LeT's leader Hafiz Saeed and his followers also continue to incite violence
against India.

Moreover, in the recent months, key terrorists such as Masood Azhar and
fugitives from Indian law have resurfaced in Pakistan. Progress in the ongoing
Mumbai terror attack case in Pakistan is seen as an important marker of
Pakistan's commitment to combat terrorism emanating from its soil. The trial of
seven persons in an Anti Terrorism Court (ATC) for their involvement in the
2008 Mumbai terror attacks has however proceeded at a glacial pace.

The trial has been subject to repeated adjournments, non-appearances of

lawyers, and frequent changes of prosecution lawyers and judges. A Pak
Judicial Commission undertook its second visit to India in September 2013 and
cross-examined key prosecution witnesses. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif told
PM in New York on September 29, 2013 that effective action on bringing the
perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks to book was indeed Pakistan's intention, and
now that the Judicial Commission had returned to Pakistan after gathering
depositions and evidence in India, there would be further progress.

Hearings in the case, however, continue to be disrupted for one reason or

another. Economic Ties Formally accounted India-Pakistan bilateral trade in
2012-13 was US$2.6 billion (Indian exports to Pakistan were US$2.064 bn and
imports from Pakistan US$ 541 million). Pakistan exports to India crossed $500
million mark for the first time during this period. [Trade through third countries
is variously estimated at US$ 3.5-4 billion]. Main items of export from India to
Pakistan are: cotton, organic chemicals, food products including prepared
animal fodder, vegetables, plastic articles, man-made filament, coffee, tea and
spices, dyes, oil seeds and olea, etc. Main items of import by India from
Pakistan are: copper and copper articles, fruits and nuts, cotton, salt, sulphur
and earths and stones, organic chemicals, mineral fuels, rubber plastic products,
wool, etc.

MFN Status India had accorded MFN status to Pakistan in 1996. A cabinet
decision of November 2011 by Pakistan to reciprocate remains unimplemented.
Pakistan, however, substituted in March 2012 a 'positive list' of a little more
than 1950 lines, permitted for import from India, by a 'Negative List' of 1209
lines which cannot be imported from India.

In August 2012, India announced reduction of 30% in its SAFTA Sensitive List
for non-Least Developed Countries, bringing down tariff on 264 items to 5%
within a period of three years. This measure benefited Pakistan's exports to
India in sectors of key interest to Pakistan. During the Commerce Secretary-
level talks September 20-21, 2012 in Islamabad, a roadmap was established to
move forward for full normalization of bilateral trade.

However, in the absence of the first step of the road map, viz, Pakistan
permitting all importable items through Wagah/ Attari land route (as against
current only 137), the roadmap remained unimplemented. In their meeting in
New Delhi on January 18, 2014, Commerce Ministers of India and Pakistan
reaffirmed the commitment to expedite establishment of normal trading
relations and in this context to provide Non-Discriminatory Market Access
(NDMA), on a reciprocal basis.

They decided to intensify and accelerate the process of trade normalisation,

liberalization and facilitation and to implement the agreed measures before the
end of February 2014. Implementation of these steps, inter alia, removal of
'Negative List' and removal of restrictions on the number of importable items
via Wagah land route by Government of Pakistan is awaited.

Trade Agreements With a view to build confidence of the business community

on both sides, representatives of various trade regulatory bodies of India held
meetings over 2011-12 with representatives of leading chambers of commerce
and industry of Pakistan to discuss matters pertaining to trade regulations,
standards, labeling and marking requirements.

Three agreements, viz., Customs Cooperation Agreement, Mutual Recognition

Agreement and Redressal of Trade Grievances Agreement, were signed during
the Commerce Secretaries' talks on September 21, 2012. Trade Infrastructure
The then Home Minister of India, in the presence of, among others, the
Commerce Ministers of India and Pakistan, and the Chief Ministers of the states
of Punjab of the two countries inaugurated the Integrated Check Post (ICP) at
Attari on April 13, 2012.

The Attari ICP represents vastly improved infrastructure to facilitate trade and
travel. Spread over 118 acres, it contains a passenger terminal measuring 9,600
sq mts, a dedicated cargo terminal measuring 4,700 sq mts, and separate import
and export warehouses measuring over 10,000 sq mts, apart from over 50,000
sq mts of parking space for trucks, and equally large area for future expansion.

The two sides have discussed initiatives such as 24x7 operation at Attari-Wagah
trade route, movement of containers between Amritsar and Lahore and meeting
point for business persons at Attari/ Wagah. Various segments in Pakistan have
spoken in favour of opening more land trade routes with India, including
Munabao-Khokhrapar.
A Joint Working Group has been established to look into this. Other Economic
Initiatives In response to a request made by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif for
assistance to tackle power crisis in Pakistan, the possibility of supplying upto 5
million cubic meters gas per day (by extending the Dadri-Bawana-Nangal
pipeline from Jalandhar via Amritsar to Lahore), and establishing a 500 MW
HVDC link from Amritsar to Lahore to facilitate power trading were explored.

A composite Indian delegation comprising officials and public sector

representatives from electricity and gas utilities visited Lahore and Islamabad
on June 9-12, 2013 to hold discussions at technical level and made
presentations to the Chief Minister of Punjab and Member of Prime Minister's
Energy Committee Shehbaz Sharif, Minister for Water and Power Khawaja
Asif and Minister for Petroleum and Natural Resources Shahid Khaqan Abbasi.

After a hiatus of a few months since July/ August 2013, when visit of a
delegation from Pakistan to India for follow up was expected, further talks were
held in Delhi on March 5, 2014 on trade in power, and on April 1, 2014 on
cooperation in gas and petroleum sector. Pakistan welcomed India's decision to
allow investment from Pakistan (notified by the Government of India on August
1, 2012). The decision to allow investment from Pakistan in shares and
convertible debentures was notified by RBI on August 22, 2012. In September
2012, RBI removed restriction on investment in Pakistan from India. Business
Exchanges a strong tradition of exchange of trade delegations has also been
built up over the last two years.

The first meeting of the newly created Joint Business Council (JBC)/ Forum,
comprising 15 top level business representatives from each country was, held in
Islamabad on 29 June 2013. The JBC decided to form ten task forces to
examine the priority areas of economic cooperation in agriculture,
pharmaceuticals, automobiles and healthcare.

Its second and third meetings were held in New Delhi and Lahore, respectively
in October 2013 and February 2014. Among business-to-business exchanges
since April 2012 are participation of a CII-organised high level business
delegation in the 2nd Indo-Pak Aman ki Asha Economic Conference
'Dividends: Profits on Peace' in Lahore on 7-8 May 2012, Bombay Chamber of
Commerce and Industry in 'My Karachi' exhibition in Karachi from 13-15 July
2012, 'India Expo' in Karachi in 2013, the second edition of 'India Show' in
Lahore (February 14-16, 2014) - which was inaugurated by Federal Minister for
Commerce of Pakistan Khurram Dastgir Khan, 'Made in Pakistan' Exhibition
mounted by the Federation of Pakistan Chambers of Commerce and Industry in
Mumbai from August 31-September 4, 2012, and again from April 3-7, 2014,
participation of Pakistan in Indian International Trade Fair in November 2012
and 2013, and in a number of other trade exhibitions and events, including those
arranged by the PHD Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Chandigarh,
Ludhiana, Delhi, etc.

The next edition of 'Lifestyle Pakistan' is being planned. Humanitarian Issues A

joint 'Judicial Committee on Prisoners' comprising retired Judges from the
higher judiciary of both countries looks into humanitarian issues related to
prisoners and fishermen in each other's jails, which it visits alternatingly twice a
year. Its last visit to India was in October 2013.

The Committee's recommendations on better consular access, expeditious trial,

provision of legal aid, humanitarian treatment, early repatriation after
completion of sentences, and repatriation of fishermen along with their boats,
are examined for implementation by the government on both sides. As a result
of constant efforts by the Government, release of close to 2,000 Indian
fishermen and 100 prisoners has been secured from Pakistani prisons since
2008. At present, there are over 300 fishermen and estimated over 200 prisoners
believed to be Indian in Pakistani jails. Some of them have completed their
sentences and await release. Since 2008, deaths of eight Indian fishermen and 3
prisoners while in custody of Pakistani authorities have been reported, with a
few of these known or believed to have resulted from unnatural causes. The
matter of reported auctions of confiscated boats of apprehended Indian
fishermen has been taken up with concerned Pakistani authorities.

India - Sri Lanka Relations

The relationship between India and Sri Lanka is more than 2,500 years old.
Both countries have a legacy of intellectual, cultural, religious and linguistic
interaction. In recent years, the relationship has been marked by close contacts
at all levels. Trade and investment have grown and there is cooperation in the
fields of development, education, culture and defence. Both countries share a
broad understanding on major issues of international interest.

In recent years, significant progress in implementation of developmental

assistance projects for Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) and disadvantaged
sections of the population in Sri Lanka has helped further cement the bonds of
friendship between the two countries. The nearly three-decade long armed
conflict between Sri Lankan forces and the LTTE came to an end in May 2009.

During the course of the conflict, India supported the right of the Government
of Sri Lanka to act against terrorist forces. At the same time, it conveyed its
deep concern at the plight of the mostly Tamil civilian population, emphasizing
that their rights and welfare should not get enmeshed in hostilities against the
LTTE. The need for national reconciliation through a political settlement of the
ethnic issue has been reiterated by India at the highest levels.

India's consistent position is in favour of a negotiated political settlement,

which is acceptable to all communities within the framework of a united Sri
Lanka and which is consistent with democracy, pluralism and respect for
human rights. Political Relations President Maithripala Sirisena was elected as
the new President of Sri Lanka in the presidential election held on 8 January,
2015. He succeeded former President Mahinda Rajapaksa. Following
parliamentary elections on 17 August 2015, Mr. Ranil Wickremesinghe was
reappointed as the Prime Minister by President Sirisena on 21 August 2015.
Political relations between the two countries have been marked by high-level
exchanges of visits at regular intervals.

From Sri Lanka, President Sirisena visited India on a four-day starting 15

February 2015. Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe visited India in
September 2015, his first overseas visit after being appointed as Prime Minister.
President Sirisena and Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi also met on the
margins of 70th session of UNGA in New York in September 2015 and at the
COP21 meeting in Paris in November 2015. Sri Lankan Foreign Minister
Mangala Samaraweera visited New Delhi in January 2015 on his first overseas
official visit. Former Sri Lankan President Chandrika Bandaranaike
Kumaratunga visited New Delhi in September 2015 to attend the “Samvad-
Global Hindu Buddhist Initiative on Conflict Avoidance and Environment
Consciousness” organized by Vivekananda International Foundation.

The Sri Lankan Air Force Commander visited India from 27-31 July 2015.
Earlier, the Sri Lankan Navy Commander visited Goa in May 2015 to
participate in the keel laying ceremony of the 2nd Offshore Patrol Vessel being
constructed for Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan Defence Secretary Mr. Karunasena
Hettiarachchi led a delegation to India for the 3rd Annual Defence Dialogue
which was held in New Delhi in September 2015 at the Defence Secretary
level.

From India, Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi visited Sri Lanka on 13-14
March, 2015. He also travelled to Anuradhapura, Talaimannar, and Jaffna.
External Affairs Minister Smt. Sushma Swaraj was in Colombo on 6-7 March
to prepare for Prime Minister’s visit. Former President Dr. Abdul Kalam visited
Sri Lanka from 25-27 June 2015 to participate in the “International Energy
Symposium titled Energy Challenges in the Knowledge Economy”.

The then External Affairs Minister of India Shri Salman Khurshid, visited Sri
Lanka in October and in November 2013. External Affairs Minister Ms.
Sushma Swaraj led a 12-member Parliamentary delegation to Sri Lanka from in
April 2012 as the then Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha. Chief of Naval
Staff Admiral R. K. Dhowan visited Sri Lanka on 22-25 November 2015 to
participate in the annual International Maritime Conference ‘Galle Dialogue’,
while Chief of Army Staff General Dalbir Singh Suhag visited Sri Lanka from
29 November - 4 December 2015. Commerce Secretary Shri Rajeev Kher
visited Sri Lanka on March 4, 2015 for the third round of Commerce Secretary
level interactions.

Commercial Relations Sri Lanka has long been a priority destination for direct
investment from India. Sri Lanka is one of India’s largest trading partner in
SAARC. India in turn is Sri Lanka’s largest trade partner globally. Trade
between the two countries grew particularly rapidly after the entry into force of
the India-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement in March 2000.
According to Sri Lankan Customs, bilateral trade in 2015 amounted to US $ 4.7
billion. Exports from India to Sri Lanka in 2015 were US$ 4.1 billion (up by
2.1%), while exports from Sri Lanka to India were US$ 645 million (up by
3.2%). India is among the top four investors in Sri Lanka with cumulative
investments of over US$ 1 billion since 2003.

The investments are in diverse areas including petroleum retail, IT, financial
services, real estate, telecommunication, hospitality & tourism, banking and
food processing (tea & fruit juices), metal industries, tires, cement, glass
manufacturing, and infrastructure development (railway, power, water supply).
A number of new investments from Indian companies are in the pipeline or
under implementation.

Notable among them are proposals of Shree Renuka Sugar to set up a sugar
refining plant at Hambantota (US $ 220 million), South City, Kolkota for real
estate development in Colombo (US $ 400 million), Tata Housing Slave Island
Development project along with Urban Development Authority of Sri Lanka
(US $ 430 million), ‘Colombo One’ project of ITC Ltd. (ITC has committed an
investment of US$ 300 million, augmenting the earlier committed US 140
million). Dabur has already set up a fruit juice manufacturing plant (US$ 17
million) in May 2013.

On the other hand, the last few years have also witnessed an increasing trend of
Sri Lankan investments into India. Significant examples include Brandix (about
US$ 1 billion to set up a garment city in Vishakapatnam), MAS holdings, John
Keels, Hayleys, and Aitken Spence (Hotels), apart from other investments in
the freight servicing and logistics sector. Developmental Cooperation The
conclusion of the armed conflict saw the emergence of a major humanitarian
challenge, with nearly 300,000 Tamil civilians housed in camps for Internally
Displaced Persons (IDPs). The Government of India put in place a robust
programme of assistance to help the IDPs return to normal life as quickly as
possible as also consistently advocated the need for them to be resettled to their
original habitations as early as possible.

India’s immediate humanitarian assistance to IDPs included supply of 250,000

family relief packs, establishment of an emergency medical unit which treated
over 50,000 IDPs, supply of over one million roofing sheets, as well as 400,000
bags of cement for constructing temporary housing and provision of 95,000
starter packs of agricultural implements. India also assisted in revival of
agricultural and economic activities in areas affected by the conflict.

The main impetus for stepping up of India’s development assistance flowed

from the commitments made during the visit of President of Sri Lanka to India
during June 2010, when the then Prime Minister of India announced a
Development Package for Sri Lanka. This included construction of 50,000
housing units, rehabilitation of the Northern Railway lines, wreck-removal and
rehabilitation of the KKS Harbour, establishment of Vocational Training
Centres, construction of a Cultural Centre at Jaffna, setting up a 500 MW coal
power plant at Sampur, restoration of Thiruketheeswaram Temple, establishing
an Agricultural Research Institute in the Northern Province, expanding the
scholarship program for Sri Lankan students to pursue their higher studies in
India, setting up Centres for English Language Training and providing technical
assistance for the National Action Plan for a Trilingual Sri Lanka. The Housing
Project, with an overall commitment of over INR 1372 crore in grants, is the
flagship project of Government of India’s assistance to Sri Lanka. It is perhaps
the largest such project undertaken by the Government of India overseas. The
first stage of construction of 1,000 houses in the Northern Province was
completed in July 2012. The second phase of constructing or repairing 45000
houses in the Northern and Eastern Provinces is being implemented under an
innovative owner-driven model, wherein the owner-beneficiaries undertake the
construction/repair of their houses themselves and Government of India
arranges technical support and financial assistance. This phase was launched on
the birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi on 2 October 2012 and has made
excellent progress since its launch. As on 31 December 2015, a total of 43,800
houses have been completed. During 2015, 13,827 new houses were
constructed in the Northern Province, and 2,051 in the Eastern Province. In
addition, 502 damaged houses were repaired in the Northern Province. Only
2,200 houses remain to be constructed or repaired in the Northern and Eastern
Provinces, which is expected to be completed during the next few months.

The third phase, to construct 4,000 houses in the Central and Uva Provinces
through an innovative community-driven approach, will be launched very
shortly. Sri Lanka is one of the major recipients of development credit given by
the Government of India. Under a line of credit of $167.4 million, the tsunami-
damaged Colombo-Matara rail link has been repaired and upgraded.

Another line of credit of $800 million for track laying and supply of rolling
stock to support construction of Medawachchiya to Madhu, Madhu to
Talaimannar, Omanthai to Pallai, Pallai to Kankesanthurai railway lines and
setting up of signaling and telecommunications systems in Northern Sri Lanka
is already operational. In October 2014 the Pallai-Jaffna reconstructed railway
track and signal system was inaugurated thereby reconnecting Jaffna to
Colombo by rail.

India also continues to assist a large number of smaller development projects in

areas like education, health, transport connectivity, small and medium
enterprise development and training in many parts of the country through its
grant funding. Cultural Relations The Cultural Cooperation Agreement signed
by the Government of India and the Government of Sri Lanka on 29 November,
1977 at New Delhi forms the basis for periodic Cultural Exchange Programmes
between the two countries.

The Indian Cultural Centre in Colombo actively promotes awareness of Indian

culture by offering classes in Indian music, dance, Hindi and Yoga. High
Commission organized an event on 21 June 2015 to celebrate the First
International Day of Yoga at the iconic ocean side promenade Galle Face
Green. The event was attended by two thousand yoga enthusiasts.

Every year, cultural troupes from both countries exchange visits. Pursuant to an
announcement made by the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India during his visit to
Sri Lanka, a Festival of India in Sri Lanka was launched in November 2015,
with ‘Nrityarupa’, a scintillating dance medley from different parts of India
performed in Colombo, Kandy and Galle. The theme of the Festival is
"Sangam": a confluence of cultures of India and Sri Lanka. India and Sri Lanka
commemorated the 2600th year of the attainment of enlightenment by Lord
Buddha (SambuddhatvaJayanthi) through joint activities. These included the
exposition of Sacred Kapilavastu Relics in Sri Lanka that took place in August -
September 2012.
During the exposition, approximately three million Sri Lankans (nearly 15
percent of the total population of Sri Lanka) paid homage to the Sacred Relics.
The Indian Gallery at the International Buddhist Museum, Sri Dalada
Maligawa, was inaugurated in December 2013. The Gallery highlights the
shared heritage and close Buddhist links between India and Sri Lanka. The two
Governments jointly celebrated the 150th Anniversary of Anagarika
Dharmapala in 2014.

The India-Sri Lanka Foundation, set up in December 1998 as an

intergovernmental initiative, also aims towards enhancement of scientific,
technical, educational and cultural cooperation through civil society exchanges
and enhancing contact between the younger generations of the two countries.
Education is an important area of cooperation.

India now offers about 290 scholarship slots annually to Sri Lankan students. In
addition, under the Indian Technical and Economic Cooperation Scheme and
the Colombo Plan, India offers nearly 200 slots annually to Sri Lankan
nationals. Tourism also forms an important link between India and Sri Lanka.
Government of India formally launched the e-Tourist Visa (eTV) scheme for
Sri Lankan tourists on 14 April 2015.

Subsequently, in a goodwill gesture, the visa fee for eTV was sharply reduced.
The new eTV fee for Sri Lankan nationals is only US$ 25 (plus bank charges of
2.5%), instead of US$ 60 (plus US$2 bank fee) charged earlier. In 2015, out of
the total tourist arrivals, 316,247 were from India constituting 17.58% of the
total number of tourist arrival to Sri Lanka. Sri Lankan tourists too are among
the top ten sources for the Indian tourism market. In 2014, around 200,000 visas
were issued by the High Commission and other posts in Sri Lanka to facilitate
travel between Indian and Sri Lanka.

Fishermen issue Given the proximity of the territorial waters of both countries,
especially in the Palk Straits and the Gulf of Mannar, incidents of straying of
fishermen are common. Both countries have agreed on certain practical
arrangements to deal with the issue of bona fide fishermen of either side
crossing the International Maritime Boundary Line. Through these
arrangements, it has been possible to deal with the issue of detention of
fishermen in a humane manner.

Indian Community The People of Indian Origin (PIOs) comprise Sindhis,

Borahs, Gujaratis, Memons, Parsis, Malayalis and Telugu speaking persons
who have settled down in Sri Lanka (most of them after partition) and are
engaged in various business ventures. Though their numbers (10,000
approximately) are much lesser as compared to Indian Origin Tamils (IOTs),
they are economically prosperous and are well placed. Each of these
communities has their organization which organizes festivals and cultural
events. According to unofficial statistics, it is estimated that around 14,000
Indian expatriates are living in Sri Lanka.

The IOTs are mostly employed in either tea or rubber plantations in Central,
Uva and Sabragamuwa Provinces though during the last decade, the younger
generation has been migrating to Colombo in search of employment. A fair
number of IOTs living in Colombo are engaged in business. According to
Government census figures (2011), the population of IOTs is about 1.6 million.

India - Myanmar Relations

Myanmar shares a long land border of over 1600 Km with India as well as a
maritime boundary in the Bay of Bengal. Four North-Eastern States viz.
Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Manipur and Mizoram share international
boundary with Myanmar. Both countries share a heritage of religious, linguistic
and ethnic ties. Myanmar has a substantial population of Indian origin (est. 1.5-
2 million).

Further, Myanmar is our gateway to South East Asia and ASEAN with which
we are seeking greater economic integration through India’s 'Look East' and
‘Act East’ Policy. Myanmar also offers us an alternative access route to the
Northeast. Apart from supply of pulses, possibilities of energy supply from
offshore blocks in Myanmar and business opportunities that emerging from an
opening economy underpin bilateral relations India has a policy of
strengthening improved relations with Myanmar.
The recent victory of the National League for Democracy (NLD) in the
November 8, 2015 elections, in which the NLD won 255/323 seats (in the lower
house) and 135/168 (upper house) apart from 475/630 (in regional/state
Parliament) has further provided opportunities to strengthen the engagement.

Various institutional mechanisms have infused dynamism to the growing and

multi-faceted bilateral ties. The first meeting of the India-Myanmar Joint
Consultative Commission (JCC) co-chaired by EAM and Myanmar FM was
held on July 16, 2015 in New Delhi. The JCC has been established as an
umbrella mechanism to facilitate interaction between various line ministries on
the two sides.

At the Secretary-level, these include Foreign Office Consultations (FOC) at the

level of Foreign Secretary/Deputy Foreign Minister (last held at New Delhi in
July 2014 and Nay Pyi Taw in July 2013) and National Level Meeting (NLM)
at the level of Home Secretary/ Deputy Home Minister (19 th NLM held in Nov
17-19, 2014, Yangon and 18th NLM on 28-29 Dec 2012, N. Delhi).

Apart from them, technical level and operational level meetings are held. High-
level Visits There have been several high level visits: PM Rajiv Gandhi (1987),
Sr Gen Than Shwe (2004 and 2010), President Abdul Kalam (2006), Vice
Senior Gen. Maung Aye (2008), Vice President Ansari (2009), President U
Thein Sein (Oct 2011 & Dec 2012) and then PM Dr. Manmohan Singh (May
2012).

During these visits, important agreements were signed (MoU on Cooperation in

Non-traditional Security Issues, MoU on Intelligence Cooperation, DTAA,
BIPPA, MLAT in Criminal Matters), and a number of development projects
like the Kaladan project, restoration of Ananda Temple, hospital upgradation,
OFL link. India has extended loans of US$ 297.43 million and grants of US$
477.63 million for several infrastructure and public interest projects in health,
education, agriculture etc. PM Dr. Manmohan Singh paid a State Visit to
Myanmar from May 27-29, 2012. PM and President U Thein Sein signed 12
Agreements and MOUs including on USD 500 million Line of Credit, on Air
Services, Border Areas Development, on Establishment of the Advanced Centre
for Agriculture Research & Education (ACARE) Rice Bio Park Myanmar and
Institute of Information Technology with Indian assistance, Establishment of
Border Haats, Joint Trade and Investment Forum, CEP for 2012-2015, MoUs
for Cooperation amongst Think Tanks/ Institutes of the two countries and
support for HRD through 500 training slots.

With new road projects like the Trilateral Highway and Rhi-Tiddim road,
India’s commitment to Myanmar’s development stands at US$ 2 billion. PM
Narendra Modi visited Nay Pyi Taw from Nov 11-13, 2014 to attend the 12th
ASEAN-India Summit and 9th East Asia Summit.

PM called on President U Thein Sein and met Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. PM also
interacted with around 300 members of the PIO/OCI community of Myanmar.
NSA Ajit Doval attended the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement ceremony on 15
October 2015 in which he was India’s witness signatory, among others that
included China, Thailand, EU, UN and Japan. India’s presence was a
demonstration of support to the peace process underway in Myanmar.

EAM paid an official visit to Myanmar from 14-16 December 2012 and had
extensive discussions with the Myanmar Foreign Minister. EAM and Foreign
Minister signed the MOU for construction of Rhi-Tiddim Road in Chin State of
Myanmar. EAM and Myanmar Vice President jointly inaugurated the
“International Conference on Buddhist Cultural Heritage” organized by ICCR
and Sitagu International Buddhist Academy in Yangon.

EAM and Minister of Religious Affairs jointly unveiled the Sarnath Style
Buddha Statue gifted by the People of India to Myanmar and also inaugurated
the photo and book exhibition on “Buddhist Cultural Heritage” at the premises
of Shwe Dagon Pagoda. EAM Sushma Swaraj visited Nay Pyi Taw from
August 08-11 to attend the 4th East Asia Summit Foreign Ministers Meeting
and 21st ASEAN Regional Forum Ministerial Meeting and paid an official
bilateral visit on August 11, 2014. RM led a high level delegation comprising of
the Defence Secretary, Vice Chief of Naval staff, the GOC-in-C Eastern
Command and other senior officials which visited Myanmar from 21 to 22
January 2013.

During the visit, RM called on President U Thein Sein and had discussion with
C-in-C Vice Senior General Min Aung Hlaing and Defence Minister Lt. Gen.
Wai Lwin. Speaker of Lok Sabha led a first ever Indian Parliamentary
delegation to Myanmar from 12-15 February 2013. During the visit the Speaker
called on the President U Thein Sein and held discussions with Pyithu Hluttaw
Speaker Thura U Shwe Mann and Amyotha Hluttaw U Khin Aung Myint. The
Speaker of Pyithu Hluttaw hosted a banquet in honour of visiting Speaker and
interacted with the Indian Community.

Minister of Commerce, Industry and Textile visited Myanmar from 6-8 June
2013 to attend World Economic Forum on East Asia in Nay Pyi Taw. CIM and
Myanmar Minister of Commerce U Win Myint inaugurated the 1 st India-
Myanmar Joint Trade and Investment Forum, Yangon. CIM Nirmala
Sitharaman co-Chaired the 5th Joint Trade Committee (JTC) meeting with U
Win Myint on 16-17 February, 2015 in Nay Pyi Taw.

During the visit CIM interacted with the Myanmar captains of industries at
UMFCCI in Yangon and addressed the community function organized by the
Indian community, Yangon. Other visits include that of Chief Ministers of
Sagaing and Mandalay regions of Myanmar, who visited the Sangai festival in
November 2013 with a 110-member delegation that included businessmen,
artistes, academics and media.

The 3rd CMLV (Cambodia, Myanmar, Lao PDR, Viet Nam) Business
Conclave was held on 12-13 January 2016 at Mamallapuram, near Chennai.
“Myanmar as an Investment Destination” was a major theme at the Conclave.
Commerce Minister Nirmala Sitharaman and Myanmar Dy. Commerce
Minister Dr Pwint San co-chaired the Conclave along with Ministers from other
CMLV countries.

Being the first major promotion of Myanmar as an investment destination for

the Indian industry in decades, the Conclave was attended by top business
leaders of both these countries as also by other CMLV countries. Commercial
relations Commercial cooperation is another area of focus. India and Myanmar
signed a trade agreement in 1970.

Bilateral trade has been growing steadily reaching USD 1571.95 million in
2014-15 (Exports to Myanmar USD 773.74 million and Imports from Myanmar
USD 1016.86 million) and India is the fourth largest trade partner of Myanmar
but trade remains below potential. Agriculture sector dominates bilateral trade.

Myanmar is the second largest supplier of beans and pulses to India and Timber
and wood products. India’s exports to Myanmar include pharmaceuticals
products, steel & iron products, electrical machinery, Mineral oil, Rubber and
articles, plastics etc. Border trade via Moreh and Zawkhatar reached to US$
51.68 million in 2013-14.

India has moved to eleventh largest investor from tenth position with an
approved investment of US$ 299.5 million out of total estimated investments of
US$ 45.237 billion from 33 countries by 655 enterprises. Most of India’s
investments have been in the oil and gas sector.

Following the New Foreign Investment Law (02 Nov 2012) and the by-laws
and rules framed by the respective departments/ministries (31 January 2013)
investments into the country is increasing. Now FDI is allowed 100 % in select
sectors. Indian companies have evinced interest in investing in Myanmar and
major contracts have been won by Indian companies include Jubilant Energy
India- PSC-1 onshore bloc; Punj Lloyd; Jindal Saw; Welspun India; Vihaan
Networks; Nipha Exports and Troika Exports; L&T.

More facilitative environment that includes greater air, sea and road
connectivity options would give a fillip to the cooperation. Cooperation in
banking sector is crucial for investment and trade. United Bank of India signed
number of banking agreements with banks of Myanmar (MFTB, MICB, MEB,
and 9 private banks) in order to facilitate trade transactions between the two
countries.

United Bank of India (UBI) has opened its representative office in November
2012. In addition to UBI, Indian Overseas Bank, EXIM bank and State Bank of
India have opened representative office in Yangon. Mechanisms such as Joint
Trade Committee, Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement and Bilateral
Investment Protection Agreement and other technical level committee on trade
have contributed significantly in strengthening trade and investment relations.
The first Joint Trade and Investment Forum (JTIF) was held in Yangon on 7
June 2013 co-chaired by Shri Sunil Mittal and U Aung Win (President
UMFCCI, Myanmar). Myanmar is an important partner in strengthening our
energy security. Recognising this, an MOU on Co-operation in the Petroleum
Sector between MOP&NG and Ministry of Energy of Myanmar was signed
during President’s visit to Myanmar in March 2006. Development cooperation
and humanitarian relief Development cooperation is a key aspect of our
relationship and we have offered technical and financial assistance to Myanmar
for projects in infrastructure, capacity-building, emergency relief and others.

The total development assistance to Myanmar stands at approx USD 2 billion.

Disaster Relief: India has responded promptly and effectively to assist
Myanmar in humanitarian relief operations following natural calamities like
Cyclone Nargis in 2008, the earthquake in Shan State in 2010 and cyclone
Komen in 2015.

We have provided immediate relief material, medical assistance, supplies for

rehabilitation work, biomass gasifiers, solar torches & lanterns. We have also
replaced 16 damaged transformers and given a grant of USD 200,000 to repair
the Shwedagon Pagoda complex in Yangon. We also gave assistance of USD 1
million for relief and reconstruction work in the quake affected zone in Shan
State, of which 250,000 was given as a cash grant and the remainder used to
finance reconstruction of 1 high school and 6 primary schools.

We have also donated US$200,000 in cash to GOM for Rakhine State

rehabilitation. India again provided a sum of US$ 1 million to Government of
Myanmar for promoting inter-communal harmony in Rakhine State which the
Myanmar Government has chosen to use to construct 10 schools to serve both
communities and promoting communal harmony.

The construction of 10 schools has hence been completed and classes

commenced from the new building. Our emergency supply of food, medicines
and relief supplies through four airforce flights to Kalay and Mandalay, soon
after the Cyclone Komen has been widely appreciated. Cultural relations India
and Myanmar share close cultural ties. There is a deep sense of kinship,
particularly amongst the Buddhist community, given India’s association with
the Buddha’s life.

We are trying to make the most of this shared heritage by undertaking some key
initiatives: GOI working for restoration of the Ananda Temple in Bagan; GOI
donated a 16 foot replica of the Sarnath Buddha Statue which has been installed
at the premises of Shwedagon pagoda in Yangon; MEA in coordination with
ICCR and the Sitagu International Buddhist Academy and Myanmar Ministry
of Religious Affairs organised an International Conference on Buddhist
Cultural Heritage from 15- 17 December 2012. Apart from this, performances
by Indian and Myanmar cultural troupes have been organized on a regular basis.
Myanmar troupes and artistes have regularly participated in South Asian and
ASEAN cultural events in India.

Connectivity is increasingly being seen as the key to promoting bilateral

commercial, cultural, touristic and other exchanges. India is undertaking some
important development projects that will enhance connectivity: these include
the Kaladan project, construction/upgradation of Rhi-Tiddim Road, MOU for
which was signed during the visit of EAM to Myanmar in December 2012.

We have agreed to Myanmar’s request to undertake the task of building the 69

bridges along the TamuKalamyo-Kalewa (TKK) Friendship Road and construct
the 126 km Kalewa-Yargyi road segment for establishing seamless Trilateral
Highway from Moreh in India to Mae Sot in Thailand via Myanmar. We are
also working on boosting air, rail and sea links.

During the visit of Prime Minister to Myanmar in May 2012, Air Services
Agreement was signed and agreed to set up Joint Working Groups to determine
the technical and commercial feasibility of cross-border rail links as well as
direct shipping links between the two countries. The bilateral Air Services
Agreement enables third, fourth and fifth freedom rights to both Indian and
Myanmar carriers.

An MOU to establish a direct Imphal-Mandalay bus service and the broad

framework for the operation of this service has been negotiated and initialized
and awaiting the final formal signing. The Air India has launched a direct flight
between Delhi-Gaya-Yangon once in a week during the peak season of 2014.
 The Shipping Corporation of India has launched a direct sea link between India
and Myanmar in October, 2014.

The relations of India and United States of America

Indo-US relations reflect an interesting story of relations between world's two
largest democracies whose people share a faith in democracy and liberalism. The
history of these relations give an account of continued friendship and cooperation
crossed at times by conflicts and strains.

In the era of cold war the two countries, while holding different perception of
political relations, remained engaged in developing cooperation in the sphere of
economic relations. In the post cold war era, both India & the USA find themselves
closer and committed to extend their economic cooperation into other fields.
Recent changes in Indian economic policies have received good response from the
United States. Both countries have conducted joint Naval exercises and both are
trying to forge ahead on the path of friendly cooperation. India now realises better
the importance of its relations with the USA, and the latter is now willing to
develop around relations with India.

India and the USA happen to be the two largest democracies in the world and yet
in the past the relations between them failed to be very-smooth and warm.
"Despite the similarity of domestic political set up and dedication to liberal
democratic values," says B. R. Nanda, "Indo-American relations have remained
without "warmth ever since the independence of India." Since 1947. these have
been marked by dramatic oscillations, characterised in the main by tension and
suspicion." One can describe the history of Indo-US relations as a unique account
of desire for friendship and yet of relationship remained characterised by strains
and tension.
B.R. Nanda even went to the extent of saying, 'No consensus of opinion exists on
normal relations between India and the USA." However, in contemporary times
there are present positive signals for the development of Indo-US friendship and
cooperation.

Right from the beginning of their relations, both India and America got engaged in
attempts to establish friendly and co-operative and yet, except some useful trade
and economic links, the political relations continued to experience frequent ups
and downs-mostly down's and even show-downs. The present situation too reflects
a developing friendship and cooperation despite the existence of irritants like
American pressure on India for signing NPT and American restrictions upon the
transfer of Russian missile technology to India.
This unique situation in Indo-US relations has been due to the existence of
differences and certain major hindering factors along with some important and
valuable positive and helping factors. The latter have been the sources of the
attempts to work for the development of more and more friendly and cooperative
relations whereas the former have been the irritants which have prevented the
growth of really meaningful friendship and mature politico-economic co-operation
among these two countries.
The existence of differences both in the foreign policy orientations and
perspectives of the two countries and in respect of certain major international
issues and problems were in the era of cold war a source of common cultural links
and shared love for certain values and ideas were always, and continue to be, a
source of friendship between the two countries.

The over-all situation, in (he past was, however not very encouraging.
Consequently. "Neither slate," writes B.R. Nantia, "has been able to gain much
from the other." For a clear undemanding of the nature of Indo-US relations, it is
therefore, imperative to identify and analyse these positive and negative or helping
and hindering factors.

The Positive Factors

Indo-US relations derive strength from number of positive and helping factors and
because of these there has always been present a' strong desire among the Indian
and American leaders and the people to work for the development of warm
friendship and highly co-operativeable-geo-political and strategic reasons, the
traditional cultural links, the similarity in respect of certain key ideals and
institutions, and the, shared love for peace and liberal democracy have been such
helping factors which have always prompted efforts towards the improvement of
Indo-US relations.
Nehru view of the links between India and USA. Mr. Nehru, during his first visit
to America as the Prime Minister of India, in October 1949 and his second visit in
1956 identified the important links and the positive factors which provide good
basis for the development of Indo-US friendship and cooperation.
While speaking before the two Houses of the US. Congress on 13 October, 1949,
Nehru observed: There is much in common between them (India arid U.S.A.). Like
you, we have achieved our freedom through a revolution, though our methods were
different from yours. Like you, we shall be a republic based on the federal
principle, which is an outstanding contribution of the founders of this great
Republic as we have placed in the forefront of our constitution those fundamental
human rights to which all man who love liberty, equality and progress aspire-the
freedom of the individual, the equality of men and the rule of law...."
"The great democracy of the U.S.A. will, I feel sure, understand and appreciate our
approach to life's problems because it could not have any other aim or a different
ideal. Friendship and co-operation between our two countries are, therefore,
natural. I stand here to offer both in the pursuit of justice, liberty and peace.
Similarly, in. all his other speeches, delivered during the course of this visit, Nehru
identified a number of positive factors that favoured the growth of Indo-US
friendship. He also paid rich tributes to President Roosevelt of his great interest
and support to the cause of freedom of India.

During his second visit to America, in a Television and Radio statement issued on
December 18, 1956 at Washington, Nehru again observed, Between United States
and India, there had existed friendly and cordial relations even before India gained
her independence. No Indian can forget that in the days of our struggle for freedom
we received from your country a full measure of sympathy and support. Our two
Republics nave a common faith in democratic institutions and the democratic way
of life and are dedicated to the cause of peace and freedom.

We admire the many qualities that have made this country great, and more
especially the humanity and dynamism of its people to the great principles to
which the fathers of the American revolution gave utterance. We wish to learn
from you and we plead for your friendship, and your cooperation and sympathy in
the great task that we have undertaken in our own country."

Similar views have been expressed by many other Indian leaders. After the
collapse of the Soviet Union, Indian leadership has become more vocal in
advocating the need for developing high level cooperation with the U.S.A. As such
it is, therefore, natural for India to work for friendship and co-operation with the
[Link].

Likewise, many of the American leaders and statesman also realise the existence of
important links and similarity of values between India and the U.S.A. and advocate
the need for the development of Indo-US friendship and co-operation.

The following can be described as the positive and helping factors which strongly
favour the attempts to foster Indo-US friendship and mutual cooperation.
1. Influence of American War of Independence and Declaration of
Independence on India. During their freedom struggle against the British Indians
drew much inspiration and courage from the American War of Independence. The
American Declaration of Independence kindled the hearts of Indians and inspired
them to put in more and more efforts for securing independence from the yoke of
British imperialism. During freedom struggle many Indian freedom fighters and
great scholars visited America and tried to secure American support for India and
her freedom.
2. American support for Indian Independence. America gave a good more
support to India at a time when Indian freedom fighters were engaged in a strong
struggle against the continued British imperialism in India.
During the period of World War 11, American President Roosevelt pleaded with
British P.M. Churchill the need for a sympathetic and humanistic consideration of
the demands of Indians and it came to be a factor that influenced the sending of
Cripps Mission to India.

Though America, being a war ally of Britain, could not directly act and influence
Britain in favour of the demand for the independence of India, yet the moral
pressure exerted by President Roosevelt received much appreciation from the
Indians. Moreover. America did not object, rather well tolerated, the activities of
Indian freedom flighters who were working from abroad for strengthening the
struggle for the freedom of India.

3. Common Faith in Liberal Democracy and World Peace. Both India and
America have a firm faith in the values and principles of Liberal Democracy. Both
are the two largest working democracies of the world. America respects Indian
love for democracy and is keen to see the successful working of India's democracy.

It stands for the development of India through the democratic process, as India's,
success is bound to strengthen the case for democracy as a system of government
and an ideal way of living.
Similarly, India respects the American traditions of liberal democracy and derives
encouragement for the development of Indian democratic process. Both India and
America share a love for human rights, liberty, equality, justice and peace. Both
are committed to the causes of world peace and security and to the development of
friendship and co-operation with other countries of the world. Both are opposed to
imperialism, colonialism and apartheid.

4. American recognition of the importance of India. India is a big country with

vast potential for growth and development. It is a slate with the second largest
concentration of population-man-power. It occupies a strategically important
position in Asia. It is an important leader of the Third World and of the group of
the Non-aligned. It has now come to be one of the most developed among the
developing nations.

With 1/3rd of the total skilled man-power of the world, with the status of being
tenth technologically developed nation and with vast potentials for becoming a
nuclear power, India now occupies an important position m the eves of America.
After1971, American foreign policy came to view India as a major power in South
Asia. All these factors strengthen the case for American desire to build up relations
with India. Similarly, India recognises the important position of America as one of
the two most powerful and developed countries which can help India in her task of
socio-economic development of Indian society.

India is fully conscious of the super power status of America and the key role that
is playing in the international relations of the past-war period. Thus both India and
America realise the importance of each other and this recognition strengthens the
case for the development of Indo-US relations.

5. India's, Need for US Economic Assistance. India, ever since her independence
has been engaged in the process of socio-economic reconstruction. For this, she
needs outside economic and technological help. America as one of the most
developed and economically well-off states has the immense potential to provide
both economic aid and technological knows how to India. During the past 50 years
India has been a major recipient of US foreign aid.

Even for gelling aid and loan, from International monetary institutions like World
Bank, India needs US support. India's need for American help further strengthens
the case for Indian friendship and co-operation with America.
In the post-cold war, post-Soviet Union and post-Warsaw Pact era of international
relations India realises more fully the importance of relations with the U.S.A.
These five factors, can be described as fundamentally important positive factors
which favour the attempts to secure warm friendship and mutual cooperation
between India & the U.S.A. It has been due, mostly, to these factors that the
leaders, statesmen and people of both the countries have been keen to develop
close relations between these two largest working democracies of the world.

The nature of Indo-US relations in the contemporary times.

After having remained engaged in a system of ups and downs or a sea-saw game
between 1947-90, the Indo-US relations began looking up in the post-cold war and
post-USSR era of international relations. Under the impact of the deep and big
changes in the international system of this last decade of the 20th century both
India and the USA began realising belter the importance and utility of each other.

Contemporary International System and US Perceptions. The economic

liberalisation and policy changes in India under the impact of its own internal
environment as well as due to external milieu, gladdened the USA, and it decided
to respond more positively to India's needs.
The attempts at replacement of Indian socialist economy by market economy, the
Indian decision to upgrade relations with Israel, the Indian vote in the United
Nations over the resolution against the equalisation of Zionism with terrorism as
well as in favour of American moves first for collective security war in the Gulf
and later on fur imposing soda-economic trade sanctions against delinquent Iraq,
and the Indian decision to hold joint Indo US Naval exercises in the Indian Ocean,
in particular impressed the American decision-makers, in favour of supporting and
encouraging democratic India to become more stable and well functioning member
of the international community.

India's status as an Asian Power, as a major- power of the South Asia, as a fast
developing economic, industrial technological-nuclear power, as a prominent
leader of NAM, as the most developed of the developing countries, as world's
largest democracy with one of the two biggest consumer markets which Americans
could exploit and as a local giant in its own right provided the background for such
a change in US policy towards India in the post-cold war era.

In addition to these, the American dissatisfaction with Pakistan as a threatening

nuclear weapon state, its role as an Islamic fundamentalist country, as a country
which played a double role in the Gulf War by sending Pakistan troops to fight the
war and by simultaneously supporting Iraq as a Muslim country, the American
apprehensions of the strengthening of Islamic fundamentalism in Central Asian
republic and West Asia, the virtual liquidation of communication and the end of
the need of Islamic states as counterpoise to communism, the American view of
India as a counterpoise to Communist China, the loss of American bases in
Philippines, the continued need of influence the nature of politics in Asia, the
chances for (the emergence of economic cold war with Japan etc., all combined to
make Americans realise more fully the importance of India in world politics
particularly in politics in Asia. Between an Islamic West Asia and a Christian West
which includes the USA there is India that could have a sobering influence this
perception also provided a meeting point between India anti the USA.

India, too, because of the disintegration of its former friend, the USSR, the
pressures on Indian economy, the realisation that the USA can be a biggest source
of economic help for India, Indian defence and security needs vis-a-vis China and
Pakistan in the post-USSR era; the realisation that in the era of unipolarism,
cultivation of relations with the USA as the only super power left in the world is
essential, the inability of Russia, the successor state of the USSR, to meet the
security, economic and trade needs of India.

The Indian need for WB and IMF loans and assistance which are definitely
influenced by the USA both directly as well as indirectly, the desire on the part of
India to get a permanent seat in the UN Security Council which cannot be secured
without American support, etc. all compelled rather impelled India to take .steps
for improving and developing Indo-US friendship and cooperation in various
spheres of bilateral relations-economic-political-technological and military.

Thus, both the USA and India realised the importance of each other in the point-
cold war and post USSR era of international relations. They decided In attempt an
improvement in their relations by extending cooperation in various spheres. The
psychological and emotional bonds between Indians and Americans, which have
been in existence ever since the emergence of USA in 1765 through the
Declaration of independence and the subsequent war of independence against
Britain, came forward to provide the necessary impetus for initiating the process.
By May 1992, both India and the USA were in a position to hold joint Naval
exercises in the Indian Ocean heralding the era of increased defence cooperation
between the world's two largest democracies.

The Nature and Progress of Indo-US Relations. The shift in the Indo-US
relationship began with the disintegration of the USSR and the need fell by India to
find an acceptable alternative to the discredited socialist path of development.
The 1991 Indian budget initiated several measures-devaluation, removal of
licences and controls, privatisation, opening of manufacturing section to foreign
investment and invitation to MNCs to invest in India.

These measures were initialled under the guidance of IMF and World Bank. The
1992 budget followed this process and introduced more liberalisation in trade,
industrial, commercial spheres. The liberalisation of imports, decontrol,
decanalisalion, partial converlibility of rupee etc., were introduced.

These changes received good appreciation from the US administration and

business. India appeared to the USA as a big consumer market for export, of
American goods and for flow of US expertise to India A stream of American
official visitors started visiting New Delhi. They all talked of the need to develop.
Indo-US [Link] cooperation in various spheres.

A change in US outlook gave a positive orientation to the environment of Indo US

relations. In the emerging new world order, the US administration started realising
better the importance of India, particularly vis-a-vis Pakistan and China.
The Indian need for more and more western aid, technology, imports capital in the
aftermath of the disintegration of the USSR, which had remained one of its biggest
'trade partner', Mr. R.L. Bhatia, the minister of State for External Affairs, observed
on 13lh August 1992 that India had suffered tremendously in trade and in the
spheres of Arms supplies with the disintegration of the USSR, and the inability of
its success or Russia and the CIS to keep up trade relations, particularly arms
supplies further influenced India in favour of initialing moves to attract western aid
and capital.

The rise of non-socialist regimes in Eastern Europe which were dependent upon
the USA and other Western European countries for their socio-economic
reconstruction programmes involved the possibility of a reduced western aid and
loans for India.

In order to justify continuance of such aids and loans, India accepted the World
Bank and IMF view to introduce changes in the Indian economic system. India
decided to develop more fruitful and cooperative relations with the USA in the
Gulf crisis and Gulf War decision-making process in the UN Security Council and
voted for the repeal of UN resolution which equalled Zionism with Terrorism.

These Indian decisions pleased the Americans and added appreciation came when
India gave full diplomatic recognition to Israel. The shared perceptions regarding
the dangers inherent in the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Muslim countries of
Asia, particularly in Central Asian Republics of former USSR also impelled India
and USA to work for giving a new and positive health to their bilateral relations.

The US stand on Kashmir, that the issue be resolved bilaterally on the basis of
Shimla Agreement. reflected a welcome change in favour of India. In November
1992, US President Bush staled that India and Pakistan should come to resolve the
differences over the nuclear weapons issue in South Asia. This view appeared to be
softer than earlier rigid stand. The two countries, therefore, started increasing the
volume of their trade and made agreements for the supply of US arms and
technology to India. Both conducted joint Naval exercises in the Indian Ocean in
May 1992.

After the election of Bill Clinton as the new Democratic President of the USA,
replacing George Bush, the Republican US President, India decided to make the
first big move to send in November 1992 a high level team to conduct diplomatic
bendings with the new transitionary term of democratic leaders. This Indian move
was designed to keep intact and strengthen the process of growing Indo-US
friendship and cooperation. President Bill Clinton and his aides also declared that
they recognized the potential of relations with India. Thus the climate for the
growth of Indo-US cooperation in various spheres of bilateral relations has become
healthy and bright in the contemporary years.

However, there continue to be present several road-blocks which both the USA and
India could have either to overcome or ignore for making the current optimism and
realisation enduring and really fruitful. Despite realising belter the new importance
of relations with India in the changed international system, the USA continues to
press Super 301 against India, call for the of NPT by India and to enforce Missile
Technology Control Regime (MTCR) against Indian space and missile
programme.

In the words J.F. Sethi "The USA is applying the carrot and stick technique to test
mettle to adjust to the situation which has changed in every respect and not too
favourably for this country." "Washington is attempting to extract the highest
price from India for upgrading the Indo-US relations, believing that India is weak
and vulnerable.

PM. Narasimha Rao's 1994 visit to Washington. In May 1994, PM. Narsimha
Rao paid six-day official visit to the USA: with a view to clear misuderstandings
and for creating a good base for a new start to the bilateral relations between the
two largest democracies of the world. The visit was successful in reversing the low
ebb that had come to develop between the two countries in past few months.

The joint statement issued by PM Narasimha Rao and President Clinton recorded
that india and the USA were heading towards a new partnership in their relations.
After notcing the areas of agreement over such issues as liberalisation and human
rights, both the leaders gave a call for increasing the pace and scope of high level
exchanges on all aspects of their relations as well as for discussing ways and
means for meeting the challenges before the world.

On Kasmir, the USA and India held that bilateral Indo-Pak negotiations and
Shimla spirit can enable the resolution of all outstading issues including the issue
of Jammu and Kashmir.

The two leaders welcomed the successful conclusion of the Uruguay round and
pledged support for WTO. The visit was also productive in so far as the fact that
India and the USA signed six memorandums of understanding relating to fields of
trade commerce, technology and defence. It was agreed:

(1) To revive the Indo-US Joint Commission (1974) by reviving the sub-
commission on trade and economy; (2) to establish regular foreign office
consultation at various levels; (3) to review and update the MOU on technology
(1984); (4) to enhance and broaden cooperation at civil and services level in
defence (5) To examine the possibility of setting up an Eminent Persons Group and
(6) to encourage the setting up of an Indo-US Business Partnership Initiative.

Along with this the USA was brought round to the view that nuclear proliferation
issue can be taken up not at a such-regional level but al a broader level (5 + 2 + 2
level)i.e., USA, Russia, UK, France and China + Germany and Japan + India and
Pakistan.

In fact, Indian Ambassador in the USA, Mr. S.S. Ray, has been doing wonderful
job in keeping Indo-US relations healthy and dynamic.

A study Indo-US relations after the end of cold war and disintegration of the USSR
reveals that there are three major irritants in Indo-US ties-Patens for
Pharmaceuticals and chemicals, nuclear non-proliferation and missile control. The
first one involves the use of Super 301 and Special 301 by the USA vis-a-vis India,
the second involves the US move to secure India's adoption of NPT and the third
involves the en force enforcement of MTCR regime against - India's space and
missile programmes as well as to prevent (he supply of Russian Cryogenic engines
to India.

On the Super 301 and Special 301 disputes, India has conceded, according to US
officials themselves, most of its demands. However, the USA has made it clear that
it must get 100 percent satisfaction and support from India in the GATT
negotiations on American terms if further friction is to be avoided.

On nuclear non-proliferation, the USA closely coordinating its moves with

Pakistan is trying to push India into a five-power conference to denuclearisation of
South-Asia while insisting that the USA itself must keep nuclear weapons in its
arsenal for an indefinite period and, hence, must reject the Indian proposal for
global non-proliferation. In a report published in February 1994, the USA listed
India along with Pakistan, Israel and Brazil which the US administration fell were
not prepared to sign NPT. It even criticised the Indian decision to oppose the
extension of NPT for future i.e., after April 1995.

The third major issue is an advanced rocket engine for peaceful purpose which
Russia is willing to sell to India, saving India the huge cost of developing the
engine herself. However, the USA, according to a report, is threatening .sanctions
both against India and Russia if the engine sale goes through. Whether the threat is
explicit or implied is not clear. The latest pressure point is the agreement by 27
nations aimed ostensibly at curbing the spread of nuclear weapons but, in effect,
aimed, according to experts, at nations which refuse to sign on the dolled line on
nuclear non-proliferation issues.

The signatories to the new accord are Australia. Austria, Belgium, Britain,
Bulgaria, Canada, Czechoslovakia. Denmark, Finland. France, Germany, Greece,
Hungary. Ireland. Italy, Japan. Luxembourg, the Nethelands, Norway, Poland,
Portugal, Romania, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the USA.
This represents an expansion of the nuclear suppliers group though China, Brazil
and Argentina are not parties.

Although the stated purpose is to prevent Iraqi nuclear programmes in reality,

according lo explanations in background briefing reflected in the U.S. press, the
accord could hurt nations thought to be interested in advancing cover nuclear arms
programmes, including Argentina, Brazil, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel. Libya, Pakistan,
North Korea and South Africa.
The USA has shown willingness to develop military cooperation with India and yet
it continues to put pressure on India for securing a halt to the Indian missile
programme. On 12 January, 1995, India and USA signed the "agreed minutes" on
bilateral defence relations that seek to enhance the level of bilateral defence
cooperation.

The nuclear suppliers group, the U.S. Press points out was in fact, formed shortly
after India's 1974 atomic explosion. Started at the urging of the USA, the group
initially consisted of the seven major suppliers of nuclear gear and set guidelines
for the export of items with direct use of nuclear weaponry." The initial accord
did not cover items that had peaceful uses. The new one does so in the name of
dual-use.

The new agreement sets detailed rules for limiting the sale of machinery and
materials that can be used either for peaceful purposes or for making the atomic
bomb. Such items include key items of commercial need for any industrialising
country, such as robots, special furnaces, and computerised machine tools.

Through these measures US has been even while accepting the importance of lies
with India, is engaged in an arm-twisting of India. India has been equally
determined to resist the American pressures on these issues. It has declared its
determination to keep up its space and missile programmes even after the, possible
refusal of Russia to supply the Cryogenic engine by indigenously meeting the
need. It has repeated the firm decision not to gig n the discriminatory treaty and to
unduly bow before the US Super 301 and Special 301.

India has determinedly rejected the proposal for holding a five nation (India,
Pakistan, USA, China, Russia) Conference on making South Asia a nuclear
weapon-free zone At times the US administration has been acting in an apparently
anti-Indian way. In October 1993, a senior official of the Clinton Administration
who deals with South Asia, went to the extent of observing that the USA came
forward to impress upon the need to resolve the Kashmir issue between India and
Pakistan in accordance with the provisions of Shimla Agreement.

Yet the episode reflected the hard realities of American policy towards India.
America, further seldom hesitates to put pressure on India for securing a particular
change in India's nuclear policy, missile programme:, space programme and pace
of economic liberalisation in India. As such these irritants can cause trouble to
Indo-US tics.
However, these experts in India believe that if India can get through her economic,
nuclear and space programmes despite the US pressures after initial
aggressiveness, threats and actions will gradually case and the two nations will be
truely in the road to friendship and cooperation.

The USA needs Indian support in the new world order, containment of China and
for achieving regional stability. India also needs US support for these three reasons
as well as for meeting its developmental and economic needs and programmes.

Indian government wants America to develop relations with India independently of

Pakistan, and to relate Indo-US relations to libateral, regional and international
concerns- PM Narasimha Rao's 1994 visit to the US constituted a bold attempt to
give a new impetus to Indo-US economic cooperation. The economic content of
relations can maintain a balance between Indo-US political and other differences
and the need for furthering the government to government and people to people
level relations.
With the known India in self-sufficiency in foodgrains, a developed industrial base
and modernised infrastructure, trained scientific and technical man power and
managerial skill, increased capacity for crisis management and above all with
second largest, well-equipped and discipline military, India offers a good scope for
an increased American investment in India. The presence of a large number of
Indians in the USA gives a further basis for the development of Indo-US
cooperation for development. India fully realises the importance of relations with
the USA.

In April 1994, it even conducted official level talks with the USA over such
sensitive issues like Nuclear Proliferation, NPT and Disarmament. It has always
been keen to keen limited the role of irritants of Indo-US relations. The USA too
realises the importance of India.

Thai is why the damage done by Ms Raphel was sought to be undone by Mr

Talbolt. In January 1995 Indo-US relations got a big boost with the visit of high
level US officials to India. Defence cooperation and economic cooperation got a
new health.

In January 1995, Mr. Ron Brown, US Commerce Secretary and Mr. William Perry,
US Defence Secretary paid official visits to India and tried to consolidate the
growing trend towards increased Indo-US friendship and cooperation. During the
visit of US Commerce Secretary several important trade and commerce agreements
worth 4 billion dollars were signed.

The whole exercise appeared to signal the opening of an Indo-US commercial

alliance. It was governed by the desire to keep an American tab on the pace and
depth of India's economic reforms as well as to enable India have a legitimate
access to the US market. Both India and the USA were successful in giving a
proper direction and health to Indo-US trade and commercial relations in the new
era of globalisation and WTO.

A day earlier the US Defence Secretary Mr. William Perry had concluded his visit
to India and had formalised the growing defence relation between the two
countries. On January 12,1995, the 'agreed minutes' on defence relations i.e.,
bilateral defence cooperation were signed. These were designed to give qualitative
push-up to Indo-US defence cooperation which had started developing since 1991.

The agreement signed envisaged a three-way cooperation- civilian to civilian level

cooperation i.e., bureaucratic contacts; service to service level cooperation i.e., an
extension of relations, and cooperation in defence research and production. The
agreements did not involve any arms transfer or joint technology development.
These also signified no change in US perception of India's stand on NPT.

It was however, stated that "The enhanced cooperation between our two countries
is designed to make a positive contribution to the security and stability of Asia.
These "measures will also promote the maintenance of international peace and
security in the post-cold-war world."

Indeed, January 1995 signalled the emergence of a new agreed and well
understood drive towards the securing of increased Indo-US cooperation in two
vitally important sectors of relations- commerce and defence. In March 1995, the
American first lady Mrs. Hillary Clinton paid an informal nonofficial visit to India
and it gave an elegance and warmth to the relations between the world's two largest
democratic societies.
At the moment the future of Indo-US ties appears to be bright despite the fact that
the issues of NPT and Kashmir continue to still remain 'issues.'

Indo-China relationship.

A Turning Point
Indian Prime Minister's visit to China in December 1988 was a turning point in the
sense of the expression. It provided an effective and active ground for pursuing the
process of Sino-Indian normalization of relations and the settlement of the vexed
boundary disputes.

The constitution of the Joint Working Group provided an operational framework

for the securing of conflict resolution as well as for the conduct of relations.
Further, the 1988 visit invigorated the process of high level contacts between India
and China, and the exercises started producing several agreements for the
promotion of trade, economic, cultural and technological cooperation and relations.

During November 1989-June 1991 (Janta Dal-Janata Party rule in India) Beijing
always tried to keep up the process initiated by the late PM Rajiv Gandhi and New
Delhi remained content to reciprocate the Chinese goodwill gestures.

The Visits
In December 1991, Chinese Primere Li Peng visited New Delhi, in June 1992
former President R. Venkataraman visited Beijing and a little later Defence
Minister Sharad Pawar paid a visit to Beijing. These visits, the meetings of the
Joint Commissions and the-activities of the Joint Working Group kept the process
of Sino-India normalisation in an active state. The Joint Working Group, till today
has had six meetings.

At the second meeting, it decided to set up a military level mechanism to

institutionalise the arrangements for maintaining peace and tranquility along the
borders. In Feb. 1992, both the countries agreed to set up Consulate -Generals in
Bombay and Shanghai and agreements made at various levels were in themselves
motivated by the desire not only for extending Sino-Indian cooperation in the
changed environment of international relations but also for creating an
environment conducive for the resolution of the boundary dispute.
International political Transformation
The international system has been undergoing a big transformation under the
impact of several developments- the end of Cold War, the liberalisation and death
of socialism in the countries of Eastern Europe, the termination of Warsaw Pact,
the disintegration of the USSR, rise of United Germany, the socio-economic-
politics, integration of European Community, the rising Islamic Fundamentalism in
West Asia and Central Asia, the weakness of Russia and other members of the
Commonwealth of independent Slates.
The virtual isolation of communist countries China, Cuba and Vietnam, the
possible moves to dislodge remaining communist regimes, the emergence of the
USA as sole super power, unipolanty in international relations and the new need to
cultivate- relations with the developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin
America arc some of the important developments in the Post-Cold war ear of
International political system.

Fear of Isolation
In the new environment, China fears isolation, US hegemony and problem of
maintaining and expanding its exports, rising strength of Islamic Fundamentalism
is also looked with distaste by communist China because of the existence of a
sizeable Muslim population in China. China is apprehensive of US designs to
establish a new world order dominated by the latter.

Conditioning Factors and Factors of Change -New Realizations

China has become wise and has learnt from history that its policy towards India
between 1955 to 1971 was also responsible for putting India in the lap of the
former Soviet Union. It had to suffer a limitation in the past due to the emergence
of strong Moscow-New Delhi relationship.

Strained relations with India had in the past adversely affected China's relations
with many Third World Countries. Further, China has come to realise that a
Muslim Pakistan trying to strengthen and spearhead the forces of Islamic
fundamentalism in West Asia and Central Asia can become a source of strain in
the years to come. India is a developing power and China cannot ignore it for long.

In the era of economic liberalisation China can gain by expanding its trade,
industrial, cultural and even military relations with India. The consistent Indian
efforts for developing friendly cooperation with China also encourages Beijing to
develop Sino-Indian lies. Similar Sino-Indian perceptions in respect of the view
that Human Rights and nuclear issues should not be used as ploys of USA and
Western Countries for interventions in the internal affairs of other sovereign states.
Nevertheless it wants to keep limited the U.S.A. power in Asia, particularly South
Asia, because it fears that the U.S.A. would not hesitate (o secure an overthrow of
Communism in China.
Indian Perceptions
Right after its independence, India decided to work for establishing high level
friendly cooperation with China. For this end in view it gave full recognition to
Communist China, advocated strongly the case of Communist China's entry into
the United Nations and its Security Council as a permanent member, signed the
Tibet Agreement and Panchsheel Agreement with China, and. took pride in
'introducing' China at Bandung Afro-Asian Solidarity Conference.

However, Chinese aggressive border policy against India and the October 1962
Chinese aggression gave a severe blow to India's efforts and the concept of Sino-
Indian Bhai-Bhai got buried in the Himalayan snows.

Conduct of relations with Communist China, which started playing host to

Pakistan in all spheres of relations and giving it distinct preference over India,
became a real big problem for Indian leadership.

It was only in early seventies that India was in a position to break the impasse by
upgrading, in 1976, diplomatic relations with China, This decision gave a solid
ground to the process of normalisation of Sinn-India relations.

In 1979 India's Foreign Minister Mr. Vajpayee visited China foul the trop got
terminated mid-way due to Chinese attack on Vietnam. The broken threads of
contacts with China were picked up again in 1980 when Mrs. Gandhi returned to
power in India.

In 1981 the then Chinese Foreign Minister Huang Hua visited India. Thereafter the
progress of Sino-Indian normalisation started picking up, despite China's
threatening postures towards India's Arunachal Pradesh. The crisis of 1984
Summer was kept within limits and the Sino-India dialogue was kept open.
Rajiv Gandhi Visit
In December 1988, the late PM Rajiv Gandhi visited China and his visit proved to
be a turning point in the bilateral relations of the two Asian powers. The decision
to maintain peace and tranquility on borders and the constitution of a Joint
Working Group gave good health to the process of Sino-Indian normalisation of
relations.
The two countries decided to transform normalisation into a process of bilateral
cooperation in various spheres of relations. The boundary dispute was sought to be
resolved through concerted joint efforts and was not allowed to materially check
the development of ties.
Thus in the contemporary era of international relations both India and China came
to realise the new importance of each other. They decided to step up the process
that had been initiated in December 1988.
The visit of Chinese Prime Minister to India in December 1991 and Indian
President's, and Defence Minister's visits to China in mid-1992 have added
strength to the process of normalisation.
 Li peng's Visit
With a view to push further the process of Invigorated normalisation initiated in
Dec. 1988, Chinese PM Li Peng paid a six day official return visit to India and
conducted talks, signed agreements and expressed the willingness to promote still
belter relations with India.
The whole- gamut of Sino-India relations including the vexed boundary disputes
were reviewed by the two Prime Ministers of India and China.

Mr Li also observed: "At least we can start the process of settlement of the vexed
boundary question." Staling that both sides shared the desire to maintain peace and
tranquility in the border areas, the Chinese Premier said. "I am confident that a
solution can finally be found through amicable consultations conducted in a spirit
of mutual understanding and mutual accommodation.
Both the sides however, agreed that boundary dispute should not come in the way
of the expanding of bilateral relations.
In a major step towards expanding and strengthening bilateral relations, India and
China agreed to resume border trade on the basis of equality and mutual benefit,
reopen Consultes-General at Bombay and Shanghai after 29 years and cooperate
with each other in spare research, technology and application.
The agreement followed the successful completion of several high-level
discussions between the Department of Space of India and the Chinese Ministry of
Aerospace. China and India, being two large developing nations, stood to gain
considerably by co-operation in frontier technology, like space, in which both
countries had made remarkable progress in recent years.
Analysing the outcome of Mr. Li Peng's visit, it can be Mated that while little
progress was made in respect of a solution of the vexed boundary issue, the visit
generated goodwill and an atmosphere conducive for strengthening bilateral
relations.
Making statement in the Lok Sahha. PM. N'arasimha Rao, observed, "India and
China owed it to humanity to work together as the world was in a slate of ferment
despite elimination of East-West tensions."
High Level Visits
In another way this visit produced a healthy environment for increased high level
political contacts. In June 1992 former President Venkataraman visited Beizing
and held useful discussions with Chinese leaders. His visit was followed by the
visit of Defence Minister Sharad Pawar's visit to China.

The festival of China in India was held and in 1993 India festival in China was to
be held. All these development indicate welcome new trends in Sino-Indian
relations. India and China are Irving to recover rather salvage the close and
intimate ties of early 1950s.
Suggestions As to China
China must realise the due importance of India and should refrain from helping
Pakistan as a counterpoise to India or as a state capable of keeping India under
pressure. In the post- Tiananmen and post-USSR, even in post-Communism era.
India has not tried either to condemn China: or to isolate China or even to
pressurise China by immediately cultivating defence or alliance type relations with
the U.S.A.

Further, China must not try to woo or pressure or cajole the tiny Himalayan
kingdom Bhutan into a boundary demarcation agreement based on certain principle
of delimitation which may be later on invoked against India during the course of
exercise to .settle the Sino-Indian boundary dispute.
Further, China is quite sensitive towards the Tibet issue. It is keeping Tibet in a
stale of siege. India can [Link] this position at feast as. a bargaining point. In the
words of Parshotam Mehta "Pakisairs close liasion with China heavily underlined
by the just concluded (October 1992) visit of Pakistans Prime Minister To Beijing
and their adversary relationship with India has been a major fact of life all through
the seventies and almost (ha eighties while our growing ties with Beijing should to
an extent neutralise the earlier sling, there had sadly been no let up in the anti-India
stance of our Western Neiglibnour."

Future Course of India's Relations With China

T.N. Kaul very aptly analysed the future course of Sino-India relations in his book
'Reminiscences- Discrete and Indiscrete. "He wrote, India and China have to live
as neighbors. Geography cannot be changed by either. "
This appears to be the best available approach to the issue of establishing fully
normal and friendly relations with China and for solving the crucial and knotty
Sino-Indian boundary dispute.

Q. 28 Discuss the nature of developing relations between India and Russia.

Ans. After the disintegration of the USSR in December 1991, Russia emerged as
the successor slate of the former super power in world politics. Since that time
India and Russia have been getting engaged in giving a desired direction and health
to their bilateral relations. Each is conscious of the importance of the other for the
preservation and fulfilling of their respective politico-economic strategic interests
in the contemporary international system.
The disintegration of the Soviet Union in December 1991, gave rise to the
Commonwealth of Independent States formed by the 12 Soviet Republics of
former USSR. Legally Russia came to be the successor of the USSR and this was
symbolized in transfer for the USSR's permanent seal and veto power in the UN
Security Council to Russia.
The nuclear weapon, key of the USSR was also handed over by the Soviet
President Garbochev to Russian President Boris Yeltsin. The end of the Soviet
Union came as a big loss to India because it meant an end to an era of high level
trade, industrial, technological and military supplies relations.
The issue of availability of Soviet spare parts for India's defence machine and air-
crafts became a big headache.
The non-availability of time tested friendship of a super power, as USSR was, and
the problem of securing defence supplies particularly at a time when Pakistan was
maintaining a proxy war in Jammua and Kashmir and Punjab which could develop
into a war al any time, acted as a big limitation on India's foreign relations.
India had become quite aware of the impending problem resulting from the
instability and weakness of the USSR and had tried to establish a rapport with the
Russian President Boris Yeltsin. However, till the continued existence of the
USSR, it remained difficult for India to balance contacts with President Gorbachev
and President Yeltsin, particularly because of the known differences between the
two leaders.
In November 1991. Indian Minister of External Affairs, Mr. Madhav Singh
Solanki visited the USSR and tried to retail Indo-Soviet Relations which had gone
somewhat off the rails because of restructuring of the territories of the USSR.
He used the opportunity to establish contacts with Russian federation officials as
well as to assess in advance the position of Russia vis-a-vis USSR. He met several
officials both of the Soviet administration and of Russian administration. The visit
served to highlight the ground situation in the USSR. However while the Soviets
assured of their continued interest in doing business with India and providing
mechanisms for resolving problems such as the rupee-rouble parity, as and when
these may arise, the Russian Government declared that it would not recognise
special trading agreements between the USSR and third countries on its ' territory
(of which the rupee-rouble trade was one).

Even when Mr. Solanki was present in Moscow, the Russian Foreign Minister
Kosirov observed in a TV interview that Russia would opt for direct diplomatic
relations with India, thereby implying that the door was open for a similar move by
other Soviet Republics/The visit. therefore, brought 10 tight the fluid nature of
Soviet polity of 1991 as well as the possible difficulties in the way of development
of India's relations with Russia,
When the Soviet Union disintegrated completely in December 1991, lies with
Russia became particularly important to India as Russia was the largest and the
richest. former Soviet Republic, which became the successor of the USSR and
which accounted for about 70 percent of the total Indo-Soviet trade.

Russian President Yeltsin lost no time in stating that he believed that commitments
to India should be met, yet. India fell uncertain because of the critical situation of
Russian economy, lack of clear cut policy, Jack of information regarding Russian
ability to fulfill India's defence spares needs, the problems contracted with the
fixation of a realistic exchange rate and the fate of rupee-rouble trade.

In order to overcome the difficulties and resolve disagreements over certain crucial
issues like the supply of Russian military spares to India and the fixation of Rupee-
Rouble exchange rate and trade relations and the conduct of relations with
Republics of former Soviet Union, India initialed immediate steps.

In early 1992, India and Russia took first firm step to rebuild economic relations
which had been shattered during the unprecendented political turmoil and
disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991. A bold attempt was made to rationalise
Indo-Russian tics particularly in the economic sphere. The decisions Jo end rupee
trade, (using the Indian currency as the unit of exchange) and to switch over to
hard currencies was taken. It was designed to dissolve the old and continuing
problem of fixing and refixing rupee-rouble parity. This decision was also
necessitated because both the countries had launched themselves on the road to
market economy which necessitated the acceleration of foreign exchange earnings.

The Indo-Russian trade was also free from governmental monopoly and the private
companies from either country were permitted to enter each other's market both as
a buyer and seller. This decision had the potential to gear the Indo-Russian import-
export relations. Further, India was able to secure a commitment from the Russian
Foreign Minister Gcnnedy Burbulis, during his visit to New Delhi, for maintaining
an uniterrupted availability of spares needed by the Indian defence machine.

In January 1991, India and the erswhile Soviet Union had signed a contract for the
supply of Cryogenic engine by the Soviet space body Glavkosmos to India. This
engine was to be used by India for putting satellites in the space and Russia agreed
to preserve this contract.
However, when the USA started putting pressure on India for checking its Space,
Satellite and Missile development plans, initially Russia agreed to supply the
cryogenic engine to India as per agreement and on schedules. It declared that
Russia would not bow to any pressure to cancel rocket technology transfer to India.
Later on, US administration Started pulling pressure on Russia for maintaining the
Missile Technology Control Regime and in case of its failure to do so, threatened
trade sanctions against Russia.

Because of US pressure Russia, while maintaining the decision to uphold the

January 1991 Agreement, expressed the view that India should provide appropriate
guarantees on its future use. PM Narasimha Rao, while denying the reports that the
Russian agency Glavkosoms had suspended or cancelled the contract for the
development of space programme in India, told the Lok Sabha that Space Secretary
had gone to Moscow for technical discussions as requested by the Russian side,
The Russians had informed the Government of India that they wanted "further
technical discussions." "It meant that they wanted to discuss technical safety of the
programme, engine transaction and needed further assurance at technical level"
The rocket technology transfer agreement is yet to be translated into action by
India and Russia. Since it is a legal and binding agreement between two sovereign
nations, India expects that Russia would come forward to fulfil its legal obligations
as the successor of the former Soviet Union.
Meanwhile supply of Russian spares for India's defence machines have been going
on. Mr. Sharad Pawar, the Indian Defence Minister went
even to the extent of recording that the Country's delence preparedness would be
maintained by expediting supply of critical delencespare parts and technological
support from Russia, 'under a 400 million US dollar credit facility executed by
President Boris Yeltsin. Improved versions of the Mig 29 aircraft were also likely
to be acquired.

After a series of discussions with top Russian leader, including State Secretary
Gennady Butbulis, Foreign Minister Andorei Kozyre, Foreign Economic Relations
Minister Pyoter Avcn and First Deputy Defence Minister [Link], the outgoing
Indian Ambassador Alfred S. Gonsalves in his farewell briefing with newspersons,
on October 3, 1992, observed that in what is considered as a major shift in its
policy Russia is to finance defence cooperation with India. While declining to
comment on reports about the S 830 million credit line to India for the purchase of
modern hardware for Indian armed forces as approved by Russian President Boris
Yeltsin, Mr. Gonsalves stated that Russia favoured strategic cooperation with
India, not limited to just defence, in view of the situation in Central Asia and West
Asia {Growing strength of Islamic fundamentalism).
He further observed that Mrs Kozyrev also assured Mr. Gonsalvcs that India
remained Russia's highest priority. The Russian Foreign Ministry had worked out a
draft agreement on regular constitutions and cooperation between the two
countries. The agreement was signed during Mr. Yeltsin's visit to India in January
1993.

Dr. Burbulis, a seniormost policy maker in the Yeltsin administration, who was
handling preparations for the President's visit to India, shared the contents of some
of the documents expected to be signed with India on extensive trade, defence
cooperation and civil projects co-operation.

Mr. Aven also expressed his government's will 10 normalise trade with India and
assured the Indian Ambassador that by the end of this year Russia would supply
another two million tonnes of crude oil in addition to one million tonnes agreed
last month. Russia had also decided to supply another three million tonnes of oil to
India in 1993. He also confirmed his government's commitment to honour the
contract on the sale of the cryogenic rocket engines to India and noted that in this
matter the Russian Government had the "firm" backing of the country's Parliament.

Mr. Gonsalves said that the leaders assured him that Russia's long term strategic
interests were in maintaining better relations with India. Indicating a lilt in Russian
foreign policy favouring Asia, particularly India, China, South Korea & Turkey,
the outgoing ambassador observed that defence relations would continue to play a
major role in the relations between the two countries as there was a realisation that
both countries together could play a major role in the new sensitive areas of the
world, including Central Asia and West Asia.

Pointing out that Indo-Russian relations had reached a take-off phase and the
period of uncertainty was over, Mr. Gonsalves said that the future directions of
cooperation between the two countries would continue in defence and power as
also long-term civic projects. Russia would finance both trade and defence
projects, he said: "Financing in defence is a major step such assistance is not given
to anyone else". Russia agreed to this during Indian Defence Minister Sharad
Pawar's recent visit to Moscow.

Further, Pakistan has been given a clear hint that its seeking arms from Russia is a
wastage of time. Though some concrete Russian military-industrial units were
interested in selling modern arms to Pakistan, there were standing instructions
from President Yeltsin not to sell them to Islamabad. Mr. Gonsalves said he was
told this by Russian Deputy Minister Kunadze. Pakistan was told by the Russian
side that Mr. Yeltsin's visit to India in January and a bilateral Russian-Indian treaty
of friendship, and cooperation did not fit with the sale of arms to Pakistan.
These observations of India's out-going ambassador to Moscow, clearly hold out
the view that Indo-Russian ties arc, heading for a better future. Mr. Gonsalves was
also reported to have observed that, "We have more orderly relations with Russia
than what we had with the Soviet Union." It is perhaps on this account that rather
than adopting the 1971 Treaty of Peace. Friendship and Cooperation between India
and the Soviet Union, Russia has decided to sign afresh an amended treaty of
peace, friendship and cooperation with India.

Q 29 Write a note on the New Beginning in Indo-Russian Relations.

Ans. In the last week of January 1993, India and Russia were successful in putting
behind them the turmoil and uncertainties of the 1991-92 period, and in ushering
on the bilateral relations toward increasing friendship, cooperation and mutually
fruitful trade. The new phase came during Russian President Boris Yeltsin's 3 day
visit to India. Both the countries were successful in resolving several core
problems, apart from singing a treaty of friendship and Cooperation and a host of
other agreements. Both the countries were in a position to fill in the hiatus that had
prevailed in their bilateral relations since the disintegration of the USSR and the
rise of Russia as a successor Mate.
India and Russia in a major breakthrough reached an agreement on the 15 year old
rupee-rouble exchange rate impasse and a three-point package to ensure an
uninterrupted supply of Russan defence spares to India.

In a "decisive and forthright political agreement". President Boris Yeltsin and

Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao decided that the exchange rate to re-estimate
India's debt would be the one that existed on January 1, 1990, and the whole
package would be implemented from April 1 last year.
An External Affairs Ministry spokesman said this would give India a net advaniage
of 39 per cent in its huge debt repayment to the erstwhile Soviet Union, estimated
by Russia around $10 billion to be payable by the year 2010. While the technical
details were being worked out, the Indian debt would now be repayable in 45
years. The exchange rate was staled to be Rs. 16 to one rouble as on January
1,1990.

The two countries signed a comprehensive agreement to ensure guaranteed

supplies of defence equipment, spare parts, product support and services heeded
for maintenance, repair and modernisation of frontline Russian armament deployed
by the Indian Army, Navy and Air Force. The wide-ranging agreement was
chalked out at a 75-minute meeting between the two Defence Ministers and their
delegations at South Bloc.

Mr. Yeltsin also announced that Russia would support India in the United Nations
Security Council on the Kashmir issue. He declared his country's support for
India's unity and territorial integrity as Mr. Rao apprised him of India's position
that Kashmir was an integral part of the country.

India and Russia discussed the danger posed by fundamentalism which had led to
violence and terrorism in different parts of the world. in an apparent reference to
Pakistan, Mr. Rao underlined the threat posed by cross-border state-sponsored
terrorism.
During the visit both the countries agreed that bilateral trade would be stepped up
and could reach $ 2.5 billion in 1993 and $ 3.5 billion by 1994.

President Yeltsin invited the Indian businessmen to "now get crowded" in the
Russian market as most of the trade and economic problems between the two
countries had been resolved.

The Russian President outlined the three-pronged strategy as setting up of units in

India to manufacture the spares, joint ventures by the two countries for this and
Ehe supply of "disengaged" Russian armaments to India.

India had been facing hardship in getting a regular supply of military supplies from
the erstwhile Soviet Union since 1987. In an apparent reference to pressures from
the USA, Mr. Yeltsin said Russia would not allow a third party intervention to
come in the way of the commuted supply of cryogenic rocket engines to India. A
contract had been signed by Indian .Space Research Organisation (ISRO) and the
Russian firm Glavkosomos for the supply of the engines by 1995 and transfer of its
technology subsequently by 1997.

With the end of the Cold War, Mr. Yeltsin said Russia would no longer pursue the
policy of political and economic blocs. Instead, it would adhere to independent
foreign policy. The stress would, hereafter, be on bilateral basis rather than on
creation of blues. "We would not use India for political intrigues", he said.

India and Russia agreed to coordinate their activities and exchange information and
experience to combat different manifestations of terrorism, organised crime and
illegal arms trade. An agreement to this effect was signed between the Indian
Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Security of the Russian Federation
on 29th January 2993.

In terms of the agreement, the two countries would also exchange information on
checking international illegal economic activities and contraband and render
mutual assistance in search of persons suspected of committing crimes,
investigation of which is within the competence of the two countries. They would
also assist and coordinate in ensuring security of their respective diplomatic and
consular officers and staff as well as to persons whom special security has been
provided by the two governments.

Both India and Russia agreed to conduct joint scientific research in the fields of
mutual interests, exchange publications and results of the research and scientific
and technical information and other materials.

According to the agreement, any information and materials, that are the subject of
exchange between the parties, as well as the information on the extent and content
of their cooperation are confidential and may not be transferred to anybody without
evidently expressed consent or request of the party which has provided such
information. In case of necessity- to communicate of a third party the information
received by one of the parties under the agreement, the written consent of the party
which has communicated this information shall be required. To maintain effective
communication and co-ordination of the cooperation under the agreement, the two
countries may on the basis of reciprocity, appoint a representative liaison officer.

The signing of a new Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation was designed to guide
the path of Indo-Russian relations in the next 20 years. It held that India and Russia
would refrain from taking any action that might affect the security interests of each
other.

According to the Treaty, the two countries also agreed on the necessity to liquidate
weapons of mass destruction and to support the process of nuclear disarmament. At
the same time, the two countries underlined the necessity to have minimum
defence capabilities that would strengthen security and stability in the region and
the world.

The treaty, which formed the first major document to guide the future of Indo-
Russian relations, after Russia became an independent republic in 1991, was to be
valid for 20 years after it is ratified by the Parliament of the two countries. It
replaced the 1971 Indo-Soviet Treaty, without the security clause. Il began with
preamble which took note of the 1971 pact under which India and the former
USSR were to consult and help each oilier in the event of an attack.

According to the inter-governmental protocol the Foreign Ministers of India and

Russia will establish a mechanism for regular consultations to review the
implementation of agreements reached between them and to review international
and bilateral issues. The ministers were to meet at least once a year. Consultations
between the Foreign Offices of the two countries were to be held on an annual
basis, alternately in New Delhi and Moscow. The first round of consultations was
to be held in February between the Department of Science and Technology and (he
Ministry of Science of Russia.

Addressing a Joint Press Conference with the Prime Minister, Mr. P.V Narasimha
Rao, at the conclusion of his 3-day visit, Mr. Boris Yeltsin extended unequivocal
support to India on Kashmir.

He observed "the truth was on India's side on the Kashmir issue." He also offered
support to any move to induct India into the UN Security Council as a permanent
member. Reading to the VS proposal to bring Germany and Japan to the Security
Council, the Russian President held that it needed a closer look.
Further, while extending Russian hand of friendship and cooperation to India, Mr..
Yeltsin held that "though we want to have some relations with Pakistan, with
regard to military and technical aspects, we are not prepared to extend any aid to
Pakistan." "Russia would, however, extend support to India in its bid to normalise
relations with China and Pakistan."

Commenting upon the outcome of his visit to India, Mr. Yeltsin said that it had put
an end to the three-year pause in Indo-Russian relations which were now entering a
new phase marked by dynamism. The relationship would have a sound basis of
political and economic interests and would be devoid of political hypocrisy,"

The signing of several agreements and the friendship treaty between India and
Russia were designed to provide a firm foundation for successful bilateral
cooperation.

However in July, 1993, Russia, acting under American pressures, decided not to
transfer the technology for cryogenic rocket engines to India, It was totally against
the official Russian declarations to the contrary. While India needed these engines
for pursuing its space programme, the USA fell that these would be used in India's
missile development programme. Russia was convinced of Indian viewpoint but
had to bow before the USA. apparently for getting American and Western
development aid. In September 1993, Russia decided to compensate India for
breaking the cryogenic rocket deal. The whole episode reflected the Russian desire
to keep up its relations with India as well as its helplessness before and dependence
upon the USA.

P.M. Narasimha Rao's Russian Visit. In June 1994, PM Narasimha Rao Visited
Russia for giving a desired direction to Indo-Russian relations. The visit produced
two significant declarations and nine agreements. Both the countries denounced the
efforts to weaken the unity of pluralisation states though religious extremism. Both
agreed to jointly fight the forces of aggressive nationalism and religious
fanaticism.

The leaders of the two countries agreed to improve their bilateral relations further.
The agreements signed related to increased defence cooperation, extension of the
$830 million defence credit, the .setting up of a joint venture to service military
aircrafts of the Russian origin, peaceful space research, science and technology,
informatics, protection of environment, meteorology, standardisation and
certification.

This visit was successful in plugging the gap that appeared to have come in the
relations between (he two countries when Russia had freezed the cryogenic rocket
deal.

Currently India and Russian have been, once again, frying to revive their bilateral
cooperation for mutual development. In December ]994, the Soviet Premier Mr,
Viktor Chernomyrdin visited India and held important discussions with the Indian
Prime Minister and other leaders. He categorically denied that Russia was giving
weapons to Pakistan. He also identified Pakistan as one of the countries of origin
of foreign mercenaries operating in Russian Republic of Chechnya. He clearly
stated the Russian commitment to develop relations with' India. During his visit
eight agreements were signed for strengthening bilateral cooperation, in various
fields including military, technology and space research. These agreements
committed the two countries to lay deep the foundations for the growth of Indo-
Russian friendly cooperation in the years to come.

The need of the hour, for both the countries, is to build upon this foundation in a
beneficial and comprehensive wav for securing the commonly held objectives of
peace, security and development. In fact, Russia needs all round development of
relations with India for several reasons just as India needs these relations for
maintaining and securing its own interests, The Soviet Union was a super power,
Russia is not. Hence, Russia needs India as much as India needs Russia.

After the end of the Cold War, the long term strategic interest of Russia and India
coincide. Both are interested in the multipolar structure of the world whose
components would balance each other's influence.

In the economic spheres the interdependence among the two states remains. India
cannot ignore the need for Russian military spares and technology, and Russia is
faced with consumer goods shortages which can be met with Indian supplies and
help. Moreover, for the health of her exports, Russia would not wish that India
should develop the Washington alternative for meeting its defence and
technological needs.

In the international sphere India and Russia have reasons to be more cooperative.
Both the countries are faced with growing external debt repayment problem, for
both maintaining of foreign exchange reserve levels is going to be problematic,
both are interested in checking the growing strength of Islamic fundamentalism in
West Asia and Central Asia, both are still to normalise fully their relations with
communist China, and both realise the importance of bilatenil trade for the health
of their economics. These factors can provide, and it is hoped will provide, a good
ground and foundations to the growth of Indo Russian lies and relations in the days
to come. In fact Russia is now coming out of its shell and trying hard to re-
establish its friendly and cooperative relations with India and the latter is prepared
to reciprocate.
Indo-Pak relations.
Pakistan's support of Terrorism and Militancy: Pakistan's known support and help
to Kashmir militants and the virtual anti-Indian tirade launched by Pakistani rulers
after the happenings of December 6, 1992 over Ayodhya have been responsible for
throwing all talk of Indo-Pak friendly cooperation in the post-Cold War era to
winds. There has been no change in Pakistan's anti-India attitude.

Islamic Muslim Fundamentalism: Currently, Pakistan has been busy in rallying

the Islamic countries behind it over the issue of demolition of disputed structure at
Ayodhaya. It has been trying hard to project India as a Hindu India acting against
Muslims, particularly Kashmiri Muslims.
It is always at pains to project India as a state where wholesale violations of human
rights of Muslims are taking place. Domestic compulsions of Pakistan have been
forcing Pakistani rulers to use anti-India rather hate-India card to maintain
credibility and popularity at home.
Pakistan's Anti-India Stands: Since 1947 Pakistan has been maintaining an anti-
India policy. This feature of its foreign policy has been continuously reflected in its
foreign policy decisions and behaviour in international relations. Presently
Pakistan's foreign policy is revolving around anti-India pivot.

Pakistan's Anti-India Orientation: Pakistan is always engaged in projecting its

image as an Islamic state and India as a Hindu Slate. It always up-holds the two-
nations theory which has for its basis that Hindus and Muslims are two separate
Nations. Pakistan represents [he interests of Muslims and always tried to project
itself as a champion of the human fights of Indian Muslims.
In doing so Pakistan out rightly refuses to accept the Indian view tha its policies
and action quite often constitute an interference in Indian internal affairs.

Instigating Islamic Fundamentalism : In projecting its image as a stable,

committed and fast developing Islamic country, Pakistan has been continuously
engaged in consolidating the forces of Islamic fundamentalism in World, e.g. OIC,
ECO as well as in Middle East. West Asia and Central Asia.

It has been successful in getting former USSR into an organisation called ECO. It
is designed to be a forum for the promotion of regional cooperation for economic
development among the member countries. However, Pakistan is expected to use
this forum for drawing these states not only away from India but also for
supporting Pakistan in its anti-India decisions.

Kashmir Issue: Pakistan has never hesitated to use its membership of NAM and
Commonwealth of Nations, CMC and ECO to raise to Kashmir issue and in the
process practice its anti-India stance. It did so at the CHOGM Meet 1992. Accra
Conference of the NAM Foreign Affair Ministers 1992, Tenth NAM Summit Meet
Sept. YB2, and subsequent meetings and conferences.

Supports to Kashmir Militants : Since 1989 Pakistan has been actively engaged
in supporting the Kashmiri militant organisations operating in the Kashmir Valley.
In the name of Islam it has always tried to preach Anti-Indianism in Kashmir
which happens in be a Muslim-majority area of India.

The Kashmiri militants arc regarded by it as freedom fighters, engaged in Jehad

against Indian oppression and dominance.
Making Kashmir A Muslim Issue: Presently Pakistan has been engaged in
presenting Kashmir as a Muslim issue. It has tried and it has been successful in
getting passed resolutions from the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC)
calling for India to protect the human rights of Kashmiri Muslims and to give them
the right of self determination.

Weapons Support : The support to Kashmiri militants by the supply of weapons,

money and logistic support is being supplemented by encouraging the people on
both sides of the Line of Actual Control (LOC) in Kashmir to end this line.
From its own side of Kashmir, Pakistan has been giving moral support and help to
'Marches' designed to cross the LOC. However, it has also acted to thwart these
Marches at their final stages.

Pakistan's Kashmir Policy

(1) To present Kashmir problems as a Muslim problem.
(2) To involve the Muslim countries and their organisation (OIC) in the Kashmir
issue on the
side of Pakistan.
(3) To provide all help and support material, military, moral, ideological and
logistic to Kashmiri militants.
(4) To keep up pressures on India by giving help to militants in Punjab and other
anti-India elements operating in India.
(5) To unite Islamic fundamentals! forces in Asia and make them accepl Pakistani
view of Kashmir as a Muslim problem and India as an anti-Mushm country.
In November 1992, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and six Islamic states or
Centred Asia (Republics of former USSR) joined hands to form ECO. It is
designed to secure friendly cooperation among the Muslim countries, which
includes (he friendship to support Pakistan against India, particularly in respect of
the Kashmir issue.
(6) To keep pressure on India by maintaining its attempts to capture some of the
Indian posts in Siachen and Kargil sectors. On the one hand it has been
maintaining a dialogue for reducing tensions on the Siachen battle line and on the
other hand it has been trying to keep up pressure on Indian security forces with
view to weaken Indian ability to meet the menace posed by militants in Kashmir.
(7) The current Kashmir turmoil is presented as a struggle of the people of
Kashmir to secure their rights and freedom including the right of self
determination.
(8) To describe Indian Secularism as a facade secularism-Hindu fanaticism and
fundamentalist chauvinism in (he disguise of Secularism.
This is being done by Pakistan to oppose the Indian view that Kashmir is a symbol
of Indian secularism.
(9) To raise the Kashmir issue at the United Nations after securing the committed-
support of Muslim countries to Pakistan stand on Kashmir.
(10) To use its two-year (1993-94) membership of the UN Security Council for
pursuing a vigorous role (i) for highlighting "the violation of Human Rights in
Indian occupied Kashmir," (ii) for securing support for the Right of Self-
detcrmination of the people of Kashmir.

Nuclear Capability: According to American Press reports, based on investigative

journalism Pakistan has acquired the capability to make at least seven nuclear
bombs. Even the foreign secretary of Pakistan admitted during the course of his
visit to New York in 1992 that Pakistan was having one nuclear bomb.

South Asia as a Nuclear Free Zone: Its demand for making South Asia a nuclear
free zone is designed to win back the USA and since India is opposed to this
demand to secure an indictment of India as a potential nuclear weapon slate. In
November 1992, it sponsored a resolution in the United Nations for making South
Asia a nuclear weapon free zone.

Indian Policy Vis-a-Vis Pakistan

Since Kashmir is an integral part of India, as its accession to India has been a legal
and historical in fact, India holds that the only issue that has to be sealed is the
issue of Pakistan's occupation of a large part of India's J &. K. Indo-Pak
differences over Kashmir have been indeed very wide.

India regards the happenings in Kashmir as Pakistan sponsored militancy, a proxy

war lhat Pakistan has been making against India since December 1989. It asserts,
and has been exercising its right and duty to project pressure and defend the dimity
and integrity of India, of which Kashmir is an integral part.
Nuclear Programme Factor
India upholds its nuclear programme as peaceful nuclear technology development
programme. India is not prepared to sign NPT because it is discriminatory treaty
aimed at perpetuating the gap between the nuclear weapon and non-nuclear
weapon states.
It wants other countries, particularly the USA and China to restrain Pakistan from
developing further its known nuclear weapon capability. Indian nuclear policy, as
such, is opposed to Pakistani nuclear policy. The nuclear factor is an important
factor of Indo-Pak relations of
 Babri Masjid Incident
India is a secular state. It has been living with and trying to develop the secular
culture. Babri Masjid demolitation has been the handiwork of some fanatic Hindus.
All Hindus are not fanatics. Just as there are fanatics in every religion, including
Islam, likewise, there are some fanatics among the Hindus.

It is a known and recorded problem, the Pakistan rulers have always tended to use
the Kashmir card. Now along with Kashmir it has been using the Babri Masjid card
and the South Asia Nuclear Weapon Free Zone card to malign India and secure
internal support for the regime.

The Realism
So long as Pakistan continues to talk for the sake of talk and keep up its anti-India
policies on the ground, there can be no meaningful and real progress in Indo-Pak
relations. Shimla spirit appears to have been evaporated, rather it has been thrown
to the winds by the Pakistani rulers.

An agreement, however, sacred or legal, is a piece of paper unless it is respected

and used by both the parties. Pakistan now disregards the Shimla Agreement and
India cannot maintain it single-handedly. As such Indo-Pak relations are bound to
drift and remain tense in last decade of the 20th century.

Indo-Sri Lanka relations. The basic attitude of India towards its neighbouring
countries has always been one of the goodwill and neighbourliness and of equality.
Consequently, the main thrust of Indian Foreign Policy has been governed by the
assumption that India can play a really effective and useful role in world politics
only if it can develop peaceful, friendly and productive relations with the
neighbouring countries.

Being a big and powerful state of South Asia, India considers its responsibility to
assure its neighbouring slates that India aspires for no hegemonistic role in the
South" Asia and that it is keen to develop with its small neighbours warm, friendly
and cooperative relations based upon equality and mutual respect for each other's
sovereignty and territorial integrity. It has been on this basis that India has, ever
since her independence, tried to establish cordial relations with her neighbours.

In particular, in respect of Sri Lanka, Indian foreign policy has always been
governed by the desire to assure Sri Lanka that India fully respects the sovereignty
and integrity of the island country and that India is keen to cement the traditional,
cultural and trade ties by taking concrete steps towards the development of a more
meaningful friendship and fruitful cooperation between the two countries.
However, several hindering factors have always kept the path of Indo-Sri Lankan
ties uneven and strained.
(1) Sri Lankan Fears- Sri Lanka has hot been quite forth-right in coming forward to
develop highly cooperative relations with India. Being a small slate with a
population 43 times lesser and a territory 50 times smaller than India. Sri Lanka
has been quite fearful of the-role of India in South Asia and in the India Ocean
area.

As Ivor Jenning says, "People of Sri Lanka have a sensation of living under a
mountain (India) which might send down destructive avalanches." A certain
section of Sri Lanka ruling elite has been apprehensive about Indian role towards
Sri Lanka. Originally, it feared that India would like to fill in the power gap that
was to appear as a result of complete British withdrawal front South Asia.

The memory of invasion of Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) by South Indian Stales gave
strength to such a fear. They further fear that Sri Lanka matters in the defensive
calculations of India and in case of an attack upon India from the South, Sri Lanka
with its finest natural harbor of Trincomalee, is likely to covet India's attention.

The existence of 12% of Tamil speaking people of Indian origin and their
organised opposition of the ruling Sinhalese also has been responsible fur
generating a sense of fear from India. Many persons in Sri Lanka fear that India
can create trouble in their country by supporting the Tahitians of Sri Lanka.

In particular, they fear the Indian state of Tamil Nadu, particularly when it is ruled
by DMK or AIDMK, as a state bent upon supporting the establishment of an
independent state-consisting of the Tamil speaking areas of India and Sri Lanka.

It has also been feared by the people of the island that, as A.J. Wilson writes, "Sri
Lanka may fall prey to a chauvinistic and politically instable regime in New Delhi
which may seek to buttress its weak domestic position by engaging in forcing
war."

The fear of India has checked Sri Lanka from the parth of moving speedily on the
road to build highly cooperative relations with India. At limes, this has led Sri
Lanka to attempt to find a counterpoise to India.
To begin with, this fear and some other compulsions made Sri Lanka adopt a pro-
West policy, and to conclude a defence security pact with Britain. Sri Lanka's
decision to keep up the naval base at Trinccmalee and the airbase at Katunayka as
also the decision to remain in the Commonwealth, were prompted by the desire to
check the 'threat from India',

In the sixties, Sri Lanka tried to secure friendship with China for this purpose. Its
swing towards China after India's debacle in the border con/lie! with China in
1962, opines Kodikara, could be interpreted as an effort in the direction of "The
island's continual search for reinsurance against India."

It even tried to cultivate relations with Pakistan because it viewed Pakistan as a

power that could match India in South Asia, It was this feeling that made Sri Lanka
adopt a sympathetic altitude towards Pakistan in 1971. It look nearly six months to
adjust to the new realities in South Asia and to accord recognition to Bangladesh.

Further, after 1971, Sri Lanka felt or at least the USA was successful in putting this
thing into the mind of the Sri Lankan government, that the improvement in
relationship with USA was the best alternative to check the growing Indo-Soviet
power system in South Asia.
Later on, the eruption of ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka's Jaffna area involving Tamils
of Sri Lanka who have deep cultural links with Tamils of India, made Sri Lanka
fearful of India's role. Despite repeated announcement by India that it .stands for a
stable, united and integrated Sri Lanka the Government and people of this island
nation continue to fear India. Tear of India," observes Philip Mason, "has been a
major factor in Sri Lanka's foreign policy, "
However, after having experienced the role of India as a country committed to (he
Non-alignment, good neighbourliness, peace, friendship and cooperation with all,
Sri Lanka has been realising more and more that it has nothing to fear from a
strong and stable India and that it can gain out of friendship and cooperation with
India. Principles of Panchsheel, The repeated assurances given by the Indian
leaders that India, at no time, has tried, and will never try to play a hegemonistic
role or even the role of a big brother towards its neighbours, has been reassuring
Sri Lanka about the good intentions of India towards her small neighbours.

As early as in 1953, Prime Minister Nehru, while speaking in the Lok Sabha on
March 17, observed, "Here is a big continent lying astride north of Ceylon and they
are, I am sorry, I think, unreasonably just afraid of being swamped or swallowed
by India or by Indian people."
He, in this speech, rejected as baseless and mischievous the thesis that India has
aggressive designs on Ceylon. He declared that India stood for peace, amity, good
neighbourliness, friendship and cooperation with Ceylon on the basis of sovereign
equality and mutual respcet for each other's territorial integrity.

Similarly, Mrs. Gandhi in an interview given to the Editor-in-chief of the Times of

Ceylon in April 1972, gave an assurance to the people of Ceylon that India stood
for the sovereignty and prosperity of Ceylon as an independent sovereign state and
wanted to develop the best of friendship and cooperation with Ceylon. She strongly
refuted the view that India has designs on Ceylon. She observed, "Those who think
India had designs on Ceylon arc victims of malicious propaganda. The very idea is
not merely fantastic but absurd and unthinkable."

The Indian leaders, from PM Nehru to Manmohan Singh, have always been at
pains to assure Sri Lanka that India fully accepts and respects the sovereign
equality of Sri Lanka and its status as an important and equal member of the
community of nations.

India nurtures no aggressive designs against Sri Lanka. On the contrary, India
is most anxious to see a stable, strong and developed Sri Lanka. These assurances,
the realisation by Sri Lankan leadership of the geo-political compulsions and of the
need to develop trade and economic relations with the nearest land mass-India,
have made things better for the development of Indo-Sri Lankan relations. Sri
Lanka now relaises that its security and development interests stand squarely
linked with Indian interests and that there is a compatibility and complementarity
between them.

National Interests of India and Sri Lanka. The past experience of having solved
some of the Indo-Sri Lankan problems and disputes through bilateral peaceful
methods has further helped the inculcation of the hope that India and Sri Lanka can
live as good neighbours and work together for securing a higher level of economic
prosperity through bilateral economic, industrial and technological cooperation and
trade links.

Besides these, the similarity in foreign policy perceptions (since, 1956),

commitment to Non-alignment, faith in United Nations and peaceful means for the
settlement of disputes, similar view of the nature and status of Indian Ocean as a
zone of peace, opposition to colonialism and racialism, solidarity with the Third
World, and the resolve to secure the rights of the Third world including the
securing of a New International Economic Order have been a source of strength for
the growth of Indo-Sri Lanka friendship and cooperation. Since 1956, the relations
between these two countries began developing into relations of friendship and co
operation.

The initial apprehensions got replaced by maturer understanding of each other.

Both the countries were successful not only in overcoming the initial lack of
understanding but also in resolving some of the major bilateral issues and
problems.
However, in 1960s and 1970s the Sri Lankan policy of Sinhalisation of society led
to polarisation between the Sinhalese and the Tamils of Sri Lankan. The attempts
of the Tamils to secure an independent state in northern Sri Lanka, started causing
serious strain on Indo-Sri Lanka lies. The Tamils of India had strong cultural links
with Tamils of Sri Lanka. When the ethnic conflict between Sinhalese and Tamils
began and became mililant, the Government oi' India steadfastly held the view that
it fully supports the sovereign integrity of Sri Lanka but the Tamils of India had
sympathies with Tamils of "Sri Lanka. The Sri Lankan' Government again became
apprehensive of role of India. Even the Indo-Sri Lankan Accord (1987) failed to
improve the climate.

Sri Lankans are now accepting the good intentions of India. But Tamil factor
continues to be an irrilanl. The popular support base of LTTE in Tamil Nadu
suffered a big decline after ihe LTTE hand in the murder of former P.M Rajiv
Gandhi became known. In 1992 India imposed a ban on LTTE.

While analysing the natural and history of Indo-Sri Lanka relations one must bear
in mind the above analysis of the facts. In fact, the course of Indo-Sri Lanka
relations has been always determined by two sets of factors-one set of helping and
the other set of hindering factors. Q.32 Explain in brief the negative and Positive
Factors of Indo-Sri Lanka Relations. Ans. Positive Factors of Indo-Sri Lanka
Relations
The following important points of agreement, areas of understanding and positive
factors have been a source of strength and happiness for the bilateral relations
between India and Sri Lanka;
1. The Strong Traditional and Cultural Links between the people of two
Countries. Both the Sinhalese and the Tamils who constitution respectively the
70% and 12% of Sri Lanka's total population accept their traditional links with
India. The Sinhalese accept themselves as the descendants of the Aryans of North
India and the Tamilians accept themselves as the descendants of the Dravids of
South India. The Sinhalese language bears the influence of Hindi. Similarly the
Tamilians speak Tamil-the language of a large number of Indians living in the
South.
Buddhism was introduced in Sri Lanka by India and even till today it continues to
be the religion of the majority of the people of Sri Lanka. The National Day
celebrations of Sri Lanka commence with a religious ceremony at Sri Mahabodhi,
the sacred tree that was grown from a sapling from the Bodhi tree brought in the
third century from Bodh Gaya in North India. Such culltural links between the
people of the two countries have been a source of strength and have helped them to
better understand and adjust with each other.
2. Helpful legacy of relations since 1948- The past experience of having resolved
some of the complex issues and problems through bilateral negotiations also helps
the process of development cooperation in more and more spheres of mutual
interests. In the post-Cold War international system both Sri Lanka and India
realise better the need for developing bilateral friendly cooperation.
3. Similarities in Foreign Polity Perceptions- The similarities in the foreign
policy of the two countries again constitute a helping and positive factor in Indo-
Sri Lanka relations.
(i) Both arc committed to non-alignment and both have played a leading role in the
operationalisation of Non-aligned Movement at the international level. Both Sri
Lanka and India have already served one tenure each as Chairman of the Non-
Aligned Movement. Both the countries are committed to uphold and strengthen the
Non-aligned Movement at International level.
(ii) Both hare a firm faith in Panchsheel.
(iii) Both are opposed to colonialism and racialism.
(iv) Both have firm faith in the ideology of the UN. Charter and both accept
peaceful means for the settlement of all disputes.
(v) Both identify themselves with she Third World and are making important
efforts for securing the rights of the Third World, in particular, the right to secure a
New International Economic Order.
(iv) Both believe in regional cooperation as one of the best means for promoting
their bilateral as well as regional interests. Both have been utilising the Colombo
Plan for securing their respective socio-economic interests and both are
cooperating to make SAARC a successful regional
(vii) Both of them realise fully the urgent need to secure bilateral economic, trade,
industrial and technological cooperation in this post-Cold War era of international
relations. The resovle to fight the neo-colonial control of the developed over the
developing also is a source of strength for Indo-Sri Lankan ties.
(viii) Both now accept more fully the need to resolve the Tamil issue. It has been
causing strains for both the countries and their bilateral ties.
4. The Economic and Trade Links- Both have, during the past five decades
forged important economic, trade, industrial, communication and cultural links.
The progress in these directions gives encouragement to the undertaking of more
steps towards an increased and more extensive bilateral cooperation and links. The
existence of good opportunities for developing more trade links and establishing
joint industrial ventures give
development of more fruitful economic and trade ties.
5. Agreement over the Maritime Boundary and Kachhalivu Island- Both have
successfully resolved the issue of demarcation of the Maritime Boundary and
ownership of Kachhalivu island in a spirit of mutual reconciliation and adjustment.
6. Identity of views regarding the Status of Indian Ocean- Both the countries
have a similar perception about the desired status of Indian Ocean as a zone of
peace. Both the countries arc as such in agreement to work for the securing of this
objective. For achieving this objective both have been collaborating at the United
Nations.
7. Peaceful resolution of difference over the issue of the stateless persons in Sri
Lanka- The peaceful way in which both the countries reached agreements for
repatriation of the people of Indian origin in Sri Lanka, also has been a source of
satisfaction. Both have willingly shared their respective responsibilities towards
the decision regarding the status of the stateless persons in Sri Lanka.
8. The New Realisation- Sri Lanka appears to have now realised that it was
essential for it to build up relations with India which was a sub-regional power and
which alone was capable of helping Sri Lanka in times of need. India on her part
now realises belter the need for developing better bilateral cooperation in all
spheres of relations with Sri Lanka, an island nation strategically located in Indian
Ocean,
9. History of Relations- The history of past five decades now tells both the
countries that they have to have good neighborly relations because of their
geography, history, culture and economic needs.
10. SAARC- India and Sri Lanka have been cooperating, though haltingly, on the
SAARC platform. In December 1992, Sri Lankan Prime Minister did not support
the attempt on the part of Pakistan to raise the Babri Masjid demolitor issue in the
forthcoming SAARC Meeting.
All these factors are the helping or positive factors of [Link] Lanka relations.
Their presence has always been a source of strength and happiness for the bilateral
relations between them.

The Negative Factors or Irritants in

Indo-Sri Lanka Relations
However, along with the above helping and positive factors there-have been
present some major irritants or hindering factors in Indo-Sri Lanka relations. These
factors have been a source of weakness, tensions and strains in the bilateral
relations of these two South Asian neighbours. The following factors and disputes
have been the source of fear, suspicion and tension in Indo-Sri Lankan relations.
1. Sri Lanka's Fears- Sri Lanka's fear of India and the complex that being a small
country its interests and security is bound to be dependent upon the interests and
policy objectives of India, has been a hindering factor in Indo-Sri Lankan relations.
The geo-political and geo-strategic compulsions- the small size and population
as compared to India, the dependence upon the security policy of India in South
Asia, and the close proximity with India have been the .major determinants of Sri
Lanka's foreign policy towards relations with India. The fear generated by the fact
of living under the shadow of Himalaya has been a negative factor.

In has prevented Sri Lanka to open out fully and develop highly warm friendship
and cooperation with India. Even the history of almost past five decades of
bilateral relations has failed to remove this fear from the minds of Sri Lankans.
2. The Differences over Settlement of Stateless Persons- The slow progress
towards the implementation of agreement regarding the repatriation and settlement
of people of Indian origin and the recent difference over the fate of the previous
agreement over this issue, has been another hindering factors In do-Sri Lanka
relations.
India holds that the old agreement has lapsed and that now it is the responsibility of
Sri Lanka to grant citizenship and settle the people of Indian origin in Sri Lanka.
As against this, Sri Lanka feels that the agreements are still in operation and these
continue to bind India towards its responsibility as accepted under the agreements
of 1964 and 1975. Even in 1993, the countries are finding it difficult to implement
fully the agreements already signed.
3. Differences over the issue of Harnessing the Nuclear Energy for Peaceful
Purposes- India believes that it has the right and the need to develop nuclear
technology for peaceful purposes and as such is opposed to the Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT). India conducted its first PNE in -May 1974. It holds that if
necessary it shall conduct more such explosions for implementing the peaceful
nuclear energy utilisation programme which is essential for promoting the
prosperity and welfare of its people. Sri Lanka, on the other hand feds otherwise
and wants that India should sign the NPT. Il did not look with favour the 1974
peaceful nuclear explosion conducted by India.
4. Issue of South Asia as a nuclear weapon free Zone- Much to the dislike of
India, Sri Lanka currently supports the Pakistani demand for making South Asia a
nuclear weapon-free zone. In November 1992, it voted in favour of the Pakistani
sponsored resolution in the Uniled Nations which supported the demand for
making South Asia a nuclear weapon free zone. India is totally opposed to this
piecemeal demand, It favours a general global nuclear disarmament.
5. Internal Conditions of Sri Laoka- The existence of subversive elements in Sri
Lanka, which become active at times, to demand autonomy/ statehood for certain
areas which are inhabited by minorities (mostly Tamil speaking people), has been a
source of irritation in Indo-Sri Lankan relations because a section of the people of
Sri Lanka, consisting of mostly Sinhalese and the members of ruling elite, feels at
insurgents and terrorists operating in their country have their roots and bases in
India.
The sympathy of the Tamils of South India towards the Tamils of Sri Lanka has
been giving a basis to such an apprehension.
The Government of India has repeatedly made il clear to Sri Lankan authorities
thai neither India nor the people of Tamil Nadu are in any way helping or
supporting the Sri Lankan insurgents and territorists, India regards their activities
as internal and domestic issues of Sri Lanka.
India has been cooperating with Sri Lanka in investigating reports about the
supposed links and hide-outs of Sri Lankan insurgents in India. Bui this fails to
satisfy the Sinhalese of Sri Lanka. The humanitarian shelter given to Sri Lankan
Tamil refugees in Tamil Nadu has been a source of irritation, Even the ban on
LTTE imposed by India in 1992 in the wake of solid proof of LTTE hand in the
murder of Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, had not fully convinced and assured Sri. Lanka. The
Sri Lankan authorities continue to be suspicious of Indian support for Tamils of Sri
Lanka,
6. Differences over the concept of Indian Ocean as u Zone of Peace- Sri Lanka
was one of the first few countries which supported the demand for making the
Indian Ocean a zone of peace.
At the moment Sri Lanka, however, appears to be a little hesitant in making
determined efforts for securing this objective. Behind this lack of efforts on its part
is the fear that countries like India, and even China, would try to fill the power
vacuum after the elimination of super power naval presence in the Indian Ocean.

Sri Lanka, therefore, wants that the declaration of Indian Ocean as a zone of peace
must also involve a commitment from the littoral states that none of them would
increase its naval presence and strength in the Indian Ocean area,
7. Sri Lanka's desire of Keeping Equidistance from India and China- The
desire of Sri Lanka to play safe and keep at a safe distance from both India and
China, has also been a hindering factor in Indo-Sri Lankan relations. In the sixties,
Sri Lanka even tried to secure friendship with China as a counterpoise to India. In
seventies, Sri Lanka fried to develop more cooperative relations with China,
Pakistan and the U.S.A., apparently as a safety measure against the growing
friendship between India and the Soviet Union.
However, the outbreak of leftist insurgency in some parts of Sri Lanka in mid-
seventies and the sympathetic and positive role played by India in helping it to
overcome this internal insurgency made a big impact on the leaders of Sri Lanka
and they realised the importance of developing relations with democratie India.
But the existence of other negative factors prevented progress in this direction.
8. Pakistan Factor- Sri Lanka's growing relationship with Pakistan has been
becoming an irritant for India. The Sri Lankans have been becoming more oriented
towards Pakistan because of the hope that they can use it as a counterpoise against
India.
These negative factors have been responsible for the slow-progress of Indo-Sri
Lankan cooperation in various spheres. At times, these had been responsible for
generating tension and strains for Indo-Sri Lankan relations. Sri Lanka is a small
country and India is a large and big country. Sri Lanka continues to fear India and
is not coming out of its own fears. Q 33 Describe the relationship of India with
her neighbours other than China and Pakistan.
Ans. 1. Bangladesh- The Indo-Bangladesh Joint Economic Commission, whose
term ended in October 1987, was revived and extended to a further period of five
years with effect from 6 October, 1987. The meeting of the commission was held
in May 1990 after a gap of seven years. The Indo Bangladesh Trade Agreement
was renewed for another three years effective from 3 Octobers, 1989, in Dhaka
during the trade review talks held in September 1989. The protocol on Inland
Water Transit and Trade was renewed for another two years from 4 October, 1989.

The former Minister for External Affairs, Mr. I. K. Gujrat visited Bangladesh from
16 to 18 February, 1990, ai the invitation of the Bangladesh Foreign Minister. He
called on President Ershad. A number of bilateral issues such as sharing of Ganga-
Waters, Tin Bigha, Chakma Refugees and influx of illegal immigrants from
Bangladesh were discussed Such exchanges have created a favourable climate for
further, strengthening and diversifying of India's Relations with Bangladesh in the
political and economic field.

Ex. Prime Minister, Mr. Chandra Shekhar met President Ershad in Male during the
Fifth SAARC Summit in November, 1990. The two leaders resolved to maintain
good neighbourliness and strengthen lies.

India welcomed on 5 December, 1990, the offer of President Ershad to step down
and hoped that this would pave way for fair and free elections under conditions
acceptable to all parties. It also welcomed the end of the State of Emergency in
Bangladesh and the decision taken jointly by major political parties to nominate
Justice Shahabuddin Ahmed as Acting President.

India has welcomed the establishment of a Democratically Elected Government in

Bangladesh and look forward to working with the New Government of Bangladesh
in resolving outstanding issues through dialogue and further strengthening co-
operation between the two

In a major development, India's eastern neighbour Bangladesh on September 23,

2010 agreed to start the construction of a crucial highway link to Kolkata. The
proposed highway will provide transit facilities, ensuring easy movement of goods.
Besides, it will also drastically shorten the circuitous route between the
northeastern Slates and the port city of Kolkata.

The project-to be primarily financed by India-is part of the larger Assam Highway
Network Project. Two routes have been okayed. The first one will enter from
Bengal into Bangladesh at the existing Benapole land port on, the border and run
across eastwards via Jessore and Dhaka and passing through Sylhet, located on the
northeastern edge of Bangladesh, it will enter Assam/ Meghalaya. The second axis,
will start from north Bengal and enter the neighbouring country at Panchgarh and
run southwards via Srirajganj to Dhaka and further southeast to Cox Bazar and
Chittagong before entering Myanmar. India will be able to use both the routes.
2. Nepal- India attaches high-priority to improving Indo-Nepal Relations as part of
its efforts to improve relations with the neighbours. Over the years, India has been
extending considerable economic and technical assistance to Nepal and till recently
was 'one of its largest donors.

In line with the commitment to take effective steps to improve, relations, the
former Minister for External Affairs, Mr. I. K. Gujral invited the Nepalese Foreign
Minister and talks were held in New Delhi from 3 to 5 January, 1990, resulting in
greater understanding of each other's interests and concerns. This process was
carried further with the visit of the Nepalese Official-level Delegation led by the
Nepalese Foreign Secretary to New Delhi from 19 to 22 February, 1990. All
aspects of Indo-Nepal Relations were discussed exhaustively.

The Nepalese Prime Minister, Mr. K.R Bhattarai visited India in June, 1990, for
accelerating the normalisation of bilateral relations with India.

With the formal opening of the Customs and Transit Point at Bhairhawa in Nepal
by the Nepalese Prime Minister, all 22 trade and 15 transit points between the two
countries Started functioning normally. Mr. Bhattarai attain paid a goodwill visit to
India in November, 1990, after attending the Fifth SAARC Summit in Male. The
then India's Prime Minister, Mr- Chandra .Shckhar had talks with Mr. Bhattarai
during the Summit Meet.

India and Nepal have agreed to undertake a joint study a identify overall Hydel
Potential in Nepal and evolve a phased approach to develop it to the maximum
benefit to both the countries.

However, Indo-Nepal relations came under a shadow when in the last week of
December 1999, an .Indian Airlines plane 1C-814 was hijacked by some Islamic
terrorists who had boarded the plane at Kathmandu airport. India decided to
suspend the flights of Indian Airlines to Kathmandu and called upon Nepal to step
up security at its airports as well as to check the activities of Pakistan's ISI backed
terrorists groups which were engaged in cross border terrorist activities. Nepal look
steps to tighten the security arrangement and assured India that no one will be
permitted to use Nepalcse territory for anti-India activity. In March. 2000 Br. G.P.
Koirala became the Prime Minister of Nepal in place of Mr. K.P. Bhaltarm and
immediate contacts were established for the resumption of Indian Airlines flights
to Kathmandu. The suspension had hit hard Nepalese tourism. The new
government decided to give first priority to the security needs to Nepal as this was
considered vital for checking the growing violent acts of Maoist revolutionaries
and the activities of Islamic Jehadis from Nepalese soil, as had come to light in
December 1999.

Both India and Nepal decided to take steps for the resumption of Indian Airlines
flights and in fact these were resumed in May 2000.

In August, 2000 Nepalese PM Girija Prasad Koirala visited India and discussed on
various issues with PM Vajpayee and other Indian leaders.

On February 1st, 2005 king of Nepal terminated the govcrment of Sher Bahadur
Deoba and imposed emergency in the country. PM Manmohan Singh sent Dr.
Karan Singh as a peace massenger to Nepal and he met with the King Gyanendra.
The King made an announcement to reinstate the Parliament on April 25lh. 2006.
Seven Nepalese political parties nominated Girija Prasad Koirala Prime Minister
and he took oath of PM post on April 30lh, 2006. On May 18th, 2006 Nepalese
Parliament unanimously decided to cut the political and military powers of the
King.
On June 11th, 2006, Parliament unanimously decided to seize the veto power of
the King. Now the right to ratification is given to the speaker of representative
chamber.
On January. 2007, the interim Parliament accepted the new Constitution in place of
oid Constitution of 1990. According to the new Constitution, the real powers have
been transferred from the King to Prime Minister.
3. Bhutan- Relations between India and Bhutan have traditionally remained
friendly and close. The flourishing economic cooperation between the two
countries is being maintained. India continues to and provides experts and
specialists to it in the fields of forestry, industry, telecommunications, hydel
survey, education, etc. In the sphere of education, India continues to offer
Bhutancse Students opportunities for secondary as well as higher education and
training in various fields such as civil aviation, police, defence, customs, medicine
and engineering.
In March 1990, India and Bhutan renewed their agreement of trade and commerce
for a five-year period. For the first lime, this agreement permitted private parties in
Bhutan to undertake foreign trade. The King of Bhutan, Digme Singhe Wangchuk
paid a tour-day official visit to India in November, 1990. The King had talks with
the Indian Prime Minister, Mr. Chandra shekhar, on bilateral cooperation and
regional issues. The Ex-External Affairs Minister, Mr. VC. Shukla also discussed
with the King matters of mutual interest. India and Bhutan signed a Memorandum
of Understanding on 25 November, 1990, for bilateral cooperation in executing the
Second and Third Phase of the Chukha Hydel Project in Bhutan.

In 1997, India and Bhutan along with Bangladesh and Nepal agreed to extend their
sub-regional co-operation in a big way. There exits a big potential for the
development of this natural economic sub-region of South Asia. The rapid
development of Bhutan's hydel power potential and of its agro-industrial
infrastructure can make Bhutan a highly prosperous state. India has been and
continues to remain committed to play leading role in the development of Bhutan's
infrastructure. Both the countries have been co-operating in a satisfactory way.

The people of India and Bhutan are bound by strong historical and cultural ties. To
strengthen these further, an Indo-Bhutan Friendship Society was formed in
December 17th, 1999. Both India and Bhutan are committed to strengthen their ties
which are based upon the needs of their national interest and geo-political realities
of their territories. King of Bhutan visited India in February, 2007.

India and Bhutan held summit-level talks during the first India visit by the King of
Bhutan, Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuk, in New Delhi on December 22,2009:
During his visit, a do/en pacts were signed between the two nations. The pacts
were inked in the presence of the visiting King and Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan
Singh.

At the summit-level taiks, India agreed to fund nearly a quarter of Bhutan's Tenth
Plan outlay of Rs. 14,800 crore. Among the pacts are four MoUs for hydel projects
that would ease power shortage in eastern India considerably. India is currently
planning a transmission grid that will ultimately evacuate power from the
Bhutanese projects all the way to Agra.
4. Maldives- The warm and cordial relations between Indian and the Maldives
have further strengthened and diversified over the years. In keeping with the
warmth of these relations, the former External Affairs Minister, Mr. I.K. Gujral
visited Maldives from 12 to 16 January, 1990, for the first meeting of the Indo-
Maldives Joint Commission. During this visit, the Foundation Stone of the Rs, 18
crore Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital being built with Indian Assistance was laid
by President Gayoom. A decision to waive visa requirements for the Nationals of
both countries wishing to visit the other country was also announced.

President Gayoom paid a state visit to India in March, 1990, and had successful
and fruitful talks with the then Prime Minisler, Mr. V.R Singh Both the leaders had
complete understanding on all issues. Mr. V.P. Singh paid a three-day visit to the
Maldives in June, 1990. Among the major decisions in his talks with President
Gayoom was the need to strengthen trade between the two countries by removing
certain infra structural bottlenecks particularly that of transport. Bombay was air-
linked with Male from November, 1990.

5. Myanmar- India and Myanmar share not only a long border but also religious
and cultural affinities. The people of the two countries have traditional and friendly
lies and it is, therefore, natural for India to be interested in developments in
Myanmar. While maintaining the policy of strict noninterference in the internal
affairs to Myanmar, previously known as Burma, India continued its principled
support to the democratic aspirations of the people of Myanmar. In the elections
held in July 1990, in Myanmar, the National League for Democracy won an
overwhelming mandate. However, power has not been transferred to the
representatives of the people. India hopes that the electoral verdict would be
respected by the military leadership there.
6. Afghanistan- India continued to take an active interest in the developments in
Afghanistan and kept in touch with those concerned with the situation. India had
welcomed the signing of the Geneva Accord in April 1988 in the hope that it
would lead to restoration of peace and stability in the region. India is for the strict
implementation of the Geneva Accords. India would like to see a political
settlement in Afghanistan arrived at by the Afghans themselves without external
interference or intervention and which lakes into account the existing realities and
the legitimate interests of all concerned. India is also for the cessation of bloodshed
in that country and the preservation of Afghanistan's status as a Sovereign, Non-
aligned and Independent Country.

Bilateral relations developed satisfactorily. India is also committed to providing

assistance of Rs. 10 crore for refugee rehabilitation through the UN and bilaterally.

Dr. Subramaniam Swamy, Ex-Minister of Commerce, visited Afghanistan In the

last week of December, 1990, and held wide-ranging trade talks with the Afghan
Authorities. During his visit, he signed a Memorandum of Consultation with
Afghanistan Commerce Minister economic activities between the two countries.
He also met the Afghan President, Dr. Najibullah and discussed the situation in
Afghanistan.

UNIT- V

UNITED NATIONS, SAARC, INDIA AND ASEAN

India-United Nations Relations

The year 2012 was busy with important milestones such as India’s second UPR in
May 2012, the election of a new Director-General of ILO, the convening of the
first ever Extraordinary Session of the WMO on the Global Framework for
Climate Services (GFCS), continued State consultations on the ICRC-led review of
humanitarian law, the creation of the Nansen Initiative by UNHCR, the
Transformative Agenda of OCHA, the adoption of the Migration Crisis
Operational Framework by the IOM Council and the sudden convening of a
Diplomatic Conference on Industrial Designs and Geographic Indications by the
developed States in WIPO.

Human Rights India continued to play an active role in the Human Rights Council
(HRC) with the resumption of its membership in July 2011 with 181 votes out of
193. Besides its three regular sessions (February – March; June-July; and
September 2012), a Special Session on Syria was held in June, 2012. India’s
second UPR was held on 24 May 2012. The Indian delegation was led by Shri
Goolam E. Vahanvati, Attorney-General of India.

India served as a member of the troika for the UPR of Poland and Sri Lanka.
Eminent Indians continued to serve with distinction as members of important
TreatyMonitoring Bodies and Human Rights mechanisms including Shri Dilip
Lahiri (Member, Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination); Smt. Indira
Jaisingh (Member, Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against
Women); Shri Chandrashekhar Dasgupta (Member, Committee on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights). Shri Anand Grover continued his mandate as the
Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone to the enjoyment of the Highest
Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health; and Shri Kishore Singh as
well, as the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education.

International Organization for Migration (IOM)

The highest decision-making body of the International Organization for Migration

(IOM), the IOM Council, held its 101st Session from 27-30 November 2012. The
Session was notable for the adoption of a Resolution on the IOM Migration Crisis
Operational Framework (IMCOF).

Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD)

The Global Forum on Migration and Development (GFMD) has remained as the
largest and most comprehensive global platform for dialogue and cooperation on
international migration and development. The Sixth Annual GFMD 2012 Summit
Meeting was held on 21-22 November 2012 in Pailles, Mauritius. Shri Dilip
Sinha, PR of India to the UN, Geneva led the Indian delegation. India had
provided US$ 50,000 as a onetime and first time grant to GFMD on the request of
the current Chair, Mauritius to all States.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)

The 63rd Session of the Executive Committee of the UNHCR (ExCom) was held
from 1-5 October 2012. The institutional meetings leading up to the 63rd Session
centered on strengthening UNHCR’s efficiency in discharge of its core duties on
international protection and collaboration efforts with other UN organizations in
humanitarian exigencies.

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees visited India on 19-20 December 2012
for the Fourth Annual Open-Ended Bilateral Consultations between India and
UNHCR.

Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)

During the year under review, the Permanent Mission of India participated in all
the briefing sessions that Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
(OCHA) organized in Geneva (as per established norms, OCHA policy is
negotiated in New York and implemented through the Geneva office). The
Mission also drew attention of OCHA to the need for an exit strategy for its new
field-based humanitarian intervention mechanism called Transformative Agenda
whereby the mechanism is led by an UN humanitarian coordinator

World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO)

India actively participated in the Diplomatic Conference on the Protection of

Audiovisual Performances held in Beijing, from 20-26 June 2012, which adopted
the ‘Treaty for the Protection of Audiovisual Performances’. The Indian
delegation led by Secretary, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP)
attended the 50th Series of Meetings of Assemblies of Member States of WIPO in
Geneva from 1-9 October 2012. As a member of the Development Agenda Group,
India actively worked towards promoting the incorporation of the development
agenda recommendations in the works of all the relevant committees of WIPO.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)

India continued its active engagement in all UNCTAD meetings of the Trade and
Development Board (TDB), Multi-Year and Single-Year expert meetings. The
Indian delegation led by Shri Anand Sharma, Minister of Commerce and Industry
participated in the UNCTAD XIII Ministerial Conference held in Doha, from 21-
26 April 2012. Mr. Ashok Chawla, Chairperson, Competition Commission of India
led the Indian delegation at the Twelfth Session of the Intergovernmental Group of
Experts on Competition Law and Policy from 9-11 July 2012, and Ad-Hoc Expert
Meeting on “Consumer Protection: The Interface between Competition and
Consumer Policies” from 12-13 July 2012. Mr. T.C.A. Ranganathan, Chairman
and Managing Director of Export-Import Bank of India participated in the Fourth
Session of the Multi-year Expert Meeting on International Cooperation: South–
South Cooperation and Regional Integration as a panelist on ‘Trade finance:
challenges and Opportunities’, held in Geneva from 24-25 October 2012.

United Nations Commission on Science, Technology and Development India

actively participated in the one-day open meeting, convened by the Chair of CSTD
on 18 May 2012, involving all Member States and other stakeholders, to identify a
shared understanding about enhanced cooperation on public policy issues
pertaining to the Internet, as per the UNGA Resolution A/Res/66/184. The Indian
delegation actively coordinated its position with IBSA countries proposing setting
up of a Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation.

Group of Fifteen (G-15)

India participated in the 35th Meeting of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the
Group of Fifteen (G-15) held on 27 September 2012 in New York, on the margins
of the 67th UN General Assembly. India reiterated its offer to replicate within the
framework of G-15 cooperation, its projects on solar energy in Senegal and the
establishment of a Centre for Entrepreneurship Development in Zimbabwe. India
made an annual contribution of US$ 25,000 for 2012.
International Trade Centre (ITC)

India participated in all the inter-governmental meetings of the ITC, a subsidiary

body of UNCTAD and the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The 46th session of
the ITC Joint Advisory Group (JAG) was held from 21-22 May 2012, which
examined the activities of ITC and also considered the ITC’s Strategic Plan for
2012-2015.

World Health Organization (WHO)

India participated in the 65th World Health Assembly (WHA) held in Geneva
from 21-26 May 2012. India’s success in polio eradication was widely
acknowledged in the WHA. India also participated in the First Informal
Consultation with Member States and UN agencies on the development of a Global
Mental Health Action Plan (2013-2020) on 2 November 2012 where it was, inter
alia, brought out that Yoga, meditation and counseling should be a part of overall
strategy for mental health promotion and prevention of mental disorders and
suicides. International Labour Organization (ILO) India participated in the 101st
Session of the International Labour Conference (ILC) of ILO held in Geneva from
29 May-12 June 2012. Shri Mallikarjun Kharge, Minister of Labour &
Employment led the Indian delegation to the ILC. The Labour Ministers of Bihar,
Haryana and Kerala also participated in the Conference. At the ILC, India’s
progressive schemes as important social protection measures, for the
socioeconomic upliftment of the poor and the marginalized, were acknowledged.

India also participated in the 316th Session of the Governing Body (GB) of ILO
from 5-15 November 2012 in Geneva. The Indian delegation led by Dr.
Mrutyunjay Sarangi, Secretary (Labour & Employment) participated in the
Working Party, as one of the 16 members, for Improvement of Functioning of GB
and ILC (There are 8 Workers and 8 Employer-Members in the Working Party).

World Meteorological Organization (WMO)

 The Extraordinary Session of the WMO Congress [[Link].(2012)-the first-ever
such session in the Congress’s 62 year-old history] was held from 29-31 October
2012 to consider the Draft Implementation Plan (DIP) and the Draft Governance
Structure based on the Intergovernmental Board (DGS) for establishing the Global
Framework for Climate Services (GFCS) as directed by the High-Level
Declaration of the World Climate Conference-3 (HLD-WCC-3) in 2009. Both
documents were approved in the Congress. Dr. Shailesh Nayak, Secretary,
Ministry of Earth Sciences, led the Indian delegation.

International Telecommunication Union (ITU)

The major activities with regard to the International Telecommunication Union

(ITU) in 2012 were (i) the World Telecommunication and Information Society
(WSIS) Day 2012 celebrated on 16 May 2012 at Geneva. The theme was “Women
and Girls in ICT”. (ii) The ITU Council-12, meeting with the Plenary Session held
on 4 July 2012 in Geneva. (iii) Briefing sessions of the World Conference on
International Telecommunication (WCIT-12) and the World Telecommunication
Standardisation Assembly-12 (WTSA-12) held in Geneva on 8-9 October 2012.
WCIT-12 was held in November 2012 and WTSA-12 will be held in December
2012 in Dubai.

Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU)

The Annual 2012 session of the Inter-Parliamentary Conference (IPC) on the

WTO, held in Geneva from 15-16 November 2012. A 3-member Indian
Parliamentary delegation led by Shri P.C. Chacko, MP participated in the Annual
session of IPC.

The 127th IPU Assembly was held from 21-26 October 2012 at Quebec City,
Canada. The delegation was led by Hon’ble Lok Sabha Speaker.

International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)/International Federation of

Red Cross and Red Cross Societies (IFRC)

The First Informal Meeting on “Strengthening Compliance with International

Humanitarian Law (IHL) was held in Geneva on 13 July 2012. The informal
meeting was an ICRC endeavour to accelerate the discussions on review of IHL
proposed at the 31st International Conference of RC&RC (2011) through adoption
of two resolutions on “Four-Year Action Plan for the implementation of IHL” and
“Strengthening Legal Protection for Victims of Armed Conflicts”.

Universal Postal Union (UPU)

The 25th Congress of the Universal Postal Union (UPU) was held at Doha, Qatar
from 24 September-15 October 2012. During the Congress, elections were held
for the Director-General of UPU, Deputy Director-General of UPU, Council of
Administration (CA) and Postal Operations Council (POC), India was successfully
elected to the CA and POC.

ESTABLISHMENT of Asean

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations, or ASEAN, was established on 8

August 1967 in Bangkok, Thailand, with the signing of the ASEAN
Declaration (Bangkok Declaration) by the Founding Fathers of ASEAN, namely
Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand.

Brunei Darussalam then joined on 7 January 1984, Viet Nam on 28 July 1995, Lao
PDR and Myanmar on 23 July 1997, and Cambodia on 30 April 1999, making up
what is today the ten Member States of ASEAN.

AIMS AND PURPOSES

As set out in the ASEAN Declaration, the aims and purposes of ASEAN are:

1. To accelerate the economic growth, social progress and cultural

development in the region through joint endeavours in the spirit of equality
and partnership in order to strengthen the foundation for a prosperous and
peaceful community of Southeast Asian Nations;
2. To promote regional peace and stability through abiding respect for justice
and the rule of law in the relationship among countries of the region and
adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter;
3. To promote active collaboration and mutual assistance on matters of
common interest in the economic, social, cultural, technical, scientific and
administrative fields;
 4. To provide assistance to each other in the form of training and research
facilities in the educational, professional, technical and administrative
spheres;
5. To collaborate more effectively for the greater utilisation of their agriculture
and industries, the expansion of their trade, including the study of the
problems of international commodity trade, the improvement of their
transportation and communications facilities and the raising of the living
standards of their peoples;
6. To promote Southeast Asian studies; and
7. To maintain close and beneficial cooperation with existing international and
regional organisations with similar aims and purposes, and explore all
avenues for even closer cooperation among themselves.

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES

In their relations with one another, the ASEAN Member States have adopted the
following fundamental principles, as contained in the Treaty of Amity and
Cooperation in Southeast Asia (TAC) of 1976:

1. Mutual respect for the independence, sovereignty, equality, territorial

integrity, and national identity of all nations;
2. The right of every State to lead its national existence free from external
interference, subversion or coercion;
3. Non-interference in the internal affairs of one another;
4. Settlement of differences or disputes by peaceful manner;
5. Renunciation of the threat or use of force; and
6. Effective cooperation among themselves.

ASEAN COMMUNITY

The ASEAN Vision 2020, adopted by the ASEAN Leaders on the 30th
Anniversary of ASEAN, agreed on a shared vision of ASEAN as a concert of
Southeast Asian nations, outward looking, living in peace, stability and prosperity,
bonded together in partnership in dynamic development and in a community of
caring societies.
At the 9th ASEAN Summit in 2003, the ASEAN Leaders resolved that an ASEAN
Community shall be established.

At the 12th ASEAN Summit in January 2007, the Leaders affirmed their strong
commitment to accelerate the establishment of an ASEAN Community by 2015
and signed the Cebu Declaration on the Acceleration of the Establishment of an
ASEAN Community by 2015.

The ASEAN Community is comprised of three pillars, namely the ASEAN

Political-Security Community, ASEAN Economic Community and ASEAN Socio-
Cultural Community. Each pillar has its own Blueprint, and, together with
the Initiative for ASEAN Integration (IAI) Strategic Framework and IAI Work
Plan Phase II (2009-2015), they form the Roadmap for an ASEAN Community
2009-2015.

ASEAN CHARTER

The ASEAN Charter serves as a firm foundation in achieving the ASEAN

Community by providing legal status and institutional framework for ASEAN. It
also codifies ASEAN norms, rules and values; sets clear targets for ASEAN; and
presents accountability and compliance.

The ASEAN Charter entered into force on 15 December 2008. A gathering of the
ASEAN Foreign Ministers was held at the ASEAN Secretariat in Jakarta to mark
this very historic occasion for ASEAN.

With the entry into force of the ASEAN Charter, ASEAN will henceforth operate
under a new legal framework and establish a number of new organs to boost its
community-building process.

In effect, the ASEAN Charter has become a legally binding agreement among the
10 ASEAN Member States.

ASEAN- India Relations

The Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) comprises of Indonesia,
Singapore, Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, Thailand, Cambodia, Lao PDR,
Myanmar and Vietnam. India’s focus on a strengthened and multi-faceted
relationship with ASEAN is an outcome of the significant changes in the world’s
political and economic scenario since the early 1990s and India’s own march
towards economic liberalisation. India’s search for economic space resulted in the
‘Look East Policy’. The Look East Policy has today matured into a dynamic and
action oriented ‘Act East Policy. PM at the 12th ASEAN India Summit and the 9th
East Asia Summit held in Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar, in November, 2014, formally
enunciated the Act East Policy.

Apart from ASEAN, India has taken other policy initiatives in the region that
involve some members of ASEAN like BIMSTEC, MGC etc. India is also an
active participant in several regional forums like the Asia-Europe Meeting, East
Asia Summit, ASEAN Regional Forum, ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting +
(ADMM+) and Expanded ASEAN Maritime Forum.

There has been steady progress in the ASEAN-India partnership since the Look
East Policy was launched in 1991. India became sectoral dialogue partners in 1992
and full dialogue partners in 1996. Since 2002, India has annual Summits with
ASEAN along with China, Japan and Republic of Korea. There are 30 Dialogue
Mechanisms cutting across all the sectors including 7 ministerial level meetings.

Commemorative Summit: In 2012, ASEAN and India commemorated 20 years of

dialogue partnership and 10 years of Summit level partnership with ASEAN with a
Commemorative Summit in New Delhi under the theme 'ASEAN-India Partnership
for Peace and Shared Prosperity' on 20-21 December 2012. The Commemorative
Summit attended by the Leaders from all the 10 ASEAN countries endorsed
elevating the partnership to a 'Strategic Partnership'. The Leaders also adopted the
'ASEAN-India Vision Statement', which charts the future of ASEAN-India
cooperation. Two major events that were organized in 2012 in the run-up to the
Commemorative Summit include the 2nd ASEAN-India Car Rally and Shipping
Expedition of INS Sudarshini to ASEAN countries. During the Summit, the heads
of the Government recommended establishment of ASEAN-India Centre (AIC) to
undertake policy research, advocacy and networking activities with organizations
and think-tanks in India and ASEAN, with the aim to promote the ASEAN-India
Strategic Partnership. The AIC has been serving as a resource centre for ASEAN
Member States and India since its establishment in 2013, for strengthening
ASEAN-India strategic partnership and promoting India-ASEAN dialogue and
cooperation in the areas of mutual interests. AIC has provided some very valuable
inputs to policy makers in India and ASEAN on implementation of ASEAN-India
connectivity by organising seminars, roundtables etc. AIC also organizes
workshops, seminars and conferences on various cross-cutting issues relevant to
ASEAN-India strategic partnership. It undertakes regular networking activities
with relevant public/private agencies, organizations and think-tanks in India and
ASEAN and EAS countries, with the aim of providing up-to-date information, data
resources and sustained interaction, for promoting ASEAN-India Strategic
Partnership

Plans of Action: As a reflection of the interest of ASEAN and India to intensify

their engagement, the ASEAN-India Partnership for Peace, Progress and Shared
Prosperity, which sets out the roadmap for long-term ASEAN-India engagement,
was signed at the 3rd ASEAN-India Summit in 2004 in Vientiane. A Plan of
Action (POA) for the period 2004-2010 was also developed to implement the
Partnership. Most of the paras of the 2nd POA (2010-15) have been implemented.
The 3rd POA (2016-20) was adopted by the ASEAN-India Foreign Ministers
Meeting held in August 2015.

Security cooperation: The main forum for ASEAN security dialogue is the ASEAN
Regional Forum (ARF). India has been attending annual meetings of this forum
since 1996 and has actively participated in its various activities. The ASEAN
Defence Ministers' Meeting (ADMM) is the highest defence consultative and
cooperative mechanism in ASEAN. The ADMM+ brings together Defence
Ministers from the 10 ASEAN nations plus Australia, China, India, Japan, New
Zealand, Republic of Korea, Russia, and the United States. Defense Minister
attended the 3rd ADMM Plus held from 4-5 November 2015 in Kuala Lumpur.
Expanded ASEAN Maritime Forum (EAMF) is an avenue for track 1.5 diplomacy
focusing on cross cutting maritime issues of common concern. India participated in
the 4th EAMF held in Manado, Indonesia on 10-11 September 2015.

Trade and Investment: India-ASEAN trade and investment relations have been
growing steadily, with ASEAN being India's fourth largest trading partner. The
annual trade registered an average growth of 22% per annum in the decade upto
2011-12, but has stagnated thereafter. It stood at approximately US$ 76.53 billion
in 2014-15.

Investment flows are also substantial both ways, with ASEAN accounting for
approximately 12.5% of investment flows into India since 2000. FDI inflows into
India from ASEAN between April 2007-March 2015 was about US$ 32.44 billion.
Whereas FDI outflows from India to ASEAN countries, from April 2007 to March
2015, as per data maintained by DEA, was about US$ 38.672 billion.

The ASEAN-India Free Trade Area has been completed with the entering into
force of the ASEAN-India Agreements on Trade in Service and Investments on 1
July 2015.

ASEAN and India have been also working on enhancing private sector
engagement. ASEAN India-Business Council (AIBC) was set up in March 2003 in
Kuala Lumpur as a forum to bring key private sector players from India and the
ASEAN countries on a single platform for business networking and sharing of
ideas.

Connectivity:

ASEAN-India connectivity is a matter of strategic priority for India as also the

ASEAN countries. In 2013, India became the third dialogue partner of ASEAN to
initiate an ASEAN Connectivity Coordinating Committee-India Meeting. While
India has made considerable progress in implementing the India-Myanmar-
Thailand Trilateral Highway and the Kaladan Multimodal Project, issues related to
increasing the maritime and air connectivity between ASEAN and India and
transforming the corridors of connectivity into economic corridors are under
discussion. A possible extension to India-Myanmar-Thailand Trilateral Highway to
Cambodia, Lao PDR and Viet Nam is also under consideration. A consensus on
signing and operationalizing the India-Myanmar-Thailand Motor Vehicle
Agreement (IMT MVA) has been reached. This agreement will have a critical role
in realizing seamless movement of passenger, personal and cargo vehicles along
roads linking India, Myanmar and Thailand. PM announced a Line of Credit of
US$ 1 billion to promote projects that support physical and digital connectivity
 between India and ASEAN and a Project Development Fund with a corpus of INR
500 crores to develop manufacturing hubs in CLMV countries.

Funds: ASEAN Multilateral Division offers project-based financial assistance to

ASEAN countries. Financial assistance has been provided to ASEAN countries in
following forms:

 ASEAN-India Cooperation Fund:

At the 7th ASEAN-India Summit in 2009, India announced a contribution of US$
50 million to the ASEAN-India Cooperation Fund, to support implementation of
the ASEAN-India Plan of Action 2010-15. Till now 13 projects have been
implemented, 17 projects are under implementation and 22 projects are in the
planning stage. Projects and programmes worth US$ 35.68 million are under
implementation, including the largest project under the ASEAN-India Cooperation,
i.e., Space Project.
 ASEAN-India S&T Development Fund (AISTDF):
 At the 6th ASEAN-India Summit in November 2007 in Singapore, PM announced
the setting up of an ASEAN-India Science & Technology Development Fund with
a US$ 1 million contribution from India to promote joint collaborative R&D
research projects in Science & Technology sectors. An amount of US$ 373,352 has
already been spent out of this Fund on various projects & activities. We have
enhanced the ASEAN-India Science and Technology Fund from US$ 1 million to
US$ 5 million w.e.f. 2016.
 ASEAN-India Green Fund:
At the 6th ASEAN-India Summit on 21 November 2007 in Singapore, PM
announced the setting up of an ASEAN-India Green Fund with an initial
contribution of US$ 5 million from India to support collaboration activities relating
to environment and climate change. Till July 2015, Projects worth US$ 2,079,287
covered under this Fund are at the implementation stage.

ASEAN-India Projects:

India has been cooperating with ASEAN by way of implementation of various

projects in the fields of Agriculture, Science & Technology, Space, Environment &
Climate Change, Human Resource Development, Capacity Building, New and
Renewable Energy, Tourism, People-to-People contacts and Connectivity etc.

Since 2011-12, while 13 projects have been completed, 17 projects are under
implementation and 22 projects are in the planning stage, some of which are in the
final stages of approval. Programmes and projects totalling over US$ 48.85 million
have been proposed since September 2011 till date to ASEAN through the ASEAN
Secretariat. Some of the prominent projects, which are either ongoing or in the
final stages of approval are as follows:

Space Project envisaging establishment of a Tracking, Data Reception/Data

Processing Station in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam and upgradation of Telemetry
Tracking and Command Station in Biak, Indonesia; Setting up of Centres of
Excellence in Software Development & Training in CLMV countries are some of
the major projects under implementation.

Apart from the above projects, India has been supporting ASEAN specially CLMV
countries under the Initiatives for ASEAN Integration, which include projects on
Training of English Language for Law Enforcement Officers in CLMV countries
and Training of professionals dealing with capital markets in CLMV by National
Institute of Securities Management Mumbai. To boost People-to-people Interaction
with ASEAN, India has been organising various programme including Training
Programme for ASEAN diplomats, Exchange of Parliamentarians, Participation of
ASEAN students in the National Children’s Science Congress, ASEAN-India
Network of Think Tanks, ASEAN-India Eminent Persons Lecture Series etc.

In the field of agriculture, India and ASEAN have projects such as Exchange of
Farmers, ASEAN-India Fellowships for Higher Agricultural Education in India
and ASEAN, Exchange of Agriculture Scientists, Empowerment of ASEAN-
Indian Women through Cooperatives etc. In the S&T field, there are projects such
as ASEAN-India Collaborative Project on S&T for Combating Malaria, ASEAN-
India Programme on Quality Systems in Manufacturing, ASEAN-India
Collaborative R&D Project on Mariculture, Bio-mining and Bioremediation
Technologies etc.

Delhi Dialogue:
India has an annual Track 1.5 event Delhi Dialogue, for discussing politico-
security and economic issues between ASEAN and India. Since 2009, India has
had eight editions of this event. The 8th edition of Delhi Dialogue is being hosted
by the MEA in partnership with IDSA, FICCI and other select Indian and ASEAN
partners on 17-19 February 2016 in New Delhi. DD VIII has 'ASEAN-India
Relations: A New Paradigm' as its theme and includes an Inaugural Business
Session, a Ministerial Session, and an Academic Session.

Mission to ASEAN:

India has set up a separate Mission to ASEAN and the EAS in Jakarta in April
2015 with a dedicated Ambassador to strengthen engagement with ASEAN and
ASEAN-centric processes.

European Economic Community.

After World War II, Europe was in the throws of deep economic crisis. America announced the
Marshall Plan to help the European countries to make economic recovery. But soon the shift
from economic to military aid discredited the Plan.
In May, 1947, Schuman Plan was submitted by Robert Schuman, the French Foreign Minister,
by which France, West Germany, Italy and Benelux countries signed a treaty which led to
establishment of European Coal and Steel Community- Based on common market, common
objectives and common institutions. The chief purpose was to create and maintain a common
market for iron, steel and coal.

The idea was extended to the trade and industry and in 1957 Rome Treaty was signed by West
Germany, France, Italy and Benelux countries (Belgium, Netherlands, Luxumberg).
The European Common Market is an attempt to create a market without competition. The
members of this community have agreed to eliminate trade barriers and impose single tariff law
for imports from outside. The members have also agreed to abolish all types of subsidy granted
by different governments to their industries.

Under the terms of the E.E.C. member slate was to concentrate on the production of a particular
commodity for the entire community. Hence there was to be no longer any fear of competition.
This also ted ID members concentrating on production of certain goods only which not only
resulted in reduction of prices but also led to improvement in quality.

A new international Bank, the European Investment Bank, was to be set up to advance loans to
prevent temporary setbacks and to foster the development of less advanced areas such as
Southern Italy. The capital for the Bank was to be subscribed by the signatories of the Treaty of
Rome. The Bank was to help the member states in industrial expansion and readjustment.
(1) Purpose of E.E.C.- Though the Rome Treaty created the European Economic Committee
with a view to establish a general common market in agriculture and industry to facilitate
economic collaboration among the member states, its ultimate objective was to bring about
political integration of Western Europe and provide a new sense of identity and unity to the
people of region.
Its objective also included rehabilitation and reconstruction of economics of West European
countries to check the possible expansion of Soviet Union in West Europe.
(2) Membership- Initially the European Economic Community (also know as European
Common Market) consisted of six members viz. France, Belgium, the Netherlands,
Luxumberg, Federal Republic of Germany and Italy. Later on Britain, Ireland, Denmark joined
the EEC but Norway withdrew from it. Subsequently Spain, Greece and Portugal also joined the
community and its strength rose to 12.
(3) Organisation- The Common Market consists of six organs- the Court, the Assembly,
Permanent Executive European Commission, Council of Ministers and Monetary Committee.
The Permanent Executive Commission was invested with super-national power in many respects.
For example the Commission could ask the government of a member stale to discard any policy
of discrimination such as, granting subsidy or lowering of taxation for a particular industry. It
may be noted that France has so far exercised a decisive voice in the Common Market-
Ultimately, on the insistence of France even the overseas colonies were included in the Common
Market by creating an Overseas Investment Bank. The inclusion of the overseas colonies had far-
reaching effect. Henceforth the goods of these colonies could have free entrance in the Common
Market.

Britain and Common Market- Britain persistently followed a policy of isolation and refused to
be dragged into an European movement for integration. She held aloof from the Schuman Plan
and even refused to join the European Defence Community in 1954 and did not Participate in the
Messina Conference of June, 1955, where the proposal for the Common. Market materialised.

However, after 1957, after the six countries signed the treaty of Rome Britain down due to
French opposition. Therefore, in 1959 Britain decided upon a Free Trade Area independent of
the Common Market.

She organised the European Free Trade Area (EFTA) with seven European powers-Britain.
Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Austria, Switzerland and portugal.

The chief reasons why Britain could not be admitted to European Common Market was that
France felt that her entry was contrary to French interests. Further Britain wanted to gain
safeguards for food exports from Commonwealth countries. The 'six' were not prepared to grant
substantial concessions on this point.

Further, Britain's entry in the European Common Market would have involved a change in her
policy of subsidizing the farmers. This would have adversely affected her agriculture. The
British policy of toeing, America raised further suspicions in the minds of the European powers
and led to her exclusion from the Common Market.
In 1967, Britain once again applied for membership of E.C.M. hut it was rejected by De Gaulle.
However, in 1969, there was a change in attitude of the E.C.M. powers and they unanimously
declared they would welcome Britain to join their club, if she accepted their rules. Britnin
indicated her intention to join the Common Market if the fee was not tot) stiff.

After prolonged negotiations. Britain was ultimately admitted to the E.C.M. on January 1,
1973.A Referendum was held in June, 1975 in England on the question of membership of the
European Common Market and the same went in favour of the membership. It marked the
culmination of decade long efforts by Britain to find a way to link her fortunes with Europe. This
development naturally means some loosening of old bonds like Commonwealth preferences.

Political Implications of Britain's Entry- Britain's entry into E.C.M. has far-reaching, political
consequences. In first place, it gave a sei back to the special relations existing between Britain
and U.S.A. Secondly, her entry has certainly weakened the bonds of Commonwealth. She will no
longer be able to give preferential treatment to the goods of the Commonwealth countries.

Thirdly, as the general costs of living in the Common Market countries is much higher than in
Britain, prices are bound to rise in Britain.

Fourthly, her entry has given an emotional jolt to the national pride of the Britishers. Britain has
always stood aloof and taken independent decisions. After her entry in the E.C.M. she has
submerged her will with the will of the other E.C.M. countries and her policies and decisions
may be dictated and determined by these countries.

Impact of Britain's Entry into E.C.M. on India- With the entry of Britain in the E.C.M. the
Indo-British trade agreement of 1935 stood terminated. This meant an end to proferential
treatment being extended to Indian goods imported into the U:K.

To face the shock India sought some transitional arrangements and an agreement was reached
between the two countries at London.

By this agreement (i) Britain agreed to maintain the status quo-under the Indo-British Trade
Agreement of1939 for another 11 months and to extend preferential treatment to Indian goods
imported into the U.K. until the beginning of 1974; (ii) to phase out tariff preferences over a
period of four years from January 1, 1974.

India sought certain concessions from the E.C.M. countries but they refused to give these
concessions on the ground that it contravened the U.N.C.T.A.E. and G.A.T.T. decisions.
Ultimately the Foreign Ministers of the European Economic Community instructed the E.E.C.
Commission to conclude a five-year trade agreement with India on the following basis:
(1) Incorporation of agreement on cotton textiles, jute and other commodities earlier concluded
between E.E.C. and India.
(2) Consolidation of tariff cuts granted by E.E.C. on various small ites liks lea and pepper.

(3) Incorporation within the agreement of the trade side of bilateral deals between India and
countries which are members of the E.E.C.
(4) The establishment of a joint Commission to consider possibilities of working out and
reaching such agreements and to make appropriate suggestions for increasing trade.
Achievements of E.E.C- The E.C.E. has emerged as the largest trading group of the world and
is more powerfully economically then either ofthe two super powers.

It possesses more foreign exchange and gold reserves. The organisation has also exercised
considerable amount of influence on international politics and has enabled the countries of West
Europe to pursue an independent policy.

The members of E.E.C. have been able to asert their independent identity and have been playing
more important role in international politics than in the years before the formation of this
organisation.
Q 39. Discuss in brief Terrorism and its effect on International Relations.
Ans. A Terrorisl is a person who seeks to create fear and panic among the people to gain his own
ends or the ends of the organisation to which he belongs. Terrorism usually is of two kinds-
There is political terrorism which seeks to achieve its political end by creating fear and panic on
a large scale. There is also criminal terrorism which indulges in kidnappings in order to extort
huge amounts by way of ransom.

Political terrorism is much more dangerous and its consequences can be disastrous. Political
terrorists are well organised and well-trained and it often becomes difficult for the law enforcing
agencies to arrest them in time. They indulge in-senseless violence on a large scale in order to
intimidate the people and the government.

Hijacking of aeroplanes, arson, robberies, murder of eminent personalities, shooting down of

innocent people indiscriminately, use of transistor bombs and other explosives, spreading of
rumours etc., are the various devices used by terrorist organisations in order to achieve their
Terrorists constantly change their hide-outs and their tactics in order to escape arrest and
punishment. When arrested, they try to commit suicide or
are killed by their own close associates. They may think that they arc patriots, but in reality they
arc anti-social or criminal elements who are exploited by clever politicians to achieve their own
ends.
Terrorists are usually young, while the brains behind them are old, seasoned politicians who co-
ordinate and guide their activities. They are fanatics and extremists who act with great fervour
and zeal, but studies reveal that if apprehended alive, a terrorist loses his fervour us quickly as he
had acquired it. When he has time lo think, he feels he has been stupid

All international studies consign them to the category of murderers, rapists or highway robbers.
Terrorism has no place in a democracy which is based on the belief that all problems can be
solved
through negotiations. Government can also be changed through the ballot box.
Terrorism is a world-wide phenomenon. It is there in the Middle-East and in most countries of
Europe. Very often it is seen that terrorisl groups receive money, weapons, training and
guidance, from other foreign countries and this enables them to attain a high level of
performance.
Terrorism is in fact, those violent activities by some factions or groups which resort to violent
means of explosives, guerilla warfare, sudden attacks, hijacking of planes and keeping bondages,
attaclking innocent people unexpectedly, murdering innocent populations to achieve the political
or personal or group objectives by unlawful means. The threat of violence, personal group
violent actions and to terrorise people by violent means has become the symbol of international
terrorism. It has become widespread, extending to Europe, America, South America, Middle
East, Africa & South Asia and South East Asia. It goes on spreading to each and every corner of
the world spreading terror and violence every where.
The target of international terrorism so far have been India especially Jammu & Kashmir,
America, Pantagon & World Trade Centre, International flights & hijacking of planes.
The following forms of international terrorism exist-
(1) Russian Islamic Terrorism.
(2) Chinese Terrorism.
(3) Sri Lanka (LITE) Terrorism
(4) Algerian, Indonesian & Egyptian terrorism.
(5) Pakistan Terrorism in Jammu & Kashmir. Some of the prominent terrorist organisations
are-
(1) Direct Action Group (France)
(2) AI Fatah (Palestinian Org.)
(3) Angry Brigade (U.K.)
(4) Elum Revolutionary Organisation (Sri Lanka)
(5) German Action Group (Germany)
(6) Japanese Red Army (Japan)
(7) LTTE (Sri Lanka)
(8) Mossad (Israel)
(9) Irish Republican Army (Ireland)
(10) Another form of international terrorism is State sponsored

In international Held India have been counteracting the terrorism with the help of international
agencies.

In the case of the Jammu & Kashmir terrorists, there is no doubt that they are receiving training,
weapons, sanctuary and other forms of material assistance from a neighboring country. It is not
an easy job to seal the long border completely and prevent flow of arms to the terrorists, though
steps in this direction are under serious consideration, and some of them have been given a
practical shape. This easy availability of weapons has increased the lethal firepower of the
Jammu & Kashmir extremists had made them a force to reckon with.

For dealing with these terrorists, the Government had to arm itself with greater powers. The
Anti-Terrorist Act passed by the Parliament provides for deterrent punishment for terrorist acts.
The Act also provides punishment for disruptive activities which have been defined as any action
taken to disrupt the sovereignty or the territorial integrity of the nation.
Q 40. Write about "India and World Peace".
Ans. India has been persistently following her traditional policy of peace and harmony in the
field of international affairs. As late as 1986, India remained actively involved in the major
world issues and appeared sincerely keen to offer prescriptions for their solutions. She continued
to convey the impression of seeking movement and taking initiatives in her relations with the big
powers as well as with her neighbors.
Till the end of 1986, India concerned herself actively with the nuclear disarmament issue and
world peace. The initiatives in this direction that started in the lime of Indira Gandhi with a
summit of six nations (India, Tanzania, Sweden, Greece, Argentina and Mexico) to arouse world
public opinion against the dangerous piling up of nuclear arms and continued by Rajiv Gandhi
when the summit chose Delhi as its venue in January 1985, was energetically pursued next year
too. Rajiv Gandhi played a most vocal role in the six nations' summit in Mexico. The leaders of
the six nations including Rajiv Gandhi added a new offer to their earlier call for a halt to all
testing and production of nuclear weapons. This offer was welcomed by the Soviet Union, but
was 'politely and firmly' rejected by the U. S. It is to be noted that in the 'Delhi Declaration'
(November 1986) the visiting Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachov and Rajiv Gandhi called on the
peoples and leaders of all countries, in the name of more than one billion men, women and
children of India and the Soviet Union, to take urgent action that would lead to a world free of
weapons of mass destruction, a world without war. They also expressed their earnest desire that
every person be allowed to make their own social, political and ideological choice.
Africa was another area of hectic Indian diplomatic activity. The Prime Minister of India was
eloquent in his tirade against apartheid in South Africa and in his efforts for independence of
Namibia. Rajiv Gandhi undertook a hurricane tour of four frontline African states. In Africa, he
promised a new initiative to fight the racist regime in South Africa and for assisting the frontier
stales who arc victims of Pretoria's systematic campaign of destabilisation and intimidation. The
high-level diplomacy as pursued by the Indian Prime Minister pushed the cause of nuclear
disarmament and the need to end racial suppression in South Africa further into the
consciousness of the people, enhancing thereby India's international stature. To strengthen the
nationalist and freedom movement of the people of Africa, Rajiv Gandhi took an extra-ordinary
initiative at the ministerial meeting of the non-aligned countries in New Delhi in April 1985 to
grant diplomatic status to the SWAPO (South-West African Peoples Organisation). Rajiv Gandhi
emphatically declared that World Peace could never be finally achieved so long all peoples of
the world are not free lo set their houses in their own way.
Sri Lanka's bleeding war continued unabuted. At a time when Indo-Sri Lanka relations had
reached their nadir, news suddenly came of an accord between
the two countries on 29 July 1987 to "establish peace and normality" in the Island. The Accord
envisages cessation of hostilities and normality in the Island. The Accord envisages cessation of
hostilities between the Tamil militants and Sri Lanka government forces within 24 hours
surrender of arms within 72 hours, return of the Army to barracks of a demand hither to opposed
by Sri Lanka. It provides general amnesty for all political prisoners and also facilities for
rehabilitation of militants who would surrender arms and return to normal civilian life.

The mam point of the Accord are : (1) ceasefire in the troubled northern province: (2) Laying
down arms by the militants within 72 hours;
(3) Establishment of a 'bilateral peace-keeping force' in the northern province; (4) Referendum in
the eastern province to decide whether the people wanted merger with the northern province. A
representative of the Election to the provincial councils by the end of 1987 under the Election to
the provincial councils by the end of 1987 under the supervision of Indian observers; (6) The
government of India will take steps to ensure that Indian territory was not used for active
prejudicial to the unity, integrety and security of Sri Lanka; (7) The Indian navy and coast guard
are to co-operate with the Sri Lankan authorities in preventing Tamil militant activities from
affecting the island. (8) Selling up a joint
required lo implement the accord.

President Jayewardene declared that henceforth there would be are E am people's Revolutionary
Liberation Front, Tamil United Democratic Liberation Front

Following the signing of the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord units of the armed forces name Indian Peace
Keeping Force Landed in the Goanna Peninsula on 31 July 1987 at the specific and format
request of Sri Lanka. Commenting on the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord Rajiv Ciardi emphatically said
that the Accord met the basic aspirations of the Tamils viz, "the desire to be recognised as a
distinct ethnic entity political autonomy appropriate evolution of governmental power the
recognition of the northern and eastern provinces of Sri Lanka as areas of historical habitation of
Tamils and Acknowledgement of Tamil as
an official language of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka".
Initially, all the Tamil groups including LTTE welcomed the Indian peace keeping force But
shortly the LTTE refused to surrender arms and took up violent resistance, although the
presence of the people. Soon the LTTE militant group resorted to guerrilla tactics against the
peace keeping force. Even they resorted to eliminating all the rival Tamil of groups. As a result
serious violence erupted again. Daily skirmishes and killings continued un-abated. The situation
turn grave for the Sri Lanka Government. The demand for the withdrawal of the IPKF from Sri
Lanka gradually mounted. At the same time the Sinhalese extremists Janata Vemukthi Peramena
rose up in arms both against the island government and the Tamil militants creating the situation
all the more grave. In the face of stiff resistance of the LTTE, the IPKF had established absolute
control in the northern and eastern provincial preparing ground for holding election to the
combined North-Eastern provincial council. The Sri Lankan Government paid tribute to the role
of the IPKF as "very massive" and "tremendous job".

In May 1988, India and Sri Lanka reached and agreement on a phased withdrawal of the Indian
Peace Keeping Force from the island. However, recent events in -Sri Lanka have again borne out
the widespread apprehension that is impossible to ensure the return of peace and stability without
the support of the majority Sinhalese community.

However on September 10, 1988, President Jayewardene issued a proclamation merging the
Northern and Eastern provinces of the island. India welcomed the merger of the two provinces
and announcement of elections to a single North-Eastern Provincial Council. President
Jayewardene's proclamation has been held by India as a further step towards implementation of
the Indo-Sri Lanka accord and fulfilment of Tamil aspirations. Meanwhile the IPKF announced
unilaterally a ceasefire for five days beginning from September 5, 1988. Yet No Tamil group had
come forward to participate in the elections to the North-Eastern Provincial Council. Moreover,
popular resentment against the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord has been felled by the forced merger of
the Northern and Eastern Provinces, a step that has failed to pacify the LTTE's (Liberation Tigers
of Tamil Elam) militants even though it meets a fundamental Tamil demand.

It is to be noted that the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord was hailed by the U.S. But Pakistan, Nepal and
Bangladesh were un-happy with the Indian role.