SEARCH RESULTS

< Back Ms Shruti Pandalai Shruti Pandalai is a Fellow at the Centre for Military Affairs/ Southeast Asia and Oceania Centre, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses. Her research focuses on India’s foreign and security policy, India and evolving geopolitics in the Indo Pacific, China’s sharp power and influence operations, and strategic narratives on the India-China boundary dispute. She holds an MA in International Studies and Diplomacy from the School of Oriental and African Studies, London. Her upcoming publications include ‘India’s Stakes in The Indo Pacific: The Way Forward’, for Routledge India, and ‘Strategic Narratives from India’s Frontiers: What Arunachal thinks of the Boundary Dispute with China’, for MP-IDSA. Publications Blame Games Amidst A Protracted Deadlock—No Thaw In India, China Ties: https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/cag/publications/details/china-india-brief-191#.YXjM8aLh6Hs.twitter Why AUKUS is Gaining Acceptance in the Indo Pacific: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/commentary/australia-submarine-accepted-aukus-asia-indo-pacific-alliance-china-2206681 Chinese Checkers: Driving Alignments in the Indo-Pacific: https://www.idsa.in/idsanews/chinese-checkers-driving-alignments-in-the-indo-pacific

< Back RIVA GANGULY DAS EDITOR- FOREIGN POLICY riva@csdronline.com Ambassador Das joined the Indian Foreign Service in 1986. She has served as High Commissioner to Bangladesh and Ambassador to Romania, Albania and Moldova and has served as Consul General in Shanghai and New York. She has also done postings in Spain and The Netherlands and has served in various capacities at Headquarters dealing with Nepal, Public Diplomacy, Passport & Consular, and United Nations. She has also served as the Director at the United Nations Economic and Social Affairs Division and participated in environmental negotiations, particularly climate change. She was also the Alternate Permanent Representative of India to the Organization for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons at The Hague. She has also served as Director General, Indian Council for Cultural Relations. Before her retirement she was Secretary (East) in the Ministry of External Affairs. riva@csdronline.com 123-456-7890

< Back Dr Niloy Ranjan Biswas Dr. Niloy Ranjan Biswas is an Associate Professor of the Department of International Relations, University of Dhaka. He has undertaken his studies at the University of Dhaka, Bangladesh, The George Washington University, Washington DC, USA, and City, University of London, London, UK. In 2016, he completed his Ph.D. in International Politics from City, University of London. He was a recipient of the Fulbright Fellowship (2010-12) to pursue the second Master’s degree in Security Policy Studies at The George Washington University, Washington DC. In 2017, he successfully completed the United States Institute of Peace (USIP)-Resolve Fellowship to conduct post-doctoral research on community policing and its challenges in preventing violent extremism. In 2020, Mahanirban Calcutta Research Group (CRG) offered him a visiting research fellowship to conduct an empirical study on Rohingya refugees and international protection mechanisms. Dr. Biswas has several academic and policy publications to his credit. He has written extensively on regional cooperation in Indo-pacific, South and Southeast Asia, deradicalization and preventing violent extremism, refugees and forced migration, and South Asian regional contributions to United Nations peace support endeavours. His most recent articles are published in National Security (VIF), Asian Journal of Comparative Politics, The Round Table: The Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs, International Peacekeeping (Taylor & Francis), Journal of International Peacekeeping (Brill), Bangladesh Institute of International and Strategic Studies (BISSS) Journal and Mirpur Papers (Defense Services Command and Staff College, Bangladesh). Dr. Biswas is an adjunct Associate Professor at the Bangladesh University of Professionals. He frequently visits Bangladesh Foreign Service Academy, Bangladesh Institute of Peace Support Operations and Training (BIPSOT), National Defense College, Defense Services Command and Staff College, and Bangladesh Ansar & VDP Academy as a guest speaker and subject matter expert. Publications

< Back Amba Wattal Research Assistant Amba is a Research Assistant at the Council for Strategic and Defense Research. Amba holds a Master’s in International Studies from Symbiosis International University, Pune. She has a Master’s in English Literature from Delhi University and a PG Diploma in Human Rights. India’s Neighbourhood Policy and South Asia are the domains that attract her interest.

< Back Mr Vidyadhar Anand Prabhudesai Vidyadhar Prabhudesai is co-founder of LeadCap Trust which impacted 10 million youth, and LeadCap Ventures which consults for governments like Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq and international institutions like UN, World Economic Forum, World Bank and USAID. He is also the Founding Curator of Global Shapers Community of the World Economic Forum and Fellow of United Nations, Royal Society of Arts and Ford Foundation. He is recipient of Thane Gaurav, 2nd highest civilian honour by Municipal Corporation of Thane City. Prabhudesai is the Global Ambassador of Peace and Sustainable Development Goals. He was awarded the World Bank Prize for developing innovative solution for addressing youth unemployment. Vidyadhar was listed among EU-India 40 under 40 leaders and top 100 global influencers. He is a distinguished alumnus of Thunderbird School of Global Management and Aegis School of Business. Publications

< Back Dr Uma Purushothaman Uma Purushothaman is currently an Assistant Professor at the Department of International Relations and Politics at the School of Global Studies, Central University of Kerala, and was formerly a Research Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation, and a Research Associate at the United Service Institution of India. She holds a PhD in International Studies at the Centre for Canadian, US and Latin American Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. Besides authoring numerous book chapters, she edited the book, ‘Globalisation and Identity: Perspectives from India and Russia’ for ORF, New Delhi and co-authored, ‘Trends in Russia-China Relations: Implications for India’, also for ORF. With a focus on politics, foreign policy, and security, her research articles have been published in journals such as India Quarterly, International Studies, Journal of Peace Studies and Strategic Analysis. Publications COVID-19 Second Wave | Challenges to India’s global reputation: https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/opinion/covid-19-second-wave-challenges-to-indias-global-reputation-6852231.html Israel-Palestine Conflict | The world reacts with predictable indifference: https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/opinion/israel-palestine-conflict-the-world-reacts-with-predictable-indifference-6922401.html Why RIC is as important to India as JAI and BRICS: https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/why-ric-is-as-important-to-india-as-jai-and-brics-46213/

02b9323d-d013-4da1-b1d8-3e08e63ed478 < All op-eds The Assertiveness of Chinese Foreign Policy under Xi Jinping Jay Maniyar The President of the Peoples’ Republic of China, PRC, is the incredibly powerful, assertive, uncompromising, and permanent Xi Jinping. China’s foreign policy has witnessed a noticeable climbing nationalist fervour since President Xi came to power. Across the board, there has been a remarkable shift in the way China sees the world. Inferring from the Indian foreign policy doyen, J. N. Dixit, it is understood that an assertive Chinese foreign policy stems from a historically nationalist mind-set of the Chinese peoples as a whole. On the face of it, the principles laid out by China are well-attuned to a peace-abiding, genuinely-intentioned, and internationally-responsible nation-state. Characteristic Chinese foreign policy ticks off all the boxes as far as what it seeks to achieve in Asia and the world is concerned. Maintaining world peace, friendly relations with neighbouring countries, a lasting cooperation policy with all countries, and an openness policy aimed at welcoming the world to China are all part of Beijing’s foreign policy agenda . These are an honest indication of a rising power that will perform much convincingly in seeking to establish its reign worldwide. Openness, in particular, is being innovatively handled through strategies such as ‘dual circulation’. However, President Xi does appear to be interpreting, at times, that these guidelines will be interpreted to what he perceives to be in pure Chinese interests. Jagannath Panda describes this ‘new era’ foreign policy as evolving from being focussed on Asia to competing on the global stage with the United States of America (US). From an economic perspective, Chinese foreign policy remains rabidly attuned to achieving maximum economic gains in any geography and this is even made apparent by China-led multilateralism through institutions such as Boao Forum and Shanghai Cooperation Organization. China remains geared for resource hunts anywhere in the Indo-Pacific region, while it actively ‘debt trap’s countries through a vehement economic agenda of profiteering coupled with perennial entrapment. Sri Lanka, for example, has been most afflicted by this Chinese approach and finds itself continually subordinated to Chinese Indian Ocean interests. The Indian Ocean is also subject to a Chinese foreign policy that aims to establish maritime supremacy through Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA), encircle its contemporary in India through a ‘String of Pearls’, and apply the 2013 Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) paradigm to a large area in the western Indo-Pacific region. The latter aims to ascertain Chinese influence in Asia by tying down unsuspecting countries through joint infrastructural interests, ample connectivity initiatives, and several growth zones. Some of the manifest points of Xi’s foreign policy include: 1. There is, now, a newfound keenness on the resolution of all matters pertaining to territorial acquisition, tantamount to the use of force by Beijing wherever, whenever, and howsoever mandated by the ruling state. This is exemplified by how, at one end, China irks its neighbours through state-endorsed armed entities such as its maritime mafia and their relatively low-intensity transgressions, to threatening countries such as Japan with nuclear obliteration over Tokyo's interference in the Taiwan matter. 2. China exhibits a certain boldness in military actions and activity across the entire stretch of the Indo-Pacific region: The following data gives a brief idea about Chinese military assertiveness at the expense of noble ideals furthered in the foreign policy agenda: I. The Peoples’ Liberation Army (PLA) has engaged in vilification across borders, such as in Ladakh (India). The Peoples’ Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) is rapidly modernizing and bulking its inventory to achieve blue-water status on an urgent basis. The Peoples' Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) routinely violates Japanese airspace in a show of territorial aggression. These are just a few examples. II. Chinese island-building takes place through extensive land reclamation in the South China Sea and military assets such as surface-to-air missiles are deployed in this strategically-challenging environment (for China, itself, and the world) III. Chinese military basing (Djibouti, East Africa), naval deployments (nuclear-capable submarines in the Indian Ocean), and intelligence-gathering missions (Bay of Bengal) are coupled with benevolent ventures such as anti-piracy missions off the Horn of Africa. 3. Since a while now, China has conveyed, more often than not, a tendency to want to unilaterally shape the regional and global status-quo entirely in Beijing’s favour. This is evinced from China’s outright rejection of the Indo-Pacific idea, its disregard for India’s Indian Ocean necessitation, and its desire to establish control over the South and East China Seas as also many other waters. A Rising Assertiveness in Plenty of Foreign Policy Avenues China’s growing foreign policy assertiveness is nothing but a crude display of firebrand realism in international relations. At present, no country epitomizes the realist diktat of the absolute centrality and primacy of a nation-nation-state as far as self-interest is concerned as does China. François Bougon says that Xi has even sought to bring China out of its ‘low profile’ abroad by tacitly encouraging young Chinese nationalists to mock and deride enemies such as Japan and the US. The Chinese self-impression, officially called Face (or mianzi , in Mandarin), is being increasingly threatened by its radical foreign policy. A time may come when China could prove to be too difficult to handle. Chinese diplomacy, too, has gained a ferocity unlike any other phase in contemporary history. Since diplomacy is linked to the conduct of foreign policy, The pursuit of a so-called Wolf Warrior diplomacy has made a particular impression of the way the world sees China and has made the country more aggressive in the pursuit of its foreign policy objectives. Utilization of technology-oriented mechanisms such as informationization, targeted cyber espionage, and many others are integral to the Chinese agenda. Countries across Asia remain committed to the ‘One China policy even in the wake of Chinese excesses and its hardening national commitment concerning Taiwan. Any challenge presented to the contrary is met with disdain by Beijing and accompanied by impromptu reprimand and rebuke. Conclusion – Chinese Foreign Policy, a Rising Concern for the World If not moderated wherever required and not brought to a screeching halt if necessary, China’s foreign policy bears the potential to alter regional and global dynamics entirely on its own. Led by Xi Jinping’s authoritarian control, China’s power projection is scaling unprecedented heights in the modern era. However, tackling China to the point of overpowering it, at least, considerably is proving to be a taxing and time-consuming endeavour of herculean proportions. How the machinations and manipulations of Chinese foreign policy are effectively dealt with, remains to be seen. Previous Next LATEST OP-EDS Dr Dhanasree Jayaram Intersectionality As The Key To Indo-Pacific Climate Action The Indo-Pacific is a dynamic region that faces a multitude of climate vulnerabilities. These climate vulnerabilities intermingle with the region’s social, economic, ecological, political, and cultural fault lines, thereby exacerbating the systemic crisis that the region’s populations are currently facing and will be facing in the future. Applying an intersectional framework is critical for developing a comprehensive understanding of varying vulnerabilities and capacities (that influence the agency of those affected) across societies. Read More Purvaja Modak 2024: Brazil’s G20 Year While Indonesia and India made some progress on negotiations on climate action, inclusion of the African Union in the G20 and the reform of multilateral development banks (MDBs), much more action is essential. Read More Abhivardhan An Indo-Pacific Perspective on AI Safety Analysing varied approaches to AI regulation in key countries, this article explores the challenges and opportunities of AI Safety in the Indo-Pacific region and discusses the need for a coordinated approach to addressing these issues. Read More

Dr. Sinderpal Singh Senior Fellow and Coordinator of the South Asia Programme at the Nanyang Technological University. He was formerly also a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies, National University Singapore. issinderpal@ntu.edu.sgUniversity of Singapore. < Back Dr. Sinderpal Singh Sinderpal Singh is Senior Fellow and Coordinator of the South Asia Programme at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. His research interests include the international relations of South Asia with a special focus on Indian foreign policy as well as the geo-politics of the Indian Ocean Region (IOR). Before joining RSIS, Sinderpal was a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore, and a Post-Doctoral Research Fellow at the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, National University of Singapore. He has published articles in journals such as Asia Policy, Asian Security and Pacific Affairs; his single-authored book is entitled India in South Asia: Domestic Identity Politics and Foreign Policy from Nehru to the BJP (Routledge 2013; paperback version, 2015). He has also contributed book chapters on aspects of India’s Northeast, specifically in relation to India-ASEAN land connectivity and India’s broader ‘Look East Policy’. He is Associate Editor of the journal South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, published on behalf of the South Asian Studies Association of Australia (first published in 1971). He received his PhD from the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, his MA from the Australian National University, and his BA from the National University of Singapore. issinderpal@ntu.edu.sg

fed3b486-2980-4a95-b805-abf32e80586a < All op-eds Do Maritime Policies Matter to Those Living at Sea? Dr. Vilashini Somiah In the study of Maritime Southeast Asia, scholars would unpack the historical and contemporary importance of water bodies from historical, sociological, cultural, political, and economic perspectives. Often these discourses and debates lead back to the issue of fluidity and porousness of seas and oceans throughout this uniquely archipelagic maritime region that is Indonesia, The Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, and Singapore (ASEAN observer Timor-Leste should also be mentioned here). In policy studies, this is often equated with the current narratives of security, defense, territorial disputes and a list of potential crises, threats and criminal activities (human smuggling, trafficking, violent extremism, piracy, illegal fishing, and environmental devastations). Within the Indo-Pacific, maritime borders, diplomacy, and sea mobility is commonly associated with the Asian superpowers, specifically China , India , Australia, Japan , and at times ASEAN, and their individual and collective influences on the issue. There have been some challenges identified by policy experts in the development of maritime policies, namely the issue of differing mechanics of security, which are influenced by a nation's military practices, human and financial resources, and also one’s geographical terrain; this can result in different security, mobility and migratory outcomes overall. The maritime nations of ASEAN , for example, (Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, The Philippines, Brunei, and land-locked members with considerable coastal areas like Vietnam and Myanmar) have each approached shared maritime concerns differently despite sharing intimate and interwoven maritime history, heritage, and borders with each other. As their maritime problems continue to expand and intensify with time, experts have recommended stronger and more direct communication between nation-states through the formation of regional councils, customizable security and economic frameworks, and the expansion of partnerships with other experienced maritime countries within the Indo Pacific like India and China, and with time the EU, The US and NATO. But for those who research the area from the ground up, these policies have been equated with rigid and sometimes archaic ways of understanding water bodies, which fail to capture very important nuances of identity, belonging, and the pre-territorial and pre-boundary movements of littoral (to mean along the shore of part of seas or lakes) communities. Communities living in the coast also feel that such land-centric policies for development and strategic ties continue to perpetuate their littoral way of life as being dangerous and threatening. The bottom line is that while governments continue to work on securing and strengthening their maritime issues, they also enable an old (and problematic) narrative of littoral communities and spaces only existing as problems to be solved. Borneo for example (also my area of research), is the largest island in Asia and the third largest in the world, and its political division between Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei means that international, regional, and local maritime laws have been in place to ensure economic trading of goods and produce, and maritime boundaries are secured and protected. However, while international sea laws are in place to help foster more efficient diplomatic ties between neighbouring nation-states of these maritime spaces, local laws enacted can sometimes be in contradiction to them. An example of this is The Malaysian Territorial Sea Act 2012 (TSA), which sets out 12 nautical miles as the breadth of the territorial sea throughout Malaysia. The history leading to the enactment of the TSA is long and complicated but it is generally a response to international laws such as the (Alteration of Boundaries) Order in Council, 1954 (vis-à-vis the Colonial Boundaries Act, 1895), which determines the boundaries of a British colony and the Law of the Sea Convention, 1982 , a multilateral treaty governing the world's oceans. However, in the case of Sabah and Sarawak, the territory for the exploitation or exploration of the territorial sea is limited to only 3 nautical miles , which has been greatly contested by local activists and politicians and accused of being unconstitutional . The arguments made by those protesting the change have accused the Malaysian government of wanting to have complete control over the state’s rights to fisheries, marine, and mineral resources. The Malaysian government, however, has responded by explaining that while international law limits the Malaysian territorial waters to 12 nautical miles (22km) from the coast, the TSA had always limited the states’ waters to 3 nautical miles (5.5km) from the coast. Before 1963, Sabah and Sarawak, as independent nations, had sovereignty over waters up to the full 12 nautical miles from their shores, but this had to change as they became states under the federation of Malaysia. Regardless of ongoing debates, for those living on the coast, contradictory or overlapping international and domestic policy quandaries such as the above mentioned only translate to further inconveniences in their daily lives at sea, which eventually impact their access to work, social connectivity, and native practices. From this other social problems often ensues: specific to Malaysia, the rigid governing of water boundaries has also led to modern day migratory issues of epic proportions, mirroring the displacement of migrants and refugees coming from countries like Ukraine, Syria, Sub-Saharan Africa and Myanmar. Littoral communities from east Sabah in Malaysia, southern Philippines and eastern Kalimantan of Indonesia see their maritime movement between these nation states as fluid and natural. Non-legally recognised movements are considered illicit and in many cases, criminal, and when arrested they are eventually deported. For the children of these people, they are deemed stateless and undocumented. Further complicating this is the villainizing of local littoral populations who share similar cultural and ethnic identities to these nearby migrants , all of whom are often deemed as dangerous by authorities. While many littoral communities have expressed wanting to respect national laws and international boundaries, it becomes clear to many maritime communities that these policies have given very little consideration to their immediate needs and difficulties in place of the protection of sovereign borders. It cannot be denied that securing maritime borders are in fact important to national security and will continue to be the focus of countries in the Indo-Pacific, especially that of developing nations. However, it is important to recognise that for littoral communities, it is easy to understand how International maritime treaties and cooperation seem to have overlooked their everyday practices and relationships with their sacred water bodies. Their retaliation towards this comes in the form of a rejection of these maritime conventions; these communities are only concerned with their daily survival and will utilise their maritime space for the movements of goods, peoples and ideas indefinitely. Solving this quandary will require littoral and maritime communities to be invited to contribute to the building of more effective policies. With a potential shift on civil engagement, newer maritime laws and policies, both domestic and international, can not only help ensure security and economic stability, but also more important concerns in the 21st century such as Covid-19 healthcare and recovery , climate change and gender equality . Previous Next LATEST OP-EDS Dr Dhanasree Jayaram Intersectionality As The Key To Indo-Pacific Climate Action The Indo-Pacific is a dynamic region that faces a multitude of climate vulnerabilities. These climate vulnerabilities intermingle with the region’s social, economic, ecological, political, and cultural fault lines, thereby exacerbating the systemic crisis that the region’s populations are currently facing and will be facing in the future. Applying an intersectional framework is critical for developing a comprehensive understanding of varying vulnerabilities and capacities (that influence the agency of those affected) across societies. Read More Purvaja Modak 2024: Brazil’s G20 Year While Indonesia and India made some progress on negotiations on climate action, inclusion of the African Union in the G20 and the reform of multilateral development banks (MDBs), much more action is essential. Read More Abhivardhan An Indo-Pacific Perspective on AI Safety Analysing varied approaches to AI regulation in key countries, this article explores the challenges and opportunities of AI Safety in the Indo-Pacific region and discusses the need for a coordinated approach to addressing these issues. Read More

LAUNCH EVENT Event title: IPC Online Launch Date: 10th February 2022 Time: Washington D.C.: 0730 - 0900 hrs New Delhi: 1800 - 1930 hrs Singapore: 2030 - 2200 hrs WATCH VIDEO EVENT DETAILS SPECIAL ADDRESS Ambassador Kelly Keiderling Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal, and Sri Lanka, Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, U.S. Dept of State. KEYNOTE ADDRESS Prof. C. Raja Mohan Visiting Research Professor, Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore INTRODUCTIONS TO THE CIRCLE Sushant Singh Senior Fellow, Centre for Policy Research Dr. Happymon Jacob Associate Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University, Founder, CSDR, New Delhi PANEL DISCUSSION: FRAMING THE INDO-PACIFIC: PATHWAYS TO THE FUTURE MODERATOR Lt. Gen. D.S. Hooda (Retd) PANELLISTS Ankit Panda Stanton Senior Fellow in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Dr. Sana Hashmi Visiting Fellow, Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation Manoj Kewalramani Fellow - China Studies, Takshashila Institution, Bangalore. Dr. Kittipos Phuttivanich Lecturer, Department of International Relations, Ramkhamhaeng University, Thailand.

7a22a302-d74a-4fd1-bc84-657d51e1fde6 < All op-eds The Impact Of A Probable Iran-Israel War On the Maritime Security of West Asia and the Indo-Pacific Region Dr Shelly Johny V. The October 7 Hamas attack on southern Israel led to the death of 1400 Israelis and other nationals, and the kidnapping of 229 people. This resulted in a sustained bombing campaign of the Gaza Strip by the Israel Defence Forces (IDF), further leading to a mounting number of Palestinian deaths. Israel has gathered more than 300,000 IDF reservists, armour, and artillery on the perimeter of the Gaza Strip in preparation for a ground invasion with the purported aim of wiping out Hamas. This has heightened tensions in the region with Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon threatening that an Israeli ground incursion into the Strip would result in a massive retaliation. The likelihood of a war between Iran and Israel is huge if IDF moves ahead with its plans of wiping out Hamas completely. It is clear that Iran’s lack of reaction would compromise its credibility in the ‘Axis of Resistance’ (that it built in the region including Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), and Ansar Allah or the Houthi rebel movement in Yemen). If Iran and Hezbollah fail to protect Hamas now, the Axis of Resistance that they built will be severely weakened, and affect their own deterrence capabilities vis-à-vis Israel West Asia is surrounded by some of the most important shipping lanes in the world including the Suez Canal, the Bab al-Mandab Strait, and the Hormuz Strait. While a war in which Iran intervenes will have widespread consequences for the wider West Asian region, its impact will be felt as far as the Indo-Pacific region. The three important maritime theatres that can be affected by a war between Israel and Iran are the Eastern Mediterranean, the Red Sea, and the Persian Gulf. Each of these theatres can be affected by the conflict in their own unique ways because of their peculiar geopolitical challenges. For example, Iran is not part of the Eastern Mediterranean but has influence through its ally Syria and proxy Hezbollah. On the other hand, Israel has the capability to conduct its naval operations in this theatre and to a certain extent in the Red Sea, while it does not have that much access to the Persian Gulf area. At the same time, the U.S. because of its predominant naval capabilities will be able to play a domineering role in all these maritime theatres. There is no account of Israel having conducted any naval operations in the Eastern Mediterranean during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Israel also did not attack any of the ports of Syria during the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, though it is a matter of conjecture if these ports were not attacked because of Soviet presence in them . The end of conventional warfare between states in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict (after 1973) changed the dynamics of naval warfare between the two sides. Israel launched Operation Litani in 1978 in response to a terrorist attack by PLO to destroy guerrilla bases in southern Lebanon and establish a security zone in that region adjoining Israel to prevent further attacks. During this operation, the Israeli Air Force struck at the port of Tyre, where the Palestinians were said to have received large deliveries of arms . When Palestinian guerrillas continued their operations against Israel even after Operation Litani, Israel conducted an invasion of Lebanon in 1982 going as far north as Beirut with the aim of expelling the PLO from Lebanon. Israel changed its tactics towards guerrillas operating in Lebanon during this war. The Israel Navy conducted a blockade of West Beirut, beginning in June 1982 to put pressure on the Lebanese to force the PLO to leave Lebanon. The blockade was maintained by a ring of patrol boats, gunboats, and missile boats supported by submarines. The siege lasted until August 1982 when a deal was reached for the withdrawal of the PLO leadership and fighters from Lebanon. The PLO was replaced by the Lebanese Shia militant group Hezbollah in conducting attacks against Israel and its proxy in southern Lebanon, the South Lebanon Army (SLA) headed by Maronite Christians from southern Lebanon allied with Israel. The attacks by Hezbollah continued in the years after Israel first withdrew from most of Lebanon except an area of southern Lebanon adjoining Israel in 1985 and then its complete withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000. Israel conducted two military operations against Hezbollah in the 1990s when it still retained control of a part of southern Lebanon. During the seventeen-day Operation Grapes of Wrath conducted by Israel against Hezbollah in 1996, the Israel Navy blockaded the ports of Beirut, Sidon and Tyre in a repetition of the tactic that it used in 1982 . In the more devastating war between Israel and Hezbollah in 2006, Israel not only blockaded all Lebanese ports but even bombed the Beirut port and its lighthouse In the civil war that broke out in Syria in 2011 as part of the anti-government protests, Iran through the Quds force of its Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), Hezbollah, and pro-Iranian Shia militias from other parts of the region provided support to the Syrian government which allowed the latter to survive. Iran has been using a supply corridor extending from Iraq to eastern Syria to transfer weapons to Hezbollah and other pro-Iran Shia militias in Syria and Lebanon. Israel, for years, has targeted airports and sea ports in the government-held parts of Syria in an apparent attempt to prevent arms shipments from Iran. However, the recent increase in Israeli attacks against Syrian seaports could be to counter Iranian attempts to transfer weapons by sea as the usual supply corridor extending from Iraq to eastern Syria was targeted by intensified Israeli strikes . In the event of the present Gaza War spreading to Lebanon through strong retaliations by Hezbollah, Israel is likely to repeat its tactic of blockading Lebanese ports or even bombing them. The war in Gaza has already begun impacting offshore production and exploration of natural gas in the Levantine basin off the shores of Syria, Lebanon, and Israel in the Eastern Mediterranean. Israel stopped gas production at the offshore Tamar gas field located 25 kilometres off the shore of Ashkelon though it is unclear if Hamas has the capability to target the field. However, Lebanon has not halted its gas exploration in offshore Block 9, south of the Lebanese Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) It is not clear if Israel would target the drilling rig and other facilities in Lebanon’s Block 9 in the event of the conflict spreading. If it is seen that Syria-based Shia militias are actively intervening in the conflict, Israel might blockade ports in Syria as well. Israel has targeted ships bound for Syria carrying Iranian oil and military supplies. But in continuation of what it has been doing for some years, the Israeli priority would be to target pro-Iranian camps and installations in south-western Syria close to the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. Through an understanding with Russia, Israel has agreed not to target the Syrian regime in Damascus, which is adjacent to the area currently targeted by Israel. However, this policy could change if the conflict intensifies. Previous Next LATEST OP-EDS Dr Dhanasree Jayaram Intersectionality As The Key To Indo-Pacific Climate Action The Indo-Pacific is a dynamic region that faces a multitude of climate vulnerabilities. These climate vulnerabilities intermingle with the region’s social, economic, ecological, political, and cultural fault lines, thereby exacerbating the systemic crisis that the region’s populations are currently facing and will be facing in the future. Applying an intersectional framework is critical for developing a comprehensive understanding of varying vulnerabilities and capacities (that influence the agency of those affected) across societies. Read More Purvaja Modak 2024: Brazil’s G20 Year While Indonesia and India made some progress on negotiations on climate action, inclusion of the African Union in the G20 and the reform of multilateral development banks (MDBs), much more action is essential. Read More Abhivardhan An Indo-Pacific Perspective on AI Safety Analysing varied approaches to AI regulation in key countries, this article explores the challenges and opportunities of AI Safety in the Indo-Pacific region and discusses the need for a coordinated approach to addressing these issues. Read More

6f82c91d-96b7-4c9e-a473-e7797779d187 < All op-eds Biden’s Healing Plan: Where is it? Anurag Mishra As Joe Biden ascended to the Presidency, he sent waves across America and the world that gave people “hope.” In the challenging times when the world faced the most devastating health crisis, America had more to cure from. In his victory speech, Biden announced healing a bitterly divided country and ending the pandemic as his two topmost priorities. Dubbing the electoral victory a moral triumph, Biden had undertaken to comfort America. The speech Biden made had landed well with the people, but how well-meaning his efforts have been to remove the chasm and provide the healing touch remains a matter of debate. While some believe that the differences and divisions have only grown since Biden took the reins, others see the continued marginalization of democratic radical leadership as a position sustained in the right earnest. Biden’s campaign had run on noble but ambiguous lines that left political pundits a lot to look for in the dark. This article inquires how successful or not Biden has been in embarking on a path of unity and restoring the soul of America. The Divergences The last presidential election was arguably the most divisive in the recent history of the US. Despite Biden’s call for unity, a report by USC shows that the country remains as divided as it was at the start of Biden’s Presidency. The issues that riled up the country during Trump’s Presidency have continued to drive wedges between the parties and the people. Among the more divisive are the issues relating to climate change, environment protection, gun laws, and immigration. According to a Pew survey , the parties have gone adrift more than ever in the past over climate change issues. Although the younger republican lot does see climate change as a crisis, the repeated onslaughts of President Trump and other Republicans over climate crisis have created divisions among the parties and the people. Biden’s prompt appointment of John Kerry as a special envoy for climate and an immediate return to the Paris accord made it clear where the parties stand on this issue. The Republican disregard for climate change reflects equally concerning environmental protection. While eight out of ten Democrats feel climate protection is of utmost importance, less than four Republicans out of ten seem to worry about it. Thus, the Biden Administration’s expenditure and the constraints it has put over American polluting enterprises and land-use changes have caused the Republicans and Democrats fiercely against each other. According to the latest Pew survey , the number of Americans who want stricter gun laws (even in the wake of numerous school shootings across the US) has decreased from 60 percent in 2019 to 53 percent today. The rift is even wider when we compare the number of people who see gun violence as a significant issue in American society; the republicans v democrats are pitted at 18 percent to 73. America also remains divided on the question of immigrants. As Trump’s border wall remains an object of fancy in the public imagination, the unpraiseworthy handling of the southern border is one of the most criticized actions of the Biden Administration. The troubles for the Biden administration concerning uniting the divided nation are far from over. With the overturning of Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court of the USA has let the genie out of the bottle. By a single judgment, the Supreme Court has made abortion illegal in more than eight states. Several other states are in the offing to either completely ban abortions or regulate them heavily. Prospects vis a vis bridging the divide seem not very promising. Convergences In his forthcoming book titled “The Fight of His Life: Inside Joe Biden’s White House,” Charles Whipple describes Biden’s ascendance to the Oval office as “He’s been dealt an extraordinarily bad hand.” To deliver the country from such bitter divisions is no mean task but has Biden done enough to bridge divides instead of widening them is a point worth discussing. In Biden’s Presidency, points of bipartisan consensus and convergences have not been very forthcoming. However, that is not to say that there have been no attempts or success to have consensus. Lately, the school shootings in Texas gave America a much-needed shock to lose its reluctance toward stricter gun laws. Despite most Americans supporting the right to own firearms, Gallup’s poll had suggested in the previous year that Americans are not opposed to a stricter legal regime for their guns and heirloom. Taking a cue from the outrage and riding on sentiments, the US Senate passed bipartisan gun-safety legislation with a considerable margin. Not only that, but Biden also secured a bipartisan victory with his $1.2 trillion infrastructure plan. Additionally, Biden’s steadfast support for Ukraine has also received bipartisan approval. Onwards? Yes. Upwards? Not sure! Biden’s miseries have also been aggravated due to an un-friendly Supreme Court. As Americans brace for more turnovers, and Biden may be compelled to pass executive orders to negate those rulings, the divisions only seem to grow from here. The going-after of Donald Trump, the unilateral executive orders on abortions, and the relentless pursuit of stricter gun laws have only added to the woes of the cause of unity and bipartisanship. It is not so that political divisions have marred only the United States. Of late, social and political divisions have seen a rise in many democracies, viz. India, Australia, and France, and tackling such divisions have been arduous for the respective governments and political communities worldwide. Thomas A. Bayliss, in his paper, suggests that to overcome political divisions, political blocks within a polity need to evolve an “elite consensus” to keep the democracy from becoming more fragmented. However, an effort to arrive at such a political consensus over the more divisive issues has been virtually missing on the part of the Biden administration. The priorities listed on the White House website mention seven priorities of the current administration. From mending the fraught race relations to restoring America’s global standing, the pursuit of unity and bipartisanship don’t find space. President Biden had done right in identifying the problems of American politics but has so far belied his promises of ushering in an era of healing. President Biden, despite several failings, has the time to salvage the cause of unity and do more than what his opponents dismiss as jawboning. Previous Next LATEST OP-EDS Dr Dhanasree Jayaram Intersectionality As The Key To Indo-Pacific Climate Action The Indo-Pacific is a dynamic region that faces a multitude of climate vulnerabilities. These climate vulnerabilities intermingle with the region’s social, economic, ecological, political, and cultural fault lines, thereby exacerbating the systemic crisis that the region’s populations are currently facing and will be facing in the future. Applying an intersectional framework is critical for developing a comprehensive understanding of varying vulnerabilities and capacities (that influence the agency of those affected) across societies. Read More Purvaja Modak 2024: Brazil’s G20 Year While Indonesia and India made some progress on negotiations on climate action, inclusion of the African Union in the G20 and the reform of multilateral development banks (MDBs), much more action is essential. Read More Abhivardhan An Indo-Pacific Perspective on AI Safety Analysing varied approaches to AI regulation in key countries, this article explores the challenges and opportunities of AI Safety in the Indo-Pacific region and discusses the need for a coordinated approach to addressing these issues. Read More