SEARCH RESULTS

7c0e804f-4e50-4c4b-a7da-9eb4dc71fb02 < All op-eds US Senate Resolution on Arunachal Pradesh: A Goodwill Gesture or an Ice Breaker? Cyriac S Pampackal Days before the New Delhi visit of the US Congressional Delegation led by the Majority House Leader Chuck Schumer, the US Senate passed a resolution on Arunachal Pradesh in favour of India and condemning the actions of the People's Republic of China (PRC) along the Line of Actual Control (LAC). This bipartisan resolution was introduced by Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley from Oregon and Republican Senator Bill Hagerty , clearly indicating the interests of the US Department of State. This resolution is one of the iconic moments in Indo-US relations under the present US administration. Through this resolution, the US Senate extends its unwavering support to India in its efforts to protect its sovereignty across the Himalayas. A closer examination of the resolution, however, reveals that it is not merely a goodwill gesture to India, but rather a concerted effort to knit India closer to US foreign policy efforts. Senate Resolution 75: An Overview The 75 th Resolution in the 1 st session of the 118 th Congress starts by reaffirming Arunachal Pradesh as an Indian territory and condemning provocations made by the PRC. The resolution's condemnation of Chinese provocations includes opposition to the PRC Ministry of Civil Affairs' cartographic efforts to declare Arunachal Pradesh as Chinese territory, as well as the ensuing skirmishes along the LAC in recent years. Furthermore, the US Senate extends its support to the Kingdom of Bhutan against the growing Chinese incursions in the eastern sector. In addition to that, the US Senate acknowledges the importance of Arunachal Pradesh to the Buddhist community and condemns the action of the PRC in raising diplomatic red flags on the incumbent Dalai Lama’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh. The resolution also accuses the PRC of impeding poverty-alleviation efforts and sabotaging collaboration with international donors by scripting the perception of disputed territory about Arunachal Pradesh. Later in the resolution, India is praised for its development efforts in Arunachal Pradesh, as well as its promising role in the international arena, particularly through its G20 presidency. Evidently, the first half of the resolution is full of irk factors for PRC and is in support of Indian efforts against Chinese aggression. The second half of the 6-page resolution unfolds into a more constructive tool as it invokes the US vision of cooperating with India. It explicitly states the US interest to work with India through a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership bilaterally and to cooperate multilaterally through platforms like QUAD, I2U2 etc. The resolution also applauds India's efforts to defend itself against Chinese aggression, as well as its cooperation with Taiwan in many sectors, which shares similar Chinese aggression in its neighbourhood. Then the resolution extends its support to a free and open Indo-Pacific and commends India’s military modernization and "its diversification away from countries that fail to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other nations," clearly indicating the decreasing dependence of India on Russia . The resolution then assures its commitment to dedicating economic and diplomatic support to India in the development of Arunachal Pradesh. Furthermore, the resolution concludes by looking into potential avenues for defence cooperation, specifically " through defence interoperability and information sharing." What’s in it for India? While this resolution serves many US interests in its foreign engagements in the Indo-Pacific, it is also relevant for India, as it may serve as an icebreaker for India and the Democratic-led US administration, which is on the wrong foot when it comes to the Himalayan territorial disputes . The focus of the meeting with the Indian leadership and the all-democratic congressional delegation mirrored the verticals of cooperation mentioned in the US Senate’s resolution. This resolution just ratified the United States’ position over Arunachal Pradesh, and it will be reiterated on all international platforms, especially in countering the cartographic measures taken by the PRC to mandarinize Arunachal Pradesh and its specifics on international platforms. This is arguably based on US interests in securing the Indo-Pacific and making India a key player in it. However, this resolution exhibits the demanding nature of US foreign policy by indirectly trying to coerce India’s choices in military purchases and its position in the international realm. Another notable drawback of the resolution is that the options for the military support mentioned in it are limited and will be inadequate for succouring India. Even so, this resolution provides a great advantage for India diplomatically and strategically, it assures the US support at least on international platforms. Moreover, most nodes of possible cooperation between India and the US that are mentioned in the bill are focused on the Indo-Pacific, especially when it comes to countering Chinese aggression. This makes Resolution 75 a potential icebreaker for the process of securitizing the Indo-Pacific, with the US and India as partnering stakeholders. 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

< Back Dr Shreya Upadhyay Shreya Upadhyay is the Deputy Director(Hon.) Kalinga Institute of Indo-Pacific Studies. She has formerly worked as a Researcher at the National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore, and the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, New Delhi, focusing on subjects including food and water security, climate change-induced human displacement, India’s foreign policy, and South Asian geopolitics. She holds a PhD in US Area Studies from the School of International Studies (SIS), Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. She has also been a Consultant at the International Labour Organisation, and a Fullbright Nehru Scholar, serving as an Adjunct Faculty at the American University, Washington D.C. Publications Indo-Pacific and the Era of Minilateralism: https://thegeopolitics.com/indo-pacific-and-the-era-of-minilateralism/ With 370 gone, witll Kashmir prosper now? https://thegeopolitics.com/with-370-gone-will-kashmir-prosper-now/ The opportunities and risks of taking education online: https://www.policyforum.net/the-opportunities-and-risks-of-taking-education-online/

< Back Dr Sitakanta Mishra Dr. Sitakanta Mishra is currently an Associate Professor of International Relations in the School of Liberal Studies of Pandit Deendayal Energy University (PDEU, formerly PDPU), Gandhinagar, Gujarat (India). He is also the Managing Editor of Liberal Studies journal published by School of Liberal Studies (SLS) of PDPU, Gujarat. Previously, he was a Research Fellow at the Centre for Air Power Studies (CAPS), New Delhi, and a Guest Faculty at the Nelson Mandela Centre for Peace and Conflict Resolution, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. He was also the Associate Editor of the Indian Foreign Affairs Journal published by the Association of Indian Diplomats, Sapru House, New Delhi. Publications

Volume 1, Issue 1 (July-Dec) 2023 ISSN : 3049-1800 15 December 2023 Indo-Pacific Review’s inaugural issue centres around the theme “Framing the Indo-Pacific.” When Asia-Pacific became Indo-Pacific not long ago, it almost immediately attracted a great deal of geo-political and intellectual attention around the world. It indeed is one of the most discussed and debated geopolitical concepts of our times even though there appears a certain lack of clarity surrounding it. As the theme of this inaugural issue indicates, the objective of this issue is to understand the region from a variety of perspectives including but not limited to geopolitics, geography, balance of power, climate change, economy, and development. Article List Indo-Pacific Review, Vol 1 Issue 1, (July-Dec) 2023 Guest Editor: Dr. Sinderpal Singh Download Article Chief Editor's Note Dr Happymon Jacob Download Article Expert Commentary: THE INDO-PACIFIC: AN IDEA WHOSE TIME HAS COME Amb. Rakesh Sood Download Article EXPERT COMMENTARY: CHINA’S “TWO OCEAN” AND THE WEST’S INDO-PACIFIC STRATEGIES: THRUST AND REPOSTE IN A GEOPOLITICAL WAR OF WORDS? Adm AK Chawla Download Article VALUE OF TRILATERAL COOPERATION FOR THE INDO-PACIFIC STRATEGY & THE GHOST OF HISTORY: THE CASE OF US-JAPAN-SOUTH KOREA ALLIANCE Aakriti Sethi Download Article ASEAN CENTRALITY AND THE INDO-PACIFIC: FINDING A CONVERGENT REALITY? Eerishika Pankaj Download Article PROSPECTS FOR MINILATERALISM IN THE WESTERN INDIAN OCEAN Gulshan Sachdeva Download Article INDIA’S DEFENSE DIPLOMACY IN THE INDO-PACIFIC: SHAPING A NEW REGIONAL SECURITY ORDER? Ladhu Ram Choudhary Download Article INDO-PACIFIC: CONTEMPORARY UNDERSTANDING OF THE STRATEGIC SYSTEM AND ITS ATTRIBUTES Shrey Khanna Download Article Book Review: A Game for the Ages Rohit Kumar Download Article

55e04a4e-7f53-4839-abde-ec9c51ecf354 < All op-eds Great Powers and the Importance of Listening in International Politics Dr. Shofwan Al Banna Choiruzzad In today’s world where scary dragons, eagles, bears, and elephants (and sometimes octopuses) regularly appear in magazine covers or articles’ illustrations when they discuss international politics, it might be helpful to for us to look back at old fables to get some critical lessons that we might miss. In my case, I would suggest we look at the old stories from Indonesian and the larger Malayan societies that revolved around “Sang Kancil.” While more research needs to be done to see the connection between the traditional fable of  kancil  and the geopolitical location of Southeast Asia, which throughout history continue to be the location where great empires compete for influence, I contend that the stories might teach us one or two pearls of wisdom on geopolitics.  Rather than a mighty eagle, dragon, bear, or elephant, the main protagonist of the Malayan fable universe is “Sang Kancil” (“The Mousedeer”). A small, not-so-powerful, but kind and intelligent dweller of the forest. Through his wit, the tiny  kancil  defeated the powerful tiger to save the strong but naïve buffalo. He also tricked a group of hungry crocodiles into allowing him to cross the river. In another story, he stopped an invasion by an army of elephants. Kancil’s rare defeat came from creatures smaller and weaker than the mousedeer. He was outsmarted by the snails, whom he deemed as having no leverage against him.  The stories often reminded the audience that great powers might give us some leverage, but they could also be the cause of our downfall. Power is dangerous, even for our protagonist, because it makes us unable to understand the situation better by leading us to not listen to others. This might be an essential lesson for us all, including the Great Powers. Shadows of the Perceived Enemy One of the common mistakes of the Great Powers blinded by their desire to contain their rivals is their inability to understand the complex relationships between them and others. They see the world in the shadow of their perceived enemy, not the reality itself. This led to the failure to comprehend appropriately the motivations and behaviors of non-Great Powers, which were reduced into their relationship with the enemy. This approach is not going to work in Southeast Asia or the larger Indo-Pacific, a region that is marked by fluid relationships. This fluidity is often misunderstood as inconsistency, but we better understand it as the natural consequence of the multidimensionality of relationships in the region. Many Southeast Asian countries do not see their hard stance on the South China Sea against China as something that is contradictory to their increasing economic cooperation with Beijing. Indonesia is showing off its resolute position on the Natuna Sea and at the same time inviting Beijing to invest more and more in the country. Other ASEAN members also do the same with different degrees and contexts.   Rather than a single chessboard in which China and US are competing for supremacy, Southeast Asia is a region in which people play multiple board games with different rules at the same time. Mixing the rules of different board games would not bring victory. All players need to patiently identify the situation in each game and then act based on the specific context. I argued that even ASEAN regionalism is actually a “compartmentalized regionalism,” which I define as “a political project to reorganize a particular regional space along defined economic and political lines, which actually consists of multiple and separated/compartmentalized patterns of arrangements of the regional space(s) but combined and identified as a single project.” (Choiruzzad, 2017). ASEAN-China survey in 2020 , which asked 1000 respondents with different backgrounds (including policymakers, academics, business sector, civil society, and students) from 10 ASEAN countries, found that ASEAN people see China (and the US) in a nuanced manner. They did worry about China’s assertive behavior in the region, but at the same time also saw it as an essential partner to help solve the challenges faced by the region (Foreign Policy Community Indonesia, 2020). This led ASEAN countries to use the “a la carte” approach in their relationship with Great Powers such as China or US. Their position depends on the specific issue and context. They see that it is possible to see “China as a security actor” as different from “China as an economic actor.” In the case of COVID-19, China is also increasingly seen as a “public health actor,” which is crucial to provide ASEAN countries access to vaccines. Unfortunately, both US and China seem to be increasingly forgetting this multidimensionality and are attempting to mix different issues together in the New Cold War chessboard. Infrastructure development or investments, direly needed by ASEAN countries, were increasingly turned into instruments to extract loyalties (David Shambaugh, 2018; Mobley, 2019). If not managed well, initiatives to create connectivity can turn into disconnection.  The Importance of Listening Literature on international politics often suggests actors take the initiative, ranging from showing our intention through the material display of power, making demands, giving stick and carrot, setting the stage, to developing attraction. After all, power is often understood as the ability to influence others. This often makes us oblivious to the importance of listening in international politics. Kancil was victorious not only because of his wit but also his willingness to listen to others, weak or strong. When he feels he is smart enough and thus unwilling to listen to smaller creatures such as snails, he is defeated.  The willingness of Great Powers to listen and understand the concerns and conditions of Southeast Asian countries, as well as the larger Indo-Pacific region, is not only important for these less powerful countries. Power is contextual, and without proper understanding of the context, the materially more powerful entities were often failed to achieve their ambition.  The history of Southeast Asia is full of this lesson. In the 13th century, the powerful Yuan Dynasty invaded Java to punish Kartanegara, the King of Singasari. It ends with a disaster for the 30,000-strong expedition, which was destroyed by the newly established Kingdom of Majapahit. While Yuan Dynasty’s military was clearly stronger, it was not familiar with the tropical climate and terrain and, more significantly, with the politics in the island.  A more contemporary example is the US initiative during the Cold War to establish the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO). In September 1954, then-Secretary of the State John Foster Dulles gathered US allies in Manila and established SEATO to contain communist influence in the region. While Southeast Asia was in the name, most of the members were from outside the region. A year later, the Asian African Conference was held in Bandung, declaring the defiant mood of Asian African countries which resisted being pulled into Great Power politics. SEATO did not work effectively both for the US and for Southeast Asian countries.  In contrast to SEATO, ASEAN, which was established by five Southeast Asian countries without much interference from the US, was not only successful in helping its members to navigate the Cold War but also beneficial for the Great Powers. For the US, the relatively stable and peaceful Southeast Asia, which focuses on economic development, enabled the US to develop the US-Japan-Southeast Asia triangular trade system. Originally designed to avoid Japan’s dependency on China for its post-war economic development, the triangular trade system would also be crucial to integrate China into the global economy following US-China rapprochement in the 1980s as part of US strategy in the Cold War (Shiraishi, 2019, pp. 12–13). ASEAN was also crucial in managing the conflict in Indochina and also stabilizing the regional order following the end of the conflict, including by integrating Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam into ASEAN after the end of the Cold War.  For Japan, a stable and peaceful Southeast Asia is a significant factor in its economic success by providing a market and enabling the creation of region-wide production networks. Of course, the development of these production networks also benefited Southeast Asian countries, who enjoyed economic growth due to the supply of capital from Japan (and the US) and the diffusion of production and process technology, although at the pace controlled by the parent companies in Japan. Later, when the US-China relationship was revived, Chinese business, which has a strong and longstanding connection Southeast Asian economy, quickly joined the party. It is not a surprise that ASEAN economic integration project in the 1990s has been largely driven by the private sector, especially by the activities of Japanese Multinational Corporations (MNCs) and overseas Chinese business, while states play a rather reactive role (Stubbs, 1995). After the 1997/1998 Asian Crisis, Japan and China became increasingly entrenched in the region, and they committed to further supporting the region’s integration. Japan even helped to establish and sustain ERIA (Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia), a think tank that is very influential in shaping the blueprint for ASEAN economic integration.  At least in the last decade of the 20th century and the early years of the 21st century, the US, China, and Japan had increasingly accepted the centrality of ASEAN as a mutually acceptable way to engage the region without provoking external and internal resistance. ASEAN was increasingly becoming “the node in the cluster of networks,” which places it as a central hub in the regional architecture (Caballero-Anthony, 2014). ASEAN’s weakness turned into its strength because the Great Powers are less suspicious towards ASEAN, thus making ASEAN acceptable to be the central actor in the region (Stubbs, 2014).  Unfortunately, now this material weakness had returned to be a contextual weakness again. Afraid that they could not count on ASEAN to keep their rivals in check, Great Powers started to rethink their acceptance of ASEAN centrality. The mutual acceptance of ASEAN centrality is now fading away with the increasingly aggressive China and US actions (Acharya, 2017, pp. 275–277). The Great Powers are starting to not be listening again. History teaches us that when Great Powers are unable to listen, the story will not end well for them and for the others.    In this context, listening to the voices from inside the region (Southeast Asia as well as the newly emerging Indo-Pacific region) is a crucial first step that is important to understand the region beyond the shadow of the New Cold War. Only by understanding the multidimensionality of the region and the fluidity of international relations within it the Great Powers can secure their interests and, at the same time, secure the stability and prosperity of the region known as one of the global engines of growth. In this context, the establishment of meaningful engagement through multiple channels is crucial. Indo-Pacific Circle, hopefully, could be one of the important channels to create this meaningful and empathic engagement. Let us listen to each other.  References Acharya, A. (2017). The myth of ASEAN centrality? Contemporary Southeast Asia , 39 (2), 273–279. Caballero-Anthony, M. (2014). Understanding ASEAN’s Centrality: Bases and Prospects in an Evolving Regional Architecture. Pacific Review , 27 (4), 563–584. Choiruzzad, S. A. B. (2017). ASEAN as ‘Compartmentalized Regionalism.’ Global: Jurnal Politik Internasional , 19 (1), 44–57. https://doi.org/10.7454/global.v19i1.136 David Shambaugh. (2018). U.S.-China Rivalry in Southeast Asia: Power Shift or Competitive Coexistence? International Security , 42 (4), 85–127. Foreign Policy Community Indonesia. (2020). ASEAN China Survey 2020: Assessing the Present and Envisioning the Future of ASEAN-China Relations . FPCI. Lowy Institute. (2021). Covid Performance Index . Lowyinstitute.Org. https://interactives.lowyinstitute.org/features/covid-performance/#rankings Mobley, T. (2019). The Belt and Road Initiative: Insights from China’s Backyard. Strategic Studies Quarterly , 13 (3), 52–72. https://doi.org/10.1101/843326 Shiraishi, T. (2019). Emerging States and Economies in Asia: A Historical and Comparative Perspective. In T. Shiraishi & T. Sonobe (Eds.), Emerging States and Economies: Their Origins, Drivers, and Challenges Ahead (pp. 1–29). Springer Open. Stubbs, R. (1995). Asia-Pacific Regionalization and The Global Economy: A Third Form of Capitalism? Asian Survey , 35 (9), 785–797. Stubbs, R. (2014). ASEAN’s Leadership in East Asian Region-Building: Strength in Weakness. Pacific Review , 27 (4), 523–541. 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

< Back Dr Kittipos Phuttivanich Dr. Kittipos Phuttivanich is a lecturer at the Faculty of Political Science, Ramkhamheang University. His courses include Non-Mainstream IR Studies, The Rise of China, Comparative Foreign Policy, Seminar on International Political Economy. Publications

< Back Mr Sarral Sharma Sarral Sharma is currently a Ph.D. scholar at the Special Centre for National Security Studies (SCNSS), Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi. He was a Stimson Centre's South Asian Voices (SAV) Visiting Fellow in 2019-2020. He also served as a Consultant at National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS), Government of India, and was a Senior Researcher at the Centre for Internal and Regional Security (IReS), Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS), a New Delhi based think tank. He holds a Bachelor's, a Master's , and an MPhil degree in English Literature from the University of Delhi. Publications

< Back Dr C Vinodan C. Vinodan is the Director of the School of International Relations and Politics, Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam. He holds a PhD from Kerala University and serves as the Editor of the South Asian Journal of Diplomacy, and the Indian Journal of Politics and International Relations. He is an Associate Member at the Institute of Defence Studies and Analysis, New Delhi and the Chairman of the Centre for Strategic and Security Studies, Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam. He is also an Associate at the Human Security Institute, Canada. Among other topics, his research focuses on the Indo- Pacific; US Foreign policy, China Studies; the Belt and Road Initiative, and South Asian Studies. He is the co-author of the book, ‘USA-China relations in the 21st century’ published by Routledge. Publications Origin of Conservation Refugees: https://www.epw.in/journal/2018/26-27/special-articles/origin-conservation-refugees.html China and the Emerging Global Energy System: http://e-journal.uum.edu.my/index.php/jis/article/view/7941

< Back Ms Sharon Susan Koshy I'm currently working in the areas of Indo Pacific affairs, foreign policy, diplomacy, and security studies. I have a masters in International Relations and Political Science and an M.Phil in Political Science from University of Hyderabad. My earlier research work mainly focused on gender politics and regime change, and refugee studies. I'm an IR enthusiast and love reading history, because I believe historical understanding is crucial to analyse anything contemporary. I often describe myself as an angry poet and calm painter, two of my most important creative spaces. Besides, I do cartography and reproduce maps for fun. In my current organisation, I'm an IR researcher focusing on the Indo Pacific, the geopolitics of China in the mix and QUAD's engagement with the region. I thoroughly enjoy reading and writing and communicating the learnings to an audience. Publications

< Back Dr HAPPYMON JACOB EDITOR-IN-CHIEF happymon@csdronline.com Happymon Jacob is the founder and director of the Council For Strategic and Defense Research, a new-age think-tank based in New Delhi. Dr Jacob is also an Associate Professor of Diplomacy and Disarmament at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). Dr Jacob is an accomplished author, having written the books ‘Line on Fire: Ceasefire Violations and India-Pakistan Escalation Dynamics’ (OUP, 2019) and ‘Line of Control: Traveling with the Indian and Pakistani Armies’ (Penguin Viking, 2018). happy@csdronline.com 123-456-7890

< Back Dr Vilashini Somiah Dr. Vilashini Somiah is an anthropologist from Sabah, Malaysia at the Gender Studies Programme at Universiti Malaya. She is passionate about the narratives and agency of Bornean women, migrants, and indigenes, and other sexual and gender minorities, which are often underrepresented. Dr. Somiah has been a recipient of numerous grants and awards which includes the Tun Abdul Razak Chair Graduate Scholarship at Ohio University, The Graduate Research Scholarship at the National University of Singapore, the ASEAN-Australia Visiting Fellowship, and together with colleagues from the Faculty of Arts and Social Science at Universiti Malaya and The Singapore University of Social Sciences, The Henry Luce Foundation - LuceSEA initiative Award. Publications

< Back Elizabeth Morison Elizabeth Morison is a Researcher in the Climate and Energy Program, at the Australia Institute and holds an Honours degree in Conservation Biology, with a focus on the impacts of climate extremes on ecosystems. Her interest areas are climate, environmental integrity and social license. Publications