CIHS – Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies

Date/Time:

China’s Camp David Moment?

Weaponizing economic prowess, military might and expansionist doctrines may limit China’s role notwithstanding Saudi Iran deal Dr Amritpal Kaur Camp David Accord of 1978 was a diplomatic coup for President Jimmy Carter. It was an Accord that brought open hostilities between Israel and Egypt to an end and peace in Sinai Peninsula. Though President Sadat of Egypt had to pay for the Accord with his life, it was an unprecedent moment in West Asia when a major Arab country concluded a pact with the Jewish State. It was also an exhibit of American diplomatic heft, a stroke of politics in optics where Muslim and Jewish states could be brought to the negotiation table. One assumption of world power is its belief that its mediation would be welcomed by parties engaged in disputes to break the stalemate as well as find a solution. Camp David is also an example to bring currency to the idea that a powerful mediator could possibly bring seemingly antagonist parties together and alter the tone of international relations. It also emphasizes psychological acceptance of the greater power by other nations. It is announcement of the superpower on global stage. Though US superiority could be contested even then, Egypt and Israel were forced into the accord. What perhaps could not have been denied is USA’ ability to project itself as an accepted world power.   Recently, China sought to enact its own Camp David moment through a deal between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Saudi Arabia is the leading Sunni country and Iran is an undisputed Shia leader. For decades these countries have been at loggerheads stemming from their alternate Islamic belief systems and competitive bid to be undisputed leader of the Islamic world. The deal between the two would be a milestone if it enables the two warring countries to better manage their differences better though permanent solutions are nowhere in sight. If this happens, then there’s outside chance to ring in peace across MENA region with direct implication for Yemen war that has been going on for years now. On the other hand, USA bid to broker a diplomatic deal between Saudis and Israel has not worked till now. US failure may be attributed to chilly relations between Washington DC and Riyadh since Democratic White House under President Joe Biden took charge. Also, Saudi Arabia seems to have played the China card deftly to counter-balance US, its long standing ally. Given the changing global power equations, countries seem to be playing one power against the other to secure their respective interests. In this melee, China has upped the diplomatic ante. By leaving East Asian shores and engaging with West Asia, China seems to be testing waters. Saudi Arabia – Iran deal may be an opportunity for China to attempt shifting its positioning globally more as a deal maker rather than being seen as a global encroacher. However, there are limits to Chinese capacities to act as a credible global power broker of first resort. Since 2013 there has been a sense of urgency in Chinese set up to project itself as an acceptable global power. But then, turning a global power may not be easy and has to turn a ‘magnanimous player’ rather than limiting itself to Chinese interests under Xi’s new doctrine. For long, West Asia, especially Saudi Arabia was seen as a close USA ally. Geographical location of Israel along with its security challenge, another close ally of USA, the need for petroleum products had necessitated good relations between the Saudis and the West. From Saudi perspective also, allowing China to broker a deal with Iran may tantamount to ‘testing waters’ with the dragon state, at the same time signaling to USA of diversification of its interests. Increased Chinese assertiveness and aggression coupled with ambition is the phenomenon which has taken the western world off-guard. Wolf Warrior diplomacy coupled with expansionist military posturing on the borders, both territorial and maritime points demonstrates Beijing’s intentions vis-à-vis it’s much sought after branding of a ‘peaceful negotiator’. ‘Image makeover bid’ of China has been seen through as it weaponised its economic power to coerce other countries across the oceans. Diversification of Supply Chains, Friend-shoring, Near-shoring, China plus One are the strategies adopted by several countries to hedge against the Chinese coercion.  Bonhomie between two communist powers China – Russia is something that worries to no end most global community that believes in free and open democratic order. This bonhomie got cemented in the wake of Ukraine crisis and their noise on ‘possible alternative global order’. Given the limitations, Saudi – Iran agreement may not translate into a Camp David Moment as the deal may not translate into gains for either of countries. Resumption of diplomatic relations between the two has been put on a tentative timeline which only suggest that there is a tip-toeing around the idea of lasting peace between leading Shia and Sunni countries. The acceptance of Chinese mediation has not convinced them to shed their differences unlike the accord between Israel and Egypt in the bygone era. The world has clearly moved away from cold war mentality of bipolar world order. Each country has its calculations in place of the blind camp following. For example, Saudi Arabia has accepted Chinese mediation because of its stressed relations with USA in aftermath of Jamal Khashoggi murder and pricing of petroleum products in the wake of Ukraine crisis. Same is the case with Iran. Crippling sanctions placed by USA under the Trump regime has pushed Iran into a tight corner with an acute economic impact felt across the country.  Covert role of Russia in the deal takes the number of mediators to two. China and Russia, it is argued, were busy enlisting anti-USA countries as friends. Apart from Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were others to be brought into the orbit. Will China manage to create one such group in the near future where world order gets altered? What would be Russia’s standing given that its

Read More

Unsettling Judicial Overreach

K.A.Badarinath Open debate on legalizing ‘same sex’ marriages, stakeholders consultation must precede Parliament enacting a law. Courts have no role This is not the first time that courts have gone on an overdrive with judicial over-reach. Supreme Court’s stand on legalizing same-sex marriages is yet another example of its bid to trample on powers of the executive and Parliament. While demarcation of powers between the three is clear, repeated bid by the courts to stamp on someone else’s toe is making things worse for an already chaotic but working democratic setup that India has evolved over 75-years. During the ‘Amrit kal’, the intervening 25-years to the centennial, this transgression by judiciary has to change in New India. At one point of time, Honourable Lordships were trigger happy to sit on judgment as to whether a girl or woman can avail menstrual leave not leaving it to states, governments or stakeholders to decide. Supreme Court made attempts to assign itself the task of appointing three commissioners to Election Commission of India which is crass. When the Covid-19 pandemic was at its peak in 2021, Supreme Court and High Courts expected Central Government and states to report on ‘virtual day to day basis,’ as to who were getting vaccinated and who were not. Latest is Supreme Court taking upon itself to decide on legality of same-sex marriages. Should this key socio, cultural, religious, dharmic and economic issue be left to courts? Erroneously, Article 21 and 19 (1) (a) of Constitution of India were invoked citing right to expression and dignity of those that favoured same sex marriages. There seems to have been temporary loss of memory that application of Section 377, Indian Penal Code was turned unconstitutional. And, thereby dignity and expression of homosexuality or lesbianism was restored giving men and women their right to sexual preferences in relationships. These relationships have been decriminalized My Lordships! Should courts be allowed to decide how one lives or marries? Do courts have the mandate to tamper with the institution of marriages in India that is not limited to just two individuals of opposite sex but the families and society at large? On the other hand, power to legislate on a delicate issue like marriages is definitely in the domain of the Government, Parliament, elected policymakers and definitely not with judges that do not support openness in their own appointments. Otherwise, there’s no reason why National Judicial Appointments Commission bill of 2014 was vetoed. Incidentally, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh has rightly pointed out that marriages and related rituals were very sacred and sacrosanct in Hindu way of life that largely define and provides distinct face to Indian society. There’s awareness among stakeholders on deep divide and complexity in accepting same-sex marriages. In majority countries globally, same-sex marriages have not been legalized even if such relationships have been. In fact, in Indian context decriminalizing the same sex relationships in 2018 was humane in approach. In this backdrop, referring the same-sex marriages to a five-judge bench invoking Section 145 (3) of Indian Constitution needs closer scrutiny by stakeholders. Instead of making desperate attempts to hog headlines day after day, courts and honourable judicial officers should put their own house in order. Administering justice to common man or woman should take primacy in the way our judicial institutions function and not the urge to hog headlines next day, come what may. Reform in judicial system should be top priority of this elite club of judges that seek to run affairs of the country from precincts of their chambers. Phasing out adhocism, bringing in accountability, removing corruption and lobbying in courts that normally goes unreported or under-reported should be primacy of the Chief Justice of India who leads a pack of wise men and women. Administering justice in time is an issue that’s time and again flagged by several commentators including some top judicial minds. Over 4.9 crore out of five crore cases are pending in district courts across the country without respite to the commoners as per figures quoted by law minister Kiran Rijiju. As per the National Judicial Data Grid, over 93 crore cases were pending in subordinate courts, 49 lakh cases in High Courts and 57,987 cases in Supreme Court as of December 2022. Instead of restricting itself to constitutional issues, Supreme Court turning itself into regular court of appeals may be just one reason.  More than that, the top court unwilling to play its role in reforming the system is the second reason. Thirdly, indulging in issues that may or may not be of its concern like the ‘same sex marriages’ could be yet another possible reason. During ten years of policy paralysis of United Progressive Alliance regime of 2004-13, judicial overreach got into high gear. Fledgling era of coalition governments and dirty political bickering etched out ground for judicial mis-adventurism by extension too. Highest judicial officers led by his Lordship Chief Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud should take the first step towards making courts and related institutions relevant to 1.4 billion Indian people. My Lordships give judicial system a chance!   (Author is Director & Chief Executive of New Delhi based non-partisan think tank, Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies. Views expressed are personal)

Read More

Explainer: Recognition of same-sex marriages

On March 13, 2023, Indian apex court transferred a plea for recognition of same-sex marriages to the constitutional bench. Justice DY Chandrachud, PS Narasimha and JB Pardiwala listed the hearing from April 18, 2023. In an affidavit, Indian government has opposed the plea seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriages. Indian government said that marriage is accepted ‘statutorily, religiously and socially’ only between a biological man and a woman. The affidavit argued that any deviation from this accepted form could only be voted by lawmakers and not ruled by courts.

Read More