It has been customary for sometime now to label every year gone by as “Annus Horribilis”. 2023 was, alas, no different. As if the damage done by the Pandemic first and then the war in Ukraine was not enough, an additional theatre of war has now been added to the catalogue: the Israeli ground invasion of Gaza following the horrific attacks by Hamas on October 7.

In this scenario of global strategic turbulence, what are India’s main challenges in 2024? Plenty, one would say and our diplomacy will be tested to the limit.

The Israeli invasion of Gaza has the potential to adversely impact India’s geostrategic and economic environment, perhaps even more than the war in Ukraine. This is mainly, but not exclusively, on account of oil and what can happen to the price of Brent crude if the war in Gaza continues for an indefinite period and worse, expands geographically. There is the very real possibility of a wider conflagration in the Middle East, a nightmarish scenario for India with over 8 million citizens working in the Gulf states and the sea lanes of communication being choked, as we are now seeing with Houthi attacks in the Red Sea area. The Indian economy has recovered strongly but if oil prices go through the roof, all bets are off.

As for Ukraine, it is a pity that India’s words were ignored, by both the West and by Russia. India argued for a diplomatic solution right from the beginning. It is now incontestable that there was a possibility of a diplomatic solution as far back as March 2022, but this was vetoed by the US /UK, with implicit approval from then EU. What a grave error that has turned out to be, only time will tell. Equally, PM Modi’s advice in September 2022 to President Putin that ” today’s era is not one of war” was not followed by Russia in word and spirit. There are now ominous indications that the war will spill over into 2024 and may be even 2025.

India will need to find a modus vivendi with China in the medium to long term. The present status quo suits neither country, but it will begin to hurt us more as time passes. This is not to say we should cave in especially on our core interests , but perhaps to find a way to strongly convey to China that if it wants us to respect their core interests, then it will need to reciprocate and do the same with India’s core interests. We need to keep an eye on the future trajectory of Sino-American ties, since that holds strategic implications for our own relations with China.

It is in the fundamental nature of Indo-American ties that it will perhaps never be free of irritants and this is something both countries need to be conscious of. The trick is to manage the irritants in a way that allows the substantive relationship to move forward. For this to happen, India will have to engage not just with the State Department, Pentagon and the White House but also with Congressional Caucuses, the media and the think tank-strategic community. Easier said than done, but a job that is necessary from our perspective. Equally, the US must respect India’s sensitivities as much as they expect us to respect theirs.

Our ties with key European countries such as France, Italy and Germany are free of problems, but they need political impetus to break out of the current mould and grow exponentially, rather than incrementally as they do at present. Two things seem important in this regard: India must negotiate hard but negotiate pragmatically so as to conclude the FTA with EU as early as possible. Second, the India-EU Trade and Technology Council must meet more often and be outcome oriented. The EU may be distracted by Ukraine, but it is in our abiding interest to do both of the above.

2024 has already been declared as the year of elections with more than half of humanity going to polls. Our own election, as always, will be of vital importance. In addition, the one in the US and the ones in our neighbourhood (Bangladesh and Pakistan) will be watched closely in India.

India’s ties with Russia are crucial. And it was great to see our EAM Dr S. Jaishankar make a trip to Russia this week to iron out the wrinkles in our relations that have emerged post the war in Ukraine. Foreign Minister Lavrov saying Russia is respectful of India’s decision to diversify defence supplies and express readiness to “make in India” is very welcome. It is completely in our interest if Russia acquires the strategic space that it needs vis-a-vis China and India must do its bit in this regard.

India needs huge foreign direct investment for infrastructure, for combating climate change and for its social sector. Three things are worth considering in this regard. It does not make much sense for India to oppose the plurilateral discussions on Investment Facilitation that are currently on in the WTO. We must join these. Second, India should aim to conclude a top class investment treaty with EU for which the negotiations are ongoing. A good investment treaty with the EU can provide a massive boost to foreign direct investment. Last but not least, when the new Government comes to power in India, deep and difficult reforms in Land, Labour and Agriculture (among other things) must be done by taking the bull by the horns. Whether India can become a 10 trillion dollar economy and whether we can effectively combat poverty depends substantially on the above. This will also enable the transition of India from a balancing power to a leading power. (Read my latest Book “India’s Moment” by Harper Collins to know more.)

The World will be more of the same in 2024 as it was in 2023. Only more unpredictable, more unstable and more inscrutable. In response, India must basically hunker down, set its internal economic house in order and insulate itself as much as possible from the deleterious impact of the goings-on. Be prepared for more “Gray Rhinos” if not “Black Swans”!

In recent days, attacks on commercial shipping vessels particularly in and around the Red Sea have shown a marked increase. Two immediate repercussions are being felt. One, shipping companies have been forced to avoid the Red Sea route involving Bab el-Mandeb and take the more circuitous route involving Cape of Good Hope. This has obviously led to delays in commercial freight. Two, the costs of freight and shipping are rising not just because of delays but also because of increased insurance premiums.

This comes at a particularly bad time for world economy. Global economy was finally showing signs of emerging from a covid-led recession and tepid recovery was taking roots. 30% of global container traffic and billions of dollars of traded goods and supplies pass through the Red Sea every year, meaning that delays referred to above can affect oil prices, the availability of electronics and other aspects of global trade. This is something the world can do without.

So, who is carrying out these attacks and why now? It is generally believed that the Houthi rebels based in Yemen are behind the attacks. Who are these Houthi rebels? The Houthi movement is an Islamist  political and military organization that emerged from Yemen in the 1990s and is predominantly made up of Shias with their namesake leadership being drawn largely from the Houthi tribe. They are in a battle involved with the Yemeni Government and with Saudi Arabia. The US believes Iran is behind the Houthi attacks providing the latter with military intelligence and tactical weapons. But Iran has vehemently denied this and said the Houthis are acting on their own, considered implausible by many. In effect, the Houthi rebels have used sophisticated UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles), drones and ballistic missiles to attack shipping vessels. These are not your customary Somali pirates, that is for sure!

Why now? Well, the Houthi rebels say that this is in retaliation to Israel’s bombardment of Gaza following the horrific Hamas attacks against Israel on October 7. But it is hard to specifically target Israeli ships what with flags, ownership and registration complicating the identity of shipping vessels these days. So a number of shipping vessels have come under Houthi attack.

If the attacks continue indiscriminately, it is hard for the international community to turn a blind eye to these Houthi rebel actions. The US has launched “Operation Prosperity Guardian” to deal specifically with the Houthi attacks. But the operation is handicapped by the fact that both Saudi Arabia and UAE, key countries in this regard, have not signalled willingness to participate yet in this American-led operation. Even European countries like France, Italy and Spain have been reluctant to participate in the purely American-led operation, saying they prefer to function under NATO command. The US so far has indicated that it will implement “Operation Prosperity Guardian” through its Fifth Fleet under the Task Force 153, as part of the Combined Maritime Forces based in Bahrain. It is worth noting that India has recently become part of the Combined Maritime Forces structure based in Bahrain.

Whichever way one looks at it, the Houthi Rebels cannot be allowed to hold the Red Sea maritime route (a global good) to ransom through their attacks on shipping vessels. At a time when there is a proliferation of plurilateral groupings centred on maritime security, it would be supreme irony if the international community cannot get its act together on keeping the sea lanes of communication open, free and unimpeded for vital global commerce.

Postscript:

At the time of posting this, BBC reports that a ” Liberia-flagged, Japanese-owned and Netherlands-operated” chemical tanker was hit by a drone launched from Iran ( according to the Pentagon) in the Indian Ocean, some 200 nautical miles from the coast of India. No reports of casualties. 

If proved this is from Iran, it is certain to ratchet up tensions in the maritime theatre, as if the land wars in Ukraine and Gaza are not enough!

As with all COP meetings, the COP 28 meeting in Dubai also ran overtime and finally agreed on consensus language relating to fossil fuels: the bugbear of all climate activists. The main outcome of the COP 28 may be summarised as follows:

(1) Mention of fossil fuels for the first time which has caused people to go ecstatic. Strictly speaking, fossil fuels comprise coal, oil and gas. However, Coal has been the subject of discussion in past COPs so it is fair to say that Oil and Gas find mention for the first time in a COP meeting.

(2) Phase-down of Coal was agreed upon in Glasgow (2021) with India bang in the middle of the controversy surrounding it. But the ”UAE Consensus” now talks of “transitioning away” from fossil fuels in a just, equitable and orderly manner. There is a technical difference between “phasing-down” and “transitioning away”. The former signals an end goal; the latter is a notional undertaking.

(3) More problematic for countries like India is the stated goal of achieving global net zero by 2050. India has already announced that it will aim to do so by 2070. There is simply no way India can revise forward its already announced target in this regard. So developed countries will have to go “net negative” if this goal of net zero by 2050 along with the increasingly chimerical objective of limiting global warming to1.5 degree centigrade is to be met by the world.

(4) China and US, the two biggest GHG emitters on this planet can go around doing what they have been doing: China burns more Coal than the entire world put together and the US is the largest producer of oil and gas in the world. China shows no sign whatsoever of fulfilling the Glasgow promise of phasing-down Coal. US will continue to produce oil and gas for the foreseeable future with an unknown transition period.

(5) The Loss and Damage Fund was operationalised but with highly inadequate funds. Alliance of small island states (AOSIS) are known to be unhappy at the UAE consensus document. Indeed many of them were not even in the room when the document was gavelled. They will now have to be enticed with financial incentives.

(6) India can be justifiably happy that the Delhi G20 Summit declaration language of tripling global renewable energy capacity and doubling the rate of energy efficiency by 2030 was reflected in the final COP 28 document.

(7) On the crucially important issue of climate finance, there is a declaration on a Global Climate Finance Framework but little else. Lots of good intentions in the UAE consensus document but it is fair to sat that the developing countries are yet to see the colour of the money.

This is one of the COP meetings where India appears to have kept a low profile. This is smart diplomacy. In the past, India has sometimes taken a needlessly high profile or allowed itself to be bracketed with China which is a far bigger producer of GHG emissions than India will ever be. By focusing on climate justice and equity, India made its case softly but firmly in Dubai. The language in the final document accepts the need for equity and fairness.

India can certainly live with the so-called UAE consensus document. Some caveats however. We must emphasize that energy transition in countries such as India must be just, orderly and equitable, as suggested in the final document. Especially in the case of Coal, India has to work this out carefully. Second, while the world appears to favour a net zero by 2050, individual countries like India must be given flexibility in this regard. Last, on Methane a difference must be made between industrial emissions and those emanating from Agriculture. 70 percent of India’s Methane emissions are from Agriculture. COP 28 talks of accelerating and substantially reducing non-carbon-dioxide emissions globally, including in particular methane emissions by 2030. Agriculture is politically sensitive and India has an uphill task in this area.

It is important to underscore that COP declarations are non-binding and only provide broad guidance. At the end of the day, it is for individual countries to implement the general pledges made at COP meetings through what is known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). The next round of strengthened NDCs is due in 2025. That is when we will know whether the world is on track to achieve the overall goal of limiting global warming to 2 degree centigrade (1.5 degree centigrade is already a pipedream) or whether this COP was all meaningless rhetoric.  In particular, the NDCs of the two big polluters, namely China and US, when they come out in 2025 will be closely watched by the world. India too will come under pressure and must already start preparing the ground for the next round of NDCs.

It has been stated, somewhat ambitiously, that the COP 28 meeting is the beginning of the end for fossil fuels. The jury is still out on that.

Coming close on the heels of the summit meeting between the Chinese leader Xi Jinping and American President Joe Biden in California last month, the Chinese supremo received the two EU leaders, namely, EU Council President Charles Michel and EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in Beijing on 7 December, 2023. It was the 24th annual EU-China summit meeting.

There was no Joint Statement issued after the above meeting, perhaps a sign of the times. There was no Joint Statement after the Biden-Xi meeting in California either. One inference may be that ties between the major powers are so fraught that the very fact of their meeting at summit level must be welcomed as a positive and only achievement. Differences appear tough to resolve, so the maximum that can be expected is to “manage” these differences by good optics.

From press reports it is clear what EU conveyed to Xi Jinping. The Chinese readout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in contrast, is general and rhetorical.

EU seems to have emphasized the following in its message to China:

(1) While China is EU’s most important trading partner, the current trade deficit of about Euros 400 billion is unacceptable for EU. Chinese response was to say that it was not deliberate Chinese trade policy to have a trade surplus! EU, on the other hand, believes this is directly attributable to “overcapacity” of the Chinese manufacturing industry and to Chinese barriers faced by EU companies. EU said it had tools at its disposal to deal with this but that it would prefer a mutually acceptable solution. EU stated the idea was not to decouple from China but to de-risk!

(2) Digital economy was stressed and EU sought easing of cross border data flows.

(3) Cooperation in the context of the ongoing COP 28 climate conference was emphasized.

(4) EU welcomed the resumption of Human Rights Dialogue in February 2023 and reiterated its deep concerns of the human rights situation in China especially in Xinjiang, Tibet and Hong Kong.

(5) While EU reiterated its One China policy, it did express concern about the tension in the Taiwan Strait and at unilateral measures to change the status quo in the South and East China sea.

(6) EU asked China to put pressure on Russia to stop the aggression in Ukraine. EU reminded China of its special responsibility as UNSC P-5 Member to uphold the UN Charter and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Un member states. On Ukraine, China said a ceasefire must be instituted asap. The European Union wants Beijing to use its influence on Russia to stop the war, and urged Xi to stop Chinese private companies exporting European-made dual-use items to Russia. Brussels initially left these Chinese firms off its latest Russia sanctions package unveiled last month, but could just as easily change course. China’s response to all this was that Russia is a sovereign and independent country and that Putin took decisions based on its national interest!

(7) On the conflict in Gaza, the only thing both sides agreed was their joint commitment to a two-state solution.

For China’s part, the summit meeting with the EU is really part of a diplomatic strategy to promote a multipolar world. China’s interpretation of this is to encourage the EU to be an “independent actor” and practice “strategic autonomy”. It is clear that China expects this independence and strategic autonomy to be practiced by the EU vis-a-vis the US. It also helps China that there is no consensus among the 27 member states on a unified policy, much less strategy, with regard to China. Italy for instance has announced that it is withdrawing from the Belt and Road Initiative, a serious setback for China. China’s spokesperson at the Foreign Ministry said that China firmly opposes smearing and undermining cooperation in building the Belt and Road Initiative, and opposes stoking bloc confrontation. This is puzzling since Italy’s decision was sovereign and based on its national interest.

Be that as it may, the Chinese side called the talks candid, frank, in-depth and constructive. Xi reportedly said that China and the EU should handle their differences through dialogue and warned the EU against confrontation with China adding that the two sides should not regard each other as rivals because of different systems. Cooperation rather than confrontation was emphasized by Xi. But the EU sees China not just as a partner for cooperation but an economic competitor and a systemic rival. It is difficult to square this circle.

The EU may not sound as belligerent as the US towards China, but deep inside it does have the same concerns about China. For instance, the EU has begun subsidy investigation against Chinese exports of electric vehicles, thereby drawing China’s ire. EU has also put in place restrictions on export of sensitive European technology to China, which the latter believes are unjustified.

Most importantly, Xi Jinping is reported to have said that “all kinds of interference” must be eliminated from EU-China ties, a not so subtle reference to the influence of the US and the Transatlantic Alliance. The Chinese side in its readout only stressed the following: EU does not wish to decouple from China, that EU reiterated the One China policy and the fact that EU desired to have close communication and coordination with China, uphold multilateralism and the purposes and principles of the U.N. Charter, and work for the settlement of regional hotspots including Ukraine and the Middle East. Really motherhood and apple pie kind of language.

Last year in April 2022 after a similar EU-China summit, EU High Representative for foreign policy, Josep Borell, said that it turned out to be a “dialogue of the deaf”. It is hard to see how this year’s EU-China summit can be described any differently.

So, it is time for another one of those COP (Conference of Parties) meetings. This time it will be hosted by the United Arab Emirates in Dubai from 30 November to 12 December. This is the 28th edition of the COP. And this one is important because it is supposed to carry out the first Global Stocktake under the Paris Agreement (2015), which is a vital opportunity for the Parties to reflect on ambition, implementation, and cooperation, in line with the Paris temperature goal to hold the global average temperature increase to well below 2 degrees Celsius and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

For sometime now, the US and China have gotten together before the COP meetings and have invariably issued a Joint Statement which in turn has served as a template for the main meeting. After all, US and China are now the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, amounting to a whopping 43 per cent of global GHG emissions between themselves. US and China have already labelled the forthcoming COP 28 in Dubai as a “Methane and non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases Summit”. This is clever by the two biggest polluters. By focusing on Methane and non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases, inconvenient truths relating to coal, oil and gas use as well as climate finance may be brushed under the carpet.

China’s ability to ramp up coal use in recent months is the result of a huge national campaign over the past two years to expand coal mines and build more coal-fired power plants. State media celebrated the industriousness of the 1,000 workers who toiled without vacations in the spring of 2023 to finish one of the world’s largest coal-fired power plants in south-eastern China. Even the US gets 60 per cent of its energy from Coal and Natural Gas. And the idea repeated in successive COP meetings that all fossil fuels must abate is becoming more and more of a chimera. In the Glasgow COP meeting we saw the last minute drama over phase-down of coal as opposed to phase-out, as if that mattered one bit. China continues to burn more coal than the entire world put together and its GHG emissions exceed that of the entire developed world. So, Glasgow’s COP 26 (2021) promise to phase-down unabated coal power and inefficient subsidies for fossil fuels is rhetoric that will be honoured more in breach than in observance.

It is therefore interesting to see the two biggest polluters on the planet focus on Methane and non-CO2 Greenhouse Gases to avoid facing flak from others about their own green performance. Meanwhile. it has now been established that 2023 will indeed be the warmest year the world has ever seen. One does not need any Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change to tell us this. If you live in the developing world you can actually feel climate change every day of your life. And if you visited Europe in July this year, you will have wondered why you paid so much to travel to experience an “Indian Summer”!

The Global Stocktake language has already been agreed upon by the US and China in their “Sunnylands Statement on Enhancing Cooperation to Address the Climate Crisis” dated November 14 after detailed talks between US Climate Envoy John Kerry and his Chinese counterpart Xie Zhenhua from 4 to 7 November 2023.

India will have to watch out for the following at Dubai. If the Dubai COP 28 is going to be all about Methane, it is worth recalling that India did not sign on to the “Global Methane Pledge” (launched at the COP 26 in 2021) proposed by the US and the EU aimed at 30 per cent reduction of global methane emissions from 2020 levels by 2030. India is currently the fourth largest emitter of Methane, after China, US and Russia. China has released its long-awaited Methane Action Plan, but the plan only sets basic directions to control methane emissions across sectors, again falling short of setting meaningful reduction targets. India may come under pressure to do something similar.

India is a large emitter of methane, primarily because of the size of its rural economy and by virtue of having the largest cattle population. India has argued that it plans to deploy technology and capture methane that can be used as a source of energy. In a communication to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, India said approximately 20% of its anthropogenic methane emissions come from agriculture (manure management), coal mines, municipal solid waste, and natural gas and oil systems. To tap into this “potential,” the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) has invested heavily in a national strategy to increase biogas production and reduce methane emissions. This biogas strategy includes many policy initiatives, capacity-building, and public-private partnerships. In addition to promoting biogas development, the strategy supports goals for sustainable development, sanitation improvements, and increased generation of renewable energy.

Meanwhile, climate justice continues to languish at COP meetings. Take climate finance for example. The US-China Joint Statement merely notes that the developed countries expect the pledge of $100 billion transfer to developing countries to happen in 2023, a promise made in 2009.

Expect a lot of rhetoric at this annual climate jamboree. The COP 28 may be expected to support the G20 Delhi Leaders Declaration to pursue efforts to triple renewable energy capacity globally by 2030 and to accelerate the substitution for coal, oil and gas generation.

But the politics of climate change will endure. Unfortunately, so will global warming.

Now that the much-awaited meeting between American President Joe Biden and Chinese supremo Xi Jinping is done and dusted, there were no major surprises really. Nonetheless, a few remarks are in order:

(1) No Joint Statement suggests no real commitments to each other in writing. Remember the oral assurances of Xi Jinping to Barack Obama about not building military installations in the South China Sea. We all know what happened after. 

(2) The Taiwan elections in January 2024 may be seminal. If the KMT(Kuomintang)-led coalition does win, it could mean a paradigm shift in China-Taiwan ties, which in turn will impact everything else beginning with Sino-American ties themselves. Everyone is worried about an outright Chinese invasion or amphibious landing with regard to Taiwan. What if China got what it wanted without firing a single shot? Sun Tzu’s Art of War and all of that. Just saying.

(3) The speech made by Xi Jinping to the US business community is worthy of scrutiny. The top 20 American companies were present and Xi gets a standing ovation. So much for the US trying to de-risk. It tells you the US companies need China as much as Xi needs their help in coping with economic headwinds back home. 

(4) Xi Jinping says the planet is big enough to accommodate both China and the US. He also says China has no intention of surpassing or overtaking the US. This is rich, in view of recent Chinese actions to undermine what it considers American hegemony. Also, the Chinese do not believe Asia is big enough for both China and India. But then, no one has ever accused China of consistency!

(5) The meeting has helped paper over the profound differences that separate the two sides. No real breakthroughs. Even Fentanyl has been consigned to an anti-narcotics Working Group though Xi may have given oral assurances in this regard.

(6) COP-28 meeting in Abu Dhabi will be all about tripling global renewable energy capacity by 2030, but in the meanwhile the real message to China is: burn as much Coal and fossil fuels as you wish.

(7) Yes, military-to-military communications may be re-established. In addition, Xi apparently agreed to pick up the phone if Biden calls himself. We will know about its efficacy when the next incident in the South China Sea occurs.

(8) On both Ukraine and the Middle East, discussions appear to have been superficial. Biden reportedly did all the talking; Xi listened and merely took note.

It is hard to avoid the impression that China needs this truce as much as the US. China faces political and economic headwinds as noted by many, and Biden is lagging behind in the polls.

Unless you look upon favourably at Xi agreeing to send a few cuddly Pandas to the US and Biden wishing Xi’s wife “happy birthday” even as Xi reportedly forgot his wife’s birthday, there were very few signs of substantial progress on critical issues. But if you were an inveterate optimist you are entitled to think that conflict between the two great powers has been postponed for the time being.

So, it is as certain as one can possibly be that American President Joe Biden and the Chinese supremo Xi Jinping will meet on November 15 in California on the side lines of the APEC summit. The very fact that they are meeting may be considered as good news by some in a world where bad news abounds. Others will point out that the US wanted this bilateral powwow much more than China did. After all, no less than six American Cabinet Ministers paid preparatory visits to Beijing over the last several months. It would seem China played hard to get, though it is clear by now that it too needs the meeting for reasons of its own.

China’s main objectives from the talks are:

(1) To persuade the US to lift most, if not all, trade, technology and investment restrictions imposed by it. Two Working Groups dealing with Economic and Finance issues respectively have met. We will have to wait and see whether the US will tweak its de-risking strategy by changing the dimensions of the “small yard, high fence” to cater to Chinese demands. Looks unlikely but you never know.

(2) To convey to the US that forming alliances or blocs aimed at China will not contribute to better ties. China has in mind things like AUKUS, Camp David alliance (US, Japan and South Korea) as well as groupings like Quad.

(3) To reiterate to the US that the most core of its core interests is Taiwan and that this is non-negotiable from the Chinese perspective.

The US, on the other hand, believes the bilateral relationship with China has three aspects, namely, Cooperation, Competition and Confrontation. The US wishes to focus predominantly on the first, namely, cooperation which includes issues like Climate Change, Public Health, Nuclear Disarmament, Cybersecurity and Fentanyl. On Competition, the US is not likely to let up since there is national security consensus that China is the “pacing challenge” of the century. It is hard to see the US compromising on this issue. Lastly, on Confrontation, US will convey in the strongest terms possible its concern with regard to Chinese activities in the Taiwan Strait, South China Sea etc. It is hard to see a meeting point on this issue, so the American proposal will be to at least resume military-to-military talks (suspended since the Balloon Affair) for which Chinese approval will be sought.

So much for the bilateral dossier. On other issues, the US will ask China to press Iran so that the conflict in Gaza does not become a wider regional war. China too may not want to see the conflict spread. On Ukraine, China will feel the pressure of answering for the close ties it entertains with Russia. The bottom line however is that the Chinese are smart enough to realize that both the wars in Gaza and Ukraine put pressure on the strategic bandwidth of the US even while simultaneously providing more strategic space for China. It is therefore hard to see why the Chinese should change tack on these two fundamental issues. Indeed, there are a number of analysts who explain this as the main reason for current Chinese aggression in the South China sea. Whether this will spread to the Taiwan Strait is a trillion dollar question really.

It is no secret that Xi Jinping faces both political and economic headwinds back home. The visit to America and the talks with Joe Biden will help cement the domestic perception that China considers the US as its only equal and this meeting is evidence of that. Despite all this, it is a meeting that bears close watching.

If one goes right back to the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, there were still some sane voices arguing for a diplomatic solution. India’s statements on the issue always harped on a peaceful resolution of the issue based on talks. After 620-odd days of raging conflict, thousands of lives lost and immense loss of property, it would appear that there are finally moves afoot by both the US and the EU to persuade Ukraine’s President Zelensky to seek a negotiated solution. It is too soon to predict if these will be successful. But whether Russia will be keen for a diplomatic solution at this time is far from clear. After all, the much-vaunted Ukrainian counter-offensive has turned out to be a dud and frankly, the status quo suits the Russians more than it does Ukraine. As far back as March 2022, there was a serious possibility of a diplomatic solution on the table which was nipped in the bud by the West. Look at the cost being paid by all for that single act of folly.

The conflict in Gaza has done two things to the war in Ukraine: it has taken the headline focus away from the war in Ukraine even while accentuating the “Ukraine fatigue” already being felt in the EU and elsewhere. The US President who asked for combined humanitarian and defence assistance of some $106 billion for Ukraine and Israel, has predictably got the Congressional green light for the latter amounting to $15 billion, but not for Ukraine. As noted elsewhere by me, Ukraine cannot hold a candle to Israel in the American Congress.

With regard to the conflict that has erupted in Gaza, again sane voices are calling for a ceasefire followed by talks aimed at a two-state diplomatic solution. What Hamas did to Israel on October 7 was horrific and worthy of unconditional condemnation. Of course Israel has a right to defend itself by all means. But Israel is also a State in the comity of nations and as its PM Netanyahu said recently : “Israel and its military act according to the highest standards of international law in order to prevent harm to non-combatants, and we will continue to do so until victory”. This was in response to an Israeli Minister who said Gaza could be “nuked”. The Minister was dismissed by PM Netanyahu.

Israel is now under international scrutiny and will have to live up to the public statement made above by its PM. More importantly, Israel will have to determine what constitutes “victory” against Hamas and spell out what happens the day after. Israel still retains a lot of sympathy from its well wishers around the world, but it is in its own abiding interest to consider a negotiated, two-state diplomatic solution. There is simply no alternative to that. If it needs further convincing on this point, it need look no further than what is currently going on in Ukraine. War is never a long-term solution to problems; diplomacy is!

It is now highly likely that there will be a bilateral meeting between US President Joe Biden and Chinese President Xi Jinping in California next month on the side lines of the APEC summit. It has taken numerous visits by American dignitaries ranging from Anthony Blinken to Gina Raimondo to John Kerry to Janet Yellen, not to mention meetings of Jake Sullivan, for the Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi now to travel to the US to meet with American policy makers. Wang Yi, apart from meeting Blinken and Sullivan is widely expected to call on Biden himself. Not so long ago, the Chinese spokesperson said: communication for the sake of communication is not worth it and we ask the American side to be sincere. So, does this signify a change of heart from China? Not really. China is playing along in the full knowledge that America is currently distracted by the goings-on in West Asia. The Xi Jinping-Joe Biden meeting is worth watching, to keep a look out for “guardrails” so as to ensure that competition in Sino-American ties does not veer to conflict. There appears to be convergence between the two sides that a temporary truce suits both countries. Nothing more should be read into this development.

That said, the recent spat between China and Philippines in the South China Sea did evoke a strong reaction from the US which cited its treaty alliance with Philippines, warning China that it would not stand idly by. The American side will reportedly raise the incident with China when Biden and Xi meet. Expect China to respond by referring to the nine dash line. But China does not even have a Defence Minister at this time, so one will have to wait and see. But the departure of the former Chinese Defence Minister may be no bad thing; he was sanctioned by the US and the new Defence Minister whoever he may be (the only “she” in China is “Xi”) could make it easier for a meeting with US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin.

The one thing on which both countries’ interests may align is in ensuring that there is no wider conflagration in the Middle East. Biden will not want things to spin out of control in the Middle East with elections looming large. And with the Chinese economy slowing down, Xi Jinping can do without oil prices going through the roof and a global recession taking root. But the US is concerned that China has not condemned Hamas and appears overtly pro-Palestinian. US would also want China to exercise influence on Iran. It is not evident China will readily oblige.

In a concrete development, two Working Groups have been set up between the US and China: one dealing with financial issues and the other dealing with economic issues. Sino-American engagement is well and truly under way. China’s objectives in this regard are clear: to ensure that there are no restrictions placed on China with regard to sensitive technologies, critical minerals and semi-conductors. The Americans have been talking about a “small yard and high fence”. The Chinese preferably want no yard and certainly no fence! India, which has signed up for a “US-India Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technology” should follow these discussions closely.

The other thing to watch out for is an emerging axis between China, Russia and Iran. It is tentative at present, but indications are these countries will increasingly coordinate their positions on the Middle East and elsewhere. This cannot but be a matter of concern for the US and the West. Xi Jinping in his meeting with Biden would rather talk about the Middle East, Ukraine and the North Korea’s weapons program than about the thorny bilateral issues such as commercial espionage, cyber attacks and its own aggressive actions in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea.

China will gauge the strategic will and/or strength of the US in these bilateral conversations. After all, the US is stretched, militarily speaking, with Gaza and Ukraine. And to top it all this happens to be election season in the US. It is after making a detailed strategic assessment that China will decide whether to take forward the thaw in its ties with America or to continue its line of confrontation. Whether China chooses the former or the latter, has profound implications for India since it affects its margin for strategic manoeuvre. In an interesting move, the Pentagon released its annual report to Congress even as Wang Yi was in the US. The crux of the Pentagon Report is: China is rapidly modernising its armed forces, expanding its nuclear arsenal and hopes to achieve the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation by 2049; it clearly states that China continues to be the “pacing challenge” for the US. The Chinese Defence Ministry has predictably blasted the Pentagon Report to Congress saying it distorts the country’s security policy and military strategy and over hypes the Chinese military threat. In light of this, it is better not to be too optimistic about what deliverables can be achieved in the Biden-Xi talks. Still, jaw-jaw in California is better than war-war in the Taiwan Strait.

There is little doubt that the Middle East is now hurtling towards a veritable catastrophe. It is hard to be certain, but the Hamas may have had the following objectives in mind when it committed the horrific attacks on Israeli citizens:

> To draw international attention to the Palestinian issue which was languishing;

> To reverse the rapprochement that was taking place between Saudi Arabia and Israel on the one hand and the normalization that was taking place due to the Abraham Accords;

> To avoid Hamas (itself) becoming irrelevant to the political dynamics of the Middle East; and

> To provoke a massive Israeli response which will most certainly lead to large civilian casualties taking the focus away from atrocities committed by Hamas and drawing attention right back to Israel and its nefarious policies.

If the above was indeed the original aim of Hamas, then it has certainly achieved it in substantial measure. While there has been understandable sympathy for Israel, there have also been pro-Palestinian protests and increased spotlight on Israel’s polices in the West. And while Bahrain and UAE may have been critical of Hamas, other States have either been careful (Saudi Arabia) or openly supportive of Hamas and critical of Israel (Qatar). The rapprochement between Saudi Arabia and Israel has been halted in its tracks and the Abraham Accords are under severe stress. It is also sadly true that Hamas has really not elicited the kind of opprobrium that one might have expected after the horrific attacks they unleashed on Israel. What is more, Israel appears on the brink of launching a massive retaliatory strike on what it believes are Hamas targets in the North of Gaza. Israeli Defence Forces asking a million Palestinians to shift to the South of Gaza has already been characterised as a “humanitarian disaster” by the UN. It is all but certain that Israel will carry out a ground invasion of Gaza. If it does, it will play precisely into the hands of Hamas. In such an eventuality, huge civilian casualties may be expected. Israel thus finds itself in a catch-22 situation from which there is no escape.

There is also the “Arab Street” factor. Following a ground invasion, if that happens, the street will react strongly to Palestinian civilian casualties and will force their leaders to take a more sympathetic line in favour of Palestinian aspirations. Arab countries may then solidly rally behind the Palestinian cause.

The question as to why some observers see a moral equivalence between Israel’s nefarious policies and the violent tactics used by Hamas, goes to the heart of what is referred to as the “root causes” of a conflict or as to who committed the original sin. This leads to a situation where supporters of the Palestinian cause will dwell on how Israel has deprived the Palestinians of all rights and created the conditions for a movement like Hamas to emerge and flourish. With equal vehemence, supporters of Israel will refer to the barbarity that characterises the actions of Hamas. There is no winning this argument. But there must be universal condemnation of actions such as the one resorted to by Hamas against innocent citizens along with serious attempts by the international community to resolve the underlying causes of a conflict as longstanding and as intractable as the Palestinian one.

The argument that Hamas does not represent the legitimate aspirations of all Palestinians will doubtless be countered by the argument of some that Bibi Netanyahu does not represent all of the Israeli people. The fact remains however that Netanyahu is the legitimate Prime Minister of Israel and therefore carries the greater burden of accountability for his actions.

The other issue concerning Hamas and Israel is that one is a state entity and the other a non-state actor. States, by definition, are held to higher standards of behaviour than non-state actors especially since the latter have not subscribed to instruments like the Hague Convention, UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the Convention against Torture. There is nevertheless an increasing tendency to hold non-state actors to account and to higher standards. This is reflective of the general revulsion towards terrorism felt by the public in democratic countries. Yet, as the US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said: We democracies distinguish ourselves from terrorists by striving for a different standard even when it is difficult and holding ourselves accountable when we fall short.” It is far from clear that Israel’s hawkish Prime Minister Netanyahu will heed this sensible advice given to him by the American Secretary of State Anthony Blinken.

At the time of writing this, Israel has unleashed the fiercest bombing ever in Gaza: a region with the densest population in the world. The air strikes are widely believed to be a precursor to a frightful ground invasion. It is hard not to have the presentiment of an impending calamity!