Gulbin Sultana replies: Sri Lankan Tamil Diaspora in the US have effectively influenced the members of the Congress and the Department of State through US lobbying firms to sponsor resolutions in the UNHRC against Sri Lanka. The United States Tamil Political Action Council (USTPAC) reportedly used the Washington lobbying firm, KSCW Inc., to table Resolution 177 against Sri Lanka in the US House with 53 signatures which included influential and prominent house members in 2012. The USTPAC reportedly invested US$ 30, 000 to get H. Resolution 177 tabled. The USTPAC is also said to have influenced Congressmen Danny Davis (D-IL) and Bill Johnson (R-OH) to spearhead Congressional Caucus on Ethnic and Religious Freedom in Sri Lanka. The Caucus launched at the US Congress in November 2013, played a major role in initiating resolution against Sri Lanka at the 25th session of the UNHRC.

Since the end of Eelam War IV in May 2009, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) has passed four resolutions on Sri Lanka: the first resolution was passed on May 27, 2009 during the special session on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka; second on March 22, 2012 during the 19th session of the UNHRC; third on March 21, 2013 during the 22nd session of the UNHRC; and, the fourth resolution was passed on March 27, 2014 during the 25th session of the UNHRC. In 2009, India voted in favour of Sri Lanka, but in 2012 and 2013 India voted against Sri Lanka. In 2014, India abstained from voting since the latest resolution called for an international investigative mechanism, which was considered by India as an intrusive approach.

Posted on April 15, 2014

Rup Narayan Das replies: Cultural relations along with historical and traditional relations have always been a very important aspect of relations between and among nations. These are very important attributes of soft power too. By culture, in this context, we broadly mean religious and philosophical contacts and intercourse between two countries both in historical background and also in contemporary context. These are the feel good factors and are like icing on the cake. Cultural aspect may also refer to sharing common norms, such as liberal and familial values. We also talk of strategic culture suggesting convergence of shared security interests. In the comprehensive Indo-Korean relations, all these are present to a great extent.
After the advent of Buddhism in the Korean Peninsula, cultural contacts between India and Korea were nurtured by Buddhist monks. A sizeable number of Korean spiritual seers and saints came to India from the sixth century onwards in search of Buddhist manuscripts and scriptures. Several Indian monks also travelled to Korea after spending a few years in China. Rabindranath Tagore also made a lasting impact on the Korean psyche and continues to be a source of inspiration to the Korean people even today. In normative and strategic terms, there is great degree of convergence between India and South Korea in particular. India’s contribution towards resolving the crisis in the Korean Peninsula is internationally acknowledged.

For further details, please refer to the following publication:

Skand R. Tayal, India and the Republic of Korea: Engaged Democracies, Routledge, 2014.

Posted on April 09, 2014

Amit Kumar replies: The ongoing Ukrainian crisis has thrown open new challenges before the international community in this era of globalisation. The realities of the current era are not the same as the realities of the Cold War era, when the inter-linkages between the rival blocs were not as defining as they are today among the major contending stakeholders at the world stage. Today, rivals are also key economic partners. One of the important stakeholders in the Ukrainian crisis, the European Union (EU), is the biggest customer for Russian oil and gas. The Ukrainian crisis is to be viewed in this parlance along with the old fashioned quest for domination or power-politics in the Morgenthauian sense. President Vladimir Putin’s efforts for restoring Russia’s position in the international arena is largely a fall out of the West’s insensitivity towards the legitimate security interests of Russia and its resurgence as a great power which it was for most part of history given its position as world's geopolitical heartland.

The world today is besieged with many conflicts having the potential to go out of hand if the current trend continues. But then what is the current trend? The economic interdependence between and among nations has discouraged them to take sides openly. The equation today at the world stage is very fluid. No two countries hold the same view on various international issues unlike in the Cold War era when the battle lines were very clear. This entails two things: (a) greater propensity to change the status quo in one’s own favour, for e.g., Russia’s bid to annex Crimea and the Sino-Japan desperation over the Diaoyu-Senkaku Islands (b) economic interdependence has emerged as the second strong deterrent force along with the nuclear deterrent.

Situating the Ukrainian crisis in the above context, few conclusions can be drawn:

1. The EU has emerged as an effective foreign policy actor and can stand up to Russia. However, the trade relations between the EU and Russia restrict the options for the EU.

2. The use of sanctions as a tool will not work against robust economies like Russia and China, and this limits the US role as a preeminent global power.

3. Emerging powers like Russia may challenge the US-led world order in an increasingly economically interdependent and politically fragmented world order. New alliances could emerge as the undercurrent against the US domination is strong. The growing understanding between Russia and China, as evident in the current Ukrainian crisis in China’s ambivalence towards the Russian aggression, could pose serious challenges before the US. The world could see more of such crisis in times to come.

4. The US faces the dilemma of acting tough or working towards finding a diplomatic solution. The first option does not look feasible given the US preoccupation in many other parts of the world and its reluctance in recent years to get directly involved in conflict theatres. But from this flows the US dilemma, for failure to send strong signals to Russia will only bolster the Iranians, Syrians and others.

Implications for India:

India so far has tried to maintain a balanced position on the issue. If Russia is the most trusted ally, the European Union is India’s largest trading partner. India like China seems to be standing by Russia, albeit with some reservations. In the long-term, following could be some of the key issues of concern for India:

1) India’s worry is over the fate of Ukraine’s military industrial complex which plays an instrumental role in the modernisation of its air force. Russia also uses Ukrainian military facilities which provide engines for military helicopters of Russian origin. The previous regime saw rapid strides in defence cooperation between the two countries.

2) International oil and gas prices would go up in a conflict situation. It will adversely affect India as it is dependent on imports for its energy needs. This will pressure the rupee and may lead to a rise in the current account deficit.

3) Safety of Indian nationals - According to the Indian Ministry of External Affairs release, there are more than 5,000 Indian nationals, including about 4,000 students, living in different parts of Ukraine.

4) India and Ukraine have signed a vast array of MoUs and agreements in diverse fields; the fate of which is now uncertain.

5) Finally, a strong Russian reaction to the Ukrainian crisis could put India in a somewhat tricky situation. On one hand, it would be difficult for India to endorse Crimea’s secession to Russia based on referendum given India’s long held stance on J&K; on the other, should the crisis deepen, leaving Russia in a lurch would be tantamount to betrayal.

Posted on April 1, 2014