BRICS

BRICS (BRAZIL, RUSSIA, INDIA, CHINA and SOUTH AFRICA ) was formulated in 2010 “As part of an economic modeling exercise to forecast global economic trends over the next half century”  . It was devised by Jim O’Neal as an acronym for the relation between the five emerging national economies. According to IMF (international monetary fund) BRICKS account for 25% of GDP and 40% of world’s population.  It was originally known as BRIC until the inclusion of South Africa in 2010.

The sixth summit of BRICS was held in the coastal city of Fortaleza, Brazil, where the guest was president of Argentina, Cristina Kirchner. It was a three day summit from 14 – 16 July 2014. The previous summits were held in Yekaterinburg in Russia (2009), Brasilia(2010), Sanya in China(2011), New Delhi(2012) and Durban(2013). They helped the five members to view the world through a shared prism and forge cooperation in areas of mutual benefit. It has consolidated its position since the first summit in 2014 as a positive force for the democratization of international relations and for the enhancement of existing institutions of international governance. It has also forged an impressive partnership carrying out cooperation initiatives in more than 30 areas between its members.

The sixth summit produced some important agenda’s: Agreement on establishing the New Development Bank (NDB); Treaty for creating Contingency Reserve Arrangement   (CRA);  the Fortaleza Declaration;to set up think tanks council which will be responsible to come up with innovative ideas and the initiative in formation of BRICKS trade and development.

The NDB is the single most substantial outcome. The bank will have an initial “subscribed” capital of USD 50 billion and an initial “authorized” capital of USD 100 billion. It will lend money to BRICS, other emerging economies and developing countries for infrastructure and sustainable development project. The member states will have equal share in capital. The bank will be headquartered in Shanghai . India will be the first president of the bank while the first chair of the board of governors will be from Russia.The presidency, with a term of 5 years ,will rotate among the members of the bloc.

The CRA, with an initial size of $100 billion, will have a different pattern of contribution. It is designed to help needy countries forestall short-term liquidity pressures and strengthen “the global financial safety net”.

The Fortaleza declaration is a weighty document. It presents the basic philosophy, hopes, and concerns, and the future blueprint of BRICS. The four overarching objectives are peace, security, development and cooperation.  The declaration has a shared view on economic and trade issues, a post 2015 development agenda, cybercrime, cultural diplomacy as well as political questions in countries ranging from Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan to Ukraine and those in Africa. It aims to forge intra- BRICS cooperation through ministerial meetings and dialogue on diverse subjects.

BRICS agreed on common institutions that will eventually see them depending less on the western controlled financial system and more on informative technology infrastructure.

The summit provided Prime Minister Narendra Modi an extraordinary stage for his debut in multilateral diplomacy. The opportunity was used by India’s new government to unveil the contours of its world view. Modi described BRICS as “forward-looking” institution which brought together “a group of nations on the parameter of “future potential” rather than existing prosperity or shared identities. He was clear about its fundamental role: “BRICS must provide a united and clear voice in shaping a peaceful and stable world”. Prime Minister Modi’s meeting with other four leaders- China’s Xi Jinping, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Brazil’s Dilma Rousseff and South Africa’s Jacob zuma not only contributed to removing last minute hurdles to positive outcomes of the summit, but they were also occasions for fruitful dialogues on bilateral relations.

The meeting with Chinese President was the most consequential, lasting 80 minutes. Diverse issues- global, regional and bilateral- were taken up. Matters such as the boundary question, trade deficit, Chinese investment in India , river waters and a new route for Kailash –  Mansarover  yatra were reviewed. Modi was invited to attend the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC).

The Modi-Putin meeting was to reaffirm faith in privileged and strategic partnership between the two countries. Putin’s next meeting with Modi will take place in New Delhi in December.

The Brazilian President had a good meeting with Modi, who called Brazil “a key global partner”. They agreed to take steps to expand and diversify trade and investment flows and deepen cooperation in agriculture and dairy science. Three agreements were signed on remote sensing, environment and consular issues.

The Modi-Zuma meeting saw the two sides characterizing the relationship as unique and special. India announced that the next India-Africa Forum Summit would be held in Delhi in December.

From India’s viewpoint, Modi’s visit to Brazil was a substantive success, complete with a positive outcome of the BRICS summit, satisfactory bilateral dialogues and beneficial interaction with the largest number of South American heads of the state and a warm appreciation to the  government and people of Brazil.

Brazil, India, China and South Africa convey their appreciation to Russia for its offer to host the seventh BRICS summit in 2015 in the Russian city of Ufa and extend their full support.

Edited by : Shivani Malhotra

Emerging trends between the Indo - Japan relationship

India and Japan's relations have traditionally been strong. Our previous prime minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh’s visit to Japan in December 2013 was a much celebrated visit, as scholar Vivek Pinto recalls the first line of Robert Browning's poem “The Patriot” and describes it as, "it was roses, roses, all the way”

During a speech regarding ‘Shift to proactive diplomacy’, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said “I will engage in strategic dialogue with countries that share fundamental values such as India, with the view of widening the circle of free societies in Asia”, this may help us in understanding the recent growing interest of Japan in increasing friendly relationships with India.

Bilateral relationship: Japan wants a bilateral relationship with India as it serves long term interests of both countries, enhances all round co-operation and contributes to greater regional peace and stability. Though it is not easy as it requires a careful understanding of complex variety of forces. During the Japan delegation  our current Prime Minister Narendra Modi threw light on the Indo- Japanese relationship. He said that India and Japan share strong Buddhist cultural linkages.

Economic Partnership: Japan has a good reputation for making high technology products and Indian economy is the tenth largest by nominal GDP and third largest by purchasing power parity. Some of the popular brands of Japan are Suzuki, Panasonic, Canon, Toyota and Honda. The Indian brand, Maruti, in partnership with Suzuki motors co-operation bought cars within the budget of middle class household. Japan is also the second largest contributor to the budget of the UN. Such facts and figures clearly illustrate the economic potential of Japan.

Increasing Indo- Japanese relationship: Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) and Comprehensive economic partnership agreement (CEPA) was enforced between India and Japan along with Seven Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). EPA and CEPA were the outcome of report submitted by the “India-Japan joint study group (IJJSG)” which later made for reinforcement in economic development.

The Japanese co-operation in power sector with India is considered good. The upcoming collaboration between the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science of Japan and the Indian Department of Bio-technology and Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Industrial Science and Technology field, which includes nano-technology and materials, energy and environment, life science and information, and communication technology, plays an important role in maintaining good relation between the two countries.

Along with that, Japan is furthering its strategic objectives by strengthening its domestic economy through foreign trade and investment relationships with India. On 25^th June 2014, Narendra Modi said that the strategic and global partnership with Japan is a high priority for India and also that India and Japan share the “fundamental identities of values, interest and priorities”

Various features of Indian economy such as ready market for its consumers and democratic institution, when placed in international context resulted in luring Japanese investors to lucrative markets and investment in India. Narendra Modi in the Japanese delegation welcomed the parliamentary exchange between the two countries.

On nuclear co-operation front, India and Japan are organizing a frequent coast guard and naval exercise in region to prepare for terrorist attacks in the region. According to Article 9: “The Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation on a threat or use of force as means of settling international dispute”

With the growing friendly relations between India and Japan, there would be benefits to both the countries on economic front, as economic resurgence offers variety of investment opportunity both in traditional and new sectors. There will be a support to the national economy as well.  Thus , the good relation between India and Japan would be beneficial to both countries in economic , political as well as socio-cultural front.

Oshin Dhawan 

To Be or Not To Be.

Increasing unrest and clashing political ideas within, with a tumultuous neighborhood in the background, Turkey seems to be impatient and vague when it comes to defining itself on the ground.

It's fascinating to note all the most significant aspects of a nation change over a period of time, and usually, these certain transformations begin at home before they affect the behavior of the country in different spheres of importance. I would like to look at Turkey today, a regional power, holding a decisive take in the Middle East, South Caucasus, and South-East Europe – the areas of influence differ in terms of categorization. The geographical setting of the country, it's history and the current political dynamics of the country must be understood before we can look into the schism further, that, today, stands between the country's past and present.

The Ottoman empire was also the seat of the Caliphate after the Turks defeated the Egyptian Mamluk and brought back with themselves the institution of the Khalifa, which gained them legitimacy across the territories where Islam was practiced. Islam plays a very important role, and here, one must understand how. Prominence of religion and the functioning of the state affect each other since there occurs a constant interaction between the two. In 1919, Mustafa Kemal came to power in Turkey, after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and Turkey, then, had been carved out as a state from what had been an expansive territory. There was a deliberate attempt to cleanse the society and governance of everything that was associated with Islam itself and made the presence of Islam strongly felt. This must be understood in relation to the new secularist base of Turkey that Kemal had laid out. Ethno-nationalism was emphasized upon strongly. Let us, again, take the example of the Turkish language. Persian and Arabic words were removed and substituted with either Turkish words (or words with Turkic origins) or words from Western languages, the West being a model after which Turkey seemed to have taken. Here, Persian and Arabic languages were associated with an external influence, the elimination of which was necessary from different aspects of regular culture to drive Turkey ahead and detach the Turkish people from the Ottoman past.

These many endeavors and the responsibility of their sustenance was taken over by the Turkish armed forces, it seems. The military, ever since the inception of the republic, managed to retain a stronghold and there have been multiple attempts at direct seizure of power, with certain alleged attempts as well. Their influence pushed the nation deeper and deeper into a more secular society and severed diligently obvious growing ties between whatever emerged as a threat and the mainstream politics. There is a clear difference between the ideological tilt between the military, and in the more recent times, the other parties who do not share the same motivations as the military, mainly, the Islamists. There was also, an important difference between the two when it came to choosing sides and alliances in the larger global scenario.

The former tended to lean more to the West, while the latter, now that it is in power today, tends to lean to the powers on the other end of the line, and also, seeks the support of the same. They can be read from the events that call of Turkey's attention, and its active involvement.

In the last couple of decades, what had been suppressed  started to resurface in the Turkish political landscape. This, as I formerly mentioned, is particularly about the rise of the parties who share among themselves a different perspective altogether, a different dogma, when juxtaposed with the tradition of polity organized by Turkish military. The rise of the AKP (Justice and Development Party), a conservative national party and its persistence can be seen as somewhat of a change. AKP has been able to expand and solidify its influence and strength in political ambitions which were particularly driven by strong ambitions, to maintain stronghold inside and outside the country. There are many aspects to this part, and can be viewed differently in the light of different context and situations. However, right now, I would like to focus particularly on foreign relations of Turkey during this whole length of time since its inceptions and try to summarize them up in this article itself, and how the cleave in political inclinations within the country and the slight shift from one platform to the other has affected its dealings with the world, specially its immediate surroundings

The Turkish military has staged around three coups, and one “postmodern” coup (in 1997). It has long considered itself and justified its position as the “guardian” of Kemal's legacy. The general inclination has been towards the West and it was clear with its active membership in the NATO. Cold War era, however, when collapsed, there was a change in Turkey's perceptions. Yet again, things changed very quickly, in the face of rising Islamist militancy with transnational solidarity around the world. The importance of Islam as a political adhesive can be perceived as a very strong variable, and an understanding based on this manifests itself in not only clear, public statements, but also in evident, subtle understandings between two entities, and especially in the face of spread of Islamist terrorism, the political strength of this religion came to be viewed much differently.

Arab countries by Kemalists were viewed with a sort of suspicion and dyed in mistrust, as the fall of Ottoman empire left them with a bitter aftertaste. Under the relatively newer AKP government, we can see a trend which undoes what their predecessors were carrying out for long. Two things now happen at the same time. AKP uses its Islamic bend to make the Arab countries more affable and, as it views itself as an important regional and world player and wished to enhance this position to that of an important power, it needs not to use hard power, but diplomacy and soft power relations to allow its escalation into this position it so aspires. This strategy of reconciling and building influence in the regions that formerly constituted the Ottoman empire is what scholars have observed as Neo-Ottomanism. The term carries an ambition connotation, but, as insisted by the tailors of the set of policies which are labelled together as Neo-Ottomanism, is nothing but just to create a more friendly, cooperative and stable neighbourhood.

An important personality that I must mention here is Ahmet Davutoglu. In August 2014, he assumed the office as the 26th Prime Minister of the Turkish republic. Before that, he was the foreign minister under Erdogan, and his significant contribution to the Turkish foreign policy and giving it a new shape was not only marked by the fact that he tailored something of the kind, but by the fact that he viewed it as a theory, a concept, an underlying governing theme, thus, rendering the policy a solid ideological support, and not just leaving it feeble and fragile in the face of more radical transformations.

What is this ideological support about? It's about a new way of viewing international relations in a new light, from an entirely different perspective, that is , the Islamic perspective, in his work, “Alternative Paradigms: The Impact of Islamic and Western Weltanschauungs on Political Theory”, which was published in 1993. The piece contrasts worldviews originating from the two, almost dichotomous  Islamic and Western traditions of political philosophies and thought. By doing this, he goes well beyond just explaining political structures and legal institutions which are interpreted often by isolating the larger context of scholastic traditions. He, at the same time, somehow challenges the idea that a Western view of the world should prevail and be adopted by countries not necessarily included in “the West”, that is, a view that has been attuned to their needs instead of their own views. He, in this way, puts forward a more liberal face of Islam, based on reinterpretation and deep scholastic foundations.

However, a much complex picture is at our hands. While the AKP is trying to move Turkey away from the political trends in the past, it is also somewhat making its allies in the Atlantic shift uncomfortably in their seats. Turkey has been, for example, tilting more towards Hamas than Israel, as it is, according to Cold War norms, supposed to be doing. One can see that Turkey is trying to create a neighbourhood with “zero problems” for itself because it desires to be more than a major regional player and for that, it needs to balance all its relationships. It also need to secure the area of Eastern Turkey from external interference into the Kurdish conflict, for instance, there have been much concerns about Turkey's dealings with Iran itself, despite the sanctions of the West. At the same time, it needs to balance Iranian-Syrian influence and the many political agencies and progresses attached to this alliance. Turkish stance, hence, might be either an act to actually balance and rule out the possibility of a hostile neighbourhood and also considered an act of amelioration, and on the other hand, the amelioration is considered harmful for the Western interests in the Middle East, and one mustn't rule out the fears around the rise of Islamism to an extent of threatening the whole idea of Turkey being a secular nation.

Will Turkey, one might ask, stay what it was in the past many decades? Will these new strategies lead Turkey to change itself from the very  foundation of itself? Are the strategies and policies nothing, but a new way to approach new problems? Where is Turkey headed to, one might want to conclude this whole discussion with.  As many would agree, Turkey's recent ventures, in my opinion, are actually to escalate its position in the region itself, and without facing strong obstacles. For this, it is taking stances that might seem paradoxical, but in its view, it seems, it wants to exercise a control over its tumultuous neighbourhood which secure its interests and allow it to grow stronger. But to reach this stage in itself is a challenge, because the way it has chosen and the people instrumental in making this particular choice are themselves in a much fragile position when it comes to support, opposition and popular opinion in Turkey itself.

Bhavya

TWO POLITICAL COUNTRIES

With a striking contrast prevailing in us while we revere  our  neighbors by calling them  brothers and on the other  we  mercilessly  harm  them  and  dislike  their  very  existence next to us. This hypocrisy emerges as a bleak scenario in the living century.

Well acquainted of the  Indo-Pak  enmity which born  out  of  a  bloody  partition in 1947 and trapped in  an  endless  cycle  of  conflict following the  Kashmir  issue  being  the  bone  of  contention  between  the  two  countries. This is a topic that thrills both the sides disrupting harmony. Indeed the peace where we claim to resolve dispassionately and realistically.

All of were destined with limiting choice of either  an  Indian  or  a  Pakistani. If  the  good lord  had  consulted  the  people  on  the  subject,  they  would’ve  chosen  a  country  more  affluent  unconcerned with  religious  and  border  issues with no disputes. Especially disputed territory.

Over the years, it has grown so severe with issues of terrorism and wars that its resolution appears an issue itself. The  Mumbai attack and Kargil War have left imprints that need to be solved with the generation worth handling it!  

Both  the  countries  are  home  to  billion  beating  hearts  whose  dreams  grow  big  with  each  passing  day; both  have  slums  and  multiplexes  existing  side  by  side  and aspirants with dreams striving in universities and  whose  noisy  roads  hold an attribute of industrialization. Our roots of culture and tradition stands almost at par which is evident in daily lives.    

Past generations of previous two centuries have literally put in their souls not to see us battling with no conclusion. They did their part of unification. We shall now take it to higher level of resolving socio-economic problems and becoming competent partners and bonded neighbors.

Every other  year  or  when  a  new  government  forms, both  the  countries  express  willingness  to  begin  a  new  chapter  of  bilateral  relations  but  at   the  end, all  efforts  waters  down  and  then  we  are  back  on  each  other’s  neck.

How  many  more  innocent  lives  do  we  want?  Whom  does  it  benefit?   No one  can  become  powerful  by  being  cruel  to  the  innocent  people.  The  world  can’t  afford  a  new  war. It  would  not  be  in  anybody’s  interest. Wars  will  only  destroy  the  limited  institutions  that  exist  in  our  countries. Infact, there  is  more  to  each  of  our  lives  than  this  gore  and  bloodshed.

It  is  high  time  that  we  improve  relations  with  each other  which  in  the  long  run  is  the  single  important  prerequisite  of  peace  and  stability. It  has  been  two-third  of  a  century  into  both  our  country’s  independence  and  yet  we  are  stuck  on  the  same  page. Instead, we must have more of exchange programmes that would enrich our culture and social being which we can easily associate with. 

Let’s  try  to  see  virtue  in  each  other  and  focus  on  solution  instead  of  problem. Practicing  forgiveness  isn’t  the  only  right  way  to  live  but  also  the  healthy  way.

Let’s  think  it  over!  In  the  words  of  Swami  Vivekanand ; Awake, rise  and  be  enlightened.

Suju