Insights December edition

DANGERS OF

INSIGHTS is a strategic affairs, foreign policy, science and technology magazine that provides nonpartisan analysis of contemporary issues based on real-time information.

To subscribe, sambratha@synergiagroup.in ; +91 80 4197 1000

https://www.synergiafoundation.org

2022 was a year dominated by the war in Eastern Europe and shattered by unprecedented climatic events. The year started on a positive note, with the Coronavirus on the back foot and vaccines gaining ascendancy over the pandemic at a rate that science had never attained before.

We are not done with the pandemic yet, not by a long shot, as rising cases in China, Japan, and South Korea raise alarm signals. The belief is gaining ground worldwide that the Coronavirus was not a result of natural evolution but one created in a lab and leaked out. The needle of suspicion, yet unsubstantiated, is moving towards Gain for Research as the principal cause of this phenomenon. This subject has been covered as our lead story in this issue.

Technology remains in focus which is unsurprising as all we do today has a tech connection. Tech giants are now being looked at as sovereign entities, and technology is spurring the geopolitical sphere as never before. We give insights into the geopolitics of technology and how chaos and order go hand in hand when we encourage innovations. But technology has created its pitfalls, and these must be regulated, especially the growth of AI and the cleaning up of our environment, including space.

As the year ended, India took on the presidency of the G20. We raise the question of how relevant this forum is and whether India can shake up things in 2023 to revitalise the platform. Ukraine refuses to die, and just as it dominated 2022, it appears that it will retain its centre stage, for good or bad, for most of 2023 also. It has changed global geopolitical dynamics substantially in just 12 months which we examine.

So, what did mankind learn from 2022? Not to get too smug with their technology, knowledge, and wealth- we are still not away from the nuclear Armageddon that dominated the narrative post World War II until the 1980s. We are running out of time and options to preserve what remains of our environment and its biodiversity. While economic nationalism may be prevalent in garnering votes, it will create greater inequity that will ultimately lead to widespread conflicts, terror and destruction from which none are safe, rich or poor. Respect for human dignity and faith in human progress must be universal, a lesson that the pandemic forced upon us but which we continue to disregard.

We hope our esteemed readers will continue supporting us as we strive to further evidence-based research on strategic issues with global resonance.

Sincerely yours

Dear Friends:

Greetings from the Synergia Foundation, and a very Happy New Year!

SCAN THE QR CODE TO SUBSCRIBE

Maj. Gen. Ajay Sah Chief Information Officer

Without guardrails to regulate it, AI’s role in our lives can lead to disorientation and disruptions, not always to our benefit.

If left unattended, the piling up of space debris could threaten our future in space and much more.

South Korea finds itself in a delicate balancing act as the US-China tech war heats up.

At a time when the global narrative is overwhelmed by the ‘chips shortage’, an overview of the semiconductor industry would be timely.

The US-China tech war is centred around the all-powerful chip, with the ultimate objective being future geopolitical dominance.

The transformation of Big Tech into a significant geopolitical player can no longer be ignored.

The mad advance of technology is creating asymmetries that will reshape global power dynamics.

The Ukraine War has rendered the traditional routes of global commerce through Russiacontrolled Eastern Europe unviable, triggering the search for alternative corridors.

Has the war in Ukraine brought the world to the cusp of a new multipolarity in the global order?

India’s presidency of the G-20 is a fleeting opportunity to correct the forum’s drift towards an inconsequential existence.

As Europe gears up for a long cold winter, will its geopolitical equations change?

Recent claims of creating energy in excess of input through fusion could be the answer to mankind’s energy woes, provided they turn real.

Will feminist diplomacy make a difference in confronting the integrated and extreme challenges of conflict, climate change and food crisis?

GEO-ECONOMICS

EUROPE

DANGERS OF GAIN-OFFUNCTION RESEARCH

The tools of science may not be used for experimenting with and engineering deadly viruses.

Dr. Gifty Immanuel MD, PhD

is the

Medical Director at Synergia Foundation.

Human health faces an unprecedented threat from the proliferation of Gain-of-Function research. A virus created in the lab by genetically manipulating or modifying its components, if accidentally released, could result in millions of deaths.

Gain-of-Function research is pursued in scientific studies to preemptively understand the possibility of the emergence of lethal viruses in nature. Gainof-Function experiments include engineering in the lab genetic alterations that simulate an increase in virulence or infectivity in a virus that would happen naturally. The organism modified this way is tested on laboratory animals like ferrets, mice, and guinea pigs. These tests provide insight that is utilised to develop vaccines, test out new antivirals, understand the host immune response, and comprehend the disease-causing ability of the virus. This way, we can remain a step ahead of the viral evolution by developing suitable medical countermeasures.

THEORETICAL JUSTIFICATION & WARPED RATIONALE

However, the justification and the scientific rationale behind Gain-of-Function research remain far from convincing. For instance, recombining (two different viruses), modifying (the genes or proteins of a virus), or reverse engineering (altering genetic sequences) can produce qualities in an organism

There is a hypothetical risk that some remote labs could carry out clandestine bioweapon creations under cover of legitimate Gain-ofFunction research.

previously unseen. The deliberately induced lethality can pose an imminent danger to laboratory personnel, test animals, and the environment.

The benefits are minimal compared to the risks such experiments pose. Gain-of-Function has not proven to be very effective in its ability to predict pandemics. Second, inoculating such modified organisms in humanised lab animals may increase the viruses’ human adaptation. In the event of a laboratory breach, the modified organism will be able to infect humans more effectively. Even by the most conservative estimates, the negative ramifications of such experimental research are unfathomable.

BIOSAFETY CONCERNS & BIOSECURITY ISSUES

When experimenting with novel pathogens, many researchers are not fully aware of the disease capabilities of the exotic microbes. The biosafety levels (BSL 1-4) required to handle such pathogens safely remain unestablished, and the virulence of the modified organism is unpredictable. Further, in case of a breakdown in the lab’s biosafety measures, there are no known antidotes, vaccines, or experimental drugs for these altered pathogens. And such microbes, when handled and stored in laboratory freezers, pose a serious biosecurity threat. Further, the

repository of such modified organisms is liable for biosecurity issues like bio-crimes, sample theft, biological espionage, or even inadvertent release.

BIOWEAPONEERING & COVERT EXPERIMENTATION

All laboratories worldwide do not adhere to a universal code of biosafety, and few nations are signatories to bioweapons conventions. There is a hypothetical risk that some remote labs could carry out clandestine bioweapon creations under cover of legitimate Gain-of-Function research. GoF research unwittingly opens up a pathway to carry out covert experimentation on lethal pathogens. Further, publishing sensitive GoF research data in journals provides open know-how for anyone with malignant intent. GoF is inherently dangerous as it involves the deployment of dual-use technology that can be customised for bioweapons creation.

INADEQUATE OVERSIGHT & CONTROL

No one knows for sure the fate of the organism that has been created by the Gain-of-Function research. For instance, most Gain-of-Function research protocols demand that all the organisms and materials used in the experiment be destroyed at the end of the day. However, there are few mechanisms in place that could ensure the complete destruction of the offensive biological material. Recently, some of the Gain-of-Function researchers conducting studies on H5N1 and SARS-CoV-2 viruses did not reveal their original intentions to granting or governing bodies. Such events undermine the effectiveness of policies and safeguards in biomedical research.

BIOETHICAL VIOLATIONS & BIOCONTAINMENT

Scientists have a social responsibility. Even if experiments in science do not yield benefits for the global community, they should refrain from producing harm. This ethical principle of “non-maleficence” (do no harm) is inviolable.

Further, the gains with such experimentation are minuscule compared to the quantum of biorisk involved in manipulating viruses, making them even more dangerous. Accidents, laboratory leaks, and laboratory-acquired infections (LAI) are not uncommon, even with the best practices in place.

The escape of laboratory animals, the movement of infected personnel, and the transportation risks of highly infectious material have been well documented. There is a possibility in the future that such research can be conducted in biocontainment facilities with inadequate safety under suboptimal conditions. Such research pos -

es an unjustifiable risk and biothreat to society.

CONCLUSION

We have witnessed more than 6 million deaths with the onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic, and adding to it is the re-emergence of monkeypox, polio, measles, and pandemic influenza.

The possibility of the emergence of pathogens with pandemic potential (PPP) from nature is recognised. However, inducing high virulence and transmissibility by enhancing pandemic potential pathogens (ePPP) under the aegis of Gain-of-Function increases the risk of disease outbreaks through laboratory-acquired infections by several folds.

The promise of science lies in its ability to alleviate human suffering. At the same time, the tools of science may not be used for experimenting with and engineering deadly viruses. The continued practice of Gain-of-Function research poses an existential threat to global health.

This kind of highly controversial research — banned under the Obama administration after safety incidents demonstrated that lab containment is rarely airtight — began again under the Trump administration, and many scientists and public health researchers think it’s a really bad idea.

In 2014, the US government, under the Obama administration, declared a moratorium on such research.

That year was a bad one on the biohazard front. In June 2014, as many as 75 scientists at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were exposed to anthrax.

A few weeks later, Food and Drug Administration officials ran across 16 forgotten vials of smallpox in storage. Meanwhile, the “largest, most severe, and most complex” Ebola outbreak in history was raging across West Africa, and the first patient to be diagnosed in the US had just been announced.

It was in that context that scientists and biosecurity experts found themselves embroiled in a debate about gain-of-function research. The scientists who do this kind of research argue that we can better anticipate deadly diseases by making diseases deadlier in the lab.

But many people at the time and since have become increasingly convinced that the potential research benefits — which look limited — just don’t outweigh the risks of kicking off the next deadly pandemic ourselves.

AN INVITATION TO CATASTROPHE!

Promoting Gain of Function research for preventing a future epidemic comes with the risk of creating one.

Maj. Gen. Ajay. Sah SM, VSM (Retd), is the CIO at Synergia Foundation, with experience in conflict resolution, peacekeeping and counterterrorism.

In recent decades, there have been exacerbating outbreaks of infectious diseases with grave emergence and re-emergence potential worldwide, thereby escalating threats to hunger/food security, environment, health, and socioeconomic activity.

These incorporate the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronaviruses, swine flu, the Zika virus and the Ebola virus, which has disseminated across international boundaries because of increased global mobility and interconnectedness.

These looming risks require countries with significant R&D and scientific, and technological resources to contribute to and enhance global health and security by investing in Gain-of-Function (GoFR) research in which scientists bestow new abilities on pathogens to study them.

WHAT IS GOFR?

Viruses, especially those of influenza, are constantly mutating, as seen in the multiple variants of the Covid pandemic causing SARS-CoV-2 in quick succession. GoFR research is an attempt to see around the corner and anticipate what mutations or characteristics of viruses that might come next - and how likely (or unlikely) that might be to happen in the real world.

Two dominant theories have been debated over all these years- SARS-CoV-2 is the result of a natural zoonotic spillover, or as per the second theory, the virus infected humans as a consequence of a research-related incident.

Several recent advances in life science technologies, such as recombinant DNA technology, sequencing technology, and DNA synthesis technology, have led to the emergence of reverse genetics and synthetic biology, which have been the driving forces behind the rapid development of GoFR research since 2000. Gain-of-function research is a controversial scientific research method involving the manipulation of pathogens to give them a new aspect or ability, such as making viruses more transmissible or dangerous to humans.

Controlled mutations in viral genes under GoFR work cause changes in pathogenicity, infectivity, transmissibility, host range, etc., and thus alter the characteristics of the virus under study. This permits further exploration to detect mutant strains that can infect humans as soon as possible and use them for epidemic forecasting, planning preventive community surveillance in advance, identification of the genesis of the mutations, and contemporaneous production of compatible and veritable vaccines for feasible, expeditious treatments.

In fact, the Global Virome Project aims to collect the estimated 500,000 unknown viruses that are ca -

pable of infecting humans and bring them to a laboratory.

THE UNDERLYING DANGER

On the other hand, these studies have been the subject of debate on the ambiguity of using research results (the so-called ‘‘dual-use problem”) because of the possible diversion of research results to biological weaponisation. Even more dangerous is the threat of accidental release of the pathogens under study from containment, causing an outbreak that can lead to an epidemic, which many think is how the COVID-19 pandemic started in the first place.

Testifying to the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Spending Oversight investigating the emerging threat posed by gainof-function research in August 2022, Dr Richard H. Ebright, PhD, laboratory director of Waksman Institute of Microbiology, expressed his concern as it “ involves the creation of new health threats – health threats that did not exist previously and that might not come to exist by natural means for tens, hundreds, or thousands of years.” During the hearings, Dr Kevin M. Esvelt, PhD, assistant professor of Media Arts & Sciences at MIT Media Lab, highlighting the grave danger, warned that “scientists never considered that these advances in technology … would allow a single skilled terrorist to unleash more pandemics at once than would naturally occur in a century.”

WAS CORONAVIRUS A LAB LEAK?

The source of SARS-CoV-2, which infected millions and has killed over one million and counting, remains shrouded in mystery three years after it surfaced in Wuhan. Two dominant theories have been debated over all these years: SARS-CoV-2 is the result of a natural zoonotic spillover, or as per the second theory, the virus infected humans as a consequence of a research-related incident.

It has been extremely challenging for experts to establish the origin of the virus, as China has been not too cooperative. Since January 2020, the Chinese government has prohibited sharing or publishing data on SARS-CoV-2 without state review and approval.

In a report released in October 2022 by the U.S. Senate Committee on Health Education, Labour and Pensions Oversight Staff titled “An Analysis of the Origins of the COVID-19 Pandemic,” certain theories have been espoused. The Report goes on to say, “While the precedent of previous outbreaks of human infections from contact with animals favours the hypothesis that a natural zoonotic spillover is responsible for the origin of SARS-CoV-2, the emergence of SARSCoV-2 that resulted in the COVID-19 pandemic

was most likely the result of a research-related incident.” The Report justifies this conclusion by ruling out a natural zoonotic spillover on the following grounds. Firstly, if one exists, the intermediate host species for SARS-CoV-2 remains unidentified. By comparison, within six months of the first known human case of SARS, public health officials in China found SARS infections in palm civets and raccoon dogs in live animal markets in Guangdong Province.

Unlike SARS, the genomes of early COVID-19 cases from the first months of the pandemic do not show genetic evidence of SARS-CoV-2 having circulated in another animal species other than humans. None of the animals tested from the Huanan Seafood Market’s supply chain or from China’s animal farming industry were infected with SARS-CoV-2, according to presentations by PRC officials to the WHO.

Secondly, SARS-CoV-2’s high binding affinity for human ACE2 receptors suggests that it is possible for it to directly infect humans without needing a period of adaptation in an intermediate host. Direct spillover from a bat would explain the failure to find an intermediate host. While direct bat-to-human spillover of coronaviruses has never been confirmed to cause a human outbreak, it is theoretically possible, and circumstantial evidence suggests it may occur under limited, specific circumstances. Based on the available evidence, the report concludes that Wuhan is the only location where SARS-CoV-2 spilled over into humans.

The Report concludes, “Ultimately, without increased transparency and publicly available and reproducible evidence that addresses these missing pieces of evidence, it is difficult to support the natural zoonotic origin hypothesis for the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak and COVID-19 pandemic.”

IS GOFR TO BE BLAMED?

Ever since the advent of SARS-CoV-2 in Wu -

Source : Twitter

han, there have been questions about coronavirus work conducted at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Although experts have opined that the natural origin of the current virus is much more likely than it being some sort of engineering construct, they have not ruled out a general lab-leak hypothesis, owing to a careless mistake made during GoFR research.

Analysis of Hypothesis Research-related incidents at labs in China, the United States, and elsewhere happened and, in some instances, resulted in limited human-to-human transmission. For example, there have been at least six research-related incidents involving the escape of SARS-CoV from high-containment laboratories in China (four), Taiwan (one), and Singapore (one).

The 1977 Influenza A (H1N1) pandemic is now widely accepted to have resulted from a research-related incident, most likely a vaccine trial in the Soviet Union or China.

In June 2014, while investigating the unintentional exposure of one of its researchers to potentially viable anthrax during an experiment in one of its biosafety levels (BSL) 3 laboratories, the U.S. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) discovered that a culture of non-pathogenic avian influenza was unintentionally cross-contaminated with the highly pathogenic H5N1 strain of influenza and shipped to a BSL3 U.S. Department of Agriculture laboratory.

The new investigative team that the WHO is putting together has complicated the conundrum by suggesting evidence of U.S. funding for some of the Wuhan viral research in an outsourcing of GoFR work. The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) has firmly and consistently denied that any of its grant money had been used for Gain-of-Function research on coronaviruses.

However, in August 2022, the NIH admitted funding GoFR research on bat coronaviruses at China’s Wuhan lab in a stunning admission. The EcoHealth Alliance in New York has been involved in coronavirus research with the Wuhan Institute of Virology for many years and was the recipient of NIH grant money for this work, and a large cache of documents relating to this has been uncovered.

What has to be emphasised is that none of this work was on the coronavirus variant that caused the pandemic. The research involved a GoFR study with coronaviruses that were not human pathogens at that time to examine varying levels of infectiousness and pathogenicity they showed in mice with the human ACE2 receptor added to their genomes.

Both the U.S. as well as China, with their secrecy and unaccountability about the issue, are not using their global clout to help push for protective measures that GoFR studies immediately need. The focus of the world regarding GoFR needs to be reoriented urgently to prevent a future calamity of even greater order.

If it was a lab leak that caused the death of 7 million people and counting, it only underscores the importance of international standardisation of GoFR work, the ethical quagmire it is embedded in as well as the stringent biosafety measures and transparency that need to accompany such research.

D

r. K

SRINATH REDDY

is an Indian physician who serves as the president of the Public Health Foundation of India.

The case made for conducting ‘Gain of Function Research’ (GoFR) for studying laboratory-engineered modifications in microbes rest on the argument that potential pathogens can be anticipated so that vaccines and drugs can be designed in advance. This argument is as specious as the misadventure of microbial manipulation is dangerous.

The SARS CoV-2 virus has shown clearly that scientists were surprised by the speed with which variants emerged, requiring scurried redesigning of vaccines. Could this have been predicted by a few modifications made initially in the lab? Extremely unlikely. Anti-viral drugs drew on the strength of repurposed drugs that were already in existence.

GoFR did not add anything new. Monoclonal antibodies, introduced with fanfare, had to be discarded whenever new variants emerged to evade prior immunity directed at earlier versions of the virus. What did GoFR actually achieve? What could it have potentially achieved? Very little, it appears.

In contrast, there are grave dangers of creating a dangerous microbe through laboratory manipulation. To do so for biological warfare would be a crime. Would an accidental ‘lab leak’ be any less appalling if the consequences could devastate humanity? Can scientists always retain control of what they create? Can they resist political masters or military dictators in autocratic regimes?

GoFR is conducted in the secrecy of the laboratory, without public sanction or scrutiny. We know, from historical records, that the scientists who developed atomic bombs regretted that they did not share information with the public before their use in the Second World War. Can we allow GoFR the license to run research cloaked in secrecy when the whole world can be put in peril? Neither legitimate curiosity nor arrogant vanity of scientific research gives that sanction.

THE ASIAN CENTURY?

Has the Asian Century truly arrived, and more importantly, can it be truly realised?

This article is based on a discussion held on the subject “Asia in the 21st Century: Development and Cooperation” conducted by the Centre for China and Globalisation (CCG), in which Synergia Foundation was a participant.

No other continent can match the dynamism and diversity that Asia possesses. Asian economies and societies have been consistently working towards enhancing their contribution to the prosperity of the region and the world. The Asia Pacific region is uniquely situated at the intersection of regional trade, economic cooperation, and complex security architectures, giving it an influence far beyond its shores.

The 2021 ADB (Asian Development Bank) report titled “Asia 2050: Realising the Asian Century” predicted the 21st century to be an Asian one, with half of the global GDP being produced in Asia. As we progress into the third decade of the century, we ask how true these forecasts have been proved.

ASSESSING THE ASIAN CENTURY

The Asian economies have amply demonstrated their vitality, potential and dynamism for development, particularly in the wake of the war in Ukraine and post-pandemic. The ASEAN is playing an increasingly meaningful role in global and regional governance, and acting as a catalyst for the region to transform itself, trying to be the agenda-setter for the world.

Goldman Sach’s report, “The Global Economy in 2075: Growth Slows as Asia Rises,” says that China would be the largest economy in the world, followed by India, with Indonesia at No four behind the U.S. Also, if Pakistan corrects its trajectory, it could join this elite group. With two Asian

With the world entering a period of vertical globalisation, the Asian region, dependent on other regions for its critical minerals, may be left behind. We may therefore witness two pivots; one is an emergence of a multialigned multipolar world where countries will choose to align depending upon the issue and their national interests.

countries at the top of the economic pile, how will it shape the world order, especially if the two strongest Asian economies continue to spar with each other militarily along their disputed borders?

Asia is in the middle of a historical transformation. If it continues this trajectory, by 2050, the per capita income will rise six-fold in purchasing power parity to reach Europe’s current levels. The Asian Century will be characterised by various facets which will have a bearing on the future shape of Asia.

Asia has benefited from globalisation and the rule of law ensured by multilateral organisations. What will be the impact on Asian economies with the fragmentation of the global market, the internet, and most importantly, global institutions?

Conflicts within Asia continue to raise their ugly head, whether in the Global Commons in the South China Sea or the Indian Ocean or in the high Himalayas between Asia’s two largest nations. How will these be managed and kept below the boiling point if not resolved fully?

How will Asia deal with the current trend of weaponisation of anything, and everything-trade, economy, technology etc?

D r. RONG YING, Vice President, China Institute of International Studies

First and foremost, they’re two contrasting trends in terms of development. One is that the continuously rising Asia has shown an intensive habit of cooperation based on mutual understanding and mutual support for win-win cooperation. And the other hand, there are worrying trends where attempts are made to divide instead of uniting, to decompose those pushing for cooperation. Furthermore, some countries in the region are pursuing a kind of Indo-Pacific strategy with cold war colours, which, if that were to be disturbed severely, would develop the probability of endangering the region.”

There is a global threat to critical infrastructure that is not deterred by sovereign boundaries, which rival nations will unleash on each other causing, collateral damage to the regional and global economy notwithstanding. This is bound to lead to disrupted supply chains so valuable to Asia both as a supplier and a buyer.

The race for advanced technologies will pit one nation against another within Asia and beyond. Since technology translates to national power, the competition will dwarf any cooperation that we may wish for.

Last is the resource race: Asia is energy deficient and depends upon imports, and it is a manufacturing hub and, therefore, would intensely compete for critical minerals. And all this will happen under the shadow of violent climate change events that are particularly nasty in Asia.

Geopolitics plays a vital part in the growth of Asia. There have been two contrasting trends in terms of developments. On the one hand, is an encouraging habit of cooperation based on mutual understanding, and on the other, worrying trends to divide and disrupt, endangering the region and global security. Sustainable development remains difficult, and the post-COVID recovery has been uneven. The geopolitical situation in many regions of Asia remains contentious and on the brink of conflict, making a mockery of claims of regional cooperation and collaboration.

As per the ADB, one of the most important risks to the Asian Century scenario is the middle-income trap. This implies that middle-income countries cannot reach the rank of higher-income nations (a per capita national income of more than $ 40,0000). Only a few economies in Asia, such as Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore has been able to get out of the middle-income trap.

Other middle-income countries have been unable to move to high-income countries for several reasons. For example, the loss of international cost competitiveness due to rapid wages increases without productivity growth. Second, lack of productivity growth due to

limited investment in infrastructure, human capital, R&D and innovation. Third, the economic and financial crisis due to the collapse of real estate bubbles, capital outflows, and the vulnerabilities of the banking sector. Fourth, social and political instability results from rising inequality, corruption, and environmental damage.

The great power confrontation between the United States and China may result in economic fragmentation between the two countries and the West and East. Here, the West includes G7 countries and the European Union. The East includes China and Russia, given that the West has already imposed sanctions against Russia to decouple it from their economies.

World Economic Forum fragmentation is a major risk to the Asian Century and would mean that trade and investment between the two blocks will be significantly reduced. Supply chains will be divided between the two blocks, and the flow of information, knowledge, ideas, technologies, and human talents between the two blocks will be severely cut.

Fragmentation will reduce economic efficiency, increase production costs, and lower GDP worldwide. The IMF and WTO both predict high costs, which are higher for China than the rest of the world because of China’s significant interdependence with the global economy. So, this suggests that it is in the best interest of all countries, including China and others, to avoid such economic fragmentation.

However, some economic decoupling in the hightech sector related to national security may be unavoidable, keeping in view the rising security paranoia.

KEY RISKS TO ASIAN CENTURY

Asia, especially China, has benefited immensely from globalisation, from the existing world order enabled by the WTO. However, WTO is getting overloaded and marginalised with many trade disputes no longer being addressed in the WTO. This is a critical threat to future integration, globalisation and productivity gains. There are seemingly irrevocable differences over data issues, environment, industrial policies, state subsidies and most important, the concept of national security.

Increasingly, production and economic logic are based on National Security. This creates a huge problem because what exactly is National Security? Almost everything can be securitised, even food; thus, there will be a price to pay, a little premium that takes into account supply chains, inefficiencies, and the price to pay for protecting National Security. And if this goes on, the likelihood is that inflation or price increases.

The Asia Region has four fundamental challenges: Economic recovery, Education, Energy and Environment. Economic recovery and equitable prosperity must be the foundation. Education to strengthen human capital development and to prepare the youth for future requirements is critical. Asia is an energy-deficient region and must soon transition to a low carbon

TAN SRI MICHAEL YEOH, President, KSI Strategic Institute for Asia Pacific.

The region needs a lot of innovation. And the more innovation it can create, the better will be for the future prosperity of our region. It also needs huge investments in infrastructure development. And this is where developed countries like China, Japan, and South Korea can contribute to other nations in Southeast Asia. Asian countries also need investments to scale their productive capacity, green logistics, and green partnerships. Finally, I would like to stress integrity. Many countries face challenges of governance, integrity, transparency, and accountability.”

economy. Climate change will have a more severe impact on Asia. Therefore, the region has no choice but to collaborate on climate action, even at the cost of their economic well-being, as it is a matter of survival.

With the world entering a period of vertical globalisation, the Asian region, dependent on other regions for its critical minerals, may be left behind. We may therefore witness two pivots; one is an emergence of a multialigned multipolar world where countries will choose to align depending on the issue and their national interests. Secondly, we may see the return of success to many Asian societies, including China and India.

The red flag here is that these two large Asian countries must settle their border disputes and learn to live together, as they have lived for more than 5,000 years without maps or boundaries. If they don’t do this, there are collateral consequences that can come, which can put the entire region at risk. We might also see the rise of outliers like Turkey and Iran, who would like to be part of the larger narrative in Asia.

There is already intense competition for finding natural resources, which would only get fiercer; water wars are a real possibility.

The biggest challenge will be how we arbitrage and balance the increasing inequality caused by technology within countries, which would undermine social cohesion and stability and the rise of fringe thoughts. And most of the capacity will have to be managed regionally because larger global institutions like the UN are fading away. So, it will be a global problem, but we will have to solve it locally.

It may be the Asian Century, but it is not yet the Asian century. The Western world – North America and Europe – if you add them up, they are still

NAVIGATING THE BLOCKS

As per Mr Tan Sri Michael Yeoh, President of KSI Strategic Institute for Asia Pacific, the challenges confronting the Asian region can be met through the four ‘I’s’-innovation, infrastructure, investment, and integrity.

More cooperation is needed in connectivity and stable supply chains, working together to boost green energy transition, and giving more impetus to the economic development corporation.

However, the most critical is managing the looming great power competition between the U.S. and China to prevent it from turning into a military confrontation. Tensions can be mitigated by both powers seeking a middle ground where they can cooperate- climate change, pandemics, external debt of developing countries etc, are some areas that are of mutual benefit. To begin with, China and the U.S. must establish guardrails, with other regional countries creating the environment for these guardrails to stay firm.

Within Asia, Japan has a role to play in preventing the fragmentation of the world economic order by acting as a bridge between the U.S. and China through a constructivist and stable bilateral relationship with China. Together, China and Japan can revitalise trade and investment by further developing themselves into a higher-level Trade Agreement. They can conduct a free consultation on CPTPP (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership).

Another way ahead is by making existing trade agreements work better through regulatory deepening and increased membership of regional trade groups. The G20 is an ideal platform, whose presidency is held by India for the next year to reach some sort of consensus on these vexing issues.

In all of this, think tanks, too, have a role. There is a need to foster greater collaboration among think tanks in the Asia-Pacific region by identifying areas of prioritisation like SDGs, global governance, reforms to the international financial architecture etc.

In conclusion, Asia is at the crossroads of whether it can continue to grow rapidly and realise the Asian Century. Asian countries must continue to work hard to get out of the middle-income trap and cooperatively avoid the Asian Catastrophe. Asia and the rest of the world must make every effort to avoid global economic fragmentation.

fifty per cent of the world economy. If you add all of Asia, they shall come to 30% of the world economy and similarly with trade.”

BERT HOFMAN, Director of the East Asian Institute.

MASAHIRO KAWAI, Representative Director, Economic Research Institute for Northeast Asia (ERINA); and Professor Emeritus, University of Tokyo

Asia has yet to achieve the Asian century, where the region produces more than 50% of world output, as it currently produces only 34% (at the market exchange rate) or 42% (at the PPP conversion rate) of world GDP.

Asia faces enormous challenges in realizing the Asian century, including the tasks of overcoming the middle-income trap stemming from domestic economic, social and political impediments and avoiding the “Asian catastrophe” due to possible political and security conflicts within Asia and/or with the west.

The most prominent risk is that great power competition between the United States and China divides the world into two blocs, i.e., the west (including the G7 and European Union countries) and the east (including China and Russia), whose economic consequence will be disastrous, particularly for Asia.

Thus, Asian countries need to convince the two major powers to manage their competition and avoid military confrontation, cooperate on globally urgent issues (climate change, pandemics, developing country debt problems, etc.), and limit the coverage and intensity of economic security measures. Japan can also contribute to this process by rebuilding a constructive and stable bilateral relationship with China, while working closely with the United States, ASEAN and other Indo-Pacific countries.

TOBBY SIMON, President & Founder, Synergia Foundation

Asia is in the middle of a historic transformation. If it continues to follow its recent trajectory, by 2050, its per capita income could rise sixfold in purchasing power parity (PPP) terms to reach Europe’s levels today.

It would make some 3 billion additional Asians affluent by current standards. By nearly doubling its share of global gross domestic product (GDP) to 52 per cent by 2050, Asia would regain the dominant economic position it held some 300 years ago, before the industrial revolution.

The Asian century will be characterized by the fragmentation of the economy, internet, and global institutions, contested global commons, the weaponization of trade, economy, and technology and disrupted supply chains. Advanced technologies will dominate the narrative on how nations interact with each other, especially with the rise of knowledge-enabled weapons of mass

destruction, robotics, nanotechnology and AI.

Our world is now entering a period of Vertical Globalization. The geopolitical blocs are forming according to interest. And as the world splits into multiple groups, these new blocs — both formal (i.e., alliances) and informal (i.e., trade corridors) — could reshape everything from supply chains to sustainability. As nations across the world look to transition to electric vehicles, a new geopolitical bloc is forming in Latin America that could “call the shots” for everybody — from China to Tesla.

A prime example is the lithium alliance being eyed by Mexico, which nationalized its lithium industry earlier this year. They hope to bring together countries like Argentina, Bolivia, and Chile – the four nations controlling most of the world’s lithium. This is the same in terms of several other raw materials. They seek to govern the production and trade of a resource that’s fast becoming one of the most critical commodities in the world.

The New Global Green Deal, behind which China is the leading force, serves as a positive example that puts into question the US-held idea that China is the adversary of the West and of Western values. By providing investment capacity in renewable technologies and green infrastructures, supported by technologies made and sold by Chinese companies, the narrative has begun to change in favour of China. In 2030 experts are raising the question: is China the new benign hegemon in international affairs, succeeding the United States in providing common goods to the international community?

We will have a new paradigm in Asia. It will be different in two significant dimensions. First, we may see deeper challenges to the era of Western domination of world history or the emergence of a multi-aligned world. Countries will choose to align depending on their interests. Second, we will see the return to the success of many Asian societies, especially the two most populous societies of China and India. The two countries must settle their border disputes and learn to live together as they have lived for the past 5000-odd years without maps or boundaries. Third, we might see the rise of outliers – like Iran and Turkey.

To achieve this promising outcome, Asia’s leaders will have to manage multiple risks and challenges, particularly: Increasing inequality within countries, which could undermine social cohesion and stability, the risk of getting caught in the “Middle Income Trap” for a host of domestic economic, social, and political reasons, Intense competition for finite natural resources, as newly affluent Asians aspire to higher standards of living, rising income disparities across countries, which could destabilize the region, global warming, and climate change, which could threaten agricultural production, coastal populations, and numerous major urban areas and last but not the least, poor governance and weak institutional capacity, faced by almost all countries in the region.

DIGITAL CHESSBOARD

At a time when the global narrative is overwhelmed by the ‘chips shortage’, an overview of the semiconductor industry would be timely.

This article is based on an interaction with Dr Arogyaswami Paulraj of Stanford University, who has worked in the semiconductor industry for 30 years. He is an Advisor to India’s Semiconductor Mission.

Semiconductors enable nearly 80 per cent of global GDP, and this dependence is proliferating. It is no secret that India is trying to make inroads into the global semiconductor industry. This is easier said than done because semiconductor technology is not only challenging, requiring both high skills and huge investments, the industry is extremely competitive and has a high barrier to entry. India has to start from the bottom, as its global market share is currently negligible. The good news is that there is a robust and renewed initiative by the Indian government to build a small domestic capability to begin with.

Semiconductors are the key enabler today. Military, economic, and geopolitical power are built on the foundation of semiconductor chips. Without a domestic capacity to design and manufacture chips, no nation can aspire to great power status. The example of a typical iPhone explains the value chain of semiconductors; the value of the semiconductors in it is around 76 per cent, with other parts taking 12 per cent and labour cost trailing at 3 per cent! Therefore, AI, communications, telecom, the internet, medicine, transportation, and aviation are fundamental and will grow. A country as large as India cannot afford to be left behind in the semiconductor race.

A GLIMPSE OF THE PAST

It would be illuminating to see how the semicon -

The key to the industry is knowledge and experience with a strong PhD background and at least a quarter of a century of experience in the industry. Such experts cannot be grown overnight; the real game is finding the right people.

ductor industry started in Silicon Valley from a humble beginning, for herein, there is a lesson for India.

William Bradford Shockley wanted to start a business, so he moved to Silicon Valley in 1955. Since the military was interested in the development of chips, he opened his Shockley Labs, recruiting a group of young PhD graduates to develop and produce new semiconductor devices.

While Shockley had received a Nobel Prize in Physics and was an experienced researcher, his management of the group – the Traitorous Eight – was authoritarian and unpopular. This was accentuated by Shockley’s research focus not proving fruitful.

After the demand for Shockley to be replaced was rebuffed, the Eight left Shockley Semiconductor Laboratory in 1957 to form their own company, Fairchild Semiconductor.

Fairchild was not into technology, but somehow, Sherman Mills Fairchild, an American businessman and investor, was ready to invest in them. The newly founded Fairchild Semiconductor soon became a semiconductor industry leader. In 1960, it became an incubator of Silicon Valley and was directly or indirectly involved in creating dozens of corporations,

including Intel and AMD.

However, Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore (part of the Traitorous Eight) were growing restless. Fairchild Semiconductors operated as a subsidiary of Fairchild Camera and Instrument, and they felt the parent company wasn’t reinvesting enough of the proceeds from the highly profitable semiconductor business into the R&D of new semiconductor technologies.

In 1968, Noyce and Moore resigned from Fairchild, incorporated their new venture, Intel, on July 18th and committed to continued innovation, a fundamental component of their company’s culture. Andrew Stephen Grove, a Hungarian-American businessman and engineer, joined Intel on its incorporation, although he was not a founder. He served as the third CEO of Intel Corporation.

Initially, Intel primarily manufactured static memory chips for mainframe computers, but in the early/mid-1970s, Intel introduced one of the earliest digital watches, an electronic calculator, and the world’s first general-purpose microprocessor, the 4-bit 4004. By 1974 Intel had developed the 8-bit 8008 and, quickly after that, in 1975, the 8080 processor, which would become the core of the Altair, the world’s first so-called PC (personal computer), which began the PC revolution.

Soon came the 8086 16-bit microprocessor and a cost-reduced version, the 8088, which IBM chose for its IBM PC, which brought personal computers to the masses. In 1985, Intel produced the 32-bit 80386 microprocessor, which began a long line of increasingly powerful microprocessors, including the 80486, the Pentium, and

a plethora of supporting integrated circuits and computers built with them. All under Grove’s leadership. Silicon Valley also started booming because of this. There were other companies around that time, but it really happened after 2004. And today, it rules the world.

UNDERSTANDING THE INDUSTRY

The value-added revenue of the semiconductor industry today is about $600 billion per year, and the market cap is about 3.35 trillion dollars. The industry is divided into three blocks: Fabless, IDM, and Fab/Foundry.

A fabless company designs, develops, and markets semiconductor products but does not manufacture them. This business model allows fabless companies to focus on their core competency of product development while leaving manufacturing to those with the necessary facilities and expertise.

There are many fabless MNC operations in India; Taiwan, the United States, Japan, South Korea, and China are the main players. India has a lot of talent. However, as long as India does not have a headquarter a semiconductor company of its own, it will have no value in the world.

Technology nodes are very critical. The area and the chip’s power are very critical; the more you can pack into its small size, the greater its power.

Today, chips have many billion transistors, and some AI chips out of China now have 1.6 trillion transistors. Taiwan’s TSMC tops the industry pyramid with 5 nm technology, with U.S. and China way behind where 3 nm tech is concerned.

Source : Investing .com

In memory, Samsung is at 7 nm. The key to the industry is knowledge and experience with a strong PhD background and at least a quarter of a century of experience in the industry. Such experts cannot be grown overnight; the real game is finding the right people. China has no inhibition in stealing talent from TMSC, and Samsung, just like Japan did in the 1980s, luring talent from the U.S. Today, China is willing to pay large amounts to attract talent from Taiwan and South Korea.

R&D is the winning hand in the industry; out of $600 billion in revenue, almost 50 per cent would flow back as R&D. When dealing with 5 and 3 nm technology, it requires deep knowledge of the quantum mechanical type of modelling, which is extremely complex.

TSMC took the lead because its innovative leaders, like Morris Chang focused on building talent rather than making quick money, unlike U.S. companies, which are ruled by the stock market.

Intel lost the edge because it was always running toward stock pricing, so R&D investments were flagged. The captive pool of talent in Taiwan is a cause of so much worry in Washington; if Beijing unifies Taiwan peacefully or by force, this talent will fall into its lap like a ripe plum! If the U.S. decides to prevent such an eventuality, matching force by force, the world is staring at a potential nuclear Armageddon.

CHALLENGES AHEAD

The semiconductor industry is a very tough industry to enter, and India must be prepared to face barriers on geopolitical issues. So, it’s not for the faint-hearted. While India has the talent for it, the government must step in because it’s too expensive. Moreover, there are other issues – it needs law, taxation, and so many other incentives to make it happen. A lot more still needs to be done if India wants to compete with neighbouring countries like China.

While the political will at all levels is very strong, knowledge about the industry is lacking, especially at bureaucratic levels. India, therefore, needs industry experts to advise the government, even if we have to explore overseas for suitable candidates, as there are none, especially in the fab industry.

MNCs in the India-based fabless industry have no time to spare to advise the government, as the stiff competition keeps them fully engaged in building up their Indian operations.

No country is self-reliant, and even the best of fabless companies deal with many EDA companies. The supply chain at the fab level is about 2,000 companies, many of which are in China. But of course, the most critical instrumentation requirements that China doesn’t have are ASML, Lam Research, Applied Materials, and Token Electronics.

So it’s a global system. India needs to somehow get into this exclusive club and become a participant at some level. The first objective is to build an Indian IP while outsourcing other things.

There are spaces in the high-tech mass consumption industry where India can get a toehold. One is advanced instrumentation, where ASML is the market leader. A typical electronic package that comes in a small box costs nearly $125 million, and there is a waiting list for its purchase as the production rate is only 25. Another field is electro-optics which today is dominated by Zeiss.

Commercial jet engines are another segment that China is trying to break into to join the U.S. and EU. The core issue is developing the talent pool and creating the training system and skill development so that India can manage capital, drive that capital, and use the talent pool to create indigenous IPs.

SEMICONDUCTOR TOP 7 by revenues, Q3 2022

TURNING ON THE HEAT!

The US-China tech war is centred around the all-powerful chip, with the ultimate objective being future geopolitical dominance.

SYNERGIA FOUNDATION

RESEARCH TEAM

Once a strong proponent of China’s transition from a socialist into an all-out market economy, and as a driver of globalisation, in the last decade, the U.S. has dramatically changed its stance. From close business allies, today, both nations face a sharpening trade and tech war that has global implications.

While the tensions originate in a dispute over trade and unfair tariffs, they quickly morphed into a competition over core technologies-5G, artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum computing. And at the foundational level, the cause of the conflict is nothing more than the ubiquitous chip, the pulsating heart of all modern electronics.

A LOOMING CONFLICT

In 2015, the Chinese Ministry of Industry and Information Technology released a ‘Made in China (MIC) 2025’ document which aimed at global leadership in three core tech areas-robotics, IT and clean energy, amongst many others. The document spoke about transforming China from a lowend manufacturer (with which the West was comfortable) to a high-end producer of goods (which threatened the West’s tech superiority).

The underlining theme of the vision was China’s burning desire to shed the shackles of western tech dependence and trailblaze its independent path for technological parity, if not superiority, with the U.S. The MIC 2025 sought to achieve the target of domestic core components in hightech manufacturing from 40 per cent in 2020 to 70 per cent by 2025. Some analysts call the MIC 2025 the trigger for the trade and the tech war between the U.S. and China.

Clearly, technology has taken over the geopolitics domain raising the stakes for both powers in their rivalry. The ripples have been felt far and wide, with even European allies not being spared.

The U.S.-China tech war had been simmering since the early 2000s largely over Huawei’s 5 G leadership and its close affinity to the Chinese government, particularly the PLA. A spate of sanctions had targeted Huawei rendering the company unable to compete in the global telecom market. Another telecom giant ZTE faced crippling U.S. sanctions for selling U.S.-originated technology to Iran. The tensions rose even further when the U.S. Trade Representative accused China of stealing U.S. IPRs and illegally transferring cutting-edge technology.

Amidst the noise and confusion of the 2016 U.S. Presidential elections, the MIC 2025 escaped scrutiny till 2018, when President Trump retaliated strongly. The tech war rapidly gathered momentum as President Trump led an all-out offensive to ‘block’ China from gaining tech superiority on the back of U.S.-origin tech innovations. President Trump fired the first shot in 2018 when he imposed a stiff 25 per cent tariff on U.S. $ 34 billion in Chinese exports, largely on high-tech items. Also, the calls for ‘decoupling’ from China became strident with bipartisan support.

Not willing to fight the debilitating tariff war, Beijing focussed on tech self -sufficiency with President Xi Jinping calling for ‘the path of self-reliance amid rising unilateralism and protectionism in the present world.” Without further delay, the Chinese intensified its investments to fast-track its semiconductor industry with policies, tax rebates, subsidies and attracting overseas talent to design chips at the 28 nm node or lower.

In its 14th Five Year Plan (2021-2025), the emphasis was on new digital industries, including AI, Big Data, blockchain, and cloud computing and under vision 2035, resources would be poured into all these domains.

President Joe Biden’s signing of the Chips and Science Act 2022 committed nearly $280 billion to domestic semiconductor research and manufacturing. This was a clear signal to China that the U.S was not going to give away its tech lead easily. The most significant volley was fired in October this year with wide-ranging export controls on technology aimed to cut off China from semiconductor and chip manufacturing equipment and know-how.

Clearly, technology has taken over the geopolitics domain raising the stakes for both powers in their rivalry. The ripples have been felt far and wide, with even European allies not being spared. AMSL, a Dutch company, is the world’s biggest supplier of advanced chipmaking equipment and has the monopoly on the design and manufacture of lithography machines used to print ultra-small complex designs on microchip wafers.

It is now being threatened with sanctions by the U.S. for selling critical components to China. Similar sanctions are dangling over the heads of many Japanese, South Korean and Taiwanese manufacturers of hightech components based on U.S. patents.

A DECLINING POWER?

Unlike the Russians, who mostly rely on hacking, the Chinese are looking at more long-term measures to overcome global U.S. dominance. There is a genuine fear that the U.S. is slowly slipping off from the dominant position in the semiconductor and wider electronic manufacturing sector it once had.

Significant gaps have come up in the production chain in the U.S. semiconductor sector. Even though the U.S. remains a leader in the global production of semiconductors and controls a large share of the world electronics market, the total manufacturing capacity of U.S. chip production has fallen, especially in those required for more advanced devices. U.S. companies are relying on production centres based in Taiwan and South Korea more than ever. Reliance on third countries to manufacture critical technology is never a good idea, even in normal times.

The U.S. has no way to monitor the production of a device produced outside its jurisdiction. So, if this device is part of some critical infrastructure important to U.S. economy or security, then the possibilities for mischief is unlimited. Any virus can be uploaded or embedded into these devices to cause massive damage.

Geographical locations are susceptible to geopolitical uncertainty. Both Taiwan and South Korea exist in an extremely volatile neighbourhood with military and geopolitical tensions daily jeopardising critical supply chains. If there is no other option but to outsource production to other countries, then proper precautions must be taken. Security guarantees must be included in the clauses of any contract.

THE CHINESE CHALLENGE

The issue at stake is much more than just the production of microchips.

AI will open an entirely new world of automations and is expected to revolutionise warfare in an unprecedented way. Taking out the human factor from decision-making increases military efficiency exponentially. Both the U.S. and China are neck to neck in the field of

Source : South China Morning Post

AI, with some experts claiming that China has an edge. But without highly advanced microchips, China has scant chances of maintaining its lead.

The PLA has been focussing on three main areas “informatisation”, “intelligentization” and “mechanisation”. The first aspect focuses on information warfare, especially in the cyber arena, where high-quality microchips are required. The second part looks at the development of intelligent and automated weapons systems that can think independently with minimal human interference. And finally, mechanisation is trying to increase the use of technology in all aspects of warfare. If all these goals are achieved within the given time frame (2027), the Chinese military would be in a technologically equivalent position or maybe even better than the U.S. military.

All these three goals have implications for Chinese superiority in AI, quantum computing, hyper-sonics and microelectronics. Each of these areas will have addon effects on the efficiency and efficacy of weapons systems. AI-enabled weapons systems will be able to react much more quickly to any potential threats than comparable human-based systems. The number of human casualties in warfare will also reduce considerably due to increased mechanisation. As a result, the side having the technological advantage will be able to wage warfare in a much more sustained way for a longer period than its enemies. The nature of warfighting is predicted to be transformed.

The Japanese National Institute for Defence Studies has stated that “As AI does not get fatigued, does not forget, and has no emotional fluctuation, it is expected to be able to help commanders make decisions by processing large quantities of data quickly and accurately”.

In the words of U.S. Senator Mike Rounds, “defending against AI-capable adversaries operating at machine speeds without employing AI is an invitation to disaster”. Thus, all expert analysts agree that AI will determine the future technological balance of power between Beijing and Washington DC, and semiconductors will be the key to this.

The most advanced AI systems require semiconductor chips based on 7 nm to 5 nm design rules, which are currently not manufacturable in the United States. One advantage that America has over China is that it still has a robust intellectual property protection rights system compared to China. As a result, there is a more conducive atmosphere for technological innovations in America than in China.

TAIWAN-A TECHNOLOGICAL LYNCHPIN

Taiwan’s important position in the global chip supply chain has put it in the middle of the U.S.-China rivalry, an unenviable position by any count. Semiconductor fabrication at the most advanced level takes place in Taiwan, and they have the requisite facilities and expertise for this purpose. They have invested in the semiconductor sector and prioritised it for a long time and

are now reaping the benefits.

Thus, for the U.S., Taiwan is a critically important country. Similar production facilities cannot be set up quickly in the United States because Taiwan is ahead by one or two generations. The fact that Taiwan is a stable democracy and a close friend does help matters here. America has very little worries that Taiwan will use these production facilities to arm-twist it in some ways.

But given the existential security challenges that Taiwan continues to face, the situation is not conducive to the United States in the long run. The Chinese are fully aware of the American dependence on Taiwan in the semiconductor sector. If the Chinese somehow get hold of the semiconductor fabrication facilities in Taiwan, it will be a huge disaster for the United States. China might even succeed in coercing Taiwan’s private and public sectors to support it in developing the latest semiconductor technology through economic pressure. Beijing has the demonstrated capability to do this. It has still not utilised this option, though. Any large-scale blockade of Taiwan by China could prevent the export of advanced semiconductors

CONCLUSION

Historically it has been proven that it is nearly impossible to restrict the flow of technological advances within a single geographical area through export restrictions and denying design details. The British tried desperately to keep their industrial revolution (especially about steam-powered textile manufacturing) under wraps but failed when its citizens carried the technology across the Atlantic to the American colonies, which rapidly overtook the British textile industry.

There are fears that just like the economic blockade of Imperial Japan in the 1930s gave impetus to the militarist elements to launch the attack on Pearl Harbour, the technological clampdown on China may trigger a similar response. It may force China’s hand in militarily occupying Taiwan to control its semiconductor industry, a nightmare scenario in itself.

A 2021 U.S. War College Paper titled “Broken Nest: Deterring China from Invading Taiwan,” expounds on a strategy that tries to convince China that an invasion of Taiwan would produce a major economic crisis on the mainland and not the anticipated technological boom by absorbing Taiwan’s robust tech industry. The Paper talks of elaborate plans for a targeted scorched-earth strategy that would render Taiwan unattractive if ever seized by force but positively costly to maintain. This could be done most effectively by threatening to destroy facilities belonging to the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, the most important chipmaker in the world and China’s most important supplier.

While such a self-destructive police may appear attractive to American military strategists, the fact is that the entire global manufacturing will have to pay the price for this short-sighted rivalry between the two superpowers.

GEOPOLITICS OF TECHNOLOGY

The transformation of Big Tech into a significant geopolitical player can no longer be ignored.

SYNERGIA FOUNDATION

RESEARCH TEAM

The 1648 Treaty of Westphalia was an inflexion point in human history in that it ushered in the modern world order through the creation of the nation-state system. The new system defined sovereignty ‘within a political space by the institution of citizenship and created concepts of national interests, security and foreign policy.’

Globalisation is transforming this Westphalia paradigm by redefining the notion of state territoriality from a fixed restrictive geography to a transnational space. The global flow of capital, goods, services, technology, communications and even culture has steadily diminished sovereign control over space and time.

Electronic commerce and technological innovations are changing the permeability of national boundaries and leading to “the ascendance of the ‘stateless corporation’, the emergence of the trillion dollar ‘24-hour, integrated global financial marketplace, the sharpening of competition under capital mobility and the ‘law of one price’, the proliferation of foreign direct investment, the increase in intercontinental migration, and the emergence of a ‘global information society, “ as observed by Prof Ian Douglas of the University of Manchester.

The much-publicised attack on the U.S. Congress on January 6th is a recent example of how technology can be manipulated for online radicalisation, the

Globalisation is transforming this Westphalia paradigm by redefining the notion of state territoriality from a fixed restrictive geography to a transnational space. The global flow of capital, goods, services, technology, communications and even culture has steadily diminished sovereign control over space and time.

spread of provocative and false narratives and the mustering of ranks for a misplaced cause. Nation states, even the most powerful ones, can ignore the power of Big Tech only at their peril.

THE EMERGENCE OF NON-STATE ENTITIES

It is, therefore, hardly surprising that Big Tech companies are increasingly be compared to nation states, and treated with an equal amount of diffidence. Market caps of giant corporations like Amazon, Alphabet and Microsoft dwarf the GDPs of many countries. As per World Bank’s 2019 figures, only seven countries had a GDP greater than Apples Market Cap ($2.08 trillion).

In the US, the tech stocks combined are greater than the entire EU. Tech giants not only dominate the stock markets, but have an overwhelming presence in e commerce, online communications, and are owners of vast amount of private data. They are increasingly functioning with national governments

(and their militaries) at the highest echelons; visit of Elon Musk to a national capital gets more coverage than even some better-known heads of states of medium sized countries.

Alexis Wichowski, associate professor in Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs describes in her book ‘The Information Trade: How Big Tech Conquers Countries” how some tech giants have extended their reach far beyond their core technological areas to assert themselves in spheres that were traditionally the domain of nation-states- defence, diplomacy, public infrastructure and services being offered to citizens. “You’re starting to see that people in government are recognising that technology is not just about the IT structure, and it’s not just about what citizens use – that Big Tech is also a global geopolitical force to be reckoned with,” says Alexis Wichowski.

BIG TECH AS INTERNATIONAL PLAYERS

No nation state, big or small, can afford to ignore the supranational presence of Big Tech in the global geopolitical scene. It is therefore, not surprising that there has been a rush to assign ‘tech diplomats’ to be located at Silicon Valley. The pioneering effort came from Denmark, always a technologically innovative nation, and followed by many other countries.

France has appointed an ‘ambassador for digital affairs’ while tiny by digitally proficient Estonia has an ambassador for cybersecurity. Netherland, another forward looking European

The fear (of data loss) can only be eliminated through diplomacy and a lot of work in convincing people that it is not so. And the way that rapid innovations are happening, there is no way we can control the pace,

nations has a counsellor for innovation, technology and science.

It would be an error to view these emerging foreign policy initiatives from the prism of traditional diplomacy. It is more of an acknowledgement of the influence they hold in the future of every nation’s well-being, and even in its demise if the corporates chose sides in any conflict or rivalry. Since such interactions between nations and the tech world are free from the forms and restrictions of formal diplomatic conventions, individual diplomats can choose their own innovative negotiation technique.

Diplomacy has always been about putting national representatives in potential areas of conflict, business interest, or where rapid transformational changes are taking place which will have disruptive influences on life and business. Under all these parameters, Silicon Valley fits the qualitative requirements for deserving diplomatic offerings from nation states.

An important asset under the control of Big Tech which nations have an eye on, or are worried about, is data. Today every bit of information is being stored in the Cloud which is not based within the national boundary of states and it is difficult to convince Big Tech to establish local centres. A big country like India may strike a hard bargain and ensure a large per cent of its data is on shored, but smaller countries just don’t have the bargaining power.

So, such countries must allay their fears

which will be like massive. The military is increasing the pace. In such a state, diplomacy becomes the only we can en sure that things do not go out of hand.”

AMBASSADOR ANNE MARIE ENGTOFT LARSEN Technology Ambassador of Denmark.

Source : Cartoonstock

through dialogue and diplomacy with Big Tech. Says Anne Marie Engtoft Larsen, Denmark’s Tech Ambassador to Silicon Valley, “The fear can only be eliminated through diplomacy and a lot of work in convincing people that it is not so. And the way that rapid innovations are happening, there is no way we can control the pace, which will be like massive. The military is increasing the pace. In such a state, diplomacy becomes the only we can ensure that things do not go out of hand.”

In other words, tech diplomacy is about adjusting diplomacy to the needs of the 21st century, where the geopolitical role of technology is duly recognised. This new face of diplomacy then endeavours to create more prosperous, fair and meaningful lives for all sections of the society in collaboration with technology.

The dangerously escalation rivalry between China and the U.S. has its roots in the sphere of technological primacy. The country that secures a lead on emerging technologies like AI, 5G, VR, IOT etc, will reign supreme in the coming decades. The U.S. and its military allies have set up a partnership of AI in the military and the Biden Administration is working towards consolidating a coalition of emerging technologies as the principal agenda of the partnership. The EU commission is also working towards a global tech collaboration with its principal ally the U.S.

THE WAY AHEAD

The major powers are not only using diplomacy in its intercourse with Big Tech, but also looking at a framework that will rein in the unbridled influence that Big Tech has enjoyed for several years. As per Alexis Wichowski, this effort has been mainly through fines and regulations and restrictive policies. However, these have not always worked and there are currently “no vehicle for most governments to interact with Big Tech on a more positive or collaborative note.”

Not that Big Tech has not been trying to find loopholes in the evolving regulatory regime. The EU GDPR failed to control tech giants but impacted SMEs more, Amazon avoided the UK’s digital tax by passing the burden on its third-party sellers. In fact, it is universally accepted that Big Tax pays just a small fraction of tax it owes.

Tech Diplomacy strives to remove this lacuna as regulations alone cannot fix the conversation without interacting with the industry through multi-stakeholder collaboration.

Through their acumen in geopolitical manoeuvring, Tech Ambassadors with years of experience forging international deals and conventions, can act as the middle ground between nation states and the tech world. While the ap -

prehension of tech companies against greater regulation is understandable, they too now realise that greater regulatory framework can no longer be avoided; hence it is in their interest to be a collaborative partner in its formulation.

A COUNTER VIEW

Critics of Tech Diplomacy are quick to point out that by engaging tech giants through formal diplomatic channels in one way of tacitly accepting a laissez-faire ideology, which can lead to even bigger monopolies. A clear example are the fascist regimes of 1930s which saw a fusion of state and industrial house, on the pretext of combating communism.

Today, the concentration of economic power in the tech companies carries its own dangers; the intermeshing of these big corporations and the government can be dangerous for democracies. Amazon, Google and many other companies are known to be closely working with the government and the military to supply solutions to digital problems as also to provide infrastructural support. Social media companies rarely turn down requests from law enforcement agencies of the state for information stored in their data base, thus turning into state organs.

Assessment

The manner in which technology is being nationalised, and worse weaponised, presents the single biggest challenge to peaceful coexistence for mankind. The new blueprint for global power is no longer being defined by geography or control over landmass, oceans or the airspace, but by control over flow of ideas and innovation by exploiting the connections that technology generates.

As our world dives deeper into the fourth industrial revolution, the relationship between technology and geopolitics is still emerging. AI, quantum computing and blockchain are some facets of cutting-edge tech that are revealing themselves as the frontline of global rivalry. Hence, the need to accelerate the process of formulating global norms and protocols the mitigate the risk that these technologies impinge on geopolitics.

While technology has immense destructive power, all technology is not the principal ingredient of global rivalry. Take green technology for example; if properly harnessed through a global collaborative effort that rises above narrow national and commercial interests, it can serve as fabric for strengthening international cooperation even between rivals. This further strengthens the argument why technology must go hand in hand with diplomacy.

RESHAPING THE CYBER FUTURE

The mad advance of technology is creating asymmetries that will reshape global power dynamics.

SYNERGIA FOUNDATION

RESEARCH TEAM

While mankind struggled with the pandemic and its resultant economic fallout and senseless war in Eastern Europe drain precious treasures and lives, technology continues to march relentlessly. While there is much good that technology has to offer humanity, it also possesses the power to cause disruptions for which we are ill-prepared.

Technology poses ever-increasing challenges, whether it is code-breaking, super-fast quantum computing or growing expertise in breaching firewalls to invade the cyber world undetected and unmolested.

The internet has become the lifeblood of modern civilisation, connecting the commercial, social, security and geopolitical domains as never before. So much information surges through the net that it appears likely that human control over its security has gradually slipped away. However, many states spend to secure their critical infrastructures (CI), and it is well-nigh an impossibility to totally secure the cyber world.

In today’s technological age, cyberspace has emerged as another battlefield of boundless threats. Conventional military, economic, or political methods are no longer the primary mechanisms for battle. Cyber warfare is the new terminology used to describe the actions of a hostile state hacking or

In response, some researchers are already working on a new area of research called post-quantum cryptography, which is dedicated to developing new approaches to encryption that could remain secure in the quantum computing age.

disabling another state’s critical infrastructure systems. This has military implications, too, as the enemy can tap into an intelligence database to take and gain valuable information.

There is a larger ethical issue as well, which concerns practitioners. “These technologies are appearing at a rapid rate, and they’re converging. We have [a] serious ethical-legal gap – what’s sometimes called the pacing problem – between our ability to put in place policies to attend to the negative consequences,” says Wendell Wallach of Yale University’s Interdisciplinary Centre for Bioethics. “Many times, the technologies are so embedded in our society, by the time we recognise what can go wrong … we don’t have effective ways of addressing it.”

CHALLENGING TIMES AHEAD!

With both public and private entities investing billions into R&D, the speed of technological evolution outpaces our ability to grasp the changes brought forth; an early advantage in cutting-edge technologies could well prove to be the differentiator. Quantum computing makes it possible to establish a sort of ‘superparallel processing’ based on

quantum physics that can rapidly solve problems beyond the scope of what a classical computer can achieve.

Quantum computing fundamentally differs from the computing devices we are familiar with today. Quantum machines operate on particle physics principles and can solve complex statistical problems involving multiple variables. In the future, quantum computing may add significant value to medical research, weather forecasting, cyber security and even military affairs.

By the same thread, it also creates a significant threat to cyber security, potentially requiring a change in how we encrypt our data. Currently, public key encryption is by far the most common form of internet encryption used today. All the sensitive communications and data shared over the internet are based on this. The supporting public key infrastructure (PKI) is part of every web browser to secure traffic across the internet. Many organisations also use this PKI to secure their internal communications, data, and access to connected devices.

Quantum computers are in a position to break this PKI effortlessly with their superior computational power. This has immediate repercussions for security at an international level whereby an adversarial nation-state or cybercriminal gang with access to quantum computing capabilities could access any and all communications and data encrypted using PKI. National security and critical infrastructure are all at threat in this advanced tech world.

“If we see … major advances in quantum computing, very quickly, then all of our attempts to encrypt our data may actually collapse,” says Wendell Wallach.

Warfare is also bound to be impacted by this growing science of quantum computers. Quantum sensing has direct applications in military applications through a variety of technologies. Quantum radar can detect targets that conventional radar cannot detect, and quantum navigation uses quantum properties to create a precise positioning system that may eventually replace GPS.

MEETING THE THREAT

In response, some researchers are already working on a new area of research called post-quantum cryptography, which is dedicated to developing new approaches to encryption that could remain secure in the quantum computing age. Quantum-safe solutions have already been deployed, such as Quantum Key Distribution (QKD) and Quantum Random Number Generator (QRNG) and have been proven to be potentially ready for large-scale deployment. Their use depends on standards to support trust and interoperability across large-scale networks such as 5G and IoT.

The International Telecommunication Union (ITU), an agency of the United Nations (UN), is attempting to pool together a group of quantum specialists collaborating to develop standards on the security aspects of quantum technologies.

From a cybersecurity perspective, while quantum computing is a significant threat, it also offers the possibility to of enabling a substantially enhanced level of communication, security and privacy. Quantum machine learning can generate provably random number sequences and identify unseen patterns, which can help with data integrity verification and content authentication.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) adds another element to the mix of cloud computing. Cloud computing can work along with AI to ensure better safety in cyberspace.

Quantum computing enables quantum key distribution (QKD) by sharing cryptographic codes between users, ensuring complete safety, and flagging unwanted intrusions. AI can be leveraged to monitor network security and data centres, alert them to discrepancies, and act on vulnerabilities by understanding their roots. AI can act as a catalyst for ensuring better security with disruptors for quantum computing so that it doesn’t become a cybersecurity threat.

GEOPOLITICAL SHENANIGANS NO MORE!

This new phenomenon has challenged diplomacy because these new technologies are rapidly evolving as we speak asymmetrically. Technology has become a moving target and has global repercussions.

The current diplomatic framework must be overturned to establish collaboration as the cornerstone. This is the complete reversal of how it stands today, wherein nation-states operate by looking to eke out as much as possible for themselves while giving away very little in return. A spirit of international solidarity needs to be built to develop maximal solutions to combat global issues like cyber security.

We have already witnessed the negative impacts of isolationism in cases such as the recent Covid crisis through vaccine nationalism. We need a spirit of cooperation and togetherness to combat crises like these and climate change. A massive re-think will be required for such critical issues based on cooperation and solidarity.

We are now facing a moment of reckoning. Significant technology leadership is moving East, The concern is that China’s size and technologi-

A shift in power play is possible in this new cyber-dominated world wherein emerging economies and neutral players like the Middle East could play a major role. Power and its dynamics are changing regarding the significance of military assets, emphasis on economic capabilities and technological supremacy. Non-state actors have emerged as very powerful. Technology has diffused the power status quo, thereby necessitating a collaborative effort. The conventional competitive frameworks don’t work anymore.

This warrants that the understanding of science and technology can no longer remain limited to scientists and academia. Leaders and decision-makers must be better educated to make informed decisions on technology-related issues. R&D is no longer a realm of scientists alone, and policymakers need to be educated and kept abreast of the sweeping changes impacting security.

Assessment

As cyber technology evolves from enabling to potentially dangerous, security has emerged as a key concern among nation-states. With all its possibilities, cloud computing has the power to threaten national security and critical infrastructure. As a result, quantum-safe solutions have already become the focus of R&D.

While the widespread use of large-scale fault-tolerant quantum computers is potentially a decade off, near-term quantum computers could still yield tremendous benefits. There are still substantial investments required to solve the core problems around scaling qubit count, error correction and algorithms in quantum computing.

There are strong diplomatic implications, and cyberspace has emerged as a key battlefield among the superpowers. This shift in power play in the new cyber-dominated world has led to the emergence of new nonstate players, and technology has become the key differentiator.

cal weight means that it has the potential to control the global operating system.”

JEREMY FLEMING Director GCHQ , UK

IT’S RAINING ROCKETS!!

If left unattended, the piling up of space debris could threaten our future in space and much more.

Space has been hailed as the ‘New Frontier’ that will give a fresh lease to human endeavours, as planet Earth lies disabused and wasted. But, mankind’s insatiable greed and the mad race to be the first exploiters in any new exploration is fast threatening to suffer space the same fate as our planet. Having trashed our planet for centuries, mankind is doing the same to space.

Since the beginning of the 20th century, objects have been lobbed into orbit with ever-increasing frequency. From that fateful day in 1949 when the ‘Bumper Wac’ became the first artificially created object to be shot out of Earth’s surface to an altitude of nearly 250 miles, riding atop a captured German V-2 rocket, followed by the Soviet Sputnik (1957), to the launch of the Artemis I propelled by the most powerful rocket designed till date, which made a splash down in the Pacific in December, the human race has scarcely taken a break in trying to conquer space.

Unsurprisingly, the space that surrounds Earth is becoming increasingly cluttered with our debris. In addition to the multitudes of shards too small to be seen, thousands of space debris pieces are currently being monitored and catalogued, prompting concerns about the sustainability and security of space travel. A few retired satellites can be seen in clear skies with the unaided human eye, which is only a tiny portion of the numerous space junk objects clogging up Earth’s orbit.

‘Space Junk’ or space platforms that have com -

The ISRO System for Safe and Sustainable Space Operations Management (IS4OM) has been put into operation to protect Indian space assets from environmental risks in space, to carry out associated R&D projects, and to help spread knowledge about the long-term sustainability of space activities.

pleted their useful lives threaten to exceed the functional platforms. In addition, there are other pieces/ fragments like micro debris (paint flakes, detritus from burnt-out rocket motors etc.) amounting to nearly 25000 and counting. If the minuscule pieces are added, the number could go up to millions! The danger posed to space utilisation, interplanetary travel and Earth’s inhabitants themselves can well be imagined.

THE SPACE RACE

The rivalry between the U.S. and the USSR had intruded into space in the 1950s when one Soviet success after another set alarm bells ringing in the U.S. Prophets of doom proclaimed that once the Soviets had seized the mastery of space, they would lose no time to exploit it to lob atomic bombs into America from space. The fear reached paranoia levels in 1957 when Sputnik I went into orbit, beating the U.S. once again.

The U.S. military had no system to monitor what was happening in space, and in 1961 the ambitious Project Space Track was declared operational by the U.S. Air Force, which used radar, optical instruments, radio, and visual sightings to keep track of space objects. Space Track worked in conjunction

RESEARCH TEAM

SYNERGIA FOUNDATION

with the top-secret military-run Space Detection and Tracking System (SPADATS) under the North American Air Defence Command (NORAD), entrusted with the security of the U.S. from incoming Soviet nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles. Space Track regularly shared unclassified data with friendly countries.

The need to be vigilant and academic interest in dealing with space objects/ debris continues to drive the need for keeping an eye on the skies even today. Project Space Track was equipped with its first computer (an IBM 680) as early as 1958, exponentially enhancing its capability to detect, track, record and analyse space-bound objects. When a Thor-Ablestar rocket upper stage burst on June 29, 1961, the amount of data in this database nearly tripled! The occurrence resulted in over 200 catalogued bits and was the first satellite breakup.

A WORSENING MALICE

In 1978, NASA scientists Don Kessler and Burton Cour-Palais formulated the landmark Kessler Syndrome. The theory states that as the density of space rubbish increases, a cascading, self-sustaining runaway cycle of debris-generating collisions can arise that might ultimately make lowEarth orbit too hazardous to support most space activities. Their efforts and increased space activity led to a greater focus on the debris problem.

Anti-Satellite (ASAT) tests are among the most significant single events in terms of breakups, which historically have contributed the most to the population of fragmented space de -

bris. Explosive divisions or ASAT tests may produce millions of deadly but untraceable particles. For instance, the Pegasus/HAPS breakdown in 1996 had more than 750 trackable fragments, whereas the Ariane 1 breakup in 1986 produced around 500 trackable parts. Models predict tens to hundreds of non-trackable components for every trackable fragment and that the quantity of this debris type rises as fragment size decreases.

Fortunately, only four countries have ever conducted ASAT tests-the U.S., USSR, China and India. The worldwide protests generated after the 2019 Indian ASAT tests were understandable, and hopefully, these will discourage other aspirants of ASAT tests. Although it promises significant technological advancement, projects such as SpaceX’s Starlink and Amazon’s Project Kuiper, which is looking to launch a mega-constellation of around 3,200 satellites, pose a dangerous threat in space.

FINALLY, REALISATION DAWNS!

A new space race has recently begun worldwide - the one to find a solution for the ever-increasing amount of space junk. India has implemented the necessary measures to control the escalating amount of orbital junk, such as abandoned rocket stages and satellites, in low earth orbit.

The methods include facilities for the surveillance and observation of space objects, as well as best practices, including the passivation of launch vehicle upper stages, conjunction evaluation, and satellite collision avoidance. The ISRO System for Safe and Sustainable Space Opera -

tions Management (IS4OM) has been put into operation to protect Indian space assets from environmental risks in space, to carry out associated R&D projects, and to help spread knowledge about the long-term sustainability of space activities.

Chinese aerospace scientists have developed a method to utilise a sizable “sail” to deorbit spacecraft at the end of their useful lives to combat the problem of space debris. Scientists on space missions have already tested the technology. The most recent instance was the launch of three satellites on June 23 by a Long March-2D carrier rocket in southwest China. Three days later, the rocket’s deorbiting sail opened. According to the Shanghai Academy of Spaceflight Technology, which created the gadget, this was the first time a large orbiting device had ever been launched in this manner. In contrast to conventional space trash removal techniques like robotic arms, tethers, and nets, the de-orbiter can lessen space garbage without using more fuel.

Two companies in the UK are working on technology to find and seize the increasing number of abandoned satellites orbiting the Earth. COSMIC, also known as Cleaning Outer Space Mission through Innovative Capture, is one of the landmark initiatives undertaken by the government of the United Kingdom to accelerate the cleaning up of space debris.

The lack of sustainable and environment-friendly options available to space mission developers inhibits space debris removal. Further, there are innovative solutions such as quantum-inspired space debris removal, which combine Artificial Intelligence and quantum-inspired computing to accelerate the process of space debris removal. This is done by simulating and developing multi-debris mission events where only

the right pieces of debris are removed from a pool of millions.

One of the significant issues faced in space debris is removing the most fraught pieces out of orbits in use. One potential space debris removal method includes moving objects around with a powerful laser beam. Other companies, such as AstroScale, have undertaken the ambitious task of latching a particular satellite onto a piece of debris and deorbiting both parts. This could be considered the better alternative as scientists suggest it consumes less fuel and gets the job done faster and more efficiently.

Assessment

There should be no further delay in implementing measures

Climate change contributes to the increased risk of collisions by space debris through long-term drops in upper atmosphere density. It is not too late to control the damage and keep the upper atmosphere as a usable resource for times to come, provided a collaborative global effort is put into action.

One of the significant issues in harmonious space debris removal is manoeuvring the international diplomatic space without stepping on anyone’s toes. Although helpful, the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 remains vague and outdated; therefore, there is a need for more explicit rules on space debris removal and each country’s role in the process.

-

to prevent the nightmar

ish Kessler Syndrome from being set into motion.

MASTERING THE MACHINES

Without guardrails to regulate it, AI’s role in our lives can lead to disorientation and disruptions, not always to our benefit.

The artificial intelligence (AI) sector is expanding incredibly quickly, and the competition between nations to win the AI race has become sharper. According to simulations, by 2030, nearly 70 per cent of businesses will be using AI technology. It is easy to understand why; AI could substitute humans in making judgments more quickly and affordably, whether it is modelling climate change, choosing job candidates, or determining the affinity towards crime in humans. It is like the Hollywood blockbuster starring Tom Cruise, “The Minority Report,” coming to life!

However, AI comes with its own burden of woes; for instance, algorithms controlling social media content might unfairly censor free speech and shape public discourse. Mass biometric surveillance techniques undermine our right to privacy and reduce civic engagement. Massive collections of personal data, whose extraction, processing, and maintenance frequently infringe on our data protection rights, are used by algorithms.

Algorithmic prejudice can exacerbate existing inequalities in our societies and alienate and discriminate against targeted groups. Hiring algorithms are an example since they are likely to favour men over women and participate in racial prejudices because of the data they are given, indicating that successful candidates are frequently white men.

Regulations could transform how we use Artificial Intelligence. It must first outlaw technology, like predictive policing systems and mass biometric surveillance, that violates our fundamental rights. Any exceptions to the ban that permit businesses or government entities to use them under certain circumstances could hinder further development.

THE RACE TO REGULATE

The risks associated with AI are finally dawning on policymakers and civil society, and there is a movement to bring in regulations at the industrial, national, and regional levels. This must be done soon before AI, like the internet, becomes too large to be beyond any control. The EU AI Act, initially released in April 2021, states that its goal is to ensure AI applications uphold human rights and reflect EU values. The law categorises AI applications into four risk categories: minimal risk, low risk, high risk, and unacceptable risk. Systems assessed to represent little or no risk can be employed without restriction.

The EU even cites spam filters and video games with AI as examples of this technology! Notably, the EU AI Act is designed to change along with the dynamic nature of AI technology. Further, the UK Government has established a 10-year National AI Strategy for advancing the technology within its borders,

RESEARCH TEAM

SYNERGIA FOUNDATION

even though it still needs to publish a legislative framework. The UK government describes its goal as making the nation “the ideal place to live and work with AI”, with clear rules, applicable ethical values, and a pro-innovation regulatory framework. A roadmap to a robust AI assurance ecosystem served as the UK’s first significant move toward becoming a global voice of authority on AI legislation.

Additionally, nations have passed national AI laws and frameworks, such as Singapore’s AI Governance Framework and Canada’s privacy laws governing the development of AI systems.

THE REGULATORY LANDSCAPE

Numerous regulations are under development, and to further complicate matters, each has a different target audience and geographic or industry reach—some focus on risk, others on transparency, others on privacy, etc. Given the enormous diversity of potential AI uses and their impact, this complexity is to be expected. AI regulation could transform how we use Artificial Intelligence. It must first outlaw technology, like predictive policing systems and mass biometric surveillance, that violates our fundamental rights. Any exceptions to the ban that permit businesses or government entities to use them under certain circumstances could hinder further development.

Second, precise guidelines outlining what information businesses must publicly disclose regarding their goods can be helpful by allowing companies to give a thorough explanation of the AI system in question. People exposed to AI must be told about it, as is the case with recruiting algorithms, for instance. Systems that have the potential to affect people’s lives significantly should be given extra scrutiny and included in a database that is open to the public. Researchers and journalists find verifying that organisations and governments are properly defending our freedoms is simpler.

Third, when there are issues, people and organisations that defend consumers need to be capable of holding governments and businesses accountable. It is necessary to modify current accountability laws to consider that algorithms, not users, make decisions. Fourth, new regulations must ensure that there is some person or an organisation to ensure that businesses and the government are correctly adhering to the rules. This overseer should be impartial and endowed with the tools and authority necessary to carry out its duties.

Lastly, AI regulation should include measures to protect the weakest and establish a process that enables victims of AI system injury to file a claim and receive compensation. Additionally,

employees should be free to protest intrusive AI systems utilised by their businesses without fear of reprisals.

THE WAY AHEAD

Considering the volume of global activity in AI, it is difficult to accurately predict how things will look in the future, especially given how quickly technology is developing. Almost all applications of AI will require regulation of some form.

But does that imply that regulation is needed right away? Take, for example, the intrusion of AI into medical technology. Already subject to the law by profession, the medical fraternity will have to formulate new regulations progressively when new AI technologies are implemented. Similarly, other high-risk applications of AI, such as self-driving automobiles, will also need new rules. Thus, existing regulations may only offer helpful guidance for where to concentrate the regulatory effort.

Governments urgently need to develop comprehensive, specialised AI policies for technologies employed in public and private contexts. Regulators have mainly relied on common anti-discrimination laws to address biased outcomes. The concern is growing over the safety of utilising AI-enabled tools designed for one population to judge other people. This anomaly is due to the inherent opacity of the intricate programming that underlies machine learning.

Assessment

Transparency will allow the existing legal and regulatory system to create at least satisfactory solutions for controlling AI. This is a better alternative as it offers adequate incentives for consumers to demand and manufacturers to develop the openness of AI decision-making. The long-term effects of a wait-and-see strategy are better than those of hasty regulation based on, at best, an incomplete grasp of what has to be regulated.

Companies risk undermining customer and societal trust in AI-enabled products and sparking unnecessarily stringent regulation if they don’t address these issues early on. This would hurt corporate earnings and AI’s potential benefits for consumers and society.

AI literacy must be imparted to the coming generation for all of it to be utilised for the larger benefit of humanity.

TOWARDS A GREENER AI FUTURE!!

Technologies like Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML), expected to proliferate widely, must be evaluated for their impact on the environment before it is too late.

SYNERGIA FOUNDATION

For the past few decades, carbon emissions from cars have been a political and societal concern; manufacturers are required to report, there is government regulation, and a wealth of research goes along with it. Even if these moves came almost half a century late, they would reflect the recognition of the threat to our environment by manmade machines.

Since devices running on artificial intelligence (AI) are predicted to become ubiquitous in our daily existence, a similar strategy to control their impact on the environment is a prerequisite. According to Felix Creutzig, leader of the MCC working group Land Use, Infrastructure, and Transport, “AI is analogous to a hammer in terms of its impact: it may accomplish wonderful things, but it can also shatter a lot.”

DECODING THE THREAT

AI’s environmental effects can be examined from three different perspectives. The first is the system-level products of AI through structural reform, including the direct impacts, such as the carbon emissions from the procedure of end-user devices, servers, and data centres for AI development and use. Second is the immediate effects of specific AI applications on greenhouse gas emissions in various areas of daily life, the economic system, and lifestyle

Machine learning systems have the potential to considerably increase carbon emissions as they become more pervasive and resource intensive. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimates that the global tech industry is responsible for 1.8 per cent to 3.9 per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions.

changes. Thirdly, AI applications’ direct and systemic impact can positively or negatively affect the climate.

The size of Machine Learning Models is increasing dramatically, and they need exponentially more energy to train them to process images, text, or video accurately. Some conferences now request submissions of papers to include information on CO2 emissions as the AI community struggles with its environmental impact.

A new study proposes a way for quantifying those emissions that is more precise. Researchers from Stanford, Facebook AI Research, and McGill University have now developed a simple tool that quickly calculates how much electricity a machine learning project would need and what that translates to in terms of cost. Once aware of the energy inputs, users can calibrate the usage to moderate energy consumption.

Machine learning systems have the potential to considerably increase carbon emissions as they be -

RESEARCH TEAM

come more pervasive and resource intensive. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology estimates that the global tech industry is responsible for 1.8 per cent to 3.9 per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions. While AI and machine learning are only responsible for a small portion of those emissions, AI has a very high carbon footprint compared to other tech fields. However, if you cannot measure an issue, you can’t solve it.

Such technology can aid scientists and engineers in understanding how carbon-efficient their job is and even spark suggestions for lowering their carbon impact. CodeCarbon is an opensource project that calculates the ecological footprint of computing, particularly the energy used by independently managed data centres and the infrastructure components from cloud services, according to new research by BCG GAMMA and others. The project aims to guide data scientists in choosing more environmentally friendly computing options. Additionally, it aids in code optimisation.

The researchers started by calculating the power usage of a particular AI model to gain a precise estimate of what that entails for carbon emissions. That is trickier than it sounds because each training session needs to be separated from the others. After all, a single machine frequently teaches multiple models at once. Additionally, each training session uses energy for shared overhead tasks like cooling and data storage, which must be handled appropriately.

The next stage is to convert energy use into carbon emissions, which depend on the proportion of fossil and renewable fuels used to generate electricity. Depending on the location and the time of day, that mixture varies greatly. For instance, where there is a lot of solar energy, the carbon intensity of electricity decreases as the sun rises higher in the sky.

The researchers combed through open data sources about the energy mix in various parts of the United States and the rest of the world to obtain that information. Moreover, the carbon emissions from an AI training session vary depending on where it is held. According to the researchers, operating a session in Estonia, which heavily relies on shale oil, will produce 30 times as much carbon as running the same session in Quebec, which heavily depends on hydroelectricity!

FINDING THE RIGHT SOLUTIONS…….

AI appears poised to have two roles. On the one hand, it can aid in mitigating the effects of the climate problem, such as in the development of smart grids, the creation of low-emission facilities, and the simulation of climate change projections. AI, however, is a significant carbon emitter in and of itself.

However, there are some “fast wins” that every AI practitioner should consider to lessen their work’s carbon footprint. Increasing transparency and measurement of this issue is a crucial first step. When AI researchers publish results for new models, data on the amount of energy used in model development should be included with performance and accuracy measurements.

This suggests that researchers should plot energy costs versus performance gains while training models as a best practice. In light of diminishing returns, researchers will be prompted to make more informed, reasonable allocations of resources if this trade-off is explicitly quantified. Ultimately, the community should consider efficiency metrics like these when assessing AI research as sustainable.

Other low-hanging fruit, such as adopting more effective hyperparameter search strategies, cutting back on pointless conditioning trials, and using more energy-efficient equipment, can help lower AI’s environmental impact in the short term. However, these corrective measures are insufficient to resolve the issue independently. To make protracted progress, artificial intelligence must undergo a more fundamental change.

CONCLUSION

The artificial intelligence community has to start working on alternative paradigms that don’t demand absurdly high energy costs or exponentially expanding datasets. Promising directions include newly developing research fields like few-shot learning. We must realise that the road to universal intelligence differs from endlessly expanding neural networks. We must push ourselves to find more sophisticated, practical approaches to model artificial intelligence from the ground up. It is essential to our continuous fight against climate change and, by extension, to the survival of our planet.

Source : Arctic circle comics

TECHNOLOGY: CHAOS VERSUS ORDER

How can we ensure that digital does not become the ‘dictator’ of the future but rather an enabler of collaboration?

This article is based on a discussion between Synergia Foundation and the Danish Tech Ambassador

Innovation and disruptive ideas happen at the edge of Order and Chaos. Order is everything structured, and the way the Chinese government runs almost everything could be taken as an example. On the contrary, too much order can kill the innovative spirit because no one wants to take risks.

The digital world makes order extremely easy and scalable, much like the point system in China, where a digital app keeps a comprehensive social score that will one day cover the behaviour of every member of Chinese society. In its extreme form, the digital world can become a ‘golden cage’ that can kill innovation.

DISRUPTERS AND ENABLERS

The true picture lies somewhere between complete chaos and total order, mostly a mix of both. Take the biggest technological breakthroughs of the 20th century; they have disrupted our markets and transformed our societies and states. Entrepreneurial states have brought about the majority of such innovations. The iPhone is a classic example, a combination of a wonderful design married to great marketing techniques. An organ of the state like NASA has also been at the forefront of innovation with systems like the GPS. Many of these wonderful devices we take for granted today were created on the frontier between chaos and order.

Describing the ‘chaotic environment’ that gives birth to the greatest innovations, Denmark’s Technology Ambassa-

The challenge lies in supporting the research and development of digital technologies and being prepared to deal with the market chaos and disruptions that come when we create disruptive technologies. The best innovations come in a chaotic, vibrant innovation ecosystem of entrepreneurs who are willing to take a risk and wait and see how to monetise and create products and services on the back of General Purpose Technologies (GPT) that can serve individuals, societies, groups and communities.

dor, Mrs Anne Marie Engtoft Larsen, says, “Allowing chaotic researchers, chaotic scientists to think abstractly, to be curious about the world beyond and not necessarily be met by metrics of having to invent and create a product in an 18-month life cycle because then you got to start your next VC round of investment, is what leads to meaningful innovation.” The challenge lies in supporting the research and development of digital technologies and being prepared to deal with the market chaos and disruptions that come when we create disruptive technologies.

The best innovations come in a chaotic, vibrant innovation ecosystem of entrepreneurs who are willing to take a risk and wait and see how to monetise and create products and services on the back of General Purpose Technologies (GPT) that can serve individuals, societies, groups, and communities.

Quantum Computing is a buzzword that conjures images of ultimate computing power that will change the world. The lead that China is reputed to have gained in this field has sent a shiver down the collective spine of the West, spurring them into a technological contest of Thucydidian magnitude!

But the threat of untold disruptions is very real. For the past hundred years, quantum technology has largely been theoretical, but with immense investment, there have been definite results in China and the U.S. Even start-ups are jumping into the field, with two being in Denmark. An ecosystem is being set up at different places in the world with a vibrant private sector coalescing around them. In fact, some of the core engagers are in Bangalore. If there is too much of an authoritarian approach, you lose the risk-taking, optimism, and, sometimes, the slight dare-devilish behaviour that brings out the best in young innovators.

In the wave of technological buildup over the past 20 years, there’s been a bit of chaos in the “move fast and break things” ethos of Silicon Valley. Many innovations, especially from the stables of Google and Facebook, have come out of a chaotic approach.

But in this mad race to innovate, citizens’ rights and safety have been largely de-prioritised. This must be corrected to ensure a much higher degree of safety standards, and data privacy, among others. Therefore, in the next wave of technological innovation, businesses that consider safety an integral feature will win. Making safe, resilient, and reliable products will be more important going forward than the kind of totally chaotic innovation that was the norm for the last two decades.

CHALLENGES TO INNOVATION

The first challenge is the pace of change. Before the digital revolution, changes were generational every 30 to 40 years. Today, the pace of change is incredible, but the supporting ecosystem cannot keep pace; can governments be responsive enough, and can our education system and institutions support it? The second challenge is the global coupling of supply chains, even in high-tech areas like semiconductors. The age of decoupling is over for innovation; we need to integrate, but in today’s fractured world, with economic sanctions and trade wars, that will be a serious impediment. The third challenge is creating a communication channel between innovators and the public to ensure that soci-

etal and individual needs coincide with the innovator’s efforts. The requirements must be explained to the technologist in the language they understand. Another challenge is making technology democratic, sensitive to mankind’s needs and responsible for its impact on society. In the past, we viewed technology as an enabler towards a better life. We never associated it with these three keywords as technology was considered sterile, neutral, and did not have a gender, political, or religious orientation. All these assumptions seem to be proving obsolete now. Will the governments permit control over key technology to pass to society to make it more democratic?

These questions have no clear-cut answers at this juncture; we will have to navigate through them as best as we can and learn along the way. The positive aspect is that every major company, country, and government take it seriously and understand how it’s affecting the world.

At the current pace at which technology is growing, regulations and global regulatory bodies do not understand it well enough to bring about policy changes at the right point in time, especially with technologies like drones. Technology is a double-edged sword that, in the wrong hands, can produce major impacts, not all positive. Therefore, regulatory bodies should have the right inputs very early as technology, or a particular technology, becomes prevalent very quickly. Regulatory bodies need to increase the pace at which they intervene.

FINDING THE PATH AHEAD

The question of ethics, especially about ethical AI, is becoming increasingly relevant; data science models should not be biased against any race, community, or gender. There is a moral component which can only be done through diplomacy. Therefore, soft diplomacy seems to be the only way forward. AI and autonomous weapon systems make a lethal combination and create a dangerous world. We can set up a dialogue with technology developers that will ultimately help develop technologies that benefit mankind.

It is up to us how to have these conversations, which is why collaboration between the innovators, the technologists and the regulators is so central. We are at a critical juncture for democracies, and strong partnerships between Europe, India, South Africa, Indonesia, Kenya and hundreds of other countries trying to live up to democratic ideals can strengthen democracy so that we use technology to enable social, economic and civil liberties.

CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE!!

South Korea finds itself in a delicate balancing act as the US-China tech war heats up.

SYNERGIA FOUNDATION

RESEARCH TEAM

South Korea is one of the handful of nations in Asia—or maybe the entire world, for that matter—with extensive historical links to China and a critical partnership with the U. S. Given the escalating rivalry between the United States and China, which has spilled over into the arenas of trade and technology, Seoul is increasingly coming under unprecedented strain.

Throughout the years, South Korean regimes, whether conservative or progressive, have closely cohabited with both the United States and China. Despite Beijing’s ownership of the regime in Pyongyang, Seoul has always courted the Chinese, not only to keep a restraining hold on the rabid regime in their north but also to feed the hungry manufacturing industry of China with its products. Since South Korea’s political survival and economic prosperity are inalienably linked to the U.S., Seoul has always been America’s closest ally in Asia.

As the divide between the United States and China widens, South Korea increasingly finds itself in a difficult position trying to seek equilibrium in its relations with its two pivotal partners.

THE FULCRUM OF U.S. ASIAN PIVOT?

In 2010, the Obama administration conceptualised its ‘Pivot to Asia’ strategy, which entailed ‘rebalancing economic, diplomatic and military assets to Asia’ from other parts of the world. Some analysts have called it a mistake because they allege it prompted China to respond with aggression and acted as a catalyst for China’s accelerated economic,

As the divide between the United States and China widens, South Korea increasingly find itself in a difficult position trying to seek an equilibrium in its relations with its two pivotal partners.

diplomatic and military activity in the region.

While a damper was put on the Asian Pivot by Trump’s ‘America First’ policy, the Biden administration, despite its involvement with Eastern Europe, has tried to revive its Asian strategy. Washington has signalled the resurgence of American influence on the Asia Pacific region and its willingness to confront a belligerent China with an intensified military and economic presence to forward U.S. interests.

Expectantly, Seoul is a critical component of any American Pivot to Asia. Apart from the security and economic dimensions, the U.S. and South Korea have a deeper need to strengthen their technical collaboration, considering South Korea’s position as a major supplier of electronics, including semiconductors, to both the Chinese and American markets.

Purely in commercial terms, the Chinese rise is being sustained by its expanding trade with erstwhile American trading partners, where Beijing is rapidly replacing Washington. This is a cause for serious concern in the U.S.; in 2001, 80 per cent of principal trading countries globally ranked the U.S. as their primary partner-now, 120 countries, including South Korea, Japan and the EU, rank China as their top trading partner!

Globalisation’s consequences, however, go beyond China’s efforts to catch up to the United States

technologically have been aided by globalisation. Short-term perspectives focussed largely on profits have ensured that the American industrial base as a whole has shrunk, particularly in critical sectors like semiconductors. On the other hand, South Korean electronic production has skyrocketed.

The semiconductor industry accounts for twenty per cent of the world’s semiconductor market in South Korea. Around 70 per cent of the DRAM market and almost 50 per cent of the NAND flash memory market in the memory industry are accounted for by Samsung and SK Hynix, respectively. Advanced technologies such as sixth generation (6G) telecommunications, artificial intelligence and supercomputers need cutting-edge chips; South Korea (and Taiwan) lead their production.

Therefore, it is not surprising that the U.S. is turning to friends like South Korea to strengthen its industrial base. One of the first moves in this direction included collaborating with Samsung to establish a second semiconductor fab in the U.S. This is part of the $40 billion investments package agreed to in the 2021 Moon-Biden meeting. The growing demand for consumer durables, primarily to blame for the current worldwide

semiconductor shortage, has only served to emphasise South Korea’s significance to the United States.

While the United States and other nations lead the world in data and artificial intelligence, South Korea has advantages in semiconductors and, to a lesser extent, in network equipment. However, Seoul has established rules to establish an ecosystem for data, networking, and A.I. because it recognises the importance of data and A.I. to the future of its industry.

A future area of mutually beneficial cooperation in augmented and virtual reality may also be possible as U.S. and South Korean businesses work to establish the metaverse. South Korean businesses are already essential allies of the United States as it works to switch to electric vehicles in the energy transition.

South Korean companies have a strategic interest in working with the United States since China has mostly kept South Korean battery manufacturers out of its market while it has produced indigenous champions. It makes sense for Seoul to preserve its alliance with Washington and, despite tense relations with Tokyo, work to deepen U.S.-South Korean- Japanese security co -

Source : New York Times

operation if South Korea is to maintain strategic leverage concerning China.

In the complex triangle of the U.S.-South Korea-China relationship, North Korea, under the unpredictable Kim Jong-un, remains the elephant in the room. Rattling its nuclear and missile sabres at its neighbours with increasing frequency, Pyongyang can upset the cart without warning. This inhibits Seoul’s ability to put all its eggs in the American basket as only Beijing has a semblance of control over Kim, and therefore, it could be fatal to push Beijing out of the equation.

AVOIDING THE DRAGON’S FIRE

South Korea’s strategic options with China are limited. Geographical compulsions and historical legacies make it imperative for South Korea to cultivate China carefully.

Irrespective of American pressure, Seoul can’t reduce its reliance on the Chinese market any time soon; no other matching option is visible on the horizon. South Korean businesses have already gotten a taste of China’s economic anger when the two countries engaged in a yearlong standoff over a U.S. missile defence system. A quarter of South Korea’s total exports were to China in 2019 (over $136 billion), contributing immensely to making it Asia’s fourth-largest economy.

South Korea is acutely aware of China’s expanding military presence in East Asia. Still, it has been far less outspoken in voicing its worries than other close neighbours, such as Japan. As a 2019 Carnegie poll revealed, 75 per cent of South Koreans polled admitted not trusting China at all, and 50 per cent feared China as their most deadly enemy (almost as much as North Korea!).

This is despite China bringing more than 24 per cent of the country’s overall trade. It is clear that if China decides to impose higher tariffs on South Korean chemicals, machinery, and other exports, the export-dependent South Korean economy will suffer deeply.

THE DILEMMA CONTINUES…

The portends of a ratcheting up of the U.S.China rivalry should worry Seoul- the CHIPS and Science Act and the wide-ranging restrictions on tech exports to China by American companies and its allies are volleys being fired in the ‘tech war’ with increasing frequency.

Of course, the $ 52.7 billion bonanza that has been announced for U.S. semiconductor research and manufacturing by President Biden would benefit the South Korean industry as well. However, the South Koreans must find a way around

the restrictions in exporting U.S.-designed technology to China. Not surprisingly, South Korea, which has traditionally prioritised keeping a balance between its economic relations with China and its security cooperation with the U.S., is now in a challenging situation due to this effort.

As per Nikkei Asia, Seoul pleaded with the U.S. Government for a compromise solution on behalf of its market leaders like SK Hynix and Samsung but could only get a one-year grace period before the export restrictions would be enforced.

The war of narratives is also heating up, and South Korea finds itself in the centre of it. Almost daily, op-eds from the United States and China advise South Korea not to lean toward the opposition. Slowly but inexorably, Seoul is being driven into a cul de sac from where there is no

Assessment

Although a conservative government would place more emphasis on the U.S. relationship, Seoul should maintain the delicate balance for as long as possible. Obviously, it will buy its insurance policy by enhancing its defence budget and implementing longer-term force improvement measures.

The historic Japan-Korea animosity is a stumbling block inhibiting both dynamic nations from realising the value of a common front against China. The incoming Japanese prime minister will find it difficult to reverse Japan’s traditional attitude toward South Korea. On his part, President Ban Kimoon should prudently keep relationson an even keel as he enters the last three months of his term.

In the tech tug-of-war between the U.S. and China, South Korea, with its technological knowledge and assets, will invariably find itself being pulled by both sides. This is a state to which Seoul must quickly adapt to preserve its prosperity and future.

POST-UKRAINE AND PRE-PLURAL

Has the war in Ukraine brought the world to the cusp of a new multipolarity in the global order?

In building a new world order, the West has prioritised democracy as an essential base to foster economic institutions and political will. This Western model did not necessarily fall in line with Russia and China’s vision to liberalise their economy, improve the rule of law, and democratise politics. Analysts argue that the war in Ukraine and the response of the West could be as significant a turning point in strategic affairs as the 9/11 attacks were. We could be living with the repercussions of this invasion for perhaps another couple of decades.

SHIFTING SANDS OF GEOPOLITICS

As Russia’s aggression in Ukraine continues, it’s quite clear that under Vladimir Putin, Russia will be a pariah state, isolated politically and economically. It seems unlikely that Russia will return to anything that looks like pre-invasion any time soon, as it has gone too far in its bid to control Ukraine.

This isolation has immediate impacts on the economic arena. The world has long depended on Russia for oil and gas, and a big chunk of Russia’s revenues also come from the sector. Despite the economic pain, the West is trying to get out of this dependency, although it will take some time. In the interim, the energy markets spike, and Russia stands to make immense revenues with big oil consumers like China and India, following the example of many European countries to replenish their strategic reserves with

The larger issue of food and energy shortage is scarcely affecting the prosperous North, while the global South is suffering for no fault of theirs. The Ukraine crisis came close behind the heels of the Covid pandemic, which had already upset the global economic and social fabric balance. Europe is not immune from this shock.

Russian crude.

Every day, a new set of sanctions are imposed on Russia. A significant proportion of Russia’s gold and forex reserves, amounting to $300 billion out of a total of $640 billion, stands frozen by sanctions from the West. The European Commission blocked seven Russian banks from accessing the SWIFT inter-banking system.

There has been an exodus of companies from Russia; among these, U.S. companies such as Shell, Pepsico and Mcdonald’s have either pulled out from Russia or suspended planned investments. The longterm economic impact on Russia can only be imagined.

Social media has ensured that the war in Ukraine has created varying narratives as both sides try to dominate the influence battle in cyberspace. Of course, President Zelensky seems to have got the better of Mr Putin on this account, being projected in the Western world as a stoic fighter and a great

RESEARCH TEAM

SYNERGIA FOUNDATION

patriotic leader. His training as a professional comedian has undoubtedly prepared Zelensky to develop the sense of timing on the screen to get the maximum effect, and he is playing admiringly to a packed house! A dour, isolated and unsmiling President Putin is not helping to improve his image of the ‘butcher’ and ‘monster’ that the western media is painting him to be.

In the perception battle, the Ukrainian military seemed to have risen from the ashes and gone on the offensive in the East, winning back towns and settlements from a Russian army that appeared to be ceding hard-won ground. But since no independent reporters are being permitted into the battle zones, the conflicting claims are hard to verify. In any case, the earlier large-scale ground offensives launched by Russia do not seem to be taking place anymore, indicating a loss of momentum.

The Russians are largely indulging in smashing to rubble the critical infrastructure of Ukraine to ensure that the cost of recovery to President Zelensky and his western supporters continues to rise. And in these endeavours, surprisingly, Iran has emerged as a major partner. As per western media reports, Iran has allegedly sold more than 160 UAVs, including Shahed-136 ‘kamikaze’ drones, to Russia worth Euro 130 million (paid in cash); more drones and even short-range ballistic missiles are in the pipeline.

For the U.S., the war in Eastern Europe has been a God-sent opportunity to test the will and mettle of its European and Indo-Pacific allies. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, New Zealand and Australia have steadfastly been behind all western support to Ukraine, and NATO has been revitalised. Important allies like Germany finally enhanced their defence budget, and the Nordic nations, willing to sacrifice their long-cherished neutrality (from which they have profited immensely), are lining up for NATO membership.

For the West, India has been the elephant in the room. With its presence in the Security Council as a temporary member, India has consistently resisted all western efforts to pull it into an anti-Russian camp. In this endeavour, it has found allies in Brazil, Saudi Arabia, UAE and most surprisingly, Pakistan! Of course, North Korea and Iran have been right from the start of

There is a need to examine how the Ukrainian war is reshaping the global order, how is the redefinition of international balance among great pow-

the war unambiguously behind Moscow.

China has been rather ambivalent in its outlook; while reiterating its ‘limitless friendship’ with Moscow in various fora, it has refused to become an overt ally of Russia and thus attract western wrath and sanctions. China could view the West’s sanctions on Russia as a warning against any aggression.

It has now witnessed the repercussions of any overt aggression and the impact of a unified Western response. The Chinese economy is just as dependent on the global economy as the Russian one before the invasion, if not more so. This recent episode could possibly have a deterrent effect on China if it has ambitions of territorial aggression. So, President Xi Jinping, who publicly claimed at the 20th Congress of the CCP that the unification of Taiwan was a given thing, may have to review the blueprints of how this is to be achieved. As Ukraine has demonstrated, the military option is a path strewn with pitfalls.

CHURNINGS IN EUROPE

Europe has been at the forefront of this crisis. As a result, many European countries in the Mediterranean region have come together along with their African and Middle Eastern partners as part of the MED 2022 to discuss what the post-Ukraine world order demands. The war in Ukraine is a regional conflict with international implications because of the positions taken by NATO, the EU, US. The MED conference highlighted that this situation could improve regional cooperation.

In a visit to Algeria, the Italian foreign minister gave voice to his country’s desire to seek a larger collaborative effort to resolve the crises created by Ukraine. In this, he was echoing the sentiments of many of his European counterparts who do not wholeheartedly back the trajectory being orchestrated by the U.S.

The larger issue of food and energy shortage is scarcely affecting the prosperous North, while the global South is suffering for no fault of theirs. The Ukraine crisis came close behind the heels of the Covid pandemic, which had already upset the global economic and social fabric balance. Europe is not immune from this shock.

ers reflected in an area so caught in the dynamics of change, and how the Mediterranean region positions itself in this environment.

PAOLO MAGRI

Executive Vice President, Italian Institute for International Political Studies in MED 2022.

Europe has long been dealing with the problem of refugees streaming across its shores from Asia and Africa. Now, these have been joined by white Ukrainians, who, for now, are being received with open arms. It is a matter of conjecture how long this welcome will last as the war gets prolonged; signs of strain are already appearing in border states like Poland.

Multilateral agencies like the UN have taken the biggest hit. It has once again exposed their inability to prevent wars and bring about an early cessation of hostilities once the shooting starts.

HIGH ECONOMIC COST

After almost two decades, the U..S dollar has been gaining strength due to the high-interest rates imposed by the Federal Reserve. This has global implications as most nations are irrevocably linked to the U.S. dollar for their external trade and FDI.

However, there appear to be faint signs that Russia, aided by China, would endeavour to diversify international reserves, increase the use of currencies other than the dollar in trade and consequently undermine the status of the U.S. dollar as the global currency. How this will pan out in the next 12 months is still unclear, as the dollar remains supreme.

The arms industry has been an un-untended but large beneficiary of the Ukraine war. The battlefields of Ukraine were the first in modern warfare after the Second Gulf war, where all sides could test their arsenal in combat.

This led to all sides claiming successes in hyperbolic terms to enhance the attractiveness of their inventories to gullible nations with weapon-starved militaries. Even conservative European democracies have been forced to revamp their arsenals, shedding their older weapon systems to the new East European entrants into NATO. It is a good time for the arms industry as the new Cold War between the West and China-Russia intensifies.

Post-Western and Pre-Plural: The Alternative Discourse Significant transformations have taken place across the globe that challenge the Western democratic frame as the sole repository of freedom and development. These have often not been recognised by the West, and China’s scepticism and even condemnation is one such contemporary example.

With respect to the Russia-Ukraine war, views of non-aligned countries - India, Pakistan, Brazil, Nigeria and Egypt, further reveal the disconnect between Western perceptions and the positions of non-Western countries. The conflict in Europe is, at the same time, both a symptom and

a catalyst of the emergence of the post-Western world, which analysts argue began as far back as the decolonisation period post-1945.

The Russia – Ukraine war has been reported in western media as taking place in a “civilised” country, as opposed to uncivilised, non-Western and non-white majority nations. Other actions of brutality by Western countries in Iraq, Algeria, Kenya, Indo-China and most recently, Afghanistan have conveniently been brushed aside. The invasion of a European country has clearly been placed on a pedestal presenting distinct racial undertones. Beyond reportage, refugees from Ukraine have been accepted with far more ease than those from other war-torn nations.

New geopolitical and economic arrangements between non-Western countries are bound to restructure (such as including India and the African Union in the UN Security Council) or understanding that there are alternatives to Western doctrines in diplomacy and trade, such as the ASEAN format.

The emergence of this post-Western world can also be viewed as “pre-plural”, wherein the axis to global power could possibly be multi-polar. This is characterised by a world order in which the axis of global power will no longer be so actively tilted by a single nation or a group of common nations - the West, which comprises just 15 per cent of the world’s population - but by many.

Assessment

In some ways, globalisation has proved unsuccessful in responding to the needs of the Covid situation and now also the war in Ukraine. International peace had been taken for granted after the fall of the Berlin War. The new realities are quite different and worrying.

The realignment of the world order seems inevitable. As international organisations and leading countries assume important positions with respect to the war, we are witnessing a marked shift away from the erstwhile global power structure. Will this realignment be for the global good or otherwise, is something nations like India would be anxious to find out.

India, Brazil, and South Africa are emerging economies whose alignment can carry weight to determine the balance of power in any new world order. We are, therefore, at the cusp of a powerful shift in international politics, and while much remains unknown, a plurality of power seems imminent.

INDIA’S G20 PRESIDENCY: A NEW POLE?

India’s presidency of the G-20 is a fleeting opportunity to correct the forum’s drift towards an inconsequential existence.

Established in 1999, the G-20 is an informal annual meeting of twenty of the world’s largest economies. It includes Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States – plus the European Union.

Collectively, the G-20 members produce 80 per cent of the global GDP, 75 per cent of its trade, and 60 per cent of its population! Despite these impressive figures, there is a general feeling that the forum has failed to live up to its expectations in tackling some of the most pressing problems.

At the time of its birth, the objective given to the G-20 was global financial stability, as the world economy was trying to recover from the economic shock that began in Asia in 1997, and the G-7 felt it was beyond the narrow group to tackle this huge challenge. For almost a decade, only the finance ministers and central banks participated in its annual meetings before the heads of state started making an appearance. It was originally designed as a tool to address macroeconomic and financial issues, but today its agenda is much broader-unemployment, corruption, climate change, digital technology, etc.

Well, almost a quarter of a century after its cre -

As the voice of the Global South, India must convince the Global North to assume greater responsibility and take on the financial burden to make a more equitable world, especially the role that major food and energy-producing countries must play in these trying times. While profits are important, the larger survival of the human race is equally critical.

ation, the G-20 confronts a world facing an even more depressing economic future than the 1997 Asian economic meltdown. The world is facing huge challenges due to post-pandemic blues, debt distress, food and energy security, the triple planetary climate change crisis, biodiversity loss and pollution, and instability and conflict impacting people globally. The G20, which has a wider representation than the G7, must take up the cudgels on behalf of the global South.

WHAT DOES INDIA BRING TO THE TABLE?

It will not be easy for India to make a meaningful difference in the manner in which the G-20 has functioned, considering the informal way business is conducted when the G-30 convenes. Also, the challenges confronting the G-20 are unprecedented, and with both sides of the new Cold War participants, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve consensus on any issue.

RESEARCH TEAM

SYNERGIA FOUNDATION

Notwithstanding, India is in an advantageous position as it enjoys reasonably good relations with all the major power centres in the world and is seen as a non-expansionist power. As a result, India could be well placed to bring countries together to fight for common causes, more so because, unlike the bulk of the global community, India can claim that it has so far avoided falling into the recessionary trap.

Several reasons have caused the global economic crisis. First, the Covid-19 pandemic has destroyed many developing and developed economies worldwide. It will take the global economy a few years to completely recover from these aftereffects.

As the countries were trying to emerge from the pandemic, the war in Ukraine started to create even worse disruptions in energy and food supply chains and distorting markets. The sharpening rivalry between the U.S. and China is also raising tensions and threatening to impact globalisation negatively.

On its part, India has tried to help other developing countries during the peak of the pandemic by shipping large doses of its homemade vaccine, which helped create a positive image of New Delhi.

The global Covid-19 pandemic has unevenly affected the world. Developing countries have been more seriously impacted than developed ones. The subsequent economic fallout, too, was unevenly spread, with the poorer nations facing the greatest brunt. While the media focus remains on the plight of Europe, suffering from energy deficiency and the cost of living crisis, India would do well to refocus attention on the global South’s needs, which is starving.

To begin with, India must share more openly what it has learnt from dealing with the pandemic and the post-pandemic economic shock with the rest of the world, particularly the developing one. Here the greatest success story lies in India’s development of its indigenous vaccine. India needs to be different from the Western countries, which were extremely guarded in sharing their vaccine technology. India can act as a beacon for developing countries so that they do not have to rely on Western support the next time a global pandemic hits. India should set up a globally funded system through the G20 mechanism to achieve this objective.

The ongoing Russia-Ukraine war has further complicated this recovery by putting more pressure on developing countries. Delhi has astutely kept the middle distance in the Ukraine issue and the US-China ‘cold war’. Now is the occasion for India to carry this goodwill forward as president of the G20 forum.

For India, its role is quite clear in this situation. As the leader of the G20, it must listen to all sides and then arrive at a common consensus that will benefit everybody. India’s diplomatic skills as a mediator will be put to the test here. It can also offer solutions based on its own experiences, which both sides are willing to listen to.

As the voice of the Global South, India must convince the Global North to assume greater responsibility and take on the financial burden to make a more equitable world, especially given the role that major food and energy-producing countries must play in these trying times. While profits are important, the larger survival of the human race is equally critical.

INDIA AND THE GLOBAL SUPERPOWER RIVALRY

With its historical animosity with China, India was expected to move slowly towards the Western camp on this issue. And even though India has increased its formal and informal cooperation with like-minded countries to stand up to China, it has also sought to continue to engage its northern neighbour. If any conflict breaks out between the West and China, then it will affect India directly.

So, India has a special interest in seeing that China continues to be a responsible player in the international system. With a long-disputed border with the People’s Republic, it cannot afford anything less.

The G20 is the ideal forum to bring the U.S. and China together. Both superpowers are interested in the stability and continuation of the international system. This is the starting point that India should use to make these two powers engage more with each other through the mechanisms of the G20 and other international organisations.

Source : Cartoon Movement

Simultaneously, India can continue to build up its security to counter the Chinese threat. The two are not mutually contradictory. In fact, reducing tensions between China and the United States will ensure that Beijing is more open to negotiations with India. If China sees itself as less threatened by the West, it will also see India less as a Western appendage and more as a fellow Asian country with which it can talk.

THE RUSSIA-UKRAINE CONFLICT

India is one of the few countries that has tried to maintain a consistently dispassionate position throughout this war, especially in the developing world. It has not fallen under diplomatic pressure, either from the Western or the Russian side. It has always been seeking to maintain its own interests while at the same time urging both sides to sit at the table and talk with each other.

As the president of the G20 organisation, India has the scope to play a mediating role in bringing the two sides of this conflict to a common understanding. Ukraine is not a member of the G20, but Russia, the United States, and many U.S. allies are. Both sides must be convinced that this conflict cannot continue without taking the whole world down with it.

India might not achieve a final peace through its G20 presidentship in ending the Russia-Ukraine war. But a process might be started that could be taken forward in other forums. The Russian economy will also have to be integrated back into the global economic system along with the economic reconstruction of Ukraine after a final peace deal is signed. India can initiate these measures as the current leader of the G20.

CLIMATE CHANGE

Climate change has already received special attention from India in its official pronouncements as president of the G20. As a country that will be directly affected by climate change, India has to push for more affirmative action and unity on this issue through the G20 mechanism. Like many other developing countries, India also must manage its climate change goals with its economic development goals for the long term.

One area that shows increasing promise for a developing country like India in the fight against climate change is the field of green technology. This is the area on which India has sought to focus during its G20 presidency, and India will urge greater investment in green energy from developed countries.

This is an ethical responsibility since many developing countries will be affected by climate change in a much more severe way than their developed counterparts, even though the advanced

countries are mostly responsible for creating the problem of global warming in the first place. For this, international economic governance has to shift to benefit the Global South. India has to be the voice of low and middle-income countries on climate action through its G20 leadership.

GLOBAL CYBER WARFARE

Cyber warfare has emerged as a new and uncertain domain in global geopolitics. There are various actors in this type of warfare, both state and non-state. Norms and regulations have not yet been set, so currently, a lot of nefarious activity is going on in the cyber arena internationally.

India can urge the major powers to come to some common ground on the do’s and don’ts of this type of warfare. India is already moving ahead in the development of its cyber infrastructure. Hence, it has interest to see to it that some common norms are established in the cyber arena which are accepted by all countries.

Assessment

The G20 has recently come under fire for internal strife and a failure to enforce norms. The slide started during the tenure of President Trump, who did not place much faith in multilateral organisations, which he considered fractious at best, more suitable for small nations like Singapore to fight their battles from. There is an element of truth in this, as the informal nature of the G-20 means no binding resolutions or sanctions. However, it is invaluable for fostering conversations between world leaders.

This is a unique chance to contribute to the global agenda on urgent issues such as, climate financing, inclusive, equitable, and sustainable growth, women’s empowerment, digital public infrastructure, and tech-enabled development. If India could have carried the day, it would have won a seat at the high table. However, we must be realistic enough to accept that the G-20 has lost much of its shine over the years, with internal divisions only stretching, especially between the rich and the poor.

India, an emerging technology power, has the potential to redefine numerous aspects and steer the discourse in this area at the level of foreign policy. The need of the hour is to facilitate shared frameworks that are open, transparent, and equitable for the use of emerging technologies like AI, M2M technologies, quantum, cyber-physical systems, etc.

UNDERSTANDING THE MIDDLE CORRIDOR

The Ukraine War has rendered the traditional routes of global commerce through Russia-controlled Eastern Europe unviable, triggering the search for alternative corridors.

Modern trade in the globalised economy is hinged upon a secure, resilient, and integrated freight transportation system that seamlessly connects the economies of Europe and Asia. Traditionally, the land, sea, and air routes flowing across the Russian Federation and its neighbours provided this corridor. However, all this has been changed overnight by the war in Ukraine.

In the context of increased geo-economic uncertainties brought on by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, recognising shared geopolitical interests and establishing cooperation over widening supply chains have become more critical. The supply chains would translate into transnational, financially feasible transport corridors in the East-West dimension.

This has thrown the spotlight on the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route (TITR), an intercontinental network of roads, railway lines, and shipping routes that traverses Central Asia, the South Caucasus, and the Middle East while avoiding Russian territory. This shift in transit routes stands to benefit TITR’s host economies-Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Georgia, and Turkey.

Following stringent economic sanctions against Moscow, the major transit nations situated along this overland trade route have taken decisive action to realise the commercialisation of this multi–mod -

This has thrown the spotlight on the TransCaspian International Transport Route (TITR), an intercontinental network of roads, railway lines, and shipping routes that traverses Central Asia, the South Caucasus, and the Middle East while avoiding Russian territory.

al, cross-regional route. They intend to increase the opportunities for transcontinental transit and draw in more international shipments.

GLOBAL PLAYERS IN THE ROUTE

For the various states involved, the TITR means different things.

Turkey started the Middle Corridor plan with the primary goals of connecting Eurasia with a different multimodal route and improving regional cooperation and coordination with the transit nations along the TITR. The Middle Corridor is a particularly desirable commercial route from the standpoint of Ankara, not only because it offers direct access to Eurasia but also because it lessens the other Turkic states’ reliance on Iran and Russia.

There is room for growth along the trans-Caspian route as well. A significant regional player, Iran, remains blocked out of TITR due to sanctions after the collapse of the nuclear agreement. Under the pressure of sanctions, Iran’s ties to the Caspian littoral states have weakened. That has not,

RESEARCH TEAM

SYNERGIA FOUNDATION

however, negatively impacted interstate ties per se, and it also does not lessen the profound cultural impact Iran has historically had on Central Asia. Iran also has access to the sea, while Central Asia does not. The port of Chabahar will be connected to the trans-Iranian railway system, which connects to a port on the Caspian Sea. Notably, India is supporting the building of this port. Iran, therefore, offers enormous potential as a market for Central Asian commodities and a source of input for getting shipments from China to Europe and Central Asia.

The trans-Caspian transportation system is part of China’s broader ‘‘One Belt, One Road” plan, which aims to revive the historic Silk Road. Chinese authorities are sympathetic, and Ukrainian ministries are incredibly optimistic about its potential. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said, “As for the proposal by the Ukrainian side and some other nations on establishing a new transit route, China also supports it.”

On the arrival of the initial test train, caution was exercised by pointing out that the trans-Caspian route still had two significant issues. The first is price: according to Ukraine’s State Railway Service, carrying a 40foot container by train (and ferry) costs roughly $8,900. Transport conducted solely by sea is around 30 per cent less expensive. Time is the second. Moving freight from the ferry to the train takes time and depends on ferry and railway operation, which needs to be more frequent to be economical and could be negatively impacted by the weather.

LOOKING AHEAD…

Recent high-level interactions indicate encouraging trends that will support cooperative strategic initiatives, maintain institutional and diplomatic frameworks, and open the door to greater collaboration across a wider Eurasian region. Therefore, all initiator governments will continue to be concerned with strengthening the strong partnership on the China-European route and emphasising the establishment of the Trans-Caspian route as an established alternate transit passageway in the coming years. To that aim, it needs to be seen if the Trans-Caspian route could substitute for the well-established Trans-Siberian railroad networks that travel via Russian territory as the best possible supply route.

The Middle Corridor will continue to grow as an economic zone with increasing attention and backing from the U.S. and the EU. These two partners see an opportunity to strengthen the energy and supply systems’

resilience.

Additionally, to avert the struggle with China, Iran, and Russia on the world stage, both parties (the U.S. and the EU) would seek strategic advantages in a more secure and affluent region. The three powers in the trade route are likely to choose collaboration and acceptance over the competition since their strategic capabilities are stretched too thin, and the corridor is unlikely to be utilised to restrict or isolate any of them. There is every reason to believe that Russia, China, and Iran will keep using “grey zone” strategies and soft power to sway the regional political landscape in their favour.

The Three Seas Initiative in Central Europe, a public-private infrastructure development organisation that seeks to expand beyond EU-member states, could be one obstacle to the route’s future expansion. If it succeeds in developing a “four seas” programme, it might facilitate projects across the Caspian Sea.

Assessment

The trans-Caspian route checks off several boxes: it not only bypasses Russia but also offers potential benefits from Iran’s opening, and ultimately, more trade alternatives delight China. The onus now lies on the beneficiary countries to leverage the moment to gain strategically and economically through shared economic and political ties to ensure long-term gains from TITR.

The improvement in regional integration along the “Middle Corridor” challenges the well-established northern way through Russia. The European Union and the United States are likely to continue to enhance their support for that development. At some future date, the West may allow greater participation by Russia and Iran once geopolitical circumstances permit their rehabilitation into the global economy.

Some of the most radical anti-fossil fuel initiatives have been re-examined and moderated in response to the conflict in Ukraine, the energy crisis, and the rise in European energy costs. If policies take on a more aggressive form, the region may suffer from falling demand for oil and gas. However, the transit charges for other trades unrelated to gas and oil will continue to earn them revenue.

SCRAMBLING FOR ALTERNATIVES

By all counts, 2022 is a year best consigned to the dustbin of history as it has brought nothing but misery to the entire world. While for the small cartel of energy exporters, it was no doubt a bumper year, for the majority of the world, especially the Global South, it piled on even greater miseries. The situation is especially grim for Europe, starved as it is from cheap Russian gas it had got so used to. Unsurprisingly, as a fierce European winter looms, energy security has become a top political priority for Europe.

WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVES?

Under pressure from the U.S., and with the cold war again threatening the European landmass, European states are faced with tough choices that will have long-term impacts on their energy security. While new energy sources are being intensively sought, long-term energy partnerships take time to mature.

Having woken up to the dangers of exclusive dependency on a single energy source, thanks to the irrationality of the war in Ukraine, in March EU came up with its REPowerEU plan. This is the European Commission’s ambitious plan to ensure the future of Europe’s energy future once it is entirely decoupled from Russian fossil fuels well before 2030. The plan combines diversifying the energy and increasing the use of renewables.

Diversifying implies working with international partners to find alternate supply sources, which could be a combina-

The EU’s energy security relies on its ability to secure additional and alternative energy supplies and its success in transitioning to renewables, energy efficiency, and energy savings.

tion of gas, oil and coal in the short term. The second pillar of the plan would be accelerating clean energy, which should be affordable and produced domestically. This would entail massive investments, which the member states should be prepared to commit. Towards this end, industries, especially the transport industry, must work towards reducing fossil fuel use at a much faster rate. Last but not least, a prosperous population, tuned to an uninterrupted supply of energy at a low cost, must learn to save energy. This can be achieved with minor behavioural changes already commonplace in the developing world, like preferring low-wattage devices and spreading the energy consumption peaks in urban areas throughout the day.

GEOPOLITICS OF ENERGY SECURITY

The EU’s energy security relies on its ability to secure additional and alternative energy supplies and its success in transitioning to renewables, energy efficiency, and energy savings. As traditional suppliers such as the Middle East appear tied up with capacity constraints and already existing commitments to countries such as China and India, new frontiers in North Africa appear a better bet.

The Mediterranean is also a region of strong prospect for the EU as they could offer short- and long-term options. Egypt and Israel have signed a Memorandum of Under-

standing for stable delivery of natural gas to Europe. These alterations might contribute to redefining world energy flows from the MENA region with a significant impact on the world’s geopolitical, economic, and energy dynamics.

THE FOCUS ON ALGERIA

The Mediterranean region is fast developing as a key energy platform where energy connections between the Middle East, North Africa and Europe are stabilising. As Russian sources run dry, Algeria has emerged as one of Europe’s major natural gas suppliers.

Algeria is Europe’s third-largest gas supplier. About 83 per cent of its gas exports head to Europe, with Spain and Italy as the top two destinations; together, they received 65 per cent of Algeria’s gas exports in 2021. Algeria exports gas to Spain and Italy via pipelines and oil tankers from two liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants. Over time, the country has played a critical role in Europe’s gas balance as the third-largest supplier after Russia and Norway, providing 10 per cent of the continent’s imports. This has greatly benefited Algeria in weathering the economic collapse that its critics were forecasting after the political turmoil in the country.

There are currently two active pipelines connecting Algeria to Europe-the TransMed undersea pipeline to Italy and the MedGaz undersea pipeline to Spain. MedGaz’s capacity is set to increase further, a fact that was highlighted during discussions with Spain in the lead-up to the closure of the Maghreb-Europe gas pipeline after Morocco and Algeria failed to renew their transit contract.

Algeria’s main challenge in increasing exports is production capacity. The country’s oscillating gas outputs have been a concern for Europe, and gas exports fell in 2022 after a record output in 2021. While flows to Italy have risen slightly, those via a pipeline to Spain and Morocco have dropped. So far, therefore, Algeria’s contribution to replacing Russia has largely been limited to cutting overall exports while switching supplies from Spain to Italy.

This shift could work for Europe as Italy remains heavily dependent on Russia, with almost all of its gas coming from the region. On the other hand, Spain has a surplus LNG import capacity and maintains limited connectivity with the continent.

Geopolitically, Algeria is fiercely independent and is in a strong position to deal with Russian objections, despite a strong military relationship with Russia that goes back into history.

On the flip side, the country has long been accused of underinvestment, unattractive fiscal terms and painfully slow bureaucracy, hampering hydrocarbon sector development. This could change with investments worth over $4 billion flowing in after a new oil law was passed in 2019, attracting big players like Italy’s ENI, France’s TotalEnergies and U.S.’s Occidental. A new gas field discovery at Hassi R’mel is expected to add another 3.65 bcm of annual production by the end of this year, a very favourable timing for Europe.

Any meaningful increases in Algerian production will require years of exploration and development and, more crucially, further energy industry reforms to at-

We are in need of partnerships and also funding to make our role meaningful. Energy projects require intensive investments over a long period.”

MOHAMED ARKAB

Ministry of Energy and Mines, Algeria

Source : The Week

tract new investment.

With ample sunshine and vast open areas, renewables provide another game-changing option for Algeria to exploit. Germany, a leader in renewables technology, has partnered with Algeria to explore the latter’s green hydrogen potential. GIZ, the German development agency, in a 2021 study, claimed that “ the country can produce a lot of electricity from solar energy that is needed for the production of green hydrogen,” using energy conversion and storage pathways that use surplus electric power from renewable energy, typically solar and wind. Algeria is also in a good position to harness its oil and gas expertise and gas pipelines, which could transport hydrogen following some technical adjustments.

DIPLOMATIC CHALLENGES

In a classical “rob Peter to pay Paul” move, Algeria is balancing its commitments to Italy at the cost of Spain. This will require a combination of smart diplomacy and concessions on the part of Spain for Europe to coax as much energy as possible from the Sahara.

Algeria’s relationship with Moscow is a growing concern based on its strong non-aligned stance. Algeria is a country which prioritises foreign policy independence and is attempting to strike a delicate balance in boosting energy exports to EU countries while maintaining its defence relationship and strategic partnership with Moscow.

On its part, the EU will need to work out timely decisions, long-term commitments, and a broader vision to increase ties with the Western Mediterranean. The southern part of the Mediterranean, in particular, is rich in oil and gas reserves.

Italy has also made additional deals with Egypt, and along with Algeria, the two North African countries now hold the largest proven gas reserves in the area, even ahead of Libya.

Algeria is not the only country in focus. The Eastern Mediterranean region is experiencing significant changes with the US-sponsored reintegration of Turkey into the regional energy system in recent months and momentous discoveries off the coasts of Israel, Cyprus, and Egypt during the last decade.

Summing up the challenges, Mr Nadim Abillama, MENA Programme Officer at the International Energy Agency (IEA), says, “The region is currently unable

The energy transition is in place. Last year, 81% of new installations were in renewables. In the MENA region, there is no doubt that producing energy through renewables is the most competitive. There is a

to fully provide a substitute to the volumes imported from Russia, at least when it comes to oil and gas, but can make important contributions if producers fully leverage existing infrastructure, like LNG terminals in Algeria and Egypt and pipelines in Algeria and Libya.”

Assessment

Europe is not alone in its search for energy alternatives. Globally, the fragility of energy security has imploded, demanding innovative solutions and renewed partnerships. Energy occupies the centre point for most conferences and negotiations.

In its search for energy security, Europe must explore all options, including a switch from fossil fuels to renewables. While this change is desirable, it will take time and is not an immediate solution for Europe’s woes. Diplomacy must be harnessed to manage the complexities of politics and culture.

need to develop infrastructure - physical, finan cial, legislative, distribution to make this effec tive transformation.”

FRANCESCO LA CAMERA, Director-General, International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA)

A HOME-GROWN SUN?

Recent claims of creating energy in excess of input through fusion could be the answer to mankind’s energy woes, provided they turn real.

SYNERGIA FOUNDATION

RESEARCH TEAM

In an experiment that has left the science community thrilled at future possibilities, scientists at the National Ignition Facility (NIF), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, succeeded in creating a nuclear fusion reaction that generated more energy than it consumed. Put in simple terms, it was a collision of tiny atoms like hydrogen and helium that produced an explosion which lasted less than a billionth of a second. However, its impact will be everlasting. Scientific breakeven, or net energy gain, is the long-term goal of fusion research. This could be amongst the most remarkable scientific accomplishments of the twenty-first century.

THE SCIENCE BEHIND IT

This contrasts with the fission reaction, which is employed in traditional nuclear power plants and involves the splitting apart of big atoms like uranium. Because the nuclei are positively charged and repel one another, fusion is problematic. The way to produce energy is by getting them to move at extremely high speeds in a small area while generating a high-energy state of matter, known as plasma, to get them to overcome their opposition.

For many years, scientists have struggled to accomplish this. There are two methods - one is to use intense lasers to crush a tiny fuel pellet, which is what NIF did. The alternative is to heat plasma to temperatures hotter than the Sun and then use magnets to contain it. This is how International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER- the largest fusion project in the world now being built in southern France) will produce the reaction. The Sun and other

However, there are still miles to go before the commercialisation stage, and fusionpowered stations pump electricity into countries’ national grids. To cover its energy needs and supply power to the grid, such a reactor would need to produce 50-100 times more energy than its lasers emit. Additionally, it would need to vaporise ten capsules every second for extended periods.

stars can do this because they have enough mass to produce a powerful gravitational field. This field accelerates and restricts atoms to conduct fusion processes, providing the light and heat we survive upon millions of miles away.

Fusion releases far more energy than fission and is, of course, green and poses very little radiation danger. However, temperatures to the magnitude of ten times that of the Sun’s core are required for fusion, a feasibility that can challenge the best-equipped lab. So far, the experiments conducted by various countries have released less energy than required to maintain the necessary high temperatures. At most, some of these processes have generated “near breakeven energy.” Therefore, NIF claims are a breakthrough whose implications are huge.

AN INEXHAUSTIBLE ENERGY SOURCE

Fusion is nothing new for mankind- the first successful man-made fusion device was the boosted fission weapon tested in 1951 in the Greenhouse Item test. Since then, fusion has been created in lab settings, albeit sporadically and with a significant energy cost. The high cost of research has been the inhibiting factor all along. The NIF, with the might

of the U.S. behind it, has been leading the research in the field, having set for itself ignition as the benchmark in 1997. Ignition is defined as “gain larger than unity,” or more energy leaving the fuel target than energy coming in from the laser.

Although the energy output still falls short of what is required, NIF has significantly improved it. The primary indicator, often known as “Q,” is the fusion energy gain factor, the ratio of the energy required to initiate and sustain a fusion reaction to the energy generated. The reaction has achieved breakeven when the gain is 1. The most recent NIF statement displays an increase of about 1.5, indicating that the response is now energy-positive (but only if you restrict the definition of energy intake to the laser energy striking the fuel target).

THE CHALLENGES

However, there are still miles to go before the commercialisation stage, and fusion-powered stations pump electricity into countries’ national grids. To cover its energy needs and supply power to the grid, such a reactor would need to produce 50-100 times more energy than its lasers emit. Additionally, it would need to vaporise ten capsules every second for extended periods. Fuel capsules are currently very expensive and rely on tritium, a short-lived radioactive hydrogen isotope that future reactors need to produce locally.

NIF is utilising outdated laser technology, which offers much space for advancement. The conversion of electricity to laser light by the lasers is only approximately 1 per cent efficient, but more recent versions can achieve 20 per cent efficiency. Increases in target design, better predictive modelling supported by machine learning and “cognitive simulation,” improvements in laser capabilities, and other tweaks were credited by researchers as the reasons for the success following prior near misses.

FORGING FUSION AROUND THE WORLD…

Nevertheless, fusion labs and businesses around the globe are working to overcome them. The Joint European Torus (JET), a research reactor located in Culham, England, broke the previous record for the quantity of fusion energy released in a single trial run last year.

International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), a massive worldwide experiment that will replace JET, is now being built in France. Additionally, commercial businesses in the U.S. and the UK have developed new superconducting magnets that could aid in the development of smaller, more potent reactors.

Around the globe, fusion reactions are being explored with at least two different methods. These differ primarily in how the input energy is delivered to produce the intense heat necessary for fusion, but this also impacts design and capability. These temperatures, also known as “inertial fusion,” are attained using high-energy laser beams at the Lawrence Livermore laboratory. Strong magnetic fields are utilised for the same purpose at several other locations, such as the ITER, where India is a partner. The ITER project is anticipated to show the viability of a commercially scalable nuclear fusion reactor between 2035 and 2040 based on existing timeframes. After that, it may take another ten years for a fusion reactor to be installed and start producing electricity. In addition to cooperating at ITER, several nations, including China, Japan, the U.K., and South Korea, are working on this technology independently. Primarily, this is because fusion-based nuclear weapons, which would be much more potent and destructive than the current nuclear bombs, may be created using this technology.

Even though the ignition achievement is spectacular, scientists said they are already planning upgrades for fusion trials. According to Di Nicola, one of the principal scientists of the experiment, the team will develop studies and test shots using greater laser energy. This will give them more room for ignition and the potential to achieve even higher target gains with more funding.

Assessment

Fusion is still a long way off, and the experiment does little to further the objective of using fusion processes to generate electricity. Three decades from now, a significant investment is needed to create such an extreme climate in a lab. Even more, time may pass before the technology in the recent experiment is implemented. In the interim, the environment needs fewer fossil fuels and more renewables so that the planet can survive long enough to enjoy the fruits of inexhaustible fusion energy.

Although it is a fantastic claim, net energy differs from net power. Some private fusion enterprises with prototypes could reach net power within a decade, and five to ten years after that, there could be some commercial product demonstrations.

Fusion technology, like most technologies, is again dual-purposed- while it will give clean green energy with little nuclear waste hazards, it will enable nations to develop far more powerful thermonuclear weapons without carrying out a single test!

FEMINIST DIPLOMACY: MAKING IT COUNT

Will feminist diplomacy make a difference in confronting the integrated and extreme challenges of conflict, climate change and food crisis?

SYNERGIA FOUNDATION

RESEARCH TEAM

Feminist diplomacy or feminist foreign policy as a concept was introduced by the former Swedish Minister of Foreign Affairs, Margot Wallström, in 2014. Feminist diplomacy refers to policies promoting women’s rights, including reproductive rights and inclusive governance, and seeking to prevent gender-based violence in all its forms. These can also seek to incorporate climate security as it has been widely experienced that women are far more adversely impacted by climate change.

Recent crises, such as the Covid-19 pandemic, the resurgence of war and the use of food as a weapon have impacted women and girls, majorly setting back social and development goals. In particular, it has drastically impacted the 2030 Sustainable Development Goal No 5 (Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls) and increased the pre-existing gender inequalities in various areas.

The case for encouraging women’s participation has never been stronger, given our tumultuous times. However, the statistics are bleak- women represented only 25 per cent in national parliaments and 36 per cent in local governments in 2020, a figure that has scarcely grown. Women in diplomacy and represented as ambassadors are almost insignificant.

A NASCENT TREND

A focus on feminist diplomacy reflects the integrated

Feminist diplomacy has attracted considerable interest in the recent past as an alternative approach to promoting gender equality and empowerment of women. The goals of feminist diplomacy are based on longstanding commitments to women, peace and security or gender equality in development and humanitarian assistance.

and extreme challenges we currently face, whether it is the food systems crisis, climate or conflict requiring integrated and transformative solutions.

The feminist policy is relatively young in world politics. Sweden adopted it in 2014 and became the world’s first feminist foreign policy. Since then, more than a dozen countries and political parties have attempted this idea or have set up a target to develop a feminist foreign policy.

In keeping with the nascent stage of development of this doctrine, there is as yet no standard blueprint on how to develop these policies. There are currently some common themes as well as some differences between these policies. Many countries have published handbooks which detail the goals and means of feminist foreign policy or set up advisory bodies to guide the government in how to implement it.

Some countries that have not adopted a feminist foreign policy have both a national action plan on women, peace and security and a foreign policy gender strategy, such as Norway or Australia. Most of these policies cover similar

themes. They vow to mainstream a gender perspective in all foreign policy actions and agencies, advocate for progress in gender equality in their bilateral relations and in regional and multilateral organisations and aim to achieve substantive equality and parity in the foreign service and allocate adequate resources to gender equality as part of their development and humanitarian aid.

THE CHANGE MAKERS

Sweden has maintained a pioneering role in this movement, and in Jan 2022, the Swedish Foreign Minister announced a Feminist Foreign Policy Plus Group that currently includes sixteen countries. Sweden’s definition covers a commitment to gender equality as the central goal of foreign policy, as well as committing to applying a gender lens across all areas of their work and operations. It includes aspects from various international agreements on human rights and gender equality, including the UDHR, CEDAW, Beijing Platform for Action, International Conference on Population and Development, UN security council resolution 1325 on women peace and security, and the 2030 Agenda.

At its core, Sweden’s policy can be described through “The Three Rs,” which cover rights, representation and resources. Rights promote all women’s and girls’ full enjoyment of human rights and combat all forms of violence and discrimination that restrict their freedom of action. The representation covers promoting women’s participation and influence in decision-making at all levels. Resources form an integral part of the doctrine, which aims to ensure that resources are allocated to promote gender equality and equal opportunities for all women and girls to enjoy human rights.

Canada’s international assistance policy puts gender equality at the centre of its work. Their vision for feminist international assistance aims to “to eradicate poverty and build a more peaceful, more inclusive and more prosperous world” with the intention that “Canada firmly believes that promoting gender equality and empowering women and girls is the most effective approach to achieving this goal.” Canada’s feminist approach to international assistance aims to promote gender equality and empower women by transforming social norms and power relations. The policy includes six action areas (gender equality and women’s empowerment, human dignity, inclusive growth, environment and climate action, inclusive governance, peace & security).

The underlying commitment is that “95 per cent of Canada’s bilateral international development assis-

Women are often the first victims of conflict and bear the brunt of these situations such as climate change. We have made efforts to double the number of women in diplomacy over the past four years

tance initiatives will target or integrate gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls by 202122.” These will, in turn, be measured against the OECD DAC marker and include 80% to programs with gender equality as a secondary objective and 15% to programs with gender equality as a primary objective. The government further tracks progress against this policy via the ODA Accountability Act, the Departmental Results Report, and the International Aid Transparency Initiative. Canada has committed to ensuring that no less than 95 per cent of bilateral international development assistance initiatives will target or integrate gender equality by 2022, and they are well on their way to meeting this goal.

The UK has seen a commitment by various political parties, including the Labour party, which has adopted a feminist international development policy. The policy is framed around the achievement of the SDGs and aims to amend the purpose of international development to reduce both poverty and inequality. Five areas have been prioritised, including a fairer global economy through action on trade and taxation, support for a global movement towards increasing development assistance for public services, a feminist approach to development through DFID’s support to grassroots women’s organisations, building peace and preventing conflict, and action for climate change and ecology.

France has developed a comprehensive accountability framework with timelines, indicators, and responsible stakeholders. It has transitioned towards feminist diplomacy through an explicit commitment to “feminist foreign policy,” which encompasses international development and diplomacy. Its commitments include advocating for gender equality in international forums and a strong focus on gender equality as part of its 2019 hosting of the G7. France’s international strategy for gender equality (2018-2022) outlines five “areas of intervention”: to lead by example by increasing the number of women in senior departmental and ambassador roles, bolstering public support for gender issues, improving financing for actions on equality, and making action for equality more visible.

Additionally, the strategy outlines five thematic priorities for action towards equality for women and girls: access to services (including education and SRHR); access to economic resources and decent work; access to rights and justice and protection from violence; participation in economic, political and social decision-making forums; and equal participation in peace and security, supporting civil society and sharing actions. France has prioritised development funding and committed

– feminist diplomacy is at the heart of our public policy. 30% of our budget is geared towards helping women achieve equality.

JOSÉ MANUEL ALBARES

Minister of Foreign Affairs, European Union and Cooperation of Spain. At the Paris Peace Forum, 2022

to reaching 50 per cent of gender-focused aid by 2022. Luxembourg committed to developing a feminist foreign policy approach in March 2019, which defines feminist foreign policy as one that acknowledges women’s rights as human rights. It defends the rights of women and girls with emphasis on policy and economic rights and the right to sexual self-determination. It emphasises strengthening the representation and participation of women within foreign policy and defence establishments and implementing the women’s peace and security agenda (via Luxembourg’s National Action Plan on WPS).

Luxembourg’s Development Cooperation Strategy includes “enhancing socio-economic integration of women and youth” as one of its four goals and includes gender equality as a cross-cutting priority along with human rights and environmental sustainability. Luxembourg has led the way in committing to allocating 0.7% of GNI to ODA, and since 2009 has exceeded that target, allocating 1% of its GNI to ODA.

In 2020 Mexico became the latest country to launch a feminist foreign policy approach and the first in the global south to do so. Its policy is based on human rights and commits to applying a gender perspective across all work areas. The policy aims to advance gender equality, achieve gender parity at all levels of foreign policy, combat all forms of gender–based violence, and practise intersectional feminism. The last approach values not only women’s rights but also other intersecting social, economic, and environmental justice issues. Mexico has committed to reaching full employment parity, equal pay, and the application of a gender lens to every foreign policy position, resolution, and mandate by 2024.

Spain has appointed a Special Envoy on its feminist foreign policy and will present annual reports to its parliament. It has the highest percentage of official development assistance devoted to programmes that advance gender equality as a principal objective (24 per cent). All these countries already have a national action plan on women, peace and security.

IN ACTION

Feminist diplomacy has attracted considerable interest in the recent past as an alternative approach to promoting gender equality and empowerment of women. The goals of feminist diplomacy are based on longstanding commitments to women, peace and security or gender equality in development and humanitarian assistance.

In addition, feminist foreign policies provide a unifying political framework for the diverse strands of gender-related strategies being implemented by governments, improve coordination and effectiveness and the involvement of the highest levels of leadership, and become a clear and visible brand that makes it easier for the public, civil society, or journalists to hold governments accountable to their commitments to advance gender equality or women’s rights. Russia’s aggression against Ukraine has had global consequences. Despite

progress in the areas of Women, Peace, and Security as outlined in UN Security Council’s resolutions, women remain excluded from recovery decision-making in this case too. There is an urgent need to empower the women of Ukraine to participate in peacebuilding and recovery decision-making at the local and national levels.

Ukrainian Women’s Fund (UWF) is an International Charitable Foundation based in Ukraine. Founded by women’s rights activists in 2000, the UWF aims to support women’s/feminist organisations in protecting women’s rights and promoting gender equality. Since Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine, the UWF has been actively supporting women’s rights NGOs and activists in helping the affected population and influencing local and national policymaking.

On the ground, one in six soldiers in the Ukrainian Armed Forces is a woman. Regular tactical clothing and equipment do not consider women’s size and fit. To change the approach to supplying military units, this issue was to be raised by women on the levels of decision-making.

There is a larger discourse at play with respect to a reflection on the militarism-trade nexus and harmful economic or trade policies, including the role of extractive industries, and their migration and asylum policies, to name a few. Advocates of feminist foreign policies debate whether increases in military spending can be justified under these policies and, at a practical level, question whether specific military exports to countries with a poor record on women’s rights are permissible and the best ways of dealing with authoritarian actors that oppress women. Some of these debates are far from settled.

Assessment

Feminist diplomacy is a relatively new concept with its genesis in development work supporting women’s rights and marginalised communities. It has gained currency in the current situation of integrated and extreme challenges and has come to represent an umbrella term for commitments on women, peace and security or gender equality in development and humanitarian assistance.

At a starting point, feminist diplomacy deals with the representation of women, combating all forms of gender–based violence and access to economic resources and decent work. At a larger discussion point, feminist diplomacy pushes the needle on many themes, including military aggression, harmful economic or trade policies, migration asylum policies and emerging technologies.

Many issues need to be explored further, such as the impact of emerging technologies, artificial intelligence, the surveillance of women and girls or the development of autonomous weapons.

Inspired by

Built on Trust