It has become a cliché to talk about climate change, so much so that no one really likes to talk or read about it; there is no point in adding to your daily tensions! Can we afford to bury our heads in the sand about climate change any longer when the cloud bursts and unprecedented dumping of rain worth a week in a matter of few hours are becoming a reality in Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh and even in bustling cities like Delhi, Bangalore and Hyderabad?
When scorching summer temperatures break new records, and even Bangalore and Pune suffer from heat waves, it is evident that the sand of time is trickling through our grasping fingers with our planet poised at a dangerous inflexion point.
To ignite a debate for getting tough on climate change, this month’s Insight is running the subject as its spotlight story. We hope to receive comments/ suggestions from much more aware readers.
Thailand has remained an enigma for us, and few of us have tried to reach beyond the excellent budget holidays it affords millions of Indians who flock to its beaches and other delights. The scope for leveraging complementary “Act East” and “Act West” policies between the two nations- India and Thailand- who share a strong cultural past has great potential for deepening a strategic partnership.
Our technological section this month takes a hard look at the rise of China as a tech power.
SCAN THE QR CODE TO SUBSCRIBE
EDITOR’S LETTER
The vast gap between our nations in this field is a stark reminder of the need for India to catch up. We highlight the urgency of this need and the importance of long-term action plans. In the domain of defence, AI is already making a revolutionary impact, and it’s crucial that we keep up. Who is leading the world in AI-embedded technology? The answer may surprise you.
In our geopolitics insights, we focus on China’s ‘emotional diplomacy’ and a detailed look at the state of health of NATO as it celebrates its 75th year with much fanfare. Has the military alliance fulfilled the objectives it laid down for itself, and is it balanced to face the challenges of the 21st century?
We in India take pride in the GDP figures doled out to us by both the government and global financial institutions, which remain healthy. On the contrary, much unemployment and economic distress continue to plague our billions. So, what is the exact health of our economy, and are we headed for the so-called ‘middle-income trap?’ We also do a piece on ‘Turnaround Mantras’, which can resuscitate those segments of the economy under pressure and the opportunities the smartphone economy holds out for our entrepreneurs.
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
Maj. Gen. Ajay Sah Chief Information Officer
VICTORY MELTS AWAY
Growing signs of ecological despoliations leave little doubt that humankind is running out of time.
SYNERGIA FOUNDATION
RESEARCH TEAM
There is clear, indisputable evidence we are already losing the battle against climate change. Despite growing technological advances, our efforts have often failed due to persistent barriers and a reluctance to commit fully to necessary changes. Political divisions and economic interests continue to hinder decisive action, perpetuating reliance on fossil fuels and delaying the widespread adoption of sustainable alternatives.
THE SLIDE HAS BEGUN
One of the most direct indicators of climate change is the consistent rise in global temperatures coupled with catastrophic natural disasters. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Earth’s average global temperature has risen by approximately 1.2°C since the pre-industrial era. Although seemingly small, this rise has profound implications for weather patterns, ecosystems, and sea levels.
The past decade blazed a trail of record-breaking heat, marking 2016 and 2020 as the zenith of Earth’s warmest years on record. Hurricanes, typhoons, heatwaves, droughts, and wildfires are becoming more common and destructive.
For example, the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season unleashed a relentless barrage of 30 named storms while unprecedented heatwaves scorched Europe, North
Islands are sinking under rising water levels, an eventuality that till recently was the stuff of science fiction, but now it is a reality. Tuvalu, a tiny Pacific Island nation, is sinking, and despite desperate calls for help, no succour is forthcoming. It is like a sandcastle made on the beach being subsumed by the returning tide. Other low-lying and island nations, such as the Marshall Islands between Hawaii and Australia, are in identical predicament.
America, and Asia, exacting a toll of lives lost and economies strained. It only worsens every year as new highs in climate disasters are reached. Ecosystems rapidly transform, driving many species towards extinction and imperilling fragile environments like coral reefs.
Economically, climate-related natural disasters have staggering costs; for instance, the 2017 hurricane season inflicted a toll of $306 billion on the US economy alone.
Meanwhile, sectors such as agriculture, tourism, and fisheries confront existential challenges. Heatwaves not only test societal resilience but also heighten health vulnerabilities, amplifying the spread of diseases like malaria and dengue fever among at-risk populations. The fight against climate change has become a losing one, like trying to patch holes in a leaking ship in
Michael Oppenheimer, Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs at the Princeton School of Public
and International Affairs `
Our understanding of the human role in climate change is now so strong that the question no longer is whether we are changing the climate, but how we adapt to the changes that are underway.”
a stormy sea- new leaks appear while old ones are being closed! The ship has never been closer to sinking. The polar regions are undergoing profound changes due to global warming.
The Arctic sea ice cap has significantly decreased, with the minimum ice cover diminishing by approximately 13 per cent per decade. Similarly, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass, contributing to rising sea levels.
The loss of ice impacts local ecosystems and has global implications, as melting ice contributes to the thermal expansion of oceans.
Furthermore, climate-induced displacement intensifies global migration patterns, straining resources, heightens political tensions, and exacerbates existing inequalities.
Islands are sinking under rising water levels, an eventuality that till recently was the stuff of science fiction, but now it is a reality. Tuvalu, a tiny Pacific Island nation, is sinking, and despite desperate calls for help, no succour is forthcoming.
It is like a sandcastle made on the beach being subsumed by the returning tide. Other low-lying and island nations, such as the Marshall Islands between Hawaii and Australia, are in identical predicament. Five vegetated reef islands have already vanished in the Solomon Islands, and six others are experiencing severe shore-
line recession. This coastal erosion has destroyed villages in two locations, prompting the relocation of affected communities. At least eleven islands in the northern Solomon Islands have disappeared entirely or are undergoing significant erosion due to rising sea levels.
Understanding the drivers behind this rapid shoreline erosion is critical for developing effective local adaptation strategies. Despite limited prior studies in Melanesia, evidence suggests that uninhabited islands are actively eroding, with notable impacts on vegetation, such as Casuarina equisetifolia (Australian pine) and Sonneratia alba trees.
QUANTIFYING THE RISKS
Transition and physical risks are two interrelated categories brought about by climate change. A significant shift in the global economy would be necessary to limit global warming.
While no risk or transition cost is associated with doing nothing, there are significantly more possible physical risks. It’s not a linear trade-off, though. Failing to address climate change will have severe financial ramifications for the world economy and people everywhere.
Additionally, the earlier action is taken, the more stable and well-managed the shift may be, minimising the financial outlay. On the other hand, waiting will probably make swift, drastic action necessary, which would cause far greater disruption. The urgency of climate action must be balanced.
Every day of delay deepens our environmental crisis, escalating risks to ecosystems, economies, and communities worldwide. Immediate, bold action is imperative to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, safeguard vulnerable populations, and preserve biodiversity.
A HALF-HEARTED FIGHT BACK
Our fightback against climate change has been anything but lukewarm at best. Apologists blame the com-
plexity of climate systems and feedback loops for the uncertainties that make it difficult to predict and mitigate future impacts effectively. As the consequences of climate change intensify—from extreme weather events to ecological disruptions—the gap between intentions and outcomes widens.
Moreover, societal inertia and the scale of required transformations pose significant hindrances, requiring unprecedented global cooperation and commitment.
While there are pockets of progress and innovation, the journey from acknowledging the problem to implementing effective solutions still needs to be completed. This leaves humanity to navigate a precarious path towards environmental stability and resilience, highlighting the urgent need for collective action and sustained efforts to address climate change globally.
Humanity is losing the battle against climate change due to inadequate global response, persistent political and economic barriers, and escalating environmental impacts.
Despite scientific consensus and mounting evidence of warming temperatures, rising sea levels, and extreme weather events, effective international cooperation still needs to be improved.
National policies often prioritise short-term economic gains over long-term sustainability, perpetuating reliance on fossil fuels and delaying necessary transitions to renewable energy. Without immediate and coordinated action on a global scale, the prospects for mitigating climate change and securing a sustainable future grow dimmer, leaving humanity struggling to adapt to a rapidly changing planet.
Dr Fatih Birol, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency (IEA), emphasises the urgency of action, stating, “Immediate and decisive measures are imperative to avert catastrophic climate impacts. A monumental effort is needed to transition our energy systems towards sustainability and safeguard our planet for future generations.”
ISLANDS OF HOPE
Several nations have emerged as leaders in energy efficiency through national policies and advanced technologies. By leveraging nuclear power and stringent building standards, France achieved a 12 per cent reduction in energy intensity from 2021 to 2022.
Denmark has transitioned from oil dependency with a strong wind energy sector and substantial renewable energy usage. Sweden’s long-term focus on carbon pricing and diversified energy investments leads to energy efficiency. With their innovative approaches and commitment to reducing carbon footprints, these countries set global energy efficiency and sustainability standards.
The WEF’s 2024 Energy Transition Index (ETI) reflects their success, with France, Denmark, and Swe-
Dr. James Hansen, Director, Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions at Columbia University (formerly with NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies) `
We can’t afford to lose another decade. If we don’t begin to make substantial reductions in emissions, that plausibly could be our last chance to preserve the possibility of a healthy, stable climate system.’’
den scoring high and demonstrating the feasibility of a sustainable future. By integrating energy efficiency into various sectors such as transportation, manufacturing, and residential settings, countries like France, Denmark, and Sweden have developed innovative methods to reduce energy consumption. Their commitment to sustainability lowers their carbon footprints and sets standards for others to follow.
France, Denmark and Sweden demonstrate that leadership and ‘Greenovation’ in energy efficiency and renewable energy can significantly reduce energy intensity and carbon emissions. These countries’ success highlights the importance of effective policies, such as stringent building standards, promotion of public transportation, carbon pricing, and targeted support programs.
Hopefully, these nations can be role models, providing valuable insights and strategies for other countries aiming to enhance their energy efficiency and sustainability efforts.
Each moment lost undermines our ability to secure a sustainable future. Climate action yesterday was optimal; today, it is essential. The time for comprehensive, global efforts to combat climate change is now, with decisive actions necessary to steer us toward a resilient and equitable world.
Are we the Last Generation or the First Sustainable one? This is a question that the present generation must answer and not leave it as a legacy for future generations.
We have already lost many battles in this campaign, with irreversible losses to many ecosystems and species. Can we turn the tide or at least bring the degradation to a halt somehow? Taking action sooner rather than later would be less expensive and more beneficial.
Synergia Takeaways
A WEAPONISED BLAME GAME
A sustainability transition recognises that the Earth may end in two ways: it runs its natural course, or humans create an apocalypse.
TDiya Celine Simon Research Associate in Synergia Foundation with a Bachelor’s in Media and Communications, English Literature and Psychology.
he survival of the human species is deeply connected to nature. However, the growing human tendency to view itself as separate from nature accelerates an impending doom - climate change. As aptly put by William Cronon, an environmental historian and celebrated author, “Any way of looking at nature that encourages us to believe we are separate from nature is likely to reinforce environmentally irresponsible behaviour”.
Our economy, the system in its entirety, capitalises on basic human desires of mindless consumption while disregarding the delicate balances of biodiverse life. The result is that climate change has increasingly become a political blame game, with the algorithms working relentlessly to feed narratives of polarised beliefs.
However, there are some scattered islands of hope. While human actions may suggest an incoming disaster in the making, hurtling humankind towards oblivion, serious efforts are being made in various quarters to reverse the trend. But is that enough to stave off an apocalyptic climate disaster?
ON COLLISION COURSE WITH NATURE
Since humankind adopted the Industrial Revolution, humans and the natural world have been on a collision course. Today, there is a flood of information in
A case study on the reporting of global warming and climate change in British newspapers found that they focused on the potential consequences of climate change. In addition, attempts to address the suspected causes and the Western style of overconsumption were limited. This creates a political battleground where economic interests compete to influence climate policy.
the public domain on how Earth and its environment are being subjected to degradation that could ultimately make this planet unliveable.
On the other hand, a narrative is at play that tries to project that things are not as bad as some doomsday prophets may claim. From media censorship to outright claims that climate change is a hoax, the bureaucratic paralysis within climate action initiatives coupled with false information and propaganda tends to create a social irony.
However, we can no longer live in a fool’s paradise with our heads buried in the sand, hoping climate change will never catch us in our lifetimes. Climate change has become a reality, the top driver of humanitarian assistance and inflicting human misery as never before; like all other natural and man-made curses, this too afflicts the poorest countries the worst. Developed
economies barrelled their way into prosperity, fuelling their growth with unrestricted use of fossil fuels while the rest of the world still lived mostly in nature.
As per the Union of Concerned Scientists in their research paper, the countries that have historically produced the most carbon dioxide emissions since 1750 have been the United States, China, Russia, Germany, and Japan. As of 2022, India has joined their ranks, zooming to the top of the list, only below China and Russia. The rich support the study of ecology and have the decisional power to make judgments and decisions concerning the climate. It also allows them to apportion blame.
Capitalism thrives on consuming and exploiting natural resources in an increasingly globalised world, which often sidelines collateral environmental damage. According to the World Inequality Database, the world’s richest countries, or the “Global North,” have been responsible for about half of all emissions since the Industrial Revolution.
Affluent lifestyles in these regions produce a carbon footprint 100 times greater than that of poorer nations. In 2019, the top 10 per cent of emitters were responsible for nearly half of global CO2 emissions, while the bottom 50 per cent contributed just 12 per cent.
This highlights the minimal role of least-developed countries in global warming and unequal access to the benefits of fossil fuel use, such as energy consumption. Adding to the irony, those at the periphery of society take care of and value nature the most.
RUNNING OUT OF TIME
Scientists warn ad nauseam that fundamental changes are urgent if we are to avoid the collision our present course will bring about. This collision course is accelerated by our technological advancements that
largely outpace any successful attempts to curb environmental imbalances. The World Bank estimates climate change could push up to 135 million people into poverty by 2030.
According to philosopher Yuk Hui, the Anthropocene was the era of human activity that resulted in distinctive geological changes that became ‘the crisis of modernity’.
The significance of addressing the existential-level threat of climate change on humanity has grown remarkedly in recent years while contrasting views and interests in societies exist.
While there are instances of green capitalism where businesses incorporate sustainable practices, these efforts are often insufficient to counteract the extensive environmental degradation caused by the overall system.
A prime example is the Green New Deal, championed by U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Through platforms like Twitter and appearances on progressive media outlets, Ocasio-Cortez emphasises the catastrophic impacts of climate change and the need for comprehensive policy reform.
However, this nascent warning requires evolutionary thought to accommodate the fact that current technological advancement rates, growth of the urban species, and a business-centric economy largely outpace most successful attempts to curb environmental imbalances. This has resulted in convoluted climate change agendas that have been weaponised to varying degrees, from the international to domestic level.
For instance, the Paris Agreement represents a significant step in global climate diplomacy but has also been criticised for its superficial attitudes towards nature. The 196 parties that adopted the ‘legally binding’
international treaty on climate change at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP21) have no obligation to carry out their nationally determined contributions (NDCs). The agreement outlines areas that ‘shall’ be changed but fails to give actionable accounts of how it would be carried out.
CLIMATE POLITICS
In 2019, President Trump gained global notoriety and derision when he called climate change a “hoax” invented by China and incorrectly suggested that wind turbines cause cancer. (The Time magazine, 8 July 2019).
Media shapes the public discourse about climate change. Depending upon who is footing the bill, cov erage could be appropriately biased. Organisations such as Greenpeace, WWF, and the Sierra Club actively promote climate awareness and often provide media with compelling stories, data, and expert opinions.
However, ecologists commonly believe that many media houses follow ‘sensationalism in climate reporting’, which prioritises eye-catching headlines over in-depth analysis, giving rise to surface-level awareness and momentum.
We have closely observed how the diplomatic relations between the West and Middle East oil producers hinge upon their interests revolving around energy security and have hence shaped international cooperation and foreign and security policies.
Since many of the world’s oil and gas reserves are in fragile or politically unstable places and are often at the centre of countries’ economies, the drive to substitute these for cleaner energy sources comes with geopolitical risks. Understanding these risks is an important step for a fair and peaceful transition away from fossil fuels.
To achieve the goal of the Paris Agreement, virtually all countries must remove carbon and other GHGs from their energy systems and broader economies. This will affect future resource demand patterns, which presents a significant risk for certain countries and an opportunity for others. For example, oil-exporting economies will have to deal with stranded assets, while mineral-exporting countries might benefit from a green transition.
A case study on the reporting of global warming and climate change in British newspapers found that they focused on the potential consequences of climate change. In addition, attempts to address the suspected causes and the Western style of overconsumption were limited. This creates a political battleground where economic interests compete to influence climate policy.
Climate change has become a polarising issue in many countries, dividing political parties along ideological lines. For example, in the United States, the topic often splits Democrats, who typically advocate for aggressive climate action, and Republicans, many of whom express scepticism about climate science or prioritise economic concerns over environmental regulations. Reports have shown that the conglomerate Koch Industries has heavily funded the Cato Institute, a prominent voice in downplaying climate change risks and opposing environmental regulations.
The Heartland Institute, known for its climate scepticism, has received funding from fossil fuel interests. It organises conferences and publishes materials that question climate science and criticise climate policies.
While scepticism is good because it brings balance, this borders on denial of admission because true changes require profit cuts.
GEOPOLITICS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
As per the blog Climate Diplomacy, governments have fiercely competed to secure access to mineral resources, especially oil and gas.
Another area where conflict risks need to be mitigated is the mushrooming extraction of raw materials.
The increased extraction of fossil fuels, minerals and other resources and shifting global demand patterns have wide-ranging consequences, including pollution, social disputes, and even conflict. Nations, corporations, and financial markets need to plan now to mitigate the risks posed to all countries by the energy transition away from fossil fuels. It is an international priority to enforce international and national regulations that protect the environment and eventually transform how we produce and consume goods and services.
Countries with fewer resources to develop in a carbon-neutral way must receive special attention and support. Climate diplomacy offers a range of tools and entry points to achieve this.
COMMERCIAL VERSUS CLIMATE INTERESTS
Last year, in Dubai, the President of COP 28, Mr Sultan al-Jaber of UAE, famously said that there is “no science” behind calls for a phase-out of fossil fuels. Unsurprisingly, this provoked a strong backlash from the gathering and the world.
The fossil fuel industry has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo of high carbon emissions. Campaigns funded by oil and gas companies that cast doubt on climate science can lead to biased or misleading media reports.
The American Petroleum Institute (API) launched the “Vote4Energy” campaign during the 2012 presidential election, which promoted the benefits of continued fossil fuel use and aimed to influence public opinion and policy decisions.
On the other side of the planet, the former Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has been known for his cautious approach to climate policies. He often uses media to highlight the coal industry’s importance to the Australian economy, arguing against policies that would lead to job losses in this sector.
This taps into another characteristic of ecological movements - any ecological movement at its core is also a humanitarian movement; the fossil fuel industry does provide 32 million jobs globally.
However, renewable energy has been one of the fastest-growing industries globally, generating millions of jobs across solar, wind, bioenergy, etc. A global report by the IEA in 2021 indicated that clean energy has exceeded the fossil fuel industry in the number of jobs available, with 35 million jobs on the market.
While fossil fuel jobs are traditionally stable, transitioning to a cleaner planet and emphasising renewable energy creates a job market for upskilled traditional workers to make better-informed decisions about career and financial advancement opportunities.
However, green initiatives also have their dark side; green businesses insistently lobby for subsidies, tax incentives, and government handouts to fund their research.
Conversely, the renewable energy sector, environmental NGOs, and green businesses lobby for policies that support clean energy transitions. They advocate for subsidies, tax incentives, and research funding to promote sustainable technologies. Reportedly, the American Solar Energy Initiative Association (SEIA) played a significant role in lobbying for the extension of the Investment Tax Credit (ITC), which provides a 26 per cent tax credit for solar systems on residential and commercial properties.
Overwhelmed by a barrage of such demands that are difficult to distinguish from authentic to purely commercially oriented, politicians find it difficult to give a clear-cut policy directive. Even the public is left jaded and confused, a polarisation that hampers the development of consistent and effective climate policies. This results in legislative gridlock and fluctuating commitments depending on the party in power.
THE WAY AHEAD
True ecological movements emerge from grassroots activism, local initiatives, and community-led projects prioritising sustainability and environmental justice. These movements often focus on conservation, renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, and reducing waste.
The Transition Towns movement, founded by Rob Hopkins, began in Totnes, UK, in 2006 and provides a best-case study. It aims to create resilient communities by reducing dependence on fossil fuels and enhancing local economies. The movement focuses on localising production and currencies, promoting sustainable liv-
Dr. Peter Huybers, Professor of Environmental Science and Engineering at Harvard University
Future generations will look back at our response to global warming as a critical reflection of our ability to handle other existential threats. Our actions today will define the kind of legacy we leave behind.”
ing practices, and fostering community cohesion. Another notable event was the Chipko movement in 1974 when villagers in the Chamoli district in the Himalayan region of Uttarakhand, led by women like Gaura Devi, successfully prevented loggers from felling trees by hugging them. The movement gained national and international attention, leading to a 15-year ban on felling trees in the Himalayan forests by the Indian government.
‘The Rubber Tappers’ Movement, also known as the Chico Mendes Movement, was a Brazilian environmental and social movement focused on protecting the Amazon rainforest and the rights of rubber tappers. The movement led to the creation of extractive reserves in Brazil, where local communities could sustainably harvest resources without destroying the forest.
It is crucial to actively involve Global South actors in climate decision-making and partnerships to reduce global inequalities. The concept of sustainable development suggests achieving economic growth while protecting the environment is possible.
This would require substantial investment in renewable energy, circular economy practices, and policies prioritising long-term ecological health over shortterm profits. The feasibility of this balance depends on global cooperation, innovation, and a shift in societal values towards sustainability.
Climate change urges us to keep track of our ambitions concerning its impact on nature, i.e. to allow nature to heal itself as we make our way on this Earth, we must give back proportionately to what we take.
Climate change can only evolve from its ambivalent reputation once the media presents the facts alone, ridding away the sensationalised aspect of gaining coverage. A truly inspired move comes from the quality of the source, not the quantity.
There should be more legally binding consequences to foster nations into taking their initiatives more seriously. Improved reporting on greenhouse gas emissions and progress towards NDCs can help identify gaps and drive more effective and accountable climate action.
Synergia Takeaways
DANGEROUS DOWNSLIDE
Where are we headed as the world falls back on environment, health and hunger goals on the 2030 deadlines?
CSuchitra Padmanabhan is the Policy Research Associate at Synergia Foundation and has Post Graduate Degree in Social Policy & Planning from the London School of Economics.
limate change is here to stay; we see it daily in rising summer heat waves, cloudbursts inundating cities and expanding coastlines threatening coastal populations globally. Appropriately, it has grabbed significant attention across media, research, academia, and scientific innovations. Several international treaties have further reinforced global commitment towards managing this significant risk.
A ROADMAP OF GLOBAL EFFORTS
The United Nations has long been committed to addressing climate change and reversing its effects. In 2015, a historic agreement was reached at the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) in Paris under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Known as the Paris Agreement, this accord aimed to strengthen the global response to climate change by keeping the rise in global temperatures this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and striving to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
At the 27th Conference of the Parties (COP27) held in 2022, the landmark achievement was the establishment of the “loss and damage” fund, designed to aid vulnerable countries suffering severe damage from climate disasters. COP27 also resulted in the Sharm
2023 has shown all too clearly that climate change is here. Record temperatures are scorching the land and heating the sea, as extreme weather causes havoc around the globe. While we know this is just the beginning, the global response is falling far short
el-Sheikh Implementation Plan. This plan underscores that transitioning to a low-carbon economy will require annual investments of $4 trillion to $6 trillion. Achieving such funding necessitates a swift and comprehensive overhaul of the global financial system’s structures and processes.
The Paris Agreement’s objective of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius is achievable only if global emissions decrease by 45 per cent by 2030, reaching true net zero by 2050. Achieving net zero by 2050 means transforming global production, consumption, and transportation systems to eliminate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
However, the world is not on track to meet the net zero target by 2050. According to the U.N., the national climate plans of the 193 Parties to the Paris Agreement predict an almost 11 per cent increase in GHG emissions by 2030 relative to 2010 levels, indicating a regression.
To correct this course, the U.N. introduced the Glasgow Climate Pact at COP26, which aims to “com-
plete the Paris rulebook” by continuing to drive action in four key areas: Mitigation: reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Adaptation: providing support to those affected by climate change, Finance: ensuring countries have the funds needed to achieve their climate goals and Collaboration: promoting global cooperation to combat climate change.
A YAWING GAP
“2023 has shown all too clearly that climate change is here. Record temperatures are scorching the land and heating the sea, as extreme weather causes havoc around the globe. While we know this is just the beginning, the global response is falling far short. Meanwhile, halfway to the 2030 deadline for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the world is woefully off-track,” says UN Secretary-General António Guterres. “Groundbreaking scientific and technological advances, such as high-resolution climate modelling, artificial intelligence and nowcasting, can catalyse transformation to achieve the SDGs. And achieving Early Warnings for All by 2027 will not only save lives and livelihoods but also help safeguard sustainable development,” he comments.
The annual funding gap for the SDGs has increased dramatically, from $2.5 trillion before the pandemic to an estimated $4.2 trillion. Governments are struggling with overwhelming debt, especially in developing countries with high borrowing costs. Currently, 52 nations are in or near default, with no effective debt relief system in place.
The scientific evidence is clear at the midway point of the 2030 Agenda: the planet is significantly off track from meeting its climate goals. This failure undermines global efforts to combat hunger, poverty, and ill-health and to improve access to clean water and energy, among other aspects of sustainable development, as reported in a new multi-agency study coordinated by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
The “United in Science” report reveals that only 15 per cent of the Sustainable Development Goals are on track. It systematically examines the impact of climate change and extreme weather on these goals, illustrating how advancements in weather, climate, and water-relat-
ed sciences can promote food and water security, clean energy, better health, sustainable oceans, and resilient cities.
The report illustrates how weather predictions enhance food production, moving us closer to eliminating hunger. We can better understand and anticipate climate-sensitive diseases by integrating epidemiology and climate information. Early-warning systems mitigate poverty by enabling people to prepare and reduce impacts. The urgency for science and solutions has never been greater. From 1970 to 2021, nearly 12,000 reported weather, climate, and water-related disasters caused over 2 million deaths and $4.3 trillion in economic losses. Over 90 per cent of these deaths and 60 per cent of economic losses occurred in developing economies, hindering sustainable development.
Rising global temperatures have led to more extreme weather. There is a 66 per cent chance that the annual mean global near-surface temperature will temporarily exceed 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels within the next five years, a likelihood that is increasing over time.
Progress in reducing the emissions gap for 2030 has been minimal. Despite promises, fossil fuel CO2 emissions increased by 1 per cent globally in 2022 compared to 2021, with preliminary estimates for January-June 2023 showing a further 0.3 per cent rise.
To meet the Paris Agreement goals of limiting warming to well below 2°C, ideally, 1.5°C, global greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced by 45 per cent by 2030, with CO2 emissions approaching net zero by 2050. This necessitates rapid, large-scale, and systemic transformations. Some future climate changes are unavoidable and potentially irreversible, but every fraction of a degree and ton of CO2 matters for limiting global warming and achieving the SDGs.
The report concludes that the world is not on track to achieve any of the 17 SDGs and cannot rely on organic change. By 2030, 575 million people are expected to live in extreme poverty, 600 million will face hunger, and 84 million children and young people will be out of school. The world is set to overshoot the Paris climate goal of limiting temperature rise to 1.5°C. Gender
equality might only be achieved in 300 years, with most SDGs potentially realised by 2050.
WHAT HAS GONE WRONG?
Several factors have hampered progress, including the COVID-19 pandemic, cost-of-living crises, armed conflicts, and natural disasters. The pandemic diverted development funds to mass vaccination, healthcare infrastructure, and support for vulnerable populations, pushing 97 million people into extreme poverty. Economic activities were disrupted, requiring considerable fiscal support to restart.
The cost-of-living crisis, high inflation rates, and pandemic-induced fiscal strain disrupted progress towards the SDGs. High debt levels in many countries further constrained efforts to extend social protection to the poor.
Armed conflicts and the rising cost of natural disasters, estimated at $303 billion in 2022, also impeded progress. By 2020, around 2 billion people lived in conflict-affected countries, and global military expenditure exceeded $2 trillion for the first time in 2021. Approximately 26.5 million people in the Sahel region faced a food and nutrition crisis between March and May 2022.
Countries’ contributions to climate change can be measured in two main ways: total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and GHG emissions per capita. The top three contributors in total emissions are China: 12.7 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2e), the United States: 6 billion MtCO2e and India: 3.4 billion MtCO2e.
Given that these are the three most populous countries, their overall emissions are significantly high. However, when examining per capita emissions (emissions per person), the top emitters are quite different: Qatar: 35.59 metric tons per capita, Bahrain: 26.66 metric tons per capita, Kuwait: 24.97 metric tons per capita, and the United States ranks 12th in per capita emissions.
THE WAY AHEAD
Nordic countries continue to lead in SDG achievement, while BRICS countries are showing some progress. However, least developed nations are falling further behind, with the gap widening significantly since 2015. Significant investment in public goods that transcend national borders is required to achieve sustainable development.
The Paris Agreement mandates that participating countries achieve net-zero GHG emissions by 2050. While many countries lag, some are ahead of schedule. Notably, three countries are already carbon-negative, removing more carbon from the atmosphere than they emit: Bhutan (South Asia), Suriname (South America) and Panama.
Additionally, five countries have achieved net-zero emissions, including Comoros, Gabon, Guyana, Madagascar and Niue. These countries are often smaller, less industrialised, and have extensive forests that act as carbon sinks. Furthermore, six countries have set net-zero target dates earlier than 2050, including Uruguay: 2030, Finland: 2035, Austria: 2040, Iceland: 2040, Germany: 2045, and Sweden: 2045.
Accelerating action and systemic transformation are key to achieving the SDGs. There are six transformation points: human well-being and capabilities, sustainable and just economies, sustainable food systems and nutrition, energy decarbonisation with universal access, urban and peri-urban development, and global environmental commons.
These shifts involve scaling up investment in primary healthcare, ensuring access to life-saving interventions, accelerating secondary school and girls’ enrolment, increasing water and sanitation infrastructure investment, shifting to healthier and diversified diets, reducing food waste, deploying renewables, phasing out fossil fuels by 2030, and promoting a circular economy with waste recycling.
It calls for expanding protected areas, abandoning intensive agriculture, restoring degraded forests, economising water use, and relying on nature-based solutions.
There is a pressing need for a major overhaul of the global financial architecture to support sustainable development. New broad strategies to address financing shortfalls are needed, which include new institutions, global taxation schemes, and a shift in investment priorities.
Synergia Takeaways
With just 15 per cent of the Sustainable Development Goals on track, the picture is indeed dismal. Since 2015, the situation has deteriorated on targets such as achieving food security, increasing vaccine coverage, ensuring sustainable economic growth, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is amply clear that much more is required to be done before the SDGs get back on track.
The need for scientific advancements and solutions is more urgent than ever. The overall downslide in global peace has only exacerbated an already grim solution further. With a decline in funding adversely impacting funding for climate change, we need a renewed impetus for science and technology to save the day.
Mobilising political leadership, building societal consensus for policy shifts, addressing governance deficits, fostering behavioural changes, and increasing science-policy-society interactions are critical for achieving the SDGs.
CAN KAMALA HARRIS BEAT TRUMP?
With 100 days to go, Harris has a real chance to make the answer yes
IWilliam John Emmott is an English journalist, author, and consultant, best known as the editor-in-chief of The Economist newspaper from 1993 to 2006.
t is a fairly universal truth of journalism that if an article has a question mark in its headline it indicates that the author does not know the answer. As an editor, I often found this tendency maddening, though not always avoidable. In the case of making judgements about an American presidential election that is still more than 100 days away, and about a candidate who has had barely four days in which to make an impression, the question mark is, however, justified. What we can do at this early stage in what is now a Harris-Trump contest is to identify strengths and weaknesses, pitfalls and opportunities.
In opinion polls, it is clear that when asked before Biden’s withdrawal whether or not they would choose Harris over Trump in a two-way contest, Harris scored better with respondents than Biden but not by much.
However, two caveats have to be applied to those polls: the first is that questions about hypothetical pairings have not proved to be reliable indicators in the past once the hypothetical became real; the second, which would have applied to Biden-Trump too, is that in the nature of things most American voters do not think seriously about which choice they will make until after Labor Day in early September, if then. For BidenTrump, however, there was a caveat against that caveat: since this was to be a re-run of 2020, voters arguably already knew everything they were ever going to know -
Harris will, however, have some big opportunities to create some distinctiveness: the first will come with her choice of vice-presidential candidate, which will send messages to voters about what sort of manager she might be and what overall flavour she wants to create; the second will come with every speech now and at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago from August 19th, when she can create a different emphasis from the one Joe Biden would have done: she can be tougher about her desire to restore abortion rights, for example, and she can be tougher on Israel’s conduct in Gaza, which will offer some clue about her approach to foreign affairs.
or want to know - about these two candidates, so judgements recorded in June or July might have been more dependable than for previous campaigns. And the key thing they knew about Biden — that he was 81 years old, and showing signs of his age — was not going to change.
ANALYSING HARRIS’ CHANCES
A crucial issue must be whether voters already feel they know all that they need to know about Kamala Harris, given that she has been vice-president for three-
and-a-half years now, or whether they can be induced by her campaign to think differently about her. Two common charges against her are that she performed poorly in the Democratic Party primaries in 2020 and that she has failed to impress as vice-president. Neither charge is conclusive: plenty of subsequent winners failed in their early attempts at winning nominations, including Ronald Reagan (twice) and Joe Biden himself (also twice).
Vice-presidents always act in the deep shadow of their presidents so it is not at all surprising or unusual that she has not played a starring role since assuming office in January 2021. Nonetheless, her task now is to show that she can be a star when occupying the centre of the political stage.
As a result, she will do so with both the advantage and disadvantage of incumbency. It is an advantage because the economic record of the Biden-Harris administration is greatly superior to that of the Trump-Pence one that preceded it. Yes, there has been inflation which has diluted the feel-good factor, but 15 million jobs have been created since January 2021, whereas from 2017-2020 America suf fered a net loss of 2.9 million.
There is plenty of room to debate who was responsible for those figures, especial ly given the COVID pandemic from 2020-22, but it is always the prerogative of incumbents to claim credit for what happens under their watch, whether justified or not. Harris cannot change the way in which Americans feel about their own economic circumstances and prospects, but she can neutralise the issue by pointing out vigorously how badly they fared under Trump. For he too is a sort of incumbent: his presidency is recent enough to still be a strong memory for most people.
have a clear interest in creating sharp contrasts in voters’ minds between the two candidates.
The narrative that Trump will want to make dominant is the idea that this election is a choice between the strong — him — and the weak, i.e. Harris. He already has a highly masculine theme, but he will want to use this to make Americans feel afraid that a Harris presidency might leave them, and American national interests, poorly protected. The narrative Harris will want to create is the idea that this election is a choice between the young and the old, between the fresh and the stale. “Hope”, “new” and “change” are always powerful ideas in elections if a candidate or party can credibly capture them. Harris’s challenge now and over the next three months is to capture those notions.
She has a good chance of doing so as long as she can stand up to Trump’s bullying and lying in a — yes — strong way. For sure, he has a lot of rural and non-coastal America already sewn up, and a hefty group of backers in Christian Evangelicals. But independent voters are more numerous than many people think, as long as a candidate can persuade them to turn out to vote, and Harris has a better chance than Biden did of persuading women and minorities of all kinds to come out and vote for her. Her record as vice-president makes her vulnerable on the hot-button issue of immigration, for she was given some responsibility for the southern border and failed to make an impact, but she has a ready answer if she can find a way to deploy it effectively: she supported the bipartisan Border Security Bill that Trump opposed because he didn’t want Biden to make an election year gain on this issue. She has to expose and emphasise that cynical hypocrisy at every opportunity if she is to defuse attacks on her for being weak on illegal border crossings.
The potential disadvantage of incumbency for Harris is that it makes it harder for her to create in voters’ minds a distinctive idea about what a Harris presidency might be like, distinctive that is from what a Biden one has been like. She will, however, have some big opportunities to create some distinctiveness: the first will come with her choice of vice-presidential candidate, which will send messages to voters about what sort of manager she might be and what overall flavour she wants to create; the second will come with every speech now and at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago from August 19th, when she can create a different emphasis from the one Joe Biden would have done: she can be tougher about her desire to restore abortion rights, for example, and she can be tougher on Israel’s conduct in Gaza, which will offer some clue about her approach to foreign affairs.
A BATTLE OF NARRATIVES
Most of all, however, this election is not likely to be a battle of policy ideas but rather a battle of narratives. All presidential elections are like that to a large extent, but this one will be even more than most, for both sides
If she picks a vice-president who can deliver one of the larger swing states to her, the combination of that and her greater chance to boost turnout among women, African-Americans and Arab-Americans could offer her a path to victory. Above all, in an election in which before last weekend many voters hated the idea of both candidates, Harris now has the chance to provide voters who dislike Trump — of which the primaries showed there were many among Republicans too — a valid chance to avoid voting for him.
Where the Harris candidacy definitely has a chance of making a difference is in preventing a Republican sweep of both houses of Congress and of state governorships. This was the deepest fear among Democratic Party leaders and donors, if Biden had refused to stand down: that they might have lost not just the White House, which would be bad enough, but also the Senate and the House, making the potential legislative impact of a Trump presidency all the greater. This still can’t be ruled out, of course, but it is definitely now less likely.
There is a huge amount to play for. A week ago, that did not look to be the case.
AN ENDURING PARTNERSHIP
Is Thailand the barometer of success for India’s Act East policy?
Lt Gen G A V Reddy AVSM, SC, VSM (Retd) is the former Deputy Chief of Integrated Defense Staff, DG-DIA and Chief Strategic Advisor, Synergia Foundation.
With over 2000 miles of the Bay of Bengal and the Andaman Sea separating the land masses of India and Thailand, the geographical proximity of the two nations plays an important part in their relationship.
Both nations are important littorals of the Northern Indian Ocean and can influence commerce plying these waterways. In times of hostilities, Thailand would be of value to India’s defence of its island territories, which lie closer to Thailand than the Indian peninsula. That Thailand guards the mouth of the Malacca Straits, a key maritime chokepoint, is of no little significance for India’s maritime strategists.
Culturally, the relationship has a legacy that goes back to 500 BCE with evidence of sea-borne commerce between South India and Thailand (such as etched carnelian beads and Indo-Pacific beads). Trade in spices, aromatic wood, and gold flourished between the two regions.
While Thailand is predominantly Buddhist, many Hindu temples house Buddhist and Hindu deities side by side, including Ganesha, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, and Indra. The Hindu epic Ramayana has profoundly influenced Thai culture and life, and it is known as Ramakien in Thailand. Brahmin priests from India have provided a cultural link between the two countries since 1500 BCE. These priests, along with Indian merchants,
Thailand is trying to balance its ties to both India and China without raising hackles in either, which is a major challenge in itself. India must keep in mind that China is Thailand’s largest trading partner, with bilateral trade reaching $135 billion in 2023. Thailand is a major destination for Chinese investment, especially in infrastructure projects under the Belt and Road Initiative.
scholars and adventurers, played a key role in transmitting Indian religion, culture, traditions and philosophy to Thailand.
Buddhism, Thailand’s principal religion today, also has an Indian connection. It was carried to Thailand in the 3rd Century BCE by Ashoka the Great through Buddhist monks acting as his emissaries. Over time, it was adopted as the state religion and profoundly influenced Thai culture and life. The Thai language borrows a substantial share of its vocabulary from Sanskrit, India’s classical language. Pali, the Magadha language and Theravada Buddhism’s medium is another important root of Thai vocabulary.
The Thais are proud that they have never been colonised, even though they paid tributes to the Chinese empire at various times in their history. Called Siam (from the Sanskrit word, syam), the country was renamed Thailand in 1939.
CURRENT STATE OF RELATIONS
Immediately after Indian independence, both nations established diplomatic relations. However, the real push has been given by India’s ‘Look East’ policy (since 1993) and Thailand’s ‘Look West’ policy (since 1996), which has now metamorphosed into India’s ‘Act East’ and Thailand’s ‘Act West.”
Diplomatically, Thailand’s real value lies in Bangkok’s influence in regional and sub-regional groupings like ASEAN, EAS, BIMSTEC, MGC and IORA. Thailand’s support is crucial for India’s Indo-Pacific strategy, which emphasises ASEAN centrality. In fact, India and Thailand are complementing each other’s “Act East” and “Act West” policies.
In the security domain, it is natural for both nations to draw closer. Over time, they have expanded defence engagements, including defence dialogues and military exercises like MAITREE and SIAM BHARAT. The two navies take the lead in regular naval manoeuvres in the Indian Ocean and Andaman Sea. The two countries have signed an MoU on Defence Cooperation and participate in multilateral exercises like COBRA GOLD. Enhancing naval cooperation is contributing to maritime security in the region.
Taking off from maritime trade established as far back as 500 BCE, India-Thailand bilateral trade reached an all-time high of $17.7 billion in 2022, making Thailand India’s 5th largest trading partner in ASEAN. The tax regime agreed under the ASEAN -India Free Trade Agreement has proved mutually beneficial. Major Thai companies have an active and growing business presence in India, especially in agro-processing, construction, automotive, engineering and banking.
Thailand’s central location makes it a gateway for India to Southeast Asia and beyond. Bilateral trade has the potential to rise even more dramatically if the envisaged connectivity projects, like the India-Myanmar-Thailand Trilateral Highway to link Northeast India and Thailand via Myanmar, become a reality.
This Trilateral Highway is the first-ever cross-border facilitation agreement between South and Southeast Asia and is imperative not only for regional connectivity but for the Dawei Project as well. Dawei is a port city in Myanmar that is being developed as a deep-sea port and special economic zone. This major regional project is of great interest to Thailand, as it will change the direction of regional logistics and is expected to unleash Thailand’s true potential as a trading hub for ASEAN. India is also planning to connect the port with Chennai. It will provide an alternative sea route to Southeast Asia and reduce dependency on the congested Strait of Malacca, cutting transport time.
Thailand’s ancient connection with Indian culture and religion makes it a popular destination for Indi-
an tourists. India is one of Thailand’s most important source markets and the fastest-growing. In 2023, over 1.6 million Indian travellers visited Thailand, making the country the fourth-largest source market for Thailand. These tourists spent more than THB 63 billion ($1.7 billion). Approximately 2,00,000 Thai tourists toured India, mainly the Buddhist pilgrimage sites.
DRAGON IN THE ROOM!
Just as India factors Thailand’s strategic location into its geopolitical calculus, so does our rival China; Thailand is important to China for all the identical reasons. Being a major trade partner of ASEAN, Beijing has an even greater footprint in the Thai economy, a fact that India is hard-pressed to match.
Strategically, Thailand’s dominance over the Malacca Straits, through which the bulk of Chinese oil and trade is passed, makes good relations with the Kingdom a priority for Chinese foreign policy in the region. Unlike India, China shares a physical border with Thailand along the Mekong and Salween rivers originating in Tibet, affecting Thailand’s rural economy.
Amidst rising differences between China and ASEAN Members on the South China Sea, China is using its One Belt, One Road initiative and making ever-increasing efforts to make its presence and power felt in the region. One such case is investing in high-speed rail links to connect Laos, Thailand with Southern China.
Thailand would like to balance its ties to both India and China without raising hackles in either, which is a major challenge in itself. India must keep in mind that China is Thailand’s largest trading partner, with bilateral trade reaching $135 billion in 2023. Thailand is a major destination for Chinese investment, especially in infrastructure projects under the Belt and Road Initiative. Chinese tourists are also crucial to Thailand’s tourism sector, contributing an estimated 12 per cent of GDP at its peak.
Thailand has the largest overseas Chinese population (at least 11 per cent of the Thai population) in the world and maintains deep cultural and historical ties to China dating back centuries. The two countries often describe their people as part of “one family”. China sees Thailand as a key Southeast Asian ally to counter U.S. influence. After the 2014 coup, Thailand turned to China for support when Western democracies ostracised it. China’s growing influence in Thailand has implications for the US-Thai alliance.
CHALLENGES FOR BOTH
Countering international terrorism, man-made disasters, maritime boundaries, arms trafficking, and mutual security concerns over insurgent groups using Thailand as a territory for shipment of small arms, as well as planning and recruitment for terrorist activities, have been common challenges for both countries. Both countries need to further engage in intense military cooperation to combat the challenge.
In the current global context of ongoing U.S.-China rivalry, the Bay of Bengal is emerging as a potentially contested maritime space between regional and global maritime powers operating in the Indian Ocean.
The Bay hosts over 1.5 billion people, and important sea lanes of communications traverse its surface. For India, the challenge is to bring together smaller nations of the region through closer economic integration connectivity to strengthen the region as a whole. Only through such collaboration and cooperation can meddling by big powers like the U.S. and China be evaded.
However, the huge cost of joint projects has proved daunting and posed massive challenges in terms of lag in completing infrastructure projects. Inadequate attention is paid towards enhancing maritime security cooperation in the Andaman Sea and the Bay of Bengal. Diversifying the trade basket beyond traditional items is also long-due.
GRABBING OPPORTUNITIES
The scope for leveraging complementary “Act East” and “Act West” policies to deepen strategic partnerships is immense.
Expanding cooperation in trade, the defence industry, maritime security including multilateral exercises are some low-hanging fruits.
Promoting greater people-to-people exchanges and cultural linkages with regular visits of Indian cultural troupes, festivals, and events. An Indian Cultural Centre, known as the Swami Vivekananda Culture Centre, was established in Bangkok in 2009. The 550th birth anniversary of Sri Guru Nanak Dev Ji was also celebrated in Thailand with various events and a grand Nagar Kirtan procession in Bangkok.
To speed up the connectivity projects, emphasis should be given to minimising delays and resolving roadblocks while completing infrastructure projects. Building new trade and transport linkages by promoting additional sea and air connectivity and increased maritime connectivity would provide lower logistics costs
and increase the trade of goods and services. Expanding air links to support increased tourism and business will also help strengthen stronger strategic and security ties.
Along with economic relations, enhanced interdependence makes co-existence of the two nations and the region feasible through focused efforts in this direction. This will also aid in providing an effective counter to China’s growing dominance, power imbalance and tapping Thailand’s huge opportunities in the context of BIMSTEC, ASEAN, APEC, IORA, and ACD for India in the manufacturing and services sector. Various new initiatives, such as the Eastern Economic Corridor, offer new opportunities in the next-generation automobile, aviation, smart electronics, robotics, digital economy, healthcare, biotechnology, biofuels, and chemicals.
BLUE PRINT FOR THE FUTURE
• India and Thailand should address on priority issues related to trade barriers and reduce import duty charges through bilateral engagements to expand trade and investments.
• Collaboration opportunities between India’s startup ecosystem and Thailand should be explored.
• The two countries must work together to bridge supply chain gaps by investing in each other’s markets, including impetus to be given to expedite connectivity projects.
• Strengthening strategic and security cooperation through defence engagements, military-to-military exchanges, and joint exercises is imperative.
• Having faced the wrath of terrorism in the past and with the threats looming in the future, both nations must acknowledge the necessity of a strong and practical counter-terrorism approach.
In summary, Thailand’s strategic location, security cooperation, connectivity projects, economic ties and regional influence make it an enduring long-term partner for India in advancing its Indo-Pacific vision of a free, open and inclusive region.
FROM ALGORITHMS TO BATTLEFIELDS
Integrating AI technologies into the military involves a web of economic, cultural, and social challenges.
HRitika Simon is a Strategic Policy Adviser in Synergia Foundation. She has Masters degree from LSE in Economics & Risk and Society.
istorically, new technologies have consistently reshaped the landscape of warfare- from the rifle to the thermo-nuclear device. Integrating AI and robotics represents the latest chapter in this evolution, poised to redefine decision-making and the execution of force, fundamentally altering military strategy.
Contemporary AI systems operate within narrow machine-learning algorithms, but advancements in neuroscience, quantum computing, and biotechnology are pushing the boundaries of what is considered “intelligent machines.”
Cognitive processes such as knowledge acquisition, critical thinking, and decision-making, significantly impacted by advanced computing, will exert a greater influence on warfare than technologies enhancing command and control capabilities. Due to its cross-cutting nature, AI will impact both traditional military capabilities and the realm of hybrid threats. It is projected to influence all core areas - collective defence, crisis management, and cooperative security systems.
Considering the opportunities and the risks involved, this foundational technology is too complex for any single actor, like the Armed Forces, to manage alone. Consequently, cooperation is inherently needed to capitalize on AI’s potential to transform enterprise functions, mission support, and operations.
The military is increasingly being pushed into other domains it has traditionally been uncomfortable dealing with. Integrating AI technologies involves a web of economic, cultural, and social challenges.
FROM TACTICS TO STRATEGIES
It is obvious to military analysts that all three levels of warcraft- tactical, operational and strategic- will be affected to varying degrees by this disruptive technology.
This necessitates fundamentally restructuring military tactics, operations, strategy, logistics, and organisations. At the tactical level, superiority is derived from the continual evolution of tactics around new weapon systems and technology.
First and foremost is achieving informational dominance- the ability to generate, manipulate and exploit information sufficient to afford its possessors military dominance over its enemy.
This transcends all levels of warfare. Historically, information has been a crucial battle-winning factor. In today’s networked battlefield, with blurred frontlines, “last-mile warfare,” is where battles would be won with split-second decisions by field commanders at both tactical and operational levels. At the tactical level, obtaining real-time insights, predicting enemy move-
ments, and understanding immediate surroundings are essential for mission success and risk mitigation. Traditional intelligence methods, such as human patrols and drones, are no longer sufficient for modern conflicts’ fast-paced, information-centric nature.
Technological advancements are revolutionizing battlefield information gathering. Soldiers now utilize highly portable, advanced tools that provide enhanced situational awareness. With real-time data on enemy positions, potential threats, and terrain features delivered to pads, soldiers are empowered to make informed decisions.
A notable development in this area is using nano drones, miniaturized UAVs designed for tactical reconnaissance and intelligence gathering in close-quarter combat. Nano drones offer offensive, defensive, and reconnaissance advantages, allowing soldiers to outmanoeuvre the enemy in last-mile warfare.
At the operational level of warfare, the depth of the battlespace has expanded exponentially due to the deep strike capabilities of warring sides armed by advanced computer processing, microelectronics, 24 x 7 surveillance, and precision-guided munitions (PGMs). To transmit target data between ‘sensors and shooters,’ robust communication networks are critical.
New information technologies support a network-centric approach to warfare, emphasizing acquiring and exploiting superior information. This has significant implications for synergy among platforms and the reorganization of command-and-control structures, including C4ISR tasks.
The digitization of information gathering and dissemination presents significant technological challenges and promises radical changes to managing real-time “dominant battlespace knowledge,” enhancing battlefield performance.
The integration of AI into the military is not just a technological challenge but a deeply human one. It involves harmonizing the economic investments with the cultural readiness of the force and addressing societal concerns about the nature of warfare and ethical use of AI. Progress may be slow due to differing perspectives: the U.S. focuses on AI risk while China concerns itself with U.S. sanctions. Effective diplomacy will be needed to move beyond these differences. Cooperation between the U.S. and China has been challenging, even in areas where shared interests, such as climate change and public health, exist. The road ahead requires not only bridging these initial differences but also develop-
These advances can render traditional trade-offs obsolete, widening the gap between militaries that effectively integrate new technologies and those that lag. AI systems are increasingly capable of processing vast amounts of data, recognizing patterns, and making complex decisions.
Initially, AI focused on general search strategies, but it soon became evident that integrating extensive domain knowledge was necessary for achieving higher performance.
This shift led to the development of highly specialized expert systems, marking a transition from a searchbased paradigm to a knowledge-based one. Such a move would greatly enhance the ability of commanders at the strategic and national level to hammer together an effective battle winning war strategy.
THE PARADOX OF TRANSFORMATION
Military transformation is inherently paradoxical, involving the reconciliation of the drive for dynamic shifts towards new methods of warfare within organizations inclined towards continuity. Given the complexity and unpredictability of warfare (referred to as the fog and friction of war in the military lexicon), militaries are structured to promote standardization and predictability.
Traditionally, militaries prefer the status quo ante, avoiding uncertainty and risks associated with uncoordinated/uncalled-for actions.
It is, therefore, not surprising that traditional military hierarchy, especially in large conventional armies, remains hidebound and ultra-cautious (some would say suspicious) of change. This creates a dilemma for defence planners, who must be prepared for resistance and confrontation to transformational changes from within the military’s ranks.
ing a robust framework that ensures ethical standards, transparency, and accountability in AI deployment. Addressing the unique human-machine interactions, ensuring continuous updates and adaptability of AI models, and safeguarding against data biases and adversarial attacks are paramount. While the challenge is significant, finding common ground is conceivable and crucial for addressing broader shared interests, such as in technology and security.”
PAUL SCHARRE
Executive Vice President and Director of Studies at CNAS,
the award-winning author of Four Battlegrounds
The military is increasingly being pushed into other domains it has traditionally been uncomfortable dealing with. Integrating AI technologies involves a web of economic, cultural, and social challenges. The pressure on the military to change comes from different avenues. Most acute is the one emanating from policymakers being fed a constant diet of ‘policy initiatives’ generated by academics, system innovators and think tanks.
Internally, militaries have their own ‘new age strategists’ who, with their ‘new-fangled’ ideas, make military hierarchies uncomfortable, if not outright hostile. Externally, the progress reported by known and perceived adversaries creates even more excruciating pressure points. Clearly, the enemy, too, has a vote in this account.
Transformation, especially driven by cutting-edge technology, does not come cheap. Diverting precious resources, even for prosperous nations, is a matter of intense public scrutiny. Countries with deep pockets can only afford to venture into this: the U.S. has heavily invested in AI, funding projects like a robotic submarine system and allocating billions to AI, Big Data, and cloud technologies. Similarly, its emerging rival, China, aims to become a global leader in AI by 2030, with a significant footprint in the defence sector.
IS IT COST-EFFECTIVE?
AI offers unparalleled efficiency and numerous advantages in the military sector. Originating from wartime research in cryptography, ballistic calculations, and cruise missile development between the tumultuous period 1940-45, AI is now enhancing security, military tactics, and defence strategies. AI is set to impact three key areas of national security: military superiority, information superiority, and economic superiority. In the military domain, AI integration with strategic weaponry, biotech, and computer systems will immensely add to a nation’s comprehensive national power.
At the national level, emerging technologies like machine learning and network technologies will give
AI assurance is pivotal in recognizing and mitigating the risks associated with AI-enabled military systems. It integrates test and evaluation with responsible AI principles across the AI lifecycle to ensure systems are responsible, equitable, traceable, reliable, and governable.
Trustworthy AI in the military
nations a decisive edge in intelligence gathering, data analysis, and cyber defence. AI in cybersecurity automates tasks for defensive and offensive objectives, becoming crucial in national security infrastructure. As AI technologies become more accessible, smaller nations invest in these advancements to maintain a competitive edge.
Measuring the effectiveness of AI technologies in a military context is challenging due to cognitive biases and the difficulty of isolating the impact of a single technology in a complex system. Expert human judgment plays a significant role, especially in uncertain situations. Testing AI generative imagery platforms and language models reveals challenges, particularly in rendering text accurately and creating original content. Despite the potential applications of AI systems, current capabilities remain in their early stages of development.
RISK MITIGATION
Are we venturing blindly into a space of which we know very little- rapid convergence of physical, digital, and biological technologies marks the early stages of a profound technological revolution. Effectively governing these emerging and disruptive technologies on a global scale will be essential to mitigate the risk of future conflicts.
A word of caution would perhaps be in order. Establishing parameters for developing military AI and risk-reduction measures associated with military AI is crucial. It may be more manageable to regulate AI before these capabilities become fully integrated into military systems globally. “The potential consequences of AI malfunctioning are significant, making it essential for us to adopt a proactive approach rather than a reactive one,” said Elon Musk.
It is, therefore, crucial to address the key uncertainties, threats, and obstacles posed by AI in today’s military applications and practices to ensure its safe and effective use. Some threat areas are outlined in succeeding paragraphs.
means systems will perform their intended tasks when used correctly, avoid unintended actions, and can be reliably operated by humans. Critical aspects include mission-specific adaptation, explainability, routine updates, and safeguarding against adversarial attacks. Addressing the sustainment, policy, and legal dimensions are essential for the effective deployment of AI in military contexts.”
Retired United States Air Force lieutenant general, Inaugural Director, Joint Artificial Intelligence Center, Office of the Department of Defense Chief Information Officer. LT. GEN. JOHN N.T. SHANAHAN
Adversarial Attacks: As AI and ML technologies become more widespread, adversarial evasion attacks have emerged, highlighting the need to study these algorithms’ reliability, privacy, and security. In imaging systems, imperceptible noise can induce classification errors. Noteworthy attacks include “white-box” attacks, where the enemy knows the algorithm, and “black-box” attacks, where the adversary only knows the input and output. The rise of these adversarial attacks underscores the importance of ensuring AI and ML system reliability, privacy, and security, especially in mission-critical applications like military operations. Developing robust defence mechanisms and comprehensive evaluation frameworks is crucial to mitigate these evolving threats.
Limited and Uncertain Information: During a battle, incomplete or unreliable information can hinder decision-making. To address this, strategies must enable the discretization of time and action, the creation of temporary windows of advantage, and the seizing of the initiative to achieve strategic objectives. Command staff relying solely on routines or established protocols will be at a tactical disadvantage and must be prepared to adapt and innovate as necessary. Additionally, transferring historical knowledge from military experts, presented as facts and rules, is crucial for developing effective machine-learning algorithms in tactical environments. These systems must thoroughly understand the military domain, including weapon performance, warfare models, decision models, rules of armed conflict, and operational protocols between combatants or allies.
Cybersecurity: Malicious exploitation of AI can inflict significant harm on military infrastructure, personnel, and operations by automating and amplifying cyber assaults, making them more sophisticated and harder to detect and thwart. AI-driven cyberattacks can emulate normal network activity or exploit vulnerabilities within AI systems, evading traditional cybersecurity defences and allowing attackers to access military systems, steal sensitive information, or disrupt critical functions.
To counter AI-driven cyber threats, military entities must enforce stringent access controls, employ encryption and other security protocols, and conduct regular security audits and vulnerability assessments. Additionally, developing AI systems resilient to cyber threats is essential, involving creating AI models resistant to deception and adversarial attacks and deploying mechanisms to detect and mitigate disruptions.
Data Scarcity & Lack of Clear Values: The quality and quantity of data available significantly influence the performance of an ML algorithm. Despite the U.S. Army’s extensive combat experience, it has faced challenges in applying ML effectively in real confrontations due to limited sample data. Unknown data about adversaries and the difficulty of real-time data collection during combat add to these challenges.
Due to security and cost constraints, existing databases, often derived from exercises, differ significantly
from actual battle conditions. One solution to bridge this data gap is conducting extensive fieldwork to capture and label real combat values according to ML algorithm requirements. Another innovative approach is to use real-time strategy games, allowing commanders to simulate various roles and scenarios, thereby generating valuable data and experience for ML applications.
Poor Evaluation Criteria: Developing ML algorithms aims to create systems that use accumulated experience and new scenarios to inform decision-making. The main challenge is ensuring the algorithm’s validity, reliability, and applicability to different scenarios. Achieving this requires numerous experiments and simulations to test and refine its effectiveness.
Synergia Takeaways
The future of AI in military operations holds significant potential, but it demands a thoughtful and responsible approach. By acknowledging and addressing the challenges and risks associated with AI, policymakers can foster its ethical and effective use, maximizing its benefits while mitigating potential threats.
Integrating AI in the military should focus on augmenting human capabilities rather than replacing them, ensuring that technological advancements enhance global security and stability rather than undermining it.
By proactively addressing the challenges and risks associated with AI while leveraging its capabilities responsibly, the military can enhance its overall effectiveness and adaptability within the rapidly evolving technological landscape. This will necessitate the development of robust legal and ethical frameworks and ongoing dialogue and cooperation among policymakers, military leaders, technology experts, and the broader public. Only through this multifaceted approach can the military harness the transformative potential of AI in a manner that strengthens global security and stability.
A TECH POWER TO RECKON WITH
China’s ascent to scientific dominance has been unparalleled.
CSuchitra Padmanabhan is the Policy Research Associate at Synergia Foundation and has Post Graduate Degree in Social Policy & Planning from the London School of Economics.
iting the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), Nikkie Asia (15 Sep 23) claimed that China leads advanced technological research in 80 per cent of critical fields, including hypersonic and underwater drones. Out of the 23 technologies analysed by ASPI, China reportedly led in 19!
The Guardian of Great Britain (02 March 23) also spoke in the same vein when it claimed China leads in 37 of 44 technologies tracked by ASPI.
The report of ASPI created ripples around the globe when it was released during the Raisina Dialogue in Delhi in 2023. Clearly, China and the U.S. were far ahead of the pack, with a small, second-tier group led by India and the UK, including South Korea, Germany, Australia, Italy, and Japan trailing them.
Even the Rand Corporation came out with a report last year that asserted that China had a ‘stunning lead’ in essential technologies.
Compiled from research papers submitted globally, China has given a keyhole view of the extent and depth of its research prowess, particularly in chemistry, physics, and materials science. Chinese researchers contribute to more papers in prestigious journals than their counterparts from the United States and the European Union, generating a greater volume of highly cited
The West, smug in their belief that the East can never match them, has been slow to recognise the rise of China as a tech giant. In 2003, America produced 20 times more high-impact scientific papers than China; by 2022, China had surpassed America and the European Union.
work. Tsinghua and Zhejiang universities each conduct as much pioneering research as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The Chinese Communist Party and American security hawks concur that innovation is the key to achieving geopolitical, economic, and military superiority. President Xi Jinping aspires to science and technology to enable China to surpass the United States.
In response, worried politicians in Washington are employing a combination of export controls and sanctions to prevent China from gaining a technological edge.
RISE OF THE DRAGON
Chinese laboratories have some of the most advanced equipment, including supercomputers, ultra-high-energy detectors, and cryogenic electron microscopes. China also boasts a wealth of talent and is actively training scientists; more than twice as many of the world’s top AI researchers received their first degree in China as in the United States.
More importantly, what is most notable is that China is integrating its national research and development programmes with the innovation systems of both domestic and international corporations.
Faced with a narrow window of opportunity before transitioning into an ageing nation, China has swiftly mobilised its resources to achieve technological superpower status within the next few decades.
In this context, significant advances in higher education, human resources development, technology access through foreign direct investment (FDI), technology transfer, information and communication technology (ICT), space and defence technology, and corporate technology are being strategically leveraged.
The West, smug in their belief that the East can never match them, has been slow to recognise the rise of China as a tech giant. In 2003, America produced 20 times more high-impact scientific papers than China; by 2022, China had surpassed America and the European Union.
When the Nature Index of contributions to articles in prestigious journals was launched in 2014, China’s score was less than a third of America’s. By 2023, China had reached the top. According to the Leiden Ranking of the volume of scientific research output, six of the world’s top ten universities are now in China.
Writing for the Harvard Business Review (May-June 2021), Rana Mitter and Elsbeth Johnson claimed, “Believing that China’s economic growth would have to be built on the same foundations as those in the West, many failed to envisage the Chinese State’s continuing role as investor, regulator, and intellectual property owner […] China has also defied predictions that its authoritarianism would inhibit its capacity to innovate. It is a global leader in AI, biotech, and space exploration.
Some of its technological successes have been driven by market forces: People wanted to buy goods or communicate more easily, and the likes of Alibaba and Tencent have helped them do just that. But much of the technological progress has come from a highly innovative and well-funded military.”
The hypothesis that scientific greatness necessitates freedom of thought will be tested through China’s extensive science plans.
China seeks recognition as a global power with a titanic economy, geopolitical influence, military strength, cultural soft power, a storied past, and a promising future. Science plays a crucial role in this ambition, viewed as a noble pursuit and an essential foundation for technological advancement.
China has not stinted from investing in research; R&D spending increased tenfold between 2000 and 2016.
Since 1978, China has encouraged top students to study abroad and return with knowledge unavailable domestically.
The Thousand Talents program, initiated in 2008, aims to attract top researchers back to China, significantly boosting the country’s scientific capabilities. Domestic talent is also nurtured through programs like the Changjiang Scholars initiative, which identifies and supports promising researchers in provincial institutions.
In addition to practical applications, China is pursuing ambitious projects in space and particle physics. The China National Space Administration plans to build a larger space station and conduct crewed missions to the Moon. The National Space Science Centre is launching numerous scientific satellites.
Furthermore, China aims to construct the world’s largest particle accelerator, reflecting its serious commitment to advancing in this prestigious field. Earlier this month, China’s Chang’e-6 robotic spacecraft landed in a gigantic crater on the far side of the Moon, collected rock samples, planted a Chinese flag, and set off back towards Earth. It was the first mission to bring back samples from this hard-to-reach side of the Moon.
China also leads in quantum mechanics applications to computation and cryptography and has made significant strides in artificial intelligence and biology. The BGI, formerly the Beijing Genomics Institute, is a major player in genetic research and precision medicine, with extensive investments in genome sequencing and translational medicine.
SETTING THE RIGHT PRIORITY
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has prioritised agricultural research, viewing it as crucial for ensuring the country’s food security. Over the past decade, the quality and quantity of crop research produced in China have established the nation as a leader in the field.
China now leads the world in other benchmarks that are less susceptible to manipulation. It tops the Nature Index, created by the publisher of the same name, which counts contributions to articles appearing in prestigious journals.
To be selected for publication, papers must be approved by a panel of peer reviewers who assess the study’s quality, novelty, and potential impact.
When the index was first launched in 2014, China ranked second, with its contribution to eligible papers being less than a third of America’s. By 2023, China had achieved the top position.
According to the Leiden Ranking of Scientific Research Output Volume, six Chinese universities or in-
stitutions are now in the world’s top ten, and seven, according to the Nature Index. While they may not yet be household names in the West, institutions like Shanghai Jiao Tong, Zhejiang, and Peking (Beida) Universities are gaining recognition alongside Cambridge, Harvard, and ETH Zurich. “Tsinghua is now the number one science and technology university in the world,” says Simon Marginson, a professor of higher education at Oxford University. “That’s amazing. They’ve done that in a generation.”
According to the Nature Index and citation measures, China leads the world in the physical sciences, chemistry, and Earth and environmental sciences.
However, America and Europe still maintain substantial leads in general biology and medical sciences. “Engineering is the ultimate Chinese discipline in the modern period,” says Professor Marginson. “I think that’s partly about military technology and partly because that’s what you need to develop a nation.”
Applied research is a notable strength for China. The country dominates publications on perovskite solar panels, which have the potential to be far more efficient than conventional silicon cells at converting sunlight into electricity.
Chinese chemists have developed a new method to extract hydrogen from seawater using a specialised membrane to separate pure water, which can then be split by electrolysis.
In May 2023, it was announced that Chinese scientists, collaborating with a state-owned energy company, had developed a pilot floating hydrogen farm off the country’s southeastern coast.
China also now produces more patents than any other country, although many are for incremental design improvements rather than truly original inventions. New developments tend to spread and be adopted more slowly in China than in the West.
However, its strong industrial base, combined with cheap energy, allows for rapidly scaling up large-scale production of physical innovations like materials. “That’s where China really has an advantage over Western countries,” says Jonathan Bean, CEO of Materials Nexus, a British firm that uses AI to discover new materials.
DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD
While China surpassed the U.S. in the number of scientific papers published in 2016, concerns about the quality and integrity of some of these works persist.
Since most non-Chinese readers must peruse translated works, much could be lost in translations. There are also cases of Chinese researchers failing to adhere to the ethical standards expected by Western scientists.
China’s science system is inextricably linked with its State and armed forces—many Chinese universities have labs explicitly working on defence, and several have been accused of engaging in espionage or cyber-attacks.
China has also been accused of intellectual property theft, and increasingly stringent regulations have made it more difficult for international collaborators to take data out of the country. Notoriously, in 2019, the country cut off access to American-funded work on coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
In America and Europe, political pressure is limiting collaborations with China. In March, America’s Science and Technology Agreement with China, which allows scientists from both countries to collaborate, was quietly renewed for only six months.
Although Beijing appears keen to renew the 45-yearold agreement, many Republicans fear collaboration with China will help the country achieve its national security goals.
Except for environmental and climate projects in Europe, Chinese universities have been effectively barred from accessing funding through the Horizon programme, a huge European research initiative.
In response, China is turning inwards. The country has explicit aims to become self-reliant in many areas of science and technology and shift away from international publications to measure research output.
THE WAY FORWARD
The overwhelming opinion of scientists in China and the West is that collaboration must continue or increase. And there is room to do more.
Though China’s science output has grown dramatically, the share that is conducted with international collaborators has remained stable at around 20 per cent. Western scientists tend to collaborate more internationally.
Western researchers could also pay more attention to the newest science from China. Data from a study published last year in Nature Human Behaviour showed that Chinese scientists cite Western papers far more than vice versa for work of equivalent quality.
Western scientists rarely visit, work or study in China, depriving them of opportunities to learn from Chinese colleagues in the way Chinese scientists have done so well in the West.
Several notable successes have come from working together, too. During the COVID-19 pandemic, a joint venture between Oxford University’s Engineering Department and the Oxford Suzhou Centre for Advanced Research developed a rapid COVID test used across British airports.
In 2015, researchers at the University of Cardiff and South China Agricultural University identified a gene that made bacteria resistant to the antibiotic colistin. Following this, China, the biggest consumer of the drug, banned its use in animal feed, and levels of colistin resistance in both animals and humans declined.
Synergia Takeaways
“The old science world order, dominated by America, Europe, and Japan, is coming to an end,” declared The Economist magazine. While it may be premature to reach such a conclusion, as the reality is more complex than the magazine’s assertion, this report reminds the Western world that China’s progress in scientific research cannot be ignored.
China’s steady rise in investments in R&D and innovation should serve as a reminder that the race for tech supremacy is a marathon, not a sprint. Consistent investment over the years, backed by the State’s directions, has resulted in dramatic developments and pioneering success for China in key science and technology sectors. This is a lesson for India.
Rivalries in science have mirrored geopolitical tensions over time. Many U.S. business organisations and individuals have raised concerns and doubts since the United States attempted to force a “decoupling” of the American and Chinese technology ecosystems. This reflects Washington’s anxiety and lack of confidence in the face of China’s rise. China should be prepared for a prolonged tech conflict.
EMOTIONAL DIPLOMACY
The Odyssey of Hurt and Anger: China’s “Emotional Diplomacy”
Dr Patrick Mendis is a former American diplomat, a military professor in the NATO and Indo-Pacific Commands of the US Department of Defence , and a non-resident senior fellow of the Synergia.
(Adapted from the article published in the LondonSchool of Economics blog, China Dialogues)
When China demonstrates anger, it is not irrational and unpredictable; on the contrary, it is Beijing’s strategy to be seen by the world as angry and vengeful. It is a part of China’s cognitive warfare, associated with its “revenge of the past.”
In his 2013 article in The Diplomat, Professor Kerry Brown (King’s College) reviewed an instance of Beijing’s relations with Japan to argue that China tends to act against its own interests, led by emotions based on historical traumas and collective sentiments.
He concluded that “Chinese diplomacy with emotional characteristics” is irrational.
However, a closer look at China’s official narratives and media image reveals that Beijing’s “emotional diplomacy” is, in fact, neither irrational nor unpredictable. It is strategic communication and cognitive warfare.
Nonetheless, the impact of historical traumas associated with the need for “revenge of the past” is an undeniable element of China’s collective mindset.
A closer look at China’s official narratives and media image reveals that Beijing’s “emotional diplomacy” is, in fact, neither irrational nor unpredictable. It is strategic communication and cognitive warfare. Nonetheless, the impact of historical traumas associated with the need for “revenge of the past” is an undeniable element of China’s collective mindset.
HURTING THE FEELINGS OF THE CHINESE PEOPLE
One of the most distinctive emotional phrases frequently reiterated in China’s official narrative is: “hurting the feelings of the Chinese people.” Based on archival records, Amy King dates its first usage back to the Communist Party of China (CPC) politician and director of China’s state-operated Xinhua News Agency, Liao Chengzhi.
In a conversation with former Japanese Prime Minister Ishibashi Tanzan on September 12, 1959, Liao reportedly said that the then-Prime Minister of Japan, Kishi Nobusuke, had done “many things that hurt the feelings of the Chinese people.” On September 13, 1959, the People’s Daily also used the phrase relating to India.
The official newspaper of the Central Committee of the CPC criticized India’s “intrusions” into the Chinese-claimed disputed territory in the Himalayas.
Over six decades later, the phrase is still in use. Fang Kecheng, a Chinese blogger associated with Peking University, discovered in the archives of the People’s Daily that 19 countries and organizations had been held responsible for such an offence between 1946 and 2006.
Japan occupied the top place for allegedly hurting Chinese feelings 47 times, followed by the United States at 23 instances.
Another Chinese blogger named Arctosia, based in New Zealand, calculated in his partly humoristic and partly sarcastic article that 43 countries have “hurt the feelings of the Chinese people” in the past.
The blogger quite literally mapped the humiliators—rather than humiliations—of Chinese people’s feelings, preparing a map with the countries that had supposedly offended China over the years.
The findings of both Fang and Arctosia were later— unironically—disseminated in an article by the Global Times, China’s main English-language propaganda platform.
WHAT IS HURTING CHINA - AND WHY?
It would seem that “hurting the feelings of the Chinese people” is simply synonymous with “damaging a good relationship.” The phrase, however, has gained a much greater gravitas in the Chinese officialdom.
First, it is used when Chinese officials have the impression that China’s status has been undermined on the world stage or when China has been unfairly presented in a negative light.
Second, this narrative is applied when one of China’s “sensitive” issues—such as the status of Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibet, and Xinjiang, respectively—is contested by another government or organization. In the context
of Tibet, for example, China communicated hurt feelings when French protests against China’s human rights violations broke out during the Olympic torch relay in Paris, when the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution on Tibet, when the London Metropolitan University granted the Dalai Lama an honorary doctorate and when President of France Nicolas met with the Dalai Lama in Poland.
DIPLOMACY OF ANGER
China’s diplomacy of anger often signals to foreign governments and organizations that the feelings of the Chinese people were hurt.
Expressions like “China is angry,” “enraged China,” or similar phrases have long been employed by the international media to describe Beijing’s reactions.
Recently, Beijing’s anger has often been perceived as targeting China’s strategic competitor and rival: the United States.
This includes instances when the multi-mission American destroyer USS Benfold transited through the Paracel Islands chain in the South China Sea, when the U.S. shot down the Chinese spy balloon, and when the U.S. Congress passed the Uighur Act of 2019, affecting the issue of China’s territorial sovereignty over Xinjiang.
More importantly, China’s anger is often directed at the United States in the context of its relations with Taiwan—especially when Washington strengthens its political, economic, and military ties with the democratic island nation.
During US Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan in August 2022, for example, China wanted to be portrayed as angry, conducting its emotional performance both verbally and physically, i.e. in the form of live military
CHINA TOPS GLOBAL DIPLOMACY INDEX
drills in the Taiwan Strait. Nevertheless, China’s anger is not limited to the United States. For instance, China seemed angry when the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague shredded China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea.
There has also been friction between Beijing and Canberra, which started in April 2020 when Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne called for an international independent inquiry into the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic in Wuhan, thus putting doubts on China’s international credibility.
This suggests that the roots of being hurt and feeling angry are two sides of the same coin: They are related to Beijing’s impression that foreign governments and organizations are challenging the territorial integrity of China and its international prestige.
This, in turn, means a strong link exists between the Chinese expression of its historical hurt and the performance of anger in the public square.
In fact, the CPC applies anger to communicate that the feelings of the Chinese people were “hurt” in matters designed by Beijing that are particularly sensitive to the psychological and emotional well-being of its citizens. It is directly connected with “disrespect” by foreign governments or organizations.
However, global media coverage on China’s emotions is characterized by one central “red thread:” it elaborates more on China’s anger rather than “hurting the feelings of the Chinese people.” Thus, there seems to be cognitive dissonance between the foreign perception of
China as being angry, aggressive, and revengeful on the one hand and Beijing’s manufactured narrative of China being hurt and unjustly disrespected on the other.
The latter seems to have been rather targeting the domestic audience, whereas internationally it has been overshadowed by the image of China’s anger.
IS CHINA’S “DIPLOMACY OF ANGER” EFFECTIVE?
On multiple occasions, China has been perceived as angry, particularly in terms of territorial integrity and international prestige.
Indeed, China wants to be seen as such, as it signals to other governments and organizations that there is a reason for them to be afraid of China’s potential retaliation. This way, China hopes to deter them from committing the same “mistake” again.
Even though China has been numerously signalling that the “feelings of the Chinese people were hurt,” this aspect has been much less visible in the international arena. Thus, there is a discrepancy between the image of anger globally and being hurt in the Chinese narrative.
The primary international focus is definitely on China’s anger, its need for retaliation, and the fear factor.
It appears that a large part of China’s message—which can be summarized as “apologize, retreat, and do not do it again”—is therefore obscured by Beijing’s angry performance on the world stage.
STRUGGLING AT 75
On its 75th anniversary, NATO remains under siege, with Russia and China aligned against it.
NMaj. Gen. Ajay. Sah SM, VSM (Retd), is the CIO at Synergia Foundation, with experience in conflict resolution, peacekeeping and counterterrorism.
ATO was created by 12 countries from Europe and North America on 4 April 1949. Since then, 20 more countries have joined NATO through 10 rounds of enlargement (in 1952, 1955, 1982, 1999, 2004, 2009, 2017, 2020, 2023 and 2024).
When the Berlin War came crashing down, many analysts predicted the demise of NATO, an organisation they said was no longer relevant in the new unipolar world. They could not have been farther off the mark. Flush with victory, the Western democracies were loath to give away the military advantage and a fresh raison d’etre was crafted- a force for broad-based political change in Europe.
Thus began the second phase in its history and a controversial expansion that lies at the heart of today’s conflict over Ukraine with Russia. Claiming democratic and free market expansion into areas surrendered by the Soviet Union consequent to its collapse, on its 50th anniversary in 1999, NATO pulled in the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary as new members. The number of allies grew to 19.
However, the push for new members did not end there. With the U.S. heavily involved in the ‘Global War on Terror,’ the alliance was looking for more members; by 2009, there were 28 members. It included erstwhile Warsaw Pact nations like Poland and Estonia, who came with a differing perspective on European security, which at times ran counter to the vision of the original Western European founding members of NATO. Russia objected to these expansions as it had little doubt as to
Beyond traditional military threats, NATO must also address a range of emerging challenges that require strategic shifts and new forms of cooperation. Climate change, for example, poses a significant threat to global security, as it can exacerbate conflicts, displace populations, and create resource scarcity.
where this was headed. The seeds of today’s stand-off with Russia were sown in the 2008 Bucharest summit, where an ill-advised President Bush promised eventual NATO membership to Ukraine and Georgia; the rest is history.
Today, on its 75th anniversary, the military alliance can claim itself as a testament to the enduring power of international cooperation and collective defence. Created in the aftermath of World War II as a bulwark against the Soviet Union, NATO has evolved.
Randall Stone, a political science professor at the University of Rochester, explains, “NATO is not just the strongest military alliance in world history, it’s also an effective international organisation that materially increases its members’ joint military capabilities and political influence.”
While NATO members come together to celebrate a milestone that marks the endurance of the Bloc for more than three score years, questions are being increasingly raised: has it met its objectives? As Christopher S. Chivvis, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, writes in the Foreign Policy (01 July 24), “But an alliance needs to do more
than survive to be truly successful. It also needs to serve the interests of its members. NATO’s history is the story of a struggle to do this—despite major disparities between U.S. and European military power, a growing number of allies, diverging interests, and an expanding geographic scope.”
WHAT NATO STANDS FOR?
The alliance’s core principle of collective defence, enshrined in Article 5 of the NATO treaty, has been invoked only once in its history—after the 9/11 attacks on the United States. This commitment to mutual aid has been a powerful deterrent against aggression, as any attack on one member would be met with the full force of the entire alliance.
In recent years, NATO has also proven its adaptability, expanding its focus to address emerging threats such as terrorism, cybersecurity, and China’s growing influence. The alliance has coordinated intelligence sharing, military operations, and diplomatic efforts to counter these evolving challenges. This adaptability is essential as the nature of global threats continues to shift.
NATO’s commitment to cybersecurity includes initiatives to bolster the cyber defences of member states, share threat intelligence, and develop rapid response mechanisms to counteract cyber threats.
Terrorism remains another focal point: The alliance’s engagement in counterterrorism efforts includes missions such as the NATO-led Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan, which aimed to train and assist Afghan security forces. Additionally, NATO’s strategic partnership with the African Union and support for counterterrorism operations in regions like the Sahel reflect its broader commitment to combating terrorism globally.
It is the Russian invasion of Ukraine that has revitalised NATO; members on both sides of the Atlantic had no option but to shore up the defences of Europe
by presenting a united face. After two years of fighting and billions of dollars gone up in smoke, pressures are building up, which may cause fractures to appear, with some members complaining of Ukraine’s handling of the war and their treasure. The moribund alliance must show greater flexibility to adapt to the dynamic geopolitical environment, where a distant power like China must also be part of the equation.
The war in Ukraine has underscored the importance of NATO’s eastern flank. Member states such as Poland and the Baltic nations have called for increased military presence and support to deter potential Russian aggression. NATO’s Enhanced Forward Presence, which deploys multinational battlegroups to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, demonstrates the alliance’s commitment to collective defence.
However, the situation in Ukraine presents a unique challenge, as NATO must balance its support for Ukraine with the risk of escalating tensions with Russia, a nuclear-armed adversary.
Beyond traditional military threats, NATO must also address a range of emerging challenges that require strategic shifts and new forms of cooperation. Climate change, for example, poses a significant threat to global security, as it can exacerbate conflicts, displace populations, and create resource scarcity.
NATO has recognised the security implications of climate change and is working to integrate environmental considerations into its planning and operations. This includes developing strategies to enhance the resilience of military infrastructure to climate impacts and supporting member states in addressing climate-related security risks.
THE CHINA FACTOR
The rise of China as a global power presents another complex challenge for NATO. While China is not a direct military threat to the alliance, its growing influence
in global affairs, technological advancements, and assertive foreign policy require NATO to reassess its strategic priorities. The alliance has begun addressing these concerns by increasing its engagement with Asia-Pacific partners, such as Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and South Korea, all of whom were present at the NATO summit, and focusing on issues like technological innovation and supply chain security.
China first figured at the 2022 NATO summit in Madrid, where a new NATO Strategic Concept was released. While Russia continued to occupy the place of pride as “the most significant and direct threat to allies’ security and to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area,” China made an entry for the first time in the Alliance’s history. The concept stated that China’s ambitions and coercive policies challenged NATO’s interests, security, and values.
A framework was outlined to manage China, asking all members to “work together responsibly, as Allies, to address the systemic challenges posed by the PRC to Euro-Atlantic security and ensure NATO’s enduring ability to guarantee the defence and security of Allies. We will boost our shared awareness, enhance our resilience and preparedness, and protect against the PRC’s coercive tactics and efforts to divide the Alliance. We will stand up for our shared values and the rules-based international order, including freedom of navigation.”
China came in for special attention in the recent 2024 summit. The NATO declaration accused Beijing of being a “decisive enabler of Russia’s war against Ukraine” through its supplies of dual-use goods such as microchips that can help Moscow’s military.” Clearly, the knives are out, and there is no longer any ambiguity.
the value of NATO as a security alliance. Unless compelling reasons force a change of mind, Mr Trump, in the past, had promised to withdraw from NATO along with all the financial might and firepower that the U.S. brings to bear. Such a move would spell disaster for the organisation, whatever brave face European nations may maintain when contemplating this contingency.
In contrast, the current Democratic administration under President Joe Biden has reaffirmed America’s commitment to the alliance, with Biden describing NATO as “more powerful than ever” during a recent address. Biden’s administration has worked to strengthen transatlantic ties, emphasising the importance of multilateralism and collective defence.
INTERNAL DIVISIONS
The ongoing war in Ukraine has presented the alliance with one of its greatest tests. Today, NATO grapples with the complex question of Ukraine’s potential membership, which was the principal pretext for Russia to launch its invasion.
While NATO has supported Ukraine’s eventual accession to the alliance, several member states remain hesitant to extend a formal invitation. Concerns over Ukraine’s governance and the potential for further escalation with Russia have led to a cautious approach, with the alliance opting for vague language that has frustrated Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
In fact, as per CNN, things have come to such a pass that NATO officials are reportedly deliberating actions to reclaim some Chinese-owned infrastructure projects in Europe if a broader conflict with Russia escalates. These Chinese investments are being seen as potential security liabilities.
DEPENDENCE ON U.S. POWER
Over the years, Washington has always pointed out the ever-increasing military capability gap between the U.S. and its NATO allies. Increasingly, it was becoming apparent that the U.S. was footing the bill for Europe’s defence, and the weakness of NATO forces was cruelly exposed during the 20-year military involvement in Afghanistan.
In 2014, during the Wales Summit, NATO leaders pledged to devote a minimum of 2 per cent to their GDP on defence; none followed it up, a fact seized upon by President Trump in belabouring his NATO partners.
A Trump victory in the November elections could queer the pitch for U.S.-NATO relations. As the President, Mr Trump was brutally frank about his views on
However, the war did help push the sitting-on-thefence Finland and Sweden to take the final plunge to join NATO, thus giving NATO a distinct advantage in the Baltic Sea region. The Russian special military operation also acted as the catalyst to force European powers to work towards meeting their 2 per cent of GDP pledge, which they had made exactly a decade back.
The political landscape across NATO member states is also in flux, with several countries facing consequential elections in the coming years. The rise of populist and nationalist movements in some European nations has raised concerns about their continued support for the alliance.
For example, the 2023 French presidential election saw the far-right National Rally party narrowly defeated, preserving France’s pro-NATO stance. The recent parliamentary elections also narrowly escaped a RightWing victory, with the left and socialists hammering a joint last-ditch strategy. However, other member states’ political volatility could challenge NATO’s unity and decision-making processes.
Hungary, under the leadership of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, has pursued policies that often conflict with broader EU and NATO positions, particularly regarding relations with Russia and democratic governance standards. While a staunch supporter of NATO, Poland has experienced internal political struggles that could impact its future stance within the alliance. The
rise of populist and nationalist movements within these countries could lead to friction within NATO, complicating decision-making and potentially weakening the alliance’s cohesion.
THE WAY AHEAD
The Washington summit is at a critical juncture, where NATO’s leaders must navigate these treacherous waters and chart a course for the alliance’s future. The alliance must also navigate the political sensitivities of individual member states, some of which have been wary of antagonising Moscow.
The degree to which they can present a united front and demonstrate the continued relevance of NATO will be a key measure of the alliance’s resilience and longevity.
Trump or no Trump, if NATO is to endure in the forthcoming turbulent phase of its existence, then Europe will have to step forward and assume its responsibilities for the defence of Europe both in terms of military power and diplomatic influence.
A transatlantic ally may not be keen to get involved immediately in European conflicts; in both world wars, the U.S. took its own sweet time to take the plunge, and the isolationist lobby is as strong today as it was in 1917 and 1940.
To maintain its relevance and effectiveness, NATO must continue to evolve its strategies and capabilities. This includes enhancing interoperability among member states’ forces, investing in advanced technologies, and developing new doctrines to address hybrid warfare and other contemporary threats.
Hybrid warfare, which blends conventional military tactics with cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and other non-traditional means, requires NATO to
adopt a more integrated and flexible approach to defence. The alliance has already taken steps in this direction by establishing the NATO Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence and enhancing its cyber defence capabilities.
Investing in emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, and advanced cyber capabilities, is crucial for maintaining NATO’s technological edge. The alliance must also ensure that these technologies are developed and deployed in ways consistent with international norms and ethical standards.
Synergia Takeaways
In addition to strengthening internal cohesion, NATO must enhance its partnerships with non-member states and international organisations. Collaborative efforts with the European Union, the United Nations, and regional organisations can help address global security challenges more effectively.
NATO’s engagement with global partners, including countries in the Asia-Pacific region, Africa, and Latin America, can also contribute to a more comprehensive approach to security. These partnerships can facilitate information sharing, joint exercises, and capacity-building efforts, enhancing the alliance’s ability to address diverse threats.
Ultimately, the significance of NATO at 75 lies in its capacity to evolve and remain a bulwark against aggression, a champion of democratic values, and a force for stability in an increasingly complex world. As the alliance looks to the future, its ability to confront the challenges of the 21st century will testify to its enduring importance on the global stage.
TURNAROUND MANTRAS
As companies look to straddle maximising profit with keeping employees motivated, what can businesses do to remain relevant?
SYNERGIA FOUNDATION
RESEARCH TEAM
In today’s turbulent environment, business leaders seek new pathways to success for their organisations. Despite the prevalent discourse on transformation through trends such as digitisation and remote work, many firms struggle with practically executing these transformations.
A historical perspective on the business environment since World War II provides context for these challenges. From 1948 through 1973, real GNP growth averaged 3.7 per cent, unemployment was relatively low, and inflation rarely exceeded 5 per cent, resulting in low interest rates. During this period, American businesses thrived in both domestic and international markets, accumulating a trade surplus of $157 billion.
Business practices and literature developed during this era were well-suited to the stable environment. Vertical organisations with short spans of control and powerful staff were effective. Decision-making was deliberate, involving multiple organisational layers. Long-term planning and investment decisions based on discounted cash flow were prioritised, and there was a reluctance to terminate managers or employees.
In this favourable environment, turnarounds were infrequent. Occasionally, management failures led to notable business collapses, such as those of Studebaker, the Henry J, and the Edsel. However, on the whole, the need for turnaround management was rare.
Corporate revitalisation encompasses multiple dimensions, including strategy, finance, organisation, culture, and the leader’s role. Business turnaround refers to revitalising a struggling or underperforming company by implementing strategic changes and improvements to restore financial stability, enhance operational efficiency, and return the business to profitability. A turnaround aims to address the root causes of poor performance and establish a sustainable competitive advantage within the industry.
The early 1970s marked the onset of significant challenges. While economists, political analysts, and social scientists may debate the causes, the effects were clear: the rate of environmental change accelerated, and competition intensified. The rapid pace of technological change has also introduced new products that have supplanted previously dominant offerings, further compounding these pressures.
Among the many stories of corporate turnarounds is the success of Best Buy orchestrated by Hubert Jolly, the author of the best-selling book The Heart of Business – Leadership Principles for the Next Era of Capi-
talism, a Harvard Business School faculty member who formerly served as chairman and CEO of Best Buy. Jolly’s successful experiences in turning around Best Buy, as enumerated in his book and articles, provide the basis for this article.
THE CULTURE ANGLE
Corporate revitalisation encompasses multiple dimensions, including strategy, finance, organisation, culture, and the leader’s role. Business turnaround refers to revitalising a struggling or underperforming company by implementing strategic changes and improvements to restore financial stability, enhance operational efficiency, and return the business to profitability. A turnaround aims to address the root causes of poor performance and establish a sustainable competitive advantage within the industry.
Turnarounds have become a common aspect of business life rather than exceptional occurrences. In recent years, companies such as Continental Bank, Bank of America, International Harvester, Braniff, People Express, Commodore, Atari, Control Data, Storage Technology, and Fotomat have all faced significant challenges. These are not small enterprises or confined to troubled sectors such as oil, steel, or smokestack industries. Indeed, it appears that no industry is immune. High-tech, low-tech manufacturing, and service, large and small companies alike are experiencing difficulties. Even prominent firms like Kodak, AT&T, and IBM are making concerted efforts to maintain their longstanding values while streamlining operations to remain competitive.
THE BEST BUY STORY
The vast majority of executives recognise the importance of profit. The challenge lies in realising a noble purpose and achieving meaningful outcomes. The primary objective of a company is not merely to generate profit. While profit is an essential outcome, it is not the ultimate purpose. Business has three imperatives:
people, business, and finance. Firstly, ensuring that employees are well-equipped and motivated. Secondly, satisfying customers with products and services that meet their needs. Lastly, achieving financial stability. These imperatives must be balanced. Reflecting on his career, Jolly defines his purpose as helping to unleash human potential and magic in the world.
Jolly emphasises that it is crucial to recognise that financial success is fundamental to any business. Without profitability, a business cannot survive.
However, there are more effective ways to maximise shareholder value than managing a business solely based on financial metrics. Research on companies like Google, Apple, and Microsoft reveals that a clear sense of purpose drives their success. For instance, Google’s mission to organise the world’s information and Amazon’s customer obsession were key to their growth.
As the CEO of Best Buy, Jolly was well positioned to navigate Best Buy through its turbulent times. Its turnaround, instead of focusing solely on cost-cutting, was profoundly human-centric. Several strategic actions were implemented, including aligning prices with Amazon, investing in the online shopping experience, enhancing supply chains and stores, exiting some international markets, and reducing costs. Rather than adopting a conventional cost-reduction strategy, Best Buy’s approach prioritised people.
Headcount reduction was a last resort, recognising that layoffs are only justifiable when all other measures have been exhausted. This approach contrasts sharply with the more prevalent focus on headcount reduction, which often forms a significant portion of a company’s cost structure. Of the $2 billion in costs eliminated, 70 per cent did not involve personnel reductions.
Another crucial aspect of the human-centric approach is creating energy within the organisation. This focus on harnessing and amplifying human energy was fundamental to the company’s successful turnaround.
THE LEADER’S ROLE
Starting with people within their businesses, who are the primary drivers of any enterprise, is quite inspiring. The title “Chief Executive Officer” does not fully capture the role. Instead, it should be as the “Chief Energizing Officer.” The role involves creating energy within the organisation by co-creating the diagnosis, creating the plan, initiating actions, celebrating early wins, and other similar activities.
This inspired the team at Best Buy to create an organisation where employees would love to work, customers would love to shop, communities would benefit, and shareholders would want to invest. Jobs became callings, focused on building a lasting legacy.
Bridging this gap involves focusing on the “why” (strategy) and the “how” (culture). Purpose must be the cornerstone of strategy, influencing portfolio activities, positioning, and marketing. Furthermore, the culture must foster an environment that unleashes human potential.
Regarding leadership, Jolly realised that the old management model—devising smart strategies and plans, instructing others, and aligning incentives—was insufficient. Instead, effective leadership is about creating the right environment. Leaders should act like gardeners, creating a fertile environment for growth. This involves fostering key drivers of extraordinary human behaviour based on research and experience.
SIX ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS INSPIRE EXTRAORDINARY BEHAVIOUR:
Meaning: People must feel their work has a purpose, driven from within.
Authentic Connection: Genuine human connections where everyone feels they belong, are respected, and valued.
Psychological Safety: Creating an environment where people feel safe.
Autonomy: Providing freedom and empowerment within a structured framework.
Growth Mindset: Viewing the world as a place of opportunities, not zero-sum.
Learning Environment: Encouraging continuous learning and growth.
The role of leaders is to cultivate an environment where individuals can contribute to their fullest potential, aligning their personal purpose with the company’s. This requires a profound shift in leadership approach, focusing on enabling others to unleash their potential and achieve extraordinary results.
During Jolly’s tenure as the CEO of Microsoft, the company’s purpose was revitalised to empower ev-
ery person and organisation to achieve more. This approach, focused on addressing unmet needs with empathy, drove significant growth and profitability. Empathy, while not synonymous with love, is closely related and essential in understanding and addressing customers’ and employees’ needs.
A common misconception is that focusing on love and human connection in business implies disregarding financial results. This is not the case. The goal is to integrate a noble purpose with a strategy that drives economic value. Companies must balance purpose with profitability, ensuring that their initiatives create value for customers and shareholders.
TO MAKE THIS PURPOSE-DRIVEN APPROACH REAL, CONSIDER THESE KEY STEPS:
Go Slow to Go Fast: Take the time to translate the purpose into a clear, actionable strategy. Ensure that this strategy is practical and aligns with business goals.
Create the Right Environment: Establish an environment that supports the purpose. This includes fostering a culture of openness and trust.
Simplify the Message: Keep the purpose simple and relatable. Use stories and practical examples to illustrate how it can be applied in everyday work.
Leadership by Example: Leaders must embody and demonstrate the purpose through their actions. If leaders do not practice what they preach, the initiative will fail.
Follow Through: Continuously reinforce the purpose through communication, training, and recognition. Show how the purpose translates into business success.
Ultimately, integrating purpose with profit requires a clear, practical approach communicated effectively and embodied by leadership. By doing so, businesses can achieve sustainable success while fostering a culture of empathy and connection.
Consider the resurgence of Microsoft, which has used purpose and culture as catalysts for growth, making it the most valuable company globally. Similarly, Netflix has leveraged its culture to create a sustainable competitive advantage. Ralph Lauren’s clear purpose—”to inspire the dream of a better life through authenticity and timeless style”—can serve as a powerful differentiator and enhance shareholder value. The company’s share price has increased significantly, demonstrating the tangible benefits of a purpose-driven strategy.
WHEN STRATEGY AND CULTURE COMBINE
The turnaround story of IBM is legendary, and Louis Gerstner’s memoir, “Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance?” provides an unparalleled account of this transformation. As the CEO who revived IBM from the brink
of collapse and restored it to its former glory, Gerstner’s leadership from 1993 to 2002 is renowned.
Gerstner’s memoir explores strategy and culture, detailing IBM’s remarkable turnaround. He underscores the importance of aligning managers’ interests with those of shareholders, not through risk-free instruments like stock options but by requiring them to invest their own money in direct ownership of company stocks. This principle became a cornerstone of the management philosophy he implemented at IBM.
Gerstner emphasises a few key principles for success: leadership, customer focus, strategy, and culture.
Leadership is a central theme in this narrative. Gerstner emphasises the necessity of gradually constructing a management team, business by business, individual by individual, and day by day.
He prioritised stock-based compensation as the largest component of executive pay, reducing annual cash compensation in favour of the potential for stock appreciation.
Executives were required to invest their money into direct ownership of IBM stocks to receive stock options. According to Gerstner, institutional transformation is unattainable if incentive programs are not aligned with the new strategy.
Regarding customer focus, Gerstner asserts that a successful, focused enterprise deeply understands its customers’ needs, competitive environment, and economic realities. His strategic approach, informed by his experience at McKinsey, highlights the importance of a detailed process to comprehend a company’s foundational elements. He emphasises the necessity of balancing decentralised decision-making with a central strategy and a unified customer focus. Gerstner’s first and
most crucial strategic decision at IBM was to keep the company intact. IBM’s turnaround hinged on the effective execution of this strategy.
Culture remained a cornerstone of Gerstner’s strategy. He dedicated himself to creating organisations that balance hierarchical structures with collaborative problem-solving, regardless of employees’ positions within the company.
His tenure at IBM reinforced his conviction that culture is not merely a part of the organisation; it is the organisation’s essence.
Gerstner asserted that an organisation ultimately reflects the collective capacity of its people to create value. He concluded that management does not change culture but invites the workforce to transform it.
Synergia Takeaways
A continued emphasis on culture defines business transformation in some of today’s best-known corporate success stories. Leaders such as Hubert Jolly, who have transformed companies into success, emphasise the importance of a clearly marked-out purpose that serves to inspire and set the tone for the company.
In environments where providing feedback is culturally challenging, such as in India, anonymous 360-degree feedback can be beneficial. As a leader, it is crucial to set the appropriate tone, emphasising the importance of honesty and creating a psychologically safe environment for feedback. Leaders should model openness to feedback and demonstrate how they use it to improve.
SMARTPHONE ECONOMY
India’s smartphone journey highlights its electronics boom but also sparks questions about its position in the global value chain.
Tarini Dhar Prabhu, Research Associate in Synergia Foundation
In a country with a growing consumer class, the mobile phone represents aspirations, a portal to a better quality of life. Demand for discretionary products like smartphones and other gadgets is on the rise.
India’s journey with the smartphone is a success story that illustrates the growth of India’s booming electronics industry. It also shows how a thriving manufacturing ecosystem can be created.
THE PREMIUM SEGMENT
The aspirational premium smartphone segment (Rs. 20,000 - 30,000) is one of the most advanced and most competitive in the smartphone market.
Brands like OnePlus, Samsung, and Vivo compete through modern specs and features like 5G, camera quality, storage capacity, and unique design aesthetics.
According to a consumer survey by CyberMedia Research (CMR), a technology research and consulting firm, youth prefer aspirational premium smartphones.
This only underscores the positioning of smartphones as not just a functional buy but a lifestyle statement. This premiumisation is spurring a shift towards higher-end devices, which will benefit vendors and supply-side companies whose manufacturing and assembly take place in India.
India’s smartphone story exemplifies how government policies can combine with other favourable factors to spur the manufacturing ecosystem. Government investments in upgrading infrastructure have paid off and helped companies with supply chain logistics. India is working on localising the manufacture of subassemblies or sub-components.
While the premium brands cross price levels of over Rs 1,00,000, cheaper processors and chip affordability have made smartphones more affordable. With greater penetration of mobile-based internet at affordable rates, smartphones have ensured that digital lifestyle permeates every corner of our lives, whether rich or poor. The surge in mobile internet consumers reflects this; from 2017 to 2022, the number of internet subscribers grew at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 15 per cent.
The average Indian, especially in an urban landscape, increasingly uses only digital payment through UPI apps loaded on their smartphones. Digital transactions grew at a CAGR of 46 per cent between FY18 and FY22.
With all its deaths and disruptions, the pandemic had a positive impact in ushering online education, healthcare and governance. This ensured that the
multipurpose smartphone became the hub of all activities-lifestyle, professional and leisure. No longer considered a luxury, smartphones have become a priority purchase to gain access to the digital world. With a wide spectrum of prices and capabilities between various brands and models, almost all segments of society can afford one type or other matching their purses.
THE SMARTPHONE BOOM
After China, India is the second largest manufacturer of smartphones. It is also home to the second-largest smartphone market in the world.
Phone production accounts for almost half of its electronics industry. Further, India has managed to achieve substantial self-reliance in the sector. In 2014, only 19 per cent of phones were made in India, while the rest were imported. In 2022, India produced 98 per cent of its smartphones, a total of 2 billion smartphones. The sector witnessed a 23 per cent CAGR from 2014 to 2022.
More importantly, the sector witnessed growing value addition and supply chain development. From 2 per cent value addition in 2016 (assembly), India has progressed to 15 per cent (assembly and sub-components) in 2022.
This increased local value addition is enabled by a conducive ecosystem. Several major smartphone companies have set up units in India which manufacture components in addition to phones. This attracts more investment and creates skilled jobs.
However, it is still far from satisfactory as the value addition must definitely go up, which will encourage the growth of a domestic supply chain. Smartphone exports have also increased, boosted by smartphone giants like Apple and Samsung, shipping to the UK, Netherlands, Austria, Italy, the Middle East, North Africa, and South America. According to Morgan Stanley, the projected future is equally rosy; India is set to become the fastest-growing smartphone market in the next ten years.
India’s growing GDP is expected to more than double over the next decade with a matching rise in per capita income, which will boost sales further. So, buying stock from smartphone companies would be a good investment in India!
ATTRACTING THE BIG BOYS
Both foreign and domestic companies have contributed to India’s smartphone boom, supported by factors like a highly skilled workforce, affordable labour, beneficial government measures, and growing consumer demand. Samsung, a South Korean brand, has established its largest phone-manufacturing unit in India.
Foxconn, a Taiwanese electronic company, is setting up a unit on the outskirts of Bangalore that will produce about 20 million iPhones a year. Tata, a major domestic conglomerate, has set up two units making iPhones. Although it joined the smartphone market as recently as 2021, it has already advanced from producing components for old iPhone models to assembling iPhones. Dixon Technologies, a leading Indian electronics company, has started manufacturing smartphones for foreign brands, and its share price has shot up by 150 per cent over the past year.
Geopolitical factors have also carved out a context where India is increasingly seen as an attractive option for manufacturing electronics at the cost of China. Geopolitical and supply-chain risks, precipitated by the pandemic, U.S.-China tensions, and the Ukraine war, are prompting the big players to reassess their manufacturing hubs. India must compete with nations like Vietnam, Indonesia and Malaysia to attract investments.
GOVERNANCE ISSUES
India’s smartphone story exemplifies how government policies can combine with other favourable factors to spur the manufacturing ecosystem. Government investments in upgrading infrastructure have paid off and helped companies with supply chain logistics. India
Source: Counterpoint Research
is working on localising the manufacture of sub-assemblies or sub-components. India’s smartphone imports have steadily declined.
In 2016, the central government set up a Phased Road Map (PMP) to promote domestic phone manufacturing. It included the following interventions:
• A 12.5 per cent countervailing duty on imports (to offset subsidies made by the foreign exporting country).
• Customs duty exemptions for domestic manufacturers.
• Differential excise duties.
• Incentives of 20-25 per cent on capital expenditure, given that electronics manufacturing is highly capital-intensive
• Production-linked incentives (PLIs) on sales of manufactured phones as well as goods that form a part of the smartphone value chain. These include telecom and networking equipment.
LOOKING AHEAD
Going forward, India can focus on moving up the value chain. Earlier, most Indian companies were assembling and labelling end products imported from China. However, this is now changing as companies rely on their India facilities to manufacture different sub-components and casing.
The government is also making efforts to foster semiconductor manufacturing, which would enable Indian companies to start manufacturing chip goods like processors, memory, and storage units for smartphones.
India stands to benefit from gaining ground in high-value segments. The domestic market for priority components (which account for a substantial portion of the demand for components), such as camera modules and printed circuit boards (PCBs), is projected to grow. If India can reduce its dependence on imported priority
components, it can benefit from the growing demand and create thousands of skilled jobs. India manufactures components like chargers, cables, and batteries, but more sophisticated components like screens and computer chips are imported. Countries like Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and China are at higher levels of the mobile phone value chain.
A COUNTER PERSPECTIVE
The smartphone success story has been challenged by Mr Raghuram Rajan, former RBI governor, and others. Mr Rajan contends that while smartphone exports are growing in number, most of the components are imported.
The export boom has created low-level assembly jobs while imported components have shot up. Moreover, taxpayer money is spent on subsidies and exemptions to smartphone companies.
However, this has been countered by the Ministry for Electronics, which claims that not all imported components (screens, batteries, etc.) are used to make smartphones but are also used for other electronics. Further, the PLI scheme supports only about 22 per cent of mobile phone manufacturing. Regarding value addition, as the broader supply and assembly chain is established in India, value addition will go up.
It is worth noting that the government has provided production and capital-linked incentives for other components along the value chain (such as core transmission equipment, 4G/5G, and semiconductors), which would help localise these critical elements of the supply chain and reduce the risk of import-dependency.
Another way to reconcile the issue that Mr Rajan refers to could be to gradually reduce subsidies and incentives linked with churning out completed products and instead target value addition.
The smartphone reflects the aspirations of India’s consumers as well as its manufacturers. As consumers increasingly invest in an upgraded lifestyle, manufacturers are looking to move up the value chain.
India’s smartphone success story exemplifies that government measures, growing domestic demand, and skilled human resources can create a supportive ecosystem for electronics and capitalise on companies de-risking from China.
India will have to reduce its dependence on imported components and build its capabilities towards manufacturing higher-value goods along the supply chain, enabling it to create skilled jobs and ensure that import costs do not outweigh its electronics boom.
Synergia Takeaways
PRICKING CHINA’S EV BUBBLE?
The EU’s higher tariffs on Chinese electric cars are another step to rein in China’s galloping lead in green technology.
SYNERGIA FOUNDATION
RESEARCH TEAM
The EU is imposing significantly higher tariffs on imported electric vehicles (EVs) from China. The move occurs amidst wider concerns about Chinese government subsidies and low-cost Chinese green technologies flooding EU markets. The provisional higher tariffs range from 26 to 48 per cent and will go into effect in july until a final decision is made after four months. The tariff hike resulted from increased EU scrutiny of Chinese businesses in recent months. The Bloc looks to safeguard its domestic industries from foreign companies that benefit from price-distorting subsidies, with China in focus.
The U.S. has gone a step ahead with tariffs at 100 per cent on Chinese EVs. However, the EU’s tariff over and above the current tariff of 10 per cent on imported cars will mean a nearly five-fold increase for some Chinese producers.
The escalated duties are provisional, meaning that although they will be levied, they will only be confirmed in November if the EC finds that the EU’s auto industry would have faced material harm without them. This leaves some room for negotiation. The EU and Beijing have agreed to engage in trade talks to resolve the issue.
GRABBING THE GLOBAL LEAD
A report in the Harvard Business Review (03 January 2024) by Chengyi Lin, an affiliate professor of
The EU burnt its fingers in the solar panel debacle wherein cheap Chinese imports virtually crushed the few EU solar panel manufacturers in just a few years before import tariffs could be slapped. Having learnt a bitter lesson, the EU wants to ensure a more level playing ground for all manufacturers in the EV sector, a flagship initiative of the Green drive.
strategy and a leading expert on digital transformation at INSEAD, claims that China leads the world in putting on-road electric vehicles (EVs). Naturally, it is also swamping the global EV market with its products, grabbing over 22 per cent of global EV exports in 2022. While the early adopters of EVs have been the U.S. and the Scandinavian countries, the West has lagged in mass market adoption to the Chinese. Three reasons for this remarkable success have been attributed- experimenting in adjacent industries, encouraging operational solutions and doubling down on core technology.
China has always strongly advocated state support for fledging new industries, and the EV industry has received the unstinted support of government finances. Since 2009, the Chinese government has been subsidising the manufacture and sale of hybrid and electric cars and buses, to the tune of RMB 4000 ($5550) to RMB 60,000 ($ 8000) per unit in passenger cars. Not surprisingly, a robust domestic industry emerged, with
EV sales soaring 82 per cent in 2022 and accounting for nearly 60 per cent of global EV purchases. Having established a robust and flourishing EV domestic industry, China was well poised to venture globally.
While welcomed at home, state subsidies are frowned upon when such subsidies unfairly tilt the competition in favour of the home team in exports.
CRACKING DOWN ON UNFAIR PRACTICES
The EU’s eight-month anti-subsidy investigation into Chinese EVs is the highest-profile anti-subsidy case in years. The European Commission (EC), the EU’s executive branch, found that companies making EVs in China benefit from substantial government subsidies, enabling them to undercut EU rivals through lower prices. They thereby gain significant market share and an unfair competitive edge. For instance, BYD, a leading Chinese car maker, sells its Dolphin model in Europe at about 32,400 euros, while a Tesla Model Y costs almost 40,000 euros and a Volkswagen ID.4 costs 37,000 euros.
According to the EC, Chinese EVs have leapt from 3.9 per cent of the EV market in 2020 to 25 per cent by September 2023. It found that companies in China benefitted from supply-side subsidies like low-cost land for factories, lithium at below-market prices, tax breaks, and cheap loans from state-controlled banks.
EU fears are real and not just imagined. As Chinese EVs rapidly gain more market share, the EU is concerned that they will jeopardise the EU’s green tech industries, which are integral to its efforts to cut down on carbon emissions. There are also millions of auto industry workers and many more people whose livelihoods are indirectly connected to EV production.
The EU burnt its fingers in the solar panel debacle wherein cheap Chinese imports virtually crushed the few EU solar panel manufacturers in just a few years before import tariffs could be slapped. Having learnt a bitter lesson, the EU wants to ensure a more level play-
ing ground for all manufacturers in the EV sector, a flagship initiative of the Green drive.
India, too, is in the same boat, having sunk billions in the domestic solar panel manufacturing sector under Aatmanirbhar Bharat, which is now under threat due to the influx of cheap Chinese imports. Despite imposing a 40 per cent import duty, Chinese solar panels remain cheaper, primarily due to special incentives provided by China to boost exports to India. The domestic solar panel industry’s capacity utilisation has plummeted to 30-35 per cent due to the surge in Chinese imports. Many manufacturers have turned to export markets to sustain operations, with substantial shipments made to countries like the U.S.
Never one to take things lying down, Beijing has threatened retaliations; one EU item targeted is the lucrative pork shipments to China’s huge market that keeps the restive EU agriculture sector well lubricated with profits. Having identified the movement’s leaders to target Chinese EV imports- France and Germany- Beijing has cleverly designed its retaliation to hurt these two countries the most. Tariffs will be imposed on French wine-based spirits and gas-guzzling luxury automobiles from Germany!
A GEOPOLITICAL SHIFT
This shift from Chinese imports was expected as geopolitical contestations are increasing the gap between China and the U.S. and its EU allies. It reflects an overall EU determination to de-risk from China. The measure also reflects the EU’s determination to derisk from China, reducing risky dependence on China. Moreover, the EU increasingly views China as a strategic rival and has become more wary of it since it supported Russia after it invaded Ukraine.
Contrary to common perception, the EU is not following American cues; its responses have been far more toned down. While the US’s prohibitive tariffs are intended to exclude Chinese EVs from the market,
the EU’s tariffs are intended to nullify the advantages gained from subsidies. This reflects that the EU is keen to maintain trade ties with China, which is hardly surprising considering that a goods trade worth $ 798 billion and exports over $ 241 are at stake!
While the EU tariffs have been criticised as protectionist, the WTO rules permit tariffs intended to offset the effects of subsidies, provided that the investigating country finds that its domestic industry faces material harm from the subsidised imports. On the other hand, the U.S. measures are more extreme than just mitigating the effects of subsidies; the U.S. seems to have little faith in the WTO system when it comes to dealing with China’s unfair practices.
THE FALLOUT
The move has been criticised because it will lead to higher prices in the EV market and discourage demand for battery-powered cars, hindering the EU’s carbon reduction goals. Yet, allowing its local EV industry to be wiped out could bode worse for its green goals. The measure could also risk escalating trade tensions and spark a trade conflict. Further, the increased tariffs could hit consumers more than Chinese car makers by hiking the price of affordable EVs. It could also hit European car manufacturers that rely on China for production and exports, like BMW and Mercedes Benz.
Yet, as an article by Chatham House (June 13, 2024) points out, it could be worth paying a premium for domestic goods as an investment towards green tech capacities in a volatile geopolitical context. The EU would also have to look at its financing of green tech as its current investment levels fall short. According to an article in the New York Times, the EU is not manufacturing enough batteries for the growing number of EVs expected to be produced in the coming years (December 6, 2023). Batteries are the costliest components of EVs, and here again, China has an unassailable lead. Given that China supplies cheap green tech, it cannot be denied that tariffs increasing the cost of these goods
will slow down the green transition. Not only will this discourage demand for green goods, but it will also strengthen the perception that clean energy is an elite choice.
One possible alternative could be for Chinese EV makers to establish plants in EU countries that employ European workers or set up joint ventures with European car companies. Chinese car companies already have plans to expand in Europe: BYD is keen to become a top carmaker in Europe by 2030. Its first EU plant is going to be an assembly unit in Hungary. Several European countries are keen to welcome Chinese car and battery makers to their home turf, hoping it could generate jobs and strengthen domestic supply chains. In other words, a certain degree of dependence on China could be a price worth paying to access affordable green tech and create jobs.
Synergia Takeaways
As the EU balances competing considerations of protecting local industry and jobs, supporting the green transition, and safeguarding consumer interests, it will factor in the lessons from the solar panel debacle.
Yet, shutting out Chinese green tech goods like EVs would mean losing out on the most affordable EVs on the market. It would also risk trade hostilities with China, leading to retaliation and harming trade ties with Beijing worth billions of dollars.
In any case, whether the EU’s tariffs will be sufficient to prevent Chinese EVs from undercutting locally produced EVs remains to be seen. Certain Chinese producers could still make a profit and remain competitive in the market despite the higher duties, while others may find it more difficult. India has learnt this bitter lesson in the solar panel debacle at some cost.
WATT’S THE RISK?
Shining a light on the gaps that could leave us in the dark
FOUNDATION
RESEARCH TEAM
Energy, the lifeblood of modern society, is under greater threat than before. Governments are scrambling to ensure they have sufficient energy. A volatile global energy market, an unstable supply chain, and proliferating armed conflicts have debunked old assumptions about energy security- “the ability of individuals, organisations, and governments to adapt to supply disruptions in the energy markets.” Fatih Birol, President of the International Energy Agency (IEA), aptly noted, “Energy security is at the heart of today’s geopolitical tensions. Ensuring a stable and affordable energy supply is more crucial than ever.”
Firstly, cutting consumption—not importing—improves energy security, but not many nations can afford to do so. Second, thinking about energy externalities is different from thinking about energy security. Politically, energy security tariffs are attractive, but economically, they are more challenging to defend. Lastly, there is a clear divergence in the worries that policymakers and economists have about energy security. Nations collaborate on cross-border infrastructure projects to bolster the resilience of energy systems, such as interconnected grids, pipelines, and transmission networks.
These initiatives facilitate the exchange of energy resources, enhance reliability, and strengthen the collective resilience of regional and global energy infrastructure. International collaborations also establish emergency response mechanisms to swiftly address sudden disruptions in energy supply, ensuring effective crisis management and minimising impacts on global energy markets. This was admirably displayed after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine when suddenly Europe found its energy taps running dry.
Energy security plays a paramount role in the complex fabric of global affairs, influencing economic stability, national security, and environmental sustainability. As the world strives to balance the growing energy demands with geopolitical challenges and effective policymaking, it is crucial to thoroughly examine the interplay between energy security, geopolitics, and policies.
THE CONUNDRUM OF ENERGY SECURITY
Energy security plays a paramount role in the complex fabric of global affairs, influencing economic stability, national security, and environmental sustainability. As the world strives to balance the growing energy demands with geopolitical challenges and effective policymaking, it is crucial to thoroughly examine the interplay between energy security, geopolitics, and policies.
Through bilateral and multilateral partnerships and coordinated responses, nations work towards building a resilient, sustainable, and interconnected international energy framework. As global energy landscapes evolve, cooperation, diplomacy, and shared responsibility are increasingly vital in a secure and sustainable energy future worldwide.
The relationship between energy security, geopolitics, and policies is dynamic and interdependent. Just as threads in a tapestry are woven together to create a cohesive image, geopolitical realities shape the landscape of energy security, influencing the creation of national policies, while these policies, in turn, affect dynamics.
SYNERGIA
“National interests, resource competition, and diplomatic relationships are intricately interwoven in the pursuit of energy security,” illustrating these elements’ complex and reciprocal nature. Overall, international collaborations and agreements play crucial roles in addressing the multifaceted challenges of energy security.
The threats are not far to seek. Geopolitical tensions can disrupt resource flow, as conflicts in key regions like the Middle East can lead to supply interruptions. Natural disasters damage infrastructure and hinder transport routes. Increasing cyberattacks on critical energy infrastructure further highlight technological susceptibilities.
Dependence on a few suppliers for essential resources like rare earth elements amplifies the risk. The energy supply chain is like a fragile ecosystem, where one weak link can cause ripple effects throughout the system.
Transitioning to renewable energy introduces new challenges, such as the interdependency of wind and solar power and the need for rare materials.
FACING UP TO MARKET POWER
The primary global sovereignty concern in internationally traded fuels is the dominant actors’ market power, which could disrupt prices or supply. Proxy indicators include fuel production share and geographic concentration, particularly in single global markets like oil, coal, and regional gas markets. National sovereignty concerns are primarily related to import dependency on a specific fuel, which makes the energy supply vulnerable to global price volatility, the market power of major exporters, and disruption factors along import routes.
Nations are worried about the security of their energy imports from unfriendly, unstable, or politically unacceptable countries, while others come from trusted partners. Energy security is crucial for countries to ensure the availability of various energy types for final uses in the required quantity and quantity, over short, mid, and long-time horizons. It involves access to commodity sources, transportation, transformation into secondary commodities, and distribution within the
country. In countries with low self-sufficiency, such as Italy, geopolitical scenarios and internal transport/distribution security are critical.
MITIGATING STRATEGIES
In the interconnected realm of global energy security, nations prioritise collaborative efforts to address shared challenges and mitigate geopolitical risks for a stable and sustainable energy future. Bilateral partnerships typically focus on securing access to strategic energy resources through agreements between energy-importing and resource-rich nations. Last year, QatrEnergy signed a 27-year agreement with China’s Sinopec LNG to give Beijing unprecedented control over its energy security.
At the regional level, multilateral partnerships facilitate cooperation among neighbouring countries to tackle common energy challenges. Agreements in regional energy cooperation concentrate on shared infrastructure, regulatory frameworks, and collective strategies to optimise energy resources and bolster security within the region. International energy forums such as the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF) provide platforms for dialogue, information-sharing, and collaborative initiatives, promoting a unified approach to global energy security efforts. A good example is how Europe handled its energy crisis after breaking its energy ties with Russia.
Massive capacities have been created to convert liquefied natural gas back into gas. Liquefied natural gas terminals are being built on a large scale worldwide, especially in the U.S., so Europe should be able to obtain supplies from “friendly” countries in the future. Therefore, a near-complete decoupling from Russia should be possible in the years to come.
The International Energy Agency anticipates a 23 per cent increase in international demand for energy by 2040, with fossil fuels remaining predominant in transportation and electricity generation. However, the role of carbon-free energy sources is expected to expand significantly. In line with the 2015 Paris Agreement, over 190 countries have committed to reducing emissions.
Reflecting this shift, sustainable investment funds saw a remarkable rise in 2020, with US$350 billion invested— double the amount from 2019. Capital is flowing into renewable energy production, research, and technology development. Despite the surge in renewable investments, fossil fuels still account for 80 per cent of energy production, with renewables and nuclear making up a minor share. The new energy systems necessitate substantial investment and infrastructure development to link renewable production sites with demand centres, reshaping global energy landscapes. “This surge in sustainable investment underscores a global commitment to a cleaner, more resilient energy future,” notes Fatih Birol, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency. By 2040, renewables, especially wind and solar, will constitute 47 per cent of the global electricity market. This transition to renewable energy sources carries profound implications.
ENERGY CORRIDORS & SUPER GRIDS
Creating International Energy corridors is essential to bolster energy security in a world fraught with vulnerabilities. These corridors, which facilitate the transportation of energy resources such as oil, gas, and electricity across borders, help diversify supply routes and reduce dependency on single sources or routes. However, establishing these corridors also requires careful consideration of security concerns, as they can become targets for cyber-attacks, terrorism, and political manipulation.
As the International Energy Agency (IEA) emphasised, “International energy corridors must be developed with stringent security measures and collaborative frameworks to ensure uninterrupted and secure energy supply across regions.” Just as a well-designed network of highways ensures that traffic can flow even if one route is blocked, robust international energy corridors can ensure the steady flow of energy resources despite disruptions.
In India, Phase 1 of the Green Energy Corridor is already under implementation in Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Himachal Pradesh, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Rajasthan. It will ensure the grid integration and power evacuation of about 24GW of Renewable Energy.
Super grids, expansive networks that transmit electricity across vast regions and continents, emerge as a promising solution to bolster energy security. In 2015 and 2016, cyber-attacks targeted Ukraine’s power infrastructure, aiming to disrupt and turn off control systems, complicating restoration efforts and causing significant disruptions. Connecting diverse energy sources across different regions, Supergrids mitigate localised shortages and ensure a more dependable energy supply. However, they also introduce new vulnerabilities. The complexity and scale of super grids increase susceptibility to cyber threats, infrastructure failures, and geopolitical tensions that could disrupt cross-border electricity flows. Balancing the benefits and risks is necessary for advancing energy security.
Super grids have already become a reality in Europe, exemplified by interconnected systems such as Denmark-Norway, France-Spain, and Sweden-Germany. Inter-connectors like Eleclink, a British company, facilitate the seamless transfer of surplus green energy between France and the UK, demonstrating the potential of super grids to enhance energy reliability and sustainability on a continental scale.
Technological breakthroughs in energy storage solutions, particularly advancements in battery technologies and grid-scale storage, promise to revolutionise the energy landscape. These innovations will mitigate the intermittent nature of renewable sources, enhancing grid stability, reliability, and overall energy system efficiency.
INDIA’S ENERGY SECURITY VULNERABILITIES
India’s energy security vulnerabilities stem from its heavy reliance on imported energy sources, with over 80 per cent of its crude oil and about 50 per cent of its natural gas imported. This dependence exposes the country to global supply disruptions and price volatility. Additionally, India’s domestic energy infrastructure faces challenges such as ageing power plants, inadequate transmission networks, and inefficiencies in energy distribution.
Despite significant potential, the slow transition to renewable energy further exacerbates these vulnerabilities. Furthermore, geopolitical tensions in key energy-producing regions like the Middle East can threaten supply stability.
At the same time, the country’s increasing energy demand, driven by rapid economic growth and urbanisation, puts additional pressure on its energy security. Addressing these issues requires comprehensive policy measures, investment in green energy, and advancements in energy efficiency.
Synergia Takeaways
Mitigating energy security vulnerabilities is akin to building robust bridges that connect energy production centres to consumption hubs, ensuring uninterrupted energy flow despite potential disruptions.
We have reached a juncture where the impact of individual countries on climate change is limited. Therefore, placing our faith in new energy systems, corridors, and super grids is pivotal for humanity’s survival.
International collaborative research on energy technologies fosters innovation, accelerates technological advancements, and promotes global energy security through knowledge-sharing and capacity-building initiatives.
EUROPE’S QUANDARYLEFT RIGHT OR CENTRE?
As Europe bucks the right-wing swing, it brings back nightmarish memories of the fascist tide of the previous century.
SYNERGIA FOUNDATION
RESEARCH TEAM
Doubts and concerns for the future beset the European voter. Convinced that the liberal centrists that have ruled so long have failed to stem the tide of immigrants, curb radical terror and sustain the high quality of life they had got accustomed to, the voter is daring to look elsewhere. As it happened in Germany after World War I, the voters are inclined to trust once again their fates to the slippery and dangerous road to extreme right-wing governance that, as always, promises a forcefully purposeful and nationalistic orientation.
This right-wing trend in Europe is attributed by many to a widespread anti-incumbency sentiment. Economic factors, such as rising food and energy costs and declining disposable incomes, are significant drivers of this voting change.
While far-right parties often campaign on anti-immigration and Eurosceptic platforms, their broader appeal lies in addressing universal concerns like jobs, education, healthcare, national identity, and the economy. These parties attract a diverse coalition of voters disillusioned with the political establishment.
The far-right jumped to the limelight in the recent European Parliament elections when they fared much better than anticipated. The centre-right European People’s Party retained its dominance, winning 188 seats. However, right-wing alliances, such as the Euro-
The recent EU Parliament election results have raised concerns that political establishments across Europe are quietly abandoning the post-WWII principle of “no collaboration with fascists.”
pean Conservatives and Reformists group and the Identity and Democracy group, made significant inroads.
Despite their growing popularity, the extreme right failed to secure a majority in France’s election. Many European capitals were relieved by the election results, and French cooperation with Germany and other nations is expected to continue.
EU LANDSCAPE
While mainstream media in Europe continues to downplay the influence of the far right, like the NR in France, Brothers of Italy and the Alternative for Democracy in Germany, the reality is that the right-wing is gaining in strength.
However, even within their ranks, a political divide remains between the more conventional and less rabid right and an emboldened new fascist one. How soon this gulf can be bridged is something that needs to be carefully watched.
Earlier this month, a government of far-right figures was established in the Netherlands. Its most right-wing leader currently leads Italy since the fascist wartime
leader Benito Mussolini. These electoral successes and the prospect of populist right-wing leaders in power are no longer surprising in European countries.
The rise in populism can be attributed to various factors, often unique to individual countries. Generally, many European nations are experiencing sluggish economies, high immigration, and increased energy prices, partly due to pursuing carbon net zero goals. Populist politicians often blame the European Union for national issues, fuelling an increasingly Eurosceptic national discourse.
While Britain has swung left, far-right parties across Europe have gained ground against their more liberal and centrist opponents, as demonstrated by recent EU Parliament elections. This shift has raised concerns that mainstream parties are abandoning the post-WWII principle of non-collaboration with fascists, thereby expanding the political space for neo-fascism.
Conversely, many Western European countries, which previously criticised Brexit and the UK’s populist trends, are now seeing their electorates move to the right. Nationalist and populist parties, such as Italy’s Fratelli d’Italia, the Netherlands’ Party for Freedom, Germany’s Alternative for Germany, and France’s National Rally, are rising in polls and elections.
The recent EU Parliament election results have raised concerns that political establishments across Europe are quietly abandoning the post-WWII principle of “no collaboration with fascists.” The European People’s Party (EPP), comprising Christian democrats, liberal conservatives, and traditional conservatives, emerged as the biggest winner in the European Parliament elections.
Nonetheless, the new parliament will not include any left-wing parties with extremism comparable to that of the far right, sparking worries about potential collaboration between the EPP and neo-fascist factions.
FRANCE’S DANGEROUS DANCE WITH THE RIGHT
France has a significant say in European matters, ranked along with Germany as the most influential
country in Europe and globally. Therefore, the kind of political philosophy that reigns over the country has significant implications for the rest of Europe.
Since it became a republic in 1787, France has flirted with monarchy (Napoleon Bonaparte), the Communists (the short-lived Paris Commune after the fall of Napoleon III in 1871) and dictatorship (the Vichy France regime between 1940 and 1942).
The Left in France has always remained a strong presence, especially since the end of World War I, with the Russian Communists taking a keen interest in nurturing the left in the fractious political landscape of France. The French communist resistance (FTP) fought bitterly against the Nazi occupation during World War II and were real close to seizing political control at the time of liberation in 1944. Their influence was strongly felt in the new government elected in October 1945; three-fourths of the deputies were Communists, Socialists, or Christian Democrats.
In the blog ‘Friends of Europe’ (4 July 24), Rim-Sarah Alouane, a legal scholar, traces the origins of the modern far-right in France to the National Front (Front National) formed by Jean-Marie Le Pen in 1972. Initially seen as a fringe party with a reputation for xenophobia, anti-Semitism, ties with Nazi collaborators and extreme nationalism, the National Front struggled for mainstream acceptance.
However, over the decades, it has undergone significant evolution and rebranding. Under the leadership of his daughter, Marine Le Pen, the party sought to soften its image and broaden its appeal by focusing on issues like economic protectionism, national sovereignty and a strong stance against immigration. This strategy of dédiabolisation or ‘de-demonisation’ has made the party more palatable to a broader electorate, effectively transforming it into a significant force in French politics under a new name. “This electoral shift towards accommodating far-right narratives within the mainstream poses a significant challenge to France and the European Union’s cohesion and democratic foundations,” says Alouane.
The gains made became clear in the European Parliament elections when the far-right Rassemblement National (RN) rallied ahead. The shock was intensified when the French parliamentary elections showed a definite trend to a right-wing victory in the first phase of voting, forcing the left wing to unite with the centre to stave off the right-wing challenge.
The unexpected victory of France’s left-wing alliance in the snap legislative election was met with relief across Europe. Centrists had feared that the far-right’s potential rise to power in France, the EU’s second-largest economy, would cause economic and political instability and undermine the bloc’s strong support for Ukraine.
However, the hung parliament and lack of a clear path to a governing coalition in Paris still cast uncer-
tainty over France’s influence in Brussels. A possible outcome is a left-leaning government sharing power with centrist President Emmanuel Macron. Macron’s political credibility remains intact despite losing seats in the National Assembly. “He will be less weakened than we had expected, and France will continue to exercise its international role with a certain panache, as it has done until now,” said Federico Santopinto, director of the French think tank IRIS, to Euronews.
Olivia Lazard, a fellow at think tank Carnegie Europe, told Euronews (8 July 24) that the far-right’s unexpected second-round defeat means Macron will “retain credibility” while France avoids recoiling into some kind of sovereigntist and nationalist narrative which obviously runs against Europe. “France at the moment is still one of the key bastions in Europe against the rise of the radical right, and against the influence of Russia,” Lazard told Euronews’ Radio Schuman. “It means that Europe will stay safe for a relative amount of time still when it comes to defence issues.”
A second-round victory for the far-right National Rally, which led in the first round, would have further threatened EU support for Ukraine. Marine Le Pen’s party, with historical ties to Russia, had pledged to reduce French aid to Ukraine and was controversially loaned €9 billion from a Russian bank in 2014 despite sanctions over Crimea.
European leaders, particularly in the east, feared that Macron’s foreign policy would be weakened if he had to share power with a far-right government, potentially reducing France’s support for Kyiv. Le Pen’s party had modified its stance on the war before the European elections, indicating it would provide military aid but refrain from sending long-range weapons capable of striking Russian territory. The leader of the far-left France Unbowed party (LFI), part of the victorious New Popular Front Alliance, has also faced accusations of a pro-Russian stance. Support for Ukraine could fracture the unity of the New Popular Front, which includes various forms of socialism.
Climate advocates also welcomed the defeat of the National Rally. National Rally leader Jordan Bardella had previously called for France to abandon the European Green Deal, criticising EU environmental policies. In contrast, the left-wing alliance supports a climate plan aiming for carbon neutrality by 2050 and promoting renewable energy.
“This election is a wake-up call for European leaders,” said Neil Makaroff, director of the think tank Strategic Perspectives. “It’s time to address deindustrialisation, under-investment, and rising energy bills caused by dependence on gas, oil, and coal imports.”
BRITONS LEANING LEFT
In recent years, the UK has shifted back to the centre-left, diverging from its previous Brexit-driven, Eurosceptic, and anti-immigrant stance. In the UK, the Labour Party’s landslide victory marks the end of 14
years of Conservative rule, signalling a return to centre-left governance.
Labour won the 2024 election by a landslide, but a significant story was the low turnout, the lowest since 2001. At 59.9 per cent, the turnout was notably lower than 67.3 per cent in 2019. These figures overestimate actual turnout, as they follow the British tradition of calculating turnout as a proportion of registered voters, excluding millions of unregistered voters. Calculating turnout as a proportion of those eligible to vote provides a more accurate measure of participation.
This data reveals a long-term decline in support for the two main parties since 1945, alongside a growing proportion of non-voters. While Labour achieved a landslide victory, the real landslide was among non-voters. The 2024 British general election, anticipated amidst numerous national setbacks, culminated in a resounding defeat for the Conservatives, showcasing democracy’s capacity for rejection, reversal, and renewal.
The defeat of the Conservative party marks a significant moment, reflecting public exhaustion with its leadership and a desire for political renewal. The broader question is whether this election signals a permanent shift in British politics, potentially leading to the Conservative Party’s decline, akin to the Liberal Party’s fall a century ago, supplanted by the emerging Labour Party. While such a transformation is rare, the comparison is worth considering in the context of the post-Brexit realignment of party identification.
The future of UK politics will depend on how effectively Labour addresses the pressing issues it faces as a new government and how the Conservatives reorganise and respond to this historic defeat.
Synergia Takeaways
No country has been immune to pandemic swings, economic lows and voter despondency. All of this and more is evident across Europe, and the two recent elections in the UK and France have shown how much it has impacted outcomes, too. But whether the trend indicates a more enduring swing to the right is not so clear at this juncture.
Unexpected and emphatic victories of the left in France and the UK have emboldened sentiment. The far-right’s unexpected second-round defeat ensures a shift towards a sovereigntist and nationalist narrative that opposes European ideals, which has been pushed back, at least for now.
Reclaiming the political space from this new fascism will require decisive action. President Macron risked such a move when he called for snap elections but only narrowly kept the far right out of power. Other countries have not been as lucky.
THE BLACK DEATH
Plague, World’s Deadliest Disease.
IDr. Gifty Immanuel MD, PhD, FRCP, FIDSA, is the Medical Director at Synergia Foundation.
n the annals of human history, no other disease has inflicted more deaths and destruction than the Bubonic Plague or Black Death. It has been named Black Death for the peripheral gangrene in its victims, with the tissues turning black.
Plague is a bacterial pandemic caused by a gram-negative bacterium called Yersinia pestis. Untreated plague can reach mortality rates of up to 100%. An estimated 200 million people perished in Asia and Europe in early times; even today, plague is a formidable disease with sporadic outbreaks at various foci in the world. The plague bacterium, Yersinia pestis, is also a potent biological weapon capable of decimating large populations in a short time.
ZOONOTIC TRANSMISSION
Plague is a zoonosis, and the pathogen is maintained in disease vectors like rodents, squirrels, marmosets, rabbits, and occasionally dogs and cats can become infected.
It is a vector-borne disease transmitted by the bite of a flea, Xenopsylla cheopis, or, at times, Xenopsylla braziliensis. These fleas are distributed worldwide, specifically in arid tropical zones and disease foci.
CLINICAL HALLMARKS OF PLAGUE
After a short incubation period of 2–7 days and sometimes even less than 24 hours, plague can manifest with the following signs and symptoms:
Plague has proven to be an efficient pandemic pathogen; even a small outbreak can quickly become a global catastrophe. Awareness, vector reduction, and early treatment are the keys to disease control. The plague is not only a disease of historical importance but a clear and present danger.
• Fever-sudden onset of high-grade fever, chills, headache, and malaise
• Bubo- swellings (1–10 cm) of the regional lymph nodes in the legs and arms
• Toxemia, Multiorgan Failure, and Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation
• Meningitis, pharyngitis, Sensorial changes
Plague can present in three forms, and these are their untreated mortality rates:
Bubonic Plague (mortality 50%)-follows a flea bite with inflammation of regional lymph nodes (buboes), Septicemic Plague (mortality 25%)-overwhelming sepsis, endotoxemia, and organ failure, Pneumonic Plague (mortality 100%)- lung infection directly due to inhalation of the organism or secondary hematogenous spread.
A major cause for person-to-person transmission of plague through cough, aerosol, or droplets.
PLAGUE AS A BIOTERROR WEAPON
Plague ranks as the best bioweapon; it can be disseminated as a dry powder, through infected fleas, porcelain bomblets, spray canisters, or aerosolized using low-flying aircraft or aerosol generators. Bioterrorism-related plague may be engineered to be resistant to multiple antibiotics. Management strategies include a high index of suspicion, a syndromic approach, triple antibiotics, and rapid resistance testing.
TREATMENT OF HUMAN PLAGUE
Plague is a medical emergency and should be treated as expeditiously as possible. Clinical deterioration can be rapid, and most healthcare workers may miss the hallmark symptoms, as plague can masquerade as a common illness or flu. The treatment regime includes Antibiotics-Streptomycin, Doxycycline, Levofloxacin, Cotrimoxazole, and Chloramphenicol and supportive treatment comprising the management of shock, intensive care and fluid resuscitation.
Prevention is better than cure through environmental control- avoidance of flea bites, rodent control, rat proofing of housing, Insecticides and Pesticides, Protective Clothing and Netting. Chemoprophylaxis: Doxycycline in outbreaks for household or close contacts and Immunoprophylaxis: Inactivated and Live Vaccines for High-Risk Groups. Respiratory protection is critical for healthcare personnel through masks, protective gowns, and aprons. The patients must be isolated in negative pressure rooms; infectious specimens must be handled in BSL3 Labs and Incision of Buboes (only after 48 hours of intense antibiotic therapy)
PREVENTION OF HUMAN PLAGUE
• Environmental Control- Avoidance of Flea Bites, Rodent Control, Rat Proofing of Housing, Insecticides and Pesticides, Protective Clothing and Netting
• Chemoprophylaxis: Doxycycline in outbreaks for household or close contacts
• Immunoprophylaxis: Inactivated and Live Vaccines for High-Risk Groups
INFECTION CONTROL
• Respiratory Protection -Masks, Protective Gowns, Aprons for Healthcare Personnel
• Isolation- Negative Pressure Rooms, Infectious Specimens handling in BSL3 Labs, Incision of Buboes (only after 48 hours of intense antibiotic therapy)
CONCLUSION
It is almost impossible to prevent plague outbreaks in disease hotspots worldwide. The recent 2024 outbreak in Colorado, USA, and the 1994 large-scale outbreak in Surat, India, are constant reminders of the ever-looming threat of black death. Plague has proven to be an efficient pandemic pathogen; even a small outbreak can quickly become a global catastrophe. Aware-
ness, vector reduction, and early treatment are the keys to disease control. The plague is not only a disease of historical importance but a clear and present danger.
HISTORY’S DEADLIEST PLAGUES
Source: Synergia
REFERENCES
Bennett, J. E., Dolin, R., & Blaser, M. J. (2020). Mandell, Douglas, and Bennett’s principles and practice of infectious diseases (Ninth edition). Elsevier.
Kohn, G. C. (2001). Encyclopedia of plague and pestilence : from ancient times to the present (Rev. ed).
“CROSS WINDS”
BY AMBASSADOR VIJAY GOKHALE
“Cross Winds” is a memoir that offers insights into Vijay Gokhale’s diplomatic career and experiences, particularly focusing on India-China relations. Gokhale, a seasoned diplomat and former Foreign Secretary of India, shares his first-hand accounts of critical moments and negotiations, providing a deep understanding of the complex and often turbulent interactions between the two nations. The book delves into various historical and contemporary events, highlighting the challenges and intricacies of diplomacy in maintaining and managing bilateral ties. Through his narrative, Gokhale gives readers an inside look at the strategic considerations and diplomatic efforts involved in navigating one of Asia’s most significant geopolitical relationships.
Q: What was your motivation for writing this book?
Amb Vijay Gokhale: I have always wondered why India quickly recognised the People’s Repub lic of China after its establishment in Oc tober 1949. The decision was based on the advice that Sardar Patel, Roger Cherry, and some of the diplomats in the newly estab lished External Affairs Ministry gave to the government of the day without waiting to see how the Chinese regime would evolve.
A subtheme that emerged from that was why we did not appreciate the support for our freedom struggle that came from the United States in the 1940s, which was followed by the U.S. becoming the greatest aid giver to India in the 1950s.
ation to the current situation will have strategic consequences, as the first island chain, designed to contain China and prevent its expansion into the Pacific, will be breached. However, the challenge will be much more profound ideologically because the self-proclaimed leader of the free world, which still claims to support democratic causes, will have failed to defend a democratic system against an authoritarian regime.
There are huge implications for both countries globally. Therefore, the contestation assumes the same level of importance now as it did in the 1950s.
One of the major takeaways from my book was that although we all tend to believe that India had no role in the Taiwan Straits crises of the 1950s, the book establishes that we had a very significant role in it because Nehru was able to distinguish between the sovereignty issue, where he did not doubt that sovereignty lay with China and the regional peace and security issue.
Essentially, the book became a narrative of how India crafted its foreign policy while keeping in focus the two major powers, the People’s Republic of China and the United States, in the early years of the Cold War. I intended to look at specific events to visualise how India navigated between these two major powers with the background of the 1954 Geneva Conference (on the Indo-China conflict) and the Taiwan Straits conflicts of 1955 and 1958. There is a lesson in it regarding the geopolitical situation and how to make decisions, considering the dynamics of the U.S. and China’s role in the Indo-Pacific.
In the context of the emerging Sino-US competition in the Indo-Pacific, a lot has changed between the 1950s and today. The United States is not the power it was. China is much bigger than it used to be. The British have disappeared more or less from the region. And we are a subregional power with some but not great influence in the Western Pacific.
It reduces China’s global standing and its world power claim. Regarding the United States, any alter-
However, it is not an internal affair for China where international peace and security are disturbed. It then becomes an international vector of concern to India, that diplomacy was something that we had all forgotten because post 62, we took a very linear position on the Taiwan issue, which is ‘I see nothing, I hear nothing’, I say nothing.
As a result, I think the collective memory faded. On this matter it is even more important today for us than in the 1950s. In the 1950s, we had few geopolitical stakes and almost no economic stake. But today, of course, we have major economic and geopolitical stakes. The geopolitical stakes are obvious, but the economic stakes are less obvious.
Q: Given the current global conflicts the U.S. is involved in, do you think the likelihood or timing of a specific conflict between China and Taiwan, with respect to a security point of view?
Nobody can predict the timing of any Chinese plan to take Taiwan because I guess that’s something only known to the leadership. But suppose there is a determination to take Taiwan. In that case, I don’t think it poses an insurmountable problem to the Chinese side simply because the reaction time for the United States and its allies is too little since it is only a hundred nautical miles off Taiwan.
The Chinese have the necessary naval and landing craft capabilities, missiles, and other powers.
The issue is whether China will put up with the diplomatic, military, and economic implications of the post-Taiwan takeover situation. That is a matter that China has to deeply contemplate because the economy, particularly the financial sector and the global financial system, is still controlled by the United States, but order is still the key.
And despite every effort by the Chinese to internationalise the renminbi and use it more frequently in trade and investment, it is a currency in which few people will wish to invest. So, if the dollar is key, China will have a knock-on effect in multiple ways. Whether it will be able to sustain that impact, in terms of public opinion, which ultimately will support the Communist government only because it delivers economic benefits is the matter that the leadership would have to think deeply about.
Of course, China does not need military means to take the island. They can use quasi-military means, like a blockade, quarantine, disruption of aerial or seaborne traffic, or other denial regimes that do not trigger an American military response but will trigger a regional and global economic crisis.
Q:
These issues are too complex for individuals alone; they require government systems and broad discussions. Given this, should we prioritise model management and overarching controls in the India-China relationship? What are your thoughts?
Well, you know, some contexts of the dispute are along the LAC. However, the larger-than-life proportion is not that we have not had these configurations in the past, but more often than not, they were essentially localised, despite the government’s best efforts over the last ten years to avoid conflict. India’s efforts are to try to minimise the escalation of these incidents and improve relations with China.
China considers only two countries equal. That is the United States and Russia. And India is only seen as a joint power. In other words, it is a power that cannot threaten China alone but can threaten China when it aligns with one major power, the United States or Russia.
That has been China’s approach, and therefore, its policy has been very simple since 1949: to keep India as a neutral state and not allow it to go right through. But in the last ten years, I think, from their perspective, you have to put yourself in their shoes. They have seen a decisive tilt by India towards the
United States. Whether that is factually correct or not, whether the Indian leadership agrees with it or not, is not the point. I do not doubt that the Chinese see a distinct tilt. They see us as having crossed several red lines, including autonomy and not giving up our sovereignty, by signing military agreements with others, which were part of Indian foreign policy for many decades.
Now, in this circumstance, what is happening with the LAC, which is grey zone warfare tactics, becomes a means to deliver a message without actually engaging in an expensive conflict.
In their minds, the use of grey zone warfare and activity is intended to act as a deterrence, so going ahead for the next ten years, their objective will be to heighten physical insecurity on the border.
To the extent that they tie you down, they’re financially, materially, in terms of human resources. It becomes, they presume, more difficult for you to pursue other objectives, whether they are military, such as the Indian Ocean or economic, and that at some point in time, given the economic differential between the two powers, you will come to your senses and adopt a more reasonable approach.
This is their thinking. Now, whether or not our actions bear out this thinking is another matter because I think that actions demonstrate that, this time, they’re prepared to stay on there at a great cost to the exchequer. Now, of course, let us see how long this can continue. But, the short point is that this is one of the tactics they use to keep you neutral because they feel you have tilted too much.
India doesn’t seem to be handling China policy very well. It is a very strange situation to me that two nuclear-armed neighbours have not had their leaders meet for the last four years. It had never happened in the history of nuclear weapons.
The two major nuclear weapon states have not remained without having a dialogue for so long. At the height of the Cold War, the Soviets and the West continuously had a dialogue.
Q:Do you think that China might be inclined to play with Indian borders before they decide to take the matter of Taiwan into their hand?
First, it was more of a political statement than an effort to infringe in any large and serious manner. Second, there was pushback. So, I think the objective is to heighten our physical insecurity without triggering a conflict that doesn’t suit them.
VIJAY GOKHALE
Former Foreign Secretary of India and Former Ambassador of India to China.
ROUNDTABLE ON BRICS MUNICIPAL, MOSCOW
UPCOMING FORUMS:
THOUGHT LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE, CHANDIMANDIR & SHIMLA.
ROUNDTABLE ON EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES & FUTURE CONFLICTS
