Published
on
By
The Chinese government is adopting a new diplomatic stance, marked by a bold challenge to American directives. This strategy aims to bolster ties with nations that the U.S. has sought to alienate, with Syria being a prime example.
Recently, Beijing welcomed Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. The outcome of this visit was the announcement that their ties had been elevated to a “strategic partnership of resilience.” This status is the pinnacle of China’s diplomatic relationships, and so far, only three countries—Pakistan, Russia, and Belarus—have been granted this distinction. Could Syria be next in line?
For China, their interest in Syria is multifaceted. It’s not just about the country’s economic riches; it’s a geopolitical gamble. In Beijing’s eyes, Damascus stands as an ideological outlier in the Middle East, defined by its unique intellectual and ideological foundations. This, coupled with the nation’s rich cultural diversity and pluralism, makes it all the more appealing.
Syria’s value for China transcends its natural resources. Geographically and civilizationally, its significance and the influential role it plays in Middle Eastern geopolitics make it indispensable.
Despite the ongoing war, China’s relationship with Syria has persisted. However, the depth of their ties hasn’t always mirrored China’s firm stance in the Security Council, where it has wielded its veto power in support of Syria on numerous occasions.
In 2012, China exercised its veto power against a Washington-proposed resolution calling for the withdrawal of all military forces from Syrian cities and towns.
In February 2017, Beijing vetoed a draft resolution that sought to impose sanctions on the Syrian government, accusing it of deploying chemical weapons. Then, in July 2020, Beijing opposed the extension of aid deliveries to Syria via Turkey.
China’s foreign policy towards Syria is shaped by the interplay of interests and ideology. These twin pillars have historically been foundational to China’s external relations and are deeply rooted in Chinese political philosophy.
Syria’s geopolitical and economic significance to China, paired with Beijing’s steadfast stance against meddling in sovereign nations’ internal affairs and its commitment to justice and rights restoration, has allowed China to craft its Syrian foreign policy. This alignment ensures both the safeguarding of national interests and the upholding of principles intrinsic to China’s unique political identity.
China’s stance on the Syrian conflict has always been principle-driven, aligning with its foreign policy ethos which advocates non-interference in the domestic matters of other nations.
Subsequently, Beijing has made concerted efforts to bring an end to the Syrian war, proposing numerous initiatives aimed at resolving the ongoing strife.
Beyond matters of interest and ideology, China’s position on the Syrian conflict is also informed by its aspirations to maintain and bolster its influence within the Middle East’s global power dynamics. As China emerges as a dominant force on the world stage, its evolving foreign policy towards Syria mirrors its ascending stature and influence.
Anyone examining the ties between the two nations will see no clear evidence suggesting their relationship has evolved into what the media frequently labels a “strategic partnership.”
This could be attributed to the deliberate ambiguity and behind-the-scenes diplomacy both countries favored, given their respective circumstances. It’s possible that this approach was more a Chinese preference than a Syrian one.
Particularly since Beijing is careful with its actions, striving not to unnecessarily antagonize the United States while it focuses on its grand strategic endeavor, the Belt and Road Initiative.
While Syria is in dire need of allies during its challenges, it recognizes the interests and circumstances of other nations. It understands that relationships can’t be purely evaluated on a “profit and loss” basis; there’s a strategic depth that heavily influences the decisions of major powers.
China has consistently supported Syria both diplomatically and humanitarianly. It maintained its embassy in Damascus, championed Syria’s interests in the Security Council, and readily provided humanitarian assistance, notably during the Covid-19 pandemic and after the earthquake Syria experienced a few months back.
While the evidence might not strongly suggest that the relationship between the two countries qualifies as a strategic partnership, it’s the unseen dynamics between them that appear to play a significant role in elevating their ties to a “strategic relationship” level.
The deployment of popular diplomacy was evident, with Damascus benefiting from China’s endeavors to amplify its “soft power.” Exchanges of party and economic delegations between the two nations persisted, and there was a notable increase in the number of Syrian students attending Chinese universities, funded by the Chinese government.
Interestingly, direct visits between officials of the two nations were sparse. It appears that the respective embassies served a pivotal role in cultivating and fortifying these ties.
The visit of Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi to Damascus on the day the results of Syria’s presidential elections were announced on July 17, 2021, wasn’t just serendipitous. He was the first to extend congratulations to President Al-Assad on his electoral triumph.
This visit held immense significance, marking a shift in China’s foreign policy towards challenging Western influence in various global regions. It was the first visit by a high-ranking Chinese official to Syria since 2011, following the onset of the conflict.
Wang’s meeting with President Al-Assad, where he congratulated him on his re-election, was symbolic. Additionally, Chinese President Xi Jinping dispatched a congratulatory message to Al-Assad on his election victory, expressing: “China staunchly supports Syria in safeguarding its national sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity, and will extend as much assistance as possible.”
Following Wang’s visit to Damascus, Beijing advocated for the removal of sanctions on Syria and proposed a four-point initiative to address the crisis. This plan encompassed:
Wang’s trip followed the Syrian government’s successful reclamation of a majority of its territories. This transition signaled a shift towards reconstruction, a phase where Beijing is poised to assume a significant role due to its ample financial and political resources.
Given the intensifying tensions between China and the United States, China found itself drawn into a subtle yet assertive counteraction against the U.S.
Beijing has strategically ventured into regions historically under American influence, notably the Middle East. This move is significant, especially considering China’s traditional reluctance to entangle itself in the complexities and challenges of that region.
For many years, the United States has depicted the issues in the Middle East as “intractable problems,” rooted in religious disputes that span centuries.
China’s success in bolstering Arab-Chinese collaboration, particularly following the Arab-Chinese summit in Riyadh, served as an impetus for several Arab nations to pursue closer ties with Damascus. This renewed rapport culminated in Syria’s reintegration into the League of Arab States. Although the Arab initiative with Damascus seems to be progressing slowly, and at times hesitantly, it hasn’t hit an insurmountable roadblock.
Furthermore, the fruitful outcomes of Chinese mediation in narrowing the differences between Saudi Arabia and Iran, resulting in the re-establishment of diplomatic ties and ambassadorial exchanges, should positively impact Arab-Syrian relationships.
China now navigates the Syrian situation with a sense of ease, steering clear of rivalry with major international players in Syria, notably Iran and Russia.
Amid intensified actions against Damascus, manifested by the deployment of additional American troops to the area and discussions about severing the connection between Syria and Iraq via a corridor from Al-Tanf to Al-Bukamal, the foundation of American intelligence leverages regional factions with specific local allegiances.
This period also saw heightened protests in southern Syria (Suwayda) and skirmishes between the SDF militia and tribal forces in northern and eastern Syria.
Syria’s challenging economic landscape has played a significant role in exacerbating these conflicts, amplifying concerns about their potential spread throughout the country.
The root of these protests can be largely attributed to differing perspectives. The Syrian government views American sanctions as the primary culprit, while many Syrians believe the escalation in corruption, which has surpassed tolerable levels, is burdening the populace.
China’s involvement in the Syrian crisis at this juncture offers robust political backing for Syria and should be complemented by heightened economic support, which Syria urgently requires.
Hosting the Syrian President in Beijing would signify a pivotal moment in the ties between the two nations, underscoring China’s aspiration for a more equitable global order.
The Syrian conflict may have been the catalyst for this shift, and the Ukrainian war further solidified it, making the strategy of international alignments more evident on the global stage.
President al-Assad’s sole visit to Beijing took place in 2004, centering on economic collaboration between both countries.
While development hinges on political and security stability, this shouldn’t deter efforts to address challenges potentially impeding economic collaboration or reconstruction involvement.
It’s beneficial to foster and stimulate dialogues between Syrian and Chinese entrepreneurs, particularly in devising solutions to reconstruction challenges, such as financing. The goal should be to transition from mere economic cooperation to a tangible economic partnership, incorporating road and rail links and connecting energy lines from Iran, China, Iraq, and Syria. This vision, proposed by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in 2002, aimed to transform Syria into a pivotal gas transit hub and a free-trade nexus bridging the East and West by linking the Five Seas. China interpreted this as a rejuvenation of the Silk Road, envisioning a vast economic corridor from Syria to China. This aligns seamlessly with the Belt and Road Initiative introduced by Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2013.
Syria needs to modernize its banking system and could benefit from China’s expertise in this domain, exploring payment mechanisms that aren’t reliant on the US dollar. Strengthening ties between the chambers of commerce, industry, and agriculture and creating joint chambers between the two nations can be valuable, among other cooperative ventures.
There are numerous potential collaboration areas between the two countries that could yield significant outcomes for both if they can navigate bureaucratic hurdles and establish direct communication channels.
Such cooperation may not be well-received by Syria’s adversaries, notably the United States, which is reportedly extracting Syrian oil from the wells it controls, all the while claiming its forces are in the region to combat terrorism, specifically ISIS.
The Chinese media has extensively highlighted this act, deeming it a blatant international theft conducted openly.
China appears to be growing in confidence and is more assertive in demonstrating its global influence, especially given the rising tensions with the United States. This dynamic presents Syria with an opportunity to enhance its ties with Beijing.
Anticipation is building around the forthcoming visit of the Syrian President to Beijing. Current predictions suggest it will mark a significant moment in the relationship between the two nations, potentially reshaping the geopolitical equilibrium in the Middle East and possibly on a global scale.
China-Taiwan: The Future Relationship
Associate Professor School of International Studies Sun Yat-Sen University/ China Professor at the Faculty of Political Science – University of Damascus (previously)
China has the capacity to build combat ships at 200 times the rate that the US can
China-Taiwan: The Future Relationship
US Diplomacy in Asia: Navigating a New Era of Cooperation
Silk Road vs Spice Route: IMEC and its Implications
The G20 New Delhi declaration: Is “One future” possible?
“China preparing for war with United States”
Published
on
By
The discordant relationships between China and Taiwan have engendered multifaceted and persistent tensions. The empirical experience of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict can serves as a compelling impetus for China and Taiwan to seriously reconsider their current relationship. It is imperative to prevent the occurrence of any form of military engagement between China and Taiwan.
Reunification
The already existent tensions between China and Taiwan experienced a resurgence subsequent to Taiwan Vice President William Lai’s recent visit to the United States.
The aforementioned visit ultimately engendered another intense security situation in the Taiwan Strait. The manifestation of this is evidenced through a sequence of expansive military maneuvers executed by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) within the perimeter of the Taiwan Strait region.
The convening of the aforementioned meeting is construed as a provocative measure by the Chinese authorities, rendering it a potential threat to their territorial claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. As a result, China is compelled to take responsive action.
However, from Taiwan’s perspective, this meeting was of pivotal importance in maintaining and asserting the country’s presence within the purview of the global community. It was deemed significant as international political maneuvers in pursuit of immediate recognition as a legitimate sovereign state.
In the view of China, The unification of China remains the single “outstanding” item on China’s agenda, as of present. To China, the sole legitimate governing authority throughout its national territory, which includes Taiwan, is that China. Consequently, China appears to be utilizing all available means to assert its dominance over Taiwan in its entirety.
Since the 1949 “split”, China has continuously augmented its military footprint within the vicinity of Taiwan’s territorial boundaries. China’s action is not merely intended to intimidate Taiwan; it is also designed to convey the message that any act of support towards Taiwan’s quest for sovereignty would be met with swift and forceful retaliation from China’s military force.
Of course, International community are contemplating whether the issue at hand will culminate in a military invasion by China to Taiwan in the foreseeable future.
In order to address this inquiry, it is appropriate to begin by revisiting the contents of the Chinese Constitution (Constitution of the People’s Republic of China). According to the Preamble of the constitution, it is evident that Taiwan is an undisputed part of China’s land.
Undoubtedly, China would construe the aforementioned as a constitutional obligation which is indisputable. China maintains an unwavering stance regarding the ultimate resolution of the Taiwan Issue, emphasizing the necessity of achieving complete reunification of China, inclusive of Taiwan, as the sole viable solution.
In pursuit of its objectives, China has demonstrated a willingness to employ a range of approaches, both non-violent and aggressive, which may include the application of armed force or the undertaking of military invasions.
economic factor
However, It is improbable that China’s armed forces will engage in military invasion on Taiwan in the immediate future.
In light of the multitude of armed conflicts that have occurred globally, it can be posited that military aggression is consistently accompanied by elevated expenditures
Given the prevailing economic turbulence and the ramifications of the Covid-19 Pandemic on China, the prospect of an impending invasion of Taiwan by China appears to be remote. The implementation of this measure is likely to exacerbate China’s economic state. Simultaneously, this phenomenon has the capability of instigating domestic political predicaments for China.
The situation is expected to deteriorate significantly as numerous countries are eventually “compelled” to become embroiled in the vortex of the China-Taiwan armed conflict via the implementation of economic sanctions and blockades against China. Similar to the actions undertaken by various countries towards Russia throughout the course of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. China may face considerable challenges in managing the potential risk at hand.
It is noteworthy to consider that the Chinese economy operates within an export-oriented framework that relies on global value chains and energy importations. Consequently, it can be argued that the implementation of economic sanctions may have the potential to undermine China’s economic foundation, thus triggering unintended consequences and generating intricate quandaries for China.
In light of the aforementioned economic considerations, it appears that China does not exhibit a sense of urgency to reinstate Taiwan under its control through military means for a minimum of another four to five years.
Notwithstanding, this does not categorically preclude China’s pursuit of reintegration of Taiwan through military measures in the foreseeable future. It is imperative to emphasize that China will persist in its efforts to maintain its claim of sovereignty and territorial integrity over Taiwan.
Concurrently, Taiwan is also likely to maintain a staunch resolve towards independence, defending democracy and rejecting reunification, regardless of China’s territorial claims, political pressure, or militaristic intimidation.
two possibilities
In summary, it can be posited that there are at least two conceivable scenarios that could manifest regarding the future relationship between China and Taiwan.
First, China will let Taiwan maintain the current status quo while continuously increasing its military presence on Taiwan’s territory with the intent of exerting pressure and dominance over Taiwan’s geopolitical interests. Taiwan is potentially susceptible to a state of constant “isolation” from the international community, which could result in internal turbulence and ultimately lead to mounting pressure upon Taiwan, compelling it to enter into disadvantaged negotiations with China, thereby potentially causing it to revert to its prior status as part of China.
Second, on the other hand, China may potentially initiate the complete mobilization of its armed forces towards Taiwan. Given China’s consistent focus on sovereignty and territorial integrity. The aspiration to achieve the comprehensive integration of China (encompassing Taiwan) remains persistently pursued in accordance with the tenets of the “One China Principle” or the One China Policy.
The military maneuvers undertaken by China with the objective of suppressing Taiwan are likely to escalate into a physical and overt assault over the course of time. This military invasion is potential to be undertaken by China to seize direct assumption of control over its governing entity, with the aim of promoting significant political transformation within the region.
However, with Taiwan’s significant prominence in the worldwide economy, particularly in the semiconductor industry, the ramifications and significance of any related actions are substantial. The occurrence of a military invasion is poised to instigate expeditious disturbance across the global economy, with China, in particular, being concurrently affected.
Despite all these possibilities, the avoidance of armed engagement between China and Taiwan is imperative, notwithstanding the various feasible outcomes thereof. Therefore, it is imperative that nations do not interpret the principle of non-intervention in international law in a rigid manner. It is recommended that all countries globally make efforts towards assisting the concerned parties in utilizing dialogue and peaceful compromise as a means of resolving their issues, rather than resorting to a full-fledged conflict. Such an undertaking holds tremendous significance as it not only safeguards the welfare of the involved parties, but also forestalls potential economic and political crises with implications extending to international peace and security stability.
Published
on
By
North Korea celebrates its founding day on September 9 every year, and this year marks the seventy-fifth anniversary of the occasion. North Korea, known internationally as the “nuclear state” has indicated that it will organize a military parade on this occasion, with a Chinese-Russian official confirmation of the attendance of the Korean military parade of the North Korea celebrates the anniversary of its founding. China and Russia are among North Korea’s most important allies and its most prominent international supporters, and their relationship strengthened during the Korean War in the 1950s. Here came the North Korean Central News Agency’s confirmation and announcement that two delegations from Russia and the Communist Party and the government in China, headed by Deputy Prime Minister “Liu Guozhong”, will visit North Korea to participate in the celebration of the country’s founding day. With the North Korean assertion that the visit came “at the invitation” of the party and government in North Korea.
Here, a link can be made between the meeting between North Korean leader Kim Jong Un and Russian President Vladimir Putin in the Russian city of Vladivostok, immediately after the North Korean celebration of the founding anniversary. While the Russian and North Korean leaders, who are attending the annual Eastern Economic Forum, denied US allegations that they were negotiating arms deals. The upcoming meeting in the city of Vladivostok in the Far East of Russia will focus on an arms deal, as Putin is believed to be seeking to obtain weapons from North Korea for the war he is waging in Ukraine. Especially since senior North Korean military officials, including officials in charge of weapons production and space technology, accompany Kim Jong Un during his visit to Russia to meet Putin. North Korea and its leader Kim are among the staunchest supporters of Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine. Western countries, led by the United States, fear that Pyongyang may resort to supplying Russia with missiles and missiles. Knowing that Russian President Putin praised Pyongyang’s firm support for special military operations against Ukraine. Kim Jong Un crowned the strengthening of cooperation with Russia with an agreement signed in 2019 when he met with President Putin.
During the North Korean leader’s visit, Moscow will seek to obtain artillery shells and anti-tank missiles from Pyongyang, which in turn will search for advanced technology for satellites and nuclear-powered submarines. It is also expected that from the Putin-Kim talks, Pyongyang will discuss sending humanitarian aid to Moscow with Moscow. We find that even if an arms deal is reached at the Putin-Kim summit, it is unlikely that any party will announce the full details given the Western powers’ rejection of it and the international legal problems it entails.
Taking into account North Korea’s recognition in July 2023 of two Russian-backed breakaway republics in eastern Ukraine as independent states, officials in Pyongyang raised the possibility of sending North Korean workers to Ukrainian areas under Russian control, to help with construction and other labor work. Here, Ukraine, which has been working to repel Russia’s attack since last February 2023, immediately severed relations with Pyongyang because of that step.
This summit is also an opportunity for Pyongyang to show that its economic future does not depend solely on the United States of America, especially after Washington refused to lift economic sanctions on it. Kim may also try to pressure Moscow to ease economic sanctions imposed on Pyongyang. This summit is also an opportunity for Russia to show that it is an important player on the Korean Peninsula. Especially since after Russia’s economic recovery under President Putin, he canceled most of North Korea’s debts during the Soviet era as a gesture of good faith. North Korea also considers Russia one of the least hostile foreign powers.
Putin’s meeting with Kim Jong Un confirms President Putin’s call to establish a multipolar world, and his assertion that this will be a solution to most of the existing international problems. Especially with President Putin’s fear of the role of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries in confronting him, and their attempt to enhance their capabilities and use all means in an effort to pressure Russia.
The most prominent Western and American fears regarding Kim Jong Un’s visit to Russia come from the fear that Moscow is holding secret talks with Pyongyang to obtain quantities of ammunition and supplies needed for its war in Ukraine. There are also American accusations against North Korea that, despite its denials, it has supplied Russia since the beginning of the Russian-Ukrainian war with missiles used by the Russian private military group Wagner in Ukraine. The visit of Russian Defense Minister “Sergei Shoigu” to North Korea originally occurred last August 2023, seeking to obtain additional ammunition for the war Moscow is waging in Ukraine. Therefore, the Western warnings, in their entirety, urged North Korea to stop arms negotiations with Russia and adhere to the public pledges made by Pyongyang not to supply or sell weapons to Russia, while at the same time publicly warning North Korea that the arms negotiations between Russia and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea are progressing significantly.
Here are Western fears, especially from the countries of the North Atlantic Military Alliance (NATO), that such actions by Russia and North Korea will make it difficult for international institutions to encourage re-commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, from which North Korea withdrew in 2003. But Russia and North Korea denied the allegations of the United States of America and the West about any alleged arms trade internationally.
Therefore, the joint American-British-South Korean-Japanese declaration came at the beginning of this September 2023, through the United Nations platform, by issuing a joint statement stating that any agreement to increase bilateral cooperation between Russia and North Korea will be considered a violation of the UN Security Council resolutions that prohibit concluding arms deals with Pyongyang. These decisions were supported by Moscow itself. Also, those same four countries of (the United States of America – Britain – South Korea – Japan) criticized the visit of Russian Defense Minister “Shoigu” to Pyongyang last August 2023, especially after another group of Russian officials traveled to North Korea to follow up on talks on purchasing Weapons from Pyongyang, which raised fears in the West, Washington and its allies about this step of international escalation and issuing an urgent international and UN statement denouncing this step by Pyongyang if the arms deal with Moscow is completed in its war against Ukraine.
Published
on
By
Throughout history, military technology has played an important role in shaping warfare and states behavior towards each other as they looked to exploit technological advancements and innovations to make progress in war zones. Likewise, it would be easy to understand the phenomenon by looking into the history of wars, the use of chemical weapons in WW1 eventually led to the prohibition of chemical gasses in wars, similarly, use of atomic weapons in WW2 resulted in the ban on the proliferation of Nuclear weapons. The warfare debates have shifted towards the emergence of new warfare technologies such as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Artificial Intelligence (AI), cyberspace and ASAT. Each of these technologies is significant when looked deeper into its uses and disruptive capabilities but Unmanned Aerial Vehicles are taking the lead in many nations due to its advantages but at the same time, disruptive characteristics.
“Sea power is inseparable from national greatness, whoever conquers the Indian Ocean will dominate the whole of Asia “- Alfred Thyer Mahan, Former US Navy officer and Historian
Indian Ocean holds some of very significant points of global trade, namely the Strait of Malacca, the Strait of Hormuz, and the Strait of Bab al Mandeb. If any of these points is choked by any state, the whole world trade can be disrupted. Consequently, the Indian Ocean is a trade hub of geopolitical, geo-economics and geostrategically important points. India, after military confrontation with China at Ladakh, is increasing its maritime power to compete with China. China is working to enhance its maritime power by accessing the world as 80 percent of Chinese Oil passes through the Indian Ocean and Strait of Malacca, whereas 95 percent of Chinese trade with Middle East and African countries also passes through the Indian Ocean. While India is increasing its Naval capabilities in order to increase its maritime influence over the Indian Ocean, India on the other hand, is also working on land trade routes to compete with China’s One Belt and One Road initiative. India is also making alliances like ‘QUAD’ and ‘AUKUS’ to counter China from the Indian Ocean and Pacific fronts. Furthermore, India is investing in Iran’s ‘Chabhar Port’ to compete in the ‘China-Pakistan Economic Corridor’ CPEC.
India has served 490 crores rupees to purchase a counter-drone system to increase its maritime defense capability in the name of countering threats coming from China and Pakistan. The Indian Navy has ordered the Naval Anti Drone System (NADS), which was created by the Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO) and produced by Bharat Electronics Limited (BEL), and is currently being placed on board its surface warships. This is the first anti-drone system that the Indian Armed Forces have integrated on their own, and it offers an efficient inclusive counter-defense to the growing drone threat to vital naval stations. The NADS can identify and jam micro drones and employ a laser-based kill mechanism to destroy targets. It has features with both hard kill and soft kill capabilities. The micro-drones are detected and jammed by the system using radar, electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) sensors, and RF (radio frequency) detectors. The signals are then blocked when the RF/GNSS (global navigation system) determines the frequency that the controller is using.
According to the Indian Ministry of Defence, the counter-drone technology will eliminate targets by employing a kill mechanism based on laser beams, “It will be a successful all-encompassing response to the growing drone threat to important naval installations”. Drone technology developed under the “Atmanibhar Bharat Initiative” is aimed to tackle fast-emerging aerial threats. It would have the capability to detect, intercept, and destroy aerial vehicles. The system has been already deployed to provide security to the Republic Day’s parade, on the address of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. By acquiring the NADS, it will not only increase the Indian strategic installation but also enable their first-strike capability, reflecting the Indian aspirations to become a regional hegemon.
One can analyze the situation by looking into the history when India justified its Nuclear Weapons System (NWS) by citing “security” as the main reason. By using Scott Sagan’s proliferation puzzle to understand the Indian NW program, one can say that security was not the main driver in the Indian case of NW proliferation. Similar to NWs, Indian authorities’ claims that NADS would counter security threats from Pakistan and China is vague. Pakistan and China have no record of direct maritime confrontation with India, although, there are a number of occasions where Indian navy officers have been found guilty of lawless activities. Indian Navy has a poor record of working with other countries’ intelligence agencies, likewise, in 2022, Indian Navy officers were caught spying at Qatar’s secret submarine and another officer was caught in Pakistan for conducting disruptive activities. Development of such technologies by the Indian Navy would be a better option than sending spies to other countries.
By acquiring the NADS technology, India once again is disrupting the ‘balance of power’ in South Asia because the acquisition of nuclear weapons by both India and Pakistan had created a ‘stability-instability paradox’. On the maritime front, the Pakistan navy has maintained its strong arsenal and proficient system, an example can be traced back to 2021 when the Pakistan Navy detected and blocked an Indian submarine from entering Pakistani waters. While, it comes to competition with China, India is unlikely to surpass China in terms of maritime technology.
Venezuela formally applies to BRICS
“China preparing for war with United States”
Faith in U.S. institutions and each other takes dangerous drop
Dire Consequences in Failing the Climate Change Goals
Silk Road vs Spice Route: IMEC and its Implications
Russia’s Far East Witnessing Series of Record-Breaking Agreements for the 8th Consecutive Year
National Security of Pakistan needs Economic Diplomacy
A Gastronomic Odyssey at Yauatcha Mumbai: Where Tradition Meets Innovation
Copyright © 2023 Modern Diplomacy