Friday, November 27, 2020

Karabakh Armistice: Azerbaijani National Triumph, Russian Geopolitical Victory (Part One)

 SOURCE:

https://jamestown.org/program/karabakh-armistice-azerbaijani-national-triumph-russian-geopolitical-victory-part-one/



Azerbaijanis celebrate victory (Source: Daily Sabah)


Karabakh Armistice: Azerbaijani National Triumph, Russian Geopolitical Victory  (Part One)


To Read Part  TWO :  Google / Click the URL 


https://bcvasundhra.blogspot.com/2020/11/karabakh-armistice-azerbaijani-national_27.html

Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 17 Issue: 160


Russian President Vladimir Putin, Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev, and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinian signed, over a video conference, on November 9, an armistice agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Mediated by Russia between the two belligerents, this armistice dramatically changes the situation on the ground, establishing “new realities” for many years to come.

Azerbaijan’s recovery of Armenian-occupied territories crowns a 44-day military operation featuring sophisticated equipment and tactics, amid a groundswell of domestic popular support. The campaign’s success transcends the battlefield. It signifies another stage in Azerbaijan’s maturation from a nation- and state-building project (as it was barely 30 years ago) to a fully consolidated nation-state.

Released in the form of a tripartite declaration (Kremlin.ru, November 10), the armistice agreement: a) restores Azerbaijan’s sovereign control over seven districts that Armenian forces had occupied since the early 1990s and emptied of their Azerbaijani population; b) it divides the Armenian-populated Upper (“Nagorno”) Karabakh into two parts, under Armenian and under Azerbaijani control, respectively; and c) it authorizes the long-term stationing of Russian “peacekeeping” troops, a goal that had eluded Russia from the 1990s to date.

Karabakh peace deal map (Source: BBC)



TRANSLATED ON GOOGLE EARTH (APPROXIMATE)



 
AZERBAIJAN  APPROACH  LINES. 
TRANSLATED ON GOOGLE EARTH (APPROXIMATE)



A full ceasefire went into effect at 00:00 hours, Moscow time, on November 10, along the then-existing contact lines between Azerbaijani and Armenian forces. The armistice agreement brings the following changes and new realities on the ground:

In terms of territory, the November 10 contact line allows Azerbaijan to retain the districts of Fizuli, Gubatly, Zangilan, and Jabrail, all which Azerbaijan’s forces regained in the campaign just concluded. In addition, the Kelbajar and Aghdam districts shall be returned (by Armenia) to Azerbaijan until November 15 and November 20, respectively; and the Lachin district will be returned by December 1. This will complete Azerbaijan’s recovery of the seven districts adjacent to Upper Karabakh.

Furthermore, the November 10 contact line allows Azerbaijan to retain the southern part of Upper Karabakh itself. This amounts to partitioning Upper Karabakh, militarily and administratively. The city of Shusha comes under Azerbaijan’s control while Upper Karabakh’s administrative center of Stepanakert/Khankendi remains under Armenian control.

Within the next three years, Azerbaijan and Armenia shall jointly develop a plan to build a new road connecting Armenia with Upper Karabakh via Azerbaijan’s Lachin district (Lachin corridor). Azerbaijan pledges not to interfere with traffic through the Lachin corridor. The corridor’s width is set at five kilometers. The document’s wording does not clarify whether the proposed new road would replace the existing road or run parallel to it, in parts or in toto. Stepanakert/Khankendi is the terminus of the existing Lachin road, and it will undoubtedly remain the terminus of a new road. The proposed new road seems intended to bypass the Azerbaijani-controlled Shusha (see above and below).

A Russian “peacekeeping” contingent shall be stationed within the Armenian-controlled rump of Upper Karabakh along the Armenian-Azerbaijani contact lines. Its deployment to the area began on November 10 and shall be synchronized with the withdrawal of Armenian forces from Upper Karabakh. The Russian contingent’s size is set at 1,960 infantry (motor-rifle) troops with light weapons, 90 armored personnel carriers, and 380 motor vehicles (no mention of helicopters). The command headquarters will be located “in the Stepanakert area” (TASS, November 10). The mission’s duration is set at five years initially, to be prolonged automatically at five-year intervals, unless one of the “sides” (Armenia or Azerbaijan) declares its refusal with six months advance notice.

Russian “peacekeepers” shall guard the Lachin corridor’s existing and future road. This will be the sole Russian military presence in Azerbaijan’s sovereign and effectively controlled territory. The Armenian de facto controlled rump of Upper Karabakh is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, and shall henceforth host Russian “peacekeepers” with Azerbaijan’s consent under this agreement. Although Shusha’s location could be construed as a part of the Lachin corridor, the armistice agreement excludes Shusha both from the notion of the Lachin corridor and from the Russian “peacekeepers’ ” area of responsibility (which partly explains the intention to build a new Lachin road).

The armistice agreement creates a “peacekeeping center for ceasefire monitoring” on the ground, without elaborating any further. This is meant to accommodate a minimal Turkish presence in the armistice-implementation system. Moscow and Ankara were still negotiating about this center after the November 10 armistice declaration had been made public. It will be a bilateral Russian-Turkish military observer mission, with its own technical equipment, to be located in Azerbaijani territory, thus to monitor the ceasefire at a certain distance from the Upper Karabakh contact lines. This Russo-Turkish center does not bring Turkey into Russia’s “peacekeeping” operation and does not change the latter’s mono-national character (TASS, Interfax, November 10–12).

The armistice agreement stipulates the “reopening of all economic and transportation links in the region.” As part of the general reopening, Armenia pledges not to interfere with traffic via the Armenian territory that separates the western part of Azerbaijan from Azerbaijan’s exclave of Nakhchivan, which has been isolated since the early 1990s. Russian border troops shall control the traffic of goods and passengers via that corridor. Additional transportation links (meaning motorways) could be built, subject to mutual consent of Armenia and Azerbaijan. The agreement fails to specify the number of Russian border troops that will be part of that mission; what forms that control would take; and whether it would apply to the highway, the railroad or both. The railroad in this corridor belongs (as do all Armenian railroads) to Russia’s state railways corporation. Russian border troops have long been stationed in that part of Armenia guarding the border with Iran. Presumably, additional Russian border troops would be deployed for the transportation-control mission.

Displaced persons and refugees may return to their places of origin in Upper Karabakh and the seven adjacent districts, with assistance from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The Azerbaijani population of expellees—technically, displaced persons and refugees—from these areas in the early 1990s numbered some 800,000 by generally accepted estimates, almost all of whom fled to Azerbaijan’s interior. The seven adjacent districts had no Armenian population. They have remained uninhabited and been systematically made uninhabitable since then.

The armistice agreement stops short of addressing the ultimate core issue of this conflict—that of the legal-political status of Upper Karabakh. That status was to have applied to the territory of the former “Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region” (abbreviated NKAO in the negotiators’ parlance over the last three decades)—i.e. Upper Karabakh—the Armenian-majority enclave within Azerbaijan. The armistice agreement, however, not only omits this issue but divides that territory between an Azerbaijani-controlled part and a locally Armenian-administrated part (see above), the former being free from Russian troops, the latter guarded by Russian troops with Azerbaijan’s consent, even as both parts are Azerbaijani territory under international law.

Nor does the armistice agreement reference the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe’s (OSCE) Minsk Group, whose three co-chairing countries (Russia, the United States, France) had, during almost three decades, developed a framework for the settlement of this conflict. Often cited as the Madrid Principles, this framework inspires the November 10 armistice agreement in many ways, with one major exception: Russia’s “peacekeeping” operation. The Minsk Group never agreed on it. This operation gives Russia significant leverage to manipulate and pressure the other parties for a long time to come, pending a definitive solution. Azerbaijan has won the campaign, Russia has won the “peacekeeping.”

 

Wednesday, November 25, 2020

Conflict Nagorno Karabakh : Ceasefire in the Caucasus Opens Door to Rebalancing of Regional Power (R)

 SOURCE:

https://medium.com/the-turbulent-world-of-middle-east-soccer/ceasefire-in-the-caucasus-opens-door-to-rebalancing-of-regional-power-a899682b3e6a

      Armenia begins handover of disputed territory to Azerbaijan

                            VIDEO URL :    Google/Click to open

                           [ https://youtu.be/XiLSujCpgaY ]

     Districts handed over/ to be handed over by 01 Dec 2020 to 

                                    AZERBAIJAN

Azerbaijan's army said Friday it had entered the district of Agdham, an area of Azeri territory ceded by Armenia as part of a Russian-brokered peace deal to end the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. "Units of the Azerbaijan Army entered the Aghdam region on November 20," the Defense Ministry in Baku said, referring to one of three districts that will change hands over the next two weeks. The handover of Agdham, which was captured by Armenian forces in July 1993 during the First Nagorno-Karabakh War, will be followed by the Kalbajar district, wedged between Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia, on November 25, and the Lachin district by December 1. Armenian forces and ethnic Armenian residents packed up and left the district over the past few days ahead of Friday's deadline, which was delayed from Sunday for humanitarian reasons. Most of the town of Agdham, however, was destroyed to discourage Azerbaijani residents from returning; it remains uninhabited. The latest conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh broke out in late September. The disputed region is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan in law, but has been controlled by ethnic Armenians for the past 30 years. Thousands of people have been killed in 6-weeks of fighting and more than half of the region's 150,000 population was displaced. The warring parties, at odds over the territory since before the end of the Soviet Union, finally agreed to end hostilities last week under a Russian-brokered accord, made as Azerbaijan progressed rapidly in the combat. As part of last week's agreement, Armenia agreed to return some 15 to 20% of the Nagorno-Karabakh territory captured by Azerbaijan in recent fighting, including the historical town of Shusha.


  Ceasefire in the Caucasus Opens Door to                  Rebalancing of Regional Power

                                 By 

                    James M. Dorse


A Russian mediated-ceasefire in the Caucasus cements a Turkish-backed Azerbaijani military defeat of Armenia but raises tantalizing questions. 

Spontaneous mass protests against the terms of the ceasefire and the government’s conduct of the war potentially throw into doubt the future of Armenian President Nikol  Pashinyan and Armenia’s ability to implement the ceasefire.


The protests also suggest that any negotiated solution to the long-standing dispute over Nagorno - Karabakh, an Armenian enclave inside Azerbaijan and a touchstone of Armenian identity, will have to address deep-seated existential fears on both sides of the ethnic and national divide.


The ceasefire cements Azeri battlefield successes in a six-week war. Azerbaijani forces retook Azeri territory occupied by Armenia since the early 1990s in violation of international law as well as the strategic mountain top city of Shusha in Nagorno Karabakh. 

The capture of Shusha made an Azeri assault on the region’s capital, Stepanakert, all but inevitable, prompting Armenia to accept the humiliating ceasefire.

Under the ceasefire that will be policed by some 2,000 Russian peacekeeping forces, Armenia has been forced to agree to withdraw from further occupied Azeri territory on the edges of Nagorno - Karabakh.

The Azeri and Turkish  sense of moral and military victory coupled with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s assertive regional policies bodes ill for the need for Azerbaijan to balance its defeat of Armenia with gestures and magnanimity that will rebuild confidence in Azeri assurances that the safety, security and rights of the Armenian majority in Nagorno Karabakh will be safeguarded amid fears of renewed ethnic cleansing.

 President Ilham Aliyev was interviewed by BBC News


VIDEO URL : Google/Click to open

          [ https://youtu.be/eP98bXyWBdc ]

The ceasefire agreement calls for the return to Nagorno Karabakh of those displaced since the conflict erupted in the early 1990s. It also allows for an exchange of prisoners of war and the bodies of those killed in the fighting.

Mr. Erdogan’s support of Azerbaijan is part of his effort to carve out a regional sphere of influence that stretches from the Caucasus, Syria, the Eastern Mediterranean and Libya into the Horn of Africa.


As Russian peacekeepers moved into position, the ceasefire leaves open the question of the balance of power between Russia and Turkey in a region that was once part of the Soviet Union and that Moscow sees as its backyard. 


It also throws into doubt longer term relations between Russia and Armenia where many feel betrayed by Moscow’s refusal to come to Armenia’s aid under a defense pact between the two countries. Russia maintains a military base in Armenia under the pact. 


Both Armenia and Azerbaijan are members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), a Russian-dominated military alliance of former Soviet republics.


In his announcement of the ceasefire, Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev suggested that Turkey would participate in the peacekeeping process even though Turkey is not an official party to the agreement nor was it mentioned in the ceasefire statement signed by Russian President Vladimir Putin as well as Messrs. Pashinyan and Aliyev.


Turkey’s inevitable role in any negotiations to resolve the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict adds to the balancing act that Russia and Turkey are performing to ensure that their alliance is not undermined by various regional conflicts like Syria and Libya in which the two countries back opposing sides.

Russia is likely to worry about pan-Turkish and nationalist voices demanding that Turkey capitalize on Azerbaijan’s success to increase its influence in Central Asia, a region of former Soviet republics with ethnic, cultural, and linguistic links to Turkey.

Pan-Turkic daily Turkiye, a newspaper with the fourth largest circulation in Turkey, urged the government to leverage the Azerbaijani victory to create a military alliance of Turkic states.                                      

                    Turanian Army - Turkish Military Power

                     VIDEO URL : Google/Click to open

                              [ https://youtu.be/BRh-ekLA4Jo ]


"The success in Karabakh has brought once again to the agenda one of the West's greatest fears: the Turan Army. Azerbaijan, which has become stronger with the military training, joint drills, and support with armed drones that Turkey has provided, has broken Armenia's back. This picture of success that has appeared has once again brought to life the hopes concerning a Turan Army, that would be the joint military power of the Turkic states,” Turkiye said.

Turan is the term used by Pan-Turkists to describe Turkic Central Asia.

Nationalist and Pan-Turkic fervour is likely to reverberate far beyond the Azerbaijani-Armenian battlefield.



France last week banned the Grey Wolves, a militant youth group associated with Turkey’s Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), an ally of Mr. Erdogan’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP).

The ban was imposed as part of French President Emmanuel Macron’s stepped-up crackdown on Islamists in the wake of a series of gruesome attacks, including the beheading of a schoolteacher.

At odds with Mr. Erdogan over Turkey’s flexing of its muscles in the Caucasus, the Eastern Mediterranean and Libya, Mr. Macron, backed by the United Arab Emirates, has accused Mr. Erdogan of fuelling violence and hatred with his criticism of the French crackdown.

For now, Mr. Erdogan has strengthened his position in what inevitably will lead to a rejiggering of the balance of power in the Caucasus between not only Russia and Turkey but also Iran, a Russian and Turkish partner on Armenia and Azerbaijan’s southern borders, that has so far sought to strike a balance in the conflict between its neighbours.

                         ------------------------------------------------------------------------

A podcast version of this story is available on Soundcloud, Itunes, Spotify, Stitcher, TuneIn, Spreaker, Pocket Casts, Tumblr, Podbean, Audecibel, Patreon and Castbox.

Dr. James M. Dorsey is an award-winning journalist and a senior fellow at Nanyang Technological University’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore and the National University of Singapore’s Middle East Institute.


Thursday, November 19, 2020

How will RCEP Benefit Member Nations and What Does India’s Exit from the Trade Pact Mean (r)



             Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership


                           [ https://youtu.be/SYyigbIaBKY ]


The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) is a proposed free trade agreement (FTA) between the ten member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam) and its six FTA partners (China, Japan, India, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand)




RCEP | Why India quit RCEP | What is RCEP  

                                            [ https://youtu.be/cwwmPa4Jn20 ]



India Out Of RCEP, Message To China? | India Development Debate


                          [ https://youtu.be/GKeimzfKOWI ]





 Why RCEP Retreat gets more Political Consensus than  Balakot & Creative Destruction of Capitalism

                            [ https://youtu.be/VA5F4Q3r1ZU ]




                                =================================================

 

SOURCE:

https://theprint.in/theprint-essential/how-will-rcep-benefit-member-nations-and-what-does-indias-exit-from-the-trade-pact-mean/545701/?fbclid=IwAR3Nrk5wtDumnfXMcSZI5xVeNaM3423EkqOe7MuvF5Emq2O2XTyNxaIbF9g

File photo of PM Modi at the RCEP Summit in Thailand in 2019 | @narendramodi | Twitter


How will RCEP Benefit Member Nations and What  Does India’s Exit from the Trade Pact Mean 

                                       By

                      KAIRVY GREWAL 

15 Asia-Pacific nations have signed the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. It covers over 2.2 billion people and accounts for 30 per cent of the world's economy.

 
17 November, 2020 



After eight years of negotiations, 15 Asia-Pacific nations have finally signed the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), hailed as one of the biggest free trade deals in history. It covers over 2.2 billion people and accounts for 30 per cent of the world’s economy.

India chose to opt out of this trade agreement that was signed Sunday (15 November) among 10 Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) members — Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam — and their six trade partners — Australia, China, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi had in November last year said the decision to not be a part of RCEP was guided by the impact it will have on the “lives and livelihood of all Indians, especially vulnerable sections of the society”.

ThePrint explains what RCEP represents, how it was conceived and ways in which this trade pact will benefit member nations.

How it Started

The RCEP was first proposed at the 19th ASEAN meet in November 2011 with an aim to create a consolidated market for the 10 member countries and their trade partners.

The guiding principles of RCEP state, “The objective of launching RCEP negotiations is to achieve a modern, comprehensive, high quality and mutually beneficial economic partnership agreement among the ASEAN member states and ASEAN’s FTA (free trade agreement) partners.”

It aims to create a “liberal, facilitative and competitive investment environment” in the Asia-Pacific region.

The RCEP was later also conceived by the ASEAN members and China as a response to the US-led Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) — later renamed as Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership — after America opted out of this deal in 2017. The key features of TPP included comprehensive market access, regional approach to commitments, inclusive trade, regional integration, and addressing new trade challenges.

The TPP was established during US President George Bush’s term. President Donald Trump had, however, pulled out of the deal saying it was a “potential disaster” for America and will harm manufacturing in the US.

What is expected of RCEP

The RCEP is expected to eliminate a series of tariffs on imported products for the member nations in the coming 20 years. The agreement also includes rules on intellectual property, telecommunications, financial and professional services, and e-commerce .

Speaking to ThePrint, Radhika Pandey, consultant, National Institute of Public Finance and Policy, said, “The intent is that it will lead to trade creation because the countries that are part of the RCEP will progressively lower tariff rates, so that will lead to an increase in trade.”

Many signatories of the RCEP already have FTAs with each other. But Deborah Elms, from the Asian Trade Centre, has been quoted as saying, “The existing FTAs can be very complicated to use compared to RCEP.”

This is because businesses with global supply chains might face tariffs even within an FTA if their products contain components that are made elsewhere.

However, under RCEP, member nations would be treated equally. It would also incentivise companies in member nations to look at the trade region for suppliers.

Does RCEP benefit all?

Even though the intent of RCEP is to create trade and lower tariff rates for all members, experts worry that not all countries will benefit equally.

Sujit Dutta, distinguished fellow at Vivekananda International Foundation, and editor, National Security quarterly journal, told ThePrint, “Only some of the countries will gain from joining RCEP. China is eating into many of the other countries’ industrial products, it remains uncertain on what this would mean for smaller countries.”

He added, “Stronger economies like Singapore have a lot to gain. But, for other smaller countries, it is an unequal relationship. China is too big for these countries.”

Dutta also pointed out that large-scale trade agreements are now “losing their sheen”. This is because they are based on different currencies whose valuations have an unequal effect in different countries.

Rajat Kathuria, director and chief executive, Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, also maintained that China will stand to benefit more in comparison to other countries, both in terms of imports and exports.

“China being a big market is going to redirect its economy towards more consumption. There are going to be greater imports into China. Once you have greater imports, there is going to be greater value to consumers, that’s something India missed out on,” Kathuria told ThePrint.

The Peterson Institute for International Economics has estimated that by 2030 RCEP may be able to increase global national income by $186 billion annually. It could also add 0.2 per cent to the economies of member nations.

Why did India pull out of RCEP?

On 4 November last year, India announced its decision to not join RCEP. This came amid concerns that elimination of tariffs would open India’s markets to imports, which in turn could harm local producers. The decision also reflected PM Modi’s clarion call for an Atmanirbhar Bharat.

Pandey explained that India’s strategy was to protect its domestic industries from Chinese imports. “India had suggested some remedial measures. For instance, if imports rise beyond a threshold they should be allowed to impose some kind of barriers. But, the other member countries of RCEP didn’t agree to it.”

“The present form of the RCEP agreement does not fully reflect the basic spirit and the agreed guiding principles of RCEP . It also does not address satisfactorily India’s outstanding issues and concerns. In such a situation, it is not possible for India to join the RCEP agreement,” PM Modi had said at the RCEP Summit in Bangkok last year.

The other member nations have, however, maintained that the doors will always remain open for India’s participation in the RCEP. Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsein Loong had said that the country has joined the trade pact “in hoping that India too, will be able to come on board at some point”.

According to Karthik Nachiappan, research fellow, Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore, RCEP also did not improve the material standing of Indian firms in sectors like agriculture, manufacturing and electronics.

India’s metal producers, he said, stand to lose from greater competition having already been buffeted by previous FTAs with Southeast Asian countries. “In terms of agriculture, firms producing commodities like dairy, pepper, coconuts and cardamom will face pressures from both high-end producers like Australia and New Zealand, and also like-minded competitors in ASEAN, which is the case for Indian rubber,” he wrote.

N.R. Bhanumurthy, professor of economics at the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy, said, “We don’t have strong databases to understand and negotiate a good trade deal with regard to some of the commodities. When price fluctuations happen then no one knows what will happen to the price of imported commodities, particularly in case of agricultural commodities.”

“The problem is that it is very difficult to increase the export of agricultural commodities while their imports can be increased very easily,” he added.

Did India lose out by not joining RCEP?

The Chinese state media had claimed that India’s decision to not join RCEP was a “strategic blunder” to the country’s economic growth.

Kathuria maintained that India could have gained from being part of the RCEP, in terms of welfare improvement for consumers. “We have lost out on getting greater access if we are negotiating with other markets,” he said.

He also explained how even during negotiations with member nations of RCEP, India’s focus had been on the disruption caused to manufacturing and homegrown producers rather than what it meant for consumers. “Now, all that discussion has been overshadowed by the border conflict with China… In this case, I would say that politics has been a significant factor in our decision to stay out of RCEP,” Kathuria added.

Pandey, meanwhile, said protection and promotion of domestic industry should be temporary. “Not being part of any trade creation group should be temporary. But going forward, this strategy of hindering access ultimately harms the country as a whole in the long term.”

“Some kind of temporary relief to domestic industry is fine and can be given because China is one established monopolist player,” she added.

Global trade would also have increased if India would have been a signatory because it is a market for textile and dairy products, said Pandey. “We have a huge population, a huge market, we have a sizeable share of GDP. That’s why they have left the door open for India to sign later.

New Strategic Sichuan-Tibet Railway Link To Strengthen Border Defense – Analysis (r)

 SOURCE;

https://www.eurasiareview.com/10112020-new-strategic-sichuan-tibet-railway-link-to-strengthen-border-defense-analysis/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+eurasiareview%2FVsnE+%28Eurasia+Review%29


Train passes on railway in Tibet






Analysis

New Strategic Sichuan-Tibet Railway Link To Strengthen Border Defense 

                                By

                     Prof Ashok Tiku*


Railway upto SHIGATSE (Xigaze) is complete. All tunnels and bridges upto Nyingchi are complete . Nyigchi to be commisoned  by December 2022 and Chumbi Valley under planning

 


Chinese President XI is calling for expediting the construction of the new railway line connecting Lhasa with Chengdu to strengthen border defense.

China announced its intention to connect Tibet with another new railway line  — the Sichuan-Tibet railway line to protect China’s borders.  On the eve of starting the construction of this new route, Chinese president said (Xinhua Nov 9) that the new route will be key to safeguarding China’s national unity and consolidating border stability and called for building the railway line expeditiously by “concentrating resources “ for its completion. 

Recently China Railway announced the bidding results for the construction of two tunnels and one bridge, as well as the power supply project for the Ya’an—Linzhi         ( Ya’an-Nyingchi) section of the Sichuan-Tibet Railway. This will be the second railway line connecting Tibet with China and will shorten the travel time to Lhasa from 48 hours to just 13 hours. The  Sichuan-Tibet railway line starts from Cheng du, the capital of Sichuan province and the  new addition  Ya’an-Nyinngchi section will be 1,011 kms long, and includes 26 stations when completed — taking Chinese railway right up to the disputed boundary with India. The cost of the project is estimated at 319.8 billion yuan.

It would be interesting to recall that China started the railway survey of linking Lhasa with China in late 80s and the survey team had submitted three links for railway connectivity with Tibet:

  1. Connecting Lhasa with Chengdu, Si-Zang raiway
  2. Connecting Lhasa with Kunming, Yun-Zang raiway
  3. Connecting Lhasa with Germu, Qing-Zang railway

The expert committee had recommended the first and second options for connecting Lhasa with China as against the Qing-Zang railway third option, as these two options were shorter, cheaper and easier to build.

Nevertheless, the then-CMC did not approve it on security considerations arguing that these railway lines run close to the Indian Border and would pose a security challenge. As such, it hence preferred the circuitous, the longest, and costliest, as well as the hazardous route, that passes through the high altitude point of 5,072 meters, for safety and security concerns to connect Lhasa with Germu along the Qing-Zang line 

Chengdu, has always served as a vital gateway city to Tibet in southwest China. Currently, the supplies from Chengdu to Lhasa come via the Chengdu-Lhasa train (Z322), covering 3,070km across 5 provinces, with a total duration of 36:18hrs. Now this distance can be covered by this short direct route train in only 13 hrs. The new line will pass through Linzhi located close to Indian border in Arunachal Pradesh .

The Qing-Lhasa line at1,956 kms long (Xi Ning-Germu 815 kms, Germu-Lhasa 1,142kms) opened in 2006  and has now been extended to Shigaze (280 kms) to link later with Yadong, and Kathmandu and finally to Lumbini close to the India-Nepal border. The project planned in 2008 is now expected to be completed in 2025, but construction costs (US$ 300 million) remain a worry as the line faces hurdles because of the terrain.

The proposed Kerung-Kathmandu linkup is part of BRI project entering Nepal in Rasuwan district and will eventually link it with India. The feasibility report for this additional link was prepared in late 2018 and technically a tough project as 98% of the line in Nepal passes through tunnels and bridges with about five stations. Tracks are to be built on steep terrain and the line climbs from an altitude of 1,400M in Kathmandu to 4,000M in Tibet, costing 28 billion yuan. Although only one third of the total length falls on the Nepal side, it had to account for half the costs due to  difficult terrain conditions in Nepal. It was supposed to reach Kerung (Tibet) by 2020, but has supposedly been delayed and pushed to 2025.

The Nepal-China cross border railway was listed as part of trans-Himalayan connectivity network at the BRI forum Beijing (April 2019). The cost and profitability of the project is a cause of concern as Nepal has a trade deficit with China of $12.8 (2019) equal to nearly half of Nepal’s GDP. Nepal’s exports to China fell by 30% (2019) and the train will have to run practically empty from Nepal unless India also joins this network.

The new railway route linking Lhasa with Cheng du is strategically of utmost importance facilitating speedy mobility of forces from Cheng du to Tibet and other border regions near Indian border. President Xi’s intervention to expedite construction reflects the importance that China attaches to this project. However, what is worth noting is that China had earlier warned India and expressed concern on building the Twang railway link (1-4-2017) linking Twang with the Indian railway network.

*Prof Ashok Tiku, is a Senior China Analyst with 45 years of experience.




Self-reliance in Defence needs Shift in Priority (r)

SOURCE:
https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/self-reliance-in-defence-needs-shift-in-priority-171930

ENSURE QUALITY: The use of technology is tilting the balance in favour of the gun.


Self-reliance in Defence Needs  

               Shift  in Priority 

                           By

Lt Gen Harwant Singh (retd)

                               [Former Deputy Chief of Army Staff]



In the import of defence equipment, we have been paying additional money for the transfer of technology clause and yet have never been able to fully absorb it and consequently could never take it forward. We even failed in the field of reverse engineering. The recent DRDO move to raise the limits of advance payment and award contracts through the procurement manual is hardly a push for self-reliance.



India imports 70 per cent of its defence weapons and equipment. An import lobby has existed, which on the one hand has controlled the development of weapons and equipment within the country and on the other, gained from imports. Earlier, most weapons and equipment came from the USSR, where no information about any wrongdoing by the buyer ever leaked. 

Internally in India, no misdeed was ever brought to light.

In two cases where malpractices had occurred to strike deals for the import of equipment, information linked to bribery was leaked from only the two countries that provided the equipment, one being the Bofors gun and the other Agusta Westland helicopters.

          In both, the names of the defence secretaries surfaced. 

In the case of Bofors, the defence secretary could not be charge-sheeted as he had been moved to a Governor’s post, placing him beyond the reach of law and in the case of Agusta Westland helicopters, the defence secretary was re-employed as CAG and his arrest now awaits clearance from the Defence Ministry, even while he is a retired person, though in this case,ONLY the Air Chief was also (WAS) charge-sheeted.

Development of weapons and equipment is at the core of Atmanirbhar Bharat and ‘Made by India’ forms its essence. It is possible to create capabilities within to meet the military’s requirement, provided we bring about changes to the existing set-up. Here, the thrust should be initially towards ‘Make in India’, followed by ‘Made by India’, rather than merely ‘Make in India’ by foreign companies.

India has enough entrepreneurial potential and technical skills and if given the required incentives, it can measure up. The setting up of production facilities by foreign companies should, as far as possible, be joint ventures with Indian entities.

Fifty-seven DRDO establishments, 11 defence public sector undertakings (PSUs) and 41 ordnance factories have been in existence for over six decades and yet the Indian military continues to depend on imports. Before any attempt to promote indigenous production is made,

we need to examine as to why own efforts made by the DRDO, defence PSUs and the Ordnance Factory Board have fallen short of meeting the military’s requirement.

In the import of defence equipment, we have been paying additional money for the transfer of technology clause and yet have never been able to fully absorb it and consequently could never take it forward. We even failed in the field of reverse engineering. The recent DRDO move to raise the limits of advance payment and award contracts to the second lowest bidder (if the lowest bidder backs out) through the procurement manual is hardly a push for self-reliance.

For long, there has been a demand for an independent science audit of the DRDO and other defence establishments. Internal ‘expert panels’ can hardly be expected to come up with radical changes, which run counter to the interests of MoD, whose turf these are. Even the Director General Qualitative Assurance (DGQA) forms part of the same set-up. Consequently, the quality of products from these establishments has remained indifferent.

While a few of these DRDO and other establishments have done reasonably well, such as those dealing with missile technology, most others have little to their credit.

A science audit should be over within three months and those who have failed to accomplish anything worth while should be sold out to the private sector. Given top-of-the line equipment with these establishments, private entities will make a good start.

When the USSR broke up, China took 2,000 scientists from there. This did contribute to China getting to its present state in high-end technologies.

[ At the end of WW II Russians also took an undisclosed number of GERMAN scientists in captivity with a view to exploit their talent - Vasundhra )

What is not fully realised in India is that in this equation between the ‘gun’ and the ‘man behind the gun’, the balance is fast tilting in favour of the gun. Already, artificial intelligence, robotics, drone technology and cyber tech have brought about a sea change in warfare.

While we did away with the ‘licence & permit raj’, what was left out was the issue of ‘clearances’ and curtailing the predatory functioning of the ‘inspector’. Clearances involve traversing through the bureaucratic jungle. So, in place of ‘ease of doing business’, one needs ‘grease for doing business’ in India. A single window leads to many more windows. These hassles made many industries shift from India to China. 

[ Can  INDIA'S  ambitions to become are achievable   or will just remain a "DREAM" 


One foreign company did find a solution by appointing a bureaucrat as company chairman, who could not only cut red tape but also corner all future tax benefits by getting to know of such plans years before the official announcements.

Most equipment being produced in India still has imported content. Therefore, effort is needed to move into high-tech zone. Given the current geostrategic environment and developments in the Indo-Pacific and Himalayas, Quad countries and others are willing to give India access to high-end technologies, and it must make the most of such possibilities.The Chief of Defence Staff, General Bipin Rawat, is well off the mark when he advocates the lowering of General Staff Qualitative Requirement (GSQR ) to 70 per cent. Perhaps he is not aware that technology has come to play a dominant role in warfare and as it is, 68 per cent of the military’s equipment is of the vintage category. In framing the GSQR, what could be considered is that the DRDO be involved to an extent, so that it could initially produce Mark-1 of the weapon/equipment to be followed by Mark-2 which must fully measure up to the required performance parameters.

For Atmanirbharta in defence, resetting of the existing set-up on the following lines is called for:

a) Complete science audit and based on it, 50 per cent of DRDO, defence PSUs and ordnance factories should be sold out to the private sector. The next review of the balance of these establishments be carried out after five years; 

b) Secretary, Defence Production, should be a defence services officer;

c) DGQA should come under the CDS;

d) A few selected DRDO establishments, defence PSUs and ordnance factories should be headed by defence services officers. The Navy has done better by adopting this system;

 e) Factories should be relocated closer to where weapons and equipment are required to be deployed to reduce transportation expenses;

 f) Do away with the single vendor system, including for ordnance factory products.

The proposal to convert the Ordnance Factory Board into Ordnance Factory Corporation Limited as being suggested will be a half-way house, leaving the military still dependent on a single vendor and products of indifferent quality.