C. Raja Mohan is Director, Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore, and contributing editor on foreign affairs for 'The Indian Express'.
The Foreign Office is merely following other professions that are adapting to restrictions on travel across borders and within them by the corona crisis.
Imran Khan's indecisive leadership in handling the corona crisis may have tipped the scales for Pakistan’s deep state that has always treated the civilian leaders with disdain.
The corona crisis threatens to write the obituary of global capitalism. It will have a lasting impact on national economic strategies and politics.
As the virus and China move to the top of the US domestic agenda, their impact on Washington’s relations with Beijing is bound to be significant. And unlike Russia, China is far more central to the US economy and a powerful political challenger to America’s global leadership.
India needs all the pragmatism it can muster to pursue its interests in a world where all the major global institutions — from the WHO to the WTO — are experiencing unprecedented turmoil and are heading towards an inevitable restructuring.
Although all world leaders have acknowledged the global imperative in dealing with the virus, they have put the nation first. Are all nations now for themselves? Not so fast.
The case for China’s culpability is based on the principles of state responsibility and Beijing’s alleged failure to respect the obligation, under the 2005 International Health Regulations, to notify the world on the outbreak of the epidemic.
China has carefully calibrated its rise in UN system. World, including India, must deal with consequences.
Coronavirus crisis is an opportunity for Delhi to build on domestic technological capabilities in artificial intelligence, big data analytics, life sciences and health technology in the private sector.
This crisis could have a lasting impact on the global political economy, trigger new equations among nations
Although the slowdown in Chinese manufacturing has disrupted the supply chains of many goods, the impact on the drug industry has helped highlight the national security implications of China’s dominance over the pharmaceutical industry.
As it looks at the growing role of the private sector and the effort by nations like the UAE and Luxembourg, Delhi needs to move quickly towards a new model for India’s space activity.
PM Narendra Modi has broken through systemic prejudice against US engagement. But an India at war with itself can’t take advantage of the possibilities presented by the ‘Hindi-Amreeki, Bhai-Bhai’ phase in the relationship.
The threat to the sovereignty of India and China does not come from occasional statements by the White House, resolutions in the US Congress or stinging editorials from the New York Times. The real threat to their sovereignty comes from policies that deepen internal conflicts.
Delhi has already stepped up its naval activity within the Gulf and beyond as part of its emergence as a regional security provider. It knows that its effectiveness will rise manifold if it acts in concert with the US and other partners. Modi and Trump could begin by laying the political foundation for such cooperation.
Trade has long been a contentious issue between New Delhi and Washington. Donald Trump administration has made the problem more acute, but India too is turning to protectionism.
Delhi needs to unlearn some of the assumptions about US policy as it prepares to host Trump next week. While the diaspora is important and could be of some value in dealing with Trump, it can’t override the deeper forces animating American politics.
Optimists hope that a sharp drop in economic activity in the current quarter will be followed by a steep uptick in growth in the next when the virus is contained and normalcy returns. Pessimists, however, suggest that the economic disruption could have lasting effects.
While Trump and Sanders could not be more different as individuals, they are alike in one respect: They promise or threaten — depending on one’s perspective — to overturn the established order in the US. Both are “outsiders” who rose to prominence in the teeth of the insiders’ opposition.
The government needs a more comprehensive domestic framework that promotes the use of new technologies for public good as well as imposes necessary constraints against their abuse by both state and capital.
Given its growing stakes in the global economic order, Delhi ought to be at the leading edge of the current debate on the future of capitalism. India, though, seems too preoccupied sorting out the persistent legacies of feudalism.
In Myanmar to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries, Xi is expected to nudge his hosts to implement stalled Chinese infrastructure projects, consolidate Beijing’s status as the most important economic partner of Naypyidaw.
The Iranian people, who had apparently rallied behind the flag after the US killing of Soleimani were now turning their rage against the government. The chant “Death to America” a week before were replaced by “Death to the Dictator” in a reference to Khamenei.
Both Trump and Khamenei are realists. There are political constrains on them that limit the pressures of a further escalation of conflict between US and Iran.
Some in Delhi might scoff at the notion of recognising external concerns in the conduct of India’s domestic politics. To be sure, the theory is that all states are sovereign and free to do what they want at home and free to conduct foreign policies as they like.