UPSC Mains Previous Year Questions 2019: GS2 International Relations | UPSC Mains: International Relations PDF Download

Q1: The time has come for India and Japan to build a strong contemporary relationship, one involving global and strategic partnership that will have a great significance for Asia and the world as a whole. Comment. (International Relations)
Ans: The India-Japan partnership, described as one of the most rapidly advancing relationships in Asia, has emerged as a significant factor contributing to the stability and security of the Indo-Pacific region. Deviating from the traditional policy of focusing on economic engagements, the partnership has significantly diversified to include a wide range of interests—including regional cooperation, maritime security, global climate, and UN reforms.

The strategic consequences of a rising China in the Indo-Pacific is providing greater momentum to the India-Japan partnership. Both Japan and India through strategic convergence seek to re-calibrate Asia’s balance of power. It can be reflected in the following initiatives:

1. Cooperation in Indo-Pacific Region:

• It is a confluence between India’s Act East policy and Japan’s Free and Open Indo-Pacific strategy.
• It will strengthen the rule of law and freedom of navigation, which is threatened by China’s muscle flexing in the South China Sea.
• It will enhance cooperation with Japan and ASEAN countries.

2. Asia Africa Growth Corridor (AAGC):

• Japan looks to invest nearly $200 billion in the Asia Africa region, turning the 21st century from an Asian century to an Asian-African century.
• Japan will provide state-of-the-art technology, and India will bring its expertise in working in Africa.
• AAGC seeks to counter China’s influence established through the Belt and Road Initiative.

3. Japan, US, India (JAI) and Australia - Quad:

• Seen as an informal organization that seeks to counter China.

4. North-East Road Network Connectivity Improvement Project:

• Japan is taking the initiative in this project, which will be a crucial link in India’s Act East policy.

5. Military Engagement:

• India and Japan are negotiating cross-service agreements that will give access to each other’s military facilities and could foster much closer military-to-military relations.

Apart from this, there are several engagements between India and Japan that are independent of China.

6. Economic Engagement:

• Japan has made investments in India’s infrastructure, e.g., Delhi-Mumbai Economic Corridor, Bullet train, Delhi metro, etc.

7. UNSC Reforms:

• India, along with Japan, Brazil, and Germany, forms the grouping called G4 countries, seeking UNSC reforms.

8. Civil Nuclear Deal:

• India is the first non-signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) country with whom Japan has signed a civil nuclear deal.
• This will establish India’s credibility as a responsible nuclear power.
• It will boost India’s Make in India initiative.
• It will augment India’s INDC commitment at the Paris climate deal.

Japan can prove to be a development multiplier in India. Therefore, India should develop an independent relationship with Japan that is not to be seen in the context of China, the US, or any other country.

Q2: Too little cash, too much politics, leaves UNESCO fighting for life.’ Discuss the statement in the light of US’ withdrawal and its accusation of the cultural body as being ‘anti-Israel bias’. (International Relations)
Ans: UNESCO, established in 1945 with a profound belief in the need for peace beyond political and economic alliances shaped by the scars of two world wars, has faced a recent challenge. The decision by the United States to withdraw from this cultural body has once again underscored the politicization of its activities and financial constraints.

Financial Crisis: The root of its financial woes can be traced back to 2011 when UNESCO admitted Palestine as a full member state, prompting the US to halt its annual $80 million dues. This move has triggered a chain reaction of challenges, compelling UNESCO, with a 2017 budget of about $326 million, nearly half of its 2012 budget, to make program cuts and rely on voluntary contributions.

Israel’s Concerns: Israel consistently voices grievances over resolutions related to cultural sites in the West Bank and Jerusalem, claiming they delegitimize the Jewish state. Critics argue that Israel leverages US support to deflect legitimate criticism.

Global Contributors: Major contributors like Japan, Britain, and Brazil have delayed funds, often citing objections to UNESCO’s policies. Japan, for instance, has threatened to withhold dues over the inclusion of the 1937 Nanjing Massacre in the body’s “Memory of the World” program.

Geopolitical Tensions: Russia and Ukraine remain at odds over Crimea, with Kiev accusing Moscow of attempting to legitimize its annexation through UNESCO.

Despite UNESCO’s initial focus on solidarity and fostering a climate of peace, nations are now leveraging their dues and funds to influence programs. Preserving shared human heritage demands a collective effort, urging nations to rise above the zero-sum game of politics.

Q3: ‘The long-sustained image of India as a leader of the oppressed and marginalised nations has disappeared on account of its new found role in the emerging global order.’ Elaborate. (International Relations)
Ans: As the founding member of the Non-Alignment Movement (NAM), India propagated its vision among the newly independent countries of the colonized world to not align with any of the power blocks as these newly independent countries were weak in terms of military, economics, and development aspects.

These ideas of Non-Alignment, Peaceful Cooperation, and Co-existence, End of Imperialism, and Colonialism have made India one of the leaders of the marginalized nations.

The leadership and idealistic credentials of India were sustained and can be seen:

• During the cold war era.
• Upholding the interests of the smaller economies in Doha round of WTO.
• Supporting the cause of vulnerable nations during the Climate change negotiations.

Shift in India’s approach towards its strategic foreign policy perspective:

• Economic Development is now a major agenda of India’s growth as a world power, which is now reflected in India’s foreign policy.
• This trend was observed in NAM Summit Havana 2006, where India focused on anti-terrorism, nuclear disarmament, energy security, investing in Africa, and such issues which are vital to India’s growth and don’t resemble priorities of developing or marginalized countries.
• India has actively supported the cause of developing and marginalized nation in Climate Change negotiations by thrusting on “differentiated responsibility” but recently diluted its stand in Paris negotiations.
• India has also been blamed for interfering in the internal affairs of neighboring countries, for instance, Nepal, which led to friction in relations between the two nations.
• In the regional forum SAARC, India has hard-pressed its agenda of boycotting Pakistan, which resulted in the non-functioning of SAARC, which may result in delaying development projects of SAARC in our smaller neighboring nations.
• India’s involvement in QUAD, its focus on Indo Pacific Regional Growth, and countering China have become its top priority.

These inferences are pointing towards a shift in India’s approach from the leader of the oppressed countries to a great power in its terms. India’s approach is shifting from Idealism to Realism and is prioritizing its national interests over the collective interests of the developing countries.

Q4:  “What introduces friction into the ties between India and the United States is that Washington is still unable to find for India a position in its global strategy, which would satisfy India’s National self-esteem and ambitions” Explain with suitable examples. (International Relations)
Ans: In 2016, the United States designated India as ‘major defence partner’, a status unique to India. However, recently, the US foreign and economic policies have started to appear against India’s self-esteem and ambitions. There are several issues that introduce friction into what US considers its global strategy and what India envisages as its self-esteem and ambitions.

West Asia: The US’ West Asia policy is aligned in line with that of Israel and Saudi Arabia which stands adversarial to that of Iran. But for India, a strong, united and peaceful Iran holds significance not only for its oil imports but also for the Chabahar port and International North-South Transport Corridor (INTC) that will enable India to have a reach to Central Asia and counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). However, this stands opposed to the US policy of restricting Iran’s influence in the region. The US has pulled out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear agreement and subsequently imposed sanctions under Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) on Iran.

Afghanistan: Political development in Kabul has always had its implications in New Delhi. The situation in Afghanistan also poses security risks for India given Pakistan’s close proximity to the Taliban. This is more so given India’s huge investments in Afghanistan to bring peace and stability there. But the US policy has moved to focus on its withdrawal of troops. Any peace deal with the Taliban, an insurgent body, will legitimize the terrorist activities and hurt India’s interests.

Russia: India’s strategic relations with Russia have historically been very significant and useful given Russia’s veto power at the Security Council. Russia is also the major defence partner of India. It is also emerging as a major option to meet India’s energy requirements. But, as bequeathed by the Cold War, the US considers Russia as its adversary and it has brought Russia under the CAATSA. This stood opposed to India’s defence deals with Russia involving the S-400 missile systems.

Trade relations: Being a developing country, India wants to bring millions of its masses out of poverty and to have a strong economic footprint globally. The US is a major trade partner in this context and its Generalised System of Preferences (GSP) has been a useful mechanism for India. But the US’ policy to bring back jobs home and to restrict China’s growth trajectory has negative fallout on India. The US has accused India of not opening the Indian economy for American trade by means of tariffs, intellectual property regulations, subsidies, etc. and has clamped tariffs on Indian exports to America.

Moreover, the USA’s National Defense Strategy 2018 marked Russia and China as its central challenge and for the US India is an ideal balancer against rising China. In this context, India must convince the US that a strong India is in concurrence with the US’ interest. Besides, India must follow strategic hedging i.e. simultaneous engagements with major powers because in international relations, there are no permanent friends or permanent enemies, only permanent interests.