The United Kingdom has banned Huawei from its 5G network after December and the already installed gear would expect to be removed from the networks by 2027. United State government welcomes the UK’s ban from future 5G networks and also praises Jio for prohibiting Chinese companies’ types of equipment. It could mean the tower of 5G is delayed for two to three years and may cost up to 2 billion pounds.

 “We welcome news that the UK plans to ban Huawei from future 5G networks and end untrusted Huawei pieces of kit from existing networks. With this decision, the united kingdom joins a growing list of nations from round the world that are standing up for his or her national security by prohibiting the utilization of untrusted, high-risk vendors,” Pompeo said in a statement.

 Huawei is considered to be a pivotal issue in the geopolitical war between China and the US which claims the firm poses a significant cybersecurity threat and data can be stolen. It is a major U-turn after the Prime Minister said in January that the Chinese firm could be allowed a limited role in the future of faster technology but the American President, Trump pressured the UK to ban Huawei.

“The government agrees with the national cybersecurity sensor advice the simplest way secure our networks is for operators to prevent using new affected Huawei equipment to create the UK’s future 5G networks so from the end of this year telecoms operators must not buy any 5G types of equipment from Huawei.”- UK’s digital secretary, Oliver Dowden said.

The decision is an addition to a new feather in a cap of American government, which has been pushing allies to washout Huawei from their 5G networks, claiming that the Chinese firm is untrusted to national security. Chinese administration may lead to counter-attacks against Nokia and Ericsson if European countries move to ban Huawei.

 “Listening to all or any the rhetoric it had been clear the United Kingdom had succumbed to pressure from China hawks bashers,” said Liu Xiaoming, the Chinese ambassador to the United Kingdom.

 He also hoped that Chinese students would still be welcomed in the UK and also added that China was not seeking an Economic decoupling.

On the other side, Secretary of state, Mike Pompeo praised clean carriers like Jio in India.

 “We will still work with our British friends on fostering a secure and vibrant 5G ecosystem, which is critical to transatlantic security and prosperity.”- Pompeo added.

Donald Trump has also appealed to the Indian Prime Minister and other world leaders to ban the company. Reliance Chairman Mukesh Ambani had told Trump about Jio is the only network in the world to not have a single Chinese component. He also announced that it has developed 5G telecom solutions and it will be ready for trials as soon as the 5G spectrum is available.

 “India’s clean app approach will boost its sovereignty, national security.”- stated Mike Pompeo on India’s decision to ban 59 Chinese applications.

                                                                          -Saswati Chattopadhyay

Huawei Ban by the United Kingdom: Is it the new Cuban Missile Crisis?

The rising tension between the United States and China has managed to raise a few eyebrows. Experts of the field brought to the fore their concern regarding the beginning of a possible “new cold war” that may be largely concerned with the technical arena. The COVID-19 crisis has brought down serious devastation to the world and this situation when compared to the disastrous possibilities that this conflict carry is just about negligible exclaimed several scholars. A layman’s view of the situation would presumably term the ongoing dispute as one that is very similar to the Cold War of 1945. However, even several experts of the field have termed this conflict to be one similar to the Cold War that haunts people around the globe even to this day. An influential economist and Colombia University professor, Jeffrey Sachs, explained the BBC that the deepening of the ‘Cold War’ between the two nations will pose as a bigger worry post the pandemic.  The Economist informed BBC that “the world is headed for a period of “massive disruption without any leadership in the aftermath of the pandemic as the divide between the two superpowers will exacerbate this.” Moreover, BBC has put in writing that the pertaining issues amongst these two nations are “bigger global threat than a virus.”

The worsening relationship between the two countries was sped up by an emergent (technical) issue concerning the declaration of the UK to ban Huawei. Will this turn out to be “the Cuban Missile crisis” of 2020? The answer might not be that simple. The most important distinction that might refute such a claim is that the crisis of 1962 resulted due to deployment of ‘Soviet ballistic missile in Cuba’ that was considered by the United States (US) as a threat. This confrontation is often considered by History as the turning point of the Cold War as this issue might have transitioned into a full-scale nuclear war; whereas the present conflict between the USA and China is a technological one and has nothing to do with warfare. Nevertheless, we know very well that the control of technology is of utmost importance in this modernized world. A nation that manages to do this, in all likelihood, will be the one emerging as an all-powerful and dominant nation dictating the world order and at the same time upsetting the “status-quo.” In this sense, a rough comparison can be drawn between the two crises. Moreover, the sanctions imposed on Huawei have been a result of the rising fears regarding Chinese tech companies spying and promoting global espionage. In response to the sanctions, China said that it would soon impose its sanctions on the US-based defence contractor, Lockheed Martin Corp. regarding their missile sales in Taiwan. These moves provide a glimpse to the rapidly deteriorating situation and how quickly it might take a turn for something cataclysmic.

The limited role assigned to the Chinese company, Huawei, with regards to the creation of 5G infrastructure in the United Kingdom (UK) was put to a stop with the country’s declaration regarding the ban of the company in the UK. Digital and Culture Minister of UK Oliver Dowden claimed to several news outlets that the imposed sanctions by the United States may have “significantly changed” the outlook of the company. “Given the uncertainty, this creates around Huawei’s supply chain, the UK can no longer be confident it will be able to guarantee the security of future Huawei 5G equipment,” said the Minister. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared that “the tide is turning against Huawei as citizens around the world are waking up to the danger of the Chinese Communist Party’s surveillance state.” The decision that might seem to be a big win for the “Trump administration which has been pushing allies to exclude Huawei from their 5G networks, arguing that the Chinese company is a threat to national security” stated the news outlet, CNN; the United Kingdom might also risk retaliation from the Chinese government which might not be productive as after Brexit, Britain is going to look around for new trading opportunities.  

The review by the nation’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) on the impact of the sanctions issued by the United States resulted in this ban. Furthermore, the government has ensured that Huawei is removed completely from the UK’s 5G network established by the end of 2027. It has also ensured that no 5G kit by the company is available in the market for purchase by December 31, 2020. Dowden also made it clear that there was a need to implement a bill regarding Telecom security to implement a “tough new” framework in regards to telecommunications. According to DCMS, this will allow the government to control the “high-risk vendors.” The government made clear that the move has been sole to strengthen national security and is not targeting “one company, one country, or one threat.” The Times of India stated that in response to the ban, the company made clear that “its future in the UK has been politicized.” The company has stated that this not about the security concerns of the nation, but about “United States trade policy.” Several analysts opined that the decision of the United Kingdom came as a shock to the company as it hoped that it would not be influenced by the decisions of the United States government. However, as the Chinese government implemented a “controversial national security law in the former British colony,” indignation against Beijing made the UK “opt against Huawei.”

The decision to ban the Chinese telecommunication giant was termed by Beijing on July 15 as “America’s dupe.” Moreover, it vowed to take steps to protect the interests of Chinese companies. The Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying made clear “China will fully and solemnly assess this matter, and will take a series of necessary measures to safeguard Chinese companies’ legitimate rights and interests.” Hua said, “Any decisions and actions (by Britain) must come at a cost.”          The spokeswoman of the foreign ministry claimed London “(acted) in coordination with the US to discriminate against, suppress and eliminate” Huawei, and accused the nation of “America’s dupe.” Along with this, Beijing made it clear that Britain most probably would face “repercussions for the move,” and announced that Chinese companies should think twice before investing in the UK. “This is an issue that seriously threatens the security of Chinese investment in the UK, and is also a question of whether we can trust the UK market to remain open, fair and free from discrimination,” said Hua. “We have also reminded all Chinese enterprises to attach great importance to the increasing political security risks they face when conducting business in the UK.”

CNA, a news outlet, explained that the United States government “requested the extradition of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou on fraud charges, worsening relations between China and Canada, where she is currently under house arrest.” Such pieces of news reports show that the walls of China-USA conflicts are no more impermeable; it involves other countries as well no matter if it wants to take a side or not. The issue regarding Huawei highlights how it is emerging as an extremely significant determinant of the ongoing geopolitical war. The crisis back in 1962 ended as a result of much deliberation and a few compromises from the countries that decided to go toe to toe, indirectly. Such steps were taken to prevent an ill-fated future and catastrophic conditions that would not have been handled easily by any nation. Proper research in this arena may reveal more information regarding this speculation and how it can be averted, but such preventive measures are the need of the hour even today. Although analysts around the globe might have different takes on who is to be blamed for the hostilities, it is time that each nation, no matter their position or standing, introspect and retrospect as to stop this war once and for all. The result of this “new cold war,” no matter how different it is from the previous one, could be fatal and too costly to bear irrespective of how big economy a country has.

                                                                                                                  Sagarika Mukhopadhyay

America: A Reliable Partner or An Opportunist?

India was never on the radar of the U.S four decades ago. Then all of a sudden the world gaze turned to the nation located in the subcontinent when it successfully carried out its nuclear tests in 1998.  The present-day relations between India and the U.S can be broadly categorized into two types, three particular phases by four different administrations over the past two decades since 1998.

The economic liberation of India in 1991 called for investments from across the globe and also some major U.S corporations were interested but India still wasn’t much noticed or in simple words India wasn’t considered to have potential.

The other two types of India-U.S relations can be found broadly synonymous to the idiom “awe & majesty”. The administrations of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are the ones falling into the category of awe as that marked the beginning of better relations. This was no doubt due to indications of losing hegemony for the United States of America with the paradigm shift of the world balance coming at the helm of Asia with China’s strategic ascent. The reaction of Clinton administration marked the coming of temporary sanction as India showed the world that’s its nuclear arsenal is not only abundant but also functional. Then it was the same administration that visited India two years later in 2000 and that was marked as a very successful visit. That was the new dawn of Indo-U.S relations.  It was when Bush administration held the Oval office that Indo-U.S ties began to flourish with the signing of 2005 Defence Agreement which made the whole world more interested in India but the centerpiece of the relations came with the signing of 2008 civil nuclear co-operation treaty which shocked the whole world and then rose a term in global political circles known as “the Indian exception”; the signing of the later set a precedent for the non-proliferation nations such as Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran.

The period of majesty arrived when the educator cum lawyer’s administration took their seats into the White House. While during the Obama administration no significant changes or improvements took place between the two states, but in the U.S more recognition started to garner for the three million-strong Indian communities who also held the highest median income among all ethnic communities in the United States.  There was a lot of high-level meeting and the most remarkable of them being President Obama’s address in the joint Indian Parliament where he even used some words from different Indian languages and set precedence and affirmed faith that the relations were in the right track.
It was when the Obama administration packed their things and the outrageous Donald Trump took into the Oval Office with a storm in the U.S Presidential elections that the relations took to a bumpy ride. The present administration’s “America First” policy with enhanced Visa ban and further scrutiny and troubles for immigration that has made the relations bumpy with failure to acknowledge that America is a land of immigrants who’ve indeed made the nation the world richest democracy and a global superpower. While the top political leaderships share what they refer to as “kinship” between them the relations have not shown that with the rhetoric.

America’s interest in India took a rise with the rise in threat in their global hegemonic order which they’ve created and maintained for over century. The enhanced ties and support to the Indian government are due to the indication to bag India in its side against the rising superpower, that is, China. The only substitute to obstruct China’s polarity in the world can take place with the help of its neighbor in Asia and with a more than the modest economy, a powerful military, and good diplomatic power in the international community, India is the most suitable opponent.

With this, the U.S has failed to acknowledge the fact that India has always remained non-aligned and only took the bastion of the international order when it perceived threats to its interests. That has led India to maintain as “strategic partnership” with the U.S and is not an ally. India more likes to be addressed as a friend with its sovereignty maintained and interests safeguarded.

America has always been an opportunist as it tries to please India as it perceives a threat from China while it remains neutral to India’s security complication with Pakistan, whom the U.S supports with a huge military aid to fight terrorism and Pakistan directs the weapons procured from that aid to point guns at India; also in the U.S stays neutral when China often dubiously calls the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh as “South Tibet”. Therefore America is not a reliable partner, just an opportunist who is using India to maintain its hegemony in the world order and trying to keep China in check in Asia.

                                                                                                    – Aanandita Singh

South China Sea:- A rectified view of “global turmoil”

By Shubham Yadav

The South China Sea is a global flashpoint, with many parties directly and indirectly involved, the dispute is far from over. Earlier it might have been a dispute of territorial and water regions but now it stands symbolic to global domination, hence no one wishes to step back. Every move, stand, and strategy now have serious implications. The South China Sea is part of the pacific ocean, encompassing an area of about 35,00,000 square kilometers positioned below the South East Asian region; this sea falls as EEZ if undisputed for many nations and has the potential to boost economic conditions.

  • WHY SO IMPORTANT Approximately 3.37 trillion U.S. dollar trade passes from this region, if china establishes its complete dominance over this region it potential can affect the global trade system and ultimately the global economy. Also, this region has a vast amount of natural resources such as petroleum and a huge amount of fish catch.

Another reason for its significance is that any biased resolve of this dispute will destabilize the complete South East Asia which will not only impact the Trade sector but also travel, space, and sea exploration.

  • History of this region

History of this region remains dubious because of different claims by different nations and the attached evidence because the evidence tells a tale entirely contradicting claims of other nations. Some notable ones are Japan claim that during world war when Japan used these islands as bases these were completely out of occupation. Japan after World War II abandoned these Islands thereafter starting turmoil among the regional parties with claims. China due to its power stature is now in possession of these islands.

  • Parties Involved & Claims
  • China is the most prominent party involved in this dispute it claims complete control over the Island groups and entire sea region. China issued a map in 1947 detailing its claim, but its claims fall flat as there were no coordinates assigned to its claim.
  • Vietnam has its claims settled over 75% of the island region especially Spratly and Paracels Island with evidence of active ruling in the 17th and 18th Centuries. Vietnam was involved in two physical clashes in 1974 and 1988 with China over this territory and suffered major losses of life and prestige.
  • The Philippines is another major claimant in the area. It invokes its proximity to the Spratly Islands as the main basis of its claim for part of the grouping.
  • Malaysia and Brunei claim territory that they say is within their EEZ (economic exclusion zones), as defined by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
  • Brunei does not claim any area on the disputed islands.
  • Malaysia claims some islands in the Spratlys.
  • America is not a direct party in this dispute but as it has assumed the role of guardian of the world and for its vested interest in the free flow of trade it emerges as biggest opposition to China.


India too isn’t a direct party but it has reasons to act seriously in this matter

1. 55% of International Indian trade (Goods and Services) passes through the Strait of Malacca. Free navigation will be objected as soon as this territory is in complete control of China.

2. To rise as an International superpower India to wants to weigh in International matters of Global concern, being a regional power South China sea is the biggest opportunity for India.

3. Policies of china have always been Anti-Indian such as their stands on Kashmir, CAA, and Indian entry in G8.

4. India has vested interest in Vietnam as India is responsible for petroleum extraction and if Vietnam fails to settle its claim India will lose a chunk of its benefits.

Recent Outbreak

America in wake of its scheme to pressurize China on every front keeps increasing its presence in the South China Sea on the name of free navigation.

Recently America placed the USS Ronald Reagan and the USS Nimitz Aircraft carriers in South China. This move is likely to be consequential and we are yet to grasp of its aftermaths

This world is not going to see an end to this conflict real soon as this war is now not only of Territory, it most certainly is a conflict of prestige and ego.