540: CANADA-INDIA TENSION: SPOTLIGHT ON THE FIVE EYES ALLIANCE

 

Canada-India Tension: Spotlight On The Five Eyes Alliance (by Air Marshal Anil Khosla)

 

My Article published on the Indus International Research Foundation website on 27 Nov 24.

 

The recent diplomatic tensions between Canada and India have drawn significant attention to the role of the Five Eyes alliance, which includes Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. This situation escalated after Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau alleged that Indian agents were involved in the assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, a Canadian citizen and prominent Sikh activist, in June 2023. Following Trudeau’s allegations, Canada sought the support of its Five Eyes allies, who shared intelligence related to the case. Trudeau’s accusations have prompted responses from the other Five Eyes nations, as they are critical partners in intelligence sharing and security collaboration. The diplomatic row has brought the spotlight to the five-eye alliance.

 

Five Eye Alliance.

 

The Five Eyes alliance is one of the world’s most comprehensive and collaborative intelligence-sharing agreements. It was formed after World War II and comprises five English-speaking countries: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The alliance has evolved over the decades, adapting to new global threats and changing geopolitical landscapes. Studying the origin, structure, operations, and significance of the Five Eyes alliance in contemporary international relations and security would be worthwhile. The Five Eyes alliance has historically focused on national security and counterterrorism intelligence, particularly regarding threats from states like China and global terrorism issues.

 

Origins of the Five Eyes Alliance. The Five Eyes alliance’s origins can be traced back to World War II when the United Kingdom and the United States began cooperating on intelligence matters. The groundwork for the alliance was laid with the signing of the UKUSA Agreement in 1946, which formalised the collaboration between the United States and the UK on signals intelligence (SIGINT). The agreement soon expanded to include Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, establishing the Five Eyes alliance as we know it today. The alliance’s primary objective has always been to facilitate intelligence sharing and cooperation among member countries, particularly in the realm of signals intelligence. This collaboration has proven invaluable in addressing common security threats, including the rise of communism during the Cold War and the ongoing fight against terrorism.

 

Structure of the Five Eyes Alliance. The Five Eyes alliance operates without a formal organisational structure or treaty, allowing flexibility and adaptability in intelligence-sharing practices. Each member country maintains its intelligence agencies but works closely together to exchange information and conduct joint operations. While each agency operates independently, it adheres to shared principles and guidelines governing its cooperation. These principles prioritise protecting national security, safeguarding civil liberties, and maintaining the confidentiality of shared intelligence. The primary agencies involved in the alliance are:-

    • Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) – New Zealand.
    • Australian Signals Directorate (ASD) – Australia.
    • Communications Security Establishment (CSE) – Canada.
    • Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) – United Kingdom.
    • National Security Agency (NSA) – United States.

 

Operations and Activities. The Five Eyes alliance primarily focuses on signals intelligence (SIGINT), which involves intercepting and analysing communications, including electronic and radio signals. The member countries use advanced technology, human intelligence (HUMINT), and open-source intelligence (OSINT) to collect and analyse. Their critical Operations include:-

 

    • Counterterrorism. Counterterrorism is one of the most critical areas of cooperation among the Five Eyes nations. Following the September 11 attacks in 2001, the alliance enhanced its intelligence-sharing capabilities to identify and thwart terrorist threats. The combined efforts of the Five Eyes have led to numerous successful operations aimed at disrupting terrorist plots and networks.
    • Cyber security. In recent years, the rise of cyber threats has prompted the alliance to expand its focus beyond traditional intelligence gathering to include cyber security. The Five Eyes countries collaborate on identifying and responding to cyber-attacks, sharing best practices and intelligence to bolster their collective defences.
    • Foreign Interference. The Five Eyes alliance has also been instrumental in addressing foreign interference in domestic affairs. The member countries share intelligence related to espionage and influence operations, particularly those attributed to state actors such as China and Russia. This cooperation has been crucial in safeguarding the integrity of democratic institutions and processes.

 

Challenges in Operations. While the Five Eyes alliance has proven effective in many areas, it also faces challenges. One significant issue is balancing national security interests with civil liberties. Intelligence-sharing practices can sometimes lead to concerns about privacy and surveillance, prompting calls for greater transparency and oversight. Moreover, as technology evolves, so do the methods employed by adversaries to evade detection. The emergence of encryption, for example, poses challenges for intelligence agencies seeking to access crucial communications. The Five Eyes nations must continually adapt their strategies and technologies to counter these evolving threats.

 

The Significance of the Five Eyes Alliance. By working together, the Five Eyes nations have established practices and protocols that enhance the effectiveness of intelligence operations. By sharing intelligence and resources, the Five Eyes nations can address common threats more effectively than they could individually. The alliance plays a crucial role in maintaining security by facilitating cooperation among its member nations.  The Five Eyes alliance enhances the geopolitical influence of its member countries. By collaborating on intelligence matters, these nations can unite against common adversaries and promote shared values, such as democracy and the rule of law. The Five Eyes alliance serves as a model for other countries seeking to establish similar intelligence-sharing agreements. The member countries often collaborate with non-member nations on specific intelligence matters, further strengthening international security cooperation.

 

Future Outlook. In recent years, the Five Eyes alliance has adapted to address new security challenges, including cyber security threats and the rise of authoritarian regimes. The 2020 Five Eyes Joint Statement on Cyber security underscored the commitment of member countries to enhance their collective cyber security capabilities and protect critical infrastructure. The alliance has also expanded its focus on addressing emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence and quantum computing, which pose opportunities and risks to national security. The member countries recognise that staying ahead of technological advancements is crucial for maintaining their intelligence edge. The Five Eyes alliance will likely face new challenges as global geopolitical dynamics shift. For example, China’s rise as a strategic competitor has prompted the member countries to re-evaluate their intelligence priorities and strengthen their cooperation.

 

Five Eyes Alliance Navigating the Canada-India Tension

 

The Five Eyes alliance is currently facing significant challenges as it navigates the diplomatic tensions between Canada and India. As the allegations emerged, the other members of the Five Eyes alliance, namely the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, quickly supported Canada. U.S. officials emphasised the seriousness of the allegations and called for India to cooperate with Canada’s investigation. Similarly, the U.K. and Australia reiterated their commitment to Canada and the importance of respecting the rule of law. This unified front underscores the alliance’s principle of mutual support, but it also complicates relations with India, which is increasingly pivotal in geopolitical discussions.

 

The core mission of the Five Eyes Alliance revolves around intelligence sharing, especially regarding national security. However, the allegations of Indian involvement in Nijjar’s killing require a careful approach to avoid further escalating tensions. The situation raises questions about the effectiveness of intelligence cooperation, primarily as member nations work to address their respective security concerns while maintaining strong diplomatic ties with India.

 

The friction between Canada and India poses broader implications for the Five Eyes alliance. While Canada seeks to investigate the allegations against India, the alliance must navigate its strategic interests in South Asia, including counterterrorism and trade. India’s significant regional influence and its role as a counterbalance to China further complicate the dynamics of this situation.

 

Conclusion. The Five Eyes alliance remains a cornerstone of international intelligence cooperation, significantly contributing to the security of member countries. Currently, it is facing the challenge of balancing the collective security interests of all member states and maintaining cooperative relations with its new partner and ally. How the coalition handles this situation will likely impact its cohesion and future strategies for dealing with similar geopolitical challenges.​

 

Your valuable comments are most welcome.

 

Link to the article:

https://indusresearch.in/canada-india-tension-spotlight-on-the-five-eyes-alliance/

 

1135
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

References:

  1. Andrew, C. (2010). The Secret World: A History of Intelligence. London: HarperPress.
  1. Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO). (2019). Annual Report 2019-2020. Retrieved from ASIO.gov.au.
  1. Chertoff, M. (2008). Protecting Cyber Space in the New Homeland Security Environment. Washington, D.C.: The Chertoff Group.
  1. Five Eyes. (2020). Five Eyes Joint Statement on Cybersecurity. Retrieved from gov.uk.
  1. Five Eyes. (2021). Five Eyes Nations Commitment to Counterterrorism. Retrieved from gov.uk.
  1. Sullivan, J. (2021). Remarks on the Future of the Five Eyes Alliance. Washington, D.C.: The White House.
  1. Turnbull, M. (2017). Australia’s National Security. Retrieved from pm.gov.au.
  1. “Five Eyes Alliance And The Nijjar Killing Case”, Outlook Web Desk, 15 October 2024.
  1. Anita Joshua, “Five Eyes allies rally around Canada in a diplomatic standoff with India over Nijjar killing”, The Telegraph Online, 17 Oct 24.

 

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

 

534: CHINA PLUS ONE STRATEGY: DRAGON’S LOSS IS OTHER’S GAIN

 

The “China Plus One” (C+1) strategy refers to a diversification approach adopted by businesses to reduce reliance on China as a manufacturing and supply chain hub. Under this strategy, companies maintain a strong presence in China but establish operations in at least one other country to mitigate risks associated with over-dependence on China.

 

Drivers of the C+1 Strategy

 

    • Trade Tensions: Escalating trade wars, especially between the U.S. and China, have made companies cautious about relying solely on China.
    • Geopolitical Risks: Concerns about political instability, regulatory unpredictability, and strained diplomatic relations involving China.
    • Rising Costs: Labor and operational costs in China have been increasing, pushing companies to explore cost-competitive alternatives.
    • Supply Chain Disruptions: Events like the COVID-19 pandemic and associated lockdowns exposed vulnerabilities in concentrated supply chains.
    • Regulatory Pressures: Governments and businesses are encouraging a shift from China to diversify global production.

 

Key Destinations for “Plus One”.

Countries in South and Southeast Asia are among the top beneficiaries of this strategy, offering cost-competitive environments, favourable trade policies, and geographical proximity to China. These include:

    • Vietnam: Strong manufacturing base, trade agreements, and proximity to China.
    • India: Large workforce, growing infrastructure, and government incentives for foreign investment.
    • Thailand: Well-developed logistics and supply chain networks.
    • Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines: Emerging hubs with improving manufacturing capabilities.

 

Benefits of the C+1 Strategy:

    • Risk Mitigation: Reduces the impact of disruptions like tariffs, sanctions, or natural disasters.
    • Cost Optimisation: Allows companies to capitalise on lower operational costs in emerging markets.
    • Market Diversification: Expands access to other growing economies in Asia and beyond.
    • Resilience: Builds a more robust and flexible supply chain.

 

Challenges

    • Logistical Complexity: Managing multi-country operations can complicate supply chain logistics.
    • Infrastructure Gaps: Emerging countries often need more of China’s sophisticated infrastructure.
    • Skilled Labour Availability: Matching China’s manufacturing expertise may be challenging.
    • Policy and Bureaucratic Hurdles: Alternative countries’ regulatory environments may need more stability and efficiency.

 

Your valuable comments are most welcome.

 

1135
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

 

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

 

532: REVERSE GLOBALISATION: CONTEMPORARY STRATEGIC ECONOMIC POLICIES & TRENDS

 

 

My Article published on the Indus International Research Foundation website on 14 Nov 24.

 

Inflation, public debt, and geopolitical tensions have shaped recent strategic economic policies. Governments are taking a cautious approach to monetary policies to gradually ease inflation, ensure fiscal sustainability, and promote economic growth. Internationally, the financial focus has increasingly turned to fostering resilience through reshoring, friend-shoring, and decoupling trade policies that diversify supply chains amid shifting global dynamics. In response to the fragility revealed during the pandemic and recent geopolitical tensions, nations are incentivising local and allied-country manufacturing to reduce reliance on single sources like China. These strategic shifts aim to fortify economies against future disruptions.

 

Strategic Economic Policies.

 

Strategic economic policies are initiatives and frameworks that governments use to shape their national economy in ways that promote long-term goals, enhance competitiveness, safeguard critical industries, and adapt to global economic shifts. These policies address specific economic, social, and political objectives, often encompassing trade, technology, workforce development, and environmental sustainability.  These include:-

 

    • Industrial Policy. Support for critical industries, such as renewable energy, semiconductors, or biotech, often through subsidies, tax incentives, or direct government investment. These policies aim to foster innovation and secure leadership in high-growth sectors.

 

    • Trade Policy. Tariffs, trade agreements, and export controls can protect domestic industries, open new markets, and safeguard national interests. Trade policy also includes mechanisms like friend-shoring and decoupling to strengthen alliances and reduce dependencies on rivals.

 

    • Innovation and R&D Policy. Government funding and tax incentives for research and development can accelerate technological advances and maintain a competitive edge in AI, 5G, and green tech sectors.

 

    • Workforce Development and Education. Investing in education and workforce training aligns skills with market needs, addressing tech, healthcare, and manufacturing gaps. This boosts employment and productivity in strategic industries.

 

    • Sustainability and Environmental Policy. Incentives for renewable energy, carbon taxes, and green investments are designed to transition the economy towards sustainability, address climate change, and capture economic benefits from emerging “green” industries.

 

    • Infrastructure Investment. Strategic investments in transportation, digital infrastructure, and energy grids support productivity and resilience. Recently, emphasis has grown on building secure digital infrastructure, including 5G networks and cyber security.

 

    • Capital and Investment Policy. Policies to attract foreign direct investment (FDI) in strategic sectors while protecting sensitive areas from foreign control, such as financial regulations or screening of FDI in national security sectors.

 

Strategic economic policies are especially significant in facing challenges like globalisation, geopolitical competition,  and technological disruption. They allow governments to take proactive measures that guide their economies toward resilient and sustainable growth.

 

Reverse Globalisation

 

“Reverse globalisation” refers to a slowdown or reversal of globalisation trends, where countries move away from increased international integration and, instead, emphasise national and regional independence. This shift is often driven by political changes, economic protectionism, supply chain disruptions, or cultural movements against global homogenisation. Several influences encourage reverse globalisation.

 

Economic Nationalism. Countries may favour domestic industries over foreign competition through tariffs, subsidies, or trade restrictions. Examples include the U.S.-China trade war and the push for “Made in [Country]” policies to boost local economies and jobs.

 

Supply Chain Reconfiguration. Recent supply chain vulnerabilities, especially highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic, have driven companies to “reshore” or “nearshore” manufacturing. This shift is often motivated by the need for resilience and security rather than solely cost efficiency.

 

Immigration and Labour Policies. Reverse globalisation often includes stricter immigration policies, as seen in countries aiming to prioritise local employment. Countries might enact more stringent visa policies or limit foreign workers to reduce reliance on global labour.

 

Digital and Information Sovereignty. Reverse globalisation also affects technology and information policies, with countries creating data localisation laws and internet restrictions to safeguard digital sovereignty. Examples include China’s Great Firewall, the EU’s GDPR, and India’s data localisation requirements, all of which attempt to control information flows.

 

Political Populism and Nationalism. A rise in nationalism and populist politics has fuelled reverse globalisation. Leaders who emphasise “taking back control” often support policies that reduce international dependencies. Brexit is a prime example; the UK voted to leave the EU, a move partially driven by nationalist sentiments.

 

Environmental Concerns and Localism. Environmental movements argue that reducing global trade can lower carbon emissions by minimising the need for long-distance shipping and production. This has led to a push for local sourcing and sustainable production practices, sometimes aligning with anti-globalisation ideals.

 

Reverse globalisation reflects a complex recalibration rather than a complete abandonment of globalisation. The world remains interconnected in many essential ways, but often with a renewed focus on autonomy and resilience.

 

Recent Strategic Economic Policies

 

Recent economic policies indicate a broader trend toward economic resilience and diversification, with long-term strategies to sustain growth amidst uncertainty. Decoupling, friend-shoring and reshoring are strategic economic policies that reduce reliance on nations viewed as strategic competitors, especially in high-stakes areas like technology, energy, and critical supply chains.

 

Decoupling. “Decoupling” refers to reducing or severing economic interdependence between countries, particularly with rivals, to avoid vulnerabilities. It often focuses on critical industries like technology, energy, and defence. For example, in recent years, the U.S. and some of its allies have sought to decouple parts of their technology supply chains from China. This may involve encouraging companies to source components or raw materials from domestic or allied suppliers rather than potential strategic rivals. Decoupling involves measures like:-

 

    • Restricting Technology Transfer. Limiting the export or sharing of technology could enhance a competing nation’s capabilities.
    • Diversifying Supply Chains. Shifting manufacturing and sourcing from a competitor country to other nations or domestic markets often involves “friend-shoring.”
    • Restricting Investments. Regulating or prohibiting investments in specific sectors or companies within another nation.

 

Reshoring. Reshoring brings manufacturing and production activities back to a company’s home country or a region closer to home. This trend has gained traction recently as companies and governments seek to reduce their dependence on distant foreign suppliers, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic exposed vulnerabilities in global supply chains. Concerns about trade tensions, geopolitical risks, and the drive to secure critical industries (like semiconductors and pharmaceuticals) have further fuelled the reshoring movement. Key motivations for reshoring include supply chain resilience, local economic Incentives, better labour and quality control, sustainability, and consumer demand. For example, several countries are enacting policies to bolster semiconductor manufacturing domestically.

 

Friend-shoring. “Friend-shoring is an economic and trade strategy in which countries or businesses shift production and sourcing to nations with similar political values or solid diplomatic relations rather than relying on countries with potential geopolitical or economic conflicts. The goal is to enhance supply chain security, reduce reliance on politically unstable or adversarial regions, and build resilience by working with reliable partners. “Friend-shoring” is a more collaborative approach, aiming to secure critical supply chains by relocating them to nations with shared values or alliances. The idea is to build resilient networks within trusted partner countries to reduce risks from unpredictable or adversarial states. For instance, nations might establish manufacturing facilities or resource procurement operations in allied countries, creating a network of trade partners that align economically and politically. This strategy has gained traction as global supply chains have faced challenges from trade disputes, the COVID-19 pandemic, and regional tensions. It’s a middle ground between total globalisation and complete “reshoring” (bringing production back to the home country), allowing countries to balance security concerns with cost efficiency by collaborating with allied nations.

 

Nearshoring.  Nearshoring is a strategy where companies relocate their manufacturing or services closer to their primary market, often to neighbouring countries. This approach has gained traction due to its potential benefits and strategic advantages. By positioning suppliers closer to consumers, businesses can significantly shorten delivery times. This improves customer satisfaction and enhances inventory management by decreasing the time products spend in transit​Nearshoring can lead to reduced logistics and transportation costs, especially when compared to distant locations like China. Proximity allows companies to minimise shipping expenses and inventory holding costs. Many nearshoring destinations offer access to a skilled and competitive labour force. The workforce is generally well-trained and capable of meeting production standards, which can be crucial for maintaining quality while reducing costs.​ Nearshoring also helps diversify supply chains, reducing reliance on a single location. This is particularly important in times of geopolitical tensions or natural disasters.​

 

Decoupling aims to safeguard national security, protect sensitive industries, and reduce exposure to risks posed by economic interdependence with rival nations. However, the complex process can have widespread economic implications, affecting trade, innovation, and global supply chain resilience. Reshoring, friend-shoring, and nearshoring offer a compelling alternative to traditional offshore manufacturing. They reflect a broader trend toward regionalising supply chains and securing economic independence in an increasingly uncertain global landscape. These policies reflect a wider shift toward financial security and strategic resilience, prioritising political and security considerations in trade and supply chain decisions.

 

Your valuable comments are most welcome.

 

1135
Default rating

Please give a thumbs up if you  like The Post?

 

For regular updates, please register your email here:-

Subscribe

 

 

References and credits

To all the online sites and channels.

 

References:

  1. Medhora Rohinton P, “Is Globalization in Reverse?” Centre for International Governance Innovation, 09 Feb 2017.
  1. Schneider-Petsinger Marianne, “The New Era of Reglobalisation.” Chatham House, 2023.
  1. Dhingra, S., & Sampson, T. “Brexit and the Future of Global Trade.” VoxEU.org.
  1. Cerdeiro, Diego A., Rui Mano, Johannes Eugster, Dirk V. Muir, and Shanaka J. Peiris. “Sizing Up the Effects of Technological Decoupling.” International Monetary Fund, March 12, 2021.
  1. Tellis, Ashley J. “Interdependence Imperiled? Economic Decoupling in an Era of Strategic Competition.” National Bureau of Asian Research, November 9, 2023.
  1. Golichowski, M., & Satapathy, N. (2024). “How reshoring is transforming the way supply chain models function”. EY Global.
  1. Weissman, R. “Is There Momentum for Reshoring in 2024?”, Octopart.
  1. Kraft, D. “Reshoring: Why It Matters and How Companies Are Adapting”. Harvard Business Review. (2024).
  1. Graham, N., & Rashid, M. “Is ‘friend-shoring’ really working?” Atlantic Council. (2023).
  1. Yellen, J. “Remarks on Friend-Shoring.” U.S. Department of the Treasury. (2022).

Disclaimer:

Information and data included in the blog are for educational & non-commercial purposes only and have been carefully adapted, excerpted, or edited from reliable and accurate sources. All copyrighted material belongs to respective owners and is provided only for wider dissemination.

 

English हिंदी