What to Read in The Hindu Editorial( Topic and Syllabus wise)

Editorial 1: Genocide and the world’s averted gaze

Context

As world leaders gather at Auschwitz, they must ponder over why ‘never again’ continues to be breached.

 

Introduction

Eighty years ago, on January 27, 1945, Soviet soldiers stumbled upon the barbed wire surrounding Auschwitz-Birkenau. Inside they found 8,000 emaciated prisoners, along with 44,000 pairs of shoes, piles of spectacles, and mounds of cooking utensils. This was all that remained of the approximately 1.1 million people, mainly European Jews, who were killed at Auschwitz. As the retreating Nazis destroyed their meticulous records along with much evidence of the brutally efficient killing operation, a precise figure is not available. This year, on the anniversary of the liberation, the few remaining survivors and world leaders have been invited to remember the dead and to renew the international community’s pledge of never again allowing genocide to take place.

 

A stain in human history

• Genocide Convention of 1948 and Recognition of Genocide: The Genocide Convention of 1948 recognises the crime of genocide as ‘acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group..
  1. Genocide has stained human history down the ages.
• United Nations Secretary-General’s Statement: On December 9, 2020, the United Nations Secretary-General, António Guterres, said on the international day to commemorate victims of genocide:
  1. “Genocide always has multiple clear warning signs.”
• Soviet Soldiers' Experience at Auschwitz: The Soviet soldiers who liberated Auschwitz later said they were wholly unprepared for what they found.
  1. While the industrial scale of the killing that would eventually claim six million Jewish lives, in addition to tens of thousands of Roma, Sinti, and other people deemed inferior or political opponents, was not known in its entirety, the Allies were not entirely unaware.

 

Nazi Persecution of Jews

• On assuming power in 1933, the Nazis codified the persecution of Jews in hundreds of laws.
• These laws culminated in the Nuremberg Laws of 1935 that took away German citizenship from Jews and others considered ‘non Aryan’.
• Jews who could overcome restrictive German emigration laws tried to leave but encountered bureaucratic obstacles, xenophobia, and antisemitism until 1941, when Germany forbade Jewish emigration.
• Following the 1929 Stock Market Crash, the United States tightened already restrictive immigration quotas.
• The United Kingdom required those entering until 1938 to be self-supporting or sponsored; after the Anschluss, it introduced a visa system. Neither made provisions for refugees.

 

Restrictions on Jewish Immigration Post-1938

• After 1938, Britain also restricted Jewish immigration into Palestine, which was then a British mandate.
• Some Jews moved to neighbouring European countries, only to be caught in Hitler’s net as German tanks rolled over Europe.
• France, Belgium, and the Netherlands were particularly assiduous in following Nazi orders to round up Jews for concentration camps.

 

The reality of ‘Never again’

• The Allies responded to the growing refugee problem by gathering at Evian in July 1938.
  1. Apart from sympathetic statements, the 32 delegates offered little else.
• By the time the U.K. and the United States met at the Bermuda Conference of April 1943, reports of mass Jewish killings were unambiguous.
  1. The World Jewish Congress had submitted a report outlining Hitler’s plans that Jews, ‘after deportation and concentration in the East, be at one blow exterminated’ (Riegner telegram, December 1942).
  2. The Polish Government-in-Exile in London published a pamphlet in December 1942 titled ‘The Mass Extermination of Jews in German Occupied Poland.’
  3. Escapees from the concentration camps brought their own harrowing stories.
• The evidence for genocide was mounting, but the Allies would not, or could not, look too closely.

 

The Promise of "Never Again"

• Never again, they declared in 1945: However, between 1975 and 1979, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia are estimated to have killed over two million people by execution, starvation, disease, and exhaustion as they sought to recreate Cambodian society in some communist ideal.
  1. As refugees fled to neighbouring countries and a new regime was installed in Phnom Penh after Vietnam’s invasion, the international community’s responses were conditioned by Cold War calculations:
     • China and the West supported the fleeing Khmer Rouge.
     • Vietnam and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) supported the newly installed communist government.

 

Rwanda Genocide (1994)

 

Srebrenica Massacre (1995)

• In July 1995, 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were herded from a UN compound in Srebrenica — a place declared a safe zone.
  1. It is inescapable that safe zones were also created to prevent refugees flooding out of the former Yugoslavia.
  2. These men and boys were executed as part of a careful campaign of ethnic cleansing.
• The Dutch UN commander requested reinforcements from both the UN and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which never arrived.
• It was the culmination of three years of indecision by Europe and America on how to respond.
  1. This year marks the 30th anniversary of Srebrenica (July 11).

 

Darfur Genocide (2003-2005)

• Never again: Less than a decade later, violence broke out in Darfur, Sudan.
  1. Approximately 200,000 people were killed between 2003-2005 in what the International Criminal Court (ICC) and some states have recognised as genocide.
• The violence in Sudan continues, and there are renewed fears of genocide occurring now while the international community’s attention is focused on Ukraine and Gaza.

 

In Gaza

• As world leaders gather at Auschwitz on January 27 to commemorate the 80th anniversary of its liberation, Gazans will attempt to return to the rubble of their homes.
  1. Some will be sifting through the debris to locate the remains of family still buried underneath, part of the 10,000 estimated to be missing.
• International Legal Action: The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is examining whether Israel is guilty of genocide under a case brought by South Africa.
• The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Israel Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the former Israel Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant, for war crimes and crimes against humanitycommitted in Gaza in response to Hamas’ October 7, 2023 attacks. There are also arrest warrants for Hamas leaders.
• International Response: America’s and Western Europe’s response has been to criticise the ICC, expressing outrage that there should be any semblance of equivalence in the arrest warrants for the leaders of Hamas and Israel.
  1. In some perversion of international norms, there seems to be an acceptance of a hierarchy of suffering.
• Arms have continued to flow to Israel, even as the death toll in Gaza crosses 47,000, mostly women and children.

 

Conclusion

 The UN estimates that 92% of all homes have been destroyed, health-care infrastructure and 87% of schools destroyed, and entire populations forcibly displaced multiple times. All this happened while Gaza was under siege, the foreign press was barred from entering, and the world acquiesced in looking away. Israel has a right to defend itself, and Hamas’ actions in October 2023 are completely indefensible. Yet, when does self-defence cross over into genocide? Where is that line? Arguably, that line is where we avert our gaze.

Editorial 2: An enduring commitment to the Indo-Pacific

Context

Under the new Trump administration, the Indo-Pacific is likely to regain prominence but with a sharper focus on hard power dynamics

 

Introduction

The inauguration of Donald Trump as the 47th President of the United States marks an unparalleled comeback in American political history. It also signals a vital moment in global geopolitics, particularly for the Indo-Pacific region. During his first term, Mr. Trump redefined U.S. engagement in the Indo-Pacific. As he embarks on his second term, expectations of a more assertive U.S. security posture and strengthened alliances are high. The presence of the foreign ministers from India, Japan, and Australia — America’s key Quad partners — at the inauguration underscores the strategic importance of this grouping in Mr. Trump’s foreign policy vision. With the Indo-Pacific being central to U.S.’s strategic priorities, Trump 2.0 signals a renewed focus on deepening defence, economic, and technological cooperation with ‘like-minded’ nations to address persisting and emerging challenges, while ensuring regional stability.

 

Importance of Indo-Pacific

• Mr. Trump’s first term marked a pivotal shift in Washington’s approach to this region, redefining the strategic landscape in three ways.
• First, under Trump’s leadership, the U.S. adopted the term ‘Indo-Pacific’, replacing the previously favoured ‘Asia-Pacific’, which reflected a recalibration of the geopolitical lens, moving beyond a focus solely on East Asia and the Pacific Rim to encompass a wider area critical for global trade, security, and strategic stability.
• The term expanded the geographic focus to include the Indian Ocean, emphasising the importance of securing sea lines of communication, addressing maritime challenges, and underscoring the U.S.’s intent to counterbalance China’s growing influence.
• The Indo-Pacific expanded the strategic narrative, integrating defence, security, and political considerations alongside economic cooperation.

 

Structural Changes in U.S. Defence and Security Framework

• Second, there were structural changes in the U.S. defence and security framework, including the renaming of the U.S. Pacific Command as the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command in 2018, reflecting the operational import accorded to the Indo-Pacific.
• The Office of the Secretary of Defence was reorganised to establish specialised units focusing on Indo-Pacific allies and partners.

 

Revival of the Quad and Strengthening Indo-Pacific Cooperation

• Third, the revival of the Quad underscored the Trump administration’s recognition of the Indo-Pacific as the fulcrum of 21st century geopolitics, reflecting a pragmatic convergence of interests among its members.
• The U.S. provided a robust push to institutionalise the grouping.
• The Trump administration elevated the Quad dialogue to the ministerial level, laying the groundwork for deeper collaboration in maritime security, supply chain resilience, and technological standards.

 

The Biden Administration’s Continuation of the Indo-Pacific Framework

• The Joe Biden administration inherited the Indo-Pacific framework and maintained its strategic centrality.
• Mr. Biden elevated the Quad further by convening the first-ever Quad leaders’ summit in 2021, marking a significant institutional leap.
• He emphasised multilateralism and sought to broaden the Quad’s agenda by initiating collaboration on vaccines, climate change, critical technologies, and infrastructure development.
• He also introduced the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework in 2022, complementing the strategic focus with economic engagement.
• The emphasis on a rules-based order and inclusive development in the Indo-Pacific aligned the Quad’s missionwith broader global governance goals.

 

Prospects in Trump 2.0

• The bipartisan consensus on the Indo-Pacific’s importance ensures continuity in U.S. engagement.
• While Mr. Trump could take a more assertive stance against China, his reliance on India, Japan, and Australia to share the burden of regional security would remain and likely be strengthened.

 

First Major Foreign Policy Initiative

• The new administration’s first major foreign policy initiative was a meeting of the Quad foreign ministers on January 21.
• At his confirmation hearing, the U.S. Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, characterised China as the most formidable adversary the U.S. has faced.
• Mr. Rubio noted that the challenges prompting the Quad’s revival under Mr. Trump have intensified.
• This was the administration’s first significant engagement with foreign leaders.
• All four members reaffirmed Washington’s unwavering commitment to the Indo-Pacific region while also setting the stage for this year’s Quad Summit early in the Trump Presidency.
• Mr. Rubio also met with the three Quad foreign ministers separately, with India being the first bilateral meeting.

 

Joint Statement and Regional Commitments

• A joint statement released after the meeting emphasised the importance of international law, peace, stability, and maritime security for regional prosperity.
• The statement opposed unilateral actions to alter the status quo through force or coercion.
• It highlighted the dedication to enhancing regional maritime, economic, and technological security, alongside promoting resilient and reliable supply chains.
• The members agreed to hold regular ministerial meetings and prepare for a leaders’ summit to be hosted by India.

 

Conclusion

Under the new Trump administration, the Indo-Pacific is likely to retain prominence but with a sharper focus on hard power dynamics. The Indo-Pacific has changed since Mr. Trump’s last term in office, and so have the priorities that would influence the President’s approach this time. It is likely that alongside boosting security-related frameworks, Mr. Trump may also bolster mechanisms that have a broader and more diverse agenda so long as they serve to preserve the existing rules-based order.