Editorials/Opinions Analysis For UPSC 17 July 2024

CONTENTS

1. NATO: A Legacy of Conflict and Controversy
2. India’s Hunt for Critical Minerals

NATO: A Legacy of Conflict and Controversy

Context:

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), often criticized as one of the most notorious military alliances in history, marked its 75th anniversary in Washington recently, claiming to establish global peace. However, NATO’s actions have frequently resulted in spreading conflict across continents in its quest for supremacy.

Relevance:

GS2- Bilateral, Regional and Global Groupings and Agreements involving India and/or affecting India’s interests

Mains Question:

With reference to the 75^th anniversary of NATO seen recently, analyse the evolution of its role in global geopolitics over the years. (10 Marks, 150 Words).

Recent Developments:

• Following a poor performance in the presidential debate, President Joe Biden announced increased military aid to Ukraine, targeting their ‘designated enemy’ at the cost of this small European nation.
• NATO’s goals are evident: to weaken Russia through proxy wars and to provoke China into potential conflict in Asia.
• Finding examples where NATO has genuinely ensured peaceful lives for ordinary people, rather than pursuing its broader goal of supremacy through alliances, is challenging.

NATO’s bombing campaign in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia:

• While NATO celebrated its 75th anniversary, mainstream media largely overlooked the 25th anniversary of NATO’s intervention in Yugoslavia—a significant failure of this war-driven alliance.
• June 10 marked the 25th anniversary of the end of NATO’s bombing campaign in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which began without UN Security Council approval and lasted 78 days.
• NATO dropped 22,000 tonnes of bombs, including 15 tonnes of depleted uranium, causing over 2,500 deaths, including 79 children, and displacing over a million residents.
• The aftermath involved significant long-term health and environmental impacts from depleted uranium munitions. In the ten years following the bombing, around 30,000 people in Serbia developed cancer, leading to over 10,000 deaths.
• Research indicates higher cancer rates and other serious health issues among children born after 1999.
• Three thousand victims have sued NATO, even though the alliance claims immunity based on agreements with Serbia and Montenegro.
• Serbian experts contest NATO’s claim of immunity, arguing that no agreements shield NATO from accountability for past war crimes.
• NATO’s efforts to avoid responsibility only underscore its war crimes and the suffering it caused. Since its founding, NATO’s military actions have often resulted in chaos and trauma rather than peace and stability.

The War in Bosnia and Herzegovina:

• From April 1992 to December 1995, the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina erupted among its three main ethnic groups over future and territorial divisions.
• Shortly before the conflict began, NATO hastily recognized Bosnia and Herzegovina’s independence, worsening ethnic tensions in the region.
• NATO conducted extensive airstrikes against Bosnian Serbs, ultimately forcing the three ethnic groups to sign the Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• This conflict resulted in 278,000 civilian deaths, over 2 million refugees, and more than £5.1 billion in direct economic losses, with most economic infrastructure destroyed.

The Kosovo War:

• The Kosovo War, driven by ethnic tensions and led by the US-backed NATO without UN authorization, lasted from March 24, 1999, to June 10, 1999.
• The three-month bombing campaign caused 1,800 civilian deaths, 6,000 injuries, and significant infrastructure damage, amounting to economic losses of £150 billion.
• This marked NATO’s first offensive war against a sovereign state without UN approval, signifying a shift towards interventionism and expansionism.
• NATO’s actions violated international law, including the UN Charter and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, by using force against Belgrade.
• Despite this, no NATO member has been held fully accountable for their actions, in contrast to the swift executions of leaders like Saddam Hussein of Iraq and the extrajudicial killing of Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, famously remarked on by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton: “We came, we saw, he died.”

Afghanistan and NATO:

• In Afghanistan, the US-led NATO coalition initiated a war against al-Qaida and the Taliban on October 7, 2001, following the September 11 attacks.
• This two-decade conflict ended suddenly with the withdrawal of US and NATO forces in May 2021, leading to 241,000 deaths, including 71,000 civilians, and displacing millions.
• The war inflicted significant economic damage, costing around £45 million per day, and caused social upheaval in Afghanistan, with 72% of the population now living below the poverty line and 3.5 million children lacking access to education.
• A recent UNICEF report, released on Monday, highlighted disturbing statistics: over 24% of Afghan children aged 5-17 suffer from anxiety, and 15% experience depression in the war-torn nation.
• This is the aftermath left by those who promised to establish a peaceful life under a rule-based system rooted in democratic principles.
• During this period, terrorist organizations like the East Turkestan Islamic Movement and Al-Qaeda expanded, exacerbating regional instability.
• This destructive pattern continued in Iraq and Libya, where NATO interventions led to significant civilian casualties and prolonged turmoil.

NATO’s Strategy in Ukraine:

• NATO’s actions consistently undermined peace and security, tarnishing its reputation as a force for war rather than peace.
• However, in Ukraine, NATO faces disarray, having underestimated Russia’s determination to protect its interests while overestimating its ability to expand its military alliance to Moscow’s doorstep.
• The strategy of arming Ukraine for a swift victory has backfired, with Russia proving resilient in defense.
• As the conflict persists, NATO member states grapple with rising costs and inflationary debt, while Ukraine depletes its fighting-age soldiers.
• Western leaders deeply involved in the conflict face diminishing public confidence in Ukraine’s capability to retake territories without escalating the conflict and potentially involving NATO troops—a move lacking popular support.
• In recent months, Russia has made incremental territorial gains, advancing in Kharkiv Oblast and forcing Ukrainian forces to retreat from neighborhoods like ChasivYar, Donetsk. However, the lack of significant progress has raised doubts about Russia’s capabilities.
• While Ukraine struggles to hold the frontline, it has targeted Russian ships, energy depots, and border regions with drones, resulting in casualties.
• Two and a half years into the conflict, neither side appears capable of achieving a military resolution.
• Ukraine faces formidable challenges in reclaiming captured territories, while Russia’s aggression has strengthened NATO’s resolve, which now pledges long-term support for Kyiv.
• A viable resolution necessitates bringing both parties to the negotiating table. China and India have expressed support for dialogue.
• Russia’s allies should urge President Vladimir Putin to halt hostilities and engage sincerely in negotiations, while Ukraine’s allies should encourage Kyiv to consider peace talks—despite NATO’s strong opposition to this idea.

The Status Quo:

• Historians may view the US-led NATO expansion as a strategic misstep that spurred the formation of an alliance among BRICS nations to counter NATO.
• The summit’s news highlighted NATO and its Indo-Pacific partners—Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand—launching four joint projects aimed at enhancing cooperation, announced by US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan at the NATO Defence Industry Forum.
• Amidst the commemoration of this military alliance, Asia faces the challenge of protecting its position against a coalition adept at using proxies to achieve its goals, echoing historical patterns.

Conclusion:

Asia’s imperative now is to nurture strong trade relationships and resolve territorial disputes through constructive dialogue, preempting external interference. History presents a clear choice: either succumb to foreign ambitions, reminiscent of post-World War II tragedies and subsequent conflicts from Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and West Asia to present-day conflicts in Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria, or prosper together in dignified coexistence. The path to a peaceful future hinges on a unified commitment to peace and rejection of NATO and its proxies.

India’s Hunt for Critical Minerals

Context:

In late June, the Centre announced the winners of mining rights for six critical mineral blocks, including graphite, phosphorite, and lithium, minerals which India mainly imports. These are the first private entities to be granted such rights under the updated Mines and Minerals law.

Relevance:

GS1- Distribution of Key Natural Resources across the world (including South Asia and the Indian sub-continent)

GS3-

• Planning
• Mobilization of Resources
• Industrial Growth
• Industrial Policy

Mains Question:

Why are critical minerals essential for the Indian economy’s green transition? In which Indian states have reserves been found and why have there been hiccups in the subsequent auction process? Discuss. (15 Marks, 250 Words).

Why are Critical Minerals Important?

• Minerals like copper, lithium, nickel, and cobalt, as well as some rare earth elements, are classified as critical minerals due to their essential role in the global transition to greener and cleaner energy.
• According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the demand for lithium surged by 30% in 2023, with nickel, cobalt, graphite, and rare earth elements seeing an 8% to 15% increase. The total value of these minerals is estimated at $325 billion.
• The IEA’s Global Critical Minerals Outlook 2024 report emphasizes that meeting the world’s target of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius in a net zero emissions scenario will require rapid growth in the demand for these minerals.
• By 2040, copper demand is expected to rise by 50%, nickel, cobalt, and rare earth elements demand to double, graphite demand to quadruple, and lithium demand to increase eightfold, which is vital for battery production. Therefore, developing sustainable supply chains for these minerals is essential.
• In India, the lack of domestic reserves for critical minerals has led to complete import dependence for minerals like lithium, cobalt, and nickel.
• Recently, Union Mines Ministe stated that 95% of India’s copper needs are met through imports, with China being a major supplier or processor of many of these minerals.

What is Being Done to Spur Production?

• Although India has natural reserves of some critical minerals, they remain largely unexplored and untapped. For example, India possesses 11% of the world’s ilmenite deposits, the primary source of titanium dioxide used in many applications.
• However, the country still imports titanium dioxide worth a billion dollars annually, as pointed out by a former Mines Secretary.
• Additionally, there was a fortunate discovery of lithium reserves in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) by the Geological Survey of India (GSI) while searching for limestone, raising hopes for self-sufficiency in this mineral.
• Announced as India’s first lithium discovery last February, these reserves are estimated at 5.9 million tonnes, prompting the government to accelerate their development.
• Recognizing that dependence on a few countries for the ores and processing of these minerals could create significant vulnerabilities for Indian supply chains, the central government amended the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, in August 2023. This amendment allows for mining concessions of 24 critical and strategic minerals.
• By November, the first auctions of 20 critical mineral blocks, including the lithium block in J&K’s Reasi district, were launched.
• This was followed by two more auction rounds in February and March, offering 18 additional blocks.
• However, investor interest has been lukewarm, leading to the scrapping of most of the first 20 block auctions due to a lack of adequate bidders.
• On June 24, after a delayed process, the Mines Ministry announced six winners from the initial auction tranche, covering three blocks in Odisha and one each in Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, and Chhattisgarh. The results of the second and third auction rounds are still pending, while the Ministry has initiated a fourth tranche, including 10 blocks being offered for the second time.

Why Are Some Blocks Not Finding Takers?

• In the latest auction, the blocks up for grabs include two phosphorite blocks and a glauconite block in Chhattisgarh, two blocks each in Uttar Pradesh (phosphorite and rare earth elements), Karnataka (phosphate and nickel), and Rajasthan (potash and halite).
• Additionally, a graphite block is being auctioned in Jharkhand and Arunachal Pradesh, with five more graphite, tungsten, and vanadium blocks offered again in the northeastern state.
• Other second-attempt blocks include a tungsten reserve in Tamil Nadu’s Madurai district, a cobalt and manganese block in Karnataka’s Shimoga, and a chromium and nickel block in Sindhudurg, Maharashtra.
• Industry experts cite several reasons for the low interest among miners for some of these blocks, primarily the lack of adequate data on the potential reserves within them.
• Technological challenges also impact the outcomes. For example, the lithium block in J&K has clay deposits, and the technology for extracting lithium from clay is still untested globally, according to ICRA.

When Is Domestic Production Likely to Begin?

• ICRA notes that given the preliminary stage of exploration for most of the domestic blocks being auctioned, their commercialization and associated benefits are unlikely to fully materialize within the current decade ending in 2030.
• “India’s manufacturing is thus likely to remain exposed to potential future supply shocks of these minerals until then,” the agency concluded.
• To boost exploration and attract more miners, the Centre is also looking to acquire overseas assets from resource-rich regions as a parallel measure to strengthen mineral security.
• The first such acquisition, a lithium brine mine in Argentina, was made this year by Khanij Bidesh India Limited, a joint venture of NALCO, Hindustan Copper, and Mineral Exploration Company.
• While scouting for more assets, India has also joined the U.S.-led Mineral Security Partnership, a coalition of major buyers and sellers of critical minerals.

Conclusion:

India’s emphasis on clean energy and reducing emissions has heightened the significance of critical minerals, which are essential for electric vehicles and renewable energy systems. These minerals play a crucial role in India’s transition to a greener and more sustainable future. Effectively understanding and utilizing these resources will drive India’s growth, enhance its competitiveness, and support sustainable development.