MUMBAI, Oct 15 (Reuters Breakingviews) - For a developing country courting overseas investment, seeking to embed itself into the world's supply chains, and encouraging its companies to go global, it is unhelpful, to say the least, to be dubbed by a rich country as the second-most significant "foreign interference" threat after China.
That's the label Canada's National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians applied, to India in June. The situation worsened dramatically on Monday. Ottawa linked,Indian government agents to a number of homicides, including the murder in British Columbia of a Sikh separatist leader who India had branded a “terrorist”. New Delhi called these charges "preposterous", and the two countries expelled each other's senior diplomats.
Granted, the killing allegations have been stirring, opens new tab for a year, and direct economic consequences seem small: India accounted for barely $6.5 billion, or less than 1% of Canada's trade in 2020. But there was already broader friction between the West and India over these and other human rights issues. The risk of these issues actually breaking relations between them is not lost on politicians, executives and investors in the developed world. They want the $4 trillion fast-growing economy to realise its potential as a counterweight to China in Asia, as a partner in both defence and manufacturing.
That's why the cost of the ruction with Canada may be so insidious. Canada is home to some of the world's big global investors, from Brookfield (BAM.TO), opens new tab to the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board and Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan. Their leaders, who between them manage some $1.7 trillion in assets may suddenly, for example, find it awkward to travel and negotiate deals in India if their government is effectively persona non grata in the emerging market.
The nature of the dispute means the bilateral relationship might well remain sour until after national elections in India, not due for more than four years. The stakes of a similar case underway in the United States - which officials from India are expected to address this week in Washington - are far higher on most strategic and financial fronts for both of those countries: they share a strengthening bond,that is weak on trust.
Politicians on all sides may ultimately find a way to look beyond this highly charged situation. But if it shunts perceptions of India into the same bucket as China, the country's status as a land of opportunity will suffer.
CONTEXT NEWS
Canada expelled six Indian diplomats including the high commissioner on Oct. 14. It came after Ottawa linked agents of the South Asian country’s government to homicides, including the murder of a Sikh separatist leader.
India retaliated by ordering the expulsion of six high-ranking Canadian diplomats including the acting high commissioner and said it had withdrawn its envoy from Canada, contradicting Canada's statement of expulsion.
Ties between the countries have been frayed since Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said last year he had evidence linking Indian agents to the assassination of Sikh leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar on Canadian territory.
India’s ministry of external affairs said in a statement that the Trudeau government has “consciously provided space to violent extremists and terrorists to harass, threaten and intimidate Indian diplomats and community leaders in Canada” and that multiple extradition requests in respect of organised crime leaders living in Canada have been disregarded.
The United States has also alleged that Indian agents were involved in an attempted assassination plot against another Sikh separatist leader in New York last year. An Indian government committee investigating Indian involvement in the foiled murder plot will meet U.S. officials in Washington in the coming days, the State Department said on Oct. 14.
Deepening Canada-India standoff seen as a short-term boost for Modi, Trudeau
By Krishn Kaushik and David Ljunggren October 15, 2024
NEW DELHI/OTTAWA, Oct 15 (Reuters) - The prime ministers of India and Canada could benefit politically in the short term from the unprecedented expulsion of top diplomats from each country, analysts said on Tuesday.
Canada kicked out six Indian diplomats on Monday, linking them to the murder of a Sikh separatist leader and alleging a broader effort to target Indian dissidents in Canada. India retaliated by telling six Canadian diplomats to leave.
Although the tit-for-tat move sent bilateral relations skidding to a new low, Narendra Modi and Justin Trudeau are unlikely to mind too much. Both leaders are in their third terms and face political challenges.
Analysts suggested the move could bolster Modi's image as a hawk on national security.
"I think people will see the government of India standing up to intimidation and coercive measures applied by a developed country," said Harsh Vardhan Shringla, India's former foreign secretary. "The public will strongly back Prime Minister Modi and the government."
In a June election, Modi suffered a setback when his Bharatiya Janata Party unexpectedly lost its majority. In his weakened position, Modi is forced to rely on regional allies to form a coalition government.
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi welcomes Canada Prime Minister Justin Trudeau upon his arrival at Bharat Mandapam convention center for the G20 Summit, in New Delhi, India, Saturday, Sept. 9, 2023. Evan Vucci/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo
Canada is home to the highest population of Sikhs outside their home state of Punjab, or about 2% of Canada's population. Demonstrations in recent years to carve a separate homeland have irked India's government, which regularly accuses Canada of harboring separatists.
Harsh Pant, foreign policy head at the New Delhi-based Observer Research Foundation think tank, said the more Trudeau targeted India, the better it was for Modi.
"(He is seen as) a leader of a country standing up for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of a nation. ... That someway encapsulates why Modi and his popularity will not be dented," he said.
For Trudeau, whose Liberal Party is trailing far behind in the polls for a national election that must be held by October 2025, the news took the spotlight off a supposed effort by unhappy legislators to urge him to quit and let a new leader take over.
"There will be time to talk about internal party intrigue at another moment," he told reporters when asked about the matter on Sunday.
"Right now, this government and indeed all parliamentarians should be focused on standing up for Canada's sovereignty, standing against interference and looking to be there to support Canadians in this difficult moment."
The leaders of both Canada's left-leaning opposition parties, whose support Trudeau needs to keep his minority government alive, said they backed the expulsions.
But Cristine de Clercy, professor of politics at Trent University in Peterborough, said any bump for Trudeau would likely be brief.
"You could say, yes, the short-term upside is to displace headlines," she said. "The list of domestic issues that he has to address is so much longer and more complicated than this single incident in a faraway country."
The politically influential Sikh community has backed the Liberals and other parties in recent years. At least one leader said he welcomed the expulsions but did not expect the dispute to impact domestic politics.
"It shows that the government is actually holding India to account, which is actually their job," said Moninder Singh, a spokesperson for the nonprofit B.C. Gurdwaras Council which represents Sikh institutions in the province⍐.
India says no auction of satellite spectrum after Musk decries move
By Aditya Kalra and Munsif Vengattil
NEW DELHI, Oct 15 (Reuters) - India's government on Tuesday said it will allot spectrum for satellite broadband administratively and not via auction, hours after Elon Musk criticized the auction route being sought by rival billionaire Mukesh Ambani as "unprecedented".
In what is seen as a battle between billionaires, the methodology of awarding spectrum for satellite services in India - a market set to grow 36% a year to reach $1.9 billion by 2030 - has been a contentious issue since last year.
Musk's Starlink argues administrative allotment of licences is in line with a global trend, while India's Reliance, led by billionaire Mukesh Ambani, says an auction is needed to ensure a level playing field and as there are no provisions in Indian law on how individuals can be provided satellite broadband services.
Telecoms Minister Jyotiraditya Scindia said during a New Delhi event that the spectrum will be allocated administratively in line with Indian laws, and its pricing worked out by the telecom watchdog.
"If you do decide to auction it, then you will be doing something which is different from the rest of the world," he said.
On Sunday, Reuters was first to report that Reliance had challenged the Indian telecom regulator's consultation process that signals home satellite broadband spectrum should be allocated, not auctioned, calling for it to start again.
The minister's comment will come as a shot in the arm for Musk, who following the Reuters story wrote on X late on Monday that any decision to auction "would be unprecedented".
"This spectrum was long designated by the ITU as shared spectrum for satellites," Musk said, referring to the International Telecommunication Union, a U.N. agency for digital technology.
India is a member of the ITU and signatory to its treaty that regulates satellite spectrum and advocates that allocation must be done "rationally, efficiently and economically" as it is a "limited natural resource".
Sunil Mittal, co-chair of global satellite group Eutelsat, which has partnered with India's telecom operator Bharti Airtel, voiced support for the auction route on Tuesday.
"Satellite companies who have ambitions to come into urban areas, serving elite retail customers, just need to take the telecom licenses like everybody else... they need to buy the spectrum as telecom companies buy," Mittal, who is also the chair of Airtel, said at the New Delhi event.
Earlier in 2023, both Eutelsat unit OneWeb and Airtel had voiced concerns about auctioning the spectrum in their submissions to the Indian government.
Musk's Starlink and some global peers like Amazon's Project Kuiper back an administrative allocation, saying spectrum is a natural resource that should be shared by companies.⍐
Govt. to reconsider Adani wind power project, AG tells court
Published on 2024/10/15 By AJA Abeynayake The Island
The Attorney General informed the Supreme Court yesterday that the Cabinet of Ministers has decided to reconsider matters related to the wind power project in Wedithalathivu, Mannar, proposed by India’s Adani Green Energy. This update was presented during a hearing on Fundamental Rights petitions seeking to invalidate the Cabinet approval for the proect. Deputy Solicitor General Avanthi Perera, representing the Attorney General, stated that the Cabinet plans to re-evaluate the facts surrounding the project on November 7, 2024, and will determine the future of the initiative at that time. She noted that the current interim Cabinet made this decision and requested an extension to finalize their stance, which will be communicated by the new Cabinet to be formed after the upcoming General Election. Perera emphasized that the current position regarding the project would remain unchanged in the interim.
The petitioning parties, who accepted the facts presented by the Deputy Solicitor General, sought permission from the bench of judges to revise their petitions due to changes in the respondents with the formation of the new government. The Supreme Court granted this request.
Additionally, the Court ordered that any government observations related to the project be submitted by January 31, 2025. The Fundamental Rights petitions were filed by five parties, including the Centre for Environmental Justice, who argue that the proposed wind farm poses significant threats to ecological biodiversity and the safety of migratory birds⍐.
Netanyahu tells U.S. that Israel will strike Iranian military, not nuclear or oil, targets, officials say
The signal is being seen in Washington as a sign of restraint after concerns that an Israeli strike on oil or nuclear facilities could trigger a wider war.
A U.S. missile defense system called Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, at a golf course in Seongju, South Korea, on June 7, 2017. (Kim Jun-Beom/Yonhap/AP)
By Shira Rubin
and
Ellen Nakashima
TEL AVIV — Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has told the Biden administration he is willing to strike military rather than oil or nuclear facilities in Iran, according to two officials familiar with the matter, suggesting a more limited counterstrike aimed at preventing a full-scale war.
In the two weeks since Iran’s latest missile barrage on Israel, its second direct attack in six months, the Middle East has braced for Israel’s promised response, fearing the two countries’ decades-long shadow war could explode into a head-on military confrontation. It comes at a politically fraught time for Washington, less than a month before the election; President Joe Biden has said publicly he would not support an Israeli strike on nuclear-related sites.
When Biden and Netanyahu spoke Wednesday — their first call in more than seven weeks after months of rising tensions between the two men — the prime minister said he was planning to target military infrastructure in Iran, according to a U.S. official and an official familiar with the matter. Like others in this story, they spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive deliberations.
The White House had no immediate comment. The Israeli prime minister’s office said in a statement that “we listen to the opinions of the United States, but we will make our final decisions based on our national interest.”
The retaliatory action would be calibrated to avoid the perception of “political interference in the U.S. elections,” the official familiar with the matter said, signaling Netanyahu’s understanding that the scope of the Israeli strike has the potential to reshape the presidential race.
An Israeli strike on Iranian oil facilities could send energy prices soaring, analysts say, while an attack on the country’s nuclear research program could erase any remaining red lines governing Israel’s conflict with Tehran, triggering further escalation and risking a more direct U.S. military role. Netanyahu’s stated plan to go after military sites instead, as Israel did after Iran’s attack in April, was met with relief in Washington.
Netanyahu was in a “more moderated place” in that discussion than he had previously been, said the U.S. official, describing the call between the two leaders. The apparent softening of the prime minister’s stance factored into Biden’s decision to send a powerful missile defense system to Israel, both officials said.
After that call, the president was more inclined to do it, the U.S. official said.
On Sunday, the Pentagon announced that it was deploying its anti-ballistic Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, battery system to Israel, along with about 100 U.S. military personnel. U.S. officials announced Tuesday that an advance team of personnel and initial components for the system had arrived in Israel the previous day. More personnel and components would continue to arrive in the coming days, they said.
The deployment of the system “underscores the United States’ commitment to the defense of Israel,” the Pentagon said.
The Israeli strike on Iran would be carried out before the U.S. elections on Nov. 5, the official familiar with the matter said, because a lack of action could be interpreted by Iran as a sign of weakness. “It will be one in a series of responses,” she said.
Zohar Palti, a former intelligence director for Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency, said Netanyahu would need to balance Washington’s appeals for moderation with the public demand in Israel for an overwhelming response.
“The Iranians have lost every measure of restraint that they used to have,” he said. “Without the U.S. weapons, Israel cannot fight,” Palti acknowledged. “But it is Israel who takes the risks” and “knows how to do the job.”
On Thursday night, the official familiar with the matter said, Netanyahu convened his security cabinet for three hours to discuss the options on the table, but he did not seek official authorization for the attack from his cabinet — keeping the timing intentionally open-ended.
Within the Israeli defense establishment, there is concern that the strike will not be forceful enough — or public enough — to deter Iran from another direct attack on Israel, or from developing nuclear weapons.
“The Israeli military wants to hit Iran’s military leadership, because it doesn’t hurt the people and it doesn’t erupt the region into a larger war,” said Gayil Talshir, a political scientist at Hebrew University who is in contact with senior members of Israel’s defense establishment. “But that is not how Netanyahu is thinking.”
In April, after a U.S.-led military coalition helped Israel intercept hundreds of Iranian drones and missiles — a large but well-choreographed attack — Israel responded with a pinpoint strike on an air base in Isfahan, in central Iran. Israeli officials mostly kept quiet after the attack, with the exception of far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, who posted on social media that the response was “lame!”
On Oct. 1, after successful Israeli operations against Iran and its proxies, including the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hasan Nasrallah, Tehran fired nearly 200 ballistic missiles at Israel — this time without warning — killing a Palestinian man in the West Bank and hitting at least two military installations. Amir Saeid Iravani, Iran’s ambassador to the United Nations, said the attack was meant to “restore balance and deterrence.”
“When we responded last time, they didn’t get the message,” Palti said. “So the alternative now is between restraint or retaliation, and the answer is obvious.”
But Israel is already fighting on multiple fronts. Late last month, thousands of Israeli troops invaded southern Lebanon for the first time in nearly two decades and, last week, the military unleashed yet another punishing offensive in northern Gaza. When it comes to Tehran, figures close to Netanyahu’s team have signaled strategic patience.
“Just as we waited with [Hezbollah in] Lebanon, and with [Hamas in Gaza] in the south, now I think we will have to wait with Iran,” Natan Eshel, an adviser to the Netanyahu family, said in a leaked message to Israeli media Sunday. “We will get to the same point in the north, we will finish it, and then get to Iran, which is not going anywhere.”
On timing, too, Netanyahu appeared to be taking cues from Washington: The United States is “giving Israel and the Netanyahu government a bear hug, but for Hezbollah,” said a former senior Israeli defense official who is familiar with current security discussions. “It is sending THAAD and promising all kinds of weapons that we need to finish off Hezbollah, saying that we can deal with Iran later.”
While the White House has pushed unsuccessfully for a cease-fire in Gaza for months, leading to mounting friction between Netanyahu and Biden, it has so far given full backing to Israel’s ground operations in Lebanon, even amid a growing international outcry over the civilian toll of the war and Israeli clashes with U.N. peacekeepers tasked with monitoring the border zone.
As part of consultations with the United States, the official familiar with the matter said, Israel has told Washington it intends to wrap up operations in Lebanon in the coming weeks.
Netanyahu’s increased coordination with Washington comes after high-profile strikes carried out without advance warning to Israel’s closest ally — including a strike on Iranian commanders near a diplomatic facility in Damascus, Syria, and the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran — which surprised and angered U.S. officials.
While Netanyahu would continue to consult with U.S. officials on Israel’s looming strike against Iran, he would not wait for a green light from Washington, said an Israeli official close to the prime minister.
“The person who will decide on the Israeli response to Iran will be [Netanyahu],” he said.
Hovering over the final decision are the complex, and interrelated, political dynamics in Washington and Tehran. Talshir, the political analyst, said Netanyahu’s team was alarmed by the recent election of Iran’s reformist president Masoud Pezeshkian, who has signaled an openness to reviving nuclear talks with the West. If Vice President Kamala Harris is elected, Netanyahu thinks the nuclear deal will be back on the table, she said, “and so now is a strategic moment to undermine this.”
Prominent Israeli political figures, including former prime minister Naftali Bennett, continue to push for a direct attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Anything less, he said, risked sacrificing the momentum Israel has gained from its wars in Lebanon and Gaza.
“Iran’s proxies Hezbollah and Hamas both have drastically diminished capabilities,” he said. “Israel has all the justification it could ever have. We have the ability. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.”⍐
