India protests China’s ‘arbitrary detention’ of citizen at Shanghai airport – WRAL

Report on India-China Diplomatic Incident and Sustainable Development Goal Implications

1.0 Incident Summary

A diplomatic protest has been lodged by India following the detention of an Indian citizen at Shanghai airport on November 21. The incident highlights ongoing geopolitical tensions and their direct impact on individual rights and international cooperation, posing significant challenges to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

• Event: An Indian national, Pem Wang Thongdok, was detained for approximately 18 hours during a layover in Shanghai.
• Stated Cause: Chinese authorities reportedly invalidated her passport, citing her birthplace, the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, as Chinese territory (referred to as Zangnan).
• Context: The event occurs amidst strained bilateral relations between the two nations, rooted in military standoffs, trade disputes, and a long-standing territorial conflict over Arunachal Pradesh.

2.0 Analysis of Impact on Sustainable Development Goal 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

The detention directly contravenes the principles of SDG 16, which aims to promote peaceful and inclusive societies, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable institutions.

1. Access to Justice (Target 16.3): The arbitrary nature of the detention, without clear legal recourse and in violation of international transit norms, undermines the rule of law at the international level and denies an individual equal access to justice.
2. Effective and Accountable Institutions (Target 16.6): The action by Chinese border authorities, and the subsequent lack of a satisfactory explanation, raises questions about the transparency and accountability of state institutions.
3. Peaceful Societies (Preamble to SDG 16): The incident is a symptom of a larger, unresolved conflict that threatens regional peace and stability, working against the core objective of fostering peaceful relations between nations.

3.0 Analysis of Impact on Sustainable Development Goal 10: Reduced Inequalities

The incident underscores challenges to SDG 10, which calls for reducing inequality within and among countries by ensuring equal opportunity and eliminating discriminatory practices.

• Elimination of Discriminatory Practices (Target 10.3): The act of singling out an individual based on their place of origin, as recorded in a state-issued passport, constitutes a discriminatory practice that creates inequality of outcome and opportunity.
• Orderly and Safe Mobility (Target 10.7): The detention obstructs the facilitation of safe and regular mobility of people. Such actions create unpredictable barriers to international travel, disproportionately affecting citizens from disputed territories and undermining well-managed migration policies.

4.0 Official Statements and Implications for SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

The conflicting official responses from both nations illustrate a breakdown in diplomatic cooperation, which is the foundation of SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). A failure in bilateral partnership on fundamental issues like sovereignty and citizen rights impedes progress on all other global goals.

1. Government of India Position:
   • Characterized the event as an “arbitrary detention.”
   • Asserted that the action violated multiple conventions governing international air travel, including China’s own 24-hour visa-free transit regulations.
   • Reaffirmed that Arunachal Pradesh is an “integral and inalienable part of India.”
2. Government of China Position:
   • Stated that border authorities handled the case “in accordance with laws and regulations.”
   • Denied that the individual was detained or harassed, claiming her “legitimate rights and interests” were protected.
   • Reiterated that it does not recognize the state of Arunachal Pradesh and considers the territory, which it calls Zangnan, to be part of China.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

   The primary Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) connected to the issues in the article is:

   • SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions. This goal aims to “promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.” The article directly discusses issues of international conflict, justice for an individual, and the functioning of international laws and diplomatic institutions. The territorial dispute between India and China, the “arbitrary detention” of a citizen, the violation of international travel conventions, and the diplomatic protests all fall squarely under the purview of SDG 16.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

   Based on the article’s content, the following specific targets under SDG 16 can be identified:

   • Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere. The article highlights the context of a tense relationship “strained by the military standoff along the Himalayan frontier” and references the “deadly border clash of June 2020.” The diplomatic incident described adds pressure to this situation, undermining efforts to reduce the risk of violence and conflict between the two nations.
   • Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all. This target is directly relevant to the core incident. India’s protest against the “arbitrary detention” and the claim that the action was in “violation of several conventions governing international air travel” and China’s “own regulations that allow visa free transit” point to a breakdown in the application of the rule of law at the international level. The Indian government’s diplomatic intervention is an attempt to seek justice for its citizen.
   • Target 16.a: Strengthen relevant national institutions, including through international cooperation, to build capacity at all levels… to prevent violence. The article showcases the role of national institutions like India’s Foreign Ministry and China’s Foreign Ministry. The lodging of a protest and the issuance of official statements are actions taken by these institutions. The ongoing dispute and lack of resolution, however, indicate a weakness in the effectiveness of international cooperation and dispute resolution mechanisms between the two countries.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

   The article implies several indicators that can be used to measure progress:

   • For Target 16.1: An implied indicator is the existence of unresolved territorial disputes and related military conflicts. The article explicitly mentions the “military standoff along the Himalayan frontier” and a “deadly border clash,” which serve as direct measures of a lack of peace and security in the region.
   • For Target 16.3: The article points to the indicator of the number of cases of arbitrary detention in violation of national and international law. The central event is the “arbitrary detention of an Indian citizen.” The Indian spokesperson’s statement about the violation of “several conventions governing international air travel” provides a qualitative measure of adherence to the international rule of law.
   • For Target 16.a: An implied indicator is the existence and use of bilateral dispute resolution mechanisms. The article describes the diplomatic exchange between the two foreign ministries (India lodging a protest, China responding). The outcome of such exchanges can be used to measure the effectiveness of these institutional mechanisms in resolving conflicts peacefully.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article.

   SDGs	Targets	Indicators
   SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions	16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.	Existence of unresolved territorial disputes and military standoffs (e.g., “military standoff along the Himalayan frontier,” “deadly border clash”).
   SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions	16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.	Number of individuals subject to arbitrary detention; Number of reported violations of international conventions (e.g., “arbitrary detention of an Indian citizen,” “violation of several conventions governing international air travel”).
   SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions	16.a: Strengthen relevant national institutions, including through international cooperation, to prevent violence.	Use of bilateral diplomatic mechanisms for dispute resolution (e.g., India’s Foreign Ministry lodging a protest with China’s Foreign Ministry).

Source: wral.com