You are here
Events
| Title | Date | Author | Time | Event | Body | Research Area | Topics | File attachments | Image |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Talk on “Colonial Borders as ‘State Simplification’ Project: Garo Hills in the late 19th and early 20th Century”, by Shri Sanjeeva Kumar, IAS, former Secretary (Border Management) | February 02, 2022 | Talk |
The Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA) organised a virtual Talk on “Colonial Borders as State ‘Simplification’ Project: Garo Hills in the late 19th and early 20th Century” by Shri Sanjeeva Kumar, IAS, former Secretary (Border Management) on 02 February 2022. The discussion was chaired by Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA, and was attended by Maj. Gen. Bipin Bakshi, Deputy Director General, MP-IDSA, Dr. Pushpita Das, Col. DPK Pillay, and other members of the MP-IDSA fraternity. Executive SummaryThe State ‘Simplification’ Project in the Garo Hills was essentially a new resource management regime designed to give the colonial power larger control over the fertile Garo Hills. The Project imposed artificial boundaries in the region by dividing and delegitimising the Garo community. It completely destroyed the Garos popular culture, customs, practices and social relations. A majority of the contemporary border disputes in Northeast India stem from the colonial period and necessitate a thorough understanding of the boundary notifications and the lines that preceded them. Detailed ReportAmbassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA, initiated the talk by introducing the audience to the speaker’s diverse background and his extensive experience in Northeast India. Ambassador Chinoy, at the outset, acknowledged that the majority of the problems Northeast India faces today have their roots in the colonial period, when Britishers loosely defined their borders in order to serve their ultimate goal of building a colonial empire. Thus, their policies and practises in Northeast India, as well as in Myanmar and adjoining areas, were derived from the 'holistic frontier policy'. Ambassador Chinoy emphasised the importance of viewing and understanding contemporary challenges in the Northeast through the lens of its colonial history. Shri Sanjeeva Kumar depicted the manner in which Britishers drew artificial lines in the Garo hills of Meghalaya (then part of Assam) during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and the disastrous impact they had on everyday issues of livelihood and social relationships. He claimed that the 'project' was undertaken haphazardly to simplify the limited state functions of taxation and law enforcement, as well as to facilitate greater control over natural resources. This, in turn, resulted in large scale discontent and displacement of Garos and eventually led to widespread protests erroneously referred to as "irrational acts of barbarism and idiosyncrasy of the hill men". Shri Kumar termed the colonial efforts in the nascent South Asian states as State 'Simplification' Project, claiming that the Project was essentially a 'new resource management regime’ driven by the exigencies of the Industrial Revolution. The same was true of the Garo Hills, where the Britishers strived to expand their control over the fertile foothills by completely dividing and delegitimizing the Garo community. Shri Kumar discussed the manner in which the State 'Simplification' Project was facilitated in the Garo Hills through gradually declaring 'reserve forests' in 1864 and then declaring the community land as 'Wasteland' in 1878. According to him, the entire process overlooked record keeping, land demarcation, and the creation of revenue maps. Meanwhile, surveys and settlements received adequate attention as these provided ‘documentary intelligence’ in the forms of making of theodolite stations, drawing of cadastral maps etc. Shri Sanjeeva Kumar also delved into the modus operandi of the State ‘Simplification’ Project in the Garo Hills. He noted that the Britishers, in a bid to make the Garos more ‘legible’ and easier to govern, consciously arranged them into five ‘artificial categories’- Bemalua, Bibhagnama, Nazrana, Zamindari and Namdani. This also gave the State a greater control over the population. Habraghat Pargana, located in the south of the foothills, became the actual point of contest where the boundaries were frequently drawn by the Britishers and where the non-tribal Zamindars, Garos and the Britishers- were engaged in a war of attrition for exercising greater control over natural resources of the foot hills. The Project resulted in large-scale Garo displacement and mindless violence manifested during the 1807-1819 raids, and, ultimately led to a protracted conflict for the Garo land. He opined that the subjectivity of the Garos shifted with shifting boundaries in the foothills. While ‘Bemalua’ remained free, the others moved on the continuum from freedom to subordination. The speaker underscored that the year 1901 marked a watershed moment in the Garos’ history, as their protests shifted from a tribal-based movement to a larger struggle for Garo land. He also emphasised Sonaram Sangma's pivotal contributions to the protracted Garos' agitation. Sangma used history and the legal system to restore the Garos' customary rights over 500 square miles of land, including the Garo Hills, foothills, and parts of the plains. Although the Garos' long battle with the Colonial State yielded little fruit, the community heroically confronted the artificial barriers with a variety of responses. Shri Sanjeeva Kumar concluded his presentation by emphasising the need to rethink border studies in South Asia, which have mostly focused on 'security' issues while completely ignoring the eco-system of border regions. The speaker also alluded to the north eastern states' limited success in resolving the boundary disputes, cautioning them against interpreting colonial borders as "sacrosanct" and "immutable." Shri Kumar advocated for an "open-minded" approach to resolve the existing boundary disputes, backed up with a thorough grasp of border-making procedures throughout the colonial period. Discussion and Key TakeawaysDuring the discussion, the panellists expressed their concerns over important issues like colonial division of East Bengal from rest of the Northeast, settlement of boundary disputes between Assam and Nagaland, and the restoration of tribal customary rights while redefining the colonial borders in the Northeast, etc. As a way forward, the panellists concurred on the importance of studying the nitty-gritty of colonial border marking exercises. However, the same ought to be seen in the backdrop of customary usage of the past and the existing ground realities in the Northeast. The talk concluded with the vote of thanks by Dr. Pushpita Das, Coordinator, Internal Security Centre, MP-IDSA. The Report has been prepared by Ms. Rajbala Rana, Research Analyst, Internal Security Centre, MP-IDSA. |
||||||
| Report of Monday Morning Webinar on “Quad Foreign Ministers’ Meeting: Decoding the Joint Statement” | February 21, 2022 | Monday Morning Meeting |
Event Report Cmde. Abhay K. Singh (Retd.) spoke on the topic “Quad Foreign Ministers’ Meeting: Decoding the Joint Statement” at the Monday Morning Webinar held on 21 February 2022. The session was chaired by Dr. Titli Basu and was attended by Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA, Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi, Deputy Director General, MP-IDSA, senior scholars & research analysts of MP-IDSA. Executive Summary Despite its cautious beginnings in 2017 the Quad dialogues have significantly progressed and this is reflected in the Joint Statement issued at the Quad Foreign Ministers’ Meeting held in Melbourne on 11 February 2022. The analysis of the Joint Statements of Quad’s Leadership Dialogue and the recent Foreign Ministers Dialogue reveals that there have been subtle differences in the language of the statements issued by the individual nations. But these statements also indicate a growing strategic convergence among the four nations that have been evident from the evolving consensus and expanding areas of cooperation in the Indo-Pacific Region, raising the prospects for the formation of a concrete mandate for the Quad. The areas of cooperation within the Quad have been institutionalised into three core working groups focusing on vaccine production, climate change and emerging technologies. Also, emphasis has been laid on improving cooperation in the field of infrastructure and information technologies. The Joint Statement has stressed on promoting the concept of ASEAN centrality in the Indo-Pacific taking into account the geostrategic significance of the Southeast Asian Nations in the region. The first page of the statement reiterates the Quad’s commitment towards supporting regional and sub-regional mechanisms on issues of maritime security, cyber security, HADR operations, terrorism and disinformation. The second page of the joint statement focuses extensively on aspects of maritime security for facilitating capacity-building to strengthen Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA), ensuring Freedom of Navigation (FoN), protection of Sea Lanes of Communication (SLOC) and combating Illegal Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing. The final page of the statement dwells upon cooperation on the issues of counter-terrorism, combating disinformation and flagging coercive economic policies. The statement has condemned the terrorist attacks in Mumbai and Pathankot which is a considerable diplomatic achievement for India. Concerns regarding Myanmar and North Korea have been expressed in the Joint Statement. The Quad nations have pledged greater capacity building in the field of clean energy through facilitating exchange programmes and technology transfers. Overall institutionalising Quad 2.0 remains a work in progress but the process is progressively shaping more like an axiom than a conundrum. Detailed Report Dr. Titli Basu, Associate Fellow, MP-IDSA commenced the session by bringing into perspective heightened diplomatic activity centred around the Indo-Pacific discourse that included the Quad Foreign Minister’s meeting, the unveiling of the US’s Indo-Pacific Strategy by the Biden Administration and European Union’s (EU) Indo-Pacific Forum. Dr. Basu also highlighted the Munich Security Conference held on 18 February 2022 where the Hon’ble External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar had underscored India’s pragmatic approach towards Quad and debunked the Chinese narrative of describing the grouping as an ‘Asian NATO’. Commenting on the Joint Statement made by the Quad Foreign Ministers’ Dr. Basu stated that besides the vaccine partnership there has been extensive focus on aspects like maritime security, maritime domain awareness, counter-terrorism, HADR operations, cybersecurity and countering disinformation which reflects the broad-based security agenda of Quad. She also pointed out the Joint Statement’s focus on regional security issues like Afghanistan, South China Sea (SCS), East China Sea (ECS), Myanmar and North Korea. Citing the joint press interactions of the Foreign Ministers’ Dr. Basu stated that the escalation of tensions in Ukraine and Taiwan have also been put on the diplomatic high table amongst the Quad nations. She also pointed out the Chinese reactions accompanied by the usual rhetoric of calling the Quad a product of Cold War mentality, reflecting China’s resentment towards the grouping. With these opening remarks, Dr. Basu invited Cmde. Abhay Singh to give his presentation. Cmde. Abhay K. Singh, Research Fellow, MP-IDSA, began his presentation by recalling the cautious beginning of the Quad consultation on 12 November 2017 in Manila during the sidelines of the East Asia Summit which resulted in producing a short and brief joint statement among the four nations devoid of any deeper meaning but gained lots of international attention. Revisiting his assessment of this first Quad meeting Cmde. Singh stated that in the Indo-Pacific geopolitics the relevance of Quad can be considered both as an axiom as well as a conundrum. Taking stock of the geopolitical developments in the Indo-Pacific region between 2007 and 2017, Cmde. Singh stated that the idea of the region as a strategic confluence between the Indian and Pacific Oceans emerged at that time. Here maritime geopolitics became the centrepiece of the strategic narrative concerning the Indo-Pacific. Also taking into account the debate among the strategic community during the 2000s on whether China’s rise can be considered benevolent or malevolent to the Indo-Pacific, Cmde. Singh stated that a majority of prominent views by 2017 characterised China’s rise as malevolent. He also brought out that until then the ASEAN continued to remain divided on its views towards China’s rise, but developments including China’s promulgation of SCS based on the Nine-Dash Line and its non-acceptance of the 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) verdict confirmed China’s aggressive approach in the region and its disdain for a rules-based international order. Cmde. Singh stated that as a result of this, the interregnum between the first and second Quad consultation signified the growing strategic convergence between the four nations of the Quad. Reiterating his view on the Quad having elements of both Axiom and Conundrum, Cmde. Singh stated that aspects like value based partnership for promoting a rules based order and a shared vision for ‘Free and Open’ Indo-Pacific focusing on connectivity and regional balance denotes axiom. At the same time elements of Conundrum are reflected by the divergent interests among the Quad nations, the perception of the grouping by some observers as Cold-War Redux to counter China and the lack of a framework that contributed to the uncertainty of the viability of the Quad. Inferring from the press statements given by the Quad nations after their first meeting in 2017, Cmde. Singh stated that the absence of Freedom of Navigation (FoN) and overflight, respect for international law and maritime security from India’s statements reflected its differing take on the Quad. On the other hand, Japan’s press statement did not refer to connectivity which was mentioned by the other nations. He pointed out while aspects like free and open Indo-Pacific, nuclear proliferation, rules-based order and terrorism were jointly addressed by all four nations, the language of their statements on these topics differed due to which the meeting remained inconclusive in achieving a common mandate. Taking note of the Joint Statement from the next Quad meeting that took place June 2018, Cmde. Singh stated it was notable for its inclusion of ASEAN centrality in the Indo-Pacific discourse and this was also reflected by the Hon’ble Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s address at the Shangri-La Dialogue. Inferring from the successive joint statements, Cmde. Singh stated that it became clear the recurring focal points on development, connectivity, good governance, regional security, non-proliferation, shared democratic value and maritime cooperation have become the key features in the Quad meetings. He highlighted that despite the convergence of Quad nations in these broad-based areas, India significantly differed in its language to denote its advocacy for a FoN, rules-based order and partnership with other nations in the region leading to differing interpretations on India’s expectations from the Quad. Cmde. Singh brought out that despite the subtle differences in the language of the statements, the concerns began to converge reflecting the evolving consensus and expanding cooperation between the Quad nations leading to a common mandate taking shape. Assessing the first Joint Statement given by the Quad nations after their virtual summit on 12 March 2021, he stated that it denoted a concrete resolve of the Quad nations towards aspects like rules-based order, FoN, promotion of democratic values, countering coercion and the ASEAN centrality in the Indo-Pacific. Cmde. Singh underscored that the area of cooperation became institutionalised into three core working groups on vaccine production, climate change and emerging technologies. The subsequent in-person meeting among the Quad leaders held on 24 September 2021 highlighted the core values based upon which the Quad was structured and reviewed the progress from the previous meetings especially in the areas of infrastructure partnership and information technology most notably the inclusion of Quad into Blue Dot Network which was earlier an exclusive initiative in cyberspace between the U.S, Japan and Australia. Cmde. Singh stated that it is important to note that the U.S Indo-Pacific Strategy harmonises with the various stakeholders of the region like India, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, United Kingdom and France along with regional organisations like ASEAN and EU. Decoding the comprehensive Joint Statement, Cmde. Singh analysed the first page of the statement which reiterated Quad’s commitment to support not only regional mechanisms but also the sub-regional mechanisms like Mekong-Ganga Cooperation (MGC) on issues pertaining to maritime security, HADR operations, cyber security, disinformation and terrorism. Assessing the second page of the statement Cmde. Singh pointed out that there has been extensive focus on the maritime domain as the Quad members have pledged to deepen their engagement in capacity-building and technical assistance to strengthen Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA), ensuring FoN, protection of Sea Lanes of Communication (SLOC) and combating Illegal Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing. Deciphering the third page Cmde. Singh brought out that Quad’s commitment to counter-terrorism has been underscored through the denouncement of the use of terrorist proxies for cross-border infiltration through the provision of safe havens and financial support. Also, the statement issued condemnations of the Mumbai and Pathankot terrorist attacks by reaffirming Quad’s support to UN Security Resolution 2593 that demanded the Afghan territory not be used for terrorism related activities. Cmde. Singh highlighted that the statement also conveyed cooperation in the cyber-security domain like countering disinformation, addressing the threat of ransomware and resolution to promote international peace and stability in cyberspace. Bringing out other key resolutions of the joint statement, Cmde. Singh noted the Quad’s flagging of coercive economic policies and practices in the region. Cmde. Singh pointed out that the statement sets out an agenda for future activities of Quad which includes the hosting of the Indo-Pacific Clean Energy Supply Chain Forum by Australia in mid-2022. Also, the U.S has pledged to promote exchange programmes for capacity building in the core focus areas of Quad and explore the feasibility of a track 1.5 dialogue between strategic thinkers of the four nations. He also stated that through the joint statement the Quad has expressed grave concerns regarding Myanmar and North Korea. Summarising his presentation Cmde. Singh stated that institutionalising Quad 2.0 remains a work in progress but the process is progressively shaping more like an axiom than a conundrum. During the panel discussion, Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy traced the origins of the Quad back to when the first maritime security cooperation between India and the U.S. also known as the Kicklighter proposals took place during his tenure as the Deputy Secretary of Americas in 1992. He stated all the major developments of the next three decades leading up to the Quad’s current status including the Malabar Naval Exercise had their origins in the Kicklighter proposals. Describing the 2004 tsunami as essentially a cataclysmic maritime event that brought India, the U.S., Japan and Australia together for engaging in coordinated HADR operations in the region, the Director General attributed the foundation of Quad 1.0 to a maritime construct that retained its bilateral and trilateral significance even after the tsunami. This factor influenced the bilateral Malabar Exercise between India and the US which subsequently went on to include Japan in 2015 during the tenure of the Director General as the Indian Ambassador to Japan and subsequently, Australia also acquired the same traction by 2021. Pointing out to the differences between the evolution of Dialogue between Foreign Ministers and Leaders of the Quad, the Director General noted that the Leadership Dialogue has already issued two joint statements in March and September 2021, but on the other hand the Foreign Ministers Dialogue have so far avoided Joint Statements and instead opted for country specific statements. Henceforth, the Director General pointed out the fact that this is the first Joint Statement that has been issued at the Foreign Ministers level and referred to this as an indicator of considerable progress in the Quad. The Director General stated that the previous Joint Statements issued at the leadership level have indicated a higher level of cooperation between the Quad nations attributed to the COVID pandemic and the development in the technological domain being the driving force behind their agenda. On the other hand, the Joint Statement issued at the Foreign Minister level laid focus on the terrorist attacks in Mumbai and Pathankot which was not mentioned at the leadership level that indicates considerable progress achieved by India and the Director General indicated the likelihood of its incorporation in the upcoming Joint Statement issued by the Quad Leaders. Also, he pointed out the newer element of the Joint Statement such as inclusion of Myanmar, Afghanistan, North Korea and countering disinformation. The Director General noted that extensive emphasis on countering disinformation is a subtle hint to China and Russia for their alleged use of social media for manipulation. He stated although the Quad cannot be considered as an “Asian Nato”, the nations within the Quad have bilateral defence partnerships with each other that enable them to further elevate their existing cooperation into a military grouping. Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi, stated that the higher convergences within the Quad that have been taking place over the last nine years are coinciding with the higher belligerence that is being exhibited by China. He stated although there is no direct correlation between the Malabar Exercise and the Quad, this projects a subtle hint of future military alliance. Touching upon the ASEAN centrality, the Deputy Director General pointed out the fact that the regional grouping has been so far reluctant to give any critical statement against China and questioned ASEAN’s support of the Quad. Brig. Satyavrat Pagay, Senior Fellow, MP-IDSA enumerated dichotomies that the Quad creates for India in maintaining its strategic autonomy citing India’s neutral stand in the ongoing Ukraine Crisis, the acquisition of S-400 missiles from Russia and the military coup in Myanmar. During the Q&A session responding to the Director General’s comments, Cmde. Singh stated that as the Foreign Ministers’ have met for the first time since the Quad summit the Joint Statement is likely to become a regular feature in all the future high level meetings taking place in the Quad. He stated although institution building in diplomatic engagement takes considerable time, the Quad has undergone this phase which will lead to greater institutionalisation of the grouping. Responding to the question posed by the Deputy Director General on ASEAN centrality, Cmde. Singh stated that every nation within the Quad has been individually engaging with the ASEAN members in order to win their confidence like India’s ‘Act East Policy’. Overall Quad must be able to persuade the ASEAN nations to partake in Quad’s vision for the Indo-Pacific region. Responding to another question on why Quad is being considered as a value based alignment rather than a security alliance, Cmde. Singh explained that a security alliance is identified by the alignment of interests supported by a treaty. But on the other hand, alignments are agreements based on good faith between nations. Responding to Brig. Pagay’s question on strategic autonomy, he stated that in international relations autonomy of the sovereign states is always constrained by existing global practices and groupings due to which no nation can claim to enjoy complete strategic autonomy. In case of India’s relationship with Russia, it has been evolving distinctly since the signing of Indo-Soviet Treaty of 1971 and shall not diminish due to India’s association with the Quad. Responding to Col. Chadha’s question regarding China’s disdain towards the concept of Indo-Pacific, Cmde. Singh stated that judging from the statements of the Chinese Government and academia, China considers Quad and Indo-Pacific as two sides of the same coin which is designed for containing its influence in the region. Key Takeaways
Report prepared by Dr R. Vignesh, Research Analyst, Military Affairs Centre, MP-IDSA |
||||||
| Report of Monday Morning Webinar on “Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Bhutan’s Economy” | March 07, 2022 | Monday Morning Meeting |
Dr. Opangmeren Jamir, Research Analyst, East-Asia Centre, Manohar Parrikar Institute of Defence Studies and Analysis, spoke on the “Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Bhutan’s Economy” at the Monday Morning Webinar held on 7 March 2022. The webinar was chaired by Dr. Uttam Kumar Sinha, Coordinator, Non-Traditional Security Centre. The Deputy Director General, Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.) and other scholars of the Institute participated in the webinar. Executive SummaryThe pandemic has brought many challenges in the world, especially for developing nations like Bhutan. Some challenges that emanate from the pandemic are in social, educational and healthcare sectors. Apart from these issues, the efforts Bhutan took to contain the pandemic are very satisfactory. The healthcare sector did well by vaccinating 65 per cent of Bhutan’s population. However, Bhutan has gone through an economic crunch which affected its other sectors. Detailed ReportDr. Uttam Kumar Sinha, the moderator, made opening remarks on the topic and introduced the audience to the topic “Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Bhutan’s Economy”. He mentioned that Bhutan is one of the few countries that managed the pandemic well. He also focused on the social, economic, education, and especially the healthcare system that Bhutan managed and how they vaccinated its population. Despite all this management, the economy was hit by the pandemic and major sectors were declining. Dr. Opangmeren Jamir explained the topic in three parts. The first part focused on Bhutan’s economy before the COVID-19 pandemic and during the pandemic. The second part emphasised the steps undertaken by the Bhutanese government to sustain the economy during the pandemic, via policy measures, i.e., Mining Bill 2020 and the commercialisation of forests. The last part of the presentation revolved around India-Bhutan cooperation with a special focus on hydropower projects. The speaker highlighted that Bhutan is following the principle strategy of Gross National Happiness (GNH) to measure the well-being and collective happiness of its population. The strategy has helped to achieve many sustainable development goals. Once the pandemic set in, the economy of Bhutan was on the brink. According to the National Income Statistics 2021, the economic growth of Bhutan in 2020 was 10 per cent. Except for sectors like agriculture and electricity, sectors like mining, communication, tourism, construction, and transportation made significant contributions to the economy. The tourism sector had boomed from 2012 to 2019 which became the backbone of Bhutan’s economy. But in 2020, the tourist arrivals plummeted to 29,000 as compared to 315,599 in 2019. Data shows that in 2019-2020 there was a decline in tourists by 91 per cent and this negatively impacted the economy with a 92 per cent decrease in GDP as compared to the previous year. Additionally, the fiscal deficit of Bhutan in 2019-2020 was Nu 3.385 bn and reached Nu 11.139 bn in the financial year 2020-2021. Despite all these issues, Bhutan became one of the most successful countries in dealing with the pandemic. According to the WHO report (2022), till 6 March 2022, the total number of Covid-19 confirmed cases in Bhutan were 13,846 with only 6 deaths and 90 per cent of the population was fully vaccinated. To mitigate the impact of the pandemic, the Bhutanese Government launched the social welfare scheme called National Resilience Fund to help sectors like tourism and agriculture. As per the Bhutanese constitution, Article 14(6) says “the government shall ensure that the cost of recurrent expenditure is met from internal resources of the country”. The government attempted to generate revenue by exploring domestic resources via bringing mining bills and commercialisation of forests. As compared to the tourism and hydropower sector which contributed to strengthening Bhutan’s economy, mining was not much explored in earlier times. However, the Mining Bill was defeated in the National Assembly and National Council. The prime reason for the failure was the conflict of interests between the private and government sector. Members of the National Assembly were in favour of nationalisation of coal and other strategic mines while putting non-strategic mines under the private sector which was a violation of the Constitution of Bhutan. On the other hand, members of the National Council were in favour of the nationalisation of all mines that was also mandated by Article 1(12) of its Constitution, according to which all-natural resources should be under state rule. The speaker highlighted the commercialisation of forests, another measure to generate revenue. However, there is high risk involved as deforestation leads to many climate issues. As Bhutan is the only carbon negative country, there is an onus on the decision-makers to balance economic development with ecological protection. Article 5(3) of Bhutan mandates the government shall ensure that “in order to conserve the country’s natural resources and to prevent degradation of the ecosystem, a minimum of 60 per cent of Bhutan’s total land shall be maintained under forest cover for all time.” The last section of the presentation focused on India-Bhutan cooperation on hydropower projects. India has been a consistent partner in providing development assistance to Bhutan. In the budget session of India for FY 2021-2022, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman announced a development assistance of 7,100 crore rupees to countries in India’s neighbourhood, in which the share of Bhutan was maximum with 3,004 crore rupees. One of the special features of India-Bhutan relations is the hydropower project, which dates back to 23 March 1974, the Chukha hydropower project. Later, agreements on the construction of two more power projects were concluded; the 60 MW Kurichhu and the 1020 MW Tala hydropower project. The 2006 agreement added another 5000 MW of electricity export from Bhutan to India. Later the 1200 MW Punatsangchu was unveiled. Hydropower export is a major component of Bhutan’s economy that contributed over 40 per cent to its national revenue and 25 per cent to its GDP. These projects have been identified as a win-win. Despite India’s economic development assistance, there is a negative perception in Bhutan about India, more during the economic shutdown. In the past several years, the performance of Bhutan’s hydropower projects has declined. The total debt (Domestic and External) in 2018-19 was Nu 184.174 including the share for hydropower debt of Nu 142.036 bn. The total debt increased in 2020-21 to Nu 234.389 with hydropower debt climbing to Nu 162.359 bn. India’s actions were blamed for the hydropower debt situation in Bhutan as India reversed the financial model from 60:40 (60 per cent grants and 40 per cent loans) to a 30:70 model (30 per cent grants and 70 per cent commercial loans). Another major reason was fixing low electricity tariffs for the energy imported from Bhutan. The Bhutanese officials complained that India is getting cheaper electricity from Bhutan as compared to domestic market rates in India. Escalation of costs in the construction of hydropower projects is a major reason for increasing debt. Further, Bhutanese officials failed to undertake rigorous environmental impact assessments. In addition, the hydropower projects also failed to generate jobs for the local population as contracts are mostly held by the Indian construction companies. Comments and QuestionsFollowing this extensive presentation, Dr. Uttam Kumar Sinha first called upon Deputy Director General, Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.) for his comments. Dr. Sinha later opened the floor to the participants. Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi threw light on bilateral cooperation in the field of economy and security. He discussed the role of the Indian Army training the Bhutanese Army and the development of roads by the Border Roads Organisation (BRO). He also talked about Operation All Clear (2003) where 40 ULFA camps were uprooted in the region by the Indian Army. Dr. Uttam K. Sinha commenting on the presentation highlighted Bhutan’s format of development and how social, cultural, and environmental costs are equally important. He also talked about the form of government in Bhutan since 2018 and its objectives regarding the demands of Bhutanese societies that are also reflected in its economic plans and its development goals. Ms. Mayuri Bannerji asked about the sectors other than tourism that were hit by the pandemic and what foreign remittances contributed to Bhutan’s economy and how it impacted Bhutan’s economy. Mr. Prashant Singh asked about the interests of international, governmental, and non-governmental donors in Bhutan and any other demands within Bhutan to open up for foreign economic cooperation other than that with India, particularly China. Dr. Opangmeren Jamir gave extensive and insightful remarks and a detailed discussion was held on all questions and comments by participants. Report prepared by Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Intern, Centre for Defence Economics and Industry, Manohar Parrikar Institute of Defence Studies and Analysis (MP-IDSA), New Delhi |
East Asia | COVID-19, Bhutan | ||||
| Virtual Talk on ‘Role of Artificial Intelligence in Cyber Security: Challenges and Opportunities’ | February 28, 2022 | Talk |
The Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA), New Delhi organised a virtual discussion at which Dr. Prabhat Kumar, IRS (retd.) spoke on the ‘Role of Artificial Intelligence in Cybersecurity: Challenges & Opportunities’, on 28th February 2022. The discussion was chaired by Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA. Executive SummaryIn the new age of technology, Artificial Intelligence has contributed to every aspect of business, industry, military, space and human life. However, with the advent of every technology, there exist challenges regarding its misuse, which has been a cause of concern for nations all over the world. The presentation by Dr. Kumar expanded on Artificial Intelligence and looked at solutions to the possible threats faced by its misuse and maximisation of its utility. Detailed ReportAmbassador Chinoy made the opening remarks and introduced and thanked Dr. Prabhat Kumar for finding time to enlighten the audience on “Role of Artificial Intelligence in Cybersecurity Challenges & Opportunities”. Ambassador Chinoy stated that technology is at an inflection point with the advancement in Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning, Big Data, Internet of Things (IoT) etc. and that along with benefiting governments and businesses, it was also being misused by actors with malicious objectives. Ambassador Chinoy emphasised the need to look at this advancement in a holistic manner, i.e., how we gather & protect our data, who gathers & how? Ambassador Chinoy then invited Dr. Prabhat Kumar to share his views on the topic “Role of Artificial Intelligence in Cybersecurity Challenges & Opportunities.” Dr. Prabhat Kumar started by thanking Ambassador Chinoy & MP-IDSA for offering the opportunity to share his views on this topic. Dr. Prabhat shared that the word AI was coined in 1956, but it had matured as a technology only more recently. In the last year alone, as many as 42 AI and Big Data-focused start-ups had been set up. He added that apart from businesses, health and education, in the field of military modernisation too, where weaponry, tanks, missiles are loaded with modern technology, AI would change the nature of modern warfare. Dr. Prabhat added that space is another area where AI is advancing. Coming to cybersecurity, Dr. Kumar noted that AI was being used in many verticals and had largely resulted in software being sold as a service (SaaS). He emphasised that cybersecurity is at the core of the Digital progress of our society. Dr. Prabhat then brought out the findings of the Spotlight Report 2022, which highlighted that there had been a 29% increase in the count of vulnerabilities associated with ransomware and a 25% increase in ransomware families. Dr. Prabhat mentioned that cyber breaches have become an everyday phenomenon, with the post-COVID Work from Home (WFH) phenomenon having accelerated cyberattacks and created an environment of security distrust. Cybercriminals can penetrate 93% of company networks, according to the study conducted by Positive Technologies. Recounting recent cyberattacks, Dr. Kumar noted that Data Wiping Malware in Ukraine had hit hundreds of computers, as per cybersecurity firm ESET. In addition, hackers backed by the Russian Government had breached the network of multiple US defence contractors and revealed sensitive information about US weapons-development communication infrastructure and the federal government. It was also mentioned that Colonial Pipeline Company faced a cyber-attack where the ransom was demanded and paid. Ransomware malware locks down the system, encrypting data to extort money. APT29, a hacker group linked to Russia’s foreign intelligence organisation (SVR), inserted malicious code into SolarWinds software sometime in March 2020, which breached the computer network of the US Treasury and the Departments of State, Defence, Justice, Commerce, and Homeland Security, besides others. Similarly, in India, as per Check Point Research, companies witnessed 1803 cyber-attacks weekly per organisation on an average in 2021. This was a 25 per cent jump over 2020. Dr. Prabhat then explained What is Hacking i.e., an act of compromising digital devices and networks through unauthorised access. Hacking refers to the misuse of devices like computers, smartphones, tablets, and networks to cause damage to or corrupt systems, gather information on users, steal data and documents, or disrupt data-related activity. The different types of cyber attacks were explained: Malware – Malicious software such as ransomware, designed to damage or control a computer system. Phishing – Fake official emails (bank, PayPal) link to the fake website, where victims log in, giving up their passwords. Man-in-the-Middle Attacks – Hackers inserted themselves between your computer and the webserver. DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) - a Network of computers overload a server with data, shutting it down. Cross-Site Scripting – Injects malicious code into a website that targets the visitor’s browser. SQL Injection Attack – Corrupts data to make a server divulge data such as credit cards numbers and usernames. Dr. Prabhat provided the major sources of cybersecurity threats:
Security cyber infrastructure and resources which could be compromised included:
AI is used in different technologies such as:
Dr. Prabhat then explained how AI is used both by hackers and defenders who use it to solve complex problems and perform high-level computations. It increases accuracy as it learns from experiences, uses machine learning to reason, recognises images, understands language and nuances, and create perspectives. Dr. Prabhat emphasised that algorithm is at the core of AI. He added that the most powerful algorithm is used in Tik Tok App as it takes care of the user requirements and makes instant recommendations. Dr. Prabhat noted that the battle between Hackers and Defenders is of algorithm, as the more complex the algorithm, the more powerful malicious software or solutions can be designed. AI is used to launch faster, stealthier and sophisticated hyper-targeted attacks on the scale. Hackers test and improve their malware to make it resistant to AI-based security tools. AI can be used to choose the timing of attack when high traffic volumes are high and more intelligent attacks that self-propagate over a system or network. Cyber actors use AI-enabled malware programs to learn the computation environment of an organisation automatically, update communication protocols and pinpoint when and where the system is least protected. Dr. Prabhat added that malware algorithms need the training to know what normal looks like on a network and that AI can sift through a large number of incidents to identify and take corrective measures instantly against any impending attack. Also, AI enables the setting up of self-configuring networks, which prowls through every computer, smartphone, other devices, etc., to detect anomalous activity from identifying malware in an email attachment, to a disgruntled employee downloading sensitive files. AI improves malware detection rates using a baseline of cyber intelligence data. AI cybersecurity systems can learn from indicators of compromise and may be able to match the characteristics of small clues even if they are scattered throughout the network. Dr. Kumar also elaborated on AI-enabled solutions, which were utilising anomaly detection, keyword matching, and monitoring statistics.
New AI applications are emerging in Intent-Based Network Security (IBNS) on AI platforms for cyber defence or immune computer systems which have the ability to self-adapt. In addition, research is required in countering complex cyber threats, malware reverse engineering and projection to enhance cyber situation awareness. He gave examples of Crowdstrike and DarkTrace software which used AI effectively to monitor cyber threats, leading to huge valuations for the parent companies. The CIA, MIS, NSA and GCHQ were among its clients. On having an effective strategy against cyber attacks Dr. Prabhat made the following points:
Dr. Prabhat ended his presentation with several pointers on safeguarding from cyber threats:
Discussion, Comments and Questions
Dr. Prabhat then came forward to answer the queries raised by the participants of the discussion. Firstly, Dr. Prabhat addressed the query of Ambassador Chinoy regarding India’s history in software and how it is placed in AI technology. Dr. Prabhat stated that India made great progress till 2006 in technology, but India somewhere got left behind in AI till 2015-16 while China took off with the rise of Alibaba, Tencent and a host of the small, medium, larger enterprises. As of now, we have again increased pace and have a great growth rate in start-ups that rely on AI & data analytics. Funds have been earmarked & Institutes have been set up in collaboration with TCS & IIS in AI & quantum computing. Regarding the military application of AI, some efforts are going on to keep it away from being used in situations where human lives may be endangered. Dr. Prabhat then answered the query of Dr. Ajey Lele regarding quantum technologies that it is still in its nascent stage, and there is no stable environment to use it in as of yet. In relation to cryptography applications & their encryption, it would be a totally new domain of technology. With regard to the query of Dr. Cherian, Dr. Prabhat replied that AI is not perfect as both false positives and false negatives are depending upon the algorithm. Regarding the cost, it would surely go up, but the gains would be more in the long term. While replying to Dr. Sanur Sharma, he stated that as of now, AI had not been deployed on a large scale in the military; however, advanced tanks, UAVs and robots have been used. Robots have been used by the US in the Afghan war, which surely saved a lot of manpower and they performed complex and dangerous tasks. India is also using AI in its missile technology to track the target after being deployed. Replying to Ms. Krutika Patil, Dr. Prabhat agreed that costs will increase, and a lot of data is required and robust infrastructure. With regard to the query of Mr. Sihag relating to the vulnerability of semi-conductors Dr. Prabhat stated that semi-conductors can be manipulated and that it is necessary to set up large manufacturing units in India to diversify the supply chain. Dr. Prabhat while mentioning the concerns of Mr. Jayant Mishra stated that through the advent of technology, power is being centralised and in the hands of a few. The event concluded with Dr. Sanur Sharma delivering the Vote of Thanks. Report prepared by Ms. Richa Tokas, Research Intern, Defence Economy &Industry, MP-IDSA. |
North America & Strategic Technologies | Cyber Security, Artificial Intelligence | ||||
| Monday Morning Webinar on “The Ukraine Crisis” | February 28, 2022 | 1000 hrs | Monday Morning Meeting |
Mr. Jason Wahlang, Research Analyst, Manohar Parrikar IDSA, will speak on “The Ukraine Crisis” at the Monday Morning Webinar which will be held on 28 February 2022 . Col. Deepak Kumar, Research Fellow, Manohar Parrikar IDSA, will moderate the Webinar. Dr. Swasti Rao, Associate Fellow, will be the rapporteur for this Webinar. |
|||||
| Talk by Rear Admiral Jacques Fayard, Joint Commander of the French Forces in the Indian Ocean (ALINDIEN) on French Strategy for the Indo-Pacific Region | February 23, 2022 | Talk |
Rear Admiral Jacques Fayard, the Joint Commander of the French Forces in the Indian Ocean (ALIDIEN) spoke on the topic “French Strategy for the Indo-Pacific Region” on 23 February 2022 at 1700h in the MP-IDSA Auditorium. The talk was chaired by Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, the Director General, MP-IDSA. The event was attended by Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd), the Deputy Director General, Scholars of MP-IDSA and delegates from France. The talk was also live-streamed on YouTube. Executive SummaryFrance’s interests in the Indo-Pacific are driven by its status as a resident power of the region with its overseas territories of Mayotte, Réunion, New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Clipperton, Wallis and Futuna and French Antarctic stretched across the Indian and the Pacific Oceans. These territories constitute the majority of France’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) which is the second largest in the World and home to 1.57 million French citizens. Apart from having its sovereign territories and population, France has enormous economic stakes in the Indo-Pacific with one-third of exports and 40% of imports from non-EU countries transiting through the region. As a result of this France has a substantial military presence of seven thousand personnel deployed permanently in the region based across its overseas territories and host nations such as UAE and Djibouti. The evolving strategic dynamics of the Indo-Pacific are shaped by the strategic competition between China and the U.S, which has resulted in the proliferation of military capabilities and is bound to affect the security balance of the region. France’s regional priorities in the Indo-Pacific include preserving Freedom of Navigation (FoN), protecting Sea Lanes of Communication (SLOC), preventing environmental degradation, combating terrorism, narcotics trafficking and piracy in the Indo-Pacific. Detailed ReportAmbassador Sujan R. Chinoy welcomed the forum by extending his warm wishes to Rear Admiral Jacques Fayard for addressing the scholars of MP-IDSA. He stated that France has shown a renewed interest in the Indo-Pacific as a resident power of the region. Its overseas territories in the region give France the World’s second largest EEZ. The Director General pointed out that France’s presence in Abu Dhabi and Djibouti gives it critical access to major chokepoints such as Strait of Hormuz and Bab-el-Mandeb. He also brought out that France is a member of the Indian Ocean Commission (IOC), Indian Ocean Rim Association (IORA), Indian Ocean Naval Symposium (IONS) and CTF-150. The Director General highlighted the fact that the Indian and the Pacific Oceans are increasingly becoming intertwined not only in terms of energy and trade flows but also in terms of a wider technological, ideological and territorial contestation that has emerged in recent times. He underscored the growing concerns regarding telecommunications, 5G, environmental degradation and safety of critical supply chains in the region. The Director General stated that from an Indian perspective, France’s presence and participation in the emerging geoeconomic and geostrategic architecture of the Indo-Pacific is regarded as a positive factor. Attributing to India’s unique geographic location in the Indo-Pacific, he stated that India has growing trade, economic and strategic interests in the region. The Director General reiterated the fact that India like other like-minded nations including France supports Freedom of Navigation (FoN) and overflights for unimpeded commerce on the high seas. Citing Hon’ble Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s participation in the One Ocean Summit organised by France and India’s support to the French Initiative for an ambitious international coalition for protecting bio-diversity on high seas beyond national jurisdiction, the Director General remarked that these developments indicate the growing strategic convergences between India and France. He stated that the cooperation between the two nations has deepened across the board. Referring to the recent visit of Hon’ble Foreign Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar’s visit to Paris where the Indo-French Roadmap on the Blue Economy and Ocean Governance was concluded, the Director General stated it is a reflection of the shared interest in climate change, health of the oceans, sustainable development, international law and infrastructure development. He brought out that as a major economic power, France has played a key role in the evolution of the EU’s Indo-Pacific strategy which has been reflected through France’s participation in the Information Fusion Centre – Indian Ocean Region (IFC-IOR) situated in Gurugram, India. He remarked that there is greater scope for collaboration between India and France in the areas of countering radicalisation, terrorism and piracy. He highlighted the prospects of emerging opportunities for Indo-French defense cooperation in the regions like the Gulf of Guinea and Francophone Africa. With these opening remarks, Ambassador Chinoy welcomed Rear Admiral Jacques Fayard to deliver his talk on “French Strategy for the Indo-Pacific Region”. Rear Admiral Jacques Fayard, began his talk by focusing on the fact that seven of the thirteen French overseas territories are situated across the Indo-Pacific and 1.57 million French citizens live in these territories. He stated that due to this fact France’s interests in the Indo-Pacific are dictated by the presence of its own sovereign territories and population in the region. He underscored that these geographic factors make France a coastal state and a resident maritime power of the Indo-Pacific. Pointing out the French Islands of Mayotte, Réunion, New Caledonia, Wallis and Futuna, French Polynesia, Clipperton Island, French Southern and Antarctic Territories, Admiral Fayard stated that the expanse of its overseas territories spanning across the region represent nine million square kilometres of the total eleven million square kilometres of French EEZ. He informed that that seven thousand French Military personnel have been permanently deployed throughout the Indo-Pacific region including the French bases in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Djibouti. Taking into account that the Indo-Pacific has become the world’s demographic and economic centre of gravity with 60% of the global population, 17 of the world’s 20 largest harbours and 75% of global maritime trade, Admiral Fayard stated that the region has acquired enormous geostrategic significance. He brought out that the vital maritime routes that connect Indonesia to Madagascar, Oman to Singapore, Japan to Australia and China to Polynesia are situated in the Indo-Pacific which makes the protection of Sea Lanes of Communication (SLOC) a vital component of the security of this region. Admiral Fayard stated that France as an Indo-Pacific nation is a direct stakeholder in the economic interconnectivity of the region. Taking into account that more than one-third of France’s exports and more than 40% of imports from non-EU countries transit through the Indo-Pacific, he stated France has enormous economic stakes in the region due to which the French Government has assumed its responsibility to contribute to the region’s maritime security. Explaining the strategic dynamics of the Indo-Pacific, Admiral Fayard said that despite financial and economic interdependence, the U.S and China are engaging in global strategic competition and its effects are now manifesting in the region. The evolution of the strategic dynamics in the Indo-Pacific induced new alignments and has spurred the need to rethink defence policy. In this context, Admiral Fayard stated that the majority of the Indo-Pacific countries have increased investments in procurement of advanced military assets to improve their coastal defence capabilities and implement long-range area denial. The proliferation of such military capabilities will significantly affect the security balance of the Indo-Pacific. Explaining the French Strategy for the Indo-Pacific Admiral Fayard cited the French President Emmanuel Macron’s Garden Island Speech of 2018, where he underlined France’s four key commitments in the Indo-Pacific Region which are:
Citing the evolving security dynamics of the Indo-Pacific, Admiral Fayard stated that France needs to cope with new risks and threats facing its interests and of its partners in the region. He informed that France intends to carry out an autonomous and sovereign action from its overseas territories for actively contributing to the multilateral efforts in the Indo-Pacific focused on:
Admiral Fayard highlighted that France’s key priorities in the Indo-Pacific are the protection of its overseas territories, citizens and EEZs. He stated that France resolves to address this priority by entering into military and security cooperation with its partners in the Indo-Pacific that will provide France with greater strategic depth to operate in the region. Underscoring the need to enhance its military capabilities in the region, Admiral Fayard emphasised the need to strengthen the three key domains which are as follows:
Admiral Fayard brought out that in order to strengthen these domains, the French overseas military forces are engaging in training exercises with regional partners for enhancement of strategic intelligence capacities and projection of naval capabilities for demonstrating France’s credibility and assurance towards its partners. Pointing to France’s binding defence agreements with UAE and Djibouti he said that they enabled France to deploy its drone capabilities to secure the SLOC and combat piracy in Bab-el-Mandeb Strait. Admiral Fayard also referred to France’s prominent role in the EU NAVFOR which has been successfully countering piracy in the sea off the coast of the Horn of Africa and protecting 25% of the global maritime traffic that transits through the region. He also cited France’s leading role in anti-narcotic operations, the protection of strategic chokepoints and increasing Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA) in the Gulf region. He categorically stated that France rejects any maritime claim that is not compliant with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). He brought out that France shares common concerns with India, the U.S., Japan and Australia regarding the emerging challenges in the Indo-Pacific region. Admiral Fayard stated that the strategic partnership that France has established with these four nations is crucial to preserve stability in the Indo-Pacific region. Answering a question posed by Ms. Ruchita Beri on the prospects of Indo-French defence cooperation in the Western Indian Ocean and Africa, Admiral Fayard stated that currently, the French and Indian Frigates are carrying out coordinated patrol in the region. Responding to a question by Col. D.P.K Pillay on France’s independent stance on security apart from the NATO and EU’s influence, he said that France as a P5 member and a nuclear power has an autonomous and independent perspective on global security issues. To Col. R.P. Singh’s question on the scope of France cooperating with Australia on maritime security issues in the Pacific, Admiral Fayard stated that France works on a regular basis and has long-standing security agreements with Australia and New Zealand for the security of the Pacific Region. Responding to the final question posed by Dr. Anand Kumar on whether France is concerned about the growing Chinese presence in the IOR, Admiral Fayard stated as a P5 member China must ensure FoN in the region for all nations to have unimpeded access to the global commons in the region. The Vote of Thanks was given by Dr. Swasti Rao, Associate Fellow, MP-IDSA. Key Takeaways –
Report Prepared by Dr. R.Vignesh, Research Analyst, Military Affairs Centre, MP-IDSA  Click here to Watch Complete Video |
Europe and Eurasia | Indo-Pacific, France | ||||
| MP-IDSA and JISS Third Annual Bilateral Dialogue | January 13, 2022 | Bilateral |
Executive SummaryThe US-China relationship is simply not just trade rivalry, but it is a discourse in itself. It is based on preserving respected status in global affairs, engaging in economic cooperation and cohesion, military partnership and adventurism. To challenge China’s growing influence in the South China Sea and beyond, the Biden administration has given a lot of importance to multi-alliance politics. From Chinese view, President Xi Jinping’s major foreign policy is to build and prepare China to challenge US national security interests in the longer run. The regional security situation in West Asia remains volatile with Syria, Yemen and Lebanon undergoing prolonged crises. However, West Asia has also registered some positive developments. The Abraham Accords have provided a strong foundation to Israel-UAE and Israel-Bahrain relations. Other significant developments include the formation of the new Quad between India, Israel, UAE and the US, Qatar-GCC reconciliation, Saudi Arabia-Iran reconciliation talks. Iran is providing UAVs to its proxies such as Houthis in Yemen, militias in Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Since the historic visit of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in July 2017, India-Israel ties have transformed with political ballast adding robustness to the strength of the relationship. While cooperation in other sectors like homeland security and agriculture is coming on apace, an important arena of future growth in India-Israel bilateral ties could be cooperation in the science and technology and innovation sphere. Detailed ReportThe third Bilateral Dialogue between MP-IDSA and the JISS was held virtually on January 13, 2022. Amb. Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General MP-IDSA, and Prof. Efraim Inbar, President JISS, led the Dialogue on both sides. The Dialogue deliberated on the three central themes: US-China Rivalry, Regional Developments in West Asia and India-Israel Bilateral Relations. Scholars from both sides frankly put forward their views on these issues and discussed the possibilities of further cooperation between the two Institutes in the future. In his opening remarks Amb. Sujan Chinoy, stated that the US-China rivalry is affecting current global geopolitics. He said that the global order is in a state of flux. Multilateralism is becoming weaker and multi-alliance is increasingly becoming stronger. This shift is threatening China as it is suspicious of anything that does not include them. Comparing China policies of Joe Biden and Donald Trump, Amb. Chinoy stated that though Biden cites China as its major rival, the modus operandi is different from that of Trump. Unlike Trump, Biden’s decision-making involves other partners, parties and people. As a result, Biden’s efforts to strengthen Trans-Atlantic, Trans-Pacific partnerships and his three-prompt policy – cooperation, extreme competition and rivalry is viewed as more insidious by China. Amb. Chinoy stated that China welcomes cooperation with US and seeks to expand its bilateral ties. China asserts that it can live with competition provided it is positive in nature. However, it is determined to oppose the US, if they regard China as its adversary. In this context, China views AUKUS in the Indo-Pacific, which adds to the existence of the Quad, skeptically. Moreover, AUKUS is a military pact, and unlike the Quad, it deals with broader cooperation themes such as critical supply chain, vaccine development, technology, capacity building, freedom of navigation etc. Speaking on the concept of decoupling with China, Amb. Chinoy stated that it is hard to decouple in this globalised world of interconnectedness. But, in the semi-conductor space, the US appears to have succeeded in slowing China’s advance in artificial intelligence, telecommunication etc., so far. Amb. Chinoy giving an example of India, stated that when India faced harsh sanctions by the international community, including the US after India’s 1974 nuclear tests, the effective result was India progressed rapidly in terms of missile development programmes. So, the denial regime also creates greater determination and clarity of thought and purpose. Amb. Chinoy further highlighted the growing misconceived yet popular rhetoric of the US’ decline and China’s ascendance. China had a spectacular rise, but as compared to the US, Beijing has a long way to go – politically, socially and economically. Lastly, speaking on India-Israel ties, Amb. Chinoy stated that the relationship is being drastically transformed today. India and Israel are the most natural of partners, and India welcomes Israel doing more in Asia, including the Indo-Pacific. Highlighting the existing cooperation, he stated that India and Israel share strong ties in the agriculture and defence sector. Health and technology can also be huge pillars in India-Israel bilateral ties. The recent formation of the second Quad involving India, Israel, US and the UAE marks another milestone in India-Israel bilateral relations. However, there is need to give a shape and balance to take this pact forward. India has excellent relations with US and UAE, so there is optimism about the new Quad. These countries have the potential to collectively tackle many common challenges emerging in the region. Session 1: The US-China RivalryThe theme of the first session was the US-China Rivalry and it was chaired by Amb. Sujan R. Chinoy. The session had three panelists, namely, Prof. Eitan Gilboa (JISS), Prof. Gabi Siboni (JISS) and Dr. Jagannath Panda (Research Fellow and Coordinator, East Asia Centre, MP-IDSA). In his presentation, Prof. Eitan Gilboa evaluated Joe Biden’s presidency during the first year of his tenure. He stated that Biden was more focused on domestic issues like price rise, economy, the pandemic, deep polarisation etc. Biden’s announcement of US withdrawal from Afghanistan created a negative impression. Besides, the US is withdrawing from world issues such as China, Russia, Climate Change, Human rights etc. For, Prof. Gilboa, Biden is attempting to restore good relations with the European Union. He intends to work much closer with the UN and other agencies. Biden prefers multilateral diplomacy as compared to unilateral diplomacy that Trump practised. Speaking on China, US and Israel, Prof. Gilboa said that there is a continuity in American foreign policy from Obama to the Biden era. Obama spoke about Asia focusing on China, India and the wider Asian continent. Obama could not do so as the US was occupied with the rise of ISIS in Iraq and Syria. On the other hand, Biden heavily criticised China on several issues, many of which China perceives as its internal matter such as the issues of Hong Kong, Taiwan and oppression against the Uyghur Muslims. The US is also concerned about the building of military bases in the artificial island in the South China Sea. China wants to become a superpower peacefully. But looking at today’s scenarios, Chinese actions do not seem peaceful rather they are aggressive. China’s Belt and Road initiative (BRI) is a clever strategy in this context. China has a large number of resources and it invests these resources in many parts of the world-building roads, bridges, ports, infrastructure etc. By acquiring Chinese loans other developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America give China some degree of control. Prof Gilboa also explained US concern about China’s progress in artificial intelligence, big data, cyber-security, 5G telecommunication etc. BRI initiative is becoming a trend in the Middle East as well. China’s economic investment and projects, particularly the construction of Haifa port in Israel has angered the US. The China-Iran 25 year strategic partnership with an estimated US$ 400 billion investment in Iran is likely to provide a lifeline for Iran’s return in the region. Israel has a major battle with Iran and this deal seems to change the equation in the region and also for the US bloc. According to Prof. Gabi Siboni, cyberspace must be understood and consumed in a more globalised way. China is very heavily involved in developing its cyberspace in terms of both offensive and defensive capabilities. China uses offensive capabilities in an aggressive way towards anyone who is a potential challenge. He said that China that is threatening US critical infrastructure and assets. Not only the US, even the EU issued few alerts to its member states on Chinese cyber activity. While the West cannot control every criminal or cybercrime that is taking place, the use of criminal proceedings against the criminal groups supported by the states like Russia and China for political purposes can be limited. He said that it is a common practice for China to be involved with many malicious groups directly or indirectly to act outside of China. Beijing has decided to replace the Western economy and technology, and it is using every means to achieve it. China is also seeking to expand its industry and company espionage. Nevertheless, America, the EU and Canada are trying their best to contain China, its industry and private companies are committed to investing a lot of money in cybersecurity and technology. He also stated that Israel also faces similar threats in the region and it is working towards enhancing its cyber potential even further. Dr. Jagannath Panda stated that US-China relations is simply not just rivalry, but it is deeper and bigger than that. It is a discourse in itself that is significantly setting international relations in the arena of political, military, economic and ideological components. Perhaps, the rivalry is at the elementary stage. There is a strategic competition between them, though not an outright confrontation. From a holistic point of view, US-China rivalry is based on preserving respected status in global affairs, engaging in influential cooperation such as economic cooperation and cohesion, military partnership and adventurism. He said that the US-China rivalry is based on trade, economic, international financing policy, technology and clash of leadership in global governance. China is making more grounds and the US is pushing for alignment and alliance politics which is widening the rift between the democratic and authoritarian principles. He said that from the US point of view, China’s rise has arrived as a threat to US dominance in global affairs. Since Trump’s presidency, the US officials, strategic community and the policy makers have continuously made China a long term strategic threat. Not the US alone, but there are growing anti-China narratives across the globe. President Biden’s similar anti-China path gives a lot of importance to multi-alliance politics. The US focus on Quad, Quad plus, AUKUS, B3W initiatives etc. is based on anti-China narratives to pose a challenge to BRI and try to create a global narrative in promoting resilient and quality infrastructure. From a Chinese perspective, President Xi Jinping’s major foreign policy is to build and prepare China to challenge US national security interests in the longer run. Xi’s gradual consolidation of political power has put the communist party in the global spotlight. A central feature of power consolidation is the transformation of the Chinese government’s decision-making process. A decade back it was a collective practice, but today, China’s decision-making process has become more authoritarian and singular which is dictated and directed by Xi Jinping. He concluded by saying that from a broader perspective, US-China rivalry is not in the interest of the region. Their rivalry is seriously undermining the multilateral institutions and global governance architectures. It is also significantly affecting peace and stability in the international arena. India would like to escape this bipolar mode of power politics. However, it does not have much choice apart from aligning with the US and other democratic countries in the world. Session 2: Regional Developments and Bilateral relationsThe second session of the dialogue focused on the important developments taking place in the region and India-Israel bilateral relations; and was chaired by Prof. Efraim Inbar. Speakers in this session were Dr. P K Pradhan (Associate Fellow and Coordinator, West Asia Centre, MP-IDSA), Dr. S Samuel C Rajiv (Associate Fellow, MP-IDSA) and Prof. Uzi Rubin (JISS). Dr. Pradhan said that the Abraham Accords have provided a strong foundation to Israel-UAE and Israel-Bahrain relations, which is reflected in the rapid improvement in the ties between these countries. According to him this has been an extraordinary step in a volatile region like West Asia. These efforts have also been welcomed by India which supports peace and stability in the region and favours cooperation among the regional countries in this regard. The agreement between India, Israel, UAE and the US known as the new Quad is another significant step. From India’s point of view this development is important since India is serious about engaging with these countries, reflected in its high-level official meeting with them held in November 2021. In his view, the new Quad countries must make serious efforts to achieving something meaningful in future. With regard to the Gulf region, he said that the unity in GCC has been restored during the Al Ula summit. However, the Iranian issue still continues to trouble them. During the GCC summit held in December 2021, they discussed Iran’s destabilising activities in the region by its proxies. They deliberated on the Iranian nuclear issue and stated that GCC countries’ relations with Iran will be determined by the nuclear talks going on in Vienna. Dr. Pradhan highlighted that revival of talks on the Iranian nuclear deal is also a crucial development and stated that the Iranian insistence on removal of sanctions and American pressure on Iran to abide by JCPOA has led to the current stalemate. The talks between Iran and Saudi Arabia with the mediation by Iraq’s Prime Minister, Mustafa Al Kadhimi, is another major development and it has the potential to change the geopolitics of the region. Though the talks are in the early stage, the reconciliatory approach shown by both the parties will help in de-escalating tension within the region in the short and long term. With regard to Yemen, Dr. Pradhan stated that with the increasing power of Houthis, the threat to international shipping lines particularly in the Red Sea and Strait of Bab El Mandab has become a cause of concern. The condition in Yemen has provided a conducive environment for the terror groups as the Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) has consolidated its position in the southern parts and the ISIS has also been trying to gain a foothold in the country. He concluded by saying that despite some constructive efforts by the countries to establish peace and stability, the situation in the region remains fragile. Dr. S. Samuel C. Rajiv in his presentation on India-Israel relations drew attention to the transformation of ties in the past few years, with political ballast adding robustness to the strength of the relationship. This has specifically been so after the historic visit of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in July 2017. In 2021, both the countries shared high level visits including that of Air Chief Marshal, RKS Bhadauria (August 2021), External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar, Defence Secretary Ajay Kumar (October 2021) and Army Chief General Mukund Naravane (November 2021). This has translated into greater synergies between the two countries. According to Dr. Rajiv, political interactions have continued and defence interactions have strengthened. During the 15th JWG on defence cooperation in October 2021 in Tel Aviv, both sides agreed to set up a Sub Working Group (SWG) on Defence Industry Cooperation. He also highlighted the significant policy decisions taken by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to increase defence indigenisation and noted that, going forward, India is aiming to reduce the volume of defence imports as well as increase its defence exports. As per SIPRI Trend Indicator Values (TIV), India imported US$ 36 billion during 2010-2020, 8 percent of which was from Israel, while the country’s defence exports in 2020 stood at over US$ 1 billion. India aims to reach a target of US$ 5 billion of defence exports in the next five years. In order to add a fillip to domestic defence production, two defence industrial corridors are being set up and exclusive budgets have been earmarked for domestic capital expenditure. Along with this, a defence indigenisation portal (Srijan Portal) has been started. Changes in the FDI policy, among others, is an important opportunity for the Israeli industry to more fully participate in fulfilling the requirements of the Indian armed forces. While cooperation in other sectors like homeland security and agriculture is coming on apace, Dr. Rajiv noted that an important arena of future growth in bilateral ties could occur from cooperation in the science and technology and innovation sphere. While Israel is acknowledged as a world leader in innovation, the Indian innovation ecosystem is also growing by leaps and bounds. During 2021 itself, over 40 Indian Start-Ups reached the unicorn status (valuation of US$ 1 billion). He concluded by saying that India and Israel can explore bilateral, trilateral (with the UAE) and quadrilateral (with the US and UAE) projects in this sphere. Prof. Uzi Rubinstated that until recently it was believed that the Missile is the decisive strategic disrupter in the region and the UAVs have been used as supportive weapons. But this understanding has changed over time with UAVs being considered at par with strategic disruptors such as missiles. He gave a broader classification of UAVs wherein, he divided it in three categories, namely reconnaissance UAVs used for intelligence gathering (Hermes 900), Combat UAVs (Reaper) and Suicide (Kamikaze) UAVs. He also elaborated on how these different kinds of UAVs were previously used in the region as secondary options in comparison to missiles by Turkey and other countries. He further said that Iran providing UAVs to its proxies in the region such as Houthis in Yemen, militias in Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, has challenged the regional security situation. In the past few months, Iran has threatened the international maritime routes through UAV strikes and has targeted Israeli ships in the Gulf multiple times. He elaborated on the challenges in combating UAVs. Firstly, due to their small size they are hard to detect by radar. Also, suicide UAVs fly close to the ground and 'pop up' only when close to the target. Secondly, they are highly stealthy due to the composite materials used in making them. Thirdly, the powering of UAVs by small piston engines imparts them a negligible heat signature. Lastly, they can be programmed to follow a roundabout trajectory and attack unexpectedly. He shared the Saudi experience of dealing with the UAV threat and said that Saudi Arabia is targeted by UAVs from Yemen. It receives 40-50 UAV strikes per month and is combating them through ground-based air defence (Patriot Missile) and F-15s launched air to air missiles. Thereafter, he shared Russian experiences in dealing with UAV threats. The two permanent Russian bases (Hmeimim Air Base and Tartus Naval Base) in Syria have regularly been targeted by the rebels through UAVs. To deal with these strikes, Russia has re-tuned its Radars. It has deployed "soft" defence belt of GPS and Glonass jammers along with EW Radio communication jammer system. It has also deployed SA 22 Panzir systems to provide "hard" defence. In his view, to deal with the danger of UAV threats, one needs to deploy a 360 degree early warning fence against very low flying targets. There is also a need to integrate soft and hard defence systems. To deal with UAV threats Israel has unveiled Sky Dew Early warning system and Scorpius advance ECM. He concluded his presentation by saying that "any future military action in the region will be a missile and UAV war". In the Closing session, Maj. Gen. Dr. Bipin Bakshi, Deputy Director General MP-IDSA, apprised the participants about the various initiatives which include a start-up challenge where local industries are being roped in, especially in the last five years, to produce flight as well as land based robotic devices capable of carrying cameras and diffuse bombs. These industries are also being provided seed funding. He emphasised that India and Israel have been natural allies and enjoy mutual friendship with the US, Bahrain and UAE. The two countries have shared concerns of terrorism and issues of regional security. He mentioned that the US is making attempts to counter China and stressing on the ‘Pivot to Asia’ policy since a long time, in the light of China posing a hybrid threat using criminal groups as a front by the government. He drew attention to the collaboration between India and Israel in this complex environment. Furthermore, he highlighted that no regional security construct could be envisioned without contemplating on the US and China strategic competition particularly in the South and West Asian region. Col. Dr. Eran Lerman summed up by pointing out three major developments. Firstly, the changes in Afghanistan and implications for the US, that shall affect the Middle East and the region surrounding India. Secondly, the idea of western Quad to complement the eastern Quad is another crucial geopolitical development. Dr. Lerman stated this will bring together India, the US, Israel and the UAE, covering the spectrum of religious identity within the scope of like-mindedness. Thirdly, he mentioned that Iran is an ultimate challenge for Israel in maintaining stability in the region. |
Eurasia & West Asia | |||||
| Monday Morning Webinar on “Economic Crisis in Sri Lanka: An Assessment” | February 14, 2022 | 1030 hrs | Monday Morning Meeting |
Dr. Gulbin Sultana, Research Analyst, Manohar Parrikar IDSA, will speak on “Economic Crisis in Sri Lanka: An Assessment” at the Monday Morning Webinar which will be held on 14 February 2022 at 10.00 AM. Dr. Anand Kumar, Associate Fellow, Manohar Parrikar IDSA, will moderate the Webinar. Dr. Zainab Akhter, Research Assistant, will be the rapporteur for this Webinar. |
South Asia | ||||
| Monday Morning Webinar on Key Takeaways from the U.S. State Department Report Limits in the Seas: China’s Maritime Claims in the South China Sea | January 24, 2022 | Monday Morning Meeting |
Event ReportCmde. Abhay K. Singh (Retd.) spoke on the topic Key Takeaways from the U.S. State Department Report “Limits in the Seas: China’s Maritime Claims in the South China Sea” at the Monday Morning Webinar held on 24 January 2022. The session was chaired by Capt. (IN) Anurag Bisen and was attended by Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA, Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi, Deputy Director General, MP-IDSA, senior scholars & research analysts of MP-IDSA. Executive SummaryThe US State Department since 1970 has been carrying out a series of studies that aims to examine coastal states’ maritime claims and boundaries to assess their consistency with the International Maritime Law. The latest report in this series that has been released in January 2022 focuses on the legality of China’s Maritime Claims in the South China Sea (SCS). Although the UNCLOS has laid down the parameters for the coastal states to demarcate their respective maritime jurisdiction, there have been differing opinions between nations on the interpretation of Straight Baselines. The previous US assessments have dismissed the Chinese maritime claims in the SCS based on invalid basepoints. The latest in the series of these assessments has focused on the inconsistencies in Chinese maritime claims over Island territories like Pratas, Paracel, Scarborough Shoal and Spratly promulgated based on Straight Based lines. Earlier reports have suggested that the geographical features along China’s coastlines do not meet the conditions for Straight Baselines as laid out by the UNCLOS and China has been inappropriately using its low-tide elevation as basepoints to stake their maritime claims in the SCS. The latest report by the US State Department interprets China’s claim over the SCS on the basis of historical rights lacking any legal basis. In the absence of an alternative customary international law for providing a legal basis for non-archipelagic states to establish straight baselines, the Chinese maritime claims stand in violation of the provisions of UNCLOS. Hence the Chinese claims gravely undermine the international rules based order as a result of which the US along with other nations have rejected the Chinese claims over the SCS as illegal. The report reflects that the American Position regarding the SCS Maritime Dispute is similar to the 2016 tribunal verdict given by the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Detailed ReportCapt. (IN) Anurag Bisen, Research Fellow, MP-IDSA commenced the session by a giving brief overview on the topic, where he stated that the limits in the sea series issued since 1970’s by the Bureau of Oceans and International Environment and Scientific Affairs (OES) of the US State Department aims to examine the maritime claims of coastal states and assess their compatibility with International Law. Capt. Bisen pointed out to the fact that although the US has accepted the UNCLOS as international customary law but it has not yet ratified it. Describing the South China Sea (SCS) as the geostrategic core of Southeast Asia and the basis of Sino-US confrontation, Capt. Bisen stated that the territorial disputes of SCS and Taiwan have become high potential theatres of conflict between US and China. With these opening remarks Capt. Bisen welcomed Cmde. Abhay K Singh to make his presentation. Cmde. Abhay K. Singh, began his presentation by stating that the UNCLOS provides the basis for coastal states to claim their territorial jurisdiction at seas by laying down the parameters for demarcation of their maritime jurisdiction. He stated that UNCLOS recognises certain states as archipelagic states which are governed by a distinct set of rules, where these states are allowed to draw straight baselines to demarcate their territorial seas. Focusing on China’s maritime claims at SCS, Cmde. Singh quoted Report no.43 titled “Straight Baselines: People’s Republic of China”. This report published on 4 September 1958 provided the US’s perspective on the PRC declaration of territorial seas where China claimed 12 nautical miles based on Straight Baselines without any geographical coordinates and prohibited foreign vessels from entering these areas. China also on this basis laid claim to islands in the region like Taiwan, Paracel, Spratly and Pratas which were not under Chinese control at that time. Cmde. Singh stated that the US assessment of the Chinese claims declared them invalid as the basepoints of these claims are without any geographical coordinates and described the language of these claims as vague and subject to interpretations. Also, these assessments pointed out that the Islands that were claimed by the PRC were not under their jurisdiction as they were either controlled by the Republic of China (ROC) or other countries. Subsequent US assessments stated that China is imposing large areas of the high seas and claiming them as internal water which contradicted the UNCLOS. Further, it states that much of China’s coastline does not meet the conditions of the Straight Baselines and China has used low-tide elevation inappropriately to use them as a basepoint. Cmde. Singh recalled that many of the Freedom of Navigation (FON) exercises carried out by the US were focused around the Hainan Province, where US objected to China’s excessive maritime claims in the region. Report no. 143 titled “China’s Maritime Claims in the SCS” released in December 2014 declares China’s Nine Dash Line as having no historic basis and hence cannot be considered as a valid national boundary. Cmde. Singh stated that the most recent report in this series which is Report no. 150 builds upon the previous Report no. 143 of 2014. This report states that since the tribunal ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in 2016, China has revised its articulation of maritime claims. China’s revised claims states that its island group includes Pratas, Paracel, Scarborough Shoal and Spratly all of which have been promulgated by the Straight Baselines. Essentially the report argues that China’s maritime claim over these maritime features is inconsistent with the International Law, as more than a hundred features are low-tide elevation and beyond the lawful territorial sea. Cmde. Singh bought out the fact that China justifies these claims on the basis that much before the existence of UNCLOS, states have been using Straight Baselines for demarcating their maritime territory. He stated one of the key issues in state practice or customary law is Opinio Juris which refers to the acceptance of the law when the state practices are universally recognised by features. Cmde. Singh stated that Article 7 of UNLCOS does provide the use of Straight Baselines wherever it is applicable. Nations like Australia, Brazil, Denmark, Netherlands, Russia, France, Spain and UK among others have clarified that their Straight Baselines are based on the rules reflected in UNCLOS and they do not recognise the baselines of other states not confirmed by the Convention. The report has shown that only baseline practices of PRC and Ecuador predate the convention. It says wherever a state claims a large maritime area consisting of Island groups this practice is extremely limited with the exception of PRC with the Paracel Islands, Ecuador with the Galápagosand and India with respect to the Lakshadweep. Summarising the key highlights of the Report, Cmde. Singh stated that PRC’s territorial claim based on historic rights claims has no legal basis. Also, he bought out that there is no customary international law that provides an alternative legal basis for non-archipelagic states to establish straight baselines around outlying island groups. Labelling PRC’s claim of territorial jurisdiction over SCS as unlawful, Cmde. Singh empahsied the fact that such claims gravely undermine the international law on maritime jurisdiction. During the panel discussion Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA remarked that the debate on International Law has been continuing for a long time which is reflected through early works on International Law like Mare Liberum and Mare Clausum. He bought out that during the Seventeenth Century even Hugo Grotius was tasked by the Dutch with a mandate of finding a legal basis to contest Spanish Claims in the maritime region around the present day Malacca Strait. However, the conception of a globally accepted legal basis for maritime jurisdiction has remained elusive even in the Twentieth Century. Ambassador Chinoy pointed out that even the globally accepted UNCLOS has certain contentious parts as a result of which certain nations including the US have not yet ratified. This has resulted in creating complexities in the UNCLOS including the interpretation of Straight Baselines. He stated the series of reports published by the US State Department since the 1970’s reveal how US’s interpretation of the maritime cartography and the blatant nature of Chinese claims have evolved over time. Also Ambassador Chinoy mentioned the differing interpretations of Rights of Passage in Laksahdweep between India and the US and encouraged scholars of MP-IDSA to undertake a study on how India’s perspective on archipelagic claims converge and differ from that of China and US. Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi, Deputy Director General, MP-IDSA bought out that SCS is a region that offers China an access to break out of the Island Chains as a result of which China is making such aggressive claims due to which the region has the potential to become a flashpoint for maritime conflict. He stated that the presentation made by Cmde. Singh has made it clear that the maritime claim line is not an exact mirror of the geometry of the coastline of a nation. During the Q&A Session, responding to the Director General’s question on US position on China’s sovereign claim in SCS, Cmde. Singh stated that the American position is closer to the 2016 tribunal verdict of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). Responding to another question posed by the Director General regarding the reason for India not considering Straight Baselines in Andaman & Nicobar Islands excepting the Western side, Cmde. Singh stated given the features on the Western coast of islands the provisions of UNCLOS allows for the application of Straight Baselines, but on the Eastern Side it would not be permissible. In response to the Deputy Director General’s question on ascertaining the low-tide line as its measurement will differ due to spring tides and neap tides, Cmde. Singh explained that it is measured on the basis of Chart Datum which is the line from the coast beyond which a large amount of low tide will not go below and there are technical formulas to calculate these Chart Datum based on hydrographical observations. Responding to a question on the discussion between China and the ASEAN nations on the code of conduct on SCS and its legality, Cmde. Singh stated that if the code of conduct is framed in a manner where the members ascribe themselves to legal compliance and mutually agree that any deviation would be subjected to prosecution, then it can be legally binding. Key Takeaways:
Report prepared by Dr. R.Vignesh, Research Analyst, Military Affairs Centre, MP-IDSA |
Military Affairs | |||||
| Monday Morning Webinar on Understanding China’s Growing Military Footprints in Central Asia | January 17, 2022 | Monday Morning Meeting |
Col. Deepak Kumar, Research Fellow and Coordinator, Europe and Eurasia Centre, MP-IDSA, spoke on the topic “Understanding China’s Growing Military Footprints in Central Asia” at the Monday Morning Webinar held on 17 January 2022. The webinar was moderated by Mr. Vishal Chandra, Research Fellow, South Asia Centre, MP-IDSA. Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA; Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.), Deputy Director General, MP-IDSA; the panellists and scholars and members of the Institute participated in the webinar. Executive SummaryChina in recent years has increased its military presence in the Central Asian region by conducting joint military exercises, arms trade and building military infrastructure. Chinese military footprint is expanding in the so-called weaker Central Asian nations. Those with a relatively stronger economy and security structures have resisted Chinese overtures in their own manner. China’s increased military presence has an impact not only on the Central Asian region but also on the neighbouring regions. Russia is observant of the steps taken by China and India too is aware of the increased military presence. Detailed ReportThe Monday Morning Webinar began with Mr. Vishal Chandra, the moderator, referring to reports about the Chinese military presence in eastern Tajikistan, close to the Wakhan Corridor in Afghanistan. The Corridor is strategically located between Tajikistan to the north, China to the east, and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK) to the south. The reports though denied by the Tajik Government, but assuming the Chinese have some military presence there, it has to be seen either as a part of the Sino-Russian collaboration or the Sino-Russian competition. Referring to the diversity of Central Asia, he observed that there is a Turkic Central Asia, a Persian Central Asia, and then there is a Russian Central Asia. Historically, it included parts of southern Russia, the Xinjiang Region (western China), and northern Afghanistan. Col. Deepak Kumar, the speaker, began his presentation by referring to China establishing its first overseas military base in Djibouti in 2017 and Chinese troops’ presence in Tajikistan. He pointed to the popular narrative of Russia being the security provider and China the economic provider in Central Asia. When it comes to Central Asia, China sees two main threats: possible spill-over of radical Islam into its restive Xinjiang Region and threat to its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) infrastructure. According to the speaker, Chinese military footprints are visible in four areas: arms assistance, military training and exercise, military bases and private security companies. While focusing on arms assistance, data was shared by the speaker from the year 1991–2018 on arms imports by the Central Asian Republics from Russia and China. Overall Russia leads in arms supplies, however, there is a gradual increase in arms imports from China in the last five years particularly by Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. In Turkmenistan, China has overtaken Russia as the second largest arms supplier after Turkey. According to data sourced from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), China has supplied more than $60 billion to Central Asia since 1991. 97 per cent of Chinese sales and assistance happened after 2014. From 2010–2014, Chinese arms to Central Asia comprised about 0.5 per cent of Central Asian arms imports, whereas from 2015–2019 China provided 18 per cent of the region’s arms. Russian arms supply in the last 10 years has been consistently about 60 per cent. Imports from China are increasing particularly in the field of technology such as drones and missiles. As far as military exercises are concerned the speaker stated that from 2014 to 2019, China held 10 bilateral exercises with Central Asia. In 2016, China and Tajikistan held an exercise in the Gorno-Badakhshan region that borders Afghanistan, in which 10,000 personnel were involved. China in the same year formed a Quadrilateral Cooperation and Coordination Mechanism (QCCM) with Tajikistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan for counter terrorism, mainly because China felt that the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) was not aligning to its agenda. China has conducted nearly same numbers of bilateral and multilateral exercises as Russia, with 60 per cent of the exercises involving the People’s Armed Police (PAP) and not the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). In 2019, for Cooperation Series Exercises, Chinese PAP interoperated with the armies of the Central Asian countries. Essentially, China wants the PAP to be its military front in Central Asia. Speaking about military bases and infrastructure, the speaker brought out that until 2016, only Russia had its military presence in Central Asia, however in October 2016, China constructed 11 border outposts and a training centre for border guards in Tajikistan. A separate border outpost in the Shamyak village in Murgab District was also constructed in 2016. Another military base financed by China will be constructed in Tajikistan as per a recent agreement for about $10 million but no Chinese personnel will be stationed in that base. There is also a Chinese electronic warfare facility in Tajikistan, which was used to monitor the Western forces in Afghanistan. Lately, Chinese Institutes have begun training courses for Central Asian officers including language classes and offer a higher stipend than Russia. The speaker further spoke about Private Security Companies and mentioned that Chinese state-owned organisations like the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps are remodelling their scope to include security services for the BRI. The future role of training Central Asian paramilitaries and officers is also under consideration. Many Chinese private security companies are present in Central Asia. The speaker elaborated on the consequences of the Chinese military presence in the region. Chinese security outreach is linked to its expanding national interest and PLA and PAP are being used for protecting Chinese interests. China, according to the speaker, will use the military for its national interest but in the short term would not be directly involved in any confrontations in Central Asia. China is trying to establish a strategic foothold in areas where Russian technology is lacking and is ready to supply the needed technologies. Chinese military education will have a significant impact on the composition of the military leadership in Central Asia. The presence of troops near Wakhan, which is situated close to Gilgit-Baltistan, has implications for India. Chinese electronic warfare facilities could be used to monitor Indian military activity in the neighbourhood. In the short-term, the Russia–China bonhomie can be expected to continue. Rather than Russia’s arms exports, China presently is slicing from the arms exports share of other countries like Ukraine, Turkey, Spain and France. In the long run, it may eat up Russian space for arms trade which could cause friction between the two. India has strong connections with Central Asia including military exercises and visits from senior military leaders to India. India has increased its outreach in the region including visits by the Indian Foreign Minister to Central Asia and hosting of Third India–Central Dialogue. The speaker concluded by stating that there is evidence of growing Chinese influence in Central Asian security and at present it is calibrated to keep Russian sensitivities in mind. In future, China might not defer to Russia and perhaps even develop its own initiatives and ignore Russia. Questions and CommentsAmbassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA stated that historically, China used to be strictly against foreign bases. Exports were generally part of the Chinese matrix. Even in the 1950s and 1960s, the Chinese did send a large number of arms and ammunition to the Afro-Asian countries. Chinese views have changed and can be predicated on their realisation of the enormous economic stakes as the world’s biggest trading power. It would like some security for its investments like the BRI. He also brought to the fore that the PAP is a part of the PLA so two features should be kept in mind. Firstly, as the PLA was demobilised in the past, many joined the PAP. Secondly, there is no distinction between the operational training, military craft, etc., and weapons allocated to the PAP and the PLA. He made the point that China in Wakhan is extremely worried about any malicious insidious outpours coming out of Afghanistan into their soft underbelly. There is also an increase in the role and importance of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) after the recent Kazakhstan protests. It is certainly back in the reckoning. He also mentioned that Chinese Policy in Xinjiang has always been predicated on the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps, which is also the group sanctioned by the United States. Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.), Deputy Director General, MP-IDSA said that the route from Tajikistan to Xinjiang is the only route from where anything can come into China. China is trying to stabilise and prevent the entry of terror organisations into Xinjiang. Chinese military’s entry into this narrow zone with a narrow purpose may not constitute a major military development. It is doubtful whether electronic warfare elements deployed in eastern Tajikistan have the capabilities to cross the Pamir Knot and track Indian military movement. He also asked if there is space for Indian private security companies to enter into this zone of the CARs. Dr. Rajorshi Roy, Associate Fellow, MP-IDSA made the point that though Chinese military expansion is visible, Russia is still the ‘go-to’ country when it comes to the SOS for regime stability. Russia is the actor the countries could rely on and CSTO is a Russian-led organisation. There exists a convergence of interests between Russia and China when it comes to the West. There is competition but also cooperation. There is a plan to strike a balance between each actor to maximise economic gains and maintain their scope for strategic autonomy. He said that the potential of trilateral India, Russia and Central Asia defence cooperation has been talked about and asked what could be the contours of this trilateral partnership? Dr.Swasti Rao, Associate Fellow, MP-IDSA said that Europe is working on gas supplies with Turkmenistan and vice-versa. She asked about the ways for these countries to diversify energy security and their link to Europe. Ms. Anandita Bhada, Research Analyst, MP-IDSA asked whether India offers any defence courses for the Central Asian defence personnel? If yes, can it help in further improving the India–Central Asia relations? Mr. Jason Wahlang, Research Analyst, MP-IDSA stated that the short-term bonhomie between Russia and China is evident. He asked the speaker to elucidate on the possible situation in the long run, particularly since China is heavily investing in its military presence in Tajikistan, which is also a CSTO member. He also said that QCCM was established in pre-Taliban Afghanistan but the current crisis in Afghanistan has led to a Taliban-led Afghanistan. He asked as to how this impacts the QCCM? Col Deepak Kumar, the speaker, gave detailed and insightful replies in response to comments and questions received from the panellists and participants. Report prepared by Mr Jason Wahlang, Research Analyst, Europe and Eurasia Centre, MP-IDSA. |
Europe and Eurasia |