Events

Chairperson: Air Marshal Anil Chopra (Retd), AVSM, VM, VSM
Discussants: Shri Gulshan Luthra and Shri Deba R Mohanty

About Presentation:

The paper, titled “Global Politics of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter”, analyses the ongoing debate on the issue of whether or not to continue with the programme. The author has studied the various political and economic dimensions of issue at hand, and highlighted the budgetary constrain and exponentially high cost of the project. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter programme, which many find lucrative, has drawn the interest of countries like Iran and Singapore. The fact is that due to budgetary constrain and rising defence labour costs, the US defence production was pushed towards international collaboration. This deal is often quoted as “Mother” of all defence deals. However, the author calls it a “Trillion Dollar Baby” citing the fact that deal has so far exceeded $1.45 trillion. He also tries to investigate as to the influence partners have had in the programme so far. The author’s study is based on data sources on defence acquisitions, in which he aims to analyse the politics of international arms production and arms transfer propaganda.

One of the main arguments of the paper is that even though this is a joint programme and many countries especially UK are amongst its investors, the US has tried to dominate the programme. Synergies of cooperation are lacking, evident in the fact that US has not shared the source codes. The author notes that the schedule and cost overruns raise the question mark with reference to its affordability, lethality and stealth-ability in future endeavour. The author was pessimistic about the programme being a viable alternative due to massive costs involved; partner countries do not have the option of dragging their feet.

The key points of the discussion and suggestions to the author:

• It’s too early to discuss about F-35 in present scenario when only 30% of this programme has been accomplished until now. In addition, so far this aircraft has not demonstrated its ability and technological prowess as well.
• F-35 programme will replace the three US aircraft carrier fleet and will be able to perform in all three areas of Army, Navy and Air force, but it will be producing more than 2000 aircraft, so the cost involved will be offset over the period of time.
• If this aircraft is able to fulfil its goal in future, utility of the technology involved will override the considerations of politics and economics.
• The comparative analysis of sophistication of the programme could have involved other fifth generation aircraft such as Indo-Russia FGFA, Chinese J-20 and the economic and technology hurdles that these programme confront.
• If it is a niche product; if it is able to demonstrate its ability, affordability will not matter as countries like Saudi Arabia, Taiwan and South Korea could be probable customers.
• The “Cost” has to be clearly defined as to what it involves such as future up- gradation, repair and spare parts and other such areas.
• The perspective on international alliance model could have been clearly defined.
• The US has invested huge capital in its critical time; hence sharing source code is not justifiable.

Report prepared by Parveen Bharadwaj, Research Intern, IDSA.

Venue: IDSA Auditorium
Speaker: Prof GL Peiris, Hon’ble Mnister for External Affairs, Sri Lanka

On January 23, 2013, as part of its ‘Eminent Persons’ Lecture Series, IDSA organized a lecture by General Bikram Singh, PVSM, UYSM, AVSM, SM, VSM, ADC, Chief of the Army Staff, on “Challenges for the Indian Army in the 21st Century”. General Singh delivered his talk on the challenges facing the Indian Army from the perspective of its charter as defined in the Constitution of India and the role assigned to the Army as part of the strategic guidance which it receives from the Raksha Mantri. The talk took into account the existing security environment, the internal and the external dynamics, and their impact on the role of the Army. The Chief also made mention of measures which would ensure that the Army continues to be a force for national unity in the 21st century.

While providing a perspective on various countries of Asia, General Bikram Singh mentioned that China continued on its path of ‘peaceful economic rise’ and has set its sights to become a regional power by 2025 and a global power by 2050. He highlighted China’s increasing infrastructural footprints in the neighbourhood. As regards Pakistan, the General highlighted the high levels of terrorist and sectarian violence prevalent currently and said it was unlikely that any improvement would manifest in the immediate future. He mentioned that the Pakistani stance is defined in terms of the two extremities of the conflict spectrum viz. low intensity conflict and the threat held out by Pakistan of a nuclear war. He opined that the two main issues of concern at the moment in Pakistan are its unemployed youth who are potential recruits for the terrorist groups and the ‘unconstitutional’ power enjoyed by its Army. Given the trust deficit that exists between India and Pakistan, General Singh said that there was a requirement of being cautious in our dealings with that country.

General Singh thereafter made a brief mention of the good relations India shares with its other neighbours and highlighted the contribution of the Army in furthering these relationships. In the extended neighbourhood, the future of Afghanistan, according to General Singh, is a cause of concern. Post US withdrawal in 2014 and given the poor state of security mechanism there, it is likely that there may be spill over effects of any resultant adversities in India. On the US, the Chief, described it as a ‘de facto neighbour of India’, due to it being a resident power in the region for many decades. The Indo-US relations in the military domain are on the rise and it gives an opportunity for the Indian Army to gain access to high end technology while developing a certain degree of compatibility in operations with the US Army.

Speaking on the internal security dimension, General Singh opined that the situation in Jammu & Kashmir though militarily under control has the potential to flare up given the support it receives from Pakistan. In the North East, the situation is improving and lies mainly in the realm of law and order. Left Wing Extremism is the problem which is current and requires a multi-pronged approach at the governmental level. In the Chief’s view, deployment of the Army should not be part of the solution as it militates against training and preparations for the Army’s conventional role. There are agencies within the country, some of which need to build up their capabilities, to tackle this menace.

The Chief thereafter discussed the Indian Army’s interpretation of the theoretical construct of combat power. He covered the issue in terms of the conceptual, moral and physical dimensions. He also dwelt briefly on the dimensions of war and our preparations.

While speaking on the challenges facing the Indian Army, the Chief emphasised on the necessity of versatile military leadership which can brave the complexities of the full spectrum of conflict. Ability to orchestrate and win a war of manoeuvre will test the mettle of the military leaders. The challenge before the Indian Army, therefore, is to train its leadership to fight in the full spectrum of conflict, with special emphasis for its leaders to be proficient in manoeuvre warfare. Speaking on the conceptual dimension of war, the Chief highlighted that the challenge for the Army would be to define and accomplish political aims in a war which may possibly be of short duration.

Maintenance of strategic balance against possible adversaries is another challenge described by General Bikram Singh. India has unresolved borders which require to be guarded at all times while concurrently tackling proxy war and terrorism. The endeavour is to counter the ongoing sub-conventional threats while maintaining a posture of strategic balance to tackle other threats.

In the moral arena, the challenge for the Indian Army is recruitment of motivated citizens who are ready to face dangers, even situations of near certain death, in the course of their duty. Speaking further on the man-management issues, he also highlighted the need for proper comprehension of human resource issues by the leadership in view of the socio-economic changes in the country and the rising aspirations of its citizens.

General Singh spoke about the impact of media in perception management. He was quite categorical in his assertion that the use of social media by parties inimical to the country can have adverse impact on the Army. The Chief assured the audience that the Army is prepared to meet this challenge.

While speaking on the challenge in the field of physical dimension of war, General Singh made a mention of resource management including equipment. The audience was assured that adequate measures were in place to make certain that the Army remains in fine fettle.

On that positive note General Bikram Singh concluded his talk. Thereafter, he answered all the questions that were raised by the audience.

Subject : Chinese Engagement in Africa
Speaker: Prof. Ian Taylor, University of St. Andrews, Scotland
Chair: Dr. Arvind Gupta, DG, IDSA

Introducing the subject, Ms. Ruchita Beri, Senior Research Associate, IDSA said that China Africa relations have expanded rapidly during the past few years. The two-way trade between China and its African partners increased from $1 billion in 1990 to nearly $150 billion in 2011, making it the most important trend in the continent’s international relations. Ms. Beri also noted that this engagement is not confined to any particular country or a region but has spread all across Africa. At the same time, she cautioned that China’s engagement has evoked a mixed response on the African continent.

In his presentation, Prof. Ian Taylor spoke about China’s self-image that was manifested in three forms:

• China projecting itself as a country different from the West by asserting that it did not undertake any colonization,
• China and Africa as mutually complementary partners in a win-win cooperation,
• China’s engagement with Africa going back centuries, especially when Admiral Zheng Ho took voyages to East Africa.

Prof. Taylor explained the Chinese engagement in Africa in four different phases:

• 1949-1976 – export of Chinese revolutionary model and ideas,
• 1978-1989 – “Socialist Modernisation” and decline in Sino-African ties,
• 1989-2000 – Post-Tiananmen Square and renewal of relations,
• 2000-today – massive increase in Sino-African trade. 

Prof. Taylor said that in the early 1950s, PRC primarily focused on national rebuilding and therefore it had limited relations with Africa. This trend changed by mid-1950s and by the time of the Afro-Asian conference in 1955, China established its first official link to Africa. The period also witnessed PRC’s diplomatic efforts to Cairo and as a result, Egypt became the first African country to establish relations with China in 1956. To strengthen its engagement with Africa, China created a separate department for West Asian and African Affairs in 1956. China also supported anti-colonial forces in Africa, though its main focus was North Africa.

At the same time, Mao gave his ‘Theory of Intermediate Zones’ according to which Intermediate Zone-I comprised the underdeveloped post-colonial world and the second Intermediate Zone included capitalist states in developed West. Thus, Mao demonstrated the importance PRC placed on developing world, including Africa, and proved it by a number of Chinese delegation visits to Africa. Of particular importance for Africa was the 10-nation tour of Zhou Enlai in 1963-64, which had three main goals:

• Rationalise PRC’s policies in Africa,
• Promote a planned 2nd Bandung conference,
• Position China as distinct from Moscow.

Prof. Taylor mentioned that China’s entry into the UN became feasible because of increased number of newly independent countries, especially in Africa, as 1/3 of all votes in favour of China were African. However, by mid-1970s, Chinese influence in Africa became muted because:

• China was seen as rigid, extremist and interested in promotion of its interests,
• Many African leaders were keen to maintain a non-aligned position,
• PRC support of “revolutionary action” in Africa aroused deep suspicion,
• It was assessed that poor China could never compete with US or USSR.

In the second phase, China started its ‘socialist modernisation’ under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping and called for massive FDI inflows. In this phase, realising that Africa would not help China in its progress, China started distancing from African affairs. Also, Beijing did not see Africa as an area where it could combat either US or Soviet influence. As a result, China cut back on its aid to Africa from $412 million in 1981 to $230 million in 1986.

During the third phase, following the Tiananmen Square incident, China undertook re-evaluation of its foreign policy because of PRC’s strained relations with the West and more supportive reactions from Africa. Subsequently, Chinese aid to Africa increased dramatically and China reasserted the policy of non-interference in state sovereignty. Since China perceived the world as being threatened by the sole-superpower, its policy towards Africa became centred on developing a support constituency vis-à-vis the West. PRC also pledged to aid development in African and to take a prudent attitude towards commercial links with Africa. The period also saw the beginning of a growth correlation.

In the fourth phase, expansion in Sino-African trade was the fastest ever from $10.8 billion in 2001 to US$166.2 billion in 2011. In terms of percentage of Chinese investment offers by sector, oil and natural gas dominated the process followed by rail and road. This phase also saw the formation of Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) to formalise dialogue with three year action plans. However, problem with FOCAC was the limited capacity of the state to compel Chinese companies to invest in Africa and also opposition from domestic economic and political interests in China. Chinese government and businesses realized that doing business in many African countries was complicated because of corruption, lack of infrastructure and hidden costs. There were also problems in various relations like Zambia, Sudan and Ethiopia. As a result, African belief that China was the new saviour of Africa was becoming embarrassing and African countries realized that although China was a big and important country, it was just another partner. Prof. Taylor mentioned that major African exports to China were mineral fuel and crude while Chinese exports to Africa included machinery or transport equipment and manufactured intermediary goods.

Prof. Taylor commented that the current situation in China is very complicated. State-owned enterprises (SOEs) in China have clear incentives to maximise profit, even if their pursuit of profits damages China’s broader diplomatic interests. Provincial level SOEs make up 90 percent of all Chinese companies investing overseas and inter-province rivalries are constant. The interests of the ministry of commerce and ministry of foreign affairs also clash, which have serious implications for Beijing’s policy-makers, as they aim to project a positive image of China abroad. In many ways, China is pretty much a normal global actor and its businesses operate in much the same way as Western ones do. Therefore, the idea of the strategic use of economic relations by Beijing as a means of achieving power politics objectives needs to be treated with caution. Further, China is not a monolithic political structure, nor is it interested in spreading communism. The speaker suggested that since the central government in Beijing doesn’t have full control over the multitude of Chinese commercial actors abroad, the degree to which Beijing controls and directs the evolution of its international economic relations should not be overestimated.

Major Highlights of the Discussion

• China included security issues for the first time in the recently-concluded FOCAC meeting.
• China has nearly replaced the US in trade relations with Africa.
• Since the economic growth in Africa did not percolate down to common man, the possibility of emulating the Chinese model in Africa remains questionable.
• As far as trade is concerned, China attaches more importance to sub-regional and regional integration in Africa. It is because greater region is in Chinese interest for larger market. However, regional integration is not very successful in Africa.
• The demographic dividend results in increased labour force in Africa. On the other hand, Chinese markets are saturated and wages are increasing, making companies uncompetitive and looking for alternative sources. In this situation, the African labour force could help China.
• Not all African perceptions of China are rosy. There is resentment against China on streets as it was perceived that China’s entry denied livelihood opportunities to poor people.
• China’s small arms export to Africa is a problem. China’s PLA is in charge and there is less developed end-user agreement and no track of weapons.
• Contrary to India’s engagement in Africa, which was driven by Indian diaspora, common membership in NAM and Commonwealth, Chinese engagement was merchantalistic.
• Only Mauritius and South Africa have Chinese diaspora. Otherwise, Chinese diaspora is relatively new and would take time to strengthen.
• The Confucian Centres in Africa are not very impressive since their capacity and scope are very small.
• Chinese military’s role in Africa is mainly about training and peace-keeping as it is the largest member of Security Council by troops.
• China’s ability to project its soft power is limited because of difficulty in language. India has comparative advantage in this matter.
• Other issues included Chinese colonies in Africa; consequence of economic penetration; sociability of Chinese in Africa; Chinese long-term investments in Africa; Chinese dam building in Ethiopia, considered as economic and strategic by the country.

Report prepared by Mr. Babjee Pothuraju, IDSA, New Delhi.

About the Speaker

Professor Taylor is also Chair Professor at the School of International Studies, Renmin University of China, Professor Extraordinary in Political Science at the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa, and an Honorary Professor at the Institute of African Studies, Zhejiang Normal University, China. His research has focused largely on sub-Saharan Africa. He has authored seven academic books, edited another eight and has published over sixty peer-reviewed scholarly articles, numerous working papers, reports, op-eds, review articles, encyclopedia entries, and book reviews.

His recent publications include The Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) London: Routledge (2011), The International Relations of Sub-Saharan Africa New York, NY: Continuum/Bloomsbury Publishers (2010), and (with Dominik Kopinski and Andrzej Polus) (eds.) China's Rise in Africa: Perspectives on a Developing Connection London: Routledge (2012). His recent academic articles include ‘India’s Rise in Africa’, International Affairs, vol. 88, no. 4, 2012, pp. 779–798 and ‘Spinderella on Safari: British Policies Toward Africa Under New Labour’, Global Governance, vol. 18, no. 4, 2012, pp. 449-460.