You are here
Events
| Title | Date | Author | Time | Event | Body | Research Area | Topics | File attachments | Image |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Afghan War Warrants A Paradigmatic Shift for State-Building | October 05, 2012 | Muska Dastageer | 1030 to 1300 hrs | Fellows' Seminar |
Chair: Dr. Ashok K. Behuria Major Highlights of the Paper: The Afghan state whose security and legitimacy is warred for and which is sought rebuilt has meagre institutional remnants indicating a direction and the case is thus more or less a tabula rasa. The counterinsurgency campaign is effectively a state- (re)building endeavour as well as a military undertaking. Ms. Muska Dastageer’s paper poses two crucial questions; first, ‘which overarching state construct is NATO, United States Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-A) and Afghan National Security Force (ANSF) contributing to the building of?’ and second, ‘will the institutional remnants of corroded, yet still, extant systems of societal organisation coalesce favourably with this nascent state?’ She wants to examine whether ‘bringing security back in’ in the area of state-building-in the foundational Hobbesian sense-within conflict-beleaguered environments could mark an optimised understanding of what it takes to engineer a state that is home grown i.e. non-Westphalian. Ms. Dastageer identified two variables that fundamentally alter the state making equation. The first variable looks at state-as making of war and the second variable, the colonial tautology and Pakistan. Thus, she made an attempt to situate state-building in Afghanistan in both its temporal-spatial contingency and a regional realm. The presenter argued that organisations such as NATO and USFOR-A, their raison d’etre and conduct-underlying vision, are shaped by the theoretical discourse of the rationalist actor based, realist paradigm. The initial failures in Afghanistan –traversing the strategic-operation-tactical divides-can arguably be attributed to a slowness, an inertia, on the part of NATO to adjust to a different world. She sought to demonstrate the validity of the micro-macro nexus of an intrastate war with interstate tensions attributable to colonial legacies. She argued, state building as espoused by the Security Primacy Doctrine- an approach interlinking state-building with security setting and the security-setting corpus traversing institutional strategic-operational-tactical divides-warrants the avoidance of rigid template-following and calls for it to be commensurable with the temporal spatial contingencies. It calls for a continuously iterative modus operandi with the onus being on ANSF, the concrete security-setters in question, to assure the conferral of legitimacy to the Afghan Government. The presenter argues that the study is not merely pertinent for the Afghan case, but furthers the argument that Afghanistan figures as a laboratory for future conflicts arising along the intrastate chasms that is the legacy for post-colonial states of a past of Western hegemony. Major point of discussion and suggestions to the author:
Report prepared by Gulbin Sultana, IDSA |
South Asia | |||
| Politics and Perceptions of Indian Aid to Nepal | October 19, 2012 | Monalisa Adhikari | 1030 to 1300 hrs | Fellows' Seminar |
Chairperson: Maj Gen Ashok K Mehta (Retd) |
South Asia | |||
| Early Years of Nuclear Cooperation and Non-Proliferation: A Dialogue on Nuclear Historicities | October 10, 2012 | 1000 hrs | Conference |
Venue: Auditorium, IDSA Programme0930-1000: Registration Inaugural Session1000-1005: Opening remarks by Dr. Arvind Gupta, DG, IDSA [Watch Video] 1005-1020: Keynote address by Shri Pinak Chakravarty, Special Secretary (Public Diplomacy), Ministry of External Affairs [Watch Video] 1020-1045: Special address by Dr. Christian Ostermann, Co-Director, NPIHP [Watch Video] 1045-1100: Tea/coffee break 1100-1300: Session I — Early years of international nuclear cooperation
1300: Lunch 1400: Session II — Nehru, non-proliferation and the bomb
1530: Tea/Coffee Break 1545-1730: Panel Discussion: India’s nuclear decision making 1964-74 [Watch Video]
|
Nuclear and Arms Control | ||||
| Talk by Jaideep Saikia on "Distant Frontier: Encapsulating Recent Developments in India's North East and Its Neighbourhood" | October 01, 2012 | 1430 hrs | Other |
Venue: Room 105, IDSA |
Terrorism & Internal Security | ||||
| IDSA-BESA Bilateral Round Table | September 20, 2005 to September 21, 2005 | Bilateral |
This latest round of bilateral discussions was held in New Delhi. The first day of discussions focused upon Indian and Israeli perspectives on security, the situation in West Asia and its global impact, and on the threat of terrorism faced by the two countries. Day Two was devoted to bisecting, analysing and prognosticating about India-Israel cooperation. The BESA team was led by its director Prof. Efraim Inbar and included Dr. Avi Kober and Dr. Ze'ev Maghen. Mr. Narendra Sisodia led the IDSA team, which included: Dr. P R Kumaraswamy of Jawaharlal Nehru University; and Col. Basant Repswal and Dr. S Kalyanaraman. |
||||||
| Talk by Louise Arbour on ‘Peace and Security in a changing world’ | October 01, 2012 | 1100 hrs | Other |
Venue: Seminar Hall 1, IDSA Short BiographyMs Louise Arbour took over as President & CEO of the International Crisis Group in July 2009. From 2004 to 2008 she served as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. A Canadian national, Ms. Arbour began an academic career in 1974 at Osgoode Hall Law School of York University in Toronto. In December 1987 she was appointed to the Supreme Court of Ontario, and in 1990 to the Court of Appeal for Ontario. In 1995, as Commissioner of an inquiry into the Prison for Women in Kingston, Ontario she produced a report which accelerated the move towards modern institutions specifically designed to meet the security and programming needs of women inmates. In 1996, Ms. Arbour was appointed by the Security Council of the United Nations as Chief Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda. After three years as Prosecutor, she resigned to take up an appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada. Ms. Arbour has received 39 honorary degrees and is affiliated with many distinguished professional societies and organisations. In 2009, she became a member of the Advisory Board for the 2011 World Bank Development Report: ‘Conflict, Security and Development’; in 2010, she joined the Global Commission on Elections, Democracy and Security; and in April 2011, became a member of the Global Commission on Drug Policy. Ms. Arbour is a Companion of the Order of Canada (2007) and a Grande Officière de l'Ordre national du Quebec (2009). She is the recipient of numerous medals and awards, including the Franklin D. Roosevelt Freedom from Fear Award (2000) and the French Legion of Honour (2010). Alongside former President of Brazil Luis Inácio Lula da Silva, Ms. Arbour received the North-South Prize of the Council of Europe in March 2011. Louise Arbour was born in Montreal, Quebec and has three children. |
|||||
| Talk by Joshua T White on "Trends in Pakistani Islamist Politics: Violence, Anti-State Agitation, and Regional Stability" | September 17, 2012 | 1100 hrs | Other |
Venue: Room no 205, IDSA Speaker: Joshua T White About the SpeakerJoshua T. White recently completed his Ph.D. in International Relations from The Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington. His doctoral work, based on extensive fieldwork in Pakistan, examined the decision-making patterns of Islamist parties, and their relationships with the state and with anti-state groups. Since 2005, Joshua has visited South Asia several times a year, and has held visiting research appointments at the Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS) and the International Islamic University in Islamabad (IIUI). He has presented his findings in numerous academic and policy fora; has testified before the U.S. Congress; has been interviewed on Al Jazeera, BBC, Voice of America, and Geo News; has participated in several high-level U.S.-Pakistan Track II strategic dialogues; and has served on U.S.-sponsored election observer delegations to both Pakistan and Bangladesh. He holds a B.A., magna cum laude, from Williams College with a double major in History and Mathematics; and a Ph.D. with distinction from Johns Hopkins University. |
South Asia | ||||
| Talk on “Future Foreign Policy and Strategic Security Challenges for Germany and Europe" | August 22, 2012 | Andreas Schockenhoff | Other |
Speaker: Dr. Andreas Schockenhoff, Member of German Bundestag (German Parliament) and Deputy Chairman of the CDU/CSU- parliamentary group in the German Bundestag for Foreign Affairs, Affairs of the European Union and Defence Policy. Chair: Lt Gen (Retd.) Satish Nambiar, Distinguished Fellow, IDSA Lt Gen (Retd.) Nambiar initiated the proceedings by highlighting the importance of the European Union (EU) in being a role model for international cooperation and management of economies and borders. At a time when Germany continues to be the mainstay of the 27 member Union, he argued that India can learn many things from it especially when India wants to play a leading role in South Asia. Dr Andreas Schockenhoff opened his presentation by calling for India to play a more prominent role in global affairs. He emphasized that EU must harness India’s enormous global economic, political and strategic potential through improved trade, economic, political and technological cooperation. Elaborating on the lessons learnt after 2 centuries of division and 2 devastating wars in the 20th Century, Dr. Schockenhoff emphasized on the importance of European countries to strive for integration in European trans-national structures. Integration is a sign of strength and has the inherent potential to solve global crisis. Present day Europe represents 40% of global trade, 20% of global production and by the end of this century will represent less than 5% of the global population. Therefore, more political integration of Europe is a question of political and societal survival. Dr. Schockenhoff observed that the current Euro crisis is not just a currency but also a debt crisis of national budgets. Although there is a single market along with a common currency, there are also numerous fiscal and social policies and different forms of public spending. The challenge is to achieve economic and political integration in Europe since growth and fiscal consolidation are complimentary to each other. On the developments in Syria, Dr. Schockenhoff emphasized that the EU remains committed to the Syrian people’s struggle for freedom, democracy and dignity. There is a need for initiating an inclusive and transparent national transition political process. This can be achieved only if Assad steps down since he is responsible for most of the killings. In addition, the opposition groups should try to settle differences between they have. He called on Russia and China to end their support and protection of the current regime and felt that the UNSC must condemn and isolate Assad. The UNSC should also look at imposing sanctions under Chapter VII of the UN. On the Iran-Israel conflict, Dr. Schockenhoff argued that Germany is continuing with its defence partnership of selling submarines to Israel as part of its responsibility to protect the Jewish state. The submarines are a vital part of Israel’s defence strategy though it is not known whether they are armed with nuclear weapons. However, the prevalence of nuclear bombs on board will be vital for a second strike capability essential to the country’s survival. The submarines also act as a nuclear deterrent. Dr. Schockenhoff called upon Iran to immediately meet is international nuclear obligations. He observed that there is a need to make Iran feel the impact of stringent sanctions so that effective negotiations can take place. The red line for Israel will be Iran entering its ‘immunity zone’ when the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon. That moment could come very soon. On the question of Afghanistan, Dr. Schockenhoff emphasized that EU is committed to the completion of transition process as mentioned in the NATO Lisbon summit of 2010 and reconfirmed in the NATO summit in Chicago in 2012. The principle of ‘together in and together out’ is sacrosanct with Germany committing its troops till the end of 2014. While ISAF troops are being withdrawn, a second mandate for the withdrawal of troops will be approved. This will include separate forces for the protection of the withdrawing troops. He said that Germany is committed to the country’s long term stability and development. On the issue of the European defence, Dr. Schockenhoff argued that Europe needs its own strong and credible defence and security policy. Given the prevailing financial crisis across the Eurozone, the ability to take effective action in the realm of security policy can be guaranteed only through closer military cooperation and integration. Germany can aim to achieve military integration and pooling of resources with other European countries over projects like joint air and coastal defence, joint training, single command and control structures and information systems. However, the Bundestag (German Parliament) must have the right of recall with reference to such decisions. Dr. Schockenhoff concluded by highlighting the two pillars of ongoing European Reforms:
Points raised during discussions:
The highlight of the interaction was the general consensus amongst the scholars and the German delegation of the need for both countries to work together on a global platform to solve problems of mutual concern. Report prepared by Rajorshi Roy, Research Assistant, IDSA. |
|||||
| Implications of US Re-balancing to Asia in General and West Asia in Particular | September 05, 2012 | 1500 hrs | Round Table |
Speaker: Dr. Jon B Alterman, Brzezinski Chair in Global Security and Director, Middle East Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington DC. Chair: Brig (Retd.) Rumel Dahiya, SM, DDG, IDSA. Dr. Alterman initiated his presentation by highlighting the importance of India’s relationship with the Gulf in analyzing American policy of rebalancing towards Asia. He observed that the word ‘rebalancing’, coined by the US State Department, is not directed against China and one needs to look at the background of this new policy to understand it nuances. For a decade, the US had been engaged in fighting two and half wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and determining the capabilities and methods needed for the war against terror. Its pre-occupation with these wars led the US to lose its focus on Asia for a decade, in particular after the Asian financial crisis. This decade has been characterized by a significant growth of Asia’s trade and economic capabilities and the American rebalancing policy towards Asia is a testimony of the economic prowess of the region. Dr. Alterman emphasized that the new policy aims to play a mutually constructive role in Asia’s future and is an alternative to isolationism and a substitute for fighting wars of attrition to achieve political outcomes. There is a growing realization that the US cannot rely on military means alone to achieve its objectives. Rebalancing is not about containing China but principally looks at creating patterns of interdependence and nurturing norms of mutually beneficial interaction in Asia: there should be space for everyone to operate and nobody should be a dominant power in the region. He argued that there is a growing realization of the limited upside of Europe for the US even though for a long time it viewed international relations through the prism of a trans-Atlantic framework. This change has been further strengthened by an American President whose principal international experience was not in London or Paris but in Nairobi and Jakarta. Europe had struggled to fulfil its military obligations during the operation in Libya and there is a feeling that the upside in Asia is much more than that in Europe even though US will never abandon Europe. For the rebalancing policy to succeed in Asia, Dr. Alterman stressed on the need for US to get used to multilateralism rather than bilateralism, a very uncomfortable concept for it to deal with as witnessed in the UN General Assembly and even the UN Security Council. In the past the US has generally worked within the framework of knowing its adversaries and opponents. The challenge for America is to formulate a role and lay down its unique value proposition to the coalition in the absence of a clear threat in Asia since it has never been good at non-hierarchical relationships. For a country used to engaging state actors, the real challenge for US is to figure out how to deal with different forms of state capacities which includes non state and trans-national actors. On the question of China, Dr. Alterman emphasized that it is wrong to assume China is the principal threat in the region. Although the future of Chinese trajectory is a matter of concern yet the ultimate US goal is to make sure that it is not in an adversarial relationship with China. In recent times, there has been a lot more activity between the US Central and Pacific Naval Commands. More American ships can be expected to stay in the neighbourhood thus leading to a larger US naval presence in Bay of Bengal and the Indian Ocean Region. Key Points Raised During Discussion:a) Energy flow from the Middle East to East Asia has an integrating effect on the continent since it has imbibed a broader sense of shared security and economic interests. c) The US needs to figure out means to successfully engage China and partner India, Japan and Korea in a manner that there are no prevailing tensions in the region. The US is a ‘light handed post modern imperial power’ and the idea is not to be present everywhere. d) The Shia-Sunni conflict in the Middle East is likely to get worse before it gets better. Iran is concerned about its regional isolation and it may respond by reminding people about its ability to initiate sectarian conflict from Libya to Yemen encompassing Iraq, Lebanon, Kuwait, Bahrain and parts of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia on its part has supported the Syrian opposition and the Iran-Saudi conflict may subsequently accentuate. e) Israel is at a foundational moment in its relationship with the US. However, Israel is changing due to a change in its demography. The possibility of having a fundamentally different US-Israeli relationship is present much more now than in any time in the last 60 years. f) The US has often participated in multilateral partnerships but from a position of leadership as witnessed in Afghanistan and Iraq. The US is fundamentally committed to open commercial access to all resources as it is against locking up access to resources. g) The Iranian sense of vulnerability and humiliation at the hands of US stands in the way of getting something productive out from it. Iran sees no upside in improving its relationship with the US. However, not being able to make Iran come clean on its nuclear programme is often viewed as a failure of the US foreign policy in the Middle East. Moreover, the Arab states of the Gulf are apprehensive of including Iran in any regional security architecture. The stated US goal is to ensure that Iran will not be allowed to develop a nuclear bomb. An Iranian nuclear bomb will be a disaster for regional security of West Asia. h) Regimes in the Middle East have built their political systems on the basis of food security fuelled by exploitation of aquifers. Exhaustion of these aquifers will destroy the notion of food security and can create political insecurity. However, there is a greater possibility of materialisation of internal dissent rather than external threat. Therefore, climate change can bring about a political change but it will not be the main driver of political transformation in the region. i) The threat of terrorists using nuclear devices is minimal since it is extremely difficult and sophisticated to build and the governments that possess such devices are reluctant to give it away. j) Republicans will not articulate their views on ‘US rebalancing policy’ till the elections get over in order to cater to their three constituencies of neo-conservatives, realists and neo-isolationists. k) The future of G2 as a grouping is not very promising on account of lack of commonality of interests and methods between US and China especially due to Chinese threat of vulnerability and the notion of it being denied a rightful place in world affairs. They are more likely to cooperate within a broader multilateral cooperative framework although the challenge for US will be to tackle multilateral diplomacy. l) Turkey has offered itself as bridge between the Middle East, Europe, Central Asia and the Gulf. Its energy corridors have the potential to link Central to West Asia and onto Europe. Therefore, it is set to play a significant role in the region. Report prepared by Rajorshi Roy, Research Assistant, Eurasia-West Asia Cluster, IDSA. |
Eurasia & West Asia | ||||
| Talk by Amb. Carlos Duarte on "India-Brazil Relations" | August 31, 2012 | Other |
Chair: Amb. R Rajagopalan (Retd.) India’s interaction with Latin American and Caribbean (LAC) countries, particularly with, has enhanced over the years. In order to give a better perspective on this developing relationship and to help India augment its capacities in Brazil, Mr. Carlos Duarte, Ambassador of Brazil to India delivered a talk on “India-Brazil Relations” on August 31. Ambassador R Rajagopalan chaired the proceedings. Amb. Duarte gave the gathering an exhaustive picture of where India-Brazil ties stand today. He started off by sharing some important facts about Brazil which is the largest Latin American country and the 5th largest in the world. With a population of 190 million, it is surrounded by 10 other South American countries. Amb. Duarte pointed out that recent years have seen many positive transformations in Brazil. He singled out figures of Brazil’s solid macro-economic fundamentals in his presentation. Economic elements like consistent positive average growth rate, democratic stability, increasing rate of employment, decreasing fiscal deficit, expansion of credit, control of inflation rate targets, decreasing real interest rate, positive trade balance and important social policies, have all had a profound implication for the consolidation of the new Brazilian reality. He interspersed his presentation with charts and graphs which depicted a clear representation of these points. He admitted that Brazil still remains one of the most unequal countries in the world. However, because of the reigning in of high inflation since the 1990s, Brazil has managed to reduce the income inequality gap. Today, 50 percent of the Brazilian population falls into the middle class category and 12 percent is below the poverty line calculated as per the Brazilian standards. 35 percent of the country is covered with primary forests and 75 percent of the domestic electricity is produced by hydropower. In terms of output, Itaipu is the largest hydropower dam in the world. In terms of the nature of Brazilian economy, Agriculture contributes 5.5 percent of GDP, almost 30 percent is industrial production and services constitute 67 percent of the GDP. Brazil received FDI inflows to the tune of $ 66.7 bn in 2011, higher than other South American country. Brazil’s important trade partners for 2011 in order of precedence were EU, China, USA and MERCOSUR countries (within MERCOSUR, Argentina constituted the largest player). Upcoming big ticket events like the Football World Cup in 2014 and the Rio de Janeiro Olympics in 2016 will contribute to further elevating Brazil’s global stature and making it a magnet for foreign investments. Brazil is part of some major regional groupings like MERCOSUR (formed in 1991), UNASUR (2008), and CELAC (2010). However, according to Amb. Duarte, regional integration in South America is still an ongoing process and there is a lot which can be done to amalgamate production chains in the region. Important international groupings of which Brazil is an integral part along with India include IBSA, BRICS, BASIC, G-20, and G-4. As noted by Mr Duarte, Brazilian and Indian Heads of State usually meet frequently on the sidelines of many international events to cement bilateral ties. In 2011, they met four times indicating that they are coordinating with a greater intensity. In the brief time-span since the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two countries in 1948 till the 1990s, Brazil-India relations were relatively lacklustre, except for Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s visit to Brazil in 1968. India-Brazil relations gained momentum after Brazilian President Fernando Henrique Cardoso’s visit to India in 1996. This was followed by the establishment of India- Brazil Joint Commission in 2002. It was with President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s visit in 2004 that India-Brazil relations received a significant fillip and in 2006, India and Brazil established a “strategic partnership”. President Dilma Rousseff has continued this crucial partnership since coming to power in 2011. On the trade front, there has been an almost 10-fold increase over the last decade and is expected to reach $15 bn by 2015 (The current figure stands at $ 10 bn). The rise in trade figures, however, conceal some of the vulnerabilities in the economic relationship, when one notices the concentration on only few products, particularly crude oil imports from Brazil and diesel exports from India. Amb. Duarte believes that these products do not posses a value-added component and one of the challenges in the trade relationship is to introduce greater diversification. Brazil and India, he observed, share similar levels of development and therefore have many complementarities in the realm of agriculture, science, technology, education, energy, culture, environment, defence and social policy making. Active cooperation in these fields include a MoU with Brazil for cooperation in agriculture signed in 2008, an agreement between Brazilian Embrappa and Indian ICAR for executing joint agricultural research projects in dairy farming and food processing. There is an ongoing collaboration in the area of science, technology and innovation with the establishment of India-Brazil Science Council in 2005, along with academic cooperation by charting the Science without Borders programme. In the domain of energy, which forms an important component of India-Brazil relations, there is in place a Memorandum of Cooperation in fuel mixture technology signed in 2006 and Petroleum and Gas in 2008. As for the Defence Sector, there is an agreement dating back to 2003, a bilateral strategic dialogue from 2007 and an important programme wherein Indian-built Radars are installed in a Brazilian aircraft which also works as an early warning device. Amb. Duarte concluded his talk with the view that there is tremendous scope for further cooperation between the two countries which share similar political principles and viewpoints on international issues. Points raised during discussion
(Report prepared by Sneha Bhura, Intern at Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi.) |
South East Asia and Oceania |
