You are here
Events
| Title | Date | Author | Time | Event | Body | Research Area | Topics | File attachments | Image |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prospects for India-US Cyber-Security Cooperation | March 26, 2010 | Cherian Samuel | Fellows' Seminar |
Dr. Cherian Samuel notes that cyber security is a significant domain for policy makers in India to formulate a hands-on approach, as there is clear evidence over the past decade of an increase of cyber threats worldwide. In his paper, he searches for scope for cooperation between India and the United States in the area of cyber security, continuing from the 2002 efforts of the India-US Cyber Security Forum aimed at strengthening cooperation on national security issues between the two countries. The structure of the paper encompasses the approaches to cyber security in both countries and studies the sectoral approaches to cyber security i.e., the IT security perspective, the economic perspective, the law enforcement perspective and a national security perspective. Dr. Samuel argues that understanding sectoral approaches is essential since harmonizing these perspectives to create a holistic policy on cyber security is required through the inclusion of all these sectors. In the United States, one finds that policy on cyber security is dominated by the national security perspective, which has been encouraged under President Obama as well. While there are practical problems relating to harmonizing aspects of privacy and security, the United States, unlike India, has formulated a clear policy towards cyber security as seen in its various declassified goals as well. In India, while there has been a boom of cyberspace in the past decade, the focus of policy makers has been economic rather than national security oriented, as seen in the Information Technology Act of 2000 which concentrates mainly on e-commerce. Following the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, there have been efforts to introduce amendments in this bill, which, however, continues to lack a clear focus in its goal and is often noted to be an ‘Omnibus Bill’ covering too many issues. In the context of cyber security cooperation between the India and the United States, Dr. Samuel notes that the interests of both countries can be fulfilled. For India, capacity building and research development has been cited as a clear objective through this cooperation, while the United States may feel the need to safeguard its interests given the large number of US companies engaged in outsourcing in India. An asymmetry in the technical capacities of the two countries may have been a reason for the India-US Cyber Security Forum of 2002 not being successful, along with the lack of a multilateral treaty or body like the United Nations to coordinate and oversee activities and cooperation. The working groups established under the aegis of this Forum - Legal Cooperation and Law enforcement, Research and development, Critical Information Infrastructure, Defence Cooperation and Standards and Software assurance - have been used by Dr. Samuel as a template for his analysis in searching for areas for cooperation and road-blocks on cyber security between the two countries in the future. In the area of Legal Cooperation and Law Enforcement, the lack of an international legal framework has undoubtedly impacted the avenues for Indo-US bilateral cooperation on this issue. The UN’s Internet Governing Forum (IGF) has proved to be an inadequate mechanism for generating such a framework. On issues relating to Research and Development, cooperation remains limited since US agencies like the highly secretive National Security Agency (NSA) remains disinterested in sharing technologies that remain its strategic assets. Defence Cooperation in cyberspace encompasses unique issues, which need to addressed by both countries individually before agreeing on cooperation, wherein the policy of the state towards cyber crime or cyber terrorism are to be formulated. The US military has only recently begun to conceive cyberspace as a war-fighting domain and India is still far behind on this issue. NATO, of which the United States is a member, however has presented an advanced cyberspace cooperation mechanism and may even become a “hub” of coordinating responses to global threats to cyber security. The scope for cooperation between India and the United States, according to Dr. Samuel, lies mainly in the field of Critical Information Infrastructure Protection. This forms the focus of the US interest in cyber security partnership with India and this objective resulted in the setting up of the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) and the National Skills Registry in 2005 to authenticate individuals working in the IT industry. However, to increase Indo-US cooperation in this field there are gaps that need to plugged in by India, which has been found to have the highest cyber security regulation but the lowest security adoption rates. Therefore cooperation between the United States and India in this sphere is conceivable only when they are both equal in their understanding and responses to threats in cyber space. There is a pressing urge in India to approach this issue holistically, while taking into account the interests of the various sectors with stakes in cyberspace. The inability of the Indo-US Cyber Security Forum to take off points to the need for a multilateral cooperation framework along with the presence of a legislation covering legal, technical and national security objectives to regulate India’s policies on cyber security to pave the way for bilateral and international cooperation on this issue. Points of Discussion
Report prepared by Saba Joshi, Intern, IDSA. |
North American | ||||
| India's Security Policy in the Post-Cold War Era | April 30, 2010 | S. Kalyanaraman | 1030 to 1300 hrs | Fellows' Seminar |
Chair: Dr. Thomas Mathew At the very outset of his presentation, Dr. Kalyanaraman argued that like any other nation state, the primary task of India’s security policy has been the structuring of an international environment conducive for development within and the pursuit of autonomy without. It is in this context that he identified, as the backdrop to his paper, the three phases of India’s approach to structuring such an environment:
Points of Discussion:
Report prepared by Rahul Mishra, Research Assistant at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi. |
Terrorism & Internal Security | |||
| The Obama Doctrine: Deciphering Obama’s Nuclear Policy and What it bodes for India | March 19, 2010 | A. Vinod Kumar | Fellows' Seminar |
In his paper “The Obama Doctrine: Deciphering Obama’s Nuclear Policy and What it bodes for India,” A. Vinod Kumar examined President Obama’s nuclear policies and critically assessed its implications for India. By addressing Obama’s “nuclear policy” as Obama’s “nuclear doctrine”, the paper attempted to show how America’s nuclear policies achieve a consistent doctrinal character even when successive Presidents promise paradigmatic change. In this light, the paper was divided into four main sections. First, the evolution of Obama’s thinking on nuclear weapons was elucidated. Secondly, the paper detailed how Obama’s nuclear policy was in fact a doctrine in the making. In the next section the paper critically probed where the doctrine could fall apart. And in the final section, the implications of Obama’s nuclear policy for India were examined. From the beginning the paper showed how the purported nuclear policies of Obama were a continuation of Bush’s doctrine. While analysing the genesis of Obama’s thinking about nuclear weapons, the paper showed how Obama was buffeted between forces of pragmatism in national security issues and those favouring elimination of nuclear weapons. The four statesmen – Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, William Perry and Sam Nunn – emphasized nuclear disarmament but paradoxically they also encouraged nuclear modernization. In this context, the paper argued that though Obama’s nuclear policy favours traditional non-proliferation goals he was also forced to consider aspects of Bush’s dogmatic policies as well. Article IV of the NPT was reemphasized by Obama in the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1887; but even here issues like the need for a credible nuclear deterrent; the absence of prioritization of punitive action on NPT defectors and the absence of practical steps towards complete elimination of nuclear weapons, according to the paper, has not created anything new beyond the Bush doctrine. But the need for a credible nuclear deterrent, the absence of prioritization of punitive actions on NPT defectors and the absence of practical steps towards complete elimination of nuclear weapons all meant that the Obama nuclear doctrine could not go beyond the Bush doctrine. The author also showed how the revival of traditional instruments of the non-proliferation regime, central to Obama’s vision, could not escape his predecessor’s doctrinal style. For example, on the NPT, the paper asserted that the problems of non-compliance, constraints on nuclear commerce, threats from non-state actors, nuclear test ban, FMCT, strengthening safeguards and restrictions on enrichment and reprocessing technologies are all issues that need immediate redressal for the treaty to be strengthened; and these were the issues on which Bush was not decisive. Between merely setting an agenda for the 2010 Review Conference and formulating a grand 21st century version of the NPT, the paper argued that reviving the NPT could be a long haul. Similarly, on CTBT, the paper showed that securing support within the Senate for its ratification would be a difficult task. Most importantly, it stressed that Obama’s strategies to combat nuclear security and terrorism were a copy from the Bush administration. The paper however suggested that a new framework could be derived through the UNSCR 1540 to ensure that non-state actors do not access sensitive nuclear technology. Alongside, it also suggested that “the summit could also formalize counter-proliferation instruments like PSI within the non-proliferation edifice so as to generate global templates for prevention and responses.” Therefore, even in counter-proliferation, Obama might not devalue Bush’s initiatives. Finally on Ballistic Missile Defences (BMD) and promoting nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, the paper showed that Obama’s nuclear policies were inadequately grounded. While Obama voted for major cuts in BMD programmes and was non-committal on Bush’s deployment plans, upon assuming office Obama favoured limited deployment plans to provide minimum protection to the United States and its allies. He cancelled the Kinetic Kill Vehicle programme but remains apprehensive of Iranian, North Korean, Chinese and Russian missile modernization. The paper predicts that this could “force Obama to open funding for both missile defence as well as space weapons.” The same ambiguity was reflected in promoting nuclear energy for peaceful purposes; while Obama favoured international nuclear fuel-cycle centres he also felt that over-emphasis on nuclear energy is unwarranted. To conclude, the paper asserted the continuities of doctrines regardless of the paradigmatic change promised. In the next section, the paper laid out two important issue areas where Obama’s doctrine might fail. First, it questioned whether Obama’s nuclear disarmament is at best a utopian dream. The reason for such scepticism according to the author is that (a) total elimination cannot happen at one stroke as this will not be a consensual or sequential movement among the nuclear weapon states; (b) incremental steps towards elimination, involving test-ban and fissile material cut-off, would be a long haul; and, (c) new weapon states that might emerge could reverse the reduction process. The failure to move from non-proliferation to disarmament, and ever lingering security dilemmas have created more questions about prospective nuclear disarmament ambitions of the President. Second, reducing the salience of nuclear weapons and maintaining a robust deterrent is a problem. Maintaining extended nuclear deterrence, sentiments of the armed forces on modernizing the ageing nuclear forces along with demands for RRW and Stockpile stewardship program has created disagreements over Obama’s policies. Therefore, the paper, while arguing how Obama’s doctrine could fall apart, also stressed that reductions and total elimination of nuclear weapons would also imperil CTBT and FMCT operationalisation. Finally, the paper assessed the implication of Obama’s nuclear policy for India. On a broader platform of integrating India into the non-proliferation regime, NPT, CTBT and FMCT options were discussed. On NPT, notwithstanding India’s apprehensions to join the club as a NNWS, the paper stated that Obama might not initiate sweeping reforms by opening up the NWS club. Therefore India’s call for a new non-proliferation bargain transcending the NPT centric regime might not fructify. Similarly, on CTBT, the paper stated that India cannot accept the treaty without a disarmament roadmap; the possibility of offering sophisticated weapons design data and simulation capabilities by United States to woo India was discussed with a caveat that Obama would not offer such capabilities as it would undermine his larger disarmament objectives. Finally on FMCT, the paper stated that since India has committed itself to the treaty’s early conclusion without resolving all its contentions, it might hope for a third party spoilsport if Obama couldn’t rectify the problem areas including verification and the EIF clause. Secondly, discussing the divergent perceptions on disarmament for understanding the implications of Obama’s nuclear policy on India, the paper drew attention to three factors. One, the paper stated that India disowns the NPT and believes it could only retain a non-proliferation edifice without conditioning disarmament and therefore India has reservations on the traditional NPT route of Obama to achieve total elimination; two, the paper argued that Rajiv Gandhi’s Action Plan of June 1988 could be a solution to Obama’s scepticism of not achieving disarmament in his lifetime; and finally, the paper stated that de-legitimisation of nuclear weapons could be a right step towards total elimination with a universal agreement on no-first use and reduction of the salience of nuclear weapons in security doctrines. The paper was sceptical of the Obama administration taking such paradigmatic steps in the near future to achieve total elimination. Last but not the least, the paper discussed counter-proliferation policy and its implications for India. It noted that the main stumbling block in India’s participation in Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) is the reference to IAEA comprehensive safeguards in the 2005 Protocol to the SUA Convention (Suppression of Unlawful Activities at Sea). India’s apprehension is that PSI is being targeted at non-NPT states. On missile defence the paper reiterated that with Obama’s own reservations India might have fewer worries of his policies impinging on Indian interests. Finally, however, the paper noted that Obama is likely to push for India’s participation in counter-proliferation initiatives which is in consonance with the Hyde Act but such pressures would also require India’s commitment to support US action against Iran which could prove problematic. Discussion
Report prepared by Shanmugasundaram Sasikumar, Research Assistant. |
Nuclear and Arms Control | ||||
| Energy Related Border Adjustment Measures: Will it Lead to Trade War? | March 12, 2010 | Shebonti Ray Dadwal | 1030 to 1300 hrs | Fellows' Seminar |
Ms. Shebonti Ray Dadwal, Research Fellow, presented her paper titled “Energy Related Border Trade Measures: Can it lead to trade war?” on 12 March 2010. Dr. Arvind Gupta chaired the session. Dr. Nityananda and Prof. V.G. Hegde were external discussants. Col. P.K. Gautam and Dr. Uttam Sinha were internal discussants. Shebonti Ray Dadwal highlighted the key aspects of the topic under consideration:
Discussion:
Report prepared by Avinash Godbole, Research Assistant, IDSA. |
Non-Traditional Security | |||
| War and Peace in Modern India | January 25, 2010 | 1000 to 1200 hrs | Book Discussion Forum |
Dr Srinath Ragavan |
|||||
| Afghanistan from a NATO Perspective---Current Situation and Future Prospects | January 27, 2010 | 1100 hrs to 1300 hrs | Other |
Lecture by Air Marshall Christopher N Harper, CBE MA FCMI RAF, Deputy Commander, NATO’s Allied Joint Force Command Headquarters, Brunssum, Netherlands |
|||||
| Subaltern Geopolitics of Bhutan | January 21, 2010 | 1530 to 1700 hrs | Round Table |
Dr Nitasha Kaul, University of Westminster, UK Dr Nitasha Kaul, will present her research findings on 'Subaltern Geopolitics of Bhutan'.The presentation would explore the imperial trajectory in the Himalayas, historical and geopolitical production of Bhutan as 'inbetween' India and China, politics of nation-building, balancing of tradition/modernity and an analysis of the ongoing democratization process.
|
|||||
| Environmental Security: New Challenges and Role of Military by PK Gautam | January 13, 2010 | 1500 to 1600 hrs | Book Release |
IntroductionEnvironmental Security: New Challenges and Role of Military authored by P.K. Gautam encompassing a project fellowship at the IDSA from 2005 to 2008 was released by Lt. Gen. (Retd.) V.R. Raghavan, PVSM, UYSM, AVSM, member executive council of the IDSA who also chaired the session. Officers from the Army HQ representing the Quarter Master General Branch and Territorial Army attended the function besides scholar from other think tanks, academics and IDSA members. Officers of 132 Ecological Task Force (ETF) deployed in Delhi also attended. About the BookTheoretical knowledge, long serving field experience in remote and ecologically fragile areas, a continuous study of environmental literature, effort to come to an understanding of environmental security by way of participation in various debates, and field work specific to study ecology, have helped shape this book. The book gives an overview of the Ecological Task Forces and institutions of the army. The Thar desert, Kumaon hills, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab and the Northeast have been used as case studies. The aim of this work has been to study and assess the activities being undertaken by the military in ecological conservation. In doing so, fresh insights and perspectives are formed on issues not only of environment but also how people relate their lives to nature in a rapidly urbanizing and industrialising India. In the light of the finding of this research, policy measures on some environmental issues have been suggested, which include a new role for the military and military-to-military cooperation. ProceedingsAfter a brief introduction by Director General IDSA about the author and the book, the Chairman began the session by complimenting IDSA in addressing new and emerging non-traditional security issues. Such work also placed on record the admirable work being done by the army. The chair recalled how when he was a commanding general in the 1980s in Ladakh, precipitation from snow to rain had caused havoc with local buildings, monasteries and agricultural practices. Was this change due to afforestation by the military is still an unresolved question. The present challenge in the region is water stress due to high demand for scarce potable water for the tourism industry. Overview by AuthorThe author briefly explained the methods and topic of all the nine chapters. It was a cycle of experience during military service in fragile zones followed by theoretical insights with half a dozen field trips. Bursts of inspiration or spurts of vision cannot deliver the type of ecological restoration that is being undertaken by the unique ecological task forces (ETF) of the Territorial Army. In spite of the ETF and military green cantonments, environmental degradation still continues unabated. The latest report of the Indian Space Research Organisation identifies spreading desertification as a national problem. Other problems include: degradation of Himalayas, soil degradation, loss of biodiversity and wetlands, coastal and marine pollution, desertification, wasteland perception and whether to treat it as a common property resource or for farming at cost of graziers and the landless, urbanisation as more troops are recruited from growing urban centres and need to retain traditional ecological knowledge, waste stream of solid, liquid and gases and scars left due to extraction industry. A very negative picture emerges if an environmental impact assessment of India is visualised over the next 20 years. In environmental degradation we are our own enemies. The military however is best suited at present in afforestation, and “if infantry is the queen of battle in a shooting war, the tree is the queen of battle against environmental degradation”. Future roles of ETF expanded with retiring ex-servicemen were suggested to address new tasks. The need for training on ecology, as emphasised by the Forest Commission, was highlighted including in road building in the fragile Himalayas. Policy for removing intrusive and harmful species like Congress Grass, water hyacinth, and velayti kikar and so on was emphasised. As regards role of military, author saw more involvement in disaster relief, the need to balance live training with simulation in an era of urbanisation and scientific land management of military land. With respect to military to military cooperation, the author highlighted issues such as study of permafrost, glaciers and water flows with China. Watershed protection of Indus basin with Pakistan to include water logging, salinisation and overcoming exaggerated fears of dams as weapons of war in spite of ENMOD treaty. With Bangladesh, the need of better understanding of forests with floods and drainage congestion, common inland water transport corridors, sea level rise and delta subsidence were identified. With Nepal an ETF for its army with former Maoists was suggested for watershed protection. Pollution response and dealing with abandoned derelict bottoms were of common concern with maritime neighbours. In conclusion, the author stressed from the last chapter in which three classic questions of security are to be answered. Security for whom, security for what and who provides security. The book provides all answers and also:
Areas requiring more research as given in conclusion were emphasized by the author like continuation of inner line from ecological perspective, greater understanding of pastorals, revisiting road building in Himalayas with ecological angle and being sensitive to local culture and traditions. PanelistsThree discussants were on the panel. Brig. Hemant Kumar Singh, DDG (Territorial Army) explained the future challenge of afforestation with policy to green India by 33 per cent. He argued that only ETF can ensure survival of trees in difficult terrain and this must be factored by policy planners. He recalled that the Chinese military has taken on this complex job very systematically and much can be learnt from them. Brig. (Retd.) Rahul Bhonsle, SM mentioned that the book read well and gave a unique perspective on the issues. In a way it is like a travelogue and reader friendly as it takes into account various theoretical literature which is India specific rather than based on work of western authors which is mostly focused on their environment and context. He cautioned that the primary task of military must be war-fighting and environmental protection should not be the primary job of the army. He felt that there is a need for rationalisation of the military’s role between traditional and non-traditional security by building capacity in civil organisations. Wg. Cdr. Manoj Kumar, VSM, Research Fellow, Centre for Air Power Studies, argued that the book is backed up by field work. He highlighted that a sense of a lack of history prevails and we must come to grips with the past for understanding the future. An “offensive” to tackle the complex issues of environmental degradation which is a national problem is needed. Overall the book was well received. The book will fill an important niche in this field of environmental security. Besides the defence services the book will be of use to organs of the government dealing with ecological matters, universities, institutes researching on environmental security, concerned citizens and scholars. How to Procure the BookThe book has been published by Shipra Publications www.shiprapublications.com, Head Office : LG-18-19, Pankaj Central Market, Patparganj, I.P. Extension, Delhi-110092 ( e mail , tele 91-11- - 22235152, 22236152, 9810522367) and priced at Indian Rs 495( US $ 20). |
Non-Traditional Security | ||||
| IDSA-IIC Talk on Water Security in the Neighbourhood: Co-operation or Conflict? | December 09, 2009 | 1800 to 2000 hrs | Other |
Venue: IIC Conference Hall 1
Speakers: The Chair introduced the theme stating that as the pressures of climate change, population and economic activities converge on water requirement, the issues of river water will become a geopolitical urgency. In the light of this he briefly put forward to the audience the work of the IDSA Task Force on “Water Security for India: The External Dynamics” due to be published shortly. He noted that riparian politics will emerge as an important issue in the subcontinent in the coming times and that a proper evaluation is required to understand the interconnectedness of water issue. Dr. Uttam Kumar Sinha spoke on the concept of water security, and expressed it in terms of availability, reliability and quality. He noted that water is a security concern in terms of insecurity arising from control of water. Upper-lower riparian dynamics was explained through the claims of ‘absolute sovereign territory’ versus ‘absolute integrity of the river’ respectively. Amb. Rajiv Sikri expressed concerns over China’s water diversion plans in Tibet. He pointed out that China is a water-stressed country where distribution of water is hugely uneven. Hence, China’s resource aggressiveness is not surprising. While India has no control on what China is doing in Tibet, it can raise concerns and sensitize the international community to the fact that millions of people are dependent on the water resources of Tibet. Hence, Tibet’s water resources are a resource for humanity. He also expressed the need to focus on Tibet from an ecological perspective, more so given the impact of climate change on glaciers. He stated that China will not think twice to use water as a pressure tactic against India. The Chinese claim on Arunachal Pradesh is not only because of territory but also because of huge water resources. Dr. Arvind Gupta viewed water as a critical source of tension between India and Pakistan. While the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) may have served a purpose at the time it was signed, there is a need for a fresh look at the Treaty. Dr. Gupta discussed the health of the Treaty in the context of India-Pakistan relations and brought in the issue of cross-border terrorism. If bilateral relations deteriorate, it will adversely impact the functioning of the IWT. Dr. Gupta also considered the “wild cards” that could impact the IWT. The China factor is one, considering that Indus and Sutlej originate in Tibet. China can also team up with Pakistan to put pressure on India on water issues. Another wild card could be terror attacks by militant groups, especially on dams and storage facilities. Prof. K. Warikoo noted that past experience shows that the attitude of Kashmiri people has been critical but has had a low impact on the functioning of the Indus Water Treaty. However, in future, their views may have a greater impact on the Indian government considering that coalition governments are becoming a norm both at the Centre and the States. The long-standing grievance in Jammu & Kashmir that the IWT has deprived the state of its huge hydroelectric potential is an emotional issue. The state has a hydel-power potential of l5,000 MW, yet this potential cannot be easily harnessed because of Pakistani objections and nitpicking under the ambit of the Treaty. Prepared by Dr. M. Mahtab Alam Rizvi, Research Assistant, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi. |
Non-Traditional Security | ||||
| Recent Trends in Myanmar-US Relations: Implications for Myanmar’s Political System | March 19, 2010 | Udai Bhanu Singh | Fellows' Seminar |
Dr. Udai Bhanu Singh, in his paper, pointed out that the United States has been critical of the military regime in Myanmar. The US approach towards Myanmar was essentially based on a policy of sanctions and non-engagement with Myanmar. While China, ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) and neighbouring countries engaged with Myanmar, the United States continued to practice its policy. Of late, there has been a shift in the American policy towards Myanmar, which is making an impact on Myanmar’s SPDC also. In the case of Myanmar, it is apparent that contrary to its practice in Southeast Asia the US is not following the ‘Security First Policy’. For this, pointed Dr. Singh, China could also be one of the important factors. However, whether the shift in US policy is significant is yet to be examined. The shift in the US policy towards Myanmar has been evident as the two parties have made several official visits to each others’ capitals. Still, the US is consistent on the point that sanctions will remain in place until Myanmar becomes a democracy. Another contentious issue between Myanmar and the US has been Myanmar’s nuclear programme. While some scholars doubt Myanmar’s nuclear capability and its ability to make nuclear weapons, one cannot deny the fact that Russia (and possibly North Korea too) has been cooperating with Myanmar on nuclear issues. In the changed circumstances, SPDC’s objective is to integrate with the international community and to increase the level of manoeuvrability. Drug trafficking is another issue of concern for the US in light of the fact that Myanmar is the world’s second largest drug producer. Another reason, as pointed out by Dr. Singh, is the role of the Burmese diaspora based in the US. The US- and Canada-based Burmese diapsora is playing an increasingly significant role in influencing US policy towards Myanmar. For instance, the Massachusetts-Burma Law was heavily influenced by the Burmese diaspora based in the US. What are the implications of such a change in the approach?
Points of Discussion:
Report prepared by Rahul Mishra. |
South East Asia and Oceania |
Chairperson:
With no binding water course treaty, Dr. Sinha expressed the view that states in the region will have to work out their politics before they can work out their riparian relations. And a good way to do it is to prioritise water concerns and frame sensible politics around it. 