Events

A delegation of the International Committee of the Labour Party of Norway visited IDSA on September 10, 2008. The visiting delegation was headed by Mr. Olav Akselsen, Member and Speaker of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Parliament of Norway. The focus of the interactive session was India’s Foreign Policy, India’s stance on Climate Change and India’s relations with Africa.

In his brief introduction, the Chair, Mr. Sujit Dutta, Senior Fellow, IDSA described the history of IDSA and its unique role in shaping the strategic, security and foreign policy discourse in India. Mr. Akselsen on his part gave a brief history of the Labour Party and presented an overview of Norwegian foreign policy, particularly its International Development programme. He said NATO is extremely important for Norwegian security. On global issues, Mr. Akselsen highlighted that global warming is a major Norwegian concern. Norway supports the Post-Kyoto agreement and looks forward to the outcome of the Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change in May 2009. However, he also said that the richest countries must bear the maximum burden of global warming. In this regard, he suggested that an International Joint Mechanism Plan may be worked upon. On the reform of the United Nations, he mentioned that the UN and specifically the UN Security Council do not reflect the present reality and India must play a major role in the UN.

Mr. Sujit Dutta gave a presentation on Indian foreign policy. He said that after the Cold War India’s foreign relations have been diversified and its foreign policy agenda has taken on board new issues such as energy, climate change, terrorism, UN reform, etc. He described the evolution of Indian foreign policy after the Cold War and depicted it as multi-directional. On the Indian neighbourhood, he said that most of the country’s neighbours have been going through political turmoil, be it Pakistan, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka. It is a serious challenge for Indian foreign policy makers and strategic community to actualise the goal of a stable neighbourhood. On India-China relations, he said that there are unresolved issues in the bilateral relations such as the Tibetan refugees in India, unresolved border and China’s role in the Indian neighbourhood. However, China has begun to take into account the rise of India and also wishes to engage India constructively in many areas.

Dr. Arvind Gupta, the Lal Bahadur Shastri Chair at IDSA, dealt with the issue of India’s stance on Climate Change. He underscored that India aims at an inclusive growth pattern and follows the distributive model. As a developing country, India needs an annual growth of 8 to 10 per cent to pull its vast masses out of poverty. Sustained economic growth requires energy supplies at affordable prices. Therefore, India should not be equated with the industrialised nations. He also highlighted that India’s contribution to the global per capita carbon emission is the lowest and India’s energy efficiency is almost at par with rich countries like Germany. Dr. Gupta pointed out that India cannot accept legally binding emission cut quotas, but reiterated the commitment given by the Indian Prime Minister that the country’s per capita emission would never go beyond the per capita average emission of developed countries.

Ms. Ruchita Beri, Research Officer at IDSA, provided a historical background of India’s relations with Africa. She informed the delegation that India’s relations with Africa dates back to the pre-independence years and the civil disobedience movement started by Mahatma Gandhi in South Africa. Till date, African leaders like Sam Nujoma and Nelson Mandela remember and respect the Indian model of non-violence. At present, Ms. Beri, added, there is a two million-strong Indian Diaspora in the African continent and this contributes to the strong bonds between India and Africa. In recent years economic considerations have assumed high priority in India’s Africa policy. India’s relations with Africa are not exploitative, but based on mutual benefit and understanding. Energy is emerging as an important component of co-operation. India is trying its best to provide technical-economic assistance to African countries and build a mutually beneficial relationship. Developing human resources and other capacities in Africa, she concluded, is a focus of India’s foreign policy.

Q & A Session

Questions to Mr. Akselsen

• What is the Norwegian position on South Ossetia and its perspective on the rearmament of Russia?
• China is becoming an important player in international politics. What is the Norwegian take on the integration of China into the international system?
• How does Norway see developments in the Caucasus regarding the US-EU sponsored Albanian Macedonian Bulgarian Oil (AMBO) pipeline? Is there a tension between Russia and Norway on this issue?

Answers

• Norway has been concerned about the recent developments in Russia. However, it believes in engaging Russia through institutions like the EU and NATO. South Ossetia dispute should be solved according to international law.
• China is important for international development. While Norway is increasingly open towards fostering civil society tie ups, it is also working towards initiating a human rights dialogue with China.
• Norway has better technology than Russia to explore oil in the Arctic and other offshore areas.

Questions to IDSA panellists

• What is the Indian position on WTO trade negotiations and the possibility of future agreements?
• There have been a lot of talk in the Western media on the resistance of the South to the linkage of labour standards and the social clause with trade issues in the WTO. What is the Indian stand?
• India’s policy in Myanmar has been criticised for its pro-active diplomacy. What is the Indian policy?
• Would the general elections in 2009 in any way affect the broad contours of Indian foreign policy?

Answers

• The issue concerning India in WTO essentially revolves around questions regarding agricultural subsidies. India needs the world market for exports, and if agriculture is subsidised in the West, it is detrimental to the interests of developing countries. A working solution towards opening world markets must be worked upon.
• The social clause issue is important to India because of the growing concerns on child labour issues, which is linked to the livelihood of millions. India’s policy shifts are contingent upon internal constraints, which are distinct to developing countries.
• Though the government is implementing progressive policies like providing training and education, developed countries should understand that the labour realities in developing countries are a complicated mix. Issues relating to child labour are survival issues for many in India. India’s position therefore on the social clause would be driven by certain ground realities that it confronts.
• India is not in favour of isolating Myanmar and believes that it can bring about change through proactive engagement. Though Western countries have taken a stand of isolating the Myanmar regime, India is not in favour of such an approach since Myanmar is strategically important for India. India aims to engage Myanmar not only bilaterally but also through regional institutions.

Prepared by Dr. Medha Bisht, Research Assistant at IDSA, and Alok Mukhopadhyay, Associate Fellow at IDSA.

Chair: Thomas Mathew
Discussants: Prem Chand & Subimal Bhattacharjee

The central premises of the paper presenter were that governements were neglecting the current threats on the Internet not out negligance but because these threats were too diffuse and inchoate. This prevented a appropriate and timely response from the state to this threat. There was a tendency to approach these threats as law and order problem , or technology problem, whereas they are of a much higher order, and could impact on national security.

There were two parts to the equation of securing cyberspace. One was premised on the definition that “Cyberspace is composed of hundreds of thousands of interconnected computers, servers, routers, switches, and fiber optic cables that allow our critical infrastructures to work.”. Over the years, ensuring the security and integrity of the networks that connect critical infrastructure has become of paramount importance since crucial sectors such as the financial, energy, transportation and telecommunications sectors are connected through cyber networks. This applies to India as well with core areas of the Indian economy, from the financial markets to the banking sector, to telecommunications are networked, and other areas such as energy distribution and transportation are headed in that direction.

A second part of the equation, but one that has proved to be problematic when it comes to implementation, has been securing the Internet, the vast network of networks, which has now become synonymous with cyberspace. Users of the Internet, an estimated 1.5 billion of the world’s population, vary from individuals to corporations to governments, all of whom use the same pipes for the transmission of some or all of their data and communications.

The rise in the Internet population has meant that while the threats and vulnerabilities inherent to the Internet and Cyberspace might have remained more or less the same as before, the probability of disruption has grown apace with the rise in the number of users. At the same time, the nature of the Internet, with all the characteristics of a “global commons” means that no nation can unilaterally take on the responsibility of defending or policing networks owned variously by nation states, commercial companies and individuals. In fact, cyberspace is characterised by blurred boundaries; there are no clear demarcations between civilian and military, state and non-state, and foreign and domestic as in other domains. It is those same characteristics that make it an ideal medium for committing malafide activities which can have repercussions for national and international security.

Characteristics of the Internet

It is akin to a Global Commons where no nation can unilaterally take on the responsibility of defending or policing networks owned variously by nation states, commercial companies and individuals; it has blurred boundaries where there are no clear demarcations between civilian and military, state and non-state, and foreign and domestic and: the architecture of the Internetas it has evolved is that of an open all-inclusive, decentralised environment. Part of the problem is that the Internet’s organic evolution meant that security was not a consideration and trying to bring ina secure internet environment is like bolting the stable door after the horses have bolted.

Internet War

This has led to Internet War or I-War which can be described as a low-intensity war where actors unkown are exploiting “the ubiquitous low security” internet infrastructure to target users with malware that compromises their systems and networks. These attacks take advantages of the bugs and vulnerabilities in software, systems and networks and are perpetrated though the machinations of a hacker-criminal network-state nexus.

The Hacker-Criminal Network-State nexus

Criminal networks have, over the years, professionalised the business of discovering and exploiting weaknesses in software that allow them to undertake a variety of actions ranging from taking control of those computers, accessing information on those computers or rendering them unusable. Whilst hackers provide the technical expertise, existing international criminal networks have learnt how to squeeze the maximum out of these compromised computers, and have turnovers estimated in the billions of dollars. Whilst this would remain at the level of criminal activity, it has acquired dangerous proportions and impinges on national security when a state-criminal network-hacker nexus builds up. There is enough circumstantial evidence to show that some states have turned a blind eye to cyber-space centred criminal and illegal activities, perceiving certain advantages to be had from building up such a capacity. The means, motivation and objectives and approaches to I-War are examined in greater detail in two case studies.

International Responses to I-War

While I-War might seem to be blown out of proportion when compared to the actual disruption it causes at present, it provides sufficient indication that the threats of the future are vastly different from that envisioned by national security planners. The blurred boundaries and the anonymity provided by cyber-space make it difficult to pin responsibility for such attacks, which, going by current trends, will be perpetrated by individuals, networks, communities and organisations, with the state acting as facilitator, and nationalistic fervour providing the motivation.

Governments have found it hard put to grapple with the complex issues of I-War, though some are increasingly cognizant of its implications for national security. Among the possible measures that can be taken are the following: i)international treaties and agreements that clearly spell out what constitutes legal and illegal activities on the Internet should be worked out; ii)states such as Russia and China should be encouraged to ensure that international norms of behaviour are followed and iii) The CERT mechanism that provides a useful interface between government, private sector and individuals should be implemented in countries where they don’t yet exist, and there should be better co-ordination and sharing of information among existing CERTs .

Conclusion

Whilst analysts have been tom-tomming the impending arrival of cyberwar with vivid imagery of the collapse of critical infrastructure, the ongoing battle in the Internet space is much less noticeable but has equally important ramifications for national security. The means, the motivation and the actors have come together in a combination that presages ever increasing I-War. It is for those at the receiving end to take urgent remedial action which does not mean responding in kind, but by addressing the technical and legal lacunae in cyberspace that allows criminal elements to flourish, and illegal activities to go unpunished. This should be done in consultation with all stake holders including national governments, private sector companies and information infrastructure providers. While this would not end the problem completely, it would mitigate it somewhat, and might prevent other countries from going down the route of I-War.

Discussion

Among the points that came up in the discussion that followed the presentation were the following:

• Ensuring Information Security is a 21st century nightmare.
• Failure of the defences and the increasing profits from such practices has led to an increase in cyber crime.
• Network Security id dead. The need is to address Applications security…only 9% of software vulnerabilities are being addressed
• The need is to divert focus on the question as to what the next level of security should be. More research is required in the domain of information warfare weapons and the issue of leakages in the war room.
• Economic security is as important as national security.
• It is premature to link the subject of cyber threat to nationalism.
• As a country India has a fair lead in the realm of information technology.
• EMP or the electro magnetic pulse is an alternative to nuclear capability.
• The information structures both at the national and global level should be studied.
• Ten years back the American literature dominated the subject of cyber security. Gradually however other countries have also shown interest in the same.
• There is practically no international mechanism for cooperation in this area except for the World Summit of UN Secretary General.
• Individual is increasingly getting linked with national security.
• A great deal of academic work needs to be done in the field of cyber security to facilitate better understanding and comprehend the threat.
• Cyber threat would be a potent one in the twenty first century be it national security, education or health.
• India’s security domains are attacked by China on an everyday basis.
• Treaties and multinational forums should be fostered to reduce and ultimately eliminate the threat.
• In this regard the IT Act of the year 2007 had many deficiencies which require attention.

The discussion at IDSA on August 27, 2008 was part of the Institute’s ongoing research activities and was aimed at encouraging interactive dialogue among experts available on specific fields. The objective of the Round Table was to discuss the underlying and most compelling factors contributing to the resurgence of Russia and its implications. The Round Table was held against the backdrop of recent developments in Russia and its conflict with Georgia over the separatist enclaves of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Some twenty scholars including international affairs specialists participated in the half-day working session. Those who joined the discussion included, Shri Rajiv Sikri, former Secretary in the Ministry of External Affairs, Shri Nandan Unnikrishnan, Russia expert at the Observer Research Foundation, Dr. Gulshan Sachdeva, Russia expert at Jawaharlal Nehru University, Dr. Subhas Kapila, Russia Expert, Shri N.S. Sisodia, DG, IDSA, Dr. Arvind Gupta, Lal Bahadur Shastri Chair at IDSA, Dr. Thomas Mathew, DDG, IDSA, Shri Sujit Datta, Senior Fellow at IDSA, Brig. B.S. Sachar, Senior Fellow at IDSA, Prof. P. Stobdan, Senior Fellow at IDSA and others.

The discussion mainly centred around three broad themes covering a range of issues relating to internal trends in Russia, strategic issues and the cast of international players impacting Russia’s course, and finally aspects of Indo-Russian relations. Among the many points discussed the following stand out as important.

Russia’s Resurgence

Russia’s resurgence has been underway since 2004 when Vladimir Putin, through his tough domestic policy measures, put an end to several ambiguities and misgivings about Russia’s ability to stage a comeback as a power of consequence. Putin’s military successes in Chechnya provided Russia the latitude and sense of self confidence for restoring the country’s lost strength and international prestige.

Whether or not such assessments indicate full resurgence of Russia, there was no doubting the optimism expressed in the discussion about Russia’s remarkable economic comeback. The country has emerged as the world's biggest energy producer, pumping more oil than Saudi Arabia and making Europe dependent on the export of its natural gas. The growing commodity items exports have swelled the Kremlin's coffers, which now possesses the third largest reserve of foreign currency in the world. It has a Stabilization Fund worth over $160 billion dollars. There was no doubt among the participants that with the current 7 to 8 per cent growth rate, Russia could emerge as a powerful economy; with Europe's biggest market. Such being the current trend, it became clear from the discussion that Russia cannot be wished away so easily by the world.

However, there was a great deal of deliberation on how Russia remains a nation fraught with problems and uncertainty. For example, its current internal stability and economic situation conceals as much as it reveals. The economy is still largely based on export of natural resources that entails policies for diversification process in other areas. Russia has lost its capabilities, especially technical skills for handling large project management. Georgia’s ability to bring down six Russian aircraft indicated chinks in the Russian armoury.

The current surge in Russian economy is linked to a power struggle within – redistribution of wealth (centralisation and re-privatisation) - especially in the energy sector and even in military industrial complexes. Corruption is rife with little transparency in decision making system. Judicial system is weak and requires urgent reforms. It was noted that the Russian leadership is adopting autocratic tendencies, backsliding on democracy, curbing free press, encouraging nationalism and xenophobia while using energy as a powerful weapon of foreign policy.

Also on the downside, the country is facing a widening gap between rich and poor. The social sector i.e., education, health and transport systems suffer from acute underinvestment. The country is also mired in a dangerous demographic crisis – its population is declining by 800,000 people every year that could curtail future economic growth. It is difficult to imagine how merely 100 million people in the decades ahead would be able to defend a vast nation of 11 time zones. Russians are already worried about the Chinese increasingly creeping into their territory, but are not able to deal with the problem. Many felt that the potential of Indian workers immigrating to Russia could be taken up as a serious option.

Strategic Perception

The discussion reflected a view that Russia is subtly seeking strategic autonomy as against the earlier partnership strategy with the West. This could be indicative of Russians getting emboldened by the windfall from oil revenues, as such determined to reassert on the regional and global stages. However, participants who had experience of directly handling Russian affairs in the past felt that the Russian people have suffered enough national humiliation and would now stand up against the host of international scenarios being drawn up by the West. Interestingly, some experts perceptibly put forth the argument that the Cold War, in fact, has never ended. The West never dismantled the NATO and instead chose to expand beyond Eastern Europe into the traditional Russian strategic sphere i.e., Ukraine and Georgia.

Some experts expressed the view that the ideological basis for the resumption of a new Cold War did not exist, as Russia too now adheres to democratic values, free market and globalization. However, they expressed the view that as long as the US plan for further dismemberment of Russia persists, tension between Russia and the West will continue unabated. The current Georgian crisis is a fallout of Kosovo, as Moscow was preparing for a showdown for months. The objective was to draw a strategic line beyond which Moscow would not tolerate Western poaching. The Russians had a history of strong national pride and there would be an obvious tendency for Russia to counter the repudiation of its great power status. It is seeking to reinvigorate nationalism and international assertiveness to regain its lost national pride. There were, however, questions about the sustainability of Russia’s emerging geo-strategic policy orientation.

While rejecting the resumption of a Cold War theory, experts recognised that Russia faces inherent technological limitations and military wherewithal vis-à-vis the 10 times stronger USA. Russia, they felt, may have to play a more nuanced game especially in the Caucasus, Eastern Europe and Central Asia. China’s entrenched influence and the West’s ability to use its economic leverages could drive a further wedge between the former Soviet Republics and Russia. The crisis in Georgia was a case in point.

While the tensions between Russia and unrelenting neighbours have been growing for years, the US’ exuberant support for Georgia’s leadership clearly emboldened the latter to enter into full confrontation with Moscow. The US, according to some experts, was a ‘paper tiger’ and would not be able to defend Russia’s neighbours, should the confrontation develop full scale. Russia, they felt, feels seriously threatened about its security, and therefore its future actions would be security driven even if it means going for another war. Importantly, there would be a split inside Georgia and Ukraine before they finally join NATO. As Russia’s stake in the global energy market grows, Russia would be seeking a global strategic balance even if this meant a return to bipolarity. By any means, the US would be unable to force Russia out in an arms race.

The discussion also brought up the issue that China might negatively react to Russia’s reassertion. In a scenario of a wider strategic competition, experts felt that China, because of the nature of its relations with the West, will swing in favour of the US. Most participants did not take an optimistic view of the Sino-Russian strategic partnership. Suspicions between the two are greater than co-operation. The broad view that emerged finally was that Russia would threaten the West up to a point. It will withdraw once it is able to draw its red lines. A full confrontation is unlikely, but Russia would retain the right to disrupt or contain the American agenda in Russia’s strategic neighbourhood.

Implications for Indo-Russian Relations

There was a great deal of discussion on how Russia was still politically, diplomatically and militarily important for India. A country with large stockpiles of strategic bombers with a veto power in the UNSC acts as a useful counterweight against global hegemony. A view was expressed that Russia could refurbish its strategic assets, and has strong scientific and technological base that can be taken advantage of by India. A view was expressed that Russian weapons were still the best bet for India’s requirements. It was felt that India cannot afford to ignore its old and time-tested strategic partner, as the traditionally strong US-Pakistan relationship and China-Pakistan nexus still persisted. Also, India had to develop sufficient confidence in alternative source of support in the area of defence. Further, Russia’s diplomatic support to India in the context of the issue of Kashmir cannot be lost sight of.

However, another view expressed was that India needs to shed its old nostalgia and instead seek a more realistic relationship with Russia based on current realities. There has been a tendency to overestimate the importance of Russia especially among Indian academia, foreign policy circles and the defence establishment. Critics viewed diversification as a major challenge, especially when a linkage is yet to be established between engines of growth in India and Russia. Some experts felt that defence cooperation with Russia is not going to be same and it would be wise to speed up the diversification process. Similarly, on energy, nothing big is happening. An alternative assessment put forward was that Russia and India had substantially moved away from each other, as can be seen from the divergent foreign and defence policies pursued by both countries. The existing dispensation had a utility for India only for a single-window clearance. But, clearly, the lack of a transport corridor and banking system could inhibit any meaningful commerce between the two countries in the future. Russia’s recent action against Georgia had questioned the sanctity of the existing state boundaries. The unravelling situation in the Caucasus would have implications for India, especially when a position is required to be taken by India on the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This would require a carefully calibrated response.

Conclusion

While some experts expressed optimism about Russia’s future, others saw it to be less strong than it perceived itself to be. A revival of the Cold War seemed unlikely, but Russia protecting its vital security interests while acquiring strength to thwart US moves in areas where Russia had got a hold came out clearly in the discussion. Russia was likely to remain important for both the European and Chinese economies.

On its road to regaining domestic and international stature, the participants saw several challenges in Russia’s way. The most serious issues related to social indicators and demographic trends. The establishment of a democratic and plural political system, which was at a nascent stage, was also noted as a constraint.

While Russia’s potential to emerge as a major power centre and a countervailing influence to the US in global affairs was not in doubt, it would still require a positive and sustained engagement with major powers like the US, Europe, China and India to achieve the desired status. An equally important factor would be how others, while keeping pace with the changing reality, approach Russia’s resurgence as a phenomenon and gain from its endowments. The US, however, seems unprepared to reconcile to a resurgent Russia and will need to take initiatives for a deeper engagement with it to avoid a repeat of the Cold War-like confrontations.

Finally, the participants felt that there remained a serious gap in the research being done on Russia in India and urged a fresh impetus for scholarship on the emerging Indo-Russian relations in a realistic manner. A proposal for a research programme in cooperation with the government could be mooted to bridge the gap in knowledge, as well as, for preparing analytical papers needed by the Government.

Prepared by Professor P. Stobdan, Senior Fellow at IDSA and Co-ordinator of the Russia and Central Asia cluster.

Chair: V G Patankar
Discussants: Shakti Sinha & Gurmeet Kanwal