Events

Dr. Temjenmeren Ao, Associate Fellow at the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, made a presentation on “The Evolving Dynamics in India-Philippines Defence and Security Relations” at the Monday Morning Meeting held on 5 February 2024. The session was moderated by Ms. Shruti Pandalai, Associate Fellow, MP-IDSA. Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA and the scholars of MP-IDSA attended the meeting.

Executive Summary

The Republic of the Philippines constitutes an important part of India’s outreach to the Southeast Asian nations since the implementation of the Look East Policy. As India and Philippines complete 75 years of diplomatic ties, new avenues for cooperation have emerged in the current era of geopolitical flux. The developmental trajectory of the two Asian states as well as legitimate maritime security concerns have contributed to the intensification of bilateral relations. The India-Philippines defence and security relationship includes diverse areas of cooperation from joint naval exercises, to capacity building initiatives, regular exchange of views through various dialogue mechanisms and trade in high-tech military hardware. The Marcos Jr. administration seeks to engage with partners such as Japan, India, and France, among others, to counter Chinese aggression in the West Philippine Sea. Therefore, there exists vast potential for further engagement especially in the domain of maritime security and defence industry cooperation.

Detailed Report

The session commenced with opening remarks by Ms. Shruti Pandalai on the recent developments in the India-Philippines defence relationship. Ms. Pandalai made reference to the sale of US $374.96 million worth BrahMos supersonic cruise missiles, expected to be delivered to Philippines by March 2024; extension of a line of credit for defence sales; and the expected posting of India’s defence attaché to Manila. As part of India’s ongoing Long Range Operational Deployment (LROD), INS Kadmatt, a domestically designed and produced anti-submarine warfare (ASW) corvette, was deployed in Manila in December 2023. The ASW corvette took part in a joint exercise with the Philippine Navy’s offshore partol vessel (OPV) BRP Ramon Alcaraz. This intensification of ties was contrasted with a deterioration in Philippines-China relations amid the looming threat of accidental escalation in the South China Sea. Ms. Pandalai noted that several experts are sceptical regarding the ability of the under-equipped Philippine Coast Guard and Navy to hold their own against the PRC’s maritime might. However, the U.S. defence treaty obligations to the Philippines bolster the Philippine defence in the South China Sea, thereby increasing the stakes for the PRC.

Dr. Ao commenced his presentation with a brief outline of the India-Philippines relationship, given the completion of 75 years of diplomatic ties between the two Asian nations. He elucidated that the two states formally established diplomatic relations on 26 November 1949. The geopolitical context of the Cold War dynamics, with a pro-US Philippines and a non-aligned India, hindered the strengthening of the relationship. India’s increased engagement with Southeast Asia post-Cold War, through the formulation of its Look East Policy, worked towards establishment of unique and diverse relationships within the region.

According to Dr. Ao, India’s concerns vis-à-vis the evolving security environment in the Indo-Pacific, as manifest in initiatives such as SAGAR and IPOI, and the Act East Policy, remain limited to maintaining a favourable balance of power in the region. The Philippines approach to the region is routed through ASEAN’s 2019 policy document “ASEAN Outlook on Indo-Pacific” (AOIP). Peace, stability, and predictability are therefore the priorities of Philippines.  The emerging convergences from the geopolitical and geo-economic flux in the region have led to recalibration of relations between external actors (such as India, USA, and China) and Southeast Asian states like the Republic of Philippines. 

Noting the upward trajectory in the India-Philippines bilateral defence relations Dr. Ao highlighted the importance of the BrahMos deal in furthering defence and security ties. Defence relations, although relatively substantive, had hitherto remained rather basic.  The roadmap for defence ties was laid at the first India-Philippines Security Dialogue in 2004, held in Manila. Subsequently, an Agreement for Defence Cooperation was signed in 2006- elevating ties to the strategic level. Establishment of a Joint Defence Cooperation Committee (JDCC) followed, with its first meeting in 2012. The contemporary security relationship between the two is driven by the common pursuit of maritime security, which has gained prominence, with increasing navy-to-navy and coastguard visits and exercises being undertaken.

Dr. Ao argued that the strain in China’s relationship with the Philippines, given the former’s aggression in the South China Sea, has worked to India’s favour. He explored the deterioration in Philippines-China ties through a comparison of the present and previous political dispensation’s handling of Chinese activity in the West Philippine Sea. The Rodrigo Duterte Government had sought a rapprochement with the PRC in the hope of attracting economic investments from the Asian giant amid tensions emanating from the 2016 Arbitral Award. President Marcos Jr., on the contrary, has been a vocal supporter of the 2016 ruling even prior to assuming office. Although there was speculation that Marcos would adopt a balanced approach, increased Chinese aggression in the West Philippine Sea has caused friction between the Philippines Government and the PRC. Dr. Ao noted that the joint statement issued at the 5th India-Philippines Joint Commission on Bilateral Cooperation (2023), is significant as India for the first time explicitly endorsed the 2016 Arbitral Award ruling in favour of Manila. India’s change of stance from a neutral position on the issue, to exhibiting a more outspoken and proactive position on the South China Sea toda, stems not only from ongoing tension with China in the LAC but is also rooted in its need to preserve peace and stability in the region.

Increasing Chinese aggression in the West Philippine Sea has also led to increased US-Philippines defence cooperation. The United States was granted access to four more military bases in the Philippines in 2023 and both sides have increased their joint military exercises.  The two states also held their second joint patrol earlier this year.  Being strategic allies, the US has repeatedly stated that any attack on Philippines, in the South China Sea would invoke the 1951 Mutual Defence Treaty and therefore obligate Washington to defend Manila militarily. Dr. Ao also made mention of Japan’s Reciprocal Access Agreement negotiations with the Government of Philippines.

Dr. Temjenmeren Ao concluded that the defence and security relationship between India and Philippines is on an upward trajectory. He argued that the BrahMos deal is significant for India’s ties with Philippines and the larger region. In his assessment, it could lead to exports of other indigenous military hardware to Manila, and possibly diversify the market to include other Southeast Asian nations.

Questions and Comments

Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General MP-IDSA, complimented Dr. Ao for his presentation on a topical issue. He remarked on the role of the Philippines as a lynchpin of America’s projected power in the Indo-Pacific. According to him, the question that arises is therefore of whether the United States can continue to project said power in the region without the support of the Philippines.  Amb. Chinoy also discussed the strain in the bilateral relationship between China and the Philippines amid encroachments by Chinese vessels in the West Philippine Sea. He stated that the US ambiguity and the inconsistent approach of the Philippines towards China warrants a discussion on whether the Philippines can launch a sustainable opposition to the PRC. The Director General further questioned whether the Marcos-Duterte discord will have ramifications that could work in China’s favour. With reference to the evolving India-Philippines relationship, Amb. Chinoy stated that cooperation between the two nations is a given in the current geopolitical context. He suggested counter-terrorism as an avenue of security cooperation given the recent spate of terror attacks in the Philippines. 

The MP-IDSA scholars posed a wide array of questions ranging from possible linkages between the Maoist movements in India and the Philippines, to the shipment of BrahMos batteries. Reference was made to prevalence of piracy and drug smuggling routes in the Malacca Strait and South China Sea. The possibility of policy change in a post-Marcos era was discussed. 

Dr. Temjenmeren Ao provided insightful answers to the questions and comments raised by the Director General and the MP-IDSA scholars. 

Report prepared by Ms. Aditi Dhaundiyal, Intern, Southeast Asia and Oceania Centre, MP-IDSA.

MP-IDSA organised an interaction with Dr. Andreas Østhagen, Senior Researcher, Arctic, Ocean and Russia programme from Fridtjof Nansen Institute (FNI), Oslo, Norway on Friday, 19 January 2024. The theme of discussion was 'Emerging Geopolitics in the Arctic'. The Director General, MP-IDSA, Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy chaired the Session.

Executive Summary

The session covered issues on the geopolitics of the Arctic, highlighting Norway's role. The Speaker explored various aspects, including resources, routes, and climate change, and discussed emerging players. Emphasis was placed on governance through the Law of the Sea and the Arctic Council, with a mention of India's role in the region.

Detailed Report

In his opening remarks, Director General, Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy welcomed Dr. Andreas Østhagen and Ms. Filippa Braarud, Second Secretary from the Royal Norwegian Embassy, New Delhi. Amb. Chinoy highlighted that India's connection with the Arctic region dates back to 1920 with the signing of the Spitsbergen Treaty.  He emphasised that India remains concerned regarding the geopolitical developments in the Arctic that have significantly impacted existing cooperation between states. He further mentioned that though the western states have terminated the existing cooperation with Russia, it is important to note that Russia accounts for more than 50 percent of the coastal extent in the region. He mentioned that despite strong western pressures India maintains strong bilateral relations with Russia. He further highlighted that India’s interest in the Arctic remains primarily scientific, unlike China that has larger economic and geostrategic objectives in the region. Ambassador Chinoy pointed out that India’s interests in the Arctic are in tandem with its partners and acknowledged Norway’s role in strengthening India’s scientific research in the Arctic. He mentioned that the Arctic offers multiple opportunities in the near future, for both India and Norway to deepen their bilateral cooperation in the region. 

Dr. Østhagen highlighted that the primary purpose of his visit is to establish connections for future collaboration and gain a deeper understanding of India's viewpoints and interests in the Arctic. He acknowledged India's growing role in the region and on the global stage as a significant power. Examining regional complexities and nuances, he pointed out that the Arctic extends beyond commonly considered factors like climate change, shipping routes, resources, and territory. He mentioned that though climate change and scientific research remain major drivers of states’ engagements in the region, there are several common myths about the Arctic that need to be noted. Dr. Østhagen  mentioned that there are no territorial issues between states in the Arctic and the only issues existing are with regard to extended maritime claims of states in the region. He pointed out that the resources estimates in the Arctic are overexaggerated and extraction of hydrocarbons and other form of minerals from the region is difficult and expensive. Similarly, he mentioned that despite Russia’s emphasis on the development of the Northern Sea Route (NSR) as a future shipping route, there will remain several navigational challenges.

In the second part of his presentation Dr. Østhagen highlighted China’s increasing role in the Arctic, and asserted that this remains a cause of concerns for all seven Arctic states. He highlighted that these concerns are further elevated by the Russia-China emerging partnership. He further stressed that Russia’s dependency on China is significantly increasing, that further adds to western countries concerns. He talked about the US-Canada maritime disputes in the region and highlighted the recent US unilateral action of claiming extended continental shelf claims in the Bering Sea and central Arctic Ocean.  Dr. Østhagen mentioned that there are no  maritime issues between the US and Russia in the Arctic. He highlighted that the maritime borders between both these states remain demarcated by the 1990 US-Soviet Agreement.

In the final part of his presentation, Dr. Østhagen gave an overview of the Arctic Council. He mentioned that though the Arctic Council is not the ‘only’ existing mechanism for Arctic governance, Norway’s core concern under its chairship is to keep the Arctic Council alive and going. He highlighted Russia’s nuclear capabilities in the North and mentioned that Russia is undertaking large scale military exercises in the region. Dr. Østhagen emphasised that with the Russia-China emerging threat perception in the Bering Sea, US is taking advanced measures to protect its interests in the region.

Amb. Sujan Chinoy acknowledged China’s emerging geo-economic and geo-strategic interest in the Arctic. He emphasised that as India’s interests in the Polar Regions increase, there is a serious need to focus on developing India’s independent infrastructure capabilities in these regions.

Dr. Uttam Kumar Sinha, Senior Fellow and Coordinator, Non- Traditional Security Centre underscored the need to look beyond Arctic politics and recognise the importance of scientific exploration. He asked a question about the future role that Norway intends to play in the Arctic Council under its chairship.

Questions and Comments

Mr. Bipandeep Sharma, Research Analyst enquired about the implications of the United States unilateral action for making extended continental claims in the Arctic. He questioned the validity of these claims and highlighted that US despite not ratifying UNCLOS has made these claims, that could have counter responses from Russia. He also asked a question regarding Norway’s parliamentary decision on opening up of the deep seabed mining in the Arctic and its implications from environmental perspectives.

Dr. Rajorshi Roy, Associate Fellow, enquired about the Arctic States response to transboundary resource management. 

Commandant M. Srivastav, Research Fellow, discussed the prospects of opening up of the  Central Passage in the Arctic. He raised questions regarding the rationale behind creating new shipping routes and its impact on climate change. Additionally, he inquired about Norway's view on China's expanding interest, particularly observed in its second Belt and Road Forum in 2019. He further asked about China’s emerging collaboration with Russia on the North Sea Route (NSR) within China's Silk Road initiative.

Dr. Swasti Rao, Associate Fellow, inquired about Norway's approach to addressing tensions in the Arctic while holding the Arctic Chair. She sought insights into Norway's perception, highlighting the need to sustain cooperation with Russia for the Council's success, alongside considerations of the region's securitisation.

Dr. Jason Wahlang, Research Analyst, raised inquiries regarding the geopolitical complexities affecting countries like Kazakhstan, especially in their attempts to diversify trade routes.

Ms. Filippa Braarud, Second Secretary, Royal Norwegian Embassy, New Delhi, stressed the importance of maintaining Arctic stability. She highlighted the extensive scientific cooperation with India, particularly focusing on the research operations in the Arctic. Ms. Braarud also mentioned the common challenges with regard to the coastal management of Norway and India. Lastly, she emphasised the significance of policy formulation through scientific cooperation in the region.

Dr. Østhagen responded to the comments and questions and stated that the Arctic Council will endure amid tensions. He highlighted Russia's shift toward China due to diversification of Arctic interests. He highlighted that Norway is adopting a pragmatic approach in balancing relations with Russia and NATO. He mentioned that the recent US claim on the extended continental shelf raises concerns. He further elaborated that the collective Western presence driven by the US and UK, is expected to increase military activity in the Arctic in response to Russia's remilitarisation. He concluded by stating that the Arctic experiences short-term tensions but holds long-term strategic investment potential.

The report has been prepared by Ms. Simran Rathore, Research Intern, Non-Traditional Security Centre, MP-IDSA, New Delhi.

The Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA) organised an interaction with the delegation from the Polish Centre for Eastern Studies (OSW) on 16 January 2024. Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA, chaired the session.

Executive Summary

International developments in the last couple of years, mainly the Russia-Ukraine war and the recent Israel-Hamas conflict have raised concerns over global peace and security. These issues have highlighted the inability of international organisations to cooperate on matters of growing relevance in the post-pandemic era. Two factors which are crucial to understanding these developments are – the relationship between the former superpowers and China’s growing influence. The interaction between the delegation from OSW and scholars from MP-IDSA facilitated a fruitful exchange of Indian and Polish views on such matters of importance, providing valuable insights for both parties.

Detailed Report

In the opening remarks, the Chair, Amb. Sujan Chinoy began by briefly addressing India’s perspective on the unfolding geopolitics around the globe, identifying various divisions, which for instance, have led to weaponisation of trade and technology. The nature of power contestation in recent times and the inability of the United Nations (UN) to deliver on issues of development, peace, and security was also stressed upon. Further, he highlighted the difficulties in international institutions like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Trade Organization (WTO) working collectively to develop consensus on issues of greater significance in post-pandemic times.

Amb. Chinoy also stated that the G20, under the Indian Presidency in 2023, was a “dream team”.  He lauded the unanimous adoption of the G20 New Delhi Leaders’ Declaration. The grouping successfully focused on developmental, financial, and economic issues as it ought to, rather than being hindered by political matters, which do not fall in its ambit. It is also more inclusive in nature than the G7 as it comprises the members of the Quad, BRICS, IPSA and other such groupings.

Regarding the Russia-Ukraine War, the Chair referred to India’s special relations with Russia while also expressing India’s distress vis-à-vis the loss of lives since the start of the war. India has provided humanitarian assistance to the people of Ukraine and has engaged with both sides. Putting forth his viewpoint, the Chair mentioned that this war is likely to last a while.

Concerning recent developments in the Israel-Hamas conflict, Amb. Chinoy stressed on India’s good relations with both Israel and Palestine and that it continues to send humanitarian aid to the Palestinians, including through the United Nations Relief and Work Agency (UNRWA). Terrorism remains one of the key concerns for India, as the country has been on its receiving end for a long time. The Chair also expressed India’s concern over the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in the region, which is unlikely to end soon. He further added that Hamas has got deep roots in the region and that there is a likelihood that the Houthis, Hezbollah, or other nation-states, might get directly or indirectly embroiled in the conflict.

With growth and prosperity spreading to wider regions of Southeast Asia, South Asia and the littoral countries in the Indian Ocean, particularly the East Coast of Africa, Amb. Chinoy indicated that the notion of Indo-Pacific has replaced the Asia-Pacific. The former is a much clearer reflection of today’s changing balance of power.  It is more inclusive, democratic, and in tune with the growing aspirations of a much wider arc of geographical space. Thus, the Indo-Pacific harbours the potential for a greater participatory and inclusive architecture.

Reflecting on the US-China tussle, Amb. Chinoy highlighted that the dialogue has resumed for the sake of stability, but relations will continue to manifest various tensions, as some fundamental discrepancies and divergences may arise. He believes that the Chinese are mindful of the potential derailment of their own long-term plans, were they to take any hasty decisions with regard to Taiwan or continue to exhibit the same level of unilateralism, militarization and aggressive behaviour.

Highlighting the growing engagement and a degree of mutual interdependence between Russia and China, the Chair averred that the Russian Federation is not very happy to play the role of an underdog all the time, to a country which has learnt virtually everything from the Russians in the past. He mentioned the difference in how Russia and China challenge the existing international order, where China influences the world order more directly. China is trying to curate parallel orders - for example, through the expansion of BRICS, New Development Bank of BRICS, or their own sovereign lending and banking institutions.

Wojciech Konończuk, Director of OSW, contributed to the discussion by highlighting Poland's priorities in the European context. He mentioned that Poland’s viewpoint is different from India’s. This is mainly due to the difference in their geographical locations, leading to a difference in how both countries percieve recent international developments. It is essential for Poland to focus on the evolution of Russia-China relations. He emphasised that the Poles view the Russian invasion against Ukraine as a war with far reaching global consequences and called it an existential issue for Poland. He noted that the outcome of this war will have a direct impact on the order in the European continent as Russian ambitions go far beyond Ukraine. It is aimed at recovering parts of the former Soviet Union territory and for that it wants to destroy the international order which created Eastern Europe from the collapse of the Soviet Union. Mr. Konończuk agreed that this war will not end soon, even though the initial Russian plan was to end the war in a couple of weeks.

Marek Menkiszak, Head of Russian Department at OSW, noted that Russian policies have a deep interlink between Russia’s internal system and its foreign security policy, which are focused on regime survival. The Russian regime, which went from half-democratic to the current neo-totalitarian, believes that the increase of their sphere of influence in the post-Soviet region is a matter of regime survival. According to Mr. Menkiszak, Russia believes that the West - led by the US - is an existential threat to the regime. Thus, the former is trying to diminish the latter to develop a post-western world order, and is trying to change the status quo using its military capabilities. In achieving this goal, Russia sees China as a necessary ally and aims to avoid any conflict with China. Moscow also seems to believe that making it an indispensable partner to Beijing will create a situation wherein they will have strategic autonomy vis-à-vis Beijing; while enjoying the gains from US-China conflict.

Jakub Jakóbowski, Deputy Director at OSW, shared his insights on how the Chinese view their relationship with Russia, since its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. According to him, the Chinese believe that Russians can achieve their goals, but at a much higher cost. This will lead to a diminished Russia in Russia-China relations and would establish a precedent to undermine the US based security system by force.  In this, Russia is ready to play second to China as it sees China as the lone partner in its fight against the West. He also highlighted that one must focus on China’s original plan of action and not get carried away by the opinion it voices on the world stage. He ended by putting forth the question of – how to engage with India in dialogue and what kind of strategic choices might India make in the Indo-Pacific and European theatre.

Responding to some points raised by the speakers, Amb. Chinoy highlighted that regime survival is not a characteristic of authoritarian states alone but that of democracies too. Any government can be called a regime. However, in this discourse some identify regimes with what they think are more authoritarian states. He also mentioned that global orders cannot be created nor dismantled easily. It is not possible to forge a post-World War II world order, which will be very different from what we have today. A new world order by Russia might not be possible without the destruction of all.

India does not challenge the international order that has been in place since World War II. It is more concerned with the lack of reforms. According to Amb. Chinoy, China is also not seeking the reversal of this order altogether, as it has been a major beneficiary of the same. In his view, Russians are in a reactive mode, whereas the Chinese are in a proactive mode in terms of their actions and policies in international relations. He also urged that we must not forgo the possibility of a reset of US-Russia relations, as there are greater structural similarities in US-Russia relations than Russia-China. In fact, the chances of a post-Putin Russia turning democratic are statistically far greater than that of China, owing to the Chinese Confucius thinking and the communist party.

With regard to India-China, Amb. Chinoy mentioned that India has dealt with military threats to its sovereignty and territorial integrity on its own. It is also less likely to directly join in any conflicts in the Taiwan Strait or the South China Sea in the near future.

Witold Rodkiewicz, Senior Fellow at OSW, pointed out that Russian elites have a completely different view of China. According to him, the Russians admire China. They believe that China managed to do something that Russia failed at. Earlier we have seen Russia turn towards the west, when it befriended the US and now it is turning towards the east, befriending China. Russia cannot afford to have problems with its crucial ally, like it did during the cold war times, thereby deciding to make itself indispensable to China. In all of this, we need to realise that in current times, Russia ties Europe with the US or the western theatre.

Q&A

The interaction was followed by a Q&A session, in which questions regarding Russia-China relations, India-Russia relations, polarisation of Europe, Russian and Chinese role in Central Asia, and the Polish Vs European debate on China, were posed.

The Polish delegation members answered different questions, based on their expertise. They pointed out that the strategic interests of Russia and China are much bigger than any tensions between them. Initially the Russians tried to oppose the BRI but when they couldn’t anymore, they joined it. The Russia-China partnership is based on the need of the hour and the European mindset sees this partnership as immune to any third-party intrusions.

Central Asia is a working condominium, where Russia has accepted the growing economic influence of China. They also emphasised on Russia’s three strategic goals in Europe – to gain strategic control over the post-Soviet area, to create a security buffer zone in Central Europe, and to drastically reduce US influence in Europe.

The delegation members also mentioned that Poland does not have an independent Indo-Pacific strategy. It actively contributes to European efforts in the region and wants to do as much as possible. The delegation emphasised on the need for India and Europe, especially Poland, to engage more actively, given the Indo-Pacific theatre sees a convergence of interests of all the three parties. 

Report has been prepared by Ms. Anusua Ganguly, Intern, Europe and Eurasia Centre.

Lt. Col. Akshat Upadhyay, Research Fellow, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, made a presentation on the “Semiconductor Global Supply Chains: An Introduction” at the Monday Morning Meeting held on 15 January 2024. Dr. Cherian Samuel, Research Fellow, MP-IDSA, moderated the session. Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, the Director General of MP-IDSA, and scholars of the Institute were in attendance.

Executive Summary

The presentation summarised the global semiconductor industry and the geopolitical tensions surrounding it. Similar to other technologies, semiconductors initially served military purposes before becoming integrated into broader societal applications. The presentation also delved into the concise history of semiconductor technology, its significance, various types of semiconductors, and the geopolitical implications surrounding them.

Detailed Report

The Session commenced with Dr. Samuel’s introductory remarks highlighting the extensive utilization of semiconductors, tracing back their origins in military applications. He emphasised Taiwan's significance in the global semiconductor industry, along with its vulnerability to disruptions in the semiconductor supply chain due to escalating tensions between the United States and China. Lt. Col. Upadhyay began his presentation by emphasising the profound impact semiconductors have had on shaping the modern world. He proceeded to delve into the technical definition of semiconductors, describing them as materials possessing electrical conductivity falling between that of conductors and insulators. He elaborated on commonly used semiconductor materials such as Silicon, Germanium, and Gallium Arsenide (GaAs). He also explained various types of semiconductors, including Discrete Semiconductors, Application Specific ICs (ASICs), Radio-Frequency ICs (RFICs), Micro-electromechanical Systems (MEMS), and System-on-a-chip (SoC).

He emphasised that the world is operating within the 5th computation paradigm, a concept defined by Ray Kurzweil, with semiconductors as the foundation for a trillion-dollar electronics industry. He also pointed out that this same technology forms the basis for the ongoing competition between the US and China. Lt. Col. Upadhyay also highlighted several milestones in the history of semiconductor technology, illustrating its journey from the confines of research laboratories to widespread civilian use. He continued elaborating on the technological progression using the 6 D’s Exponential Framework. This framework outlines a technology's roadmap before reaching its disruptive potential, offering opportunities for development.
Using graphs and figures, Lt. Col. Upadhyay underscored the transformation of the semiconductor industry from a crowded field of competitors in the early 2000s to its current state, where only a handful of companies possess leading-edge manufacturing capabilities. He further delved into the end of Moore’s Law, explaining that its future hinges on researchers’ ability to develop new materials, manufacturing and packaging techniques, and advancements in computing architecture. One suggestion he offered to extend Moore’s Law is to transition toward 3D technology.

Delving further into the topic, he emphasised the fundamental components of a semiconductor production chain and highlighted various subsets within those elements. He pointed out that many original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and original design manufacturers (ODMs) procure semiconductors to integrate them into consumer end-products. The typical semiconductor production process spans multiple countries and continents.
Expanding on China’s current status in research and development (R&D) and its share in the global chip supply, Lt. Col. Upadhyay highlighted that China currently lacks a significant presence in critical phases such as design, Electronic Design Automation (EDA) and core Intellectual Properties (IPs). Instead, China’s involvement is primarily limited to the back end, constituting approximately 10 percent of the supply chain.

Regarding the geopolitics of semiconductors, he emphasised that while the semiconductor supply chain is internationalized, it is not truly globalized, as it remains concentrated within a few countries and companies. As an illustration, he pointed out that only one company worldwide, the Netherlands-based ASML, holds a monopoly over Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) Lithography equipment. Additionally, he noted that the global supply of photoresists, crucial chemicals for semiconductor production, is controlled by a small cluster of companies primarily situated in the US, Germany, Japan, and South Korea. Big tech companies have also entered the chip designing arena, with the likes of Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Tesla all developing chips tailored for artificial intelligence (AI) applications and cloud services.

To maintain leadership in the semiconductor supply chain and stay ahead of China, US President Joe Biden announced new export controls, which are unilateral and were implemented without any other country's support. The measures include severely restricting the flow of almost all chips and related technologies produced globally into the high-end of China’s supercomputing ecosystem, encompassing advanced GPUs intended for any purpose within China. Furthermore, Americans are prohibited from participating in crucial aspects of China’s semiconductor sector to prevent China from benefiting from US expertise and know-how.

The controls may extend beyond chips as the US has identified AI, quantum information systems, biotechnology, biomanufacturing, and advanced clean energy technologies as fundamental to US national security. However, advanced computing and supercomputers have been singled out as targets for these measures. He also emphasied how the equipped with a 7 nm chip, raises doubts about the effectiveness of the US’s unilateral sanctions. Highlighting the potential scenario, he suggested that companies with significant production facilities in China, such as TSMC and SK Hynix, might not react favorably to these measures. They could exert pressure on their governments to circumvent these measures or seek alternative solutions to replace US technology that cannot be sold in the Chinese market.

Regarding India, he mentioned that chip consumption is projected to exceed US $80 billion by 2026 and reach US $110 billion by 2030. India is one of the world's largest consumer electronics markets, so it makes commercial sense to incentivize diverting supply chains and ensure that Indian startups have robust foundations to compete with international players. Furthermore, achieving multiple governmental goals, such as poverty alleviation and improving connectivity, will require advanced chips.

In this context, Indian initiatives like the India Semiconductor Mission (ISM), launched in 2021, are poised to play a significant role. The ISM aims to provide financial support to companies investing in semiconductors, display manufacturing, and the design ecosystem. He also elaborated on the ongoing projects and partnerships between India and other major players.

Questions and Comments

Ambassador Chinoy, began his remarks by expressing concern about India's absence from the global supply chain, despite the ongoing initiatives. He emphasised China's use of Gallium export restrictions to pressure US allies. Additionally, he posed a critical question regarding what steps India can take to gain leverage in the supply chain. He also expressed his concern and curiosity regarding the potential for electronic scavenging from modern devices such as smartphones, as well as the possibility of reverse engineering. Lt. Col. Upadhyay responded by saying that India should focus on manufacturing, and assembly, testing, and packaging (ATP). He also underlined that India should focus on the foundations and, therefore, focus on the existing 180-nm chips, as it is also economical.

Dr. Rajiv Nayan raised a query about why the US lags behind Taiwan in this field. Lt. Col. Upadhyay responded by highlighting that the issue with the US lies in its companies, such as Intel, primarily focusing on the Integrated Device Manufacturer (IDM) model, whereas TSMC concentrates on niche areas. He also emphasised that China is currently utilising 7nm chips only in limited devices and has yet to scale up its usage extensively. Gp. Capt. Rajiv Narang raised a query regarding which entities in India are eligible for partnerships with the US under the Initiative on Critical and Emerging Technologies (iCET), and whether India's focus is on becoming a manufacturing hub or emphasizing research and development (R&D). In response, Lt. Col. Upadhyay mentioned that institutions like SCL Mohali, in collaboration with DRDO, and IIT Madras are engaged with the US, supported by the Indian Government, under the iCET initiative.

Report prepared by Mr. Rohit K. Sharma, Research Analyst, Strategic Technologies Centre.