Events

A delegation from The Centre for Naval Analyses (CNA), Arlington, Virginia, participated in the Monday Morning Meeting held on 6 November 2023 at 1000h in Room No. 005. Mr. Robert Hein, Senior Executive and Director, Policy and Plans, U.S. Navy Pacific Fleet, and Dr. Satu Limaye, Senior Advisor, CNA, spoke on “Emerging Dynamics in the Indo-Pacific”. Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, chaired the Session.

Other members of the delegation, Mr. Dean Vaughn, Staff Member, Policy and Plans, US Navy Pacific Fleet and Ms. Tamara Hemphill, Acting Director, Indo-Pacific Security Affairs, CNA, along with the scholars from MP-IDSA, enriched the discussion.

Executive Summary

The Asia-Pacific paradigm was relevant from 1945 till the end of the century. However, today, the Indo-Pacific is a far more representative and democratic framework consisting of large swaths of geography where people aspire for peace, stability and progress. Therefore, the Asia-Pacific was a China-centric concept, while the Indo-Pacific is more democratic. The US’ approach towards China has changed from cooperation to competition. The US erroneously thought of transforming China into a responsible global partner through cooperation. Chinese belligerent actions in the region contributed to the growth of the US partnerships and alliances in the Indo-Pacific region. The US seeks a principled engagement with China rather than G2 to stabilise the relationship. There is a distinct change in the US approach towards multilateralism. There is a preference for minilateralism and functional multilateralism in high technology, green energy and critical minerals, among others. The US relies on India to realise concepts like the Free and Open Indo-Pacific.

Detailed Report

Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy set the context for discussions. He said that the Indo-Pacific region is of great relevance to India and the United States (US). However, earlier, Asia-Pacific has been in vogue. The Post-World War II Japanese economic growth, the emergence of the Asian tigers, and the consistent high Chinese economic growth facilitated by the US gave rise to the concept of the Asia-Pacific. Going beyond financial calculations, the physical presence of the US was an essential factor in shaping the Asia-Pacific concept. Washington also invested heavily in the region. The US’ interests spanned across the political, military and economic domains. Thus, the Asia-Pacific was relevant from 1945 till the end of the century. However, today, Indo-Pacific is a far more representative and democratic framework consisting of large swaths of geography where people aspire for peace, stability and progress. Therefore, Asia-Pacific was a China-centric concept, while Indo-Pacific is more democratic.

Amb. Chinoy stated that the US is not an extra-regional player but has a physical presence, and an economic and strategic role in the Indo-Pacific. The US presence in the region was one of the most important reasons for the economic rise of Asia. Amb. Chinoy further stated that if China was championing the cause of multipolarity at the international level, the same should also be the case in Asia. Speaking about the Quad, Amb. Chinoy held that India attached great importance to the Quad, which is not a military partnership. There is an added advantage of having a multilateral Malabar exercise. He ended his introductory remarks by asking whether the Quad or Malabar could transform into an alliance in the future. He answered the question in affirmation and commented that China would determine the future of the Quad. With these remarks, Ambassador Chinoy invited Mr. Robert Hein to make his presentation.

Mr. Robert Hein spoke about the US Free and Open Indo-Pacific concept, and changing dynamics in the region vis-à-vis China. He said that the US emphasised a Free and Open Indo-Pacific so that there would be unimpeded regional trade leading to the region's economic development. Every country has a right to protect the integrity of their respective territorial waters. Talking about a radical change in regional security dynamics, the Speaker informed the audience how the US approach towards China changed from one of cooperation to competition. The US erroneously thought of transforming China into a responsible global partner through cooperation. However, China continued the unabashed militarisation of the South China Sea. Beijing started putting conditions on every form of cooperation to reduce competition. Mr. Hein, further affirmed that Chinese belligerent action in the region contributed to the growth of the US partnerships and alliances in the Indo-Pacific region. He corroborated his claim by giving the example of the Philippines. Manila wanted to do away with the US forces from its territory. However, Chinese bellicose behaviour in the South China Sea forced the Philippines to renew a bilateral agreement with the US. Further, the Quad has grown enormously due to China’s maligned behaviour.

Mr. Hein complained that China had cut off all communication with the US, which was a bad sign for any bilateral relationship. Talking about India-US relations, the Speaker observed that the relationship was in good shape and growing well in multiple areas including defence, technology, new practices and procedures. The US relies on India to realise concepts like the Free and Open Indo-Pacific. He also spoke about the US vision of a thousand-ship navy being realised with the help of its partners and allies as a collective endeavour. He cautioned the audience that the conflict over Taiwan would be a great blow to the global economy and may lead to another great depression.

Dr. Satu Limaye agreed with the previous Speaker that China had done an excellent job in strengthening the US alliances. He held the India-US Partnership in good stead and said the US alliances were becoming more critical. Regarding de-risking and decoupling from China, Dr. Limaye remarked that the picture was more precise and the US was weighing its dependencies with China about trade, investment and high technology. Simultaneously, the US sought a principled engagement with China rather than G2 to stabilise the relationship. Dr. Limaye touched upon the economic aspect of the US-China relationship. He observed a shift in China’s economic relations with the region, especially with the US, Japan and Europe. On the one hand, China is trying to diversify ties as a part of broader decoupling. On the other hand, the US has increased interactions with its allies and partners in the economic domain. Initiatives like the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework were helping the regional economic order to become more multilateral, open and engaged. The Speaker noted a distinct change in the US approach towards multilateralism. Rather than focusing on the big regional multilateral initiatives like the East Asia Summit, the US focused on initiatives such as the Chip 4 Alliance, Quad and Critical Mineral Partnership. Thus, there is a preference for minilateralism and functional multilateralism in high technology, green energy and critical minerals, among others.

Amb. Chinoy observed that there was no need for the US to have a thousand-ship navy due to its technological superiority over China. He noted that India was not a member of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) as there was a moratorium on expanding the grouping. Regarding China’s Malacca Dilemma, Amb. Chinoy commented that all countries depend on the Malacca Strait for their trade and energy needs. Amb. Chinoy also raised a few questions regarding the US’s reaction in case China attempts to forcefully seek reunification with Taiwan. He also inquired about the US position in case China threatened the Philippines’ sovereignty over its island territories.

In response to the observations raised by Amb. Chinoy and MP-IDSA scholars, Mr. Hein stated that China would not commit to any adventure over Taiwan because President Xi lacks confidence in his armed forces. Additionally, he has several domestic issues that would deter him from taking Taiwan by force. The US has allies and partners in the region, thus preventing China from doing a misadventure over Taiwan. Talking about the role of domestic politics in decision-making vis-à-vis a contingency in the region, the Speaker further said that in a war-like situation, the US would unite and respond to the situation wholeheartedly. Regarding Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs), the Speaker said that the US does it against friends and adversaries alike and will continue to do so in accordance with International Law. Mr. Hein said that the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) was important for the US. Following a rich and insightful discussion, Amb. Chinoy brought the meeting to a close.

Report is prepared by Mr. Niranjan Chandrashekhar Oak, Research Analyst, Nuclear and Arms Control Centre.

Dr. Deepika Saraswat, Associate Fellow, West Asia Centre, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA), presented her Fellow Paper on “Iran in the Emerging (Eur)Asian Order: Mapping the Rise of a Regional Middle Power” at the MP-IDSA Fellows Seminar held on 26 October 2023. The Seminar was chaired by Professor Gulshan Dietl, former Professor, School of International Studies (SIS), Jawaharlal Nehru University. The External Discussants were Professor A.K. Ramakrishnan, Centre for West Asian Studies, SIS, Jawaharlal Nehru University and Dr. Meena Singh Roy, Senior Fellow (West and Central Asia), Tillotama Foundation. Dr. Rajorshi Roy, Associate Fellow, Europe and Eurasia Centre and Dr. Jason Wahlang, Research Analyst, Europe and Eurasia Centre, MP-IDSA, were Internal Discussants. Director General of MP-IDSA, Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy and scholars of the Institute attended the Seminar.   

Executive Summary

Three noteworthy trends delineate Iran’s emerging middle power behaviour. Firstly, there is a proactive involvement in Asian multilateralism, exemplified by active participation in regional institutions like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Secondly, Iran employs an ideational strategy that leverages its civilisational identity and values as a foundation for nurturing an Asian regional security community. Thirdly, Iran strategically positions itself as a geographic-civilisational “bridge,” actively facilitating connections in transcontinental connectivity initiatives spearheaded by major powers, including China, Russia, and India. These trends collectively signify Iran’s role in shaping the geoeconomic landscape of (Eur)Asia.

Detailed Report

In his opening remarks, Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy welcomed the Chair and the External and Internal Discussants. He emphasised the importance of Iran being a part of India’s close neighbourhood and how India’s Act West policy encapsulates geopolitical and civilisational relations. He stated that Iran has special significance in West Asian politics. Amb. Chinoy highlighted that Iran frequently remains in the news for one or other issues like being part of a long-drawn imbroglio in Yemen with the Houthi problem, Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), nuclear postures, bilateral relations with the US, and peace and security in the Persian Gulf. He outlined the role of Iran in the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC).

It was also noted that Iran has been a general outlier in the international system but gains a significant constituency when required. Its bilateral relations with India are mostly on a reciprocal basis. Amb. Chinoy recalled his tenure at the UN from 1992-1995 and specified that, particularly in 1994-95, Iran was instrumental in helping India counter Pakistan-backed human rights resolutions in Geneva.

Introducing the topic, Dr. Deepika Saraswat highlighted the context of Iran’s return to a ‘Look East’ strategy and emerging middle power behaviour. She stated that Iran preferred Eastern partnerships over the West, advocating closer ties with neighbouring nations and collaboration with countries sharing common goals. As a Persian country, Iran desired to find a home in Asia to overcome identity isolation. Iran’s preference for the term “West Asia” over “Middle East” indicates this transformative paradigm. Dr. Saraswat further pointed out that Iran strategically channels its investments in Asia, forging alliances with rising powers such as China, India, and Russia. Iran is seeing growing convergence between East, Central, West and South Asian regional systems. Dr. Saraswat highlighted the significance of Iran’s outlook in the evolving geopolitical landscape where mega connectivity projects are seen cooperatively, considering it an opportunity. Iran has placed development-security connections and regional connectivity at the forefront of its regional cooperation initiatives.

The Speaker outlined multiple definitions of middle powers to contextualise Iran’s position. Middle powers possess the military and strategic strength requisite to elicit support from great powers during peacetime. Although they may not emerge victorious against great powers in times of conflict, these middle powers can inflict disproportionate costs upon them. She articulated that being categorised as a middle power involves possessing specific capabilities, adopting a particular attitude, and asserting a distinct national identity.

To analyse Iran’s behaviour, Dr. Saraswat used the concept of emerging middle powers, especially in the post-Cold War era context. Emerging middle powers possess substantial relative power advantages over their smaller neighbours. These nations manifest dissatisfaction with their current standing and aspire to carve an independent trajectory guided by their interests, values, and ambitions for regional and global influence. Notably, many of these middle powers have historical and cultural backgrounds that align with the concept of civilisational states. She highlighted that revisionist emerging middle powers actively seek to reshape the prevailing international order, often aligning themselves with revisionist great powers in pursuit of their objectives.

Iran has positioned the “Look East” policy or “Asia orientation” as a central focus within incumbent Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi’s led foreign policy framework. The formalisation of Iran’s deepening engagement with Eur(Asia) was marked by its full membership approval in the SCO during the 21st summit, a development Dr. Saraswat identified as a significant milestone in Iran’s evolving regional strategy.

Positioned as a middle power, Iran has demonstrated several key behaviours, as outlined by the speaker:

Firstly, Iran has actively embraced “Asian multilateralism” by participating in regional institutions such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO). Initially joining as an Observer in 2004, Iran applied for full membership in 2008, ultimately achieving it in 2023. Dr. Saraswat contextualised this Iranian initiative within the institutional balancing framework, replacing conventional military means with a focus on leveraging multilateral institutions to gain power and influence in world politics. Ebrahim Raisi’s address at the UNGA in 2023, envisioning a novel and equitable world order rooted in regional cooperation, was cited as evidence of Iran’s commitment to this approach. The Speaker noted that the withdrawal of the United States from Afghanistan, coupled with the subsequent takeover by the Taliban, has not only highlighted the diminishing influence of the US in shaping the regional order but has also triggered a realignment in the regional geopolitical landscape. Iran’s involvement in the 3+3 regional cooperation format to resolve problems of the South Caucasus without the interference of extra-regional and Western countries is a part of its regional diplomacy.

Secondly, Iran has employed its civilisational identity and values to construct an ideational strategy to foster an Asian regional security community. Dr. Saraswat highlighted Iran’s practice of framing bilateral ties with Asian powers, including India and China, in civilisational terms. Iran’s leaders have offered a conception of Asia as comprising diverse civilisations and cultures, emphasising regional cultural and ideational autonomy and rejection of the Western normative universalism based on liberal democracy. The call for endogenous security and Asian unity by Iran was noted to align with the Chinese President’s ‘new Asian security concept,’ emphasising the leadership of Asians in Asian affairs. The Speaker also mentioned  Iran’s effort toward displacing Turkiye’s ethnic-linguistic narrative of pan-Turkism.

Thirdly, drawing from its notion of geographical centrality, Iran strategically positions itself as a geographic-civilisational “bridge,” actively connecting transcontinental connectivity initiatives spearheaded by China, Russia, and India. Iran considers itself a civilisational crossroad in the Silk Road narrative. The Speaker argued that Iran looks at the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) with both optimism and fear as BRI proposes to address the development deficit but can have adverse geopolitical implications. BRI may lead to Russia-China’s ‘Great Game’ and can have implications for Iran’s transit potential and bargaining power in Central Asian energy markets. This role underscores Iran’s significance in facilitating broader regional cooperation and integration. Dr. Saraswat also emphasised Iran’s declared foreign-policy priority of developing friendly cooperative relations with Central Asian countries and its pivotal role as a ‘gateway’ in the INSTC. Furthermore, Iran’s ‘bridge’ role in projects such as BRI, the Eurasian Economic Union, and INSTC was underscored, emphasising the Iranian focus on the complementary nature of these initiatives rather than their competitive dynamics.

Dr. Saraswat noted that Iran is actively articulating a conspicuous regional role in (Eur)Asia by promoting regional autonomy, aligning with the shared objectives of Russia and China. Notably, Iran’s observable effort is to enhance its geoeconomic ties with the three principal actors in the region, namely China, Russia, and India. This strategic engagement aims to mitigate the potential challenges of multipolar rivalry and the prospect of Chinese-led hegemonic regionalism.

Prof. A. K. Ramakrishnan offered positive feedback on the paper, commending its logical argumentation and contribution to comprehending Iran’s (Eur)Asia policy. He suggested additional nuances to enhance the analysis, emphasising the need to highlight Iran’s quest for both strategic and regional autonomy. Encouraging the inclusion of major trends characterising emerging middle powers, he underscored the importance of considering major powers entering the geopolitical space as Iran navigates through it.

The impact of sanctions and isolation on Iran’s economy, along with resulting constraints in foreign relations, particularly with the West, was noted. Prof. Ramakrishnan stressed the significance of contextualising Iran’s power positioning as an Emerging Middle Power within the context of its historical isolation. He also highlighted the guiding principles of Iran’s foreign policy, focusing on its revolutionary nature and the pursuit of a dignified existence.

Further suggestions included exploring East-West dimensions, considering Iran’s call for unity and its role in the non-aligned movement within the paper. The importance of recognising Iran as an ideological state, with domestic politics playing a role in its ideological revivalism, was emphasised. The recommendation to include immediate neighbouring countries, including Afghanistan, aimed at providing a more comprehensive understanding of Iran’s foreign relations. Prof. Ramakrishnan concluded by stating the paper connects conceptual aspects with empirical descriptions and acknowledged the paper’s strength lies in capturing the intricate dynamics of Iran’s foreign policy.

Dr. Meena Singh Roy suggested that the author include a brief abstract and mention that the paper is part of a larger project. The need to clarify the theoretical focus in the title and introduce the hypothesis early on was emphasised. Dr. Roy commended the analytical rigour of the paper but recommended a reconsideration of subtitles for reader comprehension. Acknowledging the paper’s extensive use of primary references, she suggested supplementary readings for a practical understanding of Iran’s foreign policy. Dr. Roy highlighted Iran’s strategic adaptability and sophistication, emphasising the importance of understanding its use of strategic assets.

She proposed exploring how the international system perceives Iran, particularly its acceptability in regional groupings like the SCO. Additionally, Dr. Roy called for a precise analysis to determine whether Iran has attained emerging middle power status. It was suggested that concepts like emerging middle power should be explained early in the paper, along with clarifying Iran’s narrative regarding (Eur)Asia due to the region’s vastness. Addressing Iran’s regional interests, she recommended specifying its focus on the INSTC over the Silk Route and assessing its aspirations for regional power status.

Dr. Rajorshi Roy noted that the author has adeptly navigated the complexities of evolving issues, intricate power dynamics, and contestations within the paper. The incorporation of International Relations theories was noted as a strength, rendering the analysis more credible and nuanced in deciphering Iran’s role in (Eur)Asia. Dr. Rajorshi suggested expanding the section on emerging (Eur)Asian politics to include issues related to Central Asian countries, given their significant relevance. Additionally, he recommended examining whether Iran possesses the capacity to actualise its identity as a revisionist power and raised questions about whether Russia and China would relinquish space for Iran. Furthermore, Dr. Rajorshi underscored the importance of exploring the role of the SCO in the context of Eur(Asian) governance, considering it as a potential backbone in this regard.

Dr. Jason Wahlang raised the issue of the possibility of China overtaking Russia in the region due to Russia’s preoccupation with Ukraine, citing the Chinese base in Tajikistan as an illustrative example. Dr. Wahlang emphasised the importance of assessing whether Iran could capitalise on these shifting dynamics in the long term. Additionally, he recommended delving into Iran-Turkiye relations, particularly in terms of civilisational connections and cultural aspects. Dr. Wahlang highlighted Iran’s role as a Caspian nation alongside Kazakhstan and Russia, suggesting that further exploration of this aspect would enhance the paper’s value. He also proposed addressing Iran’s focus on non-traditional security issues, specifically related to water, considering the Aral Sea and Amu Darya.

Prof. Gulshan Dietl commenced her remarks with the poignant quote, “today is the best of times, and today is the worst of times,” emphasising Iran’s vulnerable position in its immediate neighbourhood. She recommended a clear definition of ‘(Eur)Asia,’ as it is integral to the paper’s title, and encouraged the author to provide her own interpretation of an emerging regional middle power.

Prof. Dietl highlighted the relevance of using ‘West Asia’ based on its geographical placement, referencing Jawaharlal Nehru’s critique of ‘Middle East’ as a colonial term. Considering Iran’s global impact, Prof. Dietl acknowledged its significant energy resources in proximity to Central Asia but underscored the challenges arising from linguistic and religious differences with neighbouring countries. This isolation, she noted, sheds light on Iran’s support for entities like Hezbollah, Houthis, and the Palestinians.

Prof. Dietl succinctly outlined challenges faced by Iran, including sanctions, which limit its foreign relations, domestic concerns over election outcomes, and controversies surrounding issues such as Hijab. She highlighted slogans reflecting domestic sentiments, such as “Not Gaza, Not Lebanon; I will die for Iran,” and observed Iran’s outreach to revisionist major powers like China and Russia. In the broader context of changing world order, Prof. Dietl emphasised the constraints faced by Iran, particularly domestic challenges, during a time when even the United Nations is under scrutiny.

Q&A Session

The Q&A session delved into various themes, encompassing Iran’s identity as a theological revolutionary state, the reliability of information about Iran on social media platforms, definitional and conceptual aspects of emerging middle power, the nuanced relationship between (Eur)Asia and the security order, the historical context of the Iranian revolution, Iran’s ideological positions in relation to other countries, and the constraints impeding Iran’s realisation of emerging middle power status. Dr. Saraswat addressed and responded to the comments and questions raised during this comprehensive discussion.

This report was prepared by Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Research Analyst, West Asia Centre, MP-IDSA.

MP-IDSA Fellows Seminar on Thursday, 26 October 2023. The Venue is Seminar Hall 1, Second Floor.

Dr. Deepika Saraswat, Associate Fellow, will present a Paper titled “Iran in the Emerging (Eur) Asian Order: Mapping the Rise of a Regional Middle Power.”

Professor Gulshan Dietl, former Professor, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University will Chair the Seminar and conduct the proceedings.

The External Discussants for the Paper are Professor A.K. Ramakrishnan, Centre for West Asian Studies, SIS, Jawaharlal Nehru University and Dr. Meena Singh Roy, Senior Fellow (West and Central Asia), Tillotama Foundation.

The Internal Discussants are Dr. Rajorshi Roy, Associate Fellow, Europe and Eurasia Centre and Dr. Jason Wahlang, Research Analyst, Europe and Eurasia Centre, MP-IDSA.

Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Research Analyst with the West Asia Centre is the rapporteur.

The Seminar will commence at 2.30 PM and end at 4.30 PM.

Dr. Cherian Samuel, Research Fellow, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, made a presentation on “The Ransonware Resurgence and Other Trends in Cyber security” at the Monday Morning Meeting held on 25 September 2023. The Session was moderated by Mr. Rohit Kumar Sharma, Research Analyst, MP-IDSA. Scholars of the Institute were in attendance.

Executive Summary.

The presentation started with opening remarks by Mr. Sharma. He defined ransomware as a type of malware attack that leads to the victim losing access to data/ device unless they paid a ransom to have their data decrypted.

He cited that there had been a 53% increase in ransomware attacks in India compared to the previous year. They were mainly targeting the critical infrastructures, especially the healthcare sectors. All these attacks were carried out by well-trained professionals, mainly targeting financial institutions, trading centres, and other pivotal infrastructures. All these kinds of activities usually create a dilemma for victims' organisations about whether they should go for recovery and pay the ransom, and whether there is any guarantee of getting back the data even after paying the ransom. The third and most crucial point is whether insurance coverage should be included for paying ransom? For example, in the US, companies use first-party liability and insurance coverage to pay ransom amounts. Saying all this, the moderator invited Dr. Cherian for his presentation.

Detailed Report

Dr. Cherian began his presentation by also citing a definition. He described ransomware as “a type of cyber-attack where malicious software encrypts a victim's data and demands payment, usually in cryptocurrency, from the victim to decrypt the data or restore access to their system." Further, he spoke about a few techniques by which these external players are gaining access to high-level merchandised firms through phishing emails, remote desktop protocol, credential abuse, exploitable software vulnerabilities, URLs, third-party apps, compromised websites and drive-by downloading. And what their motives are, and so forth. Following this, he delved deep into the role of the nation-state actors, for example, the Russian ransomware gangs, their network allies, and the role of North Korea. He also talked about Ransomware-as-a-service (RaaS) as a business model for criminal enterprises that allows anyone to sign up and use tools for conducting ransomware attacks. Like other as-a-service models, such as software-as-a-service (SaaS) or platform-as-a-service (PaaS), RaaS customers rent ransomware services rather than owning them as in a traditional software distribution model. Ransomware locks up a victim's system or files, usually via encryption. The victim can only regain access to their data once they pay a ransom to the parties behind the ransomware attack. Ransomware has become a significant industry in the criminal underworld, worth billions of dollars annually. While many imagine that the people behind cyber-attacks like ransomware are highly skilled programmers, many attackers do not write their code and may not even know how to do so. Cybercriminals with coding skills often sell or rent out the exploits they develop instead of using them. Ransomware is just one area of the cyber-crime industry with an "as-a-service" model. Attackers can also rent DDoS tools, subscribe to lists of stolen credentials, hire botnets, or rent banking trojans, among other services. Given below is a flow chart showing how RAAS works.

Apart from this, he also discussed triple extortion. As its name says, the triple extortion ransomware adds another layer to the attack. An extension of the double extortion attack, using most of its tactics, this time, the malicious actor will choose an extra pressure point to get his victim to pay. In addition to data encryption (the first layer) and the threat of leaking essential data (the second layer), the cybercriminal can add another tactic of his choosing (the third layer). The most common tactics are going after the victim's clients, partners, affiliates, patients, associates, suppliers, etc., with ransom demands so their data will not be leaked, launching an additional Distributed Denial of Service Attack (DDoS) over the target, or making phone calls to persuade them.

He elaborated that to counter these criminal activities, a virtual meeting was held in Washington DC on 13 and 14 October 2021 to pinpoint an effective way to counter these malicious activities. The meeting was led by the United States and paved the way for the creation of the International Counter Ransomware Initiative (CRI) which seeks to enhance international cooperation to combat the growth of ransonware. Five working groups were created; a group looking at Resilience led by Lithuania and India, Disruption led by Australia, Illicit Finance led by the UK and Singapore, and Partnership by Germany.

The second CRI was held in Washington DC from 31 October to 1 November 2022. At the second ICRI Summit, members re-affirmed their joint commitment to building collective resilience to ransomware, cooperating to disrupt ransomware and pursue the actors responsible, countering illicit finance that underpins the ransomware attacks, and continuing to cooperate internationally across all elements of the ransomware threat. The third ICRI summit will be on 31 October 2023, in which 47 countries will participate.

Finally, he raised the issue of why ransomware was not getting the attention it deserved in India. He inferred that there were other bigger cyber threats, including that from UPI fraud. Data about the Cybercrime Distribution Trend in India showed that UPI fraud cases are accelerating.

Discussion

The participants raised very vibrant and diversified queries, especially regarding aspects of using ransomware against other nations. Its possibilities and implications were discussed. Along with this, how ransomware attacks are affecting the sovereignty of countries was also discussed. Mr. Saurav Raj Pant, a Visiting Fellow from Nepal, raised a question regarding the digital literacy of India, and Dr. Cherian Samuel gave a very pin-pointed answer. He said that, when it comes to digital literacy, it is more or less individual. There needs to be a specific literacy for that. General awareness is sadly still lacking, which is why a lot of attacks are taking place. Though the actors are so sophisticated they can very well manipulate fear which is more or less interrelated to the psychological aspects of the victims. All the call centre scams are part of it, their modus operandi changes from time to time. Therefore, even if we all are informed there can be a high chance of being scammed. Overall the discussion was highly informative.

Report prepared by Ms. Gayathri Pramod Panamoottil, Intern, West Asia Centre, MP-IDSA.