Events

Speaker: Benjamin S. Lambeth

The Indian Air Force (IAF) is currently the world’s fourth-largest air arm, operating more than 1,300 aircraft out of some 60 bases nationwide. Until the early 1990s, it was almost entirely a support entity for the Indian Army and, as such, was imbued with a narrow tactical mindset and mission orientation. Today, in marked contrast, it has acquired independent strategic missions, including that of nuclear deterrence and retaliation, and it is a diversified force with aspirations to global reach and status. It also is a full-spectrum combat air arm with a precision conventional strike capability, fielding not only fourth-generation multirole fighters, but also force-extending tankers, a recently-acquired Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) capability, intertheater airlifters, remotely-piloted aircraft with multispectral sensors, and the beginnings of a military space surveillance capability. In both content and vector, the institutional “flight plan” now being followed by the IAF’s leadership shows remarkable parallels to the USAF’s transformation that began after Vietnam and that has continued ever since.

The IAF is mainly a fighter force, with the Russian-designed and indigenously-produced Su-30MKI multirole combat aircraft its current pride of inventory. A service in which fighter pilots have traditionally ruled the roost, it projects a deeply-ingrained “can-do” attitude. Among the main features of its operational culture are strong traditions, an educated and technically literate officer corps, an ability to absorb and operate high-technology equipment quickly, and able aircrews trained to Western standards of proficiency and inculcated in the manner of the British Royal Air Force, of which the IAF was an offshoot. With respect to doctrine and concepts of operations, the IAF now stands at the forefront of air power thought worldwide, with its leaders increasingly convinced that any future conflict involving India will be “air-led” and that its chances for success will hinge heavily on what the IAF can contribute to the joint fight. High-profile international training exchanges have become an especially welcome focus of IAF activity over the past decade. The service first opened up to the outside world of military aviation in a major way in 2003 when it invited a detachment of French Air Force fighters to Gwalior to take part in an air-to-air exercise called Garuda. A year later, Exercise Cope India 2004 involving six USAF F-15Cs from Elmendorf AFB, Alaska was held at Gwalior. That evolution represented the IAF fighter community’s first opportunity to interact closely with American airmen since an earlier exercise in 1963 brought a small detachment of F-100s to India from the USAF’s Pacific Air Forces.

The IAF’s participation in the USAF’s Red Flag exercise in August 2008 was by far its most elaborate involvement in such international events since that practice first began on a regular basis. In addition to its sought-after value of offering training for IAF aircrews in a complex operating environment, an important collateral goal of the effort was to test the IAF’s capability for deployment and force sustainment on a global scale.

Until recently, India’s relations with the United States were distant at best. For decades, the Indian government had serious political problems with its American counterpart, mainly because of Washington’s close ties with Pakistan going back to the early Cold War years. The long-standing American inclination to favor Pakistan geopolitically created a major disincentive against the pursuit of cooperative bilateral ties with India by the United States, as did the predominant American image of India for years as merely half of the annoying “India-Pakistan problem.” Today, both countries live in a changed world of increasingly shared security concerns, with a rapidly developing China and an unstable Pakistan, as well as radical Islamist extremism and its associated threats of international terrorism, ever more worrisome as both present and more long-term challenges. In this new context, mutual understanding and a mutual willingness on the part of the two countries to pursue a more cooperative relationship have improved substantially as New Delhi’s former insistence on strict nonalignment has given way to closer interaction with the West. In light of these considerations, the USAF was well-advised in its recent decision to engage the IAF as its next candidate for participation in bilateral Operator Engagement Talks. These and other talks should be pursued with determination at all levels, from the respective service chiefs on down the rank hierarchy, wherever there may be value-added to be gained from such interaction. To be sure, American leaders must understand and accept that the improving U.S.-Indian relationship has little chance of growing, at least in the near term, into anything approximating a more formal alignment of shared security interests. Short of that, however, closer institutional ties between the USAF and IAF are worth pursuing in any event simply because the IAF has become a world-class air force in the service of a vibrant democracy that has every likelihood of being a significant player in 21st-century regional and global security affairs.

Chair: Mr. N. S. Sisodia

The Director General of IDSA, Mr. N.S. Sisodia introduced Ambassador Ronen Sen to the audience by briefing them about his impressive career and the positions that he held in vital countries at the time of political transition after the fall of the Berlin Wall. After paying his personal tribute to late K. Subrahmanyam, Ambassador Sen began by stating that his talk’s focus on defence cooperation with the erstwhile USSR and then Russia, and with the United States did not imply in any way his lack of appreciation of the importance of cooperation with Western Europe and Israel.

Defence cooperation and partnership in high end technologies need to be viewed from the perspective of dynamics in geo-politics. Convergence of interests in the long run informs countries deciding to pursue strategic partnerships. In India’s case, security and economics – trade and market access - drive such long term partnerships. Ambassador Sen then provided a historical perspective on India’s defence cooperation with major powers. After independence, India was supplied defence equipment by the British and it was supplanted by the Soviet Union which remained predominant till the eighties when the Government of India began to diversify the sources of its defence supplies. Nevertheless, the collapse of the Soviet Union posed many challenges to India’s defence preparedness. Successfully transiting this tumultuous phase, India cemented its partnership with Russia. In the present phase, cooperation with the US and Israel has coincided with a peak in defence modernization program. The common element in all transitions, according to Ambassador Sen, has been the resistance to change inside the establishment.

India’s current defence modernization program is taking place in the context of Chinese force projection. Ambassador Sen analyzed the evolving positions of Russia, US and Western European powers in this regard. India, due to its impeccable track record in fulfilling the contractual obligations with regard to technology transfer, will continue to receive defence supplies from the United States unlike Pakistan. In the case of China, despite the economic interdependence, Washington continues its arms embargo policy against the country. Defence cooperation between Moscow and Beijing is strong, but not immune to mistrust and future difficulties.

Focusing on defence cooperation with the erstwhile Soviet Union ambassador Sen stated that there were troubles even through the 1970s and 80s despite mutual goodwill and robust assistance by the Soviet. Defence cooperation and convergence on various international issues between the two countries did not stop the Soviets from seeking leverage with Pakistan through clandestine supplies of armaments. With regard to Kashmir, the Soviet position was not aligned with India as they persisted seeking a mediatory role, and incorrectly depicted Indian borders similar to Western maps. Restoring defence cooperation with Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union was one of the most difficult tasks according to Ambassador Sen. After initial difficulties largely due to domestic factors within Russia, success was achieved by revival of efforts to build a long term partnership involving joint research and development, and co-production. Over time, Brahmos missile joint venture was finalized along with cooperation on nuclear submarine and the deal on Sukhoi-30 MK I multi role combat aircraft. In the years ahead, the challenge lies in imparting greater economic content and in modernizing the Russian defence industry to sustain cooperation between both the countries. India has big stakes in Russia overcoming the challenges facing its defence industry.

Defence cooperation with the United States began in the eighties initiated by Prime Minsiter Rajiv Gandhi. At that time, General Electric engines were supplied for India’s Light Combat Aircraft (LCA). The real impetus to the relationship however was given during the tenure of President Bush and Prime Minsiter Vajpayee. They jointly announced Next Steps in Strategic Partnership (NSSP) which envisaged cooperation in civil nuclear, civilian space, high technology trade and missile defence. After the NSSP, the most important agreement was the India – US New Framework in defence cooperation signed during the visit of the then Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee in June 2005. In the process of deepening the engagement, the US is learning to deal with a partner that is particular about its strategic autonomy in spite of shared values and convergent interests. At the domestic level, perceptions of unreliability of the US need to be balanced by increasing public awareness about the extent of American support to India’s national security interests. In addition, Ambassador Sen felt that there is a need for better understanding of the broader benefits that would result out of technology cooperation with the United States.

Service to service cooperation has become a strong component of Indo-US defence partnership. So far, there have been fifty joint exercises between the armed forces of both the countries. However, at the command level, the same level of cooperation that exists with PACOM (Pacific) does not exist with CENTCOM which covers Af-Pak and the Middle East. Despite approval for having India’s liaison officers at both the commands, there has been no follow-up yet. In addition, perceptual differences remain in case of Logistics Support Agreement (LSA) and Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA). India’s approach to pending issues including Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) reflects not only India’s own perceptions but relates to self-perception as well. There is a need for less ideological posturing and a more open debate on participation in global regimes for self interests. Aspiring a global role does not match with the tendency to remain fence-sitters.

In the Q&A session that followed, Ambassador Sen said that each transition phase brings with it its own set of difficulties. But with passage of time, things change so rapidly that it is important to read the pattern in a holistic manner and avoid analyzing each change in isolation. To a question of attitudinal change of the US Congress towards India over time, Ambassador Sen elaborated on how bipartisan support in Washington was built during his stint. Individuals were reached out to with tailor-made presentations to make them feel part of the process. In addition, the embassy and the consulates reached out to the local media to influence congressmen in a positive manner. To another question, he said the perception that the Indo-US relationship was bad during the cold war is wrong. The reality is that the cooperation was significant even at the height of the Cold War. Green revolution, skilled migration and people to people contacts were cited as examples. He also emphasized the importance of maintaining lines of communication with all countries including China. In his view, a clinical appraisal is required of all relationships from New Delhi’s perspective.

The Director General of IDSA, Mr. Sisodia concluded the event by thanking Ambassador Sen for his insider views and for sharing his experiences about conduct of diplomacy.

Report prepared by Sundar M.S, Research Assistant at IDSA.

A critical look at the major social and economic transitions that have been taking place since the economic reforms might aid in deriving answers for questions that concern with China’s capital accumulation, political legitimacy, plurality in policy making apparatus and the implications of the country’s rise for the rest of the world.

The evolution of Chinese model took place in three phases. In the period from 78- 92, the changes, although imperceptible, began to manifest through foreign investments. An interesting point to note here is the similarity of Post – Mao Chinese policies to industrialization and import substitution measures followed in India during the fifties and sixties. But the difference lies in re-orienting the economy towards exports through establishing special economic zones in the south. During the second phase from 1992 to the millennium, the focus was on integration with the world economy through encouraging Foreign Direct Investments, and at the same time becoming the manufacturing hub of the world. Nevertheless nationalism persisted in that national brands were promoted and domestic industries were protected. In the present phase the emphasis is more on harmony, which in Prof. D’ Costa’s view is an admission of social and economic polarization.

In spite of the infinite labeling of the Chinese model, it is a capitalist economy because of two characteristics viz. formation of wage labour and increase in private property in the form of foreign invested enterprises and small businesses. As a matter of fact, free enterprises and capitalists have been creatures of the Chinese state. With the reform of state owned enterprises, managers who are well connected to the party have become owners of varied industries.

Relentless industrialization’s demand for labour force has however led to rural displacement. About 150 million people have moved to the urban areas in the last twenty years to be absorbed by the industrial units, especially those located in the coastal belt. Even though this process is not unusual for a country undergoing industrialization, this unprecedented scale has had its impact on urban growth and real estate development. Furthermore, this has led to rise in wages thus contributing to increased momentum in the domestic economy. This is being aided by rising consumption of industrial goods including in rural areas.

In the present phase of economic development, inward foreign direct investment as a proportion of gross capital formation has been falling. This indicates that FDI no longer plays a critical role in the Chinese economy. In other words, China has come to have an economic dynamism of its own. A shift share analysis of World Bank data throws light on the emergence of Asia and China in particular. Extrapolation of the same leads to the conclusion that the size of their economies will only grow bigger in the future. Despite the dynamic growth, the issue of stagnation in rise of Per Capita income has captured the attention of Chinese policy makers as in India.

The emphasis on profit driven growth has resulted in a squeeze in private consumption. This might be linked to prevent social upheaval. However, this is unsustainable. Addressing economic growth generated domestic problems related to rising income inequality, employment generation, inflation and real estate bubble and deficiency in technology has become a priority for policy makers. Despite the commitment to research and development with the objective to attain technological competence, sub-optimal quality of education is testing China’s ambitions in the same way as it is affecting India’s attempt at leveraging the opportunity of the demographic dividend.

Multiple challenges remain for China as its economy expands. The creation of an underclass due to the existing hukou system has created major social problems in the urban side.1 They are unable to even send their children to school because of illegal immigration. Similar to India, China has a large informal sector that adds little value to the economy. In addition, corruption has been a problem in China especially at the provincial and the local level. However, unlike in India, it is due to different incentives at the provincial and the local level. They lie in promotion of growth which in turn aids in raising one’s profile within the CCP. Legal excesses have often raised concerns about human right standards, which necessitate reform. Lastly, aggressive posturing by China has caused disquiet amongst the international community which if unaddressed would not augur well for the country’s image.

Prof. D’ Costa is unsure of the prospect of Yuan becoming a global currency considering Chinese resistance to deregulation and absence of capital account convertibility. To another question on the attractiveness of the Chinese model of capitalism, he opined that the world is moving towards democracy and not the other way. In addition, he suggested democracy promotion measures by the Government of India which at present is inappreciable. Though he gave credit to the country’s administrators for testing waters before moving ahead, he felt the real test for the Chinese lies in reorienting their growth to ensure internal and external harmony. As for the question of using currency reserves to exercise power and influence, he believes that they would not be able to go beyond a limit due to complex interdependence and prospect of backlash.

In the next twenty years, China will have to tackle issues related to environmental degradation where there is a potential for co-operation with India. How to ensure inclusiveness as the Chinese growth story progresses is another major challenge Beijing faces in the context of social polarization. Political legitimacy will be in greater doubt if the strains in the society caused by breakneck growth are not addressed. Their final challenge lies in reassuring the international community about their pursuit of growth and political issues such as rule of law and human rights.

Report prepared by Sundar M.S , Research Assistant, IDSA

• 1. Hunkou refers to the system of residency permits issued by Government authorities

Speaker: Dr. Idesbald Goddeeris is an assistant Professor at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium, where he teaches courses on European and colonial history. He is also a senior member of the Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies and coordinator of its Leuven India Focus.

Dr. Idesbald Goddeeris, Coordinator of Leuven India Focus Chair of the Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies in Belgium, addressed an informed audience at IDSA on the subject of the massive political crisis that Belgium has been facing for the last three years and the deep political and financial implications for not just the stability of Belgium but also for the entire European Union. Ms. Smita Purushottam of IDSA chaired the session. Dr. Goddeeris initiated the talk by focusing primarily on the historical background of the current state of affairs in his country. He also emphasized the significance of Belgium from the geographical point of view. Belgium is at the heart of Europe and Brussels is the capital of not just the European Union but also of its chief security apparatus: the NATO. Thus, while Greece and Ireland may still be considered as peripheral in Europe, the sheer centrality of Belgium makes it one of the principal countries that shape the policy decisions of the European Union. Financial and political difficulties of Belgium are bound to have repercussions for the rest of the continent.

Historical Background

There are predominantly two communities in Belgium -the French speaking Walloons and the Dutch speaking Flemings. Belgium is an artificial state of 10.5 million inhabitants. It is joked that the things which bind the citizens of Belgium together are the ‘King, Beer and Soccer’. However the country has survived a century and half since it was put together in 1830-31 by the international powers as a political compromise. It consists of 6 million Dutch-speakers in Flanders, its northern half bordering the Netherlands, 3 million French-speakers in Wallonia, its southern half bordering France, and 1 million people in its capital Brussels, which is also the capital of the European Union. Brussels was a Dutch speaking town, until the middle of the last century, when the deliberate “frenchification” policy of the Belgian authorities succeeded in turning it into a predominantly French-speaking city.

In the early 20th century, when the country gradually began to democratize, the political establishment feared that the Flemings would become the rulers of the state. Hence, Belgium was federalized giving Wallonia a constitutionally guaranteed veto over all major decisions and a guaranteed share of half the seats in government and major administrations. The conservative, free-market oriented Flemings had been complaining for decades that they were forced to subsidize the allegedly “Socialist” south, while no improvement of the economic situation of the Walloons has been visible, which has been weighed down by the legacy of coal and steel industries. On the contrary, Wallonia has become a stagnant region in Europe with hardly any economic growth. Though Wallonia has 33% of Belgium’s population, it has 46% of its unemployed and it accounts for only 24% of Belgian GDP and 13% of its exports. 20% of the Walloons are unemployed and 40% work for the government.

There is an enduring period of communitarian tension and political instability which is rooted in the differing opinions on state reform, and in the continuing existence of the controversial electoral district of Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde (BHV). Parties from the Dutch-speaking Flanders are in general strongly in favour for devolution of powers to the regions and the splitting of the unconstitutional BHV district, while the French-speaking Wallonia in general insists on retaining the status quo.

Every attempt to liberalize the Belgian economy and to reform the generous Belgian welfare system has been vetoed by the Walloon Socialists. This has led to increasing Flemish frustration, resulting in the growth of the Flemish-secessionist movement. It is extremely difficult and unpopular for the political establishment of Flanders to foot the ever increasing social and health care bills.

Recent Events

The collapse of Belgian Prime Minister Yves Leterme's five-month-old government risks paralyzing politics at a time when vital economic decisions need to be made and an agenda set for Europe. Belgium’s bickering political leaders have failed to restart seven-party negotiations to form a government, prolonging the deadlock for more than 207 days and thus breaking a European government formation record, previously held by Netherlands.

Some of the major problems and issues that will need to be tackled on a priority basis are:
a) Rising unemployment.
b) Pension issue.
c) Budgetary deficit which is close to 5% of the GDP.
d) Wage negotiations between employers and the state which can be complex and long drawn in the absence of a political mandate and can subsequently lead to social instability and impede growth.
e) Bearish run of the stock exchange.
f) Rising interest rates.
g) Investor confidence which is at an all time low.

Till date, speculators analyzing debt markets have focused their attention on Greece and other southern euro-zone members, but the political crisis could push Belgium, Europe’s third most indebted country after Greece and Italy, onto their radar screens.

The questions put forward by the audience revolved around the immigration issues faced by Belgium and the public perception of the citizenship act of the country which has often riled the intellectuals. The nature of European reaction needed to tackle the prevailing crisis, the rise and emergence of China, European Union as a modern entity capable of meeting the needs and aspirations of its citizens and the future of the Euro as a common currency were also discussed. There was a debate on the success of the European integration project with different views proposed by the speaker and German experts present in the audience.

Ms. Purushottam thanked Dr. Goddeeris on behalf of the experts present and IDSA for his presentation and observed that it was imperative for India to deepen its understanding of developments within the European Union and its member countries and vice versa, in order to better understand the future direction of the global events. It was a pity that neither India nor Europe felt a need to better understand each other’s strategic thinking and greater exchange of experts and students was required for this purpose. She also praised the effort of Dr. Jakub Zajarczkowsky of the Centre for Contemporary India Research and Studies of the Institute of International Relations, University of Warsaw in facilitating the meeting with Professor Goddeeris.

Report prepared by Rajorshi Roy, Research Assistant, Eurasia Cluster, IDSA.