Events

Chairperson: Shri Naveen Verma, National Security Council
Discussants: Professor Chintamani Mahapatra and Shri K Srinivasan

The paper focuses on how United States manages its borders through the concept of “smart borders”, enhanced cross border cooperation with neighbours and utilisation of technological solutions and how far these measures are relevant to India’s approach to border management. Smart Border concept encompasses safe and secure flow of people and goods and improvement of transit infrastructure and cross border cooperation. According to Dr. Das, border management entails facilitating cross border flows of people and goods while concurrently preventing the entry of persons or goods which pose threat to home territories or population. In this context, the paper summarizes the Indian approach to border management and American practices to conclude that India’s “security centric” approach should be replaced by “smart border” principle for more fluid borders and increased trade efficiency.

The major point of discussion and suggestions to the author:

• The paper has given a new perspective on how traditionally borders are managed in India and the challenges posed by the same.
• Excellent comparison of border management in two largest democracies in the world but respective countries have qualitatively/quantitatively different border issues that has to be borne in mind, for example drug trafficking and large scale illegal migration is a menace to the US while cross border terrorism is an issue for India.
• India’s festering border issues with its neighbours and hostile relations pose security challenge to India’s borders and hence India has to keep “security approach” unlike US that has amiable relations with Canada and Mexico (main countries in focus in the paper).
• Political economy of US and South Asia are unique by themselves, hence the fundamental flaw would be to compare how two countries manage their borders.
• In Indian Context, “Smart Border” does not seems to be an ideal concept as long as an unstable region prevails. Basic political dilemmas have to be addressed in the region for further improvement in relations between the countries that will entail better border management in the longer run.
• Greater importance to land border management negates the importance of coastal security, specially post 26/11 threats that emanate from the coasts. Hence, a new turf to explore in India’s security ambit.
• Role of individual states in border management needs to be incorporated/ evaluated for a robust border security
• Overall, a security approach complementary with cooperative approach is in India’s interest, and not smart border approach.

Report prepared by Anwesha Ray Chaudhuri, Research Assistant, IDSA

A four-member delegation of Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences (SASS) led by Prof. Pan Shiwei, Secretary of the CPC committee and Chairman of Academic Committee of SASS, visited IDSA on 29 December, for an interaction with the scholars. Other members of the delegation included Mr. Li Yihai, Prof. Mei Junjie and Keija Yan. The meeting was chaired by Prof. V.P. Dutt, distinguished fellow at IDSA.

Welcoming the delegation, Dr. Gupta, Lal Bahadur Shastri Chair, and Deputy Director General, said that IDSA has a long tradition of interaction and dialogue with a number of Chinese think tanks, including SASS. He recalled his fruitful interaction with Chinese think tanks during the recent visit of an IDSA delegation to China. Responding to this sentiment, Prof. Pan Shiwei said that SASS is following the developments in India and in Sino-Indian relations very closely. He added that cooperation between the two countries is of paramount importance, not only for India and China, but also for the world at large. Responding to the question relating to China’s policy towards Jammu and Kashmir, the member(s) of the delegation said that Beijing has been consistent in its approach towards Jammu and Kashmir, and that China has officially recognized Sikkim as an integral part of India.

Participating in the interactive discussion, Dr. Gupta agreed with Prof. Pan Shiwei’s observation that there should be calmness, and that we should not be carried away by media hype. He, however, felt that China should show sensitivity to India’s concern relating to Jammu and Kashmir, and that India has no problems with Sino-Pakistan relations as Sino-Indian relations stands on their own. He further said that it is not the stapled visa, but the larger issue, which is a matter of concern to India. The meeting concluded with a very fruitful, and productive discussion.

Chairperson: Ambassador I P Khosla
Discussants: Ambassador Dalip Mehta and Professor Mathew Joseph C

Dr. Medha Bisht’s paper focused on Bhutan’s Policy shift over a period of time. In the process of explaining this broad aspect, she tried to answer questions such as: who are the actors in Bhutan driving foreign policy choices? What are the factors that determine Bhutan’s foreign policy choices?

The speaker presented the paper in three broad sections. The first section assessed the basic determinants responsible for influencing or making foreign policy decisions in Bhutan. In this section, she amplified the role of domestic factors in the making of Bhutan’s foreign policy. She argues that while, geo-strategic location, national security and economic engagement have shaped Bhutan’s foreign policy preferences, the political institutions in Bhutan, particularly, Monarchy, National Assembly, Royal Advisory Council and Monastic Order are also important attributes shaping its foreign policy decision making. According to the speaker, among the four political institutions mentioned above, Monarchy and National Assembly emerged as important institutions in shaping foreign policy decisions.

In the second section, the speaker isolated security, culture and economy as the factors which have predominantly shaped foreign policy preferences of Bhutan. According to her, while security had played an important role in shaping Bhutan’s relations with China, cultural factors had played a significant role in determining Bhutan’s position on negotiating the issue of refugees with Nepal. Economic benefits, on the other hand, have played an important role in defining Bhutan’s interaction with India. The speaker however argued that these categories were not distinct in relation to the three countries mentioned above. The thrust of the analysis she argued was to highlight the significance of these three factors as the primary determinants in Bhutan’s foreign policy.

The third section identified the possibilities of continuity and change in Bhutan’s foreign policy post 2008. Despite Bhutan’s shift to constitutional monarchy, the King still holds an important place in deciding Bhutan’s external engagements. While mapping out the pattern of change and continuity in Bhutan’s foreign policy engagement in terms of the determinants, speaker argued that economic engagements would govern Bhutan’s future foreign policy choices and interactions with China in near future could increase. Regarding the role of political institutions in Bhutan, National Assembly, National Council, Gross National Happiness Commission, Druk and holding Investments, Royal Service Commission and Anti Corruption Commission would be potential future players.

External Discussants:

The external discussants complimented the presenter for a comprehensive and well researched paper. The first external discussant suggested that the paper would benefit if a background mentioning Bhutan’s opening up to the world through Young Husbands expedition was included. The same discussant also felt that the paper should include a discussion on Bhutan –Britain relationship, future of Indo-Bhutan relations in the context of China-Bhutan relations, Bhutan shifting from closed medieval society to a modern society, opening up of Bhutan to the globalised world, Bhutan’s relations with P5 and some of the important events such as: Nehru’s visit in 1958. According to the discussant, the paper gave too much importance on National Assembly, but during 3rd and 4th King National Assembly was basically a rubber stamp. The same view was also echoed by the second external discussant. According to the second external discussant, political culture required elaboration. He also suggested the speaker to re-look at her argument that economy determines Indo-Bhutan engagement.

Internal Discussants:

The first internal discussant pointed out that the three determinants isolated by the speaker, i.e. security, culture and economy could not be compartmentalized in real sense. Political culture, mentioned by the speaker was more about citizenship issue than of foreign policy. According to the first internal discussant Bhutan’s Trade relations with Assam needed to be substantiated. The discussant also suggested the presenter to address Bhutan’s reaction to the Chinese presence and recommendation for India. The second internal discussant suggested the speaker to elaborate Bhutan Nepal relations.

General discussion focused on the following issues:

• India’s Development Assistance to Bhutan
• Manifesto of the ruling and opposition parties on Bhutan’s policy towards China and India
• Presence of religious puzzle in Bhutan
• Indian Army’s OP Task in Bhutan
• Attitude of local people of Bhutan towards India
• Bhutanese Diaspora
• Climate Change,
• Binding factor that keeps Bhutan together

Chair’s Comments

According to the chair, the speaker had made an excellent effort to put the narratives into analytical framework. However, he felt that the title and contents of the paper did not match. He suggested the speaker to incorporate the comments by the discussants and substantiate them with the application of the Small State theory.

Report prepared by Gulbin Sultana, Research Assistant, IDSA.

Chairperson: Prof. V P Dutt
Discussants: Prof Madhu Bhalla and Prof Swaran Singh

In sharp contrast to its reticence till the 1990s, the past few years have witnessed a notable increase in the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) engagement with the international armies. At present, China has military contacts with more than 150 countries. It has set up military attaché offices in 112 countries; and 102 countries have opened military attaché offices in China. During the 11th Five-Year Plan, the PLA has dispatched, on average, more than 170 military delegations to foreign countries and hosted more than 200 military delegations per year. It is in this background, China’s peaceful military activism in the global arena has attracted considerable academic attention.

Dr Prashant Kumar Singh, in his presentation, tried to explore the issue further. At the outset, he made it clear that the paper was neither meant to derive any sensation from the term “military diplomacy” nor did it intend to produce any sensational research. Instead, Dr Singh attempted to demystify and simplify the term “military diplomacy”. He attempted to pick up and discuss with the audience, one of the many functions performed by the PLA.

Dr Singh tried to answer nine broad questions in the paper, including the rationale, objectives, and resources consulted, the meaning of military diplomacy and its relation with China’s foreign policy, instruments of China’s military diplomacy and the general trends in China’s participation in UN Peace Keeping (UNPK).

Dr Singh said that China’s actual footprint in UNPK in terms of troop as well as financial contribution is widely considered miniscule. In countering the argument, he pointed out that China’s participation in UNPK is not an isolated and ignorable feature. It is very much moving in sync with the larger agenda set by the government and its foreign ministry and serving China’s national interests in different ways.

It is also in the institutional interests of the PLA that it asks for stronger mandates in UNPK. In times to come, it may emerge as leader of the UN-commanded peacekeeping missions.

Points of discussion:

1. China’s position on human rights and humanitarian intervention is in contrast with the ethos of UNPK. How is China addressing the contradiction?
2. How is PLA achieving China’s foreign policy goals through UNPK?
3. China’s is a unique case where three segment; the party, PLA and the State itself are trying to run their own sets of foreign policy. In that regard, how is PLA competing with other two segments in promoting its own agenda?
4. How is the world community, especially the US and India responding to PLAs UNPK operations?

Report prepared by Rahul Mishra, Research Assistant, IDSA