Events

Mr. Vishal Chandra, Research Fellow, Manohar Parrikar IDSA spoke on ‘The Recent Tashkent International Conference on Afghanistan’ at the Monday Morning Meeting held on 1 August 2022 at 10 AM. The meeting was moderated by Dr. Ashok K. Behuria, Senior Fellow, MP-IDSA.

Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA, Maj.Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.), Deputy Director General, MP-IDSA and the scholars of the Institute participated in the meeting.

Executive Summary

During the meeting, the speaker shared his observations as a participant in the Tashkent International Conference on ‘Afghanistan: Security and Economic Development’ held on 26 July 2022. He highlighted the key observations made by the special representatives/speakers from various participant countries, including the Taliban delegation from Afghanistan, and international organisations.

Most of the speakers emphasised the need for continued humanitarian assistance to the Afghan people and unfreezing of Afghan reserves, and called upon the Taliban to form an inclusive government, restore secondary education for girls and respect the rights of all Afghan citizens, create a conducive environment for trade and investment, and to not allow terrorist groups to operate from the Afghan soil. 

Highlighting the achievements of the Taliban interim government, the Taliban representative pointed to the general amnesty announced for members of the previous regime and efforts made for the return of Afghans from exile.

Detailed Report

The Monday Morning Meeting began with moderator Dr. Ashok K. Behuria providing an overview of the current geo-strategic situation in the region since the return of the Taliban to power in Afghanistan. He stressed that the ethnic divisions that emerged in the Taliban were due to the distrust by the minority ethnic groups (Hazaras, Uzbeks and Tajiks) of the Pashtun dominant nature of the Taliban. Though the representation of ethnic minorities is visible in the state apparatus, their presence and powers are limited. He gave the example of the current Taliban Chief of Staff, Qari Fasihuddin Fitrat, being an ethnic Tajik. The claim of the Taliban as an inclusive and sole power in Afghanistan is also being questioned.

In continuation to the moderator’s remarks, Mr. Vishal Chandra began his presentation by highlighting the increased tension in northern parts of the country and along Afghanistan’s borders, with Pakistan on the Durand Line in the east, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan in the north, and Iran in the west. He added that there have been skirmishes between the Taliban and the Pakistani forces in the east and the Iranian forces in the west.  

Elaborating on Uzbekistan’s initiative to bring participants from more than 20 countries and various regional and international organisations (UN & its various agencies including UNAMA, the EU, ECO, SCO and the OIC) together to discuss the issue of Afghan stability and regional connectivity, the speaker stated that the current conference was projected as the logical continuation of the previous two High-Level Tashkent Conferences: ‘Afghanistan: Peace Process, Security Cooperation and Regional Connectivity’, held in March 2018, and ‘Central and South Asia: Regional Connectivity. Challenges and Opportunities’, held in July 2021. He added that Uzbekistan has had a history of taking initiatives on the Afghan issue, be it the ‘Six-Plus-Two’ grouping in the late 1990s, comprising Afghanistan’s six immediate neighbours plus Russia and the US, or the ‘Six-Plus-Three’ grouping a decade later, with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) added to it.

According to Mr. Chandra, the stated goal of the July 26 Tashkent Conference on Afghanistan was to establish a solidary and effective international dialogue on the Afghan issue, to assist in the formation of a common position on issues of regional stability and international terrorism, and build a constructive dialogue with the neighbouring countries and the current authorities of Afghanistan. He added that the conference was projected as an integral part of a systemic effort of Uzbekistan to ensure security and stability in the Central Asian region and turn Afghanistan into a peaceful country free from terrorism.

Mr. Chandra shared the details of the discussions held during the Plenary Session.

Plenary Session

The plenary session began with Acting Foreign Minister of Uzbekistan Vladimir Norov delivering the inaugural remarks and President’s Special Representative Abdulaziz Kamilov reading out President Shavkat Mirziyoyev’s address, followed by speeches of special representatives/ heads of delegations from the participating countries and regional and international organisations. 

The Taliban Acting Foreign Minister Amir Khan Muttaqi led a large delegation comprising senior officials from the finance, interior and foreign ministries, the Afghan Central Bank, Afghan National Power Utility (or DABS) and the Afghan Railways. No other Afghan group participated in the conference.

Among the key participants were UN Secretary-General’s Deputy Special Representative Markus Potzel, OIC Secretary General’s Special Envoy Tarig Ali Bakhreet, Secretary General of ECO Khusrav Noziri, EU Special Envoy Tomas Niklasson, Chinese Special Envoy Yue Xiaoyong, US Special Representative Thomas West, US Special Envoy for Afghan Women, Girls, and Human Rights Rina Amiri, Russian Special Representative Zamir Kabulov, Pakistan’s Special Representative Mohammad Sadiq, Iranian Special Envoy Hassan Kazemi-Qomi, Qatar Foreign Minister’s Special Envoy Mutlaq Bin Majed Al Qahtani, Kazakh Foreign Ministry’s Ambassador-at-Large Talgat Kaliyev, Kyrgyz President’s Special Representative Taalatbek Masadykov, Turkmenistan’s Deputy Foreign Minister Vepa Khadzhiev, Tajikistan’s National Coordinator for Afghanistan Vafo Niyatbekzoda, British Prime Minister’s Special Representative Nigel Casey, and Director of SCO RATS Ruslan Mirzaev. The American delegation also included officials from the Treasury Department and the State Department. India was represented by Ambassador Manish Prabhat.

In President Mirziyoyev’s message, it was stated that without stability on the other bank of Amu Darya (Afghanistan), it is impossible to achieve security and stable development in the entire Central Asian region. He expressed hope that the international community will not repeat the mistakes of the 1990s as the international isolation of Afghanistan will inevitably lead to further deterioration of the humanitarian situation in the country.

Many participants emphasised the history of Afghanistan and said that unless a broad-based government that represents the ethnic and linguistic diversity of the country is formed, it will be difficult to establish a sustainable political order and security in the country.

The US Special Representative Thomas West stated that the US remains the largest donor to Afghanistan, including after August 2021. He informed that the US Government is closely working with the stakeholders and has not imposed any new sanctions on Afghanistan in the last 11 months. He also said that the dialogue is going on with the Taliban officials for unfreezing of Afghan Central Bank reserves.

Key Observations Made by Conference Speakers

• Isolating or abandoning Afghanistan and its people will prove counter-productive. The international community must continue to provide humanitarian assistance to the Afghan people.
• Humanitarian aid and assistance while critical to the stability of Afghanistan is not a long-term solution. The resumption of trade and investment is critical to the revival of the Afghan economy.
• Representatives from Russia, China, Pakistan, Iran and other regional countries called for unfreezing of Afghan central bank reserves.  
• Taliban must form an inclusive government, representing the social diversity of the country, and put an end to arbitrary detentions and extra-judicial killings.
• Taliban must allow girls to attend secondary schools. The exclusion of half of the country’s workforce, the Afghan women, will only make it difficult for the donor countries to justify the grant of aid and assistance.
• Taliban need to create a conducive environment for the return of all Afghans and the resumption of the much-needed international investment.
• Taliban must sever their ties with regional and global terrorist groups, including al-Qaeda. The increased activity of Islamic State Khorasan (ISK) is an issue of grave concern.
• Response to the situation in Afghanistan has to be collective and sustainable, keeping in view the larger interest of all sections of the Afghan population.

Key Points Made by Taliban Interim Foreign Minister

• During the short period of 11 months, the Taliban Government has managed to establish security and provide basic services to the people. Corruption has been completely rooted out.
• The Taliban leadership has laid the ground for a culture of tolerance and acceptance by declaring a general amnesty for all political and military opposition. Thousands of officials from the previous regime are working in the government departments.  
• About 100,000 youth have been recruited into the army and 180,000 into the police.
• A contact group has been established to facilitate the return of officials of the previous administration.
• The government has successfully reopened universities and schools across the country and has announced 7,000 new vacancies in the education sector.
• Women continue to work in education, health and other government departments.
• The government is committed to not allowing any terrorist group, including Daesh or the Islamic State Khorasan (ISK), to use Afghan soil against any other country. 
• The government stands ready to establish positive relations with all the countries in the framework of mutual respect and legitimate bilateral interests.
• The US must unconditionally release all reserves of the Afghan Central Bank and the international community must begin official engagement with the ‘Islamic Emirate’.
• Afghanistan is the closest and cheapest trade route between Central and South Asia. It is time to invest in Afghanistan’s stability.
• The delivery of humanitarian assistance has been completely transparent and the government budget for the first time completely relies on the revenue generated from within the country.

At the end of the plenary session, Muttaqi once again responded to the points raised by various speakers. Some of the key points made by him are: 

• Afghanistan’s budget is extremely transparent and for the first time it is fully reliant on state revenues and not on any external source.
• The Taliban Government will continue to make progress on security and human rights issues.
• The Taliban Government has banned narcotics but no country or organisation has come forward to help the government with alternative livelihoods for the affected Afghan people.
• About 18,000 Daesh militants were released from Pul-e-Charkhi prison when the Taliban entered Kabul. The Taliban security forces have since made good progress against them.   
• The Taliban Government has not only announced an amnesty for all but also retained thousands of employees from the previous regime.
• Any support for the Resistance Front is support for the destabilisation of Afghanistan.
• Afghanistan is the Heart of Asia and if it is peaceful then Asia is peaceful.
• Political issues should not be linked to aid and assistance for the Afghan people.

Mr. Chandra highlighted what transpired during the Parallel Sessions held at the Conference.

Parallel Sessions

After the plenary session, the conference was divided into parallel sessions on Uzbekistan’s humanitarian and proposed infrastructure projects on Afghanistan. Mr. Chandra attended the session on humanitarian projects. The entire focus of that session was on (i) Termez Educational Centre for the Training of Afghan Citizens, and (ii) Termez Cargo Centre (upgraded to the status of an International Multi-Functional Transport & Logistics Hub for Humanitarian Assistance), both established by the Uzbekistan Government. Various short and long-term courses are offered to the Afghan citizens at the Termez Training Centre. The Termez Logistics Hub is being used by the UN and its agencies to send humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan. 

The focus of the parallel session on infrastructure was on the Uzbekistan-proposed 700-km Trans-Afghanistan Railway Project (connecting Uzbekistan to Pakistan, via Afghanistan) and the 500-kV Surkhan-Pul-e-Khumri Power Transmission Project in northern Afghanistan. However, there was not much clarity about the funding of these two projects. 

Questions and Comments

Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, congratulated the speaker for his participation in such an important event. He pointed out the reasons for Uzbekistan facilitating such regional and global events. Uzbekistan has a sense of its relevance and importance in the region. It has the largest population and the biggest economy in Central Asia and also has stable relations with its neighbours. Uzbekistan has a record of working well with all in the region.

The US seems to be ready to give some concession to the Taliban in exchange for certain US demands. He stressed that the Taliban regime will be there and is not going anywhere soon. There will be differences among various groups within the regime, creating space for others to step in. Taliban will have issues on its border as it identifies itself with the nation and that translates into boundaries. The same boundaries that the Taliban earlier transgressed would now be the ones they would protect and would not want other elements to do what they did in the past.  The Islamic State and its Khorasan affiliate would be a concern for the Taliban. India has to engage with the region and with the stakeholders.

Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi, (Retd.) stated that Europe particularly is not interested in the happenings in Afghanistan. The reasons for this are, firstly, they do not want to recognise the legitimacy of the Taliban and, secondly, there is pre-occupation with the Ukrainian refugees. The Central Asian nations, including Uzbekistan, are discussing the idea of connectivity from Central Asia to South Asia. This is of importance to India in the long run, particularly projects like the TAPI (Turkmenistan–Afghanistan–Pakistan–India) gas pipeline.

Mr. Vishal Chandra, the speaker, gave detailed and insightful replies in response to comments and questions received from the participants of the meeting.

On 22 July 2022 Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA) organised a talk by Dr. Jean Baptiste Jeangène Vilmer, Director, Institute of Strategic Research of the Ecole Militaire (IRSEM) on Chinese Influence Operations. Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA chaired the session and delivered the welcome remarks. Dr. Vilmer’s talk was followed by signing the Letter of Intent (LoI) between MP-IDSA and IRSEM.

Executive Summary

In recent years Chinese influence operations have emerged as a major threat. Beijing’s clandestine operations have become tougher and more sophisticated. It is noteworthy that Chinese influence operation techniques are increasingly becoming similar to ones used by Russia. Further, China like Russia has shown considerable willingness to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries by manipulating elections, amplifying socio-political divergences and running misinformation and psychological warfare campaigns against governments, individuals and businesses. In this context Dr. Vilmer delivered a talk on scope, techniques, targets and impact of Chinese influence operations around the world.

Detailed Report

The session began with welcome remarks by Ambassador Chinoy. He stated that Dr. Vilmer’s visit was emblematic of the deepening ties and cooperation between India and France and was in order with the high-level visits recently exchanged between the two countries. Reflecting briefly on the basis of India-France bilateral ties, he opined that the partnership is rooted in mutual trust, commitment to international law, vision for a multipolar world and effective multilateralism. These factors will be critical drivers for the deepening of bilateral ties. Ambassador Chinoy highlighted the prominence of defence ties in India-France relations and expressed appreciation for France’s commitment to ‘Make in India’ and participation in India’s efforts to achieve self-reliance in the defence sector. Describing the convergence of interest between India and France, he observed that the most important facet of the bilateral relationship is emerging in the Indo-Pacific and in view of France’s long tradition of engagement with the region, India recognises French interests in the region as well. He welcomed France’s interest in QUAD, its interest in IPEF and Indo-Pacific Partnership for Maritime Domain Awareness Initiative and expressed that these endeavours are likely to draw France closer to the emerging cooperation matrix that is currently evident in the Indo-Pacific. Considering the increasing cooperation between India and France at the international stage, Ambassador Chinoy observed that this is the right time to step up cooperation between two institutions by signing the Letter of Intent (LoI).

With regard to China’s influence operations, Ambassador Chinoy opined that these influence operations are not new and having dealt with China closely India has best understood the Chinese. He observed that Europe’s policies towards China are not entirely in line with the way India sees China and that explains the different approaches India and Europe adopted towards the Ukraine crisis. Also, Europe has woken up late to the threat of Chinese operations. Elaborating briefly on functioning of Chinese influence operations, Ambassador Chinoy contented that many countries including India are reeling under the challenges of China’s three-warfare strategy. Thereafter, he invited Dr. Vilmer to present the IRSEM report to the audience.  

Dr. Vilmer, at the outset of his talk, concurred with Ambassador Chinoy’s observation about Europe being late in its awareness regarding the threat of Chinese influence operations. He added that Europe’s internal division with respect to viewing China is also a major problem to tackle at the institutional level of the European Union. Referring to the report he explained that the research is premised on the idea of ‘Russification’ of Chinese influence operations. In recent years, China like Russia has showed increasing willingness to coerce and infiltrate countries to fulfil its political and geo-strategic objectives and its influence operation techniques are becoming very similar to those employed by Moscow. According to Dr. Vilmer this recent trend is a shift from China’s earlier emphasis on soft-power projection. However, Beijing now appears to be standing at a Machiavellian turn where the CCP is more inclined to evoke fear (threat) than love (persuasion).

Elaborating on different aspects of the report, Dr. Vilmer informed the audience that it focuses on the evolution of Chinese influence operations and covers the whole spectrum of influence in terms of soft power, sharp power and some elements of hard power. He highlighted that the report constitutes of four parts; the first deals with concepts in Chinese influence operations like the United Front, Three-Warfares Strategy and Active Measures. It is noteworthy, that Beijing imported the third concept from the Soviet doctrine of influence operations. The second part of the report deals with actors implementing Chinese influence operations and they involve individuals or groups from within the Party, State, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and public private companies. These actors are involved largely in collection of data and setting the targets for influence operations. Dr. Vilmer observed that for now most of the influence operations are directed against Taiwan, Hong-Kong and other countries in Chinese periphery. Part three of the report discusses the actions implemented by Beijing in its influence operations abroad. The actions primarily intend to captivate foreign audience by projecting a positive image of China and then attempt to infiltrate and coerce. Finally, the report focuses on case studies, situations and offers instances of influence operations in different countries. In the concluding section the report examines the extent of Russianisation of Chinese influence operations and how effective Chinese endeavours have been.

Towards the end of his presentation Dr. Vilmer, while comparing the Russian and Chinese influence operations, noted the similarities and differences between the two countries. He contended that Chinese military has publicly acknowledged drawing inspiration from Russia and that China is using trolls, fake accounts and bots the same way as Russia does. Moreover, Beijing, emulating Russian techniques, is interfering in local elections in Taiwan, Australia and Canada. It is using sensitive regions like Hong Kong and Taiwan as a testing ground for its influence operations.  Both, Russia and China are moving closer to political radicals in a bid to amplify socio-political divergences in target societies. With regard to divergences Dr. Vilmer pointed out that while China possesses more strategic levers than Russia to attain its political objectives, Russian influence operations are far more sophisticated and advanced.

Following Dr. Vilmer’s presentation, the floor was opened for question and answers.

Q&A

During the Q&A session various issues were raised through questions and comments. With regard to the scope of Chinese influence operations the scholars queried about the extent to which certain European leaders and industries have been compromised by China’s clandestine activities and the functioning of Chinese influence operations in South Asia in terms of debt diplomacy. Dr. Vilmer affirmed that certain European leaders and industries have been compromised and Serbia and Hungary are two soft underbellies of Europe where Chinese influence is strong. However, there is an increasing backlash against China from other European countries like France and Sweden and this hostility is likely to increase in the foreseeable future. He added that the economic lever continues to be one of the most powerful instruments of influence although the issue of debt diplomacy needs to be studied in further detail. Other questions pertained to symbols of Chinese soft power, indoctrination of Chinese students prior to their arrival in western countries, role of Chinese economic interests in directing influence operations, Beijing’s assistance to Russia in building its firewall system and safeguards that can be undertaken to prevent undesirable interference by China. Dr. Vilmer responded briefly to each of the questions. He expressed that it is difficult to understand whether the Chinese students are indoctrinated or being coerced to act in a certain way. He also observed that China mostly uses its economic power to influence decisions of foreign governments and that China and Russia are collaborating on multiple fronts in the cyber domain. On the issue of safeguards Dr.Vilmer noted knowledge building and planned decoupling from China as two important measures to mitigate the threat from Chinese influence operations.

The Report has been prepared by Ms. Mayuri Banerjee, Research Analyst, East Asia Centre.

Press Release [+]

Dr. Deepika Saraswat, Associate Fellow, West Asia Centre, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA), spoke on “Iran Nuclear Talks: Key Issues and Regional Implications” at the Monday Morning Meeting held on 18 July 2022. The session was chaired by Dr. Rajiv Nayan, Senior Research Associate. Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA, Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.), Deputy Director General, MP-IDSA, and scholars of the Institute were in attendance.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Nearly for over a year, the Iran nuclear talks aimed at reviving the JCPOA have been going on between Iran and P5+1 countries. There have been many agreements and disagreements between them and other states. Iran made an attempt to enrich the nuclear material (Uranium) above the enrichment level limited by the JCPOA, leading to complications with the IAEA. If nuclear material has fissile isotope more than 20%, it is considered as Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) and below 20%, is considered as Low Enriched Uranium (LEU). There have been many key issues that acted as stumbling blocks in the Iran Nuclear Talks and Iran has also made many demands which are discussed below.

DETAILED REPORT

Dr. Rajiv Nayan, the moderator, during his opening remarks, started by briefing the audience about the Iran Nuclear talks - key issues and implications. He also talked about enrichment of uranium and how it can be considered as a threat by other countries. He mentioned that Iran export controls and enrichment technology control violates the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in the working paper submitted in different preparatory committees of NPT Review Conferences.

Dr. Deepika Saraswat started with introducing the structure of the presentation. She gave a background on the beginning of the Iran Nuclear talks since April last year in Vienna. She continued her introduction by mentioning what were Iran’s redlines, early disagreements, key issues, and regional implications.

She mentioned that, even before President Biden was inaugurated, Iran’s Supreme Leader declared that Iran was seeking verifiable lifting of all sanctions. But contrary to expectations, Biden administration did not swiftly return to the JCPOA by an executive order. Before the negotiations began in April, Biden administration preferred to have an internal consensus and also consulted US regional allies. But because of the initial dithering by the US, Iran ended up entrenching its position on issue of guarantees and verification of sanction relief.  Iran refused to have direct negotiations with the US and the commissioner of the Joint Commission of the JCPOA, which is the EU representative, playing intermediary between the US and Iran. Three expert level working groups were set up for technical nuclear issue, for addressing sanctions and sequencing of steps.

Dr. Deepika Saraswat shed some light on the Iran parliament redlines. Iran's early redlines are that it was not looking for waivers, where the President was going to waive sanctions every 120 days, 90 days, but it wanted a complete removal of all sanctions, including the ones enacted by Congress. On the sequencing of steps, Iran maintained that it will fulfil its nuclear commitments only after verifying the effectiveness of sanctions relief. Also the guarantee that the US will not pull out of the JCPOA or undermine it by imposing new sanctions, including non-nuclear related sanctions. There were also disagreements on nuclear commitments, which were problematised by Iran’s reduction of its JCPOA commitments in response to ‘maximum pressure’.

Pointing to the many nuclear facilities in Iran on the map, Dr. Saraswat noted the most important one is the Natanz nuclear facility, which is actually a complex with underground and above ground facilities, including pilot fuel enrichment plant and the commercial enrichment facilities, which are underground. Secondly, the Fordo facility, part of the JCPOA, had been converted into a technologies centre, which began enriching again.

Dr. Deepika Saraswat listed the time-line of engagement between Iran and the IAEA on safeguard issues. In May 2019, Iran began rolling back its JCPOA-related nuclear commitments in line with the bill passed by Iran’s parliament in December 2020 mandating Iran’s Atomic Energy Organisation to do so. However, in February-2021, to preserve IAEA’s continuity of knowledge of Iran’s nuclear program, Iran agreed to a temporary technical understanding with the agency. In April 2021, Natanz fuel enrichment plant sabotage took place. Then following Karaj centrifuge parts manufacturing workshop sabotage in June 2021, Iran allowed the IAEA to replace cameras only after it was threatened with censure. But the May 2022 IAEA  report finds Iran has breached NPT safeguards by not fully cooperating with the IAEA, and subsequently IAEA Board of Governors passed a US-EU3 drafted censure resolution against Iran for ‘insufficient cooperation’ with IAEA investigation into undeclared nuclear materials and activities from the pre-2003 period. In June 2022, Iran responded by turning off the JCPOA-related monitoring cameras.

Dr. Saraswat elaborated on how the E3 and the US have been driven by a sense of urgency, given that the Iranian nuclear program has been advancing. But Iran has shown no such urgency because they think that as their nuclear programme accelerates, it will only the gain leverage. She also noted that a key contentious issue was that in order to extend the breakout time, Iran will have to dismantle and store under seal its advanced centrifuges, also destroy the corresponding electronic infrastructure and assembly lines.

Iran also continued to demand ‘guarantees’ for seeking a sustainable deal at least during the Biden administration. However, in March 2022, Iran showed flexibility in its demand of verification for lifting of sanctions as the US had agreed to lift two-third of 1,500 Trump era sanctions designations. Iran also demanded IRGC’s FTO designation. Initially, the Biden administration had agreed that if Iran controls its regional activities, then it will consider lifting this designation. Another issue that the speaker referred to is the IAEA investigation in Iran's undercoated nuclear sites that they were trying to cover up past nuclear activities for ‘possible military dimension’.

The final section of Dr. Saraswat’s presentation was about regional implications of Iran nuclear talks. Iran nuclear talks have been paralleled by ‘security-focussed talks’ between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Qatar, Oman have played intermediaries in nuclear talks in the past and have helped break deadlocks between Iran and the US. Recent US-Iran talks in Doha failed over disagreements on the scope and guarantees on sanctions relief. Biden’s recent visit to Israel, Saudi Arabia also was about pressuring Iran into coming back to the JCPOA.

DISCUSSION

Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, the Director General, started his comments by stating that US does not seem very serious at this stage about the JCPOA. He gave his view about the topic. Firstly, he opined that world has changed a lot since JCPOA has come into effect in January 2016. It is unrecognisable in terms of threat perceptions, in terms of ups and downs of US politics with the Trump Presidency and Biden Administration. Secondly, is it virtually impossible for the US to formulate a new policy towards Iran or towards the JCPOA without having formulated its fundamental policy towards the Middle East. Furthermore, he also stated that, in addition to the IAEA monitoring Iran, Israel, which is the sworn enemy of Iran, is keeping an eye on Iran operations.

Deputy Director General, Maj. Gen. (Dr.) Bipin Bakshi (Retd.) raised the query if US allies are opting for normalisation and US is going for maximum pressure then why not take direct action. He also asked do we see a new axis between Iran, Russia and China. How this is going to impact the Indo-Iran relationship.

Mr. Pradeep Gautam raised a query regarding the internal complications of the Iranian regime and the changes seen in the behaviour of the same due to the internal pressure.

Dr. Adil Rashid asked a question regarding the Russia-Ukraine war - that with the Ukraine issue, America could be trying to have influence with Central Asia through being closer to Muslim brotherhood and can this be seen like a possible counter of US to Russia and China.

Dr. Jatin Kumar asked whether Iran is looking for a nuclear bomb or not. He also commented that, Israel is continuously mounting cyber-attacks on Iran and that unlike nuclear facilities of Iraq and Syria, Iran’s facilities are fortified.

The Report has been prepared by Mr. Aasi Ansari, Intern, Centre for Nuclear and Arms Control

Ms. Saman Ayesha Kidwai, Research Analyst, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA), spoke on “Far-Right Extremism in the West” at the Monday Morning Meeting held on 27 June 2022. Dr. Adil Rasheed, Research Fellow, chaired the session. Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA, and research scholars enriched the discussion with their remarks and questions.

Executive Summary

Incidents of far-right extremism have increased in both the United States of America  (U.S.A.) and Europe, especially in the past few decades.
To that effect, the presentation highlighted its driving factors, ideological foundations, strategies of operation, and impact on the post-World War II rules-based order. While touching on prospective threats to Indian interests in this context, the presentation proposed corrective measures.

Detailed Report

The speaker highlighted the surge in far-right extremism over the past five years. According to the United Nations Security Council’s Counter-Terrorism Committee, between 2015 and 2020, over 82 percent of deaths recorded due to extremist violence were perpetrated by far-right extremists. Three recent incidents were pointed out in this context, such as the Christchurch attacks in New Zealand in March 2019, the Capitol Hill riots in Washington, D.C., in January 2021, and the Buffalo shootings in May 2022.

Additionally, she spoke about factors, including the 2008 financial crisis, European Union’s well-meaning but awry immigration policy, particularly amid the Syrian refugee crisis in 2015, and the beheading of Samuel Paty in a suburb of Paris in October 2020, re-enforced the far-right narrative and thrust it into mainstream discourse. Simultaneously, it was underscored how the far-right musical festival in Kyiv and the participation of thousands of foreign fighters in the Ukraine-Russia conflict, driven by their ambition to acquire arms and combat operational training to foment devastation and anarchy in their native countries, have continued to worsen the security dilemma. More recently, it was emphasised how the COVID-19 Pandemic and a surge in disinformation with increased access to social media and online gaming platforms have swelled the ranks of the far-right.

The far-right ideologues, spanning the political, media, and literary spectrum, are also responsible for drawing out the crisis.

Ms. Kidwai also emphasised that abovementioned factors have collectively resulted in the gradual normalisation of far-right extremism. However, the phenomenon often derives its legitimacy from extremist ideological foundations. For example, the Great Replacement Theory, mainstreamed by Renaud Camus, has suggested a deliberate attempt to bring in an influx of illegal migrant workers into predominantly white European societies, converting the white Christians into a minority in their homelands and eventually ridding them. This theory found considerable popular support as white genocide in the U.S.A. and EurAbia across Europe, inspiring the Charleston Church Shooting in June 2015. Furthermore, Accelerationism, a fringe far-right ideology that propounds that the current liberal democratic framework is highly inept and requires to be violently overthrown for a white-dominated order to emerge, found support in the Tree of Life Synagogue attack in Pennsylvania in October 2018. Finally, Eco-fascism links the ideas of cultural degradation with environmental deportation. It holds the immigrants solely responsible for environmental degradation in predominantly white European communities. People like Brenton Tarrant, the Christchurch shooter, were inspired by such beliefs.

The speaker mentioned that there appears to be an absence of notoriety in the aftermath of a violent attack staged by far-right supporters. They also operate in a decentralised manner, inspired by James Nolan Mason and Louis Ray Beam, in contrast with the 20th-century hierarchical systems in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Nevertheless, they remain inspired by ISIS’ martyrdom tactics, rely on social media to further their agenda, and even convene through offline training camps organised by groups such as The Base. An equally significant of far-right characteristic is according white males who carry out acts of mass violence, titles such as “Saints.”  

Ms. Kidwai also delineated how self-publishing service platforms like Google Play Books allow authors to bypass the censorship guidelines that reputable publishing houses would generally upload. Moreover, the ability of fictional books to inspire acts of large-scale violence can be found in The Oklahoma City bombings of April 1995, inspired by works such as The Turner Diaries. The complexity surrounding the lone-wolf narrative and the deepening ties between the radical Islamists and far-right extremists, mainly over the past year, is a matter that is of increasing concern. Furthermore, ideological malleability displayed by far-right ideologues, their infiltration into armed and police forces, and increasing penetration of boundaries of even Asian countries like Singapore, are some of the unnerving trends demonstrated by the speaker, who also spoke about the civil society’s response to addressing this threat. Initiatives such as EXIT- Germany have achieved satisfactory success in this regard.

Moreover, funding more research in the area and ensuring setting up a mutually accessible database would be crucial. But, unfortunately, a lack of collaborative efforts has hindered the duplication of such success worldwide.

Before concluding the presentation, the speaker deconstructed potential threats to Indian diaspora, officials, and investments given the violent extremist’s belligerent attitudes towards immigrants and globalisation. She also emphasised the implications of neo-Nazi outfits colluding with anti-India elements to undermine its national security, should they choose to come together.  

As the presentation drew to an end, the need to eradicate the far-right challenge from its root was addressed before moving to how unless it is brought to an absolute halt, the end of the post-WWII liberal international framework could become a foregone conclusion. 

Key Takeaways from the Q&A Session

The insightful remarks shared by the audience added depth to the presentation. The discussion had primarily focused on four critical areas:-

1. The need to further explore the historical background of the emergence of the far-right.
2. A comparative study with the emergence of left-wing extremism and cult-based groups.
3. An analysis of any pre-existing response mechanisms to the stated threat.
4. A detailed study of the factors driving this ideology, especially Islamist extremism, economic inequality, and cultural affinities.

The points raised were well taken and proposed to be incorporated as subjects of further study.

This report was prepared by Ms. Tejusvi Shukla, Intern, Internal Security Centre, MP-IDSA.