Title | Date | Author | Time | Event | Body | Research Area | Topics | File attachments | Image | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The Future of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: Implications for India | March 22, 2010 to March 23, 2010 | Conference |
The Quinquennial Review Conference (RevCon) of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is scheduled for May 2010. The RevCon comes at a time when the global nuclear environment has become complex and turbulent. The issues before the 2010 RevCon are both structural and substantive. The NPT, which, came into force in 1970 and extended indefinitely in 1995, is assumed to be cornerstone of nuclear non proliferation regime. Yet, the treaty remains controversial on many counts, the most notable being the differing obligations for the non-nuclear weapon states (NNWS) and the five recognized nuclear weapon states (NWS). The NWS have not kept their promise of addressing the issue of global nuclear disarmament under Article VI of the Treaty, and instead have postponed disarmament under the guise of various technical and procedural issues. Since the 2005 RevCon, there have been significant developments in non-proliferation regime which will influence the outcome of 2010 RevCon. To begin with, the change of leadership in the United States, with President Barrack Obama articulating his country’s commitment to universal nuclear disarmament, may be a promising sign towards reviving efforts to move towards complete elimination. Obama’s vision presents the notion that the success of the nuclear non-proliferation regime and the movement towards complete nuclear disarmament are strongly interlinked. The outstanding issues from 2005 also continue to remain contentious. This includes the crisis over Iran’s nuclear programme and the efforts to reduce states access to nuclear energy (Article IV), North Korea’s withdrawal from the treaty and the question of universalisation. The strengthening of the safeguards system by reaffirming obligations present in Article III of the NPT also forms a key issue wherein the issue of non-compliance is likely to be addressed. This issue is tied with the inalienable right of countries to access and develop nuclear energy, as well as fuel supply assurances for non- nuclear weapon states. The 2010 RevCon is the first after the landmark India-US nuclear deal, which was formulated outside the NPT framework. As one of the initiators of the treaty for nuclear non-proliferation four decades ago, India feels the treaty will not fulfill its mandate unless it initiates a process towards total elimination of nuclear weapons. With the Obama administration planning to revive the NPT and its adjunct mechanisms, there is now increasing pressure on India to accede to the NPT. On the one hand, a measure like UNSC Resolution 1887 asks all NPT non-signatories to join the treaty as non-nuclear weapon states, and on the other, the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the Secretary Hillary Clinton indicate full partnership for India in an amended or restructured NPT. There is a need to address the complexities surrounding the 2010 NPT RevCon and to explore India’s policy option vis-a-vis the NPT and the nonproliferation regime. The following broad areas could constitute the basis for an informed analysis and debate for the two-day conference on The Future of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty: Implications for India
The format of themes and presentations at the conference could be as follows: First Day (Monday, March 22, 2010)0930-1030 Inaugural Session Session-I: Non-proliferation Regime and the NPTThis session could examine the key and continuing role of the NPT in the nuclear non-proliferation regime. The presentations could examine the various dimensions of the crisis in the NPT and the potential shape of the treaty in the 21st century. Chairperson: Lt. Gen. V. R. Raghavan 1400-1700 Session-II: Nuclear Energy and the NPTThe second session, formatted as a panel discussion, could primarily ascertain the issues and problems pertaining to nuclear energy (Article IV) within the NPT framework. The central theme of the session could be to assess the impediments to nuclear commerce caused by increasing non-proliferation obligations. Key issues for debate could include multilateral approaches to fuel-cycle processes, fuel supply assurances, international fuel banks as well as influx of proliferation-resistant recycling technologies, including curbs on transfer of Enrichment and Reprocessing (ENR) technologies. Chairperson: Dr. M. R. Srinivasan Second Day (Tuesday, March 23, 2010)0900-1100 Session-III: Challenges before the NPT (Structural Issues)The primary structural challenges confronting the NPT system could be the broad theme of this session. The presentations could touch upon significant structural issues like the withdrawal clause (Article X), negative security assurances, strengthening the safeguard mechanism including the Additional Protocol, nuclear and WMD terrorism, etc. Chairperson: Shri. K. Santhanam 1115-1315 Session-IV: Challenges before the NPT (Country-cases)Continuing with the examination of structural issues, this session would primarily explore the challenges caused to the NPT from individual nations, both state-parties and non-signatories. The focus of discussions could be on non-compliance, violations as well as challenges imparted by non-state actors, which could affect not just the NPT but also the non-proliferation regime. 1400-1630 Session-V: The NPT and Nuclear DisarmamentThis panel discussion could explore the opportunities and challenges to nuclear disarmament through the NPT route. The focus of debate could be the capability and potential of the NPT system to move towards the goal of total elimination. The discussions could also examine the relevance of alternate disarmament routes like the Nuclear Weapons Convention and how India could contribute to this process. 1645-1830 Session-VI: India and the NPTThe concluding session could address the opportunities for and contours of India’s potential engagement with the NPT and the terms of such engagement. This also encompasses assessments of the possibilities of widespread reforms in the NPT structure, including prospective restructuring of accession provisions. The presentations could thus also explore the merits and prospects of India’s accession, and the options available for the same. |
Nuclear and Arms Control | Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
India-US relations | March 16, 2010 | 1100 hrs | Round Table |
Discussion on the book In Search of Congruence: Perspectives on India-US Relations under the Obama Administration and current state of India-US relations |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defence Budget (2010-2011) | March 11, 2010 | 1000 to 1300 hrs | Round Table | Defence Economics & Industry | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Future of International Climate Regime | March 15, 2010 | Round Table |
Climate change is on top of the international and national political and strategic agendas. Post Copenhagen climate conference of December 2009, this was the first event organised by the non-traditional security cluster at IDSA. The speaker covered the following topics: Dr. Köberlein gave an overview of the occurrences in Copenhagen and the outcomes of COP 15. On the negative side, he assessed that the Copenhagen meeting was poorly organised by host Denmark, while the UN was found wanting and incapable of moderating the event towards an effective and fair deal. AOSIS states and LDCs were ignored whereas China and the United States played a power game which finally led to the meagre output. The Group of 77 proved to be disunited and non-adept in addressing its negotiation position. Copenhagen did not deliver a legally binding treaty which addresses the comprehensiveness of the climate threat but only a political declaration that has little value. Equity was never an issue in Copenhagen and adaptation was totally neglected. No funding mechanism was introduced and no funds assured so that it is unclear how mitigation and adaptation measures are to be financed. On the positive side, a new grouping BASIC was established which also included the United States. Moreover the 2 degree Celsius benchmark for dangerous climate change was universally accepted, and the ongoing validity of the Bali Action Plan to be finalised in Mexico at COP 16 gives hope for more target-oriented action in 2010. Dr. Köberlein claimed that climate science is far ahead of climate politics. There is scope and urgency for IPCC to improve and re-establish the faith of people in its work after the inapposite debate on the errors in the glacier study. For achieving this, IPCC requires a better communication strategy, an independent body that monitors and creates an outside expertise for peer-review. The best institution to host climate negotiations is the UN and UNFCC. But it has to define anew its role and strategy. A new president after the resignation of Yvo de Boer as well as a new approach in consensus finding might be the answer. G 20 was used in the last year as an alternate forum for climate negotiations and certain issues were hijacked. Yet, as LCDs and AOSIS states are excluded from G-20, this platform will never be able to address the principles of the climate conventions. Major Economies Forum as well was introduced by the United States to undermine the UN process. But since it does not have any universal support or legitimacy it is only a competing platform to the UN process and hence shall be elided. The EU was sidelined at Copenhagen and there is lack of leadership as compared to earlier COPs. This was mainly due to the global economic and financial crisis and the disparities amongst the 27 member states. Yet, its present approach to reduce 20 per cent of its emission till 2020, increase energy efficiency by 20 per cent and have 20 per cent of renewable energy in its energy mix is still the most ambitious approach to combat climate change. As far as Germany is concerned, it leads in climate policy. German Chancellor Merkel played a leading role when introducing climate change in the G-8 process in Heiligendamm in 2008. It leads in the promotion of renewables and also has the highest ambitions in terms of CO2 emission reduction till 2020 (40 per cent as compared to 1990). Germany can be seen as the initiator of a green market economy which has created more than 250,000 jobs in green technologies. It is also the leader in creating ideas in order to transform its economy to a low carbon economy (Green Deal, Feed-in Tariffs, renewable energy technologies). The challenges are in reaching consensus in international politics. Hence the first preparatory meeting at Bonn in April 2010 would play a crucial role to overcome the climate impasse. There is a need to build international institutions for finance transfer, a so-called Reserve Bank of Climate Change which gives stimuli and monitors the flow of funds. There is also need for a compliance mechanism which deals with countries violating the climate treaty. In equity matters the speaker felt that there was a need to redefine the principle of equity and spell out the meaning of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’. It will be necessary to regroup the Annex 1 and Non-Annex 1 countries since there are vast differences between countries such as Bangladesh and South Korea for example which are non-comparable. At the national level also equity needs to be addressed and a concept of vulnerability developed (vulnerability index). The speaker also introduced three equity approaches by Think Tanks. He handed out a report by the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU) titled “Solving the Dilemma: The budget approach” which was released by the German government prior to the Copenhagen meeting, the ‘Greenhouse Development Rights Approach’ which was published by HBF (Dr. Köberlein made the HBS paper of February 2010 on “Failure or Opportunity? A Regional Analysis of Copenhagen Climate Conference and How its Outcome Has Been Perceived” available). Besides, he distributed a report by HBF, India: Emerging Leadership on Climate Change written by Malini Mehra in December 2008. During the discussion it was brought out that equity and per capita emission rights will remain key issues. India’s contribution is the least and only flows are being highlighted and not the stocks. Impact of mitigation actions by India will be minimal as it is still low in per capita terms. Indian emissions are three times less compared to China’s, which is nearly at par with France on per capita terms. Ethics of over-consumption was also highlighted with the hope that the USA, the biggest polluter, will also be willing to be part of a deal. Issue that might create problems in future will be a compliance mechanism and a universally accepted definition of equity in the climate regime. Report prepared by P.K. Gautam |
Non-Traditional Security | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
India's Nuclear Debate: Exceptionalism and the Bomb | February 26, 2010 | 1500 to 1700 hrs | Book Discussion Forum |
Venue: Seminar Hall No 1, IDSA by Dr Priyanjali Malik |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Interaction with Enrique Salem, CEO of Symantec | February 24, 2010 | Round Table |
Questions and comments raised during the discussion that followed included the vulnerabilities of various operating systems, the inadequacies of antiviruses to deal with targeted attacks, the threats posed by identity theft, privacy issues, software piracy and other related issues. In his closing remarks, Dr. Arvind Gupta, who chaired the discussion, dwelt on the issue of affordability of products such as anti-virus software as being an important factor in their usage. He also spoke of the need to revitalise intergovernmental efforts, which had been languishing for sometime, to ensure the security and stability of cyberspace. Among those who took part in the interaction were officials from the government, the Armed Forces, IDSA scholars and CERT-In. Prepared by Dr. Cherian Samuel, Associate Fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IDSA-IFS Second Bilateral Seminar | March 02, 2010 to March 03, 2010 | Bilateral |
Venue: Seminar Hall, IDSA
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Visit of the Canadian National Security Programme | February 25, 2010 | Round Table |
The Canadian National Security Programme visited IDSA on February 25, 2010. The delegation comprising 20 members of Colonel and equivalent ranks was led by the Commandant, Brig. Gen. D.C. Hilton. It was accompanied by the Senior Mentor and the Academic Adviser. The Canadian Forces’ National Security Programme (NSP) is the senior professional military programme offered to officers in the Canadian Forces. It can be equated to India’s National Defence College. The NSP is a ten month in-house course designed to prepare senior officers for employment as strategic level leaders and joint task force commanders and senior staff. The NSP consists of several core areas of study, one of which is a Field Research Exercise (FSE) set in an international venue. The International FSE focuses on countries that are important to Canada’s national security, foreign, defence and trade policies. India was identified as the location for the 2010 FSE due to its status as a regional leader and its increasing impact and influence globally. At IDSA, the delegation was briefed on India’s overall security perspective and its perspective on China, Pakistan and Afghanistan by Col. Raj Shukla, Air Cmde. (Retd.) Ramesh Phadke, Col. (Retd.) Ali Ahmed and Lt. Col. D.P.K. Pillay, respectively. The briefing was followed by a discussion. The questions ranged from what would be the tipping point of India’s ascent to great power status to prospects of mediation in the Kashmir issue. Air Cmde. (Retd.) Phadke chaired the session. The session concluded with an exchange of mementoes. Prepared by Ali Ahmed, Research Fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Eminent Persons' Lecture Series - India, China and the United States: The Triangle that isn't | March 08, 2010 | V. P. Dutta | Speeches and Lectures |
Venue: IDSA Auditorium In the series of IDSA-organized eminent persons’ lectures, Professor V.P. Dutt delivered his lecture on India, China and the United States: The Triangle that isn't on March 8, 2010. Shri N.S. Sisodia, The Director General of IDSA, chaired the session. He invited Professor V.P. Dutt to deliver his lecture saying that the given topic covers the relations of three countries. In the matrix of relations of these countries, a triangle could mean either two countries uniting against one country or one country could be exploiting the mutual fears of the other two. Shri Sisodia pointed out that while some argue that a China-India-United States triangle exists, Professor Dutt would however be arguing that this triangle does not exist. Professor V.P. Dutt began by elaborating upon two overarching and continued features of Chinese understanding of statecraft, which trace their genesis to ancient Confucian thought. He said that the Confucian thought on statecraft is marked by concern for absolute power and welfare of the public. Both are interlinked as sustenance and continuance of the absolute power or rule is contingent upon public welfare. According to this thesis, a ruler must look after the public well; otherwise the public has the right to overthrow him. Professor Dutt argued that this remains the most enduring precept in the history of Chinese philosophy. Chinese rulers have always taken note of this principle to the best of their abilities and capabilities. Mao’s China constitutes no exception in this precept. The guiding philosophy of the present day rulers is development, more development, and continuous development. In their view, only continued emphasis on development can sustain the CCP’s rule over China. Having laid down this philosophical backdrop, Professor Dutt argued that China would remain a benign dictatorship for a long time contrary to what many Western thinkers have predicted about development leading China towards liberal democracy. He further argued that the CCP came to power riding the crest of nationalism. Nationalism was a modern injection in the traditional framework of Confucian ideology. Thus, today, development and nationalism are the two guiding principles of CCP rule. And these two principles leave an imprint on China’s foreign relations also. Professor Dutt argued, “History evolves, so do the relations of nations.” China declared the Soviet Union, its ideological ally, ‘the principal contradiction’ during the Cultural Revolution and later began to look for a rapprochement with the United States. Since then, their economic interdependence has uninterruptedly increased. China’s attack on Vietnam in 1979 made only a minor dent in their relations. But after the 1989 Tiananmen Square episode, the United States looked around for allies perhaps thinking that it could not rely on China beyond a point. However, neither of these two incidents could choke off the pace of growing interdependence, nor would any other incident do in the future. Today, the state of economic interdependence is such that neither can hurt the other without hurting itself. In a nutshell, their bilateral relations are under the shadow of ‘financial terror’. Both countries are committed to take care of each other’s core interests but the ‘new nationalism’ in China is unhappy with the leadership for China’s overdependence on the United States. These nationalistic sentiments are accusing the Chinese leadership of being too harsh on their own people, while being too soft with outsiders. He characterized the Sino-US bilateral relations as one of two people sleeping in the same bed but dreaming different dreams. While America wants to hold on to its present position, many Chinese dream of their country becoming a superpower. There are differences between them and some may become even sharper. The Taiwan problem may aggravate, so may some other economic problems. But at the same time, we should not blind ourselves to the fundamental nature of their relationship of economic interdependence. Professor Dutt cautioned that India should not overestimate the influence of the shared ideas of democracy on its bilateral relations with the United States. Pakistan continues to remain important to the United States. America’s close cooperation with Pakistan hurts India, even if the United States does not intend to do so. China also plays an important role in the affairs of Afghanistan and Pakistan with the Chinese speaking the same language on the Taliban as the Americans do. He argued that the United States is not likely to make India the mainstay of its presence even in Asia, not to speak of the world. This illusion should not cloud our understanding. Professor Dutt summed up his lecture wondering whether China will become as intoxicated by power as the United States did. The larger philosophical question he raised at the end was why every great power forgets the lessons of the past. Report prepared by Prashant Kumar Singh, Research Assistant, IDSA |
East Asia | India, United States of America (USA), China | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Intelligence Orientation Course | February 22, 2010 to February 26, 2010 | Training Capsules |