Events

A five-member delegation from Russian academia and universities dealing with projects related to the Arctic and International Studies in Petrozavodsk, St. Petersburg and Murmansk visited MP-IDSA on 7 February 2024 for an interaction with scholars at the Institute on the theme ‘Prospects of India-Russia Cooperation in the Arctic’. The Russian delegation included Dr. Anton S. Kovshov, Director and Ms. Ekaterina V. Serova, Deputy Director, the Arctic Center, Petrozavodsk State University, Petrozavodsk. Dr. Mikhail V. Vasyokha, Head of the Department of Marine Oil and Gas Engineering and Dr. Zhanna V. Vasilyeva, Head of the Department of Ecology and Technosphere Safety, were from Murmansk Arctic University, Murmansk. The fifth member of the delegation was Dr. Kirill A. Likhachev, Associate Professor of the Department of Theory and History of International Relations, School of International Relations, St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia. The interaction was chaired by Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA, New Delhi.

Detailed Report

In his opening remarks, the Director General, Amb. Sujan R. Chinoy formally welcomed the Russian Delegation to MP-IDSA. He highlighted the strengths of India-Russia bilateral relations and acknowledged that there exists strong cooperation between the two countries despite global geopolitical uncertainties. DG mentioned that the bilateral trade between India and Russia has surpassed the US$50 billion mark in 2023. He emphasised that these high trade figures are mainly a result of India’s increased imports of Russian hydrocarbons and there is a need to diversify our trade to new areas. DG highlighted the emerging importance of the Arctic region from environmental, economic and strategic perspectives. He mentioned that the limited cooperation in the working groups of the Arctic Council without Russia, which accounts for more than 50 per cent of the coastal extent in the region, remains a cause of concern. DG further mentioned that India supports the development of Russia’s Northern Sea Route and its Far East regions. He highlighted Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ‘Act Far East Policy’ and emphasised that India in 2019 allocated a US$1 billion line of credit for the development of Russia’s Far East. DG acknowledged Russia’s decision to train Indian seafarers for Polar Regions and highlighted that Indian seafarers globally contribute 10 per cent of manpower for global shipping. He mentioned that as shipping activity in the NSR develops it offers further prospects for Indian seafarers in Arctic waters. Post these opening remarks, DG welcomed the presentations from the Russian delegation.

Dr. Anton S. Kovshov, Director, Arctic Center, Petrozavodsk State University, Petrozavodsk thanked Ambassador Chinoy for inviting them all to MP-IDSA. He acknowledged all the points made by Ambassador Chinoy and emphasised the need for more people-to-people cooperation between the two countries. Dr. Anton highlighted that the Arctic presents immense opportunities for both Russia and India and at the Arctic Centre, at Petrozavodsk State University their research remains focused on understanding multiple aspects of the Arctic. Dr. Anton highlighted that their Institute conducts multiple activities on Arctic Science, geo-economics, climate change, potential resources in the Arctic and other related aspects via seminars, conferences and publications in both Russian and English language. Dr. Anton highlighted that they are interested in better understanding India’s interests in the Arctic and welcomed the future participation of scholars from MP-IDSA in these. Dr. Anton then invited his colleague Ms. Ekaterina V. Serova to elaborate further on this very aspect.

Ms. Ekaterina V. Serova, in the proceeding slides of the presentation, highlighted the geographical importance of Petrozavodsk State University in the Republic of Karelia from the Arctic perspective. Ms. Serova highlighted India-Russia's increasing annual trade figures and mentioned that the Karelia region accounts for a significant portion of this trade. She then emphasised they are further exploring opportunities for undertaking research about the Indian market to promote Russian products produced by the Arctic SMEs. Ms. Serova mentioned that India can simultaneously seek opportunities for exploring the Russian Arctic region to promote the products of Indian SMEs. Ms. Serova mentioned that their Institute focuses on undertaking research on various Arctic-related projects and she highlighted funding opportunities for Indian researchers. She mentioned that the Gorchakov Fund holds two grant competitions per year and Indian researchers could consider applying to those. Ms. Serova mentioned that their Institute, ‘The Arctic Centre’ organised two major events i.e. ‘The Arctic Business School in Karelia’ and “The Expert Seminar on Science Diplomacy in the Arctic under Global Changes’ in the past that received huge participation. Lastly, Ms. Serova highlighted their Institute's major upcoming event ‘The Arctic: Our Global Neighbourhood’, scheduled for May 2024. She welcomed Indian participation in it via physical or online mode.

Dr. Kirill A. Likhachev made the second presentation and highlighted the opportunities for Indian scholars at Saint Petersburg State University. Dr Likhachev in his presentation mentioned that Saint Petersburg State University is celebrating its 300th anniversary in 2024 whereas the School of International Relations (SIR) is marking its 30th anniversary in February 2024. Dr. Likhachev highlighted that SIR in the past has hosted significant events focusing on International Relations, particularly the South Asia region where scholars from India and different parts of the world have participated in large numbers. He also highlighted the ‘Asian Dialogue Program’ of Saint Petersburg State University and mentioned that Dr. Ashok K. Behuria and Dr. Rajorshi Roy from MP-IDSA have participated in the same. Dr. Likhachev mentioned that they are hosting the 2nd Congress of International Relations Researchers, from April 25-27, 2024 and he welcomed participation from MP-IDSA scholars. Lastly, Dr. Likhachev emphasised though that there remain some complex geopolitical challenges between India and China, there is a need to restart trilateral dialogue between Russia-India-China, at least at scholars and expert levels. He concluded his presentation by highlighting that there are many existing issues of geopolitical concern in South Asia and Russia where both Indian and Russian scholars can undertake collective research in due course.

The third and final presentation was made by Dr. Mikhail Vasekha and Dr. Zhanna Vasileva jointly. Dr. Mikhail Vasekha started his presentation by highlighting that Murmansk remains the most important port city when it comes to the Arctic. He mentioned that Murmansk plays an important role in Russia’s Arctic connectivity and the city remains engaged in mining, fish processing and marine research. Dr. Vasekha emphasised that their research at Murmansk Arctic University focuses on Marine technologies, Arctic bioresources, Environmental technologies and technosphere safety, Arctic mineral and hydrocarbon resources and offshore logistics. He also mentioned that despite geopolitical challenges, they to an extent, have continued to maintain their existing cooperation with the universities of Scandinavian countries. Apart from this, he mentioned that the Murmansk Arctic University holds Summer and Winter schools in which MP-IDSA can consider participating. Dr. Vasekha lastly gave an overview of some of the ongoing and planned projects at Murmansk Arctic University that included the Development of Arctic Logistics', the Northern Sea Route and the Expansion of the Possibilities of the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC). He then invited his colleague Dr. Zhanna Vasileva to give a detailed account of some of the ongoing scientific projects on the Arctic at their university.

Dr. Zhanna Vasileva highlighted that her area of research mainly focuses on studying the scientific aspects of the Arctic. She mentioned that some of their ongoing projects include ‘Monitoring and assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from ships in the waters of the NSR’, ‘Assessment and forecast of the environmental impact of maritime transport and port development in the Barents Region’, ‘Low-Carbon Marine Logistics and Cross-Border Carbon Regulation in the Arctic’, ‘Development of solutions for the elimination of emergency oil spills and technologies for the restoration of natural environments in the arctic shelf’ and a project involving ‘the study of marine sediments (MS) of the arctic seas’.

In her presentation, Dr. Vasileva gave a detailed account of the various scientific methodologies that they are employing in the study of these projects. She also highlighted some of the possible results that are expected from these ongoing projects. Dr. Vasileva mentioned that they are open to collaboration and partnerships from Indian scientific communities, universities and research Institutes that are involved or interested in undertaking research in these domains. Lastly, Dr. Vasileva highlighted that the Murmansk Arctic University in collaboration with Russia’s ‘Roscosmos’ is opening a Space Information Center in 2024 at Murmansk Arctic University. She mentioned that this would be instrumental in the accumulation and processing of AIS information and Earth sensing data, for integration with additional databases on navigation (databases of ports and Administration of the Northern Sea Route) and security (the base of the Ministry of Emergency Situations) in the waters of the Northern Sea Route.

Both Dr. Mikhail Vasekha and Dr. Zhanna Vasileva made their presentations mainly in Russian Language which were simultaneously translated in English by Ms. Ekaterina V. Serova.   

Questions and Comments

The Director General, Amb. Chinoy complimented the members of the Russian delegation for their detailed presentations. He highlighted that ‘Arctic Tourism’ could become an important area for enhancing India-Russia bilateral cooperation. DG mentioned that there is immense potential in this regard where the Russian side could consider exploring opportunities in the Indian tourism industry. He mentioned that in the post-COVID pandemic recovery years, India’s outbound tourism has witnessed a significant increase.

Dr. Uttam Kumar Sinha mentioned that India, despite being a distant country, remains well-informed regarding the geopolitical and environmental transitions in the Arctic. He also highlighted that India in 2022 came up with its first Arctic Policy document that presents a detailed account of India’s interests in the region.

Dr. Rajorshi Roy highlighted that India-Russia cooperation on any aspect in the Arctic could enhance bilateral cooperation between both countries. He asked the delegation if they could elaborate a bit on ‘How the developments in the Russian Far East have contributed to more attraction of Asian states interests towards the Arctic?’ He also asked the delegation to comment on China's increasing presence in the Russian Arctic.

Dr. Swasti Rao also asked the delegation about the increasing China-Russia cooperation in the Arctic. She further asked the delegation to comment on China’s increasing role in various energy projects in the Arctic.

Dr. Jason asked the delegation about the possibilities of expanding the business of Indian Film Industry in the Russian Arctic. He highlighted that the Arctic offers perfect locations for undertaking cinematographic shoots that could open business opportunities for Indian Bollywood Industry.

Ms. Anandita asked the delegation whether the Russian side is looking for possibilities of expanding Russian businesses via SMEs to Indian markets or whether this could also be explored the other way around.

All the members of the Russian delegation gave detailed remarks to all the comments raised. The interaction ended with a formal note of thanks and an exchange of books and mementoes from both sides.

Report prepared by Mr. Bipandeep Sharma, Research Analyst, Non-Traditional Security Centre, MP-IDSA.

Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Research Analyst, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA), made a presentation on “Pakistan Factor in India-Turkiye Relations” at the Monday Morning Meeting held on 29 January 2024. Dr. Prasanta Kumar Pradhan, Research Fellow and Coordinator of the West Asia Centre, MP-IDSA, moderated the session. Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA, and scholars of the Institute attended the meeting.

Executive Summary

India-Turkiye relations witnessed divergence during the Cold War but evolved with growing trade, reaching US$ 13.8 billion in 2022-23. While the bilateral trade and investment is growing in multiple sectors, the Kashmir issue remains a persistent political challenge. Turkiye has been supporting Pakistan on the Kashmir issue. Additionally, defence collaboration is a key element in Pakistan-Turkiye relations, driven by factors like pan-Islamism and neo-Ottomanism, among others. There is a need for course correction from Turkiye to unlock bilateral potential between both G20 economies- India and Turkiye.

Detailed Report

Dr. Prasanta Kumar Pradhan introduced the Speaker and delivered introductory remarks. He then invited the Speaker to make his presentation.

Providing a historical overview of India-Turkiye relations, Mr. Yadav highlighted that diplomatic relations between India and Turkiye were formally established in 1948, which got further strengthened through the signing of the Treaty of Friendship in December 1951, that explicitly articulated the principle of “perpetual peace and friendship” between the two nations. However, Cold War geopolitics led India and Turkiye to adopt different paths as India pursued a policy of non-alignment while Turkiye became a member of the West-led military alliances like the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and Central Treaty Organisation (CENTO). Nevertheless, the relationship evolved over the decades, as evidenced by agreements signed between the two countries on areas like trade, taxation, tourism and customs cooperation.

Citing relevant statistics, the Speaker underscored that bilateral trade between India and Turkiye has witnessed impressive growth in recent years, rising from US$ 7.2 billion in 2017-18 to over US$ 13.8 billion in 2022-23. Mr. Yadav provided concrete examples and highlighted that while Indian companies have invested in Turkish automobile, pharmaceutical and IT sectors, Turkish companies have invested in Indian infrastructure and engineering industries, illustrating deepening economic cooperation.

The Speaker noted that high-level bilateral visits are an important indicator of the priority accorded by both nations to their relationship. In this context, he referred to Turkiye’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s visit to India in April-May 2017, when both countries signed key agreements on culture, training of diplomats, visa regulations, telecommunication and media tie-ups – underscoring the multi-sectoral focus. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Turkish President Erdogan reviewed the relationship at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Summit in Samarkand in September 2022 and the 18th G20 Summit in New Delhi in September 2023, and noted the increase in economic linkages and potential for further enhancement across sectors. Mr. Yadav also highlighted India’s prompt supply of humanitarian assistance under Operation Dost following Turkiye’s devastating earthquakes in February 2023 as a marker of bilateral cooperation and solidarity expressed by India.

Mr. Yadav spoke at length about the issues on which the two countries have differing viewpoints. He pointed out that Turkiye has consistently echoed Pakistan’s stance on the Kashmir issue. Turkish leaders’ remarks on Kashmir have also sparked diplomatic tensions especially after the abrogation of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution, given India’s firm stand that Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) is an integral and inalienable part of India. Mr. Yadav highlighted that multilateral platforms like the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) had witnessed coordinated efforts by Turkiye and Pakistan to internationalise the Kashmir matter also through its OIC Contact Group on J&K. Trilateral partnerships between Pakistan, Turkiye and Azerbaijan have also emerged, which is demonstrated in joint military exercises and alignment on issues like Kashmir. The Speaker emphasised that Kashmir remains a principal point of divergence that has strained political relations.

According to the Speaker, defence cooperation is a key element catalysing the Pakistan-Turkiye strategic relationship. He enumerated various facets of cooperation in defence, including the purchase of Turkish naval vessels, helicopters and armed drones by Pakistan, assistance by Turkiye to upgrade Pakistani submarines and fighter aircraft, and the conduct of joint exercises and training. Mr. Yadav highlighted that the expanding defence collaboration has introduced an additional variable in the triangular dynamic between India, Pakistan and Turkiye.

Analysing the factors shaping Turkiye’s foreign policy orientation towards Pakistan, the Speaker identified elements like pan-Islamism, Neo-Ottoman ambitions to reclaim Turkiye’s historical glory and geopoliticalinfluence, and the strategic relevance of partnerships with countries like Pakistan on issues ranging from Kashmir to defence technology as key motivations. He pointed out that Islamic solidarity, historical legacy and contemporary policy priorities make Pakistan a coveted geopolitical partner for Turkiye. 

In conclusion, the Speaker observed that while India and Turkiye, as prominent G20 economies, have promising potential for cooperation across diverse sectors, Turkiye’s alignment with Pakistan on India’s internal affairs like Jammu and Kashmir has introduced certain complexities in bilateral ties. Mr. Yadav opined that notwithstanding the volume of trade, Turkiye’s partnership with Pakistan is driven by a multifaceted interplay of factors encompassing history, religious affinities, realpolitik considerations and global ideological postures. A course correction by Turkiye on Kashmir would likely contribute to a more balanced and constructive environment, fostering stronger ties between India and Turkiye. In summation, the Speaker highlighted that pragmatic diplomacy focused on mutual understanding and identification of shared interests would be imperative for India and Turkiye to fully harness the potential of their bilateral relations given the geopolitical intricacies at play.

Questions and Comments

Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy highlighted the historical and contemporary factors shaping bilateral relations between India and Turkiye. He mentioned the role of Indian troops, including Sikhs, Gurkhas, Muslims and Hindus, as part of the British force during the Gallipoli campaign. He outlined Indian support in the 1920s to Turkiye’s War of Independence, which led to the formation of the Turkish Republic. Mahatma Gandhi himself took a stand against the injustices inflicted on Turkiye at the end of World War I. Amb. Chinoy remarked that Turkiye has been raising the Kashmir issue and trying to seek a dominant leadership position in the OIC. He provided the Indian Government’s perspective on Cyprus and touched upon the dynamics of Turkish drones.

Dr. Deepika Saraswat, Associate Fellow, West Asia Centre, highlighted the geo-economics and geopolitics of economic corridors and subsequent Indian and Turkish response. Dr. Ashok K. Behuria, Senior Fellow, South Asia Centre, emphasised the rise of Erdogan’s leadership in Turkiye and noted surge in business-to-business relations between India and Turkiye. He also touched upon the significance of Turkish drones, Turkiye’s position on J&K and Turkiye’s soft power outreach in Pakistan, as evidenced by Turkish TV drama Ertugrul. Dr. Rajiv Nayan, Senior Research Associate, Nuclear and Arms Control Centre, mentioned about Turkiye’s unique geographical and geopolitical position and its distinct way of leveraging gains from both the West and Russia. He suggested that India will have to shed its classical approach to engage with Turkiye.

After the Q&A session, the Chair gave his closing remarks and ended the meeting.

The Report was prepared by Ms. Gayathri Pramod Panamoottil, Intern, West Asia Centre.

On 18 January 2024, the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA) organised an interactive session with The Prospect Foundation, Taiwan. The delegation from The Prospect Foundation was led by Dr. I-Chung Lai, President, The Prospect Foundation and the session was chaired by DG, MP-IDSA, Amb. Sujan R. Chinoy.  The discussion was followed by Q&A.

Detailed Report

The session began with opening remarks from DG, MP-IDSA, Amb. Sujan R. Chinoy. He observed that it is striking that Taiwan has gone into coalition politics and opined that this arrangement is likely to raise certain challenges in the legislature. Enquiring about Taiwanese perception about the election he invited Dr. I-Chung Lai to express his views on a range of issues including resurgence of Kuomintang (KMT) Party in the recent elections, Democratic People’s Party (DPP) and KMT’s present attitude towards the 1992 consensus, One China policy and potential reunification with China. Amb. Chinoy also asked Dr. Lai about Taiwanese understanding of the United States (US)’ commitment towards Taiwan’s defence in the light of present tensions, the unacceptable means of reunification for Taiwan, probable Japanese position in an event of crisis in Taiwan Straits and reversal of recognition of Taiwan by Nauru.  

Thanking Amb. Chinoy for his observations, Dr. I-Chung Lai expressed that the delegation visit reflected India’s importance in Taiwan’s strategy and Taipei’s intention to convey to New Delhi, its strategic outlook and plans for India-Taiwan ties post the elections.

Elaborating on Taiwan election results he contented that while William Lai Ching-te received forty percent of the votes, it did not mean that the other sixty percent opposed him. The Chinese interpretation that William Lai Ching-te’s position on China-Taiwan ties represents a minority view is incorrect. He emphasised that the election results do not reflect how Taiwanese feel about China-Taiwan relations. Commenting on the 1992 consensus, which is favoured by China, Dr. Lai informed that majority of the Taiwanese consider the consensus as a thing of past, especially after President Tsai Ing-wen declared in a public address in 2019 that Taiwan never accepted the 1992 consensus. He contended that future cross strait politics will have to take the general public view into consideration as Taiwan is a democracy.

With regard to US policy towards Taiwan, Dr. Lai, citing the Taiwan Relations Act and US’ Six Assurances to Taiwan, asserted that US does not recognise Taiwan as part of PRC. On Nauru’s breaking off of diplomatic ties, he opined that it demonstrated continuation of PRC’s coercion politics vis-à-vis Taiwan. He observed that Taiwan’s national strength and international standing will not be affected due to Nauru’s actions and that Taiwan will not engage in chequebook diplomacy to gain diplomatic recognition. Dr. Lai observed that the Beijing Government is unlikely to change its policy towards Taiwan, recognising the new political reality. However, due to China’s own internal economic troubles, interest in stabilising ties with the US and lack of military capability to launch invasion on Taiwan, the possibility of military conflict with Taiwan at present is low. Touching briefly on Japan’s position on Taiwan contingency, Dr. Lai opined that although Tokyo will be compelled to act due to alliance commitment with the US and threats perceived to its own security, the extent of Japan’s involvement in active combat scenario is uncertain. He concluded by stating that developing relations with powerful and friendly countries remains top priority for Taiwan.

Following, Dr. Lai’s presentation, Amb. Chinoy queried whether DPP still subscribed to the notion of ‘One China’ and whether Taiwan continues to engage in developmental activities with the countries who sever diplomatic ties with Taipei.

Responding to these questions, Dr. Lai informed that the idea of ‘One China’ was once temporarily entertained to facilitate cooperation between Republic of China (ROC) and PRC. However, PRC’s interpretation of ‘One China’ policy is unacceptable to Taiwan. With regard to Taiwan-Nauru ties, he informed that the future of bilateral cooperation depends on Nauru’s future reaction because there is precedent in Taiwan to continue programme assistance to countries who broke off diplomatic ties.

Finally, Amb. Chinoy enquired about Chinese goals in eschewing military tensions of the type seen in the aftermath of Nancy Pelosi’s visit. Dr. Lai affirmed that improving diplomatic ties with the US is one of the major goals. Also, as the repercussions to trade which happened due to the military blockade was serious, Beijing and other major powers like the US and Japan are reluctant to let escalate tensions to that level.

Mr. Fei Fan Lin, member of the delegation, concurred with Dr. Lai’s observations about lack of public support for the 1992 consensus in Taiwan. He informed that the Taiwanese consider ROC, Taiwan to be an independent sovereign and perceive no need to declare independence again.

Following the exchange, the Chair then opened the floor for question-and-answer session.

Q&A Session

A question from the Indian side concerned the issue of national identity in Taiwan, and the possibility of a ‘reconciliation of hearts’ between the Chinese and Taiwanese people. To this question, Dr. Lai answered by explaining that due to the internationalisation of the cross-Strait issue, other countries, such as Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Philippines and Australia, not to mention the United States, have a voice in the resolution of any conflict, and the cross- Strait dispute is no longer a binary one between opposing regimes. He also noted that China’s perception of Taiwan is that it is a vehicle to contain China with the collaboration of the United States. Mr. Lin also added to the answer to the above question by noting that President Tsai Ing-Wen had been careful during her tenure to cultivate a stance of equivocating Taiwan with the ROC. He noted that this was a stance the majority of Taiwanese people support and approve of. In response to another question on the impact of a US-China thaw on Taiwan in the coming four years, Dr. Lai noted that the cross-Strait issue is no longer dependent on the US-China-Taiwan trilateral, but has become truly internationalised. As evidence, he offered the new recognitions afforded to the importance of Taiwan by the leaders of Japan, the Republic of Korea, Australia and the Philippines, as well as by democracies in Europe.

Another question from the Indian side concerned the movements of the youth vote in the recently-concluded general election, and whether the return of the DPP to power indicated support among the young for independence. Mr. Lin provided the answer to this question, informing the audience that the DPP had always embraced support from the youth. However, the reason the current election has thrown up surprising results (election of the DPP on forty percent vote share, emergence of the TPP as a third force) is because voters were in general fatigued by establishment parties such as the DPP and KMT. They were not concerned by national security issues, but instead voted on bread-and-butter issues such as housing prices and costs of living. Mr. Lin argued that the TPP, despite the high rates of support it received, does not have a positive policy platform, and revealed that the DPP is well aware of the need to bring back young voters to the DPP.

Members of the Indian side also inquired about whether China had succeeded in the general election in using disinformation and economic coercion to swing votes. By way of an answer, the Taiwanese side presented a mixed picture. In the field of economic coercion they were willing to concede that there was some limited effect of the suspension of tariff benefits accruing to trade with Taiwan under the ECFA signed with China, but noted that the impact was limited as the share of exports to China from Taiwan are declining as the New Southbound Policy diversified destinations for Taiwanese goods, with marked increases noted in trade with the US, Japan, ROK and Europe. India was held out by the Taiwanese side as a new frontier where trade opportunities could be diversified in future. Disinformation, however, has been successful in the assessment by the Taiwanese side, with Chinese-origin propaganda deepening divides in society that have only partially been filled.

In terms of future concerns, the Taiwanese side flagged two issues in particular: worries that the KMT, which has majorities in both the national legislature and municipalities, would pursue independent (party-level) negotiations with the CPC; and the legal hurdles standing in the way of repealing or renegotiating important economic agreements with the mainland to counter economic coercion.

A final query from the Indian side concerned the prospects for US-Taiwan defence cooperation in light of the recent election results. In his answer to the question, Dr. Lai asserted that the impact on US-Taiwan defence ties would become clearer when the identity of the incoming speaker and vice-speaker of the central legislature (the Legislative Yuan) becomes clear. However, he believed, existing projects such as Taiwan’s indigenous submarine programme would continue irrespective of the party in charge.

Before concluding, Amb. Chinoy took the opportunity to ask a set of questions to the Taiwanese side. Firstly, he inquired about the impact of Donald Trump returning to power in the US in 2024. Dr. Lai answered briefly that Taiwan enjoys bipartisan consensus in the US, and that the previous Trump administration’s record on Taiwan was very good, with several initiatives carried forward by the Biden administration. As such, there was no reason for concern.

Secondly, Amb. Chinoy inquired as to the Taiwanese side’s assessment of the US response should China attempt to occupy only the outlying islands such as Jinmen or Matsu. Dr. Lai said that whereas the Pescadores Islands are covered under the US-Taiwan Mutual Defence Treaty and the Taiwan Relations Act, Quemoy and Matsu are grey areas. In any case, he noted that an occupation of these islands would be sure to meet an armed response from Taiwan. However, the US response, if any, would be contingent on circumstances.

Finally, Amb. Chinoy inquired whether there had been any risk assessment of the possibility that Xi Jinping’s China Dream 2049 project would be incomplete without reunification with Taiwan, with the implication that he would take action before that date to ensure reunification. Dr. Lai answered that discussions in Taiwan on the China Dream are divided into two camps, one arguing that the China Dream must be completed before reunification is to be attempted, whereas the other argues that reunification is a necessary precondition to the China Dream. However, the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on the Chinese economy has put a dent in Xi Jinping’s purported legitimacy, which is predicated on continuous economic growth. Dr. Lai held that the China Dream is Xi’s personal project, not a “sacred manifesto” on the lines of Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping’s policies, which were party lines followed by all members of the government. As such, should Xi leave the stage in China, there is no guarantee that his successor would follow through on it.

After the conclusion of the question-and-answer session, the Chair declared an end to the meeting.

The Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA) organised an interaction with a European Parliament Delegation on 18 December 2023. The session was chaired by Director General, Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy. Scholars of the Institute participated in the discussion.

Executive Summary

India and the European Union (EU) are key strategic partners. Amidst a world in flux, there is space for expanding the scope of ties.

Detailed Report

In his opening remarks, Ambassador Sujan Chinoy highlighted the world being in a state of flux amidst the fraying of globalisation. He observed that multilateral institutions have been underperforming, including the United Nations. He felt that a weakened multilateral system does not bode well for global growth, especially in the Global South where a large number of countries are grappling with financial distress in the aftermath of the pandemic and the war in Ukraine. This has put the spotlight on regionalism and minilateralism.

Amb. Chinoy observed that China’s rise has been disruptive and that Beijing has benefitted from the current international order. Today, China appears to be riding two horses - one where it wants to exist in the current world order, which it benefits from, while also being simultaneously critical of the same order, largely due to the order being led by the West and based on Western agendas.

Amb. Chinoy highlighted the emerging global contestation anchored to the seven “Ts”. These include Trade, Technology, Territory, Terrorism, Tenants (Narratives), Transparency and Trust. He also highlighted the global vulnerabilities in the four “Fs” - Food, Fuel, Fertilizer and Finance.

Elaborating further, Amb. Chinoy observed that trade and technology have been increasingly weaponised. Territorial contestations too are on the rise. These include the ongoing situation in Europe and India’s border standoff with China. Similarly, there is friction over systems of economic, social, cultural and developmental governance which has led to a clash of narratives. Meanwhile, there also exists trust deficit amidst a lack of transparency of certain countries' motivations and intentions.

Amb. Chinoy emphasised that China’s ambition of achieving the ‘China Dream’ by 2049 may not come to fruition unless the Taiwan reunification issue is addressed.

Highlighting the ongoing developments in the Indo-Pacific, Amb. Chinoy referred to the presence of European countries, particularly France which he pointed out has a natural geographical presence in the region. He also referred to Germany and the United Kingdom staging a comeback in the Indo-Pacific. He observed that extra-regional powers too are stakeholders in the Indo-Pacific. Therefore, it is wrong for China to claim that Asia is exclusively for Asians.

Amb. Chinoy emphasised that ‘Asia-Pacific’ is an outdated concept. In comparison, Indo-Pacific is a more contemporary and inclusive concept. It reflects a natural transition to a broader definition of growth and development in an arc that extends all the way from the Pacific Rim to the east coast of Africa.

Amb. Chinoy observed that India today has emerged as one of the fastest-growing large economies in the world. India is undergoing rapid transformation, underlined by the overall theme of VIKAS. India’s choices at home and its international priorities form part of a seamless continuum that are firmly anchored in India’s transformational goals. Good relations with neighbours - both immediate and extended - are a priority of India’s foreign policy. The country’s emergence as a key regional and global power is predicated on how effectively it manages its own periphery.

Amb. Chinoy emphasised that India is not guided by zero-sum calculations but by the desire to work with all and to resolve global problems in a cooperative spirit. This includes the scourge of terrorism, particularly cross-border terrorism, which has long affected India but which also poses a threat to others in India’s neighbourhood as well as globally. India’s collaborative outlook has translated into a framework of strategic autonomy based on multi-alignment. And robust military power is a prerequisite for exercising greater strategic autonomy.

Amb. Chinoy pointed out that India increasingly represents the voice of the ‘Global South’. India’s G20 Presidency successfully brought back the spotlight on developmental issues which is the core mandate of the grouping.

Amb. Chinoy highlighted India’s neutrality in the war in Ukraine while also providing humanitarian aid to the people affected by the war. Similarly, he elaborated on India’s support to the two-state solution in the ongoing conflict in West Asia. He observed that New Delhi has maintained excellent relations with Israel while also providing humanitarian aid to Palestine.

Amb. Chinoy emphasised that India is seeking to deepen strategic partnerships, including in the defence sector, with members of the European Union. He felt that the EU should factor in India’s sensitivities regarding the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports. He concluded by highlighting the need to establish robust contacts between Indian and European think tanks.

Nathalie Loiseau (Renew, France), who was leading the EU delegation, highlighted the ‘convergence of views’ between India and the European Union on China's assertive rise.  She also referred to the mutual consensus on the need to ‘reorganise’ the weakened global multilateral institutions.

Ms. Loiseau highlighted the emerging ‘fight’ between autocracies and democracies and reflected on the parallels between Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and China’s aggressive posture towards Taiwan.

Ms. Loiseau also highlighted the issue of migration to Europe as well as EU’s toolkit in dealing with hybrid threats.

She posed a question on how India sees the situation evolving in the Red Sea and whether India would be involved in resolving it.

Patrick Berg (ECR, Germany) posed the following two questions:

1. Prospects of India-EU relations with regard to connectivity and EU’s Global Gateway project.

2. Dynamics of BRICS enlargement and the grouping’s future prospects.  

Jaak Madison (ID, Estonia) enquired about China’s electronic warfare and intelligence gathering in the region.

Petras Auštrevičius (Renew, Lithuania) posed the following two questions:

1. Rationale of India’s BRICS and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) membership.

2. India’s position on conflicts in Afghanistan and Yemen.

Fabio Massimo Castaldo’s (NI, Italy) enquired about the China-Cambodia Naval base, whether China would be more assertive in the future and the prospects of India-EU relations.

Amb. Sujan Chinoy responded to these questions. He stated that the situation in the Red Sea is a matter of grave concern, especially in the event of disruption to commercial shipping. He observed that any disruption to this vital sea line of communication would be felt across the world. He pointed out that India has naval assets in the Gulf of Aden by virtue of being a part of the ‘SHADE’ mechanism. India also conducts anti-piracy operations and assists in escorting ships as part of these operations. There is, nevertheless, scope for India to expand collaboration with like-minded countries.

On BRICS expansion, Amb. Chinoy pointed out that six countries (Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAE, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Argentina) have recently joined the grouping. Together, they add US$ 2.9 trillion worth of GDP to BRICS with the grouping’s overall GDP now being US$ 30 trillion.

On G20, he observed that G20’s overall GDP was US$ 85 trillion before the inclusion of the African Union (AU). The AU’s addition has not only added US$ 3 trillion to the G20’s portfolio but also made it more representative.

On BRICS and SCO, Amb. Chinoy observed that India’s outlook is anchored to issue-based partnerships.

On developments in Afghanistan, Amb. Chinoy highlighted Taliban’s comeback which he pointed out has significant ramifications. He, however, also emphasised the need to ‘live with reality’. He focussed on the need to convince the Taliban to preserve the gains of the last two decades including democracy and the rights of minorities, women and children.

On the issue of Chinese naval base in Cambodia, it was pointed out that China’s foray in Cambodia is part of Beijing’s larger attempts to expand its regional geo-strategic footprints.

On expanding the scope of India-EU partnership, it was pointed out that connectivity projects hold significant potential. It was felt that the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), while currently on the back burner due to the conflict in West Asia, should not be written-off. Similarly, there is potential for expanding collaboration in industrial and defence industry sectors. Moreover, green hydrogen and green energy offer new areas of India-EU collaboration.

(Report prepared by Dr. Jason Wahlang, Research Analyst, Europe and Eurasia Centre, MP-IDSA)