BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//MP-IDSA - ECPv6.15.12.2//NONSGML v1.0//EN CALSCALE:GREGORIAN METHOD:PUBLISH X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://idsa.in X-WR-CALDESC:Events for MP-IDSA REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H X-Robots-Tag:noindex X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:Asia/Kolkata BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:+0530 TZOFFSETTO:+0530 TZNAME:IST DTSTART:20060101T000000 END:STANDARD END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20200312T053000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20200313T053000 DTSTAMP:20261108T003243 CREATED:20231223T125414Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250324T231315Z UID:62731-1583991000-1584077400@idsa.in SUMMARY:21st Asian Security Conference: National Security and Defence Planning in an Era of Strategic Uncertainty (Postponed) DESCRIPTION:Registration\n\n\nRegistration fees would be Rs 2000/- which will cover the costs of two lunches\, conference papers etc. Please send cheque in name of MP-IDSA\, New Delhi “to the following address along with your details as Name\, Address\, Educational qualification\, Institutional affiliation etc. \n1. Assistant Director (Admin)\nThe Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses\n1\, Development Enclave\, (near USI)\nRao Tula Ram Marg\nNew Delhi 110 010 \nAccount Holder: Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA)\nA/C No: 10596550223\nName of Bank: State Bank of India (SBI)\nBranch Address: JNU\, Old Campus\, New Delhi – 110067\, INDIA\nSwift code: SBININBB548 \nAccount Holder: Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA)\nA/C No: 535602010004746\nName of Bank: Union Bank of India (UBI)\nBranch Address: Vasant Vihar Branch\, New Delhi – 110057\, INDIA\nSwift code: UBIN0534463\n\n\n\n\nConcept Note\n\n\nIn a rapidly changing world\, all known paradigms are experiencing stress. This calls for a level of strategic readjustments at multiple levels. At the broadest level\, the inadequacies of the post-World War II international institutions — the United Nations and its Security Council in regard to peace and security\, and the Bretton Woods financial institutions in regard to finance and development — are showing up because of the complexities and uncertainties characterising global politics and economy today. The old consensus is fraying and a new consensus is yet to emerge. \nThe flow of human resources and services are impeded by concerns over loss of jobs and anti-immigrant sentiments. Technology\, the vital pillar of progress\, is open to misuse. The world appears to be on the brink of an intense battle for technological superiority in the age of artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum computing. Power is fracturing along multiple axes\, be it economic\, military or on the technological fronts. States and non-state actors have acquired the means and the skill sets required to overcome asymmetry in the absolute power quotient. No single country is capable of enforcing its writ on all issues at all times. Hedging and multi-alignment are part of every country’s toolkit. \nThere are several facets to this emerging uncertainty. Traditional and non-traditional security threats such as economic and military competition\, climate change\, piracy\, radical ideology\, cyber threats\, drug & human trafficking\, and energy & food security have grown in magnitude. In addition to these\, the spectre of terrorism\, especially cross-border terrorism\, continues to challenge the peace and prosperity to national security. Besides\, the rapid advent of automation and AI in the Industry 4.0 is not without its consequences for disruption in conventional global supply chains. The changing nature of conflict and strategic uncertainties faced by nations regionally have further accelerated Asia’s security outlooks. \nAgainst such a backdrop\, a number of variables impact the defence planning process. Among these are the growing inter-linkages between traditional and non-traditional security challenges\,  competing priorities for the national budget in terms of defence versus development\, inter-service tussle for resource allocation within the armed forces\, the requirements of speed as well as transparency and probity in defence procurement\, the trade-off between human resources and high-tech equipment\, and striking the right balance between the longer-term objective of self-reliance through indigenisation and the urgent induction of world class weapons and equipment to meet operational requirements. These factors combine to make defence planning a dynamic process in which frequent adjustments have to be made along the way. \nDefence planning processes are further tested in an environment of strategic uncertainty\, which — though not unique to our times — has acquired an unprecedented scale and pace today. Countries and national security organisations have to contend with dilemmas and make choices that can alter the very state of their preparedness and effectiveness against threats and challenges. Outcomes of defence planning processes depend on whether we make accurate assessments. A misreading of strategic realities harbour the potential to completely alter the direction of procurements\, training and defence planning. This can lead to grave inadequacies in other future scenarios. \nTechnology is\, undisputedly\, a major factor driving change in the context of issues that have a bearing on defence and security. This is true not only for official state organs but also in regard to private entities that increasingly are playing a role in defence research and development (R&D)\, manufacturing and procurement chains. \nTechnological behemoths — having an international presence — control and shape the direction of technological research and its application. They not only steer the course of technological advancement and research\, but control data representing the new currency of power. The data that resides with these companies provides them the opportunity to manipulate human behaviour and influence decision-making processes in recipient states.   \nIn conflict scenarios\, technology is likely to have an impact on factors with a direct bearing on national decision-making processes. It will influence speed and scope of information-gathering\, analysing it and synthesising derivatives in real time basis\, including weapons platforms. These decisions could relate to target striking\, emergency-based ammunition requests\, among others\, based on real-time consumption patterns\, casualties or refugee movements. In other words\, the role of technology in de-cluttering decision-making in an increasingly complex operating environment will be far more important in the future. If this characterises the current reality of technological advancement\, how much more is it likely to manifest in future conflict scenarios and on issues that impact national security? Even more importantly\, will its role bring a transformative shift in warfighting as a strategic deterrent? This is a question that remains critical for military planners\, particularly those involved in the task of ensuring effective defence planning. \nThese are merely some of the more realistic shifts that are evident in the evolving conflict scenario\, influenced by fast-evolving high-tech conditions. However\, even as shifts take place both in the nature of conflict and the character of technological advancements\, planning procedures for doctrines\, capability-building and contingencies cannot be completely reinvented. They must remain anchored in proven procedures and processes to strengthen national security. \nThe 21st edition of the Asian Security Conference (ASC) of the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) is aimed at debating the scope of defence planning for countries and organisations in an era of acute regional and global uncertainty. The conference aims to bring together a range of experts\, scholars\, ex-policy makers\, industry leaders and strategic planners to discuss the various facets of conflict\, warfare and conventional and unconventional threats\, by high-lighting implications for defence planning in an era of strategic uncertainty. The conference will examine the linkages between national security\, defence planning and changing nature of conflict in Asia and beyond. \nThe conference is tentatively divided into two days over eight sessions. The details are as follows: \nDay-1 \n Inaugural Session \nSession- I: NATIONAL SECURITY AND GEO-POLITICAL CALCULUS\nSession- II: STRATEGY AND STRATEGIC UNCERTAINTY IN ASIA\nSession- III: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND NATIONAL SECURITY\nSession- IV: NEIGHBOURHOOD CONFLICTS AND FOREIGN POLICY CHOICES \nDay-2 \n Special Address \nSession- V: CHANGING CHARACTER OF WAR & WARFARE\nSession- VI: STRATEGIC TECHNOLOGIES\, DETERRENCE AND WAR-FIGHTING\nSession- VII: DEFENCE PLANNING\, PROCUREMENT AND FISCAL MANAGEMENT\nSession- VIII: DEFENCE INNOVATION AND ASIA’S DEFENCE INDUSTRIAL BASES\nVALEDICTORY ADDRESS \n\n\n\n\nProgramme\n\n\nTentative Programme\n\n\n\n\nChairpersons\n\n\n\n\n\nDr. Arvind Gupta \n Dr. Arvind Gupta is Director\, Vivekananda International Foundation\, New Delhi. During 2014-17\, he was the Deputy National Security Advisor and Secretary\, National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS). During 2012-14\, he was Director-General\, Manohar Parrikar IDSA. He was Lal Bahadur Shastri Chair in Strategic and Defence Studies\, at the Manohar Parrikar IDSA during 2008-2011\, and the Managing Editor of Strategic Analysis\, Manohar Parrikar IDSA’s flagship academic journal. A former diplomat\, he worked at the National Security Council Secretariat as a Joint Secretary on deputation from the Ministry of External Affairs during 1999-2007. He is an Honorary Professor in the Department of Defence and National Security Studies\, Punjab University\, Chandigarh. His book\, How India Manages Its National Security\, was published by Penguin India in 2018. He is the co-editor of the forthcoming book India’s Foreign Policy: Surviving in a Turbulent World\, which is being published by Sage Publications India Pvt Ltd. in 2020. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nAmb. Kanwal Sibal \nAmb. Kanwal Sibal\, with 41 years of experience in diplomacy\, is a former Foreign Secretary\, Government of India. He has been Ambassador to Turkey\, Egypt\, France and Russia\, and Deputy Chief of Mission in Washington DC (with rank of an Ambassador). He was a member of India’s National Security Advisory Board from 2008 to 2010. He was President of the Association of Indian Diplomats in 2011. He is on the Board of the New York-based East-West Institute; member of the Executive Council of the Vivekananda International Foundation; Adviser to the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum; Chairman of the Forum of Strategic and Security Studies; Editorial Consultant to The Indian Defence Review and Foreign Affairs Editor of Force. He is a member of Leaders for Peace\, an international forum established by former French Prime Minister Mr. Raffarin. He has written more than 550 Op-Eds and other articles for major national newspapers and periodicals on international affairs. He is frequently requested to speak on foreign policy and strategic affairs by various institutions and participate in TV debates. He was made a Grand Officier of the Ordre National du Merite by the French President in 2004. In 2017\, he received the Padma Shri from the President of India. In 2017\, he was decorated by the Russian Foreign Minister for Contributions to International Cooperation. His book of poems Snowflakes of Time has been published by Bloomsbury in 2016. \n\n\n\n\n\n\nAmb. (Dr.) T.C. A. Raghavan \nAmb. (Dr.) T.C.A. Raghavan is Director General\, Indian Council of World Affairs (ICWA)\, New Delhi\, since July 24\, 2018. He retired from the Indian Foreign Service in December 2015 after serving as India’s High Commissioner to Pakistan (2013-15). He had earlier served as Deputy High Commissioner in Pakistan (2003-2007) and High Commissioner to Singapore from 2009 to 2013. During his last posting in New Delhi (2007-09) in the Ministry of External Affairs\, he was Joint Secretary dealing with Pakistan\, Afghanistan and Iran. His areas of interest are historical research\, strategic analysis and the diplomatic and intellectual history of modern India. He is the author of History Men- Jadunath Sarkar\, G.S. Sardesai\, Raghubir Sinh and their quest for India’s Past (Harper Collins\, 2020). He was awarded a PhD by the Jawaharlal Nehru University\, New Delhi in 1992. \n  \n\n\n\n\n\n\n \nMaj. Gen. B. K. Sharma\, AVSM\, SM** and Bar (Retd.)\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nSpeakers\n\n\n\n\n\nDr. Ajey Lele \n A former Indian Air Force officer\, Gp. Capt. (Dr.) Ajey Lele is Senior Fellow at the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses\, New Delhi\, India. His areas of research include issues related to Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and Strategic Technologies. He has few publications to his name. He started his professional career as an Indian Air Force Officer but took early retirement to pursue his academic interests. He holds a rank of Group Captain. \nTopic: Disruptive Technologies and Strategic Challenges  \nAbstract: Today\, data is recognized as a strategic commodity and often referred to as the new oil.  The need to leverage the potential of rapidly expanding data led to the evolution of unique techniques and technologies for data storage\, analysis\, and visualization. If analyzed effectively\, this data can assist in finding information that is efficient enough in initiating a change in the patterns of how different models function. Technologies like Additive Manufacturing\, Big Data Analytics\, Cloud Computing\, Smart Factories and IoT (Internet of Things) are defining the fourth Industrial Revolution (Industry 4.0). Such technologies have wider applicability in the defence sector too. They actually have the potential to bring in disruptive changes to the industry in general and the military industrial complex (MIS) in particular. Today\, data is becoming cheaper\, more accessible and available to bring about cost-effective structural changes in various processes across sectors. \nThis paper aims to understand the technology trajectory along with the future of the data and disruptive technology-driven world. The paper also analyses the potential of new technologies like Big Data\, IoT\, 3D Printing and others\, that involve latching together isolated data flows coming from potentially every nook and corner of the world. This development could have critical implications\, specifically between those whose data are included and those whose are excluded\, and between those who have access to the data and those who do not. Alongside these developments\, the maturing of weapons technologies like hypersonic weapons will change the dynamics of the modern-day battlefield.  The future challenges and impact of these technologies are reflected upon in the areas of climate change\, poverty\, population\, geopolitics\, military\, warfare and global governance. The paper ends with a discussion on the need for regulative bodies to get engaged in the optimum and effective utilization of these dual-use technologies and control the misuse of the same. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nDr. Alex Vines \nDr. Alex Vines OBE has been Director of the Africa Programme at Chatham House since 2002 and became Managing Director for Risk\, Ethics and Resilience in 2020. Previously\, at Chatham House\, he held roles as Director for Regional Studies and International Security\, and Director for Area Studies and International Law. He is also an Assistant Professor at Coventry University\, and sits on the Editorial and Advisory Boards of the South African Journal of International Affairs\, Africa Review (journal of the African Studies Association of India)\, and the Journal of Southern African Studies. He chaired the UN Panel of Experts on Côte d’Ivoire from 2005 to 2007 and was a member of the UN Panel of Experts on Liberia from 2001 to 2003. He was also a member of the Commonwealth Observer Group to Mozambique in 2019 (and Ghana in 2016) and worked for ONUMOZ in Mozambique and UNAVEM II in Angola. Dr. Vines was awarded an OBE in 2008 and holds a PhD from Coventry University. \nTopic: Conflict and Human Security in Africa \nAbstract: In 2013\, African leaders vowed “not to bequeath the burden of conflicts to the next generation of Africans” and set a goal of ending all African wars by 2020. This unrealistic goal has failed and this paper will examine how conflicts are changing in Africa and what are the international\, national and local responses. It will illustrate how traditional UN peacekeeping models do not work when enforcement\, counter-terrorism or trans-national operations are needed. In 2002\, the African Union (AU) launched a new institutional framework\, the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA)\, but these have had to be adapted in recent years to include ad hoc regional coalitions to address these new security challenges with limited success. This paper will examine why the AU’s ambition to ‘Silence the Guns’ by 2020 was unrealistic\, and outline how peace making and peacebuilding in Africa could become more successful. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n \nMr. Amit Cowshish\nMr. Amit Cowshish is a Consultant with the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses and a former officer of the Indian Defence Accounts Service. He served in various capacities in the Defence Accounts Department\, Central Vigilance Commission and the Ministry of Defence during a career spanning thirty-five years. He has experience in handling defence planning\, budget\, procurement\, and other financial matters. He was involved in several reviews of the procurement procedures and delegation of financial powers to the service officers. He was the member-secretary of the Defence Expenditure Review Committee set up in 2008 and a member of the committee constituted in 2016 for raising a Defence Acquisition Organisation. He is associated with the exercise presently underway in the Ministry to review the revenue and capital procurement procedures. He is a Partner with Dua Associates\, Advocates and Solicitors at New Delhi. \nTopic: Financial Management of Defence in India \nAbstract: Financial management is all about securing adequate federal funding\, judicious intra-organizational allocation and efficient utilization of finances for achieving the organizational goals. On all these counts\, financial management of defence poses a big challenge. Mismatch between the projected requirement of funds and budget outlays is endemic. Obligatory expenses dictate intra-organizational allocations\, and utilization of whatever funds are left for modernization and other operational needs after accounting for such exigencies\, is impacted by procedural complexities and tardy decision-making. The problem has persisted largely because of the reluctance to come to terms with the reality that defence funding cannot improve unless there is an exponential spike in the government’s overall budget receipts\, excluding borrowings. Much is expected from the Chief of Defence Staff and the Fifteenth Finance Commission which is likely to recommend some innovative measures –hopefully acceptable to the States –to augment the defence outlay. This may help to some extent in speeding up modernization\, but may not provide a holistic solution if the problem of burgeoning manpower costs –accounting for more than half of the total defence outlay for 2020-21–is left unaddressed. Financial realism is the sine qua non for efficient financial management of defence. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n \nDr. Andrew Scobell \nDr. Andrew Scobell holds the Bren Chair in Non-Western Strategic Thought at the Krulak Center\, Marine Corps University. He is currently on a leave of absence from the RAND Corporation where he has been a Senior Political Scientist since 2010. Dr. Scobell is concurrently Adjunct Professor in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. His publications include: Chairman Xi Remakes the PLA (National Defense University Press\, 2019)\, At the Dawn of Belt and Road (RAND\, 2018)\, PLA Influence on China’s National Security Policymaking (Stanford University Press\, 2015)\, China’s Search for Security (Columbia University Press\, 2012)\, and China’s Use of Military Force (Cambridge University Press\, 2003). Dr. Scobell earned a doctorate in political science from Columbia University. \nTopic:  Front and Center? China’s Place in the U.S. National Security Calculus and Defense Planning \nAbstract:  Where does China fit in the national security calculus and defense planning of the United States in 2020? The administration of Donald J. Trump has identified multiple threats to U.S. national security and set priorities for defense planning. This paper examines China’s place in U.S. national security and national defense \n\n\n\n\n\n\n \nLt. Gen. Anil Ahuja (Retd.) \nLt. Gen. Anil Ahuja is a former Deputy Chief of Integrated Defence Staff (Policy Planning and Force Development) and Additional Director General Military Operations.  He commanded the Tezpur based 4 Corps and has been the GOC of the Mountain Division in Bomdilla – Tawang (Kameng Sector) along the Northern borders. He has been the co-chair of India-US DTTI Inter-Agency Task Force (DIATF) for India – US defence cooperation and Member-Secretary of the Defence Acquisition Council (DAC) during 2014-2016. He has been the Defence Attaché to Vietnam\, Cambodia\, Laos and a UN Military Observer in Angola. He is a graduate of the National Defence College and hold an M.Phil in Defence and Strategic Studies. A recipient of PVSM\, UYSM\, AVSM\, SM\, VSM & Bar for distinguished service\, he is presently a Distinguished Fellow at the Vivekananda International Foundation and an Adjunct Fellow at the Delhi Policy Group. \nTopic: Defence Planning and Force Development with Financial Prudence (or Within Financial Constraints)* \n Abstract: \n\nPlanning for defence and security of a nation against all possible threats and challenges is the overriding responsibility of every government\, despite competing socio-economic and developmental priorities. In India\, the government spends nearly 15% funds at its disposal on defence. Also\, for years now\, India has remained one of the largest importers of global arms. Despite this the armed forces remain inadequately equipped to meet the visualized security challenges and lament the deficiency /“hollowness” in arms\, munitions and niche technology. This phenomenon is not peculiar to India and is experienced by most other countries. The process of defence planning and capability development with financial prudence thus remains a perpetual challenge for most governments.\nSome of the aspects that need to be considered to address this challenge are:\n\nVisualization of security threats and mode of manifestation across different domains\, which would be peculiar to each country. \nAllocation of resources to meet these challenges – distribution of responsibilities between Armed forces\, Paramilitary forces\, Police and other agencies. \nEvolution of Security and Defence strategy and visualization of the pattern of operations to combat likely challenges. \nForce structuring and capability development requirements for multi-domain hybrid warfare. Inter se weightage to be accorded would be country / region-specific. \nRoll on defence budget planning for 10-20 years. \nAddressing dilemmas of : size of armed forces to be maintained; terms of engagement of soldiers (pay\, allowances\, perks & privileges\, pensions) with implications on revenue expenditure; imports versus indigenization; alignments/strategic partnerships/alignments versus strategic independence; competing demands for conventional\, strategic and asymmetric threats and for land\, sea\, aerospace and cyber domains. \nBuilding `capacities to budget’ or `budgeting to build capacities’? \n\n\nLike there are no set piece threats faced by nations\, similarly\, there are no template solutions either. The methodology of financial allocation varies from mere “apportioning” of yearly budgets to detailed Parliament-driven planning\, as done in the yearly US “NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act)”. The aim of this paper is to highlight the factors to be considered and to suggest some pointers for defence planning within competing financial demands. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \nVice-Admiral Anil Chopra\, PVSM\, AVSM (Retd.)\nVice-Admiral Anil Chopra is a Distinguished Fellow at Gateway House\, Mumbai. Admiral Chopra has been writing and speaking extensively both in India and abroad on diverse geopolitical and maritime issues. He retired in 2015 from Indian Navy after four decades of distinguished service. He had the unique distinction of having been the Commander-in-Chief of both combatant commands of the Navy as well as having been the Director General of the Indian Coast Guard. As Assistant Chief of Naval Staff (Policy and Plans)\, and earlier as Principal Director Naval Plans\, he was associated  with the formulation of the Navy’s Long-Term Force Structure and Force-Mix\, and its Perspective and Financial Planning. He was a member of the Defence Acquisition Council for three years. Admiral Chopra was a Member of the National Security Advisory Board from 2017-2019. He was also a member of the Shekatkar Committee in 2016 to examine measures to enhance the combat capability of the Indian Armed Forces\, and rebalance the defence budget. \nTopic: Force Level Planning for the Indian Navy \n\n\n\n\n\n\n \nMr. Apurv Kumar Mishra \nMr. Apurv Kumar Mishra is a Senior Research Fellow at India Foundation (IF)\, where he leads initiatives related to foreign policy. He is a faculty of law at Ashoka University and teaches courses on law at several institutions including Gandhinagar National Law University\, Plaksha Tech Leaders’ Programme and Vedica Scholars’ Programme. He is also the Editor-in-Chief of India Law Journal and leads the Anubhav Lecture Series (ALS) at University of Chicago\, India Centre. He is a founding member of the Robin Hood Army – a voluntary organization of young professionals and students that works to get surplus food from restaurants across to less fortunate people in 100+ cities across 12 countries. He has previously worked with the Albright Stonebridge Group – a Washington-based strategic advisory firm and the corporate law firm\, Amarchand & Mangaldas. \nTopic: Security and Statecraft in the Age of GAFA (Google\, Amazon\, Facebook and Apple) \nAbstract: When Mark Zuckerberg launched his own book club in 2015\, the first book he recommended was The End of Power by Moises Naim. A curious choice for the owner of Facebook because the book’s central claim is that in the 21st century power is “easier to get\, harder to use\, and easier to lose.” Traditional sources of power — government\, big companies\, religious institutions and conventional media — are facing a severe challenge from smaller\, agile competitors\, creating instability in international order and domestically within countries. \nA key factor prompting this fundamental transition in the power structure of societies around the world is the pervasive use of technology in our daily lives. Take the case of India. Even though more than half of our population still does not have access to the internet\, we are already the world’s second largest internet user base (behind China)\, with average monthly data usage matching the levels of developed countries. \nThe data we consume on the internet is increasingly driving our choices in public and private life — from whom we vote for\, products we buy\, news we read\, to the person we marry. Governments now realize that this data generated by citizens is a vital national asset and needs protection against possible misuse by our adversaries. Therefore\, a key policy challenge for our government is to protect the sanctity of the process by which Indians connected to the internet make their most important decisions. \nHowever\, technologists are often unable (or unwilling) to anticipate the broader impact of their technological creations on national security. On the other hand\, software\, hardware\, platforms\, and networks are regulated by sometimes conflicting and overlapping sets of laws and policies. This is complicated by the fact that our lawmakers favour status-quo and are quite slow in adapting to fast-changing technological interventions. \nWhat are the guiding principles to create a regulatory framework for disruptive technologies that balance both risk and benefit? How have our courts and legislators responded to this challenge? The paper seeks to understand how Industry 4.0 is challenging the conventional national security paradigm that has guided India’s strategic establishment for the last three decades. It ends with a preliminary outline of a modified approach to manage India’s national security in an age of accelerating rate of social and technological change. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n \nProf. Darko Trifunovic\nProf. Darko Trifunovic is a founding member and Director of the Institute for National and International Security. Dr. Trifunovic is an elected guest professor at the Center of American Studies\, Fudan University\, –Shanghai\, China. He is also a Senior Research Fellow with the rank of Associate Professor at Fudan University’s Institute of BRI Strategy and International Security. Additionally\, Dr. Trifunovic is Adjunct Professor and Coordinator for Research at the Shanghai Academy of Social Science. Dr. Darko Trifunovic is also Senior Research Fellow and Lecturer with the Faculty of Security Studies at the University of Belgrade and Senior Adviser at the Research Institute for European and American Studies\, Athens\, Greece. He is a specialist in Security Studies\, Intelligence & Counter Intelligence Studies as well as Counter-Terrorism and National and International Security Studies. He also served as the First Secretary of Bosnia and Herzegovina at the United Nations. \nTopic: Hybrid War\, Technology and Intelligence Sharing in National Security \nAbstract: Every war is conflict but every conflict is not a war. Hybrid operations involve a whole range of activities aimed at achieving a state of information supremacy and attempting to shape the thought of an attacked target in accordance with the attacker’s will and desires. Hybrid or influence operation seeks to influence the opinions and attitudes of the target audience (society\, state\, group)\, using the many benefits of digital media and social networks to spread the data and information they want\, to spread their influence and impose on their own attitudes on others. In these processes\, methods are often used to extract information from the actual context of the event and its placement in a fictional\, targeted\, counterfeit temporal-spatial context\, to make it easier for the attacked public to better accept the placement misinformation without doubting its veracity. Hybrid operations\, which until recently have been known as special operations in armed activities\, have evolved into a dominant form of hybrid threats. Hybrid threats\, as a set of different manifestations of particular hybrid operations\, entail directed and organized action towards an individual audience in order to exploit (foster\, deepen) existing ones and create new vulnerabilities\, foster feelings of division\, insecurity\, defeatism\, powerlessness\, hopelessness\, ambiguity\, suspicion\, disruption and collapse of democratic structures and processes\, attenuations and attempts to control the functioning of the defence system. Together with asymmetrical way of warfare\, hybrid war become an effective element of modern conflicts. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n \nGen. R. M. Daya Ratnayake\, WWV\, RWP\, RSP\, USP\, NDU\, PSC (Retd.)\nGen. R. M. Daya Ratnayake (Retd.)  is currently the Chairman of the Sri Lanka Ports Authority (SLPA) and was formerly the Commander of the Sri Lanka Army (2013-2015). He was enlisted to the Regular Force of the Sri Lanka Army in 1980. General Daya Ratnayake has held many command appointments and his role as the Commissioner-General of Rehabilitation to rehabilitate 14\,500 more LTTE ex-combatants has been widely acknowledged. His exceptionally unique qualities in many daunting military operations have been well-recognized as a battlefield veteran and he has been decorated with more than twenty-six gallantry and service medals. Currently\, he is pursuing PhD at the General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University\, Colombo. \nTopic: A Study on War\, Warfare and Warfighting: The Sri Lankan Experience \nAbstract: Sri Lanka’s experience in the final successful military operation over the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)\, offers new insight into warfare and war- fighting. The country’s military offensive ran contrary to an internationally-led peace effort which was seen as the only hope for ending the three decade-long armed conflict. However\, the State’s strategy was to defeat LTTE militarily first and find a solution to the larger conflict while addressing root causes to the conflict\, later.    \n In the midst of several alleged human rights violation charges levelled against the Government of Sri Lanka and the military\, the world has missed the opportunity to analyze the island nation’s armed conflict\, warfighting and warfare with known and invented military concepts and methods. This paper is such an attempt\, and in that\, the author redefines Sri Lanka’s armed conflict and explains the events of the successful military offensive\, connecting age-old military concepts\, methods and doctrines.  \n This paper argues that the Sri Lankan experience was an optimum application of military power with a clear political strategy to resolve an armed conflict with a state-of-the-art guerilla force. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n \nDr. Erica Marat\nDr. Erica Marat is an Associate Professor and Chair at the Regional and Analytical Studies Department of the College of International Security Affairs\, National Defense University\, Washington\, D.C. Her research focuses on violence and mobilization\, security institutions\, and mobilization in Eurasia\, India and Mexico. She has authored three books\, including most recently\, The Politics of Police Reform: Society against the State in Post-Soviet Countries (Oxford University Press 2018). \nTopic: Surveillance Technologies: Chinese and Russian Chronicle in Central Asia \nAbstract: The recent spread of surveillance technologies in Central Asia shows how cities and countries aspire to follow global trends for innovation in the name of public safety and the rule of law. Authorities of all large cities have installed facial-recognition cameras and CCTV systems under the aegis of ‘smart’. But they are also susceptible to the whims of technological giants who are working as part of their countries’ geopolitical ambitions. State-controlled Chinese companies HikVision and Huawei and the Russian company\, Vega dominate the supply side. Given the pervasive absence of legislative oversight\, the countries looking to leapfrog into the digital future are adopting a virtual authoritarianism that risks suppressing political dissent and further marginalizes already disadvantaged groups. Inevitably\, with greater dependence on foreign vendors\, the Central Asian countries are also becoming part of global competition between China\, Russia and the West for data collection for Artificial Intelligence (AI) purposes. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n \nProf. Feodor Voitolovsky\nProf. Feodor Voitolovsky is Director of the Primakov National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations\, Russian Academy of Sciences (IMEMO). His research interests include international security\, US foreign and security policy\, Russia-US relations\, US-China relations\, US policy in North-East Asia\, Transatlantic relations\, NATO\, global political prognostics\, global governance and international institutions. He also holds other positions such as Professor at the Department of Political Science\, MGIMO University (of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs)\, head of IMEMO’s teaching and research department at the Far East Federal University (Vladivostok)\, Editorial Board member of the journal World Economy and International Relations and Editorial Board member of the Global Development annual series at the IMEMO. Prof. Voitolovsky has published a monograph and co-authored and co-edited twenty collective monographs. He is also an author of more than 70 articles in journals devoted to international politics and chapters in books including “Global System on the Brink: Pathways Toward a New Normal” (2016)\, “Global Perestroika: Transformations of the World Order” (2015)\, “Misbalances of Pacific Asia” (2015) and others.\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n \nDr. Hanbyeol Sohn \nDr. Hanbyeol Sohn is currently an Assistant Professor in the Department of Military Strategy at the Korea National Defense University (KNDU). He graduated from Seoul National University and received a doctorate in military studies from KNDU. From 2002\, Professor Sohn held both commander and staff positions in the field and served as an acting officer in the Strategic Planning Division\, ROK Joint Chiefs of Staff. He also conducted research for the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) and Korea Research Institute for National Security (KRINS). His research areas include the ROK-US Alliance\, non-proliferation policy and nuclear strategy\, and Northeast Asian security. \nTopic:  Defence Innovation and South Korea’s Evolving Military Outlook in Asia \nAbstract:  In a rapidly changing security environment on the Korean Peninsula\, South Korea is pursuing “Defense Reform 2.0.” Its objective is to build an innovative\, creative\, ‘elite and advanced strong force\,’ and it suggests four innovations – military structure\, defence management\, military culture\, and defence industry. Many people preparing for future wars emphasize the “Future of War\,” in terms of\, the emerging military technology changes the face of war. But they must also grapple with the question of “War of the Future”\, which is a continuation of politics by other means. Since the “state-war-technology” triangle has an interdependent nature\, the Military-Technical Revolution (MTR)\, Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA)\, and Revolution in Security Affairs (RSA) have a synergic interaction. Therefore\, South Korea’s Defense Reform 2.0 will determine its success depending on whether military technology\, military strategy and defence innovation can develop together. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n \nDr. Ikboljon Qoraboyev\nDr. Ikboljon Qoraboyev is an Associate Professor of International Relations at the Higher School of Economics of M. Narikbayev KAZGUU in Nur-sultan\, Kazakhstan. Dr Qoraboyev received his PhD in International Law from the University of Toulouse. His research spans across International Law\, International Relations and Comparative Regionalism Studies. His research interests include regionalism in Eurasia\, Belt and Road Initiative from the perspective of comparative regionalism\, great power interactions in Central Asia\, international law in domestic legal systems\, and understanding of sovereignty in Central Asia. \nTopic: Rise of China and global security dynamics: Implications for Central Asia \nAbstract: This paper will elaborate on implications of the rise of China for the Central Asian region. China’s rise as great power is one of the biggest tests and opportunities for global governance. At the same time\, it poses one of the most important challenges to international security. For Central Asians\, it is important to acquire a comprehensive understanding of China’s rise from the perspective of global security dynamics. This paper will begin by providing a summary of the decades-long IR debate on China’s rise as a great power. It will then proceed with analyzing the major contemporary challenges to international order and global security posed by the China factor. It will conclude by highlighting how the consequences of these major international shifts may unfold in Central Asia. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n \nMr. Jean-Christophe Noël\nMr. Jean-Christophe Noël is Associated Research Fellow at IFRI’s Security Studies Center in Paris. He is a former French Air Force officer. After pursuing a career as a fighter pilot\, he held various staff positions\, dealing with doctrinal or prospective matters. He was also the Deputy Chief of Staff of the French Air Force\, Chief of Staff from 2006 to 2009\, a Military Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in 2009-2010 in Washington DC\, and had been in charge of politico-military affairs at the Policy Planning Staff of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs from 2012 to 2017. He currently teaches at Sciences Po Paris. He graduated from the French Air Force Academy\, Sciences Po Paris and the French Ecole de Guerre. \nTopic: Will AI revolutionize Warfare? \nAbstract: Although the development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is still in its early stages\, it has already had an impact on the armed forces. In time\, AI will be able to take into account more wide-ranging and diverse data in order to develop a tactical situation. Besides\, the execution speed of the algorithms that can process and immediately enhance the data received\, will dictate the execution rate of certain tasks. \nThe progress of AI could lead to a true military revolution\, where a new form of automation could gain ground. The soldier of the future could for example\, be the shepherd of a flock of specialized robots. A change in the relationship between humans and war could also happen. By abandoning a part of their security to algorithms\, the citizens of the future could banish war from their horizon and give a very wide-ranging and dangerous autonomy to the institutions responsible for defence. The most pessimistic forecasters envisage apocalyptic scenarios\, but the worst is by no means inevitable. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n \nDr. Jeffrey Becker\nDr. Jeffrey Becker directs the Indo-Pacific Security Affairs Program at CNA. His research focuses on Chinese politics and Chinese foreign policy and security issues\, including China’s military diplomacy\, US-China military engagement\, and the security implications of China’s expanding global presence in the Middle East and the Indian Ocean. Dr. Becker’s recent CNA publications include China’s Presence in the Middle East and Western Indian Ocean: Beyond Belt and Road and China’s Military Support Facility in Djibouti: The Economic and Security Dimensions of China’s First Overseas Base. His peer-reviewed writings have appeared in the Naval War College Review\, the Journal of Chinese Political Science\, and Comparative Political Studies. He has also published articles in East Asia Forum\, The National Interest and The Diplomat. From 2014-2018\, Dr. Becker supported the US Navy with China’s participation in the multilateral “Rim of the Pacific” exercise. As part of these efforts\, he has worked alongside US and Chinese exercise planners\, and has spent time at sea aboard multiple Chinese navy warships. \nTopic: Revision and Continuity in America’s Approach to the Indo-Pacific \nAbstract: The US Department of Defense Indo-Pacific Strategy Report describes the Indo-Pacific as the Department’s “priority theatre” and “the single most consequential region for America’s future.”  \n This renewed focus on the Indo-Pacific comes at a time when the United States and others\, including regional powers such as India\, seek to manage a range of different and complex security challenges that threaten to undermine continued stability and economic growth in the region. From the perspective of the United States\, inter-state rivalry – most notably growing competition with China – remains a primary concern. Additionally\, however\, non-traditional threats\, including terrorism and the rise of extremist ideology\, demand attention from both the United States and US partners and allies. \n This paper seeks to provide an insight into the current US approach to the region. In doing so\, it seeks to examine how the US conception of the Indo-Pacific region has changed over time\, how US security policy towards the region has evolved\, what forces are driving that evolution\, and what that means for the United States\, US partners and allies\, and the region more broadly. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n \nMs. Kwek Ai Wei\nMs. Kwek Ai Wei is the Special Functions Officer to the Deputy Minister of Defence of Malaysia. In this role\, she advises the Deputy Minister on policy matters\, and was involved in the drafting of the first Malaysian Defence White Paper. Prior to this\, she has worked in various policy advisory and governmental affairs roles for international organizations\, including the United Nations Development Programme and the International Committee of the Red Cross\, and in the diplomatic corps. She holds a Masters in International Studies and Diplomacy from SOAS\, University of London\, and was an alumni of the Young Southeast Asian Leaders’ Initiative (YSEALI) Professional Fellow Program instituted by the US Department of State. \nTopic: Defence Planning and Maritime Disputes in Southeast Asia \nAbstract: Several Southeast Asian nations have published their Defence White Papers in recent years. Malaysia published its inaugural Defence White Paper in 2019. Vietnam published its fourth Defence White Paper in 2019 while Brunei\, Philippines and Indonesia published theirs in 2011\, 2012 and 2015 respectively. \nThese White Papers were drafted amidst intensifying US-China strategic competition\, geopolitical uncertainties and the increasing challenge of non-traditional security threats in the region. As maritime nations\, these states share similar interests and security challenges in the maritime domain\, including territorial maritime disputes with other littoral states\, while also facing a varying degree of inland security threats. As small states\, a looming Chinese influence\, coupled with US-China competition at the global level\, has caused anxiety that the region\, particularly the South China Sea\, which might become a theatre of conflict between the great powers. \nThis paper will discuss the common themes expounded in these Defence White Papers and how the Southeast Asian states perceive their security environment. It will also explore the use of Defence White Paper as planning tools to spur defence reforms and force restructuring\, taking into consideration the difference in domestic and political dynamics of each states. Further\, the paper aims to demonstrate the responses devised by these states in securing their defence interests\, both as individual states but also collectively as ASEAN member states. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n \nDr. Lai Thai Binh\nDr. Lai Thai Binh is Deputy Director-General\, Institute for East Sea Studies\, Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam since December 2019. He has served as a Vietnam-U.S. Relations Desk Officer (2003)\, Deputy Director (2006)\, Director of the North America Division (2007)\, Director of American Research Division (2009)\, Assistant Director-General (2009- 2012) and Deputy Director-General (2013-2016) in the Americas Department\, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Vietnam and was posted as the Deputy Consul-General of Vietnam in Houston\, Texas (2016-2019). Dr. Binh earned his first Bachelors degree in International Economics from the Hanoi Foreign Trade University\, a second Bachelors degree in Law from the Hanoi National University\, a Post-Graduate Diploma in International Management from International Management Institute in New Delhi (India)\, a Master of International Public Policy degree from SAIS\, Johns Hopkins (Washington DC) and a PhD in International Relations from the Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam. \nTopic: Maritime Planning in Vietnam’s National Security Calculus \nAbstract: The sea plays an extremely important role in the development and security of Vietnam. In the context that the regional and international situation continues to unpredictably fluctuate\, Vietnam pays more attention to maritime planning and focuses on major principles that will guide the maritime development for the next 10-20 years. Vietnam’s maritime planning is focused on the following factors: (i) Ensuring maritime economic security in the direction of rapidly developing tourism and marine services\, maritime economy\, oil and gas exploitation and maritime mineral resources\, marine and industrial aquaculture and exploitation\, coastal industries\, renewable energy and new maritime industries; (ii) Developing residential communities in association with regional development and ensure safety and security for fishermen; (iii) Strengthening the capacity of the armed and law enforcement forces to be ready to deal with traditional and non-traditional maritime security threats; persistently building an environment of peace\, stability and legal order at sea; strengthening and expanding foreign relations and contributing to the joint efforts of the international community towards the conservation and sustainable use of seas and oceans. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n \nDr. Laxman Kumar Behera\nDr. Laxman Kumar Behera is Research Fellow at the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses. As a member of the Institute’s Defence Economics and Industry Centre\, Dr. Behera specialises on issues related to Arms Procurement\, Defence Offsets\, Defence Industry\, Military Spending\, and Defence Cooperation. He was closely associated with two high-level Committees set up by the Ministry of Defence on Defence Acquisition and Defence Expenditure. He was a Consultant to the Task Force on Self-Reliance and Defence Modernization constituted by the National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS)\, Government of India. Dr. Behera was the Chief Coordinator and Member of two study teams constituted by the Ministry of Defence to examine the Impact of Offsets on the Indian Defence Industrial Base\, and Defence Acquisition: International Best Practices. As part of his responsibilities Dr Behera undertakes policy relevant research besides providing regular inputs to the Ministry of Defence and other ministries and departments of the Government of India. \nTopic: ‘Make in India’ and the Changing Profile of Indian Defence Industry \nAbstract: The ‘Make in India’ programme\, launched by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in September 2014\, has been a guiding force for the Ministry of Defence to usher in many defence industrial reforms. Within a short span of five-and-a-half years\, numerous reform measures have been implemented that were hitherto unheard of. These measures include simplification of industrial licensing\, increase in FDI cap\, articulation of defence export promotion measures\, opening of trial and testing facilities for use by the private sector\, a level-playing field for the domestic private companies\, articulation of an indigenization policy to be followed by the state-owned production entities and reform of the state-owned production entities. The government has also simplified its procurement procedures to provide greater opportunity to domestic industry to participate in mega contracts including that of fighters\, submarines\, helicopters and tanks. While all these measures have been taken to strengthen India’s defence production as a whole\, an inherent undercurrent of the policy reform has been greater participation of the Indian private sector\, which is perceived to be the future of India’s arms production. The paper examines the impact of all the policy reform measures on domestic defence production with special focus on the Indian private sector\, to assess its contribution to India’s self-reliance efforts.   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n \nDr. Malcolm Davis \nDr. Malcolm Davis joined the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) as a Senior Analyst in Defence Strategy and Capability\, in January 2016. Prior to this he was a Post-Doctoral Research Fellow in China-Western Relations at Bond University Queensland\, from March 2012 to January 2016\, and he currently retains an Honorary Assistant Professor’s position in the faculty there. He has worked with the Department of Defense\, both in Navy Headquarters in the Strategy and Force Structure area\, and with the Strategic Policy Division in the Strategic Policy Guidance sections from November 2007 to March 2012. Prior to this appointment he was a Lecturer in Defence Studies with Kings College London at the Joint Services Command and Staff College in Shrivenham\, UK\, from June 2000 to October 2007. He holds a PhD in Strategic Studies from the University of Hull as well as two Masters degrees in Strategic Studies\, including one from the Australian National University’s Strategic and Defence Studies Centre. \nTopic: Artificial Intelligence\, National Security and Modern Warfare: An Australian Perspective \nAbstract: The development of Australia’s future defence capability faces a looming inflection point in military affairs. The balance of advantage in future warfare may be determined by which side can more quickly identify and exploit disruptive innovation\, both in terms of capability development prior to war\, as well as in actual military operations during wartime.  \nAn emphasis on slow\, large\, and expensive acquisition projects based around traditional platforms – warships\, submarines\, armoured fighting vehicles and manned combat aircraft – may prove inadequate in a future where Artificial Intelligence (AI)\, unmanned autonomous systems\, and other new types of military capability are shaping future military innovation cycles. \nThis paper examines how the Australian defence and national security community is dealing with this emerging challenge. It explores the potential application of AI and battlespace robotics\, hypersonics and space capability for the Australian Defence Force (ADF) in the 2020s and beyond. It considers how their introduction might transform our approach to military operations in a multi-domain operational environment. It also considers how these technologies\, and more broadly\, the fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) in defence acquisition\, can ensure Australia can maintain competitive advantage against the rapid pace and scope of military technological change. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n \nDr. Manoj Joshi \nDr. Manoj Joshi is a Distinguished Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation\, New Delhi. A professional journalist\, he is currently a columnist for several Indian newspapers and a commentator on TV. He has had a long-term interest in national security matters. In recent years\, he has focused on the rise of China and his most recent academic publications have been on China’s technology challenge\, its military modernization\, the South China Sea dispute\, the Doklam Crisis and the Belt and Road Initiative and the Wuhan Summit. In 2011\, he was a member of the Task Force on National Security chaired by Mr Naresh Chandra to propose reforms in the national security system. He was also involved in the drafting of a Strategic Defence Review as a member of India’s National Security Council’s Advisory Board. He has co-edited a book on the US and South Asia and authored two books on Kashmir. He holds a PhD from the School of International Studies (SIS)\, Jawaharlal Nehru University\, New Delhi.    \nTopic: Strategic Uncertainty in India’s Neighbourhood \nAbstract: There is a great deal of flux across the world. Old paradigms are shifting\, without new ones in sight. The country that shaped the world order in the wake of World War II\, the US\, now decries the order and is set on demolishing it. As a result\, the international institutions it shaped — the UN\, the World Trade Organization\, or the Climate Change Conferences — are being buffeted by contrary winds. \nThe US has decided that it is in strategic competition with China and is seeking to upend the global trading order which it says has unfairly exploited them. Technology has emerged as the centre point of this contest. Military and economic competition did characterize the old order\, but in the past decade we have seen facets of this change in terms of climate change\, piracy\, the use of non-state actors to push state policy\, cyber threats\, energy and food security and anti-immigrant sentiments. At the beginning of this year\, the outbreak of coronavirus has brought to the fore the enormous challenge of pandemics. Countries must therefore gear up to newer challenges and adjust their defence strategies to cope with them. \nWhat is the scenario in India’s neighbourhood? First and foremost is the rise of China and its growing footprint in the South Asian and Indian Ocean Region (SA-IOR). In terms of resources\, both financial and military\, India has to compete with Beijing. China’s ties with Pakistan have been solidified and its footprint in Nepal and Myanmar is growing. The victory of the Rajapakses in Sri Lanka means that at a minimum\, Beijing faces a positive environment. In the Maldives\, pro-India forces have prevailed\, but for how long is the question. The short issue here is that India lacks a relationship that has institutional depth that can overcome periodic changes in the leaderships of the countries; it is dependent on who wins an election in these countries. \nNo matter how one looks at it\, the issues of SA-IOR cannot be limited to the region. They are intrinsically connected with URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/21st-asian-security-conference-national-security-and-defence-planning-in-an-era-of-strategic-uncertainty-postponed CATEGORIES:Asian Security Conference,CONFERENCES ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20190326T053000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20190328T053000 DTSTAMP:20261108T003243 CREATED:20231223T125418Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250317T071505Z UID:62735-1553578200-1553751000@idsa.in SUMMARY:20th Asian Security Conference: Multipolarism in Asia: Issues and Challenges DESCRIPTION:DAY ONE\n \nDAY TWO\n \nDAY THREE\n\n\n\nRegistration\n\n\nRegistration will open on the days of the conference at the venue. However\, we would encourage you to avail a discount offer open till 20 March 2019 with the fees being Rs 1000/- for Indian nationals and $ 100 for foreign nationals. From 21 March 2019 the registration fee would be Rs 2000/- for Indian nationals and $ 200 for foreign nationals. The fee is to cover costs of meals\, conference papers etc. Students are exempted from registration to enable their participation in maximum numbers. They are requested to bring their university identity cards along. \n1. Please send cheque in name of “IDSA\, New Delhi” to the following address along with your details as Name\, Address\, Educational qualification\, Institutional affiliation etc. \nAssistant Director (Admin)\n The Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses\n 1\, Development Enclave\, (near USI)\n Rao Tula Ram Marg\n New Delhi 110 010 \n2. From outside India\, money transfer can be done to IDSA bank account whose particulars are below: \nAccount Holder: IDSA\n A/C No: 10596550223\n Name of Bank: State Bank of India (SBI)\n Branch Address: JNU\, Old Campus\, New Delhi – 110 067\, INDIA\n Swift code: SBININBB548 \nIFSC Code: SBIN0001624 \n\n\n\n\nConcept Note\n\n\nThe Asian continent\, home to sixty per cent of humanity\, high economic growth rates and a burgeoning middle class and markets\, with some of the highest military expenditures in the world\, is in a state of flux. Territorial and maritime disputes have the potential to cast a shadow on peace and stability. \nThe Asian landmass straddles the Indo-Pacific. Asia is increasingly being defined in the broader geographical context of the Pacific and Indian Oceans through which pass the key SLOCs for energy\, raw materials and trade. Freedom of navigation\, over-flight and commerce are of growing significance. \nThe economic fulcrum has shifted towards Asia in recent years. China’s economic growth is being replicated in varying degrees by others in Asia over extended periods. India has now emerged as one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. Asia\, however\, has fallen short in building a credible security architecture. Trade mechanisms such as the CPTTP and the RCEP that straddle the region have revealed new frictions. Infrastructure and connectivity initiatives are increasingly shaping the economic and political discourse in Asia\, with renewed debate on finance to meet strategic ends. \nAmidst these changes\, regional transformation is leading to speculation about the future of power distribution in Asia. The “Asian Century” appears inevitable but the question remains if it will be unipolar or bipolar or multipolar in character. What future will countries such as China\, India and Japan opt for? What role will other regional countries play? What are the key interests of external powers that have a traditional presence or alliances in the region? \nPower in Asia remains fractured at various levels\, marked by a lack of consensus. A ‘multipolar Asia’ essentially presupposes the presence of multiple powers with significant capabilities and influence\, equipped to take on responsibilities and respond to emerging challenges and threats with a degree of strategic autonomy. The US is reassessing its presence and commitment to Asia at a time when China has expanded its footprint\, including in the maritime space. Trade frictions between US and China and their divergent visions for the future of the region have encouraged hedging by other regional actors. \nTraditional and non-traditional security challenges such as economic and military competition\, climate change\, cyber threats\, terrorism and energy security confront the region and act as drivers for the development of interdependent collaborative structures promoting pluralism. Multilateral fora such as G20\, BRICS\, AIIB and the SCO\, with cross-cutting membership\, are also helping to shape a multipolar regional order. \nIdentifying and understanding the various points of convergence and divergence will pave the way for the creation of interdependent and institutionalised dialogue mechanisms that prevent differences from becoming disputes and competition from leading to conflict. \nThe 20th Asian Security Conference (ASC) organised by the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) on the theme of “Multipolarism in Asia: Issues and Challenges”\, is expected to delve into these issues. The debates and perspectives presented at the ASC will provide valuable insights into the decision-making processes that contribute to policy formulation on issues of peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific. \nThe Conference is tentatively structured as follows: \nSession I: DEBATING A MULTIPOLAR ASIA\nSession II: MULTIPOLARISM AND POWER DYNAMICS IN ASIA\nSession III: RECONSTRUCTING THE REGIONAL ARCHITECTURE\nSession IV: INFRASTRUCTURE\, CONNECTIVITY AND CAPACITY BUILDING IN ASIA\nSession V: THE EVOLVING INDO-PACIFIC ORDER\nSession VI: MANAGING CONTESTS AND SECURITY CONCERNS IN ASIA\nSession VII: ENERGY\, GEO-POLITICS AND MARITIME DIMENSIONS\nSession VIII: DIFFERENCES & DISPUTES IN ASIA\nSession IX: A BRICS MULTIPOLAR ORDER?\nSession X: SPECIAL SUMMING UP PANELTo attend the Conference you can reach us at – idsaasc2019@gmail.com \n\n\n\n\nProgramme\n\nPorgramme Schedule [PDF]\n\n\n\n\nSpeakers\n\n\nCommodore Abhay K. Singh \n \nBio: Cmde. Abhay K. Singh is a Research Fellow at the Military Affairs Centre in the IDSA\, New Delhi. He is an Indian Navy veteran with extensive command and staff experience spanning 27 years. A surface warfare officer with a specialisation in Missile and Gunnery Warfare\, he has commanded various naval platforms which include frontline frigate\, submarine rescue & deep diving vessel\, and fleet auxiliary. He has also served as Director (Military Affairs) in the Disarmament and International Security Division of the Ministry of External Affairs. Cmde. Singh is an alumnus of the Naval Academy\, Defence Services Staff Course and Naval War College. His publications can be found in the Journal Maritime Affairs and various IDSA Commentaries. \n Abstract: \nIndia and the Idea of Indo-Pacific – A Hesitant Embrace? \n Even though the geopolitics of the Indo-Pacific concept has historical roots\, the contemporary discourse in the policy circles got momentum with Prime Minister Abe’s articulation about ‘Confluence of the two Seas’ in his address to Indian Parliament in August 2007. While India’s ‘Look East Policy’ had led to enhancement of her economic and strategic engagements beyond the Indian Ocean\, there exists perceptible hesitation in embracing the ‘Indo-Pacific’ terminology in India’s policy articulation. The sources of this ambivalence can be discerned through wider strategic discourse in India around the geopolitical construct of the Indo-Pacific. Proponents argue that the embracement of the ‘Indo-Pacific’ is a logical extension of India’s ‘Look East Policy’. Sceptics\, on the other hand\, caution against India’s strategic overextension on peripheral regional security issues\, identifying too closely with the United States\, and receiving potential backlash from China. The paper therefore aims to thread both sides of the strategic debate around the relevance of the ‘Indo-Pacific’ geopolitical construct for India. It argues that the ‘Indo-Pacific’ regional construct provides the Indian policymakers a larger canvas to maximise India’s strategic gains. \n  \nMr. Akira Igata \n \nBio: Mr. Akira Igata is currently a Visiting Professor at Center for Rule-making Strategies (CRS)\, Tama University\, Japan. He is also a Senior Consultant at EY Advisory & Consulting and an Adjunct Fellow at Pacific Forum\, a Honolulu-based think tank. He oversees the Economic Statecraft Program and takes part in the Cyber Security Program at CRS. He received his undergraduate training at Georgetown University (one-year exchange program\, Heiwa Nakajima Foundation scholar) and International Christian University (Chris-Wada scholar). He subsequently received his MA in political science from Columbia University (Japanese government fellowship scholar). He was awarded the Aoi Global Research Award to study at the Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies\, Cambridge University in 2016. His research interests include: Japanese security and foreign policies; Japan-U.S. alliance; Economic statecraft; and International politics in the Indo-Pacific. \nAbstract: \nEast China Sea Dispute and Japan \nThe dispute surrounding the Senkaku (Diaoyu / Diaoyutai) islands has been described as a potential flash point in the East China Sea. How did these small uninhabited islands become a prominent international issue that involve world’s three largest economies? This paper first summarizes the history of how these islands rose to becoming a high-profile issue after decades of relative quiescence. Second\, it reviews the claims and interests of each country and studies the latest developments surrounding the dispute. Third\, the author analyzes how the dispute is related to and has an impact on the larger changing international environment\, especially its impact on the increasing strategic competition between US and China. Lastly\, the paper concludes with potential future scenarios and ways forward for mitigating the possibility of further conflict. \n  \nDr. Alice Ekman \n \nBio: Dr. Alice Ekman is the head of China research at IFRI’s Center for Asian Studies. She is also an Associate Professor at Sciences Po in Paris. She specializes in China’s domestic and foreign policy\, Taiwan and the Korean peninsula. Her research interests also include global governance\, forum diplomacy and the evolution of think tanks.. Dr. Ekman was formerly a Visiting Scholar at Tsinghua University (Beijing)\, at National Taiwan Normal University (Taipei)\, and more recently at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies (Seoul). She is currently a member of the EU committee of the Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific (CSCAP) and provides China expertise to the European Union Institute for Security Studies (EUISS). She holds a PhD from Sciences Po in International Relations and Master from the London School of Economics in International Relations\, Economics\, and Anthropology (China focus). \n Abstract: \nChina and the New Economic and Security Architecture in Asia: The 2025 Scenario \n Xi Jinping’s coming into office marks an acceleration of initiatives regarding both regional economic and security governance. Hu Jintao (2002-2012) had already started to shape the framework of a neighborhood policy\, to consolidate China’s participation in various existing multilateral regional mechanisms and position China as an active contributor to global governance reform in general terms. But China’s ambitions to reshape the regional and international order have never been as high as under President Xi Jinping’s leadership. Beijing seeks to significantly restructure the regional economic and security architecture\, and sees the coming years as a key period to achieve results. According to China\, the Asia-pacific region should not be based on any formal alliance system – and certainly not the US one\, which it considers illegitimate. Of course\, Chinese officials are fully aware that such restructuring can only be a long-term process\, given the US’ overwhelming presence and influence in the region today\, and China’s limited security ties with countries in the region so far. Still\, the ultimate aim is to replace the US-led alliance system by a new structure which China sees more in line with its interests\, and that has already been created. The paper will analyze this new structure in detail and assess its potential development and regional impact by 2025. \n  \nProf. Amancio Jorge Silva Nunes de Oliveira \n \nBio: Prof. Amancio Jorge Silva Nunes de Oliveira is a Full Professor at the Institute of International Relations of the University of São Paulo (IRI-USP)\, and the scientific coordinator of CAENI (Center of Studies of International Negotiations). He was a public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars\, vice-dean of the Institute of International Relations/USP and member of Institutional Advisory Committee of USP/IPSA Summer School on Methods.  \n Abstract: \nReorientation of Brazil’s Foreign Policy: Impact on BRICS \nThe pendulum of Brazilian foreign policy oscillated\, in a period of only five years (2014-2019)\, from one extreme to the other. The pendulum movement began under the government of Dilma Rousseff (2014-2015)\, passed through the center-right government of Michel Temer (2016-2018) until arriving at a liberal-conservative government – Jair Bolsonaro (2019). The structural conditions of the international market\, and thus the preference of the Brazilian private sector\, did not change considerably. however\, from the perspective of the Brazilian government\, BRICS gradually lost the status of a revisionist coalition of global governance. The same thing happened\, albeit in an even more pronounced way\, with India-Brazil-South Africa (IBSA). The expected consequence is a misalignment between discourses of the private sector\, government and the international coalition itself. The purpose of this article is to analyze the compatibility between the narratives of the Brazilian governmental and the private sector and to verify\, from this convergence\, the BRICS perspective. Conceptually\, the three broad views on BRICS can be identified as optimistic\, pragmatic and skeptical. The paper will use public opinion surveys of the general public and the private sector to provide an empirical basis for the analysis. \n  \nDr Ashok K Behuria \n \nBio: Dr Ashok K Behuria is a Senior Fellow and Coordinator of the South Asia Centre at IDSA. He is a Ph. D. in International Relations from the Jawaharlal Nehru University\, New Delhi\, India. He joined IDSA in 2003 and before that he was working as Assistant Director at International Centre for Peace Studies\, New Delhi. Dr Behuria has also been Editor of International Studies\, the prestigious research journal from Jawaharlal Nehru University and has been on the Editorial Boards of Journal of Peace Studies and Strategic Analysis. He has taught at the University of Delhi and Jamia Millia Islamia\, New Delhi. He is a recipient of the prestigious K Subrahmanyam Award for excellence in strategic studies for his work on Pakistan in 2009. He has published many research articles on strategic issues related to South Asian security environment in Indian and foreign journals and has edited several books on South Asia. \nAbstract: \nThe Future of India-Pakistan Ties \n The comprehensive dialogue process between India and Pakistan has been in a state of suspended animation for more than a decade now. It has been difficult to restart this process that had a reasonably successful run during 2004-2007. Indian analysts have argued that it has been primarily due to a series of spoiler-acts allegedly by non-state actors from the Pakistani side\, beginning with the 26/11 Mumbai attacks and extending till the attacks in Uri and continuing ceasefire violations along the LoC and IB in Jammu and Kashmir. On the Pakistani side\, the narrative is that India has stonewalled all attempts by Pakistan to restart dialogue and has not shown any serious intent to engage Pakistan meaningfully. Against this backdrop\, the proposed paper will make an attempt to contextualise these separate arguments\, trace the patterns that define India-Pakistan relationship\, and analyse the reasons behind discontinuation of the earlier round of dialogues as well as failure to relaunch the process of engagement. Based on these analyses\, the paper would build some scenarios about the state of India-Pakistan relations in the future. \nProf. Brahma Chellaney \n \nBio: Prof. Brahma Chellaney is presently Professor of Strategic Studies at the Center for Policy Research in New Delhi; a Richard von Weizsäcker Fellow of the Robert Bosch Academy in Berlin; and an affiliate with the International Centre for the Study of Radicalization at King’s College London. He has served as a member of the Policy Advisory Group headed by the foreign minister of India. Before that\, he was an adviser to India’s National Security Council\, serving as convener of the External Security Group of the National Security Advisory Board. He also sits on a number of international organizational boards\, including the academic council of The Henry Jackson Society\, London\, and the advisory boards of Worldcoo\, Barcelona\, and the European Centre for Energy and Resource Security (EUCERS) at the King’s College London. He is the author of nine books\, including an international bestseller\, Asian Juggernaut: The Rise of China\, India\, and Japan (Harper Paperbacks\, New York\, 2010). \n Abstract: \nMultipolarism: The Asian Debate \n Security dynamics are changing rapidly in Asia. The region is home not only to the world’s fastest-growing economies\, but also to the fastest-increasing military expenditures and naval capabilities\, the fiercest competition over natural resources\, and the most dangerous hot spots. The main driver of the changing security dynamics is China. However\, just as European security over centuries was shaped by the equations among the powers of Europe\, Asia has historically been a multipolar region. This reality has not fundamentally changed\, for example\, China\, Japan and India constitute a major strategic triangle in Asia. In this scalene triangle with three unequal sides\, China represents the longest side\, Side A\, Japan Side B and India Side C. In this triangle\, if B and C join forces\, A cannot hope to gain pre-eminence in Asia. In this light\, how does China’s foreign-policy goal to make the mythical Middle Kingdom real square with Asia’s innate multipolarism? Asian powers like Japan\, South Korea\, Indonesia and India remain committed to multipolarism. Can the U.S.-led strategy for a “free and open Indo-Pacific\,” help shore up Asian multipolarism? Is strategic equilibrium in Asia possible in the near term? Also\, what will it take to build an inclusive\, rules- based Asian order? \nDr. Brendon Cannon \n \nBio: Dr. Brendon Cannon is an Assistant Professor of International Security at the Institute of International & Civil Security\, Khalifa University of Science & Technology in Abu Dhabi\, UAE. He earned a Ph.D. in Political Science with an emphasis on International Relations at the University of Utah\, USA (2009). His research interests include contextualizing domestic\, regional and international relations in eastern Africa\, regional security in the Gulf and western Indian Ocean region\, the political economy of ports\, bases and airports\, as well as the Indo-Pacific strategy of India\, Japan\, the US and Australia in contrast with China’s BRI. He is the author of multiple articles and books\, with publications appearing in African Security\, Terrorism and Political Violence\, The Journal of Strategic Security\, and African Security Review. \nAbstract: \nOil\, Ports and Hard Power: Shifting Balance of Power in the Gulf and Horn of Africa \n The Straits of Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb form major maritime chokepoints for Gulf Oil and the shipment of vital goods to much of the globe. They are increasingly of interest to states such as India and China\, where fast-growing economies are fueled\, in part\, by a steady supply of hydrocarbons from the Gulf. The strategic geographies stretching from Addis Ababa in the West to Tehran in the East have been the scenes of conflict in recent years such as the proxy struggle in Yemen between Iran and the Saudi-led coalition; the anti-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden; as well as the scene of scrambling for economic and political resources. These security threats coupled with fast-growing economies\, particularly in the Gulf and the Horn of Africa\, as well as domestic political developments have led various states such as the UAE\, Turkey\, Iran and others to sign agreements around critical strategic infrastructure such as ports\, airports and bases. The resulting military build-up\, fueled by generous dollops of hydrocarbon aid\, demonstrates shifting balances of power across the vast region spanning Western Asia and the Horn of Africa. While these developments have\, until now\, been largely positive\, the possibility of future conflict\, is a clear and present danger. \n  \nDr. Elena Boykova \n \nBio: Dr. Elena Boykova is a Senior researcher\, Institute for Oriental Studies\, Russian Academy of Sciences. She specializes in Modern History and cultural development of Mongolia\, Russian-Mongolian relations\, Mongolia’s foreign policy\, problems of security in North-East Asia. She graduated from the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO)\, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. She holds Ph.D. (Hist.) from the Institute for Oriental Studies\, RAS. She is the author of three books\, more than 100 articles in Russian\, Mongolian\, English and Japanese\, editor-in-chief of more than 10 books. She is a member of the International Association for Mongol Studies\, of the Permanent International Altaistic Conference (PIAC)\, of the Mongolia Society (USA)\, of the China-Mongolia-Russia Think Tank “China-Mongolia-Russia Economic Corridor”\, a member of the Presidium of the Russian Society of Mongolists. Dr. Boykova received the Polar Star Decoration (highest award for non-Mongol citizen) in 2016 and an Honorary Doctorate Degree from the Institute of International Affairs of the Mongolian Academy of Sciences in 2018. \n Abstract: \nThe Russian Vision of BRICS in the Context of a Multipolar Order in Asia \n Creation of BRICS has become one of the most significant geopolitical events of the beginning of the 21st century. Rather shortly\, this association turned to the factor that seriously influences political and economic life of the world. BRICS is essentially a new approach to reforming the system of world regulation\, which in the course of time can become another pole of political influence. Russia regards this association as an important platform for discussing international politics and world economy and considers strengthening of its position in the world as one of important goals. Currently\, BRICS represents a dialogue format that provides the five countries with the opportunity to cooperate in different fields\, at the same time maintaining “freedom of action” for them. The possibility of turning BRICS to a political union or an economic organization is not considered yet. At the same time\, Russia regards it is expedient to formalize the BRICS group by way of creating a virtual secretariat\, and subsequently — a permanent secretariat with headquarters in one of the member countries. In the situation of serious complexities in Russia’s relations with the West\, strengthening of the anti-Russian sanctions policy\, our country is interested in expanding interaction and closer integration with the BRICS countries. Participation in BRICS gives Russia an opportunity to strengthen its position on the world stage. \nMr. Endy Bayuni \n \nBio: Mr. Endy Bayuni is the senior editor of the English-language daily newspaper The Jakarta Post. A 35-year veteran in journalism\, he was the editor-in-chief of the newspaper from 2004-2010 and from 2016-2018. He has also had stints with Reuters and Agence France Presse as their Indonesia correspondent. His opinion columns\, including those on Indonesia’s foreign policy\, have regularly appeared in national as well as international media outlets\, including The Jakarta Post\, Strait Times of Singapore and New York Times. He is a recipient of the East West Center senior fellowship in Washington DC (2010)\, the Nieman Fellowship at Harvard University (2004) and the Jefferson Fellowship at the East West Center in Honolulu (1999). \n Abstract: \nIndonesia’s Rise: with or without BRICS \n Indonesia\, which has risen to the rank of a middle power in the last 20 years\, will be the obvious first candidate to join BRICS if and when it expands its membership. The growing economy is the world’s fourth most populous nation. If BRICS is about pushing for global reforms\, Indonesia’s inclusion will strengthen its hand. Indonesia brings in another factor when it comes to civilizational dialogues: Islam. The country with the largest Muslim population has proven that Islam and democracy are complimentary. Indonesia has a long track record in diplomatic achievements\, dating back to the Bandung Conference of 1955\, which later led to the establishment of the Non-Aligned Movement in 1961. Indonesia hosted the long negotiations to end the war in Cambodia before the warring factions signed the peace deal in Paris in 1991. As the largest member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)\, Indonesia is staking its claim as a maritime power and a key player in the emerging Indo-Pacific regional architecture. With or without BRICS\, Indonesia is building its strength and reputation\, engaging in multilateral organizations like ASEAN\, G-20\, APEC\, OIC\, IORA and MIKTA. Indonesia has a chance to show its diplomatic mettle as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council in 2019-2020. \n Dr. Ha Anh Tuan \n \nBio: Dr. Ha Anh Tuan is a Senior Researcher and Director of Center for Policy Analysis of Bien Dong Maritime Institute\, the Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam. Dr. Tuan’s research interests include international security of the Asia-Pacific\, with special focus on maritime security and international relations in the South China Sea. He has authored or co-authored a number of researches\, including Vietnam’s South China Sea Policy since 2007 in Le Hong Hiep and Anton Tsvetov (ed.)\, Vietnam’s Foreign Policy under Doi Moi\, 2018; & Vietnam’s Regional Security Challenges in Abhijit Singh (ed.) Line in the waters: The South China Sea dispute and its implications to Asia\, 2016; Navigating through troubled waters: A Vietnamese Perspective on Sino-Vietnamese relations in the South China Sea\, 2016; The tragedy of Vietnamese fishermen: The forgotten faces of territorial disputes in the South China Sea\, 2013; ASEAN and the disputes in the South China Sea in Dang D. Quy (ed.)\, Disputes over the South China Sea: Law\, geopolitics\, and international cooperation\, 2012. He is also a frequent media commentator. \nAbstract: \nFuture of South China Sea Dispute: A Vietnamese Perspective \n With many maritime security challenges remain unresolved\, the future of the South China Sea is uncertain. Sovereignty disputes over structures in the Paracels and the Spatlys and overlapping claims of sovereign rights over bodies of waters in the South China Sea among litoral states are still the fundamental and root causes of disputes in the region. Emerging issues such as major powers’ competition – most notably between China and the US\, maritime environmental degradation\, and rapid fish stock depletion have added more burden to regional governments. Technological advancements will also bring about diversed implications in the South China Sea. On the one hand\, regional maritime domain awareness is significantly improved\, allowing litoral states and other stakeholders to better understand of maritime situation in real time. On the other hand\, states’ improved capabilities would make the South China Sea narrower and increase the frequency of encouters between actors from different countries\, thus raise the risk of conflicts in the region. A common understanding between regional countries about rule-based order must be developed in order to effectively manage disputes in the South China Sea. \n  \n Mr. Hekmat Khalil Karzai \n \nBio: Mr. Hekmat Khalil Karzai became the Chairman of the Centre for Conflict and Peace Studies in January 2019. He served as the Deputy Foreign Minister of Afghanistan from January 2015 to October 2018. At the Ministry of Foreign Affairs\, he chaired several national and international processes/forums including Heart of Asia – Istanbul Process\, Regional Economic Cooperation Conference for Afghanistan (RECCA)\, and International Contact Group (ICG) amongst others. He led the Afghan delegation in the first face-to-face talks with the Taliban in July 2015 and at the Quadrilateral Coordination Group meetings\, creating an enabling environment for the Afghan peace process. In 2006\, Mr Karzai founded the Centre for Conflict and Peace Studies (CAPS)\, one of the first think tanks in Afghanistan. He also serves as non- resident Senior Fellow at the East West Institute in Brussels. In the past\, he has served as an International Fellow at the Edmund Walsh School of Foreign Service\, Georgetown University and the Head of the Political Department at the Embassy of Afghanistan in Washington\, DC. \n  \n Prof. Hideshi Tokuchi \n \nBio: Prof. Hideshi Tokuchi joined the Defense Agency (the predecessor of the Ministry of Defense) of Japan in 1979 and served as the nation’s first Vice-Minister of Defense for International Affairs from July 2014 until he retired from the Government in October 2015. In the Ministry of Defense he served as the Director-General of four bureaus: Operations; Personnel and Education; Finance and Equipment; and Defense Policy. He taught Japan’s national security policy as a visiting professor at National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies (GRIPS) from 2002 to 2015. He is a Senior Fellow of the Institute\, and also a Visiting Professor of National Defense Academy now. Professor Tokuchi was born in 1955. He received his Bachelor of Laws degree from the University of Tokyo in 1979\, and his Master of Arts in Law and Diplomacy (M.A.L.D.) degree from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy in 1986. \nAbstract: \nAchieving a Free and Open Indo-Pacific through the Quad Framework: A Japanese Perspective \n The Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP) is not an institution but a strategic concept\, one that is only just emerging. Therefore\, the scope of Indo-Pacific – both in geographical and policy terms – remains different; depending on which country is promoting the concept. The first point of the paper concerns the strategic and geopolitical facets of FOIP and its importance in maintaining the rules-based liberal regional order\, as seen from a Japanese perspective. The second point relates to the significance of Quad in operationalizing the vision of FOIP. FOIP is a tool of both competition and cooperation in relation with countries of different visions and regimes\, such as China\, even in regional security terms. Finding the right balance of competition and cooperation is a serious challenge to all in the region. In this regard\, how can Quad fit into the overall picture of FOIP? Could the minilateral framework of Quad have a possibility to become a promising foundation of a wider multilateral framework (a Quad-plus?) to make the order robust and stable? The paper tries to explore the possibility of such an enlargement in the FOIP context. \n  \n Dr. Hu Xiaowen \n \nBio: Dr. Hu Xiaowen is an Associate Professor in the Institute of Indian Studies\, Yunnan University. She worked in Yunnan Academy of Social Sciences from 2010 to 2018. She got her PhD degree from the Centre for East Asian Studies of Jawaharlal Nehru University in September 2017\, and currently is the China India Scholar-Leader Fellow at India China Institute of The New School\, New York\, US. Her research focuses on Indian foreign policy\, Indian think tanks\, BCIM and China-India Relations. She is the co-editor of the volume One Belt One Road: China’s Global Outreach\, Pentagon Press\, New Delhi\, 2017. Her works have been published in Global Review\, Academic Forum\, Chinese Social Sciences Weekly\, Southeast and South Asian Studies\, etc. \n Abstract: \nChina’s BRICS Vision and the Asian Order \n When the concept of BRICS was created in 2001 by Jim O’Neill\, it endowed BRICS a sub-government characteristic. BRICS now has expanded from an economic-centric dialogue to a pragmatic and comprehensive multi-national cooperative mechanism. It is important not only because it includes the main driving forces of global economic development\, but because it promotes “inclusive improvement” of the current global governance system. With the establishment of BRICS Development Bank and the Contingent Reserve Arrangement\, the institutionalization of BRICS cooperation has grown and helped the association legitimize its rise and promote international and regional cooperation. \nFrom China’s perspective\, the BRICS does not aim to challenge the current international regime\, instead its objective is to adjust the international regime in a non-confrontational way. It is trying to reform the system of governance gradually in the context of accepting the existing rules. Furthermore\, BRICS aims to forge a bigger global voice on economic issues for the group. It is necessary to build up an institutional framework based on mutual cooperation\, and urge the existing international institutions to make changes favouring the emerging economies. Thus\, it can be understood that BRICS cooperation mechanism is a useful supplement to the existing international regime which can drive Asia towards a multipolar world order. \n Prof. J Mohan Malik \n \nBio: Prof. J Mohan Malik is Professor of Asian Security at the Daniel K. Inouye Asia–Pacific Center for Security Studies in Honolulu. His areas of expertise are Asian geopolitics\, China and great power competition\, nuclear and maritime security. He is the author and/or editor of several books\, most recently Maritime Security in the Indo-Pacific (2014) and China and India: Great Power Rivals (2011). Dr Malik has contributed numerous book chapters and published nearly 200 articles in journals such as Asian Affairs\, Asian Survey\, Arms Control\, China Quarterly\, China Brief\, Jane’s Intelligence Review\, Journal of Contemporary China\, Orbis\, Pacific Affairs\, The American Interest\, and World Policy Journal. His op-eds have appeared in Wall Street Journal\, International Herald Tribune and The Diplomat. Dr Malik has testified before the U.S.–China Economic and Security Review Commission\, and done consultancy work for the Australian Department of Defence and Booze Allen Hamilton. \n Abstract: \nMaritime Security in Indo Pacific: An American Perception \n The coming years in the Indo-Pacific are fraught with risks—this is where some powerful states are forging new alliances\, arms racing\, pursuing mercantilist policies\, extracting resources\, and engaging in containment of peer competitors. New strategic balances will emerge as partnerships among states shift. Faced with an aggressive China\, Asia’s major maritime powers—Japan\, Australia and India—have come together to work in synchronized manner with the United States. They enjoy the support of middle powers—to varying degrees—to defend a rules-based order that does not advantage powerful nations at the expense of weak states. A complex web of security relationships is beginning to emerge – in trilateral\, quadrilateral and multilateral formats. China’s investments in littorals under its Maritime Silk Road are more about Beijing’s desire to establish itself as a “resident power” in the Indian Ocean. Ironically\, China’s quest for resources\, markets\, and bases (RMB) and attempts to establish an empire of “exclusive economic enclaves” run by Chinese conglomerates to usher in the age of Pax Sinica is now bringing former European imperial powers back in the Indo-Pacific oceans to maintain a rules-based order. This paper argues that the Quad\, still in its embryonic stage\, may need to be made an iQuad (“inclusive Quad”) or “Quad Plus” and further reinforced with a Concert of Democracies (COD) comprising Canada and the European Union. \n Dr. Jagannath Panda \n \nBio: Dr. Jagannath Panda is a Research Fellow and Coordinator of the East Asia Centre at IDSA\, New Delhi. He is in charge of East Asia Centre’s academic and administrative activities\, including Track-II and Track 1.5 dialogues with Chinese\, Japanese and Korean think-tanks/institutes. He is a recipient of the V. K. Krishna Menon Memorial Gold Medal (2000) from the Indian Society of International Law & Diplomacy in New Delhi. Dr. Panda is the author of India-China Relations: Politics of Resources\, Identity and Authority in a Multipolar World Order (2017)\, China’s Path to Power: Party\, Military and the Politics of State Transition (2010). He has edited two volumes: China’s Transition under Xi Jinping (2016)\, India-Taiwan Relations in Asia and Beyond: The Future (2016)\, and have co-edited two volumes Towards a New Asian Order (2012)\, Revisiting Contemporary South Asia: Politics\, Economics and Security (2012). Dr. Panda is a Member of the Editorial Board of the Journal of Asian Public Policy (Routledge). He is a non-Resident Fellow (honorary) at the Institute for Security and Development Policy (ISDP)\, Sweden\, and also affiliated (honorary) to the Institute of Transnational Studies (ITS)\, Germany/Italy. \n Abstract: \nWhy AIIB\, and Why Not BRI? Understanding India’s Perspective on a China-envisioned Regional Construct \n Clarity still lacks in the public domain as to why India agreed to become a founding member of the Chinese-backed Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB)\, but did not support Beijing’s flagship Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) given that both are China-centred international economic initiatives. India’s differing standpoint becomes more perplexing when the Chinese leadership advocates the AIIB and the BRI in the context of reshaping a new international order and building a “community of shared future”\, a popular “diplospeak” of Xi Jinping. The Indian perspective is rather straightforward: the AIIB is a multilateral economic initiative which India promotes; while the BRI is a state-sponsored global economic strategy that challenges India’s national security interests in the neighbourhood. While this assertion is certainly pertinent\, India’s approach to China-backed initiatives is in the broader and deeper context associated with the emerging powers narrative of India-China relations – it signifies a stance that is fast evolving with regard to Chinese assertion and China-envisioned regional construct. A careful appraisal of India’s approach towards it rather elucidates an Indian standpoint on the Chinese envisioned regional construct that is associated to their post-Cold War emerging power trajectory. This paper examines India’s stance on China-backed connectivity initiatives by analysing New Delhi’s differing approach towards “China-centred” grand initiatives – the AIIB and the BRI\, and if it has changed over time. \n Admiral (Dr.) Jayanath Colombage \n \nBio: Admiral (Dr.) Jayanath Colombage is a former chief of Sri Lanka navy who retired after an active service of 37 years as a four-star Admiral. He is currently the Director of the Centre for Indo – Lanka Initiatives of the Pathfinder Foundation\, Colombo. He is also a Fellow of Nautical Institute\, London\, UK and a Guest Professor at Sichuan University and Leshan Normal University in China. He is a highly decorated officer for gallantry and distinguished service. He is a graduate of Defense Services Staff College in India and Royal College of Defense Studies\, UK. He holds a PhD from General Sir John Kotelawala Defense University\, Colombo. He also holds an MSc in defense and strategic studies from Madras University and MA on International Studies from Kings College\, London. He was the former Chairman of Sri Lanka Shipping Corporation and an adviser to the President of Sri Lanka on maritime affairs. \n Abstract: \nSri Lanka and Maritime Security Order in the Indian Ocean \n The Indian Ocean is the third largest ocean in the world and has become a major strategic attraction in the 21st century. This is also a region of geo-strategic competition with major naval powers focusing their attention to this region\, leading it to become heavily militarized. The main reason for this renewed attention is the rise of China\, economically and militarily. China has made large investments through its Belt and Road Initiative across the Indian Ocean. Sri Lanka is blessed with deep water ports and is located in close proximity to the busiest east-west sea lane of communication across the Indian Ocean. Since the nearly three decade long armed conflict ended in May 2009\, the country has been put on a fast-track for development. To accomplish this\, there was a need to build highways\, roads\, ports\, airports and power plants. China thus became the main development partner even as it faced accusations of having strategic and military expansionist objectives. There are many strategic initiatives for Indian Ocean and Sri Lanka is sandwiched in the midst these initiatives. In the light of these developments\, this paper will look at how Sri Lanka can play a role in maintaining a rules-based maritime order. \n Dr. Ji Yeon-jung \n \nBio: Dr. Ji Yeon-jung\, Ph.D.\, is a lecturer at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies\, Seoul\, and a visiting fellow at the Institute of Indian Studies\, Seoul. She is a former assistant secretary of the Korean Society for Indian Studies and Stanton Nuclear Security postdoctoral fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs\, Harvard University. She studies nuclear proliferation and weapons programs in South Asia. \n Abstract: \nDenuclearization on Alert: Reshaping Security Order in the Korean Peninsula \n This paper deals with key questions concerning North Korea’s denuclearization process and its implications for regional security order. For the last three decades\, Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program has been one of the most challenging issues faced by the nuclear non-proliferation regime. The ongoing debates on denuclearizing Pyongyang appear to be determining a new pattern of political bargaining that not only calls for at-one-go denuclearization but also aims to reshape the security order in the Korean Peninsula\, including the end-of-war declaration. With a more practical approach than before\, the key players—the U.S.\, South Korea\, and North Korea—have started anew to work toward a deal. Before a mechanism to hold all members in more stringent compliance can be determined\, three questions must be examined: First\, what technological barriers do the contracting parties need to consider? Second\, how long will the process take? Third\, what other factors relevant to reshaping the security order might follow? This paper suggests some of the possibilities that would facilitate the bargaining process. \n  \n Dr. Jingdong Yuan\n \nBio: Dr. Jingdong Yuan is an Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of Government and International Relations\, University of Sydney. Dr. Yuan’s research focuses on Indo–Pacific security\, Chinese foreign policy\, Sino–Indian relations\, and nuclear arms control and non-proliferation. He has held visiting appointments at the National University of Singapore\, University of Macau\, East–West Center\, National Cheng-chi University\, Mercator Institute for China Studies\, Fudan University\, and Berlin Social Sciences Centre (WZB). He is the co-author of Chinese Cruise Missiles: A Quiet Force-Multiplier (2014) and China and India: Cooperation or Conflict? (2003)\, and co-editor of Australia and China at 40 (2012). His publications have appeared in Asian Survey\, Australian Journal of International Affairs\, Contemporary Security Policy\, International Affairs\, International Journal\, Journal of Contemporary China\, Journal of International Affairs\, Nonproliferation Review\, Washington Quarterly\, and in many edited volumes. He is currently working on a book manuscript on China–South Asian relations. \n Abstract: \nBeijing’s Vision of the Asian Order: Promoting a Community of Shared Future \nBeijing is promoting a post-Cold War Asian order advocating multipolarity and inclusiveness. China under Xi Jinping has presented an Asian order of cooperative security\, common security\, comprehensive security\, and sustainable security. It has argued that future Asian security architecture requires the participation of all concerned\, must be based on consensus and mutual trust\, and provide security and benefits for all. This order emphasizes the importance of economic cooperation and integration as conducive to the development of a community of common destiny. It advocates multipolarism and calls for dialogue in addressing security issues and non-traditional security challenges. It promotes a new Asian security architecture that is inclusive\, cooperative\, and win-win\, with states—big and small—in the region encouraged to engage in dialogues in pursuit of a new type of international relations. By promoting a different security discourse\, that places less emphasis on military alliances and security against potential adversaries\, Beijing’s vision of ‘Asian order’ is built on a new security concept that is both more comprehensive in its content (economic as well as security issues) and its format (partnerships and diversity). \n Dr. John Hemmings\n \nBio: Dr. John Hemmings is Director of the Asia Studies Centre and Deputy Director of Research at the Henry Jackson Society and an Adjunct Fellow at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies. Prior to his doctoral studies\, he was a visiting fellow at Pacific Forum and a research analyst at the Royal United Services Institute in Whitehall. He regularly provides briefings to a number of government departments and contributes political analysis to various media from time to time\, including the BBC\, the Telegraph\, Fox News\, CNN among others. He has also published academic work in International Affairs\, the RUSI Journal and International Politics Review\, and was a Deputy Editor at the LSE’s flagship Millennium Journal of International Studies between 2013 and 2014. Dr. Hemmings completed his doctoral thesis in International Relations at the London School of Economics. \nAbstract: \nUnited Kingdom’s Foreign Policy and Indo Pacific Security \n While it is true that Brexit will present the UK with many challenges\, it is also a unique opportunity to recast its place in the world. While Britain will remain committed to their NATO allies in order to defend Europe from Russian revanchism\, it will be better suited to adapt to global trends and challenges. The Global Britain policy has characterized UK foreign policy since the Brexit Referendum\, and it guides UK foreign policy-making bureaucracy in Whitehall in the FCO\, MOD\, and DIT. So\, how does this policy connect with changes in the Asian region? The global trade is going to Asia\, and if Britain is to react to this shift in geo-economics and geopolitics\, it will have to enhance its presence in the region. The global middle class is expected to grow by 40-50 per cent\, with 80 per cent taking place in China and India. However\, it should be noted that going to the Indo-Pacific at this time presents Global Britain with challenges in the geopolitical sphere\, as Asian powers like China seek to change the rules arbitrarily. While it is clear that rising power changes mean that the rules must be re-written\, they should be done collectively\, without excluding rising powers like India. Therefore\, Britain looks to India\, Australia\, Japan\, and other regional powers in ASEAN – as well as China. Britain is at the cusp of redefining its relationship with the world\, but it must settle whether it will adopt a policy that incorporates UK values\, with its national interests in the security and trade spheres. \n Mr. Mandla Rametsi\n \nBio: Mr. Mandla Rametsi joined the Department of International Relations and Cooperation in 2007 and was placed in the Policy\, Research and Analysis Unit. From 2011 to 2015\, he was the Vice Consul General of South Africa in Lubumbashi\, Katanga\, the Democratic Republic of Congo. In 2016 he returned to the Head Office to focus on global governance issues related to counter-terrorism\, UNSC as well as Transnational Organised Crime. In 2019 he was appointed Counsellor Political\, Multilateral and Economic Diplomacy in the South African High Commission to focus on BRICS\, IBSA\, IORA\, G20 and other multilateral institutions. Mr. Rametsi is currently pursuing his PhD with the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg\, South Africa. He speaks French and Swahili fluently. \n Abstract: \nThe Future of BRICS: A South African Perspective \nThe 10th BRICS Summit in Johannesburg occurred with significant domestic economic and political changes among the BRICS countries’ national interests. This year Brazil is hosting the BRICS; it has a new government\, that has assumed office at the same time South Africa handed over the BRICS presidency. As Brazil’s political class has become embroiled in the 2014 Lava Jato (car wash) investigation\, Brasilia’s interest in the BRICS over the past years has gradually waned. However\, as Brazil is preparing to host the second regional centre of the New Development Bank (NDB)\, the new government may use the BRICS as an opportunity to establish itself as an important Southern power. \nThe BRICS so far have been able to focus largely on their converging interests – intra-BRICS economic cooperation; harnessing the dividends of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR); and maintaining a peaceful and prosperous global order. Shaping a more just\, equitable and stable global order will continue to bind the BRICS. As growing nationalism and protectionism in developed countries threaten to derail the post-WWII order\, ensuring that global governance institutions such as the International Monetary Fund\, the World Bank\, the United Nations and the World Trade Organization reform themselves is important for their longer-term efficacy. As their share of global economic and political power has increased\, so too has their interest in how the global system shapes up. Coordinated BRICS positions within these institutions will be essential if there is to be meaningful reform.\n \n  \n Dr. Manoj Joshi\n \n \nBio: Dr. Manoj Joshi is a Distinguished Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation. He is a journalist who has specialised in foreign and security policy in the years he has worked with The Times of India\, The Hindu\, The Hindustan Times and the India Today Group. He is a regular columnist and commentator in the Indian media. In 2011 he was appointed by the Government of India to the Task Force on National Security chaired by Mr Naresh Chandra to propose reforms in the national security system of the country. He has been a member of India’s National Security Advisory Board and has authored two books on Kashmir as well as several papers and chapters in scholarly works on South and South-east Asia. He is a PhD from the School of International Studies (SIS)\, JNU and has held visiting appointments in several universities. He is a regular speaker at defence institutions in India as well as think tanks in India and abroad. \n Abstract: \nIndia and the terrorism-military nexus in South Asia \nThis relates principally to Pakistan. From the outset\, Pakistan has sought “effective” parity with India. We say “effective” because India is nearly four times larger in size\, has a population more than six times larger and a GDP which is 9 times higher. To this end\, Pakistan has used four strategies—first\, it has spent a larger proportion of its national resources on defence. In the 2003-2017 period\, while India’s expenditure amounted to roughly 2.5 per cent of its GDP\, Pakistani figures hovered half a percentage point if not more higher. In the 1988-2002 period\, while India’s expenditures were around 3 per cent\, Pakistan’s were 5.5 per cent or so. Second\, Islamabad has cultivated foreign alliances. That with the US\, for example\, enabled it to have a force profile of sufficient strength to challenge India in 1965. Third\, Pakistan has developed nuclear weapons. Popular belief is that the Pakistani programme reacted to that of India\, but there is enough evidence to show that it had autonomous indigenous drivers. Fourth\, Pakistan has used and continues to use the instrumentality of terrorism to destabilize India. It is this last instrumentality that is of interest in this presentation. As can be seen\, all four strategies relate to the military. It is not surprising that they are\, indeed\, driven by the military which has assumed the lead role in the Pakistani state.\n \n  \n Prof. Mirzokhid Rakhimov\n \nBio: Prof. Mirzokhid Rakhimov is the head of the Social-humanities branch of Academy of Sciences in Uzbekistan. He is also the director of Contemporary History Center. His scholarly interests cover contemporary history\, regional and international relations in post-Soviet Central Asia. His recent selected publications include: Contemporary Central Asia: Balancing Between Chinese and trans-Asian Silk Road Diplomacy (2018)\, 25 Years of Independence—Uzbekistan (2017)\, Central Asia\, Issues\, Problems and Perspectives (with S. Jonboboev and R. Seidelmann\, 2015) and South and Central Asia: Insights and Commentaries (with A. Sengupta\, 2015). \n Abstract: \nShanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and the Future of Regional Integration in Central Asia \n Regional cooperation and integration are among the most important trends in contemporary international relations. In the post-Soviet period\, there are challenges\, similarities and contradiction of multilateral relations in Central Asia. These are reflected in the numerous organisations such as Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)\, Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO)\, Eurasian Economic Union (EEU)\, Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO)\, Economic belt of Silk Road\, C5+1\, the EU strategy\, Central Asia plus Japan\, Central Asia – Republic of Korea and others. Among them\, SCO has gone through institutional transformations and is presently one of the active initiatives in Central Asia. But in analysis\, regional institutions must take into account particular local and regional situations\, the internal and regional economies\, cultures\, and politics of the region. This is important because current and future Central Asian transformation will be prompted by interlinking local\, regional\, trans-regional and global issues and challenges. \n  \n Ambassador (Dr.) Mohan Kumar\n \nBio: Ambassador (Dr.) Mohan Kumar is the Chairman of Research and Information System for Developing Countries (RIS) since June 2018. He also teaches at the Jindal School of International Affairs and is Vice-Dean & Professor of Diplomatic Practice. He has had an outstanding career in the Indian Foreign Service lasting 36 years which culminated in his being India’s Ambassador to France. Under his watch\, the Indo-French strategic partnership was strengthened in spheres such as defense\, space\, solar energy\, smart cities and investment. Earlier\, Mohan Kumar was India’s Ambassador to the Kingdom of Bahrain where he witnessed and dealt with a strategically complex region characterized by events such as the “Arab Spring” Ambassador Kumar has enormous expertise in the area of international trade – he was India’s lead negotiator first at the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) and then at the WTO (World Trade Organization). He was a leading member of India’s delegation at the WTO Ministerial Conferences held in Marrakesh (1994)\, Seattle (1999) and Doha (2001). Ambassador Kumar is author of a book titled Negotiation Dynamics of the WTO: An Insider’s Account (2018). \n Abstract: \nFree Trade Agreements (FTAs) and Asia’s Multipolarism \n There is something profound that has happened in the world of international trade over the last decades. This period has seen the exponential rise in FTAs or what in the GATT/WTO parlance is known as Free Trade Areas or Free Trade Agreements. As the economic centre of gravity has shifted to the East (read Asia) it was but natural that the key players of Asia should also enter into FTAs. The lead in this regard was taken by ASEAN and then Japan\, who now has now got a large network of FTAs\, including with the European Union. Moreover\, it is now spearheading the revised TPP Agreement as well. China\, not to be left behind\, has also done a series of FTAs especially with ASEAN\, Korea and Australia\, totalling as many as 24 FTAs. Where does all this leave India? India has FTAs with ASEAN\, Korea and Japan\, but the experience has been mixed. With the RCEP\, Asian FTAs could well encounter a major turning point. The million dollar question is when the RCEP will be concluded\, what implications it will finally have for India\, China and more crucially for Asia. \n  \n Prof. Peter Drysdale\n \nBio: Prof. Peter Drysdale is Emeritus Professor of Economics in the Crawford School of Public Policy\, Australian National University. He is widely acknowledged as the intellectual architect of APEC. He was the founding head of the Australia-Japan Research Centre. He is the author of many books and papers on international economic policy in East Asia and the Pacific\, including the prize- winning\, International Economic Pluralism: Economic Policy in East Asia and the Pacific. He advised on the Australian Government’s Australia in the Asian Century White Paper. He is recipient of the Asia Pacific Prize\, the Weary Dunlop Award\, the Japanese Order of the Rising Sun with Gold Rays and Neck Ribbon\, the Australian Centenary Medal\, the Japan Foundation Prize\, the Asian Cosmopolitan Prize among others and an Officer of the Order of Australia. He is Editor-in-Chief of East Asia Forum and Head of the East Asian Bureau of Economic Research. \nAbstract: \nAustralia\, the Indo-Pacific Idea and a Multipolar Order \nGetting foreign policy right at this point in world diplomatic history has never been more difficult. Wedged between its alliance relationship with the United States — vastly complicated as it has been by the advent of President Donald Trump — and its hugely important economic relationship with China\, this is especially so for Australia. Just over a year ago the Australian Government’s Foreign Affairs White Paper adopted the Indo-Pacific idea but neither tested nor defined it\, except geographically\, although the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade afterwards reorganised itself around a core Indo-Pacific Group. It is difficult to see that the structural reorganisation has had any significant impact on foreign policy strategy in the year since it was initiated. The understanding of what the Indo Pacific idea meant and how it was supposed to re-shape Australian diplomacy in the White Paper has yet to be resolved. There remains deep co URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/20th-asian-security-conference-multipolarism-in-asia-issues-and-challenges CATEGORIES:Asian Security Conference,Previous ASC,CONFERENCES ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20170306T053000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20170308T053000 DTSTAMP:20261108T003243 CREATED:20231223T125430Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250312T013311Z UID:62749-1488778200-1488951000@idsa.in SUMMARY:19th Asian Security Conference - Combating Terrorism: Evolving an Asian Response DESCRIPTION:Concept Note\n\nAsia\, with close to sixty percent of the world’s population\, has suffered disparate political\, nationalist\, religious\, ideological\, ethnic\, sectarian\, and state sponsored violence for decades\, if not centuries. The world’s geo-economic pivot may have shifted to Asia\, but the repercussions of every day violence and terrorism are becoming an impediment in the realisation of the Asian Century. Violent extremism comes in the way of socio-economic development and inclusive growth\, amplifying and widening fissures caused by failures of governance. Historical roots of militancy (insurgencies\, separatist movements\, etc.) in many countries of Asia have provided the context for local grievances to be exploited by larger ideological frameworks of global extremist movements. \nThe resurgence of violent extremist movements we are witnessing today has evolved in sophistica-tion with the advances in technology\, communication\, and the complicated web of terror finance. Threats that were earlier contained within national boundaries have now become transnational and ideational challenges\, which respect neither state sovereignty nor existing governance structures. While the challenges confronting Asia and the global order have multiplied\, a cohesive response to them has remained elusive. With countries in the region constructing frameworks of cooperation to combat terrorism\, it is time to exchange ideas on countering violent extremism\, which will define an Asian approach to this issue. A global regime built on a strong foundation of effective regional prac-tices is bound to find wider acceptability. \nTwenty years since it first submitted a proposal for the adoption of the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism (CCIT)\, India has revived its efforts to secure a global consensus in the UN General Assembly in the fight against terrorism. India’s attempts have received traction as the world seems to be in a state of constant terror\, with an increase in the footprint of global terrorist groups\, especially in the West and South West Asia. Having been subjected to and resisted such acts against humanity\, India is engaged in persuading responsible governments across the world to take a more united stand on the matter. \nThere is a global consensus in principle that there is no ‘good’ or ‘bad’ terrorist. It is for this reason that India\, has through the Convention\, sought to identify an acceptable definition of terrorism that all 193-members of the UNGA would be able to adopt legally; to ban all terror groups and shut down terror camps regardless of their objectives; to prosecute all terrorists under special laws\, and to make cross-border terrorism an extraditable offence worldwide. To build an Asian consensus on the issue\, India has also repeatedly suggested that violent extremism needs to be delinked from religion\, ethnicity or identity. Recognising the trans-national nature of terrorism today\, India has been push-ing for a global regime on terrorism that enforces concepts of – assigning responsibility and ensuring accountability. \nThe inconsistencies in the global war on terror have been exploited by extremist groups to advance their narratives and ideologies and ensured that ecosystems nurturing terror continue to flourish. Ironically\, even countries which have been victims of frequent terror attacks have shied away from pushing for a more global response to the threat owing to geo-political pressures and rivalries. The embryo of building such response exists in frameworks like the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) that sets standards with respect to combating money laundering and terrorist financing\, the Egmont Group\, which is an informal network of Financial Intelligence Units (FIU) and through instruments such as the ‘United Nations Security Council committee pursuant to resolutions 1267 (1999) 1989 (2011) and 2253 (2015) concerning ISIL(da’esh) al-qaida and associated individuals groups\, under-takings and entities’. These however\, do not yet provide an effective global response for reasons of national expediency. Terrorist groups recruit globally and strike across national boundaries\, yet nations have a fragmented approach in meeting this challenge India seeks a more coherent approach on the part of the entire international community. \nIt with this direction in mind that IDSA aims to take the first step of comprehending the Asian re-sponse to “Combating Terrorism” in the region. In this context the 19th Asian Security Conference will focus on the theme\, “Evolving an Asian Response” to this complex issue. We aim to focus on the following themes over multiple interactive sessions: \nI . Evaluating the norm building efforts in countering global terrorism\, understanding the geo-political realities and defining the Asian and global response to terrorism.\nII – Identifying ideologies and drivers fuelling this transnational resurgence of extremist violence\, with an eye on the role of terror finance in exacerbating conflict in the region\nIII – Examining how technology is changing the nature of conflict and the rising challenges there-in to Asian security.\nIV – Assessing the threat of terrorism in Asia: From South West Asia\, to the extended outposts in South Asia and South East Asia.\nV – Forecasting challenges that lie ahead\, debating the absence of effective counter-narratives\, and building upon a reservoir of best practices of counter terrorism efforts by countries in the re-gion. \nII) The conference will explore these subjects through the course of the following interactive sessions. \n\nNorms & The Global War on Terror : Challenges for Asia\nNew Wave of Global Terror : Ideas\, Resources and Trends\nThe Age of ‘Instant Terror’: Technology\, the Game Changer\nRegional Perspectives – The West Asia Conundrum : Unraveling geopolitics & global response \nRegional Perspectives – South and South East Asia : The Growing Spectre of Terror\nConstructing effective counter-narratives: The need for a global response\nThe Asian Response to Combating Terror : The Way Forward\n\nInaugural Session: Special Address \nIII) Theme Elaboration\n1. Norms & The Global War on Terror: Challenges for Asia\nIt has taken the world decades of terrorism and insurgency to understand that escalation of vio-lence is linked in a large part to failed politics\, governance\, and economic development. The set-backs of the global war on terror and the rise in the number vulnerable and failing states since 9/11\, have shown that the civil causes of violence are so deep that no defeat of extremist movements alone can hope to bring any lasting form of security and stability. It has been argued that if extrem-ist violence and its many manifestations are to be defeated then states need to be accountable to both their people and the global order. This lack of accountability\, coupled with the absence of clarity\, consistency\, and enforcement in global norms to tackle terrorism have been impediments to an effective response. In addition\, shifting goalposts and the pressures of geopolitics have proved to be counterproductive to efforts aimed at building a global counter-terrorism regime. Since September 11\, international terrorism has emerged on the top of national and international security agendas necessitating international alignment and cooperation on an unprecedented level. Yet\, the question that has plagued all counter-terrorism efforts since has been the viability of this cooperation in the absence of a basic agreement on the common denominator – the definition of terrorism. This inaugu-ral session seeks to address the following questions : \n\nWhat are the challenges that constrain the global response to counter terrorism? What are the im-plications for Asian Security?\nHow is regional geopolitics shaping state responses?\nWhy is global response to terrorism in some geographies different from others?\nWhat role does India see itself playing in the shaping of a global regime on counter-terrorism? What norms does it seek to build and to what end?\nAssessing support for the adoption of the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism\n\n2. The New Wave of Global Terror : Ideas\, Resources\, and Trends\nTerrorism is a dynamic phenomenon that develops over time\, gradually changing its shape and man-ifestations. It is carried out by various organisations in the service of different ideologies. There is growing recognition now that the dominant form of transnational terror today is not motivated by nationalist grievances or separatist goals. Instead\, the current threat confronting the world today is of terrorism motivated by political objectives that uses religion as an instrument to justify violent activities against civilians. These groups are motivated by what they perceive as a divine command and apocalyptic world view. Religious appropriation of the recent wave of attacks across the world\, by the current poster child of extremist violence\, the Islamic State or Da’esh and its many imitators globally is case in point. Fuelling this resurgence is the many reincarnations of the means of terror finance\, taking refuge sometimes in the guise of state sponsored policy or enjoying the patronage of non-state actors .This session will take on these challenging questions and identify: \n\nWho are the actors driving the new wave of global terror and what are their motivations?\nWhat are new ideas/ideologues that make extremist violence so attractive to recruits? Is there is a shift in narrative?\nWhat is driving the increase in ‘Lone Wolf’ Attacks?\nWhat explains the constant supply of foreign fighters and women pursuing religious extremism?\nWhat are the future trends – threats- both home grown and international that will demand global attention?\nHow effective is the fight against the financing of terror ? Can we enforce accountability?\n\n\n3. The Age of ‘Instant Terror’: Technology\, the Game Changer\nThe most lethal weapon in the arsenal of extremist groups today is technology. The internet is the largest and most ungoverned space in the world. Its unprecedented reach\, instant connectivity\, ano-nymity\, resourcefulness\, and interactiveness along with low cost of access make it the most potent tool in extremist hands. Innovations in technology and the advent of social media have furthered the scope of instant dissemination of propaganda\, strengthened informal networks of online recruitment and radicalisation and worryingly made brutal violence a fashionable tool to install fear in the hearts and minds of a global audience. Social media feed into 24×7 global news cycles\, which amplify these messages further and inadvertently end up endorsing and branding these extremists groups as the face of global terror. This session will seek to address the questions on : \n\nThe use of technology to ‘brand’ global terror\nInnovations in online radicalization \, recruitment and mobilization\nCyber security and Terrorism: Addressing evolving threats\nSocial Media : Impact\, challenges and opportunities for counter terrorism efforts\nTechnology and Intelligence : Opportunities for global co-operation \n\n4.Regional Perspectives – The West Asia Conundrum : Unraveling geopolitics & global response\nThe rise of Da’esh has been an unprecedented event in the geopolitics of the West Asian region\, de-spite the region being a being a burning cauldron for many terrorist movements for the last several decades. Having captured territories in Iraq and Syria\, Da’esh has challenged the existing regional political order by trying to redraw boundaries in the volatile region. It has spread its tentacles far beyond its captured borders\, subsuming terror groups across the world eager to bandwagon with its brand of terror. With the conflict spilling over to many countries\, it has instigated an unparalleled refugee crisis that the world is still trying to grapple with. Regional actors have taken initiatives\, but there is an absence of a collaborative action on the ground strong enough to defeat the terror group .The existing unease\, competition\, and rivalry among the countries of the region and the interests of extra regional powers have been a hindrance in building up a united front against Daesh. The activities of the United States and Russia have a critical bearing on the geopolitics in West Asia. This ses-sion will explore the West Asian conundrum in all its complexity and assess the impact on the global war on terror. \n5.Regional Perspectives – South and South East Asia: The Growing Spectre of Terror\nThe terrorist threat to South and South East Asia has never been as acute as it is today. South Asia – home to more than one-third of humanity\, has more terrorist groups and terrorists\, than any other part of the world. More lives have been lost in this region to terrorist attacks than anywhere else in the world. Meanwhile\, South East Asia since the 1990s\, is battling the residual challenge posed by sub-state militant extremism which has risen in reaction to both the force of modernization pursued by many Southeast Asian governments and the political influence of radical Islam. Some states in both these regions face a threat to their existence if terrorism is not contained. The developments in Afghanistan-Pakistan and West Asia will have complicated the situation further The story of coun-ter-terrorism efforts so far have been that of individual countries crafting distinct strategies to deal with a problem which has long ago gone trans-national. Attempts at crafting a regional approach have been few and ineffective. This session will examine national and international government responses to extremist movements in the region\, expanding terrorist sanctuaries and homegrown ter-rorist networks\, funding and support from international organisations and governments\, military and policing strategies\, and the success and failures of hearts-and-minds campaigns. \n6. Constructing effective counter-narratives: The need for a global response\nThe field of counter terrorism has expanded from the traditional focus on covert action to preventive measures that dissuade individuals from subscribing to arguments of violent extremists. To that end\, states have developed tools to prevent radicalisation of vulnerable populations in an effort to win hearts and minds. These include promoting interfaith dialogue and breaking down cultural bar-riers between communities. Although attempts have been made by several governments to develop a credible narrative to prevent international terrorism\, there has been a failure to thwart the appeal generated by violent extremist groups. This session will address the following questions: \n\nDoes the current counter narrative account for the variances in the demographic and socio-economic composition of its audience? Would producing tailor-made narratives result in greater outreach? \nIs the negative perception of governments amplifying this challenge? Are there other actors who would be more successful in propagating a counter narrative? \nDoes the narrative address different aspects of the radicalisation process?\nHas the international community been able to shift gears from producing defensive to preventive propaganda? What are the shortcomings of the dissemination strategy being em-ployed? \nHave there been cases of success even if limited that can be studied to further our under-standing?\n\nValedictory Session \n7.The Asian Response to Combating Terror : The Way Forward\n (Panel Discussion and Scenario Forecasting)\n \n\n\n\nProgramme Schedule\n\n\nDay 1: 6 March 2017\n09:15– 09:45 – Registration \n09:45– 10:30 – Inauguration \n\nWelcome Address by DG\, IDSA\, Shri Jayant Prasad\nInaugural Address by Hon’ble Raksha Mantri Shri Manohar Parrikar\nVote of Thanks by DDG\, IDSA\, Maj Gen Alok Deb\, SM\, VSM (Retired)\n\n10:30-10:45 – Tea/Coffee Break \n10:45-11:15 – Keynote Address H.E. Mhd. Hanif Atmar\, National Security Advisor\, Afghanistan \n11:15-13:00 – Panel 1 Norms and the Global War on Terror: Challenges for Asia\nChairperson – Dr. Pratap Bhanu Mehta\, President\, Centre for Policy Research\, New Delhi \n\nMaj. Gen. Mahmud Ali Durrani\, Former National Security Advisor\, Pakistan\nSubject: Developing a Common Denominator to Fight Terrorism in Asia\nMr. Abdel Bari Atwan\, Editor-in-chief\, Rai al-Youm\, an Arab world digital news and opinion website\nSubject: Geopolitics of Islamic Jihad\nMr. Praveen Swami\, National Editor (Strategic and International Affairs)\, The Indian Express\nSubject: Invisible Jihad: Challenges for India and Asia\nMr. Ehsan Monawar\, Counter Terrorism Expert\, Afghanistan\nSubject: Countering Terrorism in the AfPak: Past\, present and the road ahead\n\n13:00-14:00 – Lunch Break \n14:00-15:30 – Panel 2 The New Wave of Global Terror: Ideas\, Resources and Trends\nChairperson – Shri G.K Pillai\, Former Home Secretary\, Government of India \n\nMr. Baker Atyani\, Veteran journalist from Jordan\, covering conflict zones in Asia\nSubject: Hostage taking as a Tool of Terrorism and Methodology of Negotiations\nDr. Waiel Awwad\, Writer and South Asia Political Analyst\nSubject: The Terrorism Industry and its Global Expansion\nMs. Lamya Haji Bashar Taha\, Public advocate of the Yazidi community\, Iraq\nSubject: Women and Da’esh\nMr. P.K. Dash\, Director Enforcement Directorate\, Government of India\nSubject: Economics of Terror: The Indian Experience\n\nMr. Atul Goel\, SP\, NIA\nSubject: Terror Finance in Kashmir\nDr. Christine Fair\, Associate Professor\, Peace and Security Studies Program Georgetown University\, USA\nSubject: Women in the Lashkar -e- Taiba: When Terrorism is a Family Affair\n\n15:30-15:45 – Theme Address Shri Gulshan Rai\, Chief of Cybersecurity\, Government of India \n15:45 – 17:15 – Panel 3 Age of ‘Instant Terror’: Technology\, the Game Changer\nChairperson – Dr. Arvind Gupta\, Deputy NSA\, Government of India \n\nDr. Anne Speckhard\, Director of the International Center for the Study of Violent Extremism (ICSVE)\, USA\n Subject: Breaking the ISIS Brand: Trajectories into and out of Terrorism & the Social Media Recruitment of ISIS\nMr. Madan Oberoi (IPS)\, Former Director of Cyber-Crime\, Interpol\, Singapore\nSubject : Darknet and Cryptocurrencies – Technology as enabler for Terrorism\nMr. Saikat Datta\, Director\, Centre for Internet & Society\, India\nSubject: Technology and Intelligence in Counter Terrorism\nMr. Sanjeev Singh\, Addl DG (anti-Naxal Operations)\, Madhya Pradesh Police\nSubject: Online Radicalisation and India’s CT efforts\nMs. Manjula Sridhar\, Founder ArgByte – a cybercrime analytics software\nSubject: Tackling Malicious Profiling Online: The Indian Experience\n\n17:15 – 17:30 Tea/Coffee \nDay 2: 7 March 2017\n09:45 – 10:00 Tea/Coffee \n10:00 – 12:30 – Panel 4 Regional Perspectives – The West Asia Conundrum: Unraveling Geopolitics and Global Response\nChairperson – Shri Sanjay Singh\, Former Secretary (East)\, Ministry of External Affairs\, Government of India \n\nAmbassador Hossein Sheikholeslam\, Advisor to Foreign Minister\, Iran.\nSubject: The Threat of Extremism in West Asia: The Iranian Experience\nDr. Vladimir I. Sotnikov\, Senior Research Fellow\, Institute of Eastern Studies\, Russian Academy of Sciences\nSubject: Russia’s views on Radical Islam threat in Central Asia\nMr. Mustafa El Sagezli\, General Manager of The Libyan Program for Reintegration & Development\nSubject: Countering Terrorism in the Maghreb: Implications for Global Security \nMs Prabha Rao\, Senior Fellow\, IDSA\, New Delhi\nSubject: al-Qaeda and the Arab Peninsular \nDr. Frank Ledwidge (UK)\, Former Military Intelligence Officer who served in Iraq\, Afghanistan And Libya\nSubject: A brief survey of total strategic failure: NATO in Western Asia\nDr. Eitan Shamir\, Senior Research Fellow\, Begin Sadat Center for Strategic Studies\, Israel\nSubject: What after counter-insurgency? Raiding in zones of turmoil\n\n12:30 – 13:30 Lunch Break \n13:30: – 16:00 – Panel 5 Regional Perspectives – South and South East Asia: The Growing Spectre of Terror\nChairperson – Dr. Sanjaya Baru\, Distinguished Fellow\, USI\, New Delhi \n\nLt. Gen. Chowdhury Hasan Sarwardy\, Commandant\, National Defence College\, Mirpur\, Bangladesh\nSubject: Countering Terrorism : Perspectives from Bangladesh\nDr. Ayesha Siddiqa\, Former bureaucrat and Political commentator\, Pakistan\nSubject: A 9/11 for South Asia?\nDr. Ma Xiangwu\, Functionary\, Communist Party of China\nSubject: China’s Experience in Countering Terrorism/Violent Extremism: Policy\, Achievements and Challenges\nGen. Daya Ratnayake\, Former Commander of Army\, Sri Lanka\nSubject: The Sri Lankan defeat of Terrorism: Lessons for evolving a regional response for combatting Terrorism\nDr. Kumar Ramakrishna\, Head of Policy Studies and Coordinator of National Security Studies Programme in the Office of the executive deputy chairman\, RSIS\, Singapore\nSubject: The Evolving ISIS Threat to Southeast Asia\n\n16:00 – 16:15 Tea / Coffee Break \n16:15 – 18:15 – Panel 6 Constructing Effective Counter-narratives: The Need for A Global Response\nChairperson – Mr. Syed Asif Ibrahim\, Indian Prime Minister’s Special Envoy on “Countering Terrorism and Extremism \n\nLt. General S A Hasnain\, Former GOC 15 Corps\, Srinagar\, Fellow at Vivekanand International Foundation and Member of Governing Council of Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS)\nSubject: Crafting a Narrative for Kashmir\nH.E. Ahmad Badreddin Hassoun\, Grand Mufti\, Syria\nSubject: Effective Counter narratives for Deradcalisation\nDr. Adil Rasheed\, Research Fellow\, IDSA\nSubject: The Deconstruction of the Jihadist Narrative\nMr. SM Sahai\, IPSSubject: Understanding Sufism to influence extremism in Kashmir\nDr. A.R. Anjaria\, President\, Islamic Defence Cyber Cell of India and Member\, Advisory Council\, Jama Masjid\, Delhi.\nSubject: Use of Quran and Fatwas to enable change \nDr. Kalbe Sadiq\, Founder\, Tauheedul Muslimeen Trust\nSubject: Narratives for Countering Jihad\n\nDay 3: 8 March 2017\n10:00 – 10:15 Tea/ Coffee \n10:15 – 13:00 Valedictory Session – The Asian Response to Combatting Terror: The Way Forward\nChairperson – Commodore C. Uday Bhaskar\, Director\, Society for Policy Studies (SPS)\nPanellists: tbc\nRound up comments – DG\, IDSA\, Shri Jayant Prasad \n13:00 Lunch (End of Conference)\n \n\n\n\nConference Booklet\n\nClick here to Download\n\n\n\n\nPhotogallery\n\nClick here to Photographs\n\n\n\n\nRapporteurs Report\n\nClick here to Download\n\n\n\n\nContact us\nShruti Pandalai\nCo-ordinator 19th Asian Security Conference\nAssociate Fellow\, Military Centre\nInstitute for Defence Studies and Analyses\nNew Delhi-110010\n(Office) +91 11-26717983 Extn 7202\nEmail: shrutipandalai [at] gmail.com URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/19th-asian-security-conference-combating-terrorism-evolving-an-asian-response CATEGORIES:Asian Security Conference,Previous ASC,CONFERENCES ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20170306T053000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20170306T053000 DTSTAMP:20261108T003243 CREATED:20231223T123845Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240228T110440Z UID:62617-1488778200-1488778200@idsa.in SUMMARY:Keynote Address H.E. Mhd. Hanif Atmar\, National Security Advisor\, Afghanistan at the 19th Asian Security Conference on "Combating Terrorism: Evolving an Asian Response" DESCRIPTION: URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/keynote-address-h-e-mhd-hanif-atmar-national-security-advisor-afghanistan-at-the-19th-asian-security-conference-on-combating-terrorism-evolving-an-asian-response CATEGORIES:Asian Security Conference,ASC Key Speeches,ANNUAL CONFERENCES ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20170306T053000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20170306T053000 DTSTAMP:20261108T003243 CREATED:20231223T123845Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240228T232620Z UID:62616-1488778200-1488778200@idsa.in SUMMARY:Inaugural Address by Hon'ble Raksha Mantri Shri Manohar Parrikar at the 19th Asian Security Conference on ‘Combating Terrorism: Evolving an Asian Response’ DESCRIPTION: URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/inaugural-address-by-honble-raksha-mantri-shri-manohar-parrikar-at-the-19th-asian-security-conference-on-combating-terrorism-evolving-an-asian-response CATEGORIES:Asian Security Conference,ASC Key Speeches ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20160210T053000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20160210T053000 DTSTAMP:20261108T003243 CREATED:20231223T123945Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240229T000247Z UID:62621-1455082200-1455082200@idsa.in SUMMARY:Keynote address by Dr Arvind Gupta\, Deputy National Security Advisor at the 18th Asian Security Conference on "Securing Cyberspace: Asian and International Perspectives" DESCRIPTION:I would like to thank Ambassador Jayant Prasad\, Director General of IDSA for inviting me to address the participants of 18th Asian Security Conference. With its eighteenth edition ASC has truly come of age. \n2. The theme chosen for this year’s conference is apt. The world is becoming increasingly turbulent. The unstoppable march of globalisation\, facilitated by ICTs\, has raised many troubling questions concerning the maintenance of peace and stability. Cyber security is now an international security concern. It is also a top concern for most countries and figures high in their national security priorities. The focus is on managing the threats in cyberspace which affect everyone. The key question before a state is how to defend itself from the ever increasing occurrences of cyber-attacks. \n3. The year 2015 saw a number of important developments in the field of cyber security. President Xi’s visit to the US in September 2015 will be remembered for some outspoken public comments by President Obama on US concerns over on-line theft of intellectual property. Aware that cyber concerns\, if unresolved\, can create misunderstanding and destabilise the bilateral ties\, the two countries agreed to bilateral cyber security dialogues. In President Obama’s words\, the two governments agreed that “neither the US nor the Chinese government will conduct or knowingly support cyber related theft of intellectual property including trade secrets or other confidential business information for commercial advantage”. President Obama\, according to reports\, took up strongly with President Xi the issue of cyber threats. On his part\, President Xi\, declared that “China strongly opposes and combats the theft of commercial secrets and hacking attacks”. The meeting took place in the backdrop of a well-publicised cyber-attack on the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) resulting in the stealing of the fingerprints of 5.6 million people in December 2014 and compromising records of some 22 million people. Acknowledgement by both sides that cyber security is an issue between them was in itself a remarkable development. During the same year\, China and Russia also signed a comprehensive agreement on cyber security. \n4. In 2015\, the UN Group of Governmental Experts (UNGGE) came out with its 3rd Report which was an advance over the previous report. As a result of the efforts of the UNGGE\, there is now a growing recognition that international law\, particularly the UN charter\, applies as much as to cyberspace as to other domains. The UNGGE emphasises that principles of sovereign equality; settlement of international disputes by peaceful means; refraining from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state; respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms including the freedom of expression; and non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states are some of the principles which also apply to the ICT security. In other words\, international law is technology neutral. One of the main observations of the report is that states have jurisdiction over the ICT infrastructure located within their territory. \n5. The international law has many aspects including intervention in self-defence\, economic sanctions\, counter measures and so on. A debate has broken out whether intervention through cyber means in other countries’ networks\, under certain circumstance\, is justified or not. The debate is sharp but inconclusive. \n6. Cyber security issues are contentious and are proving to be difficult even as the incidents of cyber-attacks\, cybercrime\, cyber terrorism grow exponentially. Every year new types of attacks are invented and carried out. The toolkit of attackers is expanding. It is quite possible that states may be clandestinely developing arsenal of tools of cyber-attack even as they discuss the need for accepted norms in cyberspace. \n7. The challenge before states is how to defend their critical\, military and civilian infrastructure from destabilising cyber-attacks. Cybercrime is on the increase. Theft of personal information and intellectual property is rampant. The distinction between state and non-state actors in cyberspace is blurring. Even as technologies of active defence are developed\, the attackers are several steps ahead. \n8. While most states are engaged in implementing strategies to defend their networks from cyber-attacks\, they are also toying with the idea of developing capabilities which would deter potential attackers. Efforts have been made to develop a theory and practice of “cyber deterrence” on the lines of nuclear deterrence. \n9. Drawing analogies from the nuclear arms control vocabulary\, it is argued that both denial and punishment are essential for deterring cyber aggression. The idea is to make it clear to the potential attacker that the cost of cyber aggression will outweigh the benefits. An effective cyber deterrence strategy will include deterrence by denial as well as penalty by punishment. Deterrence by denial will rely on strong defences. The efforts of the attacker would be rendered futile if defences and resilience i.e. the capability to bounce back are strong. Deterrence by punishment\, on the other hand\, relies on the ability to counter attack. It is argued that the attacker should know that retaliation should be “certain\, severe and immediate”. This will deter him. \n10. The question is whether cyber deterrence can work in the way similar to nuclear deterrence. Nuclear deterrence works because both sides know fairly accurately the nature\, size and scope of each other’s nuclear arsenal and the means of delivery. Over decades\, arms control negotiations were focussed on issues such as transparency and verifiability of each other’s arsenals. Detailed nuclear CBMs\, based on verification\, were developed. Attempts were made to understand each other’s nuclear doctrines. In the nuclear cease\, actors were few. Non-state actors did not possess nuclear weapons. In cyberspace\, the situation is vastly different. As yet\, there is no clarity even on what cyber-attack means. There is no agreed definition of a cyber- weapon. There are no means of verification. Multiple actors operate in cyberspace with complete anonymity. \n11. Sceptics point out that cyber deterrence will fail because of the lack of attributability in cyberspace. In cyberspace\, where anonymity is the key\, it is difficult to identify precisely who the attacker is. Non-attribution is the fundamental weakness of the cyber deterrence argument. There is\, however\, some literature which suggests that the problem of attribution may be overcome sooner or later. Such claims are\, however\, unverifiable at present. \n12. For cyber deterrence to be meaningful\, a state would have to define its thresholds through appropriate signalling. It will need to indicate its cyber thresholds. Some ambiguity will no doubt be deliberate. Yet\, a potential attacker should know that retaliation would be severe and unacceptable if a redline is crossed. Indicating redlines will depend upon a country’s capabilities\, intents and interests. Today\, the redlines are absent. For instance\, should cyber espionage\, directed against military and non-military targets\, be treated as an act of cyber warfare? Is an attack on the banking networks\, stock exchanges\, power grids an act of war? Does cyber espionage merit a counter attack? Should retaliation be in cyberspace or by other means? With key questions unanswered\, to have a cyber-deterrence on the lines of nuclear deterrence seems difficult. \n13. The Tallinn Manual 1.0\, originally called Tallinn Manual on the International Law applicable to cyber warfare\, deals with conflict scenarios in cyberspace where international law would apply. While Tallinn Manual is not an official document\, its work is sponsored by NATO and other countries. Presently\, a second version of the Tallinn Manual\, Tallinn Manual (2.0)\, is being worked out. The Tallinn Manual 2.0 deals with the application of international law to cyberspace during peacetime. A recent meeting held in the Hague on 2-3 February dealt with these issues. During discussions\, attempts were made at defining a diplomatic law for cyberspace. It was suggested that attack on the computer systems of a foreign embassy should be prohibited by law. It was also professed that intervention in cyberspace may be permitted under certain circumstances. \n14. In India’s point of view\, Tallinn Manual\, while being a useful exercise\, does not reflect the existing law on the subject because of the absence of state practice which is critical for development of customary international law. \n15. These difficulties notwithstanding\, states are going ahead with incorporation of cyber security in to their military doctrines. Such doctrines postulate that a state\, exercising its right to defend itself\, could retaliate to a cyber-attack by cyber or any other means. The US national strategy of 2015 says that US could use cyber tools or other means to retaliate against cyber-attacks. \n16. The problem of cyber-attacks cannot be seen in isolation. Today\, cyberspace is inter-twined with other domains of warfare\, namely\, land\, water\, air and space. This inter-twining implies that cyber-attacks will not be seen as mere cyber-attacks. The retaliation in non-cyber form i.e. retaliation through non cyber means including possibly military means cannot be ruled out. Cyber-attacks\, as means of warfare\, would only enlarge the battle domain. Cyber warfare may induce states to opt for full-spectrum deterrence. \n17. Cyber warfare is a contested concept. Cyber espionage\, attack on critical infrastructures etc are routine happenings in cyberspace. So far military means have not been used to deter attacks. Nor have economic sanctions been used because attributing a cyber-attack has been so difficult. Further\, many victims feel shy of reporting cyber-attacks. Such incidents have not been regarded as acts of warfare so far because no definition of cyber warfare exists so far. Whether a cyber-attack is seen as a component of cyber warfare will depend upon the context of the attack. The authors of the Tallinn Manual have grappled for many years to come up with some acceptable definitions but so far the progress has been slow. \n18. India cannot be oblivious to these developments. Internet usage is spreading rapidly in India. Even though internet penetration in the country is still low\, nearly 400 million people are using the internet. Digital India will take broadband internet to every village Panchayat. With one billion SIM card subscribers\, a revolution in connectivity is sweeping India. India’s future progress and growth is linked with the expansion of the digital network\, overcoming digital divides and ensuring that robust cyber security policies are adopted right from the beginning. \n19. India has taken several steps in the recent past to strengthen its cyber defensive capabilities. To mention a few: \n\nA national cyber security policy has been announced and is being implemented.\nAn elaborate national cyber security assurance framework is under implementation.\nThe National Cyber Security Coordinator appointed last year is coordinating the Indian cyber security effort spread across the various agencies. \nCoordination amongst various agencies has improved. \nA National Critical Information Infrastructure Protection Centre (NCIIPC) has been set up. There is a regular dialogue with the key sectors of the economy.\nPublic-private partnership is being constructed. There is an active dialogue between the government and the private sector.\nA National Cyber Coordination Centre (NCCC) is being set up. \nEfforts are being made to develop cyber security skills in the country. New cyber security curricula are being introduced in the colleges. \nCyber security R&D policy has also been under active consideration of the government.\nCERT-India\, an organization that was set up in 2004\, has done significant work in dealing with cyber incidents as well as spreading awareness. \nIndia is pursuing active cyber diplomacy with cyber security dialogues having been set up with several countries and is participating in several international fora including the UN on cyber security. \n\n20. All these synchronized and coordinated efforts are already showing results. But we cannot be complacent in the face of growing threats and evolving technologies. Due to the explosive growth of ICTs\, cyber security scenario is likely to remain challenging. We will need to work hard on the various aspects of cyber security including the emerging challenges. \n21. Like other countries\, India also faces the daunting task of stopping and preventing cyber-attacks on its networks. India will have to closely study the evolution of cyber deterrence idea. Building cyber deterrence capability would entail building robust networks that can be defended\, encouraging comprehensive R&D in the area of cyber security and strengthening indigenous manufacture of ICT products and technologies. It will also require strong cyber diplomacy to ensure that India is not at the receiving end of the emerging ICT Export Control regime under the Wassenaar Agreement. We also need to closely analyse the patterns of cyber-attacks against us and build suitable response measures including the capability to conduct cyber operations if required. India would need to take note of the increasingly assertive cyber security doctrines that are being adopted by other countries. This will help in working out our own cyber security doctrines. The inputs from the Conference like this would be most useful. \n22. In conclusion\, I would like to point out that there is a lack of consensus in the international community on norms of behaviour in cyberspace. We are at a stage where technology is far ahead of our thinking on cyber laws and cyber norms. The UN Group of Governmental Experts has proved to be a useful platform to discuss these issues but the absence of a broader representative platform where contentious issues can be hammered out and consensus arrived at is conspicuous by its absence. Ad-hoc groups adopting ad-hoc procedures to deliberate over ad-hoc cyber security agendas will not necessarily build a consensus. The international community needs to come together to discuss how to deal with threats in cyberspace which are growing by the minute. The task may seem daunting but states should seriously reflect whether the world needs a Cyber Convention on cyber security. Unlike in the other commons like the land\, the sea and space\, where international law has grown immediately\, cyberspace is still largely lawless. This Conference\, where leading experts have assembled\, can generate ideas on the way forward towards building a consensus on cyber security issues. \nThank you! URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/keynote-address-by-dr-arvind-gupta-deputy-national-security-advisor-at-the-18th-asian-security-conference-on-securing-cyberspace-asian-and-international-perspectives CATEGORIES:Asian Security Conference,ASC Key Speeches ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20160209T053000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20160211T053000 DTSTAMP:20261108T003243 CREATED:20231223T125434Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250120T222918Z UID:62758-1454995800-1455168600@idsa.in SUMMARY:18th Asian Security Conference - Securing Cyberspace: Asian and International Perspectives DESCRIPTION:Concept Note\n\n\nThe Asian Security Conference (ASC) is a major calendar event of the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA)\, New Delhi. Since 1999\, when the conference was first held\, the ASC has emerged as an important platform for debating issues relating to Asian Security. For the last ten years\, the ASC has been providing a forum for security analysts\, practitioners and policy makers from around the world to share their views on the challenges facing the Asian continent. The eighteenth conference in this series is being held on the topic “Securing Cyberspace: Asian and International Perspectives”. \nCybersecurity is increasingly drawing attention from policy makers as the world becomes increasingly interlinked and dependent on digital pathways. Use of cyber space by governments\, businesses and individuals has provided economic benefits and helped connect the world in beneficial ways. Simultaneously\, however\, there are attempts being made by state and non-state actors to deny its legitimate use by others. Use of cyber space for espionage\, both commercial and security-related\, are common. Its use by criminals and extremists is no less dangerous. Managing this nascent and rapidly developing threat has proved to be problematic given that it now touches almost every aspect of human existence\, from communication to commerce. It equally impact on a variety of stakeholders\, individuals\, corporations and states\, all with differing priorities and perspectives. The large number of users and actors involved\, and their varying perceptions of the threats and responses to emanating from cyber space have led to conflicting voices on how best to mitigate and overcome them. \nEven as the connected systems and networks have grown more intertwined and complex\, Cyberspace is being used for a variety of malicious activities\, from crime to state-sponsored attacks on critical infrastructure. The interconnectedness of cyber networks means that even the most basic responses end up having a ripple effect or unintended consequences. Maintaining a balance between security and benefitting from the many opportunities provided by the deployment of new cyber technologies is proving to be one of the most vexatious issues of the 21st century. \nThe risk from cyber threats to government agencies\, private enterprises\, public sector undertakings and research institutions of strategic importance can manifest in many forms. A Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attack can disrupt business operations or it may cause severe outages\, thereby having a direct impact on their revenue and reputation. Companies also face the risk of losing trade secrets or intellectual property rights. Moreover\, a massive data breach for companies or governance portals storing data of customers or citizens can compromise personal information. A cyber-attack on entities that are part of critical infrastructure can have a debilitating impact on national security. The risk increases manifold for electricity grids\, nuclear installations\, and telemetry/command and control network of space assets. Surprisingly\, social media\, as a threat vector\, has become a channel of least resistance for threat actors to conduct reconnaissance\, identity thefts and gather information on employees\, projects\, systems and infrastructure\, besides spreading hateful propaganda and enticing impressionable youth to follow extremist ideologies.\nCyberspace has become an intricate constituent of national power. The strategies for the development of Cyberspace are not just restricted to civilian purposes; rather\, this domain now falls well under the ambit of the armed forces. With the advent of Network Centricity in military operations and Revolution in Military Affairs\, armed forces are at elevated risk of cyber incidents. The integrated use of land\, air\, maritime and space assets for enhanced domain awareness or real-time information access warrants the armed forces to build expertise in both defensive and offensive cyber operations. Nation states have documented their Cyber Strategies and executed them in the form of Cyber Commands\, both overt and covert. With the military dimension\, Cyberspace is witnessing a race for development and deployment of cyber weapons. An arms control regime\, the Wassenaar Arrangement has enlarged its controls list in consonance with the way Cyberspace has altered present day security landscape. The development of cyber weapons and their potential usage against high value targets has been one of the major security concerns for nation states. \nThe threats in Cyberspace are varying in nature and intensity. Leading companies operating in the domains of energy\, telecommunications\, finance\, and transportation sectors are targets of Advanced Persistent Threats (APT). Non-state actors\, such as terrorist organizations and criminal syndicates have become tech-savvy\, thereby employing human resources to develop malware. These tools are used extensively in committing Cybercrime. Terrorist organizations leverage the benefits of Cyberspace\, harnessing it for ideology propagation\, recruitment and communication. The terrorist organization\, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has been a prime case study. It has tremendous presence on social media helps spread its propaganda and recruit sympathizers across the globe. Al-Qaeda is also reported to have developed encryption software to secure their communication in Cyberspace. \nAs the extent of commerce transacted over Cyberspace grows\, along with increasing reliance on information technology to drive cost-efficiencies\, the risk exposure to enterprises have increased. According to the 2013 Security Threat Report published by the cyber security company\, Sophos\, Asia accounted for eight of the top-10 countries most vulnerable to Cybercrime. Asia\, the largest continent on earth\, represents 60 percent of the world’s population. It is the fastest growing economic region globally. On the other hand\, the unprecedented growth of rising economies\, rapid industrialisation\, rising demand for energy\, expanding markets and\, depleting natural resources have led to competition and confrontation with respect to the access and control of resources. As Asia continues to grow its share of the global trade and commerce\, the threats from cyber-attacks are expected to increase in tandem. \nCyber-attacks\, like many of the new security challenges\, are transnational in origin and nature\, and no nation can combat them alone. Despite variations in ethnic\, economic and government systems\, Asian countries need robust security architecture to resolve the issues specific to the geographical region as well as international issues detrimental to Asia’s economic and societal growth. \nWith the shift of power towards Asia\, its representation in the rule-making mechanisms and inputs towards creating a secure cyberspace is critical to international politics\, the world economy\, and the credibility of international institutions and cybersecurity regimes. Within Asia\, cyber threats have altered the security perceptions of institutions and government systems. Against this backdrop\, the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses\, New Delhi will organise the 18th Asian Security Conference focusing on the emerging threats and challenges from cyber domain to national and regional security. The two-and-a-half-day conference will consider international and regional responses to cyber security and the scope for cooperation amidst varying national policy frameworks and legislations. \nThe major themes to be discussed include the following: \n\nThe Global Cybersecurity Environment\nInternational and Regional Responses to issues in Cybersecurity\nNon-State Actors and Cyberspace\nSecuring Strategic Critical Infrastructure\nCybersecurity and the Digital Economy\nRole of Military in Cybersecurity\nDisruptive Technologies and Cybersecurity\n\n\n\n\n\nProgramme Schedule\n\n\nTuesday\, February 9\, 2016 (DAY ONE)\n09:15-09:40 Registration \n09:45-10:15 Inaugural Address\nWelcome Remarks: Shri Jayant Prasad\, Director General\, IDSA\nKey Note Address: Air Marshal PP Reddy VM\, ADC\, Chief of Integrated Defence Staff\nVote of Thanks: Brig. Rumel Dahiya (Retd)\, Deputy Director General\, IDSA \n10:15-10:45 Tea \n10:45-13:00 Session 1: The Global Cybersecurity Environment\nChairperson: Nitin Desai\nAmmar Jaffri – Cyber Security Challenges & Opportunities in the Fast Changing World Today\nVarun Sahni – Cyber Redefinitions and the Challenged State: Security Implications\nGreg Austin – Mutual Restraint in the Cyberspace Diplomacy of Great Powers\nCuihong Cai – Global Cybersecurity Environment: Perspectives of the US and China in Comparison\nYasuaki Hashimoto – Present Situation of Japanese Cyber Security \n13:00-14:00 Lunch \n14:00-15:30 Session 2: International and Regional Responses to Cybersecurity Challenges\nChairperson: Latha Reddy\nAlexandra Kulikova – Working out the Rules of Global Cyberspace Governance\nNandkumar Saravade – International and Regional Responses to Cybersecurity Challenges\nCandice Tran Dai – Economic Dimensions of National Cybersecurity Strategies in the Asia-Pacific Region\nMunish Sharma and Cherian Samuel – A South Asian Regional Cybersecurity Cooperation (SARCC) Forum: Prospects and Challenges \n15:30-16:00 Tea \n16:00-17:30 Session 3: Non-State Actors and Cyberspace\nChairperson: Ravi Kant\nAlok Vijayant – Asymmetrism in the Cyberspace: State vs. Non-state Actors\nSanjeev Relia – Non-State Actors and Cyberspace: An Overview\nArun Mohan Sukumar – State and Non-State: Residual Actors in Cyberspace\nGillane Allam – Non-State Actors & Cyberspace- A North African Perspective \nWednesday\, February 10\, 2016 (DAY TWO)\n10:00-11:00 Keynote Address by Dr. Arvind Gupta\, Deputy National Security Advisor\n11:00-11:30 Tea\n11:30-13:00 Session 4: Securing Strategic Critical Infrastructure\nChairperson: Alhad G. Apte\nTed Lewis – Challenges of Cybersecurity: Malware and AS-level Structure\nKah-Kin Ho – Evolving Role of Government in Critical Infrastructure Protection\nJana Robinson – Governance Challenges at the Intersection of Space and Cybersecurity\nCaroline Baylon – Cyber Security Threats to Critical Infrastructure: A Case Study of Nuclear Facilities\nA. Vinod Kumar – Securing Critical Infrastructure from Cyber Threats: Developing Defence\, Deterrence and Norms \n13:00-14:00 Lunch \n14:00-15:30 Session 5: Cybersecurity and the Digital Economy\nChairperson: V. K. Saraswat\nLiam Nevill – Challenging Opportunities for Asia-Pacific’s Digital Economy\nMadan M. Oberoi – New Technologies and New Forms of Crime: Need to Recalibrate Law Enforcement Strategy / Procedures / Law\nIL Seok\, OH – Korean Legal Initiatives to Combat Cybercrime and Enhance Digital Economy\nUchenna Jerome Orji – Regionalizing the Cybersecurity Governance in Africa: An Assessment of Responses \n15:30-16:00 Tea \n16:00-17:30 Session 6: Role of Military in Cybersecurity\nChairperson: Prakash Menon\nLiina Areng – Role of Military in Cybersecurity\nAmit Sharma – The Triad Theory of Cyber Warfare: A Framework for Strategic Cyber Warfare\nCaitriona Heinl – International Military Cyber Cooperation in Asia\nLi-Chung Yuan – Role of Military in Cyberspace: Case of Republic of China (Taiwan) \nThursday\, February 11\, 2016 (DAY THREE)\n10:00-11:30 Session 7: Cybersecurity Futures\nChairperson: K. Santhanam\nTobby Simon – Cybersecurity Futures\nSico van der Meer – Defence\, Deterrence\, and Diplomacy: Foreign Policy Instruments to Increase Future Cybersecurity\nJohn Ellis – Disruptive Technologies and the Trusted Cyber Future\nJonathan Reiber – Cybersecurity Futures and the U.S.-India Strategic Partnership \n11:30-12:00 Tea \n12:00-14:00 Session 8 – Panel Discussion on Way Forward \nVote of Thanks \n14:00-15:00 Lunch\n \n\n\n\nConference Booklet\nRapporteurs Report URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/18th-asian-security-conference-securing-cyberspace-asian-and-international-perspectives-2 CATEGORIES:Asian Security Conference,Previous ASC,CONFERENCES ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20160209T053000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20160209T053000 DTSTAMP:20261108T003243 CREATED:20231223T123945Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240229T000326Z UID:62622-1454995800-1454995800@idsa.in SUMMARY:Keynote address by Air Marshal PP Reddy VM\, ADC\, Chief of Integrated Defence Staff at the 18th Asian Security Conference on "Securing Cyberspace: Asian and International Perspectives" DESCRIPTION:Dr Jayant Prasad\, Director General IDSA\nDistinguished guests and participants\,\nLadies and gentlemen\, \n1. It gives me great pleasure in welcoming you all to the 18th edition of the Asian Security Conference. Since its inception in January 1999\, this Conference has served as a forum for free and open discussion by security analysts\, experts and scholars from different parts of the world. The theme of the 18th Asian Security Conference – ‘Securing Cyberspace : Asian and International Perspectives’ is a highly relevant and extremely contemporary as cyberspace has become an arena for co-operation\, competition as well as conflict. \n2. The traditional bases of national power have included the economy\, military capabilities\, the science and technology base\, and national resources including physical resources\, human resources\, infrastructure\, and knowledge resources. The arrival of the Information Age is widely seen as a momentous development\, as revolutionary as the Industrial Age\, with information processing regimes replacing manufacturing as the source of wealth and growth. Cyber and information technologies have added a new dimension to the various components of national power\, creating both new capabilities as well as new sources of vulnerabilities. Cyberspace and cyber technologies today\, have become key components in the formulating and execution of national policy. Cyber technologies are also entwined across the key components of national power and act as a force multiplier\, thereby creating new synergies and unleashing new forces\, sometimes with disruptive effects. \n3. The Prime Minister of India\, while enunciating his vision of a Digital India conceptualised an India “where government services are easily and efficiently available on mobile devices; where government actively engages with people on social media; where mobile phones enable personal services; and where cyber security becomes an integral part of the national security.” Towards this end\, the Govt of India has started a number of programmes to leverage information technology for the benefit of citizens. The “Digital India” and “Smart Cities” are flagship programmes with a vision to transform India into a digitally empowered society and knowledge economy. Another flagship programme of the Government of India is “Make in India” which is designed to facilitate investment\, foster innovation\, enhance skill development\, to protect intellectual property rights and to build best-in-class manufacturing infrastructure for products made in India. Both the programmes operate by leveraging the use of information technology. It goes without saying that this accelerated capacity building has enormous implications for the country’s cyber-security posture. \n4. With over 400 million Internet users\, whose number is growing rapidly\, India has an enormous stake in a safe and secure cyberspace. The Indian government has always stood for an open\, global and secure cyberspace and is also aware of the fact that this goal can only be arrived at through international co-operation and collaboration. At the same time\, threats from both state and non-state actors\, are weakening the very foundations of this concept. \n5. As highlighted earlier\, cyberspace has today become an intricate constituent of national power having a peaceful as well as the military dimensions. And hence the involvement of the Armed Forces in the domain\, in order to secure it\, as also to develop credible deterrence capabilities. With militaries adopting network centric warfare and migrating towards more complex Info & Comn systems\, they are at elevated risks of cyber attacks. Several nations have documented their cyber strategies and executed them through organisations and structures in the form of Cyber Commands etc\, while several other nations are frequently making changes\, based on dynamic nature of the envisaged threat. Cyberspace is also witnessing a race for development and deployment of cyber weapons\, and has therefore been one of the major security concerns of the Nation States. \n6. “Will strategic stability in a globalised and digitised environment be feasible\, considering the rapid increase in threats and violations in an unregulated cyber space” is what we all need to sit together and discuss. Are we today witnessing a sort of Cyber Arms Race akin to the nuclear or missile arms race of yesteryears? Can we have international regulatory mechanisms binding on activities in cyber space\, and efficacy of such mechanisms on cyber domain where physical inspections etc are of little relevance? Or should regulations be through treaties or conventions or a simple code of conduct by nations\, organisations\, and individuals? \n7. There are also questions about whether existing laws and conventions on war\, particularly the Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC)\, and International Humanitarian Law can be adapted to the new environment of cyber warfare. The basic principles that have governed definitions and responses to traditional war\, such as sovereignty\, jurisdiction\, use of force\, self-defence\, proportionality\, distinction\, and necessity\, cannot be easily adapted to cyberwar. Malicious actors\, state-sponsored or otherwise\, are taking advantage of the confusion to carry out action that come below the thresholds of the definition of war. The question then arises as to which is the appropriate body that would counter or deter such attacks. One of the most difficult issues related to adapting the existing international law to cyberspace is to do with cyber weapons. There is as yet no legally agreed upon definition of a cyber weapon\, and the unique characteristics of cyberspace make defining a cyber weapon\, that much more harder. And that raises the legitimate question as to whether cyber weapons are a reality\, something with which we have to live with and hence devise ways and means to deal with them. \n8. Of course\, none of these laws apply to the terrorist organisation who have adapted themselves in innovative ways to become one the most ardent users of cyberspace for a variety of purposes\, from communication\, to finance\, as well as for recruitment\, networking and psy ops as we are currently witnessing. As the visual and real worlds get increasingly integrated with the Internet of Things (IoT)\, it is only inevitable that terrorists will try to use cyberspace for destructive purposes as well. \n9. With the cyber arena now recognised as a new and distinct domain of warfare\, setting up a force competent to achieve the dual objectives of defending the country from cyber attacks in war and securing the military’s network operations in peace\, requires considerable thought. In the near term\, cyber has added a new dimension to the traditional warfare. While both on the ground is not going to be replaced by cyber armies operating in a virtual battlefield in the near future\, information dominance in the battlefield may well make the difference between victory and defeat. On the other hand\, increasing use of Info & Comn Tech by the armies of today\, can also lead to destruction through the manipulation of information by opposing forces. \n10. Requisite capabilities for protecting the Indian cyber space\, both for civil and military applications\, are slowly but steadily\, being enhanced. Cooperation amongst the nation-states and a consensus approach\, for regulating cyber space need to be adopted by the global community to ensure that the cyber domain is used primarily to enhance quality of life of citizens of our nations\, and to strengthen peace\, stability and development. \n11. In this multi-dimensional\, dynamic and evolving medium that we call cyberspace\, one finds both\, great challenges and great opportunities. I am sure\, that the thought and perspectives of the eminent speakers at this conference\, including experts and thinkers in cyber technology from around the world\, will go a long way in shaping the future of cyberspace and cyber security. \nThank you. \nJai Hind! URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/keynote-address-by-air-marshal-pp-reddy-vm-adc-chief-of-integrated-defence-staff-at-the-18th-asian-security-conference-on-securing-cyberspace-asian-and-international-perspectives CATEGORIES:KEY SPEECHES,Asian Security Conference,ASC Key Speeches ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20150213T053000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20150213T053000 DTSTAMP:20261108T003243 CREATED:20231223T124148Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250308T130840Z UID:62631-1423805400-1423805400@idsa.in SUMMARY:Valedictory Address at the 17th Asian Security Conference on “Asian Security: Comprehending the Indian Approach” DESCRIPTION:Brig Dahiya\,\nDistinguished participants\,\nLadies & gentlemen\, \nThank you very much for inviting me to deliver the valedictory address at the 17th Asian Security Conference.\nASC is not only the signature event of the IDSA\, it has emerged as a key event in the global calendar of important conferences. The issues discussed in the conference form the core competency of the IDSA. We keenly look forward to the outcome of the deliberations of this conference. \nI had the chance to go through some of the papers and listen to some of the presentations that have been webcast live. People want to understand India’s role in the emerging international order. The refrain of the discussion has been that India is passive even as the world is changing. Many analysts feel that India should take on greater regional and global responsibilities. This conference has deliberated over these and related questions. Some of the questions raised in the last three days of deliberations might be answered if we examine the emerging trends in India’s regional and global approach. Let me dwell upon a few of the recognizable trends. \n\n\n\nEngagement\n\n\n\nAny one would notice that in the last few months\, India’s engagement with the world has deepened further. Beginning with an unprecedented outreach to its neighbours\, India in the past few months\, has engaged with the major and significant powers across the geopolitical spectrum. Proactive engagement with the world is becoming a norm in Indian foreign policy. The process of engagement has just begun and will deepen in the future. \n\n\n\nShape of the world\n\n\n\nA second trend to be noticed is that India is making a realistic assessment of the world situation. The world is perceived as full of challenges and opportunities. It is trying to make proper assessment of the environment and evolve a balanced and calibrated approach. The challenges have to be met and the opportunities taken advantage of. The challenges of terrorism\, space\, cyber or energy security can be met only with international and regional cooperation. India has come up with a series of positive ideas on key issues. India is also willing to participate in regional and global projects which promote international peace and stability. \n\n\n\nNew thinking\n\n\n\nIndia is conscious that in this time of great flux and change\, the world is witnessing unprecedented tensions and turmoil. In West Asia\, extremism and fault lines are growing. Several flash points have reared their head in Asia. Violence and conflict has emerged right in the heart of Europe. Tensions among the major powers have increased. The threat of terrorism is taking new dimensions. Security of the oceans\, space and cyberspace have become of paramount importance. Stability and security in the Indian Ocean is vital for global and regional prosperity. Climate change is an existential threat. In order to meet with these challenges\, genuine international partnerships will be required. Prime Minister Modi\, in his speech at the UN last year emphasized that in view of rapid global change\, it is essential that “we change with the world and incorporate new thinking”. He pointed out that in the era of globalization\, new poles of growth and opportunities for employment have risen. At the same time\, inequality has also increased. In order to deal with these changes\, he emphasized three things; the developed countries should abide by their commitments to provide funding and technology to the developing countries; secondly\, national measures should be informed with creativity\, and thirdly\, there is also need to change lifestyles based on the efficient use of energy. This approach finds reflection in a number of joint statements and documents which India has signed in the recent past with other countries. \n\n\n\nDomestic priorities\n\n\n\nA third trend is the establishment of direct linkage between domestic priorities and the foreign policy. National interests are being defined more clearly. Indian policies are being tailored to achieve the national goals of economic growth\, development and security. The domestic agenda\, underlined by the overall theme of VIKAS or development\, has been populated with a large number of ambitious projects and schemes such as Digital India\, Make in India\, financial inclusion\, skill development\, infrastructure development\, investment promotion\, manufacturing\, smart cities\, connectivity and so on. Many countries have welcomed the opportunity to participate in India’s growth story. This has given a new meaning to bilateral and multilateral engagements. Realistic roadmaps are being set up to implement the various dimensions of a comprehensive engagement. \n\n\n\nTechnology\n\n\n\nThe fourth discernible trend is that in the new development model\, technology has been given a prominent place. India believes that technology can play a major role in resolving the problems of developing countries as well as global issues. A programme like Digital India touches every individual. India is keen to cooperate with other countries in technological sphere more productively. A number of technology partnerships have been forged with advanced countries. \n\n\n\nSub-Regional Engagement \n\n\n\nA fifth feature of India’s evolving approach is that it is increasingly involved in sub-regional cooperation with neighbours. There is emphasis on engagement through groupings like IORA and BIMSTEC. With Sri Lanka and Maldives\, we are involved in maritime cooperation in the trilateral format. Two weeks ago we held the second JWG meeting on sub-regional cooperation between Bangladesh\, Bhutan\, India and Nepal. India’s vital interests transcend the immediate neighbourhood and extend to strategic neighbourhoods in West Asia\, Central Asia and South East Asia. India is also trying to overcome constraints of geography. Better connectivity through Iran will improve access to Afghanistan and Central Asia. The International North South Transit Corridor through Iran and the Caucasus to Russia will reduce transit time and transport costs between Asia and Europe. \nNot a reluctant engager any more\nThe upshot of all this is that India is not a reluctant engager any more. In the last few months\, intense engagement have taken place with the US\, China\, Japan\, Russia\, Australia\, Nepal\, Bhutan\, etc. In addition\, the Indian PM has met a large number of his counterparts on the sidelines of important summits and conferences. The PM has travelled to Fiji and met several leaders of the Pacific island countries. PM has met with leaders of over forty countries including through bilateral interactions and on various multilateral foras such as UNGA\, G-20\, BRICS\, EAS\, ASEAN and SAARC. PM has interacted on four occasions with the Russian President and on three occasions each with the US President and Chinese President. In the neighbourhood\, PM has interacted thrice with leaders of SAARC countries and five times with the Bhutanese Prime Minister. He has also interacted twice each with leaders of Japan\, Australia\, Vietnam and Singapore. The Indian diaspora now occupies a key role in India’s foreign policy priorities. India has participated fully in global and regional institutions including the UN\, SAARC\, East-Asia Summit\, Russia-India-China trilateral format\, BRICS\, G-20\, etc. The declaration by the UN of June 21\, as the International Yoga Day is a recognition of India’s soft power. India’s approach to global and regional issues is neither reluctant nor a zero-sum game. The articulation Vasudhaiv Kutumbakam\, the world is a family and Vishwa-Bandhutva\, the brotherhood of the world\, by the PM is reflection of the fact that India’s approach will be marked by a desire to work with all and to resolve global problems in a cooperative spirit. \nIndia is becoming increasingly active at the global and regional fora and making contributions to the strengthening of the multilateral and regional institutions\, building connectivities\, forging international cooperation to deal with terrorism\, building human resource capacities in India and abroad. India’s contribution to UN peacekeeping is a huge factor of stability in the world. A special focus has been on maritime security\, cyber security and energy security. Defence cooperation is emerging as a key focus in India’s foreign policy. The joint statements issued during the important visits contain extensive roadmaps as to how to take the cooperation forward. \nI would like to draw your attention to some of the important take-aways from India’s engagement with different countries: \n\nUS: The issue of operationalisation of the Indo-US nuclear deal has been addressed in the recent summit meeting. The signing of Indo-US Joint Strategic Vision for Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean Region was a major development which helps the two countries to promote regional cooperation within the framework of the US Pivot to Asia and India’s act East policy.\nJapan: The upgradation of the strategic partnership with Japan will further deepen India’s Act East policy. Indo-Japan relationship also complements the emerging trend of greater global engagement visible in Japan’s foreign policy.\nChina: Relationship with China is complex. Its rise has had global and regional consequences. No country remains unaffected. It is interesting that the Indian economy is beginning to grow while that of China is slowing down. These developments will have geo-political consequences. On the one hand\, there is a great deal of untapped potential in Sino-Indian relations\, on the other\, unresolved problems\, particularly the border issue\, persist. The Sino-Indian joint statement identified many areas of cooperation. China has committed itself to invest $20 bn in India’s infrastructure. It will set up industrial parks and manufacturing facilities in India. There was also progress in railways cooperation. The message to China is clear. India will like to have an early settlement of the border issue but in the meanwhile it would engage with it in realizing the economic potential of the relationship.\nRussia: A lot has been written on the significance of Russia in India’s foreign policy as the latter begins to build partnerships with US\, Japan and other countries. The joint statement signed during the visit of President Putin’s visit to India recently\, “Druzhba-Dosti – a Vision for Strengthening Indo-Russian Partnerships over the Next Decade” shows that despite the skepticism\, Indo-Russia partnerships remain relevant to each other and to the world. The Indian side “deeply values the monumental contributions made by Russia to India’s developmental and defence needs”. The two sides have deep cooperation in the field of energy\, defence\, technology and innovation. This is likely to deepen further. They also have a role to play in global order and world peace.\nRIC: The Russia-India-China trilateral\, one of the oldest geometries\, has taken an added meaning as Russia’s relations with the West come under strain. Foreign Ministers of Russia\, India and China meeting in Beijing at a time of great international flux have come up with innovative ideas. They have agreed on early conclusion of negotiations on Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism\, a first. They agreed to set up a trilateral consultation mechanism on Asia Pacific Affairs\, again a first of its kind. Russia and China welcomed India’s participation in APEC. This indicates that consensus is now forming on India’s engagement with Asia Pacific region.\nMaritime Security: The emphasis on maritime security has been discernible. India has agreed to work with like-minded partners to preserve the integrity of these global commons and reiterated commitment of freedom of navigation and over-flight. Joint exercises between the Navies and Coast Guards have been encouraged. India is working with its maritime neighbours\, Sri Lanka and Maldives in the trilateral format to improve Maritime Domain Awareness and cooperation in maritime oil pollution response\, search and rescue\, etc. India has also launched project Mausam to improve India’s traditional and historical linkages with countries with whom it has shared maritime connectivity.\nCyber Security: Cyber Security is emerging as one of the key areas in international security. Three set is issues which deserve attention are those relating to internet governance\, norms of state behavior in cyber space and CBMs as well as technical cooperation. India being one of the largest users of cyberspace and with huge technical capabilities is naturally an important player in cyber security discussions. A large number of countries are willing to engage with India on these issues. A series of cyber security dialogues have been held in the recent past. Make in India gives an opportunity to develop ICT as well as cyber security products and services in India. Cyber security will remain a major area of engagement for India with the rest of the world.\n\nIndia is indeed aware of the challenges that it faces. The growing schism between the great powers can undermine international security. The critical security issues like terrorism\, maritime security or cyber security can undermine not only global security but also affect the individual. Multilateralism\, particularly the UNSC\, the IMF\, the World Bank is in need of reforms. Since these are difficult issues\, international cooperation becomes that much more important. \nOften India is criticized for not being proactive enough in global norm setting and in regional and global fora. It needs to be appreciated that to be counted\, India will need to build its own capacities. A return to high economic growth trajectory will help India play a proactive global and regional role. India will also need to build its own technological and human resource capacities to deal with these challenges. A synergized whole-of-government approach will be essential to support India’s diplomatic efforts. \nConclusion\nTo conclude\, the recent trends in Indian foreign policy clearly show that India is poised to play a leading role in global affairs. India’s approach is calibrated. Undoubtedly the needed capacities will have to be built. Implementation will be a challenge. But\, the conditions are favourable. In the recently concluded Conference of the Heads of Missions\, the Prime Minister articulated his world view clearly and asked the Indian diplomats to take advantage of the current global environment to position India in a “leading role”. This gives an insight into India’s approach to the engagement with the world.\nThank you. URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/valedictory-address-at-the-17th-asian-security-conference-on-asian-security-comprehending-the-indian-approach CATEGORIES:Asian Security Conference,ASC Key Speeches ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20150211T053000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20150213T053000 DTSTAMP:20261108T003243 CREATED:20231223T125503Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240221T063219Z UID:62767-1423632600-1423805400@idsa.in SUMMARY:17th Asian Security Conference: Asian Security: Comprehending the Indian Approach DESCRIPTION:Concept Note\n\n\nThe shift of power to Asia in the 21st century with its imminent economic rise has amplified the security challenges that the continent faces within the larger rubric of international relations. Key concerns include major power rivalries\, tensions over disputed territories\, freedom of Sea Lanes of Communications (SLOCs)\, security dilemmas connected to military modernization\, the robustness of regional institutional mechanisms\, intra-state conflicts and last but not the least\, the perspectives of major actors like Russia\, China and India on Asian regional order: whether they view it as purely competitive or cooperative-competitive. Historically\, Asia has been an important geographical cusp in the pathway of civilizations. Arabia\, the Ottoman Empire\, the Mongols\, the Chinese empires\, India\, Ceylon\, etc\, have played major roles in the fight for territory\, resources and the spread of ideas and religion. Hinduism\, Buddhism\, Islam\, Confucianism\, Zoroastrianism\, etc.\, have been major religious influences\, while mathematics\, science\, astronomy\, the printing press\, gun powder\, the wheel\, etc.\, draws their origin to Asia. Asian cultures and civilizations have been instrumental in the conceptualization and operationalization of the strategic cultures and military modernizations of other civilizations. The extreme forms of competition that precluded the colonial period\, and the meeting of Asia and the West led loose new forces of military modernizations\, especially naval technologies with faster ships\, and the idea of sea dominance. The colonial period was critical for the formation of an Asian idea of difference as most of the countries were either colonized or suffered from deep seated anxieties due to their contact with the West\, memories that continue to shape ideas and foreign policies to this day. \nIndia emerged from colonialism with a solid sense of national identity. The leaders of the Indian freedom movement expressed attractive visions of the kind of state India should become. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was a firm believer in the universal principle of global interconnectedness\, and saw India as deeply rooted in this sense of universalism\, both ideationally and physically. Jawaharlal Nehru\, while supportive of Gandhian universalism\, chose to carve a path of non-alignment\, as a direct response to the systemic distribution of power at that time\, the US and the USSR\, though ideationally\, he was drawn to Soviet socialism rather than American capitalism. Nehru aspired to carve a unique foreign policy for India\, where as a proponent of non-alignment\, India would establish its own foreign policy priorities and agendas\, devoid of super-power structural rivalry. Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel\, India’s first Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister\, firmly advocated a strong Indian state duly based on defence of its own borders with a keen strategic sense of its neighbours\, especially China. \nIndia’s approach to foreign policy and international relations has\, over the years\, been propelled by ideas drawn from the leaders of the Indian freedom movement\, their aspirations for India\, as well as its own experiences and engagements with the world since its independence. While many strategic analysts\, both in India and abroad\, accuse India of lacking a strategic culture or strategic thinking\, a deep foray into Indian foreign policy behavior reveals that India does have a strategic culture where it closely monitors the external environment and debates on the efficacy of the use of military power in addressing external threats. Over the years\, some of the major developments in India’s economic and foreign policy have been the 1991 economic reforms that opened up the Indian economy to globalization\, the 1998 nuclear tests\, its space program\, and its growing role in Asian multilateralism. Areas that have emerged as of priority to India are its strategic partnerships with major powers\, cyber\, space and energy security\, terrorism\, nuclear safety and security\, the Indian Ocean region\, the US ‘pivot’ and the rise of China. In this backdrop\, it is critical to discuss and assess whether India has reached a stage of power acquisition that equips it with system ‘shaping capabilities and intentions’. This discussion should emerge from the fact that India has showed the potential to shape and mould the international system\, and it aspires to a larger system shaping role in the future. \nBased on this conceptual prop\, the 17th Asian Security Conference will focus on the theme\, “Asian Security: Comprehending the Indian Approach”. Given the overall focus on Asia with its increased prosperity\, and the rise of major Asian powers in the context of decreasing resources\, naval competition\, American presence\, and quest for prestige\, the conference will deliberate on India’s strategic role and preferences in shaping Asian Security. The conference will focus not only on what India’s approach has been but also what should be India’s future proactive approach towards shaping Asian security. \nThe key thematic questions that will weave together the multiple interactive sessions of the conference are:- \n\nWhat role can India play in shaping the structural and normative parameters for Asian security?\n\nWhat are India’s strategic preferences and choices for Asia’s security future?\n\nHow do the major powers of Asia and the United States view India’s role towards cementing Asian security?\n\nHas India transcended its regional role as a South Asian power to the broader regional context of Asia?\n\nWhat are the key scenarios that emerge from the 17th Asian security conference that India will have to respond to in the next 10 to 15 years?\n\n\nThe conference will be divided into nine interactive sessions \nThematic Sessions\nSession I: Asian Regional Order \nSession II: India and Strategic Partnerships: Impact on Asian Security \nSession III: Asian Economies and Resource Competition \nSession IV: The Rise of China \nSession V: Maritime Security in Asia \nSession VI: Nuclear\, Biological\, Chemical\, Cyber and Space Security in Asia \nSession VII: Major Strategic Regions of Asia \nSession VIII: Future trends and Scenarios emerging from the 17th Asian Security Conference \nConcluding Valedictory Session \nTheme Elaboration\nSession I: Asian Regional Order\nThis session will critically analyze whether India possesses a systemic set of ideas\, both practical and theoretical\, that articulate its national interests. Most importantly\, this session will identify the strategic vision/visions that India aspires to in projecting itself onto the Asian stage. This will involve factors like national identity\, power\, sovereignty\, norm building\, and multilateralism. Based on this\, the session will discuss India’s approach to Asian regional order\, whether India is an observer of that order or aspires to be a key actor in the management of the regional order. The session will deliberate on whether it is possible for India and other major powers of Asia to create a collective security framework which would assume responsibility for Asian security. \nKey Questions to be addressed in this session are:- \n\nWhat are the major Indian strategic approaches to Asian regional order?\n\nDoes India have the ambition and/or capacity to shape Asian regional order?\n\nWhat role has India played in building norms that could mitigate some of the security challenges that Asia faces?\n\n\nSession II: India and Strategic Partnerships: Impact on Asian Security\nOne of the major foreign policy mechanisms that India has adopted over the years is to cement strategic partnerships with major countries to work towards international security. Countries with whom India has strategic partnerships include US\, China\, Russia\, Indonesia\, Japan\, Australia\, Vietnam\, South Korea\, Iran\, Afghanistan\, ASEAN\, to name but a few. According to a report by the Foundation for National Security Research\, New Delhi\, India has a priority listing in strategic partnerships\, scored in 90 points\, with Russia coming on top\, followed by US\, France\, UK\, Germany and Japan.1 The key questions that these strategic partnerships raise are the following:- \n\nHow does India define strategic partnerships?\n\nWhat are the key issues that India’s strategic partnerships deal with?\n\nIs there a priority listing with regard to countries and issues that informs India’s strategic partnerships?\n\nWhat impact do India’s strategic partnerships have on Asian security?\n\n\nSession III: Asian Economies and Resource Competition\nAsia has emerged as one of the most economically vibrant regions on the global economic stage. The economic rise of China\, Japan\, India\, ASEAN\, etc\, is driving global economic growth. China\, India and Japan are the world’s second\, third and fourth largest economies predicted to grow further by 2050. The G-20 has emerged as one of the largest economic blocs with a capacity to fund economic development across the world. With the economic rise of Asian countries\, there are simultaneous challenges. The momentum for Asian economic integration is rather slow with challenges remaining for the emergence of common visa regime\, currency and trade policies. Security challenges like transnational crime (drugs and small arms)\, terrorism\, resource competition\, tensions in the high seas and territorial disputes could dampen robust economic cooperation. The key questions that emerge for India in this context are the following:- \n\nWhat role can Indian play to strengthen Asian economic integration?\n\nWhat are the key security challenges faced by India in its rise to economic prosperity?\n\nAre Asian economic institutions robust enough to sustain the momentum for Asian economic integration?\n\n\nSession IV: The Rise of China\nThe rise of China has changed the geopolitics of Asia. It has created both opportunities and challenges. China’s economic growth is driving economic and infrastructural developments in Asia. Simultaneously\, its military modernization\, growing assertiveness over disputed territories\, competition over resources\, etc\, is posing a security challenge to countries in Asia. On the one hand\, India aspires to deeper engagement with China\, both politically and economically. On the other hand\, China’s assertiveness over its border dispute with India and territorial claim on one of the Indian states in the Northeast is posing a major security challenge. This session will deliberate on these issues and aim to find answers to the following key questions. \n\nWhat are the major priorities in the China-India strategic partnership?\n\nCan China and India establish a cooperative security mechanism in Asia?\n\nHow is China’s assertiveness over its territorial disputes impacting not only China-India relationship but the growing security dilemma in Asia?\n\n\nSession V: Maritime Security in Asia\nWhen one talks about maritime security in Asia\, the Indian Ocean comes to the fore given the rise of the Asian economies\, their demand for raw imports\, and the export of the finished products. Moreover\, given the American military engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq\, the Indian Ocean has taken centre stage for Western military supplies. Increasing importance of choke points such as the Straits of Hormuz\, the Malacca Straits\, the Bab-el-Mandep in the Persian Gulf\, etc.\, calls for a larger Indian role as a regional security provider. Maritime security in this regard would mean ensuring freedom of the SLOCs: a global public good\, managing naval competition\, and fighting piracy near the coast of Somalia. \nThe key questions that this session will deal with are:- \n\nWhat are the key parameters of the Indian maritime doctrine vis-à-vis Asian security?\n\nDoes India possess the maritime capability to deal with security challenges in the Indian Ocean in order to function as a regional security provider?\n\nAre the oceans and seas of Asia compounded by strategic naval competition between China\, India and the US?\n\nIs there a regional architecture in place to deal with naval competition?\n\n\nSession VI: Nuclear\, Biological\, Chemical\, Cyber and Space Security in Asia\nOne of the foremost quests by Asian powers is to establish and strengthen Asian security mechanisms in order to deal with nuclear\, cyber and space issues. The perils of nuclear terrorism\, safety of nuclear weapon sites\, cyber-terrorism and cyber-hacking and a militarized space have grave implications for Asia with five nuclear weapons states (China\, India\, Russia\, Pakistan\, North Korea) and two with overt/covert nuclear weapons capability (Iran and Israel). This posits the nuclear security threshold and the much repeated stability/instability paradox. China\, Japan\, Russia and India are key actors in space. Space is and will emerge as one the most vital global commons. With cyber emerging as the critical means of communication\, thereby compressing space and time\, and with it\, creating security challenges like cyber terrorism and hacking\, Asia is vulnerable as one of the biggest users of cyber space. \nThe key questions that this session will deal with are:- \n\nWhat is the emerging nuclear environment in Asia? Is the Asian nuclear order changing?\n\nWhat effective role has India played in the nuclear non-proliferation regime?\n\nDoes India have a concrete well-crafted cyber policy with regard to Asian security?\n\nWhat are the points of convergence/divergence in India’s space policy with other Asian countries? Is there a common Asian space code?\n\n\nSession VII: Major Strategic Regions of Asia\nGeo-politics\, as ever before\, has proved hard to be precisely defined. Yet\, as the term has been revisited and refined over the years\, geo-politics has much to do with the relation of politics (power) to geography. Geo-politics assumes the primacy of states\, existing military-economic competition\, and ways to cement interest based cooperation. To operationalize this\, strategy is the key factor\, thereby bringing in the element of ‘geo-strategy’ implying the strategic significance of a particular region to a state’s strategic interests. Moreover\, it is pertinent to underlie the tendencies of cooperation/competition that reverberate between China and India in the various Asian strategic regions. \nIn light of this\, this session will deal with the following critical questions:- \n\nWhat are the critical components of India’s geo-strategic approach to the major strategic regions of Asia?\n\nIs there a priority of strategic regions in India’s conceptualization of geo-strategy?\n\nWhat are the components and challenges of the Indian approach to major strategic regions of Asia? How can India refine its strategy towards Asian geopolitics?\n\n\nSession VIII: Future trends and Scenarios emerging from the 17th Asian Security Conference\nBased on the papers presented in the 17th ASC\, as well as the main speeches\, the last session will identify the key trends from each session\, and then focus on three or four main drivers that could impact Asian security and India’s approach in the next few years (2015-2030). It will creatively formulate three or four plausible scenarios and present the findings in this last session. \nValedictory Session\n\n1. Satish Kumar\, et. al.\, “India’s Strategic Partners: A Comparative Assessment”\, Foundation for National Security Research\, New Delhi\, November 2011 at http://fnsr.org/files/Indias_Strategic.pdf(Accessed on June 16\, 2014). \n2. Department of Defense\, “Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense”\, January 2012 at http://www.defense.gov/news/defense_strategic_guidance.pdf (Accessed on June 20\, 2014). \n\n\n\n\nProgramme Schedule\n\n\nProgramme\n\n\n\n\nDay One: (February 11\, 2015)\n\n\n\n \n \n\n\n0930h-1000h\nRegistration & Tea\n\n\n \n \n\n\n1000-1045h\nInaugural Session\n\n\n \nWelcome Remarks: Deputy Director General\, Brig Rumel Dahiya (Retd)\, IDSA\n\n\n \nInaugural Address: Chief of Naval Staff\, Admiral R K Dhowan\, PVSM\, AVSM\, YSM\n\n\n \nVote of Thanks: Deputy Director General\, Brig Rumel Dahiya (Retd)\, IDSA\n\n\n \n \n\n\n1045h-1115h\nTea\n\n\n \n \n\n\n1115h-1315h\nSession I: Asian Regional Order\n\n\n \nChair: Nalin Surie \n\nNamrata Goswami: India’s Strategic Approach to Asia: The Key Questions for the Conference Discourse\nArndt Michael: Panchsheel-Multilateralism and Competing Regionalism – The Indian Approach towards Regional Cooperation and Regional Order in South Asia\, the Indian Ocean\, the Bay of Bengal\, and the Mekong-Ganga\nSantishree Pandit: India as the norm-builder and norm contributor of Asia and the World\nS D Muni: How India is viewed as a regional actor in Asia\n\n\n\n\n \n \n\n\n1315h-1400h\nLunch\n\n\n \n \n\n\n1400h-1600h\nSession II: India and Strategic Partnerships: Impact on Asian Security\n\n\n \nChair: Kanwal Sibal \n\nPhunchok Stobdan: Geopolitics and India-Russia Strategic Partnership\nHolli Semetko: Framing U.S.-India Relations\nVo Xuan Vinh: India’s Strategic Partnership with Vietnam A Perspective from Vietnam\nSatoru Nagao: The Japan-India Strategic Partnership will be New Hope for Asia\n\n\n\n\n \n \n\n\n1600h-1615h\nTea\n\n\n \n \n\n\n1615h-1800h\nSession III: Asian Economies and Resource Competition\n\n\n \nChair: Charan Wadhva \n\nRajat M. Nag: Development through Connectivity\nSinderpal Singh: Debating Physical Connectivity between India and ASEAN: Economics vs Security\nPrem Mahadevan: The Impact of Terrorism and Organized Crime on Asian Economies: Implications for India\nBrahma Chellany: Sharpening Competition over Natural Resources in Asia\n\n\n\n\n \n \n\n\n\nDay Two: (February 12\, 2015)\n\n\n\n \n \n\n\n \n \n\n\n0930h-1030h\nSpecial Address\n\n\n \nBarry Gordon Buzan – Rising Powers in the Emerging World Order: An Overview\, with a Reflection on the Consequences for India \n Chair: Amitabh Mattoo\n\n\n \n \n\n\n1030h-1045h\nTea\n\n\n \n \n\n\n1045h-1300h\nSession IV: The Rise of China\n\n\n \nChair: Chandrasekhar Dasgupta \n\nMadhu Bhalla: India-China relations: the return of the sub-region\nPang Zhongying: China-India relations: Objectives and Future Priorities\nGordon Chang: China’s Military Modernization and Impact on India\nD S Rajan:China and its Territorial Disputes: Increasing the Security Dilemma.\n\n\n\n\n \n \n\n\n1300h-1400h\nLunch\n\n\n \n \n\n\n1400h-1600h\nSession V: Maritime Security in Asia\n\n\n \nChair: Anup Singh \n\nGurpreet Khurana: Indian Maritime Doctrine and Asian Security: Intentions and Challenges\nDavid Brewster: The Bay of Bengal: the Indo-Pacific’s New Zone of Strategic Competition\nAbhijit Singh: India’s Security Role in Maritime-Asia\nFrancis Kornegay:  Deciphering Oriental Mysteries of Silk\, Pearls & Diamonds: Maritime Dimensions of India’s Strategic Dilemmas in the Changing Asian Power Balance\n\n\n\n\n \n \n\n\n1600h-1615h\nTea\n\n\n \n \n\n\n1615h-1815h\nSession VI: Space\, Cyber\, Biological\, Chemical\, and Nuclear Security in Asia\n\n\n \nChair: V. Siddhartha \n\nSean Costigan: Emerging Risks in Cybersecurity: Anticipating Change and Building Resilience\nRanjana Kaul: India’s Approach to Space Security\nAnimesh Roul: Chemical and Biological Dimension of Jihadi Terrorism\nRajiv Nayan: The Emerging Asian Nuclear Order\n\n\n\n\n \n \n\n\n\nDay Three: (February 13\, 2015)\n\n\n\n \n \n\n\n0930-0945h\nTea\n\n\n \n \n\n\n0945-1300h\nSession VII: Major Strategic Regions of Asia\n\n\n \nChair: C. Uday Bhaskar \n\nAshok Behuria and Smruti Pattanaik: India’s Regional Strategy: Balancing Geopolitics with Geoeconomics in South Asia\nMicha’el Tanchum: India in the new Central Asian Strategic Landscape: Opportunities for Deeper Partnerships and New Alliance Formations\nSimon Xu Hui Shen: East Asian Scenarios\nShankari Sundararaman: Dynamics of Change in India- Southeast Relations: Beyond Economics to Strategic Partnership\n\n\n\n\n \n \n\n\n1300h-1400h\nLunch\n\n\n \n \n\n\n1400h-1545h\nSession VIII: Future trends and Scenarios\n\n\n \nChair: B K Sharma \n\nBoris Volkhonsky: Strategic Trends in Asia: Future Directions\nSamuel Rajiv: Strategic Trends and Scenarios 2025: Policy Options for India\nShruti Pandalai: Decoding India’s Agenda: New Ideas and Emerging Trends in Asian Security\n\n\n\n\n \n \n\n\n1545-1600h\nTea\n\n\n \n \n\n\n1600h-1645h\nValedictory Session\n\n\n \nValedictory Address by Deputy National Security Advisor India\, Dr. Arvind Gupta\n\n\n \nVote of thanks by Conference Coordinator\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nConference Booklet\nRapporteurs Report URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/17th-asian-security-conference-asian-security-comprehending-the-indian-approach CATEGORIES:Asian Security Conference,Previous ASC,CONFERENCES ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20150211T053000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20150211T053000 DTSTAMP:20261108T003243 CREATED:20231223T124148Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240229T000444Z UID:62632-1423632600-1423632600@idsa.in SUMMARY:Inaugural Address at the 17th Asian Security Conference on “Asian Security: Comprehending the Indian Approach” DESCRIPTION: URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/inaugural-address-at-the-17th-asian-security-conference-on-asian-security-comprehending-the-indian-approach CATEGORIES:KEY SPEECHES,Asian Security Conference,ASC Key Speeches ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20140221T053000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20140221T053000 DTSTAMP:20261108T003243 CREATED:20231223T124305Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250311T075527Z UID:62642-1392960600-1392960600@idsa.in SUMMARY:Speaking Notes at the 16th Asian Security Conference on "Emerging Strategic Trends in Asia and India’s Response" DESCRIPTION:Watch Video\nDr. Arvind Gupta\, Director\, IDSA\,\nLadies and Gentlemen. \nThank you for asking me to speak to your conference. The IDSA Asian Security Con-ference has become an annual event that we look forward to as an occasion to review Asian issues and to learn from each other. As usual you have an impressive list of participants and a full and topical agenda. \nI thought I would briefly describe a few salient aspects of the present situation in the Asia-Pacific and what we might do about it. \nThe Present Situation in the Asia-Pacific\nFrom an Indian point of view\, located as we are at the intersection of West Asia and what is now called the Asia-Pacific\, until recently Asia appeared to be heading in dif-ferent directions\, depending on whether one looked East or West. But today\, in 2014\, whichever way one looks\, the factors of uncertainty have increased manifold\, as has a sense of insecurity. \nThe reasons why this is so to our west are well known. The turmoil in West Asia has been well analysed\, perhaps over-analysed; we know of the multiple transitions in Af-ghanistan this year\, of the situation in Syria\, Iraq\, Libya\, and so on and so forth. \nBut it is less obvious why there should be increased instability to our east in the Asia-Pacific\, why East Asia is much less harmonious than it was until a few years ago. \nOne reason could be that the Asia-Pacific is a crowded geopolitical space\, with the active involvement in its affairs of several established and of rising or re-emerging powers\, some external and some intrinsic to the region. But it has been so since the beginning of the nineteenth century. So what has changed to increase insecurity and uncertainty? I can think of four immediate reasons: \n\nFor one\, it is not just that the Asia-Pacific is getting even more crowded as China and several other powers re-emerge on the geopolitical stage. It is the simultane-ous emergence of several powers that has built pressure for a new equilibrium and balance. That new equilibrium has not emerged because the pace of change in the balance of power is so rapid.\nSecondly\, rapid economic growth in the last few decades has given several states in the region the means to militarily strengthen themselves. East Asia has seen the most rapid accumulation of economic power in world history. It is now seeing the same in terms of military power. The Asia-Pacific as a whole is witnessing the greatest peacetime arms buildup in its history\, possibly in world history.\nTechnology and politics have eliminated distance and separation between powers. We now speak of the Asia-Pacific as a geopolitical unit\, and not of East Asia\, South East Asia and South Asia separately. What happens in the South China Sea or the East China Sea concerns and affects the entire region\, if not the world. ICT and weapons technologies have eliminated the separations that existed between powers in the region.\nWe take for granted the removal of ideological restraints on the use of force or the threat of its use\, even though it is a recent phenomenon. The absence of ideology has resulted in renewed internal debates and political arguments in several major Asia-Pacific countries. (You see this in China and Japan. India is no exception.) At the risk of oversimplifying\, the debate is between liberal internationalists/reformers on the one hand\, and ultra-nationalists/conservatives on the other. The reformers seek more international cooperation and are committed to international values and solutions. The conservatives seek to recover lost territory and status\, (imagined or real)\, and seek a position of regional dominance\, or hegemony\, or in some cases as a superpower. The ultra-nationalists use a narrative of humiliation\, pride\, and re-sentment against limitations of capacity and reality to achieve their purposes. An essential part of this narrative is a threat inflation industry. And in many countries it is the conservatives with their emotional appeal who are the loudest in public dis-course\, not the cool reason and compromise of the reformers.\n\nEach of these phenomena individually might not have been a cause for worry. Even taken together they could have been manageable. But they come at a time of doubt about the security architecture in the Asia-Pacific and just when a new balance of power is emerging. For forty years\, since the US opening to China and the Vietnam War\, the Asia-Pacific has known relative stability under a security order in which the US provided security guarantees for the status quo. Today the US itself is rebalanc-ing back to the region and there is heightened uncertainty in the region. \nWhat should we do?\nContinued uncertainty or confrontation in the Asia-Pacific is clearly in no one’s inter-est as it will affect major powers’ attempts to restructure their economies and revive growth. Conflict would roll back the gains to each of our countries of forty years of stability and peace. \nWhat is the answer?\nClearly we need to act upon repeated statements by all the countries in the region and build an open\, inclusive security architecture in the region\, adding content to the concept and implementing it as soon as possible. We are only at the inception of this process with the ARF\, the ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Plus dialogue\, and the East Asia Summit. \nIt will\, of course\, be a security architecture with Asian characteristics\, the political-military equivalent of the open interlinked economic order that has so benefitted the region\, taking into account the primarily maritime nature of many regional security issues and disputes amenable to collective solutions. \nIn building the order we should concentrate on the security essentials that made the region’s phenomenal economic growth possible. The commons\, on the high seas\, in air space\, and in cyber space should be safe and open to all lawful civilian users. That is why maritime security and freedom of navigation is so important and should be one of the first orders of business. \nOpenness about doctrines and defence\, and increased military contacts\, would also take some of the edge off uncertainty although confidence building can only hold the ring until the hard work of solving disputes and agreeing a rule based legal order is done. \nThank you for the patient hearing. I do hope that your deliberations will result in more clarity on strategic trends in Asia and on the security architecture and topics that we should work on to ensure the peace and security that is so essential to Asia’s com-mon future. \nWatch Video URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/speaking-notes-at-the-16th-asian-security-conference-on-emerging-strategic-trends-in-asia-and-indias-response CATEGORIES:KEY SPEECHES,Asian Security Conference,ASC Key Speeches ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20140220T053000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20140220T053000 DTSTAMP:20261108T003243 CREATED:20231223T124309Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240229T000612Z UID:62643-1392874200-1392874200@idsa.in SUMMARY:Keynote Address at the 16th Asian Security Conference on "Emerging Strategic Trends in Asia and India’s Response" DESCRIPTION:Watch Video\nI am grateful for the privilege afforded\, to deliver the Keynote Address at the 16th Asian Security Conference on Emerging Strategic Trends in Asia – India’s Response\, which is being organized by the Institute of Defence Studies and Analysis. The IDSA is one of India’s leading think tanks\, and its Conferences attract many eminent experts and scholars. The opinions expressed\, and the outcomes\, have proved useful in shaping India’s policies in many areas. \nI. Introduction\n Today’s topic is of contemporary relevance given the fast changing developments taking place across Asia. There exist two Asias today – both competing for space and attention. Economically we have a dynamic\, and to an extent integrated Asia. The Asian Development Bank anticipates that by 2050 or even earlier\, Asia will nearly double its share of global GDP to 52%. 53% of Asia’s trade is now conducted within the region itself. The over USD 19 Trillion economy has today become an engine of global growth. While Asian economies are vital for each other\, economic ties with Asia have become critically important for the West following the global economic meltdown. \n There is\, however\, another Asia\, which in security terms appears dysfunctional\, buffeted by powerful nationalisms\, and prone to irredentism. This is an Asia where multiple strands of thought\, multiple perspectives\, and multiple courses of action\, intersect with fragile states already wracked by grave internal conflicts. Asia-Security\, thus\, appears anachronistic compared to Asia-Economic. Even regions that share commonalities of history\, geographies and cultures\, are often seen to be in conflict. \nII. Asian security dynamics: \nAsian security dynamics are an amalgam of issues such as: \n\noutstanding territorial disputes on land – the border dispute between India and China is perhaps the most longstanding\, but there are others which expose the fault lines in Asia\, and are potential flash points; \nmounting territorial tensions among India’s East Asian neighbours – which largely centre round contested claims regarding the sea\, spurred in part by China’s ever widening maritime claims in the South China and East China seas\, for which there are multiple claimants; \ntensions between China on the one hand\, and Vietnam\, the Philippines\, South Korea and Japan on the other;\nthe intense India-Pakistan rivalry\, that stems only in part from the unresolved issue of Jammu and Kashmir;\n\nNot to be ignored also\, are the differing perceptions among countries in the region of many of their neighbours\, and specially of the two largest countries of Asia\, all of which have tended to aggravate the divide across the continent. \nIII. Regional Stability Issues\nFor long\, South Asia had the unenviable reputation of being one of the most volatile regions in the world. Even today\, the situation in South Asia remains highly problematical\, but prevailing conditions in regions such as West\, South East and East Asia bring them also into similar reckoning. \nIn particular\, it needs to be recognized that fundamentalist\, extremist and radical ideas and beliefs\, are gaining ground faster in Asia than anywhere else; also that there is a resurgence of new radical outfits; and\, in turn\, religious extremism is aggravating existing turmoils. \nIn West Asia this is leading to an intensification of sectarian conflicts among disparate Islamist forces. Several West Asian nations like Egypt\, Syria\, Tunisia and the Gulf kingdoms\, are all wrestling with the problem of containing hard line Islamist groups. Opposing forces in the region are seeking asymmetrical support from the Hizbullah or Al-Quaeda\, depending on their predilections. Even Saudi Arabia feels highly vulnerable following the latest turn of events in Egypt\, Syria\, Iran and Iraq. \nSyria perhaps is an extreme case. An ‘alphabetic soup’ of elements – from the crumbling Free Syrian Army to the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Shams (ISIS) to Jabhat-Al-Musra and Ahrar-al-Sham to Zehran Allosush’s Army of Islam – are all battling for control. The spectre of Iran\, the rise of pro-Al Quaeda elements and the ‘terrorist narrative’\, as also the possibility of an enlarged Sunni-Shia conflict also hovers in the background. \nSouth Asia is not insulated from these winds sweeping across much of West Asia. Afghanistan\, Pakistan and Bangladesh\, for instance\, are facing intense pressure from radicals in their midst. The situation in both Afghanistan and Pakistan\, is additionally complicated by a combination of perceived State weakness and the presence of myriad terrorist groups\, which pose a threat of asymmetric warfare and terrorism to the countries themselves\, and to the region and beyond. \nMeantime\, extremist forces like the Taliban are gaining ground in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. In Afghanistan\, the possibility of the Taliban gaining ascendancy seems very real. In Pakistan\, the willingness of the present regime to hold talks with the Tehreek-e-Taliban posits a grave threat to neighbouring countries like India. Not to be ignored is Pakistan’s policy of continuing support to terrorist groups like the LeT\, and employ them as strategic instrumentalities against India. \nUnsettled conditions\, and a new cycle of conflict affect Myanmar\, Indonesia and Sri Lanka today. These involve religion\, ethnicity and politics; a special feature being the growing conflict between Buddhism and Islam. Thailand is embroiled in a fresh round of agitations\, though the colour of the present conflict is\, as yet\, unclear. The outlook in both Maldives and Nepal\, where Democratic governments have established a tenuous toehold for the present is uncertain. Sri Lanka confronts both a political as well as an ethnic crisis. \nChina-Japan differences are meantime getting further exacerbated. A more determined Japan under PM Shinzo Abe is unlikely\, and unwilling\, to accede or cede ground\, to China’s demands. China’s relations with Vietnam and some of the other ASEAN nations also lack warmth. Issues relating to North Korea and Taiwan add to existing complications. \nIV. Emerging Strategic Trends\nFrom the perspective of a Conference of this kind\, strategic experts would\, no doubt\, have us believe that it is the outcome of the two long standing conflicts in Asia viz.\, that of India and China\, and India and Pakistan\, and additionally China’s ‘rise’\, that will determine the end-situation in Asia. \nTalk of Indo-China rivalry in geopolitical and strategic matters is not new (though both countries discount such rivalry.) China and India clearly have different approaches to Asian security and regional stability and the situation calls for deft management having regard to the consequences. It does have the potential to test the established order in Asia and\, hence\, merits careful delineation. \nFor example\, China is accepted as a power economically\, but one which is also perceived by many Asian nations today as seeking to establish its strategic hegemony over the entire region and specially in its periphery. The assertion of China’s right to its ‘historic waters’ (confined within the nine dash lines of the Chinese claim line) and its announcement of an Air Identification Zone in the East China Sea\, are viewed as indices of its desire to achieve preeminence in the region. This is further buttressed by China’s growing interest in areas to its South\, and with which it shares a common border. China’s refrain of ‘continued competition’ in the military domain has only added to such concerns about China’s true intentions. \nIn comparison\, India’s priorities appear more limited\, largely restricted to maintaining its strategic autonomy even while trying to sustain higher economic growth. Its preference is for multilateral pluralist groupings and economic cooperation\, rather than for a policy based on power relations. This should be evident from its dealings with the Sunni-Arab world and Shia Iran\, as also Central Asian countries and Afghanistan. With countries of South East Asia\, India’s efforts have been mainly directed towards contributing to the creation of a mutually acceptable economic architecture. \nIn the case of the other longstanding conflict between India and Pakistan\, it must be acknowledged that it shows few signs of abating. In dealing with Pakistan\, however\, the challenge India faces is different from the one it faces in dealing with China. Part of the problem is Pakistan’s ‘propensity for perilous risk taking and a penchant for sub-state violence’ as a Western analyst puts it. \nThe growing influence and role of organizations like the Tehreek-e-Taliban\, Pakistan\, in determining key strategic decisions\, vis-à-vis India is exacerbating the problem. The Pakistan-Taliban is no longer confined to tribal areas straddling the Pak-Afghan border\, its influence is sizeable even in a city like Karachi. Its viewpoint\, at least as far as India is concerned\, could shape Pakistan’s policy in the coming period\, since there are influential elements today within the Pakistani Government who are anxious to co-opt\, rather than confront\, the Taliban. Consequently\, not every conciliatory gambit on India’s part is likely to produce a countervailing response. \nPakistan also possesses of one of the world’s biggest Armies – one that is equipped with a rapidly growing nuclear arsenal. The close support afforded by China to Pakistan in strategic matters – including that of assistance in nuclear matters – are all aspects that cannot be ignored. \nChina’s rise – peaceful or otherwise – is equally a vital factor in assessing emerging strategic trends in the region. Chinese nationalism is widely seen today as the main driver of China’s foreign and defence policies. Many strategic analysts believe that this is also one of those periods in Chinese history in which both Chinese nationalism and Chinese exceptionalism are on the ascendant. This will\, in turn\, have a direct impact on its external policies. The geo-political and geo-strategic fallout of this will require to be carefully considered. \nV. Strategic Threats\nThere are certain other aspects that will need to be taken into account. First and foremost\, is the expanding Terrorist dynamic in the Asian region. The reality is that global terrorism is expanding rapidly\, specially in Asia. The Syrian imbroglio is the most recent example. \nThe rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan-Pakistan\, and the situation in Syria and West Asia\, for instance\, are likely to exacerbate the tendency to pursue ‘high risk strategies.’ Viewed against the reality that terrorism has mutated into global franchise\, as also the existence of close coordination in operational matters among terrorist outfits such as the Al Quaeda in the Arabian Peninsula\, the Al Shabab\, the ISIS\, the LeT and the HuJI\, the terrorist threat has become very real. The advent of ‘leaderless jihad’ of the Abu Musab-al-Suri variety will aggravate an already difficult situation. Beset with other internal problems\, Asian nations would find themselves greatly stretched in dealing with such situations. \nNext\, is the Maritime Dimension. Sea lanes of communication have become critically important for Asian nations as the region contains several of the world’s most important choke points for global commerce. Many inter-state disputes are currently maritime in nature – including of late over Deep Seabed mining. Unsettled maritime boundaries and the tendency towards unrestricted exploitation of maritime resources with little regard for territorial jurisdiction – in the absence of a legal framework and multilateral agreements could become a flashpoint for conflict. \nAs Asian nations become conscious of the strategic potential of the Oceans many\, if not all\, of them are suitably positioning themselves by building their Blue Water capabilities. India and China – the two largest nations – are intent on expanding their Navies\, and both are in a race to enlarge the size of their surface and submarine fleets. The risk of unintended consequences has hence become considerable. \nA Third aspect is the Cyber Threat\, with strategic experts envisaging cyber space as the 21st Century battlefield\, and the Fifth Domain of Warfare. The cyber threat being intangible in nature\, with no borders\, and involving unseen armies targeting symbols of national security and data/information of security value\, poses a graver danger than many existing strategic threats. \nAmong the more vulnerable targets of cyber attacks\, are the military – including the nuclear and missile components – apart from national security targets and intelligence agencies. Across the world and not only in Asia\, attacks on military\, nuclear and financial systems have gone up almost two thousand percent over the past decade. Protecting a country’s critical infrastructure from crippling cyber attacks will\, hence\, prove increasingly difficult. As it is\, penetration modules like the STUXNET Worm (employed to attack closed systems such as Iran’s nuclear facility) are already passé. Highly sophisticated malicious malware to steal sensitive data are being evolved almost on a daily basis; even the Malware FLAME which only a few months ago was seen as the most sophisticated ever\, has been overtaken by later ones. \nThe grave nature of the cyber threat strengthens the case for erecting better firewalls and hardening of systems to withstand attacks. Advances in science are now being sought in this context\, and hopes have been raised that quantum mechanics could be the answer in the future. Meanwhile\, countries including India\, have\, of necessity\, be putting emphasis on evolving coordinated defence systems against cyber attacks – the National Critical Information Infrastructure Protection Centre is India’s new hope in this respect. \nNuclear Asia represents yet another dimension of the strategic threat. In the contested geopolitics of Asia\, marked by enduring rivalries\, politically unstable regimes\, and concerns about conventional military inferiority\, the presence of many Nuclear States adds to prevailing security concerns. Some States do not have a well-defined nuclear doctrine or effective safety procedures; some like Pakistan are enlarging the scope of their nuclear weapons and experimenting with tactical nuclear missiles – Pakistan’s revelations of the existence of its Hatf-9 Nasr\, short range surface to surface missile with an operational range of 60 kms capable of carrying a nuclear warhead\, has raised the possibility of predelegation of nuclear weapons to battlefield commanders in case of a conflict. \nThe likelihood of Saudi Arabia intensifying its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons in response to a possible Iran-West deal on Nuclear Weapons is also real. It will further reinforce belief in nuclear superiority as a key determinant in resolving crises between nations that are otherwise perceived as unequal – militarily and economically. \nVI. India’s Response\nIndia’s response will be dictated by the perception of India – primarily in its immediate neighbourhood\, and to an extent in its extended neighbourhood and beyond. This perception would also be dependent on how China defines its national interests in the coming years. Will China opt for an aggressive or assertive policy in Asia? Or would it opt for a more cooperative and collaborative stance? As of now\, the former seems more likely. \nThe actions of the US in Asia – its withdrawal from Afghanistan; the blurring of lines (despite its rhetoric) as far as West Asia is concerned\, notably in the context of Syria and Iran; the policy shift from that of a pivot in Asia to ‘rebalancing of forces’ in the Indo-Pacific\, has greatly diminished its image. Most Asian nations will find US assurances as less than reliable\, and may be compelled to make other choices. Strategic thinkers in the West will\, as a result\, have to seriously rework and rethink their ideas on how to increase their geopolitical maneuverability in the Indo-Pacific; strengthening the natural capabilities of Beijing’s Asian neighbours and siding with them so as to balance China\, may no longer be a reliable option. \nHow nations would realign themselves would depend on whether they see the US as a recessed or receding major power\, China an aggressive one\, and India as a reluctant power. It is not without significance that Liu Yazhou\, Political Commissar at PLA’s National Defence University\, recently talked of the strategic opportunity that the PLA had to boost its military capability to defend China’s sovereignty where China is involved in territorial disputes (he had in mind the territorial disputes in the East and South China Seas\, but it could extend to other frontiers as well.) One must not also ignore the fact that aggressive nationalism often tends to spur a hawkish military. \nThe situation in Asia is such that it does open up opportunities as far as India is concerned. Equally\, if not more so\, it provides China with a strategic opening. Many Asian strategic analysts recommend that India should resist the temptation to be a part of US-led efforts to contain China; instead it should forge closer ties with Beijing and ensure proper management of its border tensions. This is also implicit in the advice proferred recently by State Counsellor PRC\, Yang Jiechi\, (while in India) when he observed that the growth of the China-India strategic and cooperative partnership serves the fundamental interests of the two countries…and the two countries must work to increase strategic mutual trust. \nAsia’s geopolitical future\, hence\, hangs in the balance. China’s real strength lies in its sustained economic growth. An issue that many Asian nations may\, hence\, have to ponder over in the near future is whether they should remain content being part of an economic partnership dominated by China in Asia\, or whether they should try and set up new fora where China’s economic dominance is less obvious. \nAgain\, military trends in Asia seem heavily slanted in China’s favour. Apart from India\, there is no country in Asia which can hope to match China’s military strength. While countries like Japan appear to be moving towards stronger defence mechanisms and forces\, there is little possibility that any of them could become a counterweight to China. Japan’s PM Shinjo Abe’s ‘democratic security diamond’ – a coalition among Japan\, India\, US and Australia – is a remake of the old Quadrilateral\, but dependence on the US tends to be highly problematic\, as allies such as Saudi Arabia are learning to their cost. \nThe two largest nations in Asia – China and India – also have their own Achilles Heel\, viz.\, the resource crunch they face. China has a clear headstart over India in tying up scarce resources with countries across the globe\, but the availability of resources is nevertheless a problem for both. The importance of ensuring that the Indo-Pacific remains peaceful cannot\, hence\, be denied. \nChina’s answer has been to draw up a viable Ocean strategy in its own image. At its 18th Party Congress\, China proclaimed the need to protect its overseas interests\, and underscored the centrality of maritime security in ensuring China’s economic progress and national well being. It also mentioned the need to set up ‘expeditionary forces’ to conduct military operations in distant lands and seas. This must serve as a wakeup call for China’s Asian neighbours – India in particular. \nVII. Conclusion\nRegional trajectories over the next 10 years are possibly not too difficult to predict. The outcome is\, however\, uncertain. China will almost certainly continue to make every effort to enlarge its influence across Asia\, and dominate its periphery. The absence of a Concert of Asia\, on the lines of the Concert of Europe of the 19th Century\, will\, hence\, have adverse consequences for many nations in Asia. Yet\, there does not appear to be any possibility of this happening\, in the absence of an Asian Metternich or a Bismarck. \nWatch Video URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/keynote-address-at-the-16th-asian-security-conference-on-emerging-strategic-trends-in-asia-and-indias-response CATEGORIES:KEY SPEECHES,Asian Security Conference,ASC Key Speeches ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20140219T053000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20140221T053000 DTSTAMP:20261108T003243 CREATED:20231223T125534Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250309T041528Z UID:62776-1392787800-1392960600@idsa.in SUMMARY:16th Asian Security Conference: Emerging Strategic Trends in Asia and India’s Response DESCRIPTION:Concept Note\n\n\nThere is little doubt that Asia – stretching from the Eurasian landmass to the maritime reaches of Australia and the South Pacific – is experiencing a major shift in the global balance of power. Expressions like the ‘Indo-Pacific’ and ‘Asia-Pacific’\, contested they maybe\, capture Asia’s expanse and dynamism. But for one brief and dramatic financial crisis in 1997\, growth rates in Asia have been averaging well above the rest of the world. The rise of China along with the increasing global footprint of Russia and India in G20 and the ASEAN states soaring economies have made Asia the powerhouse and centre of gravity. Yet\, Asia struggles with numerous conflicts in spite of its ‘alphabet soup’ of regional organisations and security structures. \n Changes are happening fast in Asia and changing not only the geo-political landscape but also the mindset of the people who are pushing for political reforms and accountability. The global power shifts being witnessed is also potentially prising up Asia to confrontation as well as convergence as states compete. China is an important piece of the puzzle and its rise is a defining line of the changing landscape. How will China define its national interest in the future? Will it pursue an assertive\, even aggressive policy in Asia to back up its territorial claims? Or will China\, assured of its great power status practice moderation and restraint? Importantly\, how should India and other key states in Asia respond to China’s continuous rise and influence – should the response be as a strategic competitor with a policy of confrontation or a containment approach through active cooperation? \n From a strategic grand view\, the balance of power is uncertain in Asia. A sizeable US military presence continues and the Obama administration´s policy involves strengthening US military alliance and strategic partnerships and simultaneously repositioning forces. China would be far from assured that the ‘rebalancing’ is not directed towards it thus opening up the region to power play and rivalry in the East China Sea and South China Sea. A resultant increase in military expenditure and modernisation and a thrust towards new technologies will spur many countries. \n The numerous stress-lines and fault-lines expose Asia to many potential flash-points. Unresolved territorial issues stand between India and China\, Vietnam and China\, China and Russia\, Russia and Japan. North Korea and Taiwan may trigger-off unmanageable crises. West Asia continues to be restive threatening to tear apart the socio-political fabric. Of the four Asian nuclear powers\, North Korea and Pakistan are highly suspect nuclear proliferators involved in covert supply of missile technology. The China-Japan rivalry reveals dangerous chauvinism. At the same time\, the two largest populated countries – China and India – referred to as ‘planetary powers’ surging need for energy and raw materials for its 2.5 billion people creates new areas of resource friction. Resource scarcity will not only be related to physical shortage but more possibly from failure of governance. \n Asia’s economies are increasingly vital to each other and to the world with both the US and Europe continuing to post low GDP growth. The economic shift is shaping two different approaches to trade liberalization in Asia. One paved by the ASEAN-led Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and the other by the US-led Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and it has to be seen how these approaches will determine the economic choices in the coming years. While\, at one level\, certain investment and trade barriers will continue to hinder business in Asia\, at another\, poverty eradication will have to remain an essence of economic growth for Asian countries. The economies in Asia have to continuously grow fast along with being sustainable and inclusive. Other challenges that equally impact the economy are an increased number of natural disasters that interrupt the supply chain\, security concerns emanating from terrorism and cyber security\, where hacking\, espionage and lack of privacy fuel concerns for companies as well as politicians and governments. \n For India\, the emerging geopolitical and geo-economic trends raise questions as to how it will lock into the new continental power matrix and how it will respond and reappraise to the changes. \n Asia is on the threshold of change — the known and unknown; opportunities and uncertainties abound. Such times also offer an excellent chance to concentrate on the dynamics of change\, to search for new ways of understanding\, and to prepare for a future that is certainly set to surprise. \n Against this backdrop\, the 16th annual Asian Security Conference (ASC) to be held at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses\, New Delhi\, in February 2014 will deliberate the emerging strategic trends in Asia and unravel the challenges and opportunities. \nDay One\n Session1: Asia’s Geopolitical Future\n Central to the future of stability in Asia is how the rise of China is impacting the balance of power. China is now strong enough to challenge US’ leadership in Asia. But it is not clear as to what kind of new order would emerge. One possibility is a contested order framed by US and China strategic rivalry. The Chinese dominance might push other Asian powers into alliance with US making the landscape polarized. On the other hand\, the US stays engaged in Asia\, without being assertive and allowing for a ‘concert of powers’ as a counter weight to China’s power in the Indo-Pacific. Regional institutions are important prescription for bolstering Asia’s stability but raises doubts on whether such multilateral structures have the capability to absorb the shocks and resolve conflicts. This session will explore Asia’s geopolitical future\, the various scenarios that might emerge and the conditions for stability. \n Session 2: Military Trends in Asia \n While Asia has seen a growth of regional institutions yet\, Asian countries’ military expenditures tell a tale of escalating security competition and the recent claims in South China Sea suggest that regional mechanisms don’t necessarily lower the temperature. China’s military budget accounts for nearly half of all the military spending in the region. Japan\, on the other hand\, has increased its defence spending\, partly as a reality check to China and partly as a response to US defence cuts. Many of the US allies in Asia under US protection will have to accept more risks and boost their military capabilities. How will the Asian countries military modernisation impact the region? What are the perceived external threats and how is it impacting the military doctrines? What implications does the military expenditure have on future force structure and strategic posturing? \n Session 3: Economic Global Shift towards Asia\n The world’s economic centre of gravity has shifted to Asia with the rapid economic development seen in China\, India and other Asian countries along with the economic problems experienced in Europe and the US. Urbanization will be a key trend of the rapidly growing economies in Asia. The global economic shift is bringing forth opportunities and challenges. What are the responses of key economic and political institutions in Asia\, particularly in India and China? Should India follow China´s example and turn its attention towards boosting domestic consumption rather than foreign trade? Questions about how the old developed economies (the West) will react and whether Asia’s current economic model is sustainable will equally emerge. Will there be a slowing with major adjustments or a collapse? What levels of impact will the changing demography particularly the growing middle class and the aging population have on the economy? This session will examine how the changes will shape the economic and business contours in Asia? \n Day 2\n Session 4: Resource Stress in Asia\n One of Asia’s major concerns centres on resource security. Food\, energy\, water and climate are intricately linked and further impacted by price\, availability and quality. Population growth\, urbanization\, and industrialization are exacerbating resource-related stresses. Asia includes about 56 per cent of world’s population and depends on 31 per cent of arable land and by 2030 the continent will have 5 billion people. Understanding the resource dynamics is useful to the political economy particularly as competition for natural resources among Asian nations intensifies. Will it bring the continent to a dangerous crossroads of dependence\, geopolitical tension and environmental degradation? What trade-offs and at what appropriate scale (regional\, national\, sub-national) will be required to ease resource pressure? Is the framing of resource policies particularly complementary to rights-based development approaches? \n Session 5: Ocean Governance in the Indo-Pacific\n With the economic power shift to Asia\, the Indo-Pacific region is fast becoming the centre of trade\, investment and cooperation. The region contains close to half the world’s population and provides several of the world’s most important choke-points for global commerce including the Strait of Malacca. Clearly the region is recognised for its economic dynamism and geo-strategic importance. Many inter-state disputes are maritime in nature\, both due to the many unsettled maritime boundaries as a consequence of the enactment of UNCLOS\, and the tendency towards unrestrained exploitation of maritime resources with little regard for territorial jurisdictions. A legal framework and multilateral agreements are critical in managing communal global resources such as the high seas but fear of regional hegemony is likely to hinder support for the establishment of ocean governance\, particularly among the weaker countries. The session will discuss the legal obligations\, impact of institutional arrangements and strengthening governance over maritime resources. \n Session 6: Assessing Risks: Cyber and Critical Infrastructure\n In today’s interconnected world\, states share risks and vulnerabilities. Some of the biggest security challenges will come from the cyber space. Singapore and Indonesia have already taken steps towards setting up cyber commands. As cyber-attacks and hacktivism increase\, challenges to information sharing will mount. Against this backdrop\, how then will governments and policing bodies cooperate on law enforcement and sharing information? Policies towards preventions\, precautions and preparedness plans will be examined. The session will also explore critical infrastructure protection and government coordination highlighting in particular the increased reliance upon technology systems in public and private infrastructure and hence vulnerability to new forms of cyberterrorism and attacks. The lens will also shift to civil-military cooperation and how ‘calling out the troops’ to combat emergencies occurs in countries. \nDay 3\n Session 7: India’s ResponsePanel Discussion\n The big question is how India is responding to the strategic changes in Asia? China sits atop the power pyramid with its physical size\, military capability and economic clout that combines to assert regional dominance. Powers like India would not like to easily cede the hegemonic space to China but\, at the same time\, would realise that its power is pervasive and difficult to counter balance. The arrangement possibly would be for India to trade and invest intensely with China while seeking a security alliance with the US. Will India follow this path? How is India as an emerging power looked at in the region? Can India be a guarantor/balancer or will it be seen as an opponent? A careful reappraisal of Asia’s emerging strategic dynamics\, a hard-headed assessment of what India’s interests are and a considered approach to fulfilling these interests should deeply engage academia and policy makers. The session will explore the pillars on which India can build a more comprehensive\, forward-looking and proactive Asia policy. \n\n\n\n\nProgramme Schedule\n\n\n\n\n\nDay 1: February 19\n\n\n\n10.00-10.35\nInaugural Session\n\n\n10.00-10.05\nWelcome Address by DG\, IDSA\n\n\n\n\n\n\n10.05-10.30\nAddress by the Hon’ble Governor of West Bengal\n\n\n10.30-10.35\nVote of Thanks\n\n\n \n \n\n\n10.35-11.00\nTea\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n\n\n11.00-13.00\nSession 1: Asia’s geopolitical future\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \nChairperson: Arvind Gupta \nYan Xuetong : The bipolarization in East Asia\nSujit Dutta: Asia’s power transition: uncertain future of stability and peace\nTakenori Horimoto: How is power transition in Asia taking place?\nMichael Wesley: Restless giants: Asia’s new geopolitics\n\n\n\n \n \n\n\n13.00-14.00\nLunch\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n\n\n14.00-16.00\nSession 2: Military trends in Asia\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \nChairperson: Satish Nambiar \nFumio Ota: Chinese military expansion and other Asian states’ reaction\nAndrew Scobell: What is driving Asian aircraft carrier programs? The case of China\nNguyen Hung Son: Vietnam naval modernisation: causes and trends\nPrakash Menon: India’s military – modernising not militarising\n\n\n\n \n \n\n\n16.00-16.15\nTea\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n \n\n\n16.15-16:45\nSpecial Address by Hon’ble Defence Minister\n\n\n \n \n\n\n16.45-18.30\nSession 3: Economic global shift to Asia\n\n\n \nChairperson: US Bhatia \nHu Shisheng: Economic global shift toward Asia: realities and challenges\nRajat Kathuria: China and India: the benefits of co-opetition\nKristy Hsu: Opportunities and challenges in China and India: Taiwanese investors’ perspectives \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\nDay 2: February 20\n\n\n\n \n \n\n\n10.00-10.30\nTea\n\n\n \n \n\n\n10.30-13.00\nSession 4 Resource Stress in Asia\n\n\n \nChairperson: Uttam Sinha \nBobby A. Tamaela Wattimena: Energy security challenges under limited resource pressure in Asia region\nMukul Sanwal: Why water politics matters\nHuang Ying: Urbanisation and water security in China\nYashika Singh: India’s resource economy: possible choices and probable outcomes\n\n\n\n \n \n\n\n13.00-14.00\nLunch\n\n\n \n \n\n\n14.00-16.00\nSession 5: Ocean Governance in Indo-Pacific\n\n\n \nChairperson: Sudhir Vyas \nKV Bhagirath: The geo-strategic importance of the Indian Ocean\nYou Ji: Meeting the challenge of a la carte maritime disorder in the Indo-Pacific region\nLan-Anh T Nguyen: The quest for effective ocean management in the South China Sea\nAnup Singh: Time to discipline the sea lawyers\n\n\n\n \n \n\n\n16.00-16.15\nTea\n\n\n \n \n\n\n16.15-18.00\nSession 6: Assessing Risks: Cyber and Critical Infrastructure\n\n\n \nChairperson: Nehchal Sandhu \nGulshan Rai: Cyber security threat and states’ initiatives for securing cyber space\nTimothy Legrand & Saskia Hufnagel: Risk and resilience: international approaches to vulnerable infrastructure protection\nSimon Bronitt & Ashutosh Misra: Use of lethal force and military aid to civil power Australia and India: sharing lessons in counter-terrorism\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\nDay 3: February 21 \n\n\n\n \n \n\n\n10.00-10.45\nSpecial Address by the National Security Advisor (NSA)\n\n\n \n \n\n\n10.45-11.00\nTea\n\n\n \n \n\n\n11.00-13.00\nSession 7: India’s Response: A Panel Discussion \nPatrick Suckling \nSD Muni\nYan Xuetong \nP Stobdan \nRajiv Nayan\nSrikanth Kondapalli \nTakenori Horimoto \nNguyen Hung Son\n\n\n\n \n \n\n\n13.00-14.00\nLunch\n\n\n\n\n\n\nConference Booklet\nRapporteurs Report URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/16th-asian-security-conference-emerging-strategic-trends-in-asia-and-indias-response CATEGORIES:Asian Security Conference,Previous ASC,CONFERENCES ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20130213T053000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20130215T053000 DTSTAMP:20261108T003243 CREATED:20231223T125635Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240221T062710Z UID:62783-1360733400-1360906200@idsa.in SUMMARY:15th Asian Security Conference: Emerging Trends in West Asia: Regional and Global Implications DESCRIPTION:Concept Note\n\n\nWest Asia is in the midst of tumultuous changes which presage the emergence of a new and different set of security and economic challenges and new patterns of relationships\, both within the region and with countries having major stakes and interests in the region. \nThough the region has witnessed turbulence for several decades\, there was\, perhaps surprisingly\, considerable domestic stability within individual countries mainly due to the relatively unchallengeable control that regimes exercised over their populations. However\, quite unexpectedly\, there has been an unprecedented popular upsurge against the ruling regimes in many countries in the Arab world during the last few years\, leading to regime changes in certain cases. Characterised by outside observers as the “Arab Spring”\, some regional commentators have expressed their concerns about the developments\, terming these as the “Arab Turmoil”. The essence of the socio-political tumult sweeping the region has been such that the people at large have overcome their fear of the existing regimes and called for drastic and fundamental political transformation\, including regime change. This has led to dramatic changes in domestic political environments in most of the countries of the region. \n Another major consequence is that the sectarian divide\, which has long been an issue within the Islamic world and particularly in the Gulf region\, has flared up acutely between the Gulf Arab States and Iran over the past two years. The fallout of this growing confrontation is reflected throughout West Asia and in Syria in particular. Intervention by non-regional powers has only compounded problems. The Gulf region has\, therefore\, become the primary hub of attention and concern in West Asia. \n The most emblematic feature of the global scenario of the past three decades has been the fact that Asia is in the process of displacing the West as the fulcrum of the global economy\, and China and India are its leading locomotives. The major Asian economies\, both developed and still developing\, have collectively become the largest purchasers of hydrocarbons from the Gulf region. Their demands are projected to keep increasing substantially. The Gulf region’s role as an energy supplier for Asia will\, therefore\, continue to enlarge incrementally for the foreseeable future\, even as America’s and Europe’s requirements of oil and gas from the Gulf region are projected to diminish dramatically. Indeed\, even beyond the hydrocarbons factor\, other links of trade\, investment and huge migrations of people\, albeit temporary\, between the Gulf region and the rest of Asia have been growing rapidly; and all this suggest that Asia’s overall economic relationship between the Gulf region is also poised to overtake that with the Western world. \n The net result is that stronger strategic synergies in the fields of energy\, economic and people-to-people relations among the Asian countries and countries of the Gulf region are making the latter an integral part of the unfolding Asian growth story. Therefore\, on the one hand\, the significance of its connections with the rest of Asia is a strategic factor of growing importance for the Gulf region; on the other\, peace and stability in the Gulf region are becoming factors of increasing strategic\, and even existential\, significance for the major Asian countries. \n Against this backdrop\, the 15th annual Asian Security Conference (ASC) held at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses\, New Delhi\, will deliberate on the major economic\, socio-political and strategic trends which are unfolding in the West Asian region in general\, and its Gulf region in particular\, in the context of their security and economic implications both for the region and for Asian countries. Given Asia’s increasing interest and involvement with the region\, the security and stability of West Asia has become a vital imperative for Asian countries. Therefore\, the special theme of the 15th ASC would be to explore the possibilities of the involvement of Asian countries in the changing and evolving security dynamics and architecture of the Gulf region. \n The conference will address these issues under eight sessions as listed below. \nI Political Transformation in West Asia: Prospects for Peace\, Stability and Prosperity\n The session intends to address the following questions: \n\nWhat are the root causes of political transformation in West Asia?\n What are the economic\, political\, religious/sectarian\, social\, foreign policy-related\, etc.\, factors responsible for the popular protests against the rulers? \nHow can we analyse current domestic scenarios\, including the outcomes till date\, explaining the unique features of recent events in Bahrain\, Egypt\, Libya\, Syria\, Tunisia and Yemen? \n\nII Future of Political Transformation in West Asia\n This session is expected to address the prospects for democracy\, the role of political Islam\, the consequences of the sectarian divide\, the requirements for nation building\, etc.\, in specific domestic contexts as well as their impact on inter-state relations in West Asia. In this context\, the session will deliberate on the following: \n\nAre further regime changes likely? \nWhat will be the impact of the rise of Islamists to power on the region and beyond?\nWhat are the new challenges before the countries/people under the new regimes in place? \n\nThough Egypt\, Syria and Yemen would be specifically considered here\, the potential impact in the energy-rich Gulf Kingdoms will also be examined\, as it would have enormous implications for the world at large\, thus meriting particular focus. \nIII & IV West Asia’s Security Dynamics-I: Role of Extra Regional Powers; West Asia’s Security Dynamics II: Role of Regional Powers\n This session would discuss the security implications of evolving events from the perspectives of Iran and Saudi Arabia\, the two pre-eminent regional players\, bearing in mind the current security architecture in the region. Interests and roles of major powers and other non-regional countries would also be the focus of deliberations during this session. It will address\, in particular\, the roles of the US\, Russia\, China\, Turkey\, Egypt and Israel. Some important questions addressed during this session would include: \n\nWhat are the interests and stakes of these powers in the region?\nHow would their actions and likely policies affect the evolution of the geopolitical contours of West Asia\, bearing in mind the current security architecture in the region?\n\nV India and the Gulf: \n India shares with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries cultural commonalities and compatibilities\, geographical proximity and 5\,000 years of continuous\, close and unbroken interaction. Furthermore\, in contrast to most world powers\, India has never sought domination or influence\, either politically or territorially\, or with respect to economic and natural resources in this region. It may also be pertinent to note here that India has the world’s third-largest Muslim population. \n The GCC countries constitute India’s largest socio-economic partner\, as manifested by five sets of facts: (1) almost 6.5 million people from India live and work in the GCC countries and constitute about 35 per cent of the total expatriate population\, making them the foreign nationality of first preference in this region overall as well as in each GCC country\, and the largest chunk of Indian nationals in any region abroad. (2) About $32 billion were sent home as remittances last year\, the largest from any part of the world. (3) The GCC countries are India’s largest trade partner with trade in 2011–12 being about $120 billion\, far outstripping the financial volumes of such ties with any other region of the world. (4) They supply 63 per cent of India’s hydrocarbon imports. (5) Over 50 per cent of flight connections between India and the world are between India and the GCC countries. \n The past decade has seen an explosion of high-level political interaction and the emergence of strategically significant relationships. No major country has an even remotely comparable basket of linkages with the GCC countries; this simply cannot be matched by any major power in the world. \n Moving beyond dwelling on these aspects alone\, this session would explore: \n\nHow can India further strengthen its relations with the Gulf region? \nWhat are the possible pitfalls?\nWhat are the expectations of the countries of the region from India and vice versa\, and are there any divergences in mutual expectations?\n How can India and the countries of the region forge strategies of cooperation in new areas of mutual concern such as defence and security?\n\nVI Nuclear Issues in West Asia \n One of the major international security concerns over the past decade has been about the Iranian nuclear programme and responses to it by countries like the US and Israel. While Iranian engagement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Permanent 5+1 in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) continues\, no mutually acceptable formula has yet been arrived at to address these concerns. The future contours of developments relating to the issue will have major repercussions on regional strategic stability. The responses of Iran’s neighbours as well as major powers like the US will be crucial\, given the extant security and trust deficits. The Iran issue as well as Israeli nuclear capabilities adds to the complexities in progressing towards a Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone (WMDFZ) in West Asia. The session will seek to explore dynamics related to these issues in an area of critical importance to India’s economic and strategic well-being. Some of the questions that will be explored include those discussed below. \n\nWhat is the status of Iranian engagement with the international community over its suspected nuclear programme\, including at the IAEA\, UNSC\, P5+1\, and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM)\, among others?\nWhat have been the policy responses of Iran’s neighbourhood to its suspected nuclear programme?\nWhat is the possibility of success of efforts geared towards establishing a Middle East WMDFZ?\nWhat have been the repercussions for India as a result of the developments relating to the Iranian nuclear issue? And\, what will be the likely challenges in the foreseeable future? \n\nVII Round Table: Role of Asia in Evolving Security Dynamics and Architecture of the Gulf Region\n The session will explore possibilities of involvement of Asian countries in the changing and evolving security dynamics and architecture of the Gulf region. \nVIII Panel Discussion on Way Ahead \n The region is in unprecedented flux; it could witness considerably more churning and yet more regime changes. In this context\, this session will explore the possible impact of these uncertainties\, including drawing up alternative plausible scenarios on India’s future relationships with the Gulf region. \n Some important questions that would be considered are: \n\nWhat could be possible options of enhancing the strategic engagement of Asian countries with this strategically important region in future?\nShould India remain content with a strong economic relationship with the region\, or should it play a more pro-active role?\nWhat are the major trends in the Gulf security situation? \nWhat is the current level of engagement/involvement of regional and extra-regional powers in the West Asian region? \nHow is the Iranian nuclear programme going to impact the security dynamics of the region? \nWhat will be the response of regional and extra-regional players in future?\nWill there be new set of re-alignments among regional partners?\nWill US\, Russia and China cooperate in future or engage in escalating confrontation? \nWill regional security paradigms change? What would be the likely changes?\nWhat will be the security implications of the changing energy scenario—fluctuating oil prices\, the phenomenon of shale oil\, among others? \n\n\n\n\n\nProgramme Schedule\n\n\nDay 1: Wednesday\, February 13\, 2013\n 0900-0930h: Registration & Tea \n 0930-1030h: Inaugural Session \n Welcome Remarks by Dr. Arvind Gupta\, Director General\, IDSA\nKey Note Address by Hon’ble Raksha Mantri \n Vote of Thanks: Brig. (Retd.) Rumel Dahiya\, Deputy Director General\, IDSA\n \n 1030-1100h: High Tea \n  \n 1100-1300h: Session I: Political Transformation in West Asia: Prospects for Peace\, Stability and Prosperity \n Chair: Amb. Chinmaya Gharekhan Amb. Talmiz Ahmad: Islamist Discourse and Politics in the Aftermath of the Arab SpringDr. Ahmed al Wahishi:West Asia in Transitional Period of International OrderDr. Hadi Soleimanpour: Political Transformation in West Asia: An Iranian PerspectiveProf. Tim Niblock: The Future of Political Transformation in West Asia \n  \n 1300-1400h: Lunch \n 1400-1600h: Session II: Future of Political Transformation in West Asia \n Chair: Prof. Gulshan DietlDr. Muhammad Abdul Ghaffar: Potential Strategic Cooperation among Pivotal States in Western AsiaMr. Atul Aneja: Silencing Alternative Media: Soft Power and the Arab Spring Dr. Ahmed A. Saif: Emerging Trends in West Asia: Regional and Global Implications Dr. Abdulkhaleq Abdulla: Impact of the Arab Spring on the Arab Gulf States \n Prof. Amin Saikal: The Changing Political and Strategic Environment in West Asia \n  \n 1600-1630h: Tea \n 1630-1830h: Session III: West Asia’s Security Dynamics-I: Role of Extra-Regional Powers \n Chair: Amb. Rajendra Madhukar Abhyankar\nMr. Fyodor Lukyanov: Russia and “Arab spring”: What’s at Stake? \nDr. Julie Taylor: US Foreign Policy in the Middle East: Combatting the Realist Resurgence Prof. Yang Guang: West Asia’s Security Dynamics: A Chinese Perspective Mr. Waiel Awwad: The New Great Power Game Plan in West AsiaMr. M. Ashraf Azim: Stabilizing West AsiaProf. P R Kumaraswamy: Realpolitik of the ‘Self-Appointed Frontrunner’ for the UNSC \n  \nDay 2: Thursday\, February 14\, 2013\n 0930-1000h: Tea \n 1000-1245 h: Session IV: West Asia’s Security Dynamics-II: Role of Regional Powers \n Chair: Amb. Ranjit GuptaProf. Efraim Inbar: The 2011 Arab Uprisings and Israel’s National SecurityProf. Mohammad Hassan Khani: Arab Spring as National Revolutions with Regional Dimensions and Global Impacts: An Iranian PerspectiveDr. Serhat Güvenç: Role of Turkey in West Asia’s Security DynamicsDr. Adel Soliman: Dynamic Security in West Asia and the Role of Regional Powers: An Egyptian\nPerspective \n  \n 1245-1345h: Lunch \n 1430-1630h: Session V: India and the Gulf \n Chair: Amb. Ishrat AzizProf. Girijesh Pant: Premising India-Gulf Relation in the Context of Arab UprisingMs. Shebonti Ray Dadwal:Impact of ‘Arab Spring’ on Energy MarketsDr. Sami Alfaraj:India and the GCCDr. Abdulkhaleq Abdulla: ndia and the Gulf: A Perspective from UAE\n \n  \n 1545-1600h: Tea \n 1600-1745h: Session VI: Nuclear Issues in West Asia \n Chair: Air Commodore (Retd.) Jasjit Singh\, AVSM\, VRC\, VM\, IAFDr. Mahmoud Karem:Nuclear Issues in West Asia: Egyptian Perspective Prof. Rajesh Rajagopalan: Nuclear Issues in West Asia: An Indian Perspective Dr. Ephraim Kam: The Iranian Nuclear ThreatProf. Mohammad Hassan Khani:Iranian Nuclear Issue: Different Views\, Scenarios\, and Consequences \n  \n   \nDay 3: Friday\, February 15\, 2013\n 0930-1000h: Tea \n 1000-1030h: Special Address by Shri Shivshankar Menon\, National Security Adviser\, Government of India \n 1030-1045h: Tea \n 1045-1245h: Session VII: Roundtable on Role of Asia in Evolving Security Dynamics and Architecture of the Gulf Region \n Chair: Shri Sanjay SinghProf. Timothy C. Niblock: The Role of Asia in the Evolving Security Dynamics and Architecture of the Gulf RegionAmb. Ranjit Gupta: Role of Asia in the Evolving Security Dynamics of the Gulf RegionAmb. Talmiz Ahmad: Islamist Discourse and Politics in the Aftermath of the Arab Spring \n  \n 1245-1330h: Lunch \n 1330-1500h: Session VIII: Panel Discussion on Way Ahead \n Chair: Dr. Arvind GuptaPanellists: \n Shri Rajeev Shahare\, Joint Secretary\, West Asia and North Africa Division (WANA)\, Ministry of External Affairs\, Government of India\nShri A R Ghanashyam\, Joint Secretary\, Gulf Division\, Ministry of External Affairs\, Government of India\nBrig. (Retd.) Rumel Dahiya\, Deputy Director General\, IDSA\nAmb. Ishrat Aziz\nProf. Mohammad Hassan Khani\nDr. Sami Alfaraj\nAmb. Talmiz Ahmad\nDr. Adel Soliman\nAmb. Prakash Shah \n  \n 1530h: Vote of Thanks: Dr. Meena Singh Roy\, Conference Coordinator \n\n\n\n\nConference Booklet\nRapporteurs Report URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/15th-asian-security-conference-emerging-trends-in-west-asia-regional-and-global-implications CATEGORIES:Asian Security Conference,Previous ASC,CONFERENCES ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20130213T053000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20130213T053000 DTSTAMP:20261108T003243 CREATED:20231223T124639Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250308T131136Z UID:62655-1360733400-1360733400@idsa.in SUMMARY:Inaugural Address at the 15th Asian Security Conference on "Emerging Trends in West Asia: Regional and Global Implications" DESCRIPTION:Members of the strategic communality\nDistinguished participants\,\nExcellencies\,\nMembers of the media\,\nLadies and gentlemen\, \nIt is a pleasure to address this distinguished gathering that has come together for the 15th Asian Security Conference being organised by IDSA. Over the years\, the Conference has attracted eminent strategic experts and scholars from across the world. This is the 15th year in a row that the IDSA is organising a conference on themes pertaining to Asian security. \nThe response of the international strategic community to this year’s theme\, “Emerging Trends in West Asia: Regional and Global Implications”\, has been encouraging. In the context of West Asia\, the theme is highly relevant\, as developments in West Asia have a major impact on regional and international security. Many distinguished speakers from West Asia\, North Africa\, United States\, United Kingdom\, Europe\, Australia\, Pakistan\, Japan and China will be sharing their views during the Conference. ‘ \nSince December 2010\, the Middle East has been experiencing tumultuous changes. These changes have ushered in fundamental political and socio-economic transformation in the Arab world. New political dispensations have taken over in Tunisia\, Libya\, Egypt and Yemen. Such transition\, unfortunately\, has been accompanied by large-scale violence. The ongoing violence in Syria is a matter of concern for the region\, as well as the world. Moreover\, recently\, extremists believed to be linked with the AI Qaeda elements took over the government in Mali. Meanwhile\, France has sent its military forces for intervention. \nThe recent developments in all these countries afford a few lessons: Firstly\, no government\, or regime\, can afford to ignore the popular aspirations anymore. The common strand running through all these protests and demonstrations has been the youth. The voice of the youth is a universal message that is strongly echoing across to governments in all regions of the world. The strong urge for change is clearly visible across the region. Secondly\, the process of transformation is far from complete and on the contrary\, has just begun. The journey ahead will be long\, tortuous and full of unexpected twists and turns. Thirdly\, the developments in West Asia have the potential of changing the regional and geopolitical landscape. The West Asia region is critical for energy security. Instability in the region will have an impact on global oil prices\, availability of oil and gas and shipping of these resources. Fourthly\, though traditional political and socio-economic structures have been transformed\, new structures that will replace them have not yet got consolidated. While fundamentalist forces have got a fillip\, democracy is yet to be consolidated. New political equations are emerging in Iraq and Afghanistan\, which has heightened regional and global uncertainties. Lastly\, social media has emerged as a potent and vibrant force. The social media has served as a’force multiplier’ in the hands of the protesters. \nFor India\, in particular\, West Asia is a critical region. People-to-people contacts have existed between India and West Asia for centuries. These links have got deepened and further strengthened in the era of globalisation. Our stability and prosperity are affected by the developments in the region. First\, the Gulf region is vital for India’s energy security. The region has about 48% of the world’s total proven oil reserves and almost 16% of the world’s natural gas reserves. Nearly two-thirds of our hydrocarbon imports are from this region. This will continue to be so in the near future. In addition\, nearly 6.5 million Indians live and work in different countries of this region. A World Bank report says that India received US $ 70 billion in remittances during 2012 and a majority of the remittances came from the Gulf region. These remittances support nearly 40-50 million families in India and at the same time\, contribute to local prosperity. During 2011\, India evacuated nearly 19\, 000 Indians working in Libya. The safety and security of Indians working in the region is a sensitive concern for the Indian government. \nIndia’s trade with the region is expandinq. During 2011-12\, India’s trade with Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) was more than $145 billion (with exports and imports from the region standing at 20% and 14%) respectively). India also offers a destination for surplus funds in GCC countries. India has a long tradition of democracy and it is home to a diverse\, pluralistic society. The democratic processes have managed its vast regional\, cultural\, linguistic and regional diversity. At a time when several West Asian nations are in a state of transition\, India can share its experiences with the governments and civil societies. \nRecent developments have complicated the security situation in the region. Given India’s vital stakes in peace and stability in the region\, it is natural for India to have an interest in abiding peace and security in the region. At the same time\, long-standing conflicts in the region cannot be ignored. \nIndia can ill-afford to remain aloof from the transformative changes taking place in its immediate and extended neighbourhood. We have centuries old linkages with the Arab world. Our civilisations have closely interacted and influenced each other in the past. We have excellent bilateral relations and the relation can be placed on an even stronger footing in the new phase that has set in recently in West Asia. \nLadies and gentlemen\, \nThis Conference is holding deliberations on several themes. The discussions will explore the causes behind the ongoing transformation; look into the future and make an attempt to assess the regional and global impacts of these changes. I have been told that several sessions will also explore India’s relations with this region. I am sure that the delegates will come up with crucial inputs and practical recommendations during these discussions. \nWith these words\, I hope that our foreign guests will have a pleasant and an enjoyable stay. I wish the deliberations at the Conference all success. \nThank you. Jai Hind. \nDownload compete address \nWatch Video [+] URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/inaugural-address-at-the-15th-asian-security-conference-on-emerging-trends-in-west-asia-regional-and-global-implications CATEGORIES:KEY SPEECHES,Asian Security Conference,ASC Key Speeches ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20120213T053000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20120215T053000 DTSTAMP:20261108T003243 CREATED:20231223T125718Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250309T040905Z UID:62789-1329111000-1329283800@idsa.in SUMMARY:14th Asian Security Conference 2012: Non-Traditional Security Challenges- Today and Tomorrow DESCRIPTION:Concept Note\n\n\nOver the last few decades\, the global security setting has undergone a vast change with the emergence of new threats. Challenges such as the devastating environmental shocks of climate change and its impact on food\, water and energy resources\, which in turn has implications on the economy of nations\, migration\, threat of pandemic diseases that cut across political boundaries\, transnational crime\, regional and global financial crises were recognised as critical issues with repercussions on national\, regional and global security having immediate and long term impacts. Given their potential to exacerbate existing tensions\, they have the potential to contribute to traditional security threats. Hence\, a blurring of the lines between what constitutes traditional security issues as represented by military concepts and those that are non-military by definition. With emerging challenges to the very survival and well-being of people\, groups and states have taken place. Non-traditional security issues are being perceived as critical to national and global security as are war and armed conflict; WMD proliferation and arms race and are being accorded increasing prominence on the policy and research agendas of governments\, NGOs\, academicians as well as business and international organisations. They are often transnational in scope\, defy unilateral remedies and require comprehensive political\, economic and social responses.The Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses’ (IDSA) 14th Asian Security Conference will address the above issues in their political\, social and economic dimensions. The sessions are: \nI. Traditional Vs Non-Traditional Security Issues: Conceptual Framework\nII. Climate Change and Natural Disasters\nIII. Water Security\nIV. Energy Security\nV. Trans-national Crime\nVI. Financial and Economic Security \nI. Traditional Vs Non-Traditional Security Issues: Conceptual Framework \nThe following sub-themes have been identified wherein experts will debate and discuss issues in these emerging security challenges in the non-traditional security area \n\nWhat constitutes Non-Traditional Threats?\nHow different are they from the traditional challenges?\nHow should they be addressed?\nShould the approach templates be different and if so how?\nWill these new threats evolve into a traditional conventional nature?\n\nII. Water Security\nThrough the centuries\, the mighty rivers have sustained the lives and livelihood of people in Asia. Mighty rivers like the Yangtze\, Tigris\, Euphrates\, Indus\, Ganges\, Brahmaputra\, Irrawady\, Salween\, Mekong\, Amu Darya and Syr Darya flow through different countries making riparian relations equally conflicting and converging. The combined effects of global warming and weather patterns are expected to lead to set of global warming and weather patters are expected to lead to a set of interconnected calamities. Asia will be particularly vulnerable due to the “exponential function” of rapidly increasing population\, growing food demand and dependency on water for irrigation and energy. With the increasing importance of transboundary rivers\, hydro-diplomacy can be seen as a new framework for regional cooperation\, with opportunities for dialogue\, consultation and data-sharing both between and within states. On the other hand\, control of water can also lead to hydro-hegemony and dominance. The session will explore the following questions: \n\nWhat are the dynamics of upstream-downstream rivalry?\nCan upstream riparian assert hydro-hegemony?\nHow can a comprehensive transboundary river water dialogue be structured?\n\nIII. Climate Change and Natural Disasters \nOver the last decade\, climate change has emerged from scientific or academic ivory towers and is now being accepted as the single greatest challenge related to human security\, energy\, economics\, health and safety\, food production and other security issues. Besides\, the vulnerability to disasters from both natural and man-made has increased considerably all over the world. Due to rapid climate change\, earthquakes and forest fires\, tsunamis\, oil spills\, droughts or hurricanes\, with accompanying devastation to both human life and infrastructure\, disastrous catastrophes are a recurring phenomenon having direct impact on the economies of nations. Moreover\, rapid urbanization along with population growth over the world has increased risks from hazardous industrial accidents\, leakages of radio-active material and outbreak of pandemics. Despite nations taking cognizance of such disasters\, the making of effective disaster management policies which encompass relief\, prompt response measures as well as prevention of the same have been slow and require urgent planning and implementation. The session will attempt to answer the following questions: \n\nWhat are the climate-induced drivers of conflict and security?\nWhat factors has contributed to the escalation of natural disasters?\nIn climate diplomacy and negotiations\, what will the future of the climate change regime be?\nAre the nations prepared for the emerging challenges arising out of natural disasters?\nIs there any collective response at the regional level and what needs to be done in securing the nations?\n\nIV. Energy and Food Security\n Energy Security \nOver the past few years\, the world has been rocked by a series of international and regional events that challenge nations’ energy security. The earthquake/tsunami in Japan and its resultant impact on the Fukushima power complex\, the popular protests in the Middle East-North African region which have seen several well entrenched regimes being toppled; oil spills in the Gulf of Mexico; lack of timely investment in supply augmentation and massive growth in demand in developing countries along with the threat of resource nationalism have all increased concerns about the long-term security of supply for energy-importing states dependent on volatile energy-producing states. Without adequate and affordable supplies of energy resources\, the economic growth of nations will be affected; it will also impede attempts to re-emerge quickly from the recent economic recession. It is therefore imperative that long-lasting solutions\, including access to new and emerging technology across the board\, are sought and implemented\, be it individually or collectively to address the current challenges in the global energy sector. The session will examine to explore the answers of the following questions: \n\nWhat are the new and emerging challenges in energy security\, particularly with reference to the Asian countries?\nCan technology resolve energy dilemma or will it throw up new challenges/competition for resources/RE technology?\nHow can Asian countries cooperate in ensuring energy security for the region?\n\nFood security \nIn the face of climate change\, rapid increasing populations\, water scarcity\, soil erosion and the search for energy independence which is converting land hitherto used for the production of food grains to growing fuels are increasing the stresses on the global food system. Though there have been some rather exceptional success stories in Asia and the Asian experience is held up as an example of food security progress from which other regions can gain lessons\, some pervasive conditions of under-nourishment continue to plague individuals and communities in pockets throughout the region. Unless governments urgently shift expenditures from military uses to tackling climate change\, increasing water efficiency and soil conservation\, and population stabilization measures; the world will in all likelihood be facing a future with greater food instability and price volatility. The session will focus on the following question: \n\nIs food instability a threat to security in Asia?\nWhat are the determining factors of food insecurity vis-à-vis economic instability?\nIs a multilateral approach viable to address food security issues?\nHow should the Asian nations address the challenges of food security?\n\nV. Trans-national Crime \nPrior to the Cold War\, transnational crime was not considered a threat to national security and was seen largely as a law and order problem. However\, current trends indicate that transnational crime has undergone transformation. Globalization and its associated processes of connectivity have resulted in significant changes in the business of transnational crime with criminal syndicates adopting more sophisticated methods in conducting their illicit activities\, which comprises of money laundering\, drug trafficking\, illegal migration\, international terrorism\, piracy and smuggling. Today\, no country is exempted from the threat of transnational crimes and it is posing a serious threat to national and international security and stability\, challenging the authority of states by undermining development and victimizing the entire population. The session will focus on the following questions: \n\nHas globalization impacted on the transformation in the nature of transnational crimes?\nWhat are the impacts of the transnational crimes on regional and national security?\nIs an inclusive policy to facilitate involvement of all the stakeholders/key actors in curbing transnational crimes essential?\nHow a cooperative approach by the Asian Countries will facilitate in addressing the transnational issues?\n\nVI. Financial and Economic Security\nThe advent of globalization has ushered in global inter-dependence where all major powers and their economies are integrated as never before. Unlike the past\, every major economy today is dependent on economic and political engagement with the outside world for its continued development and prosperity. However\, individual nations may have very different priorities such as; what regulations are needed to monitor and stabilise the current Western-dominated financial system and what is the role of global institutions in creating these regulations? Given that\, it is mainly the Asian economies that are increasingly seen as invaluable for sustaining global economic growth\, and for the management of regional and global economic and security challenges. The current global climate presents an opportunity for Asian nations to work together with the rest of the world and have a greater say in institutions like the IMF and the World Bank. Therefore\, time has also come for forums such as the G20 economies to play a greater role rather than mere exclusive groupings like the G8\, whose share of the world economy is in decline. The questions for the session are: \n\nIs it time for the old order to pass the baton to emerging nations? (G8 vs G20; Asian leadership for FIIs)\nHow can the global financial system prevent new crises from occurring?\nHow can a new and more just roadmap for a new global financial order/system be ushered in?\n\n\n\n\n\nProgramme Schedule\n\n\nMonday\, February 13\, 2012\n DAY ONE \n0930h–1000h: Registration\n1000h–1030h: Inaugural Session\nOpening Remarks by Director General\, IDSA \nAddress by Hon’ble Raksha Mantri \nRelease of IDSA Publication \n1030h–1045h: Tea Break\n1045h–1300h: Session I: Traditional Vs Non-Traditional Security Issues: Conceptual Framework\nChair: T K Oommen \n\nRear Admiral Neil Morisetti – Traditional and Non-traditional Security Issues\nJohn Jackson Ewing – Traditional and Non-traditional Security: Exploring Conceptual and Practical Challenges\nCleo Paskal – Environmental Change – A Very Traditional Threat\nCol (Retd) P K Gautam – Traditional and Non-traditional Issues: Conceptual Framework\n\n1300h–1400h: Lunch\n1400h–1600h: Session II: Water Security\nChair: Leela K Ponappa \n\nTinh Dinh Le – Water Security Issues in Southeast Asia\nRobert Wirsing – River Diplomacy in Himalayan Asia: On the Way to Calamity?\nUttam Kumar Sinha – Prospects and Challenges of Hydro-diplomacy in Water-scarce Regions\n\n1600h–1615h: Tea Break\n1615h–1815 hrs: Session III: Climate Change and Natural Disasters\nChair: Rear Admiral Neil Moresetti \n\nTakeshi Takama – Food Security and Climate Change Vulnerability in Indonesia/Bali\nT Jayaraman\nDennis Taenzler – Climate Change: Adaptation as a Mean of Crisis Prevention\nZheng Xiaoming – Significance and Influence Factors of Climate Change Cooperation Between China and Brazil of BASIC –from the Perspective of International Relations\n\nTuesday\, February 14\, 2012\nDAY TWO\n1000h–1030h: Keynote Address by Shri Shivshankar Menon\, National Security Adviser \n1030h– 1100h: Tea Break\n1100h–1300h: Session IV: Energy Security\nChair: Girjesh Pant \n\nYiorghos Leventis – Energy Security and Regional Politics: The Eastern Mediterranean Case\nZhao Hongtu – Energy Security: Challenges and China’s Strategy\nSamir Pradhan – Gulf’s Role in India’s Energy Security\nVivek Mathur – India’s Role in the International Oil Market \nAmitav Mallik – Energy & Environment Dilemma: Impact on National Security\n\n1300h–1430h: Lunch\n1430h–1630h: Session V: Trans-national Crime\nChair: D P Dash \n\nAli Jalali – Transnational Crime\nArabinda Acharya – Crime and Terrorism in Comparative Perspective: Impact on National Security and Development\n\nEly Karmon – Are We Nearer to a Major CBRN Terrorism Threat?\nMolly Charles – Transnational Organised Crime – Role of Silent Violence and Social Engineering\n\nWednesday\, February 15\, 2012\nDAY THREE\n1000h–1030h: Special Address by Roza Otunbayeva\, Former President\, Republic of Kyrgyztan \n1030h-1100h: Tea Break\n1100h–1300h: Session VI: Financial and Economic Security\nChair: N S Sisodia \n\nSanjaya Baru – The Geo-economics of Financial Stability\nMeibo Huang – Reform the International Monetary System—An East Asian Perspective\nPradumna Bickram Rana – The Evolving Multi-layered Global Financial Safety Net: Asia’s and India’s Role\n\n1300h: Vote of Thanks\n1310h: Lunch\n\n\n\n\nConference Booklet\nRapporteurs Report URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/14th-asian-security-conference-2012-non-traditional-security-challenges-today-and-tomorrow CATEGORIES:Asian Security Conference,Previous ASC,CONFERENCES ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20120213T053000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20120213T053000 DTSTAMP:20261108T003243 CREATED:20231223T124653Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240229T000803Z UID:62668-1329111000-1329111000@idsa.in SUMMARY:Presidential Address at the 14th Asian Security Conference DESCRIPTION:Excellencies\,\nDistinguished delegates\,\nLadies and gentlemen\,\n“At the outset\, I extend a warm welcome to all the participants from the world over for the 14th Asian Security Conference organised by IDSA. \nThe concept of security has expanded and undergone a massive transformation to include economic progress\, particularly given the direction the global economy has been taking\, climate change and good governance. Such issues have assumed heightened significance for the comity of nations. \nOver the years\, Asian Security Conference has emerged as an ideal platform for academicians\, researchers\, scholars and security experts to discuss and analyse the recent trends in security across the world. The Conference is a unique opportunity to understand each other’s perspectives and identify common issues for cooperation. \nToday\, the global community faces common challenges in the realms of economics\, geopolitics\, demography\, sharing natural resources\, climate change and information. The impact of basic issues such as food\, water\, economic instability and security-related issues such as terrorism\, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and drug trafficking is having an impact on the dynamics of various societies and nations. \nAs one of the fastest growing economies of the region and a stable democratic nation\, India has been and will continue to be committed towards building a peaceful\, secure and economically stable Asia. However\, to address such non-traditional challenges\, we also need to move beyond conventional ways of dealing with them. \nIDSA has been discussing these and other such issues since the first Asian Security Conference held in 1998. Late Shri K. Subrahmanyam had identified thirteen types of non-military threats to security\, some of which I have just mentioned. IDSA has brought out publications on related themes\, which include reports on climate change\, environmental security and water security. \nThe themes for this year’s Conference are extremely crucial and relevant. The threat to the overall security and well-being of the people from non-traditional factors continues to pose a threat to nations in general and Asia\, in particular. With the world population putting an enormous burden on existing natural resources\, competition for these resources can lead to conflicts among various countries in Asia. \nTerrorism\, drug trafficking\, money laundering and transnational crimes are common concerns the world over. Terrorism continues to remain a grave concern to world peace and stability. Nations must draw up collective and innovative measures to counter and defeat such asymmetric threats. Weapons of mass destruction go beyond nuclear weapons. These weapons may be biological\, chemical and radiological\, in nature. Often\, these weapons do not require sophisticated delivery systems. There is always a danger that these weapons may fall into wrong hands. Thus\, nations need to cooperate with each other and draw up a comprehensive approach to evolve institutional frameworks to defeat such challenges. \nNatural disasters seem to be occurring with regularity. The destruction caused by Tsunamis has killed thousands of people. Earthquakes and floods too have caused havoc in various nations. We need to develop common institutional mechanisms to deal with such disasters. Disaster management occupies an important place in our policy and must be taken down to regional and local levels in our region. \nWe have been trying to address such concerns for a long time. For instance\, in 1982\, the Ministry of Defence initiated the Ecological Task Force (ETFs) to restore degraded ecosystems. These Task Forces have been undertaking afforestation\, soil conservation and water resource management techniques. India is also the only country in the world to form a ministry for new and renewable energy. We have also drawn up a National Action Plan for Climate Change and set up an Advisory Council\, chaired by the Prime Minister. \nClimate change too has an impact on security. It is causing floods and resulting in changes in crop yields and crop patterns. The per capita availability of water is decreasing sharply worldwide. Water is actually fast emerging as a major source of insecurity and a potential issue for conflict among nations. Thus\, nations need to cooperate on sharing water and efficient water usage and harvesting and initiate collective action for preserving our common environment. \nEnergy is a source of competition among nations for energy demands. Energy sources like fossil fuels are required for economic growth and development. However\, as fossil fuels are depleting at a rapid pace\, nations and societies need to focus on alternative sources of energy to meet our needs. \nCyber security is a critical area of concern. With digitisation of world and various services\, the world is becoming increasingly dependent on internet and information technology. However\, security of networks has become an urgent concern\, as enormous vital and critical data passes through them every day. Any breach of cyber networks can cause untold damage to the security of any society\, or country. Nations must take serious and prompt note and cooperate with each other to strengthen seamless cyber security. \nUnited Nations and other multilateral institutions will continue to play a proactive role. However\, the time has come for Asian countries to set up a mechanism to take regular contact and dialogue mechanisms to the next higher level. A network of prominent Asian think-tanks to hold regular dialogues on security issues can make common recommendations to governments to help them address such challenges in an effective manner. \nPeaceful coexistence and equitable development are the keys to the future and security of nations in the Asian region. I am sure that all of you will hold comprehensive deliberations on these issues and other common challenges\, as well as come up with innovative and new ideas to aid planners and policy makers. \nWith these words\, I wish all the participants\, particularly from abroad\, a pleasant stay in India. I wish you all the very best for your fruitful discussions at the Conference over the next three days. \nThank You. Jai Hind. URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/presidential-address-at-the-14th-asian-security-conference CATEGORIES:KEY SPEECHES,Asian Security Conference,ASC Key Speeches ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20110218T053000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20110218T053000 DTSTAMP:20261108T003243 CREATED:20231223T124659Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240229T001001Z UID:62674-1298007000-1298007000@idsa.in SUMMARY:Closing Remarks at the 13th Asian Security Conference DESCRIPTION:Mr. NS Sisodia\, Director General IDSA\,\nDistinguished participants\,\nGuests. \nThank you for asking me to speak to the closing session of IDSA’s 13th Asian Security Conference\, “Towards a New Asian Order”. You have a very impressive list of participants and speakers\, and there would seem to be little that I can add to what has come before. \nI must confess to some confusion when I first heard the title of your conference\, “Towards a New Asian Order”. I was not sure whether you meant a new world order that was Asian\, or whether you meant a new order in Asia; whether you meant new Asian rules of the game and stakes in the international order\, or a new ordering of the way things are done and managed in Asia. It took only a second’s thought to make it clear that the answer was the second choice\, especially as your conference is about Asian security. But the fact that the question even arose in my mind suggests how rapidly and how extensively world geopolitics has changed\, and how the centre of geopolitical gravity has moved to Asia. \nAt the risk of repeating what may have already been said\, I thought I would give you one Indian’s view on how Asia is changing\, on the new security challenges that result from these changes\, and on the sort of Asian order that might meet these new challenges. \nChanging Asia\nThere is no question that the rise of Asia\, with China as the most prominent example\, is the major geopolitical fact of our times. What Asia has achieved in the last three decades in terms of the rapid accretion of wealth to begin with\, and now power\, has never been done so fast in history by any other region. Nor has any other power in history grown as rapidly as China in this period. The relative prominence and importance of Asia and China have been accelerated by the world economic crisis since 2008\, and a crisis of confidence in the Western developed world. We Asians are reminded nearly every day that Asia is now pivotal to global politics\, and urged to fulfil our responsibilities\, (which I sometimes suspect is merely a polite way of asking us to do what others find more convenient than our following our own interests.) \nBut\, stupendous as the Asian achievement is\, we must remember that it has several unique characteristics. \n\nAsia has seen several powers rising simultaneously\, and has yet to find a new internal equilibrium of its own. Unlike what occurred when Japan rose in the thirties\, China is not the only rising Asian power today. Within Asia itself\, on China’s immediate periphery\, other powers like South Korea\, Vietnam\, Indonesia and India are also developing rapidly. We already see in Asia classical responses to the rapid rise of new powers in terms of internal and external balancing. We see increasing defence budgets throughout the region over the last two decades.\nThese growing Asian powers increasingly owe more and more of their economic growth to the links and interdependence among themselves. Several of them still have overwhelming domestic preoccupations and will therefore concentrate on those rather than on external entanglements. It would be natural to expect that these powers would concentrate on creating external environments conducive to their continued economic growth and social transformation rather than focussing purely on security aspects of their external environment. For quite some time to come Asia will see the development of powerful states whose citizenry as individuals will enjoy lower standards of living than those in the developed world. These states will therefore not replicate the behaviour of previous powers. The new equilibrium in Asia is likely to be as much a result of production chains and regional and global market integration as of purely security driven alliances or structures. \nAsia’s geopolitics are complicated by the presence of several global and extra-regional powers who are now integral to Asian security in this age of globalisation of economics\, security and technology. Powers such as the USA\, Russia and Japan are present and have long established interests of their own in Asia. An Asian order which ignores their interests is unlikely to be stable.\nAnd lastly\, Asia as a whole is and will remain dependent upon the rest of the world for its own continued growth and security\, whether in terms of energy security\, food security or\, in the more conventional calculation of the sources and providers of security capabilities and technologies. In several respects that matter\, (concepts\, technology\, security\, energy etc)\, Asia is still and will remain a net global consumer for some time to come. With younger populations\, and the task of maintaining the growth necessary to generate jobs for new entrants to the labour force\, this will remain true of the major Asian developing economies for the foreseeable future. (Historically speaking\, this is very different from the situation before the mid-eighteenth century when Asia last enjoyed relative global pre-eminence. Then Asia depended on itself for its needs and markets. Again\, the contrast with the Soviet Union’s autonomy from others could not be greater. So expect different behaviour from Asian powers.)\n\nIn other words we are speaking of an Asia that will be largely developing\, increasingly integrated within itself\, and simultaneously dependent upon the broader global community and environment\, — a powerful but poor Asia. \nNone of this is to say that the relative rise of Asia will not continue. I would expect it to over the medium term\, though straight line extrapolations have seldom worked in history. This is just to say that the issues that we face in dealing with the changes in Asia are different from those that we see in historical analogies of rising powers in the past. (This is not 19th century Europe\, amenable to balance of power solutions such as a “Concert of Asia”.) For the present\, Asia and the world have yet to work out a security architecture that accommodates the changes in Asia and the legitimate interests of all the countries concerned without reducing them to a zero sum game. Our preference is that the new architecture be open\, inclusive\, and flexible. But this still is a work in progress. \nThe Issues\nWhat are the new challenges that this situation in Asia throws up for us? To my mind three challenges stand out:\n1. Connectivity domains like maritime security\, cyber space and outer space;\n2. The increasing security divide within Asia; and\,\n3. The institutionalisation of security cooperation in Asia. \nThe first probably explains itself. Asia’s pattern of growth and the fact that her physical and economic security will be linked to that of the rest of the world make her connectivity critical. Hence the need to assure security of maritime communications\, cyber space and outer space. Many of you know much more than I do about these domains\, but it is no accident that these are precisely the domains where Asia is witnessing latent and explicit competition and contention\, a build up of national offensive and defensive capabilities which in other areas would be called an arms race. \nYou might well ask why I also mentioned the security divide and a lack of institutions. Why not choose traditional security issues like border disputes or terrorism or inter-state conflict or nuclear proliferation? Because these problems\, though very real and worrying\, which exist in virulent forms in Asia\, have not prevented the stupendous transformation that has resulted in the accumulation of power and wealth in large parts of Asia that we spoke of. In other words\, so far Asia has successfully managed individual issues of nuclear balance and several conventional security threats\, and even the proliferation of WMD and missile technologies. These will require continued and considerable effort\, but increasingly these problems will occur in new forms. \nTake piracy\, for instance\, one of the oldest of all conventional security threats. Asia was successful in tackling it around the Straits of Malacca but the international community have been much less so off the Horn of Africa. Why is this so? To my mind this is largely because there are parts of Asia which have not been transformed or changed. While we were able to act on both land and sea near the Straits of Malacca\, we are unable to do so in the Horn. In those parts of Asia which are not developing as rapidly\, traditional security issues now affect Asian security differently. There is a growing security deficit or divide within Asia. \nTo take another instance\, there is an increasing danger of terrorism spreading from those parts of Asia\, like Pakistan and Afghanistan\, which have not been part of the Asian economic miracle. The security of nuclear materials and weapons in those same parts of Asia is another example of the sort of problems that we face. These are the problems I mean when I speak of the increasing security divide within Asia. There are parts of Asia which are falling behind\, not just in economic terms but in terms of the normal security attributes of sovereignty that we take for granted. And the consequences for Asian security should concern all of us in Asia. \nThe New Asian Order\nSo what sort of new Asian order will meet the needs of these new challenges? Should we proceed in security as we did in the economy\, building block by building block? Or do we move to collective security in Asia\, something that each of the two super powers tried and failed to achieve during the Cold War? \nI do not claim to have answers to these questions\, but I can try to describe some of the desiderata of a new security order in Asia that should be part of our consideration of this problem. \n\nIt should be inclusive. Given the diversity in Asia this is essential if the order is to work. And it must include all relevant powers\, including those geographically external but intrinsic to Asia’s security in practice and presence.\nIt should be extensive\, from Suez to the Pacific and including the entire Eurasian landmass. If not it will not be able to address the security consequences of the growing security divide within Asia.\nIt should be plural. No one-size solution or simplistic prescription will work. We should learn from the failure of Cold War alliance systems in the area\, and of earlier Asian Collective Security proposals.\nIts institutions should be consultative\, respecting the Asian cultural bias towards consensual solutions. Centring the institutions on ASEAN would be logical and practical\, and the ASEAN Defence Ministers’ plus Eight Meeting offers a potentially very useful way forward.\n\nWhile these desiderata may sound utopian\, they are suggested in the hope that we will be able to apply them to the issues we face\, thus building habits of cooperation in security as we have already done in the economic sphere. \nAnd if we do succeed in the years ahead to build such a security order in Asia and successfully handle the multiple security challenges that we face\, I suppose the world order will indeed be “Asian” in character\, and the question I started with would have been answered. URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/closing-remarks-at-the-13th-asian-security-conference CATEGORIES:KEY SPEECHES,Asian Security Conference,ASC Key Speeches ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20110216T053000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20110218T053000 DTSTAMP:20261108T003243 CREATED:20231223T125723Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250120T223001Z UID:62795-1297834200-1298007000@idsa.in SUMMARY:13th Asian Security Conference on "Towards A New Asian Order" DESCRIPTION:Concept Note\n\n\nThe onset of the ‘Asian Century’ requires fresh thinking on regional architectures in Asia. Will these be able to deliver on the promise of the future? What needs to be done\, and can be done\, to enable this? Given the conflictual history attending the rise of powers in Europe\, the timely development of pan-Asian frameworks could help in constructing a different future. The conference aims to examine efficacy of existing structures and probe Asian thinking on making the future benign for Asia and the world. The Conference would be a useful step in conceptualising a new pan Asian order\, even as it\, in the main\, surveys existing capacities against possibilities. The aim is to visualise a pan-Asian framework for addressing security challenges and for facilitating cooperation. \n The Conference is designed to address both traditional and non-traditional security issues in their political\, social and economic dimensions. It does so in five subthemes. The first day will be devoted to geopolitical dynamics and associated traditional security issues. The second day will focus on geo-economics and non-traditional security themes. On the last day\, an attempt will be made to ‘discover’ an ‘Asian Way’\, drawing on Asian cultures and traditions while keeping world order imperatives in mind. The subthemes are \n\n Subtheme 1: The Geopolitics of Asia \n Subtheme 2: Traditional Security Challenges \n Subtheme 3: Globalization and the Rise of Asia \n Subtheme 4: Non-traditional Security Challenges \n Subtheme 5: Managing the Challenges \n\nThe key questions to form the backdrop of particular sessions are: \n\n What are the implications of rising powers in Asia for the powers themselves\, for external powers and for the region? \nHow can the fruits of the economic miracles in Asia be preserved? \nWhat are the variants if any to the traditional security paradigm? \nCan cooperative security deliver on non-traditional security challenges? \nIs it premature to think of ‘One Asia’?\n\n A detailed look at Asia and its potentiality will be done in five separate sessions. \n Subtheme 1: The Geopolitics of Asia \nAsian and External powers \n Asia\, comprising as it does\, the regions of West Asia\, Central Asia\, South Asia\, South East Asia and East Asia\, is at the centre stage of global events and at the fulcrum of the global power shift. A number of issue require attention: implications of the rise of China and India; enduring conflicts in West Asia; the continuing military entanglements of the US; access and control of resources of Central Asia; expansion of security regimes in Asia-Pacific. The questions for this subtheme are: \n\nCan the rise of Asian powers continue as ‘benign’ and ‘peaceful’?\nWhat are the prospects of cooperation and conflict?\nCan the current Asian architectures manage the future?\nWhat is the status and role of US\, Russia and Australia as ‘Asian powers’?\nHow can existing faultlines be managed\n\nSubtheme 2: Traditional Security Challenges\n Nuclear Proliferation\, Terrorism\, Maritime Security \n The maturing strictures against aggression\, nuclear backdrop to conflicts between major powers\, lethality and costs of modern weapons\, and the spread of globalisation have made military power usable mostly for purposes of deterrence. Threats exist less from direct military confrontations between states than from non-state actors acting either autonomously or under state sponsorship. The traditional security domain has changed. Asia\, therefore\, needs to take note and reshape its military profile accordingly. The questions for this session are: \n\nHow serious and urgent are traditional ‘threats’? \nWhat is the scope for cooperative security?\nWhat are the determinants of ‘freedom of the seas’?\nWhat is the scope for military diplomacy\, engagement and confidence building?\nWhat are prospects for arms control and disarmament regimes?\nWhat is the continuing utility and future of nuclear weapons in Asia?\n\n Subtheme 3: Globalization and the Rise of Asia Asia and the World Economy \n Can one visualise a non-realist future for Asia\, one based on growing interdependence? The capitalist model of consumption has its perils in being unsustainable\, unless tempered by Asian traditions of abnegation. The two continent-sized states\, China and India\, are justifiably catering to their growing populations. However\, they have to face up to the limits of growth. Competition for access to resources and markets in Asia and elsewhere has the potential to disrupt relationships. The recent economic shocks indicate inherent fragility of the global economic order. Can important lessons in growth with equity be learnt from the ‘Asian Tigers’? The session will attempt answer the following: \n\nHow central is China’s economic growth the key to Asia’s economic future?\nWhat are the roles of the Chinese\, Indian and Japanese economies in the Asian and global economic order?\nCan the US-Chinese economic relationship be sustained indefintely?\nWhat is the role of regional organisations in the evolving Asian economic order?\nHow can Asia cope with future economic crises?\n\nSubtheme 4: Non-traditional Security ChallengesThe Asian Commons\, Water\, Energy\, Technological Frontiers\, Democratisation \n Non-traditional security thinking is displacing traditional modes given that these challenges are both ubiquitous and more demanding. They have the potential to both mitigate and aggravate depending on how they are approached. Given population densities\, social disparities\, expanding urban clusters and the fragility of an environment under assault from economic growth\, the future could be very bleak. The opportunity for turning it around through enlightened moderation of aspirations\, application of technology\, creating responsive policing organisations and by democratisation\, is now. The conference will dwell on such issues as: \n\nHow can the Himalayan ecosystem be managed better?\nWhat are ‘best practices’ in managing water conflicts?\nIs there a pan Asian solution to future energy security?\nWhat contribution can an Asian regional architecture make?\nHow can technology be harnessed for the new Asian century?\nWhat is the future of democracy and democratisation in Asia?\n\n Subtheme 5: Managing the ChallengesRegional Groupings\, Intra- and Inter-Regional Linkages \n Visualising a benign future helps in the creation of structures to bring about more cooperation in future. The ‘Asian’ input\, relying on a cultural legacy of centuries\, needs expansion. The continent currently views itself in multiple ‘regions’ that have regional structures of varying efficacy to integrate and mellow nationalisms. It is an idea only geographically. In such a circumstance\, would broaching a pan Asian concept be premature? The following questions will animate this session: \n\nIs it possible to draw a normative ‘Asian Way’ from Asian cultural streams?\nWhat can be learnt from the European experience of political\, military and economic integration? \nIs there a case for evolving a pan-Asian concept?\nIs a pan Asian political and economic order discernible?\nWhat are the prospects for greater economic integration across Asia?\nHow can existing structures be enhanced?\n\n\n\n\n\nProgramme Schedule\n\n\nDay 1 \n 16 February 2011\n 0915-1000h: Registration \n1000-1400hSession 1: The Geopolitics of Asia\n Chairperson – Mr. Siddharth Varadarajan \n 1000-1100 (First half) \n\nVincent Wang – The Rise of China\, the Rise of India\, and the Changing Geopolitics of Asia\nMasako Ikegami – Challenges of Rising China: A New Cold War or Neo-Imperialism? \n\n1100-1200h Keynote Session\n 1100h-1105h – Welcome of Hon’ble Minister of Defence\, Shri AK Antony\n 1105-1110h – Welcome address by DG\, IDSA\, Mr. NS Sisodia\n 1110-1125h – Inaugural Address by Hon’ble Minister of Defence and President\, IDSA\, Shri AK Antony\n 1125-1130h – Vote of Thanks by Dr. Arvind Gupta\, Lal Bahadur Shastri Chair\, IDSA\n 1130h-1200h – Tea \n1200-1400 Session 1 continues \n\nBakhtier Khakimov – Building of a new architecture of security and cooperation in Asia: Russian vision\nMumin Chen – Realist and Pragmatic Elements in China’s Grand Strategy: Assessments of China’s Relations with Japan\, Taiwan\, and India\nPrakash Menon – Indo-Pak relations and the Balance of Emotions\n\n 1300h-1400h – Discussion/Q&A \n 1400h-1500h – Lunch \n1500h-1730hSession 2: Traditional Security Challenges\n Chairperson – Lt Gen (Retd) S Nambiar \n\nPaul Salem – Building Cooperation in West Asia (On Skype)\nJoseph Liow – The East Asia Summit and the Security Architecture in the Asia-Pacific\nTetsuo Kotani – Maritime Security in Asia\n V Gundlupet – Nuclear Threats and Diplomacy: An Analysis of Indian\, Pakistani and Chinese Use of Nuclear Threats\nSaleem Shahzad – Lessons from Pakistan’s Counter -terrorism Policy for Asia\n\n 1645h-1730h – Discussion/Q&A (Tea will be available in foyer 1630h-1700h) \n\nDay 2 \n 17 February 2011\n0930h-1300hSession 3: Globalization and the Rise of Asia\n Chairperson – Dr. Sanjaya Baru \n\nNiklas Swanström – Globalization and the rise of Asia \nSean M. Lynn-Jones – Globalization and Asian Security: Promise or Peril?\nSumit Ganguly – The Obama Administration and South Asia\nZhang Zhenjiang – West European Integration and East Asian Regionalism: What we can learn and what we cannot learn?\nArshin Adib-Moghaddam – Iranian-American relations and the future security architecture in western Asia\nAtul Aneja – Implications of Developments in the Arab World\n\n 1130-1145h – Tea \n 1145-1300h – Discussion/Q&A \n 1300h-1400h – Lunch \n1400h-1715hSession 4: Non-traditional Security Challenges\n Chairperson – Dr. Radha Kumar \n\nSyed Iqbal Hasnain – The Geopolitics of Himalayan-Tibetan Glacier Melt\n Uttam Sinha – Himalayan Hydrology and the Hydropolitics \n Xia Liping – Energy security and Asian regional architecture\nTai Ming Cheung – Economics\, Security and Technology in Northeast Asia: Maneuvering Between Nationalist and Globalist Forces\nYaacov Vertzberger – Towards an Architecture of a Global Disaster-Management-Regime A Roadmap\nIqbal Singh Sevea – ‘Regulating’ Islam in the Asian State\n\n 1600-1615h Tea \n 1615h-1715h – Discussion/Q&A \n\nDay 3 \n 18 February 2011\n0930-1245hSession 5: Managing the Challenges\n Chairperson – Amb. Leela K. Ponappa \n\nRobert Art – US-China Relations and Implications for India (On Skype)\nWilliam Thompson – Long Term Asian Patterns of Conflict\nAlexander Lukin – Russia and Geopolitics of Asia\nMustafa Aydin – Developments and changes since the end of the cold war: West Asia and Central Asia\n Arvind Gupta – How India is managing its Asian Challenge\n\n 1130h-1145h – Tea\n 1145h-1255h – Discussion/Q&A \n1300h-1330hClosing Session\n Chairperson: N. S. Sisodia Closing Address – Amb. Shivshankar Menon\, NSA \n Vote of Thanks\n 1330h Group Photograph of participants\n Lunch \n\n\n\n\nConference Booklet\nRapporteurs Report URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/13th-asian-security-conference-on-towards-a-new-asian-order CATEGORIES:Asian Security Conference,Previous ASC,CONFERENCES ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20110216T053000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20110216T053000 DTSTAMP:20261108T003243 CREATED:20231223T124659Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240229T001038Z UID:62675-1297834200-1297834200@idsa.in SUMMARY:Presidential Address at the 13th Asian Security Conference DESCRIPTION:Director General\, IDSA\, Shri N.S Sisodia\,\nDistinguished participants\,\nLadies and gentlemen\, \nI have great pleasure in welcoming you all to the 13th edition of the Asian Security Conference. We all have gathered here on the occasion of Id-e-Milad\, birthday of Holy Prophet Mohammad. I extend my warm greetings to all of you\, particularly to all our Muslim brethren. The Prophet’s message of peace is today all the more relevant for all nations and societies\, as they grapple with violence and terrorism\, besides many other nefarious activities. \nToday\, we all miss the presence of Shri K Subrahmanyam. He would surely have been amidst us\, had destiny not willed it otherwise. His strategic vision has helped the IDSA achieve its present status. I am happy to announce that a K. Subrahmanyam Chair is being established at IDSA in his memory. We hope that the outstanding scholars selected to occupy the Chair will carry forward Late Shri Subrahmanyam’s outstanding work. \nThe theme of this 13th Asian Security Conference – ‘Towards a New Asian Order’ is extremely relevant in today’s context. The 21st century has for long been termed – ‘Asian Century’. As we enter the second decade of the 21st century\, building a New Asian Order is crucial\, if Asia region has to emerge as a world leader. This will be possible only in an atmosphere of peace and harmony and not under the shadow of guns. The contours of the Asian order will have a significant bearing on the world order. \nThe eminent gathering at this Conference includes distinguished speakers from the world over. Their experiences\, thoughts and perspectives on Asia will go a long way in achieving a stable\, equitable\, prosperous and a just order in Asia. \nIf the Asian Century is to become a living reality\, firstly\, it is the responsibility of all Asian states to create and sustain such an order. Secondly\, the traditional Asian ethos based on the principles of Panchsheel has to form its core\, namely – respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty\, non-aggression\, non-interference in each other’s internal affairs\, equality and mutuality and peaceful co-existence. Sustained peace and security will lead to a more lasting economic prosperity\, social well-being and equity with justice for the people of Asia. There will be contentious issues along the way\, but we should always try to resolve them through mutual understanding\, dialogue at bilateral and multilateral levels and a pan-Asian framework. However\, if nations permit themselves to be swayed by the burden of historical factors\, we will be putting the peace and security of the region and the world in grave peril. \nIndia has always been at the forefront of resolution of issues through peaceful means and mutual dialogue between nations. Soon after India’s independence\, New Delhi’s avowed objective was to “provide a cultural and intellectual revival and social progress in Asia.” Over the years\, Asian nations have achieved this – individually\, as well as collectively. \nThe last century witnessed two World Wars. However\, any large-scale conflict in nuclear age will have unforeseen consequences. The stability of the Asian region is crucial for world peace\, as several nations of the region have become seething cauldrons of violence and unrest. Transition of power must invariably be through peaceful and non-violent means. \nIndia’s location on the map of Asia gives it a central and strategic importance. Nations such as India\, China and Japan have historical and cultural linkages. Given such a unique interconnectivity between these and other Asian nations too\, security-related challenges and their solutions require a united approach from the entire region. Some of the prominent challenges that face the Asian region include – terrorism\, nuclear proliferation\, piracy and smuggling of arms. The leadership of Asian regions – individually\, as well as collectively\, need to work upon building a common identity and an efficient security architecture. If the European Union can do it successfully\, there is no reason why the Asian region can’t better it. \nThis thirteenth edition of the Asian Security Conference must develop the fine print of a common\, yet overarching security architecture. Nations of the region have to cooperate on a much larger scale. Some existing institutions like the East Asia Summit and SAARC can and must be broad-based\, developed and fine-tuned. Such organisations can really go a long way in developing lasting peace\, harmony and stability that is rooted in mutual economic growth and sensitivity for each other’s security concerns. \nThe twin processes of globalisation and liberalisation have made the probability of full-blown wars a remote possibility. Peace and stability have become irreversibly interlinked with economic growth. However\, despite the economic interdependence\, several Asian nations continue to be plagued by internal disturbances and militancy. Most often the expression of discontent by the people actually reflects their burning desire for good governance and all-round development. \nLadies and Gentlemen\, \nThe concept of security is rapidly expanding and evolving. Security today seeks to measure economic growth in terms of the general standards of living of the poor and the underprivileged. Climate change and the direction in which the global economy is headed\, form the core of any discourse on fresh security issues. I believe that climate change and the direction of the global economy also feature as issues to be addressed by this Conference. \nAt times\, there is a misplaced scepticism on the space available for the rise and growth of Asian powers. I have no doubt that provided we have the will\, creation of space for all Asian nations to grow will never be a constraint. \nFriends\,\nIndia’s democratic fabric provides its citizens a direct stake through universal adult franchise. Political transition has always been peaceful\, non-violent and through people’s participation. Successive governments have sought to bring about a transformation in its diverse and pluralistic society within this democratic framework. \nOur relations with other nations are dictated by our security imperatives. We have never wanted to further our relationship with a particular nation at the cost of relations with any other country. In our neighbourhood\, we have always been in favour of resolving issues through dialogue and constant engagement. \nAs two of the largest nations of the region\, India and China need to enhance cooperation levels on common issues such as climate change and trade. Recently\, the 13th round of discussions at the level of Special Representatives on the border issue with China was concluded. The complicated border issue can be settled only out through dialogue and discussions. We are not unduly concerned about China’s military modernisation\, but we need to carry out a comprehensive review of our defence preparedness and remain vigilant at all times. \nWe have also just concluded the Foreign Secretary level talks with Pakistan which demonstrated a desire on the part of both nations to carry forward the dialogue process. However\, any meaningful progress can only be made only when Pakistan takes concrete steps to address India’s concerns on 26/11 Mumbai terror attack. \nOther nations in our immediate neighbourhood are experiencing unrests. India has always desired peaceful relations with all our neighbours – Nepal\, Sri Lanka\, Bangladesh\, Bhutan and Myanmar. We know fully well that security of one nation is closely linked and dependent on the security of its neighbouring countries. \nIndia has always played a stabilising role in the Asian region\, despite itself being plagued by terrorism. We have always been at the forefront in relief and rebuilding initiatives – be it the reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan\, relief and rehabilitation in the wake of Tsunami in 2005\, or anti-piracy operations. India has also voluntarily abided by nuclear ‘No-first use’ and unconditional negative security guarantees for non-nuclear states. \nWe firmly believe that nations of the Asian region have close historical\, cultural and civilizational linkages. These values must be constructively utilised to build an Asian order that reflects our unique Asian traditions. \nI compliment the IDSA for bringing together this eminent galaxy of experts and thinkers from the world over that puts this Conference on a different pedestal. \nWith these words\, I take your leave and wish the conference the very best in its deliberations. \nThank you.” URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/presidential-address-at-the-13th-asian-security-conference CATEGORIES:KEY SPEECHES,Asian Security Conference,ASC Key Speeches ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20100211T053000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20100213T053000 DTSTAMP:20261108T003243 CREATED:20231223T125734Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250309T014158Z UID:62802-1265866200-1266039000@idsa.in SUMMARY:12th Asian Security Conference: Asian Strategic Futures 2030 : Trends\, Scenarios and Alternatives DESCRIPTION:Concept Note\n\nAs human history shows future is always uncertain. Even so\, there are forecasts on the possibility of Asian countries like China and India overtaking the US by 2030 and 2050 respectively in the economic sphere with agencies like the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and Goldman Sachs already predicting the decline of the US and the rise of Asia. Whether Asian states will continue with the present pace of their economic growth or lose momentum needs to be examined in order to plan for the uncertainties and sudden breaks that may materialize in the future.Identified amongst the potential drivers of future change are economic growth\, climate change\, demographics\, urbanization\, migration\, resource competition\, technology\, military modernization\, globalization\, nationalism and identity politics\, radical movements\, extremism and terrorism\, etc. \nThe objective of the 12th Asian Security Conference 2010 is to explore in some depth key drivers of change in Asia and examine possible trends\, scenarios and alternatives\, which can affect geopolitics and security environment.  The idea is not so much to engage in an exercise to predict the future as it is to scan the emerging geo-political terrain and offer some guide posts to planners\, policy makers and those interested in international politics and security. \nThe conference will have nine inter-related sessions focused on understanding the key drivers of change and imagining alternative scenarios of Asia’s future. While the timeline of 2030 is a useful method indicating a particular frame of reference\, it is not expected to be viewed rigidly and scholars could make their projections for Asia’s future covering roughly above the period. \nThe clutch of inter-related issues identified for the different sessions are:\n\nSession I: Economic Growth\, Globalisation\, Poverty and Equity.\nSession II : Climate Change\, Environment\, Energy\, Water and Resources.\nSession III: Demography\, Migration and Urbanization.\nSession IV : Transformational Technologies and their Impact on Society.\nSession V : Asian Militaries and the Future of War.\nSession VI : WMD Weapons and International Security.\nSession VII : Society\, Identity\, Religion\, and Governance.\nSession VIII : Geo-Politics in Asia: Country Perspectives.\nSession IX : Asia 2030: Alternative Scenarios.\n\nThe key questions addressed across the sessions could include among others: \n\nWhat are the key challenges likely to be faced by Asian Countries in 2030?\nHow will the assessment of comprehensive national power change by 2030?\nWhat are the potential areas of conflict that must be considered for Asia in 2030?\nWhat kind of regional institutional frameworks are needed to avert future conflicts in Asia?\n\n Session I\nTheme: Economic Growth\, Globalization\, Poverty and Equity \nUnder the globalization process\, many Asian countries with their liberal economic policies\, large domestic savings and substantial private capital inflows have grown rapidly. Although globalization has brought economic dividends\, it has also adversely impacted Asian economies. Economic disparities\, downturn\, and unemployment are a few negative consequences. \nSome of the questions that could be addressed during the session are:- \n\nWhat are the likely trajectories of economic growth and globalisation in Asia? What would be Asia’s economic and trade scenario in 2030?\nHow would projected trends affect poverty & equity?\nWhat mechanisms are states likely to adopt to ward off the negative consequences of globalization by 2030? How will “protectionism” affect the forces of globalization?\nHow will the weak economies safeguard their interests amidst the presence of global forces in 2030?\nWhat will be the consequences of intra and inter-state disparities?\n\nSession II\nTheme: Climate Change\, Environment\, Energy\, Water and Resources \nClimate change is regarded as one of the gravest non-traditional security threats faced by the international community today. Climate change may have profound implications for environment; energy; water resources; human settlements\, urbanization\, infrastructure and even military operations. \nThe session is proposed to be devoted to addressing\, inter-alia\, the following key questions:- \n\nHow will climate change impact Asia and its international politics?\nWill resource depletion result in conflict or cooperation among the states in Asia by 2030?\nHow will climate and resource depletion impact regime stability in Asia? Will it aid extremism in the region?\nWhat kind of challenges is Asia likely to face in meeting its Energy\, Water and other critical resources requirement?\n\nSession III\nTheme: Demography\, Migration and Urbanization\nIn the last few decades\, most countries in Asia have experienced a demographic transition more rapid than any other region. Falling mortality and fertility rates\, declining youth dependency rate and rising old-age dependency rate\, etc. will have potentially serious economic implications for the region’s future.  Spatial mobility is predicted to be on the rise in Asia in the coming years\, particularly in the spheres of occupational mobility and rural to urban mobility.  If such prediction becomes a reality\, most of the countries in Asia\, including India and China will cease to be rural majority countries in the next 30/40 years. In the long run\, all these will eventually have negative impact on food security for the highly populous countries like India and China.\nThe key questions for this session could include: \n\nWhat are the expected demographic patterns for Asia in 2030?\nWhat are the implications of these trends for Asian countries’ economic development?\nWhat will be the impact of demographic trends and migration on intra-state or inter-state conflicts?\nHow is urbanization likely to affect the continent?\n\nSession IV: \nTheme: Transformational Technologies and their Impact on Society\nThe 20th century witnessed many significant technological breakthroughs\, particularly in sectors of communication\, transportation and medical sciences. The last few decades of that century were dominated by miraculous developments in information technology. From telephones to computers\, cars to state-of-the art aircrafts\, high altitude balloons to spacecrafts\, e-dictionaries to Internet and vaccines to stem cell research dominated the field of technology development. The 21st century began with the birth of aerospace technology and ended up revolutionizing the war doctrines of various militaries. New technologies in the areas of information technology\, space\, solar power\, robotics\, nanotechnology\, biotechnology\, genetic engineering etc. are likely to shape the future of humankind. \nThe key questions to be addressed in this session could be:- \n\nWhich technologies are likely to prove strategically significant?  How will they shape the future?\nWhat will be the impact of these technologies on Asian strategic scenarios in 2030?\nHow will they impact war? Can they be harnessed for peace?\n\nSession V: \nTheme: Asian Militaries and the Future of War\nAs the ideological fencing of the Cold War period withered away\, primordial fault lines have raised their head in the last two decades giving birth to multiple numbers of non-state actors who have continuously defied the modern nation states. As a result\, at present\, state centric inter-state conflicts are increasingly being replaced by intra-state cultural\, psychological or economic conflicts initiated by non-state actors. The future prospects of security therefore appear uncertain in which both state as a conventional source of security threat\, and non-state actors – independently or with the covert support of some states–will play their parts. Since the changes that have been observed in the post-Cold War era are still in the process of unfolding themselves\, the future course of wars and the shape of militaries remain valid subjects of study. \nThe key questions that could be addressed in this session are:- \n\nWhat will be the nature of conflicts in the next two decades?\nWill local and limited wars prove their utility under the shadow of nuclear deterrence?\nHow will Asian Militaries look like in 2030? What might be the inter-state balances among major powers?\n\nSession VI: \nTheme: WMD Weapons and International Security\nThe spread of WMDs-chemical\, biological\, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) – poses one of the most serious threats to international security because of their capacity for catastrophic destruction through a single attack.  A number of nuclear powers (China\, India\, Pakistan\, North Korea) and the world’s most advanced threshold nuclear states (South Korea\, Japan and Taiwan) are situated in Asia.  Over the years\, despite various efforts to check nuclear proliferation\, the technological barriers of acquiring nuclear weapons appear to be weakening. In fact\, for even weak and isolated countries like North Korea\, nuclear weapons have come to be treated as the only strategic ‘equalizer’ available to them to check US influence in the region. \nThe key questions to be addressed in this session could be:- \n\nHow would nuclear weapons affect security environment in 2030?\nWhat are the likely prospects of nuclear/CBRN terrorism in 2030?\nIs there a prospect for nuclear disarmament?\n\nSession VII: \nTheme: Society\, Identity\, Religion and Governance\nWhile the end of the Cold War diminished the role of ideology in international politics\, issues of society\, identity\, religion and governance have come to the forefront. Cultural fault-lines appear to be growing and religion in particular has acquired centre-stage in the anti-modernity and anti-modern-state discourse. Asian societies are seriously grappling with the challenge of reconciling individual and civil rights and yet developing as a strong state without paying a heavy price for their stability and prosperity. \nKey questions for this session could be:- \n\nWhat would be the relations between state and society in Asia in 2030?\nWhat will be the nature of governance in Asia in 2030?\nWill the modern-states be able to withstand pressures created by social and cultural actors in 2030?\nIs religion going to be a prime identity and defining principle in Asia in 2030?\nWill the terrorist organizations establish themselves as sole and authentic spokespersons of religion in 2030?\n\nSession VIII: \nTheme: Geo-Politics in Asia: Country Perspectives\nThe 21st century is projected to be the Asian century\, as future peace and stability in Asia and the world are likely to be determined by the policies to be pursued by five powers (India\, China\, Japan\, Russia and the US)\, for whom Asia is the meeting ground. The US’s extensive political\, economic and security interests\, and its overwhelming military presence in Asia makes it an important player in the region’s politics. As a major producer and exporter of critical energy resources\, Russia also enjoys a major role in determining Asian security. In recent years\, Japan too has begun to play a major role in regional and global affairs commensurate with its economic status. The rise of China and India\, and their expanding strategic reach and ambitions on the global stage could result in competition between them over power\, influence and energy resources. \nThe key questions to be addressed in this session could be:- \n\nWill economic issues continue to be the driving force in determining Asian security in 2030?\nWill relations between Asian states (especially India and China) be cooperative or conflictual in 2030? What will be the role of regional organizations in managing Asia’s rise?\nWill the US presence in the region diminish or continue to play a more stabilizing role in 2030?\nHow might other powers influence geopolitics in Asia?\n\nSession IX: \nTheme: Asia 2030: Alternative Scenarios\nThis session will attempt to analyse the key factors/drivers (of change) impinging upon Asia’s future in 2030 based on the discussions on themes of the conference in the previous sessions. The identification of the key factors/drivers will be utilized to project and describe\, if not predict\, three to four future scenarios for Asia in 2030. These scenarios would have a high degree of uncertainty tagged to them. No matter how refined our methods in social science may become\, we cannot escape from the fact that all our knowledge is based on the past and present while all our policy decisions are about the future. Therefore\, studying the future is mostly an activity based on conjectures. In this regard\, the method of scenario-building could be employed to grasp a whole range of forces\, factors\, and possibilities that we could take note of while planning for the future of Asia in the next two decades. \n\n\n\n\nProgramme Schedule\n\n\nDay 1 (11 Feb 2010)\n0900h-0930h: Registration \n0930h-1115h: Session I\nTheme\n: Economic Growth\, Globalisation\, Poverty & Equity \nChair: Mr. K. Subrahmanyam \nPaper I: Relative Growth of Nations: A View in the Mirror of History: Prof. Nayan Chanda\nPaper II: Future of Globalization and Neo-Liberal Trade: Mr. Mohan Guruswamy\nPaper III: State of Poverty\, Equity and Perceptions of Justice: Dr. Amita Baviskar\nPaper IV: State of Critical Infrastructure: Dr. Adrian V. Gheorghe \n1115h-1145h: Tea \n1145h-1330h: Session II\nTheme\n: Climate Change\, Environment\, Energy\, Water and Resources \nChair: Amb. C Dasgupta\nPaper I: Asian Energy Scenarios: 2030: Dr. Anshu Bharadwaj\nPaper II: Energy Resource Competition: 2030: Mr. Ruth Greenspan Bell\nPaper II: Climate Change and Implications for Security: Dr. Stephan Harrison\nPaper III: Water Insecurity and its Implications for Asia: Dr. Uttam Kumar Sinha \n1330h-1400h: Keynote Address by Hon’ble Defence Minister of India\, Shri A. K. Antony \n1400h-1500h: Lunch \n1500h-1645h: Session III\nTheme: Demography\, Migration & Urbanization\nChair: Prof. P R Chari\nPaper I: The Geopolitical Implications of Global Aging: Prof. Phillip Longman\nPaper II: Population Movements and Diaspora: Prof. Judith Brown \nPaper III: Rural Urban Divide and Urbanization: Implications for Security : Mr. Narendra Sisodia and Dr. Sarita Azad\nPaper IV: Pandemics and its consequences for the Future of Asia: Dr. Ali Karami \n1645h: Tea \n\nDay 2 (12 Feb 2010) \n0900-1045h: Session IV\nTheme\n: Transformational Technologies & their Impact on Society\nChair: Mr. K Santhanam\nPaper I: Technology Scenario in 2030: Dr. Virginia B. Watson \nPaper II: Cyber Security challenges for Asia in a 2030 time frame: Dr. Roland Heickerö\nPaper III: Future of Asian Space Powers: Wg Cdr Ajey Lele\nPaper IV: Renewable Technologies and their Impact on Society : Mr. David E. Fuente \n1045h-1115h: Tea \n1115h-1315h: Session V\nTheme\n: Asian Militaries and the Future of War\nChair: Air Comde. (Retd.) Jasjit Singh\nPaper I: War in 2030: Prof. Martin Van Crevald \nPaper II: Asian Armies: Dr. Yong-Sup Han\nPaper III: Asian Air Powers in 2030: Col. John P Geis\nPaper IV: Asian Navies: Dr. Vijay Sakhuja\nPaper V: Defence R & D in Asia: Achievements & Future Directions: Ms. Nabnita Krishnan \n1315h-1415h: Lunch \n1415h-1600h: Session VI\nTheme\n: WMD Weapons & International Security\nChair: Amb. Satish Chandra\nPaper I: Relevance of Nuclear Weapons in the 21st century: Prof. Pervez Hoodbhoy\nPaper II: Asian Security\, Chinese and Indian Power\, and Nuclear Non-proliferation: Prof. Sumit Ganguly and Prof. David P. Fidler\nPaper III: Nuclear Terrorism: Mr. Charles P. Blair and Dr. Gary Ackerman \nPaper IV: CBRN Terrorism: Ms. Angela Woodword \n1600h-1630h: Tea \n1630h-1815h: Session VII\nTheme\n: Society\, Identity\, Religion and Governance \nChair: Prof. Zoya Hasan\nPaper I: Social Trends of the Future: Prof. T.K. Oomen\nPaper II: Identity Politics and Nationalism: Prof. Catarina Kinnvall\nPaper III: Religious Trends in Asia and Extremism: Dr. Bilveer Singh\nPaper IV: The Future of Terrorism: Dr. Walid Phares\n \n\nDay 3 (13 Feb 2010) \n0900h-1110h: Session VIII\nTheme\n: Geo-Politics in Asia: Country Perspectives\nChair: Mr. K. Subrahmanyam \nPaper I: The Geopolitics of Asia in 2030: An American Perspective: Prof. Aaron Friedberg\nPaper II: China and India: Geopolitical Center of Asia in 2030: Dr. Li Li \nPaper III: Asia 2030: A View from Japan: Dr. Makoto Iokibe\nPaper IV: Russia’s Asia policy in 2030: Dr. Stanislav Tkachenko \nPaper V: Asia 2030: A View from India: Prof. Amitabh Mattoo \n1110h-1130h: Tea \n1130h-1330h: Session IX\nTheme: Asia 2030: Alternative Scenarios\nChair: Mr. Pradeep Kumar\nPaper I: Role of Multi-lateral Institutions: Certain Scenarios: Amb. Sudhir T Devare\nPaper II: The Geo-politics of Asia in 2030 from China’s Perspective and Interest: Dr. Chien-peng Chung\nPaper III: Hegemony or Balance of Power? Regional Order and Conflict in a Transforming Asia: Prof. John Ikenberry\nPaper IV: Is Conflict Inevitable in Asia?: Dr. Namrata Goswami\nPaper V: Asian Futures 2030: Global Strategic Trends – Alternative Scenarios: Cdr. Steve Aiken \n1330h-1345h: Closing Remarks \n1345h-1400h: Group Photograph \n1400h-1500h: Lunch \n\n\n\n\nRapporteurs Report\nSpeakers Profile URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/12th-asian-security-conference-asian-strategic-futures-2030-trends-scenarios-and-alternatives CATEGORIES:Asian Security Conference,Previous ASC,CONFERENCES ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20100211T053000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20100211T053000 DTSTAMP:20261108T003243 CREATED:20231223T124743Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240229T001151Z UID:62682-1265866200-1265866200@idsa.in SUMMARY:Presidential Address at the 12th Asian Security Conference DESCRIPTION:Shri N.S. Sisodia\, Director General\, IDSA\,\nDistinguished invitees\,\nFriends from the media\,\nLadies and Gentlemen\, \nI am honoured and happy to be amongst you at this inaugural session of the 12th Asian Security Conference. The theme of the Conference – ‘Asia’s Strategic Futures – 2030’\, is particularly relevant in the context of the changing dynamics in the Asian region. Your presence is a testimony to the importance of the theme\, as well as a common desire to make a lasting contribution in shaping the future of our world. \nIt is widely acknowledged that the 21st century will be Asia’s century and will see the rise and consolidation of Asia’s role in the world. As we enter the second decade of this millennium\, the promise of the Asian dream can be seen everywhere. Many of Asia’s economies\, notably India’s and China’s\, continued to grow\, even though the global economy was in the throes of a recession. The expansion of infrastructure\, the improvement of human development indicators are signs of the emergence of Asia. Paradoxically\, the challenges to the realisation of this promise too\, lie within Asia. The growth of religious fanaticism and the epicentre of global terrorism in our immediate neighbourhood and beyond is one such challenge. \nThere is a school of thought which feels that the world may not see many large-scale conflicts. This is similar to the Mutually Assured Doctrine of the Cold War era. The tools of war are getting sophisticated\, yet deadlier and devastating. This should discourage democratic nations from choosing war to settle disputes. Though all-out wars between nations may not be the norm any longer\, they have been replaced by terrorism\, insurgencies and various forms of militancy. Such low-key conflicts and proxy wars are used as instruments by other nations to challenge the State structures. \nIndia’s experience with terrorism tells us that the line of distinction between State-sponsored terrorism and the role of non-state actors is often blurred – and rather indistinguishable. Transnational terrorism has\, of late\, emerged as a real threat. Our neighbourhood\, particularly Pakistan and Afghanistan\, is home to terrorist organisations like LeT and Al Qaeda\, which pose a threat to the entire world. The people of Pakistan and Afghanistan too are the victims of these organisations. Unless the real support base of these organisations is tracked down and dismantled\, their activities will continue to pose a serious threat. Cooperation must also include nation-states giving up support to terror outfits. No country should provide support\, explicit\, or otherwise\, to terror outfits. This is an important pre-requisite for peace and development in the region. \nIndia has always been interested in a peaceful neighbourhood. We want our neighbours to make progress. Several nations of the region share historical and cultural commonalities. We also face many common developmental challenges. However\, we cannot expect the situation to improve\, till all stakeholders have equal stakes in each other’s peace\, progress and stability. We cannot wait endlessly for such a realisation and good sense to dawn. The world community must act decisively to tackle this problem. The scourge of terrorism has to be dealt with comprehensively and with a jointness of approach. \nTerror infrastructure continues to thrive on Pakistani soil. We continue to be firm with our demand that Pakistan must put an end to terror activities emanating from its soil. Indo-Pak relations always have a huge bearing on regional peace and security. Our Government’s willingness to resume negotiations with Pakistan must be seen in this backdrop. At the same time\, we are also carefully monitoring the developments in Pakistan. \nOur relationship with China is progressing at bilateral and multilateral level. We have always invested in Confidence Building Measures aimed at enhancing understanding and trust-building. We are carrying out continuous appraisals of its military capabilities. At the same time\, we are also taking all necessary measures to shape our responses. \nEvery nation has to be adequately prepared to safeguard its “territorial integrity and sovereignty”. We will make all-out efforts to strengthen our security and safeguard our people. However\, our defence policy is neither aggressive\, nor is aimed at any particular country. We only seek to build an effective deterrent capability to safeguard ourselves. The recent successful test of Agni-III needs to be seen in this context. It is not aimed against any particular nation. \nIndia has always supported complete elimination of all nuclear weapons. We are strongly and voluntarily committed to ‘No-First Use’ of nuclear weapons. We also welcome the ongoing debate on nuclear disarmament. India has been steadfast in its support to the only two non-discriminatory treaties banning weapons of mass destruction – the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and the Biological and Toxins Weapons Convention. In keeping with our obligations under the CWC\, last year\, we completed the process of destruction of our chemical weapons. I say this to highlight our long-standing support for commencement of negotiations on an international treaty\, on a Nuclear Weapons Convention\, for the elimination of nuclear weapons\, globally and verifiably. We would also support a process that delegitimizes nuclear weapons\, just as chemical and biological weapons were\, prior to their elimination through treaties. Today\, India and the international community face the dangerous possibility of nuclear materials and technologies falling into the hands of terrorists. We look forward to explore these ideas further in a spirit of shared concerns and convergence of interests with all the nations. \nSecurity however\, has several other dimensions too. At the macro level\, threats like climate change and natural disasters have similar consequences for all nations. But the severity of impact is likely to be much more in densely populated parts of Asia. Nations of the region thus have a combined stake in lasting peace and each other’s well-being. \nMany nations of the Asian region are at the crossroads. The various challenges can be met by the need and potential for thorough cooperation and collective action. India’s approach to the security challenges facing Asia is based on the values of pluralism\, cooperation and inclusiveness. We strongly believe that nothing else will work in a region as diverse as ours. \nCommon concerns over the security of the Sea Lanes of Communication have become a major worry in the last few years. This concern has brought about a significant level of cooperation among Navies of affected countries. On its part\, India deployed its warships in the Indian Ocean and nearby regions to protect the Sea Lanes of Communication\, as they are critical for world trade. We will continue to play a constructive role to ensure the stability of Indian Ocean and the near-by regions. Similarly\, cooperative efforts in the field of exploration\, sharing of technologies\, investment and infrastructure like pipelines can help the region address the energy challenge. Efforts to deal with climate change\, especially in sharing green technologies\, enhancing water sharing and dealing with natural disasters cannot succeeded without a collective approach. \nExploration of outer space is another area where countries of the region can work together. Space is a common asset for mankind. Recently Japan\, China and India have successfully completed their missions to Moon. Multilateral collaboration is necessary in space too because of technological challenges and huge financial costs involved. Space security thus\, becomes an extremely crucial issue in 21st century. If regional powers can work together to harness the vast potential for the common good of mankind\, it would reduce the possibility of the militarization of space in the future. \nToday\, information is available across the world in real time. Perceptions of deprivation and injustice have thus become stronger. Clearly\, nations and governments cannot ignore disparities resulting from globalisation. The world cannot remain peaceful\, unless the underprivileged and poor make progress in equal measure. Our government has thus\, focused on inclusive growth. I hope that all countries in the region will become equal partners in the region’s growth. The developed nations too must follow fair and equitable policies so that it does not slow down the growth of poorer nations. The industrialised world’s view on technology transfer will also have to change\, if the goal of inclusive growth\, vital for a peaceful world\, is to be achieved. \nI have no doubt that the deliberations at this Conference would be of great value in bringing new thoughts and perspectives to assessing the contours of the challenges to be addressed in the future. Let me conclude by wishing the Conference all success. I hope the participants from foreign countries have a pleasant and a memorable stay in India. \nThank you. JAI HIND URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/presidential-address-at-the-12th-asian-security-conference CATEGORIES:KEY SPEECHES,Asian Security Conference,ASC Key Speeches ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20090203T053000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20090204T053000 DTSTAMP:20261108T003243 CREATED:20231223T125834Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250313T003305Z UID:62806-1233639000-1233725400@idsa.in SUMMARY:11th Asian Security Conference: The Changing Face of Conflict and Strategy in Asia DESCRIPTION:Concept Note\n\n\nThe Asian Security Conference (ASC) is a major calendar event of the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA)\, New Delhi. Since 1999\, when the conference was first held\, the ASC has emerged as an important platform for debating issues relating to Asian security. For the last ten years\, the ASC has been providing a forum for security analysts\, ministers and diplomats from around the world to share their views on the challenges facing the Asian continent. The eleventh in this series is being held to probe the issue of “The Changing Face of Conflict and Evolving Strategies in Asia.”While there is now a general acknowledgement that Asia is becoming the new centre of gravity in international politics\, it is also true that the present juncture represents a period of uncertainty. Firstly\, the interests of five major powers – those of the predominant United States\, a resurgent Russia\, a rising China\, a normalising Japan\, and an emerging India – intersect in Asia. Four of these countries possess nuclear weapons and Japan not only enjoys the protection afforded by the American nuclear umbrella but also has the necessary wherewithal to go nuclear once it makes a determination to this effect. Though peaceful relations currently prevail among them all partly fuelled by economic interdependence and partly a result of the existing correlation of forces\, potential sources of conflict lie beneath the surface in the form of unresolved territorial disputes and national and geopolitical rivalries. Could these eventually result in rival alliances\, arms races and even open war? Or\, given growing economic interdependence\, the presence of nuclear weapons and the extreme destructiveness of modern war\, is war among major powers unlikely? \nSecondly\, current trends indicate that conflicts are largely confined to the intra-state level (civil wars\, insurgencies and terrorism)\, and that non-traditional and transnational security challenges like energy security\, climate change\, pandemics\, natural disasters\, maritime piracy\, etc. are the more dominant motifs of international security. Are we then witnessing a transformation in war? \nGiven the uncertainty of the evolving security environment\, marked as it is by underlying rivalries and unresolved territorial disputes on one hand and a host of non-traditional and transnational challenges on the other\, the strategy of key players in Asia in dealing with the multiple challenges facing them needs to be studied. It is broadly understood that Strategy\, or Grand Strategy if you will\, involves marshalling the resources of a nation (or a coalition of nations)\, including the armed forces\, towards the goal of protecting\, promoting and securing vital interests against adversaries or rivals. It is from this perspective that the strategies of key players in Asia (China\, India\, Japan\, Russia and the United States) would be looked at\, based on the understanding that the manner in which their strategies interact will fundamentally determine issues of war and peace and the contours of the international order in coming years. \nGiven the vagaries and uncertainties inherent in international politics as well as the imperative of technological development and evolution\, all major powers as well as key players in Asia are naturally engaged in modernising their militaries. In order to provide a solid foundation for the discussion\, individual case studies have been identified. The discussion will begin with a paper on the evolution of China’s military doctrine. It will be followed by a study on the U.S. Air Force and the changing dimensions of air power. The maritime dimension of Asian security will be explored through a study on the Indian Navy. And given the prominence of insurgencies and the threat of terrorism in the current international security situation\, this dimension of conflict will be covered by a study on the counter-insurgency strategy being employed in Afghanistan. \nThree other specific dimensions of future conflict in Asia are also emerging. The first is the emerging trend towards militarization of space. China became the third country in the world to send an astronaut into space in October 2003. It also showcased its anti-satellite capabilities in January 2007 by shooting down one of its own old satellites. The United States\, which had earlier withdrawn from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2001\, followed suit with an ASAT test of its own in February 2008. Apprehensions caused by these trends have led India\, which has so far pursued only peaceful applications of space technology\, to set up an Integrated Space Cell to be jointly operated by its armed forces and its space research organisation. Japan enacted a Space Law in June 2008\, which has changed the interpretation of peaceful uses of outer space from ‘non-military’ to ‘non-aggressive’. Are we then witnessing a new space race involving the United States\, China\, Japan and India? And what role would space technology play in future wars? \nAnother technological pursuit that would have fundamental implications in the years to come is the quest for ballistic missile defences\, principally by the United States. Though ostensibly meant to cater for threats from ‘rogue’ states\, it will also have obvious utility against China\, for instance\, which at present deploys only about 20 ICBMs capable of reaching the continental United States. Japan has a robust co-operation programme on missile defence with the United States. India too has been showing interest in deploying missile defences. What would be the impact of ballistic missile defence systems on nuclear deterrence? \nThird\, even as economies and militaries are becoming increasingly networked to benefit from information technology\, the vulnerabilities of these networks are becoming evident with reports of cyber attacks. This new dimension of cyber space will also be discussed in the conference. Finally\, the conference will also focus on the prospects for the structuring of an Asian security architecture. Two contrasting approaches to evolving a security architecture can be envisaged. One involves structuring a balance of power involving major and key minor powers in Asia. And the second is a co-operative framework\, exemplified by the ARF. Both these approaches will be analysed. \nOver the last decade\, the IDSA\, through the medium of the Asian Security Conference\, has had the honour and privilege of providing a forum for leading policymakers and security analysts from around the world to share and discuss their thoughts and insights on the evolving security environment in Asia. Our endeavour is to advance knowledge about the pressing security issues and challenges in Asia as well as help bridge the gap between knowledge and policy. We hope to contribute through this conference to a better understanding of the security dimensions of a rising Asia and its impact on the international order. \n\n\n\n\nProgramme Schedule\n\n\nDAY 1\, February 03\, 2009\nRegistration: 0830 hrs \nInaugural Session: 09:00 – 09:40 hrs\nTea: 0940 – 1000 hrs \n\nWelcome Remarks – Shri Narendra Singh Sisodia\, Director-General IDSA\nKeynote Address – Shri A.K. Antony\, President of IDSA & Defence Minister of India\nConferment of the K. Subrahmanyam Award\nBook Release\nVote of Thanks – Dr. Thomas Mathew\, Deputy Director-General\, IDSA\n\nSession 1: Conflict and Strategy (10:00 – 12:30 hrs)\nChair: V. P. Malik \n\nRegular and Irregular War – Lawrence Freedman\nThe Conflict in Afghanistan and the Evolution of Counter-insurgency Strategy – Rod Thornton\nThinking Strategically – John Warden\n\nDiscussant: V. Krishnappa \nRapporteur Report\nLunch: 1230 – 1330 hrs \nSession 2: Asian Hotspots and American Security Strategy (13:30 – 15:15 hrs)\nChair: Satish Chandra \n\nThe Emerging Security Dynamic in West Asia – Hilal Khashan\nThe US Global War on Terrorism in Afghanistan-Pakistan: An Assessment – Christine Fair\nHow to get Asia-Pacific Policy Right?: Recommendations for the Obama Administration – Ralph Cossa\n\nDiscussant: Alok Bansal \nRapporteur Report\nTea: 15:15 – 15:30 hrs \nSession 3: Military Modernisation and Asian Security (15:30 – 17:30 hrs)\nChair: Jasjit Singh \n\nPatterns of Doctrine in the Chinese People’s Liberation Army: From Threats to Contingencies to Capabilities – Paul Godwin\nThe Indian Navy: Oceanic and Coastal Security Imperatives – Rahul Roy-Choudhury\nThe U.S. Air Force and the Changing Face of Air Power – Benjamin Lambeth\n\nDiscussant: Arvind Dutta \nRapporteur Report\nDay 2\, February 04\, 2009\nSession 4: Technology and Asian Security (0915 – 1115 hrs)\nChair: Ashok Parthasarathi \n\nIs There a New Space Race in Asia?: Different Perceptions for Space – Kazuto Suzuki\nWho’s Afraid of Missile Defence? – Rajesh Basrur\nThe Strategic Impact of BMD in South Asia – Dean Wilkening\n\nDiscussant: Rajiv Nayan \nRapporteur Report\nTea: 1115 – 1130 hrs \nSession 5: Security Strategies of Major Powers in Asia (11:30 – 13:30 hrs)\nChair: Rajiv Sikri \n\nEnergy Security in Asia: Central Asian and Russian Roles in Meeting Asian Gas Demands – Ivan Safranchuk\n“A Harmonious World” and China’s “New Diplomacy” – Yuan Peng\nJapan’s Security Policy in an Uncertain World: Evolution and Innovation – Lam Peng Er\nIndia’s Evolving Security Strategy – S. Kalyanaraman\n\nDiscussant: P. Stobdan \nRapporteur Report\nLunch: 13:30 – 14:30 hrs \nSession 6: Towards an Asian Security Architecture (14:30 – 16:30 hrs)\nChair: Madhu Bhalla \n\nThe Rise of Asia and the International Order – Sujit Dutta\nBalance of Power and the Role of Major Powers – Varun Sahni\nA Co-operative Security Order in Asia – Susan Sim\n\nDiscussant: Abanti Bhattacharya \nRapporteur Report\n\n\n\n\nASC in Media URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/11th-asian-security-conference-the-changing-face-of-conflict-and-strategy-in-asia CATEGORIES:Asian Security Conference,Previous ASC,CONFERENCES ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20090203T053000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20090203T053000 DTSTAMP:20261108T003243 CREATED:20231223T124751Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240229T001257Z UID:62687-1233639000-1233639000@idsa.in SUMMARY:Keynote Address at the 11th Asian Security Conference DESCRIPTION:This year’s conference is of great significance. It assumes particular salience in the context of the attacks on Mumbai and the systematic use of terrorism and irregular warfare as state policy aimed at India. It is becoming increasingly clear that the nature of war and conflict is changing. All-out wars are no longer the norm for settling political disputes among states. In fact\, despite the military modernization underway in Asian countries\, few wars have taken place. Afghanistan and Iraq are exceptions\, since they are not typical inter-state wars. Most Asian states today are not inclined to engage in large-scale conventional warfare\, as they are no longer seen as the most effective way to securing political\, economic and diplomatic gains. \nThe rapid globalisation of recent years has led to profound changes by creating interdependence amongst states and people. In this backdrop\, it does not seem likely that the states would move back to the classical inter-state wars of the bygone era. Liberal economic policies are increasingly connecting Asia to the world economy. Economic growth and prosperity today are dependent on stable ties and cooperation with other nations of the world. Free movement of goods\, services and people\, cross-border financial flows and Foreign Direct Investment are key drivers of economic growth today. These flourish only in a climate of peace and stability. Nation states\, therefore\, have high stakes in ensuring peace. \nIn such a situation\, conflicts may occur\, only if particular regimes facing internal economic and political problems unleash nationalism and war against an external `enemy’ to rally popular support. Asia\, unfortunately\, does have a number of unsettled territorial and sovereignty disputes. And these can be manipulated by irresponsible states to ensure regime stability. Both internal and external checks and balances\, against such possible abuses of power are\, therefore\, necessary. Fortunately\, many Asian states have wisely agreed to set aside disputes that cannot be resolved immediately and to maintain status quo. They have encouraged a system of dialogue and negotiations to peacefully resolve these disputes. And they are focussed on enhancing cooperation. The India-China relationship is a good example of this approach. \nAlthough external wars are no longer in vogue; civil wars\, insurgencies\, and militancy have become the principal modes of armed conflict today. Many flow from identity movements; others from extremist ideologies; and yet others from social\, economic and political inequities that abound in our continent. These have made many Asian states extremely unstable and fragile. Dealing with these complex challenges through efficient and improved governance and effective development strategies must be of the highest importance for Asian nations. These will contribute to minimizing the scope and sources of violence between and within states. Steady democratisation of states in Asia is needed for better protection of peoples’ rights\, and also for security. \nLadies and Gentlemen\, \nIndia is committed to build strong\, non-discriminatory international norms and institutions\, so as to strengthen world peace and stability. We have resolved to work with the international community on global and universal nuclear disarmament and institutions that have legitimacy and enhance the security of all states. India hopes to gain its rightful place in the United Nations Security Council and make significant contribution to global security as a major stake-holder and responsible power. \nWe are engaged in a major diplomatic effort to construct a new Asian security order through bilateral and multilateral engagements. Our network of strategic defence and security ties with major powers such as the United States\, Russia\, China\, Japan\, or with neighbouring countries of Southeast Asia\, Africa\, the Gulf and the Indian Ocean is aimed at creating confidence\, enhancing state capacities to contribute to their security and stability and promoting transparency and understanding. \nIndia’s capacity building efforts in Afghanistan are particularly significant. The goal of our efforts is to contribute to Asian peace and stability and not undermine them. \nIndia’s role in the ASEAN Regional forum and the East Asia Summit are similarly aimed at building a new architecture of stability and peace with states that are focused on development and regional institution building\, that will create conditions for long-term economic growth\, interdependence and prosperity in Asia. \nThe India-specific waiver by the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group in September 2008 has put aside a major road block to India’s role and future development. For four decades\, India had been subjected to an unfair and discriminatory international nuclear regime that has been brought to an end. The unique waiver for India—in recognition of its responsible role in non-proliferation—has opened the door for nuclear energy cooperation with the rest of the world. It enables us to play a more significant role in achieving the goals of non-proliferation and energy security. India would seek to ensure that the benefits of peaceful uses of nuclear energy will reach all states in keeping with their international obligations. \nFriends\, \nI have shared with you my thoughts on security in our times and the efforts we are making for safeguarding it. May I now revert to the important issue that I had raised in the beginning. \nWhile the prospects of inter-state armed conflicts are indeed declining\, India and the Asian continent continue to face the challenge of terrorism. Pakistan has become the epicentre of international terrorism. \nThe assault on Mumbai and many previous attacks on Indian cities over the past few years have gravely undermined peace and security. Afghanistan has been a victim of similar acts\, as indeed have been other countries. \nThat the major attacks of large magnitude can be planned and executed by elements in Pakistan totally undermines the solemn commitments to us made by its leadership that territory in its control would not be permitted to be used for terrorism. The positive gains of the past years have been destroyed by the dastardly attack on Mumbai. The onus now is on the Government of Pakistan to act with sincerity and decisiveness against the perpetrators and controllers of such attacks. It is in the interest of this region and the rest of the world that such perpetrators of wanton violence are brought to justice and the infrastructure of terror is eliminated. \nThere is equally an onus on the international community to act. This Frankenstein is now a threat to democracy\, stability and peace in Afghanistan and to Pakistan itself. The international community needs to act decisively and in concert to get rid of this scourge. We sincerely hope that this approach would be the way ahead. As a victim of terrorism\, we must remain committed to safeguarding the lives of our nationals and to taking all the necessary steps to enhance and safeguard our security. \nThe conference is being held at a critical juncture when the world is facing the prospects of an economic meltdown. This will have unforeseen implications for the global order and security. How will the Asian countries be affected by the economic crisis? What will be its impact on military modernisation projects? Will non-state actors become more active? These are some of the issues which I hope the experts gathered here today will discuss in this conference. \nIt is a matter of great satisfaction for us that so many leading experts and analysts from around the world have gathered here. Your participation raises the stature of the conference. At the end of your two-day deliberations\, you will\, I hope\, come out with findings which will help policymakers deal with the grave threats presented by the changing nature of war. \nI wish the conference all success in its deliberations. \nThank you. \nJai Hind. URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/keynote-address-at-the-11th-asian-security-conference CATEGORIES:KEY SPEECHES,Asian Security Conference,ASC Key Speeches ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20080207T053000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20080207T053000 DTSTAMP:20261108T003243 CREATED:20231223T124852Z LAST-MODIFIED:20250312T061953Z UID:62697-1202362200-1202362200@idsa.in SUMMARY:Speech at the 10th Asian Security Conference DESCRIPTION:Former Dutch Prime Minister Rudd Lubbers was the guest speaker at the closing session of the 10th Asian Security Conference. The Conference ended with a Panel Discussion on the proposition “Is A Nuclear Weapons Free World Desirable? Is it Feasible?” URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/speech-at-the-10th-asian-security-conference CATEGORIES:KEY SPEECHES,Asian Security Conference,ASC Key Speeches ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20080205T053000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20080205T053000 DTSTAMP:20261108T003243 CREATED:20231223T124856Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240229T001411Z UID:62699-1202189400-1202189400@idsa.in SUMMARY:Keynote Address at the 10th Asian Security Conference DESCRIPTION:Shri A. K. Antony\, Defence Minister of India\, Director IDSA\, Excellencies\, Ladies and Gentlemen\, \nIt is indeed an honour to address this distinguished gathering of scholars and experts from around the world. IDSA has been at the forefront of the Indian debate on national and international security issues for the last 42 years. Its annual Asian Security Conference has served as an important international forum for the last 10 years. Each year\, distinguished experts have assembled here to share and debate their views and perspectives on Asian security and on how to manage it better. On the 10th anniversary of this forum\, IDSA has rightly chosen to focus on some of the pressing security issues that face Asia as a whole. I am sure your discussions over the next three days would go a long way in enlarging our understanding of Asia’s many security dilemmas and help devise better solutions to manage them. \nThis morning I would like to offer you my thoughts on some key issues relating to Asian security in the 21st Century. \nAsia in the 21st Century will be a very different place than what it was in the past. For over 200 years\, external powers played a dominant role in shaping Asia’s political\, social\, economic and cultural arenas. This situation has been undergoing significant changes for quite some time now. \nThe balance of influence on Asian affairs has begun to shift in favour of the countries of Asia. Japan was a lone swallow in the first half of the 20th Century. But in its second half\, it blazed a trail that was followed by the East and Southeast Asian tiger economies. China and India have further fanned this Asian revival with their prowess in the manufacturing and service sectors. Asia today contributes just around a quarter of the global GDP\, and this share is expected to rise to more than 50 per cent of the world by 2025. As Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh recently noted\, by the middle of the century\, Asia may well account for more than 50 percent of foreign trade\, income\, saving\, investment and financial transactions of the globe. \nAsia’s economic revival has given rise to many predictions about its future. These projections are based on two factors. The first is Asia’s growing and relatively youthful population. It has been estimated that by 2010\, 60 per cent of the world’s population in the age group of 20 to 35 is likely to be Asian. And the second is the rapid growth of several Asian economies during the last few decades. China\, for example\, has been averaging a growth rate of about 9 per cent a year since 1980. For its part\, India has averaged 8.5 per cent a year in the last five years. It is believed that these two factors would enable Asian countries to dominate the international economy and\, by extension\, international politics and security. \nWhether this scenario comes about or not depends on a number of domestic and external factors. But what seems certain is the growing influence of major Asian countries on the structures and processes of international relations in Asia. At the same time\, we cannot overlook the influence of external actors on the continent. Asian security in the 21st Century will thus be shaped by the interactions between major Asian powers and influential external actors such as EU\, Russia and the United States. \nMany security challenges confront Asia today—the spread of nuclear weapons\, the threat of terrorism\, threats to energy security\, and so on. And many more challenges are likely to arise in the course of the Century\, including the issue of climate change. \nIndia has a critical role to play in tackling these challenges. With its economy growing at an impressive rate over the last few years\, India has emerged as one of the driver of economic growth in the world. India is a unique example of a country where development and democracy have gone hand in hand. Its role has become crucial for international economic integration and trade organisation\, for preventing the spread of nuclear weapons\, for tackling the threat of terrorism\, for stabilising conflict-affected states like Afghanistan\, for dealing with the issue of climate change\, for building and strengthening multilateral institutions\, and for collective and co-operative security in Asia. \nLadies and Gentlemen\, a principal cause of concern in recent years has been the threat of nuclear proliferation. This is not limited only to new states acquiring nuclear weapons capability. It also extends to the very real threat of terrorist groups laying their hands on nuclear material and even fully assembled nuclear weapons. \nThese two security challenges are interlinked. And they are products of the demand-supply dynamic. On the supply side\, the proliferation problem is a product of two factors. One is the inability of states to sufficiently safeguard their nuclear material\, technology and facilities against attempts to procure WMD relevant items. The second factor is deliberate and callous proliferation by states including state failure to exercise adequate control over personnel engaged in nuclear programmes. It is well known how transfer of uranium enrichment technology\, equipment and even weapon design has taken place clandestinely and flagrantly in our region. Even more alarming is the interest shown by radical terrorist groups in acquiring nuclear material and technology and the linkages that they had forged with a few nuclear scientists. \nThe challenge before us is to make sure that national laws and international commitments are better implemented by states to prevent leakage of material and technology from established nuclear programmes. The challenge also is to do this consistently and without short-term considerations of political expediency. \nOn the demand side\, the best way to address the dilemmas in the nuclear domain is to focus our efforts on the goal of global nuclear disarmament. \nIndia\, as you know\, has held a principled position on the issue of nuclear weapons since the dawn of the nuclear age. It has many firsts to its credit in promoting arms control\, disarmament and non-proliferation. As early as 1954\, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru issued the first ever call for a standstill to nuclear weapons tests. In 1965\, it was India that first put forward the principles for a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Indian enthusiasm for the NPT waned when it saw the reluctance of established nuclear powers to give up their arsenals. But in all these years\, we have strictly abided by all the basic obligations enshrined in this Treaty as they apply to nuclear weapon States. Today\, as a responsible nuclear weapon power\, we are even more mindful of our duty to control the spread of WMD technologies and their delivery systems. We have signalled our willingness to be a part of the international consensus by adopting a comprehensive WMD Export Control legislation. We have also harmonised our export control lists with those prescribed by the Nuclear Suppliers Group and Missile Technology Control Regime. These measures also fulfill the obligations prescribed by UN Security Council Resolution 1540\, which calls upon states to refrain from supporting non-state actors in their quest for weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems. \nWe do not wish to see the emergence of additional nuclear weapon states\, for it will only further endanger international security. And our goal continues to be a world free of nuclear weapons. This year marks twenty years the since the late Shri Rajiv Gandhi presented a bold Action Plan for a nuclear weapon free and non-violent world order. The central premises of the 1988 Rajiv Gandhi Action Plan are of current significance and relevance as they were two decades ago: \n\nFirst\, a binding commitment by all nations to eliminate nuclear weapons in stages; \nSecond\, participation by all states in the process of nuclear disarmament and here I would like to emphasis that nuclear disarmament does not alone mean arms control;\nThird\, demonstration of good faith and building of confidence through tangible progress towards the common goal of a nuclear weapon free world; \nFourth\, changes in doctrines\, policies and institutions to sustain a world free of nuclear weapons. \n\nThe vision of Shri Rajiv Gandhi continues to guide India’s approach to nuclear disarmament. Personalities such as Henry Kissinger\, George Shultz\, Sam Nunn and William Perry who were at the center of crafting nuclear policy and who thought that nuclear weapons were essential to the security of their state are having a rethink today. We welcome this development and hope it leads\, as envisaged in the Rajiv Gandhi Action Plan\, to a commitment by all states to a nuclear weapon free world. As a responsible nuclear weapon power\, India is ready to play its part in the process leading to global\, non-discriminatory and verifiable elimination of nuclear weapons. \nLadies and Gentlemen\, \nI now turn to the challenge of terrorism which haunts the world today. Asia in particular is home to by far the largest number of terrorist groups in the world. India has been facing this curse since the nineteen-eighties; first in Punjab\, then in Jammu and Kashmir\, and now in other parts of the country as well. We have consistently highlighted the need for a unified international response to trans-national and trans-border terrorism. \nTerrorists derive their justification from politics\, perceived or genuine grievances and economic disadvantage. In our view\, no goal or grievance can justify the targeting of innocent people. In our view\, terrorism is best defined as the deliberate targeting of innocent men\, women and children. The September 11 attacks\, the Madrid train bombing\, the tragedy at Beslan\, targeting of the London Underground\, the serial bombs that ripped through Mumbai’s commuter trains during rush hour in July 2006\, all demonstrate this basic fact. Secondly the fact that terrorists have successfully used weakly governed territories to organise attacks\, recruit and train their cadres should not obscure the responsibility of the state concerned to prevent the misuse of its territory for terrorist attacks. Terrorism is not a political tool to be deployed and withdrawn at will\, for it can turn around and critically wound the state that wields it. \nAfghanistan under Taliban rule was the most telling example in this regard. Continuing to allow these groups to enjoy the luxury of this space will have terrible consequences for the world at large. It is vital that Afghanistan emerges as a stable and peaceful country that no longer serves as a base for these groups. \nThe legitimately elected government in Kabul must be enabled to extend its rule throughout the country. Reconstruction activities need to go hand in hand with efforts to combat radical groups and ensure security. India is one of the largest contributors to the reconstruction effort in Afghanistan. We have committed around 800 million US dollars. Three thousand five hundred Indians work in various projects in that country. We will persevere with our earnest efforts in this regard and we will continue to co-ordinate these efforts with those of the international community. \nIt is equally important to stabilise Iraq\, which is being torn apart by various factors including sectarian conflict and a violent insurgency. Failure will have repercussions throughout the West Asian region. Regional instability could damage the international economy by disrupting energy supplies and further driving up oil prices which have already breached the 100 dollar mark. \nIn the context of instability in West Asia\, we need to reflect on issues impinging on energy security. Rapid economic growth\, especially in Asia\, is causing increased demands for fossil fuel. At the same time\, reserves are estimated to deplete in future. There is the additional fear that energy flows could be disrupted either by the actions of states or non-state actors. Asian countries\, which predominantly source their fossil fuel requirements from the Persian Gulf\, seem particularly vulnerable to such disruptions. They all feel the acute need to ensure the security\, stability and sustainability of fossil fuel supplies. \nLadies and Gentlemen\, allow me to share with you my thoughts on another important future challenge that will confront Asia as well as the world at large. This is the issue of climate change due to the accumulated and continuing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Weak and fragile states are particularly vulnerable to the damaging effects of climate change. You will recall that a few months ago UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon highlighted the correlation between climate change and the crisis in Sudan’s Darfur region. Climate change is truly a global problem and it requires global solutions. Developing countries like India cannot be expected to unilaterally forego the economic aspirations of their people. Advanced economies indeed have a greater obligation to cut down on emissions by encouraging more sustainable patterns of consumption. We need to devote greater efforts to generate alternate technologies and industrial processes that are environment-friendly and these technologies must be provided at affordable cost. The key principle is common but differentiated responsibility. \nLadies and Gentlemen\, none of the challenges I have outlined can be effectively tackled by individual countries on their own. Pooling national efforts and resources and channelling them through the co-operative structures of multilateral frameworks and institutions is essential. Only then can we muster the necessary will and resources to tackle these challenges. \nFormer UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan succinctly pointed out in an address at Harvard University in June 2004\, and I quote a few lines from there: “It is in the interest of every country to have international rules and to abide by them. And such a system can only work if\, in devising and applying the rules\, the legitimate interests and points of view of different countries are accommodated\, and decisions are reached collectively. That is the essence of multilateralism …” \nMay I conclude by wishing you all success in your deliberations. Before I thank you\, I apologise for lengthening my observations. URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/keynote-address-at-the-10th-asian-security-conference CATEGORIES:KEY SPEECHES,Asian Security Conference,ASC Key Speeches ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20080205T053000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20080205T053000 DTSTAMP:20261108T003243 CREATED:20231223T124856Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240229T001444Z UID:62698-1202189400-1202189400@idsa.in SUMMARY:Inaugural Address at the 10th Asian Security Conference DESCRIPTION:Hon’ble External Affairs Minister\, Shri Pranab Mukherjee\, Director IDSA\, Shri N.S.Sisodia\, Excellencies\, distinguished delegates\, Ladies and gentlemen\, \nI am glad to be present at the opening of the 10th Asian Security Conference. \nIDSA serves as a useful platform for frank interactions between experts – both military and civilian and the Government on security-related issues of national and international importance. \nOf late\, the Asian region has acquired a unique centrality in global strategic affairs. The challenges for the Asian region – and indeed all the nations the world over are of a similar nature. Terrorism\, nuclear proliferation and sectarian conflicts are some of issues that require our urgent and focussed attention. \nToday\, the world has truly become a global village. Thus\, security of nations cannot be restricted to narrow geographical and political boundaries. \nWith increasing globalisation\, it is often argued that the chances of the breakout of a conventional war are remote. All the same\, we have to be eternally vigilant and ever-prepared for any eventuality. \nIn recent years\, conflicts have broken out between states and non-state players. Such conflicts are differently categorised as civil war\, insurgency\, ethnic conflict\, irregular war\, or even – terrorism. The nature of conflicts notwithstanding\, it is the civilian population that bears the brunt of such conflicts. The traditional distinction between soldiers and the civilians is increasingly being obliterated\, for both are targets for terrorists. \nIt is well-known that no price is too high for the security of a nation. Global defence expenditure during the 1990s had registered a marginal decline. However\, of late\, global defence expenditure has registered a sharp upward growth. \nThe world today realises that no nation can consider itself to be immune from terrorism. The lessons learnt elsewhere can prove to be useful in devising our policies. Similarly\, other nations too can benefit from our experiences. Nations must devise ways and means to cooperate to effectively counter terrorism. The Indian policy makers will keenly look forward to these deliberations as they have implications for our own strategies. I also urge IDSA scholars to continue to pay attention to this phenomenon\, on a longterm basis and generate ideas and policy options that are useful to decision makers. \nIncreasing use of information technology will mean that wars in future will be hi-tech\, intense\, yet brief. The mobility and destructive capacity of weapons has gone up several times. Experts apprehend that with proliferation of technologies – particularly information technology\, space technology\, bio-technology\, nanotechnology and genetic engineering will only multiply the lethal force of new weapons. \nNuclear proliferation continues to be a serious challenge for mankind. I am sure that experts attending this Conference will deliberate on the future of the nuclear order\, its relevance and implications for security of the Asian region. \nThe emergence of non-state players is another grave challenge confronting all nations. These non-state players do not recognise any territorial boundaries. They utilise latest global communication and transport networks and rely on garnering international support. Their common objective is to disturb existing state apparatus\, destabilise neighbouring states and create new states based on ethno-cultural identity. Most of these non-state players are not fighting for a national identity\, or territory and have abstract notions of carving out a separate and unique identity of their own based on ethnicity\, religious and tribal basis. According to estimates of Military Balance\, out of the 343 non-state armed groups operating in the world\, 187 groups operate in Asian region. \nIndia has been the target of disruptive elements for several years. Major powers of the world then believed that they would be immune to such elements and had\, as such\, little sympathy for our concerns. However\, now all nations realise and accept the need for greater cooperation in effectively meeting such challenges. \nThe conference will also consider another important issue that has a direct bearing on Asian Security in the 21st century – the generic issue of fragile states and nation building\, with Afghanistan as a live case. \nTrends indicate that international efforts at nation building are faltering on many counts. This is a potentially dangerous situation. It is therefore only appropriate that this conference will consider the challenges posed by the recent developments in Afghanistan. The deliberations during the special session will address the questions such as – what is the assessment of major players regarding the future course of action in Afghanistan? What can be done to stabilise Afghanistan? I am hopeful that the Conference will come up with creative solutions for the well-being of Afghanistan\, \nI have briefly referred to some of the principal challenges that Asia and other regions of the world are likely to face. All these challenges are transnational\, or have the potential of becoming transnational. While we must be guard against the outbreak of conventional wars\, we must recognise that newer forms of conflict are more likely. In my view\, the following measures can help the Asian states in meeting various challenges effectively. \nThe first one is to maintain an active dialogue process\, not only among governments\, but also defence establishments to build strong channels of communication and dispel mistrust. \nSecondly\, we must develop mechanisms to share intelligence about terror groups\, criminal elements\, drug cartels and other transnational networks that foment violence and subvert states. \nThirdly\, we must attempt to devise common solutions to common challenges that threaten our collective security. We need to develop multilateral frameworks to promote dialogue and prepare strategies for cooperative action. \nIt is heartening that this year’s Asian Security Conference will touch upon several important issues and will conclude with a discussion on cooperative frameworks for Asian Security in the 21st century. I am sure that the deliberations by eminent scholars and experts on security issues at the Conference will be fruitful and provide crucial inputs on security-related issues. \nWith these words\, I am pleased to inaugurate this important conference and convey my best wishes for its success. \n“Jai Hind”. URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/inaugural-address-at-the-10th-asian-security-conference CATEGORIES:KEY SPEECHES,Asian Security Conference,ASC Key Speeches ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20070210T053000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20070210T053000 DTSTAMP:20261108T003243 CREATED:20231223T124951Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240229T001519Z UID:62706-1171085400-1171085400@idsa.in SUMMARY:Closing Remarks at the 9th Asian Security Conference DESCRIPTION:Distinguished Scholars\, diplomats\, ladies and gentlemen\, \n“It is indeed a Privilege for me to address the distinguished delegates gathered for this Conference. The deliberations have covered a wide spectrum of security issues relating to South-East Asia Within the broader context of the Asia-Pacific region. \nIndia’s connections With South-East Asia go back to historic times. With the seas being the primary medium of communications in those days\, India acted as a bridge for trade between eastern Asia and the West. This interaction also witnessed a mutual exchange of Political ideas\, Culture\, religion\, art and language between India and modern-day South-East Asia. \nIndia’s relations with its extended neighbourhood have received a fillip with the formulation of its ‘Look East’ policy in early 1990s. Forging comprehensive and mutually beneficial bonds with South-East Asia has been the cornerstone of this policy. Today\, this region comprises the most dynamic and progressive economies\, and its close interaction With India is amply reflected in the ASEAN- India summit at Cebu (The Philippines) last month. In 1990\, India’s trade with ASEAN stood at mere 2.4 billion US dollars. It has now grown ten-fold to 23 billion US dollars by 2005 and is expected to cross 30 billion US dollars this year. A Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is also likely by the middle of this year. Besides trade\, our countries are also seeking to benefit through people-to- people contacts and cooperation in areas like agriculture\, technology and energy. \nIn the regional context\, the contours of an Asian economic integration are beginning to take shape. The East Asia Summit (EAS) has gathered a self-sustaining momentum towards the creation of an East Asian Community in the coming years. It may even lead to a larger Asian solidarity\, as envisioned by Pandit Nehru in the early 1950s. We perceive the comprehensive interaction with South-East Asia as a vehicle for regional growth. It will eventually lead to prosperity and true peace in the entire region. \nHowever\, economic progress and social development will need a conducive environment for growth\, particularly in terms of regional stability and security. The end of the Cold War did provide the necessary systemic conditions\, but it was at best only a transitional phase. Over the last few years\, the region as a whole has witnessed a steady realignment of geo-strategic equations. Along with these changes the accentuation of geo-political fault- lines has severe security ramifications for the region in general\, and for the South-East Asian states in particular. North Korea’s nuclear programme has heightened regional concerns. It has once again raised the complex issue of the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Thus\, it is not surprising that the regional states have been shaping their strategic response to the prevailing regional dynamics in a major way. \nJapan with its strong economy and technological base has always possessed strong defence forces\, but these have been placed under self-imposed Constitutional restrictions. The emerging security scenario in the region has already triggered a debate in Japan about realizing its strategic potential and charting a course to become a ‘normal’ state. \nWe in India are working towards an amicable resolution of the political and security dissonance with Pakistan and enhance stability in the region. We favour politico-diplomatic negotiations to resolve political differences\, in consonance with the principles contained in the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation (TAC) of the ASEAN\, which India signed in 2003. While India was compelled by the then prevailing security environment to conduct the nuclear test of 1998\, we have always firmly adhered to the doctrine of ‘credible minimum deterrence’. Its fundamental elements are ‘no-first use’ (NFU)\, ‘non-use against non-nuclear weapons states’\, and a voluntary moratorium on further testing. Our credentials on nuclear non-proliferation have been acknowledged by one and all. The initiatives by world powers to accommodate it within the global non-proliferation framework testify to this. India has always been fully committed to the goal of complete elimination of nuclear weapons from the world. This stance is rooted in the realization that the expenditure on security must be balanced with our investment on national development and alleviation of poverty. This is the reason why India’s defence expenditure is a modest 2.5 per cent of the GDP and has never crossed 3 per cent since the early 1990s. \nNon-traditional threats also weigh heavily on the security calculus of the regional states. More than five years after 9/11\, one continues to find such terrorism in the region\, adding fuel to centrifugal tendencies in many countries of South-East Asia. With terrorists increasingly vying for novel and technology-driven means to conduct their dastardly operations\, their possible access to Weapons of Mass Destruction has become the single biggest threat to global security in our times. \nBesides terrorism\, other low-intensity threats like sea-piracy pose a direct challenge to the security of sea-lines of communication (SLOCs). The most critical global sea-routes for maritime trade pass through the Straits of Malacca and Singapore. However\, this vital waterway has become highly insecure due to piracy. Though piracy has reduced considerably since 2003\, the changing contours of the crime and the coordination among pirates needs to be countered strongly.There is also widespread fear that with the nautical expertise acquired from pirates\, terrorists may strike in the Malacca Straits. This would spell disaster for the global economy\, more so for the regional states. With more than half of India’s merchandise trade sailing eastwards\, this vital sea-passage assumes critical importance for India as well. During last year’s Shangri La dialogue held at Singapore\, India indicated both its willingness and capability to assist the littoral states in contributing to the safety and security of the Malacca Straits in any manner acceptable to them. \nDrug trafficking and illegal trade in small-arms place has increased demands on the security establishments of states. Many other threats like epidemics and natural disasters do not recognize national boundaries. It is thus crucial for regional states to share their resources and harmonise their efforts. Different countries have varying degrees of threat perceptions. The essence of regional security and stability lies in successfully identifying the congruence of interests. \nA less known and perhaps lesser appreciated fact is that while India shares its land border only with Myanmar\, three South-East Asian states -Myanmar\, Thailand and Indonesia are its maritime neighbours -by virtue of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands chain. \nSuch geographic proximity leads to a significant overlap of security interests between India and the South-East Asian states. The tri- services Unified Command was established in 2001 at Andaman and Nicobar to foster greater synergy with South-East Asia to deal with common security threats. This is best exemplified by ‘Milan’ -the biennial congregation of regional navies at Port Blair since mid- 1990s. More recently\, the coordinated naval patrols with Indonesia and Thailand were instituted. \nlndia’s defence ties with the South-East Asian countries have been strengthened\, along with the realization of the tremendous potential in the field. This cooperation is solely aimed at capacity- building of Armed Forces to deal with maritime insecurities and threats of transnational terrorism and other organized crimes. However\, it has purely defensive attributes and is not aimed at any third country. Our cooperation is extremely crucial for our collective ability to deal with natural disasters. This is borne out by the joint disaster relief operations in the aftermath of the Indian Ocean Tsunami two years ago. Last year India extended a hand to provide succour to the victims of the devastating earthquake that hit Indonesia in May 2006. \nThe key challenge for the regional states lies in building effective multilateral institutions based on a set of common values to achieve common goals based on respective political\, economic and strategic interests. The ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) has emerged as a useful platform for security dialogues involving all regional states. It needs to be appropriately strengthened and reoriented to cater to the dynamics of regional security. Cooperative mechanisms will however\, need to incorporate transparency in intentions and response and a visible respect for the religious and cultural diversities of states. \nTrack II discussions provide a platform for free and frank discussions on all these issues. This is the central aim of the Asian Security Conference organized by the IDSA every year. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru’s visionary words\, “the only alternative to co-existence is co-destruction” must continue to guide all of us. I am sure that the deliberations over the past two days have been fruitful in providing some answers in this direction and would contribute valuable inputs for policy-making. URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/closing-remarks-at-the-9th-asian-security-conference CATEGORIES:KEY SPEECHES,Asian Security Conference,ASC Key Speeches,ANNUAL CONFERENCES ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20070209T053000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20070209T053000 DTSTAMP:20261108T003243 CREATED:20231223T124957Z LAST-MODIFIED:20240229T001645Z UID:62710-1170999000-1170999000@idsa.in SUMMARY:Special Address at the 9th Asian Security Conference DESCRIPTION:Hon’ble Vice President of India Shri Bhairon Singh Shekhawat ji\, \nHon’ble External Affairs Minister and President of IDSA\, Shri Pranab Mukherjee\, \nDirector IDSA\, Shri N. S. Sisodia \nExcellencies\, distinguished delegates\, ladies and gentlemen\, \nI am delighted to be here on this historic occasion of the inauguration of the IDSA’s new premises. The occasion becomes even more special as it coincides with the opening of the 9th Asian Security Conference. \nIDSA has come a long way since its beginning in 1965. It now enters a new phase through this premises. I am glad that the new IDSA campus is located next to the United Service Institution of India. This is not a coincidence. Indeed\, it was envisaged that physical proximity between the two institutions will enable greater synergy through increased access to each others’ facilities. It will also enhance their ability to work together in diverse areas. \nApart from this building\, the Institute’s state-of-the-art library will be the pride of the institute. I am told that IDSA library has added to its collection some of the best works in contemporary strategic and security studies. The strategic studies community will find it even more useful once the new Library building becomes operational. \nThe IDSA has adopted a vision statement to develop as a world-class institute. This is the beginning of long and arduous journey. The Institute will need full support of all its stakeholders. The improved infrastructure and new facilities should prove an important step forward to achieve this goal. \nIDSA provides a useful interface between civilian scholars and service officers. It is a long-standing convention for serving defence officers to be deputed on fellowship to the Institute\, to provide crucial military inputs to civilian scholars. This has given the civilian scholars much needed exposure to defence-related issues. Similarly\, the service officers also benefit immensely from their association with IDSA\, resulting in a better understanding of global and regional strategic issues. However\, this interaction needs to be further strengthened by encouraging academically inclined officers of the Armed Forces to work with IDSA. Without access to classified information and experience of working in defence establishments\, it is difficult for civilian scholars to work meaningfully on issues related to defence policy. It is therefore\, vital that our military officers\, having an aptitude for research and analyses take greater interest in this field. \nI have been told that the IDSA has decided to launch a new journal on defence policy studies. This would enable the institute to focus its attention on defence-related issues. \nWe have decided to establish a new chair in defence economics in the IDSA. The formalities have been completed and Rs.50 lakhs have been earmarked as the initial corpus for this chair. This should help in creating a nucleus in defence economics\, an area\, which has been neglected till now. The nation should get maximum value for the money spent on its defence services. This goal can be achieved by analysing the present utilization of defence budgets\, by exploring more cost-effective ways of doing this; learning from success stories of other countries; and most importantly\, through new ideas and innovation. It is my firm belief this chair will initiate the process of analytical studies in the area. \nThe biggest challenge facing us is the modernization of our Armed Forces. Security challenges in the 21st century are different from those we faced in the past. The nature of warfare has undergone large-scale transformation. Conventional wars are less likely\, yet complex threats are emerging. The defence forces have to adapt themselves to the changing nature of warfare. This challenge is by no means unique to our country alone. Indeed\, this changing nature of warfare and the threat scenario are compelling defence forces all over the world to transform themselves adequately. \nInnovative thinking is the need of the hour. There is also a need to evaluate the pioneering work done by other countries in this regard. While defence planners in the Government continuously look at these issues\, think tanks like IDSA\, the USI and other Foundations can help this process through their research findings and perspectives. \nI will be addressing some issues being considered by this year’s Asian Security Conference at the Valedictory Session tomorrow. However\, I would\, like to take this opportunity to congratulate the IDSA for holding this conference on an extremely relevant theme. This year’s conference on South-east Asia has come at a time when India is looking to increase and deepen its relations with the East and South-east. India’s Look East policy has fostered closer economic relations with the South-east Asian region. It has paid rich dividends and today India has a booming economic and defence partnership with the nations of this region. I wish to quote from Hon’ble Prime Minister’s speech at the Third India-ASEAN Business Summit in October 2004 in New Delhi: “A decade ago we unveiled our “Look East” policy. We wish to “Look East” because of the centuries of interaction between us. This tradition\, and our faith in principles of democracy and pluralism\, bring us together. We also share a desire for a stable\, secure and equitable new world order.” \nOur history\, common values and a common vision make the deliberations of the conference important for both India and South East Asia. I once again congratulate IDSA on the inauguration of its new premises. I wish the 9th Annual Asian Security Conference all success. \nThank you and Jai Hind. URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/special-address-at-the-9th-asian-security-conference CATEGORIES:KEY SPEECHES,Asian Security Conference,ASC Key Speeches ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR