BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//MP-IDSA - ECPv6.15.12.2//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:MP-IDSA
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:20180101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20190326T053000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20190328T053000
DTSTAMP:20261104T150039
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
END:VCALENDAR