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:20090101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20100205T053000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20100205T053000
DTSTAMP:20261104T213400
CREATED:20231223T222003Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231224T130247Z
UID:63672-1265347800-1265347800@idsa.in
SUMMARY:Mapping East Asian Futures 2030
DESCRIPTION:Chairperson: Ramesh V. PhadkeDiscussants: Srikant Kondapalli and P. K. Ghosh \nThe research objective of this paper is to develop and explore a broader range of plausible scenarios for East Asia in 2030 for flexible policy planning and strategic thinking. According to Ishida\, the paper does not make any predictions but provides alternative possibilities. For this purpose\, Ishida poses four research questions which are: What are the key drivers of the East Asian region? What kinds of future scenarios are plausible towards East Asia in 2030? What will be the implications of future scenarios for policy planning and what are the key strategic challenges\, risks\, uncertainties in the region?.  \nThe paper begins by explaining the regional geo-political characteristics and historical background of East Asia. Ishida points out that geo politically\, China\, Japan\, the United States\, Russia and India are the major players in the region but since the end of the Cold War Russian power and influence have rapidly declined while the influence of China and India has rapidly increased because of their high economic growth. \nThe author analyses contemporary trends and debates on East Asia where he discusses changing geo-politics\, economic liberalization\, democratization and its challenges as well as regional cooperation and regionalisation. After this\, the main drivers or key forces have been identified and explained. The author has identified four key drivers: great power geopolitics; globalization\, politico- economic liberalization; regionalism and regionalization; energy\, resources and the environment.  \nOn the basis of these key drivers\, various scenarios have been developed in a broad spectrum. The author has drawn nine scenarios: 1. Progressive East Asian community: It portrays high optimistic trends of peace and progress at all level. 2. Chaotic East Asia: this depicts extremely negative trends where East Asia will fall down into a vicious politico-economic resulting chaos and disorder. The first two scenarios have been put under a non-polar category. 3. Concert of Great Powers in East Asia: this scenario assumes stability in East Asia will be maintained by the concert of great powers such as China\, Japan\, the United States\, possibly together with Russia and emerging India. This shows the positive trends of great power politics. 4. Tragedy of great power rivalry: This scenario shows the negative trends of great powers’ rivalry and competition. It assumes that East Asian geo-politics will become increasingly competitive thus leading to severe and dangerous arms races and potentially direct military conflicts. Scenarios four and five have been put under the multi-polar category. 5. US-Japan Liberal Pacific Union: This is an optimistic scenario characterized by international liberalism where it shows that the US-Japan will maintain primacy; China will face severe domestic troubles as well as ASEAN will become more liberal-oriented towards US and Japan. 6. US-China Strategic Condominium: This scenario assumes that the United States and rising China will dominate East Asia with their growing political- strategic coordination while the role and influence of Japan\, Russia and India will be marginalized. 7. New Cold War between US/Japan and China: This scenario depicts the negative trends of great powers relations where East Asia will be dominated by competition and rivalry between hegemonic US and rising China. Scenario fifth\, sixth and seventh have been put under bipolar category. 8. American Hegemony: This scenario shows that the United States will continue to maintain its primacy in East Asia while China’s rise and Japan’s role will be constrained by the rivalry between them. 9. Return to China-centric East Asian Order: This scenario assumes Chinese domination in the East Asian geo-political economy and projects that China will establish its hierarchical regional order which will result in a weakening and decline of the US- Japan alliance.  \nIn the last section the paper\, author has discussed key strategic challenges\, risks and uncertainties which largely influence the future course of East Asia. The author has mentioned following points. 1. East Asia region has immense stakes in China’s stability and external relations. 2. The future of US-Japan remains uncertain. If the alliance is considerably weakened or collapses\, the East Asian region will face drastic and unpredictable changes. 3. The stakes are immensely high\, whether changes in international relations will happen in a peaceful manner or with military conflicts among great powers. 4. The East Asian nations need to overcome excessive nationalism to enhance any durable reconciliation\, mutual understanding and trust. 5. East Asia faces some of the most serious military flash points such as the Korean Peninsula\, the Taiwan Strait and the South and East China seas. 6. With rapid economic growth and resurgent nationalism as well as competition\, East Asian nations are heading towards a slow and steady arms race which includes weapons of mass destruction and a space arms race.7. To deal with potential conflicts and crises\, multilateral security cooperation is essential to ensure East Asian security. 8. With deepening globalization and regionlisation\, the Asia-Pacific region faces various emerging security challenges such as international terrorism\, maritime security\, energy and resources\, illicit drugs and human trafficking and climate change. 9.With widening and deepening globalization and economic interdependence\, the regional economy and finance remains fragile to shocks and instability as evident in the global financial/ economic crisis of 2008. \nIshida has provided maps depicting of East Asia and key areas of dispute\, figures on China’s military size\, state of economy\, political freedom\, economic freedom\, prosperity etc in Asia accessed from various sources as part of appendix. However at the end of his presentation\, the author notes that a conclusion is yet to be added in the paper. \nPoints Raised during the discussion\n\nThe paper broadly deals with liberal theory. However ‘Balance of Power’ and ‘Critical’ theories are missing in this study. \nThe paper does not suggest any policy options. The author does not provide his own views on the topic. The paper is heavily relies on survey of literature.\nToo many scenarios have been projected in the paper. It should have been just four scenarios. The wild card scenario is also missing for the paper.\nThe key drivers in the paper actually are not reflected in the scenarios.\nMapping of Comprehensive National Power (CNP) is another key area which has not been covered in this study. The study conducted by the Chinese academy of social sciences and Ashley Tellis could have been utilized. \nThough the size of the whole Asian economy is huge it is still not a match for the Transatlantic region of the world. So many problems still plague Asia such as hunger\, poverty\, malnutrition\, unemployment etc.\n\nThe United States is still a dominant power in the region and remains a wild card.\nDemographic changes have not been touched upon in this paper. China and India have a large young population which should have been analysed. Similarly young Turks in Japan who aspire for change in Japanese politics could have been discussed. \nThe paper points out that India has little security interests in Taiwan Straits which may not be appropriate. \nIn the future\, India may also be included in the six party talks since it is an emerging power. This aspect could have been included in the scenarios.\nTechnology and its impact is one the biggest drivers which has to be mentioned in this paper.\nThere are domestic players and factors as well which highly influence foreign policy making such as the issue of Okinawa or the change of government in Japan which could have been cited as an alternative scenario.\nPoverty in going to be the major issue in 2030. The leadership question is also important.\nThe author point out that a progressive East Asian community is the most optimistic scenario but this requires more explanation.\nMapping East Asia 2030 is an important task. The author needs to mention which futures are important and how it can be arrived at. \nWhile building the scenario\, no time line has been given. The paper also lacks imagination of events. \nHowever the survey of literature is commendable but the author’s own voice is missing.\n\nReport prepared by Sanjeev Kumar Shrivastav\, Research Assistant at the IDSA.
URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/mapping-east-asian-futures-2030
CATEGORIES:FELLOW'S SEMINAR,EVENT REPORT
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:20100219T053000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20100219T053000
DTSTAMP:20261104T213400
CREATED:20231223T222003Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231224T130247Z
UID:63671-1266557400-1266557400@idsa.in
SUMMARY:Navigating Through Troubled Waters: Bangladesh's Experience with India and Myanmar
DESCRIPTION:Chairperson: Dr. Arvind GuptaDiscussants: Alok Bansal and General Barmer \nDr. Sreeradha Datta\, notes that Bangladesh’s maritime boundary dispute with India and Myanmar is becoming increasingly salient in their bilateral relations. It is only in recent years that the issue has gained prominence fraying relations. The un-demarcated nature of the maritime boundary line is the source of dispute between Bangladesh and its two neighbours. Both India and Myanmar have overlapping maritime boundary claims with Bangladesh. Bangladesh is the only country among littoral states not to have reached a maritime agreement. Maritime boundary delimitation implies not only the setting of limits of the state’s outer limit of maritime zones including its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and Continental Shelf\, but also its maritime boundary limits vis-à-vis its opposite or adjacent state. Under the dispute settlement provisions of the UNCLOS of 1982 each littoral state is entitled to claim 200 nautical miles (nm) of sea area as its EEZ with all living and non-living resources within these areas are that state’s exclusive property; out of this\, the first 12 nm are the Territorial Sea and the next 188 nm are its EEZ. The resolution of Indo-Bangladesh maritime boundary dispute entails addressing two contentious issues – that of the baselines to demarcate maritime and delimitation boundaries including the outer limit of the overlapping extended continental shelf. Following revision\, the UNCLOS III stipulated that the ‘median’ or the ‘equidistance’ be the principle for maritime boundary demarcation which India supports. Bangladesh strongly opposes the ‘equidistance’ principle given the nature of its coast. With India\, Bangladesh’s dispute specifically surrounds the contrasting claims over what is known as New Moore in India and South Talpatty in Bangladesh. Myanmar’s position is fairly similar to that of India. Rangoon also insists that the equidistance principle be maintained. However as Dr. Datta maintains despite the contentious issues at stake between Bangladesh and its two neighbours and given the geographical condition of Bangladesh there is ample scope in the UNCLOS III to treat Bangladesh’s case with greater flexibility and beyond the strict guidelines of equidistance. India and Bangladesh could agree on a joint survey\, but for now the dispute is being mediated by an independent arbitrator. Finding a modus vivendi is possible according Dr. Datta. While Bangladesh in recent negotiations has agreed to a joint hydrological survey on Teesta River with India allowing the extreme positions over the baseline may thus be bridged.  \nPoints of Discussion\n\nEurope’s context is different from the history that bedevils the India-Bangladesh maritime dispute. History is important in Europe’s case\, but this is not the case between India and Bangladesh.\nThe paper is informative.\nEquity cannot be defined clearly and Bangladesh has its own conception.\nDelineation of the maritime boundary must follow the equidistance principle. Even the ICJ maintains that equidistance is the rule.\nJoint management is the best option as the author has proposed. Sea bed resources can be equally shared.\nIndia is in a scientifically and technically stronger position than Bangladesh\, which lacks technical resource capacities.\nIndia must be magnanimous\, because it will strengthen the Hasina government.\nChina’s role is increasingly worrisome.\nThe author seems to be pleading only Bangladesh’s case. The onus also lies on Bangladesh to demonstrate that it is really in need of the resources.\n\nThe author must highlight the strategic importance of the dispute and China’s role in trying to exploit the problem\, particularly between India and Bangladesh.  \n\nReport prepared by Kartik Bommakanti\, Research Assistant at the IDSA
URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/navigating-through-troubled-waters-bangladeshs-experience-with-india-and-myanmar
CATEGORIES:FELLOW'S SEMINAR,EVENT REPORT
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:20100226T053000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20100226T053000
DTSTAMP:20261104T213400
CREATED:20231223T221939Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231224T130247Z
UID:63668-1267162200-1267162200@idsa.in
SUMMARY:Space Assets and India’s Capability (Specific to Satellite Communication for Defence Forces up to 2020 and Beyond)
DESCRIPTION:Colonel Deepak Sharma treated the subject from the larger point of view of national security. He argued that space assets constitute a sub-set in the broader structure of national security\, and highlighted the important role they play in military defence. According to him\, imagery\, navigation\, signals intelligence\, telecommunication\, early warning and meteorology are the key satellite functions that are vital in military operations. Besides\, on a strategic planning level\, satellite communication would also be crucial to maintain and sustain troops deployed outside.  \nAfter introducing the theme and its relevance in general\, Sharma defined what he means by space system. He argued that space system meant both a satellite and its ground station(s)\, with trained and technically competent manpower attached to them. \nAfter this he produced various tables\, graphs and charts giving a break-up of country-wise and function-wise statistics\, and budgetary estimates of various countries. According to the statistics provided by him\, more than half of the satellites orbiting around the earth are for communication purposes. Also\, the United States dominates commercial and military space. In this section\, he undertook case studies of American\, Chinese\, Indian and Pakistani space programmes and provided a comparative perspective. \nAs for an Indian military space programme\, he argued that “sufficient space capability exists with India to meet the requirements of its defence forces.” He argued that the Indian armed forces should demand for dedicated satellite facilities only when ISRO is unable to fulfill their requirements. He made a case for one competent and qualified agency in each service Headquarters for space systems that should be fully responsible to conceptualize\, plan and implement the project in totality. He recommended that Indian space strategy should be region-focused as its strategic concerns are basically regional. Aspiring for global reach through satellites is neither reasonable nor fesible for India. As to the question of security of space assets\, he argued that much of the fear is misplaced. Identifying an enemy’s satellites orbiting around the earth and\, then\, damaging or destroying them is not that easy\, technologically. He advised that instead of being over anxious about the safety and security of satellites in space\, the somewhat neglected aspect of security of space assets on the ground requires greater attention because the operation of satellites depends upon space centres on the ground.  \nCol. Deepak Sharma’s presentation was followed by a very fruitful discussion. Mr. Yadvendra Singh argued that the effective use of space military technology by the United States in recent wars has prompted other countries to develop this technology. He pointed out that the United States heavily used commercial satellites for military communications in the Gulf Wars. Thus\, using commercial satellites for military purpose is also a part of strategy. He also pointed out that the consequences would be grave if satellite systems were to collapse even for a single day. The damage incurred by such a failure would be 100 times more than in a war. He said that sharing of space and allocating coordinates will be a major issue in international politics in future because countries cannot place their satellites in orbit arbitrarily. Notwithstanding the fact that India started its space odyssey relatively late\, its progress in space science has been impressive. Further\, he said that Chinese business acumen and hard-bargaining have benefited its space programme a lot. Likewise\, the Indian space programme can also take advantage of the worldwide recession and exploit the opportunities presented by it.  \nCol. Navjot Singh averred that Deepak Sharma has performed a commendable job by highlighting the significance of ground space assets. He said that Sharma’s presentation has given ample food for thought. He highlighted the need of adequate laws for the safety and security of space assets and penalization of violators.  \nDr. Pankaj Jha raised several meaningful questions. He wanted to know what India was doing to tackle its vulnerabilities? What international agreements were there to assuage vulnerabilities? What was the international position on debris in space? The other internal discussant Mr. Kartik Bommakanti raised an important methodological issue of academic citation and validation. \nAir Commodore (Retd.) R.V. Phadke said that Sharma’s paper has done yeoman service to the IDSA as the institution was ‘technologically challenged’ and had shown relatively less interest in such studies. He noted that this was the first time that India’s capabilities were discussed; otherwise the general trend has been to highlight deficiencies only.\nFinally\, Col. Deepak Sharma answered many queries posed by various participants and said he would gladly accommodate many of the valuable suggestions in his final draft.  \nThe Chair\, Dr. Arvind Gupta\, wound up the session. In his remarks\, he emphasized the point that the services would have to explain why they need dedicated satellites. He reiterated the point that our space and strategic community should start deliberating about rules of space sharing as it would be an important issue in times to come. Besides\, the issue of debris has also the potential of becoming an important issue in international politics. India should not be caught in a NPT-like situation. Therefore\, he insisted that there should be a national space policy.  \nReport prepared by Dr. Prashant Kumar Singh
URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/space-assets-and-indias-capability-specific-to-satellite-communication-for-defence-forces-up-to-2020-and-beyond
CATEGORIES:FELLOW'S SEMINAR,EVENT REPORT
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR