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:20090101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20100312T053000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20100312T053000
DTSTAMP:20261104T211936
CREATED:20231223T221938Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231224T130247Z
UID:63664-1268371800-1268371800@idsa.in
SUMMARY:Energy Related Border Adjustment Measures: Will it Lead to Trade War?
DESCRIPTION:Ms. Shebonti Ray Dadwal\, Research Fellow\, presented her paper titled “Energy Related Border Trade Measures: Can it lead to trade war?” on 12 March 2010. Dr. Arvind Gupta chaired the session. Dr. Nityananda and Prof. V.G. Hegde were external discussants. Col. P.K. Gautam and Dr. Uttam Sinha were internal discussants.  \nShebonti Ray Dadwal highlighted the key aspects of the topic under consideration: \n\nTrade protectionism in the name of climate change is a hot topic. Already several countries have imposed carbon taxes while others are passing bills that authorise application of such taxes.\nThe question to be asked is if this is a disguised method to retain trade superiority.\nThe American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACESA) and similar measures undertaken by the European countries aim to tax imports that are carbon-intensive in the name of prohibiting competitive distortions.\nIt has been criticised as being against the development plans of the developing countries and it is argued that measures like financial assistance and technology transfers will be more effective.\nDeveloping countries\, worried at the prospects of facing fresh trade barriers\, had made their approach clear at the Copenhagen Summit in December 2009 and earlier in Bonn in August 2009\, arguing against any such unilateral measures.\nSuch measures\, it is argued\, would amount to passing of the mitigation responsibilities to the developing countries by the developed countries. Moreover\, such measures go against the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities”.\nWTO as well as UNFCCC rules are not exactly specific on this subject. Moreover\, the subject is extremely complex because of its multilayered nature. There are loopholes that allow exceptions for such policies.\n\nDiscussion:\n\nTrade\, security and wars are interlinked. Historical evidence also proves this fact. In recent times\, trade and terrorism have become linked.\nAt different times\, different groups of countries have focussed on carbon taxes\, and this issue will keep coming up in the future also. \nEnergy industry itself is the most energy-intensive industry. Moreover\, due to diversity in the quality of production\, assessment is going to be extremely complex; understanding the global impact is going to be even more difficult.\nTechnology is not the solution for addressing climate change; technology diffusion is more important than technology transfer. In a way the present debate is also about increasing the returns on the present IPRs.\nThe question to be asked here is whether India is ready for such a war? Do we have the expertise to fight or anticipate the circumstances?\nSince imposition of tariffs is a sovereign right and the WTO is being used by developed countries for pursuing their security agendas\, policy options for developing countries are getting shrunk. Therefore\, anticipation and capacity building to face the potential changes is extremely critical.\nIndividual countries have their agenda clearly worked out\, but it becomes problematic when one has to act as part of groups. It is better to develop consensus based on common interests which can help in setting important negotiating stands.\nIn all likelihood\, carbon taxation will take place and climate change will be used as a non-tariff barrier. Therefore preparing in advance is necessary.\nIt is important to see how the energy mix impacts trade and carbon taxation policies. Geopolitics\, trade and environment are linked. Thus\, there is interplay of politics and bargaining strategies. \nSometimes cap and trade policies can create incentives for efficient industries and can force non-efficient ones to change their methods of operations. \n\nReport prepared by Avinash Godbole\, Research Assistant\, IDSA.
URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/energy-related-border-adjustment-measures-will-it-lead-to-trade-war
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:20100312T053000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20100312T053000
DTSTAMP:20261104T211936
CREATED:20231223T221938Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231224T130247Z
UID:63665-1268371800-1268371800@idsa.in
SUMMARY:Sustaining Motivation in Sub-Conventional Warfare
DESCRIPTION:Chairperson: Ashok MehataDiscussants: Arun Sahgal and N.P. SinghInternal Discussants: Rumel Dahiya and S. Kalayanaraman \n \nMaj. Gen. (Retd.) Ashok Mehta stated at the very outset that India fought its last conventional war in 1971. Since then\, it has been fighting only sub-conventional wars. However\, the real spurt to sub-conventional wars that India has been fighting came in the 1980s with the surge of Sikh and then Kashmiri militancy. As for the term ‘sub-conventional war’\, he said that it simply denotes to anti-terrorist or counter-insurgency operations. He argued that India would continue to fight this mode of warfare for one or two generations more at least. Therefore\, he argued\, the study done by Col. K. C. Dixit was very relevant from the academic as well as policy points of view.  \nColonel K.C. Dixit\, a Research Fellow at IDSA\, examined in his paper the issue of how to keep soldiers’ (in Army tradition the word ‘soldier’ is generically applied to officers\, junior commissioned officers and other ranks) motivation high in the difficult conditions of sub-conventional war. What makes his paper really noteworthy is that it is based on an extensive field trip and personal interviews conducted by him. He went to Jammu and Kashmir in December 2009 and visited army units where he interviewed 880 soldiers. The interviewees were classified in three categories: officers\, junior commissioned officers and other ranks. He asked them 36 questions\, which were wide ranging and covered the entire gamut of a soldier’s life. On the basis of responses given to his questions\, he arrived at certain conclusions. \nHe began by putting forward a simplified version of the definitional aspects of motivation. Then\, he dwelt into the peculiarities of the operational environment in sub-conventional warfare\, juxtaposing it with conventional warfare. He then elaborated upon the factors affecting motivation in sub-conventional warfare. He recounted the absence of cooperation from the side of civil authority\, media propaganda\, lack of intelligence resulting in difficulty in identifying militants\, pressing demand for quick reaction\, problem with soldiers adapting to a new environment\, problem of command and control\, insistence on use of minimum force\, unsatisfactory living conditions\, pressures from human rights organizations\, as prominent factors affecting motivation of soldiers in sub-conventional warfare.  \nAfter analyzing factors affecting motivation\, he brought forward his conclusion that the conditions necessary to keep Indian soldiers motivated are far from being satisfactory. Here\, he made some recommendations to improve the level of motivation among soldiers. His recommendations covered areas like training\, organizational set up\, judicious involvement and participation on the part of soldiers at various levels in decision-making\, unit cohesion\, making tasks challenging\, exciting and meaningful\, media management\, the handling of junior leadership\, delegation of powers\, and many others. He finished his presentation by making a passionate plea for improving and sustaining motivation of soldiers in sub-conventional warfare. \nThe discussants were unanimous on the fact that the study done by Colonel K.C. Dixit was of immense significance and would surely help improve the working conditions of the Indian Armed Forces and increase their efficiency. However\, they and other scholars present during the session made some valid methodological points\, which needed to be addressed. Col. K.C. Dixit accepted these points and assured that he would accommodate them in the subsequent and final draft. \n  Report prepared by Dr. Prashant Kumar Singh.
URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/sustaining-motivation-in-sub-conventional-warfare
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:20100319T053000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20100319T053000
DTSTAMP:20261104T211936
CREATED:20231223T221839Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231224T130247Z
UID:63662-1268976600-1268976600@idsa.in
SUMMARY:The Obama Doctrine: Deciphering Obama’s Nuclear Policy and What it bodes for India
DESCRIPTION:In his paper “The Obama Doctrine: Deciphering Obama’s Nuclear Policy and What it bodes for India\,” A. Vinod Kumar examined President Obama’s nuclear policies and critically assessed its implications for India. By addressing Obama’s “nuclear policy” as Obama’s “nuclear doctrine”\, the paper attempted to show how America’s nuclear policies achieve a consistent doctrinal character even when successive Presidents promise paradigmatic change. In this light\, the paper was divided into four main sections. First\, the evolution of Obama’s thinking on nuclear weapons was elucidated. Secondly\, the paper detailed how Obama’s nuclear policy was in fact a doctrine in the making. In the next section the paper critically probed where the doctrine could fall apart. And in the final section\, the implications of Obama’s nuclear policy for India were examined.  \nFrom the beginning the paper showed how the purported nuclear policies of Obama were a continuation of Bush’s doctrine. While analysing the genesis of Obama’s thinking about nuclear weapons\, the paper showed how Obama was buffeted between forces of pragmatism in national security issues and those favouring elimination of nuclear weapons. The four statesmen – Henry Kissinger\, George Shultz\, William Perry and Sam Nunn – emphasized nuclear disarmament but paradoxically they also encouraged nuclear modernization. In this context\, the paper argued that though Obama’s nuclear policy favours traditional non-proliferation goals he was also forced to consider aspects of Bush’s dogmatic policies as well. Article IV of the NPT was reemphasized by Obama in the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1887; but even here issues like the need for a credible nuclear deterrent; the absence of prioritization of punitive action on NPT defectors and the absence of practical steps towards complete elimination of nuclear weapons\, according to the paper\, has not created anything new beyond the Bush doctrine. \nBut the need for a credible nuclear deterrent\, the absence of prioritization of punitive actions on NPT defectors and the absence of practical steps towards complete elimination of nuclear weapons all meant that the Obama nuclear doctrine could not go beyond the Bush doctrine. The author also showed how the revival of traditional instruments of the non-proliferation regime\, central to Obama’s vision\, could not escape his predecessor’s doctrinal style. For example\, on the NPT\, the paper asserted that the problems of non-compliance\, constraints on nuclear commerce\, threats from non-state actors\, nuclear test ban\, FMCT\, strengthening safeguards and restrictions on enrichment and reprocessing technologies are all issues that need immediate redressal for the treaty to be strengthened; and these were the issues on which Bush was not decisive. Between merely setting an agenda for the 2010 Review Conference and formulating a grand 21st century version of the NPT\, the paper argued that reviving the NPT could be a long haul. Similarly\, on CTBT\, the paper showed that securing support within the Senate for its ratification would be a difficult task. Most importantly\, it stressed that Obama’s strategies to combat nuclear security and terrorism were a copy from the Bush administration. The paper however suggested that a new framework could be derived through the UNSCR 1540 to ensure that non-state actors do not access sensitive nuclear technology. Alongside\, it also suggested that “the summit could also formalize counter-proliferation instruments like PSI within the non-proliferation edifice so as to generate global templates for prevention and responses.” Therefore\, even in counter-proliferation\, Obama might not devalue Bush’s initiatives. Finally on Ballistic Missile Defences (BMD) and promoting nuclear energy for peaceful purposes\, the paper showed that Obama’s nuclear policies were inadequately grounded. While Obama voted for major cuts in BMD programmes and was non-committal on Bush’s deployment plans\, upon assuming office Obama favoured limited deployment plans to provide minimum protection to the United States and its allies. He cancelled the Kinetic Kill Vehicle programme but remains apprehensive of Iranian\, North Korean\, Chinese and Russian missile modernization. The paper predicts that this could “force Obama to open funding for both missile defence as well as space weapons.” The same ambiguity was reflected in promoting nuclear energy for peaceful purposes; while Obama favoured international nuclear fuel-cycle centres he also felt that over-emphasis on nuclear energy is unwarranted. To conclude\, the paper asserted the continuities of doctrines regardless of the paradigmatic change promised. \nIn the next section\, the paper laid out two important issue areas where Obama’s doctrine might fail. First\, it questioned whether Obama’s nuclear disarmament is at best a utopian dream. The reason for such scepticism according to the author is that (a) total elimination cannot happen at one stroke as this will not be a consensual or sequential movement among the nuclear weapon states; (b) incremental steps towards elimination\, involving test-ban and fissile material cut-off\, would be a long haul; and\, (c) new weapon states that might emerge could reverse the reduction process. The failure to move from non-proliferation to disarmament\, and ever lingering security dilemmas have created more questions about prospective nuclear disarmament ambitions of the President. Second\, reducing the salience of nuclear weapons and maintaining a robust deterrent is a problem. Maintaining extended nuclear deterrence\, sentiments of the armed forces on modernizing the ageing nuclear forces along with demands for RRW and Stockpile stewardship program has created disagreements over Obama’s policies. Therefore\, the paper\, while arguing how Obama’s doctrine could fall apart\, also stressed that reductions and total elimination of nuclear weapons would also imperil CTBT and FMCT operationalisation.  \nFinally\, the paper assessed the implication of Obama’s nuclear policy for India. On a broader platform of integrating India into the non-proliferation regime\, NPT\, CTBT and FMCT options were discussed. On NPT\, notwithstanding India’s apprehensions to join the club as a NNWS\, the paper stated that Obama might not initiate sweeping reforms by opening up the NWS club. Therefore India’s call for a new non-proliferation bargain transcending the NPT centric regime might not fructify. Similarly\, on CTBT\, the paper stated that India cannot accept the treaty without a disarmament roadmap; the possibility of offering sophisticated weapons design data and simulation capabilities by United States to woo India was discussed with a caveat that Obama would not offer such capabilities as it would undermine his larger disarmament objectives. Finally on FMCT\, the paper stated that since India has committed itself to the treaty’s early conclusion without resolving all its contentions\, it might hope for a third party spoilsport if Obama couldn’t rectify the problem areas including verification and the EIF clause. \nSecondly\, discussing the divergent perceptions on disarmament for understanding the implications of Obama’s nuclear policy on India\, the paper drew attention to three factors. One\, the paper stated that India disowns the NPT and believes it could only retain a non-proliferation edifice without conditioning disarmament and therefore India has reservations on the traditional NPT route of Obama to achieve total elimination; two\, the paper argued that Rajiv Gandhi’s Action Plan of June 1988 could be a solution to Obama’s scepticism of not achieving disarmament in his lifetime; and finally\, the paper stated that de-legitimisation of nuclear weapons could be a right step towards total elimination with a universal agreement on no-first use and reduction of the salience of nuclear weapons in security doctrines. The paper was sceptical of the Obama administration taking such paradigmatic steps in the near future to achieve total elimination. \nLast but not the least\, the paper discussed counter-proliferation policy and its implications for India. It noted that the main stumbling block in India’s participation in Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) is the reference to IAEA comprehensive safeguards in the 2005 Protocol to the SUA Convention (Suppression of Unlawful Activities at Sea). India’s apprehension is that PSI is being targeted at non-NPT states. On missile defence the paper reiterated that with Obama’s own reservations India might have fewer worries of his policies impinging on Indian interests. Finally\, however\, the paper noted that Obama is likely to push for India’s participation in counter-proliferation initiatives which is in consonance with the Hyde Act but such pressures would also require India’s commitment to support US action against Iran which could prove problematic. \nDiscussion\n\nObama has limited options in seeking an alternative to Bush policies. Therefore\, the study is not presumptuous in giving Obama’s policies a doctrinal character. \nNuclear terrorism is a very serious problem which the paper could consider in more detail. \nThough a pragmatic disarmament timeline is absent there is some hope of progress; therefore the paper could explore how Obama could carry forward this agenda. \nOn Rajiv Gandhi’s Action plan\, the paper could also highlight similarities with Obama’s larger disarmament objectives rather than merely pointing out dissimilarities.\nThe paper could consider the implications of Obama’s policy on the forthcoming NPT RevCon and how it would impact on India. \nThe paper could discuss in more detail the proposed Nuclear Weapons Convention\, the key differences between NWC and NPT obligations\, and how India can cooperate in ensuring its successful implementation.\nWhile the paper initially stated that India might need to adopt a wait and watch policy\, during the discussion the author acknowledged the need for India to be proactive. \n\nReport prepared by Shanmugasundaram Sasikumar\, Research Assistant.
URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/the-obama-doctrine-deciphering-obamas-nuclear-policy-and-what-it-bodes-for-india
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:20100319T053000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20100319T053000
DTSTAMP:20261104T211936
CREATED:20231224T104406Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231224T130247Z
UID:64176-1268976600-1268976600@idsa.in
SUMMARY:Recent Trends in Myanmar-US Relations: Implications for Myanmar’s Political System
DESCRIPTION:Dr. Udai Bhanu Singh\, in his paper\, pointed out that the United States has been critical of the military regime in Myanmar. The US approach towards Myanmar was essentially based on a policy of sanctions and non-engagement with Myanmar. While China\, ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) and neighbouring countries engaged with Myanmar\, the United States continued to practice its policy.  \nOf late\, there has been a shift in the American policy towards Myanmar\, which is making an impact on Myanmar’s SPDC also. In the case of Myanmar\, it is apparent that contrary to its practice in Southeast Asia the US is not following the ‘Security First Policy’. For this\, pointed Dr. Singh\, China could also be one of the important factors.  However\, whether the shift in US policy is significant is yet to be examined. The shift in the US policy towards Myanmar has been evident as the two parties have made several official visits to each others’ capitals.  Still\, the US is consistent on the point that sanctions will remain in place until Myanmar becomes a democracy.  \nAnother contentious issue between Myanmar and the US has been Myanmar’s nuclear programme. While some scholars doubt Myanmar’s nuclear capability and its ability to make nuclear weapons\, one cannot deny the fact that Russia (and possibly North Korea too) has been cooperating with Myanmar on nuclear issues. In the changed circumstances\, SPDC’s objective is to integrate with the international community and to increase the level of manoeuvrability. Drug trafficking is another issue of concern for the US in light of the fact that Myanmar is the world’s second largest drug producer.  \nAnother reason\, as pointed out by Dr. Singh\, is the role of the Burmese diaspora based in the US. The US- and Canada-based Burmese diapsora is playing an increasingly significant role in influencing US policy towards Myanmar. For instance\, the Massachusetts-Burma Law was heavily influenced by the Burmese diaspora based in the US. What are the implications of such a change in the approach?  \n\nThe possibility of change in the Burmese Junta’s policy depends on SPDC’s ability to face the challenges\, both domestic and international. \nThe US so far has focused attention on just one person and just one party\, which has failed to deliver positive results. \n\nPoints of Discussion:\n\nStudying the US policy towards Myanmar will not help without understanding US policy towards the Southeast Asian region. \nThere is a realisation in the US that because of Myanmar its policy towards Southeast Asian region is also getting stifled. \nThe US is not able to engage Myanmar constructively because of domestic legislative constraints.\nThe shift in the US policy is a result of President Barak Obama’s attempt to reach out to recalcitrant countries. China factor is not significant since during the Bush administration nothing was done regarding Myanmar. It is to be noted that Bush administration had the policy of trying to forestall China’s rise in Asia. \nA reference to Andrew Selth’s article on Chinese bases in Myanmar was made during the discussion on Chinese bases in Myanmar. It was said that reports on Chinese bases in Myanmar was an overreaction. \n\nReport prepared by Rahul Mishra.
URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/recent-trends-in-myanmar-us-relations-implications-for-myanmars-political-system
CATEGORIES:FELLOW'S SEMINAR
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:20100326T053000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20100326T053000
DTSTAMP:20261104T211936
CREATED:20231223T221838Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231224T130247Z
UID:63661-1269581400-1269581400@idsa.in
SUMMARY:Prospects for India-US Cyber-Security Cooperation
DESCRIPTION:Dr. Cherian Samuel notes that cyber security is a significant domain for policy makers in India to formulate a hands-on approach\, as there is clear evidence over the past decade of an increase of cyber threats worldwide. In his paper\, he searches for scope for cooperation between India and the United States in the area of cyber security\, continuing from the 2002 efforts of the India-US Cyber Security Forum aimed at strengthening cooperation on national security issues between the two countries. \nThe structure of the paper encompasses the approaches to cyber security in both countries and studies the sectoral approaches to cyber security i.e.\, the IT security perspective\, the economic perspective\, the law enforcement perspective and a national security perspective. Dr. Samuel argues that understanding sectoral approaches is essential since harmonizing these perspectives to create a holistic policy on cyber security is required through the inclusion of all these sectors. In the United States\, one finds that policy on cyber security is dominated by the national security perspective\, which has been encouraged under President Obama as well. While there are practical problems relating to harmonizing aspects of privacy and security\, the United States\, unlike India\, has formulated a clear policy towards cyber security as seen in its various declassified goals as well. In India\, while there has been a boom of cyberspace in the past decade\, the focus of policy makers has been economic rather than national security oriented\, as seen in the Information Technology Act of 2000 which concentrates mainly on e-commerce. Following the 26/11 Mumbai attacks\, there have been efforts to introduce amendments in this bill\, which\, however\, continues to lack a clear focus in its goal and is often noted to be an ‘Omnibus Bill’ covering too many issues. \nIn the context of cyber security cooperation between the India and the United States\, Dr. Samuel notes that the interests of both countries can be fulfilled. For India\, capacity building and research development has been cited as a clear objective through this cooperation\, while the United States may feel the need to safeguard its interests given the large number of US companies engaged in outsourcing in India. An asymmetry in the technical capacities of the two countries may have been a reason for the India-US Cyber Security Forum of 2002 not being successful\, along with the lack of a multilateral treaty or body like the United Nations to coordinate and oversee activities and cooperation. The working groups established under the aegis of this Forum – Legal Cooperation and Law enforcement\, Research and development\, Critical Information Infrastructure\, Defence Cooperation and Standards and Software assurance – have been used by Dr. Samuel as a template for his analysis in searching for areas for cooperation and road-blocks on cyber security between the two countries in the future. \nIn the area of Legal Cooperation and Law Enforcement\, the lack of an international legal framework has undoubtedly impacted the avenues for Indo-US bilateral cooperation on this issue. The UN’s Internet Governing Forum (IGF) has proved to be an inadequate mechanism for generating such a framework. On issues relating to Research and Development\, cooperation remains limited since US agencies like the highly secretive National Security Agency (NSA) remains disinterested in sharing technologies that remain its strategic assets. Defence Cooperation in cyberspace encompasses unique issues\, which need to addressed by both countries individually before agreeing on cooperation\, wherein the policy of the state towards cyber crime or cyber terrorism are to be formulated. The US military has only recently begun to conceive cyberspace as a war-fighting domain and India is still far behind on this issue. NATO\, of which the United States is a member\, however has presented an advanced cyberspace cooperation mechanism and may even become a “hub” of coordinating responses to global threats to cyber security. The scope for cooperation between India and the United States\, according to Dr. Samuel\, lies mainly in the field of Critical Information Infrastructure Protection. This forms the focus of the US interest in cyber security partnership with India and this objective resulted in the setting up of the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In) and the National Skills Registry in 2005 to authenticate individuals working in the IT industry. However\, to increase Indo-US cooperation in this field there are gaps that need to plugged in by India\, which has been found to have the highest cyber security regulation but the lowest security adoption rates. \nTherefore cooperation between the United States and India in this sphere is conceivable only when they are both equal in their understanding and responses to threats in cyber space. There is a pressing urge in India to approach this issue holistically\, while taking into account the interests of the various sectors with stakes in cyberspace. The inability of the Indo-US Cyber Security Forum to take off points to the need for a multilateral cooperation framework along with the presence of a legislation covering legal\, technical and national security objectives to regulate India’s policies on cyber security to pave the way for bilateral and international cooperation on this issue.  \nPoints of Discussion\n\nFailure of the Indo-US Cyber Security Forum provides a valuable lesson in strengthening such cooperation in the future. Cooperation with other countries (such as Russia and South Korea) and multi-dimensional cooperation should also be made a priority by India. \nIn order to have equal footing with a world leader like the United States\, India needs the presence of an overarching supervisory authority with over-sight mechanism along with a role for the United Nations. Issues relating to trust and coordination between the parties can be fulfilled through this\, and these terms need to be clarified before embarking on bilateral cooperation. Also\, creating any arrangement without India’s priorities clearly demarcated will remain asymmetrical and therefore non-beneficial for India\nSecurity testing and reliability testing of hardware is essential to ensure that crucial hardware components sourced from third countries is not compromised. A third party auditing organization and the creation of a Cyber Security Fund are areas which need to be flagged for Indo-US cyber security cooperation since both countries have increasing stakes in this domain. \nThere are definite benefits for all sectors with stakes in cyber security in the fructification of Indo-US bilateral cooperation on this issue. India should try to base cooperation on research and development and capacity building to equalize such a partnership\nThe Indian government should also issue directives on cyber security like the US government in order to sensitise Indian private enterprises about data security and dangers from cyber espionage. \nProposed initiatives such as the National Institute of Cryptology Research should be brought on-stream at the earliest.\n\nReport prepared by Saba Joshi\, Intern\, IDSA.
URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/prospects-for-india-us-cyber-security-cooperation
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