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:20130101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20140314T053000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20140314T053000
DTSTAMP:20261104T165251
CREATED:20231224T102427Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20250228T004637Z
UID:64051-1394775000-1394775000@idsa.in
SUMMARY:Reforms to United States Higher Defence Organization: Lessons for India
DESCRIPTION:Open to all Members; others pl. contact\n\n\n\n\n1030 to 1300 hrs\nConference Cell
URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/reforms-to-united-states-higher-defence-organization-lessons-for-india
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:20140321T053000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20140321T053000
DTSTAMP:20261104T165251
CREATED:20231223T133506Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231224T130239Z
UID:63103-1395379800-1395379800@idsa.in
SUMMARY:Arms Trade Offset: Global Trend and ‘Best’ Practices
DESCRIPTION:Chairperson: Shri V. K. MisraDiscussants: Shri A. K. Ghosh and Shri Amit Cowshish \n \nDr Laxman Kumar Behera’s presentation on “Arms Trade Offset: Global Trend and ‘Best’ Practices” was broadly divided into two parts. While in the first part of his presentation Dr Behera explained about the volumes\, trends\, and emerging issues of global offsets. In the second part he dealt with important aspects of best international practices in arms trade offset policies. Primarily\, Dr Behera surveyed the offset policies of six countries: South Korea\, Turkey\, Canada\, Israel\, Malaysia and UAE which not only have had a declared policy on offsets but have also undertaken periodic revisions based on the experience gained over a period of time. He also referred to Indian offset policy to highlight its convergence and divergence with the policies of those six countries.  \nHe said that given the lack of comprehensive official data on arm trade offsets\, the statistics provided by the US Commerce Department’s the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) remains the only official source for any meaningful analysis. According to Behera\, the BIS data is not only defence specific\, but also captures value of offsets and its percentage share in US’ total arms export\, and offset transaction by type (direct and indirect) and category (co-production\, licensed production\, technology transfer etc.). It is however restricted to the US companies which are mandated to report to the US government on any defence export which entails an offset requirement exceeding $5.0 million.  \nCiting the 17th BIS report\, Dr Behera said\, during 1993-2011\, 53 US defence companies signed 830 offset-related defence export contracts with 47 countries. The value of associated offsets was $83.73 billion\, representing 68.28 per cent of total arms export value of $122.67 billion. In 2011 alone\, nine US companies signed 59 offset-related defence agreements valued $10.76 billion with 27 countries. The offset value of these contracts was $5.48 billion. Importantly\, among all the offset categories reported by the US companies\, three categories – purchases\, subcontracting and technology transfer – stood out as the most preferred offset transactions. Between 1993 and 2011\, they together represented 81.1 per cent by credit value. However\, the persistent decline in offset percentage post 2003-2005 raises questions about the use of offset. \nIn the second part of his presentation\, Dr Behera elaborated international best practices in arms trade offsets by touching upon key issues: threshold\, percentage\, and multiplier in the offsets; value addition; principle of additionality and causality; offset obligations on domestic enterprises; channelling offsets; establishing long-term relationship through offsets; offset swapping; banking and offset trading; implementation and monitoring\, etc.  \nHe said that except for Canada\, India has the highest threshold limit. This means\, unlike most other countries which demand offsets in contracts valued as low as $5-15 million\, Indian industry cannot benefit from such smaller contracts unless the contract value reaches $55 million. India has also the lowest offset percentage requirement among the listed countries.  \nMany countries apply the principle of value addition for the purpose of estimating the true value of offset credit which can be claimed by the foreign vendors. The value-addition principle ensures that the foreign vendors get their due offset credit for the local content they are able to achieve in the buying country. In India\, he said\, value addition is determined by subtracting value of imported components i.e. import content in the product and any fees or royalty paid from the final purchase or export price of the eligible products. It is however to be noted that unlike Canada which applies the value addition principle for both products and services\, Indian policy is only restricted to the products.  \nHe said that many countries including India allow investment as one of the means for discharge of supplier’s offset obligations. However\, few countries bother to see if such investment\, for which the foreign vendors earn offset credits\, is having any real impact on the exception. The UAE’s revised offset policy brought out in 2010 has incorporated a hybrid model for calculation of offset credit that virtually puts onus on the foreign suppliers to ensure that a part of the offset inflows brings real benefits to the UAE economy. On offset policy at the national level\, the presenter said that some countries including India operate offset policy in the narrow prism of defence procurement only. However\, South Korea and Israel are among those countries whose offset policy is applicable at the national level for both defence and civil procurement.  \nIn the conclusion\, Dr Behera said that the role of offsets in arms trade is going to stay for the foreseeable period. Given the shrinking military spending in advanced arms manufacturing countries and the simultaneous increase in defence expenditure by big arms importing countries in Asia and other parts of the world\, offsets would play an ever increasing role in the international arms trade. Particularly\, in a buyers dominating global armament market\, countries\, which have declared offsets policy\, would try to improvise their existing policies to maximise their arms import.  \nMoreover\, he reflected that India being one of the biggest arms importers in the world\, and having a declared offset policy since 2005\, it is vital that its policy is not only dynamic and but takes into account some of the fundamental practices followed by other countries. Presently\, however\, the Indian offset policy\, despite having gone through several rounds of revisions still remains a conservative one and lacks some of the fundamental principles adopted by others. Given that offset has a cost premium loaded into the main contract\, he suggested\, it is high time Indian policy makers take a serious look at the policy. \nShri A. K. Ghosh\, former Finance Advisor\, Defence Services\, observed that the conclusion of the paper is not clearly reflecting in both parts of the paper. The author needs to clearly explain why there is a declining trend in the global markets for the offsets? The author also pointed out that India has highest threshold limit as well as the lowest offset percentage requirement. This aspect needs to be relooked\, because India is having a non-aggressive offset policy whereas China is very aggressive in its offset policy. So there is framework or no framework\, China will follow an aggressive offset policy. In this context\, the paper shows a very conservative perspective. Shri Ghose was of the view that the proposal for establishing a long-term offset policy is very crucial. Israel is a case which looks for establishing such a long term relationship. However\, building institutional capability is the key for this on which the author can write forcefully. \nShri Amit Cowshish\, former Financial Advisor (Acquisition)\, Ministry of Defence\, said that though the paper does speak about international practices in arms trade offsets\, but it does not speak about which one is the best practices. It needs to analyze which one is the best practice and why. South Korea’s practice is appreciated but it is not considered as the best practice and many countries are not following this model. Why other countries practices are not considered as the best practice also need explanation. The value of the paper could be enhanced if it expounds in overall where India stands and how effectively it’s offset policy work. The author also spoke about various fundamental lacunas but the author first needs to explain what those fundamentals are. In fact\, the fundamentals are basic features of many countries policy. The author should thus describe which fundamental practices are missing from Indian side. With respect to the management of the offsets\, the author talked about the loopholes in the implementation and monitoring side which requires greater attention.  \nMajor Points of Discussion and Suggestions:\n\nWhy there is a declining trend in the global markets for the offsets? What are the main reasons for this?\nIndia’s policy for offset came in 2006\, but that does not mean that it did not have such policy before?\nAny policy works in a particular ecosystem. The UAE does not have its eco-system. So what are the ecosystems of various countries under study?\nThe author has given data up to the year 2011. SIPRI annual reports can be used to update the data in the paper.\nThe author has given some good recommendations for India\, but a fair amount of work should be done to justify those recommendations. \nIndia is very defensive in its offset policy and its offset contracts reflect what it expects.\nIt is a good paper on the arms trade offsets and could be a base paper for further research.\n\nChairperson’s Remarks: Shri V.K. Mishra\, former Financial Adviser (Defence Services)\, highlighting the significance of the paper as well as Indian offset policy and its various challenges\, said that it was expected to have some kind of a transformative impact\, given the major gaps not only in the technology but in infrastructure\, maintenance\, and manufacturing capability. So all in all it was envisioned to provide a fillip to the Indian defence industrialization process. So far much has not happened in this regard. Shri Mishra pointed out that there is misconception that it drags on the acquisition process and tends to unwarranted costs. However\, it should not be seen that way. In fact\, he said\, the offset policy makers had hope that any offsets investment in flow would bring some amount of attractive returns on the investments by the OEMs. Then only it could be sustained. So it will also help in achieving long term relationship with those OEMs and India’s offset partners. These were the expectations. However\, the experience has shown with the kind of guidelines India has with regard to foreign direct investments some worthwhile investments are there. There are also aspects of joint venture guidelines which require much greater clarity. Therefore\, the progress on this front is very much slow in terms of worthwhile JV entities. There is need to move another level where there would have to be priority defined in terms of the each of the request for proposals (RfP’s) that are issued. Thus\, there is a whole range of concerns whether it is technology\, maintenance preparation in overhaul\, infrastructure facility. He concluded the seminar by thanking all the participants for their valuable contributions and making it a success.  \nReport prepared by Dr Saroj Bishoyi\, Researcher\, IDSA
URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/arms-trade-offset-global-trend-and-best-practices
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:20140328T053000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20140328T053000
DTSTAMP:20261104T165251
CREATED:20231223T133407Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231224T130238Z
UID:63101-1395984600-1395984600@idsa.in
SUMMARY:Emerging contours of Iran-China Relations: An Overview
DESCRIPTION:Chairperson: Amb Ishrat AzizExternal Discussants: Prof A K Pasha and Prof  Qamar AghaInternal Discussants: Col Rajeev Agrawal and Dr Prashant Kumar Singh \nThe paper holistically examines the nature\, scope and direction of Iran-China bilateral relations. The author\, in this study\, highlights dimensions of political and economic intimacy between Tehran and Beijing and elaborates how the two nations figure in each other’s foreign policy. In the first section\, author deals with the cooperative aspect of the bilateral engagements. A brief background of the Iran-China relations was discussed to place the issue in a historical framework. Civilizational encounters and exchanges were enumerated to suggest that leaders in both the nations cherish the historic memories to nurture and strengthen the relation. The author clearly identified five guiding principles namely; Ideological principles\, Anti-Imperialism\, Persian Nationalism\, Self-Sufficiency and Islamic solidarity\, to enunciate China’s position in Iran’s foreign policy matrix. In the ensuing sections\, points of convergence of interest were discussed at length and important areas of cooperation were highlighted including; Political\, Economic\, Trade and Commerce\, Investment\, Energy and Defence. Intersection of Political relations was established in terms of diplomatic engagement between Iran and China even before the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Author gave a detailed account of the vibrant Economic and energy relations\, trade dynamics and nature of capital investment flow\, followed by specifics on energy and defence cooperation. The question of China’s support for Iran’s Nuclear Programme and China’s strategic balancing between Iran and the US was analyzed in detail. Beijing’s anti-Iran votes in the UN Security Council combined with its normal economic engagements with Tehran were mentioned\, to argue that China has clearly adopted “Middle of the Road” approach towards Iran.   \nFurthermore\, author succinctly brought out the challenges of Iran-China relations; with reference to US role in influencing their respective foreign policies. Changing public perception within Iran with regards to China was also discussed. In conclusion\, author stated that China’s approach to Iran is being viewed as increasingly mercantilist and opportunistic\, and thus took the position that despite flourishing economic ties\, the bilateral relations are likely to be riddled with challenges.  \nAmbassador Ishrat Aziz recognized and appreciated author’s efforts to coherently analyze Iran-China relations. Thematic unity of the paper was acknowledged. He stated that no relation in contemporary foreign affairs is bilateral per se\, and evidently most engagements are shaped by multilateral concerns. The need to discuss Iran and P5+1 nuclear talks and recent developments\, was highlighted since it is likely to have repercussions on Iran-China relations.  \nProf. A.K. Pasha acknowledged the author’s efforts to delve into the intricacies of Iran-Sino relations. He suggested the author to include Khomeini and Sassanid period while discussing the background of Iran-China relations. Dr. Pasha shared that increased movement of students between Iran and China was indicative of growing cultural exchange and the author was asked to analyze cultural aspect of Iran-China ties. It was further stated that foreign policies were not drafted in vacuum and thus there was a need to address the driving force behind Iran’s foreign policy; while dealing with the guiding principles. He also shared his insights on the role played by external players in the changing geo-political landscape of West Asia\, and suggested the author to see how these external factors have influenced Iran-China relations.     \nDr. Qamar Agha appreciated author’s holistic and descriptive approach to the subject\, and highlighted scope for further analysis. He opined that Iran is now entering a new phase in its modern history\, and is experimenting with its foreign policy. Despite international isolation\, Iran exhibited an impressive growth over the last three decades; best reflected in its nuclear programme. Commenting on China’s policy\, Dr. Agha raised the question of China-Pak intimacy and its likely impact on Sino-Iran ties. China’s policy of energy diversification was briefly discussed\, and interestingly\, GCC is now being viewed as a famous trade market by China. All these tectonic shifts suggest that” Neither East\, Nor West policy” of Iran is unsustainable.  \nCol Rajeev Agarwal agreed with the major arguments put forward by the author and appreciated the author’s attempt to produce a comprehensive paper. He urged the author to clearly articulate the key findings of his study in the conclusion section and suggested that connecting foreign policy directive principles to the specific case of Iran-China bilateral engagement would add more value to the paper.  \nDr. Prashant Singh appreciated the topical value and contemporary nature of the paper. He suggested the author to bring out the normative convergence of Iran and China’s foreign policy ideologies and stated that the major developments in Iran-China relations in the last ten years should be the main focus of the paper. Dr. Prashant stated that even though Iran’s perception within China was undergoing slow change\, but impact of these perceptions on Iran’s foreign policy is not confirmed.  \nThe discussion was followed by Question and Answer round. US role in influencing China’s and Iran’s respective foreign policy was discussed\, along with impact of political transition in Tehran in August 2013 on Iran-China relations. Questions were raised on China’s strategic balance between Iran and Saudi Arabia; and how Saudi Arabia figured in China’s policy towards West Asia. It was mentioned that despite differences between Iran and Saudi Arabia\, both hold an important place in China’s “West Asia policy.”  \nPrepared by Ms. Divya Malhotra\, Research Intern\, West Asia Centre\, IDSA
URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/emerging-contours-of-iran-china-relations-an-overview
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:20140328T053000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20140328T053000
DTSTAMP:20261104T165251
CREATED:20231223T133506Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231224T130238Z
UID:63102-1395984600-1395984600@idsa.in
SUMMARY:From Looks to Action: Thailand-India Strategic Convergence and Defence Cooperation
DESCRIPTION:Chairperson: Prof Charan D WadhvaExternal Discussants: Prof S D Muni and Prof Ganganath JhaInternal Discussants: Cdr S S Parmar and Dr Udai Bhanu Singh \n \nProf. Wadhwa initiated the event by giving a briefing on India-Thailand bilateral relations which is grounded on historical inheritances. Thailand\, being one of the closest Southeast Asian neighbours of India\, bears many semblances with India in terms of culture\, traditions\, geography and economy.  \nFollowed by this brief introduction\, Ms. Chingchit began her presentation. During the Cold War Thailand and other non-communist countries in Southeast Asia considered India as being a close ally of Soviet Union’s and thus maintained a limited engagement. The shift in Thailand’s foreign policy orientation in 1988 allowed India to become Thailand’s natural partner by virtue of its geographic location\, economic potential and geopolitical pre-eminence in South Asia. Finally\, in January 2012\, Thailand and India signed a Memorandum of Understanding on Defence Cooperation after 67 years of diplomatic relations and two decades of collaboration to expand the defence and military ties between the two countries. Prior to 2012\, Indo-Thai defence relation had been largely unaddressed and underdeveloped. Until now\, despite having military engagements in the areas of military exercise\, joint patrol and defence dialogue under bilateral and multilateral frameworks\, the existing defence cooperation between India and Thailand has never been noteworthy. This does not correspond with the increasing significance of India-Thailand partnership and the changing power and security dynamics in Asia. As a part of defence diplomacy\, both sides need to strengthen their military ties to complement their growing engagement in other spheres. However\, it remains to be seen as to what extent and in which domain Thailand and India can manage to push their defence relation forward. \nProf S D Muni mentioned that since no major work has been done on Indo-Thai defence cooperation in India\, Ms. Chingchit’s paper has certain relevance. The data used are mostly primary and hence\, the paper is useful. However\, he recommended that Thai media reports could also be used to get the Thai perspectives on the subject. Prof. Muni argued that the paper lacks strategic background on Indo-Thai relation- how it has been evolving and unfolding. Post Cold War changes could have been brought in the beginning of the paper. He further argued that Thailand has been successfully balancing China and US in the region\, as mentioned by Ms. Chingchit in her paper; however\, most of the Southeast Asian countries have been following the same trend in the region in order to avoid any major conflict. How India is perceived in Thailand was not mentioned in the paper\, Prof. Muni pointed out. Moreover\, the minor defence cooperation between India and Thailand that was in existence before 2012 could have been incorporated in the paper\, opined Prof. Muni. Factors like growing importance of Bay of Bengal\, common concerns like terrorism\, money laundering etc. need to be focused too. \nFollowed by the opinion by Prof. Muni\, Prof. Jha said that Thailand’s geographic location is important and the capability of the Thais in strategic thinking is at par in excellence in comparison to other Southeast Asian countries. He mentioned that the training exercises of Indian National Army were conducted in Phuket. However\, during the Cold War\, some disturbances appeared in the Indo-Thai relations. After this brief phase of bewilderment\, both India and Thailand came closer to each other followed by the Look East Policy of India and formation of BIMSTEC signalled a positive step in India’s relations with Thailand. Between 1998 and 2002\, a lot of other attempts were taken to enhance Indo-Thai relations. In the recent time\, the Daewoo project evokes fascination. At the end of his discussion\, Prof. Jha said that for India\, Thailand is a major stakeholder in its efforts of developing good relations with the Asia Pacific countries.  \nCdr Parmar mentioned that not much material is available on Indo-Thai defence cooperation in the newspapers and this explains the limitations of the relationship itself. He stressed on the low activities and low initiatives in the relationship between India and Thailand. He focused on the limitations in the bilateral defence cooperation between India and Thailand which should be emphasized in the paper also. How Thailand can use the multilateral-regional platforms like IORA in enhancing its relations with India\, what are Thailand’s expectations from India and how US and China factors influence the bilateral equations between India and Thailand were some of the major thrust areas identified by Cdr. Parmar.  \nDr. Singh said that most of facts of defence relationship between India and Thailand have been covered in the paper. However\, greater attention to the regional security architecture needs to be covered in order to explain the challenges and constraints. Lack of connectivity\, infrastructural gaps exist in the North-eastern region of India\, opening of Myanmar and other related factors need to be explained in the paper. In addition\, Dr. Singh mentioned that the paper has no reference on the regional economic architecture which surely has a deeper impact on the regional security architecture. How the domestic turmoil inside Thailand is likely to influence the defence and security equations of Thailand was also missing in the paper.  \nDuring the general discussion\, Prof. Gautam Sen suggested that the aspect of India-Myanmar-Thailand triangle should be discussed in the paper. Another participant\, Mr. Peter Van Der Hoest asked about the factors which are holding India and Thailand back from augmenting their defence cooperation. Ms. Bhattacharyya\, a Post Doctoral Fellow from JNU said that Thailand does not have any external threat perception and hence\, she asked\, why should India and Thailand opt for defence cooperation. As the discussion was continued\, Cdr Parmar asked about India’s position in Thailand’s Look West Policy and the vice versa. Prof. Wadhwa asked about the economic dynamics of Indo-Thai relations focusing on the comparative advantages of comprehensive economic partnership against free trade agreement.  \nAs concluding remarks Ms. Chingchit observed that Thailand wants India to play greater role in the region\, to maintain peace and stability in Northeast India as well as develop its infrastructure\, open more markets for Thailand and improve connectivity between India and Southeast Asia.  \nThe discussion  ended with a positive note on further collaboration and cooperation expected from Thailand in support of India and the vice versa as bilateral relationship is a two way process.  \n(Report Prepared by Ms. Sampa Kundu\, Research Assistant\, IDSA)
URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/from-looks-to-action-thailand-india-strategic-convergence-and-defence-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