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:20100101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20110211T053000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20110211T053000
DTSTAMP:20261104T202504
CREATED:20231223T220838Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231224T130245Z
UID:63598-1297402200-1297402200@idsa.in
SUMMARY:China’s National Interest
DESCRIPTION:Chair: Amd. R. RajagopalanExternal Discussant: Prof. Swaran Singh and Prof. Abanti Bhattacharya \n \nThe paper argues that China’s national interest\, and the strategies that China follows to achieve these\, are intricately linked to its priorities at the domestic level. What China defines as its core national interests are relatively stable\, while the policies which are adopted to achieve these are fluid in nature. According to the author\, Chinese writings show that when there is an expansion of economic interest it invariably leads to an expansion of national interest. She concludes by adding that the relationship between military power and economic development which was emphasized by Deng Xiaoping continues to be important even today. Economic development also features as a ‘constant’ and ‘vital’ interest in the classification of national interests. The author’s concluding argument was that while writings on China’s national interests state that peace and development cannot be de-linked\, clarity should be maintained on the priority between the two\, and development should not be compromised to maintain peace\, as argued by Yan Xuetong. \nThe main points of discussion were: \n\nThere is a need to define national interest and what is included and excluded from the core national interest should also be discussed.\nThere is also a need to differentiate between ‘need’ driven and ‘ambition’ driven national interest. Chinese scholars have also not done much work on this topic.\nThere is a need to locate evolution and fluctuation. How and when the choice between sovereignty and regime security does fluctuate.\nThere is a need to study the overemphasis on culture in the context of China’s national interest.\nThe paper needs to bring out the debates within China and explore how the Chinese conception of the national interest is different from the western conception.\nOne needs to also discuss the understanding of the new generation of leadership and whether evolution of national interest in China is a stable or an unstable concept.\nOne also needs to discuss whether national interest is a bourgeoisie concept and discuss the changes after the military modernization and the increase in Chinese confidence.\nIt was suggested that the author could discuss the changes within the concept after the rise of China and the difference between present national interest and future national interest.\nThere is a need to examine the connection between domestic issues and developments and the changes in the concept of national interest.\n	One also needs to define peripheral and global interests and the connection between national interest and diplomacy.\n\nReport prepared by Gunjan Singh\, Research Assistant\, IDSA
URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/chinas-national-interest
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:20110211T053000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20110211T053000
DTSTAMP:20261104T202504
CREATED:20231223T220924Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231224T130245Z
UID:63599-1297402200-1297402200@idsa.in
SUMMARY:US Aid to Pakistan: Changing Rules of Engagement and Regional Implications
DESCRIPTION:Chairperson: Dr G BalachandranDiscussants: Capt (IN) Alok Bansal and Dr Harinder Sekhon \n \nDr Priyanka Singh’s present study focuses primarily on the prevailing dynamics and complexities of US aid to Pakistan\, from an Indian perspective. The key issue that she tried to address in her paper was the lack of a synchronised and substantiated Indian perspective on US aid to Pakistan and its implications for the regional security.  \nThe presenter argued that since the inception of US-Pakistan relations\, aid\, both military and non-military\, has been the key instrument of US policy towards Pakistan. However\, the history of US aid to Pakistan shows that the flow and quantum of the aid has been intermittent. Nonetheless\, aid to Pakistan has been subject to geo-strategic challenges which threatened the US interests in the region time and again. After 9/11\, the US has flooded huge aid into Pakistan to meet its objectives\, both in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.  \nShe noted that in the post 9/11 era\, the main objectives of US aid to Pakistan are to strengthen Pakistan’s capacity for counterterrorism operations\, help it to prevent the spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction\, support it in the development of a moderate\, democratic and civilian government in Pakistan. However\, the author felt that because of the absence of clearly defined objectives on how to utilize the US aid has led to mismanagement and augmented complacency in Pakistan’s government. Pakistan relentlessly forestalled decisive action against the Taliban and al Qaeda inside its territory despite receiving billions in aid since 2001. Consequently\, the March 2009 Interagency White Paper outlining US future strategy on Afghanistan-Pakistan enunciated a new course for US aid in the region. It stated that assistance to Afghanistan and Pakistan should be aligned with United States core goals and objectives and that assistance would be limited without the achievement of results. It also stressed on capacity building of the governments in these countries as a measure to arrive at preferred goals. In addition\, the US also made fundamental changes in its subsequent aid policies towards Pakistan such as through the PEACE Act which granted $ 7.5 billion to Pakistan by placing more drivers for better usage of its aid.  \nThe author said that the ongoing discourse in the US on Pakistan’s accountability regarding usage of US aid somehow converges with India’s long held view that aid is being pumped into terror infested Pakistan at the cost of regional security environment. The US aid policy towards Pakistan is also known to lack a coherent strategy being too security centric\, with very little proportions of it reaching the masses out there. In this scenario\, US faces the dilemma of having to increase the aid despite knowing that it may not achieve its desired ends.  \nTherefore\, there are fundamental problems in administering US assistance to Pakistan. According to Dr. Singh\, the important problems among them are the constraints within USAID in staff and resources which are vital to timely and just distribution of the funds and constraints in free and safe movement across Pakistan; more aid than what can be effectively absorbed by local institutions; the case of aid failing to reach the deserving sections of Pakistani society leads to anti-Americanism in Pakistan; lack of outreach and failure of US aid to generate goodwill; resistance to various conditions in US aid policy towards Pakistan; lack of visibility and the ratio of success; lack of transparency in US Pakistan dealings and dearth of support systems to conduct monitoring and oversight of aid.  \nImplications for India: The author pointed out two important dimensions: first\, the US military aid comprising conventional weapons which are of little use in counterinsurgency operations and are borne with the possibility of being used against India; and\, second\, the non-military assistance and its role in Pakistan’s nation building in terms of a stable and peaceful neighbourhood has a direct bearing on the region and India in particular. According to her\, another argument on India’s security concerns stems from “asymmetric warfare” noted to be a principal tool of Pakistan’s foreign policy.  \nAssessing the US aid policy in Pakistan\, she said that huge aid and redemption from several debts has helped Pakistan save itself from an economic breakdown and the resistance that Pakistan security forces offer to the Taliban in their territory which avoided a security breakdown. However\, the author was of the view that any US military aid to Pakistan would be self defeating as this would quietly be absorbed by the Pakistan army. Therefore\, she stressed that there is a need to reconfigure and reorient military assistance to Pakistan driving it more towards counterterrorism and counter insurgency. Finally\, she suggested that US policies should direct the process of managing aid judiciously only on long term basis and it needs to make a modest and a coherent start to initiate measures of checks and balances.  \nMajor Points of Discussion and Suggestions:\n\nRelationship between countries based on shared interests and values last long whereas US-Pakistan relations are based on interest which is transient.\nThe US thinks that aid to Pakistan provides leverage. However\, aid to Pakistan has not brought stability in Pakistan and it is now a failed state. \nUS drone attacks in Pakistan\, critical role of Pakistan media\, and various conditions that are attached to aid has led to anti-Americanism. However\, Pakistan still holds centrality in United States global war on terrorism. \nUS aid policy should aim at stopping the radical idea in Pakistan and should encourage moderate forces for forming a democratic and stable government. This could help Pakistan to fight against Taliban and al Qaeda.\nPakistan’s huge procurement of conventional military aid from US like F16s is surely going to be used against India and these are not going to be used against al Qaeda and Taliban.\n\nThe US aid policy has not succeeded in strengthening liberal forces in Pakistan and instead the radical forces are increasing. Moreover\, the crumbling state structures in Pakistan would have serious regional implications. \nThe author needs to provide a historical background of US aid policy towards Pakistan to clearly reflect issues relating to it. During the post-World War II period\, the role of US industrial-military complex should be discussed in the context of US aid policy.\nPakistan became one of the earliest allies of US by joining CEATO and CENTO in early 1950s and received huge military aid from the US. The geo-strategic significance of Pakistan to US during the Cold War period also needs to be dealt with. The US threat perception from the USSR and China also need to be considered in the aid policy. In the past\, however\, US manipulated aid policy to achieve its self interests. \nThe author needs to discuss and highlight about the rationale behind the fundamental changes in recent US aid policy towards Pakistan and new rules of engagement. The author also needs to consult more Pakistan government sources and Pakistani writings. \nThe US aid policy was very successful immediately after the 9/11 war – especially in the war against Taliban and al Qaeda. However\, issues such as changing the mindset of Pakistan extremists\, bringing peace and stability\, and establishing moderate and democratic government in Pakistan came later where it is not successful. \nThe role of US congressional oversight\, especially the role of Department of Defence\, Department of State\, defence committees\, foreign relations committees and various standing committees in the US aid policy need to be discussed and mentioned in the paper for providing a clear and detailed analysis of the US aid policy towards Pakistan.\n\nReport prepared by Dr Saroj Bishoyi\, Research Assistant\, IDSA
URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/us-aid-to-pakistan-changing-rules-of-engagement-and-regional-implications
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