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:20210101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20220203T053000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20220203T053000
DTSTAMP:20261104T061200
CREATED:20231223T132407Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231224T131009Z
UID:63026-1643866200-1643866200@idsa.in
SUMMARY:The K. Subrahmanyam Memorial Lecture By Dr. Edward N. Luttwak on "Applying the Krishnaswamy Subrahmanyam Method Today"
DESCRIPTION:The Second Annual K. Subrahmanyam  Memorial Lecture was hosted by the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence  Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA)\, India on 03 February 2022 at 1100hrs (IST) in a  virtual format. The keynote speaker Dr.  Edward N. Luttwak\, Contractual Advisor US  Government and a Treaty ally\, spoke about ‘Applying the Krishnaswamy  Subrahmanyam Method Today’\, in the presence of the Hon’ble Minister of External  Affairs of India Dr. S. Jaishankar and Shri Dhruva Jaishankar. Both  joined the virtual discussion in their capacity as family members of Late K. Subrahmanyam.  Director General (DG)\, MP-IDSA\, Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy\, chaired the  session and delivered the welcome addreess. \nExecutive Summary\nReminiscing about the memory of Late K. Subrahmanyam\, Dr. Luttwak said  that he foresaw the economic rise of China in the late 1970s. He anticipated  that China would economically outmatch the US and argued for the India-US  partnership. Dr. Luttwak opined that in the changed circumstances\, the US  needed allies. He maintained that Chinese belligerent behaviour had compelled  the regional states to come together and form an organic coalition which was  supplemented by the overlapping bilateral arrangements between the constituent  states. \nDr. Luttwak suggested that China was comparatively focusing less on its  land borders. Thus\, it was an opportunity for the alliance to make its presence  felt on the Chinese borders. Comparing China’s current political environment  with Mussolini’s Italy\, Dr. Luttwak contended that China under President Xi Jinping  was in the Mussolini phase. He argued for an agile and downsized Indian army  ready to take on future challenges. Concluding his address\, Dr. Luttwak  strongly proclaimed that blockade in the oceanic space remained the best way to  deal with China during adverse times. \nDetailed Report\nAmbassador Sujan R. Chinoy began his introduction by remembering Late K. Subrahmanyam on his 11th  death anniversary. He said that the world had changed since the 2008 economic  crisis and even more so\, after the COVID-19 pandemic. He referred to China’s  economic rise accompanied by its coercive military tactics to state that  China’s actions might prove counter to its long-term interests. However\, he  observed that the United States (US) was late in recognising China’s hegemonic  behaviour in the region. Ambassador Chinoy pointed to the contrast in US’s  relations with Europe. On the one hand\, President Biden’s recommitment to the  transatlantic alliance helped evolve a consensus on China; on the other hand\,  the US withdrawal from Afghanistan and the crisis over Ukraine exposed fissures  between the US and its European allies. Highlighting the North Atlantic Treaty  Organisation (NATO) expansion against Russian sensitivities and Russian  deployment of the troops to Kazakhstan under the Collective Security Treaty  Organization (CSTO) framework\, Ambassador Chinoy argued that the world was  neither unipolar nor bipolar nor was it multipolar. He expressed concern that  these events might take the US attention away from China which was the systemic  challenger in the Indo-Pacific. \nReferring to the 1990 essay of Dr.  Luttwak titled “From Geopolitics to Geoeconomics: Logic of Conflict\, Grammar  of Commerce”\, Ambassador Chinoy affirmed that there was a growing  intersection between the political\, military and economic factors\, particularly  their impact on peace and security.  The  state and non-state actors had acquired asymmetrical means to bridge absolute  gaps in economic and military heft. He argued that geoeconomics mattered but did  not outweigh in importance the harsh reality of geopolitics. This was evident  in US-China relations where mutual economic interdependence did not prevent  aggravation of geostrategic contestation. Ambassador Chinoy underlined that the  great irony was that China’s rise was facilitated in no small measure by the  US. Further\, he pointed to China’s debt-trap diplomacy\, stranglehold over  critical supply chains\, unilateralism and military aggression over territorial  differences to argue that there was consensus on ensuring rules-based order and  a free and open maritime space in the Indo-Pacific. The Quadrilateral Security  Dialogue (QUAD) and the AUKUS were manifestations of new concerns. Furthermore\,  the Afghan situation remained fluid and there persisted a fear that Afghanistan  might emerge as a hotbed of terrorism. He said that India would pursue  strategic autonomy and issue-based alignment. Further\, he emphasised that Kautilyan  precepts had found a definite place in India’s strategic outlook whether it was  India’s “Neighbourhood First” policy or its Indo-Pacific vision. \nAmbassador Chinoy observed that  nationalism\, pragmatism and idealism permeated K. Subrahmanyam’s writings and  pronouncements. His ability to synthesise political\, economic and military  issues was legendary. Even today\, his imprimatur runs deep – from India’s  nuclear posture to the country’s higher defence management. With this broad  outline\, Ambassador Chinoy handed over the floor to Dr. Luttwak to interpret  the application of the K. Subrahmanyam method in today’s context. \nDr. Luttwak began his address by reminiscing about his interactions  with Late K. Subrahmanyam\, and described his voice as a “voice of inexorable  logic”. He recalled how Late Subrahmanyam tried to explain the logic of nuclear  India with a strict no-first-use policy. With nuclearisation\, the aim was to create  a nuclear threshold. His logic was irrefutable and his prediction about the future  came out correct. \nLate K. Subrahmanyam also foresaw  the economic rise of China in the late 1970s. He anticipated that China would economically  outmatch the US and argued a closer Indo-US relationship. Thus\, he had  recognised the necessity of an alliance not in a realm of strategy or war but in  the realm of geoeconomics. Talking about China\, Dr. Luttwak stated that today  the world was dealing with the “New China”. Since the 2008 financial crisis\,  there was a feeling in China that “the East was up and the West was down”. The  financial crisis was interpreted in China as the beginning of the general  crisis of capitalism. During the same time\, the US also weakened greatly. The  social and cultural changes in the US and the accidental presidency of Mr.  Trump contributed to this phenomenon. Dr. Luttwak argued that the US needed  allies in the current circumstances as it was no more a unipolar moment of the 1990s.  \nCommenting on the regional  scenario\, the speaker observed that although neutrality between the US and  China was the flavour of the season for regional states\, the “logic of  strategy” forced them to come together to contain China due to Chinese actions.  Dr. Luttwak maintained that Chinese belligerent behaviour compelled the  regional states to come together and form an organic coalition\, unlike NATO.  The organic coalition was supplemented by the overlapping bilateral  arrangements between the constituent states. The Indo-Pacific command of the US  was also the manifestation of the present-day reality. Although the Southeast  Asian states did not take sides\, their actions conveyed that the “logic of  strategy” was working itself out\, resulting in organic alliances.  \nSpeaking further about the borders  of China\, Dr. Luttwak contended that China was acting like an island power. It was  putting more efforts into building maritime\, air and strategic forces and had  an army of less than a million. He suggested that China was comparatively  focusing less on its land borders. Thus\, it was an opportunity for the alliance  to make their presence felt on the borders. He asserted that when maritime powers  are confronted by land powers\, the former   act on borders of the latter to  remind them that they are a land power. India\, being a maritime power\, could  take a leaf out of this strategy.  \nReflecting on the internal  dynamics of China\, Dr. Luttwak argued that the world was dealing with only one  person – President Xi Jinping – and not with China as a whole. Comparing  China’s current political environment with Mussolini’s Italy\, Dr. Luttwak  contended that China under President Xi was in the Mussolini phase. Advising  India about how it should deal with the challenge\, he claimed that when a  country faces a challenge\, it is an opportunity to make drastic reforms. India  needed an agile and downsized army ready to take on future challenges. He  advocated against India having an aircraft carrier. Concluding his address\, Dr.  Luttwak strongly proclaimed that blockade in the oceanic space remained the best  way to deal with China during adverse times. \nAmbassador Chinoy steered the  discussion through a question-and-answer session with a comment that Dr.  Luttwak’s address brought together Mahan and Mackinder in suggesting response  levels. While answering questions by the audience\, Dr. Luttwak maintained that  although President Biden changed his predecessor’s many policies\, he continued  with President Trump’s China policy. The Ukraine crisis had not diverted the  US’s attention away from China. He maintained that US resources were mainly  focused on the Indo-Pacific\, although the Ukraine crisis was getting much more  media traction. Commenting on the Russia-China relationship\, the speaker drew the  attention of the audience to the fact that despite close partnership\, Russia  was supplying arms to countries that were not friendly with China including  Vietnam and India. Answering a question about the US-Pakistan equation\, Dr.  Luttwak said that the relationship had gone through many evolutions but there  was a strong view that Pakistan was hostile to the US. So\, he believed that the  US-Pakistan relations should be conducted in the context of the de-facto  Indo-US alliance. About Myanmar\, he argued that allies should work closely and  defer to the country within the alliance that had vantage position vis-à-vis  Myanmar. On the Ukraine and Taiwan issue\, Dr. Luttwak claimed that Russia cannot  contribute anything out of Vladivostok to support Chinese action over Taiwan. Neither  would China do anything in the Baltic. So\, there won’t be a scenario where  Russians and Chinese will cooperate. Russia and China were tactical allies as  against strategic allies.  \nJoining the interaction\, India’s Minister  of External Affairs Dr. S Jaishankar gave insights about his father. Dr.  Jaishankar said that Late K. Subrahmanyam’s thinking was profoundly shaped by  the conflicts of 1962\, 1965\, 1971 and 1999. His advocacy of policies was a  product of a tough strategic environment where the US\, China and Pakistan had  come together. So\, in the 1970s he championed India’s close relations with the  Soviet Union. And then a decade later\, in view of the US-China contradictions\,  he became a strong advocate of Indo-US partnership. The logic of both  relationships was the same. Dr. S. Jaishankar believed that his father was an  “insider-outsider”. He served in the government as well as in a think tank like  IDSA. At times he held contrary views vis-à-vis the government positions. But  he expressed his views very responsibly without making grand sweeping  submissions. Late K. Subrahmanyam considered himself a grand strategist. His  writings had geoeconomic underpinning. He focussed on non-traditional security  issues such as connectivity\, technology\, and financing among others and explained  as to how these could be leveraged to shape international relations. Thus\, he  was far ahead of his time. \nShri Dhruva Jaishankar delivered  a vote of thanks. He remembered Late K. Subrahmanyam’s role in building IDSA\,  right from the 1960s as a note-taker in the defence ministry until the establishment  of the institute. He also thanked Dr. Luttwak for his address on the occasion  and described how Dr. Luttwak’s worldviews were shaped by his personal journey.  \nReport prepared by Mr. Niranjan Chandrashekhar Oak\, Research Analyst\,  MP-IDSA \n\nWatch Full Video at :
URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/the-k-subrahmanyam-memorial-lecture-by-dr-edward-n-luttwak-on-applying-the-krishnaswamy-subrahmanyam-method-today
CATEGORIES:LECTURES,EVENT REPORT
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR