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:20100101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20110113T053000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20110113T053000
DTSTAMP:20261104T202540
CREATED:20231223T221038Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231224T130742Z
UID:63611-1294896600-1294896600@idsa.in
SUMMARY:Roundtable with Polish delegation
DESCRIPTION:As part of an initiative to reach out to Universities and Think Tanks across the world\, a bilateral meet was organized by IDSA with the University of Warsaw\, Poland. The two sides appreciated the EU’s support  which had helped create a meaningful programme of cooperation between the two institutes\, as well as its support to other initiatives to bring Poland\, the EU and India closer. \nThe University was represented by Professor Edward Halizak\, Director of the Institute of International Relations\, Dr. Boguslaw Zaleski\, former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs\, Institute of International Relations\, and Dr. Jakub Zajarczkowsky\, Chairperson of the Centre for Contemporary India Research and Studies\, Institute of International Relations\, University of Warsaw. IDSA was represented by Shri N.S. Sisodia\, Director General\, Smita Purushottam\, Wg Cdr. V. Krishnappa\, Joyce Sabina Lobo\, Rajorshi Roy\, and Pallav Pal. \nDirector General said that India and Poland have always had the best of relations\, a fact he experienced during visits to Warsaw when he was at the Indian Ministry of Defence. He emphasised the need for greater knowledge about Europe\, a continent which was often taken for granted. That was the reason for starting the Eurasia cluster at IDSA.  The EU model of integration presented a successful role model of peaceful co-existence and cooperation. Poland had a key position in Europe as a mediator and as an active contributor to its evolution as a multinational body. Shri Sisodia suggested a collaboration programme with special focus on roundtables\, lectures and publications to improve mutual understanding and contact.  \nHe specially welcomed the initiative to start an Indian Studies Masters programme at the University of Warsaw and suggested that the curriculum could create employable skills that would improve the marketability of the programme.  Some pertinent themes that could be included in the syllabus were the Indian business and legal environment\, intellectual property rights and WTO issues\, comparative assessments of developing economy models\, role of FDI\, technology transfer and technological indigenisation\, trade agreements\, macroeconomic management\, and aspects of India’s Energy Security. These were highly relevant issues and would also require understanding of the global context which would increase the knowledge base\, skills and employability of the student. \nProf. Halizak\, Director of the Institute of International Relations\, University of Warsaw\, said a lot of effort had gone into developing a unique curriculum on Indian studies. It was an intra- disciplinary program which encompassed politics\, security and business.  He felt it would go a long way in better understanding India’s booming growth story and the steps which the country had taken to combat pertinent issues like poverty\, unemployment and health care. This should bring India closer to the West.  However\, he identified security studies and economic integration as a leading area of expertise in his Institute. Poland had had the unique experience of re-orienting its security strategy in the last two decades. Members of his Faculty were engaged in the development of NATO’s Security Concept and had contributed significantly to the drafting of the Lisbon summit statement. \nPoland had good relations with NATO and the West and had supported the campaigns to stabilise Iraq and Afghanistan.  In Poland there was a huge discussion on these issues as controversies regarding the United States partnership could not be avoided. Questioning the idea of a decline of American power\, he said in fact the unipolar moment was increasing as China’s model had still not fully consolidated and the EU was going through a difficult phase. For the moment only the U.S. was going to play a significant role in the new security arrangements in NATO and the Asia Pacific region.  President Obama had made two very important visits to this region in the last couple of years and the U.S. had made new strategic partners in this region such as Vietnam\, Indonesia and India.  He said the East Asia summit would take place next year and India would join it.  India as the EU’s strategic partner and as a connector was in a very unique position and was a very interesting partner for all countries including Poland. India plays a very important role in Polish minds.  It is recognized as a great country. In light of India’s potential role in the Asia-Pacific\, the Professor iterated a need for explicit pronouncement of an Indian national strategic doctrine. It should not under- estimate its capabilities.  \nDr. Boguslaw Zaleski\, former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs\, Institute of International Relations said it was a common European interest to understand India and there was a need to specialise in Indian studies.  Theirs was the only such institution in Central Europe and had been very active in organizing conferences with the aim of understanding India better.  He added it was difficult to fulfil all expectations from the programme.   \nDr. Zaleski\, while highlighting his long standing association with India\, expressed the need for a greater interest and participation on India’s part to promote learning about contemporary India in Europe. India is looked upon as a gateway between the Euro-Atlantic and the Asia-Pacific region. India enjoys huge goodwill in Poland and the people of Poland have high admiration for the country. But it is also imperative for India to tap into the opportunities that exist in Poland and reinforce the belief amongst policy makers that Poland and India can carry forward their relationship which seems to have stagnated in recent times. The last Prime Ministerial visit to Poland was way back in 1979 when Mr. Morarji Desai endeared himself to the Polish public. PM Donald Tusk had visited India and met the Prime Minister. Trade had been falling and it was important to rejuvenate contacts and revive cooperation. Therefore\, India should ‘throw its doors wide open’ and show an urgency to rejuvenate the Indo-Polish partnership. \nWg. Cdr. Krishnappa spoke about the Indian National Strategy Project initiated by IDSA. Against the backdrop of political and economic developments since the early 1990s and the consequent blurring of lines between politics and economy\, Wg. Cr. Krishnappa reflected on their combined implications for India’s national goals and aspirations. Whether this has caused a paradigm shift in the Indian mind-set to a more realist and rationalist approach will be a central consideration for the role India chooses to play on the global stage. India’s institutional memory\, largely inherited from a cold-war context\, leaves it ill-equipped to fully embrace the great opportunity a new global scenario has sent its way. Certain reflexive stances had been taken as default.  He gave a frank analysis of the internal dialogue going on in India on these issues and said it was the aim of the project to elaborate a national security concept and strategy.  \nProfessor Halizak said the dialogue on this issue should be continued\, especially since India was a democracy and an important bridge between East and West. He remarked that although Indian business had gone global its approach on the WTO was old fashioned.  He posed two issues: should India look at the possibility of forming alliances\, and why was the concept of balance of power not talked about?  The conversation also touched upon China\, Russia and the asymmetric differential in power between India and China.  The Minister said that the world expected that India as a big ship would give signals while it was changing direction.  No one expected this change to happen overnight. \nDirector General felt that no big country can be in an alliance relationship with any other power.  It had to be an equal partnership.  Even the United States had said that the time for alliances had gone.   \nDr. Zajarczkowsky of the Centre for Contemporary India Research and Studies\, Institute of International Relations\, University of Warsaw\, stated that this was the second time the two sides were meeting and they valued IDSA’s support for the program.  He stressed that it was important for IDSA and the University to create a real platform for sharing of ideas. Security issues continue to be crucial and there is a need to dedicate more than one seminar exclusively on security related issues. There can be a comparison between the security scenario in Europe and Asia and the role played by India. Issues like the question of Afghanistan\, Indian Ocean\, India-China competition and implications for the U.S. would be of great interest. \nHe thanked DG for his remarks on the Master’s Programme but added that the aim at the conferences was to strengthen cooperation by exchange of views on security which is the most important pillar.  He described the number of international conferences held on the issue.   \nEurasia cluster coordinator Ms. Smita Purushottam said that the Eurasia cluster had been created to focus on this vast and important region and to build up capacities for understanding global issues. She emphasized that the Eurasia cluster will strive towards achieving research excellence. She also identified the possibility of a joint assessment of implications of China’s rise by concerned constituencies in Poland\, the EU and India. She added that the EU-India was a genuinely strategic partnership and both sides should take full advantage of a commonality in values. The EU was a global player and India also saw its future in partnership with peace loving countries and democracies.  Other areas of focus were outlined. \nDG proposed that an interesting area for focus could be Turkey’s growing role and the EU accession talks. There was a view that Turkey’s membership would help build one of the strongest bridges between Europe and the Muslim world. Turkey could set a positive example for democratization in the region and significantly contribute to EU’s security objectives. The DG proposed holding a roundtable conference to discuss the strategic importance of Turkey for the European Union and India. \nIn conclusion\, a proposal was tabled for a joint conference and round-table over the years 2011-12 to exchange views on Polish and Indian perspectives on strategic issues in a rapidly transforming world. It was also agreed to strengthen the institutional relationship between the two institutes. As a priority it was decided to have a round table on Indian and Polish national strategic doctrine and exchange views on the strategic thinking on both sides. At a later date\, roundtables on other interesting topics could be organised\, especially during Poland’s EU presidency in the second half of this year. \nEvent report prepared by Mr. Rajorshi Roy\, Research Assistant\, Eurasia Cluster\, with inputs from Ms. Kalyani Unkule.
URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/roundtable-with-polish-delegation
CATEGORIES:ROUND TABLES / WORKSHOPS,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:20110120T053000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20110120T053000
DTSTAMP:20261104T202540
CREATED:20231223T220938Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231224T130742Z
UID:63606-1295501400-1295501400@idsa.in
SUMMARY:Internal Security and Centre-State Relations
DESCRIPTION:Event Report\nInternal threats to national security have assumed centre-stage in the debates on Indian security. They are arguably more serious than the external threats. They have a pan-Indian presence and are no longer confined to India’s north and north-eastern frontiers. Therefore\, tackling these threats is a common concern for the Centre and the States. However\, one witnesses that whether it is in the handling of the Mumbai attacks\, or in the case of disturbances in Jammu and Kashmir\, or the blockade of Manipur by the NSCN (IM) or the lack of coordination between the central paramilitary forces and the state police in naxal areas\, the federal nature of the Indian polity has brought forth tensions between the Centre and the concerned States. \nIn order to deliberate on these complex issues that have serious implications for India’s national security\, a roundtable on “Internal Security and Centre-State Relations” was organized by the Internal Security Cluster. It was chaired by Shri N.N. Vohra\, Honourable Governor of Jammu and Kashmir and was attended by scholars and practitioners of the strategic community. The welcome address by Shri. N.S Sisodia\, Director General IDSA\, was followed by presentations of three eminent panelists\, Shri. P.R. Chari\, Shri. Ved Marwah and Shri. E.N. Rammohan. They addressed the constitutional\, institutional and operational aspects of Centre-State relations and dwelt on their implications for internal security.   \nConstitutional Arrangement\nIn the deliberations on the constitutional responsibilities for dealing with challenges to internal security\, it was emphasized that the following from the clear mandate of Article 355\, the ultimate responsibility does lie with the Union Government. Several judgments of the Supreme Court interpreting the relevant constitutional provisions attest to this. However\, since the responsibility for maintaining law and order rests with the State governments\, there are at least two compelling reasons for involvement of and cooperation with the Union Government. Firstly\, several states witnessing internal disturbances are at the nation’s frontiers\, and there is a discernible external dimension to the internal security issues. Secondly\, there is also a pernicious nexus between domestic miscreants and the international criminal networks. The problem thus requires a combined response in the spirit of collective responsibility. As suggested by the Punchi Commission on Centre-State Relations\, some constitutional amendments such as limiting the application of emergency powers to only the affected parts of a State may prove useful in minimizing Centre-State tensions.  \nInstitutional Set-Up\nLike the general consensus that the constitutional provisions to deal with internal security challenges were by and large adequate\, there was complete agreement also on the fact that the institutions required to implement these provisions had not evolved sufficiently. Lack of political will on the part of the Union as well as States and dynamics of coalition politics prevent the development of appropriate institutional mechanisms. These result in the sub-optimal functioning of the various institutions involved in tackling the challenges. In order to overcome this institutional deficit\, several constructive suggestions were made for strengthening the institutional mechanisms such as creation of new institutions such as a National Counterterrorism Centre and reform of existing ones such as the Indian Police Service\, among others. \nOperational Efficiency\nOperational challenges arise mainly from the deployment of forces of the Union in aid of State civil authorities. There are only three instances in the history of independent India of a suo-motu deployment of such forces. In all other instances\, the Union forces have been deployed on the request of the States’ concerned. Nevertheless\, serious problems happen when a force that is not aware of local customs is deployed to counter insurgency and other kinds of law and order problems. While the need for such forces cannot be denied\, it was argued that trained local officers must be involved\, especially in conducting interrogations. Moreover\, success in such operations will follow from having a blueprint for joint operations and an effective mechanism for coordination between the civil\, judicial\, police and paramilitary authorities. \nConclusion\nIdentifying the main challenges to national security faced by the country today as the proxy-war in Jammu and Kashmir\, left-wing extremism\, insurgencies in the North-East\, terrorism by new groups like the Indian Mujahideen and counter-radical organizations\, it was urged that political parties at the Centre and in States rise above their political differences to cooperate with each other in tackling these serious challenges. The perils of playing politics with national security were underscored by all participants.  \nReport prepared by Ms. Gulbin Sultana\, Research Assistant\, IDSA. \n\nProgramme\n1400 h: Opening Remarks by Shri. N. S. Sisodia\, Director General\, IDSA \n1410 h: Presentation by Shri. P.R. Chari:\nConstitutional Aspects of Centre-State Relations and Internal Security \n1430 h: Presentation by Shri. Ved Marwah:\nInstitutional Aspects of Centre-State Relations and Internal Security \n1450 h: Presentation by Shri. E.N. Rammohan:\nOperational Aspects of Deployment of Central and State Forces in Internal Security \n1510 h: Remarks by Shri N.N. Vohra\, Hon’ble Governor\, Jammu and Kashmir \n1540 h: Discussion \n1640 h: Concluding Remarks by the Panel \nConcept Note\n\n“Issues relating to our internal security (is) an area that requires utmost vigil\, sustained and coordinated attention of both Central and State Governments…our success in large measure also depends on the response of the State Governments…a response that is coordinated not only between the affected states but also between the Centre and the States…Internal security is a critical issue which affects the pace and growth of development…..we have a hard task ahead but one that can be and must be achieved with determination and coordinated action…we will only succeed if we are united as a nation in addressing our concerns related to our internal security.” — Prime Minister Shri.Manmohan Singh at the Chief Ministers Conference on 07 February 2010\, quoted in the Punchi Commission Report\, March 2010 \n\nInternal threats to national security have assumed centre-stage in the debates on Indian security. They are arguably more serious than the external threats. They have a pan-Indian presence and are no longer confined to India’s north and north-eastern frontiers. Therefore\, tackling these threats is a common concern for the Centre and the States. The relationship between the Centre and the States needs to be analysed in the context of the following Constitutional provisions relating to the responsibilities of the Centre and the State Governments on matters pertaining to internal security: \nPart XVIII of Constitution\, Article 355: It shall be the duty of the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that the Government of every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution. \nSeventh Schedule\, Article 246\, Union List\, 2 A : Deployment of any armed force of the Union or any other force subject to the control of the Union or any contingent or unit thereof in any State in aid of the civil power; powers\, jurisdiction\, privileges and liabilities of the members of such forces while on such deployment. \nSeventh Schedule\, Article 246\, State List\, Item 1: 1. Public order (but not including 3[the use of any naval\, military or air force or any other armed force of the Union or of any other force subject to the control of the Union or of any contingent or unit thereof] in aid of the civil power). \nSeventh Schedule Article 246\, State List\, Item 2: Police (including railway and village police) subject to the provisions of entry 2A of List I.] (cited above) \nIt has been a matter of concern that that Item 1 and 2 of State List have often come in the way of the clear mandate of Article 355 empowering the Centre to act in cases of internal disturbances. The Group of Ministers Report on Reforming the National Security System (2001) also expressed concern regarding the mismatch between increased Central responsibilities and reduced Central powers in the management of internal security\, thus adversely impacting the internal security scenario.  Whether it is in the handling of the Mumbai attacks\, or in the case of disturbances in Jammu and Kashmir\, or the blockade of Manipur by the NSCN (IM) or the lack of coordination between the central paramilitary forces and the state police in naxal areas\, the federal nature of the Indian polity has brought forth the tensions between the Centre and the concerned States.  \nVolume V of the Punchi Commission Report (2010) addresses the issue of management of internal security in a federal set-up. With the aim of improving the interface between the Centre and the State with regard to internal security\, the Commission made the following recommendations: \n1. Maintenance of communal harmony through reinvigoration of the National Integration Council (NIC)\, coordination between National Forum for Communal Harmony and NIC\, engagement with the local media and NGOs \n2. Central Law Enforcement Agency for Internal Security to preempt\, prevent\, control\, investigate and prosecute terrorism related crimes\, centre-state consensus through consultative mechanisms on “admissibility of confessions made before the police” \n3. Suo Motu Deployment of Central Forces to be provided for by a clarificatory amendment of Article 355 to make it functionally viable\, along with upholding the spirit of federal supremacy and cooperative federalism   (to be ensured through making such deployment with full advance knowledge of the State Government\, central rule in limited area of state to manage local emergency\, and its use in rarest of rare circumstances)     \n4. Migration though managed by states well as a law and order issue as well as politically\, should be on agenda of the NIC and Centre-State consultations. \n5. Other Internal Security Problems of Naxalism\, Insurgency in the North East and in Jammu and Kashmir to be addressed by greater emphasis on development and improving the security apparatus (specific recommendations for each issue) and ensuring similarity of objective of the Centre and the concerned States \n6. Police Reforms to be implemented as per the directive of the Supreme Court (2006)\, quarterly reports of the Justice Thomas Committee to oversee implementation of the directive to be submitted to the Home Minister\, and  discussed bi-annually at the Chief Ministers Conference in Internal Security\, budgeting and financial support from Centre  \n7. Criminal Justice System for management of crime based on new approaches and tools involving all levels of government\, a Review and Monitoring Mechanism involving states to go into existing reports and commissions such as Second Administrative Reforms Commission Report (2007)\, Report of the Committee on Draft National Policy for Criminal Justice (2007)\, Judicial Impact Assessment Committee Report (2008) etc.\, creation of a Standing Commission on Internal Security and Criminal Justice\, Department of Criminal Justice at Centre and State\, Bureau of Crime Prevention\, Crime Statistics and Criminal Justice Planning. \nThis Roundtable seeks to focus on some issues that may facilitate or impede the implementation of these recommendations:  \n\nLegal- Which constitutional reforms are most desirable and feasible for enhanced Centre-State cooperation on matters of internal security? \nPolitical-Which are the main areas of tension between the Centre and the States or among different states resulting from politicization of security issues? How should these tensions be eased?\nInstitutional- What should be done to ensure better coordination between the Centre and the State?\nOperational-What should be done to improve operational efficiency of the police and paramilitary forces deployed in internal security duties?
URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/internal-security-and-centre-state-relations
CATEGORIES:ROUND TABLES / WORKSHOPS,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:20110120T053000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Kolkata:20110120T053000
DTSTAMP:20261104T202540
CREATED:20231223T220938Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231224T130742Z
UID:63607-1295501400-1295501400@idsa.in
SUMMARY:Special Lecture by Dr. Idesbald Goddeeris  on the Belgian crisis: from a local Brussels problem to a European and global issue?
DESCRIPTION:Speaker: Dr. Idesbald Goddeeris is an assistant Professor at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven\, Belgium\, where he teaches courses on European and colonial history. He is also a senior member of the Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies and coordinator of its Leuven India Focus. \nDr. Idesbald Goddeeris\, Coordinator of Leuven India Focus Chair of the Leuven Centre for Global Governance Studies in Belgium\, addressed an informed audience at IDSA on the subject of the massive political crisis that Belgium has been facing for the last three years and the deep political and financial implications for not just the stability of Belgium but also for the entire European Union. Ms. Smita Purushottam of IDSA chaired the session. Dr. Goddeeris initiated the talk by focusing primarily on the historical background of the current state of affairs in his country. He also emphasized the significance of Belgium from the geographical point of view. Belgium is at the heart of Europe and Brussels is the capital of not just the European Union but also of its chief security apparatus: the NATO. Thus\, while Greece and Ireland may still be considered as peripheral in Europe\, the sheer centrality of Belgium makes it one of the principal countries that shape the policy decisions of the European Union. Financial and political difficulties of Belgium are bound to have repercussions for the rest of the continent. \nHistorical Background\nThere are predominantly two communities in Belgium -the French speaking Walloons and the Dutch speaking Flemings. Belgium is an artificial state of 10.5 million inhabitants. It is joked that the things which bind the citizens of Belgium together are the ‘King\, Beer and Soccer’. However the country has survived a century and half since it was put together in 1830-31 by the international powers as a political compromise. It consists of 6 million Dutch-speakers in Flanders\, its northern half bordering the Netherlands\, 3 million French-speakers in Wallonia\, its southern half bordering France\, and 1 million people in its capital Brussels\, which is also the capital of the European Union. Brussels was a Dutch speaking town\, until the middle of the last century\, when the deliberate “frenchification” policy of the Belgian authorities succeeded in turning it into a predominantly French-speaking city. \nIn the early 20th century\, when the country gradually began to democratize\, the political establishment feared that the Flemings would become the rulers of the state. Hence\, Belgium was federalized giving Wallonia a constitutionally guaranteed veto over all major decisions and a guaranteed share of half the seats in government and major administrations. The conservative\, free-market oriented Flemings had been complaining for decades that they were forced to subsidize the allegedly “Socialist” south\, while no improvement of the economic situation of the Walloons has been visible\, which has been weighed down by the legacy of coal and steel industries. On the contrary\, Wallonia has become a stagnant region in Europe with hardly any economic growth. Though Wallonia has 33% of Belgium’s population\, it has 46% of its unemployed and it accounts for only 24% of Belgian GDP and 13% of its exports. 20% of the Walloons are unemployed and 40% work for the government.  \nThere is an enduring period of communitarian tension and political instability which is rooted in the differing opinions on state reform\, and in the continuing existence of the controversial electoral district of Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde (BHV). Parties from the Dutch-speaking Flanders are in general strongly in favour for devolution of powers to the regions and the splitting of the unconstitutional BHV district\, while the French-speaking Wallonia in general insists on retaining the status quo. \nEvery attempt to liberalize the Belgian economy and to reform the generous Belgian welfare system has been vetoed by the Walloon Socialists. This has led to increasing Flemish frustration\, resulting in the growth of the Flemish-secessionist movement. It is extremely difficult and unpopular for the political establishment of Flanders to foot the ever increasing social and health care bills.  \nRecent Events\nThe collapse of Belgian Prime Minister Yves Leterme’s five-month-old government risks paralyzing politics at a time when vital economic decisions need to be made and an agenda set for Europe. Belgium’s bickering political leaders have failed to restart seven-party negotiations to form a government\, prolonging the deadlock for more than 207 days and thus breaking a European government formation record\, previously held by Netherlands.  \nSome of the major problems and issues that will need to be tackled on a priority basis are:\na) Rising unemployment.\nb) Pension issue.\nc) Budgetary deficit which is close to 5% of the GDP.\nd) Wage negotiations between employers and the state which can be complex and long drawn in the absence of a political mandate and can subsequently lead to social instability and impede growth.\ne) Bearish run of the stock exchange.\nf) Rising interest rates.\ng) Investor confidence which is at an all time low.  \nTill date\, speculators analyzing debt markets have focused their attention on Greece and other southern euro-zone members\, but the political crisis could push Belgium\, Europe’s third most indebted country after Greece and Italy\, onto their radar screens. \nThe questions put forward by the audience revolved around the immigration issues faced by Belgium and the public perception of the citizenship act of the country which has often riled the intellectuals. The nature of European reaction needed to tackle the prevailing crisis\, the rise and emergence of China\, European Union as a modern entity capable of meeting the needs and aspirations of its citizens and the future of the Euro as a common currency were also discussed. There was a debate on the success of the European integration project with different views proposed by the speaker and German experts present in the audience. \nMs. Purushottam thanked Dr. Goddeeris on behalf of the experts present and IDSA for his presentation and observed that it was imperative for India to deepen its understanding of developments within the European Union and its member countries and vice versa\, in order to better understand the future direction of the global events. It was a pity that neither India nor Europe felt a need to better understand each other’s strategic thinking and greater exchange of experts and students was required for this purpose. She also praised the effort of Dr. Jakub Zajarczkowsky of the Centre for Contemporary India Research and Studies of the Institute of International Relations\, University of Warsaw in facilitating the meeting with Professor Goddeeris. \nReport prepared by Rajorshi Roy\, Research Assistant\, Eurasia Cluster\, IDSA.
URL:https://idsa.in/idsa-event/special-lecture-by-dr-idesbald-goddeeris-on-the-belgian-crisis-from-a-local-brussels-problem-to-a-european-and-global-issue
CATEGORIES:ROUND TABLES / WORKSHOPS,EVENT REPORT
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://idsa.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/no_photo-200x150-2.jpg
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR