Session III: Traditional Security Issues

Chair: Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Satish Nambiar, Distinguished Fellow, IDSA

Participants:

Prof. Dr. Michael Brzoska,, Priorities in European Defence and Security Policy and
Europe’s Expectations towards Emerging Powers

Brig. Mandip Singh, India and Traditional Security Issues

Prof. Brzoska initiated his presentation by highlighting the importance of both traditional and non traditional security issues in the European Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), even though in recent times the latter has dominated the agenda. However, he was of the opinion that it is difficult to speak about CSDP in Europe because there is ‘rather little of it’. In fact, since adoption of the term CSDP (it was called European Security and Defence Policy until the Treaty of Lisbon), it has become more ‘uncommon’ than ever before.

Prof. Brzoska outlined his presentation on the basis of following four points:

a) Background of CSDP.
b) Traditional security issues for most European countries.
c) Priorities in CSDP.
d) Expectations towards emerging powers within the broader context of CSDP.

Prof. Brzoska stressed that in order to understand the background of CSDP, one has to go back to European history. The main idea of European Union (EU) was to create favourable conditions for economic growth, general welfare and security in a continent marked by two bloody wars. The understanding that the EU was something novel, different and a major step towards achieving welfare and security, pervades the CSDP. Therefore, it has a high normative content and is based on the idea that what is successful in Europe can be tried in other parts of the world. Consequently, the normative elements of democracy, human rights, free markets and functional idea of regional integration provide a background to the CSDP.

However, Prof. Brzoska argued that these lofty principles are barely put in use as part of CSDP. The fact that democracy is often referred to as the basic foundation of CSDP limits its effectiveness, especially on matters like counter terrorism. The EU position on events in North Africa and Arab Spring do highlight the tendency to give priority to counter terrorism over democracy.

He highlighted the 2003 European Security Strategy, which he referred to as the rhetorical foundation of CSDP. The five most important threats to Europe include.

a) Terrorism
b) Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)
c) Failing States
d) Organised Crime
e) Regional Conflicts

Prof. Brzoska emphasised that counter terrorism operations, especially around Southern Europe, Northern Africa, Central Asia and Balkans, remain a major focus area for the EU. This has seen EU trying to coordinate the positions and operations amongst member states.

On the issue of non proliferation of WMD, Prof. Brzoska observed that EU’s record in this critical area is not very successful. It has not been able to become a major actor in itself even though a number of its member states are trying to individually promote non proliferation and export controls.

On the issue of failing states, Prof. Brzoska argued that EU has tried to be more active through CSDP missions. These missions (approx 30 in number) are mostly centred on conflict situations. While some missions are very small in terms of number of personnel (only a handful), the biggest mission is in Kosovo with around two thousand people. While most missions involve civilians, a few of them do comprise of military personnel. Therefore, the main thrust is on conflict management and in some cases conflict prevention. Democracy building, liberalisation of trade and rule of law become important elements.

Prof. Brzoska observed that the EU is not very active when it comes to regional conflicts since the Union has not been able to develop its own military wing. While France had taken the initiative of building a European military structure, its success has been limited. At present, there are 2 EU Battle Groups comprising of 500 members, who are rotated every six months. While this arrangement is in place since 2006, it has never been used. Prof. Brzoska did not foresee it being employed in the near future either. While there has been some talk of ensuring more collaboration and cooperation amongst the armed forces of member states, not much has come about it. There exist a few bilateral arrangements between smaller states but major countries have expressed an unwillingness to give up the sovereignty of their armed forces.

Prof. Brzoska dwelled on the importance of NATO in providing ‘hard security’ to the European Union. While the organisation may not posses the cohesion it enjoyed during Cold War, it remains a strong body capable of mobilising armed forces and military equipment whenever necessary, like in Afghanistan which arguably is not a European war.

He was of the view that NATO has changed its character over a period of time. While the US continues to be the biggest military power in the organisation, it is not the pre dominant power any more and the Europeans do have more than just a say. Moreover, NATO has the necessary logistical and planning capacity which the EU has failed to develop. Therefore, the EU is forced to ask for NATO’s help in any big operation.

Prof. Brzoska argued that one of the priorities of CSDP is to harmonise defence procurements within member states and open up European defence markets. At present, members are reluctant to procure arms from members of the European Union even though there is a theoretical commitment to free market of defence goods. He opined that while the Commission and Council are trying to change this, the unwillingness of member states to give up their sovereignty can prove to be a major stumbling block.

Prof. Brzoska observed that there are plans for more CSDP missions even though they are seen more as crisis management rather than crisis resolution missions. He argued that EU will be willing to send a mission to Syria only if there is lessening of tensions or signing of an armistice and not when the fighting still rages. There is very little prospect of ‘operations of hard security type’ being managed by European armed forces particularly under the CSDP label.

On the issue of expectations towards emerging powers, Prof. Brzoska stressed that the CSDP agenda does find support amongst emerging powers. There is support for the liberal approach that Europeans have been promoting in conflict prevention, especially in the nuclear non proliferation sector. However, this has been complicated by EU’s own contradictions in the way they rhetorically see the world.

If for instance one looks at the Iranian dossier, the earlier EU position (emphasis on mediation) has moved closer to the current US position (hardline) over a period of time, to the extent that some of its members have taken a far tougher stand than the US itself. Therefore, the difference between US and EU positions in the Iranian conflict has become rather negligible and EU is probably not capable of playing any constructive role in the crisis. Emerging powers like Brazil (20 per cent uranium swap) have led the way in suggesting alternatives which the EU and US have not supported.

One area in which the EU has tasted success is counter terrorism wherein it is willing to cooperate globally.

On the Arab Spring, Prof. Brzoska stressed that it is a complicated situation for the EU. Current trends indicate a dominance of normative over the security agenda as witnessed in Libyan case; wherein initially not all members were happy with the position of UK and France but ultimately agreed as part of European solidarity.

Prof. Brzoska opined that the EU remains undecided on the policy to be adopted for dealing with new governments of the region. While officially, member states are very happy with the changes and new governments but they remain concerned about instability that may emerge in the future. On Syria, majority of member sates are in favour of finding a political solution and ensuring that no force is strong enough to win militarily.

For European security, emerging powers are of great significance especially at a time when the US is expected to scale down its military presence in the region due to economic and domestic factors. While Europeans will be asked to stand in to fill the void, they will do so only in the neighbourhood of countries to the South and East of Europe. However, EU and US can be expected to maintain a strong partnership based on robust ties and common interests.

The relationship with Russia is of crucial significance for EU. Prof. Brzoska argued that a traditional military threat to Europe can only come from the East although this is a remote possibility. Therefore, it is in EU’s interest to have a very good relationship with Russia even though there exists many contradictions in their bilateral relations in the form of Kosovo, Georgia and democracy in Russia. The overriding interest is to accommodate Russia and look for arrangements within various institutions so that Russia is not a threat to Europe.

Brig. Mandip, as part of his presentation on ‘India’s Traditional Security Issues’, highlighted India’s close proximity to several hotspots in Asia; a volatile West Asia, aggressive and assertive China to its north and north east, turbulent South East Asia, sensitive Indian Ocean region wherein a majority of sea lanes pass through it and an unstable South Asia in its own neighbourhood.

He argued that traditional security concerns for India emanate primarily from 4 areas:
a) Afghanistan
b) Pakistan
c) China
d) Maritime Dimension of the Indian Ocean Region (IOR)

On Afghanistan, Brig. Mandip highlighted India’s contribution in rebuilding Afghanistan. It has invested close to US$ 2 billion in people friendly projects aimed at economic reconstruction and integration of the Afghan society. He stressed that India does not bear any hegemonic tendency in the country nor is there any resource extraction greed. Afghanistan is an important gateway for India into Central Asia and therefore India has engaged it at different levels, be it multilateral, bilateral and track 2 levels involving all stakeholders. Moreover, there are no Indian boots in the country unless under UN mandate.

On the issue of India’s policy in Afghanistan, Brig Mandip outlined the following objectives:
i) Prevention of export of terrorism from the country.
ii) Formation of a national government not dominated by extremist groups.
iii) There being no outside interference and no terror sanctuaries.
iv)Greater emphasis on reconstruction and strengthening the Afghan national army and police.

As part of this policy, India has signed a strategic partnership agreement with Afghanistan in Oct 2011 and one of the guidelines is to train, equip and ensure capacity building of police and army. The training part has commenced with the concept of ‘training the trainer’.

On the issue of potential threat from Afghanistan, Brig Mandip observed that a scenario of Taliban regime, coming to power post 2014, is likely to support export of terror into India. He also highlighted the issue of strategic depth as a bogey used by Pakistan to justify its interest in Afghanistan. As far as Afghanistan is concerned, India has provided a counter balance to Pakistan.

On Pakistan, Brig. Mandip highlighted the current situation in Pakistan; a fast failing state with a society under pressure, rising unemployment, minority intolerance, bankrupt economy, rising sectarian violence and an omnipresent military. There is also a widespread Indo-phobia which dominates the discourse in Pakistan and seeks parity with India wherever and whenever. Pakistan has a ‘maximalist’ stand on nuclear weapons which it raises at various outsets and maintains an ambiguous policy on nuclear issues. It has also lowered the levels of control by introducing tactical nuclear weapons. Brig. Singh branded terrorism in Pakistan as a Frankenstein monster which has come back to haunt the country, particularly with attacks on military bases and government officials.

On the issue of threat to India emanating from Pakistan, Bring Mandip highlighted the following issues:

a) Use of terror as an instrument of state policy and support to the banned terror organisations.
b) Continuation of proxy war in Jammu and Kashmir (K&K) for 25 years.
c) The prevalence of Pakistan-China collusion. In response to this, the Indian Army Chief in 2008 exhorted the army to be prepared to take on both fronts simultaneously.
d) Military modernisation of Pakistan from foreign sources especially from US, China, Sweden and Ukraine; with most weapons being force multipliers.

On China, Brig. Mandip observed that China’s policy in South Asia is driven by a perceived US-India tilt. Its primary aim is to offset India’s influence in South Asian region and Pakistan continues to be a key player in its South Asia policy. China wants to be a pre-eminent Asian power and it has used the tactic of placating India by emphasising on the space for both to grow simultaneously.

Brig. Mandip asserted that China is an aggressive and uncompromising economic power. India’s trade deficit with China stood at US$ 29 billion and this cannot be sustained in the long run even though both countries have set a target of achieving a US$ 100 billion trade turnover by 2015.

He stressed that ‘cooperation with competition and not confrontation’ is one of the underlying policies of India in dealing with China. Therefore, India engages China in various bilateral and multilateral forums; like the joint working and joint economic group, regular strategic and financial dialogues, annual defence dialogues, WTO, BRICS, ASEAN and ARF. However, Brig. Mandip opined that competition of resources is inevitable.

The ‘pinpricks’ in the bilateral relations include: China objecting to Indian Prime Minister and Defence Minister’s visit to Arunachal Pradesh, stapling of visas, e-passports with borders reflecting Arunachal as part of China. Moreover, the issue of Tibet and reincarnation of Dalai Lama has the potential of a future conflagration.

Brig. Mandip argued that there is probably a deliberate procrastination by China to keep the unresolved border issue alive, despite there being frequent National Security Advisor level talks to resolve the issue. He wondered whether China is too busy with South and East China Sea and Taiwan related matters to look at this part of the world.

Brig Mandip stressed that Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK) is a bilateral dispute between India and Pakistan. Reports suggest that close to 12,000 PLA troops are stationed there, ostensibly to protect infrastructure projects. The Karakoram highway is being widened with China’s active support, thereby making it an all weather highway. During the Indo-Pak conflict in 2011, Chinese missile were moved across the highway from China into Pak. China has also announced an assistance of US$ 35 billion for projects in PoK.

One needs to analyse whether China is looking for a base in PoK or is it trying to create a buffer state. This has the potential to complicate any future solution to the J&K dispute, since with such with a huge commitment, China will become a party to the dispute.

In recent times, the PLA navy has acquired significant blue water capabilities aimed at projecting power beyond its immediate seas. It has attempted to follow the 2 ocean concept with its presence in Pacific and Indian Oceans. It has also attempted to systemically develop ports at places in the IOR (Gwadar, Hambantota, Seychelles and Maldives). Therefore, China’s massive presence in IOR is a potential threat to India’s vast coast line and peninsular regions.

Brig. Mandip highlighted the recent incidents of Indian ships being challenged in South China Sea and China having objected to India’s oil exploration in the region. China has even called India’s maritime dimension of its ‘Look East’ policy as militant and expansionist.

Brig. Mandip elaborated on India’s South China Sea policy which calls for unhindered freedom of passage and navigation for all ships in international waters and all issues between countries to be sorted through dialogue, discussion and persuasion without any confrontation.

He also dwelled on India’s cooperation with China over anti piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden. He called for the need to establish maritime confidence building measures in order to avoid an accidental flare up.

On the issue of Maritime Dimension of the Indian Ocean Region, Brig. Mandip referred to the Indian PM’s statement which described India’s area of interest extending from Gulf of Aden to Straits of Malacca. These areas have in recent past turned into fresh areas of contestation.

Brig Mandip highlighted the importance of IOR:

a) India has a 7,516 km long coastline with 1,197 islands that it needs to defend.
b) 97 per cent of India’s trade by volume and energy imports by sea pass through this region.
c) 2/3rd of world’s oil, 1/3rd of bulk cargo and half the container traffic passes through the region.
d) 20 extra regional navies operate in IOR.

Brig. Mandip elaborated on the threats to India emanating from IOR:

a) Terror from sea (similar to the Mumbai attack)
b) Protection of sea lanes.
c) Protection of offshore assets like oil rigs and oil exploration assets.
d) Vulnerability of coastline.

Therefore, a peaceful IOR is a national security imperative for India.

Lt. Gen (Retd.)Satish Nambiar highlighted the possibility of interaction between EU and India on issues like Sri Lankan ethnic conflict, Af-Pak conflagration and Myanmar. There is an enormous potential for India-EU security engagement and cooperation. Together, they can also do a great deal in assisting Africa. Gen. Nambiar observed that a majority of developed countries have withdrawn completely from UN Peace Keeping forces and this does not bode well for the UN.

On the issue of Pakistan, he described the 1971 war as being extremely traumatic for the country and how difficult it has been for it to get over the war. The present army chief is the last of the soldiers who may have been there during the war. The only hope is that this generation goes by. However, the need for revenge still drives the Pakistani army. Therefore, India will have to factor these issues while calculating the levels of interaction with Pakistan and what can be expected in return.

Key Points Raised During Discussions:

a) Prof. Brzoska felt that European troops should be sent to UN Peace Keeping forces. However, the general sentiment across the continent is that Europe does its own mission.

b) Prof. Brzoska observed that most of African Union missions are funded by the EU. But this can be problematic since it involves out-farming peacekeeping missions.

c) Prof. Brzoska argued that there has been a lot of debate about revising the 2003 strategy. But till date no official revision has taken place yet. The agreement in 2003 was due to a particular historical situation (Iraq War). The lack of European unanimity in finalizing EU’s position was a big blow to the European cohesion. Therefore, it was possible to get a compromise since all agreed of the need to show greater unity. Since 2008, there has been a lot of debate on revising the strategy. France has tried to push through cyber and climate change issues. While they have been noted in documents as threats, they still lack the status of 2003 ESS.

d) Due to the financial crisis, European defence industry is at a crossroads and they may lose 10 per cent of their income in the near future. There will be competition with US companies. There has also been a general restructuring of armed forces across Europe and the financial crisis will see some downsizing.

e) On the issue of EU’s position on Iran, Prof. Brzoska was critical of EU policy and felt that moving so close to US position is not wise. However, one can try to analyse EU decision on the grounds that there cannot be a solution to the Iranian crisis without a direct US involvement. But in doing so, there is no incentive for the US to move in direction of the EU. Prof. Brzoska stressed that ‘Iran with nuclear weapons is not the end of the world’. While this does not bode well for the international community, there is no need to fight a war. Efforts should be made to de-escalate tensions. However, the majority view in EU is to keep all options, including military, open. But with mounting Israeli pressure, Prof. Brzoska felt that dangerous times are on the horizon.

f) On the issue of Syria, Prof. Brzoska highlighted the British driven policy which favours a victory by the rebels. However, this cannot be termed as majority view since there is not much clarity on rebels identities and affiliations. Not knowing the rebels can cause problems of stability in future. Germany has preferred not to choose sides but at the same time is concerned about the escalating situation. Prof. Brzoska argued that experience shows that with passage of time, such wars invariably come to an end since it becomes too expensive and destructive. Therefore, he did not rule out a political settlement which can include some elements of former elites like Alawites. But the possibility of members of Assad’s family joining in is remote.

g) On the issue of a submarine base in Maldives, Brig Mandip observed that Defence Minister of Maldives had explicitly denied any such move. However, recent incidents have raised some serious questions. These include Chinese Defence Minister visiting Maldives with an entourage of 40 admirals and colonels, China having given money to make houses for 1,000 troops in Maldives and military people going for courses to China.

h) Cyber security, naval cooperation in the Gulf of Aden and joint military exercises are potential areas of future India-EU cooperation.

i) Standardising military equipment in Afghanistan should be looked into in order to achieve synergies of military equipment. There should also be greater emphasis on people friendly projects like building critical infrastructure.

Report prepared by Rajorshi Roy