Japan's nuclear debate stirs anxieties in the region... my piece on the recent nuclear law amendment and the Ishiba statement ....

While the amendment to the atomic law and the statement may be innocuous, it has given scope for fresh anxieties within the region and beyond about the Japanese nuclear programme, particularly its recycling programme of extracted plutonium from spent nuclear fuel.

For the full article, click here.





Former Japanese defence minister Shigeru Ishiba's recent statement that "having nuclear plants shows to other nations that Japan can make nuclear weapons," has raised fresh questions on Tokoyo's nuclear intentions. However, the statement is to be seen in the backdrop of opposition to nuclear energy power plants after the 2011 Fukushima crisis. While Ishiba is not arguing for Japan to develop nuclear weapons, the technical know-how and the material availability will suggest a certain capability about Japan - that it can develop a weapon capability should the need arise in the future. Estimates suggest that given that Japan already has the technology and the know-how, it could take up to one year to develop a weapon.


However, this debate deserves greater attention in the backdrop of another development - the June 20, 2012 change in the Japanese Atomic Energy Basic Law, considered to be the fundamental document pertaining to use of nuclear energy. Amendment to Article 2 of the Atomic Energy Basic Law involved insertion of a national security phrase, saying nuclear safety should be guaranteed not only to defend lives, people's health and the environment but also to "contribute to Japan's national security." This has come under criticism within the country with several commentators questioning Japan's long-term intentions. In one of the opinion pieces, Tetsuya Endo, former diplomat and acting chairman of the Cabinet Office's Japan Atomic Energy Commission, argued that given the ambiguity and anxiety following the insertion of the phrase "national security," the Atomic Energy Basic Law should be amended again to revise security clause.


In an effort to moderate the anxieties, nuclear policy minister Goshi Hosono and Chief Cabinet Secretary Osamu Fujimura, among others, have clarified that the term security only connotes to security against proliferation or security against terrorism. While this may have been true, both the amendment to the nuclear law and the Ishiba statement has aroused curiosity among the regional powers as well. Referring to the Japanese government statement that it is not considering at all the possibility of weaponisation, the South Korean official position maintained that it is keeping a watch on the developments. However, some South Koreans have been much more critical. An editorial in the South Korean newspaper ChosunIlbo said, "Tokyo is displaying its schizophrenia by eyeing nuclear weapons … Its main excuse is North Korea's own nuclear program." Similar concerns have been expressed in other South Korean newspapers such as Donga Ilbo and JoongangIlbo too. Similarly, China is also watching closely. Commenting on the amendment, deputy director of the Institute of International Studies at Tsinghua University, Beijing, in an interview to the Global Times (China) opined that the new language could become the legal basis for Japan to develop a nuclear weapon programme.


There has also been a change in the Japanese Aerospace Basic Law which has mentioned that its space assets will have "contribution to Japan's national security," which again sparked regional attention. The change implied the use of space assets for defense and military purposes. In an interview to the Global Times (China), Kazuto Suzuki from Hokkaido University, Japan, maintained that the change was more of a necessity as there is a growing demand for military satellite communications because of the deployment of Japanese Self Defense Forces (SDF) for peacekeeping operations.


On the other hand, Lee Sangsoo, a research fellow with the Stockholm-based Institute for Security and Development Policy, was much more aggressive and ambitious about the Japanese space programme. He suggested that Japan could possibly shift to re-militarisation with the military utilization of space assets, including beefing up its missile detection system and that it will possibly be increasing R&D funding for military uses of space technology. He also added that these amendments will pave way for expansion of Japan's military capabilities while easing the security restraints imposed by Article 9 of the Japanese constitution.


This is not the first time that there have been such debates about Japan's military capabilities. There have been numerous efforts in the past to make changes to its pacifist posturing - after the Chinese nuclear test in 1964, during the Vietnam War, in the context of the end of the Cold War, during the 1994 North Korean nuclear crisis, and also after the indefinite extension of NPT. Japan contemplated a nuclear weapon programme in each of these situations. The very fact that there is an open public debate on the nuclear issue today reflects that there is a more mature and realistic appraisal of Japan's geopolitics and security than ever before.


In conclusion, while the amendment to the atomic law and the statement may be innocuous, it has given scope for fresh anxieties within the region and beyond about the Japanese nuclear programme, particularly its recycling programme of extracted plutonium from spent nuclear fuel. Article 9 and Japan's pacifist posture have meant that it never enjoyed the clout of a major geopolitical power. This, however, is changing gradually. It is clear that Japan is beginning to assume larger security responsibilities in an effort to emerge as a more "normal" nation. And the changes being undertaken in the nuclear law may be the beginning of more concrete changes to come in the future.

China’s South China Sea Claims: Strategic Implications

Here's an article of mine on the South China Sea issue written for the ORF South China Sea Monitor. While South China Sea has remained contested for several decades, the recent tensions surrounding these waters have heightened the potential for it to emerge as a major flashpoint. China’s recent steps have made the involvement of external powers very likely. Involvement of major actors such as the US, India (to a limited extent) and ASEAN has brought in new dynamics into play. To China, South China has come to mean more than just territorial claims or economic benefits, while not ruling out the huge economic benefits. China’s interests are understandable given the huge economic and strategic benefits South China Sea offers. However, what has come to trouble the smaller neighbours and others in the region and beyond is the growing Chinese assertiveness, almost entirely based on the growing military might of the nation. These developments have long-term implications for the region. For the full article, click here. The South China Sea has remained contested but stable for several decades. This is changing. The recent tensions surrounding the area have shown its potential to emerge as a major flashpoint between China and other powers in Asia. Control over parts of the 1.3 mn square mile waterway are disputed between China, Taiwan, Malaysia, Philippines, Brunei, and Vietnam. China’s recent provocations have made involvement of external powers increasingly likely. Involvement of major external actors such as the US, India and ASEAN (Association of South East Asian Nations) have brought new dynamics into play in an already complicated dispute. The fight over the area has been intensifying over the last decade. One of the major incidents took place in 2005 when two Vietnamese fishing boats from Thanh Hoa province were fired upon by Chinese ships. Nine Vietnamese were killed and China captured the boat. In 2009, there was another incident with Chinese ships accused of harassing one of the US surveillance ships in the area. The US Defense department said in a report that five Chinese vessels “shadowed and aggressively maneuvered in dangerously close proximity to USNS Impeccable, in an apparent coordinated effort to harass the US ocean surveillance ship while it was conducting routine operations in international waters.” The report added that the crewmembers from the Chinese vessels waved Chinese flags and asked the US ship to leave the area. Another more recent and much publicized event took place in May 2011, involving a clash between Chinese maritime patrol vessels and Vietnamese Binh Minh 02, an oil and gas survey ship. Vietnam stated on May 26, 2011, that Chinese boats intentionally cut the survey ship’s cables in Vietnamese waters. Chinese authorities denied these allegations, but it nevertheless stirred large protests against China in Vietnam, particularly in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh. Barely weeks later, on June 09, 2011, there was another incident between China and Vietnam. The incident took place well within the Vietnamese Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) between three Chinese fishery patrol vessels and a Norwegian-flagged seismic conducting ship that was hired by Vietnam Oil & Gas Corporation (PetroVietnam). Vietnam once again complained about the Chinese vessels deliberately cutting the exploration cables. Reacting to the second incident, the Vietnamese spokeswoman Pham Phuong Nga said, “China’s systematic action is aimed at turning the undisputed area belonging to Vietnam into an area under dispute in order to materialize China’s nine-dotted line claim in the East Sea. This is unacceptable.” The most recent incident involved China and Philippines. In April 2012, two Chinese surveillance vessels and the Philippine warship Gregorio del Pilar were involved in a clash in the Scarborough Shoal, an area claimed by both China and Philippines. This was a relatively protracted conflict and was resolved only two weeks ago with both nations agreeing to withdraw their naval vessels from the area due to bad weather. The Philippine navy wanted to arrest a group of Chinese fisherman who had gone into their territory but they were unable to do so. Meanwhile, the US and Philippines held their annual military exercise in the middle of April which China construed as muscle-flexing. In retaliation, the Chinese foreign ministry asked a Philippine archaeological ship to leave the Scarborough Shoal on April 16. A few weeks later, on May 7, China toughened its stance further by making a serious representation with Alex Chua, Charge D’Affaires of the Philippine Embassy in China. China also issued travel advisories to those travelling to the Philippines and strengthened trade barriers, affecting the export of pineapples and bananas to China. By May 16, both the nations effected a fishing ban in the Scarborough Shoal. Finally, the two countries withdrew their vessels from the area in mid-June, but this was due to bad weather. The conflict is far from over. Soon after the withdrawal of the Chinese and Philippine vessels from the region, the Chinese State Council established a prefecture-level city of Sansha to administer the Xisha (Paracel), Zhongsha and Nansha (Spratlys) islands and the waters around these islands. Earlier, there was a county-level administration office for the islands located in Yongxing Island, part of the Xisha Islands. In reaction, Vietnam on the same day (June 21) approved a law claiming sovereignty and jurisdiction over Xisha and Nansha islands. Earlier in 2011, Philippines had also passed legislation on the South China Sea and now calls it as the West Philippine Sea. Meanwhile, the Chinese oil company CNOOC, on its website, announced last week that it was inviting foreign partners to jointly explore and develop nine oil blocks in the western part of the South China Sea. Vietnam has challenged this and called the Chinese moves “illegal,” while stating that China is encroaching onto Vietnamese territory. China reacted saying these tenders were in accordance to the Chinese and international law and urged Vietnam not to aggravate tension in this regard. In further moves, China has started combat-ready patrols in South China Sea. Meanwhile, there are Vietnamese air patrols over the Spratly Islands, and the Chinese remain critical of such measures by Vietnam. Reacting to the Vietnamese patrols, the foreign ministry spokesperson Geng Yansheng said that China would “resolutely oppose any militarily provocative behavior.” All these incidents reveal a toughening stance on the part of China on South China Sea. The Chinese posturing has several strategic implications. Increased regional rivalry, mutual suspicion and competition have come to define the relations between China and its smaller neighbours. It appears that China miscalculated the response of its smaller neighbours – Beijing clearly did not expect the kind of high-pitched response from these countries given that China has increased its overall power quotient. To some extent, the stronger responses by China’s neighbours might be the result of strengthened role and involvement of external powers in the region. Despite deep economic ties between these powers and China, the smaller neighbours have become much bolder in seeking external interventions as a means to beef up their own defences against China. Vietnam, for instance, has begun fresh military procurement in order to strengthen its internal defence capabilities while also building external alliances and partnerships. This has resulted in furthering the regional security dilemma. Why does South China Sea matter to China? Is the new approach driven by territorial claims, economic considerations or strategic impetus or a combination of all three? Also what are the strategic implications for Asia of this new posturing? To China, the South China Sea has come to mean more than just territorial claims or economic benefits, though these are also important. In economic terms, it is quite understandable that China wants control of the area since large volume of trade pass through this region. The abundance of oil and gas resources along with other natural resources makes the territorial claims even more intense. Having said that, it is China’s strategic interests that are probably the crucial drivers here. China reportedly has established a signals intelligence station on Rocky Island, north of Woody Island. Rocky Island offers significant strategic and military advantages to Beijing, as it is one of the highest points in the area, thus offering good coverage of the activities in this region. The same study by John C. Baker and David G. Wieneck also suggested that China has built “a 350-meter pier and a 2,600-meter airstrip, which is capable of handling all types of People’s Liberation Army (PLA) aircraft.” The report adds that there are in addition oil tanks, gun emplacements and ammunition storage bunkers, besides Silkworm anti-ship cruise missile installations on Woody Island, all of which point to the possibility that China has long-term plans for these islets. Lastly, nationalism has become an important factor driving the new Chinese approach. The sense of nationalism particularly among the younger generation of Chinese has led to a greater emphasis on territorial sovereignty. This is manifested in the making of expanding sovereignty claims. How far will China go back into history to make these claims is an important question. China’s claims can be traced back to the 1930s when official maps showed the entire territory as Chinese. Besides, Chinese historians have shown remains of ancient pottery on the atolls as proof substantiating their claims to these islands. The Chinese claims also appear to contradict the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). China ratified the UNCLOS in 1996 although it does not stand by many of the clauses and cites a 1998 internal legislation to prove its historical claim over South China Sea. With China’s accession to the UNCLOS, it, in a sense, acceded to other states’ rights including EEZ or continental shelf and the natural resources thereof. China is now trying to strengthen its claims through the provision of the 1998 Law on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf that gives cover for China to its historic rights. For instance, article 14 of the 1998 Law says, provisions of this Law “shall not affect the historic rights enjoyed by the People’s Republic of China.” The fact of the matter is that with China’s accession to the UNCLOS, Beijing and other parties are guided UNCLOS and not China’s internal legislation. International law takes precedence over domestic law when it comes to multi-party international disputes. In fact, Articles 55 to 75 of the UNCLOS have dealt with EEZs in detail explaining the limits and activities allowed under international law. Also article 121 is particularly important in this regard. It says, “Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no economic zone or continental shelf.” Therefore, countries in the region, wanting to establish EEZs, have attempted to build structures as a means of justification. While the Chinese behavior may be legitimate from its point of view, its disregard for international law and the UNCLOS and for its neighbour’s interests will have long-term implications for regional security. Incidentally, the recent events have also brought out the differences within ASEAN. As long as economic issues were the focus of the group, it functioned well and was displayed as a model for other regional groupings. However, it appears unable to present a united front when political issues such as territory and sovereignty are brought into the forum. On the other hand, Chinese behavior was also partly responsible for bringing the US back to Asia. If the US was distracted from its commitment to Asia, given the decade-long mission in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the domestic fiscal compulsions, it is amply clear that the US is now here to stay. The repeated statements by US officials highlight the nervousness as well as the enthusiasm to cash in on an opportunity that welcomes back the US with greater vigour. Another consequence of the heightened tensions is the developing arms race in the region. Smaller neighbours such as Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia are on a major arms buying spree. Vietnam has begun beefing up its military capabilities particularly in the maritime domain with addition of new submarines. Malaysia too has been adding to its inventory. Singapore plans to strengthen its submarine strength with two additional submarines. Bigger players such as South Korea, Japan and Australia are not lagging behind. The fact is that the military expenditure of these countries has been rising in the last few years. Implications for India Traditionally, India maintained a neutral stance on South China Sea. However, India has become proactive on South China Sea in the last few years given the rising profile of India as well as the changing dynamics of Asia. For instance, India was less ambivalent at one of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) meetings in 2010, stating that open seas and freedom of navigation are important and every country must respect other countries’ legitimate interests. In July last year, India reacted sharply when the Chinese navy contacted one of the Indian naval vessels INS Airavat that was on a friendly visit to Vietnam, saying that “India supports freedom of navigation in international waters, including in the South China Sea, and the right of passage in accordance with accepted principles of international law.” India similarly stood its ground when it came to developing oil blocks in Vietnam although it does appear that Hanoi was keener on putting a brave front, in determining its hold on the territory as well as in seeking external alliances and partnerships. Vietnam was certainly disappointed when India had to pull out of Vietnam owing to commercial considerations although China has construed this as India succumbing to its pressure. What are India’s options? While trade flows are an important consideration and therefore one may see an active India in this region, there are strategic motives that should also inform India’s policy approach. India’s strengthened partnership with Southeast Asian nations, increasingly strategic in nature, will call for greater Indian support to these countries on the issue. Insistence on freedom of navigation and respect for each other’s territorial integrity are factors that should guide India’s policy. Instability in India’s neighbourhood including Southeast Asia does not augur well for India. Therefore, it is imperative for India to take an active role in shaping the regional dynamics that corresponds to India’s growing influence.

India's Agni V test ...my comments to the Australian ABC

Here's a link to my comments on the recent Agni V missile test of India to the Australian ABC. While this test is seen as a game changer, another three or four years are needed to induct the missile into service. It will have to go through several more tests and user trials before it can be handed over to the services by 2014, Dr. Saraswat said. In real terms, this could take up to three or four years before the sufficient number can be produced and inducted into service. Having tested the missile, there are several important decisions to be taken before it reaches the stage of induction, including strategic doctrines, target definitions, number of missiles to be produced, etc. The government has to make these decisions before it becomes an instrument of capable, credible deterrence.

Type rest of the post here

India's Agni V test and China, my analysis on the missile test ...

Here's an analysis of mine on India's recent Agni test and China. While Agni V should not be seen as China-specific, India has had to pay attention to and factor Beijing's capabilities in its military modernisation. Capabilities that China builds to deal with the US can easily be turned against India. However, India does not have to assume that such conflict of interest with China is inevitable. India can reach out to China. It will be to the benefit of both countries to engage in periodic military CBMs. For the full article, click here

. India has just successfully tested the Agni V missile, a nuclear capable missile with a 5,000 km range. Dr. V.K. Saraswat, the head of the Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO), which built the missile, said soon after the test from the Integrated Test Range complex in Wheeler Island, Odisha, that "this launch has given a message to the entire world that India has the capability to design, develop, build and manufacture missiles of this class, and we are today a missile power." Defence Minister A K Antony described Agni test as a "major milestone." While the full technical data is being evaluated, DRDO scientists maintain that the mission objectives have been met. The various technical parameters, including engine, re-entry capabilities and guidance technology have been validated. With this test, India joins a small group of nations - US, Russia, China, France and UK - that have developed Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs). While this test is seen as a game changer, another three or four years are needed to induct the missile into service. It will have to go through several more tests and user trials before it can be handed over to the services by 2014, Dr. Saraswat said. In real terms, this could take up to three or four years before the sufficient number can be produced and inducted into service. Having tested the missile, there are several important decisions to be taken before it reaches the stage of induction, including strategic doctrines, target definitions, number of missiles to be produced, etc. The government has to make these decisions before it becomes an instrument of capable, credible deterrence. As for the technical parameters, the Agni V is a three-stage, solid propellant MIRVed (Multiple Independently Targettable Re-entry Vehicle) missile with a range of 5,000 kilometers and can carry a nuclear warhead weighing over one tonne. The missile can cover most of Asia, parts of Africa and parts of Eastern Europe. India has in its inventory other Agni series missiles also - Agni I of 700 km range, Agni II of 2000 km range, Agni III and Agni IV of 2,500 km to more than 3,500 km range. The Agni V is seen as crucial for strengthening India's defence and deterrence capabilities. The missile has particular relevance to India in the context of advance military capabilities in its neighbourhood. Beijing has been upping the ante in the recent years in Tibet and surrounding areas. Advancements made by China in the Delingha missile facility is a case in point. The Delingha base is believed to be housing some nuclear missiles. PLA has also replaced the earlier liquid-fueled missiles with solid-fueled ones, reducing the launch time as well as making mobility much easier. Also Beijing's DF-4 ICBMs have been upgraded to fit them for the DF-21 (NATO code: CSS-5) series of ballistic missiles. There have also been reports about the possibility of the road mobile DF-31s (NATO code: CSS-9; Pentagon classification: CSS-10) and DF-31As (NATO code: CSS-9 Mod 2) being housed at the Delingha facility. These could additionally be equipped with penetration aids such as decoys and flares, making any countermeasures and warning systems more complicated or even ineffective. This base is particularly significant, given the proximity to India, able to target most of northern India. India does not enjoy a benign neighbourhood. While Delingha is of particular concern, China's increasing foray into the Indian Ocean, its overall military modernisation, rising military expenditure, non-transparent nature of its programmes and objectives are also of concern to India. Recent Chinese policy approaches also have been not reassuring to India. The unresolved boundary and territorial disputes, changing Chinese policy on Jammu & Kashmir, questioning India's territorial integrity, and building strategic links with India's neighbours such as Nepal create security concerns in India. China-Pakistan collaboration on a range of military capabilities also warrants Indian attention. Given these background developments, India has to be prepared for any eventuality. While Agni V should not be seen as China-specific, India has had to pay attention to and factor Beijing's capabilities in its military modernisation. While the official reaction to India's Agni test was fairly muted, China's Global Times, in an editorial, said, "India should not overestimate its strength. Even if it has missiles that could reach most parts of China, that does not mean it will gain anything from being arrogant during disputes with China. India should be clear that China's nuclear power is stronger and more reliable. For the foreseeable future, India would stand no chance in an overall arms race with China." The point to be emphasized and understood clearly by Indian decision-makers is that it is not and should not be in a competition with China on the military front but this is not to mean that India will stop being prepared in a defensive fashion while beefing up its deterrent measures. Agni V is a weapon of deterrence and hopefully will never have to be used. The Global Times editorial goes on to say that India and China should learn to co-exist with each other, if the two can not cooperate. It must also come to learn that India looks for an inclusive approach as it develops and extends its sphere of influence although one is not certain that this can be said of China. China has been rather uncomfortable with the fact that there are two or three rising powers in Asia simultaneously and these countries have to adopt cooperative frameworks if it is to be a stable and peaceful Asian century. Finally, the editorial notes that China does not devote as much time on India as India does towards China. The fact, however, is that as Beijing's military modernisation is geared more towards the United States, its capabilities are already at a much more sophisticated level. It will be naïve if India were to assume that those capabilities are purely US-centric and therefore, not be concerned about those capabilities and applications. Capabilities that China builds to deal with the US can easily be turned against India. However, India does not have to assume that such conflict of interest with China is inevitable. India can reach out to China. It will be to the benefit of both countries to engage in periodic military confidence-building measures (CBMs) as a means of mutual reassurance.

Hu's Delhi Visit: BRICS and the Bilateral Dynamics

Here's an analysis of mine published on ORF website on the recent visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao to Delhi, perhaps his last visit as the president, for the BRICS Summit. However the focus of this article is to see if cooperation at the multilateral levels such as BRICS contributes to narrowing down the differences that exist at the bilateral level between India and China.

For the full article, click here.



Chinese President Hu Jintao was in Delhi for the fourth BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) Summit, possibly his last visit as the leader of China. BRICS appear to have made progress on the economic, trade and financial arena although it will be naïve to assume that it will make similar progress in the political and strategic arena. With Syria, Iran and developments in the West Asia being part of the Delhi Declaration, Mr. Hu is reported to have said that BRICS has begun to make gradual progress on global political issues as well. Rightly so, bilateral issues are not part of the mandate of the BRICS Summit. But it is unclear if cooperation at the multilateral levels such as BRICS contributes to narrowing down the differences that exist at the bilateral level between India and China.

The trend is not particularly reassuring. While India and China have enhanced their trade ties from a mere $ 5 bn a decade earlier to $ 75 bn in 2012, similar trend lines have not been witnessed in the political and strategic arena. Emphasis on economic matters from the Chinese side is quite understandable given that Beijing is on a lookout for newer markets in Asia as the West may no longer be the biggest economic partner for them. India's large market provides an alternative, but New Delhi should also exploit this to its benefit. There are a few issues that need to be addressed, including trade imbalance that is hugely in favour of China and lack of access to Chinese markets for Indian goods and services in the area of pharmaceuticals, agriculture and IT. India is understood to have raised these issues repeatedly with the Chinese side over the last few years with no satisfactory response.

On the political and strategic arena, it has not been easy to say the least. While there has been no untoward incident on the border or elsewhere, it can be best characterised as an uncertain calm. Mr. Hu made tall promises saying China has an "unswerving policy to adhere to the Sino-Indian friendship, deepen strategic cooperation and promote common development. … China is ready to work with the Indian side to seize opportunities, accelerate development, jointly cope with challenges and share the fruits of development to benefit the two peoples and make greater contributions to peace, stability and prosperity of Asia and the world at large." In return, Singh reiterated that India "has no intention to contain China and will not take part in any schemes aimed at containing China. India recognizes the Tibet Autonomous Region as part of China and will not allow Tibetans to pursue anti-China activities in India. He also expressed the hope to work with China to maintain peace and security on the borders and properly resolve border issues through friendly talks." While this is clearly an unobjectionable statement, it is noteworthy that China did not give any such assurances to India. New Delhi should have cashed in on an opportunity like this to gain similar assurances from Beijing as well.

On the sidelines of the BRICS Summit, Mr. Hu held separate meetings with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, discussing a range of issues, including bilateral issues on March 29, 2012. The two leaders also made the politically correct statements on bilateral ties while announcing 2012 as the "Year of India-China Friendship and Cooperation," with an intention to take bilateral ties to the next level, including making progress on strategic matters. The two leaders argued, among other issues, that there was a need for enhancing cooperation particularly in the fields of maritime and regional security. Anti-piracy operations and protection of SLOCS are ideal areas for India and China to cooperate if they have to make progress on the security and strategic front.

In addition, Mr. Hu laid out a five-point proposal to address India-China relations, including one on the border issue. The proposal says the two sides should handle their differences and work for peace and stability, while urging both to push forward border talks in the spirit of peace, friendship, equal consultation, mutual respect and mutual understanding and make good use of the working mechanism of consultation and coordination on border affairs so as to jointly safeguard peace and security on the borders. While the agenda appears comprehensive, this needs to be followed on the ground to make a difference to India-China strategic ties.

Having said that, it is not the border issue that remains at the crux of the problems between India and China. The bigger issue is to reach an understanding on their respective roles in the emerging Asian strategic architecture. It is India's growing role in Asian affairs and beyond and China's eternal desire to box India in South Asia that has been at odds in the recent years. Beijing's closer partnership with Islamabad and in fact with all of the neighbouring countries appears to have been motivated by the desire to balance India. Beijing's ongoing activities in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, or its changing policy on Jammu & Kashmir or the Chinese protests at the Indian troop movement in Sikkim (an otherwise a peaceful sector on the Line of Actual Control (LAC); Sikkim was recognised by China as part of India during Prime Minister Vajpayee's visit to Beijing in 2003) are not reassuring to India. These do reflect a tendency on the part of China to question the very territorial integrity of India.

It is likely that the simultaneous rise of four major powers in Asia (China, Japan, Russia, India) will lead to a period of uncertainty and newer frictions. The fact that except for India and Russia, all the other countries have had troubled history, including war, does not help ease the situation. However, these powers have to recognise that their wealth and prosperity will also depend on the health of bilateral ties with each of these Asian capitals.

India and China have to shoulder greater responsibility in this regard to ensure that they adopt more inclusive and cooperative approach in addressing each other's concerns. And no amount of multilateral level cooperation (BRICS, G-20, WTO) can diminish some of these vexed issues. The fact is also that the two countries have cooperated mostly at the Chinese insistence and where it benefits them and not necessarily in a global forum that is supportive of India. Beijing's less than supportive role at the NSG and its efforts to sabotage an ADB loan for India are one or two instances. Therefore, India has to become more pragmatic in understanding and leveraging multilateral platforms to further its own national interests while strengthening India-China bilateral ties.

India’s Libya Shame Will Haunt It ... my piece in The Diplomat on India's Libya vote last year ....

Here's a piece published yesterday in the Diplomat on India's Libya vote -- the merits and demerits of it and how it has affected its own standing in global affairs.

Last March, India abstained in a vote over enforcing a no-fly zone in Libya, a move that ultimately signaled the beginning of the end for Muammar Gaddafi’s regime. A year later, though, and it’s clear that India gained little from the move – and may actually have done itself some considerable diplomatic harm in the process.



Of course, India has since (reluctantly) voted for a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Syria, and it’s abstention (along with China) ended up meaning little in the grand scheme of intervention in Libya – European assistance to Libyan rebels still changed the balance of power in the conflict, and paved the way for the Libyan rebels to overthrow the Gaddafi regime. And, although Libya is far from stable, the rebels’ eventual victory to a certain extent negated any immediate harm that might have come from India’s reticence.

And yet it’s clear that India’s vote will have long-term consequences for the country’s strategic standing.

As the world’s largest democracy, India should have key advantages in dealing with the turmoil resulting from the Arab Spring. India’s status as a large yet stable developing country without some of the baggage of Western countries should have left it well-placed to offer guidance and exercise some “soft power” in these tumultuous times. Yet India clearly missed the boat. Indeed, far from being a role model, India decided to side with authoritarian states such as China and Russia, in seeming opposition to the democratic revolutions reflecting values that India claims to uphold.

Second, though not all of these democratic movements have succeeded, the spread of democracy in the Middle East is clearly something that will boost the prospects for stability in the medium and long term. India might be uncomfortable with the idea of “democracy promotion,” something that’s easy to understand. But India’s actions surrounding the Arab Spring have made India look as if it is standing against the spread of democracy itself. India’s abstention over Libya might not have impeded progress in the end, but it did nothing at all to help, and left it complicit in efforts to crack down.

Third, India’s abstention and its only reluctant support in the Syrian case have won it no friends in the capitals of the world’s democracies. Even if India’s reluctance to assist in the spread of an ideology is well-known, Western capitals were surprised by a vote that actually impeded its spread. Ironically, India’s “moral” position ended up hurting India’s own moral standing in the international community.

The Libyan vote was a particular disappointment to India’s friends in the United States. The U.S. remains an important strategic partner for India, but the decision over Libya was embarrassing to those in Washington who have championed closer ties. All this has only been compounded by India’s softly-softly approach to Iran. As a result, there are increasing doubts in Washington about the value of the partnership with New Delhi.

What is particularly problematic about the Libya decision is that India failed to support action that was backed by the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC). It was also action that would have come under the U.N. umbrella, sending a signal to other countries, including in India’s own troubled neighborhood, that India expects other nations to adhere to certain universal principles. This might have prevented India having to vote against Sri Lanka at the United Nations recently – had it seen its giant neighbor backing U.N. action in Libya, Colombo might have thought twice about its resistance to addressing its treatment of its Tamil minority in the closing days of its civil war. And Delhi would also have looked more consistent, appearing to use a similar yardstick when measuring the severity of human rights violations. Instead, the United Progressive Alliance government ended up looking like it was playing domestic politics and buckling under pressure from Tamil political parties at home.

A year on, and it’s clear that India’s decision to step aside over Libya gained it little, and may have done significant damage to its international standing. If Delhi is to meet its aspirations of becoming a significant regional, let alone global, player then it needs to think more carefully about the message its positions send.

India might not want to promote democracy. But at the very least, it shouldn’t stand in its way.

UNIDIR Conference on Space Security, March 29-30, 2012 ... my presentation on space security and the need for a code of conduct

I was recently invited for the UNIDIR conference on space security held in Geneva on March 29-30, 2012. I was on a panel on international perspectives; Peter Marquez, Former Director of Space Policy, National Security Council, The
White House, USA and Vladimir Yermakov, Deputy-Director, Arms Control Department, Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, Russian Federation, were my co-panelists. My presentation was on space security and giving an Indian perspective. I touched upon the orientation of India's space programme, which is peaceful and civilian, second i looked at the challenges and concerns to India; and lastly the way forward, looking the need to institute a code of conduct in particular. I also spent couple of slides on the current debates on the EU Code and how we could take that forward.

Rest of the discussions (in my panel) focused a lot on placement of weapons in the outer space, the need to institute a code of conduct for space activities, among other issues. The audio presentations and the powerpoint slides have been uploaded onto the UNIDIR site.

For the presentations, click here.


Type rest of the post here