DSA March 2011 by Defence and Security Alert

SAARC COUNTRIES : US$ 20 REST OF THE WORLD : US$ 25 MARCH 2011

INDIA : ` 120 VOLUME 2 ISSN

ISSUE 6

0976-206X

9 770976 206003

Europe Special

> VOLUME 2 > ISSUE 6 > MARCH 2011

Majestic recognition to

Fortifying for the new world order ?

editor-in-chief

ndia’s Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft deal is the world’s most lucrative military contract. The scale of the deal and its multi-year nature, make it the most coveted aircraft deal. Amongst the contenders are three from Europe. And if there is a reflection of the reality of the emerging Europe, it is that the older patterns are still around. The spread of the European Union is a fighting tribute to the emergence of a larger identity that recognises geography, a history of enormous hostilities and socio-cultural inheritance that is in any case its best example. But the reality is that certain ‘national’ institutions remain in existence, running contrary to the new Europe of today and tomorrow.

It would seem to make sense for Europe to compete with a single, or at the most two, aircraft for this mega competition. But three first-rate combat aircraft from a population of that size and most economies of uncertain medium term efficiencies, is a luxury that cannot be afforded in perpetuity. And that was the raison d’être for making the Union in the first place. The sharing of military assets is the way of the future for Europe and the sooner that such industries are held collectively the better it is for Europe. And the world must hope for the best for Europe, as the changes that have been sought to be made there are as extraordinary as they are exciting.

India is in many senses the world’s first forerunner of European Union. All that the EU wants to be and more, has already been instituted in India. It is simply a matter of ensuring efficiencies and standards across the country. Be it politics, economics, or administrative efficiency, the benchmarks across the country can be improved. Other than that there is much to hold in pride about the country’s growth since 1947. It is, after all, the Union of India. And states and regions came together to make it so with the fullest of hopes and aspirations. It is the first union made not by the use of force, or because of it, but by a conjoined sense of identity.

Pretty much what Europe wants to become. But the catch is in the security and foreign policy realms. Even as the populations move across boundaries that barely exist and social policies are made in unison in Brussels, there is still the missing aspect of foreign and security policies. The pull of the old prevents the logic of the new from appearing on the stage. When so much is being shared and in the image of an emerging identity that resonates with sincerity, to not let this logic prevail only pulls Europe down, collectively. For the world requires an EU that is true to its self and the principles that it believes in. India benefits from an EU for the simple reason that it is the mirror other. There is much to do together, especially when both have a common vision for Afghanistan, for example. Makes sense for Europe to pool its resources and that includes military technology as well. Economics doesn’t justify separation, and neither does politics.

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

publisher’s view

e-mail: (first name)@dsalert.org info: info@dsalert.org articles: articles@dsalert.org subscri ption: subscription@dsalert.org online edition: online@dsalert.org advertisement: advt@dsalert.org editorial & business office 4/19 asaf ali road new delhi-110002 (India) t: +91-011-23243999,23287999,9958382999 f: +91-11-23259666 e: info@dsalert.org www.dsalert.org

disclaimer all rights reserved. reproduction and translation in any language in whole or in part by any means without permission from Defence and Security Alert is prohibited. opinions expressed are those of the individual writers and do not necessarily reflect those of the publisher and / or editors. all disputes are subject to jurisdiction of delhi courts. defence and security alert is printed, published and owned by pawan agrawal and printed at graphic world, 1686, kucha dakhini rai, darya ganj, new delhi-110002 and published at 4/19 asaf ali road, new delhi (india). editor: manvendra singh.

Both in the inter- and intra- aspects of its rationale SAARC has not been able to shake off a persistent colonial hangover of suspicion where open hostilities are barely concealed. For example, India has always been under tremendous pressure from Pakistan to cede territory in Kashmir after having failed to instigate secession in Punjab. There has been a regular daily infiltration across the borders with Bangladesh into West Bengal and other north-eastern states. Indian attempts to stop it by setting up barbed wire fencing has evoked hostility though it must be said, with gratitude, that the present Head of government Sheikh Hasina has, as a matter of policy, refused to allow anti-India activities from Bangladesh soil and has gone so far as to arrest and hand over these elements to India for trial. Nepal and Sri Lanka have their own reservations about what they describe as India’s ‘big brother’ image. Bhutan stands out as an exception in eclecticism. Otherwise, the element of regional cooperation has become subsumed in a constant overdone fear of becoming overshadowed by the larger and stronger India. There is no agreed common minimum programme by which the SAARC States can enlarge their cooperation for mutual benefit unlike as within the European Union where the initial hesitation over the surrender of certain elements of sovereignty has since been overcome because of the larger benefits that accrue from cooperation. SAARC has thus proved to be only an institution which keeps organising some or the other conclave in each other’s States from time to time which has somehow now become a ritual. I do not remember if at any time any State has ever given due thought on the Mission of this organisation. When there is no trust between the member-States then what is the use of such a facile institution? Times are changing. Even the EU is evolving and finding ways to include new members into its fold. Now is the time for introspection among the member-States of SAARC as to where they intend taking their people and how. We have seen in the case of Germany that both East and West could merge in spite of the many contradictions in their relationship and they are now quite comfortable, stable and happy after their merger. Progress is palpable in the European States even though exceptions are always there. Some of the States are not in very good shape. Their economy is worsening day by day. But still they are united and are trying their best to achieve progress and growth of their people. The European States are also struggling with the recession and the transfer of labour and other major problems but still they see good reasons to stay united. All the States are working in a very cordial manner and they enjoy peace on their borders. No infiltration or border disputes arise. In my opinion the so-called SAARC could well be dissolved or at least India must come out of it so as to at least save some hard earned money of it’s people which has been wasted for many years. Has ever our government thought seriously about its continued participation in an organisation that does not appear to be able to take its people to a higher level of existence? It is high time now that all the member-States of SAARC decide, with some urgency, on how to tackle the many serious problems that confront all of us like terrorism, price hike, exploding populations and climate change etc. and its demographic effects. India needs to take the lead and I am sure that our eminence grise can come up with solutions to regional and global problems that in the ultimate analysis affect the future of India and Indians as well. Well, here is another special edition in your hands, dear reader and I am sure that you will like this as well. We will be coming up with another special edition on Pakistan in the month of April. It will be a very exhaustive one and I am sure that anyone who has an interest in Indo-Pak relations would like to retain it as a collector’s edition for his reference and reading pleasure. The passing away of Mr. K. Subrahmanyam is a personal loss for me and we all at DSA will miss his mentoring and wise counsel. DSA is being hailed as the harbinger of a revolution in India's defence and security journalism. A great deal of credit for this goes to Mr. K. Subrahmanyam. With this issue we are introducing a new feature Defence and Security Techshow, highlighting Indian and International companies in the defence and security domain by featuring their products, technologies and services. We invite leading manufacturers, importers and exporters to use this space to introduce and promote their world class products, technologies and services in the booming Indian market and around the world. Please mail your product write-ups with high resolution pictures to info@dsalert.org. JAI HIND!

Unity in diversity!

f we compare the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation with the European Union, SAARC stands nowhere. It is a matter of great concern for the Heads of these States that after the formation of SAARC it could not do much in any field of international endeavour.

Volume 2 Issue 6 Marc h 2 0 11 chairman shyam sunder publisher & ceo pawan agrawal editor-in-chief manvendra singh director shishir bhushan corporate consultant k j singh art consultant divya gupta central saint martins college of art & design, university of arts, london corporate communications monika kanchan ad-sales manish upadhyay representative J&K salil sharma creative vivek anand pant correspondent (europe) dominika cosic production dilshad & dabeer webmaster sundar rawat photographer subhash circulation & distribution vijay bhatia ranjeet system administrator vikas

announcement

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

A N N O U N C E S April 2011 Issue as

Pakistan Special

Covering its tumultuous journey from the genesis of two nation theory to becoming epicentre of global terrorism, a failing economy, a sinking State ... ...?

Available at all leading bookstores LANDMARK LTD.

SPENCERS

ODYSSEY

OM BOOK SHOP CROSSWORD

contact for subscription: online@dsalert.org

subscription@dsalert.org

contents EUROPE SPECIAL ISSUE MARCH 2011

contents

Volume 2 Issue 6 March 2011

A R T I C L E S

K. Subrahmanyam, a tribute Manvendra Singh

European Union: a role model for Asia? Claude Arpi

European Union and Latin America Dattesh D. Prabhu Parulekar

8 10 14

Europe and Southeast Asia

India and Europe: dynamics of a multipolar world

EU: looking east, staying west?

European Union and neighbourhood security

EU-US relations

EU and Russia: gateway to WTO

European Union energy policy

Dr. Pankaj Jha

Maj. Gen. (Retd.) G. D. Bakshi Kalyani Unkule

Balkan conundrum

federalism and security challenges

Sino-Indian Cold War

Dominika Cosic

Prof. (Retd.) K. S. Sidhu

Col. (Retd.) Rajinder Singh F E A T U R E S

CRPF mahila (women) battalion

home security tips

defsec: product updates

Praful S. Adagale Dr. Rashmi Bhure

Joyce Sabina Lobo

Rai Mahimapat Ray and Rajeev Lala

European Union: foreign policy mechanism 41 Pallavi Pal

EU-Turkey impasse Rajorshi Roy

for online edition of Defence and Security Alert (DSA) log on to: www.dsalert.org

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

Follow DSA on :

DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

Follow DSA on :

DSALERT March 2011 Defence AND security alert

mission

The power of a King lies in his mighty armsâ&#x20AC;Ś Security of the citizens at peace time is very important because State is the only saviour of the men and women who get affected only because of the negligence of the State.

â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Chanakya

obituary

NONPAREIL

K . Subrahmanyam: a tribute Manvendra Singh

he Syrian missile crisis of 1981. It was a lesson learnt at schoolboy age. The lesson covered international relations, statecraft, security, strategy and national resolve. And it was delivered by the late K. Subrahmanyam, in a manner and with the succinctness that was his hallmark. The Syrians had moved some missile batteries into the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon which had been picked up by Israeli reconnaissance aircraft. There was an escalation of rhetoric, with threats and counter-threats flying from both sides. None of them, however, moved KS into a tizzy. For in all that fuss he detected another game, something bigger and more daring. And he was proven correct when in the midst of all this hype Israeli aircraft successfully took out the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak. The placing of missiles in the Bekaa was used as an excuse by the Israelis to divert attention from the raid that had been long in the planning. It worked and it was the clinical analysis by KS that was to leave an indelible mark on the mind of a schoolboy. In the passing of K. Subrahmanyam India has lost its foremost national security specialist. There are an umpteen number of labels that can be used to describe K. Subrahmanyam. All of them fit, from national security, to nuclear, to military, to intelligence, to any other specialist tag. For he was all of them, singularly and a combination of all the tags. There is no question of recounting K. Subrahmanyam as amongst the foremost strategic thinkers in India. He wasn’t. For the simple reason that he wasn’t amongst others of his ilk. He was a few miles ahead of all that this country has produced since it became independent. There is no other individual in this country who remained as active as long as K. Subrahmanyam did in the field of debating and promoting a culture of national security consciousness. His contribution in these fields is without a parallel in this country. And the benchmarks that he set are without a contest the most piercing and incomparable. The remarkable thing about K. Subrahmanyam was that there was nothing in the early career of the 1951 batch Indian Administrative Service officer to suggest his later specialisation. What transformed him was the experience of the 1962 war and his exposure to the functioning of the Ministry of Defence. That period was to leave a mark on him, psychologically and intellectually and which later went on to making him the colossus that he became. His practical experience in the functioning of war and later in 1965 as well, gave him an insight into the innards of governance, political, military and the bureaucratic. It wasn’t a pretty picture and his mind was made up to campaign for its rectification. And that was to remain his zealously pursued campaign throughout his life. In every appointment that he subsequently held and in every medium through which he expressed himself, K. Subrahmanyam would campaign relentlessly for a new Indian thinking and structure in the field of national security management. What he did is well known, creating and heading the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses. He was to head it twice and in the process nurtured scores of young minds to read, think, question, probe and promote Indian national security interests and the strategy to actualise them. From the key operational appointment of Director (G) in the Ministry of Defence, he was to finally leave his favourite department as Secretary Defence Production. Politics most likely interfering in his appointment as Secretary Defence. He had been Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, a feat in itself considering the fact that he didn’t come from the traditional security or policing fields. There are many things for which he will be remembered. But none would match his knowledge, arguments and strategisation on matters nuclear. In that respect too he was without a peer. And it is fair to say that he left a mark on everyone who works on this field of national security, the pro-nuclear as well as the anti-nuclear lobbyists. He influenced everyone’s arguments by the sheer brilliance of his mind and the passion with which he held his brief that India would have to pursue a nuclear weapons programme if it aspires for a place under the sun as an independent nation. His pursuit of the Indo-US nuclear deal came as a surprise to many, for it seemed to violate his principle of strategic autonomy. But the sheer depth of his integrity carried the day for him.

at DSA. And throughout the short space of the months that it has been published, K. Subrahmanyam remained an involved reader, contributor, advisor and a guide. Much as he had been with the Indian strategic community. He will be missed by all and the team at DSA offer the sincerest condolences to his family and prayers for him.

There were three appointments in the recent past that highlight his role in the field of national security management. He was the convener of the first National Security Advisory Board, chairman of the Kargil Review Committee and head of the Prime Minister’s Task Force on Global Strategic Developments. The NSAB tenure produced India’s first Nuclear Doctrine and the National Strategic Review. The KRC produced India’s most thorough investigation of a war and the events that led to it in the first instance. Amongst others, it resulted in the creation of a Defence Intelligence Agency and the National Technical Research Organisation. There are still some left undone and which are for future generations to fulfill. For that is what he aspired to produce for India -- minds that can think for the country, with tools that range the entire spectrum. And for that reason K. Subrahmanyam paid great attention to the creation of Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses. The project to start the Defence and Security Alert (DSA) magazine filled him with as much excitement as it did the entire team

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

citadel Europe?

CONFEDERATION

Jawaharlal Nehru had dreamed of putting Humpty Dumpty together again into a loose confederation of independent nation-States but the potency of the poison that Britain spread by applying the Irish model of the “two-nation theory” in the sub-continent is apparent in the assiduous manner in which “crossborder terrorism” is being sought to be curbed be it between Pakistan and Afghanistan or India and Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. In this context Samuel Huntington’s opus ‘Clash of Civilisations’ is nothing but a ladle to keep the pot boiling and the poison in circulation. Because of it, even small steps are hard to take.

n oft-asked question is: Can the European Union (EU) be a role model for peaceful integration in Asia or at least in South Asia?

While the Indian sub-continent is more divided than ever, with no unity in sight, can the European model be replicated in South Asia?

For us in India, it is obvious that if a process of integration is to happen, it has to start in our neighbourhood; it could eventually later spread (or develop in parallel) to other parts of Asia.

Idea of confederation

But let us come back for a moment to 1947.

In January 2006, former President APJ Abdul Kalam spoke of the “possibility of a confederation between India and Pakistan … in 50 years time”. His remark was immediately rubbished by Pakistani leaders. It was however not the first time that such an idea had come up.

On August 15, India was finally free. It was indeed a day of rejoicing. After decades of struggle, India was independent … but divided. Sixty-three years later, the tragedy of the partition remains ever-present on the sub-continent. Whatever other progress India has made in the fields of economy, development or education, this milestone is still heavy on the nation’s neck.

Evolution in Europe Ten years after the sub-continent was partitioned, six European States (France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg) decided to focus their energies on integration and union. On 25 March 1957, the Treaties of Rome establishing the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Community of Atomic Energy (Euratom) formalised the Union. The EEC Treaty proposed to have a customs union and a common market between the Member States while the Euratom set up the bases for collaboration between the six States in the field of atomic energy.

One of the solutions which has often come up, at least from the Indian side, is a ‘loose confederation’ on the European model.

Nehru had seriously considered such a scheme. After the 1962 China War, he was a broken man; he also probably knew that his life neared its end and had a sort of obsession to find a solution to the Partition tangle. The Prime Minister was then under tremendous pressure, both internally as his policy towards China was questioned and externally with the Western powers wanting their pound of flesh to support India against Mao’s regime.

Nehru’s brainchild Dr. S. Gopal, his biographer wrote: “That Nehru was sincere in his desire for a general improvement in relations with Pakistan and was searching for a long-term settlement encompassing all matters and not just Kashmir becomes clear from his serious consideration once again of the idea of a confederation.” In December 1962, a few days before the first round of talks between the foreign Ministers of India and Pakistan,

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

European Union: a role model for Asia?

Claude Arpi

during an interview with Selig Harrison for The Washington Post, Nehru said that a confederal relationship between India and Kashmir could lead to a similar arrangement between the two halves of Pakistan and in due time enable a larger confederation between India, Pakistan and their neighbours (Nepal, Bhutan, etc.). Nehru mentioned the example of Europe: “Look at Europe, at the Common Market. This is the urge everywhere. There are no two peoples anywhere nearer than those of India and Pakistan, though if we say it, they are alarmed and think we want to swallow them.” Six years after the signing of the Treaties of Rome and while the Common Market was taking its infant steps, Nehru thought to start an association on the lines of the European Economic Community; he however confided to Harrison: “Confederation remains our ultimate goal”. His remarks were immediately criticised by the Pakistani leaders who declared that India’s only ambition was to control South Asia: “[India] would obviously be the dominating member of any confederation.” During the following months, six rounds of negotiations were held between India and Pakistan under the auspices of the Western powers; nothing could be achieved. The concept of a confederation remained dormant, but as Gopal remarked, “The trend in the world appeared to him to be in favour of large groupings or confederations of independent countries; and, while not elaborating on the possibility of such a grouping in South Asia because it would irritate Pakistan, the idea to him remained attractive.”

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

citadel Europe?

CONFEDERATION

But today are all the South Asian nations ready to accept the very concept of ‘unity’ behind apparent ‘diversity’? This is a difficult question to answer. If one looks at the situation beyond the borders of India, something that Europe could offer to the subcontinent is a model of integration and cooperation which has been tested for the past 50 years

Jean Monnet model

that if one nation was not ready for the ‘experiment’, there was no point in taking this nation on board; it would only sink the ship at an early stage.

One man, Jean Monnet, has been central to the construction of the European Union. He had the foresight to propose certain basic principles which became the bedrock of the future Union.

In the case of South Asia, the role of the Western powers has been ambivalent to say the least and Pakistan was immediately integrated in the SAARC, though not interested to play the game.

At the end of World War II, Europe was going through one of the most traumatic periods of its history; paradoxically this helped create the ‘circumstances’ under which a successful partnership could take shape.

Symphony of equals

In the meantime, the process of integration was moving on in Europe.

On May 9, 1950, having ensured the support of the German Chancellor, Robert Schuman, the French Foreign Minister made a proposal (though prepared by Monnet, it is known as the Schuman Plan) to place the entirety of the coal and steel production of both France and Germany under a common High Authority. Immediately, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands joined the bandwagon: the European Coal and Steel Community was born.

Partnership of the willing

Another principle on which Jean Monnet worked was: Any association, partnership or union should be built between equals. At the end of the World War II, though Germany was the looser, from the very first days of the European Coal and Steel Community, France and its neighbour acted as equals. Jean Monnet later recalled the first steps of the Union: “Coal and steel were at once the key to economic power and the raw materials for forging weapons of war. This double role gave them immense symbolic significance, now largely forgotten, but comparable at the time to that of nuclear energy today. To pool them across frontiers would reduce their malign prestige and turn them instead into a guarantee of peace.”

The European experiment had the full support of its allies, particularly the United States. This support was crucial point; the subcontinent never had this good fortune. The US Archives show how important the reconciliation between France and Germany was for Washington to avoid the recurrence of a conflict; US patronage certainly made the difference. In May 1950, in a cable to the Secretary of State, the US Ambassador in France wrote: “Now that French and five other continental nations have decided after fruitless negotiations with British to go ahead and implement the Schuman Plan I hope that our government will sympathetically and vigorously encourage this initiative.”

The uniqueness of the European experiment is due not only to the political will of its leaders to share their sovereign powers, but also their resolve to create an institutional structure where smaller member States have an equal place.

Monnet (and the US) had realised

Europe’s progress was built in

Voluntary union Another principle set by the European leaders is that the association was based on a voluntary union. Unless and until the nations of South Asia feel the strong necessity to unify their efforts in a concrete and institutionalised manner, no significant progress can be made towards erasing the consequences of the Partition.

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

small steps (it is a huge difference with Nehru’s instant plan for South Asia). The founders of Europe did not think of starting by a confederation straightaway. When Europe did take a step too far, too early, it failed, as for example, the European Defence Community in 1954. A further unique feature of the Europe Union was already engraved in the Schuman Plan prepared by Jean Monnet in 1950. Perhaps for the first time in history, independent States agreed to create a supranational authority to which part of their national sovereignty would be delegated to a supranational body. This was the European Coal and Steel Community. The Treaty of Rome in 1957 went a step further with the creation of supranational European institutions, namely a European Economic Community and a European Community for Atomic Energy (Euratom).

Small steps These institutions have contributed to inculcate a shared political culture and have also helped to deal with diversity among the member States. It seems obvious that the immediate creation of a larger unit such as a confederation is practically more difficult. An important factor welding the 27 European States together is the large number of ‘common’ laws. The time factor involved in creating common policies and establishing common institutions is essential, especially when bitterness due to historic or other reasons, remains present. It was Monnet’s genius to have found yet another crucial factor and imposed it: “What can be done to link France and Germany and implant a common interest between them?” Both Germany and France had to rebuild their industries; his proposal was therefore to create a High Authority which could manage the resources in coal and steel for both nations.

A close partnership between the bitter enemies of yesterday was set in motion, though (or because) ‘ideology’ was not involved. Monnet and his colleagues always remained practical and down-to-earth.

Material basis Probably due to the fact that the basis of the Union was material (even if de Gaulle made fun of the ‘mish-mash of steel and coal’), Germany and France were able to collaborate and work together for the success of the European experiment. Because, it was not based on an ideological concept, the famous 'Franco-German axis' continued to survive no matter who was in power in Paris or in Bonn / Berlin. The following decades saw the signing of the Treaties of Rome (1957), the Treaties of Maastricht (1992), Amsterdam (1997) and Nice (2000) and then the Treaty of Lisbon (2009), the last step towards integration. Today, 27 nations share a Constitution. The abolition of borders between most of the European member-States (as well as today a common currency for 17 States) has been one of the most resounding successes of the European Union.

South Asian experiment In South Asia though some progress has been realised after the timid opening of the Line of Control in Kashmir, a very limited section of the population is involved. There is still a long and arduous way to go. One of the main difficulties is undoubtedly the free circulation of people and ideas between South Asian nations; even at the end of World War II in Europe, it was much easier to travel from one European country to another than it is today in the sub-continent. One of the main reasons is certainly the trans-border terrorism which forces Indian security agencies to keep a strict vigil on the borders. In Europe, Monnet had prophesied that the Community ‘‘will be built through concrete realisations, creating at first a de facto solidarity.’’ He also spoke of the importance to ‘‘develop habits of cooperation among nations which had so far only known relationships based

on power.’’ Unfortunately these habits do not exist in South Asia. The main issue remains that the sub-continent has been partitioned on a divisive ideology, making the original partition more difficult to overcome. In the European case, ‘united in diversity’ is a stated principle in all the treaties. But today are all the South Asian nations ready to accept the very concept of ‘unity’ behind apparent ‘diversity’? This is a difficult question to answer. If one looks at the situation beyond

the borders of India, something that Europe could offer to the sub-continent is a model of integration and cooperation which has been tested for the past 50 years. But it is only when the principles enunciated by Monnet are accepted by all that a closer integration will be possible. Only then it could it spread to other parts of Asia and other tentative ‘unions’ such as the ASEAN. The writer is a senior journalist and author of repute. He specialises in geopolitics and Indo-EU (Indo-French) relations.

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

citadel Europe?

IBERIAN BLOODLINES

It was to be expected that creating linkages between the European Union and the faraway transatlantic landmass that Amerigo Vespucci explored for the Iberian monarchy ensconced on their thrones on the continent of Europe would be an exercise in resolving disparities beyond anything that intra-continental efforts confronted. It was also to be expected that the Iberian States – Spain and Portugal – would find it easier to commingle with their respective diasporas in Latin America than would the Nordic nations all of whom were also seafarers of great repute. But bridges are being built and they appear sustainable in an area where the US Monroe Doctrine had carved out an exclusivist sphere of influence across the whole landmass from the Arctic to the Antarctic.

t’s a staple to allude to ‘strategic relations’ between nations; a rarefied transpiring, to aver of a ‘strategic partnership’ between regions, that too, between geographical spheres, that are far from homogenous and embody, as much in variation, as there is in common, within them. That’s the oddity of quality, which underpins the inter-regional historical and evolving equation, between Europe and Latin America. Notwithstanding the odyssey of a shared civilisation, brought on by the Iberian (Spanish and Portuguese) colonisation of Central and South America, together with its devolving connections vide ‘migrationary’ trends and ensuing ‘demographic’ patterns, there isn’t a dearth of those, who point to the European Community’s abiding tepid interest in Latin America, ostensibly, on account of the former’s aggressive ‘Eastward Expansion’. Other pegs to substantiate this point of view are the conceptualisation of its ‘New Neighbourhood’ Policy, which perceives greater stakes in geographical and geopolitical areas, coterminous to it, as opposed to those, detached from it; the specific strategic calculus, post 9/11, which has allowed ‘security’ driven considerations to predominate the ‘agenda’; the redefining contours of its ‘development-prism’, that perceives pressing developmental concerns in Africa and Asia as more existential than those in the Americas; a sense of belied expectations, relating to the trajectory of ‘political’ and ‘governance’ reforms; and an un-sufficing deepening of the ‘regional integration’ processes, in the transcontinental region.

Post-war shift Before the First World War, Europe as a whole was Latin America’s main trading partner and principal provider of capital, investment, technology and immigrants. As a consequence of the war, European economic relations with the rest of the world declined and were supplanted by the United States, in Latin America, as in most other regions. During the ensuing Cold War, the Member States of the European Community (EC) did not accord a high priority to Latin America in their External Policies. Western Europe, being a firm ally of the United States in the NATO alliance against Communism, did not endeavour to extend its strategic reach to Latin America, recognising preponderant US military and economic influence in the region. The initial vestiges at engendering an ‘inter-regional’ engagement, commenced during the 1970’s, with the initiation of the ‘Brussels Dialogue,’ which convened interfacing initiatives such as Annual Meetings of the Group of Latin American Ambassadors (GRULA) with European National Representatives and regular contacts between lawmakers from the European Parliament and their counterparts from the Latin American Parliament (PARLATINO), not to mention, the Trade Agreements signed by Europe with individual Latin American countries, such as Brazil, Argentina, Mexico and Uruguay, under the ‘Generalised System of Preferences’ Regime. Yet, it wasn’t until the Third Wave of European

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

Community’s own ‘Enlargement’ Process, one which witnessed the incorporation of Spain and Portugal, into the fold, in 1986, as also the prominent European role in ‘ConflictResolution’ and ‘Peace-Building’ endeavours in Central America (San Jose Process), during the 1980’s, that established the drive to foster ‘special relations’, between the two regions, hitherto veritably ‘glacial’ in accent and nature.

Renewed interest Developments in both regions, concomitant with the demise of the Cold War, triggered a ‘deliberative’ interest in each other. Latin American countries, with pervasive military regimes and their decades-conditioned ‘insular’ and consequently ‘uncompetitive’ economies, blighted by the scourge of crippling and mounting ‘external debt’, finally washed their hands-off such authoritarian dispensations in favour of ‘democracy’ and ‘constitutionalism’ in their political systems, even as they pursued tectonic economic reforms and adopted neo-liberal policies, aimed at opening-up and diversifying their economic spaces, vis-à-vis the extant world. Europe too, embarked on a path of ‘churning’. The period of the 1990’s, book-ended, by the ‘Maastricht’ Process on the earlier end and the adoption of the European Single Currency, the ‘euro’, at the turn of the century, which made ‘regional economic integration,’ it’s centripetal plank. The sweeping political and economic changes across Latin America also rekindled the sense

Dattesh D. Prabhu Parulekar

European Union and

Latin America

of ‘regional identity’ within the fold and fostered and spurred the re-launching of ‘Regional Integration’ mechanisms, through the MERCOSUR (1991), Central American Integration System (1993) and the Andean Community (1997), prominent amongst them. It was a catalyst to Europe’s renewed interest in the region and perception of the latter as a partner, committed to the aligned principles of ‘multilateralism’ and the ideational concepts of ‘Free Trade’ and ‘Open Regionalism’, as a response to regional and global policy challenges.

Strategic convergence As mutual rapprochement, morphed into systematic interest, evinced from across the Atlantic, the “New Partnership” with Latin America, approved by the European Council in October 1994 and embodied in the December 1995

‘EU-MERCOSUR’ Framework Cooperation Agreement, “paved the way for an Inter-Regional Association in the medium term,” a process that apparently culminated in the unveiling of the Bi-Regional ‘Strategic Partnership,’ at the landmark, maiden EU-LAC (ALCUE) Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in June 1999. Establishing the basis for a strategic convergence, premised not just on normative parameters of an inveterate shared civilisation (Latin America may be the ‘Far West’, but is yet the ‘West’) and a contemporaneous partaking commitment to democracy, the Summit Declaration, most notably, anchored the prospective ‘engagement,’ in pioneering arch-pillar elements of ‘Sustained Political Dialogue’, ‘Durable Economic Cooperation & Development of Trade,’ ‘Public Aid in pursuance of Development’, ‘Enduring Support for Regional Integration Processes’ and a

‘Defining Compact with Promotion of Human Rights and Democratisation’, in the Americas. Following on, the two sides have over the course of a decade and more been indulgent in fashioning a cooperative and mutually beneficent ‘Agenda-in-Concert,’ at the bi-regional, bilateral, multilateral and sector-specific fora, on a wide range of issues. The legacy of ‘EU-Latin American’ Political Dialogue is longstanding, dating back to the fostering of the ‘EU-Rio Group’ Dialogue mechanism of 1986 and the ensuing Rome Summit Declaration of 1990. However, it was broadly envisaged, that the Dialogue Process, in the wake of the unveiling of the Strategic Partnership, would be more purposeful and tangible. Tested on the altar of outcomes, one can realistically characterise the track-record of an albeit ‘institutionalised and dual-form’

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

citadel Europe?

dialogue, as chequered. The forum of the EU-LAC Summits at the echelon level (Heads of State / Government), has been perceived as a critical underpinning to the implementation of the Strategic Partnership, so much so, that the format has been exemplified in the regular convening of such marquee events. However, with no fewer than 60 nations represented, at the most recent Summit in Madrid and the feckless outcomes therein, have been used to suggest that it is an unwieldy exercise and resembling more of a ‘talk-shop.’ Nevertheless, in recent years, High-Level Bi-Regional Sectoral-Policy dialogues have intensified, coalesced around topical issues of human rights, sustainable development, drugs and migration, education, science and technology, etc., although, the scope of such cooperation, has remained circumscribed.

Centrifugal forces Latin America, verdantly resourceendowed, is largely comprised of middle-income countries, with significant though varying levels of income inequality and incidence of poverty. Despite progress in certain ‘Millennium Development Goals’ parameters, profound issues, surrounding malnutrition, infant mortality and access to basic social services, remain urgent and relevant, as is the phenomenon of unemployment. These haven’t just cast a strain on the trajectory of ‘democratic consolidation’ across the region; they have propelled a slew of ‘populist’ dispensations to office, riding the crest of a ‘nationalist’ mandate, as a reactionary response to the perceived limitations of ‘neo-liberal economics.’ This has been the catalyst for either region to identify the other as a partner in pursuance of the causes of Socio-Economic Emancipation, Development and Inclusive Growth across Latin America. Hence, it comes as no surprise to witness the EU, being the largest donor of developmental assistance to the region, deploying financial assistance to the tune of € 500 million, annually, since 1996 and approx. € 3 billion under the Latin America Regional Strategy (2007-13), towards goals of poverty-alleviation, inequality-amelioration and exclusion; support for engendering physical connectivity and infrastructure; bolstering social capital through

citadel Europe?

IBERIAN BLOODLINES indigenous capacity-building and developing of the human resource potential; as also, promoting cultural understanding, between the EU and Latin America. Additional funding is channelled through the EU’s thematic programmes (Investing in People, Environment and Sustainable Management of Natural Resources, Non-State Actors, Food Security and Migration and Asylum) and the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR), respectively.

Three-tiered structure The EU (Latin America’s second largest trading partner, behind the traditional power in the region, the United States) has endeavoured to redoubtably endorse and support ‘Regional Integration’ in Latin America, sub-served by the logic, that such collaborative economic processes, have the intrinsic quality of creating pervasive economic and commercial dividends across geographical spreads. In actual terms, this has evidenced itself in a three-tiered structure of mutual Trading Arrangements (inter-regional, bi-regional and sub-regional agreements). Association Agreements with sub-regional organisations such as MERCOSUR (Mercado Comun del Sur), the Andean Community and across Central America have spawned, as the lynchpin to EU strategy in the region, juxtaposed against bilateral ‘national’ arrangements, with powerhouse entities in Brazil, Mexico and Chile, respectively. MERCOSUR, arguably the most promising and ambitious integration scheme in Latin America and characterised by a high degree of ‘institutionalisation,’ has evinced the EU’s robust interest, exemplified in sustained mutual negotiations towards concluding an Agreement, which of course, hasn’t been, without its stuttering experience.

Dissimilarities Foraging for factors to rationalise the moderate level of the latently asymmetric relationship, one can attribute it to a combination of objective and subjective impulses. Neither region is homogenous, in itself; but neither is completely sold-out and staked-out on the viability of the inter-regional relationship, either. The Nordic countries within the EU,

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

as also the swathe of new entrants from Central and Eastern Europe, have been much ‘indifferent’ to prospects of a relationship with Latin America, as compared to the ‘modulated-positivism’ of France and Germany, for instance, in stark comparison to the ‘verve-filled enthusiasm’ of the ‘Iberian’ block. For its part, Latin America too is a house divided; with the cynicism and confrontational disposition of the informal ‘ALBA’ clique of Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, etc., ranging itself in stark contrast to the ‘progressive’ and ‘globalist’ likes of Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Colombia, among others, hampering mutual negotiations and relations, that often get erroneously blamed on flawed respective positions and reciprocal intransigence.

COMPLEMENTARITIES

Dr. Pankaj Jha

Bridging asymmetries Despite the asymmetries inherent in the mutual relationship and which have characterised ties to date, if constructive attitudes are reposed by both sides, it is yet possible to move forward through a ‘Dialogue between Equals,’ that is conducive to re-establishing a frame of reference, sensitive to each party’s specific circumstances and expectations. It entails imbuing tangible bioregional content into the bioregional agenda, by possibly focusing on transcendental governance issues, such as concert-problems of the environment, water-harnessing and the advent and instrumentalisation of alternative energy sources; the war on drug trafficking and other forms of organised crime and urban violence (youth-gangs); the regulation of migration flows, etc. Nonetheless, on issues that invariably polarise and procreate angst, European ‘magnanimity’ and ‘liberalism,’ could help in furthering cooperation, in areas of social and developmental issues, as also, factors inhibiting greater integration and union across Latin American countries. This prescription, might just be the bridge to a robust, mutually beneficial ‘Strategic Partnership’, headlining North-South Cooperative Engagement, in a new prism of political economy, in the 21st century!

Europe and Southeast Asia

The writer is Assistant Professor (International Relations), at the UGC Centre for Latin American Studies, Goa University, Goa, India.

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

citadel Europe?

COMPLEMENTARITIES

Many of the former colonies in Southeast Asia prefer to retain and nurture linkages with their former masters - but on the basis of maturity and equality. Some, like Myanmar, prefer to plough a different furrow and no amount of coercion and suasion has had any effect on the dictatorship. The recent elections do not automatically translate into full-fledged democracy. As a cohesive whole the relationship has clearly been fruitful. The rising belligerence of China has tended to push ASEAN to resuming military relationships that had over time become dormant, giving way to the garnering of peacetime benefits of trade and investments.

uropean nations like Britain, France, Spain and Netherlands had been colonial powers in Southeast Asia. The objectives ranged from controlling spice trade, energy and maritime trade to that of promoting Christianity through missionaries. During the Second World War it was seen as the fault line between the allied and axis powers. This was the area which was seen as most vulnerable to the Japanese aggression due to geographical proximity. The apprehension was not unsubstantiated and was proved right when the Japanese reached the Malaya archipelago and were expected to reach the north-eastern parts of India, the largest British colony in Asia. The independence and decolonisation movement of the countries in Southeast Asia has been policy ordeal for the European nations with each trying to hold on to its colonial bastion even after the world war. The independence movement right from Myanmar (Burma) to Indonesia was as eventful as any other part of the world. In spite of the retreat of imperialist powers few countries have maintained ties with colonial masters for assistance in governance and nation building process. The three Indochina wars and the evolution of the anti-communist multilateral forum like ASEAN have changed the geostrategic landscape of the region. The strategic importance of Southeast Asia changed with changing balance of power equations. Its importance has been taking a roller coaster ride with phases of strategic and economic importance while at times facing relatively less attention. Balance of power compulsions and bases in the region have domestic repercussions but European nations have been acting as the second tier of engagement

with Southeast Asian nations. These include bilateral ties and multilateral engagement. Also European nations through EU and ASEM process have helped in developing an alternate thought in the region about issues like governance, decentralisation, democracy and equitable distribution of economic assistance. In the case of European nations, it has emerged as one of the important trading partners for the region (as shown in Table 1) and also source of Foreign Direct Investment (see Table 2). So the article addresses the question whether it is only trade and investment or is it an important player in the affairs of the region.

Institutional engagement With more than three decades of formalised talks between ASEAN and European Economic Commission (EEC) set up in 1977, institutionalised in 1980, the links have transcended areas of politics, security, economic, trade, development and social-cultural understanding. EU has also been involved in the ARF process with actively coordinating inter-sessional meetings on confidence building and preventive diplomacy. Post ministerial meetings and ministerial meetings between ASEAN and EU helped in building common consensus on a number of issues. These include concerns like terrorism, migration and border management. EU and ASEAN had signed in 2003 Joint Declaration on Cooperation to Combat Terrorism. The Nuremberg Declaration of 2007 lays out the outline for Enhanced Partnership. The two organisations have resolved to discuss issues like climate change, energy security, environmental and related issues. The mandate and the expansion of cooperation in myriad

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

fields have contributed to greater cooperation and increased importance of ASEAN. With the stationing of 21 accredited ambassadors by EU member nations and one adviser by EU outlines the future cooperation.

Table 1: ASEAN Top 10 Trading Partners in 2009 - Value in US$ million and share in per cent Partner country/ region

Value Imports Total trade

Exports

ASEAN

199,587.3

176,620.1

376,207.3

24.6

24.3

24.5

China

81,591.0

96,594.3

178,185.4

10.1

13.3

11.6

European Union-251

92,990.9

78,795.0

171,785.9

11.5

10.8

11.2

Japan

78,068.6

82,795.1

160,863.7

9.6

11.4

10.5

USA

82,201.8

67,370.3

149,572.1

10.1

9.3

9.7

Republic of Korea

34,292.9

40,447.4

74,740.3

4.2

5.6

4.9

Australia

29,039.3

14,810.8

43,850.1

3.6

2.0

2.9

India

26,520.3

12,595.5

39,115.8

3.3

1.7

2.5

Canada

5,500.4

3,539.2

9,039.6

0.7

0.5

0.6

Russia

1,660.6

5,104.9

6,765.5

0.2

0.7

0.4

Others

22.1

20.4

21.2

810,489.2

726,354.1

1,536,843.3

100.0

High trade and investment

Total ASEAN

The increased interactions in political sphere have also percolated down to trade and economic issues. EU share of ASEAN trade is about 11.2 per cent (see Table 1) making it the second largest external trading partner. In terms of exports it is the largest destination for ASEAN while in terms of imports from ASEAN it is third largest source. In terms of FDI, EU is the largest source of FDI to the region. The annual average of 2007-2009 has been 21.1 per cent (see Table 2) which is much higher than that of US, Japan and even intra-ASEAN investments. In 2009, EU investments to ASEAN comprised 18.4 per cent of total FDI in ASEAN. EU is not only important for the region but is indispensable. The tourist arrivals from EU member nations have been close to 7 million in 2009. In terms of trade and investment, EU has instituted supporting structures like Trans Regional ASEAN-EU Trade Initiatives (TREATI) which includes technical assistance. Inter-regional dialogue on issues like trade facilitation, food security, sanitary and phytosanitary support through expert group meetings have created a positive constituency about EU.

Source: ASEAN Merchandise Trade Statistics Database

The other issues which have been highlighted between the two organisations have been migration, human trafficking, labour, employment, aviation and science and technology. These myriad areas of discussions have raised the awareness within ASEAN and have

Share to total ASEAN trade Exports Imports Total trade

ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) units, national statistics offices, customs departments / agencies, or central banks) Includes Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and United Kingdom.

Table 2: Top 5 Sources of FDI in ASEAN Region - Value in US$ million and share in per cent Partner country/region

Value 2007

2008

Share to total net inflow

2009 2007- 2009

2007

2008

2009 2007-2009

ASEAN

9,682.0 10,461.5

4,428.9

24,572.4

13.0

21.1

11.2

15.0

USA

8,067.6

5,132.6

3,357.7

16,557.9

10.8

10.4

8.5

10.1

8,828.7

4,657.8

5,308.4

18,794.9

11.9

9.4

13.4

11.5

17,765.5

9,520.1

7,297.2

34,582.8

23.9

19.2

18.4

21.1

1,684.3

2,109.5

1,509.5

5,303.3

2.3

4.3

3.8

3.2

38.1

35.6

44.7

39.1

100.0

Japan European Union-25

China Others

Total FDI inflow to ASEAN 74,395.3 49,499.8 39,623.0

163,518.1

Source: www.aseansec.org helped in developing thinking about socio-economic issues which have been relegated to the secondary status under the authoritarian regimes in ASEAN. This has created awareness and support about EU indicated programmes in not only in civil society but also among the governing elite. In terms of community building, EU efforts have been laudable with regard to quality, standards, IPR, capacity building, training and higher education. But there have been concerns which have created rift between these two organisations.

Since the end of the Cold War, the issue of human rights and religious freedom has mired the relations between ASEAN and EU and thereby affecting the resolution in the ASEM meetings. Though, the two regions have long-standing political, diplomatic and economic relations but the perception about governance structures, human rights and the religious freedom have been different. In Southeast Asia, according to the Freedom House projection, only few countries fit into the paradigm of truly democratic while

majority of the Southeast Asian nations oscillate between semi-democracies to that of complete authoritarianism. But, it has helped these nations in nation-building through authoritarian rule or military dictatorships. Post independence these nations have inherited intrinsic fault lines in terms of ethnic cleavages and religious divide but it has helped in promoting the export led industrialisation and the following prosperity. After the SEATO, there are still defence agreements like Five Power Defence Agreement between Britain,

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

citadel Europe?

COMPLEMENTARITIES

The interactions with Europe have not only worked in the regional security domain but also provided an example of building community and capability building through cooperation. Some enthusiastic commentators have even stated that ASEAN can emulate the EU example and this has been mirrored in ASEAN initiative through political-security, socio-cultural and ASEAN economic community conceptualisations Malaysia, Singapore and Australia. In the case of Southeast Asia, the non-interference in internal matters of State and the cohesiveness among the nations have assisted in the community formation in the regional context. These nations have inherited the governance and institutional set up from their colonial masters and in fact few of

them are still nurturing the relations so as to have security and also economic benefits. Countries like Malaysia and Philippines have nurtured relations with Britain and US. While Malaysia is part of FPDA, Philippines has visiting forces agreement with US.

Asia-Europe meeting The Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM), initiated in 1996, instrumentalised and promoted the ‘East Asia’ regionalism. The initial meeting included ASEAN-7, as they were in 1996 (i.e., including Vietnam) along with extra regional powers like China, Japan and South Korea and the European Union. It became a forum to discuss not only political issues but also security issues. Though it mirrored APEC sans the US, but included Australia, Canada and New Zealand. The ASEM opening meeting was held in Bangkok in April 1996 which witnessed

participation from ten ASEAN nations and fifteen European nations. The first meeting was pleasant and nondivisive. At the initial level of its launch ASEM was questioned for its subsidiarity question and it was seen as an irrelevant multilateral institution meant for raising less ambitious and sometimes contrived questions. But

since the early 1990s, human rights debate has constantly been an area of departure between ASEAN and the European Union in the ASEM. But the ASEAN’s confrontational stance and interaction with EU about the human rights policy have in a way coaxed ASEAN to include the human rights issue in ASEAN charter. This changed dynamic has led to the evolution of negotiations and communicative structures at the regional level. This in a way assisted in the formation of the ASEAN community order and also where collective identity and areas of departure can be addressed amicably. Since the end of Cold War, the ASEAN-EU ministerial meetings (AEMM) in 1990, 1991 and in 1992 provided the stage for EU, to adopt persuasive stance for induction of the concept of human rights in the region. There were serious concerns raised by EU about human rights violations

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

in Myanmar and East Timor. The accommodative stance of ASEAN was projected through ASEAN willingness to raise and discuss the issue of human rights provided it was clubbed with underlying concerns about economic, cultural and social rights and the issue would not only veer around the civil, political and religious freedom

rights. There were objections raised from ASEAN side for interlinking the trade cooperation with human rights redressal. These political interactions and thought induction have resulted in the strengthening of community formation and inclusion of human rights and related issues in ASEAN charter.

Contentious issues One of the issues which European nations as part of EU have been raising has been the violations of human rights and the promotion of democracy in this region. This includes serious friction on the issue of Myanmar, Vietnam and the dilution of democracy in countries like Philippines and Malaysia. More often, the priority areas for the two sides have been quite contrary and that has led to the usual noises about the ‘ASEAN way’ and the consensus mode in negotiations in this region. The

important point of departure was East Timor crisis. It was the deteriorating situation in East Timor in September 1999, where Australia urged for international intervention. Multinational intervention having approval of Indonesia and authorisation of the United Nations Security Council was mooted. A ‘coalition of the willing’ approved intervention under Resolution 1264 of 15 September 1999. US pressurised Indonesia to give its consent for proposal. About 9,900 personnel took part in INTERFET (International Force East Timor), with maximum from Australia and the remaining from New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Canada. The US assistance was in logistics and communication support. Asian countries like Thailand, the Philippines, South Korea and European nations like France and Italy also contributed in monitoring. Thereafter, with the independence of Timor, the European nations have been engaged in education, training and community development programmes. There is diplomatic pressure by EU for governance reforms in Myanmar and the step down of military regime. The elections in November 2010 have not raised any hopes about democracy in Myanmar in immediate future but unrelenting pressure from groups in Europe and the possible transition to guided democracy example of Indonesia is expected in future. But there are still number of areas of possible cooperation between the two regions.

Areas of cooperation Among the areas where there have been possibilities of cooperation between European nations and the Southeast Asia could be in the development of governance institutions, empowerment of the poor and the use of e-commerce and e-governance to reduce the levels of corruption. This should be noted that within the region while Singapore is listed very low on corruption index, Indonesia comes at the top level. US involvement in European security owing to the compulsions of NATO has created insecurity among the Southeast Asian nations and in case European nations commit more to their security then US would be more disposed towards coordinating its efforts in this region which as of late became

a strategic conundrum with China asserting its clout in the areas like East China Sea and South China Sea. This has created a sense of insecurity for the Southeast Asian nations and therefore, these nations are seeking US security assistance in the form of military aid and weapons assistance. This should be noted that a number of countries in the region including Myanmar, Vietnam and Indonesia have been facing or have faced European Union sanctions owing to the military atrocities and the violation of human rights. In terms of nuclear energy and the requirements for the setting up of the nuclear power plants there is increasing understanding evolving about the safety and security of these ventures especially when a number of nations including Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand and Indonesia are seeking technical assistance in setting up the nuclear power plants in their respective countries. Countries like Philippines and Indonesia fall in the seismically active zones. Southeast Asian nations had been uncomfortable with debate on issues like human rights, democracy and governance issues as a ploy by the west (particularly European nations) to stymie the development and prosperity of the region. But within ASEAN the continuous discourse on the issue of good governance, religious freedom and human rights have created a positive constituency and also it provided a vent to regulate popular unrest on the cronyism and the nepotism prevalent in few countries. This was seen as an instrument to curb corruption and also address the grievances of the people. The interactions with Europe have not

only worked in the regional security domain but also provided an example of building community and capability building through cooperation. Some enthusiastic commentators have even stated that ASEAN can emulate the EU example and this has been mirrored in ASEAN initiative through political-security, socio-cultural and ASEAN economic community conceptualisations. This vision and the urgency for building confidence among nations and catering to the varying requirements from dialogue partners have made this organisation as one example of inter-regional and intra-regional cooperation. The assistance and the expert guidance provided by EU have created a second tier of development and human resource management which has been helpful in the benefits of economic development trickling down to the lower strata of the society. So, the cooperation between the two regions of Southeast Asia and Europe not only through bilateral institutions but also multi-agency engagement have helped in building of ASEAN community and the resolution of a number of issues. It might be possible that in due course of time, Myanmar governance reforms and even democracy in future might be accredited to the unrelenting pressure from European nations and EU. The writer is Associate Fellow at Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), New Delhi. He has done his PhD from the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University. His areas of interest include Southeast Asia, terrorism, defence industry and related economic issues. He has written extensively on the issue of terrorism in Southeast Asia, including issues pertaining to radical Islam and counter terrorism policies.

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

citadel Europe?

BUILDING-BLOCKS

There is no gainsaying the fact that but for Indian massive orders for military hardware, Russia’s resurgence from the ashes of the Soviet empire would have taken more time and heartache. India needs to build similar bridges with NATO and the nations of Southeast Asia to ensure that the world does not lapse into a bipolar stasis that would leave India out in the cold.

n a perceptive article in the Indian Express (06 December 2010 issue), C. Rajamohan highlighted the geo-strategic dynamic that is shaping the emerging global order. This is characterised by the relative decline of the USA and the unexpectedly rapid rise of China. The acceleration in the rate of China’s rise is directly linked to the global financial crisis and China’s perceived rate of military build up. China finds the US bogged down militarily in Afghanistan and in steep economic decline. This has brought about a paradigm shift in the Chinese strategic stance of hiding its capabilities and biding its time. In 2009, China began to showcase its military capabilities and in 2010, it began asserting itself aggressively in its geopolitical backyard in East Asia, South China Sea and along its land borders with India.

Bipolarity again? The essence of any Indian Grand Strategy must be centred on preventing the emergence of a new bipolar order focused on the USA and China. Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former US National Security Advisor, was a strong proponent of such a new bipolar order that would have completely sidelined India and in fact, given China the mandate to oversee Indo-Pak relations in South-Asia. Fortunately for India, President Obama’s initial overtures towards China to actualise such a bipolar world order were rudely rebuffed by an ascendant China which saw it as a sign of American weakness. China thereafter turned very assertive and fairly hostile in its geo-political backyard. This led to serious re-think in the US and the Obama visit was a direct spin-off of China’s rising truculence. President Hu-jintao has since visited the US to mend the bridges.

Promote multipolarity India must therefore consciously exert itself to ensure that there is no regression to a new bipolar world order. To that extent, it would be in its interest to facilitate the rise of alternative centres of power like Russia, Europe and Japan. India had provided this crucial assistance to Russia by heavy purchases of Russian arms that helped the Russian arms industry to survive the Soviet collapse. India has now taken this partnership to the next logical level by partnering with Russia in the joint development of futuristic military technologies like the Fifth Generation Stealth fighter and advanced cruise missiles. Europe has traditionally been an advanced centre for military technology. Europe is now facing economic turbulence. It would be in India’s own interest therefore to shore up the European military industrial complex by purchase of technology and even more, seek European partnership for building an Indian indigenous military industrial complex in the private sector. We must graduate from a pure buyer-seller relationship to one of joint development and partnership in research and development. All this will help us to gain autarky in critical weapon systems - especially in combat aviation.

Frail foundation An Indo-US partnership against a rising and aggressive China sounds very attractive in theory. In practice there are too many strings attached to US supplied weaponry. To that extent the European and Russian alternatives seem more reliable and hassle free. Shoring up these two power centres will directly facilitate any India Grand Strategy of ensuring a multi-polar world order. In a situation of economic down-turn we must put our money preferentially

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

towards ensuring that alternative power centres like Europe, Russia and Japan are strengthened in preference to the two emerging and established super-powers. In the Indo-China-USA triad, India is the weakest link. Any sudden deterioration of the Sino-American relations or any future collusion between them could severely impact on India. To that extent, it is essential for India to ensure that a new bipolar order based on China and USA does not emerge. It would be in our geo-strategic interest to promote multi-polarity.

Maj. Gen. (Retd.) G. D. Bakshi

India and Europe: dynamics of a multipolar world

French lynchpin Deeper relations with likeminded nations like France would help to usher in precisely such multi-polarity. Towards that end, President Nicholas Sarkozy’s visit last year was a welcome initiative. France has always been supportive of India and has been a valued source of military technology and now nuclear reactors. The British Prime Minister’s earlier visit was also a welcome development that heralded India’s importance as an emerging power centre and key swing State of the 21st century. The new development is that at the Lisbon Conference in November 2010, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) countries as a collectivity have come to the clear conclusion, that a rising India can play a very useful and constructive role at the global level in managing the threat from non-State actors; and in helping stabilise Afghanistan; as also help in the free and unfettered access to the global commons. NATO has significantly diluted its adversarial stand against Russia. A realisation of its weakened

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

citadel Europe?

BUILDING-BLOCKS

ALLEGORY

Kalyani Unkule

economic position underlines the wisdom of not adding to its security concerns by provoking the Russians. It equally provides the rationale for a much closer and functional strategic partnership with Russia.

Helpful ambiance The economic downturn in Europe gives India unprecedented opportunities to seek French and European assistance in getting its military industries going in the private sector. We must urgently move beyond the buyer-seller relationship and seek joint development of weapon systems on the BrahMos and fifth generation fighters model. We could share the costs of research in futuristic weapon systems and technologies and help the NATO countries reduce costs by off-shoring production to India because of tie-ups with our private sector at 49 per cent (or if needed greater) equity participation. Selecting European contenders, say for the MRCA competition, could be a step in this direction This is a golden opportunity to get the Indian military industrial

complex going in our private sector. India must coordinate with Europe in other fields also. The most important is Afghanistan. India could encourage the European / NATO countries to develop Iranian access routes to Afghanistan as an alternative to Pakistan and Central Asian routes. This would ease Pakistan’s stranglehold on the US-ISAF supply lines. The Pakistani Army Inter-Services Intelligence misjudged American and European stamina to stay the course itself in Afghanistan. There is a clear realisation in Washington and European capitals about Pakistan’s very self-serving agenda and irrational delusions of grandeur that ill suits a near defunct and failing economy. There is a realistic limit beyond which this sinking State cannot be kept afloat. Hence the need to remove fragile eggs from the Pakistani basket and lean more on a far more viable option of a democratic and economically rising India. To maximise opportunity costs, India must seek French, British and European (NATO) collaborations to build its own military industrial complex in the private sector. This will lead to a truly multi-polar global environment

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

and avoid a US-Saudi Arabia type relationship of pathetic surrogacy and technological dependence that could make India highly vulnerable to the vagaries of the US-China relationship. There is a clear and pressing need to define our desired end-states at the Grand Strategic level and then harmonise our initiatives in diverse fields to actualise this broader vision. India’s interests demand the emergence of a multipolar world order and this translates into an increasing partnership with Russia and Europe even as we deepen ties with America. This will maximise our autarky and keep us safe from the vagaries of the US-China relationship. The writer is a combat veteran of many skirmishes on the Line of Control and counter-terrorist operations in J&K and Punjab. He subsequently commanded the reputed Romeo Force during intensive counter-terrorist operations in the RajouriPoonch districts. He has served two tenures at the highly prestigious Directorate General of Military Operations. He is a prolific writer on matters military and non-military and has published 17 books and over 70 papers in many prestigious research journals.

EU: looking east, staying west? The US is not the only one to feel that the European Union is riven with schisms that are of modern origin like on issues of economic crises, unregulated migration and climate change. Nonetheless there is a general unanimity in the perception among European nations that the US is in decline. Conversely and unfortunately for the US, China is being seen as the rising power and that there is a great deal of realism in the conception that the euro or the Chinese yuan should replace the American dollar as the global currency.

orging of a common position vis-à-vis the United States and China remains an elusive goal within the EU. Although the jury is still out on the extent of relative American decline and projection of this trend into the future, there is an unmistakable sense that Europe has fallen in the ranking of American priorities. This shift has not been lost on the Europeans

and is ripe with potential for infusing a Common European Defence project with renewed purpose and vigour. Elsewhere I have argued that directing intra-European efforts in the security domain in perpetuation of transatlantic dependency would be ill-advised. Meanwhile China’s massive dollar denominated holdings of US public debt, coupled with the comprehensive

investment and credit-extension it has recently engaged in, have led some commentators to posit the Sinicisation of the global economy. Estimation of future trends in EU Common Foreign and Security Policy assumes importance considering any future independence from the American position on vital issues will significantly structure possibilities for cooperation with China.

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

citadel Europe?

ALLEGORY

This article evaluates key current aspects of the EU-China relationship and draws out their implications for interaction between either side of the Atlantic.

EU-China relations Lacking a history of contention over territorial or geo-political interests, Europe has been able to maintain a favourable public perception in China. Yet, this positive image has fallen short of translating into adequate leverage for establishing the terms of the relationship. The Chinese for their part have done well to engage with member-States at the EU rather than bilateral level where possible. The country now finds itself the top recipient of European financial and technical assistance on clean energy and mechanisms are in place for sharing Europe’s experience in the domain of social welfare. Notwithstanding such evolution in ties, they demonstrate a marked preference for sovereignty and national defence – both matters of depreciating concern in a unifying post-Cold War Europe. Add to this the fact that such predominant European concerns as economic crises, unregulated migration and climate change remain relatively low on the Chinese agenda and the realisation of a meaningful partnership appears not a foregone conclusion but more a prospect for the future.

Macro-economic benefits Growth and expansion in the Chinese economy has been considered an opportunity in Europe and its inclusion in a rule-based international trading system a priority. The European Commission’s External Trade office takes the view that “macro-economic benefits of China’s export strength for European competitiveness and growth outweigh the losses suffered in particular areas”. At the official level at least, the expectation is that growth in China promises positive gains to Europe’s external sector and the emphasis is on exploring complementarities (e.g.: EU = High Tech while China = Low-Medium Tech) rather than playing up competition from Chinese manufacturers. There is widespread recognition however, that barriers to access to the Chinese market and less than reciprocal meeting of WTO commitments by the Chinese

government hinder realisation of a balanced quid pro quo. In his address at Tsinghua University, Beijing in April 2010 President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, suggested that “aside from mutual understanding and respect (time and again emphasised by the Chinese), another key principle of our relationship should be complementarity”.

Intellectual property rights Its external economy is not however the only source of worry where this rapidly emerging economy is concerned. Chinese adherence to intellectual property rights protection regimes is also a vital concern for an EU seeking to preserve its comparative advantage in high technology and high value added products through innovation. The Chinese economy’s high internal savings rate portends a steadily declining reliance on Foreign Direct Investment as a source of capital. Coupled with the fact that this rate is sustained through consumption squeeze, western capitalist economies are faced with simultaneous loss of market share and investment opportunity – to say nothing of accompanying political leverage.

High-tech Other commentary emerging from Europe is insistent on closer compatibility of the Chinese monetary system with the free float model and in some cases considers it fait accompli – if only over a period of time – despite acknowledgement to clear indicators to the contrary. Europeans also realise that China’s interest in investing in Europe stems from a quest for high technology and distribution network acquisition, in addition to bond purchase. Apart from serving as an alternative to the US dollar in terms of asset diversification, the Euro also matters to the Chinese as the currency of their largest trading partner. There are fears however that the kind of short-sighted bargain hunting that permits China’s banks to secure European debt will over the longer run weaken Europe’s leverage vis-à-vis attainment of more fundamental priorities. The case of Chinese companies bidding for and winning infrastructure development contracts from European governments explains why figuring out a China

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

policy is a tough ask for the latter. Where on the one hand, in an age of fiscal austerity, competitive pricing by Chinese players yields tax-savings, on the other, it imposes social costs by way of immigration of cheap labour and resultant pressure on wages and local employment. The EU’s Trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht has called for currency revaluation couched in a transition towards a more consumption-driven economic model for China, deeming it as being in the latter’s own long-term interests and not simply those of the world economy. However trade and economy are not the only sectors where US-China relations matter to the EU. Non-proliferation and disarmament, energy security and climate change constitute other key realms where this three-way dynamic is in play. It has been argued by some that the EU is better placed to collaborate with China to ensure a multipolar world order, in light of the US’ less than credible recent record on that front.

Political ambiance In a recent opinion survey by the European Council on Foreign Relations, 25 of 27 EU member States rated economic crisis as a current security threat while just 2 – Belgium and Spain – identified China as threatening. This result stands in contradiction to the mood pervading Li Kequiang’s recent visit to Europe wherein China’s special friendship with Spain was spoken of. It could well be the case therefore that a clear distinction needs to be drawn between trends in inter-governmental interaction and the more misty tenor of public opinion. Amid a fundamental redefinition of European security and its divergence from a corresponding Chinese orientation however, the two cross paths on such contested terrain as energy security, resource depletion and climate change.

Arms embargo Insistent upon the one-China policy as the cornerstone of relations, the PRC’s other key demands of the EU include lifting of the arms embargo levied in the wake of Tiananmen and recognition as a market economy. The EU’s embargo on selling arms to China places it in dubious company with similarly sanctioned North Korea,

Myanmar, Iran, Congo, Zimbabwe, Somalia and Sudan, prompting the Chinese to attach a symbolic significance to its lifting. The US’ sale of weaponry to Taiwan valued in excess of US$ 6 billion does little to contain China’s aggressive posture towards the latter, undermining any immediate prospect of such an eventuality. Moreover, in the wake of a difficult year for the US-China relationship, it is hard to envisage a situation where possible lifting of the EU’s arms embargo on China will be devoid of any backlash for the transatlantic partnership. The widely suspected possibility of reverse engineering of strategic technologies by China has equally inspired a cautious approach on this count. Talk of a strict code of conduct in the event of resumption of arms sales fails to impress detractors who, ironically like the Chinese, find the associated symbolism of greater relevance.

Symbolisms Since the introduction of liberal economic reforms in the 1980s, China has aspired to recognition as a market economy above all from its largest trade partner, the EU. Such recognition has been argued by the Chinese as potentially deepening their integration with the global economy and facilitating further reforms. For the EU – which continues to direct antidumping disputes against China at the

WTO – this would be tantamount to putting the cart before the horse. Having joined the WTO in 2001, China is set to achieve full recognition as a Market Economy by default in 2016. Voices in China however still emphasise “prompt” recognition as again, more symbolically significant and therefore warranted in advance.

Might is right? At the normative level, Europeans are concerned that as a global player China’s actions may be guided by the dictum that economic and military might is right, in contravention of their own bid to secure a rule-based international order. Accusation levelled against China to exploit divisions within EU member States must be viewed in the sobering light of those member States’ inability to forge common positions and undertake concerted action. On the subject of the arms-embargo the ill-coordinated stance amongst EU actors and institutions has most strikingly been on display. In the face of a 2008 European Parliamentary Resolution upholding continuance of the embargo, there have been recent noises about its possible lifting considered favourably by key decision-makers at the level of the European Commission. Similarly, individual member States have sometimes used the occasion of their rotating presidency to resurrect the

debate in the knowledge that there exists nowhere near a consensual pan-European position thereon. Framing China not as an intransient monolith but a dynamic actor will be key to future analysis. Much recent scholarship on the internal dynamics of leadership and decision-making in China has hinted at a pattern of devolution of political power and decentralisation of economic initiative which may herald previously unanticipated avenues for engagement. Active courting of the EU and its member States by China should provide yet another spur for reassessment of the former’s relationship with the US. Resolution of vital global concerns hinges to a great degree on agreement between the US and China. Many experts however still portray their respective values and interests as divergent. Between the US and China the EU will, in the medium term, see its newly acquired (post Lisbon treaty) foreign policy competencies and its credentials as a veritable normative power put to test. The writer is Research Assistant at Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), New Delhi, India. She is an alumni of London School of Economics and has interned with the House of Lords, UK, South Centre, Geneva and several other national and international NGOs.

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

citadel Europe?

VICINAGE

“Our Neighbourhood Policy provides us with a coherent approach that ensures that the whole of the EU is committed to deeper relations with all our neighbours. At the same time, it allows us to develop tailor-made relations with each country.” - Stefan Fule, Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy

he policies of European Communities towards their neighbourhood have been a crucial supplement to the integration process, especially since the end of bipolarity in Europe and with the rising political ambitions of the European project. It was only with the end of the Cold War that with the creation of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) the EU started to forge a security approach to its neighbourhood, mainly to the east. The integration of the European Union has brought a historical shift for the Union in political, economic and geostrategic terms. It is important to answer certain questions while mentioning the relationship between European Union and its neighbours. Why did the European Union consider it necessary to develop a policy for its neighbours? What were the other factors responsible to make such a policy? The answer to these questions can be explained in two ways, one in strategic and other in terms of practical and at political levels.

Benign periphery To begin with a series of policies and strategies that were implemented which significantly brought a change in the European Union was its enlargement to ten member States on 1 May 2004. Secondly, against the background of a new security environment which emerged after 9/11, in making of the European Security Strategy (ESS) in December 2003. The ESS further acknowledges the importance of “Security in our neighbourhood” and envisions the creation of a “ring of responsibly governed States” around the European Union. The challenges facing Europe and its neighbours in today’s world come from poverty, insecurity, violent or frozen conflicts, population explosion, resources shortage and failure of governance. The above situation creates conditions where illegal migration rises, organised crime flourishes and

interstate conflicts increase the risk of terrorism and extremism. These threats require enhanced cooperation and engagement by the European Union towards its neighbourhood to promote policies and reforms for the neighbouring States to secure their citizens from such non-traditional threats to security.

Ever-widening ambiance In addressing these issues Commission Communication on ‘Wider Europe’ in March 2003, came up with the so called “European Neighbourhood Policy” (ENP) that was devised in order to avoid new dividing lines in Europe and promote stability, security and development in the new neighbourhood, followed by a more developed Strategy Paper published in May 2004. The ESS which has overlapped in implementation in the same year does not explicitly refer to the ENP as a means to build security in the EU’s neighbourhood. However, it remains clear that the ENP is the main instrument through which to pursue the objective of achieving security in the areas surrounding the EU. But looking from the geostrategic point of view and to be more practical EU’s role as a security provider in the western Balkans, eastern Balkans and Turkey has been successful. However, the policies were ineffective towards the east European and the Mediterranean countries for exporting security for which EU initiated the ENP project. In practical terms, a new policy framework and new instruments, were considered necessary partly in order to address weaknesses in the existing frameworks and instruments and also to address the new challenges now faced by the EU and its partners. The Association Agreements, although in some cases were more recent, but did not adequately cover those issues on which the EU needed to work with its partners in a post-9/11 world, most notably fighting terrorism and the proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).

Mutuality of interest A key element of the Neighbourhood Policy is the bilateral ENP Action

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

Plan mutually agreed between the EU and each partner country. The Action Plan sets out an agenda of political and economic reforms with short and medium-term priorities. The European Neighbourhood Policy of the European Union sets ambitious objectives based on commitments to shared values and effective implementation of political, economic, social and institutional reforms. The European Neighbourhood Policy is about the mutual interest of the EU and its neighbours in sharing a zone of stability, security and well-being. It is a joint agenda to promote good governance in order to better manage shared neighbourhood. It is designed on the basis of common values and interests, including the need for a joint response to common challenges e.g., prosperity gaps, migration, crime, environmental issues, public health, extremism and terrorism. In this way, the ENP also contributes to regional and global stability and security. The ENP addresses those countries which share a land or maritime border with the EU. Starting from the south-west, these are the countries of the Maghreb (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia), the Mashreq (Libya, Egypt), the Middle East (Israel, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, Syria), the Southern Caucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia) and Eastern Europe (Moldova, Ukraine and Belarus). In the case of Russia, the largest of the EU’s neighbours, relations are not covered by the ENP, but by the EU-Russia Strategic Partnership. While Belarus, Libya and Syria are potentially covered by the ENP. Sixteen countries participate in the ENP, nine of which are the Mediterranean partners in the Euro-Mediterranean (Barcelona) Process: Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Palestinian Authority, Syria and Tunisia. Libya also participates. The remaining ENP countries are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.

Peace dividend The economic benefits of the ENP are potentially considerable. Greater legislative and regulatory convergence with the EU, particularly in those areas important for improved market access, should lead to higher investment and growth, especially if accompanied by greater liberalisation of trade in services

European Union and neighbourhood security

Praful S. Adagale

The contretemps between the Russian Federation and NATO over the basing of the proposed ballistic missile defence components in the Czech Republic and Poland illustrates the kind of ‘jointness’ that has developed within the EU members on issues of security. However, contradictions persist about who should join and who should stay outside this ambit although the professed rationale of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) is designed on the basis of common values and interests, including the need for a joint response to common challenges e.g., prosperity gaps, migration, crime, environmental issues, public health, extremism and terrorism. Because of the universality of the threat of terrorism, confining the BMD to the Iranian context practically leaves Pakistan out of its ambit. A more balanced approach would tend to strengthen the rationale of the ENP by forging a synergy between the ‘intra’ and the ‘extra-territoriality” of the perceived threats to security. March 2011 Defence AND security alert

citadel Europe?

VICINAGE

The world has changed so fast since the disappearance of the Soviet Union that Americans themselves have come to describe this era as the post-American world. The two main protagonists – the US and the European Union – in this geopolitical drama have begun to find themselves adrift and somewhat lonesome. America is wooing Asia and the EU finds itself at a loose end. Nonetheless both sides must realise that their relationship is umbilical despite the difference in perspective, especially on security issues, that have occurred in recent times.

and agricultural products. Compared to the existing framework agreements between the EU and its neighbours, the ENP promises a greater catalytic role for structural reforms and sound macroeconomic policies, but actual progress will continue to depend on those countries’ domestic commitment to reform. In accelerating the policy to be more effective a new funding mechanism, the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) was launched in January 2007 to provide certain mechanisms such as the opening of EU programmes and agencies to ‘outsiders’ who are, in exchange, willing to cooperate and to accept the Union’s rules. The implementation of the ENP is supported by the European Neighbourhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) with a budget of € 11.5 billion (2007-13). The ENP remains distinct from the process of enlargement although it does not prejudge, for European neighbours, how their relationship with the EU may develop in future, in accordance with Treaty provisions. It aims to promote good governance and social development in Europe’s neighbours, by having closer political links, partial economic integration and support to meet EU standards along with assistance of economic and social reforms. It also involves negotiations which cover the four ENP action areas to: ■■ Strengthen the rule of law, democracy and respect for human rights ■■ Promote economic reforms

market-oriented

■■ Promote employment and social cohesion ■■ The ENP also forms part of the EU’s strategy to reinforce security in neighbouring countries. It acts as a foreign policy tool to countering terrorism and the non-proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Finally, to mention the developments and advantages that have taken place since the inception of ENP in case of EU and its neighbours is the improvement in forming a security complex amongst

TRANSATLANTIC RIFT?

the neighbouring countries to protect the EU and its citizens from various non-traditional threats. In other words, similar to empires, the EU seeks to reach out across its borders to its neighbours or friends, inviting them to join some spheres of its domain depending on their performance, ambition, historical links or strategic values. These formulations suggest that building networks across EU borders is an important tool for the Union in engaging with its neighbours. It financially supports the objectives of integration, inclusiveness and the openness of borders which has helped to link borders as networks for trade and security matters.

Friendly hand The ENP has helped in improving governance and resolving interstate conflicts as in case of Lebanon and Jordan in dealing with ‘honour crimes’. In the case of the EU Border Assistance Mission to Ukraine and Moldova (EUBAM), established in 2005, also illustrates the potential of the ENP to contribute to conflict prevention and resolution. The Erasmus Mundus programme supports higher education reforms and greater institutional links with the EU and has had an excellent uptake in the ENP region. The programmes at social level in dealing with the problem of climate change are also addressed by EU in supporting partners in the mainstreaming of climate considerations into their policies by the ENP programme.

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

Dr. Rashmi Bhure

Problems persist The question that remains is whether neighbourhood relations in the EU are still coloured by the inherent ambiguity between who is in and who is out? There is still the problem of the ‘outsiders and insiders’ that the ENP was tasked to resolve since its inception. The ENP needs to be strengthened with more creativity in implementation of the action plan involved in dealing with neighbouring countries. If the EU wants to become a credible player and surpass the economic crisis in near future, it must bring the neighbouring countries together for better understanding through political, economic and military cooperation and by encompassing the concept of building security management in the neighbourhood. Lastly, complexity in the European Union polices acts as hindrance in dealing with the problems and challenges faced by the neighbouring States. In order to overcome these problems in near future the ENP should have a clear vision for bringing the partner countries together.

The writer is a PhD Research Fellow working in Yashwantrao Chavan National Center of International Security and Defence Analysis (YC-NISDA). He has written a Paper on Implication of 26/11 on Internal Security: India’s new Counter Strategy. His areas of specialisation are European studies, National Security, International Relations and Terrorism.

uring the Cold War, the transatlantic alliance was a ‘special relationship’. Their shared values and interests have shaped the relationship, which has been institutionalised primarily in NATO and other collaborations in all spheres of foreign policy. In the

period between the fall of the Berlin wall and the fall of the twin towers in New York, the changed conditions of security influenced the EU and US security dynamics. However, geopolitically the significance of the transatlantic relationship essentially vital in managing tensions and

crisis, particularly where Russia was involved, was diminishing.

Changed perception Broadly, even in the post Cold War era the EU member States continued to gaze at the transnational relationship

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

citadel Europe?

TRANSATLANTIC RIFT?

in terms of NATO, focusing generally on security issues. While for America, Europe was no more a security concern as it was during the Cold War. The EU and the US have responded differently to the strategic shifts in the post Cold War period. Americans expected that EU should no more have submissive approach but become a pro-active partner. According to the American writer Fareed Zakaria, we are now entering into “The Post-American World” where the power shift is to Asia. This implies that with the changing perspectives as well as expectations and in the changed global landscape of the 21st century, the transatlantic relationship needs to be re-defined in the new geopolitical context. The present article examines two significant questions - firstly, will the new relevance of Asia for America make the transnational relationship comparatively irrelevant? Secondly, the diffusion of power throughout the world, global economic crisis and the emerging transnational threats - where does this leave the EU-US relations and how the Cold War partners perceive each other in the new context?

Post 9/11 shift After the terrorist attack of 11 September, America’s foreign policy has transformed profoundly. The shift in US strategic policy under the pretext of ‘war on terror’, to the Middle East and West Asia by undermining the European community was evident. On the European side, they no longer recognised America they had known for fifty years. Europe’s reservation vis-à-vis Bush’s foreign policies was driven by the denial of a US unipolar worldview that ran against the multilateral approach of the EU. European nations were in a splintered state over the 2003 US war in Iraq. This was a cause of concern for US. European Union’s divide in the foreign policy matters were muddying the transatlantic waters. The War in Iraq also led to a rise in anti-American sentiment in Europe. European policy makers considered that the Iraq war as an attack by US on multilateral initiatives through UN. Besides destabilising the region, the war would have far reaching repercussions on the global order. Additionally, though the US all through Clinton’s administration supported the Kyoto Protocol later rejected it during the Bush presidency.

This caused a major transatlantic rift, as EU was the main champion of the Kyoto climate deal.

EU’s reliability EU’s enlargement in 2005 had significant implications for the transatlantic relations. For US it became difficult to deal with Europe, as enlarged EU will have new actors and new interests and this would affect the effective and coherent decision-making. Obviously, it resulted in skepticism amongst American policy makers regarding EU’s reliability as partner in dealing with the global issues. Bush’s second term to certain level saw rapprochement between America and Europe. The administration avoided too much of Euro-baiting as they realised that for winning the ‘war on terror’ and maintaining peace America requires partners. After the 2008 elections in US, when Barack Obama entered the Oval Office, Europe welcomed the new President with a great hope that it was the end of the Bush era of unilateralism and beginning of multilateral initiatives. Europe assumed that Obama would bridge the transatlantic gap and restore the cooperation on key security issues. It was indeed not easy for President Obama to deal with Europe. Eight years of the George Bush government left Europe distrustful of the US. Obama had to construct new grounds in view of that he showed renewed commitment to EU-US relationship. He is probably the only American President to make six visits to Europe in his first year in the office. His visits had a very positive response all over Europe. EU lined with Obama’s policies of engaging in Afghanistan, establishing dialogue with Islamic world, approaches to economic crisis, climate change policy and disarmament and arms control. However, gradually the euphoria evaporated as Europe gathered that President Obama’s priorities have shifted away from bilateral cooperation with EU. European fears were fuelled when the declaration came that President Obama would not attend the EU-US Summit in Spain. This further forced Europe to think that the US is not taking it seriously as a coherent force in global affairs. On the other side, the Americans perceive that

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

there is a state of confusion in EU-US relations as the Lisbon Treaty has yet to give EU a single voice, which would provide better connection between the transatlantic partners.

Multilateral agenda The signature of the Bush administration was “unilateralism” whereas, for Obama administration it is “cooperative realism”. President Obama in the UN General Assembly on 23 September 2009, had expressed his views on multilateralism by saying that it is a ‘new era of engagement with the world in which responsibilities be shared by nations to deal with global challenges’. The world is no more bipolar in which neither the US nor the EU can be exclusive in their bilateral relations. The realistic approach to foreign policy has impelled the Obama administration to develop amicable relations with Russia by working in the areas of cooperation such as Iran, nuclear non-proliferation etc. Obama’s multilateral approach has no choice but to extend to China. Washington expects Beijing to become ‘responsible’ stakeholder in the international system. The US relationship with China revolves around economic and financial interdependence in the light of economic crisis in the US. China is also America’s largest foreign creditor and major trading partner. Another Asian power with which today US is deepening its engagement is India. US has recognised India’s growing capabilities, democratic values and its contribution in countering terrorism. US perceives India as its global partner specifically in building close strategic partnership. European leaders have been struggling to respond effectively to the multilateral agenda set by Obama due to Europe’s lack of cohesion and inability to make comprehensive decisions. Europe is disappointed that US interest is more in Asia and Russia than Europe. This gives them a sense of losing the ‘privileged relationship’. For US presently developing cordial relations with China and India is essential and with Europe definitely desirable.

The Asian factor Despite the divergent views on the new multilateral order the reality is

that neither EU nor the US can manage the global agenda on its own. President Obama has been in search of building new partnerships and is steadfast in strengthening the old alliances to tackle threats such as terrorism, nuclear proliferation and climate change. The transatlantic partnership has been strong politically and economically since World War II, yet many observers say Asia is becoming more relevant for America than Europe currently. Both the US and EU are competing today to influence Russia and emerging powers such as China and India. The combination of a globalist and realist perspective in Obama’s worldview contour its administration’s policies towards Europe. US certainly recognises the advantage of a strong European partnership as it is largely imperative for US as a major economic power and trading partner. Nevertheless, it is still concerned about the limitations of Europe’s potential contribution to core American security interests due to lack of collective action on problems that persist in Europe. This

was evident in Obama administration’s initiatives on Afghanistan. European public opinion was not ready to deepen or even to extend a major troop contribution to Afghanistan. During the NATO Summit in April 2009 President Obama’s goal was to secure Europe’s support for his new strategy in Afghanistan.

US globalism Obama administration’s globalist approach is seen in the new-issues specific major power groupings that would include the rising powers of Asia. However, it is highly unlikely to exclude EU from the inner core of major power discussions in the global institutions in the arena of security, climate, energy and trade. How much Europe co-leads with the US will likely depend very heavily on how much it asserts its role and its own performance as a policy-making actor or on the actions of individual European States. Europe would also come to the centre of gravity if it supports US foreign policy with respect to Iran or the Middle East

peace process. America and Europe may indeed be taking different courses, in the new world order but their paths often overlap. The US, while expecting Europe as a stronger partner, has to also understand the sensitivities of the expanded Europe. On the other hand Europe should make efforts to plug its fault lines and emerge as an “indispensable partner,” of US. It must adapt to the new realities of the multilateral order within which the US foreign policy framework functions today. Both the EU and the US have to use new lenses to look at each other only then will they be able to overcome the transatlantic asymmetry.

The writer is Assistant Professor, Department of Politics, SIES College, Mumbai, India. She has been awarded Ford Foundation Scholarship in International Relations. She has authored a book on Terrorism in Kashmir and contributes regularly to newspapers on US Foreign Policy.

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

citadel Europe?

MODERNISATION

ussia’s relations with Europe evolved since the signing of the Agreement on trade, commercial and economic cooperation between the erstwhile USSR and the European Communities on 18 December 1989. This was to continue under the latter’s legal inheritor, the European Union (EU). Russia today has its Permanent Mission to the EU to achieve cooperation in all spheres of mutual interest - the key spheres include economy, energy, internal and external aspects of security.

Evolution of partnership The relations between EU-Russia have forged more as a partnership under the framework of Partnership and Co-operation Agreement concluded in 1994, forming the legal basis for bilateral trade and investment relations apart from regulating the political and economic relations between both. To facilitate this, a Roadmap on the Common Economic Space was adopted at the EU-Russia Summit, 2005. Based on this 12 dialogues are on track energy, transport, industrial policy, information society, cooperation in space, agriculture, environment, financial and macroeconomic policy, regional policy, fishery, health and regulatory dialogue. However, both are renewing their relations under a more comprehensive framework to replace the 1994 Agreement with a New EU-Russia agreement, since 2008 EU-Russia Summit. This includes substantive, legally binding commitments in all areas of partnership - political dialogue, justice, freedom and security issues, economic cooperation, research, education and culture, trade, investment and energy.

Modernisation EU-Russia endeavour is to have a more open and integrated market to increase and diversify trade and create new investment opportunities. For this to succeed EU and Russia are negotiating and working towards elimination of trade barriers, regulatory convergence, market opening, trade facilitation and infrastructure development. Both want to move from the threat perception that had marred their relations during Cold War to multilateral diplomacy, especially to maintain and enhance Euro-Atlantic security. Today one of the main goals of Russia’s national strategy

and its foreign policy is to secure improved economy - modernisation and innovation being the keywords and enhance human security. One of the initiatives in this regard, for instance is the Russian Skolkovo initiative. Both Russia and EU are dedicated towards the modernisation of their economies. Hence mutual cooperation and sharing of ideas and information is greatly required. Europe is also struggling to overcome its financial and economic crisis. In this context, at the 25th Russia-EU Summit in Rostov-on-Don, May-June 2010, President Medvedev proposed to establish Russia-EU ‘Partnership for modernisation’. It is designed to boost cooperation under the EU-Russia Common Spaces. It aims to achieve technological development, promoting compatibility of technical regulations, fostering of professional and people-to-people contacts, realising full integration of Russian economy into the world trade and economic system on non-discriminatory conditions. Russia, as part of its modernisation drive and its attempts to diversify its economy, needs access to other markets. To this effect this partnership for modernisation with EU is extremely beneficial in terms of FDIs, high-technology and innovations in information technology, etc.

Economic harmony Trade and investment, in particular and the development of harmonious economic relations are main areas of EU-Russia’s focus. Russia is one of the EU’s key trading partners after the US and China. EU is Russia’s main trading partner, accounting for 52.3 per cent of its overall trade turnover in 2008. EU States have invested up to 75 per cent FDI stocks in Russia. In 2009 the EU exported goods to Russia worth € 65.6 billion with imports amounting to € 115 billion. Russian imports are mainly energy and mineral fuels products (77.3 per cent) apart from some manufactured goods, chemicals, steel and raw materials. EU exports machinery and transport equipment (42.9 per cent), manufactured goods, food and livestock to Russia. The trade in EU services exports to Russia (2009) was € 18.2 billion and imports from Russia at € 10.8 billion. Similarly in terms of FDI EU outward investment to Russia 2008 was € 25 billion with

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

Russian inward investment in the EU in 2008 at € 2 billion. The EU is Russia’s biggest trading partner, with the flow of goods and services between the two countries rising 35 per cent to € 157.60 billion in the first nine months of the year (2010), according to Russian government statistics. In 2002, the EU along with United States recognised Russia, unlike China, as a market economy. On 21 May 2004, the EU and Russia concluded the bilateral market access negotiations and signed the agreement that will form part of the terms for Russia’s WTO accession. Having completed most of its bilateral agreements, Russia had to conclude the multilateral part of the WTO accession negotiations through the adoption of the working party report. In this regard, the contentious issues to be solved with EU were export duties, including on wood, pricing policy in relation to railways and certain issues of agricultural imports to Russia. Russia had increased tariffs on timber exports from 6.5 per cent in 2006 to 25 per cent in 2008. Sweden and Finland strongly opposed this and hence EU exercised its veto on Russia. Most of these issues were resolved, especially on tariffs by signing of memorandum of agreement between EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht and Russian Economic Development Minister Elvira Nabiullina at EU-Russia December 2010 summit. Russia agreed to lower its 15 per cent export duties on timber to 7 per cent for birch wood and to 5 per cent for aspen. It also agreed to lower fees on Asian freight reaching Europe via Russian railways.

Gain by accession Russia embraced the Western market economy model under President Yeltsin when it released prices on 1 January 1992. Consequently, it submitted application for WTO (World Trade Organization) membership, in June 1993. From then on it has taken 17 years to come close to accession, the longest for any State. The initial slackening till 1999 was the service sector negotiations, where foreign direct investment (FDI) was not encouraged within Russia. Though it gained momentum during President Putin’s first tenure, in the second tenure, measures like increasing subsidies for animal husbandry in agriculture;

EU and Russia: gateway to WTO

Joyce Sabina Lobo

ussia’s road to the World Trade Organization is clearly paved with good intentions given the manner in which it has smoothened its journey through the EU. But even after 17 years of multilateral negotiations hurdles remain like with the bugbear called Georgia which can blackball its entry over removal of customs checkposts with the controversial South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

citadel Europe?

MODERNISATION

stimulating automobile production by raising customs duties; raising export tariffs for lumber; advocating industrial policy, import substitution and State subsidies for priority industries decelerated the negotiations. Added to the protectionist measures was the assertion of State over certain industries (energy) along with the oil price boom making Russia comfortable as a pure commodity exporter. WTO is the Geneva-based international organisation for trade opening, forum for governments to negotiate trade agreements and to settle their trade disputes operating on a system of trade rules that have been conceived through negotiations. Therefore the method of accession involves the process of negotiations both bilateral and multilateral - on terms to be agreed between the Applicant State and the Members of the WTO. The Applicant State must be in agreement with all WTO members in meeting the individual concerns and must resolve all important issues through bilateral or multilateral negotiations. Today the WTO comprises 153 countries controlling 93 per cent of the world trade. Russia is the only non-WTO member of G20. The WTO accession will provide market access for Russia’s exporters. Though the manufacturing industries and the service sector like banking and insurance sectors are weak, the entry of foreign investors will not only give competition to its entrepreneurs but also be an incentive to improve the weaker areas of the economy, including its economic and financial institutions. More importantly Russia can come out of the morass of being a pure

commodity exporter, thus skipping the fate of Dutch diseased petro-dollar States. Moreover, FDIs might result in capital inflow and stifle capital outflow. Russia is besieged by problems of crime and corruption, institutional problems like transparency, accountability, etc. With the accession, some of these can be mitigated as it will have to adhere to WTO trade rules and practices. Transparency International’s 2010 Corruption Perceptions Index ranked Russia at 154 among 178 countries. This has eroded investor sentiment. This can be reversed with the accession by means of rules and regulations of the WTO.

trade-distorting agricultural subsidies and restrictions, strengthen enforcement of its intellectual property regime, regulation of State-owned enterprises, rules for encryption and negotiations on the Jackson-Vanik amendment of the US to grant MFN status to Russia. The Economic Development Minister Elvira Nabiullina, during the Summit of December 2010 stated that the multiparty talks on broader issues such as agricultural subsidies, meat imports and Russia’s customs union with Belarus and Kazakhstan will be resolved by the end of June 2011. One of the important issues that might derail this process is Georgia. After the 2008 war, a peace deal between Georgia and Russia was brokered by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, acting on behalf of the EU. Georgia wants the customs posts (customs procedures) between its breakaway regions - South Ossetia and Abkhazia - and Russia closed under its WTO negotiations. Also it wants the economic embargo lifted. Russia needs to negotiate for Georgia’s support in order to avoid the latter’s blocking vote to the accession. EU is taking keen interest in resolving the conflict issues. If EU can resolve the impasse between Russia and Georgia at least on the WTO accession, then Russia’s entry will become a reality by 2011 as the Russian officials put it.

Russia has cut down its export commodities - oil and natural gas - from 90 per cent to 60 per cent. It now exports intermediary goods like metals, chemicals, steel and fertilisers, comprising a quarter of its exports. Non-WTO membership for Russia would mean subjecting its exports to quota restrictions and anti-dumping measures. The Russian steel firms face import quota restrictions and dumping penalties on its chemical exports from the EU. One of the lobbying groups from Russia for the WTO accession was from the steel firms through the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (RSPP). By acceding, Russia can resort to arbitration court or international trade tribunal to resolve its disputes.

Russia is 1.2 trillion-dollar economy accounting for 2 per cent of global commerce. It imposes only 11 per cent tariff, having already institutions of free market economy with tax and customs code. EU is the world’s largest trading zone. The drive of modernisation is one of the humanitarian dimensions of Russian foreign policy. All these positive aspects, along with the WTO entry through EU partnership can utilise Russia’s educated labour-force in the modernisation endeavour. WTO entry can increase Russian GDP by 3.3 per cent in the medium term and 11 per cent in the long term, according to World Bank predictions. Both Russia and EU have nothing to lose but only enhance confidence building and security in the Eurasian region.

Last hurdle? Having resolved issues with EU, the remaining hurdles for Russia for WTO entry are to reach an agreement on accession with Georgia which has withdrawn support, lowering of

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

The writer is Research Assistant at Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), New Delhi and is pursuing her PhD at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Her areas of interest cover Energy Diplomacy, Eurasian Security Issues including Military and Security Policies.

INDIA’ s LOCKHEED MARTIN

C-130J SUPER HERCULES AIRLIFTER

The Lockheed Martin C-130J Hercules is the most advanced airlifter ever built. The C-130J combines the latest in aerospace technology with a proven, rugged airframe design, resulting in an aircraft that gives an operator more capability with greater operational efficiency. This is India’s first experience with C-130s so the package being provided by the US government is a complete solution. The package includes six aircraft, training of aircrew and maintenance technicians, spares, ground support and test equipment, servicing carts, forklifts, loading vehicles, cargo pallets and a team of technical specialists who will be based in India during a three year initial support period. Also included in the package is Indiaunique operational equipment designed to increase Special Operations capabilities. In addition, the C-130J Super Hercules will provide the Indian Air Force with modern and effective airlift to support a wide range of national requirements. In keeping with IAF requirements, the US government has offered a unique C-130J configuration modified for special mission roles. Equipped with an Infrared Detection Set (IDS), the aircraft will be able to perform precision low-level flying, airdrops and landing in blackout conditions. Self protection systems and other features are included to ensure aircraft survivability in hostile air defence environments. Lockheed Martin will integrate this equipment and other capabilities into the Indian configuration as agreed between the governments. The Indian Air Force’s new Super Hercules will be the longer fuselage or “stretched” variant of the C‑130J, similar to those being delivered to the US Air Force. The C-130J carries eight 463L pallets, 97 medical litters and 24 CDS bundles. It can also carry 128 combat troops and 92 paratroops. While the exterior looks very much like previous C-130s, the C-130J mission and propulsion systems have been completely redesigned. Primary features of the C-130J include a new digital avionics architecture and propulsion system, twin head-up pilot displays that are certified as primary flight instruments and dual mission computers that automate many functions, allowing the aircraft to be operated by only two pilots and a loadmaster. The net effect of these improvements is enhanced performance of the aircraft and greater reliability of the systems and components. For instance, when compared with C‑130E models, the C-130J can provide 40-percent greater range, a 40 per cent higher cruising ceiling, a 50-per cent decrease in time-to-climb, a 21 per cent increase in maximum speed, and a 41 per cent decrease in maximum effort takeoff run. A key to the C-130J’s increased performance is the new propulsion systems. Four Rolls Royce AE 2100D3 engines, each flat rated at 4,591 shaft horsepower, generate 29 per cent more thrust while being 15-per cent more fuel efficient. The all composite six-blade Dowty Aerospace R391 propeller system is lighter and has fewer moving parts than previous Hercules propellers. Engines are precisely controlled by a full authority digital electronic control. The heart of the new Hercules advanced technology is its modern flight station with multi-function, liquid crystal displays (LCD) for aircraft flight control, operating and navigation systems. In addition to four displays on the instrument panel, pilots use holographic head-up displays, approved as primary flight instruments, a precedent among military transports. The displays are all compatible with night vision imaging systems, enabling the crew to operate the aircraft in areas where special missions dictate blackout conditions. The dual mission computers manage and automate many of the functions formerly performed by the flight engineer and navigator. Aircraft systems are constantly monitored and crews are advised of status or malfunction as required. Some of the new systems of the aircraft that are managed by the mission computers include the full authority digital engine controls, the advisory caution and warning system, automatic thrust control, computerised maintenance recording, the electronic circuit breaker system, the enhanced stall warning system, the advanced digital map and a state-of-the-art communication / navigation suite. The C-130J takes full advantage of the Global Positioning System and other highly reliable, automated navigation and route planning aides. This allows the cockpit crew to focus on the mission and on flying rather than on managing aircraft systems. Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems began development of the C-130J in 1991 using corporate development funds. The first C-130J rolled off the assembly line in October 1995. That same aircraft, which had been ordered by the United Kingdom’s Royal Air Force, flew for the first time on April 5, 1996. Following one of the most comprehensive flight tests programs ever, the C-130J received type certification from the Federal Aviation Administration in August 1998 and deliveries began soon afterward.

citadel Europe?

DIVIDED HOUSE

In the uneven distribution of fossil fuels lies a geo-economics that can disintegrate quite quickly and quite easily. Were it not for the additional strain of global warming, the world would have tried to accommodate itself within an ever increasing cost of a fossil fuel economy. Now the European Union is looking for “sustainable alternatives” but hitherto no innovations have emerged. Russia, sitting on the second largest reserves outside OPEC in the heart of Eurasia, is quite keen to shut the tap at the slightest provocation.

common energy policy remains a goal of utmost priority for the European Union (EU). Article 194 of the Lisbon Treaty states: 1) In the context of the establishment and functioning of the internal market and with regard for the need to preserve and improve the environment, Union policy on energy shall aim, in a spirit of solidarity between Member States, to: (a) Ensure the functioning of the energy market; (b) Ensure security of energy supply in the Union; (c) Promote energy efficiency and energy saving and the development of new and renewable forms of energy; and (d) Promote the interconnection of energy networks. 2) Without prejudice to the application of other provisions of the Treaties, the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall establish the measures necessary to achieve the objectives in paragraph 1. Such measures shall be adopted after consultation of the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Such measures shall not affect a Member State’s right to determine the conditions for exploiting its energy resources, its choice between different energy sources and the general structure of its energy supply, without prejudice to Article 192(2)(c). 3) By way of derogation from paragraph 2, the Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, shall unanimously and after consulting the European Parliament, establish the measures referred to therein when they are primarily of a fiscal nature.

Despite the explicit focus on energy security, EU energy policy remains mired in controversies and disagreements.

Common goal The twenty seven member States of the EU consumed 670.8 million tonnes of oil and 413.9 million tonnes oil equivalent (mtoe) of gas in 2009. This is equal to 17.3 per cent of global oil and 15.6 per cent of global gas consumption, respectively and thus making EU the second largest global consumer of energy after the United States. EU member States are endowed with just 0.5 per cent of known oil reserves and 1.3 per cent of known gas reserves and the reserves-to-production (R/P) ratio for oil and gas in 2009 was 8.2 and 14.1 respectively. Energy dependency for the EU is approximately 55 per cent and varies for individual member States as well as for individual products. Oil, gas and solid fuels comprise 60 per cent, 26 per cent and 13 per cent respectively of the total EU energy imports with the electricity and renewable energy accounting for the rest (less than 1 per cent). Members of Oil Producing and Exporting Countries viz OPEC (38 per cent), Russia (33 per cent), Norway (16 per cent) and Kazakhstan (5 per cent) are the major sources of EU oil imports while Russia (42 per cent), Norway (24 per cent), Algeria (18 per cent) and Nigeria (5 per cent) are the main sources of EU gas imports. While oil remains a highly traded commodity globally, a majority of gas traded is between exporters and Europe with other overland and liquefied natural gas routes having developed only recently. Because of its willingness to pay top dollar, the EU has retained its pre-eminence in the international gas market.

False promises The two oil shocks of 1973 and 1979

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

Rai Mahimapat Ray

Rajeev Lala

represented the biggest incentives for the rejuvenation of the energy policy of the European Economic Community (EEC). Both the oil shocks were due to restricted oil supplies in response to international political crises and the EEC responded with the three ‘Ds’: Diversification of energy supply routes (Trans-Mediterranean Pipeline and increased interest in the oil from the Caspian Sea); Diversification of energy sources (research and development of alternative sources of energy, re-opening of the already mothballed mines and increase in the black and brown coal mining); Development of extraction industries and oil and gas exploration in the EEC countries (mainly Great Britain, the Netherlands and Denmark). In 1983, a full ten years after the first oil shock, the European Commission (EC) was entrusted by the Council of Ministers to prepare and lay out the principles of a coordinated energy policy. After three years, in 1986, the goals of energy policy were presented: Re-structuralisation and rationalisation of the consumption, stabilisation of gas proportions in the total energy consumption and increase in security of nuclear power plants. However, with the development of the prolific North Sea fields, the relative peace in the international energy markets during this period (Gulf War I, from an energy perspective, being a deviation to the norm) and the absolute stability in energy supplies from post-Soviet Russia (despite the volatility in East Europe) meant that energy security remained a ‘non-issue’. All this changed, however, in 2002 when Russia and Belarus had major disagreements on gas pricing. There was a flurry of activity amongst EU policymakers on the issue of energy security and energy supply security

European Union energy policy

post-2002. This momentum was fed into by the repeated supply problems in Eastern Europe with Russia cutting supplies to Belarus again in 2003, to Ukraine in January 2006, January 2008 and again in January 2009. Though the cascading effect of gas supply cuts in non-EU transit countries has been extremely limited in EU member-States, the very possibility of potential future supply disruptions is unnerving in the EU corridors of power, combined as it was with a Russophobic

Western media playing upping the ante.

Threat of disruption It is only in the last decade that geo-political rumblings (in the EU neighbourhood and globally) have acted as a ‘wake-up’ call for Europe. Twice in the past have European heads of state recognised the need for a common energy policy. First when the idea of a common energy policy

and objectives was included in the Lisbon Treaty (as given above) and the second recognition came at the Hampton Court Summit in October 2005. The Hampton Court Summit recognised that, “the EU needs to diversify its sources of energy and approach its current major energy suppliers in a more coherent manner; but it also needs to pursue energy efficiency and clean technologies and develop a genuinely open energy market”. Further in 2006, the EC came

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

citadel Europe?

out with a green paper “European Strategy for Sustainable, Competitive and Secure Energy”. The paper marked the most important development towards the formulation of a common energy policy. The Commission emphasised the fact that Europe has to speak with a single voice on the international scene at both the national and community level. At the European Council Summit on 24 March, 2006, EU heads of state agreed on strengthening solidarity and assistance mechanisms. But, as expected, they insisted on preserving their independence on important aspects of the energy policy and this included the choice of energy mix. The Council then invited Commission, Secretariat General and the High Representative of the Council to work on the formulation of a common energy policy. This led to the EC recommendations to the European Council in the form of a paper ‘An External Policy to Serve Europe’s Energy Interests’. The following objectives were found to be critical in the pursuit of a common energy policy: 1) promoting transparency and improved governance in the energy sector through energy partnerships with third countries, in order to create mutually beneficial, open, transparent, non-discriminatory and stable legal conditions for energy investment and trade; 2) improving production and export capacities in producer countries and developing and upgrading energy transportation infrastructure in producer and transit countries. 3) improving the climate for European companies’ investments in third countries and opening up the production and export of energy resources to EU industry; 4) improving conditions for trade in energy through non-discriminatory transit and third party access to export pipeline infrastructure; 5) enhancing physical and environmental security as well as the energy infrastructure safety; 6) encouraging energy efficiency, use of renewable energies including bio-fuels, low emission technology and rational use of energy worldwide;

citadel Europe?

DIVIDED HOUSE 7) implementing the Kyoto Protocol mechanisms;

relevant

8) diversifying energy imports by product and country; 9) creating an international regime for the supply of enriched uranium to countries that have chosen the nuclear option, in line with non-proliferation commitments and taking into account the EURATOM treaty provisions; and 10) promoting strategic reserve stocks and encouraging joint stockholding with partner countries.

Divisions In May, 2007, the European Council in its Presidency Conclusions gave a leg-up to the process of formation of an ‘Energy Policy for Europe’ (EPE). The action plan looked at an internal market for gas and electricity, security of supply, international energy policy, energy efficiency and renewable energies and energy technologies. The Lisbon Treaty that came into effect in 2009 stated explicitly that the EU has to create a common energy policy to ensure energy security. However, unlike a common currency whereby every member State joining the Euro had to adhere to certain prerequisites, the approach to national and supra-national security of energy supplies remains a process without a unified approach. The Germans have pushed for direct gas supplies from Russia despite vociferous opposition by the States of central and east Europe many of whom are EU member States. France continues to espouse the merits of nuclear energy and the UK is still debating coal, nuclear, LNG or a combination of all three. EU approach to Central Asia, its confusion on embracing the Russian energy juggernaut or reducing its dependence adds to the melee of voices trying to influence energy policy.

Common ground Member States of the EU thus have agreed to work on three core energy objectives of sustainability, competitiveness and security of supply. The increasingly forceful environmental needs with regard to the role of fossil fuels in exacerbating global warming and the need for supply security have been at the heart of the argument

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

REFORMATION

for EU energy policy. A common energy policy would act as a model for other countries and would reinforce the EU’s position of being a visionary grouping that thinks (and works) ahead of the curve. For many EU member States, energy is still a ‘critical sector’ and cannot be left just to market forces. Also, the words spoken in Brussels do not necessarily match action on the ground. While the idea that energy corridors are an important component of energy security and external energy policy has existed for a long time, explicit policy initiatives to ensure the incorporation of ‘energy corridors’ as a policy tool has only been a recent development. The ‘ownership unbundling’ of energy infrastructure so as to increase competition within the EU energy markets has been an objective of the EC which considers this to be a crucial component to energy security. The internal reforms of the EU have to be complemented with success in external relations between the EU and its energy suppliers. As the EU’s ambassador to Washington John Bruton said, “Energy policy is one of the big failures of the EU in the last fifty years, particularly bearing in mind that we started out as a coal and steel community. But our growing dependence on Russia is going to increase the pressure for a common energy policy, to improve the internal grids and have shared arrangements within the European Union.” A common EU energy policy has to be executed in a manner that incorporates vision and merges the multitude of strategies that each member State has been using to secure their own energy needs. While the formulation of a common energy policy is a task in itself, it is the execution of that policy to achieve supply security that will test the foundations of the EU, a group agreeing to disagree on energy security.

Pallavi Pal

European Union: foreign policy mechanism

Rai Mahimapat Ray is Junior Research Fellow, pursuing his Doctoral Research in the field of Central Asian Energy Studies, from the School of International Relations, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India. Rajeev Lala is pursuing his Doctoral Research in the field of Central Asian Energy Studies, from the School of International Relations, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India.

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

citadel Europe?

REFORMATION

One has already seen the fallout of the absence of a unified “European” foreign policy: President Barack Obama stayed away from one Summit because no one spoke in one voice. But Europe is evolving a foreign policy or at least how to frame one or not to have one and there is a method in its hesitating steps towards a known objective. One thing appears sure: There is to be no “supranational State”, no single post of “Foreign Minister”, no single flag and no single national anthem. Could one say that Europe is going places?

oreign Policy in the traditional sense is the prerogative of individual States. However it is interesting to see that European Union (EU) which comprises of 27 countries puts forward the need to have a common foreign policy. Though, the member States formulate foreign policies independently, nonetheless effort has been made towards having a common foreign policy. However EU is not a State rather it is a body that comprises of many nation-States. Thus, here again the question arises of having an EU foreign policy or a European foreign policy. Will this lead to a different foreign policy or will it lead to the continuation of what exists. Before going further it is important to mention that, foreign policy is one of the three pillars of EU. The first being ‘community’. The second is ‘inter-governmental common foreign and security policy’. Finally it is the ‘inter-governmental cooperation on Justice and Home Affairs’.

Stepping stones Demand for a more democratic, transparent and efficient EU and also to maintain peace and harmony led heads of 15 EU member States meet in Chateau de Laeken in Belgium and issue Laeken Declaration after the conference in 2001. The result of this was the ‘Convention on the Future of Europe’ which acted as a platform to discuss about EU’s future and prepare for the European Constitution. A draft constitutional treaty of the European Union was submitted for signing and ratification. However, it was rejected by referendum by France and Netherlands. This caused a deadlock and the heads of the EU States signed a new treaty in Lisbon on December 13, 2007. This came to be known as the Treaty of Lisbon which came into effect on December 1, 2009.

EU gathers its responsibilities and objectives from the treaties that its member countries sign. Thus, with every treaty, its way of operation changes. This article would try to analyse the way foreign policy mechanism has changed with the signing of every treaty. Finally whether there has been a change or its just a continuation of what existed. 1957-1996: In 1957 with the establishment of European Community (EC) (later came to be known as the European Union), a Common Commercial Policy came into existence. In 1969 at a special summit of the member States at the Hague it was agreed that the EC should be expanded and other European countries should join in. At the same time the need for cooperating in new areas was also pointed out. Following this, the ‘European Political Cooperation’ for coordinating the foreign policies of the member States was set up. Later following the signing of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) at Maastricht (1991), a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) was established. CFSP was mainly introduced to bring about a shift in its external actions from trade and development cooperation to addressing the challenges faced at the international level. Under CFSP the member States had to agree unanimously on a particular policy. This was unlike the traditional way of cooperation where a simple majority would put the policy into effect. Thus here came a shift. Earlier it was community while now it changed to inter-governmental cooperation. However such ambitious plan could not materialise and thus, it was decided that a new treaty should be signed which should address the drawbacks and try to bring in cooperation in the field of foreign policy.

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

Amsterdam 1997: Thus in 1997, Treaty of Amsterdam (TOA) was signed. It was expected that this treaty would bring in a major change in the working of the EU and in its foreign policy formulation. TOA aimed to overcome the contradictions that existed between the ambitious objectives of CFSP and the means available to the Union to achieve those objectives. Under this, the European Council which defines the principles and general guidelines of the CFSP was now given the right to define the principles and general guidelines of the CFSP. It could also define by consensus, the common strategies in areas where the member States had common interest. Thus, now the effort was taken to understand the converging areas of interest between the member States in order to formulate a common foreign policy.

Abstention! However the rule that CFSP decisions require unanimous vote did not change. Nonetheless the mechanism of abstaining was introduced. Abstention however, did not mean that the decision would not come into effect, instead it meant that the particular country might not apply the decision to itself but has to accept that the decision commits the Union. A new post was introduced in order to give CFSP a higher profile and coherence. The Secretary General of the Council was assigned the role of High Representative for CFSP. The task of the High Representative is assisting the Council in CFSP related matters by formulating, preparing and implementing decisions. Newly created policy planning and early warning unit was also put under the

authority of the High Representative in order to coordinate the reactions of the member States to an international issue. The Petersburg task was introduced whereby the European security would be safeguarded by humanitarian and peace making missions. At the same time it was decided that CFSP operations would be funded from the community fund and only in operations where military was to be used, could a member State which abstains be exempted from contributing to the financing.

tries to enhance the institutions. It has abolished the three pillars (mentioned earlier in this article) and joined them in order to achieve greater efficiency and coherence amongst the member States. The office of ‘the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy’ was established which would be responsible for the CFSP. The High Representative is also the Vice President of the European Commission who represents EU and looks after the external economic relations of the EU.

The Nice continuum

Reformation

2003: Treaty of Amsterdam could not address successfully the issue of enlargement. Thus Treaty of Nice came into force on 1 February 2003 after it was signed on 26 February 2001. It puts down in writing the principles and methods for changing the institutional system as the Union grows. The number of seats in the European Parliament was increased. It introduced new rules for enhancing cooperation between the member States. Thus in terms of foreign policy Treaty of Nice was a continuation.

Though the Treaty of Lisbon has been considered as a milestone, yet it has not been able to achieve the desired results in terms of CFSP as there is a great debate and disagreements from the member States on giving away a part of their sovereign right to create an independent foreign policy. Moreover, if looked closely at all the treaties, we will find that the Lisbon Treaty consists of a majority of innovations that were already proposed in the original EU constitution, such as the need for a centralised EU power, granting it legality, new president and single foreign policy post etc. However keeping in mind the importance of nation States and not making a mistake of creating a supranational State, the Lisbon Treaty removed the use of the term ‘Foreign Minister’ alongwith the use of flag and the anthem.

2009: Following the drawbacks in all the previous treaties with respect to CFSP on December 1, 2009 Treaty of Lisbon, which lays power in matters of defence, military action and relationship with foreign countries with the EU, formally entered into force. Treaty of Lisbon does not change the existing treaties, instead it revisits those treaties but acknowledges the legality and

Compared to the previous treaties, the Treaty of Lisbon is definitely a

change, as here for the first time, strong emphasis has been laid on having a CFSP in effect. Efforts have also been made in getting involved in matters of external importance. However, this involvement has not yielded successful results. For instance there was lack of collective action and strong voice with regard to the Climate Change conference in Copenhagen and relief actions in Haiti. Nonetheless, these are just few instances. There exists a strong view within EU that, with time consensus would be achieved. There has been a shift in power from the Commission to the European Council. Thus, the will of the member States gets represented. The Lisbon Treaty has not brought in any sweeping changes, instead it has reformed the existing institutions in order to make the foreign policy making effective and consensual. Thus, the foreign policy mechanism of EU is changing, in a way that the member States are making an effort to have a CFSP and towards this goal, the functioning of the existing institutions are being changed. Thus we find that, the EU foreign policy mechanism has both the elements of change and continuity. Time will tell ultimately, whether these mechanisms have led to a CFSP or whether after few years again a new mechanism will be formulated and the reason would be a common EU foreign policy.

The writer is a Research Intern in the Eurasia Cluster at Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), New Delhi, India.

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

Easy Shelters are

Pawitra

International Pvt. Ltd.

Low-cost and affordable

Maintenance free and economical Portable Durable

Easy to erect

Benefits of Easy Shelters Portable Fire retardant Environment friendly Energy efficient Zero maintenance Insulated Customisable design (size and

looks) Highly durable High impact resistance (>8,000 psi) High structural load capacity enhances the life Can hold up to 5,000 litres water tank on top High wind resistant UV proof Light weight Quick erection time: takes 6-7 hrs only to erect 1,000 sq.ft. and 4-5 hrs to dismantle

Wooden texture

Easy to install in terrains

Easy to install at high altitude

Easy Shelters in a jiffy!

Easy to install at coastal areas

prone to high tides Easy to dismantle

Easy Shelters are maintenance free No painting

No rust

No mildew

No weathering

No rot

No termites

No shingles

No deterioration

No corrosion

20 ft. high Auditorium

PAWITRA INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI, INDIA

Usage of Easy Shelters in Government Departments Disaster relief shelters Aircraft hangers Firemen shelters for forests Communication shelters Defence personnel in coastal areas (radio, mobile Defence personnel in mountains and high communications) Transit camps altitude areas Defence personnel in deserts and terrains Storage for agriculture Barracks for the police and security yield Municipal offices forces Railway disaster mobile rooms Old-age homes Police control rooms Schools in remote areas

Primary health

centres

Libraries Guest houses for

employees

Warehouses Cold homes Trade fair stalls Pilgrimage shelters Milk booths

Standard texture

www.pawitra.com

for all queries contact: ceo@pawitra.com

UKTI South East, with the UKTI Defence and Security Organisation (UKTI DSO), the Security Innovation & Technology Consortium (SITC), Farnborough Aerospace Consortium (FAC) and DSA organised a “Meet the Buyer” event for 50 private-sector decision-makers from India and the USA to take part in one-to-one meetings with South East companies. The leading magazine Defence and Security Alert (DSA) was the one and only Indian supporting journal in defence and security genre for this event. The event concluded a two-day programme of activities for the visiting buyers on 17 and 18 January 2011 which also included a Security-focused tour of London and a Gala Dinner at the House of Lords. “Meet the Buyer – Aerospace, Airport and Homeland Security”, at Arsenal’s Emirates Stadium in North London, was arranged to give SMEs a chance to exploit opportunities in India and the USA – key growth markets for both these sectors – and to establish partnerships, joint ventures and technology transfer agreements. DSA has made remarkable strides in the defence and security journalism especially when no such journal is available in this domain in India or elsewhere. Visiting the event, Lord Green, who recently took up his post as Minister of State for Trade and Investment, said: “I am delighted to be supporting this important event, which is a chance for companies in the security and aerospace sectors to liaise with buyers from two of the most prominent security and aerospace markets. It is clear that the way forward is for joint ventures and industrial partnerships and I hope that this event creates important relationships for long-term future business in the security and aerospace industries.” UKTI South East International Trade Adviser and Security sector specialist Mr. John Gordon commented: “The event is designed to drive opportunities for South East SMEs and help them cross the business threshold in key markets. It is very much not a one-off occasion, but part of an ongoing programme of business development support that began with separate ‘Meet the Buyer’ events for India and the USA last year and trade missions to both countries to help SMEs take advantage of fully researched and validated opportunities. We believe this continuity is vital to help companies forge profitable long-term business relationships.” Our efforts to showcase the content and quality of the magazine to the visitors made the event an excellent informative hub for the visitors and defence and security professionals. We anticipate an even bigger exposure and growth for the forthcoming editions of DSA globally. We all at DSA pledge to continue our endeavours to make our beautiful world more safe and secure for all.

citadel Europe?

CROSSROADS

Turkey can truly enjoy the best of both worlds but there has hitherto been great hesitation to allow it into the “Christian club” largely because of its invasion of Cyprus and dividing that nation into the Turkish and Greek Cypriot segments. Europe also has a duty to itself to ensure that Turkey does not slip into the morass that the Muslim world finds itself in with the Arabs in ferment from Tunisia to Egypt.

urkey, a nation that straddles two continents and is amongst the only true Eurasian countries stretching from the Balkans to the Anatolian peninsula, is a secular Muslim democracy and a crucial ally for the West. The country plays an important role in the geopolitics of the region on account of its strong military and its history as an imperial power. Turkey is noted for its economic and political successes which include an open and a diversified economy and a secular order in a neighbourhood which is predominantly Muslim and where these features are extremely rare to find.

Stalled EU entry Turkey was a founding member of the United Nations and has been a member of NATO since 1952, the Council of Europe since 1949 and an associate member of the Western European Union since 1992. Turkey took the first major legal step in becoming a formal part of the decision making process of Europe in 1963 when it signed an Association Agreement with the European Union. However, the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974 and the military coup of 1980 have resulted in slowing down the process of Turkey’s full accession to the European Union.

Back on track The Helsinki Decision of the European Council in December 1999 brought back to the table Turkey’s candidature for full membership of the European Union. It set in motion a powerful desire amongst both the European Union and Turkey to devise a strategy and find a coherent approach for the country’s early accession to the European entity. The massive economic crisis that Turkey experienced in 2001 provided a golden opportunity for increased Turkey-EU cooperation that enabled the Turkish policy makers to

initiate the much needed economic reforms which were a pre-condition for membership to the European Union. The very fact that accession negotiations had started in 2005 was an indication of the support which Turkey had from a number of major EU member States. The majority of support came from countries which had a vision of EU playing a more prominent role in strengthening global security and increasing cooperation amongst members to combat issues of global concern. Britain, the Scandinavian countries and countries of the Mediterranean with the exception of France, have whole-heartedly supported Turkey’s membership application. The most productive period of negotiation was from the summer of 2002 (marked by reforms to combat the monetary crisis) to October 2005, when accession negotiations were formally initiated. The AK Party that had just taken over the reins of political power, was able to dismiss any notion that it would tilt towards its Islamist credentials and follow an ultra-orthodox approach. Its policies were consistent with its commitment to implement the conditions set down by the EU, the so called ‘conditionality’ clause for new members. It was also during this period that the Turkish Prime Minister Mr. Erdogan was successfully able to bring Turkey’s traditionally strong military under civilian control. The real progress amidst the reforms and the general bonhomie between Turkey and the EU were witnessed in the following fields:

Economy With a little help from the International Monetary Fund, Turkey managed to come out of the worst economic crisis it had ever faced through the setting up of prudent

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

Rajorshi Roy

institutional reforms. Fiscal and monetary discipline was established and inflation was reduced to single digit levels for the first time in several decades. This brought in motion one of the most successful phases of growth Turkey had ever witnessed. Establishment of an autonomous central bank to regulate the financial system and increased foreign direct investment contributed to the growth story of the country. The leaders worked tirelessly to cut down on the huge pension deficit, bring high interest rates under control, re-value the currency to help exporters and combat inflation that had reached epic proportions. Consequently, a programme was implemented to overhaul the entire industrial system and bring about efficiency that would pave the way for decades of economic and monetary growth.

Democratic progress The European Union, which has championed the cause of freedom, democracy and liberty, had always been skeptical about the situation in Turkey. Steps were initiated by Turkey to allay the fears of the EU member States. Special emphasis was laid on establishment and adherence to the rule of law. Reform packages introduced by the Parliament helped shifting the focus towards protection of civil and human rights. The restrictions on freedom of the independence of press and media were loosened and they were allowed to function much more freely than they ever had in the history of the country. Turkey also initiated the process of reconciliation towards the Kurds by offering them a set of cultural rights which enabled the Kurds to educate themselves in their own Kurdish language and use the language for broadcasting purposes. An amnesty plan for people involved in the separatist movement was introduced.

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

citadel Europe?

CROSSROADS

Turkey’s membership would build one of the strongest bridges between Europe and the Muslim world. Through its strategic location and good ties with neighbouring Middle Eastern countries, Turkey could set a positive example for democratisation in the region and significantly contribute to EU’s security objectives. The way Turkey deals with its political, economic and legal issues will determine the outcome of negotiation process Business associations and civil society groups emerged as active participants in the decision making process and legislations were introduced to protect the rights of Turkey’s non-Muslim minorities. The ambit of anti-terrorism statutes, which had earlier been used to curtail political expression, was narrowed down and the Penal Code and Codes of Criminal and Administrative Procedure were amended. Turkey also signed and ratified Protocols 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights. All these developments were music to EU’s ears.

Foreign policy Turkey made a serious attempt to improve its relations with its neighbours and this multidimensional foreign policy was characterised by the principle of “zero problems” with its neighbours. Steps were taken to remove the trust deficit which Turkey had with Greece and Syria, States which Turkey has had significant problems in the past. It was also during this period that Turkey reached out to Russia, its Black Sea neighbours and also the Arab Middle East by actively participating in the Organisation of Islamic Conference. However, events of the last couple of years indicate that Turkey-EU relations have reached a stalemate. Some of the major European States like Germany and France, who have been vocal critics of Turkey’s membership, have in turn suggested a ‘special or a privileged membership’ but which falls short of the desired full membership. Turkey has categorically declined to accept anything less than full accession to the European Union.

Drift One can argue that from the highs of the accession talks of 2004-05, both Turkey and the European Union have drifted apart from each other in the recent times, with membership prospects for Turkey appearing bleak

in the future. Negotiations have proceeded very slowly so far and have thus undermined its credibility. There has been an intense debate in Turkey on the validity of initiating difficult unpopular reforms to toe the EU membership criteria at a time when an overwhelming public opinion in the country is against joining the Union. The questioning of Turkey’s European credentials and its membership itself by some of the leading European politicians like Ms. Angela Merkel of Germany and Mr. Sarkozy of France, did not go down too well with the elites of Turkey. It has strengthened the stand taken by anti-EU supporters of Turkey and riled the public who felt the debate was an attempt to humiliate their country. One of the raging debates in Europe has been the issue of immigration with the topic often acquiring nationalist credentials. In an apparent sign of the way immigration has appealed to the fear psyche of the EU public, especially those in the prosperous and industrialised countries, anti-immigrant political parties have come to the forefront and are gradually becoming a part of the decision-making process. It has become an extremely sensitive issue to discuss matters related to free movement of labour from a country which if joins the EU will become its largest country by the sheer size of its geographical area and population. The fact that EU member States had formally discussed the possibility of a permanent safeguard on full labour mobility meant that Turkey would be relegated to a second class status even if it were to become a full member. This was viewed in Turkey as being discriminatory and against its national prestige and interests.

Cyprus roadblock EU’s failure to deal with the Cyprus problem on an impartial basis also contributed to the prevailing deadlock.

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

The 2005 ‘Ankara protocol’ requires Turkey to extend the customs union to all the members of EU including Cyprus, a country with whom Turkey has had a chequered history. Turkey had demanded quid pro quo i.e., facilitating northern Cyprus (Turkish part) to trade directly with EU member States. In spite of assurances from EU leaders, no progress has been made so far since the proposal has been rejected by the Greek Cypriot government. Turkey’s policy of promotion of religious freedom like allowing scarves to be worn in public places did not go down too well with European States like France, Belgium and Netherlands where the issue of ‘scarf’ has stoked political and social tensions.

Enlargement fatigue One can argue that the EU is also suffering from an enlargement fatigue having admitted ten new members in 2004 and two additional members in 2007. Moreover, the sheer complexity of harmonising the interests of these States which had a communist legacy for more than half a century has ensured that the excitement and passion in making them a part of EU earlier, is now missing in Turkey’s case. Turkey’s foreign policy initiatives are also an indication of its gradual shift from a Euro-centric to a more Euro-Asiatic strategy. The recent statement made by the Turkish Foreign Minister Mr. Davutoglu, who proposed that Turkey should balance its western ties with stronger links to the Muslim world, Central Asia, Russia and other emerging powers, also suggests a change in that direction.

Way forward Despite the surrounding pessimism, there is still hope that Turkey will in the near future play an important role in shaping the policy making process of the European Union. Ataturk himself once observed, Turks always think

westwards even though the west has been prejudiced against Turks. One must remember that EU accession is a difficult and time consuming process where the applicant country must bring its domestic and foreign policies in line with the prescribed charter of the European Union. Some countries have spent more than a decade in negotiating before their application was finally accepted. Backing away from accession talks will strengthen the belief of anti-EU supporters in Turkey that the country’s membership was doomed right from the very start on account of EU being an exclusive Christian club. No country has reached the stage of negotiations and then failed to qualify as a full member. Today, there is a general perception that the EU needs Turkey more than that Turkey needs the EU. But it is important to find synergies, convergence and complementarity to cement this mutually beneficial relationship. And recent developments do indicate that there might be light at the end of the tunnel.

Economy flourishing Turkey, which in the beginning of the decade had to take as many as 19 different set of loans from the IMF with stringent pre-conditions, has managed to come out of the global financial crisis of 2008-09 with flying colours. It is one of the most flourishing economies in the region and none of the European countries including powerhouse Germany can match the performance of the Turkish economy in the last 2 years. Having a strong economically successful country as a member should bode well for the EU which has been plagued by issues of massive debts, bailouts and bankruptcy. Inclusion of the 8,00,000-strong Turkish army - Europe’s largest - will also strengthen EU’s defence capabilities. Turkey can benefit from the European expertise in the development of specific labour skills which are anyway in short supply and improve its rather elementary educational system. The reforms that led to the opening of accession negotiations have dramatically improved Turkey’s democratic and economic credentials.

Turkey is also key to EU plans to diversify its energy imports, reduce its dependency on Russia and sustain the security of its energy supply. Confidence building measures like the floating of tenders for the Nabucco pipeline have raised the prospects of a renewed vigour for the accession process. The renewed urgency witnessed in the form of intense negotiation both in Cyprus and at the UN for reunification of Cyprus and the change of government in Southern Cyprus has raised the possibility of an effective solution to the decades old bifurcation problem. The recent rapprochement between Turkey and Armenia has been appreciated by EU member States. There has been a turnaround in the opinion of some of Turkey’s staunch anti-EU parties like the Kemalist CHP which have now shown an interest in joining the European Union. It can be hoped that they will reinvigorate the accession debate and put pressure on the incumbent party in power to implement reforms in line with the EU charter. Turkey’s democracy has shown signs of moderation. The army’s influence in the political process has weakened and the AK Party has called for reconciliation, reform and universal respect for Turkey’s secular constitution. Turkey on its part will have to win the hearts and minds of EU citizens and engage in an intensive political and civil society dialogue to remove the misconceptions of the European public. Opening the Halki Seminary could

represent a significant move in terms of recognising the rights of Christian minorities, a topic which is bound to raise substantive passion in Europe. On foreign policy issues, Turkey’s policy makers will have to be more careful about issuing statements that put the country’s foreign policy principles at odds with the one followed by the European Union. Washington should use its influence to encourage EU members to set a date for starting accession negotiations with Ankara.

Muslim-Christian bridge Turkey’s membership would build one of the strongest bridges between Europe and the Muslim world. Through its strategic location and good ties with neighbouring Middle Eastern countries, Turkey could set a positive example for democratisation in the region and significantly contribute to EU’s security objectives. The way Turkey deals with its political, economic and legal issues will determine the outcome of negotiation process. Turkey’s integration into the EU remains a long cherished dream for many leaders on both sides but full membership for this huge and complex nation will require not just visionary thinking but dollops of pragmatism. Any failure in the integration process will permanently etch in the global consciousness wholly avoidable idea that Europe was always a ‘Christian Club’. The writer is a Research Assistant, Eurasia Cluster, Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), New Delhi, India and his area of specialisation is Russian studies.

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

citadel Europe?

STABILITY CHALLENGES

The Balkans have long meant the sound of splintering nationalities. The name has become synonymous with disintegration and is the root of “Balkanisation” – the art and science of destructive disintegration. Now that attempts are being made to put Humpty-Dumpty together again the lesson that Europe and the rest of the western world must learn from Kosovo and other such splinters is that destroying a multi-ethnic nation like Yugoslavia, which Tito held together with masterful jugglery, can be counter-productive to peace and coexistence. Now that Europe is learning its lessons in integration, hopefully it will apply the same yardstick to other parts of the world.

“T

he Balkans produce more history than they can consume” Winston Churchill once said. Balkan peninsula has always been one of the most fragile parts of Europe. The First World War started in Sarajevo with the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. After the Second World War former Yugoslavia remained a bubbling cauldron of internecine struggle. Twenty years after the beginning of the war in Croatia, thanks to the EU integration process, hopefully there is again a chance for stabilisation. Integration of Western Balkan is in the common interest of Europe.

Trigger A war which started in 1991 in Croatia surprised the whole world. Almost no one expected that 45 years after the end of Second World War peace in Europe could again be endangered and that military fights are possible. Twenty years ago the war in Slovenia and Croatia, the collapse of Yugoslavia, the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina reminded one of quotes of another European politician --(GermanPrussian chancellor from 19th century) Otto von Bismarck – who said: “If there is ever another war in Europe, it will come out of some damned silly thing in the Balkans”. Many politicians realised that peaceful coexistence in Europe was only a nice illusion. Because the Balkans are not an isolated island the whole of Europe becomes insecure. Wars and

destabilisation could easily spread to other parts of the continent, specially close neighbours. The conference in Dayton in 1995 stopped war in Bosnia but could not stop the spiral of incendiarism that it unleashed. Four years later came the war in Kosovo and NATO’s intervention in former Yugoslavia. Unfortunately the situation in the region is still not fully stable. The most dangerous potential point of course is Kosovo.

Solution? Is there a solution which will deliver more stable peace? Without any doubt the solution is a Euro-Atlantic integration of all former Yugoslavia. European integration is not ideal panacea for all illness (we see today a process of collapse of Belgium – one of the EU founder-members). It may not solve immediately problems. But it is the only way to stabilisation. Without any doubt, the most solid situation is in Slovenia which is already member of NATO and EU and has even occupied the presidency in EU. That’s whySlovenia is responsible for the process of further enlargement. But by paradox duringSlovenian presidency EU and Balkans countries did not make any significant progress. What is even worse,Slovenia blocked the accession process of Croatia because of a border conflict. However,Slovenia has a positive role to play of an elder sister being the peacemaker to bring the younger sisters into the European

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

Dominika Cosic

family. On the other side, being inside EUSlovenia can create a good atmosphere for enlargement around the Western Balkan region and it has an ambition to be an advocate. Croatia is well on the way to integration with the EU. Though it still has a difficult charter to discuss but EU senior diplomats expect that the process will be completed during the Hungarian presidency and could be completed by the end of the year (during the Polish presidency) when Croatia will be able to sign an accession treaty. With Croatia (and previously withSlovenia) the situation was clear from the very beginning -these two countries have always been the most “western” among former Yugoslav republics. Close relations with Germany and Austria have been helpful. The most difficult problems to solve were cooperation with Court in The Hague and the question of Serbian refugees from Slavonia (it is a part of Croatia close to the border with Serbia).

Problem of identity On the other hand Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Former Yugoslav Republics of Macedonia and Montenegro had from the beginning one crucial problem that was a hurdle on the road to European community – the problem of identity. All these countries have been part of Russian and oriental influenced areas. Specially Serbia, the biggest State in region, had a dilemma – to be closer to Europe or Russia? It is both a political and psychological

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

citadel Europe?

CRPF MAHILA (WOMEN) BATTALION

STABILITY CHALLENGES

The Mahila Bn. of CRPF has the unique distinction of being the first armed women Paramilitary Battalion in the world. A vision of the then Prime Minister Shri Rajiv Gandhi, it was approved vide GOI Order No. 12013/1/85-FP-IV of 22nd May 1985 and raised on 6th February, 1986. It will celebrate it's silver jubilee this year, on 8th March, i.e., on Women’s Day. More than an armed battalion, it ensures protection of human rights of citizens of the country especially women and children. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 25 years ago, the internal security of the country was grim. The country was passing through tough times. Women were being used as carriers and informers. There were widespread allegations against the armed forces of human rights violations. There was a desperate need for trained, unbiased, fit, firm and polite women. The challenge to raise a full fledged Bn. was thrown to the CRPF. Recruitment for physically fit women was carried out all over the country to ensure equal participation from all states. There was an overwhelming response. Mahila recruits from different parts of the country were put through rigorous physical training of 44 weeks. A year later, the World's first women Armed Paramilitary Bn. was ready for action. At it's passing out parade on 31st March, 1987, the then Prime Minister Shri Rajiv Gandhi was there to applaud and inspire them to ever greater heights. ACHIEVEMENTS

question. Slobodan Milosevic chose Russia as a most important strategic partner for Serbia. After election in 2000 and beginning of democratic governments new leaders decided to change direction and establish better relations with European Community. Unfortunately Europe did not use the chance immediately and did not give enough support to the government in Belgrade. It was the best time for more radical steps like liberalisation of visa regime and reinforcement of economic and political relations. Instead, Brussels was only insisting on her own terms: Closer cooperation with The Hague and delivering to jail Milosevic, Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic. The result was reinforcement of populist and nationalist movement in Serbia. In the year 2008 most of European countries made another mistake – they recognised the independence of Kosovo (only Spain, Cyprus, Slovakia, Greece and Romania did not do it). Thanks to the effort of the new Serbian government relations with EU got closer – in 2009 EU decided on liberalisation of visa regime and the next step came a year later when Serbia received status of candidate country. Montenegro already has this status. The biggest problem with Macedonia is her name – Greece claimed a historical right on the name Macedonia. That’s why official name is FYROM (Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia).

The most complex and difficult situation is with Kosovo which is still not fully recognised in the light of international law. Apart from this Kosovo is unfortunately a land of corruption and kingdom of mafia (heroin, smuggling of cigarettes and prostitution). But Kosovo can’t be out of Europe for too long. So only strong control from the European side will help. Together with European integration process another process is underway – Euro-Atlantic integration.Slovenia, Croatia and Albania are already members of NATO. Other countries are candidates.

Common interests Who has bigger interest in integration process? European integration for the Balkans means, of course, the possibility of the benefit of European funds and financial prosperity. It is obvious that material prosperity is a first and necessary step to stabilisation. And accession also means freedom of movement which was a privilege of citizens of former Yugoslavia during government of Tito but disappeared after the collapse of Yugoslavia. The psychological feeling of being a member of the European family is extremely important to stop the rise of nationalistic and populist feelings. And

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

accession will be positive for Europe as well. There is the financial aspect – a large market of consumers (more than 20 million people). It is the best chance for stabilisation. Of course some of the EU countries are afraid of creating a destabilising situation in Europe. One can expect that after fully opening the borders and opening of labour market many workers from the Balkans can move to look for jobs in Western Europe. But the example of United Kingdom and Ireland which opened their markets for workers from Eastern Europe in 2004 was a clear proof that such a brave decision has positive impact on internal economic situation and stimulates the economy. Organised crime which is another fear will be – by paradox – more easy to fight and control when Balkans States become members of EU. Of course after last enlargement (altogether 12 countries) and two waves of recession Europe is tired and has problems with her own identity. But it should not result in closing of European doors because without Western Balkans, Europe will not be fully united. The writer is European correspondent of Polish weekly magazine Wprost. She specialises in NATO and European Union affairs and also the Balkans issues. She is correspondent (Europe) of Defence And Security Alert (DSA) magazine from India.

In August 1987 riots broke out in Meerut. In it's first ever deployment, the women took on the task professionally and humanely. Tough on the rioters, they provided succour to riot victims. On 21 December 1987 came their first overseas deployment as a part of the Indian Peacekeeping Force. 3 coys. of the Mahila Bn. were deployed. One at Trincomalee, Elephant Pass and another at Jaffna. Their role was applauded by all. CT Bimla Devi became the first Indian women to be conferred with the Sena medal for her bravery. On 31st August 1988 she recovered 1192 detonators while frisking a suspected woman at Jaffna thereby averting a huge tragedy. L/NK Rajwanti was awarded the Army Chief's Commendation. 361 men and women of the unit were awarded Videsh Seva Medal. In one of the most trying circumstances and in hostile terrain, these brave women held the banner high and brought laurels to the force. After two long years in Sri Lanka, they returned to India proud and strong. In the Ram Janam Bhumi, Babri Masjid issue caused the entire country to seeth with turmoil. On 5th July, 2005, five suicide bombers stormed the Ram Janam Bhumi - Babri Masjid Parisar. A/C Santo Devi led from the front and ensured no damage to the site. She was conferred the President Police Medal for Gallantry and became the first Paramilitary woman to be so honoured. CRPF women also scaled Mount Abu gamin, Uttarakhand, India and 'Peak 2' in Nepal thereby adding to mountaineering history. All women white-water rafting expedition was carried out from Srinagar (Uttarakhand) to Rishikesh, (distance of 105 Km ) in December, 1996. All women mountain Bike expediton was undertaken by this unit in September, 1997 from Sarahan (Himachal Pradesh) to Chandigarh. WOMEN OF CRPF ON UN MISSION Women CRPF personnel made UN history by fielding a Female Formed Police Unit (FFPU) in strife torn Liberia. As a part of India’s commitment to US peacekeeping missions, this 125 women strong contingent has played an active role in maintaining peace in this troubled country. ACHIEVEMENT UNDER UN MISSION The Indian Female Formed Police Unit reached Monrovia, Liberia on 30th January 2007 and after pre-induction training wef 2nd February 2007 to 5th February 2007, the troops started with first deployment at Unity Conference Centre on 8th February 2007. RECOGNITION FOR CRPF WOMEN Valiant soldiers of CRPF Mahila Bns. have won many gallantry awards and medals: Ashok Chakra, Sena Medal, President's Police Medal for Gallantry, Police Medal for Gallantry (PMG), President's Police Medal for Meritorious Service, Police Medal for Distinguished Service, Videsh Seva Medal, Special Service Medal, Antrik Suraksha Sewa Medal, Police (Special Duty) Medal, DG's Commendation Discs etc.

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

internal security

TEMPLATES

India is in a state of flux accentuated by the transition from one-party rule in the first three decades to coalition governments and different political permutations and combinations succeeding each other in quick succession at the centre and in the states. This has had its effect on internal security and, by consequence, is exacerbated by external intervention. The Sarkaria Commission’s recommendations remain largely unimplemented and greater autonomy to the states has not happened. This redounds on security and greater dependence on the sinews of the centre – the armed forces – leading to misuse or indiscriminate use of violence. The Armed Forces Special Powers Act has become caught up in this web.

ith the declaration of support to Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) by Indian Army Chief, General V. K. Singh, calling it “an enabling provision and Act passed by Parliament. While for the armed forces it assists in dealing with special situations” but it also indicates the clash of centre and the states over the execution of authority. As reviewed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it does not give unwieldy powers to the armed forces; therefore, “it is not an arbitrary Act. It has a meaning. It enables your forces to have a certain amount of legal cover” (The Tribune, October 17, 2010).

Federalism Federalism is considered efficient from the political angle because of the facility it provides for a heterogeneous population to come together under the banner of one nation and acquire strength from unity while allowing the constituents to retain their identity and autonomy over a wide area of public life. Federalism also fosters democratic values and the civic virtues of people’s participation in political processes. Lately, the economic benefits of federalism have motivated sovereign nations to join together in economic union without surrendering their independence. Fundamental characteristics of federal formation are: 1. Where the initial heterogeneity of regional factor endowments in a nascent state is high, the regional elites negotiating constitutions are likely to favour limited central powers in order to preclude central policy detrimental to their interests. 2. Where assets are concentrated in a small share of regions, the result is

likely to be an increased demand on the part of regional elites for regionally re-distributive policy. Indian federalism is the simultaneity of two processes – the unionisation process and the regionalisation process. Indian security is vulnerable to threats, tensions and conflicts originating both from indigenous and exogenous sources. Some of the challenges are inherent in the system, which India inherited such as state centric approach vs nation building, socio-cultural and ethnic heterogeneity / feudalistic build-up / British legacy, poverty / illiteracy / backwardness, lack of governance etc. and the others are situational, which lay in the continuity and change in policies, to count a few may include separatist movements of subversion, sabotage and terror, communalism, sectarianism, ethnic, regional parochialism and sub-nationalism. Also added to this list are impact of globalisation, money, weapons and drug trafficking, criminalisation of politics and politicisation of the bureaucracy and the police. Internal security situation in India may be examined with this background. While challenges will intrinsically rest on domestic roots but external factors will continue to play a major role in aggravating these. The indigenous dynamics of India’s internal security are reflected in its socio-political milieu, the main feature of which is its diversity. Social tensions particularly in the ethnic and religious field due to its trans-border character will continue to be the main areas of exploitation by our adversaries. The exogenous forces, especially influenced by events in South Asia

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

due to various historical, geographical and demographic imperatives, will endeavour to aggravate India’s internal security challenges. Therefore India’s internal security scenario will continue to be complex and varied. On August 15, 1947, India attained independence from British rule, but ceded Muslim-majority areas to Pakistan. Soon after in January 1950 India became a federal republic officially with a strong central government to hold together the diverse economic, linguistic and cultural entities and to avoid fissiparous tendencies. India was perhaps the first country of its kind, which faced both an external aggression as well as internal disturbances from the day of its birth. Initially, India’s internal security was confined to maintenance of law and order, containment of communal violence and in very few cases, counterinsurgencies.

Prof. (Retd.) K. S. Sidhu

federalism and

security challenges

Federalism in India has evolved in two distinctly different phases. The first phase spanning the three decades of fifties, sixties and seventies, was marked by pronounced concentration of economic policy making powers in the centre, while the subsequent two decades saw a trend towards its reversal. Latest estimates of the proportion of people living below the poverty line also show that although there has been a decline in the incidence of poverty in all states, there are marked variations across states.

Constitutional provisions The Constitution that was adopted in 1950 itself classified the states into four categories, more as a legacy rather than any political consideration or economic viability:

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

internal security

TEMPLATES

We have a paradoxical situation that both the state and the society are insecure. Since focus of internal security is society, therefore human aspects of civil society get interlinked, which makes its understanding difficult and management complex. The key to dealing with internal security is to keep the focus on people and society as these clearly set out the parameters both for policy framework and management 1. Provinces directly ruled by the British were classified as Part ‘A’ states.

Disparities have remained sharp in social development for the reason that:

2. The princely states which had a relationship with the Government of India based on individual treaties signed were classified as Part ‘B’ states. These included the states of Hyderabad, Mysore, Jammu and Kashmir and 5 newly joined unions of princely states.

1. Over-centralisation of economic policies and attempt by the centre to take on too much and micro-manage the economy by intruding into areas assigned to the states in the Constitution, stifling local initiatives and weakening accountability of lower level governments.

3. In the case of Jammu and Kashmir, special powers were given in the terms of accession. 4. The remaining princely states acceding to the union were grouped under Part ‘C’ states. Finally, the territories ruled by other foreign powers gaining independence and areas not covered in the above three categories were brought under the direct control of the union formed Part ‘D’ states or Union Territories. Despite the existence of a provision in the Constitution, which empowers the central government to reorganise them, no such rationale was adapted to this effect. As a consequence, the intergovernmental relationships were placed on an uneven economic keel. Obviously, identical assignment system in an unevenly endowed federating system resulted in large differences in fiscal capacities. Varying sizes of states in terms of area and population, demographic compositions, different terrain and topography cause significant variations in the public services varying expenditure needs and places a heavy burden of equalisation on the intergovernmental transfer system. The states in India derive their powers from the Constitution and are not a creation of the centre and despite all its diversities (ethnic, religious and linguistic) and the underlying tensions, India has held its ground as a nation. India has emerged as the largest democracy in the world. Politically, the federal structure seems to have served the nation well.

2. Failure to ensure the development and smooth functioning of a common market in the country and prevent its segmentation through fiscal and quasi-fiscal actions of governments at both levels. 3. Faulty design of intergovernmental transfers creating perverse incentives for fiscal behaviour of recipient governments. 4. Inadequate central oversight over states’ borrowing resulting in the problem of sub-national debt and deficit.

Political elements The most significant basis of asymmetric conduct of different states may be traced in the nature of Indian polity and the manner in which political institutions have functioned for quite a long time. The issue did not come to the fore in the early stages of Indian independence because of various reasons, particularly because the centralised Indian National Congress had little opposition and had an implicit domination in forming the government both at the centre as well as in the states. However, four important developments in Indian federalism have been responsible for the growth of asymmetric behaviour of states in Indian federation. These may be analysed as below: 1. The increasing economic centralisation of Indian federalism. 2. The end of single party rule at the

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

centre and states. 3. The emergence of parties with regional identity as ruling parties in some important states. 4. The deprived and the marginalised sections of the society, unable to survive in the present system, get alienated. The militant and extremist forces thrive in this environment. Federalism in India as everywhere else has to face the overwhelming challenges of the new millennium. That underlines the fact that federal system cannot suit all countries for all times. Maintaining an appropriate balance in the relationship between the centre and the constituent units in a federation with centrifugal and centripetal forces keeping each other in check. To be result oriented, the federal structure needs to be altered and mended to cope with changing environment and emerging challenges. There can be a variety of motivations for various units to come together to constitute a federation. The political and economic theories of federalism attempt to understand the rationale for the “coming together” to form federations and once they are formed, analyse the conditions for “holding together”. The political impulse for the smaller units to federate has to be found in issues of freedom, security, political stability and strength while keeping a separate group identity. Similarly, access to a larger common market, reaping economies of scale in the provision of national level public goods and availability of wider choice in the bundle of services to meet diverse preferences are some of the economic reasons for the smaller units to come together to form a federation.

Centralising influences The Indian political system though supposedly decentralised and federal is too centrist. It is quasi-federal at best and does not allow enough room for the states to function freely or

decentralisation to come into full play. However, Security and Foreign Policy are the responsibility of the central government and in the remaining matters the constituent states have the authority and control. There is overlap of internal and external security, which demands greater collaborative approach. The question whether India’s central government understands the states’ compulsions is a vital issue of attention because the agencies like police tend to slip in their duties when dealing with weaker sections of Indian society and with minority groups. Nevertheless, it has to be accepted that there have constantly been undercurrents of tension and uneasiness arising out of a feeling of excessive concentration of powers at the centre. The feeling stemmed not so much from the legislative and executive supremacy accorded to the centre by the Constitution as the manner in which economic policy making was conducted in the first three decades after independence, with the centre assuming a commanding role in crucial areas. Dissatisfaction with the system surfaced, once the political landscape changed as one party rule at the centre and the states ended and some states went under rule by parties other than that at the centre. Appointment of a high powered panel on Centre State Relations - the Sarkaria Commission - followed when the pleas for reversing the centralisation that had marked the initial three decades of federalism in the country became strident and demands were voiced in several quarters for decentralisation. The Sarkaria Commission, while reaffirming the need for a strong centre nevertheless made wide-ranging recommendations to allow the states more autonomy in the spheres assigned to them under the Constitution. These recommendations however, remained largely unheeded.

Coalition governments As none of the national parties emerged victorious during the general elections, they had to forge alliances with other parties including regional parties to form governments. The regional parties could force their agenda and attempt to extract the maximum for the arrangements. This is particularly true when the parties had a

pivotal standing in the coalition. As the electorate has become more cynical and their trust and faith in the politicians have shown a drop, the probability of representatives getting re-elected has declined sharply.

and (ii) those that are opaque and discretionary caused by the balance administrative and political power and expediency.

The rationale for asymmetry arises from the premise that inter alia, federalism is a rational bargain of various units. The potential for discrimination is higher in more centralised federations and is inversely related to the political strength of the central government vis-à-vis the various regional governments. The Indian federalism, in respect of administrative, political and fiscal spheres, with greater emphasis on the last, chronicles the growth of asymmetries over the years. It is important to make a distinction between unequal arrangements or asymmetry that are (i) transparent and rule based evolved to facilitate the smooth functioning of the federation;

Ever since independence, India has been facing all types of violent conflicts based on religion, caste, language, ethnicity and regional loyalties. Political insecurity further compounds the problem. The fact that future conventional wars will possibly involve perception concurrent with domestic low-intensity conflicts raises the question of the use of conventional forces to deal with internal conflict and security. The armed forces of India have been used to crush secessionist movements at various times. In addition, a number of secessionist and the so-called revolutionary movements are also operating in India today.

Conventional forces

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

internal security

TEMPLATES

Their goal could be to overthrow the government and bring about revolutionary changes in the structure and functioning of the state, or even secession from the Indian Union. Preoccupied with the problem of survival, the governments in some of the most affected states are not looking at the problem from a long-term perspective. They have bought temporary peace by compromising with the subversive forces. Such shortsighted policies can have disastrous consequences in the long run. Instead of effectively dealing with them in the initial stages when the problem is manageable, they have allowed these anti-national forces to take roots and spread their tentacles far and wide. When a state government is unable to effectively deal with them, instead of strengthening the state police machinery, it rushes to the centre to hand over its responsibility at the first sign of any serious trouble. It is not surprising that in these states some sections of the police have actually joined hands with the subversive forces against the central forces, submitting to the credo “If you cannot fight them, join them”. Until the Indian Army’s assault on the Golden Temple in Punjab in 1984, the military was viewed by much of the Indian population as a symbol of national unity. To most Indians, the military was, and still is, the trusted friend of the people. Indeed, the Indian military sees itself as the defender of the nation and as an important symbol of national unity and it would like to keep things that way. The military acts as an integrating force in its national recruitment efforts; its role as the defender of the nation against external aggression; and, its role in providing disaster relief and other assistance to the civilian authorities during natural calamities. Unfortunately, perceptions of the regular armed forces as symbols of national unity and integrity began to decline following the 1984 assault on the Golden Temple in Amritsar. Its reputation fell further as a result of its unenthusiastic role in the preservation of internal security. Controversy over the use of force to quell domestic insurgencies, of course, surrounds both the paramilitary forces and the armed forces. In the case of the paramilitary forces, the issue is not whether they have a role to play in the maintenance

of internal security; they were, after all, raised for that purpose. The issue is whether the government in power could misuse such special internal security forces or whether the army overuses its authority. The greater the size of paramilitary forces, the greater the probability that democratic processes and the freedom of the citizens are likely to be undermined. On the other hand, in the case of the regular armed forces, the question is whether such forces should be used at all in the maintenance of internal order. The Indian military, may not be happy about this role and, therefore, has protested that the use of the military to deal with internal conflicts could lead to military demoralisation, increasing politicisation of the military and to the breakdown of civilian controlled democracies. The use of the Indian army to attack the Golden Temple nearly led to a mutiny by some Sikh soldiers of the Indian Army and it destroyed civilian-military confidence in Punjab. The military argues that to use the armed services “against their own people” would not only produce a breakdown in the military-civilian trust that has been built up over several decades, but also if the army were deployed on domestic security missions in the border provinces it is bound to undermine its ability to fight a conventional war because of the alienation of the people living in those regions. But once the army is deployed it indicates the failure of other peacekeeping forces and, therefore, it must be relied upon as the last authority to control the situation. The military machinery of India, in the present context, is facing serious challenges of its civilian areas deployment, the degenerating state of its internal affairs due to rising malpractices and its depleting socio-cultural image on account of corruption and lack of modern equipment, training and, therefore, loss of professional force. The decreasing interest of potential human input has further added to its problems of image building as a potential fighting force. In the disturbed and insurgency infested areas people feel insecure both from the insurgents and the state. The state’s response has been to seek more security forces and greater militarisation

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

of the environment. Centrifugal tendencies both at the community and group level are increasing. People feel that state is absent in areas of their interest and state’s interest is detached from that of the people and society. In critically disturbed areas state’s functional presence is diminishing. It leads to a paradoxical situation that both the state and the society are insecure. Since focus of internal security is society, therefore human aspects of civil society get interlinked, which makes its understanding difficult and management complex. The Indian State has looked at the internal security problems, only through two faces of the prism - political and law and order. The third face represented by religious fundamentalism, ethnic violence, economic disparities and deprivation is only talked about but seldom looked at hard and constantly. We can no longer afford to ignore it particularly when globalisation and its effects can make changes fast, furious and most damaging and unexpected. If responses to recent natural calamities are any indication, the Indian State has a long way to go. There is need for debate and consensus on India’s internal security challenges, particularly due to coalition government and regional political stalwarts pursuing their own agendas. India’s response to internal security has been purely that of crisis management, over centralisation and states abdicating their responsibilities. Structural changes are required in decision making process, to ensure independent functioning of law enforcement agencies and a holistic policy incorporating political, economic, socio-cultural and law and order aspects. This most of all will require political will. In spite of India’s failures and derailment of the democratic system, India has survived and made progress due to the resilience of its people. The key elements are good governance and credible politics. But in the states where the situation has gone beyond their control, the centre, as laid down in the Constitution, is duty-bound to intervene, notwithstanding the fact that law and order is under the State List. The Union government is charged with the responsibility of protecting the states from internal

disturbances, even though law and order comes under List-II, the State List. The Union government can issue directions to the state. Action for non-compliance of the directions from the Union government can be taken. A state government can be dismissed, if a situation arises in which the administration of the state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. But, even if the centre decides to intervene, the state’s role cannot be minimised. The primary responsibility to deal with the security challenges must rest with the state governments. A situation should not be allowed to develop where the state government washes its hands off, or its forces instead of cooperating with the central forces, actually work against them. The police, the paramilitary forces, the army and all the intelligence agencies must act in close co-ordination. The hostile foreign forces can and will take advantage of the internal situation to destabilise the country in pursuit of their own agenda. All serious internal security problems, if not checked effectively, can develop an external dimension. There is an urgent need to make the police and the paramilitary forces more professional. The emphasis has to shift from ‘more numbers’ to ‘more professionally trained and responsible forces’. The internal security challenges should not be treated as merely law

and order problems but have to be dealt with comprehensively in all their dimensions and at all levels. They are all interlinked. At times, the required measures will conflict with each other so that security requirements are adequately met. Striking the right balance is the key to success in meeting these challenges effectively. The key to dealing with internal security is to keep the focus on people and society as these clearly set out the parameters both for policy framework and management:

cultural and traditional values.

1. The political system readjustment and changes.

8. The cost of governance needs to be brought down and government’s role in the economic, social and cultural fields needs to be reduced.

needs

2. The diverse elements of the society need to be given self-rule and autonomy in their local affairs and their cultural and social identities should be recognised by adoption of indigenous models suited to their genius and traditions. 3. The agenda for change must ensure stability at the centre, states and lower levels based on consensus and governance decentralised and people oriented. 4. The political process needs to be rejuvenated with reforms in the electoral system. 5. The charter of fundamental rights and duties needs to be reoriented and reinforced with primary aim of establishing a civil society in tune with

6. This will require creation of a new law enforcement apparatus responsible to the people from the grass-root level with primary aim to serve the society and be also responsible to it at each level. 7. Religion must be an affair of individual and the community and not to be a part of the political system or process.

9. The main concern should be to establish the credibility and legitimacy of the state and its institutions, which can only be achieved by a pragmatic and implementable policy, institutionalised approach and a sincere and transparent implementation by credible people. 10. Aberrations must be resolved in a transparent and just fashion as public perceptions are important. The writer is former Head, Department of Defence and Strategic Studies and former Registrar, Punjabi University, Patiala, India. He specialises in Indian Security and the Indian Ocean / South Asia region. He has authored five books and 45 research papers and articles.

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

South India’s International Exhibition for Security and Fire Technology

www.ifsecsouthindia.com

With four highly successful events held in delhi & mumbai, uBm india is pleased to apprise you about IFSEC South India which will take place 1-3 June 2011 at the Bangalore International Exhibition Centre, Bengaluru. Located in the second largest region in india for security installation, and india’s Silicon Valley, iFSEc South india will provide an excellent platform for organisations to capitalise and penetrate into the lucrative South indian security market. iFSEc South india will bring together professionals from the security industry with the indian and international solution providers looking to bring the latest security and fire technology to South india. This event will also offer an ideal platform to network with key security professionals, see the latest innovations in technology from world’s leading companies, source business solutions and gather invaluable expert support, all under one roof. SOmE OF Our cOnFirmEd ExhiBiTOrS AT iFSEc SOuTh indiA:

Security. Lifestyle. Technology.

C : 100 / M: 0 / Y:0 / K:0 C : 0 / M: 20 / Y:100 / K:0

For further details & Space Booking contact: Nigel Luke Brown Project Director T: +91 11 23765554 E: nigel.brown@ubm.com

Prashant Bahl Senior Project Manager T: +91 22 66122674 E: prashant.bahl@ubm.com

Supported by

Organised by

neighbour watch

BUGBEAR

The signs and signals are too persistent to be ignored and in recent times Indian analysts have begun predicting that China could decide to teach New Delhi a second lesson just to ensure that the rest of the world accepts its hegemony in the regional context. “Salami slicing” and nibbling along the Himalayan frontiers should be expected and dealt with in much the same way that India handled Kargil. Nonetheless it is time Indian strategists took a closer look at Kashmir to understand the implications of foreign rail links and pipelines across our own territory.

ecently Chinese strongman paid a much hyped visit to India and there were a lot of expectations from his visit. But he made confusing and ambiguous statements and went away. There was no stand-down on Chinese stance on boundary dispute. In fact, it has been reported in the media that Chinese troops have been entering Indian border in Leh and threatening our Border Roads Organisation persons to stop developmental activities. Besides, China has inducted troops in Gilgit area of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir as a counterpoise to India. To be very frank China has been slowly and steadily posing a serious threat to India while posturing with friendly vibes. There are strong indications of Chinese covertly providing assistance to Maoists / Naxalites and other militant organisations of India. China, therefore, has been systematically undermining integrity of India through her ‘outsourced war’ on India. Is India ready to take on China?

Keep powder dry In an interview to Raj Chengappa, editor-in-chief of The Tribune, published on October 17, 2010, General V. K. Singh, Chief of Army Staff, Indian Army, had expressed a view that notwithstanding the current thaw with China, situation needed to be watched as intentions can change with the growth in capabilities. China, in September-October 2010, had inducted a PLA contingent into Gilgit-Baltistan region of PoK. China has got another contract in Sri Lanka to build a port. Therefore, General V. K. Singh had rightly made this observation as China remains India’s biggest bugbear. And why not, if you note some of these Chinese acts holistically: ■■ China is in illegal occupation of some 12,000 square Kilometers of Aksai Chin in J and K.

■■ China claims entire Arunachal Pradesh, a north-eastern state of India.

been admitted by Maoist leaders on the TV channels.

■■ China has created a ‘String of Pearls’ around Indian coastline from Gwadar in Pakistan to Hambantota in Sri Lanka to Sree Port (Arakan) in Myanmar and also in Thailand. It wants to dominate the sea routes of trade in the Indian Ocean and checkmate India in her trade with Africa and ASEAN.

■■ Paresh Barua of ULFA has recently been sheltered in China after he escaped from Bangladesh.

■■ China has recently inducted a brigade sized force into FCNA of Pakistan in the recent months. She has been always propping up Pakistan to ensure India remained tied down. Her nuclear supply deal with Pakistan ought to be seen as such. ■■ Chinese embassy recently has started issuing stapled visas to people of Kashmir to assert her stand that it was disputed. It is 180 degree turnaround from her earlier stand of bilateral issue between India and Pakistan. ■■ China has constructed rail / road communications in TAR (Tibetan Autonomous Region) and Xinxiang province close to Indian border. In the east, a road is under construction to Tawang in Arunachal Pradesh.

■■ What is worse is the fact that China was trying to discredit India and harm its economic interests. The reported case of sale of Malarial Drug to Nigeria as “Made in India” is an evidence enough of its evil designs.

Lull before the storm Should not the last act of China worry Indian businessmen and alert India’s economic and security strategists on Chinese intentions? In an article published in The Tribune on September 28, 2009, it was highlighted, based on the observations of a British journalist, published in Sunday Times in September 2009, that China considered India as her enemy Number One. Therefore, the current thaw is only a lull before the storm. In order to deal with India, China has embarked upon a three-pronged strategy:

■■ China strongly opposes India’s membership of UN Security Council.

Covert War: Cyber warfare aimed at affecting the command and control systems by virus attack on Indian computers, either to make them dysfunctional or hack them to extract vital information. Also, carry out a clandestine trade war to capture markets frequented by Indian goods like the Nigerian Malaria drug incident, where spurious medicines were being sold under brand name India.

■■ China supports Maoists militancy/insurgency and also separatist movements in Nagaland, Manipur, Tripura and Assam. This has

China’s Outsourced War On India (Support internal dissensions): Support Maoists / Naxalite and militants of north-east,

■■ China is helping Myanmar to get nuclear weapons with the help of North Korea. ■■ China tried to block aid to Arunachal Pradesh from Asian Development Bank.

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

Col. (Retd.) Rajinder Singh

Kashmir, South and Central India to: ■■ Engage Indian army and cause attrition. ■■ At opportune moments spark border crisis to gauge our intentions. There could be series of

probing attacks along 4,000 kms of border from Arunachal Pradesh in the East to Leh in the West. ■■ Encircle and Contain India: Establish important sea ports in the Indian Ocean to dominate the sea routes to India through ‘String of Pearls’

policy. Cultivate hostile governments in India’s neighbourhood like Nepal, Sri Lanka, Myanmar etc. Use Pakistan to keep India engaged in unwanted conflict and retard her economic progress - this is part of ‘Outsourced-War Strategy’.

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

neighbour watch

BUGBEAR

I expect no major military conflict other than the exploitation of India’s vulnerabilities by China as part of WOM. I expect a spurt in the verbal spats as part of the Cold War. In fact, this century is the century of a Cold War between two Asian giants which has just begun Imminence of war It is not that China has suddenly appeared on Indian defence planners' radar screen. This article will attempt to analyse gnawing teeth of China which have become visible after decades of silence. In fact one of our eminent defence analysts, Bharat Kumar Verma, editor of Indian Defence Review, had predicted a war between India and China in December 2012. In his article, ‘Unmasking China’ in the Indian Defence Review of July 2009 Issue, he has given four basic reasons for such a conflict. These are: ■■ China’s rising Asian and global ambitions and its perceptions of India as a roadblock. ■■ China’s aggressive acts against India. ■■ Economic slowdown adverse impact. ■■

and

its

Internal unrest in China.

I would not go into the specific predictions of the time, size, type and date of the polemical event but the possibility of some conflict, however minor or localised, with China cannot be ruled out in the near future because we are now getting into the time-period when our economic and strategic interests will not only be competitive but also be harming each other.

Chinese preparations China had been following a policy of encirclement of India both by sea and land. Its ‘string of pearls’ spreads from Gwadar in Pakistan through Hambantota in Sri Lanka to Myanmar. Besides, China had been busy in making foray into South Asia around India. It has Pakistan very friendly to it. The Maoist Nepal, despite temporary setback, also looks to China as a friend, philosopher and a guide. It had also cultivated Bangladesh and sees it as a major anti-India plank for seeding and supporting separatist movements in India’s north-eastern states. It

supported Sri Lanka with weapons and equipment, during its final war with LTTE in the year 2008-09. Thus, India has been now confined to its own geographical limits. What is worse is that China has been supporting the military regime in Myanmar to go nuclear through covert assistance from North Korea. If it happens then, India would be fully flanked in the North, East and the West by nuclear States. It would be very dangerous situation for India.

Beijing’s perceptions Why is China doing so? What are her worries of India? According to Mr. Bhaskar Roy, an Indian Defence Analyst, there were three reasons for the same. First reason was the establishment of tri-Services command in the Andaman and development of Indian navy to control the vital trade sea routes in the Indian Ocean. India’s counter piracy actions in conjunction with ASEAN countries irked China. Second was the nuclear test conducted by India and her resilience to hold against sanctions. It saw India emerging as a power to be reckoned with in the world. Third reason was Indo-US nuclear deal and emerging Indo-US strategic partnership, thus threatening balance of power towards India. All this might suggest to the reader that China is all set to smash India out of existence. But the question which needs to be answered is whether China can really do it? Do we really see a Chinese blitzkrieg to knock some sense into India and annex Arunachal Pradesh? Now the question arises, if China is economically or militarily capable of delivering such a coup-de-grace on India? I am a very optimistic person and I do not think China can do this miscalculation, merely to teach a lesson to India.

Only border skirmishes It might culminate into a border incident in the near future which I do believe would result in strained Sino-Indian relations for a considerable time. I also feel that the relationship would also witness an era of Cold War

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

in this century. Both will blow hot and cold. At the worst, sometimes it might lead to local conflicts on the border in Arunachal Pradesh or Leh-Ladakh or even in Himachal Pradesh. But I do not see a full scale war of the 1962 kind unless we have crazy leadership in both countries. My reasons are very simple. ■■ Firstly, India is a No Military Pushover as it was in 1962. Being a status quo nation we don’t have to worry much about our weaponry and equipment as long as we are well entrenched to defend ourselves. Chinese cannot bring more than 2:1 superiority against us which is not adequate in hard and rugged mountainous conditions, where you need to create some 7:1 superiority as an attacker against the conventional 3:1 in the plains for any reasonable chance of success. Its human wave tactics is no more a puzzle for modern weapons. As regards the numerical strength of China’s army - it cannot muster more that 2:1 superiority against Indian defences which is just a peanut and a sitting duck for potshots by Indian defenders. Our soldiers do not have ‘Point 303 rifles’ with limited ammunition any more. To carry out blitzkrieg China must create a decisive concentration of forces in Tibet for months together, which will not go unnoticed by India. ■■ Secondly, the numerical superiority of China in manpower and equipment is a misnomer. Today’s wars are ‘designer wars’ with 100 per cent surety of success. If you cannot ensure this, you do not go to war. It is as simple as that. Qualitatively Indian armament and equipment is in much healthier condition as compared to 50 per cent of modernisation of Chinese forces being still incomplete. China might have some 3,000 aircraft against India’s 790 or so. It can only have some 1176 aircraft effective in totality. It does not give it a decisive edge for a likely blitzkrieg. Also, Gulf War-2 has shown as to how the sheer numbers become duds before technologically superior weapons.

Paper tiger? Chinese navy too does not have

an edge over Indian navy despite the numbers being in favour of China. It has some 800 Naval ships against India’s 150. Sixty per cent of Chinese naval ships are Second World War junk and India has all modern crafts with AWACS (Airborne Early Warning System). China might have 68 submarines and India only 16 but India need not worry much about them. We have one aircraft carrier, INS VIRAT, China has none. It is therefore not a blue-water navy. Our navy has to just defend our coastal areas including our exclusive economic zone in the Indian Ocean and we are capable of it. Frankly speaking, Indian navy is a major hurdle for China for her projection of power in the Indian Ocean and the littoral States. If aircraft carrier, Gorshkov and some nuclear submarines from Russia come in we will be very well off. ■■ Thirdly, any conventional conflict with India might turn nuclear if India faces a defeat like 1962. India does have tactical nuclear weapons of low yields to be used in the mountainous regions of Himalayas and Sukhoi-30s have a much larger strike range. ■■ Fourthly, with two more divisions raised in Arunachal Pradesh - the Chinese numerical superiority in Tibet is negated. India has he reserve strike formations with flexible roles in mountains.

■■ Fifthly with Pakistan engaged with the Taliban for some considerable times - China has lost the advantage of ‘two-front’ approach against India. However, we should be able to cope up with not only TWO fronts but THREE fronts, if threat from internal security, like Maoists insurgency is also counted. This is what General V. K. Singh had hinted, in his interview. ■■ Sixthly it is not going to be an all out war due to international pressure because of its likelihood of escalation into a nuclear conflagration. Certainly, in case, though not likely, should India get into the dock due to the likelihood of a shocking military defeat of the kind of 1962, then it is NOT going to sit tight with its TNWs (Tactical Nuclear weapons) to lay eggs. It will use them. This is known to China too and it cannot therefore venture out on a full scale war with India. Arihant has provided this second strike capability to India and the world knows it. Our AGNI-3 is an IRBM with a range of 2,500 kms - we are well equipped to take on China. In view of the above, I do not see a Full Scale War with China but I do not rule out some local skirmishes in Arunachal Pradesh or Leh-Ladakh region or even Himachal Pradesh.

Basic threats The basic threat of China today remains three pronged, i.e., one, contain

India by creating hostile environments in Indian neighbourhood and rolling back Indian influence into its borders; two, support Maoists / Naxalite insurgency and three discredit and harm India’s economic interests. It has already launched WOM (war by other means) or what I also call an ‘Outsourced War’ on India. In the past, it had fuelled insurgencies in the north-east from Nagaland to Manipur and Tripura. It is now alleged that Paresh Barua, ULFA leader of Assam, has been staying in China for the past six to eight months. It, now, covertly though, also supports Indian Naxalite movement and Indian Maoists. The aim of all this is to break up India into 20-30 smaller states. There was an interesting article on this by a Chinese defence strategist, Zhong Guo Zhan Lue Gang. The article was published in Chinese language on www.iiss.cn on August 08, 2009. An Indian defence analyst, D. S. Rajan, working with Chennai Centre for China studies (C3S), had analysed this article and observed: ■■ Though the article was meant for domestic consumption of China but it was linked to Chinese International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), therefore, it could be China’s official thinking. The article was later deleted from the website. ■■

The thrust of the article was to

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

neighbour watch

BUGBEAR

break up India into 20-30 states. To do so, it advocated usage of hostile neighbours such as Pakistan and Maoist Nepal and cultivation of other countries around India. Besides, it sought to support insurgencies, such as ULFA and other north-east separatist movements. Strangely, it also suggested creating separatist movement in West Bengal with the help of Bangladesh. The Nandigram and Singur events of 2009 in West Bengal, give us something to worry about.

Internal weaknesses The trouble with China is that it does not know its own internal problems and it thinks the world would not be able to exploit it. She is sadly mistaken. Others would also adopt equally offensive strategy. China is more vulnerable than India. It forgets that India still holds the key to its ‘Tibet Headache’. Though India had long accepted Chinese sovereignty over Tibet, but it enjoys adequate leeway with Tibetan leaders in India. The riots in Tibet in 2008 should warn it of the consequences of playing with fire. Why shouldn’t India pay back in the same coin? Add to this the rising tension over the ownership of the Spratley group of islands in the South China Sea, which China has proclaimed as its sovereign territory. But other countries too have laid claims over them. Both Malaysia and the Philippines have reiterated their claims on some of the islets and reefs of this group which are in their continental shelves. The Philippines also enacted a law in March last year to make their claims official as per the UN Laws of the Seas. China refused to recognise these claims and cautioned Manila against it. The Spratley islands area is estimated to have rich gas deposits though no realistic survey has been made yet. The South China Sea is a very important strategic shipping route which Chinese want to control. It has proposed joint development of the resources there, but under the conditions its sovereignty over the area is accepted by the others. Some time back India helped Vietnam in exploring oil in these islets and China objected to it. India is thus a thorn in her flesh.

Uyghur imbroglio Now add to it the problem brewing up in the Xinxiang province or the

East Turkistan as it was known before Chinese occupied it in 1949. The Uyghur Muslim minority of Xinxiang is really up in arms against the Han majority. It is said the Han population in East Turkistan in 1949 was only 6 per cent but it has now gone up to 41 per cent. Much has been written about this problem and I do not want to talk about it here. Just compare this with Indian approach in Kashmir we had inserted article 370 to provide special protection to Kashmir. Like the Uyghur Muslims minority, there are 55 ‘nationalities’ or the ethnic groups other than the Han in People’s Republic of China (PRC). In the TAR region and the Tibetan areas of Qinghai, Gansu, Yunnan and Sichuan of Qinghai province, Tibetans have become a demographic minority. Same has happened with Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region - where now Hans form 80 per cent of the population and Mongols only 17 per cent. These demographic shifts are causing resentment. In fact, the Uyghurs were getting more aggressive and they are represented by an organisation IMET (Islamic Movement of East Turkistan), which has links with Al-Qaeda. The activists of IMET are spread out in 14 countries. However the recent crisis in Urumqi was started by a more liberal and more secular organisation of Uyghur. This organisation, called WUC (World Uyghur Congress) is based in Washington and funded by NED (National Endowment for Democracy) - a US based NGO which

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

is funded by US Congress. WUC cadres are trained by Holland-based UNPO (Unrepresented Nations and People’s Organisation). But Al-Qaeda trained IMET is more dangerous as it has its tentacles in Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Austria, etc. There is no harm in thinking of doing the same to China what she intends to do to us. India too must have its intentions known to China to stop it from any misadventure. In the light of all this, I expect no major military conflict other than the exploitation of India’s vulnerabilities by China as part of WOM. I expect a spurt in the verbal spats as part of the Cold War. In fact, this century is the century of a Cold War between two Asian giants which has just begun. India can no more ignore deliberate Chinese acts of sending a contingent of PLA into Gilgit and getting into threatening postures. We have to respond by cultivating nations like Vietnam, Japan, Australia and USA. To counter China’s trump card of Pakistan, India has to pay more attention to Afghanistan. Come what may Pakistan must not have exclusive access to it. This is the only way to defeat China’s trump card.

The writer is an alumnus of National Defence Academy and commissioned into 3 Bihar battalion in June 1971. He is a graduate of Defence Services Staff College, Wellington and Army War College, Mhow. He has vast experience of handling militancy, terrorism and insurgency intimately for over 20 years in Nagaland, Assam, Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir.

■ Europe ■ Pakistan ■ East Asia ■ Surveillance ■ Security lapses ■ Environment ■ Disaster management ■ Telecom security ■ Women in defence and security ■ Fire security ■ Health ■ Education ■ Air power and aerospace ■ NATO ■ Migration ■ Airlines and airports security ■ Energy ■ AI and robotics ■ Homes and establishments ■ Military affairs ■ SCO ■ International relations ■ Geo-politics ■ Defence policies ■ Defence budget ■ Defence industry ■ Strategies and tactics ■ Defence technology ■ Defence R & D ■ Maritime security ■ Border security ■ Social and political discord ■ Nuclear technology ■ CBRNe ■ Space technology ■ Homeland security ■ Defence forces ■ Security forces ■ Security budget ■ Intelligence operations ■ Police reforms ■ Cyber security ■ Hardware and technology ■ Corruption ■ Terrorism ■ Fundamentalism and Jihad ■ Insurgency ■ Naxalism ■ Security and development ■ Drugs and human trafficking ■ Money laundering ■ Neighbour watch

Subject experts may contact: article@dsalert.org

www.dsalert.org info@dsalert.org

protection

safety measures

Team DSA

When you are in the house • Always be aware and alert. • Fix a grill gate, secure your doors, windows and balconies etc. • Have a video door phone with infra red facility so that an intruder can be identified even in the dark. • Close all the doors even when you are going out for just a little while. A thief does not need much time to get into your house and steal your valuables. • Service providers coming for any work like repairs etc., should not be allowed to enter your house without confirming their identity. • Everybody in the family including servants must be informed if somebody has been called in for some work. • Always look through the peep-hole, video door phone and identify before letting the person in. • Get your help, maid and driver etc. registered at the locality police station. • Ensure a background check on your help, maid and driver etc., and always keep their present, permanent address and recent photographs. • Have good quality alarm systems that have in-built automatic dialing in case of emergencies. Also feed such numbers in the mobile phones of all adult family members. • Never display your valuables, cash or leave them out in the open. Always keep your valuables, cash and important documents etc., in a secure locker / safe with digital / biometric lock. • If possible anchor or bolt your locker / safe to the wall or to the ground. • Keep telephone numbers of local police station, hospitals, fire station etc., handy and also store them in the mobile phones of all adult family members.

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

When you are away • Always be aware and alert. • Ensure the house always looks like someone's in and the house is not vacant. Leave some lights on. • Take your friendly neighbours in confidence and inform them that you are going away so that they may keep a watchful eye. • Ensure that the main gate, side gates and all doors and windows are properly locked and secured. • Ensure that somebody regularly collects your mail etc., while you are away for a longer duration. • Remember to stop delivery of newspapers etc., or have them collected by your friendly neighbours. • Ensure that burglar alarm and other security systems are fully functional before you leave the house. • Never leave a chit or a sticker with a message on the door that will inform strangers that there is no one in the house. • Do not receive calls from strangers and never tell anybody that you are away and there is nobody at home. • If possible install a good quality security system that lets you monitor your home from wherever you are. • Do not leave large amounts of cash, valuables and important documents when going away for a long duration. If unavoidable, then keep them in a secure locker / safe with digital / biometric lock. • If possible anchor or bolt your locker / safe to the wall or to the ground. • It is a good idea to occasionally change the main door locks, thus minimising the risk of someone using duplicate keys made without your knowledge. March 2011 Defence AND security alert

defsec

TECHSHOW

Defence Land Systems India (DLSI) is a joint venture enterprise between Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. (M&M) and BAE Systems plc. UK. Defence Land Systems India Pvt. Limited Defence Land Systems India is a 74% - 26% joint venture between Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., India and BAE Systems plc.UK. Defence Land Systems India is headquartered in New Delhi with manufacturing at a purpose built special military vehicle (SMV) facility south of Faridabad, just outside of Delhi. DLSI is one of the leaders in armouring of light vehicles in India. Mahindra Defence Systems (MDS) has supplied more than 1000 bullet resistant light vehicles to the Army, Paramilitary Forces and Central and State Police Forces. These vehicles have repeatedly proved in combat during anti-terrorists / anti-Naxal operations saving precious lives of our gallant soldiers and policemen. The company is focused on the manufacture of up-armoured light vehicles, high mobility military vehicles, mine protected vehicles, infantry combat vehicles (ICV), artillery systems and other selected land system weapons and their upgrades. The company intends to become a national centre of excellence for design, development, manufacture, final assembly, integration and test of infantry combat vehicles and artillery systems in support of the Indian Army’s modernisation and upgrade programmes. Special Military Vehicles Facility (SMV) SMV facility in the National Capital Region is a first of its kind in the private Defence manufacturing sector. It is a state of the art plant, which is certified to ISO 9000-2008 standards. The SMV has been set up to carry out Design and Development and manufacture of specialised military vehicles, armouring of light and medium category vehicles, Mine Protected Vehicles and vehicle conversions and for the Defence Forces, Paramilitary Forces and Central and State Police Forces. The plant has an advanced facility for product development, design and prototyping of bespoke vehicle application to suit each customer. It is today the largest manufacturer of Light armoured vehicles in the private sector. Marksman The Marksman is India’s first armoured capsule based light bullet proof vehicle and is designed to provide protection to Defence personnel, Paramilitary and Police forces against small arms fire and under belly grenade attacks. It can also be used in counter terrorist activities as well as in more conventional roles such as armed reconnaissance and convoy protection. Light Specialist Vehicle (Axe) The Mahindra Axe Fast Attack Vehicle (FAV) is a lightweight, high mobility, high payload combat vehicle, designed for use by Special Forces and for varied operational requirements. The Axe is available with both diesel and petrol engines and has automatic transmission and independent suspension, giving it outstanding high mobility capability. Up Armoured Scorpio This ‘discreetly protected’ Scorpio is ideal for VIP protection as it offers both security and comfort. The Up-Armoured Scorpio is already being used by the Indian Armed Forces and other Security Forces of India as well as by foreign countries for VIP protection. Rakshak “Rakshak” is manufactured using state of the art unique light weight ballistic materials consisting of Composites and Ultra Hardened Steel for desired bullet proofing. These Bullet Proof vehicles are an effective and low cost solution for the Army, Central Paramilitary Forces, Police and other Forces deployed for counter-insurgency and anti-militancy operations. Rapid Intervention Vehicle (RIV) RIV is a state of the art vehicle specially designed for the Police and Paramilitary Forces to control mobs in dense urban areas. Due to unique design of this vehicle, it can be deployed faster and easily manoeuvred in small lanes and in congested traffic. It has capacity for comfortably seating 5 policemen along with riot control equipment. The Commander Control panel is fitted with MTSL and PA system, which enables to address the crowd and deploy troops accordingly.

Mine Protected Vehicle India (MPVi) This Mine Protracted Vehicle is based on 6x6 driveline, which is robust and provides very high mobility in difficult terrain. It can seat 16 personnel apart from driver and co-driver. With its all steel V-shaped monocoque hull, it provides ballistic protection from top at 10m up to 45 Degrees and from sides at 10m at 90 Degrees angle against 7.62 mm x 51 NATO ball, 7.62 mm x 39 (AK-47) ball and 5.56 mm INSAS (Lead core MV 925m/sec). The protection against land mines is 21 Kg TNT under the centre of any wheel and 14 Kg TNT under crew compartment. March 2011 Defence AND security alert

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

defsec

TECHSHOW

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

defsec

TECHSHOW

March 2011 Defence AND security alert

GLOBAL DEFENCE AND SECURITY EVENTS / SHOWS MARCH 2011

Tuesday 1st March 2011 - Thursday 3rd March 2011 UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS: PLATFORMS, PAYLOADS AND OPPORTUNITIES San Diego, CA, USA

Tuesday 1st March 2011- Thursday 3rd March 2011 Saudi Safety and SecuRIty Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Monday 14th March 2011 - Thursday 17th March 2011 SOLDIER MODERNISATION ASIA Sentosa, Singapore

Wednesday 16th March 2011 - Thursday 17th March 2011 AVIONICS AND DEFENCE ELECTRONICS EUROPE Munich, Bavaria, Germany

Wednesday 16th March 2011 - Friday 18th March 2011 CYBER SECURITY: MISSIONS, INITIATIVES, OPPORTUNITIES AND RISKS Washington, DC, USA

Wednesday 16th March 2011- Thursday 17th March 2011 E-CRIME CONGRESS London, United Kingdom

Monday 21st March 2011 - Wednesday 23rd March 2011 AIR SURVEILLANCE AND RECONNAISSANCE 2011 London, United Kingdom

Wednesday 23rd March 2011 - Friday 25th March 2011 FUTURE ARTILLERY CONFERENCE 2011 London, United Kingdom

Sunday 27th March 2011 - Wednesday 30th March 2011 CANADIAN TECHNICAL SECURITY CONFERENCE (CTSC 2011) Cornwall, Ontario, Canada

Tuesday 29th March 2011 - Wednesday 30th March 2011 NETWORK CENTRIC WARFARE 2011 Canberra, ACT, Australia

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Homeland Security Finance Forum Washington, USA

Tuesday 29th March 2011 - Wednesday 30th March 2011 SecTech - Security Technology Exhibition and Conference Oslo, Norway

Februa

ry 2011

Subscribe Now ! Cover Price Tenure 1 year 2 years 3 years Discounted Price Tenure 1 year 2 years 3 years

Issues 12 24 36

For India ` 1440 ` 2880 ` 4320

For SAARC Countries US$ 240 US$ 480 US$ 720

For Rest of the World US$ 300 US$ 600 US$ 900

Issues 12 24 36

For India ` 1296 ` 2448 ` 3456

For SAARC Countries US$ 216 US$ 408 US$ 576

For Rest of the World US$ 270 US$ 510 US$ 720

Yes, I would like to avail the Subscription of DSA 1 Year 2 Years 3 Years I would like to subscribe for Gift a Subscription Name (Personal).........................................................................Organisation.................................................................Sex................. Education / Qualification Graduate Post-Graduate Professional Any Other Profession...................................................................................Organisation....................................................................................... Billing Address.......................................................................................................................City........................................................... Shipping Address...................................................................................................................City........................................................... State.........................................Pin..............................................Tel......................................Mob......................................................... Your Birth Date........................................................................... Marriage Anniversary........................................................(Optional) DD / Cheque No..........................................................................Dated.................................Drawn on................................................. for `.............................................................................................in favour of OCEAN MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, Payable at New Delhi Or Please Charge `................................(in words).................................................................................through my credit card to my: Choose any one: Credit Card No............................................................................Expires................................Signature of CC Holder............................ * Please attach your ID proof with your signature in case of credit card payment. * Please add ` 50 for all outstation cheques. All payments in favour of Ocean Media Private Limited, payable at New Delhi. * Condition applies.

Courtesy: Pawitra International Private Limited, New Delhi www.pawitra.com

Terms and Conditions: Minimum subscription is for one year (12 Issues). Your subscription will start with the next available issue after the receipt of your payments. DSA will be despatched through Postal / Courier Services. Packing and forwarding charges will be borne by DSA. Online edition of DSA shall be complimentary to all subscribers of Print Edition for single user. Please mention your subscription ID in all your future communications. Please forward us the completed subscription form with all the required details. DSA will not be responsible for any miscarriage or delay, if postal address is incorrect. This subscription form supersedes all the previous. Please address all your subscription related queries through Email:subscription@dsalert.org or call us at: +91-011-23243999, 23287999, or fax at: +91-11-23259666 or write to us at: Subscription department, Ocean Media Private Limited, 4/19 Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi - 110002 (INDIA) F o r a l l d i s t r i b u t i o n a n d s u b s c r i p t i o n q u e r i e s p l e a s e c o n t a c t : + 9 1 9 2 1 0 2 1 8 3 5 5 . The terms and conditions may change without any prior notice. This offer is for new subscribers only. Subscription form can also be downloaded from our portal www.dsalert.org

Write for Defence and Security Alert (DSA) a new wave, world class monthly magazine is being hailed as the harbinger of a revolution in Indiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s defence and security journalism.

Pawitra

International Pvt. Ltd.

International representation of products, technologies and services in Defence, Security and Renewable energy

To strengthen our mission of making every citizen Aware and Alert we invite distinguished experts with original, novel and constructive ideas - for a Safe and Secure India and the World - to join the mission and write for DSA. Please mail your articles to: articles@dsalert.org

We at DSA welcome your critique and suggestions. Please tell us what other topics you will like to read in your DSA. Write to us on: info@dsalert.org

PAWITRA INTERNATIONAL PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI, INDIA www.pawitra.com

for all queries contact: info@pawitra.com

SAARC COUNTRIES : US$ 20 REST OF THE WORLD : US$ 25 MARCH 2011

INDIA : ` 120 VOLUME 2 ISSN

ISSUE 6

0976-206X

9 770976 206003

Europe Special

> VOLUME 2 > ISSUE 6 > MARCH 2011

Majestic recognition to

Fortifying for the new world order ?