Dsa september 2014

Committed To Defence And Security Worldwide

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

INDIA : ` 120

September 2014

VOLUME 5 ISSUE 12

TM

ISSN

0976-206X

9 7 7 0 9 7 6 2 0 6 0 0 3

e S c l uri a b lo

ty

G

THE ONLY INDIAN DEFENCE AND SECURITY MAGAZINE AVAILABLE ON INDIAN AIR FORCE (IAF) INTRANET

Centre For Air Power Studies

Centre for Land Warfare Studies

Center for Strategic and International Studies

Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces French Institute of International Relations Chinese National Defense University Council on Foreign and Defence Policy Heritage Foundation German Marshall Fund of the United States Cato Institute Centre for Rising Powers Center for Arab Unity Studies Peace and Research Institute Oslo

RAND Corporation

International Institute for Strategic Studies

Brookings Institution

Royal United Services Institute Center for a New American Security Atlantic Council Council on Foreign Relations

Observer Research Foundation

> VOLUME 5

European Union Institute for Security Studies Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments Center for Economics and Foreign Policy Studies Australian Strategic Policy Institute United States Institute of Peace Centre for Military Studies Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs Al-Ahram Center for Strategic and Political Studies Brazilian Center for International Relations Center for American Progress

Stimson Center

Center for Strategic Studies

United Service Institution

Fundacao Getulio Vargas Global Security Hudson Institute Friedrich Ebert Foundation Belgrade Center for Security Policy West Africa Network for Peacebuilding Chicago Council on Global Affairs Institute of World Economy and International Relations Egmont Institute, Royal Institute for International Relations

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

> ISSUE 12

American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research The Regional Center for Strategic Studies in Cairo RCSS Istituto Affari Internazionali

National Maritime Foundation Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Institute for International and Strategic Relations

Geneva Center for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces

Centre For Joint Warfare Studies

Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses

> September 2014

Institute for United States and Canada Studies, IMEMO-RAS Chatham House Fondation pour la recherche strategique Economist Intelligence Unit German Institute for International and Security Affairs Hoover Institution Clingendael, Netherlands Institute of International Relations Hessische Stiftung Friedens- und Konfliktforschung HSFK

Institute for International Policy Studies China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations International Crisis Group Regional Center for Strategic Studies International Strategic Analysis and Research Center

Role of Think Tanks and Alliances UN, NATO, SCO, ASEAN, BRICS ...

editor-in-chief

DSA is as much yours, as it is ours!

T

he North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has been involved in military operations for over a decade in Afghanistan.

This makes it possibly the longest active combat campaign undertaken by NATO. For all its bad press and worse social impact on account of extraordinarily large, albeit accidental, civilian casualties, the NATO campaign has not been a failure. In large measure it has brought a semblance of peace in some areas of Afghanistan. Girls continue to go to school in Afghanistan, the single most important indicator of progress in that beleaguered country. But it hasn’t been a welcoming environment for NATO, both within and outside of Afghanistan.

Many Asian countries have looked at the Afghanistan operations with microscopic lenses. Using a fine tooth comb to get into the roots, these countries have drawn some interesting lessons from the continued NATO operations in Afghanistan.

The presence of NATO in Afghanistan causes serious stress to some countries and burning the midnight oil they come up with their responses, that may or may not be logical or in India’s interests. A strange coalition has come up on account of NATO’s military operations in Afghanistan; a coalition that has no precedence in Asia’s sociologically driven historical senses.

The energy in Shanghai Cooperation Organisation is an Asian response to NATO’s continued presence in Afghanistan, specifically and in Asia generally. Driven by a paranoia shared amongst hitherto distant neighbours, the SCO seeks to display an Asian unity that is remarkable for its historical absences. While there is no denying that it was Chinese paranoia at its peak which propelled the idea of having the SCO, there was still a common concern amongst other neighbouring nations. Russia for one was never going to be too welcoming to the idea of having NATO sitting for over a decade in its backyard and neither were the recently independent Central Asian Republics who continue to find some common grounds with Moscow on security matters.

In such a scenario where Indian interests lie is a matter of great concern and importance. Even as it sought and was granted observer status at SCO, Indian interests are not necessarily served by being a part of this competition. While it is a fact that NATO’s operations are targeting the same players who view India as enemy land, there is nevertheless a requirement of having a non-NATO option on the table. NATO in out-of-area operations is not a good sign for India or for the region as a whole. Even as it acts as a magnet for racist anti-Western Jihadists, NATO’s presence in Afghanistan is further testimony to the fact that there is no local or continental, option available. One that would be in a position to undertake the same level of operations as has NATO over the last more than a decade. An Asian alternative that was viable and vibrant in tackling the meltdown in Afghanistan that encouraged the Taliban to assume power. Such an option does not exist and that glaring absence is amply underlined by NATO’s continued presence in Afghanistan.

The SCO is not an Asian alternative to NATO and neither should it be allowed to become one. Begun with lofty ambitions there is no reason for India to remain too excited about SCO and its future. In a real sense multilateral military competition is not in India’s national interests, whatever organisations that may be involved. Indian interests lie in promoting ideas and platforms, that encourage ideals not necessarily differing drastically from NATO, but with Asian players. After all local problems can only be solved by local players. And when locals don’t do the job, the problems magnify, as do the nationalities of players involved.

India needs to push for a rewriting of the multilateral diplomatic and military framework in the region. But for that to happen India first needs to be prepared for that role. It needs newer ideas, newer thoughts and it needs players willing to get involved in trying newer processes. For all of that to happen India has to open its mind to such thoughts. There is a beginning that has been made with a burgeoning think tank sector, as well as platforms like Defence and Security Alert.

All of them have to be given greater opportunity to interact and express their ideas and innovations, in order for India to be a greater player on the regional and world stage. India, after all, has to play the game in order to be in the big league.

Manvendra Singh September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

1

publisher’s view

sneak peek TM

Wisdom Is Better

An ISO 9001:2008 Certified Magazine

Volume 5 Issue 12 September 2014 Chairman Shyam Sunder Publisher and CEO Pawan Agrawal President Jaahnvi Agrawal Director Shishir Bhushan Editor-in-chief Manvendra Singh Corporate consultant KJ Singh Corporate communications Mamta Jain Creative Pankaj Kumar Representative (USA) Steve Melito Representative (J and K) Salil Sharma Correspondent (Europe) Dominika Cosic Production Dilshad and Dabeer Webmaster Sundar Rawat

Than Weapons Of War!

V

ictory smiles upon those who anticipate changes in the character of war, not upon those who wait to adapt themselves after changes occur. After the First World War, people felt the necessity of an international organisation charged with the task of maintaining global peace that resulted in The League of Nations. Ironically, nations were not willing to give up their craving for expansion! It was anticipated that a resurgent Germany and a financially powerful Japan would be an effective check on Soviet Russia.

But the result of this selfish policy was the Second World War. At the dusk of this second catastrophe within twenty years, experts and scholars again concentrated on evoking a more effective world organisation to establish peace on the basis of mutual understanding and toleration. These bodies may not have achieved any spectacular success but they have helped nations to come closer for common humanitarian purposes. The goodwill fostered thereby has been considerable.

The credo of United Nations Organisation still rings like a bell that we have always listened to with great emphasis: “We the people of United Nations determine to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind …”. I remember my school days when we mugged up the roles and responsibilities of various agencies of the UN dedicated to post-war reconstruction of the world in keeping with its Charter.

Our world has transformed since then. The operations of UN have multiplied in all parts of the world. Conversely too, conflicting ‘isms’ have taken over the world each trying to dominate the other through military pacts like the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation of the capitalist nations and the Warsaw Pact of the Communist (Soviet) group. These, retained their relevance through the threat of mutual assured destruction (MAD) backed by nuclear weapons and a Cold War that was thought to have collapsed along with the demolition of the Soviet edifice in Europe.

IT operations Mehar Dogra Mahendra Singh Ankit Kumar Photographer Subhash Circulation and distribution Anup Kumar E-mail: (first name)@dsalert.org info: info@dsalert.org articles: articles@dsalert.org subscription: subscription@dsalert.org online edition: online@dsalert.org advertisement: advt@dsalert.org Editorial and corporate office 4/19 Asaf Ali Road New Delhi-110002 (India) t: +91-011-23243999, 23287999, 9958382999 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

Announces October 2014 Issue on

Indo-US Strategic Partnership US Pivot In Asia Indian Air F rce: New Challenges

A semblance of ‘balance’ between conflict and collective growth has been sought to be achieved by the emergence of economic groupings like the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN), BRICS and SCO etc but I still find it difficult to state with conviction that PEACE prevails in the world. There are ‘hot spots’ everywhere, irrespective of being located in Europe, West Asia, Africa, South Asia or the Pacific and the UN is unable to live up to its Charter.

Incidentally, most of these new organisations are focusing on economy, health and education with human security sadly receiving an apathetic treatment. This is resulting in situations similar to the one in North Africa. Since Independence, India has been an enthusiastic supporter of the principles for which the UNO stands. As an Indian, with an inherent affinity to global peace, I am seriously concerned about human security around the world. I would like to make an appeal to the policy and decision-makers of these organisations to earnestly work towards revamping their systems and doctrines for an enhanced security scenario which will positively boost other parameters of human development.

Team DSA has endeavoured to craft out this special edition focusing on these organisations with special emphasis on the role of ‘think tanks’ worldwide which are equally committed to global security. Intellectual experts associated with these think tanks are playing an active role in identifying threats and challenges that are deterring human security. Our royal salute to their candid efforts. I am sure that the wisdom of renowned experts of some of the most significant and decisive think tanks expressed here will make this a collectors’ edition. I look forward to your comments and feedback.

Jai Hind!

Pawan Agrawal

2

The First and the Only ISO 9001:2008 Certified Defence and Security Magazine in India

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

For subscription write to: subscription@dsalert.org | online@dsalert.org Or call: +91-11-23243999, 23287999, 9958382999 September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

3

Contents

SPECIAL ISSUE SEPTEMBER 2014

Global Security

TM

Role Of Think Tanks And Alliances

An ISO 9001:2008 Certified Magazine

Volume 5 Issue 12 September 2014

A R T I C L E S Role Of The UN In Global Security Lt Gen Satish Nambiar (Retd) Think Tanks: The Intellectual Capital Dr Arvind Gupta Can Indian Think Tanks Play A Role In Global Security?

Dr Rajiv Nayan United Nations: Catalyst For World Peace And Global Security Lt Gen VK Jetley (Retd) Net-centric Warfare CAIR Do The Indian Defence Think Tanks Matter?

Maj Gen Dr Mrinal Suman (Retd) Increasing Importance Of Think Tanks Manoj Joshi, Abhijit Iyer-Mitra NATO: Biggest Politico-military Alliance Maj Gen AK Hukku (Retd) Think Tanks In East Asia Dr Pankaj K Jha Think Tanks In India Still A Long Way To Go Maj Gen Dhruv C Katoch (Retd) Think Tanks: Helping Governments Make Informed Choices Maj Gen Dipankar Banerjee (Retd) Think Tanks In National Security Brig Gurmeet Kanwal (Retd) Think Tanks In National And Global Security Manpreet Sethi Will Private Sector Participation And FDI Enhancement, Lead To Defence Self-reliance?

Team DSA National Maritime Foundation (NMF) Augmenting International Security Cdr GS Khurana United Nations: Does Its Writ Run? Cecil Victor ARCTIC: A New Zone Of Conflict Saloni Salil NATO And SCO: Global Security Bulwarks?

Kriti Singh

Follow DSA on:

4

6

F E A T U R E S 6

31

11 13

Sneak Peek 3 New Initiative By DSA 62 Get Connected 63 21

16 20 24 28 30 34 36 18

48

38 42 46 48 52 54 56 58

@dsalert

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

Follow DSA on:

@dsalert

For online edition log on to: www.dsalert.org September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

5

global security

VISION OF PEACE

Role Of The UN In Global Security

The use of force should obviously only be considered after all other options have been exhausted. And the fact that force can be legally used does not always mean that it should be used. There can be little argument that prevention sometimes fails. And when that happens, threats will have to be met by military means.

The UN Charter provides a clear framework for the use of force.

T

he world has undergone a dramatic transformation since the United Nations was founded in 1945. The principal catalyst and architect of the most vital part of the change was the Organisation itself. The sustained work of the General Assembly and its Committee on Non-Self Governing Territories and the Trusteeship Council to promote decolonisation began to bear fruit in 1960 when seventeen former colonies achieved independence and became members of the Organisation. This process of enlargement of the area of freedom continued apace and was hastened by the work of the Committee on Decolonisation with the result that the United Nations present membership comprises 193 sovereign nations as against the Organisation’s original membership of 51 in 1945. This expansion of membership is NOT however reflected in the structure of various organs of the United Nations today, including in the all-important Security Council.

The UN’s very success in decolonisation had brought to the fore the fact that a vast mass of humanity is afflicted by poverty, hunger, disease and lack of education. The plight of that half of the world’s population has been worsening

6

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

as the gap between the rich and poor has widened.

Dehumanising poverty in large parts of the world is a major threat to human security. No vision of peace can be viable if it excludes from its purview the plight of these people. Measures to drastically improve their lot need to be the UN’s foremost concern as it moves forward in the second decade of the 21st century. The international community needs to respond imaginatively to the requirement of a world in a state of dynamic transition.

But that is not happening yet.

Preventive Measures

Following the end of the Cold War there have been an increasing number of conflicts of ethnic and religious character resulting in the disintegration of states and a general condition of uncertainty and instability in several regions. Armed terrorism across international frontiers constitutes a serious new threat to peace and security. Made even more dangerous with the possibility of terrorists gaining access to WMDs. Even so, many of the conflicts and tensions now prevailing in different regions of the world could have been anticipated and their aggravation prevented through timely diplomatic action under the aegis of the UN.

Hence it has become imperative to enable the UN system through appropriate machinery of collective action to anticipate potential conflict situations and to initiate suitable preventive measures.

We are passing through a decisive stage in the history of the international system. Though the threat of war between great states or nuclear confrontation between the erstwhile Soviet Union and the USA are well behind us and in fact fading in our memory, new and diverse constellation of threats, some clear and present, others only dimly perceived, continue to test our resolve and question the validity of existing mechanisms. Developments at the international level in the last few years have exposed deep divisions within the membership of the United Nations over fundamental policies on peace and security. They included debates on how best to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and combat the spread of international terrorism, the criteria for the use of force and the role of the Security Council, the effectiveness of unilateral versus multilateral responses to security, the notion of preventive war and the place of the United Nations in a world with a single super power. These debates took place after several years of agonising debate on issues of no less importance.

Such as our collective response to civil wars; the effectiveness of existing mechanisms in responding to genocide; so-called ethnic cleansing and other severe violations of human rights; changing notions of state sovereignty; and the need to more tightly link the challenges of peace and the challenges of development.

At which point there was need to decide whether we can continue on the basis then agreed upon, or introduce radical changes and review instruments at our disposal. Like the composition of Security Council to make it more representative and conforming to geopolitical realities. Also its capacity to respond to threats of all types.

Scourge Of War

LT GEN SATISH NAMBIAR

Preventing wars within states PVSM, AVSM, VrC (RETD) and between them is in the The writer was commissioned into the collective interest of all of us. If the Maratha Light Infantry in international community is to do December 1957. better in the future in this context, As Director General of the UN will need real improvements Military Operations he led in its capacity for preventive two defence delegations diplomacy, mediation and conflict for discussions with management. The international Pakistan. He was appointed the first Force community needs to make genuine Commander and Head of and concerted efforts to protect the United Nations forces democratic governments from in the former Yugoslavia unconstitutional overthrow and and retired as the Deputy for protection of minority rights.

Chief of the Army Staff on The trends towards expediency in 31st August 1994.

He was conferred the this regard must be reversed. And Padma Bhushan by there is a need to work collectively the President of India to find new ways of regulating the on the occasion of management of natural resources, Republic Day 2009 for his competition for which often fuels contributions to National Iraq Invasion conflict. The use of force should Security Affairs. A life member of the Institute Even so, events that led to the invasion of Iraq by a US led obviously only be considered for Defence Studies and coalition without the endorsement of the Security Council, after all other options have been Analyses, New Delhi, he questioned the belief in collective responses to common exhausted. And the fact that force has since February 2011, problems and challenges and prompted a review of the can be legally used does not always joined the Institute as a international system. In context mean that it ‘Distinguished Fellow’. of the fact that there are new should be Notwithstanding all the threats and old ones; hard threats used. There can be little argument developments at the global like terrorism, proliferation of that prevention sometimes fails. level, the concept of state WMDs etc and soft threats like And when that happens, threats poverty / disparities of income will have to be met by military sovereignty remains at the root between and within societies, means. The UN Charter provides of the international system. spread of infectious diseases, a clear framework for the use of Even so, there appears to be environmental degradation etc. force. States have an inherent some consensus that in the All need to be addressed. Such right to self-defence, enshrined in 21st century, such sovereignty threats were dealt with in the past Article 51.

Long-established cannot be absolute. The 2005 by containment and deterrence customary international law based on collective security and the makes it clear that states can take World Summit endorsed the norm UN Charter. Even for self-defence, military action as long as the of the “responsibility to protect” the unique legitimacy of UN was threatened attack is imminent, no innocent civilians from ethnic invariably sought. That had come other means would deflect it and cleansing, war crimes, crimes increasingly in question. The the action is proportionate. Equally, against humanity and genocide invasion of Iraq was a challenge Chapter VII of the UN Charter to the principles on which world provides the international peace and stability had rested for the previous six decades. community represented by the Security Council, with There was of course recognition that it was not enough to the authority to deal with situations where military force denounce unilateralism. That it was necessary to recognise needs to be applied against an errant state that resorts to the concerns that compel the most powerful country to act aggression against another member state. unilaterally and show to that country that such concerns can be addressed effectively through collective action. The Proactive Security Council international community had arrived at a fork in the road. On preventive use of military force to deal with A moment as decisive as the founding of the UN in 1945. not-so-imminent threats, there is a suggestion particularly

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

7

global security

VISION OF PEACE

in the developed world that the Security Council may need to be more proactive than before. However, it is important to stress that states that fear the emergence of distant threats have an obligation to bring these concerns to the Security Council. Given the developments in the global arena, there is little doubt that the international community will almost definitely be faced with situations that call for preventive use of force, sooner rather than later. In that context it would be useful for the political leadership, the bureaucracy, the military and the strategic community in India, to apply themselves to the merits and demerits of being part of the arrangements that may be set up to deal with such developments. Should there be consensus that there is need to plan for such contingencies, some mechanisms would need to be evolved for consultation, coordination, joint training and so on with countries like the USA, Russia, Japan, China etc and regional groupings like the EU, ARF, AU and SCO.

the new challenges should not be put off for much longer. The changes called for are not merely a matter of the functioning of the UN Secretariat and other such administrative details. The changes need to focus on the world body’s character and ethos. This defining moment in the history of the organisation is an appropriate time to initiate the process of energising the organisation for an enhanced and more complex role in a fast changing world.

Emasculated General Assembly

The General Assembly seems to have lost its vitality and often failed to focus effectively on the most compelling issues of the day. Renewed efforts are required to enable the General Assembly to perform its function as the main deliberative organ of the United Nations. Which means better conceptualisation and shortening of the agenda that should reflect the contemporary challenges facing the international community. More tightly focused committees could help sharpen and improve resolutions that are brought to the whole Assembly.

Notwithstanding all the developments at the global level, the concept of state sovereignty remains at the It is evident that in regard to institutional changes like root of the international system. Even so, there appears to be some consensus that in the 21st century, such reform of the Security Council there is much reluctance sovereignty cannot be absolute. The 2005 World Summit to resort to bold measures. Existing permanent members endorsed the norm of the “responsibility to protect” are not keen on any significant change. In addition, there innocent civilians from ethnic cleansing, war crimes, are many spoilers positively blocking such moves. And crimes against humanity and genocide: A responsibility most other member states remain indifferent despite all the rhetoric. The financial that lies first and foremost with and military contributions to national authorities. However the United Nations of some of when a state fails to protect its India’s contribution to UN the five permanent members civilians or is incapable of doing peacekeeping is a matter of are modest compared to their so, the international community recorded history. Our competence special status and often the is deemed to have a responsibility in this very visible arena of UN Council’s non-permanent to act, through humanitarian activity is increasingly recognised members have been unable to assistance, monitoring missions make the necessary contribution and diplomatic pressure; and with even by the USA that is trying to the work of the Organisation force if necessary, as a very last hard to understand and come to envisaged by the Charter. Even resort. And in the case of conflict terms with this form of military so, recent experience has shown or the use of force, this also implies and police activity. We should that the Security Council is the a clear international commitment exploit this to our advantage not body in the United Nations most to rebuilding shattered societies. capable of organising action only by continued participation There is, with good reason, some and responding rapidly to new disquiet in developing societies in UN peace operations, but also threats. Thus the challenge for that perceive this as yet another by continuing to assist emerging any reform is to increase the attempt by the more powerful troop contributors in training legitimacy, effectiveness and the members of the developed world their personnel at our Centre for credibility of the Security Council to impose their value systems United Nations Peacekeeping and, most importantly, to enhance on the weaker states. its capacity and willingness in New Delhi and providing to act in the face of threats.

On this aspect again there is expertise where required Therefore while increasing the need for us in India to deliberate involvement in decision-making on whether or not we intend to be part of such processes. In which case, we should evolve of those who contribute most to the United Nations mechanisms for consultation, coordination, joint training financially, militarily and diplomatically, there is need and so on with like-minded countries and regional to bring into its fold countries more representative of organisations. In context of India’s growing international the broader membership, particularly of the developing stature and military capabilities, it would be prudent for world, which would increase the credibility of the body us to be proactive on this aspect as, in the foreseeable and the acceptability of its decisions. future, we may well be called upon to assume a lead role in the immediate and extended neighbourhood at the Restructuring It is a reflection of the bankruptcy of the international instance of the international community. system that no action was initiated on this vital issue There is little doubt that restructuring and institutional at the 2005 World Summit. There is little doubt that the reform of the UN machinery and its organs to meet major powers particularly the P5 are not keen to take

8

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

on board any new permanent members. In context of the difficulties the USA was having in dealing with the existing P5 members, it is possibly not keen to have to deal with even more players on vital issues in the future.

Russia, France and the UK see their own positions as rather tenuous in the current balance-of-power context and are therefore less than keen to promote measures that would lead to a decision on adding new permanent members or reconstituting the Security Council. China would prefer to retain its present unique status as the sole permanent member representing the developing world.

Therefore while the arrangement must stand, it would be pragmatic to work on the assumption that forces under this arrangement can only be put together in a certain time frame; namely about three to six months or so. And that too, subject to political acceptance by member states. To expect forces any earlier is unrealistic under current conditions.

Standing Force

There can be hardly any argument that a military force of modest dimensions (together with police, civil affairs and humanitarian aid personnel, as also others) inserted into Deploying military capacities for peacekeeping and a conflict zone as soon as some semblance of agreement enforcement had often proved to be a valuable tool between belligerents is negotiated, can achieve much more in ending wars and helping to secure states in their in terms of implementation of the terms of the agreement, aftermath. But the demands for peacekeeping are than a much larger force introduced three to six months increasing greatly. From the figures available today, just later. During which period, the political situation within to do an adequate job of keeping the peace in existing the affected country can change dramatically, hostilities conflicts would require almost doubling the number of may well have resumed and the ground situation much peacekeepers around the world. Developed states have changed, reducing the chances of peaceful resolution. If that is so, inhibitions about having particular responsibilities to do a suitably organised, structured more by providing personnel and Two major aspects probably and equipped force that is readily resources for deployment to peace available when required, would operations. If the international merit focus in regard to the use seem to be misplaced. In context community is to meet the of regional capability for the of ready availability of forces for challenges ahead, more states conduct of peace operations. The United Nations peace operations will have to place contingents on first relates to the capacity of it would appear that the only stand-by for UN deployment and most of the regional organisations real answer for meeting crisis air transport and other strategic other than the European ones. situations that call for speedy lift capacities to assist peace deployment of military forces, operations. There is no greater They will need financial and civilian police and some civil legitimacy for the use of military equipment resources that they affairs and humanitarian aid forces and for that matter, civilian can themselves ill afford. The personnel for the maintenance police, than for the maintenance second aspect is more seminal in of international peace and of international peace and that it relates to procedures. It is security, is to raise and maintain security. It should therefore be a a Standing United Nations Rapid matter of honour and privilege to be hoped that authorisation Deployment Force. Whereas many for countries to provide forces for would in all cases be sought individuals with experience in such peace missions. However, from the UN Security Council for peacekeeping including previous the practical experience in this regional peace operations UN Secretary Generals and some context is invariably rather members of the Secretariat agree dismal. The inordinate delay in the arrival of troops in the mission area is always a most with the suggestion in principle, most of them seem to feel frustrating feature of the missions that are being set up. that it was unlikely to receive general support on grounds It is in recognition of this basic inadequacy that rapid deployment forces like the Nordic Sherbrig, European Union Rapid Deployment Force, the sub-regional rapid deployment capability of the African Union and so on, have been put in place.

Peacekeeping

One of the measures instituted by the United Nations to overcome this inadequacy is the earmarking of ‘standby’ forces by member states. This is most commendable and needs to be pursued with vigour.

As on date, this arrangement apparently provides for about 100,000 personnel pledged by about 75 member states. However, it is a moot point whether such ‘standby’ forces would, in fact, be available immediately on demand.

The Rwandan experience in the early 1990s indicates that political expediency and domestic compulsions will invariably dictate the responses of member states.

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

9

global security

of costs of establishing and supporting such a force, as also on grounds of political acceptance of the idea. One cannot help but state that reluctance to endorse such a concept particularly by the more powerful countries of the developed world, is primarily because they would not like to see their own influence and ability to manipulate actions diluted by the provision of such ready capability to the United Nations. To that extent, much of the talk about strengthening the UN and making it more effective is largely rhetoric and symbolism. The point being made is probably underscored by the fact that the developed world has shown increasing reluctance over the last few years in providing military personnel for UN peace operations particularly in difficult missions in Africa.

Governments of developed countries of the Western world seem to prefer making available their well-equipped and trained forces to NATO or EU sponsored interventions even in missions outside their area of operations, to the exclusion of the UN that they then pronounce as incompetent to run such missions.

Indian Contribution

India’s contribution to UN peacekeeping is a matter of recorded history and continues to be more than significant even today. Our competence in this very visible arena of UN activity is increasingly recognised even by the USA that is trying hard to understand and come to terms with this form of military and police activity. We should exploit this to our advantage not only by continued participation in UN peace operations, but also by continuing to assist emerging troop contributors in training their personnel at our Centre for United Nations Peacekeeping in New Delhi and providing expertise where required. The Department of Peacekeeping Operations at UN HQ is already calling on the Centre to conduct training courses on their behalf.

We should not only respond to such requests without reservations, but also insist on adequate representation at the UN HQ and on decision-making mechanisms there.

As the UN Peace Building Commission and its support structure within the UN HQ takes full shape, it is essential that India make resources available (which we have done by pledging a substantial sum towards the Peace Building Fund). However our unquestionable competence in rule of law mechanisms like the judiciary and civilian police, agencies for the conduct of elections and drawing up constitutions, educational and healthcare facilities, restoration of infrastructure and so on, are assets the UN HQ could avail of with greater advantage. Since such resources will always be required in failing / failed state scenarios in the least developed countries, it makes sense that capacities in the developing world as in India would be much more relevant than those of the Western world. The real effective peace building role for developed countries is in providing financial and material resources.

10

global security

VISION OF PEACE

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

Whereas the role of regional organisations is recognised in the UN Charter through Chapter VIII provisions, in the Cold War years and for some time after the end of the Cold War, not much was attempted by such organisations in the maintenance of international peace and security.

The few such organisations that existed devoted their efforts to economic and social issues and probably rightly so under the circumstances. In recent years however, with the impact of globalisation and a realisation that ethnic conflict and conflict generated through terrorism and drug trafficking, recognise no borders, a number of regional organisations in Europe, South America, Africa and South East Asia are gearing themselves towards playing a role in the maintenance of international peace and security. Many of these organisations have contributed to peacemaking activities aimed at bringing belligerents to the negotiating table with varying degree of success. The unfortunate part of the process is that many regional / sub-regional countries themselves are responsible for sustaining the conflict or have a vested interest in the outcome. Even so, the efforts made by the regional and sub-regional organisations like ECOWAS in Africa are commendable and need to be encouraged in context of the fact that the UN cannot go everywhere.

Regional Capability

Two major aspects probably merit focus in regard to the use of regional capability for the conduct of peace operations. The first relates to the capacity of most of the regional organisations other than the European ones. They will need financial and equipment resources that they can themselves ill afford. They will also require assistance in training; of the militaries, civilian police, civil affairs personnel and so on. To some extent this is being undertaken, but much too tentatively and selectively to convey a message of effectiveness.

The second aspect is more seminal in that it relates to procedures. Once various regional and sub-regional organisations are able to set up such capability and earmark rapid deployment forces as envisaged in the charter of the African Union, the executive organs of the respective organisations would exercise their authority to undertake preventive action including preventive deployment, peacemaking, intervention / stabilisation operations, peacekeeping and peace building. It is to be hoped that authorisation would in all cases be sought from the UN Security Council for regional peace operations; in some urgent situations such authorisation maybe sought after operations are launched.

As such arrangements take shape it is inevitable that India would have a vital role to play in contributing to regional or sub-regional capability for the conduct of peace operations. Given the situation on the subcontinent it appears unrealistic at the moment to presume that such a role is possible within the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC).

However that should not preclude the deployment of Indian forces for the conduct of peace operations within the framework of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) or even the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) should these organisations decide to undertake such responsibilities. It may be useful for our decision-makers to factor this into their determinations.

POLICY PUNDITS

Think Tanks

The Intellectual Capital Worldwide, the governments are engaging think tanks to get inputs in policy making. This trend is well developed in the US and Europe.

Although a similar trend is emerging in India, the gap between policy making in think tanks is still wide and marked by mutual apprehensions.

T

hink tanks are playing an increasingly important role worldwide in tracking global, regional and national security trends as well as in influencing policies of governments and multi-lateral institutions. The onset of the Internet and social media technologies has provided them global reach.

Historically, think tanks have grown from the need felt in the US and the West for policy research on a variety of issues including security issues. Think tanks research has complemented the International Relations (IR) research in the universities. The US and the UK have some of the oldest think tanks. Brookings Institution was set up in 1916, RAND Corporation in 1948, the United States Institute of Peace in 1984 and the IISS in London in 1958.

In the Soviet Union, the Academy of Sciences used to have a number of influential institutes which provided policy inputs to the party and the government. Some of these think tanks continue to exist even today. China is now catching up too with a number of think tanks beginning to make their mark. In Germany, leading political parties have their own foundations and think tanks.

Brainwaves

Think tanks claim a number of achievements to their credit. For instance, the RAND Corporation says that it has contributed to the development of doctrine of nuclear deterrence by ‘Mutually Assured Destruction’ (MAD), the concept of a ‘winnable’ nuclear exchange, the technique of ‘systems analysis’, ‘artificial intelligence’ as well as ‘war-gaming’ concepts. Brookings Institution claims to have contributed with ideas like the Marshal Plan and even the United Nations. The IISS holds that it was influential in setting up structures to manage the cold war. It organises the Shangri-la Dialogue every year where security experts from various countries gather to discuss the global and regional security environment. Several other institutions across the world hold annual dialogues of this nature.

tanks like the IISS, Brookings and RAND Corporation have also set up chapters in India.

Indigenous IDSA

DR ARVIND GUPTA

The writer an IFS officer is presently on deputation to the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), New Delhi, India as Lal Bahadur Shastri Chair in Strategic and Defence Studies. Prior to joining the IDSA, he was Joint Secretary at the National Security Council Secretariat. At the IDSA he heads the South Asia and Internal Security Clusters and edits the Institute’s flagship bi-monthly journal Strategic Analysis.

In India, the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) was set up in 1965 on the initiative of Gen JN Choudhary, Chief of Army Staff and Shri YB Chavan, Defence Minister, in the wake of the 1962 and 1965 Wars. It has since played an important role in debating strategic issues. The IDSA was at the forefront of nuclear debate in India. Its scholars contributed to national security debate in the eighties and the nineties.

Since 1999, the IDSA has been organising an annual Asian Security Conference (ASC), which has attracted renowned scholars from all over the world. The ASC provides a forum for exchange of views on emerging trends in Asian security. The Institute also anchors the annual India-ASEAN Delhi Dialogue.

The growing role of think tanks in global security needs to be appropriately contextualised. The forces of globalisation, aided by the rapid developments in technologies, are beginning to change the international order and affect socio-economic and political structures.

The situation is in a flux and the contours of the emerging order are not yet clear. The expansion of the concept of security has been rapid and now includes a variety of non-traditional security issues along with the traditional military security issues. The governments are faced with the problem of comprehending the change,

A number of think tanks have been set up in India in the last few years. Though young, many of them have gained reputation in national and international circles and are doing useful work in policy analysis arena. Foreign think

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

11

global security

global security

POLICY PUNDITS

conceptualising the new world order and devising policies.

We have seen in the last few years how the US, Russia, China, EU, ASEAN, African Union and a host of other countries and regional groupings are readjusting their policies in an effort to come to grips with the changing power equations. Lately, the US has come up with its policy of “pivot to Asia” and the Chinese have promoted the idea of “peaceful rise”, “harmonious development” and “China Dream”. The think tanks are contributing to the development and propagation of such ideas. In brief, the think tanks play the following role in global security:

in the US and Europe. The interaction between the academia, policy makers, industry and the social scientists is particularly close in these countries. The governments and the parliaments are receptive to the idea of think tanks and make a special effort to seek them out. The close interaction with policy making circles is considered useful for an effective functioning of the think tanks. Quite often, experts with experience of working in the government spend time at the think tanks. Conversely, think tank researchers go on important government assignments.

Although a similar trend is emerging in India, the gap between policy making in think tanks is still wide and marked by mutual apprehensions. Policy makers should be willing to use the resources of the think tanks, the inherent flexibility that think tanks provide and the ability of think tanks to generate scenario and options and provide neutral platforms for exchange of views.

It is high time that the Indian government, going beyond tokenism, takes a conscious decision to involve the think tank community in consultations over policy issues. It should encourage think tanks to undertake policy oriented research

1. Focus on comprehending the global change through empirical and analytical studies; building scenarios; 2. Offer policy suggestions; raise awareness about different issues; and influence the policy making processes; 3. Interact with a variety of non-governmental stakeholders in security studies; monitor and critique the government policies; and help in the growth of strategic community including the students; 4. Hold conferences, dialogues and other events to discuss global security issues with a view to influence negotiations.

Purpose-built

Think tanks come in various shapes and sizes. Big think tanks have large funds while smaller ones struggle to raise resources. They take recourse to a variety of sources for funding. These could be governmental as well as non-governmental sources. Sometimes, interested groups like political parties, advocacy groups and agenda driven organisations set up or use think tanks for their purposes. They have devised methods to raise funds through their numerous activities. Source of funds also affects their research.

Think tanks are today better organised than before. They also coordinate their activities with other stakeholders including parliamentarians, media and a range of non-governmental organisations. They help create vast networks of policy communities which can potentially wield considerable influence on policy makers.

The quality of think tanks’ output is diverse and uneven.

In the last few years, think tanks have been evaluated for the impact they have on policy. They are ranked on a variety of parameters including the quality of the output, the methods to raise funds, impact on society and government links with civil society, influence in the media etc. According to the Think Tanks and Civil Societies Programme 2013, USA, the chief ranking agency, Brookings Institution of United States has been ranked as No 1. Amongst the non-US global think tanks, Chatham House, United Kingdom is ranked as No 1. The Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi figuring in the top hundred think tanks worldwide is currently at No 54 position.

Worldwide, the governments are engaging think tanks to get inputs in policy making. This trend is well developed

12

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

Objectivity

For think tanks’ research to be useful, it must be objective and independent. But agenda driven think tanks also thrive. The autonomy is of paramount importance for the credibility of think tanks. For a security and strategic affairs think tank, it is necessary that its research is not driven by narrow agendas set by specific interest groups.

The think tanks, on their part, have to understand the policy making process better. Their familiarity with the constraints under which policy making happens is still inadequate. Policy research must be less partisan and more objective without compromising the academic rigour.

A strong strategic community is an indispensable component of comprehensive national strength of a nation.

China, an emerging power, has realised this and is now devoting considerable amount of resources to develop their think tanks. In China, think tanks are tasked to produce reports on topical issues, develop the themes which their leaders pronounce and also help the leaders to come up with new policies commensurate with China’s status as a rising power. Other emerging economies are doing the same.

It is high time that the Indian government, going beyond tokenism, takes a conscious decision to involve the think tank community in consultations over policy issues.

It should encourage think tanks to undertake policy oriented research. Official archives should be declassified.

This one step alone will go a long way in improving policy research in India. Some small steps have been taken in this direction but these are insufficient. Government officials, busy as they are, should nevertheless find some time to participate in think tanks events. Officials should also be more accessible to researchers.

In the years to come, the role of think tanks in comprehending global security trends and shaping the security discourse will only grow. Think tanks represent the intellectual capital of a nation and need to be nurtured and encouraged.

WORLD VIEW

Can Indian Think Tanks Play A Role

In Global Security?

DR RAJIV NAYAN

Do Indian think tanks have capacity to contribute to the decision-making for national and global security? Will the Indian government allow think tanks to play a constructive role in the decision-making process? Despite operating against heavy odds Indian think tanks and professional researchers have been contributing to the policy making process. The Indian bureaucracy has not been completely indifferent to new ideas.

T

he Indian Prime Minister Mr Narendra Modi, in one of his initial addresses, underlined the need for the input of intellectual think tanks to enrich policy making. This was on June 8, 2014 within a fortnight of taking the oath as the Prime Minister of the country. The occasion was the release of a study report of a foreign think tank at the Prime Minister’s residence in New Delhi. The focus of the report was not national or global security, yet some of the chapters / sections of the report addressed it. The report had all the chapters written

by Indians or people of Indian origin.

Paradoxically, the report created an impression that an Indian think tank is not able to generate such a report and the Indian policy making process receives little input from the think tank community. Is it true?

Is it true for Indian policy making in national security and global security? The impression is partly true.

In fields such as finance and Indian history, Indian think tanks and research institutes are performing well.

But in many policy issue areas, including security and strategy, think tanks have to realise their potential. This applies quite well to influencing or contributing policy for global or international security.

What Is A Think Tank?

Like many other concepts, defining a think tank has been a problem. However, the leading institutions and programmes working on the subject have tried to define and develop an understanding about think tank from time to time. As a result, there are several definitions and typologies of think tanks based on different criteria.

The writer is a Senior Research Associate at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), New Delhi since 1993, where he specialises in export control, non-proliferation and arms control. He was a Visiting Research Fellow at Japan Institute of International Affairs, Tokyo, where he published his monograph Non-Proliferation Issues in South Asia.

Yet, the policy making community has worked out some working definition. For example, the Think Tanks and Civil Societies Programme (TTCSP) of the University of Pennsylvania that publishes the annual Global Go To Think Tanks Report, considers think tanks “public policy research, analysis and engagement institutions that generate policy-oriented research, analysis and advice on domestic and international issues that enable policy makers and the public to make informed decisions about public policy issues.”

The ambiguity regarding the definition of think tank has, in turn, complicated the task of tracing the origin of the think tank in the world. Some studies trace its origin to the ancient Greek world but some to the Society for the Abolition of The African Slave Trade established by an Englishman Thomas Clarkson in 1782.

Notwithstanding the historical enthusiasm or possibly over-enthusiasm of some writers, the idea of think tank became a phenomenon of late 19th and 20th centuries.

Basically, it originated in advanced industrial societies of Western Europe and the United States. More so, in the 20th century, it became a predominant phenomenon of the US policy making process.

Ambiguity Remains

The TTCSP informs that currently, there are 6,826 think tanks in the world and 268 in India. There is all possibility that the problem of definition and other methodological issues may have left several organisations out. Otherwise, the number could be higher than what is projected by the TTCSP. These think tanks are active in a large number of issue areas doing multiple tasks.

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

13

global security

WORLD VIEW

Recently, the TTCSP has begun a practice of categorising think tanks by areas of research.

So, it has a category of Defence and National Security Think Tanks. However, any discussion on national and international / global security may involve the think tanks placed in the categories such as Foreign Policy and International Affairs Think Tanks and Transparency and Good Governance Think Tanks. In fact, some of the think tanks which are working on global security issues are placed in the categories other than Defence and National Security. Similarly, the think tanks placed in the Defence and National Security also work on international relations and foreign policy issues.

Does India not have enough think tanks to work on global security or even on national security? For several decades, India has think tanks which are working on security issues.

However, the problem of understanding and definition of think tank may be witnessed in the Indian context as well. Some members of the strategic community refuse to accept some organisations like the United Service Institute (USI) of India as a think tank, but almost all writings on think tanks recognise that London-based Royal United Services for Defence and Security Studies established in 1831 is a classical think tank. The USI of India is usually considered to be its Indian counterpart.

engaged by the bureaucracy operating in the Ministry of External Affairs or the Ministry of Defence. And when the bureaucracy really consults any think tank it is the foreign, especially the American and the British. The reason for the foreign engagement could range from pure merit or quality of the think tank report to the mindset that anything foreign is good to other dubious reasons.

So, the defence goes that what Prime Minister says is not completely true; the decision-making process, in the security field, is unwilling to take any intellectual input.

Moving beyond the blame game, the Indian security policy making process requires a new beginning with its think tanks industry. In fact, for the making of global security policy, think tanks can play a bigger role because they are more open and transparent than national security or defence. The material condition of the 21st century is different from the late 19th century or 20th century. The Internet revolution and globalisation are pushing more and more information in the public domain and more importantly, information is easily available than the previous centuries.

Synergy

At the global level, Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) or think tanks are increasingly playing more positive role. The Arms Trade Treaty became a possibility because of the pressure and campaign of the NGOs the USI is tasked to and think tanks. Negotiations of the treaty witnessed a wonderful display of networking of NGOs, including think tanks.

Moving beyond the blame game, Each according to his ability was the guiding principle. Global the Indian security policy making governance in security is making process requires a new beginning the NGOs, including think tanks with its think tanks industry. In extremely indispensable in the fact, for the making of global global security policy making. security policy, think tanks can Needless to add, at the global level, the situation is far more conducive play a bigger role because it is for think tanks to influence more open and transparent than and contribute to the global national security or defence security decision-making process.

Indian sceptics maintain that promote ‘strategic culture’ through events, not by conducting research.

Another section maintains that the Centre for Land Warfare Studies, Centre for Air Power Studies and National Maritime Foundation are hardly think tanks, but merely lobbyists for their services. This kind of assertion is not based on any sound logic and facts. In reality, all are engaged in what any classical think tank is supposed to do. There is no principled or theoretical fault with their The real problem lies somewhere else.

operation.

TTCSP’s report places three Indian think tanks in the top 65 world’s Defence and National Security Think Tanks.

The Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) is ranked 38th, Centre for Land Warfare Studies 48th and Observer Research Foundation 52nd. As discussed, a number of think tanks placed in other categories are also working on security related issues. In fact, even in India, think tanks are proliferating and the TTCSP may not have recorded all the think tanks, especially new and small.

So, should we conclude that the observation of the Indian Prime Minister that the policy making process is not getting enough input is wrong?

Preference For Things Western?

The problem is not that of the number or the global ranking, but of the policy environment in which Indian think tanks are operating. The general impression or complaint is that the Indian think tanks are not

14

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

Do Indian think tanks have capacity to contribute to the decision-making for national and global security? Will the Indian government allow think tanks to play a constructive role in the decision-making process? Despite operating against heavy odds Indian think tanks and professional researchers have been contributing to the policy making process. The Indian bureaucracy has not been completely indifferent to new ideas. Here personality is an important factor. Some dynamic personalities in the Indian bureaucracy understand the significance of think tanks. If not all works from think tanks are adopted, some do find way into the policy output. Nowhere in the world all the ideas proposed or recommended by think tanks are incorporated into policies.

Some are quite naturally rejected.

Does Government Pay Heed?

Admittedly, in India, the acceptance rate is abysmally low. The problem is structural in nature. The Indian Prime Minister needs to push his bureaucracy for

actively engaging the think tank community. The bureaucracy in general will have to drastically change its approach and relationship with think tanks. To reemphasise, the active engagement does not mean all the ideas proposed to the government will be accepted. New ideas enable the government to have policy choices which result in better and rational policy outcomes.

Think tanks will also have to undergo major transformation.

Professional researchers who are trained in universities will have to occupy the centre stage in think tanks working on security issues.

Currently, the leadership in defence and security think tanks is more or less monopolised by the retired members of armed forces as well as civil bureaucracy and diplomacy. To perpetuate their control over think tanks these retired officials have been found more interested in playing factional politics. These non-researcher retired government officials may be used for policy awareness and helping in synergising the efforts of researchers and bureaucracy. The use of relationship – the old think tank tool – may need to be redefined to facilitate researchers’ access to the government.

Orientation Of Researchers

Researchers trained in the university system will have to ideas are not generated. It is a myth that the government adapt themselves to the requirements of the think tank. funding does not allow independent research. Within Think tank or policy research requires quick action. India universities and research institutes are enjoying Scholars cannot have the luxury of time of the university considerable freedom in research and teaching and system. However, the leadership needs to explain many of them have produced world-class results. In think tanks requirements to young entrants and train Europe, government funding gives more credibility them for the job. Moreover, think tanks in general have to to any research project. According to an estimate, facilitate relevant study in research around 70 per cent of the methodology. As of today, the funding of the leading Admittedly, in India, the Indian establishment has not come think tanks of the US come acceptance rate is abysmally out of net assessment, scenario from the American government. building and game exercises.

Moreover, industry or foreign low. The problem is structural Indian think tanks may have to funding does not give guarantee in nature. The Indian Prime learn research tools from good that research will be independent.

Minister needs to push his institutions all over the world.

In general, foreign or corporate bureaucracy for actively Unfortunately, Indian universities funding is known for pushing engaging the think tank are not doing advanced policy their agenda. In comparison, the making research. elected government is considered community. The bureaucracy in more accountable. general will have to drastically Think tanks of advanced change its approach and industrial countries invest in In sum, the new Prime Minister relationship with think tanks field trips for better results. In wants to give the country a India, think tanks working on new direction and sees a major international or global security hardly give importance to role for think tanks in policy making. Think tanks field trips. Most of the time austerity is cited as the reason can play a significant role in global security policy for the denial of funding for field trips. It is a different making and implementation. The current government matter that grants are spent on lifestyle of the heads of the needs to move beyond words and genuinely think tanks. Even austerity drive of the government does engage think tanks. The government has to ensure that not stop spending on frivolous matters and extending lobbying does not become the mechanism to get funding. patronage to something which has nothing to do with Funding for duplication must be discouraged. At the same research and the agenda of the think tank. time, think tanks also need to develop their capacities and encourage professional researchers to take the lead.

Credibility If we miss the opportunity to intervene properly in global Some believe that the government funding influences security governance in which think tanks are serious the outcome of think tanks and as a result, independent actors, the country will suffer in the long run.

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

15

global security

TIME FOR REALITY CHECK person, in equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small and c) To promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom The UN Charter, laid out in 19 Chapters, more than adequately covers all aspects of problems that the world faced then and was likely to face in the future. Chapter III lays down the principle organs of the UN viz a General Assembly, a Security Council, an Economic and Social Council, a Trusteeship Council, an International Court of Justice and a Secretariat. Interestingly, the drafters of the UN Charter never felt the necessity of creating a peacekeeping force. The idea of keeping the peace was first conceived by the then Prime Minister of Canada Lester Pearson and accepted by Secretary General of the United Nations Mr Dag Hammarskjold in 1956 when UK and France invaded Egypt. The Force called UNEF comprised 6,000 men from 10 member states. This was the beginning of peacekeeping operations that in subsequent years have proved invaluable. The UN in its chequered existence has had its fair shares of successes.

It has had criticisms as well which will be touched upon subsequently. Let us first see what its modus operandi is and whether it is conducive to world peace.

United Nations

Catalyst For World Peace And Global Security A High Level Panel constituted in September 2003 by the then Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr Kofi Annan, identified six clusters of threats with which the world must be concerned now and in the decades ahead. These were economic and social threats, including poverty, infectious diseases and environmental degradation; interstate conflicts; internal conflicts including civil war, genocide and other large scale atrocities; nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological weapons; terrorism and transnational organised crime.

T

he Second World War proved that the League of Nations, though based on sound principles, was largely ineffective in preventing war. The immediate causes of any war are always different and too numerous to list, however, the major causes remain more or less the same. These are economic disparity and distress, lack of fulfilment of aspirations of nations etc. War brings in its wake misery for winners and losers alike. Although the winners get large chunks of territory they are left heavily in debt. The losers not only lost their territory but have to pay reparations to the winners which they can ill afford. All this adversely affects recovery after the war leaving countless millions in abject poverty, joblessness and despair.

Keeping this in mind it was decided by the war time leaders of the Allied forces viz Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt, even before the war came to an end, to create an

16

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

effective organisation for world peace. This decision was no doubt influenced by the devastation, destruction, death, the untold misery and sufferings of war, the poverty and economic distress and joblessness. The founding fathers also kept in mind the fact that de-colonisation had begun bringing in its wake problems like lack of governance in newly independent states, problems of refugees and internally displaced persons and so on. Thus, on 26 June 1945, the Charter of the United Nations was signed at San Francisco, USA and came into force on 24 October 1945.

The preamble, reproduced below, clearly brings out the concern of the founding fathers for world peace.

Preamble’s Promise

a) To save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind and b) To reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human

The UN System

The UN has often been requested to prevent disputes from deteriorating into a war, to help restore peace when a situation goes out of control and to assist societies emerging from conflict situations to stabilise. Whenever the Security Council receives a complaint regarding a threat to peace it recommends to the parties in dispute to try and resolve the same peacefully. However, if a situation deteriorates further the Council issues ceasefire directives that have often been instrumental in preventing hostilities from deteriorating further. If the need is felt it deploys a peacekeeping mission to keep opposing forces apart and create conditions for sustainable peace. If the situation deteriorates further the Council may decide on imposing sanctions and even authorise the UN missions to work under Chapter VII, as enforcement missions. In short the UN takes the following actions: Conflict Prevention: This involves peace envoys and the Department of Political Affairs of UN working together on poverty eradication and development; human rights and the rule of law; elections and the building of democratic institutions and the control of small arms etc.

Peace Keeping: Basically UN peacekeeping missions work under chapter VI with the aim of maintaining ceasefires and stabilising situations, so that efforts can be made at the political level to resolve conflicts by peaceful means. Presently there are 18 missions worldwide. A large number of conflicts have been resolved either through direct UN mediation or by the efforts of others acting with UN support. Peacekeepers undertake a wide variety of complex tasks, from helping to build sustainable institutions of governance, human rights monitoring, security sector reform, disarmament, demobilisation, reintegration and demining.

out or is likely to break out then such missions are ab initio empowered to use force whenever the situation demands. Such missions work under Chapter VII and fall under the category of peace enforcement missions.

Peace Building: This comprises efforts to reduce a country’s risk of relapsing into conflict by strengthening national capacities for conflict management and by laying the foundations for sustainable peace and development. It involves activities such as assisting the return of refugees and displaced persons; helping to organise and monitor elections of a new government; supporting justice and security sector reform; enhancing human rights protections and fostering reconciliation after past atrocities.

World Peace And Security

Before going any further let us try and see what the real threats to world peace and global security are in today’s vexed scenario.

LT GEN VK JETLEY PVSM, UYSM (RETD)

The writer retired as Master General of Ordnance, Army Headquarters. A fourth generation officer, who was commissioned into the Infantry in 1965.

During 40 years service in the Indian Army he has held various prestigious command and staff appointments which include command of a Brigade deployed in the highest battlefield in the world, a division in the desert and a corps in active insurgency areas.

As UN Force Commander in Sierra Leone from November 1999 to October 2000, he executed the highly acclaimed “Operation Khukri” which broke the back of the rebels.

If one was to take opinion polls seriously, one would find a post by Sarah Wolfe in the Global Post dated 09 January 2014, interesting. She writes “US President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize four years ago. Today, the country he leads is seen according to a “new poll” as the biggest threat to world peace; the global survey was conducted by WIN / Gallup International which polled 1000 residents of 65 countries on everything from global economy to politics and living conditions.

According to the poll, 24 per cent of the surveyed countries ranked the United States as the greatest threat to world peace, followed by Pakistan at 8 per cent, China at 6 per cent and four countries (Afghanistan, Iran, Israel and North Korea) tied at 5 per cent”. But personal opinions of 66,806 individuals categorising countries as threats to world peace and global security is hardly a scientific way to arrive at the real threats.

To appreciate this aspect better it would be prudent to take note of the

Peace Enforcement: Though essentially peacekeeping missions work under Chapter VI, if active fighting breaks

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

17

global security

TIME FOR REALITY CHECK

recommendations made by a High Level Panel constituted in September 2003 by the then Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr Kofi Annan, who was concerned about the deep divisions amongst member states on the nature of threats to global security and the appropriateness of the use of force. It is pertinent to note that at that point in time most UN peacekeeping missions were verging on becoming peace enforcement ones working under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

Terrorism has become the number one scourge of mankind.

The Western World, particularly the USA continues to pillage the resources of the underdeveloped world with impunity causing understandable anguish and anger. The rich nations become richer while the poor nations become poorer. Conferences, seminars and workshops are held all over the world to “pontificate” on what needs to be done, without practically doing anything to set things right. All this and more contributes to an unsettled world.

The report of the Panel entitled “A More Secure World: That the international security situation is grim is to put Our Shared Responsibility” pointed out that there it mildly. Basically four or five reasons can be attributed was “unparalleled interconnection between threats to to this state of affairs. These are hegemonic ambitions international peace and security and mutual vulnerability of countries like the USA, China and Russia; greed of between weak and strong”. The panel identified six the Western World and China for the resources of the clusters of threats with which the earth, particularly oil and other world must be concerned now minerals; religious upheaval and in the decades ahead. These particularly in Islamic countries Just as the UN has had many were economic and social threats, set in motion by the “Arab Spring”; successes in helping to preserve including poverty, infectious economic disparity and despair of world peace and global security it diseases and environmental the underdeveloped / developing has also had its share of criticisms, degradation; interstate conflicts; world and vacuums created by the major ones being: Composition internal conflicts including upheavals in countries which of the Security Council; Veto civil war, genocide and other have either overthrown existing large scale atrocities; nuclear, regimes or are in the process of Power of the Big Five; Democratic radiological, chemical and doing so. While severe fighting Character of the UN biological weapons; terrorism and is going on in various parts of transnational organised crime. the world resulting in untold death and destruction, equally menacing is the threat This reasonably sums up the threats to world peace and and manifestation of terrorism. global security, which are as applicable today as they were a decade ago. Other threats that have emerged are cyber Global Hot Spots warfare, economic warfare and information warfare. The Although there have been no major wars for decades, several UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon stated in July 2011, simmering conflicts have the potential to boil over into larger that climate change comprises a very credible threat to clashes with regional, if not global, consequences. Some of peace and security around the world. Further, increased the more troubling ones are listed below: risk of physical and emotional abuse, deprivation of the The Russia-Ukraine tangle resulting from Russia’s enjoyment of day-to-day life, fear of rape and violent deaths are problems that people face all over the world. Nothing expansionist designs has created a dangerous situation appears safe any longer. In 1995 the Aum Shinrikyo group in that part of the world as the recent downing of the carried out a deadly Sarin gas attack in an underground Malaysian Airlines MH 17 brings out. The rest of the train station in Japan; The 9/11 tragedy is still fresh in world led by USA threatens to take action but has been everyone’s mind just as the tragedy of 26/11 in Mumbai, ineffective so far in bringing about any change.

India is. Today, airplanes disappear in midair like Pakistan, in the grip of its military and the various Air Malaysia’s MH 370 or get shot down like MH 17; ships get hijacked by p i r a t e s militant groups spawned by it, is on the verge of despite powerful navies patrolling the high becoming a failed state. Yet, despite knowing it to be the nucleus of terrorism USA made Pakistan its partner seas; vendetta and honour killings in their “War against Terrorism”. Again, due to occur with ominous regularity. its strategic geographical location, China too backs Pakistan. As it stands today, this country is set to implode and when it does it would have serious repercussions in the region, particularly for India and Afghanistan.

Afghanistan is in greater danger than ever before as the Taliban, the Haqqani group and other dissatisfied elements are all set to create mayhem once the USA and its allies exit. Pakistan, always the one to fish in troubled waters, adds to the confusion.

With unlimited captured weapons with these groups the situation can only get worse by the day. Iran, on its western border, is powerless to do much because of the threat to it by the ISIS in Iraq.

18

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

The next major trouble spot is Iraq which is in the throes of a civil war. As it stands today it is likely to get split into three parts, the Sunni dominated western part, the Shia dominated eastern part and the Kurd dominated northern part.

The hot spots in Africa are Algeria, Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Eritrea-Ethiopia, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia and Rwanda and Sierra Leone have all been in strife at one time or the other and most still are.

North Korea is a cause of concern for the entire world because of its stagnating economy and a fear that reforms will spell doom for the present regime.

Its survival strategy of threatening to use nuclear weapons which it possesses should be taken seriously.

Because of its military might, the US is still the most influential power in the Asia Pacific region.

On the other hand, China, the regional super power, wants more of a say in regional affairs.

Managing this clash of interests peacefully will require US to accept some of China’s aspirations and vice versa … . This will not be easy for both nations.

Criticism Of The UN

Just as the UN has had many successes in helping to preserve World Peace and Global Security it has also had its share of criticisms, the major ones being: Composition of the Security Council: The five permanent members of the Security Council viz China, France, Russia, UK and USA, all nuclear powers have unrestrained say in the functioning of the UN and do not truely represent the world. This has led to accusations that the UNSC only addresses issue that are of strategic interest of the permanent members, especially in humanitarian interventions. It has been suggested time and again that to democratise the UN it must include non-nuclear nations as permanent members and that there should be representations from all parts of the globe.

The United Nations is not the panacea for all the ills that befall the world, yet it has what it takes to resolve the vexed issues that confront it. It is basically a goodwill ambassador and acts as a catalyst in bringing about world peace and in doing so helps in preserving global security

Major UN Successes

During its 68 year history, the UN has achieved many remarkable accomplishments in fulfilling its goals. It has peacefully negotiated over 172 peace settlements that have ended regional conflicts and is credited with participating in over 300 international treaties.

The UN has been involved in every major war and international crisis since its inception and has served as a catalyst for the prevention of other wars. It authorised the international coalitions that fought in the Korean War (1950-53) and the Persian Gulf War (1991).

It provided a forum for mediation in the Arab-Israeli conflict resulting in numerous peace accords.

UN peacekeeping forces have conducted over 35 to 40 peacekeeping missions. The UN has also set up war crimes tribunals to try war criminals in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Liberia.

The UN Commission on Human Rights has helped many countries in the transition to democracy by promoting free and fair elections. Through UNHCR it has provided humanitarian aid to more than 30 million refugees fleeing war, persecution or famine.

The International Court of Justice has helped settle numerous international disputes involving territorial issues, hostage-taking and economic rights.

The UN has always been at the forefront to provide aid during emergencies caused by natural disasters such as floods and hurricanes.

Veto Power of the Big Five: The veto power that the big five wield can halt any possible action that the UNSC may take. In effect, one nation’s objection as opposed to opinions of a majority of nations may bring to a halt any possible UN response to a crisis. Further, the big five permanent members meeting privately and then presenting their collective opinion to the Council as fait accompli is a practice that is deplored.

Democratic Character of the UN: It has often been pointed out that the big five does not have any distinction between the legislative, the executive and the judiciary branches as the UN Charter gives all three powers to the UNSC. Another major concern is that out of the seven top arms exporters in the world, five of them are the permanent members.

Conclusion

Notwithstanding the criticisms of the UN and keeping in mind the unique organisation of the United Nations and its track record of keeping the peace and bringing about harmony in the world, it will be appreciated that this is the one organisation which is imminently suited for this role. This is despite the fact that there are many organisations working towards world peace and global security including various NGO’s and most are doing an admirable job. However, the UN neither has the resources nor the capacity to tackle all the threats to world peace and global security and therefore member states must give it the resources and support required by it.

The United Nations is not the panacea for all the ills that befall the world, yet it has what it takes to resolve the vexed issues that confront it. It is basically a goodwill ambassador and acts as a catalyst in bringing about world peace and in doing so helps in preserving global security. Therefore it would be worthwhile to consider strengthening the United Nations instead of dissipating scarce resources to the plethora of organisations working towards this end.

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

19

global security

REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS

Net-centric Warfare Network-centric Warfare has come to mean a whole set of new ways of warfighting, with the common theme that they have all been made possible by the capabilities introduced by the induction of information and communication technology (ICT) systems in weapons and warfare. NCW is both an evolutionary process as well as a prescribed new way of warfighting.

T

he primary objective of warfare has been and shall continue to be, the physical destruction of the enemy. The key ingredients for meeting this objective have been the men, the material and the ability to use these effectively in an adversarial context to attain one’s objectives while denying the enemy the chance to attain its objectives.

This has always made effective command and control a critical requirement for all successful military campaigns.

In turn, the command and control mechanisms have always been dependent on the quality of information gathering (about self, enemy and environment), the information processing leading to decision-making and finally the communication of commands down the hierarchy. Executing this information processing in peace time and in the run up to open warfare was not so much the challenge. However, sustaining this during combat was a different matter altogether. The basic strategy that emerged was to have a top level plan worked out in advance by the higher command and to have the lower echelons well trained in executing set manoeuvres during peace time. During war, a plan would get executed that whose success would be heavily dependent on the correctness of the inputs feeding the plan and the accuracy of the predictions about outcomes of various engagements. As the ability to gather and communicate information has improved, it has become possible to make decisions and plan changes faster and having larger impacts across the battlespace. The current culmination of this evolution is the concept of net-centric warfare where access to a pervasive information infrastructure by all levels of the hierarchy promises sensing, decision-making and command to take place at the rate required by the tempo of the battle.

Process Optimisation

As the technology advances made the information gathering, decision-making and command control happen at faster rates during combat, it became an increasingly important factor in deciding the outcome of battles. The quest to understand and optimise the whole process necessarily led to the evolution of a model. The most popular model, attributed to Col Bard, is the OODA model. This model’s command control process as a four step process consisting of Observe, Orient, Decide and Act (OODA). The OODA model provides an abstraction of the ideal basic processes with respect to an entity that has the capabilities for sensing (observe), decision- making

20

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

(orient, decide) and combat (act). In practice, there will be complications arising from the fact that these tasks may be carried out by different entities, that the serialisation inherent in the model may be hard to sustain (observations reporting changes could come in faster than ability to decide or act) and that the OODA loop could be implemented by different units in the hierarchy at their own level leading to nesting and synchronisation issues.

Nevertheless, for many analytic purposes, the OODA loop provides an adequate workable abstract model. In the current context, OODA will be used for discussing NCW and associated cyber security issues. First, the top level cyber security issues associated with the OODA loop will be discussed, followed by changes to the classic OODA loop in transitioning into NCW. Finally, the cyber security issues unique to NCW will be highlighted.

The observe-orient activity involves gathering sensor outputs, inputs from human observers, inputs received from human intelligence assets and intelligence from strategic assets passed down higher echelons. The traditional information assurance problem faced at this point was to deal with potentially inaccurate and misleading information. The use of cyber systems for these activities has increased the amount of information to be processed, its storage and retrieval as required

for storage, retrieval and display of relevant data. Various decision support systems for doing planning, optimal resource allocation and scenario analysis have also been deployed. These decision support systems need to access and process various types of information in a timely manner. The key information assurance objective here is the availability of these systems and their ability to maintain their integrity at all times. In addition, the handling of information having different classification poses a challenge in terms of maintaining the confidentiality and integrity of the higher classified information.

This article is courtesy Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics. CAIR is the premier systems laboratory of DRDO for R&D in different areas in Information and Communication Technology (ICT) for solutions for Defence.

CAIR also caters to users from other departments of Government of India.

and the ability to share the intelligence assessments.

In terms of information assurance, the primary task ensuring integrity of the information. This is the aim of multi-sensor data fusion. The information fed by own sources may suffer inaccuracies and incompleteness due to limitations of information gathering in the battlefield.

In addition, the enemy can be counted on to feed false The decisions made by information by deceptive actions and deliberate implants the commanders need to be of false information. To address this problem, the raw communicated to the respective intelligence gathered at lower levels is always correlated units for action. The primary and cross-checked. The assessments made by successive challenge is to ensure the higher levels of the hierarchy become progressively more confidentiality, integrity and authenticity of the reliable and complete. Thus the MSDF workflow performs commands. In addition to confidentiality in terms of what in cyber security parlance would be termed a ‘pump’ prevention of adversay becoming privy to the commands, action ie it converts low integrity it is also necessary that the information into high integrity commands themselves convey The speed of information information. In addition, there is only as much information to the a second cyber security challenge communication and the units as is required. This ensures to be faced in the OO part of that even if the enemy should capacity for decision-making OODA. The observation system gain access to the information, the supported by automated is necessarily an open system in compromise will be minimised. processing of information close proximity to, if not in direct The need-to-know maxim is used to soon prompted changes in contact with, the adversary. This balance the need for confidentiality doctrine that gave significant necessarily affords chances to against the need to convey the adversary to compromise the commands to the relevant units. advantages over conventional cyber systems themselves. Thus warfare in the form preserving the integrity of the The initial role of cyber systems of Net-centric Warfare cyber systems themselves is also an in warfare was to automate important cyber security challenge. the storage and retrieval of information. This was quickly followed by automation of The decision-making step in the OODA loop presents various manual information processing work flows that the refined information to the commanders for their involved transaction oriented applications. These systems decision-making. The cyber systems have been employed increased the efficiency and speed of conventional warfare, but so long as warfare remained rooted in conventional doctrines it was always possible to switch-over to the manual mode of operation in a crisis. However, the speed of information communication and the capacity for decision-making supported by automated processing of information soon prompted changes in doctrine that gave significant advantages over conventional warfare in the form of Net-centric Warfare. In doing so, however, cyber systems became mission critical systems whose integrity and availability became essential to warfighting.

Network-centric Warfare

Network-centric Warfare has come to mean a whole set of new ways of warfighting, with the common theme that they have all

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

21

global security

REVOLUTION IN MILITARY AFFAIRS

been made possible by the capabilities introduced by the induction of information and communication technology (ICT) systems in weapons and warfare. This transformation has happened partly spontaneously as various strategists have discovered new options and partly as a planned transformation as theoreticians have tried to anticipate the possible and plan for it. As a result, NCW is both an evolutionary process as well as a prescribed new way of warfighting (Revolution in Military Affairs). There is consequently no dearth of treatises weighing in on the matter, most notably by Americans. Some of the key notions emphasised are importance of information superiority, shared situation awareness, speed of command, self-synchronisation, fighting with dispersed forces, de-massification, deep sensor reach, creating higher rates of change and compressed timelines for operations. Without attempting to cover the various nuances of the subject, we highlight just some of the aspects of NCW that have linkages to the critical dependence on ICT.

architecture that emerged was one where the information repositories were unified. All the sensors contributed to building-up a common pool of information, from which various commanders could create different, yet consistent, views as applicable for their commands.

While enabling the doctrines of shared awareness and self-synchronisation, this also placed a greater emphasis on deploying and running sophisticated information storage and retrieval systems in the battlefield.

An essential component of NCW is the ability to force higher rates of change. Traditionally, the rate of change that could be managed was limited by the ability to anticipate and pre-plan for a set of scenarios. When the engagement went out of this set, there was a loss of coherence. It became necessary to reassess the situation, plan a new strategy, issue commands and realign logistics.

The speed with which this could be accomplished determined the tempo that could be sustained. The promise of NCW is to enable the assessment, planning and command to happen at a pace that cannot be matched by a The earlier norm in warfare was a tight coupling non-NCW-capable adversary, thereby allowing the between sensing and action. There were observers NCW-capable force to overwhelm the adversary’s planning and sensors attached to the weapon systems, with the and command-control. In order to leverage this capability, former knowing they needed to acquire targets for the it becomes necessary to incorporate complex cyber latter and the latter knowing that systems capable of supporting they needed to engage the targets the situation assessment, threat acquired by the former. With analysis, decision-making and Traditionally, the rate of increasing sophistication both the planning processes. Computation change that could be managed sensors and the weapon systems capabilities must be present at was limited by the ability to became capable of long-range all levels down to the forward anticipate and pre-plan for activity. Thus the targets picked edge and the cyber systems a set of scenarios. When the up by some sensors could be must be capable of adapting engagement went out of engaged by multiple, distributed to the dynamically defined weapons. The weapons could also groupings of the fighting units. this set, there was a loss of engage in targets at long ranges, coherence often situated such that they could All the above point towards be better acquired by some other a significant increase in the sensors. In addition, passive sensor platforms could be information communication, storage, retrieval and made more stealthy and of greater endurance, especially processing requirements during the battle. Moreover, aerial surveillance platforms. The attack platforms, on the the cyber systems are now mission-critical ie the very other hand, could also become more stealthy if they did success of the mission depends on the correct and timely not have to do the sensing but were fed the coordinates functioning of these cyber systems. Any disruption in as acquired by the independent sensor platforms. All in the communication or processing capabilities would all, pooling together all the sensor information and then disrupt operations to the extent of rendering the units doing an optimal tasking of all the weapon systems offered dysfunctional, not just inefficient. This is what makes the possibility of more effective allocation of resources. cyber security for NCW a matter of prime importance.

It needed to be ensured that the whole process could be Cyber security in NCW has two aspects, the physical and completed fast enough for the engagement of various the logical. The physical aspect is to protect the physical types of moving targets and that multiple dispersed units resources comprising the cyber systems from destruction could remain synchronised and share a common picture by enemy action. Partly this is to be ensured by placing of the overall engagement. These, in turn, spawned these assets in protected environments like bunkers, other requirements in terms of communication and shelterised vehicles and at depth from enemy lines. In information storage and processing. addition, survivability is also ensured by duplication and distribution so that the systems as a whole can The initial deployment of ICT mimicked the existing deal with the destruction of some assets in battle. In command structures and created information repositories addition to this physical protection, there is the unique specific to commanders. While this did enhance the challenge for cyber systems to be protected at the logical quality of information avaliable to commanders and level. The enemy could attack these systems by injecting the speed of command as per existing doctrines, it did false data, malignant programmes, activating trojans not allow full exploitation of the ICT technologies. It or commandeering some cyber assets to gain access to fragmented the information repository and impeded the and disrupt the system as a whole. Cyber security deals implementation of doctrines based on shared situation with the defending against the latter types of threats. awareness and self-synchronisation. Eventually the (To be continued.)

22

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

global security

POLICY OPTIONS

Do the Indian Defence Think Tanks

Matter?

A demonstrated commitment to producing independent and non-partisan research-cum-analysis work is the hallmark of excellence of a think tank. A high-quality think tank must have adequate resources, utilise them optimally and produce high-grade work that has an impact.

T

he annual 2013 Global Go To Think Tank Index was released by the University of Pennsylvania in January 2014. With the aim of identifying and recognising centres of excellence in all the major areas of public policy research, the Index ranks think tanks the world over in a variety of categories.

According to the Index, as per the data collected in August 2013, there were 6826 think tanks in the whole world. Whereas North America had 1984 think tanks, Europe and Asia had 1818 and 1201 respectively. In sheer numbers, India was fourth (after the US, China and the UK) with 268 think tanks. However, in the list of the world’s top think tanks, India performed poorly with only one think tank appearing in the top 100. The Centre for Civil Society occupied the 50th position. The Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) was ranked 102nd.

As regards the list of top defence national security think tanks, IDSA appears at 38th position while the Centre for Land Warfare Studies occupies 48th position and the Observer Research Foundation is placed at 52nd rank. Very interestingly, no Indian think tank makes it to the lists of ‘Best Managed Think Tanks’ and ‘Think Tanks with the Most Significant Impact on Public Policy’.

Nature And Role Of Think Tanks

The primary role of a think tank is to help bridge the gap between knowledge and policy by studying

24

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

future uncertainties and developing well-articulated policy options through research and analysis of multi-dimensional variables. In addition, high quality research work should help mould opinions and policies in the larger interests of the public and the nation.

Although it is difficult to define think tanks in precise terms, they are all structured as permanent bodies and funded by government or private supporters.

The RAND (name derived from research and development) Corporation is recognised to be the first modern think tank. It was founded in 1946 and

its objective was ‘to provide information to military decision-makers that would sharpen their judgment and provide the basis for more informed choices’.

Through research and analysis on issues relating to the national security and public welfare of the United States, it has been helping improve the quality of decision-making. It employs highly sophisticated in-house developed analytical tools to create knowledge, generate options and suggest best solutions.

After realising the usefulness of RAND, a number of think tanks came into being. Subsequently, think tanks were established to deal with other fields as well. The current trend is towards having specialised think tanks that focus on a particular discipline or policy issue.

Interestingly, more than 50 per cent of the think tanks in the US are affiliated to the universities.

In order to generate credible options with positive and negative aspects duly spelt out, research and analysis have to be objective and purposeful. Solutions suggested must be within the realms of practicality.

Wishful and implausible propositions mean little. As research cannot be carried out in a vacuum, it should be confined to important issues concerning the government and the public. It must be relevant and topical.

Factors that affect the standard of a think tank include quality and commitment of its leadership; focus on the stated objective; financial soundness; ability to attract and retain top experts, analysts and scholars for research; and retaining independence of its deliberations.

A demonstrated commitment to producing independent and non-partisan research-cum-analysis work is the hallmark of excellence of a think tank. A high-quality think tank must have adequate resources, utilise them optimally and produce high-grade work that has an impact. However, to retain credibility, it should not become a mouthpiece of the funding entities.

India’s Defence Think Tanks

India got its first true think tank of the genre with the establishment of IDSA in New Delhi in 1965. The Institute is funded by the Ministry of Defence. Of late, a number of ‘think tanks’ have come into being, both with government and private funding.

Think tanks that are funded by the government occupy prime locations and possess enormous infrastructural resources. Although they claim to be autonomous, the bureaucracy ensures that its writ runs. Resultantly, these think tanks produce placid, non-contentious and routine research studies that are bereft of any innovative thoughts. Not a word is said against the government policies. That is considered to be an act of unpardonable sacrilege.

is, “When you are occupying a cozy seat, why stand up (for any cause) and risk losing it?”

Bureaucratic Control

Sadly, most of the think tanks have got reduced to the level of fiefdoms of a coterie of self-promoting and self-proclaimed entities. There is no freedom of thought or expression. For example, no expert on the payrolls of the Centre for Air Power Studies can advocate the institution of Chief of Defence Staff. Researchers are expected to toe the official line.

Most of the think tanks are controlled by well-entrenched ‘survivors’. Regimes come and regimes go but they go on forever.

Their survival depends not on any meritorious work but on remaining on the right side of the people who matter. They never criticise their patrons in the fear of losing benefaction.

Almost all think tanks have become parking place for the favourites.

Competence or suitability does not matter.

MAJOR GENERAL DR MRINAL SUMAN AVSM, VSM (RETD)

The writer is India’s foremost expert in myriad aspects of defence procurement procedures and offsets. He heads Defence Technical Assessment and Advisory Services Group of the Confederation of Indian Industry. A prolific writer, his articles are regularly translated in many languages and his views command immense respect in India and abroad.

Somehow the appointing authorities appear to believe ‘older a person wiser he is’. Some of the think tanks are headed by persons who can barely speak coherently.

Most live in the past and have nothing new to offer.

Their total contribution to any proceedings is limited to recalling what great things they did in their careers.

Most of them specialise in the ‘I’ syndrome.

Another aspect of concern is penchant for wasting time on irrelevant issues. Research papers are produced on every subject under the sun, even if of remote interest to India. One think tank carried out unduly excessive deliberations of the war in Kosovo. A number of articles were published, mostly by accessing the Internet. There were papers in which the researcher merely reproduced all the available material without any original contribution.

All researchers and experts are unambiguously advised that their jobs depend on their ‘continued good behaviour’. They have to stay within the defined limits. Any person trying to chart an independent course is quickly sacked and replaced by a favourite loyalist. A statement often heard in such organisations

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

25

global security

POLICY OPTIONS

Inferior Work

to external advice. Many senior functionaries do not feel any necessity for researched studies in the mistaken belief that their basic intellect, initial training and subsequent experience equip them to shoulder any responsibility.

They consider themselves to be fully competent to take decisions in national interest. They do not take kindly to criticism and dissention. ‘Unsolicited advice’ is not appreciated.

A well known think tank is often referred to as a ‘cut and paste’ club, as all its members excel in producing research papers by compiling excerpts from the published material. Another think tank is so short of quality work that it fills its journal by reproducing texts of speeches made by visiting speakers and reports of its study tours.

Interestingly, the quality of research not judged by the originality of thought number of references and notes provided It is considered to be a measure of the put in by the researcher.

papers is but by the at the end. hard work

Most studies do not spell out multiple options available to the decision-makers, with advantages and risks of each option duly spelt out. Recommendations couched in generalities mean little. Read any research paper on Sino-Indian relations, it will invariably end with the The Group of Ministers, clichéd advisory, ‘India must be more assertive’. No one suggests a constituted in the wake of the well-articulated methodology.

Kargil War, had stressed that Likely Chinese reaction and the government’s policy and options available to India for decision-making processes are effective counter-response are backed by the findings of never analysed.

rigorous analyses and research.

concluding address by another important functionary. As he does not attend the full session, he is blissfully unaware of what had been discussed during the day. He comes unprepared and tries to impress by mouthing hackneyed pearls of wisdom.

The seminar thus ends on a high note and with much mutual back thumping. In true kitty party tradition, schedule of the next seminar and the name of the host are also announced. Au Revoir.

All think tanks want Unfortunately, no improvement visibility and, for that, regular is discernible on ground. Most organisation of seminars is think tanks continue to thrive considered essential. Frequency on patronage and sustain of seminars has come to be seen themselves with worthless as a measure of the dynamism of Any Indian Ambiance? a think tank. An informal coterie studies. The well-connected The answer to the above poser of defence experts has emerged to remain ensconced and do is in the negative. The primary perpetuate and advance common nothing to disturb the status quo reason for the complete interests through seminars. neglect of A high sounding subject is chosen and invitations sent to mutually obliging think tanks. the Indian think tanks is the well Reciprocation of invitations to chair seminars known aversion of the officials ensures continued limelight to all.

Usually, the audience consists of retired officials and detailed serving military officers. The retired officials are selected for their availability and willingness to be seen in such fora rather than for any known expertise.

In the absence of any background knowledge, their participation gets reduced to recounting of personal experiences, howsoever irrelevant they may be.

After the keynote address by an eminent speaker (generally serving functionaries who sanction funds for the host think tank), there is a prolonged break for tea. As this is the most important occasion for networking and developing contacts, it invariably overshoots the time allotted. Thereafter, most of the invitees collect their folders and leave. Only serving Service officers are left behind. Attendance gets reduced to 50 per cent.

With extended lunch break, the seminar takes the form of an enjoyable get-together. The seminar ends with the

26

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

Henderson Brooks Report of 1962 remains locked in the government cupboards.

In the developed countries, think tanks debate every matter of national concern to ensure that the public remains informed of the implications of all major policy issues. Public opinion is created to put pressure on the government, forcing the leadership to take due cognisance of the research studies. Public in India India lacks a tradition of long-term strategic thinking remains blissfully occupied with cricket, movie stars and and policy planning. Indian psyche is more wrapped up petty politics. The government is confident that it can take in philosophy rather than history. Petty politicking and the most critical decisions without any questions being day-to-day routine functioning raised as public has little time for keeps the government so busy serious deliberation of security Most studies do not spell out that it has little time or inclination matters. Thus, public apathy multiple options available to develop long-term perspective encourages the government and objectives. In a country to ignore the think tanks. to the decision-makers, with where the recommendations advantages and risks of The Way Forward of government’s own study each option duly spelt out.

The Group of Ministers, groups and expert committee Recommendations couched constituted in the wake of the keep gathering dust in the in generalities mean little.

Kargil War, had stressed that cupboards of the offices, no the government’s policy and official has time to look at Read any research paper on decision-making processes are the uncalled-for research Sino-Indian relations, it will backed by the findings of results of the think tanks. invariably end with the clichéd rigorous analyses and research. advisory, ‘India must be more Unfortunately, no improvement Lack of transparency in assertive’. No one suggests a is discernible on ground. Most government functioning is well-articulated methodology. think tanks continue to thrive on another handicap as very patronage and sustain themselves little authentic information is Likely Chinese reaction and with worthless studies. The available in the public domain. options available to India for well-connected remain ensconced For in-depth research, experts effective counter-response and do nothing to disturb need access to the records are never analysed the status quo. of the past and current occurrences. Archives are The only silver lining in this otherwise dismal of limited assistance as the majority of important documents have still not been declassified. scenario is the ongoing information revolution. Internet, TV and social media have ended government control on information to a great extent. Consequently, the public has started taking interest in the matters of national security. In addition, a few enterprising individuals have started defence journals to provide a platform for the free-flow of ideas. These journals with their limited resources have been in the forefront of study and analysis of the strategic issues facing India.

As the government functionaries remain occupied with day-to-day issues, they are unable to devote themselves in sufficient measure to short and long-term policy issues. Therefore, they should appreciate the value of every independent voice that translates applied and basic research into viable policy alternatives.

In other words, think tanks must be encouraged to act as a bridge between the academic and the policy making communities.

Finally, if India wants to occupy a place of eminence in the comity of nations, it has to institutionalise strategic thinking through close interaction between the strategic community and the policy makers. It will be in national interest to have all major issues researched, analysed and debated in public domain by different think tanks to generate multiple interpretations, viewpoints and alternative courses of action.

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

27

global security

INTERFACE MECHANISM

Increasing Importance Of

Think Tanks

Think tanks play a critical role in having both the drive and the focus to narrow down specific issues, carry out dedicated research and present fact based analyses to policy makers. In order to be relied upon to do this it is critical that think tanks remain independent of influences that would normally colour any findings.

A

t least since the 1950s think tanks have been critically important to how countries think about security, the choices they make and the ways in which they implement these reforms. Perhaps the first clear cause-effect in this was the role played by the RAND Corporation at this time. In many ways they developed the dogmas of nuclear deterrence through mutually assured destruction, based on their work with game theory. However, sometimes these mathematically modelled predictive analyses backfired spectacularly. The classic case was a similar game theory based model developed to “win” the Vietnam War that was based entirely on destroying enemy infrastructure and did not take subjective factors into account. Since then their Project Air Force continues to be the most sustained civilian input into military decision-making – specifically with regards to air power in history.

How exactly does a think tank bring such influence to play? Why is it important in the formulation of global security policies? Why have governments increasingly come to rely on them so much?

What Think Tanks Do?

Perhaps the most important role is that of playing a mediating function between the government and the public that helps build trust and confidence in public officials. What it does is accumulate specific opinions and expertise on security issues and provide these and interface and feedback mechanism to government.

In doing so, it informs the expert community that can tend to have tunnel vision of the competing imperatives of government. But in so doing it also exposes governments to alternate ideas.

That leads to the second function to serve as an informed and independent voice in policy debates. As public debate can very frequently be based on opinions as opposed to fact based research, think tanks play a critical role in having both the drive and the focus to narrow down specific issues, carry out dedicated research and present fact based analyses to policy makers. Usually governments tend not to accumulate micro specialised information in several sectors as this proves too heavy a burden on finances and human resources. As a result outsourcing niche areas of research to think tanks

28

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

provides a valuable means of fact based information for governments. In order to be relied upon to do this it is critical that think tanks remain independent of influences that would normally colour any findings.

It is this independence that adds weight to their articulation, identification and evaluation of current policy issues, proposals and programmes. These allow governments to have their work “audited” in a sense by experts and provides that much valued second set of eyes, to look at policy afresh. Frequently these can yield new ways of looking at things.

Handling Conflict Resolution

Yet another important role that they play is to act as an early warning system – to proactively identify transformational ideas and emerging problems and to convert these into policy relevant briefs for decision-makers. While sometimes these can be seen as far too futuristic, much of what exists in our body of knowledge in terms of peacekeeping and transformation of war situation to post-peace situations can be attributed to the pioneering role of the Council on Foreign Relations on the subject. These started with governing the post-war peace in Germany and have since become the template of conflict resolution and prevention through much added knowledge from European think tanks in the process.

If their role in providing a critical source of input and advice to governments is key, their role in interpreting issues, events and policies for the electronic and print media facilitates public understanding of security issues which is equally important. Largely, security think tanks in the US have had a disproportionate influence in informing public opinion on such issues. Their experts provide a ready and trustworthy source of information and can variously endorse or oppose government policy, publicly and in keeping with democratic principles.

Well-tested Policy Alternatives

Aside from informing the public and shaping public opinion security think tanks provide a constructive forum for the exchange of ideas and information between key stakeholders in the policy formulation process and in so doing construct “issue networks”. While governments invariably do engage in a public consultation process, these can frequently get cumbersome without a proper

fleshing out of ideas, or practical and implementation difficulties. In thoroughly debating and discussing these ideas, think tanks provide a critical filter function for decision-makers as well as a platform for the rigorous testing of policy alternatives.

hence critical to America) discourse.

Similarly the Stimson Center in the 80s found a niche in coming up with confidence building measures for the USSR and the US.

These same institutions challenge the conventional wisdom, standard operating procedures and business-as-usual of bureaucrats and elected officials.

Much of these commentaries and critiques bring to light pools of talent within academia and the general public.

These may be individuals who would not pursue normal paths to government or policy. In that think tanks both act as recruitment poll and serve to highlight talented individuals. In so doing they provide a supply of personnel for the legislative and executive branches of government in the US and some other countries.

With a proliferation of well over 1200 think tanks we now have a virtual revolving door of talent who go in and out of government, introducing it to new ideas, but in the process also making the think tank world more policy relevant.

Finally perhaps the most important role that has emerged for such organisations is in the Track 2 diplomacy process.

Often, precisely because think tanks are independent of the government, they can go to places, meet people and discuss ideas that would be impossible for the state to do.

Think Tanks In America

The rise of modern think tanks parallels the rise of the United States to global leadership. The first wave of think tanks emerged during the progressive era, as part of a movement to professionalise government. For the most part, their mandate was avowedly apolitical: to advance the public interest by providing government officials with impartial, policy-relevant advice. The first think tank devoted solely to foreign affairs was the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, founded in 1910 to investigate the causes of war and promote the pacific settlement of disputes.

At the onset of WWI, President Woodrow Wilson assembled a group of prominent scholars nicknamed “the inquiry”, to explore options for the post-war peace.

Their advice was critical in the Paris Peace Conference and, this group went on to form the kernel of what became the Council on Foreign Relations. These bodies were critical in keeping knowledge of the outside world’s geopolitics open to American policy makers an era of increasing isolationism.

A second wave of think tanks came up in the 40s and 50s that included RAND. They were devoted to maintaining American supremacy. While providing much by way of inputs in defence and foreign policy, they were crucial in ensuring public support for US foreign policy and its stance in the cold war in that they were able to provide ideological and factual justifications for positions taken.

The third wave of think tanks has added the dimension of policy advocacy and ideology. For example the Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank that in many ways shapes the debate on critical issues such as Ballistic Missile Defence. While the positive or negative influences of this can be debated, they have undeniably been crucial to shifting the very nature of the dialogue in Washington on the subject from a need based (and hence discardable programme) to a technology based (and

Think Tanks In India

The governmental system in India works in a way very different from that of the United States. It is inward looking and tends to avoid external inputs in the form of consultancy or commissioning and acting upon think tank or research-based reports.

The bureaucratic system is made up of a career civil service – the Indian Administrative Service (IAS), the Indian Foreign Service (IFS), the Indian Police Service (IPS) and the Indian Revenue Service (IRS) which guards its turf assiduously and operates on a rigid basis of seniority. Officers who retire and who constitute a significant percentage of the think tank membership, do not have much influence in the system, unless they are specifically co-opted into a task force or a committee constituted by the government. There is also little or no traffic between think tanks and government and vice versa.

MANOJ JOSHI

The writer is a Distinguished Fellow at the ORF. A journalist specialising on national and international politics, he has been the political editor of The Times of India, Editor (Views) Hindustan Times, Defence Editor of India Today, National Affairs Editor of Mail Today, the Washington Correspondent of The Financial Express and a Special Correspondent of The Hindu. He has also been a member of the National Security Council’s Advisory Board.

ABHIJIT IYER-MITRA The bulk of the funding inevitably The co-writer did his comes through the government Masters in International channelled through the University Relations from Monash Grants Commission, Council for University, Melbourne Scientific and Industrial Research, and is currently pursuing the Indian Council for Historical his PhD. Prior to this he worked on India’s nuclear Research and the Indian Council for doctrine and soft power Social Science Research. The huge at the Institute of Peace expenditures that the government and Conflict Studies. His makes in the defence and strategic main focus has been the areas make the Ministry of impact and dynamics of Defence and the Department of emergent technologies Atomic Energy also big funders on militaries, doctrines and their absorbability of think tank activity. However, and what they mean for increasingly the Ministry of External current production and Affairs and other ministries have supply chains as well as also provided project funding. intra-military and Private sector funding has also intra-bureaucratic begun to come in. The first corporate relations. in this area were the Tatas and the Reliance group has also come into the picture ever since the liberalisation of the economy in 1991.

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

29

global security

COLECTIVE DEFENCE

NATO

concept was declared again in 1991 when Soviet Union collapsed and 1999 when NATO intervened in Yugoslavia.

Consequent to 9/11 a qualitative change in threat perception came about, so NATO put out its new Strategic Concept at the Lisbon Summit of November 2010. Essential features of this concept are as follows:

Biggest Politico-military Alliance

Core Tasks And Principles

NATO came into existence to safeguard the freedom and security of its member nations and not to resolve conflicts that did not threaten the Alliance. This basic role remains unchanged. Towards this end NATO has “three essential core tasks”:

NATO came into existence to safeguard the freedom and security of its member nations and not to resolve conflicts that did not threaten the Alliance. This basic role remains unchanged. Towards this end NATO has “three essential core tasks”: Collective Defence, Crisis Management and Cooperative Security.

A

s the biggest politico-military alliance in the world today NATO does have the potential to exert influence in conflict situations across the world. But its role in global security will remain a function of its charter, strategic concept and political will to take on challenges that exact staggering financial and human costs.

NATO Comes Into Existence

After the Second World War the differences in ideology and political views between the Soviet led Eastern Bloc and the US led Western Bloc became profound. Western powers saw themselves pitched against a powerful alliance led by the Soviet Union. Fearing that it would impose its ideology across Europe, if necessary by force, the Brussels Treaty of March 1948 was signed by Belgium, France, Luxembourg, The Netherlands and the UK creating the Western European Union. This treaty

became the basis for the Washington Treaty signed by 12 countries on 4 April 1949. It came to be known as the North Atlantic Treaty under which North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) came into existence. The Alliance was created basically to deal with the perceived threat from the Soviet Union. Since then NATO has enlarged, it now has 28 independent countries as members.

Nature And Structure Of The Alliance

NATO functions at two levels, political and military.

Its “essential purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of its members through political and military means”. At the head is the Secretary General. He functions from the political and administrative HQ of NATO in Brussels. Political decision-making is the responsibility of the co-located North Atlantic Council (NAC) where representatives and delegations of member countries function. Decisions are made by consensus. The other important organ is The Nuclear Planning Group which enjoys the same authority as the NAC. On the military side is The Supreme HQ Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE), located at Casteau in Belgium.

It is the Allied Command Operations (ACO), led by the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR). He is a four star General always from the US. He is responsible for all military operations of NATO across the entire globe. The second major HQ is the Allied Command Transformation (ACT) under Supreme Allied Commander Transformation (SACT) located in Norfolk, Virginia in the US. It is responsible for “overseeing the continuing transformation of Alliance forces and capabilities, especially through training and development of concepts and doctrine.”

NATO’s Strategic Concept

NATO declared its strategic concept in 1949, 1952, 1957 and 1968 all aimed at containing the Soviet Union. The

30

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

Collective Defence. In accordance with Article 5 of The Washington Treaty NATO members will “always assist each other against attack.” NATO will “deter and defend against any threat of aggression and against emerging security challenges,” either against a member country or the Alliance itself. Attack against one will be considered an attack against all. This is the bedrock of NATO’s operational philosophy.

Crisis Management. It aims at managing crisis situations before they could develop into a threat to the Alliance. The key concept here is the pre-emptive action against a potential threat. An example of this concept is NATO’s intervention in Afghanistan.

followed at NATO HQ. The implied reference is to the rapid advances made by China in acquiring strategic military capability.

Nuclear Proliferation

Proliferation of nuclear weapons, especially in “volatile regions” is another cause of great concern for the Alliance. Reference is to the growing nuclear arsenal of an insecure Pakistan. Nuclear capability of Iran and North Korea, nuclear weapons of Israel, which lies in a zone of unending conflict, also come under close scrutiny of NATO. Terrorism and activities of terrorist organisation are perceived as a direct threat to NATO countries as well as international stability. NATO’s attention is drawn by expansion of extremist organisations in areas of importance to the Alliance in North Africa, Middle East, Central Asian States and Af-Pak region. The possibility of terrorist organisations acquiring nuclear, biological and chemical resources is viewed with concern.

Cooperative Security. NATO takes cognisance of global political and security developments that could have an effect on the security of the Alliance. It allows NATO to The financial burden of waging a engage through “partnership with relevant countries” war is in itself a great constraining and other international factor. Financial health of organisations. This is achieved NATO countries hardly permits

by NATO’s active participation in the luxury of undertaking an arms control, non-proliferation avoidable military conflict. To and disarmament.

NATO’s Perception Of Threats

illustrate the cost of war: in Afghanistan for the US alone it is approximately US$ 778 billion from 2001 to 2014. According to a Harvard research project the total cost of the war, including healthcare and rehabilitation of veterans and disabled personnel, is expected to be US$ 4 trillion for the US

Throughout the last few years NATO’s perception has been that there is by and large a peaceful environment with no direct military threat to the Alliance.

However, there is one recent exception and a serious one at that: Russian intervention in Crimea and troop build-up on the border of Ukraine, now estimated at 20,000. In the first week of August 2014, NATO issued a warning that Russia may send troops into eastern Ukraine. If the situation escalates further impelled by muscle flexing by NATO and Russia the confrontation could reach a critical point.

NATO is also concerned by the spillover of the Syrian unrest into Turkey which is a member of the Alliance. If required, NATO will come to the aid of Turkey.

Acquisition of substantial military capabilities particularly long-range ballistic missiles is keenly

MAJ GEN AK HUKKU YSM (RETD)

The writer is a former infantry officer of the Indian Army. He served as the Indian Military Attache in France with concurrent accreditation to Benelux countries. Later he was the Chief Military Intelligence Adviser in the Cabinet Secretariat, following that a Centre Director in NTRO. After retirement he has been speaking on South Asia in the US, across Europe and in Malaysia.

Transnational illegal activities such as trafficking in arms, narcotics and people are perceived as potential threats to the Alliance.

NATO views increasing number of cyber attacks as a direct threat to governments, businesses, economies and critical infrastructure of member countries affecting Euro Atlantic prosperity, security and stability. China has been blamed for repeated cyber attacks on the Alliance countries particularly the US. Hostile military organisations, criminal networks and terrorist organisations are also considered as potential sources of inimical cyber activities.

Threat posed to transit routes and vital communications on which international trade, economic and energy security are dependent are viewed with concern. NATO wants these routes to be kept open, secure and resilient to attacks.

Security of Sea Lanes of Communication (SLOCs) is of prime importance to NATO. Significant technological developments related to laser weapons, EW and “technologies that impede access to space” are in NATO’s perception

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

31

global security

COLECTIVE DEFENCE

“poised to have a major global impact” on its military capabilities. Therefore China’s rapid advances in these fields are a source of concern.

Environmental and resource constraints, health risks, climate change, water security and increasing energy needs can potentially lead to threats that could affect NATO’s planning and operations in its “areas of concern.”

NATO’s Overall Posture

NATO’s strategic doctrine is based on deterrence using a mix of nuclear and conventional forces. As long as nuclear weapons exist NATO will remain a nuclear alliance. Its nuclear resources are the strategic nuclear forces of the United States boosted by those of the UK and France.

NATO retains the capability of “concurrent major joint operations and several smaller operations”. A classic example of its major operation is Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan.

The Partnership for Peace (PfP) programme was launched by NATO in 1994. It is open to countries from Euro-Atlantic region, Mediterranean Dialogue, ICI and Partners Across the Globe. Currently it has 22 members. They are allowed to develop an “individual relationship with NATO” and participate in virtually every field of NATO activity.

avoidable military conflict. To illustrate the cost of war: in Afghanistan for the US alone it is approximately US$ 778 billion from 2001 to 2014. According to a Harvard research project the total cost of the war, including healthcare and rehabilitation of veterans and disabled personnel, is expected to be US$ 4 trillion for the US.

Interestingly NATO and Japan have signed a cooperation accord on 06 May 2014 to “deepen their long-standing partnership”.

Clearly NATO’s role in global security is limited.

The charter of the Alliance restrains it from getting involved in conflicts that do not affect the security of its member countries. Even its involvement does not guarantee stabilising the situation permanently as is evident in Afghanistan.

NATO And Global Security

NATO has played a role in the following conflicts: Bosnia and Herzegovina 1992-1995. Air campaign undertaken by NATO under a UN Security Council (UNSC) Resolution. Later peacekeeping forces IFOR and SFOR were provided after signing of the Dayton Accords in 1995.

Kosovo 1999. NATO intervened on humanitarian In order to undertake operations relating to Article 5, grounds following a UNSC NATO maintains “robust, mobile Resolution. NATO carried out an and deployable conventional Proliferation of nuclear weapons, extensive air campaign followed forces”. This includes undertaking by deployment of peacekeeping expeditionary operations with especially in “volatile regions” is forces KFOR. NATO Response Forces. another cause of great concern Nuclear planning remains an important ingredient of deterrence; it is a part of collective defence planning activities.

for the Alliance. Reference is to the growing nuclear arsenal of an insecure Pakistan.

Nuclear capability of Iran and North Korea, nuclear weapons of Israel, which lies in a zone of unending conflict, also come under close scrutiny of NATO

NATO continues to develop its capabilities to defend itself from ballistic missile attacks. It is not surprising therefore that United States’ proposal to boost the Ballistic Missile Defence Shield in Europe, particularly in Eastern Europe, is considered as “aggressive in extreme”

by Russia. NATO’s involvement in this is inevitable.

A host of countermeasures are also undertaken by NATO in the field of cyber security, detection and defence against Chemical and Biological attacks, international terrorism, energy security, impact of emerging technologies and the effect of other threats.

Anti-piracy Operations. NATO along with non-NATO countries (including India) participates in anti-piracy operations Ocean Shield, along the Horn of Africa, providing safe sea passage to vessels.

Afghanistan 2001-2014. ISAF is a NATO led operation mandated

by UNSC Resolution of 2001.

Libya 2011. NATO’s role, based on a UNSC Resolution, was limited to sea and air operations. However, Libya continues to be a highly disturbed country.

NATO has the capability to take on two major operations and a few smaller ones from its own resources and those of partner countries. But there are three essential considerations for the involvement of NATO in security operations.

First, the situation must pose a threat to NATO member country / countries. If that is the case, NATO will take up the challenge.

However, NATO’s intervention in the Balkans did stabilise the region. The Alliance is also making a substantial contribution in anti-piracy operations around the Horn of Africa.

The crisis in Ukraine is becoming increasingly dangerous. NATO’s expansion towards the doorstep of Russia has NATO’s strategic doctrine is drawn the Alliance into a serious and retaliatory confrontation based on deterrence using a with it. Further north if Russia mix of nuclear and conventional threatens the Baltic States forces. As long as nuclear (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are weapons exist NATO will remain members of the Alliance), NATO’s a nuclear alliance. Its nuclear charter will demand intervention. resources are the strategic This could result in a direct faceoff with Russia, an eventuality nuclear forces of the US, boosted that could have serious global by those of the UK and France repercussions.

Second, political will to get involved in a conflict situation is indispensable. Public opinion against involvement erodes political will to undertake an operation. Termination of operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan by December 2014 is an example of war weary NATO member countries.

Third, financial burden of waging a war is in itself a great constraining factor. Financial health of NATO countries hardly permits the luxury of undertaking an

It is evident that NATO will not get involved in a conflict by putting boots on ground where it can avoid doing so as was indicated by stand-off operations in Libya, staying away from Syrian civil war and from the conflict between Israel and Palestine.

Similarly in Afghanistan NATO will disengage by December 2014. A residual force will be left behind comprising 9800 US troops, perhaps boosted by another 3000 from the members of the Alliance.

NATO’s Partners

NATO will also not deal decisively with Pakistan, whose misplaced ambitions are the primary cause of destabilisation of Afghanistan.

NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue comprises seven countries from the Mediterranean region: Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia.

Global deployment of around 277,000 US troops and continued reduction in the strength of armed forces of the Alliance countries could place limitations on the ability of NATO to provide adequate force levels for two major confrontations and a number of smaller concurrent ones.

Besides the 28 members of the Alliance, NATO operates with 22 partner countries under the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC).

The Alliance has promoted the Cooperation Initiative (ICI) comprising Qatar, Kuwait and UAE.

Istanbul Bahrain,

NATO cooperates with the “Partners Across the Globe” comprising Afghanistan, Australia, Iraq, Japan, Pakistan, Republic of Korea, New Zealand and Mongolia.

32

Global Security Role

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

NATO’s ability to promote security in trouble spots around the world will continue to be guided by its charter and political consensus within the Alliance. Whenever NATO does intervene, the UN, world organisations and governments will have to step in to exploit the success achieved. Absence of such follow up action could easily set the clock back.

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

33

global security

THINK TANK-MILITARY NEXUS techno-economic focus. Within East Asia, in most of the countries, military played an important role in nation building resulting in many think tanks justifying the concentration of power among the ruling / military elite.

However, these think tanks were successful in creating interest in security and defence matters.

Think Tanks In East Asia

The narrative changed with the change in political structures in many countries in East Asia and Southeast Asia with the influx of democratic structures in many countries. This led to proliferation of private and non-governmental think tanks.

This decentralisation of the think tank also decentralised debate and local players were included in the national policy discourse. Diversified funding led to the emergence of new leaders and much informed intelligentsia.

T

hink tanks occupy an important position in the policy discourse of a nation and its development process. Informed research and focused policy debates provide alternative view about any issue or any emerging challenge. R Kent Weaver has called think tanks as “universities without students” while James Dean has identified them as entities which are “independent or affiliated institutions that are permanent bodies and dedicated to public policy research, analysis and engagement.”

Within US think tanks became an integrated part of the policy debates and directing debates. US boasts of having more than 1800 think tanks working in different areas of policy making primarily in international affairs, defence, economic, environment and human security.

Among those think tanks, a large number are totally autonomous, while some are partially independent.

Partially independent think tanks get their funds both from the government and independent sources. Similarly, in East Asia most think tanks have diverse sources of funding. These think tanks bring alternative ideas in the media, NGOs and among the policy makers, governments and also to the business community. The social media have also brought the biggest stakeholder – public into any policy debate. The increasing number of stakeholders has made debate more participative but at the same time collating of ideas have become the most tedious affair. The experts that are involved in all such debates provide the necessary angle of feasibility into the discourse; critical analyses on the subject matter but at the same time generate rational and practical ideas.

Dubious Agenda?

Within East Asia, early think tanks have been closely associated with the government functioning and have assisted bureaucracy in carrying out the tasks. In fact, many were instituted by the government to assist in policy orientation and to get feedback from the general public. Think tanks in the region have also contributed considerably to the national economic development.

More technocratic and economically oriented institutions

34

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

have provided plans and policy solutions as well as implementation methods for wider outreach. However, within East Asia which has witnessed a large number of authoritarian and military regimes, think tanks were created to legitimise the regime and even script the development narrative to curb any resistance to the totalitarian regimes. As a result, think tanks in East Asia were oriented to formulate effective policy instruments as per the directions of the political class. With the relatively better economic growth and development in these economies, the think tanks got the necessary impetus as well as funds to promote their agenda and growth.

In comparison to the think tanks in Latin America and to a certain extent in Africa, think tanks in East and Southeast Asia were instituted as a component of the ruling structure and their roles were outlined. As a result of this, their mandate, objectives and focus are different.

In the rather theoretical context, think tanks have three phases of evolution, similar to Rostow’s Five Stages of Growth Development Model. Firstly, this involves evolving through political reference primarily in terms of nationalism and concentration of power. Second, is the credibility that the think tanks gain in due course of time and third, is when think tanks become an important element in national discourse and policy prediction as well as guidance. It has been argued that in East Asia, most think tanks that evolved were clear reflection of the state of development in their countries and the regional dynamics which decided their priorities and focus areas.

In the initial phases, think tanks acted as the repository of centralised knowledge, decision-making discourses, political power and academic resources which made think tanks as an extension of the bureaucracy and the government. The increasing anti-colonial stance and the rise of third world unity made the think tanks a centralised debating house and which moulded public perception.

The security component increasingly permeated into the discourse with the division of the world into two power blocs. Furthermore, the need for stability and sustained economic growth compelled many countries in the region to institutionalise think tanks having a strong

New Leaders

This narrative changed with the change in political structures in many countries in East Asia and Southeast Asia with the influx of democratic structures in many countries. This led to proliferation of private and non-governmental think tanks. This decentralisation of the think tank also decentralised debate and local players were included in the national policy discourse.

Diversified funding led to the emergence of new leaders and much informed intelligentsia. Further, the economic policies were increasingly debated and which led to better policy and planning processes. The revolving door among the think tanks and government placed many experts and scholars at the helm of decision-making structures.

This indirectly helped the think tanks as the regard for educationists and experts grew in those countries.

In countries across Southeast Asia a number of think tanks emerged which set the benchmarks for credible research and informed policy debates. These included SMERU Research Institute, Indonesia and People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPS), South Korea. These developments assisted in growth of think tanks focused on debating economic laws, rules, regulations and growth fundamentals.

Influential Entities

The need for grooming and retention of experts created the intellectual capacity for discussing myriad dimensions of regional and transnational security issues. Think tanks played a pioneering role in the advocacy towards formation of a new multilateral security organisation - ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF). It also provided the reasons for the integrated value addition chain network as well as the reservations regarding the Asian Free Trade Area (AFTA). Few organisations among the think tanks adopted the mantle of working as serious Track II forum such as ASEAN-ISIS (Institute of Strategic and International Studies) and CSCAP (Council for Security Co-operation in the Asia-Pacific). D Stone in his article ‘Dynamics of Think Tanks Development in Southeast Asia’ has argued that ASEAN-ISIS has evolved as one of the most impressive, academically competent and politically influential, informal networking arrangement which acts as umbilical cord among institutes, university centres and official machinery in Southeast Asia. The increasingly networked character of think tanks in turn provides them a relatively better political access.

Prescriptive Role

In countries such as Cambodia, Indonesia, Philippines and Thailand, international organisations such as the World Bank, the UNDP, Ford Foundation, Brookings, Carnegie and Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, have taken great interest in think tank culture in these countries and many have instituted country chapters and have created awareness about economic and development issues. Within

Southeast Asia and East Asia, a network of think tanks has emerged which is known as Network of East Asian Think Tanks (NEAT). The guiding principle of the NEAT is to ‘support, promote and develop the ideas of East Asian cooperation and regionalism, provide intellectual support for East Asian cooperation, propose recommendations to the Asian Governments through policy-oriented, conference, workshops and publications; and to establish linkages with Track One of ASEAN+3 and with other networks, institutions and organisations’. In ASEAN+3 structure, it provides inputs related to the connectivity, P2P interaction and social welfare policies recommendations.

Policy Formulation

DR PANKAJ K JHA

The writer is Director (Research) with Indian Council of World Affairs (ICWA). He also worked as Deputy Director with National Security Council Secretariat, Prime Minister's Office.

He worked as Research Fellow with ICWA for two years and was Associate Fellow at Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) for six years (2005-2011). He has done his PhD from the Centre of Southeast Asia and Southwest Pacific Studies (now known as Indo-Pacific Studies), School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University and is an Economics-Major from Delhi University.

In East Asia, many think tanks have been feeding policy makers through informal discussions through regional arrangements such as the PECC (Pacific Economic Cooperation Council). This acts as TRACK II of APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation). PECC has helped in creating a discussion forum for business, scholars, experts, academic and retired officials which provides feasible action plans and policy recommendations.

It is also credited with assisting in the institutionalisation of APEC as the formal multilateral institution having an economic integration and trade agenda. One can witness various cooperative arrangements through NEAT in supporting ASEAN+3 and the East Asian Summit, as well as the establishment of ERIA (Economic Research Institute for ASEAN and East Asia).

Drawing lessons from East and Southeast Asia, it has become imperative within South Asia to create such an integrated network of think tanks which can work on connectivity, finance and infrastructure and create a pool of experts and individuals which can assist in policy articulation and formulation in their respective countries.

Further, these think tanks should integrate processes and working groups, so that each nation can be equally informed. In the context of India, the work of think tanks is diverse and usually it is debated that think tanks do not conduct policy oriented research. The justification in this regard is that there is lack of synergy between government and think tanks and there is no ‘revolving door’ for the fresh and alternate ideas. As a result, the policy and academic debates are completely in contrast.

The time is spent in justifying the argument through media, while a particular section feels its academic responsibility to criticise government policies. The lack of focused expertise and the limited career growth opportunities for experts make it a difficult marriage between think tanks and the government.

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

35

global security

EXPLORATIVE IDEAS

Think Tanks In India

Still A Long Way To Go There is interplay between the body of work done in research and its subsequent exploitation. A think tank clearly fails to accomplish its mission if its explorative ideas and concepts are not exploited as its function is not passive transfer of knowledge but active transformation. This transformation is successful if the probability of its use in practice increases.

T

hink tanks, as organisations that provide research and advocacy on strategic and policy issues in the social, cultural, political, economic and security domains are gaining increasing relevance in today’s world. They engage in policy-related issues and provide to decision-makers a set of alternatives or a narrative for consideration in the decision-making process.

Exercise of influence takes place through the spread of ideas and arguments disseminated through books, reports, articles, lectures and the like.

Momentum Lost

The concept dates back to 1831, with the founding of the first think tank, the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) in London. RUSI concerned itself with national and international defence and security issues. Its Indian offshoot, the United Service Institution (USI), was founded in 1870 in Shimla, remains India’s oldest think tank and is presently housed in Delhi. Since those early days, the concept has grown, with over 4500 think tanks dotting the globe, most of them in the US. Think tanks in the US made a start in the early years of the 20th century, with institutes such as the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Brookings Institution. Post WW II saw the burgeoning of think tanks across the globe, but India remained a slow starter, despite having a head start with the founding of the USI. As per the “2013 Global Go To Think Tanks Report” of Pennsylvania University’s Think Tanks and Civil Societies Programme (TTCSP), India with 268 think tanks has the fourth largest number of think tanks after the US (1828), China (426) and United Kingdom (287). However, despite this number, only six Indian think tanks figure among the top 150 global think tanks.

In the “Top Defence and National Security Think Tanks” category, only three Indian think tanks figured, the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) at 38, Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS) at 48 and Observer Research Foundation (ORF) at 52. While this is a positive development, the relative position of India in such an essential field, leaves much to be desired.

36

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

Linkage With Decision-makers

Why are Indian think tanks not seen as amongst the world’s best? In their paper, ‘Framing Strategies of Think Tanks: A Case Study’, Jetta Frost and Rick Vogel postulate that to sustain their survival in the knowledge economy, strategies of linking exploration and exploitation are crucial to research intensive organisations. Exploration refers to the search for new knowledge through discovery, experimentation, innovation and search. Exploitation refers to the on-going use of the researched knowledge base and is captured by such terms as implementation, execution and refinement. There is interplay between the body of work done in research and its subsequent exploitation.

A think tank clearly fails to accomplish its mission if its explorative ideas and concepts are not exploited as its function is not passive transfer of knowledge but active transformation. This transformation is successful if the probability of its use in practice increases. Think tanks thus provide the link between exploration and exploitation and aim at enhancing intellectual persuasiveness of the supported ideas and concepts as a precondition for their diffusion in practice.

In the Indian context, think tanks exercise little if any persuasive content over decision-makers. Their ability to transform innovative ideas and concepts into applicable solutions for pressing problems is limited.

This is primarily due to two reasons. First, Indian think tanks lack linkages with the decision-makers.

In countries like the US, strong linkages between the think tanks and the decision-makers, prompt decision-makers to seek inputs from them before formulating policy. Many in the US government have earlier worked in think tanks and on demitting office, revert to working there. This close-knit functioning is not part of the Indian scene. Secondly and perhaps of greater importance, is the perception amongst decision-makers that the output from think tanks contributes little to what the decision-maker seeks and to that extent, has limited relevance to decision-making. These two negatives reinforce each other. The decision-maker remains reluctant to seek inputs from think tanks as the inputs are

perceived to be prosaic in nature. The think tanks remain stagnant, as the likelihood of the acceptance of their research and its application to policy remains uncertain.

Looking inwards, obvious deficiencies exist in the framing of strategies adopted by most Indian think tanks, which need to be rectified if they are to have a meaningful role. Such strategies would involve communication processes that foster the perceived persuasiveness and applicability of supported ideas and concepts, thereby enhancing the probability of their diffusion in practice.

An essential requirement would be to improve the quality of research to an extent that the decision-maker would be enthused by the same.

Economic Factor

Financial constraints remain a dampener in improving quality output. Think tanks require appropriate staffing, accommodation, library access and a host of other facilities. Most Indian think tanks, including those working on defence and security related issues, remain badly constrained with respect to having appropriate facilities and staffing patterns to promote quality research.

Very few have the resources to send researchers to the field to get a first-hand account of the ground situation. In the absence of ground reports, researchers study material obtained from the net or from published literature. A large volume of such data comes from Western and US sources, which obviously has the flavour of the host country. The narrative we get is a mix of an assortment of Western viewpoints, which may or may not be an appropriate reference point for Indian decision-making. Shortage of funds also affects the number and quality of researchers that can be employed by the think tanks. Intellectual skills command a low market value in academia, which consequently tend to move talent towards the more lucrative avenues of employment. That notwithstanding, there is still an aura of glamour attached to working with think tanks, which enables most to carry out a reasonable amount of research through dedicated researchers.

Language Barrier

Language skills remain another constraint. As an example, a study of China rarely takes into account published work from that country in the local language as few researchers have mastery over the Chinese language.

Hiring interpreters is a solution, but that again costs money and is not a viable option when funds are barely adequate to meet the basic requirements of research.

What we finally end up with are Western translated scripts of the original works in Chinese, which may not quite convey the same message.

When viewed in their entirety, it stands to reason that if quality inputs are desired, think tanks will have to be well funded. However, many in government do not quite see it in that manner. Many bureaucrats and some within the military too, question the need of think tanks, as they perceive themselves and the office they hold, to be the font of all wisdom on all issues. Perhaps it is also convenient to operate in a comfort zone, which would be disturbed if outside opinion was sought on policy issues. Disturbing the status quo entails risk and few decision-makers, whether in the bureaucracy or in the military are inclined to rock the boat. Maintaining the status quo is a low risk

option, but consequences may arise if a planned shift in policy does not go off quite as planned! This leads to a cycle of doing more of the same things in the manner done earlier, resulting in stagnation.

Military Mindset

In military think tanks, where the major stakeholder are the Armed Forces, a different set of challenges MAJOR GENERAL are encountered. Militaries by their very nature are secretive, whereas DHRUV C KATOCH the work of think tanks they control SM, VSM (RETD) fall largely in the open domain.

The writer is the Director, Think tanks have to deal with the Centre for Land Warfare corporate sector, which the military Studies (CLAWS), New Delhi. tends to avoid. As an example, when looking at issues such as acquisitions, there are three primary stakeholders. The user (the military), the supplier (research organisations and the public and private defence sector) and finally the decision-maker (political and bureaucratic head). Each stakeholder has a set of constraints and challenges, which perhaps the others are not cognisant of. Think tanks can play a very important role in getting all three on a common platform, to permit a free flow of ideas to obviate each other’s concerns. By habit and custom however, the Indian military leadership is wary of the corporates and prefers to stay aloof from the political leadership, in its desire to appear apolitical. Much of this has to do with legacy attitudes, where a sense of propriety was deemed breached through hobnobbing with corporate heads or there could be a question mark placed on the apolitical nature of the military, should interaction be carried out with political leaders. Such legacy attitudes would have to change. Modern militaries require close coordination with political leaders and with the corporate world. India would have to do the same if appropriate synergies are to be developed and India’s defence capability is to be leveraged to promote national interests. Think tanks provide the right forum for such interaction, being outside the military system. Such processes should be encouraged by the military leadership, which all too often acts as a dampener and seeks to discourage such initiatives.

While India has a large number of think tanks, most have come up in the last decade only and are still evolving. Many are too small and lack the wherewithal to function effectively, let alone compete with the well-established think tanks of the West. However, this is a field, which requires greater support from the government as well as from the corporate sector. If small countries like Singapore can have think tanks competing with the best in the world, there is no reason why India cannot follow suit. Perhaps the time has come to allow corporate funding of think tanks as part of their corporate social responsibility (CSR). This would require an amendment to CSR rules as currently existing. In addition, while government controlled think tanks operate with a great deal of autonomy, their functioning, especially with respect to management needs to be further streamlined in line with best business practises. Only then can India hope to gain substantially from the intellectual capital, which the think tanks can provide. We are living in a knowledge economy. We cannot afford to be left behind.

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

37

global security

STRATEGIC INPUTS were then found in India, a millennium before other great universities of the world. Schools specialised in subjects and attracted renowned scholars. Logic and debate were key activities, conducted by erudite scholars, which the king and his nobles listened to with interest. Victory in debates was often at par with winning battles. Amartya Sen has defined this typical Indian trait as ‘argumentation’.

Regrettably, in a highly oral tradition we lost some of our written records and the rest were lost through the ravages of time and conquest. In turn we also stopped ‘listening’ and to respect the alternate point of view.

Think Tanks

Helping Governments Make Informed Choices

Ancient India had a rich heritage of thinking and analyses. Most of this was done in universities and the world’s oldest were then found in India, a millennium before other great universities of the world. Schools specialised in subjects and attracted renowned scholars. Logic and debate were key activities, conducted by erudite scholars, which the king and his nobles listened to with interest. Regrettably, in a highly oral tradition we lost some of our written records.

W

hat is a think tank? Surprisingly it is not easy to answer. There are so many varieties of this ‘animal’ and so many different viewpoints, that the answer may well lie in the eyes of the beholder. Just like the seven blind men trying to describe an elephant, we decipher it from where we stand; from the viewpoint of the government, civil society or the academic community, among others. Yet, it is important to try and answer, because think tanks today impact on decision-making of governments and affect citizen’s lives more than ever before. In the complex, competitive world we live in today, success of a nation may well have a lot to do with the quality of think tanks in a country. They impact on national security decisions more than ever before.

In a classical sense think tanks are defined as, ‘public policy research institutions’. They help shape public discourse and guide government policy, essentially through research and asking awkward questions from all and sundry.

Think tanks have existed in one form or the other ever since policy choices were required to be made. But, their importance has grown in recent years. This is because

38

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

governance has become more complex, it requires many and varied inputs, call for examining different options and finally based on this, recommend policy. Governments are responsible for formulating and executing policy and appropriately they empower themselves to do so.

At the same time, mired as they are in the nitty gritty of everyday detail, they seldom have the time for serious original thinking or prepare us for the future.

Make Governments Think

The primary function of think tanks then is to help governments make informed choices. But, they often perform other critical tasks as well. Among these may be; to mediate between the government and the public, provide informed and independent voice in policy debates, identifying, articulating and evaluating policy, transforming ideas into action and many more. Some of these tasks often confront and challenge the government. A wise and good government will know the boundaries and acknowledge the difference and ensure both survive. But, in reality there will always be an underlying tension. As Plato had said in The Republic “There can be no good government until philosophers are kings and the kings philosophers.”

Ancient India had a rich heritage of thinking and analyses.

Most of this was done in universities and the world’s oldest

and they report directly to their respective ministries or departments. In effect they are extensions of the government and researchers often exchange posts with government officials. Many senior government officials move to a think tank after retirement where their expertise can be utilised longer. Yet, the think tanks function outside the government system, MAJOR GENERAL which gives them some flexibility.

Among the world’s current think tanks, the oldest is As in many things in China today, DIPANKAR BANERJEE perhaps the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, these institutions are very well AVSM (RETD) set up in 1910 by the industrialist Andrew Carnegie in funded and have excellent facilities.

The writer has been Washington, DC. The Brookings Institution followed four They have exchange arrangements involved with leading years later. Today they are located in adjacent buildings in with major think tanks around think tanks in India, in the region and around the Washington, DC and compete with each other for senior the world, which provides great world, at a directorial and government posts in new Administrations in the US. The advantages of networking and policy level, continuously revolving door nature of the US government provides improve research.

Chinese for the last twenty think tanks with both a challenge and an opportunity. think tanks are visible globally, seven years.

When they are in office scholars try out their ideas in research extensively and are highly practice. Out of office they reflect on their successes placed amongst global top think tanks in Asia. Only very and failures and hopefully do recently have private think tanks better the next time. Both these been allowed in China, but they A word of caution is necessary institutions have become global remain heavily controlled by the brand names with affiliated government and their research here. Large numbers of high institutions and branches does not deviate much from quality think tanks are not around the world and enormous government thinking. always a guarantee of good influence on global issues. Both and correct policy decisions by are multi-disciplinary.

Till recently Chinese think tanks governments or of their effective also suffered from major implementation. Human choices Types Of Think Tanks drawbacks. Lacking familiarity Think tanks come in various types with English they were often left out and decision-making remains and can be divided by functions of the current global debate on new equally if not more critical, which such as policy orientations ideas. Researchers were guided remains the exclusive executive (conservative / liberal), advocacy by official policy and thinking, responsibility of the state. The or framing policy, political limiting their inquisitiveness and US decision to attack Iraq in party affiliation or autonomous, curiosity. All that has changed government or private, single or in the last decade or so. Most 2003 remains a classic example multiple issue based, university researchers below 40 are fluent in of recent failure in high level and government linked or English or the foreign language decision-making independent and autonomous of their choice. Each has had and many more. numerous international research and academic exposure through government funded There are possibly around 5,000 think tanks around the scholarships and possibly an international postgraduate world. Out of which about 1700 are in the US alone. The degree. All major important foreign books are available overwhelming majority of US think tanks are privately in their Chinese translation within a very short time. funded, through grants and donations by charitable Research standards have also improved. organisations or individuals. Many large foundations exist to support think tanks and fund their research. They Quality of think tanks is directly related to the standards have great influence to identify what ideas will matter of university education in a country. Researchers are the tomorrow and how we begin to think about those ideas. products of these institutions and they cannot succeed unless the habits of enquiry and pedagogy are inculcated The top 50 think tanks in the US have an annual budget from an early age. Till recently Indian universities of around US$ 50 million each and some very much were not very good at encouraging research and this more. By comparison the top two think tanks in India of is the principal reason they are consistently ranked a similar size or smaller may have an annual budget of lower than even emerging Asian universities. around US$ 4 million. Economic think tanks in India are usually better off in terms of funds or recognition.

Think tanks are also assessed and graded globally since 2007. Prof James McGann, perhaps Chinese Milieu the leading international authority on think tanks at There are many very large think tanks in China today. Pennsylvania University, provides an Annual Index All of these are funded almost entirely by the government under Global Go To Think Tank Index report.

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

39

global security

STRATEGIC INPUTS systems, conducted mainly in military funded scientific research institutions, sometimes in cooperation with industry and universities. Finally are those that deal with national or grand strategy, theories and principles of war, evolution of military and nuclear doctrines, arms control and military diplomacy.

Indian Requirement

There is need for enormous research in India today in the frontiers of military knowledge. The Defence Research and Development Organisation has to shoulder the responsibility in science and technology to develop weapons of the future. A military industrial capability has to emerge to harness this knowledge and produce tomorrow’s weapon systems. But, even more important is to develop an indigenous capability and innovative thinking in areas of national and international strategy and in predicting the future. Only on the basis of a much clearer understanding of these dynamics can we build a strong and secure India for the 21st century.

Central Role Of Think Tanks

Indian institutions are evolving and our think tanks are no different. Remaining mainly under public funding and governmental regulations, incentive and innovation have remained stifled. A sense of competition and a commitment to performance should be introduced. A motivation for achievement must be generated through private incentive and the possibility of profit. Private charitable funding should be encouraged in the areas of research and enhancing knowledge through greater incentives.

Finally, we need to recommit ourselves to building a true knowledge society, by valuing and rewarding individual efforts. Most important the government must not put obstacles in the way of think tank functioning and in the true Indian tradition, encourage differences and through debate harmonise the differences.

Think tanks have a major role in national security around the world. Napoleon transformed war from an activity engaged in by only a handful of professional soldiers by the concept of ‘total war’. From the nineteenth Human Element century, wars became a national effort for the survival A word of caution is necessary here. Large numbers of of a nation state and for expanding national interests. high quality think tanks are not always a guarantee of This called for major and comprehensive efforts. good and correct policy decisions by governments or ‘General Staffs’ came into being in all armies, whose of their effective implementation. Human choices and officers specialised in the ‘management of war’ in all its decision-making remains equally if not more critical, dimensions. From their knowledge originated many of which remains the exclusive executive responsibility of the state. The US decision to the management techniques that attack Iraq in 2003 remains a later spread around the world. classic example of recent failure Robert McNamara was the Head As in many things in China in high level decision-making. of Research and later President of today, these institutions are very The US Administration and the Ford Company when President well funded and have excellent particularly its Vice President John Kennedy appointed him as facilities. They have exchange Dick Cheney was intent on war the Defence Secretary in 1961. in Iraq. No amount of caution, McNamara brought his entire arrangements with major advice or guidance could deviate team of ‘whiz kids’ from Ford think tanks around the world, them from this goal. Analyses that and introduced ‘operations which provides great advantages did not suit the pre-determined research and systems analysis’ of networking and improve objectives were cast aside. Hence within the ministry to transform research. Chinese think tanks the world experienced terror and Defence planning in the US. are visible globally awe and a military victory, but an inglorious exit only a few years There are several types of later. The top 150 or so leading security think tanks. At one end are the military think tanks meant for research think tanks of the world within a kilometer and a half on operational and tactical questions and developing radius of Dupont Circle, Washington DC, NW, within new doctrines for conducting wars. Another is in the the Beltway, could not ensure that the political executive area of developing new technologies and weapon made the right choice. The rest is history.

40

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

41

global security

WELLSPRINGS OF KNOWLEDGE and travel widely all over the world to propagate their ideas, as well as to utilise the occasions as sounding boards to discern the views of analysts and policy-planners abroad. Another mode of reaching out is by issuing policy briefs and fact-sheets and, increasingly, maintaining frequently updated web pages.

Think Tanks In National Security

Since the May 1998 Pokhran-II nuclear tests and India’s declaration of itself as a nuclear-armed state, India’s strategic culture is being gradually re-shaped to a more resurgent and vigorous one and India has at long last launched a quest for strategic autonomy. New think tanks are springing up and new journals are hitting the stands.

A

bout 20 years ago, George Tanham, a senior defence analyst with RAND Corporation set the cat among the pigeons when he wrote that India lacked a strategic culture (Washington Quarterly, reprinted in Lancer’s Indian Defence Review, April 1992). The pros and cons of India’s strategic culture, or lack of it, can be debated ad infinitum.

However, one aspect that has certainly been neglected is the role that strategic and international affairs think tanks can play in shaping the contours of India’s national security by providing independent analysis and inputs.

Think tanks are normally autonomous or semi-autonomous research institutions that produce ‘policy-relevant’ knowledge and options. Richard N Haas, Director of Policy and Planning, United States (US) Department of State and himself a reputed think tank expert, has listed five major ways in which think tanks contribute to shaping policy: “By generating original ideas and options for policy formulation, by supplying a ready pool of experts for employment in government, by offering venues for high-level discussions, by educating US citizens about the world and by supplementing official efforts to mediate and resolve conflicts.”

Contribution Of US Think Tanks

American think tanks have played a unique advisory role in policy formulation and clearly, India has much to learn from the American experience. It would be productive to review the role that these think tanks have played in shaping US foreign and national security policy.

It can be stated with some justification that think tanks are a distinctively American phenomenon. There are

42

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

about 1,500 think tanks in the US. These are so much a part of the strategic landscape that most Americans comprising the “foreign policy public” (a term coined

by Prof Ernest May of Harvard) are convinced that they play an invaluable role in shaping US policy.

James G McGann of the Foreign Policy Research Institute is of the view that the US think tanks “engage in a range of policy-related activities and comprise a diverse set of institutions …” and aid the policy planning process more profoundly than is generally appreciated.

Richard Haas has written: “Think tanks … fill a critical void between the academic world, on the one hand and the realm of government, on the other. Think tanks’ primary contribution … is to help bridge this gap between the worlds of ideas and action … .” Haas feels that these think tanks are good facilitators of Track-II negotiations and have often provided ‘non-partisan settings’ to US officials to explain current policy, announce new initiatives and launch trial balloons.

The US think tanks vary in organisation, scope and focus and have diverse mandates and sources of funds.

These think tanks are by and large unencumbered by official views and provide frank assessments of emerging challenges and possible solutions. American think tanks disseminate their output through multiple channels of communication with the target audience or clientele. The most common method is to publish books, articles, monographs and occasional papers and send copies to policy and decision-makers.

Their research fellows, scholars and staff appear regularly on television and give frequent interviews to newspapers. Many eminent analysts write columns for the editorial and op-ed pages of leading newspapers

Prominent US think tanks in the foreign policy and national security fields include the Brookings Institution (http://www.brook.edu), the Council on Foreign Relations (http://www.cfr.org), the RAND Corporation (http:// www.rand.org), the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (http://www.csis.org), the United States Institute of Peace (http://www.usip.org), the CATO Institute (http:// www.cato.org), the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (http://www.ceip.org) and the Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org). The list is far from exhaustive and think tanks like the Henry L Stimson Center, among others, also enjoy a fair amount of credibility. Most of them are anchored at Washington DC or have branches in the US capital. Their annual budgets range from US$ 5 to 30 million, except RAND that has an annual budget in excess of US$ 100 million.

Wellsprings Of Knowledge

The US Defense Department aids the think tanks and “helps supplement the knowledge base on Capitol Hill with the defence fellows programme, which sends 60 people from the armed services to work on a House or Senate staff for a year. The military also details staff to the State Department and other government agencies to foster coordination and the ability to BRIG GURMEET KANWAL respond rapidly to events,” writes Lorelei Kelly, a senior associate (RETD) with the Henry L Stimson Center, The writer is Adjunct Washington. The defence fellows Fellow, Center for Strategic and International Studies provide a military perspective (CSIS), Washington DC. in decision-making and help explain the military complexity of emerging challenges and new threats. The broad-ranging institutional and hands-on operational knowledge of military officers makes them a unique resource for security policy formulation.

Indian Think Tanks

Unfortunately, very little effort is being made to educate Prof Andrew Rich, who has studied think tanks, concluded Indian civilian and armed forces officers in strategic in a report about five years ago: “Think tanks remain a studies and international affairs. The proposed National principal source of information Defence University is still in a and expertise for policy-makers nascent state. Only a handful of and journalists … . Their studies universities have defence studies Indian think tanks will no doubt and reports are regularly relied departments and even these find contribute immensely to the upon to guide and / or bolster it extremely difficult to attract understanding of present and members of Congress in their students. ‘Generalist’ bureaucrats future strategic challenges and legislative efforts and journalists without any expertise provide will increasingly assume greater in their reporting.” Another inputs for defence policy decisions importance in generating ‘new major reason for the present to the political leadership. In the prominence of think tanks is words of HM Patel, India’s first thinking’ that will lead to more the perception that think tanks Defence Secretary, “the ignorance comprehensive policy-formulation break down the barriers that of civilian officials in defence government bureaucracies matters is so complete as to be usually create as they are: a self-evident and incontrovertible fact.” This has not changed over the last six decades since independence.

• More futuristic in their approach than government Despite having armed forces that range among the research functionaries, who work in an environment five largest armed forces in the world, strategic studies in which efforts at creative disruption are rarely and international affairs think tanks in India are few rewarded. in number. While it is true that institutions like the • More likely to generate fresh policy agendas vis a vis maximising standard operating procedures.

• Better able to facilitate collaboration among separate groups of researchers for a common purpose, as they have no permanent interest in any one domain.

• Better able than government agencies to disseminate relevant policy research within government and externally to policy elites, the media and the public.

• Better suited to deal with the cross-cutting nature of global policy issues.

• Better able to convene and engage stakeholders in the policy making process.

• Better able to ‘telescope’ the policy process – from data collection to knowledge / policy formulation.

• Better able to conceive the means of implementation than government bureaucracies, which may be internally segmented by department and area of specialisation.

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

43

global security

WELLSPRINGS OF KNOWLEDGE

National Defence College (NDC) and to a limited extent the three war colleges (the Army War College, Mhow, the College of Naval Warfare, Mumbai and the College of Air Warfare, Secunderabad) provide training in strategic issues, these are not think tanks that debate the pros and cons of alternative policy options. HQ ARTRAC could be called the official think tank of the Indian Army, but its role is limited to supervising training in the army’s training institutions and conducting formation-level (division and corps) war games based on intelligence inputs. For example, HQ ARTRAC kept track of the Chinese plans to divert river waters, but it was a CLAWS seminar that sensitised the bureaucracy and the nation to the serious implications of the proposed Chinese river projects for India.

every year to IDSA and the civil services are gradually following suit. The Indian Foreign Service and the Border Security Force have sent one research fellow each.

Dennis Kux, the well-known author of Estranged Democracies, was IDSA’s first international fellow on a Fulbright fellowship. Strategic Analysis, the premier monthly journal of IDSA, is well known and is often cited by renowned international scholars though it still has some way to go before it measures up fully to famous international journals.

Despite the gross indifference of India’s national security establishment in the past, IDSA Directors, notably K Subrahmanyam and Jasjit Singh, continued to plough a lonely furrow and have been instrumental in shaping key defence policy issues. For example, the concept IDSA As Fountainhead of “minimum credible deterrence” as a viable nuclear For many decades the Institute for Defence Studies and policy alternative for India was advocated extensively Analyses (IDSA), founded in 1965, was India’s only strategic by IDSA. IDSA alumni are serving on the editorial studies think tank. The late K Subrahmanyam, IDSA’s staff of leading national newspapers and as professors founding Director, straddled the in the international studies strategic studies scenario like a departments of universities like The Indian National Defence colossus for over 30 years. The Jawaharlal Nehru University. In University (INDU) is expected Indian media lacked journalists future, IDSA is likely to be called specialising in national security. upon to provide consultancy to to be set up in a few years. This The few articles that appeared government departments and be will be a teaching university-cum on national security were written given autonomous projects much premier think tank. A Task Force mainly by retired generals, like RAND and other reputable to review the management of admirals and marshals and a international think tanks. While defence had been constituted few former foreign secretaries.

IDSA has established itself as Honourable exceptions included the premier strategic studies by the Government of India in General JN Chowdhary’s regular think tank in South Asia and May 2001. The Task Force had columns in The Statesman conducted many well received observed that “at present despite while he was still in service. international seminars, it has yet fairly large infrastructure of There were few defence and to produce a single book that is research centres and institutes, security related journals and of seminal significance. It has research activities are limited, these were mainly professional concentrated mainly on foreign journals of the various training policy and area studies and has they are poorly managed, funded establishments and regiments not done enough to promote and structured; and, they are not or wings of the armed forces. hard core defence studies.

oriented to public policy”

However, since the May 1998 Pokhran-II nuclear tests and India’s declaration of itself as a nuclear-armed state, India’s strategic culture is being gradually reshaped to a more resurgent and vigorous one and India has at long last launched a quest for strategic autonomy. New think tanks are springing up and new journals are hitting the stands. Newspapers, including the business dailies, now carry national security and defence related news items and opinion pieces fairly regularly. Even the dotcoms have joined the bandwagon – the web pages of regular newspapers as well as pure web-based news magazines have begun carrying much greater strategic and defence-related news content. Television news channels now just cannot seem to have enough of defence-related reportage and panel discussions even if some are purely sensational in content.

IDSA is the leading strategic studies think tank in South Asia. It has excellent infrastructure for research.

Its annual Asian Security seminar, held in January each year, is a landmark event in Asia’s security calendar. In a mutually beneficial arrangement, the armed forces have now started sending three to four research fellows

44

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

Other major think tanks include the Centre for Policy Research, a multi-disciplinary think tank promoted by the Government of India in 1973.

The Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies (IPCS) was founded in 1996 by Mr PR Chari, a former IAS officer and Maj Gen Dipankar Banerjee, a former Deputy Director of IDSA and has several research programmes and a very active website. Mr K Shankar Bajpai, a former Indian ambassador, has been Chairman of the Delhi Policy Group, founded by a business house with Lt Gen Vijay Raghavan heading the security studies programme and Dr Radha Kumar heading the peace and conflict programme. The Observer Research Foundation, founded by the late Mr RK Mishra is being supported by the Reliance Group. The Institute of Chinese Studies has been supported by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), New Delhi. All of these think tanks have together contributed to serious discussion of major national security issues and have brought out some good publications.

Armed Forces Think Tanks

For many decades, the National Defence College (NDC), New Delhi, remained the only formal think tank run by

Command HQ and other institutions. These think tanks have conducted many seminars jointly with defence journals and the chambers of commerce so as to bring overseas and Indian defence industry representatives to showcase future weapons technology to serving officers of the armed forces. However, the four think tanks soon fell short of funds and were eventually bailed out by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) by being given a corpus amount of Rs 10 crore (US$ 2 million approximately) each in two tranches for day-to-day expenditure, besides being provided limited infrastructure support by way of housing in defence buildings. However, a few years down the line inflation and falling interest rates have taken their toll and the corpus amount is no longer sufficient to consolidate present activities and expand further. All of these think tanks need another infusion of funds if they are to grow and rise to international standards.

the armed forces. However, successive commandants at the NDC did not pay much attention to the think tank function of the NDC’s charter and continued to lay emphasis primarily on its training role. The research studies undertaken by the officers undergoing training at NDC were not published or widely circulated. In October 2001, Air Cmde Jasjit Singh, former Director, IDSA, founded the Centre for Air Power Studies (CAPS) and the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Indian National Defence University While CSIS remained somewhat low key in its activities, The Indian National Defence University (INDU) is CAPS began to flourish with support from the Indian Air expected to be set up in a few years. This will be a Force. Soon, the Indian Army sponsored the Centre for teaching university-cum-premier think tank. A Task Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS) in January 2004 and the Force to review the management of defence had been Indian Navy raised the National Maritime Foundation constituted by the Government of India in May 2001.

The Task Force had observed that (NMF) in February 2005. In “at present despite fairly large due course, Lt Gen HS Lidder, The establishment of think tanks infrastructure of research centres CISC, HQ Integrated Defence and institutes, research activities Staff, conceived a tri-Service by the three Services HQ and are limited, they are poorly think tank to undertake research HQ IDS was a very pragmatic managed, funded and structured; into joint operations and India’s step as a need had been felt for and, they are not oriented to immediate neighbourhood and long to encourage armed forces public policy.” The Task Force had the Centre for Joint Warfare officers to graduate to thinking recommended the establishment Studies (CENJOWS) came up. of a National Defence University All of these think tanks are at the strategic level and broaden (NDU) to carry out research and located at New Delhi. their horizon by undertaking education. This recommendation research activities was accepted by the government.

The establishment of these The university will be committed think tanks by the three Services HQ and HQ IDS was a very pragmatic step as a need had to open and free enquiry and scholarly debate. It will been felt for long to encourage armed forces officers to serve as a think tank contributing to policy formulation graduate to thinking at the strategic level and broaden and debates on security and strategy. their horizon by undertaking research activities. These think tanks conducted many far-reaching Nascent Concept seminars, both in Delhi and jointly with various National security think tanks in India are gradually coming Command HQ and initiated a slew of good into their own as it is now realised that the government quality publications. All of them began to publish must get alternative policy options from the strategic flagship journals, issue briefs and occasional papers. community if India is to successfully face emerging They also undertook research projects on behalf threats and challenges. The demand for national security of Services HQ, analysts is now burgeoning and many new think tanks may be expected to emerge and grow exponentially in the decades ahead. As India grows to its true potential as a regional power and begins to play its rightful role in the international arena, like their American counterparts, Indian think tanks will no doubt contribute immensely to the understanding of present and future strategic challenges and will increasingly assume greater importance in generating ‘new thinking’ that will lead to more comprehensive policy-formulation. Overall, Indian think tanks will undoubtedly play an important role in nation building and enhance India’s national security consciousness. However, the nation is not there yet.

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

45

global security

OUT-OF-THE-BOX SOLUTIONS

Think Tanks

In National And Global Security Researchers in think tanks have the time and the freedom to indulge in ‘thinking’ through a process of monitoring trends on a particular subject, studying analogous cases and suggesting out-of-the-box solutions for the consideration of the government(s).

I

n olden times, governments, owing to the fact that they had resources at their command that far outstripped those available with any other state or non-state organisation, were the sole repositories of information and knowledge. Additionally, given the relative simplicity of inter-state relations, it was possible for nations to have leaders that fit into Plato’s mould of philosopher-kings. Unfortunately, the modern demands on a ‘king’ leave him with limited time to become a true philosopher. The paradigm today is completely challenged by the processes of globalisation and a multipolar world order that has led to emergence of many more issues that need to be handled simultaneously.

Consequently, most governments are overburdened with immediate firefighting issues and handling crisis situations, with the officials rarely having the luxury of deep research, detached analysis or long-term thinking.

In the 1980s, the process of globalisation, end of the Cold War, rise of multiple regional powers and the emergence of transnational problems led to a veritable proliferation of “think tanks” around the world. India too lived through a similar experience. Until the dawn of the new millennium, the only major think tank for national security analysis in India was the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, which played an important role in undertaking research and analysis during many a turbulent times. However, in 2002, the Centre for Air Power Studies and soon thereafter, the National Maritime Foundation and the Centre for Land Warfare Studies were founded to undertake more specialised research on military and defence related subjects as would be of direct interest to the three arms of the defence forces. National security and by extension international security, of course, remains the overarching framework within which these think tanks function, but It is here that think tanks come in useful. A think tank each has carved out for itself a niche of focused research. is an organisation that undertakes research and However, unlike the US, in India, there are few, if any, analyses on one or a set of subjects with the objective of direct institutionalised lines of communication between providing informed and well considered conclusions as think tanks and the government. In the US, for instance, inputs to the policy making processes in government. think tank experts regularly testify at Congressional Researchers in think tanks have the time and the hearings or hold individual briefings for members freedom to indulge in ‘thinking’ through a process of of Congress and the administration. Such a regular monitoring trends on a particular subject, studying interface is yet missing from the Indian scene, though it analogous cases and suggesting out-of-the-box solutions would be a great help to parliamentarians to hear expert for the consideration of the government(s). views that could assist in decision-making.

Accepted As Useful

Think tanks have long existed in the USA as contributors to public policy making. For instance, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace goes back to 1910 and Brookings Institution to 1916. The former was instituted with the clear intent of undertaking activities to hasten the abolition of international war and thereby contribute to global security. In fact, a majority of the American think tanks were established during the Cold War and kept their focus on security studies, foreign policy and international affairs. In the process, they contributed ideas towards furthering the cause of global security.

46

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

What The Doyen Said

Air Cmde Jasjit Singh once said about defence think tanks, “The defence think tanks do the security related thinking for the country. It thinks 10 to 20 years ahead and suggests developments on the strategic fronts. It conveys these to the government. They create a platform for brainstorming on issues of security and strategic planning and help the officials in decision-making. These think tanks also create awareness in the Indian elite, civil and military on matters of security, so that they can prepare themselves to be a major part of the thinking world.

It creates and spreads knowledge.”

In this one statement, India’s foremost strategist pretty much summed up all the roles of a think tank and its contribution to national and global security. A clear hallmark of a think tank is that it is engaged in public policy scholarship as opposed to an organisation that undertakes advocacy of issues. Being more academic in its orientation and constitution, it provides research, analyses and advice / recommendations to the government. Its primary task is to help the government(s) understand and make informed choices on issues of national or international concern.

Being outside the government, the think tanks have no control over policy decisions and nor do they have the responsibility for them. In fact, it is not the business of think tanks to get governments to do their bidding, but to help the officials to arrive at the right policy choices based on factual data and cogent analysis that has been presented in easy reading format by them. Indeed, a think tank does not presuppose the outcome of its research recommendations that must arise from empirical data analysis. But, by working as a research centre of expertise, it wields influence through production of knowledge useful for policy formulation. Thereby it becomes an intermediary between the world of ideas and their implementation by those who have the power.

New And Fresh Ideas

It is also the task of think tanks to evaluate current polices to point out limitations or room for improvement or suggest new proposals for better implementation. In fact, think tanks enjoy the luxury of challenging conventional wisdom. Unlike governments that essentially remain conservative in policy and action and shy away from creative disruption, think tanks can help to push the envelope by generating new and fresh ideas and options backed by solid research and analysis. By monitoring trends, they perform the vital task of bringing focus on critical issues of international security that governments may not have the time or inclination to prioritise.

This is achieved through the dissemination of the research through publications and conduct of public outreach programmes. Think tanks employ a wide range of methods to accomplish an effective propagation of information, including seminars, conferences, expert meetings and individual or group briefings or a range of lectures and publications that include journals or newsletters as well as policy or issue briefs on individual topics. Today, almost every think tank also publishes an extensive range of information online, as also carrying speeches, commentaries, conference reports and programmes, information on events and, video and audio clips etc. In fact, over the last few decades, owing to the revolution in information and communication technologies as well as ease of transportation, there has been an increasing interface amongst global think tanks across the world.

Bilateral and multilateral engagements amongst think tanks, within a country and

across borders, provide a useful platform for exchange of ideas and information as well as construction of issue networks.

These are of particular relevance for working on transnational issues of global security. Universal nuclear disarmament, climate change, nuclear security etc are only a few examples of issues where think tanks can build on each other’s ideas and strengths to influence national decision-making for the larger cause of global security.

Indo-US Nuclear Deal

MANPREET SETHI

The writer is an ICSSR Senior Fellow affiliated to the Centre for Air Power Studies, New Delhi.

For a think tank to remain relevant, it must remain ahead of the curve by building the expertise to quickly interpret issues and events for a larger understanding at the national and international level. It should seek to foster a constructive debate on critical issues to enable the best solutions to emerge through the intellectual churning. A good example of this was evident during the negotiations on the Indo-US nuclear deal. As the officials of India and USA engaged with each other to sort out the necessary details, think tanks in New Delhi (especially the Centre for Air Power Studies) invested a lot of time and resources into contributing to this debate. The rationale for India’s exceptionalisation, the terms and conditions for the same, the scope for compromise in negotiations etc were publicly debated to foster an informed opinion on the highly technical but strategic issues. The process fed into promoting a larger understanding of the subject by the general public and thereby indirectly influencing government positions to enable the best choices to be made in the largest interest of the nation.

Wise Choices

Communication of painstakingly generated research that seeks to raise general awareness, inform and alert relevant decision-makers and offer optimal recommendations for decision-making is the raison détre of think tanks.

Their role in promoting global security, therefore, in comparison to advocacy organisations is far more indirect and subtle. It seeks to do so through supply of empirical research that guides nations to wise choices.

The modern knowledge society lays a lot of emphasis on intellectual capital. The rise of any nation to great power status in these complex times cannot be through a unitary dependence on land or other material resources. It is only through a skilled utilisation of the intellectual strength of a country that it can hope to navigate the myriad global security challenges.

Think tanks have an important role to play in this context by providing well thought out options for the public to consider and for governments to exercise.

Indeed, the ‘software’ provided by think tanks is critical for the optimum exploitation of the national resources ‘hardware’. And, going a step even further, enable nations to see and keep the big picture of global security constantly in view.

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

47

global security

MANUFACTURING HUB

Will Private Sector Participation And FDI Enhancement Lead To Defence Self-reliance?

Clearly and apparently, the route to India’s transformation into a flourishing defence production hub lies in public-private partnership, floating of joint ventures with foreign partners, nurturing the talent in academic and research institutions, enhancing the precision manufacturing capabilities of the Indian industry and a proactive government policy focused on making life easier for the players in India’s defence production matrix.

P

rime Minsiter Narendra Modi has left none in doubt that he is fully well committed to the Indian defence self-reliance through the creation of a vibrant military industrial complex capable of not only meeting the needs of the Indian defence forces in a time bound and cost-effective manner but also turn India into a major exporter of arms and ammunition. ”There will come a day when we would be in a position to export the same equipment we are importing now.

This will also be beneficial to the Indian economy,” observed Modi while inducting the largest indigenous warship INS Kolkata into the Indian Navy on August 16.

Modi is very clear that only the total mastery of cutting edge defence technologies would help India emerge as a major military power. ”We need to give immense importance to latest technology. This will help the nation. Why should we import defence equipment. We must be self-sufficient. Why can’t we send our defence equipment to others?” wondered Modi.

FDI Hike

Perhaps the most conspicuous proactive measure of Modi government to strengthen the Indian defence

48

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

manufacturing sector was the hiking of FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) cap in defence sector to 49 per cent from 26 per cent. According to defence industry experts, this step is expected to induce global OEMs (original equipment manufacturers) bring in investment and float joint ventures with Indian partners to produce defence equipment featuring high end technological systems.

Further, this measure is likely to help India acquire latest genre defence technologies from the OEMs participating in India’s defence production sector. According to Modi, FDI cap was increased with two fold objectives – to make

India self-reliant and to export defence equipment to the rest of the world. Noted Modi, “We have invited global players to set up their facilities here so that we don’t have to import each and every defence hardware.” Modi is vocal that while importing defence equipment, going beyond the buyer-seller relations, India should insist on getting the most advanced technology from the foreign vendors winning the Indian defence contracts. Further, he has highlighted the need for India to fully leverage the offset clause forming part of the Indian defence acquisition programme. Under India’s offset policy forming part of the Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) a foreign vendor bagging an Indian defence contract worth around Rs 3,000 millon or more should invest 30 per cent of the value of the contract in India by way of the procurement of materials and services and technology transfer involving joint ventures. In view of the complaints about the foreign vendors trying to circumvent the offset obligation, the Modi government should rigorously monitor the implementation of the offset clause in DPP.

with the notorious “licence raj.”

The removal of entry barriers for private sector along with the increased layout for defence sector in the current year’s budget could boost India’s home-grown defence production capability. Indeed, the response of the Indian industry to the initiatives of Modi government has been quite positive. Batting for self-reliance in defence production, the Modi government has done away with the requirement of industrial licensing for the manufacture of all defence products except 16 items in the negative list. This is considered a major milestone in the development of a resurgent home-grown defence industry where the private sector was allowed entry through a licensing policy in May 2001 by the then government led by Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

Removal of the licensing barrier could be a catalyst for attracting more investment into the sector. “This would greatly reduce the time taken for setting up a business in this sector and send a positive signal that reforms are For long FDI has been viewed as one of the game being introduced. At present the process of getting an changers for boosting India’s home-grown capability in industrial license is tough and time consuming,” says the production of state-of-the-art fighting hardware. In Dhiraj Mathur, national leader defence and aerospace fact, the 26 per cent FDI cap on practices Price Waterhouse defence sector that the earlier Cooper (PWC) India. “SMEs India should safeguard its national Manmohan Singh led UPA (United (Small and Medium Enterprises) Progressive Alliance) government are going to be the biggest interest while allowing foreign had failed to revise upwardly was beneficiaries of liberal FDI policy. defence and aerospace entities considered far from attractive Huge supply chains complying to invest in the joint ventures. proposition for the global defence with world-class standards will Trade sanctions and technological and aerospace conglomerates to come up around manufacturing embargos emanating from the invest in India’s defence production facilities,” states the industry sector. But then whether hiking body Confederation of Indian US and its Western allies could the FDI cap to 49 per cent by the Industry (CII). Even so for the deal a paralysing blow to a joint NDA (National Democratic venture involving a partnership of private industrial enterprises Alliance) government in its maiden to play a more active role in the a US defence company budget presented in the Indian defence production architecture Parliament in July this year would of the country, there is a need for yield desired results, would ultimately depend on the the government to ensure that the entire exercise will be an creation of a ground level, investor friendly environment economically viable option for the participating industries. highlighted by the relaxation of bureaucratic formalities Here incentives and handholding for sometime to and liberalisation of entry barriers. Says Rahul Gangal, come would play a catalytic role.

Principal Roland Berger Strategy Consultants, “I think this is a positive step though it may not be as much a move But then right at the moment the ground reality in so far forward as everyone was hoping.” as defence production is concerned is nothing if dismal.

That a country which has launched a probe to Mars, But then India should safeguard its national interest successfully flight tested a cryogenic fuel driven launch while allowing foreign defence and aerospace entities vehicle and made its mark as a global IT and software to invest in the joint ventures. Clearly and apparently, powerhouse should continue to depend on imports to trade sanctions and technological embargos emanating meet two third of the requirements of its defence forces from the US and its Western allies could deal a paralysing reflects poorly on its standing as an emerging economical blow to a joint venture involving a partnership of a US and technological powerhouse. What’s more, India’s defence company. As such sufficient strategic safeguards emergence as the largest importer of defence hardware need to be built into the joint ventures involving foreign and fighting equipment including combat aircraft has its participation. Otherwise the entire exercise of enhancing own pitfalls. To begin with, this massive import involves FDI cap in India’s defence production sector could prove a huge outgo of precious foreign exchange with serious counter-productive with serious consequences for the consequences for the economic well-being of the country. combat readiness of the Indian defence forces.

Secondly, it makes for the continued dependence on the foreign original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) for the Private Players service, maintenance, spares supply and life cycle support On another front, the new ruling dispensation in of the imported hardware with a high degree of uncertainty New Delhi has smoothened the entry of private entities and a high cost. And more importantly, the damocles into Indian defence production sector by doing away sword of technological denial regime as exemplified by

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

49

global security

MANUFACTURING HUB country would have not only become totally self-sufficient in meeting its needs but would also have emerged a key player in the global defence market.

the US trade sanctions and technology embargo could render the imported equipment unserviceable at one fell swoop. Incidentally, the US trade sanction that followed the 1998 twin Pokhran nuclear blasts had affected many of the Indian defence and space projects in varying degrees.

Level Playing Field

be said to the credit of DRDO that it shed its “lethargy and complacency” to come out in flying colours in the development of cutting edge technologies for a range of strategic and tactical missiles whose knowhow remains a closely guarded secret. The successful development of the supersonic cruise missile BrahMos by BrahMos Aerospace, a joint venture that DRDO had floated in tie-up with the Russian firm NPO Mashinostroyenia stands out as a shining example of the collaborative route for realising a world-class missile.

Public private partnership especially in critical high technology areas like aero engines could be a win win situation for the Indian defence production sector. In this context, the joint venture agreements that the state owned Mazagon Dock Limited (MDL) has entered into Interestingly, foreign defence and aerospace firms with Pipavav Shipyard and Larsen & Toubro (L&T) for the are not quite enthusiastic about parting away with the construction of ships and submarines respectively could technology that is state of the art. For instance, not long help lay ground rules for clearing back, DRDO had held a series many such joint ventures in the of discussions with the French The skill level and technological years ahead. But then FICCI engine major Snecma on how to (Federation of Indian Chambers take forward the development resources base of the Indian of Commerce and Industry) is of Kaveri engine through most companies cutting across the of the view that if the Indian advanced technological elements. structural jurisdiction needs to Defence Ministry is to fulfil It was planned to realise a fully be boosted up to help develop its promise of creating a level operational Kaveri engine, which state-of-the-art and cutting edge playing field for both the public was not able to generate the thrust it defence technologies to transform and private sector it should end was designed for, through the path the practice of “nominating” of co-development. But Snecma India from an importer of fighting the defence public sectors in instead of agreeing to transfer the equipment to a major exporter of major defence programmes latest genre engine technology defence hardware of the country. In particular to India had just offered the the former defence Minister replacement of Kaveri’s core with AK Anony was known to have exhibited a sort of Snecma Eco core. This was not acceptable to India which weakness for the state owned enterprises. This led to was keen on acquiring frontier technologies focused on the private sector industries feeling that the preference single piece bladed compressor disks, single crystal high for the public sector is ingrained in the DNA of the pressure turbine blade, powder metallurgy disks, ceramic Indian Defence Ministry. In this context Narendra Modi coating and composite materials. The moral of the story led government should initiate ground level action to is that it pays to develop the frontier technologies for prove its impartiality by removing the impression of defence and aerospace products domestically. distorted preference for state owned enterprises.

Clearly and apparently, the skill level and technological Global Partnerships resources base of the Indian companies cutting across The need of the hour is to look at aggregate national the structural jurisdiction needs to be boosted up to capacity that harnesses the full potentials of the country’s help develop state-of-the-art and cutting edge defence public sector, private enterprises, research laboratories technologies to transform India from an importer of and academic institutions to create a vibrant indigenous fighting equipment to a major exporter of defence infrastructure for defence manufacturing. For long hardware. As things stand now, there should be serious and India’s defence development and production base had all round efforts to harness the technological strength and remained centred around 52 laboratories under the state corporate energy of India with a set of incentives to put in owned Defence Research and Development Organisation place a vibrant military industrial complex to make India (DRDO), 9 defence public sector undertakings and 40 self-reliant in all aspects of defence development and units under the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) with a production. There is no denying the point that even if very peripheral and insignificant role for the private sector the country had invested a fraction of the mid-boggling companies. There is no denying the point that the poor resources it had committed to the import of defence hardware track record of the state owned defence enterprises was since 1950s on boosting the research and development one of the major factors responsible for India’s continued and creating the requisite manufacturing skill along with dependence on imported hardware. However it must enhancing the infrastructure at academic institutions, the

50

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

Significantly, the project to develop India’s fourth generation supersonic fighter aircraft, Tejas, which is expected to be inducted into IAF in the second half of this decade, has brought many benefits to the country that would ultimately serve as a game changer in the indigenisation of the defence production programme.

Compared to the huge amount that India may be forced to shell down for acquiring 126 French Rafale fighter aircraft under MMRCA (Medium, Multi Role Combat Aircraft) deal, the money invested on Tejas development seems peanuts. And on the upside, the facilities set up, the technology base created, the skill level acquired and the quality control measures fine-tuned for Tejas are no doubt a precious national asset that could be scaled up as and when required with very little investment to build better and more lethal combat aircraft indigenously.

Package Of Incentives

India’s defence production scenario. Indeed, there is a bitterness that while defence equipment import enjoys tax exemption, a variety of taxes is levied on the home grown fighting hardware. Incidentally, the private industry engaged in defence production is taxed by both the centre and state governments. For the Indian defence industry to pick up the thread of production and forge ahead, there should be a simple, single point taxation that is both affordable and sustainable.

Yet another critical issue that the Defence Ministry should address is how to overcome the hurdles that a private player in India’s defence production matrix would face in accessing the military facilities for testing and trials.

For instance, whether Bharat Forge, which is currently developing a howitzer for the Indian Army would be allowed to subject its product to testing in defence facilities, there is no clarity as yet. Traditionally, the research and testing facilities under Indian Defence Ministry have remained out of bounds for private players. Here Narendra Modi led government should initiate an action plan to create a national testing infrastructure that could be accessed by private players in India’s defence production sector.

By all means, the initiative of the previous UPA government that exempted SEZ (Special Economic Zone) units producing defence hardware from going to the All said and done, the private sector too has its own Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) shortcomings. The Indian private sector including those for an industrial license was with deep pockets lack a “tradition considered a small step towards and culture” of investing in R&D reducing the delay by cutting the (Research and Development).

The removal of entry barriers bureaucratic red tape. But then the Contrast this with the American for private sector along with the SEZ policy of UPA government scenario where investment in R&D increased layout for defence sector ran into a rough weather with the has brought immense benefits to in the current year’s budget could Finance Ministry withdrawing the private industries participating boost India’s home-grown defence in the military oriented projects. tax incentives to SEZ. As such the production capability. Indeed, the Narendra Modi led government Lacking a sound technological is working out a package of tax base, the private Indian industry response of the Indian industry to and non-tax incentives to revive the initiatives of Modi government would need to go in for alliance SEZ. Expressing concern over a with tech-savvy foreign has been quite positive large number of grounded SEZ companies. But then the catch is projects across the country, Modi that foreign companies would be had said that a high level team has been set up to review interested in investing in India only if they are assured of the problems and resolve them at the earliest. guaranteed returns and long term benefits. What’s more there are possibilities of foreign partners creating hurdles There is no gainsaying the fact that a harsh and in the way of smooth technology transfer. For there is no unscientific tax regime that is not only far from transparent denying the point that at this stage of development, the but also plays a spoilsport in so far as the growth of Indian private industry foraying into defence sector needs Indian defence industry is concerned could prove a both technical support and guarantee of financial viability. big impediment in the growth of the Indian defence Moreover, to make their operations an economically viable industry. For instance, India’s highly dynamic MRO proposition, they should also be allowed to produce and (Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul) industry on account market civilian systems based on the modified version of of the high level of duties and taxes including service the technologies developed for defence hardware. tax cannot effectively compete with its counterparts in West Asia and South East Asia. Indian defence industry Clearly and apparently, the route to India’s captains are clear in their view that without a drastic transformation into a flourishing defence production hub reformation in tax structure “the Indian defence sector lies in public-private partnership, floating of joint ventures will remain at sub-components level and not move up the with foreign partners, nurturing the talent in academic value chain to achieve Systems Integration capabilities”. and research institutions, enhancing the precision Here again Modi government should come out manufacturing capabilities of the Indian industry and with a slew of tax concessions. a proactive government policy focused on making life easier for the players in India’s defence production matrix.

Of course on their part industry bodies and associations Of course the challenges and opportunities ahead of the have made it clear that the high incidence of taxes and Indian defence industry are myriad and exciting. And duties, from multiple points, is one of the major stumbling the journey to self-reliance in the crucial sector of defence blocks in the way of private sector participation in production sector is long and arduous.

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

51

global security

HOLISTIC APPROACH

National Maritime Foundation (NMF) Augmenting International Security It is pertinent to note that the maritime domain is part of the global commons providing a transcontinental access. Therefore, extra-national interfaces developed by maritime-oriented think tanks are necessary for shaping international security.

T

hink tank organisations undertake academic studies and research to analyse issues and present options to a number of stakeholders: international organisations, governments, policy makers, corporates etc to further individual and national interests and objectives premised on the dynamics of the international system. These stakeholders support peace and security; and above all, rule-based international system. Hence, even while national security is always the emphasis, international security remains the ‘over-the-horizon’ end in all think tank endeavours.

The NMF’s current endeavour is to enhance maritime awareness among the people of the country through academic studies and research on Indian and global maritime history and a number of contemporary issues.

The findings of the study are disseminated to the wider audience through a dedicated ‘outreach’ programme.

The significance of ‘public opinion’ to facilitate state actions towards international security is undeniable.

Therefore, an attendant aim of NMF is to shape public opinion. It does this through various means, including sensitisation of the Indian academia, civil society and the media on ‘matters maritime’.

Think tanks in India have contributed to the aforesaid objective in their own significant way. The National Maritime Foundation (NMF), a think tank engaged in study and research on matters maritime is quite apart in terms of its vision and objectives. The raison d’etre and the overarching aim of the NMF is “to provide valuable input on maritime concepts and philosophies that would serve the country’s long-term and larger interests”.

Undeniably, these interests are closely intertwined with international security.

Considering that the 21st century belongs to Asia, in the coming decades, the contours of international security would be shaped by the events in the broader ‘Indo-Pacific’ region, which is pre-dominantly maritime-configured. Also pertinent to global security would be the developments in the global commons beyond the territorial confines of states, notably the maritime domain and the polar regions. Given such prospects, India’s significant investment in the NMF as its only national-level maritime think tank indicates that we are ‘steering the right course’.

Bringing The Sea To The People

The sea is not new to India. Since historic times, Indian seafarers used the oceans for trade and travel. However, they were quite removed from the concepts prevalent in Europe at that time, such as in terms of sea power and the control of maritime space. This explains why beginning as early as in the 15th century – even while Asians were adept at intra-regional navigation skills and the Europeans had not benefited from the Industrial Revolution – Asians began to be colonised via the sea. This conceptual inequity led to adversities for Asia in terms of the equality of sovereign nation states in the global system – that evolved later in the 17th century under the Westphalian system – and thereby, for international security. Such anomaly in the international system exists even today – albeit in other and more implicit forms – which the global community is still trying hard to resurrect.

The genesis of the NMF lies in “a long-felt need to redress India’s historic neglect of its maritime security domain … .” Its charter notes that “all activities of the NMF will be underpinned by the need to continuously sensitise our fellow citizens to the importance of maritime security, remind them of our maritime heritage and to reawaken maritime consciousness, especially amongst India’s youth by using the instrumentality of our own resources, outstation (regional) chapters, as well as other institutions.”

52

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

Holistic Approach To Security

The maritime domain encompasses and has complex linkages with most aspects of human endeavour and at the macro level, with the very well-being of the planet.

The erstwhile concept of national and international security was premised on the military dimension; and at best, on a state-centric approach. Given the vastly transformed geopolitical, economic and security environment of contemporary times, such an approach cannot optimally deliver the desired public good.

Among the stated aims of the NMF is to “rise above sectoral and departmental legacies and examine maritime issues in their entirety”. Hence, the charter of NMF seeks to provide a platform for interface among diverse maritime agencies and stakeholders – military, government and civil. Their activities span a wide range, including maritime security, maritime safety, shipping, ports, coastal engineering, exploitation of natural resources, ocean research, ocean conservation, hydrography, shipbuilding, manufacturing industry, insurance, salvage, recreation, education and more. These activities are interrelated and intertwined in a complex maze, wherein each element bears upon a host of others.

The exchange of perspectives among these agencies and stakeholders is essential for a comprehensive approach to the evolving concept of security.

Joint Services Approach

Policy Making Dogma

Attendant to the aforesaid imperative for addressing The NMF offers informed options to the multi-agency functional ‘overlap’ in the maritime government through independent domain, a maritime think tank must necessarily thinking and analyses. The NMF nurture cross-linkages with its land and air / aerospace charter says that the Foundation counterparts. Accordingly, the NMF has developed “will accord priority, as an strong symbiotic relationships with the Centre for autonomous institution, to free Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS), the Centre for dialogue and discussion on all Air Power Studies (CAPS) and the joint-Service issues with a bearing on maritime Centre for Joint Warfare Studies (CENJOWS). security and on the formulation of independent policy options to CDR GS KHURANA The rationale rests on the premise that India’s response decision-makers, in the Government to an instability or any other adverse contingency in its of India and the Navy.” Hence, like The writer is the Executive Director of National regional neighbourhood or beyond – necessitating the other think tanks, the NMF is not Maritime Foundation employment of its military power – would need to be bound by policy making dogma in (NMF), New Delhi. He is a planned for and executed jointly by the three armed forces. terms of pre-conceived notions of missile specialist and a These include UN peace-support operations, wherein the government functionaries or their diver of the Indian Navy.

Indian Navy has been rarely involved in the past, but is pre-determined courses of action.

He has served as the Deputy Director Naval likely to contribute significantly in the coming years. It is, Intelligence (DDNI) at therefore, not surprising that inputs are regularly sought Take the case, for example, of Naval HQs and Staff from the NMF towards the evolution of the joint-Service a study being undertaken by the Officer to the Vice Chief and all single-Service doctrines and strategies.

NMF to examine the ramifications of Naval Staff (VCNS). of China’s established strategic He co-authored the Constructive External Interfaces presence in the IOR in terms of Indian Maritime Doctrine (2009), for which, he It is pertinent to note that the maritime domain is part regional security and stability. The was awarded the Navy of the global commons providing a transcontinental ideal start point for an objective Chief’s Commendation. access. Therefore, extra-national interfaces developed analysis by the NMF would be the In 2013, he authored the by maritime-oriented think tanks are necessary for entire spectrum of International first ever handbook for the shaping international security. The NMF is continually Relations (IR) theoretical construct, Indian Navy on the ‘Law of engaged in establishing academic networks with ranging from a constructivist Maritime Operations’ (in three volumes). national and international think tanks. Such endeavour approach to realism, rather than flows from the NMF charter to “seek to engage a pre-conceived bias vis-à-vis foreign institutions having common interests and China. The advantage lies in the fact that national policy commitments in our immediate neighbourhood and making is presented the entire range of possibilities further afield and undertake an exchange of ideas from positive-sum to zero-sum outcomes, as well as with a view to enhancing mutual understanding and prescriptions to maximise the former for achieving, to cooperation in the maritime field.” the extent possible, win-win situations. Evidently, such an approach would yield significant dividends in terms Since the discourse among national and international of regional and global security. think tanks is usually characterised by a candour bereft of attributability to official positions, such interface can Likewise, the NMF remains alert to all developments with contribute far more effectively to international security regard to global geopolitics, geoeconomics and international than government-to-government parleys. Besides, a relations that are closely linked with the affairs of the government can use the brainstorming at a ‘track-two’ sea. This ensures that the policy making options offered forum as a ‘sounding board’ for assessing the perception are not one-dimensional and comprehensively factor of another government, before firm proposals can be all related fields of study. made – such as for instituting inter-state confidence-building measures (CBM) – and accepted, through official channels. Epilogue In sum, international security is premised on the Maritime think tanks are also required to accuracy of predictions with regard to global events and develop constructive interfaces with the relevant developments. Hypothetically, if such developments could non-governmental organisations (NGOs), which focus have been accurately foreseen, nation states – and the on issues of maritime law and ocean governance international community comprising them – could have or contribute in other ways towards safety, garnered appropriate responses to these developments.

This would have effectively ensured international security and sustainability of the maritime realm. security, which is the ‘desired end-state’ for all rational nation states without exception. However, as past events have indicated, we are at a very nascent stage in this regard. While it may never be possible for us to achieve hundred per cent accuracy in our predictions, the recent mushrooming of think tank organisations in Asia and the growing academic rigour among the established ones worldwide, indicate the increasing realisation of the need to fill the ‘void’ to the extent possible.

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

53

global security

EMASCULATED?

United Nations

Does Its Writ Run?

There are many reasons why the United Nations Organisation will not repond to the beheading of an Indian soldier on the Line of Control; or call for estoppel of the obvious televised inhumanity of the bombardment of the Gaza Strip; or assist by military means the Nigerian government to secure the release of hundreds of young girls kidnapped by the Boko Haram to be used as slaves.

T

here is a long list of other such “conflicts” which by some strange and opportunistic legalism fall outside the ambit of the supposedly sacred promise in the UN Charter’s Preamble: “We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind …”.

War And Deaths

Some statistics which, admittedly, could be grossly understated are presented to help assess just how well the United Nations has maintained house.

There have been 62 wars in which the number of militias-guerrillas and separatist groups involved were 552 as per “Deaths in Wars and Conflicts Since the End of World War II: 1945 to 2000” compiled by Milton Leitenberg in an Occasional Paper written for the Cornell University Peace Studies Programme.

He places the number of deaths at a round figure of 41 million persons. Leitenberg quotes Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary General agonising over inaction in cases of human rights violations thus: “Indeed, we have no excuses any more. We have no excuses for inaction and no alibis for ignorance. Often we know even before the very victims of conflict that they will be victimised” (February 5, 1998).

The former Yugoslavia was a classic example of how multi-ethnic nation states could be brought down by what has come to be known as “war by proxy”. The Croats were instigated to the point of no return and when Yugoslavia collapsed the bitterness was uncontainable and the massacre at Srebrenica against the Muslims was but one of several acts of barbarity perpetrated within the jurisdiction and under the nose of UN contingents of “peacekeepers” – Dutchmen who many years earlier had already taken sides when their government decided to join the Western bloc campaign to demolish one of the founders of the Non-Aligned Movement, Yugoslavia, that was held together by the sheer charisma of its leader Yosef Broz Tito.

The UN has since learned of the consequences of regime change – you cannot put Humpty Dumpty together again – and the pitfalls of trying can be more horrendous than the previous operation that brought the regime down.

Iraq is the case in point. The attempt to bring the majority Shia population to the political forefront and end the Sunni domination has left not just Iraq but the whole of the Mediterranean Levant burning and the scene of massacres that have brought forth the word “genocide” to describe what is happening.

The figures of the dead and displaced in the many genocides that have taken place are even more mind-boggling but it is that so many of them are so recent, rankles. As long ago as 1948 – just three years after the end of the World War II – the UN Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide was held to prevent recurrences of some of the most grievous acts committed by mankind against fellow man.

In 2011, the year of the Arab Spring, regime change in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia has triggered ethnic-sectarian clashes from the northern shoreline of Africa up to Syria encompassing what used to be called the Levant when it was the transit point for east-west trade. Today it is in a shambles and the only travellers are partisans wanting to join either the Sunni conglomerate or the Shia Iraqi Army for their own nefarious ends.

Genocide Still Rampant

Nukes And MAD

The Convention was ratified in 1951 but there have been recent instances of genocide where the world body has just stood by and witnessed the continuation of slaughter

54

and human degradation, without any signs whether the Convention was at all operational and implementable.

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

The world is no safer today than it was in the years between 1939 to 1945 when the World War was in full swing. A kind of stalemate had been achieved through

parity in nuclear weapons and the prevailing concept of Mutual Assured Destruction. With neither side wanting to play dead the capitalist bloc called NATO led by the US and the Communist phalanx called the Warsaw Pact led by the Soviet Union kept each other at bay but played out their geopolitics through proxy and war they controlled from behind the scenes.

The World War that was brought to an end by the use of nuclear weapons on Japan in August 1945 saw the following decades being dominated by the nuclear issue and both sides realised that they had more nuclear weapons in their respective arsenals to destroy the world many times over.

So they fashioned the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty to reduce their arsenals to reasonable limits.

Nuclear Disarmament

But of Nuclear Disarmament (one of the flagships of the United Nations) nothing was heard. Under the given instability the threat of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons being handed over to their proxies appears very possible. Fortunately, the Syrian and the Libyan stockpiles have been discovered and destroyed.

But there are still several suspected stockpiles lying around, especially in volatile North Korea.

“loss and damage” – an agreement in principle that rich nations would be financially responsible to other nations for their failure to reduce carbon emissions. However, island nation states that are very likely to suffer the most by the rise of ocean levels due to climate change were not impressed by the formulation.

Kieren Keke, Foreign Minister of Nauru in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and representative of the Alliance of Small Island States at the conference, was quoted as saying: “We see the package before us as deeply deficient in mitigation (carbon cuts) and finance. Its likely to lock us on the trajectory to a 3, 4, 5 degree Centigrade rise in global temperatures, even though we agreed to keep the global average temperature rise to 1.5 degree C to ensure the safety of the islands”.

CECIL VICTOR

The writer has covered all wars with Pakistan as War Correspondent and reported from the conflict zones in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in South East Asia as well as from Afghanistan. He is author of “India: The Security Dilemma”.

Restructuring The UN

Over the years there has been a debate to restructure Within its own region India is subject to daily violation the organisation to make it both more effective as of its borders by two nations that possess NBC weapons well as more representative of the major regions and one has threatened to use the nukes at short notice of the globe. In the 90s Japan and Germany whose – a situation made more confounded by the UN failing economies were flourishing demanded that they be made permanent members of the to make progress on nuclear Security Council. More recently disarmament and just flirting the African Bloc wanted two around with preliminary issues The former Yugoslavia was permanent seats to make up for like NPT and Comprehensive a classic example of how the historical deprivations that Test Ban Treaty. In the meantime multi-ethnic nation states could the continent has had to suffer Pakistan decided to test its luck under colonialists. Brazil wanted immediately after going overtly be brought down by what has a permanent seat because it nuclear with its tests in 1998 come to be known as “war has the largest land area and with an invasion into Kargil by proxy”. The Croats were India wanted a permanent sector with the intention of instigated to the point of no seat because it has the largest redrawing the Line of Control return and when Yugoslavia population after China which and bringing Kashmir issue back collapsed the bitterness was already is a permanent member to a “flashpoint” situation. It was a with veto power. war that took a thousand lives on uncontainable and the massacre both sides of the LoC. at Srebrenica against the Muslims The United States supported the was but one of several acts of Climate Change permanent membership of Japan barbarity perpetrated within the On the looming problem of climate and India and a small number jurisdiction and under the nose of change which the world body had of additional non-permanent been grappling with over the members. Germany, Japan, India UN contingents of “peacekeepers” past decade it was decided at its and Brazil soon began to be meeting in 2012 to extend the life addressed as the G-4 or the group of the Kyoto Protocol which was due to expire at the end of four. Those opposed to them – Pakistan, Mexico, Italy of 2012 till 2020 and to ratify the 2011 Durban Platform, and Egypt – constituted themselves into an interest group meaning that the successor to the Platform is due to be calling themselves the Uniting for Consensus. The UK developed by 2015 and implemented by 2020. For the first and France essentially supported the G-4 position along time the conference included in its document the concept of with an expansion of permanent and non-permanent members and the accession of Germany, Brazil, India and Japan to permanent member status and an increase in the presence of African countries in the Council.

China supported a stronger representation of developing countries, voicing support for the Republic of India.

Russia, long-time friend of India, endorsed its position as permanent member of the Security Council.

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

55

global security

RETURN OF THE COLD WAR?

ARCTIC:

A New Zone Of Conflict

Strategically speaking, even history suggests that the Arctic was one of the main theatres of battle during the “Cold War Era”. The region is highly nuclearised due to the presence of United States and Russia and also China, which is increasingly trying to spread its wings in the Arctic and refers to it as the “Arctic Golden Waterway”. Out of the bordering nations, there are five major claimants, namely, USA, Russia, Norway, Greenland and Canada and interestingly except Russia, the other four are members of the cold war alliance ie North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO).

A

56

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

The Arctic Ocean connects the world’s two most expansive water bodies ie the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. States like USA (Alaska), Norway, Russia, Canada, Greenland, Sweden, Finland and Iceland are bordering it. The region is said to have untapped rare-earth mineral deposits and abundant hydrocarbon reserves. Also the Arctic is estimated to contain 30 per cent of the world’s undiscovered natural gas and 15 per cent of its oil. This could shift the dependence on the Arab oil and the money at stake in the Arab world for resources to this region. The opening up of the Arctic waters will also pave the way for a new sea route that is the shortest route connecting Europe and the Asian-Pacific region, which are two large markets and it is much shorter than the traditional Suez and Panama canals passages, hence, saving travel time as well as making it economically more viable.

“With warmer temperatures leaving Arctic sea passages open for longer periods of the year, billions of barrels of oil could be tapped beyond what is already being produced in the region. A loss of seasonal ice could also allow greater exploitation of precious minerals considered abundant in the Arctic”. The Arctic today is financially and strategically one of the most attractive places in the world.

What Is Happening In The Arctic?

units to protect its economic and political interests in the Arctic by 2020. Also, an article suggests that Russia is planning to submit an additional claim of 150 miles as a continuation of its Continental Shelf apart from the 200 nautical miles Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) that is being disputed by the Arctic Powers. The other players defy any such claims made by SALONI SALIL Russia. In response to any possible The writer is a Geopolitics conflict that may arise in the Arctic, and Security Analyst.

NATO member states and 16 nations She is a postgraduate participated in the military exercise in Geopolitics and conducted at the northern tip of International Relations Norway known as “Cold Response”. from Manipal University, In case of any potential crisis Karnataka. She is a with Russia, there is a possibility Researcher with the South Asia Desk at Wikistrat that it will be elevated in a larger and also a Non-Resident multinational setting and hence, Research Fellow at Centre training their respective forces to for Air Power Studies, fight battles in one of the harshest New Delhi (2014-2015). environments in case of any She is a designated Visiting Fellow in the eventuality. And thus, giving rise Indian Ocean Research to tensions on the coldest and the Programme at Future greatest prize on Earth. The Russian Directions International, government, led by Vladimir Putin, Australia. Her research sees “The current military exercise areas include the Indian takes place amid NATO’s increased Ocean Region, South China Sea and the activities in the Arctic. The coming Indo-Pacific Studies. division of the natural resources in the region, in turn, defines this. Apparently, through flexing muscles NATO wants to show that it is set on strengthening its geopolitical and diplomatic efforts with military might”. Russia on the other hand is tightening its hold over the Arctic by conducting war games in the region with plans to also renovate its age-old cold war bases.

Mackinder’s theory seems to find place in this context. Sir Halford Mackinder in 1904 formulated the “Heartland Theory” – “whoever rules East Europe commands the Heartland; whoever rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; whoever rules the World-Island Apparently, through flexing commands the World.” The muscles NATO wants to show heartland lay at the centre of the World-Island stretching from that it is set on strengthening Volga, Russia to Yangtze in People’s its geopolitical and diplomatic Republic of China and from efforts with military might. Russia Himalayas to the Arctic.

fter a comprehensive study of international relations, one can assess that geographical location of a nation determines both international and domestic politics ie it explains why nation states behave the way they do. With the growing global security challenge of climate change with an unprecedented rise in global temperature due to an increase of Chloroflurocarbons (CFC) in the atmosphere engulfed the Arctic too and led the region to witness unimaginable changes.

The recent studies suggest that an ozone hole has developed over the Arctic that is resulting in Arctic ice melting at a fast rate, which has led to access to those parts of the world that were previously impenetrable.

This change is going to affect the regional stability with the number of actors now coming in to the sphere for claiming their rights over the Arctic.

So where on one side of the globe, the major powers are trying to counter-balance China’s Anti-Access / Area Denial capabilities in the East China Sea and for “freedom of navigation” in the South China Sea to get an access to its resource base and to secure the vital sea lines of communication, there are some who are carefully treading along the Arctic to secure the region to meet their energy demands, becoming a potential zone of conflict as “the Arctic neighbours and competitors extend

Geopolitical Effect Of Climate Change

spheres of national sovereignty into the polar region in the rush to claim natural resources”.

Although the 2014 Cold Response exercise has come to an end and Russian delegates as observers attended it, as had been planned before the Crimean issue surfaced.

Russia by invading Crimea to secure its national interests is a prime example of Russia willing on the other hand is tightening its to use its military might and hold over the Arctic by conducting hence, it is highly unlikely that Strategically speaking, even war games in the region with history suggests that the Arctic Russia is going to back down in was one of the main theatres of this case. The erstwhile USSR plans to also renovate its battle during the “Cold War Era”. that saw humiliating defeat in the age-old cold war bases The region is highly nuclearised 1990s sees this as an opportunity due to the presence of United to reemerge as a Super Power and States and Russia and also China, which is increasingly reestablish the respect it once commanded. In the year 2007, trying to spread its wings in the Arctic and refers to it as the two mini submarines of Russia planted a one meter long “Arctic Golden Waterway”. Out of the bordering nations, titanium Russian flag in the seabed of North Pole claiming there are five major claimants, namely, USA, Russia, it as theirs and as a show of power that the North Pole, Norway, Greenland and Canada and interestingly except belongs to no other but Russia. In light of the current Russia, the other four are members of the cold war alliance misgivings between the two greatest nations the world ie North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). Russia has known, Russia and the United States, there could be a believes that it owns more than half of the Arctic extending reemergence of the “Cold War”. This has led to the worst upto the North Pole and therefore, has planned to deploy a East-West crisis the world has witnessed since the combined-arms force of naval, border and coastal guard end of the Cold War era.

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

57

global security

STRENGTH IN UNITY “ ‘Global security’ is a powerful idea, yet a settled understanding of the term remains elusive … . The term ‘global’ is hardly more settled than ‘security’ itself.” The need of global security arose from the emergence of global threats like poverty, terrorism, climate change, environmental degradation, human trafficking, internal conflicts, cyber security, financial instability etc. In an attempt to grapple with global threats and create common platforms for different nations to come and work for achieving the goal of global security, organisations like North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) came into being.

NATO

NATO And SCO

Global Security Bulwarks?

With changing times the concept of security has also transformed itself. One school of thought holds that: ‘Global security’ is a powerful idea, yet a settled understanding of the term remains elusive … . The term ‘global’ is hardly more settled than ‘security’ itself. The need of global security arose from the emergence of global threats like poverty, terrorism, climate change, environmental degradation, human trafficking, internal conflicts, cyber security, financial instability etc.

“No one is fool enough to choose war instead of peace – in peace sons bury fathers, but in war fathers bury sons.” — Harold Goddard

O

ne of the fundamental needs of human beings is security, which means ‘the state of being protected or safe from harm.’

Derived from the Latin word sine cura, security means ‘without care’. While emphasising on the conept of security, American psychologist Abraham Maslow’s pyramid of ‘hierarchy of needs’, places ‘security’ at the second stage for human motivation and in his journey of self-actualisation. If we see the term ‘security’ through the prism of international relations, we can observe three main dimensions of security: National security, international security and human security. National security, the word in itself is very significant, ambiguous and dynamic and has no universally accepted definition.

In view of the British scholar Barry Buzan, national security is, “weakly conceptualised, ambiguously defined, but a politically powerful concept.”

Brandt Commission

With changing times the concept of security has also transformed itself. In the late 1970s the Independent

58

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

Commission on International Development Issues, chaired by former West German Chancellor Willy Brandt and including the former premiers of the UK and Sweden, Heath and Palme, concluded in their influential report that, “An important task of constructive international policy will have to consist in [sic] providing a new, more comprehensive understanding of ‘security’ which would be less restricted to the purely military aspects … . Our survival depends not only on military balance, but on global cooperation to ensure a sustainable biological environment based on equitably shared resources.”

Global security in simple words ‘is the protection of the world against war and other threats.’ According to Michael D Intriligator, Professor of Economics at the University of California, Global security is, “… the absence of threats to the vital interests of the planet” and argued that “this new concept should replace that of “national security” that is, at this point, an obsolete idea in view of the globalisation of the planet that makes arbitrary borders meaningless.” In view of British International Relations theorist Ken Booth,

North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is a multilateral military and political alliance designed to secure the peace and security of its member states.

28 NATO member countries Country

Year of Joining

Belgium

1949

Canada

1949

Denmark

1949

France

1949

Iceland

1949

Italy

1949

Luxembourg

1949

Netherlands

1949

Norway

1949

Portugal

1949

The United Kingdom

1949

The United States

1949

Greece

1952

Turkey

1952

Germany

1955

Spain

1982

Czech Republic

1999

Hungary

1999

Poland

1999

Bulgaria

2004

Estonia

2004

Latvia

2004

Lithuania

2004

Romania

2004

Slovakia

2004

Slovenia

2004

Albania

2009

Croatia

2009

Objective: NATO’s essential purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of its members through political

and military means. The objectives are mainly divided into two: Political – NATO promotes democratic values and encourages consultation and cooperation on defence and security issues to build trust and, in the long run, prevent conflict.

Military – NATO is committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes. If diplomatic efforts fail, it has the military capacity needed to undertake crisis-management operations. These are carried out under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty – NATO’s founding treaty – or under a UN mandate, alone or in cooperation with other countries and international organisations.

KRITI SINGH

The writer is an Associate Fellow at the Centre for Air Power Studies, New Delhi and currently working on the research project related to Media and National Security. Her areas of interest are media military relationship, media research, theories and cyber journalism.

Signed on: 04 April, 1949 NATO emblem: Adopted in 1953 Raison d’être: Following are the main reasons for the creation of NATO:

• • •

To counter the threat posed by the Soviet Union To deter Soviet expansion To forbid the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe through a strong North American presence on the continent • To encourage European political integration

Key Roles Of NATO

• •

Safeguard the freedom and security of NATO members Main tasks as per the 2010 Strategic Concept: collective defence, crisis-management and cooperative security • Crisis management and peacekeeping • Providing assistance in the war against terrorism • Presently, in Afghanistan, NATO is leading the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).

NATO is helping establish the conditions in which Afghanistan can enjoy a representative government and self-sustaining peace and security.

Recent Developments

•

In response to the Russia-Ukraine crisis, the Foreign Ministers of the NATO-Ukraine Commission condemned, ‘Russia’s illegal military intervention in Ukraine and Russia’s violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Calling Russia’s action as “illegal and illegitimate ‘annexation’ of Crimea”, the NATO-Ukraine Commission has pledged to ‘continue to work together to reach a political and diplomatic solution which respects international law and Ukraine’s internationally recognised borders.’

• While recognising the disproportionate impact conflict and post-conflict situations on women and girls, the NATO with its partners have developed a policy on Women, Peace and Security has been developed within the Euro-Atlantic Partnership

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

59

global security

STRENGTH IN UNITY

Council (EAPC). Afghanistan, Australia, Japan, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates are part of it.

Challenges

were not intended to act as clubs for international business, associations for shared values, or tools for political integration. Military alliances were supposed to prevent and win wars. The ongoing strife in Ukraine is a crime by Moscow and tragedy for Kiev. It’s also a warning for America. NATO is a military alliance, not a social club.”

• To sustain the dipping attention span of the United States, in the backdrop of growing Beijing influence and Washington’s continuous reassurance to the Asian allies.

The NATO has been under fire for various reasons, • With Europe increasingly seen by America as a “producer” rather than a “consumer” of security, the to name a few: Its inability to play a better role in the second worry is that the Afghanistan mission, its economic crisis within intervention in Libya and the euro zone leaves Syria is questioned by many, The dynamics of changing world order, NATO’s European its expansion, criticism altering security threats, competition members less able to over its austerity measures within the members, clash of interests etc play their part. resulting in declining make the environment more challenging defence expenditure. Despite • It is important for for these organisations to attain the NATO’s long-term the fact that NATO is losing viability that the Alliance its shine, but it still has desired objective. Nevertheless the and its members start potential to remain a vital international cooperation is required considering the future part of our international to attain the global security. Today, the global context of security apparatus only if idea of “security” has extended well transatlantic security we are careful about what beyond its traditional military dimension and what major we want it to be and do. The to encompass the interrelated military, drivers and trends upcoming NATO Summit will help shape the in Wales in September 2014 political, economic, environmental, future global security will provide a huge platform health and other international and environment.

Major for the international leaders global threats arising mainly from global developments, to deliberate on issues our global interdependence including the rise of Asia, of global concern and to emerging technologies rethink the roles which and shifting demographics are afoot and NATO must NATO can play in enhancing the global security. start thinking about them now to be prepared to face SCO the future beyond Afghanistan.

• As the NATO-led combat mission in Afghanistan is The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) is an coming towards the end, the NATO has to rethink its intergovernmental international organisation. priorities now.

Its member states cover an area of over 30 million km2, • NATO should also gear up to secure the transatlantic interests which are at stake in the Arctic and the or about three fifths of Eurasia, with a population of Middle East.

1.455 billion, about a quarter of the world’s total.

• Dealing with the high profile unstable North African countries bordering the Sahel region of Africa is Objective: Following are the main goals of the SCO: another tricky job for NATO. • Rather than a monolithic state based threat, • Strengthening the mutual confidence and good NATO must today confront a complex nexus of neighbourly relations among the member countries; ‘security risks and challenges’ that range from • Promoting effective cooperation in politics, trade and economy, science and technology, culture as the proliferation of nuclear weapons to weak and well as education, energy, transportation, tourism, failing states, not to mention the possible impact of environmental protection and other fields; amorphous challenges, such as global climate change, on Euro-Atlantic security.

• Making joint efforts to maintain and ensure peace, security and stability in the region, • With the changing times and altering world order, the NATO has to adapt itself as the old arrangement does moving towards the establishment of a not suit the new international milieu. new, democratic, just and rational political and economic international order.

• The ongoing Russian and Ukraine crisis presents another challenge before NATO. While highlighting the current challenge, Senior Fellow Member States: China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, at the Cato Institute, Doug Bandow writes, “The Tajikistan and Uzbekistan bitter conflict in Ukraine drags on … NATO remains divided on how to respond.”

Observer States: Afghanistan, India, Iran, Mongolia, • In some quarters, the expansion of NATO is Pakistan also seen as one of the challenges. According to Doug Bandow, “Efforts to expand NATO are Dialogue Partners: Belarus, Sri Lanka, Turkey strikingly misguided. Traditional military alliances were created to advance a nation’s security. They Proclaimed on: 15 June 2001 in Shanghai (China)

60

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

Raison d’être: Following are the main reasons for the creation of SCO:

•

Firstly, to ease the prolonged tension between Russia and China over border issues. The matter took a different dimension after the fall of the Soviet Union and the emergence of newly independent Central Asian republics like Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, which now shared their borders with China and Russia respectively. In order to maintain stability in the region and as a confidence building measure, the Shanghai Five signed the Shanghai Agreement on Confidence Building in the Military Field in the Border Areas. This was followed by the Agreement on Mutual Reduction of Military Forces in the Border Areas in 1997.

• Secondly, issues like ‘terrorism, separatism and extremism’ were a common menace to this region and a joint intergovernmental network and coordination was the need of the hour.

• Thirdly, another reason binding the member countries were the need of economic cooperation in the region, given the abundance of natural resources in the area and growing demand for it.

Challenges

• While

highlighting the accomplishment of SCO during its 13th Anniversary, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) Wang Yi noted, “ ’the three evil forces’ – terrorism, extremism, separatism, other modern security challenges and threats, as well as in developing regional trade, economic cooperation, in the field of cultural and social interaction, in the sphere of deepening the traditional relationship of friendship among the SCO member states.”

• The ongoing Russian Ukraine crisis marks the shift of CSTO members more towards the SCO as a more compatible relationship. Both organisations have significant overlap in the geography comprising their membership as well as the norms underlying their existence. The Russian Ukraine crisis is undoubtedly a big challenge for SCO’s other members, especially China.

Dynamics Of Changing World Order

The intergovernmental organisations and multilateral alliances like NATO and SCO is an attempt by the different nations to attain global peace and security. However the dynamics of changing Recent Developments world order, altering security threats, competition • On 11 July 2014, the SCO completed its thirteen years within the members, clash of interests etc make the of existence. environment more challenging for these organisations to • During August 24-29, 2014, With regard to the ongoing a joint anti-terror drill is attain the desired objective. scheduled to be taking place Nevertheless the international Russian Ukraine crisis, among the SCO members. according to a report the cooperation is required to The drill will be undertaken attain the global security.

Russian-led Collective Security

by China. The location of Today, the idea of “security” Treaty Organisation (CSTO) the drill is scheduled to be has extended well beyond its has suspended all contacts China’s Inner Mongolia traditional military dimension Autonomous Region. to encompass the interrelated with NATO due to the crisis military, political, economic, • Lately, the Chinese Foreign in Ukraine. A report further Minister Wang Yi has environmental, health and cites CSTO Secretary General proposed a five-point other international and global Nikolai Bordyuzha as stating proposal. The news report threats arising mainly from that, after several failed indicates that the proposal our global interdependence. In attempts at cooperating with has been accepted by the view of Ken Booth, “It will SCO members – UN reform, be argued that developing NATO; the CSTO will look Malaysia Airlines MH 17 a common understanding towards the SCO and China investigation and the Iranian of ‘global security’ is a nuclear issue. fundamental building – block • With regard to the ongoing Russian Ukraine crisis, in the construction of a better world – a world that according to a report in RIA Novosti, the Russian-led works for all its human inhabitants and the natural Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) has world on which it depends.” And international suspended all contacts with NATO due to the crisis organisations like NATO and SCO can play vital in Ukraine. One report in the Belarussian Telegraph role in building a world that embraces the concept Agency further cites CSTO Secretary-General of global security in totality. The way ahead Nikolai Bordyuzha as stating that, after several failed to attain global security has many challenges, attempts at cooperating with NATO the CSTO will but the will of international players look towards the SCO and China. will define its success or failure.

“Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?” said Alice to the Cheshire Cat. “That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,” said the Cat. Lewis Carroll — Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

61

get connected

An initiative of DSA

Mission: Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam: To endeavour to create “one world – one family” Maha Upanishad Chapter 6, Verse 72

Vision: To offer a global interactive platform for dialogue, debate and discussion to avoid confusion, contention and conflict for a safe and secure world of peace, harmony and prosperity.

T

he appreciation and applauds received from the readers of Defence and Security Alert magazine from around the world have inspired the conception of “DSA Dialogue”, an online interactive platform with the objective to develop a community which influences change and is value packed with analyses on paradigm shifts in defence, security, safety, surveillance and international relations. We envision DSA Dialogue as the most sought after forum for the defence, police and paramilitary forces, coast guards, intelligence agencies, corporates, think tanks, defence and security industry, airlines, hotels, critical infrastructure and establishments in India and around the world. DSA Dialogue is a daily pulpit to share your knowledge by discussing topics which resonate with global scenarios in defence, security and international relations.

DSA DIALOGUE Focus Areas  Airlines  Banking and insurance  Border security  Corruption  Cyber terrorism  Cyber security  Defence budget  Defence forces  Defence industry  Defence policies  Drugs and human trafficking  Education  Environment  Entrepreneurship  Finance  Food

 Fundamentalism and jihad  Future textiles  Geopolitics  Geostrategy  Healthcare  Hospitality industry  Intelligence  Insurgency  Internal security  Infrastructure  Plants and establishments  International relations  Innovation  Science and technology  Laws and policy  Maritime security

 Military affairs  Migration  Money laundering  NATO  Naxalism  Politics  Police reforms  SCO  Security budget  Security and development  Security forces  Security industry  Social and political discord  Terrorism  Others

We invite experts and analysts from the entire spectrum of ’defence’, ’security’ and ’international relations’ to initiate enthusiastic conversations and discussions that generate new ideas, unlock hidden insights, create an engrossing outlet of thoughts and make a difference for creating a more aware, safe and secure world for all of us and our coming generations. DSA Dialogue is a great way to get feedback on an idea that you want to develop further. Having a different view and some constructive criticism is invaluable in building a global recognition for your novel idea or unique perspective.

62

ToSeptember know 2014 more please www.dsalert.org and start the dialogue now!

DEFENCE AND visit: SECURITY ALERT

DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT The First and the Only ISO 9001:2008 Certified Defence and Security Magazine in India

Subscribe Now! TENURE

COVER PRICE

DISCOUNTED PRICE

INDIA

You Pay

SHIPPING CHARGES DELHI / NCR

REST OF INDIA

DELHI / NCR

REST OF INDIA

1 year

` 1440

` 1008

` 400

` 700

` 1408

` 1708

2 years

` 2880

` 1872

` 800

` 1400

` 2672

` 3272

3 years

` 4320

` 2592

` 1200

` 2100

` 3792

` 4692

US$ 240 US$ 480 US$ 720

US$ 156 US$ 288 US$ 396

US DOLLARS US DOLLARS US DOLLARS

120 240 360

US DOLLARS 276 US DOLLARS 528 US DOLLARS 756

US$ 300 US$ 600 US$ 900

US$ 195 US$ 360 US$ 495

US DOLLARS US DOLLARS US DOLLARS

240 480 720

US DOLLARS 435 US DOLLARS 840 US DOLLARS 1215

SAARC COUNTRIES

1 year 2 years 3 years

REST OF THE WORLD

1 year 2 years 3 years

I would like to subscribe to DSA for I would like to gift a subscription of DSA for

August 2014

new initiative

1 Year 2 Years 3 Years

Name (Self )................................................................................................................................ Organisation ........................................................................

Billing Address................................................................................................................... City.......................................... Pin code .....................................

Shipping Address.............................................................................................................. ......................................City...........................................................

State.........................................Pin code............................Tel.......................................................................Mob.....................................................................

E mail id..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

DD / Cheque No...................................................................................................Dated.................................Drawn on....................................................... for ’ ...................................................................................................................................................... in favour of OCEAN MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, Payable at New Delhi. Please add ’ 50 extra for all outstation cheques.

Terms and Conditions Minimum subscription is for one year ie 12 issues. Your subscription will start with the next available issue after the receipt of your payment. DSA issues will be dispatched through Postal / Courier Services, as advised by the subscriber. Please forward the completed subscription form with all the required details. DSA will not be responsible for any theft, loss or delay once the magazine has been dispatched. Please mention your subscription ID in all your future communications with us. Please inform our subscription department about non-receipt of your copy latest by 20th day of the month, failing which the request for re-dispatch will not be entertained. Subscription prices can also be viewed at the following web link http://www.dsalert.org/dsa-subscription/print-edition Print and Online editions can be subscribed online through credit card via Payment Gateway. The terms and conditions may change without any prior notice. This offer is for new subscribers, valid from 1st April 2013. This subscription form supersedes all the previous. Please address all your subscription related queries through E-mail: subscription@dsalert.org or call us at: +91-11-23243999, 23287999. Write to us at: Subscription department, Defence and Security Alert (DSA), 4/19 Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi - 110002 (INDIA).

For print edition login at: www.dsalert.org/dsa-subscription/print-edition 63 September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT For online edition login at: www.dsalert.org/dsa-subscription/online-edition

64

September 2014 DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

Committed To Defence And Security Worldwide

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

INDIA : ` 120

September 2014

VOLUME 5 ISSUE 12

TM

ISSN

0976-206X

9 7 7 0 9 7 6 2 0 6 0 0 3

e S c l uri a b lo

ty

G

THE ONLY INDIAN DEFENCE AND SECURITY MAGAZINE AVAILABLE ON INDIAN AIR FORCE (IAF) INTRANET

Centre For Air Power Studies

Centre for Land Warfare Studies

Center for Strategic and International Studies

Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces French Institute of International Relations Chinese National Defense University Council on Foreign and Defence Policy Heritage Foundation German Marshall Fund of the United States Cato Institute Centre for Rising Powers Center for Arab Unity Studies Peace and Research Institute Oslo

RAND Corporation

International Institute for Strategic Studies

Brookings Institution

Royal United Services Institute Center for a New American Security Atlantic Council Council on Foreign Relations

Observer Research Foundation

> VOLUME 5

European Union Institute for Security Studies Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments Center for Economics and Foreign Policy Studies Australian Strategic Policy Institute United States Institute of Peace Centre for Military Studies Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs Al-Ahram Center for Strategic and Political Studies Brazilian Center for International Relations Center for American Progress

Stimson Center

Center for Strategic Studies

United Service Institution

Fundacao Getulio Vargas Global Security Hudson Institute Friedrich Ebert Foundation Belgrade Center for Security Policy West Africa Network for Peacebuilding Chicago Council on Global Affairs Institute of World Economy and International Relations Egmont Institute, Royal Institute for International Relations

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

> ISSUE 12

American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research The Regional Center for Strategic Studies in Cairo RCSS Istituto Affari Internazionali

National Maritime Foundation Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Institute for International and Strategic Relations

Geneva Center for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces

Centre For Joint Warfare Studies

Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses

> September 2014

Institute for United States and Canada Studies, IMEMO-RAS Chatham House Fondation pour la recherche strategique Economist Intelligence Unit German Institute for International and Security Affairs Hoover Institution Clingendael, Netherlands Institute of International Relations Hessische Stiftung Friedens- und Konfliktforschung HSFK

Institute for International Policy Studies China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations International Crisis Group Regional Center for Strategic Studies International Strategic Analysis and Research Center

Role of Think Tanks and Alliances UN, NATO, SCO, ASEAN, BRICS ...