Defence & Security Alert November 2018 Edition

NovemBER 2018 | VOLUME 10 | ISSUE 02 | `150 www.dsalert.org

The First and Only ISO 9001:2015 Cer tified Defence and Securit y Magazine in India

The Only Magazine Available On The Intranets Of IAF & BSF

info@dsalert.org

kim-Trump

restructuring: India’s options

THE FIRST CHOICE IN THE DOMAINS OF

Defence, Security and World Affairs Wo r ldW i d e

9

YEARS OF EXCELLENCE

9

editor’s note

YEARS OF EXCELLENCE

DSA is as much yours,

T

as it is ours!

he grisly details of Saudi dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s last moments continue to make news across the world. The fact that the purported crime occurred in the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul make for truly bizarre reading since a diplomatic facility is not known to be a murder site. What makes the whole episode even more interesting is the ever changing position of President Donald Trump of the United States.

From an initial dismissal, to a gradual acknowledgement, then a denouncement, to a consistent line that business interests must not be affected, Trump has covered all the possible scenarios.

But it is the ‘business interests first’ position that merits greater attention, especially since it declares a position that can, and sometimes will, run totally contrary to a committed policy on human rights and the rule of law.

These are the pillars on which the US founded a policy that claimed a moral and ethical duty to global citizens. That policy is in serious jeopardy now and India

better prepare for its debris.

India should have been better prepared to understand the pendulum positioning President when he took a remarkable u-turn with North Korea. It was not considered negative; on the contrary, it was a positive change to an unworkable policy on that isolationist dictatorship. It has brought about a calibrated improvement in the atmosphere over the Korean Peninsula.

Remarkably, positive steps have been taken towards greater Korean unity, both at sporting events, as well as socio-military developments. But not all that Trump does in Asia has a happy beginning, or, an end.

The Saudi murder mystery is part of a pattern when it comes to dealing with those regarded as ‘friends’, which means good for business, and those who are not on the right side of Trump’s law. On that score, a committed policy and an agreement can be jettisoned in a whim when it catches the fancy of the President. The reversal of President Obama’s agreement with Iran was the beginning of the end when it comes to sanity

in the Gulf. A globally recognised pact was sacrificed only so as to please some voters caught in the time warp of history.

The shifting of embassy premises from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was another such policy reversal that met with universal opprobrium.

It runs completely contrary to the two-state solution that remains a policy commitment, for it doesn’t advance the cause of peace between Israel and Palestine. And, now the contradictory declarations over the Khashoggi matter. But in this case there is at least clarity since business interests are known to prevail all over. This is a position that India must keep in mind when preparing its Asia policy analysis and implementation.

Too many get carried away by visualising hypothetical benefits from an assumed US-China showdown. The fact remains that this imagined showdown may well never happen, and the benefits simply remain a mirage.

For under President Trump, a business deal that sweetens the policy may well appear, and all those hoping to pick up crumbs be left with none to collect.

Manvendra Singh November 2018 Defence AND security alert

1

publisher’s view

An ISO 9001:2015 Certified Magazine

Volume 10 | Issue 2 | November 2018 Chairman Shyam Sunder Publisher and ceo Pawan Agrawal President Urvashi J Agrawal Director Shishir Bhushan Editor-in-Chief Manvendra Singh Copy Editor Vandana Bhatia Palli Copcom & Ops OSD Navjeet Sood Art & Creative Dolly Jain Representative (J&K) Salil Sharma Correspondent (Europe) Dominika Cosic Production Dilshad and Dabeer IT Operations Amber Sharma

Impact Of Trump-Kim Summit

On India

T

he first most palpable impact on a world watching with bated breath was the rapid reduction of temperature as US President Donald Trump, characteristically unpredictably, dropped the thinly veiled pejorative of “rocket man” in references to North Korean President Kim Jong-un to “very talented” and “great negotiator”. There was a sigh of relief in the world. Hope of more tangible results on denuclearisation has since been strengthened by President Trump talking of a second summit soon.

India, which is a victim of the China-Korea-Pakistan conspiracy of proliferation of nuclear warheads and delivery systems, has a stake in what is happening in the Pacific salient. Its diplomacy, tempered as it is by its insistence on complete and universal disarmament, would want to see that half-measures and loopholes are not built into any likely future denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula which, as seen in the manner in which Pakistan was nuclearised, is a crucial factor in India’s defence posture.

The world has seen two global conflagrations; the second being brought to a ghastly abrupt end by the use of nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. We are all too familiar with the after effects on mankind across borders. The rhetoric of President Donald Trump and President Kim was at one point so hysterical that it seemed that the trigger of a Third World War on the planet was about to be pressed.

Photographer Subhash Subscriptions Taniya Sharma Legal Advisor Deepak Gupta

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 Prabhat Prakashan Tower 4/19, Asaf Ali Road New Delhi-110002 (India) +91-011-23243999, 23287999, 9958382999 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.

It needs to be remembered that North Korea did not extend its hand of friendship till it had successfully demonstrated both the great kill capacity of the nuclear warheads and the country’s ability to deliver these to any point in the USA with home-built rockets. Having laid strong foundations of deterrence, Kim was confident that he could talk with the Americans on an equal footing.

India has been keeping an eye on these developments very closely and has not reacted to any developing strategies between the two nations hoping that it will be resolved amicably. India, being one of the most important nations in Asia, sees it as a threat to the world as well as Asia, and, by and large to itself due to the backing of China to North Korea and Pakistan. Therefore, it would prefer to see that nuclear détente has a universal flavour with all nuclear ‘haves’, cloistered nukes and aspiring ‘rogues’ sit together and decide to rid the world of such weapons of mass destruction.

India still hopes that Kim understands the implications of his overview on the geo-politics in a larger perspective for the entire mankind not just his own ambitions.

I am sure this edition will give a new perspective to you, dear reader, on the KIM –Trump discussions and their effect on global and regional geo-politics.

Happy reading!

Defence and Security Alert is printed, published and owned by Pawan Agrawal and printed at Bosco Society For Printing, Don Bosco Technical Institute, Okhla Road, New Delhi-110025 and published at 4/19, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi (India).

Editor: Manvendra Singh

2

Jai Hind!

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

Pawan Agrawal

contents

9

YEARS OF EXCELLENCE

An ISO 9001:2015 Certified Magazine

PEACE IN THE KOREAN PENINSULAR-A MIRAGE? LT GEN Dalip Bhardwaj PVSM, VSM (RETD) KIM-TRUMP SUMMIT: TAKEAWAYS FOR INDIA Air Marshal Dhiraj Kukreja PVSM, AVSM, VSM (retd) Realistic Ties – Nuclearisation Programme Lt Gen SN Handa PVSM, AVSM, VSM (Retd) INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY– PAST AND PRESENT Maj Gen Ashok Hukku YSM (Retd) BUILDING INDIA’S NARRATIVE IN SOUTH EAST ASIA Uma Sudhindra

04

08

16

21

27

TOXIC TERROR: ARE WE PREPARED? Col (Dr) Ram Athavale (retd)

31

Revolutionary Technology – Digital India Dr Pankaj Jha

35

Construct Viable MilitaryIndustrial Complex Brig (Dr) Anil Sharma (RETD)

39

India – Emerging Regional Power Prof Satish Kumar

45

China: Altering World Order Sana Hashmi

49

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

3

Korean Peninsula PEACE DIVIDEND

PEACE IN THE KOREAN PENINSULAR-A MIRAGE? The Trump Administration would, no doubt, be in a dilemma as its present stand is that first North Korea must submit an inventory of the total number of nuclear weapons it hold and their location, thereafter their destruction (or a greater part of them) prior to the declaration of peace. The Pyongyang agreement falls well short of the US’ expectation. South Korea expects that the agreement would facilitate dialogue between the US and North Korea and expect a second Trump-Kim dialogue to take place soon.

T

he Korean Armistice Agreement signed on 27 July 1953, between the United Nations Command and North Korea, was designed to “ensure complete cessation of hostilities and of all acts of armed forces in Korea until a peaceful settlement was achieved”. The Armistice formally divided the Korean Peninsula despite it being a unified country for thousands of years before 1945. The Armistice established the Demilitarised Zone (DMZ), the de-facto border between the two nations along the 38th parallel and set up the UN Repatriation Commission chaired by India’s Lt Gen KS Thimayya. Sadly, six decades later, the Armistice has not been converted into a peace treaty and technically, the two countries backed by the UN are still at war.

North’s Nuclear Ambitions North Korea’s nuclear programme commenced in 1963 when it committed itself to what is called

4

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, left, and South Korean President Moon Jae-in raise their hands after signing on a joint statement at the border village of Panmunjom in the Demilitarized Zone, South Korea.

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

9 “all-fortressisation” which was the beginning of the hyper-militarised North Korea of today. With the assistance of the Soviet Union, it developed its nuclear programme ostensibly for peaceful purposes at Yongbyon in 1965 and by 1980, it had a fully developed nuclear weapons programme. In 1985, it ratified the NPT; however it did not agree to include the required safeguards agreement and hence, in 1993, it withdrew from the NPT and suspended it soon thereafter.

Under the 1994 treaty of “Agreed Framework”, the US government agreed to supply two light water

reactors to North Korea in exchange of disarmament. However, by 2002, the Agreed Framework fell apart and under international scrutiny, Pakistan admitted that it had given North Korea its nuclear weapon technology in exchange of receiving their missile technology. With the increase in belligerence and having withdrawn from the NPT, North Korea conducted its first underground nuclear test in October 2006 and since then has conducted five more nuclear tests from 2009-2017, the latest possibly being a hydrogen bomb of 10-14 kilotonne yield. It is estimated that

The way in which the US handled Libya and their leader, Muamar Gaddafi, does not give much confidence to Kim

YEARS OF EXCELLENCE

LT GEN Dalip Bhardwaj PVSM, VSM (RETD)

The writer is a former Director General of the Mechanised Forces, Indian Army.

North Korea has fissile material for approximately 60 bombs of varying yields.

Delivery Systems In the 1960s, North Korea received its first short range free rocket over ground (FROG) ballistic missile from the Soviet Union and thereafter, the SCUD missile via Egypt. Though external assistance was stopped, subsequently, it developed its own technology and by 2005, launched its Nodong missile with a range of 900 km with a 1,000 kg pay load sufficient to reach South Korea and Japan. On 28 October 2017, North Korea tested its Hwasong -15 missile with a 13,000 km range sufficient to reach mainland America. There is evidence that North Korea has been able to miniaturise a nuclear warhead for use on these ballistic missiles. Having achieved a reasonable degree of success in both the weapon and delivery systems, it has, since November 2017, desisted from any further physical testing of its weapons and it is with this backdrop that talks on denuclearisation have commenced.

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

5

Korean Peninsula PEACE DIVIDEND

Peace Talks

The economic sanctions imposed by the US have no doubt contributed to convince North Korea to commence negotiations.

However, its track record has not been too promising in the past. The two Koreas first foreswore nuclear weapons in 1992 shortly after the US agreed to remove its tactical nuclear weapons from its bases in South Korea, but in 1994, Kim Il Sung expelled all the inspectors.

In late 1994, under the “Agreed Framework”, North Korea was once again convinced to abandon refining plutonium in return of American aid, oil and civilian nuclear reactors. In 1999, North Korea was informed that sanctions will be lifted if they gave up missile testing, but by 2002, North Korea revealed that it was progressing with its secret uranium programme that led to a multi-lateral peace drive, the “six party talks”, which

6

lasted till 2006 when it tested its first nuclear explosion. North Korea also defied the UN Security Council to test ballistic missiles of increasing range culminating in their last test in November 2017. Over the past two decades, a number of attempts to achieve peace were made but were duly aborted by North Korea. Hence, is there any basis to imagine that North Korea is more eager for a deal that would be implemented this time than it has been in the past?

Peace Pursuit

One thing is certain that the party striving for peace is South Korea and their President Moon Jae-in has been going that extra mile to hold talks at Panmunjom to try and work out an acceptable solution and he seems to have the backing of the majority of his people. Even when the talks between President Donald

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

Trump and President Kim scheduled in June 2018 were about to be aborted, it was the effort of President Moon for it to happen at Sentosa Island in Singapore on 12 June 2018. The meeting, no doubt, was held in a cordial atmosphere and Trump declared it as a triumph for peace on earth and took the credit while Kim took the limelight holding Trump’s hand. In Singapore, Trump stated that the North was willing to “personally dismantle” key missile facilities in the presence of outside experts as also denuclearising the peninsula. The joint statement stipulates that “verifiable, irreversible, dismantlement” of the nuclear programme. The stumbling block was which came first: denuclearisation or ending of the war. Trump gave a concession of stopping all joint exercises between US and South Korea; a commitment not taken well by the US military and strategic experts. It was expected

9 that the two leaders may meet at the UN General Assembly late September or in Washington later in the year. Yet, there are many hurdles to be overcome as post the Singapore meeting; there was little progress towards peace till the two Korean leaders met in Pyongyang in mid-September.

Pyongyang Declaration

President Moon Jae-in and President Kim met in Pyongyang from 18-20 September 2018 and spent three days to break the impasse and restart the negotiations. The Pyongyang declaration covered a number of topics to include the easing of military tensions, economic development, resolving family separation issues, furthering cultural exchanges and the most important denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula. North Korea agreed to permanently dismantle the missile test facilities at Dongchong-ri under the observation of international inspectors. The Yongbyon nuclear test site would be dismantled but would be contingent to the US taking “corresponding action”. This implies the declaration of peace, the formal ending of the Korean War and lifting of sanctions.

The Trump Administration would, no doubt, be in a dilemma as its present stand is that first North Korea must submit an inventory of the total number of nuclear weapons it hold and their location, thereafter their destruction (or a greater part of them) prior to the declaration of peace. The agreement falls well short of the US’ expectation. However, the rejection of the proposal would not go down well with South Korea and strain US-South Korea relations. Also, the two Koreas agreed to halt all military exercises in the DMZ and re-establish direct road, railway and communications links. South Korea expects that the agreement

would facilitate dialogue between the US and North Korea and expect a second Trump-Kim dialogue to take place soon.

Denuclearisation – A Mirage?

When a great power promises a smaller country a “win-win” deal, diplomats joke that means the great power plans to win twice. That is how US has tried to negotiate all its treaties in the recent past.

The way in which the US handled Libya and their leader, Muamar Gaddafi, does not give much confidence to Kim. Therefore, as per the latest intelligence reports, North Korea has not stopped its nuclear programme. The only silver lining post the Singapore agreement was the absence of any

YEARS OF EXCELLENCE

capability as also give a fixed timetable for destruction of the nuclear weapons with verification. In the absence of these details, a peace treaty is unwarranted and would be a one way gift to the North.

Sanctions are practicable if enforced correctly and collectively. In this case, China and Russia are the main stake-holders. The US, at present, is developing a trade war with China and hence, it is impracticable to assume that the Chinese would cooperate in enforcing any sanctions on North Korea. Russia has recently registered 10,000 North Korean’s to work in Russia in contravention of the ban. Also, with a growing North Korea, economy sanctions may not have the desired effect.

The devil in any deal is in the fine print as the understanding of “denuclearisation” has not been jointly accepted large missile on display as part of their military parade in September 2018 commemorating their countries freedom as also North Korea returning the remains of 55 US soldiers missing in action during the Korean War from 1950-53.

Such goodwill gestures are always welcome to defuse tension.

The Pitfalls

The devil in any deal is in the fine print as the understanding of “denuclearisation” has not been jointly accepted. North Korea is of the opinion that it includes withdrawal of all American forces from the Korean peninsula along with the American nuclear umbrella under which South Korea is sheltered. The North Koreans are also unlikely to let the IAEA know their full nuclear

The greatest proponent of peace is Moon and he is leaving no stone unturned to achieve his goal of a unified Korea as a confederation with Kim, in-charge of the North.

Optimism

There is no doubt that it is time that peace returns to the Korean Peninsula. A unified Korea or a confederation, only time will tell.

However, what is required is an optimistic vision of the future and a balanced negotiated treaty. Full denuclearisation will take time to be implemented, possibly four to five years and in return, North Korea must be given the time and resources to stabilise its economy.

Mirage or not, the comity of nations desires peace and the elimination of any rouge State.

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

7

mutual trust ways ahead

KIM-TRUMP SUMMIT: TAKEAWAYS FOR INDIA Trump is shaking international relations like few US presidents have done in the past. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, understanding the rapid changes coming about in the world order, moved swiftly to re-emphasise ties with China and Russia through quick informal summits with President Xi Jinping in Wuhan and President Vladimir Putin in Sochi.

Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet, Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgment seat; But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth, When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth!

“The Ballad of East and West” Rudyard Kipling-1889

A

round the middle of last year, it so appeared that the US President Donald Trump was firm to execute his categorical resolve to collide head-on with the North Korean Supreme Leader, Kim Jong-un, despite a well-assessed appreciation of an unthinkable disaster in the unfortunate event of a US-North Korean face-off. Kim, too, looked equally firm in repeatedly ignoring Trump’s tirades against him, with threatening overtones, reminding the world of the days of Saddam Hussein, who always appeared composed against all US and UN sponsored threats during his occupation of Kuwait. What happened to him is history; but will history repeat itself in the Korean peninsula, was the question being asked during 2017, and even leading up to June 2018.

8

A test-launch of ground-to-ground medium long range ballistic rocket - Hwasong-10.

Post-Cold War Crises

For USA, North Korea (DPRK) has long been a secondary problem, being an uninterrupted source of impending regional instability; nevertheless, its neighbours, and its own economic limitations,

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

have so far managed to keep it restrained. The country’s nuclear programme was one of USA’s first major post-Cold War crises. The US general policy towards it has been to manage any arising issue with deterrence and avoid a conflict.

9 Confronted with the heavy price of military intervention, USA has preferred declaring moratoriums on the missile testing, isolating the delinquent nation financially and making an occasional diplomatic deal. The USA has always expected the country to implode, so waiting a while longer has been the more logical approach. In recent times, however, especially after Trump taking over reins, the policy has seen changes, since sanctions and severe indictments from United Nations Security Council (UNSC) have hardly slowed North Korea’s nuclear and missile programme.

USA’s ‘holier than thou’ attitude, especially after the end of the Cold War, and unwanted hegemonic policies, have always hurt and humiliated nationalist sentiments, and caused extreme reactionary nationalism in some nations. However, in the case of North Korea, with its

Saddam Hussein

YEARS OF EXCELLENCE

missile and nuclear programme, there has been a show of unacceptable defiance to the US policies.

North’s Nukes and Missiles

It so seems that Kim, in mid-2017, wanted to fling around his missiles with gay abandon! During those months, more missiles were fired off than ever before, in one test after another. During the first two years after assuming his dictatorship, in 2012 and 2013, DPRK had launched just eight missiles; over the following three years, there were 15 tests a year on an average. The tempo rose with frenzy, with five launches since 10 May 2017, just when the new president of South Korea, Moon Jae-in, was sworn in.

DPRK was a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but withdrew from it in 2003; the first test was conducted thereafter in 2006. It then developed

Air Marshal Dhiraj Kukreja PVSM, AVSM, VSM (retd)

The writer retired as the AOC-in-C of Training Command, IAF on 29 February 2012. In his long stint in the air force of about 40 years, he has held many operational and staff appointments. He is the first air force officer to have undergone an International Fellowship at the National Defense University, Washington DC, USA. He is a postgraduate in ‘National Security Strategy’ from National War College, USA.

a military nuclear weapons programme, with six tests of varying yield, the last test having been conducted in September 2017 and claimed by it to be a ‘hydrogen bomb’. The matching of a nuclear device with its missiles is what started to worry USA and its allies in East Asia. Its missiles have an approximate range of up to 1,200 km, enough to target South Korea and Japan, both of which host the US military. Kim’s ultimate desire, to possess an Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM), capable of reaching Los Angeles and Washington in USA, was reportedly fulfilled in November 2017, when it launched its second such ICBM, after the first test had some issues on re-entry.

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

9

mutual trust ways ahead

Sabre-rattling

One can ask: Why the flurry of tests by North Korea? A simple answer to the vigorous testing can be that only with such a schedule can a nation develop its missile programme; after all does not India have regular missile tests? Kim, it can be said, sees the possession of a nuclear-tipped missile, capable of reaching the US mainland, as a key to his country’s survival in the face of American hostility. Failures in such tests teach as many lessons as successes, and North Korea has had its fair share, with many missiles blowing up at launch or just after. Another reason could be pure propaganda for its domestic population since such threats to its perceived enemies go together with such tests. Rodong Sinmun, the

capability of reaching the US mainland with its missiles, defying Trump’s tweet “It won’t happen” in early 2017!

This compelled USA to sit up and take notice and weigh its options.

Options for USA

The UNSC unanimously had stepped up sanctions in September last, against North Korea’s sixth and most powerful nuclear test, imposing a ban on the country’s textile exports and capping imports of crude oil. It was the ninth sanctions resolution unanimously adopted by the 15-member Council since 2006 over its ballistic missile and nuclear programmes. The USA, which had proposed banning all oil imports to North Korea, watered down an initial tougher draft resolution to win the support of China and Russia.

The US general policy towards North Korea has been to manage any arising issue with deterrence and avoid a conflict official mouthpiece of North’s regime, issued a statement in May 2017, “South Korea will be submerged in a sea of fire, Japan will be reduced to ashes and the US will collapse” (The Economist, June 17, 2017).

Such threats, are generally a cover for autocratic regimes to cover own weaknesses! The third reason, and a more plausible one, is that Kim feels that such tests are the best possible choice before he is forced by China and USA to sit at the negotiating table. Lastly, is Kim trying to match Trump’s unpredictable craziness, as displayed by his missile attack in Syria and dropping of the largest conventional bomb in Afghanistan?

Whatever the rhetoric and aggressive statements by both Kim and Trump, the reality is that DPRK has now the

10

The sanctions were severe, but did not deter DPRK from carrying out another ICBM test in November.

After a few months of cooperation

by China and Russia, Trump admitted that the sanctions were being bypassed, leaving the field open for other options. The war of words started again; a pre-emptive strike against DPRK was considered too frightening an option, while another option was to shoot down the missiles at launch. This too was not felt suitable for USA as it felt the absence of such a capability. The stage was, therefore, being set to sit at the negotiating table, as Trump had once said in his run-up to the presidential elections, that “he would not mind sharing a burger with Kim at the White House and settle all differences”!

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

Kim-Trump Summit

President Trump had hinted at a possible meeting with the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, in May 2016 when he jocularly mentioned, “I would have no problem in speaking to him”. As president, thereafter, he had threatened Kim with “fire and fury”; when the erstwhile Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, hinted at talks, Trump ridiculed the idea.

However on 9 March 2018, Kim dramatically changed his stance towards USA and his southern neighbour. The South Korean national security advisor’s announcement that Kim and Trump would meet at a summit in May this year, took the world by surprise; he stated that North Korea was committed to total denuclearisation and would stop all further nuclear and missile tests, while accepting US-South Korea military drills.

Obviously, there was intense speculation over the reasons for such a step-down by Kim. Three reasons come to mind, when one sits down to analyse. One possibility was that Kim is playing around with Trump and Moon Jaein, for no US president had ever met a North Korean Supreme Leader.

Kim, it was presumed, wanted full recognition and legitimacy for his regime through such a summit.

The second possibility was that Kim was buying time against sanctions to try and find a clandestine way to bypass the sanctions, something which had been done in the past by his predecessors. The third possibility, and very dramatic, was that Kim wanted to switch sides, from being seen as a Chinaunderstudy to being seen as a US-ally. Was Kim exploring such a move, may be not as formal ally, but to get a no-war pact with the US and South Korea in exchange for legitimacy, food and other aid, and foreign investment; despite the

9

YEARS OF EXCELLENCE

Kim Jong Un and Donald Trump in Sentosa Island, Singapore in June 2018.

attractive proposal for a summit with Trump, it was difficult to fathom Kim’s intentions.

North-South Links Whatever his intentions, the stage was being set for a meeting with Trump; Kim met his counterpart from the South, Moon Jae-in, in April 2018, the third such meeting between the two Koreas, the earlier being in 2000 and 2007. The meeting was historic as not since the 1950s had a North Korean leader set foot on South Korean soil until Kim ‘crossed the line’. In their joint statement, the two Korean leaders stated that within a year, they would push for a tri-lateral meeting with USA and a four-party forum that would include China, with an ultimate aim of ‘declaring an

end to the Korean War’. The Korean Armistice Agreement was signed on 27 July 1953, and brought about a cessation of hostilities, but no peace treaty was signed between the two nations; technically, thus, the two nations continue to be at war, even after all these years!

The peace making overtures by Kim, who very nearly brought the Korean peninsula on the brink of a war in 2017 by his nuclear and missile tests, have sceptics, who are of the opinion that a leopard cannot change its spots. The Panmunjom Declaration, so named after the village where the two Korean leaders met, talks of denuclearisation, but does not define it. The Trump Administration defines it as Kim giving up his

nuclear arsenal, something for which he has not shown any willingness; Kim understands the term as the withdrawal of US troops and removal of the ‘nuclear umbrella’ for South Korea. Notwithstanding the doubts, 27 April 2018, will go down in history as an important date of a step towards peace in the Korean peninsula.

Singapore Event Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump did meet on 12 June 2018, in Singapore. As a television spectacle, it was overwhelming; the star of the reality TV show from USA, Donald Trump, striding down the red carpet, stretching out his hand to strike a deal of a lifetime; on the opposite side was Kim Jong-un, leader of the world’s most oppressive

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

11

mutual trust ways ahead

(L-R) Brazilian President Michel Temer, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Chinese President Xi Jinping and South African President Jacob Zuma during the BRICS Summit in Goa

dictatorship, in his Mao suit, who just nine months ago had wanted to “tame the mentally deranged US dotard with fire”. That the meeting went through, was itself a surprise; on May 24, just two weeks before the summit, Trump, true to his style of unpredictability, had called off the summit, citing North Korea’s openly hostile statements; the bone of contention being Kim’s nuclear arsenal. Following the sudden announcement that stunned the world, Trump issued statements to the media a few days later that the summit could go on as per the original schedule; there, however, was growing unease on both sides.

The summit did go through as mentioned above, but with little or no preparation on the American side. While Kim had met the Chinese president twice in 40 days, prior to the summit, Trump appeared to play for the ratings. Kim went in

12

for the summit understanding that for his regime to endure, he needed wealth to purchase conventional weapons, appreciating that nuclear brinksmanship cannot carry on forever; additionally, the sanctions had begun to bite, and he needed to pacify his people, especially the middle class. Trump, on the other hand, was playing to the gallery, stating that “he doesn’t think he needs to prepare that much” for the upcoming summit, though he was being briefed daily by his staff.

specifying what they would be; in return, Kim gave his assurance for a “firm and unwavering commitment” to a complete denuclearisation, but without any time-table, arrangements for verification or even a definition of denuclearisation, which carries different connotations for the two leaders. The document is at best, a broad outline for future lower-level meetings. It may, in time, deliver tangible results, but it all hinges upon the understanding of the term ‘complete denuclearisation’.

Define Denuclearisation

At the post-summit media conference, Trump true to his style, surprised many by announcing the suspension of military exercises, terming them as “provocative and inappropriate” while negotiations were on. This major unilateral concession was appreciated by both China and DPRK, but not by Japan and South Korea, neither of which had been briefed in advance about such a move. Whether the

The document signed by both the leaders at Singapore is lacking in detail and considered disappointing

by US officials and analysts alike.

The two sides committed themselves “to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean peninsula” – not as South Korea would have liked, to a peace treaty. Trump assured Kim of “security guarantees”, without

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

9 summit is a success or not, time will tell, but Kim Jong-un has gone on from being a pariah to a statesman, all in six months!

India In This Equation

Where does India fit in this extremely complicated jigsaw puzzle of North Korea? Through these intervening years since 1953, India has had a rather curious relationship with it.

After WW II, when geopolitics divided the nations on the side of USA or that of the USSR, India firmly stood by its stance of non-alignment.

Consequently, it never interfered in the military operations of either USA or DPRK, but it did provide humanitarian aid to the latter during the war. Over the years, geopolitics ensured that India did not offer its fullest support to either country on account of the relations necessitated with South Korea and America; but neither did India alienate itself from the region because of the troubled relations with its neighbours, Pakistan and China.

Readers may be surprised, and some even embarrassed, to learn of technical assistance provided

by India to DPRK. The Centre for Space Science and Technology Education in Asia and the Pacific (CSSTEAP), an institute located in the foothills of Dehradun, and established with the UN in 1995, has been training North Korean students since its inception. The trainees from DPRK in CSSTEAP have been students, scientists and space agency employees, most of who have participated in the space, missile, and nuclear programme of their country. What is discomforting is that the continuation of training was exposed only in 2016 in an annual report, despite the first set of sanctions imposed by UN in 2006!

India considers the nuclear proliferation in North Korea as a threat, holding China and Pakistan responsible for

whatever it has achieved till date. India participated in the Vancouver Dialogue in January 2018, wherein Canada, USA, UK, Australia and 13 other countries that fought the Korean War, seven decades ago had an agenda to discuss interdiction, non-proliferation, maritime activities, denying the North Korean regime the resources and the funding that it needs, apart from also talking about diplomacy.

India has not taken sides during all these months, but has been issuing statements against the nuclear/ missile tests by DPRK, wanting an end to the proliferation. In addition, India itself not being a signatory of NPT, well appreciates Kim’s desire for recognition as a member of the nuclear club! Though not directly involved, it could serve as a neutral broker to help establish realistic expectations that are acceptable to

YEARS OF EXCELLENCE

Contrary to popular belief, efforts to get North Korea to end such cooperation with Pakistan began several years ago. A turning point in those efforts was a hitherto unpublicised visit to North Korea by Gautam Bambawale, Joint Secretary in-charge of East Asia in the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) from 2009 to 2014; about a month prior to the June Summit, Gen VK Singh, the junior minister in MEA, made a visit to North Korea to allay fears of India siding with USA; in return, according to the MEA, North Korean leaders said their country wouldn’t allow action that would create security concerns for India.

It is an example of deft diplomacy and now making it simpler to understand India’s interests to support any initiative to denuclearise the Korean Peninsula, but there are other reasons for doing so, too.

India considers the nuclear proliferation in North Korea as a threat, holding China and Pakistan responsible for whatever it has achieved till date both USA and North Korea. India has diplomatic relations with North Korea, and relations with USA too are on the upswing with the recent 2+2 talks, military purchases from USA and the latest appreciation by Trump at the UN. Peace and stability in East Asia are important for India, especially after the development of close relations with Japan and Vietnam and China’s belligerent advance into the South China Sea. What India primarily wants from Kim’s coming out on the global stage is continued attention to its own security concerns about North Korea’s support for Pakistan’s nuclear and missile programmes.

A less volatile DPRK could be an emerging market for Indian exports and investment, and could help expand its Act East policy. Increased Indian presence in the country, in turn, could give China a reason to worry; to start with, the two nations are immediate neighbours. Second, China is a key economic partner for North Korea, which has also been a useful buffer between China and US forces in South Korea. Indian presence could have a chance to increase its strategic foothold in the region.

Challenges Ahead For all his eccentricities, Kim Jongun is behaving rationally. He has seen what fate befell Gaddafi of Libya

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

13

mutual trust ways ahead

in return for giving up his nuclear programme for better relations with Western nations. For him, hence, the country’s nuclear arsenal is essential for his own survival, and Trump’s raving and ranting can do little to change his mind.

How will Trump’s post-Korean deal stance play out on his pet gripe like high tariffs on US goods being imported into India will be interesting to watch. There are newer uncertainties like the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA) that could target India for buying arms from Russia and oil from Iran. US waivers to this Act could leave powerful levers with USA to restrict India’s strategic autonomy; so far the going has been good, but one never knows when Trump will get upset with India, and on what count!

14

US waivers to this Act could leave powerful levers with USA to restrict India’s strategic autonomy; so far the going has been good Trump has downplayed his campaign speech statement about wanting to mediate between India and Pakistan. Now, after this summit, he may feel encouraged to get himself involved in brokering a deal on Kashmir as he pushes hard on Pakistan for what the US wants in Afghanistan. In short, Trump is shaking international relations like few US presidents have done in the past. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, understanding the rapid changes coming about in the world order, moved swiftly to re-emphasise ties with China and Russia through quick informal

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

summits with President Xi Jinping in Wuhan and President Vladimir Putin in Sochi.

The road to peace and stability in the Korean peninsula is strewn with challenges. Given the fact that the leaders of the two Koreas and USA, are showing signs of willingness to find solutions to the problem, one hopes that things will change for the better. Trump needs to drop his coercive methods to get what he wants; both sides need to show mutual trust; India can play an active role, which would help to counter China, for progress for peace in the Korean peninsula.

unholy nexus DENUCLEARISATION

Realistic Ties –

Nuclearisation Programme In the foreseeable future, it may not be realistic to expect a total severance of mutual cooperation between Pakistan and North Korea especially in an environment where the militaries and intelligence agencies of the two countries have a history of close ties of over four decades and continue to be closely associated with and in total control of the missile and nuclear weapon programmes of their countries.

T

he deep-rooted, over four-decade old, unholy nexus between Pakistan, North Korea and China, which has led to North Korea and Pakistan, acquiring their present nuclear and missile capabilities, may be among the worst kept secrets in the world. The nexus continues unabated to this day with China stoutly opposing India’s entry into the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group unless Pakistan is also allowed entry.

There can be no bigger irony and hypocrisy in international relations than that a known proliferator like China is today a member of NSG and seeking entry of another known proliferator and its active collaborator, Pakistan into this group and is being allowed to block entry of a country with an unblemished record of observing

16

the nuclear non-proliferation treaty without being a member of it, India.

The silence of United States over

Pakistan’s Nuclear Might.

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

Lt Gen SN Handa

PVSM, AVSM, VSM (Retd) Commissioned into 5/3 GR in Nov 71, the writer fought the Indo-Pak War 1971 in the Kargil Sector. An alumnus of National Defence College, he is a seasoned Infantry officer with vast experience in mountain and desert warfare, low intensity conflict operations and internal security. He was Chief of Staff of Srinagar based Chinar Corps before assuming command of Jodhpur based Desert Corps in Feb 2008. He retired as Director General Infantry in 2011.

9

June 28, 1972: Pakistani President Zulfikar Ali Bhutto shakes hands with India’s Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, in Shimla, the summer capital of India, while his daughter Benazir Bhutto and Indian Foreign Minister Swaran Singh look on this ‘open secret’ has been deafening indeed till now when it chose to up the ante to force denuclearisation of North Korea leading to summit meeting between Trump and Kim on 12 June 2018.

The Roots – An Overview of Pakistani and North Korean Nuclear and Missile Programmes

To, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, must go the credit of being the chief architect of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme. Pakistan’s quest for nuclear weapons was inspired by reports of India working on developing such a capability in the 60s. Bhutto, as the Foreign Minister of Pakistan then, is famously reported to have said, ‘If India builds the bomb, we will eat grass and leaves for a thousand years, even go hungry, but we will get one of our own. The Christians have the bomb, the Jews have the bomb and now, the Hindus have the bomb.

Why not the Muslims too have the bomb?’ as early as 1965, the year which witnessed the second Indo-Pak War. However, despite his passionate advocacy, the move did not find favour with the then President FM Ayub Khan. However, one of the internal consequences of the loss of East Pakistan after Indo-Pak War of 1971 was catapulting of Bhutto as Prime

Minister of Pakistan and an obvious vigorous pursuit for nuclearisation of the country. Obsessed with India’s nuclear programme, Bhutto pulled all plugs in his relentless pursuit of nuclear capability. Feeling abandoned by allies and friends during the War

YEARS OF EXCELLENCE

of 1971, Bhutto called a meeting of scientists, without losing time, on 20 January 1972, at Multan. Munir Ahmed Khan, who until then was a director at International Atomic Energy Commission, was appointed chairman of Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) and assigned the responsibility for building Pakistan’s bomb by 1976. However, in 1974, when India carried out its first peaceful nuclear explosion, not satisfied with the pace of work of PAEC, he summoned another nuclear scientist from Europe, the now famous Abdul Qadeer Khan, a symbol of Pakistan’s ‘no holds barred’ pursuit of nuclear capability. AQ Khan organised a network to smuggle nuclear technology from his erstwhile employer, URENCO of Netherlands, being convicted in 1983 by the court of Amsterdam for stealing centrifuge blue prints. Nevertheless, determined

One of the internal consequences of the loss of East Pakistan after IndoPak War of 1971 was catapulting of Bhutto as Prime Minister of Pakistan and an obvious vigorous pursuit for nuclearisation of the country

President Zia-ul-Haq being briefed by PAEC Chairman Munir Ahmad Khan

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

17

unholy nexus DENUCLEARISATION

efforts of a decade enabled Pakistan to ‘cold test’ a functional nuclear device in 1983 ultimately leading up to the detonation of five nuclear devices on 28 May 1998 in response to India’s second nuclear test earlier on 11 May 1998. Notwithstanding stout denials of both China and Pakistan, there is irrefutable intelligence with western countries and US which points to the significant role played

by China through transfer of critical technologies and material and assistance in setting up of Pakistani nuclear weapon development facilities, in violation of its obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

If Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was the chief architect of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons programme, it was his daughter, Benazir, who played a key role as Prime Minister later during 1988-90 and again from 1993-96 to become the chief political architect of Pakistan’s missile programme.

Initiated in 1987 by Zia-ul-Haq to counter India’s Prithvi missile, the programme reportedly gained momentum under Benazir.

The origin of North Korean nuclear programme go back to the 60s when it committed itself to ‘allfortressisation’ and ‘military first’ as a safeguard against strong US military presence in South Korea.

While Soviet Union and China turned down the North Korean request for assistance to start a nuclear weapons programme, Russia assisted it with its peaceful nuclear programme and training of nuclear scientists. It assisted in construction of Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Centre and an ITR-2000 research reactor which became operational in 1965. This facilitated commencement of North Korea’s nuclear weapons programme in 1980s even as it kept the world guessing till 2006 by first ratifying the NPT in 1985, suspending its withdrawal from NPT announced

18

in 1993, withdrawing from NPT in 2003, announcing in 2005 that it had nuclear weapons and finally, on 09 October 2006 announcing that it had successfully tested a nuclear device. This was in no small measure facilitated by clandestine assistance from Pakistan. From 2006 to now, it has hemmed and hawed and huffed and puffed to once again keep the world guessing by announcing its intent to close down its nuclear testing facilities, signing agreements to stop its programme in return for lifting of economic sanctions, closing an odd facility but through such subterfuge continuing clandestinely and unabashedly with its nuclear weapon development plan conducting nuclear tests through 2009, 2013, 2016 culminating in explosion of a thermo-nuclear device with an estimated payload between 255 kg to 365 kg on 03

acquired a Soviet Scud B and launcher from Egypt. Beginning with first test of a Scud missile in 1984, it has reportedly carried out 117 missile tests so far. Of these, over 80 are believed to have been carried out under the present ruler Kim Jongun, with 17 tests carried out in 2017 alone. Despite several failures, with its last test of ICBM named Hwasong-15 carried out on 28 November 2017, North Korea is today assessed to have acquired inter-continental ballistic missile capability to target most parts of continental US. In late 80s, it not only provided technical assistance to Pakistan’s nascent missile programme but also complete missiles, the quid pro quo being Pakistani assistance for its nuclear weapons development programme. A graphic depiction of North Korean missile capability as assessed by Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI – www.nti.org) is shown below.

September 2017 and achieving miniaturisation of its warheads to mount on its missiles.

The Nexus

North Korean missile development dates back to mid-70s when it

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

The origin of nexus between Pakistan and North Korea with active collaboration of China in development of their nuclear and missile capabilities can be traced to

9 the year when Zulfikar Ali Bhutto as foreign minister under then President, Gen Yahya Khan, signed an agreement with North Korea on 18 September 1971, for supply of conventional weapons with war clouds looming large over war with India over the exodus of refugees from erstwhile East Pakistan. Such an agreement could have come about only with Chinese support and intervention since Pakistan and North Korea did not have diplomatic relations at the time. The nexus grew stronger with Gen Zia-ul-Haq at the helm taking the relationship between the two military dictatorships to a higher plane involving intelligence agencies of the two countries for close collaboration in clandestine acquisition of nuclear and missile-related equipment and technology from erstwhile West Germany and other Western countries. ISI assumed the lead role in meeting the clandestine requirements of information and materials of North Korea owing to diplomatic isolation of North Korea and its precarious finances. The collaborative relationship thrived owing to mutually dependent relationship with North Korea benefiting from Pakistani nuclear know-how and providing in exchange its missile know-how.

Between 1988 to 1996, Pakistani Prime Ministers, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif further nurtured the relationship by signing secret agreements for production of reverse engineered US Stinger missiles and batteries, supply of No-Dong missiles, fuel tanks and rocket engines with technology transfer to Pakistan, training of Pakistani scientists and engineers in North Korea for missile development and of North Korean scientists in Kahuta/Khan Research Laboratories (KRL), both for learning uranium enrichment and training their Pakistani counterparts in the use and maintenance of the missiles supplied by North Korea and for the supply and development of mobile erector launchers for the missiles.

Around the same time, nuclear secrets were being passed on to Pakistan by China, a signatory to the NPT! While the US and Western intelligence agencies were alive to the goings on, they, apparently at the behest of US, chose to turn a blind eye owing to geo-political dependence of US on Pakistan in its proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan in late 70s and again in the aftermath of 9/11. As a consequence, US indulged in the sham exercise of imposing sanctions not against Pakistan but against KRL and against Changgwang Sinyong Corporation (also known as the North Korea Mining Development Trading Corporation) of North Korea not once but thrice. Sanctions were imposed against KRL first time in August 1993 for its clandestine procurement of M-11 missiles from China; against both KRL and Changgwang Sinyong

North Korean missile development dates back to mid-70s when it acquired a Soviet Scud B and launcher from Egypt Corporation (CSC) in April 1998, post firing of Ghauri missile by Pakistan for two years; and for the third time in March 2003 for use of US supplied C-130 aircraft to transport a complete North Korean No-Dong missile around August 2002. Sanctions were no more than a fraud on public opinion since both KRC and CSC are stateowned entities manned by armed forces officers. Even the Pakistani mission in Pyongyong is headed by a former ISI officer who has been part of the clandestine nuclear and missile procurement set-up. US, thus, chose to sacrifice the larger international

YEARS OF EXCELLENCE

goals of preventing proliferation at the altar of its national interest in securing Pakistani support for its Afghanistan ventures. It may not be far-fetched to suggest that by its double standards, US abetted proliferation and allowed Pakistan and North Korea to develop nuclear weapons.

While any country would be expected to counter any such allegations of a collusive / collaborative partnership based on intelligence reports, a study undertaken by National Institute of Advanced Studies (NIAS) Bangalore in 2006 on ‘An Assessment of Pakistan’s Ballistic Missile Programme: Technical and Strategic Capability’ as part of its International Strategic and Security Studies Programme (isssp.in) provides ample scientific and technological evidence of Chinese and North Korean assistance in Pakistani Missile Development Programme. The study has relied on analysis of imageries of various missiles available in public domain to arrive at its assessment.

The conclusions of the study point to Ghaznavi being a shortened version of Chinese M-11 missile and Shaheen-1 being based on Chinese M-9 missile albeit with a longer motor. The Ghauri is based on North Korean technology.

Notwithstanding, Shaheen 1 though based on Chinese design and having many similarities with M-9, incorporates several changes pointing towards Pakistan internalising missile and warhead technology transferred and acquiring the capability to proceed ahead with its indigenous development / programme.

After much sabre rattling, Trump – Kim Summit took place at Singapore on 12 June 2018. Opinion remains divided on its actual outcomes and achievements. Nevertheless, a satisfactory and rational opinion revolves around the “freeze for freeze” agreement which China and North Korea had originally offered to Obama in 2015. The essence of the agreement lies in North Korea

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

19

unholy nexus DENUCLEARISATION

putting on hold (freezing) its missile and nuclear testing in response to US and South Korea putting an end to (freezing) their large-scale annual strategic manoeuvers involving nuclear capable bombers flying from Guam, aircraft carriers and the like.

These manoeuvers, intentionally held during the planting (April/May) or harvesting season (August) for rice, were having a crippling effect on North Korea’s economy owing to the need for its large 1.2 billion strong conscript army to mobilise in response and not be available on the agricultural fields.

Held against the backdrop of North Korea having successfully tested a thermonuclear device and an intercontinental range missile capable of reaching most of continental US signifying attainment of the essential nuclear deterrence that it was seeking against the US, war against North Korea was no longer an option for US without risking strike against a major population centre. Thus, acceptance of ‘freeze for freeze’ was perhaps the only option before it.

Likewise, nuclear deterrence enables North Korea to lower its military preparedness levels for conventional forces enabling availability of manpower on the agricultural fields spread over a limited arable

20

ISI assumed the lead role in meeting the clandestine requirements of information and materials of North Korea owing to diplomatic isolation of North Korea area. An assured end to US-South Korea manoeuvers would render redundant North Korea’s reliance on nuclear deterrence and create the environment for it to progress towards denuclearisation. However, since both are reversible, the agreement reached during the summit meeting can only be deemed to be the first step towards achieving peace and denuclearisation on the Korean peninsula.

Under the circumstances, how is the summit outcome likely to impact on the ongoing nexus between Pakistan and North Korea? It may perhaps be too early to assess the impact.

However, it is apparent that missile and nuclear programmes of both Pakistan and North Korea have acquired an independent indigenous trajectory of their own, significantly reducing mutual inter-dependence.

Pakistan, however, remains on UNSC scanner for clandestine supply of restricted nuclear material ‘Monel’ and ‘Inconel’ to North Korea, which

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

enabled the latter to carry out repeated tests through 2013 to 2017.

Pakistan is yet to respond fully to UN investigators on its role and obligation to inspect aircraft of North Korean national carrier, Air Koryo, which made multiple refueling stops in Pakistan between 2013 and 2016.

Will North Korea denuclearise in the years to come? Well, the declaratory statement at the end of the summit, ‘DPRK commits to work towards the complete denuclearisation of the Korean peninsula’ is at best aspirational. Similar statements made

by US and Soviet Union at the peak of Cold War are yet to fructify. Therefore, it may be realistic to expect North Korea to take recourse to subterfuge and drag talks on denuclearisation even as it may agree to deoperationalise a few of its nuclear facilities. Thus, objective of US to achieve complete denuclearisation by beginning of 2021 as announced

by US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, may appear to be somewhat ambitious with the issue of US keeping its sanctions on North Korea in force till complete, verifiable and time-bound dismantling of its nuclear infrastructure, becoming increasingly contentious. In the foreseeable future, it may not be realistic to expect a total severance of mutual cooperation between Pakistan and North Korea especially in an environment where the militaries and intelligence agencies of the two countries have a history of close ties of over four decades and continue to be closely associated with and in total control of the missile and nuclear weapon programmes of their countries.

9

foreign policy global scenario

INDIA’S FOREIGN POLICY– PAST AND PRESENT India is now caught up in the existential power play between the US, Russia and China. New Delhi has to steer its foreign policy very carefully, it will have to keep its relationship with all three intact and on a strong footing. However, it cannot afford to give in to pressures as that would be the end of India’s strategic autonomy.

A

competitive compulsion giving rise to two opposing power blocs and an arms race. North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) was formed against Soviet Union in 1949, and to counter it, the Warsaw Pact was put into place in 1955.

Post-World War II and Independence

To contain China’s influence in the East, the US forged an alliance with South Korea, Taiwan and Japan. In 1954, the Southeast Asian Treaty Organisation (SEATO) was created to check further communist gains in the region. Similarly, the Central Treaty Organisation (CENTO) came into being in 1955 to check communist influence in the Middle East.

country’s foreign policy cannot be cast in stone.

It has to evolve with reference to the dynamics of international environment and its own national interests without forsaking its value ingredients.

India’s foreign policy has moved from being visionary and rather Utopian in the initial stage, to being more pragmatic in later years. The evolution has been gradual and progressive.

After the Second World War, the US and the Soviet Union were enmeshed in the rigours of a Cold War. Military strength became a

India’s Global Emergence In the meanwhile, India’s independence in 1947 held the

YEARS OF EXCELLENCE

Maj Gen Ashok 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.

nation in an exuberant mood even though crippling poverty, illiteracy and famines took a heavy socio-economic toll. The political leadership of the new nation had seen the horrors of two World Wars and debilitating effects of colonialism. Consequently, India’s foreign policy, under the influence of Pt Nehru, inspired as he was by the Gandhian philosophy of nonviolence, sought to avoid military confrontation at all costs.

In line with the principle of peaceful co-existence, India decided not to join any power bloc. Instead, it joined the Commonwealth of Nations in 1950 and encouraged decolonisation.

Interestingly, in 1952, India and Ireland were the earliest sponsors of

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

21

foreign policy global scenario

a treaty to ban nuclear testing, but the intensity of Cold War did not allow fruition of the proposal.

It is axiomatic that in 1954, Nehru and his future bête noire Zhou Enlai introduced the concept of “Panch Sheel” based on five principles of peaceful existence.

However, peace between the two countries would remain elusive even after seven decades.

More significant was the establishment of the Non Aligned Movement in 1956 by Prime Minister Nehru along with President Tito of Yugoslavia, Sukarno of Indonesia, Nasser of Egypt and Nkrumah of Ghana.

India also actively participated in UN peace-keeping operations, International Control Commission in Vietnam and Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission in Korea.

With these initiatives, India made a highly visible entrance at the international stage.

Indo-Pakistan Quagmire

In the sub-continent, a bloody partition left a legacy of suspicion and animosity between Pakistan

and India. Unable to cope with the pangs of birth, Pakistan’s leadership fell back on Islam and confrontation with India to hold the country together. Mistrust between the two took deep roots; military conflicts followed. Continued aggressive and insidious machinations by Pakistan’s generals further eroded the trust deficit. As attempts to arrive at a compromise acceptable to both countries were stymied by vested interests, it became amply clear that a peace agreement between India and Pakistan would take away the raison d’etre of Pakistan’s army. For self-preservation, Pakistani generals kept the fires of conflict alive.

The firm stand taken by India in the recent years against Pakistan has found acceptability worldwide but has not successfully changed the mindset of Pakistani generals.

Sino-Indian Relations

Even though Nehru’s Utopian sensibilities led him to champion the cause of China’s entry to the haloed portals of the UNSC, they failed to avert the Sino-Indian conflict of 1962. India’s gross miscalculation of China’s intentions in late 50s resulted in a military debacle and an unprepared Indian Army was out-

manoeuvred by the PLA. The conflict laid the foundation for continued tensions relating to boundary disputes that till today have not been resolved. The 1962 War was the first major blow to India’s foreign policy, the Utopian dream lay shattered.

The US came to independent India’s military aid for the first time during the 1962 conflict. Veteran CIA officer and Advisor on Southeast Asian affairs Bruce Reidel has made some startling revelations in his book, “JFK’s Forgotten Crisis”. He says that on 19 November 1962, Nehru wrote to Kennedy requesting for 12 squadrons of fighter aircraft, two squadrons of long-range bombers, transport aircraft and radar coverage.

As the Indian Army buckled under the Chinese aggression, Pakistan contemplated annexation of Kashmir by a swift military action. Galbraith, the US Ambassador in New Delhi, intervened and asked Kennedy to reign in Pakistan.

Reidel further writes that along with military aid, 10,000 US service men also landed in India while a US carrier group moved into the Bay of Bengal while Canada and Australia were asked to stand by.

Consequently, China withdrew PLA from occupied areas.

Nine years later, the US would again dispatch its naval fleet to the Bay of Bengal but on a totally different mission.

Changing Strategic Environment of South Asia

Mushtang Fighters - Korean War (1950-1953)

22

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

After the 1962 debacle, the Government of India began to slowly modernise its armed forces. Without compromising on the core value of peaceful coexistence, the political leadership realised that following a Utopian policy was fraught with dangerous consequences. The IndoPak conflict of 1965 served to further reinforce the need to be prepared.

9

YEARS OF EXCELLENCE

December. Unlike 1962, this time the US fleet arrived to threaten India. British carrier HMS Eagle also moved towards Indian waters.

However, Soviet Union came to India’s aid by dispatching two nuclear submarines, a cruiser and a destroyer towards Task Force 74. The US called-off its threat and withdrew, the British carrier turned back and set course for Madagascar. The Indo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation of

Egyptian Troops In Yemen during 1960s.

In July 1971, Pakistan managed to organise a secret visit for Henry Kissinger to Beijing. This was followed by President Nixon’s visit to China resulting in a breakthrough in Sino-US relations. Full diplomatic relations were established between the US and China in spite of serious differences on human rights issue and trade imbalance.

President Carter gave recognition to China and severed normal ties with Taiwan though cultural and commercial ties remained intact including supply of arms.

As the strategic scenario was changing, important developments began to take place in South Asia.

India refused to join US led power blocs, so Washington took a willing Pakistan under its wings. The US also felt obliged to Pakistan for help in opening the doors to China’s leaders.

Throughout the decade of 60s as the US became increasingly involved in Vietnam, it began to lose interest in India, subsequently, India began to lean towards the Soviet Union. This resulted in the US’ decision to build Pakistan as a bulwark against the Soviet threat.

Even though Moscow maintained a neutral stance during the SinoIndian War of 1962; by the time Lal

1971 stood India in good stead.

The 1962 War was the first major blow to India’s foreign policy; its Utopian dream was shattered Bahadur Shastri became the Prime Minister, India had developed very close relations with the USSR. Indira Gandhi succeeded Shastri as the Prime Minister in 1966.

In August 1971, the Indo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship was signed. It was to prove a crucial decision later that year.

Since early 1971, political leaders and the Army of West Pakistan had been playing havoc in its Eastern Wing as a result of which, according to UNHCR estimates, 10 million refugees fled East Pakistan and crossed into India creating a severe socio-economic crisis. Indira Gandhi’s strenuous efforts with the US and European leaders to reign in Pakistan and avoid a conflict did not bear fruit. Inevitably, in December of that year, Indo-Pak War broke out. An enraged Henry Kissinger advised Nixon to intervene militarily.

The US 7th Fleet was ordered to move to the Bay of Bengal, Task Force 74 led by nuclear powered USS Enterprise arrived there on 15

Once again an important lesson was driven home to Indian leadership: the country’s military strength had to be given serious consideration.

Not surprisingly, under Indira Gandhi’s premiership, India conducted its first nuclear test in May 1974. Thus, India started emerging as a regional power.

But the weakness lay in its lack luster economy that continued to be inhibited by out-dated policies.

Economic breakthrough would not come about for another 17 years.

In December 1979, USSR invaded Afghanistan. India’s close relations with Moscow did not allow it to criticise Soviet occupation. Alarmed by the expansion of Soviet influence, the US once again relied on Pakistan to push back the Soviet Army, thus, making it a key player in the great game in Afghanistan.

In the process, Pakistan quietly pushed forward its clandestine nuclear weapons programme, it was quid pro quo demanded by Gen Zia-ul-Haq and acquiesced by the US.

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

23

foreign policy global scenario

Soviet occupation forces finally withdrew from Afghanistan in February 1989. President Gorbachev’s policies of perestroika and glasnost hastened the collapse of Soviet Union. On 25 December 1991, the hammer and sickle flag flew for the last time and the dissolution of Soviet Union led to the end of the Cold War. Once again the global scenario was changing.

Indian Economy – A New Phase

While the Soviet Union was collapsing in 1991, India was confronted with a critical financial crisis, fortunately under the stewardship of Finance Minister Manmohan Singh backed by the full support of Prime Minister Narasimha Rao, India managed to recover. In subsequent years, Dr Manmohan Singh’s bold initiatives opened India’s economy to foreign investment and international trade.

From 1991 onwards, Prime Minister Narasimha Rao’s government promoted the “Look East” policy, so did Vajpayee and Dr Manmohan Singh. By 2014, “Look East” had progressed to “Act East” opening the way for India to further explore new markets and bilateral military cooperation with its neighbours in Southeast Asia making it a major player in the region.

India’s participation in Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC), strategic partnership with ASEAN, India-MyanmarThailand Trilateral Highway, and membership of The Quad, added to India’s stature as a significant player in the “Indo-Pacific” region.

Another major course correction in India’s foreign policy had come about in 1992. After the Oslo Accords were signed, India established diplomatic relations with Israel and gradually built up a strategic partnership with it.

24

In Afghanistan, India’s role as a provider of humanitarian aid and support to the elected government has steadily continued In Afghanistan, India’s role as a provider of humanitarian aid and support to the elected government has steadily continued. The policy has found universal acceptance save by Pakistan which strenuously objects to Indian presence in Afghanistan.

However, India’s foreign policy in the immediate neighbourhood has not fetched any laurels. Take the case of Nepal, Sri Lanka and Maldives where China has made deep inroads. Even though the present dispensation in Bangladesh has been very cooperative, India

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

needs to boost the ties further.

Similarly, Bhutan must not be taken for granted; India will have to tread with a spirit of greater accommodation with these countries.

Of course, Pakistan leaves little leeway for India to be accommodative.

Nuclear Weapons and Treaties In the domain of nuclear weapons and their testing, India has charted its policy carefully.

9 As far as NPT is concerned, India has not signed it on the grounds that the treaty is discriminatory.

Considering the nuclear weapons environment in Asia, India cannot foreclose its options.

The 21st Century Scenario As the world heralded the 21st century, new scenarios began to build up once again posing challenges to India’s foreign policy.

US-Russia relations began to unwind and continue to do so. When the US imposed sanctions on Russia and NATO crept into its back-yard, tensions increased manifold and an angry Putin slipped deeper into the Chinese camp.

As far back in 1954, Pt Nehru proposed the “standstill agreement” which asked for termination of tests.

But the tests could not be stopped, between 1945 and 1963, the US, USSR, UK and France conducted 460 tests. Nuclear weapon states continued testing in the following decades; ultimately, CTBT came into existence in 1996. Though India has not signed the treaty, it has all along championed the principle of total disarmament of nuclear weapons.

Successive US administrations had been urging India to join the CTBT. Before the pressures grew irresistible, Prime Minister Vajpayee’s government carried out five nuclear tests in May 1998, thus making India a de facto nuclear power. Immediately, the US slapped sanctions on India. However, India has sincerely maintained a voluntary ban on testing after 1998 and has refrained from proliferation.

The US created further complications by cancelling the nuclear deal with Iran and pressurising other countries, including India, not to buy Iranian oil. This is a new challenge for India’s foreign policy as it has close ties with Iran which is its third largest supplier of crude oil.

In Afghanistan, peace remains elusive even after 17 years of US’ engagement. India’s stand on the Afghan problem remains unaltered.

China’s relentless march towards super-power status has continued emboldening it to make aggressive moves in the South China Sea, weakening ASEAN and keeping military pressure along the Indian borders. The String of Pearls policy and One Belt One Road Initiative, particularly the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), pose additional challenges to Indian security.

However, successive governments in New Delhi have dexterously tackled these pressures. The US and India have achieved “full civil nuclear energy cooperation”, a far cry from 1998 sanctions and severe international opprobrium after India’s

YEARS OF EXCELLENCE

nuclear tests. Though the intended benefits of the nuclear agreement did not materialise, greater spin-off did accrue in the shape of a historic USIndia strategic relationship.

Towards the East, Prime Minister Abe’s initiative of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) has brought together India, the US, Australia and Japan. The purpose is to keep the strategic shipping lanes of “Indo-Pacific” open to international movement. Much as these countries may claim otherwise, it is a loose alliance as a counter to China’s aggressive moves in the region.

China-Korea-US

In the recent developments that are taking place in the Korean peninsula, there are four main actors: Xi Jinping, Kim Jong-un, Moon Jae-in and Donald Trump. The decisions of these men hold great significance for India.

China has been supporting North Korea since the Korean War of 19501953. North Korea has depended on China for energy and food supplies, the two have also shared a common political ideology. China wants to retain a firm grip on North Korea which serves as a buffer state against South Korea where around 29,000 US troops are stationed. But after North Korea conducted a nuclear test in October 2006 and later carried out a nuclear capable missile launch in November 2017, the relations have come under restrained stress.

It is worth noting that Kim Jong–un assumed power in 2011 but his first visit to China was only three months before June 2018 Summit with President Trump.

Seoul and Pyongyang have had an antagonist relationship for seven decades. But apparently a change is in the air. The two Koreas fielded a joint hockey team in the Pyeongchang Olympics, this was

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

25

foreign policy global scenario

North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un on a two-days visit to Beijing (2018).

followed by three summits between Kim and Moon and a fourth was scheduled for September this year.

There is growing recognition of the phenomenon that can best be described as synergizing of Korean nationalism.

The Kim-Trump Summit was an unprecedented political coup by the two leaders who were just a few months earlier calling each other names and threatening each other with destruction, fire and fury.

Denuclearisation of North Korea is perhaps, if at all, a possibility in the future. Nevertheless, Washington and Beijing have a crucial role to play in whatever happens in the years ahead. Should the two Koreas unify, there will be a dramatic flux in the power equations in South Asia and Indo-Pacific.

New Delhi needs to watch these developments very carefully and find ways to leverage its position in the unfolding scenario in the region.

Foreign Policy Dilemma in 2018

The situation has now become complicated with rather difficult options for India’s foreign policy.

On the one hand, China has not allowed any headway in solving the border problem with India while on the other, China’s support for its allweather friend Pakistan emboldens the latter to continue with its wayward ways. China also continues to oppose India’s entry into NSG

26

Trump welcomes President of Republic of Korea, Moon Jae-In in Washington.

and getting a permanent seat in the Security Council. The CPEC further raises Indian concerns.

In spite of the rough edges of SinoIndian relations, India cannot overlook its trade with China that is in excess of $84 billion.

Though Russia continues to be a strategic partner of India, it began losing some of its earlier enthusiasm in view of growing Indo-US relations.

The Modi-Putin Summit in Sochi in May 2018 cleared the air and the level of Russia-India relations were raised to a “special privileged partnership”. However, this does not mitigate Indian concerns about Russia’s close relations with China and Pakistan.

India is the biggest buyer of Russian military hardware. The latest proposal to purchase S 400 system is being opposed by the US. To maintain its strategic independence India is unlikely to acquiesce to US pressure.

India is on the world stage along with Brazil, Russia, China and South Africa in BRICS that works towards sustainable mutually beneficial development. BRICS annual summits matter, they serve to cool down charged atmospherics and strengthen bilateral relations besides creating a strong multinational pressure group.

On the side lines of the summit in South Africa in 2018, Prime Minister Modi and President Putin discussed defence, energy and trade issues.

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

The 2+2 dialogue that took place in New Delhi on 6 September 2018, reinforced the strategic Indo-US partnership. India and the US signed the Communication Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA). Two other agreements have already been signed with the US relating to Security of Military Information in 2002 and a Logistic Exchange Memorandum in 2016.

This strategic closeness has distinct advantages but it also places India at the mercy of the US, greater the dependence greater will be the vulnerability of Indian interests that are not in consonance with those of the US. India may or may not get a waiver to import oil from Iran this time but in future over dependence on any super-power will carry inherent risks—both military and economic.

India is now caught up in the existential power-play between the US, Russia and China. New Delhi has to steer its foreign policy very carefully, it will have to keep its relationship with all three intact and on a strong footing. However, it cannot afford to give in to pressures as that would be the end of India’s strategic autonomy.

India will have to hold its own as all three major powers need its cooperation in different ways just as much as India needs their support.

9

global bond SMART POWER

YEARS OF EXCELLENCE

BUILDING INDIA’S NARRATIVE

IN SOUTH EAST ASIA

The Indian government’s efforts have helped promote a new perspective of India abroad. The last decade has seen India as a hub for international firms that are making long-term productive investments in the country.

Simultaneously, many aspects of Indian culture like music, food, yoga, style, and religions have become fashionable in many parts of the world. However, with no meaningful public diplomacy programme until recently, it is not yet perceived as a political and societal model in other countries.

T

wo events in the recent past have had considerable impact on building India’s narrative in Southeast Asia. In 2017, Prime

Minister Narendra Modi represented India at the ASEAN-India Summit, the East Asia Summit and Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Summit in November 2017 in Manila. This put India at the centre stage of the Asian region, called the Indo-Pacific. It also set the stage for closer engagement ahead of the 25th year of Commemorative Summit which was held in Delhi in January 2018, with ASEAN leaders attending India’s Republic Day festivities. The second event is the recently concluded BIMSTEC MILEX 18, militaries of BIMSTEC member nations barring Nepal were part of a week-long anti-terror exercise at Pune to enhance cooperation in dealing with the challenge of terrorism and insurgency in the region.

Civilisational Connect

India has more than two thousand years of association with Southeast Asia. Its Hindu influence touched all parts of Southeast Asia. Hinduism was State religion of this region from 5th century to 14th century AD. Indian priestly class, the navigators and the merchants introduced Hindu gods, culture, institutions, language, script, art, and architecture to this region. Indian civilisational spread was not associated with dominance, coercion, and violence. In some instance, Indians were in fact, invited to spread enlightenment in the region.

It was the most natural spread of India’s soft power which remained unparalleled for centuries. Empirical evidence of this spread abounds in forms of famous temple architecture of Borobudur and Prambanan in Indonesia, Angkor Wat in Cambodia, temples and pagodas in Thailand, besides presence of Sanskrit words in Bahasha Indonesia and epic tales of Ramayana in folk literature.

Uma Sudhindra The writer is a current affairs analyst, with focus on politics and defence.

An alumnus of Fergusson College and JNU, she has been writing about international relations, political systems and the humane aspect of armed forces. She is also a social entrepreneur, running her own NGO, which empowers women by addressing their safety and harassment issues. She is part of the Forum For Integrated National Security.

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

27

global bond SMART POWER

Chinese President Xi Jinping welcomes Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Xian

Given the civilisational interface, the Southeast Asian countries are termed as “civilisational neighbours”.

The cycle of strategic considerations of the last two decades has shown the world that China and India’s growing planned presence in Asia is accompanied by a relative decline in influence of United States in the region. These gradual but farreaching processes have impacted the balance and power structure in Asia. India’s efforts to strengthen its soft power in Asia have interesting strategic implications for a region that is perceived as becoming Chinadominated. Singapore’s Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew observed in this regard: “India can project power across its borders farther and better than China can, yet there is no fear that India has aggressive intentions.”

Despite enjoying such positive impressions in the region, India’s soft power credential is yet to match up to Chinese expansive confidencebuilding measures.

Chinese Narrative

In recent times, President Xi Jinping has shown greater exuberance to project China’s regional and global power. This exuberance can be attributed to the decline of American influence in the

28

Indo-China Border

region. With Trump’s Asian policy distancing itself from commitment and the perceived domination threat of China in the region, India gets an excellent opportunity to engage in foreign policy activism that is in the region’s interests.

China’s image changed after 9/11 with parts of Asia being identified as hubs of terrorism. This created enough room for China to engage Southeast Asia culturally and economically. Consequently, the region’s perception of China changed significantly. Its refusal to devalue its currency, coupled with generous economic packages and low interest loans to Southeast Asian countries contributed to the image China was building as a responsible power instead of hegemonic one.

Given China’s rich heritage and global appeal such heritage enjoys, it is natural that culture emerges as a strategic tool in China’s engagement efforts. This is more so in its neighbourhood where footprints of Chinese culture already exist, through the Chinese diaspora.

Chinese approach has included the Confucius Institutes to weave the culture and language story, the Buddhist link, scholarships

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

for foreign students to study in Chinese universities, development assistance to countries right from Sri Lanka to Indonesia, Cambodia, Vietnam and Myanmar.

Lessons For India

India has hardly enjoyed sustained benign external conditions in its immediate neighbourhood and this has impacted the relationship building in Southeast Asia also. The history of India’s relations in the region has many facets including lack of cohesive strategy and missed opportunities.

In practice, India’s soft power remains weak for two primary reasons: 1. Indian diplomacy’s neglect of soft power as an important tool of statecraft and has only recently understood the relevance of ‘cultural diplomacy’.

2. Soft power cannot really exist without the shield of hard power.

One of the most eloquent proponent of India’s soft power, former Union Minister of State for External Affairs - Shashi Tharoor, says classifications of major power status were becoming archaic and India has now become a great power mainly by the ‘power of example’ or in other words because

9 of its ‘soft power’. His contention today it is not the size of the army or economy, but the country that tells the “better story” which would qualify as a global player. He also believes India’s soft power has emerged until now independently of the government’s policies. In other words, a soft power by default, India must now enhance its co-optive power.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi seems to be doing exactly that. The advantages of hard power are that they can be measured and compared, and their direct effects are palpable. Since soft power is intangible and takes a long time to become visible, it is difficult to measure its actual impact.

India’s Soft Power

The following soft power components have already contributed in tremendous ways to fostering relations between India and her various neighbours. It is time now for a more structured approach.

Act East Policy: India has long standing historical links with Asian countries. Its riches have attracted traders and travellers for thousands of years. Buddhism spread from India to China and beyond, leading to a sustained exchange of ideas since ancient times. The proposal by India to rebuild the once internationally famous Nalanda Buddhist University in partnership with China, Japan, South Korea and Singapore serves as testament to those historic cultural ties. In the last decade, Indian diplomats have sought to improve relations, albeit weakly, through the ‘Look East’ policy based on the same cultural ties. Today, Indian engagement has become more pragmatic with Southeast Asian countries, relying as much on the contemporary as well as its heritage.

In Southeast Asia, efforts are afoot to promote networking of universities, co-operating on accreditation,

exchange of students and professors, joint research projects in a variety of subjects. India gives scholarships to many Asian students to encourage them to study in Indian universities.

The Indian government also helps in the establishment of chairs related to India and its languages in universities of Southeast Asia. The Indian diaspora accounting for an estimated 6.8 million people of Indian origin is a crucial actor in wielding influence over the region. Narendra Modi has been able to connect with this diaspora in a way no other elected leader had done before.

YEARS OF EXCELLENCE

the Asian ideal for family holidays, even when archaeological and other attractions themselves are stupendous. A convenient, clean, and well-connected transport network can do wonders in contributing to the success of tourism in the country. The scope to develop India as a destination for adventure tourism, sporting vacations and family holidays involving eco, rural, farming and plantation tourism is unparalleled. Given the variety of resources available, India can quickly move into a different league of tourism altogether.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi and few others in the government seem to have realised the importance of telling a “better narrative” Tourism: The flow of tourists between Asia and India has increased both in absolute numbers and in relative terms in recent years, although not dramatically.

Particularly, religious tourism is a potentially greater asset in India’s relations with Asian nations.

Buddhist tourism, already a major draw, has significant potential to generate further arrivals from Asian markets. The launch of special luxury trains doing the Buddhist tourism circuit is a testimony to that.

A lot more must be done in terms of value for money proposition available in other Asian tourist destinations, and minimum requirements of comfort, safety and facilities tourists have come to expect during their travels abroad.

Often overpriced, sub-standard hotels, combined with certain chaotic local conditions for tourists, and unsympathetic State bureaucracies in charge of tourist sites, are hardly

Bollywood: Thanks to technology, Indian movies have reached a growing global audience and have increased familiarity with Indian society and culture. India’s film industry, ‘Bollywood’, is probably the largest and farthest reaching medium for Indian culture. It is today the world’s largest film industry, surpassing Hollywood with an annual output of over 1,000 movies. However, this huge industry has not been harnessed effectively to make it part of the soft power approach. While scholars of soft power studies can link American popular culture with the US’ ‘co-optive’ power, the effects of the globalisation of India’s diverse culture are not so explicitly political. For example, unlike Hollywood’s approach during Cold War, Indian films have never really promoted a certain model for political and cultural development.

The Information and Broadcasting Ministry can openly engage few directors and actors in dialogues

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

29

global bond SMART POWER

where their inputs can be sought to make movies showcasing India’s strengths. While the world loves entertainment pot boilers, we also should have classic movies showcasing the unseen aspect of India. More movies like Bhaag Milkha Bhaag, Manjhi, Ghazi and Raazi effectively build the Indian narrative.

Political Legitimacy: In a world awash in conflict stemming from failure to generate unity within nations, India’s success in weaving together so many ethnic, religious, caste and other strands within its society is a singularly strong advertisement for Brand India. This is despite the frustration in fighting economic and social inequality. Hard power without soft power stirs up resentments and enmities; soft power without hard power is a confession of weakness. This description easily applies to India, as we seek to attain and to project globally pluralist diversity and tolerant secularism.

The enduring nature of Indian democracy is highlighted time and again. My professor, Dr S D Muni, from my alma mater, in a survey of the democracy dimension in Indian foreign policy, examines why promotion of democracy has not evolved as a central theme of India’s international relations. “Some analysts have attributed this to India’s policy of non-alignment which drew its rationale from anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism”, in connection with which “democracy promotion might have breached the solidarity of the movement led by India under the umbrella of non-alignment”. He quotes Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee in 2001 as stating: “The shape of our new world order will be determined by the success of pluralistic democratic societies in destroying the ideology of bigotry and hatred which drives terrorism”. To our credit, we have never wavered from our philosophy and stand that democracy

30

cannot be imposed from the outside; it must be part of the internal governance process.

India has joined several multilateral democracy promotion forums, including Community of Democracies, of which it became a founding member in 2000.

Despite our important democratic achievements, New Delhi had historically shied away from promoting democracy abroad, but since 2000, we have expanded our activities for the development of democracy abroad. In 2005, India joined the UN Democracy Fund and contributed $25 million to it, making it the second biggest donor after USA ($38 million). India’s activities mainly include electoral assistance and programme to strengthen the rule of law. Interestingly, at the regional level, India has linked development assistance with projects of democracy promotion as in Afghanistan.

Work In Progress The Indian government’s efforts have helped promote a new perspective of India abroad. The last decade has seen India as a hub for international firms that are making long-term productive investments in the

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

country. Simultaneously, many aspects of Indian culture like music, food, yoga, style, and religions have become fashionable in many parts of the world. However, with no meaningful public diplomacy programme until recently, it is not yet perceived as a political and societal model in other countries.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi and few others in the government seem to have realised the importance of telling a “better narrative”. India must use its soft power in a more systematic and planned manner. This continuous process requires regular domestic debates on how to balance national interests and political values.

The outcomes of such debates will determine how India finds a right mix between soft and hard power to achieve real influence, or what Joseph Nye, has termed ‘smart power.’

India’s image as an appealing smart power will depend on how effectively the present government will knit and weave various components of hard and soft power, focus on inimical growth models, present a compelling development platform and continuation of strong democratic principles and become an equitable and efficient society.

9

bio-agents CBRN

YEARS OF EXCELLENCE

TOXIC TERROR: ARE WE PREPARED? The distinction between internal and external security is fading. It is famously said, India has secure borders but insecure citizen. Terrorists can slip into our societies, and exploit our openness to inflict massive attacks. Analysis clearly indicates the growing possibility of CBRN terrorism in the Indian subcontinent. We need to be extra vigilant and fully prepared to prevent and deter, and if faced with, respond effectively to CBRN terrorism incidents.

“Terrorists want a lot of people watching, not a lot of people dead.”

Brian Jenkins – RAND Corporation’s terrorism emeritus (1985)

T

he threat of conventional and full scale war has faded. Nuclear saber rattling may be used as mere tools for moral ascendancy and leveraging diplomatic and/or economic advantage. Globalisation and revolution in information technology has caused a spurt in transnational terrorism or ‘Revolution in Terrorist Affairs (RTA)’. CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear) materials have proliferated widely and the expertise required to utilise these is actually within the grasp of terrorists.

Terrorists may resort to offensive use of CBRN material (WMD) to generate widespread panic that could bring down a democratic government or to establish a position of strength from which to negotiate their demands. The Tokyo nerve gas attack by the Japanese cult group, Aum Shinrikyo, on 20 March 1995, had set precedence in the use of WMD. The Anthrax cases in the US and radiation scares across the EU, the gas attacks in Syria and the recent public use of Novichok nerve agents in the UK are other examples. It is but a matter of time when India will be faced with a CBRN Terrorist incident.

Col (Dr) Ram Athavale (retd) The writer is a Veteran Army Officer. Alumnus of the Defence Services Staff College and Army War College, he has been a Key Adviser to the Government of India on CBRN Security. A prolific writer and a CBRN subject panelist in international seminars and conferences, he holds PhD for his Doctoral Research on “CBRN Terrorism: A Crisis & Consequence Management Model for India” from University of Pune, India. He has been a Visiting Faculty at Symbiosis International University, India and Senior Adviser CBRN & Homeland Security to some Industries. For the past three years, he was a Key CBRN Expert for the EU CBRN Risk Mitigation Centers of Excellence and advised Governments of Eastern and Central Africa on CBRN risk mitigation matters.

Emerging Threat With empowerment of citizens, rising aspirations and easy availability of dual-use technology, we are witnessing the emergence of `techno’terrorist, who may resort to CBRN Terrorism. The chance of a significant CBRN incident occurring in India is heightened by several factors:

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

31

bio-agents CBRN

• Inexpensive availability of Chemical / Biological (C/B) agents and their precursors and easily obtainable production processes.

• Portability of small amounts of C/B agents, useful for clandestine purposes.

• Capability of inflicting mass casualties based on limited ability to quickly identify and / or contain the effects of such substances.

• Increased WMD stockpiles, with the potential for theft or acquisition of the weapons by terrorist groups.

• Potential for large-scale impact due to increased media coverage of the use of WMD and high level of psycho-social panic reactions.

It is, therefore, not far-fetched to assume that CBRN threats loom large over India. It requires a frank and serious study about threats and their prevention, vulnerability assessment

and how we are preparing to manage the consequences of such an incident in India.

Nuclear Weapons: As a result of the programme for de-nuclearisation in the former states of the Soviet Union, there are about 500 metric tonnes of U 235 and 300 tonnes of U 239 from dismantled weapons that have to be disposed off. To add to it are the “Suitcase Bombs”. A virtual ‘‘Nuclear black market” has come up in the CAR region. Technological partnerships are rumored to exist among rogue nations and groups.

Radiological Weapons: This weapon disperses radiological material by means of conventional explosions, causing radiological contamination.

Such weapons are called Radiological Dispersal Devices (RDD) or “Dirty Bombs”. The Litvenko poisoning case

and arrest of Dhiren Bharot for seeking to make a RDD in UK are the live examples. The Mayapuri incident of Delhi, involving Cobalt 60, is a wakeup call for Indians. Cesium, Polonium and other radioactive isotopes are potential weapon ingredients.

Biological Weapons (BW): Biological agents like toxins (such as Botulinum Toxin or Ricin) or live pathogens (anthrax) are more potent than chemical agents, since they replicate and multiply in their victims.

Apart from high toxicity and nondetectability by traditional sensors, BW agents can be made from lab samples and stolen material. Trained Intern doctors in Kenya working for Al Shabaab were caught planning an Anthrax attack in Kenya and Europe.

A number of laboratories in India and abroad are working on samples and cultures of deadly bio-agents.

Chemical Weapons (CW): The availability of chemical agents or their ingredients is widespread. They are easy to produce even in a home lab by trained chemists, especially in a country having a vast industrial base like India, China or even Pakistan.

The availability of toxic dual-purpose chemical like Phosgene and Hydrogen Cyanide, as well as toxic industrial chemical like Methyl Isocyanate (which killed 7,000 people in Bhopal in 1984), makes the task of Chemical terrorist easy.

The Future of WMD

Why is it, that despite all the attractiveness and ease of acquiring and handling of C/B agents and proliferation of terrorist groups, have these weapon systems not been fully exploited? Several viewpoints are put forward: a) CBRN weapons (except Nuclear weapons) lack the “explosive or blast effect” and are not spectacular like RDX. b) Alienation of the target population is certain – psycho-social aspect.

32

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

9 c) Dispersal is not easy and high safety standards are required in manufacture, storage and movement. d) Government (and International) retribution would be immediate and violent.

The lack of credible precedence of terrorist use of WMD and the possible reluctance on the part of terrorist to experiment with unfamiliar weapon, further buttress these arguments. To a society over-exposed to media, an unseen threat is more scaring.

Factors which aid in the increased possibility of CBRN terrorism are: a) Beak-up of erstwhile Soviet Union - lack of control over large stockpiles of nuclear weapons, warheads, suitcase

The approach needs a sound CBRN Strategy to be put in place. The strategy would spell out actions or objectives based on National security concerns.

The actions can be divided into three discrete categories: Crisis Prevention, Crisis Management and Consequence Management. These are parallel and overlapping continuums. While we are reasonably experienced in managing natural disasters, the Mumbai attacks did expose our infancy in the field of crisis management. We have learnt our lessons and have instituted many measures and enhanced our capabilities and capacities. However, India still does not seem to be adequately ready to address the Crisis and Consequence management of a CBRN Terrorism event.

Media should aim to prevent and reduce panic and paranoia and help boost the resilience of the community bombs – Black market. b) Easy availability of dual use bio and chemical and fissile material in India’s neighborhood. c) Availability of scientific / nuclear expertise – internet and out of job scientists (Brains for hire). d) The rise of Jehadi fundamentalism – state sponsorship – LeT - the Al Qaida factor.

Key Focus Areas: A Crisis and Consequence management plan should be based on the following four focus areas, integrating training and research: • Preparedness and Prevention.

• Detection and Surveillance.

• Response and Mitigation.

• Crisis command and Communications.

Crisis and Consequence Management

Stake Holders: Contrary to common belief, there are a number of stake-holders in such incidents other than the government agencies: • Government o Intelligence Agencies o Internal Security o Disaster Management o Armed Forces • Industry and transport – especially those using / producing and handling toxic chemicals and toxic waste.

• Medical and Health Care – Public and Private.

While many nations of the world began working on Consequence Management mechanisms of CBRN events during and after the Cold War, real impetus has been acquired post the 9/11 attacks. The USA has put into place a credible Homeland Security apparatus. International initiatives to combat CBRN terrorism under the UN, NATO, EU, SAARC and other global actions have been formalised and are in place.

YEARS OF EXCELLENCE

• Civic Bodies and NGOs. • Citizen • Media Areas of Interest: While the Indian Government and other agencies including international have begun a lot of work towards increasing resilience against CBRN incidents, certain areas which need more emphasis are as follows: • Proliferation prevention – Internal and External. A lot needs to be done to secure our borders and material that is coming in and going out of the country. CBRN Scanners, sound intelligence and comprehensive pacts with other countries are required.

• Streamline incident prevention measures – surveillance, networking, crime prevention. Strong apex structure and synergy amongst the various agencies involved is the need of the hour.

• Enhance first response capability.

• Increase capabilities of NDRF Battalions – extend the concept to SDRFs to increase footprint and reduce reaction times.

• Equipment – this is a major shortcoming. We need capacitybuilding in State-of-the-Art equipment for detection, protection, decontamination and medical management of CBRN casualties.

• Improving health infrastructure – wider footprint, greater density, surge capacity handling.

• Networking of government and private agencies – resources, expertise and network of private NGOs, emergency management organisations and medical services need to be synergised with government programmes.

• Fool proof communications, especially in interior areas.

• Develop and engage Media as responsible stake-holders.

Irresponsible media coverage and urge to hit public with “Breaking News” needs to be controlled. CBRN incidents have a huge psycho-social impact even on the ‘worried well’.

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

33

bio-agents CBRN

Rescuing Victims of Sarin Gas attack, Tokyo, 1995.

Media should aim to prevent and reduce panic and paranoia and help boost the resilience of the community.

• Logistics is a major concern and needs special attention.

• Awareness enhancement – Education, drills, creation of Citizen Emergency Response Teams (CERT) in localities, companies, colleges and institutions. Community involvement is a crucial aspect as more often than not, the local citizenry will be the first responders.

The Way Forward

To effectively prevent, counter and combat CBRN incidents, there is a need to synergise efforts of all concerned agencies. The aspect is dealt in three heads of Comprehensive Management, System Essentials and International Support.

Comprehensive Management: The State needs to evolve a comprehensive programme to cover all aspects of Crisis Prevention, Management and Consequence Management. Focus should be on the following: • Regulations based on international standards.

• Life cycle safety – Source to Disposal and Destruction.

• Threat or Vulnerability Identification.

• Establishing controls to prevent threats.

34

Stolen canisters with radioactive material in Poland.

• Surveillance, Intelligence and Early Warning.

• Preparedness for Response. o First Responder – Situational response. o Medical Response.

• Containment and Decontamination.

• Resumption of safe operations or activity (Business Continuity).

System Essentials: While planning CBRN Security to installations, government infrastructure and public places, some key issues that need to be taken note of are listed below: • Detection systems at airports, ports, border posts, government buildings, public places and cargo handling areas – Controlled access system integrated with CBRN sensors.

• Perimeter security scanning for CBRN threats including stand-off detectors and meteorological sensors at Critical Infrastructure.

• CBRN Detection systems integrated with Situational Awareness and Hazard Mapping system – integrated into security control station.

• Segregated HVAC system with CBR Filters and clean chambers for temporary housing at important government and public buildings.

• Casualty management and evacuation measures – casualty bags, resuscitators, CBRN ambulances and enabling hospitals for surge capacity handling.

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

• Decontamination equipment for on-site and detailed decontamination including casualties.

International Support While the Indian Government has its task cut out, international support is essential to ensure the containment of the threat. Areas that seek international cooperation are as given below: • Proliferation prevention.

• Sharing of CBRN intelligence.

• Expert assistance – Best practices seminars, workshops.

• Industry participation – CBRN mock drill culture – awareness enhancement.

• Technology sharing and availability of ‘state-of-the-art’ equipment.

• Medical and health care.

Conclusion The distinction between internal and external security is fading. It is famously said, India has secure borders but insecure citizen. Terrorists can slip into our societies, and exploit our openness to inflict massive attacks. Analysis clearly indicates the growing possibility of CBRN terrorism in the Indian subcontinent. We need to be extra vigilant and fully prepared to prevent and deter, and if faced with, respond effectively to CBRN terrorism incidents.

electronic warfare NATIONAL SECURITY

9

YEARS OF EXCELLENCE

Revolutionary Technology – Digital India While there are many initiatives taken by the current government but for Digital India and Start-Up India to be safe and secure, the country desperately needs a defence and technical start up working on specific objectives with a futuristic plan of action and a clear vision.

F

or any nation, national security has been the priority area which needs attention to bring about consciousness and awareness among the general public. The national security has trickled down from institutions to the public as human security apart from defence of a

nation being the core responsibility of any government. However, in comparison to sensitisation among the masses during the 1960s in the aftermath of the India-China War when radio was used as a medium to sensitise public, nowadays contemporary debates are more of cacophony rather than any constructive discourse about

Dr Pankaj Jha The writer is senior faculty with Jindal School of International Affairs (JSIA) and Editor-in-Chief of the JSIA Journal. He was Director (Research) with Indian Council of World Affairs and had worked as Deputy Director with National Security Council Secretariat. He teaches national, international security, and defence strategy.

security. Social media through video and audio clips, and increasing use of technology has been able to create momentary emotional upheaval and at the same time triggers confusion and misinformation. The problem has been uninformed and biased debates that have proliferated leading to disenchantment and inertness to critical security among the general public.

Technological Reforms

US Air Force Cyber update anti-virus software for units to assist prevention of cyberspace hackers

National Security apparatus within India which comprises of the security agencies, governance institutions, military force and associated institutions has not been able to put a visionary perspective on those challenges that are going to get magnified in the coming years. The creation of the Cyber Command Center and also related institutional network shows that

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

35

electronic warfare NATIONAL SECURITY

Indian establishment is very slow in making and even proposing reforms.

The bigger question that needs to be asked at this juncture is the fact that whether India security apparatus is ready for electronic warfare and also takes cognizance of the disruptive technologies which are emerging on the horizon?

According to Collins dictionary, technology has been defined as, “methods, systems, and devices which are the result of scientific knowledge being used for practical purposes”. Therefore, disruptive technology becomes the next phase of evolution in the technology process. According to Prof Clayton M. Christensen ‘disruptive technology dislodges the prevalent and in-use technology through new innovation of a product which shakes up the existing production processes and creates new industry’.

The disruptive technologies are those methods that are meant

36

to disrupt the existing technical order and can create wealth and knowledge but at the same time can be used for disrupting the security networks for benefits. In terms of costs benefit analysis, these are low costs solutions to jeopardising the existing networks and even cripple enemy in terms of network centric operations and also countering the advancing enemy through mechanical and high technology means. The helmet mounted theatre awareness, the swarming technology under which small mechanised drones can inflict damage on the military and sensitive institutions such as nuclear plants, can create havoc and might pose a critical challenge to the national security apparatus. So, are these disruptive technologies so life and system threatening that these need to be addressed on a priority? Then the possible answer is yes. The machine learning and the artificial intelligence has been working in

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

the background generating data and also capturing the behavioural tendencies of people. As already, the smart phone has even the biggest data capturing device which seeks permission to access photos, video, microphone and even camera of devices making it a viable spy in case of emergencies.

These smart phones can be used for location tracking, surveillance about a person’s location in the last six months or even more. There has been talk with regard to data privacy and the universal codes for any security or data breach but as it is well known that United States National Security apparatus has hacked into phones to gather data as well as related intelligence. So, is India prepared for it? Institutions like National Technical Research Organisation and even Research and Analysis Wing (R&AW—India’s external intelligence agency) have lacked the manpower required to prepare themselves for such futures.

9 Suspicion on Aadhaar

The data vault and even Aadhaar has been seen as a vulnerable domain. The Aadhaar system is based on a platform which has been sponsored and promoted

by CIA. Then how can India as a nation protect its citizens from this data breach or an infused crisis by an adversarial country? In any hypothetical scenario, if the Indian banking system data is hacked and even there is a rumor which is created that in India millions of bank accounts have been hacked and the money has been transferred aboard would create serious law and order problem across the country. It may take a while for the government to bring the situation under control but by that time arson and looting would have caused a heavy damage to the public assets and money. The manifestation of new technology is seen in the case of BITCOINS (virtual currency) which is illegal tender but is used by few terrorist organisations for transferring money and making payments for weapons.

As these are not trackable and have very high encryption it is used as an alternative to Swiss banking system.

Armed Drones

Apart from the civilian implications, does India have the necessary wherewithal to counter the scourge of the robotic army which has artificial intelligence embedded into them and have high sensors which can detect human motions and body temperature through thermal scanning to even kill the highly professional camouflaged soldier.

Already, the armed drone warfare has been seen as future of warfare and therefore improvised drones which can carry small explosive payloads and can be used to destroy vital targets or persons with swiftness and accuracy.

be used to create panic and also increase collateral damage. Further, the counter measures need to be started in right earnest otherwise there might be times when the attack through disruptive technologies might not have any counterveiling force or technology available at the right time. Is India lacking in the whole process and the answer will be a pessimistic yes. Within the Indian security establishment is still languishing in the bureaucratic era where letters and faxes still prevalent.

Each bureaucrat is given a personal assistant who types letters on his / her personal computer which is linked to the internet as afterwards the person might have to forward the email to person marked in the letter. The whole channel is insecure and it would require a dormant virus to act in the background and send all information. The Stuxnet

YEARS OF EXCELLENCE

virus created by Israel is the perfect example which jeopardised Iranian nuclear programme.

Lost Workforce

The bureaucrats don’t understand much about the disruptive technologies as this was magnified when India was late to address the issue of cyber security. The best IT and network brains in country leave their motherland to work abroad because for them it is a Herculean task to make a bureaucrat understand the technical nuances.

The late decision making has forced many of the promising minds to migrate to US and even some have been assigned projects by China to work on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. China has proved to be a leader in the futuristic technologies through siphoning and stealing technology and has forced

The helmet mounted theatre awareness, the swarming technology under which small mechanised drones can inflict damage on the military and sensitive institutions

Within India, there are urban centers having high concentrated populations and disruptive technologies can

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

37

electronic warfare NATIONAL SECURITY

foreign entities to part with their state-of-the-art technologies in the civil sectors for profits or payments.

In the military sector, it has created a niche for itself through reverse engineering and copying the best version of defence equipments. Primarily, the source of such technologies has been Russia which has parted with these technologies inadvertently and China made full use of such lopsided military trade to reverse engineer few of the Russian aircrafts such as Su-27, Su-30 and many other variants to create Chinese versions. In fact, the need to fight wars in virtual space has been felt by many countries and projects even though very nominal have been commissioned.

Estonia is an example to emulate to make secure systems and cyber networks. Within India, futuristic technologies need impetus both from the government and the technical institutions. In fact, the futuristic technologies need structural support and also bringing best minds in the country together to create an evolutionary technical eco-system.

38

First and foremost, India would have to stop using gadgets and phones from adversarial country as these can be potential spy devices Threats Galore

The core issues which might be threatening for the national security are the drones and UAVs for surveillance and targeted killings, quantum computing and cyber espionage and lastly, the role that machine learning can undertake and even collect data and information in the background.

The hypothetical example is the phone of a senior official gets activated and starts acting as a surveillance gadget whenever the person gets closer to South Block or for that matter, Prime Minister’s office. The unique synergy between the GIS location tracking along with GPS as well as machine learning could be dreadful and also seriously jeopardise the basic fundamentals of the national security.

India would have to prepare for all exigencies and first and foremost would have to stop using gadgets and phones from adversarial country as these can be potential spy devices.

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

In the end, one can very well say that there are structures and minds which are existent in India but rather than instituting committees and commissioning bureaucratic edifice it should be a startup that must be with active intervention of government but it must have best minds in the country working for proposing solutions and working on a time bound approach. Rather than working on the grade pay and the pay structure the best in industry pay and perks should be providing with minimal intervention form the government. While there are many initiatives taken by the current government but for Digital India and Start-Up India to be safe and secure, the country desperately needs a defence and technical start up working on specific objectives with a futuristic plan of action and a clear vision.

nation security strategy DEFENCE PROFICIENCY

Construct Viable MilitaryIndustrial Complex It is quite apparent that major arms exporting countries realise that with a weak defence industrial base and continuing two front threat conventional, nuclear and hybrid war threat perceptions, India’s appetite for imported defence equipment is going to be virtually insatiable. Thus, it greatly serves their business and geo-political interests to ensure the status quo by deftly regulating India’s geo-political environment as also preventing emergence of a robust indigenous defence capability.

O

ne of the hottest geo-political trouble spots in the world underwent a transformation on 12 June 2018, the day when the historic Trump–Kim Summit took place in Singapore. North Korea pledged to roll back its nuclear programme. The USA removed North Korea from the list of international ‘Pariah’, it also assured full support for North Korea’s economic development, as also for the increasing cooperation between North and South Korea.

The meeting was a radical shift from earlier US policy, and it has ushered insecurities in Asia Pacific, notably Japan, ASEAN and China. India cannot really take US’ support for granted. A new out-ofthe-box approach may be needed as global power equations are now in a state of flux.

North Korea has always been China’s proxy to tie down US forces in the Pacific Ocean, stationed to protect Japan, South Korea and Taiwan; initially against the Soviet-Chinese and later, against the Chinese aggressive designs/domination.

9

YEARS OF EXCELLENCE

Brig (Dr) Anil Sharma (RETD) MMS from Osmania University, PhD (System Dynamics Modeling of National Security Strategy and Force Restructuring), the writer is Fellow of Army War College.

He has been Head of Office of Net Assessment and Professor and Director at University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, Dehradun. He has published number of papers on strategy and security and is currently working with Vivekananda International Foundation. He has evolved integrated NSS model in his PhD and has subsequently drafted the NSS while serving MoD.

If the trajectory of detente moves consistently, the USA is bound to thin out its presence or alternatively re-posture more strongly opposite the Chinese in the South China Sea. Progressively, the two Koreas may move towards the unification to emerge economically and militarily powerful nations.

Koreans are fiercely nationalistic.

Historically, they have had a positive relationship with China and animosity with Japan. This may undergo a change and the two Koreas may align more closely with Japan and the USA.

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

39

nation security strategy DEFENCE PROFICIENCY

Foreign Policy Challenges Japan has been riding on the US security umbrella since World War II. It has hitherto successfully resisted suggestions; both external and internal to review its pacifist constitution and self-defence policy. As fallout of the new geopolitical realities, it will have to adopt an active defence policy and also develop its already formidable military power to balance China, Korea and Russia. It is already on the lookout for new strategic partners of substance like India, Vietnam and Australia in the region.

The US - North Korean rapprochement is a setback to the Chinese strategic interests. It weakens their leverage and exposes their eastern flank against Japan and US, thus they will leave no stone unturned to thwart the further progress of US–

40

Korean talks. China is already under tremendous pressure due to trade war launched by Trump. They are likely to respond with greater accommodation with major SCO countries like India and Russia as also with Japan.

Geo-political Flux

Russia, too, has sensed the uncertain times. Accordingly, it has strengthened relations with China. Conducted large scale exercises with China and struck new energy deals, sold F-400 to China, inviting US sanctions on both countries. It is also mending its relations with China. It is providing stronger support to Iran after its success in Syria. As a player in the Afghan conundrum, Russia has acted to secure its diplomatic and strategic position. It has tried to negotiate with Taliban, is pouring millions in infrastructure, transport and mining sectors of Afghanistan. It has supplied military hardware and

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

training to Afghan military. Russia has found strategic convergence with Pakistan. Both see US’ interests in Afghanistan as inimical to their own. It has invested $2 billion on the Karachi– Lahore gas pipeline. As India is seen shifting to US, Russia is finalising sale of MI-35 helicopters, Russian engines for Pakistan’s indigenous JF-17 fighters as also talks for sale of SU-35 fighter jets and T-90 tanks are on.

There is a strategic rebalancing taking place with implications for India’s strategic interests.

Trump’s America first policy is the genesis of the ongoing uncertainty in the fluid global geo-political situation. It shed the multilateralism that was followed by the earlier US administrations. Trump went ahead with the Summit, at the same time he pulled USA out of WTO pact, environment talks, Iran nuclear deal, etc. This has sent a message that

9

YEARS OF EXCELLENCE

It is clear that India has to pull out all stops to attain its stated but not successfully pursued goal of developing indigenous defence capability

USA is still a dominant power and not a declining one as projected by China and other countries. National interest and sovereignty will be the keyword in the coming international order. The realpolitik is back, with US emerging as the master player, closely followed by China and Russia. This is succeeding for America of course, their economy is stated to be booming with record 4.2 per cent GDP growth unemployment is down to lowest level and the dollar is booming (although China is claiming that in fact American economy is suffering).

America on Upswing

The hallmark of American policy in Trump era is that it is driven by the business model i.e., the way they do business same way they will have relations with other countries or get involved in others’ conflicts only if it is profitable. For example, if India is on board, it must buy military

hardware from them, provide the tariff concessions in trade to reverse the current unfavourable balance of trade status, also have no trade with any country like Iran which is under American sanction. There is public posturing and hard negotiations behind the scene to subdue the other side and then arrive at an agreement that is favourable to Americans.

Some call it Bullying Model, as has happened with Canada few days ago.

The ripple effect of the new US foreign policy of the “method behind the madness” has been very catastrophic on developing and poor countries including India. Oil prices are high, markets are down, and inflation is high with nose driving growth rates.

Looking deeper, it may be surmised that the new US policy iconised by Trump-Kim Summit has accelerated the flow of global wealth towards America, away from the poor and

densely populated countries. China, the new economic giant, may be able to absorb the shock and even counterbalance. But not India, it will have to re-look at its foreign policy and security strategy.

India’s Foreign Policy Reset Reacting to the fluid dynamics, India has acted swiftly. It has reiterated its relations with Russia, signed nine major deals including import of strategic S-400 ballistic missile defence system. It has shown greater accommodation to China, thereby reciprocating similar desire from their side. It has shown its reluctance to Americans in discontinuing oil supply from Iran. Saudi Arabia is also being engaged to secure our energy and diaspora interests. Process of strengthening strategic partnership with Japan is on track. India has also made high level diplomatic contacts

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

41

nation security strategy DEFENCE PROFICIENCY

issues. Indo-Pak relations remain topsy-turvy. The asymmetric war against India goes on. Pakistan’s strategic ties with US (though under strain presently) and China form part of its politico-strategic configuration of power.

US President Donald Trump announces National Security Strategy for Promoting US Interests.

with North Korea to further augment the relationship. India is also acting firm with Pakistan.

Absence of Nation Security Strategy

However, these are only diplomatic reactions. Nation Security Strategy (NSS) requires capacities and capabilities on a long-term basis in the form of a formal guidance documents integrating all the instruments of power. This is done by USA, Russia, China, UK, France and all major countries, but not India. This is a serious lacuna that needs to be corrected without delay.

In the succeeding paragraphs, an outline of national / defence security strategy is flagged taking into account the current geo-political situation as enunciated above.

Suggested NSS

Relations among major powers will continue to remain uncertain.

Clash of interests over energy, geo-political influence / domination, WMD proliferation and hot spots like Palestine, Middle East, Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea (summit not withstanding) and Taiwan may escalate into stand-off or confrontation.

Asymmetric / irregular wars with external / internal contents sweep across Africa and Asian continent,

42

e.g., Sudan, Palestine, Iraq / Syria/ Turkey, Afghanistan / Pakistan, Georgia, Xinjian (China), Khyrgistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Thailand, Philippines and Indonesia. US’ bases are dispersed all across these regions.

South Asia and its neighbouring regions are failing regions, with South Asia having maximum number of failing States. The Indian Ocean Region littorals are full of countries undergoing turmoil and violence. Number of nation States have created / are likely to create irregular forces as part of their formal military doctrinal system. Number of countries possessing nuclear / missile capabilities could increase in future (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Japan).

China continues to engage India in geo-strategic competition by developing favourable, diplomatic, economic and military cooperation profile with South Asian, Southeast Asian and CAR countries vis-à-vis India.

Similar endeavours are underway in West Asia, Africa and Latin America, India-China boundary issue remains unresolved. China retains asymmetric war leverage over India.

There is friction among South Asian countries over political, economic resource sharing, demographic, territorial and ideological cultural

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

In spite of disturbed external / internal conditions, India continues to show impressive growth. In order to sustain and accelerate future growth or prevent decline due to intrusive domino effects, India has to shape a favourable environment.

Threats and Vulnerabilities

India faces daunting threats and vulnerabilities. These are asymmetric war (external cum internal dimension), Pakistan and South Asian challenge, Chinese competition, maritime security for trade and energy traffic, energy security and internal dynamics stabilisation (distributive justice, demographic, governance, environmental). Threats and vulnerabilities are inter-related and inter-dependent. Countering strategy and capabilities will also need to be complex, integrated and flexible.

Burgeoning Defence Import: India’s massive defence import is yet another serious vulnerability.

Salience is as follows: • India is ranked among the top 10 countries in the world in terms of military expenditure. In 1995-2000, India was the sixth largest arms exporter, the bill was $7 billion that was around 50 per cent (in terms of value) of what the largest importer, and Taiwan had spent. Compare it to last 5 years (2013-17). As per The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) reports, India rose to the top, spending over $18 billion, which was more than 12 per cent of that of the second largest importer (Saudi Arabia). That is not all. Add the life cycle costs of spare parts and upgrades etc., and seller nations would finally end up earning

9 many times the cost of platforms they export. Besides the leverage, they will hold over the importer countries during geo-political crisis situations.

• The government has declared its intention of procuring about $10 billion worth of defence products per year in the next 5 to 10 years. Even though India has moved into the world’s top defence spenders club (accounting for 13 per cent of global arms imports), nearly 70 per cent of its expenditure is on imports, with Russia being the biggest supplier. The USA is competing hard to emerge as top exporting partner with France too pitching strongly.

• In contrast, China’s share of global defence imports has dropped to 4.5

and global security challenges have forced countries across the world to rethink their defence strategies and plans. This is certainly the case in the South Asia and Southeast Asian regions. Rapid proliferation of dual use technologies, blurring of external and internal security challenges and shrinking of design to print cycle has synergised military and civilian industry to the extent that the leading players in defence capability localisation also lead in industrialisation.

• It is clear from the ongoing arguments that India has to pull out all stops to attain its stated but not successfully pursued goal of developing indigenous defence capability.

There is urgent imperative to evolve strategic guidance documents to form a framework for developing capacities and capabilities on a long term basis per cent in 2012-16, from 5.5 per cent in 2007-11.

• It is quite apparent that major arms exporting countries realise that with a weak defence industrial base and continuing two front threat conventional, nuclear and hybrid war threat perceptions, India’s appetite for imported defence equipment is going to be virtually insatiable. Thus, it greatly serves their business and geo-political interests to ensure the status quo by deftly regulating India’s geo-political environment as also preventing emergence of a robust indigenous defence capability. The deeper reason for USA signing the COMCASA, the India specific formulation of CISMOA during the just concluded 2+2 dialogue is to open the regulatory doorway for US’ arms exports as also binding the importers to US laws, to derive long term advantages.

• The rapidly changing regional

India’s core values and core interests call for democratic, secular, prosperous, free and just society and all round development within India, South Asia and adjacent regions and the world. India’s security concept is all inclusive. It spans politics, economic, military and technology dimensions. It also traverses human, societal, state and environmental security aspects.

India’s Strategic Area of Interest

India’s vital strategic area of interest extends from the eastern littoral part of Africa along the IOR to Indonesian archipelago. The inner arc includes South Asia, China, Myanmar, Middle arc will comprise West Asia, CAR, Southeast Asia and extended arc will cover entire IOR region.

India’s comprehensive capacities and capabilities should be developed

YEARS OF EXCELLENCE

in balanced and phased manner.

Over internal dynamics and inner arc in short-term (2022), middle arc in mid-term (2028) and extended arc in the long-term. Economic and strategic capabilities, with overriding focus on ‘Make in India’ in defence sector, should be developed concurrently and in a mutually complementary arrangement.

NSS Implementation Salience

Salience of national security strategy implementation will be as follows: • Develop interest based relations with major powers creating large playing and decision-making space.

Hedge our intrinsic comprehensive national power advantage in our relationships.

• Our role and influence in regional partnerships and forums to be strengthened.

• Competition dynamics of China and any future competitors should be responded with a comprehensive package. Economic and Defence cooperation to be used as complementary instruments for attaining time bound objectives vis-àvis the competitors. Regional priority to be countries of South Asia, East Asia, West Asia, CAR and IOR region in that priority. Dissuasive military / strategic capabilities against strategic, conventional military maritime and disruptive technological threats will have to be developed keeping our overall perspective in view.

• Challenge of asymmetric war and internal dynamics are likely to intensify in future, these will remain trans-border (sea, land and air) cum internal and network centric in nature. Countering strategy, therefore, will be diplomatic, socio-political, economic, governance and military (army, navy, air force, para-military, police forces, civil administration), all woven into a flexible network superior to that of the challenge being faced newer and integrated organisation will need to be created.

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

43

nation security strategy DEFENCE PROFICIENCY

• India needs to develop indigenous defence production capacities at fast track to avoid its defence budget getting unaffordable and unsustainable.

• Pakistan’s transformation into a friendly South Asia partner as a goal will require ever widening diplomatic, political, economic, information, military (asymmetric war conventional and nuclear / missile) capabilities edge over her.

• Maritime / regional capabilities to be progressively extended, (interest / influence arc) commencing from South Asia, inner arc, middle arc and extended arc. This would imply that capabilities over South Asia (area of influence) and surveillance / cyber cover over inner arc (area of interest)

strategy contained in the NSS will form the over-arching parameters, from which Defence Strategy guidelines will flow. The two documents are interrelated and inter-dependent. Their review will also need to be undertaken in tandem. Defence Strategy could be in two parts as follows: • Defense Strategy: I should cover doctrinal precepts, guiding principles, challenges, defence objectives and implementation guidelines for the entire defence / security enterprise (force employment and force transformation) of the country.

• Military Strategy: This will amplify the military facets as a framework of our strategic focus. It should enable the armed forces to support and implement

Indian Army after ‘Operation All Out’ in 2017 in Kashmir.

and so on. Joint integrated and interagency capabilities will be able to hedge against large number of uncertain and unforeseen contingencies besides being cost-effective.

• Strategic / Military assurance will be extended over energy and Indian diaspora security. Both are India’s vital economic / strategic interests.

the NSS and Defence Strategy in war as also during peace time competition.

It would lay down military implications of defence objectives, conceptual issues, broad operational and capability overview, range of military missions, technology and organisational aspects, specifically related to missions and threats in the threat scenarios.

Suggested Defence Strategy

Strategic Defence Review

Flowing out of the NSS will be Defence Strategy. Defence Strategy will postulate various dimensions of military power and its application in sync with overall national power.

Goals, objectives and implementation

44

The SDR will flow out of the NSS and the current defence / military strategy, as also the previous SDR (whenever applicable). NSS provides top level and NDS provides more specific guidance to the SDR. The NMS will

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

be reflected in the SDR as also in a separate document. However, there must be a projection into the future, an innovation or we would indeed always be fighting yesterday’s wars. In order to make it broadly relevant up to next 15 or more years, a mechanism for extrapolating (linear and nonlinear) present into the future, has to be incorporated. From this will evolve our long-term integrated perspective (LTIPP) and long-term technology (LTTP) plans for the armed forces.

Integrated System

An analysis of the aspects covered above will bring out inter-dependence and inter-play of the various organs of the State. An integrated security management system is illustrated in Fig 1. The political direction is the major arrow, while the military-technical feedback is a thinner arrow, but needs to be taken at the politico–military level. The process should further be a layered one, passing through policy coordination committees, followed by probably Deputy’s Committee, at the Deputy NSA’s level and then through a Principal’s Committee (NSA’s level) before making to the NSC and then to the Cabinet Committee for Security (CCS). It also brings out the overlaps of various ministries which need to be understood and synergised through an integrated, inter-active, inter-agency and joint operating mechanism.

New Delhi needs to be mindful of the fluid nature of the dynamics in security relationships in the Asia-Pacific.

Through its dexterous diplomacy, Indian government has taken care of the required foreign policy reset due to the geo-political uncertainty generated post Trump–Kim meet. However, there is urgent imperative to evolve strategic guidance documents to form a framework for developing capacities and capabilities on a long-term basis to proactively hedge against the uncertainties of a fast changing risk prone geo-political conundrum.

Indo-Pacific DIPLOMATIC STRATEGIES

9

YEARS OF EXCELLENCE

India – Emerging

Regional Power China’s aggressive actions across its borders, most prominently in South China Sea are posing security challenges. After coming to power, Modi worked diligently to neutralise China’s expansionism by further strengthening alliance with the USA and Japan. This was possible due to an emerging triangle in the world politics.

India-US-Japan is a new alliance with a common agenda to contain China. The trilateral bonhomie has left China restless and it is now looking for ways to isolate India in Asia. Keeping this in mind, the Dragon has forayed into Nepal with cheque-book diplomacy.

T

he Indo-Pacific Ocean was one of the areas which have been an ignorant part of Indian foreign policy for decades. The term ‘Indo-Pacific’ defines a vital and contiguous arena encompassing the eastern Indian and western Pacific Oceans. This moves along with the new synergy of Quadrilateral Security Dialogue among the United States, Australia, India and Japan.

The Quad was initiated in 2007 by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. The Indo-Pacific construct has economic and strategic values.

Prime Minister Abe’s widely cited ‘Confluence of the Two Seas’ speech delivered before the Indian Parliament in 2007. Australia’s

2017 foreign policy White Paper referred to a vision of an ‘open, inclusive and prosperous IndoPacific region, in which the rights of all States are respected.

Prof Satish Kumar The writer is Dean and Head of Political Science, Central University of Haryana. PG, MPhil and PhD from JNU. Coliminist for Hindi and Newspapers. He has published four books and many research papers.

India’s Prominence

US President Donald Trump undertook a five-nation tour of Asia last year where he strongly advocated the importance of the Indo-Pacific region. It is clear that the Indo-Pacific construct is a response to perceptions that China is deploying infrastructure development and investments in the region for geo-political gain. IndoPacific explicitly includes a rising India, whose significance to the future

India, US, Japan to fund Indo-Pacific region under various projects.

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

45

Indo-Pacific DIPLOMATIC STRATEGIES

balance of power in Asia is obvious. It also focussed on rules-based system on the high seas. The current Indian government, perhaps even more than its predecessors, also places great value on India’s relationships with ASEAN member-States through a revamped ‘Act East Policy’. The US National Security Strategy provided India opportunities to balance Chinese power through its Act East Policy.

The 2015 Maritime Security Strategy specifically lists India’s primary areas of maritime interests’ as extending from, at the most westerly points, the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea, the east coast of Africa littoral and the southwest Indian Ocean region island nations to, at the most easterly reach, the Andaman Sea to India’s east, whose littoral states include Myanmar, Thailand and Indonesia.

China’s Presence

One of the major policies of China is to prevent India from emerging as a regional power in Asia. That is how it started different initiatives to hold back India within its own periphery.

The initiative’s flagship project, the $62 billion China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), seeks to link China to the Indian Ocean through Pakistan’s Gwadar port.

In parallel, the BRI’S Maritime Silk Road traverses key strategic nodes across the Indian Ocean.

Pakistan, Chittagong in Bangladesh, Kyaukpyu in Myanmar, and reports of the leasing of islets for this purpose in the Maldives, as well as a significant increase in naval deployments in the Indian Ocean, including submarine visits to the ports of Colombo and Karachi.

China is also emerging as a supplier of critical naval hardware in the region: it sold two refurbished dieselelectric submarines to Bangladesh in November 2016 and is constructing eight submarines for Pakistan. India aims to selectively challenge China’s infrastructure projects in South Asia with Indian alternatives, including economic support, and port and energy development. China has stepped up assertive patrolling in the South China Sea and increased naval deployments in the Indian Ocean, concerns in India about active patrols by nuclear powered Chinese submarines have resulted in a greater emphasis on nuclear deterrence at sea.

India’s Major Initiatives

Under the current leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India for the first time aspires to become a

In 2017, China established for the first time a permanent naval presence in the Indian Ocean through its first overseas military base in Djibouti, on the Horn of Africa. New Delhi’s concerns centre on both Beijing’s increasingly assertive policies and China’s growing influence in the Indian Ocean, which appears to India as a strategy of encirclement. China’s initiatives include port development projects at Hambantota and Colombo in Sri Lanka, Gwadar in

46

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

‘leading’ power in the Indian Ocean, seeking to take on greater roles and responsibilities in the region. In 2015, Modi engaged in a purposeful spree of island hopping, visiting Seychelles, Sri Lanka and Mauritius, where Modi has sought to expand bilateral maritimesecurity and defence cooperation with island and littoral States. The Modi government has provided defencerelated lines of credit, and overseen the launch of a coastal-surveillance radar project in the Seychelles; it plans construction and upgrading of airstrips in many littoral States.

He became the first Indian prime minister in decades to unveil an Indian Ocean vision. China is not a natural part of the Indian Ocean. Indian Ocean has two more characters. Modi has launched significant initiatives to develop India’s port infrastructure, seeking to use the civilian maritime sector as a driver of employment and economic growth. He has also placed an emphasis on coastal and maritime security in counter terrorism. The Modi government has overhauled coastal security, and

9

YEARS OF EXCELLENCE

seize control of the sea. It brings all the major powers into close proximity.

The dominant powers are India, China and Japan. The US likes to be behind the scene, promoting joint ventures of India and Japan.

The quest for regional leadership in Asia is shaped by several competing visions and strategic, political and economic factors. On issues of economic governance, China seeks to consolidate its position through mega agreements like the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and its ambitious Belt Road Initiative (BRI). India also seeks to

Vietnamese leader (fourth from left) participates in the ASEAN meet.

maritime-domain awareness is a central theme in the 2015 Maritime Security Strategy.

Strategic Interests – India and Quad

India refused to participate formally in China’s May 2017 BRI forum, citing objections to CPEC as a project that ignores core concerns on sovereignty and territorial integrity. This has led to a larger role for Indian surveillance and an acceleration of India’s drive to put nuclear weapons to sea. India is certainly looking beyond the Indian Ocean, which helps explain why it is amenable to participating in the Quad. India has sought to upgrade its bilateral strategic partnerships with the United States, Japan, Australia and Vietnam. In August, 2016, India signed a memorandum of understanding with the United States to provide mutual military access to each country’s support facilities, and in December 2016, the US accorded India the status of a major defence partner. India and Japan upgraded their relationship to a ‘special strategic partnership’.

India has also provided Vietnam with patrol boats, a $ 500 million line of credit for defence spending, access to satellite data for monitoring its own

As economic power increasingly concentrates in Asia, an illiberal Asian order fraught with contestation and conflict would prove to be problematic for the international system as a whole waters, and submarine and combat aircraft training. The Modi government has also stepped up its engagement with ASEAN. A joint statement at the January, 2018 ASEAN-India Summit in Delhi sought to strengthen maritime cooperation. The Indian Ocean is the focus of India’s strategic ambition for several reasons. It occupies an influential place in both India’s geography and its elite imaginations.

It is the locus of India’s most pressing strategic interests. It is also the place where India can build and lead a counter-order to China’s BRI.

Future Trends The South China Sea is fast becoming the world’s most important waterway.

As the main corridor between the Indian and Pacific Oceans, the sea carries one third of global maritime trade, worth over $5 trillion, each year.

China has begun to assert its claims more vigorously and is now poised to

play an active role in determining the region’s economic architecture with initiatives like the International North South Transport Corridor (INSTC), the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) and the Bangladesh, Bhutan, India and Nepal (BBIN) Initiative.

US’ Role in Indo-Pacific

China is already well ahead of the race in building its capacity to influence norms in this respect. For example, it is the world’s largest e-commerce market, accounting for more than 40 per cent of the value of e-commerce transactions worldwide.

Traditionally, the United States provided security and governance in the Indo-Pacific. The United States has started offshore balancing in Asia.

It has started helping countries like India and Japan in order to improve their capacity to check hegemonic rising powers such as China and to

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

47

Indo-Pacific DIPLOMATIC STRATEGIES

Offending India will only push her into the rival camp, creating more problems for the Dragon ensure a rule-based order in Asia.

The United States is increasingly exporting defence equipment to India and is participating in the annual Malabar navy exercises, meant to shape a maritime security order in the Indian Ocean Region.

The US has complemented India’s ‘Act East’ strategy with its own existing partnership in Asia. Already, the existing Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA) offers India access to American military facilities in South East Asia.

India-US partnership would give India the opportunities to establish itself as a significant player in the emerging Asian architecture. The Association of Southeast Association, South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), Sanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), and other economic and political groups would likely proliferate, creating their own dynamics. America’s withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TTP) may be a first indication of this possibility. As economic power increasingly concentrates in Asia, an illiberal Asian order fraught with contestation and conflict would prove to be problematic for the international system as a whole.

Ongoing insurgencies in the Middle East and North Africa have witnessed the rise of militant Islamic groups such as Al Qaeda, ISIS and Boko Haram, which have spawned offshoots in South Asia in areas like Pakistan, Kashmir, Philippines, Myanmar and the Uyghur region of China. Russia’s intervention in Georgia and its

48

India-Japan-US Joint Naval Exercise Malabar-2016

Indian and Chinese soldier at their respective side of border.

subsequent annexation of Crimea and intervention in Ukraine raised hackles in Europe and the United States.

Action / Reaction

Similarly, China’s aggressive actions across its borders, most prominently in South China Sea are posing security challenges to the US and other democracies like Japan, South Korea and India. After coming to power, Modi worked diligently to neutralise China’s expansionism by further strengthening alliance with the USA and Japan, something that was not possible during Jawaharlal Nehru’s time and even after him during later Congress governments.

This was possible due to an emerging

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

triangle in the world politics. IndiaUS-Japan is a new alliance with a common agenda to contain China.

The trilateral bonhomie has left China restless; and it is now looking for ways to isolate India in Asia.

Keeping this in mind, the Dragon has forayed into Nepal with chequebook diplomacy. India is strategically located at the heart of China’s energy lifeline and the “Belt and Road Initiative”, therefore offending India will only push her into the rival camp, creating more problems for the Dragon. India, along with Japan and other East Asian countries, has the potential to trigger a series of issues in the South China Sea. The IndiaUS-Japan alliance is active.

9

China threat POWER EQUATION

YEARS OF EXCELLENCE

China: Altering

World Order Clearly, the ‘China threat’ has been seen as a primary motive behind the resurrection of the QUAD and emergence of the Indo-Pacific. Chinese President Xi Jinping has already made clear that China aspires to become a formidable maritime power and this is undeniable that it has been involved in naval expansion since at least a decade.

T

he rise of the Peoples’ Republic of China at the regional and global arena has been one of the defining features of the late 20th century, and more particularly, the past 17 years of the 21st century.

In 2011, when China leapfrogged Japan to become the second largest economy, it was evident that Beijing would strive to translate its economic prowess in other domains of policymaking including its regional and global standing in the comity of nations. Consequently, in 2013, Chinese President Xi Jinping announced the launch of the One Belt, One Road (OBOR) Initiative, which was later renamed as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). It has two components, Silk Road Economic Belt (SREB) and 21st Century Maritime Silk Road (MSR).

to not only reach out to countries across the world, but also strengthen physical, digital, and economic connectivity with them. A rather unpredictable administration in the White House, with Donald J. Trump as the President of the United States, has also provided China with more opportunities. Taken together, the two major powers of the world are advertently, or otherwise, transforming geo-political and geoeconomic realities of the world.

Sana Hashmi The writer is a regular commentator on China’s foreign policy. She is also the author of China’s Approach towards Territorial Disputes: Lessons and Prospects (Knowledge World, 2016).

During his election campaign, United States President Donald Trump had shown a tough stand on China indicating that if he assumes the office of the President, he would take a strong position on China. To a certain extent, the Trump Administration has showed its intent in dealing with China with a tough hand.

For instance, the National Security Strategy (NSS) document, released in December 2017, underscores the point that the United States considers China

Connectivity At Core

Arguably, with BRI emerging as the largest-ever infrastructure and connectivity project, China attempts

US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

49

China threat POWER EQUATION

as a “revisionist power”, which has been tirelessly trying to tweak the rules and norms of the international liberal order to suit its interests. China’s more assertive position on Taiwan issue and the United States-Taiwan relations, increasing efforts with regard to island reclamation and militarisation thereof, lack of transparency in its BRI Projects have been taken upfront by the Trump Administration. Most recently, on 4 October 2018, United States Vice President Mike Pence took a dig on China. He remarked, “Beijing is employing a whole-ofgovernment approach, using political, economic, and military tools, as well as propaganda, to advance its influence and benefit its interests in the United States”.

Navigation in the maritime waters of Southeast and East Asia. Rising American and Japanese bonhomie with India, especially on the strategic and defence front, indicates that the countries involved aim to bring in major stakeholders to not only safeguard but also strengthen the existing liberal order at both the regional and global levels. The QUAD has been revived after a hiatus of 10 years. It could not be materialised in 2007 because of factors such as then Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd Administration’s reluctance to join anything close to an anti-China grouping; Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s resignation and, more importantly, China was not as big a threat as it is now.

QUAD Revival

In November 2017, the senior officials from the four democracies sat down to discuss issues of mutual interests and shared concerns in Manila on the sidelines of the East Asia Summit.

They termed the meeting as “IndiaAustralia-Japan-US Consultations on Indo-Pacific” and called for “Free,

The restoration of the “Quadrilateral” (QUAD) security dialogue, which involves four democratic countries namely: Australia, Japan, India, and the United States, has been seen as a major attempt to counter-balance China and ensure the Freedom of

50

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

Open and Inclusive Indo-Pacific”.

Though the four countries issued four different statements highlighting their respective interests at the end of the meeting, the meeting created a sense of unease in the Chinese corridors of power with some Chinese scholars terming the revival of the QUAD an anti-China coalition. It was problematic to China to such an extent that it regarded QUAD as an ‘Asian North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)’ whose main purpose is to contain China’s rise. Second round of consultation took place in Singapore on the sidelines of ASEAN Senior Officials Meeting in June 2018.

The United States and Japan have emphasised on the need to rebuild QUAD to ensure the Indo-Pacific order. For Australia, the revival of the QUAD ensures the presence of the United States in the region. What it aspires to achieve out of QUAD is engagement with countries such as India and Japan. Also, it provides Australia with an opportunity to cooperate with the United States,

9 amid the latter’s faded interest in the region, while keeping a check on China’s revisionist activities. Also, Australia is increasingly concerned about China’s increasing meddling in its domestic affairs. As far as India is concerned, Doklam standoff and concerns over Chinese overtures in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) under the BRI framework were good enough reasons to agree for the revival of the QUAD.

Shared Responsibilities

Indo-Pacific, as the name suggests, is a confluence of Indian and Pacific Ocean in geo-strategic terms. The vision for Indo-Pacific, as first outlined by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, aims to synergise economic, diplomatic and strategic priorities of Indian and the Pacific Oceans by way of finding common grounds for like-minded countries to ensure the vitality and sustenance of the existing liberal global order led by the United States. While the term Indo-Pacific had been used by the previous administrations in the United States, this is the first time that the use of the term Asia-Pacific has been officially replaced by the Indo-Pacific. What makes it important for the United States this time is that the responsibilities are to be shared by the three other countries to begin with. This helps Trump in fostering his ‘America First’ policy while sharing the responsibility of maintaining stability in Asia with like-minded stakeholders.

Smaller/weaker countries would need full commitment from the United States, but countries such as India and Japan are well-equipped to hold the fort and balance China. In this context, the QUAD is a tool to ensure the realisation of the Indo-Pacific order.

China Sees Containment

Clearly, the ‘China threat’ has been seen as a primary motive behind the resurrection of the QUAD and emergence of the Indo-Pacific. Chinese President Xi Jinping has already made

clear that China aspires to become a formidable maritime power and this is undeniable that it has been involved in naval expansion since at least a decade.

According to a White Paper issued by China highlighting its military strategy in May 2015, “In line with the strategic requirement of offshore waters defence and open seas protection, the PLA Navy (PLAN) will gradually shift its focus from ‘offshore waters defence’ to the combination of ‘offshore waters defence’ with ‘open seas protection’, and build a combined, multi-functional

YEARS OF EXCELLENCE

it to lose its credibility as the guarantor of the international liberal order. While the trade war between the United States and China is looming large, it is also pushing away the friends and allies of the United States. The European Union, Canada, and India are also dragged into the onslaught on imposing tariff duties. All these developments have led to diminishing influence of the United States in Asia.

At the same time, China is increasing its global reach with BRI, and its influence is only rising with time.

China, on its part, considers IndoPacific as an attempt to forestall its rise as the global power and also an obstacle in making BRI a success and efficient marine combat force structure. The PLAN will enhance its capabilities for strategic deterrence and counter-attack, maritime manoeuvers, joint operations at sea, comprehensive defence and comprehensive support.”

China, on its part, considers IndoPacific as an attempt to forestall its rise as the global power and also an obstacle in making BRI a success.

Chinese leadership and officials have conveyed that they perceive “IndoPacific strategy a tool to counter China.”

Highlighting that issues such as the Taiwan issue (and One China policy), South China Sea dispute, and Tibet are its “core interest”, China has showed its determination that it will not submit its “interests” to the external pressure.

QUAD Hurdles However, the Indo-Pacific is still a “construct in making” and has several hurdles to overcome. For instance, the Trump Administration’s rather excessive focus on ‘America First’, withdrawal from the Paris negotiation on climate change, and the TransPacific Partnership (TPP) have caused

China is rapidly modernising its navy, which indicates its aspirations to become a global maritime power are turning into reality. China is systematically and aggressively developing its navy with the objective to possess A2/AD capabilities. Towards that goal, it is acquiring anti-ship missiles, aircraft carriers, and nuclear submarines. These developments are alarming as China is increasingly becoming assertive with respect to its territorial disputes. India-China Standoff at Doklam is a case in point.

China is clearly trying to alter the existing world order and amend the existing balance of power equation at both regional as well as global levels.

Road Ahead

The Indo-Pacific construct, despite its limitations, is an attempt on the part of liberal democracies to preserve, safeguard and strengthen the regional and global liberal order. Keeping China at bay, the Indo-Pacific construct projects China as a “revisionist power”.

However, divergent priorities and perceived differences amongst the IndoPacific endorsers are likely to remain critical challenges.

November 2018 Defence AND security alert

51

9

get connected

YEARS OF EXCELLENCE

Defence and Security Alert The First and Only ISO 9001:2015 Certified Defence and Security Magazine in India

The Only Magazine Available On The Intranets Of IAF & BSF

NOveMBeR 2018 | vOLUMe 10 | ISSUe 02 | `150 www.dsalert.org

The First and Only ISO 9001:2015 Cer tified Defence and Securit y Magazine in India

The Only Magazine Available On The Intranets Of IAF & BSF

OCTOBER 2018 | VOLUME 10 | ISSUE 01 | `150

aIr F o

info@dsalert.org

resTrucTuring: india’s opTions

r

8 6T

Ion

ce

I nd

The Only Magazine Available On The Intranets Of IAF & BSF

n Ia

kim-Trump

www.dsalert.org

The First and Only ISO 9001:2015 Cer tified Defence and Securit y Magazine in India

info@dsalert.org

PT

H

Ye ar oF Ince

THE FIRST CHOICE IN THE DOMAINS OF

THE FIRST CHOICE IN THE DOMAINS OF

Defence, Security and World Affairs Wo rl dWid e

Defence, Security and World Affairs Wo r l dW id e

9

YEARS OF EXCELLENCE

Cover.indd 2

10/29/2018 6:21:40 PM

Tenure

Cover Price

Discount

Discounted Price

Shipping Charges

You Pay

1 Year

`1800

30%

`1260

`480

`1740

Subscription Helpline +91-9958382999

Yes, I wish to subscribe to Defence and Security Alert Personal Details Name______________________________________________________ Designation__________________________________________________ Organisation_________________________________________________ Address____________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________ City_______________ Pin Code _____________State________________ Tel__________________________Mob__________________________ Email Id____________________________________________________ Terms and Conditions

Payment Details Attached is a Cheque / Draft (favouring Ocean Media Private Limited) Number_________________________ Dated__________________________ Drawn on_________________________ ____________________________Bank For INR__________________________ (The cheque should be payable at New Delhi, please add `50 for all outstation cheques)

• This subscription offer supersedes all the previous offers. • Your subscription will start with the next available issue after receipt of your payment. • The subscription copies will be dispatched through Registered Post nationally. • 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 of the month, failing which the request for re-dispatch will not be entertained. • P rint and digital editions can also be subscribed online through credit card via our Payment Gateway. • Please address all your subscription related queries through  at subscription@dsalert.org OR call us at +91-11-23243999, 23287999 OR write to us at Subscription Department, Defence and Security Alert, Prabhat Prakashan Tower, 4/19, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi – 110002

April 2018

DEFENCE AND SECURITY ALERT

55