मोदी के मनिला दौरे का विवरण

Amb Satish Chandra, Dean, Centre for National Security and Strategic Studies, VIF

जैसा कि प्रत्येक विदेश दौरे में होता आया है उसे कायम रखते हुए इस बार भी प्रधानमंत्री ने मनिला के अपने दौरे से देश को गौरवान्वित किया है.

अलग-अलग कार्यक्रमों में भागीदारी के साथ ही एक कर्मशील एजेंड़े को ध्यान में रखते हुए प्रधानमंत्री ने आशियान का उद्घाटन समारोह, 12वाँ आशियान समारोह, आशियान बिज़नेस एवं इन्वेस्टमेंट समिट और 12वें पूर्वी-एशिया समिट में अपनी उपस्थिति दर्ज करवाई. कई बड़े नेताओ की उपस्थति में ,अनेक दिपक्षीय एवं एकल बैठकों की मेजबानी करते हुए प्रधानमंत्री ने भारत को आशियान के एक गंभीर, सक्रिय सदस्य के तौर पर प्रस्तुत किया जो मित्रवत होने के साथ ही अपनी सुरक्षा सम्बन्धी मसलों पर बेहद सख्त है और इसको मजबूत करने वाली नियम-आधारित आधारभूत संरचना को विकसित करने हेतु अग्रसर है। प्रधानमंत्री की टिप्पणियों एवं उनके भाषण से हम भारत के आशियान समिट में भागीदारी को लेकर कुछ मुख्य बिंदु इस प्रकार से संदर्भित कर सकते है:-

• एशियान, हिन्द-प्रशांत क्षेत्र में घरेलू सुरक्षा हेतु आधारभूत संरचना को विकसित करने में एक महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका निभाता है. भारत की पूर्व-देखो निति में भी इसका अहम योगदान है.

• आशियान द्वारा भारत यह सुनिश्चिता प्रदान करता है जिसके तहत की वह क्षेत्रीय हितों को बल प्रदान करने और शांतिपूर्ण विकास को बढ़ावा देने हेतु नियम-आधारित आधारभूत संरचना का निर्माण करेगा.

• भारत और आशियान का घनिष्ठ सहयोग,मुख्यतः तीन स्तम्भों पर आधारित है : राजनैतिक सुरक्षा, आर्थिकी एवं संस्कृतिक साझेदारी.

• कट्टरपंथ एवं आतंकवाद के विरुद्ध भी भारत और आशियान को एक साथ खड़ा होना चाहिए.

• भारत का आशियान से जुड़ाव हमेशा से बना रहा है और इसे आगे और भी मज़बूती प्रदान की जाएगी. इसी की शुरुआत करते हुए भारत की राजधानी दिल्ली में दिसम्बर 2017 में आशियान-इंडिया कनेक्टिविटी समिट का आयोजन किया जायेगा जिसमें आशियान देशों से जुड़े मंत्री, कारोबारी, अफ़सर प्रतिनिधि आदि भाग लेंगे.

जनवरी 2018 में आशियान के बड़े नेताओं के लिए आयोजित होने वाले इंडिया आशियान कोमेमोरेटिव समिट के साथ ही भारत आशियान-भारत बिज़नेस एंड इन्वेस्टमेंट मीट एंड एक्सपो भी आयोजित करेगा. भारत,आशियान की बढ़ोत्तरी में भागीदार बनना चाहता है और आशियान की ओर से भी इसी तरह कि पहल की उम्मीद रखता है.

भारत-फिलीपींस की द्विपक्षीय वार्ता के दौरान जिन चार समझौता ज्ञापन पर हस्ताक्षर हुए उनमें उल्लेखित बिंदुओं पर यदि नज़र डालें तो हम यह आसानी से समझ सकते है की भारत के आशियान से क्या सम्बन्ध रहे होंगे. पहले समझौता ज्ञापन में रक्षा, रसद एवं सहयोग, मानवीय आधारों पर सहायता, आपदा-प्रबंधन आदि सम्मलित है तो वही दूसरे में कृषि सम्मिलित है. तृतीय ज्ञापन में कुटीर,लघु एवं मध्य उद्योग शामिल है. चौथे एवं अंतिम ज्ञापन में इंडियन काउंसिल ऑफ़ वर्ल्ड अफेयर्स एवं फिलीपींस सर्विस इंस्टिट्यूट के बीच एक समझौता तय हुआ है.

मोदी की मनिला दौरे से पहले की शाम को एक अहम बात यह हुई की, अमेरिका, जापान, ऑस्ट्रेलिया एवं भारत के बीच सचिव स्तर पर एक वार्ता हुई. इस तरह की चतुर्पक्षीय बातचीत की शुरुआत जापानी प्रधानमंत्री अबे द्वारा एक दशक पहले प्रस्तावित कि गयी थी. इसके पीछे उद्देश्य यह था कि नियम आधारित सिद्धांत को लागू करते हुए क्षेत्रीय आदेश लाये जायेंगे एवं नेविगेशन (पथ-प्रदर्शन) की स्वतंत्रता के जरिये मुक्त-व्यापर को बढ़ावा दिया जा सकेगा.

2007 में भारत-अमेरिका के बीच हुए मालाबार व्यायाम जिसमे जापान और ऑस्ट्रेलिया की नौसेनाएं भी शामिल थी, ऐसे ही प्रयासों में से एक था. मगर चीन के दवाब में ऑस्ट्रेलिया को इस से पीछे हटना पड़ा और यह व्यायाम केवल अमेरिका तक सीमित रहा. उसके कुछ वर्ष बाद 2015 में जापान इसका नियमित सदस्य बना.

इस चतुर्पक्षीय वार्ता कि पहल एक बार फिर से होने की गुंजाईश है. जापान इन तीन लोकतांत्रिक देशों के साथ मिलकर रक्षा, तटीय सुरक्षा और आधार भूत संरचना के विकास हेतु चर्चा करना चाहता है. इस बातचीत के आयोजन से यह साफ़ है कि कुछ समय पहले चीनी विदेश नीति के हावी होने के कारण भारत और ऑस्ट्रेलिया पर बन रही दवाब की स्थिति में कमी आई है.

इस बात में संशय है की इन दोनों देशों का इस क्षेत्र में स्वागत होगा. हालाँकि इस क्षेत्र में चीन के विकल्प के रूप में एक शक्ति की आवश्यकता है पर भारत अकेला अभी सैन्य-शक्ति एवं आर्थिक स्तर पर इतना परिपक्व नहीं है कि इस अहम जिम्मेदारी को निभा सके. साथ ही आशियान के साथ अपने द्विपक्षीय 70 बिलियन डॉलर के आर्थिक निवेश के बाद भी भारत का हिस्सा चीन के 15 प्रतिशत निवेश से भी कम है. इन सब विषयों को मद्देनज़र रखते हुए यह जरूरी है कि भारत इस लोकतांत्रिक चौकड़ी के साथ अपने संबंधों को बेहतर करे और इस क्षेत्र कि बेहतरी और यहाँ शांति-स्थापना पर काम करे जिससे इस इलाके में चीन के आधिपत्य को चुनौती दी जा सके.

इस चौकड़ी की प्रकर्ति को संदर्भित करने के प्रयास में ऑस्ट्रेलियायी विदेश मंत्री ने विवेचना करते हुए बताया कि उन्होंने “हिन्द-प्रशांत क्षेत्र में सम्पन्नता एवं रक्षा क्षेत्रों से जुड़े मसलों पर बातचीत की और इस मसले पर सभी लगभग एक जैसे ही राय रखते हैं और इस ओर काम करने का प्रयास भी करेंगें जिससे कि इस क्षेत्र को खुला और मुक्त रखा जा सके.

सम्बंधित अधिकारियों ने ऐसे कारक एवं कार्यों का निरीक्षण किया है जिससे वे समान उद्देश एवं चुनौतियों पर काम कर सकें. इसमें हिन्द-प्रशांत क्षेत्र हेतु नियम-आधारित आदेश, अंतर्राष्ट्रीय कानून का पालन, नेविगेशन एवं ओवर फ्लाइट की स्वतंत्रता, बेहतर जुड़ाव और हिन्द-प्रशांत क्षेत्र में आतंकवाद के विरूद्ध कार्यवाही और समुद्री सुरक्षा जैसे अहम मुद्दों पर भी ध्यान देने कि बात कही गयी है. अधिकारियों ने एक साथ मिलकर काम करने के मत पर सहमति दर्ज कराई है जिससे कि जन-संहार के बड़े यंत्रो और हथियारों की मौजूदगी से बढ़ती चिंता, डीपीआरके के परमाणु एवं मिसाइल अभियान जैसे अंतरराष्ट्रीय सुरक्षा को चुनौती देने वाले मसलों पर वे आपसी सहयोग से काम करेंगे. प्रतिभागियों ने चार देशों के बीच हुई बातचीत और सहयोग के मुद्दों के प्रति प्रतिबद्ध होना भी स्वीकार किया.

यह उम्मीद की जा रही है कि यह चौकड़ी न केवल बनी रहे बल्कि और भी फले-फूले, जिसके मायने यह है कि इसका नियमित संचालन हो। साथ ही इस उपयुक्त कार्यप्रणाली एवं यन्त्रप्रणाली के प्रयोग से चीन की ओर से उपजी दो बड़ी समस्याएं –सुरक्षा एवं बेल्ट और रोड का, सामना करने हेतू प्रयोग किया जा सके. चीन के विकल्प हेतू इन्हें कई ऐसे आकर्षक विकल्प पैदा करने की आवश्यता है जिनमें घरेलु उपज पैदा करने की क्षमता हो, जो बाह्य शक्तियों से प्रभावित न हो, पूर्ण-रूप से पारदर्शी हो और जो घरेलु अर्थव्यवस्था को संबलता प्रदान करे न कि किसी अन्य बाहरी को. साथ ही जिन्हें कठिन, जटिल शर्तों से नही अपितु बेहद उदार शर्तों पर वित्तीय पोषण प्रदान किया जा सके

भारत को अपने सारे पूर्वाग्रह से मुक्त होकर हिन्द-प्रशांत क्षेत्र की सहभागिता में सक्रिय होने के लिए इस चौकड़ी के साथ मिलकर प्रयास करने चाहिए. साथ ही इस क्षेत्रों के अन्य देशों को भी ‘नीली अर्थव्यवस्था’(ब्लू इकॉनमी ) में अधिक सहयोग बढ़ाने हेतु प्रेरित करना चाहिए. भारत की सबसे बड़ी विशेषता ही यही है की ये अन्य देश, विशेषकर की चीन जैसे आक्रमक रवैय्ये का पक्षधर नही है. इस क्षेत्र में नीली अर्थव्यवस्था पर ध्यान केन्द्रित करने का सन्देश इसलिए भी अहम है क्यूंकि महासागर यहाँ बड़े क्षेत्रफल में फैले हुए है और कई देश एक लम्बी सीमा समुद्र या महासागर के साथ बाँटते है. साथ ही हमारे सहयोग कार्यक्रम को ध्यान से इस प्रकार बनाया जाना चाहिए जिससे कि उस क्षेत्र-विशेष की घरेलु आवश्यताओं को पोषित किया जा सके. इन्हें शोषक नही बल्कि पोषक होना चाहिए जिससे की हम इन्हें तकनीक और सहयोग आसानी से उपलब्ध करवा सके. इस प्रकिया में भारत को नीली अर्थव्यवस्था के अनेकानेक अभियानों और परियोजनाओं से जुड़ने और उनमे विशेषज्ञता हाँसिल करने का मौका मिलेगा जिससे अर्थव्यवस्था को भी काफी फायदा होगा.

इन चार देशों के लक्ष्यों के स्तर पर ही इस चौकड़ी का भविष्य निर्भर करता है. साथ ही इन्हें चीन के अपरिहार्य रूप से पीछे हटने को लेकर भी संतुष्ट होना चाहिए. इसके अलावा हम अमेरिका पर अपनी निर्भरता को बढ़ावा न दे तो बेहतर है क्योंकि उसकी अपनी नीतियाँ आज प्रवाह में बह रही है. हर देश का चीन के साथ अपना अलग मसला है. अमेरिका और चीन एक दूसरे से आर्थिक रूप से जुड़े हुए है और आज दोनों ही इन योजनाओं से उन्मुख होने हेतू प्रयासरत है. यदि इस चौकड़ी को गंभीरता से कार्य करना है तो इन्हें इसकी औपचारिक पहल करनी होगी, बातचीत करनी होगी, चार्टर बनाना होगा, कार्यक्रम का विवरण तैयार करना होगा और उसके क्रियान्वन हेतु लक्ष्य निर्धारित करने होंगे. केवल तब ही इस निष्कर्ष पर पहुँचा जा सकता है की इस समूह में और सदस्य शामिल होने चाहिए या नही. यह हिन्द-प्रशांत क्षेत्र के सुरक्षा सम्बन्धी आर्धरभूत संरचना की विकास हेतू आशियान में बातचीत की मध्यस्थता करने में भी सहायक होगा.

(लेखक वीआईएफ़ सलाहकार समिति के सदस्य है और पूर्व उप-राष्ट्रीय सुरक्षा सलाहकार है. ये उनके निजी विचार है)

---

Translated by: Shiwanand Dwivedi (Original Article in English)
Image Source: http://littleindia.com/modi-trump-discuss-security-indias-greater-role-a...

Nehru, The Public Sector And The Modern Economy

Dr M N Buch, 

Dean, Centre for Governance and Political Studies, VIF

When India became independent in 1947 it inherited a system of government which even today holds good. The basics of democracy and parliamentary government, separation of powers which gave the judiciary total autonomy in its own sphere, disciplined Armed Forces totally under civilian control, an organised and independent Civil Service and the rule of law are the positive legacy the British left us and it would be churlish not to acknowledge this. It would be equally silly on our part if we did not praise our leadership which readily accepted what was good and then nurtured these institutions. On the negative side, however, the British left us an economy which was quite rudimentary and where the infrastructure was almost infantile. Only about 5000 of our towns and villages were electrified, we had virtually no capital goods industry and in many ways we were a poor and primitive country.

Nehru was a man in a hurry to create the structure of a Modern State and a strong and forward looking economy. Power, transportation, healthcare, education, science and technology, our cultural heritage, participative rural development -- there was hardly any sector which Nehru did not cover. Parallel to the normal governmental administration was created a development administration to service the new Community Development Programme. The Civil Service was re-oriented to administer in the public interest rather than to merely rule. Nehru called for the building of the New Temples of a resurgent India, including huge dams for irrigation and hydel power, large thermal and hydro based power stations, steel plants, aluminium plants, copper and zinc plants, transportation systems, reinvigorated agriculture and educational institutions like the Indian Institutes of Technology, Indian Institutes of Management, the Indian School of Mines, massive Agriculture Universities, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences and the public sector which glavanised and synergised the economy.

Nehru was Prime Minister for seventeen years, a long tenure for the Prime Minister, but a very short episode in a country’s history. Twelve of these years can be called the core years because that is when the sinews of a strong economy and a modern nation were built. One can think of no comparable example, not even in the Soviet Union, of a country on the move in which Bhakra-Nangal, Hirakud, Chambal were built, Bhilai, Rourkela and Durgapur steel plants made operational, five IIsT and four IIsM, Punjab Agriculture University and the G. B. Pant Agriculture University were set up and India started making modern cars, aircraft and warships. If Modi can achieve even a fraction of this in the single matter of purifying the Ganga that would be praiseworthy. In the matter of Nehru’s achievements, I would rate them as miraculous.

Nehru is called a radical socialist whose development model was the Soviet system of planning. Nehru, by birth, was definitely upper class, apart from being a Brahmin who claimed to be agnostic, if not an atheist, but who retained his Brahmin intellectual mindset till the end. He was neither doctrinaire Marxist nor radical socialist. If anything he could be called a Fabian Socialist of the London School of Economics brand. He could never be a Stalinist dictator because he was a democrat who believed in the British style of parliamentary democracy. He opted for a planned economy not because he was a hardcore believer in dialectical materialism but because he had no other option. To modernise, India needed massive investment of capital. The private sector was not organised for this, did not have a scale large enough and in any case was too mercantile to believe in long term investment in long gestation projects. It is only the State which could encourage capital formation and, therefore, Nehru used the State to drive our economy. The private sector was not discouraged but it is the State which grabbed the initiative. The sheer speed of the transformation of the economy leaves us breathless even today.

The Nehruvian model can be tracked back even to the example of Japan at the time of the Meiji Revolution in the late nineteenth century. After Commodore Parry proved to Japan that a society mired in the science and technology of the medieval era was no match for a modern State, Japan decided to eliminate the Shogunate and go in for rapid modernisation. The State took the initiative in everything, including modernisation of the education system, the sending of young students abroad to learn modern science and technology, set up modern industry and build an economy which could catch up with the western world. The success of the modernisation drive can be gauged by the fact that in 1905 the Japanese Navy soundly defeated the dreadnoughts of the Imperial Russian Navy and proved that the new Japan was more than a match for any nation in the world.

The Japanese are a pragmatic people and they realised that having kick-started the economy the State could not be involved in micro managing it. The Japanese were fortunate to have great trading houses, the Zaibatsu, who could be brought in to take over the management of the newly established industries and then become the driving force of the economy as Japan jumped from the middle ages to the twentieth century. By the State intervening when it was necessary and pulling out when private enterprise could take over Japan became a great economic and military power. After Second World War Japan demilitarised itself, but it remained one of the most influential economic powers in the world, which it is even today. In India, unfortunately, after its initial virtual explosion of energy the public sector continued to dominate the economy, firstly because of its size, secondly because it was a part of the politico administrative system and thirdly because financial and other self interests, including patronage, became firmly entrenched and neither the politician, nor the bureaucrat, nor the public sector manager wanted the system to change. We blame Nehru for the inefficiency of the public sector, but we forget that Nehru died in 1964, at which time the public sector was still efficient. He chose his people carefully, including S.N. Mehta to build Bhilai, Harvey Slocum to build Bhakra-Nangal and P.N. Thapar and P.L. Verma to build Chandigarh. N. Dandekar created the Shipping Corporation of India and JRD Tata was persuaded to continue to head Air India even after it had been nationalised. The political rot which set in after Nehru’s death and the political takeover of the public sector as a source of patronage and corruption cannot be blamed on Nehru, which fact today’s Nehru bashers should keep in mind.

The highly westernised Kashmiri Pandit was the choice of that ascetic, Mahatma Gandhi, as the leader of independent India. The Mahatma recognised that if India was to retain and strengthen its secular democracy, if India was to modernise its economy, Nehru was the right choice as Prime Minister. People point to the 1962 Chinese invasion and the somewhat ill-advised offer of a plebiscite in Kashmir as two examples of Nehru’s weakness. Without going into the merit of this particular argument, can the trust reposed by a person in someone whom he considers a friend necessarily be a weakness? In any case if the Chinese had not invaded in 1962 Krishna Menon would have continued to be the Defence Minister, our armed forces would have been reduced to a laughing stock and we would have been hammered by Pakistan in 1965. The 1962 drubbing at the hands of the Chinese actually revived our armed forces, depoliticised them and made them a formidable fighting force. Anyway, trusting China and offering a plebiscite in Kashmir were Nehru’s weak spots, but the very fallibility of the man only strengthened his greatness as a person who could put India before his own self. Sometimes a weakness can also be a strength. Nehru was a total person and he has to be taken as a whole, individual mistakes notwithstanding, the subsequent degeneration of the public sector because of our own rigidities and cupidity of our leaders notwithstanding, Nehru followed the best path available to him to build India’s economy and he has to be given credit for the strengthening of our secular democracy and the modernisation of the Indian State.

---

Published Date: 15^th April 2015, Image Source: http://www.walkthroughindia.com

Israel and India’s New Government: The Military-Security Dimension

Alvite Singh Ningthoujam, 

Research Associate, VIF

India-Israel Ties and the New Government:

The bilateral relations between India and Israel, today, are going in a direction as expected by many ever since the 2014 election results were declared. The thumping victory of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), by defeating the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) that governed the country for ten years, has ushered in a new level of engagements with Israel. Under the leadership of the Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the military-security cooperation with Israel is witnessing a rapid enhancement. Simultaneously, cooperation in the fields of science and technology, water management and agriculture are also being given immense importance. On the economic front, both the countries are doing fairly well with the bilateral trade currently standing at US$6 billion.

Currently, Israel is the second largest arms suppliers of India with a bilateral arms trade over the last decade estimated at US$10 billion. Undoubtedly, defence cooperation has become one of the most important pillars of Indo-Israeli ties and it is likely to get further boost in the days to come. It has been almost six months since the BJP-led NDA government came into power and there have been visible improvements in this aspect of bilateral ties.

As in the past, the BJP-led government has already started initiatives to enhance defence ties with Israel. Meanwhile, Modi’s cabinet has a few ministers who are in favour of forging closer cooperation with Israel in all the sectors, and one of them is Foreign Minister Sushma Swaraj who once called the Jewish state "a reliable partner."¹ Just before the 2014 election results were announced, Narendra Modi was even referred to as "Israel's best friend in South Asia".² This was mainly considering his long association with the Jewish state and its leaders. As Chief Minister of Gujarat, Modi had visited Israel in 2006. Gujarat has deep economic and trade links with Israel which has has invested billions of dollars for various projects in the state. In January 2013, Modi personally hosted the Israeli ambassador to India, Alon Ushpiz in his state, and discussed various avenues for cooperation. As a result, Modi has a fair knowledge and experience of dealing with Israel. The Israeli envoy expressed his full hope of realising the potential of India-Israel relations in various fields under the new government.³The overall impetus was given when the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called on Modi and congratulated the latter on his success in the national elections and pledged to deepen cooperation between the two countries.

Recent Developments:

A month after Modi came to power, India’s Defence Secretary R.K. Mathur paid a three-day visit to Israel from 1-3 July and discussed arms deals, including missile development programme, and also the procurement of two Israeli-made Airborne Early Warning and Control Systems (AWACS) for the Indian Air Force. Israel has endorsed its Iron Dome air defence system to India for protection against incoming long and short range missile threats. New Delhi, however, has not decided as yet on purchasing this anti missile system. During late 2012 and mid 2013, Indian armed forces had started discussing about this system and its suitability in the Indian context.

Further, both the countries have clinched two important arms deal, which had been delayed for several years due to various reasons.

The first breakthrough for the Modi-led government was the announcement to procure the much-needed Barak-1 missile, manufactured by the Israel Aerospace Industries Ltd (IAI). This is a significant step particularly considering the depleted defensive capabilities of Indian warships. With delivery scheduled for December 2015, fourteen ships that presently lack missile systems will be outfitted with the Barak-1. A little more than a decade ago, India and Israel defence cooperation had been plagued by allegations of bribery and allegations, pertaining to this missile system. India’s Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) even conducted a probe into the deals with IAI and Rafael regarding the supply of these missiles. The deals were entered into by the then BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government in 2000. Allegations of receiving kickbacks were levelled against several Indian officials, including the then Defence Minister, defence personnel and a few middlemen. It was only in December 2013 after a detailed probe that the investigation was closed by the CBI with the admission that there was no evidence against the accused.⁴

The final nod given by the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS) in September 2014, under the chairmanship of Modi, for the acquisition of 262 missiles⁵ has come as a big relief to the Indian Navy, given its rapidly dwindling stock of anti-ballistic missiles for its frontline battleships. The Indian Navy has been voicing concerns over its deficiencies, with ships operating without missile defence systems. The announcement of the procurement at a whopping cost of US$144 million is thus a welcome move.⁶ The clearance given to this stalled missile deal itself is an indication of India’s preference for Israeli-made missile defence systems. It is, at the same time, to be acknowledged that Israel has faced a stiff competition from other mega foreign arms vendors such as the United States (US).

The US factor in Israeli arms sales is not a new topic; it has been there ever since the latter has emerged as an important arms exporter since the 1970s onwards. Due to fears of competition, the US even scuttled Israeli arms exports to a few countries in the past in Latin America, Europe and Asia as well. In the Indian context, too, the US was trying really hard to sell its Javelin missiles manufactured by Lockheed Martin and Raytheon. Since the last one year, there had been a fierce competition between Javelin and Israel’s Spike Anti-Tank Guided Missiles (ATGM) produced by Rafael Advanced Defense Systems. The US has made several efforts to tap the lucrative Indian defence market with the Pentagon even demonstrating its willingness to offer “groundbreaking” defence technologies to India, including helicopters and UAVs.⁷ There have already been discussions between the two governments for joint development and production of items such as drones and missiles. But what have remained as the constraining factor in enhancing their defence cooperation are the entrenched issues on military technology transfer mechanisms. It is because of this reason that India opted for the Israel-made Spike ATGMs.

During late-October 2014, after a prolonged delay, at a meeting of its Defence Acquisition Council, India finally decided to buy 8,356 Israeli-made Spike ATGMs and 321 launchers at a cost of US$525 million.⁸ The deal for this missile remained stuck since 2010. The Indian Army had conducted several rounds of trial on this system. This major breakthrough in India-Israel defence ties under the Modi government has come at a juncture when border tension with China, and skirmishes along the India-Pakistan border were on a new high. In the words of India’s new Defence Minister Manohar Parikkar, “National security is the paramount concern of the government. All hurdles and bottlenecks in the procurement process should be addressed expeditiously so that the pace of acquisition is not stymied."⁹

The Spike missile deal should not be looked only from the prism of an arms trade between India and Israel. It has sent out a strong message to other potential arms suppliers who are eyeing the lucrative Indian defence market that India not only wants finished products but is also interested in getting technologies for its defence indigenisation programmes. New Delhi decided against Washington’s offer for its Javelin missiles because the exact extent of the Technology Transfer to the Indian defence firm Bharat Dynamics Ltd was not clearly defined; the cost of the Spike ATGM was cheaper than the Javelin, and “cancelling the Israeli deal at the last moment would have sent wrong signals to the international community.” ¹⁰ The issue on technology transfer also assumes significance as the present government under Modi is promoting its “Make in India” policy, and defence production is well within this initiative. Israel, unlike the US, has agreed to transfer technologies and this is an important step in India’s military modernisation drive. From now on, it appears that India’s arms purchase will come along with the clause of technology transfer from the suppliers, and Israel would not be spared from this emerging trend. Considering this, Israel cannot afford to remain complacent in its arms sales to India. The Israeli defence industries, rather, should capitalise on the new opportunities provided by India to manufacture in the country under Modi’s project.

During 2013, Israel witnessed a decline in its arms exports worldwide with a value of US$6.54 billion as compared to that of US$7.2 in 2012.¹¹ But with mega defence deals signed between Israel and a few Asian countries, the volume of the former’s arms exports could see a slight improvement during 2014. Moreover, in continuation to its military imports, India is considering to procure more Israeli-made Airborne Warning and Control Systems (AWACS) surveillance aircraft in a deal estimated to cost over US$1 billion. India had already purchased Phalcon AWACS in May 2009 and March 2010. Acquisition of this sophisticated system would further boost Indian Air Force’s (IAF) detecting capabilities of troop build-ups and movement of enemy aircraft along India’s frontiers. Now, if this deal gets clinched, then it is going to be a boom for Israel’s defence industries. The Asia-Pacific region was the main destination for Israeli arms during 2013, earning US$3.91 billion.

Apart from arms trade, India and Israel have also agreed to cooperate intensively on other military-security arenas. The seed for further enhancement of relations between the two countries was laid at the meeting between Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and Modi on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York during late-September 2014. This was the first meeting between an Israeli Prime Minister and his Indian counterpart in the last 11 years. Despite robust relations in areas related to defence, intelligence and agriculture, the political ties between the two countries have remained somewhat low-profile. After the visit of the Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2003 to New Delhi, no other Israeli PM or any of their foreign ministers visited India in recent years. Likewise, from the Indian side, while no PM has ever visited Israel, the latest visit by a foreign minister to the West Asian nation was made by S.M. Krishna in January 2012.

Owing to various domestic pressures, particularly the presence of 175 million Muslim population in India, New Delhi is keeping its political ties with Israel a low-key affair. This reason was attributed for the delay in establishing diplomatic relations in 1992.¹² Nevertheless, in order to add more vigour to the already-thriving relations, attempts have to be made unrelentingly to forge stronger political relations, and this would require reciprocal visits by both Indian and Israeli PMs and other key ministers, sooner or later. It is to be seen if Modi would create history by becoming the first Indian PM to visit the Jewish state. Modi was invited by his Israeli counterpart during the New York-meeting. Benjamin Netanyahu acknowledged the significance of the Indo-Israeli ties by saying “sky is the limit” for its growth. While such breakthrough would take the bilateral relations to further heights, one cannot rule out, at the same time, serious backlash within India from those corners which are vehemently opposed to New Delhi’s continuing ties with Israel.

During the Modi-Netanyahu meeting, a wide range of issues, which are of mutual interests, were discussed. Netanyahu raised the issue of the Iranian nuclear programme, and both the leaders acknowledged the threat of global terrorism in their respective countries. Along with these, the need for further cooperation in the fields of technology, defence, agriculture and water management were emphasised.

For quite some time, India and Israel have been developing an interest to cooperate in cyber security areas. This is in the wake of ever increasing cyber crimes in both the countries. Being surrounded by hostile neighbourhoods, the need for cyber security framework for both the countries has gained immense importance. It is in this direction, the Israeli PM invited Modi to be a part of his project of national cyber defence authority.¹³ The project’s main objective is to create a link between the civilian and military authorities in both the countries. For India, the invitation from Israel has come at a time when it is striving to establish a strong cyber security defence system. Several concerned Indian establishments have begun efforts on setting up a cyber security framework. This is a potential area of cooperation between the two countries, and more headway is expected soon.

Further impetus to Indo-Israeli ties was giving by the three-day visit of the Israeli National Security Advisor Joseph Cohen to New Delhi in October 2014. This was a follow-up visit to the Prime Ministers’ meeting a month earlier. In his interactions with the Indian counterpart, Ajit Doval, Home Minister Rajnath Singh and several other officials from the Indian External Affairs ministry, the visiting NSA expressed Israel’s willingness to cooperate with India in “all fields and at any level”. However, the agendas of the meetings concentrated on the situation in West Asia; terrorism and the threat it poses to both the countries; Israel’s view on Iranian nuclear programme as well as challenges that India and Israel share as two democracies in their respective regions, and solutions to those challenges.¹⁴

It is evident from the recent developments that both the countries are enhancing their cooperation on counterterrorism measures, apart from military trade. Given the emerging trend of terrorist activities both in West Asia and India, this dimension is definitely going to see significant cooperation between the two nations. India is likely to gain from Israeli expertise in counterterrorism measures along with surveillance skills at the borders (both land and sea). Israel is known for its excellent border protection technologies, and India has already used some of its equipments along the Line of Control (LOC) in Jammu and Kashmir. India has been a victim of not only cross-border infiltration but also seaborne intrusion, the 2008 Mumbai carnage being one such dastardly attack. It is in this regard that India is showing a great interest in acquiring Israeli border management skills.¹⁵

Potential Challenges:

India-Israel ties is not devoid of challenges. Immediately after it came to power, the Modi government faced the first heat from the opposition parties when the External Affairs Minister refused to discuss a resolution in the Rajya Sabha during the Gaza crisis. Prior to this, during the initial stages of the crisis, while expressing concern over the Israeli air strikes resulting in the loss of lives and damages to property in Gaza, India was also worried over the cross-border provocations by targeting parts of Israel with rockets. However, this balancing act was not appreciated by both Israeli and Palestinian diplomats in New Delhi who expressed their disappointment over India’s statement.¹⁶ Nevertheless, in view of the cordial relations shared by India with both the parties, Sushma Swaraj said, “Any discourteous reference to any friendly country can impact our relations with them”, and further reiterated India’s Palestinian policy that remains unchanged. The minister also mentioned the need to condemn the violence indulged in by both sides. However, New Delhi ultimately condemned Israel’s “disproportionate use of force in Gaza” at the UN Human Rights Council.¹⁷ India’s vote at the UN against Israel evoked several reactions: both criticism and appreciation.

India’s stand on the aforementioned crisis once again brought back to limelight how increasingly difficult a diplomatic tightrope it has to walk while maintaining a delicate balance between friendship with Israel and support to the Palestinian cause. It also reflects how domestic politics still influences New Delhi’s Israel or Palestinian policies or foreign policy in general.

Another major challenge which the Modi government would have to face from time to time is criticism about the burgeoning military-security relations itself. The enhanced ties came up for wide condemnation during the debate on the Gaza crisis. As in the past, the CPI (M) once again called upon the government to immediately halt India’s purchase of arms from Israel.¹⁸ This issue, however, did not lead to any major debate as Sushma Swaraj countered it by pointing out at how this left party, being in the coalition under the UPA-1 government, failed to stop the robust military cooperation between India and Israel. Nevertheless, India-Israel arms trade remains an important target-point for various left wingers and social activists in the country.

In the circumstances, dealings on matters related to military-security affairs are likely to be carried out cautiously though they would not be shelved. Fears are also being expressed in some quarters that close ties with the Jewish state, or an intensive military cooperation, could lead to the strengthening of radical Islamist movements and its support base in India. For instance, several Kashmiri citizens staged violent protests against the recent Israeli offensive in Gaza Strip. Simultaneously, there is a visible influence of the Sunni militant organisation, Islamic State (IS), on India, and the recently established Al-Qaeda in Indian Subcontinent (AQIS) has vowed to target the country.

Prospects Ahead:

Despite the challenges, the prospects for increased cooperation between the two countries are bright. The bilateral relationship between the two will continue to be driven by these close defence ties and shared national security challenges. At this juncture when both the countries are facing heightened terror threats, cooperation to combat this menace will continue to remain as one of the biggest incentives to expand their military-security ties. The visit of the Indian Home Minister Rajnath Singh to Israel, fourteen years after that of L.K. Advani in 2000 when he was holding the same portfolio, has opened more opportunities to strengthen the bilateral relations. Cooperation in counterterrorism is, for sure, going to be given an impetus. His meetings with high-profile Israeli leaders, including PM Benjamin Netanyahu, emphasised on strengthening India’s “very warm” ties with Israel. The increasing radicalisation of few Israeli-Arabs and Indian Muslim youth under the influence of the Islamic State (IS) is a common challenge faced by both the countries and this will drive their cooperation to new levels. Additionally, Indian PM, during his meeting with the former Israeli president, Shimon Peres, in New Delhi, “reiterated the strong desire of India to further expand and strengthen its relations with Israel both in traditional areas as well as in new areas of cooperation.”¹⁹

Further, there is likely to be an enhanced cooperation between the defence industries of both the countries. But this would depend on how successfully India could convince the Israeli arms industries to manufacture in the country by taking advantage of the “Make in India” initiative. India’s quest for its own technological advancement in the defence industry is an important push factor for the expansion of ties with Israel. The Israeli premier has expressed his country’s willingness to “discuss transfer and development of technologies with India.” In his words, “"Israeli industries, including the defence industries, could 'make in India' and thereby reduce costs of manufacturing products and systems developed by Israel." ²⁰A few areas that are likely to see technology transfers are aviation security, border protection and water harvesting.

Amid these prospects, it should not be ignored that while India desires to have strong ties with Israel, there are several related political implications that the government needs to factor in along the journey. The sensitive nature of the domestic politics, particularly with the presence of a huge Muslim population which plays significant roles in India’s political set-up, will continue to cast its shadow on the government’s dealings with Israel. There would be inevitable opposition and pressures on the Modi government to scale down ties with Israel. It is, therefore, yet to be seen how successfully the present government would manoeuvre its policies towards Israel while tackling the challenges coming on its away. But a gradual process has been begun by the Modi government to engage very intensively both with the Muslim community in India and with the larger West Asian Arab countries. The recently-concluded India-Arab League meeting in New Delhi is one such important step.

Endnotes

1. Marissa Newman, “India’s new foreign minister a strong fan of Israel”, The Times of Israel, 27 May 2014, http://www.timesofisrael.com/indias-new-foreign-minister-a-strong-fan-of...
2. Palash Ghosh. “Narendra Modi, Israel’s Best Friend in South Asia”, International Business Times, 17 March 2014, http://www.ibtimes.com/india-2014-elections-narendra-modi-israels-best-f...
3. “With Narendra Modi as the new PM, India-Israel ties will improve, feels Alon Usphiz”, The Economic Times, 30 May 2014, http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-05-30/news/50211150_1_...
4. Neeraj Chauhan, “CBI closes Barak scandal case for lack of evidence”, The Times of India, 11 December 2014, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/CBI-closes-Barak-scandal-case-f...
5. Rajat Pandit, “Modi govt clears long-pending case for Israeli Barak missiles for warships”, The Times of India, 26 September 2014, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Modi-govt-clears-long-pending-c...
6. For a relevant reading, see Alvite Ningthoujam, “India’s Promising Israel’s Defense Ties”, The Diplomat, 9 October 2014, http://thediplomat.com/2014/10/indias-promising-israel-defense-ties/
7. “US offers groundbreaking defence technologies to India”, The Times of India, 14 June 2014, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/US-offers-groundbreaking-defenc...
8. “India chooses Israel's anti-tank guided missile 'Spike' over US' Javelin missiles”, DNA, 25 October 2014, http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-india-chooses-israel-s-anti-tank-gu...
9. Nigam Prusty, “India picks Israel's Spike anti-tank missile over U.S. Javelin – source”, Reuters, 25 October 2014, http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/25/india-missile-idUSL3N0SK088201...
10. “India to Buy 8,000 of These Anti-Tank Missiles From Israel”, NDTV, 27 October 2014, http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/india-to-buy-8-000-of-these-anti-tank-...
11. Gili Cohen, “sraeli arms exports drop nearly $1 billion in 2013”, Haaretz, 7 October 2014, http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.619700
12. For a detailed analysis on India-Israel relations, see P.R. Kumaraswamy (2010), India’s Israel Policy, Columbia University Press: New York.
13. Jayanth Jacob, “Israel offers India to join new cyber security body”, Hindustan Times, 29 September 2014, http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/israel-offers-india-to-join-new...
14. “Israel-India to Enhance Cooperation in All Fields”, News, Israeli Embassy, New Delhi, http://embassies.gov.il/delhi/NewsAndEvents/Pages/Israel%20India%20to%20...
15. “India to seek Israeli expertise in managing borders”, DNA, 29 October 2014, http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-india-to-seek-israeli-expertise-in-...
16. Suhasini Haidar, “India’s stand leaves West Asian rivals disappointed”, The Hindu, 16 July 2014, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/indias-stand-leaves-west-asian-riv...
17. “India Condemns Disproportionate Use of Force in Gaza: Full Statement”, NDTV, 24 July 2014, http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/india-condemns-disproportionate-use-of...
18. Anita Joshua, “India must halt purchase of Israeli arms: CPI(M)”, The Hindu, 24 July 2014, http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-must-halt-purchase-of-israel...
19. “Prime Minister Receives Former Israeli President Shimon Peres” , News Updates,6 November 2014, Prime Minister of India, New Delhi, http://pmindia.gov.in/en/news_updates/prime-minister-receives-former-isr...
20. “Israel positive about 'Make in India' campaign: Benjamin Netanyahu”, The Economic Times, 7 November 2014, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/policy/israel-positive-...

---

Published Date: 1^st December 2014, Image source: http://i.ytimg.com

Vietnamese Economy and Current Cooperation with India

Maj Gen (Retd.) P K Chakravorty

Introduction

The Vietnamese economy at the time of unification on 30 April 1975 was a highly centralised planned economy like the former Soviet Union. This underwent change with the introduction of Doi Moi in 1986. With the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, the economy transformed into a socialist market economy similar to Russia and China. Currently, Vietnam is a part of the global economy. Vietnam today exports agricultural and industrial products. In 1997, Asia faced a financial crisis which made Vietnam cautious in undertaking accelerated economic reforms. The turnaround came with the signing of the Bilateral Agreement with the United States (US) on 13 July 2000. This enabled Vietnam to trade with the US and Europe as also brought in Foreign Direct Investment from numerous countries, resulting in a high rate of growth and economic development.

In 2001, the Vietnamese Government approved a 10 year economic plan that enhanced the role of private sector, while reaffirming the primacy of the state. The rate of growth grew from 6% to 7% between 2000 to 2002. It is pertinent to note that the growth rate continued to increase and soon it was just next to China in this field reaching a high over 8%, thereby becoming the world’s second fastest growing economy. Simultaneously, investment grew three fold and domestic savings quintupled. On 11 January 2007, Vietnam became the 150th member of World Trade Organisation (WTO). The membership of WTO resulted in stiff competition which compelled the Government to deal sternly with non performing State Owned Enterprises resulting in privatisation of 30 to 50% of these enterprises thereby stabilising the situation reasonably. Vietnam with its high growth rate is moving on an upward trajectory.

Current Status

Vietnam is currently a part of the globalisation process and is a member of WTO, ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA), Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). The nominal GDP is $ 187.848 billion and converted to Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) works out to $ 509.466 billion. In the current year, the GDP witnessed a growth of 5.62%. The per capita income is $ 2073 as per nominal calculations and $ 5621 as per PPP. The GDP as applicable to sectors is as follows: Agriculture - 19.3%, Industry – 38.5 % and Services – 42.2%. The population by occupation is Agriculture – 48%, Industry -21 % and Services- 31%. The population below the poverty line is 10% and unemployment is about 2%.The main agricultural as also meat products are rice, coffee, rubber, cotton, tea, pepper, soya beans, cashew nuts, sugar cane, peanuts, bananas, poultry, fish and sea food. The main exports are clothes, shoes, marine products, crude oil, electronics, wooden products, rice and machinery. The total exports are about $ 128.9 billion. The imports are machinery and equipment, petroleum products, steel products, raw materials for clothing & shoe industries, electronics, plastics and automobiles. The total imports account for $ 121.4 billion. US is the highest export partner accounting for about 17.8% of the exports and China is the highest import partner accounting for 25.8% of the imports. The public finances are rated as stable and the Government has been taking corrective measures to keep the economy on course.

Economic targets for 2015

The eighth session of the 13^th Vietnamese National Assembly commenced in Hanoi on 20 October 2014. The Prime Minister Mr Nguyen Tan Dung in his speech stated that despite a promising outlook for 2015, inefficiency, bad debt and domestic sentiment will moderate the growth rate. The Prime Minister set out a growth rate of 6.2% for 2015. He also emphasised that inflation will be maintained at 5% resulting in reduction of poverty by another 1.7 % and creation of additional 1.6 million new job opportunities. The rise recorded in recent months is driven by strong exports and a booming manufacturing sector.

Experts feel that to reach a growth rate of 6.2% there would be a need to boost investment to the tune of 33 to 35% of GDP. Further, Vietnam is pushing ahead with its plan of disinvesting its 1000 State Owned Enterprises. The Ministry of Planning and Investment was asked by the Government to withdraw its proposal for using the state budget to settle bad debt of State Owned Enterprises. It is estimated that the bad debt works out to $ 80 billion. Further, the Government wants to tackle corruption which exists in finance, banking, land management, natural resources exploitation and public investment. Despite these irritants, Vietnamese economy has stabilised. The forecasts predict that in the short run, Vietnamese economy will grow at a slightly slower speed and will accelerate to high growths in the long run once the shortcomings are addressed.

Current Economic Cooperation with India

India and Vietnam have been cooperating extensively in the economic field. India has offered Vietnam 18 Lines of Credit as on date. The Vietnamese Prime Minister recently visited our country on 27 and 28 October 2014.In the Joint statement issued by both the Prime Ministers, it was agreed that economic cooperation between both countries should be pursued as a strategic objective. They welcomed the strong growth in bilateral trade in recent years particularly after the India- ASEAN trade in Goods Agreement.

They also noted that the conclusion of India-ASEAN trade in Services and Investment agreement would further boost economic cooperation between India and ASEAN in general as also Vietnam in particular. They also called for closer Regional Economic Partnership Agreement (RECP).

Business leaders of both countries identified priority areas for cooperation. These included hydrocarbons, power generation, infrastructure, tourism, textiles, footwear, medical and pharmaceuticals, Information & Communications Technology (ICT), electronics, agriculture, agro-products, chemicals, machine tools and other supporting industries. They agreed to enhance bilateral trade to $ 15 billion by 2020.

The Prime Ministers reaffirmed the importance of investment for the growth of their economies. Prime Minister Dung welcomed Indian companies to invest in Vietnam and Prime Minister Modi invited the Vietnamese companies to join the accelerated economic growth programme ‘Make in India’ for establishing their industries in India. It was agreed that the Customs Cooperation Agreement and Maritime Shipping Agreement between the two countries be optimised to facilitate greater economic engagement.

Both the Prime Ministers welcomed the signing of Agreement between ONGC Videsh and Petro Vietnam for exploration of new oil and gas projects in Vietnam. Prime Minister Dung welcomed Indian Oil and Gas companies to explore new opportunities in midstream and downstream activities in the oil and gas sector in Vietnam.

It was a great step that the Vietnam Bank had agreed to the proposal to open a Bank of India branch in Vietnam. Further, to improve connectivity, Jet Airways is going to commence direct flights to Ho Chi Minh City from India with effect from November 2014.

Another area which will provide an impetus to our economic relationship would be the construction of a Thermal Power plant. Tata Power plans to develop US $ 1.8 billion Long Phu Thermal Power Plant in Soc Trang which is located in the southern portion of the country. An MOU has been signed in this connection in November 2013. Efforts are being made to expedite the commencement of construction of the project. All these issues will assist Vietnam in stabilising its economy and build its Comprehensive National Power.

Conclusion

The Vietnamese economy continues to grow at about 6% despite its problems with State Owned Enterprises. India and Vietnam have strengthened their economic cooperation over the last four decades that has been mutually beneficial which has, in turn, led to strengthening of their strategic relationship. Growing economies of both the countries offer several opportunities for India to enhance its investment and trade with Vietnam. There is an expanded scope for Indian companies to invest in Vietnam in a variety of sectors besides oil and the mineral sector. Investment and trade potential between both the nations is very large and has not been fully exploited. With Prime Minister Modi at the helm of affairs in India, it is time to impart momentum to India’s economic engagement with Vietnam.

(The author was India’s Defence Attache to Vietnam)

---

Published date: 27^th November 2014, Image source: http://vietlaw4u.com

(Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Vivekananda International Foundation)

India’s ‘Act East’ Policy: A Perspective

Brig Vinod Anand, Senior Fellow, VIF

Dr Rahul Mishra

India’s Look East Policy (LEP) came of age when New Delhi celebrated two decades of engagement by holding the ASEAN-India Commemorative Summit in November 2012. The first phase of LEP lasted for one decade till 2002 when the then Minister for External Affairs Mr Yashwant Sinha announced the commencement of the second phase. While in the first phase, the emphasis was on political, diplomatic and people to people relationships, improved connectivity and enhanced trade, the second phase revolved around strengthening of economic relations, defence and security cooperation besides strengthening relationships in other areas. During the second phase, though the dominant impulse remained the economic engagement, increasingly the LEP also acquired strategic orientation. The LEP focused not only on the ASEAN members but also expanded to include South Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and other countries in the East. Over the two decades, not only has India progressed from a dialogue partner to the present status of a strategic partner in respect of ASEAN but has also established strategic partnerships on bilateral basis with many ASEAN countries and Japan, Australia and South Korea. It can also be said that after 2012, the Indian government continued to work towards what it called the third phase that was termed as an ‘Enhanced LEP’.

In fact, when Modi government took over the reins of power in May this year, it conscientiously continued with the previous government’s policy and the new Minister for External Affairs, Smt Sushma Swaraj termed the new phase as ‘Act East Policy’ which in a sense meant that more substance was to be imparted through early implementation of many elements of the LEP. While the plan to engage ASEAN has been charted out in the ‘Plan of Action to implement the ASEAN-India Partnership for Peace, Progress and Shared Prosperity (2010-2015)’ announced during the Commemorative Summit of 2012, the Modi administration has been in an overdrive to reach out to all the nations in the wider Pacific region.

Prime Minister Modi’s successful visit to Japan, the India visit of Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott and the visit of China’s President Xi Jinping are seen as high points in the Modi government’s policy towards the wider East Asian region. Japan is also considering joint projects with India in some of the ASEAN countries besides expressing its interest to invest in India’s North East. The level of defence and security cooperation including joint military exercises and co-production and co-development in defence industry is on the cards. India-Japan civil nuclear agreement could not be concluded because of some apprehensions on part of Japan but that aside, the scope of strategic and economic cooperation is expected to follow an upward trajectory.

During the India visit of Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, India and Australia signed the much-awaited India Australia Civilian nuclear cooperation agreement that would enable supply of Uranium to India. The successful conclusion of Abbott’s visit is a watershed event in India-Australia relations. Apart from the civilian nuclear deal, Indian companies are also working towards joint energy ventures in Australia. Earlier this month, Modi attended the ASEAN-India and East Asia Summit in Myanmar where he further outlined his plans to revitalise relationships with ASEAN and East Asian countries in both economic and security fields. From Nay Pyi Taw, Modi travelled to Australia for the G-20 Summit where he held bilateral meetings with Prime Minister Abbot to build on the evolving strategic relationship with Australia. In order to expand India’s footprint in Pacific, he visited Fiji after attending the G 20 meet.

Clearly, within a short period of six months or so, the Narendra Modi government has taken steps to give a boost to the Look East Policy, or what has been termed as the ‘Act East Policy’. In that regard, the statement made by the External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj is worth noting. During her visit to Vietnam on 26 August, 2014, she addressed the Indian Heads of Missions and said that India has to not just ‘Look East’ but ‘Act East’. Her visit to Vietnam was the third visit to a Southeast Asian country since she became the Minister for External Affairs in the Modi Cabinet.

President Pranab Mukherjee has also visited Vietnam and signed a number of agreements that include allotment of seven oil blocks for exploration, enhanced defence and security cooperation, increased economic and people to people exchanges besides regional and multilateral cooperation. While Vietnam supported India’s LEP and its increasingly important role in regional and global forums, they also expressed the resolve to ‘foster the implementation of signed agreements’ and observed that cooperation in national defence was an important pillar in their strategic partnership. President Mukherjee also supported the freedom of navigation through high sea, peaceful resolution of disputes based on international law including the 1982 UNCLOS and adherence to the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the East Sea towards the adoption of the Code of Conduct of Parties.

It has been stated many times by the Indian strategists that Myanmar is the lynchpin of India’s LEP and is a gateway or a strategic land bridge to the ASEAN. Myanmar is the current Chair of the ASEAN, hosting several meetings of ASEAN during the year. In that regard, Sushma Swaraj was on a four-day visit to Myanmar to participate in the Fourth East Asia Summit (EAS) Foreign Ministers’ meeting, 21st ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) retreat session and India-ASEAN foreign Ministers Summit. During her visit, she had extensive discussions with Myanmar’s President U Thein Sein, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Myanmar and Pyithu Hluttaw (House of Representatives), Thura U. Shwe on how to further strengthen ties between India and Myanmar.

India has been pushing for greater regional integration of Indian economy with that of the ASEAN by expanding the scope of trade and investment. The main focus of 4th EAS Foreign Ministers’ meeting was on strengthening cooperation in the areas of energy, education, disaster management and enhancing connectivity. Sushma Swaraj reiterated India’s position that India “would soon draft a five-year action plan starting 2016 for enhancing connectivity and cooperation in diverse areas”. The agenda of the 21^st Asean Regional Forum retreat session largely revolved around the security issues. Ways of combating terrorism and other non-traditional security threat relating to the South China Sea figured prominently in the meeting.

Regarding the South China Sea dispute, India continued to follow its traditional stance of pushing for a peaceful resolution of the maritime dispute between China and the ASEAN member states and that “no such issue should be resolved through conflict and war” but through peaceful dialogue”. Swaraj remarked, “Recent disputes in the South China Sea underscore the need to resolve sovereignty issues peacefully by the countries concerned in accordance with international law”. Notably, major claimants in the dispute such as Vietnam and the Philippines consider India a benign balancer in the region. Therefore, India is widely envisaged as a key power and one of the major stakeholders in the emerging East Asian security dynamics.

The Modi government has been emphasising on giving urgent attention to the speedy completion of trilateral highway that will connect India-Myanmar-Thailand to facilitate people-to-people contact between India and Myanmar and improve trade and investment opportunities. Prospects for a direct flight from Delhi-Bodhgaya-Yangon are likely to be materialise given the earnestness of Modi administration. Moreover, friendly relations with Myanmar are crucial for peace and development of India’s north-eastern states. Given that it was the first ever visit to Myanmar by any Indian Minister of the new government, Myanmar was given assurance that the new government is willing to strengthen relations with it and thereby, ready to boost trade and investment.

India is aware of the changing dynamics of the East Asian regions. The security architecture of the region is rapidly changing. Rising China and Japan, and the consistently increasing competition between them has taken new dimensions. India has realised the problems as well as the prospects of the changing regional dynamics. In that context, India’s greater role and participation in the security architecture of the region as also the ways and means to enhance India’s presence in the Southeast Asian region are of immense importance, not just to India but to the countries of the East Asian region also. These are important components of the Act East policy as without robust trade, economic investment and physical connectivity, India will not be able to achieve its goals.

Energy security is an important component of the Act East Policy of the Modi government, which has been manifested in the recent MoUs that India has signed with partner countries. New Delhi and Hanoi have moved forward in energy cooperation despite some objections by China. Vietnam has already renewed India’s lease of two oil blocks in the South China Sea for another year. Vietnam is keen to procure the Brahmos missiles, which are jointly produced by India and Russia. Vietnam is also exploring the possibility regarding procurement of naval weaponry. India has agreed to supply four off shore naval patrol vessels to Vietnam and Modi has announced that India will “quickly operationalise the $100 million Line of Credit that will enable Vietnam to acquire new naval vessels from India."

Likewise, India is also working towards greater military cooperation with Japan and Australia. India and Australia will hold their first-ever bilateral military exercise in January 2015.

India-ASEAN FTA in Services

After several rounds of negotiations, India and the 10-member countries of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) signed the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) in services and investments on 8 September, 2014. The final agreement was signed two years after the conclusion of detailed negotiations on the pact. In 2010, India and the 10- ASEAN member countries signed the Free Trade Agreement in goods. However, at that time, the services agreement could not get signed taking into account the sensitivities of a few ASEAN member countries. The realisation of the FTA in services is expected to give the much needed impetus to India’s trade and investment relations with the member countries of ASEAN. In fact, the former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh led United Progressive Alliance government II was criticised for signing an incomplete FTA (FTA in goods only), which was destined to lose out to ASEAN in terms of benefits. As a result, in the past few years, India’s exports remained insignificant, while imports from ASEAN countries increased.

The Indian government as well as the private sector have been ready for the agreement but the ASEAN members couldn’t expedite the pact. Countries such as Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand took several months to set things right domestically. It is worth noting that the Philippines is yet to ratify the agreement in its parliament. The other nine countries that have ratified the agreement include: Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, the Philippines, Myanmar, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. The primary reason for the Filipino apprehension is that it fears that the Indian services sector might sweep the Philippine market and dominate the ASEAN services industry. However, as the FTA in services is implemented, India’s share in total trade would also rise as India is a leader in the services sector, making India-ASEAN FTA a ‘win-win situation’ for all.

It is hoped that with India-ASEAN FTA in services and investments, greater flow of trade and investment and freer movement of professionals will be realised, paving the way for India’s comprehensive regional economic integration with the 10 ASEAN member countries. The good news for India is the inclusion of a brief annexure on movement of natural persons or workforce. The annexure defines business visitors, contractual service suppliers and intra - corporate transferees, issues that are critically important for India. In addition to that, other major issues such as domestic regulations, recognition, market access, national treatment, transparency, participation of developing countries, joint committee on services, review, dispute settlement and denial of benefits etc. are also included in the agreement.

With the completion of India-ASEAN FTA, the road to the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) seems clearer. RCEP includes the 10 ASEAN member countries and its six partners including India, China, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand. ASEAN aims to make RCEP a reality by 2015, which was first mooted during the 2011 ASEAN Summit in Indonesia, and formally launched during the 2012 ASEAN Summit in Cambodia. With the realisation of RCEP, India is likely to gain preferential market access to 15 countries and gain more from price competitiveness.

To benefit most from the India-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement, India needs to keep going on the economic reform path. In that regard, steps to strengthen its medium, small and micro enterprises (MSME) sector are critically important which can help it not only sustain the free flow of trade, but also to become a more competitive player.

Conclusion

The last three years or so have witnessed a growing apprehension about the rising capabilities of an ascendant China and its propensity to assert its claims in South China and East China Sea. The countries in the region are also afflicted with difficult choices to be made between their economic objectives where China is of help and their strategic objectives of safeguarding their national and sovereign interests where some of the nations in the region feel challenged. On the other hand, India is seen as a power which does not threaten or challenge their national interests and can in some away lessen their apprehensions. Against this backdrop, ASEAN states are seeking a moderating role in the region given that New Delhi is seen as a benign power as opposed to China, the US or even Japan. While India may not have the political or the economic clout of ASEAN’s other envisaged partners, it is anticipated that with rising trajectory, India will become a pole of influence in the future. However, China’s influence is considerable and is likely to be so for the coming years. India’s LEP (and now Act East) has been in place now for over two decades and precedes the American pivot to Asia and therefore it stands on its own merit. Modi administration is only building up on what was bequeathed by the previous government but with much more vigour. The strategic dynamics in the region are very complex and still evolving and the LEP is only one element of the vast strategic canvas on which major powers have put forward their own policies like the American rebalance, or Japan’s Security Diamond concept or for that matter China’s New Maritime Silk Route strategy. It is to be hoped that the new policies contribute towards stability and prosperity in the region rather than instability and insecurity.

(Dr. Rahul Mishra, Research Analyst, ICWA)

---

Published in Vivek: Issues & Options, September - October 2014

The Neighbour from Hell - India-Pakistan: Iron in the Soul

Prabhat P Shukla, 

Distinguished Fellow, VIF

The decision to call off the scheduled Foreign Secretary level talks with Pakistan appears to have taken many by surprise, and left many in India quite unhappy. They seem to be unable to understand that a meeting between the Pakistan High Commissioner and various Hurriyat leaders could call forth such a response from the Indian Government. These persons have accepted the Pakistani argument that it was routine for Pakistani leaders to meet the Hurriyat, and so there was no call for the talks to be cancelled.

The Pakistanis have spoken with one voice, as they usually do on India-related matters; there are no doves on their side. Not one person from Pakistan who appeared on our TV shouting matches has accepted that their High Commissioner was wrong to disregard the clear message given by the Indian side of the consequences of going ahead with the meeting with the Hurriyat.

Instead, they have utilised the occasion to come across as the injured innocents, and have added that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was keen on improving ties with India; that he deserved credit for coming to India for Modi’s swearing-in and staying overnight for a meeting; that he was under pressure, and needed support, not this snub; and that the Indian action had strengthened the hard-liners in Pakistan. In short, they have spelt out the usual paradigm, in which the onus is on India to show restraint because otherwise bilateral relations will suffer.

To dispose of the most frequently-employed argument in this case: it was routine for Pakistani leaders and diplomats to meet Hurriyat representatives. All too true, but it was rarely the case that we did not make our unhappiness known to the Pakistani side. They knew well that we did not like it, but in our typical craven approach to Pakistan, we never did anything about it. In these circumstances, it is only appropriate that the Government should have reacted by cancelling the FS level talks. The fact that we did not react in this manner in the past is no reason why we should not do so now. Indeed, it is important that the Government draw up a series of red lines vis a vis Pakistan, like the use of terrorism directed against India, which if crossed would involve appropriate punitive measures.

Think about it: the Pakistanis have also made it a routine to use terror against for the past thirty years, starting in Punjab, going on to Kashmir, and then all over the country. And after each such act, once the initial outrage passed, the Indian side would crawl back into some sort of dialogue. Does that mean that this is the right pattern of behaviour? Or, take the fact that Pakistan, in egregious violation of its international legal obligations, refuses to allow Indian exports into Pakistan on MFN basis - on the most puerile of excuses. If we were to take action on this, is it any defence to say that they have been doing this for twenty years?

If the Indian Government decides to address these brazen violations of international law and takes counter measures, it would be no defence to say that these are all ongoing issues of long standing. No, Pakistan had it coming, and cannot play injured innocent now. The fact that earlier Indian Government’s did not take the required counter measures on a host of transgressions by Pakistan does not mean that that the present Government should desist from so doing.

Then there is the argument about Nawaz Sharif. There are two angles to this one: one, is he really the friend he is projected to be? And, two, even if he is, does that mean he can be allowed to hurt our interests? On the first, it would be worthwhile remembering his record since the early 1990’s. It was during his tenure as Prime Minister 1990 – 93, that the horrific Mumbai blasts occurred and Pakistan was place on the watch-list of state-sponsors of terrorism by the US. And it was during his second term that he gave us Kargil, and then allowed that he was not in the know. In fact, he was very much in the know.

And in this term, he has raised the Kashmir issue at the UN, and with the US President. He has also talked of moving forward on trade, but has refused to accept his WTO obligation of giving Indian exports MFN treatment. Cease-fire violations continue apace, are in fact, growing in number and intensity, including across the international boundary.

The second angle is equally important. From the days of Ayub and the Tashkent Agreement, we have made ourselves mental prisoners of the logic that we have to “do something” to help one or other leader. With Ayub as “best bet”, it was the hard-line ZA Bhutto, who had to be held off, with his promise of a thousand-year war. Irony of ironies, this very same man had to be helped at Simla in 1972, because he was now the man of peace! These “best bets” have been dangled before us subsequently too, right up to the present, through Benazir Bhutto, Zardari, and of course the perennial Mian Sahib; they should by now be a warning to Indian policy-makers inclined to gamble with the fate of India.

It would also be legitimate to ask, doesn’t Modi need to be given a leg-up by the Pakistanis? This same Nawaz Sharif let down Vajpayee with the Kargil War, and no one accused him of letting down a sincere interlocutor. In the same way, he has let down Modi, who clearly wanted to seek a fresh start. Even at his Independence Day speech, he did not respond to Mian Sahib’s remarks on Kashmir the previous day. And yet, our mind-sets remain the same: India must put up with Pakistani rogue behaviour, the other side has no stakes in showing concern for our interests.

The other charge is that Modi has strengthened the Pakistani hard-liners with this decision. History tells us that, in fact, the hard-liners – and they are all over, not just in the Army – were softened up after 1971, when they tasted humiliation after their over-reach. The appeasement of the last two decades has, in fact, strengthened the hard-liners. They have come to accept that India will turn the other cheek, and come back to the negotiating table sooner or later, if only Pakistan stood its ground. And this has become the set pattern of behaviour.

In fact, this is a good opportunity for Mian Sahib, if indeed he wants good relations with India but is being held back by some other hard-liners, to turn to those who drove the pro-Hurriyat stance and ask what they now propose to do. It is they who are boxed in, not Modi. The harsh truth is that we do not need Pakistan for any of our strategic purposes. There was a time when it could play spoiler, but that time is now gone. On the contrary, it is Pakistan that needs India. Pakistan needs electricity, which it is horribly short of, and there are shutdowns of up to 18 hours a day in urban centres too. Things have got to the point where it is becoming a social and political problem. We were prepared to sell electricity to them, but should now reconsider. Similarly, we were preparing to sell imported natural gas to them, and this again is something Pakistan desperately needs, since all its own import schemes have come a cropper – the country is effectively bankrupt.

All this, however, now needs to be fitted into a new pattern of relations. . Of course, this means consistency, and a steady hand: good behaviour will call forth a generous response; aggressiveness will be met with a firm response involving penal measures. It will take time, but the hard-liners will get the message. There are some externalities in the equation, and they cannot be ignored. But they can, and ought to be, be tackled with some pro-active diplomacy. It would also be imperative to look to our defences.

Essentially, what Pakistan was doing was probing Modi, testing his resolve – was he the same as all those who went before him, or was he different? They have got an answer, but the testing of his firmness, and capability, will continue. The Pakistani deep state is committed to this provocative policy stance, and has been indulged by us for three decades. It will not give up easily, and we should also recognise that they are resolute and tactically smart. But they are financially and strategically bankrupt, and those are the weaknesses we have to play on.

There is, certainly, every chance that the country will implode before all that happens. As this is being written, Islamabad is under siege from the shock-troops of Imran Khan and Tahirul Qadri. Where all this will lead is anybody’s guess, but the Pakistani commentators, even the sober ones, seem to be growing ever more pessimistic about the country’s future. It may thus come to pass that the country itself might disintegrate. That poses a different set of issues, and we need to prepare for every contingency arising in our North-West.

---

Published Date: 21^st August 2014, Image source: https://pakistanisforpeace.files.wordpress.com