India's foreign policy failure wrt pakistan from position of strength.

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Bully next door

Once again, India has deemed it appropriate to talk to Pakistan. This time it has
suggested open-ended talks focusing on terrorism and security-related issues,
instead of the broader composite dialogue that it called off in the aftermath of
Mumbai attacks in 2008.
Considering India’s track record on talks with Pakistan, the present initiative comes
across as yet another excuse to put the burning issues souring Pak-India relations
on the backburner. So as India joins the American ‘do more’ mantra on terrorism,
and refuses to talk about anything else until it is satisfied on that count, we are
expected not to bring to the discussion bilateral issues that are of grave concern to
the state and people of Pakistan.
To the longstanding issue of Kashmir have been added increasing violations of the
Indus Water Treaty and evidence of Indian involvement in the unrest in FATA and
Balochistan, but our neighbour thinks that these issues can wait until we have
conclusively put the genie of terrorist groups back in the bottle and it has been
certified by India. Should Pakistan allow itself to be bullied into this recent trap of
talks? Or are there other options?
It is interesting that news of these new talks came as Pakistan observed a national
holiday in solidarity with the Kashmiri people. For decades, Pakistan had refused to
hold talks with India on other matters until the core issue of Kashmir, at the heart of
Pak-India discord, was addressed and resolved. At the summit that marked
Vajpayee’s US-sponsored bus diplomacy in 1999, the then Prime Minister Nawaz
Sharif agreed to initiate Confidence Building Measures like people-to-people
contact and trade in order to create a conducive environment for resolution of bigger
disputes. The composite dialogue initiated by Musharraf and Vajpayee in 2004 was
also a watering down of Pakistan’s Kashmir-first policy. The idea vociferously
pushed by India was to tackle the whole spectrum of bilateral issues so that
normalisation of relations between the two countries is not held hostage by the
difficulty of making progress on the disputed territory. It was hoped that as progress
is made on lesser disputes, it would give impetus for progress on Kashmir.Unfortunately, that has not been the case.
As we saw trade volume and frequency of buses increasing between the two
countries, there was little progress on the ground as far as Kashmir is concerned.
After agreeing to certain steps in the composite dialogue, India has found it
convenient to go back on its pledges and continue its policy of state-repression in the
disputed state on one pretext or the other. Under Musharraf, Pakistan toned down
its principled stand demanding self-determination for Kashmiris in a plebiscite
conducted by the UN and took steps to rein in the militant groups from Pakistan. But
these conciliatory measures were not reciprocated by India that has dragged its feet
on cutting down the number of its troops deployed there and creating a mechanism
for including the Kashmiri leadership in the bilateral talks, to search for a viable
solution to the issue. Even on other important issues within the ambit of the
composite dialogue like Siachin and Sir Creek, the Indian strategy has been to keep
the talks in a limbo, opening up settled points anew and frustrating any hope for a
meaningful outcome. And now it would like to put aside any progress that might have
been made in the composite dialogue despite these difficulties and start a brand new
round of open-ended talks, whatever that is supposed to mean.
Obviously, India has used the composite dialogue to show to the world that it is a
reasonable and responsible state without making a sincere effort at finding mutually
acceptable solutions to its bilateral disputes with Pakistan. It has actually pushed for
its ‘wish list’ vis-à-vis Pak-India relations without paying any attention to Pakistan’s
concerns. In fact, under the cover of normalisation of relations, it has gone on to
take steps to squeeze Pakistan further. Instead of making any effort to allay the
fears of Pakistan regarding the building of dams on river Jehlum, it has announced
projects on the Chenab as well, creating strong doubts about its sincerity to the
Indus Water Treaty.
Evidence that its numerous consulates on the Pak-Afghan border are supporting
disturbances in FATA and Balochistan, has also come forth. The present initiative is
seen as an attempt by India to ease the pressure of the international community for
resumption of talks with Pakistan, rather than a sincere desire on its part at finding
solutions to serious problems between the two countries. This calls for a more
diplomatically suave response from Pakistan than rushing into the proposed talks.
Surely, friendship with India should amount to more than watching Indian movies in
Pakistani cinemas, playing cricket matches and eating their onions.
Even if India agrees to Pakistan’s demand of resumption of the composite dialogue
rather than the proposed open-ended talks focusing on terrorism, not much can be
expected from it in the present context. It is clear that the Indian government has
one thing on its mind right now; a crackdown on Lashkar-i-Taiba and
Jaish-i-Muhammad, militant outfits that it says are being nurtured by Pakistan to
target India. It has shown an aversion to talk about its involvement in FATA and
Balochistan, about its controversial dams or progress on Kashmir. Obviously,
dialogue is only meaningful if it is a two-way street. Besides, the issue of militant
groups blamed by India is a part of the much bigger problem of terrorism that
Pakistan is confronted with. It is also clear that these militants are strengthened by
what India does in Kashmir, and a just solution to the dispute acceptable to the
Kashmiri people will take the winds out of their sail.
Two well-meaning neighbours can sit down and find a solution to their problems
through talks. At the same time, there is no point in talking to a bully bent upon
undermining its perceived victim and getting its way, all the way.
Rather than being too obsessed with normalising its relations with India according to
the American script, Pakistan would do well by strengthening ties with its other
neighbours. In time, this might be the best course for improving relations with the
bully next door.
The writer is a freelance columnist.

Qureshi, Kasuri not on same page

ISLAMABAD – Who is at fault, the incumbent Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi or the former one Khurshid Kasuri? TheNation was confused on Monday after the two top guns issued two contradicting statements regarding developments on the Kashmir issue between the two neighbours, Pakistan and India.
Foreign Minister Qureshi had denied of any progress made on the Kashmir issue during the past several years. While former Foreign Minister Kasuri strongly reacted to Qureshi’s statement on Monday and claimed that a remarkable development was made on this burning issue.
Talking to TheNation from London on Monday, Khurshid Kasuri, a key member of Musharraf-led government, confirmed that India and Pakistan had almost reached a settlement over the Kashmir issue after a series of back-channel talks during the Musharraf-led government.
“President Asif Zardari, according to my knowledge, was aware of the details of the back-channel diplomacy and the Presidency has the related record of the details regarding talks on the Kashmir issue,” he confirmed.
“It might be a total disconnection between the Presidency and the Foreign Office over the issue. How is this possible that a Foreign Minister of Pakistan is not in knowledge of this issue of much importance between India and Pakistan?” Kasuri wondered.
“If the Presidency has the record, normally the Foreign Office should have an access to it if it is related to the foreign policy of Pakistan. Moreover, it would be fair assumption that the Presidency would share the details with the Foreign Minister,” he added.
This correspondent couldn’t contact Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi despite repeated attempts for getting his remarks on this issue. Even a text message was dropped at his cell phone requesting to call back, however, the Minister did not bother to answer till filing of this report.
It is pertinent to mention here that both India and Pakistan are expected to resume talks this month with special focus on the issues of Kashmir and terrorism.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Pakistan may adopt tough stance over Indian talks offer

Diplomats say Islamabad could seek ‘result-oriented dialogue’ linked to timeline for resolution of outstanding issues

By Sajjad Malik

ISLAMABAD: Pakistan might adopt a tough stance over India’s offer for talks and press for “result-oriented dialogue” linked to a timeline for the resolution of all outstanding issues between the two countries, including the Kashmir dispute, according to diplomatic sources.

The sources said Pakistan was wary of an “open-ended” peace process that could linger on for years without any tangible progress on key issues that had been a thorn in the side of relations for decades.

“We are not interested in just talks ... [we are looking for] a fruitful engagement that will result in the solution of real problems and help bring peace,” said the sources.

Pakistan would also seek India’s assurance that New Delhi would not unilaterally suspend the peace process in case of a terrorist attack by “non-state actors”.

They said Pakistan was serious about addressing all issues with India, and would hold in-depth discussions on the offer for talks tomorrow (Wednesday) to decide the key issues related to dialogue with India.

“We are expecting a candid exchange of views on all aspects of relations with India, including the agenda of the talks ... there are several issues, such as India’s refusal to resume the composite dialogue immediately,” they said.

Some diplomats believe that India is not sincere in the context of the resumption of the peace process and New Delhi had only agreed to engage Pakistan under increased foreign pressure and the ”looming loss of its influence in Afghanistan” because of Pakistan’s new role in reintegrating “peace loving” Taliban in the Afghan society.

The sources said Pakistan had already called back Indian High Commissioner Shahid Malik – who is arriving today (Tuesday) to attend the consultations at the Foreign Office and brief the high-ups on his meetings with Indian diplomats.

The peace process was suspended after the Mumbai terror attacks in November 2008. While Pakistan had perpetually sought the resumption of the peace talks, India had been refusing to come to the negotiations table until Pakistan brought the perpetrators of the attacks to justice. India has said that it has made the offer with “an open and positive” mind. While India has now agreed to talks, it is reluctant to fully restore the composite dialogue under domestic compulsions.

Analysts believe that both countries would have to come out of their “fixation” for any solution to bilateral problems.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Seems like congress wants have both ways.like being supporter of talks and also opposition of talks.

Talks with Pakistan: Congress is in a bind

The Congress has offered conditional support to the United Progress Alliance government on its decision to "commence" dialogue with Pakistan stating that the party was not "completely satisfied" with the approach and attitude of the Pakistani government and mandating that it wanted "terror to remain at the centre of the dialogue".

Party spokesman Manish Tewari said the government has made a determination based on the inputs it has received on the need to commence the dialogue process with Pakistan, emphasizing that the dialogue would "commence" and not "re-commence" as is being made out. He said in that context it is appropriate to let the process go forward.

While there is considerable bewilderment in political circles on how and why India [ Images ] has gone the extra mile to begin the dialogue process when nothing substantial has changed in terms of Pakistan's deliverance on the perpetrators of the Mumbai [ Images ] 26/11 terror attack, the answer has interestingly enough come from Pakistan itself with its foreign minister Qureshi asserting almost gloatingly, "We did not kneel before India but India had to come to the negotiating table under international pressure."

International pressure is being read in political circles as mounting pressure from the United States to begin dialogue with Pakistan with Dr Manmohan Singh [ Images ] faced with a deadline of April 10, when he again travels to Washington to meet the US President Barrack Obama [ Images ], said a critic of the UPA government's policy on Pakistan.

A Congress senior leader said the prime minister should have waited till after the visit of Home Minister P Chidambaram [ Images ] to give the dates for a proposed dialogue since Chidambaram has been taking a tough line on the Mumbai terror attack and has repeatedly asked Pakistan to deliver. There is within the Indian government an acknowledgement that Pakistan has been far from co-operative on the issue and has been pussy-footing on delivery but despite that the PMO appears to have decided that too much time has been wasted and now the two countries need to sit together.

Within the Congress, a senior leader said popular opinion continues to be against the resumption of engagement with Pakistan but the party appears to be caught in a bind as it feels the need to back the government, but not wholeheartedly welcome the move.
 
Last edited:

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
India considering general amnesty for Kashmiris

* New Delhi devising mechanism for return of Kashmiris who crossed over LoC for employment, ‘militant training’
* May seek Islamabad’s help for identification, verification of such people

By Iftikhar Gilani

NEW DELHI: India is planning a major confidence-building measure (CBM) in a bid to sooth the Kashmiris angered by the killing of youth in “unprovoked firing”, considering general amnesty for young Kashmiris and families who have crossed the Line of Control to settle in Muzaffarabad and elsewhere.

India may take up the issue with Pakistan at the upcoming foreign secretary-level talks, to seek Islamabad’s cooperation in the verification and identification of such Kashmiris, according to sources.

The target beneficiaries left Indian-held Kashmir either to “join militants” or save themselves from shelling and troops’ harassment.

IHK Chief Minister Omar Abdullah has hinted at a scheme to encourage the return of militants from across the LoC to lead a normal life. He told a chief ministers’ conference in New Delhi that a new “surrender and rehabilitation policy” was under active consideration.

A senior Indian Home Ministry official confirmed that work on such a policy was underway, and said security agencies – in consultation with the IHK government – were devising a mechanism for the return of militants and others who had crossed over in search of careers or “safe havens”.

He said the step – recommended by the prime minister’s working group headed by Vice President Hamid Ansari and perused vigorously by the state government and Kashmiri politicians – would go a long way towards addressing the political dimension of issues affecting Jammu and Kashmir.

“We have agreed in principle to devise a mechanism for their return. It could be a general amnesty. Safeguards would be put in place to avoid any negative consequence,” he said. “The process has already started ... former militants [have been known to] appear at the LoC with their families ... to surrender.”

The Home Ministry official said the new scheme would help “institutionalise” such surrenders.

The Indian Home Ministry believes that nearly 800-1,200 young Kashmiris were “stranded” in Muzaffarabad and other places. But state government officials believe the numbers could be higher.

A surrender policy launched unilaterally by the Indian Army between 2005 and 2007 was abruptly withdrawn following arguments with the Home Ministry – which claims the policy was pulled out because a surrendering militant was found allegedly linked to an aborted attempt on the life of then prime minister Ghulam Nabi Azad.

The ministry is now backing the establishment of an institutionalised mechanism that involves proper verification through the Uri-Chakoti crossing in Kashmir or the Chakkanbagh-Rawalkot crossing in Jammu, said the sources.

The mechanism being discussed also includes prior verification of antecedents by Jammu and Kashmir police, the IB and RAW.

Those seeking to return to IHK would be “quarantined” for at least a month for interrogation by agencies. They would also have to report to police stations every week. The sources said those marrying across the LoC would have to approach the Indian High Commission in Islamabad to come to India.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Bargaining with the devil

As India sits down for talks with Pakistan and with Communist insurgents, an observer may wonder why its track record is so poor in negotiations. As Churchill said, "jaw-jaw is better than war-war", but there is a make-believe quality to it in India, as the mandarins appear to just go through the motions. There is no recognition that there is a logic and a structure to parleys, there is a difference between positions and interests; and that ends and means must be separated.


You may also want to see
Pakistani group behind Kabul attacks: Afghan official
Pakistan clinch thrilling 2-1 win over Spain
BJP seeks prime minister's explanation on foreign policy with Pak
Ball in India's court to revive composite dialogue: Pakistan
Pakistan troops fire on LoC posts, launch rocket attacks
Related videos
India asks Pakistan to arrest 26/11 mastermind Hafiz Saeed
Sikhs' beheading in Pakistan 'barbaric', says Krishna
Pak efforts to curb terrorism have not been fruitful: Pallam Raju
Consider some instances: the negotiations with China over treaty rights in Tibet, wherein India meekly surrendered all leverage; the border talks for the last 28 years that have only led to further Chinese claims on Indian territory; the interminable and futile discussions with Pakistan, with no letup in cross-border terrorism. In Copenhagen, China hoodwinked India into a stand that helps China, a major polluter, not India, a minor villain. The 'nuclear deal' with the US also gave away too much in return for very little.

There are rare success stories too, especially when there is a clear goal. Arundhati Ghose famously fended off nuclear blackmail regarding CTBT at the UN.

A recent book by Harvard's Robert Mnookin, Bargaining With The Devil: When To Negotiate, When To Fight, highlights two paradigmatic situations — the decision made by Churchill to not negotiate with Adolf Hitler; and the decision made by the imprisoned Nelson Mandela, to indeed engage with FW de Klerk's apartheid regime. Both decisions, according to the book, were right, and avoided worse outcomes.

Mnookin focuses on situations in which two parties that may consider each other evil sit down at the bargaining table. There should be a combination of intuitive as well as analytical approaches, he suggests. This is where India fails: negotiators depend entirely on intuition, when a cold-blooded decision-tree analysis would help. Some Indian negotiators are seduced into accepting the other side's perspectives, for instance through judicious use of Urdu couplets and sob-stories about poor villagers.

There are several major problems. First, a serious, core issue: the lack of a clarity about objectives. Nobody knows what the goals are, what is absolutely non-negotiable, what the 'don't-cares' are that can be thrown in as concessions to clinch a deal. Therefore they do not know when to hold and when to fold. When talking to Communist terrorists, theobjective is to prevent their violent overthrow of the State; their civil rights are not the main concern. (We also have to be hard-nosed: the human rights of the insurgent and the terrorist are no greater than the human rights of the average citizen).

Second, the negotiators do not distinguish between positions (some of which may be posturing for domestic consumption), and fundamental interests. China always takes extreme positions, probing for weaknesses. However, if there is credible push-back, China will retreat. To be deterred, they have to believe that India is prepared to fight if the talks fail. They don't; nor do Pakistanis or Communist guerillas.

Third, because they do not internalise core interests, India's negotiators are sidetracked into peripheral and trivial matters. An example was the panic-stricken insistence about Indo-Pak rail links, which were jeopardised by a terror attack on the Samjhauta Express. There were pious pronouncements: "The rail links must not be affected". Why? What is so sacred about it?

Negotiation and game theory are taught in business schools (Getting to Yes by Roger Fisher and William Ury is a favourite) and schools of government the world over, but apparently not to India's mandarins. One of the cardinal principles taught is that you must be fully prepared with three alternatives: a) the desired goal, b) the compromise you can live with even though it is less than ideal, and c) the walk-away position. These alternatives are decided on ahead of time, and negotiators will not deviate from them. They will be prepared to walk away if the only thing they can get is worse than the compromise situation. Indians attempt to wing it and figure out their alternatives on the fly, and get confused and rattled. And lose out.

What Indians do is to cooperate all the time, which means there is no penalty to Pakistan for betrayal; their payoff is better if they betray, so they will do it every time. Exhibit A: the 91,000 prisoners India released after the Bangladesh War. Exhibit B: Sharm-al-Sheikh where the unfair equivalence of Baluchistan with Kashmir was accepted. Similarly, Communist insurgents have learned that they can offer 'talks' and 'ceasefires', use the respite to re-arm themselves, and then turned around and betray. There is no consequence to them for bad-faith behaviour.

In other words, India's negotiation skills are extremely poor. It is best to not expect any miracles from these palavers.

The writer is a management consultant
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
22 Feb 2010 - Keynote Address -Nirupama Rao, Foreign Secretary, India

Address by Foreign Secretary at the 3rd MEA-IISS Seminar 22 February 2010, London “Perspectives on Foreign Policy for a 21st Century India”

Mr. Adam Ward, Director of Studies,
Distinguished Participants

I am delighted to be here today to open the MEA-IISS Seminar and to speak to such an august gathering of diplomats, scholars and experts. The MEA-IISS Foreign Policy Dialogue has, from modest beginnings, now become a dynamic platform, facilitating wide-ranging exchanges between scholars and experts from India and the UK.

Given the rather broad canvas of the topic that I have been asked to speak on, I have structured my presentation along the following lines. First, a delineation of our foreign policy priorities, and how our approach is shaped by a globalizing world. Thereafter, I shall focus on the three issues – climate change, nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, and terrorism - which form part of this seminar today. I will conclude with a few remarks on India’s neighbourhood.

Our Republic is sixty years young this year. And, our foreign policy also has a trajectory that covers almost the same period. As the country has grown, so also our foreign policy has evolved and adjusted to the growing demands and challenges posed by rapid economic growth, the situation in our neighbourhood, the realization of our interdependence and integration into global markets, and our consciousness of what India stands for in a changing and often turbulent world as a pluralistic democratic country that has created a successful standard for managing diversity. As far as the last aspect is concerned, some call it the power of the Indian example, of a big country that symbolizes the universal values of inclusiveness, tolerance, and peaceful coexistence. This self image is not new; in fact, from the very early years of the founding of our Republic, there has been awareness that our ability to manage diversity and respect pluralism would as some scholars have noted, be “a source of (India’s) legitimacy in the international system”.

It is a foreign policy truism that our aim is to secure an enabling environment to achieve the overriding domestic goal of all round, socially inclusive development. The corollary to this is that a free and democratic India is a source of stability and a force for moderation in the region. India accounts for more than 70% of the population and more than 80% of the GDP of South Asia. We want to widen our development choices. We have a keen sense of our potential to be a great power by virtue of our population, our resources and our strategic location. A fundamental goal of India’s foreign policy is to create an external environment that promotes the fulfillment of our economic growth targets and ambitions. And, these include three dimensions – capital inflows, access to technology and innovation, as well as the promotion of a free, fair and open world trading system that recognizes the development imperatives of a country like India. This requires a peaceful and stable neighbourhood and external environment, a balanced relationship with the major powers and a durable and equitable multilateral global order.

We close the first decade of this century with the realization that the intersection, and the overlap, between the national and the global is an undeniable reality. Consequently, the challenges before us – be it sustaining economic growth rates, putting in place poverty alleviation strategies, addressing the challenge of climate change, energy security or global security issues, in particular the threat posed by international terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, etc – all require collaborative approaches.

That we live in an increasingly inter-dependent world was clearly demonstrated as never before during the global economic and financial crisis of the last year and more. The global financial downturn has seen negative rates of growth, a rising tide of unemployment which is yet to be quelled, rising trends of protectionism in the developed world, particularly, and a welcome introspection about the need to reform global financial institutions and systems of financial regulation and governance. That we are in a period of transition where the rapidly resurgent economies outside the traditional circles of global economic dominance are setting a new pace and direction in regional and international growth and development is an absolute truth.

At the global level, India has worked with our international partners to address the complex challenges to revive the global economy. The 2008 global economic and financial crisis triggered the further evolution of the G20, of which India is a key constituent. At the Pittsburgh Summit, the G-20 was designated as the premier forum for international economic cooperation. We see the G-20 process as a move towards a more representative mechanism to manage global economic and financial issues. The Group has taken some positive steps in this direction, for instance by committing a shift in IMF quota share to dynamic emerging markets and developing countries. Simultaneously, the new global realities require that we revisit and reorganize existing governance models which were put in place over six decades ago. In this regard, a dynamic global political and security order requires the urgent reform of the UN Security Council as well. We see our case for permanent membership of the Security Council as valid and legitimate.

India’s growth in the four years preceding the onset of the global financial crisis was around 9%. In 2008, with the advent of the global financial crisis, India’s growth slowed down to 6.7%. Forecasts for the current year are for a growth rate of 7.75%. Today, India has emerged as the third largest economy in Asia. It is a trillion dollar economy and has joined the ranks of the top ten economies of the world. In a knowledge- and technology-driven world, India has demonstrated certain unique strengths – our IT exports for the current year are poised to touch the $50 billion figure; the December 2009 index of industrial production surged month-on-month by a record 16.8%. Cumulative industrial growth is pegged at around 9%. The most noticeable feature of India’s economic growth is that it is driven primarily by domestic demand.

Yet, we also need to acknowledge that while average growth of around 7% over the past few years has resulted in material difference for India this has not been enough. To abolish poverty in India and to meet our development needs, we need to keep our economy growing at 8-10% every year for the next 20 years. As the literacy levels of our largely young population go up, we will have to ensure that their employment needs are also met which means that we require a rapidly expanding economy and the infrastructural growth of our cities and manufacturing sectors, so that we can reap the advantage of this demographic dividend for our economic growth. This also means that nation building or socio-economic transformation in India would continue to be primary concern of our foreign policy and this is accordingly reflected in our positions on issues such as global trade and climate change.

I will now turn to the three specific issues that are a part of your deliberations. In doing so, I do not in any way wish to influence or set the tone for your discussions. Instead, I will merely share India’s perspective on these issues.

Climate change

Climate change is one of the most important global challenges facing us. For India, it is not merely an environmental issue, but is intrinsically linked with the growth prospects and developmental aspirations of our people. Its impact on the pace of our development is a very clear and continuing concern.

Our developmental imperatives project a general trend of growth in energy consumption in India. We expect that fossil fuels will remain an important element of our commercial energy mix. The emerging paradigm of global action on climate change must, therefore, acknowledge every human’s claim to global carbon space and take account of our differential capacities. Despite 17% of the global population, our own GHG emissions today are currently only 4% of the global total. Even with 8-9% growth per annum, our energy use has been growing at less than 4% per annum. We are concerned that the developed countries tend towards ignoring, implicitly, the huge adaptation challenge that we face with climate change. Today we spend 2% to 2.5% of our GDP on meeting adaptation needs. There is need for stable and predictable financing from the developed countries, and this we believe should not rely on market mechanisms but, rather, on assessed contributions. There is also need for a global mechanism whereby climate friendly technologies can be disseminated to the developing countries.

As a country vulnerable to and already suffering from the impacts of climate change, India has an important stake in the success of the on-going multilateral negotiations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. We are aware of our responsibilities as citizens of the globe and have participated in the negotiations in a constructive manner. It is in this spirit that we conveyed our voluntary mitigation obligations to the UNFCCC in January this year. We were of course disappointed that an agreed programme of action mandated by the Bali Roadmap could not be achieved at Copenhagen. The Copenhagen Accord was perhaps the best that could be managed under the circumstances. It is a political document that can serve the purpose of contributing to the negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol and on Long Term Cooperation. It can complement these core international agreements but cannot be a substitute for them. Our collective effort should now be to bring the significant points of convergence reflected in the Accord into the larger multilateral process under the UNFCCC in order to ensure a balanced, comprehensive and above all, an equitable outcome, at the Mexico Conference by end-2010.

Nationally, we have adopted an ambitious Action Plan on Climate Change, which is not merely mitigation oriented, but is located within a larger perspective of sustainable development. Prime Minister has set up a high level Council on Climate Change to coordinate national action for assessment, adaptation and mitigation of climate change. Our announcement of the voluntary domestic target of reducing the energy intensity of our GDP growth, excluding emissions from the Agricultural sector, by 20-25% by 2020 in comparison to the level achieved in 2005 reflects India’s seriousness in addressing the issue of climate change with commitment and focus, even as it seeks to meet the challenges of economic and social development and poverty eradication.

Till date, the global energy market has been susceptible to non-market considerations which give energy issues an unpredictable and strategic edge. We believe that these vulnerabilities are best addressed through a participatory global energy model and by pursuing a truly open, transparent, competitive and globally integrated energy market. The reality as we know is quite the reverse. Therefore, we visualise that, as a developing country, an emissions reduction strategy to be comprehensive has to embrace both conservation and efficiency. With a large and rising demand for energy, we assess nuclear technologies to be a viable long-term solution in helping us correct the skew in our energy mix. The underlying determinant in this calculus is the environmental dimension and the associated costs of large-scale deployment of traditional carbon fuels, particularly coal. In this regard, nuclear power generation, despite its high entry level costs, provides a way out, particularly in relation to the wider issues of global warming and climate change.

Nuclear disarmament & non-proliferation

I am aware that concerns are voiced over the possible proliferation dimension in the use of nuclear energy. This should, however, not deter us from pursuing the development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. India is fully cognizant of the safety and security implications arising from the expansion of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. We must instead work together with our partners to help reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation.

The challenges of nuclear terrorism and nuclear security have to be addressed. We have been affected by clandestine nuclear proliferation in our neighbourhood. We are naturally concerned about the possibility of nuclear terrorism. We have, therefore, taken the lead at the UN General Assembly on an effective law-based international response including on WMD terrorism. India has joined the Russia-U.S. led Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism. We believe that the Nuclear Security Summit in April 2010 hosted by President Obama will be an important milestone in our efforts to build international cooperation to prevent nuclear terrorism.

The constructive and forward-looking approach that was adopted towards India in September 2008 by the NSG has enabled full international civil nuclear cooperation with India as also our nuclear energy cooperation agreements with major partners including the United States, Russia, France and the UK. These constitute not only a long overdue recognition of India’s standing as a country with advanced nuclear technology and responsible behaviour but have also opened up significant opportunities for technical collaboration. I believe that this change would also serve as an important step towards strengthening international partnerships to ensure that advanced nuclear technologies are only utilized for peaceful purposes.

You are well aware of India’s long-standing commitment to global, non-discriminatory and verifiable nuclear disarmament. As early as 1988, our then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi presented one of the most comprehensive proposals to achieve a nuclear weapon free world to the UN General Assembly. In 2006, India tabled a Working Paper on nuclear disarmament to the UNGA. We feel encouraged by some recent positive steps. President Obama’s administration has signaled US willingness to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in its nuclear strategy and to work towards a nuclear weapon free world. The renewed debate underway on this issue harmonizes with our long held positions.

We have identified some initiatives that I believe could be explored further as building blocks of a new global, verifiable nuclear disarmament framework. These include: a global agreement on ‘no-first-use’ of nuclear-weapons and non-use against non-nuclear weapon states; measures to reduce nuclear danger through de-alerting, reducing salience of nuclear weapons in security doctrines and preventing unintentional or accidental use; a Nuclear Weapons Convention prohibiting development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons and on their destruction etc..

We hope that we can achieve progress in the Conference on Disarmament. We will support the emerging consensus in the CD to adopt a programme of work. Last year, we supported the work plan including commencement of negotiations on the multilateral FMCT. On this latter issue, which we see as an important non-proliferation measure, India has had a consistent position – we are willing to negotiate a multilateral, non-discriminatory, effectively and internationally verifiable FMCT.

Terrorism

Terrorism poses an existential threat to the civilized world. It is a pivotal security challenge for India and in our neighbourhood. Terrorists have sought to undermine our sovereignty, security and economic progress, aided and abetted by forces beyond our borders. Our embassy in Kabul has faced vicious suicide bomb attacks twice, in 2008 and 2009. The Mumbai attacks of November 2008 and the more recent outrage in Pune, have once again demonstrated the barbaric face of terrorism. Terror groups implacably opposed to India continue to recruit, train and plot attacks from safe havens across our borders.

Open democratic societies such as India face particular challenges in combating the threat of terrorism. The United Kingdom is also familiar with this debate. We are acting nationally to address this through legal, institutional and administrative measures. We have recently amended the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 to reinforce the legal and punitive provisions, including financing aspects of terrorism. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has been established as a federal body for investigation and prosecution in respect of terrorist acts with all-India jurisdiction. Regional hubs have been created for the National Security Guards. The National Multi Agency Centre (MAC) has been strengthened and made functional round the clock.

At the same time, it is clear that the threat from terrorism cannot be dealt with through national efforts alone. Global outreach and linkages among terror networks are now quite evident and they are becoming more active. The global nature of the threat has been recognized widely. Global efforts to tackle the problem also need to be intensified. Terrorism needs to be countered collectively and expeditiously. It is time that the international community works towards early adoption of a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that was tabled at the UN over a decade ago in 1996. We must act jointly and with determination to meet the challenges posed by terrorism and to defend the values of pluralism, peaceful co-existence and the rule of law.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Let me turn to our neighbourhood. From India’s perspective, the goal of ushering in a peaceful, stable and prosperous neighbourhood is predicated on enabling each of our neighbors to pursue the shared objective of the development of our peoples. We do not see this as a zero sum game but as a cooperative endeavor, requiring collaboration rather than confrontation, so as to enable each of our neighbours to grow. We do not see this as a compulsion but as a natural choice voluntarily made; a corollary of the inter-dependent world we live in. We believe that our strengths place us in a unique position to actively support the socio- economic development in our region.

The greatest threat to peace and stability in our region emanates from the shelter terrorists find in the border of Afghanistan-Pakistan and in Pakistan itself. The recent international approaches to Afghanistan, in particular the London Conference last month, are focusing on security and reintegration, development, governance and regional and international cooperation. The issue of reintegration should be tackled with prudence, the benefit of hindsight, foresight and caution. We believe that any integration process in Afghanistan should be Afghan-led, and should include only those who abjure violence, give up armed struggle and terrorism and are willing to abide by the values of democracy, pluralism and human rights as enshrined in the Afghan Constitution.

For the Afghan Government to take greater ownership of security, it is imperative that Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) are properly trained and equipped. Similarly, in order to stengthen governance and institution-building, priority should be accorded to building adequate capacity to deliver on developmental objectives. It is self-evident that for this process to be enduring, Afghan ownership should go hand in hand with Afghan leadership.

Afghanistan is centrally placed to emerge as a trade, transportation and energy hub connecting Central and South Asia. The international community must work together to realize this potential. Growing economic interdependence would complement efforts to promote peace and prosperity in the region.

India is an important neighbour of Afghanistan and we share undeniably close ties that have endured through the centuries into present times. Our focus there is on development activity with the aim to build indigenous Afghan capacities and institutions. This will enable an effective state system to improve the delivery of goods and services to Afghan people. Our assistance, now over US$ 1.3 billion, is spread over a large number of provinces in Afghanistan. In addition to several small and medium development projects, India has built the Zaranj-Delaram road and the power transmission line from Pul-e-Khumri to Kabul. We are also constructing Afghanistan's new Parliament building, a symbol of our common commitment to pluralism and democracy. At the recent London Conference, we have announced new initiatives in the agriculture sector and in institutional capacity building.

Our relationship with Pakistan is complex. Out of our desire for peaceful and good-neighbourly relations with Pakistan, we have repeatedly taken initiatives in the past to improve the relationship. You are aware that the dark forces of terrorism sought to erase the good that stemmed from such well-intentioned initiatives. We are now making another attempt of dialogue with Pakistan. However, calls of jihad, hostility and aggression continue to be made openly against India. This reflects the real and tangible difficulties that we face in dealing with Pakistan. If the process of normalization that we desire with Pakistan, is to be sustained and taken forward, effective action against such groups by the Government of Pakistan is an absolute must.

Under pressure and faced with the threat of terrorism in its own country, Pakistan has initiated some steps to fight this scourge. But these steps are selective. Distinctions between Taliban, Al Qaeda and terrorist outfits such as LeT are now meaningless, since they are now in effect fused both operationally and ideologically. We have consistently maintained that Pakistan should bring the perpetrators of the Mumbai terrorist attack to justice expeditiously and in a transparent manner. It should act decisively to dismantle the infrastructure of terrorism on its territory.

As I said previously, India is making another sincere attempt to initiate dialogue with Pakistan. I have invited my counterpart, the Foreign Secretary of Pakistan to Delhi for discussions later this week. We hope we can build, in a graduated manner, better communication and a serious and responsive dialogue to address issues of concern between our two countries.

With Sri Lanka our political relations are close, trade and investment have increased exponentially, and there is broad-based engagement across all sectors of bilateral cooperation. We view the conclusion of the military operations against the LTTE as providing an opportunity to finally achieve a lasting political settlement acceptable to all communities, including the Tamils, within a united Sri Lanka.

Our relations with Bangladesh have acquired further substance and scope in recent months, particularly after the very successful visit of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to India in January this year. Our security related cooperation has developed positively as also our cooperation in infrastructural development in Bangladesh, for which we have announced a US $ 1 billion concessional Line of Credit.

It is a universally held truth that India’s economic growth has a positive impact on our region. Today, with sustained high economic growth rates over the past decade, India is in a better position to offer a significant stake to our neighbours in our own prosperity and growth. We have made unilateral gestures and extended economic concessions such as the facility of duty free access to Indian market for imports from Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka. We have put forward proposals multilaterally within the framework of the SAARC or the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation where we have assumed asymmetric responsibilities.

Turning to our extended neighbourhood, it is evident that with the rapid rise of China and India, the global and regional situation is being re-defined. There is much that is said about China’s rise and its implications for India. There is both competition and collaboration in the dynamic equilibrium of our relationship with China. Both our countries have always thought in civilizational time-frames. Even as we are discussing the unresolved boundary question, we have ensured that there is peace and tranquility in our border areas. China has emerged as India’s largest trading partner. We are consulting each other on global issues such as multilateral trade negotiations, climate change, and in the G-20, etc.

In the decade ahead, India will have to, as one writer noted recently, provide itself with “the widest possible field of vision” when it comes to China. This will entail not only a multi-dimensional approach to developing relations with China but also creating our menu of strategic options to ensure that we are able to protect and promote our interests effectively in our region.

Key elements in the India-China relationship like imbalances in bilateral trade, the unresolved boundary question, our dialogue on water resources with regard to the trans-border rivers like the Brahmaputra and the Sutlej point to the complex and evolving nature of our dialogue. The rapid growth of our economies has engendered a search for resources by both countries in third countries and regions across the globe. In some cases we have developed patterns of collaboration with the Chinese, in others, we have been in competition. This is the reality of the relationship. In our own region, which remains geo-politically unstable, China has an enduring strategic relationship with Pakistan, and a growing presence in other neighbouring countries. We are conscious of these leverages that China has developed in our region and realize fully that our relations with China cannot be uni-dimensional, or seen through a narrow prism. Our own relations with our South Asian neighbours acquire crucial importance in this scenario. Our economic strength and increased commitment to the economic development of our neighbourhood in South Asia, sustained dialogue at the leadership level, security-related dialogue especially as it relates to better border management, cooperation in health, education and environment-related sectors, and creating the infrastructure for better intra-regional connectivity and transportation, together with the attraction of India’s soft power are all factors that can be, and are being, mobilized in this context.

With Japan, we are developing the foundations of “strategic global partnership” with a strong economic and strategic content. Recent years have seen a qualitative shift in relations with defence dialogue and security cooperation emerging as important aspects of our relations. Our relations with the United States are in a new and transformative phase, with convergences in foreign policy priorities, and shared approaches to some of the most complex regional and global challenges of our times – from countering terrorism to working together for energy security, mitigating the impact of climate change to maritime security, nuclear security and safeguarding the global commons to name a few areas. With Russia, our strategic partnership has been continuously strengthened, and our multi-faceted relations span a number of sectors including defence, nuclear energy, space research, science and technology and hydrocarbons. Our ties with France have been further enhanced through regular summit-level meetings and the triad of cooperation in the civil nuclear, defence and space sectors. The India-Brazil-South Africa (IBSA) and the Russia-India-China (RIC) cooperation forums have also helped us engage more closely with these countries in forging ties of dialogue and cooperation on economic and development-related issues.

India’s engagement with the ASEAN has grown manifold over the past decade and half and is set to get a fillip with the conclusion of the ASEAN-India Trade in Goods Agreement.

Myanmar is an ASEAN member country with which we share a border of more than 1640 kms. We have advocated engagement with Myanmar since it is a close neighbour of ours. It is important for India to ensure a peaceful periphery with Myanmar. We strongly believe that any political reform process in Myanmar should be peaceful and not cause instability within that country or on our borders with it. We have urged the Government of Myanmar to take forward the process of national reconciliation and political reform and broad-base it to include all sections of society, including the more than 18 ethnic groups in the country.

On the security architecture for the region, there is a need to evolve a balanced, open and inclusive framework for Asian countries and major non-Asian players to interact and cooperate to address traditional and non-traditional security challenges. The ASEAN Regional Forum has provided a useful model for such cooperation based on dialogue and consensus in diverse areas such as counter terrorism, trans-national crimes, maritime security, disaster relief, pandemics and nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. India is also a member of the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA). We have also partnered with the international community in deploying an Indian naval presence for anti-piracy escort operations to ensure maritime security in the Gulf of Aden.

Before I finish, let me say a few words about our relations with the UK. The UK is an important interlocutor for us in the bilateral, EU, G8 and global contexts and our multi-faceted bilateral relationship has intensified specially since its upgradation to strategic partnership in 2004. Our engagement is most wide-ranging including high-level visits, parliamentary and official-level exchanges, business interaction and cultural interchanges. President Pratibha Patil was on a State visit to the UK from 27-29 October 2009. There have been regular exchanges of visits at the Prime Minister-level. Institutional linkages have continued through regular FOCs, JWG and India-UK Round Table. Our trade and investment partnerships are both-ways and expanding rapidly. India is the second largest source of students to UK with about 31,000 students. Science & technology is a focus area for our two countries. On 11 February 2010, we signed a Joint Declaration on civil nuclear cooperation which will give a new dimension to our already multi-dimensional and vibrant ties.

Once again I want to say how delighted I am to be with you this morning and to be given the privilege to be a part of your deliberations. I have no doubt that the MEA-IISS relationship will scale greater heights in times to come which is a tribute to your vision and long-term perspective about the need for the world to engage India more closely, to forge understandings, and to promote more inclusive dialogue with key stakeholders on both sides. I wish the deliberations of the seminar success.
 

anoop_mig25

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2009
Messages
5,804
Likes
3,151
Country flag
i think GOI, ministry of foreign affairs doesn't have clear gaol regarding how to deal china or even Pakistan.look how Chinese develop their border area while we were fearing another Chinese attacks so never developed our border regions and thus our bothers at border remained undeveloped.even now we are developing but at very slow rate.regarding Pakistan i think we dependent on USA to much to deliver on pakistan or even on afagistan .i heard there were some type of comprise on Kashmir issue during Musharaf regime. we should had went ahead and should have carried out the deal.now look america is looking for exit policy with some kind bargain with Taliban with help from Pakistan and Pakistan is using this Opportunity to fullest even demanding nuclear deal+plus something on Kashmir +plus something on..................both china and Pakistan has defined goal and accordingly carrying out steps .while in india we donot have any goal.its like carrying out daily business chaining within days.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top