Report of IPCS Conference at the USI Auditorium, 24 January 2007

Dipankar Banerjee

The perception of NATO in India has hitherto remained mired in Cold War politics. This perception has shown signs of change with the holding of the first round of talks in January 2005 between India and NATO. As the latter attempts to expand its horizons beyond Europe, this conference attempts to understand the dominant perceptions in India.

Joerg Wolff

International relations are undergoing a period of transformation as conflicts assume new dimensions in today's world. In order to sharpen responses to the new security challenges, there is a need to question our existing doctrines and strategies. This conference promises to be a forum for discussion among security experts from both sides and is part of the second round of dialogue between NATO and India.

Session I: New Trends in the Global Security Environment

Carlo Masala

The security environment today is plagued by a number of threats ranging from international terrorism, to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, lack of energy security, and failed states. The transnational spread of these threats has given shape to the idea of a 'global NATO'. The main objective is 'defense of our people' regardless of where they are. In order to achieve its objective, NATO is working towards extending inter-governmental and non-governmental partnership with countries outside of Europe. It does not, however, in any sense nurture any ambitions of dominating the network. NATO is also working towards training its armed forces in new roles such as conducting humanitarian operations, prevention of proliferation of WMD and so on.

C Raja Mohan

The possibility of NATO's expansion in Asia is punctuated by many questions: What is NATO's position on the use of force and its legitimacy in International politics given the failure of the US in Iraq? What is NATO's position of the idea of nation building by international forces? How does it intend to incorporate new emerging powers like India, China, and Japan into its order? Following from this, the terms of engagement between India and NATO need further clarity and elaboration. For instance, NATO needs to address how it proposes to meet India's strategic interests which include stabilizing its neighborhood, maintaining a balance of power in the International system, and restructuring international institutions. India on its part needs to be clear on what terms it wishes to engage with NATO. What is its policy on use of force? How far will it go to defend its interests? Is it willing to take sides if need be?

Questions and Comments

• In a new world order characterized by global threats, NATO is still operating with the old mindset of 'defense of our people' designed to serve the interest of its member states.

• Since its inception, NATO has worked closely with the US. In moving forward, it needs to consider the decline of US power as much as it does the rise of India and China. Also, has NATO taken into consideration the possibility of a resurgent Germany?

• What is the relation of NATO with the United Nations?

• What does 'global NATO' imply? Further, will NATO succeed in Afghanistan?

• Is NATO looking to expand its membership or merely seeking new partners?

Responses

Carlo Masala

• In order to avoid running the risk of being perceived as imperial, it is important to refrain from acting on the behalf of others. NATO's partnerships are based on the two principles of joint ownerships and self-differentiation. If India enters into a partnership with NATO, it will have an equal say in decision-making.

• NATO has always undertaken activities under the UN mandate with the exception of Kosovo. Moreover, NATO is trying to institutionalize its relations with the UN, especially with the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. The objective is to create a strategy for cooperation in the social, economic and cultural spheres that can supplement the use of force in the aftermath of fighting.

• The term 'global NATO' signifies a 'globalized NATO' that keeps an eye on global developments. As for the question of Afghanistan, NATO will continue fighting. There is also increasing support for NATO's operation in Afghanistan. However, there is a need for greater coordination on the ground among the various groups involved.

• While NATO is looking to expand its horizons, inducting new members is not on the agenda for the coming years. The idea of global partners must not be confused with their becoming a part of NATO in the future.

• While Germany is a leading power, it is certainly not big enough to act without the EU. Germany is likely to remain committed to the EU and has no hegemonic intentions. As far as the decline of US is concerned, history has proven similar projections wrong. One must treat such projections with great caution.

C Raja Mohan

• The question for India is not whether NATO is looking to serve its own interests but whether there is a convergence of interests between the two sides. This dialogue is a manifestation of their converging interests.

• India's policy towards the UN is to support its various peacekeeping operations in the rest of the world yet prevent it from entering its neighbourhood. While it is debating its positions, India must centre its NATO policy on convergence of interest on a particular issue and avoid being UN-centric.

• All empirical data point towards the US remaining the single-most powerful nation-state for a long time yet. The problem in the US today is that domestic pressures are restraining its capacity to use its power.

• The problem facing NATO today is one of capabilities and of the will within Europe to fight outside its borders. For instance, how much money is it willing to spend to fund its operations?

Session II - The Asian Security Environment

VG Patankar

There are some major global issues with an Indian perspective. Terrorism, which is not a new phenomenon, is the single-most important one of these. Then there are insurgencies, which are varied in form but all insurgencies are disruptive in nature. The threat to security is confined not only to one country but also to everyone. The other threat is that of proliferation. This includes WMD, small arms, proxy wars, and nuclear proliferation. The greatest danger is that these weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists. There has been no review of the politico-military dimensions of such problems. There are four specific issues to look at - the build-up of China's military capabilities, the defiance of UN resolutions by both North Korea and Iran, the debate over Japan's Constitution and the Middle East imbroglio.

Where do we go from here? What ought to be done? In our relationships, we are following the six-pointed star both within and outside Asia. Our building blocks are these relationships. The way we deal with security issues has to be widened to a common 'war on terror', so that we are not left fighting alone and conducting training and operations. Lastly, the security perspective in India or Asia has a global dimension because of the number of people affected

Questions and Comments

• What are the prospects for an EU defence force? How is Europe going to mould its immigration policy to allow for the integration of immigrants into the system?

• Is the European involvement in the American led 'war on terror' a miscalculation? If so, is it worth persevering with it? Alternatively, do we need to look at another model that works in concert with the regional powers and find regional solutions instead of forcing European solutions in Asia?

• Is poverty not a threat in the subcontinent? Although the economy is growing fast, India still has the largest number of the poor of the world. Now that NATO is not really a military pact, and is going beyond in to the realms of rehabilitation, is there not a need for the NATO to address this issue?

• Why is it that India, despite having borders with all South Asian countries does not have a good relationship with any of them? Should not India then change its policy and look more closely at its neighborhood rather than focus on strategic partnerships alone?

Responses

Constanze Stelzenmuller

• The EU self defence force has been de-conflicted as it were by the Americans and the Europeans finding a new basis for the transatlantic relationship - one that is much more pragmatic, less ideological and more willing to accept that our ways may diverge occasionally.

• European demographics and economics dictate that we integrate migrants and that we make a success of it. If we integrate migrants of a different faith that is also in our interest not just in conforming with our values but because it will give our society much more credibility when dealing with problems that have their source in religion.

• No doubt what is happening behind closed doors in the NATO, there has been a sustained debate from the beginning on whether it was useful to make the 'war on terror' an overarching paradigm of military action in our times. And what is being seen now is a discrete correction of the course.

• The problem remains that the NATO is already overburdened and overstretched. However, it is the characteristic of a the EU that it can factor civilian functions too into its operations.

VG Patankar

• There is no denying that poverty is a matter of concern, not only at a human level but because it also leads to insurgencies. Although poverty is a very difficult thing to define, it is part of human security.

• For India, the bilateral equation differs with each country in South Asia. However, if India developed good relations with its neighbors, that would be a huge contribution to stabilizing other more difficult issues in Asia. In bilateral relationships we have a vehicle like the SAARC, but whether bilaterally or as a group, there are limitations to problem solving.

Session III: An Assessment of the Situation in Afghanistan

Michael R?hle

Afghanistan was the most challenging mission for NATO in its 58-year-old history. There are no parallels between Afghanistan and Iraq. The US is much more focused on Iraq than on Afghanistan. Some of the NATO troop requirement requests have not been answered adequately by its allies, which is a crucial issue. There has never been any military setback suffered by NATO in Afghanistan. NATO's leadership of the ISF has created a kind of security that is crucial for the stabilization and reconstruction of Afghanistan. The legitimate economy in Afghanistan has grown but the process of reconstruction has been very slow. There is considerable lack of international cooperation in channelising international aid into Afghanistan.

The "emerging reality" suggests that in an age when most NATO operations will have a nation-building element to them, the success of NATO would depend on how much it is able to bring together and put pressure on other international actors. NATO is just one piece of a puzzle with other actors making up the other pieces. There is a need to overhaul the NATO system to reduce the gap between the rhetoric and the reality.

There is a need to have better bilateral relations with Pakistan. Whatever form this relationship takes, transparency will be maintained. As a positive step, the idea of a Contact Group taking the lead in international affairs that emerged from the experience in the Balkans is worth considering. Efforts towards ensuring socio-economic stability would be possible only if security can first be provided in the region.

MK Bhadrakumar

The propensities of the US are very central to the crisis in Afghanistan. Although NATO lost no time in coming forth with an offer to aid Afghanistan giving effect to its 'collective security' agenda, the US did not like this role. Both NATO and India are assigned a peripheral role in the Afghanistan crisis with no say in conflict resolution, which remains the prerogative of the "condominium" consisting of "the US, Britain and Musharraf". There was no evidence to show that Afghanistan was involved in 9/11 attacks and therefore, US motives were questionable. Moreover, there was a blatant evacuation of Taliban cadres under the watchful eyes of the Americans from Kunduz that runs contrary to the argument that the objective of the US regime was overthrowing of Taliban.

The Bonn Conference was not a genuine peace meet and was governed by two prime objectives - to arm-twist the Northern Alliance and to have Hamid Karzai installed in power. There is a huge reservoir of anti-Americanism in Afghanistan today and for every Taliban cadre killed there are many more ready to come forward.

NATO and India need to ensure that there is greater transparency in the Afghanistan affairs. The Contact Group idea born in the Riga summit needs to be pursued. If the US launches an attack on Iran, the already fragile situation in Afghanistan would take a turn for the worse. It should be seen whether NATO could do something to stop the US from its tendency to go for unilateral attacks.

Questions and Comments

• The success of NATO is under question because NATO is a conventional force designed to fight insurgency and the national interests of its member countries come in the way of its effective functioning.

• What has been done to involve the neighbouring countries in the peace restoration process in Afghanistan?

• The Northern Alliance was the only military group capable of offering some kind of resistance to the Taliban, why then was it sidelined?

• How much effect does the Indo-Pak rivalry have on NATO policymaking vis-?-vis Afghanistan?

• What is the role played by the Tripartite Border Commission consisting of US, Pakistan and Afghanistan in the current crisis?

• How would NATO go about ensuring the cooperation of the big EU powers?

• For a long term solution of the Afghanistan problem, action needs to be taken in Pakistan. How would NATO ensure this?

Responses

Michael R?hle

• NATO has so far been able to blend the distinct interests of its 26 member-nations quite well. Although it is true that NATO is a conventional force, a stronger emphasis on Special Forces and expeditionary forces was underway even before Afghanistan.

• Acknowledging its crucial role, some key nations, most particularly the US is already engaging Pakistan. NATO's idea is to have a legitimately elected Afghan government.

• 9/11 was a wake-up call that showed that things that are seemingly peripheral may take a turn for the worse. NATO presence in Afghanistan is a direct result of that wake up call that still rings loud.

MK Bhadrakumar

• The whole attempt in Afghanistan will remain a disjointed effort if the reality that there is no military solution to the crisis remains unacknowledged.
  The Northern Alliance in Afghanistan could have been an effective counter-force to Taliban.

• India has no problems with the US engaging Pakistan. However what Pakistan is doing in Afghanistan is very dangerous to regional stability, much more than Iran in Iraq or Syria in Lebanon. This double standard needs to be brought out.

• There is a big body of opinion in Afghanistan that does not want the Taliban but this has been discredited as coming from the warlords.

• The Tripartite Border Commission is simply going to enable Musharraf to buy more time.

Session IV: The Future OF NATO

Vinod Patney

In the recent past Afghanistan was added to the list of brewing global and Asian challenges. According to the comprehensive political statement made at the Riga Summit, terrorism is global in scope and lethal in results; and the spread of weapons of mass destruction are likely to be the principle threats to the alliance in the next 10-15 years. Asymmetric warfare is a natural characteristic of militancy and terrorism. Power often leads to asymmetric warfare. The Westphalia Treaty of 1648 remained the bedrock of how international relations were conducted but it seems to have lost its relevance. A new phrase used in the industrial society in this context is 'management of increasing uncertainty and accelerated change.'

Karl-Heinz Kamp

There are perceptions that NATO is transforming from a military alliance into a global stability provider. However, NATO does not want to become a global alliance but to evolve a global perspective given the global challenges faced by it. Moreover, the US always wanted NATO to be a militarily usable and a globally deployable alliance.

Four important factors determining NATO's future are:

• Global partnership
  One of the most successful steps taken by NATO after the Cold War was to establish partnership with the former Warsaw Pact region and shape the political order in Europe. However, NATO's success and survival will be dependent on how it tackles its future operations and manages its capabilities. Argentina, Japan, Brazil and India are potential global partners of NATO and it is in their own security interest to become NATO's partners. However, these countries should have the ability to express their views in NATO's decision-making. This initial idea of the US and Britain was called 'Stability Providers Forum.' However, questions were raised on what factors determined potential partnership.

• NATO enlargement
  Albania, Croatia, Macedonia are still waiting to become members of the alliance. However, NATO enlargement will depend on success of its future military operations. The entire question is complicated with the EU enlargement process going through a stage of fatigue. However, EU membership and global partnership are different from each other despite being intertwined. Enlargement of NATO is less important in terms of its strategic future.

• NATO has to be reestablished as a key forum for trans-Atlantic security debate
  Other areas of concern besides terrorist activity are North Korea's nuclear arsenal, the possibility of Iran going nuclear, and rising energy demands in Asia. Therefore, to reconstruct its role as a security organization, NATO has to deal with both political and military problems.

• NATO needs to establish new strategic concept
  NATO still works on the basis of its 1999 strategy and is plagued by the lack of commitment from older members to support its actions in Afghanistan. However, the new NATO strategy will force every member to define its own interests and positions. Therefore, free riding in NATO will become more difficult. The main aim for NATO is to become a militarily able alliance and act on a global scale.

RK Sawhney

The situation in Afghanistan is not as bad as in Iraq. NATO is performing a very crucial task in the country. Five years back, the Taliban and civil wars had destroyed Afghanistan in terms of infrastructure and resources. Today, the country has started to rebuild itself. A constitution exists with a President and Parliament but international presence is still necessary. NATO lacks a sufficient number of troops and is using air power in an aggressive manner. Another problem is the denial of the fact that Pakistan is involved in the problem. The lack of despair among Canadians who have lost their soldiers in the war indicates support for Afghanistan. However, the French have taken away their special battalion from the region without completing the job. This reflects NATO's lack of wholehearted commitment and is unfair to the troops on the ground.

Afghanistan cannot have a president who is not a Pushtun. Hamid Karzai is taking over as President of the country was a significant development as he is a Pushtun. However he is unable to exert himself as he lacks political or financial support. The main problem arises in the south and east of Kabul, marked by Pushtun insurgency. However this insurgency is different from earlier ones when Taliban was able to overrun the countryside. Now the Taliban can be resisted by a NATO with a stronger will and more troops. It is important for NATO to stay in Afghanistan in order to prevent clashes between the Shia and Sunni militias that exist in large numbers guarding the opium fields in Afghanistan. In this scenario, NATO is transforming itself and can perform well if it gets enough time for it has not been used to tackling counter insurgency operations where retaliation is not possible and resources are limited.

Questions and Comments

• NATO has difficulties in carrying out military operations in Afghanistan. On its role of peacekeeping, can it replace the UN as the peacekeeper of the globe? If deployed in countries of Asia and Africa it will lack legitimacy as it is seen as a western alliance with Judeo-Christian ethos.

• NATO gave aid during the Berlin crises in 1960s. Why it was unable to help the victims of the earthquake of 2005 in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir in a similar way?

Response

Karl-Heinz Kamp

NATO does not want to become a global policeman and wants to retain its choice of intervention in any crisis. NATO has to discuss issues of peace and energy security before undertaking any action. However, debates and discussions do not automatically transform NATO into a global policeman.