Author: Vikas Kumar, Bangalore
It is widely believed that China is engaged in extensive intelligence operations targeting the United States. And yet remarkably, it refuses to learn from common knowledge about the United States’ experience as the current global power. This Chinese learning deficit has serious consequences for China and the world at large.
It is well-known that the United States’ policy of using extremist Islamic regimes as proxies against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan has boomeranged. China refuses to learn from the United States’ experience in this regard. Read more…
Author: Vikas Kumar, Bangalore
During the Cold War, Australia’s engagement with Asia was largely governed by its ethno-historical affiliation with the West. A case in point was Australia’s membership of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO), which was governed by the United States’ global security calculus.
More recent Australian engagements with Asia, particularly in Afghanistan and Iraq, have also unfolded under the US security umbrella. Read more…
Author: Vikas Kumar, Bangalore
Over the last two decades Asia has seen the emergence of competing centres of power, an unprecedented development in its modern history. A similar development in modern West Europe was followed by immense inter-state rivalry that ended only after a series of devastating wars. Even then it was the common threat of Communism and the security umbrella of an outsider, the United States, that curbed inter-state military rivalry. The United States served as a channel for inter-state communication and also balanced local powers against each other. In addition, it committed itself to defend West Europe from Soviet aggression. While Asian countries are cognisant of the economics of conflict, none of the major constituent regions of Asia — East, West and South Asia — has a common enemy that could force otherwise competing powers to close ranks.
More importantly, the capacity of any state, including the United States, to serve as a guarantor of security in 21st century Asia is increasingly moot. Read more…
Author: Vikas Kumar, Bangalore
The controversial replacement of General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of US forces in Afghanistan, has exposed the strategic confusion at the heart of NATO’s War on Terror. The strategies pursued so far have not only failed to stabilise Afghanistan but have also destabilised Pakistan. Consequently, this war is unlikely to end in the near future, if victory, howsoever defined, is the objective. Even if victory is obtained, the subsequent revival of Islamic extremists (henceforth, Islamists) is quite likely. So, without an ‘ideological war’ strategy, there is no point wasting taxpayers’ billions in temporarily repulsing ragtag Islamist militias.
NATO believes that a decisive victory coupled with democratisation and development is sufficient to conclusively defeat the Islamists. Read more…
Author: Vikas Kumar, CSSE
According to the latest estimates, the Indian economy continues to grow at a rate of 8 per cent. But the question of whether this economic growth will create opportunities for all sections of society remains hotly contested.
In 2004, the National Democratic Alliance lost the parliamentary elections to the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA). This election was largely decided on the question of whether the fruits of economic growth were accessible to the poor, minorities, tribes, and socially underdeveloped communities. UPA subsequently won the 2009 parliamentary elections as well. Yet despite the ascendancy of the Indian centre-left, in the last five years, extreme left-wing insurgency, or Naxalism, which is opposed to the economic policies of New Delhi, has emerged as the single biggest challenge to the Indian state and economy.
This situation is historically unprecedented. Read more…
Author: Vikas Kumar, CSSE
The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010 (‘the Bill’), belatedly introduced in the Indian Parliament on May 7 2010, has generated a lot of controversy. But the international aspects of the Bill have not attracted much attention. This is surprising because the Bill indicates that the government might at some point want to sign the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage, 1997 (CSC), promoted by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Is CSC a preferable option to other international conventions? Read more…
