International Law and Strategic Analysis Institute (ILSAI)

Think Tank in Chennai focusing on International Law and Strategic Issues

Engage

Events

Engage with us

at our Conferences, Talks and Training

Engage

Read and Learn

Get your basic information

from our backgrounders

Engage

Support our work

by joining us

as volunteers or as collaborators

Connect

Our work at a glance

  • Analysis of contemporary issues in International Law

  • Training through workshops and online programs

  • Reading and Audio Resources in International Law

  • Conferences, Seminars, Workshops and Lectures

Read

Sri Lanka:The New Regime and the Revolution

Prof.Asanga Abeyagoonasekera


“The most perilous moment for a bad government is one when it seeks to mend its ways.” ―Alexis de Tocqueville,L'Ancien RĂ©gime et la RĂ©volution (1856)

At a meeting in Davos in 2017, Chinese President Xi Jinping made a speech supporting the agenda on globalisation. Meanwhile, back in the US, President Trump was highlighting the importance of the US confining its national boundaries. “America only does not mean America alone,” said Trump in Davos. The President received a standing ovation for a speech that resonated the importance of collective action to build a better world. However, global reality, with its increasing political fractures, tells a different story.

Sri Lanka, too, is witness to political bipolarity at a critical moment in the island's political narrative. For a closer examination of the developments underway in Sri Lanka, a study of the 'Silent Revolution' of 2015 against the monumental French Revolution provides illuminating points for analysis. Alexis de Tocqueville ideas on the French Revolution state that the “chief permanent achievement of the French revolution was the suppression of those political institutions, commonly described as feudal, which for many centuries had held unquestioned sway in most European countries. The revolution set out to replace them with a new social and political order, at once simple and more uniform, based on the concept of equality of all men.”
In comparison, what did the Sri Lanka’s Silent Revolution achieve? Did the present government take precautions to make sure of importing nothing from the past into the new regime? What kind of process did the new regime follow? And what restrictions were set to differentiate themselves in every possible way? Was the word revolution used simply to fulfill a political aspiration?

Messages from the leadership are loud but inconsistent. Sufficiently exposed to bipolar political promises, public absorption of rhetoric has reached exhaustion. This is a poor note to send the electorate after casting their franchise at the local elections in Sri Lanka. Looking at this bipolarity from the top, one could design a “political bipolar index (PBI)” to assess local leaders' (lack of) responsibility.
For politicians, political power remains the raison d’ĂȘtre. The struggle toward electoral victory, subsequent power struggles, and influence over public policy is visible across societies. In certain dignified societies, persuasion remains an acceptable choice over coercion. However, in some other societies, politicians prefer the baton, tear gas, and machine guns. In an orderly society, coercion and conflict are transferred from the battleground to councils of law. Some regimes have the muscle to ward off a revolution while others fail.

Sri Lanka’s Rajapaksa regime failed to ward off the Silent Revolution in 2015. It was a peaceful revolution by ballot. To apply de Tocqueville’s words, “The regime which is destroyed by a revolution is almost always an improvement on its immediate predecessor, and experience teaches that the most critical moment for bad governments is the one which witnesses their first steps toward reform.” Today, the Sri Lankan government is experiencing what Tocqueville wrote in 1856, in his book on the French Revolution. The local government election results revealed the mood of the polity. Local elections remain a perfect barometer to identify political cyclones on the horizon. Then one could also name the next revolution 'Silent Revolution 2.0' in 2020. An actual revolutionary scenario will offer new faces and fresh voices. However, such a reality remains doubtful.

Sri Lanka celebrated 70 years of independence on 4th February this year. The country displayed its achievements since independence in the print and electronic media. Alongside its achievements, the country has also faced nearly a thirty-year war with two youth insurrections in 1971 and 1989. The revolt was against the political system of that time which failed to create better economic conditions particularly in the field of employment. The situation has not improved. The economic condition worsens with high borrowings and debt. This was clearly indicated by the latest Moody’s Asia Pacific rating. Sri Lanka did not rank favourably, especially when compared to with 24 Asia Pacific countries. Earlier, the World Economic Forum's Global Competitiveness Index report reflected the same dismal ratings.
Since independence, successive governments have failed to make Sri Lanka a developed nation. A toxic mix of high-level corruption and bad governance remain at the heart of the problem. According to senior journalist, Malinda Senevirathne, “a system of government run by the worst, least qualified or most unscrupulous citizens” and an absence of technocrats with the right skill set to deliver could be the cause of this situation.

President Sirisena’s findings from the Central Bank Bond Commission and the revelation of malpractice to the public should be appreciated. His actions reflected transparency at the highest level. In a country like Sri Lanka where the appearance of civil power is little more than a wispy gauze veiling the reality of political power, disclosures from the Bond Commission are grist for the mill of politics-as-usual and not a force disrupting the status quo. Only if appropriate action is taken following the revelations contained in the report and the funds recovered to the public can progress be measured in terms of restoring civil power over political power.
In this revolutionary political moment that began in 2015, revolutions within revolutions are needed to harness the scattered and disgruntled polity. The ballot in hand has proven that the results will be a clear epiphany.


*(The author is a visiting Professor for Geopolitics and Global Leadership at the Northern Kentucky University(USA) and the Director General of the Institute of National Security Studies Sri Lanka. The views expressed are the author's own)

International Law & Security

Keynote Address by
Lt Gen (Retd) VR Raghavan
International Law & Strategic Analysis Institute
Chennai, 12 May 201

The launch of ILSAI marks a significant new addition to the Think Tanks in Chennai in particular and India in general. It will add to the intellectual discourse on the  twin issues of law and security and strengthen the understanding of the unique and growing links between the two. Dr. Geeta  Madhavan deserves credit and our admiration for taking this initiative. She is uniquely qualified to do so with a PhD on Terrorism, and being a lawyer herself. In addition, she was a Founding Member of the Centre for Security Analysis, in which capacity she has had international and pan-India experience in presenting papers and   getting published. She is also  a persuasive and bespoke communicator, which is a rare asset in these times of high decibel  assault on civilised interaction.  She has the  capacity to conceptualise strategically, and marshal resources to conduct research and analysis in the fields of international law and security. Let us wish her endeavours every success.

Think Tanks
The strange pair of words, Think and Tank, creates images in popular understanding ranging from the esoteric to the elitist. Some understand this entity to be a living body as evidenced by a respected elderly family member, who was an engineer and manufacturer, always asking me,” ...so General, how is your thinking tank working?” I never could resolve the nagging doubt whether he was slyly referring to part of my anatomy above my shoulders. There is also the impression that it could be a military tank which thinks, or, a water body with a mysterious faculty. The best and very satisfying impression is of a wise  and influential body of experts.  The nomenclature  is not infrequently uttered with a raised eyebrow.  An article in a business  newspaper titled its article as, ’the growing tribe of think tanks in India’,  with an unsaid allusion to think tanks being some kind of shady operators.

The tradition of Think Tanks started late in India. The all pervasive governing structure led by the unique   steel structure, called the civil service, was considered the repository of all wisdom and knowledge. Only when the system opened up after the economic and policy reforms in the late 1980s, which made governance a complex and hands on activity, that objective analysis and opinion slowly gained some traction in policy circles. There are today nearly two hundred working Think Tanks.  It is worth noting that five Indian Think Tanks figure in the list of top 150 Think Tanks worldwide. At rank 50 is Centre for Civil Society (CCS), at 102 is the Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis (IDSA), at 107 is The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), Observer Research Institute (ORF) is at 114 and the Development Alternatives (DA) at 140. The US has over 1800 Think Tanks, China 426 and the UK has 287.[1]

Think Tanks are generally expected to inform and influence policies and strategic choices. The reality however varies from country to country. In the US where they have played the most visible role, Presidents, policy makers, and strategy planners have relied extensively on Think Tanks. In fact Think Tanks are used by the government to both corroborate and defend their policy choices. Once a new administration comes in, the bulk of the old administration stalwarts move into the Think Tank circuit.   The new administration also uses Think Tanks to recommend policy choices they wish to make and use them to find justification for their policy choices. In Russia and China, the role of Think Tanks is at best one of a mouth piece for state policy choices. Nevertheless they indicate pointers toward possible state thinking on critical issues. In UK and EU, even well established Think Tanks, notwithstanding the high quality of their output, only play a secondary and academic role in policy circles. Their research papers and journals are however widely referred and quoted in the academia and media. In developing countries, their role is commensurate with    the stature of the individual/s who heads such institutions.
The Indian scene is marked by two contradictory trends. There is on one hand a substantial flow of studies, reports and journals some of which is of international standards. Much of this outpouring of material disappears without trace into the strategic and policy stratosphere. On the other hand, government, its ministers and particularly the civil service which makes and implements policy disdain to look at the material. How do or how can Think Tanks reach into the policy circles and have an impact in India, depends entirely on their  capacity to network and build outreach groups in the system. Social media which plays decisive part in creating a cloud of opinion on issues of little consequence, has not yet demonstrated the power to influence policy. Think Tanks can only play a major role by painstaking research and deep analysis of lasting value. It takes time, sustained effort and of course resources to achieve this.
International Law & Security
International Law is recognised as such when a treaty, act or agreement is registered and listed in the United Nations. In fact, promoting the rule of law at national and international levels is at the heart of UN’s mission. The treaties and agreements between groups of  countries can also be part of this rubric, when registered with the UN. The Indus Water Treaty is an example of the latter. The UN continues to promote international law across its three pillars of work: international peace and security, economic and social progress and development, and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.[2]
There is a plethora of international laws related to peace and security. International Humanitarian Law, Human Rights Law, those relating to Geneva Conventions, Laws of the Seas, on Terrorism related issues, on keeping Space free of  weapons, on nuclear Disarmament and Arms Control, International Tribunals, on peace keeping and sanctions and so on. It is a long and ever growing list. The challenge for individuals, governments and Think Tanks, is in the reality of almost all such laws being observed in the breach to varying degrees.  There is a disconcerting increase in countries’ leaders defying international laws and norms. The latest amongst them is President Trump who has made clear that even  the Nuclear Agreement with Iran,  painstakingly negotiated along with five other major powers, is open to scrapping.  He also plans to pull the USA out of the Paris Climate Pact negotiated by 144 countries, despite the close links between and climate and security.  Similarly trade and defence agreements are now declared to be dispensable. There is no country or leader, and even  self proclaimed organisations like terrorist organisations, which have not violated or vitiated such laws. International and national security are both affected adversely by the deliberate and wilful violation, misinterpretation and defiance of international laws.
International security scenario today is one of turbulence and disillusionment. While in mid 2016 it was felt that the global international architecture was on the cusp of change, today ie; ten  months later it  has significantly altered adversely. Brexit has been termed as the example of a major economy seeking to move away from globalisation. The Bretton woods system is being challenged by the creation of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the BRICS Contingent Reserve Arrangement, and new trade agreements in the pipeline. China is more assertive than ever, which has encouraged its minor ally North Korea to rattle its nuclear sabres. Russia’s entry into the Middle East    and the region’s disastrous contributions to international instability through the massive refugees movements into Europe and elsewhere is well known. The character of war is undergoing a change. Since 1946, there has been an exponential increase in ongoing civil wars, which since 1990 have numbered over 40. On the other hand, ongoing interstate wars have remained constant at less than  ten. Advanced armies are closely studying the phenomena of the Changing Character of War. Oxford University  is in  the midst of a project to examine the Changing Character of War, and universities from Australia to USA are offering courses on this in response to demands from governments, international organisations and corporate houses.
New Wars, as these conflicts are called, are characterised by use of military force without a declaration of war and of involvement of full military power used by militias, euphemistically termed as freedom fighters. These are wars of the globalised era.  Old and traditional wars were between states, fought with organised armies which adhered to commonly accepted laws. They retained and strengthened the identity of states that were at war. New Wars are more for identity than for territory. There is greater use of guerrilla and terror tactics. New Wars are as much for political effect as for military gains.  The targets are  cities, towns, civilians and populations. Public executions of prisoners and innocents are video broadcast for global impact. The ideological leader of such wars may operate from a cave in Afghanistan, the military leader will  be either  invisible or wearing a mask, and speak to his troops or the world on video films, the troops are drawn from different countries and motivated by web based sermons and propaganda. ISIS launched its operations by announcing it on Twitter. It also drew 30,000 fighters from nearly 100 countries.   Thus we see fighters who congregate in the war zone from UK, India, and from the US. and France. New Wars have thus become a genre of war in which international law and even the traditional Laws of War fail to address the contemporary conflicts.  Jus ad Bellum  or Just War principles  are  no longer to be heard of in these times of New Wars. International Laws which were constituted in the 18th and 19th centuries rest to a great extent   on the outmoded concepts of war from the European be experience. Just War theories bear no relevance to asymmetric wars or international cyber attacks.  There is now a need and a growing call for a new generation of human security concepts for the 21st Century. The relationship of international law and New Wars is tenuous, vague and unproven.

Even  more disturbing is the disregard for international laws and norms  on use of military force by all major powers. Russian and US military entry into Syria,  the role of Iran and US in Iraq, and Saudi Arabia’ military operations  in Yemen have changed the military balance in the region. This imbalance has impacted on most major countries of Europe through a massive refugee influx which in turn is affecting political stability as seen in recent elections. China’s defiance of international arbitration and its military coercion  of smaller nations in its neighbourhood has substantially changed the strategic balance in East Asia.  Chemical weapons have been used in Syria, even as there exists a universal ban on such weapons.  Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its vivisection of Ukrain with military forces operating as freedom fighters has changed the nature of confrontation between NATO and former Soviet states.  These are clear examples of the disconnect between international laws and strategic stability. As the IISS of London stated it, ‘the politics of parochialism now mix with  the instincts of nationalism, and both clash with the cosmopolitan order so carefully constructed by the technocrats of the late twentieth century’.[3] It goes on to reflect that on the whole, there will be a grinding of the geopolitical tectonic plates, with no geopolitical settlement in the offing. In Fifth  Century BC, in  416 BC during the Peloponnesian War, there was the famous incident of Athens asking the citizens of Melos to either join them in war or be slaughtered. The dialogue between the two has been immortally captured as the Melian Dialogue, in the statement that in relations between countries, ‘the powerful do as they please, and the weak must suffer as best they can.’  We seem to be reaching that state of affairs in the 21st Century.


Nearer home, a number of issues which link international laws with Indian security await examination and resolution. The Indus river water dispute with Pakistan and Teesta waters with Bangladesh are live issues. They also add to human security deficit in the region. River water sharing between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka has led to interstate conflicts between two Indian states. The fisheries issue between India and Sri Lanka is an international issue mixed with nationalist fervour. The implications under international laws of trans-border terrorism by Pakistan in J&K and Afghanistan has been addressed only marginally in India and abroad. China’s long intransigence on our northern borders, its support to insurgent groups in the north east, its nuclear and other support to Pakistan are linked to international law and made worse by its doubtful interpretations. Humanitarian and Human Rights laws impact on both individual and national security. Disregarding them alienates populations and raises levels of violence. National and regional security are equally affected by transgressing these  laws. Two decades  after signing the UN Convention against Torture , India is yet to ratify it. Let us be clear that there is a extensive  custodial violence in the country. Its legislative and administrative framework is also inadequate in a country of its size and claims to a great civilization. India’s record of Human Rights violations has been under international criticism since long. Two weeks ago India’s Attorney General had to defend the Indian record in Geneva, which exercise has been called  in many circles as defending the indefensible. Even the Indian Supreme Court has not been fully persuaded by such arguments.  There is  much to be done in this field as Think Tank.
The disdain of international Laws and its consequences on global and national strategic stability is an area in need of analysis. Its historic evolution and possible ways to restore the balance between the two cannot be done governments alone, which are busy managing the fallout from this disorder. It is best done by multi disciplinary experts, who can stand back, take stock, and find pragmatic ways forward. It is an area in which skills and capacities have to be built both in and outside the government. The beginning of ILSAI is a laudable effort in this direction, and I wish Dr. Geeta Madhavan every success.








[1] 5 Indian Think Tanks in world’s top150, http://timesofIndia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/.
[2] Justice  & International Law, http://www.un.org/what we do/
3 Strategic Survey 2016, IISS, London 

Welcome address by Dr Geeta Madhavan , President ILSAI at the Launch on 12 May 2017.

Good evening Ladies and Gentlemen,
I thank each and every one of you for being present here this evening. I see among you old friends, well wishers and supporters and to each I say : welcome ! 
“ It was the best of times , it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, “ . Charles Dickens – Tale of Two Cities.
Our times are indeed a time of transitions and contradictions, time of turbulences and transformation. It is a time where new ideas are emerging and old ideologies are being reinforced. Pluralism and diversity are being hailed on the one hand, fundamentalism and insular ideas are gaining momentum on the other. Even at this moment, around the world conventional wars, civil wars, insurgencies and secessionist movements are taking place causing untold misery to humanity . Countries are grappling with the scourge of terrorism in all its forms: domestic terrorism, cross border terrorism and international terrorism. 
Those problems and issues that were once considered nontraditional security threats viz. environmental disasters , global warming , migration due to conflicts , demographic changes, displacement of people , refugee problems and abrogation of civil and human rights have grown to global proportions and are no longer confined to particular areas or geographical boundaries. Their effect is felt directly in some countries and indirectly on all other countries. New leaders are emerging – the good, the evil and the confused; the indifferent and the passionate. What changes will they usher and what actions will be wrought by them that will affect history and forever change the course of humanity? 
Global interests are converging and diverging rapidly. Trade and economic interests are gaining paramount importance as countries jostle each other for supremacy. Economic imperialism is on the rise leading to new claims being made on land and on water. Regional powers and extra regional powers are staking claims over oceans. The natural resources of land and sea are becoming matters of dispute.
Yet, policies of nations are subject to principles of international law, which is a vital component in the relationship between nations. Nations are subject to principles of international law in dealing with each other to maintain global peace and security. Non adherence to these principles will create situations that will plunge humanity into an abyss.
International Law and Strategic Analysis Institute (ILSAI) is an effort by us not only to study, analyze and formulate thought but also an aspiration to pursue comprehensive policy analysis. We seek to create a momentum that straddles national policies, global interests and international law. Our objectives and intention are focused on creating a holistic approach to security, and on this journey we seek to engage analysts, policy makers, academia and young scholars.
It is our earnest endeavour to project the peninsular perspective, enhance it to the national level and merge it with international concerns. We, at ILSAI thank each of you for being part of this ambitious and sincere endeavour. Thank you !

The beginning

We officially set the ball rolling with General V R Raghavan delivering the key note address at our launch event. Here are a few images from the event.  

Dr Geeta Madhavan addresses the gathering

A rapt audience takes a look at the website 

Lt. General V R Raghavan engages the audience

An audience captivated by Lt Gen V R Raghavan's erudite scholarship

Meet the ILSAI Team