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.
