Changing Nature of Conflict: Trends and Responses

General

The Indian Army and the Centre for Land Warfare Studies (CLAWS) jointly organised a two-day international seminar on ‘Changing Nature of Conflict: Trends and Responses’ on 23-24 November 2009 at the DRDO Auditorium, New Delhi. The Keynote Address was delivered by the Raksha Mantri, Shri A K Antony, and the Inaugural Address by the Chief of Army Staff, Gen Deepak Kapoor. Shri Shashi Tharoor, Minister of State for External Affairs, delivered the Valedictory Address. Held in four sessions, the seminar was attended by delegates from about 20 friendly countries, senior serving officers of Indian armed and paramilitary forces, government officials, central police organisations, members of the strategic community, representatives of human rights institutions and the media.

INAUGURAL SESSION

Welcome Address:  Brig Gurmeet Kanwal (Retd), Director CLAWS.

This is the second Indian Army-CLAWS joint international seminar and is part of a series of deliberations on India’s security concerns. The subject chosen is important as the deliberations will seek to understand recent changes in the character of conflict and identify emerging trend lines. The sessions have been structured so as to cover the entire gamut of issues pertaining to the changing nature of conflict and the responses necessary to meet future threats and challenges.

Inaugural Address:  Gen Deepak Kapoor, PVSM, AVSM, SM, VSM, ADC, Chief of Army Staff

The character of warfare is determined more by political, social, economic and strategic imbalances than it is by changes that may occur on the military front. The disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991 led to the end of the Cold War. However, the cataclysmic events of 9/11 have transformed the definition of security and today we have an uncertain security scenario of “no war, no peace”.
The period from 1945 to 1991 was marked by the Cold War and witnessed the evolution of use of violence to impose ideology, struggle for self-determination and wars against political, social and economic suppression. It led to the emergence of non-state actors as future adversaries that were also used as tools of proxy war of one nation against the other. Armed conflicts have cross-border linkages and are shifting from insurgencies to urban terrorism, thus making the borders irrelevant in shaping the changing nature of conflict.
South Asia is one of the epicenters of conflict and instability due to territorial disputes, provocation by proxy war, radical extremism, religious fundamentalism, ethnic tensions and socio-economic disparities. However, there is neither political nor diplomatic unity to fight them. Nations can be forced to take interventions purely on humanitarian grounds. It is difficult to draw a line between wars of interests and wars of conscience; between wars of choice and wars of necessity.
Future threats would now also encompass the war on drugs, radical groups, control of resources and religious extremism. The use of space and cyber space has added a new dimension to conventional wars. As the battlefields merge, the wars of the future would also be played where energy, trade, and aid can be used as a weapon. Therefore the very concept of national security needs to be reexamined.
Nations are under attack and humanity in general is threatened. Options are limited - split to suffer or unite to survive. Collective responsibility and sharing of information on the part of nations will be the key to stemming the threat arising from non-state actors as well as avoiding escalation of conflict between nations. Thus, capability and capacity building is imperative as also the nations’ ability to deter, dissuade and contain the adversary. Escalation control and conflict termination on favorable terms is an essential part of military strategy. However, conflict resolution and transformation strategy has emerged as tools to deal with new asymmetric and unrestricted war. Cooperative security and multilateral military cooperation to deal with the common threat, preferably under the UN aegis, is likely to be an inescapable requirement that will need consensus.

Keynote Address: Shri A K Antony, Hon’ble Raksha Mantri

There is a paradigm shift in the nature of conflict. Though territorial issues are important, other issues related to historical differences, ideological biases, economic disparity, energy security and water shortage are contributing factors for conflict. Modern day conflicts are not merely confined to states but have expanded to include sub-nationalities, terrorists, insurgents, religious fanatics and ethnic interests. The nature of conflict arises from sabotage, subversion, confrontation and armed conflict. Thus the state’s response needs to be balanced, inclusive and one that incorporates political, economic, societal and military measures.
Various developments in our neighbourhood particularly in Pakistan and Afghanistan have brought South Asia to the centre stage of sub-conventional conflict and instability. Additionally, terrorism, low intensity conflict motivated by economic disparity, religious fundamentalism, narcotics trade, threat of nuclear weapons falling in wrong hands etc remain issues of concern in our region. Nations are seeking for ways and means to combat terrorism in any form. In this regard civil society, human rights organisations, media and law enforcement agencies all have a role to play. In addition, the armed forces must be used optimally to shape response to such threats.
While there is a virtual absence of direct armed conflict between nations, internal armed conflicts have witnessed an upward trend. The entry of non-state actors has added a new dimension to low intensity conflicts. Responses to such challenges need to be addressed in a focused and credible manner. The conventional armed forces need to maintain edge by upgrading technologies; intelligence and security agencies need to coordinate nationally and internationally and cooperative security as strategy needs to be enforced at regional and international levels. I hope that the deliberations will come up with a practical road map to accelerate the necessary process to effectively combat security threats facing nations and societies.

SESSION I - THE EMERGING SECURITY ENVIRONMENT: INTERNATIONAL & REGIONAL

Chairperson: Ambassador Kanwal Sibal, former Foreign Secretary

We have no single functioning international security architecture. There are only two regions in the world where there is a functional security architecture – Europe (and the Atlantic region) and Southeast Asia – in the form of NATO and ARF respectively. The two bloc situation is now over. The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) has lost its relevance. The rise of China is another feature of this new environment. How China deals with the territorial problems it has with its various neighbours, the contradiction between its political and economic systems, the ramifications of its increased military strength on Japan, Taiwan, the South China Sea, Southeast Asia and Southern Asia and most importantly, what its role will be in the United Nations will be watched with interest. China’s collaboration with Pakistan in nuclear and other technology transfers, and the shared role that US and China have in arming Pakistan, could prove to be dangerous. China is also filling up the vacuum in the international system left by Russia.
The multi polarity of the world, which was heralded as a consequence of globalisation, was supposed to change the way countries perceived their security environment, with an increased emphasis on collective security. Conventional territorial concerns, such as those between India and Pakistan, and India and China, still retain ascendancy. Afghanistan in itself, with the Taliban, and Pakistan, as also the potential collapse of Pakistan, is a security concern. The rise of North Korea and Iran as potential nuclear powers and the increasing spread of civil nuclear power will increase the likelihood of many other countries developing nuclear weapons. Terrorism, religious extremism, asymmetric warfare, non-state actors, drug trafficking and money laundering are all valid security concerns, with serious security implications.

International Security Environment and Emerging Flashpoints – Dr Timothy D Hoyt, Professor, US Naval War College

Flashpoints are not just a matter of geography, political or terrestrial. What makes them flashpoints is the degree to which they destabilise regional or global politics. The dangers of instability may be much greater now than during the Cold War. Climate change, demography and religious extremism now create new problems. States which formerly had benign security relationships suddenly find themselves enmeshed in broader conflicts. Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Taiwan, North Korea, and Iran are all states which may deliberately instigate or become embroiled in internal, regional, or great power conflict in the coming decades. Shattered or collapsing states will continue to invite international intervention, primarily in southern Africa but also quite possibly in either coastal areas (due to climate change) or Central Asia.
Iraq’s rather tepid support for international terrorism in the 1980s became a major element of the casus belli for US intervention in 2003. Iran’s on-and-off support for elements of Al Qaeda and its dabbling in Afghanistan may cause much greater difficulties with the US than anticipated. And Pakistan now faces “blowback” from some of the dozens of militant groups it has fostered and supported in an effort to influence its neighbors. These states are also critical because they may either fail catastrophically or invite extra-regional intervention should a crisis occur. In either case, the possibility of protracted conflict increases, as does the possibility of escalation – at least in part because each state has a large population. Should conflicts in these regions lead to war, we can no longer predict with certainty what those wars will look like.

Other flashpoints may emerge for other, non-traditional security reasons. Their geographic location will be more widespread than the Asian focus – Africa, for example, is particularly hard hit by poverty, demographics, and potentially by disease. The re-emergence of populism in Latin America, exemplified by Hugo Chavez, threatens to reverse a trend toward more stable civilian democracies in that region. Europe and the Maghreb face significant potential threats from radical Islamist groups – in Europe in particular, the inability to integrate Muslim populations into a larger national identity poses threats to Britain, France, Spain and Germany. The emergence of terrorist campaigns in any of these states is, perhaps, less likely to lead to regional conflict – Europe, after many generations, looks more like a region of peace than most continents – but could still constitute a very significant and troubling event in terms of international security.
However, the inability of the international community to generate broader coordinated responses to predictable threats is disappointing. The United Nations continues to play a deeply constrained role in international conflict. Regional security organisations and alliances have proven only marginally effective. Flashpoints, therefore, will remain with us in the future. The more traditional ones may be amenable to traditional practices – hedging, negotiation, deterrence – but the volatility of local polities in many of the critical states may create unanticipated crises or consequences.

Regional Security Environment in Southern Asia – Dr Manpreet Sethi, Senior Fellow, Centre For Air Power Studies

The security environment in Southern Asia is complex and marked with several uncertainties. The region as a whole requires peace and development so that abysmal human security indices could be improved. However, instead of retaining complete focus on them, most individual nation states have tried to garner absolute, individual security through military means. This has naturally resulted in exacerbating insecurities of others and putting into motion a vicious circle of security-insecurity.

The peculiar geography of Southern Asia, its imperatives for transit and connectivity, need for internal and external stability in order to retain national focus on developmental priorities, and shared cultural traditions bind the region together. The diversity and complexities, however, prevent it from developing a common identity. Acceptance of pluralism and cooperative peace will have to be the answer to the security problems of the region. The region has ample potential for cooperation in order to foster economic development based on inter-dependencies. In fact, the survival and sustained development of the region can only be assured through mutual assured cooperation. The failure to act collectively will catapult the region into a spiral of violence and hatred. Unfortunately though, the region has no security mechanisms to handle the myriad challenges. Formations like SAARC, SCO, ASEAN and APEC have their limitations given the limited composition of sub-regions within Southern Asia. In most cases, the challenges transcend these artificial divisions.

Concept of National Security in the 21st Century - Lt Gen SS Mehta, PVSM, AVSM**, VSM (Retd), former GOC-in-C, Western Command

Security is an inclusive term and stands for political consultation and an overarching approach including economic aspects, security concerns, human resources and public discourse. India has been at the forefront in drawing the attention of the international community towards security concerns. It drew the world’s attention towards terrorism in particular. It was the first to call on a ban on nuclear weapons. In both respects, the world paid no attention.
India faces a number of security threats in the form of militancy in J & K, the Northeastern states, left-wing extremism, rising unemployment and economic disparities, unsettled relationships with its neighbours, fractious nature of its polity, nuclear proliferation and jihadist terrorism.  India also suffers from comparatively low levels of human security, technology and poverty index.
But the silver lining for the country will be its youth. India has a demographic advantage, and resultantly, it will remain the youngest country in the world till at least 2035, adding 10 million people to the work force every year. The work force, however, will also have to be trained accordingly. Technological advancement is a key concern. We have reached a stage where we are no longer hindered in this respect, and therefore, must move from labour arbitrage to knowledge arbitrage. If there is a shortfall, it must be made up for by indigenous development, foreign collaboration or direct imports. With collaborations in this respect, jointness in services must also follow. If the country can function on the lines of ‘unity in diversity’, there is no reason for it to not translate into unified command and control. There is a need for the country to develop a platform or mechanism for members of the scientific, diplomatic, legal, defence and political community to debate and arrive at a security policy for the country.
There is hope that the youth in the future will lead the country in a new direction. The security concerns of the past, dealing with sovereignty, territorial integrity, 20th century warfare and the military-industrial complex, were all linear problems which could be tackled with linear solutions. But the information age of today requires non-linear solutions to deal with the non-linear problems that the country is facing and will face in future. There is a resource and capacity constraint, but it will have to be made up for.

Discussion

It is true that defence and security are not interchangeable terms and that defence is a part of national security. If India is able to take care of its defence needs, only then can it contemplate larger concerns like collective security. But given the neglect that defence issues have seen, with the ad-hoc policies adopted on the border issues and so on, defence will continue to be very important.
Climate change is an important concern. However, it may not be as immediate as other security concerns. And even if it were, there is little that a country can do independently. Efforts need to be made at the level of the international community and will revolve around negotiations to arrive at an equitable solution. Also, there is a need to accurately designate the ramifications of various security threats.
The US has limited options in dealing with Pakistan, since it requires access to the Arabian Sea, which is a vital route to maintain supplies to Afghanistan. If Iran can be brought on board, it would ease logistical problems to a great extent. Yet, despite the Obama administration’s attempts, it appears that the US and Iran are at a stalemate on the nuclear question.
With the change in the nature and spaces in which wars are fought, there is a need for India to equip itself. For example, the US and the UK already have cyber commands in their armed forces. India is still lacking in this regard.
There has been a decline in the military capability of European countries. It would appear, therefore, that contrary to its history, Europe has become a de facto zone of peace. So much so, that the US Navy, while still being a two-ocean navy, now focuses on the Pacific and the Indian Oceans, and not the Atlantic. However, with regard to capabilities, the European nations are feeling the pinch with their involvement in NATO/ISAF.
There are an extensive number of private security contractors in conflict zones today – 68,000 in Afghanistan, 115,000 in Iraq, 10,000 in Pakistan. While most of them deal with logistics more than soldiering, there are a significant number posted for security purposes. This can have both positive and pernicious consequences, as contractors have different rules of engagements as opposed to Coalition forces.
The Sino-Indian conflict was not focused on as a flashpoint, because though it is a problem area, and has received a fair bit of press on the same, it still should not (optimistically) be listed as a flashpoint. The high degree of trade between the two countries is especially contradictory to their political stance.
There is no doubt of a change in the mindset of Indian youth. And since the rest of the world will age, there will be a demand for youth everywhere. It is foreseen that in the next five years, 49 million people will be required for the workforce. India’s neighbours may react to this development positively or negatively – positively, if they take it as a challenge to come up to India, negatively if they see it and wish to bring India down. The world has issues with immigrant youth from non-democratic countries, and the same concerns may not apply to India. There is a concern, however, of what the youth will do, if they are not employed.
Small arms proliferation is a serious concern, especially in the developing world. The P-5 countries produce 88 percent of conventional weapons in the world. So while technology transfer of nuclear weapons may be a grave concern, technology transfer of conventional weapons is far more dangerous. While there have been efforts to limit their supply, the problem is three-fold: one, nations must have arms for their national security, so their supply cannot be extinguished; two, there are also private manufactures, who may not have the same compunction as the state; and three, most of the arms which are proliferating in war zones are less direct sales, and more re-sales in the grey market, which is far more difficult to control.
There is a risk in dubbing South Asia as the second-most dangerous region in the world. The danger is in clubbing India into this omnibus term, when it is Pakistan and Afghanistan which are the epicentres of conflict. India, by including itself into the mix, invites unnecessary pressure on itself.

SESSION II - CONVENTIONAL CONFLICT: EMERGING TRENDS

Chairperson: Gen VP Malik, PVSM, AVSM, (Retd) Former COAS

It is important to take note of few salient features of environment to understand the conventional conflict. Statistically there are fewer conventional conflicts between states, but intra-state conflicts have increased. Territorial disputes do exist and they can be cause for inter-state conflicts. Internal and external security are meshed today more then ever before. Battles are, therefore, fought by irregulars and police as well. Private security personnel, if not regulated well, will be trouble makers. We have to keep in mind both known and unknown threats. Developments in weapons and equipments have given rise to new tactics and strategies. We are now moving into Fourth and Fifth generation warfare. There is now talk of ‘no contact war’. The military has tougher job than ever before. It has to be receptive to new ideas and adaptive to changes.

Conventional War: Emerging Perspective - Lt Gen A K Singh, AVSM, SM, VSM, GOC 1 Corps

In the last few decades, the enormous destructive power of strong conventional and nuclear capabilities has resulted in weaker states and non-state groups shifting to sub-conventional and irregular means to achieve their political objectives. Conventional conflict is increasingly intertwined with irregular forces using unconventional means and tactics. The irregular forces are becoming increasingly lethal with access to technology and equipment that previously only conventional state forces could afford.
Some recent conflicts like Lebanon War (2006), Russia – Georgia Campaign (2008), Sri Lankan Conflict (2009) and the ongoing ‘Operation Enduring Freedom’ in Afghanistan clearly indicate the changing nature of conflict. The characteristics of future conflict can thus be summarised as under:
• The spectrum of conflict could range from conflicts between states to conflict with non-state actors and proxies.
• The boundaries between regular and irregular warfare are blurring. Even non-state actors are increasingly acquiring conventional capabilities that were earlier the exclusive preserve of nation states.
• Conventional conflict could either be preceded or succeeded by a period of irregular conflict, which would require low intensity conflict and stabilisation operations.
• Technology has empowered the individual and today a single terrorist/guerrilla can cause severe damage to adversaries through cyber, financial and kinetic attacks which earlier only large organisations or states could do. Future hybrid conflicts will demand concurrent investment in sharpening softer skills like cultural awareness training, language skills, psychological operations and human intelligence.
• The constant fear of non state actors acquiring WMDs poses the greatest global threat due to the catastrophic consequences.
• Air Power will play a significant role in conventional conflict; however, to remain relevant and sustainable for hybrid threats of the future some reassessment and calibration on the use of air power will become necessary. The focus will be to “minimise collateral damage and the provision of intimate close air support to ground forces.
• Sea denial and sea control will remain essential elements to enforce deterrence on the potential adversary. Operational manoeuvre from the seas and coercive diplomacy will also form important components of capability development.
The destructive potential of nuclear weapons and large number of nuclear weapons states has limited the scope of conventional conflict. The dynamics of deterrence and escalatory control are more relevant against nation states. Against non-states actors, these capabilities have little effect. However, several diplomatic, informational, military and socio-economic measures can be effectively used in a complementary and comprehensive approach to enforce restraint on the activities of non-states actors.

Military Transformation, Including Net-Centric Warfare - Maj Gen David A Fastabend (Retd), US Army

Top ten “Tall Tales of Transformation” are:
“The Network Changes everything”: Although its character evolves, the fundamental nature of war does not. Direct and indirect engagements no longer go away, but the network does enable collaborative engagements. The network is additive; not supplantive.
“The Network is our Asymmetric Advantage”: A network or any other capability cannot be inherently “asymmetric”. It can only be applied asymmetrically, and both sides in the “network contest” have motivation and opportunities to do so.
“All Networks are essentially the same?”: A perfect network has no “center”: each node is linked to all other nodes; each node has the replicated data of the entire network, and the ability to process it. Such networks have extraordinary redundancy and resilience.
“Data = Information = Knowledge = Understanding = Wisdom”: We are awash in data. But that data must be organised and structured to become information. If you can take that information or knowledge and link it to the context of your actual situation, then it is understanding. Such linkage is greatly facilitated by experience.
“Net-centric Warfare Mitigates Uncertainty and Volatility in Warfare”: In the early days of military transformation it was presumed that technology and its “net-centric” application to the battlefield would significantly mitigate uncertainty and volatility in warfare. In fact, exactly the opposite has occurred.
“Network-Centric Warfare Facilitates Seizure of the Initiative”: Networks are integral to the contest for the initiative, but they do not necessarily favor the technically advantaged. In fact, the technologically advantaged combatant may often face an enemy network that is quite elusive.
“Cyberspace is a New Domain”: Although cyberspace exhibits unique physics, it is not spatially distinct from the other domains; rather it pervades all the other domains.
“Terrain no Longer Matters”: Even in stability operations there is logic to the struggle for terrain. People still need a place where they can feel relatively safe, where they can store material, train, or plan. People still fight for terrain.
“Military Transformation is Useless Against Asymmetric Opponents”: It is true provided the adversary does not move, shoot, or communicate. In the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan UAVs, sensors, better linkages and connectivity are found useful to detect and destroy the enemy.
“Military Transformation Drives Specialization”: Specialization is not going away, but the miniaturization of technology is enabling single platforms to do multiple things, particularly in the irregular environment.
There are three areas in which we are particularly in need of good ideas: strategic art, conflict theory, and categorization. Improvement in the art of strategy will not be possible unless we broaden our understanding of conflict. It is a broader category of competition than war and not synonymous with war. The older more established theories of war do not scale up comfortably to this broader activity of conflict. We need some integrating ideas that describe conflict across the entire competition of ideas through logic and violence.

Role of Airpower in Conventional Conflict on Land - Air Marshal T M Asthana, PVSM, AVSM, VM (Retd), Additional Director, Centre for Air Power Studies 

Recent military operations witnessed by the world give us a glimpse of how economical and precise they can be, if they are supported by airpower. This is the emerging trend of airpower, which is bound to be adopted by all nations commensurate with their capabilities. Aerospace forces can conduct deterrence, denial, coercion, decapitation and humanitarian missions. Perhaps the most important mission of these missions is the mission of deterrence. These forces make a potential enemy think twice before launching a pre-emptive, be it a nuclear or a conventional strike. The speed, range and flexibility of aerospace forces give a nation a decisive advantage in achieving conventional deterrent value.
In “the fog of conflict”, most observable techniques employed need to be covert as far as possible. It is possible to achieve this with judicious use of aerospace power. Air power can to a large extent provide mobility cutting down on time frames to the extent possible. Alongside, the ISR charter of Aerospace continues to function with a subtle difference. The employment of UAVs can now also be overt in some cases. As we move into the future both the range and endurance of both the UAVs and aircraft will increase. We can expect that 50 percent of these platforms will also be equipped with SAR capability, which will ensure that bad weather will have no adverse effects on the final results. Better endurance and range will also permit these platforms to visit more than one area of interest, provided the friendly Airpower ensures their safety. Alternatively, they can make a quick exit after one mission accomplishment and return for the next one.
Airpower tackling the reserves will ultimately deliver the highest dividends. These could either be the Strategic reserves like the ARN/ARS, or the 2nd and 3rd tier of forces facing us. Considering the improvements in endurance and weapon carrying capability, the aircraft will also be capable of multi-tasking. This does not mean that there will be no BAS. Suffice to say, the lesser the requirement of BAS the better would be the situation.

Discussion

The military objective, and therefore the political objective can be achieved by a synergy between all the forces, particularly in a conventional conflict. Joint planning is necessary.
Information technology and Network Centricity have the potential to qualitatively transform the methodologies of warfare. Their impact, however, needs to be pragmatically assessed against realistic battlefield scenarios. Aerospace capability is a potent dimension of land warfare with a vast applicability in all forms of conflict. 
Insurgent and terrorist activities have added a complex politico – military dynamics to the nature of conflict. The contemporary nature of conflict mandates realistic transformation in the conventional force structure, deployment methodologies, support structures and emerging technologies to be able to face the multi-spectrum challenges that would emerge in the future.
In any conflict, it is important to take note of the international environment and the politics involved among the key international actors. The external factor played a crucial and decisive role in recent conflicts in Lebanon and Sri Lanka.
India’s stated policy has been not to be part of any military alliance. Therefore, we had to develop our own independent capability. Force structuring always depended on this and also our being in the most volatile regions in the world.
It is important to have compatibility of equipment among the forces – military, para-military and police – apart from interoperability.

SESSION III - SUB-CONVENTIONAL CONFLICT: EMERGING TRENDS

Chairperson: Lt Gen R K Nanavatty, PVSM, UYSM, AVSM (Retd), former GOC-in-C, Northern Command

In India, as indeed in several other countries of the region, sub-conventional conflict is essentially internal armed conflict, with or without external involvement. Notwithstanding what Clausewitz might have said about the objective nature of war, internal armed conflict is not war and dissidents are not the enemy. A study of literature on the subject suggests that there is little that has changed with respect to the fundamentals, principles and concepts of sub-conventional conflict. What has changed are the various techniques, tactics and methods. Also, there is an explosion of new terminologies. This might suggest intellectual sophistication but adds considerably to confusion.
Today, even the United States military has reverted to the familiar terms - insurgency and counter-insurgency. There is a need to be circumspect in adopting new terms in the military vocabulary. The world is passing through a phase wherein subversive forms of conflict are predominant. This is principally because of the limitations on other forms of warfare. Subversive threats to a nation’s security can be domestic, externally supported, or externally fostered and sponsored. The problem is exacerbated by the moral sanction accorded to external support to liberation struggles.
Apart from terrorism that is part of a larger subversive movement, the world today is witness to the phenomenon of terrorist groups, driven by revulsion and fanaticism, capable of exploiting new technologies and the effects of globalisation to their advantage, embedded in sympathetic populations around the world, posing a threat to those perceived as their enemies. Whereas such groups are unlikely ever to attain their esoteric goals against resolute peoples and states, they are capable of causing extreme harm to civil society. It is this latter threat that caused the United States to adopt an aggressive, preventive, and pre-emptive counter-terrorism policy. Consequentially, it led the United States and its allies into forced military interventions that in turn antagonised local populations and resulted in insurgency and counter-insurgency. It has also led the United States to believe that in such circumstances a people-centric all of government counter-insurgency approach is more suitable than a military adversary-centric counter-terrorism approach. Whereas terrorism is indeed a global phenomenon, it is misleading perhaps to talk in terms of a global insurgency.

Fourth Generation Warfare – Col Thomas X Hammes (Retd), US Marine Corps

The generation of war model is a very simplified version of history. It sees four generations of modern war – with a fifth emerging. First Generation war drew on all the changes in political, economic, social and technical fields and culminated in the massed manpower armies of the Napoleonic era.  In the same way, Second Generation war made use of the evolution to an industrial society to make firepower the dominant form of war.  Third Generation, mechanized war, took advantage of the political, economic and social shifts from an industrial to mechanical era to make mechanized warfare dominant.  Fourth Generation makes use of all the shifts from mechanical to information/electronic society to maximize the power of insurgency.   It continues to evolve along with our society as a whole – making fourth generation warfare increasingly dangerous and difficult to deal with.
Fifth Generation will employ the continued shift of political and social loyalties to causes rather than nations, the increasing power of smaller and smaller entities and the explosion of bio-technology. It will truly be a ‘nets and jets’ war. The network will bring the key information, provide a source for the necessary equipment and material, a field to recruit volunteers and the jets will provide for worldwide inexpensive, effective dissemination. 
The key point of the generations of war argument is that the changes in warfare were not driven by technology but rather by the political, economic, social and technical states of society.   While Fourth Generation Warfare provides one theory of why warfare has evolved to insurgency, the key question for today’s practitioner is what has changed and what has remained constant in insurgency and counterinsurgency in the last couple of decades. 

Sub-conventional Conflict: International and Asian Perspective - Lt Gen Prakash Menon, AVSM, VSM, Commandant, National Defence College

Sub-conventional wars are essentially wars between the weak and the strong. Such wars are fought for winning the political loyalty of the people and are people centric. The principal strategic challenge, thus, is to apply multiple means: political, military, diplomatic, social, intelligence, informational and cultural to produce the desired strategic effect that will eventually result in the desired outcome. These wars are always protracted and political outcomes determined by the staying power reflected in political will and the ability to achieve the desired strategic effect by application of all means. Military force is a vital component but not in terms of its destructive ability which normally is the key in conventional wars.
Insurgency and terror are challenges on the global stage. In geographic terms they are mostly rooted in the Asian continent but pose a threat globally, especially to the western powers. The ideological fuel and the motivating platform is wholly religious extremism and is presently centered in Afghanistan-Pakistan. The western choice of policy goals does not lie in the revision of assumptions in the nature of the enemy or attempts to improve their military effectiveness, but an acceptance that conceptually it is better to tackle insurgency and terrorism with indigenous efforts. In the context of counter-insurgency and terrorism, the Western strategic weaknesses in terms of war fighting are characterised by:
• Stress and over reliance on fire power.
• Casualty aversion exacerbated by the advent of the suicide bomber and the remotely detonated improvised explosive device.
• Proclivity of the Western public to be impatient and constantly weakening domestic support.
• Over reliance on technology
• Inability to field large quantities of troops required.
• Inability, or rather the impossibility of bridging the cultural gap with the local population and hence their inability to win over the locals, makes the West unsuited for such wars on the Asian continent.
The Indian experience in counter insurgency and terrorism has been extensive. But the approaches to counter-insurgency and terrorism have been substantially different especially in relation to the style of use of force and more importantly in leveraging the soft power of the armed forces. People centricity has been the bedrock of the Indian counter-insurgency doctrine. Of course, each counter-insurgency will have its own mix of strategic vectors with considerable contextual variations. But these differences do not detract from the principle of people centricity.
There is need to accept that technology has given lethality to small groups of people especially with the advent of the suicide bomber and IEDs, but those groups though seemingly tactically lethal still requires the support of the people, which ironically they are deprived of, due to the indiscriminate application of their lethality with explosives. Ironically, their tactical successes carry within it the seeds of strategic failure. From the strategic perspective, terrorism will remain a long term nuisance, but it cannot succeed unless our reaction converts it into an insurgency with significant popular support.

Human Rights and Humanitarian Law: Adapting to the Changing Nature of Conflict - Shri P Michael Siromony, NHRC

The implementation of human rights and humanitarian law should be with respect, dignity and with minimal injury. It will be the responsibility of the State which is a signatory to the convention to disseminate the same to its personnel as also to train them in their role and responsibility in implementing human rights and the humanitarian law. The duty of implementation lies first and foremost with the states.
Both human rights and humanitarian law practitioners work for peace and progress and for mitigating/reducing suffering. Humanitarian law ensures more than a series of rights. It imposes duties on the combatant such as to treat all protected persons with same consideration without any distinction on the basis of race, religion, political opinion etc. Both the human rights and humanitarian law mutually influence each other as they are contemporary in their origin and have a lot of convergence. The convergence points are more like the rights of the child, rights of the women, sick persons, disabled, etc.
The human rights institutions at times also invoke humanitarian law when the situation so requires. Both human rights and humanitarian law appeal to the public conscience so that human race is treated with respect both in times of peace and conflict. The declaration of minimum humanitarian standards in 1990 called as ‘Turku Declaration’ is another positive and forward looking step.
In 21st century Science and technology has created capability of colossal damage which has to be restrained by all means so that we do not experience another Nagasaki and Hiroshima. In the present changed scenario of conflicts without any open declaration of war, sub-conventional conflicts provide lot of investment in the Military capability at the cost of development. It would thus be in the larger interest of States to maintain peace despite the arms capability.

Discussion

The strategy being adopted in Afghanistan i.e holding towns in strength and leaving countryside to Taliban does not work. Terrorists there have firm bases, mobility and their lines of communication are open. This situation will continue unless these are interrupted. Similar situation is existing in north east, Jammu and Kashmir and Naxal belt.
We, as a society, have to take note of Geo-physical technology. Government perspective on insurgency is lacking. i.e bad governance and lack  of development. We should pick up good lessons from the successes against LTTE and Taliban in Sri Lanka and Pakistan respectively.
India -China need to co-operate in handling   terrorism. In this direction, beginning has been made by both the countries by holding joint mil training at company/platoon levels at Infantry School, Belgaum.
Most of the insurgencies in India are mainly due to bad governance. That is the root. If this is set right half of the problem will be solved.
The international humanitarian law and human rights law should not just bind only the state actors, but also the non-state actors like terrorists and insurgents who indulge in brutal killings and other human rights violations.
It is important to open the information locked in by the government to analyse and learn lessons for the future. Somehow, we have been very conservative on this.
We are in the phase of subversive form of conflict. Terrorism is part of insurgency and even subversion is targeted violence. Terrorism is purely for terrorist’s sake.

SESSION IV: COOPERATIVE SECURITY FOR PEACE AND STABILITY

Chairperson: Ambassador Lalit Mansingh, former Foreign Secretary

I have my reservations about the role of regional organisations in facing regional and global challenges. SAARC has been ineffective mainly because of the existing imbalance among the members. India shares land or sea borders with all the members of SAARC and has bilateral contentions with some of them. India does not have concrete foreign policy towards its neighbours. As recently pronounced by the Prime Minister having cordial relationship with our neighbours should be a priority. I raise two questions to provoke the panelists so that the house could gain out of the deliberations: Why should India go beyond the region to form global alliances? Why is UN not recognised as a global peace keeping organisation?

International and Regional Military Operations - Lt Gen Satish Nambiar, PVSM, AVSM, VrC (Retd), Former Director, United Service Institution of India

The changing nature of the international system, particularly in the last few years, has generated several debates among the members of the UN regarding fundamental policies on peace and security.  These debates include the effectiveness of unilateral and collective responses to international threats like terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, violation of human rights and changing notions of state sovereignty. Lacking UN endorsement, the US-led coalition’s attack on Iraq had already challenged the basic principles of the UN. The time has come to question UN’s capacity to respond.
Enough provisions exist within the ambit of the UN charter such as Article 51 and Chapter 7 for self-defence and collective responsibility. The collective responsibility has covered the fields which were earlier considered internal matters of the state. Particularly, post-1990 Rwanda Genocide, when the state failed to protect its civilian, it was accepted that International community has the responsibility to first protect the innocent civilians through intervention or use of force and then rebuild the shattered societies. Despite greater integration of Europe, the concept of state sovereignty remains important for both international community as well as post-colonial developing countries. However, all the member states endorsed the concept of “responsibility to protect” at the 2005 World Summit in New York. Developed nations, however, are not contributing enough in UN peacekeeping missions, but focusing more on NATO or EU initiatives. Post-Cold War world has witnessed increasing importance of regional organisations in Europe, Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia even in terms of their contribution to international peace and security.
Indian contribution to the UN Peacekeeping and training the troops from the developing countries has been appreciated and acknowledged globally. Despite this, India lacks capability to influence UN decision making. India has to realise that with economic growth, it has to gear up to take more international and regional responsibilities. India should hence plan for a sizeable tri-service multi-dimensional rapid action force under the unified command ready for intervention, stabilisation or peacekeeping operations within the region or beyond.

Regional Organisations and Conflict Resolution with Special Reference to Southern Asia (SCO, SAARC, ASEAN) - Dr Arabinda Acharya, RSIS, Singapore

In the post-Cold War era institutionalised regionalism in the form of several regional organisations gained prominence and have played a significant role in conflict resolution. Role of identity is an important aspect in determining institutional structures and efficacy. ASEAN is based on the Southeast Asian identity. In case of SAARC identity does not play any role. 
The key principle of cooperative security is inclusiveness which can be described as “security with” as opposed to “security against.” Cooperative security is not against the concept of bilateral and multilateral security mechanisms but complements it. The strategic culture of Europe is more formalised and legalised compared to that of Asia until ASEAN Regional Forum was formed. In the case of SAARC, bilateral issues are kept out of its agenda despite the fact that several bilateral issues have been sorted out during SAARC summits. ASEAN and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) have shown impressive patterns of security cooperation since 9/11. Concepts like state sovereignty and non-interference remain obstacles in deepening of regionalism in SAARC.
ASEAN has never used military force in any conflict resolution and this example is worth emulating. Due to inherent problems like lack of common culture, political institutions and mutual trust, security cooperation in SAARC is weak. However, since terrorism is a global threat, it needs to be countered through a multilateral and multifaceted approach and cooperation between the states in the region. Despite the fact that the ‘SAARC Convention on Suppression of Terrorism’ is one of the earliest regional cooperative frameworks to deal with the threats of terrorism, cooperation in this area is negligible. 

‘Good Offices’: Informal/Semi-formal Arrangements for Peacemaking in the Asian Context (Cases of Aceh, Palestine, Nepal and Sri Lanka) - Brig Gurmeet Kanwal (Retd) and Dr N Manoharan

Role of ‘good offices’ in conflict resolution were important in the cases of Aceh, Palestine, Nepal and Sri Lanka. Norway, supported by a group of countries, played a significant role in facilitating dialogue between Sri Lankan government and LTTE. While the dialogue failed in bringing peace, the process was instrumental in buying time for the Sri Lankan government, enabling the state to consolidate its military and political apparatuses and seek international support. Finland, supported by international community, was instrumental in resolving conflict in Aceh. The inter-governmental agency of the UN remained marginally successful in resolving conflict in Nepal. In Palestine, the mixed efforts of individual states, inter-governmental agencies have still to bear fruit.
 Several lessons can be derived from these cases. For conflict resolution “ripeness of the conflict” which means the right time when both the fighting parties are ready for the conflict resolution through dialogue is desirable. Neutrality, negotiating capacity and legitimacy are important attributes of the facilitator. Owing to their vested interests “spoilers” can cause great damage to the negotiations and should be outmaneuvered. By selecting the friends with utmost caution and carrying out confidence building measures including development and ensuring peace, good offices have achieved remarkable results.    

Discussion

South Asia contributes 40% troops to United Nations Peace Keeping Missions. South Asians cooperate amicably with each other when operating outside the region. This feeling has to be inculcated among the people within the region as well.
In Afghanistan only local solution can work. Although Kashmir’s case is ripe enough for conflict resolution but there are spoilers from across the border. India has failed to get Pakistan to the negotiating table and assert itself. India’s insurgency strategy of winning hearts and minds is yielding results but it is a time consuming process. World Bank sponsored resolution such as the Indus Water treaty worked well for India but Pakistan still questions diversion of waters and construction of new dams.
If economic growth is achieved in South Asia, rest of the issues will fall in place. India should take the lead in resuscitation of SAARC by resolving bilateral issues with her neighbours. Being the only country having borders with all the SAARC members, India should get its diplomatic, political and military act together and strive for economic growth and prosperity rather than harping on the idea of permanent seat in the UNSC. Having permanent UNSC seat will also add to our responsibilities. At the same time UNSC needs to be more representative of the modern day power structure. India should play a more proactive role in its immediate neighbourhood and could build an expeditionary force for swift response to calamities, share intelligence, and so on. 

VALEDICTORY SESSION

Valedictory Address – Dr Shashi Tharoor, Minister of State for External Affairs

There is a paradigm shift that is taking place in the nature of conflict. Geography is no more a constraint for those who wish to perpetuate violence. Most conflicts are now internal. Sub-conventional conflicts characterised by intra-state strife, have gained ascendency over traditional conflicts, which used to be mostly conventional inter-state wars. The easy availability of cheap, mass-produced small arms, landmines and IEDs has exponentially increased the ability of aggrieved groups to orchestrate violence within societies. The transnational nature of these threats and the increasing involvement of state actors in using sub-conventional conflicts as “war by other means” have exacerbated their complexity.
India is an “island of stability” in a churning sea. Pakistan and Afghanistan have become epicenters of terrorism, which of late has become the single most dominant national security concern for India. The presence of weapons of mass destruction and the danger of their falling into the hands of terrorists is yet another cause for concern. The internal political situation in Bangladesh, Nepal and Myanmar has taken a turn for the better in recent months but continue to be unpredictable. Sri Lanka is still in the process of settling down politically after the government’s military victory over the LTTE. It will take some time for these countries to stabilise themselves.
It is in India’s strategic national interest that South Asia be peaceful and prosperous on a sustainable basis as our progress as a successful and secure regional power depends largely upon regional stability and a favourable security environment. While dealing with these “new conflicts” it is vital that the government be doubly conscious of human rights and humanitarian law that are built on two fundamental concepts: the separation of combatants from civilians and the doctrine of proportionality in the use of force.
Given the nature of “new conflicts,” cooperative security should be explored as the preferred avenue of approaching conflict resolution and in turn, to augment regional and international security. South Asia should evolve as the ‘most integrated region’ in the world for which there has to be a willingness to undertake conscious effort to build interdependencies among South Asian nations. This could be achieved through a smooth flow of goods, services, capital knowledge, ideas and even people. Having spent a large portion of my professional career at the UN, I am confident that the world body has enormous potential to act as an intervening agent in today’s conflicts. The UN aims to resolve conflicts without any biases and is a mirror of the world—reflecting not just our divisions and disagreements, but also our hopes and convictions.

(Report compiled by Col Daya Chand, SC, SM, Col Shantanu Dayal, Dr Mansi Mehrotra, Dr Rajesh Kapoor, Samarjit Ghosh, Dr Monika Chansoria, Rohit Singh and Dr N Manoharan).