Events

On 18 January 2024, the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA) organised an interactive session with The Prospect Foundation, Taiwan. The delegation from The Prospect Foundation was led by Dr. I-Chung Lai, President, The Prospect Foundation and the session was chaired by DG, MP-IDSA, Amb. Sujan R. Chinoy.  The discussion was followed by Q&A.

Detailed Report

The session began with opening remarks from DG, MP-IDSA, Amb. Sujan R. Chinoy. He observed that it is striking that Taiwan has gone into coalition politics and opined that this arrangement is likely to raise certain challenges in the legislature. Enquiring about Taiwanese perception about the election he invited Dr. I-Chung Lai to express his views on a range of issues including resurgence of Kuomintang (KMT) Party in the recent elections, Democratic People’s Party (DPP) and KMT’s present attitude towards the 1992 consensus, One China policy and potential reunification with China. Amb. Chinoy also asked Dr. Lai about Taiwanese understanding of the United States (US)’ commitment towards Taiwan’s defence in the light of present tensions, the unacceptable means of reunification for Taiwan, probable Japanese position in an event of crisis in Taiwan Straits and reversal of recognition of Taiwan by Nauru.  

Thanking Amb. Chinoy for his observations, Dr. I-Chung Lai expressed that the delegation visit reflected India’s importance in Taiwan’s strategy and Taipei’s intention to convey to New Delhi, its strategic outlook and plans for India-Taiwan ties post the elections.

Elaborating on Taiwan election results he contented that while William Lai Ching-te received forty percent of the votes, it did not mean that the other sixty percent opposed him. The Chinese interpretation that William Lai Ching-te’s position on China-Taiwan ties represents a minority view is incorrect. He emphasised that the election results do not reflect how Taiwanese feel about China-Taiwan relations. Commenting on the 1992 consensus, which is favoured by China, Dr. Lai informed that majority of the Taiwanese consider the consensus as a thing of past, especially after President Tsai Ing-wen declared in a public address in 2019 that Taiwan never accepted the 1992 consensus. He contended that future cross strait politics will have to take the general public view into consideration as Taiwan is a democracy.

With regard to US policy towards Taiwan, Dr. Lai, citing the Taiwan Relations Act and US’ Six Assurances to Taiwan, asserted that US does not recognise Taiwan as part of PRC. On Nauru’s breaking off of diplomatic ties, he opined that it demonstrated continuation of PRC’s coercion politics vis-à-vis Taiwan. He observed that Taiwan’s national strength and international standing will not be affected due to Nauru’s actions and that Taiwan will not engage in chequebook diplomacy to gain diplomatic recognition. Dr. Lai observed that the Beijing Government is unlikely to change its policy towards Taiwan, recognising the new political reality. However, due to China’s own internal economic troubles, interest in stabilising ties with the US and lack of military capability to launch invasion on Taiwan, the possibility of military conflict with Taiwan at present is low. Touching briefly on Japan’s position on Taiwan contingency, Dr. Lai opined that although Tokyo will be compelled to act due to alliance commitment with the US and threats perceived to its own security, the extent of Japan’s involvement in active combat scenario is uncertain. He concluded by stating that developing relations with powerful and friendly countries remains top priority for Taiwan.

Following, Dr. Lai’s presentation, Amb. Chinoy queried whether DPP still subscribed to the notion of ‘One China’ and whether Taiwan continues to engage in developmental activities with the countries who sever diplomatic ties with Taipei.

Responding to these questions, Dr. Lai informed that the idea of ‘One China’ was once temporarily entertained to facilitate cooperation between Republic of China (ROC) and PRC. However, PRC’s interpretation of ‘One China’ policy is unacceptable to Taiwan. With regard to Taiwan-Nauru ties, he informed that the future of bilateral cooperation depends on Nauru’s future reaction because there is precedent in Taiwan to continue programme assistance to countries who broke off diplomatic ties.

Finally, Amb. Chinoy enquired about Chinese goals in eschewing military tensions of the type seen in the aftermath of Nancy Pelosi’s visit. Dr. Lai affirmed that improving diplomatic ties with the US is one of the major goals. Also, as the repercussions to trade which happened due to the military blockade was serious, Beijing and other major powers like the US and Japan are reluctant to let escalate tensions to that level.

Mr. Fei Fan Lin, member of the delegation, concurred with Dr. Lai’s observations about lack of public support for the 1992 consensus in Taiwan. He informed that the Taiwanese consider ROC, Taiwan to be an independent sovereign and perceive no need to declare independence again.

Following the exchange, the Chair then opened the floor for question-and-answer session.

Q&A Session

A question from the Indian side concerned the issue of national identity in Taiwan, and the possibility of a ‘reconciliation of hearts’ between the Chinese and Taiwanese people. To this question, Dr. Lai answered by explaining that due to the internationalisation of the cross-Strait issue, other countries, such as Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Philippines and Australia, not to mention the United States, have a voice in the resolution of any conflict, and the cross- Strait dispute is no longer a binary one between opposing regimes. He also noted that China’s perception of Taiwan is that it is a vehicle to contain China with the collaboration of the United States. Mr. Lin also added to the answer to the above question by noting that President Tsai Ing-Wen had been careful during her tenure to cultivate a stance of equivocating Taiwan with the ROC. He noted that this was a stance the majority of Taiwanese people support and approve of. In response to another question on the impact of a US-China thaw on Taiwan in the coming four years, Dr. Lai noted that the cross-Strait issue is no longer dependent on the US-China-Taiwan trilateral, but has become truly internationalised. As evidence, he offered the new recognitions afforded to the importance of Taiwan by the leaders of Japan, the Republic of Korea, Australia and the Philippines, as well as by democracies in Europe.

Another question from the Indian side concerned the movements of the youth vote in the recently-concluded general election, and whether the return of the DPP to power indicated support among the young for independence. Mr. Lin provided the answer to this question, informing the audience that the DPP had always embraced support from the youth. However, the reason the current election has thrown up surprising results (election of the DPP on forty percent vote share, emergence of the TPP as a third force) is because voters were in general fatigued by establishment parties such as the DPP and KMT. They were not concerned by national security issues, but instead voted on bread-and-butter issues such as housing prices and costs of living. Mr. Lin argued that the TPP, despite the high rates of support it received, does not have a positive policy platform, and revealed that the DPP is well aware of the need to bring back young voters to the DPP.

Members of the Indian side also inquired about whether China had succeeded in the general election in using disinformation and economic coercion to swing votes. By way of an answer, the Taiwanese side presented a mixed picture. In the field of economic coercion they were willing to concede that there was some limited effect of the suspension of tariff benefits accruing to trade with Taiwan under the ECFA signed with China, but noted that the impact was limited as the share of exports to China from Taiwan are declining as the New Southbound Policy diversified destinations for Taiwanese goods, with marked increases noted in trade with the US, Japan, ROK and Europe. India was held out by the Taiwanese side as a new frontier where trade opportunities could be diversified in future. Disinformation, however, has been successful in the assessment by the Taiwanese side, with Chinese-origin propaganda deepening divides in society that have only partially been filled.

In terms of future concerns, the Taiwanese side flagged two issues in particular: worries that the KMT, which has majorities in both the national legislature and municipalities, would pursue independent (party-level) negotiations with the CPC; and the legal hurdles standing in the way of repealing or renegotiating important economic agreements with the mainland to counter economic coercion.

A final query from the Indian side concerned the prospects for US-Taiwan defence cooperation in light of the recent election results. In his answer to the question, Dr. Lai asserted that the impact on US-Taiwan defence ties would become clearer when the identity of the incoming speaker and vice-speaker of the central legislature (the Legislative Yuan) becomes clear. However, he believed, existing projects such as Taiwan’s indigenous submarine programme would continue irrespective of the party in charge.

Before concluding, Amb. Chinoy took the opportunity to ask a set of questions to the Taiwanese side. Firstly, he inquired about the impact of Donald Trump returning to power in the US in 2024. Dr. Lai answered briefly that Taiwan enjoys bipartisan consensus in the US, and that the previous Trump administration’s record on Taiwan was very good, with several initiatives carried forward by the Biden administration. As such, there was no reason for concern.

Secondly, Amb. Chinoy inquired as to the Taiwanese side’s assessment of the US response should China attempt to occupy only the outlying islands such as Jinmen or Matsu. Dr. Lai said that whereas the Pescadores Islands are covered under the US-Taiwan Mutual Defence Treaty and the Taiwan Relations Act, Quemoy and Matsu are grey areas. In any case, he noted that an occupation of these islands would be sure to meet an armed response from Taiwan. However, the US response, if any, would be contingent on circumstances.

Finally, Amb. Chinoy inquired whether there had been any risk assessment of the possibility that Xi Jinping’s China Dream 2049 project would be incomplete without reunification with Taiwan, with the implication that he would take action before that date to ensure reunification. Dr. Lai answered that discussions in Taiwan on the China Dream are divided into two camps, one arguing that the China Dream must be completed before reunification is to be attempted, whereas the other argues that reunification is a necessary precondition to the China Dream. However, the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on the Chinese economy has put a dent in Xi Jinping’s purported legitimacy, which is predicated on continuous economic growth. Dr. Lai held that the China Dream is Xi’s personal project, not a “sacred manifesto” on the lines of Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping’s policies, which were party lines followed by all members of the government. As such, should Xi leave the stage in China, there is no guarantee that his successor would follow through on it.

After the conclusion of the question-and-answer session, the Chair declared an end to the meeting.

The Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA) organised an interaction with a European Parliament Delegation on 18 December 2023. The session was chaired by Director General, Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy. Scholars of the Institute participated in the discussion.

Executive Summary

India and the European Union (EU) are key strategic partners. Amidst a world in flux, there is space for expanding the scope of ties.

Detailed Report

In his opening remarks, Ambassador Sujan Chinoy highlighted the world being in a state of flux amidst the fraying of globalisation. He observed that multilateral institutions have been underperforming, including the United Nations. He felt that a weakened multilateral system does not bode well for global growth, especially in the Global South where a large number of countries are grappling with financial distress in the aftermath of the pandemic and the war in Ukraine. This has put the spotlight on regionalism and minilateralism.

Amb. Chinoy observed that China’s rise has been disruptive and that Beijing has benefitted from the current international order. Today, China appears to be riding two horses - one where it wants to exist in the current world order, which it benefits from, while also being simultaneously critical of the same order, largely due to the order being led by the West and based on Western agendas.

Amb. Chinoy highlighted the emerging global contestation anchored to the seven “Ts”. These include Trade, Technology, Territory, Terrorism, Tenants (Narratives), Transparency and Trust. He also highlighted the global vulnerabilities in the four “Fs” - Food, Fuel, Fertilizer and Finance.

Elaborating further, Amb. Chinoy observed that trade and technology have been increasingly weaponised. Territorial contestations too are on the rise. These include the ongoing situation in Europe and India’s border standoff with China. Similarly, there is friction over systems of economic, social, cultural and developmental governance which has led to a clash of narratives. Meanwhile, there also exists trust deficit amidst a lack of transparency of certain countries' motivations and intentions.

Amb. Chinoy emphasised that China’s ambition of achieving the ‘China Dream’ by 2049 may not come to fruition unless the Taiwan reunification issue is addressed.

Highlighting the ongoing developments in the Indo-Pacific, Amb. Chinoy referred to the presence of European countries, particularly France which he pointed out has a natural geographical presence in the region. He also referred to Germany and the United Kingdom staging a comeback in the Indo-Pacific. He observed that extra-regional powers too are stakeholders in the Indo-Pacific. Therefore, it is wrong for China to claim that Asia is exclusively for Asians.

Amb. Chinoy emphasised that ‘Asia-Pacific’ is an outdated concept. In comparison, Indo-Pacific is a more contemporary and inclusive concept. It reflects a natural transition to a broader definition of growth and development in an arc that extends all the way from the Pacific Rim to the east coast of Africa.

Amb. Chinoy observed that India today has emerged as one of the fastest-growing large economies in the world. India is undergoing rapid transformation, underlined by the overall theme of VIKAS. India’s choices at home and its international priorities form part of a seamless continuum that are firmly anchored in India’s transformational goals. Good relations with neighbours - both immediate and extended - are a priority of India’s foreign policy. The country’s emergence as a key regional and global power is predicated on how effectively it manages its own periphery.

Amb. Chinoy emphasised that India is not guided by zero-sum calculations but by the desire to work with all and to resolve global problems in a cooperative spirit. This includes the scourge of terrorism, particularly cross-border terrorism, which has long affected India but which also poses a threat to others in India’s neighbourhood as well as globally. India’s collaborative outlook has translated into a framework of strategic autonomy based on multi-alignment. And robust military power is a prerequisite for exercising greater strategic autonomy.

Amb. Chinoy pointed out that India increasingly represents the voice of the ‘Global South’. India’s G20 Presidency successfully brought back the spotlight on developmental issues which is the core mandate of the grouping.

Amb. Chinoy highlighted India’s neutrality in the war in Ukraine while also providing humanitarian aid to the people affected by the war. Similarly, he elaborated on India’s support to the two-state solution in the ongoing conflict in West Asia. He observed that New Delhi has maintained excellent relations with Israel while also providing humanitarian aid to Palestine.

Amb. Chinoy emphasised that India is seeking to deepen strategic partnerships, including in the defence sector, with members of the European Union. He felt that the EU should factor in India’s sensitivities regarding the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports. He concluded by highlighting the need to establish robust contacts between Indian and European think tanks.

Nathalie Loiseau (Renew, France), who was leading the EU delegation, highlighted the ‘convergence of views’ between India and the European Union on China's assertive rise.  She also referred to the mutual consensus on the need to ‘reorganise’ the weakened global multilateral institutions.

Ms. Loiseau highlighted the emerging ‘fight’ between autocracies and democracies and reflected on the parallels between Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and China’s aggressive posture towards Taiwan.

Ms. Loiseau also highlighted the issue of migration to Europe as well as EU’s toolkit in dealing with hybrid threats.

She posed a question on how India sees the situation evolving in the Red Sea and whether India would be involved in resolving it.

Patrick Berg (ECR, Germany) posed the following two questions:

1. Prospects of India-EU relations with regard to connectivity and EU’s Global Gateway project.

2. Dynamics of BRICS enlargement and the grouping’s future prospects.  

Jaak Madison (ID, Estonia) enquired about China’s electronic warfare and intelligence gathering in the region.

Petras Auštrevičius (Renew, Lithuania) posed the following two questions:

1. Rationale of India’s BRICS and Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) membership.

2. India’s position on conflicts in Afghanistan and Yemen.

Fabio Massimo Castaldo’s (NI, Italy) enquired about the China-Cambodia Naval base, whether China would be more assertive in the future and the prospects of India-EU relations.

Amb. Sujan Chinoy responded to these questions. He stated that the situation in the Red Sea is a matter of grave concern, especially in the event of disruption to commercial shipping. He observed that any disruption to this vital sea line of communication would be felt across the world. He pointed out that India has naval assets in the Gulf of Aden by virtue of being a part of the ‘SHADE’ mechanism. India also conducts anti-piracy operations and assists in escorting ships as part of these operations. There is, nevertheless, scope for India to expand collaboration with like-minded countries.

On BRICS expansion, Amb. Chinoy pointed out that six countries (Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAE, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Argentina) have recently joined the grouping. Together, they add US$ 2.9 trillion worth of GDP to BRICS with the grouping’s overall GDP now being US$ 30 trillion.

On G20, he observed that G20’s overall GDP was US$ 85 trillion before the inclusion of the African Union (AU). The AU’s addition has not only added US$ 3 trillion to the G20’s portfolio but also made it more representative.

On BRICS and SCO, Amb. Chinoy observed that India’s outlook is anchored to issue-based partnerships.

On developments in Afghanistan, Amb. Chinoy highlighted Taliban’s comeback which he pointed out has significant ramifications. He, however, also emphasised the need to ‘live with reality’. He focussed on the need to convince the Taliban to preserve the gains of the last two decades including democracy and the rights of minorities, women and children.

On the issue of Chinese naval base in Cambodia, it was pointed out that China’s foray in Cambodia is part of Beijing’s larger attempts to expand its regional geo-strategic footprints.

On expanding the scope of India-EU partnership, it was pointed out that connectivity projects hold significant potential. It was felt that the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC), while currently on the back burner due to the conflict in West Asia, should not be written-off. Similarly, there is potential for expanding collaboration in industrial and defence industry sectors. Moreover, green hydrogen and green energy offer new areas of India-EU collaboration.

(Report prepared by Dr. Jason Wahlang, Research Analyst, Europe and Eurasia Centre, MP-IDSA)

Dr. Satish Chandra Mishra, Senior Fellow, at The Habibie Centre (Jakarta), visited the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA) on 15 January 2024 for a Roundtable Discussion on “Indonesia’s Systemic Transformation and its Implications for its Policy-Making”. Ambassador Sujan R. Chinoy, Director General, MP-IDSA, chaired the discussion. The scholars of MP-IDSA were in attendance.

Executive Summary

The session explored Indonesia’s domestic priorities since the end of the authoritarian Suharto regime. The hits and misses of the subsequent Era Reformasi (Reform Era) were identified. This was followed by a discussion on the current political climate and bilateral relation. The upcoming elections were discussed at length.

Detailed Report

The session began with Director General, MP-IDSA, Amb. Sujan R. Chinoy extending a warm welcome to Dr. Mishra. Amb. Chinoy commenced the session with some of his own observations and a few follow-up questions for Dr. Mishra, to render his assessment during the course of the Roundtable Discussion. The Director General asked the Speaker to provide insight into Indonesia’s relations with China. The latter was asked to speak about Indonesia’s relations with other major powers such as India, the United States, and Australia. Amb. Chinoy also touched on the themes of radicalism and Indonesia’s role in the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation vis-à-vis that of its neighbour Malaysia.

Dr. Mishra lamented the dearth of informed knowledge regarding India in Indonesia despite the love for Bollywood, and vice-versa. He began his discussion with a brief overview of the Suharto-era centralization of power. He noted the existence of a parallel military and civil administration akin to the political commissars of the Soviet Union. Despite the lack of organized opposition to Suharto, the Asian financial crisis of 1997 led to unprecedented violence and political unrest. The subsequent fall of the authoritarian New Order paved the way for a complete overhaul of the social, economic, judicial and political systems of Indonesia. Every aspect of Indonesian life was subjected to these systemic reforms. The hitherto highly centralized government was made more democratic by two laws on decentralization, passed in the year 1999. Dr. Mishra cited the Constitutional amendments and judiciary reforms as two major examples of the systemic transformation of Indonesia.

Dr. Mishra noted that these reforms were homegrown and required no foreign assistance. However, some gaps remain. He cited the political system of Indonesia as a case in point. The political system of Indonesia, he argued, is partly French and partly American in its composition. Although the transformation is still an ongoing process, significant progress has been made in a short period of time. According to Dr. Mishra, Indonesia saw economic recovery within five years of the onset of Era Reformasi. Economic growth has been balanced by a social system that is cohesive. Additionally, the systemic transformation efforts have not been impeded by any fears of instability. Dr. Mishra ruled out any possibility of a Suharto-like military coup. Nation building was always a top priority for Indonesia. Outlining Indonesia’s security and domestic priorities, Dr. Mishra identified nation-building as being the paramount concern. Around 20-30 million new entrants are expected to join the Indonesian workforce this year and thus job creation is an area of concern. He opined that there is a need for generating employment to help absorb the large working-class population.

Establishing an integrated domestic market finds itself among the other domestic priorities of Indonesia. Such a project requires massive infrastructure investment and much of the foreign investment comes from countries such as China and India. Addressing external concerns regarding the “capture” by China, Dr. Mishra argued that foreign investments in Indonesia are not restricted to the Chinese. He also added that the investor always has the upper hand at the initial stages of implementing a large infrastructure project.

Dr. Mishra presented an opinion that despite the impression of the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Indonesia, with observable characteristics such as more women donning the hijab, there is a need to observe the phenomenon more closely. He argued that although the sharia is increasingly being adopted at the level of local governments, family law has largely been the focus. Additionally, Islamic fundamentalism has not come up in a big way in the national politics despite Indonesia being a Muslim majority country. The total share of Islamic parties does not exceed 20 percent.

On the theme of electoral politics, Dr. Mishra sought to distinguish Malay politics from Indonesian politics. Malaysian politics resembles the British style of politics. Indonesian political structure, on the other hand, draws influence from the United States and France. All elections in Indonesia, across various levels of government, are held on the same day. Dr. Mishra noted a sharp decline in political violence since 2000, thus pointing to Indonesian democracy being quite deeply rooted. Dr. Mishra made a brief mention of US-Indonesia relations since the Suharto days. Pointing to USA’s softpower in the country.

Dr. Mishra concluded his discussion with an optimistic economic forecast for both India and Indonesia. He hailed the advent of an “Asian Century”, endorsing the projection of India and Indonesia as the likely candidates among the Top 4 economies in the near future.

Questions and Comments

Ambassador Chinoy made reference to the release of Abu Bakar Bashir of the Jemaah Islamiya, an influential hardliner who had been incarcerated on account of providing training camps for militants in Aceh and has also been linked to the 2002 Bali bombings.

Mr. Arvind Khare asked for a clearer picture on the decentralized structure of governance in Indonesia. In the light of the political ascension of Jokowi’s two sons, Gibran Rakabuming Raka and Kaesang Pangarep, Mrs. Shruti Pandalai made note of the emerging trend of dynastic politics in Indonesia. Gp Capt. Narang asked for the Speaker’s opinion on whether Indonesia views India as a partner in its industrial growth and military modernization. Cmde. Abhay Singh brought up the issue of corruption as an impediment for economic growth in Indonesia.  Mr. Om Prakash’s question revolved around the expected electoral outcome. Mr. Niranjan Oak enquired about the role of Muhammadiya Islamic schools in influencing elections. Dr. Temjenmeren Ao brought up the issue of Indonesia’s fiscal control on its public debt.

Dr. Mishra responded to all comments and questions from the Director General and MP-IDSA scholars.

Report prepared by Ms. Aditi Dhaundiyal, Intern, Southeast Asia and Oceania Centre.

An MP-IDSA Fellows Seminar presentation by Ms. Shruti Pandalai, Associate Fellow, MP-IDSA, on “India’s Pacific Islands’ Outreach: Understanding Regional Narratives, Geopolitics and Opportunities – An Introduction” was held on 17 August 2023. It was Chaired by Amb. Sujan Chinoy, Director General, Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (MP-IDSA). The External Discussants were Dr. Stuti Banerjee, Senior Research Fellow, Indian Council of World Affairs and Mr. Constantino Xavier, Fellow in Foreign Policy and Security Studies at the Centre for Social and Economic Progress (CSEP) in New Delhi. Dr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Research Fellow, MP-IDSA and Dr. Tenjemeren Ao, Associate Fellow, MP-IDSA were Internal Discussants. 

Executive Summary

The narrative of “the return of geopolitics” to the Pacific Island Countries (PICs) has been gaining traction in the larger discourse in the Indo-Pacific, primarily driven by the anxiety over the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC’s) expanding engagement in the region. The aggravation of international tensions are amplified by Sino-US rivalry, even as the Islands navigate intra-regional frictions, economic development challenges, illegal fishing, climate change, and issues related to self-determination and decolonisation. The presentation tried to introduce the relevance of this contested geography to regional and extra-regional players, unpack the internal dynamics of regional tensions, and examine the agency of PICs. It reflected on how China's actions are redefining geopolitics in the region and discussed these contested narratives. Within this backdrop, it also explored how Indian engagement has been perceived in the region and concluded with prescriptive options of steps India could take, including with regional partners, to anchor a meaningful presence.

Detailed Report

The seminar began with the Chair and Director–General of MP-IDSA, Amb. Sujan Chinoy – introducing the topic, panel and giving his insight on the theme of the paper. This was followed by a presentation by Ms. Shruti Pandalai. After this, the external and internal commentators gave their respective insights, followed by a round of questions and answers.

Ambassador Sujan Chinoy

In his opening remarks, the Chair, Amb. Sujan Chinoy gave extensive insights on this topic and made a critical analysis of the paper. He mentioned that China’s growing footprint in the region in regard to regional connect and infrastructural development must be examined. He said that the paper was timely and more importantly it not only introduced the region but also how this region is significant for India’s interests. It also broadly covered many important aspects of this region and sub–regions – Micronesia, Melanesia and Polynesia.

The Chair began by focusing on Micronesia, emphasising how this region in particular was a key theatre of World War II, and how this region today carries a baggage of history, particularly in the context of nuclear testing. He used the example of the Republic of the Marshall Islands. It was occupied by the Japanese first, and afterwards by the Americans. The Chair further highlighted the fact that this region has been at the forefront of negotiations on the problem of climate change. He also mentioned how these countries have filed a case to stop nuclear testing, an issue with historical baggage for the nations here and the PICs have a prominent voice at the United Nations.

Next, the Chair focused on Melanesia, which lies to the south of Micronesia. Many countries like the US, Germany and France, according to him have a deep interest in the region. Australia and New Zealand have traditionally enjoyed a prominent foothold here. There’s also a newfound concern about the Chinese presence here after the existence of a geopolitical vacuum here. About Polynesia, the Chair reflected that it is a huge region and, France is a big player in the region, as it has its colonies there.

At this juncture, the Chair talked about the compulsions that drive the major players in this region. The main reasons these countries propagate their relevance in the region is that they have had a presence there for a very long time. Countries like France and Britain were able to dismiss extra-regional claims due to their colonial history, as well as France holding some land (like New Caledonia and French Polynesia) that grants them an extensive maritime territory in the region. As a geopolitical player, Japan has fought key conflicts in the region and cannot be overlooked. This is especially significant in light of Japan's transformation from a coloniser to a major power investing heavily in infrastructure.

New Zealand, is a smaller player, unlike Australia and has a presence in the immediate neighbourhood. Today, Island nations do not accept patronizing historical dynamics. China is not a new presence in the region. Chinese people have had their presence there through migration. For instance, there are Chinese shopkeepers and businessmen in many Pacific Island nations for long. As a result, China also enjoys the diaspora advantage in the region which it seeks to exploit to its benefit.

China meets the impulse for infrastructural development of island nations, while they view American, Australian and New Zealand’s presence as being at a lower pitch. China has a range of interests in the region. This region is mineral-rich, and countries here have signed up for the Chinese initiative, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The access to this area is also significant for security and geopolitical purposes for China, like satellite tracking and countering Taiwan – since some of the few remaining countries which recognize Taiwan are PICs. A critical strategic importance of this area is “breaking out in the Pacific”, since it is the only area where China can actually potentially contain and monitor American presence in its periphery. Russia was also present in the region but had limited itself only to the Kurile Islands.

As for India, the Chair said that he agreed with the presenter that India is vocal as a voice of the Global South and thus PICs come under the purview of India’s outreach to the Global South. There are drivers for engagement with the PICs. India has taken initiatives like the Infrastructure for Resilient Island States (IRIS), which showcase India’s capacity to sympathise with PICs through several iterations since 2014, which is followed by the 2017 visit of Gen. VK Singh to Fiji and PM Modi’s visit to Papua New Guinea in 2021. The Chair also cautioned about the potentiality of outreach that India can have in the region. Its lack of ground presence, and the distance between India and the PICs are major limitations. Also, India has a limited presence also due to third party partnership and our lack of ability to deliver projects we have committed to in time. Better delivery on projects and better focus, like we have been doing in Africa, can ensure that we do better in the Pacific region if that is what we want to do. There is a major logistical problem when it comes to trying to establish and maintain diplomatic presence in the region, and there are also issues relating to security, transparency and accountability.

According to the Chair, while it is true that India has good relations with the US, France, Australia and New Zealand, it does not mean that it can guarantee a better presence for India in the region. But, despite limitations, what plays to India’s advantage is that it is perceived as an alternative to the binary of US–China rivalry and that it is also viewed in a favourable light by the US, Australia, and New Zealand. The Chair stated that the scope of India expanding its presence in the region needs to be examined by scholars. And, at the end of the day, India’s primary region and interests lie in the Indian Ocean Region, while balancing the naval and continental sphere. The Pacific is not a natural sphere for India, but equally, India has interests there.

Ms. Shruti Pandalai

Ms. Pandalai started her presentation by thanking the Director General for Chairing the session and giving some valuable insights from a practitioner’s lens and as someone who has served in the Pacific region. She also thanked Dr. Xavier and Dr. Banerjee for being External Discussants and Dr. Kumar and Dr. Ao for being Internal Discussants for her Fellow Seminar. She stated that her paper is aimed at being a beginner’s guide to understand the new geostrategic space of the Pacific Island region and India’s outreach – in the context of developing geopolitical contestations in the larger Indo-Pacific region.

According to Ms. Pandalai, this region does not only come in focus because of US-China rivalry but also because of its deeply contested past and colonial legacy, as also pointed out by the Chair. It has often displayed the strength of its regionalism with several moments of unparalleled agency in multilateral forums. It is also grappling with existential crisis with the emergence of issues like climate change while navigating through the very complicated superpower competition in the region. From her perspective, this larger narrative started with many scholars focusing on this region in the larger context of Indo-Pacific geopolitics following Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi’s visit to Solomon Islands in 2022 which was concluded with signing of a defence pact between China and Solomon Islands. On the other end of the narrative for her, lie the visuals of Prime Minister Modi’s successful visit to the Pacific Islands for the Forum of India and Pacific Cooperation (FIPIC) Summit. She stated that between these two significant events, a lot has happened in the region – which is paramount to analyse and understand, and which she has attempted to do in this paper.

Following this, she briefly explained the structure of her paper, where she analysed the narrative of ‘return of geopolitics’ to the Pacific Islands and why it gained traction, which for her is the rising anxiety in people while witnessing increasing prominence of China in this geopolitical space. She also remarked that we have been observing exacerbation of international tensions which are further amplified by Sino – US rivalry, even as these islands navigate intra-regional frictions, challenges of economic development, illegal fishing, climate change, and issues related to self – determination and decolonisation. According to Ms. Pandalai, India’s renewed outreach to the region under the leadership of PM Modi has found a wide appeal as also seen in his recent visit. Thus, in her presentation she first introduced the relevance of this strategic geography, followed by looking into the regional tensions and what the existing narratives there are. She was to then expand on how China’s presence has redefined the geopolitics of the region and how it brought more contested narratives. With this backdrop, she would also investigate the scope of India’s engagement with the region.

Ms. Pandalai then introduced the geography of PICs and their location in the map and the sub-regions of Melanesia, Polynesia, and Micronesia. She highlighted how this region has a complicated geopolitical arrangement. This region is often seen as the backyard of Australia due to its geographical location. She also talked about the spheres of influence in the region which are highly contested and overlapping in nature.

She then showed a historical chart which showcased the full historical trajectory of these island nations and their people. Ms. Pandalai specifically focused on the beginning of colonial history of the region with the arrival of explorers like James Cook in the Pacific Islands. She then talked about the 19th century, when the island nations were occupied by different European powers, USA and Japan, followed by the Pacific Wars during the years of World War II. She mentioned that from an American perspective, this region has been like an “American Lake” where Australia and New Zealand are deputy sheriffs for the US. The region has remained majorly neglected and Chinese military presence in the region is feared by the West.

In terms of its economic imperative, Ms. Pandalai stated that there is acute poverty in the region while it is rich in resources. The PICs are dependent on western countries and have poor infrastructure. Entry of China in the region gave these countries options other than the West. On the other hand, in terms of its strategic imperative, this region is a theatre of showcasing of US-China rivalry, and while the US views the region as a part of its concept of ‘Island Chains’ as a defensive parameter, China sees the region as a springboard and an integral part of its “Blue Water Navy” capacities. She stated that the major actors in this region are the US, France, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and China and analysed their respective spheres of influence in the region.

She further stated that the US has 11 controlled territories in the region. It has amplified its outreach to the region under the Biden administration which includes the Pacific Island Summit and Blue Pacific Programme under which the US gives aid to the PICs especially in the domain of climate change. There are many unresolved undercurrent issues between the US and PICs. France, on the other hand, has an Exclusive Economic Zone in the region via French Polynesia and New Caledonia. New Caledonia also has 25% of the world’s nickel deposits. There is also significant focus on PICs in the French Strategy on Indo-Pacific. It has also invested 60 million Euros for mitigating climate change and is also cooperating in the areas of science and technology. France is also relevant because of its colonial footprint in the region.

For Japan, this region is an important strategic region due to fisheries and maritime routes. The presence of Japan in the region is also important for its own security. Japan’s aid to the region has been focused on infrastructure. Nuclear waste is a major area of contestation between the PICs and Japan. New Zealand and Australia are regional powers here. New Zealand poses itself as a nation which is “in and of the Pacific” especially because of its significant Māori population. The Pacific is an important component of New Zealand’s security documents, like defence papers, especially concerning the maritime domain. New Zealand provides PICs with massive aid because of Chinese presence and it is not comfortable with the approach of the US and Australia of militarisation in the region to counter Chinese presence. On the other hand, Australia is seen as a ‘big brother’ by the PICs, a hegemon in the region and thus Australia has testy relations with the PICs. Even though Australia has done a lot of work in the region, it fails to translate into influence with respect to the PICs. Wang Yi’s visit to Solomon Islands was a deal breaker for Australia, which turned out to be a really bad idea.

According to Ms. Pandalai, China has crafted a narrative when it comes to the region which highlights and criticises the actions of the West and historical crimes committed by them. This narrative also banks on the fact the oldest Chinese trading house still exists in the region. For China, the Pacific is an important region because it wants to diminish the influence of and further isolate Taiwan, given that the majority of its diplomatic partners are the PICs. Other than that, it also seeks to limit the US presence at its maritime periphery. The PICs are also an important part of China’s BRI project and are significant beneficiaries of Chinese investments and security agreements.

Further, the Speaker talked about the Pacific Islands’ Forum which expanded the concept of security in 2018 and in 2022 launched the ‘2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific’. This highlights that PICs have agency especially in the domain of Climate Change, and that for the PICs climate change is a more important issue than geopolitics. She highlighted that China’s increasing engagement with the region is waking up other regional powers and thus there is a renewed focus especially in areas of cooperation like 5G and climate finance.

Ms. Pandalai also talked about India’s relations with the PICs. She mentioned that India has historical and cultural ties with Fiji and PICs’ relations with India have always functioned under the framework of South – South Cooperation. The region started to matter more to India from the prism of Indo-Pacific at least normatively. India has also developed its presence as a development partner in the region. It sent aid to Tonga in 1973 for the first time and since 2006, the approach towards aid and developmental projects has been government-centric. India has a multi-sectoral approach covering areas from education, cybersecurity, climate change and others when cooperating with the PICs. For India, according to Ms. Pandalai, the drivers of engagement with the PICs are India’s rising role as a development partner of choice, beyond the binary of US and China, especially as the President of G20, their support in organisations like the UN, availability of rich resources in the PICs and checking Chinese presence in the Indian Ocean Region and the Pacific. India is gaining a more meaningful presence in the region via multilateral forums like the International Solar Alliance (ISA), Coalition for Disaster Resilient Infrastructure (CDRI), Infrastructure for Resilient Island States (IRIS) and others. She also mentioned the Indian investments in the region and the status of projects in areas like skill development, space technologies that India is working on with the PICs, and the limitations on delivering on those projects. She then deliberated upon ideas for further cooperation, which is the usage of third party resources, in other words, trilateral cooperation – which can be the solution to ‘India’s Delivery Deficit’. Some of the examples that she gave to substantiate this include trilateral cooperation with PICs and Japan in many areas, the US in food sector and cooperation with Australia and New Zealand in high-technologies and France in climate change and other areas.

In conclusion, Ms. Pandalai stated that meaningful presence is not equivalent to strategic overreach, and as an observer one should be careful about that when it comes to India’s outreach to the Pacific Islands. India needs to channel its efforts and resources in areas where PICs actually need assistance for. She also mentioned that climate change and renewable energy are important areas for cooperation for India and the PICs.

Dr. Constantino Xavier

Dr. Xavier complimented the paper, for its timeliness and the way it was presented. He also highlighted that India’s Indo–Pacific strategy does not focus enough on the Pacific region, which is why there is a need to see the best way for India to be present in the region. At this juncture, therefore, a very important and fundamental question to investigate is what is the best way for India to be present there and is this region really important for India? Dr. Xavier held the opinion that India should do less and not try to be everywhere all the time. He also pointed out that we need to understand why would India be needed in the region from the perspective of Australia, New Zealand, Japan and the US. While trilateral cooperation is an effective tool for now, he highlights that it is important for India to find a niche in the long run and work upon it.

Dr. Xavier suggested that Russia could probably be added and that more attention should be paid to the EU and the UK as geopolitical actors in the region. He stated that the section on China was longer than needed since everyone has an understanding concerning Chinese presence in the region. Dr. Xavier also said that India needs to maintain a more consistent diplomatic presence in the region and it is important to analyse how that can be achieved. He emphasised on the need of having Indian missions on ground and not just having one Embassy in charge of many countries. And, by observing the actions and presence of PICs in multilateral and regional forums, and by engaging with them, India can learn from the PICs and other actors there and apply those lessons in the Indian Ocean Region. Lastly, he said that India has a rising profile but its credibility of what it is doing, in terms of the delivery of their commitment is at stake, and sometimes it is rather better to not do anything than to do something badly.

Dr. Stuti Banerjee

Dr. Banerjee congratulated Ms. Pandalai on the presentation of her paper. She suggested that the material of her paper be split into two parts, one focusing on the larger geopolitics of the Pacific Islands Region and the other on India’s outreach and engagement with the PICs. She remarked upon the timely nature of this paper. According to her, this region is not well known and thus it is important to talk about this, and this paper is a nice way to begin research on this region, which is important to understand. She drew everyone’s attention to the fact that there are differing visions of Indo-Pacific for different countries, and China rejects the notion of Indo-Pacific altogether. Unlike for other powers that have been discussed, for China, the PICs are an independent region of their own, are not a part of a larger geopolitical narrative, thus it has a different strategy for the region. India, on the other hand has advantage in the region due to two factors, its non-threatening image and the Indian diaspora. Despite the distance, the PICs are important for India because of economic reasons – financial assistance, developmental projects and so on. She suggested that we should also look into how this region is important from a political and security angle and have a holistic strategic vision.

She also brought out the crucial question of why there was a vacuum created in this region until recently, due to the pull-out and lack of engagement of the US, Australia and New Zealand since the end of Cold War. Dr. Banerjee also emphasised the need to investigate New Zealand’s outlook to the PICs – since that will highlight the differences in approach within the allied nations. At this juncture, she also mentioned the contribution of Indian diaspora in the region, and the role played by soft power aspects like people-to-people engagement and cultural relations in India’s outreach to the region. She then suggested that we also should look into the way PICs are responding to the attention they are receiving and how they plan to leverage that, what do they want and finally what do they expect from India?

She highlighted that it is important to note that there are differences between the PICs themselves and they have different perspectives. Responses of civil society in the PICs to BRI/Chinese presence and actions of other countries is another aspect that needs to be investigated, according to Dr. Banerjee. Lastly, she wanted to know how India is leveraging this strategic focus and its contributions made in multiple sectors in the region? She also asked about India’s underlying interests for being part of these developmental projects – and whether this could eventually lead to PICs collaborating with India in the Indian Ocean Region.

Dr. Prashant Kumar Singh

Dr. Singh congratulated Ms. Pandalai and commented that it was a good paper with a good topic. He suggested that the paper should not be split and should be made into a monograph. He also suggested that there should be a more sharp and in-depth focus on the historical part, especially on patterns of colonialism. According to him, when talking about ‘return to geopolitics’ in the region, we need to focus first on security, economics, environmental issues and debates; the PICs’ interests and demands, like the case of nuclear weapons and then we should come to geopolitics. He thought that there could have been more investigation done on analysing ways in which India could possibly expand its presence, rather than getting restricted to the difficulties and challenges. 

Dr. Tenjemeren Ao

Dr. Ao congratulated Ms. Pandalai for her crisp paper. He thought that the paper could be divided into different sections and the last section had a lot of scope. For him, this paper could be seen as a primer towards understanding India’s evolving engagement with the PICs. He also commended the way Ms. Pandalai analysed the role played by internal and external actors in shaping the region’s geopolitical landscape, in the larger Indo-Pacific. Dr. Ao brought out two major points. First, he commended the realistic approach taken in acknowledging India’s limitations and expectations from the PICs, while the priority for India is its extended neighbourhood. So therefore, it is paramount for India to come up with innovative ways to navigate its resources between the PICs and its extended neighbourhood. He concluded his remarks by highlighting that this region has a complex history and its internal political, economic, strategic imperatives are intertwined and are shaping PICs’ external engagement. The special focus on challenges faced by these countries like climate change and health can help us understand why these countries are engaging with specific powers. He also mentioned that the Pacific Islands’ Forum (PIF) has also identified climate change as the greatest threat for PICs and not geopolitical contestation. And that the PIF could derive some lessons from ASEAN in terms of managing to limit jostling of major powers.

Questions and Comments

There were some comments from the audience. One important comment, highlighted that from the naval side, the Pacific Islands are an important region for protecting the Sea Lines of Communication and the location of the Pacific makes it critical for both Australia and the US and Chinese control can severely restrict their movement. Another comment was focused on the recent elections in New Caledonia and the speculation about French interference. Questions centred around the reasons for India to engage with PICs and what would be the optimal strategy for India to engage with the region.

Ms. Shruti Pandalai thanked the Chair, the Discussants and the audience for their valuable feedback. She responded to the comments and mentioned that her objective was to understand this region through strategic narratives and what India as a leader of the Global South has done and can do with respect to this region.

Report prepared by Ms. Yukti Panwar, Research Intern, Southeast Asia and Oceania Centre, MP-IDSA.