T.V. Paul speaks at CIPOD on the Pakistani State

CIPOD was privilaged to host Prof. T.V. Paul on December 2 for the last of the CIPOD seminars for this semester. Paul is the James McGill Professor of International Relations at the Department of Political Science, McGill University, Montreal. He spoke about one of his current projects, a searching examination of the state of the Pakistani State . . .


Paul is the author/editor of a number of well-recieved books. He has far too many books to list here (click on his name above, or here, to go to his McGill University webpage which has a full list) but among the more notable are: Complex Deterrence: Strategy in the Global Age (co-editor and contributor); The Tradition of Non-use of Nuclear Weapons; India-Pakistan Rivalry: An Enduring Conflict (editor/contributor); Balance of Power: Theory and Practice in the 21st Century (co-editor); Power versus Prudence: Why Nations Forgo Nuclear Weapons; and The Absolute Weapon Revisited: Nuclear Arms and the Emerging International Order (co-editor and contributor). And this is just a parial list.



Click Here to Read More..

Dr. Ashutosh Misra on Pakistan's Permanent Instability

On 7 October 2009, Dr Ashutosh Misra, Research Fellow at Griffith University, Australia made a presentation on ‘Pakistan’s Permanent Instability: Is Democracy the Answer?’ at CIPOD. This summary was prepared by Atul Mishra, a PhD candidate at CIPOD.


Dr Misra began by highlighting the absence of democracy and continuing political instability in Pakistan. Absence of democracy and political instability have been the features of Pakistan since its very inception. He said that Mohammad Ali Jinnah envisaged a democratic Pakistan state. But other Pakistani leaders, many of whom became members of its Constituent Assembly, were not interested in promoting democracy. Pakistan’s Constituent Assembly was primarily made of landlords with inherited feudal privilege. They were not keen on creating a democratic Pakistan because it would have undermined their economic, political and social clout. The resulting delay in framing the Constitution and the lingering debate over the role of Islam in the new state set the stage for Pakistan’s instability. Foundations of democracy in Pakistan were very weak. Also, the Muslim League, which spearheaded the Pakistan movement, was in some ways stranger to Pakistan because its leadership did not come from the places where Pakistan eventually came into being.

Dr Misra argued that the centralization of power in the formative years of Pakistan left the polity susceptible to influence and dominance of military and bureaucracy. Simultaneously, Islam was used by the elite to centralize power. The result has been a constant interplay of the influence of the military, civilian leadership nominally committed to democracy and Islamic forces in running the Pakistan state. Dr Misra argued that no ruling dispensation in Pakistan has managed to have the three elements of political longevity: power, authority and legitimacy. For instance, the military has had power but little authority and legitimacy. At various points, therefore, the military leadership has sought support from Islamic forces or pretended to democratize the political system by conducting elections. Governments in Pakistan have also been affected by a constant cycle of cooption, promotion and marginalization.

Dr Misra argued that democracy was not only desirable but also the only way to stabilize Pakistan. Despite its dilution, suspension and use for instrumental purposes, democracy has staged repeated comebacks in Pakistan. This shows that if democratic forces are given an opportunity, the possibility of Pakistan becoming a stable state would increase. He emphasized the promise that the 2006 Charter of Democracy signed between the former prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif offered for Pakistan’s future. The 36 point declaration could have paved the way for stable, peaceful and democratic Pakistan. But actions by individual leaders have made Pakistan suffer. Asif Ali Zardari’s quest for appropriating all channels of power and political supremacy are in line with his predecessors who have also paid lip service to democracy. His vindictive politics conducted against the Sharif brothers and autocratic style of functioning make an already fragile Pakistan even more susceptible to another military coup.

Dr Misra suggested that democracy was the answer to Pakistan’s instability. But for democracy to come about, Pakistan’s leadership would have to learn the right lessons from the country’s history and the ruling regime must have power, authority and legitimacy. Asked about India’s role in absence of democracy in Pakistan, he pointed out that India is seen as a threat to Pakistan. The sources of Pakistan’s instability, however, are domestic. Unless the role of and relations between the forces of democracy, Islam and military (and the three are not necessarily isolated from each other) are not sorted out, democracy would be difficult to sustain in Pakistan.

The post-presentation interaction with students and faculty member of CIPOD was lively, exhaustive and, as the speaker confessed, exhausting.

Click Here to Read More..

Patrick Bratton on 'Coercive Signalling'

Patrick Bratton gave an interesting talk at CIPOD on September 30, 2009 on 'the effects of governmental structure on coercive signalling'.


Bratton is Assistant Professor of Political Science and Program Chair for Political Science and International Relations at Hawaii Pacific University. He has done a considerable amount of work on coercion in international politics. He provided the abstract of the presentation pasted below:

The Effecs of Governmental Structure on Coercive Signalling

How does governmental structure affect the ability of a state to send clear coercive messages and to orchestrate those signals into coherent messages? This presentation shall review the concept of coercion and previous studies done by the author and his collaborator on the effects of governmental structures on coercion. Several studies indicate that democracies, in particular presidential democracies with a division of powers like the United States, are poor at sending clear signals and orchestrating those signals into coherent messages. There has been an assumption that both authoritarian and parliamentary governments are more effective. The presentation will compare the effects of these three types of governments on signaling and orchestration: (1) Presidential divided/shared powers systems; (2) Westminster parliamentary democracies; and (3) authoritarian governments. It uses examples from: the US War with Vietnam, the 1982 Falklands War, and the 1995-96 Taiwan Straits Crisis.

Click Here to Read More..

Updated with seminar report: Amandeep Gill to talk about India's arms control policy

Amandeep Gill of the Disarmament and International Security Affairs (DISA) division of the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) will speak at the CIPOD Wednesday seminar on 'India and the New Arms Control Agenda' on August 19, 2009.

Keep reading for a report on his presentation . . .

Gill is Director at DISA. He has extensive experience in arms control and disarmament issues, having dealt with it for almost ten years of his service in the MEA. He was also a Visiting Fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC), Stanford University. He wrote recently in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists that India was unlikely to sign the CTBT even if the US Senate ratifies the treaty.

Updated 24/08/09: Here's a brief summary of Gill's presentation:

Amandeep Gill presented his view of India’s position on the new arms control agenda at the CIPOD Wednesday seminar on August 19. He was speaking in his personal capacity.

He stated that India’s arms control positions were organic and alive, based both on principles and pragmatism. These positions have an inherent link with national security, as it became clear during the CTBT debate. India will support global, verifiable and non-discriminatory disarmament measures but the Indian Government has a responsibility to its citizens with regard to their security in a nuclearised world. Apart from this link with national security, the debate in India regarding our arms control positions was also now more open. He felt that there was a broad consensus that the correct way to approach the process of disarmament is through delegitimizing nuclear weapons through measures such as de-alerting.

There is also a global context: nuclear postures are changing the world over. Both the US and China are enhancing their nuclear triad, with new delivery capabilities as well as missile defence and asymmetric capabilities. India is also developing a triad capability but on a much more modest scale. There are a number of causes for concern in these global developments including the possibility of a nuclearised Korean peninsula and concern over Iran’s nuclear technology development. Regarding the non-proliferation regime, Gill said that the Bush administration, though unilateralist, showed pragmatism in going beyond the existing regimes. While current problems dictate a need to modify and go beyond existing regimes, there is resistance to this.

Regarding India’s position on specific issues, Gill reiterated the Indian position that the NPT was a flawed treaty, flaws which were reinforced in 1995 when the treaty was extended indefinitely. But it was unrealistic for India to expect that the treaty would be modified to let India in as a nuclear weapon state, just as it was unrealistic to expect that India will join the treaty as a non-nuclear weapon state. While the NPT itself can stay, we also need to go beyond it to prevent proliferation. On CTBT and testing, Indian restraint has been unparalleled, but the CTBT needs to be a logical and necessary step on the path towards nuclear disarmament. In India many still see it as part of the old non-proliferation regime which discriminated against India. Ultimately, it is a matter of perception: if others see India as a partner rather than as a target, Indian views of the CTBT will also change.

On the FMCT, India can engage confidently with the rest of the world. Its position on fundamentals has not changed since 1993: it wants a multilateral, non-discriminatory and verifiable treaty that meets its national security concerns. On Iran, he said that Iran has made commitments that it needs to live up to and the appropriate body to deal with the issue is the IAEA.

Click Here to Read More..

Lawrence Prabhakar to lecture on nuclear disarmament

Lawrence Prabhakar, Associate Professor at theDepartment of Political Science, Madras Christian College, Chennai, will lecture on 'Nuclear Deterrence and Nuclear Disarmament: New Vistas in the 21st Century'. The lecture will be held in Room 203, SIS Building, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, on 4th August, 2009 (Tuesday), at 3:00 pm.

Dr. Prabhakar has written and lectured extensively on Indian security issues.

Click Here to Read More..

Scott Sagan to lecture on 'No First Use'

Scott Sagan will be delivering a lecture on 'The Case for No First Use' based on his recent essay of the same title in Survival. The lecture will be held in Room 203, SIS Building, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, at 3:00 pm on 5 August 2009 (Wednesday). No invitations are required to attend.

Click Here to Read More..