Plenary session 3

 

 

 

 

The session was addressed by ministerial-level officials of the ‘big three’ Asian countries, India, Japan and China. They focused on the growing importance of the Gulf to the East, explained their security concerns in the region – including extremism, terrorism and nuclear proliferation – explored politico-security developments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and announced the need for greater economic-political relationships with the region.

 

M.K. Narayanan, India’s National Security Adviser to the Prime Minister, emphasised his country’s historic, trade and cultural relations with the Gulf as well as its vital stake in Gulf stability and prosperity. More than four million Indians lived in the Gulf with remittances of $6–8 billion annually. Annual trade, excluding oil, was approximately $16bn annually, while 70% of India’s energy requirements were imported from the Gulf. In essence, he declared that the Gulf was part of India’s extended neighbourhood, linked by the Arabian Sea.

 

But the Gulf also had multi-dimensional conflicts and societal challenges, which posed a formidable threat to regional and international peace and security. These included terrorism and inter-state and intra-state conflicts. Terrorist groups, he said, had ‘common operating procedures, common funding structures, and common training facilities’. He warned that ‘checking extremism and fundamentalism, rather than compromising with such forces however pragmatic or opportune it may appear, is totally counterproductive’. He added that ‘such compromise would have the opposite effect, and would only encourage the very forces that have been responsible for the onset of terrorism and violence’.

On challenges faced by multi-layered societies, Narayanan said, some lessons from the Indian experience ‘might be of some relevance’. In the past 60 years of independence, India had faced challenges which required it to draw upon its intrinsic capabilities while remaining open to the best outside influences.

 

Narayanan also focused on India’s concerns over Afghanistan, Iraq, the Arab–Israeli conflict and Iran. In Afghanistan, India was involved in as many as 60 infrastructure and social-sector projects, and had contributed over $700 million for the reconstruction and rehabilitation of the country. He warned of extremist and fundamentalist forces, such as the Taliban, whose incursions into southern Afghanistan had been made possible ‘by the existence of support structures across the border from Afghanistan’. Compromises with extremists and fundamentalists ‘would only encourage those very forces that have been responsible for the onset of terrorism’.

 

On Iraq, Narayanan stated that ‘accommodation,
consensus-building and a willingness to give and take’ appeared to be the only way forward, along with the ‘need for a larger political vision’. A dramatic improvement in the Middle East could only take place if the two states – Palestine and Israel – co-existed in peace and security.

 

On Iran, Narayanan said it had its own security concerns and perceptions, which need to be suitably addressed. A dialogue among the concerned parties was required for regional security. He emphasised that ‘non-engagement cannot be the basis of a long-term strategy’.

 

Yuriko Koike, Japan’s Special Adviser to the Prime Minister for National Security Affairs, announced that Japan would play a more constructive role in the region through cooperation on four common security issues – energy security, regional/international security, economic security and climate security.

On energy security, Koike stated that 75% of Japan’s oil imports, amounting to 3.2m barrels per day, were sourced from the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries; this figure rose to almost 90% if supplies from Iran and Iraq were added. Therefore, the sea lanes from the Gulf through the Indian Ocean and the Strait of Malacca to Japan were strategically important for the energy security of the East.

On regional/international security issues, Koike focused on non-proliferation (North Korea and Iran) and Iraq. Japan was ‘gravely concerned about North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons’, and the Gulf should not be indifferent to such developments. On Iran, she noted that Japan was ‘not indifferent but gravely concerned’, as the Iranian nuclear issue, coupled with North Korea’s nuclear ambition, ‘would not only threaten peace and stability in the world, but also undermine the long-established non-proliferation regime’.

 

On Iraq, Koike noted that Japan had been committed to peace-building and reconstruction efforts. Following the successful completion of the mission by Japanese ground forces, Japan continued its airlift support. It had also pledged $5bn of assistance and cancelled $6bn of debt.

On economic security, Koike noted that Japan’s level of trade with GCC countries was its fourth largest, after the United States, China and South Korea. She emphasised that closer economic ties would not only be mutually beneficial, but would also contribute to the stability of the region. Finally, on climate security, Koike noted that the GCC could not afford to be indifferent, as climate issues were a ‘creeping threat to the international community’.

 

Sun Bigan, China’s Special Envoy to the Middle East, noted the long history of friendship between China and the Gulf countries, with 2,000 years of friendly exchanges through the Silk Road. Speaking in Arabic, he added that this year marked the 50^th anniversary of the diplomatic relationship between China and the Arab countries, and announced that China was ready to open a new chapter of cooperation with the Gulf countries ‘on the historical foundation, but transcending the past’.

 

He noted that the security and stability of the region was uncertain due to the Palestinian–Israeli conflict, the dispute on Iran’s nuclear programme, bloodletting in Iraq and terrorism and extremism in the region. He emphasised that a coordinated effort by the international community, including the Gulf countries, was needed ‘to maintain security and stability of the Gulf and to promote development and prosperity of the region’.

 

Sun added that it was necessary to build a ‘harmonious Gulf’, which enjoyed peace, stability and prosperity. This was not only in the long-term interests of the Gulf countries and their people, but was also the expectation of the international community. He advocated a commitment to ‘maintaining the security and stability of the region’ and adopting a new security concept ‘promoting mutual trust through dialogue and seeking security through cooperation’.

In addition, there must be ‘dialogues and exchanges on an equal footing between different civilisations’. Sun noted the importance of upholding the spirit of openness and inclusiveness to achieve common development by seeking common ground while shelving differences. 

 

The questions focused on India’s military relations with the Gulf, Indian migrant workers, India’s decision to acquire nuclear weapons, North Korean and Iranian nuclear proliferation and Japan’s security concerns vis-à-vis North Korea.

 

Dr Geoffrey Kemp, Director of Regional Strategic Programs, The Nixon Center, asked Narayanan about military-to-military cooperation between India and the Gulf countries and how this would work alongside the American commitment to the Gulf. Dr Laurence Louer, Research Fellow, Middle East Studies, Centre d’Etudes et de Recherches Internationales (CERI), queried him on the increased concern amongst the Gulf countries over migrant and illegal labour, in view of the large number of Indian migrants in the Gulf. Professor Aboumohammad Asgarkhani, University of Tehran, asked Narayanan about India’s decision to acquire nuclear weapons. Ambassador Richard Burt, Chairman, Diligence Inc., queried Sun Bigan and M.K. Narayanan on the role their governments might be prepared to play in the future in stabilising and reconstructing Iraq.

 

On the issue of military-to-military cooperation with the Gulf, Narayanan emphasised that India had primarily been looking at economic and related matters, rather than military issues. India was disinclined to have a major military relationship in the region. On migration, Narayanan noted that the Indian community had contributed tremendously to the economies of many countries across the world, including, the US, UK and large parts of Europe. The 4m Indians in the Gulf had played a very important role in the economic growth of these countries. India was opposed to illegal migration, and had cracked down on it.

 

On Iran’s nuclear programme, Narayanan said that as it was a country which was part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), it had gained certain rights; it therefore also had certain obligations. Proliferation of nuclear weapons in India’s neighbourhood was certainly a matter of concern, which was shared across the board. Meanwhile, India’s acquisition of nuclear weapons was based on the fact that it had an extremely volatile neighbourhood. India had not violated any NPT conditions, as it was not a party to what it regarded as an iniquitous treaty regime. The world had recognised India’s impeccable record as far as non-proliferation was concerned; the India–US civil nuclear cooperation agreement was testimony to this.

 

Dr Mamoun Fandy, IISS Senior Fellow for Gulf Security, queried Koike’s equation between the North Korean nuclear threat to Japan and the Iranian nuclear threat to the Gulf Region. Professor Asgarkhani asked what Japan was really worried about – the unification of Korea or Korea’s nuclear weapons.

On the nuclear issue in North Korea and Iran, Koike stated that the level of each of the problems was different, but both were severely condemned by the international community. The most important issue for both North Korea and Iran was to establish trust within the international community. For Japan, the real issue in Korea was the nuclear issue, which was very significant for Japan’s security. At the same time, there was also a humanitarian issue between Japan and North Korea on the question of abductions. Japan saw North Korea as the present danger, and was working with the neighbouring countries at the Six-Party Talks in order to change North Korea’s way of thinking.