DOCSLIB.ORG

South Asia's Nuclear Challenges: Interlocking Views from India

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
South Asia's Nuclear Challenges: Interlocking Views from India SOUTH ASIA’S NUCLEAR CHALLENGES Interlocking Views from India, Pakistan, China, Russia and the United States lora saalman and petr topychkanov STOCKHOLM INTERNATIONAL PEACE RESEARCH INSTITUTE SIPRI is an independent international institute dedicated to research into conflict, armaments, arms control and disarmament. Established in 1966, SIPRI provides data, analysis and recommendations, based on open sources, to policymakers, researchers, media and the interested public. The Governing Board is not responsible for the views expressed in the publications of the Institute. GOVERNING BOARD Ambassador Jan Eliasson, Chair (Sweden) Dr Vladimir Baranovsky (Russia) Espen Barth Eide (Norway) Jean-Marie Guéhenno (France) Dr Radha Kumar (India) Ambassador Ramtane Lamamra (Algeria) Dr Patricia Lewis (Ireland/United Kingdom) Dr Jessica Tuchman Mathews (United States) DIRECTOR Dan Smith (United Kingdom) SOUTH ASIA’S NUCLEAR CHALLENGES Interlocking Views from India, Pakistan, China, Russia and the United States lora saalman and petr topychkanov April 2021 Contents Acknowledgements iv Summary v Abbreviations vii 1. Introduction 1 2. India 3 Views on nuclear posture in South Asia 3 Views on nuclear escalation in South Asia 4 Box 2.1. Indian interviewees 4 3. Pakistan 7 Views on nuclear posture in South Asia 7 Views on nuclear escalation in South Asia 8 Box 3.1. Pakistani interviewees 8 4. China 10 Views on nuclear posture in South Asia 10 Views on nuclear escalation in South Asia 11 Box 4.1. Chinese interviewees 11 5. Russia 14 Views on nuclear posture in South Asia 14 Views on nuclear escalation in South Asia 16 Box 5.1. Russian interviewees 15 6. The United States 18 Views on nuclear posture in South Asia 18 Views on nuclear escalation in South Asia 19 Box 6.1. United States interviewees 19 7. Conclusions 22 China and India 22 China and the United States 22 India and the United States 23 India and Pakistan 23 Pakistan, Russia and the United States 24 Appendix A. Nuclear postures featured during interviews 25 Appendix B. Strategic technologies featured during interviews 27 Appendix C. Escalatory events featured during interviews 29 Acknowledgements This publication was prepared in the framework of the project Assessing Nuclear Deterrence Risks and Challenges in South Asia. We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the German Federal Foreign Office for its generous financial support of the project. We are indebted to the experts who participated in the research interviews in 2020 and a workshop on 8–9 December 2020 and agreed to share their insights. The contents of this publication reflect the findings of the authors and the views expressed by the interviewees; they should not be taken to reflect the views of SIPRI or the German Federal Foreign Office. We are also grateful to our SIPRI colleagues Dr Sibylle Bauer, Shannon Kile, Dr Lucie Béraud-Sudreau and Dr Jingdong Yuan and the anonymous external reviewer for their comprehensive and constructive comments on the draft. We are also thankful to the SIPRI Editorial Department for its invaluable work in editing the text and preparing it for publication. Lora Saalman and Petr Topychkanov Summary This study provides an overview of views on nuclear postures and escalation affecting South Asia, based on 119 interviews conducted in 2020, without attribution, with mili- tary, nuclear, political and regional experts from India, Pakistan, China, Russia and the United States. These discussions revealed a number of interlocking points that offer building blocks for both official and non-official engagement on such issues as no first use (NFU), lowered nuclear thresholds, conventional and nuclear entanglement, escalate to de-escalate, and emerging technology development. On China and India, there was a prevailing view among experts from both countries that they shared the same stance on NFU, and that nuclear escalation between the two was not only unlikely but also unthinkable. While stabilizing in the context of tensions at the China–India border, the assumption that both parties are operating from the same starting point merits greater examination—in relation not just to NFU but also to a range of nuclear postures from de-mating to targeting. Assumptions of ‘postural parity’ may bring stability in the short term but could contribute to misunderstanding and mis-signalling in the longer term. On China and the USA, experts from each tended to see the other country as playing a larger and more destabilizing role in South Asia. Chinese experts focused on past US weapon sales to the region, the Indian–US nuclear deal, the US Indo-Pacific Strategy and the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, which have had a strong focus on China as well as India. US experts cited China’s conventional and nuclear weapons outreach to Pakistan, military training, and the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). This different focus and pattern of engagement led some US experts to express concern that the region could break into two camps, with the USA and India on one side and China and Pakistan on the other. On India and the USA, there was a shared view among experts from both countries that the Chinese entanglement of conventional and nuclear platforms and command and control could filter into Pakistan’s posture and planning. Despite this commonality, there were limited avenues for nuclear discussion between the two countries. US experts cited the difficulty of engaging Indian interlocutors on nuclear issues, particularly at the official level. Meanwhile, in India there was a tendency to regard US assessments as projections that did not reflect India’s reality, such as with US discussions of India’s potential shift towards counterforce doctrine. On India and Pakistan, while experts from both countries focused on how the other has engaged in lowering the nuclear threshold, there was a mutual interest in how Chinese–US competition in emerging technologies may have cascade effects that shape South Asia’s deterrence landscape. Both Indian and Pakistani experts expressed concerns over how such technologies as hypersonic weapons, artificial intelligence (AI) and autonomy may change the deterrence landscape, particularly in terms of surveillance, command and control, and even shorter reaction times. On Pakistan, Russia and the USA, Chinese experts’ discussion of parallels between Pakistan and Russia on escalate to de-escalate coincided with US experts’ mention of the US use of a similar concept in extended deterrence and the fielding of low-yield nuclear weapons. Their respective analyses revealed that experts’ discussion of third countries and re-evaluation of their own countries’ nuclear posture may bridge some of the gaps in understanding that are often entrenched in traditional Russia–USA and India–Pakistan dyadic interactions. Overall, these findings illustrate the need for greater, and more comprehensive, engagement that features flexible bilateral, trilateral and multilateral groupings of India, Pakistan, China, Russia and the USA when discussing targeted aspects of nuclear dynamics in South Asia. Doing so would allow for greater transparency and dynamism when engaging on sensitive posture and escalation trends. This in turn would encourage experts to look beyond India–Pakistan dyadic strategic relations in South Asia to explore the broader dynamics and linkages shaping nuclear stability in the region and beyond. Abbreviations AI Artificial intelligence ALCM Air-launched cruise missile ASAT Anti-satellite BMD Ballistic missile defence BRI Belt and Road Initiative HGV Hypersonic glide vehicle IRBM Intermediate-range ballistic missile LOC Line of Control MIRVs Multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles MRBM Medium-range ballistic missile NFU No first use NPT Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (Non- Proliferation Treaty) PLA People’s Liberation Army (of China) SLBM Submarine-launched ballistic missile SSBN Nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine USCENTCOM United States Central Command USPACOM United States Pacific Command WMD Weapons of mass destruction 1. Introduction Over the past two decades, a series of escalatory events have taken place in South Asia under what some have dubbed the ‘nuclear shadow’—in which countries possessing nuclear weapons conduct low-intensity military operations against each other over disputed territories.1 These included the India–Pakistan tensions following attacks on the Indian Parliament in 2001, on Mumbai in 2008, on Uri in 2016, and on Pulwama and Balakot in 2019, as well as the China–India tensions over the Depsang incursion, the 2017 Doklam stand-off and the 2020 Galwan River Valley skirmishes.2 While each case has elicited debate, less attention has been given to the role of nuclear weapons, or lack thereof, in these various stand-offs. From one perspective, even when not actively engaged, nuclear postures and technologies are seen as looming in the back- ground and limiting events from spiralling out of control. From another, they are seen as potential triggers for accidents or further escalation, particularly when deployed at a tactical level. To better explore the postures and technologies that lie behind escalation under the nuclear shadow, the authors conducted a series of 119 not-for-attribution interviews between May and August 2020 with military, nuclear, political and regional experts from India, Pakistan, China, Russia and the United States on nuclear postures and escalation affecting South Asia. The interviews
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pierce – the American College of Greece Model United Nations | 2021
    Pierce – The American College of Greece Model United Nations | 2021 Committee: Security Council Issue: The Sino-Indian Border Dispute Student Officer: Alexandros Ballis Position: President PERSONAL INTRODUCTION Dear Delegates, My name is Alexandros Ballis and I am a 11th grader at the German School of Thessaloniki and I’ll be serving as the President in this year’s Security Council. First of all, I would like to congratulate all of you on both your decision to get involved in the challenging, but at the same time, exciting world of Model United Na- tions, as well as for choosing to participate in such a great conference. I can assure you that MUN is an incredible experience, since you get the chance to involve your- selves in current affairs and issues that will define our generation, improve your pub- lic speaking and negotiating skills, ameliorate your use of the English language and last, but certainly not least, make new friends! The topics of this year’s agenda are of utmost importance. However, this study guide will focus on the third topic of the agenda, namely “The Sino-Indian Bor- der Dispute”. The dispute between China and India concerning their borders and the territorial status of several areas between those two countries is an ongoing dispute that has caused instability in the area. Seeing that there is a risk of escalation be- tween the world’s two most populous countries, also having established themselves as nuclear powers, the possibility of a war is not far away. Therefore, efficient measures that will solve the crisis as soon as possible are needed.
    [Show full text]
  • India's Prospects in the Area of Ballistic Missile Defense
    РАБОЧИЕ МАТЕРИАЛЫ WORKING PAPERS МОСКОВСКИЙ ЦЕНТР КАРНЕГИ CARNEGIE MOSCOW CENTER Petr toPychkanov IndIa’s ProsPects In the area of BallIstIc MIssIle defense: a regIonal securIty PersPectIve 32012 WORKING PAPERS № 3 • 2012 PETR TOPYCHKANOV INDIA’S PROSPECTS IN THE AREA OF BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE: A REGIONAL SECURITY PERSPECTIVE МОСКОВСКИЙ ЦЕНТР КАРНЕГИ CARNEGIE MOSCOW CENTER The Working Papers series was founded in 1999. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the Carnegie Endowment or the Carnegie Moscow Center. Carnegie Moscow Center Russia, 125009 Moscow, Tverskaya ul., 16/2. Tel: +7 (495) 935-8904 Fax: +7 (495) 935-8906 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: http://www.carnegie.ru Electronic versions of all Carnegie Moscow Center publications may be found at: http://www.carnegie.ru The Carnegie Moscow Center is an independent public policy research institution that promotes intellectual collaboration among Russian and international scholars and policy experts and provides analysis on a wide range of political, economic, and social issues. The main vehicles for its work are its publications and seminars. Working Papers provide readers with access to the main current research on Russian and Eurasian domestic and foreign policy. The series includes intermediate results of research and articles for immediate release. You may send your comments to the email address above. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace or the Carnegie Moscow Center. The publication is distributed freeofcharge.
    [Show full text]
  • October 1 – 31, 2020 Current Affairs Index A. Polity And
    OCTOBER 1 – 31, 2020 CURRENT AFFAIRS 2. Road beneath Western Ghats 3. EPCA directs Delhi, States on INDEX GRAP A. POLITY AND GOVERNANCE 4. Blue Flag Certification 1. Defence Offset 5. Nilgiris Elephant Corridor 2. SC Vs. NCPCR 6. Nandakanan’s “Adopt an Animal” 3. TN defends Mullaiperiyar Panel Scheme 4. RTI @ 15 7. One Man committee for Stubble 5. HC’s Step towards e-Courts Burning 6. Move to delete ‘ineligible’ names 8. ZSI Species List from NRC Assam 9. Kaleshwaram Eco clearance 7. Bodoland Statehood stir violates law: NGT 8. Indira Rasoi Yojana 10. Air Pollution biggest health risk 9. J & K Panchayat (Amendment) Act 11. Outbleak for Himalayan Brown 10. Gupkar Alliance Bears 11. Buying land in J & K 12. Commission for NCR Pollution B. INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS E. SOCIAL ISSUES 1. India-Myanmar 1. Crime in India Report 2. India-Japan 2. STARS Project 3. India-Maldives 3. 99% India ODF 4. Galwan Clash and ICRC 4. Top 5 risk factors for death 5. UNHRC Council – China, Pakistan 5. Global Hunger Index 2020 seats 6. TN rejects IOE to Anna University 6. Australia in Malabar Exercise 7. Rural India and Nutrition 7. China opposes India-Taiwan trade 8. India and HIV ties 9. ASER Report 8. Pakistan on FATF Greylist 9. India-USA F. SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 10. India-Central Asian Republics 1. DRDO’s ASW 11. India-UK 2. Digital Vaccine Supply Platform 3. Shaurya Missile C. ECONOMY 4. Rudram – 1 1. ASIIM 5. SERB – POWER 2. Cabinet Reforms on Natural Gas 6. Brahmos Supersonic Missile 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Kashmir Conflict: a Critical Analysis
    Society & Change Vol. VI, No. 3, July-September 2012 ISSN :1997-1052 (Print), 227-202X (Online) Kashmir Conflict: A Critical Analysis Saifuddin Ahmed1 Anurug Chakma2 Abstract The conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir which is considered as the major obstacle in promoting regional integration as well as in bringing peace in South Asia is one of the most intractable and long-standing conflicts in the world. The conflict originated in 1947 along with the emergence of India and Pakistan as two separate independent states based on the ‘Two-Nations’ theory. Scholarly literature has found out many factors that have contributed to cause and escalate the conflict and also to make protracted in nature. Five armed conflicts have taken place over the Kashmir. The implications of this protracted conflict are very far-reaching. Thousands of peoples have become uprooted; more than 60,000 people have died; thousands of women have lost their beloved husbands; nuclear arms race has geared up; insecurity has increased; in spite of huge destruction and war like situation the possibility of negotiation and compromise is still absence . This paper is an attempt to analyze the causes and consequences of Kashmir conflict as well as its security implications in South Asia. Introduction Jahangir writes: “Kashmir is a garden of eternal spring, a delightful flower-bed and a heart-expanding heritage for dervishes. Its pleasant meads and enchanting cascades are beyond all description. There are running streams and fountains beyond count. Wherever the eye
    [Show full text]
  • T He Indian Army Is Well Equipped with Modern
    Annual Report 2007-08 Ministry of Defence Government of India CONTENTS 1 The Security Environment 1 2 Organisation and Functions of The Ministry of Defence 7 3 Indian Army 15 4 Indian Navy 27 5 Indian Air Force 37 6 Coast Guard 45 7 Defence Production 51 8 Defence Research and Development 75 9 Inter-Service Organisations 101 10 Recruitment and Training 115 11 Resettlement and Welfare of Ex-Servicemen 139 12 Cooperation Between the Armed Forces and Civil Authorities 153 13 National Cadet Corps 159 14 Defence Cooperaton with Foreign Countries 171 15 Ceremonial and Other Activities 181 16 Activities of Vigilance Units 193 17. Empowerment and Welfare of Women 199 Appendices I Matters Dealt with by the Departments of the Ministry of Defence 205 II Ministers, Chiefs of Staff and Secretaries who were in position from April 1, 2007 onwards 209 III Summary of latest Comptroller & Auditor General (C&AG) Report on the working of Ministry of Defence 210 1 THE SECURITY ENVIRONMENT Troops deployed along the Line of Control 1 s the world continues to shrink and get more and more A interdependent due to globalisation and advent of modern day technologies, peace and development remain the central agenda for India.i 1.1 India’s security environment the deteriorating situation in Pakistan and continued to be infl uenced by developments the continued unrest in Afghanistan and in our immediate neighbourhood where Sri Lanka. Stability and peace in West Asia rising instability remains a matter of deep and the Gulf, which host several million concern. Global attention is shifting to the sub-continent for a variety of reasons, people of Indian origin and which is the ranging from fast track economic growth, primary source of India’s energy supplies, growing population and markets, the is of continuing importance to India.
    [Show full text]
  • Indian Army Successfully Carries out Trials of Third Generation NAG Missiles
    Sat, 20 July 2019 Indian Army successfully carries out trials of third generation NAG missiles The trials of the missiles, developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), were conducted between July 7 to July 18, 2019 By Manjeet Singh Negi The Indian Army has successfully carried out its summer user trials of third Generation Anti-Tank Guided Missile NAG at Pokhran Field Firing Ranges. The trials of the missiles, developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), were conducted between July 7 to July 18, 2019. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh congratulated the user-evaluation teams and the DRDO for the successful completion of the user trials. The NAG missile has been developed to engage highly fortified enemy tanks in all weather conditions with day and night capabilities and with a minimum range of 500m and maximum range of 4 km. It is a third-generation fire-and-forget-class missile and uses an imaging infrared seeker in lock-on- before-launch mode. The missile is launched from the NAG missile carrier (NAMICA) which is capable of carrying up to six combat missiles. The robust imaging algorithm has made the missile hit the target at a distance of 4 km even in severe summer desert conditions which is unique in its class. As part of the NAG summer user trials, six missions were conducted under extreme temperature conditions of the Pokhran Ranges. All the missiles have met the mission objectives including minimum range, maximum range, indirect attack as well as top attack modes and achieved a direct hit on the target.
    [Show full text]
  • Siachen: the Non-Issue, by Prakash Katoch
    Siachen: The Non-Issue PC Katoch General Kayani’s call to demilitarise Siachen was no different from a thief in your balcony asking you to vacate your apartment on the promise that he would jump down. The point to note is that both the apartment and balcony are yours and the thief has no business to dictate terms. Musharraf orchestrated the Kargil intrusions as Vajpayee took the bus journey to Lahore, but Kayani’s cunning makes Musharraf look a saint. Abu Jundal alias Syed Zabiuddin an Indian holding an Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) provisioned Pakistani passport has spilled the beans on the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack: its complete planning, training, execution and minute-to-minute directions by the Pakistani military-ISI-LeT (Lashkar-e-Tayyeba) combine. More revealing is the continuing training for similar attacks under the marines in Karachi and elsewhere. The US says Pakistan breeds snakes in its backyard but Pakistan actually beds vipers and enjoys spawning more. If Osama lived in Musharraf’s backyard, isn’t Kayani dining the Hafiz Saeeds and Zaki-Ur- Rehmans, with the Hamid Guls in attendance? His demilitarisation remark post the Gyari avalanche came because maintenance to the Pakistanis on the western slopes of Saltoro was cut off. Yet, the Indians spoke of ‘military hawks’ not accepting the olive branch, recommending that a ‘resurgent’ India can afford to take chances in Siachen. How has Pakistan earned such trust? If we, indeed, had hawks, the cut off Pakistani forces would have been wiped out, following the avalanche. Kashmir Facing the marauding Pakistani hordes in 1947, when Maharaja Hari Singh acceded his state to India, Kashmir encompassed today’s regions of Kashmir Valley, Jammu, Ladakh (all with India), the Northern Areas, Gilgit-Baltistan, Lieutenant General PC Katoch (Retd) is former Director General, Information Systems, Army HQ and a Delhi-based strategic analyst.
    [Show full text]
  • China and Kashmir* Buildup Along the Indo-Pak Border in 2002 (Called Operation Parakram in India)
    China and Kashmir* buildup along the Indo-Pak border in 2002 (called Operation Parakram in India). Even if the case may by JABIN T. Jacob be made that such support to Pakistan has strength- ened Pakistan’s hands on the Kashmir dispute, it is difficult to draw a direct link between the twists and turns in the Kashmir situation and Chinese arms supplies to Pakistan. Further, China has for over two Perceptions about the People’s Republic of China’s decades consistently called for a peaceful resolution position on Kashmir have long been associated with of the Kashmir dispute, terming it a dispute “left over its “all-weather” friendship with Pakistan. However, from history.” Both during Kargil and Operation the PRC’s positions on Kashmir have never been Parakram, China refused to endorse the Pakistani consistently pro-Pakistan, instead changing from positions or to raise the issue at the United Nations. disinterest in the 1950s to open support for the Paki- Coupled with rising trade and the continuing border stani position in the subsequent decades to greater dialogue between India and China, this has given rise neutrality in the 1980s and since. While China has to hopes in India that the Kashmir dispute will no China’s positions on continued military support to Pakistan even during longer be a card the Chinese will use against it. Kashmir have never been military conflicts and near-conflicts between India and Pakistan, its stance on Kashmir has shifted consistently pro-Pakistan, gradually in response to the prevailing domestic, China and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir instead changing from dis- regional, and international situations.
    [Show full text]
  • Realignment and Indian Air Power Doctrine
    Realignment and Indian Airpower Doctrine Challenges in an Evolving Strategic Context Dr. Christina Goulter Prof. Harsh Pant Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed or implied in the Journal are those of the authors and should not be construed as carrying the official sanction of the Department of Defense, Air Force, Air Education and Training Command, Air University, or other agencies or departments of the US government. This article may be reproduced in whole or in part without permission. If it is reproduced, the Journal of Indo-Pacific Affairs requests a courtesy line. ith a shift in the balance of power in the Far East, as well as multiple chal- Wlenges in the wider international security environment, several nations in the Indo-Pacific region have undergone significant changes in their defense pos- tures. This is particularly the case with India, which has gone from a regional, largely Pakistan-focused, perspective to one involving global influence and power projection. This has presented ramifications for all the Indian armed services, but especially the Indian Air Force (IAF). Over the last decade, the IAF has been trans- forming itself from a principally army-support instrument to a broad spectrum air force, and this prompted a radical revision of Indian aipower doctrine in 2012. It is akin to Western airpower thought, but much of the latest doctrine is indigenous and demonstrates some unique conceptual work, not least in the way maritime air- power is used to protect Indian territories in the Indian Ocean and safeguard sea lines of communication. Because of this, it is starting to have traction in Anglo- American defense circles.1 The current Indian emphases on strategic reach and con- ventional deterrence have been prompted by other events as well, not least the 1999 Kargil conflict between India and Pakistan, which demonstrated that India lacked a balanced defense apparatus.
    [Show full text]
  • China's Influence on Conflict Dynamics in South Asia
    USIP SENIOR STUDY GROUP FINAL REPORT China’s Influence on Conflict Dynamics in South Asia DECEMBER 2020 | NO. 4 USIP Senior Study Group Report This report is the fourth in USIP’s Senior Study Group (SSG) series on China’s influence on conflicts around the world. It examines how Beijing’s growing presence is affecting political, economic, and security trends in South Asia and the Indian Ocean region. The bipartisan group was comprised of senior experts, former policymakers, and retired diplomats. They met six times by videoconference over the course of 2020 to examine how an array of issues—from military affairs to border disputes, trade and development, and cultural issues—come together to shape and be shaped by Chinese involvement. The group members drew from their deep individual experiences working in and advising the US government to generate a set of top-level findings and actionable policy recommen- dations. Unless otherwise sourced, all observations and conclusions are those of the SSG members. Cover illustration by Alex Zaitsev/Shutterstock The views expressed in this report are those of the members of the Senior Study Group alone. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Institute of Peace. An online edition of this and related reports can be found on our website (www.usip.org), together with additional information on the subject. © 2020 by the United States Institute of Peace United States Institute of Peace 2301 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, DC 20037 Phone: 202.457.1700 Fax: 202.429.6063 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.usip.org First published December 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • The China–India Water Dispute
    As the upper riparian, China wields The China–India significant advantage over India. It Water Dispute withheld hydrological data from In- dia during the Doklam standoff de- 6 The Potential for spite an existing hydrological data- sharing agreement between them. In Escalation November 2020, China announced Dr. Selina Ho plans for hydropower construction on the section of the Brahmaputra clos- est to India, triggering strong re- sponses from the Indian side. Of greatest concern to India are reports of Chinese plans to build a mega-dam just before the Brahmaputra enters India. News of these plans came at a time when relations between China and India are at a low point, with troops facing off at the Galwan Val- ley. There were also reports that in the aftermath of the border clashes, China has blocked the flow of the he conflation of the China–India Galwan River, which crosses from water dispute with larger territo- the disputed Chinese-administered T rial and political disputes exacer- Aksai Chin region into Ladakh re- bates water as a source of conflict be- gion in India. Indian pundits have tween them. The waters of the Hima- accused China of “weaponizing” wa- layas are an invaluable resource for ter and using water for political and the two countries as rapid economic strategic leverage over India. They development and population growth believe that China could cut off water stress their water supplies. Among or raise the water levels to flood In- the rivers that cross their disputed dia should a military conflict break border, the Brahmaputra River/Yar- out between them.
    [Show full text]
  • Causes of the 1962 Sino-Indian War: a Systems Level Approach
    University of Denver Digital Commons @ DU Josef Korbel Journal of Advanced International Studies Josef Korbel School of International Studies Summer 2009 Causes of the 1962 Sino-Indian War: A Systems Level Approach Aldo D. Abitol University of Denver Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/advancedintlstudies Part of the International and Area Studies Commons Recommended Citation Aldo D. Abitbol, “Causes of the 1962 Sino-Indian War: A systems Level Approach,” Josef Korbel Journal of Advanced International Studies 1 (Summer 2009): 74-88. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Josef Korbel School of International Studies at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Josef Korbel Journal of Advanced International Studies by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],dig- [email protected]. Causes of the 1962 Sino-Indian War: A Systems Level Approach This article is available at Digital Commons @ DU: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/advancedintlstudies/23 Causes of the 1962 Sino-Indian War A SYSTEMS LEVEL APPRAOCH ALDO D. ABITBOL University of Denver M.A. Candidate, International Security ______________________________________________________________________________ The emergence of the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) nations as regional powers and future challengers to U.S. hegemony has been predicted by many, and is a topic of much debate among the IR community today. Interestingly, three of these nations have warred against each other in the past and, coincidentally or not, it was the nations that shared borders: India and China and China and Russia.
    [Show full text]