(for this blog)
In his first major address to the world after being appointed as the Secretary-General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) in 1994, Willy Claes chose to highlight the organization’s independence. “I should like to clarify that NATO is not a sub-contractor to the United Nations”, he proclaimed. “We are a sovereign organisation and we have a duty to discuss the conditions for our support.” Now, as NATO prepares to take over the Western intervention in Libya under the façade of UN patronage, few words would ring so hollow.
The decision to ‘delegate’ the use of force in Libya to NATO is unprecedented in the history of the United Nations and will have enormous implications for international law. If UN Security Council Resolution 1973 is founded on the flimsy bearings of a ‘Responsibility to Protect’, NATO’s assumption of control walks the thin line between highhandedness and patent illegality. To be sure, the UNSC has resolved previously to vest multilateral organs with the mandate to use force and intervene effectively. An example of this is the devolution of power to an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. But the decision to authorize such a consortium was made through a specific Resolution by the UNSC (1386). Even without such explicit reference, Chapter VIII of the UN Charter leaves the door open for regional ‘arrangements’ or ‘agencies’ to perform enforcement functions. In Libya’s case, the wide-ranging UNSCR 1973 contains a boiler-plate clause that authorizes Member States acting “through regional organizations or arrangements” to take “all necessary measures” with regard to protection of civilians, establishment of a no-fly zone and so on. What then, one might wonder, prevents the sponsors of the Resolution from ‘sub-contracting’ these tasks to NATO? Put simply, NATO is not a ‘regional arrangement’ or ‘agency’ as envisaged under Chapter VIII. These terms are not defined in the UN Charter, but by NATO’s own admission, the organisation does not fall within their ambit. As Judge Bruno Simma of the International Court of Justice observes, Willy Claes followed up his 1994 speech with a letter addressed to UN Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali “expressly clarifying” that NATO did not come under Chapter VIII. When the Collective Measures Committee was constituted in 1951 to help the UN bolster its sanctions regime, the United States made a strong pitch to endorse NATO as its watchdog– the proposal was shot down by NATO members themselves. Britain’s suggestion in 1964 that NATO be deployed to keep the peace between Greek and Turkish Cypriots found no takers, either within NATO or the UNSC. Clearly, the transatlantic alliance has neither been conceived nor perceived as an enforcement agency of the UN. As one NATO-endorsed theory suggests, the organization’s reluctance to be drawn into the fold of Chapter VIII stems from the realization that it would have to bear “additional obligations” under the UN Charter. In other words, NATO is not prepared to intervene except in cases where its strategic interests are affected.
Seen in this light, NATO’s claim to ‘assist’ the people of Libya is all but vacuous. On the contrary, it would seem that the organization is driven by larger geopolitical and material motivations in the region. Let us cast aside NATO’s questionable intentions for a moment to examine the legality of its intervention in Libya. This is the first time that NATO is single-handedly shouldering the mandate of the Security Council, without the backing of a specific Resolution. There is no established practice or custom in international law that lends legitimacy to its action. Even in the early nineties which saw NATO and UN working together, operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina like ‘Sky Monitor’ and ‘Deny Flight’ were coordinated closely with the UN Protection Force (UNPROFOR) and were initiated at the written, formal request of the UN Secretary General. In fact, although UNSCR 836 authorised the use of force to create “safe areas” in Bosnia, operations could only be commenced by a ‘dual key’ arrangement, involving both UN and NATO approval.
The one instance where NATO played the lone ranger does little to further its case for intervention in Libya. The bombardment of Yugoslavia in 1999 by NATO forces was in blatant violation of international norms, and although apologists may take refuge in the doctrine of ‘humanitarian intervention’, there can be no doubt that such acts of aggression without the blessings of the UNSC are in direct contravention to peremptory norms under the UN Charter. The legitimacy of the Libyan intervention is clouded by the fact that NATO’s own charter does not contemplate the role of a ‘protector’. Article 5 of the Washington Treaty that birthed the organization authorizes NATO to use force only in ‘collective self-defence’, with a specific reference to Article 51 of the UN Charter. Therefore, the explicit approval of the UNSC becomes imperative if NATO were to be allowed to punch above its weight. Of course, this is not a palatable option for the Western midwives of UNSCR 1973, because Russia and China are certain to veto any resolution granting a free rein to NATO. Hence, the lame justification that NATO has been ushered in because the sponsors do not have command-and-control capabilities over the operation themselves. Surely, they do not expect the world to believe that this was a fortuitous coincidence?
The NATO intervention in Libya sets a dangerous precedent that allows military alliances to engage in acts of aggression under the veneer of multilateralism. Beneath the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ lie cold calculations to sustain and expand the strategic relevance of a floundering European relic. The UN should heed the advice of its former Secretary General Kofi Annan, who said in 1999: “[The UN and NATO] work best when we respect each other’s competence and avoid getting in each other’s way”.
[The Hindu] Ambassador David C. Mulford — the man who sent many of the secret U.S. embassy cables accessed by The Hindu through WikiLeaks — put to rest any doubts on the veracity of their contents on Friday, stating that “certainly the reports from the U.S. embassy [in New Delhi] in general are accurate reports.”
Mr. Mulford, who was the U.S. Ambassador to India from 2004 to February 2009, refused to comment on the particulars involving the cash-for-votes controversy as reported in the leaked cable which has rocked Parliament this week. But he did not refute its contents either, merely maintaining, in the face of repeated questioning, that he “had nothing to say on the subject.” The former Ambassador was speaking on a live televised discussion on The Hindu’s WikiLeaks revelations hosted by Karan Thapar on CNN-IBN. The Hindu’s Editor-in-Chief, N. Ram, and Ambassador Lalit Mansingh were the other discussants.
“Would you have any reason to believe that [U.S. Charge d’Affaires] Steven White may have exaggerated or that he may have concocted [the contents of that cable] …. you have any reason to believe that?” asked Mr. Thapar. “I simply have nothing to say on that,” Ambassador Mulford responded.
On the other hand, Mr. Mulford gamely fielded a number of questions on some of the other cables, most notably on whether the U.S. had “arm-twisted” India into voting against Iran at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 2005. While observing that the “prospects of a civil nuclear deal would [have been] immeasurably damaged” had India chosen “to abstain or sit on the fence,” Mr. Mulford went to the extent of justifying his actions as reported in the cable, saying that “it was a key thing to do and do well.”
“I would not call it arm-twisting,” said the former Ambassador, “but it was appropriate for me to reflect to the Indian Government the dangers of not supporting a vote on Iran.”
In another cable sent to Washington, Mr. Mulford had referred to the Cabinet reshuffle of 2006, calling it “good for America” and referring to some of the incoming Ministers as “welcome additions”. While describing outgoing Petroleum Minister Mani Shankar Aiyar as “contentious,” the Ambassador had called his replacement Murli Deora as “pro-U.S.” When Mr. Thapar wondered how Mr. Mulford had the “confidence to come up with the interpretation” that the reshuffle had a pro-American tilt, the latter replied that “it was his job to come to a conclusion on something that was as important as this” and that “developments of [those] kind were favourable to strengthening Indo-U.S. ties.”
In writing about the favourable nature of the Cabinet reshuffle, Mr. Mulford specifically said that he was “making that point” in the cables, underlining once again that the published dispatches were indeed genuine.
New Delhi: “Why do judges greet themselves as ‘brothers,’ while others refer to their colleagues as ‘friends,’?” asked K.N. Bhat, former Additional Solicitor-General of India. “That’s because you can choose your friends, but not your brothers.” His tongue-in-cheek remark was aimed at the “problematic” system of appointments in the higher judiciary, which according to constitutional experts such as P.P. Rao and Ashok Desai, had sacrificed merit at the altar of seniority.
The senior advocates were voicing their opinion at a discussion on the Standards of Judicial Conduct and Accountability Bill here. Referring to the transfer of Justices Dinakaran and Nirmal Yadav to the Sikkim and Uttarakhand High Courts respectively, one eminent lawyer remarked: “Merely because smaller High Courts lack the clout to resist such transfers, can you expect these judges to retain legitimacy?”
The Bill evoked a wide range of reactions at the seminar, from compliments to criticism. “In my opinion, the Bill is counterproductive — if you want good judges to do their work, you have to leave the bad ones alone too,” said senior advocate Fali Nariman, who was more in favour of revoking the immunity of judges after they retired.
On the other hand, Prashant Bhushan, who heads the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reform, claimed that the present system of checking corruption within the judiciary, particularly the impeachment process, was “politicised, impractical and unworkable.”
Mr. Rao and Mr. Desai supported the creation of a National Judicial Commission, as a permanent body that would oversee the appointment, transfer and conduct of judges. Their suggestion that “tainted judges be stopped from doing any further judicial or administrative work till their investigation is complete” found support among the audience.
At the forefront of the debate was the former Chief Justice of India, J.S. Verma, who weighed in on the functioning of the country’s judiciary with his many years of experience at its highest level. “Many instances of complaints [against judges] could be false or inaccurate, but that should not prevent people from speaking the truth for fear of contempt of court,” he said.
Justice Verma pointed out that the post-retirement life of judges was rarely subject to scrutiny, and it was important to see that judges “did not undermine the offices they once held.”
All the discussants voiced their concern at the exclusion of the Right to Information Act from its ambit. “Why is the government shy to enforce the Right to Information, if it wants to ensure transparency in judicial functioning,?” Justice Verma said.
[The Hindu] Sandeep Joshi and S. Arun Mohan
Says it ignored important bodies such as Telecom Commission, TRAI to favour operators
The Justice Shivaraj V. Patil Committee Report on procedures followed in issuing licences and allocating spectrum between 2001 and 2009 has found that the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government was also guilty of deviating from prescribed policies and ignoring important bodies such as the Telecom Commission and the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) to favour operators.
The Report has documented several instances where these policies — ranging from granting of licence to allotment of spectrum — have gone against the grain of established principles. Like the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, the NDA also adopted and applied the ‘first come, first served’ (FCFS) policy “without consistency” and “without any nexus to the objective” of selecting licensees under the National Telecom Policy 1999.
During the NDA regime (between 2001 and 2004), the Report observed that allotment of additional spectrum was opposed not only “to principles of fairness and transparency” but also “extant policies and directions.” In some orders issued by Telecom Department in 2001 and 2002, the Committee noted that allotment of spectrum was based on “subjective stipulations” of “availability and justification,” without prescribing the criteria for allotment.
In fact, the criteria for “efficient use of spectrum by cellular services” were recommended by a “technical committee” that comprised the Cellular Operators Association of India and the Association of Basic Telecom Operators, among others.
In August 2003, the Telecom Minister (Arun Shourie) approved these recommendations without placing them either before TRAI or the Telecom Commission. These orders were not even “notified to existing operators or the public.”
However, in the case of Bharti Airtel Ltd., “an allotment of spectrum” was made for the Delhi service area in July 2003, seemingly “in anticipation of the report” by the technical committee. “In the absence of laid-down procedure,” the Report categorically terms such a decision “improper.”
Even in the FCFS policy, the Report noted that there were no guidelines for identifying the “exact point or event for reckoning priority among various applicants,” making the process “wholly subjective and arbitrary.” Both Bharti Airtel Ltd. and Tata Telecom Services Ltd. had pending applications when it was decided in 2003 to adopt the FCFS policy, and this “could have been unfair to other intending applicants.” Perhaps, the most direct accusation of favouritism made by the Report relates to the application of FCFS policy to select operators during the NDA regime. In November 2003, a procedure was formulated “to accept Unified Access Service Licences [UASL] in the form prescribed for Basic Service Licences [BSLs].”
In any case, this was a “deviation from” the TRAI recommendations accepted by the Union Cabinet.
[The Hindu] Sandeep Joshi and S. Arun Mohan
He did not consult Telecom Commission and ignored GoM while taking crucial decisions
Apart from indicting A. Raja, the Justice Shivaraj V. Patil Committee report has faulted the functioning of Dayanidhi Maran during his tenure as Communications and IT Minister between May 2004 and May 2007.
The report accuses Mr. Maran, now Textiles Minister, of not consulting the Telecom Commission, Telecom Department’s decision-making body, and ignoring the Group of Ministers (GoM) while taking crucial policy decisions.
The Committee, constituted to examine the appropriateness of the telecom policies and allocation of spectrum from 2001 to 2009, has remarked that actions during Mr. Maran’s tenure fell foul of the procedures laid down in the Government of India (Transaction of Business) Rules, which stipulate that when a policy has any financial bearing, no orders shall be issued without the concurrence of the Finance Ministry. The Minister deviated from “extant policy” by not discussing the issue of determining the entry fee for telecom licence with the Finance Ministry.
The Dravida Munnettra Kazhagam (DMK) Minister also had his say when it came to the crucial issue of spectrum pricing, which has been a controversial aspect of the alleged 2G scam. Mr. Maran overruled a Group of Ministers (GoM) constituted by the Prime Minister and got spectrum pricing removed from its terms of reference, despite strong reservations from the Ministry of Finance.
In 2006, Mr. Maran superseded “all earlier orders relating to subscriber-based criteria for allotment of GSM spectrum” and for CDMA operators. The Minister took these two crucial policy decisions “without there being consideration by [the] Telecom Commission,” the report said.
TRAI, in May 2005, submitted its recommendations on effective utilisation of spectrum, spectrum pricing and spectrum allocation procedure. However, this was not placed before the Telecom Commission, which oversees important policy decisions relating to the telecom sector.
Citing various instances from 2004 to 2007, the Committee has observed that some applicants were treated favourably, while others were discriminated against. For instance, in March 2004, when Dishnet Wireless Ltd. (now Aircel) sought licenses under the Unified Access Service Licensing (UASL) regime, the application, after clarifications, was endorsed by the then Telecom Secretary. But the Minister’s office put up a note demanding details that were “vague” and “irrelevant.” This saga continued late into 2006, and caused inordinate delay which “made other applicants wait” and “could [have] resulted in wastage of spectrum.”
While some applicants struggled to meet the “irrelevant” demands of the Minister, other service providers found the going easy. Idea Cellular was rendered ineligible to operate in Mumbai because Tata Industries Ltd. had higher equity in the company than was permitted. The procedure mandated that when a company became ineligible, it would lose seniority, even if it acquired eligibility later.
However, Idea retained its priority from the date of application when Tata Industries transferred the equity subsequently. This amounted, according to the Report, “a violation of the laid-down procedure.” Moreover, the time for rectifying discrepancies in Idea Cellular’s Mumbai application was extended, without consulting the Finance Ministry.
The Justice Patil Report has also noted that in the application of Essar Spacetel Pvt Ltd, “information was sought for in a piecemeal manner.” The licenses were signed only three years later from the date of application and this “could [have] caused wastage of spectrum, besides making other applicants wait.”
[The Hindu] S. Arun Mohan and J. Venkatesan
There is no space available for transgenders in hospital wards, says M.Y. Eqbal
The panel discussion was going at full throttle when Justice Altamas Kabir walked in. A hushed silence fell over the room as the participants realised that a Supreme Court judge had just joined the debate. With a swish of his hand, a visibly embarrassed Justice Kabir gestured for everyone to resume the discussion.
At the end of the session here on Saturday, the judge had a number of questions to ask and suggestions to make.
Such was the support that the national seminar on ‘Transgenders and the Law’ received from the higher echelons of the judiciary that it was hard to absorb that it dealt with the plight of one of the most invisible minorities in India.
Justice Kabir, who inaugurated the seminar, jointly organised by the National and Delhi Legal Services Authority and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), spoke of the need to treat the transgender community with respect and dignity.
“The Constitution affirms equality in all spheres but the moot question is whether it is being applied.”
Earlier, delivering the keynote address the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, M.Y. Eqbal, enumerated the steps taken by the Tamil Nadu government to integrate transgenders into the mainstream community.
“The progress made in fostering public health systems and affirmative action policies for transgenders in Tamil Nadu should be replicated at the national level.”
Highlighting their problems, Justice Eqbal said there was no space available for them in hospital wards.
“The authorities do not admit them in the women’s ward because women do not feel comfortable or free in their presence, and in the men’s ward they face sexual abuse. Besides, there are no separate toilet facilities for them.”
Echoing Justice Eqbal’s sentiments, the Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court, Dipak Mishra, who presided, urged the mainstream society to draw strength from “the compassionate ethos” of the Constitution.
Justice V. Vikramajit Sen of the Delhi High Court, in his opening remarks, said the judiciary needed to enable the transgender community’s right to social inclusion.
It came to light at the seminar that neighbouring Nepal and Pakistan had remarkably progressive laws that dealt with the concerns of transgenders. In fact, the Supreme Court of Pakistan recently delivered a landmark decision upholding the rights of the community to access all public schemes.
Caitlin Wiesen, Country Director of the UNDP, said it had documented ground realities in India, and it was clear that many concerns of transgenders had not been addressed.
The opening segment was followed by two technical sessions at which resource persons attempted to “unveil the truth” about the transgenders and elaborated on the medical, health and legal issues faced by them.
“We have faced innumerable hurdles, right from getting a job to adopting a child,” said Kalki Subramaniam, who heads the Sahodari Foundation in Chennai.
“And it is time that society realised that being transgender is not about begging or sex work.”
As Albert Louise Sachs approached his car at a parking lot in Maputo, a bomb planted by South African security agents went off. His right arm was shattered and he lost vision in one eye. Two years later, as the apartheid regime faltered to a halt, an undaunted Albie Sachs returned from exile, aiding its transition to a democracy. Appointed to the Constitutional Court in 1994, Justice Sachs was instrumental in drafting the country’s Constitution. In India to deliver the Durga Das Basu Centenary lecture, he spoke to S. Arun Mohan on the need for a visionary articulation of constitutional ideals by the higher judiciary.
Many parallels have been drawn between the freedom struggles in India and South Africa, but how influential has the Indian Constitution been in drawing up post-racial South Africa’s Constitution?
I think it is my seventh trip to India, but I have been here many more times in my imagination. India’s independence came at the end of World War II when we were at the cusp of achieving democracy too. It is no accident that the title of Mandela’s book “Long Walk to Freedom” was inspired by the words of Nehru that “there is no easy walk to freedom anywhere.” The Indian experience was inspirational in South Africa because of the historic parallels and the presence of M.K. Gandhi himself in the country. To my generation, the importance of India as a multi-faith, multi-lingual nation cannot be underestimated as a leading experience in drafting the Constitution of South Africa. There was much to learn from the emergence of a new identity after centuries of colonial oppression, not just culturally, but in terms of character. The Indian Constituent Assembly exemplified a participatory exercise that gathered inputs from the people. The Indian thinking on law also directly influenced us. Legal luminaries who visited South Africa taught us that constitution-making is not just about technique, but about human dignity, rights of people and wiping a tear from every eye.
After the apartheid regime came to an end, South Africans chose to establish a Truth & Reconciliation Commission (TRC). How did reconciliation fit within the framework of the Constitution? Did it not amount to condoning state violence despite a professed commitment to equality?
Not at all. The TRC was aimed at particularly egregious forms of racial violence that were hidden even in those days. At the same time, the commission focussed on violations committed by the African National Congress (ANC). So we tried to look at atrocities on both sides, because when South Africa emerged as a democracy, we wanted to arrive with clean hands. We wanted to denounce the philosophy of retaliation, and grant amnesty to those who came out with the truth. Police officers who had tortured civilians testified before the commission, often breaking down on television. The objective was not to let people off the hook, but relieve the people of their pain.
You were appointed by Nelson Mandela to the Constitutional Court, and your own experiences of the past were emotional and often traumatic. How influential was the historical baggage you brought to the court in deciding cases?
It is a topic that I deal with in my book, “The Strange Alchemy of Life and Law.” And my answer is: yes, of course judges are influenced by the past experiences but they do not exhibit this through obvious means. There are different ways in which they respond to the treatment received in the past. I have never been subjected to racism. In fact, I was supposed to be on the “other side” of it. But some of my colleagues at the court came with dreadful stories of discrimination. Some of them are extremely religious, while others are not. But we work with a sense that there is a constitution we made together to uphold.
You were one of the first to conceive the “three generation of rights” theory. Although endorsed in many legal systems, don’t you believe that such compartmentalisation affected an interdisciplinary understanding of rights? For instance, the Indian Constitution categorises some rights as fundamental, but leaves the vast majority of socio-economic rights to whims of the State.
I am very comfortable with the “indivisibility of rights” approach that has gained traction recently. I categorised rights because at that time policy makers had to be informed that rights were not merely civil or political. But I must say that the Indian Supreme Court has handled the issue very astutely. Your judges have said that you simply cannot have civil and political rights unless they are informed by socio-economic rights. So the second generation rights have not come through the front door, but the windows have been left open. And it makes juridical sense, because you are dealing with the rights of real human beings. When you tell a pavement dweller that his right to physical body-life cannot be taken away without due process, that’s just not enough. Life is simply more than being alive without being dead!
Through the much-celebrated decision in Home Affairs v. Fourie, you legalised same-sex unions, holding that the common law understanding of marriage was incompatible with ideals of the South African Constitution. The Delhi High Court has made similar sounds through the Naz Foundation case, but not of the same magnitude. What do you put the difference in approach down to, despite both countries having remarkably similar equality clauses?
When Naz was delivered, my email was flooded with copies of the judgment from friends! I guess the difference is in timing and technicality. The equality clause in South Africa incorporates “sexual orientation” as a ground against discrimination, and its inclusion was helped along by demands from the women’s wing of the ANC at the time of constitution-making. So the first step was to decriminalise, and then grant equal status to same-sex marriages. The Delhi High Court has done the same, and although my views on this subject are clear from Fourie, it would not be appropriate to comment further.
The Indian Supreme Court has been taking expansive steps to monitor and curb corruption in what is being referred to as a “season of scams.” With its exemplary powers, just like the Constitutional Court of South Africa, how do you see the court’s role as a moral compass for our times?
I would say that the Supreme Court of India, as in any other country, should do much more than just resolving disputes between people. Courts play an enormously significant role in representing the aspirations of a nation, telling us what it means to be an Indian in India and a South African in South Africa. It should not be through grand three-piece statements, but through an incremental way of defining how power should be exercised, what rights of citizens are and what the relationship between the government and its people should be. Judges should be great storytellers of their age, and the way you tell it through a judgment is just as important as what you decide.
Judges through the ages, like Marshall and Holmes who have gone down in history have done just this. Although it wouldn’t be fair to pick any one individual from India, I must mention Krishna Iyer, for his legal acumen and vision that was animated by ideals of the Constitution.
The absence of a sustained engagement between India and Pakistan on a whole range of issues affecting the sub-continent was unhealthy, counterproductive and even dangerous.
In fact, what a group of senior opinion makers from the two countries who met in Bangkok at end of last month recommended, through a resolution, was an “uninterrupted and uninterruptible dialogue on issues of strategic stability”, active steps to increase people-to-people contacts, continuous exchange of information between the two countries on terrorism, a dialogue between the intelligence agencies of the two countries, and steps to bring to justice the perpetrators of Mumbai terror attack of 2008 and the blasts in the Samjhauta Express that led to loss of many innocent lives.
At the sixth round of the Chaopraya Dialogue in Bangkok retired ambassadors and foreign secretaries, former intelligence chiefs, academicians, and strategic policy journalists from the two countries met for two days to discuss critical issues that affect bilateral relations between India and Pakistan. The dialogue, which culminated in a joint resolution by the participants, focused on terrorism, Jammu & Kashmir, nuclear stability and crisis management among several other issues.
The joint resolution noted the absence of a ‘formal and sustained’ engagement on the full range of issues between both nations was counterproductive and dangerous. It hoped the upcoming meeting of foreign secretaries in Thimpu would prepare the ground for resumption of a comprehensive and sustained dialogue (that was disrupted after the Mumbai terror attack).
Back-channel negotiations must be used to complement such formal dialogue, the resolution urged. The participants also noted with regret, the difficulties faced in fostering people-to-people contact across the border. The resolution asked both Governments to adopt a visa regime that facilitates contacts, particularly between media practitioners, academics, students and business people. It said the media should be encouraged to strengthen the peace constituency in both the countries.
The dialogue also acknowledged the deep concern that terrorism presented to both India and Pakistan. The perpetrators of the 2008 Mumbai attacks should be brought to justice, while India has to expeditiously prosecute those involved in the Samjhauta Express attack and keep Pakistan informed of the same. The group recommended an “uninterrupted and uninterruptible dialogue on issues of strategic stability”.
On the nuclear front, the resolution called for a review of “the efficacy of existing CBMs between the two countries and explore additional declaratory, unilateral, and mutually agreed Nuclear Confidence Building Measures and Nuclear Risk Reduction Measures”. In addition, the need for discussion between China, India and Pakistan to promote strategic stability with a focus on the logic of sufficiency of arsenals was emphasized.
The Chaophraya Dialogue, organized jointly by the Jinnah Institute in Islamabad and the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, New Delhi, included among others, Sherry Rehman (Member of Parliament), Aziz Khan (Ambassador Retd.), Jehangir Karamat (General Retd.) from Pakistan and Raja Menon (Rear Admiral Retd.), G. Parthasarathy (former ambassador) and Prof. Amitabh Mattoo (International Politics, JNU).