Once upon a time the commander-in-chief of a rising land power, unfamiliar with seafaring and uneasy about it, asked one of his field commanders to describe the sea and seafarers to him. The officer dutifully reported:

In another region of the world, in the island of Bali, the traditional belief considered the sea to be full of demons; hence to be approached with care if not avoided.

In both cases, perhaps, the immenseness of the body of water and the mysteries in its depths acted as a deterrent.

These examples can be multiplied. History is witness to great land powers failing to comprehend the relevance of the sea as an instrument of statecraft. The historian Paul Kennedy attributes the rise of European powers, sixteenth century onwards, to ‘technological change and military competitiveness’; he may have added, with equal justice, that seafaring was an equally relevant ingredient of promoting trade, competing with rivals, and eventually overcoming them.

The fact nevertheless remains that for a good percentage of humankind, the sea is not in the same category of familiarity as the land. This may be no more than an accident of natural history and the manner in which humans assumed a centrality on this planet. On the other hand, certain facts relating to this planet of ours may suggest correctives to such a slanted approach.

Earth is a planet of oceans. They constitute 71 percent of its total area. In a very real sense, they sustain life on earth. Cheap transportation is possible through them. They are in increasing measure a source of food, energy and minerals.

The Indian Ocean is the third largest ocean in terms of area but unquestionably the first in terms of its impact on human civilisation. The reason for this is obvious; some of the oldest civilisations took shape and blossomed in lands around the Indian Ocean or the seas adjacent to it. They interacted with each other principally through trade. For this reason alone, a gathering of people from Indian Ocean lands would provide a useful collection of perspectives.

Today’s conference, I believe, goes beyond an exercise in history and ethnology. Its timing and purpose are sharply focused on the world of today and tomorrow. A look at recent history provides the perspective.

The Portuguese discovery of the sea route to India was of such critical importance that the King of Portugal thought it fit to reflect it in his formal titles. Its wording is to be noted: ‘Lord of Conquest, Navigation and Commerce, of Ethiopia, Arabia, India and Persia’. Their hegemony lasted for two centuries, to be replaced by the British who followed the pattern and the new jewel in the Crown justified the additional title of Empress of India.

The end of the British era saw the enhancement of the role of the United States. Alongside, the Cold War witnessed super-power rivalry extended itself in the Indian Ocean littoral. In each of these, the external impulse remained the dominant one. The littoral states themselves had little or no input into it.

Whatever be the past, the imperative today is of a qualitatively different situation in the Indian Ocean littoral. The external impulses have in good measure given way to internal dynamics of individual societies. This, however, is not easily comprehended and older patterns of thinking persist. A few years back a scholar in Honolulu delved in futurology pertaining to the Indian Ocean:

This prognosis, and many other similar ones, is premised partly on the location specifics of the Indian Ocean and partly on the known behaviour pattern of states. It is argued, with regard to the first, that unlike the Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans, the Indian Ocean can be accessed through several choke points and thus necessitates intense policing. With regard to the second, it is asserted that only one-fifth of the total trade flowing through the Ocean is conducted among the countries of the IOR, that 80 per cent of it is extra-regional, and that local conflicts in the Indian Ocean littoral have the potential to acquire international dimensions in view of the need to safeguard the Sea Lines of Communication (SLOCs). These are augmented by actual and potential threats, of varying intensity, from non-state actors. In addition, most of the contemporary international conflicts from Iran-Iraq war, to Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom have taken place in the Indian Ocean Region.

There is merit in both sets of arguments. The quest for security of SLOCs is most vividly demonstrated in the case of Japan where, as shown by Euan Graham in an excellent study published in 2006, it has been the lifeline of the economy and seen as the core security concern. Given the nature of the trade passing through the Indian Ocean, the logic holds good for a great many other regional and extra-regional states.

In this globalised world of today, 95% of world trade is conducted through the sea. Around 100,000 ships transit the expanse of the Indian Ocean annually. Roughly 40% of this sea-borne trade is accounted for by the Straits of Malacca. The Persian Gulf and adjoining region accounts for 50% of the world’s containerised cargo and 33% of bulk cargo. Every day 15.5 million barrels of oil, or 40% of the entire global oil trade passes through the Straits of Hormuz and 11 million barrels of oil pass through the Malacca and Singapore Straits.

At the same time, the argument of securing maritime traffic or lessening the vulnerability of sea-lanes has also been used as a rationale to build up naval capabilities and thus give rise to questions about intentions.

The SLOC argument, valid in itself, is nevertheless reflective of partial reality. The ocean is admittedly a channel of communication; it is also a resource both for basic forms of existence and for sustaining advanced forms of civilisation. It supports life on earth, regulates temperatures, humidity, rainfall and seasons. It can and does generate catastrophic convulsions affecting the human race.

Any discussion of the ocean therefore, must be multi-dimensional and reflective of four aspects:

Solutions, likewise, would need to be comprehensive and balanced rather than slanted in favour of one aspect, however weighty.

Throughout recorded history, maritime security has been the prime concern of states and of their nationals undertaking international trade. In an earlier era, piracy by entrepreneurs for themselves or on behalf of states was common. Then came a time when the balance of advantage was found to lie in the suppression of piracy. The same pattern was followed in regard to slave trade. Economic interests and prevailing moral norms played and continue to play a role in shaping perceptions as is evident by the present-day measures against narcotics. Some would no doubt recall that in another age a great European power used its military superiority to dump opium on an Asian people in order to correct trade imbalance.

In the past, initiatives for maritime security generally emanated from a strong power driven principally by express or tacit hegemonic perceptions. They received cooperation at times and aroused apprehensions at others.

In conceptual terms, the requirement of maritime security is of necessity linked to threat perception. In the period of the Cold War, security perceptions were based on identified threats and on the need to contain them. The approach, therefore, was cooperative amongst allies and competitive in relation to perceived enemies. In the period after 1990, the focus shifted and attention came to be riveted on questions of common concern. The expectation was that a more comprehensive cooperative approach, on a non-discriminatory basis, would gradually take shape. It would not dispense with the traditional paradigm of requiring naval power to defend territory or essential national interests but would, instead, add a dimension that would minimise if not eliminate the need to resort to the use of force.

In practical terms, maritime security is to be considered at three levels:

This gathering, I venture to hope, is indicative of a broad acceptance of the need to take these three sets of measures to further maritime security in the Indian Ocean Region. Overtime, these may lead to what a distinguished Indian had described many years back as an ‘Indian Ocean Panchayat, a self-governing council or collective Ombudsman empowered to take decisions on behalf of the community, settle disputes, and suggest ways to prevent disputes.

The voyage even to this point has not been eventless. The recent effort at pursuing security at choke points in the Indian Ocean was highly selective and predominantly extra-regional. It emanated from the Global War on Terror (GWOT) and the Iraq War, and is focused on the western Indian Ocean, the Persian Gulf, Gulf of Aden, Red Sea, Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea and extends out to Pakistan’s border with India. It functions through a Coalition Task Force known as CTF 150 and includes ships principally from the navies of the United States, UK, Australia, Germany, Italy and France. Its three non-NATO members are Australia, New Zealand and Pakistan. The Task Force is mandated to prevent terrorist attacks on maritime targets, and disruption of shipment of arms and material to terrorists in Persian Gulf and thereby secure the ocean for use by ‘legitimate mariners’. It is currently led by the Pakistani Navy.

An initiative aimed at the eastern choke point was taken in August 2005 when the governments of Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore convened a meeting at Batam for creating a forum for the purpose of making a framework of cooperation to enhance the safety of navigation, environmental protection and security in the Straits of Malacca and Singapore while respecting the sovereignty and sovereign rights of littoral states. In September 2006 the three states convened a larger meeting under the International Maritime Organisation’s Protection of Vital Shipping Lanes Initiative. It was attended by 34 countries included 11 Indian Ocean littoral states.

Also in September 2006, the Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Ships in Asia (ReCAAP) came into force involving ASEAN, Japan, China, South Korea, India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Subsequent meetings have reinforced the need for cooperation between the littoral states, user states and users of the Straits of Malacca and Singapore. A cooperative mechanism has also been established.

The difference between the two approaches, in respect to the western and the eastern choke points respectively, is significant. The former primarily involves the extra-regional powers and gives the impression of being hegemonic; the latter primarily involves the littoral and user states and is focussed on cooperation. This gathering would, undoubtedly, make its own judgements.

Security against anticipated threats is one aspect of the matter. In human terms, situations created by natural disasters and accidents are equally relevant. Tsunamis and cyclones take a heavy toll every year. 70 percent of the world’s natural disasters take place in the Indian Ocean region. Environmental disasters, oil spills etc hold the potential for large-scale damage. These happenings do not respect national boundaries. The response, accordingly, has to go beyond national efforts to be meaningful. A very good example of international cooperation is the effort mounted after the December 2004 tsunami. The Indian Navy undertook a commendable operation on that occasion. More recently, the Indian Navy provided help and succour to the victims of the earthquake in Indonesia.

Gentlemen

The innate sense of curiosity of the human mind, and the progress of science, has opened the doors on the mysteries of the sea. These, when unravelled, indicate the immensity of resources that the oceans possess. These can be accessed rationally or irrationally. Our generation has not been slow to learn lessons from the past. Hence the comprehensive effort that resulted in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the subsequent Agreement to create the International Seabed Authority charged with the responsibility to organise and control all mineral-related activities in the international seabed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.

The exercise of regulating the exploitation of the Common Heritage of Mankind has some teething problems that, hopefully, would be overcome. While exploratory ventures have been made, the consensus at this stage is that technology for economic mining of the ocean depths is probably a decade away. This interval is a blessing; deep-sea ecosystems are the main reservoirs of global biodiversity and the scientific and legal framework for protecting them and minimising the potential environmental impact of such mining is yet to be put in place.

Given the diversity of ocean-related activities of humankind, the responsibility of undertaking them is shouldered by various segments of society. Each of these requires an atmosphere of peace and stability. The maintenance of peace is a politico-military exercise necessitating intelligent use of available resources to achieve desired ends. The challenge always is to ensure that contention and cooperation are in harmony. The totality of objectives sought to be achieved in the Indian Ocean region by the littoral, hinterland and user states can only be achieved through a methodology of cooperation.

It has been said, with justice, that the narrative of conflict, as advanced by belligerents, is always one of grievance. The causes, conditions and consequences of conflict almost invariably relate to economic, social and environmental factors. Each of these is better addressed by common endeavour.

The Indian Ocean Region is among the fastest growing regions of the world. The existing structure of cooperation in this broad region is primarily based around five groupings, namely ASEAN, GCC, SAARC, SADC and SCO. These are not formally linked to each other; their overlapping and overarching framework is an implicit recognition of each other’s sensitivities and concerns. It is also reflective of the tenuous equilibrium of the region. An earlier effort, to create an Indian Ocean Rim grouping, did not produce the desired results.

Within the region, and around it, are important political and economic powers that have a stake in peace, stability and progress. They could form the nucleus of an eventual Asian Economic Community.

Gentlemen

India is and will remain a maritime nation. In keeping with its maritime heritage, its overseas presence would be based on its soft power and cooperation.

By disposition, and by inherent capacities, India is well placed to be part of bilateral and non-discriminatory and inclusive regional and multilateral arrangements for maritime security, in consonance with international law and respecting the sovereignty of littoral states.

The evolution of perceptions takes time. The key to the future, in the words of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, is the development of new synergies. This needs to be a comprehensive endeavour. A convergence of interests in the maintenance of peace and in the creation of a co-prosperity area would greatly facilitate the effort. This gathering of the Chiefs of Navies of the Indian Ocean region attends to one aspect of the matter.

I thank Admiral Sureesh Mehta for inviting me to address this distinguished gathering. I am confident your discussions would further the larger objective of promoting understanding and cooperation among the nations represented here.

******************************************************************************************

Address of the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India Shri Mam Mohan Singh at the IONS Seminar 2008

Honourable Minister of External Affairs,

Honourable Defence Minister,

My other esteemed Cabinet colleagues,

Excellencies and honourable members of the Diplomatic Corps,

Admiral Sureesh Mehta, Chief of the Naval Staff of the Republic of India,

Chiefs of Navy and Heads of Maritime Security Organisations of the littoral States of the Indian Ocean Region,

Chief of the Army Staff and Chief of the Air Staff of the Republic of India,

Flag Officers, General Officers, Air Officers, Commanders and Senior Officers from India and abroad,

Chairman of the National Maritime Foundation, Vice Admiral KK Nayyar,

Distinguished speakers and Panellists of the ‘IONS Seminar-2008’

Ladies and gentlemen

Good morning.

As I stand before you today, to deliver the inaugural address of the inaugural seminar of the newly-launched regional initiative, the ‘Indian Ocean Naval Symposium’, aptly abbreviated to the acronym IONS, I can feel the ‘ionisation’ of the very air around us — it is positively crackling with the hope and excitement inherent in the great changes that this initiative portends within the maritime domain of our region. That the launch of so important a regional initiative is able to meet with such wide acceptance across the length and breadth of the 28 million square kilometres of the Indian Ocean is in itself a unique phenomenon. It is a phenomenon that is representative of a region that has come into its own and is ready to evolve a broad consensus in facing the myriad security challenges that face it within the maritime domain.

We live in a state of constant change and it ought to come as no surprise that the concept of security, too, has changed steadily over the years. Traditionally, security used to be thought of only in terms of the defence of territory within a state system whose defining characteristic was an incessant competition for military superiority with other nation-states, all lying, without superior or governing authority, within a classic state of anarchy. Yet, for most people of the world, threats to individual security, such as disease, hunger, inadequate or unsafe water, environmental contamination, crime are far more immediate and significant. Consequently, new terms such as ‘Non-Traditional Security’ and ‘Human Security Issues’, drawn from the 1994 Report of the UNDP, have made their way into our contemporary security-lexicon and established themselves within our individual and collective security-consciousness. By the last couple of decades of the Twentieth Century, security was well established within a new construct that incorporated military, political, economic societal and environmental dimensions, and recognised the many linkages between them. Many of you will recall that it was in 1980 that the late Prime Minister of Sweden, Mr Olaf Palme, chaired the “Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues”, which authored the famous “common security” report that emphatically drew attention to alternative ways of thinking about peace and security by formally acknowledging that common security requires that people live in dignity and peace, that they have enough to eat and are able to find work and live in a world without poverty. Apart from military security, which does, of course, continue to enjoy prominence if not primacy in a world-system defined by the comity of nations, the UNDP lists as many as seven components of Human Security : Economic Security, Food Security, Health Security, Environmental Security, Personal Security, Community Security, and, Political Security. These issues have risen in importance within the security-matrices of nations and, especially since the end of the Cold War, this shift in importance is to be found even in military-based multi-national or regional groupings. Today, threats to human-security, such as religious extremism; international terrorism; drug and arms smuggling; demographic shifts — whether caused by migration or by other factors; human trafficking; environmental degradation; energy, food and water shortages; all figure prominently as threats that are inseparable from military threats. These have led to the formulation of new concepts such as ‘comprehensive security’ and ‘cooperative security’ and, indeed, the ‘Indian Ocean Naval Symposium’ is founded upon these new concepts of ‘cooperative’ rather than ‘competitive’ security and ‘comprehensive’ rather than narrowly ‘military’ security. For the sagacity and forward-looking orientation evident in the conceptualisation of the ‘IONS Initiative’, I offer my compliments to all the countries of the Indian Ocean littoral, ably represented here in this gathering by their Chiefs-of-Navy or by the ‘Heads’ of the principal uniformed agency responsible for ensuring maritime security.

We are now well into the closing years of the first decade of the Twenty First Century and the criticality of the Indian Ocean littoral, with its huge assets including a young and dynamic human resource, vast mineral and energy resources, and burgeoning economies, is now universally recognised and acknowledged. I think it was probably the eminent strategic analyst and prolific writer, Barry Buzan, who in the late 1980s, articulated the concept of a Regional Security Complex to describe “...a group of states whose primary security concerns link together sufficiently closely that their national securities cannot realistically be considered apart from one another”. It is probably premature to apply this term in its entirety to the Indian Ocean Region but we certainly appear to be heading that way, and movements such as the ‘IONS Initiative’ might well consolidate the region into what some are already calling a “Maritime Regional Security Complex”. This is a noble goal towards which to orient our endeavours and I would commend it for your careful consideration.

I am aware that regional security issues within the maritime domain need to be referenced more towards common interests rather than threats. Our common interests are, indeed, the Human Security Issues of which I have already made mention. It is in our common interest to create and consolidate a region in which the comity of nations is both intrinsic and assured.... where every nation, big or small, is treated as an equal... where multiple options of governance are recognised as being functions of the independent choice of the people of each nation-state... where the people of every state of the region can live in dignity and peace... where poverty stands banished and prosperity sits in its place.... where the state protects the individual and the individual preserves the state in a symbiotic relationship designed to establish and spread stability across the region.... where malevolent non-State entities find neither spatial nor temporal room for manoeuvre... in sum, then our common interests are the absence of or freedom from threats.

It is, therefore appropriate that within the maritime domain, the concept of ‘Maritime Security’ is increasingly being described as a condition characterised by freedom from threats arising either in or from the sea. These threats could arise from natural causes or from manmade ones, or from the interplay of one with the other, as in the case of environmental degradation, or, global warming. The threats arising from a lack of maritime security could be faced by individuals themselves or by one or more of the levels by which individuals organise themselves into societies and into nation-states. When these threats address the regional fabric itself, nation-states find themselves increasingly enmeshed in a complex web of security interdependence, which tends to be regionally focussed and an initiative such as the IONS is a logical outcome of this regional focus. We are disconcertingly familiar with many of the forms that these threats take. The scourge of piracy has resurfaced from the pages of regrettably romanticised history and, along with the more enduring spectre of maritime crime, mocks the United Nations’ “Law of the Sea” that we have so painstakingly formulated. Elsewhere, human traffickers utilise the maritime medium to cruelly exploit economic inequalities and the human yearning for betterment in the quality of life, cramming their hapless human cargo into appalling conditions of deprivation and degradation. Poachers, gun-runners, drug-smugglers and a variety of maritime criminals, including terrorists abuse the freedom of the seas, bringing into question the very rationale underlying these historical freedoms.

To find regionally relevant and acceptable responses to these and similar security issues that lie within the maritime domain is the challenge before us. Howsoever desirable, a ‘one-size-fits-all’ omnibus solution appears unlikely. Attempts to force-fit some extra-regional prescription, seem even less likely to succeed and all too often, failures of such prescriptive options are attributed to the regional diversity of the Indian Ocean littoral. Indeed, the tapestry of the Indian Ocean littoral is rich with a diversity that, I grant, might appear bewildering to the uninitiated, incorporating an intricacy of interrelated patterns, much as any oriental carpet might. The threads that represent the political, social, economic and military strains of the regional security loom, with its complex weave of wefts and warps, are varied and multi-coloured. I would, however, recommend that we should not be intimidated by this diversity. Rather, we should luxuriate in the richness and strength inherent in its texture. The interplay of the concepts of ‘amity’ and ‘enmity’ have been seen right through history, but as our region matures, we would do well to promote ‘amity’, at the expense of ‘enmity’. ‘Amity’ is characterised by trust and cooperation amongst states and encompasses a wide range of security interactions, including expectations of capacity-building, capability-enhancement, information-exchanges, the development of interoperability in doctrinal as well as operational terms, and mutual protection or support. ‘Enmity’, on the other hand, connotes fear and rivalry generated by states and incorporates security relations founded upon mutual suspicion and competition. The launching of the IONS Initiative is an emphatic rejection by our region of security relations that are founded solely upon such negative values as mutual suspicion and military competition. This is not to marginalise the State at the altar of non-traditional security. The State remains an important player, if not the principal one, in both, domestic and international intercourse. It is the main referent of security, but the enlightened State recognises that security — whether maritime or land-based, encompasses not just military issues, but social, economic and ecological ones as well.

I see from the programme that you have an impressive agenda chalked out for the ‘IONS Seminar-2008’ and I am delighted to find that these issues and concerns will, indeed, form an important segment of your deliberations. I hope that from these deliberations and from the more private deliberations amongst the Chiefs-of-Navy (I understand they will meet in a separate ‘conclave’ tomorrow and the day after) will emerge an action-plan of activities, designed to strengthen the IONS regional construct without seeking to unduly reduce the vibrancy inherent in its diversity.

I would like to conclude by reiterating the support of the Government of India to the IONS initiative. I wish each one of you a successful and stimulating seminar and look forward to seeing the emergence of a dynamic, purposeful, consensual and positively-oriented set of specific activities to carry the movement into a bright, stable and prosperous future. Thank you. Jai Hind.

******************************************************************************************

Address of the Hon’ble Defence Minister of India Shri AK Anthony at the IONS Seminar 2008

Honourable Minister of External Affairs,

My other esteemed Cabinet colleagues,

Excellencies and honourable members of the Diplomatic Corps,

Admiral Sureesh Mehta, Chief of the Naval Staff of the Republic of India,

Chiefs of Navy and Heads of Maritime Security Organisations of the littoral States of the Indian Ocean Region,

Chief of the Army Staff and Chief of the Air Staff of the Republic of India,

Flag Officers, General Officers, Air Officers, Commanders and Senior Officers from India and abroad,

Chairman of the National Maritime Foundation, Vice Admiral KK Nayyar,

Distinguished speakers and Panellists of the ‘IONS Seminar-2008’

Ladies and gentlemen

Good morning.

At the very outset, let me freely admit that the singular ability of the Indian Navy to create an all-pervasive maritime ambience — even in the far northern hinterland of our country — is something that I have always found fascinating and have greatly admired. That this ability should be capable of being replicated with such ease by so many other navies and maritime agencies of our region is even more admirable. It underscores my belief that it is in the maritime domain that our hopes and aspirations of coming together as a strong and united region have their greatest chance of being realised. Today, even though I am physically here in the familiar environs of Vigyan Bhavan, I can still feel the pull and tug of waves far stronger than those that regularly lap the shores of my native state of Kerala. These are waves are the result of the winds-of-change and they rock our various Ships-of-State, sometimes gently and sometimes violently. As a simple deckhand on board one such Ship-of-State of the ‘Indian Ocean regional fleet’, I am suffused with the constancy of movement... of continuous and restless motion.... I am, in a word, experiencing the magic of IONS, for the word itself connotes ‘movement’ and, as such, is the correct acronym for the Indian Ocean Naval Symposium.

Ladies and gentlemen, as I have publicly stated, the sheer physical dominance of the maritime environment over our planet is such that happenings in the maritime domain, whether natural or manmade and whether occurring for good or ill, impact upon man’s natural land-habitat, sooner rather than later. As such, the maritime domain is demanding and deserving of continuous study, discussion and debate. Safety, stability and security are an indivisible part of mankind’s endeavour to achieve physical, economic and even spiritual well-being and prosperity. The fact that the littoral states of the Indian Ocean Region too, realise this and understand its implications is clearly evident from your presence here at the launch of the ‘Indian Ocean Naval Symposium’ initiative.

Every organisation needs strong intellectual underpinnings — and in the ‘National Maritime Foundation’, the Indian Navy has its very own ‘ocean’ of maritime wisdom and experience. This is an ‘ocean’ in which all manners of intellect flourish, engaging constructively both within and outside the bounds of ‘officialdom’, whether uniformed or in civilian garb, whether Indian or from abroad. Thus, it is entirely fitting that the Indian Navy and the National Maritime Foundation should have jointly garnered the honour and the privilege of hosting the inaugural activity of the IONS Initiative, namely, the ‘IONS Seminar-2008’.

I find IONS to be a uniquely consultative and cooperative initiative.... one that holds so much promise for the future that it already transcends narrow national moorings and the earlier thinking on security, which used to be limited to military and competitive constructs alone. IONS is a robust sign of a paradigm shift from competitive security to cooperative security within the maritime domain. It encourages us all to view the oceanic expanses of our region, not as obstacles that isolate, but rather, as bridges that integrate nation-states. This is why the Navy’s peaceful forays overseas are often described as building ‘Bridges of Friendship’.

In providing a forum in which the navies and similar maritime-security agencies of the littoral states of the Indian Ocean Region can discuss issues and concerns that bear upon regional maritime security and consensually arrive at solutions based upon common understanding, the ‘IONS Initiative’ fulfils a long-felt need for cooperative engagement in the face of present-day maritime challenges.

Today we are privileged to sit amongst the assembled Chiefs-of-Navy of very nearly all the littoral states of the Indian Ocean. I would like to warmly welcome them and the distinguished members of their respective delegations to India. We are also surrounded by an entire galaxy of national and international luminaries, drawn from the strategic community; academia; the diplomatic corps; the political establishment; the bureaucracy; the uniformed and civilian segments of the defence, paramilitary and police establishments of several countries of the Indian Ocean Region and beyond; a host of uniformed and civilian maritime agencies; and, the learned members of the ‘Fourth Estate’, representing both, print and electronic media. To all of these worthies, I say that we are here because we have all dared to ‘....dream the Indian Ocean Dream’.... we have come together to share and explore the contours of a grand vision of a coalesced, prosperous and progressive Indian Ocean. This is a vision that is neither diminished nor daunted by our diversity. In fact, as the Chief of the Naval Staff has so forcefully said, we revel in this diversity, recognising that it is precisely this regional diversity that makes for the presentation of multiple solutions to any given problem. It even provides for the problem itself to be presented in more than a single manner, thereby actually increasing the applicability of a variety of possible solutions!

I would like to exhort all present and future members of the ‘IONS Initiative’ to resist the temptation of trying either to provide a prescriptive set of answers to a prescribed set of problems or challenges. I would caution them against seeking to import extra-regional solutions and force-fitting them onto the regional template. I would, instead, ask them to tap the huge intellectual and innovative resources available within the IOR littoral. I encourage them to explore a variety of regionally-relevant and regionally-sensitive solutions to problems whose very definition is given form and shape — not by extra-regional players often pursuing agendas of their own — but by the regional players themselves, acting in close consultation with one another and cooperating freely for the common good of all.

The principal interlocutors of the Indian Ocean Naval Symposium are, of course, the navies of the region. However, I hope that these interlocutors will not remain restricted to the apex levels represented here this morning by the assembled Chiefs-of-Navy. I, for one, would be extremely happy to see a much wider and more dispersed representation of young or mid-level officers and sailors, engaging and interacting with one another to their mutual benefit. It is, after all, they who will have to face the nebulous but nevertheless deadly threats of the future and it is, consequently, they who must be prepared and armed to face them.

The threats facing present-day law-abiding states are not arising from the territorial or ideological ambitions of other nation-states. They are, instead, a bewildering variety of manifestations of malevolent non-state entities. Within the maritime environment, thieves and robbers, illegal traffickers in guns, drugs and human beings, poachers, polluters, pirates, warlords, terrorists are establishing pan-oceanic and trans-oceanic connectivities that tend to make a mockery of our boundaries and borders. To these problems must be added natural disasters and manmade catastrophes such as cyclones, earthquakes, landslides, floods, tsunamis, and the very real threat of widespread coastal inundation caused by global warming. These are not threats or challenges that can be met by states acting in splendid isolation, each secure in its military capability. These are ‘common’ threats and demand ‘common’ approaches and ‘common’ solutions.

It is these very solutions and, indeed, this very commonality of approach that this inaugural IONS Seminar and the seminars and other activities that are to follow, must find. In your ensuing deliberations, debates and discussions on these and allied issues, I wish each one of you — speakers, panellists, and listeners alike — every success. My own modest contribution is to assure you of the continued unstinting support of the defence establishment of the Government of India to the Indian Ocean Naval Symposium and all its present and envisaged cooperative and consultative activities.

Thank you.

Admiral Sureesh Mehta, Chief of the Naval Staff of the Republic of India,

Chiefs of Navy and Heads of Maritime Security Organisations of the littoral States of the Indian Ocean Region,

Excellencies and honourable members of the Diplomatic Corps,

Chief of the Army Staff and Chief of the Air Staff of the Republic of India,

Flag Officers, General Officers, Air Officers, Commanders and Senior Officers from India and abroad,

Chairman of the National Maritime Foundation, Vice Admiral KK Nayyar,

Distinguished speakers and Panellists of the ‘IONS Seminar-2008’

Ladies and gentlemen

Good morning.

Just a few days ago, while I was mulling over what I ought to say at this Concluding Address of the inaugural event of the Indian Ocean Naval Symposium, namely, the ‘IONS Seminar-2008’, I was struck by an evident paradox. On the one hand, the enormous geo-strategic, geo-political and geo-economic significance of the Indian Ocean littoral is clearly obvious — especially after the fascinating deliberations that have had us riveted to our seats over the past one-and-a-half days. On the other hand, I have to admit to an uneasy suspicion that despite this blindingly obvious significance, the political leaderships of the clutch of thirty-plus countries that comprise this littoral have clearly had a difficult time in adequately foreseeing the changes being wrought by time, which has made this the moment to seize. In fact, I can share with you that I happened to be glancing through a newspaper at the time — and I came across this little 19^{th Century quote by Sir James Merivale, about that somewhat strange but familiar relative of the lobster, known as the crayfish. I know that the contents are scientifically inaccurate, but they are, nevertheless, entirely appropriate. Let me read out what Sir James wrote:}