India and US - III - Printable Version

+- Forums (
+-- Forum: Indian Politics, Business & Economy (
+--- Forum: Strategic Security of India (
+--- Thread: India and US - III (/showthread.php?tid=652)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

India and US - III - acharya - 07-18-2008

Tingley, Dustin. and Milner, Helen. "Whither the Internationalist Coalition in American Foreign Policy? The Domestic Politics of International Trade and Foreign Aid Policy, 1980-2006"</b>

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Palmer House Hotel, Chicago, IL, Apr 12, 2007 Online <APPLICATION/PDF>. 2008-06-26 <>

APA Citation:

Tingley, D. and Milner, H. V. (2007, Apr) "Whither the Internationalist Coalition in American Foreign Policy? The Domestic Politics of International Trade and Foreign Aid Policy, 1980-2006" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Palmer House Hotel, Chicago, IL Online <APPLICATION/PDF> Retrieved 2008-06-26 from

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Since 1945, American foreign economic policy has been oriented toward engagement with the international system. Given the changes in world politics and economics as well as American domestic politics over the past twenty years, many scholars have wondered whether American foreign economic policy might change. What groups have supported this internationalist policy since the late 1970s, and has this coalition changed over this period? We examine legislative voting in the US House of Representatives from the 96th to the 108th Congress (1979-2004) on trade and aid issues. We ask whether a stable, bipartisan coalition has persisted supporting trade and aid, what groups are represented by this coalition, and whether these coalitions are similar in the two areas. We show that these two coalitions differ in some important ways. Most interestingly, labor and liberal Democrats remain part of the coalition supporting aid, while they no longer do on trade.

India and US - III - acharya - 07-18-2008

42. Alexander, Kristian. <b>"The Impact of Think Tanks on US Foreign Policy:Examining the Case of Iran and Nuclear Proliferation"</b>

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Town & Country Resort and Convention Center, San Diego, California, USA, Mar 22, 2006 Online <PDF>. 2008-07-17

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Public debate regarding U.S. foreign policy often originates within the many think tanks located in Washington, D.C. and elsewhere. While the news media provide the medium for debate, these institutions supply the debaters in the form of academic specialists, former government and military officials, and outspoken figures from the private sector. The primary goal of these idea brokers is to influence public opinion and government policy through the dissemination of research findings and the airing of opinions on a variety of issues, and that is not any different when it comes to the issue of Iran and nuclear proliferation. How much of an impact or influence think tanks have in policy-making and in shaping the policy-making environment is a question that scholars studying these institutions continue to struggle with.This study attempts to answer four critical questions of importance to U.S. policy makers. One: What are the main factors and driving forces behind Iran?s surge to ?go nuclear?? Which of the prevailing theories of nuclear proliferation best explains Iran?s decision to ?go nuclear?? In order to better understand Iran?s rational in pursuing the nuclear option, one has to critically examine the main arguments that have been laid out especially by various Iranian scholars and Iranian government policy-makers. On the other hand, little systematic policy-oriented work has been conducted on potential U.S. foreign policy options and the possible consequences of each of the existing proposed policy agendas. The second question that this study will thus investigate is: What are the existing U.S. policy proposals that have been advanced by various think tanks and experts on U.S.-Iran relations, which are of salience to the U.S. administration? In doing so, I will determine what has been the impetus of U.S. delineated proposals and the underlying theoretical background and rationale from which policy makers (mostly think tanks) have derived their policy proposals. This leads to the third research question: What is the link between think tank policy proposals and the possible translation into a foreign policy agenda adopted by the U.S. government? Think tanks are linking pins between academia and policymakers and have very often been instrumental in coming up with various policy proposals of critical importance to national security. The fourth and final question of this study is: Can think tanks bridge the gap between theory and practice, between academics and policy-makers? Does academic research on foreign policy matter for practice, and if so, under what conditions?

India and US - III - acharya - 07-18-2008

<b>Is the deal done?</b>

New Delhi: The BJP on Thursday demanded Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to make his stand clear on media reports suggesting that the India-U.S. nuclear deal was a “done” deal irrespective of the UPA government’s survival or otherwise.

“Media reports quoting highly placed officials suggest that the deal is done, whether the UPA survives the trust vote or not. The BJP demands that the Prime Minister immediately make his stand clear on this matter,” a party release said.

“All further action in respect of the nuclear deal be suspended by the government until it proves its majority,” the BJP said, demanding an assurance from Dr. Singh that the draft of the safeguards agreement sent to the IAEA would be withdrawn if the UPA lost the vote. — PTI

India and US - III - Guest - 09-28-2008

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Appalling assertion </b>
The Pioneer Edit Desk
PM can't say India deeply loves Bush
There is something sickening, if not plain outrageous, about the manner in which Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has chosen to register his gratitude to US President George W Bush. While Mr Singh may have reason to feel grateful towards Mr Bush -- he believes that his place in history has been ensured by the eagerness with which the American President has pushed the India-US civil nuclear cooperation agreement, which will generate billions of dollars of profits for American firms and tens of thousands of jobs for Americans facing unemployment -- there is no reason for a nation of a billion people to feel gratified. Indeed, the vast majority of Indians are appalled by the sight of their Prime Minister's obsequious genuflection at the altar of American power, not least because Mr Singh's reverential attitude betrays his deep, abiding and blind pro-US bias which does not find a resonance among India's masses. Mr Singh is welcome to declare his love for the US President and all things Americans, even if they militate against India's interests. That's his personal choice and reflects his true inner feelings fashioned by years of serving the West as a supine bureaucrat. But his choice cannot, in fact, it must not, extend to imposing his views on the people of India or seeking to speak on their behalf in so crass a manner. Hence, it would be in order to repudiate his assertion that <b>"the people of India deeply love" Mr Bush</b>. It would also be in order to categorically reject Mr Singh's presumptuous claim that all that Mr Bush has done "to bring our two countries closer to each other is something history will record". Mr Bush has no doubt contributed to the strengthening of Indo-American relations, but he has not done so for altruistic reasons. To his credit, in his comments on Thursday, Mr Bush has let it be known that American interest in India is guided by our emergence as a useful economic ally. He has been faithful to his primary responsibility: Guarding and promoting American economic policies and geopolitical strategies. Sadly, we cannot say that the Prime Minister has been equally faithful in either guarding Indian interests or promoting our rightful place in the 21st century world. His choice of words is not that of the leader of an emerging power but the tinpot dictator of a client state of America.

There is another reason why the Prime Minister's uncalled for and undiplomatic behaviour merits criticism. Pragmatism demands that India should have equally good relations with nations across the world. By declaring absolute fidelity and undying love for the US, Mr Singh has needlessly raised eyebrows in world capitals. It may not strike him, but the US is not widely regarded as a reliable partner or a benign power. Are we then being led into a situation where we shall be clubbed along with those nations that depend on American largesse for their survival and thus allow Washington to preside over their destiny with disastrous consequences? Such perversion of foreign policy must be resisted, if only to protect India's long-term interests. Meanwhile, for all his treacly declaration of love for the US and his public acknoweldgement of a personal debt of gratitude Mr Bush -- no, all of India neither loves nor feels grateful towards America -- Mr Singh has been deprived of the pleasure of signing the 123 Agreement. The deal is still making its way through the US Congress as restrictive clauses are added to American nuclear trade with India, making a mockery of all that Mr Singh has claimed and promised at home till now.  <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Now after returning back to India, Moron Singh will write a love song to Bush

<i>Likhe jo khat tujhe
woh teri yaad mein
hazaaron Green rang ke
Dollar ban gaye

sawera jab huya
to Bungley ban gaye
jo raat aayi to
Hotel ban gaye</i>

and how he will make full commitment to his love
<i>kasmei waade nibhaayenge hum
milate rahenge janam janam

dekhaa maine tuz ko to
muze ayesaa lagaa
barason kaa soyaa huaa,
pyaar meraa jagaa</i>

India and US - III - Capt M Kumar - 10-06-2008

<!--emo&:argue--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/argue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='argue.gif' /><!--endemo--> “Our soft-hearted PM went to the US to discuss nuclear deal with President Bush. But witnessing the dire straits into which the US economy had fallen, he was so moved that, along with the Reserve Bank of India governor D Subbarao, he worked out and announced a package for injection of Rs 56,000 croroe (approx. $12.5 billion) under the Liquidity Adjustment Facility (LAF),” said Sudarshan in his Vijayadashami rally address on Sunday.

“To keep domestic prices under control, the RBI will issue bonds under the Market Stabilisation Scheme of that value. The Rs 56,000 crore proceeds thus collected by the RBI will then be invested in the US Treasury Bills since the prime minister is disposed to help the American economy in its hour of crisis,” explained Sudarshan. “Thus we will end up foregoing even the interest charge on Rs 12.5 billion dollars which we are providing to the US government.

India and US - III - Husky - 10-31-2008

Christo US Army 'apologises' for lies against Indian sovereignty and then goes ahead anyway:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>US Army College</b> Apologizes for <b>India Map distortion</b>
April 26, 2007

Distorted Map Of India
Mumbai: The Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army War College has used a distorted map of India as a graphics for their publication titled, <b>"Gauging U.S.-Indian Strategic Cooperation</b> Edited by Mr. Henry D. Sokolski." But after strong protest from Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS) the web War College sent an apology email to HJS promising replacement of Image. As that image is still not changed HJS is following up the matter. HJS member, Shri. Praveen Redkar sent one email to US Army War College about map distortion on their site linking [...]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->US govt, their army (college) and the US govt-controlled media are of course all the same.

Look at the title of that book: "Gauging U.S.-Indian Strategic <i>Cooperation</i>". Cooperation? They can Dream On. There will be NO cooperation.
Hindu schools and Indian army should publish a map of the Americas - calling the landmass Turtle Island (and other traditional native American names) and teach students the truth: that it is the land of the native Americans.

While christo US army (college) is indulging in lies - as christos do - Hindus should stick to the truth and refer to the so-called 'americas' by their true names (just like how we say bce, ce for dates). No more unknowingly aiding christo-amerikkkans in covering up their christian genocidal history: <b>500 Years of Indigenous Resistance</b>:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If there was any reference to the land as a whole it was as Turtle Island, or Cuscatlan, or Abya-Yala.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Cuscatlan sounds beautiful (so do the other two) - hey yeah. (Who needs to be reminded of mapmaker amerigo or whatever anyway?)

India and US - III - Husky - 10-31-2008

A little related to the above:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Native Americans: treated sewage at Sacred Peaks-Truthout-24 Oct 2008</b>
oct 24th, 2008

how christists 'respect' native traditions.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Radha

Also let us remember that the US has used native American Reserves to dump nuclear waste too. This is Freedom of Religion and respect for human rights American ishtyle. RR

<b>Native Americans: treated sewage at Sacred Peaks</b>
Leslie Thatcher

24 October 2008

San Francisco Peaks, visible from many parts of the Southwest's Four Corners, have been sacred to at least 13 recognized Native American tribes for at least as long as Europeans have been in the country. Northern Arizona University Professor Miguel Vasquez described the argument that only a part of the Peaks are affected by the planned spraying of up to 1.5 million gallons a day of effluent for snowmaking as "equivalent to saying it's OK to piss in St. Peter's as long as you only do it in one corner."

Ninth Circuit rules effluent does not defile sacred space. Forest Service argued skiing on treated sewage "a compelling government interest."

... deleted

Leslie Thatcher is Truthout's French Language Editor
Courtesy Truthout<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->This is how christians always behave.
Yet it's native Americans' land.

India and US - III - Guest - 11-05-2008

Obama may re-hyphenate India and Pakistan</b>

India and US - III - Guest - 11-07-2008

<b>Lay off Kashmir </b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The incoming US president, Barack Obama, has suggested in an interview that he might consider sending former president Bill Clinton as a special

envoy to India and Pakistan on the Kashmir issue. He conceded that it was a diplomatic trap, yet wanted to devote serious diplomatic resources to send a special envoy. The purpose was to make the argument to us Indians that we are on the verge of becoming an economic superpower and it does not help us to keep the Kashmir issue burning. And, to ask Pakistanis why they would want to remain bogged down by Kashmir, particularly at a time when their biggest threat was coming from the Afghan border.

The president-elect could not have selected a worse moment to air these thoughts. Kashmir is due to go in for elections in the next few weeks. Such a suggestion will come in handy for secessionist elements.

It will compel the Indian government to declare that no special envoy will be acceptable. It will be difficult for Bill Clinton, who is popular and has a lot of friends in India, to come to this country as a special envoy without being greeted by demonstrators with black flags. When President Clinton offered to mediate in the Kargil war, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee politely declined.

Obviously, Obama had not been adequately briefed on the history of Afghanistan and Pakistan during the Clinton years. Otherwise he would not have missed that the Taliban was established by the Benazir Bhutto's government, with the help of the Pakistani army and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) during 1994 when Clinton was in office. His administration tried to negotiate a pipeline deal with the Taliban. Osama bin Laden came back to Afghanistan and hatched the 9/11 plot under Clinton's watch. As the Pakistanis point out, the jihadis were a joint creation of the CIA, the Saudis and the ISI. The present threat to Pakistan on its western border is an outcome of this joint blunder.

India and Pakistan already have a no-war pact under the Simla agreement and there is a composite peace process going on between the two countries. Largely due to Indian initiative, cross-border trade has been initiated. All these steps have been taken without any third party help. Unlike Iran, Cuba and North Korea, India has never taken a stand against directly talking to another country with which it has problems.

One of the problems that India may have to face at the start of the Obama administration is the likely return of many former officials tainted by the cultivation of jihadi forces, who are tolerant towards the Taliban and permissive of the China-Pakistan nuclear proliferation axis. While Obama himself may have a tough line towards the mixing of faith and politics, many of the traditional Democratic party ex-diplomats, ex-militarymen and ex-intelligence officials may not be able to shun the cronyism they have indulged in with their Pakistani Counterparts.

This is likely to prove to be an albatross around Obama's neck in dealing with the Afghanistan-Pakistan issue. General Petraeus has been entrusted with formulating a new surge strategy for Afghanistan as the new chief of the central command. He has assembled a team of American, Pakistani and Afghan specialists. It will be useful to invite him for a comprehensive briefing to New Delhi.

This will provide Prime Minister Manmohan Singh an opportunity to prove that the Indo-US nuclear deal will not compromise India's strategic autonomy. Obama is a flexible intellectual with an acute sense of pragmatism.

Under the influence of non-proliferation ayatollahs during the deliberations on the Indo-US nuclear cooperation legislation, he did move a killer amendment. When he was outvoted, he went along with the majority and voted in favour of the Bill. Similarly, in this case it has to be explained to him that Pakistan's claim to Kashmir is based on the jihadi philosophy. His suggestion will only result in Pakistan continuing to evade its responsibility to act against both the Afghan and Pakistani sections of the Taliban.


India and US - III - Guest - 12-30-2008

Interesting resource. Might be of use to some.

India and US - III - shamu - 12-30-2008

<!--QuoteBegin-rajesh_g+Dec 30 2008, 06:17 AM-->QUOTE(rajesh_g @ Dec 30 2008, 06:17 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Interesting resource. Might be of use to some.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Something fishy about it:
Last page on Indian incidents
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> 200810512 09/28/2008 India 3 <b>relief camps targeted in serial bombings in Kandhamal, Orissa,</b> India Unknown 0 0 0 0
200810508 09/29/2008 India 5 civilians killed, 82 others wounded in VBIED attack by suspected <b>Hindu extremists</b> in Nasik, Maharashtra, India Hindu Extremist 5 82 0 87
200810509 09/29/2008 India 1 child killed, 9 civilians wounded in VBIED attack by suspected <b>Hindu extremists</b> in Banaskantha, Gujarat, India Hindu Extremist 1 9 0 10 <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Mumbai attack is missing...

India and US - III - Guest - 12-30-2008

India offers US 120,000 troops for Afghanistan</b>

<b>From - not confirmed yet from any other source</b>

Our trusty correspondent, Mandeep Singh Bajwa, informed us this morning that India has offered to send 120,000 troops to Afghanistan. Naturally we asked Mandeep "are we being used by the Indians in a psyops game to put pressure on Pakistan?" Not that the Government of India knows we exist, but in all the movies about the media the Editor always asks if the paper is being played.

Mandeep's answer, paraphrased, was this: "I don't know at what level the offer has been made, but the Indian Army and Air Force are down to identifying specific units, formations, and squadrons..." - details, as we said, at Long War Journal - " well as discussing a specific name for force commander, plus working on the details of pre-deployment training, so this is a lot more elaborate than needed for a psyops game.'

We'd prefer to discuss this after we learn more, rather than waste your time with elaborate theories spun out of nothing ("'s military sources say..."). But the following points are immediately apparent.

For the new US administration, this offer would be heaven-sent and just making it would put the US Government in debt to the Indians - "your other friends/allies talked, we walked." The administration could turn around to to its own people, and say: "Americans, you complain we are carrying the Afghan burden by ourselves, now we have a partner."

At we've been constantly talking about the need for more manpower; well, here you have a whacking big increment of manpower. With US/Allied troops it takes one to 75% of what considers a minimum force if Afghanistan is to be won.

In one deft swoop, India forces the Americans to chose Delhi over Islamabad. To the Indians the constant US attempt to "balance" the two countries has been a source of serious blood pressure since the 1940s; obviously if the Americans accept it has to be India First from now on and Pakistan gets marginalized. Moreover, the Indians put America up the creek without the paddle regarding Pakistan: "what is it your so-called ally is doing, compared to what we are willing to do."

The devious cunning of the Indian move becomes more apparent when you consider if the US government refuses, the American people are going to get on the Government's case: "The Indians are offering and you're still sticking with those slimey two-timers the Pakistanis?"

For India, offering a huge contingent takes the pressure off the Indian government to act aggressively against Pakistan. India does not have a launch a single sortie against Pakistan to punish it for acting against India. Indian government can tell its own people: "What good will a pinprick do? The Israelis have been bashing up the Palestinians for two decades, and where are the results? What we are doing is to strike a hard blow at Pakistan without crossing the Pakistan border and getting beat up by everyone for provoking war."

Plus India neatly destroys Pakistan's strategic depth objective. The Indians have been wanting to get into the act in Afghanistan for several years, because they know a Taliban government means more fundamentalist pressure on Pakistan and thereby on India. But the Americans have been refusing India help for fear of offending the Pakistanis. For India to get into Afghanistan in force is to again change the paradigm of Indian-Pakistani relations as happened in 1971 when India split East Bengal from Pakistan. For the last almost 40 years India's efforts to marginalize Pakistan have been stymied. If the US accepts the Indian offer, India gains hugely.

But right now a lot of American decision-makers do not care if Pakistan is offended because they see the latter has no interest in fighting the insurgents or helping the US against the Taliban. Once alternate supply routes are available, US can write off Pakistan and as a consequence, paradoxically, vastly increase its leverage in that country.

As for Pakistani/jihadi retaliation against India or the Indian contingent in Afghanistan, we've said before the Indians don't care. Their point is India is squarely in the sights of the jihadis: India is already under severe, sustained attack and unable to retaliate. As for the security of the Indian troops, that really is the last thing the Indians are concerned about. They want to go to Afghanistan to fight, not to protect their troops against suicide bombers.

Two other minor points in passing. By making this offer, India takes the wind out of Pakistan's sails because the latter has very successful turned the world's attention from the Bombay atrocity to getting the world to stop escalation between India and Pakistan. Every day that goes by, India has less diplomatic/geopolitical freedom to hit Pakistan. But if India has offered several divisions for Afghanistan, obviously the last thing the Indians are thinking of is attacking Pakistan - 3/4th of the Army troops (as opposed to the CI troops) India is earmarking for Afghanistan are from the three strike corps. So India undercuts Pakistani claims that Delhi is preparing to attack.

The second point we find interesting. PRC knows if Pakistan falls to the jihadis, Sinkiang is the next target. By offering to go to Afghanistan, India is directly helping Beijing. Which puts Beijing in a very awkward spot as India is a big rival for influence in Asia. Not only will Indians be helping PRC, if China does send troops to Afghanistan, Delhi will canoodle with Washington without competition from China. The Chinese will have no choice but to join the Afghan venture or lose influence in South and Central Asia, and with Washington.

To sum up: has been second to none in bashing the Government of India as incompetent and impotent. But with this offer, India has overnight changed the rules of game in South/Central Asia and struck a potentially fatal blow at Pakistan. In the end, this could become much, much bigger by an order of magnitude than breaking off East Pakistan in 1971.

India and US - III - Guest - 05-29-2009


May 28, 2009
India-US: Hazardous days ahead</b>

T P Sreenivasan

A strange polarisation is taking place in India. Whenever President Obama says or does something prejudicial to India’s interests, the anti-US lobby attacks the UPA government for misreading the Americans.

Instead of giving Prime Minister Manmohan Singh credit for gaining ground for India by skillful diplomacy during the Bush administration, they blame him for not anticipating the reversal of trends during the next presidency.

This happened when a State Department official restated the position that India should sign the NPT and when President Obama opposed outsourcing. Why did India reach agreements with the US when it was possible that a future government in the US would disown them?

If this is indeed the case, no agreements should be reached with any country. In the case of the US, the new administration is now constrained to work around the existing agreements even if it has to distance itself from the commitments made by President Bush.

The fact is that President Obama himself was taken by surprise by the kind of issues he faced in his first hundred days. ’Keep your hands washed; cover your mouth when you cough!’ President Obama would never have thought that he would have to utter these words at his press conference to mark his first hundred days in office.

Nothing would surprise him any more as he has seen many issues he had not thought of coming to him all at once. He has also learnt not only that change in Washington comes slowly, but also that posturing is par for the course there. He has not taken long to know that the state is an ocean liner and not a speed boat and it cannot change course in a desperate hurry. His responses in this bewildering situation has to be necessarily tentative and subject to adjustments in the future.

The world misunderstood President Obama when he promised change. He has begun to say since his inauguration that many things that he wants to change cannot be done in a single term, a single presidency or in a single lifetime.

The time horizon he has in mind is much longer than the rest of the world had imagined. He can only start the journey and it may end only with a different president or a different generation. Continuity is part of the change.

The global economic crisis played a role in Obama’s election, but he had not anticipated it when he initially offered his candidature. Iraq was the issue then and the economy had appeared robust. But he found that the economy was built on shifting sand. He lost no time in taking the bull by the horns, but the surprise was that he did not get bipartisan support, which was expected at a time of national and global crisis.

The world was aghast that business was as usual on the Hill when the stimulus package was being piloted there. President Obama is proud of his accomplishments in the economy, but not content.

In foreign policy, the shift from Iraq to Afghanistan and then to Pakistan was warranted by the threat from Taliban , which diminished even the importance of capturing Osama bin Laden . The war on terror returned to the theatre of terror, but a weakened and resource starved civilian government in Pakistan did not seem willing even to provide a front line for the war.

President Zardari had no qualms about signing an agreement with the Taliban to introduce Shariat law in Swat. Though the Taliban was nothing but a foreign force, the Pakistan army had to be forced into action by the United States. The very creation of an Afpak region for special attention and the designation of Richard Holbrooke as the special representative signaled the importance in US policy towards Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The likelihood of a takeover by the Taliban and fall of Pakistan nuclear weapons in the hands of the militants was used as a cover to enhance assistance to Pakistan.

President Obama has, at the same time, allayed fears about Pakistan’s nuclear assets by saying that the military to military cooperation between the two countries will guarantee the protection of nuclear command and control mechanism. He has indirectly confirmed that the United States has a say in the management of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.

This was instituted when the A Q Khan scandal broke out and it came to be known that Khan had hurt non-proliferation more than Saddam Hussein had done. If A Q Khan and Pakistan had to be let off, they had to pay a price.

President Obama has not been very innovative in his Afpak policy. The three way summit in Washington was an instant success in the sense that Prime Minister Gilani declared an all out war on the Taliban even before the summit ended. President Zardari was handsomely rewarded with an aid package, which should convey a message that he still has the support of the Americans.

India was an unseen presence at the summit as Pakistan’s world view could not be divorced from its paranoia with India.

Depending on Pakistani rulers and the army and pandering to their military and financial needs is an old American habit. If Pakistan has to fight the Taliban, it needs training in guerrilla warfare, not F-16s and warships. But the US Congress is again on the old track of handing over cash to Pakistan.

President Obama has thrown in an assertion that Pakistans obsession with India as the mortal threat to Pakistan is misguided. But there is no insistence that no assistance that could be used against India would be supplied to Pakistan.

Even excluding India from Holbrooke’s mandate was only to accommodate Indian sensitivity. Holbrooke routinely halts in Delhi and gives gentle hints to India. India was conspicuously absent from Hillary Clinton’s Asian itinerary. President Obama thinks that India can be satisfied by pious warm words about India and its prime minister.

The Prague speech outlined President Obama’s new vision on nuclear disarmament, but there was hardly any change there. The commitment to move towards nuclear disarmament is nothing but a reaffirmation of the grand bargain in the NPT and the further steps he has suggested are old wine in new bottle.

He has no quarrel with the India-US nuclear deal, but he is in no mood to make it a part of the new dispensation. By treating the deal as a one time exception will not guarantee its faithful implementation. The appointment of the new czar of nonproliferation in the State Department does not augur well for the deal.

As far as India is concerned, the nuclear deal has already had its benefits in terms of the NSG exemption, leading to the agreements with France and Russia .

China, rather than India is President Obama’s focus in Asia. The old Bush view of India as a balancing factor in Asia is a thing of the past. The talk of a G-2 to run the world is getting more frequent in the light of the economic crisis. This is a gigantic mistake the US is making.

The US and China cannot partition the world between themselves as the victors of the World War II did in 1945. President Obama appears oblivious of Chinese perfidy and ambition to dominate the world. Walking into a Chinese embrace will endanger the US itself in the long term.

Say no to Bangalore, yes to Buffalo is the new slogan President Obama has coined in the context of outsourcing. He must know that business will go wherever there is profit and there is little that the government can do except in terms of denying tax benefits.

The president has to create jobs in Buffalo, but to suggest that Bangalore is taboo is to hurt globalisation, which has brought immense benefits to the United States.

President Obama has reappointed veteran negotiator, George Mitchell, for the Middle East, but he is yet to make his agenda clear. If he allows domestic politics and Israeli influence determine his Middle East policy, justice will be denied to Palestine again.

Getting close to Turkey may be a great idea, but the key to winning the hearts of the Muslim world lies in establishing the Palestine state and insisting that Israel should abide by international law.

In the rest of his foreign policy postures and pronouncements, President Obama has demonstrated candour and vision. Gestures to Iran and Cuba, new signals to Russia and Europe and a smile and hand shake for Venezuelas Hugo Chavez mark a change in style, if not substance.

He has neither overreacted nor made concessions to DPRK’s nuclear and missile antics. It may be true that he has not yet moved from campaign mode to governing mode, but the directions are clear and consistent with his promise of change.

India has much to be apprehensive about President Obama’s Afpak policy, nuclear agenda and outsourcing. Part of the reason for this could be the feeling in the new Administration that India got away with too many diplomatic victories during the Bush era.

India’s diplomatic efforts should be directed towards getting those victories consolidated in the days to come. We should build on our accomplishments rather than undermine the gains of the last five years. The hazards ahead are formidable, but not insurmountable.

<i>Ambassador T P Sreenivasan served as deputy chief of mission at the Indian embassy in Washington, DC, during his distinguished career in the Indian Foreign Service. </i>

India and US - III - Guest - 06-05-2009

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>US advises citizens on travel, India says country is safe</b>
PTI | New Delhi
<b>The US has claimed that India is faced with a "high threat" from terrorism and asked its citizens to be vigilant, prompting New Delhi to assert that the country is a safe place and such an advisory was unwarranted</b>.

Home Minister P Chidambaram said India is "safer than many other countries in the world" and New Delhi will try to persuade Washington to withdraw such an advisory.

He was reacting to an 'Urgent Warden Message' posted on American Embassy website which cautioned American citizens in India.

<b>"The United States Mission in India wishes to urgently remind all US citizens resident in or travelling to India that there is a high threat from terrorism throughout India,"</b> the message said.

"As terror attacks are a serious and growing threat, US citizens are urged to always practice good security, including maintaining a heightened situational awareness and a low profile," it said.

The message said, <b>"Americans in India should be vigilant at all times and monitor local news reports and vary their routes and times in carrying out daily activities."</b>

The advisory asked Americans to consider the level of security present when visiting public places, including religious sites, or choosing hotels, restaurants, entertainment and recreation venues.

Commenting on the advisory, Chidambaram said the MEA will be asked to speak to the US to persuade them to withdraw the advisory.

"India is a completely safe country... India is a safe place, it is safer than many other countries in the world. Thousands of tourists come to India and we look forward to welcoming them," he told reporters.

Asked whether the US was trying to hyphenate India and Pakistan, Chidambaram said, "Why should we jump to conclusions. We will try to find out why this advisory was issued, if at all it was issued."<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pressure on Moron Singh, fall in line. Now Moron SIngh will show his GUBO during Hillary Clinton's coming visit. Moron Singh should go to book store and get Hillary book for autograph.

India and US - III - Husky - 06-05-2009


<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The Bow... again</b>
After the generous bow, we have Obama pandering to terrorism.  Like Indian politicians.  Manmohan has company.  Expect a statement from foreign ministry or "minority affairs" ministry, applauding Obama.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Try to resist the hysterics if you can. I couldn't:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->June 04, 2009
<b>Obama's Muslim comment sparks row</b>
Washington Times

United States President Barack Obama [ Images ] has sparked a row with his assertion that the US is one of the world's biggest Muslim countries.

"If you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we would be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world," Obama told French television station Canal Plus on Monday, as he prepared for his landmark five-day trip to Egypt [ Images ] and Saudi Arabia, in an effort to bridge the chasm between America and the Islamic world.

Michael Rubin, a scholar at the US think tank American Enterprise Institute, said the statement is incorrect and using such language is a 'dangerous gambit'.

"All politicians pander. Obama is raising it to a global level," he said.

"First of all, it's false: Even if you take the inflated numbers that Islamic advocacy organisations claim, Muslims are a tiny, tiny minority in the United States," he underlined.

"Obama should also not fall into the extremist's trap of using Muslim as a unitary adjective. There is no more a Muslim world than a Christian world," he was quoted as saying by the Washington Times newspaper today.

Though there is no US census on the basis of religion, several unofficial estimates put the Muslim-American population at roughly five million, which would rank the country at about 35th among 150 countries with Muslim populations, the report said.

Steve Grand, a Brookings fellow and director of its 'Project on US Relations with the Islamic World', acknowledged that the population number is hard to pin down. He said the estimate of two to six million Muslims in the US is close to the number of Muslims in Jordan.

"I think the statement was really an effort to hold up the Muslin-American nation in which Islam and Democracy are not incompatible, Islam and prosperity are not incompatible," Grand said.

Jim Phillips, an analyst at the Heritage Foundation, said he was surprised by Obama's comment because the US only has between three to five million Muslims.

"And that is far from the largest Muslim country -- Indonesia," he said, "It reminds me of his campaign statement that he had been to 57 states. I think that he needs to cut back on his work schedule and get some rest," Phillips, a research fellow at the Foundation was quoted as saying.

His comments have also re-ignited the debate about his Muslim roots. Obama, whose middle name is Hussein, is a Christian whose childhood included spending time in Indonesia and whose stepfather and Kenyan father were Muslims.

Rubin said the problem with Obama's statement is that he not only declines to put American values at the forefront of US foreign policy, but refuses to even identify them. "Rather than talk about the United States as a Muslim country, perhaps he should talk about the United States as a country which has thrived because of a separation of church and state and an adherence to a constitution," he argued.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
People are confusing and worrying themselves unnecessarily. Obama is merely predicting the future:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"If you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we <b>would</b> be  (as in 'become, in future generations' - he's talking demographics here) one of the largest Muslim countries in the world,"<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--emo&Wink--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
After all, Obama <i>can</i> count (something his predecessor wouldn't know anything about...). Obama would know America does not at present have one of the largest islamic populations. But he also knows that the number of islamaniacs there are in America at the moment (and planning numerical jihad) is sufficient to make the demographics of the US a very populous islamic nation in future.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Thursday, June 04, 2009
cap, rollback and eliminate: obama's india ambassador nomination

of course - after the Buffalo-not-Bangalore bit; he is now pushing a non-proliferation ayatollah to culminate MMS's deal-making. this Obama blighter is an absolute disaster for India - never mind his legion of fans in the Indian media and mullah circuit. where are the Obamanics of this blog?

interesting also to see in his Cairo speech that he supports veil wearing Muslim women - of course his own wife keeps to the "bear-arms" philosophy. quite haraam - that practice - no? i am waiting for his visit to India (if he ever deigns to visit at all). wonder if he will be prepared to meet Taslima Nasreen
Posted by Ghost Writer at 6/04/2009 06:04:00 PM

<b>1 comments:</b>

blogger said...

    Obama's speech was such a Muslim suck up attempt. I was disgusted when I heard him attributing Algebra to these fanatic Islamists.
    6/04/2009 <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>OBAMA DISSES INDIA — AGAIN</b>
Wednesday, June 03, 2009 11:58 AM

Obama’s appointment of Indiana Representative Timothy Roemer as ambassador to India is another troubling sign of this administration's attitude towards its important and critical ally.

Ambassadorships are often key signaling devices.  Two weeks ago, for example, President Obama gave China Jon Huntsman as ambassador. In addition to being a rising Republican star, Huntsman is a proficient Mandarin speaker. He has lived and worked in East Asia and has an adopted Chinese daughter.  Additionally, he served as Ambassador to Singapore in the early 1990s.  Huntsman’s nomination is a clear sign to the Chinese that the United States is committed to strengthening ties.  At the press conference announcing his nomination, President Obama noted that: “This ambassadorship is as important as any in the world.”

What then to make of the appointment of Tim Roemer? While China receives a potential future president in Huntsman, India receives in Tim Roemer a six-term Indiana representative who has little connection with the region. 

With the opening of the Indian economy in the early 1990s, and increasing military ties, India has emerged as one of the United States’ most important strategic partners in the 21st century. The United States is now India’s largest trading partner and also the largest source of direct foreign investment. Both nations’ navies have conducted joint exercises, and in the aftermath of the Mumbai attacks there has been a renewed effort at intelligence sharing and coordination.  The Indian military has turned to American suppliers after many years of relying on Soviet and Russian military technology.  The passage of the civilian nuclear agreement in Congress allows for India to purchase nuclear technology from the United States.  The appointment of a former Congressman with little involvement in the region does nothing to highlight the importance of this growing relationship.

Roemer does have an interest in national security and foreign affairs: he has worked on non-proliferation issues and serves on the bipartisan committee on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction.  Yet such work suggests he might have been better employed with an appointment to Pakistan, a nation with questions about the security of their nuclear arsenal.

The appointment of Roemer is just the latest in a series of steps which suggest that the Obama administration does not fully appreciate America's relationship with India.  At the G-20 summit in April, Obama raised eyebrows in India with his remark that the tax code should be rewritten to limit outsourcing: “It’s a tax code that says you should pay lower taxes if you create a job in Bangalore, India than if you create one in Buffalo, New York.”  And during her first overseas trip as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton traveled to Asia, but did not include a stop in India.

Most troubling though are the attempts by the Obama administration to link the dispute over Kashmir to the growing turmoil in Pakistan.  During the campaign, Obama suggested that the US might play a more active role in brokering a resolution to the conflict. The Obama administration believes that resolving the Kashmir dispute will both help the Pakistani government earn the support of their people and allow the Pakistani military to redirect their armed forces against the ever-growing Islamic insurgency in their country.  New Delhi immediately dismissed the idea, but it will be interesting to see if Roemer once again pushes for an American-mediated settlement.  While promoting stability in Pakistan is important, if Obama and Roemer deal with India by asking: “What’s best for Pakistan?” they may alienate an even more important long-term strategic ally.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, when AmeriKKKa gives itself to islamism (see also Obama in 1 above), we will for a brief moment consider alternatives to the Kashmir issue (after which we still say No).
"Convert or die AmeriKKKa. Islam is coming." It's called jihad. And if they encourage it elsewhere, it will come and get them sooner.

India and US - III - Husky - 06-12-2009
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Loaded gun found from a US national at Chennai Airport</b>
{ Posted on Jun 11 2009 by rutambhara }
Tags : Bullets, Chennai, Chennai airport, Chennai terror, CISF, Gun, Police, Security, Terror
Categories : Crime

<b>At Chennai Airport security personnels caught hold a 58-year old US national of having a loaded revolver with him.</b>He was arrested and taken into jurisdiction.The person named Sellemeyer was arrested by security personnel while scanning his baggage during the security check up at the enrance of the airport.

Although, the security personnels haven’t mentioned anything before media, <b>but Sellemeyer said that he was ignorant about the Indian laws and wasn’t aware that travelling with a gun is considered illegal in flight.</b>
<!--emo&:blink:--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/blink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='blink.gif' /><!--endemo-->  <!--emo&:o--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' /><!--endemo-->

<b>He has come to Chennai last week for his security check up at a private hospital.</b> The news of arrestation was informed to American consulate for his identity confirmation, and he has been confirmed as a US citizen.
(So an American flies all the way to India to check into a hospital? Did I miss something?)

<b>Police said that they have recovered 35 bullets and 3 magazines from the person.Security is taking their action and hope this will not be big threat for Indians again.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

India and US - III - Capt M Kumar - 06-18-2009

<!--emo&Sad--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo--> In the interview, Anand Sharma has said that impasse has been broken. If this is correct, that could have happened only because India has yielded on its insistence on SSM and because India and US have so agreed, a deal to be formalised in Washington. What did India get in return? In reciprocal negotiations, quid pro quo has to exist. Otherwise, a rumour floating around gets credence. That rumour is US pressure to ensure Kamal Nath's non-continuation in Commerce. Unless the new Commerce Minister comes clean on what India has got in return, Karat/Yechury will go to town over US pressure on Indian Cabinet formation.

India and US - III - Guest - 06-18-2009

<b>'India blocked its airspace for NKorean plane at US request'</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->India at the request of the United States had blocked its air space to a North Korean plane allegedly delivering illicit cargo to Iran last year forcing it to turn back," a US lawmaker said on Thursday.

"Last August, India responded to a US request and blocked its airspace to a North Korean plane delivering illicit cargo to Iran. That plane had to turn back," Congressman Ed Royce said during a Congressional hearing on North Korea
US told Moron Singh to do GUBO and he did.

India and US - III - agnivayu - 06-21-2009

North Korea has been supplying Nuclear Weapons and material to Pakistan, so India should retaliate against N. Korea.

<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+Jun 18 2009, 09:28 PM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ Jun 18 2009, 09:28 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>'India blocked its airspace for NKorean plane at US request'</b><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->India at the request of the United States had blocked its air space to a North Korean plane allegedly delivering illicit cargo to Iran last year forcing it to turn back," a US lawmaker said on Thursday.

"Last August, India responded to a US request and blocked its airspace to a North Korean plane delivering illicit cargo to Iran. That plane had to turn back," Congressman Ed Royce said during a Congressional hearing on North Korea
US told Moron Singh to do GUBO and he did.

India and US - III - Guest - 06-27-2009

<b> "US appoints envoy to Muslim world"</b> (BBC News)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The US State Department has appointed its first Special Representative to Muslim Communities.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Farah Pandith would play a leading role in US efforts to "engage Muslims around the world".

She said<b> Ms Pandith, who was born in Indian-administered Kashmir</b>, would bring years of experience to the role.

The appointment is part of President Barack Obama's attempts to improve relations with the Muslim world.

Mrs Clinton said Ms Pandith "sees her personal experience as an illustration of how Muslim immigrants to the US can successfully integrate themselves into American society".

The State Department said<b> Ms Pandith, who is a Muslim</b>, would be responsible for helping US efforts to "engage with Muslims around the world on a people-to-people and organisational level".

The statement said Ms Pandith was previously the senior adviser on Muslim engagement in the European and Eurasian region at the State Department and had worked in the Afghan capital, Kabul, with the US Agency for International Development.

In a speech in Cairo earlier this month, Mr Obama said there had been "years of distrust" between the West and Islam but he was seeking "a new beginning" in the relationship.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->