Forums
India and US - III - Printable Version

+- Forums (http://india-forum.com)
+-- Forum: Indian Politics, Business & Economy (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Strategic Security of India (http://india-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=18)
+--- 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 - Naresh - 11-26-2009


<b>Manmohan says assured by U.S. on Pakistan</b>

<b>WASHINGTON : Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said on Wednesday he was assured that U.S. influence on Pakistan would help prod Islamabad to crack down on militants who target India.</b>

Singh said his talks with President Barack Obama on Tuesday produced agreements that the two powers would work together on a number of issues including counter-terrorism.

"I'll go back to India convinced that India and the United States can and will do lots of things together to strengthen our strategic partnership in economics, in trade, in climate change, in energy, in counter-terrorism and all related activities," he told a news conference.

Asked whether he had persuaded the United States to use its clout with its ally Pakistan to crack down on Islamic militants who direct attacks at India, Singh said "I have been assured that U.S. influence will work in (that) direction."

The Indian leader's four-day visit to Washington aimed at boosting ties with the United States ended on the eve of the anniversary of last year's attack on the Indian city of Mumbai which killed 166 people.

Singh said in a statement to bereaved families of the attack that India "will not rest until we've brought the perpetrators of this horrible crime to justice."

Cheers <!--emo&:beer--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cheers.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='cheers.gif' /><!--endemo-->


India and US - III - Guest - 11-26-2009

<b>Text of Manmohan Singh-Barack Obama joint statement</b>

Wed, Nov 25 06:04 PM

Washington, Nov 25 (IANS) Text of the Joint Statement between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and US President Barack Obama issued after their summit Tuesday:

<b> INDIA AND THE US: PARTNERSHIP FOR A BETTER WORLD</b>

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and President Barack Obama today reaffirmed the global strategic partnership between India and the US, and launched a new phase in this partnership. Commending the deepening bilateral cooperation between the world's two largest democracies across a broad spectrum of human endeavours, the two leaders recognised that the common ideals and complementary strengths of India and the US today provide a foundation for addressing the global challenges of the 21st century.

The two leaders noted that the shared values cherished by their peoples and espoused by their founders - democracy, pluralism, tolerance, openness, and respect for fundamental freedoms and human rights - are acquiring an increasingly greater prominence in building a more peaceful, prosperous, inclusive, secure and sustainable world. These values are exemplified by the vibrant linkages between their peoples, which are a unique asset for both countries, and are reflected in the role played by the Indian-American community.

The two leaders resolved to harness these shared strengths and to expand the US-India global partnership for the benefit of their countries, for peace, stability and prosperity in Asia, and for the betterment of the world. To this end, they committed to build upon the India-US Strategic Dialogue announced in July 2009. President Obama stated that the US looks forward to a stable and prosperous India playing an increasingly important role in world affairs.'

<b>ADVANCING GLOBAL SECURITY AND COUNTERING TERRORISM</b>

Prime Minister Singh and President Obama recognised that the India-US partnership is indispensable for global peace and security. In this context, the interests of both countries are best advanced through the values mirrored in their societies.

They acknowledged the common threat that international terrorism poses to regional and global security. They condemned terrorism in all its forms and manifestations and declared that there could be no justification for terrorism anywhere.

On the eve of its first anniversary, President Obama reiterated the US's condemnation of the terrorist attack in Mumbai in November 2008. The two leaders underscored the absolute imperative to bring to justice the perpetrators of this terrorist attack.

They expressed their grave concern about the threat posed by terrorism and violent extremists emanating from India's neighbourhood, whose impact is felt beyond the region. The two leaders agreed that resolute and credible steps must be taken to eliminate safe havens and sanctuaries that provide shelter to terrorists and their activities. These undermine security and stability in the region and around the world.

They vowed to redouble their efforts to deal effectively with terrorism, while protecting their countries' common ideals and shared values and committed themselves to strengthening global consensus and legal regimes against terrorism. They decided on a Counterterrorism Cooperation Initiative to expand collaboration on counterterrorism, information sharing, and capacity building.

The two leaders reiterated their shared interest in the stability, development and independence of Afghanistan and in the defeat of terrorist safe havens in Pakistan and Afghanistan. President Obama appreciated India's role in reconstruction and rebuilding efforts in Afghanistan. The two leaders agreed to enhance their respective efforts in this direction.

The two leaders committed to continue pursuing mutually beneficial defense cooperation through the existing security dialogue, service-level exchanges, defense exercises and trade and technology transfer and collaboration. They recognised the scope for cooperation in the areas of non-traditional threats to security, peacekeeping, humanitarian and disaster relief, and maritime security and protecting sea lanes of communication. They agreed to expedite necessary arrangements to facilitate these activities.

The two leaders agreed that strengthening high technology trade between their countries is in the spirit of their strategic dialogue and partnership. They reiterated their shared commitment to technology security and that it is in their mutual interest to invigorate this area of their partnership.

<b>
ENSURING SUSTAINABLE GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT AND A CLEAN ENERGY FUTURE</b>

Recognising that energy security, food security, climate change are interlinked, and that eliminating poverty and ensuring sustainable development and a clean energy future are among the foremost global objectives, the two leaders agreed to enter into a Green Partnership to address these global challenges.

They two Leaders reaffirmed their intention to promote the full, effective and sustained implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in accordance with the Bali Action Plan. Recognising their special role in promoting a successful and substantive outcome at the UNFCCC 15th Conference of Parties at Copenhagen in December, 2009, they reaffirmed their intention to work together bilaterally and with all other countries for an agreed outcome at that meeting.

The two leaders also affirmed that the Copenhagen outcome must be comprehensive and cover mitigation, adaptation, finance and technology, and in accordance with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, it should reflect emission reduction targets of developed countries and nationally appropriate mitigation actions of developing countries. There should be full transparency through appropriate processes as to the implementation of aforesaid mitigation actions. The outcome should further reflect the need for substantially scaled-up financial resources to support mitigation and adaptation in developing countries, in particular, for the poorest and most vulnerable. It should also include measures for promoting technology development, dissemination and transfer and capacity building, including consideration of a center or a network of centers to support and stimulate climate innovation. India and the US, consistent with their national circumstances, resolved to take significant national mitigation actions that will strengthen the world's ability to combat climate change. They resolved to stand by these commitments.

Recognising the need to create the clean energy economy of the 21st century, Prime Minister Singh and President Obama agreed to launch a Clean Energy and Climate Change Initiative. The goal of the Initiative would be to improve the lives of the people of both countries by developing and improving access to technologies that make our energy cleaner, affordable and more efficient. The initiative will include cooperation in wind and solar energy, second generation bio-fuels, unconventional gas, energy efficiency, and clean coal technologies including carbon capture and storage. The success of this Initiative is expected to enhance the ability of India and the US to provide new economic opportunities for their people and create new clean energy jobs.

The two leaders intend to take practical steps to promote global food security, including by advancing the L'Aquila Food Security Initiative. They looked forward to increasing India-US agricultural cooperation with the purpose of promoting agricultural research, human resources capacity building, natural resource management, agri-business and food processing, and collaborative research for increasing food productivity. This cooperation would contribute to joint development of technology that would improve weather forecasting, including predicting monsoons, and technology that would contribute to food productivity and food security efforts in India.

They agreed to collaborate in the application of their space technology and related scientific capabilities in outer space and for development purposes, including in the field of agriculture.

The two leaders reiterated their intention to realize the full potential of the India-US Agreement for Cooperation concerning the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy through the implementation of its provisions. They agreed to expedite US firms' participation in the implementation of this agreement.
<b>
STIMULATING GLOBAL ECONOMIC REVIVAL</b>

Prime Minister Singh and President Obama noted the new opportunities offered by their economies and their respective strengths, and their potential for future growth to catalyse global economic growth, and pledged to create conditions that would facilitate their continued expansion.

The leaders also noted that the US is currently the largest trading partner of India in goods and services.

The leaders reiterated their pledge to bolster and deepen cooperation on economic, trade and agricultural issues, including working bilaterally and with multilateral trade organisations to foster increased trade. Both leaders welcomed the potential for further expanding trade and investment between their countries, including in sectors such as infrastructure, information and communication technologies, healthcare services, education services, energy and environmentally friendly technologies.

As members of the G-20, they agreed to advance the G-20 understandings including with regard to energy security and resisting protectionism in all its forms. The two leaders agreed to facilitate greater movement of professionals, investors and business travellers, students, and exchange visitors between our two countries to enhance their economic and technological partnership.

They committed to strengthen and reform the global economic and financial architecture in the G-20, World Bank and the IMF. They resolved to seek an ambitious and balanced outcome of the Doha Round, consistent with its mandate and reaffirmed their commitment to an open, fair, equitable, transparent and rule-based multilateral trading system.

The two leaders announced their intention to develop a Framework for Cooperation on Trade and Investment. This Framework is expected to foster an environment conducive to technological innovation and collaboration, promote inclusive growth and job creation, and support opportunities for increased trade and investment - including for small and medium-sized enterprises. They agreed to launch the US-India Financial and Economic Partnership to strengthen engagement on economic, financial, and investment-related issues.

The two leaders welcomed the progress achieved in the discussions on a Bilateral Investment Treaty and pledged to take further initiatives that would contribute to creating a more conducive environment for investment flows.

They recognised the contribution of the business and industrial sectors of both countries in this regard and called upon the India-US CEOs Forum to identify new directions in the India-US economic relationship.
<b>
EDUCATING AND EMPOWERING FUTURE GENERATIONS</b>

Recognising the cultural emphasis on education in both countries, Prime Minister Singh and President Obama emphasised that education holds the key to the advancement of their societies, and to a more prosperous and stable world.

They agreed that access to and development of technology was a cross-cutting requirement to meet the challenges that their two countries face. They acknowledged the fruitful collaboration between the two countries in the fields of education, research and science and technology, which has contributed to their emergence as knowledge societies.

Taking advantage of that strength, President Obama and Prime Minister Singh launched the Obama-Singh 21st Century Knowledge Initiative with funding from both sides to increase university linkages and junior faculty development exchanges between the US and Indian universities, including greater emphasis on community colleges.

They agreed to substantially expand the Fulbright-Nehru programme to provide more student and scholar exchange grants in priority fields such as science, technology and agriculture. The two leaders reaffirmed the importance of expanding cooperation in higher education and research, and according priority to cooperation in the area of skill development.

They also expressed their support for the India-US Binational Science and Technology Commission and the Endowment, which is expected to give a fresh impetus to collaboration in the cutting edge areas of scientific research, technology and development.

The leaders affirmed the importance of women's empowerment to advancing global prosperity and stability, and welcomed the establishment of a Women's Empowerment Dialogue to promote women's participation and equality in all spheres. They emphasised that women's empowerment is a cross-cutting goal that should be pursued across the full scope of US-India Strategic Dialogue initiatives.
<b>
PROTECTING THE HEALTH OF OUR PEOPLE</b>

Prime Minister Singh and President Obama welcomed the strong collaboration between India and the US in the area of public health. They agreed to build on existing strong ties across academia and scientific communities by advancing public health and biomedical research collaborations between the US and India. The two countries plan to establish a Regional Global Disease Detection Center in India and to build a partnership with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The leaders also pledged to enhance collaboration in controlling diseases such as polio, and discovering new and affordable technologies and treatments for the benefit of their peoples and for those of other countries who seek their assistance.

<b>TOWARDS MORE EFFECTIVE GLOBAL COOPERATION</b>

Prime Minister Singh and President Obama recognised that the India-US relationship is important for managing the challenges the world will face in the 21st century.

The two leaders underscored the compelling need to put in place global institutions which are both inclusive and effective to meet present and future challenges. They welcomed the emergence of the G-20 as a premier forum to deal with international economic issues. The two leaders recognised the scope for their countries to increase cooperation in peacekeeping, development and the promotion of essential human freedoms. They committed themselves to achieving genuine reform of the United Nations including in its Security Council in a manner that reflects the contemporary realities of the 21st century and thereby enhances its ability to carry out its mandate as a representative, credible and effective forum for meeting the challenges of the new century.

Prime Minister Singh thanked President Obama and the people of the United States of America for their generous hospitality and warm welcome. President Obama looks forward to visiting India with his family in the near future.

<i>Indo Asian News Service </i>


India and US - III - Guest - 11-26-2009

State Dinner in Tent <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<b>Couple Slips Though Security To Crash State Dinner</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Secret Service is looking into its own security procedures after determining that a Virginia couple, Michaele and Tareq Salahi, managed to slip into Tuesday night's state dinner at the White House even though they were not on the guest list, agency spokesman Ed Donovan said.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Check photos:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=2806...id=183864381877


India and US - III - Guest - 11-27-2009

<b>Who Are the White House Party Crashers?</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Salahi’s polo connections -- and possible financial problems -- might hold the key to explain why the couple risked the wrath of the Secret Service to stroll brazenly in front of news cameras to rub elbows with nearly 300 hand-picked guests, that included members of the Indian diplomatic corps and other special guests with connections to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.<b> Salahi’s polo club along with the Embassy of India is hosting a spring 2010 tournament in Virginia. U.S. Ambassador to India Meera Shankar is listed as a patron, according to the organization's Web site</b>.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

MEA crooks had joined hands with scamsters <!--emo&Big Grin--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->


India and US - III - Guest - 01-04-2010

Quote:Chilli Peppers in Delhi's Khari Baoli



Arati R JerathSunday, January 3, 2010 0:22 IST

[url="http://www.dnaindia.com/opinion/column_chilli-peppers-in-delhi-s-khari-baoli_1330255"] link[/url]

It looks like India is fast becoming a popular holiday destination, not just for rich and famous celebs like Lindsay Lohan and Liz Hurley, but for the world’s power elite as well. The last fortnight of December saw the second most powerful man in the US, Barack Obama’s chief of staff and key aide Rahm Emanuel, relaxing in India with his wife, three kids and another couple and their daughter.



Their itinerary included Rajasthan, Agra and Corbett National Park. Normally leaky government channels managed to keep the high profile visit a tightly-held state secret almost till the very end. It was “outed” only on their final stop in Delhi whose eyes and ears never miss anything, especially a VVIP visitor.



* * *



Hosting Emanuel in Delhi was an interesting challenge for the Manmohan Singh government and the PMO rose to the occasion with some out-of-the-box thinking to amuse a visitor who is obviously key to building a rapport with Obama. When the PM visited Washington in November, Emanuel had spoken about his upcoming holiday in India and expressed his desire to see Delhi’s famous Walled City. Accordingly, the PMO arranged a trip to Khari Baoli and the PM’s media advisor Harish Khare was deputed to take Emanuel and his entourage around the crowded wholesale market.



The White House chief of staff is apparently a spice connoisseur and he happily spent the morning sniffing and examining 12 varieties of red chillies, nine varieties of turmeric, shikakai, reetha and other exotic roots and powders. The sights and smells held him spellbound and he didn’t turn a hair at the crowds milling around in the narrow lanes.



Surprisingly, nor did his Secret Service security agents. Unlike our SPG, which believes in heavyhanded methods like sanitising entire neighbourhoods for a VIP visit, US security takes crowds in its stride and works around them. Maybe the SPG should pick up some tips on how not to be obtrusive.



* * *

The hurly-burly of the old city was followed by lunch at Maurya Sheraton’s famed Bukhara restaurant, hosted by National Security Advisor M K Narayanan. The afternoon was spent strolling through Rashtrapati Bhavan’s elegant Mughal Garden. Evening was private time for Emanuel to ring in the new year with his family and friends. And so ended an important personal visit.



An official described the trip as an “intensely private” one but can a key Obama aide like Emanuel be spared for a fortnight just to vacation in India? PMO sources are tightlipped but there is speculation that Emanuel flew out to do a reccee for a visit by Obama and decided to combine business with pleasure. In which case, we can expect the US President to come calling very soon.

* * *



Tailpiece

It’s never pure vacation for the powerful. Even as he played tourist, Emanuel kept a close eye on a crucial vote in the US Senate which was scheduled to consider Obama’s controversial healthcare reform bill on December 21. The White House needed 60 votes to get the bill through. With the Democrats numbering 58, the government was two votes short. Emanuel had tied up one independent vote before coming to India. He bagged the critical 60th vote from here over telephone, using the “battering ram” political skills for which he is known.



India and US - III - Guest - 01-04-2010

[url="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100104/ap_on_bi_ge/world_airline_security"]Confusion in Europe after US demands more security[/url]
Quote:U.S. authorities said as of Monday anyone traveling from or through nations regarded as state sponsors of terrorism — as well as "other countries of interest" — will be required to go through enhanced screening. The Transportation Security Administration said those techniques included full-body pat-downs, carry-on bag searches, full-body scanning and explosive detection technology.

The U.S. State Department lists Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria as state sponsors of terrorism. The U.S. said other countries whose passengers should face enhanced screening include Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Yemen.

Nationals from those countries already require a visa to enter the United States.



India and US - III - HareKrishna - 01-05-2010

Carlos Mencia on terrorists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4Yz-d9lJsw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ8ETlF2ueo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb6w6iW4Xo4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exBN25OdXxg&feature=related

<img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Wink' />


India and US - III - Guest - 02-06-2010

[url="http://in.news.yahoo.com/32/20100205/1069/twl-india-no-longer-strategic-partner.html"]India no longer strategic partner[/url]


India and US - III - Husky - 02-11-2010

http://rajeev2004.blogspot.com/2010/02/brahma-chellaney-dangers-of-policy.html

Quote:Wednesday, February 10, 2010

brahma chellaney: the dangers of policy myopia (re india and us's af-pak strategy)

feb 10th, 2010



brahma hits the nail on the head. instead of an independent, transparent foreign policy that is based on india's national interests, the UPA is playing second-fiddle to obama's interests, and in the process hurting india's credibility vis a vis pakistan.



http://www.livemint.com/2010/02/10212254/The-dangers-of-policy-myopia.html



The dangers of policy myopia

India must not blindly follow US policy in Pakistan and Afghanistan that is likely to put its own security at risk


Brahma Chellaney



It may be the lack of a real opposition in the country that allows the government to make abrupt shifts in foreign policy under external persuasion without so much as offering a reasoned explanation to the Indian public for the switch.



India first fell in line on Afghanistan at the London conference, organized principally to gain an international stamp of approval for US President Barack Obama's strategy to negotiate a deal with the "moderate" Taliban (as if there can be moderates in an Islamist militia that enforces medieval practices). The external affairs minister returned from London saying India was willing to give that strategy a try.



Soon thereafter, New Delhi announced it was resuming dialogue with Pakistan at the foreign secretary level. What prompted New Delhi to do that? Mum is the word. What has Pakistan done or delivered on the anti-terror front to deserve this gesture? The answer: nothing. Yet once again, dialogue has been delinked from terrorism, as if the Indian leadership has learnt nothing from the Sharm-el-Sheikh goof.





Photo: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg



Government decisions anchored neither in a well-thought-out strategy nor in principles can only undermine national interests. No sooner had New Delhi announced its U-turn on Pakistan than Washington upped the annual US aid for Islamabad from the next fiscal year to $3.2 billion—a historic high. What Obama is providing Pakistan in one year is exactly the amount one of his predecessors, Ronald Reagan, gave Pakistan over six years. Yet New Delhi has not made a peep.





It was left to a US ex-Senator, Larry Pressler, to urge India to speak up on the dangerous drift in Washington's Af-Pak strategy, including propping up Pakistan with generous aid and lethal-arms transfers. "When the US leaves Afghanistan, India will have a Pakistan 'on steroids' next door and a Taliban state to deal with in Afghanistan," according to Pressler.



With Obama pushing for a deal with the Pakistan-backed Afghan Taliban, Islamabad already is feeling vindicated. Obama is sending an additional 30,000 US troops not to militarily rout the Taliban, but to strike a deal with the enemy from a position of strength. As his top commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, has admitted, the aim of the surge is to bring the Taliban to the negotiating table, not to beat back the insurgency.



But as US ambassador Karl Eikenberry has put it in his leaked November cables to secretary of state Hillary Clinton, "More troops won't end the insurgency as long as Pakistan sanctuaries remain." Yet Washington already is holding indirect talks with the Afghan militia's shura, or top council, whose members are holed up in Quetta, capital of Pakistan's sprawling Baluchistan province. The talks have been conducted through the Pakistani, Saudi and Afghan intelligence agencies. Gen. McChrystal has cited Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates as a possible venue for formal talks.



The more sensible thing to do would be to dismantle the Pakistani military's sanctuaries and sustenance infrastructure for the Afghan Taliban and militarily decapitate the latter's command centre in Baluchistan. But Obama has not hidden his intent to end the US war before he comes up for re-election in 2012. Indeed, as if to hearten the Afghan Taliban and their sponsors, the Pakistani military, he has reiterated July 2011 as the timeline for a gradual US military withdrawal to begin.



To facilitate his pursuit of such narrow interests, Obama has been pressuring India to come on board. And to rationalize the planned Faustian bargain with the Taliban, the White House has drawn a specious distinction between Al Qaeda and the Taliban and sought to discriminate between "moderate" Taliban and those that rebuff deal-making. So, Gen. McChrystal classifies the thuggish Gulbuddin Hekmatyar as a moderate because he is "most likely to cut a deal".



The Afghan Taliban leadership— with an elaborate command-and-control structure oiled by petrodollars from Arab sheikhdoms and proceeds from opium trade—operates from the comfort of sanctuaries in Pakistan. Fathered by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and midwifed by the US Central Intelligence Agency in 1994, the Taliban rapidly emerged as a Frankenstein's monster. Yet, Bill Clinton's administration acquiesced in the Taliban's ascension to power in Kabul in 1996 and turned a blind eye as that militia, in league with ISI, fostered narcoterrorism and swelled the ranks of the Afghan war alumni waging transnational terrorism.



With 9/11, however, the chickens came home to roost. In declaring war on the Taliban in October 2001, US policy came full circle. Now, desperate to save a faltering military campaign, US policy is coming another full circle as Washington advertises its readiness to strike a deal with the Quetta shura.



[color="#0000FF"]India, which is on the frontline of the global fight against international terrorism, is likely to bear the brunt of the blowback of Obama's Af-Pak strategy, just as it came under terrorist siege as a consequence of the Reagan era US policies in that belt. A Talibanized Pakistan with a Taliban government in Afghanistan would encourage every violent Islamic group that can inflict mass casualties in India.[/color]



The US, separated by a cushion of thousands of miles, thinks it can get away by playing dangerous games in the Af-Pak belt. But as a friend, India should be openly advising the US against unwittingly repeating the very mistakes of past American policy that have come to haunt Western and Indian security. That's what friends are for. To toe the US line on Af-Pak deferentially is to become an accessory in the current lurch towards disaster.



Brahma Chellaney is professor of strategic studies at the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi. Comment at theirview@livemint.com

Posted by nizhal yoddha at 2/10/2010 09:07:00 PM

Reactions:



1 comments:

Ghost Writer said...



this must be a first in history - one country (i.e. India) bears the cost for the re-election dreams of the president of another (i.e. USA)



i am not sure that it is all Obama's fault though. any other guy (including McCain or Bush) in his position would do the same - but it shows that we really have only 12 months to radically transform policing and internal security in India. 12 months - in a non-accountability culture where 60 years has not changed habits.



another wave of 'insurgencies' will be at hand. only this time the Hans will make sure to attack as well.... it may even be the end of the first Republic of India - shinning or not!

2/10/2010 10:51 PM

Post a Comment
US is so much bad news for India. For any country.

Good for them that they have a puppet govt in India that will do their every bidding. Just goes to show how easy it is to control and leverage such a massive "democratic" country. And how very subvertible India's "democratic" structures are.


India and US - III - Guest - 02-17-2010

[size="6"]CIA spy in Indian cabinet prevented Pakistan’s annihilation[/size]



A minister of Indira Gandhi’s cabinet betrayed India’s “war objectives” to the Central Intelligence Agency in December 1971, causing an abrupt end to the Bangladesh war under vicious US arm twisting.



This is the highlight of the book CIA’s Eye on South Asia by journalist Anuj Dhar. Published by Delhi-based Manas Publications, which is facing government’s ire for coming out with a book on the R&AW, the book compiles declassified CIA records on India and her neighbours. It specifically spotlights what arguably has been India’s biggest spy scandal.



In the run up to the 1971 India Pakistan war over what was then East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), The New York Times first hinted at the presence of a CIA operative in the Indian government. By December The Washington Post had reported that US President Richard Nixon’s South Asia policy was being guided by “reports from a source close to Mrs. Gandhi.”



Records and telecons declassified recently – but not properly explained up till now – show that a dramatic turnaround came on December 6 when a CIA operative, whom Dhar pins down as a minister of the Indira Cabinet, leaked out India’s “war objectives” to the agency. Prime Minister Gandhi told Union Cabinet that apart from liberating Bangladesh, India intended to take over a strategically important part of the Pakistan Occupied Kashmir and go for the total annihilation of Pakistan’s armed forces so that Pakistan “never attempts to challenge India in the future.”



When he came to know of the CIA report, a furious Nixon blurted out that “this woman [Indira Gandhi] suckered us,” thinking that Mrs. Gandhi had promised him that India won’t attack East Pakistan – not to speak of targeting West Pakistan and PoK. “But let me tell you, she’s going to pay,” he told his National Security Advisor Dr Henry Kissinger even as he tried to leak out the CIA report to give her bad press.



The CIA went on assess that fulfillment of India’s “war objectives” might lead to “the emergence of centrifugal forces which could shatter West Pakistan into as many as three or four separate countries.”



As a direct result of the operative’s information, the Nixon administration went on an overdrive to save West Pakistan from a massive Indian assault. Because the President felt that “international morality will be finished – the United Nations will be finished – if you adopt the principle that because a country is democratic and big it can do what the hell it pleases.”



Nixon personally threatened the USSR with a “major confrontation” between the superpowers should the Soviets failed to stop the Indians from going into West Pakistan. Kissinger secretly met Chinese Permanent Representative at the UN to apprise him of the CIA operative’s report and rub in that what India was planning to do with Pakistan with the Soviet backing could turn out to be a “dress rehearsal” of what they might do to China.



Dhar quotes in the book the official records showing that USSR’s First Deputy Foreign Minister Vasily Kuznetsov visited Delhi after Nixon’s threat and told the “Indians to confine their objectives to East Pakistan” and “not to try and take any part of West Pakistan, including Azad Kashmir” as “Moscow was concerned about the possibility of a great power confrontation over the subcontinent.” Kuznetsov also extracted a guarantee from Prime Minister Gandhi that India will not attack West Pakistan. This decision was promptly conveyed to Nixon. On 16 December 1971 when Nixon was told that India had declared a ceasefire, he exulted: “We have made it… it’s the Russians working for us.” Kissinger congratulated him for saving West Pakistan – India’s main target, as per the operative’s report to the CIA.



Dhar repudiates recent assertion by a former Indian Navy chief that showing up of America’s biggest nuclear powered carrier into the Bay of Bengal during the war had something to do with the accidental destruction of a US plane in Dhaka during an Indian strafing. “Declassified records make it unambiguously clear that the month-long show of strength by the USS Enterprise and accompanying flotilla was a byproduct of the CIA operative’s reports,” he writes, reproducing chunks from official records detailing how Nixon ordered a naval task force towards the subcontinent to “scare off” India from attacking West Pakistan.



In subsequent years, former Prime Minister Morarji Desai, and two deputy PMs – Jagjivan Ram and Y B Chavan – were alleged to be the CIA operative active during the 1971 war. However, all such charges lacked any substantiation because there was no confirmation whether or not such an operative ever existed. As such no constructive discussion on the issue ever took off. This has changed now given the unassailable evidence in the form of US records making it clear that the CIA had a “reliable” agent operating out of the Indian cabinet in 1971.



In declassified records the name of the operative has been censored because the CIA Director has “statutory obligations to protect from disclosure [the Agency's] intelligence sources.” Dhar writes: “Naming the Indian operative even after so many years will adversely impact the Indo-US relations, and hit the Agency’s prospects of recruiting new informants.”



However, he suggests that Indian government may have known the identity of the operative. “R&AW under the most capable R. N. Kao could not have missed the reference to the ’source close to Mrs. Gandhi’ and must have dug deeper,” he writes, adding that in 1972 Mrs. Gandhi herself charged that “she had information that the CIA had become active in India”.



More pertinently, Dhar quotes from the declassified record of a 5 October 1972 meeting between Indian Foreign Minister Swaran Singh and US Secretary of State William Rogers. During the meeting, Singh asserted that “CIA has been in contact with people in India in ‘abnormal ways.’” and that India had information that “proceedings of Congress Working Committee were known to US officials within two hours of meetings”.


India and US - III - Guest - 02-18-2010

ankit-s ,

please provide link.


India and US - III - Guest - 02-28-2010

[url="http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-does-the-american-left-fear-the-rise-of-india/"]Why Does the American Left Fear the Rise of India?[/url]
Quote:The American relationship with the republic of India is heading in the wrong direction. Given recent history, where strong and positive U.S.-Indo relations were in full bloom, this is especially disconcerting. President George W. Bush’s administration, long maligned as arrogantly unilateralist, solidified a close bilateral partnership — friendship, even — with the rising South Asian power. Bush saw India as a natural ally: the world’s largest multiethnic democracy, looking at its place in the world at the turn of this century through much the same prism our own ancestors looked through in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. As Harvard historian Sugata Bose observed, the strengthening of ties between India and the United States “may turn out to be the most significant foreign policy achievement of the Bush administration.”



Under President Barack Obama, however, those ties are in moderate though steady and not insignificant decline. Since Obama’s inauguration, our relationship with India has begun to erode. To its credit, the Obama administration authorized a $2.1 billion arms sale with New Delhi last year. But there is more — there should be more — to the American-Indian friendship than signing off on a Boeing contract with the Indian defense ministry.



For instance, trends in trade are worrisome. Whereas in 2008 the United States exported $17.6 billion worth of goods to India, by 2009 that figure had dropped by more than $1 billion. Some of this is due to the recession, but consider: from 2001 through 2008, imports from India to the United States had gone up by $2 or $3 billion annually, culminating in $24 and $25.7 billion worth of goods imported in 2007 and 2008. That figure plummeted by $4.6 billion in 2009. During Bush’s tenure, protectionist economic policies were done away with. Outsourcing, that dirty word, was embraced. The United States became India’s largest investment partner; foreign direct investment in petroleum exploration, infrastructure, mining, telecommunications, and other good things accounted for much of all investment into India.



The free trade policies agreed upon by President Bush and Prime Minister Singh liberated markets and destroyed barriers in agriculture, textiles, iron, steel, coffee, tea, information technology, pharmaceuticals, and more — and as a consequence, helped develop the rise of India’s first genuine middle class in history. According to the National Council for Applied Economic Research, there are approximately 220 million “aspiring” Indians — a “consumer class” — living in households earning between $2,000 and $4,400 per year, who can now afford to buy niceties and luxuries. Some estimates have India’s middle class even larger. This was not the case fifteen or even ten years ago.



And when a caveat in this relationship deemed less beneficial to the United States arose, President Bush still kept things in long-term perspective so as not to denigrate our newfound camaraderie with India. When American food prices skyrocketed in 2008, Bush attributed it to India’s progress and implored Americans to place developments into a broader context: “Their middle class is larger than our entire population,” Bush said. “And when you start getting wealth, you start demanding better nutrition and better food. And so demand is high and that causes the price to go up.”



Today, President Obama sounds markedly different about India. He has employed populist oratory, criticizing “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.” Such language has increased anxieties in New Delhi. “We are already witnessing signs of protectionism in the world’s biggest economy,” the Indian external affairs minister was quoted as saying, proclaiming that “we will need to argue against this trend at the international [forums].” Just one month into Obama’s presidency, India was prepared to present its grievances with the new administration’s protectionist policies to the World Trade Organization.

....



India and US - III - dhu - 03-04-2010

Quote:[url="http://www.dailypioneer.com/239686/US-has-India-over-the-barrel.html"]US has India over the barrel[/url]



G Parthasarathy



Even as Pakistan steps up a concerted anti-India offensive on issues ranging from terrorism and Afghanistan to nuclear programme and river waters, the New Delhi establishment appears confused, divided and uncertain. Barely two days after Pakistan’s Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir described the evidence provided by India on the 26/11 outrage as mere “literature and not evidence”, the ISI’s Taliban allies struck at Indian nationals living in the heart of Kabul. Mr Bashir was reflecting the triumphalism in Pakistan over what was perceived as their diplomatic success in getting the Americans to force India to return to the dialogue table. A spokesman of the ‘Haqqani Network’, operating from across the Durand Line in North Waziristan, claimed responsibility for the Kabul attack. The ‘Haqqani Network’ had masterminded the attacks on the Indian Embassy in Kabul in 2008 and 2009.



American journalist David Sanger, who was briefed in detail of Pakistan’s links with the Taliban by the staff of the Bush Administration’s Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell, writes, “Musharraf’s record of duplicity was well known (in Washington). While Kayani was a favourite of the White House, he had also been overheard — presumably on telephone intercepts — referring to the most brutal of Taliban leaders Jalaluddin Haqqani as a ‘strategic asset’.” Mr McConnell’s successor, Admiral Dennis Blair, testified on February 2 that under Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Rawalpindi continues its support of a number of Afghan Taliban groups.



All this is happening when, following the Istanbul and London conferences, Pakistan is proclaiming that it will play the predominant role in “reintegrating” the Taliban in Afghanistan’s national life and that India has no role to play in that country. One hears some influential American friends now tell Indian interlocutors that India should reduce the “salience” of its role in Afghanistan. While this may not be what the Obama Administration officially states, it is interesting that unlike Al Qaeda’s members, the Taliban’s cadre are no longer described by the Americans as “terrorists” but as “insurgents”. Mere platitudes are not enough to deal with this situation. Has the time not come to tell the Obama Administration that we are tired of listening to calls for “dialogue” and that we could review our policies on Afghanistan by reviving old links we had with Iran, Russia, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, and by charting a more independent path on relations with the Karzai Government? Should we not devise a comprehensive strategy for responding effectively to Pakistan’s efforts to ‘bleed’ us?



Pakistan has now opened a new front in its propaganda war against India. Though Pakistan’s Indus Waters Commissioner has stated that there is no evidence that India is violating the Indus Waters Treaty, national hysteria is being whipped up, led by Gen Kayani, alleging that India is deliberately denying Pakistan its legitimate share of river waters from the western rivers — Indus, Jhelum and Chenab. The reality is that though the IWT permits India to build storage facilities of 3.6 million acreage feet, no such facility has been built so far, enabling unimpeded flow to Pakistan. Moreover while the treaty permits India to irrigate 1.34 million acres from the western rivers, India is currently irrigating only 0.792 million acres. India would also be well-advised to undertake measures for fuller utilisation of the waters of the eastern rivers which continue to flow into Pakistan.



The Pakistani Government’s own papers make it clear that that Pakistan does not face a shortage of water (it receives 139 MAF against the total flow of 169 MAF of water from six rivers of the Indus basin), but is faced with a crisis caused by poor and inequitable utilisation, with the lower riparian Sindh and Balochistan provinces being deprived of their legitimate water requirements by the Army-dominated Punjab Province. An inter-provincial accord on water-sharing of 1991 lies in tatters because of the refusal of Punjab Province to abide by its provisions. People in Sindh Province are finding that the Indus waters barely reach Kotri Barrage and that their southern districts are experiencing salinity because of the inflow of sea water. It is time New Delhi undertook an imaginative propaganda offensive on this issue especially directed at the people of Sindh and Balochistan. Finally, Pakistan seeks to deliberately delay construction of hydro-electric projects in Jammu & Kashmir, even as it claims to be a champion of the Kashmiri people. India should go ahead with these projects undeterred by Pakistani propaganda, which will inevitably stand exposed when the issue is referred to a neutral expert under the IWT.



Precisely a week before Mr Bashir arrived in New Delhi, Mr Zamir Akram, Pakistan’s Permanent Representative to the Commission on Disarmament in Geneva, launched a propaganda barrage against India, claiming that it was responsible for proliferation in South Asia, that it had compelled Pakistan to go nuclear and thereafter test nuclear weapons in May 1998 by its nuclear tests in 1974 and 1998. He denounced the India-US nuclear deal and the lifting of sanctions against India by the Nuclear Suppliers’ Group, and demanded that Pakistan be granted a similar waiver. Mr Akram conveniently ignored the fact that Pakistan had decided to go nuclear well before India’s 1974 nuclear test, that Pakistan is known to have tested a nuclear weapon on Chinese soil in 1990, and that the size, composition and nature of India’s nuclear deterrent are determined not merely by what Pakistan does, but primarily by developments in China.



South Block fails to realise that led by Gen Kayani, Pakistan’s ruling military establishment has persuaded itself that it wields huge leverage with the Obama Administration, which has set a date for commencement of troops’ withdrawal from Afghanistan and desperately needs Pakistan’s cooperation for a face-saving exit. New Delhi is perceived by the GHQ in Rawalpindi to lack any clear or consistent policy and appears ever-ready to meekly bend to American diktats. The Government of India has only itself to blame for allowing this impression to gain ground internationally and domestically. The decision to suddenly change direction and agree to talks between Foreign Secretaries even before the Home Minister paid a scheduled visit to Islamabad has only strengthened this impression. Unless the Union Cabinet devises a clear policy of imposing high costs for Pakistani support to terrorism against India and Indian assets abroad, we will be perceived as a nation incapable of defending our vital interests.



India and US - III - dhu - 03-15-2010

[url="http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=India+up+for+sale+to+MNCs&artid=jVv495r3y|I=&SectionID=XVSZ2Fy6Gzo=&MainSectionID=XVSZ2Fy6Gzo=&SectionName=m3GntEw72ik="]India up for sale to MNCs[/url]

Pushpa M Bhargava



The recent historic moratorium on Bt brinjal by Jairam Ramesh, minister of environment and forests, has created a network of citizens’ organisations around the country that have risen spontaneously from the ground, and have prevented the country’s agriculture becoming devoid of its diversity and moving in the direction of control by multinational corporations (MNCs). These corporations have strong links with the government of the United States of America US, and their sole objectives are (a) to make as much money as possible by any means, and (<img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' /> to eventually have total control over Indian agriculture, using every ruse known to the world of conmen. Unlike the government of India, they are fully aware that whosoever controls seed and agrochemical business in India, controls its agriculture. And whosoever controls our agriculture, controls India and its food security, for 62 per cent Indians derive their total sustenance from agriculture and, in our country, food security, food sovereignty, agriculture security, farmers security, and security of the rural sector, are synonymous and important components of national security and autonomy. If Bt brinjal had been approved, India would have, in course of time, ceased to be, de facto, an independent country and we, its citizens, would have had to start fighting the third war of independence which we would have eventually won, for truth always wins in the long run.



It is unfortunate that our government — our politicians and bureaucrats (exception granted) — and the rich and the powerful in the country, seem to be siding with the MNCs (read US), in their attempt to acquire control over our agriculture. This is reminiscent of India being ruled by the British through a class of Indians. Only the structure, colour and strategy of this class seem to have changed, while Britain has been replaced by the US plus the MNCs. Let us look at the evidence:



* We signed the India-US Knowledge Initiative in Agriculture during the first UPA government. Following this — and, perhaps, in preparation of this — our research and extension work in agriculture seems to have totally discounted our strengths and needs. Let me give some examples: The Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR) has developed integrated pest management (IPM) and biopesticides for some 85 crops, including cotton and brinjal. Why have we not used these technologies instead of peddling Monsanto’s Bt crops?



Organic agriculture has been India’s forte. It brings better price for the produce. Andhra Pradesh already has two million acres under organic agriculture and has plans to take this area to 10 million in the next two or three years. Why are our Krishi Vigyan Kendras (I believe there is one in each district) not encouraging organic agriculture? Why does not ICAR have an institute devoted to organic agriculture?



Given today’s knowledge of molecular biology, why are our agriculture research scientists not developing varieties which would have the advantages of hybrids? The farmers can then have their own seeds and would not have to depend on seed companies. At a meeting that the director general of ICAR and I had co-chaired when I was the vice-chairman of the National Knowledge Commission, nine energy saving steps for agriculture were identified. Why have they not been taken?



The ICAR has published in several volumes, details of over 4000 traditional agriculture practices, many of which have been validated and cross-validated. We have many more documented by the National Innovation Foundation. Why are we not using the validated ones and taking steps to examine the remaining? Why are we not using our horticulture potential? For example, all the technology exists in the State Forest Research Laboratory of Arunachal Pradesh to grow over 600 orchids through tissue culture. These orchids can capture the world orchid market, replacing Thailand (for our orchids are far more beautiful and the world is tired of Thai orchids) and bring to Arunachal Pradesh a revenue of over Rs 10,000 crore a year. Why are we not pursuing the possibility?



Why is our department of agriculture not using the outstanding capabilities that our National Remote Sensing Agency has to, for example, identify diseased plants in a field so that one can prevent the spread of the disease?



* Ten of our leading CEOs signed the Indo-US CEO agreement (available on Planning Commission’s website) in which the Indian CEOs (led by Ratan Tata) agreed to put the lid on the Bhopal Gas Tragedy, promised not to give any trouble to Coca Cola and Pepsi irrespective of the quality and quantity of their misdeeds, and open our retail market to the US. There is already a US demand that India cuts down its subsidies to agriculture which are a pittance in comparison to what the US provides to its agriculturists.



* We recently signed secretly, an MoU on ‘Agriculture Cooperation and Food Security’ with the US, even though all the inputs we require — scientific, technological, managerial or social — to improve our agriculture to meet national demands (present or future) are available within the country. The MoU (The Hindu, February 24, 2010), for all practical purposes, appears to have handed over our food security and sovereignty, farmers security, agriculture security and security of the rural sector comprising 70 per cent of our population, to the US.



* The government has been supporting introduction of GM food and other crops in the country, which will eventually give control of our agriculture to US-based MNCs. Jairam Ramesh, taking into account overwhelming public opinion and unbiased scientific opinion has, rightly and courageously, in a statesman-like manner, put an indefinite moratorium on the release of Bt brinjal; he has gone on record to say that he has only two supporters in the government and the ruling party: the prime minister and Sonia Gandhi.



* Our surrender to the US seems to be total. If we buy nuclear reactors from the US (which we would be obliged to buy), we will pay most of the compensation in case of a nuclear accident, not the vendor of the reactor. And on the March 6, V K Saraswat, scientific adviser to our defence minister, said that the US is still denying us technology (Deccan Chronicle, March 7, 2010).



On November 10, 1698, Charles Eyre bought three fishing villages — Sutanuti, Govindpore and Dihi-Koikata — from a Bengali landlord for Rs1,300, and laid the foundation of today’s Kolkata. We are now trying to sell our entire country for a pittance (if for anything at all) to MNCs and the US. Those who are involved in this effort must understand that the citizens of this country are well-equipped to fight the third war of independence if that happens.



About the author:



Pushpa M Bhargava is the former vice chairman of the National Knowledge Commission


India and US - III - acharya - 03-22-2010

Moved over from C-17 thread

[quote]

[quote="Gilles"] Many of the Indians need to wake up and realize that you are a global power. The constant paranoia of seeing a conspiracy in every single action is the behaviour of tiny/weak nation. Maybe it was appropriate in the past, but India has grown greatly since then. Have more confidence in your own country!



India isn't going to let the US dictate its foreign policy no matter what deals are made.[/quote]



[quote]

The US is spreading its influence and imposing itself across the whole Globe. But it uses different methods according to which country it is dealing with. When they deal with a leader who is is not afraid to openly stand up to them they "demonize" the leader and the country and use brute force and blockade and sanctions: Afghanistan (Taliban era), Cuba, Grenada, Iraq (Hussein era), Iran, Libya, Nicaragua, North Korea, Pakistan (Musharraf era) Panama (Noriega era), Syria, Venezuela etc. They do this while totally overlooking other demons who walk the line : Afghanistan (today), Azerbaijan, Colombia, Egypt, Kuwait, Israel, Panama (while Noriaga helped them against Nicaragua), Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan etc.



In one word: work with us, and you can oppress your people all you want, work against us and you are in for it.



They use economic ploys to keep others in line, China being the most notable. The China owes a fortune to the US but cant afford pulling the plug since the US is such a big customer and will stop buying of they do.

For others who have money, like Saudis, the Omanis, the Kuwaitis, etc, they manufacture a large nearby threat (Iraq first and then Iran) and impose whatever they want on them in exchange for "protection" against this threat. That "protection" of course involves billions in military purchases from the US (India may fall under that scenario) South Korea does, Japan does, Taipei does, Colombia in a way...... The thinking behind it is who will buy arms unless there is a credible threat? And who is the biggest arms exporter in the World?

Against their real friend, they'll use veil threats, economic mostly. Canada, France, Japan, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom. Canada was clearly made to understand that the great relationship we have enjoyed over the years would suffer if we did not send troops to attack Iraq. They didn't in fact want our troops. They wanted the credibility our troops would give to their so-called "coalition of the willing" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing) France was not "willing" to be "willing" so they mauled France. Good friend Canada cowered and sent frigates to the Gulf and troops to Afghanistan. Quickly. Not because we wanted to. No. Because we feared the economic retaliation of our "good friend" next door. Our people were against. So the government of Canada told us the Canadian frigates patrolling the Gulf alongside the US ships were on "anti-terrorism" patrol. The Canadian press remained silent.



"Willing". Please pause and give the word "Willing" some thought to contemplate how cynical the US is. How many nations were actually "willing" in this Iraq affair? Each and every one was coerced into embarking in something that was clearly wrong. To obtain this, the US had high level emissaries, like the one who delivered the warning to Japan the other day, criss crossing the Globe with a stick and a carrot in their briefcases. They were the "coalition of the willing" builders. And they mostly used the threat of the stick. And instead of calling it the "US-backed coalition" or something realistic and neutral, they called it exactly what it was not: a coalition of the "willing". And the US press went along with the term, without even a hypocrite smile on the side of their faces, since they know full well that its all a big scam.



No, I don't think that India is naive. And I don't think the US can invade India or overthrow its government. But the same was that the US was able to make certain democracies take actions in Iraq while it was clearly against the wishes of its people (UK, Australia, Spain, Italy, to name but a few), they can do it with India if they find the proper leverage. Its going to be a combination of several things and much of it will be related to China, Pakistan and energy. The C-17 is just one pawn in that chess game.



Just wait and see.[/quote]


India and US - III - acharya - 03-22-2010

Quote:
Quote:I'm sure YOU were against, but plenty of Canadians were for it and wished they could do more. I check-in on some Canadian forums occasionally, and suffice it to say, most there didn't agree with you either.





About Canada's support for the war in Iraq:



A poll conducted for the Toronto Star and La Presse by EKOS Research showed that a majority of Canadians, except in Alberta (the Province of our current PM), supported the Prime Minister’s decision to stay out of a war in Iraq. The study showed “71 per cent of those polled backed the decision by the Liberal government, with 27 per cent registering their disapproval”



About weapons:



The fact is GeorgeWelch, that the US exports 8 Billions dollars worth of arms every year, against only 6 Billions dollars worth of wheat. The more conflict and instability there is in the world, the more business the US gets. If Iran were nice and friendly, would other Gulf States buy Billions of weapons from the US in exchange of "protection" ?



If North Korea disbanded and joined the South (Germany style) would Japan and South Korea spend as much on weapons? If China recognized Taipei, would Taipei spend what its spending now. How about Israel? Do US arms makers really have an interest in Having Israel become good friends with all its neighbours?



Even within the US,, your population thrives on the weapons industry. Imagine a United States with no credible outside threat that no longer needed to field new Nuclear Submarine, new Aircraft carriers, new Combat aircraft and ballistic missiles and missile defence shields. What would all these high tech firms do ? You guys thrive on war and menace. You NEED an enemy, and not just any enemy, you need a credible one, preferably one with nuclear capability, like you made Iraq to be and like you are making Iran to be, and like North Korea is. When US problems with these 3 countries will be resolved, it wont be long before the US finds quarrel with another credible nuclear or WMD capable nations that will be threatening the US. Anything to maintain the US defence budget at always higher levers. Too many jobs depend on it. Too many Senators and representatives have too many voters who needs those jobs.



India and US - III - manish - 03-28-2010

[url="http://www.hindustantimes.com/Taking-us-for-granted-not-again/H1-Article1-524088.aspx"]Taking us for granted, not again‎[/url]

For as long as I can remember, two distinct emotions have characterised the educated Indian’s response to foreign policy. The first is deep affection for American democracy and way of life. Even when relations between India and the US have hit diplomatic lows, nothing has dented the warmth with which American popular culture is regarded in India. We watch American movies, we wear American clothes, we follow American trends and we want to educate our kids in America.



The second emotion is a keenly developed sense of national pride. Few countries are as fiercely patriotic as India is. (Well, actually, perhaps America is too.) It could be the centuries of colonial subjugation that are responsible but Indians watch out keenly for our national interest and respond angrily to the merest slight or perceived injury to our country. We are nobody’s satellite and demand to be treated with respect.



Sometimes, these two emotions are in conflict with each other. In 1971, we felt that the US had ‘tilted’ unfairly towards Pakistan, and had turned a blind eye to the genocide in that country’s eastern wing. Though this did not necessarily reduce our affection for American popular culture, it made a whole generation of Indians suspicious of US foreign policy priorities.



We are still quite far from the 1971 situation but I have a terrible feeling that once again, those two emotions are colliding. Our regard for America is once again in conflict with our national pride. It may be too early to sound the alarm yet but I think that 1) America is regarded with much less affection than it was two years ago and 2) if things do not change quite substantially in the near future, any Indian government that seeks to further the India-US partnership will face considerable public opposition and deep suspicion.



There are two traditional irritants in the relationship between Washington and Delhi. The first is what India sees as America’s desire to order the world according to its own best interests. For instance, in the 1950s, when Washington asked each country to take sides in the Cold War, the Indian establishment reacted with anger: why should India be forced to get involved in somebody else’s war?



The second is Pakistan, a small country of no great consequence that has always made itself valuable to Washington by serving US interests in third countries. In the 1950s and 1960s, it served as a base for US spy planes as America kept a watch on Russia. In the 1970s, it was America’s gateway to China. (The reason for the Nixon-Kissinger ‘tilt’ towards Islamabad in 1971.) In the 1980s, it became a virtual American aircraft carrier in the battle to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. And so on.



Both irritants have come into play once again. Rightly or wrongly, a perception has developed among educated Indians that America expects India to toe the Washington line on key global issues. For instance, the sub-text to the recent climate change controversy (over which key Indian officials resigned) is the suspicion that India is under pressure to overturn our long-standing policies to suit Washington’s own interests.



Similarly, much of the opposition to the new Nuclear Liability Bill is predicated on the belief (hotly denied by the government) that the legislation is being enacted to insulate large American companies from liability even when the equipment they have supplied costs Indian lives.



There are many other examples of perceived US pressure on the government. Many fears may well be misconceived but they derive their power from a fresh development: a shift in America’s foreign policy to favour Pakistan.



Once again, Pakistan has offered itself as a route to a third country. The US finds itself in a war it cannot win in Afghanistan. The only way it can extricate itself from that mess is by coming to an understanding with the very people that it has been fighting: the Taliban.



It is no secret that the original Taliban was the creation of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and it is widely believed that Pakistan still has leverage with Taliban leaders. Now that US policy is to seek some sort of accommodation with ‘good Taliban’ (whatever that means), Pakistan has two uses. One: it can facilitate an understanding with Taliban leaders and offer some guarantees of stability once the US moves out or scales down its presence in Afghanistan. And two: it can crack down on ‘bad Taliban’ (such as the Pakistan Taliban and those Afghan leaders opposed to Islamabad’s Taliban friends) within Pakistan’s own borders.



In recent months, Pakistan has performed both tasks. Back channel negotiations with ‘good Taliban’ are in progress and the Pakistani army has launched a massive operation against the Taliban while denying safe haven to many of those who are fighting the US in Afghanistan.



From an American perspective, this is invaluable. Not only is the Pakistani government facilitating a face-saving exit from a deeply unpopular war but the Pakistani military seems at last to have found the will to take on Islamists. This accounts for the US’s current love for Pakistan, for the pictures of Hilary Clinton posing cosily with Mehmood Qureshi and for Washington’s praise of Pakistan’s army.



Naturally Islamabad wants payment in return: an India-style nuclear deal, arms to use against India, an ejection of Indians from Afghanistan, some resolution of the Kashmir dispute etc. Washington cannot give the Pakistanis everything they want. But equally, Pakistan has to get something as payment. And that will be at India’s expense.



When you consider President Obama’s options dispassionately you can see why he needs to court Pakistan. But, equally, Washington needs to do something to reassure New Delhi. Instead, America gives the impression that it takes India for granted. The refusal to extradite David Headley and the repeated flip-flops over allowing Indian investigators to question him suggest a complete insensitivity to Indian public sentiment.



In the light of what America is doing in Afghanistan and Pakistan, it rather seems as though Washington has had a change of heart: why fight a war on terror when you can simply do deals with the terrorists?



It is hard to see why Washington is letting the goodwill it has enjoyed in India over the last few years slip through its fingers. Public suspicion of the US in India has now reached the stage where no matter what the government does — talk to Pakistan, for instance — it is accused of following orders from Washington. These suspicions extend to the ruling party: even Congressmen fear that America has too much leverage over India.



In the short-run, Pakistan and Afghanistan are important to Washington. But in the long-run it is India that America will need if it is to counter China. Washington’s behaviour suggests that it has forgotten that national pride and patriotism are non-negotiable for Indians.



No matter how much affection Indians have for American culture, India is too large and too important to be taken for granted. And Indians have long memories. No snub is ever forgotten.



Pls note that the writer is a long standing apologist for the congress.


India and US - III - agnivayu - 03-30-2010

The West has always had a curious approach to foreign policy towards India (and also Russia). Always trying to act friendly in one instance then using that temporary goodwill to do something sneaky and underhanded. Pakistan is seen by many in the U.S. and Europe as a hedge against India. The West in reality seeks to counter BOTH India and China. Privately, the single biggest fear in the minds of Westerners is the rise of India and China. This is an old fear and they have always wanted to prevent or atleast delay the industrialization of India and China. Since that is now unstoppable, their goal is to arm Pakistan sufficiently so that India doesn't gain military dominance in South Asia. Contrary to media propaganda, the Western Elite could care less about freedom or democracy, only their interests.



India doesn't need to worry about this too much. Western policy is extremely short sighted (usually only a 5-10 year timeframe). Even giving Pakistan (a known state sponsor of terrorism, even against the West) $7.5 Billion over 5 years cannot counteract India anymore since India is now a $1.5 Trillion Economy with $32 Billion /year military budget. In the near future, India's GDP will be bigger than the U.S. In that scenario, the West will simply not be able to counter India. India shouldn't fall for the China-India rivalry, instead it should be made into a West vs. China rivalry, where India can play both sides.


India and US - III - manish - 03-31-2010

[quote name='agnivayu' date='30 March 2010 - 08:05 PM' timestamp='1269959246' post='105534']

The West has always had a curious approach to foreign policy towards India (and also Russia). Always trying to act friendly in one instance then using that temporary goodwill to do something sneaky and underhanded. Pakistan is seen by many in the U.S. and Europe as a hedge against India. The West in reality seeks to counter BOTH India and China. Privately, the single biggest fear in the minds of Westerners is the rise of India and China. This is an old fear and they have always wanted to prevent or atleast delay the industrialization of India and China. Since that is now unstoppable, their goal is to arm Pakistan sufficiently so that India doesn't gain military dominance in South Asia. Contrary to media propaganda, the Western Elite could care less about freedom or democracy, only their interests.



India doesn't need to worry about this too much. Western policy is extremely short sighted (usually only a 5-10 year timeframe). Even giving Pakistan (a known state sponsor of terrorism, even against the West) $7.5 Billion over 5 years cannot counteract India anymore since India is now a $1.5 Trillion Economy with $32 Billion /year military budget. In the near future, India's GDP will be bigger than the U.S. In that scenario, the West will simply not be able to counter India. India shouldn't fall for the China-India rivalry, instead it should be made into a West vs. China rivalry, where India can play both sides.

[/quote]



Very well put and aptly summed up.Couldn't have done better myself.


India and US - III - Bharatvarsh2 - 03-31-2010

Read our resident mahApaNDita HH's take on this issue:



http://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2009/08/16/asia-and-geopolitics/



May be if more Hindu fools read blogs like his & Bodhi's they wouldn't be such willing sheep for the Isaist, Islamic & Rudhira-Dhvaja butchers.