Nah, he'll give Obama a 3-D holographic darshan and move on only.ShauryaT wrote:Guess what our PM is rumored to do next. Make a special trip to the US to bid Obama good bye. Who does that? Not, Mr. Eleven? or Mr. Rasputin? (Copyright for Mr. Eleven to ramana).
Not to take any credit from Ramana ji, Eleven became Eleven thanks to the innovative DD news anchor who called him that. She lost her job giving us the memorable and eternal Eleven (Gin pegs) sobriquet.ShauryaT wrote:... (Copyright for Mr. Eleven to ramana).
snahata wrote:Chetak I am not saying to abandon the Russians , just the opposite in fact . But the present govt,s actions are leading us towards that. It would be tragic if it happened. Trying to make friends with the rich guy with a shining car and abandoning a time tested friend( may be not so rich at present ) in need of your help now who has helped you on numerous occasions in the past, how this usually ends in life I do not need to tell you.
No offence, but your post is positively dripping with sentimentality. Not a bad thing ordinarily, but when it comes to geopolitics, its an impediment to clear thought. And for better or worse, its not a problem the Russian state is afflicted with.Y. Kanan wrote:Ultimately this all boils down to a simple fact.
Russia has never threatened us. They never put sanctions on us. They didn't help our mortal enemy acquire nuclear weapons. Thousands, tens of thousands of our countrymen have died as a direct result of US support to the Pakistani state.
.
.
.
I honestly believe India is better off with no friends (assuming we've already blown the Russian relationship) than becoming part of the US plan to contain China. We gain nothing tangible from this and we effectively lose Russia and become more dependent on a nation with a proven track record of screwing us that persists to this day.
Perhaps you can tell me which happened first -There are those (like you) that would have us cozy up to the US at the expense of our relationship with Russia, which has already pushed the Russians closer to China and Pakistan. Can anyone tell me why? What have we gotten in this exchange? C-17's? Chinook helicopters? Nothing that Russia couldn't have provided an equivalent for, probably cheaper and without the constant threat of cutting off spares hanging over our heads.
They're pulling out of Afghanistan and willing to leave it to the Chinese, Pakistanis and Russians to work out. They got OBL, the rest is a lost cause as far as they are concerned. India is geographically isolated from Afghanistan, else we too would have been a party to the post-US power structure. Although if we have the willingness to bleed, India can still send over troops to support the Afghan security forces in battle; that'll give us a seat at the negotiating table.Now we see powerful interests in India wanting to take this new relationship further, while the US is still backing Pakistan, refusing to pressure them into ceasing their cross-border terror, helping them shut us out of Afghanistan, and giving us no reason beyond wishful thinking to imagine they'd actually help us if the Chinese attack along the border.
This is again an example of sentimentality clouding judgement. The US supported Pakistan when they needed it, and only when they needed it. And if sanctioning India, providing satellite intel to Pakistan et al helped further their strategic goals, yes they'd go right ahead and do it.The US is only interested in keeping China out of the S. China sea, and if we have another war with Pakistan, we can be 100% certain they'll sanction us, cut off spares for all the US military eqpt we've bought, and provide satellite intel to help Pakistan kill Indian troops, just as they have always done in the past. This is not the basis upon which one builds a strategic partnership and starts throwing away long-time though not always reliable friends.
These are good times in U.S.-India defense ties, but there’s still room for improvement.
Defense ties between the United States and India have taken another small step toward consolidation with the recent visit of the U.S. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter to India. The two countries finally managed to agree “in principle” on a logistics agreement, which could be finalized in weeks. The agreement is expected to help the two militaries coordinate better, including in exercises, and also allow the United States to more easily sell fuel or provide spare parts to the Indians. A second pact to improve the sharing of information on commercial shipping, in a move to beef up security on the seas, is also close to realization. There has been, however, no real progress on the joint development of jet engines and aircraft carrier technologies.
These are good times for U.S.-India defense ties. Carter himself has had a long standing interest in India and in strengthening closer ties between the two countries. This was his third visit to India since assuming office in 2015. He was a strong supporter of the landmark U.S.-India nuclear deal in the Bush years and, as deputy secretary of defense in 2011, he was the principal architect of the Defense Trade and Technology Initiative (DTTI) to help the flow of advanced U.S. technology to India, a key Indian priority once strongly resisted by Washington’s defense bureaucracy. He has taken this forward with the setting up of the India Rapid Reaction Cell (IRRC), the only country-specific cell in the Department of Defense, as part of the DTTI to fast-forward India-related defense acquisition issues. Carter has emphasized the Pentagon’s “decision to change its mind-set regarding technology transfer to India from a culture of ‘presumptive no’ to one of ‘presumptive yes’” in the context of the United States’ changing strategic priorities in the Indo-Pacific.
Carter came to India at a time when the U.S.-India Defense Technology and Partnership Act is being considered by the U.S. Congress, which, if passed, would encourage the U.S. president “to coordinate with India on an annual basis to develop military contingency plans for addressing threats to mutual security interests of both countries.” It also calls for the development of “strategic operational capabilities,” which will give the two states “the ability to execute military operations of mutual security interest while sustaining minimal damages and casualties, through the use of military means, possessed in sufficient quantity, including weapons, command, control, communication, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities.” Today, India is interested in co-development opportunities more than simply buying U.S.-made weapons, especially with the government pushing its ‘Make in India’ initiative.
Though many in India worry that the United States wants to make New Delhi a junior partner in its regional alliance network in Asia, Carter has given clear indications that he understands Indian concerns regarding strategic autonomy. He has been explicit that India was not likely to be an exclusive partner of the United States:
Indians are, like many others, also proud. So they want to do things independently, and they want to do things their own way. They don’t want to do things just with us. They want to do things with all that’s fine. So we’re not looking for anything exclusive. But we are looking for as close a relationship and a stronger relationship as we can because it’s geopolitically grounded.
This geopolitical grounding is provided by the rise of China and all that means for Indian strategic interests. India has reached out to China recently with its national security advisor and the defense minister both visiting the country. But China has shown no signs that it is willing to change or even moderate its anti-India posture. Insisting that designation of any individual as terrorist by the United Nations is a “serious issue,” China recently blocked the UN from banning Jaish-e-Mohammad chief and the recent Pathankot terror attack mastermind, Masood Azhar, under Security Council Resolution 1267.
To counter the China challenge, the United States wants to build a “network” of countries with “shared values, habits of cooperation, and compatible and complementary capabilities,” which will expand the strategic reach of the participating countries, enable them to pool their resources to share the security burden, and, thereby, “help ensure the peace and stability in the region for years to come.” New Delhi need not become part of this network, but it needs to articulate the need for a new security architecture in Asia that can successfully take on the challenge posed by a rising and aggressive China.
India and the United States have thus been striving to conclude a series of so-called “foundational agreements” for years now and, under the UPA, even the least controversial, the logistics supply agreement, could not move forward as then-Defense Minister A.K. Antony, under the influence of left-wing parties, became convinced about malign U.S. motives in pushing it through. With the declaration that the logistics agreement has been finalized as of Carter’s visit, the United States and India can now move forward with some confidence about the future their defense ties. India is in the big leagues today and it should start thinking big. The old Third World rhetoric doesn’t do justice to India’s 21st century global aspirations. The Modi government is gradually shedding Indian strategic diffidence, but it needs to move faster if India is to avail of the opportunities that present themselves today.
NRao wrote:Suhasini Haider seems to have found a pattern that may explain why the LEMOA was not signed.
I think the deep state SD,CIA,MIC,wall street shadow players are running their own plays like arab springs and care less about the fig leaf of POTUS approvals . and they obviously have more use for the KSA so this snub to a retiring potus does not count...if this was GW1, GW2 or Reagan then sure...chetak wrote:Rahul M wrote:just for context, major saudi snub to obama.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcaAKxep7Lw
the deep state will never overlook this snub. The saudis are in for a bit of a rough ride now, for some time to come, even after the change of the president.
Apparently the Indian Army too has a Deep State. Which hankers for T-90s.he New York Times bestselling author of The Party Is Over delivers a no-holds-barred, House of Cards-style expose of who really wields power in Washington. Mike Lofgren is back with a book perfectly pitched for the frenzied circus of the primaries. His argument this time is that for all of the backstabbing and money grubbing of the campaign season, the politicians we elect have as little ability to shift policy as Communist party apparatchiks. Welcome to Mike Lofgren's Washington, D.C.--a This Town, where the political theater that is endlessly tweeted and blogged about has nothing to do with actual decision making. The real work gets done behind the scenes by invisible bureaucrats working for the vast web of agencies that actually dictate our foreign policy, defense posture, and security decisions. Have you ever wondered why Obama's policies look so much like Bush's? Seek no further: Hillary v. Jeb is just window dressing. Actual power lies in the Deep State, Washington's shadowy power elite, in the pockets of corporate interests and dependent on the moguls of Silicon Valley, whose data-collecting systems enable the U.S. government to spy on our every move, swipe, and click. Drawing on insider knowledge gleaned in his three decades on the Hill, Lofgren offers a provocative wake-up call to Americans and urges them to fight to reinstate the basic premise of the Constitution"-- Provided by publisher.
It is the Jewerine Syndicate who controls and has dominated the Western civilization since dumping Hitler in WW2. They control the media, the Wall Street, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, the flow of money and by extension every aspect of social, political, economic, religious, foreign policy affairs of the US and the West and by extension the world. They set up the narrative, the world view, the trend setting machine (whatever is cool or whatever is in fashion), controlling and influencing nation states, pitting nations against nations, civilization against civilization. The globalization, open borders, climate change, global warming, global cooling (70s propaganda), environmentalism are some of the things coming to my mind which this group has propped up and actually influences nearly ever way of your life. The current establishment of USA and its policies are dictated by the above. This has been going on atleast since the age of Discovery around 1400 AD when Jewish money used to finance intra European wars and after that all the discovers were in a race to reach India backed by various European kingdoms. The modern world is shaped by them. After Hitler, if anyone who has been near to challenge the status quo and monopoly of this group over the world and they feel threatened is Donald Trump!snahata wrote:I have realized that despite being labelled the most powerful man in the world, POtus is kind of powerless before the ruthless reach and incumbency of the permanent deep state
You are on the money boss, U got it.people who control US are mostly not elected. There number according to me (the most important ones) is less than 50 and absolutely critical probably less than 20.
Nice theory, but the US doesn't always act in its own interest. Was it in their interest to let Pakistan kill 2000 NATO troops and run them out of Afghanistan? The US will often sabotage its own security to feed its military industrial complex (in war, stalemates and defeats are better for business than victory). Plus there is an institutional bias against India deeply rooted in the US political establishment, which didn't change even after 9/11.Viv S wrote:But for better or worse, such a policy doesn't help their long term goal of 'containing' China. Quite the other way round. Which is the basic reason why you don't hear the word 'sanction' mentioned by US state officials, planners, strategic think-tanks, in India's context, and why the prospects of sanctions doesn't worry the MoD or MEA anymore. Both countries have got something considerably more important to worry about. Namely China.
And I thought Deep State was the ultimate.The US will often sabotage its own security to feed its military industrial complex (in war, stalemates and defeats are better for business than victory).
1. Hindsight is 20-20. The US didn't enter Afghanistan expecting to be sabotaged by Pakistan (it should have, but that is an entirely different matter).Y. Kanan wrote:Nice theory, but the US doesn't always act in its own interest. Was it in their interest to let Pakistan kill 2000 NATO troops and run them out of Afghanistan? The US will often sabotage its own security to feed its military industrial complex (in war, stalemates and defeats are better for business than victory).
Interestingly, the Pakistanis, Russians, Chinese, say the same thing. As often does the EU and have various sets of Europeans as various points in time (France, Germany originally, nowadays you hear similar complaints from the Turks).Plus there is an institutional bias against India deeply rooted in the US political establishment, which didn't change even after 9/11.
Unfortunately, we aren't going to vanquish the China into non-existence (or vice versa). If anything, it'll lead to greater Chinese militarization in the aftermath (with obvious consequences for the US). And Indian militarization (with some of the proceeds going to US OEMs). The fortunes of the MIC aren't threatened in the least by an Indo-China war.It's in the US's interest to have us friendless, and even to see us badly defeated in a future Sino-Indian clash. The US military industrial complex thrives on a dangerous world and a powerful Russia-China alliance; it justifies endless military spending and global interventions. None of this is truly in the interests of the US or the US taxpayers as a whole, but it is the permanent (etched in stone) policy of the US deep state and will be for decades to come.
Russia's interests, unfortunately, put it squarely in China's camp (albeit without entering into a formal alliance), unless it can achieve some sort of detente with the US & EU.That's why we should never neglect or sacrifice our relationship with Russia to woo the Americans, because the US has an institutional bias against us that so far, shows no sign of going away, China notwithstanding. Russia can at least always be counted on to act in its own interest.
Do not believe anything these stratfor guys dish out, so called experts. Another useless propaganda firm with pro west, pro Israel and anti Russian agenda.Russia is about to break up, yes in their dreams !kit wrote:I have to say this .. India has relevance only in a multi polar world .. its interests are best served with a strong Russia to check mate American military power .. Washington's trying to wean India from Russian arms can directly impact Russian weapons manufacturing ... Stratfor has recently come up with the theory that Russia is increasingly becoming unstable and likely to break up into multiple autonomous regions ...
A court in the Cayman Islands has sought to question Paul Manafort, Donald Trump’s chief campaign aide, to determine what happened to $26.2 million invested by a billionaire Russian oligarch in a Cayman Islands partnership with the political consultant, according to documents obtained by Yahoo News.Court-appointed liquidators from the Cayman Islands last summer initiated a legal action in federal court in Alexandria, Va., seeking to question Manafort and two business partners under oath about a business deal between them and firms controlled by Oleg Deripaska, a Russian aluminum magnate who for years was barred from entering the United States over allegations of ties to organized crime.A separate lawsuit filed in New York three years ago details multiple business deals that Manafort had with another pro-Putin oligarch, Dmitri Firtash, including plans to purchase New York’s Drake Hotel and develop a high-end resort on the Bahamian island of Bimini.The New York lawsuit, filed on behalf of former Ukranian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, Yanakovych’s s rival, alleged that Manafort’s business deals were part of a “racketeering” scheme to launder hundreds of millions of dollars through a “labyrinth” of Firtash-controlled companies in Panama, Cyprus and Europe for the benefit of Yanakovych.
But a former senior Pakistani official, who asked not to be identified, told Yahoo News that there was never any doubt on Pakistan’s part that Manafort knew of his government’s role in backing the Kashmiri council. The former official said that during a trip from Islamabad in 1994 he met with Manafort and Fai in Manafort’s office in Alexandria, Va., “to review strategy and plans” for the council. Manafort, at the meeting, presented plans to influence members of Congress to back Pakistan’s case for a plebiscite for Kashmir (the largest portion of which has been part of India since 1947), he said. (Internal budget documents later obtained by the FBI show plans by the council to spend $80,000 to $100,000 a year on campaign contributions to members of Congress.) “There is no way Manafort didn’t know that Pakistan was involved with” the council, the former official said, although he added: “Some things are not explicitly stated.”’
Bloomberg notes:
‘Manafort, for his part, appears to have expanded his business connections in Pakistan. In 2013 he acknowledged to French investigators that, in 1994, he had received $86,000 from two arms dealers involved in the sale of French attack submarines to Pakistan’s navy. The payments were part of an arrangement to compensate Manafort for political advice and polling he provided to French presidential candidate Édouard Balladur….’
Rnt u perhaps conphyoojing Deep Pro State with Deep Throat?Don't read this post any further. I am going to expose the leader of the Deep Pro State.
Bill Clinton.
Mr.M would be better advised to delay his planned visit and meet the new pres early next year after the inauguration. Dining with a "lame-duck" pres who is making his global farewells brings nothing to the table except the bill. 
http://www.deccanchronicle.com/opinion/ ... ignal.htmlThe other side of the visa story
Published Apr 27, 2016, 12:57 am ISTUpdated Apr 27, 2016, 10:36 am IST
The WUC is Washington based.
World Uyghur Congress (WUC) leader, Dolkun Isa (Photo: video grab)
There is more than what meets the eye of the recent controversy on the issuance and withdrawal of visas to Dolkun Isa and Omar Kanat of the World Uyghur Congress (WUC). Things are not entirely what they seem. The visas were given despite or because of the antecedents of all the parties concerned. The WUC describes itself as an international organisation that represents the collective interest of the Uyghur people both in East Turkestan and abroad. The main objective of the WUC is to promote the right of the Uyghur people to use peaceful, non-violent and democratic means to determine the political future of East Turkestan.
The WUC is Washington based. It also has a large presence in Germany and Rebiya Kadeer heads it. A successful businesswoman, Ms Kadeer was at one time one of the five richest people in China. Ms Kadeer was not always at odds with the government and was once a delegate to the National People’s Congress. She was also an official People’s Republic of China representative to the Fourth UN World Conference for Women in 1995. She left China in 1996, to fight for the rights of the Uyghur people. She is clearly a woman of substance as well as means.
The other organisation that was at the centre of the recent events is a somewhat lesser known outfit called Initiatives for China (IFC). The IFC describes itself as a grassroots movement dedicated to advancing a peaceful transition to democracy in China. It was ostensibly the IFC which organised Sixth Interethnic/Interfaith Leadership Conference to bring together various ethnic and religious groups from China. This conference series is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which in turn is funded by the US Congress.
The NED’s aim is to support groups abroad “who are working for freedom and human rights, often in obscurity and isolation”. Clearly it aims to use aspirations for democracy and self-determination to pry open otherwise closed or highly centralised regimes, but very selectively.
What is interesting is that the Interethnic/Interfaith Leadership Conference was taking place in India. All such conferences need Government of India permission. Did the Indian government grant it permission? The roles of some “think tanks” which have come into some prominence after the regime change in New Delhi are being spoken about in this connection. National security adviser Ajit Doval is, by past association and present relationship, at the apex of two of Delhi’s busiest and most well-funded think tanks.
The better-known one is the Vivekananda International Foundation (VIF) that
Mr Doval headed till he joined the government, and the other is India First Foundation, headed by his son, Shaurya Doval. Both these outfits have risen up the food chain due to the munificence of Western agencies and other organisations that have increasingly kept them sleek and well-fed with conference partnerships and research grants from several top US-based think tanks (Is this true?) like Atlantic Council, Heritage Foundation, USIP, German Marshall Fund and Brook-ings. Little of this money is for free. The advancement of agendas never lets up. Besi-des, Rightist think tanks the world over usually think alike and act in concert.
Under the NDA dispensation, US think tanks like Brookings and Carnegie Foundation set up shop in New Delhi to influence, if not make policies. The raking up the Uyghur issue is not without reasons. Along with Tibet, Xinjiang is a perceived weak link in the post-1949 Chinese empire. Both regions are also across India’s frontier with China. Xinjiang or East Turkestan abuts the Ladakh district of J&K.
Like Tibet, Xinjiang also had a troubled relationship with China. Chinese dominance waxed and waned with the ebbs and tides of imperial power in Beijing. After 1912, when Sun Yat-sen proclaimed a republic, by now enfeebled China for all practical purposes lost all authority in Tibet and Xinjiang. Chinese garrisons were driven out and local leaderships assumed complete authority.
While Tibet was securely under the control of the Buddhist theocracy, Xinjiang came under the sway of several warlords till 1941, when a renegade Kuomintang (KMT) general-turned-warlord, Sheng Shicai, established a Soviet Republic under the close guidance of the Comintern in Moscow. The Russians now moved in. They took over all international relations and trade.
It had consequences in India, because it caused the British to extend Ladakh’s border outwards by incorporating Aksai Chin to create a buffer. In 1949, Joseph Stalin handed over Xinjiang to the newly-established People’s Republic of China of Mao Zedong. It was during the process of occupying Tibet and Xinjiang that China occupied Aksai Chin. In 1949, the population of Xinjiang was comprised almost entirely of various Turkic nationalities of which the Uyghurs were the largest. Han Chinese only accounted for six per cent. Thanks to a continuous migration sanctioned and blessed by the authorities in Beijing, that proportion has now gone up to almost 48 per cent. Much of this is centered in Ürümqi, Xinjia-ng’s capital, which is over 80 per cent Han. The Uyghurs are still the majority in the region below the Khotan and Kashgar line. This is the region that abuts India.
The gas and oil finds in the region have given impetus to the development of the area. But, unfortunately, the gains have not been equally shared. When I last visited Ürümqi, shopkeepers in the bustling ancient marketplace were quite open and vocal about being left out in development. Many Uyghurs speak a bit of Urdu due to the relationship developed with Pakistan after the construction of the Karakoram Highway. Ürümqi has several restaurants that advertise themselves as serving Pakistani food.
There is also another unintended but nevertheless burgeoning Pakistan connection. Well known Pakistani institutions like the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba and the Jamaat-ud-Dawa have trained no less then 4,000 Uyghurs to wage a jihad in their homeland. The ISI connection of these outfits is well known to the Chinese. Ostensibly keeping the lid on them helps the Pakistanis keep the Chinese obliged to them.
Caving in on visa sends bad signal
DECCAN CHRONICLE.
Published Apr 27, 2016,
The United States and major European countries have ignored such pleas regarding the Uyghur dissident.
World Uyghur Congress (WUC) leader, Dolkun Isa (Photo: video grab)
World Uyghur Congress (WUC) leader, Dolkun Isa (Photo: video grab)
Last week the Narendra Modi government gave an electronic visa to attend a conference with the Dalai Lama in Dharamsala to Dolkun Isa, a leader of the World Uyghur Congress. Mr Isa is a permanent resident of Germany. But on Tuesday the visa was withdrawn after Beijing indicated it was far from pleased with this development. The Uyghur leader had to leave his home in East Turkestan or Xinjiang, as China has made that region known. Beijing deems Mr Isa to be a “terrorist” but the latter protests against such a tag, and has said in interviews that his is the way of non-violent resistance against the Chinese authorities for swallowing up his land.
It had been widely assumed — and the government, if anything, encouraged the belief — that giving the visa to Mr Isa was a reaction to Beijing using its clout in the UN Security Council to prevent the placing of the Pakistani terrorist mastermind, Masood Azhar, on the UN list of proscribed individuals at India’s initiative. India believes the Jaish-e-Mohammed leader is involved in the attack on the Pathankot airbase in January.
In an official statement, directed obviously at New Delhi, Beijing just had to say that Mr Isa was on a “red corner” list of Interpol and all concerned should take note of this — meaning they had to arrest him if they came by him — and India revoked the visa. The United States and major European countries have ignored such pleas regarding the Uyghur dissident.
The government seems to be red-faced and is coming up with a variety of implausible explanations for this turn of events. Evidently it had not thought things through, busy as it seemed to be in trying to create the impression that it was seeking to stand up to China, playing the reciprocity card in the context of Beijing saving Masood Azhar from UN action. It appears the external affairs ministry was kept on the sidelines in the whole affair of issuance of the visa to Mr Isa.
It may also be pertinent to ask why an American NGO was cleared by New Delhi to hold a conference in India of several leading international dissidents. Were the implications of this properly examined? If the government thought it was duty-bound to hold up its credentials as a democracy in this fashion, then the sudden withdrawal of the visa, clearly on flimsy grounds, cannot be a great advertisement for this country. Big and small countries in our region are likely to draw their own conclusions from this caving in. The resultant whittling of diplomatic heft could affect us more widely. Indians too could now perceive themselves as being smaller and mousier.
Would explain why the LSA signing was deferred. Might also see some movement on the CISMOA as well (if Ajai Shukla was right about the particulars having been worked out).JE Menon wrote:Guys are going on and on about Modi's state visit to Washington. Who has announced it?
Foreign secretary S Jaishankar left for a two-day trip to Washington late on Tuesday to discuss the agenda for Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s forthcoming visit to the US and summit meet with President Barack Obama.
This will be perhaps the last Modi-Obama bilateral engagement with the US president ready to demit office eight months later.
Top sources said Jaishankar has been invited by the White House and State Department on April 27-28 to chart out the course of bilateral ties in the last year of Obama’s presidency.
Jaishankar will meet his counterpart, deputy secretary of state Anthony Blinken, and national security advisor Susan Rice; Modi’s joint address to US Senate and Congress on June 7-8, 2016, is high on the agenda. The US is in election mode but Modi’s visit comes at a time when the bilateral relationship has gone beyond official dimensions.
India has made its opposition known to Washington on the supply of F-16 fighter aircraft to Pakistan and the proposed China-Pakistan Economic Corridor via Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
New Delhi also wants to move ahead with the US on the defence, nuclear and space fronts. Final movement is expected on supply of six Westinghouse-Toshiba nuclear reactors for the 6000-MW Mithi-Virdi power plant in Gujarat with techno-commercial closure expected before the visit.
New Delhi expects President Obama to do the heavy lifting at the New York plenary of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) later in June to ensure India enters this group and is allowed to participate in global nuclear commerce. For India’s entry into the NSG, to which the US committed itself in 2010, Obama will have to over-rule possible opposition from China as the latter wants to bring in Pakistan. India is also waiting for entry into the Missile Technology Control Regime grouping, which had its reinforce point of contact meeting in Paris last week.
New Delhi is also looking for easing of US restrictions in space cooperation so that Indian launchers could be used for American satellites as they are more cost-effective. New Delhi is also looking towards US aircraft manufacturers in connection with the “Make in India” initiative.
The other side of the visa story
Apr 27, 2016
Mohan Guruswamy
Did the Indian government grant the Interfaith Conference permission? The roles of some ‘think tanks’ are being spoken about in this connection. National security adviser Ajit Doval is at the apex of two of Delhi’s busiest and most well-funded think tanks.
There is more than what meets the eye of the recent controversy on the issuance and withdrawal of visas to Dolkun Isa and Omar Kanat of the World Uyghur Congress (WUC). Things are not entirely what they seem. The visas were given despite or because of the antecedents of all the parties concerned.
The WUC describes itself as an international organisation that represents the collective interest of the Uyghur people both in East Turkestan and abroad. The main objective of the WUC is to promote the right of the Uyghur people to use peaceful, non-violent and democratic means to determine the political future of East Turkestan.
The WUC is Washington based. It also has a large presence in Germany and Rebiya Kadeer heads it. A successful businesswoman, Ms Kadeer was at one time one of the five richest people in China.
Ms Kadeer was not always at odds with the government and was once a delegate to the National People’s Congress. She was also an official People’s Republic of China representative to the Fourth UN World Conference for Women in 1995. She left China in 1996, to fight for the rights of the Uyghur people. She is clearly a woman of substance as well as means.
The other organisation that was at the centre of the recent events is a somewhat lesser known outfit called Initiatives for China (IFC). The IFC describes itself as a grassroots movement dedicated to advancing a peaceful transition to democracy in China. It was ostensibly the IFC which organised Sixth Interethnic/Interfaith Leadership Conference to bring together various ethnic and religious groups from China. This conference series is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which in turn is funded by the US Congress.
The NED’s aim is to support groups abroad “who are working for freedom and human rights, often in obscurity and isolation”. Clearly it aims to use aspirations for democracy and self-determination to pry open otherwise closed or highly centralised regimes, but very selectively. The NED is not concerned about the situation within many US allies like Saudi Arabia or Israel, but very concerned about what goes on in rivals like China or Russia. It has a clear agenda, which is to further the US interests. It operates in close coordination with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which also reports from time to time to the US Congress.
The other US think tank sponsoring this conference at Dharamsala is the US Institute for Peace (USIP), which is entirely funded by the US state department. It acts as the instrument to advance the US agenda and has in recent times been closely associated with two Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh-affiliated think tanks.
What is interesting is that the Interethnic/Interfaith Leadership Conference was taking place in India. All such conferences need Government of India permission. Did the Indian government grant it permission? The roles of some “think tanks” which have come into some prominence after the regime change in New Delhi are being spoken about in this connection. National security adviser Ajit Doval is, by past association and present relationship, at the apex of two of Delhi’s busiest and most well-funded think tanks. The better-known one is the Vivekananda International Foundation (VIF) that
Mr Doval headed till he joined the government, and the other is India First Foundation, headed by his son, Shaurya Doval. Both these outfits have risen up the food chain due to the munificence of Western agencies and other organisations that have increasingly kept them sleek and well-fed with conference partnerships and research grants from several top US-based think tanks like Atlantic Council, Heritage Foundation, USIP, German Marshall Fund (GMFUS) and Brookings. Little of this money is for free. The advancement of agendas never lets up. Besides, Rightist think tanks the world over usually think alike and act in concert.
Under the National Democratic Alliance dispensation, US think tanks like Brookings and Carnegie Foundation set up shop in New Delhi to influence, if not make policies.
The raking up the Uyghur issue is not without reasons. Along with Tibet, Xinjiang is a perceived weak link in the post-1949 Chinese empire. Both regions are also across India’s frontier with China. Xinjiang or East Turkestan abuts the Ladakh district of Jammu and Kashmir.
Like Tibet, Xinjiang also had a troubled relationship with China. Chinese dominance waxed and waned with the ebbs and tides of imperial power in Beijing. After 1912, when Sun Yat-sen proclaimed a republic, by now enfeebled China for all practical purposes lost all authority in Tibet and Xinjiang. Chinese garrisons were driven out and local leaderships assumed complete authority.
While Tibet was securely under the control of the Buddhist theocracy, Xinjiang came under the sway of several warlords till 1941, when a renegade Kuomintang (KMT) general-turned-warlord, Sheng Shicai, established a Soviet Republic under the close guidance of the Comintern in Moscow. The Russians now moved in. They took over all international relations and trade.
It had consequences in India, because it caused the British to extend Ladakh’s border outwards by incorporating Aksai Chin to create a buffer. In 1949, Joseph Stalin handed over Xinjiang to the newly-established People’s Republic of China of Mao Zedong. It was during the process of occupying Tibet and Xinjiang that China occupied Aksai Chin.
In 1949, the population of Xinjiang was comprised almost entirely of various Turkic nationalities of which the Uyghurs were the largest. Han Chinese only accounted for six per cent. Thanks to a continuous migration sanctioned and blessed by the authorities in Beijing, that proportion has now gone up to almost 48 per cent. Much of this is centered in Ürümqi, Xinjiang’s capital, which is over 80 per cent Han. The Uyghurs are still the majority in the region below the Khotan and Kashgar line. This is the region that abuts India.
The gas and oil finds in the immediate region have given impetus to the development of the area. But, unfortunately, the gains have not been equally shared. The Uyghurs continue to be less well off and deprived. The feeling that it is their national resources that are being exploited by the Chinese authorities to mostly benefit the Han migrants is quite pervasive.
When I last visited Ürümqi, shopkeepers in the bustling ancient marketplace were quite open and vocal about their sentiments. Many Uyghurs speak a bit of Urdu due to the relationship developed with Pakistan after the construction of the Karakoram Highway. Ürümqi has several restaurants that advertise themselves as serving Pakistani food.
There is also another unintended but nevertheless burgeoning Pakistan connection. Well known Pakistani institutions like the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba and the Jamaat-ud-Dawa have trained no less then 4,000 Uyghurs to wage a jihad in their homeland. The ISI connection of these outfits is well known to the Chinese. Ostensibly keeping the lid on them helps the Pakistanis keep the Chinese obliged to them.
The writer, a policy analyst studying economic and security issues, held senior positions in government and industry. He also specialises in the Chinese economy
Well there are two issues here:SSridhar wrote:The American tentacles are spreading all over. We are either too aloof or too close. Some call it playing realpolitik. In the end, all I care for is what benefits have accrued to us and at what cost.
Washington, April 28 (IANS) Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump on Wednesday said India can help out the US in dealing with the "problem" of "semi-stable" nuclear-armed Pakistan.
Trump's remarks came during a town-hall meeting in Indianapolis in response to a question on how he would deal with countries like Pakistan, which has sometimes "double dealt" with the US.
"We've given them (Pakistan) money and they've double-dealt us," the interviewer from Fox News said.
"The problem with Pakistan -- I mean, they have nuclear weapons, and -- which is a real problem. Again, the single biggest problem, we have nuclear weapons ... But it's semi-unstable and we don't want to see total instability (in Pakistan)," Trump said.
Trump said the US has "a little bit of a good relationship" with Pakistan, and if he becomes the president, he will try to keep good relations with Islamabad.
"That's very much against my grain to say that, but, a country -- and that's always the country I think, if we give them money, we help them out, but if we don't, I think that would go on the other side of the ledger, and that could really be a disaster," Trump said.
However, the presidential aspirant did not specify what "disaster" he was talking about.
"At the same time, if you look at India and some of the others, maybe they will be helping us out, because we're going to look at it," Trump said.
Trump's remarks came on a day when lawmakers questioned the rationale behind the Obama administration giving billions of dollars in aid to Pakistan without desired results.