India-US Strategic News and Discussion

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 07 Aug 2010 08:48

Border Bill Aims at Indian Companies

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/07/us/po ... order.html

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 07 Aug 2010 09:10

Heard a wild one. Plans are afoot to make Hillary replace Biden babu to hedge for future Rep plays.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 07 Aug 2010 09:31

U.S. Senator: Infosys is a ‘Chop Shop’

http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2010 ... chop-shop/

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 07 Aug 2010 09:37

Ramana,

As long as US unemployment stays at 10% and higher, nothing will save the incumbent party. The Obama administration points to 1984 when Reagan was re-elected with an overwhelming majority as their benchmark. What they forget is that Reagan boosted the spending of the military industrial complex and simplified the tax code at the time, along with more businesses incorporating IT into their practices. The current stimulus spending is small compared to the overall GDP and the new health care legislation will shift the burden of cost from state/federal government to individuals and small companies. At this time Obama's hands are tied to two wars, declining markets, and maxed out borrowing (thanks to the Bush administration). Also, the rest of the world has developed further along in the last 26 years and is less dependent on US goods and services, so passing protectionist schemes in the US Congress will only hurt the US economy.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 07 Aug 2010 14:05

Ambassador Ms. Meera Shankar's Remarks on Felicitation of Fareed Zakaria at a Reception in New York on 4th August 2010

http://www.indianembassy.org/prdetail15 ... ugust-2010

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 08 Aug 2010 01:42

abhishek_sharma wrote:U.S. Senator: Infosys is a ‘Chop Shop’

http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2010 ... chop-shop/

A few things to note:

- Schummer is a democrat
- There is trend among Democrats to make an escape goat out of Indians
- Even the radio show hosts (Democrat ones) are hyping up the anti Indian American rhetorics

This perhaps explains why lots of Indians are leaning towards Republican party, which at least will give them a tax break.

Amber G. · Post by **Amber G.** » 08 Aug 2010 02:31

US Senate resolution lauds Indian-American contributions

The United States Senate has issued a resolution celebrating the upcoming 63rd anniversary of India’s independence.

Sponsored by Senator John Cornyn (Republican of Texas) and supported by Senator Christopher Dodd (Democrat of Connecticut), the resolution also celebrated the contributions of Americans of Indian descent to society in the United States.

In the resolution statement the Senate underscored that there were over 2 million such Indian-Americans and they had made lasting contributions in areas such as government, military and law enforcement offices.

Further the Senate affirmed that it remained committed to fostering and advancing the strategic relationship between the U.S. and India in the future.

In that regard the Senate reiterated the significance of areas of cooperation between the two countries including civilian nuclear power, counterterrorism, democracy promotion, regional economic development, human rights and scientific research.

... It is one of the first country-specific associations in the U.S. Congress
<snip>

joshvajohn · Post by **joshvajohn** » 08 Aug 2010 02:47

Indo-US ties defining partnership of 21st century: Senate
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/worl ... 269392.cms

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Aug 2010 06:37

Ram Narayanan says

ZOOM TV

Watch video:

http://zoomtv.smashits.com/video/18371/ ... force.html

Description:
After exhaustive trials of six fighter jets, Indian Air Force (IAF) has made its choice clear to the Government on the kind of fighter jets needed. Frontrunners for the force are French fighter Dassault Rafale and the Eurofighter Typhoon built by the European consortium. Bernhard Gerwert, Chief, EADS, says If you are taking into account the portfolio of EADS we can bring the bridge between civil aviation and military aviation. But the Americans and Russians have lost out. Boeings F18 no longer a frontrunner and Swedens Gripen too falling off the Indian radar.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 08 Aug 2010 09:02

Fareed bhai is one heck of a street-smart dude who has managed to rise up and hob knob with the who is who in the halls of power in DC/NY/London; and made a loot of moolah for himself and carve a niche or himself. He is a quintessental establishmen mouthpiece, doesn't rock the boat too much and stays within the confines of dems Vs reps boxing ring. And like OBama does as a black man achieving the highest office in US, he gives US good PR, a brown Muslim face singing paens about USA's greatness.

From a Indo-US relations perspective, at least of late, he has been vocal in advacning India's case visa vi TSP terror. However, in my opinion, this tiff he has got himself in with the pro-Israel Jewish power house Anti Defamation Leauge (ADL) over their decision to oppose the Isalmists from putting up that mosque near ground zero in NYC could cost Fareed bhai his kushy position he enjoys at the moment. But then again, he must have sought out the views of some of the big boys before taking on the ADL and siding with the Islamists.

Hope he continues to stay on CNN and not get kicked out like that other mid east reporter (A_Gupta posted her plight) who expressed some pro Hezbollah sentiment and was shown the boot by CNN. Especially next year or so as AfPak unfolds, it is imperative from India's POV that someone with the media mike that he has at his disposal, he continues to expose TSP perfidy. Of late, he has been one of the few who always brings in LET and TSP terror against India, and that needs to continue.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Aug 2010 09:07

> he must have sought out the views of some of the big boys before taking on the ADL

I believe he always does that. moreover its not a new mosque is it? it was already there when the wtc came down, just like the greek st. nicholas church. in that sense, both merit the case for reconstruction. in an area where 50 storey towers are common, if the rop center wants to be 15 stories , there is not any ground to reject it I suppose.

I think the american elites are using it a a good psyops opportunity and part of the 'reaching out to the middle east masses' initiative

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 08 Aug 2010 10:50

There is a strong consensus among Democrats to build a mosque on the ground zero. So, I am sure Fareed Zakaria is not the only one supporting the construction of mosque at the ground zero.

And, his dad was a remarkable man. It seems like apple cannot fall too far from the tree; it is good to know that.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 08 Aug 2010 12:38

If we’re really serious about analyzing the dynamics between ideological groups that determine US foreign policy, let’s begin with a taxonomy based on existing scholarship. IMHO this would be far more useful than trying to come up with nomenclatures of our own based on pet theories and very limited observations.

A good example would be the ideological classification proposed by Walter Russell Meade. He divides US policy groups into four classes: Hamiltonian, Wilsonian, Jeffersonian and Jacksonian, based on their broad imperatives.

Here are a few articles explaining Meade’s “spectrum” and its four subdivisions from the American point of view:

http://www.lts.com/~cprael/Meade_FAQ.htm

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... r_syndrome

To be useful to our analysis, we must reconstruct this “spectrum” from an Indian point of view. Here’s an attempt.

In general, Hamiltonians and Wilsonians are the more “outward looking” of the four groups. Jeffersonians and Jacksonians are the more “inward looking.”

Also in general, most of the American public tend to be either Jeffersonian or Jacksonian in their broad geopolitical outlook. The Hamiltonians are mostly represented by a powerful elite of corporate and business interests. The Wilsonian base is a well-entrenched Washington intelligensia with strong influence over institutions like the State Department and the Pentagon (the “babudom” of America.) Wilsonians also dominate American academia and think-tanks.

Let’s look at these four groups one by one.

1) Hamiltonians: named for America’s first treasury secretary, Alexander Hamilton, this group stands for Economic Expansionism. They support global political and military involvement for the purpose of creating and maintaining a system of trade and commerce dominated by the United States, with an American agenda at the helm.

Bretton Woods was the cradle of the modern Hamiltonian movement. The Marshall Plan, and the Roosevelt-Ibn Saud agreement (which formalized the USD as the currency in which international oil prices would be set) were early initiatives undertaken with Hamiltonian support to establish American economic supremacy.

Domestically, Hamiltonians are backed by big-business corporate interests.In nations where a climate favourable to international commerce exists, Hamiltonians try to further their agenda by political means (through American-dominated institutions such as the World Bank, G8 and WTO.)

In regions where a climate favourable to international commerce, the Hamiltonians are most concerned with making sure nothing happens to threaten the domination of global commerce by the United States. Chiefly, this means using the military, and shoring up military alliances, to ensure America’s energy security… and sometimes, to deny other nations the energy security they would need to compete economically with America. Hamiltonians insist that American foreign policy in the Middle East and Central Asia focus on enhancing American influence over the oil and mineral resources of those regions.

With respect to India, Hamiltonians generally ignored the socialist avatar of India as a lost cause, but they have begun to take increasing notice of India since liberalization and economic growth began in the early 1990s.

The most pro-India Hamiltonians would like to shape the rise of India into an economic partner and hedge against other potential economic competitors such as China. This sub-group of Hamiltonians were fully supportive of the India-US Civilian Nuclear Cooperation Agreement. They are generally in favour of outsourcing and guest worker programs, as long as American corporations continue to receive growing access to Indian markets.

The least pro-India Hamiltonians, on the other hand, are skeptical about the relatively “slow” rise of India, about the obstacles to economic liberalization posed by the exigencies of India’s democratic system, and instead choose to support China as a relatively “sure bet.” They are the ones who would gladly overlook human-rights abuses or nuclear proliferation by China as long as market access and profit mechanisms remained intact.

As India continues to develop economically, it is likely that of all the four groups, the Hamiltonians will adopt policy attitudes most favourable to India. Along the way, however, there will be hiccups: India refusing to sign the Nuclear Liability Bill (thereby denying access to American energy corporations into the reactor-building market), or India choosing not to opt for an American-made MRCA, will be detrimental to the support we have among the Hamiltonians.

All Hamiltonians are realists for whom the bottom line is all about the money.
They see the maintenance of a running trade deficit with China as the best insurance against an inimical, confrontational US-PRC relationship in other spheres of competition. They figure that as long as China is invested in the economic well-being of the United States, its will to threaten the political interests of the United States will be limited.

Very few US presidents have been overt Hamiltonians, chiefly because being overtly associated with big business interests could be detrimental to the electoral success of a US presidential candidate. However, ALL US Presidents since Ronald Reagan have relied on the support of Hamiltonians to exercise their policy initiatives, and no president since Reagan has managed to enact a policy that was opposed by the Hamiltonians.

The most overtly Hamiltonian president so far might be George H.W. Bush, who actually ran the first Gulf War in such a way that America ended up making a profit! In recent years, meanwhile, some potential and actual Presidential candidates have been openly Hamiltonian, in background as well as in terms of their policy platforms. These include Steve Forbes, Mitt Romney and the mayor of NYC, Michael Bloomberg, who make no secret of their connection with US corporate interests.

2) Wilsonians are Ideological Expansionists. They seek to use the economic, political and military might of the United States to create a world where all nations look to the United States for ideological leadership. Their goal is to have all other nations willingly subject themselves to the geopolitical dominance of the United States in a global Pax Americana.

Wilsonians pretend to be “anti-imperialistic”, and conceal their intentions behind rhetoric of “democracy”, “American moral compass” and “multi-lateralism.” In this sense, the Wilsonians are the most hypocritical of all the four groups.

The Wilsonians favour democracy in other nations, only when such democracy is guaranteed to be dominated by essentially pro-American parties who will toe the American line when it comes to making policy. They are intolerant of democratic systems which could potentially be dominated by independent parties who put their own national interest ahead of America’s.

In this sense, Wilsonians are the most likely group to be anti-India. They are relatively happy with Manmohan Singh because of his willingness to accommodate American interests; but they are deeply distrustful of Indian babudom, and they are completely against nationalist Indian parties like the BJP.

In fact, even though they claim to stand for “democracy”, Wilsonians prefer dictatorships that can be successfully manipulated by America, to democratic countries that are independent enough to oppose America. The Wilsonian path to American global dominance involves “balance of power” games which essentially amount to divide-and-rule. The Wilsonians see America as the true legates of the British Empire, even though they would like to couch their subsidiary alliances in the guise of “independent democratic regimes” that only seek the leadership of America because America is morally superior.

One important thing to realize about the Wilsonians is that, since the end of the Cold War, they have actually split into two competing camps.

As long as the Cold War was in progress, Wilsonians were more or less united in seeing international Communism, specifically Soviet Communism, as the chief obstacle to ideological dominance of the world by the United States. Henry Kissinger could be described as the archetypal old-school, Cold-War-Era Wilsonian.

However, following the USSR’s collapse, there is disagreement among the two camps of Wilsonians as to what America’s priorities should be.

These two camps of Wilsonians can be broadly described as:

2A) The “Bush Wilsonians”, also commonly known as “Neoconservatives”, who gained prominence during the George W. Bush regime. They include Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rice, as well as lower-profile figures such as Robert Blackwill. Think-tanks of the Bush-Wilsonian persuasion include the CATO institute, the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the Project for a New American Century.

The term “Neoconservative” is actually a misnomer for this group, because they are actually less conservative than the other camp. They sought to radically reconstruct the American foreign policy establishment’s view of the world following the end of the Cold War.

From the Bush-Wilsonian perspective, the demise of the Soviet Union was the start of a brand new era in which America had a unique opportunity as the sole superpower to shape the world for domination. Ideologically, the Bush-Wilsonians subscribe to the notion that America must be the unilateral forerunner of Western civilization, inspired by a Judeo-Christian (mainly Christian) perspective.

They deviate from the old-school, Cold-War-Era Wilsonians in no longer seeing Russia as the chief threat to the United States, and rejecting the idea that American dominance must be pursued multilaterally through such organizations as the UN.

The Bush-Wilsonians regard China as the major future threat to the United States, followed closely by international Islamism. They are fervent supporters of Israel, owing to a strongly Biblical ideology.

As a means to ensuring American global dominance, the Bush-Wilsonians have sought to reconstruct the geopolitical framework of alliances and strategic partnerships that prevailed during the Cold War. They have tried to rope in India into the American camp by offering such carrots as the Indo-US Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement. They have also strengthened America’s ties with former Soviet Bloc nations in Eastern Europe, bringing Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia into NATO.

On the other hand, the Bush-Wilsonians have downgraded the American reliance on allies in Continental Western Europe, which they dismissively describe as “Old Europe”, even as they have sought to shore up a few key alliances of the Cold-War Era such as with the UK, Australia, and Japan.

Similarly, they have made some moves towards engaging Russia as a potential strategic partner rather than a competitor, especially in light of the challenges Russia appeared to be facing from a resurgent China and from Islamist terrorism in the early 2000s.

However, their approach to Russia has been wary, and often contradictory, as seen in the American support for the “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine, American initiatives to station missiles in East European countries such as Poland, and American backing of such individuals as Georgia’s Shakashvili who were belligerently anti-Russian. In such cases, some of the old-school Cold-War-Era Wilsonian prejudices seemed to re-establish themselves with regard to Bush-Wilsonian foreign policy.

These contradictions also manifested themselves when, after invading Afghanistan, the Bush-Wilsonians decided to rely on Pakistan as an ally against the Taliban, with fatal consequences.

The highlight of the Bush-Wilsonians’ dominance over the US Foreign Policy Establishment was of course, the Iraq War… something which has ended up destroying their credibility for the present.

As far as India is concerned, the Bush-Wilsonians have made overtures to India that sharply contrasted with the dismissive attitude of the Cold-War-Era Wilsonians. However, the growth of predatory Evangelical missionary activity as Washington’s influence increased in Delhi during the Bush administration, is a warning sign that not all was well with US-India relations during this period. Additionally, the Bush-Wilsonians have repeatedly insisted that India “prove” its sincerity towards Washington, by downgrading its relationship with Iran for example.

When and if the Bush-Wilsonians regain their influence in Washington, India should game them deftly… securing all the benefits we can from their willingness to abandon Cold-War Era policy, but remaining careful not to cede an undue level of influence that might prove to be detrimental to our national and civilizational interests.

2B) The second camp of Wilsonians that has emerged following the USSR’s demise are the “Clinton-Wilsonians.” They are actually more conservative than the Bush-Wilsonian “Neoconservatives”, in that their attitudes more closely reflect the classical Cold-War-Era Wilsonians’ worldview.

The Clinton-Wilsonians are the closest group to what Sanjay M likes to call “Atlanticists”. They are deeply distrustful of Russia, and less averse to China; they are also strongly invested in the idea of revitalizing the trans-Atlantic alliances with Western Europe that America maintained during the Cold War. For the rest of the world, the Clinton-Wilsonians firmly trust in the British techniques of divide-et-impera, and in our region in particular, they are the modern torchbearers of Olaf Caroe’s geopolitical agenda. They are more likely than any of the other groups to entertain the idea that Jihadi Islamism can continue to be a coercive policy tool in America's hands.

(Aside: However, I don't believe that this necessarily has anything to do with the “East European ethnic background” of Clinton-Wilsonians. True, some high-profile members of this camp, such as Zbigniew Brzezinski and Madeline Albright, are of East European extraction. However, many others of this camp are not ethnic East Europeans, and besides, all the other policy groups in Walter Russell Meade’s spectrum also include a good number of ethnic East Europeans, which makes the correlation doubtful.)

Think-tanks of the Clinton-Wilsonian persuasion include the Brookings Institution and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Most of the Non-Proliferation types who bash India while ignoring Chinese/Paki proliferation, are Clinton-Wilsonians.

The Clinton-Wilsonians showed their eagerness to reshape the world in America’s favour following the end of the Cold War, most prominently in two instances. One was the war in Yugoslavia, which was deliberately split up into ethnic nationalities, providing additional levers of control that the West could easily manipulate. The second was the secession of East Timor from Indonesia.

In both of these cases, it should be noted that the Clinton-Wilsonians proceeded to fulfill their agenda under the cover of “international consensus”, using the UN to pull together “coalitions” of nations which supported the American initiative. This modus operandi is a key point of differentiation between Clinton-Wilsonians from Bush-Wilsonians, who have been much more prone to reject the authority of multilateral bodies like the UN and carry out unilateral actions such as the Iraq war.

As far as India is concerned, the Clinton-Wilsonians (who include such functionaries as Strobe Talbott, Richard Holbrooke and Robin Raphel) are an inflexible, implacable enemy. This is the single worst group that could come to dominate US foreign policy, from our point of view. They continue the most anti-India traditions of the Cold-War-Era Wilsonians, supporting Pakistan to the maximum extent possible and winking at Chinese nuclear proliferation to Pakistan, even while they bash India for developing its own nuclear arsenal. They refuse to see India as a potential strategic counter to China, and prefer to cultivate China in a “G2” model of cooperative partnership for the short-to-medium term.

The Clinton-Wilsonians are the group who most fervently support Pakistan as a counter to India’s regional dominance, as described in George Friedman’s Stratfor article. They are the most likely group to retain the India-Pakistan hyphen wherever possible, bombard India with equal-equal psyops, and overtly rake up the Kashmir issue as a pressure point against India. They seek to restrict Indian influence to a sub-dominant level even within the “South Asian” region. This is in sharp contrast to the Bush-Wilsonians who made some attempt to dehyphenate India and Pakistan, with a view to bolstering India as strategic rival against China.

I do not see how the Clinton-Wilsonians can be won over… when they are in charge of US foreign policy, it makes more sense for India to engage with other powerful interest groups such as the Hamiltonians so as the modulate the virulence of the Clinton-Wilsonians’ initiatives against India.

Speaking of Wilsonians in general, Lyndon Johnson (who began the Vietnam war) was a classic Wilsonian president, as was his successor Richard Nixon (who reached out to China via Pakistan to form an alliance against the Soviet Union). This is an illustration of how the policy groups of Meade’s spectrum can often cut across Republican/Democrat party lines.

More recently, Bill Clinton has been a Wilsonian president who was, however, always careful to secure the backing of the Hamiltonians (whose power greatly increased during the Reagan years.)

It should be noted that there are many in the US Foreign Policy Establishment who do not fully commit to either the Bush-Wilsonian or Clinton-Wilsonian camps. Robert Gates is one such. Other examples include academics like Stephen Cohen and Christine Fair, who pretend to an independent "maverick" image but in reality always make statements that are in line with the Wilsonian flavour-of-the-month in Washington.

3) The Jeffersonians, compared to the Hamiltonians or Wilsonians, are decidedly inward-looking. They believe in a largely non-interventionist foreign policy, and in concentrating resources on domestic reforms.

Of the four groups of Meade’s spectrum, the Jeffersonians are most inclined to oppose the rise of the “military-industrial complex”… something that Eisenhower famously warned against as he was leaving office, and which is an important source of political influence for both Hamiltonians and Wilsonians.

As I mentioned earlier, many common Americans are either Jeffersonian or Jacksonian in their outlook. If you talk to an American about the India-Pakistan situation and he says something like “sort it out yourselves, it’s none of our business”… that American is most likely a Jeffersonian.

The typical Jeffersonian is to the “left” of the American political spectrum, upholding traditional “liberal” ideas such as increased Federal Government involvement in social and economic development, upliftment of underprivileged sections, civil rights, environmental conservationism, regulation of corporations, global initiatives against poverty/disease/global warming and so on. Such politicians as Dennis Kucinich are at the extreme left of this group.

However, not all Jeffersonians are leftist. Libertarian Isolationists such as Ross Perot and Ron Paul, who believe in a Fortress America model where the US military is exclusively employed to guard America’s borders and enforce illegal immigration laws, also purvey an essentially Jeffersonian foreign policy.

As such, the Jeffersonian attitude towards India tends to be neutral… but this is largely irrelevant. That is because Jeffersonian Presidents tend to hand over control of foreign policy to Wilsonians. Jimmy Carter relied on Cold-War-Era Brzezinski, and Barack Obama relies on Clinton-Wilsonians such as Joe Biden, Richard Holbrooke and co. with Brzezinski still present as a mentor-figure. The advantage India has today is that it has cultivated a constituency with the Hamiltonians, who are much more powerful at present than they were during the Carter regime. With the Bush-Wilsonians largely in disgrace, the Hamiltonians are our primary channel of influencing American foreign policy in a positive manner at present.

4) The Jacksonians are also, primarily inward-looking, though they differ dramatically from the Jeffersonians in their domestic policy agenda. While the Jeffersonians tend to be idealists, the Jacksonians are fervent populists. In the tradition of Andrew Jackson, they stand for increased power of the executive branch (the President) relative to the legislature or judiciary; limited federal government role and in the affairs of the country, the “patronage” policy of actively placing political supporters into appointed offices, expanded states’ rights and decentralization.

Also in the tradition of Andrew Jackson, who pledged to expand the United States “from sea to shining sea”, the Jacksonians believe in America’s Manifest Destiny as the natural leader of the world and in securing America’s influence overseas by any means necessary… not shying away from unilateral military action whenever required.

Some articles on Meade’s spectrum describe Jacksonians as the only group that believes in American Exceptionalism. From an Indian point of view, this is not strictly true… ALL the four groups believe in American Exceptionalism… but the Jacksonians are the ones who most prominently wear it on their sleeves.

Jacksonians tend to be issue-based in their politics, rallying around anti-abortion movements, restriction of gay rights, defence of second-amendment gun rights, unapologetic Christian influence in schools and government institutions etc.

Jacksonians, unlike Jeffersonians, do not make “non-intervention” a cornerstone of their foreign policy views; they are quite happy to intervene in a muscular fashion whenever they deem it necessary to do so. However, their perspective is largely focused on internal priorities, so again, Jacksonian Presidents of the United States have traditionally handed over control of foreign policy to other groups. Reagan depended on Hamiltonians like James Baker and Cold-War-Era Wilsonians such as Alexander Haig. George W. Bush also depended on Hamiltonians, but ceded a large amount of policy space to the new Bush-Wilsonians or Neoconservatives of his day.

***

In conclusion, is not easy to identify any one of these groups as the “best” from India’s point of view.

Also, it is important to realize that no one group typically has complete dominance over a particular US administration’s foreign policy. The actual policy is often a vector sum of competing influences brought together by political expediency and self-interest.

For example, Clinton’s initiatives were planned by Clinton-Wilsonians but strongly modified to accommodate Hamiltonian interests (which became extremely powerful during the Reagan years.)

Bush’s Iraq War was a Bush-Wilsonian policy initiative to bring an American-controlled “democratic” regime change to Iraq. But to enact it, the Bush administration relied on support from both Hamiltonians (interest in the oil fields of Iraq) and Jacksonians (strong popular opposition to Islamism following 9/11.)

Obama is a Jeffersonian who is torn between his Jeffersonian electoral base, which favours a withdrawal from Afghanistan, and a Clinton-Wilsonian foreign policy establishment, which pursues a flawed policy based on alliance with Pakistan and negotiations with “good” Taliban.

It seems clear that the Clinton-Wilsonians are the most implacable foes of India among all these groups.

Others, particularly Bush-Wilsonians and Hamiltonians, can be engaged on some specific points of convergent interest, but must be handled carefully because other aspects of their agendas are inimical to Indian interest.

Ultimately, a Jacksonian President is perhaps most likely to nuke Pakistan or take a confrontationalist posture towards China… but depending on various factors, the specific circumstances and consequences may or may not be in India’s interest.. We will have to be quick on our feet to translate any advantage out of such situations.

And finally, if India ever rises beyond the confines of the region to the beginnings of global superpowerdom… probably our best bet is for the United States to follow a Jeffersonian line of limited intervention, leaving a power vacuum that we can endeavour to fill.

To close, let me propose (tongue in cheek)… the Indian equivalents of the W.R. Meade spectrum.

Hamiltonian—Narasimhavadi (for PVNR)
Wilsonian—Indiravadi
Jeffersonian—Jawaharlalvadi
Jacksonian—Thackerayvadi!

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 08 Aug 2010 13:29

abhishek_sharma wrote:U.S. Senator: Infosys is a ‘Chop Shop’

http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2010 ... chop-shop/

From the above article comments:

I have a solid six figure salary IT role in an area that none of the Asian countries will crack for at least 20 years. I have a son that is considering a career in IT and my main strategy for him is to educate how the unethical Asian companies lie, cheat and do almost anything short of murder to get business. He is following in my footsteps where the Asians have no chance of being competitive for a long time.

Here we have another gora or paki (or both) claiming an irrefutable upper hand in technology strategy.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 08 Aug 2010 16:05

Rudradev ji,

thank you for a great piece!

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 08 Aug 2010 20:53

Just check the comments on this youtube regarding US by Indians.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCwJ9JYZz2o
A large scale military rehearsal lights up the skies in India.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 08 Aug 2010 21:34

Rudradev wrote:If we’re really serious about analyzing the dynamics between ideological groups that determine US foreign policy, let’s begin with a taxonomy based on existing scholarship. IMHO this would be far more useful than trying to come up with nomenclatures of our own based on pet theories and very limited observations.

Excellent piece.
Did you notice the small text at the bottom

Further Reading
Walter Russell Meade, and a number of other individuals, have written quite a bit on these concepts. The original introduction of these schools of thought was in Meade’s "Special Providence", published in early 2002. An interesting point to note is that Meade finished writing the book in July, 2001, but he makes some very prescient comments about subsequent events, including the reaction to the events of Sept. 11, 2001.

He waited until 911 to publish the book.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 08 Aug 2010 23:35

Rudradev wrote:2B) The second camp of Wilsonians that has emerged following the USSR’s demise are the “Clinton-Wilsonians.” They are actually more conservative than the Bush-Wilsonian “Neoconservatives”, in that their attitudes more closely reflect the classical Cold-War-Era Wilsonians’ worldview.

The Clinton-Wilsonians are the closest group to what Sanjay M likes to call “Atlanticists”. They are deeply distrustful of Russia, and less averse to China; they are also strongly invested in the idea of revitalizing the trans-Atlantic alliances with Western Europe that America maintained during the Cold War. For the rest of the world, the Clinton-Wilsonians firmly trust in the British techniques of divide-et-impera, and in our region in particular, they are the modern torchbearers of Olaf Caroe’s geopolitical agenda. They are more likely than any of the other groups to entertain the idea that Jihadi Islamism can continue to be a coercive policy tool in America's hands.

(Aside: However, I don't believe that this necessarily has anything to do with the “East European ethnic background” of Clinton-Wilsonians. True, some high-profile members of this camp, such as Zbigniew Brzezinski and Madeline Albright, are of East European extraction. However, many others of this camp are not ethnic East Europeans, and besides, all the other policy groups in Walter Russell Meade’s spectrum also include a good number of ethnic East Europeans, which makes the correlation doubtful.)

Congratulations on increasing much-needed discussion to an important topic!
However your observations of my views are somewhat limited.

Just to clarify, I DO NOT consider the Atlanticists to be primarily composed of East Europeans - actually East Europeans are merely the latest additions to the long line of Atlanticists, which date back to the British lobby. Clearly the torch of Atlanticism has been gradually passed eastward, as the frontiers of European conflict have moved eastward. Previously, during the WW1-WW2 period, the Anglo-American lobby were the main proponents of Atlanticism, while the German community in the US were very much against US involvement in Europe. We all remember the famous anti-war speeches by Charles Lindhberg, the celebrated American of German descent. Italian-Americans were vociferous opponents of US involvement in WW2.
Obviously, during the ColdWar era that followed WW2, groups like Germans, Italians, Poles, Hungarians, etc then became strongly Atlanticist - and everyone was ganged up against Russia. The powerful influence of the Roman Catholic Church has obviously played a huge role in extending Atlanticism beyond the borders of Europe.

The tipping point for India was when Nixon visited China to open up relations between the 2 countries, and then Pakistan was subsequently enlisted as the primary dagger to plunge into the Soviet underbelly, with all its attendant spillover damage against us. It was during this period that China began its powerful turnaround from economic basketcase to modern powerhouse.

Even though China has now overtaken Russia as the prime threat to US supremacy, old habits die hard, and the Atlanticists and their momentum continue to persist. For many of them - particularly the new guard - the Russian threat is still alive and well, for which China and Islam are considered good counterweights.

However, for the old guard - eg. the Brits - their fortunes have taken a downturn with the rise of the new guard. Following German reunification, and the expansion of EU to include Eastern Europe (aka. "new Europe") the Brits have suffered steady marginalization, to the point where they may now be recognizing that it no longer serves their interests to remain in the Atlanticist camp. Unlike the pre-ColdWar era, the Brits no longer have a globe-spanning colonial empire to shore them up. They are rapidly in danger of degenerating into a European backwater. They've long since lost their ability to compete in manufacturing, and have recently seen their dreams gutted in the world of finance.

An increasingly desperate Britain is then anxiously looking around to reinvent itself and thrust itself in a new direction.
I can't see the British giving seriously greater preference to India over China, since there's no long term reason for the Brits not to do business with both. The fact that we speak a common language and share some history, as well as India's relatively unopened market, only makes us a better near-term opportunity for them.

As the Brits leave the Atlanticist camp to strike out on their own, they will be aggressively looking to suck up to their former colonies, who now represent their best opportunities. If the Brits try to resurrect the Commonwealth as a more powerful trading bloc, then it would be better for us to insist that Pakistan be kept out, or at least let us insist that rules of trade be structured to put Pakistan at a serious disadvantage, so that it feels no great incentive to join.

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 09 Aug 2010 01:54

Just to clarify, I DO NOT consider the Atlanticists to be primarily composed of East Europeans - actually East Europeans are merely the latest additions to the long line of Atlanticists, which date back to the British lobby. Clearly the torch of Atlanticism has been gradually passed eastward, as the frontiers of European conflict have moved eastward.

It seems that what you are calling "Atlanticists" are in fact the Wilsonians of Meade's spectrum. It was Woodrow Wilson who, in his second term, ended Monrovian isolationism and brought the United States into the First World War, setting the precedent for the transatlantic policy of the US government for the twentieth century.

Following World War II, it was these same Wilsonians who relied on the transatlantic relationship to build ideological buffers against Soviet expansion. Nixon (under Kissinger's guidance) extended this policy from the classical theatre of Western Europe to include China. Brzezinski further extended it to include Islamism as a potential buffer against the Soviets. These were all initiatives by classic, Cold-War-Era Wilsonians.

However, it is important to realize that a schism took place within the Wilsonian camp at the end of the Cold War. It would be inaccurate to describe the phenomenon as one continuous movement whose torch has passed from the days of the early-20th century transatlantic relationship to the present, because when the USSR collapsed, Wilsonians essentially divided into two camps... the Clinton-Wilsonians and the Bush-Wilsonians or "Neoconservatives."

Both of these groups have very clearly defined, and sharply conflicting viewpoints on the world today... and very different views on how to achieve the ideological expansion that is the cornerstone of Wilsonian foreign policy.

The tipping point for India was when Nixon visited China to open up relations between the 2 countries, and then Pakistan was subsequently enlisted as the primary dagger to plunge into the Soviet underbelly, with all its attendant spillover damage against us.

The enlistment of Pakistan by the Wilsonians goes much further back than 1971-72. Pakistan was engendered by the British as a bulwark against Soviet expansionism, and brought into the Baghdad pact in 1955 as a formalization of this purpose. American U2s had been flying out of Peshawar and spying on the Soviet Union since at least 1960. But Nixon's Wilsonian initiatives did compound the problem from India's point of view.

Previously, during the WW1-WW2 period, the Anglo-American lobby were the main proponents of Atlanticism, while the German community in the US were very much against US involvement in Europe. We all remember the famous anti-war speeches by Charles Lindhberg, the celebrated American of German descent. Italian-Americans were vociferous opponents of US involvement in WW2.

I agree in general... though there is an important point of distinction between the German-American and Italian-American communities' political views here.

Germans had been in the United States for centuries by the time WW2 broke out. In fact, when the US was founded in 1776, English won out over German very narrowly as the new country's official language!

By the 1930s, German-Americans were primarily agriculturists and landowners who inhabited large areas of the Midwest including Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan (where Charles Lindbergh was from) and eastwards up to Ohio and Pennsylvania. Their attitudes were essentially Jacksonian, though they sought common cause with the Jeffersonians to purvey a non-interventionist stance during WW2. Lindbergh's involvement with the America First Party, a quintessentially Jacksonian institution, bears witness to this.

Italians, on the other hand, were relatively recent arrivals in the United States, and had mostly immigrated in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They did not own land by and large, but inhabited the cities of the East Coast for the most part... and because of this, they relied largely on the (mostly Democratic) party machines of those cities which took up their interests, found them jobs and housing, etc. In the early 20th century, the Democratic party in urban America tried to cultivate constituencies among new immigrants, much as Kangress has tried to do by taking up Bangladeshi immigrants' causes in recent decades in India.

Italian-Americans may have had some sympathies towards Italy initially, but this was largely overcome by their domestic concerns and loyalty to the urban Democratic party machines who had taken up their cause. By and large, Italians, Poles and Irish of the WW2 generation were devotees of Franklin Roosevelt whose foreign-policy attitudes were firmly Wilsonian. Thus, even though some Italians in the United States were interned by the government in the 1941-42 period, a very large number of Italian-Americans ended up serving in the US armed forces during WW2.

Even though China has now overtaken Russia as the prime threat to US supremacy, old habits die hard, and the Atlanticists and their momentum continue to persist. For many of them - particularly the new guard - the Russian threat is still alive and well, for which China and Islam are considered good counterweights.

Again, in light of the clear division that has emerged among Wilsonians following the end of the Cold War, I believe it is inaccurate to view this phenomenon in light of one continuous "Atlanticist" tradition (not sure if that is what you are implying, but it is what I glean from your post.)

Not all Wilsonians of the old school became Clinton-Wilsonians retaining an overwhelmingly Russo-centric perspective... for example, Brzezinski did, but Kissinger did not. Kissinger was initially the ideological godfather of the "Vulcans", or neoconservative Bush-Wilsonians; but being a wily character, Kissinger distanced himself from the Bush-Wilsonians when their policy initiatives, such as the Iraq war, began to fall apart.

The schism between the Clinton-Wilsonians and Bush-Wilsonians represents the single most significant divergence of US foreign policy opinions from the modern Indian point of view. They both derive from a common set of beliefs and traditions... Wilsonian... but they have evolved along two very different paths since 1990. It is crucially important that we understand this, and employ it as leverage in our dealings with the United States.

However, for the old guard - eg. the Brits - their fortunes have taken a downturn with the rise of the new guard. Following German reunification, and the expansion of EU to include Eastern Europe (aka. "new Europe") the Brits have suffered steady marginalization, to the point where they may now be recognizing that it no longer serves their interests to remain in the Atlanticist camp.

What we saw with the UK since the split in the Wilsonian camp emerged, is that the Clinton-Wilsonians tended to treat the UK on par with America's other allies in Western Europe, rather than as a unique ally which enjoyed a special relationship with Washington over and above the other countries of Western Europe.

For example, in the Yugoslav war, it was the Germans rather than the British who most strongly favoured US/NATO intervention in line with the Clinton-Wilsonians' initiative. The British by and large did not oppose it, and were willing to become involved; however, in the process of their involvement with IFOR, the British saw themselves becoming subsumed into a pan-Western-European alliance and sending in troops to fight for an American initiative that primarily served the interests of continental Europe rather than of the UK itself.

The UK was now less a "special ally" of Washington and more "one of the coalition", part of a group that included Berlin and Paris sitting at the high table with a status at least equal to that of London. This happened in the context of recent German unification, a phenomenon which shifted the political and economic centre of gravity in Western Europe deeper towards the centre of the continent.

To make matters worse, it appeared that the US wanted to expand NATO further eastwards, and include former Soviet-Bloc countries... this would shift the centre of gravity even further into continental Europe, and compound the marginalization of Britain even more.

All these factors greatly disturbed the British, who actually relied on a special relationship with Washington to balance out the emerging influence of a consolidating European Union in which the Germans were likely to become the top dog.

When the Bush-Wilsonians initiated the Iraq war, European powers like France and Germany refused to become involved on the American side. The UK seized this as an opportunity to re-establish its "special relationship" with Washington. They eagerly sent troops into Iraq to fight alongside the Americans. Unfortunately for the British, this had disastrous results, and ultimately contributed to the demise of the Tony Blair government.

Today the New Labourites in Britain, who had thrown in their lot with the Bush-Wilsonians of America, have been disgraced by the disaster in Iraq and have gone into hiatus.

The present coalition government in London includes the Tories, who fervently oppose both consolidation with the EU (as the Clinton-Wilsonians would want) and Blair-style appeasement of Washington (as the Bush-Wilsonians would want.) However, it also includes the Liberal party, who very much support further integration with the EU (as the Clinton-Wilsonians would want)! So there is a strong potential for emerging policy conflict here.

This is why, as you correctly point out, the UK is trying to come up with a refurbished foreign policy that seeks out new allies, and will very likely tap into its old commonwealth for the purpose of restoring its international influence on a platform independent of Washington. Then they can go back to the table at Washington with something more to offer the Americans than their own blood and treasure, which they are now spilling in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If the Brits try to resurrect the Commonwealth as a more powerful trading bloc, then it would be better for us to insist that Pakistan be kept out, or at least let us insist that rules of trade be structured to put Pakistan at a serious disadvantage, so that it feels no great incentive to join.

I agree with this, though as it appears, Pakistan has nothing to offer any trading bloc by its presence, so we may not have to try very hard to exclude it! In fact, that is why Cameron may have been so outspoken against Pakistani terrorism while visiting India. He sees an emerging UK-India relationship as key to establishing a new alliance that refurbishes Britain's international influence independent of both Washington and the EU. It is interesting that he kept using the term "special relationship with India"... it is as if Cameron wants to replace the erstwhile special relationship between Washington and London, with another one that features London playing Washington's role and New Delhi playing London's role!

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 09 Aug 2010 02:27

Ancient Chinese proverb

"Calling things by the right name is the beginning of wisdom!"

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 09 Aug 2010 03:47

German almost becoming US national language is a myth.

http://german.about.com/library/weekly/aa010820a.htm
http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/german.asp

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 09 Aug 2010 03:57

I stand corrected on that idea, though I have not made any claim regarding "German losing to English by one vote" as your links refer to. I always thought that idea was a touch too dramatic to have any factual basis.

But it does turn out to have at least a partial basis.

Pennsylvania was, in a sense, the "UP" of the early United States, having a large population and serving as the breadbasket of the original 13 colonies, as well as being geographically the political centre of gravity around the time of independence.

The United States actually had no federally-mandated official language, with English being the de-facto lingua franca in which law and government communications are conducted. Pennsylvania has always had a very significant German population, since the 1680s. In the 1790s, Pennsylvania residents brought a US House of Representatives motion by to have legal and government documents transcribed into German, which lost by a 42-41 vote. Note that this happened in the US H of R, not in the Pennsylvania state legislature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhlenberg_legend

Regardless, it remains the case that the German-American population has been significant in the US for at least two centuries longer than the Italian-American one, and followed a distinct political path during WW2.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 09 Aug 2010 06:03

Yes, I have certainly identified Wilsonians with Atlanticism in previous comments on various occasions.

I think that when John Major's Tory campaign advisors worked for Bush Sr's re-election campaign, this was probably a high watermark of Anglo-American closeness. The Clinton Democrats seemed to hold a grudge against them for that, and later on James Carville and Democrat campaign advisors then returned the favour by helping Blair's election campaign win office.

Clinton and Blair seemed to work closely on the Yugoslavia war, again showing the primacy of Anglo-Americanism. But when Blair tried to carry that over to Bush and his ill-conceived war in Iraq, then things went off the rails. Things only deteriorated further under Brown, and now Cameron finds himself dealing with the mess.

I don't think Britain has the direct international clout anymore to deal with India the way Washington has behaved with London. But consider this - the Brits do have the technological capability to help build up India's infrastructure, along with a centuries-earned social/cultural/cultural knowledge of India to avoid stepping on too many toes in the process. They have an intimate familiarity with how Indians think. It is their social/political/cultural deftness and adroitness which could allow them to penetrate farther into India than other international competitors. I'm certain they would do leagues better than the Japanese, whose own cultural cluelessness about India gives them far more caution than agility.

If the Brits can help to break political gridlock in India to accelerate our economic and infrastructural development, then I think we should welcome them. In the process they'll reap the rewards of a large and hitherto untapped market.

If Britain's leap of faith beyond the Atlanticist camp achieves a successful landing, then the EU's days may be numbered (as if they aren't already!)
With Britain's age-old experience as a globe-spanning empire, they may be fated to re-write the rules of the international order yet again.

(X-Posting this to India-UK thread)

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 09 Aug 2010 07:21

Rudradev wrote:Hamiltonian, Wilsonian, Jeffersonian and Jacksonian

For the past 100 years or more the US has been controlled by Jewish elites. See http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... =24&t=5525

ramana wrote:Ancient Chinese proverb

"Calling things by the right name is the beginning of wisdom!"

True!

Rudradev · Post by **Rudradev** » 09 Aug 2010 07:54

Pranav wrote:
Rudradev wrote:Hamiltonian, Wilsonian, Jeffersonian and Jacksonian
For the past 100 years or more the US has been controlled by Jewish elites. See http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... =24&t=5525
!

Many elite interests are there, operating behind the scenes though these four policy groups. After all, the majority of the American people are personally Jeffersonian or Jacksonian... but to date, no President has been able to make his policies independent of Hamiltonian or Wilsonian influence, even though these latter two groups have little "mass" base. So obviously there are other things than electoral demographics at play in determining the policies of GOTUS.

If you look at the mass media now, you will see that the "left-wing" or "liberal" media consists of Clinton-Wilsonians broadcasting their propaganda to aam-janata Jeffersonians.

Meanwhile, the "conservative" media consists of Hamiltonians and Bush-Wilsonians broadcasting their propaganda to aam-janata Jacksonians!

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 09 Aug 2010 08:36

China hits out at U.S. “double standards”

Like the U.S.-India civilian nuclear deal, this deal, too, has been perceived in China as part of a greater American “containment” strategy. “[The deal] means the U.S. is strengthening cooperation with Vietnam to contain China,” said Fan Jishe, a researcher of the Institute of American Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, in an interview with the official China Daily. “To Washington, the geo-strategic consideration has surpassed nuclear non-proliferation.”

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 10 Aug 2010 03:03

One more evidence to show, when the time comes both Democrats and Republicans get together to protect American interests: http://www.businessweek.com/blogs/eyeon ... rcers.html

How unpopular are Indian outsourcing companies from India in the U.S.? They can manage to unite squabbling Democrats and Republicans in the Senate. With the GOP filibustering most of the time, it’s news when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his Democratic colleagues manage to get 60 votes to pass anything at all. Getting all 100 Senators to vote unanimously on a bill is near miraculous. On Thursday, though, the Senate unanimously passed a bill sponsored by New York’s Chuck Schumer to increase visa fees on companies that send workers to the U.S. if more than half of their America-based employees use work visas. In other words, Indian IT outsourcing companies.

Even some Western "journalists" do not agree calling Indian IT companies as "chop shops". But the bill passed the Senate, now in the House.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 10 Aug 2010 03:11

Hey, everybody likes to predict. Why not me, eh? With the mid-term US elections, USA is going to play hard ball with India. So that when Obama visits India, Indian leaderships have been prepared well enough to come out wailing. Pakistan plays hard ball with USA and gets its job done. USA plays hard ball with India and will get its job done. Indian PM will say "all the sake of eCONomy onlee".

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Aug 2010 03:14

Your selective capitalization has been duly noted! Any way lets see.

ravit · Post by **ravit** » 10 Aug 2010 13:30

AI seeks $1bn compensation from Boeing

However the move has not gone down well with Washington. The US government is now reportedly pressurising the Indian government to take a softer line.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 10 Aug 2010 17:54

Ramana garu: That is because of the law of unintended consequences. I use that capitalization in the economic perspective dhaaga as well. Sometimes habits carry over to other threads too

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 10 Aug 2010 19:57

US pushes defence as 'central pillar' in ties

as India and the US prepare for Obama’s four-day India visit, Washington DC is pushing New Delhi to recognise that "defence cooperation is the central pillar" in the expanding bilateral partnership, the president of the US-India Business Council Ron Somers said.

According to Somers, deeper defence collaboration would not only generate thousands of jobs in India and the US (because of India’s offset policy), but would also signal that the US is no longer an "unreliable supplier of defence goods as well as open up technological collaboration" in every sector.

Defence Minister A K Antony is visiting Washington DC towards the end of September, and even though India typically shies away from concluding defence deals during political visits, many Americans feel it’s high time India compensates the US for the "heavy-lifting" it performed by pushing through the Indo-US civil nuclear deal from 2005-2008.

But since the jewel in the crown of the Indian defence market — a 126-fighter jet order for the IAF’s Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) worth $11 billion — is not going to be decided by the time Obama visits India, the US government is hoping that India will also favour Honeywell’s F125IN thrust class engine over Rolls Royce’s Adour MK 821engine for its Jaguar fleet.

"An enhanced defence relationship is of huge symbolic importance," one US official said, adding, "it sends a powerful political message on the marriage of doctrine and strategy."

Indian officials admitted that although Russia continued to supply 70 per cent of the IAF’s hardware, the MMRCA deal was significant not only because of the large number of new fighter jets IAF would buy, but because entire platforms worth many more billions would have to be purchased so as to sustain the proper use and maintenance of the jets. But the US officials also admitted that the heightened interest in selling sensitive defence equipment to India was not limited to "transactional gains", but was also impelled by shifting strategic considerations in other parts of Asia.

The officials were not willing to name either Pakistan — despite the exposes by Wikileaks of Pakistan’s "double-game" on the AfPak warfront — or China’s recent belligerence in the Yellow Sea as serious causes of concern, but it’s clear that for the first time since the Obama administration came to power, the US is both confused and bewildered about the manner in which it should confront China’s rising power or Pakistan’s blunt blackmail.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 11 Aug 2010 01:39

India, U.S. review defence cooperation

http://www.hindu.com/2010/08/11/stories ... 321200.htm

Maintaining that the U.S. viewed India as a “natural partner,” the Pentagon official indicated Washington's wish list vis-à-vis New Delhi in the area of defence. It includes purchasing more American-origin defence equipment, “realistic” joint exercises and stepped up visits by Indian armed forces officers.

Ms. Flournoy described the three military agreements, which the U.S. has been pursuing with India, as “foundational” in nature. This is the same terminology she used while interacting with journalists in the U.S. last month. But during this interaction, she provided more details on why the U.S. wants India to ink the agreements despite having been cold shouldered on this count for nearly two years.

The three “foundational agreements” being offered have been inked with many close partners, and this has enabled the Pentagon to offer cutting edge defence technology. They also allow the U.S. to “share” the next higher level of technology. “It is not a requirement [for closer cooperation]. It is a choice of the government of India,” she clarified.

“Of course, economics is involved,” Ms. Flournoy said, while pointing out that the agreements and weapon purchases from the U.S. would fulfil its strategic aim of ensuring inter-operability in future and investing in a long term relationship.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 11 Aug 2010 01:46

^ As a first India must ask US to fulfill its wish list (posted somewhere in this thread as a precondition for considering SHs), before the relationship evolves into 2nd step. India must also tell that a friendship has to go thru seven progressive steps and pass an agnipareeksha before it can be labeled "true friendship".

Perhaps India should provide few copies of Ramayana and show the difference between the friendship of Rama/Sugriva and Ravana/Vali.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Aug 2010 02:12

shukla wrote:US pushes defence as 'central pillar' in ties
....

But since the jewel in the crown of the Indian defence market — a 126-fighter jet order for the IAF’s Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) worth $11 billion — is not going to be decided by the time Obama visits India, the US government is hoping that India will also favour Honeywell’s F125IN thrust class engine over Rolls Royce’s Adour MK 821engine for its Jaguar fleet.

"An enhanced defence relationship is of huge symbolic importance," one US official said, adding, "it sends a powerful political message on the marriage of doctrine and strategy."

Indian officials admitted that although Russia continued to supply 70 per cent of the IAF’s hardware, the MMRCA deal was significant not only because of the large number of new fighter jets IAF would buy, but because entire platforms worth many more billions would have to be purchased so as to sustain the proper use and maintenance of the jets. But the US officials also admitted that the heightened interest in selling sensitive defence equipment to India was not limited to "transactional gains", but was also impelled by shifting strategic considerations in other parts of Asia.

The officials were not willing to name either Pakistan — despite the exposes by Wikileaks of Pakistan’s "double-game" on the AfPak warfront — or China’s recent belligerence in the Yellow Sea as serious causes of concern, but it’s clear that for the first time since the Obama administration came to power, the US is both confused and bewildered about the manner in which it should confront China’s rising power or Pakistan’s blunt blackmail.

Actually sinc both PRC and TSP are India's challengers and are defacto allies of US, India by buying US goods will make itself subject to US pressure to curry favor with its now adversarial friends.
So all the more reason to buy elsewhere to preserve autonomy for even the US.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 11 Aug 2010 02:43

U.S. visa law discriminatory, says India

http://www.hindu.com/2010/08/11/stories ... 241200.htm

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 11 Aug 2010 02:45

^^^ I don't remember any friendship between Ravana and Vali.

Karan Dixit · Post by **Karan Dixit** » 11 Aug 2010 10:29

He pointed out that the Indian software industry was already deeply burdened in the absence of a totalisation agreement, requiring it to pay more than $1billion every year to the U.S. government in the form of social security, with no benefit or prospect of refund.

It is very dishonest to make expatriates pay social security tax when they are not going to retire in US. If someone is a green card holder then I can understand the need for social security tax. Or else, this is highly discriminatory. I bet they do not do this to expatriates from white countries.

Suraj · Post by **Suraj** » 11 Aug 2010 11:20

India US close to social security agreement

India and the US are close to clinching a long-pending agreement that will link the social security systems of both countries and thereby allow workers from each country to draw the benefits from their contributions.

In the absence of the totalization agreement, which is likely to be inked during President Barack Obama’s visit later this year, expatriate workers from each country forfeit their contributions if they do not meet the criteria.

“Earlier there was a deadlock on the agreement. The US was not very receptive about it. But now both the countries have agreed to share data by September giving details of Indian and US workers in the respective countries and their contributions,” said a senior government official who did not want to be named.

The ministry of overseas affairs, ministry of commerce and the department of information technology (IT) along with the US-India Information and Communication Technology working group, who have been pursuing the matter, have held meetings in the past one month to clear the decks before Obama’s visit.

ShivaS · Post by **ShivaS** » 11 Aug 2010 11:20

I had said in MRCA thread

Loosen Grippen
Dump Russian (MiG)
Defy American (F-18)
Buy French Fly Rafael