India-US Strategic News and Discussion

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 12 Nov 2010 12:51

yes peaceful G2 for now. but as we all know, one partner's power is increasing. will terms be renegotiated peacefully ? will the US 'hand over' asia to china or fight for it? in all such chummy relationships between two dons, there is eventually a breakdown over powersharing.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 12 Nov 2010 14:02

Pulikeshi wrote:And I thought actions speak louder than words!

They do, but not just that - sometimes for actions to be effective, words have to be silent.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 12 Nov 2010 14:53

i dont see the US and China collaborating too far, they each have the other's cojones in a pliers
delicate dance around for advantage

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 12 Nov 2010 15:23

Bill Clinton,who was allegedly funded by a Chinese general,whose daughter had prime "access" to the White House,is the man who let the PRC off the N-proliferation hook,allowing it to arm Pak with N-tech and BMs routing it through NoKo,is the man who struck a deal with the PRC whereby China would be the acknowledged "hegemon" of Asia,where US allies would remain "protectorates",with the rest of the region under Chinese influence.India,run by weakling leaders,as rightly said, was viewed as "a market of a billion people",nothing more.In the pecking order,relations with China comes first in Asia,Japan second,SoKo and the ANZACs making up the rear.India is way down on the list,with Pak above it."Teacher" US will treat us like schoolchildren,who from time to time will be either rewarded with sweets when we are obedient,or rapped on the knuckles when we sulk and disobey.Under NO circumstances are we allowed to retaliate against "class bully Pak",who has been made the "monitor" of our "class",just as the most troublesome kids in school are given some responsibility to keep them quiet,which includes all the countries of SAARC .If we hit back at bully Pak,we will be subject to the equivalent getting our ghoulies "squeezed" as was done after P-2.The big Q is whether India wishes to remain in the same "school".

China as local hegemon will keep on irritating the US,but the two are too large and powerful to enter into a spat which would wound them dearly.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 12 Nov 2010 16:05

Singha wrote: in all such chummy relationships between two dons, there is eventually a breakdown over powersharing.

True, but TILL that happens we have to assume that the Dons are playing good cop/bad cop with others.

Now WILL it ever happen --> US seems to be content to spread their wings (historically speaking) by co-opting others and rising along with them, they can dance with Nazi's, British and Japs all at the same time and fight with some of them later if needed for growth.

So unless China gets a bout of madness and wants all of it, I think the world is Big enough for US as well as China (at the cost of others) Only after their individual growths are checked by each other directly will a confrontation happen and even then it may be a Kabuki.

As of now US has grown into East Europe/Central Asia/Iraq at the cost of Bear, with China picking up Bear's erstwhile possessions in Africa and parts of Asia.

Abhi bahut kuch hai mil baat kar khane ke liye (lots to be shared still)

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 12 Nov 2010 18:14

The US and China are in the delicate American game called "Chicken"
In some sense the Chinese are refusing to play this...

By its very nature this is an anti-coordination game. Multiple strategies are possible.
Ashley is quite correct that the US does not need India for this game.

Folks suggesting that there is enough space for India and China and the US... etc...
are either unaware of geo-strategy or pretending to cooperate.
The multi-lateral game is going to one of limits, each power limited by other(s) or imposing limits on other(s)

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Nov 2010 20:03

Sanku, Its like the Zamindar(US and West) who maintains the goonda/dacoit (PRC) in the forest to make the villagers (India and others) run to his protection.

The game can be broken once the goonda gets trashed (economically, militarily or politically-culturally) in an ambush. The Zamindar will be forced to act on goonda side and expose himself or let the goonda get beat up.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 12 Nov 2010 21:43

Ramana to extend your analogy - the Zamindar is also playing a game of 'chicken' with the Dacoit.
The Zamindar can easily be replaced by the dacoit.

PS: This Zamindar is dealing with two dacoits... One can replace Zamindar, other uncurable...
if they gang together above may play out.

as always my two paisa for free!

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 12 Nov 2010 21:52

Lalmohan wrote:i dont see the US and China collaborating too far, they each have the other's cojones in a pliers
delicate dance around for advantage

The collaboration is by 'non collaboration'. Not to touch the other backyard needlessly and allow region of action for China such as south asia is part of this collaboration.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 12 Nov 2010 21:55

ramana wrote:Sanku, Its like the Zamindar(US and West) who maintains the goonda/dacoit (PRC) in the forest to make the villagers (India and others) run to his protection.

The game can be broken once the goonda gets trashed (economically, militarily or politically-culturally) in an ambush. The Zamindar will be forced to act on goonda side and expose himself or let the goonda get beat up.

The Zamindar can trash the goonda alone since major part of the Dacoit income comes from Zamindar and Zamindar has caught the Goonda in a trap. That is why this game is very interesting.
They could collaborate and keep the rest of the villagers under their control for a long time - say 100 years.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 12 Nov 2010 22:05

first sign will be to see how aggressively US shifts its low cost manufacturing procurement to mexico, other lat am, se asia and india

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 12 Nov 2010 22:08

^ This could be a open ended game...

Zamindar creates (in 1970s) the goonda and pushes public for Zamindar's protection
Zamindar and Goonda share the spoils
Goonda gets thrashed - Assuming public can get enough power and arms (legal?) {This is where end-use verification etc protocols become interesting}
Zamindar claims victory as he "empowered" the public
Public happy with Zamindar
Alternatively another Leader emerges
One of the Zamindar/Leader becomes the new Goonda in public perception
...
Unless both Zamindar and Goonda are pacified by the Public/Leader

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Nov 2010 22:12

Or Soros equalizes the currency values.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 13 Nov 2010 00:13

X-posted from Pres Obama visit thread.

Guys:

This morning on Diane Rehm show, they were talking about Obama's Asia visit. The entire focus was on G-20 meeting, and like the rest of US media, expcet for Glen Beck's and faux nooge mockery, there was hardly any coverage of Obama's India trip. Just to instigate the panelits a bit, I called in. You can listen to my question and responses thereof from about 26 mins 30 seconds onwards.

uddu · Post by **uddu** » 14 Nov 2010 07:10

In search of America's liberty and India's dharma

nvishal · Post by **nvishal** » 15 Nov 2010 12:17

ramana wrote:Sanku, Its like the Zamindar(US and West) who maintains the goonda/dacoit (PRC) in the forest to make the villagers (India and others) run to his protection.

The game can be broken once the goonda gets trashed (economically, militarily or politically-culturally) in an ambush. The Zamindar will be forced to act on goonda side and expose himself or let the goonda get beat up.

Excellent summary of the great game going on for the past few decades.

It was always on the back of my mind but never found the words to understand it correctly.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 15 Nov 2010 12:34

Lalmohan wrote:first sign will be to see how aggressively US shifts its low cost manufacturing procurement to mexico, other lat am, se asia and india

I am exploring El Salvador and the 7 countries around it. It looks like they are preparing themselves for this.
Koreans and Japanese have invested and they are setting up units here.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 15 Nov 2010 15:53

Vishal,where did you get that cartoon from? It's great...and sums up what we've been saying!

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 15 Nov 2010 18:18

We are a nation of pssyfooters..

Remember the guy who got on a plane with a bomb built into his shoe and tried to light it?

Did you know his trial is over?
Did you know he was sentenced?
Did you see/hear any of the Judge's comments on TV or Radio?

Didn't think so. A few people do know about it !!!

Everyone should hear what the Judge had to say.

Ruling by Judge William Young, US District Court.

Prior to sentencing, the Judge asked the defendant if he had anything to say. His response: After admitting his guilt to the court for the record, Reid also admitted his 'allegiance to Osama bin Laden, to Islam, and to the religion of Allah,' defiantly stating, 'I think I will not apologize for my actions,' and told the court 'I am at war with your country.'

Judge Young then delivered the statement quoted below:

January 30, 2003, United States vs. Reid.

Judge Young: 'Mr. Richard C. Reid, hearken now to the sentence the Court imposes upon you.

'On counts 1, 5 and 6 the Court sentences you to life in prison in the custody of the United States Attorney General. On counts 2, 3, 4 and 7, the Court sentences you to 20 years in prison on each count, the sentence on each count to run consecutively. (That's 80 years.)

'On count 8 the Court sentences you to the mandatory 30 years again, to be served consecutively to the 80 years just imposed. The Court imposes upon you for each of the eight counts a fine of $250,000 that's an aggregate fine of $2 million. The Court accepts the government's recommendation with respect to restitution and orders restitution in the amount of $298.17 to Andre Bousquet and $5,784 to American Airlines.

'The Court imposes upon you an $800 special assessment. The Court imposes upon you five years supervised release simply because the law requires it.. But the life sentences are real life sentences so I need go no further.

'This is the sentence that is provided for by our statutes. It is a fair and just sentence. It is a righteous sentence.

'Now, let me explain this to you. We are not afraid of you or any of your terrorist co-conspirators, Mr. Reid. We are Americans. We have been through the fire before. There is too much war talk here and I say that to everyone with the utmost respect. Here in this court, we deal with individuals as individuals and care for individuals as individuals. As human beings, we reach out for justice.

'You are not an enemy combatant. You are a terrorist. You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier, gives you far too much stature. Whether the officers of government do it or your attorney does it, or if you think you are a soldier, you are not . . . you are a terrorist. And we do not negotiate with terrorists. We do not meet with terrorists. We do not sign documents with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice.

'So war talk is way out of line in this court. You are a big fellow, but you are not that big. You're no warrior. I've known warriors. You are a terrorist. A species of criminal that is guilty of multiple attempted murders. In a very real sense, State Trooper Santiago had it right when you first were taken off that plane and into custody and you wondered where the press and the TV crews were, and he said: 'You're no big deal.'

'You are no big deal.

'What your able counsel and what the equally able United States attorneys have grappled with and what I have as honestly as I know how tried to grapple with, is why you did something so horrific. What was it that led you here to this courtroom today?

'I have listened respectfully to what you have to say. And I ask you to search your heart and ask yourself what sort of unfathomable hate led you to do what you are guilty and admit you are guilty of doing? And, I have an answer for you. It may not satisfy you, but as I search this entire record, it comes as close to understanding as I know.

'It seems to me you hate the one thing that to us is most precious. You hate our freedom . . . Our individual freedom. Our individual freedom to live as we choose, to come and go as we choose, to believe or not believe as we individually choose. Here, in this society, the very wind carries freedom. It carries it everywhere from sea to shining sea. It is because we prize individual freedom so much that you are here in this beautiful courtroom, so that everyone can see, truly see, that justice is administered fairly, individually, and discretely. It is for freedom's sake that your lawyers are striving so vigorously on your behalf, have filed appeals, will go on in their representation of you before other judges.

'We Americans are all about freedom. Because we all know that the way we treat you, Mr. Reid, is the measure of our own liberties. Make no mistake though. It is yet true that we will bear any burden; pay any price, to Preserve our freedoms. Look around this courtroom and mark it well. The world is not going to long remember what you or I say here. The day after tomorrow, it will be forgotten, but this, however, will long endure.

'Here in this courtroom and courtrooms all across America, the American people will gather to see that justice, individual justice, justice, not war, individual justice is in fact being done. The very President of the United States through his officers will have to come into courtrooms and lay out evidence on which specific matters can be judged and juries of citizens will gather to sit and judge that evidence democratically, to mold and shape and refine our sense of justice.

'See that flag, Mr. Reid? That's the flag of the United States of America. That flag will fly there long after this is all forgotten. That flag Stands for freedom. And it always will.

'Mr. Custody Officer. Stand him down.'

So, how much of this Judge's comments did we hear on our TV sets?

Pass this around. Everyone should and needs to hear what this fine judge had to say. Powerful words that strike home.

And we are still toiling with Afzal Guru and Kasab!!!

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 15 Nov 2010 18:39

Link please Chetakji?

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 15 Nov 2010 18:41

harbans wrote:Link please Chetakji?

harbans ji,

I received it by email. Will try for the link.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 15 Nov 2010 18:47

Why did the gentleman in question take to sermonizing the world if this is what he had done??

His pseudo moral hectoring on the international stage cost us decades of development.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/j.n.- ... y/711276/0

J.N. TO JFK, ‘EYES ONLY’

Inder Malhotra

Posted: Mon Nov 15 2010, 05:54 hrs

Forty-eight years have elapsed since the Black November of 1962, when took place the brief but brutal border war with China in the high Himalayas. As is clear, in retrospect, it was a relatively limited clash of arms — that unfortunately turned into a traumatic military debacle and political disaster for us. So, why recall those days and scratch the wounds that have nearly healed?

The reason is the sudden and unexpected availability of two “Eyes Only” letters Jawaharlal Nehru wrote to President John F. Kennedy of the United States informing him that the war situation was “desperate” and asking for “more comprehensive” US military aid, especially in the form of air power “if the Chinese are to be prevented from taking over the whole of Eastern India.”

To the best of my knowledge, the first public mention of these two letters was made in the Rajya Sabha by a member of that House, Sudhir Ghosh, in 1965. The then Prime Minister, Lal Bahadur Shastri, had flatly denied the existence of such letters, stating that he had conducted a thorough search of the prime minister’s secretariat, as it was then called, and the ministry of external affairs. For its part, the United States, after a lapse of some years, accepted that these letters were received but absolutely refused to reveal them. In the 1980s, copies of these letters were duly placed in the US National Archives, the JFK Library in Boston, the LBJ Library in Austin, Texas and some other places. But every line of each letter was so heavily inked out that no technology could help decipher it. Thousands of applicants seeking access to the “blacked-out” documents under the much older, and far more effective, American version of India’s Right to Information Act were courteously told that “at the request of the Government of India” the letters would not be made public.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 15 Nov 2010 18:59

Interesting find really..but one factual error:

Bomdila has fallen and the retreating forces from Sela have been trapped between the Sela Ridge and Bomdila.

It was Gen BM Kaul that ordered Brig Hoshiar Singh to withdraw from the strategic vantage point of Sela. The war Veteran Brigadier knew he and his men would get trapped and requested Delhi to reconsider that advice to no avail. Once Sela fell it was disaster all along. Nehru panicked at that time.

ajit_tr · Post by **ajit_tr** » 15 Nov 2010 20:12

chetak wrote:
We are a nation of pssyfooters..

Remember the guy who got on a plane with a bomb built into his shoe and tried to light it?

Did you know his trial is over?
Did you know he was sentenced?
Did you see/hear any of the Judge's comments on TV or Radio?

And we are still toiling with Afzal Guru and Kasab!!!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2437062/posts

Juggi G · Post by **Juggi G** » 15 Nov 2010 23:31

Kashmir is India's 'Internal' Issue : US Envoy

Kashmir is India's 'Internal' Issue : US Envoy
PTI, Nov 15, 2010

NEW DELHI: With Kashmir reportedly being excluded from the UN list of unresolved disputes, the US today said it was an "internal issue" of India and should be resolved bilaterally through negotiations with Pakistan.

"This is an internal issue for India. It is a bilateral issue between Pakistan and India, to discuss term, scope, character and pace," US Ambassador Timothy Roemer said.

He was asked to comment on UN excluding Kashmir from list of unresolved international issues.

"The (US) President ( Barack Obama), I think was very articulate on this issue of Kashmir. This is an internal issue for India," he said on the sidelines of a function here.

Roemer noted that during his visit, Obama had said that he encouraged Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and people of India to engage with the government and people of Pakistan.

He underlined that whenever India and Pakistan talk, it will be at the "pace and character" of the two countries.

On Obama announcing support for India's bid for permanent UNSC membership, he said the US will now work to realise the promise.

"We are very proud about President's announcement that he is unequivocally and fervently in favour of India having a permanent seat in a reformed United Nations. It was one of the many highlights of (his) visit to India..We will be working to see that happen," Roemer said.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 16 Nov 2010 07:02

U.S. and India take their relationship beyond South Asia

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts ... south_asia

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 16 Nov 2010 07:03

Are U.S.-India relations oversold?

http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2 ... s_oversold

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 16 Nov 2010 09:49

US throws water over Indian hopes for UNSC seat (The article title is just a bit over the top)
Times of India

UNSC reform not 'anytime soon': US
Times of India

Just a week after President Barack Obama's endorsement for India's permanent membership in the UN Security Council, the US has said no breakthrough is expected "anytime soon" on the UNSC reforms. "I would caution against expecting any kind of breakthrough anytime soon," assistant secretary of state Robert Blake told journalists in New York and Washington during a digital video press conference.

"I think the President and others have made it clear that this (reform) is going to be a long and complicated process and that we're committed to a modest expansion both of permanent and non-permanent seats," he said. The official said the only "real change" Obama announced was US support to India's permanent seat in the 15-membered wing of the UN, but "we have always been clear that this is going to be a long-term and very complicated process."

Blake, however, asserted that no condition has been imposed on India in lieu of the support for the Security Council berth. "No, there's not conditionality." He said Obama has clarified that with a permanent membership also comes "the burden of responsibility" to take on some of the more challenging aspects of managing the international system that includes Mayanmar (Burma) and Iran.

"So, I think you heard the President talk about Burma in his statement to (the Indian) Parliament, and you saw the references in the joint statement to the importance of Iran," Blake observed. The US official said there are many contenders for permanent seats as India, Japan, Brazil, South Africa and Germany are competing for permanent membership.

"There's the whole question of the veto. And so we need to have a detailed and serious conversation with all of our friends who are competing for these seats... I would deny that we're being sluggish on anything to do with the UN. This is a very important priority for us." Blake also clarified that Obama's endorsement of India for the Security Council was not a last minute decision, but had been well thought out. It was kept hush-hush, since the endorsement was a big news item.

"We wanted the President's speech before parliament to have an impact," he said. "So that's why we waited until the end to put that into the joint statement...I don't want to suggest in any way that there was difficulties negotiating the joint statement and like that. "On the contrary, we had very good relations with our friends in the MEA (ministry of external affairs) and in the Prime Minister's Office to move ahead on all aspects of the (Obama) visit," Blake said.

Meanwhile, India that enters the Security Council as a non-permanent member in January 2010 will be pushing to speed up the reform process during its two-year term. "We are entering the Security Council after a gap of 19 years...We have no intentions of leaving the Security Council," Hardeep Singh Puri, India's envoy to the UN, said last week. "In other words before we complete our two year term we will be a permanent member," the envoy added.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 16 Nov 2010 12:43

The backtracking has started earlier than expected. One would've expected at least a decent interval from the US,say about three months before the Messiah started to "welsh" on his promises of salvation for India! It appears that the Pakis have in panic started squeezing American ghoulies and thus the backtracking has begun in indecent haste.

What all this will have upon the ears of the GOI/MEA one must wait and watch.Surely dismay will be a common feeling with many who will feel that India has been "had" by a bounder and cad masquerading as a Messiah.The glib "Gandhian" has come and gone and has in actual, fact left rather little for us to celebrate about.The removing of sanctions on Indian entities will only help the US in obtaining more business ad not the other way round.With falling exports of def. eqpt. even to old "poodles" like Britain,who are not going to buy large numbers of JSFs for the lonely future carrier,a desperate attemt is now being made to woo the IN for the same-a single-engined fighter costing about $125m per piece by 2015,when first deliveries to US allies start appearing.

The speed with which the Messiah has started to shift his stand on India's UN seat indicates the superficiality of the relationship.Let's hope that the coming visits of Sarko and Medvedev will contain more "meat" on the diplomatic bone.

Christopher Sidor · Post by **Christopher Sidor** » 16 Nov 2010 14:09

Cross posting from US and PRC relationship & India

India Trades a Pakistan-India hyphen for China-India hypen
A good article to read. Especially when put in light of Obama's recent visit to India.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 16 Nov 2010 17:14

^^ In the Hindu article linked above by Christopher:

But Asia doesn't need leaders and followers. So long as Washington insists on leading the show, the Asian architecture India and the U.S. speak about cannot be genuinely open, balanced and inclusive. As New Delhi slowly recovers from the Obama whirlwind, this is one message that needs to be internalised.

True to it s pro-China roots, The Hindu is saying 'Lay your hands off China' in order to have a 'prosperous' Asia (whatever that means).

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 16 Nov 2010 19:51

CRamS, good questions on the programme. The gentleman answered and spoke very well. It is this kind of American you can count on to speak honourably and intelligently. Contrast this with thegenerally lousy, negative, cold article by Robert Grenier in Al-Jazeera.

shukla · Post by **shukla** » 17 Nov 2010 12:38

UNSC seat for India not linked with NPT: US
Times of India

arjunm · Post by **arjunm** » 17 Nov 2010 13:26

DURING HAJJ IN MECCA MUSLIMS HELD A" DEATH TO AMERICA" RALLY

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/w ... regime.jpg

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/w ... rotest.jpg

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 17 Nov 2010 13:56

on reflection, obama and his administration have allowed short term domestic political compulsions to make a mess of the emerging US-India strategic relationship
1. fixation on job creation at any cost - has been quite insulting to india
2. mollycoddling pakistan so that the US can get out of afganistan - rubbing salt in wounds
we just need to ride this one out

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Nov 2010 14:11

Yes,Obama has been "all style and no substance" in reflection.What has India obtained from his visit that has been "substantial"? The speed with which the UNSC seat "promotion" was made has been eclipsed by the speed of its conditionality.Fast fades the glitter of his vist,true to the saying that "all that glitters is not gold"!

He is at the moment on the backfoot and beginning to be beseiged with obstacles and defeats.Here is the latest,a huge foreign policy blow whih sadly for all of us had much merit in it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/no ... pes-fading

Barack Obama's hopes for a nuclear-free world fading fast.
Two of the president's initiatives, on disarmament and relations with Russia, have been dealt a serious setback

Xcpts:

Julian Borger, diplomatic editor guardian.co.uk,
Tuesday 16 November 2010

US president Barack Obama (left) and Russian president Dmitry Medvedev sign a nuclear arms treaty in Prague in April. Photograph: Yuri Kadobnov/AFP/Getty Images

Barack Obama's hopes of reshaping US foreign policy stand on the brink of failure tonight, after two of his most cherished initiatives — nuclear disarmament and better relations with Moscow — were dealt serious setbacks.

According to a leaked Nato document seen by the Guardian, a move to withdraw US tactical nuclear weapons from Europe has been omitted from the alliance's draft strategic doctrine, due to be adopted by a summit this weekend in Lisbon.

Meanwhile in Washington, a Republican leader in the Senate signalled that the nuclear arms control treaty Obama signed in April with Russian president Dmitry Medvedev is unlikely be ratified this year. Most observers say that if the treaty – known as New Start – is delayed until next year, it will be as good as dead, as the Democratic majority in the Senate will be even thinner by then, following the party's losses in the midterm elections.

Together the setbacks mark a new low point for Obama's ambitions, set out in a landmark 2009 speech in Prague, to set the world on a path to abolition of nuclear weapons.

They also rob the president of the main concrete achievement so far in his bid to "reset" US-Russian relations. In the absence of progress in the Middle East or Iranian compromise over its nuclear ambitions, the developments threaten to eclipse Obama's legacy in foreign policy.

"All this stuff was integrated – the nuclear package and the Russian relationship," said Steven Clemons, policy analyst at the New America Foundation. "In terms of the long-term international significance it's the most important thing Obama has done, and it has just come apart."

In the latest draft of Nato's "new strategic concept", seen by the Guardian, nuclear weapons remain at the core of Nato doctrine, and an attempt to withdraw an estimated 200 American B-61 nuclear bombs from Europe, a legacy of the cold war, is not mentioned.

Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium – who all have B-61 bombs on their soil – had pushed to have the tactical weapons removed, with the encouragement of supporters of disarmament in the Obama camp including the US ambassador to Nato, Ivo Daalder.

However, in a victory for France, which led a rearguard action against diluting nuclear deterrence in Nato doctrine, the draft strategic concept states that the weapons would only be removed as a trade-off with Moscow.

"In any future reductions, our aim should be to seek Russian agreement to increase transparency on its nuclear weapons in Europe and relocate these weapons away from the territory of Nato members," the draft states. "Any further steps must take into account the disparity with the greater Russian stockpile of short-range nuclear weapons."

Advocates of disarmament still hope the door to withdrawal could be left open in another strategic review, possibly next year.

But Daryl Kimball, the head of the Arms Control Association, said the Lisbon document represented a lost opportunity for the alliance.

"Nato does not need these weapons against any of the 21st century threats we face," Kimball said. "The weapons raise the risk of nuclear terrorism, and their presence makes it harder to convince Russia to cut its own tactical arsenal."

US and Russian negotiators had been expected to discuss tactical weapons in the next round of arms control talks, but those talks will almost certainly not take place if the New Start treaty is shelved.

The White House had hoped the Senate would ratify the treaty in its lame-duck session currently underway, before newly-elected Republican senators take their seats in January.

Paul Ingram, head of the British American Security Information Council (Basic), said Obama's radical vision of "a world without nuclear weapons" laid out in his Prague speech was now fading.

"I wouldn't say it was dead. It's in emergency resuscitation," Ingram said.

"If there is hope no, it's not coming from Washington. The leadership of this is not going to come from Washington."

On nuclear weapons

"So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. I'm

not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly – perhaps not in my

lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must

ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to

insist, 'Yes, we can.'"

Prague, 5 April 2009

On the New Start treaty with Russia

"The new agreement will mutually enhance the security of the parties and predictability and stability in strategic offensive forces. We are ready to move beyond Cold War mentalities and chart a fresh start in relations between our two countries."

Joint statement with Dmitry Medvedev, London, 1 April 2009

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 17 Nov 2010 14:21

There is some things about the democrats that makes my skin crawl. Please suggest an ointment for that. First you had the Clinton with madam Halfbright. Now you have the Ombaba.

All talk and no substance.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 17 Nov 2010 18:53

...now you have Ms.Clinton and a "Mess-iah"!

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 18 Nov 2010 21:09

US praises UPA govt for religious freedom, frowns on Hindutva

Perhaps the title of the thread needs to be changed to UPA-US relations.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 18 Nov 2010 21:21

vera_k wrote:US praises UPA govt for religious freedom, frowns on Hindutva

Perhaps the title of the thread needs to be changed to UPA-US relations.

All BS report based on heresy