Bharat Rakshak

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is due to begin a three-day visit to India aimed at strengthening political and economic relations.Mrs Clinton's visit comes nearly a week after a series of blasts in the city of Mumbai, which killed 19 people.She will meet Indian leaders in Delhi and travel to the southern city of Chennai, a hub for US investment.
The visit is her second as secretary of state and follows President Barack Obama's last November.Correspondents say Mrs Clinton's visit will seek to expand cooperation between the two countries - from trade and educational exchanges to anti-terror measures.
She will attend a "strategic dialogue" session with Indian officials in the capital, Delhi, on Monday.Mrs Clinton reacted to the Mumbai blasts last week, saying it was "more important than ever that we stand with India".She also reaffirmed her "commitment to the shared struggle against terrorism".No group has said it planted the bombs but suspicion among some officials and analysts has fallen on the Indian Mujahideen, a group which has claimed to have carried out similar attacks in the past.US officials and political analysts say that Mrs Clinton is also likely to press for better ties between India and Pakistan. "She will encourage India to do all it can to engage Pakistan, to find areas where they might be able to break down some of their barriers and build some kind of confidence in each other," Karl Inderfurth, a former senior State Department official, told Reuters news agency.
In June, the two countries agreed on improving access to each other's markets - the US wants India to become one of its top 10 trading partners.India is currently the US's 12th largest trading partner, with bilateral trade of almost $50bn (£31bn).

commitment to the shared struggle against terrorism

The Obama administration needs to consider what has shifted in these pivotal relationships and where it bears responsibility for the listlessness in our two biggest strategic partnerships in Asia.Domestic political weakness is at play in both countries. Japan has lurched from one unstable coalition to the next, with more likely to follow if Prime Minister Naoto Kan steps down in August as expected. While the DPJ seems to have abandoned its earlier flirtation with greater “independence” from Washington — thanks in part to Chinese assertiveness this past year — the Obama administration remains strikingly un-ambitious in setting the agenda for security cooperation with Tokyo.
Indians rightly complain that Washington’s preoccupation with China and “Af-Pak” has displaced India as a focus of U.S. foreign policy, and New Delhi has lost confidence in the administration’s commitment to Afghanistan, where a precipitous U.S. withdrawal threatens to undermine core Indian interests with regard to Pakistan, China and terrorism. And as India strikes trade agreements with a range of other partners, a U.S.-India investment treaty is mired in U.S. bureaucracy
Tokyo and New Delhi want to reinforce, not undermine, American leadership in Asia and the world. But mixed U.S. messaging about “strategic restraint” and “strategic reassurance” toward our competitors encourages India and Japan to pursue self-help strategies premised on a belief that Washington’s determination to defend common interests is wanting. The tone of our relationships is set in Washington as well as in Tokyo and New Delhi. The Japanese and Indians may well be all the things American critics allege. But they are the only Japanese and Indians we have, and a bolder vision for these critical partnerships is essential

There may also be U.S. laws limiting the planes from carrying nuclear weapons.

Moreover, Sec. Clinton will enjoy greater flexibility to assist in addressing issues such as Kashmir, water rights, and nuclear arms reduction due to the recent Obama Administration announcement on the suspension of $800 million in military assistance to Pakistan, which Pakistan typically has used to strengthen its border with India and fund militant groups, rather than for its intended purpose of fighting terrorists and the Taliban. No longer can India point to US assistance as being part of the problem. Finally, the recent killings of Osama bin Laden and Ilya Kashmiri by the US inside Pakistan also tells India that the ‘US understands the terror state that is Pakistan’, and will unapologetically do what it takes to rid the world, and more importantly the region, of this cancer. Nobody appreciates this more than India; except for maybe Pakistan behind closed doors.

In addition, this may also be the counterpunch the US and the region as a whole need to China’s recent assertiveness in South and Southeast Asia. Secretary Clinton would have an ability to use the resumption of funding as an incentive for Pakistan to accept some of the terms put forth by India with regards to their concerns over the water issue, as well as nuclear safeguards. Additionally, Sec. Clinton would have an ability to present new and possibly logical solutions to deciding the fate of Kashmir that is acceptable to all parties, including the Kashmiri people. Through incentives, as well as a fresh voice with new ideas, India and Pakistan can gain on a number of levels via US assistance, yet maintain an ability to claim ownership in resolving their own bilateral issues.

The real question remains: Can India and Pakistan be reliable partners in a region beset by dysfunction and failed promises? Once and for all, the table is set for Sec. Clinton to finally emerge from the Presidential shadows cast over her by both her husband and current boss. Finally, it’s Hillary’s turn.

David Wolfe seems to be another one of those Pakistan apologists, who even if Pakistan should stab USA in the back, they say "it is minor scratch, sorry I got in your way".

David Wolfe seems to parrot the same old Kashmir rhetoric, that India should make concessions of her own land because Pakistan is a mad terrorist. So more appeasement.

What David Wolfe fails to understand is that if USA so much as gives the impression that it is meddling in the Kashmir issue, it will undo years of hard work between USA and India in improving relations.

Kashmir is not America's to play around with. From Pakistan USA has never received any honest cooperation, and USA will end up losing whatever favorable image it has built over the years in India as well.

David Wolfe seems to be the type of "specialist" that can only help USA hurts its own national interests out of some fancy he developed for some Islamists while he dealt with Kashmir.

If USA loses India, USA would not have a single friend on the Asian Continent between Israel and Japan straddling the two ends of the Asian Continent.

If David Wolfe really is concerned about China, he will be advocating that Pakistanis and Chinese be kicked out of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, a strip of land that makes cooperation between China and Pakistan possible at all. If there is no land connection between China and Pakistan, the relationship is dead, and seeing no other alternative, Pakistan would give in to US demands on counter-terrorism. As long as the land bridge stays between Pakistan and China there is zero chance that Pakistan would cooperate.

If USA wants to regain even a semblance of long-term influence in Asia and Muslim countries in Asia, then control over Pakistan is a necessity, and for that taking away the land-bridge called Gilgit-Baltistan is a precondition. Gilgit-Baltistan also provides an air-bridge from India to American forces in Afghanistan, thus enabling USA access to Afghanistan from the Indian Ocean completely independent of both Pakistan and Iran.

Today with American forces in Afghanistan, this can even be done, for the land-bridge is a stone's throw from Afghanistan.

Instead David Wolfe thinks up of solutions which will weaken Indian grip over her own territory in Kashmir enabling China and Pakistan to build a broader bridge through Kashmir, strengthening their strategic relationship even more, all at the cost of America and American influence in the Muslim World.

They want us to help them out in Afghanistan and build up ANA/P. India today has the list.

3. Afghanistan. The Indian foreign ministry spokesman made sure to use the phrase “regional issues of interest” in his briefing about Clinton's visit. It's a signal that New Delhi is keen to have the U.S. publicly acknowledge India's role in Afghanistan's uncertain future. The Associated Press reports that Clinton will deliver a message to allay fears that the Taliban (seen by India as a Pakistani proxy) will gain the upper hand, reassuring India that the U.S. “will not support Afghan reconciliation with insurgents unless it is inclusive and protects the rights of minority groups, religions and women.” This is a tricky balancing act. Pakistan resents any Indian involvement in Afghanistan, and India hasn't reached total consensus about whether it should rely on soft power in Kabul, as it has in the past, or engage more forcefully. Clinton will spell out the U.S. regional vision in a speech Wednesday in Chennai.

="RajeshAcom/2011/07/19/finally-its-hillarys-turn/comment-page-1/#comment-152952]My Comment[/url] (still unpublished)
David Wolfe seems to be another one of those Pakistan apologists, who even if Pakistan should stab USA in the back, they say "it is minor scratch, sorry I got in your way".
David Wolfe seems to parrot the same old Kashmir rhetoric, that India should make concessions of her own land because Pakistan is a mad terrorist. So more appeasement..

David Wolfe, South Asia international human security specialist, who had himself been placed under house arrest and accused of 'uniting separatists' during a recent visit to Kashmir, maintained that the armed struggle was not the way forward. 'The non-violent struggle has been painful, but the Kashmiris cannot give up on it. You only have to see the resolve on their faces.' He also pointed out the detrimental effect of armed fighters coming across the line of control from Pakistan. 'The only people who get hurt are the Kashmiris they are supposedly coming over to help.

shyamd wrote:^^ They want us to buy F-35 because they over-ordered and want to get rid of the excess stock. We won't get any ToT or anything. At least with FGFA we have built it for our needs and we learn soo much from the experience. Fall out will be on MCA.

I saw the list that she came with. They want us to help them out in Afghanistan and build up ANA/P. India today has the list.

RajeshA wrote:Another Uneven Cohen and Kashmir fan

What David Wolfe fails to understand is that if USA so much as gives the impression that it is meddling in the Kashmir issue, it will undo years of hard work between USA and India in improving relations.

Kashmir is not America's to play around with. From Pakistan USA has never received any honest cooperation, and USA will end up losing whatever favorable image it has built over the years in India as well.

joshvajohn wrote: At present India is even threatened by even small countries that are around her.

Acharya wrote: US interest and Indian interest is diverging now and India has to survive the mistakes done by super powers in the region for the last 50 years.

Prem wrote: US officials and political analysts say that Mrs Clinton is also likely to press for better ties between India and Pakistan. "She will encourage India to do all it can to engage Pakistan, to find areas where they might be able to break down some of their barriers and build some kind of confidence in each other," Karl Inderfurth, a former senior State Department official, told Reuters news agency.

shyamd wrote:
I disagree. I think it is converging in some areas more than ever before - SE Asia, West Asia, PRC crossing the line, economy amongst other areas.

But keep in mind, alliances change depending on ground realities, geopolitics.

abhishek_sharma wrote:The Forthcoming Strategic Dialogue with India: Uneven

A top priority for the United States should have been to serve as a monitor of Indian and Pakistani presence in Afghanistan, but the conceptually silly “Af-Pak” framework prohibits this, leaving India out. The country has thus emerged as another site for the India-Pakistan cold war, yet both Islamabad and Delhi will be among the first to suffer the consequences from the post-withdrawal mess.

Some Indians, mostly among the intellectual elites and lower-level government officials, don’t share Singh’s enthusiasm for close ties with the U.S. They see their country as the inheritor of a great civilization and fear becoming subservient to the U.S. Given these countervailing pressures on Singh’s government, there may be limits on the scope of India’s transformation that could also restrict the terms of an alliance with the U.S. But Washington shouldn’t be deterred by these internal deliberations.

shyamd wrote:

Acharya wrote: US interest and Indian interest is diverging now and India has to survive the mistakes done by super powers in the region for the last 50 years.

I disagree. I think it is converging in some areas more than ever before - SE Asia, West Asia, PRC crossing the line, economy amongst other areas.

But keep in mind, alliances change depending on ground realities, geopolitics.

Acharya wrote: Agree to disagree. What is Indian interest which is being helped by US

scotchsky 6 hours ago

I've been working with the Indian military for two years now, and would agree that there is a wonderful ideological foundation from which to build a truly powerful and mutually beneficial partnership with India, but the strategic possibilities are much diluted by the current operational realities. From my perspective, India is currently hamstrung by its overbearing diplomatic bureaucracy, and still-constrictively rigid social hierarchies that are so poorly suited to today's organizational realities: networked, de-centralized, an distributed wins the day. There is tremendous talent, tolerance, and promise in the 40 and under set, but India is going to have to scrape through a few more years of a national system controlled by a generation defined by hardheadedness, intolerance, and cronyism. The US, for our part, seems pretty much incapable of the notion of "partnership", and Nadeem who chimes in below about mistrust of US aims and methods has valid concerns. This prospective partnership has to be based on mutual respect and mutual benefit, and the day that either is missing, the US can be counted on to pull out. We're brutally unsentimental partners, best suited, as Nadeem points out, for shorter term pol-mil alliances of common cause, and longer term trade.

shyamd wrote:
economy. They want us to look after IOR. They are weak and are outsourcing things to us. This is not limited to India, but also Turkey and a few other nations. PRC must not be allowed to enter af-pak. PRC/Afg/Iran/Iraq combo may make a run for the oil fields. So, US finds it convenient to give India the torch. So what you will see temporarily is a US/India combo on some things in our areas. This game is big.

Why do you think hillary is pushing US weapons to us?

Acharya wrote: Where is the torch. Where is the meat. Till now it is all talk

Acharya wrote:Still not acceptable. Not enough in it

"The US should pursue robust strategic and military engagement with India in order to encourage a stable balance of power in Asia that prevents China from dominating the region and surrounding seas," said Lisa Curtis and Dean Cheng, of The Heritage Foundation in an article 'A Strategic vision for US-India Relations'.

As to the F-35 and ToT fuggetabouddit! The Brits and Aussie liasons on the the JSF are seething about ToT and access to codes etc they thought were part of the deal.

shyamd wrote:I saw the list that she came with. They want us to help them out in Afghanistan and build up ANA/P. India today has the list.

Clinton was addressing a press conference with her counterpart SM Krishna after the two held their second strategic dialogue on the second day of her visit. The joint statement issued after the talks also spoke of US military sales and sharing of defence technologies with India.

"India's defence orders from US companies have reached a cumulative value of over $8 billion in the last decade. These sales reflect strengthened cooperation. "Both sides affirmed their desire to strengthen cooperation through technology transfer, and joint research, development and production of defence items," it said.