Indian Foreign Policy

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Lilo
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4079
Joined: 23 Jun 2007 09:08

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Lilo » 14 Mar 2016 10:42

SSridhar wrote:
New Strong and Clear Outreach - Nirupama Rao, The Hindu


The nirupama menon piece is a good roundup of the issues she chooses to highlight but she has nothing new to say on them.So relevance of the piece(for me) is to ponder over the exclusions and see whether they havebeen excluded for propitiating her massa.
Its slant is fairly easy to see through especially in the last part which indulges in not so subtle taqyiya on behalf of massa (& uq) combine -calls paki fighter jet sales as mere "irritants" excludes any reference to continued economic and military support to Pakistan by massa and paints the Indo-pak issue as something inevitable (due to "geography and history") instead of directly naming Massa's role in propping up and goading his munna to "balance" India.

Elsewhere it faults India's quest for alternate global funding and risk sharing mechanisms vs IMF & WB combine as misguided efforts supposedly inadvertently strengthening China .
Then she tries to make massa's problems with China ,India's by claiming in an alarmist tone that China has reached a "tipping point" where its no longer hiding its intentions or capabilities - when actual context is China's moves in South china sea and its budding initiative to cobble together an alternative Eurasian (transport and economic) framework (as counter to the atlantist framework) .She depicts both as somehow targeting India.
Russia and EU don't even get a mention just as the Latin american nations (dilma is at the moment facing al-ciada engineered mass protests, a situation which can easily be aimed to replicate in India in near future).
One strategy to counter the threats of induced political instability from massa and its minions is solidarity amongst the big nations like Russia,China,India,Brazil,South Africa etc and creation of alternate economic frameworks(BRICS bank,Asian Infra Bank etc) to tide over sanctions - like the one's Russia is reeling under.
So her most flagrant exclusion is India's imperative to engage further in the BRICSs framework along with subtle "under the mat" engagement with Euro and Japan as counter to massa arm twisting.

Since AlChindu published this massa pasand and China targeting propagandu "for instructing" on India's foreign policy, guess the financial problems are getting bad enough for it to now become overtly AlGandoo for whosoever is paying up.
Last edited by Lilo on 14 Mar 2016 19:35, edited 2 times in total.

habal
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6894
Joined: 24 Dec 2009 18:46

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby habal » 14 Mar 2016 11:30

in europe the mainstream and assertive jews who could not be associated with christianity, lutheran, catholic, protestant groups formed a third front called communism to remain politically relevant. Most early communists were jewish. Marx, Lenin (Levin), Trotsky, Chomsky, Lazar Kaganovich, Trotsky's great grandson is Obama's advisor David Axelrod. Apart from this crowd, it also had other (then) social misfits. So it's not just about being beholden to China. It's being beholden to an international mafia of whom china is an ocassional member and an ally of convenience. Both communists and Islamists in India take their cue from west.

Lilo
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4079
Joined: 23 Jun 2007 09:08

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Lilo » 14 Mar 2016 11:51

habal wrote:in europe the mainstream and assertive jews who could not be associated with christianity, lutheran, catholic, protestant groups formed a third front called communism to remain politically relevant. Most early communists were jewish. Marx, Lenin (Levin), Trotsky, Chomsky, Lazar Kaganovich, Trotsky's great grandson is Obama's advisor David Axelrod. Apart from this crowd, it also had other (then) social misfits. So it's not just about being beholden to China. It's being beholden to an international mafia of whom china is an ocassional member and an ally of convenience. Both communists and Islamists in India take their cue from west.


Habal garu,
100% agree with regard to AlChindu's loyalties .

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55358
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby ramana » 14 Mar 2016 22:15

When I read Nirupama Rao's article I felt the absence of Indian national foreign policy.
Its the whims and dictats of the Nehruvian clique which in turn got its cues from UK Labour Party.
Habal, DA looks wisely on CNN and comments on the political process!!!!

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24264
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby SSridhar » 16 Mar 2016 19:03

Secure neighbourhood will yield rich dividends for SAARC: India - PTI
India today said it firmly believes that a peaceful and secure neighbourhood will yield "rich dividends" for SAARC countries even as it asserted that time has come to take stock of past decisions of the grouping on which there has been no movement.

In his statement during the 42nd SAARC Standing Committee Meeting here, Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar said India is pursuing with renewed vigour its "neighbourhood first" policy which also translates into priority for SAARC initiatives.

"We believe that there is scope for further rationalisation of SAARC processes. Perhaps the time has come for us to also take stock of past decisions and initiatives, given that there are so many instances of such decisions not seeing any movement for many years," Jaishankar, who arrived here on Monday, said.

"We are firmly of the belief that a peaceful, secure and prosperous neighbourhood will yield rich dividends for all of us," he said.

Noting that the grouping has some useful agreements in the area of security, including the Convention on Terrorism, Narcotic Drugs and on Human Trafficking, Jaishankar said a major challenge that the region faces is that of circulation of fake currency notes.

"This is closely interlinked with the problems of money- laundering, drug trafficking and human trafficking as well as financing of terrorism. It would, therefore, be in the interest of the people of our region for us to collaborate at the SAARC level
to tackle this matter," he said.

The Foreign Secretary asserted that connectivity holds the key for prosperity and development and will shape the destinies of all countries of South Asia.

"With this understanding, we have embarked on significant projects in the region in areas such as rail and road building, power generation and transmission, waterway usage and shipping through regional, sub-regional, trilateral and bilateral arrangements. This represents a change of mindset and makes us believe that the logic of regional cooperation has finally arrived in the region," Jaishankar asserted.

"Yet, the pace of regional cooperation as a collective endeavour needs to be hastened, especially in areas that are central to the development agenda of SAARC. In this context, I urge that we sign, at an early date, the SAARC Motor Vehicles Agreement and SAARC Railways Agreement," he said.

Finalisation and implementation of these agreements will realise a long standing dream of seamless movement of passengers and cargo through the entire region, he added.


Jaishankar's statement came a day before the SAARC ministerial meeting.


It is Pakistan which is obstructing all pending agreements on which there has been no movement at all. Pakistan's bluff must be called in SAARC projects by making them bilateral between India and others if the SAARC umbrella is not going to work. We are already doing that but we must go the whole hog.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 24264
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby SSridhar » 23 Mar 2016 07:59

India to host BRICS summit in October - PTI, The Hindu
India will host the eighth annual summit of BRICS from October 15-16 in Goa, in its capacity as chair of the influential bloc comprising five countries — Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa.

External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj made the announcement on Tuesday during a function where she also unveiled a logo and a website of the summit.

India assumed chairmanship of BRICS from Russia on February 15 and will hold the position till December 31. The seventh summit was held in Ufa, Russia.

The External Affairs Minister said India’s core theme during BRICS chairmanship will be building responsive, inclusive and collective solutions for the grouping.

The logo for the summit is a lotus with colours from all the five member-countries and a traditional ‘namaste’ in the centre.

“We will adopt a five-pronged approach during our chairmanship. It will comprise Institution Building, Implementation, Integration, Innovation, and Continuity with Consolidation (IIIIC or I4C),” the Minister said. — PTI

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5248
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby ShauryaT » 04 Apr 2016 21:49

The American hug

Is India approaching a pivotal moment in its foreign policy? Will the emerging shape of Indo-US relations help or hinder India’s prospects? There has been a great deal of momentum in Indo-US relations beginning with the nuclear agreements. The depth of the economic, cultural, scientific and intellectual relationship between the two countries can be of unprecedented benefit to both. The question is: To what extent should this relationship be transformed into a deep strategic and military partnership? The debate in government over signing three possible agreements with the US — the Logistics Support Agreement (LSA), the Communications and Information Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA), and the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA) — has once again focused attention on this question. Will these agreements be Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s parting gift to President Barack Obama? Radical breaks in Indian foreign policy are rare. These agreements are in line with the trends the UPA initiated. But are we at that moment when, inchoately, quantity becomes quality, and we go down on a path that prematurely forecloses options?


A sophisticated engagement with the US is in India’s interests. But there is reason to worry that the escalating nature of our defence agreements with the US will put us on a slippery slope where we may not be able to manage our own geopolitical positioning in the world’s major conflicts. This is not a necessary outcome of these engagements. But what should make us suspicious is the fact that deep down, the Indian strategic embrace of the US has been born out of a psychology of defeatism: As if the US will be our crutch against China. And the Washington establishment that now has unprecedented access to Indian circles of power eggs on that belief.

Modi’s great rhetorical gambit was the overcoming of defeatism. Yet it is hard to shake off the impression that this government seems a little keener to ingratiate India with the American foreign policy establishment. America will be India’s great civilisational friend; whether the American state should be so tightly embraced is still an open question.

We need to at least debate this more openly before we set out on a path of no return.

The writer is president, Centre for Policy Research, Delhi, and contributing editor, ‘The Indian Express’

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55358
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby ramana » 04 Apr 2016 22:15

ShauryaT, After Iraq decade and Abu Ghraib, US military has lost its reputation and needs to associate with Indian military which is the largest non Communist force.

Hence this charade of CISMOA and all those agreements to give them legitimacy.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5248
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby ShauryaT » 04 Apr 2016 22:22

ramana wrote:ShauryaT, After Iraq decade and Abu Ghraib, US military has lost its reputation and needs to associate with Indian military which is the largest non Communist force.

Hence this charade of CISMOA and all those agreements to give them legitimacy.
Interestingly ramana the "war game" we played at the Jirga yesterday had the US deep state wanting a logistical base in BD as its objective. Thanks to Avarachan for putting the scenario together.

member_29172
BRFite
Posts: 375
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby member_29172 » 06 Apr 2016 07:48

India, like Donald Trump, needs to build it's own wall across Asia to eventually phase out Western (and upcoming) Chinese dominance in Asian seas. Before that you need organisation, a stronger army with the ability to invade and defeat the trouble makers around us. It is in the best interest of India to secure Asia (excluding the middle east, it's a f*cking mess; maybe eventually).

The defeatism is the result of lofty ideals and a moronic foreign policy that puts other countries interests first before our, a media that is blatantly anti India and neighbours that are bought out by either west or islamists. Then there are all sorts of maoists and wannabe jihadis that have made India their home.

The NSA needs to get a grip on media and internal communist termites, form think tanks that are unquestionably pro India and understand the Indian interests and values of it's democracy. Then move on to securing the immediate neighbourhoods. Most countries don't allow all these NGOs, western news people, church, mullas, commies run around freely in their countries like cockroaches. So far it has been the judiciary citing constitution and making excuses so these nefarious institutions can keep making life hell for most Indians.

You absolutely need to remove these organistations to maintain calm and peace inside the country.

Internal peace and agreement is absolutely necessary not this anekta mein ekta non sense. It doesn't work, it keeps the country weak and seriously vulnerable to external attacks. Stop being on the defensive, start being offensive.

gandhi's non violence BS has emasculated this country, growing some b*lls and rightfully taking our place in the world is the first thing we need to do.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21336
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Philip » 06 Apr 2016 13:32

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editori ... avdropdown
A balancing act in Riyadh

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Riyadh reflects a resolve to deepen India’s engagement in West Asia. The visit comes eight months after Mr. Modi travelled to the United Arab Emirates, and it is expected be followed by one to Israel. This demonstrates New Delhi’s tightrope-walking foreign policy towards the region. Saudi Arabia, in particular, has been a traditional source of energy and of remittances for India. In recent years, bilateral ties had acquired a security dimension with both countries stepping up cooperation in counter-terrorism and intelligence-sharing. While Mr. Modi is clearly trying to build on the existing momentum, he is also seeking to upgrade the economic and security cooperation into a strategic partnership with Riyadh — an approach that is in line with the wider foreign policy outreach to improve ties with close allies of Pakistan. The timing of Mr. Modi’s visit is significant. It has been reported that there are tensions in the Pakistan-Saudi relationship after Islamabad’s renewed engagement with Iran. Pakistan had also refused to send troops to Yemen to join a Saudi war coalition. This is, therefore, a particularly good time to deepen ties, and the Saudis have responded positively. Hours ahead of Mr. Modi landing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and the U.S. imposed joint sanctions on individuals linked to the Lashkar-e-Taiba. Moreover, the joint statement issued by India and Saudi Arabia has an oblique reference to Pakistan as it calls on all states to dismantle terror infrastructure “where they happen to exist”. The India-UAE joint communiqué in August had made a similar call.

The real question, however, is whether the joint statements will be translated into actual policies. Despite some tensions, there is nothing substantial to suggest that the Pakistani-Saudi alliance is getting any worse. Even though the joint statement denounces all kinds of terrorism, the Saudis are accused of funding extremist groups in West Asia, particularly in war-torn Syria. Besides, there are some fundamental weak spots in India-Saudi ties, ranging from concerns about Indian workers in the kingdom to its funding of Wahhabi groups elsewhere, including in India. Another obvious concern is the drastic change under way in West Asia, and the aggressive role Riyadh is playing in regional geopolitics. During the visit Mr. Modi may have focussed on the positive factors of the relationship to improve ties, and rightly so. But India cannot afford to miss the big picture while finessing policies. There have to be mechanisms to address the flaws as well, without which the grand diplomatic overtures may not bear fruit. Also, India would be wary of appearing partisan at a time when the rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia is at its peak. The best way forward is to continue the multi-directional West Asia policy with more vigour, but maintaining its equilibrium.

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 4018
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby deejay » 06 Apr 2016 14:58

Philip wrote:http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/modis-visit-to-riyadh-a-balancing-act/article8433628.ece?ref=topnavwidget&utm_source=topnavdd&utm_medium=topnavdropdownwidget&utm_campaign=topnavdropdown
A balancing act in Riyadh

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to Riyadh reflects a resolve to deepen India’s engagement in West Asia. The visit comes eight months after Mr. Modi travelled to the United Arab Emirates, and it is expected be followed by one to Israel. This demonstrates New Delhi’s tightrope-walking foreign policy towards the region...



Given that Israel - Saudi Arabia - UAE are behind doors on the same side of the fence, I don't see how it demonstrates New Delhi's tightrope-walking foreign policy towards the region.

Infact, every step in this direction is a step away from Iran where increasingly Pakistan, China and Russia who are making friendly overtures.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7052
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby JE Menon » 06 Apr 2016 18:19

Usual dimwitted semi-commie editorial from Chindu.

Is anybody else involved in tight-rope walking (i.e. the other countries which have good relationships with the Arabs and Israelis)? Or is it just India?

"Appear partisan" - to whom? Who is not partisan already in the Middle East that they may regard us as especially partisan? Plus, do the US, Russia, China, Japan and all the rest not "appear partisan" to the countries of the Middle East, or is it a position reserved exclusively for India according to the Chindu?

This sort of communist genuflection, combined with both reflexive and instinctive grovelling, is par for the course for the Chindu and has been for a long time. The editorial is obvious and pointless trash, filling empty gaps in editoral space by blowhard dolittles.

member_29172
BRFite
Posts: 375
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby member_29172 » 07 Apr 2016 07:25

Seems like these brain dead journalists don't understand how diplomacy works. Only a half witted liberal art "intellectual" can spout this kind of condescending and arrogant filth without any context or understanding of diplomacy and foreign relations. Probably read an article in some shitty magazine like foreign policy and went in to write this crap.

There is no grand game, no tight rope walking, this is how diplomacy is done. Unlike the idiots of the west you don't break relations with 10 countries to maintain relations with one (even that isn't done properly by the western tards). Members here need to read the article before they post this kind of low quality crap. That moron is just filling space to get his pay, doesn't mean it should be here.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21336
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Philip » 07 Apr 2016 09:54

This is what mainstream papers publish.They try to influence opinion. One has to understand all sides of the argument,otherwise it will be nothing but a yes-man show. During the CW,CIA officials read Marx and ML theoreticians to understand the mind of the enemy. The author has made a valid point though that the Saudis (Pak's godfathers),who are part of the problem in the region,are waging a proxy Sunni Wahaabi war against the Shiites where Iran is the opposite entity.How India maintains good relations with both ,without being seen as belonging to either camp is a matter of debate.Our relations with Iran are perhaps more important than with the Saudis,becos of the Paki factor,and for India,a principal gateway into Central Asia through Char Bhahar.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5248
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby ShauryaT » 08 Apr 2016 19:46

Scathing, but nothing less is expected from him. Thank God we have one soul to advocate a non-compromised view of our national interests and nothing else.
Steering into troubled seas with eyes wide open
Why does India need a formal LSA for these things, especially on a “reimbursable” basis? This last, whether any one in the Indian govt concedes it or not, will do two things: (1) Place India in a position similar to Pakistan vis a vis US ISAF presence and military operations in Afghanistan, and (2) make reimbursements for materials offtaken by US forces in the region from Indian military stores subject to financial subventions from Washington. This will bring India under Congressional scrutiny which, in turn, will create its own difficulties. New Delhi, in effect, will have to account for the quality of every item or service rendered, and be compelled to respond on pain of non-payment. This is the punishing procedure all US’ formal allies undergo. Does it help the country’s cause even a little for India to be thus ensnared by the United States? And if high-technology is the big deciding issue: Is the US willing to TOT the EMALS (electromagnetic aircraft launch system) for the two Indian-built carriers, following Vikrant? Of course, not. But the Americans will happily part with technologies considered advanced in the 1970s — F-18 Super Hornet! Boy, are we dumb. Even Pakistan has not proved itself so naïve and gullible and is keeping its arms supply lines to China open. Why is the Modi govt so enamoured of US-sourced military technology when Russian topend hardware available to the Indian armed forces is tech-wise, generationally superior?

In a discussion on this topic, a former naval chief had no answer to the kind of objections I have raised above, or why the Navy in particular would rather rely on US warships or the base at Diego Garcia for mid-oceanic resupply and replenishment than speedily invest in and build-up the naval and air bases on North and South Agalega Islands offered by Mauritius, or on shore in a base in northern Mozambique offered by that country.

CISMOA: news reports portray Indian negotiators being satisfied with something called the “pre-bid guarantee” in case India chooses to manufacture an US armament system here — a combat aircraft, for instance. This “pre-bid guarantee: is supposed to require the US govt to guarantee the full transfer of technology. One can foresee how this will pan out. Such a guarantee is given but the supplier companies keep to the old way of doing things with India, namely, merely exporting first SKD kits, followed years later, by CKD kits while claiming there is full TOT. If questioned, they’ll point out that it is not their responsibility to ensure Indian firms, DPSUs, ingest and innovate the technologies passed on to them — which will be an irrefutable case. And hand over the full tranche of contracted funds, please! This guarantee, in the Indian context, is worth nothing.

The more significant issue is why the Modi PMO is going down this route. And shouldn’t it have been advised better, asked to temper their enthusiasm, not go full out, without being aware of booby traps down the supposed primrose path? The trouble is those in MEA advising the PM have long since jumped on to the American bandwagon. Foreign Secretary S, Jaishankar — his father K Subrahmanyam’s son alright — is in the van on these accords. Recall it was Subrahmanyam during the previous BJP govt’s tenure who persistently advocated buying peace with the US — sign the CTBT he said in 1996 along with his acolytes, such as Air Cmde Jasjit Singh, and for making the sorts of concessions his son first negotiated (as Joint Secretary, Americas) in the 2008 nuclear deal with the Congress party apparatchik Manmohan Singh as PM, and now as head of the foreign service, is configuring these foundational ags for an ideologically different, supposedly “nationalist”, BJP regime.

If China is the major worry and military cooperation with the US is deemed necessary, India can maximize collaborative activity and have similar outcomes by other solutions than committing to agreements that only bonafide allies of the US have so far accepted. Close embrace with any big power is always to the lesser state’s detriment. For India that sees itself as a great power in the process of being, it is all the more necessary to keep its distance but work with all powers, especially Russia and the regional states, such as Japan, and on the extended Indian Ocean and Southeast Asian littorals to more effectively stymie Beijing.

But this is obviously not the sort of counsel Modi hears, indicating the lack of professionalism in MEA and at the centre of foreign policymaking in New Delhi. Neither Modi — a politician, nor NSA, Ajit Doval, an ex-policeman, can be expected to know the complexities of friendship with the US formalized in treaty-like agreements. But MEA staffers are expected to do so. That they are failing in their duty to warn the PMO of pitfalls ahead, is what’s worrisome. By the time India begins to pay the full price of such accords pushed on the run, the present dramatis personae will have vacated the scene, and no one will be held accountable for the loss of India’s freedom of policy maneuver, its basic autonomy, and worse.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Viv S » 08 Apr 2016 20:07

ShauryaT wrote:Scathing, but nothing less is expected from him. Thank God we have one soul to advocate a non-compromised view of our national interests and nothing else.

Steering into troubled seas with eyes wide open
Why does India need a formal LSA for these things, especially on a “reimbursable” basis? This last, whether any one in the Indian govt concedes it or not, will do two things: (1) Place India in a position similar to Pakistan vis a vis US ISAF presence and military operations in Afghanistan, and (2) make reimbursements for materials offtaken by US forces in the region from Indian military stores subject to financial subventions from Washington. This will bring India under Congressional scrutiny which, in turn, will create its own difficulties. New Delhi, in effect, will have to account for the quality of every item or service rendered, and be compelled to respond on pain of non-payment. This is the punishing procedure all US’ formal allies undergo. Does it help the country’s cause even a little for India to be thus ensnared by the United States? And if high-technology is the big deciding issue: Is the US willing to TOT the EMALS (electromagnetic aircraft launch system) for the two Indian-built carriers, following Vikrant? Of course, not. But the Americans will happily part with technologies considered advanced in the 1970s — F-18 Super Hornet! Boy, are we dumb. Even Pakistan has not proved itself so naïve and gullible and is keeping its arms supply lines to China open. Why is the Modi govt so enamoured of US-sourced military technology when Russian topend hardware available to the Indian armed forces is tech-wise, generationally superior?


Bharat Karnad, as he manages to do so often, screws up anything even remotely technical, starting with the very definition of the LSA which he gets entirely backwards. (Our present arrangement with the US is on a payment basis, which will switch to a barter system after the LSA is implemented.) Then he goes on to mix up the F-18C/D and F-18E/F which are entirely different aircraft.

This is one of the reasons why, while sharing his opinion on the Rafale deal, I was always reluctant to quote him; you could usually find a heap of errors in his articles which just served to weaken your argument by association.

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4061
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby arshyam » 08 Apr 2016 20:09

But he does have a valid point wrt payments under LSA. Why should we get into the quagmire that's the US congress?

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Viv S » 08 Apr 2016 20:20

arshyam wrote:But he does have a valid point wrt payments under LSA. Why should we get into the quagmire that's the US congress?

It has nothing to do with the US Congress. India and US routinely access logistics from each others bases and payment is managed on a case-by-base basis.

Post LSA that'll switch to a barter system, which apparently appeals to Mr Karnad ("the barter arrangement that has so far worked well"). I imagine he'll be revising his position on the ("well working") barter system, once someone explains to him what the LSA is actually supposed to do (i.e. institutionalize it).

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5248
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby ShauryaT » 08 Apr 2016 20:23

^missing the woods for the trees, are we?

You can point to a faulty tree in the arguments presented and refrain from the overall point, your prerogative. I have scanned through these three foundational agreements for some time and indeed individually one cannot find fault in its innocuous language and provisions. However taken together and if one takes into account the parties into question and their histories, one has to ask. What is the end goal here? Is it so innocuous as the individual treaty language seems to indicate or is there a larger implication.

The enabling provisions are for what? Do you think, Russia would still be OK to share its nuclear secrets with us or its fifth gen tech evolutions or are we willing to dump Russia on the matter? Let us not be so naive and say, this embrace has NO implications.

As for the F18 example, where you immediately dive into technicalities of the 1970's version being A/B and not the later C/D or whatever. Either you are not getting the point or you see things differently. BK, has been a consistent votary of indigenous technology. He sees US engagement with Indian military coming with strings attached and indeed as NOT willing to assist India on India's terms, which Russia has been more willing to do. The EMALS example was to make that point. As I said, you can miss the woods for the trees but that is your prerogative or indeed argue, why a strategic embrace of the US is in Indian interests.

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby vishvak » 08 Apr 2016 20:33

So what's wrong with payment system, and what makes Americans avoid it?

The payment system makes the purchases transactional. If ain't broken don't fix it.

Where is the world coming to when Americans talk of barter system!?!?

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5248
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby ShauryaT » 08 Apr 2016 20:40

Also, the LSA is NOT a barter system. It has reciprocity to "offset" purchases made against sales. However the supply transaction does have an underlying monetary value and indeed it demands that these purchases made be settled, within a period of agreed credit terms. It is no different from any commercial agreement in that sense, where both parties trade with each other, raise invoices and then agree to do a settlement (in cash) within a set number of days.

Again, the point is not the mechanics here. These agreements are a spin off of the strategic framework co-operation envisaged and to imagine that they do not impede strategic choices is being naive, for a strategic embrace is being executed.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby svinayak » 08 Apr 2016 20:47

ShauryaT wrote:Scathing, but nothing less is expected from him. Thank God we have one soul to advocate a non-compromised view of our national interests and nothing else.

Steering into troubled seas with eyes wide open
Why does India need a formal LSA for these things, especially on a “reimbursable” basis? This last, whether any one in the Indian govt concedes it or not, will do two things: (1) Place India in a position similar to Pakistan vis a vis US ISAF presence and military operations in Afghanistan, and (2) make reimbursements for materials offtaken by US forces in the region from Indian military stores subject to financial subventions from Washington. This will bring India under Congressional scrutiny which, in turn, will create its own difficulties. New Delhi, in effect, will have to account for the quality of every item or service rendered, and be compelled to respond on pain of non-payment. This is the punishing procedure all US’ formal allies undergo. Does it help the country’s cause even a little for India to be thus ensnared by the United States? And if high-technology is the big deciding issue: Is the US willing to TOT the EMALS (electromagnetic aircraft launch system) for the two Indian-built carriers, following Vikrant? Of course, not. But the Americans will happily part with technologies considered advanced in the 1970s — F-18 Super Hornet! Boy, are we dumb. Even Pakistan has not proved itself so naïve and gullible and is keeping its arms supply lines to China open. Why is the Modi govt so enamoured of US-sourced military technology when Russian topend hardware available to the Indian armed forces is tech-wise, generationally superior?



In only one article this has shattered many posts here in BRF. Thanks to BK the country is safe from all the lobby and special interest foreign funded media.

Lot of people will say BK is wrong and also will try to explain US policy on LSA etc. Some of the posters are experts on LSA etc. even better than US experts itself. India is not in a position to be in similar role as the close allies of US due to the punishing procedure

member_23370
BRFite
Posts: 1103
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby member_23370 » 08 Apr 2016 20:56

The LSA should not be signed. Hopefully after the F-16 and Ah-1 to pakis, India will just throw these agreements into the dustbin.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby svinayak » 08 Apr 2016 21:03

ShauryaT wrote:Also, the LSA is NOT a barter system. It has reciprocity to "offset" purchases made against sales. However the supply transaction does have an underlying monetary value and indeed it demands that these purchases made be settled, within a period of agreed credit terms. It is no different from any commercial agreement in that sense, where both parties trade with each other, raise invoices and then agree to do a settlement (in cash) within a set number of days.

Again, the point is not the mechanics here. These agreements are a spin off of the strategic framework co-operation envisaged and to imagine that they do not impede strategic choices is being naive, for a strategic embrace is being executed.


The real fact is that the deal and the agreement signed during the UPA regime was supposed to be one sided and India was an after thought. The lobby during that time is now has no answer to the questions put by BK. Some of the people in this lobby Indian Americans have actually thought that they were superior to Indians and Indian elite. This is a fact.

As BK says in the future-
The trouble is those in MEA advising the PM have long since jumped on to the American bandwagon. And no one will be held accountable for the loss of India’s freedom of policy maneuver, its basic autonomy, and worse.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21195
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Prem » 08 Apr 2016 21:17

deejayuote="Philip wrote:http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/modis-visit-to-riyadh-a-balancing-act/article8433628.ece?w Delhi's tightrope-walking foreign policy towards the region.
Infact, every step in this direction is a step away from Iran where increasingly Pakistan, China and Russia who are making friendly overtures.


It is a balancing act by Riyadh not by India . India has just used the opportunity to widen the horizon of Saudi thinking.
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/origina ... -iran.html
Saudi Arabia tilts toward IndiaBruce Riede


Economic interests are part of the tilt, but so too is Saudi pique at Pakistan's refusal to back its military adventure in Yemen. Summary⎙ Print Pakistan, after refusing to supply troops for Saudi Arabia's war against Yemen, finds the Gulf kingdom improving relations with Pakistani archenemy India. just days before the visit, the United States and Saudi Arabia jointly announced sanctions against four individuals and two organizations in Pakistan involved in financing terrorist organizations, including al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba. The joint announcement was unprecedented. Four years ago, the kingdom deported a senior Lashkar-e-Taiba official to India who had been involved in the 2008 Lashkar-e-Taiba attack on Mumbai, which was backed by Pakistani intelligence. Modi met with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, who is also minister of interior and the kingdom's top counterterrorism official.. The Pakistani emigre population is about 1.5 million and trade was about $6 billion last year. Modi met with senior Aramco officials to discuss more energy and investment opportunities.This was only the fourth visit ever by an Indian prime minister to the kingdom. By contrast, Pakistani prime ministers often visit that many times in a single year. Sharif, who is again prime minister, was in Saudi Arabia in early March to watch the Northern Thunder military parade in which troops from 21 Muslim countries participated, although the place of honor next to the king was given to Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.A year ago, Sharif wisely rebuffed Salman's request to provide Pakistani troops to join the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen fighting the Houthi rebellion. The Pakistani move removed a key component of the Saudi plan for a quick, decisive victory in Yemen. Sharif's decision was very popular at home, however, and was endorsed by a unanimous vote in the parliament. Lashkar-e-Taiba was among the few voices critical of Sharif's decision. His top aides privately anticipated some blowback from the Saudis would result.. Sharif has allegedly rebuffed Saudi suggestions that Pakistan's chief of army staff be made the titular commander of the alliance.The Saudis now seem eager for the Yemen war to end. They have proclaimed a victory in preventing the emergence of an Iranian foothold in the Arabian Peninsula. Whether that was ever a serious danger is uncertain, but it gives Riyadh some face-saving cover for ending the war with the Houthis still in Sanaa. A cease-fire is scheduled for April 10, and talks are planned for April 18 in Kuwait to end the conflict.The war has created a humanitarian disaster for Arabia's poorest country and generated widespread criticism of the kingdom around the world. The European Parliament voted to cut off all arms sales to Saudi Arabia, for example. While not a binding vote, it is a symbolic defeat for Saudi diplomacy.Pakistan will remain a key ally for Saudi Arabia. The kingdom has invested billions in supporting Pakistan for decades. The military relationship between the two remains robust despite the differences over Yemen. The bonds of religion and history unite the two Islamic countries. Sharif knows Riyadh will want to avoid any damage to its ties to Islamabad. But Salman is also warning Pakistan that the kingdom has other suitors.

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4061
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby arshyam » 08 Apr 2016 21:33

I posted this on the US thread a month ago, and got only a short response from NRao-ji. Reposting here in case anyone here has further comments. I for one, would really like to understand what benefits we will derive out of it. Clearly, the US will derive a lot, and that's why they are pushing for it.

arshyam wrote:viewtopic.php?p=1987820#p1987820
Viv S wrote:The Modi govt seems to be all for it. This is going ruffle quite a feathers here on BRF.

Count me in! I don't see what benefits we will derive from this - can you, SSridhar sir or someone in the know enumerate? I am genuinely asking, in case there are things I don't know of.

As of now, it appears to me that this will make it easy for US assets to use Indian facilities more frequently and openly, with a presumably reciprocal arrangement built in. Question is, what are the places we can expect reciprocity? Diego Garcia? Bahrain? San Diego? Norfolk? We have no regular business in the latter 2 locations, so we won't be using them much, if at all (not talking about joint exercises). Diego Garcia and Bahrain don't really count - they are close to our littoral, and we have similar arrangements of our own (Muscat, Oman, Nha Trang, Vietnam, Mauritius, etc.)

Whereas the US assets will now have legitimate business in Mumbai, Karwar, Kochi, Visakhapatnam, Chennai, Port Blair, etc. Which means, they get regular access to our mainland bases, whereas we practically get access to their forward locations only, as their mainland is far outside our operational areas. Seems to be a one-way street to me.


NRao wrote:viewtopic.php?p=1987913#p1987913
As of now, it appears to me that this will make it easy for US assets to use Indian facilities more frequently and openly, with a presumably reciprocal arrangement built in. Question is, what are the places we can expect reciprocity? Diego Garcia? Bahrain? San Diego? Norfolk? We have no regular business in the latter 2 locations, so we won't be using them much, if at all (not talking about joint exercises). Diego Garcia and Bahrain don't really count - they are close to our littoral, and we have similar arrangements of our own (Muscat, Oman, Nha Trang, Vietnam, Mauritius, etc.)

I think India has provided facilities in Kochi - for some time now.

India can expect anywhere - Okinawa, Hawaii, Djibouti, Kuwait, high seas, etc. Anywhere there is a US presence.

arshyam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4061
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby arshyam » 08 Apr 2016 21:59

Another point being that, while everyone advocating signing these agreements is talking about US using us to counter China, I don't think that's the end game. The US does not need us to counter China, they are already owned by the Chinese and will not do things beyond a point. It is naive on the part of those thinking that we have an ally in the US against China. And there are various interests that are common to both the US and China, our western neighbour, for one. And they also agree with each other on Russia. So it's not a simple case of US-China rivalry. As for maintaining a balance, the Navy can patrol the SCS under a dedicated agreement that includes the USN, JMSDF, Vietnam, Phillipines, etc. That's in our interest and is what we should be driving instead of the opposite way right now with these so-called foundational agreements. If the US does not want to discuss such an agreement, they can walk away and leave the south east Asian region to us. China is also a rational actor and will not do something stupid - we will figure something out.

IMHO, this ploy is not about China at all, but the bear in the room. The US will gain a lot by driving apart India and Russia, and the seeds of that division will be these agreements. I second what ShauryaT-ji said above: Russia will stop supporting us in techs like the nuke sub, FGFA, etc. Now, while I am not going to base my policy on what help I can get from someone, I need to be pragmatic and see what's currently happening. The fact is, Russia has assisted us in areas where the Americans will never do, and are okay with us extending such systems for our uses. Something the Americans with their endless alphabet soups will not do, and maybe do worse (remember Shri Nambi Narayanan?). But if Russia stops its cooperation, where will we go? Of course, we can invest and will get there eventually, no doubt, but with the constant threat on our borders (which is not Russia's doing, but the US'), we will only turn to Unkil due to lack of options. Who will readily *sell* us expensive systems under these agreements (which we won't violate due to dharmic considerations) on their terms - like don't attack this country, only for use against another, and so on. And the same US will continue to arm Pakistan as they have done for the past 60 years, so that our threat matrix stays complex.

Now, while the Russians aren't perfect in their dealings, they don't interfere in our affairs like the Americans do. Like it or not, there is too much influence in our system already. And no country under the influence of the US will actually grow enough to challenge them - that's the point of their influence. Question is, are content to be a Mexico or Japan, or at best France? I am not, which is why I oppose most of these agreements with unkil. I would take my chances with a poorer Russia in the immediate term while investing the saved monies into our own research. Jet engine? Just strap the Kaveri on to a damn test bed and fly away. Why are we not doing that in the first place? We need to bite the bullet and stop being lazy. I am willing to bet that the lack of engine tech is the main reason for us to even consider signing these agreements in the hope of getting something from the US. Let's keep dreaming.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Viv S » 08 Apr 2016 22:05

vishvak wrote:So what's wrong with payment system, and what makes Americans avoid it?

The payment system makes the purchases transactional. If ain't broken don't fix it.

Where is the world coming to when Americans talk of barter system!?!?

I imagine reducing the (civil) bureaucracy involved is something that appeals to both the US & India.

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5248
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby ShauryaT » 08 Apr 2016 22:18

NRao has posted. We can get reciprocity in Hawaii!! A major independent power seeking logistics agreements for its own backyard from a distant power is a statement of travesty, for the independence of that power. A "reciprocal" agreement between two unequal powers with differing interests, objectives and capabilities is stretching the idea of parity of the outcomes of such an agreement. It makes sense for a Sri Lanka, maybe, but not for India. Indeed, I would say in an Indian dominated region, Sri Lanka should have been vary of India's concerns by signing an LSA with the US but India is in no such position to even stop forays of Chinese nuclear subs, let alone US ships being replenished.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Viv S » 08 Apr 2016 22:21

ShauryaT wrote:Also, the LSA is NOT a barter system. It has reciprocity to "offset" purchases made against sales. However the supply transaction does have an underlying monetary value and indeed it demands that these purchases made be settled, within a period of agreed credit terms. It is no different from any commercial agreement in that sense, where both parties trade with each other, raise invoices and then agree to do a settlement (in cash) within a set number of days.

This is mostly a matter of semantics. Allowing a credit system to replace the current issue-by-issue basically amounts to a barter system. We can use another term for it if you prefer, but in either case this is exactly the kind of system referenced as 'barter' in Mr Karnad's article.

And yes there'll be a period (or a threshold amount) after which the account resets with all dues cleared. But that period is unlikely to be of the order of 'days'. More like annually or biannually, and/or after the amount due to either side reaches say.. $10 mil.

Again, the point is not the mechanics here. These agreements are a spin off of the strategic framework co-operation envisaged and to imagine that they do not impede strategic choices is being naive, for a strategic embrace is being executed.

Oh I agree completely. This isn't just a bureaucratic arrangement, there is certainly a very important strategic element to it.

But then any opposition to it on strategic grounds needs to couched solely in those terms ("India needs to refrain from a closer strategic partnership with the US"). And then the debate can carry on those lines. But the LSA & BECA (and to a lesser extent CISMOA) pacts by themselves aren't going to have the kind of deleterious impact on military capabilities, meriting the consternation we've see in some strategic circles.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Viv S » 08 Apr 2016 22:24

ShauryaT wrote:NRao has posted. We can get reciprocity in Hawaii!! A major independent power seeking logistics agreements for its own backyard from a distant power is a statement of travesty, for the independence of that power. A "reciprocal" agreement between two unequal powers with differing interests, objectives and capabilities is stretching the idea of parity of the outcomes of such an agreement. It makes sense for a Sri Lanka, maybe, but not for India. Indeed, I would say in an Indian dominated region, Sri Lanka should have been vary of India's concerns by signing an LSA with the US but India is in no such position to even stop forays of Chinese nuclear subs, let alone US ships being replenished.


They've got the same arrangement with Bangladesh as well. So they don't really need logistical support in IOR. They're pursuing it for the same reason we are - to cut down on red tape and strengthen the strategic relationship between the two countries.

sudeepj
BRFite
Posts: 1930
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 11:25

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby sudeepj » 08 Apr 2016 22:42

ShauryaT wrote:The American hug

Is India approaching a pivotal moment in its foreign policy? Will the emerging shape of Indo-US relations help or hinder India’s prospects? There has been a great deal of momentum in Indo-US relations beginning with the nuclear agreements. The depth of the economic, cultural, scientific and intellectual relationship between the two countries can be of unprecedented benefit to both. The question is: To what extent should this relationship be transformed into a deep strategic and military partnership? The debate in government over signing three possible agreements with the US — the Logistics Support Agreement (LSA), the Communications and Information Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA), and the Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA) — has once again focused attention on this question. Will these agreements be Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s parting gift to President Barack Obama? Radical breaks in Indian foreign policy are rare. These agreements are in line with the trends the UPA initiated. But are we at that moment when, inchoately, quantity becomes quality, and we go down on a path that prematurely forecloses options?




Interesting read. PBM's dhoti is still aflutter 60+ years after 1962.

If the signature happens, it will not happen while this loser Hussein is in charge. It would not be signed for any lame duck president, but especially not for someone as confused as that guy. In 2018 and 2019, it would be too close to the next Indian election.. So my prediction is, at least some of the agreements will be signed in latter half of 2017 after the Uttar Pradesh elections are out of the way. :twisted:

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5248
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby ShauryaT » 08 Apr 2016 23:02

VivS: The payment terms are 60 days. The settlement is at least once a quarter, could be more frequent, like every month. Pretty standards terms between trading partners. When invoices start coming in, congressional scrutiny is par for the course. But I agree, these references are intended to set alarms, desperately needed in the corridors of power gone deaf. Our MEA and PMO are not exactly known to have a strategic independent mind set - where it actually matters. Shenanigans like congressional scrutiny are the tools one is left to, when common sense and national interests have been thrown to the wind. Something has to be done to wake up folks in slumber.

As long as the cool aid is not being sold that these agreements do not have any bearing or impact on strategic maneuvering choices in a long chain of events that started with the NSSP. We should look at these with our eyes wide open to what it entails and then live with these choices. The worst is to under ball them as overcoming "bureaucratic" procedures.

vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby vishvak » 08 Apr 2016 23:52

The Indian state has defensive posture even when facing two nuke armed neighbors, besides US has access to the Bay of Bengal (Bangla war of liberation) and the Arabian ocean (Diego Garcia).

There is no reason to sign something that moves away from purely transactional relationship (which no one is talking about), nor a reason just to go away from Russian strategic partnership because NATO is engaging Russia+China.

Our clean record of non-proliferation of nukes should have been lauded by good-hearted NATO members instead of pumping up Pakis with weapons and hard cash. The 'transfer' of 1000 hellfire missile to Pakis should have opened up eyes of those pretending to be asleep which was announced after announcement of Carter's visit.

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Viv S » 08 Apr 2016 23:58

ShauryaT wrote:VivS: The payment terms are 60 days. The settlement is at least once a quarter, could be more frequent, like every month.

Could you share you references please. Thanks.

Pretty standards terms between trading partners. When invoices start coming in, congressional scrutiny is par for the course.

Why is congressional scrutiny par for the course? This something that would only concern the auditors, who scrutinize the records even where transfers are made solely on a cash basis.

But I agree, these references are intended to set alarms, desperately needed in the corridors of power gone deaf. Our MEA and PMO are not exactly known to have a strategic independent mind set - where it actually matters. Shenanigans like congressional scrutiny are the tools one is left to, when common sense and national interests have been thrown to the wind. Something has to be done to wake up folks in slumber.

What's driving the PMO/MEA is the same thing as what's driving Japan, US, Vietnam and other SE Asian states. There is a colossus emerging in our neighborhood with whom we have a history of conflict and discord. One that's closely aligned with a historic foe of ours and making inroads everywhere in South Asia and the IOR. One Belt One Road; Silk Road Economic Belt & Maritime Silk Route, both linked together by the Gwadar-Karakorum CPEC.

Within the next decade and a half, China (already the largest economy in PPP terms) will overtake the US economically, and maybe ten years hence militarily. Having already abandoned/moved beyond Deng Xioping's principle of maintaining a 'low profile' and the 'Peaceful Rise' philosophy of the 90s, its bound to be a matter of very serious concern. In the days to come, the CPC will continue to harness the tide of rising nationalism to maintain its legitimacy with the masses.

And while we may not like the choices made by the PMO & MEA, one also needs to grant that when it comes down to brass-tacks, they don't have many good options. Ironically, the US is in a similar bind.

Folks here still tend to look at the USA as what it once was - a superpower which dominated the USSR in the 80s and emerged the victorious and unrivaled in 90s; instead of what it is - a once dominant superpower in relative decline, both economically & militarily, and acutely aware that its time at the top is coming to an end.

As long as the cool aid is not being sold that these agreements do not have any bearing or impact on strategic maneuvering choices in a long chain of events that started with the NSSP. We should look at these with our eyes wide open to what it entails and then live with these choices. The worst is to under ball them as overcoming "bureaucratic" procedures.

Yes the strategic aspect ought to be at the core of the debate. But its worth noting that this govt sticking with the same policies (initiated by the ABV govt in 2001 BTW), suggests there is more or less a political-strategic consensus on the general direction we're heading in. Nehruvian idealism discarded in favour of cold pragmatic realpolitik. (That the Navy has come down most strongly in favour of the agreements in question, with the Army most opposed, is also an illuminating fact.)

ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5248
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby ShauryaT » 09 Apr 2016 00:27

Viv S: Good, so you think the strategic embrace is justified in view of the China threat and a need to be "allied". Fair enough. Although do recognize that for the arguments you have presented there are some serious alternatives on hand that are NOT being explored and in these choices lie India's strategic independence. India is a civilizational state and her interests and aspirations ought to match her innate capabilities, desires and values. It is these factors that separates us from ANY of the other "allies" of the US. I will come back to your points later. First day of Chaitra today so head is spinning from a fast now.

For the LSA reference, here is an example. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/132080.pdf

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Viv S » 09 Apr 2016 01:40

ShauryaT wrote:Viv S: Good, so you think the strategic embrace is justified in view of the China threat and a need to be "allied". Fair enough. Although do recognize that for the arguments you have presented there are some serious alternatives on hand that are NOT being explored and in these choices lie India's strategic independence.

I think that a 'strategic embrace' of some sort is justified, while an actual alliance is not (without foreclosing the possibility of an alliance in the future depending on how the equation with China evolves). As for alternatives, I'd be glad to hear your thoughts when you have time.

India is a civilizational state and her interests and aspirations ought to match her innate capabilities, desires and values. It is these factors that separates us from ANY of the other "allies" of the US.

This is bit of a metaphysical idea, which doesn't really assuage more visible concerns viz. China's GDP & military budget, strategic ambitions (esp. in the IOR), rising assertiveness and strategic relationship with Pakistan.

I will come back to your points later. First day of Chaitra today so head is spinning from a fast now. For the LSA reference, here is an example. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/132080.pdf

Sure. Take it easy. Thanks for the link. :)

Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby Viv S » 09 Apr 2016 03:42

Cross-posting excerpt from a review of Adam Tooze's book posted by Jhujar


<SNIP>
Tooze’s story ends where our modern era starts: with the advent of a new European order—liberal, democratic, and under American protection. Yet nothing lasts forever. The foundation of this order was America’s rise to unique economic predominance a century ago. That predominance is now coming to an end as China does what the Soviet Union and Imperial Germany never could: rise toward economic parity with the United States. That parity has not, in fact, yet arrived, and the most realistic measures suggest that the moment of parity won’t arrive until the later 2020s. Perhaps some unforeseen disruption in the Chinese economy—or some unexpected acceleration of American prosperity—will postpone the moment even further. But it is coming, and when it does, the fundamental basis of world-power politics over the past 100 years will have been removed. Just how big and dangerous a change that will be is the deepest theme of Adam Tooze's profound and brilliant grand narrative.
</SNIP>

A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11639
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Indian Foreign Policy

Postby A_Gupta » 09 Apr 2016 04:51

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 748226.cms

India can't grow in isolation, says Foreign Secretary
PTI | Apr 8, 2016, 11.05 PM IST

New Delhi, Apr 8 () Highlighting the importance of cooperation and connectivity in the country's neibhourhood policy, Foreign Secretary S Jaishankar today said "India cannot grow in isolation".

While access to service and movement of people has become difficult in today's world, "people lose out by remaining disconnected", he said at an event here.

"India cannot grow in isolation. We find it much harder to do so without the support of the region. For that reason, it is imperative that cooperation and connectivity with neighbours grow rapidly.

"This is the essence of our neighbourhood policy...We don't expect this to be easy path but are confident that obstacles in path would be overcome. It is for Indian diplomacy to address the imbalances which have constrained neighbourhood partnership," Jaishankar said.

He further said "fruits" of partnership is already "visible to our neighbours".

"Each of our neighbours wants to invest here and built connectivity projects. Everyone wants to make money out of India," he said.

Referring to movement of people, he said "we have had visa issues with the US. We had visa issues with the UK".

"These are the challenges we are facing today...global trade discourse has to be fairer then it is today," he added.

Jaishankar said India's neighbouring countries are all taking advantage of various connectivity and infra projects that the country is developing.

He further said Asean holds an important position in India's foreign policy.

"Today we have started supplying power to Myanmar for the first time," he said, adding this is a culmination of the government's aggressive Look East policy.

India is doing all it can to strengthen ties with China, Korea and Japan.

He said a number of economic corridors, industrial parks and connectivity projects are coming up in India in collaboration with foreign countries.

Talking about the US, he said both sides are having "deeper cooperation".

"India's foreign policy is conscious of fact that demands are going to grow ... Pressures of international economic consequences pose as a challenge," he said.

He said that energy security forms a crucial part of Indian diplomacy and a focus will be on hydroelectric projects and expanding nuclear energy programme.

Every Indian embassy around the world has a commercial attache, which shows the government's focus on inviting investments and also investing abroad, the Secretary said.

On India-Iran trade relationship, Jaishankar said it was constrained due to sanction.

"Iran offers us way to Afghanistan. We are working with Iran to set up a port," he said.

On the issue of manpower in external affairs, he said there are constraints but the government is trying to overcome by increasing intake.

"Are you stretched for people? Yes I am," he said, adding the existing staff has also stretched their work to meet the shortfall of headcount.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: KJo, kumarn, sohamn, vijayk and 44 guests